Frank Rich, I guess, is just reporting what he's heard, not advancing the theory. Furthermore, I can't separate my own emotional reaction to this from my ego. Writers want their work to have impact. The idea that it isn't is troubling. It's a vane impulse of course, and one I hope to check by laying it out there for you.
In conversations with gay activists on both coasts last week, I heard several theories as to why Obama has seemed alternately clumsy and foot-dragging in honoring his campaign commitments to dismantle DOMA and Don't Ask Don't Tell. The most charitable take had it that he was following a deliberate strategy, given his habit of pursuing his goals through long-term game plans. After all, he's only five months into his term and must first juggle two wars, the cratered economy, health care and Iran. Some speculated that the president is fearful of crossing preachers, especially black preachers, who are adamantly opposed to same-sex marriage. Still others said that the president was tone-deaf on the issue because his inner White House circle lacks any known gay people.
Beyond that, it's just enormously depressing to see writers who you respect, writers who you, in many ways, model yourself after, repeatedly invoke this lie. Maybe it's time to stop modeling. I am, at least in my own limited estimation, a hard-eyed skeptic. I work to not assume bad faith in disagreements. But at some point, as someone in it, you start to conclude that this race shit is real.
There are black people all over the net laughing at me right now. I take that.
I just want to say that watching, on the one hand, a black city move toward gay marriage, and on the other hand, people blame Obama's inaction on black people is deeply disappointing. On gay rights, Obama hails from one of the most progressive black churches in the country. Moreover, there's been this ongoing narrative that Obama isn't afraid to tell black people hard truths. And yet when he comes up short, somehow it's because he's caving to the horrid blacks.
In everything else, Obama is postracial. In the matter of gay rights, he is truly black.
With respect due, I am so heartily tired of reading certain white writers talk about what's wrong with us. It's like watching a terminal cancer patient with, a few months to live, talk shit about another patient, with mere weeks.
The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood 
I heard you, TNC, I heard you. When I read the article that crap popped up hard to me.
It may be --sometimes unconscious-- racial stuff. But it is --no maybes here-- cosmical laziness. What I question is: how can people write about gay issues and Obama and ignore the simple fact that his ex-church wasn't one of the most gay friendly black churches in America but simply one of the most gay friendly black churches in America, period. People, it is a google.
And what with psychoanalyzing Obama for everything? He is a politician, for chris sake. Guy was for marriage equality in the mid nineties, then he "discovered" that marriage was between a man and a woman and I bet my fag ass he will "evolve" back when it will be politically convenient or at least not politically damaging. Just like Dodd, and both New York senators. Bill Clinton --which I think truly felt empathy for us-- betrayed repeatedly us in the most vile of ways. Now he says he is "evolving". Well.
And please, gay people and allies, stop scapegoating Blacks for the state of gay rights in America. It is foolish, not true and counterproductive. Breeds unnecessary resentment.
One more thing about Obama. Guy goes to study in CA, New York, MA. Lives in New York, then Chicago. Have two Ivy League titles. Was editor of Harvard Law Review. Professor of Constitutional Law in Chicago University. Liberal Democrat.
Does this look like a guy that could possible be ignorant on gay issues? This also goes to you, gay leaders like Barrio, who wanted to show his family to the President to show him how regular we can be. He knows, dude, he knows.
I don't think you'd have any problem seeing that not everyone with that pedigree and self-identification would really grasp other issues like race, gender, or class or, perhaps more to the point, would really feel the need to push for or prioritize them. "Limousine liberal" is a derogatory term for a reason.
I know plenty of people with a similar pedigree (including Harvard Law Review, which is more a mark of gunner achievement than some sort of special enlightenment) that are both personally quite comfortable with gay people, and also quite comfortable with backseating our issues for a few more years...then we'll see...
Who was the first scapegoat after the passing of Prop 8 in California? How hard did folks come down on Obama for holding events with TD Jakes and Donny McClurkin--and why are people still using those old associations as an explanation for his slow movement on gay rights? It's disheartening and infuriating to see this happen--but it also reveals how racist and xenophobic the gay community can be.
