"Rosa Parks was a plant"

[Foolmewunz]

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"?

The thing is.... There was no law saying that the bus company could NOT arbitrarily decide to move blacks further back in the bus when whites wanted seats. As I mentioned, in New Orleans, there were movable signs (that had two little metal pegs that fit into holes on the railing of the seatback). If you got on a bus that originated in a black neighborhood, it was common that the sign would be all the way up in the front of the streetcar or bus. But as whites got on, they'd just cheerily move the sign further back and all the blacks would have to move back.

I'm not sure if Montgomery actually had signs or a line on the floor or what, but from what I've read, the driver would just announce, "All niggras to the rear!"... Whether that was incorporated into the law or not is not clear, but I believe it's the fact that there was no law preventing them from doing it and it had become common practice.

 

[steverino]

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!

First, thanks for clarifying my Rosa Parks question, and doing so clearly.

Your water fountain memory reminded me of a cartoon my sister's ex-hubby drew in 1963. I just emailed him about it and he sent it to me. Here: CLICK ON CARTOON TO ENLARGE.

 

[LostAngeles]

Nova, I seem to recall Colvin's situation and such being outlined in Lies my Teacher Told Me by James Loewen. (His page here lists him as a sociologist, not a historian.) Sadly, I loaned my copy out at the beginning of the school year and have yet to get it back. Otherwise, I'd check for you.

 

[332nd]

What Fool me said Steverino. The only thing I could add is that I was somewhat suprised to find this was not common knowledge. (My family was very involved with the Civil Rights Movement so I guess I had some inside info.)

As a bit of a side note, if you still have any contact with your sister's Ex, please tell him that I will be using that cartoon in my classes.

 

[Foolmewunz]

I've gotten burned so many times by Wiki that I hadn't thought to check. There's an excellent article on Colvin, and the article on Parks settles my question about the movable sign - Montgomery had them also.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosa_Parks

In Montgomery, the first four rows of bus seats were reserved for white people. Buses had "colored" sections for black people—who made up more than 75 % of the bus system's riders—generally in the rear of the bus. These sections were not fixed in size, but were determined by the placement of a movable sign. Black people also could sit in the middle rows, until the white section was full. Then they had to move to seats in the rear, stand, or, if there was no room, leave the bus. Black people were not allowed to sit across the aisle from white people. The driver also could move the "colored" section sign, or remove it altogether. If white people were already sitting in the front, black people could board to pay the fare, but then had to disembark and reenter through the rear door. There were times when the bus departed before the black customers who had paid made it to the back entrance.

In New Orleans they never had the restriction that a black couldn't even walk through the bus after paying, but everything else sounds the same (except that passengers would move the sign, not the driver).

 

[a_unique_person]

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.

Commie is his fallback position.

 

[westprog]

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?

It seems that Rosa Parks spontaneously decided not to move to the back when told to do so, and was arrested and fined. However, another woman had previously done exactly the same thing. Probably a number of people had refused to move under similar circumstances over the years.

The bus boycott was undoubtedly an organised movement, and it was initiated by Rosa Park's arrest. That is not the same thing as saying that Rosa Park was sent out to get arrested. The leaders of the movement used her as the inspiration.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

I know this may sound silly, but does it really matter if she was a plant?

Rosa Parks was a hero for standing up against a racist law. If it was all planned beforehand or if she received a sudden spontaneous burst of inspiration to do what she did, it's all the same. Her cause was just.

 

[Beanbag]

Let's say two people plan on firebombing a mosque. They get together and discuss their plans. At this point, they haven't actually done anything other than talk. THAT"S a conspiracy, and (if my weak legal memory serves correctly) they can be charged with conspiracy.

PLANNING to do something can be a crime. I think there's a matter of actual intent, the proving of which can be tough on the prosecutor, Which is a good thing, because as a writer, I've "conspired" on paper many times for many crimes.

Beanbag

 

[Nova Land]

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"?

In my opinion: neither.

Yes, she was opposed to segregation, and the bus seating was a result of segregation laws. But I don't think it was segregation per se which made Rosa Parks angry enough to refuse to obey the bus driver that day. Segregation was a side effect of a larger problem, white supremacy -- a belief that blacks were less-than-human and deserved to be treated that way.

