Posted on 02/04/2003 3:42:54 AM PST by kattracks
Washington (CNSNews.com) - A video presented at the Lincoln Memorial in Washington appears to suggest that former President Abraham Lincoln would have supported modern-day, left-of-center political causes such as homosexual rights, abortion rights and the modern feminist agenda.
One tourist from Wisconsin, who viewed the video in the memorial's Lincoln Legacy Room, called it "awful" and said the "political correctness of it is beyond words." Other visitors to the memorial told CNSNews.com they believe the video clearly implies that Lincoln would have supported left-wing political causes.
A National Park Service spokesman told CNSNews.com he was "reluctant" to comment on the Lincoln video because the whole issue had the "potential to be quite controversial."
The video features an actor who sounds like Lincoln speaking about the Civil War and slavery. He then leads into clips of Martin Luther King's 1963 March on Washington.
About halfway through the approximately eight-minute video, footage of modern-day marchers is shown over "Lincoln's" booming voice as patriotic music and songs associated with the civil rights movement play.
At this point, the video shows snippets from modern-day marches. A sign reading, "The Lord is my Shepard and Knows I am Gay" kicks off a series of visuals featuring left-wing social causes, while "Lincoln's voice" and patriotic music blare.
The other visuals include signs reading "Gay & Lesbian Sexual Rights," "Council of Churches Lesbian Rights," "National Organization for Woman" (NOW), "Reagan's Wrongs Equal Woman's Rights," "ERA Yes," "Ratify the Era," "I had an illegal abortion in 1967 - Never Again," "Keep Abortion Legal," "I am pro-choice America," a Vietnam-era video clip of a woman asking: "President. Nixon where are our men?" and a sign reading, "Who will Decide NARAL (National Abortion Rights & Reproductive Action League).
The video features the theme song of the civil rights movement, "We Shall Overcome," and continues with visual display of liberal causes, including signs reading "In Opposition to King Richard [Nixon]," "U.S. out Now," "Equal Opportunity for All," "Peace," "Hell No We Won't Go," "No More Lies, Sign the Treaty Now Coalition," and marchers chanting U.S. Out Now" (crowd chanting).
The video also features an excerpt from a Martin Luther King speech and then progresses into a banner reading "Pass the Brady [Gun Control] Bill Now." Pro-life demonstrators appear in the video once, in a brief clip where they are shown clashing with abortion rights activists. No other political causes that could be considered right-of-center appear in the video.
'Beyond Words'
CNSNews.com asked several of the tourists visiting the memorial what they thought of the video and whether they believed it implied Lincoln would support modern-day causes such as homosexual rights and abortion rights.
"I liked it... I think [Lincoln] would have [supported homosexual and abortion rights] because that's how Lincoln was; he was very supportive of the people. He didn't care who you are and what you are, he loved everybody," said Elizabeth Baksi, a high school student from Houma, La., after viewing the video.
Darre Klain of Baltimore, Md., also agreed that Lincoln would have supported today's liberal political causes as implied in the video.
[Lincoln] seemed like a very progressive, forward-thinking man, ahead of his time," Klain said.
But Paul Meisius of Sheboygan, Wis., rejected the video's message as he interpreted it, and he chastised the National Park Service for showcasing it.
"That's awful," Meisius said as he finished watching the video. "The political correctness of it is beyond words. I don't think that's proper. They are giving themselves credit to be able to say whatever they want about Lincoln's political views," Meisius told CNSNews.com.
"Our national monuments are being stripped of their true heritage. They are being uprooted and taken and changed. It's an atrocity that they are rewriting history in the sense that these people have political agendas," Meisius said.
Meisius, who was visiting Washington, D.C., with his wife and five children, believes the video is an attack by revisionist historians.
"The wrongness and incorrectness of this -- this stripping of the true essential biblical aspects of our foundation - are being replaced by political correctness," he said.
Angela Brewer, a program instructor for the Close Up Foundation, a citizenship education organization, denied the Lincoln video implied the former president would have supported modern-day, left-wing social causes.
"[The Lincoln Memorial] has frequently has been used as a backdrop for groups that seem to me to be liberal. I don't know that there is a particular purpose behind [the video]," Brewer said.
Gary Perkins, who coordinates exhibits at the Sweetwater Historical Museum in Green River, Wyo., has written about the difficulty our national museums face when presenting historical materials. Perkins believes that the National Park Service may be guilty of historical overreach with the video in question.
"We do not know what Abraham Lincoln thought of gay rights. We have no clue, he never talked about it," Perkins said after hearing CNSNews.com's description of the Lincoln Memorial video.
"We can't really infer he supported gay rights," Perkins added.
'Quite Controversial'
Bill Line, a spokesman for the National Park Service's National Capital Region, told CNSNews.com that the Discovery Channel produced the video for the Lincoln Memorial.
Asked if the video intentionally makes it appear as though Lincoln would have supported homosexual rights, abortion rights and feminist causes, Line was unequivocal in his initial answer.
"I have seen the video, and I don't know how you can contrive that out of it," Line said.
However, after specific examples of "liberal causes" were pointed out to him, Line backed away from his previous comment.
"I am reluctant, quite frankly, to say much to you because I don't know the whole other premise that you are coming from or the background or the fuller context that the story is being written in, and it has potential to be quite controversial," Line explained.
Finally, Line announced he needed to see the video again before he would have any official comment.
"It's been a while since I reviewed the videotape. Before I can adequately comment and give to you something you can use in your story, I need to go and review that videotape myself," Line said.
