A thread for GLBT people of color

[ruggerson]

I've thought about this a bit, especially in light of all the charges and counter charges and some unfortunate bitterness that flew around post Prop 8: Could we not have an ongoing thread that addresses issues specifically relevant to people who feel they are straddling two different communities and all the attendant issues pertaining to them?

My reasons are twofold and I'll freely admit one is politically selfish.

Firstly, I don't think gay people of color get listened to as much as they should be EITHER of the larger gay or African American communities.

And secondly, we seem to do a lot of talking about the necessity for bridge building without, in fact, doing any bridge building.

I realize this is just a discussion forum, but this is something I give a lot of thought to in real life and maybe we could accidentally provoke some thoughtful progress in this small online neck of the woods by listening to people who need to be listened to.

I don't know how the mechanics of this would work (a thread, a petition to Skinner for a group) but I just wanted to toss it out there for suggestions and/or comments.

[TEmperorHasNoClothes]

1. do you only want African Americans participating in the thread

I'm caucasian and interested in this topic and to know what, if anything, I could do to help with that bridge.

[ruggerson]

3. personally

I think it should be open to everyone.

[FreeState]

2. I almost started this thread yesterday

I was thinking of a thread that addressed head on some of the tensions that are taking place. I don't know if its even a reasonable expectation to get people to be respectful and open minded enough to take the personal issues out of it and just look at the issue without emotion.

I tried to start a similar dialog in the AA forum and it did not work. I experienced much of what GLBT minorities have felt in the GLBT forum there - immediate distrust and accusations. I did talk through it with the people in the thread and eventually started a dialog but then things went south on DU for a few weeks and I took a break and it never picked up again.

There are obviously high emotions and misunderstanding going on that need to be addressed, not only to make DU more pleasant but to help the progressive movement move forward with all of its goals.

If we can get everyone to openly talk without there ego's I think such a conversation would be healthy and helpful.


(I did not include it above but I am white and my family is mixed - Black, Hispanic, Hawaiian - so I dont fit the request but this is an issue that is close to me and I am very interested in. I also think this same tension is present in the current Feminist and GLBT encounters on DU and it should be addressed on some level - I know different topic but similar situation with tension and hurt feelings both ways.)

[Duncan Grant]

4. Let's consider this quote from Marlon Riggs:

But there was also another purpose behind the "obscenity" rhetoric: the charge of being too "graphic" or "grossly offensive" offered the perfect pretext for silencing a disfranchised minority's attempt to end its subjugation and challenge the cultural terms of the majority's social control. Having deemed the language of black gay men unsuitable for public broadcast, tongues untied were peremptorily re-tied. The suppression of the culturally (and politically) disempowered thus continued in many American communities without compunction. How utterly convenient!

That this dynamic has shaped the cultural distortion and outright erasure of many groups throughout American history--African, Native, Asian and Latin Americans, working-class communities, women as well as homosexuals--wholly escapes most who objected to the "language" and "confrontational" imagery of Tongues Untied.

-- Marlon Riggs, “Tongues Re-tied?” in Currents, August 1991

From 1987 until shortly before his death in 1994, Marlon Riggs was Professor of Documentary Film-making in the Graduate School of Journalism. A magna cum laude graduate of Harvard University, Riggs earned his M.A. degree in journalism from Berkeley in 1981. His documentary film Ethnic Notions (1987) garnered high praise when it was shown on public television, but his next work Tongues Untied (1988) catapulted him into the national spotlight. The documentary, an exploration of gay black urban life, featured frank language and graphic sexual images. It had been funded in part by a grant of $5000 from the National Endowment for the Arts. When the film was broadcast on the P.O.V. (Point of View) public television series, conservative members of Congress were outraged and called for the abolition of the N.E.A. and drastic cuts in funding for public television in general. Tongues Untied was followed by Color Adjustment (1989) and Non, Je Ne Regrette Rien (1992). Riggs was at work on Black Is...Black Ain’t when he died of AIDS in 1994. The film was completed by his co-producer Nicole Atkinson and his editor/co-director Christiane Badgely. In his brief career Riggs was awarded two Emmys, the Peabody Award, the award for Best Video at the New York Documentary Film Festival and Best Documentary at the Berlin International Film Festival. Seldom has a Berkeley professor been the subject of both Congressional censure and international acclaim.

Rigg's Bio from Gay Bears: The Hidden History of the Berkeley Campus.

[Jamastiene]

5. I hope this thread works out.

I would like to learn more.

[yardwork]

6. This is my first post on DU in months, and it's a question. Are you a gay man of color?

The reason I ask is that, imo, most of the trouble was begun and is perpetuated by people who are neither. Self-identified white straight people led the charge that "all gay DUers are racist." It was picked up by a couple of self-identified black straight men. By that time, enough had been said that some gay DUers were responding with anger and outrage, and eventually some self-identified black gay people became disgusted and joined in the "all gay DUers are racist" chorus.

Of course, we have no way of knowing whether or not an anonymous poster's claims of identification are true or not - chances are good that several of them at least are right-wing trolls send to cause trouble - at which they succeeded admirably. Probably got bonuses for screwing up what had been a progressive board.

The original troublemakers numbered about a dozen or fewer. But they've been allowed by management to create such a hostile atmosphere on DU, most straight DUers take as gospel the "fact" that "all gay DUers" are racist Obama-hating Hillary-loving nuclear Easter Egg ruining ungrateful whiny sissy blobs of poutrage - all except the handful of "gay" DUers who agree with all the foregoing about "those gays on the GLBT forum" while insisting that they are nothing, nothing ! like that - and by the way, they resent the term Aunt Thomasina.

Meanwhile, I remember in the days following Proposition 8 a few self-identified black gay men who were trying to talk to DU, but they got shut down by the busybody (or trolling) white straight progressiver-than-thou posters.

The key lies with DU management. Either they care to make DU into a progressive board again that gives more than lip service to human rights, or they continue as they are.

[Runcible Spoon]

7. It really saddens me that people are deliberately trying to pit AAs vs. gays

To my personal knowledge, I've NEVER seen anyone equate the historical struggle of the groups but I've seen that accusation flung around here...this seems to be a major point of contention which leads me to several questions:

1. Why is it offensive to suggest that there are parallels?
2. Why do some feel the need to rank suffering and oppression?
3. Even if some misguided or outright disruptive people DID say that the struggles are the same why the outrage and cries of bigotry aimed at ENTIRE GROUPS of people? It's not like anyone is being compared to Nazis or neocons, and it's not like showing solidarity with each other diminishes the identity of the groups or the unique story of their struggles.

It's a sad day when marginalized groups feel they must isolate themselves from each other; it is just another unfortunate outcome of the divide and conquer propaganda which is used by neocons to keep us busy fighting each other while they rob us ALL.

In the end, greed doesn't care what color you are or who you choose to partner with...your money and your freedom to self-determination are all the same to those who wish to take them away.

[yardwork]

13. Two kinds of people do that kind of thing - disrupting trolls and jerks.

Of course, those aren't mutually exclusive either.

[LostinVA]

8. Backslider!

You need to talk to your sponsor.

[ruggerson]

9. that's why I thought a dialogue would be useful

I look at it from the perspective of a gay white person - I know full well that GLBT black people (and asians and latinos, etc) have very different experiences than I. Hence the thread. I"m not laying the post Prop 8 blame fracas on any particular group or groups. I'm hoping we can move beyond it.

[yardwork]

12. I don't lay the blame on groups, either. I lay the blame on a handful of individuals.

Several people - straight white people - took it on themselves to start this war and they were aided and abetted by some others. As far as I know, ever single one of them could be a troll who is lying about their true identity. Or they could just be jerks. Either way, it had nothing whatsoever to do with groups.

[kwassa]

10. I couldn't disagree more, and I am quite amazed you are digging this all up again.

My recollection of the events in question is completely different than yours.

No one ever said all gay DUers were racist. No one.

The fight was not started by straight white men, it was started by attacks on black voters on Prop 8 by a few GLBTers. I can link this to death if you would like, it is all there in the archives. It is pretty pointless to re-visit that fight, however.

I don't know why you persist in this view that is clearly not reflected in the record, at all.

it is all pure thread diversion from the stated purpose of this thread, as well, which is started for a very positive purpose.

[yardwork]

11. How nice to see you again, kwassa. Still up to your old tricks.

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

15. seconded

[yardwork]

16. Thank you, darling!

[Maven]

18. like a moth to the flame

You do realize you're one of the troublemakers being referred to above, don't you?

[yardwork]

27. Since my original response was deleted, I'll rephrase.

At least one poster on DU has said, repeatedly, that "all gay DUers are racist." Those posts were deleted by the mods, but I remember them, and I imagine that you do as well, kwassa, as you agreed with them at the time.

Also, accusations of racism were made against DUers for simply discussing the results of surveys. It is not generally considered racism to state that one is disappointed that a majority of people voted to take away another minority group's rights. It is a fact - proven via numerous studies and surveys conducted over different time periods and in different parts of the country - that some minority groups are less supportive - as a group - of gay rights than others. It's not racist to discuss this.

It IS racist to assume that any individual's beliefs automatically match those of the majority of their group. It is also homophobic to assume that any one gay individual feels the same as some anonymous self-identified gay person posting on a public forum.

Stick with comments about individuals, or stick with comments about groups as a whole. Stop mixing the two up.

