Interested in hearing what others think about the following:
Gay is not the New Black
I have been vocal about my criticism of Obama and "DADT" on this board, because of what he himself said during his campaign. The gay community was as caught up in the euphoria of promised change as many other groups were. It is disappointing that the administration is taking a slow approach to it, when its other initiatives are given the fast-track.
I also see a divide between blacks and whites in the gay community. Even here at Outsports a few weeks ago, a poster lamented the dearth of men of color in the Hot Jocks section.
So I can understand Granderson's points, but criticism of Obama is not always due to the color of his skin.
I was just about to post the link to the article but you beat me to it. The title is a little misleading, but otherwise the piece is very provocative. We absolutely need to be nudged into to talking about the issues that Granderson raises, i.e. why black and white gays are relatively separate--not only politically, but literally, by physically inhabiting different gay spaces. That is very troubling to me, and I'd like to hear more dialogue. Hopefully, we can get that going here.
Hopefully it maintains a cordial tone.
I'm honestly not sure I got his point. Perhaps I need to read it again... but it seemed to kinda meander around a good bit. Someone care to aid me along?
I think what Granderson is saying is that Gay is not the new Black. Gay & Black is the new Black.
CLAPPING!!!! Granderson better preach because I've said the same things on this board re: racism from white gays, segregation of white gays and black gays (i.e. the existence of black gay prides and latino gay pride celebrations), blacks being blamed for Prop 8, and the fact that "gay, straight, black, white...same struggle same fight" is SO NOT THE CASE!! No dearies...not the same...not nearly the same. As referenced in the article, it took blacks a long time to get the same rights, and no white gay I see can get lynched for simply looking at a black person the wrong way. So save that comparison for someone who obviously doesn't read. So yeah I agree 100% with his article because its what I have been saying for quite some time.
Blacks have never felt included in the movement for marriage equality and rights abound. There's been no outreach and the ones who are accepted are the ones who tow the line until the shyt blows up. Then the "n" word has to come flying out (i.e. prop 8 and the inflammatory rantings of people like that ass**** Dan Savage). I've also heard stories about predominantly white gay bars/clubs in California that would make black patrons have to show two forms of ID, whereas that wasn't the case for white gay patrons. So there is definitely a history of racism that continues to this day in the gay community, which is why I identify myself as a man of color first and then gay falls down the line somewhere. While Obama should be pressured to make sure he lives up to his promises re: LGBT issues, it does seem heavy handed for the man only being in office 6 months, and certainly is doing nothing to help bridge the gap from a group of people whom the majority believes we are living in sin. That doesn't mean kissing his ass, but the fact that the only group in which Obama lost ground during the election was gays alerted me from the beginning that he was gonna be in for it if he didn't immediately satisfy the gay community.
I'm not really into the whole "pride" scene but I did go to a forum during Philly pride several years ago that talked about race relations in the gay community. It was very informative, but it was clear that most of the white gays there didn't know what the hell they were talking about when it came to issues. I look for those kinds of forums at pride events in different cities and don't see them. Its the elephant in the room that nobody wants to talk about, and I even get into arguments about it with my white gay friends who swear that the gay rights movement is the same as the civil rights movement. It is a dialogue that we need to have though, and hopefully people can be open minded enough to see that HRC and GLAAD and the leaders of these larger gay organizations need to look in the mirror before pointing the finger.
Blacks have never felt included in the movement for marriage equality and rights abound. There's been no outreach and the ones who are accepted are the ones who tow the line until the shyt blows up. Then the "n" word has to come flying out (i.e. prop 8 and the inflammatory rantings of people like that ass**** Dan Savage). I've also heard stories about predominantly white gay bars/clubs in California that would make black patrons have to show two forms of ID, whereas that wasn't the case for white gay patrons. So there is definitely a history of racism that continues to this day in the gay community, which is why I identify myself as a man of color first and then gay falls down the line somewhere. While Obama should be pressured to make sure he lives up to his promises re: LGBT issues, it does seem heavy handed for the man only being in office 6 months, and certainly is doing nothing to help bridge the gap from a group of people whom the majority believes we are living in sin. That doesn't mean kissing his ass, but the fact that the only group in which Obama lost ground during the election was gays alerted me from the beginning that he was gonna be in for it if he didn't immediately satisfy the gay community.
I'm not really into the whole "pride" scene but I did go to a forum during Philly pride several years ago that talked about race relations in the gay community. It was very informative, but it was clear that most of the white gays there didn't know what the hell they were talking about when it came to issues. I look for those kinds of forums at pride events in different cities and don't see them. Its the elephant in the room that nobody wants to talk about, and I even get into arguments about it with my white gay friends who swear that the gay rights movement is the same as the civil rights movement. It is a dialogue that we need to have though, and hopefully people can be open minded enough to see that HRC and GLAAD and the leaders of these larger gay organizations need to look in the mirror before pointing the finger.
I agree 100% w/ what you say mdterp but w/ 2 exceptions:
1. Both Black & Gay American issues are equally civil rights ones, regardless of their different histories.
2. Gay marriage & interracial marriage are quite similar in that the public has had a say as to whether or not they are/were legal. So the fight has become pretty parallel. In fact, the glbt community has used the sad history of the once interracial laws of the US as 1 of their templates, which @ 1 time was illegal as you know.
Just my 2 cents.
Edit:
I find this stmt quite fascinating, which probably could start a whole new thread. But as a man of color, too, I find myself to think just the opposite. Although I don't define myself wholly on my sexuality, I certainly ID 1st as a gay man b4 I do as a Latino. But the truth of the matter is I'm a gay Latino man or a Latino man that happens to be gay. I'm gonna throw out a ques & perhaps you & others can answer it, but do you think that part of how one IDs himself/herself is tied into how one is/feels most vulnerable to society? In other words, do you think that one's personal experience w/ racism, sexism, homophobia, etc., has helped shape how one IDs oneself & what one feels most passionate about?
1. Both Black & Gay American issues are equally civil rights ones, regardless of their different histories.
2. Gay marriage & interracial marriage are quite similar in that the public has had a say as to whether or not they are/were legal. So the fight has become pretty parallel. In fact, the glbt community has used the sad history of the once interracial laws of the US as 1 of their templates, which @ 1 time was illegal as you know.
Just my 2 cents.
Edit:
QUOTE
So there is definitely a history of racism that continues to this day in the gay community, which is why I identify myself as a man of color first and then gay falls down the line somewhere.
I find this stmt quite fascinating, which probably could start a whole new thread. But as a man of color, too, I find myself to think just the opposite. Although I don't define myself wholly on my sexuality, I certainly ID 1st as a gay man b4 I do as a Latino. But the truth of the matter is I'm a gay Latino man or a Latino man that happens to be gay. I'm gonna throw out a ques & perhaps you & others can answer it, but do you think that part of how one IDs himself/herself is tied into how one is/feels most vulnerable to society? In other words, do you think that one's personal experience w/ racism, sexism, homophobia, etc., has helped shape how one IDs oneself & what one feels most passionate about?
Trojan...I agree that marriage equality is a civil rights issue, but what I don't like is that word "same" in comparison to Black people's efforts to gain civil rights in the 60s. It is not the same struggle...it is not the same fight. There are some similarities, but I'm sorry....white gays never had to go to separate restaurants and movie theatres and restrooms and the like....and like I said earlier there is no history of mass lynchings because of skin color.
Regarding your second comment, I identify myself as a blatino man who happens to be gay because I realize thats what people are going to see first, and that is more the lens in which I live by. Now while I have not been subject to a lot of blatant racism or homophobia in my life, this is still how I identify. It may have a lot to do with the fact that I have a very large family and have heard many stories throughout my life from my black and puerto rican relatives about their struggles because of skin color. Hell, there are even issues in the family regarding some of the lighter family members vs some of the darker ones. I deal with that amongst my own people in terms of being called redboned or uppidy because of how I carry myself. So I deal moreso with racial issues than I do with gay issues because most people won't know that I'm gay unless they ask.
Regarding your second comment, I identify myself as a blatino man who happens to be gay because I realize thats what people are going to see first, and that is more the lens in which I live by. Now while I have not been subject to a lot of blatant racism or homophobia in my life, this is still how I identify. It may have a lot to do with the fact that I have a very large family and have heard many stories throughout my life from my black and puerto rican relatives about their struggles because of skin color. Hell, there are even issues in the family regarding some of the lighter family members vs some of the darker ones. I deal with that amongst my own people in terms of being called redboned or uppidy because of how I carry myself. So I deal moreso with racial issues than I do with gay issues because most people won't know that I'm gay unless they ask.
