Rosa Parks really tries my patience. She's been set up as the greatest person in America, an untouchable icon. She's probably the number one living person about whom even almost joking is unacceptable. Indeed, she insists on this point. Negro, puh-lease. In this country, no one is sacrosanct. We're all equal, remember?
OK, fine. She did a good thing nearly fifty years ago by refusing to give up her seat on a bus, and thus providing inspiration to the civil rights movement. She's not Jesus, however, and does not remotely rate deification. Rosa Parks just happened to be in the right place at the right time, getting a lot of publicity and a big court case because she was a secretary for the NAACP and knew MLK. Thousands of others commited similar minor acts of civil disobedience without recognition.
This was the point the screenwriters of Barbershop - the best movie of 2002- were making when wise old Eddie said, "Rosa Parks ain't do nothing but sit her black ass down."
Very specifically, Eddie made clear that Rosa Parks did a good thing, but just thought she should not be deified above all the other people who contributed to the movement.
Rosa Parks herself was so incensed by this "disrespect" that she absolutely boycotted the NAACP Image Awards show because it was being hosted by the actor who played Eddie in the movie- Cedric the Entertainer.
Oh, please, get over yourself. Most people would not have much patience for such behavior even from a war hero. Triple war amputee Max Cleland in Georgia didn't get a free ride for even these severe war injuries. Getting a minor ticket 50 years ago don't make you a saint.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - cephusj
She is quite annoying.
2 - rebecca
You may not take the influence of Rosa Parks away from her. Yes, there were others before her. In fact, her lawyer represented another woman--before Parks--who also refused to give up her seat. That woman lost her case. Rosa Parks, however, won.
Listening to you so easily criticize a woman of influence makes me wonder how far our society has come. Are you against integration, too? Without Rosa Parks, that initiative would have been long delayed. How about women's suffrage? Without very vocal, very prominent women, we probably wouldn't have that either.
Think about the effect of your words.
3 - Al Barger
No Rebecca, you don't get away with that. Not wanting to give Rosa Parks an unearned halo and dictatorial powers over other people's freedom of expression does not make me a racist or opponent of integration. Nor does it make me an opponent of women's suffrage.
Integration was coming, and Rosa Parks did no more to that end than any one of thousands of other unrecognized people.
Even if she had written and delivered the "I have a dream" speech and personally registered a million voters, however, I would still oppose giving her the power to CENSOR other people. That is just totally unacceptable.
Nor is it acceptable to set anyone up on a pedestal like she insists on. She is NOT in fact God, but a mere mortal human. As far as working hard and making an intellectual and moral contribution to society, I'd personally put considerably more prestige on Phyllis Schlafly. Yet neither she nor any admirer would for a second presume to set her up as a little plastic dashboard saint who could not be criticized.
In short, Ms. Parks is EQUAL BUT NOT SUPERIOR to any other person. This means that she is equally open to praise for doing something good in her youth, and equally open to criticism later when she gets stupid.
4 - mark
Dear Rebecca,
Wth all do respect, if you think Rosa Parks brought integration to American society, well, open your eyes and look around. She failed miserably. Major universities in this country now have "blacks only" dorms, summer programs open only to "people of color", and speech codes so stifling that any comment can be construed as "racist". I suggest you check out the American Civil Rights Institute (www.acri.org). And you might want to read the book Redneck Nation. The pendulum seems to have swung to segregation by choice. Is this a good thing?
Mark
5 - paul
Yeah, Mark is right. "Blacks Only" Dorms? That's terrible. "White Only" Country Clubs? Good. Rosa Parks, an woman who could've been beaten or killed even for what she did needs to "get over herself". She's no American icon Phyllis Schlafly is. She wasn't the catalyst that sparked the civil rights movement,intergration was coming anyway. Who needs her? Hey I have an idea, let's totally erase her from history, it wouldn't be the first time we ignore certain people because we don't like them (ahem, malcolm x). Afterall, she didn't do anything but "sit her black ass down". No big deal. Rosa Parks owes her "fame" to the white person who made the fuss instead of just "standing his white ass up".
