small dead animals: Rosa Parks Passes

October 24, 2005

Rosa Parks Passes

They don't* make civil rights leaders like they used to.

Posted by Kate at October 24, 2005 11:12 PM

TrackBacks

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/2815

Rosa Parks Was A Pawn from Cannuckistan Chronicles
Rosa worked for the NAACP - A black civil rights organisation. The bus adventure was staged to garner public sympathy. Be careful who you're praising in her passing folks... [Read More]

Tracked on October 25, 2005 8:36 AM

Comments

We know from her example that one person's simple act can have huge results and that it is usually when average citizens have had enough that change happens in society.

Posted by: steve at October 24, 2005 11:43 PM

Rosa Parks, a brave trendsetter. America has many people of great character. If the situation arises, they rise to it and do what they can. *Let's roll* comes to mind, a real 9/11 hero's words to inspire us .. eh? TG

Posted by: TonyGuitar at October 25, 2005 1:44 AM

A credit to humanity.

Posted by: Meursault at October 25, 2005 2:50 AM

'A credit to humanity'
Well maybe not quite

Posted by: ShitStirrer at October 25, 2005 7:05 AM

Rosa was a pawn being used by the NAACP. The bus protest was staged.

Posted by: Richard Evans at October 25, 2005 8:42 AM

Well, I think both things can be true. I wouldn't have had the guts to do what she did, staged or not. And yes, it was planned in advance; she wasn't just tired. She was an NAACP member, not just a "cleaning lady."

This matters. The incident worked _because_ there was an infrastructure in place to stage it then keep it in the news, run the boycott, etc. It wasn't just "one person making a difference", but a group of dedicated people.

The romanticism of history, usually the fault of eager journalists, does no one any favours in the long run.

Inevitably, it creates resentment. With Parks, MLK and others being portrayed as near saints, it made it almost impossible for those who felt the Civil Rights Act was unconstitutional to get a fair hearing. Who cared about some old piece of paper in the face of these brave individuals...? Who cared about whether or not the government should be able to tell private companies who they had to serve...? Who cared about long standing traditions of states rights or property rights?

None of that was as romantic and dramatic as the protests. And anyone, even liberals, who dared to raise the constitutional conundrums was "just a racist" or an "uncle Tom".

But "staged" or not, that doesn't take away from what Parks and her colleagues accomplished in an extremely dangerous atmosphere. Roe v. Wade was "staged", now it sounds like "Lawrence" was staged. It seems like the liberal way of getting things changed, whether we like the results or not.

Posted by: Kathy Shaidle at October 25, 2005 9:20 AM

Geez, is there nothing conservatives won't say to damage their electoral chances? I guess at least one person would be happier with blacks at the back of the bus and "Whites Only" signs throughout the country. I mean, that at least would be constitutional, right? And if it was an organized attack on racial segregation, does that really make it any less legitimate a cause? Sometime it is really embarrassing to be a conservative.

Posted by: Feisty at October 25, 2005 10:48 AM

It always amazed me that people will defend a man-made piece of paper even when it is clearly in the wrong. Not too many years ago it was considered perfectly acceptable to beat your black slave who was considered "property". All of the printed laws in the world are created by fallible human beings. Is it totally outlandish to think that perhaps the laws may need ammending from time to time?

Posted by: R at October 25, 2005 11:02 AM

That was really good "Feisty", you just proved Kathy's point about people who question the "movement" being called "racist" or an "Uncle Tom". Oh, as for that whole "conservative" thing: For some reason, I doubt that you are...

Posted by: Richard Evans at October 25, 2005 11:06 AM

Fiesty also proves Kate's point about leftists and their poor reading comprehension skills.

Posted by: Kathy Shaidle at October 25, 2005 11:47 AM

You know, I'm not joking when I say that.

Posted by: Kate at October 25, 2005 11:55 AM

Now I see why.

Posted by: Kathy Shaidle at October 25, 2005 12:11 PM

And I'm amazed how quickly anyone who contradicts the self-proclaimed lords of conservatism is told they aren't a conservative. My reading comprehension is fine. I read where two people would rather criticise the civil rights movement for being organized and for a law that may not have been constitutional. I think that level of comprehension is the problem with some supporters of the conservative movement. And another point about reading comprehension; where did the words "racist" and "Uncle Tom" come into this? Oh yeah, when YOU accused me of throwing those words. I didn't write them, so how did you "Comprehend" them?

Posted by: Feisty at October 25, 2005 12:46 PM

Feisty; In your own words:

"Geez, is there nothing conservatives won't say to damage their electoral chances? I guess at least one person would be happier with blacks at the back of the bus and "Whites Only" signs throughout the country"

You've clearly refered to either Kathy or myself as racist in that statement.

