And it's tedious to whine and jump up and down and complain when a wand isn't waved and everything is made right by the first candidate who really seemed to get it, who was even able to address black church congregations about homophobia.Longtime readers know about the respect I have for Andrew as a thinker and writer. That said, I think, like a lot of whites, Andrew has a particular blind-spot on race--one that I think Obama greatly benefited from during the election.
The problem with this thinking is the presumption that there is some monolith called "The Black Church" which Obama should, and has, confronted. In fact, I deeply suspect that the way the "The Black Church" responds to gays is varied. Obama went to Atlanta on MLK Day and said the following:
And yet, if we are honest with ourselves, we must admit that none of our hands are entirely clean. If we're honest with ourselves, we'll acknowledge that our own community has not always been true to King's vision of a beloved community.
We have scorned our gay brothers and sisters instead of embracing them. The scourge of anti-Semitism has, at times, revealed itself in our community. For too long, some of us have seen immigrants as competitors for jobs instead of companions in the fight for opportunity.
I understand why this could be read as a powerful, courageous statement. But it actually is a pretty vague call for tolerance, made on MLK day, in a city with arguably the most politically potent black gay population in the country. I'm aware of Ebeneezer's problems with Rick Warren. But somehow, I just don't see that as the sort of statement that risks any political capital. Seriously, what's the constituency he's offending? Did Nikki Tinker teach us nothing?
It's the same with black men--Obama got a lot of mileage among white people for his Father's Day Speech. The sense was that Obama was saying something that blacks could not say themselves, that we were so immature, and so corrupted that we actually excused deadbeat-ism.
I think people who think that black men who address homosexuality deserve a medal of courage, need to go back and re-read Huey Newton. I think people who think Obama is the first person to say "Any fool can make a baby. A real man is a father," should really listen to more Ed O.G. They should study the Million Man March. Atonement was the theme for a reason.
I'm thinking of Will Smith in Six Degrees. White writers (whose contact with black people often seems to be limited to Harvard Law, Crown Heights and Northwest D.C.) believe us to be a gang of Farrakhan-quoting, Marion Barry-supporting, homophobic deadbeats. And then Obama shows up, and is not only not that, but actually attacks the homophobes and the deadbeats. And white writers stand up and applaud.
But the whole game is based on a deep ignorance, and arrogance--an inability to confess how little they know about race. It really is the twisted vestiges of segregation that allow Obama to stand up in front of a bunch of black Democrats, and say something as banal and qualified as "The scourge of anti-Semitism, at times, revealed itself in our communities" and then get credit. It's what allows Obama to say what black mothers have been saying for three decades now, and garner applause.
White people should demand a little more.
The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood 
"I'm thinking of Will Smith in Six Degrees"
And much of Europe is the white South African art dealer whom Flan and Ouisa entertain.
Brilliant, once again. It is sometimes maddening the things that Obama gets congratulated on. As much as I admire him, he says the most obvious things and people applaud and blog about it as if he delivered the sermon on the mount. As you rightly pointed out, the things he says about gay rights, black male parenting, etc. aren't obvious and banal to everybody and we need to work on that. Your colleague definitely has a blind spot on race but unfortunately he's not alone.
I agree that Andrew gives Obama some easy credit here - That line from Obama's MLK day speech was too quick; it was slipped in like a dog whistle for those attuned to hear it (and vote for him because of it). By itself, it was a token gesture of inclusion, one that might have been auguring further, more substantive efforts to come from Obama on matters of gay rights - or it might not have. Andrew's seems to be starting to feel like the latter was the case.
Myself, I think it's still too early to tell. Obama is about 8% done with his first term. I realize Andrew's frustrated, understandably, but I still think Obama may have some (good) tricks up his sleeve regarding this issue. I hope so.
Shalom Ta-Nehisi,
Posts like this are why read you. I rise each morning celebrating my ignorance because I will have the opportunity to learn that day.
And if there were such an entity as White People (writing as a Jew of Welsh-German-Italian-French descent), it would be even more powerful.
B'shalom,
Jeff
Kudos on your prose. Always a pleasure to read your words. And I know it's your job, and Andrew's job, to point out what needs to get done. But damn you guys have high expectations.
