How do you deal with racism within the Democratic party and society in general?

[FreeState]

Im looking for some ideas for ways for me to deal with much of what Im feeling of homophobia from the party and it dawned on me that the members of DU that are minorities probably have much more experience at this than most of the GLBT posters (most of us became activist at an older age after coming out - Im assuming most of you have had activism for racial and civil equality since being children - be it on an interpersonal level or larger - I realize that is an assumption but I think for some if not a majority here that may be true).

In the last year since the passage of Prop 8 etc I have gone the gamut of emotions. I cried myself to sleep for 2 weeks. I gained 35 lbs and now lost the wight. My relationship has suffered. You name it has effected it in some way or other. I think part of the reason was I live in an area that is so accepting I had miss judged where we actually were. Its almost like being thrown back in high school when thought we had all graduated and moved on.

So how do you do on a personal level to live your life as fully as possible without letting societies racism overcome you? It seems that no matter how hard I try the feelings of frustration and sadness creep up. Im not depressed just fed up with the roller coaster ride. I wish I was one that could just brush it off and keep going without digesting the feelings but unfortunately Im not.

How do you deal with the institutionalized racism, be it at work or on DU or wherever? I know about educating people but sometimes it just seems impossible - like no one wants to listen or even help out or worse yet refuse to see whats right in front of them?

Any advice? What works? What doesnt? How do you get the party to see its not helping or being supportive where it needs to be? How do you get people that claim to be supportive to actually do more than sit on their buts and agree with you?

(Im meaning for this to be more of what works for issues with racism than advice on what GLBT should do).

[noiretextatique]

1. i started doing yoga

seriously...self-care is probably one of the best things you can do to deal with the stress of living in a racist, homophobic, society. and i challenge people on their shit. just last night a white, gay male acquaintance asked me why obama didn't say he's half white and half black instead of identifying as 100% african-american :eyes: according to him, if obama state the exact portions of his racial make-up more often, that alone would stop racism :wtf: and of course, he sincerely believes that. i told him that was a ridiculous and racist notion. it's not obama's job to make white people feel more comfortable by constantly reminding them that he's one of them...well, half one of them. he is not responsible for their racism. i also told him that when the cops pulled obama over (i know it's happened to him too) that they see a black man, and the nuances of his racial mixture would not get him treated any better than any other black man. because this guy is a drag queen, he thinks he's enlighted, but this is not the first dumb racial shit he's uttered. what's more telling about him is his backgroud. he was raised in the deep south and his parents and relatives are all unabashed racists. he thinks he's above all of that because he is gay and a drag queen, but clearly he isn't.
a few weeks ago, i posted a thread here about a woman at work who thanked me (in an email) for "fetching" reports. i am an accountant...we don't "fetch" anything. she thanked everyone else for their hard work, and she reduced my role to "fetching." :puke: there might have been a time when i wouldn't have challenged her; i might have chalked it up to her being a jealous of me (which she is), but i did confront her. i don't let stuff like that slide anymore. and you know what: i don't give a damn about educating anyone either. if you say something stupid and offensive to me, you are going to know that what you said was stupid and offensive. maybe some people need to be educated to shut their stupid mouths and learn something. or deal with their personal issues.
you have to know who you are, and you have to defend who you are...i am responsible for doing that for myself. i am not responsible to educating people, but i am responsible for letting them know my truth. that and yoga :7

[kwassa]

2. You speak truth to power

there is nothing else to do.

To make a slight parallel to your situation, I joined the Episcopal church in 1995. It was a very welcoming place, very liberal, with many gay and women clergy. This was my concept of the church, that it was a center for progressive change as well as a community.

I was shocked as could be by the backlash to the elevation of Gene Robinson to Bishop in 2003. Robinson is the first openly gay priest that has been so honored. This brought a worldwide counterattack by Anglican groups and American conservatives trying to pressure the Archbishop of Canterbury and everyone else to punish us for it. I found the whole thing very upsetting.

It is taken and will take a very long time to finally resolve the situation, but ....

the conservatives have lost, big time. The entire situation is not resolved, but the Episcopal Church will not turn back. They've stood up strongly in support of gay rights, and led the way for other mainstream denominations, like the Lutherans, who recently decided to allow gay clergy in committed relationships.

However, the wheels of justice grind so slowly in the Episcopal church that it drives me a little nuts. The actual conflict won't be technically solved for years, but all any of us really have to do is stand up for the truth, and speak it, over and over.

Although no one is required to educate anyone else, I think that it is useful to talk to those who have not really thought through the issues. I think this is particularly true of same-sex marriage, and I think that is taking place now. You will never reach the bigots, but you can increase the percentage of the support to a winning percentage.

full disclosure in case you don't know: I am not a minority, as a hetero white male. My wife and daughter are black. I can't speak directly to the experience of racism as I haven't suffered it, except through the experiences of my wife and of friends.

[Fire1]

3. Without the benefit of those "Anglican groups" this issue

has driven a wedge between the church and many have left this denomination because of it. Winning majority support may be easier said than done OR the church will become even smaller.

[kwassa]

4. We had majority support when we elevated Robinson to Bishop.

We still do.

The conservatives are noisy and loud and try to steal church property, but they only represent 5 - 7% of the church at the most inflated estimate. They get lots of press, though.

[Fire1]

8. "The moratorium has done little to forestall the fracturing

both within the Episcopal Church and in the Anglican Communion." I suggest you read this:http://www.stmatthews.org.nz/news.php?nid=196&sid=88

[kwassa]

10. I already know all of this.

I've been following all the events as they've happened.

The fracturing is wildly exaggerated. The Episcopal Church is self-sufficient, it is the wealthiest of the worldwide churches, it gives the most to help others. Despite dramatic newspaper reports, the conservative provinces in Africa, which represent the far end of the political extreme, don't really have a following. Most of the world is somewhere between them and us, and there are other countries that are liberal as well, like we are. Some of the Africans are very supportive, like Desmond Tutu, and the current Archbishop of South Africa.

If there is a schism, so be it, but I don't think it is happening, and if it does, it might make a bit of symbolic difference, but little else. The conservatives are on the wrong side of history. The Anglican Communion is a voluntary association, the Archbishop of Canterbury is that symbolic head, but he isn't a pope, and all the churches are autonomous. Completely autonomous. The ABC, as he is called, is trying his very hardest to waffle and do nothing at all, which makes everyone unhappy, but also might outlast the temporary furor over gay bishops and other things.