What's even more interesting is that you have talked about your background many times here on OS & have mentioned the fact that you're part PR. & yet, I've never heard you ID yourself as a Latino man (which btw, is simply an observation & in no way a put down). & as I'm sure you know many Black Latinos will not/have not ID themselves as Black. The way they see themselves is simply Latino, Hispanic, or whatever trendy word is out there...At least, that's been my experience.
Edit:
Hmmm. Didn't notice Blatino on your post. Btw, never heard that b4, but makes sense. I had a friend, whom I've lost contact w/, who was a Chicano like me, but married a Nuyorican. She often said that her children were MexiRicans.
Edit:
Hmmm. Didn't notice Blatino on your post. Btw, never heard that b4, but makes sense. I had a friend, whom I've lost contact w/, who was a Chicano like me, but married a Nuyorican. She often said that her children were MexiRicans.
To my ears these arguments sound like a bunch of old people trying to one up each other on who is suffering more from their ailments, and, quite honestly, I'm bored with it. Sylvia swears her arthritis causes far more suffering than Gloria's thrombosis.
Whatever. They both hurt.
Okay. Gays aren't tied to the bumpers of pickup trucks in east Texas and dragged to death, but blacks aren't tied to fences in Wyoming and beaten to death either. Whites didn't get lynched for looking at blacks, but gay whites were burned at the stake over a pile of faggots (bundles of sticks) for looking a little too long and hard at other men.
Obama's been in office just shy of six months, and he's done a lot more good for this country than the previous X number of presidents have over their entire administrations. Yes, we of the LGBT world want him to address our issues, and so far (<6 months) we've gotten little more than a wink and a nod. I'm willing to wait a while longer. There are far more important issues facing ALL of us that he, his administration and congress need to address first. (Health care, anyone?)
As to why white gays and black gays segregate themselves from each other, I don't know. Racism seems too weapons-grade of a term to use here. It could be proximity or oversight, or it could be for the same reasons that bears don't mix with twinks. If a black gay person wants to participate in the activities of the HRC, GLAAD, etc., and is turned away then there is a grievance to be made.
Oh, and as long as we're waving ethnic banners and to give some perspective to the origins of my views, my father is black and my mother is a German, Holocaust-surviving Jew. Oh yeah, and I'm gay.
Whatever. They both hurt.
Okay. Gays aren't tied to the bumpers of pickup trucks in east Texas and dragged to death, but blacks aren't tied to fences in Wyoming and beaten to death either. Whites didn't get lynched for looking at blacks, but gay whites were burned at the stake over a pile of faggots (bundles of sticks) for looking a little too long and hard at other men.
Obama's been in office just shy of six months, and he's done a lot more good for this country than the previous X number of presidents have over their entire administrations. Yes, we of the LGBT world want him to address our issues, and so far (<6 months) we've gotten little more than a wink and a nod. I'm willing to wait a while longer. There are far more important issues facing ALL of us that he, his administration and congress need to address first. (Health care, anyone?)
As to why white gays and black gays segregate themselves from each other, I don't know. Racism seems too weapons-grade of a term to use here. It could be proximity or oversight, or it could be for the same reasons that bears don't mix with twinks. If a black gay person wants to participate in the activities of the HRC, GLAAD, etc., and is turned away then there is a grievance to be made.
Oh, and as long as we're waving ethnic banners and to give some perspective to the origins of my views, my father is black and my mother is a German, Holocaust-surviving Jew. Oh yeah, and I'm gay.
Trojan...Blatino is an urban word used for those who are of black and latino ancestry (i.e. Blatino). Some are more specific with it. One of my best friends from LA refers to himself as Blackican (i.e. half Black and half Mexican). Of course, I do have Scottish/Irish ancestry. I'm just a mutt really. 
Oh and Puschkin...the difference being that Matthew Shepard's assailants were tried and convicted, whereas there are many unaccounted for lynchings in which those responsible were known by the POLICE and their actions went forever unpunished. So I even take offense that I'm trying to one up what is the civil rights movement for blacks as opposed to the gay rights movement. Thats not what I'm doing at all. The gay rights movement is another important movement for what should be the recognition that I am equal and deserve the same rights as a heterosexual married couple. But I will not concede that it is THE SAME as blacks and the civil rights movement of the 50s and 60s.
Oh and Puschkin...the difference being that Matthew Shepard's assailants were tried and convicted, whereas there are many unaccounted for lynchings in which those responsible were known by the POLICE and their actions went forever unpunished. So I even take offense that I'm trying to one up what is the civil rights movement for blacks as opposed to the gay rights movement. Thats not what I'm doing at all. The gay rights movement is another important movement for what should be the recognition that I am equal and deserve the same rights as a heterosexual married couple. But I will not concede that it is THE SAME as blacks and the civil rights movement of the 50s and 60s.
Puschkin beat me to it, but I have to agree that maybe this argument is more about the gravity of suffering versus a civil rights issue. & altho I agree that no other minority group has suffered as gravely as African-Americans in this country (ok, one can certainly argue that American Indians have had it pretty bad, & still do) that still doesn't diminish other civil rights causes. Whether its women, Jews, American Indians, or Mexicans for that matter, they all have a horrific story to tell. Yeah lots of Blacks were lynched, but many gays for decades were put in insane asylums & given some serious electric shock therapy. & as Puschkin mentioned many glbt have been killed, too, cuz of their sexuality. No two cases will ever be the same. The same can said about Jews during WWII. No other group has come even close to what they endured (again, one can argue that the history of all native Americans from N. to S. America could possibly be more horrific), & for that matter their entire history under the Oppressive Church & European powers. In addition, for ie, you may have 2 children who were abused by their parents. One may have been abused for 1 year & another may have been abused all of his/her childhood years. What if both children grow up & the one who was abused less ends up more screwed up as an adult rather than the one who was abused for years? Which one is worse off? I don't know, perhaps those who have a sociology or philosophy degree can add to this very interesting conversation.
...Honestly tho, I hope this thread doesn't become a "my penis is bigger than yours" argument cuz suffering is suffering.
...Honestly tho, I hope this thread doesn't become a "my penis is bigger than yours" argument cuz suffering is suffering.
Native Americans definitely got the worst deal of all of them, and should be entitled to a lot more in this country than just a free education. I'm not trying to turn this into a "dick swinging contest" but I just don't see how people can think of the two movements as the same. Suffering is suffering, but when one group can hide who they are where the other can't makes it a huge difference in itself. No one should have to hide who they are, but many gays at least have the option of doing it in order to avoid persecution. Anywho...clearly there is huge disagreement about this and some people see it one way and I see it as another. Thats fine.
Having criticized some of Obama's policies, as strongly as anyone on the Board in my opinion, I remain one of his strongest boosters.
The state and management of the economy are the most important issues for me. And all the other issues are exascerbated or ameliorated by it.
As far as the comparisons of miseries, it always loves company until the company becomes competition. No two miseries are equivalent but some are more alike than others. Comparing Blacks, whose distinction can be identified immediately, to Gays, whose distinction is largely invisible has never made much sense to me.
Blacks are more comparable to other people of color who have lived as a second class minority among a largely color-unconscious majority - or at least one that was formerly so in the case of the USA.
Gays are more analogous to the many relatively invisible minorities that can, almost at will, melt into the majority while maintaining their identity - albeit in secret - to emerge another day. Jews or another religio-ethnic minority might be better comparisons.
I've noticed a lot of paranoia about "Blacks taking over" since Obama's ascendency to the presidency. The backlash is not unexpected. It's a long overdue conversation. And you guys are expressing that pretty well.
The state and management of the economy are the most important issues for me. And all the other issues are exascerbated or ameliorated by it.
As far as the comparisons of miseries, it always loves company until the company becomes competition. No two miseries are equivalent but some are more alike than others. Comparing Blacks, whose distinction can be identified immediately, to Gays, whose distinction is largely invisible has never made much sense to me.
Blacks are more comparable to other people of color who have lived as a second class minority among a largely color-unconscious majority - or at least one that was formerly so in the case of the USA.
Gays are more analogous to the many relatively invisible minorities that can, almost at will, melt into the majority while maintaining their identity - albeit in secret - to emerge another day. Jews or another religio-ethnic minority might be better comparisons.
I've noticed a lot of paranoia about "Blacks taking over" since Obama's ascendency to the presidency. The backlash is not unexpected. It's a long overdue conversation. And you guys are expressing that pretty well.
QUOTE(Puschkin @ Jul 17 2009, 10:41 AM) 
Oh, and as long as we're waving ethnic banners and to give some perspective to the origins of my views, my father is black and my mother is a German, Holocaust-surviving Jew.
So, does that make you BlaJew or a Jewack?
