Race, Sex, Sexual Orientation - An Intelligent Assessment of Controversy

This is NOT the past.

We, in America, do not teach about marginalized groups in an appropriate way.

The general conception is we've to treat everyone equally and fairly and everything is solved. Everyone gets along happily and everything is fixed.

As idealistic as this mindset is, it is not adequate to truly understand marginalization.

The first issue we run up against is the way that racism is thought of. I read once somewhere that a man visited high schools and found that black and white students consistently talked past each other on terms of race. The white students see racism as discriminatory actions towards others while the black students see racism often as institutional.

And there is our first problem. I'll give you a hint: it's not that the students see racism in different terms.

The man observing these students makes the claim that the black students see racism one way and the white students another. Ignoring that this binary excludes every other possible race, it makes the mistake of claiming that a certain way of thinking belongs to each race. Not only is this statement momentary and will likely change as time passes (not to mention it is a generalization), it doesn't get at why this is the current way these two races view racism.

Frantz Fanon put out the fantastic argument that systems create racism. Trying to fight racism as actions and opinions is futile because these opinions and views of people will continually be created by the systems in society. Destroy the systems, destroy racism. While I don't entirely agree with this paraphrased version of Fanon, it gets at a point. For example:

Some of the school systems in Chicago are based on (either) a tax system or where the student is living, with each place having a different level of taxes needing to be payed (I can't entirely remember). However, the other drawback is that the schools that receive students from low-tax areas are also poorer in quality. That means the ability to move up in society is greatly reduced. Combination of lower education and poverty (and all the frustration that goes with poverty)? Higher criminal rate and antisocial and -cultural habits within the people. And, as you might've guessed, the majority of people located in these areas are minorities.
This system creates people who act out a role which allows the solidification of racism.

And think about it – don't the stereotypes about blacks include poverty, living in a ghetto, being uneducated, and acting unruly? It's important to remember that this system originated in our nation's racist housing situation starting in the 50s (I won't take the time to explain that one here; I'll just take it on faith that your education in life has covered that part of history).

Of course, you could object – that's not a racist institution. It's discriminatory, sure, but along class lines, not race. It was started by racist intentions, sure – but it's motivated by a monetary situation now. Switch out the blacks for any other race or put a mix of races there and you get the same situation. And, for the most part, I would agree. I actually do take the mainstream opinion that race is based upon the actions people take and views people hold. Racist institutions and groups can be formed, but whether that depends upon the group trying to promote racist ends (KKK) or it only requires a system to be founded with originally racist intentions in mind (the previous Chicago example) is not an important debate.

Fine, don't fight it on arguments of racism. It's still a poor system that needs to be reformed. However, we must understand all of this I've just explained to understand why certain racial groups may argue about racism and the changes necessary to combat it in the way that they do.

Which brings us nicely to Affirmative Action. I right now admit I don't believe I know enough about AA to speak wholly intelligently on it. I already know there are different forms of Affirmative Action; and it doesn't work quite like it is generally portrayed in the mainstream (you're black? Get a full ride for college!). Actually, GodlessLiberal did a well done post on AA quite a while back (if you happen to meander over, check out how the guy's been doing; he's been fading in and out of Xanga for a bit now). To summarize, he argued that AA should be based upon class rather than race (again, I stress, I do not fully understand the ways AA works. I'm assuming that GodlessLiberal's descriptions of it are correct. His serves as a good example, regardless, because of the lesson in perspective learned from it). I agree with his argument. This makes sense. However, if AA is based on race in implementation, we have to see why.

Arguing against a staunch black AA defender that AA is an unfair system will not win the person over. As far as they're concerned, you're simply arguing for further suffering in a system that specifically picks out blacks economically. AA should reverse the inherent racism of the system that holds most blacks back. However, as we've already discussed (at least in this specific example of economic injustice situated in Chicago), the system is not racially motivated (though, even in millions of years, with no change to the system, it's unlikely any large amount of blacks will break from this system in a way that will reduce the number of blacks caught in the system. The most likely difference would be to add and trap other races in this system). The argument really should be that the system is abolished, thereby allowing equal economic opportunities, regardless of race.

