"Rosa Parks was a plant"

[Nova Land]

In another thread -- post # 175 of "Michael Moore in trouble?" (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=82033&page=5), over in politics -- an assertion was made that Rosa Parks was selected in advance by activists in the civil rights movement, as part of a well-planned operation, to refuse to give up her seat on a Montgomery Alabama bus and thus provide a test case for challenging the city's segregation laws.

As conspiracy theories go, this is reasonably plausible. At the time that Rosa Parks refused to give up her bus seat, she had been a very active member of the NAACP for more than a decade. She was well aware that there had already been instances around the south in which blacks had refused to give up bus seats; and she was familiar with discussions within the Montgomery NAACP chapter about how, if a case were to arise in Montgomery, it might be a good idea to organise around it and use it as a way to challenge Montgomery's segregation laws in the courts. I see no good reason why, in some alternate universe very similar to our own, the Montgomery bus boycott could not have been the product of careful advance planning such as qayak alleges took place. But in the world we actually live in, that does not appear to be the way the Montgomery bus boycott happened.

Not, at least, according to the accounts I have heard and read about the events in Montgomery, as recalled by the participants in those events.

But I am by no means an expert on this subject. It is quite possible that I am mistaken, and that events really did occur in the way qayak alleges. If so, it would be an interesting thing to know, and something I would enjoy learning more about.

The post in which qayak makes his assertion that "Rosa Parks was a plant" is vague, and the only piece of evidence he offers is an alarmingly ambiguous statement by Parks. It is possible to construe Parks' statement as saying that her actions were undertaken in accordance with plans she had made in advance with others in the Civil Rights Movement. But the quoted passage doesn't actually say that. The only reason so far to believe it means that is because qayak says it means that.

Therefore I am opening this thread in order to give qayak -- or anyone else who believes that Rosa Parks was selected in advance to refuse to give up her seat on the bus -- an opportunity to present the evidence that this was so.

Too often when a thread spins off from a post in another one, the opening post begins right in the thick of things. That makes it hard (for me at least) to figure out just what is going on. That's why I've used this OP to outline what this thread is about, rather than starting right in with the text of qayak's post. I hope the origin and purpose of this thread is now clear, so in the next post I'll present qayak's post about Rosa Parks and the Montgomery bus boycott, and I'll go into a little more detail about the questions his claim raises.

[Nova Land]

Here is the post in which qayak makes his assertion:

... Rosa Parks was a plant. She was a long time member of the civil rights movement and knew all the leaders personally, including MLK. There was another woman selected to be the person on the bus but that woman was not married and she became pregnant. The leaders knew there would be no sympathy for an unwed mother in such a religiously intolerant time and area. They scraped the idea.

From her own memoirs: “I kept thinking about my mother and my grandparents and how strong they were. I knew that there was a possibility of being mistreated, but an opportunity was being given me to do what I had asked of others.” (Bolding mine)

I'm not saying what she did wasn't great, but it was a well planned operation.


One of qayak's statements is correct and well-established: Rosa Parks was a long-time member of the civil rights movement. But the rest of what qayak claims does not appear to be supported by evidence.

I can recall hearing this claim -- that Parks was chosen in advance to challenge Montgomery's segregation laws, in the same way that John Scopes was chosen to challenge Tennessee's law against the teaching of evolution -- several times. But the people I've heard making it generally have not been people with any great knowledge of, or familiarity with, the civil rights movement of the 1950s, so I've never given much weight to their assertions.

Another reason I haven't given much credence to these claims when I've heard them in the past is that the people making the claims did it in the same way qayak has done -- flat assertion, as if the confidence of their utterance were sufficient in itself to make the statement true. I believe in weighing evidence, and when people use confident assertion as a substitute for substantial evidence, I tend to assign very little weight to what is being said.

Qayak says that "There was another woman selected to be the person on the bus but that woman was not married and she became pregnant." He doesn't say who this woman was, or what evidence he is relying on for the assertion that she was selected in advance to refuse to give up her seat. Right away, that raises a red flag for me.

From the meager details qayak provides in the post, this sounds like a garbled version of Claudette Colvin. Colvin was a 15-year-old girl who refused to give up her seat on a Montgomery bus in March 1955. She was not (as far as I know) selected in advance to do this; in all the accounts I have read, she explains that she did it on her own. (Here is a link to the Wikipedia entry on Colvin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claudette_Colvin). There are better sources available at libraries, but the Wikipedia entry is handy and it looks like a reasonably good summary. This brief write-up at Tolerance.org (http://www.tolerance.org/teach/activities/activity.jsp?cid=388) also looks adequate in conveying the gist of the matter.)

Colvin was active in civil rights youth groups, and as a result she had heard of, and been inspired by, stories about people like Irene Morgan (http://www.robinwashington.com/jimcrow/2_journey.html) -- civil rights activists of the '40s and '50s who had chosen to take daring and courageous actions against racism. Colvin wanted to be like them.

There had been discussions in the civil rights community about how, if someone were to refuse to give up their bus seat (as had happened several times already in various places around the south) it would be a good idea use that to mount a legal challenge to the segregation laws. And there were discussions -- in the days following Colvin's arrest -- about organizing such a campaign around Colvin's case. But for several reasons (Colvin's tendency to swear and to throw temper tantrums for one, and Colvin becoming pregnant out of wedlock, from an affair with a married man, for another) it was decided not to attempt to mount a campaign centering around her, and to wait for a better case to come along.

I do not know of any credible historian who claims that Colvin was selected to refuse to give up her seat on the bus as part of an organized plan. So if Colvin is who qayak has in mind when he says there was "another woman" who had been "selected to be the person" (to refuse to give up her seat and be arrested) then I would like to see a listing of sources -- people who were involved in the Montgomery civil rights movement and who took part in the meetings at which this was discussed and decided -- so that I can look this up for myself.

(Same thing if qayak is referring to someone other than Colvin. If this was something that was discussed and decided, I would like to know who is supposed to have discussed and decided it, and I'd like to be shown some credible evidence that this actually occurred.)

