The day after we celebrated the national holiday of the birth of Martin Luther King, Jr., the Associated Press published a story seemingly meant to stir race hatred by bringing up the fact that in the state of Arkansas the memorial recognition of Confederate General Robert E. Lee's birthday is on the same day as that of King's observance there. Trying to fan the flames of racism by bringing up a Confederate general, the AP even seems to complain that Martin Luther King Drive in Little Rock, Arkansas is a shorter street than Robert E. Lee Avenue! How petty of the AP, eh? It's all not very I-have-a-deamish of the AP to so pointlessly fan these race flames, is it?
With the pointed headline, "Arkansas Lauds MLK, Gen. Lee on Same Day," and reminding us that King is a "slain civil rights leader," the AP wags a finger and lets us know about the confluence of celebration of the two men's birthdays.
While the nation honors the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. on Monday, three states celebrate another man as well. In Arkansas, Alabama and Mississippi, the slain civil rights leader shares a state holiday with Robert E. Lee, commanding officer of the Confederate Army.
And, yes, the AP did delight in pointing out that King's street is shorter than Lee's...
Streets bearing their names intersect in Little Rock, though Lee Avenue is much longer than King Drive.
Now, I've always heard that it isn't the length of the street that matters, it's the.... well, you know. Still, this seems a petty factoid to point out and also one that doesn't seem to hold any real meaning. How exactly does the length of a street equate to the relative importance of the person for whom it is named?
The AP does their best to stir controversy over this apparently woeful coupling of Lee's and King's days in Arkansas. They try to get all sorts of outraged reaction on the fact, but find few takers.
First they attempt to get Arkansas state Senator Tracy Steele to break bad on general R.E.Lee, but Steele says, "there's not been the type of community outcry" about it. They mention that the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette runs a page long Lee editorial as well as a King editorial every year and no one is bothered by it. Even the quote from the Arkansas chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People didn't exactly express any outrage over the whole thing.
So the question becomes... what the heck is the AP's point? After all, no one is all hot and bothered by it, so why the article? There's no controversy, no outrage, no question that these states wish to celebrate the lives of both men.
All in all, the AP article neither presents an argument, nor reports on anything of note.
So what could be AP's ultimate reasoning for this piece but to stir outrage about coupling a Confederate general's birthday with that of the "slain civil rights leader"? It seems that the AP is trying to use their pulpit as a national news source to stir other areas of the country against the practice in Arkansas, Alabama and Mississippi.
Stirring the pot, it's called.
Well thanks for the "help" there, AP. But, here's an idea... try writing about news instead of trying to create it.
















Editor at Large
Comments Policy
I know it probably seems
January 22, 2008 - 15:09 ET by balboaI know it probably seems like I just disagree with anything WTH posts, but...he seems to be consistently wrong.
There are no flames being fanned here. I found it an interesting article about the coincidental memorials being on the same day. MLK and Lee remembered on the same day? That's interesting. There's no outrage in the article, just presenting a unique situation.
Since you chase me around to
January 22, 2008 - 15:13 ET by Warner Todd HustonSince you chase me around to disagree with me on every posting, did you ever think it was you who was wrong?
LOL.
I always allow for that
January 22, 2008 - 15:17 ET by balboaI always allow for that possibility. But in these last few instances...nope. :-)
I only allow for the
January 22, 2008 - 15:22 ET by Warner Todd HustonI only allow for the possibility that I'm always right. My WIFE, on the other hand, seems to think that my assumption is a mistake!
LOL.
there must be a school that
January 22, 2008 - 19:01 ET by red_dragon311there must be a school that women go to, because I havent' been right about anything for the last 10 years....and I have been married for the last 10 years
"Get off the phone you big dope!!!!!!!!!!" Mark Levin
Acutally it is a problem...
January 22, 2008 - 15:25 ET by vaboxrboyI am a black guy and I used to live in Virginia and it is a slap in the face to have both things celebrated on the same day. Regardless of whether the AP article stirred anything up, to honor everthing Dr. King was against on the very day set aside for him is troubling.
