NLGA column writing winner, LZ Granderson: Commentary: Gay is not the new black

[wndycty]

I really hope that my posting of this column, leads to productive discussion and not quickly turn into name calling and finger pointing. The writer, LZ Granderson, makes some very interesting points. This is the first time I have read his work. Please click through to the original article. Again, hopefully we can have a good and productive discussion about this column.

By the way I put this in General Discussion: Presidential because he discusses President Obama's relationship with the GLBT community.


Commentary: Gay is not the new black

By LZ Granderson
Special to CNN

Editor's note: LZ Granderson is a senior writer and columnist for ESPN The Magazine and ESPN.com, and has contributed to ESPN's Sports Center, Outside the Lines and First Take. He is the 2009 Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) award winner for online journalism and the 2008 National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association (NLGJA) winner for column writing.
LZ Granderson says criticism of President Obama by the gay community has gone too far.

(CNN) -- Far from flowing rainbow flags, the sound of Lady Gaga and, quite honestly, white people, stands a nightclub just outside of Wicker Park in Chicago, Illinois, by the name of The Prop House.

The line to get in usually stretches down the block, and unlike many of the clubs in Boystown and Andersonville, this one plays hip-hop and caters to men who may or may not openly identify as gay, but without question are black and proud.

And a good number of them are tired of hearing how the gay community is disappointed in President Obama, because they are not.

In recent weeks, one would have thought the nation's first black president was also the nation's biggest homophobe. Everyone from Oscar winner Dustin Lance Black and radio personality Rachel Maddow to Joe Solmonese, the president of Human Rights Campaign, the country's largest gay advocacy group, seem to be blasting Obama for everything from "don't ask don't tell" to Adam Lambert not winning American Idol.

In their minds, Obama is not moving fast enough on behalf of the GLBT community. The outcry is not completely without merit -- the Justice Department's unnerving brief on the Defense of Marriage Act immediately comes to mind. I was upset by some of the statements, but not surprised. (After the Tuskegee Syphilis Study, President Ronald Reagan's initial handling of AIDS and, more recently, Katrina, there is little that surprises me when it comes to the government and the treatment of its people.)

Still, rarely has criticism regarding Obama and the GLBT community come from the kind of person you would find standing in line at a spot like The Prop House, and there's a reason for that.
-snip-

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/07/16/granderson.obama.gays/index.html

[DURHAM D]

1. From the article -

"40 years is nothing compared with the 400 blood-soaked years black people..."

The writer apparently thinks that for the 360 years prior to Stonewall everything was just peachy for us gay folks in America.

When a writer (or anyone else) uses such an ignorant frame nothing he says is relevant.

[justiceischeap]

3. I could be wrong and this may inflame some folks but I'm gonna say it...

I think gays have been battling prejudice since the beginning of time. So, if you want to get into debates about who has been oppressed longer, we can do that. It doesn't do the debate any good but it's a definite point to the debate. Of course, slavery has been around since the beginning of time too... But yeah... it seems when the gay rights movement is compared to the civil rights movement, most people conveniently forget that we've been persecuted since the beginning of time and we didn't just start struggling 40 years ago. 40 years ago is when we finally said, enough is enough and we still get harassed and sometimes "lynched" for saying enough is enough.

[DURHAM D]

4. Why would it inflame anyone - its true. nt

[wndycty]

9. I am going to make the assumption that writer is gay, which is important. . .

. . .because the perspective of members of the GLBT community who are also people of color might be different than those who are white.

[justiceischeap]

11. You have a valid point however...

His statement that it's only been "40 years" is disingenuous. Like, 40 years ago, outside the Stonewall Inn in NYC, a bunch of gay people just popped onto the planet and we've been fighting since... like we haven't existed since the beginning of time. That's the issue I have with that facet of his argument.

[wndycty]

17. I think his point is bigotry based on race is different. . .

. . .you cannot hide your Blackness. "Don't ask, don't tell" is absolutely FUCKED UP! However Black folks have never had the option of not telling anyone they are Black. Its obvious that homophobia has been practiced world wide since the beginning of time, HOWEVER in most cases we don't know one's sexuality without asking them or knowing them.

[DURHAM D]

21. So your advice is to "hide" our homosexuality if we want to get our rights? nt

[wndycty]

27. Absolutely NOT. . .my point is that Black folks, all people of color. . .

. . .cannot hide their race. I am not telling anyone to hide shit.

However straight or gay, are SEXUALITY is not on display since birth. Our sexuality is not on display when we walk down the street, our sexuality is not on display when the COPS are looking for a criminal, our sexuality is not on display when we apply for a job, our sexuality is not on display 24 hours a day, 7 days week 365 days a year.

HOMOPHOBIA should not be tolerated, but it is completely different than racism. I am NOT SAYING its not just as bad, I am just saying there is a distinction and the writer, who happens to be both Black and gay, is making that point.

[justiceischeap]

33. I beg to differ...some gay folk are called out on it early on

I've been called a dyke since elementary/middle school and it's not like I was running around saying, "I like girls instead of boys!" even though I knew it early on.

[wndycty]

36. So you are saying from the very minute you were born, folks were saying. . .

. . ."there goes that little gay girl?" From the moment you walked into your preschool class "other kids were saying there is that little gay girl?" From the moment you met other kids parents they were saying "who is that little gay girl?"

I will take your your word for it that people called you a dyke at an early age, kids are cruel. But I still fail to believe that is the first thing most people think of you the minute you walk into a room.

[justiceischeap]

77. I think if you reread what I posted

I said from elementary/middle school. I can remember overhearing a conversation between my aunt and my mom when I was around 7 or 8 that I was gonna be a lesbian. Of course I didn't know what a lesbian was at that age but there are some gay kids, that even when they are young can be "pegged" as being gay. If you think there aren't then you're being naive.

[wndycty]

84. I am not being naive, but I am pointing out the difference between race and sexual orientation. . .

. . .take the kids in Philadelphia.

The members of the pool didn't even consider the kids sexual orientation, the saw race. I am not at all discounting the experience of gay person and their childhood experiences, I am pointing out what I see as a difference.

[SacredCow]

87. So why, pray tell, does that difference validate the viewpoint...

that the gay experience with discrimination/bigotry can not be compared to the black experience? Or the Jewish experience? Or the women's experience? Or the one-armed atheist's experience?

Bigotry is bigotry. There are enough common threads to connect them all, in some way.

[justiceischeap]

89. And I'm pointing out, that in some instances, there isn't a difference

Some kids just scream "I'm gay!" And, from my perspective anyway, I may be a white lesbian but it's okay for kids to scream "dyke" in the hallways in school but have that same kid yell the "n" word (which I can't even type for fear of being tombstoned) and that kid is hauled into the office or given what for. Same thing on the street. It's okay to yell out "faggot" or "dyke" or any other derogatory gay term but don't dare do that with the "n" word.

[wndycty]

94. It is never acceptable to scream dyke and I hope you don't think

I believe it's ok.

[justiceischeap]

99. I'm not saying that's your belief

I'm just pointing out that there is a pervasive attitude in society that draws a line on how blatantly bigoted you can be in public.

For example, yes it may be obvious that someone is of a different ethnicity and therefore that seems to temper people's outward racism/bigotry. Sadly, people don't know when gay folk are around (unless you're obvious like me). We are often hurt by bigotry because most people can't tell. So they go about telling their totally inappropriate gay jokes and we either have to make a decision to listen to that shit quietly in our little bubble or we speak up and fear getting bashed. So, we don't have it easy because you "can't tell" who is gay. Just because you can't "see" us doesn't mean we aren't there being hurt by the hate. And then we have to turn around and be told we aren't worthy, we need to be patient, we shouldn't criticize, etc.

[wndycty]

103. The writer, Granderson, is not saying the GLBT community can't criticize

He is however putting it in perspective, especially as it relates to race.

[SacredCow]

108. Putting it into *HIS* perspective, you mean....

Which doesn't mean that others can't or won't have a different perspective.

[Hansel]

251. There were 3 children in our neighborhood that everyone knew

were gay (2 of them) and lesbian from the time they were very young. One was just a toddler, the other 2 in elementary school. We all just accepted that they were gay and lesbian. Some of the neighbors were bigoted about it, some refused to accept it, but we all knew.

I get tired of this whole, my pain is greater than yours. Bigotry is bigotry and the pain from it is painful for everyone it touches. Blacks do not have a lock on pain.

[SacredCow]

57. The "Gay is the new black" idea is not all that new....

Several years back, I remember a talk show (I'm wanting to say it was Dr. Phil, but I can't be sure) where some "expert" (who happened to be black) made the comment that he couldn't wake up the next day and not be black; however, a gay person *could* wake up and decide to not be gay. I don't remember if there was an outcry or not, but it sure as hell got my hackles up. So long before people who claim to be allies of gay folk used this argument, the fundies and homophobes had already blazed the trail.

The "distinction" between the two is irrelevant, in my opinion, because bigotry is bigotry. Though I don't personally use the "gay is the new black" argument, I think there are enough similarities between the two struggles for it to be an accurate comparison. Because one can "hide" their sexuality and the other can't hide their skin color is not enough of a reason for me to think that the two can't be equated to some extent.

[Leo The Cleo]

131. Some liberals still deny racism against blacks

It is as if blacks can't point out that race is a factor and that people treat them unfairly.

[stevenleser]

248. You deserve kudos for being patient in response to an obvious straw man argument here

Debating with someone who reaches into the logical fallacies bag for their responses isn't fun.

[omega minimo]

249. wndycty was remarkably patient and effective and fostered a constructive thread

:bounce:

[wndycty]

250. Thanks for the vote of confidence

:kick:

[omega minimo]

252. Thanks for the essay and the thread.

:yourock:

[WillParkinson]

23. Homophobia is not just against gay people...

It's the perception of being gay. Or being weak. Or being different. To many people that equates with "gay".

So while you are correct, that in most cases we do not know a persons sexuality, in many cases of homophobia people really do not care. Assumption is enough.

[Neecy]

40. Really? I mean, really?

A few years ago, a former girlfriend and I were walking out of a convenience store in Placerville, CA - that's it, walking out of a store, not mashing, not touching, walking out with two cups of coffee. A group of guys sitting in a pickup hit on us and when we ignored them came the infuriated screams of DYKES! and they started coming out of their truck for us. We ran back inside the store and asked the clerk to call the cops and they took off.

We look like everyone else to you, I suppose. All it takes is the slightest hint that you might be gay - such as ignoring lowlifes who hit on you - to be a victim of violence. If you think we can just hide, or turn our gayness on or off, you know nothing at all about our lives.

[wndycty]

61. You do realize that had you and your gf been straight and ignored those guys. . .

. . .they would have most likely have yelled the same thing.

[Neecy]

72. If I was straight

I would have likely been walking out of there with a guy.

And I've never ONCE heard a straight female friend talk about being gay bashed because she was with another straight female doing something as innocent as getting a cup of coffee.

I guess people are a little better at identifying us than you seem to think they are.

[wndycty]

82. But you a dismissing the perspective of the boneheaded male (Black, Brown, White, . . .)

Who automatically assumes, without any knowledge of one's sexuality, that if a woman is interested in him or his friends that she must be a lesbian.

Understand that I am not discounting homophobia, but it is very likely that if this was a casual encounter with very little interaction these guys were making an assumption based on the fact that they were rejected and their egos were bruised. The reaction was homophobic, but it was not based on knowing anything about you. You could have been two straight female friends hanging out and ignoring them and they would have most likely would have had the same homophobic reaction.

[LooseWilly]

You do realize that this answer is, itself, dismissive and more than a little insulting, right?

You are saying that, if someone is hassled for being gay (or even merely being perceived as gay)... then that can often times be dismissed as the result of a few "bad apples" (or, as you call it, "the perspective of the boneheaded male", which makes the homophobic assault magically become no longer homophobic).

But, on the other hand, you don't seem to be willing to dismiss the hassles one might get for being black (or latino, or asian, or native american, or some half-breed mix between one or all of the above) as a mere instance of a "bad apple" (or, let's call it "the perspective of the boneheaded racist"... who "might've hassled said victim for some other reason if they didn't happen to be "not white"... might even have assumed the victim to be gay if they couldn't "latch onto" a racist reason... because they were just "boneheaded assholes" who were going to victimize someone for whatever reason... or even no reason at all).

It seems to me that your argument is that some hassles are "more relevant" than other hassles. Namely, the hassles that bother you are bad, but the hassles that don't bother you so much "just aren't as bad".

You don't think that's insulting?

[wndycty]

118. I am not saying that at all, what I am saying is that unfortunately slurs associated with being gay

. . .are often thrown around and directed towards people without any knowledge as to whether or not the individual those insults are being directed towards is actually gay.

That does not diminish the pain and suffering those slurs cause, its just a realization that ignorant folks will say anything to anyone to hurt them and the truth is irrelevant to the person throwing out the insult.

[Bluenorthwest]

126. Are you aware that what you declare as 'willing to say anything to hurt'

if often in the form of deadly violent attacks? People get beaten to a pulp and killed by straight folks for being gay or for being assumed gay. Two brothers in NYC last year. One dead. 'Cause those folks will 'say anything' but they let the baseball bats do the talking.
That is the level of crime we are talking about, that you are pretending is some schoolyard banter. Slurs are bad, but they do not call for coffins. So let's not talk about that, eh?

[Leo The Cleo]

128. There are coffins for Black Gays and Straight Blacks too

In the end, there has got to be some compassion. A black gay says something and it is dismissed. A black gays says, "hey, I'm hurting too" and white gays dismiss it. This is where the lack of any understanding come in. Engage black gays instead of marking them off. But I'm sure you'd rather mark them off. Hey, it's not the 45 black congress people keeping Gay rights legislation from going through.

[Bluenorthwest]

140. My fellow DU

You do not know me. I do not need to read Granderson's opinion to hear the opinions of black people who are gay or straight. Or French or Angolan. Or bisexual and Republican. I know actual people to speak to in my life.
I was responding to a post in which the writer seems to claim that the abuses cast by bigots onto their victims tend to be verbal in nature. I am simply reminding him of the violence and death that are the actual concerns. The NYC bashing death I referenced was of a young latino man, and the folks who killed him used hate speech tied to both his ethnicity and his presumed sexuality.
Not once have I ever used the sort of broad brush generalizations that you use toward me. Not toward anyone ever.
My life is filled with people of all kinds, I'd be a different and lesser person without the influence many black friends, all over the world. Most of my 'coming out' time was spent in a group of people that was diverse as it gets, but dominated by African American people and culture. Yes. I have been the only white face at more than one deathbed, if you want to hear about that as well, of dear friends. People whose loss I will never recover from. People I dream of and long for durning hard times of the heart.. You are sure I'd rather 'mark them off'.

[Leo The Cleo]

142. So, I am sure you speak and act for the entire White Gay Community - Don't talk about it be about it

You personal story is moving, however it is not the norm. I will not diminish you "claim," however, it does not change the truth or reality of the isolation of black gays from white gays. It doesn't change the isolation of the black community from white gays. Now if your words were an attempt to change this reality by means of coercion, then you are writing the black reality off. So, mark them off if you will, or be the guy who isn't telling black people "you're either black or gay." Be the guy who stands up for the black gay experience and doesn't allow bigoted white gays to dismiss them.

[Name removed]

143. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

224. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[omega minimo]

245. Aside from not making sense in reply to that post, why is this hateful personal attack allowed?

[Bluenorthwest]

151. My "claim" well this being the internet, it is all a "claim"

When you meet a gay person who claims to be 'the norm' pm me. I have never claimed to be the 'norm', whatever the fuck that is. My life is one of a kind, that is for sure. Few get to see what I have seen, meet who I have met, share as many worlds as I have.
And tell me. Where do you get "you speak and act for the entire White Gay Community" bullshit you are flinging? My posts are right there for all to read, and they say none of the things you attempt to ascribe to me.
When you treat others not as themselves, but as some preformed opinion of a 'type' of people, that is the definition of bigotry, which is what you display here in full form. When you do not listen, but rather put words into a person's mouth to fit the image you hold of their 'kind' well sir, that makes you a bigot.
Your intent on this thread is certainly open for all to observe and judge. As of course is mine, always, and consistently on DU.

[omega minimo]

172. That was not "the level of crime they were talking about" -- they were discussing something

that happens, maybe more familiar to women than men, that is disturbing and in that case, with the threat of being followed, dangerous.

The OP was not "pretending is some schoolyard banter."

If you read the discussion clearly there, you might learn something about how some men -- here described as "boneheads" and finding a truckbed full or 'em in Placerville not a surprise -- treat women; the cockiness, the expectation, the instant hostility at perfect strangers if they don't get the response they want.

The slur they threw was that they "MUST be dykes" -- of course they MUST be gay or else how could they refuse the amorous attention of a truck full of yahoos? :eyes:

"I was responding to a post in which the writer seems to claim that the abuses cast by bigots onto their victims tend to be verbal in nature. I am simply reminding him of the violence and death that are the actual concerns."

Sometimes, as you know, the abuses are verbal in nature. If you read the posts, keeping in mind this is something women have to deal with and be aware of all their lives, understanding how quickly some random situation may turn dangerous, you might not dismiss THAT experience and claim the OP has dismissed -- or is unaware of -- violence and "other concerns."

[LooseWilly]

134. Again... you are being casually dismissive.

I could, just as easily, casually, and wantonly as you do, dismiss racial slurs as just being used by those same "ignorant folks" who "will say anything to hurt... and the truth is irrelevant to the person throwing out the insult." I could try to explain to you that these "ignorant folks" really don't have "any knowledge as to whether or not the individual those insults are being directed towards is actually" someone who corresponds to the negative stereotypes connoted by whatever racist epithet the "ignorant folks" hurl... that would not make hate speech any less hateful... and would not make a lynching/bashing any less deadly- whether it's a lynching of a black person, or the fatal "bashing" of a gay person.

Why don't you do us all a favor, and stop trying to use the "ignorant bad apple" argument to dismiss homophobic hate crimes, at least until you've taken the time to think through the fact that your dismissal holds exactly the same relevance when dismissing racist hate crimes.

[noiretextatique]

145. my cousin, who is not gay, used to get called a dyke all the time

because of the way she looked. another cousin, also not gay, got called a dyke when she wasn't insterested in men at a club. i am a lesbian, and i have never been called a dyke in anger :shrug:

[omega minimo]

170. Thank you for patiently re-making that point. Esp. since it was Placerville, yeah, it's the bonehead

response to not getting the ego boost of female attention -- "If they ain't flirtin' cuz we're ogling them, they must be DYKES"!!!!!!!!

[wndycty]

184. Thanks

I am glad you notice

[Neecy]

191. Then gee, I guess I'd better just stay out of Placerville, then

Because boys will be boys.

[omega minimo]

195. It's always good to be aware of your surroundings.

:thumbsup:

[Neecy]

201. Thanks, I'll remember that

[QC]

313. You should probably carry some sort of protective crystal when you go there, too.

I'm not sure exactly which kind, but I'm sure an Indigo Child can tell you.

[DURHAM D]

62. I know you find it amazin' (as do I) that -

as is so often true here at the DU - people who have not walked in our shoes are perfectly comfortable (arrogant enough) to tell US what it is like to walk in our shoes.

And generally it is white men who never hesitate to describe what we should be feeling and what we should react to.

As I read through this thread I react to some comments because it offends me because I am a woman and other comments because I am a lesbian. The hierarchy of those issues (1) feminist and (2) homosexual is fluid.

[wndycty]

68. You make an interesting point when you say "(1) feminist and (2) homosexual is fluid."

Do you think the writer might say?

(1) Black man
(2) Gay man

His opinion should not be dismissed. He definitely has not said anything homophobic.

[Neecy]

86. yep, pretty amazing

And I find the argument that black people are always black, while I could easily "pass", incredibly offensive.

For years I did "pass". I stayed in the closet at work because the company I worked for teemed with ugly homophobes, the kind of people who made jokes about AIDS victims. I know how this "passing" drained me of my energy, my self-respect, and my dignity. It was by far the most stressful period of my life and one that, looking back, I'm deeply ashamed of.

And "passing" doesn't mean wearing makeup and putting on a pair of heels. It means never being able to bring your partner to a company event, never being able to even MENTION her, never being allowed to be a real person with a real personal life. Not only did I degrade myself by being in the closet - I degraded her.

And to have someone tell me that no one can tell my sexuality "unless they ask" brings back memories of living within the box of THEIR making that I once accepted. Never again.

[ZombieHorde]

213. I think homophobia is more acceptable than racism in the U.S.

Republicans are openly anti gay, but they try to hide their racism.

Many monotheistic groups are openly anti gay, but not openly racist.

[Veruca Salt]

253. It is. nt

[QC]

254. Homophobia is a lot more acceptable on DU than it used to be, too,

now that we are all "pragmatic" and "postpartisan" and all that.