That's my problem with qayak's assertion that "There was another woman selected to be the person on the bus"". In the next post, I'll explain my problem with qayak's assertion that Rosa Parks was "selected" as part of a "well-planned operation"

[Undesired Walrus]

- an opportunity to present the evidence that this was so.


um...

[Nova Land]

... Rosa Parks was a plant...

... From her own memoirs: “I kept thinking about my mother and my grandparents and how strong they were. I knew that there was a possibility of being mistreated, but an opportunity was being given me to do what I had asked of others.” (Bolding mine)

I'm not saying what she did wasn't great, but it was a well planned operation.


Qayak didn't provide any supporting evidence for his claim that there was a woman who was initially selected to refuse to give up her bus seat as part of this "well-planned operation". But he does provide a source for his claim that Parks was selected to be a test case -- Rosa Parks' memoirs. The problem is that the passage he offers as evidence is ambiguous, and does not clearly say that which qayak tells us it says.

This is the kind of thing which sets off loud skeptical alarm signals for me. At present, there is only qayak's word that the passage in the memoir means what qayak says it means. If the memoirs actually say that there were planning meetings Parks attended at which this was discussed, why not quote one of these? It makes little sense to quote a passage which doesn't clearly say that she was picked in advance to break the law -- unless, of course, there aren't any clear passages. In that case an ambiguous passage which, quoted out of context, can be made to look as if it says the action was planned in advance, may be the best which proponents of this claim can offer.

If qayak has read the memoirs, he presumably knows whether the Parks does indeed claim in her memoirs to have been selected in advance to refuse to give up her bus seat and thus create a test case. Which raises an important question: has qayak actually read her memoirs? I can't help noting that he doesn't actually say that he has.

It has become distressingly common nowadays for people to pass along excerpts from works which they have not actually read for themselves and to boldly proclaim to the rest of us what these works really mean. DOC, in the Thomas Jefferson thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=74960), is a prime example of someone who does this. It is a profoundly non-skeptical practice -- as well as being, in my eyes, dishonest. But a lot of people on this forum do it.

My feeling is that if one has not actually read something one should make it clear that one is simply passing along something which someone else found and excerpted, and that they really have no idea how fairly or accurately the excerpt they are passing along represents the original source.

If someone says they are quoting something, it should mean that they have read the actual passage, in it's original context, and are vouching for the fact that what they are presenting is a fair excerpting of the material which accurately reflects what the material means when read in context. If one has not actually read the source material, and is simply passing on an excerpt that someone else provided them, then the honest thing to say when presenting the excerpt is I have not read the source material so do not know for myself what this means if read in context, but so-and-so, from whom I got this, claims it means such-and-such.

That gives the rest of us a better idea of who it is who is vouching for the accuracy of the excerpt, and thus gives us a better idea of how much weight to accord the material. I don't think qayak would deliberately misrepresent what Rosa Parks wrote (or that DOC would deliberately misrepresent what Thomas Jefferson wrote). So if qayak were to say, Yes, I read Rosa Parks' memoirs, and she does indeed say that she took part in meetings at which it was decided she would deliberately choose not to give up her seat on a bus, the next time an opportunity arose, in order to create a test case for challenging the segregation laws in court, I take that seriously into account as good evidence for his assertions regarding Parks. But if qayak were to say, No, I've never read Parks' memoirs myself, but I saw an op-ed piece in which someone claimed she admitted she was a plant, and this is the passage they quoted to prove it, then I would assign very little weight to the claim. Direct lying is a rather unusual event, especially in a forum such as this where it is so easily detected. Being duped by one's sources, however, is not at all unusual for posters here.

The passage qayak quotes is extremely ambiguous. There are two obvious interpretations of the sentence qayak bolded. One is that, when Parks says she has been given an opportunity, she means that leaders in the civil rights community chose her to be a test case. The other is that, when she was riding the bus that day, an unexpected event occurred and this is the opportunity she was referring to.

On the day Parks refused to surrender her seat, Parks was sitting in the black section of the bus. But the bus had filled up, and several additional white passengers got on. The driver of the bus then told Parks and several other black people to vacate their seats so that the white passengers could sit. This is not something Parks could have planned on in advance; but when it did occur that day, she felt fully within her rights to refuse to move and saw this as an opportunity to challenge laws and customs which she deeply opposed.

I strongly suspect that a reading of Parks' memoirs will not include anything about her being part of meetings in which it was planned in advance for her to refuse to give up her seat in order for her to be a test case. I also strongly suspect that a reading of her memoirs will show that the opportunity she refers to in the passage you bolded is a reference to her being unexpectedly asked to vacate her seat in the black section of the bus.

But I do not have her memoirs at hand, and am not even sure if I have ever read them. So if qayak, or anyone else here, has read them, they are in a better position than I am to state what quoted passage means. Is there anyone here who has read the book and is able to speak to this?

[Pardalis]

Is it just me or is this one of the dumbest conspiracy theories ever? Well, just after Lyte Trip's flyover...

[steve s]

Is it just me or is this one of the dumbest conspiracy theories ever?

Not necessarily. The same basic situation occurred at the Scopes Trial. The ACLU was looking for a test case to overturn the Butler Act. John Scopes volunteered to violate the act.

Steve S.

[SezMe]

Is it just me or is this one of the dumbest conspiracy theories ever? Well, just after Lyte Trip's flyover...

Not necessarily. The same basic situation occurred at the Scopes Trial. The ACLU was looking for a test case to overturn the Butler Act. John Scopes volunteered to violate the act.

Steve S.

I don't think either situation qualifies as a conspiracy. Simply planning an event is NOT a conspiracy.

[steverino]

I don't think either situation qualifies as a conspiracy. Simply planning an event is NOT a conspiracy.

The Rosa Parks incident was misleading. The myth is that she was fed up, the last straw and all that, and she, a random black citizen, spontaniously protested. Actually, the more I think about it, the more it does have the odor of conspiracy.

Let's be honest. It is uncomfortable to question this historic incident, and the agenda of those behind it, as segragation was so ugly and we are fortunate someone stood up for equal rights.