[kwassa]

34. So, you have no evidence that a poster has called all gay DUer's racist?

I see.

and, no, I did not agree with them. As I said, I thought some statements were racist, and I still do. So do black DUers, gay and straight and they have said so. Your memory seems to be rather selective in not remembering those statements. It wasn't simply the discussion of results of surveys; you seem to have memory loss in relationship to the highly emotional attacks on black voters based on a single faulty exit poll. Those attacks, in my opinion, were racist because of assumptions made about black voters that showed to me the lack of knowledge of the black community by many in the gay community, and most of all, by the WILLINGNESS to attack black voters based on virtually NOTHING. That willingness is revealing and what set me off, originally.

Yes, I am a straight white male. My wife and daughter are African-American. I spent much time, earlier in my life, around the gay community in West Hollywood, through a close friend who was gay, and became friends of his friends. I've been to several gay pride parades there, and many parties with him and friends. I've been around both communities for periods of many years. I think I know a thing or two, though certainly not all. I am fully in favor of same-sex marriage, too.

but I do regard your account of what happened here on DU as pure revisionism, and a gross attempt at diversion from the source of the conflict by attempting to paint the conflict here as instigated by straight people. The conflict was started by the attacks on the black voters, and I and many, many others reacted to those attacks, and some who reacted were straight, and some were gay, some black, and some white.

[Name removed]

35. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[kwassa]

36. Another distortion of what I said. How surprising.

I am a straight white poster who told some gay people directly what they were saying was racist, back then. Here is your attempt, once again, to avoid the original cause of the conflict, and to blame it on the response.

[Vanje]

44. but

some of his best friends are gay!

[dsc]

39. So which is it?

Do you not agree with the statements or do the statements not exist? The fact is that several posters here said that any discussion of the results of prop 8 which mentioned the fact that African Americans voted for it in numbers exceeding most other groups were immediately ruled racist by several posters. and BTW the cries of racism started in the primaries when gay folk who opposed Obama were directly called racist for daring to point out the association with McClurkin. Neither side has entirely clean hands but you are certainly engaging in revision of history by ignoring the blatent use of the charge of racism during the primaries.

[kwassa]

66. Charged by who?

Where are the DUers who defended McClurkin, and called those who attacked him racist?

[dsc]

81. I won't violate the call out rule

but you have a star and you can search using mcclurkin in the general discussion primary forum in the time frame of the fall of 2007. There were several.

[LostinVA]

86. I was called a racist 30+ times, merely for supporting Hillary

Mainly by posters still here. Even HERE.

And, you are well aware you can't name who.

You really need better facts better you clean up the viper den.

:eyes:

[kwassa]

87. I supported Hillary and was never called a racist.

Go figure.

I have a picture of myself, my wife, and child taken WITH Hillary, at one of her rallies. I have my arm around the Hillster.

Though I didn't post it on DU. That would be putting gas on the fire.

Here are some memories for you, of anger past. I think the comments in many of these threads racist.

Why? Declaring someone a bigot because of how they voted is bigotry itself, because without asking those voters WHY they voted the way they did is to ASSUME they did it because of anti-gay bigotry. And since this DU-member bigotry is aimed at black people, that DU-member bigotry is based on race and therefore racist. Understand?

Read these threads and weep. I have many more if you really want to read them.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=4395715#4395749

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=4398803#4398895

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=4402366#4408501

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=4413863#4419333

[dsc]

88. You are conflating two things here

One, I will say this, if you voted for prop 8 and meant to do so (ie you weren't confused as to what a yes vote meant) you are a bigot, plain and simple. You are every bit the bigot that a person who voted for a proposition banning interracial marriage would be, or one who voted to deny benefits to undocumented aliens would be.

Two, there were some comments which crossed lines on both sides in all of those threads. I stand behind my comments at the time (when the exit polls seemed to be accurate at the 70% figure) and I did say, repeatedly, that since they weren't 100% accurate we couldn't be sure. It turns out they were likely off but even the best figures for your side of this stated 58% voted yes with 42% voting no. I think it is more likely to be in the area of 60 40 or a little higher. In either of those cases the margin of votes for passage was higher than the margin of the black vote. I don't think it is racist, nor unfair, to point out that the majority of blacks voted for prop 8 while the majority of gays voted for Obama and that is a problem.

[kwassa]

108. This is the central point of disagreement.

dsc:
"One, I will say this, if you voted for prop 8 and meant to do so (ie you weren't confused as to what a yes vote meant) you are a bigot, plain and simple."

What proof do you have of bigotry, if you don't know the motivations of the voter?

No one knew then or now, as they haven't been surveyed to my knowledge, what the reasoning was behind the black voter's choices. The assumption you, and many others, are making is that the voters were motivated by hatred of gays, and not other concerns. Without proof, however, you are indulging in pre-judgement, the very definition of prejudice. And to my mind and others, if one accuses someone of being a bigot without proof, the one accusing is themself being a bigot. That is my exact problem with those accusing the black voters. There was a rush to judgement without proof.

[dsc]

110. The thing speaks for itself

What possible concern could they have that wasn't biggoted nonsense? I notice you didn't contest my other examples (gee I wonder why). This wasn't refusing to vote for a gay candidate who may or may not have had views that were problematic. The one and only purpose of prop 8 was to permanently take away rights from a group of people. If that isn't bald faced bigotry I don't know what is.

[kwassa]

130. I disagree.

I think Prop 8 was certainly bigotry in it's design, but I don't that necessarily explains the motivation of the voters. I think that depends more on the viewpoint and background of the voter, and how the issue was sold to them.

While gays see it as being stripped of a right, it is a very recently acquired right, and in the minds of voters this requires a change of viewpoint about how marriage has been defined for the past 1000 years, at least. That is not easy to do. It is easier to change that concept in the minds of a few judges than it is in the electorate as a whole. A majority of Americans are still opposed to same-sex marriage, though that is changing. Look at these graphs:

http://pewforum.org/docs/?DocID=290

I would while this civil rights aspect of this is very obvious to gays, that consideration has most likely never occurred to most heteros because it has never been presented to them that way. I think most have never thought about the issue at all, as they have no reason to think about it unless they have close gay friend to whom it is important.

Traditional marriage is under threat in the black community, and exists as an unattainable ideal for many.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/25/AR2006032500029.html

In 2001, according to the U.S. Census, 43.3 percent of black men and 41.9 percent of black women in America had never been married, in contrast to 27.4 percent and 20.7 percent respectively for whites. African American women are the least likely in our society to marry. In the period between 1970 and 2001, the overall marriage rate in the United States declined by 17 percent; but for blacks, it fell by 34 percent. Such statistics have caused Howard University relationship therapist Audrey Chapman to point out that African Americans are the most uncoupled people in the country.

and many African-Americans are socially conservative. In addition, there was little outreach to the black community from the No on 8 activists. They tend to be more religious, a group that also votes for traditional definitions of marriage.

The other major point is that African-Americans were singled out in these threads while everyone else who voted yes on Prop 8 were essentially ignored. This places an extraordinarily unfair emphasis on a small percentage of the total Yes on 8 voters. I thought this bigoted, as well.

I think there is a great deal of cultural myopia involved, as well, on both sides, as there is little contact between the two communities. Gays were assuming a relationship with the black community that the black community never saw or knew about.

[dsc]

134. again you are conflating two different things

I really don't care why they voted for Prop 8. The fact they felt God told them to doesn't excuse them any more than it excused Bob Jones who opposed interracial dating at his university. It also is irrelevent how recently the rights were aquired. If Johnson had lost in 64 and Goldwater got Congress to recind the Civil Right Act of 64, it still would have been bigotry run amok. Just like a repeal now would be.

Blacks shouldn't have been singled out but they did vote for it in starkly high numbers so it was shocking especially juxaposed with the immense support Obama got from gays, support which Obama hasn't especially rewarded as of yet.

[kwassa]

139. what two things are being conflated?

You declare it bigotry without proof, if you don't care why they voted as they did. In your mind, it can only be bigotry. How do you know, if you can't prove anti-gay beliefs?

All you have is your assumption.

[Duncan Grant]

145. When is it ever acceptable to revoke a marginalized group's civil equality? When?

How can you possibly argue that there's an acceptable context for anyone who voted yes on Prop H8?

edit: trying to keep it simple...

[kwassa]

146. It is never acceptable.

I not arguing acceptability. I am arguing against labeling another marginalized group as bigots without knowledge of their beliefs. I am arguing against singling out another marginalized group who comprised a small amount of the total yes vote, and focusing all anger just on them. That is all I am arguing.

[Duncan Grant]

147. And shall we now contextualize the Mormons who voted "Yes on 8"?

Are you arguing against labeling Mormons (or Catholics) as bigots without knowledge of their beliefs (or motivations)? Where does this end, kwassa?

There is no acceptable context for a "Yes on 8" vote. You're obviously smart enough to know that.

Why is it so important to you to defend or contextualize yes on Prop H8 votes? This is not a progressive argument nor one that supports the dignity and human rights of gays and lesbians.

For cryin' out loud, if you were justifying, rationalizing and contextualizing a vote that removed the civil rights from another marginalized group you'd be tombstoned -- and rightfully so.

This is so disingenuous. I can't believe you're getting away with it.

edit: 'd

[kwassa]

153. Yes, I would argue the same for the Mormons.

Sorry, but I would.

As little as I like Mormonism. I think I can be a little more clear on their motivation, as they all share a common religious viewpoint, which is unlikely among the black voters, and I would tend to believe that more in the anti-gay belief and bigotry ...

but the truth of the matter is that I don't know what their motivation is, and I wouldn't call them bigots because of that.

