Were there any differences in respect to the issue of respectability, as it relates to the Joan Little situation as opposed to the Claudette Colvin and Rosa Parks era?
There is absolutely no difference in respectability in the Joan Little Case as it relates to Claudette Colvin and Rosa Parks. There is only a false, and extremely weak, pretense of change that is only at the surface of the issue. Look at it this way, if respectability had changed for Black Women, would the Slut Walk we did to start the reading have been necessary. (If black women had no longer needed respectability, white women certainly did not.) The issues are the exact same in the Joan Little case, the prosecutors attacked an irrelevant past history, and portrayed Black women as willing participants in their own assaults. To look at even deeper, the results were the same, Claudette Colvin also won her court case, she just wasn't chosen to be the face of the bus movement. Joan Little won her case as well. Both cases had splits in the black community between the middle class. I also contend that respectability was equally important to Little winning her case. "Jerry Paul helped create an image or respectability by pairing Little with Galloway, who was middle-class, educated, poised, well spoken, and respectable." She was extensively coached and told to emulate respectable co-counsel Karen Galloway. Her own attorney feared that Little being herself would blow their case; respectability was still a major issue. If the trial was not a retrospective change on black women's rights, what was it? The case as presented by the author was more about Jim Crow, and overall rape rights then it was about respectability. Little had no additional support groups than did the previous women, except she had the white women’s movement on her side as well. The defense team supported attacks on Little's character as racism because they knew that in fact, respectability still mattered. The trial was designed to put North Carolina's "redneck" history on trial as much as it was to defend Little. I will say that the case caused respectability to be approached in a different way, but whether it’s blatant or subtle the issue hasn’t changed much.
There was no difference in respect when it came to Little compared to Parks and Colvin. All black women were treated the same with no respect. Little spent many years in jail and also fled the jail for the safety of her life; after she was raped. They went out on a hunt after her because they felt that she had was a cold blooded killer. With all the evidence proving that she was raped, whites still showed her no respect and did not take her word. They brought up her past and proved to the community that she was a bad person. I believe that Little felt that she had some type of respect because she won her case and afterwards she said she had a fair trial. In the beginning Little had little support in her community because she had made a name for herself. She was robbing her own kind and no one wanted to put their necks on the line for someone like that. That type of person deserved no respect. Not saying that she should have been raped but she deserved no respect. All black women were treated as property for the white man to take advantage of and disrespect.
I completely agree with Kenny (on everything). The concept of respectability weighed no differently in the cases. Black women have always been judged by their current or pass actions. While when white women like Ruby Bates and Ms Price who may have shared the same kind of promiscuity were questioned for their lifestyles, some people saw it as just a blatant attack on the white woman. They have always said that the black woman was overly sexual by nature; they have always looked down on us; there has been little protection for our minds and our bodies. This "they" i'm referring to is whites of course, but the concept of respectability when it came to the black woman was echoed in the black community as well.
I would have to agree with my following peers that there is no respectability differences between to the two. Black women are judged on their actions and their appearance. They do not even stand a chance if they are too dark or have a bad history they make it seem as if it's okay if a black women get raped especially if she has a bad representation or dress like a "slut". Little's past was presented and they portrayed her has a bad women, leaving her with no one to support her. this also happen in the Colvin case.
Absolutely not. There was no difference of respectability just different situations and different times of occurences. Jo Ann little was raped and Claudette and Rosa Parks were not, yet they were all black women who deserved to be respected Physically and verbally, which in their cases did not happen. Having a reputation of promiscuity does not elude being Raped.In closing I do not agree that the level of respectability for Little,JoAnn and Parks should be any different.
I also agree with my peers. There are absolutely no differences. Since the beginning of time, black women have been judged by their race and discriminated against becaause of their gender. Black women were the subject to rape by whites since slavery. But recently, these innocent women have began to speak out.I am personally glad that we have brave enough women to speak about the abuse that they endured.
I think their was a subtle difference between the Colvin, Parks, and Little. JoAnn Little was a liar, thief,and callous hearted to some degree (e.g. the grandmother situation), and yet Jerry Paul still took on her case. The seventies were a point in time were women's rights and roles were beginning to change. Some of my peers choose to call this subtle change minor surface change but I believe any change in terms of rights and respectability could affect a case like JoAnn Little. JoAnn was known to be a criminal and wasn't as saintly as Parks, or Colvin for that matter, and yet the people defended her. There were rallies and protest on her behalf by people of all classes. Yes her past was an issue but it wasn't the defining issue as it had been for Colvin. Little's dress even speaks of the change concerning respectability. Little wore an Afro and can be seen in some shots in the book with pant suits and not looking as demure as earlier subjects HAD to look. Yes we are still having slut walks but that doesn't necessarily speak to the absence of progression but speaks to the power of male authority and woman power suppression. It speaks to the fact that the dominant group still makes the rules and holds the measuring stick regarding womanhood and ladyhood. The fact that a woman with a checkered past could walk away free from prison for defending her womanhood against a WHITE man not only suggest that her offbeat lawyer respected her as a woman with the right to defend her, it suggest that her peers, the jury, which included white men, held the very same sentiments. That my friend shows a change if nothing else.