In the first 6 months in his presidency, Obama needs to get health care, cap & trade, torture prosecutions, Wall Street, EFCA, the mortgage mess, and a perfect Supreme Court justice all DONE. All done right & johnny on the spot done now. Oh, and in his spare time, sweep up the problems dealing with gays in the military, DOMA, the HIV travel ban, and the racial ignorance of 400 years.
Can we step back a bit & appreciate what's happening historically here? My 83-year-old father died in October 2007. As a white Navy officer in WWII, he wondered (out loud, to his detriment) why the armed forces were segregated. That's one generation away. Now we're complaining about what a black president, the man who's giving every early indication that he'll be the best president we've had in sixty years, is not doing fast enough to suit us all. Take a deep breath. Remember to notice what good news it is that we're already bitching about him.
I got the impression that Andrew was responding to an Obama press conference that smacked of Clinton-era hypocrisy when it comes to gays and lesbians. It also sounded like all this is just really heavy on Andrew's heart right now; I get that, I've been there. After the 2004 elections, I sometimes kept myself up at night wondering if Canada or Sweden would take us when things got bad enough for my family -- fears not based entirely in reality, but felt in a very real and visceral way nonetheless. I'm not giving up hope yet -- I too hope Obama has some tricks up his sleeve that he's still working on. Then again, I'm not an HIV positive gay man who is maybe gonna get deported soon (and I have to confess my ignorance here, but how is that possible? Andrew freakin' Sullivan they're gonna try to deport???)
i agree.
"Longtime readers know about respect for Andrew as a thinker and writer."
I'm not even a long-time reader, and I certainly know about respect for Andrew as a thinker and writer. Come to think of it, people who have never read you or even heard of you know about respect for Andrew as a thinker and writer.
All right, I'm just needling you. I just enjoy formulaic statements of this sort. You know anytime a journalist starts talking about respecting one of his colleagues, he's about to attack him.
Fixed that. Sorry.
There's more Ed O.G.?
It's quite obvious Andrew Sullivan knows squat about Black folks. Period.
After all, he's part of that cadre that still believes quoting Shelby Steele is of any relevance to anyone other than White folks like him and George Will.
They simply refuse to acknowledge the HUMANITY of Black people.
That really is the bottom line.
Because Black folks are the only people in this country not allowed to be taken - INDIVIDUALLY - and - IN CONTEXT.
Only someone who is either:
1. Willfully ignorant
2. Just clueless
Would say that Bill Cosby and Shelby Steele are talking about the same things, and thus should be on the same level in the Black Community.
Um, no.
It all goes back to CONTEXT.
The folks in the barbershop know, even if they somewhat disagree with Cosby (and they don't, for the most part) - they know that Cosby's diatribes come from a place of LOVE. Deep love for the Black Community that he has given his actual DOLLARS, for DECADES to help.
They know that Shelby Steele's comments:
1. aren't directed towards THEM, because Shelby doesn't TALK TO BLACK PEOPLE. He wouldn't dare say his mess in front of a predominantly BLACK audience. He gets paid to TALK ABOUT Black people TO White people.
2. aren't from a place of love. it's from a hate of Black folks - beginning with himself.
I'm thinking of Will Smith in Six Degrees. White writers (whose contact with black people often seems to be limited to Harvard Law, Crown Heights and Northwest D.C.) believe us to be a gang of Farrakhan-quoting, Marion Barry-supporting, homophobic deadbeats. And then Obama shows up, and is not only not that, but actually attacks the homophobes and the deadbeats. And white writers stand up and applaud.
You are too funny for words.
It's as if Barack Obama was the first Black person with White relatives, when, I always ask, how the hell do you think the Black Community in America is the rainbow of shades that it is, considering we know what West Africans look like. The Black community in America has ALWAYS been muti-racial, since the first Slave Master stepped down to the Slave Quarters. The unwillingness to own up to this FACT is an issue.
It's as if Barack Obama was the first Black person to graduate from Harvard Law, when W.E.B. DuBois got his PhD in 1895.