We are no more --but not less-- racist than the general population.
We didn't like him associating himself with big time homophobes --which includes the all-too-white Rick Warren. We created a new word "santorum" in "honor" of the Senator because he said the same things that RW. Hey, Santorum the senator at least had an openly gay man on his staff. RW wouldn't allow gays in his church. How are we supposed to like Obama associating himself in the campaign and the inauguration with big time homophobes? More or less as much as you would like him associating himself with big time racist.
Let's not get ahead of ourselves on this one, either. Anybody who tries to put down Black people should have a problem with everybody else. Same should go for anybody who tries to put down gay people.
I wasn't implying that the gay community is any more or less racist than the general population--but it makes it sort of difficult for supporters of the gay community to accept bigotry within the movement, while the community at large is working for civil rights.
It's disheartening and infuriating to see this happen--but it also reveals how racist and xenophobic the gay community can be.
If I may, there's a similar reaction to that many white gays had after Prop 8 and polling showed strong African-American support. Now, I realize that the exit polling looks to have overstated that support, and that many white LGBT folks went crazy and let all their racist impulses come to the fore, but here I just want to note the similarity of the immediate and emotional reaction: there's a painful surprise in seeing another minority not "get it" and act in ways that reinforce forms of oppression. What becomes even more frustrating is how these old patterns get reinforced. (I hope it also gets challenged...probably both.)
I think there's also something about the rainbow flag and the LGBT "community" going on, an ideology not matched in fact. There's been a discourse of acceptance and diversity within LGBT politics and culture for quite a while. There is some truth to it. As I noted the other day, census data seem to indicate that there is a greater incidence of cross-racial/ethnic relationships among same-sex couples than among other-sex married couples (for whatever reasons). But, the "community" is actually a lot of smaller communities and publics, and some of these don't interact all that often, nor do they always like each other. Race and ethnicity still produce some of those lines. (Class is also a huge one, and gender is pretty big as well. Then there are all of the sexual subcultures.....)
[As an aside, I defended my dissertation on newspaper coverage of same-sex couples during the MA campaign, 2001-04. Discourse on the intersections of race and sexuality was nearly absent, and when it was it tended to problematize black homophobia while ignoring white, gay racism. That didn't figure much in the diss., but I'm going to pull together a paper on it.]
I would love to talk with you about your paper. My research is also about media and discourse and I've looked at gay marriage as a case. Funny who you run into at TNC's 'dinner party!'
Funny who you run into at TNC's 'dinner party!'
Where's my wine?
How do I get in touch? [[I haven't looked at a word of my work since I defended in March. I'm moving to my new job at the end of July, and then I start teaching. I should probably start thinking about writing again, but...Wimbledon is on.]
@MAJeff: you can email at devaretha@gmail.com.
BabylonSista,
Actually, it reveals that many WHITES in the gay community are capable of being as racist and as xenophobic toward Blacks and other non-whites as many WHITES in the straight community can be.
Let's not equate the gay community as a whole with the primarily white urban professional political class that tends to grab the media spotlight; there are significant segments of the gay community consisting of Blacks, Hispanics, and other non-Whites, and many of the Black members of the gay community are active members of Black churches, including those headed by TD Jakes and Donny McClurkin.
