Jump to content

Why the rush to the front of the bus?


Rick Munroe
 Share

This topic is 5214 days old and is no longer open for new replies.  Replies are automatically disabled after two years of inactivity.  Please create a new topic instead of posting here.  

Recommended Posts

Damn that Rosa Parks. There were plenty of black people who actually enjoyed riding the back of the bus. Then Rosa came along, and suddenly everyone was shamed into riding the front of the bus. Same thing for the suffragettes...there were plenty of women who didn't care about voting, but suddenly they were all shamed into heading to the polls. And now this whole gay marriage thing. Why can't things just stay as they are? When we start granting civil rights and equality to everyone, it's just not fair to those who don't want those rights. Nobody should be forced to have rights if they don't want them. :p

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>Damn that Rosa Parks. There were plenty of black people who

>actually enjoyed riding the back of the bus. Then Rosa came

>along, and suddenly everyone was shamed into riding the front

>of the bus. Same thing for the suffragettes...there were

>plenty of women who didn't care about voting, but suddenly

>they were all shamed into heading to the polls. And now this

>whole gay marriage thing. Why can't things just stay as they

>are? When we start granting civil rights and equality to

>everyone, it's just not fair to those who don't want those

>rights. Nobody should be forced to have rights if they don't

>want them. :p

 

 

Rick- One wonders IF you are like this in bed???? FUNNY, Rosa Parks admitted OFTEN... She didn't give a DAMN about civil rights. There were no seats in the back. She was just TOO DAMN TIRED to STAND or GIVE A DAMN. However, what ALL civil rights are about is CIVILITY, Manners and Respect. It doesn't matter IF it is about where you get to sit OR who you get to marry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest ReturnOfS

>Rick- One wonders IF you are like this in bed???? FUNNY,

>Rosa Parks admitted OFTEN... She didn't give a DAMN about

>civil rights. There were no seats in the back. She was just

>TOO DAMN TIRED to STAND or GIVE A DAMN. However, what ALL

>civil rights are about is CIVILITY, Manners and Respect. It

>doesn't matter IF it is about where you get to sit OR who you

>get to marry.

 

Actually thats not exactly true. I use to think that when I was a kid, but I saw her refute that in an interview that I saw soon after her death. Check out this excerpt from her wikipedia bio:

 

"During a 1956 radio interview with Sydney Rogers in West Oakland several months after her arrest, when asked why she had decided not to vacate her bus seat, Parks said, "I would have to know for once and for all what rights I had as a human being and a citizen of Montgomery, Alabama."

 

She also detailed her motivation in her autobiography, My Story[11]

“ People always say that I didn't give up my seat because I was tired, but that isn't true. I was not tired physically, or no more tired than I usually was at the end of a working day. I was not old, although some people have an image of me as being old then. I was forty-two.""

 

..."In a 1992 interview with National Public Radio's Lynn Neary, Parks recalled:

“ I did not want to be mistreated, I did not want to be deprived of a seat that I had paid for. It was just time... there was opportunity for me to take a stand to express the way I felt about being treated in that manner. I had not planned to get arrested. I had plenty to do without having to end up in jail. But when I had to face that decision, I didn't hesitate to do so because I felt that we had endured that too long. The more we gave in, the more we complied with that kind of treatment, the more oppressive it became."

 

Heres a link to the rest of the wikipedia article in case anyone else is interested.: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosa_parks

 

There are other more reliable places to look besides wikipedia, of course, but its such a convenient site.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The people who promote gay marriage are nothing like Rosa Parks, they're more like Booker T. Washington; they've sold their souls. Rosa parks OPPOSED the norms of the white majority. Those seeking marriage aren't jumping on the bus of opposition, they're rushing for their ticket on the dumb-bus of conformity. "Please, please, please" they whine, "let us be JUST LIKE YOU STRAIGHT PEOPLE! We're good enough. See? We'll settle down and be oh so good and monogamous and disciplined and docile!" Fuck submission!

 

"Gay rights" was a movement for SEXUAL FREEDOM. The freedom to fuck who we wanted, when we wanted, without governmental intervention. Love was never the issue: Fucking was illegal, not love.

 

The nearly-dead "gay rights" movement has been co-opted by wealthy white gay men (academics who study gender call them homonormatives) who want to discipline their fellows by enjoining the sexuality control apparatus called "marriage." And we're going to compare THEM to Rosa Parks? I'm being kind here: that's plain dumb.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually thats not exactly true. I use to think that when I was a kid, but I saw her refute that in an interview that I saw soon after her death. Check out this excerpt from her wikipedia bio:

 

"During a 1956 radio interview with Sydney Rogers in West Oakland several months after her arrest, when asked why she had decided not to vacate her bus seat, Parks said, "I would have to know for once and for all what rights I had as a human being and a citizen of Montgomery, Alabama."

