"Rosa Parks was a plant"

[Nova Land]

'Red' Rosa Parks
http://www.rense.com/general68/rosa.htm

Thanks for the reminder that, back in the 1940s, many right-wingers believed that the idea of giving blacks equal rights was a Communist plot. I touched on this in a thread a couple of years ago, " Irrational Anti-Communism and the Fight Against Racial Equality", but I'm glad for an excuse to mention it again. It's something which is too often forgotten.

I can understand the desire of modern conservatives to put behind them this embarrassing piece of the past. But a myth has sprung up in the last couple of decades -- fostered by Rush Limbaugh, among others -- that it was conservatives who were the true supporters of civil rights in the '50s.

That, of course, is turning history on its head. The civil rights movement was seen as a liberal cause (and routinely denounced as such, even by relatively sane conservatives such as William F Buckley). More extreme elements on the right went further, denouncing the civil rights movement as Communistic. "Race-mixing" was seen as part of the whole Communist plot to destroy America -- since it was an article of faith among many on the right that it was miscegenation which had brought down the Roman Empire and all the other great empires of the past.

Thank goodness that bit of insanity is largely gone and forgotten. But, as your link illustrates, there are still some out there who buy into it.

For those who don't have the time or stomach to wade through the site you linked to, here's a quick excerpt which illustrates what I'm referring to. Back in the 1940s and 1950, there were many right-wingers who seriously believed that the passage quoted was a genuine captured Communist document:

... It appears to be spelled out in a document entitled "A Racial Program for the 20th Century" (1912) by an Israel Cohen quoted by Congressman Abernathy, and entered into the Congressional Record (1957), p. 8559. If authentic, it is pretty damning: "We must realize that our party's most powerful weapon is racial tension. By propounding into the consciousness of the dark races that for centuries they have been oppressed by the whites, we can move them to the program of the communist party. In America we will aim for subtle victory. While inflaming the Negro minority against whites, we will instill in the whites a guilt complex for their exploitation of the Negroes. We will aid the Negroes to rise to prominence in every walk of life, in the professions, and in the world of sports and entertainment. With this prestige, the Negro will be able to intermarry with the whites and begin a process which will deliver America to our cause."

 

[Brainache]

Just for your info. Novaland, MaGZ is probably being serious about the Commie plot. He has some pretty strange ideas. I'm surprised he didn't say Rosa Parks was a Jew.

 

[Nova Land]

Hate to tell you this, Sez, but planning an event IS a CONSPIRACY.

Beanbag

Only if said event is illegal.

-Gumboot

No, that's not necessarily true -- although it does illustrate a problem with the English language. There are several different definitions of conspiracy, and a couple of them are directly contradictory.

One definition of conspiracy does indeed require that wrong-doing or crime be involved ("an evil, unlawful, treacherous, or surreptitious plan formulated in secret by two or more persons; plot.") But another -- equally valid -- definition of conspiracy defines it simply as "any concurrence in action; combination in bringing about a given result.".

So whether a conspiracy has to involve wrong-doing or doesn't depends on whether you're talking about the kind of conspiracy which does have to include wrong-doing or the kind of conspiracy which doesn't...

 

[Brainster]

IIRC the character played by Cedric the Entertainer voiced this CT in the movie, Barbershop, but I think it was played for laughs, that saying this sort of thing in that location was a way of stirring up a hornet's nest.

Put me in with those who doubt the CT, but couldn't care less if it did turn out to be true.

 

[boloboffin]

Nova, just so you understand, MaGZ is serious.

My take is this: the word selected is being used by Rosa as code for the religious language of being called. Colvin didn't give up her seat as part of a plan, but the community leaders quickly saw the benefit of supporting her case. When her life situation negated that benefit, an opportunity might have been lost.

