Login

Register

Member List

RSS Feed

Amanda | Contact

Auguste | Contact

Jesse | Contact

Pam | Contact

Next entry: It’s crass to mention race, unless you’re holding it against someone Previous entry: This appears like it’s going to be much worse than even the worst cynic would have predicted

Black and gay—and reclaiming ‘civil rights’

As someone who is black and lesbian, it’s tiring and absurd to encounter the argument that the black civil rights movement somehow exclusively owns the ability to use “civil rights.” And the result of that is any challenge to this thinking amounts to stepping on the third rail.

There is no Oppression Olympics that requires a certain level of historic suffering by a group of people to be able to use those words. I refuse to cede them to anyone.

In the Bay State Banner, there is an article by Talia Whyte, “Black gay couples in Mass. mark marriage anniversary,” that shows just how black gays, even prominent ones, have had to deal with the issue of being rendered invisible—but how marriage equality in the state has begun to crack through the wall of homophobia within the black community there.

Cambridge Mayor E. Denise Simmons celebrated the occasion at City Hall as the city was the first to issue same-sex marriage. Simmons is the first out black lesbian in the country to serve as mayor, following in the trailblazing footsteps of Kenneth E. Reeves, was the first openly gay black man to become mayor.

Over the last five years, the mayor said, she has noticed that some in the black community have come around to accepting gay marriage, possibly because they realize married gay couples are no different from married straight couples.

Marriage is a marriage is a marriage,” Simmons said. “Once we start to think that way, some of those barriers that keep us from thinking inclusively will erode.”

...Like Simmons, Reeves said he has also seen attitudes toward marriage equality change for the positive in the local black community. But, he added, the community still needs to be more honest with itself about homosexuality.

There are gay people in the black community, but the community pretends we don’t exist,” he said. “We have to have a new conversation about this.”

Well, the reason we are rendered invisible is that too many in the black community don’t want to intellectually deal with our existence and the homophobia fomented within the culture, particularly large elements of the religious black community.  It’s something that I experienced that quite publicly a couple of months ago when I lobbied the chair of the NC legislative black caucus, Rep. Alma Adams (D-Guilford), who actually votes with us on the issues, but refused to offer to engage her caucus colleagues who support a marriage amendment:

With several black LGBTs standing right there in front of her, Rep. Adams actually said “your issues are not the black caucus’s issues”—as in social justice for black LGBTs is not their issue.

Obviously, it’s not as if they don’t know we are there, but that we present an obstacle to a reality-based conversation about equality, and the fact that an oppressed minority group is advocating oppression (or allowing for it to fester by not engaging the issue). Thus the bluster over the use of “civil rights” in the LGBT equality struggle.

Dr. Sylvia Rhue, Director of Religious Affairs at the National Black Justice Coalition, has written a guest post for the Blend that needs to be saved and circulated.

More below the fold.
Dr. Rhue:

“King Would Stand with Us”
Civil Rights Belong to All People

by Sylvia Rhue, Ph.D

Recently I spent an hour talking to Rev. Eric Lee, the President and CEO of the Los Angeles Southern Christian Leadership Conference. I told him how I met Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. in 1964, my friends and I going door to door to raise money for the cause, how we saw Dr. King every time he came to Los Angeles. We talked about how the organizers of the King Day Parade in Atlanta invited Keith Boykin (one of the founders of the National Black Justice Coalition) and I to walk at the front of the March to represent LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender) people. I had just been interviewed for an article on Black clergy responses to equal marriage rights for same-sex couples and I was asked how I felt about Black clergy who work against LGBT rights. I told the journalist that if he had been around in the 60’s during the Civil Rights Movement he would know that many, many Black ministers didn’t sign on to the Civil Rights Movement. In fact Dr. King was kicked out of the National Baptist Convention for his civil rights actions.

My conversation with Rev. Eric Lee was so important to me because Rev. Lee is a champion of universal rights for all people and he puts his heart, passion for justice, and credentials out there for LGBT people in a consistently dynamic way. He was front and center in the battle against Proposition 8 and he wrote a book entitled, “Prop 8 and the California Divide”, and is about to embark on a book tour. Rev. Lee said, “I cannot side with religious persecution and the injustice of discrimination. It amazes me how quickly we side with the former oppressors to oppress others. It is a violation to deny someone the same rights that you have. Scripture does not call people of God to pass laws to judge or condemn.  People quote John 3:16, but they forget John 3:17 “‘For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved’”. (KJV)

Rev. Lee spoke recently with the man Rev. Jesse Jackson called “the teacher of the Civil Rights Movement”.  Dr. King called him “the leading theorist and strategist of nonviolence in the world”. We know him as Rev. James Lawson, the lionized and profoundly respected Civil Rights leader who taught nonviolent direct action to the Freedom Riders, the student sit-ins and the Southern Campaigns.  Rev. Lawson, a United Methodist minister, told Rev. Lee that King would stand with us if he were here. Yes, Dr. King would stand with us for LGBT rights.