[Duncan Grant]

155. But you would agree that the KKK is comprised of bigots.

The KKK has religious beliefs and motivations, too. Given the chance, they would revoke the civil rights of some Americans -- just as civil equality was revoked from gay and lesbian people.

How finely shall we split this hair?

[NorthernSpy]

159. The KKK is a terrorist group.

Apples and oranges.

[Duncan Grant]

161. Apples and oranges? Keep telling yourself that... (nt)

[dsc]

162. The CCC then

since they haven't engaged in violence.

[NMMNG]

148. People who vote to take rights away from LGBT people are bigots

I don't give a flying f*ck what their "beliefs" are. Religion and faith are no excuse for being insufferable and oppressing others.





Now don't you have some atheists in R/T to bash?

[Duncan Grant]

149. kwassa is making the argument that one can't call "moral" people bigots.

Now all this evasion and double-talk is starting to make sense...

edit: :banghead:

[NMMNG]

152. People who work and/or vote to eradicate the fundamental rights of others

aren't "moral". Slapping a "religious" or "faith" label on why they do what they do doesn't change a damn thing. They're still bigots. Sadly some people can't get that through their thick skulls because the dogma keeps blocking rational transmissions.

[kwassa]

154. No, I am not.

and I have evaded nothing in this thread. If you think I have, point it out.

[Duncan Grant]

163. Oh, yes you are. Yours is not a progressive argument.

You're arguing that not everyone who votes to revoke the state sanctioned civil rights of lesbians and gays are bigots. Furthermore, you seek to contextualize moralistic opposition to civil equality as acceptable and -- in the same breath -- condemn gay and lesbian people for being intolerant of moralists.

Again, contextualizing bigotry is not a progressive argument. And it certainly goes against the spirit of Skinner's statement about participating in discussions at DU about LGBT people.

As for being evasive and disingenuous? I'll let the readers of this thread decide that for themselves.

bigot

: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices ; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group with hatred and intolerance

[yardwork]

113. And maybe white supremacists aren't motivated by bigotry, either.

And maybe pigs will fly out my butt. You are really reaching, and you're still in here - a white straight man - lecturing gay people.

[kwassa]

131. and you are attacking me based on my race, gender, and sexual orientation

rather than my argument, which you have failed to even touch.

It would be quiet amazing to have you discuss what actually happened. Would you like more links from me to remind you of the discussion?

[QC]

138. All I see is "Ignored," but I have a pretty good idea which pontificating white str8 man

you're talking about here.

But that is one of the wonderful things about DU: there is always a concerned straight person willing to take some time to teach us how to be good little faggots. It's very touching, if you think about it. What would we do without them?

[Duncan Grant]

144. "Yes on 8" voters are the people who were truly harmed by Prop H8's passage.

The real victims of the revocation of gay and lesbian civil rights aren't gays and lesbians but rather -- the very people who voted "Yes". It's all about putting "Yes on 8" voters in their proper context.

Woo-Hoo, let's enable "Yes on 8" voters! :woohoo:



Can you believe this crap? :crazy:

[QC]

150. Yes, actually, I can believe it. n/t

[ruggerson]

121. What rational reasons would a person have to vote FOR Prop 8?

I don't buy "religious beliefs" as a rational reason, because Prop 8 is about CIVIL law, not church canon. And, additionally, much of organized religion, as we all know, has been used as a smokescreen throughout history to oppress individuals and groups in one form or another.

So what other rational reason is there?

[kwassa]

132. People vote as often for irrational reasons as rational ones.

At any time on any issue.

They often vote on their gut feelings.

Bush claimed this is how he made his decisions. We saw how accurate his gut was.

[Duncan Grant]

143. It seems to me that you're trying to provide an acceptable context for denying civil equality.

The state sanctioned civil rights of gay and lesbian people were revoked. If you're looking to provide context to this issue, I suggest you look to history. It was despicable then, it's despicable now.

Simply stated: there is no context what-so-ever that justifies a "Yes on 8" vote. None. Nada. Period.

The drama at DU is a secondary issue. It has nothing to do with the revocation of gay and lesbian civil rights. Let's be clear about that. DU is a message board. Big whoop.

Let's talk again when any of your civil rights are revoked.

Thanks for sharing.

edit: sp

[noiretextatique]

83. some people did overreach, and some posts were indeed racist

not all, but some. i don't know that gay people were the authors of the racist posts, but i do know that some gay people fanned the flames.
when i stated these simple facts: some black people are anti-gay bigots and do not support gay marriage; i got accused of making excuses. it became such a no-win situation that i purposely left it alone.

[yardwork]

98. That sounds like what I noticed as well, as I've stated elsewhere in this thread.

At the end of the day, one fact remains: Gay people still have fewer rights - thousands fewer - than any other citizen of the U.S. The rights of a minority group of people were voted away in the states of California, Florida, Arizona, and Arkansas on Election Day 2008. These states joined the vast majority of other states in the U.S. that have voted and legislated away the rights of one minority group - gay people - treating us as a completely separate group from every other group of U.S. citizens.

And what was the response to this on DU? Many DUers took the opportunity to tell gay people that we don't deserve human rights, and we're rude and racist, too.

Forget the past? I'm ready to forgive and forget as soon as I have equal protection under the laws.

[noiretextatique]

104. i hear you yardwork

but a black man was just killed, on video tape, where i live. it is very likely that his killers, who wore uniforms, will be acquitted, just as the killers of ronnie settles, eula mae love, tyisha miller, and amadou diallo were killed. what good are rights when i can walk out my house tomorrow and scare some cop so badly by my presence that i can be shot dead...and the state will likely sanction that cop's behavior?

i support marriage equity, but i am not a supporter of marriage, so it's not a personal issue to me. what i do take personally is, as you mentioned, a class of people being singled out by a hateful majority. that is a struggle i know intimately.

[yardwork]

114. I know that black people are still oppressed. So are gay people.

We can fight one another, as many in the white straight majority would prefer, or we can band together and become more powerful than the bigots.

[noiretextatique]

140. i don't think there is a fight

i think there was a deliberate manipulation of the the Prop 8 vote statistics and people reacted to that, not all the them were gay, by the way. classic divide and conquer. this issue, the black vote on Prop 8, and generated more noise and heat than it deserved because, as Brewman Jax pointed out, it wasn't black people who got that initiative on the ballot, and it wasn't black people who spent millions of dollars to get it passed. nor were black people, 7% of the population of california, "responsible" for Prop 8's passage.
i know you know all of this, and i am not accusing you of anything.
i just never understood, and don't understand the anger directed at black people for Prop 8's passage. i am still hopeful that the supreme court will have the cajones to stand by their first decision.

[LostinVA]

50. I have it saved it all its glory

I'm sure other people do, too.

I actually have the whole exchange saved.

[ThomCat]

59. I stayed out of this whole war

but I too remember the generalizations that LGBT DUers were Racist. Not specific individuals. Not even a select group of people. The implications was that we were all of us racist.

You seem to come up in the derogatory posts far too often.

You should really stay out of the LGBT forum if all you're going to do is stir up shit.

[kwassa]

63. I don't want to speak in this forum at all.

but I have low tolerance for the revisionist "history" of yardwork, which is essentially based on denial, and diversion.

[ThomCat]

64. No. It seems like you are taking advantage of the worst

threads having been deleted, and you're embellishing your point of view quite a hell of a lot.

If you don't want to speak in this forum at all, then don't. Good Bye! :hi:

[kwassa]

65. Like this undeleted and unlocked thread?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=221&topic_id=87922

Why African-Americans Voted for Prop 8 and why The Mormons fought for it (Boot-licking Bullies)

Part of the problem is that African-Americans have had to fight "The Mandingo Stereotype" for generations-- the notion that they could not control their sexual urges. This has been part of their struggle towards equality and respect.

Many of the heterosexual black clergy feel that if they concede that some people are "born gay" that this will cause them to lose some of their own hard-won ground. The feeling is that if they concede that someone cannot keep themselves from being gay, that they will somehow be conceding that black men cannot keep themselves from raping white women.

A more cynical reason is that many feel relieved to have a scapegoat they can blame the ills of their own community on. Rev. Louis Sheldon says that homosexuality is the greatest threat to the urban community, for example.

[ThomCat]

67. And your point is?

Linking to that post doesn't change the attacks and vicious posts that implied that the LGBT forum was full of racists.

And you're still here.

[kwassa]

68. Find those attacks and show them to me.

I've certainly have never seen them, and I read the entire battle.

[Name removed]

70. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[kwassa]

72. Do you know the difference between "some" and "all"?

I said "some".

I never said "all" or even "most", nor did anyone else.

Please read more carefully,

and yes, I'm gone.

[yardwork]

73. Here's one. You agreed with it, too.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=258&topic_id=4822&mesg_id=4849

HamdenRice (1000+ posts) Sat Nov-08-08 12:36 PM

Response to Original message

24. Most of DU's white GLBT people have "outed" themselves as stone cold, dead eyed racists

Edited on Sat Nov-08-08 12:40 PM by HamdenRice

Sorry to be so harsh, but that's what has happened. Voting to bring back slavery? Yeah, I've read that one. Another one posted something to the effect that "blacks are now my enemies" -- not California blacks who voted yes, but all blacks. The general thrust of the comments are that blacks are stupid, brain dead, hyper religions zombies being led around by homophobic bigot pastors -- even though no one knows exactly what was going through the voters minds when they voted as they did.