All that I've just said? That's the amount of unsaid material that happens in our current discussions on race. Now, I'm not entirely sure what types of systems may exist out there for other marginalized groups and how they may work off the top of my head. Since discussions of race and racism are so large and plentiful in our country, however, it's the easiest example. But this is only one side of the coin (if you've made it this far, I'm impressed; we need more people like you who are willing to adapt their mindsets).

Two topics related to each other, this side of the coin is split in half. The first half is representation.

Often, marginal groups will bring up issues that the majority of the country rolls their eyes at and don't understand the fuss over it. The perspective of the marginal group is lacking. You cannot just apply a veil over everyone and expect to treat and see them all the same. As much as I'd like that (and I do agree with the mainstream again and believe that is the goal), reality keeps us from doing so.

The history of marginalized groups is important and must be taught - because it does inform the present. It explains why things are the way they are (think of the Chicago example above).

Last week, there was an article on the front page that questioned whether Miley's possible use of the word Gay as an insult is offensive or not. Hell, why is it even important? Same question we've heard many times before. And it's here that the picture above draws relevance as well: defamation, ignominy, contempt.

There's a reason why when an artform first created and performed by a marginalized group is taken in and performed by the mainstream and majority, some get angry. The artform was born out of struggle and persecution. Its history is often erased. The representation of your suffering is gone.

"That's so gay!"

Around the world, millions of 15-year-old boys and girls will be told they don't exist. And one of the few non-offensive words (faggot, lesbo, pederast, etc.) that they have to define themselves has been reduced to a mere petty insult. When you spend most of your life growing up being told that you're a fad or a phase and that you really can't be gay, this trivialization is more than just a changing of the meaning of a word and insulting to the very personage.

I AM A MAN; I exist: do not deny me.

The other half of this side of the coin is how we view marginal groups. I'll use someone I know well as an example.

Ze was raised in the suburbs. As a result, most of zir tastes, interests, and what ze thinks was formed by what is generally mainstream society. Ze considers zirself a goth, identifying with the sub-culture. Ze loves rap, writing some of zir own as well. Reasonable Doubt by Jay-Z is, to zir, one of the best albums ever. Ze was pretty much raised on Bruce Springsteen. Around high school ze discovered Black Sabbath – and fell in love. Most of Freshman to Junior year, actually was stuck somewhere between Atreyu, Slipknot, and Cradle of Filth. Ze considers zirself a nerd, loving video games and the such. Zir ethnicity is German, Haitian, Spanish, Polish, French, English, Scottish, and American. Ze grew up eating almost always Haitian food. Ze was raised Catholic and still piously practices Catholicism.

I don't think I need to be the one to tell you that you could racialize pretty much every single one of those descriptions. But, in that context, some of them seem to contradict each other.

The mainstream (and when I say that this time, I mean the intelligent faction that doesn't make generalized statements about particular races (I'm sure you could think of plenty race jokes for examples)), for the most part, holds the view that race is not attached to culture. As just seen, my friend is a decent example of the types of cultural influence that may affect a person.

Ze actually doesn't even have a racial identity. Ze doesn't see zirself in terms of race. Sure, ze's aware that ze's a mixed child. Ze's aware that most view zir as "black" and that sometimes ze's confused for being mostly Hispanic (or other nationalities). But ze doesn't see race in terms of culture. That makes no sense to zir. Ze recognizes zir heritage (as listed above) and the cultures associated with each respective culture, and ze identifies as American and with the American culture. Again, ze doesn't have a racial identity. Ze would actually argue that race is a socially constructed mechanism for labeling others.

Alright then, why the Black Panthers? Why Afro-centric movements? Why a Latino culture? I remember finding a personal opinion someone had put into Wikipedia under the Harlem Renaissance that both offended me and put the answer quite clearly. Towards the end of the entry on the Harlem Renaissance, it's explaining the goals of the movement, particularly in terms of the New Negro and trying to create a unique black culture that would legitimize blacks on the same level as whites of that era. The person who wrote the entry finishes it off with, "But the positive implications of American nativity have never been fully appreciated by them. It seems too simple: the African-American's history and culture is American, more completely so than most other ethnic groups within the United States."

Because the positive implications of American nativity was blatantly clear (or not at all possibly offensive at the time) in contrast to slavery, Jim Crow South, and continual prejudice on many levels from other Americans, right?