But Rosa knew about this. No one told her, "Rosa, keep your seat next time." Nobody asked her to. But she saw the need. And one day, when everything came together, she kept her seat. And at the end of it all, it may simply have come down to the final straw being that she was tired. She was tired, and the law was injust, and the law had to go. It was an act of passive resistance. Calculation did go into it - that's why it was so successful in launching the Montgomery bus boycotts.

I agree that this is one of the silliest CTs I've ever read. I hope everyone knows that Rosa wasn't even in the Whites Only section. She was in the front row of "the back of the bus," and Montgomery law stated that when the white section filled up, then blacks had to vacate rows closest to the front when a new white passenger boarded. One person meant that up to four people would have to move. That is the kind of crap blacks in Montgomery were putting up with day after day.

Rosa Parks was selected by her day and age. When the first person to be selected couldn't be sustained, Rosa stepped up to answer the call. It was just as much Alabama law selecting her as it was her community, just as much The Man as humanity. It was Rosa Park's God that selected first Colvin and then her for the duty, you better believe it. This Alabama-born atheist does.

 

[Brainache]

Technically I suppose in that time and place what Ms Parks did was against the law (an unjust law to be sure). So if she conspired with others to stay in her seat, I guess it is conspiracy.

I can't see that it matters all that much, it still took a lot of courage to stand up (sit down) to injustice.

 

[steverino]

Wrong Dayton -- the Scopes trial happened in Dayton, Tennessee, not Dayton, OH.

OK.

 

[beachnut]

Rosa Parks was part of a conspiracy-a communist conspiracy.

http://www.martinlutherking.org/articles/rosaparks.html

How do you always find NAZI junk? What a bunch of undereducated guys posting at that web site. Why do NAZIs always seem so undereducated?

Yes it was a conspiracy to expose the hypocrites we are, can be, and have been. Next.

 

[Nova Land]

Nova, just so you understand, MaGZ is serious.

Well, I did say in my post: "... as your link illustrates, there are still some out there who buy into it."

In one way, it is good that there are still a few who remain who still believe this nonsense. It makes it just a little harder for Limbaugh and other revisionists to deny this was once a common view among the far right.

My take is this: the word selected is being used by Rosa as code for the religious language of being called.

One slight problem with that: it is qayak, not Rosa Park, who used the word selected. The word Rosa Parks used in the passage qayak presented is opportunity.

... No one told her, "Rosa, keep your seat next time." Nobody asked her to. But she saw the need. And one day, when everything came together, she kept her seat.

Yes. I think that is a reasonable interpretation of events. Rosa Parks was more aware than the average person of what had been done by others. Rosa Parks was more aware than the average person of what could be done. I think it was inevitable that someone in Montgomery would refuse to move when asked, but Rosa Parks' background made it a little more likely that she would be the one than someone else who wasn't immersed in the civil rights movement.

Today, protest -- even civil disobedience -- has become respectable. Even devout born-again Christians get arrested nowadays (to protest abortion, for example), and shout hallelujah when they do. Back in the '50s things were considerably different. For most people, breaking the law was not something nice people did. It was a lot easier for people who were immersed in a culture (the civil rights movement) which celebrated the brave few who were willing to stand up for their rights in this way.

Because Rosa Parks had been active in the NAACP for more than a decade, it was considerably easier for her to take that step of refusing to get up even when ordered to by an authority figure. It can't have been easy for her; but it probably was a lot easier for her to refuse to do than it would have been for most Montgomerians.

 

[Foolmewunz]

A well-referenced article which might give you guys a little more perspective. It's not "web-friendly", e.g. no hyperlinks, but if you really want to, you can look up the sources he mentions.

http://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/?article=169

I came out of that movement. Or, more accurately, my mother did and I was a precocious brat so spent many an evening listening to political and activist discussions.

MLK's predecessor had been violating the move-back rules for years, and after being ejected from a bus, actually started a boycott on his own, because the board at his church told him to stop defying the law. He preached that all blacks should follow him and take up walking.