 

 

Actually thats not exactly true.

 

 

My Mother booked Rosa Parks for a Lecture Series in the 70's. She ended up talking with her for almost an hour while they waited back stage for her "tributes" (which Ms. Parks was embarassed by) to end. My mother was impressed by her humility, dignity and core-honesty. Rosa Parks was embarrassed by her MYTHIC STATUS. She made it clear that "The Cart Followed the Horse" in this case. She SAT because she was TIRED (and NEVER expected that she would ACTUALLY be ARRESTED)...THEN she STOOD UP FOR HER RIGHTS later (AFTER being jailed)...when she found that OTHERS saw (and promoted) the injustice and made it a cause with her as their symbol. She was ALWAYS uncomfortable with her status in the movement for Civil Rights. She accepted the mantle thrust upon her but it was not her initial intent or creation.

 

Unfortunately, in later years of her life her "handlers/packagers" achieved distancing her from most of her family.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Gay rights" was a movement for SEXUAL FREEDOM. The freedom to fuck who we wanted, when we wanted, without governmental intervention. Love was never the issue: Fucking was illegal, not love.

 

 

In order to be truly "FREE" you must not be limited in any of life's opportunities. You have the RIGHT to be either MARRIED AND MONOGMOUS OR a MEGA-HO... and with the acknowledgement of these RIGHTS society is impelled to respect your decision. These are NOT two seperate and opposing battles they are part of a whole. For a movement to work internally it must RESPECT and SUPPORT the LIFESTYLE/PERSONAL preferances of all its members.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>>"Gay rights" was a movement for SEXUAL FREEDOM. The

>freedom to fuck who we wanted, when we wanted, without

>governmental intervention. Love was never the issue: Fucking

>was illegal, not love.

>

Yes, "gay rights" was partially about sexual freedom - similar to the 60s for heteros. But don't make the mistake about thinking that the gay rights movement was only about sex. That's exactly the attitude that people who oppose gay rights have about our rights - the fags only want to fuck. The gay rights movement is about equality, Tom, and I'm really surprised that someone who has otherwise appeared to be intelligent and well-reasoned would say something so vacuous. It makes me think that you are just throwing that comment out there to inflame the issue.

 

Gay bars weren't raided and gay men thrown in jail just because men were fucking in those bars. The raids occurred because gay men dared to associate. That right is guaranteed by our constitution. It is the abridgement of that right that started the movement. Being able to fuck who we wanted, when we wanted, and how we wanted was simply an added benefit. It is not the basis of the gay rights movement.

 

We all get it by now - you don't want the ability to marry. But your unwillingness to even enetertain the idea that the issue is not about the wisdom of gay marriage but the right to choose makes you as intolerant as everyone you criticize on this board.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest ReturnOfS

This was a direct quote from her autobiography,

 

"People always say that I didn't give up my seat because I was tired, but that isn't true. I was not tired physically, or no more tired than I usually was at the end of a working day. I was not old, although some people have an image of me as being old then. I was forty-two. No, the only tired I was, was tired of giving in."

 

The myth is that she was an apolitical seamstress. Yes, she was a humble woman, but she was active in progressing civil rights before that date on the bus. She also wasn't the first african-american woman to not give up her set. Look up Claudette Colvin and her relationship with Rosa Parks.

 

Read these other references:

http://teacherlink.ed.usu.edu/tlresources/units/Byrnes-famous/Preview023.html

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2005/10/25/rosa_parks_civil_rights_icon_dead_at_92/

http://www.stanford.edu/group/King/about_king/encyclopedia/parks_rosa.htm

http://www.history.ilstu.edu/nhp/civilization/Site/civil_rights_parks.html

 

When I get a chance, I'll look for a youtube or some other recording of her interview.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My quote was from Rosa Parks herself in a private conversation with my mother. I was raised to RESPECT Ms. Parks but knew also to pity her. I met her main "handler" myself in the late 90's.... "no comment"...except my empathy for Ms. Parks increased.

 

 

God Bless Her.

 

 

She was a dignified little woman who got caught up in something greater then herself and in many a ways paid a sad price for it.

 

The REAL STORY of ROSA PARKS will probably NEVER be written as long as people are still benefiting from the MYTH (and trust me MANY are and NOT in the ALTRUISTIC SENSE)she was forced to accept this with the passage of time. It was a cross she bore but did not really want.

