Boilermaker Rick wrote:
Elmhurst Steve wondering why two people who dedicated themselves to advancing the plight of minorities aren't more recognized while he openly discriminates against them is just great.
Pretty ironic that I would argue for more recognition for them.
W_Z wrote:
i thought steve also had a thing about jewish people. should we tell his excellency that schwerner and goodman were jews?
No, I have never had any problem with Jewsih people. You must be letting all the KKK posts some people have put up on my behalf over the past few years influence you. I have no issues with Jewish people at all.
Nas wrote:
You could argue that there are MANY people who get too much credit for the Civil Rights Movemement and MANY others who get very little or none at all. Parks and Till are probably on the list for receiving too much. Till is still recognized for several reasons though. His mother opting to leave the casket open helped put a face on the brutality that MANY blacks had to live with daily in the south. MANY whites were outraged that someone could do something like that to a child. He's also still remembered because his murder also showed how little the justice system cares about black lives. Having 2 men kidnap, torture and kill a kid and the entire community knows and they're still acquitted by there peers, I think showed MANY how far away from equality we were. Some may argue this is still true.
See this is what I am talking about. It was really the reaction of whites who saw the photo that made a difference. Blacks knew what was going on. But for any real change to take place, whites had to come on board. I agree that the justice system does not treat people fairly. But it's not just black VS white as much as it's rich VS poor.
long time guy wrote:
This is where Elmhurst Steve has it wrong, Particularly in Emmitt Till's case. Emmitt Till was more a victim of Jim Crow than he was a leader of Civil Rights. I don't really believe that people associate him with the movement for Civil Rights. He is more of a symbol than a member and if Steve believes that he somehow receives credit for more than simply dying then he is wrong.
As far as celebrating whites the issue becomes much more complex. While whites were involved in the organizational side of the movement there was an overriding belief that it was blacks that took the majority of risks. There were also a number of blacks that resented the fact that whites were involved at all. That was one of the bones of contention between the NOI and SNCC.
I agree that he was basically just a victim. I think you are right on the money with your comment about whites being resented by blacks who probably saw them as interlopers, who were not needed or wanted. But I believe the fact that whites got involved and spread the messages made change possible. Many whites would listen to another white person argue the merits of the cause, but wouldn't seriously consider the same if it came from someone that was black. It made it harder to ignore and consider the messages.