[Smarmie Doofus]

20. You are *not* wrong and your observation will not inflame any...

... fair-minded person with average or above average intelligence.

[Leo The Cleo]

130. Which Gays?

Even in this statement it appears to exclude black gays. You've defined your statement as gays being different from blacks. What about the black Gays? You just left them out. The fact is that groups have identities. The article pointed out how blacks gays are kept at the fringes of the gay movement. So, even in speaking on this you say "civil right movement" is black and "gays rights" is not black. Sometimes Gays get lynched? Are any of those gays black? It just like during the election when they said "women" they were referring to "white women." It's like anything that is anything to speak about is "white" unless you title it black or other. I wonder why this writer has this point of view.

Hey, beat back the jive.

[justiceischeap]

179. When I speak of the gay community I don't segregate

If you're gay, you're gay. I don't care if you're black or white, you're still gay. Period. In my mind, there are no separate gay movements, gay is gay to me. I want all gay people banding together, black, white, asian, indian, etc., 'cause we all have something in common, we're gay. I can't speak to the black experience because I'm not black. I can empathize that there are still racial issues within society but at the end of the day I don't see a black lesbian or black gay man, I see a lesbian or gay man. My feeling is, when I write "the gay community" I mean everyone who's gay.

[Leo The Cleo]

225. Nice Back Peddle

[SacredCow]

8. I concur.

How would that argument fly if I proposed that black people haven't been persecuted nearly as long as Jewish people, so they should just wait their turn? I think we all know how that would be met.

While I don't particularly like the notion that "Gay is the new black," neither do I think that human rights should be subject to the heritage of "Well, I suffered for X number of years- so should you." This is not a fraternity or an internship, for fark's sake!

[justiceischeap]

14. "So SacredCow, now that you've finished your internship, does that make you..."

a practicing homosexual or are you now a professional homosexual? You know if you're only practicing and not professional, you can't get into 'the club' of the downtrodden!" :sarcasm:

[SacredCow]

32. I quit a job early in my career....

because I was being forced into working for 48+ hours straight with little to no sleep. When I pointed out that nobody could produce quality work under those conditions, I got the "Well, *I* had to do it when I was a bench chemist, so you do too," argument from my boss. And out the door I went.

Why is it so hard to understand that this argument, when used in terms of civil rights, is disgustingly aloof and elitist?

[justiceischeap]

35. I have to admit that I feel guilty

because I don't have the same "coming out experience" as most people I know. When I told my family, they just said, "Tell us something we didn't already know." So, I feel bad that I wasn't thrown away or scorned like so many of my friends.

But I agree that it's a horrible argument. You can always point to someone (or group) that's had it worse than you. Doesn't mean you shouldn't fight for what's right though. No matter how "young" that fight is.

[wndycty]

37. And Granderson is not saying that Obama shouldn't fight for what is right. . .

. . .actually he writes:

In their minds, Obama is not moving fast enough on behalf of the GLBT community. The outcry is not completely without merit -- the Justice Department's unnerving brief on the Defense of Marriage Act immediately comes to mind. I was upset by some of the statements, but not surprised.

[justiceischeap]

75. He has contradicted himself on a few occassions in the article

But I'm tired of hearing the "you've gotta be patient" argument.

[omega minimo]

223. When you cherry pick and start off the thread with that misrepresentation

your relevance is in question also.

The writer said nothing of the sort
and made many comments acknowledging the GLBT struggle.

:thumbsdown:

[Leo The Cleo]

228. And they refuse to acknowledge or validate his POV

This gentleman has a unique perspective. One that is uniquely black and gay. He opened his article up to that point. Some people are willing to throw his perspective away because it doesn't fit into their world. That seems to validate his worldview.

[omega minimo]

234. After reading the whole thread

and listening to differing opinions, it also seems that part of this is simply HOW we read.

I can read this and consider his point of view and not take it personally. It seems like the most upset here are unable to be that objective.

And THAT seems partly due to We All Want To Be Heard and Acknowledged. However, people can't realistically read something and count all the omissions that set them off regarding what he's NOT saying, rather than consider what he IS saying.

I read it and read the thread and read it again. It still seems to be well written and balanced. Part of a healthy dialogue. I'm glad the OP posted it.

[MADem]

2. The "big finish" is where he makes some interesting points

...While those who were at Stonewall talk about the fear of being arrested by police, 40 years ago, blacks talked about the fear of dying at the hands of police and not having their bodies found or murder investigated. The 13th Amendment was signed in 1865, and it wasn't until 1948 that President Harry S Truman desegregated the military. That's more than an 80-year gap.

Not to be flip, but Miley Cyrus is older than Bill Clinton's "don't ask, don't tell." That doesn't mean that the safety of gay people should be trivialized or that Obama should not be held accountable for the promises he made on the campaign trail. But to call this month's first-ever White House reception for GLBT leaders "too little too late" is akin to a petulant child throwing a tantrum because he wants to eat his dessert before dinner. This is one of the main reasons why so many blacks bristle at the comparison of the two movements -- everybody wants to sing the blues, nobody wants to live them.

This lack of perspective is only going to alienate a black community that is still very proud of Obama and is hypersensitive about any criticism of him, especially given he's been in office barely six months.

If blacks are less accepting of gays than other racial groups -- and that is certainly debatable -- then the parade of gay people calling Obama a "disappointment" on television is counterproductive in gaining acceptance, to say the least. And the fact that the loudest critics are mostly white doesn't help matters either.

Hearing that race matters in the gay community may not be comforting to hear, but that doesn't make it any less true.

[WillParkinson]

6. So, let me see if I understand this...

Is he saying that we should not criticize Mr. Obama because we risk losing the support of the African-American community?

Honestly, if what I think I'm reading is accurate, then I am uncertain what is expected of the GLBT community. Sit on our hands and smile while our rights are put to a vote?

Sorry, I do not think I can do that anymore.

[justiceischeap]

7. "Sit down, shut up and enjoy what we've given you!"

Don't you know that by now? Geez, you need to read the handbook again... :sarcasm:

[wndycty]

12. Does his perspective as one of the few openly gay sportswriters matter?

Seriously, do you not think that since he is both gay and Black he knows a little bit about the struggles of both communities?

[WillParkinson]

18. Honestly?

I would have to know more about him.

I know some people who are more adamant about racial issues than issues of being gay.

Yes, I will not deny that being a gay black man gives him insight, but I also wonder which community he stands more firmly with.

[wndycty]

19. Well obviously as a writer he has been honored with the GLBT community for his writing. . .

. . .so that might say something.

[DURHAM D]

24. It doesn't take much. Our community often drinks the sand. nt

[WillParkinson]

25. As I said, I would need to know more about him...

Hence the reason I asked if I was understanding his point. I do not like to assume anything about a person, especially one whom I have never met.

I do, however, disagree with his article.

[wndycty]

29. So the fact that the columnist has experienced bigotry as both a Black man and a gay man is . . .

. . .irrelevant?

Why is it so easily to dismiss his perspective?

[WillParkinson]

39. Comments like this:

"But to call this month's first-ever White House reception for GLBT leaders "too little too late" is akin to a petulant child throwing a tantrum because he wants to eat his dessert before dinner. This is one of the main reasons why so many blacks bristle at the comparison of the two movements -- everybody wants to sing the blues, nobody wants to live them."

Everybody wants to sing the blues, nobody wants to live them.

I find that arrogant. I have lived the blues. I have been with my partner for more than 20 years. For 20 years we've been nothing more than "friends" in the eyes of the law. Gay people in general have been nothing but "friends" much longer than that. Gay people have lost jobs simply due to their being honest about who they are. They have been beaten, robbed, killed. They have been disallowed to see their significant others in the hospital.

I believe that the gay community has "lived" the blues long enough.

And I would wonder what the African-American community would say if the author wrote another article, this time from the gay perspective. Would they be tolerant or would they be outraged?

Please note: This is my opinion. You are welcome to agree with it or disagree with it. Either works. This is just my perspective.

[wndycty]

41. Huh?

"And I would wonder what the African-American community would say if the author wrote another article, this time from the gay perspective."

Are you dismissing the fact that he is gay. The writer belongs to both the gay and African American community

[WillParkinson]

45. Yes, I am aware...

If, however, the author wrote an article from the gay perspective, about why Mr. Obama should be criticized, what would the African-American community think of that article?

I may not be explaining myself properly, but I just feel that the author of the article is saying that we should not criticize as we have been doing, because we run the risk of alienating the African-American community.

[wndycty]

49. I bet some Black people would agree and some Black people would disagree, don't you?

:kick:

[WillParkinson]

55. I would hope so...

But until the article sees print I can only assume.

Though I'm willing to bet, yes.

[Name removed]

65. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Colobo]

210. I'm sure the writer can't change his perspectives that easily

as his life is composed of BOTH his blackness and his homosexuality. People here keep talking about the two as if they were mutually exclusive...

[WillParkinson]

239. I do not want the writer to change his perspective...

I do not have to agree with it, but I do not want him to say anything different if this is what he believes. We learn and grow from different opinions being aired in a public forum.

It is very possible that I am reading this wrong, it's very possible I am misunderstanding what the author is saying. Reading something is much different than having conversations with people.

I hope that the author continues to voice his opinion, and I also hope that I can try to better understand his viewpoint.

[Leo The Cleo]

63. You'd Need To Know That He Will Push His Blackness Aside.

[Leo The Cleo]

59. You know you don't care about it

Who he stands more firmly with? Does he love his mother more or his father more? I'm gonna give it to you plain. You sir only want to understand race in the fashion of a moralist. It's are compassionate when it suits you to talk about republicans or guys you don't like. That is crap. Human rights shouldn't come without understanding. You'd want a black person to choose Gay over black. It's ridiculous. So, you are only really rallying for white gay rights, damn the black gays. Cuz unless they are for your white gay world view, their lives have no validity. Be a person for compassion. Don't be nickel dumb.

[Neecy]

141. our "white gay world view"?

And we're really just rallying for white gay rights?

You have some serious issues. Honestly.

[Name removed]

226. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Uzybone]

114. Does he have to chose one community?

he is a gay black man....he is both.
This is ridiculous.

[Colobo]

212. That's what some around here

probably white people, seem to be saying. I'm black and straight, and I find it sickening. I can't imagine how many times this writer has had to face the same crap. I can imagine it: "Are you gonna side with the AAs or gays?"

[MADem]

22. No, I don't think he's saying that. Here is what I take from his comments.

If I've missed anything I urge others to elucidate.

He's saying that patience is in short supply in the Equality effort. He's also stating plainly that blaming the black community (meaning the religious black community, the "Leviticus" crowd) for Prop 8 is not "on." He's also saying that the gay black community and the gay white community appear to be divided on their approach to/view of this issue, and the gay black community as a group does not identify with the GLBT movement in quite the same way that the white GLBT community does. The former understand patience in the context of a civil rights struggle, the latter do not. Comparisons (in terms of severity, certainly) to the black civil rights movement are also not "on," as he explains with his Stonewall v. "dead and disappeared" example. He also says that while Obama should be held to account for his campaign statements, his GLBT reception at the WH shouldn't be dismissed as "too little, too late."

I don't think this guy claims to be representing "the GLBT community." And I don't think he's telling the GLBT community what to do, either. His perspective is coming from the black community, and he's reporting on the attitudes of the GLBT subset of that community, who are looking at their big picture, and aren't going to turn their backs on the first President with acknowledged African ancestry in the White House.

A distinction, and a difference, I think...if I am reading his thesis correctly. If I'm not, I hope to be corrected.

[WillParkinson]

31. LZ Granderson says criticism of President Obama by the gay community has gone too far

Is what the article says.

I believe it is more "be patient" and "he's playing chess", but this time from a member of the gay community.

I do apologize, but I have been patient for 30 years. I have no more left in me.

[Leo The Cleo]

38. ABSOLUTELY INCORRECT

He is saying that lack of perspective is going to divide the movements. And it is. Blaming blacks for Prop 8 is going to divide the movements. Wagging the finger at the whole of the black community is going to divide the movements. And I am quite sure that Obama hasn't pushed any legislation, signed an executive order and done squat on the behest of black people. No one is saying to "WAIT" as some open ended portion of time. People are saying that we need to have perspective. And for those who wag their fingers at the black community it is uncalled for. Blacks comprise 13 percent of the countries population. Black comprise of FAR LESS than 13 percent of congress (and you know what I mean). Legislation (or lack of legislation) has not been due to black interference, veto or otherwise.

So, blaming the black community is not the answer. Blaming Obama isn't yet the answer. Holding him accountable is certainly important though, but he's not the blame. And certainly not looking at the issue and all the people you point fingers at is a help either.

[WillParkinson]

43. Um...excuse me?

I am not pointing fingers at anyone.

I do not blame any group for passage of Proposition 8. I do not even blame the California Supreme Court. The law, as written, was enforced. I do not agree with it, but it is what it is.

As for lack of perspective, that goes both ways.

And as for people saying we need to have perspective, usually when they say that it means that we need to have THEIR perspective.

I have said before, and I am certain I will say again, I hold out hope that things will work out with Mr. Obama. But hope can only hold out so long against reality.

[Leo The Cleo]

48. You Are Excused

You can read that entire passage and write it off because a black gay has an opinion. You write it off because a black person has a perspective. Yes you are correct. I guess we need to have you perspective.

[WillParkinson]

60. Wow. You're psychic!

Yes, that's exactly what I am doing. I'm writing it off because a black gay has an opinion.

What a load of hooey.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion. The author certainly is, but I am just as entitled to disagree with his - just as he would be, and you are, entitled to disagree with mine.

I do not want you to have my perspective. I gave it, as did the author. Please feel free to agree or disagree with me. It harms nothing either way, and hopefully can bring us to a closer understanding of each others viewpoints.

Or continue to rant at me. See how far that will get us.

[Leo The Cleo]

67. That is Certainly what you are doing

You said it yourself.

[WillParkinson]

70. Sigh...

Please have yourself a good day. I'm done with this discussion. You are not interested in discussing it, merely at ranting at me because of your perceived viewpoint of my meanings.

[Leo The Cleo]

80. Thank Goodness

Thank Goodness you've stopped. Because you haven't been talking about his point of view or anyone else's point of view. Rather you have simply dismissed points of view as being valid and asserting that only if a black gay choose you white gay perspective is his perspective valid. You, Sir, have done yourself a service by being quiet.

[omega minimo]

175. "is going to divide the movements" is the KEY point, being ignored by too many folks.

"He is saying that lack of perspective is going to divide the movements. And it is. Blaming blacks for Prop 8 is going to divide the movements. Wagging the finger at the whole of the black community is going to divide the movements."

[MADem]

56. I guess where you stand depends on where you sit. I didn't take it that way.

I took it as this: If you are white, and GLBT, your perspective is different from those who are black, and GLBT, and here's why. The hypocrisy of segregation, to this very day, is a factor in his view. The fact that Obama has only been in office six months is underappreciated by the white GLBT community, and that is also a point he makes. Patience is in longer supply in the black GLBT community, as well, he notes. At the risk of people getting pissed off, he comes right up to the line of using that outrage with a P word when he makes the "dessert" analogy.

That's what I got from his essay--not "Sit down, shut up and wait." There's much more nuance to his comments than that.

If I were to extrapolate more--and it would simply be extrapolation and not anything the guy specifically said--I'd take from the article that if the white GLBT community wants to get all militant about Obama's progress, they shouldn't expect the black GLBT community to have their backs, because they continue to live separately from the black community and only want "unity" when it suits their purposes.

In their minds, Obama is not moving fast enough on behalf of the GLBT community. The outcry is not completely without merit -- the Justice Department's unnerving brief on the Defense of Marriage Act immediately comes to mind. I was upset by some of the statements, but not surprised. (After the Tuskegee Syphilis Study, President Ronald Reagan's initial handling of AIDS and, more recently, Katrina, there is little that surprises me when it comes to the government and the treatment of its people.)

Still, rarely has criticism regarding Obama and the GLBT community come from the kind of person you would find standing in line at a spot like The Prop House, and there's a reason for that..... So while the white mouthpiece of the gay community shakes an angry finger at intolerance and bigotry in their blogs and on television, blacks and other minorities see the dirty laundry. They see the hypocrisy of publicly rallying in the name of unity but then privately living in segregated pockets.

... one of the main reasons why so many blacks bristle at the comparison of the two movements -- everybody wants to sing the blues, nobody wants to live them.

This lack of perspective is only going to alienate a black community that is still very proud of Obama and is hypersensitive about any criticism of him, especially given he's been in office barely six months.

Obama's their hometown hero and the argument here is that the white GLBT community is not giving him a chance, they're too impatient, and they're hypocritical, as well. This essay is about perspectives--it's not about "what the GLBT community 'should' do." It simply explains a few attitudes, is how I see it.

I come away from reading this article with the view that this writer thinks that the white GLBT community wants the black GLBT community to do their bidding, and be the ones who "sit down and shut up" and do what THEY say. And the black GLBT community isn't having that--their pride over the election of Obama is important to them, and they're not going to accept the man being trashed because he isn't moving fast enough for their white counterparts who ignore/segregate them on the average day, anyway.

[WillParkinson]

69. The white GLBT community is not giving him a chance, they're too impatient...

I have heard this many times, especially here at DU (though "white" was not referenced, just gay community in general).

What I would really like to know is "how patient is patient enough"? A year? 2 years? Next election?

Gays have heard for years about how a politician stands with us. Mr. Obama is just the latest in a long line. I believe we have been extremely patient overall, I think what we are seeing now is just the culmination of many years of patience wearing thin.

[MADem]

74. I do not know the answer to your question.

I would guess that the consensus would be until he's reelected--that's usually when Presidents pull out the "difficult" (wedge) issues.

I also don't think this guy is telling anyone what to do. I think he's explaining the reasons for disunity among a substantial subset of the black GLBT community, is all.

[omega minimo]

211. Who are you and what have you done with MADem!!!!??!!

:spray: :hi: :toast:

[Name removed]

124. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Neecy]

93. I don't expect anyone to "do my bidding"

And I don't expect anyone to choose one community over another.

Are you gay, MADem? Are you an expert on the "white counterparts who ignore/segregate them on the average day, anyway"? This has NOT been my experience within the lesbian community. Of course, I doubt the writer has much experience with the lesbian community, but he sweeps us up in his massive generalizations anyway.

[MADem]

238. Would you please be so kind as to read what I have written, and not extrapolate

beyond what I am actually saying?

I am simply offering my "read" of what THIS WRITER is saying. I am not gay nor am I a cultural expert. I don't make any claims in that regard. I do, however, know how to read--I've been doing that for a long, long time.

If this man, in this article, is not saying what I interpeted that he was saying, then you tell me--just what IS he saying? Please be as precise, concise and specific as I tried to be.

If he IS, in fact, saying what I interpreted him to say, please be so kind as to stop shooting the messenger.

Thanks so much.

[noiretextatique]

148. i'm a black lesbian

and i agree with the author's assessment and yours. i understand what he's saying. the outrage that was directed at me and other black people after Prop 8 passed was unbelievable. every time i tried to explain the deep streak of reglious conservatism that runs through some black communities, i was accused of "making excuses." to this day i avoid the GLBT forum.
there are TWO gay americas, just like there are TWO americas.
i don't expect every white gay person to support affirmative action, and i know not every one does.
Obama is the most pro-gay president we've ever had, but he's not a magical negro. i believe he will keep his promise in time.

[bliss_eternal]

150. +25...!

:applause:

[Number23]

157. I don't even know what to say to you.

So I'll just say this:

:yourock:

[CTLawGuy]

168. yes, the virulence directed at the black community over prop 8 here

was unsettling at best.

[firedupdem]

186. +25.. n/t

:yourock:

[MADem]

241. Thank you for your reply.

I was trying hard not to overstate what the gentleman said, but at the same time, not understate his comments either. It is a very nuanced position that the black gay community finds themselves in and I thought he did a good job of stating the case.

I am in the crowd who says "Don't judge a President on their first six months in the saddle." After all, Bush didn't show his true colors until September--and that's only because he was PUSHED! As someone who was forced to change jobs every two years as a consequence of military service, I know it's no picnic to "get the bubble" in a hurry. You do your best work after you've hit your stride (and then, in service, it's time to leave!).

I've also come to be a bit of a champion for Obama, though he wasn't my first choice in the primaries.

[Veruca Salt]

256. I am so sorry you had to experiance that...

I stayed away from those threads for the most part when that 'study' of prop h8 came out. It was as if it was the entire fault of the black community which is absurd. I guess there are no latinos or italians that follow the same religious principals. HA. And that is only two other examples I am the most familiar with culturally.