I haven't read the entire Rich column, but what you quoted is pretty much par for the reporting course IMHO, in that he states what "some speculated" fairly accurately, cheap as that locution happens to be. The sin here is that reporters should at least attach an evidentiary example - "some, like Horton Hornsby of the Des Moines City Council, speculate...." - in order to give the reader at least some sense of where any such speculation - and the characterization that is conveyed by it - is coming from. It's lazy writing but I don't think Rich was doing a job on the black community, so much as trying to sort out some of the speculations about Obama's motivations. I'm not really wanting to defend Rich - and I know we would like him held to a higher standard, but frankly he was godawful during the Clinton scandals, although he's not as over-rated as his co-pilot, Dowd - but I think he was indulging in very common - omnipresent, really - sloppy journalistic locution rather than trying to foster a narrative about black folks and gays. He was really talking about "preachers" and it's not unreasonable to speculate that Obama would be more concerned, in re: his political base, about black preachers who happen to be retrograde on gay issues than the same cohort of white preachers. Maybe I'm nitpicking, but I hear that "some say" thing all the time from journos and it drives me nuts the same way this particular issue is bugging you. IMHO using that cheap journo trick was where he actually went off the rails...
Which reminds me - that creep Chuck Todd actually suggested on Morning Ho (brewed by Starsucks) that Obama was playing golf because it was a way for him to sneak off and smoke without being observed by press or family. Now THAT'S journalistic malpractice of the first order.
Just to clarify, when I say that Rich stated what "some say" fairly accurately, I don't mean he actually reports it with any accuracy but that it would be pretty easy to accurately make the point that the narrative is in fact out there and tie it concretely to those who are making that accusation or assumption. The way it is put, it sits there and the weight goes to the narrative, rather than the issue of who is saying what. No "who" and the reader just tends to suck up the narrative itself uncritically.
I would say that if he believes that the specualation is without grounds, he should either say so or leave it alone. A column that just repeats speculations is of little use.
Some speculate that ant-gay black preachers secretly influence Obama but some others speculate that black preachers can't even speak with him because of the jews, but there is also speculation that the jews can't connect with him because he's a secret muslim and some muslims speculate...
"A column that just repeats speculations is of little use."
I agree - but journalists make careers of that shit. It's like its in their handbook or something. It only jumps out when it bugs you re: a particular issue, but it's rampant and indicative of how shitty most mainstream journalism tends to be. Even among the A-list.
LOL
You are so right. Traditional journalists almost never kill a widespread narrative. It is, in fact, an artificat of their professional code. This is what "objectivity" and "balance" looks like dontcha know. Making an argument is often seen to be out of their purview, instead it's common wisdom and the he-said, she-said of officials and elites that gets printed. It's a shame. That's why I prefer blogs for my news analysis -- though the reporting is still better captured by the folks at the traditional outlets. For now, anyway.
The idea that homophobe Black preachers reacting to the Prez being pro-gay represent a threat to Obama's standing with the Black comm doesn't commute with me. Obama would have a much, much bigger problem with White homophobe preachers' constituencies.
Not to mention, most national black politicians are pretty pro-gay and they don't seem to receive too much flack from black preachers.
But the white homophobe's constituencies aren't a "problem" precisely because they're off his map. I think Kendra makes the best point that counters this as any real problem for Obama, regardless of what "some speculate." I think this is all pretty much bullshit - was moslty just noting that Rich was engaging in journalistic malpractice well before he got to his punch line.
"But the white homophobe's constituencies aren't a "problem" precisely because they're off his map"
Uhmmm, not sure about that. I think there is some piece of that cake --white evangelicals to be more specific-- that Obama has tried hard to bite, probably with some success.
But I agree that Rich was engaging in journalistic malpractice. And the whole Black preachers made Obama homophobe is such a big BS.
Yeah - Obama's such a wily MF that he IS trying to split off some of those fundamentalist white folks who take the Sermon on the Mount more seriously than The Rapture. I'm being sloppy in these comments myself, so maybe I shouldn't be so hard on Rich. But the hardcore white homophobe preachers are pretty much preaching to a crowd that is anti-Obama for a bunch of reasons (racism undoubtedly not the least.) I guess I'm talking about the shameless element.
One thing that's weird about this entire discussioin is that anyone familiar with gospel music knows that the black pentecostal community has always had a...uh...complicated relationship to gay folks. I've never seen the black community as a focal point of homophobia compared to the nasty shit that's long been epidemic among white males.