[Fire1]

14. As indicated in the article the churches are autonomous

and will decide if they will follow that doctrine. Not all churches in every diocease WILL and that's for certain. You may have been keeping up with this particular issue but you definitely need to read some history. "The Episcopal Church is self-sufficient." Surely you jest! The diminshed following is not just in Africa. Do you realize how many churches have CLOSED, merged and been dismantled in JUST the last ten (10) years?!!! The WEALTHIEST of the world wide churches is the CATHOLIC CHURCH, Einstein and always HAS BEEN!!!

I provided that article for emphasis on certain points, not to identify and confirm the function of the Archbishop of Canterbury. The point BEING, that this doctrine is NOT MANDATED and thus subject to CHOICE! Why? The obvious reasons. They cannot afford to lose any more members, thus the divide.

[kwassa]

17. I'm missing something here.

Are you Episcopalian?

I'm not sure that I am understanding your viewpoint.

The Episcopal church has been losing membership for decades, like all the other mainline Protestant denominations. The problem is not unique in any way to the Episcopal church, and had nothing to do with the current controversy. The Catholic church has the same problem, and is only sustained by immigration, as they have lost a large percentage of American-born Catholics. I never said the Episcopal church is as wealthy as the Catholics, it is nowhere even close, it is simply the wealthiest church in the world-wide Anglican Communion, which has no connection to the Catholic church.

The growing churches are the evangelicals and the "nondenominational" mega-churches.

The Episcopal church tries very hard to be a big tent to encompass a variety of viewpoints. This is the history and tradition of the Episcopal church from way back, speaking of history, and also has nothing to do with the current times. There has never been a mandated doctrine in the Episcopal church.

For the first time, the conservatives have been pushing a covenant, which is our first doctrine, but to pull it off they have to get churches around the world to sign away their precious autonomy. The Episcopal church will never do that, nor will even many of the more conservative countries do that. Why would anyone give away their freedom?

[Fire1]

19. You are confused. In one post you state the Episcopal

Church is self-sufficient and "the wealthiest in the world." Yes, you did "say" it! Re-read your previous post. In the next post you claim to know the church has been losing membership for decades. Which is it?? No institution or organization can be self-sufficient or self-sustaining without funds and funding = membership. Secondly, you stated we had and STILL have majority support when Robinson was elevated to Bishop. Majority support is a misnomer when considering a fracturing divide that is a direct result of the controversy on top of an already diminishing membership.

The last sentence of your last post is the closest thing to truth and logic that you've contributed to the discussion. Indeed, why would anyone fore-go their autonomy to appease any particular group. They wouldn't and they won't. Therefore, so much for your claim of majority support.

[kwassa]

20. The confusion is not on my side.

you said:
"No institution or organization can be self-sufficient or self-sustaining without funds and funding = membership."

But we still have the funds to support ourselves, therefore we are self-sustaining. We are not in debt, as far as I know. The church lives within it's budget, and is facing the current recession by laying off staff at the national headquarters, and cutting back on some programs. We, like everyone else, has been hit by the economic downturn.

then you said:
"Secondly, you stated we had and STILL have majority support when Robinson was elevated to Bishop. Majority support is a misnomer when considering a fracturing divide that is a direct result of the controversy on top of an already diminishing membership"

No it isn't. As I pointed out before, the total percentage of those who wish to leave the church is 5% - 7% of the Episcopal Church membership. Are you contesting that figure? That would leave at least 93% of Episcopals that are staying. If people leave the church, they will not be part of that total count. The only majority that counts is the majority that comes to church.

Look at the results of the General Convention. The Bishops voted 99 - 45 to allow gays to hold any position in the church. More than two thirds, also a big majority.

[Fire1]

21. The Bishops may have "voted" to ALLOW but that's as far as

it goes. "Autonomy" is the key distinction that will determine results and who in their right mind would give that up?! No, we DON'T have the funding! If we had the funding churches would not have to close and or consolidate! Larger churches have had the luxury of just laying off staff and cutting programs, as a result of the economy. The smaller churches, which are the MAJORITY in any given diocease, across this nation are suffering beyond measure and have been for quite some time and this latest controversey certainly didn't help the situation.

Yes, I am contesting your data and you need to provide a link to support your claim that the church has only lost 5-7% of its membership. Otherwise, you're just pulling numbers out of your ass to prove a point.

[kwassa]

22. You can at least be civil

I've heard this figure from a variety of sources, including a quote from the Presiding Bishop herself.

You do the math. The ACNA group claims 100,000 followers, speaking of numbers pulled from asses.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglican_Church_in_North_America

The total membership of the Episcopal church is 2,154,572.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Episcopal_Church_%28United_States%29

How do you know that the smaller churches across the nation are suffering immeasurably? What is your source of information?

and if it has anything to do with David Virtue ...

[Fire1]

23. I don't normally consider wikipedia a reliable source but

the stats on current membership is correct, for once, but still down from 3.0 million. The fact that there are now two groups forming, one of which is no longer associated with the Anglican Communion, ought to tell you something about the rift in the church. In 2004, I think it's 85 or 88 churches closed their doors and 29 have closed since that time, which is clearly an indication that churches have been struggling to survive for quite some time. This is common knowledge to anyone familiar with this denomination. All one needs to do is read the monthly publications but I also had the benefit of serving on the vestry and thus privileged to certain types of information that extended beyond the boundaries of my parish and diocese.

Keeping your head in the sand and deluding yourself is your prerogative but doesn't change the facts by any means.

[kwassa]

25. I read about the Episcopal church constantly.

My wife was on the diocesan council for six years, too. I hardly think my head is in the sand. In this entire diocese we had one church merger in that time.

I think you portray the situation as far worse than it is. My wife said about a third of the churches are doing well, a third breaking even, and a third are having some difficulties. This, however, has nothing, and I mean nothing to do with the conservatives threatening to split away. It is part of the larger trend of declining attendance in mainstream Protestant churches in all denominations.

Churches close for a variety of reasons; sometimes the demographics just change.

[Fire1]

26. You and your wife obviously missed this little gem.

It's one thing to be optimistic and quite another to be realistic. I happen to be reality based. At any rate, It's good to know there is a fellow Episcopalian on the board. Peace.


http://episcopalchurch.org/documents/BlueBook-HODCSC.pdf

[Fire1]

27. As I stated in an earlier post, the membership decline ensued

long before Robinson but the controversey certainly didn't help an already diminshing membership. Diminishing due to mega churches, an aging membership, the economy and last but not least, Bishop Robinson.

[kwassa]

28. thank you for linking up the report

It is extremely detailed, and I read most of it.

