Posted by verne on May 12, 2009, at 20:07:23
In reply to Re: Straightforward, posted by alexandra_k on May 9, 2009, at 15:05:49
Alex,
I'm trying to get on board with your idea. I've always sort of scratched my head when you brought up the back of the bus to illustrate your point.
I know what you're getting at but the unwritten law prohibited certain people from sitting in "front" of the bus. There was no law, written or unwritten, that sent people to the "back" of the bus.
Your argument might be more effective (unless it went over my head, which is very possible) if you talked about the front of the bus. The unwritten law of the Old South (which I don't subscribe to) was that no one of color could take a seat in front of a white man. I grew up with this racism and know that riding in the backseat of any car was described as "riding n*gger".
If the bus were mostly empty the placement didn't matter, yet when crowded anyone not white was expected to give up their seats in the front of the bus to the white folk who just got on and move towards the back. There was no law preventing them from riding up front - unless enough white riders pushed them to the back.
Perhaps, I'm mincing words but I think your metaphor loses strength by emphasizing the back of the bus. Why not emphasize the front of the bus? No law, written or unwritten said blacks couldn't sit upfront. They only had to move to the back when a white person boarded. So the law wasn't so much about the back of the bus, but the "front" of the bus.
Verily,
Verne
poster:verne
thread:894857
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20090302/msgs/895416.html