Some thoughts about comparing the LGBT struggle for rights to other struggles for rights.

[LooseWilly]

Ok, first of all... the comparisons of the Pam Spaulding post were not a slavery comparison. It was a comparison of behaviors in an unequal power structure based on maintaining docility in the powerless. The specifics could be slavery, the holocaust, Jewish slavery in Egypt, the Suffrage Movement... or what have you. Pam Spaulding happens to be black, so she referred to the Civil Rights Movement specifically... but the point of the comment was the use by those in positions of "power" of those who are in a position of "limited power" to reassure the "powerless" that things will become better, if they just cooperate. One can 'dress' those in positions of power & powerlessness in the 'garb' of any specific struggle... but certain tactics are common to power relationships... and in this case, it is the use of those often labelled "collaborators" to pacify the most powerless. It's a comparison of tactics... to call it a slavery comparison is to willfully impose a shallow interpretation upon the comparison that was actually being made.

That said... to deny the LGBT community the legitimate right to compare a struggle for rights to another struggle for rights is a form of discrimination, IMO. The notion that there is some sort of "heirarchy" of discriminations is tantamount to setting oneself up as a judge in the "oppression olympics"... and is a cheap substitute for analysis. As far as I'm concerned, the struggles in the face of the holocaust, slavery, Jim Crowe, internment, as well as suffrage and the struggle for equal rights for the LGBT community, and Native American struggles for recognition of tribal sovereignty guaranteed by law... all of these movements... including the Indian struggle for freedom from British rule... all of these movements have a certain underlying similarity of purpose... though they will obviously differ as to specific details.

Whenever some member of one of these above mentioned "communities" tries to exclude the struggles of another of these above mentioned "communities" from comparison to his/her/their own community... In My Eyes that is a rejection of the very validity of the rejected "communities' " struggle. If some member of the black community wants to try to say that the Suffragettes' struggle is not comparable in any way to the Civil Rights Movement... then that is tantamount to tacit approval of the power structures that the Suffragettes are fighting against.

As for those who think these comparisons are "unhelpful"... well, I'm inclined to believe these people weren't going to be very helpful anyway...

[Starry Messenger]

1. k&r good sir

[omega minimo]

2. This OP is continuation of discussion in a thread titled, "I'm a field Negro. What are our leaders?"

I'm a field Negro. - What are our leaders? by John Aravosis

The OP begins "Ok, first of all... the comparisons of the Pam Spaulding post were not a slavery comparison."

In "I'm a field Negro. - What are our leaders?" John Aravosi writes
"Pam Spaulding posted this video of Malcom X on her blog today, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=znQe9nUKzvQ&eurl=http%3A... following the leaked news that the White House has suddenly decided to throw a big gay party for the A-listers who putatively run our movement."

Another OP topic today was:
Pam Spaulding: Black, Gay and Reclaiming 'Civil Rights'

This OP contains this link:
http://www.pamshouseblend.com/diary/11611/signorile-on-the-wh-its-all-about-buying-off-gay-leaders-by-seducing-them-very-cheaply

African American History thread:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=5866170

[Lex]

4. It stands up nicely as an OP all on its own.

nt

[omega minimo]

5. It presents a misleading link that was not under discussion and begins with a false claim

[Lex]

6. There's nothing misleading or false about it.

It is a very thoughtful, informative OP.

[omega minimo]

7. LOL LOL

:rofl:
:rofl:

Oh OK

"I'm a field Negro. - What are our leaders?" by John Aravosis

The OP begins "Ok, first of all... the comparisons of the Pam Spaulding post were not a slavery comparison."

[Lex]

8. The OP explained why in detail.

Did you miss that part or what? It was well-articulated and reasoned.

[Duncan Grant]

9. Please read the entire OP. It's a compelling argument.

No need to flame-out because you think this information should be suppressed. Sheesh.

I would encourage everyone to avoid the dramatics and simply keep the focus on the OP.

[omega minimo]

11. Please do not make stuff up and pretend it's true.

"No need to flame-out because you think this information should be suppressed."

It's a really sick trick. It's awful to think of you poisoning DU with that all the time..........

[QC]

12. Do not call another member of this message board a liar,

and do not call another member's post a lie.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules_detailed.html

[omega minimo]

14. "Ill asserter"? "No need to flame-out because you think this information should be suppressed"

is not true. No one's suppressing anything. No one's flaming. Somebody's making stuff up.

That's damaging to DU. Esp. if it is a habit.

[ruggerson]

17. Do you honestly think you're doing anything constructive?

[omega minimo]

19. Letting one know his games are ill and receiving an answer from another? Yes

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=221&topic_id=140631&mesg_id=140671

[LooseWilly]

21. What are you talking about?

What games are you talking about? :tinfoilhat:

[omega minimo]

22. It's okay, not you, thank you for your answer. Good luck to all.

[LooseWilly]

13. I was asked on the thread you mentioned to post a response I made as a post in its own right.

I decided to do so, because of that request.

If you have any other response to make, feel free to do so.

[omega minimo]

16. Any reason you chose to not use the link under discussion, with slavery related title

and OP here to immediately disassociate from that subject?

[LooseWilly]

18. I felt that the Aravosi article was a statement of agreement with the Spaulding article.

So I linked to the Spaulding article. Why?, do you feel that it really matters who is making a comparison? I'll link to the Aravosi article too, if you'd like... but my response was not so much a response to the article(s) per se... but rather a statement about the validity of comparing the struggles for equality of one group with those of another group.

The initial portion of the OP was in relation to the details of the article(s) which were being taken to task for a comparison, and I debated removing that whole first paragraph... but the point of a distinction between "tactics" and "institutions" within which context the tactics occurred seemed to me to be relevant... so I left it in.

Tell you what, here's a link to the original post... http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=221x140150#140614
I don't think it's possible to give any more context than that. And I'm not trying to manipulate context in order to push an "answer" that I like either...

[MNBrewer]

24. What difference does it make to YOU?

Can't it be discussed here, on the GLBT forum, as its own topic, without being derailed by you? If you don't like it, stay in the other thread.

[omega minimo]

25. What difference does it make to YOU?

Since you can't comprehend what difference it makes? Apparently you haven't read or been part of any of it.

[donco6]

20. It's a fine post. Get over yourself. n/t

[omega minimo]

23. Back atcha bub!!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=221&topic_id=140631&mesg_id=140671

[sui generis]

54. what's your point?

:shrug:

[Lex]

3. Excellent. Thank you.

I sometimes wonder if people are being willfully obtuse or if this stuff really does just fly right over their heads.

[Starry Messenger]

27. I wonder that too, Lex.

DU is the only place I've ever been where people seem to fail to understand metaphors. I teach high school art classes and even the 13-14 year olds grasp this stuff.

