This ought to stir up some shit.
Just yesterday at work I was handed a document generated by the local county, King County. Now, for the sake of historical reference, I'll quote
the Wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_County) on the subject:
QuoteThe county was formed out of territory within Thurston County on December 22, 1852, by the Oregon Territory legislature, and was named after Alabama resident William Rufus King, vice president under president Franklin Pierce. Seattle was made the county seat on January 11, 1853.
Now, there's shit named "King" all over Seattle, and there probably has been since the city was founded. That's fine -- I have that all clear in my head. So, I was baffled when my eye drifted down to the county logo at the bottom right corner of the document. So much so that I was actually embarrassed by the distraction it caused me. There, next to the words "King County", in place of the county logo that, in its varous forms over the years had involved some stylised form of a crown, was a picture of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s face.
Martin Luther King wasn't born in King County. He never lived in King County. He may have visited on occasion (in fact, he did speak in Seattle in 1961), but I'm not aware of any significant event in his life that occurred in King County. It's only by passing coincidence that he shared the last name with the Vice President after whom it was named.
So, yes, I was baffled. Returning to the aforementioned Wikipedia article, I read this, of which I was previously unaware:
QuoteOn February 24, 1986, the King County Council passed Council Motion 6461, "setting forth the historical basis for the 'renaming' of King County in honor of Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.". Because only the state can charter counties, this change was not made official until April 19, 2005, when Washington Governor Christine Gregoire signed Senate Bill 5332 into law. Due primarily to the advocacy of councilmember Larry Gossett, the County Council voted on February 27, 2006 to change the county's logo from a royal crown to an image of King's face. This change was estimated to cost $522,255. On March 12, 2007, the new logo was unveiled.
Now, I'm unaware of what the "historical basis for the 'renaming' of King County in honor of Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr." was, but seems to me like a pretty clear cut case of historical revisionism. I don't throw the accusation of "politically correct" around lightly, mostly because I think it's both over-used and used inaccurately, but I think this is a good example -- re-writing history to fit a current political vogue. Nothing against Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. -- I have little problem with the fact that the city renamed Empire Way to Martin Luther King Jr. Way (even though almost no one calls it that, because it doesn't flow trippingly from the tongue), I have no problem with naming a memorial park in Seattle after him -- but the county just plain wasn't named for him. Was it just the coincidence that sparked the re-dubbing? Was it the fact that the man for whom it was named was an Alabaman?
G'ah.
!i!
Quote from: Ian AbsentiaI don't throw the accusation of "politically correct" around lightly, mostly because I think it's both over-used and used inaccurately, but I think this is a good example -- re-writing history to fit a current political vogue. Nothing against Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. -- I have little problem with the fact that the city renamed Empire Way to Martin Luther King Jr. Way (even though almost no one calls it that, because it doesn't flow trippingly from the tongue), I have no problem with naming a memorial park in Seattle after him -- but the county just plain wasn't named for him. Was it just the coincidence that sparked the re-dubbing? Was it the fact that the man for whom it was named was an Alabaman?
It seems to me that it depends on how they handle it. Changing the name and/or logo of a place is always revision of a sort. It hides the original historical name and logo, and dumps the prior tradition. But as long as you don't pretend that it was always that way, I don't think it should be called "historical revisionism".
Now, this case is confusing because the old honoree and the new honoree have the same last name. However, it would seem odd to me if the county could be dedicated to Rosa Parks (and renamed Parks County) or Susan B. Anthony (and renamed Anthony County), or any other historical figure
except those with the last name of King.
Wasn't William Rufus King a violent supporter of slavery? He was really a dick at times. I'll go hunt something else up if anyone cares.
OT: Sorry to derail, but roughly how many counties are there in a state in the US? I know it'll vary on the size of the state, but still, it'd be interesting to me. In the UK, i think that a county is *generally* (even this varies here) about 30 x 30 miles.
:o Sorry for the OT nature of the post!
Well, here's the Wikipedia article on
William R. King (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_R._King). A couple of quotes:
QuoteDuring the conflicts leading up to the Compromise of 1850, King supported the Senate's gag rule against debate on antislavery petitions, and opposed the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia. King supported a conservative proslavery position, arguing that the Constitution protected the institution of slavery in both the Southern states and the federal territories, placing King in opposition to both the abolitionists' efforts to abolish slavery in the territories and the Fire-Eaters' calls for Southern secession.
