Monday, February 28, 2011
A Minority's Plea: U.S. Homosexuals Gain in Trying to Persuade Society to Accept Them
Charles Alverson's article was written in 1968, it is an overview of the actions that America's LGBT community had been taking to create equality for themselves. Specifically, Alverson says "Homosexuals in many instances are boldly challenging the right of others to make them second-class citizens. With growing support from heterosexuals, they are fighting discrimination on legal, economic and social fronts" (361). Alverson talks about the Mattachine Society which we read about previously and the actions they took in New York city such as, complaining to the city's Human Rights Commission about discrimination in the work place. They were successful, in 1967 employers stopped asking their employees about their sexuality or sexual preferences. Another action the Mattachine Society took was having a "sit it" at a bar that posted a sign that said "If You're Gay, Stay Away", since there was no law saying bars could not serve homosexuals. Finally this article talks about Mr Wentworth, who worked as an electronics technician at a private research lab. He was accused for committing sexual acts and having sexual relations with another man, and instead of quitting his job he fought the charges. Overall, Alverson's article was an overview of what was going on during the late 1960's for LGBT.
Time's The Homosexual America and A Rebuke for TIME's Pernicious Prejudice
Time's article The Homosexual in America was inaccurate, judgmental, and down right offensive to LGBT people, the author was clearly bias and homophobic. For example, the article states, "Edmund Bergler found certain traits present in all homosexuals, including inner depression and guilt, irrational jealously and a megalomaniac conviction the homosexual trends are universal" (357). In addition the article talks about how homosexuality is caused by the fear of the opposite sex. Finally the article ends with saying how homosexuality is a "pernicious sickness." I mean really? Who published this article? Where did the author get their information from? Fortunately, there was a response to Time's The Homosexual in America.
Kay Tobin writes the Rebuke for Time's Pernicious Prejudice. Tobin says the answer to Time's article was given by Isadore Rubin who said (about the authors of Time's article) "but if this is so, then I am forced to conclude that if they are not ignorant, the editors of this essay are intellectually dishonest, motivated by prejudice, and guilty of deliberate omission and distortion" (360). He along with others were furious with Time's article. Tobin says, "While TIME called for "fairness, compassion, understanding" for homosexuality, Dr. Rubin said he could not find in the essay any example of fairness, compassion or understanding" (360). In addition, Time completely disregards the Kinsey research done on sex but calling his methods "naive" and incorrect. While the Kinsey research has done some of the best research on sex in America. Thank goodness for this response to Time's prejudice article.
Kay Tobin writes the Rebuke for Time's Pernicious Prejudice. Tobin says the answer to Time's article was given by Isadore Rubin who said (about the authors of Time's article) "but if this is so, then I am forced to conclude that if they are not ignorant, the editors of this essay are intellectually dishonest, motivated by prejudice, and guilty of deliberate omission and distortion" (360). He along with others were furious with Time's article. Tobin says, "While TIME called for "fairness, compassion, understanding" for homosexuality, Dr. Rubin said he could not find in the essay any example of fairness, compassion or understanding" (360). In addition, Time completely disregards the Kinsey research done on sex but calling his methods "naive" and incorrect. While the Kinsey research has done some of the best research on sex in America. Thank goodness for this response to Time's prejudice article.
Homophobia and the Trajectory of Postwar American Radicalism
John D'Emilio's article was a mini biography on Bayard Rustin's life, who I had never heard of until reading D'Emilio's writing. When describing Rustin D'Emilio says, "It would not be an exaggeration to claim that more than anyone else in the postwar era, he was a bridge linking the African-American freedom struggle, peace campaigns, and a socialist vision of economice democracy" (80). Rustin also identified himself as a homosexual. Throughout his life he fought for peace and equality, his main goal was to go from protests to politics. Rustin wanted this because he knew protests were simply not enough, politics were where the real changes were made.