What gets me the most is we are all brothers and sisters in the same fight for equality and the author of this piece (in my eyes) is giving us insight into his take on the black communities view. In the fight for our equality as citizens of the gay community it will not be as simple as one ethnic or racial background fighting against the rest.

For us it is many backgrounds and the best way to stop the prejudice is to take the fight into our own communities and not place blame on any one group. We'll also need to know what our brothers and sisters are up against so that we can assist even if only in unspoken understanding of how they must approach their own communities. I'm speaking pretty much in generalities as it is really a lot more nuanced than that.

I've probably explained myself badly (I tend to confuse myself sometimes when trying to make a point) and if so, many apologies.

Anyway as to your post noiretextatique; well spoken sister. :hug: I also follow you in my belief that Obama will keep his promises in time. I will not begrudge those who take more action now, I just hope it is done smartly and with care. We cannot fight hate with hate, and I hope there are no more instances on such a large scale of what happened to my black brothers and sisters after prop h8.

[noiretextatique]

318. you expressed yourself well

:hi: and i appreciate your thoughtful response. i don't blame people for being angry...i understand the anger. however, i think we need to learn a few lessons from Prop 8. the main lesson is: don't expect support from people because of the color of their skin. people of color know that...we have open enemies on television like pat buchannan, and open enemies in public life, like the republican senators who "questioned" judge sotomayor. it's unlikely that black religious conservatives are going to support marriage equality because religious conservatives do not support marriage equality. there was much discussion about about what black people should do because of our struggle with racism, but i hope the lesson was learned: black people are no more of a monolith than any other group. i also don't believe that black religious people are more homophobic than white mormons or southern baptists. nor do i believe 7% of california voters should be blamed. as you mentioned, what about the other 93% who voted? it is insane to focus on the proportion of the black vote when the simple truth is: Prop 8 would have passed if no black person voted for it.
i have a pretty thick skin, but i think the author was right on about this: don't piss off your friends. as i mentioned, obama is the most pro-gay president ever, but he has to contend with the religiously insane aka religious conservatives. that's the reality of this insane country we live in. just as it took several hundred years for people of color to get the full rights of citizenship because of the tremendous opposition to that movement, so do gay people have to be patient. it will happen, but it will take some time.
:hug: pleasure to meet you :hi:

[Fire1]

202. k&r. n/t

[omega minimo]

173. This is the most thoughtful post I've ever seen from you and a good summation. Thank you.

:toast:

[Leo The Cleo]

28. He certainly did not

As a matter of fact he said that criticism is due. Don't simply read what you want. What about black gays? What about the Black Gay experience? If in this article, you didn't see the need for people to open their eyes, then you didn't read the article or want to open your eyes.

[WillParkinson]

34. For people to open their eyes...

So if we do not see things as someone else does, our eyes are not open?

Many people here at DU could write similar articles about why it is necessary to step up criticism of Mr. Obama. Does it mean that people who disagree are not opening their eyes?

As for your questions, "what about black gays? What about the Black Gay experience?" I honestly cannot speak on that. However, a majority of Black Gays cannot speak on my experiences either.

[Leo The Cleo]

46. Of Course You Can't Speak For The Gay Black Experience

You probably don't care much for it either. And not at any point has anyone said to not hold Obama accountable. But you want to keep waving the flag as if someone did. That is utterly ridiculous, self serving and untrue.

And yes, open your eyes. People are ALL effected by these things. But you prefer not to look at people who are also being effect because you "cannot speak on that." It's not that you can't. It's that you won't. You don't care that gay blacks are alienated by white gays. You don't care that gay blacks get that behinds kicked by cops like any other black male. You won't speak on that, but want to talk about the Gay struggle. There is more to the Gay plight than White Gays. Other people get hurt. Other people have thoughts. So, what do you know of the gay experience? You know that you are gay and that's it. Damn the rest of the gay community and their plight. Damn if they have an opinion on the issue. Damn what they value. That not how you make friends, it's how you make enemies.

[WillParkinson]

53. Wow. From a few posts you know me SO well!

See how quickly you picked up on MY experience?

I cannot speak on the Black Gay Experience because I am not Black. I'm sorry, that's just the way it is. Am I willing to be educated? Yes, certainly. As long as that goes both ways. I cannot even speak on the White gay experience. Why? Because I only know a small portion of other gays. The only person I can speak for, and be clear and concise for, is myself.

Please do not presume that you know me or what I am saying based on a few posts on a message board.

[Leo The Cleo]

71. Hey, don't run from the truth

It is amazing that the words from a black person's mouth can have you saying that his statements have validity if he sides with Gays over blacks.

[Neecy]

10. a veiled threat

If blacks are less accepting of gays than other racial groups -- and that is certainly debatable -- then the parade of gay people calling Obama a "disappointment" on television is counterproductive in gaining acceptance, to say the least.

So, we have to accept our second class citizen status or we won't "gain acceptance" by blacks?

I don't give a shit who "accepts" me. I simply want the same rights that other Americans take for granted.

And talk about inflammatory! Now we're a "parade" of gay people. Stereotype much there?

[MADem]

26. You do know the writer is gay? nt

[Neecy]

44. yes, I do

That doesn't mean that recycling a stereotype is right coming from a gay man.

[MADem]

79. I think he's just iterating a viewpoint from a subset of the community, is all.

I don't think he's stereotyping, he's offering a perspective.

[Leo The Cleo]

5. Excellent Article: He's right

I've often said exactly what he has said. I've said it here and many other places. I would repeat myself, however this fellow has done it grandly.

[DURHAM D]

13. Are you gay? nt

[Leo The Cleo]

16. Why does it matter to you?

[Uzybone]

15. OMG

"Black is still black.

And if any group should know this, it's the gay community.

Bars such as The Prop House, or Bulldogs in Atlanta, Georgia, exist because a large number of gay blacks -- particularly those who date other blacks, and live in the black community -- do not feel a part of the larger gay movement. There are Gay Pride celebrations, and then there are Black Gay Prides.

There's a popular bar in the heart of the nation's capital that might as well rename itself Antebellum, because all of the white patrons tend to stay upstairs and the black patrons are on the first floor. Last year at the annual Human Rights Campaign national fundraiser in Washington, D.C. -- an event that lasted more than three hours -- the only black person to make it on stage was the entertainment.

When Proposition 8 passed in California, white gays were quick to blame the black community despite blacks making up less than 10 percent of total voters and whites being close to 60 percent. At protest rallies that followed, some gay blacks reported they were even hit with racial epithets by angry white participants. Not to split hairs, but for most blacks, the n-word trumps the f-word.

[justiceischeap]

30. I'll be the first to admit there is some issues between races in the gay community

However, from what I've seen over the years, it isn't because black people are black. It is because the gay community doesn't understand how the black community cannot empathize with out struggle for equal civil human rights. That's where the disconnect comes in. Not to say there isn't blatant racism between the two communities because there is but that's any community sadly. Some people are just racist (and that goes both ways).

[CakeGrrl]

78. I think the author's point is not "gay vs. black", as people are trying to

draw those battle lines on this thread, but he's talking about black LGBTers being faced with racism from some of their fellow white LGBTers.

How does the black LGBT demographic counter that? They too have the challenges that ALL LGBTers face, but they have to deal with racism from both gay and straight as well. That is the complexity being raised.

[justiceischeap]

85. I understand that, however, again, I'll restate my point

I don't think it's racism keeping the two communities apart (not that there isn't racism, because racism is everywhere), I think it's the divide that this author made in his article. The divide between the length of the struggle:

"40 years is nothing compared with the 400 blood-soaked years black people..."

I've met many gay activists (white) that have a problem with the black gay community for not understanding that it's not the length of the struggle but the struggle itself. We look at the civil rights movement and say, "yeah, we get it, equal rights for all." Then we look at the black community and think they should understand, empathize, with our struggle for equal rights and when they don't, I think, some of us, a great many of us, are shocked when they say, "It's not the same thing." Maybe it's because we are white that we don't see it that it isn't the same thing but in my mind, it's the same damn thing. Everyone, not matter what, treated equally.

[CakeGrrl]

98. You're conflating "black gay community" with "black community"

So "black gays", in your view, do not understand what it means for OTHER LGBTers to face the challenges that their sexual orientation presents? Do you think they have an easier time being gay than a white gay person?

Are the black gays the same "black community" that you feel is unsympathetic? Or are you referring to black heterosexuals?

As for being different, I'll posit that race can be the higher trump card depending on the situation; for example, if a black gay man and a white gay man vie for a job or put in for the same housing, assuming the decision-maker does not have to know their sexual orientation, in this overly racially-influenced society the white gay man has a better chance of winning out on the whole. That's the point people are trying to make when decisions can be made based on visual judgment of a person's race versus a sexual orientation that would have to be made known.

[justiceischeap]

101. I meant black community in general

And I know making generalizations are bad. However, I've seen the attitude I've posted about from both the black straight community and those within the black gay community. There is often an attitude of "the civil rights movement is ours, don't touch, don't compare." I have a friend who works at HRC and I told her when Prop 8 passed that the black gay community was handled poorly in CA. The black gay community is often handled poorly within the overall gay rights movement.

There is room for improvement on both sides. The communication, it seems to me, can't jump this hurdle. Once we do, I think it will make a huge difference but honestly, we don't have real leadership within the overall gay community and that hurts everyone.

[Leo The Cleo]

133. Racism Is keep much of the Black gay community from the white gay community

When I was 15, I passed by a couple of white gays kids who were smoking. One said to the other, "don't n*gger lip it." It was the first time that I'd heard the expression and the first time I'd ever heard a white gay person say the n-word. The fact of the matter is that black gays don't always get along for the same reason black straights and white straights don't get along. Many white gays have recently found a way to vent their frustrations with blacks. Now there is a black President and prop 8 has been passed. I have seen so finger pointing and waving as if the entire black electorate voted for this and no straight whites had voted for this. Let me tell you, this race stuff always pops up and white gays are not immune.

[Leo The Cleo]

122. This is untrue

There are segments in the Black community that do no empathize with the gay community, but this is the way with many communities. And let me tell you many in the Black community who dislike Gays, really dislike white gays. Black adults deal with black gays all of their lives. And the fact of the matter is when you isolate the black community in such a way you are denying the blatant and systematic racism that the White community has placed on Gays. It's not black legislators that are blocking gays rights. This is White legislators. So, be honest instead of taking the easy road and blaming blacks. Black communities empathize with gays. If white communities empathized with gays, we'd have equal marriage for all Americans.

[Prism]

42. Allow me to introduce the short form of this article: "Gays are racists"

There, I just saved him hundreds of words, and perhaps with the veneer ripped off, posters will be less willing to promote this as a kind of wisdom instead of the ugliness it is.

Granted, we can never have enough articles telling LGBTers what we are and are not allowed to think with the added bonus of branding the entire community as a thoughtless, but well-dressed group of bigots.

Do we need to discuss the vast amounts of ignorance involved in this article? Forget the fact gays did not magically appear in a cloud of sequins, leaping into life out the dreams of Judy Garland 40 years ago. A sports writer can perhaps be forgiven the cavernous historical gaps in his reference points.

No, what impresses me is the underlying racial hostility towards nonblack gays in this statement:

While those who were at Stonewall talk about the fear of being arrested by police, 40 years ago, blacks talked about the fear of dying at the hands of police and not having their bodies found or murder investigated.

Here is where the writer's biases and misplaced solidarity become disgustingly, ignorantly clear. Gay bashings? He's never heard of them. Indeed, his image of the white LGBT community is a world of bars and fabulous parties where our one concern is that the police might come in and tell us to take it elsewhere. We certainly don't see youth after youth after youth bloodied and bruised and murdered for who they are. We certainly don't see violence against LGBT youth happening today, now, right this very second.

Not in this writer's world.

This article is pure, racist ugliness (oh yeah, his image of the white LGBT community is genuine racism). But it does not surprise me to see it written, and it certainly does not surprise me to see it praised on DU.

[CakeGrrl]

47. Like it or not, racism DOES exist in the gay community too, so it's dishonest

to dismiss the author's entire viewpoint out of hand. He cited a very notable example that I don't think can be refuted. As another example, one would only have to look at some of the gay blogs during the flare-up of the Isaiah Washington/T.R. Knight 'incident' on the show Grey's Anatomy to know that it wasn't a clear-cut case of a straight actor charged with homophobia.


p.s. - is it fair to consider those who are un-recing this thread as "stifling a dissenting opinion"? I would think it's applicable.

[wndycty]

50. Here is a question. . .before the civil rights movement of the 1960's were gay organizations. . .

. . .segregated?

How is interracial dating in the gay community viewed in the south? I would assume that the racial bigotry that exists in larger society exist within the gay community. Am I wrong?

[Prism]

73. Do you know the answers or are you working from assumptions?

I've seen no data either way to answer the question, and I do not live in the South.

If I'm going to use my own life experience, I'd say the author is imputing upon the LGBT community a uniqueness of racial disaparaty when in fact that disparity exists across larger society. Rather than say, however, that society at large still has racial differences to overcome, this article and the attitude it promotes presses an especial insidious form of racial disaparity on the LGBT community. It's as if the author is saying, "Sure whites are racist, but gay whites, they're the worst!"

Take the bar and clubs the author uses as an example. LGBT clubs in Chicago are self-segregated to no minor extent in my experience. However, straight clubs are similarly self-segregated. Here in Chicago, if you go to the Division St. bar district, you'll find mostly Irish pubs and frat-favored establishments that generally cater to and are populated by colleged-aged whites. Meanwhile, the bars and hip hop establishments with a mostly black clientele have their own little area on the South Side.

So why are LGBTers consistently denigrated as being especially egregious in this regard?

In my view, it's just another sneaky assertion of homophobia using race as a shield and society's faults in general as a cover to hit gays from another, more acceptable angle. The idea that a black LGBTer would latch onto it as a way of promoting his own negative racial attitudes does not surprise me. There exist Republican and Christian LGBTers who also take large swings at the community because they feel more solidarity and affinity for the culture in which they were raised than the LGBT community.

But it's not acceptable. Not in the slightest.

[wndycty]

76. Are you calling the writer, WHO IS GAY, homophobic. . .

. . .is a Black gay person, who holds Granderson's view, a sell-out to the GLBT cause?

[justiceischeap]

90. Just FYI, there are gay homophobes. (eom)

[wndycty]

97. Understood but, tell me why this gay writer is homophobic

You made the accusation, now back it up.

[justiceischeap]

100. I don't recall in any of my posts stating that the writer was homophobic

Please point it out if I did. I was just stating that there are gay homophobes.

[wndycty]

106. Good, so you'll acknowledge the writer, Granderson is not homophobic?

I made the assumption you called him homophobic because when I pointed out the writer was gay you responded b telling me gay folks can be homophobic.

[justiceischeap]

113. I'm ackowledging I don't know what is in his heart or mind

He could very well be homophobic. I don't know but I'm not specifically calling him out as a homophobe. I think anyone who is gay and works against the gay rights movement is a homophobe but again, I'm not saying that is what this writer is doing.

[wndycty]

119. Do you think GLAAD would honor him if there was something wrong with. . .

. . .his heart or mind?

He not just merely a gay writer, but a writer that has been recognized by organizations within the gay community for his work.

[Prism]

176. GLAAD's recognition is immaterial

From what I've read of this author, it seems his work as a sports writer is noteworthy and promotes healthy attitudes in a segment of culture that lags in many ways behind society in general. He can and should be honored for that.

But that doesn't mean he cannot be wrong on this particular subject. His work in sports does not mean he is insulated from the subcategories of homophobia that exist within the LGBT community itself, where disdain and even bigotry are extended towards images of white, "swishy" gays by other segments of the community. In fact, that subcategory of homophobia is pretty prevalent in the sports world among many athletic gays.

The problem with this piece is that it touches upon entire sub-arguments within the community that may not be obvious to straight readers at first blush. Notice how fast LGBT eyebrows went up at various sentences, phrases, and sentiments. We see these things all the time. Not surprisingly, these same things seem invisible in responses from straight posters.

You know how the right-wing is often fond of "dog-whistle" phrases they use as code to transmit racist feelings and ideas?

There are several similar dog-whistles in this piece that "stereotypical" white gay men are more than familiar with and have been denigrated with at length from people in their own community. There are many LGBT writers of color like Pam Spaulding, Keith Boykin, and now A. McEwan who explore these issues and make many similar points without using such dog-whistles, and without starting from a place of such deep historical ignorance.

[ruggerson]

177. +1

[wndycty]

258. Again, explain to me how this writer is homophobic or influenced by homophobia

Is it that he made some points that hit too close to home and some of our DU friends are resorting to calling him a homophobe as a some sort of defense mechanism?

[Prism]

259. See my longer post below

The reply "Let's Open A Can of Worms"

Now, how do I see these things in that author's piece? Well, he opens the piece with stereotypical white male references. Lady Gaga, Adam Lambert. He sets up the frame right away as to who he's speaking about. He's addressing the swishes.

Note, also, his reference to the club. Some black gay men who are out, some not, all black and proud. This is a reference to Down Low culture, which is very much hostile to stereotypical white gay male culture. People moving in that culture sometimes set up their own Prides that are stripped of that swishyness.

The third bright warning light is how he is focused almost solely on white male culture. There are no lesbians in evidence in this piece. The places and clubs he references are all male oriented. Lesbians may as well as not exist. No, he was addressing one very specific type of LGBTer.

If you spend enough time in the LGBT community and explore the different groups and subgroups within it, these kinds of references are plain as day - and what they telegraph.

This wasn't a piece designed to bridge misunderstandings, to make white LGBTers understand the plight of LGBTers of color, to impart advice on how our movement can improve. There are plenty of very good writers who do that. No, this piece was an attack, a shot across the bow, an article dripping with disdain. It was a giant piece of flamebait.

Don't think for a minute LGBTers of every color didn't see it for exactly what it was.

[wndycty]

262. It doesn't sound like homophobia to me unless of course you think that within the GLBT community. .

. . .white gay men set the standard. If anything he might be exposing the tension between white gay males and gay males of color, which I, (I don't speak for everyone) wouldn't interpret as homophobia.

Based upon your representation of what he said, he doesn't have a problem with gay folks, he has a problem with the while male subset of the GLBT community. Just because he is a person of color does not make him any less of a gay man than a white male.

Racial animosity within the gay community? It looks that way. Homophobia? No.

[Prism]

265. The kind of homophobia derived from sexism

I do find it interesting that you seem to at least tangentially acknowledge the racism in his views without really commenting about it either way.

Aside from that, the homophobia expressed in these attitudes is one of disdain for effeminate men. It's a homophobia of sexism more than a purer form of homophobia. And don't get me wrong, that kind of homophobia is held by all kinds of LGBT individuals. It's a recurring theme in the community. Find a message board populated mainly by gay men and post something like "I will only date straight-acting men." The flamefest that results will be long and brutal.

Not all homophobia is created equal. Different cultural contexts in America will produce different kinds of homophobia. Black culture has produced a kind that is powerfully connected to masculine expression. I have seen people with this author's attitude so many times in life that it's almost boring to read the article he wrote. I've seen it done and by far better writers. His real crime is espousing this nonsense in such a clumsy, ill-thought out manner.

As I said, that opening paragraph of his set the baseline for whom he was addressing. Stereotypical white gay men, and it was all downhill from there.

If you're ok with that, so be it. You're comfortable with that bigotry. Great. But why bring it here? Worse, why bring it specifically to show LGBTers who see it exactly for what it is? If you removed the racial component from it, and posted a piece with a similar hostility towards effeminate white gay men, there'd be a tombstoning.

Did you know that coming in, or was that just the bonus?

[wndycty]

271. I am not comfortable with any form of bigotry. . .

. . .more importantly acknowledging the tension or disconnect between the gay white men and gay Black men is not bigotry.

[Name removed]

283. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

299. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[wndycty]

305. Who are you accusing of bigotry? Me?

If so back it up. Tell me (with links to statements that I have made) what I have said that would qualify me as a bigot, if in fact it is me you are talking about.

[LooseWilly]

316. Endorsing it, on the other hand...

and I'm generally of the opinion that if one argues in support of a perspective, one is endorsing that perspective... and endorsing "the tension or disconnect between the gay white men and gay black men..." ... smacks to me of a form of bigotry, in the form of supporting/endorsing animosity held against a "community".

What else is bigotry but a class of animosity? And just because one shares membership in one "community" with another, doesn't mean that one can't, given membership in another "community", use that second "community membership" as a basis for animosity against those who don't share "both community" affiliations.

The obvious example would be the animosity poor whites felt toward blacks under Jim Crow. Both shared membership in the "poverty community", and so both were oppressed on the basis of socioeconomics... but the fact that the blacks didn't share "white community membership" was felt to be justifiable grounds for animosity.