Why might the writer of that quoted statement not understand a refusal of the mainstream culture by blacks?

I believe cultures evolve out of an isolation of specific people (whether voluntary or involuntary) and the creation of rituals, ideals, etc. out of that isolation. America has isolated blacks for years. That is why there is such a thing as a Black Culture.

For those who want that race-blind view, that is problematic. Going back to my friend for a moment, ze remembers zir mother bringing home an Ebony magazine one time. Ze tried reading the first few pages and stopped. It was too weird. As I said before, ze has no racial identity. Having something have meaning out of the concept of being a person of color, as a form of identity, is just weird to zir. Ze wouldn't fit too well into all of current black culture.

But why do these cultures exist? Why might what is considered specific attributes to "blackness" be extolled?

In the case of our example of blacks in America, because of previous prejudice. There would be no Black Panthers if not for prejudice.

And (this is important to understand for those who honestly do believe in a color-blind view of humanity) we cannot simply expect blacks in America to join back into the mainstream culture (I mean for the two cultures to merge and form a solid mainstream culture, like much of multiple cultures have done throughout the ages of America – for I'm sure we're not all ignorant enough to assume that our current culture wasn't at all influenced by other cultures to some degree in a noticable way to this day). As to why, for one, they have probably been raised in a different culture most of their lives. Further, racism still exists in America (as we all well know) or, at least, institutions which continue the creation of racism do. These alternate cultures built along the lines of race came into existance due to something. This racism is what further keeps these groups isolated from the mainstream culture. Finally, harking back to the concept of representation – often the mainstream portrays blacks poorly on a consistent basis or doesn't portray them at all (and, yes, that is direly important).

Now, I'm of one of the mainstream opinions. I believe in treating people in a color blind fashion. I believe in associating the culture of a person not with what "race" they are but simply by which culture the person says they identify with (the notion of someone of Korean ethnicity partaking entirely in Irish culture isn't as impossible as some would have us believe, especially if the person was adopted by Irish parents when they were just a baby).

However – this is not realistic in terms of our world. Many people don't see themselves simply as people and identify heavily and strongly with concepts of "race" – for a multitude of reasons which we would do well to know. And while I would argue that the eventual goal is to see marginalized people as simply people rather than in terms of what caused them to be marginalized (for example, think of how we see brunettes as people despite a characteristic which does set them apart from others), the history of the marginalized group and what it means is direly important in terms of giving the proper respect to a marginalized group – and understanding that group. In trying to view the world entirely as the same, it often erases the past of marginalized groups and that past does inform the future. A "insert group here"-blind viewing means that equal representation isn't necessary – and in this world, right now, that often means a mainstream dominated by the majority with mindsets thinking that is how the world is. And for many who probably aren't racist, sexist, sexualist, etc. they will still subconsciously think of their world in terms of the majority. I'll save you further examples; I'm sure you can think of others on your own.

I've said before that race relations in this country were heading toward a complete train crash. I take that back now. We are so talking past each other on issues of race that we couldn't possibly hit, even if we wanted to. Everyone has these different concepts of marginalized groups, for a variety of reasons, and they only understand their own beliefs. Only once we get on the same footing of understanding can we move forward (though quite difficultly) in addressing these issues.





***note: you'll notice that most of this addresses race (and only in terms of black and white) and touches on sexuality while biological sex (and any other groups) isn't addressed at all. The largest reason for the large focus on race is because of the great attention it has received in our country and, therefore, the familiarity of knowledge with it by most Americans.

This post also makes some pretty generalizing statements and those statements must be understood fluidly for marginalized groups to be fully understood (for nothing stays stagnate). For example, gays and women have less of any type of culture outside the mainstream because they have had less isolation from the majority than those of different races. Another example is that if the concept of looking at everyone as being equal and the same does eventually someday come to fruitation, these concepts will likely become obsolete or must be thought of differently. That day is far, far, far, far off – but we cannot allow our thinking and understanding of concepts to become mired.

Also, the title is an allusion to this Xanga post: http://www.mancouch.com/716194723/race-sex-sexual-orientation-and-abortion/

"And finally,[...] I rise in anguished recognition of more than 20 million Americans who love this country..."

