Interesting. One of the things I admired about the book was the way Colvin was presented as a young headstrong young person, one with which young readers could identify.

I felt that showing why she wasn't the point person for the bus boycott reinforced all the more strongly that Parks' action was planned, not an act of a tired seamstress. Hoose, by putting Colvin in the middle of all of it, bringing all these famous names in by way of her story and voice made the overall movement, to my mind, all the more impressive and all the more accessible to young readers today. To read of Parks as her youth leader and other adults in relationship to her instead of those pure icons I thought humanized them all --- at the right spot for young readers to enter into this piece of history.

That it was completely her story, her point of view worked for me. Bringing in contrary statements specifically about her would make for a different book, one that wouldn't have the intimacy of this one, to my mind. That is, she would have to be moved back, so to speak, so that all voices could be there. A different sort of book from one where her voice is the thread, the emotional center of this particular story.

I completely agree that the strength of the book was her story told in her voice - and I agree that it made the book more powerful. But Hoose does not hesitate to use other sources to back up what Claudette said about the facts of the event - news sources, some quotes, police files, court records, etc. But when an accusing finger is cast - when allegations are made that she was treated badly by the adults involved - then I needed more than just her one voice. And also, I am just curious why those moments are the only ones with little to no supporting evidence at all.

Or at the very least, I am curious how a book without that supporting evidence could be such an award winner.

Some good questions, at least from a structural standpoint. If half the assertions are backed up with "proof," and the other half aren't, it certainly doesn't strengthen the structure of the argument.

Haven't read the book yet, but I do agree that most everyone deifies the leaders of the Civil Rights movement to the point of forgetting their flaws. Do we ever discuss Dr. King's affairs? No, we do not. And yet... it's one of the things I always think of when I hear people going off in raptures about him. He had so many good words to say, but didn't always live them - like everyone else.

Colleen, once again Chasing Ray is the spot to come for true discussion, regardless of how controversial the topic.

I haven't read the book yet - but on the point of lack of varying views: I think you pretty much hit it on the head when you point out that the book is reluctant to say Dr. King or Rosa Parks were at fault for not embracing/supporting Claudette.

The bus boycott is a pivotal moment in the civil rights movement. Pivotal! Historians have done as much to protect its place in time as its done to keep the story exactly the same, each time. It's the type of event where everyone stays on message about how it took place. And that's essentially reinforced by Claudette not blaming those who were at the forefront of the movement.

It reminds me that just about everything is political. Dr. King did not march, protest and invoke action willy nilly. It was about delicate strategy. Those involved in that strategy were likely conditioned by loyalty to Dr. King and passion for the movement - to do whatever it took to meet the objective.

So whether Claudette's lack of evidence to support that she was treated badly is simply a method to make the story more intimately hers or an age-old issue of folks refusing to go on record to say anything that would taint the movement or those who championed it will likely always remain a question.

yeah, i walked away feeling like the corner was being lifted on a shady corner of the civil rights movement. rosa parks, by her own design or that of the movement, deliberately set out to replicate the claudette colvin situation so it could be manipulated into a galvanizing event. in this light, as presented here, it's not difficult to see why rosa parks would downplay the event from her standpoint: she was maintaining the image for the sake of movement. a very shrewd, very calculated, piece of political theater.

which is not to say i disagree with what was done because the purpose and the outcome of these events was an important point in the move toward civil rights. but there is a risk in this truth, the risk that others can twist this information to their advantage, either to discredit rosa parks or to use the same sort of tactics for their own political gain, and not necessarily for good.

the book has garnered a lot of attention, i hope that some of this is being discussed with young readers as well.

What was interesting when I was teaching the CRM was that all of my African American students knew that Rosa Parks had been "planted" to a certain degree - that it was a planned event to galvanize the boycott and NONE of my Caucasian students knew. Of course it doesn't really matter as if they had never removed Rosa from the bus for not getting up then the wheels would not have been put in motion - basically if the racist laws/practices had not existed then the boycott would not have had to exist either. So it was all appropriate and good and powerful stuff.

But I think when you see all the back story in a way it becomes even more significant - it shows how smart the folks involved were. Which is what makes me think that they had solid reasons for not going with Claudette.

