Kansas City overwhelmingly votes to remove Martin Luther King's name from historic st

[GMDino]

Interesting story.  

I can see both sides although I disagree with the way both sides have reacted too.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/11/06/kansas-city-paseo-street-martin-luther-king/2506399001/

Quote:KANSAS CITY, Mo. – Voters on Tuesday overwhelmingly approved removing Martin Luther King’s name from one of the city’s most historic boulevards, less than a year after the City Council decided to rename The Paseo for the civil rights icon.



Unofficial results showed the proposal to remove King’s name received nearly 70% of the vote, and slightly more than 30% voted to retain King’s name.


The debate over the name of the 10-mile boulevard on the city’s mostly black east side began shortly after the council’s decision in January to rename The Paseo for King. Civil rights leaders who pushed for the change celebrated when the street signs went up.



A group of residents intent on keeping The Paseo name collected petitions to put the name change on the ballot and achieved that goal in April.


The campaign has been divisive as supporters of King’s name accused opponents of being racist and supporters of The Paseo name said city leaders pushed the change through without following proper procedures and ignored The Paseo’s historic value.


Emotions reached a peak Sunday, when members of the “Save the Paseo” group staged a silent protest at a black church hosting a get-out-the-vote rally for people wanting to keep the King name. They walked into the Paseo Baptist Church and stood along its two aisles. The protesters stood silently and did not react to several speakers that accused them of being disrespectful in a church, and they refused requests from preachers to sit down.

The Save the Paseo group collected 2,857 signatures in April – far more than the 1,700 needed – to have the name change put to a public vote.


Many supporters of the King name suggested the opponents are racist, saying Save the Paseo is a mostly white group and many of its members don’t live on the street, which runs north to south through a largely black area of the city. They said removing the name would send a negative image of Kansas City to the rest of the world and could hurt business and tourism.

Supporters of the Paseo name rejected the allegations of racism, saying they have respect for King and want the city to find a way to honor him. They opposed the name change because they said the City Council did not follow city charter procedures when making the change and didn’t notify most residents on the street about the proposal. They said The Paseo is a historic name for the city’s first boulevard, which was completed in 1899. The north end of the boulevard is listed on the National Register of Historic Places.


The City Council voted in January to rename the boulevard for King, responding to a yearslong effort from the city’s black leaders and pressure from the local chapter of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, a civil rights organization that King helped start.


U.S. Rep. Emanuel Cleaver, a minister and former Kansas City mayor who pushed the city to rename a street for King for years, was at Sunday’s rally. He said the protesters were welcome, but he asked them to consider the damage that would be done if Kansas City removed King’s name.


“I am standing here simply begging you to sit down. This is not appropriate in a church of Jesus Christ,” Cleaver told the group.


Tim Smith, who organized the protest, said it was designed to force the black Christian leaders who had mischaracterized the Save the Paseo group as racist to “say it to our faces.”


“If tonight, someone wants to characterize what we did as hostile, violent or uncivil, it’s a mischaracterization of what happened,” Smith said. “We didn’t say anything, we didn’t do anything, we just stood.”

The Rev. Vernon Howard, president of the Kansas City chapter of the SCLU, said the King street sign is a powerful symbol for everyone but particularly for black children.


“I think that only if you are a black child growing up in the inner city, lacking the kind of resources, lacking the kinds of images and models for mentoring, modeling, vocation and career, can you actually understand what that name on that sign can mean to a child in this community,” Howard said.


Diane Euston, a leader of the Save the Paseo group, said The Paseo “doesn’t just mean something to one community in Kansas City.”


“It means something to everyone in Kansas City,” she said. “It holds kind of a special place in so many people’s hearts and memories. It’s not just historical on paper, it’s historical in people’s memory. It’s very important to Kansas City.

I don't know if it's racism, but I do know that it was not respectful to go and stand in that church.

A little dialogue would go a long way here.