TNC,
In the words of the immortal Brad Jordan:
"So why you tryin kick some dust up,
America's been always known for blaiming us n*ggas for they f*ck-ups."
I agree that it's dispiriting, not only because of the insidiously racist implications (newsflash: religious people everywhere are behind the times in coming to terms with their own homophobia, regardless of their race) but because the 'black preachers hate gays' narrative does nothing to advance the cause of queer rights. It alienates the black people who are already allies, and doesn't bring any that are wavering into the fold. Every time it gets repeated is another instance of this untrue story getting entrenched, and that only makes it harder to reach out to people who would be sympathetic to the gay cause and say 'look, you're not the only one, there are lots of people like you who are Christians or Muslims or Jews and still support equal rights'. I wish it weren't gay activists propagating the story.
PS: It's 'vain', not 'vane'. I don't usually correct typos, but that one's driving me crazy for some reason.
You're so right on the strategic downside to this lie of a meme for the gay community. But that's the thing about racism: it's insidious. What's the old saying about cutting off your nose to spite your face? Yeah, like that.
Great point well stated, Anna S.
but because the 'black preachers hate gays' narrative does nothing to advance the cause of queer rights.
One of the interesting things that happened here in MA (esp. in the Globe) was a sort of "dueling Black preachers" discourse." There was the Black Ministerial Alliance organizing demonstrations opposing marriage equality and on the other side were Peter Gomes (Baptist minister of the Memorial Church at Harvard), Byron Rushing (Episcopal Priest and member of the MA House) and William Sinkford (President of the Unitarian Universalists).
Iincidentally, I think Obama put all of this bullshit to rest yesterday. He may not be moving as quickly or as consistently for gay people as many of us long-time Obama supporters would like, but he laid out where he stands and what he intends to do and he wasn't patronizing about the fact that he's lagging behind hopes. And layed out the gay rights movement as a human rights issue with parallels in the civil rights movement. Did this in the White House, to a roomful of gay actvists, explicitly on the 40th anniversary of a riot by a bunch of NYC queens, et. al. against police brutality outside a gay bar.
It's especially frustrating right now when I see service people of the highest quality being drummed out - it pisses me off and I'm sure it pisses gay people off even more. But the President was pretty goddam impressive in his overture yesterday and I trust that he's got a strategy to do what he says he'll do and his intentions are the best. Gotta love this guy.
The blacks are anti-gay meme just won't die. It's as if my community deserves all of the blame, and none of the credit. Even blogs that I respect spun the recent victory in DC as a victory over black homophobia.
I don't disagree that it's a stupid meme, or with anything TNC said initially. However, it's worth noting that one of Obama's major examples of why he gets pro-gay cred is that he is willing to speak to "unfriendly audiences" about the issue, and he very frequently cites African American church congregations as the primary example of these audiences. He did this throughout the campaign and in his speech yesterday.
It's total bullshit though. He said it Ebeneezer in Atlanta. He isn't saying hard truths to any "tough audiences." He's saying hard truths to audiences he knows. Let's see him take those "hard truths" to white evangelicals in Alabama. He is the president of the United States, right? He ain't hosting Soul Train, right?
yeah, i heard him specifically bring up the African-American church. IMO, it was a head-desk moment. As TNC mentioned, Obama came from an extremely gay-friendly AA church. There are coalitions of black churches who fought for gay rights in California and DC.
The way the whole issue is framed provides for a limited and often prejudiced discussion. It's spoken of in terms of "black homophobia" or in terms of the problem of homophobia in the "black community." Saddleback, Focus on the Family, The Family Research Council, and the Morman Church, aren't viewed through the lens of "white homophobia," and they shouldn't be. It's interesting that Obama doesn't speak of confronting those unfriendly audiences.
Ever since Prop 8, the media has been all over how Californian black churches were a huge showing in favor of the measure. It was the first time in my memory that the connection between black churches and anti-gayness hit the mainstream news. But really, I think it's more telling of the "journalistic" impulse towards a very juvenile and essentialist political correctness - making a beeline to the minorities in any gathering and stoking them for their opinion, and generally being astonished and excited over all the non-white people. It's the LOWEST possible grade of reporting and this is what everyone is drooling over.