Part of my perception is shaped by being in the Washington diocese, and we are down only 1% in active membership. We also actively develop our minority base, and have a thriving Latino ministry. We are also buoyed up by immigrants from countries with Anglican churches, which makes our churches extremely diverse. My church has a large contingent of Liberians, for instance.

The numbers are depressing, but they are not unique to Episcopalians. As to the controversy with Robinson, other mainline churches are dealing with the gay clergy issue, with the Lutherans the latest to approve gay clergy, and they are also facing a revolt from their conservatives. The Methodists and Presbyterians waffled, but haven't approved gay clergy.

We do need to change our ways to attract new members, and I hope that we can do it. We Episcopals hate to evangelize, though, and that by itself may be the death of us in a couple of generations. We are facing a long, slow decline, though, not a crash.

It is hard to know why people leave, because they don't do exit interviews. I don't think that it is safe to assume that Robinson is a major reason; the Catholic church is not swelling with Episcopal defectors. The Catholics have their own problems.

[Fire1]

29. I didn't state, imply or assume "that Robinson is a MAJOR reason"

why people are leaving but as indicated in the report, he is a contributing factor to some degree. This is a factor that cannot be denied as it has been acknowledged and addressed at every local and national conference since his inception. Hopefully, conservatives will get used to the idea but I certainly don't think they will be the single cause of a lingering demise.

As we've both indicated, there are other factors involved that should be the center of our focus.

[Fire1]

15. The last sentence of my post should read, "hence the divide."

[HamdenRice]

5. I'll give you my long rambling answer -- but only on certain conditions

I'm not sure if you were around during the unpleasantness surrounding the wake of prop 8, but I'll assume you weren't. The problem is that certain positions were considered to be "out of bounds" for certain African American DUers to discuss, even positions that had nothing to do with GLBT issues, or were only tangential or analytical. Fortunately, that controversy is over. But in asking for advice in this forum, you make it impossible to answer without bringing up certain ideas that some of DU's GLBT community find unpalatable. For example, to explain some African American coping mechanisms, I would have to also explain how the circumstances of African Americans and GLBT people are in some ways similar and in some ways different; for some people just raising the idea that our situations may be in some ways different is a "homophobic" position. So, if you are willing to listen to ideas that may challenge some of the premises of your question without automatically assuming that I'm a "bigot" or "homophobe" then I'll add my two cents. If you don't think you can do that you should stop reading now.

From your OP, it seems that there are two different aspects of what is getting you down. One is that (assuming you live in California), an important right with real world consequences was taken away from you. Another aspect is that the Prop 8 vote showed that the electorate and country are more prejudiced than you realized, and that the "acceptance" you felt in your own area was partly an illusion.

So the first bit of advice I would give as an African American -- and get ready, this is one way our situations and strategies have been and will continue to be different -- is that African Americans historically have not put much focus on "acceptance." The Civil Rights Movement (and even civil rights laws) both implicitly and at times explicitly were saying you are free to not accept black people, to continue hating them, to organize against them, to continue living a segregated white life in segregated white organizations, to have segregated churches and so on. The CRM and laws simply say that in certain areas of life you may not discriminate or segregate -- for example, where government is involved or in interstate commerce, the business world, the market, employment and housing. The entire structure of the CRM and laws basically lay out a private world and a public world, and they only care about the public world. For example, the "Mrs. Murphy exception" to the Fair Housing laws, is based on the idea of a hypothetical, racist, Mrs. Murphy who has a small rental building or rooming house; she is allowed to exclude blacks because her building is so small that they are part of her personal space, where she is entitled to be as racist as she wants. That dividing of the public/material/economic from the personal both reflects and has shaped African Americans' attitudes toward racism.

It's nicely summed up by Janet Jackson's song from the 80s: "What Have You Done for me <or to me?> Lately?" We generally feel that way toward the white world. I don't care if you hate me. I've known many, many white people will hate me since I was 3 and a boy rode up on his tricycle and called me "nigger"; I've known that since I desegregated PS 135 in second grade through bussing and some white kids wouldn't sit next to me; I knew it when I arrived in junior high and the school yard hand ball court had painted on it in 10 foot tall letters, "niggers go home," and the principal did nothing to remove it for months. It's no biggie. The way I "cope" with it, is I don't care. They are not going to change. As noiretextatique put it, it is not my job to educate racist white people or change their hearts -- although I reserve the right to call them out and school them if I feel like it. But is my paycheck the same as the white guy's? Did I lose a job because of discrimination? Those are the only sorts of things that count.

Notice that we use different words for the forms of discrimination we face. African Americans use the term "racism." GLBT people use the word, "homophobia." Racism refers to a system of discrimination and points primarily to material, economic and political impacts. Homophobia literally is fear (and hatred) of GLBT people.

Prop 8 and the marriage debate, although tragic, has had a positive effect imo on the GLBT community because it has focused attention on the aspects of your situation that more more like racism (marriage benefits) as compared to the fear and hatred aspects; the attempt to overcome fear and hatred, and worrying about it, is often a waste of time and mental and spiritual energy.

On the other hand -- and here I have to point out how different our situations are so please don't take offense -- GLBT people by the nature of their demographic situation have to focus a bit more on acceptance and overcoming fear and hatred than we did or do.

Let me explain by reference to a perennial GLBT issue here in New York City -- the St. Patrick's Day Parade. For many years, the Irish American GLBT community asked to march in the St. Pat's parade. The parade organizers being overwhelming Catholic and the parade being partly sponsored (?) by the arch diocese refused, because homosexuality is against Catholic doctrine. This led to many rather rude and intentionally disrespectful non-violent actions by Irish GLBT groups against the Catholic Church, especially against St. Patrick's Cathedral. For some time, I wondered about the purpose of this seemingly useless struggle. If someone doesn't want you in their parade, why bother trying to get into it? If the Church forbids homosexual sex -- not to mention lots of very appealing forms of heterosexual sex -- why try to get them to accept it? It seemed like trying to force a Jewish or Muslim parade to accept a contingent from the pork processors council. It's religion.

In retrospect, I was looking at it from an African American perspective. It would never occur to black New Yorkers to insist on being "accepted" into the St. Pattie's parade. We're not Irish. You have yours and we have ours.

The point the Irish GLBT community was making though is that GLBT people are in every community. That's why it was important for them to march in the Irish American parade -- to show that there are just as many GLBT Irish as GLBT people in every other community. They are your Irish relatives, friends and neighbors, and even priests, no matter what the Catholic Church says.