[*michaelsean*]

I doubt most of the people were against it for racial reasons, but I agree that going to their church was in bad taste.

[GMDino]

(11-06-2019, 03:35 PM)michaelsean Wrote: I doubt most of the people were against it for racial reasons, but I agree that going to their church was in bad taste.

Yeah I mean it has historical value, they didn't follow procedure to change the name and the people did everything right to get it changed back.  

There was no need for the protest like that....nor do simply accuse them of racism.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-06-2019, 03:42 PM)GMDino Wrote: Yeah I mean it has historical value, they didn't follow procedure to change the name and the people did everything right to get it changed back.  

There was no need for the protest like that....nor do simply accuse them of racism.

I believe the "stand in" protestors point was that if the opposing side was going to call them racist then they wanted them to actually do it to their face.  I thought you were for non-violent protest?

[GMDino]

(11-06-2019, 03:43 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I believe the "stand in" protestors point was that if the opposing side was going to call them racist then they wanted them to actually do it to their face.  I thought you were for non-violent protest?

Didn't say they couldn't protest.  I personally think standing in the church was disrespectful the way they did it.  As was them being accused of racism.

As I said I see both sides and wish there was better dialogue.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-06-2019, 03:49 PM)GMDino Wrote: Didn't say they couldn't protest.  I personally think standing in the church was disrespectful the way they did it.  As was them being accused of racism.

As I said I see both sides and wish there was better dialogue.

I think a simple solution to that would be don't hold a political rally or event in a church.

[*michaelsean*]

(11-06-2019, 03:58 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I think a simple solution to that would be don't hold a political rally or event in a church.

Oh i assumed they were having services at the time.

[GMDino]

(11-06-2019, 04:01 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Oh i assumed they were having services at the time.

No it was during a meeting to rally people to get out and vote:

Quote:Emotions reached a peak Sunday, when members of the “Save the Paseo” group staged a silent protest at a black church hosting a get-out-the-vote rally for people wanting to keep the King name. They walked into the Paseo Baptist Church and stood along its two aisles. The protesters stood silently and did not react to several speakers that accused them of being disrespectful in a church, and they refused requests from preachers to sit down.

I still think it was disrespectful to walk in and just stand there, not even sit down when asked.

Edit: However we have churches and preachers doing sermons about politics every week in this country so I guess we should ban all those too to so we can avoid such protests?

[CJD]

This looks like an example where one side jumped to racism too quickly.

That said, it's surprising to me that there isn't already an MLKJ Blvd in KC. I figured every city had one by now. The guy is right that that doesn't reflect favorably on the city that so many people are eager to remove the name, even if it was changed improperly.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-06-2019, 04:01 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Oh i assumed they were having services at the time.

No, as GM admits below.

(11-06-2019, 04:13 PM)GMDino Wrote: No it was during a meeting to rally people to get out and vote:



I still think it was disrespectful to walk in and just stand there, not even sit down when asked.

So, peaceful, silent protest is disrespectful?  Got it.  I'll have to remember your position on this for when you contradict yourself later.

Quote:Edit:  However we have churches and preachers doing sermons about politics every week in this country so I guess we should ban all those too to so we can avoid such protests?

A politically charged sermon is a far different thing than a political rally held at a church, or any other place of worship.  If you're using the building for a purpose other than a religious service then it is no different than having it anywhere else.  Would the silent peaceful protestors have been "disrespectful" if the rally was being held at a local park, a community center or a library?

[GMDino]

(11-06-2019, 04:34 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: No, as GM admits below.

"GM" requoted the original article that "GM" quoted in the OP.

"admits"


Personally I found it to be more intimidating than protesting to stand there quietly and not even respond to the people in the church.

But I also didn't like them being called racist with no proof.

I've been perfectly clear.

"contradict"

Do you have ANYTHING to add to the story or just more posts about me? 'Cause I'm tired of your games...they are boring, distract from the board and of no use to me. Have a good day.

