Comparisons to the Civil Rights movement are overused, incorrect, and insulting.

…as a photographer I recently covered the Carmen Rupe Celebration lunch:

http://bigmark.co.nz/2013/11/03/carmen/

The picture at the top there is remarkable because it is full of unsung heroes. For decades these people fought for the rights of gay and transgender people. One of the people in the room was the policeman who regularly had dealings and sometimes even arrested others in the room. But on this day everyone were friends.

The atmosphere in the room was positively electric. There was laughter, there were tears, there was collective grief. There have been many victories. And life for a transgender person is much better today than it was in the 60’s. But it is insulting to say that the battles these beautiful people have fought and will continue to fight is not as important as a battle fought by someone else.

To quote the all-knowing wikipedia, the civil rights movement is ensuring that the rights of all people are equally protected by the law, including the rights of minorities, women’s rights, and LGBT rights. In New Zealand Maori had the right to vote for representation from 1879. Woman were the first to be granted the right to vote in 1893. The homosexual law reform act passed in 1986. In 1995 former prostitute and transsexual Georgina Beyers was elected mayor of the right wing country town of Caterton, then in 1999 she was elected to parliament. Last year in a series of historic speeches John Banks, a right wing religious conservative MP who voted against the homosexual law reform act gave this speech in Parliament.

Civil rights isn’t an issue that started and ended with Rosa Parks. It is a worldwide issue and a world wide battle that continues to this day. New Zealand has come a very long way in its short time of existence. But it still has a lot of work to do. The United States has even further to come. And it is much harder for a politician in the United States to do what John Banks did. It is insulting to sum up the civil rights movement as just a series of horrible incidents that happened in the deep south of the US. It is so much more than that.

Ugh. ITR, the fact is that the struggles of the civil rights movement are almost perfectly analogous to those of the modern gay rights movement, save for the most visceral parts. Look, the fact that we don’t have a lot of gay people getting the fire hose turned on them does not in any way minimize the discrimination suffered by homosexuals. Never mind that homosexuals are very often the victims of violence, as well as harassment, bullying, and the like, to the point where gay teens are considerably more likely than straight teens to kill themselves. That’s not exactly a plus for your argument, despite the lack of analogy to the civil rights movement. You’re going to need to bring better arguments, because the shoe fits. Perhaps individual places where the comparison fails? Most of the times I see it being applied, it’s a simple comparison - “would this be okay if the discrimination was racial”. And that is absolutely reasonable to do.

I’m not quite sure what the purpose of your OP might have been. You may very well have a legitimate complaint against the use of the (racial) Civil Rights movement in the U.S. being overused as a point of comparison, but you tied it directly to a thread on civil rights based on sexual orientation, giving a pretty clear impression that you do not believe that homosexual civil rights are legitimate, (or legitimate “enough”), to bear comparison to the actions that dominated the news of the 1950s and 1960s.

If that is a bad inference, then I would suggest that you would have done better to pick a different example of what you consider egregious.

Just a note - this is somewhat misleadingly worded, as the South African legal system does not have a concept of hate crimes at all.

I don’t see a precise parallel. Gays are protected by law and blacks in the South, back then… were not.

Comparing gay struggle to the black struggle is a superficial comparison, at best.

Neither were gays until quite recently. It wasn’t so long ago that homosexuality was outright outlawed; if you are going for comparisons even the South didn’t outlaw being black.

That’s at best an exaggeration.

Are there lots of obvious differences? Sure.

There are also lots of differences between the struggles for black equality in South Africa and the US, but no one seriously argues those aren’t valid comparisons.

This cryptic comment really needs to be developed if you want anyone to accept it.

Actually, in most states it’s perfectly legal to discriminate against gays.

Yeah, it’s not like any business owner ever told black customers he didn’t want to serve their kind.

No, wait, that’s exactly what happened.

Well, right, but Rosa Parks didn’t die for the cause of desegregation, and there was no mass violence that was the target of her protest. Her protest was against unequal treatment by a municipal service. It was a wonderful, noble protest she engaged in, and it’s absolutely appropriate to analogize it to wonderful, noble protests that folks engage in these days.

Now, I do remember some jerk a few decades ago that compared the plight of black Americans to Hebrews forced to work to death building pyramids, talked about how one day “we, as a people, will get to the Promised Land.” Now THAT was an inappropriate analogy, amiright?

We should learn lessons from the past, and if that means comparing one civil rights campaign to another, I’m all for it. Of course the two situations are not identical, but what do you expect? They’re similar enough that lessons from one can be applied to the other, and I think I would be disappointed if any of those campaigners for racial equality in the US jealously objected to the idea of applying the lessons of their struggle to another battle for civil rights.

You are aware there isn’t a single state in the south that offers legal protections to Homosexuals right?

If you are in the south and want to fire someone for being gay go right ahead and put a sign in your window that says ‘gays need not apply.’ If you want to refuse service to anyone who is gay your more then welcome to post and enforce it with no legal recourse for those that are discriminated against. In fact in every southern state the government itself can fire you for being gay, the only exception being Kentucky which isn’t even the south.

Today, some people seem to think that discrimination against blacks doesn’t exist unless it rises to the level of lynching, so it shouldn’t be surprising to see people argue that it’s no big deal what happens to gays if it doesn’t rise to the level of lynching.

It shouldn’t be, but it still is.

Civil rights isn’t just about not being killed. It isn’t just about lynching. It’s about having a seat at the table.

Sure, when right-wingers stop comparing the ACA to apartheid.

Sorry no, conservative attacks on people for being Marxist or Socialist or whatever betrays a fundamental confusion about what those words stand for. The only thing one can say about comparisons to the Civil Rights Movement for gay rights is that the degree of enmity is not as outwardly violent, but the comparison is perfectly apt

Conservatives don’t get to tell everyone not to do any comparisons because their pet issue to compare to is a total lie and wrong. Liberals are using comparisons right

Neither do I - I see an effective parallel, though. Close enough for government work.

Uh, no. I certainly don’t recall saying any such thing.

The history books which I’ve read on the subject inform me that violence against Blacks was quite common in the South during the Jim Crow era.

I’d be more inclined to agree with that comparison, as the “war on drugs” does involve massive use of government force.

Compared to how often racist violence should occur, or occurs in the US now? Absolutely. Compared to how often nonviolent discrimination occurred, however, violence was vanishingly rare.