Sitting for Freedom
Today is Tuesday, 19 August 2008.
I should have begun this column on 19 July, the 50th anniversary of the first lunch counter sit-in in 1958. It occurred at a drug store in Wichita, Kansas, and was mounted by student members of the NAACP. Though disowned by NAACP leadership as “too confrontational”, the daily sit-ins were nevertheless successful in integrating the lunch counter by early August.
On this date in 1958, student members of the NAACP began sit-ins at a drug store lunch counter in Oklahoma City, and were soon successful.
These struggles were relatively little remarked in the nation at large, but they set the stage for and inspired the sit-ins which began at a Woolworth’s in Greensboro, North Carolina on 1 February 1960, which drew international attention and finally ignited a movement.
Compare and contrast the present situation, in which a national poll found that 4 in 10 whites were wary of an [allegedly] “inexperienced” Black presidential candidate. Come now, fellow whities: isn’t an “inexperienced” Black better than a white who has repeatedly proved himself ignorant, inept, corrupt, and a failure?
I should have begun this column on 19 July, the 50th anniversary of the first lunch counter sit-in in 1958. It occurred at a drug store in Wichita, Kansas, and was mounted by student members of the NAACP. Though disowned by NAACP leadership as “too confrontational”, the daily sit-ins were nevertheless successful in integrating the lunch counter by early August.
On this date in 1958, student members of the NAACP began sit-ins at a drug store lunch counter in Oklahoma City, and were soon successful.
These struggles were relatively little remarked in the nation at large, but they set the stage for and inspired the sit-ins which began at a Woolworth’s in Greensboro, North Carolina on 1 February 1960, which drew international attention and finally ignited a movement.
Compare and contrast the present situation, in which a national poll found that 4 in 10 whites were wary of an [allegedly] “inexperienced” Black presidential candidate. Come now, fellow whities: isn’t an “inexperienced” Black better than a white who has repeatedly proved himself ignorant, inept, corrupt, and a failure?
posted by HH at 4:13 PM
1 Comments:
Question 1: What national poll are you quoting? Did this national poll say anthing else that would be of interest to your readers?
Question 2: Were these 4 in 10 whites "wary" (was that word used in the official poll question(s)?) because the presidential candiate is inexperienced (I will conceed your [alledgedly] editorial clarification) or because the presidential candidate is black?
Question 2: Why did you capitalize Black (twice) and lower case white?
Question 3: Do you imply that the white candidate is (totally) ignorant, (totally) inepty, (totally corrupt, and (totally) a failure? If so, your view is quite distorted.
Post a Comment
<< Home