Rustin was always involved, for example he joined the Congress of Racial Equality (CORE) in which the mission was to create racial equality in America. CORE worked on action projects and awareness, desegregating public places such as restaurants and theaters. In addition, in later years he became a member of a group called FOR. Rustin was even sent by FOR to Indian to meet with Gandhi's followers and Europe to meet with European pacifist leaders. Rustin was jailed for refusing to join the military, later he was jailed for committing sexual acts with other men. He arrest for his sexual acts gained a lot of negative attention from the press, and in 1946 he was once again arrested for committing a indecent act. After this arrest the FOR executive board issued a statement announcing Rustin's removal from the committee. This was the beginning of Rustin's suffering for his sexual orientation. As D'Emilio said "But, however he might interpret it, the fact remained that he had been branded and cut adrift by the world that had sustained him for twelve years" (85).
Rustin's next move involved him moving to New York city and joining the War Resisters League (WRL), another pacifist organization. During this time, roughly the mid 1950's things were heating up in Montgomery, Alabama for African Americans. Specifically in 1956 the boycotts were catching the publics attention due to their large numbers. Rustin decided to go to Montgomery to join the boycotts however he ran into trouble. D'Emilio says, "Om a cloak-and-dagger scenario whose details reamin obscure, pacifists and civil rights leaders in New York met, telephoned, and dispatched letters with dizzying speed. Rustin, they argued, was a danger to the movement. ... The FOR's southern field secretary, Glenn Smiley, was ordered to avoid any contact with Rustin" (86). Once again Rustin's took another blow to his confidence due to his past history of being a homosexual, that branded him for life.
On the bright side Rustin became MLK's closest advisor. Surprisingly, Rustin transformed King into a more peaceful, Gandhian person. Rustin organized the Southern Christin Leadership Conference (SCLC) which was to be a southern nonviolent movement. During this time King rarely made a move without first consulting with Rustin. Once again things were too good to be true for Rustin. Rustin thought it was time to get into politics to really make changes. But as D'Emilio says, "Adam Clayton Powell, the congressman from Harlem who fancied himself the black power broker in the Democratic Party, was not prepared to have a queer radical usurp his role" (88). Powell publicly threatened Rustin with having a sexual affair with King. MLK panicked and dismissed Rustin immediately.
In the 1960's Rustin began working on anti-nuclear campaigns. Also he found his way back into the civil rights movement, by becoming the deputy of the NACCP committee. During this time he was organizing the march on Washington. However, his conflict with Powell still remained, and the information was published in the national press. D'Emilio says, "Rustin was named a pervert before an audience of tens of millions" (90). Since the accusation was so public and was posted only two weeks prior to the march, the civil rights leaders had no choice but to back up Rustin, something that they had failed to do previously. This "cleared" Rustin's name and the march on Washington was obviously a huge success for civil rights in America. This gave Rustin the status of a leader and public recognition. In conclusion, the homophobic America people destroyed Rustin's reputation, career, and confidence. However, his determination and strength allowed him to fight and become a leader in the civil rights movement.
Rustin was always involved, for example he joined the Congress of Racial Equality (CORE) in which the mission was to create racial equality in America. CORE worked on action projects and awareness, desegregating public places such as restaurants and theaters. In addition, in later years he became a member of a group called FOR. Rustin was even sent by FOR to Indian to meet with Gandhi's followers and Europe to meet with European pacifist leaders. Rustin was jailed for refusing to join the military, later he was jailed for committing sexual acts with other men. He arrest for his sexual acts gained a lot of negative attention from the press, and in 1946 he was once again arrested for committing a indecent act. After this arrest the FOR executive board issued a statement announcing Rustin's removal from the committee. This was the beginning of Rustin's suffering for his sexual orientation. As D'Emilio said "But, however he might interpret it, the fact remained that he had been branded and cut adrift by the world that had sustained him for twelve years" (85).
