One scenario is that a staffer decided to blur words they didn't want kids who frequent that space to see. It was the wrong call – far better to choose another iconic image, like suffragists than to alter one – but it's possible folks involved may have acted with benign intent.
The National Archives is supposed to capture history, not erase it. Any one who was a part of this should see their job become history.https://twitter.com/washingtonpost/status/1218324719688126465 …
-
-
-
I would understand that if they didn’t blur the word “Trump.”
- 2 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
If the National Archives is going to embrace fascism then their funding must be halted
-
No, they need to be cleaned up. Halting funding means important documents go unarchived. Baby > Bath water
- 3 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
That anyone at the Archives -- much less the guy in charge -- would even CONTEMPLATE altering history and violating the core values of the institution is DEPLORABLE and INEXCUSABLE. Any apology is empty.
-
They ARE deplorables!!
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Republicans love to rally against anything perceived to be "Soviet style." Doctoring photos to benefit the leader of the day is a trademark tactic of Stalinism. No, this isn't as extreme as airbrushing executed political rivals out of photos. But the spirit is still the same.
-
Modify the very basis of the historical record so you can control the public consciousness and perception of you and so you can reshape the "truth" that people have.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
They’ve apologized and are fixing their mistake
-
Yes, but in their statement they said “they” noticed it and fixed it. “They” didn’t. It was pointed out to them.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.