My scattered thoughts: I think the strength is Claudette's own words and thoughts, still as teenage-raw as they ever were. I think its actually a strength to let the reader judge (or not) Claudette's personal viewpoint of that time in her life. The point is not what others thought of her; it's what she thought of herself, that time period, during a significant historical event. It's the "every girl" whose path passes the famous for one moment in time, who is a part of something bigger.

For Claudette, this was an important moment in her life but her life was not the important thing in the lives of the others. And there is nothing wrong with that. The book conveyed this very well; and to have had a bunch of peers reminiscing about her would have changed that aspect of the book. It was not a story about Claudette; it was Claudette's story about a time period, and her role in it, and her view of it, balanced by objective facts and additional informational to supplement for the reader that time period.

I also liked how it left it to the reader to ask themself -- how many Claudettes are out there? Read a bit about Norma McCorvey (Jane Roe) and she also ended up feeling abandoned by the lawyers who used her for their case. Significant lawsuits are often a case waiting for the "right" plaintiff, and this portrayed that part brilliantly, especially in it not spoon-feeding the audience but letting them come to their own conclusions. Like, for example, why should Rosa Parks or any of the others continued to be involved in Claudette's life?

So, would I have liked to hear if her classmates impressions matched up with Claudettes remembrances? Yes. Was it necessary to include in this book? No; not from my reading it.

As I said - it's the historian in me that really asked these questions and continues to think about them. I'm also intrigued, as you pointed out via twitter today, that there are bias similarities between "Almost Astronauts" and "Claudette". I thought "Astronauts" had a ton of voices to provide balance and also was disputing an old conclusion (no women in the space program in the 1960s) whereas with "Claudette" so much hinges on just what she says.

And yet while "Astronauts" has gotten a lot of flack for bias, I haven't heard any for "Claudette". That strikes me as odd.

The questions about civil rights figures are interesting and crossed my mind as I read the book. I am surprised, though, by your harsh assessment of her pregnancy narrative.

You wrote, "...an older young man who took advantage of her, that she had no idea how to even get pregnant, and that he abandoned her, all read as....well, forgive me but it's a story I have heard dozens of times." That's very dismissive; because you have heard it so much, does that mean it is not true? Lacking a citation, I am not sure if that accurately reflects Colvin's story, in any case. (I do not have a copy of the book at the moment.) Reading pages 59-60 on Amazon, she describes the man who impregnated her as "much older" and already married.

As "corroborating interviews," on the question of who a teenage girl was having sex with, what his motives were, and what her motives were, I question whether the testimony of anyone other than the two directly involved could really be considered reliable.

I thought the issue of Colvin's pregnancy and motherhood was a fascinating element of the book that I haven't seen discussed much in reviews. The culture of shame back then worked overtime to make unmarried women who were pregnant, or who had children, invisible. I am grateful to Colvin and Hoose for discussing it openly in the book, and would have been interested in further exploration of the role her motherhood played in the way she was treated by civil rights leaders.

I didn't meant to be dismissive Laurie - and as I said later it might very well have happened that way. But I was looking at the cumulative number of items where it was all Claudette's version of events with absolutely no other supporting info provided. There is no one from her family to say she had a tough time then, no friends to say she had a tough time, no one at all really who knew this girl both before the bus incident and after (and through the pregnancy) who comments in the story. You have the male classmate who makes note of her hair change and that is pretty much it.

My ONLY interest in the pregnancy was because Claudette uses it as another reason why she was ignored by the Civil Rights leaders. And because her story changes in the book - from a guy she meets and dates, to someone who abandons her and seems to have taken advantage to the strange turn where she says she was accused of having a biracial child - well, it just seem like a very calculated story in a traditional sense. All of this is used as evidence for her mistreatment by CR leaders. Okay, fair enough, but if you're going to lay those kind of charges then at least give me the opinion of somebody else who knew her when. The reason I said I had heard it before is because I have. A lot. And so has everyone else. I think the pregnancy story requires just a wee bit more back up because of that.

Heck, I'm not asking for much. Just a classmate or two who says Claudette was treated badly. I still find it odd that those voices are missing from this otherwise so well researched text.

That fifty years later, Claudette still won't name the man speaks volumes to me - that it is something that she still does not want to make public, whatever the motivation. The book also gave little space to that child or her second child. For whatever reason, she is chosing not to share the details, publicly. Her choice & I respect that.

Given the time period (give the public shaming that still goes on with teenage pregnancy), I think its enough for the reader to know that her pregnancy outside of marriage was a factor in what happened.