There are not African Americans in the Irish American community and visa versa. That's how our situations are different. One of your burdens is that you have to, in a sense, integrate every institution because your point is that you are already in every institution in a closeted way. We are not in every institution and don't want to be. No African American group for example would ever consider protesting the Mormon Church because it has racist views. It's not our issue. We don't want to change the views of southern white racist Baptists for example.

That means that our struggle values are fundamentally different. African Americans generally embrace pluralism, while GLBT groups generally focus on complete acceptance and integration. Pluralism means that we are in separate groups by self-identification, by freedom of association, and by culture and community. We accept that others will also have their groups -- even groups like Sons of the Confederacy or the KKK. That's great! I applaud the fact that there is a group called Sons of the Confederacy, because I would like to preserve the right of black college students to have an African American Students' Council. The Sons of the Confederacy or KKK are not my business unless they have done something for or to me lately or are trying to take their values into the public square.

The perspective of pluralism causes us to see many issues differently -- for example the Rick Warren issue. African Americans are much more tolerant of white people who are personally prejudiced so long as they don't engage in structural racism. Reaching out to them on issues of common concern or coalition building is a valid tactic. When I tried to point this out during the recent unpleasantness, GLBT DUers called me everything from a bigot and homophobe to demented, self-hating and retarded. We are also much more forgiving of politicians pandering to the personal prejudice of whites if it benefits us materially. For example, Bill Clinton did lots of things that were much, much worse than Obama's having Rick Warren give a prayer, from the "Sista Soulja moment" to executing a mentally retarded death row inmate while on the campaign trail. With Bill, it was always, wink-wink-nod-nod, we know what you have to do Bubba to get elected, because when you get elected, it will be better for us. (Until Bill and Hillary took it too far during the recent primaries.) Apparently, this kind of kabuki theater in politics is completely unacceptable to the GLBT community.

All of that said, I don’t want you to misunderstand and think I don’t know there are very profound similarities between our situations. I think for example both GLBT people and African Americans (and African Americans more than any other American minority group) suffer from a politics of personal disgust. That is to say, that in addition to all the material political and economic things the majority does or wants to do to us, one of our biggest problems is that racists and homophobes are personally disgusted by our existence. That’s the “acceptance” part. Many homophobes are disgusted by the idea of two men kissing or of anal sex, or women enjoying sex with each other not under the control of a man or for the purpose of reproducing, or people dressing in clothing for the gender other than the one they were assigned at birth. Many racists are disgusted by their beliefs that blacks are dirty, over-sexed, genetically lazy or stupid and want to have sex with their women. It’s that visceral disgust that leads to other forms of discrimination. James Baldwin, who was both African American and gay explored these themes probably more incisively than any other thinker. But if you look at the broad scope of reasons for why we were each discriminated against, most racists in the 40s and 50s were not just thinking about disgust, but about things like, are my negroes going to stay on the plantation and work for a share of the crop? Are they going to join the union and take our jobs? Will they vote me out of office because of all the Jim Crow laws I supported? Sadly these non-disgust “concerns” of racist whites have not changed that much. But because GLBT people are everywhere and in every class, the non-disgust concerns of homophobes are much more limited (jobs, unions, wages), which means your focus on “acceptance” is more important to your progress. You need to get the public used to two men kissing; it was never our goal to get the public used to a black man kissing a white woman. That’s your unique burden and I have no advice for you there.

Personal prejudice and personal disgust for us don’t correlate with participation in material, structural racism. For example, I’ll never forget reading a biography of Bram Fischer, one of South Africa’s greatest freedom fighter. He was white, and not only white but an Afrikaner from a rich, well connected family, and a rising lawyer. He joined the struggle in the 40s and became a lawyer for Nelson Mandela. In his biography, his biographer wrote a very sad, touching passage where Fischer lamented that even though his mind had convinced him of the overwhelming rightness of joining the anti-apartheid struggle, he never got over his visceral, physical disgust at touching a black man, for example while shaking hands, that had been instilled in him as a child. How do we compare Bram Fischer to the South African cabinet minister in the last apartheid governments, Dr Gerrit Viljoen, who was in charge of running the monstrous apartheid bureaucracy, as Minister of Constitutional Development/Cooperation and Development (formerly “Native Affairs”), and who right after the first majority rule elections swept the ANC into power, and laws like the Mixed Marriages Act had been abolished, announced that he was divorcing his white wife and marrying his long time black mistress? Obviously, Dr. Viljoen had no problem shaking hands (or other parts) with black people. Same with Strom Thurmond – obviously a racist whose physical disgust only went so far. Or what about George Wallace, who became almost a beloved politician in the black community of Alabama after acknowledging he had been wrong in the 50s and 60s and vigorously adopting affirmative action, and who in fact had never been personally prejudice in the first place (he was a liberal in his first elections, but lost due to his opponent’s racist campaign, and Wallace vowed “never to be out-niggered again”)?

So overall, I would like to say, the answer to your question is, don’t worry too about the personal prejudice of the electorate and know that many people are never going to accept you. But that’s how most of us do it, and I’m not sure it applies to your situation, because our situations are fundamentally different.

[Fire1]

6. Points well taken, Hamden. n/t

[firedupdem]

7. Perfectly explained. n/t

[Number23]

9. Probably one of the best, and damn sure one of the longest, posts I've seen on DU

Beautifully stated, Hamden. I am glad to see you posting here again.

Your comments about pluralism vs. acceptance hit me like a ton of bricks. I avoided this OP like the plague because of the OP's comments such as: How do you get the party to see its not helping or being supportive where it needs to be? How do you get people that claim to be supportive to actually do more than sit on their buts and agree with you?

My first reaction was, "what in the hell makes you think that you can get ever get ANYONE to do anything that you want them to do?" You state your peace, fight like hell and then float on. If black folks, if Arabs, if women, if Hispanics etc. spent every moment trying to get everyone to "support" us, we'd be the most unproductive, useless, heartbroken people on the damned planet.

History has proven that it has taken LAWS not the "changing of hearts" to get things that even resemble justice in this country and sometimes those laws have been fought with everything this racist, patriarchal country has had to give. The idea that someone actually feels that they can chastise people into "doing more than sit on their butts and agree with you" seemed painfully naive and idiotic to me -- as if having someone agree with you is a bad thing anyway??? But I think you've explained this in a manner that the OPs reasoning makes a bit more sense to me now.

I’m not sure it applies to your situation, because our situations are fundamentally different.

Brilliant in its simplicity and utter truth.

for some people just raising the idea that our situations may be in some ways different is a "homophobic" position.