[QC]

31. People can always play dumb when their agenda requires it. n/t

[omega minimo]

39. Okay, Hello? You 3 in a row have shown how "obtuse," "failing to understand" and "agenda" driven

you seem to be. Fine. You don't get it. But please don't tty to turn it around on others. Please.

[Prism]

10. This is really well-articulated

K&R

[LooseWilly]

15. Thank you Prism.

Your own well articulated posts are a high standard in their own right. I'm flattered that you judge mine likewise... :)

[Prism]

58. You did better than I would've

I've had a similar reply for another thread percolating around the nogging for the past day and a half. It would've taken me roughly forty-five paragraphs to do what you managed in two =)

[LooseWilly]

66. Thank you sir...

but I can't help but think that the density of idea-age required to squeeze it into 2 paragraphs has its drawbacks as well... ;)

[struggle4progress]

26. We Americans just love opinion over analysis, don't we? Our media is filled with

disputes over what people think, with a minimum amount of usable information

It's certainly easier to have some gut-related takes on history, than to attempt to draw concrete lessons by examining past struggles in their historical particularity: it saves one the trouble of trying to understand the particular fogs through which real people moved and the hazards they confronted as they tried to negotiate remedies for the troubles they faced

Many of the contradictions between America's promise and the American reality have inspired generations of effort and will not vanish in our lifetimes. The African-American struggle was at one time closely identified with abolitionism, at another time with the fight against the economic system embodied in Jim Crow, and later with continuing disadvantages faced by living people. Working towards women's rights at one time meant one supported the suffragettes; at a later date, it meant recognizing that the ideological cultural apparatus demeaning women had not yet be dismantled.The free-speech fights of the Wobblies occurred in time and in place. The real human actors, showed brilliance and made mistakes that can actually teach us something -- if we let them speak in their own voices about their own experiences and are open to hearing them

The reason, for objecting to John Aravosis' claim "I am a field negro," is simply this -- historical honesty requires that we should hear about the experience of slavery from those who experienced slavery and those who knew those who experienced it. John Aravosis is not competent to tell us about that: he is competent to tell us about whatever trials he faced, whether it was his education at Georgetown, his time as a staff member for Ted Stevens, or his employment at the World Bank; perhaps he is similarly competent to tell us about the trials faced by his friends and acquaintances. But whatever he actually faced, he has not faced the troubles of the "field negro"

Discussions about the question Is X "really like" Y? are pointless discussions. They cast no light on anything. They displace historical lessons with noisy but empty opinion

[QC]

28. Are you gay? n/t

[struggle4progress]

29. I carefully said exactly what I wanted to say in #26, thank you.

[QC]

30. Just was I suspected--another straight guy lecturing the queers on how they should behave.

Of course, in a forum in which another white guy passes judgment on who is authentically black or not, this sort of thing is par for the course.

[struggle4progress]

32. And I thought I made a general comment about American political discourse and the importance

of listening to people speak in their own voices about their own experiences

:rofl:

[QC]

33. Nah, it was just more self-important blather.

So tell us, why do you find gay threads so endlessly fascinating? No matter where one pops up, there you are playing the "contrarian."

One could get ideas....

[struggle4progress]

34. I'm always sorry to see progressive movements derailed by bullshit disruptor tactics or

by a failure to carry out an intelligent analysis.

I'd be happy to see DOMA and DADT disappear

And frankly I've never ever really cared what ideas anybody gets

[omega minimo]

42. "I can't hear you I can't hear you I can't hear you I can't hear you na na na na na"

:rofl:

[gaspee]

36. hahahahahahahaha

I'm replying to you because I don't want to reply to our groupie -- it's "concerned" -- if I had a nickle everything one of them was "concerned" for us, I'd be fucking filthy rich!

[omega minimo]

44. One concern may be that alienating and attacking allies for "fun" is a foolish mistake.

It damages the whole community and damages the smaller groups. Solves nothing and serves no one... if there really is an interest in justice for all.

[omega minimo]

47. It may seem like "blather" to you with so many words to read, but it is beyond the "self"

beyond the "self important" and discussing community and cultural matters that affect all of us and do matter in a common struggle for justice for all.

Beyond the "self," beyond the personal agenda that mocks and mistreats and misunderstands on purpose.

[omega minimo]

41. in a calm, clear, communicative manner.

:shrug:

[omega minimo]

40. and a white guy titled a piece "I Am A Field Negro...."

That was no lecture. That was information.

"Just as I suspected..." There seems to be a lot more "suspecting" flying around than informed opinion.

[LooseWilly]

68. Ahh, now I get it. Your problem is that you don't bother to read the linked titles!

John Aravosis titled his piece "The day I quoted Malcolm X"... not "I Am A Field Negro..." .

At the end of the Malcolm X clip, Malcolm says "I Am A Field Negro.". Presumably that is why the OP used that title... as a quote of Malcolm X (and a snappy title to bring in the readers).

The most mind bottling thing of all is that you seem to be reacting to the quote/title without, apparently, bothering to consider the possibility that it could be a metaphor, being used to elucidate the relationship of both Spaulding and Aravosis to the power structure of the country and the Elected Gay Leaders, respectively... by comparing that relationship to the relationship that Malcolm X expressed between himself and the power structure of the country and the Representatives of the Black Community... which Malcolm X himself used a metaphor to elucidate by comparing his relationship to the power structure and the Representatives of the Black Community of His (Malcolm X's) times, with the relationship between the "Field Nigger" and the power structure (Slave Owners in this case) and the Representatives of the Slaves ("House Negroes" in this case, who acted as intermediaries between the "Field Negroes" and the Slave Owners).

If, omega, you were to take a second to realize what you are attacking... you would find that, by your own logic, Malcolm X should be likewise pilloried for making the statement "I Am A Field Negro"... because, obviously, he was neither a slave, nor did he toil in any fields. Hence... by your apparent method of judgement... Malcolm X is just as much in the wrong as John Aravosis for using a metaphor to slavery to describe a power relationship.

When you decide you want to have that argument, let me know. In the meantime... you might try reading what I actually posted, and responding to that. It is not meant to be a duck of some point that you think you've made somewhere... it is a set of thoughts that can be considered as a stand alone set of thoughts.

Ohh yeah, one last detail to remember... John Aravosis only said that he was quoting Malcolm X... Malcolm X is actually the one who said "I Am A Field Negro" . In other words... this argument that you've been running all over two threads incoherently actually discredits/attacks Malcolm X, not John Aravosis nor Pam Spaulding...

Ooops....

[Starbucks Anarchist]

70. Careful...

Slowmega will accuse you of "bullying" now.

[QC]

72. Then come the bizarre PM's. n/t

[Starbucks Anarchist]

73. Those are the best.

Like a Christmas card from Crazy Town.