Colleen, thank you so much for raising these questions and for eliciting discussion. You mention that few white students know that Rosa Parks was "planted." This is something that drives me slightly nuts. Parks attended the Highlander Folk School, a fairly well-known southern school that trained attendees in community organizing. She was there in the summer of 1955, before taking action in the bus boycott. She was a secretary in the NAACP. These are facts and easy to find.

But there are almost NO books about Parks that discuss this, whether by blacks or whites--even those just published. Why not? Because Highlander was accused of leftist/communist leanings during a time of high cold war propaganda? Because we want to believe in romance instead of truth? She was well-prepared for her action.

In Taylor Branch's Pulitzer Prize winning PARTING THE WATERS, the first volume of his brilliant history of the King years (published in 1988), he talks about Colvin, Parks, and Highlander in great detail. The historian in me wants everyone to go deeper, learn more, and above all, make connections. Branch says, "After the Colvin arrest in Montgomery, Nixon (not tricky Dick, but a CR leader) and Durr (white CR lawyer) conferred with Colvin, Colvin's relatives, witnesses from the bus, and Fred Gray, a young Negro lawyer..."(p. 122). They and others concluded that the case had already lost momentum and they were afraid of Colvin's immaturity (at the time). So they kept planning and looking and hoping. Lives were on the line.

Another woman was also turned down after her sit-in.

The pressures and dangers these heroes and heroines faced were unbelievable. If that meant that movement leaders wanted to choose just the right person--someone who could bear up under the strain of what was to come--I sure can't blame them.

And I am so grateful for CLAUDETTE COLVIN--that she and the book exist, that it's garnered so much attention, etc.

leda

leda mentions someone who could "bear up under the strain." I think this is an important point, and I also cannot blame the leaders for not going with Colvin.

I'm thinking of todays celebrity culture, and the teens who are thrust into it (not for civil rights, but for fame and music and TV) and how few of them bear up well, ultimately.

Maybe my reading is old & jaded; but part of what I got from the book was a combination of sympathy for Claudette, a better understanding of a historical event, and ultimately understanding of why Claudette was not chosen to press the issues forward.

Colleen, I'd be interested to hear what you thought of Elizabeth Partridge's "Marching for Freedom: Walk Together, Children, and Don't You Get Weary." To me, it seemed as meticulously researched if not more so than "Claudette Colvin" (but I am not a historian), and a good picture of the carefully designed strategy involved in the movement.

I thought it gave a compelling picture of many children who were involved in the movement, and why they were, and how the march to Selma came about, with memories and pictures from primary sources drawn together beautifully. It surprised me that it didn't get much recognition, at least from the awards committees.

Thanks for all these great comments - and I do hope you all understand that I put this out there merely because it was something that I have been thinking about for a while which I guess is a good point for the book; it made me think! ha! I also don't want the pregnancy to become too much of this post. It was only one element of the book that "leaped at me" but of course it does get more attention than anything else.

Yes, Leda - I do think we want to believe the romantic ideal of Rosa Parks as an innocent who had no idea what the far reaching impact of her actions would be. But I like the bigger deeper story of how much work went into the boycott. I also think it takes nothing away from Rosa's courage - or everyone else involved.

That's an excellent point on teens thrust into the spotlight, Liz and I think you're dead-on. I honestly don't think a teen could have handled this moment in history and to a certain degree "Claudette Colvin" proves that. She struggled mightily in the face of her arrest - can you imagine what would have happened if she had been in Rosa's shoes?

Genevieve, "Marching" was one of the final three for the Cybils and it got a lot of love from us. I thought it was incredibly well done (the cover and photos are stunning, aren't they?) and I thought the broader method of telling the story (about so many teens) made it more enjoyable. The research is great. I liked it more than "Claudette" as it had a greater balance to me - it didn't hinge upon sympathy for one person but rather gave me a lot of room to empathize with a lot of stories. I'll post on why I went with "Frog Scientist" next week.

Thanks, Colleen! I've heard great things about "Frog Scientist," so I wasn't surprised to see it picked. I had forgotten that "Marching" was a finalist, so that's good. Glad to hear your views on it.

I've not read this one yet, although I put it on my list based on the awards it won. Interesting points, all.

Thanks Coleen for this excellent article, and all for the stimulating discussion.