There is always that. Please reference the "Gay is NOT the New Black OP" from a few months ago and please pay particular notice to the number of people in that thread who called the black, GAY author of that piece a "homophobe" because he dared to articulate the difference between the two movements. Never mind that his thinking appears to be by far the prevailing thinking among black gays and other gays of color. Apparently, even they aren't allowed to point out the differences either.

ETA: Link to OP - http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8532902

[HamdenRice]

24. Thanks for that great, thoughtful reply! nt

[kwassa]

11. Great post.

and great explanation.

[Raineyb]

12. Indeed. It is too bad that only a few of us will actually see it. n/t

[FreeState]

13. Thanks for the reply and the PM

Just wanted to give a note that Im swamped at work and was not online during the weekend. When I get time I will reply - I need some time to digest this all and respond - I was not prepared to discuss much of what you took the time to write as I was only really looking for coping mechanisms. I will however, but I need a good couple hours to write a cohesive respectful response. (I agree with much of what you have written BTW, but there are a few area's I think both the GLBT community and the Black community need to understand each other better on and I dont want to cause separation but instead understanding, something thats been missing for a while here on DU.)

Thanks:)

[Uzybone]

16. Wonderful post

a pleasure to read and frankly something I do not see much of on the internet. Thank you.

[FreeState]

30. Sorry for the delay heres my belated reply....

I'm not sure if you were around during the unpleasantness surrounding the wake of prop 8, but I'll assume you weren't. The problem is that certain positions were considered to be "out of bounds" for certain African American DUers to discuss, even positions that had nothing to do with GLBT issues, or were only tangential or analytical. Fortunately, that controversy is over. But in asking for advice in this forum, you make it impossible to answer without bringing up certain ideas that some of DU's GLBT community find unpalatable. For example, to explain some African American coping mechanisms, I would have to also explain how the circumstances of African Americans and GLBT people are in some ways similar and in some ways different; for some people just raising the idea that our situations may be in some ways different is a "homophobic" position. So, if you are willing to listen to ideas that may challenge some of the premises of your question without automatically assuming that I'm a "bigot" or "homophobe" then I'll add my two cents. If you don't think you can do that you should stop reading now.

The only persons I see as homophobes are those that knowingly express bigoted views and/or actions - there are obviously differences in our experience and discussing those to me is in no way homophobic, even if were not in agreement in all areas. In fact I believe in discussing our similarities and differences both sides progress towards a common goal of equality. So likewise, because I have seen the same in reverse from African American posters, if you automatically assuming that I'm a "bigot" or "racist" because I may respectfully (hopefully) challenge some thoughts and comparisons you should stop reading now.

I'm a devout Buddhist and believe strongly that my end goal should always be the end of suffering. That is the perspective I try to take on everything (doesn't mean Im perfect at it but thats what Im striving for). Keeping that in mind might help when reading my perspective as well.

I was around for the Prop 8 aftermath. If you do a search in GLBT or here you will see a couple posts about it from me. I along with a few other GLBT posters did what we could to point out the error and bigotry of blaming the African American community for the passage of Prop 8. Unfortunately it became way to much for many of us and I took a break from DU for a bit. But dont be mistaken there were improper hateful things said from both groups. No matter how much logic you use some people will always refuse to investigate their own motives and prejudice.

From your OP, it seems that there are two different aspects of what is getting you down. One is that (assuming you live in California), an important right with real world consequences was taken away from you. Another aspect is that the Prop 8 vote showed that the electorate and country are more prejudiced than you realized, and that the "acceptance" you felt in your own area was partly an illusion.

Yes Im from California . Those two aspects are definitely part of what Im feeling. Yes it would be nice to have universal acceptance - but I realized years ago thats an impossibility. Most of the GLBT persons I know, myself included, could care less if were accepted on an individual level. However as a minority we must demand basic acceptance as part of society. The part off acceptance that upsets me are with those that insist they accept us and want to fight for our rights but never actually do anything but vote.

Im assuming you have never had a very basic civil right finally recognized only to have it taken away in short order. The feelings that come from that are difficult to express and endure. Its like waking up one day and driving down the street you feel different because your finally legally part of it all. You have inclusion in the American Dream. Then one day you wake up and its gone. You drive down the street and every thing you see is tainted by the feeling of having real tangible legal protections and inclusion stripped from you. Its and experience I would no wish on anyone.

So the first bit of advice I would give as an African American -- and get ready, this is one way our situations and strategies have been and will continue to be different -- is that African Americans historically have not put much focus on "acceptance." The Civil Rights Movement (and even civil rights laws) both implicitly and at times explicitly were saying you are free to not accept black people, to continue hating them, to organize against them, to continue living a segregated white life in segregated white organizations, to have segregated churches and so on. The CRM and laws simply say that in certain areas of life you may not discriminate or segregate -- for example, where government is involved or in interstate commerce, the business world, the market, employment and housing. The entire structure of the CRM and laws basically lay out a private world and a public world, and they only care about the public world. For example, the "Mrs. Murphy exception" to the Fair Housing laws, is based on the idea of a hypothetical, racist, Mrs. Murphy who has a small rental building or rooming house; she is allowed to exclude blacks because her building is so small that they are part of her personal space, where she is entitled to be as racist as she wants. That dividing of the public/material/economic from the personal both reflects and has shaped African Americans' attitudes toward racism.

I think the timeline of events is one area were the path of gay the gay Civil Rights movement differs greatly from the African American path. The gay movement is unfortunately having to deal with gaining some form of acceptance in order to obtain inclusion. This was not the case much of the Civil Rights rulings and legislation of the past. For example when interracial marriage was legalized nation wide via the Supreme Court there was very little support for the ruling. However there were not amendments to do away with the ruling. If the bigots had done that back then I imagine we would have a lot more in common in our struggles for Civil Rights.

I disagree with you on the acceptance part though. Since Stonewall most GLBT organizations have not been fighting for acceptance but rather inclusion. The path to that sometimes includes coming out, public education, and a push for acceptance as a group on a civil level. However most GLBT persons and groups could care less what people think of us as a group or even as an individual, as long as we have inclusion via civil rights we really could care less what bigots think of us.

"Mrs. Murphy exceptions" also have a place in laws protecting GLBT persons as well. Much of the legislation mirrors the Fair Housing laws and incorporates "protections" and "exemptions" for small private businesses and religious organizations. This is the way the majority of people I know would prefer it as well. We would much rather know who is bigoted and not give them our money that have them smile and offer us their goods and services because they are legally bound to do so.

