Anonymous #2 12w

especially since he served the union, it would seem right that it was taken while he was serving

6

Anonymous #3 12w

If you mean the order of its removal or where it was, Fort Pulaski National Monument and the National Park Service. If you mean the backstory, the Smithsonian and the National Portrait Gallery. You cannot be this slow

32

Anonymous #2 12w

He was enslaved before the Civil War. After it ended, he helped document the horror that had just been banned

11

Anonymous #3 12w

Whitehouse.gov

16

Anonymous #2 12w

Yeah that was my mistake. It was during the civil war and became used by a bunch of abolitionists

2

Anonymous #5 12w

What the actual fuck? This is how you react to people asking for a source? So you want them to just blindly believe everything someone post on fucking yikyak?

-8

Anonymous #8 12w

Of course he should ask for the source! This is something that can completely change someone’s political viewpoint. I’m going to read that right now because if this is true, I may have to alter my political world view.

-4

Anonymous #8 12w

I would consider this comparable to the destruction of confederate statues. Neither one was good.

-5

Anonymous #8 12w

Don’t look up when those confederate statues were actually put up and for what reason, worst mistake of my life

18

Anonymous #8 12w

It is never good to destroy history

-3

Anonymous #8 12w

Also how is this narrative even a dividing thing for the nation? All it is doing is presenting to people history. This is the reality of what happened, here’s a photograph to showcase specifically that, and the rest is up to you. There’s no sign saying anything to promote racial division

16

Anonymous #8 11w

So the removal of our history is good because no one wants to remember how we murdered and enslaved hundreds of thousands of people? Destroying and erasing history is a sign of an authoritarian government. Erasing our history is going to make things worse

4

Anonymous #11 11w

You know it’s historical fact about the part flip and that doesn’t relate to anything that has been said

5

Anonymous #12 11w

Literally not false, his admin and himself are working on executive orders and legislation to do this. He literally posted about it on his Twitter, and the White House’s. I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but he’s been doing things that are out of his legislation since the first day in office.

3

Anonymous #7 11w

Show me exactly where he referenced this photo, I’ll wait. Also, for not federal institutions he can insist all he wants but they can ignore him and there’s nothing he can do about it.

-2

Anonymous #12 11w

Yes, because that’s what has happened previously, not like he will fire them for ignoring him. You’re living in a delusional society where he follows rules and regulation. He has fired hundreds of people illegally without reason for ignoring him. He has created legislation time and time again that is out of his jurisdiction yet he gets away with it. Wake up and step off of his dick.

1

Anonymous #7 11w

He doesn’t have the ability to fire staff from non federal and private institutions you idiot. There’s nothing he can do about it. He can insist all he wants but there’s nothing he can do. Yes, he’s fired many people who are employed by federal government institutions. Also, you have yet to provide the evidence that he referenced this photo specifically

-1

Anonymous #12 11w

He might not have the authority yet he has done a time and time again. Because he doesn’t listen to the checks and balances. And clearly no one else cares enough to stop him.

4

Anonymous #7 11w

And show me what legislation or executive order has been passed that gives the president the ability to fire people from private institutions? I’ll wait. Also, even if that were to happen, it would be struck down by the SCOTUS

-1

Anonymous #12 11w

Hmm well the first one is deporting people without due process and allowing ice to run rampant and the second off the top of my head is deploying the national guard on United States citizens, even without the approval from the local governor.

1

Anonymous #12 11w

Another is him allowing Elon Musk to lay off hundreds of people, even though neither of them had that authority

1

Anonymous #12 11w

One quick Google search will show every single executive order that he had made that he legally does not have the jurisdiction to make. It’s been dozens.

1

Anonymous #12 11w

But you don’t believe in facts you only believe in your leader because you believe Trump is a god. It’s not normal for a government to zip tie babies hands behind their back.

1

Anonymous #12 11w

It is not normal for a government to hold a child hostage as an attempt to get the father outside of the house. It is not normal for a government to use It’s gestapo to detain representatives.