But the whole game is based on a deep ignorance, and arrogance--an inability to confess how little they know about race. It really is the twisted vestiges of segregation that allow Obama to stand up in front of a bunch black Democrats, and say as banal and qualified as "The scourge of anti-Semitism, at times, revealed itself in our communities" and then get credit. It's what allows Obama to say what black mothers have been saying for three decades now, and garner applause.
This is why I'm not in the game of educating White folks. I'm not some Black Ambassador. It's as if they revel in their ignorance, then you're just supposed to ' understand' that they're ignorant. Um, no.
You probably know "The Bridge Poem," from the anthology This Bridge Called My Back: Writings by Radical Women of Color. If not, I think you would like it. I found a copy of it here: http://www.chicanas.com/lornabridge.html
I agree (and have argued elsewhere) that one of the biggest flaws in Andrew's thinking is his failure to incorporate a convincing analysis of race in America into his political philosophy. I also agree it's not your job or any other Black person's job to educate White folks.
I have to admit, though, that I still have a soft spot for Andrew, and I'm glad that TNC does too. I'm awfully glad that TNC has Andrew's ear, even if it shouldn't be his job.
You've touched on something that really bothers me about Andrew-his naivety. For all of the talk about liberals being the naive ones, I find it hard to get past the fact that Andrew believes in a tax system that even most economists know would never work in practice (flat tax); he believes that private insurance companies are just like any other companies and that one's health is a commodity, his failure to account for the history of racial conflict that clearly still affects us in very concrete ways to this day, etc. I could go on.
In a way, I do sort of respect his optimism; hell, not getting taxed to work harder sounds good to me! The fact is though, it doesn't work that way. I think on this particular issue Andrew's thinking is that finally there's a black leader that will speak the truth on all of the problems the black community faces, and doing so will spark change. I will say that I do think Obama's presidency will have a positive impact on the black community, but as TNC noted, its not like people haven't talked about these problems before--they are just very hard to solve.
You have an incredibly important point about how black people are not viewed as individuals in context in the US. I would argue that they aren't the *only* ones not viewed as individuals in context - other minorities have a history of being viewed in the same ways. Individuals are raised with different values and beliefs under different circumstances and their lives are a unique series of experiences.
Yet you undercut your entire point by saying that white people "revel in their ignorance," as if white people aren't individuals in a particular context, as if they are monoliths of ignorance who enjoy and are proud of their ignorance. Are there people like that in the world? Of course. Are they only white and are all white people like that? No, just like all black people aren't homophobes.
true and on point....and with that i give you...
congressman hank johnson...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BogLaLRtKTM
I know, it's a repost...still pertinent though...
Damn! I am with you on ALL of it. Ironically I AM in the business of educating white folks (I teach Africana Studies at a predominately white college). But you are right I see the up close and personal the way many whites seem to enjoy their lack of knowledge about 13% of their fellow citizens and any group of people with a relatively high degree of melanin. And it's not just the students it's the professor class as well.
I don't really get it.
You say:
Because Black folks are the only people in this country not allowed to be taken - INDIVIDUALLY - and - IN CONTEXT.
and then you end your post with:
This is why I'm not in the game of educating White folks. I'm not some Black Ambassador. It's as if they revel in their ignorance, then you're just supposed to ' understand' that they're ignorant. Um, no.
What about the individuality of white folks, and taking them in context?
For what it's worth, Andrew's line jumped out at me too. And I thought, even before reading this post, hasn't he been paying attention to his colleague TNC? Shame. But then I read your post and the comments and thought Hmmm...you have a point TNC. And so does Jeff (though his level of snark seems unduly high).
I know that you despise speaking in what my (beloved) AP US History teacher called "glittering generalities," and there are good reasons for that. However, there do have to be ways -- appropriate and non-intellecually lazy ways -- to speak about the tendencies of folks acustomed to certain epistemologies, sources of information, colloquialisms, and views about what constitutes common sense.