When it comes to the level of respectability as it relates to the Joan Little situation as opposed to the Claudette Colvin and Rosa Parks era, I feel that there were differences but those differences are overshadowed by the subtle and gradual changes as a result of the outcomes of the Claudette Colvin and Rosa Parks cases. Since the cases are, on the surface, very similar, the changes and level of respectability can be seen through the succession of justice seen from court case to court case. I feel that respectability rested in the social status as it relates to the Colvin and Parks case and the level of respectability in the Little case rested in the verdicts of similar cases that preceded hers. Respectability took steps of forward progression from looking at black women individual traits (e.g. social status and background) to black womanhood as a whole. To reiterate was Tobar states, suppression weighs heavy but we must not belittle progression.
No, there is no difference in respectability in the Joan Little Case as opposed to the Claudette Colvin and Rosa Parks. Black women have always been judged by their actions as well as their appearances. Joan Little had a bad reputation and had a troubled past but that should not justify the fact that she was raped. I do not think there should be any difference in respect because everyone should be respected no matter their past actions or appearance
There is absolutely no difference in respectability in the Joan Little Case as it relates to Claudette Colvin and Rosa Parks. Black women have always been judged by their actions as well as their appearances.I feel that respectability rested in the social status as it relates to the Colvin and Parks case and the level of respectability in the Little case rested in the verdicts of similar cases that preceded hers. It has always been said that the black woman was overly sexual by nature. That have always looked down upon and there has been little protection for their minds and our bodies. All black women during that time period were treated as property for the white man and taken advantage of and disrespected. I will say that the case caused respectability to be approached in a different way, but whether it’s blatant or subtle the issue hasn’t changed much.
There was not much difference in the cases of Joan Little and Claudette Colvin. Both women were wronged because of the color of their skin and both were scrutinized because of their appearance and reputation. Little was portrayed as a person who "deserved to be raped" and no woman deserves to be raped, not even prostitutes. Claudette wasn't even given a chance because of her dark skin and iligitamate child. Hmmm that sounds so rude...i'll just say child born out of wedlock..At any rate while both cases had subtle differences and glaring similarities, they both contributed to the success of the Civil Right's movement for African Americans and more specifically black women in America.
There is no difference when it comes to the difference in respectability in the Joan Little Case compared to the Claudette Colvin and Rosa Parks. Black women have always been judged by their actions and appearances. But we have to remember Jo Ann little was raped. Reputation portrayed her has a bad women which in turn left her without any support.
There is no difference in the respectability of Little in her case when it comes to to comparing her to Rose to Colvin .the lifestyle that Little had shouldnt have mattered because there nothing that can justify a person violating any womans body no matter race creed ethnicity and especially lifestyle.In fact the way that Little was treated could have led to a very negative outcome for other women who have been raped and now will never come forward because of the fear that their past will prevent them from justice
There was no difference in the any of the cases, because women were just not respected. Little was raped and defended herself, which ended in a death but it was well deserved and also self defense. But no one respected her because of her back ground. Little was a rough woman, that did things to her own kind, but with her still doing the things she did she still deserved the respect of her body. Her past in the beginning made balcks not want to support her but that soon changed.
I would have to agree with the majority of my peers on the issue. There was no difference and though each situation is different the root of the issues is the same there was some form of injustice. Judgmental behavior is the reason that these women were put in the situations they were in to begin with. So to say that there is a difference in their cases because of their background would be crazy, ok Joan was already a convicted criminal, Colvin was unwed and pregnant, Rosa Parks was a activist but she didn't broadcast everything that she fought for. None of that matters they are were all treated unfairly, they were wronged and that is the sole reason why people stood behind them and pushed their cases. In jail or out Joan Little still has rights, with or without a husband Colvin and her child both have rights and Rosa Parks had rights to. Just as we all have rights. Right now in 2012 we may disagree with how a person chooses to live there live but if they are treated unjustly their life choices don't justify somebody treating them badly. A prime example of this is the Trayvon Martin case. After the whole case begin blowing up the media tried to paint a picture of Trayvon as a thug and a drug dealer by saying that the only reason he was out of school was because he got suspend for having weed. Whether that is true or false doesn't matter. What matters is that he was there, Zimmerman did kill him and he was out of line and it was illegal. So what even if (and I'm not saying it's true) Trayvon was a drug dealer & gang member does that make murder in America legal. Last time I checked we didn't have laws that protected vigilantes. Respect to me means to honor something/someone, cherish it/them believe in what it/they have to offer. There was no respect given to either of those women, but that's not even the sad part. The worst thing about it is that the men that caused their turmoil felt like they had the right to do it.
