The end of the line.
 

"Daniel-San" schrieb im Newsbeitrag
...
SNIP
As I seem now to be the
asshole-rascist-in-charge-of-trying-to-get-things-historically-accurate, I
will point out that the actual quote from her autobio, _My Story_ is that
she was "tired of giving in", not physically tired.

Dan

These things tend to get very heated.

The lady made a personal stand, for whatever reasons, and this was later
used to very good effect by the civil rights movement. It is certain that
the lady did not know that her personal stand would be used in such a
manner, which in no way belittles the stand itself.

You are quite right. Others made personal stands, and they were not
publicised.

Any choice of words which might be construed as criticism of such an event,
or the person involved in it, is dangerous in the extreme.

I was not criticising you, or trying to imply in any way that you are
racist.

TL
MC

The end of the line.
 

"Tim J." wrote in message
...
Daniel-San typed:
"Tim J." wrote ...
Daniel-San typed:
snip
The NAACP used her case as a rallying point. They had been prepared
to use other cases before
Parks', but did not for one reason or another (one was a 15 year old
girl -- looked good until she turned out to be pregnant). Parks
being a woman of nearly impeccable charcter made for a good rallying
point.

Kinda like a galvanizing moment, wot?

That's all I'm saying. Sure, absolutely she was a great human being.
As I said before, worthy of the praise she received. But if you ask
'joe on the street' who she was, you'll get an answer along the
lines of "she started the civil rights movement." That is BS.

I'm not sure of these Joes of which you speak, but anyone with a
brief study of the civil rights movement knows she didn't start it.
She sure did make people focus on it.

The same "Joes" that would answer "What caused the Civil War?" with
"slavery". Absolutely it was a factor, but it was not the cause.

I don't think it was even much of a factor.

But I'd be very willing to bet that the average American that has only been
taught the pageantry of history in their classes would.


She
did not make people focus on it, the NAACP did when they took her
case. She was a good, decent person who took a personal stand.

Kinda like a galvanizing moment, wot?

As Dr.
King said: "Mrs. Parks' arrest was the precipitating factor rather
than the cause of the protest."

Kinda like a galvanizing moment, wot?

" The cause lay deep in the record of
similar injustices...Actually no one can understand the action of
Mrs. Parks unless he realizes that eventually the cup of endurance
runs over, and the human personality cries out, 'I can take it no
longer.'"

Kinda like a galvanizing moment, wot?

quick quote from Wikipedia... don't have my copy handy
for page, etc.
That's all I'm sayin'. Great person. Great action. Used by others as a
rallying-cry.

Kinda like a galvanizing moment, wot?

The original post to which I replied (before I got dizzy and went from
rampant liberal to rascist 'white'....) stated "Absolutely magnificent what
a single determined person can achieve."

IMO, absolutely magnificent what a well organized group can acheive when
given the right rallying point.

Parks was not the first to refuse to give up her seat. She was the right
person at the right time for the movement.

Dan

--
TL,
Tim
(Whew! Now I'm dizzy %-( )
------------------------
http://css.sbcma.com/timj/

The end of the line.
 

Tim J. wrote:
Daniel-San typed:
...
The same "Joes" that would answer "What caused the Civil War?" with
"slavery". Absolutely it was a factor, but it was not the cause.

I don't think it was even much of a factor.

Slavery wasn't much of a factor in the US Civil War ?

I am definitely due a refund from the University of Illinois.

--
Ken Fortenberry

The end of the line.
 

"Mike Connor" wrote in message
...

"Daniel-San" schrieb im Newsbeitrag
...
SNIP



It is certain that the lady did not know that her personal stand would be
used in such a manner, which in no way belittles the stand itself.

Thank you for finding a way to say what I have been trying to say. I guess
my wordsmithing is rusty.



You are quite right. Others made personal stands, and they were not
publicised.

Any choice of words which might be construed as criticism of such an
event, or the person involved in it, is dangerous in the extreme.

Apparently.


I was not criticising you, or trying to imply in any way that you are
racist.


Thank you. While you and I will probably not meet, if we do, you will find
me to be about as anti-rascist as it gets. My undergrad (and upcoming grad
school) is centered around immigration and civil rights in the 20th century.
Maybe I should have said something alon those lines in my 1st post...

TL
MC


Dan

The end of the line.
 

Daniel-San typed:
"Tim J." wrote in message
...
Daniel-San typed:
"Tim J." wrote ...
Daniel-San typed:
snip
The NAACP used her case as a rallying point. They had been
prepared to use other cases before
Parks', but did not for one reason or another (one was a 15 year
old girl -- looked good until she turned out to be pregnant).
Parks being a woman of nearly impeccable charcter made for a good
rallying point.

Kinda like a galvanizing moment, wot?

That's all I'm saying. Sure, absolutely she was a great human
being. As I said before, worthy of the praise she received. But
if you ask 'joe on the street' who she was, you'll get an answer
along the lines of "she started the civil rights movement." That
is BS.