[Starry Messenger]

74. Swarmhole!

I want that on a t-shirt.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

76. With "Needler!" on the back.

[omega minimo]

84. Yes, children it's all a big game where the fun is to alienate your allies and then blame them

Speaking of :crazy: :freak:

[Starbucks Anarchist]

147. If your support is conditional upon a message board, your support never existed.

[omega minimo]

151. Perhaps you don't know what 'alienate' means. LOL or "allies"

I leave you to your assumptions.... :hi:

[Starbucks Anarchist]

152. Here are the definitions:

"Alienate": What you do to logic.

"Allies": Not you.

[omega minimo]

153. Sad

bye bye

[Starbucks Anarchist]

154. Some compelling logic there.

:rofl:

[omega minimo]

155. .

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=221&topic_id=140631&mesg_id=140856

[omega minimo]

71. Didn't question when you claimed you were "not trying to manipulate context in order to push an..."

This "OP" is a copy of post in a thread titled "I'm a field Negro. What are our leaders? by John Aravosis" (DC) on 6/21/2009 04:38:00 PM

The OP twice listed it as:
"I'm a field Negro. What are our leaders? by John Aravosis (DC) on 6/21/2009 04:38:00 PM"

You copied a reply in that thread to start this OP. Your link was not to John Aravosis piece, which was relevant to the thread and context of discussion.

Your link was to a link not found in either the "House Negro" thread or the other thread on the same topic (Pam Spaulding: Black, Gay and Reclaiming 'Civil Rights').

You have already justified your selective linking here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=221&topic_id=140631&mesg_id=140671

I did not question you when you claimed you were "not trying to manipulate context in order to push an "answer" that I like either..."

Pretty desperate of you to try to pull this now. Just trying to get some more shots in? No need, I'm convinced of how sad it is that this collective feels so downtrodden they would rather alienate allies than not. Good luck.

You replied to this post (in the "House Negro," Aravosis thread) (so the context of the thread and link to his article would have been appropriate):

122. "A holocaust comparison would be just as unhelpful IMO.

"Personally I think the gay struggles for equal rights can stand on its own as appalling and disgraceful.

"I don't think its a helpful tactic, I know some people who are turned off when those comparisons are made; people who would otherwise be open to persuasion. You might have an opposite view.

"Like it or not, when you start talking house nigger and field nigger, you are making a slavery comparison. Saying that Malcolm X said it doesn't give any cover to the OP/blogger."
*******

You replied and OP'd "Ok, first of all... the comparisons of the Pam Spaulding post were not a slavery comparison."

Really.

[LooseWilly]

112. I wasn't attempting to manipulate text. I was trying to shape an OP to stand on its own.

You are the one who keeps insisting on dragging this thread back to the other thread... and it was those attempts that I was responding to in post 68.

I'm still waiting to see you respond to this OP on its own terms... rather than replying to the other thread and its relationship to the genesis of this thread. I'm not holding my breath however...

[omega minimo]

87. http://www.america blog.com/2009/06/ im-field-negro- what-are-our-leaders.html

im-field-negro-what-are-our-leaders.html

[LooseWilly]

89. You still haven't responded to the content.

If Aravosis did indeed change the title of his piece, then disregard the first two paragraphs of the post that this is a response to.

Now respond to the rest.

[omega minimo]

45. aye

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=5866170

[LooseWilly]

52. Struggles, I think you have spent too much time with sciences and law... you missed the Metaphor.

Firstly, John Aravosis' claim "I am a field negro" is obviously not meant to be taken as meaning that he's out working in the Gay Fields. To insist on that sort of equivalency is not to understand metaphor, or to insist on misinterpreting. In the context of the Malcolm X excerpt, as well as the discussion of the fact that "the White House has suddenly decided to throw a big gay party for the A-listers who putatively run our movement.", it is obvious that this is a statement of identification of role in a metaphorical comparison that, as actors are 'cast' for roles in the metaphor, begins to take on the role of metaphorical allegory.

Secondly... if you look closely, and listen closely, you'll notice that John Aravosis Never Claimed to be a Field Negro. The title of his piece was "The day I quoted Malcolm X". It was actually Malcolm X, in the clip, who claimed (quite rightly, I think we'd all agree) to be a "Field Negro". While we're at it- Pam Spaulding never made this claim either. Her article is entitled "Signorile on the WH: 'it's all about buying off gay leaders by seducing them, very cheaply' "
by: Pam Spaulding

Never the less... if John Aravosis were to have claimed "I am a field negro"... I think the insistence by so many, yourself now included, to try to interpret it as Aravosis trying to explain "Field Negro-ery" to black folks is a reflection of a poor understanding of the the nature of metaphor. Metaphor is not, in this case, being used to explain slavery... it is being employed in order to use the better understood tactics of maintenance of power in the institution of slavery to help shed light on the use of similar tactics by society at large in the US to maintain the power inequalities of the LGBT community... and specifically the employment of "House Negroes" (which would've been called "collaborators" in Concentration Camps, or Star Trek DS9 for that matter) by those in power to try to re-enforce the message of those in power to those most un-empowered that docility is preferable to taking action. It is a metaphor which compares the Elected Gay Leaders of the LGBT community, specifically those that attend the "big gay party" at the White House, with the "House Negroes", and in the context of the Malcolm X excerpt, compares the LGBT community at large with the "Field Negroes".

It is a subtle use of metaphor... apparently far more subtle than I thought. To make this as simple as possible for those who languish in the Social Sciences where all prose is meant to be simple and explanatory... the assertion "historical honesty requires that we should hear about the experience of slavery from those who experienced slavery and those who knew those who experienced it." is a complete misunderstanding of the quoting of Malcolm X. It is an interpretation in the "wrong direction". It is not an attempt to "tell about the experience of slavery", it is an attempt to use the words of Malcolm X (which talk about slavery) to help "tell about the experience of the LGBT community. And, struggles... surely you wouldn't deny Aravosis, or Spaulding, the right to talk about the experience of the LGBT community... would you?

And your point that "Discussions about the question Is X "really like" Y? are pointless discussions. They cast no light on anything. They displace historical lessons with noisy but empty opinion." really is surprising. Struggles, you do realize that neither Aravosis nor Spaulding, nor I for that matter, is trying to argue "Is X "really like" Y?". In fact it is you that is making that argument. The use of a metaphor to expose similarities is not meant to be a proof of "really like"-dom. It's an exercise in pointing out "similarities", in hopes that the realization of the similarity can cause a re-appraisal of and lead to a better understanding of the "Y" which is now shown to be similar to "X" (to algebra-ify the metaphor)... in this case, Y=(tactics of uses by power structure of EGL to pacify the LGBT masses and the consequences of said tactics upon the LGBT struggle for rights) & X=(tactics of uses by power structure (e.g. Slave Masters) of "House Negroes" to pacify the slave masses (e.g. "Field Negroes") and the consequences of said tactics upon the African American struggle for freedom and rights).

The employment of a similarity in order to illuminate Y in light of what is known about X... in no way implies, let alone explicitly states, an equality (=) relationship between the two variables. That is not the nature of metaphor. That is why poetry is not math.