So, it's kinda been a while since my first post. I don't want to make a habit of that with this blog but...hey, I have school. Of course, if I was more on top of my schoolwork...but a conversation for another time, another place.

Because I technically don't have much time, still, and need to finish a paper by tomorrow, I'm going to simply give you a glance at a moment in history. I don't know if I should make this a separate type of blog entry, though. I suppose not, considering that (since this is a history blog) posts that focus on a specific moment and point of history won't be of little quantity. Alright, enough of my blathering.

Here is a character of gay history that has little recognition. Oddly enough, when I tried to look him up just a year or 2 ago, I could come up with only one relevant page. Now, I have 4 tabs open in my browser, he actually has a Wikipedia page, and I'm actually learning more about him than I had already known.

While not exactly well known, Melvin Boozer was one of the many direly important figures of our Civil Rights Movement who worked behind the scenes, lobbying, getting attention, coercing politicians to actually be sympathetic to our cause – or actually holding marches, parades, and the such which people simply never noticed (the most recent march on Washington has not been our first, and many other such public events have happened, but, of course, our history is ignored and remains unknown. Let us not forget how hard it is to get others to know of and recognize Stonewall, even).

Born in 1946, Boozer grew up in D. C. and graduated as salutatorian of his class at Dunbar High School. He attended Dartmouth College on a scholarship in 1963, one of only three African Americans admitted that year. He became a professor of sociology at the University of Maryland.

Unfortunately, since information is not in the largest bundle, his gay activities during these times or when he developed an interest in gay rights or any other such knowledge is unknown to me. All that I know happens next is that he is elected president of the Gay Activists Alliance (now the Gay and Lesbian Activists Alliance) in 1979, being the first African American to serve as president and one of the few gay African Americans in a position of power and with large visibility within the gay rights movement.

If it interests you, the GLAA lists as their accomplishments during this period:

• Winning a court battle with the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority for the right to place educational posters in Metro buses with the message "Someone in Your Life is Gay";
• Establishing the Gay and Lesbian Education Fund as a nonprofit, tax-exempt educational organization;
• Winning a fight with the U.S. Army for the right to sponsor the first annual wreath-laying at the Tomb of the Unknowns in Arlington National Cemetery to honor all those who have died in the military service of the United States, including gay men and lesbians;
• Successfully pushing for establishment of the Civilian Complaint Review Board to monitor police behavior;
• Preparing a slide show on gay issues that became part of the regular training program at the DC police academy;
• Winning unanimous passage of the the Sexual Assault Reform Act by the DC Council, which decriminalized sodomy and repeals solicitation laws for consenting adults. Exercising its oversight power for only the second time, Congress overturned the Act under pressure from the Moral Majority;
• Convincing the DC Council to broaden the Housing Purchase Assistance Program to include single persons and domestic partners.

Boozer was also active in Black and White Men Together. In September 1981, he opened the Washington office of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force. He died of AIDS in 1987.

Now, there is a good deal of things which we could consider already. For one, who are these other people who have done so much for Gay Rights Movement? Sure, we've heard of Harvey Milk. But have you heard of Steve Endean? Or how about the significance of an African American having prominence in the Gay Movement?

Well, there is a ton to cover as far as all the activists who have helped us along, and I haven't the time now, I'm afraid. Plus, I think you'd all get bored pretty quick were you to receive it all right now (and this would be one Hell of a long entry). And race is, sadly, important when considering the Gay Movement, though I think we're moving quite nicely to change, even if not immediately (have you all checked out the speech by Julian Bond yet?). Speaking of race, what about women? All these things deserve more attention, and 2 out of three in some way relate directly to Boozer. But that's not what I'm going to focus on, for the sake of sanity and interest in digesting information; I will address these in the future.

Boozer is a little different from the many others who have worked behind the scenes for our freedoms because he actually has a really historically important public moment. Not to mention, it's a rather moving one.