Now, as for your political leanings; It's been my experience that more often than not, people who begin their arguments by calling someone a racist generally lean to the (far) left politicaly.

Logic also dictates that when one makes the statement: "Geez, is there nothing conservatives won't say to damage their electoral chances?" said person is not of the group that's being referenced. Had you refered to conservatives in the first person whith a phrase like "damage OUR electoral chances" you would have gotten away with it.

Posted by: Richard Evans at October 25, 2005 1:03 PM

No Fiesty (she said wearily, breaking her latest vow against taking part in comments wars):

The words "racist" and "uncle tom" appeared in my original post, before you joined the thread.

Constitutionality is not a minor inconvenience, like a cold sore. One cannot claim to be a nation of laws if one violates the Big Law (the constitution) when passing Little Laws, no matter how well intentioned. Amend the constitution by all means. but the 1964 Civil Rights Act was not an amendment, and some politicians and legal scholars (like Bork to name one) felt that the Act, as written, was unconstitutional.

One option would have simply been to debate the Act longer and rewrite it to render it more acceptable, particularly certain controversial Titles. Or chop it into more easily digestible chunks. A law can be long overdue as far as one constituency is concerned AND still come as a sudden shock to the rest of society. Before you say so what, note that the South never voted Democrat after 1964. You may still say so what, but Southerners were/are citizens too. And by the way, the Democrats don't think it is a "so what" at all...

Johnson was being pressured and so presured congress in turn, playing the "JFK would have wanted it card", and using every political trick in his sizable book. For a good cause? Sure. But again this tactic left a bad taste in many mouths.

I am not a US constitutional scholar. I am saying that a number of thoughtful people at the time believed that, emotions aside, the Act itself was unconstitutional as written. Do you really feel you are smarter than a Judge Bork, that such a man's opinions should be brushed aside as "embarrassments"??

Your reaction _merely proves my point_: that any attempt to ignore romanticism or high emotion and focus on sheer legality and possible "unintended consequences" -- however noble the cause -- are pretty much doomed.

Posted by: Kathy Shaidle at October 25, 2005 1:40 PM

There was indeed a time when slavery was constitutional. And you know what? The Americans willing and democratically changed their constitution to abolish slavery.

Did they willingly and democratically change their constitution to abolish racial segregation? No. They might have been willing to, but they weren't allowed to. They let unelected judges tear up the constitution. Was it worth it? You claim the right to believe it was. Why can you not allow anyone else the right to believe that it wasn't?

Posted by: ebt at October 25, 2005 3:19 PM

It's also worth pointing out that, aside from its constitutionality, Thomas Sowell maintains that the economic growth of the black minority has never grown as fast as it did in the 40's and 50's, in his opinion (to the best of my recollection of Basic Economics and Advanced Economics) because of things like the Civil Rights Act.

The Voting Rights Act enforced the 14th Amendment, the Civil Rights Act led the way to affirmative action, the Civil Rights Movement (in the beginning) was a credit to God and country.

Posted by: Jon at October 25, 2005 6:46 PM

Demonizing Condi. MSM/USA Today manipulates photos.

Demonizing Condi (USA Today's shameful photoshop exploits)
Michelle Malkin ^ | October 26, 2005
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1509422/posts
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Related:

TIME'S PHOTO DISTORTIONS
http://michellemalkin.com/archives/002127.htm

KATHERINE HARRIS VS. THE PHOTO DOCTORS
http://michellemalkin.com/archives/003177.htm

Posted by: maz2 at October 26, 2005 8:17 AM

This is great. I was wondering where I could find a good selection of apologists for discrimination laws. And here you guys are! With all the best logic and stellar references. (If Judge Bork said it, well, I'm totally convinced -- no way I'm smarter than that guy! A supreme court justice can't be wrong about anything! That's why they always vote the same way, all of them!)

And it's so true, Jon, that blacks were better off in the 40s and 50s. Why did they want any change? Shot themselves in the foot, they did! In fact, think about how well-off they were in the 1860s. Their food and housing was taken care of, they were guaranteed work... no drug problems or ghettoes. Nosir!

Anyhow, this has been really educational for me. Thanks!

Posted by: M@ at October 26, 2005 8:42 AM

[deleted]

last warning. better yet, if you can't keep from making assinine statements like that, move on.

- Kate

Posted by: ebt at October 26, 2005 5:45 PM

Posted by: AiuJhlQFXC at November 2, 2005 1:28 AM