"Five reasons gay is not the new black"

[Kathryn]

This came across my FB newsfeed and I found it interesting. Anyone want to discuss?

 

http://forthdistrict.com/5-reasons-gay-is-not-the-new-black/

[Slartibartfast]

It isn't as if it is a new thing to be gay and oppressed. 

 

IMO anytime someone goes into the "more oppressed than thou" we all lose. 

 

 

[bettyandbob]

I can see discussing these points as leading very heated posts and this thread being locked.

 

Perhaps I am wrong.

[Mrs Mungo]

It isn't as if it is a new thing to be gay and oppressed. 

 

IMO anytime someone goes into the "more oppressed than thou" we all lose. 

 

I agree. 

 

eta: To play that game and create division among minority groups doesn't help any minority group; it hurts them all. On the other hand, if you can say, "yes, I understand your struggle, because my minority group has its own struggle. How can we help one another?" You build community. You gain strength. You gain political power. 

[AurieD]

I personally do not like the term 'gay is the new black' I feel it is unnecessary and just gets people's hackles up. But I think that blogger is attacking a straw man (or just perpetuating one).

 

I have never heard anyone claim that what homosexuals go through today is akin to what black American's went through. Mackelmore's lyrics (the ones in the article, I don't know if there are further lyrics along the same line) in my reading of them certainly do not say or even imply that.

 

The way I see it:

 

What is being said is that the discrimination and hatred aimed at gays is the same. It is often based on the perception that gays are somehow lessor (sinners, un-natural etc). It is irrational. It is stupid.

 

What is being said is that the civil rights issues are the same. People are being discriminated against simply for how they were born (cue disintegration into argument about 'choice').

 

 

Some gay people have gone through a lot in terms of physical and mental abuse, however no, as a group they do not have it anywhere as near as bad as black Americans had it...but again, I don't think that is what anyone is trying to claim that when they say 'gay is the new black'.

[Χά�ων]

 

Also, this thread will devolve horribly. Starting with the people quoting to ask WHY DOES IT HAVE TO DEVOLVE WE'RE ALL ADULTS?! :gnorsi:

I ask myself that far too often on here.

 

In the mean time  :lurk5:

[Kathryn]

I agree.

 

eta: To play that game and create division among minority groups doesn't help any minority group; it hurts them all. On the other hand, if you can say, "yes, I understand your struggle, because my minority group has its own struggle. How can we help one another?" You build community. You gain strength. You gain political power.

See, this is what was going through my head as I read it. Yes, it's not a perfect analogy. But, the idea behind it makes it sound like he's begrudging one group of people their civil right movement because they didn't have it as bad as his own people did. I am not a member of either group, so I don't have a personal attachment to the issues involved in equality movements for either, but it seems like an attempt to demean one group by saying "you're not like us. How dare you compare yourselves to what we've been through?!" But then, as I said, I'm not a member of either group, so I don't know how I'd feel in his position. I imagine from what he wrote that he feels it diminishes his own people's struggles to compare the two groups.

 

ETA: and I kind of feel like, what was the point of him writing this? What was his purpose? And it does feel like it was just divisiveness.

[Guest submarines]

I can see discussing these points as leading very heated posts and this thread being locked.

 

Perhaps I am wrong.

 

What is the point of such warnings? Is it a hint not to continue the discussion? Is it another way of saying that the thread got reported? Is it like "I spotted trouble first?" No snark, I'm genuinely wondering. Every time there's a controversial or seemingly controversial topic, someone will invariable issue this warning. Is this a code for something, or what?

 

To be honest, I find this somewhat dictatorial and oppressive, like a veiled threat. Something like, "we are watching." And actually, I think these kind of comments are exactly the ones that provoke the derailment,  as an implied permission to head towards cupcakes.

 

So what is the real meaning of this?

[LucyStoner]

Yes, no person has ever been killed, beaten, fired, jailed, institutionalized, kicked out of their family of origin or raped for being gay or merely being perceived as gay.  Ever. 