When it comes to the level of respectability as it relates to the Joan Little situation as opposed to the Claudette Colvin and Rosa Parks era, I feel that there were differences but those differences are overshadowed by the subtle and gradual changes as a result of the outcomes of the Claudette Colvin and Rosa Parks cases. Both women were wronged because of the color of their skin and both were scrutinized because of their appearance and reputation. JoAnn Little was a liar and thief,yet Jerry Paul still took on her case. JoAnn was known to be a criminal and wasn't as saintly as Parks, or Colvin, and yet the people defended her. There were rallies and protest on her behalf by people of all classes. I feel that respectability found its origins in the social status of the in the aspect of the Colvin and Parks case, and the level of respectability in the Little case came from precedence in other cases.
In my opinion, all three women were mistreated. I do believe that there were little differences when it came to respectability. However, the situations were different. Little was raped and put in prison. In the beginning she did not get as much support as Claudette Colvin and Rosa Parks because of her background. Wrongdoing was a part of her past. Rosa Parks and Claudette Colvin had much more support because their past were not bad. Black women have always had it harder than the rest of society, especially when it came to respect. Black women are constantly being judged for past experiences and appearance. In all situations it was the color of their skin that automatically made then guilty. They all had to be proven innocent. Little was treated like a piece of meat, no respect for her body. An elderly black woman was forced to give up her seat for a "White MAN" (Rosa Parks), no respect. A young girl could not sit in her own section on the bus because of a color line (Claudette Colvin), no respect. Respectability was hard to come by for the African American woman.
There was absolutely no difference in the cases, because women were just not respected. Joan Little was raped and defended herself, which ended in a death but it was well deserved and also self defense. But no one respected her because of her history. Little was a rough woman, but with her still doing the things she did she still deserved the respect of her body. Her past in the beginning made balcks not want to support her but that soon changed.
As it relates to respectability, there is no difference between the Joan Little incident and the Parks and Colvin incident. All of these women were victims of an unjust system created by prejudiced and discriminatory whites. Yes, Joan was a little rough around the edges, but that did not delegitimize her attack or make it ok. Thankfully someone decided to fight for her in spite of her reputation. Yes Colvin had a child out of wedlock and her skin was dark. But she still stood up for herself and ignited a fire under black men and women alike who were fed up with the crooked system.
As it has already been said, black women are judged by their actions and appearances every day. This is not fair because like in any culture stereotypes often mold people's perceptions of others. The black culture just happens to already have a negative image so in incidents like Joan Little's he plea for self defense was not received with any pity. He case is no different from others like Parks and Colvins because everyone has flaws and justice was clearly against them.
I believe that they both were the same as far as respectability goes. Joan Little and Claudette Colvin both had past histories in which was brought up to discredit them, and they both won their respective cases. The era may have been different. However, black women have never won the fight for their respectability, even today they remain at war for that same cause. No matter the issue, a woman’s respectability should have no bearing on the conviction of guilt in rape cases.
There was no real difference with regard to respectability in these cases. I don’t know that I agree with the fact that the leaders in the black community didn’t do more to fight for the rights of more women. While there was not much that could be done in the legal system, more could have been done to protect black women and fight for them in other ways. That the issue of respectability remains even in 2012 in rape cases speaks to the need for change at a more fundamental level. A woman who has been the victim of rape is no less a victim because of a stain in her background.
There isnt a issue with differences in terms of respectability with black women. They are looked down upon and judged everyday in todays society, so I can imagine that it was even worse back in the day. In my opinion, I dont think that will ever change for the simple face that people are entitled to their own opinion and will continue to think what they want to look and label people how they want to label them. Even though Joan had a bad history, everybody has a past but it just so happened to be in the wrong time era and the wrong time of the event to have such a past like she did.