6 - Louis Gross
Look white right wingers, you made your point but as you always do you take it too far. Blacks only dorms and black only summer programs ARE NOT THE EQUIVALENT OF JIM CROW! The bottom line is that virtually no white people have eve suffered a significant negative impact as a result of their race but there was a time when ALL black people did, and a case can be made that ALL black people still feel the effect of past discrimination and MANY blacks feel the effects of not - as - serious but current discrimination. You want to know why there aren't more black conservatives like me? White conservatives like you, that's why! Stick to policy and give up the victimization and race baiting. That is what SMART conservatives like Jeb and George W. Bush are doing. The days of "conservatives" who do nothing but pander to old wounds and fears of loss of white privilege are over. 20 years from now this society is going to be so integrated that you are going to feel stupid for engaging in this type of whining, just as Ronald Reagan fans aren't exactly proud that he kicked off his Presidential campaign in Philadelphia, Mississippi with a speech on state's rights. I actually support state's rights, but not the kind that Reagan was pandering to when he gave that speech in front of the civil rights murderer sympathists.
7 - Dan
"Look white right wingers, you made your point but as you always do you take it too far." There are some black conservatives who would disagree with you Louis. They might say that a lot of whining over alleged "white privilege" and residual effects of discrimination are over-rated. Some make the case that todays race based privileges for blacks and other minorities go "too far" and actually retard integration and impede minority progress.
One fact never mentioned in comparisons of Jim Crow and segregation to todays discriminatory Affirmative Action policies, is that the former was confined to a few Southern States. If you suffered from Jim Crow you could, with some discomfort and initiative, simply move away from it. Not so with Federally sanctioned discriminatory policy today.
8 - Dan
""Blacks Only" Dorms? That's terrible. "White Only" Country Clubs? Good". No Paul, there are no Country Clubs where blacks are not permitted to join. It is rightfully called discriminatory and illegal when whites do it.
9 - Ms. Tek
*shakes head and snickers*
MLK accepted money from communists!!!
Yet he gets a holiday!
Rosa Parks just sat down during a time when defying segregation often meant death or a least retribution.
Damn bitch! Who is she to think she is important.
I say we tak away MLK day and give Rosa Parks the bitch slap she's deserves. Uppity black bitch... who does she think she is? She should know her place!!
10 - Dan
Apparantly, Rosa, deservedly or not, has already recieved the "bitch slap". The following from a "Shatter the Glass Ceiling" biogrophy:
"On August 30, 1994, the nation â€" and especially Detroit â€" was stunned to learn that the 81-year-old Parks had been assaulted in her home. Joseph Skipper, a young, unemployed African American, broke into Parks's home, hit her repeatedly, and stole $53 from her. The incident gained even further news coverage when Ramiah Mario Jefferson, the man who helped catch Skipper after the assault, was himself then arrested for allegedly driving the getaway car in an automatic bank teller machine heist months before."
11 - Louis Gross
Dan, if you believe that black people could escape discrimination just by moving from the South, you are just plain stupid. You didn't even read history. Don't you know that the worst race riots were in California and Boston? That Chicago was the most segregated city in America? That the state with the largest number and highest percentage of Klu Klux Klan members was Indiana? Geesh, what is the mattter with you folks. You go back and forth between saying that "the north was just as bad as the south" and saying "the real racism was in the south, blacks could do just fine by moving away" when it suits you. Complete moral and intellectual dishonesty.
How many white people do you feel are TRULY HARMED by affirmative action and other forms of reverse discrimination, by the way? IT IS VERY VERY RARE. If whites are so put upon by reverse discrimination, why are our elite universities and corporate boardrooms still virtually all white? Why do whites control all of the power and wealth in this country? Even these little programs which don't even amount to crumbs falling off the table that you complain about were created and maintained by liberal whites, not blacks. The irony is that white people like YOU are blaming blacks for your "oppression" when you should be blaming other white people. As much as you bash Jesse Jackson, it is Hillary Clinton who has the real power. It was the deans at these elite colleges who created these black only dorms. So go after them and leave us black folks alone. I don't know why so - called conservatives are so obsessed with race anyway, you have real issues like out of control government spending, fraud and corruption at every level of government, the loss of individual liberty to big business and big government (not only have conservatives given up the fight against big government, but why have antitrust laws stopped being enforced?), Muslim and Marxist extremists destablizing governments worldwide, religious freedom and expression being stamped out in the name of "secularism", and millions of children being murdered by abortion. And people like YOU would rather snivel over a few white people not being able to get into Harvard Law because of affirmative action. If you had any sense you'd be trying to increase the numbers of black and Hispanic conservatives among your ranks to fight these REAL PROBLEMS. It shows what you and your ilk REALLY regards as important. You would rather end some largely ineffective diversity programs than overthrow Roe V. Wade or kick the Marxists out of the U.N., and everyone knows it.