[jhunter1163]

I'd agree with Steverino. Whether it was a conspiracy or not is utterly irrelevant. The important thing is that she did it, and millions are better off for her having done so.

[firecoins]

I don't believe it. Rosa Parks wan't a plant. She was a mammal. Black people have been called alot of things less than human but a PLANT! Come on.:)

[MaGZ]

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

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

[Beanbag]

I don't think either situation qualifies as a conspiracy. Simply planning an event is NOT a conspiracy.
Hate to tell you this, Sez, but planning an event IS a CONSPIRACY.

Beanbag

[Nova Land]

I don't think either situation qualifies as a conspiracy. Simply planning an event is NOT a conspiracy.


I think you are getting distracted by a semantic tree, and thus missing the forest. Qayak (and others) have claimed that Rosa Parks action in refusing to relinquish her seat on a bus was a planned and deliberate action for which she had been chosen.

The key question is not whether you wish to label that a conspiracy or simply a planned event. The key question is whether such planning did indeed occur.

Such planning very likely could have occurred. It did, for instance, in the Scopes trial. We know that from the accounts of those events as told by those who were involved.

But in the case of Rosa Parks and the Montgomery bus boycott, the claim that this was a planned event appears to be mistaken. Not only is there no testimony of which I am aware which says such planning did take place -- there are numerous accounts of the event (including, I believe, Rosa Parks own account) which say this was not a planned event.

Qayak offers as evidence a passage from Rosa Parks' memoirs. I suspect that the passage he has offered, if read in context, will not back up his claimed interpretation of it.

If my suspicion is wrong, and Parks says in her memoir that she acted as part of a calculated plan, then qayak (and steverino) are correct that many people are being taught a myth. If that is so, it is worth knowing about. Myths -- whether about paranormal phenomena or about historical events -- are worth exposing to the light of truth.

If, on the other hand, my suspicions are correct, and the passage from Parks' memoir which gayak quoted -- and even bolded, to emphasize what he passed on as the correct interpretation -- says something very different from qayak claimed, then qayak has committed a serious offense against rational discussion. That kind of deception is also worth exposing to the light of truth.

I'd call gayak's claim quite literally a conspiracy theory, which is why I posted this thread in this section. Conspiracy theory is not the same as utter rubbish. Many actions in history have been conspiracies. Both the plot to destroy the world trade center with bombs (in 1993) and by flying planes into them (in 2007) were conspiracies.

My objection to gayak's claim is not that it involves planning which was not known to the general public (i.e. a conspiracy). My objection is that he's claiming something happened which the evidence indicates to me did not happen.

[slingblade]

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

Beanbag

That's an awfully loose definition, isn't it? Can I see the source for it?

[MaGZ]

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

[Stellafane]

Not necessarily. The same basic situation occurred at the Scopes Trial. The ACLU was looking for a test case to overturn the Butler Act. John Scopes volunteered to violate the act.

Steve S.

It may have been even goofier than that. Apparently the Dayton town fathers were looking for some media event to help put their town on the map. So they hatched the idea of challenging the Tennessee anti-evolution law (which most people thought was unenforceable anyway). Scopes agreed to do it because he was young and didn't have a family, so his life could be disrupted without undue hardship. In the end, Dayton got what they wanted, a big media circus.

[Nova Land]

The Rosa Parks incident was misleading. The myth is that she was fed up...

No. That is not a myth. On that day, on that bus, being told to move, she was. Or so Rosa Parks, the one person who should know, has always maintained (unless my memory is failing me badly).

... the last straw ...


No. That is not a myth. On that day, on that bus, being told to move, that was the last straw for her. Or so Rosa Parks, the one person who should know, has always maintained (unless my memory is failing me badly).


... spontan[e]ously protested...

That, too, is not a myth. All the evidence is that she spontaneously decided at that moment that she'd had enough and was not going to move.

If you believe otherwise, please feel free to present any evidence you are aware of which shows that Parks had talked with others and said, Next time a driver asks me to move, I'm not moving.

Perhaps you'd like to start by looking up the passage in Rosa Parks' memoir which qayak claims refers to. If qayak is right that there were meetings in which Rosa Parks was selected to do this action, and that the passage from her memoirs is referring to such planning, that would be sufficient to show you are correct.

But so far as I am aware, the myth is this notion that Rosa Parks actions were not a spontaneous protest against one injustice too many. And if that's so, it's you and qayak who are buying into a myth.


... she, a random black citizen ...


No, she was not a "random" black citizen. If people have been taught that, then it is indeed a misconception, and one worth correcting.

Rosa Parks was committed to the cause of civil rights. Because of that, she was more familiar than the average person -- black or white -- with the actions that others had taken to resist racism and segregation. That made her more likely than the average person to take the action she did when she'd finally had enough.


... Actually, the more I think about it, the more it does have the odor of conspiracy.


Then perhaps you should have your sense of smell checked. It seems to be smelling things for which so far neither you nor qayak have produced any good evidence.

Let's be honest. It is uncomfortable to question this historic incident...


No, it's not. Not for me, anyway. I have no problem questioning what happened. My main motivation in life is curiosity. If it turns out that what I have believed about Rosa Parks' actions is incorrect, it won't offend me in the slightest. I will enjoy the experience of learning that something which I had assumed to be true for many years turns out to be incorrect. That's part of what makes life so much fun.

If you feel uncomfortable questioning it, that's up to you. Although your assertions that the story of those events, as Rosa Parks and others have recounted them, is a myth, sounds rather like questioning to me. Seems to me you're trying to have your cake and eat it too -- engaging in a bit of conspiratorial talk about what really happened, and then saying that those who disagree are just uncomfortable talking about it... I'm not uncomfortable in the least. If you can back up your claim that there's a conspiratorial odor to Rosa Parks' actions, please do.

[steverino]

It may have been even goofier than that. Apparently the Dayton town fathers were looking for some media event to help put their town on the map.

Dayton was already on the map.

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

[gumboot]

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

Beanbag



Only if said event is illegal.