Btw, Lenny Kravitz is HAWT!
Btw, imho, my hope would be that we ALL recognize that discrimination, oppression, suffering, & outright "isms" are something that we ALL need to fight together. It doesn't matter what this group or that group has endured. The fact of the matter is that WE have ALL been there! Ok, that was my rant for the day.
QUOTE(Puschkin @ Jul 17 2009, 10:41 AM)
To my ears these arguments sound like a bunch of old people trying to one up each other on who is suffering more from their ailments, and, quite honestly, I'm bored with it. Sylvia swears her arthritis causes far more suffering than Gloria's thrombosis.
Whatever. They both hurt.
Whatever. They both hurt.
Well said Puschkin. What I want to know is, how do we move this conversation forward beyond the "dick swinging contest" referred to by mdterp01? In other words, how do we work together, black, white, latino, asian, etc., to gain the civil rights we demand?
I also agree that Obama has much on his plate and I am willing to give the bro a chance to work some of the more pressing issues. Once he's got a few wins under his belt, anything he wants to do for gay rights will be easy by comparison.
Well here is some much needed progress that is long overdue as far as I'm concerned.
NBJC first black gay LGBT group to address NAACP Convention
Obama to NAACP Convention: Our Gay Brothers and Sisters Are Still Denied Their Rights
I remember calling out the NAACP and black churches at a convention I went to saying that there are no resources for LGBT black youth in inner cities and that I have been turned away from black churches in terms of asking for resources and aid for black youth who are thrown out of their homes and ostracized by their community because of their sexual orientation. The intolerance on homosexuality from the black church is the largest barrier. It also doesn't help that you have rappers who pontificate about goin deep in poontang and continue with how "hood" brothas need be to express their masculinity. Ugh!!
NBJC first black gay LGBT group to address NAACP Convention
Obama to NAACP Convention: Our Gay Brothers and Sisters Are Still Denied Their Rights
I remember calling out the NAACP and black churches at a convention I went to saying that there are no resources for LGBT black youth in inner cities and that I have been turned away from black churches in terms of asking for resources and aid for black youth who are thrown out of their homes and ostracized by their community because of their sexual orientation. The intolerance on homosexuality from the black church is the largest barrier. It also doesn't help that you have rappers who pontificate about goin deep in poontang and continue with how "hood" brothas need be to express their masculinity. Ugh!!
Wow!!! This thread makes ME proud!
Kudos to President Obama for mentioning gays and lesbians at an NAACP event. The NAACP traditionally has been hostile to these issues. Kudos also to openly gay NBJC Deputy Director Jason W. Bartlett for being able to address the NAACP. It takes time for change to happen but I definitely see good changes on the horizon.
I agree with the article, and as I posted on another thread, I am really disappointed (disgusted might be a better word) in the way the gay community has turned on Obama. The notion that he "owes" the gays something, that he should stick his political neck out to please us, the idea that he hasn't done anything for us--uh, hello, fixing the economy, war(s), healthcare, etc... those are not gay issues? Those do not affect every LGBT person in the country? And, ask not what Obama can do for you, but what you can do for Obama. You want same-sex marriage, then work for it. Get more states and political and social leaders on your side... why should Obama have to do all the heavy lifting?
The black community has (expectedly) shown their faith and support for Obama. You don't hear Blacks saying "Obama, what have you done or us?" even though they are more responsible for Obama's election than the gays. But the gays are so quick to be asking, nay, demanding that their rights be met.
But the black community has always had and shown faith. Michael Jackson, to use a recent examples. Black people never gave up on Michael Jackson, even as he seemed to reject his own blackness (his skin color, his white wives and children). But white people did. And only in his death did they come back to support him.
Not to bash the whites/white gays, but it does seem that the gay community that complains about Obama is largely the white gay community. Much of the LGBT leadership seems to be white. The black gay community, which is in some ways separate (separate bars, separate Pride events), is staunchly loyal. As expected.
Although not black myself (I'm Asian-Canadian), I am very supportive of Obama. And I don't like the "trend" of passing off LGBT struggles as the same as black struggles... and therefore they must be solved--right now!
Like a good parent, Obama is not just going to give us everything we ask for. He wants us to show our own initiative, to work hard, to serve because we want to make things better (not for some reward). I admire him very much.
The LGBT movement is not the same as the Civil Rights or Women's Rights movements. Yes, there are some similarities. But we need to solve these problems in our own ways. Demand equality--yes! But let's not play the blame game. Especially, we should not be blaming the very people we want to bring on our side.
The black community has (expectedly) shown their faith and support for Obama. You don't hear Blacks saying "Obama, what have you done or us?" even though they are more responsible for Obama's election than the gays. But the gays are so quick to be asking, nay, demanding that their rights be met.
But the black community has always had and shown faith. Michael Jackson, to use a recent examples. Black people never gave up on Michael Jackson, even as he seemed to reject his own blackness (his skin color, his white wives and children). But white people did. And only in his death did they come back to support him.
Not to bash the whites/white gays, but it does seem that the gay community that complains about Obama is largely the white gay community. Much of the LGBT leadership seems to be white. The black gay community, which is in some ways separate (separate bars, separate Pride events), is staunchly loyal. As expected.
Although not black myself (I'm Asian-Canadian), I am very supportive of Obama. And I don't like the "trend" of passing off LGBT struggles as the same as black struggles... and therefore they must be solved--right now!
Like a good parent, Obama is not just going to give us everything we ask for. He wants us to show our own initiative, to work hard, to serve because we want to make things better (not for some reward). I admire him very much.
The LGBT movement is not the same as the Civil Rights or Women's Rights movements. Yes, there are some similarities. But we need to solve these problems in our own ways. Demand equality--yes! But let's not play the blame game. Especially, we should not be blaming the very people we want to bring on our side.
QUOTE(RanchHand @ Jul 18 2009, 03:13 AM)
... What I want to know is, how do we move this conversation forward beyond the "dick swinging contest" referred to by mdterp01? In other words, how do we work together, black, white, latino, asian, etc., to gain the civil rights we demand?
I also agree that Obama has much on his plate and I am willing to give the bro a chance to work some of the more pressing issues. Once he's got a few wins under his belt, anything he wants to do for gay rights will be easy by comparison.
I think the only way to move the conversation forward is to allow past suffering (pre-JFK for black people, pre-Stonewall for gay people) to be chalked off as history that can't be changed, and concentrate on making the future better for everyone. When a gay person says that his suffering is as bad as a black person's respond to it as though your favorite aunt asked you if the dress she's wearing makes her look fat. ("No, Aunt Bea, you look fabulous," even though the dress should be taken out back and burned, and she herself tips the scales at 300 lbs.) The suffering may be overblown in your eyes, but how does pointing that out move the ball forward on equal rights for everyone? Having a black president take the NAACP and the churches to task helps greatly, too.
Black skin can't be hidden which means there is no closet to hide in, but what about the little nellie thing we all went to school with? You know, the one whose hands moved like his wrists were broken, the one who lisped and got his ass kicked whenever the straights got bored? I have a feeling there isn't anyone on this board who was him given this is a board about sports, but what about him? Try as he might, he couldn't hide either.
QUOTE(canmark @ Jul 18 2009, 11:02 AM)
I agree with the article, and as I posted on another thread, I am really disappointed (disgusted might be a better word) in the way the gay community has turned on Obama. The notion that he "owes" the gays something, that he should stick his political neck out to please us, the idea that he hasn't done anything for us--uh, hello, fixing the economy, war(s), healthcare, etc... those are not gay issues? Those do not affect every LGBT person in the country? And, ask not what Obama can do for you, but what you can do for Obama. You want same-sex marriage, then work for it. Get more states and political and social leaders on your side... why should Obama have to do all the heavy lifting?
The black community has (expectedly) shown their faith and support for Obama. You don't hear Blacks saying "Obama, what have you done or us?" even though they are more responsible for Obama's election than the gays. But the gays are so quick to be asking, nay, demanding that their rights be met.
But the black community has always had and shown faith. Michael Jackson, to use a recent examples. Black people never gave up on Michael Jackson, even as he seemed to reject his own blackness (his skin color, his white wives and children). But white people did. And only in his death did they come back to support him.
Not to bash the whites/white gays, but it does seem that the gay community that complains about Obama is largely the white gay community. Much of the LGBT leadership seems to be white. The black gay community, which is in some ways separate (separate bars, separate Pride events), is staunchly loyal. As expected.
Although not black myself (I'm Asian-Canadian), I am very supportive of Obama. And I don't like the "trend" of passing off LGBT struggles as the same as black struggles... and therefore they must be solved--right now!