For example, while it is true that the religious institutions in the black Christian community are various, it is also true that there is a particular history, style of worship and corresponding collection of commonplace nomenclature and beliefs that are widespread among Black mainline Protestants and Evangelicals. Among these beliefs is a certain tolerance for, even promotion of homophobia. Now, Andrew and others make it seem as though this is because black churches are black, but it seems to be explained (at least in research about political attitudes) because black churches are churches. And, in case nobody noticed, every major diest religion has an intolerant doctrine when it comes to homosexuality. Now, there are denominations and sects who have broken free of that doctrine, but the majority of religious people are still anti-gay (For reference, check out the numbers from any Pew study of Religion and American Life from the past 10 years).
In the same vein, it is true that people who are largely unfamiliar with black people or the perfectly human diversity of black American culture, often engage in the kind of fallacy that Andrew does in his otherwise wonderful (if slightly bombastic) piece, i.e. giving a standing ovation for any kind of "tough talk" directed at what Wilson (rather unfortunately) termed the (black) underclass. This kind of knee-jerk praise for what anyone familiar with the range of opinions that are perfectly usual in black communities is rooted in a kind of arrogance that assumes that black people are both deeply pathological and totally unreflective. That's racism. Not the coming to get you in sheets kind, but the identity is deterministic kind, which is, for my money, much more widespread and oodles worse as it is what most often has an impact on the daily life of regular black folks.
But I'm not writing this to call Andrew a racist. I heart Andrew, for the most part. But this is not about what's in my heart or his heart or yours or anybodys but instead about the fact that it matters how we talk about these kinds of things. And an acknowledgement that the tools we have available in our current discourse might be inadequate. How can we both acknowledge the basic, irreducible diversity of opinion and practice present in every community, while still pointing out the mistakes and misrepresentations that are nevertheless commonplace?
word.
do you blog somewhere?
Deva,
That was great. Really, really great.
@ Marta: I don't have the intestinal fortitude to commit to keeping up a public blog everyday ;0)
@ TNC: thanks! These blogs keep me thinking and although I'm not sure I learn many answers, I feel like the questions keep getting deeper and better. Kudos to you for your thought provoking posts and especially for keeping this dialogic space open!
@deva: that's a damn shame! i publish essays on my blog maybe every two weeks; how 'bout that? i would be a devoted reader!
that pretty much nails it
I think I've read this 4 times. Gets better with each read.
Thank you.
I couldn't imagine this being put better than you have deva, kudos for this. This is what makes reading comments on the internet worth all of the sifting through filler, ad hominem, and personal attacks.
Beautifully put. thank you.
deva, I just created my account here at THC's blog so I could reply to your comment. Really spot on. Like marta, I would be a devoted reader if you decide to put up a blog somewhere.
I think what's surprising to me sometimes, regarding the ignorance of many white journalists/pundits about black culture, is that you don't really need to have spent a lot of quality time in black churches or barbershops or wherever you black folk congregate to have a sense of the diversity of opinion within the black community on a lot of these issues.
You really just have to have a passing familiarity with "black" pop culture, which is, these days, barely distinct from American pop culture. So listen to some hip-hop, or watch Chris Rock or Bernie Mac (or Dave Chappelle, Chris Tucker, DL Hughley, Wanda Sykes, etc., etc., etc.) doing stand-up, or watch Everybody Loves Chris or In Living Color or Mad TV, or accidentally catch a snippet of black televangelist on public access tv or on the radio.
It's all there, right in your face, if you're not so allergic to black people, or so rigid in your understanding of them, that you can actually hear what's being said. Sure, there's a defensive, "not in front of the white people" mentality that comes into play sometimes, and affects how some blacks talk or react when they feel like their tribe is under attack somehow, but that's just human nature. Jews can be the same way. As can Hispanics, conservatives, communists, etc. etc.
Blacks have no monopoly on defensiveness, and in fact often seem to be more on the self-lacerating end of the cultural spectrum. I mean, I haven't even been trying, and over my 33 years of life as a white man I've heard so many black preachers and community leaders harangue black men about their duties as fathers and husbands that if I were black, I'd probably want to have some kids out of wedlock and then abandon them and their babymommas just to spite all the scolds.
WTF?????
"White people should demand a little more."
No. Please, no.
I don't know about you, but I feel the past 56 years of demands in my life have been sufficient.