In other words, there is no ownership of “civil rights.” One can acknowledge the struggles are different, but the commonality is the need to eliminate discrimination under the law. It doesn’t have anything to do with the bible, those words don’t pass judgment upon one struggle over another.

In fact, Dr. King built his movement based on the teachings of Gandhi—so who’s hijacking what—and more importantly, why does it matter? The argument is ludicrous on its face, yet the appropriation of “civil rights” is allowed to occur. It serves no one to do this—and the reason is quite clear—whites don’t want to have the difficult conversation and chance being labeled racist for bringing it up, blacks who oppose equality for LGBTs toss out the race card to avoid the discussion. Those of us who are in both groups are continually frustrated by the task of having to take this topic on almost always alone.

And the thing is, my blackness clearly doesn’t provide any cover when addressing homophobia either. Just witness the scathing, sad, and quite frankly, ignorant comments in a piece I cross posted at HuffPost. Here’s one of my favorites:

The States should & can handle social issues and are doing so what’s the problem! Some people can just not be happy anymore without confrontation to to sad. I do not believe in gay marriage and do not hate anyone nor do I fear anything—- I Let Go and Let God have the Judgment day not my problem or am I in control of who loves who!.

My response:

You can’t be serious with that statement. If we left matters of civil rights to the states, Jim Crow would still be in effect, Obama’s parents would not have been able to marry, and poll taxes would still exist. How soon we forget.

That’s the level of ignorance I’m talking about; others made the quite accurate point that the LGBT community rarely gets behind social justice issues of concern to minorities. Honestly, this card can be played legitimately - because it’s true.

I mean how elementary is it that if you want support from a community that you actually have to communicate with them to get your point across and win hearts and minds over. And that was one of the failures of Prop 8. And people have admitted as much, as efforts to get it overturned begin to gain support for another ballot initiative.

Organizers hope to reach Latinos, faith communities and African Americans, constituencies into which they previously failed to make in-roads. Their approach aims to blend slain San Francisco Supervisor Harvey Milk’s put-a-human-face-on-the-issue activism with Barack Obama’s neighbor-to-neighbor organizing.

What a lack of cross-community dialogue means for out minority LGBTs is that one has to be willing to put yourself out there to be attacked, over and over for addressing homophobia in communities of color knowing that few, if any, non-POC LGBTs are going to come forward to have your back. I see it time and again, with the excuses ranging from “I’ll be called a racist” or “it doesn’t feel safe to do this” or “it isn’t my place to do it.” And many of these excuses are from people who have the anonymity of the Internet to protect them. Now that’s bad.

Well, I’m here to tell you that it doesn’t feel great to have your “black card” revoked any more than it feels to be called racist. Plus, I don’t have the cover of anonymity. Of course that’s my choice, but the work is so important; I hate to see the rancor and misunderstandings go on and on with the parties talking past one another.

The sad thing is that so few black LGBTs are willing to live out, be out and challenge misguided assumptions that it makes it doubly difficult for those of color who do want to challenge the homophobia.

The thing is that are plenty of allies and leaders from the black community who do support full civil rights for LGBTs who can be cited when dealing with this issue - John Lewis, Julian Bond, Leonard Pitts, Al Sharpton, Gov. Deval Patrick, Gov. David Paterson, to name a few. Members of black community who consistently oppose LGBT rights conveniently choose to ignore these leaders—they have to be called out on it.

Dr. Rhue:

Coretta King stood with us because she knew that the sustaining of the Beloved Community meant that lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people must be included.

We who work for full LGBT rights stand as heirs of the Civil Rights Movement because it is based on justice, equality, fair play, equal rights and profoundly deep spiritual roots that plumb the depths of the Golden Rule.  Those of us whose characters were forged in the fires of the Civil Rights Movement continue the fight of. We understand the words of James Baldwin, a Black gay man, who knew all of us were “snatching our humanity from the fires of human cruelty”. 

I stood with King in the 60’s and he would stand with us now because challenging homophobia is a part of the unfinished business of Civil Rights Movement.

Those work so feverishly against LGBT rights are on the wrong side of justice, the wrong side of history, the wrong side of love, and the wrong end of the ever-bending moral arc of the universe.

Those who stand for LGBT equality understand the importance of our work when we hear the words of Dr. King: “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere”.

To paraphrase Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr: If we are wrong, then the Supreme Court of this nation is wrong. If we are wrong the Constitution of the United States is wrong. If we are wrong the Declaration of Independence is wrong. If we are wrong, Jesus of Nazareth was merely a Utopian dreamer and never came to earth. If we are wrong justice is a lie. And we are determined here and now to work and fight until justice runs down like water and righteousness like a mighty stream.

