Rosa Parks

Lincoln, Washington, Mother Teresa, The Pope.

Three things Rosa Parks did was join the NAAPC, start the Montgomery Bus Boycott, and receive the Martin Luther King .Jr award.

it made it were blacks and whites wouldn't have segregation laws anymore and i am happy because i am part black it made it were blacks and whites wouldn't have segregation laws anymore and i am happy because i am part black

No, Rosa Parks was not from Georgia. She was born in Tuskegee, Alabama and spent much of her life there in Alabama.

the people wore mad

Rosa Parks 50th birthday was on February 4, 1963.

After being married to Raymond Parks, they moved there to find a job.

Rosa Parks died in Detroit, Michigan on October 24, 2005. Her cause of death was natural causes.

To make her speech more interesting for the audience to listen to

By being a hero of the segregation movement; named mother of civil rights movement

When Did Southern Segregation Begin?
Readings Selected and Introduced by John David Smith In 1954 the Supreme Court’s decision in Brown v. Board of Educationbranded the "separate but equal" principle a fallacy, thereby undermining the legal foundation of the Jim Crow South. The following year, C. Vann Woodward published The Strange Career of Jim Crow. Woodward’s book can be read as a companion piece to the Supreme Court case; contrary to the claims of many southern whites (and most historians of the South), Woodward argued that segregation was not deeply rooted in southern history but rather was a modern innovation of the New South, one which replaced a postwar environment characterized more by relative fluidity than by rigid separation in racial relations. Woodward’s thesis was innovative, if not unprecedented. Strange Career both raised immediate implications—if Jim Crow was a creature of law rather than custom, then laws could destroy it—and established itself as the thesis by which all others would be forced to measure themselves. As John David Smith makes clear, Woodward has always had critics as well as disciples. In his introduction to When Did Southern Segregation Begin?, Smith presents a brief history of Jim Crow as well as its historiography. By perusing the historical studies that follow, students will enter into the debate over the origins of the racial policies that have done so much to shape American history since Emancipation. Fittingly, excerpts from Strange Career constitute the first selection. Woodward draws upon the observations of visitors to the South in the 1870s and 1880s who often express surprise at the lack of racial separation and hostility. (What do such observations suggest about race relations in the North at that time?) Woodward then offers reasons for the imposition of a rigid system of legal segregation beginning in the 1890s. Are these reasons specific to southern society, or do they reflect national concerns as well? Students should consult their other course readings for contemporaneous historical developments and consider the ways such developments might help to explain the establishment of southern Jim Crow legislation. What impact did the Populist movement have on southern race relations? Did the rapidly proliferating Jim Crow laws of the early twentieth century represent a distinct, regional category of racial legislation, or can they be seen more generally as products of progressivism? To pose a question dear to his critics, how does Woodward use such terms as "Jim Crow" and "segregation," and how does his definition of these terms influence his argument? An excerpt from Joel Williamson’s work on South Carolina during Reconstruction suggests how careful historians need be in defining their terms. Williamson was one of the first historians to take issue with the Woodward thesis; in this selection, he argues that racial separation by custom (de facto segregation) was typical well before the establishment of legally codified (de jure) segregation. Once the forced contact between whites and freed blacks of the antebellum plantation system was abolished, what types of racial separation occurred, according to Williamson? To what extent was such separation voluntary rather than coerced? In this connection, students might consider the enthusiasm with which former slaves established their own separate churches, the desire among many freedmen to reside away from the gaze of local whites, and the increasing tendency of South Carolina whites to withdraw from institutions that failed to enforce a de facto color line. Does Williamson’s piece suggest that Jim Crow legislation followed "naturally" from an earlier, customary separation of races? Woodward would concede that de facto racial separation and discrimination existed prior to the mania for Jim Crow laws, but how, or whether, one developed from the other remains an open question. Edward L. Ayers argues that the rise of Jim Crow was more attributable to structural developments than to purposeful racism, as is suggested by his claim that "most of the debates about race relations focused on the railroads of the New South." Ayers, like Woodward, emphasizes a postwar period of flux in race relations. How did rapid industrialization in the New South (and particularly the belated spread of railways) change forms of interaction between southern blacks and whites? Why were first-class rail cars so often the sites of racial antagonism, and why was racial animosity so often directed at well-dressed black men and women? Asking such questions will not only generate debate about the rise of Jim Crow but will also allow students to consider the interaction of race and class in the New South. Barbara Y. Welke adds gender to the analytical mix in her study of the development of railway segregation policies, noting that segregation of the sexes was common on rail lines prior to racial segregation. Did sexual segregation serve as the legal model for its racial counterpart? What does Welke’s examination of court cases based on railroad common law tell us about southern conceptions of womanhood and about the potential for black women to be defined by gender rather than racial standards? (How did the status of "white womanhood" in the South serve as a pretext for white coercion—including extralegal coercion—of black men?) What role did railroad corporations play in the establishment of the "separate but equal" doctrine eventually used to constitutionally justify southern segregation—and why were the companies typically displeased by the prospect of segregating their trains? Woodward’s work alludes to "forgotten alternatives" to legal segregation. One of his critics, Howard N. Rabinowitz, focuses upon what he takes to be the most obvious alternative, arguing that segregation supplanted racial exclusion rather than integration. Further, Rabinowitz claims that the majority of southern whites would have preferred to continue and to extend exclusionary policies, had laws and constitutional amendments issuing from congressional reconstruction not precluded that option. Does examination of the many public and private facilities that excluded blacks prior to Plessy v. Fergusonchange the way students perceive either the impact of Reconstruction or the implications of the "separate but equal" legal doctrine? How did African Americans attempt to shape this process themselves, to their own ends? Students might consider Rabinowitz’s analysis of black boycotts against southern streetcar lines (a presentiment of the Montgomery Bus Boycott?) or examine his evidence that blacks tended not to seek integration any more than whites did, but rather sought facilities of equal quality and, whenever possible, control over them. The emphasis on racial oppression that justly characterizes historical studies of Jim Crow should not blind students to the ways in which African Americans attempted to derive benefits from segregation. Leon F. Litwack reminds readers, however, that at bottom Jim Crow was a means of keeping southern blacks "in their place." According to Litwack, why did de jure segregation spread so rapidly around the turn of the twentieth century? What was the influence of a younger generation of blacks, who had never known slavery and struck many whites as unduly assertive, contrary to white notions of "racial etiquette"? Litwack also analyzes the ideal of southern white womanhood; does gender form as central a component in his explanation of Jim Crow as in Welke’s? Litwack’s piece offers many examples of Jim Crow as it was applied to a wide variety of arenas of social interaction. From the vantage point of the present, many of these examples will strike readers as patently absurd—and appropriately so. Whatever view students take of C. Vann Woodward’s thesis, they will likely agree that Jim Crow’s was a strange career indeed.