BTW talk about stirring up racial issues, did you check out Sean Hannity last night on his show actually using MLK's own speech to promote reverse racism? And he has done it each night for almost a week. Don't feign concern unless you can look at the big picture.
Disgraceful!
But wasn't Lee's day already
January 22, 2008 - 15:30 ET by NewsbusterbrownBut wasn't Lee's day already on that day? It's not as if Virginia gave it to him after the fact as a slap in the face to MLK.
Virginia changed the dates...
January 22, 2008 - 16:01 ET by mvfreemanThey now have separate holidays...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_E._Lee#Holidays
Late
January 22, 2008 - 15:25 ET by mvfreemanThis was on Fark a day or two ago.
Since you are going to presume the motives for the article I'll do the same and say that you too are just trying to fan the flames of outrage.
Come on, I'm sure lots of people would think its a little ironic that MLK day is observed on the same day as General Lee's. Don't have to be outraged about it.
That isn't irony. (why does
January 22, 2008 - 15:29 ET by Warner Todd HustonThat isn't irony. (why does everyone get irony wrong?)
You also forget that they were both born very close to each other. Why should these states be told they aren't allowed to celebrate the life of a man they revere?
Do you know anything about Robert E. Lee?
Well, Alanis had problems
January 22, 2008 - 15:33 ET by balboaWell, Alanis had problems with irony, but:
Incongruity between what might be expected and what actually occurs.
I wouldn't expect a civil rights leaders' national holiday to also be occupied by a southern general's.
... maybe I have the problem
January 22, 2008 - 15:40 ET by Warner Todd Huston... maybe I have the problem with irony, then?
Still, I don't know why it isn't "expected" that certain southern states still want to celebrate a man that died a hundred years before King had his day!?
Balboa
January 22, 2008 - 15:50 ET by KillgraveYou are mistaking coincidence with irony.
Are you intellectually dishonest or just plain ignorant?
I don't think I
January 22, 2008 - 15:52 ET by balboaI don't think I am.
Incongruity between what might be expected and what actually occurs.
Would you expect MLK and E. Lee to be remembered on the same day? Maybe you would.
Are you kill or just grave?
There are 365 days in a
January 22, 2008 - 16:01 ET by KillgraveThere are 365 days in a year, which makes coincidences not that improbable.
Sam Raimi is one of my favorite directors. We also share the same birthday. I am not stunned by the "irony".
MLK was a civil rights leader.
Lee was a confederate general who fought for states' rights, and was considered by his enemies a highly honorable man. I don't think he was necessarily an arch enemy of black people, despite decades of revisionist propaganda. And this is coming from a proud northerner.
MLK was a civil rights
January 22, 2008 - 16:15 ET by balboaMLK was a civil rights leader. E. Lee led the South in a war to preserve their way of life, which included among other things the right to keep slaves. Those two things don't match up.
You and Sam Raimi sharing a birthday is a coincidence. Celebrating people of two opposing viewpoints on the same day seems like a good case for irony.
You're cracking a little.
January 22, 2008 - 16:36 ET by KillgraveYou're cracking a little. You inserted "among other things".
Those "other things" include states' rights and the conflict of agriculture versus industry, which any intellectually honest historian would weigh heavier than the simple (though highly emotional) issue of slavery.
But the liberals want to paint it all with the brush of slavery, and stereotype all the honorable men (who Lincoln himself praised) as black-hating, racist rednecks who only fought to keep "the black man down", even though a great majority of them didn't own slaves.
Too busy to google right now
January 22, 2008 - 17:06 ET by mvfreemanSo tell me, wasnt the south's agricultural economy predicated on slave labor? From what I recall, without slave labor the south's economy would not have been profitable.
No one here is arguing that slavery was the sole issue for the civil war.
cause
January 22, 2008 - 20:56 ET by easygoerIt had everthing to do with slavery.
My sarcasm meter might be broken...
January 22, 2008 - 23:33 ET by mvfreemanThere were lots of issues involved in the southern states decision to secede. Slavery was definitely not the only one.