We all need to step up and reclaim “civil rights.” Will it mean you take heat to do so? Yes. But it is telling if people choose not to.

Related:
* Want to see a Grade A homobigot? Meet Firpo W. Carr.

------

Registration is now required! We're still in the process of getting it all squared away, so for the moment don't forget to Login or Register using the links in the upper left menu before starting to write your comment.

Posted by Pam Spaulding on 09:34 AM • (38) Comments

One of my readers noted: “Batten down the hatches, Pam cause you know what happens when we talk about race and sexual orientation...”

Comment #1: Pam Spaulding  on  05/27  at  09:45 AM

I have no problem with POC who are same gender loving use civil right imagery or language to talk about homophobia but when white people do it you are damn right I have a problem with it.  For them it is not the same and it is not their history to appropriate. How dare they talk about Jim Crow with white privilege still firmly attached to their skin.  Not on my watch they won’t.  A black lesbian or gay person has the requisite experience with racism to make the appropriate comparisons and a white person does not.  I furthermore point out that when white people appropriate our history it smacks of look how bad we have it they are treating us like the blacks.  So they can take their gay is the new black and get the hell away from me.

I also feel it is important to note <a href=‘http://www.womanist-musings.com/2008/12/black-caucaus-on-gay-rights.html”>that not all of the Black caucus has been unsympathetic to the gay rights</a> movement.  I feel it is highly important to encourage and promote the supporters.  I am sick of blacks being painted as uniquely homophobic as though there aren’

Comment #2: womanistmusings  on  05/27  at  10:48 AM

Sortry the link for the black caucus speaking in favour of gay rights is here.

Comment #3: womanistmusings  on  05/27  at  10:49 AM

Black people aren’t exactly the only people that can’t see that if someone else can be screwed out of their basic rights, then you can be. It’s practically the human condition.

My wife and I got married by a (very tall, it was like having Death at our wedding and like Swedish Death, not Neil Gaiman Death) judge. As an atheist and an agnostic, we’re no more married in the eyes of the religious right than gays or lesbians. We can see that they’d discriminate against us, if they could get away with it.

Maybe the path forward is for a prominent black gay man to come out, sexism being what it is. A pro athlete would certainly do nicely. I don’t guess that person would much enjoy being the face of civil rights, but I think it would help. People would get used to rooting for a gay football player, like white racists got used to rooting for black players in the bad old days. And while we’re pie-in-the-skying, make it an offensive tackle, so the Marshall Faulks of the world would be afraid to say anything to his face. Plus, offensive linemen don’t get enough press in general.

There are presumably a few gay dudes who are very good NFL players. There’s been rumors going around sports sites recently about Braylon Edwards of the Browns, but the evidence for this seemed to be a photo of him dancing in club within in several feet of another guy. There was a woman in the picture, too, so I don’t think even the most twitchy ‘leave a seat between us in the movies’ homophobes are persuaded by that “evidence.”

Comment #4: witless chum  on  05/27  at  11:04 AM

Brave post.

Comment #5: Elphie  on  05/27  at  11:47 AM

I thought that maybe if someone with a high enough profile like Queen Latifah came out, that would change peoples minds. But why should she (or anyone else) have to sacrifice their private life to end discrimination? There has to be a way for equal rights to be achieved AND the right to privacy stay protected.

I propose adopting the zero tolerance policy currently in place in my home. You will not use homophobic language in my presence without being lectured about bigotry and intolerance and how what other folks are doing is none of your #@$% business. I have noticed that when straight people stand up for gay rights, other straight people take more notice than they do of gay pride demonstrations. Discrimination really only ends when the folks who benefit from the discriminatory policy end it. Straight people have an unprecedented opportunity to do this quietly. There needn’t be huge demonstrations, fire hoses and all of the violence involved in the Civil Rights Movement. We can simply urge everyone we know (or don’t know as is the case with our legislators) to support gay rights in the hope that we as Americans can finally, finally make a change peaceably. Overwhelming support of equality for all must be achieved so that everyone can marry the person of their choice.

Comment #6: DC Fem  on  05/27  at  11:48 AM

For them it is not the same and it is not their history to appropriate.

And here I thought Joe Hill was Swedish.

I believe part of Pam’s point is that civil rights did not begin and end with the Civil Rights Movement of the 60s and that all civil rights movements have built upon those that came before. Asa Randolph sure as shittin’ didn’t hesitate to borrow philosophy and tactics from the Labor Movement, the Suffrage Movement and the Indian rebellion against the British Raj.

I, for one, consider both Joe Hill and Dr. King to have been martyred for the same cause. Civil Rights. For everyone. Everywhere.

Comment #7: Sarcastro  on  05/27  at  11:52 AM

“Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand”.