There was most certainly no difference in respectability regarding the two cases. Although the incidents occurred in different time periods, it would be barbaric to assert that one incident trumps another. The value of the degradation of women, should not be determined regarding a measuring stick of severity. As we know it, one case may have overshadowed another case but, this does not and should not determine which women had the worst case. Although Little was portrayed as someone who deserved to be raped, this did not make the rape, to me, any more justifiable than the rape of a prostitute. She was discriminated against solely because of the color of her skin, not because she "deserved" to be raped. Colvin, however, was unmarried and pregnant. Both of these women simple reflected the weakness, as many whites thought, of a race that should be tortured and harassed.
No there were absolutely no differences between the Joan Little and the Claudette Colvin and Rosa Park problems. Even though they were in different time periods and different situations, it still went to show how little respect that white America gave to the African American Woman just purely based in their appearance. No one deserves to be raped, in Little's case, just as no one deserves to be discriminated against in Colvin and Parks's cases.
As it has been stated I don't believe it was any real differences between the other cases. At the end of the day, black women were and continue to be mistreated and not respected. Joan Little may have been a criminal but she did not deserve to be raped. But there is a connection to this belief and how historically black women have been portrayed. The stereotype of them being purely sexual objects with no rights continues to this day.
There is absolutely no difference in the cases of these two women. America has done a poor job of protecting the rights of the african american woman, and her dignity. African American women faced rape at a rapid rate, and emphasis on how important these cases were got left by the waist side. It shouldnt matter what a woman wears,says, or does, it gives no man the right to rape her. Using the phrase of dressing like a slut is only a short term excuse, because a woman should be able to wear whatever she wants without the fear of being sexually assaulted. Men that rape women are no different than a murderer to me, because you have taken something from that woman that she will think about for the rest of her days.
There wasnt any difference in respect when it cameto Parks and Colvin. No black one was trested with respect. Little spent time in jail and also fled the jail for the safety of her life; after she was raped. Whites showed no respect, they brought up her past and proved to the community that she was a bad person.At first Little had support in her community because she had made a name for herself. She was robbing her own kind and no one wanted to put their necks on the line for someone like that. All black women were treated as property for the white man to take advantage of and disrespect
The level of respectability is exactly the same as it relates to the cases of Joan Little and the Claudette Colvin/ Rosa Parks. Although these women hailed from different backgrounds, they were treated exactly the same. In that time, black women were viewed as absolutely nothing to the white community regardless of the shade of their skin. These women represented the entire black female community in that Little was a convicted felon, Colvin was a poor pregnant teen, and Parks was a well-respected educated woman. Their victorious cases said that no matter what your background was, as a person respect, protection, and equality were all deserving rights of everyone.
The level of respectability in both cases is no different. What people fail to realize is that crimes of passion such as rape, sexual molestation, and sexual assault are about control and not about sex.. so bringing up Little's past of violence and crime should not even been an issue, just as the more wholesome background's of Colvin and Parks made no difference. These women had been violated and abused. I believe that women's respectability is always brought into play during cases of rape and abuse, and it should not.. whether the women is standing totally naked that DOES NOT give a man or another woman for that matter the right to violate her body. Colvin, Parks, and Little might have come from totally different backgrounds but they all suffered abuse and Little did what most women are afraid to do,, she fought back.
While others may say that “respectability” was not an issue when relating Joan Little era to that of Claudette Colvin, I think it is. Respectability may not have been an issue in terms of them being black women and white men disrespecting them through rape and violence, but later on in history, the law and due process for African Americans has molded into an entity that respects the civil rights of black men and women. With Claudette Colvin it was hard for her to gain justice because through society not respecting her, the courts did not recognize the need for fairness. Joan little being the first in U.S. history to be acquitted of a defense of sexual assault, showed that the law did respect her rights as a women that was abused, taking out skin color, and gender, the courts looked at the offense its self rather than the underlying issues that often surrounded biracial cases. The era of Rosa and Claudette were before the civil rights movement, that was based on respect, therefore justice and the viewpoints of juries, lawyers, and judges was extremely different than in 1979.
The different opinions are all justified as true in several ways; respectability is not something thats foreign in American society it is a character in one to respect someone elses rights, which later was an established law. Character is a behavior that is right or wrong in how one present themself. However, I agree with 'Tobar' change was in existence, (Little's dress) in which African American's were able to think for themselves and learn to present and conceal themselves in a respectable manner.