...and...
QuoteIn honor of his inauguration as Vice President, the newly formed Washington Territory named King County for him, as well as Pierce County after President Pierce, in hopes of gaining speedy admission to the Union by currying favor with the new administration...
Okay, so we can see that that he was, in a way, diametrically opposed to Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., and that he, too, wasn't born in, or ever lived in, or ever visited the county that was named for him. I have to admit that, for the longest time, I had thought that "the King family" were local settlers or somesuch. Not so.
So I guess it's kind of a toss-up now between one of two people who never had anything to do with the place. Really, though, the name of the county has been so divorced from any sort of historical significance (and a fairly obscure historical reference it is), that it simply seems strange to conceptually re-name it at all. And the logo? Why change it from a crown...
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/c5/Kingcountycrown.gif)
...to a specific portrait?
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/a/a2/KingCounty.gif/100px-KingCounty.gif)
I mean, William R. King wasn't royalty, so it's not like the crown represented him specifically. No one was painfully reminded of his opposition to the abolition of slavery when they saw a truck from the county motorpool drive by with the crown logo.
Perhaps John is right in his post above. This isn't exactly "revisionism", but it's weird politically correct politics at its weirdest.
!i!
Quote from: One Horse TownOT: Sorry to derail, but roughly how many counties are there in a state in the US? I know it'll vary on the size of the state, but still, it'd be interesting to me. In the UK, i think that a county is *generally* (even this varies here) about 30 x 30 miles.
This may prove more interesting than the original topic. :deflated:
It really does depend upon the geographical size and demographical disposition of the state. For instance, here in the state of Washington, the counties are larger than many of the New England states, but they are far, far more sparsely populated. The geographical lines also tend to be drawn more arbitrarily along latutudinal and longitudinal coordinates the farther west you go from the eastern seaboard.
In short, I don't think there's any single, concise answer I can give you nation-wide. In the states that began as territories governed by representatives in Washington D.C., territorial, state, and county lines were usually just drawn on a map for the sake of convenience, then more lines would be drawn to subdivide existing geometric shapes if the governing representative needed help administering the growth in the region.
This sort of thing is actually very telling when you take a look at maps of national and regional voting results, where great swathes of one color suggest that one party should have won, while the color that's visibly in the minority carried the day. Of course, a closer look will reveal that the vast majority of the population resided within that second color.
!i!
Its similar to the ancient Egyptians going around and carving the names of disposessed Pharoes from their monuments, or any other example of Orwellian revisionism designed to ensure the complete erasure of something or someone from history. Anything we don't like from the past is to be washed away so that soon, not even their memory remains. Makes it easier for it to return later, because nobody knows about it, so they don't know what to watch for.
And of course, lots of political hay to be made from the councilman and Governor, I'm sure. Hey, look how progressive WE are! Woo hoo! Now vote for us and we'll give you more meaningless items instead of actually doing something constructive!
Good thing is, they won't have to live through the part where history repeats itself somewhere down the road. Its easy to be PC when there are no immediate effects! :haw:
Quote from: WerekoalaIts similar to the ancient Egyptians going around and carving the names of disposessed Pharoes from their monuments, or any other example of Orwellian revisionism designed to ensure the complete erasure of something or someone from history. Anything we don't like from the past is to be washed away so that soon, not even their memory remains.
Sure, but, upon reflection -- and, I think, what has proven so baffling to me -- this is a situation where the original namesake had
already been forgotten. As I said above, in the absence of any memory of William R. King (okay, I'm sure
someone remembered him), why alter the association at all. That's where the matter of convenience seems to have come into play.
I think you're on to something with the suggestion of "political hay". I suspect that, back in 1986 when the re-naming was proposed, it was more an issue of activism, which maintains an air of virtue and sincerity, than political correctness, which is simply shrewd and expedient. In 2005, bringing the proposal to fruition smells far more the latter than the former.
!i!