Matthew 12:25

Comment #8: Magis  on  05/27  at  12:03 PM

Obviously, it’s not as if they don’t know we are there, but that we present an obstacle to a reality-based conversation about equality, and the fact that an oppressed minority group is advocating oppression

Are you sure that “reality-based” is the right word to use there? Maybe it’s what the sweep-it-under-the-rug folks would like to think of as reality-based.

Comment #9: paul  on  05/27  at  12:08 PM

I thought that maybe if someone with a high enough profile like Queen Latifah came out, that would change peoples minds. But why should she (or anyone else) have to sacrifice their private life to end discrimination? There has to be a way for equal rights to be achieved AND the right to privacy stay protected.

I think Queen Latifah has much less to sacrifice than I do, since I live in a state where my marriage is not recognized by the state, there are no anti-discrimination laws on the books (thus my wife, who works for the state, can be fired for being out). We don’t have state hate crimes laws on the books.

Yet that doesn’t stop me from speaking out, and speaking the truth that the closet is killing us. That’s the choice I’ve made. Too many with less to lose remain silent—out comes the tiny violin for them.

For example, if Queen Latifah (or any major black figure rumored to be gay) were to remain closeted and actually take on homophobia in the black community in a big way, that would be helpful. The sad truth is that closet too often keeps people in these instances from feeling free to speak out forcefully—even as an “ally”—lest it draw attention to their own orientation. I seriously doubt she or others would suffer professionally as an outspoken ally or as an out lesbian.

Comment #10: Pam Spaulding  on  05/27  at  12:21 PM

Rep. Adams actually said ”your issues are not the black caucus’s issues”

Does Rep. Adams really believe that bigoted Know-Nothings (white contingent) who are now trying to subtract the rights of law-abiding GLBT citizens would stop there? Especially considering that the bigots regularly use the same bogus “states have the right to discriminate” argument historically used against the African-American civil rights movement.

The fight against these bigots, whatever group is their target, is every liberal’s fight.

Comment #11: Gracchus.  on  05/27  at  12:44 PM

Pam, I definitely hear what you’re saying and agree with you for the most part. Wanda Sykes lost nothing by coming out, but hers wasn’t a household name until the Correspondents Dinner. I think things might be a little different for someone with a higher profile.

Obviously, the benefits of living your life freely outweigh the psychological suffering of the closet, but maybe it’s just my neighborhood where an out black person would lose fans. The rumors about Luther Vandross’ sexual orientation were enough to get some ignorant folks to stop buying his cds. Luther lived and died in the closet, and pitiful as that was I can’t say that I blame him. And I am loathe to out anybody (except Republicans who vote against gay rights) even if I think it will help others see the error of their ways and support equal rights.

Comment #12: DC Fem  on  05/27  at  01:02 PM

I hear you, DC Fem, but the closet is killing the black community— the very fans buying the records and going to see the films of these closeted individuals.

And it’s not about outing these black figures—as I said, they could represent equality as an ally, but too many don’t even want to do that. And quite frankly, the notion that any of them, including Luther Vandross was fully closeted is silly—people in his life knew. We’re talking professionally closeted people; most have social networks where they are out, and not tortured (a la Ted Haggard) about their orientation. The closet is about protecting $$$.

Comment #13: Pam Spaulding  on  05/27  at  01:15 PM

womanistmusings:

Okay, yes, I’m white, male, and mostly-straight. And I think your point is horseshit. The Civil Rights Movement could never have worked if King et al. hadn’t been able to get people from the privileged class (like, say, Lyndon Johnson) to sympathize and assist, and it’s part of the political DNA of every modern American progressive. Blacks who are offended by the appropriation of the Civil Rights Movement as part of fighting for gay rights should be shamed; they’re like the child of immigrants who believes that the door should have been shut right after their parents came over.

The upshot is this: just because I don’t share your ancestry or experiences doesn’t mean I don’t have the right to call you (or anti-LGBT blacks) out for sounding like a jackass. I do have the ensuing obligation to defend my opinion, but that comes with any political position.

Comment #14: BrianX  on  05/27  at  01:34 PM

The Civil Rights Movement could never have worked if King et al. hadn’t been able to get people from the privileged class (like, say, Lyndon Johnson) to sympathize and assist, and it’s part of the political DNA of every modern American progressive.

Indeed. There’s a reason why Andrew Goodman and James Schwerner joined James Chaney during “Freedom Summer”—the memory of what had happened to Germany’s Jews after their rights had been taken away a few decades earlier was still very fresh, and Schwerner had stated that it was a motivating factor for getting involved in the Civil Rights Movement.

The lessons of history belong to all of us, and all of us have the right (if not the obligation) to cite them—regardless of our own racial/sexual/religious/ethnic identity.