12 - Mac Diva
I guess I responded to this on a previous thread on the same topic. First, I don't believe Ms. Parks has a case because she is a public figure and therefore subject to an awful lot of ragging before she can sue. It also has to be malicious ragging.
However, I totally disagree with Barger's claim Ms. Parks gets too much attention. Major legal challenges always begin with test cases and the plaintiffs in those cases pay a significant price for having their names attached. Furthermore, social movements need symbols and Ms. Parks has been an excellent symbol for desegregation.
Vic, Paul,Louis, etc., have roasted the Kentucky Christmas turkey so well, I will just say 'amen' for further comment. Barger, your biases are indeed showing.
13 - Al Barger
Diva, I'm not necessarily saying that Ms. Parks has gotten too much attention. It's fine to use her for a symbol and all that. That's all well and fine.
What I DO object to is her own self-righteous attitudes, particularly that she should presume to bring the heavy hand of government coercion down on any who dare breathe her name without permission. NO ONE gets to do that.
14 - Dan
Louis, you've made a lot of assumptions about what I "believe" that aren't accurate. Note that I didn't say "black people could escape discrimination just by moving from the South". I said blacks could escape STATE SANCTIONED Jim Crow and segregation policies by moving. Not to say that it was easy, or right that they would have to do so. This doesn't make me "stupid" for pointing this out.
You ask "How many white people do you feel are TRULY HARMED by affirmative action and other forms of reverse discrimination, by the way? IT IS VERY VERY RARE." I would answer: about as many as there are minorities who gain from these privileges. It is more or less a zero sum game. Not to say all affirmative action programs are harmful. I tend to agree with the intent of color blind programs designed to uplift the poverty stricken, although not always with the way they are funded. I would contend that the race based college admissions thing is really a smoke screen. The most economically harmful (to white males) discrimination takes place in average middle class jobs. Here is where minorities and white women all get a leg up on beleagured white men.
You miss the mark again when you say "white people like YOU are blaming blacks for your "oppression" when you should be blaming other white people." I'm not really blaming anyone. I don't personally feel all that oppressed. I get screwed, I move on, find another way. I wouldn't blame ordinary blacks for taking advantage of opportunities presented to them. I have a really high regard for ordinary blacks who have somehow managed to schuck their racial identity despite a liberal propaganda bombardment that encourages entitlement and grievance, through historical revision and demonization of whites. Those few blacks, who live in my colorblind world are the ones I want to share the future with.
Truly listen to what I say, and you will find out what me and my "ilk" really regard as important.
15 - Mac Diva
Dan said:
You ask "How many white people do you feel are TRULY HARMED by affirmative action and other forms of reverse discrimination, by the way? IT IS VERY VERY RARE." I would answer: about as many as there are minorities who gain from these privileges. It is more or less a zero sum game.
The only way Dan's remark could be true is if no African-American were ever qualified for any position a white person wanted. In other words, Dan is saying that white people are automatically superior and more deserving. That is the very esssence of racism.
I have known too many stupid white people to be fooled by the racist propaganda of the Dans of the world, thank God, Nature, or whatever.
Dan is a bigot. (And, I bet he has a small penis, too.)
16 - Desiree
Umm, Where do I begin. I am a new comer to this website. I happened to stumble upon it while searching for Quotes for my website. I've read each of your postings and was taken away with them all. It was if i were listening to a real live debate. All of your points and views, well discussed and worded appropriately(well, most of you).
As a student, and I'm asking for assistance on an JFK paper. The assassination of JFK that is. I have to answer the following questions:
Do you believe that Lee Harvey Oswald could have been the lone assassin?
Do you think there was a conspiracy?
I know what i think about the subject but i'm having trouble wording my feelings and opinions. I'm asking that one of you please respond to me somehow. So maybe the founders of the site can make a new posting on how you all feel about the JFK assassination.
If you want, can you provide information and facts to support your opinion.
Just playing. That makes it sound like i'm going to just copy and paste it all. I wouldn't do that you people. I'm seriously just a student loooking for some help with homework. If you have time to write back and forth on these posting then i know you have some extra time to help me.
