Where exactly was there any inconsistency funny man?
It has to do with rights because our justice system systematically railroads many Black people and other minorities due in part to discriminatory laws and a legacy of racism. A legacy that have left millions of people without adequate education or housing, and in a cycle of poverty. All of those things are due, in part, to our past transgressions. Blacks are more likely to be face stiffer sentences for crimes, receive the death penalty, and be pulled over and searched. At everyone of those steps, rights can, and have been violated.
More importantly, my comment was addressing my initial point that regardless of how unfairly Blacks and gays are treated today or in the past, the gay community is in far better shape than the Black community.
I know what it is, I asked for a site that shows some cases where people actually got off using it. This is just like the Twinkie defense. All the examples from your site were people that were convicted. Show me where this defense has actually worked, or even a one that indicates a significant minority of people believe “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”.” I await your citations.
First, you don’t have a point. You’re just screeching and acting hysterically. Second, I have no problem with any group being primary focused on their own cause. However, if you are going to piggy-back on the work of others, you should have a understanding and appreciation for the work they did. Additionally, you should make sure your comparisons are valid, and don’t offend the people you seek to influence. The Gay community, for the most part, has done neither. They reached back to the nearest movement that bore any resemblance that would resonate emotionally with progressive people. It’s a disingenuous and inaccurate comparison.
Those weren’t the only instances it was used-merely the most high profile. It’s rather late, I’ll look some more up in the morning.
You have yet to show any examples of this yourself. I don’t see where the gay community has done any of what you’ve accused them of. All you seem to be interested in doing is trying to play the game of who has it worse, instead of trying to make it better for all.
I think an important reason that gay is not the new black is that gays and blacks form communities in totally different ways, which has its implications for the positions both of these groups take up in society. Put most simply, when you’re black, so is the rest of your family (or at least a significant part of it). For gays, this usually isn’t the case. This difference, and the fact that blacks can be identified much more easily by the non-blacks than gays can be identified by non-gays (esp. if those gays choose not to be identified) means that the exclusion of blacks is much more profound than that of gays. This, to be sure, goes two ways: blacks are excluded more easily than gays, and blacks have a harder time integrating in the non-black community than gays in the straight-community: gays are already integrated in the straight community to some extent at least by virtue of the fact that their parents are usually straight.
I’ll add to this, to come back to my ‘inmates vs graduates ratio’ comment above (post #8), that a huge difference between gays and blacks is their economic position. Bigotry and discrimination aside, blacks continue to do less well economically than non-blacks whereas gays, who usually don’t have children to raise, which is an expensive hobby, are actually usually more well-off than non-gays (no cite, though).
One day, Joe and Mark are planning to get married, with the full complement of rights afforded by California law. The next day a law is passed that says they are not allowed to get married anymore. Even if that law wasn’t passed, their marriage would not be recognized in most other states, in stark contrast to “regular” marriages. I’d like to hear how it’s debatable that Joe and Mark do not have fewer rights than a hetero couple.
DADT, if you want to work in the military, and you’re gay, you have to “pass”. You cannot talk openly about yourself, or let anyone know who you actually are. While all of your colleagues are 100% free to discuss their spouses, SO’s, children, family, you have to watch everything you say to ensure you don’t slip, mention something about your homosexuality, and get kicked out of the military. Tell me how this gay soldier has all the same rights as hetero soldiers.
How many Black people would jump at this chance today? That should show you how different their struggles are today. For all you want to think that Blacks have it worse than Gays, there aren’t many Black Americans who are attempting to pass today, but tons of Gays are still in the closet, afraid to let anyone know who they actually are.
You won’t find a cite for that factoid, for it’s simply not true. Gay men have income slightly below average, although not by a whole lot, while gay women are significantly below the average. Not all gay men are Will from Will and Grace.
Well, I didn’t say gays had higher income, just that they were more well-off economically, which is due not so much to the fact that they earn more more money but that they spend less of it on their kids and more of it on themselves. A little googling reveals that there is in fact some truth to this story for the US(link). I’m not entirely sure how reliable this info is but I guess it’s safe to say that the gay community is not economically deprived when compared to the straight community, and certainly not when compared to the black community.
That particular marketing study is flawed in that it is biased toward “out” gays: gays who are out in everyday life and who identify casually as gay (often by subscribing to gay-themed magazines or otherwise identifying themselves to the marketing industry as gay). I suspect you’ll find that when you start digging deeper, beyond the “Will and Grace” upper crust, the numbers trend the other way.