[*bfine32*]

Quick thoughts:
From what I understand this was a political event held at a church; I think it's unfair for the reverend to suggest they are disrespecting the House of the Lord by standing when he used it for political measures. Should have held the rally at a community center or park depending on weather.

It was wrong for the protestors to stand and I'm against any group who occupies the same area as a group who has scheduled a rally.

It brings to mind one interpretation I've been told to explain the concept of separation of Church and State. Back in the olden days the only common structure was always the Church. And separation of church and state was to ensure the reasons for the gathering was understood and rules of decorum were adjusted.

[GMDino]

(11-06-2019, 04:31 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: This looks like an example where one side jumped to racism too quickly.

That said, it's surprising to me that there isn't already an MLKJ Blvd in KC. I figured every city had one by now. The guy is right that that doesn't reflect favorably on the city that so many people are eager to remove the name, even if it was changed improperly.

My guess is they will find a way to change a part of it or another road the "right way".  Then we'll see if there are more protests for less reasonable reasons.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-06-2019, 04:48 PM)GMDino Wrote: "GM" requoted the original article that "GM" quoted in the OP.

"admits"

Yeah, you admitted this was true.  This is an appropriate use of the word.  Quit feeling so persecuted.

Quote:Personally I found it to be more intimidating than protesting to stand there quietly and not even respond to the people in the church.

But I also didn't like them being called racist with no proof.

I've been perfectly clear.

"contradict"

They were silent and peaceful.  I would think anyone who supports the rights of our citizens to peaceful protest would have no issue with that.  When I use the term contradict, I mean down the road.  It'll happen, I'm very confident.

Quote:Do you have ANYTHING to add to the story or just more posts about me? 'Cause I'm tired of your games...they are boring, distract from the board and of no use to me.  Have a good day.

Every single post has been about the story.  Again, stop feeling so persecuted.  Just do please remember that you don't support peaceful protest the next time someone gets kicked out of a Trump rally for protesting.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(11-06-2019, 03:14 PM)GMDino Wrote: I don't know if it's racism, but I do know that it was not respectful to go and stand in that church.

A little dialogue would go a long way here.

(11-06-2019, 03:35 PM)michaelsean Wrote: I doubt most of the people were against it for racial reasons, but I agree that going to their church was in bad taste.

You two managed to agree on something, but I am going to actually disagree here with you two for one specific reason, and here's why...

Quote:...hosting a get-out-the-vote rally for people wanting to keep the King name.

When you are actively using the church as a political gathering ground for a political vote that is not related to your religion (so we're not talking abortion, or being able to wear hajibs, or something else where it would make sense for it to be religion-based) then I think you've opened yourself up a little to being a peaceful protesting ground for the opposition. If they were just having Sunday Mass or whatnot and protesters came in, that'd be messed up, but they weren't, so it isn't.

Using a "church of Jesus Christ" for non-religious politics and then claiming that politics aren't appropriate there is a bit slimy.

[SunsetBengal]

A couple of observations. Seems like the folks of KC aren't against a MLK dedication, just not the most historic boulevard in the city. Looks to me like City Council acted on their own rogue motives to ambiguously name a street, without first getting approval of their constituents.

On a side note about the protesters in the Church. I think it was wrong for the Pastor to invoke the "House of the Lord" into the fray, when the building was clearly being used for a political gathering.

Lastly, I find it curious, if not satisfyingly amusing that the OP, who covers this forum with threads similar to a shotgun blast, would get upset that another member would take interest in responding to him.

[Dill]

(11-06-2019, 05:48 PM)bfine32 Wrote: It was wrong for the protestors to stand and I'm against any group who occupies the same area as a group who has scheduled a rally.

It brings to mind one interpretation I've been told to explain the concept of separation of Church and State. Back in the olden days the only common structure was always the Church. And separation of church and state was to ensure the reasons for the gathering was understood and rules of decorum were adjusted.