Please do not take offense to any of this. I'd hate to be the bashing subject by people i don't even know. Thank you,
Desiree
17 - Al Barger
Diva, I KNOW you're smarter than this nonsense:
The only way Dan's remark could be true is if no African-American were ever qualified for any position a white person wanted. In other words, Dan is saying that white people are automatically superior and more deserving.
Your statement here is simply flatly and obviously FALSE. Dan's statement would apply to the extent that any less qualified black person EVER leaped over a white guy for a job.
If this NEVER happened, then there would not exist any affirmative action. That is exactly the point of affirmative action: pushing less qualified minority group members into jobs.
Now, you can claim that this is "fair" because a black man hasn't had the same chances to get an education or qualifications or blah, blah, blah. You cannot, however, honestly claim that it doesn't push less qualified people of preferred ethnic groups to the top of the list.
And you can definitely lay off of calling Dan a bigot. That is totally unwarranted, and unspeakably rude. He has been utterly scrupulous in being rational and honest, with goodwill toward all in every comment he's ever left in our forum.
Calling Dan a bigot is not only hateful and unwarranted, but de-humanizing. It is just as bad- and arguably worse in this society at this time- than if a white guy were to address a black man as "nigger." It contains the same basic idea in both cases of someone being bad, a sub-human not worthy of consideration or acceptance.
This kind of promiscuous accusation of bigotry undermines your credibility, and generates unnecessary ill will all around.
I love you, but you need to be nice. Thanks.
18 - Mac Diva
Barger, you are being obtuse. Dan said hiring people of color is a zero sum game. That means that every black, brown, yellow or red person (or woman) who gets a position is taking it away from a white man. That is a ridiculous and racist thing to believe. Let's explore the implications with an example. Dr. Ben Carson is considered to be one of, if not the, best neurosurgeon in the country. If one buys into what Dan is selling, then Dr. Carson should not have been allowed to become a doctor. Instead, some white guy, you, perhaps (though I think he would prefer himself) should have Dr. Carson's position instead. Since Dr. Carson is African-American, he is somehow 'unqualifed.' This is the ugly path people like Dan would like to lead the country down. I hope they never get the chance again.
Furthermore, the point of affirmative action is not to promote less qualified people. It is to prevent the Dans of America from discriminating against qualified people who are not white men. Since, left to their devices, they definitely would, a way of establishing a fair playing ground is needed.
19 - Al Barger
What Dan very clearly and logically said was that the number of whites who suffer from affirmative action would be equal to the number of minority group members who benefit from it. This is obviously true.
It is NOT an affirmative action hire to hire a more qualified black man over a less qualified white. You don't NEED affirmative action to explain that. If this Dr Carson is one of the best neurosurgeons in the country, then he surely doesn't require special consideration based on race.
You have absolutely NO basis for saying that Dan would object to qualified people of color becoming doctors. You're just making that up wholecloth, cause Dan has said absolutely NOTHING even VAGUELY resembling that.
If you simply outlawed discrimination based on race, then you would have no complaint from the vast majority of right wingers - though I would still have some issues about freedom of association, even for, say, owners of a FUBU shirt factory who might just not want whitey around. Not cool in my opinion, but not MY factory.
Affirmative action does not outlaw, but in fact MANDATES discrimination. It just mandates it in directions you might happen to like.
I doubt that this has really hurt white folks generally all that much- but at the same time I doubt that it has really helped black folks.
I am sure, however, that it has generated a great deal of needless hostility and resentment not conducive to racial reconciliation.
20 - Dan
Thanks Al, but I would hope that by now regular reasonable readers of all colors would be familiar with MD's lack of reading comprehension and reasoning skills. I would only add that I hope they can apply this insight to their evaluation of MD's assumption about my um, genitalia dimension.
21 - Mac Diva
Utter fecal matter, Barger. He of the diminutive dongle said a zero sum game. That, by definition, means taking from A (whites and/or men) and giving to B (nonwhites and/or women). However, affirmative action is not a zero sum game. What it does is prevent A (the holders of nearly all power in a racist and sexist society) from completely shutting out competition by B. That bothers the Dans of the world because they would like to shut out that competition. Affirmative action makes things fair and that rankles people who don't want them to be that way.