When white people begin making stuff up about black people out of thin air and stating it as unassailable fact, there is no other explanation.

All this because in one prop vote in one state, a higher than expected percentage of blacks voted -- not to "kill" GLBT people, not to "destroy" them, but to maintain a verbal distinction between marriage and civil unions.

If they were not a self identified "oppressed" group, they would have all been tombstoned by now, because their rhetoric frankly would embarrass FreeRepublic and the Ku Klux Klan. Seriously, as much cleverly worded racism as you see on FreeRepublic, do you think anyone there would get away with asking for a vote to bring back slavery or saying "blacks are my enemies"? No, they could not get away with it over there. But they can get away with it on DU.

I think a lot of people have repressed anger at Obama's election and are projecting that anger in other ways.

[bluedawg12]

76. Here are a few, without links of course, but the message was repeated often.

The election ended on Nov4th and Prop8Hate passed that night.

For the next two days people were trying to understand how it passed and the CNN exit was one source of information.

But my November 7th, people who had not majored in math and statistics or called their professor were called racist, for discussing it.

Wed Nov-05-08 10:31 PM

Not one of our better moments

Privilege flies to the top, as usual. Operation "blaming the negroes and the hispanics", just to spread the pain. I've been crunching numbers, and guess who did the lion's share of the damage...? straight WASP's, but since they aren't required to vote in favor of LGBT issues, they're off the hook--

It's a no-win situation. All people of color, esp. black people, are ALWAYS SUPPOSED to vote in favor of GLBT issues, "because us minorities gotta stick together!" Too often they conveniently don't bother to vote in black peoples' interests, esp. affirmative action. Black GLBT's have to be doubly chagrined for the reasons you cite above.

Not all LGBT are rich white males, not all black people are bigoted by religion, not all white people are homophobic--and I have no idea how to even begin to address this, except by crunching numbers, and reminding them of who did this.
.......
Wed Nov-05-08 11:50 PM

I've been trying to crunch numbers too.
A former professor of mine once told our class about a friend of hers that worked as a producer for CSPAN. When she didn't have time to do some polls she'd make up the numbers. Then of course other networks would report their results. I'm not trying to say that happened with the exit polling but something strikes me as really odd about the prop 8 breakdown. CNN's exit polls seems to be the source of the numbers people are reporting. Out of 2,240 respondents from 4% were black men and 6% were black women. They weren't able to break down how black people voted on the issue based on age or how men voted but the community as a whole was listed as 70% for it and black women as 75% for it. They don't specify where the polling was done. The opinions of 2,240 willing to complete a survey out of millions of voters in thousands of precincts shouldn't be treated as fact. The media is irresponsible at best for reporting these numbers as fact or a true representation and people are somewhat naive if they believe them. Not to say correlations can't be found between race and voting but even if we had accurate numbers it still wouldn't excuse using the voting record of some to judge others.
......
Thu Nov-06-08 11:55 PM

Disturbing.
Please do let us know if you find anything else, and thanks so much for sharing this!

Am I the only one that thinks/feels the categories used in polls are outdated, biased and stupid? The categories seems so obviously manipulative


...........
Fri Nov-07-08 11:53 PM
Response to Reply
And it's very easy to put on a liberal mantle to cover up rampant racism.
...........
Fri Nov-07-08 05:12 PM
If you think the fact that Obama took on the issue makes how it's been addressed on DU any less racist you are sadly mistaken.


............
Expecting an alliance from Democrats and minorities? Good luck.


Fri Nov-07-08 05:29 PM
"We want solidarity with the AA community"
Who is "WE?" Are you speaking for the white GLBT community? Are you hurt having ASSUMED the support of the AA community because "they" should know better? I got a vacation package in Gaza for ya. You'll need a passport and a get.
...........

Of course voting to take away someone's legal rights is not bigotry. It's ony bigotry if you try to talk about it and question, who and why. Right Kwassa?

Thu Dec-11-08 08:18 PM

I thought that I explained this very thoroughly in the other thread ...
"I view everyone - no matter their color or orientation bigoted if they vote to take away rights from anyone... "

This is a common saying here on DU, but it is not an accurate discription of bigotry, because the vote itself tells nothing about the mindset of the individual voters.
.......

Yes indeed, the AA and the Gay community need advice from a str8,white, male, because power does not concede easily does it? Nor does it seem to want to relinquish control?

Tue Dec-16-08 02:28 AM
Response to Reply #56
60. You need to reach the influential figures in the black community
Edited on Tue Dec-16-08 02:33 AM by kwassa
The biggest influences are black churches, and not all churches are conservative. That is probably the best place for change. The NAACP voiced its support for gay marriage at one California rally, and that would be another important avenue, particularly for older people.

I am sure there are many online black political forums where approaches could be made.

Getting black celebrities to step forward on the issue would be another approach.

A much better source than me would be the black gay participants on DU that could give you opinions on two things; how to reach the larger black community, and how to heal the rift between black and white gay worlds.

Here is a good research source for figures on support of gay marriage. It shows that attitudes among whites have shifted somewhat over the past few years, although a majority oppose marriage, they also support civil unions. The figures for blacks haven't really changed, which shows that little work has been done there.

http://pewresearch.org/pubs/868/gay-marriage

here is where your party debater probably got his opinion, from no data at all, but this op-ed piece that is wrong-headed. This piece is pure conjecture, in my opinion, but made a bit of a splash at the time:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/29/opinion/29blow.html

[Maven]

17. Yup. The people who are deliberately trying to pit one group against the other

(without any regard for the overlap between them) are mainly self-identified straight males, both white and black.

And it needs to be said.

:thumbsup:

[yardwork]

19. They're straight, that's for sure.

The basis for this entire problem is that a great many people still consider it insulting to be compared to gay people. One would think that support for all human's rights would be a prerequisite for posting on a board calling itself Democratic Underground, but unfortunately there's been slippage. Gay people's rights aren't as important as anybody else's, apparently.

Not surprisingly, this tolerance for bigotry on DU now extends to other groups as well. I've seen horrifically racist and antisemitic posts on this board in addition to homophobic posts. Allowing one form of bigotry inevitably leads to more of all kinds.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

20. well stated. i missed you. nt

[yardwork]

21. Thank you. You're very kind.

[marimour]

47. .....

"a great many people still consider it insulting to be compared to gay people"

this is where you are wrong. You make assumptions about how a group that you do not belong to feels. That is the arrogance that I spoke of in one of these threads on that topic. I don't go around assuming that I know a great many of anyone feels (even black people).

BTW, it wasn't just straight/white males causing the problems around DU. Ask any black person on DU about the situation and you will likely get a completely different version of events than you seem to remember. But I guess we could all just be overreacting right? :)

Thanks to the OP for what could have been a great thread. I hope black GLBT'ers feel comfortable enough to come back to this forum and give insight.

[yardwork]

48. How do you know I'm wrong that "a great many people still consider it insulting..."

Who said I was talking about any group of people other than the people who think its insulting to be compared to gay people? Who made you God that you know exactly what everybody else thinks?

It's obvious that many posters on DU think that there's something inferior about being gay - we see it daily in their posts mocking Republicans for "being gay," etc.

It's obvious by the laws against us and the rhetoric about us that many people in the outside world think that there's something wrong with being gay.

You don't know what you're talking about.

[marimour]

49. b/c you're basing it on a few random DU posters

and applying it to "certain people". If you can read someone calling a republican gay and make that giant leap then what is wrong with HamdenRice coming to a conclusion (if that actually happened) based on the posts of some GLBT Du'ers? Either way, they are stupid assumptions that serve no actual purpose other than to to enable the poster to claim some kind of victimhood.

OP, last time posting about this silliness, don't want to mess up a decent tread. Thanks for creating the OP. :)

[yardwork]

52. What are you talking about?

The only one saying anything about "certain people" is you - slandering gay people in our forum again.

[Name removed]

53. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[yardwork]

54. Yes, you are slandering gay people in our own forum.

The three posts you've made in this thread contain numerous slanders against gay people:

Your post #1:

this is where you are wrong. You make assumptions about how a group that you do not belong to feels. That is the arrogance that I spoke of in one of these threads on that topic....

Your post #2:

b/c you're basing it on a few random DU posters

and applying it to "certain people". If you can read someone calling a republican gay and make that giant leap then what is wrong with HamdenRice coming to a conclusion (if that actually happened) based on the posts of some GLBT Du'ers? Either way, they are stupid assumptions that serve no actual purpose other than to to enable the poster to claim some kind of victimhood.

And your post #3:

FUCK OFF. You will never find 1 quote from me slandering gay people or any other group on DU. Its sad that you feel the need to LIE instead of actually responding to the substance of my post. Posts like yours is why so many black GLBT people here don't feel comfortable posting in this forum and why bridges between the 2 communities haven't made as much progress as they should have. Luckily there are people much smarter than you on both sides actually working to get equal rights for all.

[marimour]

55. wow you can copy and paste!

None of that was slandering gay people, and you know that. It was calling you out where you were wrong or making ridiculous assumptions, but I guess you've decided that calling yardwork out = slandering gay people. I'll let the board know that anyone who offends yardworks ego must immediately apologize to the entire GAY community for his/her bigotry. :toast: :toast:

[yardwork]

60. You are the one making that equivalency, not me.

You stated that:

Posts like yours is why so many black GLBT people here don't feel comfortable posting in this forum and why bridges between the 2 communities haven't made as much progress as they should have.