I'll say that again. Poetry is not Math. Metaphor is not the same thing as =.

As for your posted history. That was very concise. I don't think it's relevant... but thanks for the spot of reading.

And one last thing. To distill the OP to its very basic core... in my opinion, the members of any group struggling for rights have a perfect and complete right to compare their own struggle with that of any other group who is or at some point was, likewise struggling for rights. To attempt to deny the right of others to make comparisons to one's own group, is to tacitly legitimize the power structures that that other (rejected/denied) group struggles in the face of.

[struggle4progress]

63. It's nice that Aravosis has changed the title of his piece. The comment page still begins

American liberal political blog
Jump to original thread
I'm a field Negro. What are our leaders?
Started by John Aravosis · 2 days ago
No excerpt available. Jump to website
108 comments
http://americablog.disqus.com/im_a_field_negro_what_are_our_leaders/

I hope he'll change that, too: then you can come back again and claim I've been hallucinating

[omega minimo]

85. Thank you

"I think the insistence by so many, yourself now included, to try to interpret it as Aravosis trying to explain "Field Negro-ery" to black folks is a reflection of a poor understanding of the the nature of metaphor."

"Field Negro-ery." Never heard that before.

[LooseWilly]

90. If Aravosis changed the title of his piece, so be it. Discard the first two paragraphs...

and then respond to the rest of my answer. The part that begins with "If Aravosis had said...", which is still every bit as relevant.

[struggle4progress]

146. See #26

[Toasterlad]

165. "we should hear about the experience of slavery from those who experienced slavery..."

...and those who knew those who experienced it."

You realize by such bizarre idiocy that no one alive is qualified to discuss slavery, right?

Please go find some other oppressed group to pester. I'm really sick and tired of seeing you here. You add NOTHING constructive and your disingenuous calls for unity don't mask your real agenda one bit.

[bluedawg12]

35. Splitting off gay rights from progressive human rights movements is a rw strategy.

Using religion as a cover, for example, is another favorite tactic.

Some focus on the "differences" while others see the similarities.

This was interesting, a bit dated (1997), but still, of interest.


http://www.hrweb.org/history.html

>>A Short History
of the Human Rights Movement
Early Political, Religious, and Philosophical Sources

The concept of human rights has existed under several names in European thought for many centuries, at least since the time of King John of England. After the king violated a number of ancient laws and customs by which England had been governed, his subjects forced him to sign the Magna Carta, or Great Charter, which enumerates a number of what later came to be thought of as human rights. Among them were the right of the church to be free from governmental interference, the rights of all free citizens to own and inherit property and be free from excessive taxes. It established the right of widows who owned property to choose not to remarry, and established principles of due process and equality before the law. It also contained provisions forbidding bribery and official misconduct.

<snip>

In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries in Europe several philosophers proposed the concept of "natural rights," rights belonging to a person by nature and because he was a human being, not by virtue of his citizenship in a particular country or membership in a particular religious or ethnic group. This concept was vigorously debated and rejected by some philosophers as baseless. Others saw it as a formulation of the underlying principle on which all ideas of citizens' rights and political and religious liberty were based.

In the late 1700s two revolutions occurred which drew heavily on this concept. In 1776 most of the British colonies in North America proclaimed their independence from the British Empire in a document which still stirs feelings, and debate, the U.S. Declaration of Independence.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

“We hold these truths to be self-evident; that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”
----------------------------------------------

The middle and late 19th century saw a number of issues take center stage, many of them issues we in the late 20th century would consider human rights issues. They included slavery, serfdom, brutal working conditions, starvation wages, child labor, and, in the Americas, the "Indian Problem", as it was known at the time. In the United States, a bloody war over slavery came close to destroying a country founded only eighty years earlier on the premise that, "all men are created equal." Russia freed its serfs the year that war began. Neither the emancipated American slaves nor the freed Russian serfs saw any real degree of freedom or basic rights for many more decades, however.

For the last part of the nineteenth and first half of the twentieth century, though, human rights activism remained largely tied to political and religious groups and beliefs. Revolutionaries pointed at the atrocities of governments as proof that their ideology was necessary to bring about change and end the government's abuses. Many people, disgusted with the actions of governments in power, first got involved with revolutionary groups because of this. The governments then pointed at bombings, strike-related violence, and growth in violent crime and social disorder as reasons why a stern approach toward dissent was necessary.

Nonetheless many specific civil rights and human rights movements managed to affect profound social changes during this time. Labor unions brought about laws granting workers the right to strike, establishing minimum work conditions, forbidding or regulating child labor, establishing a forty hour work week in the United States and many European countries, etc. The women's rights movement succeeded in gaining for many women the right to vote. National liberation movements in many countries succeeded in driving out colonial powers. One of the most influential was Mahatma Ghandi's movement to free his native India from British rule. Movements by long-oppressed racial and religious minorities succeeded in many parts of the world, among them the U.S. Civil Rights movement.
Created on July 14, 1994 / Last edited on January 25, 1997

<<<<

[QC]

38. It's a strategy in which many of our recent visitors to this forum are heavily invested.

I wonder why that might be?

[omega minimo]

43. This sort of willful ignorance, misunderstanding, misrepresentation is harmful and splits

allies from each other, unecessarily.

Something in which some here seem to be heavily invested.

I wonder why that might be?

[indigo32]

60. exactly what is being

willfully ignored or misrepresented. I thought the case was stated very clearly and truthfully.
I've not seen you take to the time to explain to anyone why. Perhaps if you expressed your POV as clearly people would listen more.

[omega minimo]

65. Perhaps if you read the thread this is a continuation of, it might help you understand.

and I was referring to QC's deceptive comment.

Again, read the original thread and it will shed some light. It's unfortunate the more "clear" comments are deliberately twisted around into disagreements.

It's also very odd that those claiming there is an "agenda" seem to have one themselves.


The very "clear and truthful" post this new OP was a reply to:

122. "A holocaust comparison would be just as unhelpful IMO.

"Personally I think the gay struggles for equal rights can stand on its own as appalling and disgraceful.

"I don't think its a helpful tactic, I know some people who are turned off when those comparisons are made; people who would otherwise be open to persuasion. You might have an opposite view.

"Like it or not, when you start talking house nigger and field nigger, you are making a slavery comparison. Saying that Malcolm X said it doesn't give any cover to the OP/blogger."

[LooseWilly]

88. This OP is not meant as an extension of the other thread quoting Aravosis.

It is an answer I posted to to someone on that thread. Several people felt that the sentiments that I posted were valuable/interesting enough to be considered on their own merits.

The notion of the difference of tactics versus the context of a metaphor in which the tactics are mentioned, and the validity of comparing the struggles of one community to the struggles of another community in pursuit of equal rights were the two points that this OP was meant to bring up for consideration.

It is mostly you who is trying to drag this thread back to the other thread. It is you who refuses to consider the points of this OP on its own terms. If you can't let go of the other thread... then maybe you should go back to that thread.