Nor does your effort to evade the implications of the example work. If you and Dan had gotten your way, Dr. Carson would never have gotten the opportunity to go to med school, or perhaps even college, on the grounds that he was not qualified. Some mediocre white guy who is not nearly as capable would have been given those slots instead. Heck, a dunce like Dan probably thinks he can automatically perform brain surgery because he is a white man. Whiteness is simply a lack of melanin. Claims about it qualifying anyone for anything other than skin cancer are ludicrous.
22 - Louis Gross
Dan, southern Jim Crow ONLY refers to laws that mandated segregation. Now, expand your mind beyond what you have been taught in school and what has been portrayed in the media and ponder this. State mandated segregation IS NOT NECESSARILY discrimination IN THEORY. Or if it is, IN THEORY it should harm whites and blacks EQUALLY, and any harm should be offset by the equal gain in turn.
Consider dating for instance. That is a competition. Remove all racism BUT leave in the laws against interracial dating and whatever, and any harm caused you by not being able to date females of the other race is made up to you by not having to compete with males in order to date members of YOUR race.
Separate but equal was NOT the problem. The problem was an fundamentally racist society which made Jim Crow (and pretty much everything else) a tool of racism. Eliminating Jim Crow merely served to eliminate one of those tools. Many others remained and persist to this day. And yes, that does include the government.
That is why it was so SILLY for you to assert that state sanctioned discrimination against blacks only existed during the Jim Crow South. You should realize that my conservatism is an outgrowth of my college flirtation with black nationalism. I came to the conclusion that the most racist entity in America is the government. Hence, conservatism, which means less government and less ways the government can screw black people.
Instead of being so niggardly with opportunity over affirmative action (and being so dense that white people have always and still do benefit from similar programs AND from the underlying social structure ... I benefitted from affirmative action but it wasn't ANYTHING LIKE the affirmative action that Al Gore JUNIOR and George W. Bush had let me tell you!) you folks ought to be making the case to blacks that we need to limit the power of a government that discriminates against them. It is certainly more attractive than the other sides' strategy of adding universal healthcare and daycare to the same government that does SUCH A GOOD JOB for blacks (and especially black men) when it comes to housing, public schools, Social Security, farm policy (there were PLENTY of black family farms BEFORE the Department of Agriculture was created but VIRTUALLY NONE now), criminal justice, Great Society programs (you can have as many kids as you want not to mention free housing so long as you A) don't get married B) don't save or invest money and C) don't get an education), etc.
But since the so - called small government conservatives never make this case to black people in the interests of recruiting them, maybe what these folks REALLY WANT is to make the government that helps blacks smaller (assuming it exists ... if it does I can't tell) and the government that screws blacks BIGGER. If that is the case, then perhaps blacks should seek refuge in true liberalism (now called libertarianism). No government is better than one that harms you.
23 - Al Barger
Diva, this is a fascinating statement you make: If you and Dan had gotten your way, Dr. Carson would never have gotten the opportunity to go to med school, or perhaps even college, on the grounds that he was not qualified.
No, Dan nor I say any such thing. Perhaps YOU think that a black man would not be able to make it on merit. That seems to be your implication.
Or perhaps YOU are SO caught up in race that you can't imagine it ever NOT being the dominant fact in any situation. If we don't have affirmative action discrimination built in to favor black folks, then you seem to assume that this would simply be license not to let any black folk in. Do you think that it is not possible to try to simply judge people based on their qualifications?
Louis, now you're singing my tune. As chairman of the Franklin County Indiana Libertarians, I'm glad to hear your small government ranting.
I would guess you'd likely be a fan of my hero Walter Williams. How familiar are you with his classic book The State Against Blacks?
24 - Mac Diva
I have been holding this information back because I wanted Tiny Testicles to say it himself. But, since Barger brought libertarianism up, I might as well say that Dan Precht, who appears to be posting to this thread, is apparently a failed Libertarian candidate from the Midwest. I believe this to be relevant because libertarianism and racism have so often become synonymous. I have libertarian friends who will object to that observation, but it is true.
Months ago, several bloggers discussed this topic. The state of archives being what it is, those entries have probably gone South. However, the topic could be reexamined. If I have time, I will initiate a group discussion by contacting libertarians of various stripes about the subject.
25 - Mac Diva
Louis, do you have a blog? You say interesting things that I would like to cite appropriately.