Comment #15: Gracchus.  on  05/27  at  01:59 PM

Pam – I don’t want this to come off as a “please teach me” or 101-type question, but if it does, by all means just ignore.  I am a white woman active in the LGBT activist community – like a lot of the women here – and I think like a lot of others, I do want to be part of the solution.  While wanting to help with this:
“…addressing homophobia in communities of color knowing that few, if any, non-POC LGBTs are going to come forward to have your back”
it’s extremely difficult to reconcile that with this: “How dare they talk about Jim Crow with white privilege still firmly attached to their skin.” 

There is an element of what you describe: “I’ll be called a racist” or “it doesn’t feel safe to do this” or “it isn’t my place to do it.”  There is also the fear that little blonde girl going into a community of POC and talking about civil rights and quoting Dr. King or other black leaders would be not only offensive but also counter-productive. 

Both 1) the need for non-POC LGBT to support and work with POC LGBT within Latin@ and African American communities so that queer people of color do not have to bear the entire burden, and 2) the deep offense POC rightfully take with the appropriation of their history need to find some reconciliation within the white LGBT community in order for the different groups to be true allies to each other.  I’m just not sure what actions and words can get that ball rolling.

Comment #16: roro80  on  05/27  at  02:08 PM

“But why should she (or anyone else) have to sacrifice their private life to end discrimination?”

Arguably, it’s not her private life. Heterosexuals get married all the time and there’s nothing private about that.  Relationships are not private.  When’s the last time a heterosexual dated or married somebody and considered that too private to tell anybody?  Dating relationships are public—you go out to dinner, to the movies, to public events, to family events, etc.  And marriage relationships are fully public in every sense of the word, you have to get a license and everything.  And, if kids are involved, relationships are even more public, requiring release of information on birth certificates, to schools, to hospitals, in wills, etc.

By relegating gays’ and lesbians’ relationships to the private sphere, even rhetorically, you are relegating us to second-class status, i.e. our relationships are not suitable for public consumption and not suitable for the public recognition automatically given to heterosexual relationships and required for heterosexual marriages and child bearing and rearing.

Also, this rhetorical move reinforces the discriminatory stereotype that being gay or lesbian is really just about sex and which genitals and other body parts meet and which don’t.  Sex is (generally) private, relationships are not.  We have just as much right to have public relationships as anybody else regardless of what happens in the actual private parts of our lives.

So, no, Queen Latifah’s relationship is not “private”, it’s selectively public for reasons of discrimination and career loss (I presume).  That’s a big difference, IMO.

Comment #17: Elphie  on  05/27  at  02:14 PM

What Elphie just said. !!!!

On a related but tangential note, it’s why I object to the term “lover” to describe a relationship partner. It’s demeaning to reduce an entire relationship to one particular function. Also inaccurate.

My wife and I watched The Secret Life of Bees. At some point she looked at me and said, Hey, we couldn’t have been together in those days on two counts! Now we’re down to one.

Comment #18: madinscriber  on  05/27  at  03:36 PM

The point isn’t relegating anyone to being a second class citizen. The point is that a gay person in public life should be able to be private just like Beyonce and Jay-Z. They never talk about their relationship or release photos from their wedding or other private family events. Going out in public does expose people to a certain level of scrutiny and there shouldn’t be double standards for gay and lesbian couples who are seen together in a public space. BUT those couples have the right to not put their business in the street if they want to. Every couple is not itching to be Jon and Kate, some people want their private lives to remain their own business and I respect that.

Comment #19: DC Fem  on  05/27  at  04:34 PM

those couples have the right to not put their business in the street if they want to.

No one is asking them to put their relationship on display, I’m asking them to support LGBT equality vocally. It doesn’t require them to step out of the closet, though it would be preferred.

Comment #20: Pam Spaulding  on  05/27  at  04:56 PM

“The point is that a gay person in public life should be able to be private just like Beyonce and Jay-Z.”

The point is, we all know that Beyonce and Jay-Z are married, have wedding photos, have a relationship, have a family, have private family events.  It’s just what’s generally known about all heterosexual couples.  The same cannot be said of Queen Latifah.

Your point, such as it is, is off point.  You’re equating being closeted with being private.  They are not the same.  I get that you’re a well meaning straight person.  I appreciate that.  In this circumstance, being well meaning means that you stop arguing this nonsensical “point” and listen to people with experience in this area and a life at stake.  And, if you can’t get it now, at least shut up about it and re-visit it at a later date with, hopefully, more understanding.

Because right now all you’re arguing for is the right of gay people to stay in the closet.  We left that “right” behind over 30 years ago at the urging of Harvey Milk and others.

