Posted on 10/27/2005 10:55:50 AM PDT by Shade2
Rosa Parks and history Oct 27, 2005 by Thomas Sowell
The death of Rosa Parks has reminded us of her place in history, as the black woman whose refusal to give up her seat on a bus to a white man, in accordance with the Jim Crow laws of Alabama, became the spark that ignited the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s.
Most people do not know the rest of the story, however. Why was there racially segregated seating on public transportation in the first place? "Racism" some will say -- and there was certainly plenty of racism in the South, going back for centuries. But racially segregated seating on streetcars and buses in the South did not go back for centuries.
Far from existing from time immemorial, as many have assumed, racially segregated seating in public transportation began in the South in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.
Those who see government as the solution to social problems may be surprised to learn that it was government which created this problem. Many, if not most, municipal transit systems were privately owned in the 19th century and the private owners of these systems had no incentive to segregate the races.
These owners may have been racists themselves but they were in business to make a profit -- and you don't make a profit by alienating a lot of your customers. There was not enough market demand for Jim Crow seating on municipal transit to bring it about.
It was politics that segregated the races because the incentives of the political process are different from the incentives of the economic process. Both blacks and whites spent money to ride the buses but, after the disenfranchisement of black voters in the late 19th and early 20th century, only whites counted in the political process.
It was not necessary for an overwhelming majority of the white voters to demand racial segregation. If some did and the others didn't care, that was sufficient politically, because what blacks wanted did not count politically after they lost the vote.
The incentives of the economic system and the incentives of the political system were not only different, they clashed. Private owners of streetcar, bus, and railroad companies in the South lobbied against the Jim Crow laws while these laws were being written, challenged them in the courts after the laws were passed, and then dragged their feet in enforcing those laws after they were upheld by the courts.
These tactics delayed the enforcement of Jim Crow seating laws for years in some places. Then company employees began to be arrested for not enforcing such laws and at least one president of a streetcar company was threatened with jail if he didn't comply.
None of this resistance was based on a desire for civil rights for blacks. It was based on a fear of losing money if racial segregation caused black customers to use public transportation less often than they would have in the absence of this affront.
Just as it was not necessary for an overwhelming majority of whites to demand racial segregation through the political system to bring it about, so it was not necessary for an overwhelming majority of blacks to stop riding the streetcars, buses and trains in order to provide incentives for the owners of these transportation systems to feel the loss of money if some blacks used public transportation less than they would have otherwise.
People who decry the fact that businesses are in business "just to make money" seldom understand the implications of what they are saying. You make money by doing what other people want, not what you want.
Black people's money was just as good as white people's money, even though that was not the case when it came to votes.
Initially, segregation meant that whites could not sit in the black section of a bus any more than blacks could sit in the white section. But whites who were forced to stand when there were still empty seats in the black section objected. That's when the rule was imposed that blacks had to give up their seats to whites.
Legal sophistries by judges "interpreted" the 14th Amendment's requirement of equal treatment out of existence. Judicial activism can go in any direction.
That's when Rosa Parks came in, after more than half a century of political chicanery and judicial fraud.
One of the reasons why segregation lasted so long was because people who otherwise objected to it did not want to associate with Communist front groups like the ACLU and the Highlander Folk School.
My father was involved in the civil rights movement in Biloxi in the late 1950s and he was frequently accosted by Communist recruiters at various meetings. It was an open secret that certain leaders in the civil rights movement like Paul Robeson, Harry Belafonte and Bayard Rustin were ardent Stalinists.
Remember this. Rosa Parks intentionally disobeyed an unjust law and in doing so advance the cause of freedom and equality under the law.
Yes, it was a planned event. This does not belittle the event in anyway. Instead it shows the courage of people who knew the potential consequences of their actions and stood firm on the side of right anyway.
I don't think it's correct to say that Government created racism. But racists certainly used Government to promote their evil intentions.
Sowell's insight here is wonderful. We lose track of history and of the driving forces behind it when we listen only to the media. Both the state legislature and the courts were used to promote injustice. The saga continues in other areas today.
Socialists want the Government to run everything, with the idea that that is going to remove injustice. It will only empower injustice. Free market economic forces would have prevented the discrimination on the buses.