As of press time, Line had not contacted CNSNews.com with further comment on the video.
'Left-wing gestapo'
Cultural critic David Horowitz was not surprised by the description of the video that CNSNews.com provided. Horowitz believes that left-wing political perspectives are the dominant philosophy of the curators of the U.S.'s national monuments. Horowitz, a former 1960s radical, is co-founder of the Los Angeles-based Center for the Study of the Popular Culture.
"The whole museum field has been taken over by the left wing Gestapo," Horowitz said.
"People have to wake up. This is the America hating left. It is in charge of our national monuments. It's a disgrace and testament to how the academic history profession is totally dominated by the political left," Horowitz said.
E-mail a news tip to Marc Morano.
Send a Letter to the Editor about this article.
SOURCE: AOL newsgroup
Wow, this must be burning you up to search for me on Usenet.
That's not an AOL newsgroup. There ain't no sech thing. That is from the USENET newsgroup for World War Two.
I was going round and round with some Brits, one Belgian and an Australian about the bombing of Germany. If you search that NG about three years ago, you'll find a thread "Was the daylight bombing campaign necessary?"
The Brits/others were saying that U.S. bombers -- specifically the B-17 -- were almost no value to the war effort. Their bomb loads were too small, their return fire against German fighters was useless, they scattered their bombs pretty much at random across Germany. They were not even a fly on a bull's butt when compared to the mighty Royal Air Force.
They were as vociferous as the neo-rebs on this subject, but I finally reeled them in.
You won't see that line pushed on that NG any more.
AOL has forums, not newsgroups.
Walt
Lincoln:The Man
Edgar Lee Masters
It can't be revision to cite events of the day:
"...For the newly freed and the newly enlisted black men who served in the Union army--in the end more than 179,000 of them---perhaps the greatest moment was when they they too, shared the experience of paying their respects, of marching past their president in their new uniforms, looking as smart and martial as any.
On April 23, 1864, and again two days later, newly mustered black regiments in a division attached to the IX corps passed through Washington on their way to the Virginia front. They marched proudly down Pennsylvania Avenue, past Willard's Hotel, where Lincoln and their commander, Burnside stood on a balcony watching. When the six black regiments came in sight of the president they went wild, singing, cheering, dancing in the street while marching. As each unit passed they saluted, and he took off his hat in return, the same modest yet meaningful acknowledgement he gave his white soldiers."
--"Lincoln's Men" pp 163-64 by William C. Davis
You are the one doing the revision.
Walt
Only in your interpretation, distorted by viewing him from 140 years in the future and by your lifelong exposure to Yankee propaganda. Lee believed his greatest loyalty to be due to his state of Virginia, and his actions were exactly what his sense of honour dictated.
Lincoln matters. They don't.
Walt
I'm not the one holding Lincoln up as a saint, or portraying him as the 4th member of the Holy Trinity. I'm not the one claiming that Lincoln was not racist (by our standards). As I stated previously, we cannot judge 19th century people by 21st century standards. Almost all Americans had vastly different views of blacks than we do today - and a different view of slavery as well. The attempts to sanitize Lincoln's views by certain posters are nothing more than political correctness gone amuck.
And the insistence of some on this forum to make them worse than they were is just as bad.
Changing the subject? About 35 times as many blacks stayed behind on the plantations and family farms instead of joining the union army. Most were without supervision, and numerous accounts of their loyalty exist today, just as their records of military service to the Confederate cause. Unlike you, who castigates them for their service - I salute them.
Obviously I can't speak for others, but if you are referring to me, please point out any such references. I might have my own views about Lincoln and his actions, but I certainly try to correct the historically inaccurate views presented, and the ludicrous assertions made glorifying him, with his own words.
Commonly Believed? Only by Lincoln character assassins like you. Anyone who has studied Lincoln with an open mind knows he was not an atheist or even an agnostic. Not associating on a regular basis with any particular denomination and being an atheist are two entirely different things.
That is so twisted, but also so typical of fanatics like you.
Perhaps as a display of classical abnormal psychology and/or psychological projection, please tell us how you reach that conclusion?
Why should I waste my time trying to enlighten those beyond hope of enlightenment?
He moved to New York in the 1920s and his circle included hard left and commie types in the literary community. When he dealt with history, (he was a lawyer/poet with no special expertise in history) he was a self avowed "revisionist." His book on Lincoln was totally panned as sloppy history when it was published.
I wouldn't call him a commie, but he was surely solidly on the radical side of the spectrum. He was a bitter man as many 'arts types' are by nature and estranged from American society with a need to knock down icons.
LOL. More doublespeak. It's what I have come to expect from you. Just be a man and admit that you have no idea how to support your silly statements.
You mean the other side had no say? They didn't have to rebel. They didn't have to recruit an army 10 times larger than the Union army. They didn't have to fire the first shot. They could have done a lot of things, but they had their mind set on a fight from the beginning because they all knew that one Southerner could beat any 10 yanks. Lincoln offered them everything in his power if they simply ceased their rebellion.
Don't guys like Ruffin, and Pickins and Toombs and Davis with their pig-headed bluster get any responsibility? Oooops --- I forgot. This is The Lost Cause Myth were dealing with --- the home of the Cult of the Victim where all the men were Christian gentlemen, all the women were beautiful and all the "darkies" were as happy as a bug in the rug until that mean old Lincoln came along. . The south never did anything wrong. Maybe the South did win --- the cultural war that is since it's so damn trendy now to be a victim. Everybody wants to be one but no one wants to accept any responsibility.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.