Separate but equal was a lie (as were many of the other rationales and code phrases used by racists, such as states rights. The intent of segregation was not to treat blacks as separate, it was to treat blacks as inferior.

The treatment of blacks was not so much about keeping blacks and whites separate -- although that was definitely a part of it. It was about showing blacks how little they mattered. It was about subjecting them to a thousand indignities, constantly. Little things, like calling black men "boy". Little things, like whites calling blacks by their first name, but demanding that blacks address them by a title and last name. Little things, like making blacks enter through the back of the bus -- and then driving off sometimes after they'd paid their fare but before they'd been able to reach the back entrance.

If Rosa Parks had gotten on the bus and sat in the white section, that would have indicated a conscious effort to challenge the segregation laws. But she didn't. She got on, paid her fare, and sat in a seat which according to the rules of the game she was allowed to sit in. And then additional white passengers got on, and the driver wanted to take her seat away from her. He (and the white passengers) were saying, in effect, You don't matter. We're better than you. We are first-class citizens; you are second-class at best. We're people, you're trash.

That's the kind of thing that black people had to put up with all day, every day. And that, I believe, is what Rosa Parks was protesting when she refused to give up her seat. Not segregation per se, but the attitude of white supremacy which underlay segregation.

The bus driver and the white passengers probably didn't even realize how obnoxious their behavior was. It was something they just took for granted they were entitled to do. But they were behaving like jerks; and that, in my opinion, is what Rosa Parks was fed up with and reacting to. This was not a calculated, pre-planned action. It was the action of someone who'd had enough of being insulted and degraded and wasn't going to quietly acquiesce to it this time.

 

[Nova Land]

I know this may sound silly, but does it really matter if she was a plant?

Rosa Parks was a hero for standing up against a racist law. If it was all planned beforehand or if she received a sudden spontaneous burst of inspiration to do what she did, it's all the same. Her cause was just.

Politically speaking, no, it probably doesn't matter very much nowadays whether her actions 50 years ago were spontaneous or planned. It would have been considered significant -- likely a bombshell -- back then, but it's a relatively minor point today. That's why I didn't post this in the Politics section.

But skeptically speaking, yes, it matters. As a skeptic, I am interested in separating what is true from what is false. If qayak were correct that Rosa Parks actions happened as the result of meetings at which she and others had planned out what she would do, that would be worth knowing, since it is not what the official accounts contain. Exposing myths, setting the historical record straight, is a worthwhile endeavor.

Likewise, if qayak is incorrect, and it is gayak and others like him who are spreading a myth, that is worth knowing. Several people in this thread have bought into what gayak claims, and said Parks' actions were the result of a conscious plan. If that's false -- a modern myth -- then it deserves to be exposed as such.

If we, as skeptics, only focus on dishonesty in relation to "important" matters, and ignore or dismiss dishonesty in relation to smaller matters, then people will continue to use dishonest tactics on those smaller matters. And life is made up of many more small things than big things. If people are in the habit of being dishonest in the small things, they are much more likely -- from habit -- to behave dishonestly when the big things come up.

Please re-read qayak's post -- which I quoted in post # 2 of this thread. In his post, qayak used a passage from Rosa Parks' memoir as evidence that her action in refusing to give up her bus seat were the result of meetings and planning. He claims that when she wrote "an opportunity was being given me to do what I had asked of others" she was referring to the NAACP choosing her to carry out this action.

Qayak never actually said that he read her memoirs. (And I strongly suspect he has not, since it seems likely to me the passage in her memoirs actually says something quite different from what qayak is interpreting it to mean.) But by quoting that passage -- and bolding it, for emphasis -- he certainly implies that he has read Parks' memoirs and knows for a fact that in this passage she is talking about having been selected to refuse to give up her seat on the bus as part of a well-planned operation.

If that passage in Rosa Parks' memoir does not mean what qayak has told us it means, then this is an example of the same kind of deceptive behavior which is routinely engaged in by people promoting belief in the paranormal, belief in conspiracy theories, belief in all kinds of things which just aren't so. It is important to point out and oppose such behavior when those promoting belief in homeopathy do it. It is important to point out and oppose such behavior when those promoting belief in bizarre conspiracies do it. And it is important to point out and oppose such behavior even if it is about a historical event which happened 50 years ago.

