First of all, I question whether anyone but you really gives a flying fig about this.
Quote:The people responsible were misled by historical lies in the present.
To call this a "lie" is very incendiary and requires more proof than your feelings that somehow Lincoln is being disparaged. A lie requires agency on behalf of the liar, and while you may disagree with what the
Times reported (and to be honest, I have issues with it myself), you cannot prove that the paper set out to be purposefully dishonest. Your viewpoint that the act in Portland of tearing down the Lincoln statue is directly related to the
Times' article is also misleading. While most (including myself) can accept that Lincoln saved more lives than he allowed to die in the largest mass execution in U.S. History, it is a legitimate historical question as to whether he did enough. This has been going on long before the
Times started the 1619 project. That some in Portland chose to tear down his statue may show historical illiteracy, but to think this is a mass movement that will somehow tear down Lincoln in the eyes of America, or the world, is far-fetched.
David, i enjoy your postings and your perspective. However, your seeming insistence that Lincoln should be kept free from criticism is misplaced. Lincoln's reputation has survived for centuries and will continue to do so. He can handle the criticism thrown at him no matter from what direction it comes.
Best
Rob
Abraham Lincoln statues