I'm not sure of these Joes of which you speak, but anyone with a
brief study of the civil rights movement knows she didn't start it.
She sure did make people focus on it.

The same "Joes" that would answer "What caused the Civil War?" with
"slavery". Absolutely it was a factor, but it was not the cause.

I don't think it was even much of a factor.

But I'd be very willing to bet that the average American that has
only been taught the pageantry of history in their classes would.

The average American (me) was taught differently. Some pay attention in
class, some don't. I think the ones that don't are named "Joe." :)

snip

The original post to which I replied (before I got dizzy and went from
rampant liberal to rascist 'white'....) stated "Absolutely
magnificent what a single determined person can achieve."

Well, *there's* yer problem. Freakin' liberals. ;-)
--
TL,
Tim
------------------------
http://css.sbcma.com/timj/

The end of the line.
 

Ken Fortenberry typed:
Tim J. wrote:
Daniel-San typed:
...
The same "Joes" that would answer "What caused the Civil War?" with
"slavery". Absolutely it was a factor, but it was not the cause.

I don't think it was even much of a factor.

Slavery wasn't much of a factor in the US Civil War ?

I am definitely due a refund from the University of Illinois.

I could have told you that without discussing the Civil War. ;-)
--
TL,
Tim
------------------------
http://css.sbcma.com/timj/

The end of the line.
 

"Daniel-San" schrieb im Newsbeitrag
.. .

SNIP
Thank you. While you and I will probably not meet,

More´s the pity.

if we do, you will find
me to be about as anti-rascist as it gets. My undergrad (and upcoming grad
school) is centered around immigration and civil rights in the 20th
century. Maybe I should have said something alon those lines in my 1st
post...


I don´t think anybody here seriously considers you to be racist. Quite a few
just love jumping down somebody´s throat, if that person makes even a slight
mistake or perceived error of judgement.

The whole issue is extremely sensitive, and anything you say may be easily
misinterpreted, misconstrued, intentionally or otherwise, and generally
twisted to your severe disadvantage, etc. etc. Probably why discussing
politics and similar subjects on here is such a bad idea.

So, I will take my own implied advice, and return to lurking mode.

TL
MC

The end of the line.
 

Tim J. wrote:
Daniel-San typed:

The same "Joes" that would answer "What caused the Civil War?" with
"slavery". Absolutely it was a factor, but it was not the cause.


I don't think it was even much of a factor.

That's an absolute howler. Slavery was overwhelmingly the primary cause
of the Civil War.

I was fed the usual propaganda in school that it wasn't really about
slavery, that is was about states' rights. I later learned, after
educating myself in American history, that this is a rationalization
intended to avoid, ignore, and gloss over the country's racist slave
holding past. If the Civil War was about states' rights, it was about
the rights of states to practice slavery.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

The end of the line.
 

Tim J. wrote:
Ken Fortenberry typed:
Tim J. wrote:
Daniel-San typed:
...
The same "Joes" that would answer "What caused the Civil War?" with
"slavery". Absolutely it was a factor, but it was not the cause.

I don't think it was even much of a factor.

Slavery wasn't much of a factor in the US Civil War ?

I am definitely due a refund from the University of Illinois.


I could have told you that without discussing the Civil War. ;-)

Saying slavery wasn't the cause of the Civil War is just
floundering about trying to find an excuse to ignore the
elephant in the living room. Of course slavery was the
cause of the Civil War, I know that and my name ain't Joe.

--
Ken Fortenberry

The end of the line.
 

"Mike Connor" wrote in message
...

"Daniel-San" schrieb im Newsbeitrag
.. .

SNIP
Thank you. While you and I will probably not meet,

More´s the pity.

True... Too bad Germany's not on the to-do list anytime soon.


if we do, you will find
me to be about as anti-rascist as it gets. My undergrad (and upcoming
grad school) is centered around immigration and civil rights in the 20th
century. Maybe I should have said something alon those lines in my 1st
post...


I don´t think anybody here seriously considers you to be racist. Quite a
few just love jumping down somebody´s throat, if that person makes even a
slight mistake or perceived error of judgement.


I think this may be the forst time I joined a 'politcal' thread. I usually
lurk through them. I was surprised to find Fortenberry (with whom I agree on
most things political, even if I don't post to that effect) jumping my back.
What I don't get is how trying to point out that what most folks are taught
is not the whole story is a 'mistake'. Perhaps the 'ocassion of her death'
is not the most opportune time, but when else is Rosa Parks gonna come up in
ROFF? Maybe I should just keep my yap shut, so to speak.


The whole issue is extremely sensitive, and anything you say may be easily
misinterpreted, misconstrued, intentionally or otherwise, and generally
twisted to your severe disadvantage, etc. etc. Probably why discussing
politics and similar subjects on here is such a bad idea.

I guess I don't know why it's sensitive. I could see affirmative action or
abortion as being sensitive issues (among others, or course), but the
details of an historical event?

Hell, I don't get it.


So, I will take my own implied advice, and return to lurking mode.

TL
MC


Dan