Like a good parent, Obama is not just going to give us everything we ask for. He wants us to show our own initiative, to work hard, to serve because we want to make things better (not for some reward). I admire him very much.
The LGBT movement is not the same as the Civil Rights or Women's Rights movements. Yes, there are some similarities. But we need to solve these problems in our own ways. Demand equality--yes! But let's not play the blame game. Especially, we should not be blaming the very people we want to bring on our side.
Co sign 1000%!!!!!
I agree, the nellie guy that we all know shouldn't hide. But I am willing to bet that a lot of those guys took on more stereotypically masculine characteristics as he got older.
First SCTrojan: Lenny Kravitz is so hot. Love the video with the towel and you get to see his juicy booty.
Second, most of the points have already been made. I think that the suffering is different, but it doesn't diminish the suffering.
But let's talk about how we can break up the segregation in the gay community. I just moved to Austin from Atlanta, and I noticed the total lack of black gay clubs. I still go the white clubs (however, I can only take so much Lady Gaga and dance music) and have a decent time. Do you think that during Pride events that there should be conversations of race relations similar to what Mdterp went to in Philadelphia?
First SCTrojan: Lenny Kravitz is so hot. Love the video with the towel and you get to see his juicy booty.
Second, most of the points have already been made. I think that the suffering is different, but it doesn't diminish the suffering.
But let's talk about how we can break up the segregation in the gay community. I just moved to Austin from Atlanta, and I noticed the total lack of black gay clubs. I still go the white clubs (however, I can only take so much Lady Gaga and dance music) and have a decent time. Do you think that during Pride events that there should be conversations of race relations similar to what Mdterp went to in Philadelphia?
I thought I'd add two other perspectives to this:
Julian Bond on Gay Rights and Black Rights: A Common Struggle
Racial Divisions Challenge Gay Rights Movement
Where I object to Granderson's commentary is our need to be sensitive to criticism of Obama because he is a person of color. Obama is not above reproach, especially when his administration argues in court for the same positions as the previous administration that it tries so hard to distance itself from in some many other ways! Why not push him on gay rights? It is part of what he campaigned on. He wasted no time in overturning the Bush administration's limitations on stem cell research and its policies on abortion.
Julian Bond on Gay Rights and Black Rights: A Common Struggle
Racial Divisions Challenge Gay Rights Movement
Where I object to Granderson's commentary is our need to be sensitive to criticism of Obama because he is a person of color. Obama is not above reproach, especially when his administration argues in court for the same positions as the previous administration that it tries so hard to distance itself from in some many other ways! Why not push him on gay rights? It is part of what he campaigned on. He wasted no time in overturning the Bush administration's limitations on stem cell research and its policies on abortion.
QUOTE(BigBlueCowboy @ Jul 18 2009, 10:04 AM)
QUOTE
"God seems to have made room in his plan for interracial marriage, and he or she will no doubt do the same for same-sex marriage." •
"When someone asks me, 'Are gay rights civil rights?' My answer is always, 'Of course they are.' Civil rights are positive legal prerogatives. The right to equal treatment before the law. These are the rights shared by everyone. There is no one in the United States who does not or should not enjoy or share in enjoying these rights. Gay and lesbian rights are not special rights in any way. It isn't special to be free from discrimination. It is an ordinary universal entitlement of citizenship."
"When someone asks me, 'Are gay rights civil rights?' My answer is always, 'Of course they are.' Civil rights are positive legal prerogatives. The right to equal treatment before the law. These are the rights shared by everyone. There is no one in the United States who does not or should not enjoy or share in enjoying these rights. Gay and lesbian rights are not special rights in any way. It isn't special to be free from discrimination. It is an ordinary universal entitlement of citizenship."
Ahem!:
QUOTE(SCTrojan @ Jul 17 2009, 09:20 AM)
I agree 100% w/ what you say mdterp but w/ 2 exceptions:
1. Both Black & Gay American issues are equally civil rights ones, regardless of their different histories.
2. Gay marriage & interracial marriage are quite similar in that the public has had a say as to whether or not they are/were legal. So the fight has become pretty parallel. In fact, the glbt community has used the sad history of the once interracial laws of the US as 1 of their templates, which @ 1 time was illegal as you know.
I freakin love Julian Bond. He is one of my heroes and should be celebrated and publicized much more than Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson. That was an amazing speech!!!!
And I never said gay rights weren't civil rights...my issue is that it isn't the "same" struggle nor "same" fight. I feel as though its just as important though. I'm not minimizing the importance of the gay rights movement, nor feel as though its any less of a movement. Its just not the same and shouldn't be played up to be. Its not about my people's suffering was way worse than yours. But, I certainly wouldn't compare the Civil Rights Movement to the Holocaust.
And I never said gay rights weren't civil rights...my issue is that it isn't the "same" struggle nor "same" fight. I feel as though its just as important though. I'm not minimizing the importance of the gay rights movement, nor feel as though its any less of a movement. Its just not the same and shouldn't be played up to be. Its not about my people's suffering was way worse than yours. But, I certainly wouldn't compare the Civil Rights Movement to the Holocaust.
I thought this was a thoughtful and great response, especially the part where Pam points out that blacks were at Stonewall and this whole martyr olympics of comparing oppression is such crap. After the Tony Dungy apologist fiasco I haven't been a fan of LZ's and reading this op-ed didn't change that. To me being called the N-bomb or the F-bomb both mean that I am not safe, and I find both the irony of black homophobia and white racism equally troubling because justice is not served either way, but I could go on....Pam says it much better than I.
http://www.pamshouseblend.com/diary/12075/...o-lz-granderson
http://www.pamshouseblend.com/diary/12075/...o-lz-granderson
And I agree with this poster's comment in responding to Pam's response to the Granderson article:
This is true up to a point...
The thing is though that some are more privilledged than others.
On the whole gay white men are FAR better off in this society than almost any other one of the groups you mention.
The rest of us are at an immediate disadvantage the moment we walk into the door or write down our name.
A gay white male is not going to be denied a job, or a loan or housing, before they walk into the door.
A big part of the discrimination that people endure in the United States is based exclusively on differences that can be seen. A woman may experience discrimination the moment they walk in a room. A disabled person may be faced with structural challenges even getting into the room. An ethnic minority may not even get an invitation to the room if their name is too obviously ethnic. Trans person may not even be let into the building.
This is not about the opression olympics. Its about the reality that opression is often harder on some people than others. Those of us that are not gay white men never have the option of myopically focusing on one issue. We do not have the privilledge of forgetting that other struggles matter. A lesbian will always face the fear of rape and harassment that other women share. They don't get to walk away from that. A disabled person can never walk away from the fact that they live in a world that is not always designed to accomodate them. Trans folks manage to face hostility for vitrually ever angle.
I've always looked at it this way...everyone carries their own baggage. However, some of us are carrying hand bags while other of us are lugging around steamer trunks. Thus it gets annoying when the "struggle" is led and defined by those not facing the crushing weight that the rest of us have to deal with.
Yup....that about sums it up for me. It IS the reality of the situation and saying we are dick swinging and trying to one up the other doesn't make it any less true.
This is true up to a point...
The thing is though that some are more privilledged than others.
On the whole gay white men are FAR better off in this society than almost any other one of the groups you mention.
The rest of us are at an immediate disadvantage the moment we walk into the door or write down our name.
A gay white male is not going to be denied a job, or a loan or housing, before they walk into the door.
A big part of the discrimination that people endure in the United States is based exclusively on differences that can be seen. A woman may experience discrimination the moment they walk in a room. A disabled person may be faced with structural challenges even getting into the room. An ethnic minority may not even get an invitation to the room if their name is too obviously ethnic. Trans person may not even be let into the building.
This is not about the opression olympics. Its about the reality that opression is often harder on some people than others. Those of us that are not gay white men never have the option of myopically focusing on one issue. We do not have the privilledge of forgetting that other struggles matter. A lesbian will always face the fear of rape and harassment that other women share. They don't get to walk away from that. A disabled person can never walk away from the fact that they live in a world that is not always designed to accomodate them. Trans folks manage to face hostility for vitrually ever angle.
I've always looked at it this way...everyone carries their own baggage. However, some of us are carrying hand bags while other of us are lugging around steamer trunks. Thus it gets annoying when the "struggle" is led and defined by those not facing the crushing weight that the rest of us have to deal with.
Yup....that about sums it up for me. It IS the reality of the situation and saying we are dick swinging and trying to one up the other doesn't make it any less true.
In this video of Anderson Cooper's interview with Obama in Ghana the president doesn't hesitate to compare discrimination based on race with that based on color (at about 5:11), in addition to exchange some comments about graying (at about 9:19).