The only arguable point is whether or not black gay men are really expressing animosity against white gay men... but Prism has very convincingly expounded on the valuation of a hyper-masculine aesthetic in the black community (one which I have seen up close and personal) and explained how that valuation filters into the gay black community in such a way as to contribute to a form of sexist-homophobia that expresses itself in an animosity toward gays who are "overly effeminate"... and how that animosity lands squarely on the "stereotypical white male gay" community.

I am satisfyingly convinced that this is a phenomenon which interweaves itself into the fabric of the "gay community", and a phenomenon of which one needs to be aware if one truly wishes to comprehend the article.

I'd be interested to hear your counter-exposition. Please explain to me a "counter theory" to likewise explain the obviously dismissive attitude that the author expresses toward the white gay community. (And no... just saying "LGBT whites denigrate LGBT blacks" doesn't qualify as an exposition... it is merely an assertion. Please explain "how".)

[wndycty]

320. DId I or the author of the article endorse "the tension and disconnect?"

If so please provide examples.

[Bluenorthwest]

129. In 1961 being gay was a criminal offense in all states but Illinois

A crime.

It is hard for people to understand the history at all. Here is an off topic tid bit that ties in to the lack of perspective. In the times you speak of, the Democratic Party would not permit openly gay people to be involved, and would not even 'look the other way' and let a 'secret' group exist. Hence, many gay folk who wanted any form of mainstream political outlet became Log Cabin Republicans. The GOP was not accepting, but they were not as rejecting as the Democrats. This is part of why our politics did not become 'mainstreamed' until the matters were life and death during Reagan.

[Veruca Salt]

257. Those are actually very interesting questions, wndycty

unfortunately I don't have answers to them but would like to know as well.

I also agree with your assumption. As I don't live in the south though and never have, I have a bit of a yankee bias. (Okay, a lot, and I should be taken to task for that!)

I can safely say that for the most part up north interracial dating is not an issue. And thank god since I love black women! :loveya:

[Prism]

52. That's not a defense

I'm certainly not one to deny the racial tension within the LGBT community, or the community's need to tailor outreach and education when it comes to religious ethnic minorities. I've argued for it myself in past posts.

But that does not excuse nor diminish the ugliness of this author's article, nor the rather large stereotype he harbors about white LGBTers and the broad brush dipped in a heaping bucket of historical ignorance he uses as his base coat in the article.

The idea that he can somehow forget - or worse, not seem to know about - the violence faced by LGBTers in this country is astoundingly, infuriatingly wrong-headed. It's a direct product of his negative racial attitudes, and it should be condemned rather than praised.

The people of this board would not tolerate any article filled with racist sentiments steeped in ignorance with "Gee, you know, he has a point."

But if it's directed against the LGBT community, well gee, he has a point!

This is just gross.

[wndycty]

58. Are you accusing the writer of homophobia?

If so based on what?

You say:

The people of this board would not tolerate any article filled with racist sentiments steeped in ignorance with "Gee, you know, he has a point."

Where is the homophobia in this article, written by a gay man?

[Prism]

81. Yes, but also racism

He uses his race as a jumping off point to express attitudes and hostility towards the white gay community. The fact he stereotypes the white LGBT community should be the first and most glaring sign of the hostility. He seems to deny or ignore the violence and very real problems suffered by LGBTers of every race, and instead latches onto a care-free, over-privileged bar-hopper image of white LGBTers to start painting his aggrieved picture.

There, of course, is some soft homophobia in this. As I said in another post, the idea of someone feeling more solidarity for one part of their identity, be it race, religion, or political party, as a springboard to have a go at the image of the LGBT community they keep in their head is not unusual and certainly not original.

There is an ugly sentiment that lurks in the underbelly of LGBT politics where some racial minorities don't feel that they're "that kind of gay", not really a part of the larger community. And by "that kind of gay" they usually have in mind gross stereotypes of lisping, effeminate, upper-class white gay men.

I see it expressed all the time, and I certainly saw it expressed against TR Knight in the Isaiah Washington incident. In particular, I remember black lesbian activist Jasmyne Cannick expressing quite a few ugly, homophobic views about white gay males during that period.

It's surfaced before, it surfaces again here, and it is not ok.

[MADem]

260. "Attitudes and hostility?" Because he doesn't see things your way?

He's the black, gay guy, after all. I suppose he might have an "attitude"--or a perspective, coming from that experience.

I have to say I find your choice of those words a bit troubling. He doesn't agree with you, so he's got "attitude?" And "hostility?" And then, he's engaging in "soft homophobia?" You're insulting the guy six ways to Sunday, questioning the validity of his views and personal feelings (and they are his views, he makes that quite clear) and calling him a hostile homophobe...and you think that's a good way to find common cause?

Perhaps he regards you as possessing the same traits? Perhaps common cause is forever elusive?

What do you want the black gay community to do? What would make you happy?

[Prism]

261. It goes much further

I laid out three things that are pretty deep indicators of why I see this article as I do.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8532902&mesg_id=8536063

[MADem]

264. Well, I don't think his purpose was to stand on a soapbox and speak for an entire community.

And that is what you seem to want him to do.

I think it is very clear that he is speaking for a very precise subset of the community, the subset that goes to the club and maybe does not "swish" as you termed it. The subset that doesn't take a "We Are The World" approach to their orientation, that lives within the black community and proudly identifies with, and takes strength from, that community (and takes pride in the President that came from that community).

His point remains, though. He is explaining to the gay-community-at-large why this subset isn't carrying the flag, expressing the outrage, and having your back.

I always say, "Where you stand depends on where you sit." This guy is simply telling everyone, in no uncertain terms, where he, and others, sit. He isn't going to change that POV, I don't think.

Your response is that he's "invalid" (homophobic, attitudinal, hostile) because his worldview comes from a place where you don't live, don't go, and don't know.

Before you or anyone jumps down my throat, I want to reiterate that I am the first to acknowledge that I am no cultural expert, here. I have said that upthread as well. However, I do have experience--way more than most people--living in very different cultures (not visiting, living, and having to get by for long stretches of time). I am pretty adaptable as a consequence, and I'm also quick to pick up on nuance. That's why I say I think your charges against this guy, of not liking certain types of gay (white) guys, of being hostile and "with attitude," would be met with a hearty "You just don't get it." There are competing loyalties at work, here--ignoring them or invalidating them isn't going to convince this subset of the gay community to have one of those Come To Jesus moments and suddenly take up your priorities with your same degree of fervor.

I don't think he's telling you, or anyone, what to do--he's just telling you, and anyone who cares to listen--why he and those in his cultural subset who identify with his perspective take the views that they take.

[Prism]

268. No, see, I do get it

I've also lived abroad and experienced many different cultures firsthand. And I am familiar with the black gay male experience. My ex, Alan, isn't the only black man I ever dated. Being with him was simply the most powerful and direct experience I had with homophobia in his community, the most easily referenced. I actually tend to eschew the Boys Town/Andersonville scene referenced in the author's piece because they don't reflect the diversity of my own social circle. They're too monocultural. I'll never apologize for the segregation, self or otherwise, in the community because I think it creates a kind of cultural starvation.

It's because I understand where he's coming from that I find his piece so utterly counter-productive.

You're correct there are competing loyalties at work. I think the author and the subculture he's speaking from tend to align their loyalty to the culture they were raised in. This isn't unusual, this isn't specific to him or his race. All kinds of LGBTers face that question of where their identity is strongest.

Let's flip this a little and move away from the racial component. There is a rather vibrant LGBT Christian community out there. They grew up in that religion, generally struggled with it, but managed to find a balance or a church where they could reconcile everything to contentment. Now, there is a subset of people in this community who are constantly haranguing the rest of LGBTers about their short-comings. "If only you behaved. If only you were all monogamous. If only you didn't put a certain image out there. If only you didn't wear drag. If only . . ." So many if only's and gross generalizations to be had in those conversations.

Now if an LGBT Christian wrote an article about why they don't hate Jesus as much of the rest of us (as if we do), and we had better mend our ways or Christians won't support us, I'm almost certain the outrage would be pretty rapid. I'm almost certain no one would have any problem seeing the underlying attitudes and background involved in where that article came from. I'm almost positive that anyone who brought such an article here would find a thread that's 95% condemnatory. I'm also very positive that if that writer said "I've experienced some pretty virulent anti-Christian bigotry in the community", no one here would think "Well, if you put it that way, I guess you do have a point. Let's explore this, shall we?"

This article, the attitudes underlying it, is the exact. same. thing. So I hope you can see why seeing dozens of people applauding this article, when its purpose was just to have yet another go at the LGBT community, is really frustrating.

I've said it a couple times, but there are many, many very, very good LGBT writers of color who write about the black experience in the LGBT community, who give very good advice about how to move forward and foster more unity, who don't need to attack other subsets of the community in order to establish their cred.

This is not that guy. He does not deserve the praise nor the defense he's getting here.

[MADem]

269. I do not think people are "praising" the situation that the writer describes,

they are praising his honesty in laying out the truth about it. His goal isn't to be "productive" as opposed to counter-productive, his goal is to be elucidative.

He's not saying "Here's why the black gay community doesn't have your back...and that is GOOD," he's simply saying "This is why you aren't getting the results you seek. The problem is a bit deeper and more ingrained than maybe some want to acknowledge. And the problem has to do with segregation, racism, and cultural differences, as difficult as they are to acknowledge."

The attitudes do exist--you've acknowledged that in your own experience. But I don't think the writer is using them to "have a go" at anyone. He's simply telling us what the situation is, giving us the lay of the land, so we can understand the reasons for the disconnect--which also does exist.

This writer isn't at the point of "fostering unity;" that's not his purpose--he's at the point of explaining to people who might be saying "WTF?" precisely why disunity exists. The purpose of his piece isn't to move forward--it's to explain why there hasn't been any moving forward coming from, most notably, a particular subset of the LGBT black community.

I don't think he's a cheerleader for this status quo, he's simply 'telling it like it is.' He's being honest, and his thesis does have a ring of truth to it, at least to my ears.

Now, if there's "moving forward" to be done, the way to do it not to attack this writer for telling us about life's uncomfortable realities, but perhaps to find a way to motivate the black and white LGBT communities to find common cause. Apparently, that very thing is in short supply, and that is simply what this writer is noting. Pretending there's no disconnect isn't going to heal the divide, after all.

[Prism]

270. We agree on substance, but prejudice clouds the response

We agree completely on what he's saying. It's the exact same thing in the Christian example I gave above. He's saying "Here's why my community doesn't support you. Here are the behaviors you have to change to earn that support. You are the problem, and the community with more power has the right to make you change if you want support."

Now, here's the trick. If a Christian came at the LGBT community with that attitude, the gay response, and I reckon the majority of DUers', would be "Get bent." The response would be that it is not up to us to change to please you. It is not up to us to adjust to your homophobia. It is not for us to apologize to you for vigorously demanding our rights.

But because this writer is black and writes in support of the President, suddenly there's a "Oh, he has a point, and you should listen and change and . . ."

That's nonsense. And that's really patronizing prejudice. That is subtle racial bigotry at its worst. I demand of this writer and criticize in him the same I would of anyone else. But he is being treated differently because of his race on this board and in many of these responses.

No one has the right to tell the LGBT community it must apologize for itself in order to gain support for equality.

No one has the right to tell the LGBT community it should quiet its voice when demanding equality in order to gain support.

No one has the right to put the onus on the LGBT community to justify why it deserves equality.

That is completely backwards and would be unacceptable if any other writer had put these attitudes forward. Furthermore, many of the greatest voices and figures in the African-American Civil Rights movement, including Baynard Rustin and Coretta Scott King, have said this writer's attitude is wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.

People need to own up to the homophobia and racial bigotry in this material, condemn it, and find ways to promote equality for all people. What we should not be doing is finding subtle, racially clouded ways to scold the LGBT community for criticizing the President for his lack of movement forward. This has been a theme here for months, this racial bludgeon being used to knock LGBTers around while partially shielding the homophobia from criticism by constantly throwing racial flash powder in everyone's face.

It's ugly, it's wrong, it's tiring, it's hurtful, it's damaging, and it's bigoted. It doesn't belong in the Democratic Party.

[MADem]

275. The question, though, is: Do you need the support of those Christians?

Do you even want the support of those Christians?

Do those Christians have the ability to muddle and muddy your agenda, and do they have sufficient numbers, authority and the ability to gain support from other factions to put roadblocks in your way?

Are they "equal participants" in your franchise, or are they simply "tolerated" because you need their numbers to fill out your crowds?

Do you, as a group, 'disrespect' the Christians, keep yourself separate from them, except when you want something from them?

The writer doesn't consider himself a homophobic, I'm sure. Neither do the GLBT black community members, by and large, I'm guessing. Yet you keep calling them that, this writer individually, and the rest of his community as a group. That can't be helpful.

My read of what he said differs from what you see in his words. To me, he's not telling the white LGBT community to apologize, be quiet, or any of that--and he's certainly not telling anyone to justify why they deserve equality, either. You're free to pipe up and holler all day, near as I can tell.

What he's saying, though, is be prepared to do all that WITHOUT the subset of the black LGBT community of which he writes--for the reasons he's provided. Those reasons do include his assertion that the white LGBT community has been happy with separation and segregation for pretty much always (and perhaps that is due to the cultural differences in the methods of expressing one's homosexuality--that 'swish' thing you mentioned), as well as the black community/cultural forces that cause them to express themselves differently. If I had to extrapolate his view, I'd say he was saying that the white LGBT community does not need their black counterparts on a day to day basis, but they want them to "fall in line" on this issue to increase the pressure on the President, who is, of course, black. In response to that, the black LGBT community wants to protect and rally round their first black President, and shelter him and give him time, because they feel he deserves that, and they also have, to be blunt, a collective sense that they are being used for the purpose of leaning on Obama, and they're not buying it.

See--where you stand depends on where you sit.

[Prism]

279. Depends on the Christian

If you go through my post history, I've posted before about talking to religious people and how to persuade them to our cause. I do think we need Christians to some extent in order to move forward. It's possible that Courts will step in and that equation will change. But based on where we are now, I believe it does us no harm to be solicitous.

However, being solicitous is a far, far different thing from politely suffering an attack. In this article, in this thread? Being nice would suffering the attack. That I will never do.

Are they "equal participants" in your franchise, or are they simply "tolerated" because you need their numbers to fill out your crowds?

Despite the fact this is a really offensive accusation disguised as a question, I'll answer it in good faith. Despite the fact this article and most of this thread was, if we're being honest, in hilarious bad faith.

Most of the kinds of Christian LGBTers I used as an example self-segregate. They want no part in the community. They don't show up at Pride, they don't come to the clubs, they couldn't be less interested in the activism meetings. Not because we don't make them feel welcome, but because they disdain what they perceive as gay culture, and they take every opportunity to let the straight world know that they are "The good gays. Not like those bad ones. You can tolerate me, because I'm *wink wink* on your side."

Down Low culture and a certain segment of the black gay male community is exactly like that. That author did his winking with the little Lady Gaga and Adam Lambert remark. It was the giant nudge to his peers. "I'm not them!" Which is fine, but don't hold us responsible for that. We didn't do that to him, the nature of homophobia and its emphasis on masculinity in the black community did.

The writer doesn't consider himself a homophobic, I'm sure. Neither do the GLBT black community members, by and large, I'm guessing. Yet you keep calling them that, this writer individually, and the rest of his community as a group. That can't be helpful.

Ok, we need to crobar this a little. It's not "the black gay community" because I know a lot of black LGBTers who do not share this writer's attitude and would have never written a piece like this. It's a specific subset of the black gay male community that is reflecting certain aspects of the hypermasculinized homophobia in black culture, (a masculine basis that is rooted in white racism, but that's another topic for another day).

This subset is chock full of the kind of homophobia that is rooted in sexism, where effeminate men are seen as weak and particularly disdainful, especially white effeminate men (there is a heavy dose of racism in it as well). If you're interested in that subset and the cultural forces at work in it, Keith Boykin's Beyond the Down Low is a really good book to read.

My read of what he said differs from what you see in his words. To me, he's not telling the white LGBT community to apologize, be quiet, or any of that--and he's certainly not telling anyone to justify why they deserve equality, either. You're free to pipe up and holler all day, near as I can tell.

You're giving him an awful charitable read. Half the piece is devoted to criticizing gay criticism. There's the perfunctory "The criticism is not entirely without merit," but is followed by maumauing LGBT criticism. He actually doesn't even give an example of what productive criticism would look like. Why? I suspect, because he's not really that interested in productive criticism of the President. We may be free to pipe up and holler all day, but the writer doesn't seem too particularly fond of it.

What he's saying, though, is be prepared to do all that WITHOUT the subset of the black LGBT community of which he writes--for the reasons he's provided.

And here is the real offensive part. The fact no one defending this piece has said a word about it blows my mind, because it's so outrageous and wrong. The LGBT community has stood in solidarity with the African-American civil rights movement from the very beginning. From the very beginning. There was not a march or protest or action where our community was not there.

And now, now!, because this writer and others don't really like our tone towards President Obama's inaction, we're being threatened, threatened!, with a lack of support.

It's the most fucking ridiculous thing I have ever seen. How does your blood not boil just thinking about that? How do you not rise from your chair, walk over to the author, and just haul off and slap him one for the petulence and ingratitude and sheer childishness of that attitude?

But you know, I know the answer to that question. It's same answer as it's ever been.

Homophobia. Clear, simple, uncomplicated, declared for all the world to see without the slightest bit of shame.

That is what this entire thread is about.

[MADem]

292. We need to make something very clear here.

I am not making "offensive" comments and "disguising them as questions." That was a cheap shot on your part. It was a valid question, and, given the lack of apparent interaction between the black and white LGBT communities, it almost answers itself. There's not much interaction because there's not much common cause, for whatever reason.

You, on the one hand, get angry at me and insinuate that I am snarking, and then, straight away, you talk about the gay Christians, who engage in that very same behavior of disdaining those who aren't sufficiently like them to suit. Apparently, it's not just the black community's "macho men" subset who set themselves apart. So why should they take any more, or less, heat than the white Christians? There's plenty of that to go around, apparently. The fact that the writer notes it doesn't make him evil; it makes him accurate. Calling it "homophobia" because a gay guy doesn't like the way another gay guy behaves just doesn't work for me. Is it homophobia if you don't like the way those Christians or the down-low community behave?

I mean, come on. It's impossible to have a conversation if you're going to raise the "I'm offended" flag every time I make note of what this guy said. Where you stand depends on where you sit. You're telling me the subset of the black GLBT community noted by this writer is "bad," because they don't accept the Adam wing of the gay community. You don't accept the Christians. They don't accept you.

That's not homophobia, that's simple discrimination based on what people like and what they dislike.

One point of agreement is this: He is not motivated to beat up on Obama, and his "take" is that the black LGBT community shares this lack of motivation.

I have to say that your "They owe us" argument is the least compelling of the lot. I'll be honest with you--I was alive and very sentient during the heyday of the Civil Rights era, and I don't remember "gays" as a group participating in any of the marches. I'm not saying that they didn't, but IIRC, I don't even think they were called "gay" back then and I don't think they had the organizational or political clout that they do today. I do remember Bayard Rustin, who advised King--but he was shoved to the proverbial back of the bus and given an anything-but-prominent role in the movement, precisely because of his orientation, which was regarded as a liability to the movement at the time.

But that argument is really beside the point, now, isn't it? If you stand with someone because you think their POV is correct, you're doing it for yourself, not for "them." You could substitute "the Jews" for "the LGBT community" and you could also substitute "the Catholics" or "the students" in this sentence, all of whom stood in solidarity against the fire hoses and the dogs and the billy clubs:

The LGBT community has stood in solidarity with the African-American civil rights movement from the very beginning. From the very beginning. There was not a march or protest or action where our community was not there.



To pick on my Jewish friends--who did do an awful lot of heavy lifting in the King era--to drive my point home, that didn't stop Jessie from making the ill-advised Hymietown comment, or Al Sharpton from getting a bit cutting during the Crown Heights troubles, or calling the Jewish AG during the Tawana Brawley mess "worse than Hitler," or seeing tensions between communities arise in other venues in post-Civil Rights Act years. See, no one was "owed"--even though the remarks were intemperate, they were intemperate because they were racist, not because black people "owed" the Jews for marching in Selma, Mongomery, Birmingham, etc.


So, let's dispense with the "they owe you" argument. They don't. No one forces anyone to participate, or not, in an Equality Action.

You aren't being "threatened, THREATENED!" with a lack of support. You're being told, in a very measured essay. It's a distinction, and a difference. This writer is saying that the black GLBT community is prepared to give Obama a LOT more time than you are prepared to give him. That's the real bottom line, here. And it has absolutely nothing to do with "homophobia."

