Burnt Orange Report
News, Politics, and Fun From Deep in the Heart of Texas
|
|
Burnt Orange ReportNews, Politics, and Fun From Deep in the Heart of Texas |
|
 |
 |
November 30, 2005Pittsburg Says 'No' To MLK StreetBy Vince LeibowitzI ran across this last night. And it doesn't seem that any other media outlets have picked it up, but I do think it's worth mentioning. Monday night in Pittsburg (Camp County), the city council declined a request from the Camp County NAACP to rename a city street after Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. The NAACP sought to have renamed one of several streets, but, on a tied vote with the mayor casting the tie, the city decided against the proposal. KLTV.com offered this quote from Pittsburg's mayor:
KLTV also noted:
However, as a consolation, the mayor has said the town would be willing to erect a King memorial, "in a location that is prominent and a lot of people pass." The NAACP President in Camp County had this to say about the memorial proposal, which I found quite interesting:
Comments
Every city changing their street names to MLK has lost its meaning. Its now just a cliche. I know back in Chapel Hill NC they just renamed what was Airport Rd to MLK Blvd. However the irony is that there are only a handful of black residents even living on the street. Its a main road that runs into town, which is heavily white. Thats like changing a street name in Watts to Strom Thurmond Avenue. Though at least here in Dallas they got it right a long time ago. They have an MLK and a Malcolm X. Posted by: John at November 30, 2005 10:43 AM"Thats like changing a street name in Watts to Strom Thurmond Avenue." It is not the same thing. King crusaded for civil rights for all, Thurmond was against civil rights for all. People should be proud to live on a street named after King, no matter their race. You can't say the same thing about Thurmond. Posted by: Betty Kerr at November 30, 2005 11:51 AMYeah actually I can and did Posted by: John at November 30, 2005 12:59 PMI really hope you aren't naiive enough to think that MLK's work only affected black people... Posted by: Sonia at November 30, 2005 02:57 PMJohn was right the first time. MLK Blvds, streets, drives, lanes and days have become a superflous excercise in political correctitude - to whit, the sudden appearance of Malcolm X streets - a man who simply has no business being called a civil rights leader. It was a mistake from the beginning for this country to personify the civil rights movement in the life of an individual person. MLK's contribution to the movement was certainly significant, he used the new medium of television better than anyone, but it was no more significant than that of Asa Phillip Randolph - a man who in 1941 had the guts to stand up to a pusillanimous FDR, successfully demanding an end to defense industry discrimination by threatening to hold a National Negro March on Washington. Randolph more than anyone deserves credit for inaugurating the contemporary civil rights movement. And it was Thurgood Marshall, a man who was never inamorate of MLK, that led the fight to end school segregation in 1956. There should never have been a MLK Day - it should always have been a National Civil Rights Day. MLK the person was far less significant than what the civil rights movement stood for and that was an America that really lived up to its Democratic principles. It's easier to manufacture cheap sentiment over the life of MLK than it is to reflect on whether this country is living up to the promise of the civil rights movement. Hell, even Ronald Reagan "celebrated" MLK day! Posted by: Vicki Black at November 30, 2005 03:32 PM
Post a comment
|
|
|