It is not clear whether they worked out together afterwards, but Cooper gave Obama a rather slinky looking T-shirt with Obama's image on it at the end.
Must provide a great pick-up line at the gym.
It is not clear whether they worked out together afterwards, but Cooper gave Obama a rather slinky looking T-shirt with Obama's image on it at the end.
Must provide a great pick-up line at the gym.
QUOTE(Puschkin @ Jul 17 2009, 05:41 PM)
Okay. Gays aren't tied to the bumpers of pickup trucks in east Texas and dragged to death, but blacks aren't tied to fences in Wyoming and beaten to death either. Whites didn't get lynched for looking at blacks, but gay whites were burned at the stake over a pile of faggots (bundles of sticks) for looking a little too long and hard at other men.
I can't speak about any lynchings of black people in Wyoming, which has always had a very small black population, but black people have been lynched in every corner of the US, tied to fences, trees, roofs, you name it. What happened to Matthew Shepard was horrendous, but let's not suggest that it somehow negates the long and horrific history of brutal attacks on and murders of black people. Also black same-sex/gender loving were burned at the stake, tortured, put into stocks and beaten, and so on. One of the earliest prosecutions for homosexual sex, during the US colonial era, involved a black man. The Spanish and Portuguese Inquisitions repeatedly subjected blacks/Africans in the new world to extreme punishment for a range of crimes that included same sexual acts. This is all documented. The list for Brazil is worth reading just for the illumination. Please consult the historical archive before making such a dismissive remark.
QUOTE
Obama's been in office just shy of six months, and he's done a lot more good for this country than the previous X number of presidents have over their entire administrations. Yes, we of the LGBT world want him to address our issues, and so far (<6 months) we've gotten little more than a wink and a nod. I'm willing to wait a while longer. There are far more important issues facing ALL of us that he, his administration and congress need to address first. (Health care, anyone?)
I am a strong Obama supporter but I think it's perfectly appropriate to criticize even those you support when they fail to follow through. With the stroke of his pen, Obama could stop the "Stop-Loss" policy. He has enough allies in Congress, and his party controls both Houses, to push for a repeal of DADT, but even if we agree that the Congress might take more time on this issue, that doesn't mean that Obama has to do nothing about it either. In addition, there was absolutely NO REASON for the Justice Department to use extremely offensive--hateful--language and comparisons in its defense of DOMA. The brief as filed was repellent and indefensible. Six months, six years, whatever, there is no possible excuse for what came out of the DOJ. None.
He was elected BY US to SERVE US. He is not a king, a dictator, or a prime minister. We lived through 8 years under someone who behaved as if he were all three. Obama should hear from us when we are displeased, and I mean queer people, black people, latino people, women, disabled people, everyone who supported him and those who didn't, because he was elected to serve the entire country, and without his supporters he has nothing to stand on but the prerogatives of his office as defined by the Constitution. The same is true for Congress. When pushed, he, like most politicians, responds. So we can push in a friendly manner, but we also can let him know that we will not be pushed around.
QUOTE
As to why white gays and black gays segregate themselves from each other, I don't know. Racism seems too weapons-grade of a term to use here. It could be proximity or oversight, or it could be for the same reasons that bears don't mix with twinks. If a black gay person wants to participate in the activities of the HRC, GLAAD, etc., and is turned away then there is a grievance to be made.
Racism and white supremacy, which still hold sway in this society, are a major part of the problem. We can talk about personal preferences, etc., but it is clear from many aspects of LGBTQ life that whiteness and white skin privilege are still dominant. The same is true for men vs. women, wealthy vs. poor, and so on. Racism, sexism, genderism, classism, and so on still predominate in the LGBTQ community, which is why we shouldn't ever forget the multihued, multigendered, and politically progressive aspects of Stonewall, which has too often been reduced to a monochrome historical relic and excuse for parading. It was working and middle class queers of all colors, men, women and trans people, who chose to fight back. They weren't the first, they won't be the last, and we can't forget that it was they, not social conformists and people pushing endless respectability arguments, who made possible the freedoms that are so prevalent today.
QUOTE(mdterp01 @ Jul 18 2009, 03:33 PM)
And I agree with this poster's comment in responding to Pam's response to the Granderson article:
This is true up to a point...
The thing is though that some are more privilledged than others.
On the whole gay white men are FAR better off in this society than almost any other one of the groups you mention.
The rest of us are at an immediate disadvantage the moment we walk into the door or write down our name.
A gay white male is not going to be denied a job, or a loan or housing, before they walk into the door.
A big part of the discrimination that people endure in the United States is based exclusively on differences that can be seen. A woman may experience discrimination the moment they walk in a room. A disabled person may be faced with structural challenges even getting into the room. An ethnic minority may not even get an invitation to the room if their name is too obviously ethnic. Trans person may not even be let into the building.
This is not about the opression olympics. Its about the reality that opression is often harder on some people than others. Those of us that are not gay white men never have the option of myopically focusing on one issue. We do not have the privilledge of forgetting that other struggles matter. A lesbian will always face the fear of rape and harassment that other women share. They don't get to walk away from that. A disabled person can never walk away from the fact that they live in a world that is not always designed to accomodate them. Trans folks manage to face hostility for vitrually ever angle.
I've always looked at it this way...everyone carries their own baggage. However, some of us are carrying hand bags while other of us are lugging around steamer trunks. Thus it gets annoying when the "struggle" is led and defined by those not facing the crushing weight that the rest of us have to deal with.
Yup....that about sums it up for me. It IS the reality of the situation and saying we are dick swinging and trying to one up the other doesn't make it any less true.
Excellent comment, and I agree with it. It's true that some people are more disadvantaged than others. That doesn't make them "better" or their situation "worse." But it is a fact of life that people have to deal with.
Example, there was an article recently in the Globe in Mail about a study which showed that "Those with English names are 40 per cent more likely to land a job interview than people with the same education and job experience with Indian, Chinese or Pakistani names." They sent out similar resumes to different companies, but changed the name.
"Across the board, those with English names such as Greg Johnson and Michael Smith were 40 per cent more likely to receive callbacks than people with the same education and job experience with Indian, Chinese or Pakistani names such as Maya Kumar, Dong Liu and Fatima Sheikh."
And as the commenter says, if you're a woman, or "ethnic", or disabled, or unattractive, or whatever, you're already at a disadvantage before you open your mouth.
Some people have to deal with multiple disadvantages. Again, that doesn't make them "better" or "worse off," but it's a fact that many people have to deal with on a regular basis.
And if you look on the covers of magazines or if you look at the executive boardrooms, you're going to see more of some and less of others. And while gay rights are important to many LGBT people, some of those people will also be concerned about their rights as a woman, as a minority, as a physically challenged person, as a low income person, as a parent, as a... whatever. But sometimes the "demands" of the LGBT community seem so narrowly focussed... that it's just about ME.
"But sometimes the "demands" of the LGBT community seem so narrowly focussed... that it's just about ME."
Isn't that how every group approaches their struggle for equality? Wasn't the womens movement for example often criticized for really being the struggle of white middle class women, in much the same way as gay rights arguements are criticized for being about white gay men? Is there really anything wrong with one part of a group being the focus of the struggle if it results in benefits and equality rights for all members of that group?
Isn't that how every group approaches their struggle for equality? Wasn't the womens movement for example often criticized for really being the struggle of white middle class women, in much the same way as gay rights arguements are criticized for being about white gay men? Is there really anything wrong with one part of a group being the focus of the struggle if it results in benefits and equality rights for all members of that group?
QUOTE(swiminbuff @ Jul 19 2009, 10:38 AM)
Is there really anything wrong with one part of a group being the focus of the struggle if it results in benefits and equality rights for all members of that group?
You're right, swiminbuff. It often takes one set within a group to push for change to benefit the whole. You bring up the feminist movement. That was started by middle to upper-middle class women of Anglo-Saxon, Protestant descent advocating for the vote and access to birth control, and their work, and those who followed them has benefited other women. Still, we have seen over the years that there is an incredible diversity of opinion and backgrounds and women do not speak all with one voice.
Why should it be any different for the gay movement? Gays in SF, NYC, DC, or other urban areas may have similar experiences, but are they similar to gays living in rural communities or so-called "fly-over states?" Class and educational differences abound amongst us, too.
I do not know what it is like to be a black man, or a man of color, living in America. The struggle for civil rights was long, contentious, and hard fought! And still, there is much to overcome. All I can do is follow how I was raised and live my life, i.e. to treat all the same...for the content of their character and not the color of their skin. And do something when I see another not accorded that.