But when you look at the groups who were overwhelmingly in favor of Prop 8, when you look at the numbers and do the math, you see that the BIGGEST problem that prop 8 faced was never from blacks. 63% of the voters were white, and 51% of that, which is a little over THIRTY-TWO percent, voted FOR the measure. Compare to 10% of the total number of voters who were black, and 70% of that, which is SEVEN PERCENT, who voted for the measure. Even the percentage of Hispanic voters for the measure is a few percentages higher than those of blacks.
You're absolutely right to call these people out on their bs, becaus after some point it quit being a matter for remark in and of itself, and started saying something about a deeper, more insidious trend. It just doesn't compute, especially considering what's happening in DC, and UCC's track record. Reading far too many white commentators these days is like receiving dispatches from an alternate dimension of reality. I don't want to get stereotypical in return, but the myopic pomposity, the tendency to overremark showings of color and race, is starting to seem like a damn characteristic.
Consider the source. He has a bit of trouble noticing the lives of folks who aren't exactly like him. Rich says in the article that it was sometime in the late 1970's before he noticed the gay people all around him. No offense, but in the 70's Rich was the theater critic for the NYT. That seems pretty darn obtuse to me.
Now THAT is funny. (I always assumed Rich was gay, I guess because he was the theater critic. My bad.)
I was seriously shocked when I found out he was married to a woman. I totally thought he was a Friend of Dorothy.
My dad went to an Elton John concert in Massachusetts in the early 70's and saw two dudes kiss for the first time, so yeah I think just realizing there were gays in New York during the late 70's is pretty hard to swallow (hehe swallow...)
It's called the Black Pathology Biz. Ishmael Reed's been writing about it for ages.
Really, I think this is an issue that belongs at the feet of TN's neighbor and colleague, Mr. Sullivan. No one has used the bully media pulpit more astringently on this issue. Clearly, if one wants to look at voting patterns in CA, Prop. 8 passed in the inland (mostly white) districts, while the coastal, more diverse, districts voted against it. There is no group more homophobic in America than white male conservatives.
People need to start with themselves as Mr. Coates does. He is black, in a position of media power, and fiercely pro gay issues and individuals. And he is clearly not alone. Reporters and columnists need to do first hand as well as second hand research. In a Derrida--everything is a text world--standards are not easy to establish, but the fight to do so, especially in the blogosphere where its contributors often get short shrift undeservedly, is worthwhile.
The problem here is the talking heads bubble in which the mediacracy does not get out of their cozy little Green Zone. There is hardly a group more segregated in the popular media's imagination than that of African Americans--it would take a book length treatise to break down why this is so, but in our "post racial world" the tension between stereotyping vs. actual cultural understanding will continue to remain an issue as a result.
Maybe this is generational, and maybe this blogspot is a harbinger of something more realistic already occurring among those in their mid thirties and younger--I hope so in any case, and it's why I, old duffer that I am, continuously return to this site.
As I've said before, the "It's all the fault of black homophobia" is a rampant, frustrating meme that I can't wait to see go away. Sometime last year TNC posted a long letter that Huey Newton wrote encouraging Black activists to work closely with feminists and gay/lesbian activists. Where is that letter again? I think many of today's white journalists, both in and outside the LGBT media, really need to read that.
I admit that I haven't read the Frank Rich column. I really don't feel like reading more of the same. Was Bill Clinton's similar level of inaction on LGBT issues attributable to black homophobia, too? Nope. So why is Obama's? Obama and Clinton are moving slowly because of heterosexual privilege that blinds them to the fact that gay men and women really ARE second class citizens. To some extent, I (yes, a homosexual) don't hold them responsible for that. But at least Obama has said that he would do something, and he's not. I'm sorry, but that's not something I blame on what he learned from the African-American experience. I have to blame that on what he learned from the heterosexual experience. It's something a lotta breeders have gotten past (like TNC and most of the straight posters in here), but still a minority - including Bill and Obama.