Rustin's next move involved him moving to New York city and joining the War Resisters League (WRL), another pacifist organization. During this time, roughly the mid 1950's things were heating up in Montgomery, Alabama for African Americans. Specifically in 1956 the boycotts were catching the publics attention due to their large numbers. Rustin decided to go to Montgomery to join the boycotts however he ran into trouble. D'Emilio says, "Om a cloak-and-dagger scenario whose details reamin obscure, pacifists and civil rights leaders in New York met, telephoned, and dispatched letters with dizzying speed. Rustin, they argued, was a danger to the movement. ... The FOR's southern field secretary, Glenn Smiley, was ordered to avoid any contact with Rustin" (86). Once again Rustin's took another blow to his confidence due to his past history of being a homosexual, that branded him for life.
On the bright side Rustin became MLK's closest advisor. Surprisingly, Rustin transformed King into a more peaceful, Gandhian person. Rustin organized the Southern Christin Leadership Conference (SCLC) which was to be a southern nonviolent movement. During this time King rarely made a move without first consulting with Rustin. Once again things were too good to be true for Rustin. Rustin thought it was time to get into politics to really make changes. But as D'Emilio says, "Adam Clayton Powell, the congressman from Harlem who fancied himself the black power broker in the Democratic Party, was not prepared to have a queer radical usurp his role" (88). Powell publicly threatened Rustin with having a sexual affair with King. MLK panicked and dismissed Rustin immediately.
In the 1960's Rustin began working on anti-nuclear campaigns. Also he found his way back into the civil rights movement, by becoming the deputy of the NACCP committee. During this time he was organizing the march on Washington. However, his conflict with Powell still remained, and the information was published in the national press. D'Emilio says, "Rustin was named a pervert before an audience of tens of millions" (90). Since the accusation was so public and was posted only two weeks prior to the march, the civil rights leaders had no choice but to back up Rustin, something that they had failed to do previously. This "cleared" Rustin's name and the march on Washington was obviously a huge success for civil rights in America. This gave Rustin the status of a leader and public recognition. In conclusion, the homophobic America people destroyed Rustin's reputation, career, and confidence. However, his determination and strength allowed him to fight and become a leader in the civil rights movement.
Sunday, February 13, 2011
Marching To A Different Drummer: Lesbian And Gay GIs In World War II
Although gays were discriminated against in America during the the early 1900's, WWII served as a turing point for gays as well as other minorities. Since there was a high demand for soldiers and other positions to aid America, the military actually tolerated LGBT people during the war. However, homosexuals serving their country still had to keep their relations private and consensual, because they could still be punished or discharged for being gay. In addition to the soldiers fighting the war oversea, America changed dramatically too. A huge migration occurred that included women moving to find "men jobs" or defense jobs to support the war efforts. Also, African American workers moved to northern cities and to the west coast cities to find new jobs. Furthermore, Mexican workers were moved to California to replace the Japanese workers who were put into interment camps during the war. However, I think WWII led to major changes within the LGBT communities.
The Women's Army Corps or WAC was created and had about 150,000 women who volunteered. This allowed women to live together in close contact, thus many relationships formed, and many women discovered that they were lesbians. Similar relations formed with men who were actually fighting overseas. Living with all men, fighting for the same goal, and being all alone created a "gay ambiance" as Allan Berube says in his article. It would have been ridiculous for the government to try and weed out gay members since they needed all the help the could get to fight the war. But keep in mind that these men and women could not shout out loud their sexual identity or feelings, they had to keep things private to some extent.
Unfortunately, this article did not have such a happy ending. Berube continues to explain that at the end of the war things began to go back to normal. For example, since men came first they re-assumed their role as head of the household and got their jobs back. This meant that women had to return to their responsibilities as mothers and wives. And African Americans and other minorities had to return to their battle of segration. These social and gender roles were reinforced by the media, churches, schools, and the government. The witch hunt for homosexuals resumed again... However, WWII laid the foundation for the pro-LGBT movement soon to come such as the Mattachine Society and the Daughters of Bilitis.
The Women's Army Corps or WAC was created and had about 150,000 women who volunteered. This allowed women to live together in close contact, thus many relationships formed, and many women discovered that they were lesbians. Similar relations formed with men who were actually fighting overseas. Living with all men, fighting for the same goal, and being all alone created a "gay ambiance" as Allan Berube says in his article. It would have been ridiculous for the government to try and weed out gay members since they needed all the help the could get to fight the war. But keep in mind that these men and women could not shout out loud their sexual identity or feelings, they had to keep things private to some extent.