In 1980, he was nominated for the office of Vice President of the United States by the Socialist Party USA and, by petition at the convention, by the Democratic Party, the first openly gay person ever nominated for the office. As aptly put in Out For Good:

In 1976, the gay caucus to the Democratic convention would have fit around a small table in a crowded coffee shop. In August 1980, as Democrats gathered in New York, it filled the Georgia Room of the Statler Hilton—seventy seven delegates, alternates and committee members, larger than twenty-five state delegations and nearly twenty times the representation of four years ago. Most of the critical work had been done. The platform had been negotiated, and Carter was assured nomination. But from the first meeting of the caucus on Sunday night, there was a clear desire to do something—to turn this show of force into a display of power. And an idea Paul Kuntzler had pushed without success at the 1976 convention, to nominate a vice presidential candidate, suddenly seemed to make a lot of sense. This time, though, he though, the candidate should not be Frank Kameny, but Melvin Boozer.

Few people outside Washington, D.C., had heard of Mel Boozer. A thirty-five-year-old sociology professor at the University of Maryland, he had been elected president of Washington's Gay Activists Alliance the year before. He was popular and charismatic, reserved and dignified, but was not part of the group that had established a gay rights movement in the District. Because he was black, he was an unusual figure in the mostly white delegation and, indeed, in the movement itself. It took an extra measure of courage, Boozer said, for a black gay person—and a D.C. native—to be openly homosexual in Washington. Most Washington activists were people who moved there for a job. But Boozer grew up in the city, as he pointedly noted after his election as the GAA president. "It's a lot easier to come out and be politically active in the gay community when you don't live near your family than when you do," he said.

It would take 334 signatures, or 10 percent of the delegates, to nominate Boozer and win him a spot to speak. It seemed impossible. Delegates would not want to sign a petition forcing Walter Mondale into a purely symbolic battle for the vice presidential nomination. The fact that the petitions were for a homosexual candidate, an explicit effort to win a lectern speech about gay rights, made it even more difficult. Although some gay delegates said the honor should go to a woman, or someone with a name that would not suggest demeaning jokes, or a caucus member with a more established record in the movement, Kuntzler argued that delegates who might not be inclined to give a gay man a spot might be more reluctant to oppose a black speaker, whatever his sexual orientation.

For three days members of the gay caucus canvassed the floor and the conference rooms of Madison Square Garden, encountering hostility many found startling, a reminder that advances for the gay movement were confined to the nation's larger cities. "Why don't you just shut up?" one man said to Boozer. "You wouldn't get fired from your jobs if you just shut up." "Go back to California," someone yelled at Jeanne Cordova, who wore a "Lesbian for Kennedy" sandwich board. Another delegate called her a "screwball." But they got nearly four hundred signatures, and early Thursday evening, Boozer made his way to the lectern to present his case for the vice presidential nomination. The scheduling of his remarks made certain that they would not be carried on television. [Wikipedia, however, says that the speech was televised in prime time, and cites a source] Boozer glanced across a two-thirds empty floor; most delegates were out to dinner before the evening session. There were a few boos, but the gay delegation was out there, small but determined, holding its signs aloft. "Lesbians for Boozer" read one; "Carter and Boozer—a ticket for the '80s." Boozer's speech wasn't typed, so he had to keep a finger on the page of his handwritten text, which had been rewritten a dozen times by members of the delegation. His throat was parched, and he couldn't wait to finish, since he was sure his voice would give out.

[...]

On the floor, Tom Bastow found himself unexpectedly moved. There had been some doubt about whether Mel Boozer had been up to this. No one had been prepared for his eloquence and quiet dignity. It may have gone unnoticed, a provocative and moving speech in a mostly empty hall, but that didn't matter to the gay delegates on the floor. Boozer gathered forty-nine notes that evening, before Speaker of the House Thomas P. O'Neal declared the voting over and Mondale the choice by acclamation.

And if the moment isn't momentous enough, you really ought to read the speech. I'll post it below, though you can find it on the GLAA website.

In 1981, Boozer was hired by the National Gay Task Force as district director and a lobbyist. The NGTF executive director, Virginia Apuzzo, fired him in 1983 and replaced him with the then-GAA president Jeff Levi.

Sadly, Boozer died of an AIDS-related illness in March 1987 at the age of 41 in Washington, D.C.
-----------------------------------

Address by Melvin Boozer, Candidate for the Democratic Nomination for Vice President of the United States

Democratic National Convention, New York City, 1980

 

Mr. Chairman, I rise in grateful appreciation of more than 400 delegates at this convention who gladly signed the petition to place my name in nomination, and in appreciation of those who wanted to sign but were not able to, and for the 77 women and men in the lesbian and gay caucus who have worked day and night to circulate the petition.