In the meantime, I have seen no response to what I've posted in the OP, nor even the answers I've given to you here and there throughout this thread... all you are busy arguing is that this OP is some sort of "devious plot" to change the terms of the other thread. It is not.

What is your response to the content of the OP?

[Starry Messenger]

48. Right wing BS has become sadly pervasive in the national discourse.

It's definitely trickled into DU in the past year.

[QC]

49. Yes, it's amazing how hard to the right this place has lurched.

This used to be one of the premiere progressive sites.

Now, if you advocate things like equal rights and single-payer health care around here, you are denounced as a Pol Pot around here.

It's amazing, and not in a good way.

[bluedawg12]

55. The notion that gay rights are not worthy of being called civil rights is a repig theme

and they have played on fear and rrw religious leaders have been bashing at this for years.

[Starry Messenger]

91. Here's a good article I just found bluedawg.

http://www.laprogressive.com/2009/06/10/forget-paper-vs-plastic-for-the-american-right-gay-marriage-is-the-new-green/

Forget Paper vs. Plastic: For the American Right, Gay Marriage Is the New Green
Tanya Acker

One such instance arose when Bill O’Reilly told me to “keep quiet” in the course of a conversation on his show about how White (I’m not) conservatives (when measured on the O’Reilly scale, I’m certainly not) aren’t allowed to express opinions that diverge from those of the “mainstream media.” One such allegedly divergent opinion was the opposition to gay marriage. According to him, those who oppose equal rights for gay people in this respect are being unfairly excoriated by the “mainstream” press. (According to me, this effort to create martyrs of those playing in this arena is a bit of counterfactual nonsense, as in “tonight, the role of Joan of Arc will be played by Pat Robertson.” Curious indeed.)

Now — I’m not complaining about being shut down by Messr. O’Reilly (if he gets to tell me to shut up, then I get to address him in French). I’ve done the show several times, he and I usually disagree (although not always unpleasantly) and since the show is not called the Acker Factor I can deal with it. Telling me to “keep quiet” in the course of complaining about how White people don’t get to speak their minds was simply one of those supremely ironic moments about which every talking head dreams of telling her grandchildren.

No, what truly interests me is how this cultural distraction — one of the many battles that is waged in the name of the scam that is the “culture war” — has evolved from a conversation about why it is okay to deprive a discrete minority group of their rights to why that minority group should simply sit down and “keep quiet” about it. While O’Reilly may complain of the fact that those who support Proposition 8 are being unfairly labeled as homophobes and subjected to boycotts and the like, I continue to maintain that you can’t really promote or support discrimination against a group of people and just expect them to shut up (the way his guests are supposed to).


...


How much more traction does the right wing need to get from this issue? Is gay marriage the gift that just keeps on giving? Useful in the first instance as a means of galvanizing the base and then easily recycled as a mechanism for arguing that those who oppose differential treatment are themselves the intolerant oppressors? Who knew that gay marriage would turn Bill O’Reilly into Martin Luther King?

(emphasis mine)

[bluedawg12]

137. This wedge issue is fading in importance in the minds of most Americans as being divisive

despite right wing efforts to breath new life into their old bigotry Americans are coming around to see things as a justice and equality issue.

It takes extreme right wing rhetoric to keep this at it's peak and we sure did see some ugly scapegoating during the dubya years.

O' Liely's tactic, "I'm tired of hearing about your civil rights," sure rings hollow when we are inundated with one repug private scandal after another. I'm tired of the lying repig cheaters on TV. LOL.

[omega minimo]

145. Interesting. What are you basing that on? Who are "most Americans"?

If religion is the core foe of gay marriage, has that changed recently?

[donco6]

108. That's true. It does make one wonder. n/t

[omega minimo]

149. No. It's not true.

[donco6]

158. Yes, it is.

[Duncan Grant]

46. Conservative (and "Liberal") moralists seek to de-legitimize LGBT civil rights and equality.

I'm convinced you're right about the splitting off of gay rights from progressive human rights. I've observed this for years (and as recently as yesterday -- right here at DU).

[bluedawg12]

53. they don't call 'em wedge issues for nothing - sadly,

a wedge can be used as a simple tool to accomplish work, or two drive two entities apart.

[sui generis]

56. and the funky thing is it's American rights

by having two sets of rights define your bill of rights as an American, the extension is that some people are more or less American than other Americans.

Reagan screwed us brilliantly when he changed public education to focus only on readin' 'ritin' and 'rithmuhtick.

[bluedawg12]

57. Restricting gays from the military is another example of dehumanization.

it goes beyond just DADT - it sends a powerful message, that seems to be well received in some quarters.

[Duncan Grant]

59. We can't let homosexuals serve in the military because they already are.

Stupifyingly absurd, isn't it? :crazy:

[enigmatic]

37. Excellent post

:thumbsup:

[Laughing Mirror]

50. Thank you, LW

I agree wholeheartedly.

[joeybee12]

51. I agree...

...how about victim olympics? Seriously, people need to get a grip...it's a knee-jerk reaction from people that they feel downgrades one group's oppression and discrimination...all of most of these posts like Pam's are doing is trying to explain similar patterns and behaviors mainly by those doing the oppressing.

[omega minimo]

61. she also makes many broad brush statements reinforcing stereotypes & exacerbating misunderstandings

[indigo32]

64. she does?

point em out

[Duncan Grant]

62. It's a relief to see that all the heat in recent days has generated light.

A profound and memorable post. Bookmarked for repeated readings.

Thanks again! :toast: :thumbsup:

[Pacifist Patriot]

67. I am immediately struck by the number of times

"ignored" appears in response to your OP. Considering the responses to "ignored," I can probably figure out why. Suffice it to say I think you have stated the matter quite well. Thank you.

[FreeState]

69. K&R thanks for the post! n/t

[Zenlitened]

75. A terrific post -- K&R

:applause:

I think this phrase in particular really distills the issue to its essence:

...behaviors in an unequal power structure based on maintaining docility in the powerless...

It's got almost an E=MC² kind of quality. Expresses some complicated ideas in a simple, straightforward equation that itself guides the way to further inquiry/discussion.

Well done! :applause:

[noiretextatique]

77. i agree with some of what you write

but the african american struggle in this country CONTINUES...it's not over. african-americans JUST got equal rights by law, less than 50 years ago. i've heard other gay people say that every group has rights except us, but the truth is there is STILL racial and gender discrimination as well as discrimination based on sexual orientation. i think that fact is what annoys me about these conversations: some gay people don't acknowledge that other people still face discrimination.

[joeybee12]

78. Point it out...

...I've never heard anyone say that...not in this Forum.

[noiretextatique]

81. i've seen it several times right here

i understand it probably it's meant to be dismissive, but it is.

[Zenlitened]

79. Some gay people experience racial and gender discrimination...

... along with anti-gay discrimination.