And I disagree wholeheartedly with Pam:  supporting gay rights DOES require Queen Latifah, and Jodie Foster, and everybody else to step out of the closet.  Because what we are after, more than anything, is the right to a public life as gay people.  That is the overarching theory of gay rights, the right to employment, marriage, kids, health care; in short all the requirements, accoutrements, and privileges of a public life as who we are.  We cannot get that from the closet.  Period.  Just like accepting Jim Crow is antithetical to Civil Rights for African Americans, accepting the closet is antithetical to Civil Rights for gays and lesbians.

Comment #21: Elphie  on  05/27  at  05:07 PM

Thanks for that Pam. I hope Jasmyne Cannick (purveyor of contrarian nonsense) read that.

Comment #22: pablo  on  05/27  at  05:37 PM

Let’s keep it really real:

marriage equality in the state has begun to crack through the wall of homophobia within the black community

Ain’t gonna happen.

Comment #23: Uhura, The Black Gurl  on  05/27  at  06:04 PM

Most people do not naturally employ the use of empathy in social situations.

Black people aren’t exactly the only people that can’t see that if someone else can be screwed out of their basic rights, then you can be. It’s practically the human condition.

When viewing an attack, people don’t think:

I’ll help you fend of the bully or I’ll help you fight for your rights because what’s happening to you happened to me (or what is happening to you could happen to me.)

What goes through most people’s minds is

Meh… It ain’t me. Who cares?

If I butt in, I’ll be next

Heroes are heroes because they are selfless. Selflessness is unique.

People here are saying Why can’t Black people em-pa-thize with gays and see the gay plight is so similar to the race plight?

Think about it.

Why didn’t White women who were married to slave owners do more to prevent Black women and girls from being raped?

Comment #24: Uhura, The Black Gurl  on  05/27  at  06:11 PM

“Why didn’t White women who were married to slave owners do more to prevent Black women and girls from being raped?”

Maybe because your question seriously overstates white women’s power in that situation.  Married women were indisputably property at that time which everything from the “rule of thumb” to marriage property laws to the legal fact that women couldn’t be raped in marriage to voting laws to coverture attests to.

Comment #25: Elphie  on  05/27  at  06:37 PM

Uhura, look up Mary Chestnut and get back to us, pls

Dark Avenger, the Chinese/Texan/Scottish boy.

Comment #26: Dark Avenger Guardian Chow Mein  on  05/27  at  06:46 PM

Mary Chesnut.

Comment #27: Elphie  on  05/27  at  07:03 PM

I sit corrected.

Comment #28: Dark Avenger Guardian Chow Mein  on  05/27  at  10:54 PM

Uhura, i really take offense to that.
most people DO think “if it can happen to you, it can happen to me”
empathy is a human trait.

just like refraining from rape, empathizing with a person IS NOT HEROIC.

but the attitude you are showing? it give thousands of people a reason to be cowardly. and there is a distinct difference between those two thoughts. being nice to a person, empathizing with them, is *only* heroic if horrible things will happen to you for doing so. being cowardly and not doing anything is common and takes no outside force.

Comment #29: denelian  on  05/28  at  04:59 AM

Uhura, i really take offense to that.

Good.

It is offensive and disgusting.

most people DO think “if it can happen to you, it can happen to me”
empathy is a human trait.

When it comes to power struggles and the possibility of an individual maintaining their own safety & security or advancing their own self-interests, people will shut it off. Sadly…with enough practice, they wont even need to shit it off because it will no longer come on.

Here’s a related phenomenon: VICTIM BLAMING

Example: People often try to determine what a victim of a crime such as rape, robbery, etc did to bring it upon themselves.

More detailed example: You would think that women would be the ultimate empathizers with rape victims right? Think again. Some women actually think If I don’t do what she did / wear what she wore / drank what she drank / go out with the types of friends she does it wont happen to me. It gives some women peace of mind to think they have some control over whether this horrible and random thing happens to them or not.

just like refraining from rape, empathizing with a person IS NOT HEROIC.

Refraining from rape (or any other crime / attack on someone else), is far different than seeing someone being raped or otherwise attacked and actively stepping in & doing something to try & stop it. (Recall the tale about that asshole toll booth operator who remained safely inside his glass box while a woman was being raped in front of him? Yeah he called the police - but he stayed INSIDE the box.)

Let’s look at something else: Bullying in the workplace or at school. Why do bullies get away with what they’re doing? Everyone knows it’s wrong, yet the “group” never rises up to stop the bully from attacking that one unfortunate person. WHY?

The folks who make the leap from observer to “rescuer” are certainly rare and definitely heroes.

but the attitude you are showing?

Stop right there.

I have not SHOWN any “attitude”. I DESCRIBED an attitude. And one that disgusts me at that.

What irritates me about some of the people here is that they seem to be unable to read and differentiate when someone is offering their own feelings / opinions about something from when they are describing how some people feel / act about something.

it give thousands of people a reason to be cowardly. and there is a distinct difference between those two thoughts. being nice to a person, empathizing with them, is *only* heroic if horrible things will happen to you for doing so. being cowardly and not doing anything is common and takes no outside force.