My posts are the reason that "so many black GLBT people here don't feel comfortable posting in this forum," according to you. You're giving me a lot of credit. I seem to be very powerful in your eyes. When were you made the spokesperson for black GLBT people, by the way? I don't think I've made your acquaintance before. Are you black and gay?

Edited to add:

Upthread you say I don't go around assuming that I know a great many of anyone feels (even black people). Kind of funny in light of what you say just above, huh?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=221&topic_id=125849&mesg_id=126173

[kwassa]

71. You distorted the meaning of that post, too.

Marimour:

"Posts like yours is why so many black GLBT people here don't feel comfortable posting in this forum"

Yardwork:

"My posts are the reason that "so many black GLBT people here don't feel comfortable posting in this forum," according to you."

[bluedawg12]

74. Yardwork is right, this was posted on the 10th and she replied on the 12th.

People weren't posting or not posting because of "posts like hers." She wasn't here for the first two entire days.

[marimour]

78. .....

I have read on DU from black GLBT (multiple posters) that all the Prop 8 drama (and constant denial from some that it ever happened) has driven them away from posting in this forum. That is where "posts like hers" comes in b/c I remember her constant denials in any thread remotely related to blacks and Prop 8.

How many have replied so far? Have you even wondered why so few post in this forum anymore? Do you care?

[bluedawg12]

79. Prop 8 drama? Removing civil rights IS dramatic. n/t

[Duncan Grant]

80. And I've seen 2 African-American women say they won't support civil equality for LGBT people.

In response to your post, let me say that I have read threats on DU that 2 members won't support LGBT equality because of what they read here post-Prop H8.

Can we also consider the posts which assert that gay civil equality isn't comparable to the civil rights movement? After all, according to some, if LGBT inequality was a legitimate issue -- it would stand on its own.

Or how about the sentiment that LGBT civil equality -- and gay marriage in particular -- is simply the luxury problem of entitled gay white men?

Or how about the attempted silencing of post-Prop H8 when gay people were told to shut-up and let "us" have our moment?

McClurkin, Kirbyjon Caldwell, Metanoia Ministriess, Prop H8: The list of insults and offenses is apparently long on both sides.

I think it's important to try and figure out why all this animosity is being directed at LGBT members of DU -- hence the Marlon Riggs quote above.

[yardwork]

75. Oh, I see! Marimour didn't mean MY posts! Just posts LIKE mine!

MY posts are perfectly fine with Marimour. And she wasn't really calling me a LIAR either. She didn't say FUCK YOU to me. Just to people LIKE me!

What a silly misunderstanding. I thought that marimour was DISAGREEING with me, but it turns out that actually she thinks that all my posts are just FINE. It's just posts LIKE mine that are the problem!

[bluedawg12]

77. Similies are a biatch. Metaphores are a cake walk.

This OP was an invitation to move past the issues that divide us, I guess opinions Just Like That are offensive to some, or dangerous? :sarcasm:

[Name removed]

56. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LostinVA]

58. Oh, Thom, don't be so thin-skinned!

Reasonable people can disagree about this, cam't they?

:eyes:

[ThomCat]

62. Of course. Reasonable people can Always disagree about

issues like civil rights and discrimination and prejudice. After all, it's not like there issues are so important that we need to find a positive consensus or anything. Nobodies lives or livelihoods or safety is at stake after all. :eyes:

[yardwork]

61. Well said. I agree, based on years of observation.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

22. who counts as color? if i do, and someone just argued a day or two ago, that i don't

the biggest problem i see on du, is this false dichotomy of color vs gay. its really a few people who sing this song. its just that they are loud and obnoxious and disruptive.

my community is one that is gay and of color. i don't understand this bullshit, gay vs color war on du.

have a couple of gay and straight du'ers blamed black people for prop 8? sure

Have a couple of straight du'ers of color blamed gay people for being racist? sure

however 5 people from either community don't define us as a whole. racist, homophobic, loud, pontificating idiots are just that.

[yardwork]

23. Exactly! I've seen disgustingly racist comments made by supposedly "gay" posters here.

Are the racist posters actually gay? Maybe, maybe not. In any case, I hump the alert button when I see a racist post and it's usually deleted by the mods sooner or later (although, as I noted in another post on this thread, racism and other forms of bigotry are becoming more common here as the entire tone of dialogue on this site becomes coarser and more right-wing).

Are their gay racists in the world? Sure as hell. Do they speak for all gay people? Do straight racists speak for all straight people?

Meanwhile, why have the deleted posts of a handful of racist posters been allowed to characterize every gay person on DU, even gay people of color?

[Maven]

24. Because it suits a certain subset of homophobes to argue that gay rights

is a trivial, bourgeois pursuit of the privileged and white and that there is no real struggle or pain involved for already underprivileged people who are set back even further by antigay bias.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

25. yes. meanwhile the hiv rates because of homophobia, internalized homophobia

access to info etc is astronomical within gay male communities of color.

[Jamastiene]

28. That's so sad.

It must be horrible to be a person of color AND be GLBT. Not only because of the homophobia(within that race and from other races as well) but also because of the lack of facts regarding such a horrible thing as HIV.

When lives are at stake like that, it looks like there would be an active plan to fight the thing that causes such an alarming rate of HIV to continue.

Why is it so hard to talk about homophobia in races other than Caucasian? Obviously, homophobia exists across all racial lines.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

29. many many reasons why we it's hard to discuss

1. if you are the majority race, you are aware of the history behind racism in your country, so you dont want to say anything negative to the race as a whole. (ie: why are you indians so homophobic, would be viewed as racism when coming from the brits...even though its very true)

2. distrust of the minority towards the majority (when you are the minority, even when you know someone in the majority is right, you have grown up protecting your community from the majority) because of a history of racism

3. when we address homophobia in any community, we have to start talking about real change: poverty, education, religion etc and we seem to not be unified on those grounds.

there are plenty of other reasons but i am sick and tired

[yardwork]

30. All true, plus another reason. People who are stressed tend to be conservative.

In the United States, African Americans have been oppressed for a very long time. While legal changes have brought some improvements in recent decades, there is still a lot of racism that has a disproportionately negative impact on African Americans. Examples include access to health care, access to quality education, access to financial benefits like loans - all shown to be demonstrably denied to African Americans more than to others.

It's not surprising that people under stress are socially conservative. That translates into homophobia for many.

How do we change this?

[La Lioness Priyanka]

31. by smacking everyone who claims to be fiscally conservative and socially liberal

:)

:P

[Jamastiene]

33. That sounds like fun.

:P

[Jamastiene]

32. In that case, it might take leadership from INSIDE any community

to get anything done. With tensions between races flaring so easily, I can see why it would be hard to come from outside that race to try to work together. It's sad, but true.

Maybe several leaders from each race could form some kind of alliance and agree to address the issues in a way that brings people together instead of everything being so segregated.

I wish we were all more integrated than we are. I had always thought that you could treat everyone the same, but sadly, it seems you cannot. Different people have different past experiences (a lot of them painful) to bring to the table.

Still, it seems possible that we could form some kind of leadership council of sorts where people from all walks of life (race and other factors as well) could come together to just share problems and come up with solutions together. There MUST be something we can do.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

37. there are a lot of black leaders who view this struggle as a civil rights issue

and who are very vocal about it. far more so than other minority communities where homophobia is an issue

this is why i think this is a made up problem just on du, by a handful of people.

[yardwork]

41. I agree. Not only is it a made up problem on DU, it was made up by a very small number of posters.

Unfortunately, they've been allowed to dominate the discussion and continue to paint gay people as racists, as if we don't have enough biases to contend with already.

And who are those self-appointed nags? Straight white guys.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

43. straight guys in general.

[yardwork]

46. I concede the point. Straight, anyway. Plus some self-identified gay posters.

There's been an epidemic of the gay on DU since the election, and whaddya know, every single one of those newly gay posters agrees with the straight guys that the rest of us gays are full of poutrage!

[Jamastiene]

51. Yes, there have been many many leaders in the African American community

who have been on the forefront of this struggle.

I honestly wonder if that tainted CNN poll (the "70%" poll) was done on purpose by nefarious sources (holdover Bush operatives within MSM) just to cause unnecessary friction.

That's just my own theory and is just that; a theory. Still, it's not entirely impossible that that was the case.

It is the old "divide and conquer" technique.

By dividing us, they can push through legislation they want much much easier. It is one of the oldest dirty tricks in the book.

If you stop and think about it strategically:
What better way to fracture our supportive alliances and get anti-gay AND pro-racial-discrimination referendums through legislatures all over the country? If that is the case, we've been played.

One thing is for certain: Whether or not my theory is definitely true or not doesn't really matter in the long run. If we do not compare notes on this legislative tactic and work together, it will definitely hurt us ALL in the long run.

So, in effect, whether it is true or not, counteracting the "divide and conquer" technique would still be OUR best technique to use.

Together we would be stronger.

Divided, we'll all lose our rights, one by one.

[marimour]

57. I wouldn't put it past CNN to do something like this.

I had to stop watching almost all MSM for a while during the election b/c the MSM parroting of RW talking points was so sickening. But ultimately its up to us to rise above it and not take the bait.

I think one positive out of all that drama is that its forced some black religious/ political leaders to become vocal on their support for equal rights and its forced GLBT groups to focus more working WITH minority communities instead to talking TO them. I believe that the people who will ultimately be the most persuasive to minority communities will be other minorities (gay and straight).

