Posted by:
steve benson
(
)
Date: April 01, 2015 01:09PM
"BLACKLASH?
by Henry Louis Gates, Jr.
"The New Yorker"
"All prejudices are not equal. But that doesn't mean there's no comparison between the predicaments of gays and blacks.
"For some veterans of the civil-rights era, it's a matter of stolen prestige. 'It is a misappropriation for members of the gay leadership to identify the April 25 march on Washington with the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.'s 1963 mobilization,' one such veteran, the Reverend Dennis G. Kuby, wrote in a letter to the editor that appeared in the Times on the day of the march. Four days later, testifying before the Senate Armed Services Committee's hearings on the issues of gays in the military, Lieutenant General Calvin Waller, United States Army (retired), was more vociferous. General Waller, who, as General Norman Schwarzkopf's second-in-command, was the highest-ranking black officer in the Gulf War's theatre of operations, contemptuously dismissed any linkage between the gay-rights and civil-rights movements. 'I had no choice regarding my race when I was delivered from my mother's womb,' General Waller said. 'To compare my service in America's armed forces with the integration of avowed homosexuals is personally offensive to me.' This sentiment -- that gays are pretenders to the throne of disadvantage that properly belongs to black Americans, that their relation to the rhetoric of civil rights is one of unearned opportunism -- is surprisingly widespread. 'The backlash is on the streets among blacks and black pastors who do not want to be aligned with homosexuals,' the Reverend Lou Sheldon, chairman of the Traditional Values Coalition, crowed to the Times in the aftermath of the march.
"That the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People endorsed the April 25th march made the insult all the deeper for those who disparage the gay-rights movement as the politics of imposture -- Liberace in Rosa Parks drag. 'Gays are not subject to water hoses or police dogs, denied access to lunch counters or prevented from voting,' the Reverend Mr. Kuby asserted. On the contrary, 'most gays are perceived as well educated, socially mobile and financially comfortable.' Even some of those sympathetic to gay rights are unhappy with the models of oppression and victimhood which they take to be enshrined in the civil-rights discourse that many gay advocates have adopted. For those blacks and whites who viewed last month's march on Washington with skepticism, to be gay is merely an inconvenience; to be black is to inherit a legacy of hardship and inequity. For them, there's no comparison. But the reason the national conversation on the subject has reached an impasse isn't that there's simply no comparison; it's that there's no *simple* comparison.
"Prejudices, of course, don't exist in the abstract; they all come with distinctive and distinguishing historical peculiarities. In short, they have content as well as form. Underplaying the differences blinds us to the signature traits of other forms of social hatred. Indeed, in judging other prejudices by the one you know best you may fail to recognize those other prejudices *as* prejudices.
"To take a quick and fairly obvious example, it has been observed that while anti-black racism charges its object with inferiority, anti-Semitism charges its object with iniquity. The racist believes that blacks are incapable of running anything by themselves. The anti-Semite believes (in one popular bit of folklore) that thirteen rabbis rule the world.
"How do gays fit into this scheme? Uneasily. Take that hard- ridden analogy between blacks and gays. Much of the ongoing debate over gay rights has fixated, and foundered, on the vexed distinction between "status" and "behavior." The paradox here can be formulated as follows: Most people think of racial identity as a matter of (racial) status, but they respond to it as behavior. Most people think of sexual identity as a matter of (sexual) behavior, but they respond to it as status. Accordingly, people who fear and dislike blacks are typically preoccupied with the threat that they think blacks' aggressive behavior poses to them. Hence they're inclined to make exceptions for the kindly, "civilized" blacks: that's why "The Cosby Show" could be so popular among white South Africans. By contrast, the repugnance that many people feel toward gays concerns, in the first instance, the status ascribed to them. Disapproval of a sexual practice is transmuted into the demonization of a sexual species.
"In other respects, too, anti-gay propaganda sounds less like anti-black rhetoric than like classical anti-Jewish rhetoric: both evoke the image of the small, cliquish minority that nevertheless commands disproportionate and sinister worldly influence. More broadly, attitudes toward homosexuals are bound up with sexism and the attitudes toward gender that feminism, with impressive, though only partial, success, asks us to re-examine.
"That doesn't mean that the race analogy is without merit, or that there are no relevant points of comparison. Just as blacks have historically been represented as sexually uncontrollable beasts, ready to pounce on an unwilling victim with little provocation, a similar vision of the predatory homosexual has been insinuated, often quite subtly, into the defense of the ban on gays in the military.