It has to do with a community exhibiting justified pride in the first (out, racially speaking) President with black ancestry. The rumors about Lincoln and Warren G. Harding don't cut it--this is a guy with brown skin who wore a fro as a youngster, sitting in the White House in the Oval Office. That IS a point of pride, and the black GLBT community are basking in that point of pride, they understand competing priorities, they know Obama is dealing with them, and they're going to give the President time to do what he needs to do. They aren't going to beat him up. They aren't going to stand with you against him. Certainly not now, and maybe not for a long while.

That's, at the end of the day, the bottom line. You might not like it, and I'm sure you don't-- but there it is.

[Prism]

302. Nevermind

I've laid out the homophobia many times, with many different words, and many different examples. You're just not interested in seeing it. I don't know how much cleaner or clearer I can explain that disdain for males based on their effeminate characteristics is homophobia (amd sexism). I don't know how to better impart to you the masculinity-related expression of homophobia in the black community directly correlates to it in that LGBT subset.

And the fact you talk around it, and dismiss as merely an attitude I dislike, and insinuate it's somehow impossible for a gay individual to express homophobia means that no explanation I ever give will be sufficient.

There are several dozen different ways a gay black male writer could have expressed that he and others are more patient because of racial pride without filling the piece with lots of little dog-whistle ugly that he had to have known would've created exactly the reaction he got.

He knew what he was writing very well. I knew what he wrote when I read it. But those who do not want to see, will not see. And one doesn't cure the blind by knocking them about the head. So I think we should just end it here.

[MADem]

310. I do agree that he knew what he was writing, but I do not think he was writing what you think he was

writing. I think your POV is a one-way street, and it impacts your perspective. Let me be quite plain, so you won't feel as though I am "talking around" the topic. This is how you come across to me:

You call the dislike by certain segments of the gay community of certain other segments of the gay community "homophobia." But, from your arguments, I can only conclude that you believe it's only "homophobia" when gay people are disliking the segments that YOU favor. People who dislike the Christian gays aren't "homophobes," why, they have a "good reason" for not liking them, because they aren't "falling in line" and behaving in ways that YOU find acceptable. Same with the fellows who patronize that Bulldog Club--it's not "homophobic" to not care for them, because, after all, they don't like the flavor of gay that you favor.

Your very accusation of homophobia against practicing homosexuals, could, if you wanted to pull the string, be regarded as homophobic conduct by you. You're, in essence, saying if they're not like you, or if they don't like the people you approve of, they're homophobes.

It's not a question of sufficiency, it's a question of perspective. As I have said throughout this thread, where you stand depends entirely on where you sit. Are those Christian gays who want some people to "tone it down" homophobes because they don't care for the particular conduct exhibited? Those down-low fellows who don't like the "sugar in the tank" (as another poster termed it) are homophobes because they don't like the conduct of the Adam contingent? How about those poor bastards in the closet, who don't want to be seen within a hundred yards of what you called a "swish?" They're homophobes, because they don't like the same flavor of homosexual that you do, or they don't care for the "associated conduct," as it were?

Like I said upthread, I believe this guy's thesis does not include the "We Are The World" view. He is saying that "The Gay Community" is, in fact, less of a "community" than the activist wing would like to believe. It's segmented, separate, and quite diverse. And the segment that he was discussing is not going to go along with the activist call of the largely white GLBT community to disparage Obama. He's a source of pride, and they acknowledge and embrace that. They'll wait for him to do the right thing. That's his bottom line. Calling them homophobes because they're willing to wait, and you aren't, isn't going to make them change their tack, either.

[Neecy]

281. No one has proven this assertion

Those reasons do include his assertion that the white LGBT community has been happy with separation and segregation for pretty much always

I think what's clouding the waters here are the existence of gay ghettos. I can only speak to the ones on the West Coast - the Castro, West Hollywood and to a lesser extent areas around the Russian River - and for the most part they are high-income areas in which to live, are mainly white, and mainly men.

They were created out of a form of segregation, not from minorities but from a culture that threatened gay men at every turn. They were our safety zones - not always, gay bashers have always headed straight for the Castro - and they offered political clout as well. Harvey Milk sprang from the ghetto.

People look at the ghettos now and they see well-to-do white men, bars, and upscale boutiques. They don't see the community centers, the youth centers, the AIDS services. The ghettos create a tremendous amount of resentment from the outside (and lesbians have always been critical, at least of the Castro, because it does tend to be exclusionary. I visited the Castro often, and lived within a couple of blocks of it, and it never seemed "mine".) They don't see it as a creature borne of necessity, nor as a safe place for someone who has experienced persecution as a gay man elsewhere to come and find his comfort zone.

But the concept of the ghetto is what is perturbing the writer of this article and provides many of its undercurrents. Unfortunately, he uses the existence of the ghettos to make broad generalizations that we ALL live in such segregation, that in fact we self-segregate. That's completely untrue. We live everywhere, in every kind of neighborhood. Very few us us can afford to even live in the gay ghettos of America. This is a class issue more than a race or gender issue, at least in my view. But it's being discussed in the article strictly in terms of race.

[MADem]

284. Very insightful points.

It very well might be a class issue as well as a race issue. I am not culturally astute enough to know one way or another, but it's something worth exploring, perhaps.

I don't know if the writer was talking just about where people live their day to day lives, but also where they socialize (that said, we all know about real estate agents who steer black purchasers to the black neighborhoods, no matter how much they have to spend on a dwelling and without even suggesting other neighborhoods). There's segregation in where people go "clubbing" (do people still use that term?) as well.

He did touch upon an anecdote about self-segregation at one nightclub within the LGBT community in his article, as well.

I think he touches on race for many reasons, not the least of which are his own race and orientation, and the race of our President. I hate to use that tired "throw under the bus" phrase, but I do think he believes that the black LGBT community is expected to threaten Obama with a hearty toss under that bus if he doesn't play ball, and they're just not willing to go along with that. They aren't in the mood to shake their fist at Obama and scream at him for change, NOW. There's no stomach in the community to trash the first black President; that's, I think, his main thesis. And that, among the many other things he touched on, those cultural differences, is what exacerbates the divide.

[Neecy]

286. Where do you socialize?

I've been to straight clubs and straight bars, and some are diverse and some aren't. Some gay bars, some lesbian bars are diverse and some aren't.

Where's the huge difference? Why this intense focus on our "clubbing", when the level of diversity within the straight community is probably exactly the same?

[MADem]

295. I don't "socialize." I'm quite old. Decades ago, we used to call going out

to venues where there were drinks and dancing "clubbing"--I was wondering if the term was still in use, or if there is new slang for the practice. In my hazy memory of those days, I generally went to the nearest club, to avoid having to take a cab or a streetcar. I could get home on foot if need be.

Please reread the discussion in context, and particularly the essay linked in the opening post--the writer of the original article mentions a couple of clubs with a specific clientele, and, as part of his thesis, indicates that the people who patronize these clubs are not in agreement with bullying Obama for change (that's shorthand, but that's the basic gist).

It's simply one segment of the many issues brought up in the OP.

[Neecy]

306. Yes, I've been to clubs like that

I've also been to clubs where there has been a great deal of diversity within the crowd. The problem is that he cherry-picks a couple of clubs and gives the impression that they're all like that, and they aren't. Just like in the straight community there are clubs that are often filled with white patrons in white neighborhoods, because as you said people tend to go to places that are close by. I don't judge the entire straight community for their bar clientele. I don't like it, either. I much prefer diversity whether the joint is gay or straight.

[MADem]

314. I honestly didn't get the impression that he was doing that.

I'll reread the thesis with your comments in mind, though. Maybe I was being overly-intuitive and applying my own interpretation to his remarks, but I got the idea that he wasn't claiming to be speaking for every black gay person that walked the earth!

My take was that he was addressing the attitudes of a specific subset of the black LGBT community. Not acting as spokesman for the overarching black gay alliance, or what-have-you. But not cherrypicking, either. Simply reporting from one corner of the community, one perspective. Maybe he should have been clearer about his representative sample.

I came away with an impression that his focus was on a specific subset of the community, that goes to bars named Bulldog or whatever (which suggested, to me, the "macho man" types), and even though he didn't come right out and say it, my impression was that he wasn't including women in his discussion at all. He was, I thought, talking about the views of black gay men who patronize a particular sort of nightclub.

I can understand concern about his giving the impression that he's an oracle speaking for all, but I truly didn't take his remarks that way.

[Prism]

291. This is a very perceptive post

All through this thread, I've been thinking about the arguments in terms of the ghettos. I'm not sure if it's because that's how the author framed things or something in my own mental framework about the community. I don't even live in the gay ghettoes or spend much time there, so it's odd how easily the conversation got distilled in such a way.

Very clarifying on your part.

[wndycty]

263. In this thread it appears some in the GLBT community feel that the African American subset . . .

. . .in the community betrays the community when it acknowledges some of the racial tensions that exist and by discussing those tensions they are homophobic.

[MADem]

267. There's certainly a reluctance to relate to the concept of competing loyalties and

strong cultural pulls and ties.

[Prism]

273. No reluctance whatsoever

I'm sorry, but this writer isn't the first person to have duelling loyalties with his identity.

Pretty much every single LGBTer in existence feels these same cultural pulls and ties. Heck, I have them with Catholicism. To this day, whenever I see LGBTers really having a go at Catholics, it's tough for me. Part of me says "Wait guys, I don't think you're being entirely fair" and other parts want to join in on the condemnation.

But at the end of the day, no matter where my loyalties may rest, homophobia and racism must always be on the losing side of the equation.

[MADem]

277. Ah, Catholicism. Like Andrew Sullivan--"If only I were good enough, the Pope will love me."

Catholicism, though, is a choice. Robert Novak was born a Jew and converted to Catholicism. Tony Blair converted as well. "They" say Princess Diana was planning on making the leap, too. Many, many others have fallen away from Catholicism, look at South America. Once upon a time, it was a monolith of The Faith. Now, The Holy Roman Empire has got lots of competition.

And Catholicism doesn't have quite the force of "identity" that "Blackness" does.

Blackness (unless you're Michael Jackson and even at that, it didn't fly) isn't a choice. You can be kicked out of the "Catholic Club" for your un-Catholic behavior, but you're born into the Black Club and the only way out is feet first. It is both a distinction and a difference.

[Prism]

282. Please do not compare me to Sullivan

I should note right up front that I am no longer a Catholic, practicing or otherwise. My attachment to Catholicism is as a purely cultural construct. He still seems to think he's Catholic. I am not.

Are you Catholic? I ask based on that "force of identity" remark. Being raised strict Irish Catholic is a fierce, fierce brain-washing, and even after you shed the religious beliefs, a lot of the surrounding culture remains with you. Especially if your family and community are still strictly Catholic. Many writers make their living humorously relating how, to this day, they're trying to shake off the culture long after they abandoned the religion.

While a distinction, black culture is like Irish Catholic culture in that it's what you're raised in. And, yes, you do have a choice to leave it. You may not be able to walk out of your own skin color and all the issues that arise from it in larger society, but you have a choice about how you relate to culture.

I don't remain near homophobic Catholics. I don't put myself in situations where those attitudes are predominant. I cannot choose my family, but I can choose which parts of their culture I will tolerate. Blacks have the same choice. To intimate someone does not is to shackle them to an environment or upbringing that may not be healthy for that particular individual.

[MADem]

297. I disagee with your thesis that being Catholic is equivalent in any way to being black.

It's not even close.

You assume that the Catholic family remains static in their beliefs, when they don't. Most Catholics in this day and age are cafeteria Catholics--that's why they don't all have seven to twelve kids in each family. Amazing how these Catholics have the rhythm method down so well that they've kept those families to two or three!

You CAN leave the Catholic Church, too. You can watch your relatives change their perspectives about the church as the abuses of children are revealed, as well.

You cannot, OTOH, leave your black skin. It's there when you wake up, it's there when you go to sleep. It's in the mirror. It is the first thing people who are not black notice when they approach a black person. It's not as simple as getting away from your family and friends and associates and neighborhood. You can never not be black, even if you move far, far away.

You don't have "(practicing/former/lapsed/homophobic) Catholic" tattooed on your forehead. It's not an identifier from which you cannot escape. To suggest equivalency is a weak argument.

[CakeGrrl]

64. People here have hardly "forgotten", even if the author doesn't mention it

But the larger point, IMO, is that the dynamics of fighting for one's rights within the gay community are made more complex by the racial aspect.

One can acknowledge, or one SHOULD be able to acknowledge, that complexity without having the tired accusations of "throwing the LGBT community under the bus" or telling LGBTers to "sit down and shut up" leveled - but apparently that discussion cannot be had here with much success.

[Prism]

83. The author introduces the ugly in that discussion, no one else

Read between the lines, of course. LGBT impatience with President Obama is somehow a larger, thinly-veiled attack on blacks and is indicative of LGBT racism.

It's right there, in black and white. Neecy nailed it in a post above.

[CakeGrrl]

91. I would simply raise this rhetorical question and ask people to be honest with themselves:

Would those who are challenging President Obama and his administration at the level they are doing at this stage in his term have done the exact same with President Hillary Clinton, all OTHER things being equal in terms of where everything stands today, and assuming she or her administration had made statements and taken actions identical to the Obama administration?

Neither you nor I can speak for every member of a subgroup to which we belong. Just as some Democrats were willing to jump ship to the Republicans rather than vote for Obama, I DO believe there are some LGBTers who may have less patience for a black Democratic president's perceived inertia on LGBT issues than they would afford a white Democratic president. Did I imply ALL? No. That would be stupid.

But racism pervades every non-ethnic demographic; it motivates SOME to put more behind their opposition or pushback.

[dsc]

104. absolutely

I protested her husband over his handling of DADT and if she had invited Warren to speak I would have given her hell over that too. If she had no gays in her cabinet I would have given her Hell over that too. It is about results and effort not race. Obama has had no results and little effort on our behalf it doesn't get much simpler than that.

[Prism]

105. I believe yes, absolutely

The LGBT community has been bubbling for a long while. I don't think people understand the depth of the hostility still harbored in wide portions of the community over Bill Clinton's betrayals. Prop 8 certainly did nothing to help things.

The attitude is "Not this time, not again, never again."

Meaning, never again will we accept lip service as a politician takes our money, mugs with our families, and claims solidarity with our cause when there's an election to be won, but then does little to nothing once in office.

Take the anger at Bill Clinton, marinate for eight years, and unleash upon the next Democratic President the very instant he makes the slightest moves towards a repeat of that triangulation and intransigence.

I've said before, it stinks that we have to engage in this struggle with President Obama. Not only is it not what he promised us, but it's not what any of us wanted. But he put himself there. He flirted with some of the country's biggest homophobes, gave every single excuse under the sun on why we're not seeing movement on even the most politically popular of our issues, and allowed his Justice Department to slap us hard in the face.

His choices and no one else's has led to the current state of things.

[LooseWilly]

121. Are you kidding?: ""No excuses. No excuses," Obama added, verging off his prepared remarks."

That's from his speech to the NAACP... and meanwhile there are people still trying to claim " I DO believe there are some LGBTers who may have less patience for a black Democratic president's perceived inertia on LGBT issues than they would afford a white Democratic president."

No excuses. It's not because he's black, for fuck's sake... it's because he gave hope during an election, and has since refrained from taking the "political chance" of taking any action. If Hillary Clinton were doing the same, I know that I personally would feel just as offended... and that wouldn't be sexism either, because I felt just as offended when Bill Clinton folded 15 years ago.

[Neecy]

123. you really need to ask that? Wow.

If you honestly think we're just picking on Barack Obama because he's black, then you don't understand the many betrayals we've experienced in the past with our Democratic leadership. You have no clue how many times we've been hit up for money/votes/precinct walking and then stabbed in the back. And it isn't just on the presidential level - it's the cowards in Congress who love us at election time and then refuse to move a single goddamn piece of legislation.

What you're seeing is the culmination of years of this crap, and Bill Clinton was the biggest offender. Believe me, if this board had been around in 1996 the explosion you would have seen over his craven DOMA pandering would still be reverberating.

If the circumstances with Hillary were identical, of course I'd be just as unhappy. This has NOTHING to do with race.

[CakeGrrl]

149. Did I say that? That's the problem with these discussions. You can't have a reasonable one

because of the OVERreaction.

For some, it's all about the issue at hand. Ideally, that's the way it should be. The point the article was making, however, is that there IS an element of race that may tinge the motives for some.

But to even TRY and introduce that concept, people are flamed with hyperbole, as if they made sweeping generalizations that they did not.

But aren't you glad the unrecommend feature is here to "shout down" the arguments you'd rather not hear?

Ugly truths apply in many cases. The fact that people can't handle the concept that there can be ANY occurrences of protestation of the President with less than the purest motive is what keeps people slamming each other back and forth.

So yes. I DID ask that. Believe it.

[Neecy]

152. this is what you said

I DO believe there are some LGBTers who may have less patience for a black Democratic president's perceived inertia on LGBT issues than they would afford a white Democratic president. Did I imply ALL? No. That would be stupid.

You've singled out one group - not environmentalists, not health care activists, not privacy advocates, not torture opponents, not any other subset interest group - to ask if they have a racial animus, and then claim people are overreacting to this ugliness?

Why are we constantly having to defend ourselves against this kind of crap where racism is somehow assumed unless we're required to scramble around and assure you that yes, we'd be just as pissed with a white president? Who cares who's screwing with us, really?

There are lots of 'ugly truths' in this thread, aren't there? I've read enough to make me sick, frankly.

[CakeGrrl]

156. I singled out one group because

that is the group that is the subject of the OP's article. It's called staying on topic.

Why are you looking for offense where there is none?

[ruggerson]

154. I would probably be more pissed off

because I (rightly or wrongly) would have expected more from her on these particular issues.

[WillParkinson]

240. Yes...

I would expect the same from Ms. Clinton.

[justiceischeap]

96. As a WHITE lesbian I can say with certainty the following

When Bill Clinton promised to end the ban on gays in the military and then came up with DADT, I was pissed. Not because he was white but because he courted and woo'ed the gay community for votes and we supported him with fervor because, you see, he made this promise about advancing gay rights.

Then another presidential candidate comes along and makes these promises to the gay community, who happens to be black. Then it appears as though, for the first time in recent history, we have a President saying he's going to make these changes and we have a congress who is more favorable to our movement and then it appears as though nothing is going to happen.

If we (the gay community) seem as though we have this urgency right now it's because in no other time has the time been as "perfect" to acquire the rights that EVERYONE else has but us. If we lose control of the Congress during mid-term elections, we're fucked and have to wait yet again for this "perfect" moment in time. That's what the big fuss is about, not that he's black but that we've got yet another Dem president that courted our community to get elected and then seems to be letting us down...again.

[noiretextatique]

54. some gays are racist

:shrug: i think that was his point...and i agree with him. more than that, i believe he was saying there is still segregation in gay communities, and that is also true.

[Leo The Cleo]

139. BINGO

That point was in there. But far be it for any person to point out that even white marginalized groups can be bigoted. Yet, white marginalized groups are quick to point out the faults of blacks.

[Number23]

244. ..

Best post in a thread full of great posts.

You may have a strange name, Leo, but you've got a very wise soul. :)

[MADem]

66. Who's "praising?" Most people on this thread are trying to parse what the guy is saying

and come to conclusions about it.

He's reporting on attitudes in the context of his experience with the black LGBT community, not endorsing them. There's a difference.

Are you saying that there's none of that segregation? None of that attitude/approach difference? That blacks and whites in the community are all linking arms and aligned on these issues in lockstep conformity? That everyone's "mad at Obama" for not moving fast enough?

Are you saying he's making up this disconnect between blacks and whites?

I think his comments have a ring of inconvenient truth about them. That there IS a difference in attitude about Obama and his speed/progress on LGBT issues, and race is the dividing line.

[Prism]

88. I think the divide is not an LGBT specific issue

Making it one is unhelpful and unnecessary. That isn't to diminish the racial issues inherent in LGBT activism. They exist, they require addressing.

However, look at any poll. Straight African-Americans certainly support President Obama on a far larger scale than do white Americans. It isn't a surprise or a "special comment and indication" to see that attitude reflected in the LGBT community. The community does not exist in a vaccuum insulated and protected from every other aspect of identity. Whatever happens in larger society, be in race-based, class-based, or religion-based also materializes in the gay community. It's the inherent nature of a community where every kind of person in the world can simultaneously be LGBT.

It's the idea that the LGBT community is somehow especially problematic in this regard, that we possess an extra racial animosity rather than a reflection of society's general divide.

The reality is that the LGBT will always possess problems of identity politics that exist in the world at large. However, to latch onto them and promote the attitudes and ideas this author does is to latch onto an lurking undercurrent of soft homophobia, a joy and safety of its expression, that would be disallowable if it were expressed straightforward without the clouding of race or other categorizations.