Unfortunately, this article did not have such a happy ending. Berube continues to explain that at the end of the war things began to go back to normal. For example, since men came first they re-assumed their role as head of the household and got their jobs back. This meant that women had to return to their responsibilities as mothers and wives. And African Americans and other minorities had to return to their battle of segration. These social and gender roles were reinforced by the media, churches, schools, and the government. The witch hunt for homosexuals resumed again... However, WWII laid the foundation for the pro-LGBT movement soon to come such as the Mattachine Society and the Daughters of Bilitis.
The Bonds of Oppression: Gay Life in the 1950s
This weeks articles look at the 1950's LGBT life in America. The growing threat of communism around the world (specifically the Soviet Union) to the US had a substancial impact on the public's opinions of their safety. After previously defeating Nazi Germany and their alies in WWI, the American government was prepared to take a stand against anyone who posed a threat to them. Somehow with the public's attitudes, theories, religious views, and laws established to penalize homosexuals; homosexuals were also included in the anticommunist movement in America.
The government took action against homosexuals first by declaring that they were a threat to the nation's safety, and began raids within the government to expel anyone who identified them self as gay. John D' Emilio the author of this article writes, "Even one 'sex pervert in a Government agency,' the committee warned, tends to have a corrosive influence upon his fellow employees. These perverts will frequently attempt to entice normal individuals to engage in perverted practices. This is particularly true in the case of young impressionable people who might come under the influence of a pervert. . . . One homosexual can pollute a Government office" (42). Another radical idea the government believed was that homosexuals were not mature or stable enough to resist communism or communist spys. From 1947 to 1950 on average there was a dismissal of five homosexuals a month from the executive branch alone. In the next year this statistic grew to more than 60 people a month. Also the military discharged about 1,000 homosexuals a year during this time. It was a rough time for LGBT people, as Emilio says, "The mounting terror as a witchhunt spread, the assault on on'es self-esteem, and the expectation of permanent stigmatization tested even the sturdiest" (45). The raids within the government were brutal, but the government thought they needed to increase their efforts so they turned to the police.
The FBI established connections within police departments all over America. They gathered data on places such as gay bars, and looked up records of citizens whom were charged with homosexual offenses. In addition, the post office even became involved. "A professor in Maryland and an employee of the Pennsylvania department of highways, for example, lost their jobs after the Post Office revealed to their employers that the men received mail implicating them in homosexual activity" (Emilio 47). This homophobic movement in America allowed for the harassment of the LGBT community. It was hard for LGBT people to go out, have relationships, etc. They lived in fear of being arrested or losing their jobs because of their sexual identity. Emilio says, "In a strange twist, the individuals most in need of protection had become the target of the police" (51).
It is interesting how much influence the government had during that time. I also think its amazing how fearful the government was from anything "different" such as a homosexual; and how they immediately associated LGBT people with communism. It's unfortunate that the dominate view on homosexuals had to be so negative back in the 50's because I believe that has impacted the future's view on LGBT.
The government took action against homosexuals first by declaring that they were a threat to the nation's safety, and began raids within the government to expel anyone who identified them self as gay. John D' Emilio the author of this article writes, "Even one 'sex pervert in a Government agency,' the committee warned, tends to have a corrosive influence upon his fellow employees. These perverts will frequently attempt to entice normal individuals to engage in perverted practices. This is particularly true in the case of young impressionable people who might come under the influence of a pervert. . . . One homosexual can pollute a Government office" (42). Another radical idea the government believed was that homosexuals were not mature or stable enough to resist communism or communist spys. From 1947 to 1950 on average there was a dismissal of five homosexuals a month from the executive branch alone. In the next year this statistic grew to more than 60 people a month. Also the military discharged about 1,000 homosexuals a year during this time. It was a rough time for LGBT people, as Emilio says, "The mounting terror as a witchhunt spread, the assault on on'es self-esteem, and the expectation of permanent stigmatization tested even the sturdiest" (45). The raids within the government were brutal, but the government thought they needed to increase their efforts so they turned to the police.
