(no subject)

[primroseburrows]

Somebody try and tell me how this is anything but wonderful.

The pages take a while to load, especially for dialup, but look at all of them. Spend time on the pictures of the kids and the wedding with Gramma with her walker looking on, and tell me you don't get just a little bit teary.

History is being made, and I'm thrilled to be watching it.

As much as I love Massachusetts (it's my home state!), and celebrate what they've done, it's only fitting that San Francisco should take the ball and run with it.

Oh, Harvey, you must be overcome with joy. *Dances like Snoopy*

Thanks to titti for the link.

Comments

Re: I understand the point, but...

[peacey.livejournal.com]

Amendment to stated opinion:

If a state's law breaks national law and thus infringes on Constitutionally guaranteed individual rights, then I have no problem with civil disobedience since it is the *state* breaking the law and not the protesting individual. As I said, no one is above the law; no one individual and no governing body.

Re: I understand the point, but...

[primroseburrows.livejournal.com]

I don't remember if there was anything on the books that made Alabama law at the time of the boycott uncompliant with national law (anyone else know? patchfire?. There could have been; my knowledge of national or state laws of the time is teeny-tiny. I do know that Rosa, MLK, and others spent time in jail for what they did. I'm pretty sure it was for breaking state law, which takes me right back to not knowing what the national law was at the time (Oh, great, now I've gotta go do Research! ;))

At any rate, I do see your point. My opinion is that nonviolent civil disobedience has changed things for the better in most cases. The second something becomes violent, though (for example, the violent protests at the WTO), forget it. Gandhi and King proved that it just doesn't have to come to people getting hurt.

Nat'l law...

[patchfire.livejournal.com]

Segregation was upheld in the Dred Scott decision in 1896 as acceptable under the U.S. Constitution. I believe the specific challenge was to Jim Crow laws in a one state of a few; after that, they were passed in nearly every state. So segregation was considered acceptable at the state and federal level when the bus boycott began.

As an aside... I didn't learn for many years about a school outside Chattanooga (where I grew up!) that had 'training' courses and the like for people challenging these laws. The Highlander School, I think. Anyway, Rosa Parks was a 'graduate,' and the attitude that she was just some random woman who just 'was tired' is false; she knew exactly what she was doing and what she might be provoking. Go her. :)

Sing, "Rosa, she called to me..."

[primroseburrows.livejournal.com]

the attitude that she was just some random woman who just 'was tired' is false; she knew exactly what she was doing and what she might be provoking. Go her. :)

Oh, she knew exactly what she was doing, and what it would set off. *loves*

Must. Get. A Rosa. Icon.

[patchfire.livejournal.com]

I was lying in bed last night and was suddenly overcome with shame & embarassment. The Supreme Court case in 1896 that said segregation & Jim Crow were okay was not Dred Scott; that was 1856 and the Fugitive Slave Act. The case in 1896 was Plessy v. Ferguson. *hopes Donna Miller NEVER trolls LJ and finds this*