However in the instance of agriculture versus industry, slavery was a major issue. Namely, northern states factories weren't dependent upon slave labor as southern plantations were.
*
January 22, 2008 - 23:55 ET by R D Helm*
It wasn't the cause of the
January 22, 2008 - 23:56 ET by balboaIt wasn't the cause of the Civil War, but it most assuredly was one of the things at stake, and would have continued much longer if the South had won the war, right?
bal,
January 23, 2008 - 00:11 ET by R D HelmSlavery would not have lasted much longer, even if the South had won. Public sentiment was turning against it even before the war started.
The war was started due to the fact that my southern ancestors resented the federal government sticking its nose in places they felt the feds did not belong. They were huge believers in States Rights. I know that has become a dirty term for many, but they were strict constitutionalists, who believed, quite rightly, that the states held precedence everywhere except in areas of national defense and ensuring the free flow of interstate commerce. The only two places the federal government was originally empowered.
The downside to the South losing was that it gave the federal government power far in excess of what it was originally intended to have. Even if the South had prevailed, I doubt theConfederacy would have lasted very long. Maybe 50 years or so, then it would have begun seeking reinstatement into the Union, as the South had nowhere near the industrial base of the North.
Still, southerners have a rather strong independent streak. It lives on today, only to a lesser extent.
None are so hopelessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free. -J.W. von Goethe
Wow, my original post went poof.
January 23, 2008 - 00:27 ET by R D HelmMust have messed up during editing. Sorry.
My original point was that the Civil War would have been fought even if slavery had not existed. Slavery didn't become an issue until well into the second year of the war.
None are so hopelessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free. -J.W. von Goethe
Agree with much of what you
January 23, 2008 - 00:40 ET by JerAgree with much of what you say R D....nevertheless:
The fuse for war was lit with the election of Lincoln [meaning the southern states would not be permitted to peaceably leave the Union] which precipitated secession, the establishment of the CSA, the seizure of federal property, the reinforcement of Sumpter, and its being fired upon and surrendered to Beauregard.
But the unquestionable underlying irresolvable social fuel for this explosion was the institution of slavery.
Jer
Jer,
January 23, 2008 - 22:36 ET by R D HelmLOL-Hey, I just have to make sure the other side is presented. I mean, I have seen many text books (the few that actually even got near this subject) and they are all written to make it sound as though the "Yankees" went to war with us "Rebels" solely to end slavery. Hogwash.
Sorry, but that angle always gets me a little, ahh, riled, if you know what I mean.
Let's face it, the north treated blacks rather poorly themselves, so for them to be claiming the moral high ground in all this is somwhat disingenuous.
Besides, I had ancestors on both sides of that war.
None are so hopelessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free. -J.W. von Goethe
Wonder why Arkansas governor
January 23, 2008 - 04:01 ET by TheDeuceWonder why Arkansas governor Billy Jeff, who became the 1st black president, didn't do anything about it?
I was once in a room of 20
January 22, 2008 - 16:14 ET by Dan The Man 2I was once in a room of 20 people and 3 of us had the same birth day, but not year. Now that is improbable. I personally dont see any problem with it. Lee was a good general and deserves to be honored. After all we are all Americans are we not. The war between the states was about the rights of the state and had little to do with slavery except it was one of the rights they wanted to keep.
And according to the constitution any laws not specifically given to teh Feds was in teh purview of the states.
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.
The AP fanning flames, nigh, even creating flames?
January 22, 2008 - 15:29 ET by c5thenWhat a surprise! NOT! It's what the AP does. Manufacture a "controversy" or some sort of "us" vs "them" issue. That is when they aren't demeaning the military or supporting terrorists.
The day that "politician" became a career choice is the day we started losing the Republic. Let's get it back! Alan Keyes '08.
So just bringing up the
January 22, 2008 - 15:34 ET by balboaSo just bringing up the fact that these two are celebrated on the same day in Arkansas is "fanning flames"? Is manufacturing controversy?