-Gumboot

[Stellafane]

Dayton was already on the map.

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

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

[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" (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=34943), 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... :D

[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. :blush:

[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.

[Redtail]

{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.

[Redtail]

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.

:D 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.

:D

[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?:confused:

[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?:confused:

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".

[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 (http://www.uvm.edu/~jloewen/) 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.

[Redtail]

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. :D

[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?:confused:

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 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2600935#post2600935) -- 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. :D

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 (http://www.amazon.com/Should-Burn-Babar-Childrens-Literature/dp/1595581308/ref=pd_bbs_10/103-6536229-0338262?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1180023320&sr=8-10) 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 (http://www.amazon.com/Should-Burn-Babar-Childrens-Literature/dp/1595581308/ref=pd_bbs_10/103-6536229-0338262?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1180023320&sr=8-10) 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.

[Nova Land]

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


That's a good article. Thank you for posting that.

A sentence in that article brought something to mind I'd like to mention:

Parks was also friends with (and occasional seamstress for) Clifford and Virginia Durr, white, upper-crust New Deal progressives who had been active in civil rights efforts...


Parks' friendship with Virginia Durr is not directly related to the thread topic, but it's a fascinating and uplifting bit of history which is well worth looking up and reading about. I believe their relationship is covered (briefly but well, if I'm remembering the right book) in Douglas Brinkley's biography of Rosa Parks (http://www.yesmagazine.org/article.asp?ID=974), and there are probably other books which cover it also.

[Rolfe]

That's a good article. Thank you for posting that.
Thanks from me also. A great read, highly educational.

Underlines what I was remarking on earlier - for a great political victory, it's usually necessarly for some actual politics to be going on. Often for quite some time.
In hindsight, it may appear that the boycott’s success was inevitable. In fact, its effectiveness was the result of leaders’ decisions about tactics and strategies and their capacity to mobilize thousands of ordinary people in a complex, year-long grassroots challenge to the city’s political and economic establishment.

Rolfe (longtime member of a political party that has finally won national office after 70-odd years of patient, slow advance).

PS (still reading). I see that the actual quote from Rosa makes her state of mind quite clear.

“People always say that I didn’t give up my seat because I was tired, but that isn’t true,” Parks later explained. “I was not tired physically, or no more tired than I usually was at the end of a working day. . . . No, the only tired I was, was tired of giving in.”

The more I read of this, the more I like and admire the woman.

[Nova Land]

... 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...


Yes. This is why I think it is good for people to turn a skeptical eye on well-known historical narratives, and see if what is common knowledge actually is true. Much of what is taught in our schools, and portrayed in tv or movie version, is simplified and inaccurate. It's good to try to straighten the record out.

That's one reason why I think it does matter whether the claim qayak is making is true or not. As you note, there are a number of details in the commonly-held impression of the Rosa Parks story that are not accurate. It is important to correct the things which are not true and to hold on to the things that are.

To me, skepticism is just as much about examining things and accepting the claims that are true as it is about examining things and rejecting the claims that are false. Being excessively willing to dismiss things which happen to be true is as bad as being excessively willing to believe things which happen to be false.

There are enough aspects of the Rosa Parks story (as commonly held) which are inaccurate, and which it would be good to correct in the version that young people are taught. Getting carried away and trying to correct things which were right in the first place does a disservice to those trying to correct the things which were not right.

That's what I believe qayak is doing. By spreading a modern myth -- that Rosa Parks was selected to refuse to give up her seat, in order to create a situation around which blacks could be mobilized to resist segregation -- he makes it harder for those who would like to de-mythify the story so that people can appreciate the events as they actually happened.

[Rolfe]

It's odd that qayak hasn't joined this thread. I can easily imagine that his point of view was a sincere misunderstanding, simply taking the demythologising of the Rosa Parks story a bit further than the facts will sustain.

Even when I first read his original statement, my initial reaction was, really?, well, good for her, this is a far more interesting tale than the common version. Now the version I'm seeing from this thread (and even more so from Foolmewunz's link) is even more interesting and nuanced than the simple "she was a plant".
Parks did not single-handedly “spark” the bus boycott. She was part of a network of organizations and activists (including many women) who had the leadership capacity and resources—telephone lists, mimeograph machines, access to teachers, clergy, and others—to act strategically. Although legend has framed the Montgomery boycott as a spontaneous outburst of protest, it was rooted in the experiences of Parks and other activists, who had learned valuable lessons from their mentors in the labor and civil rights movements. Indeed, the success of any movement for social change depends on the often invisible day-to-day work of unsung grassroots leaders who make important choices about strategy, tactics, fund-raising, developing new leaders, cultivating allies, deciding when to engage in lawsuits and elections and when to resort to protest, picking battles they can win, and knowing when to compromise.
I realise that her political activism was of a far more important kind for the human race as a whole than my own, and far more dangerous too, but having taken part in just such a network of activists, with computers and mail-merges and so on, I can immediately understand something of what it was like. It all makes wonderful sense, in a way that the trite tale of the "tired seamstress" really doesn't.

Thank you for this thread, Nova Land.

Rolfe.

[Foolmewunz]

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.

We're in agreement. My paragraph, as a whole, merely says she was NOT PRE-SELECTED. She was "selected" (or to be more accurate, her case was chosen), after she had been arrested and they saw that the timing was right.

I am disagreeing with Qayak's post as strongly as you are - merely wording it differently. Everything I've read about the events of the two or three days right after the incident indicates that they had no plan in place. It took quite some time for them to even get word that she'd been arrested, and I believe it was well into the evening before they even got together the bail.

None of the above indicates any sort of pre-planning. As I mentioned earlier, there weren't even any reporters/photographers at the scene, at the jail, or at the home when she returned that evening. The NAACP knew enough about publicity to have arranged for coverage if they had plotted this particular moment and this particular person as the touchstone for their actions.

[Carnivore]

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.

Thanks for that answer. I am aware that "separate but equal" was a fiction that allowed racism to remain a part of the fabric of society and it's institutions. The simple everyday examples of ritual degradation listed in this thread are sickening.