[yardwork]

26. Well said.

[Runcible Spoon]

38. I remember the ugly things that were said, both in that thread and others.

I can't believe some asshole upthread can't believe it because it's now erased down the memory hole.

So basically we're at square one, where some white straight males are being either stupid or disingenuous about the reality of what goes on here.

But I remember.

[yardwork]

45. I think that the poster upthread remembers, too. He's hoping others will forget.

The idea is that we're all just poutraged, remember? We gays don't really have any problems. We're just whiny nuclear parade-wreckers who hate Obama and wanted Hillary and blah blah blah...in the comfort of our privileged lives, nothing really bothers us, so why should we care if some straight white guy wanders around DU slandering us in our own forum?

They lie about us because they don't respect us. They think they can get away with bashing us here on DU because they've internalized all the ugly stereotypes about gay people. They think we're panty-waisted privileged rich white kids who don't really need to get married or have equal rights - that's just poutrage.

[kwassa]

69. you really like making stuff up, don't you?

If I have slandered you, prove it.

You can't, of course, because I haven't.

[QC]

40. Some people have figured out how to indulge their homophobia freely

by dressing it up as opposition to bigotry.

Neat trick, eh?

[yardwork]

42. Bush like, actually.

[Duncan Grant]

82. That's a very insightful post.

I hope the LGBT members of DU will take it to heart. :thumbsup:

[QC]

97. Thanks! n/t

[LostinVA]

93. Nail on the head

[Bluenorthwest]

135. I second that

Well said.

[Bluenorthwest]

136. I second that

Well said.

[noiretextatique]

84. ruggerson, this was a noble effort

but as you can see, some people are still more concerned with arguing about the past than hearing from GLBT people of color.

[ruggerson]

85. thanks

I'm hoping that we'll still hear from more GLBT people of color, their concerns and their unique stories, which is what I"m interested in discussing.

Where's Bayard Rustin when you need him? :)

[noiretextatique]

107. both, and...not either or

this is a part of the problem i have with some white gay people.
i had a white lesbian friend tell me that a certain incident was more sexist than racist, and i asked her: how can you say that with such certainty when you don't experience racism? i am not talking about individuals being mean to you; i am talking about a system that allows cops to kill black and latino people without punishment...just one example.
i can't tell you how many times i've had this discussion with gay acquaintances: "oh you black people have chips on your shoulders about race, but i am more objective because..." it's happened twice this month.

Prop 8 brought out what appears to be a competition of tears, and i feel very torn. i support marriage equity, even though i don't want to get married. but i don't believe, as some have suggested, that black people "owe" the gay community support. that entire notion smacks of privilege and historical revisionism and the false belief that all gay people support issues of importance to black people. i don't believe that for a second...log cabin republicans, anyone? should mean little in the real world.
black people are still impacted by racism; the racist laws that distinguish between crack and other types of cocaine are one example. the belief that "everyone has rights except us" is patently false.

i don't feel a tremendous solidarity with "the gay community" and i never have...not in 25+ years of being an out lesbian. being african-american in america has always been a bigger problem for me than being a lesbian. i know that isn't true for everyone, but it is and has been true for me.

in my own family and circle of friends, attitudes about gay people evolved because they know me. my sister who is religious and conservative votes democratic and completely supports gay rights. if she hadn't had a lesbian sister, she may not be as open-minded. i am certain one of my co-workers, also a black woman, voted yes on Prop 8, but the more she gets to know me, the more she learns about me as a real person. she's an evangelical christian, so just being around me is new for her :7

in order to get beyond where we are now, hearts and minds need to change. that's not going to happen by diminishing other people's struggles or striking out at certain groups in anger. i support the straight black man here (i forget who it was) who vowed to change one religious/conservative black person's mind on gay rights every week...i think that is a constructive approach. and let's face it, we need that kind of effort and support.

i've seen it happen in my church. our reverend was lukewarm about gay people until her own daughter came out. her public evolution on the issue touched many people in the church, including people who were struggling with their own homophobia. it took a few years, but now our church celebrates gay pride month and our minister has a zero tolerance policy for homophobia/hatred.

more later...

[mitchtv]

109. one thing: that very same system you say allows

for the murder of Blacks and Latinos, without punishment allows others to murder GLBTs with little more than a slap on the wrist in many places witness the Gay panic defense et al. Trans people are murdered without serious police investigation throughout the South Gays are murdered with inpunity and when a perp is caught little is done. Trans get it more more than any group is my guess. Morals laws on public sex are almost exclusively enforced against Gays not straits of any color. Just saying

[noiretextatique]

141. you are right...i didn't mean to diminish that reality

my point, and you made it too, is that "rights" don't necessarily translate into respect for personhood. it applies to all oppressed groups, hence the title of my post: both and...not either or.
my post was in response to the notion that everyone has rights except gay people.

[ruggerson]

127. There are too many areas of the country

where it is still dangerous for blacks and latinos to walk down the street in certain neighborhoods. But that is also the case with gays and lesbians and certainly transsexuals. Violence against people of color and violence against gays is a horrific reality we all live with. I guess I try not to see the two as in competition - which groups is more repressed - but I realize that I come to that perspective as someone who does not worry about police profiling and as someone who has never had a problem getting a cab in midtown Manhattan. Thanks for your perspective on personally influencing the people in your life - at your church and at work, etc. I personally think that is where the battle will be ultimately won on all fronts. Changing one heart at a time.

[noiretextatique]

142. my story is personal to my experience

i know gays and lesbians are targeted for violence. a young black lesbian was gang-raped in the area where i live not long ago...she was targeted because she was gay.

my point is that from my experience, my skin color is more of a problem in america than my sexual orientation. i know that's in part because i don't look butch. i know butch women, like the lesbian who was gang-raped, catch a lot more hell than i do. likewise with gay men...i know several men who have been attacked for being gay. both and...not either or. sorry i didn't make the clearer on the macro level, but my post was mainly about my micro experience.
thanks for the conversation.

[Chovexani]

89. This entire thread is why I don't talk about it anymore.

As damn near everyone here knows, I am pretty much the token militant black queer around here, and I'd be remiss if I didn't put in my two cents. I fully expect this to get pounced on and deleted, but fuck it. And this is the last I will say on this subject.

I question people who continually seem to want to stir this shit up--PEOPLE WHO NEVER FUCKING POST IN HERE OTHERWISE--rather than trying to get involved in our community in a positive way, try to further dialogue, or otherwise act like the goddamn allies they always claim they are in one breath before spewing ignorant, homophobic bullshit in the next. And by "question", I mean "have a lot of seething contempt for, and wish they'd get TS'd for the fuckwitted, mouthbreathing, douchenozzle trolls they are".

Yes, there were some racist sentiments expressed by a handful of LGBT DUers when the initial flame war happened, I know because I called it the fuck out. A lot. I even hefted yon cluebat at people I consider good friends (and still do). I also know that those people were in the distinct minority, have all calmed the fuck down since then having realized they had an emotionally-triggered outbreak of Fail and Stupid, and there was a lot of good discussion on race and sexuality that happened in the aftermath despite all the shit flinging by certain people.

DUers who want to paint the entire LGBT DU community as racist can die in a fire. Especially if they never seem to post in here except to call people out as racists. Seriously. I'm fucking tired of it. GTFO of our forum and peddle that shit elsewhere. It's not true and it's never been true. There are some amazing, wonderful LGBT people on this site, people that are the ONLY reason I have not permanently logged off the epic shithole of lose and fail DU has become since the primaries.

By the same token, some in the LGBT community need to understand that there is most definitely a race problem in the community as a whole and pointing that out is not racist, it's stating fact. Obviously this varies from locale to locale ("The Gay Community" is no more monolithic than "The Black Community" or "The Christian Community") but the point remains LGBT life can be very different depending on what skin color you are and not all of it is in a positive way. HOWEVER. This is a discussion that we as LGBT people, white, black, Latin@ or goddamn Cablasian, need to have by ourselves and not have hets of any melanin level intruding on--this is family shit, do not stick your nose in unless asked. Much like white LGBT really don't need to be lecturing straight black conservative Xians on homophobia--that's ALSO family shit that black folks of all orientations need to work on together, by ourselves. Family deals with family issues best, period. We can discuss how to be allies to each other and come together but people of every persuasion need to stop being assholes and talking past each other like they know exactly what's going on in communities and cultures they have zero real world experience with. That goes for everyone, frankly.

...and really, all of this is apropos of the fact that a great deal of the shit stirring was indeed perpetuated by straight white trolls who love nothing better than to watch people fight, the particular strain of basement dweller that loved to start McClurkin/Warren/Snickers ad/WTF-ever threads while typing one-handed. Why people insist on feeding them is beyond me. LEARN TO INTERNET, PLEASE.

</rant>

[bluedawg12]

90. +10,000 recs.

That cut to the heart of it. Well said and thank you for saying it.

[Chovexani]

91. *hugs*

It was really hard not to just type, "CHOVI SMAAAAAAAAASH!!!!1111"

I think that will be my response from now on. :)

[bluedawg12]

102. *hugs* to you too, Chovi. :)

Thou shalt not smash monitor, as smashed monitors adversely affect online gaming. :hi:

[Chovexani]

105. The moral of this story

Do not EVER piss me off on a WoW patch day. :evilgrin:

[LostinVA]

92. Love you, but you know that already

[QC]

94. Thank you. n/t

[ruggerson]

95. thank you

beautifully said, as usual. I just wish we could find a way to make this forum hospitable for this kind of discussion without the disruptors coming in to flame everybody. Maybe that notion is naive and it's just the nature of teh internets.