"But can gays really claim anything like the 'victim status' inherited by black Americans? 'They admit to holding positions at the highest levels of power in education, government, business and entertainment,' Martin Mawyer, the president of the Christian Action Network, complains, 'yet in the same breath, they claim to be suffering discrimination in employment.' Actually, the question itself is a sand trap. First, why should oppression, however it's measured, be a prerequisite for legal protection? Surely there's a consensus that it would be wrongful, and unlawful, for someone to discriminate against Unitarians in housing or employment, however secure American Unitarians were as a group. Granted, no one can legislate affection or approval. But the simple fact that people enjoy legal protection from religious discrimination neither confers nor requires victimization. Why is the case of sexual orientation any different?
"Second, trying to establish a pecking order of oppression is generally a waste of time: that's something we learned from a long-standing dialogue in the feminist movement. People figured out that you could speak of the subordination of women without claiming, absurdly, that every woman (Margaret Thatcher, say) was subordinate to every man. Now, the single greatest predictor of people's economic success is the economic and educational level of their parents. Since gays, like women, seem to be evenly distributed among classes and races, the compounding effect of transgenerational poverty, which is the largest factor in the relative deprivation of black America, simply doesn't apply. Much of black suffering stems from historical racism; most gay suffering stems from contemporary hatred. It's also the case that the marketing surveys showing that gays have a higher than average income and education level are generally designed to impress potential advertisers in gay publications; quite possibly, the surveys reveal the characteristics only of gays who are willing to identify themselves as such in a questionnaire. Few people would be surprised to learn that secretiveness on this matter varies inversely with education and income level.
"What makes the race analogy complicated is that gays, as demographic composites, do indeed "have it better" than blacks -- and yet in many ways contemporary homophobia is more virulent than contemporary racism. According to one monitoring group, one in four gay men has been physically assaulted as a result of his perceived sexual orientation; about fifty percent have been threatened with violence. (For lesbians, the incidence is lower but still disturbing.) A moral consensus now exists in this country that discriminating against blacks as teachers, priests, or tenants is simply wrong. (That doesn't mean it doesn't happen.) For much of the country, however, the moral legitimacy of homosexuals, as homosexuals, remains much in question. When Bill Crews, for the past nine years the mayor of the well-scrubbed hamlet of Melbourne, Iowa, returned home after the April 25th march, at which he had publicly disclosed his homosexuality for the first time, he found "Melbourne Hates Gays" and "No @#$%&" spray-painted on his house. What makes the closet so crowded is that gays are, as a rule, still socialized -- usually by their nearest and dearest -- into shame.
"Mainstream religious figures -- ranging from Catholic archbishops to orthodox rabbis -- continue to enjoin us to 'hate the sin': it has been a long time since anyone respectable urged us to, as it were, hate the skin. Jimmy Swaggart, on the other hand, could assure his millions of followers that the Bible says homosexuals are 'worthy of death' and get away with it. Similar access to mass media is not available to those who voice equivalent attitudes toward blacks. In short, measured by their position in society, gays on the average seem privileged relative to blacks; measured by the acceptance of hostile attitudes toward them, gays are worse off than blacks. So are they as "oppressed"? The question presupposes a measuring rod that does not and cannot exist.
"To complicate matters further, disapproval of homosexuality has been a characteristic of much of the black-nationalist ideology that has reappeared in the aftermath of the civil- rights era. 'Homosexuality is a deviation from Afrocentric thought, because it makes the person evaluate his own physical needs above the teachings of national consciousness,' writes Dr. Molefi Kete Asante, of Temple University, who directs the black-studies program there, one of the country's largest. Asante believes that 'we can no longer allow our social lives to be controlled by European decadence,' and argues that "the redemptive power of Afrocentricity" provides hope of a cure for those so afflicted, through (the formulation has a regrettably fascist ring) "the submergence of their own wills into the collective will of our people."
"In the end, the plaintive rhetoric of the Reverend Mr. Kuby and those civil-rights veterans who share his sense of unease is notable for a small but significant omission: any reference to those blacks who are also gay. And in this immediate context one particular black gay man comes to mind. Actually it's curious that those who feel that the example of the 1963 march on Washington has been misappropriated seem to have forgotten about him, since it was he, after all, who organized that heroic march. His name, of course, was Bayard Rustin, and it's quite likely that if he had been alive he would have attended the march on Washington thirty years later.
"By a poignant historical irony, it was in no small part because of his homosexuality -- and the fear that it would be used to discredit the mobilization -- that Rustin was prevented from being named director of the 1963 march; the title went to A. Philip Randolph, and he accepted it only on the condition that he could then deputize Rustin to do the arduous work of co-ordinating the mass protest. Rustin accepted the terms readily. In 1963, it was necessary to choose which of two unreasoning prejudices to resist, and Rustin chose without bitterness or recrimination. Thirty years later, people marched so his successors wouldn't have to make that costly choice."