I personaly dont like it when things are renamed. Or in this case the symbol changed. There typically is no need to do so. I live here in Lansing Michigan. We had a road name Logan. Named after John A. Logan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_A._Logan) union civil war general and politician. This was changed to Martin Luther King. Did it really need to be changed? Perhaps it should have been changed to Malcom X Blvd. Seeing how Malcom X and his family lived on logan street at one point. Which there is a marker denoting. Was he not a wholesome enough civil rights activist? Was not a PC enough choice? I'm not discrediting MLK. He was a great man. But did we need to change a city street 30 years later to honor him?
I'm sure most every major and a lot of minor cities in the US had streets changed to MLK Boulevard or the equivalent around the same time that the MLK Holiday was being pushed as well. Its called "pandering" and its designed to get votes, not honor anyone. I live in Salt Lake city. The percentage of blacks in this state is about 1.8% (edit: 1.1% in 2000) ? And yet there's a Martin Luther King Boulevard in downtown Salt Lake City (which is also the sole bastion of liberal Democrats in the state, with a reliably wing-nutty Democrat mayor).
Remember the flap when Arizona was not going to observe the MLK Holiday? They were threatened with "sanctions" by the black community, the Super Bowl was going to be denied them, etc. etc. They eventually caved in. So, while we have "President's Day" to mark the two birthday's of the two greatest (most people think) Presidents in US history, one of whom helped create this nation, the other who fought a war to preserve it (and incidentally freed the slaves), Mr. King is the only individual with an observed Federal Holiday in his name.
Hm.
Does he deserve respect and rememberance? Sure, I'll never deny that. Do all the politicians and agitators making hay in his name deserve it? Hell no - but unfortunately, I'm in the minority (!!!) in thinking that, apparently.
Quote from: WerekoalaRemember the flap when Arizona was not going to observe the MLK Holiday?
Well, I also recall the flap over the fact that Arizona refuses to observe Daylight Savings Time, throwing a spanner into the works in a number of situations. As a state, the leadership of Arizona has a track record of being obstinate for the sake of being obstinate.
QuoteSo, while we have "President's Day" to mark the two birthday's of the two greatest (most people think) Presidents in US history, one of whom helped create this nation, the other who fought a war to preserve it (and incidentally freed the slaves), Mr. King is the only individual with an observed Federal Holiday in his name.
To be fair, Washington's birthday and Lincoln's birthday used to be observed independently of one another. It was only for the sake of convenience, since the days are so close together, that they rolled them into a single holiday. Hey, it's a shame that King's birthday wasn't in the middle of February instead of the middle of January, then we could have Presidents'-and-Civil-Rights-Leader's Day. :)
!i!
Quote from: Ian AbsentiaHey, it's a shame that King's birthday wasn't in the middle of February instead of the middle of January, then we could have Presidents'-and-Civil-Rights-Leader's Day. :)
Or a President's and King's Day! cover all our bases! Woot!
Damns, how on earth did I miss that opportunity? :p
!i!
One other thing, it never occured to me over all these years to wonder why it used to be called the King-dome.
Quote from: WerekoalaI'm sure most every major and a lot of minor cities in the US had streets changed to MLK Boulevard or the equivalent around the same time that the MLK Holiday was being pushed as well. Its called "pandering" and its designed to get votes, not honor anyone. I live in Salt Lake city. The percentage of blacks in this state is about 1.8% (edit: 1.1% in 2000) ? And yet there's a Martin Luther King Boulevard in downtown Salt Lake City (which is also the sole bastion of liberal Democrats in the state, with a reliably wing-nutty Democrat mayor).
I don't completely disagree with your point in the sense that sure, politicians pander -- but what the heck does the percentage of blacks in the state have to do with this?
Quote from: jhkimI don't completely disagree with your point in the sense that sure, politicians pander -- but what the heck does the percentage of blacks in the state have to do with this?
The fact that even in a state with a miniscule black population, a Democratic mayor in a Democratic city decided to name a street after MLK. Its a reliably liberal, not necessarily black, thing. You can pander to any number of groups, after all.
Quote from: WerekoalaOne other thing, it never occured to me over all these years to wonder why it used to be called the King-dome.
Well, son, was a time back when stadiums didn't used to be named for corporate sponsors...
!i!
Quote from: Ian AbsentiaWell, son, was a time back when stadiums didn't used to be named for corporate sponsors...