Back then, when African Americans fought for civil rights, they were not allowed to do what the White people could do. And it was a crime back then for an African American to sit in the front of the bus, it was strictly only for white people. Black people could only sit in the back seats of the bus and when Rosa Parks sat in the front, the police came immediately and arrested her.

Well there are a lot of different ways that parks help communities. Parks can help kids be active and lots of fun for the whole family. It can also bring a family together and bond together.

No , slaves have always been sold by the highest bitter. And after their separation they have never been reunited with their families again. If they tried they were threatened by a master, to get killed. So they could never risk something like that.

Rosa had everything the movement needed and Rosa didn't plan anything about it. Enough is enough. Maybe this was what Rosa though when she refused to let her seat to be. After she was arrested for breaking the segregation laws, the whole black movement fell in for the one purpose. The boycott did serve it after the money that was being lost for no blacks using the transports.

"This medal is encouragement for all of us to continue until all have rights," said Parks, 86, during her brief remarks.

Rosa Parks protested the segregation of black and white citizens in Montgomery Alabama by refusing to give up her seat on the bus. When the bus driver told her to get up so that a white man could sit in her seat, she said no. The driver had her arrested. Her action and arrest led to the Montgomery bus boycott, which was an important event in the fight for civil rights.

rosa parks prove that not only white people should take bus black people should too black should not be punish and like rosa parks she never give up her seat she was an old lady and ad just came of of work.

BLACK PEOPLE SHOULD NOT BE PUNISH OR LEFT OUT

actually, Baden Powell started the boyscouts in England around 1908, then an American by the name of Ernest Thompson Seton was helped across a foggy street in London by a scout and brought scouting over to America. mr seton was the founder of scouting in America

Many people in history have taken a stand for a worthy cause. Ester and Moses form the Bible took a stand at great risks and saved countless lives. Jesus stood up for what He believed in and fought for what was right. He even sacrificed His life. Martin Luther King, Jr. stood up for what he believed in, as well as Rosa Parks. Because of them, many segregation laws were lifted. People who rally together to hold peaceful sit-ins and create petitions stand up for what they believe in. Martin Luther King Jr.,Rosa Parks,Harriet Tubman(i think)

Gordon Parks was born on November 30, 1912 in Fort Scott, Kansas and died on March 7, 2006 in New York City, New York.

http://images.google.com/images?rlz=1B3GGGL_enUS313US313&hl=en&source=hp&q=rosa+parks+as+a+child&gbv=2&aq=2&oq=rosa+parks&aqi=g10

There seem to be quite a few.

The Nobel Peace Prize 1936 was awarded to Carlos Saavedra Lamas.

She worked hard. She'd had a long day. Perhaps she hadn't slept well or long enough the night before. The real question here should be, "Why would anyone be required to sit in the back of the bus when there were open seats available all around her?"