I want others to treat me as a gay man by those same principles. I may not wish to marry myself. I always preferred to be outside the mainstream. Why become like the boring, married, heterosexual couples? But I want what marriage equality affords...legal protection from a whole range of discriminatory practices. Dearer to my heart is a repeal of DADT! I love this country, and there is no reason why I could not serve it as an openly gay man. In other countries that have lifted that ban with armed forces similar to the US (Israel and Great Britain come to mind), there has been no effect on unit cohesion.
There are huge differences between the black civil rights movement and the gay civil rights movement. I want other groups that have overcome great discrimination, in many ways greater than I will ever experience, though, to show empathy for my struggles. And the gay community should celebrate the incredible diversity of backgrounds and world views within its ranks. I thought we did. Maybe we need to remind ourselves every now and again.
I guess it shouldn't be all that shocking to find that the gay world is so segregated by race, since the world at large is pretty much the same. What's really disappointing is that gay folk turn out to be non-progressive in this arena. The fact is that most white folks, gay or straight, find it difficult to embrace issues that they consider "black," ultimately creating a powerful force for African American self-segregation. White folks hate to be called out on this, but it's the truth.
QUOTE(buccoman @ Jul 19 2009, 07:12 PM)
I guess it shouldn't be all that shocking to find that the gay world is so segregated by race, since the world at large is pretty much the same. What's really disappointing is that gay folk turn out to be non-progressive in this arena.
Then it's time that WE change that.
Btw, you can also say that racial minority groups (& that includes gay minorities) are usually not @ the forefront of "mainstream" glbt rights issues. So it's time that WE change that too!
It works both ways & it'll, in the long run, benefit ALL! If history has taught us anything it's this: all minority movements in the US were helped along by those who were not part of the "group." The Civil Rights movement during the 50s--& especially the 60s--was a prime ie. But I have to be honest, the notion of talking about this "group" or that "group" saddens me cuz WE ARE ALL human beings 1st & foremost. So when one of our fellow human beings suffers, whether individually or collectively, then we should ALL be moved to DO SOMETHING, regardless if we identify w/ that person/group!
QUOTE(SCTrojan @ Jul 19 2009, 11:06 PM)
Then it's time that WE change that.
Btw, you can also say that racial minority groups (& that includes gay minorities) are usually not @ the forefront of "mainstream" glbt rights issues. So it's time that WE change that too!
It works both ways & it'll, in the long run, benefit ALL! If history has taught us anything it's this: all minority movements in the US were helped along by those who were not part of the "group." The Civil Rights movement during the 50s--& especially the 60s--was a prime ie. But I have to be honest, the notion of talking about this "group" or that "group" saddens me cuz WE ARE ALL human beings 1st & foremost. So when one of our fellow human beings suffers, whether individually or collectively, then we should ALL be moved to DO SOMETHING, regardless if we identify w/ that person/group!
Agreed, and remember that the GLBT community is part of all the other minority groups. We come in all shapes and sizes, and we are black, latino, asian, female, handicapped, etc so most likely we have participated in all of the other civil rights battles.
I find this whole thread rather sad. Why the "one-upmanship"? Fantomas, when one brings up the Matthew Shephard tragedy it doesn't necessarily mean that the sins committed against the black population are "negated." Could it not mean that there is a natural empathy between the black population and the gay, due to the attacks and degradations that they both share (and have endured? To my eye, such comparisons do not mean that one group has suffered more or less, but rather that there have been groups in America that have suffered because of who they are and not what they have done. Is it not natural to expect that groups that have suffered societal discrimination would support other groups that have and are suffering similar discrimination( i,e., isn't the critisism of the black RELIGIOUS community in California that used scripture for its support of Prop. 8 based on the dissappointment that they, of all groups of people, would not empathize with our struggle?! Such criticism is not racist nor unfair, but rather an articulation of the dissappointment that many of us felt at this non-support by a group of people that we assumed would be on our side.) There are certainly modern racial segregation issues facing our society that need to be addressed, whether institutionally based or voluntary (on BOTH sides of the racial divide), but can't we agree that gay people suffer discrimination, support efforts to end this discrimination, and not fight among ourselves?
I agree with many of the posts thus far, but I don't think that LZ was saying that black suffering was just "different" he was saying it was worse and that the gay liberation movement is not comparable to the black freedom movement because of racism by white gays in particular and that he was black before he was gay, not black and gay, which is what I have issues with.
The end game of the argument is what troubles me. IMO, gay people in Jamaica have it a lot worse than gay people here. Should we be silent about our rights because we aren't getting hacked to death with machetes in our homes? And economically speaking, any straight, gay or lesbian person in an underdeveloped country has it much much worse than we do, whereby they are struggling for food and to not live on garbage heaps or die of chicken pox and we are worried about voting rights and gay marriage.
I find it all a distraction from the general problem of suffering. I'm not saying that anti-racist work should not be done in LGBT communities, but again I'm waiting for the revolution that will let me bring all of my parts. Maybe if LZ had mentioned more about homophobia in communities of color instead of making it sound like he is ready and willing to be a second class citizen in his own community to "advance the race" I'd be okay with that. But as it stands, he seems to be saying that he cares about being black more than being gay, and if that's so why not speak to the homophobia in black churches, political meetings, activist groups, etc.? My other reference point on this issue is the Tony Dungy apology article. Yes I guess it's okay to defend black men as he did with our President because we get enough flack as it is...but in a democracy isn't it our civc duty to critique and to fight for what belongs to us? Shouldn't we demand our rights from our President and pressure Congress to move forward on the issue regardless of their race?
The end game of the argument is what troubles me. IMO, gay people in Jamaica have it a lot worse than gay people here. Should we be silent about our rights because we aren't getting hacked to death with machetes in our homes? And economically speaking, any straight, gay or lesbian person in an underdeveloped country has it much much worse than we do, whereby they are struggling for food and to not live on garbage heaps or die of chicken pox and we are worried about voting rights and gay marriage.
I find it all a distraction from the general problem of suffering. I'm not saying that anti-racist work should not be done in LGBT communities, but again I'm waiting for the revolution that will let me bring all of my parts. Maybe if LZ had mentioned more about homophobia in communities of color instead of making it sound like he is ready and willing to be a second class citizen in his own community to "advance the race" I'd be okay with that. But as it stands, he seems to be saying that he cares about being black more than being gay, and if that's so why not speak to the homophobia in black churches, political meetings, activist groups, etc.? My other reference point on this issue is the Tony Dungy apology article. Yes I guess it's okay to defend black men as he did with our President because we get enough flack as it is...but in a democracy isn't it our civc duty to critique and to fight for what belongs to us? Shouldn't we demand our rights from our President and pressure Congress to move forward on the issue regardless of their race?
I have to say I hated this commentary, and have refrained from posting for a few days, quite frankly because I was pissed. This piece literally drips with poorly-concealed homophobia, and just because the writer happens to be gay does not in any way make up for that.
"Gay is not the new black," well, no sh*t Mr. Granderson - who says it is? If you had been reading your own commentary, you would have noticed the LGBT community is incredibly diverse and cannot be summed up by any one argument, even one you are trying to counter. All of us who happen to have low levels of melanin and who happen to be gay are not in agreement about the nature of the LGBT civil rights movement or how it can be described. While some LGBT activists have attempted to place our piece of the civil rights movement into the larger national context using that phrase, it cannot and does not describe the thinking of every LGBT person in any sub-group you care to create, any more than the ranting of Camille Paglia describes the typical lesbian's attitude.
What bothers me most about this argument, and its more extreme companion arguments that have been voiced by anti-gay African-American political and religious leaders right here in Washington DC (during our own recent fight for partial marriage equality), is that they set up some arbitrary and ill-defined level of persecution that must be reached before a struggle can be considered a] part of the civil rights movement and b] worthy of consideration. But as others have pointed out, there is no oppression olympics and there is no prize for being the most oppressed or facing the most violence.
How can one compare the outright ban on LGBT federal workers (lasting until the early 70s) to the relegation of African-American federal employees to service jobs (which lasted nearly as long)? How does Jim Crow campare to being thrown out of your house and denounced by your own parents for being gay - does having a built-in community to negate the negative impacts of Jim Crow make racism a more humane form of bigotry than homophobia? Is 250 years of slavery comparable to 800 years of religious oppression? I can't answer those questions, and quite frankly they're better suited to late-night college dorm rap sessions than as a basis for determining social policy.
The piece also seems to imply that racism inherent in the LGBT community somehow negates our arguments for full equality - how exactly does that work? We are all part of America, a country that is still largely (and sadly) segregated by race - in all too many areas of our lives. There is no indication that the LGBT community is worse than any other. We all know the most segregated time in this country is Sunday morning, but somehow it seems Granderson is holding us up to a higher standard. Unless and until the LGBT community becomes perfectly race-neutral, we can't expect the support of African-Americans? That simply does not seem right.