I don't have a precise number, but I imagine it's, um, quite a few.

[noiretextatique]

80. i know that

since i am a black lesbian.

[Zenlitened]

82. I guess I find your initial post even more puzzling, then.

It seemed as if you were compartmentalizing various forms of discrimination, when in fact they are intertwined. Guess I misunderstood? :shrug:

[noiretextatique]

83. not doing that at all

of course they are all intertwined. wells fargo is being sued right now for targeting black customers for high interest rate loans. i don't think log cabin republicans really give a damn about wells fargo's discriminatory business practices.
i am saying i support marriage equity, but i don't think i could count on every white gay person in america to support issues of importance to me as an african american.

[Zenlitened]

102. Very true. Log Cabin Republicans are a case-study in neurotic self-centeredness.

I think they serve the same role as "Concerned Women for America" -- convenient foils who let bigots and misogynists feel more comfortable with their bigotry and misogyny.

[bluedawg12]

138. I woulld hope that among progressives we support the principle of equality and justice for all

even if we don't know which specific issue us on the docket that week for any group.

For example,some may not know specifically about the Wells Fargo unfair business practice, but once aware of it, I would expect all progressives to support the fight against such an injustice.

[noiretextatique]

156. i view them the same way as i do black republicans

total sell-outs. thanks for the discussion :hi:

[omega minimo]

86. IMHO the reverberations of AA history

include the hidden-in-plain-sight socioeconomic disparity b/w white and people of color, that we -- esp. with blacks -- are expected to accept is "coincidence." It isn't. It's residual inequality. It's a legacy handed down generations that goes back to slavery.

That is another reason it seems reasonable to me to respect the sensibilities of people who experience this legacy. That includes respecting sensitivities to the appropriation of certain language and imagery that are specific -- and still painful -- parts of AA experience.

Pointing out the pain that misappropriated terms/imagery brings to those sensitized to African American history in no way undermines or ignores the civil rights struggles of others.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=5866170

[LooseWilly]

92. I'd be curious to hear you expound on your definition of "misappropriated".

It seems to me that this is an essential sticking point of interpretation as far as this topic is concerned. You mention "the pain that misappropriated terms/imagery brings to those sensitized to African American history"... but I don't agree that there was any misappropriation.

To compare the tactics that one sees in how one's own community is treating one (how the "EGL"s attending the "big gay party" are treating the activists/commentators of the LGBT community) to the tactics that another saw in how his own community was treating him (Malcolm X saw himself being treated by the Established Black Community of his time, largely the Church Going Political Establishment of the time...) is, in my opinion, not a "misappropriation".
Likewise, I don't think that it was a "misappropriation" for Malcolm X to compare the tactics that he saw in how his own community was treating him to the tactics that he saw in another community (Slave Society) in how members of that community ("House Negroes") were treating the greater community ("Field Negroes").

I feel, once again, impelled to point out that Malcolm X was not, in point of fact, a "Field Negro". His use of that label for himself was a metaphor. In my opinion, the use of that same metaphor by Aravosis (as apparently he explicitly did at some point) is not a misappropriation, but a sharing... embracing even... of a shared sense of oppression. It is an act of unity, not theft, as I saw it.

"Misappropriation" is a form of theft. To believe that the use of the metaphor by Aravosis is a "misappropriation" requires an acceptance of the notion that the LGBT will somehow "take ownership" of the metaphor... which is a premise that I don't accept as I don't think that anyone, neither inside nor outside the LGBT community, will ever forget that it is a quote of/comparison to Malcolm X... whose statement was itself a comparison with the power structures of slavery.

That's my view on the matter. Please explain to me how you envision the LGBT "stealing" the term/image of "Field Negro", rather than merely sharing it?

I do sincerely hope you are not going to argue that the African American community at this point in time isn't willing to embrace another community that is also striving for its rights, by sharing a term/image (and in so doing unify the struggles)?

[omega minimo]

93. There is a reply in the original thread which you jacknifed off of that will answer & invites

all to look at some history and decide for themselves what is appropriate.

Reply in respsonse to Bluedawg "Pettifoggers" comments.



LW
I do not appreciate your twisted misinterpretations and insinuations of my (and others') words. Some of them are quite disturbed and disturbing.

[donco6]

95. If you're being so damaged, get lost.

Sheesh, what a crybaby. Every post brings up some slight or some whining about "how everyone is DELIBERATELY misinterpreting my comments!" Boo fucking hoo.

[Name removed]

96. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Zenlitened]

99. Seriously, you might want to tone down...

... this talk of "disturbed and disturbing" posts.

Your own behavior throughout this thread had been utterly vile, it really has. I'm frankly stunned. :(

[omega minimo]

100. Nonsense. And considering this is a continuation of another thread, you might want to look at both.

:thumbsup:

What is "vile" is having one's words turned back in ways intended to confuse and mislead, insinuate and "suspect" the meaning -- when that projected meaning is damaging to the person whose post is being mangled -- "well it seems to me you mean........." -- and anyone who might believe that IS what was meant. ESPECIALLY when we are discussing matters that are historically contentious on DU. Right? Right.

Not many are doing that but it is in both threads. The danger is not only to the poster being ensnared but the larger community being misled, by "suspicions" and innuendo.

Asking a question, what did you mean, that's all good. Loading it up with all of the above, not so much.


"Please explain to me how you envision the LGBT "stealing" the term/image of "Field Negro", rather than merely sharing it?"

False insinuation. Projecting that I do something he assumes, which is false.

"I do sincerely hope you are not going to argue that the African American community at this point in time isn't willing to embrace another community that is also striving for its rights, by sharing a term/image (and in so doing unify the struggles)?"

More false innuendo. Very much not appreciated and even the suggestion is damaging.

To all.







Hope the stunnedness wears off in time for you to have a wonderful evening. :pals:

[Zenlitened]

103. You're disgracing yourself in this thread, you really are.

You come across either as vindictive and mean-spirited... or simply unhinged.

I'm shocked that someone who can write so eloquently about women's rights can turn around and be so unrelentingly abrasive, bullying and cruel.

Has your account been hijacked? Who are you? :wow:

[omega minimo]

105. I hope you will look at both threads and the link to more historic info

The following link has much information about the Jim Crow laws, including a very interesting link to the Jim Crow Museum.

Please all, look at the information for yourself and determine how comfortable you are with this equivocation. When you see the history and the horror and understand the powerful resonance that these words/images have for those who understand, you may reconsider your own usage and point of view on what is appropriate -- or not.

Pointing out the pain that misappropriated terms/imagery brings to those sensitized to African American history in no way undermines or ignores the civil rights struggles of others.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=5866170

[Zenlitened]

115. I'm looking at your posts in this thread, and find myself appalled.

You may up have taken up this issue as your burden (reference intentional) but it doesn't excuse your behavior in this thread. That you've managed to be patronizing on several levels simultaneously is not quite the badge of honor you apparently imagine.

