Why don’t scholars have access to Rosa Parks’s archives? (Short answer: Greedy relatives)

Washington Post ^ | August 29, 2011 | Julian Bond and Jeanne Theoharis

[Second Amendment First]

Rosa Parks gave the first installment of her papers to Wayne State University’sWalter Reuther Library in 1976, explaining, “I do hope that my contribution can be made use of.”

Thirty-five years later, nobody is making use of the rest of her papers. After her death in 2005, all of her effects and the rights to license her name became the subject of a dispute between Parks’s nieces and nephews and the Rosa and Raymond Parks Institute for Self Development, which she co-founded in 1987 with longtime friend Elaine Steele. In 2007, a Michigan probate court awarded custody of Parks’s possessions to Guernsey’s Auctioneers and instructed that the collection be sold in its entirety to a single buyer, with the proceeds from the sale divided, in an undisclosed settlement, between the litigating parties. All of the materials — political documents, letters and photos, along with Parks’s clothes, awards and other personal items — were collected, inventoried and taken to New York for auction. Last month, Steele challenged the court’s actions before the Michigan Supreme Court, landing the auction back in the news.

In four years, Guernsey’s has not found an individual or institution that can afford the likely cost of the Rosa Parks archive: reputedly $8 million to $10 million. During that time, Guernsey’s has shown selected materials to prospective buyers but has refused scholars even controlled access to what it advertises as one of the most important historical collections of the civil rights era.

It is unthinkable that a collection of Thomas Jefferson’s or Martin Luther King Jr.’s papers could be locked away for four years, let alone put up for auction without a single scholar being allowed a preliminary view to assess its value to American culture and history.

[Second Amendment First]

Her family is taking the same position as the King family: Legacy for sale.

[Venturer]

I doubt too many scholars are standing outside slobbering over the Rosa Parks papers anyway.

[Second Amendment First]

And at way more than the King family demanded.

[Wolfie]

I heard the King family charged the group that put together the King monument for use of his name and likeness on fundraising materials. They cleared $800,000.

[Cowboy Bob]

Thirty-five years later, nobody is making use of the rest of her papers.

Proof that nobody really cares about Rosa Parks, despite all the media hype.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Cesar Chavez’ children and in-laws are trafficking bigtime in the name, papers and memorabilia, too. Frauds and parasites.

[Wolfie]

If they own the rights, I see no problem with it in general. But to charge people who are trying to raise money to put up a monument seems a little crass. But that’s business, I suppose.

[Buckeye McFrog]

This poor woman can not even receive any dignity in death.

In her latter years living in Detroit she would frequently turn up in the news as a victim of young street thugs.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Well I see your point, but with Cesar Chavez’ children it’s particularly galling. The United Farm Workers hardly exists as representing farmworkers anymore, their actual outreach or services to agricultural laborers is miniscule, but the (the Cahvez children) are ceaselessly cashing in on the name and legacy industry.