It's nicely summed up by Janet Jackson's song from the 80s: "What Have You Done for me <or to me?> Lately?" We generally feel that way toward the white world. I don't care if you hate me. I've known many, many white people will hate me since I was 3 and a boy rode up on his tricycle and called me "nigger"; I've known that since I desegregated PS 135 in second grade through bussing and some white kids wouldn't sit next to me; I knew it when I arrived in junior high and the school yard hand ball court had painted on it in 10 foot tall letters, "niggers go home," and the principal did nothing to remove it for months. It's no biggie. The way I "cope" with it, is I don't care. They are not going to change. As noiretextatique put it, it is not my job to educate racist white people or change their hearts -- although I reserve the right to call them out and school them if I feel like it. But is my paycheck the same as the white guy's? Did I lose a job because of discrimination? Those are the only sorts of things that count.

To compair our experiences with a song, here are the lyrics to Pet Shop Boys 'Red Letter Day':

"All I want is what you want
I'm always waiting for a red letter day
For something special, somehow new
Someone saying "I love you"
Baby, I'm waiting for that red letter day

You can sneer or disappear
Behind a veneer of self-control

But for all of those who don't fit in
Who follow their instincts and are told they sin
This is a prayer for a different way

All I want is what you want
I'm always waiting for a red letter day..."

Ultimately we all want the same thing, to be given the same opportunities in life. To be treated by our government as equals. To have life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Going to school I was harassed a lot. There is one kid who hit me in the arm several times every day of high school while calling me every anti-gay epithet you could imagine. My parents saved up a lot of money to buy me a nice leather jacket when I was 13 (I begged them for it). I only wore it once because someone at school took a pen and wrote "fag" on the back of it. Its not like I could tell my parents what happend to the jacket either because then I would have to have a discussion about being gay. Its was easier to hide the jacket in the closet and never think about it again. My car in college had "fag" scraped in it. I could go on and on but Im sure you get the picture. But how one is treated by their fellow human beings is part of how we see ourselves and ultimately how we view and live our life. I agree that there are levels of importance and not all are equal in standing, but I believe this is up to each individual. As a movement we can say our goals are marriage equality, EDNA etc but Im sure there are people out there that would gladly trade one or several for another issue.

All of our experiences form our identity and when we start to evaluate how we act and feel its like peeling a bannan tree, you take one leaf off and underneath there is another lead until ultimately there is nothing. But you cant just take all leaves off at once, you have to tackle each part on its own.

This may be were one of the experiences differ. When your a closeted scared kid you have no were to turn. You can choose to not care but eventually by burying your feelings and experience they will surface and have to be dealt with eventually. I imagine as a kid you had family and community that you turned to in order to get to the point were you could brush it off - but for most gay people born before the 80's this was/is not the case.

Notice that we use different words for the forms of discrimination we face. African Americans use the term "racism." GLBT people use the word, "homophobia." Racism refers to a system of discrimination and points primarily to material, economic and political impacts. Homophobia literally is fear (and hatred) of GLBT people.

Thats a very simplified and incomplete definition of homophobia. According to Miriam-Webster Homophobia is defined as "irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals." The term has only been in the dictionary since 1969 and has been used in different ways. However it would be an incomplete description to leave off the resulting acts of discrimination based on the fear and or aversion. The main differences I see between racism and homophobia are that they are based on two different aspects of a person - they both lead to pain and suffering on both an individual level and a societal level.

Prop 8 and the marriage debate, although tragic, has had a positive effect imo on the GLBT community because it has focused attention on the aspects of your situation that more more like racism (marriage benefits) as compared to the fear and hatred aspects; the attempt to overcome fear and hatred, and worrying about it, is often a waste of time and mental and spiritual energy.

On the other hand -- and here I have to point out how different our situations are so please don't take offense -- GLBT people by the nature of their demographic situation have to focus a bit more on acceptance and overcoming fear and hatred than we did or do.

Let me explain by reference to a perennial GLBT issue here in New York City -- the St. Patrick's Day Parade. For many years, the Irish American GLBT community asked to march in the St. Pat's parade. The parade organizers being overwhelming Catholic and the parade being partly sponsored (?) by the arch diocese refused, because homosexuality is against Catholic doctrine. This led to many rather rude and intentionally disrespectful non-violent actions by Irish GLBT groups against the Catholic Church, especially against St. Patrick's Cathedral. For some time, I wondered about the purpose of this seemingly useless struggle. If someone doesn't want you in their parade, why bother trying to get into it? If the Church forbids homosexual sex -- not to mention lots of very appealing forms of heterosexual sex -- why try to get them to accept it? It seemed like trying to force a Jewish or Muslim parade to accept a contingent from the pork processors council. It's religion.

In retrospect, I was looking at it from an African American perspective. It would never occur to black New Yorkers to insist on being "accepted" into the St. Pattie's parade. We're not Irish. You have yours and we have ours.

The point the Irish GLBT community was making though is that GLBT people are in every community. That's why it was important for them to march in the Irish American parade -- to show that there are just as many GLBT Irish as GLBT people in every other community. They are your Irish relatives, friends and neighbors, and even priests, no matter what the Catholic Church says.

There are not African Americans in the Irish American community and visa versa. That's how our situations are different. One of your burdens is that you have to, in a sense, integrate every institution because your point is that you are already in every institution in a closeted way. We are not in every institution and don't want to be. No African American group for example would ever consider protesting the Mormon Church because it has racist views. It's not our issue. We don't want to change the views of southern white racist Baptists for example.

I see what your saying here and agree and disagree with parts of it. Its true that since sexual orientation is a part of every group of people we that are part of the minority must strive for inclusion, not approval, in our own groups - however most GLBT persons I know do not want to be part of a private group that would rather not have them. For example no GLBT group that I am aware of is fighting to make Churches marry them, higher them etc.

This is one area were the differences between the gay community and the black community could not be bigger. While the black church has been a bedrock of support, comfort and community. Church in the African American community holds a special sacred place (in general of cource). Churches historically and in general have been the complete opposite towards its GLBT membership and GLBT persons in society. Growing up gay until very recently ment the Church was one of the first places you would learn gays were dirty, perverted, going to hell, destined to be a pedophile etc, often at a very young age. Many of these ex-gay programs ran by these churches used such barbaric practices as electro-shock therapy and aversion therapy in order to try and change them. Because of this history many many gays and lesbians hold very little respect or regard for organized religion. I do find it amazing that despite this fact nearly 70% of GLBT persons self report being devoted Christians. We have retained our faith as a spirituality many times separate of any organization or changed faiths all together. There are gay Churches (MCC) and gay friendly churches - but they dont have anywhere near the support the Churches in the African American community have (and I dont think they ever will).