 

Oh wait, that's totally incorrect. 

 

Is it the same?  No.  Is the idea that all should be treated equally and fairly under the law different?  Also a big fat no. 

 

One of my brothers is black.  One of my brothers is gay and trans.  In the present day, they each have faced real trouble for who they are and how they are perceived.  Nothing is to be gained by getting into pissing matches over who has it or had it worse.  All of us deserve the same protections, rights and responsibilities under the law.  

 

 

 

[Chris in VA]

I didn't read the article--but I do think it's interesting that many black slaves in the US identified with the struggle of the Jewish slaves in Egypt as described in the bible. It's a recurrent theme in black gospel music, for example. Perhaps it's just a human tendency to look for common experiences to describe one's current state, and that's what the gay community and support people is/are doing by referencing the racial struggles. Once you identify your group with a group whose struggle has been accepted and validated, it seems to validate your own. I think it's just sort of like using a metaphor so people can understand how your struggle feels.

[poppy]

That whole thing is a response to Macklemore? And the dad from Family Ties?  Two guys who are neither black nor gay.   Sigh.

[Leav97]

No the black civil rights movement and the gay civil rights movement aren't exactly the same.  But, they are both civil rights movements.  The goal of equality is the same.

[ThatHomeschoolDad]

The article's five bullet points are valid, and I agree that gay rights falls under the umbrella of civil rights, because to categorize it as other is exactly part of the problem.  Once someone is other, he/she more easily marginalized.

 

I also find valid comparisons when arguments are made for marriage equality based on our old fear of interracial marriage -- Loved how that one minister spoke at a town meeting (youtube?) and read a whole anti-gay thing, but revealed at the end that he just changed the word "black" to "gay" from a decades-old public statement of some sort.  Wish I had that link.

 

[Leav97]

The article's five bullet points are valid, and I agree that gay rights falls under the umbrella of civil rights, because to categorize it as other is exactly part of the problem.  Once someone is other, he/she more easily marginalized.

 

I also find valid comparisons when arguments are made for marriage equality based on our old fear of interracial marriage -- Loved how that one minister spoke at a town meeting (youtube?) and read a whole anti-gay thing, but revealed at the end that he just changed the word "black" to "gay" from a decades-old public statement of some sort.  Wish I had that link.

 

I do think the author of the article is simplifying parts.  He is taking the harshest examples of black suffrage but, not the harshest examples of gay suffrage.

 

You have never seen–and won’t see–“heterosexual only†and “gay only†water fountains, diners, buses, schools, in light of 75 years of oppressive Jim Crow laws.

There aren't gay only drinking fountains but there are straight only jobs.  Only 21 states ban employment discrimination based on sexual orientation.  Yes, people hide who they are.  No, it's not exactly the same.

 

 

You have not–and won’t–see homosexuals snatched away from their families at birth for the purpose of division and dehumanization.

40% of all homeless youth are LGBT.  No gay youth aren't taken from their family they are kicked out of their families.

 

 

Homosexual men/women have never endured a slave trade for generations and witnessed their ancestors dying by the numbers during a “Middle Passage†and being sold for raw goods.

Nope, no long deadly voyage to the new world.  But, they were rounded up in the Holocaust. They were considered mentally ill...

 

 

Homosexuals have never been–or will be considered–non-citizens by laws of the United States that rob them of inalienable rights.

Yes, they are and always have been citizens.  Citizens who don't have the same rights as everyone else.  Seems very comparable to Jim Crow laws.

 

Homosexuals will never face a societal norm that allows–and even promotes–them to be beaten because they are seen as property and treated like cattle with scripture as a basis for justification.

 

No, they face societal norms that allows and promotes them being beaten because they are gay.  Beatings, corrective rape, murder, harassment, and bullying have all been seen as OK because the bible condemns gays and because society has declared them other.

 

But, do we really need to play a game of who has it worse?  Can we accept that everyone should be treated equally with dignity and respect?

