Posted on 11/03/2005 7:49:32 AM PST by .cnI redruM
There's a reason thousands of people turned out for Rosa Parks' funeral yesterday. On Dec. 1, 1955, when she refused to lift her bottom from a bus seat in Montgomery so that a white man could put his down, American history was cut into two parts - before the civil rights movement and after it.
Parks had no idea that her refusal would become a standard by which the nonviolent movement would judge itself as it grew to take on all of the grand dragons of Southern segregation. Yet it is important to understand that Rosa Parks, the young Martin Luther King Jr. and the many others whom we came to associate with the civil rights movement were not the petulant adolescents we saw take over most protest movements within 10 years.
The civil rights movement was a shooting star that brought much light, but it really only lasted until Martin Luther King was assassinated in 1968. By then, King was already losing ground to the separatist and "revolutionary" fantasies that misled younger black people into laughable obsessions with Africa. Ethnic identity became largely cosmetic. There was also the camouflage gear that has yet to leave us, and the addled admiration of mush-mouthed "leaders" like the Black Panthers.
It is almost 50 years since Rosa Parks took her position in the pantheon with Abigail Adams, Harriet Tubman and all of the rest of the remarkable American women who fought for women's rights, abolition, public education and the endlessly important aspects of the public good that could not come into existence unless people stood up to all that held them back. We have come a long way and are still behind the eight ball because the civil rights organizations are largely ineffectual, and the tribal impulses that had nothing to do with the civil rights movement have become, once again, a threat to the hard facts of what will get us out of this ongoing mess.
Affirmative action and the diversity hustle are now well established responses to bigotry. However important such policies might be for now, the irony is that they make it possible for our nation to continue to avoid the big, raggedy elephant in the room - inadequate public education. Hidden behind quotas and set-asides, the idea of providing high-quality education across the lines of color and class remains in the shadows.
We need a movement focused on this problem. Quality education is central to our getting as near as possible to equality, which actually means an equal chance to compete, not equal privilege.
Things are surely much better than they were when Rosa Parks declined to get up, but with a much clearer understanding of what we need in order to develop our population - which is always our greatest natural resource - we could do much, much better right now.
Today's "Rosa Parks" are those Black conservatives who stand for public office and persevere, despite being smeared by racist opponents. Such as Clarence Thomas, Condi Rice and Michael Steele.
Be that as it may, it is ironic and unacknowledged that the woman who defied, yes, defied, the establishment of the day is now celebrated by the very establishment! So perhaps a woman who defies the establishment of this day will be celebrated in 50 years as heroine? Who could that be? There are candidates out there, that you and I disapprove of today as we would have most likely disapproved of Rosa Parks had we been part of the white majority in the South of 1955. Something to ponder, while we congratulate ourselves for being so much more enlightened than every generation that preceeded us.
I heard that on the radio, but I haven't seen it documented. I just want to know the truth about things, sick of the mythology that the Left creates about things. As I said, I am something of a fan of hers otherwise, and I realize that what she did still took courage, and that the right thing was eventually done. I just want to know the TRUTH.
Does that make a difference?
""R. Parks AND her husband were NAACP reps and the "event" was well rehearsed.
Does that make a difference?""
If it is kept secret, it makes a difference to me. Does it make a difference whether you believe Rev Jackson held the dying MLK's head in his arms?
It makes no difference whatsoever in my opinion of Dr. King. He fought for moral right, and was killed for it. (As for Jackson, I have no use for him either way, so no difference there, either.)
Likewise, Rosa Parks really did have her civil rights violated by an immoral law, and really did fight it through to the end to have it changed. And it really was changed, for everybody.
The fact that she knew in advance what she was about to suffer in no way cheapens or falsifies what she did. Jesus knew what he had coming, didn't he?
You are following the moral side of this issue and I was addressing the "Truth" as raised by PARADOX.
You have feelings about why MLK was shot and I would like to know the Truth.
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.