« Previous Post -- Main Page -- Next Post »

25 October 2005 - 22:10 UTC

What Rosa Parks defied still exists

by Jack Grant

Many tributes to Rosa Parks have been given upon the occasion of her death, most far better than any I could possibly write or from a viewpoint I cannot match.

However, those tributes have focused upon what her simple act of defiance began, and what her quiet and honorable demeanor both in that act and afterwards accomplished in starting a positive change in culture that is still underway.

Perhaps it is a reflection of my personality, but I believe it is important to highlight exactly what she was defying, for it has not died, it has merely changed form and target.

You see, when and where I grew up, all the “right-thinking people” believed that the “niggers were inferior” and not deserving of equal treatment, despite the decades that had passed since the defiance of Rosa Parks, despite the decades since the intervention by President Eisenhower to enforce federal court rulings in Little Rock, Arkansas, despite the passage of years since the passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

Anyone who proclaims themselves and their fellow-travelers as “right-thinking” and any and all others as inherently wrong are immediately suspect in my eyes.

For me, “right-thinking” equates with an inwardly focused group that only feels powerful by excluding and oppressing others, for that is what I saw first-hand when I was a child, and in some respects that attitude still exists in the region where I grew up.

Even now, half a century since the defiance of Rosa Parks against an injustice that seems obvious today but was widely accepted as a fundamental truth at the time (and in some circles is still advocated), there are those who proclaim that their method of thinking is the absolute truth, completely unwilling to even consider even the possibility that they might be wrong, just as those five decades ago who thought of themselves as “right-thinking” were wrong.

This thinking is not limited to racists, neo-Nazis, or other seemingly insane cults.

As a matter of fact, this thinking is reflected in the vast majority of weblogs I read.

In other words: If you do not doubt yourself, can you truly consider yourself intelligent and thoughtful?

I have written repeatedly upon what it means to be a moderate. I repeat it here:

A moderate is one who acknowledges that their beliefs are not absolute, that there is room for doubt, that at least some of what they believe just may be wrong, and they are willing to consider that possibility.

The inverse of moderation is what I mean when I categorize a post as exemplifying “Amber and Cruelty,” the thinking is frozen, as if it is embedded in amber, and the outcome is the cruelty that is the inevitable result of rigid, inflexible, judgmental thinking.

For example:

Rape victim: ‘Morning after’ pill denied

By Carla McClain
ARIZONA DAILY STAR

Although it is safe, effective and legal, emergency contraception - the “morning after” pill - can be hard to find in Tucson.

After a sexual assault one recent weekend, a young Tucson woman spent three frantic days trying to obtain the drug to prevent a pregnancy, knowing that each passing day lowered the chance the drug would work.

While calling dozens of Tucson pharmacies trying to fill a prescription for emergency contraception, she found that most did not stock the drug.

When she finally did find a pharmacy with it, she said she was told the pharmacist on duty would not dispense it because of religious and moral objections.

If you cannot see the example of Amber and Cruelty embedded in this story, nothing I can write will persuade you to see.

Take a step outside your own beliefs.

Look in the mirror, are you judging others without any consideration that you may be just as wrong as that white man 50 years ago when he demanded that Rosa Parks give up her seat on the bus because he was white and she was not?

Take a step outside of your own prejudices and the labeling that is so easy to assign to the “moonbats” or the “wing-nuts”…

THINK…

There is more to the world than the labels or the simple, comforting belief systems we set up for ourselves.

It may be uncomfortable, but then again, when is doing the right thing easy?

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,



Trackback URL (right-click and choose the copy shortcut/link option)

Links and Minifeatures 10 25 Tuesday

Carnival of Liberty is up at Eric’s Grumbles. Recommended: Eidelblo…

You remind me of Bertand Russell’s definition of “liberal:”
“The essence of the Liberal outlook lies not in what opinions are held, but in how they are held: instead of being held dogmatically, they are held tentatively, and with a consciousness that new evidence may at any moment lead to their abandonment.”

I have been excortiated from both sides now, just for relating the facts and comenting on, say, what the odds are that such-and-such will happen. Instead of wanting information, and being willing to have information form opinion, we are ending up with what amounts to football. My team, right or wrong. But then again, football fans will boo their own team when they screw up, so maybe the metaphor is strained.

We talk about this often, Jack. I used to just chalk it up to stupidity, but I’m not so sure now. Maybe there is something wired in people that protects them from the whiplash that comes when reality doesn’t match the belief. So we make up excuses for why something happens (and this happens no matter the party/dogma).

So I stay “liberal” and never assume I know it all.

Sorry for hogging this, but I wanted to add something. As in the last administration (I know this because I suffered this malady) the partisans and/or those who have been won over by one or another policy/feature of this present administration have allowed themselves to so closely identify with the president or his accolytes that if (when) they find that these people really are as flawed as everybody else (or more), it will cause a certain “crisis of faith” wherein everything that one believes is suddenly called into question. I could talk about that for a while, but this is your site. I’ll shut up now.

May I Have This Indictment, Please?

With everybody atwitter today about indictments, I thought that it would be a good idea to engage in some irresponsible speculation. You know, as a public service. So here goes: There will be indictments. Both sides will be disappointed. The

Two things to think about before reacting

I have had issues of my own that have prevented me from guest-posting here while David was off taking care of business, so unfortunately I have not been a good “guest blogger” here. However, at the risk of abusing the…

It seems to me that it is less of question of allowing for the possibility that you are wrong, as it is in accepting that - at least in many cases - whether you are right or wrong does not imply an obligation on others. I have strong religious beliefs, myself, which I (naturally) believe to be correct. But tolerance requires me to say that others have every right to hold different beliefs and I have no right to impose mine on them.

There are limits to tolerance, of course. I am not willing to say that people who would murder in the name of their own beliefs have a valid perspective.

“Amber and Cruelty”

That arresting phrase is the name of a new category and tag for a series of posts over at Random Fate. Jack is still working out the concept, which is the diametrical opposite of what he envisions moderation to be:

Does usually not imposing your beliefs on others release you from the obligation to self examine?

Only the revolutionary is required to justify their actions and inactions?