_____
"Similarities Between Race and Sexual Orientation"
--"Both race and sexual orientation are a basis for minority group status in U.S. culture. Social scientists have proposed many different definitions and criteria for minority groups, recognizing that not all groups fit all criteria. The most important feature is that a minority group's members must manifest one or more characteristics that society uses as a basis for discrimination, despite the irrelevance of those characteristics to the setting in which discrimination occurs. Race and sexual orientation each constitute a master status.
Once known, the fact that a person is a homosexual or a member of a racial minority group is regarded by members of the majority group (heterosexuals, Whites) as one of the most important pieces of information about her or him. Consequently, once a man or woman is labeled by heterosexuals as a homosexual, all of her or his behaviors — regardless of whether they are related to sexual orientation — are likely to be interpreted in light of her or his sexual orientation. Similarly, once a person's non-White race or ethnicity is known by a White, all other information about the individual — even information that is totally unrelated to race — is likely to be interpreted differently than if the person were White.
--"Members of racial and sexual minorities are the targets of prejudice. Anti-Black attitudes were widespread in the U.S. military when President Truman ordered an end to racial discrimination in the armed forces in 1948. Societal norms supported strict social and residential segregation of Whites and Negroes. Although Whites' attitudes toward Blacks have changed in the past half-century, both in civilian life and the military, racial prejudice is still widespread in U.S. society. Similarly, substantial numbers of heterosexual Americans express negative attitudes toward gay men and lesbians.
--"For both groups, prejudice leads to differential treatment at the hands of the majority. Despite extensive efforts to counteract the effects of racism, African Americans today experience differential treatment because of their race. Compared to Whites, Blacks are economically and socially disadvantaged. Indeed, despite the DOD's considerable efforts to promote racial equality, African Americans are still less likely than Whites to be promoted. Prejudice also causes gay people to receive differential treatment. Various studies have shown that significant numbers of gay men and lesbians experience discrimination and violence.
--"New military personnel policies concerning race and sexual orientation have both faced considerable opposition. Prior to President Truman's Executive Order, opinion in the armed services generally supported segregation policies. This opinion reflected the era's prevailing stereotypes and prejudices. For example, a 1937 report from senior officers at the U.S. Army War College provided a litany of characterizations of Black soldiers that now are recognized as stereotypes:
"'As an individual the Negro is docile, tractable, lighthearted, care free and good natured. If unjustly treated he is likely to become surly and stubborn, though this is usually a temporary phase. He is careless, shiftless, irresponsible and secretive. He resents censure and is best handled with praise and by ridicule. He is unmoral, untruthful, and his sense of right doing is relatively inferior.' (quoted in Ambrose, 1972, p. 177).
"As in debates about a new policy concerning sexual orientation, discussions of racial integration of the military in the 1940s often included dire predictions based on then-widespread prejudices. The report of a 1942 General Board commissioned to consider the integration of African Americans in the Navy, for example, concluded that "the enlistment of negroes [sic] for unlimited general service is inadvisable." It offered the following rationale:
"'Enlistment for general service implies that the individual may be sent anywhere — to any ship or station where he is needed. Men on board ship live in particularly close association; in their messes, one man sits beside another; their hammocks or bunks are close together; in their common tasks they work side by side; and in particular tasks such as those of a gun's crew, they form a closely knit, highly coordinated team. How many white men would choose, of their own accord, that their closest associates in sleeping quarters, at mess, and in a gun's crew should be of another race? How many would accept such conditions, if required to do so, without resentment and just as a matter of course? The General Board believes that the answer is 'Few, if any,' and further believes that if the issue were forced, there would be a lowering of contentment, teamwork and discipline in the service.' (Navy General Board, 1942, p. 1)
"In a 1948 Gallup Poll of 3000 American adults, 63% of those surveyed favored racial segregation of the military whereas only 26% supported integration. President Truman was strongly criticized for his Executive Order, and the attacks were often accompanied by dire predictions about the weakening of the U.S. armed forces and national security. Senator Richard B. Russell, for example, spoke against the policy on the Senate floor, offering predictions that are remarkably similar to some of those made in the recent debates about allowing gay people to serve openly in the military:
"' . . . [T]he mandatory intermingling of the races throughout the services will be a terrific blow to the efficiency and fighting power of the armed services....It is sure to increase the numbers of men who will be disabled through communicable diseases. It will increase the rate of crime committed by servicemen.' (Quoted in Binkin et al., 1982, p. 26)"
_____
"Why Persecuting Homosexuals Is All the Rage in the Developing World"
by Damian Thompson
31 January 2014
"Is homophobia the new anti-colonialism? It’s an odd question to ask, but an important one. In dozens of countries, the persecution of homosexuals has acquired a new ferocity. Anti-gay sentiment is turning into a cause that unites non-Western societies divided by religion, ethnicity and history.
