In a very interesting news story posted today, Rosa Parks was NOT the first to try to desegregate Montgomery, Alabama's city busses by sitting in the front. But just who is Claudette Colvin? Find out HERE and post your thoughts, comments, and observations by the Monday we get back (Feb 23).
(AP Photo/Julie Jacobson)
16 comments:
Although I kind of understand why this would happen, it seems like the black leaders were even a bit prejudiced themselves. They understood that to win their rights and equality, they wouldn't just be able to go ahead and demonstrate however they wanted. By choosing a "lighter-skinned" woman who "would project an image of unimpeachable integrity", they were conforming to the wants of whites at the time. Instead of dark-skinned Colvin, who was only a teenager, and pregnant too, the leaders decided to back up someone who they felt would earn more support. The black leaders did not want to say that a "feisty" and "profane" teenager was the face of their movement, they wanted someone who would not look as bad in the eyes of white people.
I also think it is interesting how the text did not mention the Browder v. Gayle case at all, when that was the case that lead to the integration on public transportation. Rosa Parks had nothing to do with that case, and I guess because it would mean supporting someone who was not 'qualified', the black leaders did not do much to help either.
I'm just kind of shocked that such an important part of history has been ignored because some people decided that Colvin wasn't good enough to be the face of the movement. I wonder what would have happened if more radical leaders has been in charge, like those who came later. Would they have brought Colvin's case to the public, like the more passive black leaders did with Parks?
The whole concept of having someone with lighter-skin as the face of the civil rights movement is upsetting. The whole point of the civil rights movement was basically whites vs. blacks. It's not helping the blacks cause if they have segregation within their own division. I'd also like to point out that Rev. Martin Luther King was a big face in the movement at the time and he was dark black. I think it was factors outside of just being very dark skinned that denied Colvin the recognition she should've gotten. A fifteen year old schoolgirl taking a stand seems much more powerful than someone like Rosa Parks. Colvin showed rebellion against segregation at such a young age and I think she should've been rewarded for that instead of degraded for it.
I agree that choosing a lighter skinned, less controversial black woman to represent the bus protests was conforming to gain the acceptance of whites, but it was probably necessary. Throughout history, the civil rights movement has had to work in small steps, and that is still true today. Although publicizing Colvin's protest would have been bolder than that of Rosa Parks, it may have caused whites to dismiss it as a feisty teenager who just wanted to cause trouble. By using Rosa Parks, a more respectable looking figure at the time, the civil rights movement was able to gain recognition and respect.
Even today, the same is true. Many people wonder if Barack Obama would have been elected president if he was all black, not half. Racism still exist and it takes a series of small steps, and a change of generations, for these prejudices to slowly disappear.
I understand why Kiley and Mane feel like blacks were prejudice against themselves, but I disagree. Black leaders didn't choose Colvin as the face of the movement because doing so would be ineffective, not because they were discriminating against her. There were several reasons why Colvin could not be the face of the movement and why black leaders were not discriminating against her. First of all, her actions on the bus were impulsive. In order for the transportation desegregation movement to be successful, an incident needed to be planned so that there would be a support-base behind the “perpetrator” at the time of the incident. Black leaders did not choose Colvin not because they didn’t think she was worthy of being the face of the movement but rather because they wanted to do what they needed to in order to get recognition. Colvin wasn’t trying to get recognition with her act and the leaders didn’t choose Colvin because whites would not sympathize with her as much as they would with Parks. They were just being practical by choosing Parks, not prejudiced. Black leaders were just trying to have their movement succeed. It is arbitrary that Parks was chosen as the face of the movement. It could have been any black person that whites would sympathize with. Lastly, Black leaders did try to help Colvin in court, so they were not insensitive to her plight.
I agree with Tovia that black leaders may not have chosen Colvin to be the face of the boycott because it would be ineffective, not because they were discriminating against her. The fact that Claudette Colvin was from a bad, poor neighborhood, had an affair with a married man, and became pregnant as a teenager would not have helped their cause at all. It may have even helped southern racists make their piont, that they thought African Americans were trash
It is suprising though,that during a time that they were fighting for acceptance, black leaders did not accept another black person that deserved recognition. and it was not just African American leaders either. The article said that Colvin was shunned by her classmates and neighbors as well. Although their reaction to her action was suprising, it is still understandable.
I agree with Tovia and Hannah that Claudette Colvin was not chosen by black leaders to lead the boycott because she would be inneffective not because she was more dark skinned than other candidates.The movement needed someone who was sure to gain sympathy and support to "be the face" of the movement in order for it to make a lasting impact and succeed. Someone who had an affair with a married man and then became pregnant as a result of the affair was not the image that black leaders wanted for the movement. Her background would just give proof of what many whites thought, that blacks were not equal to whites.Black leaders could not risk using her as the face of the movement.
Also in order to make the impact as great as it could be,the act of refusing to vacate a seat on a bus had to be planned. The black leaders had to know what was happening so that they could use the information about the event to inspire great numbers of african americans in their speeches. They also needed the person refusing to vacate their seat to get immediate attention and recognition for what they were doing. Colvin was not trying to gain recognition for a movement rather she was just tired of moving for whites. However when Rosa Parks did the same she was trying to gain recognition and support for the movement.
It was still very interesting to hear that Black leaders refused to use Colvin to gain recognition for the movement. Even though she had a bad background you would think that black leaders would take anyone who wanted to help the cause.
I also agree with what Simone and Tovia said. I dont think that the black leaders were trying to be rude and saying that she didt deserve the recognition, it just wasnt the right time. The movement needed a controled and well planned act that they could use as an example of the prejudice in the south. They couldnt just use some teenager that was tired of moving for whites. they needed a calm and more respectable person in order to gain support that they needed.