 

 

I find it IRONIC that this HEADY DISCUSSION began with a bit of Rick Munroe's twisted (but entertaining) humor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>We all get it by now - you don't want the ability to marry.

>But your unwillingness to even entertain the idea that the

>issue is not about the wisdom of gay marriage but the right to

>choose makes you as intolerant as everyone you criticize on

>this board.

 

Right on!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>We all get it by now - you don't want the ability to marry.

>But your unwillingness to even enetertain the idea that the

>issue is not about the wisdom of gay marriage but the right to

>choose makes you as intolerant as everyone you criticize on

>this board.

 

Since I originally posted this message and started the other thread about gay rights, I have also had some private exchanges with Tom Isern. What I have come to realize is that all of us are coming at this issue from our own private vantage points. Mine is one where marriage is a right that I took for granted and want it to be again now that I am honest about my sexuality. Tom's vantage point is different and I should have respected that instead of brandishing him as intolerant. I think that Tom is willing to accept that others have a different point of view and simply is passionate about his own, as many of us are. So, despite the fact that I still support the movement towards gay marriage, I apologize to Tom and respect the fact that he doesn't agree with me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>Tom's vantage point is different and I

>should have respected that instead of brandishing him as

>intolerant. I think that Tom is willing to accept that others

>have a different point of view and simply is passionate about

>his own

 

LOL Yes, when he describes others' pro-gay-marriage posts as "vapid," "thoughtless" and "plain dumb," you're right...he's being very tolerant of opposing points of view. :p

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>LOL Yes, when he describes others' pro-gay-marriage posts as

>"vapid," "thoughtless" and "plain

>dumb," you're right...he's being very tolerant of

>opposing points of view. :p

 

Hmm, perhaps I'm guilty of skimming as well as I don't recall him saying that - I'm not saying he didn't, I'm just saying I missed it. Okay, I'll play Solomon here and split the baby - people who call other people's positions "vapid" "thoughtless" and "plain dumb" are being intolerant. But, then I have to own up to my own guilt as I called what I thought was one of Tom's positions "vacuous". So, I paint myself with my own brush and I vow to be more careful in the future and not to post half-cocked. I'll probably continue to do other things that way, but I'll watch my posts!:o

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rick,

 

You are right. I called some of your arguments dumb—they were. I called you thoughtless—you were at times. You have a tendency to make knee-jerk reactions to complex issues without giving them much (if any) thought. You criticized my posts without even reading them and sneered at them in the process. You were nasty and bitchy and intolerant. In your rush to respond and criticize, you didn’t even bother to get clear on what I was even arguing. Your behavior was childish. I wasn’t intolerant of other opinions in general—just yours.

 

Long before I got defensive with you, honey, you had called me “obnoxious,” “repressive”—you really should get clear on the meaning of that word, “cynical,” you sneered at me for the use of the word “queer,” and you labeled me “narrow-minded,” “bitter,” and “whiny.” (Whiny? I’m happily coupled for 6 years and COULD avail myself of this marital privilege if I wanted to!) You raised such a fuss on threads I had started against gay marriage that the moderators moved them to the politics section.

 

Well, gay marriage may be your baby. But freedom of speech is a right that is given to all—not just the married. And I’ll continue to exercise mine. And if you’ll stop being a nasty queen, I’ll stop calling you out as well. Shall we declare a truce?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest zipperzone

And if you’ll stop being a nasty

>queen, I’ll stop calling you out as well. Shall we declare a

>truce?

 

Truce? Hell no! How could we cope with life if we didn't have good old Tom to tell us how to think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>You criticized my posts

>without even reading them

 

I read all of your posts, except the ones where you copied and pasted someone else's wordy essay and my eyes glazed over. But I did read every word you wrote and I took it all to heart. For example, I've decided to learn how to drive, since you said that when we get married, we have to move to the suburbs and own 2 cars like the heteronormative people. :p

 

>In your rush to

>respond and criticize, you didn’t even bother to get clear on

>what I was even arguing. Your behavior was childish.

 

I knew what you were arguing, and you made some interesting and valid points about bisexuals and group arrangements. But it's my style to respond with humor and sarcasm (hence my posting signature), just as it's yours to respond with vitriol and hostility. We all do what works for us. :)

 

>I’m happily coupled for 6

>years and COULD avail myself of this marital privilege if I

>wanted to!

 

Good, I'm glad you finally got the point that we've all been making. It's all about choice, and you have the choice not to get married. There; I'm glad that's settled. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...