I rise in proud recognition of the Mayor of the District of Columbia, Mr. Marion Barry, and the entire delegation of the District of Columbia who have supported me and encouraged me in this effort.

I rise in thankful recognition of the citizens of the District of Columbia who voted for me to come here knowing that I am gay, and who continue to labor and live in a city which has no voice in determining how it shall be taxed and which has no power to effect the decisions which affect the quality of our lives.

And finally, Mr. Chairman and members of the convention, I rise in anguished recognition of more than 20 million Americans who love this country and who long to serve this country in the same freedom that others take for granted, 20 million lesbian and gay Americans whose lives are blighted by a veil of ignorance and misunderstanding.

For more than 200 years a majority of Americans waited to be admitted to the institutions of our nation on an equal footing. This struggle has led us successfully through the abolition of slavery, the movement for universal sufferage, the civil rights movement, the continuing movements to include the elderly, the physically challenged, and the economically disadvantaged. And now the same vision which has guided the first two centuries of our existence compels us to pass the Equal Rights Amendment so that women and men can share equally in that vision and in our continuing struggle to make that vision a reality for all Americans.

But this same struggle which has animated our greatest leaders and our most loyal citizens is far from over. Mr. Chairman, members of the convention, today across our land more than 20 million Americans hide in the twilight of fear and oppression. Lesbians and gay men throughout this country are daily forced to choose between a life of service and labor to their communities without identity, or an identity which would deprive them of any opportunity to serve and work at all.

Mr. Chairman, we have come to the Democratic Party, as others have come before us, to appeal to the vision of equal justice, the belief in fair play, and the sense of compassion which are the bedrock upon which the greatness of our nation is founded.

We believe that now more than ever fairness, equal justice and compassion are under attack by the forces of the extreme right, but we also believe that the ideals embedded in our Constitution by the founders of our republic are alive and well in the Democratic Party.

Mr. Chairman, we come from towns and cities where our friends are jailed and beaten on the slightest pretext. We come from churches which have been burned to the ground because they admit us to worship. We come from families which have been torn apart because we have lost our jobs, and we have lost our good names which have been slandered by false accusations, myths, and lies.

Mr. Chairman, the leadership of the Democratic Party has called upon us to be responsive to the plight of all oppressed groups. Governor Brown has declared that lesbians and gay men have a right to a job without reprisals and a right to serve in the highest capacities of civil government.

Representative Dellums of California has affirmed that lesbians and gay men are entitled to the same rights as all other Americans. Senator Kennedy has declared that it is the responsibility of government to protect the rights of all American citizens, including lesbians and gay men. And President Carter, before he became President, declared that lesbians and gay citizens should not be subjected to arbitrary discrimination because of their sexual orientation.

Members of the convention, we are pleased that the charter of our party now bans discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. We are pleased that the charter and the platform ban discrimination. Yet, today the suffering continues across our land by those who are willing to hold us up as scapegoats to the extreme right for all the ills which beset our society.

But why should so many men and women continue to suffer from arbitrary discrimination? Why must we be denied a fair chance to participate in the American life which we have contributed to as much as anyone else? Why must we be subjected to harassment and intimidation and ridicule when the Constitution of this great nation has already provided that all citizens shall enjoy the equal protection of the law?

Members of the Democratic Convention, there can be no justification, no defense for social injustice. The Constitution does not make exception. We who have waited patiently to be admitted to the vision of the Constitution know the consequences of prejudice. WE have felt the sting of ignorance, and we have come to the Democratic Party seeking new hope which this party has always represented.

Over and over again the Democratic Party has insisted that in our society there can be no haven for discrimination. Is this not the same party which has championed the cause of every minority which has come before us? Is this not the same party which has sought to include women on an equal footing? Is this not the same party which has led the battle for civil rights for black Americans?

Would you ask me how I'd dare to compare the civil rights struggle with the struggle for lesbian and gay rights? I can compare, and I do compare them. I know what it means to be called a nigger. I know what it means to be called a faggot. And I can sum up the difference in one word: none.

Bigotry is bigotry. I have been booed before. Discrimination is discrimination. It hurts just as much. It dishonors our way of life just as much, and it betrays a common lack of understanding, fairness and compassion.