Oh, believe me, I'm way old enough to know THAT! Joe Robbie, Candlestick, Veterans Stadium, Mile High, etc. etc.
If Jerry Jones slaps some name BESIDE'S Texas Stadium on his new mauoleum ,I'll go back to Texas and throttle him myself.
Wrigley Field....
Oh, wait....nevermind....
Quote from: WerekoalaThe fact that even in a state with a miniscule black population, a Democratic mayor in a Democratic city decided to name a street after MLK. Its a reliably liberal, not necessarily black, thing. You can pander to any number of groups, after all.
OK. I'd agree that honoring MLK is not just a "black thing". It just seemed funny for you to bring up the percentage of blacks to say that.
For that matter, it isn't specific to liberals either. The Martin Luther King holiday was passed by Congress during the Reagan era by an overwhelming majority including both Democrats and Republicans. Compared to that, naming a street after him seems pretty minor. After all, around MLK Blvd in SLC there's a Sherman Avenue, a Princeton Avenue, a Windsor Street, and a Herbert Avenue.
Yes, yes, of course its not JUST a liberal thing, its a POLITICIAN thing. Pandering is pandering. Are there streets in every major city in America RE-named Sherman Avenue, Princeton Avenue, Windsor Street, or Herbert Avenue in an attempt to persuade particular blocks of voters that the re-namers care about their plight, when all it really is is a meaninglessly symbolic move? No. So my point stands.
Dare I ask 'where in King County' you are, Ian? Dangerous question, as it may lead to gaming....:raise:
Ah-HAH! I stumbled across this on the radio today. In honor of Presidents' Day, a show on NPR, Weekend America, was doing little
bios on the little-known VPs of yesteryear (http://weekendamerica.publicradio.org/display/web/2008/02/15/vp/). They didn't mention the slave-owning thing, but they did have this to say:
QuoteNow there's another interesting historical footnote on King. He and future president James Buchanan were roommates for 15 years. One of several facts that have prompted some historians to propose that the two men were America's first gay vice president and president, respectively. The press at the time wrote articles speculating about it. Both men's relatives suspiciously burned all correspondence between the two. The post master general used to call the pair "Buchanan and his wife." And Andrew Jackson called King "Miss Nancy." Really.
But we will never know for sure.
And at least one historian says that Andrew Jackson called a lot of people Miss Nancy.
Hoo-hoo! So here's
my vicious theory that I'm going to start spreading around: King County wasn't renamed because Vice President King was a slave-owner, it was renamed because VP King was gay. Pitting one special interest group versus another, I hope to get a GLBT coalition motivated to switch the naming of the county back in favor of William Rufus DeVane King, citing the African-American community's notorious homophobia as the real motivation for the original name change. And maybe as a result, we can all just agree that no one really gives a shit anymore, go back to using the stylised crown-in-a-circle on the county seal, and forget the whole matter.
!i!
I'd vote for this:(http://www.bk.com/images/MSNav/BKLogo.gif)
Because it will help discredit this: Metronatural (http://www.visitseattle.org/media/brand.asp)
Quote from: Malleus ArianorumI'd vote for this:(http://www.bk.com/images/MSNav/BKLogo.gif)
Not bad. Not bad at all...
QuoteBecause it will help discredit this: Metronatural (http://www.visitseattle.org/media/brand.asp)
W-uh..augh! I only wish there was a real tradition of throwing fish at tourists. And I mean every tourist, everywhere. Furthermore, Seattle is maybe only
half as "metronatural" as Vancouver, BC. What a stupid sales pitch.
!i!
Metronatural???? :roofle:
Now that's funny.
Not as funny as the kid with the "Parents Killed by Ninjas" sign begging for money that I saw in Seattle a couple of years ago, though, but it makes #2 in my list of funny things related to Seattle. :D
Back on the original topic, I think renaming every damn thing in the country to MLK is getting to be a bit much. Surely there are some other people worth honoring.
What's next I wonder? Retroactively (and posthumously) making him the 35.5th President?
Quote from: jgants...I think renaming every damn thing in the country to MLK is getting to be a bit much.
No. In fact, I don't think it's gone far enough. Perhaps we
should rename everything and every
one "Martin Luther King, Jr." We could all be like George Foreman's kids, all of whom are named "George". Or maybe we could rename only half of the things for MLK, and the other half for Ronald Reagan.