[KungFuPanda]

Being a member of one minority group doesn't automatically exclude you from being bigoted towards another. I think it raises a lot of questions to go into a panicked scramble to separate yourself from another minority group who is struggling and relying on precedent to achieve some level of equality.

[Ravin]

I'll bite: initial article response without reading responses here:

 

1. Historically, gay people have had no societal spaces at all unless they constructed them for themselves. Bars were the most widespread of these spaces. Most straight people when I was a teen wouldn't have entered a gay bar for love or money. At the same time, they were about the only public spaces where gay and lesbian people could freely dance, hold hands, or otherwise show affection for one another without fear of harassment, violence or arrest.

 

Stonewall, the 1969 incident that sparked the gay rights movement, was about people defending these spaces from police harassment.

 

In some places, publlic affection is still a safety concern.

 

2. Not as such, no. But we often had our children snatched from us, with us claimed to be unfit parents based upon sexual orientation. Or were shamed, abused, or turned out on the streets by parents who rejected us. That still happens. The assumption that children are straight until they assert otherwise could be considered an attempt at conquest from birth.

 

3. Slavery is not the only way to marginalize people. Criminalizing their existence does it too. Go far enough back in history, and we will all find slaves. Consider this argument about another group. Is the marginalization in American history of women in history, or of Native Americans, or of Jews, less real because they were not, as a group, enslaved? There are unique aspects to Black history. There are also unique aspects to the GLBT experience in history.

 

 

4. This doesn't make a lot of sense. Just like the slavery argument, but with less uniqueness. Citizenship long preceded the civil rights movement. It didn't solve the problem of inequality.

 

5. Far little and more recent reasons for beating someone to death based on identity may be found. There was a race lynching in TX less than a decade ago. And ever hear of Matt Sheppard?

 

Pain is measured within a human lifespan and an individual's experience. Is knowing how one's ancestors were treated part of that pain for African-Americans? Yes. To compare that to the pain of rejection by one's own family is apples and oranges. That doesn't mean both aren't real, or that the gains of black people aren't something the GLBT community strives for. The similarity is that both groups deserve equality.

[Ravin]

The article's five bullet points are valid, and I agree that gay rights falls under the umbrella of civil rights, because to categorize it as other is exactly part of the problem. Once someone is other, he/she more easily marginalized.

 

I also find valid comparisons when arguments are made for marriage equality based on our old fear of interracial marriage -- Loved how that one minister spoke at a town meeting (youtube?) and read a whole anti-gay thing, but revealed at the end that he just changed the word "black" to "gay" from a decades-old public statement of some sort. Wish I had that link.

Strom Thurmond basically recycled his speech against integration in the military in 1948 as against ending the gay ban back in the 90's.

 

 

A lot of the anti-same sex marriage arguments sound just like the anti-miscegenation arguments, too.

[Ravin]

Being a member of one minority group doesn't automatically exclude you from being bigoted towards another. I think it raises a lot of questions to go into a panicked scramble to separate yourself from another minority group who is struggling and relying on precedent to achieve some level of equality.

In this case, being a member of one minority group doesn't prevent you from being a member of another. Gay people of color often have it worse in their own racial communities than whites.

 

Which makes this long diatribe against the oversimplification of a song lyric worse than the lyric.

[KungFuPanda]

In this case, being a member of one minority group doesn't prevent you from being a member of another. Gay people of color often have it worse in their own racial communities than whites.

Which makes this long diatribe against the oversimplification of a song lyric worse than the lyric.

This is true, but I'd bet money that the author of this article isn't gay.

[Ravin]

This is true, but I'd bet money that the author of this article isn't gay.

Exactly. I doubt he thinks about the impact of his words on those who are both black and gay. By insisting one struggle is more valid than the other, he renders GLBT people of color invisible, or else casts them out and makes them "other" by denying that any gay person can understand black experience.

