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.
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.
]]>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.
]]>]]>
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.
]]>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.
]]>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."
PS: It's 'vain', not 'vane'. I don't usually correct typos, but that one's driving me crazy for some reason.
]]>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...
]]>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.
]]>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.
]]>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.
]]>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.
]]>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.]
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.
]]>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.
]]>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!
]]>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.
]]>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.
]]>
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 agree that the black homophobia meme is tired & stupid, but on Rich, I kind of think folks are tripping.
]]>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 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.
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.]
]]>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?
]]>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.
]]>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).
]]>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.
]]>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.
]]>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.
]]>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.
]]>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.
]]>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.
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.
]]>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 ;)
]]>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.
]]>