Hmmmm ... I have black friends who tell me they get tired of being Black Ambassadors. I get it. That said, where is the solution then? More African-American history in the classroom curriculum? That seems like one answer, but with some awfully slow result time, like, two generations from now. I don't know what I don't know, you know? I have learned about some people on this blog that I had never heard about in my 46 years - especially when you were talking about the Reconstruction there for awhile. In another post today, you were complaining about white people prefacing their comments about racial issues by acknowledging that they're white and that should be taken into account with whatever they are about to say, sort of acknowledging their ignorance in advance. Here, you're complaining about some white people's inability to confess their ignorance about race. Am I missing something? This seems like a Catch-22. Wah!
1) I don't think TNC was complaining about "prefacing." He was mocking himself for doing it too.
2) You seem to be looking for an easier, more pleasant solution than actually exists. Am I reading you wrong?
You know I re-read all my posts from yesterday and I can clearly see that they were influenced by a fight with my boyfriend. Time for an attitude refresh and a reconciliation!
Hope your man started actin right. Dudes can be tricky.
I love Andrew's writing. But TNC is spot on this.
The thing that is bugging me about the whole Blacks-will-kill-the-fags-and-eat-them-with-fries thing is that people just freaking refuse to see any evidence on the contrary. It is almost as if they were attached to that idea.
Let me repeat this: the most pro-gay governor in the country is a black guy that has made the case for gay marriage based --also-- on his relationship with a gay couple friends of his parents that he calls Uncle Stanley and Uncle Ronald. He has been one the staunched gay supporters in NY --he has been fierce, really-- for years. Then there is Patrick Deval who pushed hard when he got elected not to have gay marriage in a referendum. He and his wife gave an interview to a magazine about their daughther being a lesbian all in a very natural way. What happened in DC last week should have disabused Andrew of the idea of the Black super-homophobia. I am not Black ;-) but I can count and read a little about politics. So 6 out of 7 Blacks in DC council voted to recognized in DC gay marriages performed elsewhere. Of 7 elected politicians you can have 1, 2 suicides, not 6. They know full well that their constituents will not vote them out of their positions because of that.
This is what John Lewis wrote in Oct of 2003 "“I have fought too hard and for too long against discrimination based on race and color not to stand up against discrimination based on sexual orientation. I’ve heard the reasons for opposing civil marriage for same-sex couples. Cut through the distractions, and they stink of the same fear, hatred and intolerance I have known in racism and in bigotry" Oh, he has been reelected a couple of times since then, right?
Maybe Andrew is giving Obama too much credit (especially re: "the black church"), but I think you might be giving him too little, Ta-Nehisi.
I saw Obama at a rally at Jackson State University during the Mississippi primary, and there, too, he made a brief, simple allusion to the mistreatment of homosexuals. It sounded like part of a regular formula in his speeches — certainly not much, and I do hope to see more of greater substance sooner rather than later, but totally irrespective of the fact that he was at a historically black university in a majority black city and that his audience was majority black, I thought it was important and a point to his credit that he would speak that way at a popular rally in Mississippi. That's not something you see (or hear) every day, and I was appreciative.
Pollack,
He was talking in an university, i.e., a place full of young, soon-to-be well educated people in a Democratic primary event: three strikes!
Look, I thank Obama every time that he pronounces a nice word towards us gays --you take all you can get and what alternatives do we have? But what he was doing was no heroic.
That's not something you see (or hear) every day, and I was appreciative.
You should be appreciative any time any politician says as much. But the notion that you should be especially appreciative when someone black says it is based on, frankly, ignorance.