I call Granderson's attitude homophobic because he explicitly (as other commenters also have) makes the argument that the LGBT movement is somehow not the same as the African-American civil rights movement - hell, some of the more hateful commentary I've seen (not from Granderson, but others) claims that we are not a civil rights movement at all, that term is to be reserved to African-Americans.
Of course we are all in the same struggle and the same fight, as we are in the same struggle and fight as women, religious minorities, Asians, Hispanics, - even the same fight as Italians, Irish and Eastern Europeans. At some point in our national history, to different levels and for far different lengths of time, all these groups have been excluded from the full civil equality guaranteed under the Constitution. And during our history, even from before the writing of the Constitution itself (see Abigail Adams letters to her husband imploring him not to forget women's rights, which he of course promptly did), individuals and groups have been fighting and striving to ensure that the ideals of our Founding Fathers are fully realized, which means carrying them much farther than those men ever thought they could be. When the Founding Fathers laid down the foundation of our government and our society, they would never have envisioned a day when a woman descended from slaves would occupy the position of First Lady of the land, but can any of us argue that Michelle Obama is not a living embodiment of what is possible in this country, if we truly live up to our ideals?
Yes, we can do more to fight racism in the LGBT community, just as we can all do more to fight racism generally in this country (latest example: Professor Gates of Harvard), but setting up arbitrary adversarial relationships, a la blacks vs. gays, does nothing to further anyone's fight for full equality.
"Gay is not the new black," well, no sh*t Mr. Granderson - who says it is? If you had been reading your own commentary, you would have noticed the LGBT community is incredibly diverse and cannot be summed up by any one argument, even one you are trying to counter. All of us who happen to have low levels of melanin and who happen to be gay are not in agreement about the nature of the LGBT civil rights movement or how it can be described. While some LGBT activists have attempted to place our piece of the civil rights movement into the larger national context using that phrase, it cannot and does not describe the thinking of every LGBT person in any sub-group you care to create, any more than the ranting of Camille Paglia describes the typical lesbian's attitude.
What bothers me most about this argument, and its more extreme companion arguments that have been voiced by anti-gay African-American political and religious leaders right here in Washington DC (during our own recent fight for partial marriage equality), is that they set up some arbitrary and ill-defined level of persecution that must be reached before a struggle can be considered a] part of the civil rights movement and b] worthy of consideration. But as others have pointed out, there is no oppression olympics and there is no prize for being the most oppressed or facing the most violence.
How can one compare the outright ban on LGBT federal workers (lasting until the early 70s) to the relegation of African-American federal employees to service jobs (which lasted nearly as long)? How does Jim Crow campare to being thrown out of your house and denounced by your own parents for being gay - does having a built-in community to negate the negative impacts of Jim Crow make racism a more humane form of bigotry than homophobia? Is 250 years of slavery comparable to 800 years of religious oppression? I can't answer those questions, and quite frankly they're better suited to late-night college dorm rap sessions than as a basis for determining social policy.
The piece also seems to imply that racism inherent in the LGBT community somehow negates our arguments for full equality - how exactly does that work? We are all part of America, a country that is still largely (and sadly) segregated by race - in all too many areas of our lives. There is no indication that the LGBT community is worse than any other. We all know the most segregated time in this country is Sunday morning, but somehow it seems Granderson is holding us up to a higher standard. Unless and until the LGBT community becomes perfectly race-neutral, we can't expect the support of African-Americans? That simply does not seem right.
I call Granderson's attitude homophobic because he explicitly (as other commenters also have) makes the argument that the LGBT movement is somehow not the same as the African-American civil rights movement - hell, some of the more hateful commentary I've seen (not from Granderson, but others) claims that we are not a civil rights movement at all, that term is to be reserved to African-Americans.
Of course we are all in the same struggle and the same fight, as we are in the same struggle and fight as women, religious minorities, Asians, Hispanics, - even the same fight as Italians, Irish and Eastern Europeans. At some point in our national history, to different levels and for far different lengths of time, all these groups have been excluded from the full civil equality guaranteed under the Constitution. And during our history, even from before the writing of the Constitution itself (see Abigail Adams letters to her husband imploring him not to forget women's rights, which he of course promptly did), individuals and groups have been fighting and striving to ensure that the ideals of our Founding Fathers are fully realized, which means carrying them much farther than those men ever thought they could be. When the Founding Fathers laid down the foundation of our government and our society, they would never have envisioned a day when a woman descended from slaves would occupy the position of First Lady of the land, but can any of us argue that Michelle Obama is not a living embodiment of what is possible in this country, if we truly live up to our ideals?
Yes, we can do more to fight racism in the LGBT community, just as we can all do more to fight racism generally in this country (latest example: Professor Gates of Harvard), but setting up arbitrary adversarial relationships, a la blacks vs. gays, does nothing to further anyone's fight for full equality.
I confess that I skimmed through some of the responses, but I gather that the conclusion of all of this is that some African Americans don't feel compelled to support matters being pushed by the gay powers that be, such as legalized gay marriage, simply because both groups have been and are oppressed. The oppression, however, is different in both form and severity--for example, there is no history of gays having been enslaved legally in this country. It seems logical, therefore, that the groups might not necessarily have sufficient commonality to be aligned toward a common cause.
Spot on, Cpt. Doom and SFTom.
QUOTE(SFTom @ Jul 21 2009, 02:23 PM)
It seems logical, therefore, that the groups might not necessarily have sufficient commonality to be aligned toward a common cause.
W/out having to repeat myself, see my 7/19 post--especially the last paragraph.
Spot on...Puschkin and CPT Doom....CZ's piece was somewhat absurd - comparing abuse and discrimination in an attempt to establish the biggest victim or whatever he was doing is ludicrous - his attitude, like many, is more separatist than those he accuses of being so...much like the silly pride parade comparisons - some seem to demand their marginalized status and do everything they can to remind others of it.
I'm not personally disappointed in our President at all but he could have immediately suspended DADT especially in light of valuable translators, etc, getting tossed because of their sexuality. It is a shame that he hasn't done this, as much from a gay POV as a national security POV. We need top notch personal regardless of their color or sexuality; that's obvious.
I'm personally very happy with our President - I think he continues to show us that we picked the right guy. I certainly didn't expect the wacko rightwing to roll over and just let him go....Watching Liz Cheney on LKL only reminded me that politics in America is still a bunch of bull most of the time...Electing President Obama is only the beginning - of hopefully a great deal of improvement..
I'm not personally disappointed in our President at all but he could have immediately suspended DADT especially in light of valuable translators, etc, getting tossed because of their sexuality. It is a shame that he hasn't done this, as much from a gay POV as a national security POV. We need top notch personal regardless of their color or sexuality; that's obvious.
I'm personally very happy with our President - I think he continues to show us that we picked the right guy. I certainly didn't expect the wacko rightwing to roll over and just let him go....Watching Liz Cheney on LKL only reminded me that politics in America is still a bunch of bull most of the time...Electing President Obama is only the beginning - of hopefully a great deal of improvement..
Totally co-sign fantomas. I'm gay and I'm a man of color. I can't be split perfectly down the middle. Someone will be as quick to call me a ni**er as they will to call me a fa**ot. Its ashame that I would have to be subjected to this by any gay person, but the white supremacy/white privilege ideology is still very prevalent, and certainly extends to some white gay males. The aftermath of Prop 8 certainly pushed some things to the forefront that I already knew existed.
It would be great if this issue didn't exist, but it does. Again, not tryin to make this a dick swinging contest because rights being denied are rights being denied. But I still take issue with "gay, straight, black, white....same struggle same fight" Any idiot who knows their history and has two eyes should know that doesn't even make sense. Instead of people like Dan Savage, and others, who are showing their white privilege colors, perhaps a true dialogue about this needs to be opened up by organizations like HRC and GLAAD to find out what we can do more to work together. Together we would be much more powerful. Right now there's way too much division, and its not just on one side. However, one side basically runs the show for GLBT issues, and they are doing a piss poor job of outreach and public relations. Its layered for sure but the good thing is that its slowly getting better on all fronts. But, I appreciate those who recognize that they may not agree with everything I say while still having the ability to respectfully disagree and not minimize or be dismissive of what my opinion on it is. Snaps to most of yall.