Qayak's contention that Rosa Parks was "selected" is partially accurate. There were numerous incidents that the movement could have chosen to latch onto. This incident was chosen because of the respect for Rosa in the black community. But it is inaccurate in terms of today's politicization of issues. There were no reporters standing by to capture the moment. Parks' arrest was selected, .... after the fact.



I grew up in segregated New Orleans. I remember the move-back rules. In fact, the seats on the bus had movable signs. A group of white passengers would get on and one of them would just move the "colored" sign back a few seats and all blacks would dutifully get up and move back. After the desegregation decision by SCOTUS, it was actually funny to see a black sit down in the front area of the bus, and any number of whites get up and move to the rear rather than sitting next to someone of another race!



Aside(a note on innocence):
My mom was Jewish, from Ohio. Until I was about nine, we lived near the University, and a relatively liberal (well, radical in retrospect) community. I hadn't actually encountered any Jim Crow situations, but when we moved up to the French Quarter, we were within hailing distance of Canal Street and the big department stores and shopping areas. I can remember my younger brother and myself (me at nine, him about seven) in Woolworth's being utterly disappointed because the "Colored" water fountain gave out regular looking water. We thought "colored" meant that it was going to dispense rainbow-striped water!

 

[Nova Land]

I hope everyone knows that Rosa wasn't even in the Whites Only section. She was in the front row of "the back of the bus," and Montgomery law stated that when the white section filled up, then blacks had to vacate rows closest to the front when a new white passenger boarded....

I have one slight correction to make to your post. You are correct that Rosa Parks was sitting in the black section of the bus when she was asked to move. And you are correct about why she was asked to move. But I believe you are incorrect that this was a provision of Montgomery law.

This is something I'll need to look up to be sure about, but my recollection is that the law actually said just the opposite. It was Montgomery custom, rather than law, which dictated this be done.

If my memory is correct, then blacks actually tried to challenge this practice in court since the law was on their side. But law is only good if you can get them enforced. The courts sided with the blacks, but the law enforcement sided with the drivers.

Both Colvin and Parks were fully within the law in refusing to move. The law they were charged with breaking was probably refusal to obey a police officer.

This is the Catch-22 which was used frequently against civil rights and anti-war leafletters, demonstraters, and picketers in the 1950s, 196os, and probably even into the 1970s. A police officer would come along to people peacefully leafletting, picketing, or otherwise expressing an unpopular view and tell them they weren't allowed to do that. If the people argued, or refused to obey, the officer could (and sometimes did) arrest them.

It made no difference (then) that the police officer was completely incorrect in claiming their actions were illegal. Disobeying an officer was illegal in itself.

I think (hope!) that the ACLU has successfully challenged that practice in the years since then. But back then it was legal and common for police to do this.

 

[PhantomWolf]

'Red' Rosa Parks
http://www.rense.com/general68/rosa.htm

You know, linking to Rense isn't any better than linking to a neo-nazi site. He doesn't have the brain power to understand that a leaf blower is not the equivalent of the LM descent engine and that a linesman's glove at 1 atm is nothing like a spacesuit's glove at 0.3 atm. The guy is a grade 1 fruit cake with extra nuts. In fact the only person on the planet who is probably more deserving of a padded room than Rense is Nancy Leider.

 

[332nd]

{Mild mannered Redtail ducks into a phone booth and emerges as... Bamp-badda-Ba! Black History Maaaaaan!}

"A plant" wouldn't be the phrase I'd use but it could apply, also it could be called a conspiracy. Gayak pretty much has the events right, so why would I not use "plant" or "conspiricy"? Because those words at first glance make it seem like a bad thing. As mentioned before the act of Rosa Parks was illegal but it was an unjust law (I don't think it was a law but for lack of a better word..)that made it so, therefore she broke the law and attention was drawn to said unjust law AND her. Since so much attention would be drawn to her it would be best if she had as few skeletons in her closet as possible.

Think about it this way...

