A monument to MLK will crown Stone Mountain (Atlanta, Jackson: design, capita)

[jero23]

Originally Posted by arjay57

What is the fence you envision and what are its two sides?

You are always giving credence to foolishness...there is no room for credence to foolishness at all when you know how obtuse many choose to be about the history and contemporary habits of certain leaders and organizations in this region...

[arjay57]

Originally Posted by jero23

You are always giving credence to foolishness...there is no room for credence to foolishness at all when you know how obtuse many choose to be about the history and contemporary habits of certain leaders and organizations in this region...

Hm, what foolishness are you talking about?

Rep. Lindsey says he supports a King monument at the mountain and I've said several times that I do, too. How is that obtuse or foolish?

[jeoff]

Originally Posted by LovinDecatur

KingWorld! Excitement! Family Fun! Water Park! Buy your summer pass now!
I really don't see how your proposal is oh-so-above the status quo.

The park will always be a park, that's true--and if you are only there for a nice jog, or camping--it won't change much, and there is nothing wrong with that. As it stands, the carving memorializes men who fought to divide the United States and keep a large portion of its populace enslaved--just as important, it was commissioned well after the Civil War partially in negative response to the idea that human beings should be treated equally. --and, there is no counterpoint, much less a refutation of that symbolism anywhere at the park--and there should be. You may be educated enough not to need context when looking at the carving, but many others do need that context.
As a child, we would visit the mountain in school, and there was always the assumption that the men represented in the carving were great men representing a great cause--and this probably fed into/justified other beliefs as well. A monument to King would be a reason to at least discuss what it was that these men were fighting for, and why they are even represented on the mountain.

[jero23]

Originally Posted by arjay57

Hm, what foolishness are you talking about?

Rep. Lindsey says he supports a King monument at the mountain and I've said several times that I do, too. How is that obtuse or foolish?

It's foolish because it is patronizing to black Americans and those whom fought hard in the American Civil Rights Movement...

[Gulch]

Originally Posted by jero23

It's foolish because it is patronizing to black Americans and those whom fought hard in the American Civil Rights Movement...

Honestly, I don't think most people would be satisfied until the state decides to dynamite the carving.

[arjay57]

Originally Posted by jero23

It's foolish because it is patronizing to black Americans and those whom fought hard in the American Civil Rights Movement...

I don't believe honoring MLK is patronizing, foolish or obtuse.

History is what it is, warts and all. To try to pretend that events didn't happen discounts not only those who supported them but those who fought against them.

[jero23]

Originally Posted by arjay57

I don't believe honoring MLK is patronizing, foolish or obtuse.

History is what it is, warts and all. To try to pretend that events didn't happen discounts not only those who supported them but those who fought against them.

That is not honoring MLK Jr. That is patronizing to them and civil right activists by saying "look at what we carvered here" next to some foolishness. Nobody is trying to pretend like it didn't occur, but there are very few black Americans that find this foolishness honoring MLK Jr. and other civil rights activists' legacy. This is why you have groups like NAACP Metro Atlanta chapter and the SCLC against this because they even see this as patronizing...

[arjay57]

Originally Posted by jero23

That is not honoring MLK Jr. that is patronizing them and civil right activists by saying "look at what we carvered here" next to some foolishness. Nobody is trying to pretend like it didn't occur, but there are very few black Americans that find this foolishness honoring MLK Jr. and other civil rights activists' legacy. This is why you have groups like NAACP Metro Atlanta chapter and the SCLC against this...

Well, the memorial seemed like a reasonable way to add some historical balance to the park. But if most people find it insulting then I'd say forget it.

[residinghere2007]

Originally Posted by Dkeating

I'd be more in favor of a museum of postwar Southern history. Having another MLK memorial would just bypass a lot of history for a more comfortable narrative. It's symbolic tokenism, in my opinion ("Everyone likes MLK--let's just slap up a tribute to him and all will be well"). Plus MLK already has a classy memorial in Atlanta.

I kind of thought the same thing as the bold when I read this.

It seems every time there is some racial issue, people want to honor MLK.

I personally think the lynching memorial would be better. MLK already has a national park. I don't see anything wrong with this proposal to include the bell and his speech but IMO it is just very...I can only say white washed in regards to the history of the movement behind creating Stone Mountain.

Lynching was a direct response to the Civil War, supporters of the Confederacy, and the KKK. I think it fitting to highlight the original Civil Rights Movement in regards to Anti-Lynching activist and lynching's historical connection to the Confederacy and the KKK.

A King tribute IMO is really just a token to try to get people to stop talking about the carvings. And FWIW, I don't think they should blast the carvings at all. Just put them in a more historical context. It would be great to have some sort of space in the park that provided a tribute to Georgia's lynching victims and nothing grotesque IMO either, just maybe pictures of the people who were killed, or carvings of their names and where they died and how Anti-Lynching campaigns were the pre-cursor to the 20th century Civil Rights Movement.

[jeoff]

Originally Posted by residinghere2007

I kind of thought the same thing as the bold when I read this.

It seems every time there is some racial issue, people want to honor MLK.

I personally think the lynching memorial would be better. MLK already has a national park. I don't see anything wrong with this proposal to include the bell and his speech but IMO it is just very...I can only say white washed in regards to the history of the movement behind creating Stone Mountain.

Lynching was a direct response to the Civil War, supporters of the Confederacy, and the KKK. I think it fitting to highlight the original Civil Rights Movement in regards to Anti-Lynching activist and lynching's historical connection to the Confederacy and the KKK.

A King tribute IMO is really just a token to try to get people to stop talking about the carvings. And FWIW, I don't think they should blast the carvings at all. Just put them in a more historical context. It would be great to have some sort of space in the park that provided a tribute to Georgia's lynching victims and nothing grotesque IMO either, just maybe pictures of the people who were killed, or carvings of their names and where they died and how Anti-Lynching campaigns were the pre-cursor to the 20th century Civil Rights Movement.

Either would be an improvement, and both would be better. I don't doubt that a King memorial was intended by some as a token action to curb debate on carving/flag. A lynching memorial would be less subtle, and I guess when you trying to put 150+ft carving in some sort of perspective, subtle is probably not the way to go.