So just bringing up the
January 22, 2008 - 15:42 ET by Warner Todd HustonYou don't think its fanning flames and creating controversy when there is NO controversy where it is happening, yet the AP still wants to write about it? If there is nothing happening, nothing going on.... WHY did AP write about it if not to stir things?
There's nothing in the
January 22, 2008 - 15:48 ET by balboaThere's nothing in the story to suggest a controversy. As I see it, it's interesting. Sometimes people write stories because the subject is interesting. "Huh. MLK and E. Lee on the same day? Who woulda thunk?"
I SERIOUSLY doubt the AP writer was like "This is B.S.! I've got to let the world know about this injustice! To the laptop!"
Then we certainly disagree
January 22, 2008 - 15:51 ET by Warner Todd HustonThen we certainly disagree because I see no other reason to write this story unless it is to raise outrage that the two famous men share birthday celebrations. It certainly isn't a story in Arkansas. Even the AP couldn't find anyone outraged about it and they tried hard to get people to say they WERE outraged.
Define "tried hard."
January 22, 2008 - 15:53 ET by balboaDefine "tried hard."
Think of it as the same
January 22, 2008 - 17:48 ET by Warner Todd HustonThink of it as the same effort you put into insisting that everyone else but you is wrong. It's THAT intense! See what I mean?
Yes. Because it only happens every 5 years or so
January 22, 2008 - 16:12 ET by c5thenWhen the official Monday MLK observance and the REL birthday actually coinside. And,,,as you point out it only happens in Arkasas. Why does the AP feel that is news to the rest of the world?
The day that "politician" became a career choice is the day we started losing the Republic. Let's get it back! Alan Keyes '08.
Burn MSM Burn
January 22, 2008 - 15:31 ET by Six String SpiffYou know, it's things like this that make one wish certain media outlets would accidentally catch on fire.
national holidays
January 22, 2008 - 15:43 ET by easygoerAt least MLK Jr. gets a federal holiday. Meanwhile, greater men like Washington and Lincoln get lumped in with non entities like Millard Fillmore and Jimmy Carter on Presidents Day. If King is a martyr, what does make the murdered Lincoln?
I take umbrage. James
January 22, 2008 - 16:49 ET by KillgraveI take umbrage. James Carter is a fierce patriot and the scourge of aquatic rabbits everywhere.
Don't forget... it wasn't BEHIND the rabbit. It WAS the rabbit!
There are trillions of
January 22, 2008 - 15:53 ET by KillgraveThere are trillions of streets in this country named after MLK. If you add all those streets together I'm sure their lengthage would far exceed Lee's.
Which pretty much fits the stereotype, hunh?
Killgrave
January 22, 2008 - 17:23 ET by RESTLESS 1"There are trillions of streets in this country named after MLK."
And thanks to liberal democratics, none of them are in good neighborhoods.
This is yellow journalism.
January 22, 2008 - 15:54 ET by rbosqueThis is yellow journalism. Plain & simple.
Your right Warner. I live
January 22, 2008 - 15:55 ET by shannon20Your right Warner. I live in Georgia, and wouldn't mind it if we celebrated Lees' B'day here. What are we so politically correct that we will try to wipe out any history that some don't like. Too damn bad. Get over yourselves.
Um...you do...
January 22, 2008 - 16:09 ET by mvfreemanRobert E. Lee's birthday is a state holiday...
http://www.georgia.gov/00/article/0,2086,4802_64437763_64437768,00.html
But they moved the observed date to November 28th.
um, OK... damn
January 22, 2008 - 16:40 ET by shannon20I guess I was confused, cause you never hear of anything about it here. You damn sure aren't gonna get a day off for it.
You might get a day off...
January 22, 2008 - 17:16 ET by mvfreemanIf you work for a state agency or your boss usually gives you off the Friday after Thanksgiving.
I'm still recovering from
January 22, 2008 - 20:22 ET by the strugglerI'm still recovering from Elvis' birthday.Jan.8
The AP is missing only one
January 23, 2008 - 00:12 ET by nwahsThe AP is missing only one letter, "C"
The Asssociated Piece of Cr..
oh figure it out