The gay community at some point will have to approach some of the Churches differently if they want to get support from them. There is a gay group out of the MCC doing this called Soul Force (http://www.soulforce.org/).

I was raised LDS (Mormon) and African Americans have in the past protested the Mormon Church and even sued over their racism. Here are a couple examples:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_people_and_The_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints#Sports_boycotts_of_BYU

Sports boycotts of BYU

African-American athletes protested against LDS policies by boycotting several sporting events with Brigham Young University. In 1968, after the assassination of Martin Luther King, black members of the UTEP track team approached their coach and expressed their desire not to compete against BYU in an upcoming meet. When the coach disregarded the athletes' complaint, the athletes boycotted the meet.<88> In 1969, 14 members of the University of Wyoming football team were removed from the team for planning to protest the policies of the LDS church.<88> In November 1969, Stanford University President Kenneth Pitzer suspended athletic relations with BYU.<89>

Boy Scout leaders

Since the early part of the 20th century, each LDS ward has organized its own Boy Scouting troop. Some LDS troops permitted black youths to join, but an LDS policy required that the troop leader to be the deacon quorum president (a priesthood office held by 12 and 13 year old white church members), thus excluding black children from that role. The NAACP filed a federal lawsuit in 1974 challenging this racist practice, and soon thereafter the LDS church reversed its policy.<90><91> Today, even non-Mormons can be leaders of an LDS Boy Scout troop.

While you or even a majority of African Americans dont want acceptance or to be part of private groups or change their beliefs there are examples of that not being universal. Just like in the gay community you can find examples of both. But from my personal experiences I have not encountered many GLBT folks seeking acceptance, just inclusion. (I know thats my experience and there are certainly example of the opposite and others that would disagree with me). When I speak of acceptance I generally speak of it as an individual not as a group.

That means that our struggle values are fundamentally different. African Americans generally embrace pluralism, while GLBT groups generally focus on complete acceptance and integration. Pluralism means that we are in separate groups by self-identification, by freedom of association, and by culture and community. We accept that others will also have their groups -- even groups like Sons of the Confederacy or the KKK. That's great! I applaud the fact that there is a group called Sons of the Confederacy, because I would like to preserve the right of black college students to have an African American Students' Council. The Sons of the Confederacy or KKK are not my business unless they have done something for or to me lately or are trying to take their values into the public square.

I dont agree here with your assessment of GLBT groups and acceptance. Most want inclusion and could care less about what others think of them on a personal level.

The perspective of pluralism causes us to see many issues differently -- for example the Rick Warren issue. African Americans are much more tolerant of white people who are personally prejudiced so long as they don't engage in structural racism. Reaching out to them on issues of common concern or coalition building is a valid tactic. When I tried to point this out during the recent unpleasantness, GLBT DUers called me everything from a bigot and homophobe to demented, self-hating and retarded. We are also much more forgiving of politicians pandering to the personal prejudice of whites if it benefits us materially. For example, Bill Clinton did lots of things that were much, much worse than Obama's having Rick Warren give a prayer, from the "Sista Soulja moment" to executing a mentally retarded death row inmate while on the campaign trail. With Bill, it was always, wink-wink-nod-nod, we know what you have to do Bubba to get elected, because when you get elected, it will be better for us. (Until Bill and Hillary took it too far during the recent primaries.) Apparently, this kind of kabuki theater in politics is completely unacceptable to the GLBT community.

Heres the problem with with Rick Warren - he is engaged in structural homophobia. Im sorry you got called a homophobe for you stance - its not something I would have done, but I dont agree with your stance, since to me it looks like a double standard (we have a right to be upset about a person who engages in structural racism but you dont have a right to do the same for structural homophobia - if I have miss read your statement let me know). Nor would I judge any community on the actions or opinions of some of its members on an internet discussion board, especially at the hight of a very dark moment in its history.

All of that said, I don’t want you to misunderstand and think I don’t know there are very profound similarities between our situations. I think for example both GLBT people and African Americans (and African Americans more than any other American minority group) suffer from a politics of personal disgust. That is to say, that in addition to all the material political and economic things the majority does or wants to do to us, one of our biggest problems is that racists and homophobes are personally disgusted by our existence. That’s the “acceptance” part. Many homophobes are disgusted by the idea of two men kissing or of anal sex, or women enjoying sex with each other not under the control of a man or for the purpose of reproducing, or people dressing in clothing for the gender other than the one they were assigned at birth. Many racists are disgusted by their beliefs that blacks are dirty, over-sexed, genetically lazy or stupid and want to have sex with their women. It’s that visceral disgust that leads to other forms of discrimination. James Baldwin, who was both African American and gay explored these themes probably more incisively than any other thinker. But if you look at the broad scope of reasons for why we were each discriminated against, most racists in the 40s and 50s were not just thinking about disgust, but about things like, are my negroes going to stay on the plantation and work for a share of the crop? Are they going to join the union and take our jobs? Will they vote me out of office because of all the Jim Crow laws I supported? Sadly these non-disgust “concerns” of racist whites have not changed that much. But because GLBT people are everywhere and in every class, the non-disgust concerns of homophobes are much more limited (jobs, unions, wages), which means your focus on “acceptance” is more important to your progress. You need to get the public used to two men kissing; it was never our goal to get the public used to a black man kissing a white woman. That’s your unique burden and I have no advice for you there.

I agree here. One place the Civil Rights movement is different in this area is that African Americans were granted the rights of marriage by the Supreme Court before people had to get over their personal "disgust" of seeing interracial couples. The problem for the GLBT community it the bigots this time worked it the other way around with Amendments - something they never tried with interracial marriage. I guess that if they had at the time our struggles would be very parallel at this time.

Personal prejudice and personal disgust for us don’t correlate with participation in material, structural racism. For example, I’ll never forget reading a biography of Bram Fischer, one of South Africa’s greatest freedom fighter. He was white, and not only white but an Afrikaner from a rich, well connected family, and a rising lawyer. He joined the struggle in the 40s and became a lawyer for Nelson Mandela. In his biography, his biographer wrote a very sad, touching passage where Fischer lamented that even though his mind had convinced him of the overwhelming rightness of joining the anti-apartheid struggle, he never got over his visceral, physical disgust at touching a black man, for example while shaking hands, that had been instilled in him as a child. How do we compare Bram Fischer to the South African cabinet minister in the last apartheid governments, Dr Gerrit Viljoen, who was in charge of running the monstrous apartheid bureaucracy, as Minister of Constitutional Development/Cooperation and Development (formerly “Native Affairs”), and who right after the first majority rule elections swept the ANC into power, and laws like the Mixed Marriages Act had been abolished, announced that he was divorcing his white wife and marrying his long time black mistress? Obviously, Dr. Viljoen had no problem shaking hands (or other parts) with black people. Same with Strom Thurmond – obviously a racist whose physical disgust only went so far. Or what about George Wallace, who became almost a beloved politician in the black community of Alabama after acknowledging he had been wrong in the 50s and 60s and vigorously adopting affirmative action, and who in fact had never been personally prejudice in the first place (he was a liberal in his first elections, but lost due to his opponent’s racist campaign, and Wallace vowed “never to be out-niggered again”)?

