Based on the questions raised in this video from NewsWeek.
Is it offensive or somehow inappropriate to compare the current gay rights movement to the African-American civil rights movement? It doesn’t seem to me to be so – in fact, it seems to me to be a perfectly reasonable comparison. Yet in the above video, some people responded to the idea (as expressed in the new slogan “Gay is the new black”) as “intentionally provacative,” “smart-ass,” “overly simplistic,” and “possibly offensive.” What do you think?
** I know gay rights – and even African-Americans and gay rights – have been discussed a lot here lately, so if this specific topic has been covered already, I apologize.
It’s no worse a comparison than that between “female” and “black”. In both cases, there are some large and undeniable differences, to be sure, but the analogies still highlight some significant commonalities.
It’s everything you listed and more, but being very simplistic in some ways doesn’t mean the analogy has no use, and being potentially offensive only illustrates that people have the potential to take offense at all kinds of things.
(It’s also no worse a comparison than that between “female” and “gay”, and so on, but for understandable reasons, “black” is generally the go-to category when one wants to make a sympathy-evoking point)
Maybe I’m naive, but it surprised me to even find out that anyone considered it “provocative” or “smart-ass” – it just seemed to be such a sensible, normal comparison. I have a hard time believing the slogans were even intended to be provocative, regardless of how people took them.
The comparison is provocative and smart-ass the same way, say, “Woman is the Nigger of the World” was a provocative and smart-ass title, though, of course, to a more restrained degree. As regards the specific concept of “the new black”, it suggests that all problems have been resolved for the “old” blacks, which is presumably particularly upsetting for some.
Incidentally, I’m trying to understand some of the dialogue in that video. When they are interviewing Ernest, what’s the last thing he says before he leaves? It sounds like “FBL” or something, but I can’t figure out what that would mean.
I think this is part of the reason why some people find it offensive. While there is plenty of discrimination against homosexuals, the vast majority of it has not been government mandated, and has not been as detrimental to the community. The government, at various times, has enslaved, disenfranchised, segregated, arrested without cause, brutalized, and harassed Black people. Most of that has not happened to homosexuals on a systematic basis. People are offended because the comparison is weak, inaccurate, and lazy.
I don’t find it offensive as such, but the fact still remains you can hide being gay better than you could ever hide being black, or a woman. I am NOT saying people should, or that it’s a good thing, but fact remains, being both a minority and a woman, I can hide neither, but I can hide my sexuality.
Perhaps this is part of what might be offending people.
Not enslaved or segregated, but the rest of those things have all happened to the gay community and much of it is from the government. It’s a lot better now than it was, but pre-Stonewall was a very different time.
And, on the one hand, it was never de jure illegal to be black, but it was to be gay. There used to be laws prohibiting serving known homosexuals or drag queens alcohol (even in San Francisco!). Police used to regularly raid gay bars or clubs, because of both of the above reasons. Gay men can still be murdered and the straight neighbors will still shake their heads and say “He had it coming for being so obvious” (see “Shepard, Matthew”). Gay men can still be murdered and the jury will acquit on a “gay panic” defense.
The idea that gays are somehow a population whose social ostracism prior to the last decade or two was mostly about inconvenience rather than actual physical danger and threat of death is inaccurate.
Can I please move into your universe? The universe in which I live is replete with evidence of the systematic imprisonment, harassment, torture, and execution of gay people of all walks of life, all around the world.
Until very recently merely being gay in the US military was grounds for a dishonorable discharge and, in many circumstances, prison time. Being gay merits a death sentence under Sharia law, which dominates in much of the Middle East and Africa and significant parts of Asia, and that punishment (or others similar to it) is imposed with remarkably frequency. Alan Turing, one of the most brilliant minds of the 20th century, was forced to submit to chemical injections for being gay. History is replete of examples of brilliant, prominent people being punished for being gay, despite being in all way model, even valued, members of society.
Or any worse than comparing slavery to the Holocaust, for that matter? Seriously, folks, what’s up with the whole, “MY group’s discrimination is worse than YOUR’S.” brickbacon, how does that make you any better than the bigots who say, “Oh, racism is pretty much gone nowadays?”
But in 2008 the situation has reversed. As far as I know, there are no government laws or policies that directly discriminate against black people (admittedly there are still numerous laws and policies that indirectly have an inordinate effect on black people) but there are government laws and policies that directly discriminate against gay people.
It’s an apt comparison, but I could see how the slogan could provoke some ire. If it’s ‘the new black’ it means the ‘old black’ is out of fashion, and that gay rights, too, could be considered out of style at some point.
Complicating this is the fact that the black community isn’t overly receptive to gay rights arguments - that led to an awful lot of tension after this last election.
The civil rights movement has inspired lots of other movements within American society - this plain fact can be noted without trying to coopt the history of any group.