Since I mentioned it in my post as to why no gay groups were in the forefront of the civil rights movement, I have to ask you: Do you know what “in the closet” means?
The struggle for gay rights is not over either; guess which struggle gay groups are going to put more effort into.
So, are you saying that unless gay groups pretend no other struggles for human rights and dignity ever took place before and could, I don’t know, but a model of or an exemplar for a similar, ongoing struggle, they are somehow simply mercenary and not legitimate in your eyes? In that case, Martin Luther King needed to be slapped down for using the example of Gandhi as a model of non-violent protest.
Most of this has already been addressed; however, property owners will still sometimes not rent to gay people (this happened to me recently when I sought to find a share with my best, straight friend). Also, have you not heard of any instances where crimes against gays – including violent attacks – have been dismissed or laughed at outright by law enforcement, including reported domestic abuse between gay couples? Lastly, I have lost jobs because I’m gay. In fact, recently I thought I was struggling against a group that simply did not like me. A higher-up whispered in my ear about the homophobic comments made by the group that was making it hard for me to do my job and ultimately caused me to lose it.
If the focus of a group is on a particular thing, i.e., gay rights, it makes sense that such a group will expend its efforts, energy and resources in that area. I still don’t see how does it necessarily follows that such groups are not only not interested in civil rights but unbeholdened and ungrateful? I will think progress in civil rights in one area is progress for all. And I’d still like to see something other than just your assertion of it that gays aren’t beholden and thankful for the progress made by the civil rights struggle, if for nothing having a model to go by as it moves through its struggle.
Well, you know what, I provided some info, and more than just one marketing study; I didn’t say that all gays are like Will and Grace, just that they’re not economically underprivileged, rather that, if anything, they’re more well off, in which aspect the gay community is quite unlike the black community. In the interest of this debate and in the interest of fighting ignorance, I would suggest that you provide some cite in order to confirm what you’re saying.
On this topic, you’re beginning to remind me of the woman whom I met while canvassing for Obama in Philadelphia. After stating she had supported Clinton in the primary and being told that since Clinton now supported Obama and maybe she could too, she said “That might be true but why should I? I’m angry at him because he didn’t support her during the primary.”
it implies that the ‘black struggle’ is old and the ‘gay struggle’ is new, neither of which is remotely accurate
it totally disappears the experience of people who are both gay AND black
the fact that gay people and black people in this thread seem to agree on very little other than the fact that oppression of gay people and black people works differently
I could get past all that if the analogy suggested a new idea or approach, but it doesn’t.
Let me agree, first of all, that the slogan is crap. Maybe it was supposed to be clever and juxtapose the civil rights issues with some kind of fashion issues (yay, gay/fashion/:rolleyes:). I have no problem with people who dislike the slogan because I do, too.
I was reacting to what sounded to me like someone saying “Our civil rights struggle was better than your civil rights struggle so kindly shut up about Dr. King and Selma and Bull Conner”. And I will continue to react to that, because it’s bullshit. Yes, black marginalization and institutionalized discrimination were and are evil. But so is what happens to gay men and lesbians and transgendered people outside of (and even inside of, sometimes) large urban areas. And that doesn’t even bring in queer folk of color, who have two and sometimes three different points of opposition going on.
Another thing that I noticed in this thread, was someone mentioning blacks coming from black families and gays coming from mostly straight families, as if it made the black condition more onerous than the gay condition. I would argue exactly the opposite. Until quite recently, the fact that most queer folk could NOT depend on their families to accept them as they were only added to our onus of marginalization. African-Americans have/had families, in many cases LARGE families, to retreat to when the world treated them like crap. They have/had a huge social, spiritual and familial network to seek help when things went pear-shaped. Gays have not, historically, had this, especially younger gay men and women who were dependent on families that would have no qualms with throwing them on the street were it known they weren’t straight.
I would NEVER belittle or diminish the black civil rights struggle. Be so kind, please, as not to belittle or diminish mine.
jayjay, I would not want to suggest that the different family background that exists for most blacks and gays makes it worse to be black than to be gay, and I believe I did not do so in my contribution to this debate in post 40-something. But if I gave you the impression that what I wrote belittled or diminished the struggle of you and other gays I’m sorry for that, that was never my intention. I *do *believe, however, that the difference in family background that exists between blacks and gays means that while you can talk about a black community and a gay community, the word community means something very different in both phrases, and that this difference has an impact on the way marginalization and oppression of both these groups works.