There is absolutely no difference in respectability in the Joan Little Case as it relates to Claudette Colvin and Rosa Parks. There is only a false, and extremely weak, pretense of change that is only at the surface of the issue. Look at it this way, if respectability had changed for Black Women, would the Slut Walk we did to start the reading have been necessary. (If black women had no longer needed respectability, white women certainly did not.) The issues are the exact same in the Joan Little case, the prosecutors attacked an irrelevant past history, and portrayed Black women as willing participants in their own assaults. To look at even deeper, the results were the same, Claudette Colvin also won her court case, she just wasn't chosen to be the face of the bus movement. Joan Little won her case as well. Both cases had splits in the black community between the middle class. I also contend that respectability was equally important to Little winning her case. "Jerry Paul helped create an image or respectability by pairing Little with Galloway, who was middle-class, educated, poised, well spoken, and respectable." She was extensively coached and told to emulate respectable co-counsel Karen Galloway. Her own attorney feared that Little being herself would blow their case; respectability was still a major issue. If the trial was not a retrospective change on black women's rights, what was it? The case as presented by the author was more about Jim Crow, and overall rape rights then it was about respectability. Little had no additional support groups than did the previous women, except she had the white women’s movement on her side as well. The defense team supported attacks on Little's character as racism because they knew that in fact, respectability still mattered. The trial was designed to put North Carolina's "redneck" history on trial as much as it was to defend Little. I will say that the case caused respectability to be approached in a different way, but whether it’s blatant or subtle the issue hasn’t changed much.
ReplyDeleteThere was no difference in respect when it came to Little compared to Parks and Colvin. All black women were treated the same with no respect. Little spent many years in jail and also fled the jail for the safety of her life; after she was raped. They went out on a hunt after her because they felt that she had was a cold blooded killer. With all the evidence proving that she was raped, whites still showed her no respect and did not take her word. They brought up her past and proved to the community that she was a bad person. I believe that Little felt that she had some type of respect because she won her case and afterwards she said she had a fair trial. In the beginning Little had little support in her community because she had made a name for herself. She was robbing her own kind and no one wanted to put their necks on the line for someone like that. That type of person deserved no respect. Not saying that she should have been raped but she deserved no respect. All black women were treated as property for the white man to take advantage of and disrespect.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with Kenny (on everything). The concept of respectability weighed no differently in the cases. Black women have always been judged by their current or pass actions. While when white women like Ruby Bates and Ms Price who may have shared the same kind of promiscuity were questioned for their lifestyles, some people saw it as just a blatant attack on the white woman. They have always said that the black woman was overly sexual by nature; they have always looked down on us; there has been little protection for our minds and our bodies. This "they" i'm referring to is whites of course, but the concept of respectability when it came to the black woman was echoed in the black community as well.
ReplyDeleteI would have to agree with my following peers that there is no respectability differences between to the two. Black women are judged on their actions and their appearance. They do not even stand a chance if they are too dark or have a bad history they make it seem as if it's okay if a black women get raped especially if she has a bad representation or dress like a "slut". Little's past was presented and they portrayed her has a bad women, leaving her with no one to support her. this also happen in the Colvin case.
ReplyDeleteAbsolutely not. There was no difference of respectability just different situations and different times of occurences. Jo Ann little was raped and Claudette and Rosa Parks were not, yet they were all black women who deserved to be respected Physically and verbally, which in their cases did not happen. Having a reputation of promiscuity does not elude being Raped.In closing I do not agree that the level of respectability for Little,JoAnn and Parks should be any different.
ReplyDeleteI also agree with my peers. There are absolutely no differences. Since the beginning of time, black women have been judged by their race and discriminated against becaause of their gender. Black women were the subject to rape by whites since slavery. But recently, these innocent women have began to speak out.I am personally glad that we have brave enough women to speak about the abuse that they endured.
ReplyDeleteI think their was a subtle difference between the Colvin, Parks, and Little. JoAnn Little was a liar, thief,and callous hearted to some degree (e.g. the grandmother situation), and yet Jerry Paul still took on her case. The seventies were a point in time were women's rights and roles were beginning to change. Some of my peers choose to call this subtle change minor surface change but I believe any change in terms of rights and respectability could affect a case like JoAnn Little. JoAnn was known to be a criminal and wasn't as saintly as Parks, or Colvin for that matter, and yet the people defended her. There were rallies and protest on her behalf by people of all classes. Yes her past was an issue but it wasn't the defining issue as it had been for Colvin. Little's dress even speaks of the change concerning respectability. Little wore an Afro and can be seen in some shots in the book with pant suits and not looking as demure as earlier subjects HAD to look. Yes we are still having slut walks but that doesn't necessarily speak to the absence of progression but speaks to the power of male authority and woman power suppression. It speaks to the fact that the dominant group still makes the rules and holds the measuring stick regarding womanhood and ladyhood. The fact that a woman with a checkered past could walk away free from prison for defending her womanhood against a WHITE man not only suggest that her offbeat lawyer respected her as a woman with the right to defend her, it suggest that her peers, the jury, which included white men, held the very same sentiments. That my friend shows a change if nothing else.