My only contribution is to amplify a point already made, namely that the strategic character of Rosa Parks's action takes nothing away from its significance or her courage. Indeed, to think its strategic nature would detract from the action in some way is to miss the deepest character of virtually all of the civil rights activity organized by King and others. These were deliberate symbolic actions, designed both to communicate things to the oppressors (and to the public at large), and to apply pressure at particularly strategic points in order to move the social goals forward. This JUST IS what King learned from Gandhi. African-Americans did not stumble into civil rights via certain accidents of history (e.g., Rosa being at the right place at the right time). Rather, they were led there by the deliberate actions of leaders and supporters following a strategy of Gandhian satyagraha.

I've linked your review at Color Me Brown Links.

Aaron, learning more about how deliberate and thought out the campaigns were just made me so much more impressed. And adds to the "why not Claudette." The civil right movement did not "just happen." It was not an accident. As I wrote in my review of CLAUDETTE, perhaps Claudette's arrest and reaction helped move up what the movement was doing (going for no segregation with buses, as opposed to wanting existing segrgation laws enforced).

Part of what I thought was missing in ALMOST ASTRONAUTS was such a well thought out, trained, connected organization. AA seemed more about individuals, and in comparing the two, I thought, no wonder AA failed. They were individuals.

Colleen,

Your response to the described context of Claudette Colvin's pregnancy indicates that you are ill informed about the research on teen pregnancies and sexual abuse.

Victim blaming and abuse denial are still rampant and both were far stronger when Colvin was a teen. If everyone around her denied that she could have been a victim of sexual abuse that would do nothing to disprove the claim made in this book.

A study published in the journal Ambulatory Pediatrics in 2007 found a significant connection between abusive relationships and teen pregnancy. This and other research studies provide more reliable corroboration than any interview of those who knew Colvin ever could provide.

Colvin's story related to her pregnancy sounds familiar not because it is a handy device but because it is a too common reality which can have a lasting impact on those girls lives.

For more information Google "Young women's degree of control over first intercourse: An exploratory analysis"

Okay, let's not go there with a lecture about sexual abuse, shall we? Because really - you don't know a thing about me and this is so misplaced in this discussion it's not even funny.

I actually hesitated to bring up the pregnancy because I had a feeling it would be latched onto the most by others and it is just ONE PART OF THIS BOOK where I felt that Claudette's version of events needed support. It could be perfectly true that she was a victim who was wrongfully blamed. As I said in my post - IT COULD ALL BE EXACTLY AS SHE STATED. However, what I felt was lacking from this title was the voice of any of Claudette's contemporaries to corroborate her version of all the events.

Liz brought up "Almost Astronauts" - in that book one thing that was done well is there are several voices for each point of view. Absent that in "Claudette" we are left accepting the title character as the sole authority and I think that weakens the narrative.

If she was victimized, I can't imagine that this many years later someone would not say "It was horrible - she was a victim." And ditto if she is misrepresenting the facts. In a title of this nature I think you need that supporting evidence if you want the book to stand up as strongly as possible.

That was my point. Don't try to make this about something else.

Me, not go there? You're the one who went there by straying into uncorroborated speculation and who continued to go there with your response. That you cannot imagine her account to be truthful while no one would say, "It was horrible -- she was a victim" highlights that you don't understand the attitudes and laws which were firmly entrenched before the mid 1970s reforms which led to the first conviction of a man who forced himself on a woman he knew after she said no. Before that law change most non-stranger rapists were not rapists according to the law. If the rapists were not rapists then their victims would not be considered to be victims.

I brought up research to show that my criticism of your review isn't a personal pet peeve, but based on research into patterns which support the credibility of an account that you seemed to view as improbable because you've read it before.

If you didn't want to "go there" and merely wished to highlight the lack of peer perspectives you could have done so without including baseless speculation when making this point.

This was a post questioning the historic accuracy of a nonfiction title. In my opinion, a historic narrative requires more than the words of one person to stand up strongly - especially when that person is accusing an entire host of Civil Rights leaders to have wronged her.

This is a post about a book, got it?

If the author had supported Claudette Colvin's statements throughout with supporting voices then the book would have held up better. It is not about the pregnancy alone but as one more event in a long line of them where Claudette's voice stands alone and yet there should easily be many more people to support her allegations about the Civil Rights leaders.

This post is about a book. I will not argue with you - when we do not know each other at all - about sexual abuse.

Comments are closed.