!i!
I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are named Martin Luther King."
I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood since all the plates have little cards on them that say "Reserved: Martin Luther King"
I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a state sweltering with the heat of injustice, sweltering with the heat of oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of people, places and things named after me.
I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the conformity of monogramed initials on their golfing paraphenalia.
I have a dream that one day, down in Alabama, with its vicious racists, with its governor having his lips dripping with the words of interposition and nullification; one day right there in Alabama, little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers in one big happy King family.
I have a dream that one day every valley shall be called MLK, every hill and mountain shall be named MLK, the rough places will be named after me pending their having been made plain, and the crooked places will be made straight. Take that Miss Nancy!
Quote from: Malleus ArianorumI have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are named Martin Luther King."
I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood since all the plates have little cards on them that say "Reserved: Martin Luther King"
I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a state sweltering with the heat of injustice, sweltering with the heat of oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of people, places and things named after me.
I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the conformity of monogramed initials on their golfing paraphenalia.
I have a dream that one day, down in Alabama, with its vicious racists, with its governor having his lips dripping with the words of interposition and nullification; one day right there in Alabama, little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers in one big happy King family.
I have a dream that one day every valley shall be called MLK, every hill and mountain shall be named MLK, the rough places will be named after me pending their having been made plain, and the crooked places will be made straight. Take that Miss Nancy!
Thanks, I just spit my oatmeal on my computer.
Fucker...
While I normally dislike renaming things like this, given what William R. King supported, I think that I have to approve of this one.
Quote from: John MorrowWhile I normally dislike renaming things like this, given what William R. King supported, I think that I have to approve of this one.
And, to be honest, I have no problem with dropping Vice President King's connection to the name. It's the substitution of someone else's name that irks me.
!i!
Quote from: Ian AbsentiaAnd, to be honest, I have no problem with dropping Vice President King's connection to the name. It's the substitution of someone else's name that irks me.
While I can see that and agree with it to a large degree, I think there is a certain irony in this particular substitution that makes it more palatable than it might otherwise be.
Quote from: John MorrowWhile I can see that and agree with it to a large degree, I think there is a certain irony in this particular substitution that makes it more palatable than it might otherwise be.
Have I mentioned that there's a Jefferson County in the State of Washington? Thomas Jefferson owned slaves. I don't see anyone in a rush to re-dedicate the name of Jefferson County (
this man (http://www.themightymjd.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/05/jeffersonswizards.jpg)'s name leaps to mind, to be sure). And what of George Washington himself, for whom the entire state was named? He owned slaves.
This is where the irony regarding the King County re-dedication starts to sour for me.
!i!
Quote from: Ian AbsentiaThis is where the irony regarding the King County re-dedication starts to sour for me.
I see a substantial difference in degree between owning slaves and, as stated earlier in this thread, supporting a gag rule against debating anti-slavery positions and actively protecting and promoting slavery. At the other end of the spectrum, I think that Washington granting freedom to his slaves upon his death makes his ownership of slaves more forgivable. Jefferson falls somewhere between the two. That King seems to have enthusiastically supported slavery is the tipping point for me.
The BIG difference is that Jefferson always wanted to end slavery - that was a debate even when they writing the Declaration of Independence.
Its also unfair to judge the man by our frame of reference from the early 21st century.
If you look at the time that he lived in - Jefferson's way of thinking on many things was actually pretty ahead of his time.
- Ed C.
Quote from: KoltarThe BIG difference is that Jefferson always wanted to end slavery - that was a debate even when they writing the Declaration of Independence.
Correct, but where does that leave the people of the day who didn't want to end slavery but wanted to protect it?
Quote from: KoltarIts also unfair to judge the man by our frame of reference from the early 21st century.
It's unfair to expect them to conform to our ideas but not unfair to expect some humanity from them.
Quote from: KoltarIf you look at the time that he lived in - Jefferson's way of thinking on many things was actually pretty ahead of his time.
Sure. And so were Washington's. And freeing his slaves showed some humanity. But William R. King seems to be a far less admirable character based on the quotes from Wikipedia. (And, no, that comment has nothing to do with the rumors of him being gay even if they are true.)