[TXBeth]

I think the biggest problem with the phrase "gay is the new black" is one that I didn't see mentioned in the article. It implies that the black struggle for equality is finished, so the focus should be moved elsewhere. I wonder if that idea isn't what is causing this author's defensiveness, maybe a slight fear that people will think that there doesn't need to be any more focus or effort put into racial equality, because "nowadays it is really gay people who are marginalized."

 

Disclaimer: I am neither gay nor black, so take my opinion with a grain of salt.

[Ravin]

I didn't read it as insisting one struggle is more valid than the other but that doesn't mean mine is the correct reading.

 

I think the author doesn't want black history appropriated as metaphor for another struggle. I can understand that.

 

I see where others are coming from, and I appreciate the perspectives. Very thought provoking.

 

The problem is, the list was one-sided. All it did was emphasize things that make the Black Civil Rights struggle valid, without once mentioning something unique about the gay rights effort that makes it different though valid. Of course it's different.

 

Look at it this way. Imagine someone tried to say that the African-American civil rights movement was the same as the movement for Native rights, and someone responded with nothing but a list of ways in which Native Americans have suffered but Blacks haven't. "No one broke treaties and obliterated the rights of Africans as a people to self governance--your ancestors were sold off by fellow Africans. No one stole your land through misrepresentation and broken treaties or forced you all to march cross-country" etc., etc. The tone would be one of "our struggle is more valid than yours." The same thing is what comes through here.

 

I think the biggest problem with the phrase "gay is the new black" is one that I didn't see mentioned in the article. It implies that the black struggle for equality is finished, so the focus should be moved elsewhere. I wonder if that idea isn't what is causing this author's defensiveness, maybe a slight fear that people will think that there doesn't need to be any more focus or effort put into racial equality, because "nowadays it is really gay people who are marginalized."

 

Disclaimer: I am neither gay nor black, so take my opinion with a grain of salt.

 

This is a very good point, and while I don't think it's totally missed by the author of the article, it certainly isn't made explicit.

 

Of course Gay isn't the new Black, except at the shallow end of analysis that it's what's at the political forefront of shifting attitudes and change right now. Of course,the origin of the expression is a prime example of that. It's "in" to support gay rights. It also has that cutesy double play on gay culture and fashion to give it double meaning, which makes it particularly catchy. And catchy is what you want in a song lyric, because it'll sell. Deep thought doesn't sell as well as often in the pop industry.

[Farrar]

The context in which I have seen this sentiment the most (just taking it aside from the whole Macklemore thing and the specific slogan) has not been in appropriation, but in solidarity or in attempt to build a bridge between two communities that have historically not had a lot to say to one another.  I've been very impressed here in DC how many local African-American politicians and religious leaders have helped make the case to public of why gay rights are an important civil rights issue for everyone, just like all civil rights issues benefit an open and free society in general.  Since blacks still dominate local government, gay marriage could not have passed without them, and it overwhelming passed legislatively.

 

I did find this article very dismissive of the oppression and suffering of LGBT people.  The idea of appropriation is a nuanced one.  This was not a nuanced article.  Nor are pop lyrics typically nuanced, but they're pop lyrics, trying to say something with a few catchy words to start a conversation.  I have less respect for a blog post that pretends to be arguing a fair case that isn't fairly presented at all.

[albeto.]

Not impressed with this piece. From the very premise, I think the author got it wrong. On a hunch, I did a google search for him learned he's a pastor at a church. I haven't found anything about the church.

 

Linkedin profile, connecting the author of the piece to Damascus Road Church: http://www.linkedin.com/pub/adam-thomason/4/bb9/b26

 

 

My thoughts about why he misses the mark:

 

 

And you get Macklemore rhyming:

 

Gay is synonymous with the lesser/ it’s the same hate that’s caused wars/ from Religion, gender, to skin color, the complexion of your pigment/ The same fight that led people to walk outs and sit ins/It’s human rights for everybody, there is no difference.

 

And it all sounds great, vogue, for-the-people–until you look at the historical realities behind the claims.