Paul Robeson was prominently featured as a key leader of the civil rights movement, even though he was a card-carrying member of the American Communist Party, openly praised Stalin in speech after speech, and went on a singing tour of the Soviet Union in 1949 where he gave long anti-American tirades to the foreign press.
No well-meaning American would want to show up to a rally that featured such a vile individual, let alone join an organization he belonged to.
Martin Luther King was the first civil rights leader to realize that persuading white churchgoers to support the movement on Christian grounds would be far more effective than pursuing the support of Communist revolution that many civil rights leaders advocated from 1930-1960.
Remember this. Rosa Parks intentionally disobeyed an unjust law and in doing so advance the cause of freedom and equality under the law.
Yes, it was a planned event. This does not belittle the event in anyway. Instead it shows the courage of people who knew the potential consequences of their actions and stood firm on the side of right anyway.
how does that relate to Lawrence v. Texas? sounds like a similar situation, in which a crime was set-up to get the case into courts because they believed they were on the side of what was right.
I meant to communicate that not all people who were involved with , or worked toward Civil Rights were Communists. I am sure that there were communists who saw a weakness in our society that they could exploit (being unequal laws and such), but not all of the leaders of civil rights groups were Communists.
"...and the whole thing was a staged event by the organization from the beginning. "
Not that It matters now,
I saw an program on PBS about Civil Rights Era and yes it was staged and Parks was a member of the NAACP. IIRC.
She wasn't just a simple citizen as proclaimed.
It does appear that Lawrence V Texas was staged as well. I feel the courts ruled incorrectly in this matter.
However, I find the suggestion that these cases are similar unfounded. Lawrence v Texas was an attempt to justify sexual acts. Rosa Parks and the civil rights movement was an attempt to eliminate skin color (a benign and unalterable (except in the case of Jacko) physical condition that in no way impacts on a persons worth of ability) as a guiding facet of law.
Granted the civil rights movement has been hi-jacked by bigots and racist and fools of all stripe and color, but the cause of equality fought for by Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King Jr is worthy of conservative support.
You aren't suggesting that the elimination of Jim Crow laws was a bad thing, are you?
/major pi$$ed off sarc
Yeah and then the Federal Government wouldn't of moved in to help the blacks by formulating policies that have helped to destroy the black family.
Things could of gotten better for the blacks in this country with out the "Civil Rights" movement. I hate the "Civil Rights" movement because they tend to expect "Civil Rights" to trump individual rights. I feel it is wrong. The communist were not really interested in helping blacks, but rather trying to cause desertion here. Yep its easy to laugh about the commies now, bet millions are in Russia and China now... oh wait they cant laugh their dead.
"I disagree that Civil rights groups of the 1960s were based in Communism."
True.
The cause was just but not all their supporters were.
Communists inflitrated the Civil Rights cause for their own their own benefit
Or simply put:
1950, communists within a cause.
2000, communists without a cause
The only way for Parks to have staged the bus incident would have been to have deliberately sat in the first row. But in the row she actually sat in she had no idea whether she would be asked to move or not.
You aren't suggesting that the elimination of Jim Crow laws was a bad thing, are you?
only from the standpoint that they should never have been there to begin with, and that they should not have been replaced with affirmative action.
but i fear that in 50 years, barring revolution, lawrence v texas will stand next to parks a huge stride in "anti-discrimination."
All of this is no secret, but will likely provoke insults and accusations of being a Stormfront invader from those who prefer squeaky clean symbols and their history as concocted by the New York Times. Here's a relevant fragment of an editorial from the same newspaper:
She was a dignified surrogate tapped by local black leaders who wanted a squeaky-clean stand-in to test a hated segregationist rule. With her arrest, Parks filled this need, but also she launched changes that continue to swirl today. Sowell is a national treasure. Great article. Thank you for posting.
Semantics.
For it to be a set up it has to be coordinated. it wasn't.
As I pointed out, she had no way of knowing herself whether she would have an uneventful bus ride or not.
She was not personally sent to create an incident, rather the SCLC was reviewing incidents to try and find one which they could use.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.