I don’t even know what the hell you wrote here.

Comment #30: Uhura, The Black Gurl  on  05/28  at  10:07 AM

I have to second BrianX’s calling bullshit on womanistmusings’ comment.

womanistmusings, how does pointing out that discrimination against LGBTs for being lesbian, gay, bisexual or transexual is just as wrong as discrimination against POCs for being people of color become wrong when it’s somebody white doing it?

Also, did you really mean all white people, or just heterosexual ones? Because if you meant the former, then you just tossed a lot of LGBTs under the bus - possibly even under the back of it.

Comment #31: Prodigal  on  05/28  at  01:46 PM

I think that there are useful comparisons that can be drawn between the civil rights movement for racial equality in the US and the GLBTQI rights movement in the US.

On the other hand, one sometimes hears inappropriate comparisons (like wealthy white, English-speaking cisgendered male suburbanites at a police-protected demonstration with no appreciable opposition likening themselves to Rosa Parks, as though the action they were taking was similarly life-threatening).

There’s a big difference, in my opinion, between appropriate comparisons, inspiration, and connections (Mildred Loving’s participation in same-sex marriage equality initiatives is a powerful connection, for instance) and appropriation.

Why didn’t White women who were married to slave owners do more to prevent Black women and girls from being raped?

That seems to me to be an ahistorical question.  What do you think they could have done? 

Leaving out what you think they should have done, what agency do you think they could have exercised other than moral persuasion? Wives were also property, legally speaking, in most of the slave-owning states; they could be legally beaten, raped, and killed, and if they ran away from their husbands they would be returned to them by force. 

Obviously a lot of those white wives of slave-owners were racists themselves.  But those who weren’t didn’t have any power, other than persuasion, to protect anyone else from rape by their husbands any more than they had the power to protect themselves or their own children from rape by their husbands.  Chattel slavery was a construct of the patriarchy, and very few white women in the 19th century had any power to change or mitigate anything about slavery or the conditions of life for enslaved people, or about any other facet of life in the patriarchy.

Comment #32: JupiterPluvius  on  05/29  at  05:09 PM

I think that there are useful comparisons that can be drawn between the civil rights movement for racial equality in the US and the GLBTQI rights movement in the US.

What you think & $5.67 can get you a iced mocha latte

Obviously a lot of those white wives of slave-owners were racists themselves.  But those who weren’t didn’t have any power, other than persuasion, to protect anyone else from rape by their husbands any more than they had the power to protect themselves or their own children from rape by their husbands.  Chattel slavery was a construct of the patriarchy, and very few white women in the 19th century had any power to change or mitigate anything about slavery or the conditions of life for enslaved people, or about any other facet of life in the patriarchy.

blah blah blah

The UNWASHED Truth: Blacks will not be your ally in the fight for gay rights, particularly - marriage equality. Accept it & move on.

Comment #33: Uhura, The Black Gurl  on  05/29  at  08:06 PM

Blacks will not be your ally in the fight for gay rights, particularly - marriage equality.

Aside from your ‘expertise’ with Blacks, what facts and/or reasoning to you have to support your thesis, Ms. Uruha MBA?

You’re not the dumbest person with an MBA I’ve encountered, BTW.  That honor went to a fellow who got his from Stanford many moons ago.

Comment #34: Dark Avenger Guardian Chow Mein  on  05/29  at  11:24 PM

ya know, i have personally, along with most of my friends, stopped “date rapes”. potential ones, anyway. up until i couldn’t drive anymore, i rotated duty with my boyfriend and several other friends; if we saw a very drunk woman being hit on excessively by a guy and it looked like he was trying to take her home, we stepped in, always, and offered her a ride, broke up the conversation at least long enough to find out if she knew and trusted the guy at all, got her phone number so we could call the next day if she did leave with to make sure she was ok.
that may have been work, it wasn’t heroic.
doing the basic, minimal empathic response is not heroic. hence the not-raping metaphor - i hear often from priviledged white dudes about how they noblely sacrificed an orgasm because they didn’t want to be accused of rape because the woman they wanted to fuck wouldn’t *not* claim it was a rape if it was a rape. and they want fucking medal for *not* raping women.

but what i was taking offense to is that you seem to think that because many people, for whatever reason (most of them valid, if shortsighted. like “i can’t get involved the sitter has to leave in ten minutes and my 2 year old will be left alone - sure, s/he could try to get more time from the sitter, but most people have to choose between helping a stranger or helping their loved ones.) don’t get directly personally involved (fear is another big one…) that people in general have no empathy.

most of what you are complaining about are societal expectations - we are almost required to as “what was she wearing?”
whenever i hear that, i always ask back “what drug was he taking that took away all of his will-power and self control?”