If they had used Colvin i dont think it would hav been effective at all. Blacks would not be able to rally behind her and whites would just have another reason to think that blacks were below them. I am sorry that it took so long for Colvin to get the recognition she deserves but at least she is getting it now.
Ahem, I agree with the majority of this discussion in that the reasons for Colvin's lack of support and recognition was soley based on strategy and effectiveness. Usins Colvin to jump start the bus boycott was a bad decision because of her questionable background, skin tone, and the fact that even kids at her school displayed no support for her whatsoever. If a bunch of school kids won't support her, why would the black community and, furthermore, the country?
As for the topic of recognition, I think that the problem is overly-exagerated. Why should recognition even matter? Blacks achieved their goal: equality. I just think that jealousy and admiration hold no ground here.
I also agree with most of the discussions. I think the decision of not choosing Colvin was based on all these arguments. I think the leaders of the movement were a little prejudice and there were also many other reasons not to pick her, including her bad background. I agree with Hannah that choosing her as the leader of the movement might have actually helped southern racists prove their point that blacks didn't deserve to be equal to whites. I also agree that the timing wasn't right because her classmates and the black leaders from her city did not support her. She was just not the right person for the job. But I do feel bad that she has not gotten recognition for what she did until now.
I like the point that Imp made (whoever that is). If a bunch of school kids didn't support colving (kids her own age!), then it is understandable for the black community and the country to not support her aswell. Also, like tovia and Hannah said, Colvin denying her seat to the white woman was an impulsive action. There was nothing the black community could back up or support of her action other than the simple fact that she felt like she had to do it. However, I do admire Colvin because it must have take alot of courage to stand up to the white woman, she did what no one else had done and finally people are hearing her story.
I can't believe that Colvin had not been recognized until now! I Understand that she was young and it was impulsive, but she was still the first to have done it. Everybody knows who Rosa Parks is, but i never heard of this girl before now. I think that the reasons for the blacks not supporting her given seem to be a little contradictory of the movement itself. Like Mane pointed out, them choosing a lighter skinned person as the face for the blacks is upsetting. Even within the blacks, skin color is still a huge factor. I think that the blacks just weren't ready for a huge movement at the time that the Rosa Parks incident prompted. I feel bad for Colvin, and feel that she should have at least been given just a little part in history too.
I agree with Emma, that its sad we've never heard of Colvin. Ever since we were little we've heard about Rosa Parks and how she was the first, but in reality someone else did it first. I understand why Rosa's story is more widely told, as it sparked the boycott, but Colvin's should not have been forgotten. However, I also agree with Emily that recognition isn't what's important; its achieving the goal. Luckily, Colvin sees it that way and isn't bitter about being left out of history books.
I completely understand why Rosa was chosen over Colvin as the face of the movement. Colvin's pregnancy, among other things, would have given racist southern a way to discredit the movement. Black leaders had one shot to win the bus boycott, they had to get the perfect person and timing. Choosing Rosa was being smart, not prejudice.
I agree with what emma pointed out about how that regonition isnt important, its just achieving the goal, but if you were Colvin and never got any kudos for this radical act that she risked a lot for and did for the black community, you would be upset. She was thinking about all the famous black women leaders and knew she had to take her own stand for the balcks and they didnt even support her. I can't believe she had the guts to do that at only 15 years old. If you google Colvin, 47,000 results come up but if you google Parks, 1,600,000 results come up! I understand that she was young, dark skinned and impulsive and there were many negative factors but i just thought it was so surprising she got no back up, not even from her own classmates! I agree with the author when he writes "I hope it makes it impossible to talk about the beginnings of the civil rights movement without really describing what Claudette Colvin did." But i have a feeling its going to take a long time. :(
I think it's too late to post this, but I will anyway. When I first started reading this article I thought that it was shocking that they wouldn't have used a 15 year old Colvin to start a bus boycott. I thought that if such a young girl like her showed the courage to take a stand against segregation and then to be dragged off the bus by police, that would be an even more powerful way to spark a movement for black rights. However, as I continued to read, I realized that using Colvin as an example of wrongdoing in the South would hinder the movement. Certain aspects of her life (having an affair with a married man, becoming pregnant, and being kicked out of school) contradicted the beliefs of American society in general. These conditions would be unacceptable to many even if Colvin was white. However, concerning the other reasons for her case not sparking a movement (her dark complexion and her living situation), I do not believe that those should have even been considered when determining whether the black community would be behind Colvin. No matter what mistakes she had made in her life, it was innappropriate that Colvin did not receive more support in some form from the black community, because she did take a great stand against society as a young 15 year old.
Finally, I was also very suprised to read about the Browder v. Gayle case, because honestly, I don't remember ever hearing or reading about this case. This is really suprising considering what an important court case this was in the civil rights movement. I would really like to learn more about this case in the near future.
COMMENTS CLOSED.
Very impressive, everyone!
I just finished Obama's book "Dreams From My Father" and found many parallels between what the president and his distant Kenyan family experienced and what Ms. Colvin went through.
Mane: MLK was dark, as you suggest, but he spoke "white" if you'll forgive the seemingly prejudicial statement. King was educated at Boston University and his tone and demeanor was not threatening to whites.
Simone: Was Obama more electable because he was half-black? Perhaps, but please look at my comment above for Mane for another perspective.
Emily: Why does recognition matter if they achieve their goals? The idea was to spread a local success to a regional or national level. Knowledge is liberating and empowering. But I understand and appreciate your comment.
More discussion will follow on Thursday.
Post a Comment