Tend to agree with you on the bolded.  

The church was "home" to many of the pro-King Blvd faction, so it was a much more intimate setting than, say, a community center or a public park.

Also, protests of this type normally form at a distance--across the street or down the block from whatever they are protesting.

In this case, to go right inside the church members' intimate space and refuse dialogue seems more deliberate provocation and insult than "protest-cuz-we're-all-in-the-same-community-and-we-want-our-views-heard-and-respected-and-process-followed."  People were invited to discuss if not support the proposal, and the protestors pointedly did neither.  The message was more "Look, we can do this, and you can't stop us, and we don't have to explain."

Surprising that a group of ministers fought for two years to get the council vote, but the anti-renaming petitioners only found out after the vote.

People thinking through their protest of the MLK renaming could certainly foresee charges of "racism," and might have deflected them with a sitdown and mega-alternative that reflected sincerity in honoring King. (63rd street probably wouldn't cut it.)  Is it utterly IMPOSSIBLE that racism has something to do with unnaming the street in the last major city of the US not to have an MLK street?  

[Dill]

(11-06-2019, 08:06 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Lastly, I find it curious, if not satisfyingly amusing that the OP, who covers this forum with threads similar to a shotgun blast, would get upset that another member would take interest in responding to him.  

I think our OP is thankful for general interest in the topics upon which he posts and likely enjoys hearing all sides.

He gets his back up, though, when discussion of his alleged personal flaws is insistently substituted for the thread topic, and in thread after thread by the same poster. If the OP defends himself, that generates the kind off-topic personal "discussion" that often leads to lock down, doesn't it? And if he doesn't, then the stalker just gets to snipe at him all day.

Either way, it is a distraction for rest of us trying to continue our discussion on topic.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-06-2019, 08:58 PM)Dill Wrote: I think our OP is thankful for general interest in the topics upon which he posts and likely enjoys hearing all sides.

He gets his back up, though, when discussion of his alleged personal flaws is insistently substituted for the thread topic, and in thread after thread by the same poster. If the OP defends himself, that generates the kind off-topic personal "discussion" that often leads to lock down, doesn't it? And if he doesn't, then the stalker just gets to snipe at him all day.

Either way, it is a distraction for rest of us trying to continue our discussion on topic.

I will call out his BS every time I see it.  Seeing as how I responded to the point of the thread in every post maybe you should spare us all your sanctimony and let your boy defend himself.

[*bfine32*]

(11-06-2019, 08:24 PM)Dill Wrote: Tend to agree with you on the bolded.  

The church was "home" to many of the pro-King Blvd faction, so it was a much more intimate setting than, say, a community center or a public park.

Also, protests of this type normally form at a distance--across the street or down the block from whatever they are protesting.

In this case, to go right inside the church members' intimate space and refuse dialogue seems more deliberate provocation and insult than "protest-cuz-we're-all-in-the-same-community-and-we-want-our-views-heard-and-respected-and-process-followed."  People were invited to discuss if not support the proposal, and the protestors pointedly did neither.  The message was more "Look, we can do this, and you can't stop us, and we don't have to explain."

Surprising that a group of ministers fought for two years to get the council vote, but the anti-renaming petitioners only found out after the vote.

People thinking through their protest of the MLK renaming could certainly foresee charges of "racism," and might have deflected them with a sitdown and mega-alternative that reflected sincerity in honoring King. (63rd street probably wouldn't cut it.)  Is it utterly IMPOSSIBLE that racism has something to do with unnaming the street in the last major city of the US not to have an MLK street?  

I'm not sure the Church being "home" excuses the pastor using it for political motives and then asking others to respect a house of the lord. Matter of fact I am sure; he forfeited that sanctity. 

As far as your preference protesters form at a distance; I'll assume you'll criticize all protesters who fail to do so. I know I will.

You view of this matter seems to be a little "slanted" but that could just be my observation of it. You may be calling it down the middle.