I know I am an American. I know not because of my birth certificate, but because when Old Glory is unfurled and the Anthem is played, my heart is warmed and my eyes are watered. I love this country as much as anyone in this hall. I am thankful in my prayers for the privilege of being a citizen of this nation.

I believe that there is no power on this earth that can defeat the American people as long as we remain true to the values which have made us great.

Equal justice, fair play and compassion are the true sources of our greatness. I shudder to contemplate how we waste the energy and devotion of more than 20 million lesbian and gay Americans who remain shackled by degradation and isolation. And I am astonished by the longing and pleading of my gay brothers and sisters whose faith in this Party, in this country, and the democratic process has not been defeated, and will not be defeated by the falsehoods and fears of all those who would oppress us.

Like them, I have faith in this nation and in its people, and in this Party. I believe that when the American people have heard the facts, when they have seen us as we truly are, then they will insist that we not be abandoned to the prejudices and the caprices of the ignorant.

So, my fellow Democrats, I appeal to you to search your hearts and minds and recall that you, too, have wanted the right to work as long as you could do so competently; and you, too, have sought the right to live and seek your own happiness, as long as you did not interfere with the right of other people to do the same. And I beg you to recall that most of you in this hall who now take those same rights for granted have had to struggle to overcome suspicion and fear and prejudice in order to achieve them.

So now, we, too, appeal to you to acknowledge for ourselves the same rights, and together to continue the struggle to expand the vision so that no American can ever again be subjected to abuse and harassment.

And so, my fellow Democrats, in keeping with the faith which has made this nation great, in keeping with the promise of the American vision, and in keeping with the belief that we are all equal Americans, I respectfully withdraw my nomination.

Thank you.

(Applause.)

###

[Note: When Melvin Boozer gave this address to the Democratic National Convention in 1980, he was President of what was then known as the Gay Activists Alliance of Washington, DC. His nominating speech for Vice President was made by Bill Krause, and the seconding speech was made by Ginny Apuzzo.]

Well, You've Seemed to've Stumbled Upon My Blog...

In all honesty, I don't begin to know what to write. Being the first entry, it might make sense to address this as a welcome entry.


Perhaps I should start with the title? That is, after all, what spawned this, for the most part. I had been alerted to the blog We Are Respectable Negroes though, when I had first read the title, I had read it as We Were Respectable Negroes. Admittingly, I liked the latter title far more.


Now, while We Were[...]Negroes and We Were Faggots both hold the past tense, both invoke negative connotations of their selective groups for some point in time, and both use the title as a sort of rally cry to bring together their respective groups, there is a difference between the two.


While We Were Faggots invokes the idea of no longer being so, We Were Respectable Negroes says that the group is no longer respectable. I don't know if my liking to these titles is because of the emphasis on the past and the idea of some sort of decay or if it's telling of the way I see people of color in America today. The latter here seems absurd to me, so I will assume my liking of these particular titles is not racially motivated.


But there is the definite expression of time in this title, particularly that of the past. And that is what this blog shall strive to record and remain relevant.

The sad fact of things are, most Queer youth (and many adults, as well) are flat out ignorant of their history. Part of the continual feeling of isolation and uncertainty amongst Queer people (as well as many other internal feelings) is the utterly lack of Queer representation and identity for them to attach and compare themselves to. It's so much easier to question yourself when you aren't entirely aware that people like yourself exist (which, I'm sure, the opposition would love). Also, the past informs the present, as any sensible person would know.

As such, this blog will feature facts about Queer history, historic places and events, and people of Queer history.

Coupled with this will be my own commentary about the current state of things Queer. Why my voice versus any other? Queer politics and liberation has, for a very large majority of the time been dominated by the extremes of our community. While there is good reason why that is, and it ought not to be ignored, I hope to give a view to the current state of the Queer community through the eyes of an abstinent until marriage Catholic who despises pop music, doesn't drink, and is (for the most part) rather straight lace.

This blog will not seek to delegitimize those who do not fit into this category. Indeed, this blog will be conscious of these different viewpoints and acknowledge them. What it will seek to do is remove Queer people's association with those stereotypes (however true they may happen to be in certain circles).

