MSNBC Published Online Article About Stonewall

First off - I'm sorry sorry sorry I've been such an awful blogger thus far. Consistancy is not a restraint I've always liked and I get distracted easily. I'm trying to get on the ball about this stuff, I swear. In the meantime (and while thinking that I should actually probably do a post, like, now), I happened to come across this article that had come out in the summer of 2009 (Happy New Years everyone!).


Now, I had read that Raymond Castro was talking about his experiences with the riot elsewhere and, while I originally thought that most of you had probably seen it as well, it then dawned on me that most people probably aren't as plugged in to gay news and events as much as I am (then again, if you're reading this, you probably are subscibed to some gay news sources). Regardless of whichever it is, it's interesting and goes over one of the topics I always find interesting regarding gay history – the difference between then and now.

Stonewall in itself is significant because it's the first moment that we (as a queer community) started to actually fight back. As many have noted, it was the birth of the modern queer rights movement. On top of that – most, at the time, didn't know we existed. Sure, the police knew. And the people in that city in New York, who pressured the politicians to clean up the gay stain that was growing, knew. But most of America had no idea. Or it was a very, briefly mentioned, skewed idea. Even with José Sarria performing in drag at the Black Cat bar in San Fransisco, amidst police persecution, and eventually running for a political office to show that gays, when banded together, could have power (both of which happened before Stonewall).

The more important part is that those times were different. Sarria was an open drag performer often decorating his shows and speeches with sexual humor, while Stonewall eventually gave way to sexual liberation (or at least fuelers of the concept) and many of the trappings of our Gay Pride parades today (or at least all you've heard people complain about).

Arguably (and for reasons we can explore in later posts), a large part of what makes up the current idea of gay culture are things which reject patriarchy, and rejecting patriarchy included rejecting the concept of normative heterosexuality. Many just-coming-out people detest these things which denormalize us. Again, a conversation we can have later.

With all this in mind, it is notable, in terms of change, that a mainstream news source is reporting on gay people in such a significant way that keeps gay history in the viewpoint (considering Stonewall made little wind and one of the newspapers actually mocked it). Yes, it's only an online article and, yes, it's MSNBC. But still. It's a far way to go (particularly delightful considering that later that year (only 4 days into 2010 and I'm speaking in past tense) a hailstorm of gay marriage advancements (and regressions) would take place).

Historical button from
OutHistoryBut what also struck me was the very normal nature of the whole thing. The fact that Stonewall was a riot (alright, arguably it wasn't a riot, but it was still violent) says a lot about those times. This was the end of the 60s! It was shaking up the system and defying what was expected of you. Not that this was necessarily right, but being quite and being like everyone else was not the game being played.

So, it strikes me as interesting that Castro's story is as it is. It further shocked me that the two opinions were simply that not enough is being done and that it only takes time. Now, it's bad of me to assume that everyone engaged in a counter culture during Stonewall. It might actually make sense for me to think otherwise, considering how scared everyone was at the time of being caught, getting arrested, etc. On the other hand, Stonewall was located in a Bohemian neighborhood, but still.

Of course, it doesn't matter whether Castro did or did not. The reason I mention it is because many people wouldn't understand such culture and would probably be afraid of it. It's been dropped from our present rights movement and there are those who complain about it and those who would complain if it became part of the mainstream.

So, of course, it shouldn't be surprising that the story was of a man who happened to be committed to a partner for an impressive amount of years and just happened to settle down, be helpful to his neighbors, and be trusted. This isn't to say these are bad things. Yet you would never find an article about a man with multiple partners, who happened to make pushing the limits of what we think is sexually appropriate or even someone as tame as a drag queen to be in a news section like this. It just would not happen.

Again, I'm making no judgment on this. There are reasons why there was sexual liberation. There are reasons why people play with common notions of gender and biological sex roles. And, assuming that none of this is immoral, there are reasons we could never discuss those topics in an article like this – people just wouldn't understand them and would misinterpret them.

Again, these are not my opinions. I'd like to wrestle with these ideas and the arguments that go with them in later posts and question their validity. But, in terms of noting change, it's interesting to keep in mind that the most of Castro's (mentioned) exploits is settling down in Tampa, Florida. I find it interesting that the only complaint is that rights are not moving fast enough (a very valid complaint) because many from the generation of the 70s and 80s who were involved in the rights movement find out current movement a sham. We've lost that distinct identity. But (and, of course, I'm guessing their thoughts, so I may be wrong), more importantly, we've lost the fight for representation of those groups that were outside the mainstream, who are outcasted in the face of wanting legitimacy.