>Nothing like that appears in the Marshall story. Was it
>arguably easier for him because of his complexion? maybe. But
>it wasn't explicit like it was for Nina. And it wasn't a
>necessary or important part of his story (his contemporaries
>were civil rights activists and attorneys some of whom were
>darker).

Does it have to be explicitly stated to be a part of someone's story? The way Black folks were treated then is no different from today. Nobody is saying outright that you're better because you're lighter than them. No one is gonna say that you're being chosen because you're lighter than the rest of the options or that the texture of your hair makes you better or more attractive/appealing. And since they won't explicitly state so, it's a nuance that is central to our very being and which should be evident in the story of Mr. Marshall even if it is only implied.

Otherwise, folks shit on Saldana for no reason at all before even giving her performance a shot to tell the story.

Edit: He was chosen to be the face of Brown vs Board of Ed for a reason. That case was consolidated with others but, for some reason, he was chosen by the NAACP to be the face of it all. And he's the one we always hear of as being behind the victory without there being mention of the folks who were attached to the case. From what I KNOW and have seen, these folks ain't necessarily light skinned.

http://www.civilrights.org/education/brown/briggs.html