ReplyDelete*case
ReplyDelete*protests..lol sorry it irks me.
ReplyDeleteWhen it comes to the level of respectability as it relates to the Joan Little situation as opposed to the Claudette Colvin and Rosa Parks era, I feel that there were differences but those differences are overshadowed by the subtle and gradual changes as a result of the outcomes of the Claudette Colvin and Rosa Parks cases. Since the cases are, on the surface, very similar, the changes and level of respectability can be seen through the succession of justice seen from court case to court case. I feel that respectability rested in the social status as it relates to the Colvin and Parks case and the level of respectability in the Little case rested in the verdicts of similar cases that preceded hers. Respectability took steps of forward progression from looking at black women individual traits (e.g. social status and background) to black womanhood as a whole. To reiterate was Tobar states, suppression weighs heavy but we must not belittle progression.
ReplyDeleteNo, there is no difference in respectability in the Joan Little Case as opposed to the Claudette Colvin and Rosa Parks. Black women have always been judged by their actions as well as their appearances. Joan Little had a bad reputation and had a troubled past but that should not justify the fact that she was raped. I do not think there should be any difference in respect because everyone should be respected no matter their past actions or appearance
ReplyDeleteThere is absolutely no difference in respectability in the Joan Little Case as it relates to Claudette Colvin and Rosa Parks. Black women have always been judged by their actions as well as their appearances.I feel that respectability rested in the social status as it relates to the Colvin and Parks case and the level of respectability in the Little case rested in the verdicts of similar cases that preceded hers. It has always been said that the black woman was overly sexual by nature. That have always looked down upon and there has been little protection for their minds and our bodies. All black women during that time period were treated as property for the white man and taken advantage of and disrespected. I will say that the case caused respectability to be approached in a different way, but whether it’s blatant or subtle the issue hasn’t changed much.
ReplyDeleteThere was not much difference in the cases of Joan Little and Claudette Colvin. Both women were wronged because of the color of their skin and both were scrutinized because of their appearance and reputation. Little was portrayed as a person who "deserved to be raped" and no woman deserves to be raped, not even prostitutes. Claudette wasn't even given a chance because of her dark skin and iligitamate child. Hmmm that sounds so rude...i'll just say child born out of wedlock..At any rate while both cases had subtle differences and glaring similarities, they both contributed to the success of the Civil Right's movement for African Americans and more specifically black women in America.
ReplyDeleteThere is no difference when it comes to the difference in respectability in the Joan Little Case compared to the Claudette Colvin and Rosa Parks. Black women have always been judged by their actions and appearances. But we have to remember Jo Ann little was raped. Reputation portrayed her has a bad women which in turn left her without any support.
ReplyDeleteThere is no difference in the respectability of Little in her case when it comes to to comparing her to Rose to Colvin .the lifestyle that Little had shouldnt have mattered because there nothing that can justify a person violating any womans body no matter race creed ethnicity and especially lifestyle.In fact the way that Little was treated could have led to a very negative outcome for other women who have been raped and now will never come forward because of the fear that their past will prevent them from justice
ReplyDeleteThere was no difference in the any of the cases, because women were just not respected. Little was raped and defended herself, which ended in a death but it was well deserved and also self defense. But no one respected her because of her back ground. Little was a rough woman, that did things to her own kind, but with her still doing the things she did she still deserved the respect of her body. Her past in the beginning made balcks not want to support her but that soon changed.
ReplyDeleteI would have to agree with the majority of my peers on the issue. There was no difference and though each situation is different the root of the issues is the same there was some form of injustice. Judgmental behavior is the reason that these women were put in the situations they were in to begin with. So to say that there is a difference in their cases because of their background would be crazy, ok Joan was already a convicted criminal, Colvin was unwed and pregnant, Rosa Parks was a activist but she didn't broadcast everything that she fought for. None of that matters they are were all treated unfairly, they were wronged and that is the sole reason why people stood behind them and pushed their cases. In jail or out Joan Little still has rights, with or without a husband Colvin and her child both have rights and Rosa Parks had rights to. Just as we all have rights. Right now in 2012 we may disagree with how a person chooses to live there live but if they are treated unjustly their life choices don't justify somebody treating them badly. A prime example of this is the Trayvon Martin case. After the whole case begin blowing up the media tried to paint a picture of Trayvon as a thug and a drug dealer by saying that the only reason he was out of school was because he got suspend for having weed. Whether that is true or false doesn't matter. What matters is that he was there, Zimmerman did kill him and he was out of line and it was illegal. So what even if (and I'm not saying it's true) Trayvon was a drug dealer & gang member does that make murder in America legal. Last time I checked we didn't have laws that protected vigilantes. Respect to me means to honor something/someone, cherish it/them believe in what it/they have to offer. There was no respect given to either of those women, but that's not even the sad part. The worst thing about it is that the men that caused their turmoil felt like they had the right to do it.