Following my own mode of belief, this blog will make the argument that sexual orientation and biological sex, like the similar immutable characteristic hair color, have no direct and unalterable effect upon the tastes and personal choices (such as religion, political association, etc.) of an individual.

Leading from that, finally, this blog will question the state and importance of a Queer culture, what Queer culture has been, and whether so diverse and wide a group can have a culture which is specific to them and allow all (or most) members to feel welcome.

I will also try to be frank in my discussions. I admit I came out of the mindset of a traditional, somewhat stereotypical heterosexual and, thus, will try to raise issues that may be true for others within the Queer community (though not necessarily correct). For example, not understanding certain aspects of the Trans community and, perhaps, the gay stereotype that seems to be a part of the identity for some may be some of the things I will speak frankly about, question, and try to put into definition for the common layperson to understand (with the strict and necessary understanding that their importance and legitimacy is in no way less than to any other who happens to fit what is considered "normal" in this day and age).

That long introduction, out of the way, some quick terms and ideas to understand when addressing this blog (okay, maybe not so quick):

When dealing with sexual orientation, I take the stance that our immutable attractions (i.e. sexual orientation) are physically based. While not to be confused with the misguided notion that orientation is sex, but that immutable attraction pertains to the physical makeup of an individual's person.

Homosexual/Gay - someone attracted to the same sex

Heterosexual/Straight - someone attracted to the opposite sex

Bisexual/Bi - someone attracted to both sexes *due to there being more than just the "traditional" sexes (male and female), some feel there is a need for the term Pansexual for those whose attraction can extend beyond the traditional sexes. Since my stance that attraction is based upon the physical bodies of the involved persons and, unless you construct utterly new organs, a person shall be made up of the traditional body parts (all of which apply roughly to each traditional sex with the exception of genitalia), I argue that Bisexual is a legitimate label for those individuals. However, whichever way a person wishes to be addressed, I shall address them as such*

Asexual - someone who is attracted to no sex. Though, while this may be the case, this does not prohibit relationships (that are more than friendships) from occurring. Many Asexuals have attested to having non-sexual romantic relationships

Questioning - someone who is unsure of their orientation or proper sex. Generally, this is ascribed to those who haven't come out yet

Sex - more or less, what you physically are. What genitalia do you have, sometimes what are the levels of your hormones. In the end, the individual person defines their sex

Gender - is performative. Basically, how you're expected to act based on what sex you are perceived to be. I find this serves little use other than to speak in stereotypes. No one is explicitly a specific gender (and how could anyone really be, specifically?)

Transgendered - an umbrella term for any and all who do not fit the typical or prescribed roles of their sex. This does not denote sexual orientation and is separate from it

Transsexual - someone who identifies with a different sex than the one they were born with. People often make the mistake of assuming that Transsexuals always want to make a complete change from one traditional sex to the other; some feel their correct sex is somewhere in between of these two extremes

Transvestite - someone who wears clothing assigned in the dominant Gender for the opposite sex of their culture *cross-dresser - straight men who dress as women who wished to have a distinct name to solely identify their group*

Drag Queen - someone who frequently dresses up in exaggerated stereotypes of women (very high heels, tons of makeup, etc.) for a variety of reasons (depending on the person in question)

Drag King - someone who frequently dresses up in exaggerated stereotypes of men for a variety of reasons (depending on the person in question)

Genderqueer - someone whose Gender may not stay constant or does not fit into a particular binary (etc.) *Genderguck - the self-conscious effort to "fuck with" or play with traditional notions of Gender*

Androgyne - a person who does not fit cleanly into the typical gender roles of their society. Androgynes may identify as beyond gender, between genders, moving across genders, entirely genderless, or any or all of these

Intersex - someone who, for biological reasons, was born neither technically male nor female. This may be (for one example) someone with male genitalia but also female breasts. With lately the formation of groups dedicated to Intersex representation, there has been put out the opinion that Intersex sexes are valid sexes and don't need "reparative" surgery

Queer - being that there are so many who make up this diverse community, this word serves to represent all of us

Faggot - a demeaning and derogatory word aimed towards (largely) gay men, though can be attributed to the culture as a whole. I find this word to be of the same caliber as Nigger and will not be tolerated on this site unless used in an historical matter or to make a point. There is no reclaiming of this word.