I published too soon (I really need to Preview these things). That last line should read:
It's something a lotta breeders have gotten past (like TNC and most of the straight posters in here), but it's still a minority - and I'm not sure if Bill and Obama are in that minority.
Sorry to ramble on!
JAD1973:
I have to respectfully disagree with you. Clinton gets it. Obama gets it. But they are politicians. Obama is dragging his foot --he really is, guys, beautiful rhetoric aside and no, yesterday's speech meant no change-- for political reasons. Clinton, never a subtle dude stabbed us in the back with fury when it was politically convenient, and that's how we got DADT and DOMA. He even ran campaign ads boasting his support for DOMA.
But these guys are smart and empathetic enough to get it.
Point taken, dude. But: it doesn't excuse the fact that Obama's nevertheless dragging his foot, and that's not stopping gay and bisexual men and women from getting kicked out of the military. Smart they may be, but is he smart enough to realize the price our LGBT troops are paying for being outed whether they'd rather be out or not? Or are they just a reasonable casualty (no pun intended)?
On a tangent: if and (hopefully) when DADT is repealed, will it be retroactive to all servicemembers who have been kicked out for being gay or bi? I'm just curious? Did Obama address this in his meeting with the LGBT community?
I agree. While some may argue tokenism, I don't think that Clinton's hiring of Roberta Achtenberg was tokenism, and it along with other Clinton hires were part of the symbolic breakthrough that presaged the evolving political landscape.
Like Clinton, Obama is in the media-political bubble of America, which in every way is more consevative than the populace or the times and always reflects attitudes that have calcified. Look at the issue of marijuana for example. Politicians of both parties are far behind the real attitudes of the populace, but who running for office with a desire to succeed will run advocating the legalization of dope? Nonetheless, that does not mean that the populace has to be so politic. And the President is and should be taking heat for his passivity on gay issues, especially given his public statements.
Like Clinton, Obama is in the media-political bubble of America, which in every way is more consevative than the populace or the times and always reflects attitudes that have calcified. Look at the issue of marijuana for example.
I nearly fell down last year when MA voters approved decriminalization by a 2-1 margin. Still sort of surprises me. (Up to 1 oz is now akin to a parking ticket. Civil fine, no criminal violation.) The legislature, early on, talked about repeal, but has failed to do so.
"Was Bill Clinton's similar level of inaction on LGBT issues attributable to black homophobia, too? Nope. So why is Obama's?"
Not to argue you on anything, but since you haven't read the column, the next paragraph is acutally about how the most prevalent thought(despite the claims of speculators) is that Obama's retinence on gay issues is likely due to being surrounded by people who were with Clinton when he was burned going after gay rights in the 90s. Implicitly, it seems similar to what you're saying, just, like everyone else is saying... sloppy.
"It's something a lotta breeders have gotten past (like TNC and most of the straight posters in here), but still a minority - including Bill and Obama."
I'm sorry I can't let this slide. I don't think its OK to refer to TNC and the straight posters here as "breeders." Everyone on this blog has been really cool about gay people, so calling them breeders is disrespectful.
Original sin, again: White Libs get to ignore their own struggles with racism by decrying black homophobia.
Both exist, both are sins, both are best expiated in conversation with one's own conscience. But we tend to prefer to believe that we are "the saved" while others are "fallen."
And Atheists all, we forget we are reenacting an old theological debate....
Again, James 2:24 is valuable: "You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone." (Thanks to Stephen Walt for the reference.)
Complaining of the faults of others only distracts from the need to do works oneself.
I think it's also related to the desire to see the world divided into blue and red, or good and evil, or whatever system people have in their head to define their side vs. the enemy. People who do their politics that way act stunned, no outraged, when some element of "their" coalition disagrees with them on a specific issue. Try being liberal on almost every issue, but pro-life on abortion, and see what kind of firestorm you get from people who agree with you on almost everything else.