[noiretextatique]

153. i don't think the animosity is especial

but i do think, as the author mentioned, some black LGBT were surprised by the vitrol directed at us after Prop 8 passed...coming from white gay people. it happened here and elsewhere on the net.
he mentioned black GLBT people being called name while protesting against the passaage of Prop 8!
if white LGBT folks want and expect the support of african-americans, it's probably not a good idea to piss off black LGBT folks.

[MADem]

243. Interesting analysis. I sort of understand your points, but I didn't take the

author's comments in quite the same way. I think the author is almost saying what you're saying about "identity politics" == Whatever happens in larger society, be in race-based, class-based, or religion-based also materializes in the gay community.

However, I don't think he's "promoting" them. I see it more as "telling it like it is." Maybe he's misreading the community, I'm not in a position to judge his accuracy on that score. His comments do reflect what I've heard anecdotally, though.

It's impossible, absent some pretty specific, ongoing and serious polling, to know precisely where the attitides lie.

[ecstatic]

146. No, I think he's talking about how black gays see things differently

and he did address the racism in cities like Atlanta, which I have seen first hand.

[omega minimo]

230. What he actually wrote was:

"The 40th anniversary of Stonewall dominated Gay Pride celebrations around the country, and while that is certainly a significant moment that should be recognized, 40 years is nothing compared with the 400 blood-soaked years black people have been through in this country. There are stories some blacks lived through, stories others were told by their parents and stories that never had a chance to be told.

"While those who were at Stonewall talk about the fear of being arrested by police, 40 years ago, blacks talked about the fear of dying at the hands of police and not having their bodies found or murder investigated. The 13th Amendment was signed in 1865, and it wasn't until 1948 that President Harry S Truman desegregated the military. That's more than an 80-year gap."


It's not too much trouble to read it in context, hopefully. It's all true. And it's NOT true that it is "pure, racist ugliness."


He is talking about culture, about different cultures, some of which you touched on in a personal post further down.

It is possible to chew gum and walk, the hold more than one thought at at time, to read in context, to consider different points of view and look for common ground rather than perceived slights.

You can be a great contributor to that process. You have what it takes. Please do not make these racist pronouncements, based on selective consideration of the topic.

[noiretextatique]

51. i agree wholeheartedly

:applause:

[Number23]

155. Glad to see you here, noire

:fistbump:

And the author, who is a gay black man is saying something that some people here desperately choose not to hear. Had he been saying something else, do you think this OP would be peppered with unrecs?

I realize that the gay community is no more monolithic than others, and I realize that the black gay community is no exception. However, every single word that the author has said is EXACTLY in line with what I've heard from other gay blacks, even ones who haven't come out yet.

Happy to rec this OP. Thanks for posting, wndycty.

And yes indeed, Mr. Granderson: "BLACK IS STILL BLACK."

[noiretextatique]

158. indeed black is still black

just read a thread about kodak settling a racial discrimination suit. it's been an interesting time, and i can't but think some of this impatience has to do with the "p" word. log cabin republicans are the extreme example of privilege...just because i am gay, i should have the rights of other white men. not that we all shouldn't have the same rights, but as have been preaching unsuccessfully since the Prop * implosion: we don't all have the same rights. during one of those conversations, someone actually said that everyone had rights except gays :eyes: the kodak settlement proves what i was trying to say: discrimination still exists, whether it is legal or not.
i should add here (in case someone determined to be angry reads this) that i am appalled that discrimination against GLBT is still legal.

[Number23]

167. Yep. It's almost as if black folks are damned if we do and damned if we don't

The decision to cast our community as "homophobic" trumps everything else. Even black gay men are accused of homophobia because they dare to point out racism within the gay community. The comments hurled at black gays after the passage of Prop 8 also bolster this.

No matter how educated, accomplished or successful you are, no matter if you too are GAY, if you are black and don't toe the line, you will be accused of homophobia.

And I completely agree with you that the "p" word plays a large part in this. Which is why so many are so outraged that this gentleman had the audacity to point it out.

[bliss_eternal]

171. it's horrible.

that glbt discrimination is legal.

while on the subject of discrimination, don't forget the wells fargo situation (baltimore, maryland). i recently read of a restaurant chain (mccormick and schmicks), sued for the same issues as kodak--in the bay area, several years ago. :(

[SacredCow]

92. I've heard this argument somewhere before.....

Oh, yeah- it was at a conservative/fundie site...

http://townhall.com/columnists/DennisPrager/2008/11/18/is_gay_the_new_black


Just in case anybody was curious as to why we uppity homosexuals bristle at being told that our strugles aren't up to the same caliber as other minorities.

:eyes:

[Starry Messenger]

95. Mike Huckabee is fond of that argument too.

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/11/18/huckabee-gay-rights/

[RepublicanElephant]

102. i never liked that phrase "the new black." it seems to assumes that the "old black" is no more. nt

[CakeGrrl]

107. No kidding. One only has to watch "Uncle Pat" Buchanan preach to his choir

to know that we are far from post-racial.

As the President pointed out yesterday, ALL our problems as racial minorities and LGBTers still exist. Anyone who thinks the black community has now "got theirs" because a black president managed to get elected is pretty naive.

[LooseWilly]

229. I have an idea... let's all elect a gay president... then everyone can criticize him/her.

That'll teach the LGBT community !!

[SacredCow]

110. Though I think the comparison is valid, I agree that the phrase trivializes the matter....

It's not like we're talking about fashion (which is where I've heard that phrase used most often) or the like.

[MADem]

300. I always thought the reference was to fashion!

As in women wearing a "basic black" dress--the color that could be everything and nothing. The foundation of a flexible wardrobe.

That's how I took it when Tina Fey did that "B" is the New Black riff about Hillary Clinton.

But hey, I'm old, I don't keep up.

[aaaaaa5a]

109. Go ahead and shout at me.

But I think the writer has a point.


First, his comments about the struggle for gay rights only being 40 years old is ridiculous. That would be like me saying the struggle for black equality started with the voting rights act of 1965. I also think anytime a person's rights and freedoms are in play, no person or group should be told to just "sit and wait." Policies such as DADT and DOMA are prejudicial and all people regardless of sexual orientation should be against them.


However, discrimination based on looks, and discrimination based on "actions" are not the same. A gay person could vote in Alabama in 1948. An African American could not. There have historically never been segregated facilities based on sexual orientation. With the exception of the last 40 years of our country, African Americans have known nothing but Jim Crow. That's a big difference.


I favor equality for all people 100%. But sometimes we go overboard comparing the historic struggle for gay rights to that of racial equality. The two are not close.


The African American experience is far more difficult and unique than any other sub-group in American history. I think all of us in the gay rights movement need to remember that.

[wndycty]

111. Very well stated

:kick:

[Prism]

112. Looks vs. actions

That is the kind of rhetoric that the "gay is a choice" crowd invoke to make their arguments.

They claim that sexual orientation is an "action" and choice that makes it uniquely fit to be criticized and discriminated against. "Hey, we're not evil bigots. We're just criticizing actions here. Gays don't have to be like that, you know."

If you cannot understand or see the underlying evil in this, or excuse it as some kind of "lesser" evil, then you're not seeing very clearly at all.

[DatManFromNawlins]

185. You are choosing to ignore the obvious

Two people walk into a convenience store: a white gay dude and a black dude. Which one is the clerk going to be watching?

Two people go on a job interview: a white lesbian and a black female. Which one has the higher probability of being discriminated against right off the bat?

Two people are driving down the street: a white guy and a black guy. Which one has the higher probability of being pulled over and searched?

I agree that any form of discrimination is wrong. I agree that straight blacks hold more rights than gays of any particular race.

But to equate being black with being gay is fucking delusional. Gays have their own struggle, but they are NOT the same.

[Prism]

192. No one said they're the same

What we're saying is that various forms of discrimination are equally wrong, and equally stem from the oppression and denigration of "the other", and equally have no place in our society.

I could go into great detail about the gay experiences with appearance, how more effeminate men are treated vs. masculine ones, how that discrimination isn't limited to actual LGBTers but is extended to mistreat and malign straight individuals as well. There is a lot to be said on the subject. However, to go into it is to miss the entire point.

To constantly complain about the comparisons drawn rather than get on the same page against discrimination is to perpetually miss the forest for the trees.

[hulklogan]

209. Two couples go to the county clerk's office to get a marriage license

one gay and one straight. Who is going to get the license?

Two couples walk down the street of a small town holding hands, one gay and one straight. Which couple is going to get beaten up?

Two men try to sign up their spouses for health insurance, one gay and one straight. Which man will have to pay extra tax on the insurance premiums?

We could go on all night about this.

[SacredCow]

115. So human rights are reduced to a pissing contest?

For the millionth time- discrimination is discrimination. Bigotry is bigotry. It doesn't matter whether it is based on race, sex, gender, sexual orientation, eye color, height, weight, etc.... It most certainly *IS* all the same thing.

Yes, a gay person could vote in Alabama in 1948- but they weren't exactly free to publicly admit their sexual preference, were they? Until 1973, homosexuality was considered a mental illness. No "officially" segregated facilities, indeed- but why bother, when homosexuals realistically couldn't admit to their sexuality? Do you really think that if the vast majority of gays at that time hadn't been closeted, there WOULDN'T have been Jim Crow laws aimed at gays? 60+ years have passed since 1948, and in that time there have been tremendous advances in the African American struggle. Not so much for homosexuals- In fact, some states still have sodomy laws on the books which (though primarily intended to prosecute prostitutes) are often used to harrass the homosexual community.

Undoubtedly, African Americans had a struggle (and really, still do). And as I've said elsewhere on this thread, the comparison meme of "X is the new Y" trivializes BOTH struggles. But no matter how you slice it, a comparison of one form of discrimination to another IS valid. The 2 are different versions of the same thing.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

120. Civil rights have been a pissing contest for quite a while now.

Basically, ever since overt racism largely gave way to institutional racism, everyone feels like they need to cut to the front of the oppression line to make a point. Or probably closer to the truth, to appear "relevant".

I understand why it happens - let's face it, there's still a lot of progress to be made, but people don't react to "well, things aren't as bad as they were, but they could still be better" when it comes to social justice. People react to watershed tragedies, but not the everyday ones. Still, that doesn't make it right and it certainly doesn't benefit anyone involved.

Bottom line - I agree with you completely. Unfortunately, things just generally being unfair don't move the dial, they don't bring in donations, and they don't get legislation passed.

[SacredCow]

125. And also, unfortunately....

Patiently waiting for something to happen also doesn't move the dial, bring in donations, or get legislation passed.

And MOST unfortunate- certain posters on this board continue to post this kind of crap, knowing full well that it's infuriating and insulting to the GLBT community.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

132. Yes, but there's also a fine line.

There's a lot of grey between sitting patiently and using hyperbole/hurtful rhetoric to the point where everyone tunes you out completely and it becomes counter-productive to one's own cause. See: PETA.

And yes, there have been times when that line has been crossed by GLBT DUers (whom I full well know are not fully representative of the greater movement, just as PETA is not the entirety of the humane animal treatment community). I can't speak for all DUers, but I wade into those waters specifically because I don't want this cause to go all "PETA" on us - it's far too important to our society to allow people to tune us out.

[SacredCow]

138. Which is why I personally don't come into GD or GD-P and start threads...

that I know will turn into a trainwreck. I will, however, respond to threads that I believe are serving the purpose of telling me to shut up and wait for my turn because my rights are not as important as (insert other issue here).

Neither do I want GLBT issues to be "the new PETA" ( :spank: ). But the simmering pot has reached a boil. Hopes and dreams were dashed in the 90's- we thought there might be real progress, and got DADT. The Bush years, of course, were a lost cause, and now? Well....... :shrug: It's really no great mystery why there is so much unrest in the GLBT community.

[omega minimo]

180. "I think all of us in the gay rights movement need to remember that."

"The African American experience is far more difficult and unique than any other sub-group in American history. I think all of us in the gay rights movement need to remember that."


Very well put. Thank you. There doesn't need to be comparison or competition. Just comprehension.

[Blue_Tires]

116. just clicked -- could not disagree more...

and no matter which side people come down on the "Gay is the new Black" meme (hint: it's not a direct yes/no answer), it only serves to trivialize and over-simplify the aims of blacks, gays, and black gays...

[cboy4]

117. What a tall mound of steaming cow manure

I just love the black people can't hide their skin color, yet gay people can hide their sexual orientation argument.

Just love it!

[kwassa]

178. It is a valid argument. What is your problem with it?

[craigmatic]

127. First off Obama has neglected alot of constituencies that put him in office

that includes gays and blacks. But at least he let the gays who work for the government get benefits for their partners. He's basically told the black community that he believes in personal responsibility and that they're on their own. But the guy who wrote this article is right gay is not the new black because blacks are still the blacks. Cops don't stop gay motorists just because they "fit the description" and cops don't "accidentally" kill gay people and go to trial and get off. But that said there are similarities. All the gay community wants is the right to get married along with the financial and social privileges that goes with that and to serve openly in the military that's not that far of a leap compared to wanting social/political equality and to be allowed to enter certain stores, have your children go to school with white kids, and not to have to go in the woods to use the restroom. Gay's concerns are no less relevant and should be catered to because what they want isn't exactly revolutionary it wouldn't even change that much in society. They just want the right to be boring like the rest of us. Let them get married and serve openly it's not alot really.

[and-justice-for-all]

135. They are both civil rights issues..

Black or Gay, I can not see how they are different. The oppression of black people and the oppression of the Gay community is the same, both are civil rights issues. For some one to try and argue that they are two completely different issues sounds rather ignorant to me.

Black people fought for equality as does the Gay community does today, so I can not sit here and agree that Gay is not the new Black; because to me it is.

[FrenchieCat]

136. I can't tell if this thread is a good one or not.

I think that prejudice exists from all corners discussed, and I don't think that all will be erased anytime soon. I do believe that dividing minorities makes all minorities that much less potent against the powers that be.

It is obvious to me that being a double minority may be a heavier burden to bear than being a single minority, and both may be less painful than being a triple minority, i.e., a Gay woman of color....as it could be concluded that the likelyhood of experiencing prejudice and discrimination seems to increase three fold for such.

Obama saying "Make me do it" shouldn't be a directive to demonize him,
nor should anyone have to "wait" for anything.....as there are many avenues
to getting to where one is going (including meeting with and pressuring the President)
....and all fronts should be addressed relentlessly, and considered as multi tasking to
the ultimate goal of achieving equality in this country, which has proven
time and time again to be a difficult endeavor in this imperfect Union.

From what I can see, there has never been more public discussion on the status of Gay rights than there is now, and that couldn't be a negative.

I do come away with confirmation of what I already suspected,
which is elementary....that Gay folks can be racist, and racial minorities can be homophobic. Whether a Gay racial minority can be either is more questionable but not impossible.

At the end of the day, change is in the horizon, but it won't come easily...unfortunately.

[bigwillq]

137. Certainly has some good points, and bad.

An interesting read.

First off, from the opening paragraph, this writer seems to be obsessed with the stereotypes of the gay community, mainly lumping ALL people, mainly white people, of one section of the community into one group.

Not all white gay people fly rainbow flags and listen to Lady Gaga, and, from experience, some black gay people are rainbow happy and listen to Gaga.
I, for one, would rather listen to hip-hop and R&B at gay clubs, but most mainly play techno or house, or if I were the writer "white people music". In one club, I asked the DJ, and later told the owner, that I would like to listen to a more diverse set of music. The DJ told me house is the only thing he plays.

There are white gay people who do not feel a part of the larger gay movement. Where do they go? Do they start a White Gay Pride?
I understand there are differences between being gay as a white person and as a black person, but some of his remarks seem rather divisive.

"And a good number of them are tired of hearing how the gay community is disappointed in President Obama, because they are not."

True and false. Again, grouping ALL people into one group. I am sure some in the gay community are disappointed, and some are not.

I DO agree that Obama cannot act alone in advancing the rights of gay people. GOOD POINT
I also feel, however, that Obama has made some comments that were perceived by the community to be negative, and he still has a lot of work to do to win over the entire community.

I have never been to the place this writer talks about in this article:
"There's a popular bar in the heart of the nation's capital that might as well rename itself Antebellum, because all of the white patrons tend to stay upstairs and the black patrons are on the first floor."

But I have been to several gay clubs in cities such as New York, Philadelphia, Providence, Hartford, New Haven, and I have never seen segregation like this writer talks about in this article. That was interesting to read.

As others have said, the 40-year struggle thing bothered me. But as some pointed out, black people are more identified by their looks. I do understand that point, but we shouldn't have to divide our minority groups by which have struggled longer, and which should receive equal rights because of the longevity of their struggles. It makes it seem like gay folks, especially gay white folks, have no reason to complain because they haven't struggled long enough. BAD POINT

The writer does a good job of pointing out that being gay is different based on race. But I think he does a poor job of being a bit too stereotypical about the community, as well as the above mention "struggle", which doesn't seem to hit the right marks.

But an interesting read. I hope everyone has a chance to read it.

[wndycty]

144. Thanks for your assessment

:kick:

[noiretextatique]

147. there is still a lot of segregation in gay communities

i live in oakland. of the big clubs here, there is one mostly white bar, one mostly black bar, and one mostly latino bar.
the white bar allows a quota of black people. when it gets "too dark" the patrons complain to the management. many black people won't set foot in that bar because of the management's attitude.
i would say that the gay community is probably more racially integrated and tolerant than some other communities, but it's still very segregated, both by gender and by race.

[omega minimo]

189. Good points, thanks for the thoughtful and unique contribution to the thread.

:thumbsup:

[bliss_eternal]

159. So nice to see....

...that all the people "claiming" to not be upset about this because his view opposes their own, have un-recommended this thread into 0 status. Way to show an open mind. :eyes: NOT!

If nothing else, thanks for proving the author's points as valid.

Why else would some be so threatened by what is said in the article, they are working their asses off to insure it doesn't make the main page.

Can't have a black glbt's view making the main page of a progressive website, can we?

[wndycty]

160. Ouch!

I noticed that the unrecommendeds were working their asses off to keep this thread silenced.

[ruggerson]

161. I neither recommended nor unrecommend your thread

but I"m interested in your response to another perspective, written by a black, gay man:

http://holybulliesandheadlessmonsters.blogspot.com/2009/07/black-community-is-phony-and.html

"A columnist by the name of Wendi C. Thomas wrote an absolutely stunning piece on how the black church treats lgbts of color.

There are so many things about it that I like. But the main thing is how she exposes a fact that is well-known in African-American circles:"

"The hypocrisy is that the black church has always been home to gay men and women. Yet while largely ignoring sexuality in all its other forms, the church often delivers messages of shame to gay people, who endure it while they sit in the pews and sing in the choirs.

The secrecy demands that in a traditional black church, gay people must hide. The rumors of prominent black Christians who are gay are rampant, but only one -- singer Donnie McClurkin -- acknowledges having had sex with men.

"It's not so much that the black church doesn't want gay men, they don't want openly gay men," said Devon Berry, who is black and gay.

"They don't want you in there being proud of who you are."


"Thomas is right. Lgbts of color attend non-affirming black churches. And it's not as if all of us are deep in the closet. Some of our mannerisms have made us the butt of whispering campaigns by proper church ladies and gentlemen; the same folks who would give us holy hell if we came out and openly declared ourselves so as to relieve their doubts and answer their questions.

That part of Thomas's piece touches on something that is not really focused on when it comes to lgbts in the black community in general. African-Americans know that lgbts of color exist. Many heterosexual blacks consider themselves as good friends of lgbts of color. And they claim to have no problem with us . . . as long as we know our place.

Heterosexual African-Americans can criticize lgbts. Pastors in their pulpits can raise holy hell about lgbts. But if we lgbts of color wanted to start a discussion about our lives, then look out! It has the same effect of a bomb going off.

It reminds me of a statement from an acquaintence of mine: "If you are going to be gay, then be gay. Just don't get in my face about it."

[wndycty]

163. You have two gay Black men talking about an issue. . .

. . .I agree with one you agree with the other. It is an important discussion to have. What it does show is that whether one is black or gay or both there is a diversity of opinion. When I made the OP I asked for a productive discussion, I am not sure if that is what happened, but I felt that Granderson's point deserve to be heard as does McEwen's.

[bliss_eternal]

164. True.

But many here will only allow the perspective "they agree with" to be heard or seen. If it isn't threatening to them, then why is that I wonder?

[ruggerson]

165. In college

a number of years ago (I won't tell you exactly how many) :) , the first important long term relationship of my life was with an AA student (same age as me) who grew up largely in France. We were together for a number of years. I can tell you quite honestly that in the years we were together we received far more hostility for being a gay couple than an interracial couple. We were both into sports, both gym rats and slobs, but we did not circumscribe our behaviour to the prevailing homophobia of the day. If we felt like being demonstrative, we were. Later on, when I moved back to the city, I used to hang out at the Garage, which was a notorious after hours club that had a large gay, black male clientele. I casually dated a couple of guys that I met there. Again, they (and all my friends) received far more flak over their sexuality than their race.

