It is strange how our history becomes distorted over time. I came across this article, discussing how Abe Lincoln would view an Obama Presidency:
On Tuesday, Barack Obama will stand on the steps of the U.S. Capitol and take an oath making him the nation’s first president of African heritage.
The statue of Abraham Lincoln, which sits facing the Capitol in a temple two miles away, will not give two thumbs up. Neither will it weep, commune with the spirit of Martin Luther King Jr. or dance a Macarena of joy.
The point is obvious, yes, but also necessary given that when Obama was elected in November, every third political cartoonist seemed to use an image of a celebrating Lincoln to comment upon the milestone that had occurred. Lincoln, they told us, would have been overjoyed.
Actually, Lincoln likely would have been appalled. How could he not? He was a 19th century white man who famously said in 1858 that “there is a physical difference between the white and black races, which . . . will forever forbid the two races living together upon terms of social and political equality.”
How do you reconcile that with all those cartoons of Lincoln congratulating Obama? You don’t. You simply recognize it for what it is: yet another illustration of how shallow our comprehension of history is, yet another instance where myth supersedes reality.
While this may be completely true, I think that – for the sake of fairness – we must all view history through the eyes of those who were living it at the time. Can you belittle the legacy of Abe Lincoln because of his views on race? I don’t think so. His view points (albeit wrong) were the views of his age. Nevertheless, I think it is important that we not look at figures in history through idealistic lenses and try to interject what their views would be, today. We simply do not know.