My question was purely to do with Mrs Parks' tactics once she had decided not to move. I'd wondered whether she was going to try to sue the bus company for example, as they were applying segregation in a way that may have been illegal, (albeit in common with widespread custom and attitudes). I had assumed she would have something in mind given her involvement with the Civil Rights movement.

I have no trouble believing that she was finally pushed too far and reacted spontaneously, it's just with her background I would think she would have at least some idea where her stand would lead at the time she made it.

Anyway, my original question seems to have been answered in this thread. When the opportunity arose, she was going to play for all the marbles.

[CurtC]

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.

I completely agree. In fact, I agree so much that I think it goes without saying, which is why I guess I didn't say it. When I said that I thought it was common knowledge, I was in no way defending it as being true. I was, however, contrasting my impression from that of several posters here who had been unaware of that meme.

Sure I'd like to know the true story of how she came upon that role. But there seem to be some people (not posters here, but people referred to in cites) for whom her motivation seems to make a difference in how we view what she did, and I don't get that. She did the right, admirable thing, whether it was a spontaneous decision or the result of months of planning.

[Nova Land]

It's odd that qayak hasn't joined this thread....


That's partly my fault. I should, as a simple courtesy, have sent qayak a PM, either shortly before beginning this thread (to let him know I was thinking of starting such a thread) or immediately after (to let him know such a thread had been started). I did bump the thread in which his post originally appeared, raising questions about his post and posting a link to the thread I was starting here -- but by then the Michael Moore thread in which his post appeared had been dormant for several days, so I should not have assumed he would see that post.

I'm short on sleep this week -- hence, the excessive wordiness and awkward sentence constructions in my posts -- and as a result my judgment is a bit off. I have just sent him a PM to let him know of the existence of this thread, on the theory that it's better to do so late than never.

I hope qayak will come and post in this thread, in particular to answer the question of whether he had or had not read Rosa Parks memoirs before posting the passage from them. But I know it often takes me a week or more (often much more) before I manage to write and post something, so it would be unreasonable for me to expect others to be quicker to respond. And this may not be a topic he feels like spending time on.

In starting this thread, I had not meant to personalize this as much as I have. But people "quoting" things which they haven't actually read is a pet peeve of mine. It appears very likely to me that is what qayak did, and in consequence I have wound up harping on that point more than I intended do. I'll try to ease up on that; I've already expressed my feelings on the subject, so there is no need for me to keep repeating it in this thread.

[Nova Land]

My question was purely to do with Mrs Parks' tactics once she had decided not to move. I'd wondered whether she was going to try to sue the bus company for example, as they were applying segregation in a way that may have been illegal...


Sorry, I badly misunderstood the question you were asking.

The question about what she was thinking at the time is a good one. I have no way of knowing for sure, but my guess is that she was not thinking at all along the lines you suggest.

The world is considerably different today than it was just a few decades ago. Protest -- even protests in which people break the law and get arrested -- are so commonplace today that it may be hard to understand how different it was then.

Protest was widely held to be a disreputable activity. At best, you were regarded as being a nutcase; but many people, especially in the south, assumed more sinister motives. It was, after all, common knowledge that real blacks were not dissatisfied with the way things were, and that protests were the result of outside agitators trying to stir things up in order to cause trouble and bring about a Communist takeover.

Those who engaged in organizing were at a high enough risk of being bullied, beaten, or worse in consequence of their activities. And by organizing, I am simply referring to activities such as blacks talking to their neighbors about their rights. Those who actually engaged in acts of defiance, such as Parks was doing in refusing to get up when ordered to do so, were almost guaranteed unpleasant consequences.

The main thoughts going through her mind at the time she refused to give up her seat were unlikely, in my opinion, to be about tactics she might use to win this struggle. I strongly suspect her main thoughts were about what might happen to her -- in the next minutes, in the next hours, in the next days and weeks -- if she refused to get up, and ways in which she might survive what was to come.

[Carnivore]

Sorry, I badly misunderstood the question you were asking.

The question about what she was thinking at the time is a good one. I have no way of knowing for sure, but my guess is that she was not thinking at all along the lines you suggest.

The world is considerably different today than it was just a few decades ago. Protest -- even protests in which people break the law and get arrested -- are so commonplace today that it may be hard to understand how different it was then.

Protest was widely held to be a disreputable activity. At best, you were regarded as being a nutcase; but many people, especially in the south, assumed more sinister motives. It was, after all, common knowledge that real blacks were not dissatisfied with the way things were, and that protests were the result of outside agitators trying to stir things up in order to cause trouble and bring about a Communist takeover.

Those who engaged in organizing were at a high enough risk of being bullied, beaten, or worse in consequence of their activities. And by organizing, I am simply referring to activities such as blacks talking to their neighbors about their rights. Those who actually engaged in acts of defiance, such as Parks was doing in refusing to get up when ordered to do so, were almost guaranteed unpleasant consequences.

The main thoughts going through her mind at the time she refused to give up her seat were unlikely, in my opinion, to be about tactics she might use to win this struggle. I strongly suspect her main thoughts were about what might happen to her -- in the next minutes, in the next hours, in the next days and weeks -- if she refused to get up, and ways in which she might survive what was to come.

You're right. I was making assumptions about Mrs Parks' thought process based on my own worldview and my impression of the later stages of the Civil Rights movement.

However, what you suspect about what she was thinking seems to me to go hand in hand with consideration of the future of the cause she believed in. Undoubtedly, fear and concern for her future must have been uppermost in her mind - to an extent that is difficult for me to imagine.

So given the certainty of severely negative consequences for herself - consequences that would probably be long term and affect her whole family - why did she make her stand? Was she was behaving irrationally? Did she just snap after too much abuse? I'm sure that was part of her decision, but I cant believe she was completely divorced from knowledge of the consequences of her choice. I think therefore, she came to her decision - in the face of dangers that would have me literally puking with fear - because she believed it was worth it.