But I think McEwan's larger point is a good one. We are all tempted to compare oppressions and to argue about it endlessly. But to what greater good? The cause of the AA community should be the cause of the LGBT community and vice versa. There is racism in the LGBT community at large and there is plenty of homophobia in the black community (largely, imho, because of religion.)

What complicates matters even further is the competing interests of pride in the first black President and the motives ascribed to those who criticize him.

I guarantee you, if and when the first gay President occurs, I would want him/her to succeed in the worst way and would probably respond a bit illogically at times to those who would criticize him/her. It's human nature.

I think the best we can do is all move forward with our eyes wide open.

[kwassa]

188. great post.

thank you for sharing your personal experience, and talking about the greater good.

[Number23]

169. Beautifully said, wndy.

[bliss_eternal]

162. Thank you for linking the article...!

:thumbsup::hi:

I'm sorry that there are so many unable to tolerate any view that doesn't coincide with their own.

[CTLawGuy]

166. the most resonant parts of this article

"Bars such as The Prop House, or Bulldogs in Atlanta, Georgia, exist because a large number of gay blacks -- particularly those who date other blacks, and live in the black community -- do not feel a part of the larger gay movement. There are Gay Pride celebrations, and then there are Black Gay Prides."

"When Proposition 8 passed in California, white gays were quick to blame the black community despite blacks making up less than 10 percent of total voters and whites being close to 60 percent. At protest rallies that followed, some gay blacks reported they were even hit with racial epithets by angry white participants. Not to split hairs, but for most blacks, the n-word trumps the f-word.

"So while the white mouthpiece of the gay community shakes an angry finger at intolerance and bigotry in their blogs and on television, blacks and other minorities see the dirty laundry. They see the hypocrisy of publicly rallying in the name of unity but then privately living in segregated pockets. And then there is the history."

If blacks are less accepting of gays than other racial groups -- and that is certainly debatable -- then the parade of gay people calling Obama a "disappointment" on television is counterproductive in gaining acceptance, to say the least. And the fact that the loudest critics are mostly white doesn't help matters either.

Hearing that race matters in the gay community may not be comforting to hear, but that doesn't make it any less true."

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I agree, race is a factor in the unfair criticism of Obama by some GLBT activists.

[Boomerang Diddle]

174. It's nice to see some logic and reason on this subject for a change! K&R! n/t

[kwassa]

181. overall, this thread is the best discussion I've seen on this topic

and there have been many threads on this topic since the Prop 8 debacle.

Good points on both sides, a civil discussion, and an interesting article to start it all off.

[wndycty]

187. I am glad it has remained civil, that was my intent in posting it

:kick:

[firedupdem]

182. Rec'd...thanks for posting this! n/t

[cyndensco]

183. LZ Granderson's POV as expressed in this article is just that:

his POV. His perspective. He has faced discrimination most of us who are not black and gay have. Unfortunately for him, and for society, he probably experiences hatred from both sides: white GLBT members and homophobic blacks.

I welcome his viewpoint, and recognize it as just that: his viewpoint.

[jonnyblitz]

190. it's funny how some of you anxious to discuss racism in the gay

community are the same ones who want to shut down any and all discussion of homophobia in the black community. i wish i could UNRECOMMEND this piece of SHIT thread more than once, it is so fucking vile it made me come out of my self-imposed "lurk only" mode. :puke:

[Neecy]

193. bingo

And I'll edit this to add: Note how so many in this thread casually accept and/or proclaim the 'fact' of GLBT racism, even to the point where one person point-blank asked us if we were harder on Obama because he's black. It's a "when did you stop beating your wife" kind of shit that personally makes me sick.

[CakeGrrl]

197. It IS an upsetting concept, but you can't tell me what I've witnessed or

what the author in the OP has personally experienced.

As for my question upthread you mischaracterize it as some sort of dive-bomb attack when it was posed, in context, at the end of an exchange with another poster.

[ruggerson]

203. yep, it is upsetting CG

the proposition that the gay community (just generalizing about them is idiotic) is harder on Obama because he's black is truly, truly absurd.

They've been hard on him, because he's our first new Democratic president with a chance to do something in 16 years. The clock is ticking. God only knows whether we can hold Congress or not next year. NEXT YEAR! Any Democrat who had gotten elected would be on the receiving end of this. The sad fact is that it butts up against the "hypersensitivity" (Granderson's own phrase) many in the AA community have regarding any criticism of Obama, resulting in the accusations of racism. I repeat: ANY Democrat who had been elected this time would be going through this pressure from the gay community. Many of us simply DO NOT WANT to wait any longer

[CakeGrrl]

205. If the author is generalizing, then I'm in disagreement with him.

The only point I'm supporting is the fact that there is no racism-free demographic.

It's patently silly to say ANY group takes this action or that action, implicating that one can speak for the intent of every member of that group.

[ruggerson]

207. well I agree wholeheartedly on that

there is racism in every demographic. But, the contention of the author in the OP is plain out of line.

[omega minimo]

198. That's not what is going on here. Saying so is perpetuating misunderstanding. No one needs that.

[Neecy]

200. Read the thread

And yes, many people here have casually accepted the 'fact' of GLBT racism. It's all over the damn thread.

[omega minimo]

204. I did. I don't agree with your generalizations. Even if I did, they really don't help, do they?

I have read the whole thread before commenting and considering different viewpoints here. Please don't be too quick to lump them together.

[Neecy]

208. help what?

There are some sweeping generalizations being written in this thread - and they "don't help", do they?

They too have the challenges that ALL LGBTers face, but they have to deal with racism from both gay and straight as well.

Many white gays have recently found a way to vent their frustrations with blacks.

And let me tell you many in the Black community who dislike Gays, really dislike white gays

Some gays are racist. i think that was his point...and i agree with him.

I agree, race is a factor in the unfair criticism of Obama by some GLBT activists.

Unfortunately for him, and for society, he probably experiences hatred from both sides: white GLBT members and homophobic blacks.

Is this "helpful"?

[omega minimo]

215. LOL

"help what?" :rofl: :rofl: Good question!!

[wndycty]

194. Tell me what is so vile about it and why Granderson's column should not be shared. . .

. . .or discussed?

[omega minimo]

199. It appears to be anger over what he didn't say, rather than consideration of what he did say.

:shrug:

[omega minimo]

196. Maybe you need to reread it with an open mind.

:hi:

[Colobo]

216. Both are extremely wrong.

[bliss_eternal]

220. My recollection is that it was discussed....

*ad nauseum.* In fact, the discussion started BEFORE the polls had closed and BEFORE that stilted poll blaming blacks and latinos for prop 8 was released. What does that tell anyone paying attention? :eyes:

I also recall the conversation that failed to occur was that of *white homophobia.* Which would be what was responsible for it being on the ballot to begin with. No Black people (nor latinos) placed that hateful proposition on the ballot.

Oh and fyi, there's a difference between "discussion" and "blaming."
I don't recall people denying the existence of "black homophobia. I recall that many were offended that no one seemed to want to focus on the homophobia that put the prop on the ballot to begin with.

[tammywammy]

206. Interesting article and discussion. Recommended. n/t

[Politicub]

214. Surprised to hear this won a "major award"

a la A Christmas Story.

This paragraph is especially revealing about this author's POV:

In recent weeks, one would have thought the nation's first black president was also the nation's biggest homophobe. Everyone from Oscar winner Dustin Lance Black and radio personality Rachel Maddow to Joe Solmonese, the president of Human Rights Campaign, the country's largest gay advocacy group, seem to be blasting Obama for everything from "don't ask don't tell" to Adam Lambert not winning American Idol.

If this guy or anyone else doesn't think we have a right to hold Obama's feet to the fire, he has another thing coming. He can discount gay opinion all he wants, but it doesn't make him right.

His opinion can be boiled down to, "LOL. Silly gays."

[omega minimo]

217. He described it. How is that "discounting" it?

Your interpretation is "Silly gays." That's not what he wrote.

[MADem]

246. He's not saying what you claim he is saying. At all.

He is not saying that you don't "have a right to hold Obama's feet to the fire," he's simply explaining why some members of the black gay community won't be helping you in that effort.

You do know this guy is one of those "LOL. Silly Gays" don't you?

[Politicub]

274. I just thnk he's shortsighted

History follows a longer arc than what has happened in the last three hundred years. Gays have been oppressed for centuries; and now we see a light at the end of that long, long road.

So that is why I reject short sighted and self serving articles such as this. I don't understand the point.

And I can predict the replies - I'm not discounting the struggle that African Americans have endured. In fact, I draw strength from it and embrace it as part of the bigger picture of the ongoing fight for human dignity and equality. We stand on the shoulders of African Americans because of their unwillingness to not give up in the face of adversity. They overcame incredible odds, and that is something everyone should be able to embrace in their own struggle.

[Political Tiger]

218. Highly recommended!!

"In recent weeks, one would have thought the nation's first black president was also the nation's biggest homophobe.....<...>.....Not to be flip, but Miley Cyrus is older than Bill Clinton's "don't ask, don't tell." That doesn't mean that the safety of gay people should be trivialized or that Obama should not be held accountable for the promises he made on the campaign trail. But to call this month's first-ever White House reception for GLBT leaders "too little too late" is akin to a petulant child throwing a tantrum because he wants to eat his dessert before dinner. This is one of the main reasons why so many blacks bristle at the comparison of the two movements -- everybody wants to sing the blues, nobody wants to live them.....<...>.....If blacks are less accepting of gays than other racial groups -- and that is certainly debatable -- then the parade of gay people calling Obama a "disappointment" on television is counterproductive in gaining acceptance, to say the least. And the fact that the loudest critics are mostly white doesn't help matters either."

I applaud the truth when I hear it, and IMO, this is the truth! We need to come together and find common ground instead of constantly looking for someone to blame. Obama is no homophobe, and we need to stop laying the entire future of GLBT civil rights on his shoulders. He didn't create the problems that face all gay Americans, and to turn around and blame him for everything that is wrong in this country in regards to civil and human rights for gay people is disadvantageous to our own cause! Rome wasn't built in a day, and the history of the struggle for civil rights that other oppressed people have faced teaches us that it will be many years before we are to be truly equal in this country, no matter what Obama does. One man can't do it all by himself, and he sure as hell can't do it without our support!

[firedupdem]

219. +1

I was so happy to hear the President actually mention gay rights in his speech before the NAACP. I listened to him wondering how he can be considered a homophobe and a failure?

[Prism]

221. Let's open a can of worms

I know why this article bothers me so much, but I've been dancing around it because I know true honesty about the entire subject will probably result in waves of outrage, but so be it. Silence is death.

The author of this article quite dishonestly dances around a central point in the racial tensions within the LGBT community - where the animosity exists, it is generally mutual and much of it stems from the minimization of homophobia in the black community.

First, let me relate some personal experience in order to put all of it context.

About five years years ago, I dated an African-American male for about six months. Let's call him Alan. Alan lived on the South Side of Chicago. Alan was largely out at the time, but he compartmentalized his social life. He had straight friends and gay friends, and he did not want those two worlds to intersect. Only after several months was I allowed to interact with his straight friends, and I immediately understood why.

In his family, in his social circle, in his community his homosexuality could be tolerated to some degree. What would never be tolerated, however, was "swishyness" - effeminacy. One of his close friends confided in me his relief that I wasn't "like that". He felt he was paying me a compliment. Again and again I bumped into this attitude from the African-Americans who populated Alan's life. Gayness could be worked with, acting like a stereotypical white gay man could not. I watched as this young man changed personalities, depending on whether or not he was with his straight or gay friends. With his family and straight friends, he toughened up his natural softness, often nodded along to denigration of the "white men with AIDS". Oh yes, I experienced those discussions about AIDS being the realm and creation of white males. Of course, these statements made in my presence were always qualified that they didn't mean me. They meant those other white gays. You know, those fags.

Whenever topics about the gay community came up, the prevailing, unveiled attitude was that the gay community meant white, swishy gays, and the commentary proceeded accordingly.

This attitude is not discarded the instant someone comes out as LGBT. There are many African-American gays who have retained this curious dichotomy, this separation between their own homosexuality and the stereotypical white males. The Down Low phenomenon is born of this dichotomy. Many black LGBTers self-segregate because they don't want people in the black community to see them "like that". The disdain and distate felt for swishy white males is too frequently more virulent in black LGBTers, as if they feel they must try that much harder so they're not ostracized by the own community. "Hey, we're gay, but we're not like that!"

These cultural attitudes do not evaporate once someone comes out. Quite the opposite, there exist entire social subgroups that black LGBTers can become a part of that will reinforce these attitudes. Just as a white LGBTer can retain racism, black LGBTers can retain homophobic undertones in their cultural heritage.

Of course, this problem isn't limited to the black LGBT community. Similar attitudes surface among conservative Christian LGBTers, Republican LGBTers, etc. That constant disdain and denigration. The willful separation of "us" from "those bad gays" who have somehow earned society's scorn.

With all of the above being said, too often these undercurrents are allowed to simmer unremarked upon, and when white LGBTers pipe up they're often accused of racism. Somehow, we're not entirely allowed to point out the particular strains of homophobia widely disseminated in certain quarters of black culture, homophobia that destroys and damages LGBT youth, black and white alike. My ex, Alan, was far, far more damaged by that homophobia than I ever was. For me, it was a passing experience with a group of bigots. For him, the people in his life fundamentally altered who he was while simultaneously (and dishonestly) telling him they accepted his sexuality.

Much of the time, we have to suffer attack after attack after attack about civil rights comparisons while that cultural undertone bubbles and whirls just beneath the surface. I have sensed it on DU lurking just behind words and sentiments, time after time, in thread after thread, ideas and conversations with "those white gays" invoked in everything except plain language. Much of the time the expectation (and the taunt) is that we will suffer it without saying a word, because we don't want to be called racist.

That's the kind of thing this author is dabbling in. The undertone is between the lines for those of us who have lived and witnessed it, the idea that white LGBTers and black LGBTers are fundamentally separate, that our histories are not shared, that our culture and existence and experiences are distinct. His attitude is betrayed by his view that Stonewall is largely a white event. Even though black LGBTers were present at Stonewall, even though LGBTers marched in the African-American Civil Rights Movement, the LGBT Civil Rights Movement in America is considered to be the Movement of the White Swishes.

That's why that piece is so ugly. That is why I am tired of seeing posters dabbling in that undertone themselves while white LGBTers are expected to sit there and take it. That is why discussion on these topics is so difficult, because many of us read articles like this, see posters discussing what a wise, needed voice is being expressed, and are almost instantly hostile.

If you bring this kind of cultural homophobia to us, celebrate it, promote it, dabble in it, and argue for it, you cannot and should not ever expect most LGBTers to react well. And you cannot and should not be allowed to fall back on racialism to excuse, apologize, or escape the great and furious condemnation you should receive for ever thinking you could get away with it.

Enough is enough is enough. The LGBT community does have its racial problems, the same as the rest of society. We do need to retool our outreach efforts to improve dialogue between LGBTers and the black religious community.

But we do not need to suffer homophobia from any quarter no matter how it's disguised or what cultural sensibility it emanates from. If people had any shame, they'd stop assailing the LGBT community with this nonsense, especially the straight people. Good God, where does this entitled attitude come from, that straight people can use disguised racial bludgeons to press their homophobia in these ways?

It's insanity, and I for one am tired of being silent about it. No more.

[Neecy]

222. thank you for your honesty in this topic

I've really enjoyed reading your posts.

[omega minimo]

227. This is a good example of how the GLBT effort has much more in common with women's rights than

African American civil rights struggles. The entire first section is about "swishiness" and that's where the male dominant PTB are coming down on women and gays of any color.

You're accusations of celebrating "cultural homophobia" are unfounded. They are based on an arguable read of the essay which you expressed earlier.

You have so much lucidity to add to these discussions. Yet your reaction to the essay seemed based on the "dog whistles" you were hearing that others may consider reasonable points of view.

The piece was well written and thoughtful, describing reality, not vitriol and the most annoyed responses in the thread ALL took it out of context, cherry picked and even edited sentences to give his words the meaning they wanted it to have to fit their own attitudes, not his.

At every turn, he DID acknowledge GLBT struggles, in the same breath that he said something someone here chose to excise and be offended by.

"But that does not excuse nor diminish the ugliness of this author's article, nor the rather large stereotype he harbors about white LGBTers and the broad brush dipped in a heaping bucket of historical ignorance he uses as his base coat in the article.

"The idea that he can somehow forget - or worse, not seem to know about - the violence faced by LGBTers in this country is astoundingly, infuriatingly wrong-headed. It's a direct product of his negative racial attitudes, and it should be condemned rather than praised."


That includes the "historical ignorance" you accused him of. His comments were correct and accurate. He also acknowledged GLBT history. He did not describe it completely and in great detail, because that't not what this piece was about. That omission is treated as so grievous by some in this thread as if it means MUCH MORE than it does.

Not everyone is -- or should be -- listening for those same dog whistles. Sometimes when you hear them, that may not be what the writer was intending, at all.

[Prism]

232. I disagree

I have read this same article from different authors many, many times in the past. I don't seek out the dog whistles. They appear quite readily all on their own.

As I said in another post, there are many LGBT writers of color who do not display these attitudes, who write eloquently and passionately about the racial shortcomings of the LGBT community, and who do it in such a way that engages and urges people to think about what we might need to do differently.

This author is having no part in that. Not only are there the usual denigrating references to tantrums, there's the veiled idea that LGBTers' anger with the administration is motivated partially by racism, there's the implicit threat that we must be nice to the President or the African-American community will not support us, there is the implicit separation of "us" vs. "you" dripping from every segment of the piece.

And on and on and on.

This article was a giant piece of flamebait waved in the faces of white LGBTers. It's being celebrated and recommended by those who almost never miss an opportunity to bat the community around whenever we dare speak up in our own defense.

The fact this article wasn't wiped away the second it was posted is a sign of the deep problems it comes to what kinds of homophobia are still acceptable in liberal politics. The fact many black LGBT writers who are greatly respected in their community are just plain pissed about this article should speak volumes.

This article is a giant cover to once again play the game of "How much homophobia can I get away with under the guise of defending racial heritage?" That's a game with a rich history on these boards. The fact it also allows a long bath in not-so-subtle racism against white LGBTers is just the big fat cherry on top.

It's remarkable this has been so recommended, and it's even more remarkable the post was allowed to stand at all.

[omega minimo]

235. Absolutely wrong. The fact you would continue to make those accusations creates more of a problem,

not less.

This is your perception and in a large part it is projection:

"Not only are there the usual denigrating references to tantrums, there's the veiled idea that LGBTers' anger with the administration is motivated partially by racism, there's the implicit threat that we must be nice to the President or the African-American community will not support us, there is the implicit separation of "us" vs. "you" dripping from every segment of the piece."

It is time for you to acknowledge that this is an individual essay, it is not every other piece you've seen on the subject, fitting your already segmented patterns of opinion on what words mean when they set off a "dog whistle."

This writer is presenting a perspective. It is not a hostile or inflammatory one. Your claims about what you think he means (that is all inferred and supposed by you, not stated by him) and what it means to be presented on DU are completely out of line.

He is talking about cultural matters that are true. It might also be time for GLBT to consider whether less aggression and more cooperation could be a good thing. Some of the voices in this thread brought it up.

It is time for the various social movements to come together.

One thing apparent in the discussion is that the focus on "our issues," "his promises to us" doesn't seem conscious of other groups and issues that have also been back burnered or sidestepped.

Where is the new progressive coalition? Where is the common ground?

One underlying message of the essay and the thread is that that shortsightedness is part of what may put off those who otherwise would join forces.

[Prism]

236. We have different approaches.

I attempt to speak the truth when it is staring me plain in the face. Sometimes I'm politic, sometimes not, but I never diminish what I see to be injustice.

You prefer to talk around the truth in the spirit of compromise and getting along. Sometimes your approach is a fairly wise decision when attempting to form political consensus. But sometimes that approach merely allows injustice to fester.

I'm of the mind this article and the sentiment behind it are in that latter category. I've read the article very carefully, several times, attempting to make absolutely certain I wasn't reading too much into it, misinterpreting, being unfair.

I don't believe I am. As I said, I've had years of experiencing watching these dynamics within the community at play. Out of deference to you, I just read the article yet again. Sorry, my opinion is unchanged.

[omega minimo]

237. People are walking on eggshells about this issue on DU. You have that luxury of speaking as plainly

as you like.

A few in this thread touched on ideas that one doesn't dare bring up, including the author.