The FBI established connections within police departments all over America. They gathered data on places such as gay bars, and looked up records of citizens whom were charged with homosexual offenses. In addition, the post office even became involved. "A professor in Maryland and an employee of the Pennsylvania department of highways, for example, lost their jobs after the Post Office revealed to their employers that the men received mail implicating them in homosexual activity" (Emilio 47). This homophobic movement in America allowed for the harassment of the LGBT community. It was hard for LGBT people to go out, have relationships, etc. They lived in fear of being arrested or losing their jobs because of their sexual identity. Emilio says, "In a strange twist, the individuals most in need of protection had become the target of the police" (51).
It is interesting how much influence the government had during that time. I also think its amazing how fearful the government was from anything "different" such as a homosexual; and how they immediately associated LGBT people with communism. It's unfortunate that the dominate view on homosexuals had to be so negative back in the 50's because I believe that has impacted the future's view on LGBT.
Monday, February 7, 2011
The Big Sea
I was a litte surprised when reading this article since I was expecting it to be about LGBT. However, it is an autobiography of Langston Hughes' experiences and memories in Harlem during the 1920's. Hughes says, "All of us know that the gay and sparkling life of the so-called Negro Renaissance of the '20's was not so gay and sparkling beneath the surface as it looked" (227). This statement contradicts Schwarz's article completely. I think Hughes is just reminiscing on the good old days of clubs and house-rent parties. Also, how African Americans could charm and entertain white folks. The most interesting part of this article to me was the pictures of the party cards that were used as advertisement. My favorite was the first card on page 229 which said "We got yellow girls, we've got black and tan. Will you have a good time? YEAH MAN!" I believe Hughes was able to really describe the feelings and mood of the time.
Gay Harlem and the Harlem Renaissance
Christa Schwarz's writing was a transition from the 1800's to the early 1920's and 1930's. Throughout this time period there was a shift from the Victorian to the modern way of life. There were many changes however, Schwarz focus is on the "new" hetero/homosexuals. Specifically she looks at Harlem because it was a hot spot for the sex industry and night life that was rarely policed. Harlem was an African American community which is a significant point. Schwarz explains how Harlem was a good location for whites because the "African Americans lived 'too far away to be dangerous yet close enough to be exciting'"(8). This meaning Harlem was the perfect place for a white person if they wanted to experiment with prostitution with the same or opposite sex. Harlem was considered a safe zone for same sex relations since anywhere else in New York a person could receive a 50 dollar ticket for homosexual activity or be sentenced to six months in prison. It was a wild time for sex in Harlem back in the 1920's.
For some reason most of society still looked down on homosexuality, specifically lesbians. On the plus side sexologists had finally "discovered" that females had sexual desires and were not only sex objects to men. However, men became intimidated by this new women. Schwarz says, "Many men feared gender category that traditionally assigned them to the space of the household and the task of motherhood, thereby threatening male dominance" (16). But interesting enough was to think of African American women, since they had always worked along side African American men. Unfortunately, lesbians were considered unnatural since they did not take place in childbearing. In addition, many people associated lesbianism with violence and disease. It doesn't make sense to me how homosexual females were targeted far more than homosexual males.
For some reason most of society still looked down on homosexuality, specifically lesbians. On the plus side sexologists had finally "discovered" that females had sexual desires and were not only sex objects to men. However, men became intimidated by this new women. Schwarz says, "Many men feared gender category that traditionally assigned them to the space of the household and the task of motherhood, thereby threatening male dominance" (16). But interesting enough was to think of African American women, since they had always worked along side African American men. Unfortunately, lesbians were considered unnatural since they did not take place in childbearing. In addition, many people associated lesbianism with violence and disease. It doesn't make sense to me how homosexual females were targeted far more than homosexual males.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)