ReplyDeleteWhen it comes to the level of respectability as it relates to the Joan Little situation as opposed to the Claudette Colvin and Rosa Parks era, I feel that there were differences but those differences are overshadowed by the subtle and gradual changes as a result of the outcomes of the Claudette Colvin and Rosa Parks cases. Both women were wronged because of the color of their skin and both were scrutinized because of their appearance and reputation. JoAnn Little was a liar and thief,yet Jerry Paul still took on her case. JoAnn was known to be a criminal and wasn't as saintly as Parks, or Colvin, and yet the people defended her. There were rallies and protest on her behalf by people of all classes. I feel that respectability found its origins in the social status of the in the aspect of the Colvin and Parks case, and the level of respectability in the Little case came from precedence in other cases.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, all three women were mistreated. I do believe that there were little differences when it came to respectability. However, the situations were different. Little was raped and put in prison. In the beginning she did not get as much support as Claudette Colvin and Rosa Parks because of her background. Wrongdoing was a part of her past. Rosa Parks and Claudette Colvin had much more support because their past were not bad. Black women have always had it harder than the rest of society, especially when it came to respect. Black women are constantly being judged for past experiences and appearance. In all situations it was the color of their skin that automatically made then guilty. They all had to be proven innocent. Little was treated like a piece of meat, no respect for her body. An elderly black woman was forced to give up her seat for a "White MAN" (Rosa Parks), no respect. A young girl could not sit in her own section on the bus because of a color line (Claudette Colvin), no respect. Respectability was hard to come by for the African American woman.
DeleteThere was absolutely no difference in the cases, because women were just not respected. Joan Little was raped and defended herself, which ended in a death but it was well deserved and also self defense. But no one respected her because of her history. Little was a rough woman, but with her still doing the things she did she still deserved the respect of her body. Her past in the beginning made balcks not want to support her but that soon changed.
ReplyDeleteAs it relates to respectability, there is no difference between the Joan Little incident and the Parks and Colvin incident. All of these women were victims of an unjust system created by prejudiced and discriminatory whites. Yes, Joan was a little rough around the edges, but that did not delegitimize her attack or make it ok. Thankfully someone decided to fight for her in spite of her reputation. Yes Colvin had a child out of wedlock and her skin was dark. But she still stood up for herself and ignited a fire under black men and women alike who were fed up with the crooked system.
ReplyDeleteAs it has already been said, black women are judged by their actions and appearances every day. This is not fair because like in any culture stereotypes often mold people's perceptions of others. The black culture just happens to already have a negative image so in incidents like Joan Little's he plea for self defense was not received with any pity. He case is no different from others like Parks and Colvins because everyone has flaws and justice was clearly against them.
ReplyDeleteI believe that they both were the same as far as respectability goes. Joan Little and Claudette Colvin both had past histories in which was brought up to discredit them, and they both won their respective cases. The era may have been different. However, black women have never won the fight for their respectability, even today they remain at war for that same cause. No matter the issue, a woman’s respectability should have no bearing on the conviction of guilt in rape cases.
ReplyDeleteThere was no real difference with regard to respectability in these cases. I don’t know that I agree with the fact that the leaders in the black community didn’t do more to fight for the rights of more women. While there was not much that could be done in the legal system, more could have been done to protect black women and fight for them in other ways. That the issue of respectability remains even in 2012 in rape cases speaks to the need for change at a more fundamental level. A woman who has been the victim of rape is no less a victim because of a stain in her background.
ReplyDeleteThere isnt a issue with differences in terms of respectability with black women. They are looked down upon and judged everyday in todays society, so I can imagine that it was even worse back in the day. In my opinion, I dont think that will ever change for the simple face that people are entitled to their own opinion and will continue to think what they want to look and label people how they want to label them. Even though Joan had a bad history, everybody has a past but it just so happened to be in the wrong time era and the wrong time of the event to have such a past like she did.