I don't "prefer to talk around the truth" for any reason. I am seeking some political consensus.

:toast:

[kid a]

276. +1 (good response)

[bliss_eternal]

233. self delete.

.

[donco6]

247. Wow. Very highly recommended, if I could

This is exactly how I feel about the article.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

255. This post hits close to home because I'm dealing with that particular form of homophobia...

...with a straight female African American friend of mine.

Twice in the last several weeks she has made disparaging remarks when she saw an 'effeminate' African American 'swish' by. Something to the effect of: "It really bothers me to see a Black man with so much sugar in the tank - save that for white men."

The first time she said it I didn't pay it much mind .... but the other day I called her on it. We WILL be discussing this issue in the near future.

[jonnyblitz]

266. oustanding post!! it's sad that this most IGNORANT article

is so highly recommended and popular here.

[wndycty]

272. Why is it ignorant? Because it doesn't fit your world view. . .

. . .and points out the tensions that may exist between white gay men and Black gay me?

Why is it ignorant?

[kid a]

278. I didn't see it as ignorant at all.

[ruggerson]

280. Have either of you (kid a or wndycty) been involved in a

same sex, interracial, long term intimate relationship?

[CakeGrrl]

285. What does that qualification have to do with the discussion?

I think some false associations are being used to try to dismiss the author's view out of hand.

I reread this article carefully, and I think it's fairly written even if people do not like the implications.

I don't see a wholesale generalized attack on the white segment of the GLBT community; I see the author taking care to:

A) point out that there are some valid concerns for GLBTers with the direction of government policy; and

B) qualify his racial observations correctly with terms like "some". He does not say "the white GLBT community" in an at-large indictment of that community's views.

And the interracial aspect doesn't factor largely into his view; his perspective is as a black member of the GLBT community.

I would echo wndycty's question: How is the auther being ignorant?

I think it's fair to ask people who make these dismissive charges to expand on them if they're truly interested in having a discussion.

I get the sense, however, that some people are NOT interested in a true discussion, but rather would prefer to see an echo chamber where everyone with a like viewpoint rallies around a comment with which they all agree.

He's made personal observations. Is someone refuting that he's seen what he's seen?

[Prism]

287. Of course you don't see it

That's part of the problem.

Look, I'm not one of the white gays who is often targeted by this stuff. I'm stupidly, stereotypically masculine in a boring working class way. But my boyfriend is effeminate and many, many people I dearly love are effeminate. An attack on them is an attack on me.

There is barely one single day in my life that does not pass where I do not witness this author's attitude in some form or another. Every day, oftentimes from within the LGBT community, I see this stuff. It is infuriating.

It is the height of privilege for straight people or even gay women to tell me or any other gay male that these kinds of homophobic attitudes are part of our imagination.

You know those white people who hear ethnic minorities complain that something is racist, and they're always chiming in with "Oh stop, that's not racist. Quit being such a baby."

Yeah.

[CakeGrrl]

290. And attitudes like yours are what shut down discussions.

You took my question to ruggerson about how being involved interracially related to wndycty's question about why the post was ignorant, and you wrote off my question to homophobia, while ruggerson civilly responded.

You seem to turn everything that can't be read as 100% lockstep support of every aspect of the GLBT struggle into an attack on the gay community. That you know NOTHING about me or who I have in my life makes it easier to level those kinds of attacks.

I suspect you don't really want to hear from straights; I suggest that to your way of thinking, "they'll never understand what we're going through".

But despite your suppositions, I'll keep engaging in the discussion with those who are willing to treat it seriously and not an us-or-them battle.

[Prism]

293. This issue has been explained to death

I have a pretty good track record as far as trying to engage in dialogue with straight people. I'm certainly not of the opinion that anyone should be in lockstep with anything. I don't always agree with prevailing sentiment in the LGBT community, so I wouldn't expect straight people to either.

But this thread has been fairly illuminating for me, at least in regards to DU. Because I'm starting to realize that stated desires to "discuss things" are often insincere. Look at the history of this thread.

First I reacted. Then, I tried to explain. Then I discussed (at rather tedious length). Discussed and explained, and pointed out various things about gay culture that straight posters aren't generally familiar with.

And after all of that, most of the replies in disagreement obviously haven't heard a word I said. Not because they disagree with me, but because they don't address any of the points I made, they don't even acknowledge a single point I made, they don't engage directly, they dance and dart around like a school of posting fish.

Because the minds were made up before this article was ever posted. People have preconceived notions of what gay white males are like, and nothing out of any gay white male's mouth about what the community is really like seems to have made one single dent in thinking.

Not agreement, just how they think about these issues in the community. Never "You may have a point, let's explore this train of thought further." Just an endless parade of reactionism to keep those preconceived ideas safely intact.

Am I getting belligerent? Yeah, a bit. I've been watching homophobia defended, explained away, and apologized for relentlessly in this thread. Hell, I can't even get a simple acknowledgement that there might be some in this thread whatsoever.

The funniest thing is, someone told me a month or two ago this would happen. I'd start out reasonable and moderate and try to have calm, rational dialogue about LGBT issues. Then the homophobia would start tearing at my peace of mind. Then it'd become a relentless pounding. Then it would just completely piss me off and I would flip.

That poster was 100% correct. This thread is absolutely breath-taking for all the wrong reasons.

[CakeGrrl]

296. That homophobia exists is obvious

Do you see anyone denying that it does?

It exists in the hetero community, obviously. I don't doubt anyone who has seen effeminate gays picked on for the way they speak, walk or gesture.

I believe it is internalized in some GLBT invididuals, as you suggested. That's no new concept to me. Many dialogues on the "down-low" concept have been held.

But, as homophobia exists, so does racism. And some GLBTers are as capable of that as any other human being in this world, and that can influence one's decisions just as homophobia can.

SOME. That is not a generalization. And the author, in my opinion, is offering his viewpoint based on experience that may or may not be selectively limited, but it does not INvalidate what experiences he has had or accounts he has received from other black GLBTers in regard to their treatment at the hands of SOME white GLBTers.

As I said in an earlier response, I re-read that piece carefully and I did not see an attack on the white segment of the GLBT community as a whole.

Now, if at the end of all this you're suggesting that the mere supposition of ANY racism in the GLBT community is tantamount to being homophobic against the community as a whole, that's where you and I part company.

[Prism]

307. I don't think his experiences are invalid

I think (but don't hold me to this) most people coming down against the article in this thread have acknowledged that there is a bit of self-segregation in the LGBT community. Or at least, as Neecy pointed out, in the gay ghettoes. I also acknowledge there was ugliness in the wake of Prop 8. I saw it and hated every second of it. Broke my heart to see it.

But, and this is a big but, it doesn't erase or excuse the attacks and attitudes the author presents in his writing. He opens that piece with commentary that he either thinks white gay men are all effeminate, or that his problems are specifically with effeminate white gay men. It can be read either way, because he opens it with massive stereotypes. After the first few paragraphs, I knew that piece was going nowhere good. If you want anyone to listen to what you have to say, especially your ostensible target audience, that was about as opposite the way as I can think of to open up that piece. It was hostile from the word go.

You will never hear me state that there is no racism in the LGBT community or that pointing it out when it does occur is homophobic. I absolutely 100% disagree with those ideas.

However, I won't sit quiet when I see someone use race as a cloak to make their own attacks against the community, which is what I believe this author did.

[ruggerson]

288. I was asking to find out where they are coming from

unless I'm misreading this article, the author intimates he hangs out at segregated nightclubs where the men primarily date other men of color. (his words: "those who date other blacks, and live in the black community.")

So his perspective is framed by his experiences. I'd be interested to know, from him as well, if he's ever had a long term intimate relationship with someone other than an African American.

Interestingly enough, there is a parallel bifurcation in the LGBT community. THere are gay people whose lives revolve around living in, working in, socializing in and generally steeping themselves in the gay community (most of these live in larger cities, where this is possible.)

There are also gay people who live and work in the larger world, and socialize with both straight and gay, or just straight people, they never go out to "gay nightclubs", and if they happen to have some gay friends, it is for the same reason that you do: happenstance.

All these different ways of living one's life inform different perspectives.

Gay people who actually have had long term relationships with a person of a different race are going to have a unique perspective (not better or worse, but different) than those who have not.

[CakeGrrl]

289. I get you. Edited to add that

no, we don't know the totality of his experiences or if he himself is being selective in the environments he frequents.

Yet and still, I don't doubt that he has spoken to black GLBTers who had racial epithets thrown at them in the wake of the Prop 8 vote. He might not be able to speak to the totality or full scope of the level of segregation and racism in the GLBT community (truly, who IS when you think about it?), but his is another confirmation of its existence in some settings. My biggest issue with some of the comments are that some seem not to want to entertain that concept in any way, shape, or form.

[ruggerson]

315. I agree that there is racism in the GLBT community

but I disagree that somehow that tells us something about them in the aggregate. I would venture (though I have no polling statistics to reference) that the racism is less in the GLBT community than in the population at large. SImply because gay people have suffered discrimination at the hands of the majority for centuries in this country and out of that would arise a natural empathy with other groups that have experienced similar (yet uniquely different) disenfranchisement.

My main discomfort with this piece is that it can be used as an excuse to justify some of the blatant homophobia we have seen both in real life and on DU. It's as if it gives permission to some people to point to this one guy and say, "see, that's we've been saying all along. White, gay people are racist."

Which is neither true nor very constructive.

[wndycty]

294. No but are you setting new policy?

And based upon said policy would that mean that white folks can't talk about racial discrimination?

[ruggerson]

311. I'm wondering what your perspective is

and, frankly, I do think that white people don't have quite the same authority as black people to discuss how the racial divide in the US has impacted generations of black Americans. I believe whites can listen, can learn, can form opinions and are free to speak out on racial matters, but they never will completely understand the depth of what black Americans have faced, because they have never lived an entire lifetime of experiences as a person of color in this country.

Ditto for those that did not grow up gay. Your remarks upthread about how blacks can't hide who they are, but gays cannot illustrates that. Almost every gay person I know will tell you that they knew they were somehow different from a pre-school age, and little kids are extraordinarily perceptive and can also be extraordinarily brutal to other little kids who are perceived as "different."

The totality of one's life experiences inform one's worldview. Having experienced firsthand a soulmate, or spouse, of a different race can give one a different (and sometimes broader) perspective than not having had such an experience.

The basic reason I think this gentleman's viewpoint may possibly be a bit narrower than some is because he (may) be living a lifestyle that self segregates. He references black only clubs and speaks of gay men of color "particularly those who date other blacks, and live in the black community." Having said that, I read his piece thoroughly and absorbed what he had to say. In this particular piece he chooses to focus on his perception of racism in the gay community, while ignoring homophobia in the black one. Mr. McEwan's article, for me, resonates more powerfully, because of its attempt to bridge differences while Mr. Granderson's attempts to highlight a divide. I believe there are holes in Mr. Granderson's understanding of history - in his references to Stonewall, in his references to the history of the LGBT political movement and in his one sided comparisons of historical oppression (wherein he both trivializes and innacurately characterizes LGBT history).

I would hope that the overwhelming majority of LGBT voices in this thread that have offered constructive criticism of Mr. Granderson's piece have given you some insight (and yes I know that there have been some LGBT voices in agreement with him). It would be sad if people came into these kinds of discussions with preconceived perceptions that are so hardened that they merely want to speak and not to listen.

[wndycty]

317. I am a straight African American male

Here is where I am coming from. When it comes to policy I am 110% support of any laws/legislation that provide absolute equality and protection for the LGBT community.

Politically, I am extremely disappointed that Obama does not support gay marriage and that he has not moved faster to repeal DADT and DOMA, but I am hopeful that by the end of his first term we will see the end of DADT and DOMA and that maybe see him move towards supporting gay marriage. I do however take strong exception to much of the rhetoric thrown his way during both the McClurkin and Rick Warren controversies. I did not agree with either decision, felt Obama deserved to be criticized but think folks went to far.

Here is the rub. Despite the fact that I know some members of the LGBT community will consider me an enemy to the cause, I stand 110% in favor of what the community wants to see, I disagree with the rhetoric. No matter how many times people question my motives, my support of the LGBT community, etc. I will continue to advocate in my small way for full equality and tolerance.

I don't dismiss the homophobia that exists in the Black community, I have family and friends (of all races) who I have gotten into arguments with as it relates to their homophobic bigotry, so I do take exception and find it ironic when a few posters on this thread have called me out a bigot.

I know I don't know what its like to be gay, I don't want to pretend I do, but in a lot of ways that illustrates my point. Members of the LGBT community have to deal with so much that no other group has to deal with, but so does every other group. As a straight Black man I don't have the same burdens that you have, but guess what you can't imagine what its like to deal with the burdens that I have to deal with.

African Americans, immigrants, Jews and members of the LGBT community have had to fight for equality, tolerance and acceptance and we do have that in common, however each community has had it is own distinctive challenges and to some those distinctions matter, that is why many who have posted in this and other threads agree with Granderson's observation that "Gay is not the new Black," but more importantly it does not need to be for me and others to support and fight for LGBT equality.

[noiretextatique]

321. i live in a black community

and i haven't experienced any homophobia whatsoever. i am a woman, so that may be the difference, but i am also middle-class and a college graduate, and so are most of the people i know. what pisses me off about this "black people are more homophobic" meme is that i haven't experienced that at all. clearly socio-economic class and education are variables that should be considered in this debate.

[Prism]

324. I don't give much credence to "blacks are more homophobic"

The post Prop 8 polls were garbage and did too much unnecessary damage. The only time I think polls of that nature matter is when organizations and activists are trying to piece together where and how to tailor their outreach.

I tend to agree homophobia, in all its forms, is far more class and religion based than anything else.

The experience I cited above involved people on the economic lower rungs. Much of my knowledge comes from knowing and dating people who have risen from that same socioeconomic background.

I guess I should state, in case I haven't, that the homophobia I've been discussing in this thread isn't a degree of better or worse. My purpose was merely to highlight the different form based on my experiences, the experiences of the people I know, and the books I've read on the subject. Different kinds of homophobia require different responses, and they very often arise in different contexts that aren't always immediately obvious.

[noiretextatique]

327. thanks for the clarification

i think people tend to eat their own, if you know what i mean. if i lived in another part of the city, i do believe i would have more problems. i am pretty much invisible in the area where i live now, but that wasn't the case when i lived in a mostly black area of long beach. i was very visible there because i lived with five other women, and we caught hell on a daily basis. it was such a dangerous situation that we had to walk each other out to our cars. the neighbors, mostly teenage boys, terrorized us so much that we had to move. they really hated the more butch looking woman who lived with us, but they also hated those of us who were more feminine. i really lived in fear for the few months i lived there because one young man had threatened to rape me. because i have resources, i have the ability to choose where i live, and honestly, i would not ever live in the hood again because i know it is a dangerous place for me. of course not everyone in the hood has anti-gay attitudes, but i would definitely be a target of those who do.
thanks for sharing your story, Prism.

[omega minimo]

231. The Dream is being judged on the content of our character

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Fascism/14_Characteristics_Fascism.html

5. Rampant Sexism -- The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Opposition to abortion is high, as is homophobia and antigay legislation and national policy.


There are those who are asking the devotees of civil rights, "When will you be satisfied?" We can never be satisfied as long as the Negro is the victim of the unspeakable horrors of police brutality. We can never be satisfied as long as our bodies, heavy with the fatigue of travel, cannot gain lodging in the motels of the highways and the hotels of the cities. We cannot be satisfied as long as the negro's basic mobility is from a smaller ghetto to a larger one. We can never be satisfied as long as our children are stripped of their self-hood and robbed of their dignity by signs stating: "For Whites Only." We cannot be satisfied as long as a Negro in Mississippi cannot vote and a Negro in New York believes he has nothing for which to vote. No, no, we are not satisfied, and we will not be satisfied until "justice rolls down like waters, and righteousness like a mighty stream."¹

<>

I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal."

I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia, the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood.

I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a state sweltering with the heat of injustice, sweltering with the heat of oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice.

I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.

I have a dream today!

[kdpeters]

242. I pretty much agree with everything he said.

He didn't put a lot of varnish on it, but why should he when he's speaking the truth. There is certainly a great deal of overlap of civil rights issues important to gays and blacks, but many white gays seem quick to make casual comparisons as if there is a 1:1 equivalence. It's a manifestation of white privilege. I have to echo what another poster, aaaaaaa5a said upthread, "The African American experience is far more difficult and unique than any other sub-group in American history. I think all of us in the gay rights movement need to remember that."

Thanks for posting this.

[dolphindance]

298. This black person agrees with this article 100%.

So many on this board have tried to state these truths, but their posts get alerted and they are banned.

[QC]

301. Are you gay? n/t

[wndycty]

303. So is the new tact today that the only folks allowed to have an opinion must be gay?

Thanks for the heads up, I will remember that the next time a white person wants to chime in on racial discrimination.

[QC]

308. Imagine a bunch of white guys sitting around discussing racial discrimination,

and every time a black person tries to say anything, the whites blithely dismiss him, telling him he he has no idea what he is talking about and then lecturing him on what his own life *really* is like...

and then you will see what most discussions of GLBT issues on DU amount to and why the few remaining LGBTs on this site get so fed up with it all.

[wndycty]

309. So tell me what where I am (I can't take responsibility for others) am telling LGBT DUers. .

. . .they have no idea what they are talking about?

There has been tension between the the LGBT community and the African American civil rights community, it has boiled up a lot here on DU. I posted the OP to foster discussion, not to shut anyone up. As I said I have not told anyone they have no idea what they are talking about. . .this thread is about discussing the issue and fostering understanding.

[QC]

312. Here's one nice little example, but there are plenty of others:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=post&forum=132&topic_id=8532902&mesg_id=8533019

[wndycty]

319. Huh? That takes me to the reply screen. . .

. . .you have to do better than that to paint me as a homophobe.

Again, please give me a link.

[QC]

322. Here's the correct link, in all its breezily dismissive glory:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8532902&mesg_id=8533019

Read the exchange that begins with this post, in which you tell this woman what really happened to her.

This is what privilege looks like.

[wndycty]

323. You should have put the entire exchange which I also stated. . .

118. I am not saying that at all, what I am saying is that unfortunately slurs associated with being gay

. . .are often thrown around and directed towards people without any knowledge as to whether or not the individual those insults are being directed towards is actually gay.

That does not diminish the pain and suffering those slurs cause, its just a realization that ignorant folks will say anything to anyone to hurt them and the truth is irrelevant to the person throwing out the insult.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8532902&mesg_id=8533329

While you will point to this as some sort of smoking gun that I am an intolerant and dismissive bigot, I should point out that I was not attempting to dismiss what happened to her, but rather I was pointing out ignorant people often throw around homophobic slurs at folks without really knowing the sexual orientation of the person the seek to insult. I in no way meant to say that she had no right to feel insulted. I feel that anyone using homophobic slurs is a bigot.

So come again, how am I a bigot?

[Neecy]

325. But that wasn't what I was saying

You kept telling me that this could also happen to two straight women. I have lots of straight friends and yes, even when they ignore lame pickup lines they aren't violently taunted with anti-gay slurs or rushed like they're going to get the shit beaten out of them. Then I had others dismiss this at typical Placerville ignorance, not understanding that this can and does happen everywhere.

You said you can't hide your blackness, but no one knows our sexual identity unless we tell them. I dispute that. They obviously picked up that we were a couple and reacted in an ugly fashion. I can't hide any more than you can.

[wndycty]

326. I don't know what they picked up, I have seen ignorant men launch homophobic slurs. . .

. . .at people who weren't gay.

I will take your word for it, that the idiots in question knew for sure that you are your partner was gay. I do not seek to antagonize you over this.

[Neecy]

328. and I was wrong. I apologize.

I honestly have not known straight women who have been verbally assaulted or threatened with violence because someone perceived them to be gay.

I posted a thread about it and it does happen, although the actual violence part is rare. About 40% of the straight women who have replied so far have said they've been on the receiving end of anti-gay slurs. I still think the guys pouring out of the truck to attack us is not the norm for heterosexual women, but the taunting does occur.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6104133

[wndycty]

329. Again its not only women it is men. . .

. . .and more importantly I doubt if the idiots using the slur even really believe what they are saying. I was at a carnival the other week and two immature teenagers were denied admittance to a ride and immediately threw out the "f" word without any reprimand from their parents.

Unfortunately they see it as a put down, and even worse because they see it as a put down many of them don't think they are being homophobic. Seriously.

The fact that calling someone a homophobic slur is acceptable is appalling, regardless of the sexual orientation of the target. I appreciate that you conducted your poll though and thanks for reporting the results.

The violence aspect of your experience is alarming.

[dolphindance]

304. No. I am straight. (n/t)