The same is true in the current atmosphere in gay rights for a minority of people. For example my family is LDS and they are fine with my partner and I, they even put us in the same room with one bed when we visit - however many of them will gladly vote against us or on occasion let slip some form of bigotry they still have. Then there is the opposite, take Larry Craig or Ted Haggard. Obviously they have gay sex - so on some level they are not physically repulsed by it - their personal disgust isn't based on sex acts but rather being labeled as gay men and their politics.

So overall, I would like to say, the answer to your question is, don’t worry too about the personal prejudice of the electorate and know that many people are never going to accept you. But that’s how most of us do it, and I’m not sure it applies to your situation, because our situations are fundamentally different.

While our situations are different I dont approach it as being fundamentally so. I think our struggles have much more in common than not. Sure we can find many areas were there are differences when we boil it down were both looking after the same thing. Our different experiences and current situations should strengthen our communities not divide us from the goal of civil equality for all. I firmly believe we have a lot to learn from each other, and it would be a great loss to not draw on each others strengths and history.

Thanks for the oppertunity to discuss this by the way - it was not my intention with starting this thread to go this deep into these issues - its been enlightning for me to have to sit down and really think about how I could communicate what I felt and search and read up on some of it. I hope I did so in a respectful manner - when it comes down to it I honestly beleive we all have much to learn from each other, despite our differences.

[Number23]

31. I love this post

You stated your case so beautifully and articulately. Well done!

I think one thing that some (white) gays need to take into account is that their insistence that the Civil Rights Movement and the gay CRM have "more similarities than differences" is simply not a view shared by large numbers of blacks and other Americans.

The entire world has been full of civil rights struggles. The struggle for civil rights is nothing new. I can have immense respect and admiration for the fight that gays in America are experiencing re: their right to marry and serve in the military without having to be told that it is the same as someone else's struggle. The Black CRM is completely different from the gay CRM. It is really just that simple to so many people that many of us don't even understand what the crux of this debate over the constant need to compare one fight to another is really about. Omega Minimo started the most fabulous thread about this a few months ago. In it, I referenced a quote from a black, gay, civil rights organization that states unequivocally that the fight for gay rights is most certainly a civil rights struggle, but that the struggle for gay rights is different from the struggle for black civil rights. I think that is something that even the most minimally educated people on the planet would agree with.

I have tremendous respect for the women's rights movement too, and yet I see that as different from the black CRM. The fight that our indigenous Americans have had with the federal government since its inception is a civil (and legal) rights issue that I think is MASSIVELY important and far too ignored, and I still see it as different from the black CRM. I am in awe of the fights for Aboriginal rights in Australia, and yet, I see that as different from the black CRM too (even though there are many similarities.) The fight that blacks endured in South Africa is something that I think the entire world can take as inspiration, and yet, I still see compelling differences between their struggle and ours. In my opinion, the black CRM was, is, and always will be a unique exercise in our nation's history. It's really just that simple. There will be similarities between the black CRM and others, no question, but the differences between each CRM as well as the differences between the black CRM and others are too vast to be ignored. And I'm not interested in ignoring those differences anyway; those differences are what makes the HISTORY and impact of each movement unique and important.

Just yesterday, I had a confrontation with imo one of the most combative and uneducated people on this site over a conversation in which a poster made reference to the issue of gay marriage vs. civil unions by telling a gay poster here "yeah boy, massa said that you don't have to pick cotton anymore. You just need to shine shoes over by the all white bathroom." When I responded with a WTF? and asked how in the world this reference had ANYTHING to do with gay marriage, and pointed out that the issues of "slavery," "massa," "picking cotton" etc. had absolutely nothing to do with the issue of gay marriage vs. civil unions, I was called (you guessed it!) a homophobe! What does the use of imagery that has absolutely nothing to do with gay marriage in such a disrespectful, dishonest way achieve? How does alienating people help? And if people think that calling every, single person who objects to this type of behavior a "homophobe" is the way to address the issue, I'd be questioning their wisdom and intelligence big time, 'cause that's going to be a looooooooooong list of people you'll be branding with that label, not that the people being branded will probably give two sh*ts one way or the other anyway.

Anyhoo, thanks for the conversation. I just wanted to highlight this one thing -- that I think that some people may have to just come grips with the fact that many, many people don't see the similarities between the two movements the way many gays obviously do and that that's not necessarily a bad thing, unless you want it to be. I agree with alot of what you wrote, and disagree with alot too. But I respect and appreciate the civil, reasonable manner in which you've presented it. Best of luck to you and I really do hope that you are able to find peace, happiness (and justice) soon.

[HamdenRice]

32. Thanks for the long thoughtful reply!

I'll need some time to digest it and respond.

Also, just wanted to say I remember during the unpleasantness here around election time, you were one of the few who didn't lose his cool and remained fairminded.

[Brewman_Jax]

18. We endure

The racist caste society is what we have to deal with on a regular basis. The uneven media coverage, esp. after Hurricane Katrina (Black people loot, white people find) and Prop 8, being blamed for all of society's ills, including excessive traffic, smog, early hair loss, the mortgage crisis, teenage pregnancy, PMS, bad roads, ED, etc. Quite a list, eh? No more amusing as recent surveys of white people showing that two-thirds of respondants hold at least one negative stereotype about black people, or 6% of respondants think that racism is still a problem in the US. What's sad is that 12% of respondents think that Elvis is still alive and hiding out on a island in the South Pacific.

What to do when the board and party are not being supportive and educating people? As noted above, it is not my job to educate racist white people or change their hearts. Experience and history have shown that the ignorant aren't going to be magically enlightened and we aren't going to hold hands and sing "Kumbaya". All we can do is speak truth to power. One can call out stupid and ignorant people when they're being stupid and ignorant. The signs of segregation came off of America's walls, not off of America's hearts.