As I see it, she decided to sacrifice her personal safety because it would serve as an example to her people and help her cause. She just wasnt going to take this [rule8] any more. If she was considering herself at all, she had to know the smart thing to do was just get up and move - but she didnt. To me, that says she must have been considering at least in general terms what her action would mean for her cause. The way I see it, she made a hero's choice that day.

[Rolfe]

That's partly my fault. I should, as a simple courtesy, have sent qayak a PM, either shortly before beginning this thread (to let him know I was thinking of starting such a thread) or immediately after (to let him know such a thread had been started). I did bump the thread in which his post originally appeared, raising questions about his post and posting a link to the thread I was starting here -- but by then the Michael Moore thread in which his post appeared had been dormant for several days, so I should not have assumed he would see that post.
Actually, I saw your post that you were starting this thread, and looked for the thread, but couldn't find it as I was looking in Politics. I only came across it here by chance - I don't visit CT very often. So maybe he just doesn't know the thread is here.

I think (from the dizzy heights of knowing nothing about the affair apart from what I've read here) that he might have a grain of truth in what he's saying. It's an interesting scenario.

There had been a success in outlawing school segregation, and the black activist movement was talking about organising a boycott of buses as the next move. However, a "test case" was necessary. The first cases considered were rejected because of various failings or flaws in the people involved. (Incidentally, I find it interesting that all the refuse-to-move people mentioned as being considered as possible candidates were female - nice trick, use the ingrained sexism of the society and its consequent distaste for roughing up women to your advantage!)

So, if you're an activist and a leader of activists involved in this movement, you know what's going on. I would imagine that tactics had been discussed - how do we get the word out to people that a boycott is on, can we rely on its being sufficiently supported, how do people get to work if this drags on, that sort of thing. So an outline feasibility plan would be in place.

What it needs is a suitable test case. And for whatever reasons, Claudette Colvin and Mary Louise Smith were neither of them considered suitable. At this point, you aren't human if you aren't casting your mind around as to what sort of person might make a good case, and then progressing on to think, well, who do we know who might fit? Or, could I do it?

Now whether this was ever discussed aloud, I don't know. It may have been discussed unofficially over a cup of tea, even if not officially, in committee. Knowing political activists, I'd be surprised if there wasn't at least a bit of speculation.

What I suspect is that there was a fairly clear view among the activists of what sort of person would fit the bill, and quite probably even an unofficial sort of "short list" of candidates - quite possibly not even spoken aloud, just sort of a number of people seeing the obvious, or even these people themselves simply self-identifying as candidates. Rosa Parks - married, respectable, respected, middle-aged, female - she may have been one of several or indeed many, but I suspect the thought had crossed someone's mind. And I think it had probably crossed hers.

Now I'm not suggesting that Rosa was in any way officially elected, or nominated, or anything like that. And I'm not suggesting that anyone at all had any idea what was going to happen on that particular bus. Events tend to show that nobody was ready to leap into action the minute it happened. But the basic plan was indeed there, and Rosa knew it.

The explanation of the bus system given by Foolmewunz is quite fascinating. The front four rows were reserved for whites. However, once they were filled, another white coming on would trigger an evacuation of row 5. Must have happened all the time.

Now, if I was caught in that system, and didn't want my journey disturbed, or didn't want the humiliation of being summarily ejected from my seat, I think I'd try to sit as far back as I could when I first boarded the bus. (I even wonder if it might not have been good southern courtesy for the men to allow the women the rear seats so as to spare them the hassle, but that's pure speculation, nobody has mentioned that ever happening.) But where did Rosa sit?

Row 5.

OK, I have no evidence at all that she had any choice in the matter, maybe all the other seats closer to the back were already filled when she boarded (except, the story rather implies that there were still spare seats.) I have no evidence at all that Rosa deliberately chose to sit there because that was the seat with the highest chance of triggering an incident. I merely observe that this was the seat she was on.

If Rosa Parks herself stated that when she boarded that bus she had no thought in her head about the bus boycott that the activists (of whom she was one) were discussing, I would believe her. If she stated that when she decided not to give up her seat she had no thought in her head about the bus boycott, I would believe her. Sometimes events do just happen.

However, think about it. She is a veteran civil rights activist, committee member and leader. This bus boycott has been actively discussed, but the provisional plans have not been able to be progressed for want of a suitable test case. Rosa was smart enough to realise that she would eminently qualify as a test case, even if there had been no open discussion of the matter. And Rosa sat in the very seat with the highest probability of being asked to move.

I wonder how many times she'd done just that before the evening of Thursday, December 1, 1955? Knowing that if she went through with it her life would be turned upside down, made very unpleasant indeed, and that she'd probably lose her job.

My own view is that there's a fair probability that Rosa Parks planted herself.

The woman was a heroine of the first water, and I wish I'd had the privilege of shaking her hand.

Rolfe.

PS. Didn't see Carnivore's post until I'd posted this. I see we're thinking along much the same lines.

[Nova Land]

I'd meant to get back to this thread sooner, but as usual I'm very slow. I'm away from home this week, but e-mailed myself some unfinished notes before taking off. Here are a few posts from those notes (with more to follow):

... The explanation of the bus system given by Foolmewunz is quite fascinating. The front four rows were reserved for whites. However, once they were filled, another white coming on would trigger an evacuation of row 5. Must have happened all the time.

Now, if I was caught in that system, and didn't want my journey disturbed, or didn't want the humiliation of being summarily ejected from my seat, I think I'd try to sit as far back as I could when I first boarded the bus. (I even wonder if it might not have been good southern courtesy for the men to allow the women the rear seats so as to spare them the hassle, but that's pure speculation, nobody has mentioned that ever happening.) But where did Rosa sit?

Row 5.

OK, I have no evidence at all that she had any choice in the matter, maybe all the other seats closer to the back were already filled when she boarded (except, the story rather implies that there were still spare seats.) I have no evidence at all that Rosa deliberately chose to sit there because that was the seat with the highest chance of triggering an incident. I merely observe that this was the seat she was on.


An interesting theory, but an incorrect one. Rosa Parks did not deliberately take a seat which she knew she might be asked to leave. When she got on the bus there was only one (black) seat left, and that's the one she took.

