Thank you, Graham, I agree, with your thoughts on the UN. It was initiated on noble reasons, with high moral standards that, if followed, would have resulted in a very peaceful, prosperous world. But the moment they set up the Security Council with stupid single veto rule they gave up all hope of effectiveness.
1956. Just a year or two before racial segregation on public transport (streetcars, buses) was outlawed in the U.S. What a creepy setup, the band playing in the back seats of a bus.
Well spotted; if you look at the clip that accompanies another article, with Ella Fitzgerald this time, you gain the impression that Blacks singing in the backs of buses was at one time a popular Hollywood contrivance (as well as the width of the bus): https://endlesschain.substack.com/p/on-gender-neutral-forms.
Rosa Parks was of course a set-up job. There is an article in preparation on the Montgomery incident.
Rosa Parks was an official in the NAACP and yes she deliberately refused to move to the back of the bus, but that doesn't mean it was a set-up and therefor phony. There was a rule, or regulation, or law, that only people of light skin could sit in the front two thirds of public transportation, even if there was no available seating in the back and vacant seats up front. And yes. Rosa took a seat near the front deliberately. What followed was exactly what the NAACP knew would happen and they wanted to draw attention to the ignoble practice. And believe me those light-skinned people deserved to be exposed for their disgusting behavior.
At that time period I was still a Canadian. I took my young brother (age 11) with me on a bus trip from Toronto to Louisiana to visit some cousins. At that time, in the early 1950's there were very few persons of color in the larger cities like Toronto, so I never learned racism. I was appalled at the treatment of darker skinned people. They were viewed not as fellow human beings but as some lesser valued animal. As I was walking down the sidewalk some small children were playing hop scotch. I stepped off the curb onto the road to walk around them so as not to disturb their play - something I would have done in Toronto. My cousin started yelling at me to get back on the sidewalk, an adult woman ran and grabbed the kids shouting apologies at me and saying the children didn't mean anything by playing there. That was my introduction to racism, I lost all respect for southern whites and I still have no respect for any racist.
A quickie reply in a moment of haste sees me reprimanded for failure to recount the "whole story". Yes, indeed, she provoked the contretemps, but as a justifiable test case of an outrageous policy. It was, like corn flakes, fabricated for a purpose.
Thank you, Graham, I agree, with your thoughts on the UN. It was initiated on noble reasons, with high moral standards that, if followed, would have resulted in a very peaceful, prosperous world. But the moment they set up the Security Council with stupid single veto rule they gave up all hope of effectiveness.
1956. Just a year or two before racial segregation on public transport (streetcars, buses) was outlawed in the U.S. What a creepy setup, the band playing in the back seats of a bus.
Well spotted; if you look at the clip that accompanies another article, with Ella Fitzgerald this time, you gain the impression that Blacks singing in the backs of buses was at one time a popular Hollywood contrivance (as well as the width of the bus): https://endlesschain.substack.com/p/on-gender-neutral-forms.
Rosa Parks was of course a set-up job. There is an article in preparation on the Montgomery incident.
Rosa Parks was an official in the NAACP and yes she deliberately refused to move to the back of the bus, but that doesn't mean it was a set-up and therefor phony. There was a rule, or regulation, or law, that only people of light skin could sit in the front two thirds of public transportation, even if there was no available seating in the back and vacant seats up front. And yes. Rosa took a seat near the front deliberately. What followed was exactly what the NAACP knew would happen and they wanted to draw attention to the ignoble practice. And believe me those light-skinned people deserved to be exposed for their disgusting behavior.
At that time period I was still a Canadian. I took my young brother (age 11) with me on a bus trip from Toronto to Louisiana to visit some cousins. At that time, in the early 1950's there were very few persons of color in the larger cities like Toronto, so I never learned racism. I was appalled at the treatment of darker skinned people. They were viewed not as fellow human beings but as some lesser valued animal. As I was walking down the sidewalk some small children were playing hop scotch. I stepped off the curb onto the road to walk around them so as not to disturb their play - something I would have done in Toronto. My cousin started yelling at me to get back on the sidewalk, an adult woman ran and grabbed the kids shouting apologies at me and saying the children didn't mean anything by playing there. That was my introduction to racism, I lost all respect for southern whites and I still have no respect for any racist.
A quickie reply in a moment of haste sees me reprimanded for failure to recount the "whole story". Yes, indeed, she provoked the contretemps, but as a justifiable test case of an outrageous policy. It was, like corn flakes, fabricated for a purpose.
Cannot wait!