[yardwork]

100. Ruggerson, another lesbian person of color has been discussing this here very constructively

and she doesn't seem to have been welcomed or acknowledged, imo.

Lioness Priyanka is a person of color. Her viewpoint is important, too.

[bluedawg12]

103. Maybe we can define these terms and why they do or don't matter.

Given that the dominant culture is white.

That people of color who are not "perceived" as white, bear a layer of oppression, in addition to being gay, in society due to the dominant cultures perception of them.

So, Native Americans, people of African descent, people from India or Asiatic countries have a unique experience in this country, even in 2009, that Caucasians do not share.

If that is the basis of recognizing that people of color face a burden of oppression, then, I agree, we need to acknowledge people of all ethnic backgrounds, who share that oppressive experience and that does include LaLioness Pri...she would know, as would Chovi, what their lives are like, better than I.

[ruggerson]

119. Didn't mean to not acknowledge her

I agree with almost everything LiPriy writes, and it's great reading her viewpoint in this thread.

[yardwork]

156. Yes, and I didn't mean that you were the one ignoring her!

I just thought it was important to point out that she has been here in this thread from the very beginning.

[bluedawg12]

101. Gay men and women of all origins are invited to discuss our lives.

We share many aspects of social oppression. Those that we don't share, we would like to learn more about and discuss, to better understand each other's lives.

When I started posting on GLBT it never even occurred to me that there would be any split across racial lines on this forum, in 2008. I honestly don't care what background people come from, their race or religion, I enjoy diversity in real life and expected it to be the same on an internet forum. The world would be boring as hell if everyone came from my background. Frankly, I even have a problem typing the word race because there is no such thing as race biologically speaking. I treat people in RL the way I would like them to treat me - with respect.

Having said that, I totally recognize the social construct of race and it's historical use as a means of oppression and I do recognize race based oppression and support my fellow human beings that still fight forms of racism that pervade society, in the form of the very visible economic differences, how people are dealt with by police, the Courts, the penal system,etc,etc, So, on a political level I do recognize "racism," and support the fight against it.

However, I also support the fight against "heterosexism" and what has happened is that the fight against "racism" has become pitted against the fight opposing "heterosexism," and the winners are "heterosexists" of all "races."

The start maybe to recognize that the gay community is not monolithic.

We are not all male. There are women and yes, even intersexed folk.

We are not all wealthy. Look at the stats on lesbians and especially lesbians of color and povery and health care issues and access to health care.

We are not all Caucasian, there are gay people of African descent, and Asian descent.

I hear stories about divisions along race in the gay community, for example bars and parties, and that may be a good place to start a discussion.

Many of us live in an area where there aren't any gay people, much less gay bars and "parties."

So, we have no idea WTF is going on in bars or why, and we DO want to know. Why is that happening?

If a gay couple moved in next door and they happened to be AA, my first thought would be, "Thank G-D, more gay people!!!!"


So, maybe a good starting point is the question:
Is there a division along racial lines in the real world in the gay community?
Is that true?
If it is true, then what is the reason?
Is it racism?
Is it just the natural affiliation of people who tend to congregate around people like themselves?
Whose preference is it?
Is neighborhoods and where bars are located?
Is it cultural?
Does it need to be changed and how do we go about it?

If we could explore this question-without nongay trolls coming in and disrupting - I venture we might find common ground, after all this is a progressive forum.

I actually expect people to fight racism and heterosexism, so theoretically, we should all eventually land on the same side.


Mr. Ruggerson the floor is yours, take the lead, sir. :)

[Vanje]

96. Thanks!

Perfectly said.

[yardwork]

99. Thank you. That's pretty much what I've been trying to say in this thread, but yours is better.

As an Anglo Lesbian, I particularly agree with these parts:

Yes, there were some racist sentiments expressed by a handful of LGBT DUers when the initial flame war happened, I know because I called it the fuck out. ...

By the same token, some in the LGBT community need to understand that there is most definitely a race problem in the community as a whole and pointing that out is not racist, it's stating fact. Obviously this varies from locale to locale ("The Gay Community" is no more monolithic than "The Black Community" or "The Christian Community") but the point remains LGBT life can be very different depending on what skin color you are and not all of it is in a positive way.

The one place I disagree with you, Chovexani, with all due respect, is here:

This is a discussion that we as LGBT people, white, black, Latin@ or goddamn Cablasian, need to have by ourselves and not have hets of any melanin level intruding on--this is family shit, do not stick your nose in unless asked. Much like white LGBT really don't need to be lecturing straight black conservative Xians on homophobia--that's ALSO family shit that black folks of all orientations need to work on together, by ourselves.

Yes, family needs to deal with family, but we're all part of the human family. I don't mind straight folks of any color talking about racism among GLBT as long as they do it constructively and not as an excuse for their homophobia. Same way, I'm not going to stop pointing out homophobia in anyone, no matter what their ethnic or cultural heritage.

[Chovexani]

106. I'm not saying there shouldn't be any discussion at all

What I'm saying is people need to STFU and listen before they talk about things. People need to not barge in as outsiders and start lecturing people on their own community. Again, that goes for everyone.

I saw a lot of post Prop H8 discussion among white LGBT people squarely putting the blame on black folks being religious, and on black churches, and if we just got rid of religion everything would be fine. Which is complete and utter bullshit, is incredibly insensitive, and most of all ignorant of the profound role that black churches have historically played in the community even for those of us who don't consider ourselves particularly religious, or Christian. The fact is, The Black Church is no more monolithic than The White Church. Our churches run the gamut in practices and attitudes. That's not to say there aren't problems--there are a lot--but people who didn't grow up in that environment really don't know what the hell they're talking about on the subject, and need to listen before they come in with guns blazing on the subject. FWIW, I felt the same way during the Rev. Wright nonsense.

To put it bluntly, how would you feel if someone with zero knowledge of the LGBT community except for sensationalist coverage of Pride events on TV started a post deriding leatherfolk and drag queens, saying they're the reason everyone hates us and if we ever want allies or rights we need to get rid of them? You would rightfully flip your shit. It's not about giving people passes on their bigotry, it's about having basic cultural sensitivity, and that is something that is all too lacking in these discussions. One of the most important things I've learned in trying to be a better ally to various communities I'm not part of is that sometimes keeping my ears open and my mouth shut is best, even when my first instinct is to call bullshit. I may still end up calling bullshit, but at the very least I have context as an outsider to say so.

[yardwork]

112. Then we agree.

I'm a big fan of Reverend Wright, actually, and said so quite a bit last year when the media and Republicans tried to smear him and a lot of wimpy liberals were wringing their hands. I have great respect for my friend who is a former Maryknoll nun in El Salvador, too. Churches are a powerful force for good in lots of ways.

People on DU say some stupid things about religion.

I do think that some of the posts exploring the role of some churches in Prop 8 were more exploratory than condemnatory in nature. imo, the unholy marriage between right-wing political and economic ideology with fundamentalist Protestant churches (involving congregations of all colors, shapes, and sizes) does contribute to a lot of problems in the U.S. now. Many churches - Protestant, Mormon, Catholic, and non-denominational - took the lead in driving Proposition 8 in California and anti-gay initiatives all over the country. The vast majority of these, of course, are led by Anglos and involve congregations that are mostly Anglo.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

115. not a big fan of religion but some of wrights sermons are gods truth

pun intended

[bluedawg12]

116. So where do we go from here you guys?

How is it that we can help each other achieve each others goals?

[La Lioness Priyanka]

117. honestly, i dont think we can do anything. i can work within my community of color to raise

awareness. chovexani can work within hers. any pressure coming from the outside will be seen as unwanted

any criticism from the outside will be viewed as racism

however the idea that we cannot compare our struggle to other struggles & civil rights movements to me is ludicrous. there are many parallels and we should not be ashamed to mention them.

[Chovexani]

126. I agree with that

And I think there is a certain amount of homophobia behind a lot of that "don't you dare compare us" sentiment. I really think some people just don't want the Noble Saints of The Struggle compared to dirty homos (never mind that one of the most important of those Noble Saints was himself a dirty homo).

That said, there is a right and wrong way to do it. When people say things like "gay is the new black" for instance, to me that implies that they feel the struggle for black civil rights is over and done with, was successful, and now it's time to go to the next movement. Which just is not the case. All civil rights struggles are ongoing and they never stop...women got the vote how many years ago but we still don't have an ERA and the right to choose is nonexistent in many places, we have a black man in the Oval Office but too many black men are rotting in jail. Indians are still living in shameful conditions on the rez with an incompetent and indifferent BIA. It goes on and on. The last eight years just made it worse because so much was rolled back on that front.

I think, really, we need to be supportive of one another's struggles because they affect us all even if we're not necessarily a member of that community. Obviously we gravitate towards the issues we have more of an immediate, personal stake in, but we can all learn from each other's successes and failures. And, well, just on a practical level The Man is too big to be taken down by just one group. :)

[yardwork]

157. I agree with every word.

Call out to James Baldwin.

[FreeState]

118. I'd suggest that we start by not looking at it as "each others goals"

and instead look at all of our issues as all of our goals. Im so not ragging on you either, cause I think your wonderful as always:) - I've been an a redefine the rhetoric kick all week!

Every fair minded American should see ending racism as their own personal goal.
Every fair minded American should see ending anti-gay laws as their own personal goal.
Every fair minded American should see ending sexism and gender bias as their own personal goal.