1

Anonymous #7 11w

I don’t believe Trump is a god. Also, nice red herring arguments. I asked for the evidence of the executive order or legislation that’s allowed him to fire people from private institutions. You have yet to provide such evidence and the burden of proof is on you

0

Anonymous #8 11w

Thin veil to discredit. If you can scroll yikyak, you can look up a source. The image is famous and in history textbooks, the backstory is on multiple government websites, and the ongoing story of its removal is widespread news. Plus, if you’re not gonna trust a yikyak post without a source, what makes you think you’d trust a response to your inquiry into the source? Use Google, lay off the paste eating.

-1

Anonymous #11 11w

1) not a democrat 2) both parties are in favor of modern day slavery 3) mf never heard of the southern strategy

1

Anonymous #7 11w

There was no “party flip.” The Democrats went from mostly pro segregation in the 1920s to mostly pro integration in the 1960s, with their platform starting to flip in favor of integration in the 1930s. The Republicans went from non-religious in the 1960s and earlier to religious in the 1970s onward, which is why the Republicans become popular in the religious south during that time

-5

Anonymous #12 11w

Okay so you’re ignoring historical fact. Which doesn’t even fucking matter right now. Your response to “Trump is a racist piece of shit erasing our history of slavery” is “bu-bu-but the democrats!!!”

4

Anonymous #12 11w

You’re….you’re describing the party switch my guy. That’s how it happened. Dems went from being the Conservative Party to the progressive party

10

Anonymous #12 11w

It’s odd that democrat are the “party of slavery” yet it’s republicans that are racist, supporting this, and waving the confederate flag

6

Anonymous #12 11w

You literally just described the switch 💀 we cannot be serious bro “hmmm there was no party flip but here’s me describing how the political parties switched ideals!” Like what 😭

6

Anonymous #8 11w

You are correct! The burden of proof is on the person making the claim. Not that hard to understand

4

Anonymous #4 11w

Pretty sure all the people getting riled up took the request for a source as an implicit “I don’t believe in the horrors of slavery or the fact that Trump is out of line”. The commenter just wanted a source. But that is likely how it was received

3

Anonymous #6 11w

Low-key irks me when mfs just ask for a source and DIE for it like gang this is how you make niggas not wanna see things the way you do 🤦🏾‍♂️

1

Anonymous inphochewated 11w

How dare someone ask for a source to ensure claims are valid and not randomly made up 🙄 if you don’t have a source/evidence then you shouldn’t be spewing it

1

Anonymous #12 11w

I get asking for a source for seemingly made up claims or things to be scrutinized. However, asking for a source to either a photo that is in history textbooks or a story that has been in headlines for 3 weeks (i wouldn’t know since #3 has contributed nothing since asking for a source) is just ignorance. It’s not even an “educate me, I haven’t heard of this” thing, it’s just a stupid request typed into a machine that can give him exactly what he’s looking for.

1

Anonymous #5 11w

Asking for a source for the actual photo or for the claim that it’s being removed?

1

Anonymous #12 11w

THREE WORDS is all it took to get a source on the current situation from Associated Press, the US House Committee for Natural Resources, and National Public Radio.

1

Anonymous #5 11w

I wasn’t the one who asked for a source on this, I’m talking about the importance of citing sources. Also there’s burden of proof so the person making the claim has to provide the evidence

1

Anonymous #12 11w

#3 HASNT SPECIFIED. WE DONT KNOW BECAUSE HE JUST ASKED FOR A GENERAL SOURCE AND NOTHING ELSE. Burden of proof means nothing for common knowledge and doesn’t need a source/citation. I could tell you that three billionaires died after a submarine imploded during a voyage to the Titanic and wouldn’t need a source because it’s common knowledge over 2 years later

1

Anonymous #5 11w

Exactly, for common knowledge, not for breaking news or something that is being debated

1