You have no idea what historical background or education I may or may not possess. Nor do you have any right to presume that I accept, a priori, your framing of this issue as "misappropriation."

I understand the evidence you're presenting. It's your conclusions I find lacking. And your unhinged, incessant badgering that I find so alarming.

Whatever credibility you once possessed, I think it's safe to say you've thrown it all away by now. Ally? I think you have no idea what the word even means.

[omega minimo]

116. ok

[LooseWilly]

118. Why do I find more responses to my questions in your responses to others than in responses to my own

posts?

I'm starting to suspect that you are the one "projecting".

The reason the "stealing" you mention is in quotes is because I had argued a synonymity of that with "misappropriation"... and I wanted to hear how you meant to explain either/or... in order to justify your premise that there has been a misappropriation. I'm still waiting.

And when I said "I do sincerely hope you are not going to argue that the African American community at this point in time isn't willing to embrace another community that is also striving for its rights, by sharing a term/image (and in so doing unify the struggles)?" I meant to say that... I sincerely hoped that that would not be your response.

As I see it... the African American community can elect to "share" an image/term by allowing other communities struggling for rights to use metaphors when similarities arise... in order to "embrace" fellow struggles... or they can elect not to "share" an image/term.

I do not mistake you, omega, for the African American community... but I was curious to see whether you would argue that the community should be willing to "share" an image/term... or whether they shouldn't be willing to "share" the image/term. There was no innuendo... there was an explicitly stated hope as to which way your "lobbying" of the African American community, on this topic, would lean.

Calling the question "innuendo" is not an answer... it is a dodge.

As for the question being damaging to all... I invite everyone to answer. I answer that I think that every community should be willing to share their images/terms... because every sharing in struggles that, while they may not be the same struggle... are nevertheless parallel struggles... is, in my opinion, a gesture toward alliance.

(I interpret the opposite response as being a gesture damaging of potential alliances.)

[omega minimo]

119. Is it b/c you are ignoring the post I made 45 min. ago and directed you to 20 min. ago

:spray: could that be it?

A post in which I dared try to address you directly and hope to be understood?

:thumbsup:

[LooseWilly]

123. After the dozens of inter-thread links you've made here... I'm waiting for another.

I'll respond when you post it.

[omega minimo]

124. There were no "intra thread links." There was an "inter thread link" to the post which you found

before posting this... that's odd. Not sure what you're waiting for.

I did post links to the Juneteenth thread and invitation to consider the information before adopting "metaphors."

[LooseWilly]

113. Twisted misinterpretations and insinuations?

Do tell. Provide some specifics, and perhaps I can respond.

And while you're at it... why not provide one of your inter-thread links to your definition of "misappropriation"? Gods know you've provided enough other inter-thread links back to that thread in this thread...

[omega minimo]

114. While you've been working this thread to death, since "not holding your breath"

there's a post here for you.

Peace.

:thumbsup:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=221&topic_id=140631&mesg_id=140918

[omega minimo]

120. Not one

"Gods know you've provided enough other inter-thread links back to that thread in this thread..."

[omega minimo]

127. #100

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=221x140631#140895

[donco6]

141. Wow, three responses from the same person.

that's a little freaky.

[kwassa]

98. I pointed it out in the other thread. It is a wild misappropriation.

because it is a huge distortion of the level of SCALE.

and for many other reasons, but apparently you read none of my replies, or if you did, you didn't understand them in that thread.

It isn't just about tactics or metaphors, it is about SUBSTANTIVE differences between the two causes. They intersect on the level of civil rights and principles; the history of the two groups is extraordinarily different, and the appropriation is misinformed, at best.

[LooseWilly]

104. I guess I'm being forced to revisit the repetitions of the other thread... so be it.

In the meantime... I feel constrained to point out that saying "it is a huge distortion of the level of SCALE" is an indulgence in what's now being referred to as "oppression olympics".

And no... I left off reading that other thread... because the responses I was seeing seemed to me to be largely repetitious and... well... they seemed to be consistently demonstrating a point that I had made and which someone asked me to post here as a separate thread.

Namely: That the attempt by a "community" engaged in a struggle for rights & equality which, for any reason whatsoever, attempts to deny the right of another community likewise struggling for rights & equality... is equatable (yes, I am talking in terms of mathematically '=') to that community reaffirming the legitimacy of the power structures against which that fellow community (the party of the second part... i.e. the one wishing to use a comparison) is struggling.

In other words... and this is essentially what my post here is saying... In My Opinion: In so far as the African American Community (if one were to take you, Kwassa, or omega minimo, or any others who disapprove of the shared use of a metaphor) denies the right of the LGBT community to use any metaphor that might refer back to the African American community... I believe that such attempts at denial are a re-affirmation of the "Justice" of continued oppression of the LGBT community.

I posted here presuming that there would be voices of the African American community that would reject the notion that they should deny the use of a metaphor to their fellows in struggle... I'm not sure if I was right or wrong to think so.

Maybe you have some new and compelling explanation waiting for me on the other thread... so I guess I will visit that... but if you just have more "the level of SCALE" examples of "oppression olympics" then I will really just be wasting my time, won't I?

--"It isn't just about tactics or metaphors, it is about SUBSTANTIVE differences between the two causes." The Aravosis article was, in fact, about metaphors of tactics. That's what it was. A metaphor about a specific set of tactics DOESN'T REQUIRE A LACK OF DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE CAUSES WHICH ARE THE 'FRAME' OF THE METAPHOR. I'm starting to get the feeling that I'm going to have to fetch a definition of "metaphor" and use it as a sig line...

"They intersect on the level of civil rights and principles" So why are you fighting the use of a metaphor where the two intersect?

"the history of the two groups is extraordinarily different, and the appropriation is misinformed, at best." No one has argued that the histories of the two groups is not different. An exact match of history, day by day, between parties, is not required for a metaphor.

Watch: I Am A Rock. You have just read a metaphor. Now... do I have to be "an American singer-songwriter duo consisting of Paul Simon and Art Garfunkel." in order to use this metaphor? I think we can all agree that the answer is no.

I guess I'll have to go to the other thread though, for an education on how the appropriation is misinformed.

[omega minimo]

110. "They intersect on the level of civil rights and principles" So why are you fighting the use of a..?

"They intersect on the level of civil rights and principles" So why are you fighting the use of a metaphor where the two intersect?"

One answer to your question is, as Kwassa says, "scale" and "SUBSTANTIVE differences between the two causes." The link below is a gateway to lots of historic info and an invitation to be informed when/if using terms from the African American history and the Civil Rights Era.

Another answer is in your question: you say "a metaphor" or in the post "any metaphor." Some will be appropriate -- at that intersection of civil rights and principles -- and some will not. I used the word specific and bolded it to try to convey this. Some things are too charged with meaning to be treated lightly. The pain comes from a (mis)appropriation -- usage that is a resonant reminder -- and from the perception that people are uninformed or unwilling to acknowledge the continuing effect that those specific words/imagery have.