ReplyDeleteThere was most certainly no difference in respectability regarding the two cases. Although the incidents occurred in different time periods, it would be barbaric to assert that one incident trumps another. The value of the degradation of women, should not be determined regarding a measuring stick of severity. As we know it, one case may have overshadowed another case but, this does not and should not determine which women had the worst case. Although Little was portrayed as someone who deserved to be raped, this did not make the rape, to me, any more justifiable than the rape of a prostitute. She was discriminated against solely because of the color of her skin, not because she "deserved" to be raped. Colvin, however, was unmarried and pregnant. Both of these women simple reflected the weakness, as many whites thought, of a race that should be tortured and harassed.
ReplyDeleteNo there were absolutely no differences between the Joan Little and the Claudette Colvin and Rosa Park problems. Even though they were in different time periods and different situations, it still went to show how little respect that white America gave to the African American Woman just purely based in their appearance. No one deserves to be raped, in Little's case, just as no one deserves to be discriminated against in Colvin and Parks's cases.
ReplyDeleteAs it has been stated I don't believe it was any real differences between the other cases. At the end of the day, black women were and continue to be mistreated and not respected. Joan Little may have been a criminal but she did not deserve to be raped. But there is a connection to this belief and how historically black women have been portrayed. The stereotype of them being purely sexual objects with no rights continues to this day.
ReplyDeleteThere is absolutely no difference in the cases of these two women. America has done a poor job of protecting the rights of the african american woman, and her dignity. African American women faced rape at a rapid rate, and emphasis on how important these cases were got left by the waist side. It shouldnt matter what a woman wears,says, or does, it gives no man the right to rape her. Using the phrase of dressing like a slut is only a short term excuse, because a woman should be able to wear whatever she wants without the fear of being sexually assaulted. Men that rape women are no different than a murderer to me, because you have taken something from that woman that she will think about for the rest of her days.
ReplyDeleteThere wasnt any difference in respect when it cameto Parks and Colvin. No black one was trested with respect. Little spent time in jail and also fled the jail for the safety of her life; after she was raped. Whites showed no respect, they brought up her past and proved to the community that she was a bad person.At first Little had support in her community because she had made a name for herself. She was robbing her own kind and no one wanted to put their necks on the line for someone like that. All black women were treated as property for the white man to take advantage of and disrespect
ReplyDeleteThe level of respectability is exactly the same as it relates to the cases of Joan Little and the Claudette Colvin/ Rosa Parks. Although these women hailed from different backgrounds, they were treated exactly the same. In that time, black women were viewed as absolutely nothing to the white community regardless of the shade of their skin. These women represented the entire black female community in that Little was a convicted felon, Colvin was a poor pregnant teen, and Parks was a well-respected educated woman. Their victorious cases said that no matter what your background was, as a person respect, protection, and equality were all deserving rights of everyone.
ReplyDeleteThe level of respectability in both cases is no different. What people fail to realize is that crimes of passion such as rape, sexual molestation, and sexual assault are about control and not about sex.. so bringing up Little's past of violence and crime should not even been an issue, just as the more wholesome background's of Colvin and Parks made no difference. These women had been violated and abused. I believe that women's respectability is always brought into play during cases of rape and abuse, and it should not.. whether the women is standing totally naked that DOES NOT give a man or another woman for that matter the right to violate her body. Colvin, Parks, and Little might have come from totally different backgrounds but they all suffered abuse and Little did what most women are afraid to do,, she fought back.
ReplyDeleteWhile others may say that “respectability” was not an issue when relating Joan Little era to that of Claudette Colvin, I think it is. Respectability may not have been an issue in terms of them being black women and white men disrespecting them through rape and violence, but later on in history, the law and due process for African Americans has molded into an entity that respects the civil rights of black men and women. With Claudette Colvin it was hard for her to gain justice because through society not respecting her, the courts did not recognize the need for fairness. Joan little being the first in U.S. history to be acquitted of a defense of sexual assault, showed that the law did respect her rights as a women that was abused, taking out skin color, and gender, the courts looked at the offense its self rather than the underlying issues that often surrounded biracial cases. The era of Rosa and Claudette were before the civil rights movement, that was based on respect, therefore justice and the viewpoints of juries, lawyers, and judges was extremely different than in 1979.
ReplyDeleteThe different opinions are all justified as true in several ways; respectability is not something thats foreign in American society it is a character in one to respect someone elses rights, which later was an established law. Character is a behavior that is right or wrong in how one present themself. However, I agree with 'Tobar' change was in existence, (Little's dress) in which African American's were able to think for themselves and learn to present and conceal themselves in a respectable manner.
ReplyDelete