In terms of being afforded equal opportunities, there are definite similarities, but I don’t think it’s proper to compare the nature of discrimination between the two groups, for the simple fact that not too long ago, black folks couldn’t even do something as simple as drink from the same water fountain as a white man or woman. I don’t recall Gays/Lesbians ever being that ostracized from society as a whole. If homosexuals expect to garner sympathy from other historically oppressed groups for their movement, I dont think weighing one injustice against the other is the right way to do it.
I don’t believe your post was meant to belittle or diminish the gay struggle either. however, I think this portion of jayjay’s post summarizes the high point of the distinction you made quite well:
In another similarly-themed discussion a few months back Omega Glory took the time to ask me, between being a gay male and being a black male, which had the most negative impact on my life. I had to think about it for a few days and finally told him it was the gay aspect. Although there were many more opportunities for marginalization and oppression to occur because I was visibly black (in Mississippi no less), I did have the community of family, home and church to soften the blow – by allowing a safety valve, as well as a comfort zone in which not to be on guard so much of the time. I didn’t have so much of that comfort until I was in my twenties and moved to New York. Imagine 20 years of watching nearly every word you say, every mannerism you exhibit and rejecting other suspected gays because you didn’t want to be outed.
And this is not even to mention the psychological impact of having a large support network who can show you by action and tell you by words that what you are is perfectly all right. African-Americans have family networks who let them know continuously that it’s all right to be black, that black is normal, that black is beautiful, that there’s a huge history and culture behind the American black experience and you can and should be proud of that.
Even now, gay men, lesbians, bisexuals, and transgender people don’t have that. Even in an accepting family, there’s a huge difference between someone who isn’t like you trying to be accepting and someone who IS like you actually accepting. Straight parents and siblings just don’t KNOW what it’s like to be queer, even if they are the most accepting and open-minded people in the world. Their experience and their moral authority on the subject are shadows of the experience and moral authority that an African-American person’s parent and grandparents bring to the African-American experience.
By the basic nature of the situation, queer folk have to find their own way to self-acceptance and self-assurance, in a way that populations who grow up under the wing of people just like them never experience.
And I realize that this post has gone ever-so-slightly off-topic (I can’t even WRITE straight!) and apologize for that, but this side issue is germane to this subject.
That’s not what you said. You said gay people were stripped of their rights. Aside from your first example, which is valid but still ongoing, gays had neither of the “rights” you mentioned. It’s debatable whether serving in the military and getting married are traditional “rights” in the first place.
I suppose that is true if all you are is your sexual orientation.
Quite a few actually. They may not attempt to try to pretend they are White, because most cannot plausibly do so. But they will make sure they and their kids embrace the broader culture and are socialized in a non-majority minority neighborhood. They will give their kids more “traditional” names and send the to “traditional” schools. They “code-switch” and avoid acting “too Black”. The point is that many Black people will do all that is in their power to avoid discrimination and turmoil. It’s not an ideal reality, but one that exists for most minorities.
First, I acknowledge that in my post. Second, you are wrong if you are implying that there weren’t gay advocacy groups around.
So yes, there were plenty of people out and protesting for gay rights, which is very admirable. They co-opted many of the strategies the Black civil rights movement employed, yet they did not feel the compunction to meaningfully pitch in to their struggle. They are well within their rights to do so, but don’t surprised when Black people take offense today they attempt to use their brand name.
No, I’m saying you don’t belittle the struggles of others to make a catchy, inartful slogan. The Civil Rights struggle, like the Holocaust is almost like a brand name at this point. When you are attempting to brand your own product by using and appealing to the good will and sentiment another brand arouses, you should make a greater effort to make sure your brand is stable and the comparison is valid. There is room for hundreds of different colas in the market, but the is only one Coke. You should realize that if you call yourself Coke, or market your product as the “new” Coke, the original Coke people are gonna be pissed off. Your argument is well how is Coke hurt if everyone drinks more soda, and is fat and happy. The problem is that it diminishes the Coke brand, and they have every right to be upset by that.
And MLK would have deserved to have been slapped down if he had not publicly acknowledge the Gandhi’s influence, or dubbed the SCLC the new Natal Indian Congress. He did neither.
That would be ideal, but progress often functions like a marketplace. The pie can always get bigger, but it doesn’t have to. Sometimes, a company just loses market share. Blacks are understandably afraid of losing marker share.