Here's part of an interview with Parks (http://www.achievement.org/autodoc/page/par0int-2) in which she describes why she took the seat she did:

I was arrested on December 1st, 1955 for refusing to stand up on the order of the bus driver, after the white seats had been occupied in the front. And of course, I was not in the front of the bus as many people have written and spoken that I was -- that I got on the bus and took the front seat, but I did not. I took a seat that was just back of where the white people were sitting, in fact, the last seat. A man was next to the window, and I took an aisle seat and there were two women across. We went on undisturbed until about the second or third stop when some white people boarded the bus and left one man standing. And when the driver noticed him standing, he told us to stand up and let him have those seats.


I'll quote more from your post another time, because there are several false assumptions in it -- but that will have to wait until I have considerably greater computer access time than I do at the moment.

[Nova Land]

Meanwhile, here are a couple more excerpts from the same interview quoted in previous post (http://www.achievement.org/autodoc/page/par0int-2):

Interviewer: Did the public response begin immediately?

Rosa Parks: Actually, it began as soon as it was announced. It was put in the paper that I had been arrested. Mr. E.D. Nixon was the legal redress chairman of the Montgomery branch of the NAACP, and he made a number of calls during the night, called a number of ministers. I was arrested on a Thursday evening, and on Friday evening they had the meeting at the Dexter Avenue Baptist Church, where Dr. Martin Luther King was the pastor.

A number of citizens came and I told them the story, and it became news about my being arrested. My trial was December 5th, when they found me guilty. The lawyers Fred Gray and Charles Langford, who represented me, filed an appeal and, of course, I didn't pay any fine. We set a meeting at the Holt Street Baptist Church on the evening of December 5th, because December 5th was the day the people stayed off in large numbers and did not ride the bus. When they found out that one day's protest had kept people off the bus, it came to a vote and, unanimously, it was decided that they would not ride the buses anymore until changes for the better were made.


That certainly doesn't sound like a boycott had been planned ahead of time. Rather, it sounds like the plans developed as things went along. An ad hoc group formed in reaction to Parks' arrest. The ad hoc group came up with a one-day boycott to call attention to her trial. It was only because of the surprising success of the one-day boycott that a longer boycott was decided on. I don't think anyone involved expected the one-day event to be such a runaway success -- nor do I think anyone could have predicted its success in advance. For the NAACP to have planned this in advance, they would have needed to be psychic.

Here's more, also from the same interview (http://www.achievement.org/autodoc/page/par0int-2):

Interviewer: When you refused to stand up, did you have a sense of anger at having to do it?

Rosa Parks: I don't remember feeling that anger, but I did feel determined to take this as an opportunity to let it be known that I did not want to be treated in that manner and that people have endured it far too long. However, I did not have at the moment of my arrest any idea of how the people would react.

And since they reacted favorably, I was willing to go with that. We formed what was known as the Montgomery Improvement Association, on the afternoon of December 5th. Dr. Martin Luther King became very prominent in this movement, so he was chosen as a spokesman and the president of the Montgomery Improvement Association.


So Parks had no idea when she refused to give up her seat where this might lead.

Such is history. Meticulous plans laid out in advance, which work out almost perfectly -- with the occasional hitch thrown in, for dramatic suspense -- make for great fiction. But real life is more often a series of unexpected events, one leading into the next. That appears to have been the case here.

[Nova Land]

... and tomorrow, I hope to post Yes! It is a conspiracy theory! in which i will spotlight and quote from some of the people who have been promulgating this myth.

[Nova Land]

The notion that Rosa Parks’ action was planned in advance dates back at least to the 1950s and probably to the 1950s. It was promulgated by opponents of the civil rights movement, notably by the John Birch Society.

The earliest published version I’ve turned up is Alan Stang’s 1965 book It’s Very Simple: The True Story of Civil Rights (http://www.amazon.com/VERY-SIMPLE-Story-Civil-Rights/dp/B000NRAVDG/ref=sr_1_10/105-1298951-9612447?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1181762733&sr=1-10), a John Birch Society publication which was widely used to promote a distorted version of history in which the civil rights movement was a communist conspiracy. But Stang’s book was not the start of this; it was designed to lend respectability and credibility to a conspiracy theory which was already in wide circulation among racists and racist sympathizers many years before his book appeared.

This is a problem with a lot of history from that time period – much of the most interesting material appeared in leaflets, pamphlets, newsletters and magazines which did not generally get preserved. Mimeographs were cheap, but did not produce the kind of materials most libraries were inclined to collect. Today one can see the cleaned-up face which was put on some of the extremist views of the time – but not the raw version which the person in the street back then experienced.

The cleaned-up face in recent times has been Samuel Francis. He died a few years ago, but his writings continue to be used as the basis on which a new generation of racists attempt to rewrite history. I’ll post some excerpts of Francis' articles – and excerpts from some of Francis’ echoers – in a follow-up post when time permits.

[Nova Land]

I composed the following post before taking off last week, intending to post it at the start of the trip, but did not have time to post it previously.

There are a number of good books about Rosa Parks and the Montgomery bus boycott. I'll be passing by several good libraries where I hope to spend some time during this trip, and am planning to look up Rosa Parks: My Story (her 1992 autobiography, written with Jim Haskins) and Rosa Parks (Douglas Brinkley's excellent recent biography). These books should contain answers to some of the questions raised in this thread.

I checked online catalogs, and the Herbert Kohl book Should We Burn Babar? which RSLancastr mentioned will be in one of the libraries, so I'm looking forward to reading that as well. (But alas, even though Lies my Teacher Told Me is in the collection of one of these libraries, it's in the reserve section, and I don't have a card there.)

What I especially would like to look up, but which is not available at any of the libraries I was planning to visit, is Rosa Parks' more recent book Quiet Strength. I think it is likely that this (rather than her 1992 book) is where the passage qayak quoted comes from. But I hope to to have time to visit at least one good second-hand book store, so there's a fair chance i could come across this book there.