It's not a matter of life and death. But truth -- and truthfulness -- matters.

 

[steverino]

What Fool me said Steverino. The only thing I could add is that I was somewhat suprised to find this was not common knowledge. (My family was very involved with the Civil Rights Movement so I guess I had some inside info.)

As a bit of a side note, if you still have any contact with your sister's Ex, please tell him that I will be using that cartoon in my classes.

Jay would be proud that you share his cartoon with the class. Also, he was a colleague of Robert Crumb back in the '60's.

I did not learn much detail on the Rosa Parks incident, other than that she refused to give up her seat to a white. Sometimes a person becomes a symbol, and you lose site of certain details. Ultimately it is my fault not to further investigate the story behind the story I was spoon fed in grade school. I once heard Gandhi's grandson on NPR and thought, "Wow, Gandhi had kids! I had no idea." etc.

Anyway, I grew up in a Chicago suburb, Deerfield, with a mildly famous civil rights incident. As I understand it, a black physician expressed interest in buying a home in a new development. The locals freaked out, but could not stop the development. So the housing project stopped, and the village built a public swimming pool there. My dad marched for intigration there, and I think Eleanor Roosevelt joined that march.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deerfield,_Illinois

In 1957, Deerfield passed a referundum to build a park on property which had been proposed for use to build middle income housing. The housing plan including a provision which would have integrated Deerfield, at the time an entirely white community. Instead of the houses, Mitchell Pool and Park was built on the property. The first black family did not move into Deerfield until much later. This episode in Deerfield's history is described in But Not Next Door by Harry and David Rosen (1962).

 

[RSLancastr]

It seems that Rosa Parks spontaneously decided not to move to the back when told to do so, and was arrested and fined.

As I understand it she already was in the back (or wherever the "black section" was.

Once the "white section" was full, she was asked to stand and give her seat to a white man.

That is what she refused to do.

Herbery Kohl's book Should We Burn Babar?: Essays on Children's Literature and the Power of Stories contains an interesting essay about Rosa Parks.

It primarily focuses on the simplified (and factually inaccurate) version of the story (she was a simply a tired seamstress who refused to go to the back of the bus) which is "common knowledge," and is actually taught in a number of school textbooks.

The essay touches on the possibility that hers was a preplanned act (whether she planned it on her own or with others). It does not seem all that unlikely, but as others have said in this thread, I don't think it matters.

Her act, and what it gave rise to, is the important thing.

Whether it was conspiratorially planned would be interesting from a historical perspective, but I hardly think it matters beyond that.

 

[CurtC]

I thought it was common knowledge that her actions were pre-planned. I also thought it was common knowledge that being pre-planned doesn't take away from the significance.

Are there people who say that, if what she did was pre-planned, that therefore the outcome of those actions is somehow lessened? Or what?

 

[defaultdotxbe]

rosa - rose - rose bush!!! she IS a plant!!!!! ITS SO OBVIOUS!!!!

OMG the president is a plant too!!!!!

 

[Rolfe]

Rose is a plant - I can't believe I didn't spot that....

Seriously, this discussion has been very interesting for me. As a non-Merikan, I was only superficially familiar with the case, which occurred when I was way to young to notice. (I remember in the 1960s, starting to read Merikan comics, and being completely astounded by the segregation being referred to - I had thought only South Africa behaved like that.) Anyway, I had only heard the basic tale that Rosa was a tired seamstress and didn't want to move, and whaddayaknow, that sparked the whole civil rights uprising.

This discussion has enlightened me to nuances I was quite unaware of, and while I can see that the "conspiracy" wan't quite what qayak portrayed it as, I can also realise that there was a lot more going on there than meets the uninformed eye. Of course it makes absolute sense, and detracts not at all from Rosa's achievement. Political victories usually require some politics somewhere, and this was clearly no exception.

Rolfe.

 

[Nova Land]

I thought it was common knowledge that her actions were pre-planned...

It may well be. A lot of mistaken beliefs are "common knowledge". That's why it's important to check the facts and verify things before passing them along. Even the things which are common knowledge or that everyone knows.