****The following is purely hypothetical!****

A nationaly televised debate against the truthers is set up, one spot is left for our side, you have the deciding vote, and it's between Gravy, Marky X, and Architect. Not much known about Gravy's personal life but Marky X has a marijuana charge from when he was 16, and Architect got wasted one night and pictures of him in a thong and elf shoes made it to the internet. If you want to make sure the focus stays on the facts of 9/11, who would you send?

 

[AZCat]

Think about it this way...

****The following is purely hypothetical!****

A nationaly televised debate against the truthers is set up, one spot is left for our side, you have the deciding vote, and it's between Gravy, Marky X, and Architect. Not much known about Gravy's personal life but Marky X has a marijuana charge from when he was 16, and Architect got wasted one night and pictures of him in a thong and elf shoes made it to the internet. If you want to make sure the focus stays on the facts of 9/11, who would you send?

It may seem counter-intuitive, but I'd trust Architect more than the others. Anyone who has had to deal with pictures like that would be well-versed in dealing with the attacks on character that would be part of the truther tactics regardless who is representing the side of sanity.

 

[332nd]

It may seem counter-intuitive, but I'd trust Architect more than the others. Anyone who has had to deal with pictures like that would be well-versed in dealing with the attacks on character that would be part of the truther tactics regardless who is representing the side of sanity.

True.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Could someone post a link to the pictures. Architect says he was banned from LCF for no reason. Maybe these newly uncovered pictures had something to do with it.

Just asking questions.

 

[steverino]

I admit I am in over my head on this thread. So could someone here, in real simple terms, tell me if Rosa Parks was "picked" as a candidate to protest because another woman of color was unwed and pregnant, or is this a myth?

 

[Carnivore]

I have one slight correction to make to your post. You are correct that Rosa Parks was sitting in the black section of the bus when she was asked to move. And you are correct about why she was asked to move. But I believe you are incorrect that this was a provision of Montgomery law.

This is something I'll need to look up to be sure about, but my recollection is that the law actually said just the opposite. It was Montgomery custom, rather than law, which dictated this be done.

If my memory is correct, then blacks actually tried to challenge this practice in court since the law was on their side. But law is only good if you can get them enforced. The courts sided with the blacks, but the law enforcement sided with the drivers.

Both Colvin and Parks were fully within the law in refusing to move.
SNIP

This is something I was going to ask about after reading the earlier posts in this thread.

I'd always been under the impression that Rosa Parks had sat in the "white" section of the bus because the "coloured" section was full. Since I now discover the situation was the other way around, and a white person was seeking to displace her from the "coloured" section, what I would like to know is:

Was Rosa Parks initially attempting to defy the segregation laws when refusing to give up her seat, or was she insisting that the segregation laws be strictly upheld? In other words demanding the "equal" part of "Separate but equal"?

 

[SezMe]

Hate to tell you this, Sez, but planning an event IS a CONSPIRACY.

That's just plain silly. But this thread is too interesting and valuable to get into dictionary slinging so I'll say no more. If you want to pursue it, Beanbag, open another thread and I'll join you there.

 

[Foolmewunz]

I admit I am in over my head on this thread. So could someone here, in real simple terms, tell me if Rosa Parks was "picked" as a candidate to protest because another woman of color was unwed and pregnant, or is this a myth?

Yes, Claudette Colvin, who was 15 or 16 at the time was arrested some months earlier, and the case was going to be the one that the ACLU and NAACP were going to drive to SCOTUS. She got pregnant, though, by an older and married man, and it was decided not to pursue.

There's been nothing written that I've seen, though, that indicates that Parks was chosen in advance as the "plant". They were waiting for the right case to come along, thought they had one with Colvin, but decided not to pursue because of the inevitable attacks on her character, and thus waited for the next possibility. When Parks got arrested and the public outcry and interest was all there, they decided to pursue her case.

Again, though, I've seen nothing to indicate that the Parks defiance was a "set-up".