To wit. Here's the president of Morehouse talking to a student body at a historially black university, in a majority black school, with a majority black audience:
"Straight men," Franklin said, "should learn more about the outlooks and contributions of gay men. Read a book by a gay author. Have an intelligent conversation with a gay neighbor." Franklin reminded the Morehouse students: "At a time when it was truly scandalous to have homosexual friends or associates, Dr. King looked to Bayard Rustin, a black gay man, as a trusted adviser. And, Malcolm X regarded James Baldwin, a black gay man, as a brilliant chronicler of the black experience."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/01/AR2009050103164_pf.html
that's quite a "shocking" fact...a black muslim man having a gay friend...u must jest sir??!
okay. i have very mixed feelings about all of this but your comment kind of pushes it over the edge for me.
i am a long time reader of both you and andrew. i agree, andrew does have a blind spot. but i feel this single sentence has been flogged to death. and this comment about other black leaders is smart but it is not fair in the context of andrew's overall post. i think it is all too easy for writers to bolster their arguments with thinly considered afterthoughts but it is also easy for readers to extract those thoughts and build cases against them - thereby overlooking the thrust of the writers larger point.
andrew was talking about obama as a presidential candidate - one who appeared to walk the walk and talk the tough talk. before obama we NEVER had a CANDIDATE challenge the black community about homophobia. who would have done that? you want mccain, an old white dude, telling black folks to be cool about the queers? you want bush to walk into a black church and say what, exactly?
andrew has a long history of talking about gay issues. thats his thing. he's good at it. while he doesn't talk at the same speed with regard to issues of race (and yes, he has a soft focus on minority issues), the guy is far from thoughtless or uneducated (or ignorant, as some have implied in these comments). nevertheless, he wasn't talking about civil rights leaders or college presidents - HE WAS TALKING ABOUT STRAIGHT UP POLITICIANS. THOSE ARE THE PEOPLE THAT ARE USUALLY WAY TO SCARED TO UTTER A SINGLE WORD IN THE WRONG PLACE AT THE WRONG TIME ABOUT ANYTHING THAT MIGHT COST THEM A VOTE. yes, he took on the black church and maybe andrew's credit was not fully due. but, as a CANDIDATE, it took balls.
gays (and blacks) for that matter, have a long history of being used by candidates to get votes. the point of andrew's post was: did the gays get played again? not: obama is the single greatest and bravest civil rights leader since malcolm. if anything, this particular sentence was building the guy up before tearing him apart? what happened to that guy on the campaign trail? the one who wasn't afraid to say what he thought?
i think andrew pointed to that moment because it was something you don't usually hear in the context of a campaign and it caught his ear because he is a gay white guy, not because he had never heard a black dude say it before.
I think most of Andrew's critics in this comment thread are responding to more than the one line TNC noted in his post. My own critique of Andrew on race stems largely from my reading of The Conservative Soul, an otherwise thoughtful, nuanced, *gorgeous* book, but which shockingly -- I would say laughably, because I did laugh out loud a couple of times, except it's not really funny -- ignores race. He doesn't confront it and get it wrong, he just apparently thinks that race is irrelevant in constructing an American philosophy of conservatism.
Look, Andrew is incredibly smart, he's got a tender heart, and a beautiful soul -- these are all the reasons I love him (and I do; I read his blog faithfully). But that just makes his willful ignorance of the history and complexity of race in America all the more frustrating. It's not like this is a man who is incapable of getting it.
I agree with your reply, Ta-Nehisi. Maybe I wasn't being very clear, but I said, "totally irrespective of the fact that [...]" and, "at a popular rally in Mississippi" in order to say that I was NOT especially appreciative that someone black was saying it, but that I WAS especially appreciative that someone was saying it at a popular rally in Mississippi. And the person who did just happened to be Barack Obama, for which I totally give him credit.
I didn't think it was especially unusual for someone black to say such a thing. I thought it was unusual for a politician to say such a thing in front of thousands of people at a rally in Mississippi, where, as you may or may not know, gays might enjoy somewhat less popular acceptance than they do in D.C. or Harlem.
Understood. I think he deserves props. I guess I just didn't see him as any better than Clinton or Edwards on gay rights, so I'm not sure why people are especially disappointed in him.
Yep, they've been having this conversation at Morehouse for at least the last 20 years. So much for the Black community being afraid to confront their homophobia.
Im still really annoyed at prominent gay critics like Sullivan and Savage just talking out the side of their necks.
Whatever.
I keep trying to understand how you can anything about Andrew's thinking. His fundamental cause celebrat about himself is built on a false notiion. False notions that rikyrah correctly dismissed
Obama most probably got informed on queer issues by none other than Rev. Jeremiah Wright, who (as you know, because you blogged about it too) ran an outreach program for AIDS victims, and openly ministered to gay and lesbian parishioners. The man was out in the trenches *helping* my tribe with his hands, and his voice. What Wright said about AIDS was wrong, and stupid, but I've never doubted his status as an ally.