Indeed, I would say that subjecting popular beliefs to skeptical scrutiny is one of the most important things a skeptic can do. It's important to subject unpopular beliefs to skeptical scrutiny as well -- but there's no problem getting people to do that. There are lots of people who love to subject the things they disagree with to hostile scrutiny, so any unpopular belief is not going to go unexamined.

The question is not whether a lot of people believe Rosa Parks' actions were pre-planned. The question should be, Is there any good reason for believing that? If it is true, then someone should be able to provide some evidence of it. So far, only one person has -- qayak, in a different thread -- and the evidence he offered looks extremely dubious to me.

I note that no one in this thread has chosen to defend qayak's evidence, despite how simple it would be to do so. All someone needs to do is get a copy of Rosa Parks' memoirs, read it, and see whether she says (a) that she was part of meetings in which it was decided she would refuse to give up her seat on a bus, in order to create a test case for challenging Montgomery's segregation laws, or (b) she does not describe such meetings, and says she chose not to give up her seat that day because she was fed up.

Do you believe there is any good evidence to justify the belief that Rosa Parks' action was pre-planned? If so, what is this evidence? Is there, for instance, anyone who was involved in the Montgomery bus boycott who claims this is what happened? If so, who says it, and where do they say it? So far, all the evidence presented -- such as the Dissent article which Foolmewunz linked to -- indicates just the opposite.

The fact that a belief is widely-held does not constitute evidence that the belief is valid. I started this thread so that those who believe her actions were pre-planned could present whatever evidence they have to justify such a belief. This is the second page of this thread, and I am still waiting to see that evidence.

 

[Nova Land]

Herbery Kohl's book Should We Burn Babar?: Essays on Children's Literature and the Power of Stories contains an interesting essay about Rosa Parks...

The essay touches on the possibility that hers was a preplanned act (whether she planned it on her own or with others). It does not seem all that unlikely...

I agree that it does not seem unlikely. But the question is not whether it is likely; the question is whether it is true. Many unlikely events actually happened; many likely events never did. This appears to be a case of something which easily could have happened -- but didn't.

Certainly, it would have been possible for Parks and others to meet and talk about choosing someone to defy the bus segregation laws. Certainly, it would have been possible for this group to have selected Parks as the person to do it. But so far no one -- except qayak -- has presented any evidence that such meetings did take place or that such a decision was made. And I strongly suspect that the evidence qayak presented is on a par with the evidence that Bush planned the WTC attacks.

 

[Nova Land]

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 agree with almost everything you wrote, with one major exception: your sentence in which you say: "Qayak's contention that Rosa Parks was "selected" is partially accurate."

No. A statement that Rosa Parks was selected after the fact to be the focus of a campaign, such as the statement you make, would be correct. But that isn't the statement which qayak made.

Qayak's statement was that Rosa Parks was selected beforehand. That is the point of his post. That is the contention which he claimed was supported by the passage from Rosa Parks' memoir which he reproduced in his post.

If I am misreading qayak's post, I apologize. But to me, what he wrote seems fairly clear. I am not willing to change his statement in order to create an area of agreement. If he is wrong -- and used deceptive techniques, such as misrepresenting a passage from Rosa Parks' memoir in order to make his point sound more credible that it is -- then I believe that needs to be pointed out.

 

[Rolfe]

The impression I'm getting is that it wasn't explicitly pre-planned, but that Rosa Parks was aware of the abandoned discussions about using Colvin as a test case, and when a deeply annoying situation finally pissed her off past her breaking point, it may well also have been in the back of her mind that this might be the case that was needed.

If you are politically active, and an unexpected situation arises in which your actions may reflect either well or badly on your "cause", or may perhaps provide an opportunity your cause can make use of, it's human nature for that to be in your mind as you decide how to respond.

Go, Rosa!!!

I wonder, even, if there might have been discussion about whether a better case that Colvin's might arise in the future, and several people either explicitly or privately decided that if the chance came up, they'd go for it. Rosa being one of them.

It doesn't mean she was pre-selected, as in the committee decided that Rosa was to be "it", but as she was indeed an active black rights member, I can well imagine that she was aware of what might happen and keen that it should happen even as she was also tired and fed up and at the end of her patience.

Rolfe.