i was saying that yes it is easier and safer to take the cowards way and not interfere (and as i said, many of those reasons are valid at least at that time), but just refusing to take the easy way doesn’t make you a hero. if i step between gross womanizer and drunk woman and offer her another option, i have don’t heroic unless he’s got a gun out and threatening to shoot anyone who interferes, or something similiar.

but you are conflating two entirely seperate impulses. the one impulse is to not get involved in something that “isn’t your business”. the second is the impulse “that was horrible, what did she do that led to that so i can avoid it”
most victim blaming that is wignnut led isn’t actually about BLAMING the victim, but finding a reason that it won’t happen to *YOU* because you are empathizing with the victim to the point of fearing the same thing will happen to you, and this you want to learn what she did so you do make the same mistake.

no *all*, no.

but just being nice, helpful, and offering other options? stopping someone taking advantage of someone else? not heroic, or i would have a room full of medals, and so would everyone i know. these are HUMAN acts, not HEROIC acts.

and i still don’t know if i explained it well enough (but my meds are kicking in, so i know i am losing some coherency”

if you would like to discuss this more, it could be good (and possibly fun, i find learning fun) you can email denelian at yahoo dot com

(ps i wasn’t trying to attack *you* at all - i just get really sick of hearing that taking a basic human responsibilty towards others is somehow “heroic”. it isn’t heroic to go to work everyday for most abled people who don’t have children; it isn’t heroic to cut out a frappacinno a day to say up money to buy your parent that really expensive whatever they have wanted for years; it’s not heroic for a dad to take over 25% of childcare - these are things we should be EXPECTING FROM PEOPLE, as a BASELING OF HUMANITY. does tht make sense? if not, really, email and we can talk more. i might have misunderstood you, an i am pretty sure you misunderstood me… this is where lack of facial expessions causes fail smile

Comment #35: denelian  on  05/30  at  06:27 AM

You’re not the dumbest person with an MBA I’ve encountered, BTW.  That honor went to a fellow who got his from Stanford many moons ago.

Resorting to name calling? This means you realize you’ve read the truth and it upsets you.

Aside from your ‘expertise’ with Blacks, what facts and/or reasoning to you have to support your thesis, Ms. Uruha MBA?

I am able to look @ behavior & see a pattern. Don’t need an MBA for that.

I am able to understand that there are two worlds - the world as it should be and the world which actually exists. You can only get the world which actually exists to more closely resemble the world as it should be by understanding the former and figuring out a way to turn things around.

Comment #36: Uhura, The Black Gurl  on  05/30  at  01:21 PM

denelian, you are a hero. Here’s the proof:

ya know, i have personally, along with most of my friends, stopped “date rapes”. potential ones, anyway. up until i couldn’t drive anymore, i rotated duty with my boyfriend and several other friends; if we saw a very drunk woman being hit on excessively by a guy and it looked like he was trying to take her home, we stepped in, always, and offered her a ride, broke up the conversation at least long enough to find out if she knew and trusted the guy at all, got her phone number so we could call the next day if she did leave with to make sure she was ok.

that may have been work, it wasn’t heroic.

just refusing to take the easy way doesn’t make you a hero.

but just being nice, helpful, and offering other options? stopping someone taking advantage of someone else? not heroic, or i would have a room full of medals, and so would everyone i know. these are HUMAN acts, not HEROIC acts.

i just get really sick of hearing that taking a basic human responsibilty towards others is somehow “heroic”. it isn’t heroic to go to work everyday for most abled people who don’t have children; it isn’t heroic to cut out a frappacinno a day to say up money to buy your parent that really expensive whatever they have wanted for years; it’s not heroic for a dad to take over 25% of childcare - these are things we should be EXPECTING FROM PEOPLE, as a BASELING OF HUMANITY.

Comment #37: Uhura, The Black Gurl  on  05/30  at  01:31 PM

Resorting to name calling?

If you want to play the “white folks will never understand how blacks feel about this, I do, neener-neener” game, then expect to be responded to based on the content of your character and intellect as you’ve expressed it here.

Since you flaunt your MBA as if it means something, I merely injected an observation from my personal experience as you have done with your assertions on other matters, and you don’t like the results. 

I am able to look @ behavior & see a pattern.

Then, you should be able to tell is what this ‘behavior’ you’re looking at consists of, and what is ‘the pattern’ that your special gifts that you see that is invisible to folks like me who aren’t black folks.

You can only get the world which actually exists to more closely resemble the world as it should be by understanding the former and figuring out a way to turn things around.

But, you start from the premise that things can’t be turned around, so your argument makes no sense whatsoever.

Comment #38: Dark Avenger Guardian Chow Mein  on  05/30  at  03:45 PM
Page 1 of 1 pages
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.