Black churches are a core constituency on the liberal side. So are gay marriage advocates. If the two disagree, even in part (and I'm not saying all black churches oppose gay marriage), the fight will be big and dramatic with a lot of bad feeling.
The fact that conservative white churches are even worse doesn't eliminate the problem, because nobody expected any better. They were always on the other side, on a whole bunch of issues. Nobody on the left thinks they can build a coalition with them (which is a mistake -- some alliances may be possible), and nobody is even talking across that divide enough for a fight to get personal.
There are plenty of fault lines on the right too, and the fights can get ugly. But this particular fight is a family squabble on the blue side of things, part of sorting out the expectations and values of the different elements in the coalition. The right isn't even around for it.
I encourage you, and any commenters that haven't read Rich's piece, to do so. It does not even slightly argue that "it's all the fault of black homophobia." The graf TNC quotes contains the only mention of race in the whole piece, and it's cited as one of several explanations offered by Rich's sources for Obama's inaction. On the whole, it's a pretty measured, temperate assessment of the state of gay rights 40 years after Stonewall, along with some criticism (again pretty low-key) of Obama's inaction on this front.
I agree that the black homophobia meme is tired & stupid, but on Rich, I kind of think folks are tripping.
I read Rich's column before reading TNC's post, and it really irked me. In fact, I almost stopped reading when I got to the black preachers part. This "blame the blacks" meme has become large enough that even a tangential mention of it brings up all the emotions/resentments/etc. that were widespread directly after Prop 8.
Hmm, that was supposed to be a reply to JAD1973.
I'll read it, and I'll keep an open mind. But from other commenters' reactions (qv Kenda) I'm not holding my breath that it'll be something new, dude.
I actually linked to that Rich piece yesterday in my own blog, because of the other things he said, placing the struggle for gay rights square in the middle of the American narrative and saying that Stonewall should be remembered as a time "when courageous kids who had nothing, not even a public acknowledgment of their existence, stood up to make history happen in the least likely of places." I'm straight, but I appreciated that. I wrote about how "government of, by, and for the people" means all the people, and gays and lesbians are, it turns out, people,
I did pause at that line about black preachers, though, in large part because of the reading I've done here (also thinking "why is it always black 'preachers'? Why do we never say 'black clergy'?"), and it struck me that the piece, like the man, isn't perfect. And then I went ahead and quoted it.
But there's a point at which I can't make the call -- how bad is bad? Is it racism, or laziness, or is it legitimate to say "some say" because some do and that has an impact, or is it only legitimate when you add "though they are mistaken"? Personally, I lean toward this latter -- some DO say, so that does have an impact, but we have a responsibility to place that impact in its true context (Erik Erikson famously said that it doesn't matter if a thing is real -- if it is perceived of as being real, it will be real in its consequences. All the more reason for context), but I'm white. My privilege allows me to not be much bothered in my daily life by shit like this.
I'm embarrassed that I read the piece, enjoyed it, and didn't even catch the stuff about black preachers. White privilege: still soaking in it.
Hah! That's how I felt when I read the whole NYT Magazine article on Sunday, thought "Well, that was a somewhat interesting story about one family's experience," and didn't even register the headline "The Fall of the Black Middle Class" until I came over here.
No one should be embarrassed. My many blind spots are regularly exposed in this comments section.
You're a generous man. Overall, I really liked the column, which probably contributed to the obliviousness.
Thanks. I need a forgiving host sometimes, and I don't even drink anymore.
Have to admit, I did the same thing.
Being from Memphis, I kind of accepted this "theory" in the past few years because I saw the opponents of gay rights in the news who were typically black preachers (and a few of the megachurch preachers as well). And I never really thought about the fact that as a majority black city, the opponents of gay rights would logically be majority black. Going to college in DC has been something of a welcome revelation to my own blind spot because I have seen that this earlier attitude was incorrect in so many ways. It's unfortunate to see the level of intellectual dishonesty that can blame a problem this embedded in parts of American culture on one minority ethnic group (or at least to blame them in part).