 

Historical facts notwithstanding, Thomason completely misses the lyrics. 

 

"Gay is synonymous with the lesser"

 

Does he argue it's not? No, he argues LGBTQ community hasn't been hated in the same way the Black American community has been hated. Well, no duh. They're different communities, they have different histories, they present different "threats" to conventional, conservative society. Did anyone expect identical persecution? And if so, why?" 

 

"It's the same hate that's caused wars." 

 

Damn straight it is. The hate isn't about color, it's about loss of privilege. Why is he missing the big picture to focus on an irrelevant detail (I have an opinion about this)? The hate is the same because it's the hate of feeling vulnerable to loss of control, threatened by the "enemy." Any privileged group feels a loss of control when their privilege is no longer protected. Much of the 20th century focused on the loss of privilege to the WASP majority of America. The latter part of the century raised LGBTQ concerns, pitting equal rights against conventional privilege. Why is Thomason focusing on color as if that's the issue here (I have an opinion about this, too)? Why is he drawing the line so close to his own chest when the line is so much broader? The line he should be drawing is the one between "us" and "them." "Us" referring to the conventional privileged society, "them" referring to the underdog community that seeks equality at the expense of longstanding privilege. 

 

So rather than go into each line, I'll just come out and say my opinion. He considers himself "them" with regards to race, but one of "us" when it comes to sexual orientation, identity, presentation. His privilege is being threatened. He doesn't want to see equality based on LGBTQ concerns because he doesn't believe it exists. He believes (obviously I'm speculating here, drawing conclusions from points of reference I haven't mentioned here, but are pretty standard) LGBTQ concerns are trying to promote "sin," and as a pastor, he wants to show people how they can be "saved" from it, not enable it. 

 

The civil rights movement of the middle of the century is one he can identify with because it affects him directly. I'm guessing he has parents and grandparents and great grandparents, and church members, and neighbors and friends and a whole bunch of people he knows personally who were directly affected by the civil rights movement. I'm guessing he has personally experienced racial discrimination his whole life. He knows the playing field of this game, and it ain't fair. However... he doesn't think the LGBTQ community "counts," and I'm guessing that's because he thinks it's a choice, a matter of choosing "sin" whereas he wants people to know they can choose Jesus instead. If that's the case, then rallying for equal rights isn't necessary when people can simply stop being aligned with the unprivileged community. Just cross the line, get back to the right team, and continue playing the game. In other words, "stop using our history to normalize your group."

 

Yeah, not impressed at all. The hypocrisy is inexcusable, but not surprising. 

[LucyStoner]

I think that the author is affiliated with a different Damascus Road Church, Albeto.  Dude is in Detroit and that website is for a church that is within an hour drive of me all the way over in the PNW. 

[albeto.]

I think that the author is affiliated with a different Damascus Road Church, Albeto.  Dude is in Detroit and that website is for a church that is within an hour drive of me all the way over in the PNW. 

 

Noted. I'll take the link out for convenience sake. 

[Farrar]

OK. But this is another case of cultural difference. We are taught that appropriating indigenous history by using it to describe non-sole indigenous issues is disrespectful and perpetuates the suffering of a people who had everything stolen from them. You just don't steal their history to use as a metaphor for your own struggle, even if the parallels are huge.

 

Now, this has been a great conversation, because I definitely feel more educated about the issue as it pertains to the specific cultural context.

 

As a cover for homophobia etc, then the piece isn't on.

 

I think someone who falls into both groups is most able to make the comparison.

 

It's an interesting topic because it seems both sides of the argument have very valid points.

 

That's interesting about the Australian perspective.  I think the indigenous issues are somewhat similar here in the US regarding Native American issues...  Yeah, there is a great issue of appropriation about that - perhaps because there's a long history of appropriation that there isn't with Black culture?  Except there kind of is, just in such a different way.  White and black musicians have been having a back and forth conversation in American music for centuries now.  Hm...  I don't know.