"This is bad news, obviously, for gay people who find themselves dragged in front of magistrates, bullied out of their jobs, spat at in the street or executed. It’s also jolly embarrassing for Western governments, who don’t want to say anything that might jeopardise trade relations – and also for liberals, who hate to point the finger at the developing world.
"The one example of persecution that’s attracted a lot of attention is Russia’s new ban on 'gay propaganda.' No one in the West likes Putin’s regime, which you can criticise without risking charges of racism. As we speak, Olympic athletes and gay activists are planning protests at the Sochi games. But when it comes to the Middle East, Africa and south Asia, any Westerner who sticks up for gay rights is inviting accusations of racism, neo-colonialism and Islamophobia.
"I’ve been looking at the map, and I reckon you could walk from Angola to Burma without setting foot on land where homosexual activity is legal – except for a sliver of Iraq, which had decriminalisation imposed on it in 2003 but which is one of the most dangerous places on earth for gays.
"The taboo against same-sex activity is getting stronger, not weaker. The spread of Islamism is a factor: it’s no coincidence that homosexuality is legal in the Palestinian Authority-controlled West Bank but not in Hamas-controlled Gaza. However, Christians and Hindus are implicated, too.
"In Nigeria, Anglican clergy helped pass into law the Same-Sex Marriage Prohibition Act, which bans even displays of affection between homosexuals. In Uganda, parliament has passed a bill that calls on citizens to report homosexuals to the authorities. India has just recriminalised gay sex.
"Why this resurgence of homophobia? Most anti-gay countries, with the exception of India, are economically stagnant – and resentful of the prosperous, decadent West. (Note that China, preoccupied by money, can’t be bothered to climb aboard the anti-gay bandwagon.)
"Until recently, anti-colonialism united these countries; but, with so few colonies left, that cause has been struggling. Then along came same-sex marriage, which Western LGBT activists want to see legalised everywhere.
"Suddenly conservative societies have a new bogeyman, a neo-imperialist assault on their ancient way of life. And how interesting that Russia should choose this moment to target its own sexual minorities. Just as the Soviet Union once led the anti-colonial movement, so now Putin is portraying himself as the champion of “traditional values”.
"Gay marriage still divides public opinion in American and Europe, but the concept itself has become very familiar to us very quickly. Also, since young Westerners are overwhelmingly in favour, gay campaigners feel assured of final victory. No one seems to care about the price of that victory, which is being paid by homosexual people in conservative societies. And it will continue to be paid, long after same-sex marriage becomes a comfortable feature of life here.
"The LGBT lobby found it ludicrously easy to change the law in Britain – thanks, unexpectedly, to the Tories. Now let’s see it rise to the much less fashionable challenge of wiping out vicious legislation in the developing world."
_____
"Refuting Anti-Gay Rights Arguments"
Josh Sager
"Back in the era of slavery, there were several definitions of marriage. Marriage between white Americans was similar to what we now consider marriage today (although with fewer rights for the woman and less of a possibility for divorce), but marriage for the other races was radically different. Marriages between slaves, when permitted, were annullable through distance (ex. when one of them was sold) and had no legal value. Marriages between white Americans and free black Americans weren’t legal under the law at all. Eventually, slavery was abolished, and interracial marriage was legalized, but it is still important to note that marriage was changed radically within the lifespan of our relatively young civilization."
*********
CONCLUSION
To deny the commonalities of suffering, persecution and oppression shared by both the Black and Gay communities over time is to deny historical parallels where they certainly exist and to minimize the mutual experience of pain, prejudice, torture, murder and denial of basic human dignity that has afflicted both of these undeservedly targeted groups.
Bigotry is bigotry. Hate is hate. Disdain is disdain. Denial of human and civil rights is denial of human and civil rights.
Being Black or being Gay, it doesn't matter. Both are members of historically despised and savagely mistreated minority groups that have drunk from the same bitter cup of group-identity abuse and dehumanization.
Get over the destructive and inhumane idea that there is no rejuvenating bond in acknowleding the real and mutual legacies of suffering between these two classes of unique, yet linked, human beings. To insist on defining, then imposing, barriers and differences serves only to divide rather than to unite. Blacks and Gays have walked the walk and talked the talk both together and in their own ways. Join the conversation, Participate in the march. Help the cause. Rcognize the collective humanity of it all. Geezus. And get a life--hopefully one that's meaningfully connected to, and shared with, others.
Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 04/01/2015 01:30PM by steve benson.