Coates,
Thank you. The real deal is that Andrew Sullivan, whom I read and have respect for, has a problem with race and clearly, like most whites, has not taken time to learn anything about the complexities of race, history and racial consciousness in the US. No doubt he has the same blind spots about race in the UK as well. Every time he talks or writes about race in the US in any fashion that needs a nuanced and subtle comprehension, I cringe. Thank you for your comments.
I'm curious, then, TNC...
What would you have the POTUS, regarding this matter, say and do? And, jusssst so you know.....
It's quite weird to understand that I am now older than the current president of my alma mater. I finished Morehouse two years before Robert (Dr. Franklin) and remember the boy well runnin' 'round the campus - as was I.
This quote is,(and thank you so much for publishing it - the entire address is "classic" Robert) certainly from the days of Dr. Benjamin Mays, Dr. Hugh Gloster, and Drs. Keith and Massey (which takes you from about 1940 to the present),the first time on a public scale that the college PRESIDENT addressed ANYTHING at all re: homosexuality. Hell, Dr. Gloster wouldn't even let Spike film "School Days" ON the Morehouse campus(he had to film it around it) because he got the yips over the dark skin/light skin thang and how Morehouse would "appear" therein.
Homosexuality at Morehouse has always been an open "secret". Much like being lesbian at Spelman. I mean, REALLY...What are we talking about here? An ALL male and, as I put them in, an ALL female institution of higher learning. If ever there was a time for the term: "duh". We, there, ALL knew and have known. I could go on and on regarding what the interactions were actually like. But a DIRECT ACKNOWLEGEMENT of and POSITIVE address and CHALLENGE to the straight 'House brothas to positively regard their gay breheren??? By a MOREHOUSE PRESIDENT?????????
Brotha T, I'm afraid what you used as your example pretty much means that the earth has shifted sigNIficantly on Westview Drive,SW. And, it's taken QUITE a while for this to occur. This is FRESH, TNC. This is VERY new.
Robert is quite serious, I see, in his, and this is HIS, vision of Morehouse Men being Renaissance Men.
Robert's also been there two years. The current guy runnin' the country???? Not two hundred days yet. Shall he yet be as bold in this area as Robert has now become?
Time, indeed, will tell.
Bruh, this is not true. I remember Massey addressing homosexuality and tolerance on at least a couple of occasions. I also remember the administration overruling the SGA while I was there in the 90s and allowing Adodi, a gay Black fraternity, to exist on campus.
Morehouse has been grappling with Black homosexuality since the notorious 40% essay was published (morehouse grads should get the reference), so this idea that Morehouse finally found the courage to tackle the topic in the last couple years is not at all the way I remember it, and I graduated a decade ago.
To be fair, TNC has misquoted Andrew's original post. Somehow, "black church congregations" has become "the Black Church."
I don't think these are equivalent phrases, and while TNC has a fair point to make, perhaps his leap to get there has been less than fair.
I find it really funny that TNC attacks white writers for dehumanizing blacks and then proceeds to write an entire post that dehumanizes 'white writers'. Come on, brother. Straw men, anyone?
shurufu anasema
http://africanbambataa.blogspot.com
Blacks, being human and all, are just as capable of "monolithising" other minority groups.
Case in point - Many times I have heard blacks say something like this: "Gay rights are not civil rights." Or, as D.L. Hughley so eloquently stated: "Picking cotton and taking dick are not the same struggles." Who is making that comparison? How many gays actually see their struggle as exactly the same as the struggle of blacks? I don't, and I don't know any other gay people that do.
Just because gays are asking for their civil rights automatically means we are trying to copy off blacks? That's very narcissistic. There have been countless civil rights movements throughout the world that have nothing to do with Black People. Native Americans, women, Jews, Armenians, Palestinians, Christians in Rome . . . . all had civil rights movements and they weren't about black people.
And really, DL, When was the last time you were forced to pick cotton?