There are two other books dealing with Rosa Parks which I'd really like to read. One will be easy to locate; the other looks like it is going to be very hard to find. But that's a long story, so I’ll detail that in another post.

Follow-up note.

I was wrong on several points. Should We Burn Babar has eluded me, as has Rosa Parks: My Story. My main library-time day will be this coming Sunday, though, and I am hopeful of finding and having time to read them then.

Lies My Teacher Told Me was surprisingly easy to find. I only had time to skim it quickly, but enjoyed what I saw. (There is not much about Rosa Parks specifically, but it makes many good general points which apply to the Rosa Parks story.)

An unexpected delight was coming across a second-hand copy of Virginia Durr’s book Outside the Magic Circle for $1.50. It’s a great book, and that’s a lot cheaper than making library photocopies would have been. I’ll be typing up the material related to Rosa Parks, to excerpt and post here, when I get home.

A Thunder of Angels is another book I was able to browse briefly, and am hoping to find again Sunday to make more notes and copies from. It’s an excellent history of the Montgomery Bus Boycott which appears to have answers to a number of questions.

The two books i referred to which I expected to be very hard to find are Samuel Francis' posthumous Shots Fired: Sam Francis on America's Culture War (edited by Peter Gemma) and John Egerton's Speak Now against the Day. The former is indeed going to be hard to find, but the latter is extremely easy. Details about why these books are of interest in a future post.

[Nova Land]

I think I have time to get in one more quick post today before my library computer time is up. Won't have much time to edit this, so hope it's coherent. This is from notes I composed earlier and e-mailed myself at the start of this trip concerning the book Shots Fired: Sam Francis on America's Culture War (http://shotsfired.us/).

The nearest library listed as having this is several hundred miles away from anywhere I'll be. It's from a small publisher, so I doubt it will turn up in any second-hand book store I'm likely to visit. And this is definitely a book I want to find either in a library or second hand; I do not want to contribute anything to the publisher's pocket.

Shots Fired... is a book of various essays, magazine articles, and newspaper columns by Samuel Francis. Some of the material included is about Rosa Parks, and this appears to be a major source for the myth that when Rosa Parks refused to give up her bus seat she was actually playing a part in a well-planned operation. (And not just any old well-planned operation -- it was a well-planned communist operation! The real purpose was to bring Martin Luther King to prominence and gain him control over the civil rights movement...)

From his publisher's web site (http://shotsfired.us/?page_id=7) comes this comment of praise for the book:

"Reading through SHOTS FIRED is to experience the all too brief illusion that a great writer and patriot is still among us. For instance, Sam Francis's splendid column exposing Rosa Parks as a professional agitator planted on her famous bus by a pinko training school in Tennessee, of which she was an alumna, could have been filed a month ago--or this week."


Here's a typical echo of Samuel Francis from American Renaissance (www.amren.com/996issue/996issue.html):

In December, 1955, Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat in the white section of a segregated bus in Montgomery, Alabama. This has been described as a solitary act of inspiration, but she had been carefully selected and trained to be a pretext for a bus boycott by blacks.


Here is how one right-wing blog (www.takimag.com/site/article/unkilling_whitey_the_achievement_of_sam_francis/) describes the book:

It is instructive ... to read Francis’s accounts of how Big Business and its tame media appease the NAACP...

The Church of Martin Luther King continues to be America’s established creed, backed up by a governmental infrastructure of terror and coercion that no Spanish Inquisitor in his most surreal dreams could have imagined. This, moreover, despite the fact that King’s plagiarism, sexual squalor, and Communistic fellow-travelling have been matters of public record for a quarter of a century, thanks in part to Francis’s own efforts. In one of [Samuel Francis'] 2003 columns, “A Little Real Black History”, Francis not only puts King in his place (that place being somewhere between Che and Ho Chi Minh); he also reveals the similar Red sympathies of King’s female counterpart, Rosa Parks. Mrs. Parks’s Stalinist minders knew that what mattered for their cause was not that Mr. and Mrs. Average White America be persuaded to believe in Stalinism -- an unlikely prospect at the best, or worst, of times -- but simply that they be taught to loathe their own history, their own culture, and finally their own race...



Here's a description of Rosa Parks' role in the conspiracy from American Renaissance (http://amren.com/features/parks/parks.htm). Samuel Francis was a regular contributor to American Rennaissance. This article was written after Samuel Francis died, but I believe it (and other items found in American Renaissance) were echoes of what he had written about her.

"The Rosa Parks Madness", by Jared Taylor

The myth that has grown up around Rosa Parks is of an exhausted Montgomery seamstress who, in 1955, was too tired to give up her seat and move to the colored section so a white man could sit down. According to the myth, this spontaneous act sparked the Montgomery bus boycott and launched the civil rights movement. In the miles of column inches that greeted the news of her death, there were only hints of what really happened.

In fact, Parks’s decision to keep her seat was carefully planned by the NAACP, for which she had worked for 10 years as a secretary. Her arrest did help start the bus boycott, but she played no role in organizing it. And though the boycott has gone down in folklore as a great blow for freedom, it did not even succeed; it was a court order that integrated Montgomery’s buses....

The NAACP had been planning a bus boycott for years, and was waiting only for the right person to act as figurehead. Far from being an accidental hero, Parks was carefully groomed for her role. A white integrationist, Virginia Durr, had paid for Parks to attend civil rights strategy seminars at the Highlander Folk School in Tennessee. The school, known to be rife with Communist sympathizers, was under FBI surveillance.

Moreover, Parks’s role was strictly limited: keep her seat and hold her tongue...


No evidence or citations provided. This is proof by echo chamber, in which a number of right-wing sources take a story and parrot it to each other until they become convinced that, because they've heard it so often, it must be true.

[fuelair]

http://www.grandtimes.com/rosa.html
http://teacher.scholastic.com/rosa/interview.htm
http://www.qm21.com/article1.html
http://www.montgomeryboycott.com/bio_rparks2.htm

Various articles about why/what Rosa Parks did and (may have) thought the day of the arrest. Last one is closest look at possibility of pre-plan and says not likely. Best available on immediate search.