It would be great if this issue didn't exist, but it does. Again, not tryin to make this a dick swinging contest because rights being denied are rights being denied. But I still take issue with "gay, straight, black, white....same struggle same fight" Any idiot who knows their history and has two eyes should know that doesn't even make sense. Instead of people like Dan Savage, and others, who are showing their white privilege colors, perhaps a true dialogue about this needs to be opened up by organizations like HRC and GLAAD to find out what we can do more to work together. Together we would be much more powerful. Right now there's way too much division, and its not just on one side. However, one side basically runs the show for GLBT issues, and they are doing a piss poor job of outreach and public relations. Its layered for sure but the good thing is that its slowly getting better on all fronts. But, I appreciate those who recognize that they may not agree with everything I say while still having the ability to respectfully disagree and not minimize or be dismissive of what my opinion on it is. Snaps to most of yall.
I'm surprised there are no comments about the Henry Louis Gates incident, where the noted Harvard professor was arrested in his own house for disorderly conduct (the charges have since been dropped). To summarize for those who haven't heard the story: the well-known Harvard prof (who's done TV programs on PBS) returns to his home in Cambridge that he rents from Harvard from a trip to China. He finds his front door jammed and enlists the aid of the taxi driver to help push open the door. A white woman passing by calls 911 thinking she sees two men breaking into the house. Note: the woman works near the area, it is in the middle of the day; the prof. is a 58 year old man.
Prof. Gates enters his house and calls up the property management to report the problem with the stuck door. A police office arrives to investigate the suspected burglary. From here the police officer and Prof. Gates' stories diverge--and, judging by comments on news reports, it is here that sympathies diverge. Some support Prof. Gates and feel he was harassed by a white police officer in his own home. Others think the Prof. had a "do you know who I am?!" attitude and failed to reasonably respond to an officer who was just doing his job. Regardless, a verbal argument ensued and the Prof. was arrested for disorderly conduct.
I think this relates somewhat to the "Gay is not the New Black" thread in that I think the original point of Granderson's article was that the LGBT community is trying to co-opt the African-American civil rights struggle, implying that gay people go through the same things. But I think they are different, and we shouldn't be cloaking our struggle with somebody else's, but highlighting what unique about our situation.
Would the Gates situation have happened if the woman was black and saw a middle aged black man (with luggage, presumably) struggle to get into his own house? Would she call the police? Or if the man was a white, well-known professor. Would the white woman call the police? What if the arriving officer was black? Would he have been able to diffuse the situation and Gates' irritability (he had returned from a long flight, and was naturally upset that he couldn't get into his own house; plus the police were questioning him like a burglary suspect--how many 58 year old men rob houses in broad daylight and answer the door when the police knock while talking on a cordless phone?).
More than just the he said-he said of Gates and the officer, what's interesting is what you read in comments. There is definitely a taking of sides. Some people understand Gates' outrage (never mind driving while black--he's suspect in his own living room), others see Gates as disrespecting an officer doing his duty and playing the "race card." It's very telling how people respond to this story, and shows that "race" issues still matter to this day.
Prof. Gates enters his house and calls up the property management to report the problem with the stuck door. A police office arrives to investigate the suspected burglary. From here the police officer and Prof. Gates' stories diverge--and, judging by comments on news reports, it is here that sympathies diverge. Some support Prof. Gates and feel he was harassed by a white police officer in his own home. Others think the Prof. had a "do you know who I am?!" attitude and failed to reasonably respond to an officer who was just doing his job. Regardless, a verbal argument ensued and the Prof. was arrested for disorderly conduct.
I think this relates somewhat to the "Gay is not the New Black" thread in that I think the original point of Granderson's article was that the LGBT community is trying to co-opt the African-American civil rights struggle, implying that gay people go through the same things. But I think they are different, and we shouldn't be cloaking our struggle with somebody else's, but highlighting what unique about our situation.
Would the Gates situation have happened if the woman was black and saw a middle aged black man (with luggage, presumably) struggle to get into his own house? Would she call the police? Or if the man was a white, well-known professor. Would the white woman call the police? What if the arriving officer was black? Would he have been able to diffuse the situation and Gates' irritability (he had returned from a long flight, and was naturally upset that he couldn't get into his own house; plus the police were questioning him like a burglary suspect--how many 58 year old men rob houses in broad daylight and answer the door when the police knock while talking on a cordless phone?).
More than just the he said-he said of Gates and the officer, what's interesting is what you read in comments. There is definitely a taking of sides. Some people understand Gates' outrage (never mind driving while black--he's suspect in his own living room), others see Gates as disrespecting an officer doing his duty and playing the "race card." It's very telling how people respond to this story, and shows that "race" issues still matter to this day.
QUOTE
"Gay is not the new black," well, no sh*t Mr. Granderson - who says it is?
Your's was my gut reaction to the commentary as well CPT_Doom.But I keep returning to what I think is a closer analogy: "Gay" to "Jew". I try to imagine whether I would be equally perturbed if I were Jewish and a Jewish writer had said that "Gays are not the new Jews." or "Aids is not the new Holocaust."
If I were Jewish (and my family may indeed have some ancestry though it has so far proven too distant and undocumented to say for certain) I think I might find some obvious merit in those statements. But I would find the implication that the suffering of Gays is somehow less worthy of amelioration extremely distasteful and deleterious to my own desire for individual justice.
I would be interested to know how those who are Jewish believe they would react, or whether they assume that an analogous peice would never be - or has never been - written by a Jewish person.
I find it very disturbing that Mr. Granderson finds it necessary to compare discriminatory behavior. But addressing discrimination will continue to be a hot-button issue with the Roberts Court ruling on the Connecticut firefighters being emblematic of the real-world consequences of trying to measure suffering and meting out remedies; the Obama administration's desire to permit immigration of abused spouses is another.
QUOTE
More than just the he said-he said of Gates and the officer, what's interesting is what you read in comments. There is definitely a taking of sides. Some people understand Gates' outrage (never mind driving while black--he's suspect in his own living room), others see Gates as disrespecting an officer doing his duty and playing the "race card." It's very telling how people respond to this story, and shows that "race" issues still matter to this day.
I didn't comment on it further because I assumed there would be another thread, but it certainly fits in here as an example of the different types of oppression faced by different minorities, and it links in with the current controversy in Salt Lake City. An African-American straight couple kissing in Salt Lake's Temple Square would not have been arrested, and a white professor would have been treated very differently than Professor Gates. I actually had a similar experience to Gates a couple of years ago, after I had an alarm system put in. I left a window open when I went out one Saturday, and came back to discover the alarm had gone off, but the house was as I left it. I quickly realized a gust of wind had blown something over, which was in line with a motion detector, and that had set off the alarm. The police arrived about 10 minutes after I got home (how's that for fast reponse?). They not only stayed respectfully on the porch (I cannot believe the cop went into Gates' home uninvited), they let me go upstairs to grab my ID to prove I lived there. No fuss, no muss, and no arrest. I have to believe if I had been black, even here in DC, the issue would have been much different (as if any robber would answer the door).
As for Gates' alleged attitude, once I learned he had just gotten off a flight from China, I understood why he was not sweetness and light to the police (as he is on his TV program). Jet lag, long flight, a wait at Logan for his bags (Logan has the WORST baggage service) and then a stuck door - I think anyone would be in a bad mood.
QUOTE(canmark @ Jul 22 2009, 06:44 AM)
I'm surprised there are no comments about the Henry Louis Gates incident
That is an incident where, perhaps, both sides were wrong.
Here are a few scenarios to ponder:
A. The police were responding to a call from a woman, who saw two men forcing their way through a front door of a neighboring house. According to reports Gates had only recently rented the house, so it is reasonable to suppose that the woman did not recognize him. Gates is a well known Harvard academic, author of numerous work, and he has hosted PBS programs. He has also been interviewed on a number of TV talk shows and news programs. Still, she did not recognize him (maybe she was too caught up in mourning the demise of the marriage of Jon and Kate, Michael Jackson's death, or cheering for Kypton on The Bachelorette. Who knows?). The police should have explained why they were there. After establishing Professor Gates' identity as the occupant of the home, the police should have apologized to him for causing any inconvenience and bid him farewell. Gates had just returned from an overseas trip, and he was annoyed at not being able to get into his home. The cops arrive on the scene. Yeah, I'd be pissed too.
B. Gates became belligerent with the police officers, after refusing at first to identify himself. As a well-known Harvard professor and reasonably-known public figure, shouldn't the police treat him differently from any other citizen? A resounding No! to that question. In his anger and frustration, it is also reasonable to assume that Gates thought here was a chance for him to politicize this incident. Rather than writing about law enforcement's assumptions about race, Gates could experience it first-hand. So he escalated the situation.
C. As an academic who travels in rarefied circles, Gates is removed from the everyday experiences of most other American men of African descent. The day before yesterday, Gates was reminded of the inescapable fact of his skin color.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.