Also, just wanted to say that reading your writing has been another welcome revelation for me; as someone else with a deep interest in the Civil War, your pieces earlier this month on the American south were almost exactly on point in ways that I had never even thought of, so I thank you for that.
Well I've just read Frank Rich's post. He does say some impressive stuff. There are some points with which I disagree. I am being pedantic to pick on him for ignoring Harvey Milk's fight for gay rights in the 70's. Specifically I'm not sure I totally buy into Rich's suggestion that he doesn't want to "risk gay issues upending his presidency" True, Rich fully admits that this is not a good reason for him shuffling his feet on LGBT rights. But I still think this isn't the issue: he hasn't worried about other tough issues upending his presidency (environment, health care, Iraq for example). Some will argue that these are more important because they affect everyone, but civil rights issues affect everyone. Still I could go on all day about that, and others have already done so in other posts. But I still feel that a big factor in his foot shuffling is that he just can't see how big a problem antigay discrimination actually is. He knows it's a problem, but he's in that "But it's not as important a problem as others" camp.
So with all that, my original points still stand:
1) If Obama really is so passionate about our issues, even in our current political environment where the LGBT community really does have some political momentum, then he should not be shuffling his feet so dispassionately. It means a lot to see a president do anything to commemorate Stonewall, but that was just a pretext for damage control.
2) Rich is still buying at least in part into the "blacks are homophobic" meme, even if he's saying that he doesn't think it's the motivation for Obama pulling back.
I am, at least in my own limited estimation, a hard-eyed skeptic. I work to not assume bad faith in disagreements. But at some point, as someone in it, you start to conclude that this race shit is real.
There are black people all over the net laughing at me right now. I take that.
And, I'm one of them right now...that was hilarious, Coates.
I just want to say that watching, on the one hand, a black city move toward gay marriage, and on the other hand, people blame Obama's inaction on black people is deeply disappointing. On gay rights, Obama hails from one of the most progressive black churches in the country. Moreover, there's been this ongoing narrative that Obama isn't afraid to tell black people hard truths. And yet when he comes up short, somehow it's because he's caving to the horrid blacks.
In everything else, Obama is postracial. In the matter of gay rights, he is truly black.
This is the Coates that I know and love.
I, too, am disappointed with Rich on this.
I don't have much to add to this discussion so I should probably just shut my mouth. But I can't resist! Must opinionate!
1. The media can't resist a scintillating two dimensional conflict. Blacks vs. gays! The irony! As if "black" and "gay" are mutually exclusive categories.
2. Obama has been *fantastic* for gay people. We have never had a president more sympathetic to our cause. I mean, to actually acknowledge that gays have a history worth acknowledging! To invite gay folks to the White House on the anniversary of Stonewall!? Hell, I'm gay and I didn't even know about Stonewall until Obama chose to honor it. He is on our side, but he is also a politician. Politics is the art of compromise. Deal with it.
3. Homophobes can be found among all colors and creeds. Go to the countryside and you can find a tractor driving homophobic hillbilly. Go to the city and you can find a homophobic thug. Its racist to blame homophobia on black folks.
4. Its also unfair to say that gays are more racist than non-gays. First of all, gays are not all white. It is also unfair to assume that all gays are activists of some sort, or that they all care about marriage. The majority of gays are ordinary, apolitical, congenial American folk. Not all of us live in San Fran, go to Pride Parades, have children adopted from Laos, and own fabulous condos. A lot of us work at Arby's, take the bus, shop at the dollar store, and get along just fine with our homophobic black neighbors ;)
So what does it mean that four out of the five ministers in Obama's supposed inner circle of spiritual advisors are strongly opposed to gay equality?
It's not that blacks are homophobic. Americans are. But less so by the minute.