My question: Were the issues of segregation truly as serious and problematic as their time to revolt seemingly occurred only because someone like Rosa Parks came along? After hearing in class that Rosa Parks was not the first to say “no” and not give up her seat for a White person, it was interesting in the film when Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King was initially speaking with the committee to discuss whether the boycott should continue, etc. and was saying how “there comes a time when people get tired of being trampled by the feet of oppression,” along with other words of motivation to boost the spirits of the people to stand up and fight back against the twisted narrative. To me, the words he spoke made it sound like times were overly difficult and there needed to be changed ASAP, but one would argue that if they felt that times were truly that problematic, wouldn’t their call to action be the first opportunity given like with Claudette Colvin (the 15-year-who also refused to give up her seat to a White man nine months before Rosa Parks did), and not wait for someone “better” to be the catalyst of change because who knows if a situation like that would arise again.
In class, we also talked about how Claudette didn’t “make the cut” because of her appearance/image, but if the times were dire enough, as seemingly spoken by Martin Luther King along with the various traumatic flashbacks seen and known tragedies regarding that time period, it can be confusing as to why they would not have chosen Claudette as their face of change if the times were truly too miserable to live in. A possible reason they could have chosen to continue to endure and wait for a different time is that if they had used Claudette as their face of change, the various “defects” such as the darker complexion of her skin (compared to Rosa Parks) along with that she was a teenager and also pregnant, all things considered, wouldn’t look too good when the issue was brought up to the White people and their issues could potentially be disregarded. Possibly, the stars didn’t align well enough for them to make such a big move because as seen in the film, a boycott could result in jobs being lost, and how they initially talked about how the alternative of walking and using cabs were not as effective, etc which is a risky move when you have to provide for a family. Everything may have needed to be perfect for such a big move to be done because it is a dangerous game to play and could potentially put a lot of people at risk.
Hey J’Mari!
I believe you brought up some really great points in your discussion post. I recall wondering the same thing in class—”Why didn’t either of the first two people ‘make the cut?'” After watching “Boycott,” it seemed to me that the issue was not only the lack of the “perfect hue” skin color as was suggested in class, but instead, because they did not have the respectable status and career that Rosa Parks had within her community. Not only that, but fifteen-year-old Claudette Colvin and the other candidate may not have been able to adapt to the newfound recognition that came with being the face of this movement—let alone the hateful press that turned the lives of many African Americans upside down throughout that time. I would imagine that being the face of any form of racial activism during the Jim Crow era would be extremely hard to deal with, which makes me consider the possibility that the adults in Claudette’s life may have opted to protect her young image from the public’s opinions and harassment.