But we need to do so by starting within each community and then branching out...

I wonder though if there are some concrete goals to look at and strive for? Kind of like the Northeast Marriage Equality goals (all NE states by year 2015 I think is their goal). Here are some Id like to see:

Equal pay for women, minorities of color and GLBT. Maybe we could raise it from 75 cents a dollar in pay on average to 85 cents in the next 8 years or so? With end goal of equality by 2020? (thats the current pay for GLBT and women I dont know the break down by color unfortunately)

I'd also like to see GLBT people of color in more leadership roles on the local and federal level. Maybe get Equality CA to commit to a goal of increasing Asian American GLBT persons and Black GLBT person to the proportion of state population within the next 5 years?

Id also like to see a better way of reaching out to religious people of all backgrounds and colors - but I cant think of a way to measure this...

Any other ideas?

[La Lioness Priyanka]

120. well stated

[bluedawg12]

122. Well, I agree with both of what LaLioness and FS just said! :)

LaLioness is right-

I do agree that-- and I have learned this since Nov4th-- that we can't just go barging in to other groups with their own concerns, customs and leadership structure and expect that we are the Pied Piper of politics.

Change has to come from within.

FS and LaLioness-

That's why I do want to hear from gay men and women of color, in addition to Chov and LaLioness :) unless there are few left out there on DU? :(

I know I have read AA blogs and what bloggers say and they have said that the priorities are:
HIV
Incarceration
Poverty

Now, if I assume because I read a few bloggers, that I am now an expert in AA affairs and specifically GLBTQ PoC affairs, I am back to making the same mistake I made around Nov 4th.

The issues you raised FS, sound good to me, but I am not sure I have nailed it until and unless I hear confirmation from people who live the life that I don't. Which BTW, is not exactly wild parties...dang it!

My thought is not where do we go from this thread and directly out into the real world, I should have been clearer. I meant. Where do we go on DU, because it seems like it would be a heck of a lot better if we understood each others needs, goals and lives, for a starter.

Also, I speak from the heart, I really do want to see people united in a good progressive cause, I do believe we can work on all progressive causes better united, than, divided.

We know we have the capacity to work toghether, talk to one another and learn from one another.
Gently, one little toe in the water, step at a time.

[FreeState]

123. I agree we need to have more voices

The goals I wrote were my personal ones Id like to see (and I am from a family of mixed colors, however I am not of color - so the goals are not that of what GLBT persons of color or non-GLBT persons of color may or may not have as their priorities). Your absolutely right though - we as a group on DU and in our real lives need to be better at letting those the issues effect most be the advocates for what they need most because we really have no clue! :)

I also agree with this 100%: "Also, I speak from the heart, I really do want to see people united in a good progressive cause, I do believe we can work on all progressive causes better united, than, divided.

We know we have the capacity to work toghether, talk to one another and learn from one another.
Gently, one little toe in the water, step at a time."

Well stated and heartfelt. Maybe we could get DU to have a goal statement in each forum that can be modified by members of its own community so we can see what everyones priorities are so we can help each other out and collaborate better?

[bluedawg12]

129. My family is biracial too and we love our niece and nephew

and are proud of them. No,they're not gay, but these days many people have mixed families, as in ethnicity and sexuality and that is to be celebrated.

I think a goal statement would be a good idea.

I think Chovi has brought this up on many occassions, as have others, that we cannot let the rightwing use hate and fear as a tool to divide us, while they desparately cling to the memory of lost power. Because frankly, they got nothing, nada, zip, zilch to offer people. Nothing! They abhor human rights and they thrive on playing one against the other.

If a goal statement creates a framework for dialogue, cool.

You know, eight years is not a long time. It goes by so fast and the time will come when these losers on the right will try to claw their way to power again and we already saw what they did and what they "left behind," after the fiasco of the last eight years.

We need to be united as progressives when the next round of elections come or when the next one or two top spot elections come. We may carp, moan and argue as progressives, but we are not insane, we cannot let the rightwing use "family values", "moral majority," "wedge issues," "cultural wars," to be a handy tool for them to maintain power. That maybe why the gay community is fired up and so much into change and quick change, because the window of opportunity may not get wider than it is now, but it may get much, much narrower.

[Chovexani]

125. There's a difference in how the homophobia manifests though

To be honest, I think the religion problem is more along the fundie/mainline divide than an issue of race. There's really like, three different categories within The Black Church as a whole, and only one of them--black megachurches--is really actively trying to make things hard for us. I spent the first 12 or so years of my life in an old timey black church where old men danced in the aisles and big ladies fell out with the spirit, and not once did I ever hear anybody carry on about LGBT folks. It was a don't ask, don't tell situation--everyone knew who was gay in church, everyone had a gay cousin in one of the choirs (or WAS the gay cousin in the choir), and no one really gave a shit. Sure, we had loads of local politicians come to speak, largely because the Rev's son was the head of the local Dem party (and a huge crook that ended up going to jail, but that's another post). But there was no kind of campaigning against LGBT rights or anything. That's not say it didn't have issues. I've spoken before about how my family was treated when my uncle was dying of AIDS. But they were too focused on caring for the shut ins and the poorer folks in public housing. I'm sure a lot of people didn't approve but there was a big "live and let live" type of attitude. The feeling was stuff like homosexuality was between a person and the Lord.

When we started going to the megachurch, though, that was when I was first exposed to conservative Religious Right-style politics, including anti-gay sentiment. The Rev is a local celebrity pastor with designs on being the next Warren/Osteen/Jakes, is very active in the Christian Men's movement (he's a regular speaker at Promise Keeper events), etc. The atmosphere was way different, and I often believe I might well have stayed a Christian had my family not left my childhood church for this one. My family still attends but I have not been to a service there since I was kicked out of the youth group at age 13 for asking too many questions.

The influence of the Religious Right, which is pretty much entirely white as a movement, is felt in a lot of the black megachurches. Whenever you see organized campaigns against LGBT equality coming out of a black church it is almost always a megachurch with ties to the RR. Mainline black churches like Wright's, or the AMEs, are a lot closer to mainline white liberal churches in ideology, if not more liberal, in my experience. The old timey ones are dying out for the most part, and can split either way.

[bluedawg12]

128. I had no idea. We still have little churches around here

and they're sweet. There are no mega churches of any kind. I can drive by and see people all dressed up on Sunday morning congregating and talking before or after services. :) Every once in a while I see a sign and one or the other is having a drive to put up a new church or some other building. In know Ministers and their families, I have worked for them and with them, I sponsored a scholarship a few years ago for a Christian Fellowship of Love for a AA Baptist Church as I worked with a mom in that group and still proudly display my sponsorship plaque.

It just didn't compute with what I had read and with real life as I know it in a smaller town/city, where people know each other, live near each other, work together, shop together, live and die together, until you explained it. There are no mega churches here. While this isn't some idyllic Utopia, I have to say, there was dissonance about the way people have treated me and the way I treat them, as I have never been treated badly for being gay by any AA people here, to the contrary, my partner who is very people oriented knows everyone in town and is well liked and outgoing is always coming home from the store and mentioning that everyone said, " Be sure to say hi to old bluedog" and of course by everyone I mean EVERYONE.

The worst time we had was going on a job interview in Georgia. They spit nails at the sight of our happy little gay selves and told us to "Go back to the big city, like Savannah," I guess they figured all the queers like us were there. They checked my partner with the "skin blanch test" to make sure it was a suntan.
:eyes: I guess they ain't never seen Jewish folk with olive skin. :sarcasm:

The other part of the explanation makes total sense. The outreach by the religious right to split the progressive vote was their big plan to stop a Democratic win in 2008 and their plan and tactic was to play up those fricking wedge issues and instill fear in people. We cannot let the hatred from the right seep into the left to divide us. All they know is negativism and exclusion. I know I have to say no more than that.
We have probably had hundreds of thousands of threads about the right wing and their exclusionary tactics, hell,look no further than the pathetic Log Cabinettes or those rabbidy florid faces screaming "Drill baby, drill!" Not so long ago.

[Maven]

111. Once again Chovexani waltzes in and ROCKS THE FUCKIN HOUSE

:applause: :applause: :applause:

[Two Americas]

124. well said

Thank you Chovexani.

[Bluenorthwest]

137. I loved that post!

And if I might offer that awarness of common issues makes family where once there was no family.

[NorthernSpy]

158. People who disagree with you should "die in a fire"?

Seriously? Or are you just saying that for effect?


Either way, it sounds rather like H8, no?

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

160. Oh ffs

Are you going to accuse her of being racist now or something?

[roughsatori]

133. A self-identified Heterosexual White Male hijacked your topic.

Ruggerson, I was happy to read your OP. No one had replied when I first read your original post. I decided to wait to read what others wrote before I responded. I wanted to get a feel for the tenor of those interested. One of the first replies was a member politely asking if he could be involved as he was gay but White. That post encouraged me to feel hopeful about who and what would be posted.

If one reads all the replies and threads one notices that one or two self-identified White Heterosexual males hijack the thread. That is, sadly, typical of DU and American Society.

I still think your idea is a good one and can be accomplished. You are making a brave start. Please don't be swayed to give up by the trolls and disruptors. And definitely don't be lulled into passivity by DUers who post that the "arguing" in your thread is the reason they "never post about these kinds of issues."

Good start, and thanks for your effort.

[QC]

151. The very definition of privilege, isn't it? n/t