"In My Opinion: In so far as the African American Community (if one were to take you, Kwassa, or omega minimo, or any others who disapprove of the shared use of a metaphor) denies the right of the GLBT community to use any metaphor that might refer back to the African American community... I believe that such attempts at denial are a re-affirmation of the "Justice" of continued oppression of the LGBT community."

See, there's that "any metaphor." It's not just "any metaphor." It's specific ones. That's how the argument gets turned around, too. Object to the use of "Gay Jim Crow Laws" and you're told you don't support GLBT equality. Question the use of "back of the bus" and you're told you oppose gay marriage.

Otherwise, your statement again has inferences that just aren't valid. They turn it around and make false accusations, like I just described.

Although the focus on those larger forces that we ALL are dealing with, is where we need to get to, to get anywhere, together.

Everyone wants to be heard. We all hear the need for recognition of common civil rights issues and causes, in our Founders words "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness." We pledge to "Freedom and Justice for All." We hear loud and clear GLBT: "That means us too!"

Where are the concerns of the former slaves of this nation being heard? It's great that Pam does her thing, but fast and loose with the over-generalizations of "whites this" and "blacks that" and she's DONE. There it is. I'm afraid people might actually believe her.

One thing's for sure. We're all quite familiar with the word "diversity." The one good thing that may be coming out of all this is new coalitions, a new civil rights movement, with all subgroups working together, as they did "back in the day."

:thumbsup:

The link is below. I'm sorry this is so long. I hope you read it in the peaceful spirit it is intended. I want to say one more thing to you, LW. I grew up in a mostly white neighborhood with AA and MexA kids bussed in to school. One of my classmates was Iranian-American. He had the background I did and may have similar connections/awareness to those years. I also know a friend's husband, a little older, from Peru, with similar features to the Iranian/American. I'm sure they both get profiled -- I know the Peruvian who travels a lot had it so bad he started putting political bumper stickers in his luggage: "Got Rights?"

What's the point? I dunno. We all have our experiences and our stories. I tried to say earlier that those who were sensitized to the struggles of the Civil Rights Era were trained to be tolerant or respectful -- even when they didn't relate or understand -- or at least pretend to. You replied as if I was trying to make some comparison to GLBT, which I wasn't. I'm saying I think that sense of respect was lost. I think it was intentionaly killed by "Political Correctness" -- a RW trick to ridicule diversity and respect, not promote it. Those are the times we are living in. Tolerance and respect aren't the words we use. "Political Correctness" is near universally sneered at. Just as the pre-Luntz/Lakoff motherfoggers knew it would be.

Even so, it's still possible to listen to each other. Thank you for reading all that, if you did!! :hi:

*
The following link has much information about the Jim Crow laws, including a very interesting link to the Jim Crow Museum.

Please all, look at the information for yourself and determine how comfortable you are with this equivocation. When you see the history and the horror and understand the powerful resonance that these words/images have for those who understand, you may reconsider your own usage and point of view on what is appropriate -- or not.

Pointing out the pain that misappropriated terms/imagery brings to those sensitized to African American history in no way undermines or ignores the civil rights struggles of others.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=5866170

[LooseWilly]

122. I still don't find an answer that satisfies me as to why some metaphors are not acceptable.

Firstly, I am familiar with the atrocities and inequalities of Jim Crow laws... but thanks for reposting that link all the same. I'm not sure why you keep re-posting it... I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you assume I'm not familiar with the facts... or maybe you think a list that is longer than that which I saw in my 8th grade history book is going to be revelatory for me (perhaps it would have been 20 years ago... today... it is just a long list for me).

As for the argument of "scale"... I still see that as "oppression olympics"... and I don't want to get into that fight.

Maybe I've been cursed by coming into contact solely with black folk who are inclusive of other struggles... so I've never been "educated" as to why some terms are metaphorically "verboten". Or, as you put it "It's not just "any metaphor." It's specific ones."...

So, here's a question... Who Determines Which Metaphors are the "Specific Ones" to which you refer? And... what is the criteria for said determination?

How about Byron Williams?... who has served as pastor of the Resurrection Community Church since 2002. And who said:

Unfortunately, I was cutoff before I could make an additional point, which would have underscored why the question was inherently problematic.

Though I did not believe there was any malice intent in the question, it is easier, almost in a benign manner, for those who already benefit from a certain privilege to suggest those who do not have it should simply wait for the corrective measure of time to do its work.

There is no denying that institutional change seldom comes as quick as its advocates want. That’s why Martin Luther King stated, “The arc of the moral universe is long but it bends toward justice.”

But those who suggested waiting was the best response, in Birmingham 1963 is why King wrote his famous “Letter from Birmingham Jail.”

King's letter was a response to a statement made by eight white Alabama clergymen, who agreed that social injustices existed but argued that the battle against racial segregation should be fought solely in the courts, not in the streets, in other words wait.

For King “wait” almost always meant “never,” and he went on to write a 6,000 word epistle as to why the Negro cannot wait.

<snip>

It is hard to hear wait, when one is told that gay rights are not civil rights, when the classical definition of civil rights is:

“A class of rights and freedoms that protect individuals from the government and state power and assure the ability to participate in the civil and political life of the state.”

Call me naive... but I don't think this voice within the African American community would agree with you about some terms being "imiscible" metaphorically, with other communities.

So... my question now, in light of the fact that this quote is essentially saying the same thing, without a quote, as Aravosis said with a quote, is... who judges which terms/images are "off limits"?... And what is the criteria?

[omega minimo]

125. OIC

At this level, my answer would be, yet again

Please all, look at the information for yourself and determine how comfortable you are with this equivocation. When you see the history and the horror and understand the powerful resonance that these words/images have for those who understand, you may reconsider your own usage and point of view on what is appropriate -- or not.

Pointing out the pain that misappropriated terms/imagery brings to those sensitized to African American history in no way undermines or ignores the civil rights struggles of others.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=5866170

[LooseWilly]

131. Your references to history and horror...

still sound like a form of "oppression olympics".

And I still feel that a metaphorical comparison is not a misappropriation. I don't think it's disrespectful. And, I'm comfortable with it. The specific metaphor to which you are still referring is still a metaphor of tactics... and I still see it as an implicit statement that some in the LGBT community have reached the same point of disenchantment with their own "leaders" as Malcolm X seemed to have reached with the black communities "leaders" at the time... and I still see the use of that metaphor as a valid use of metaphor.

I also still fail to see any indication that the LGBT activists/commentators are trying, in any way, to suggest that their struggle is in any way greater or lesser than that of the African American community as embodied by Malcolm X. Nor do I see any indication that they see their struggle as being the "new Civil Rights Movement", at least... not in this article that you can't seem to let go of. Nor in Pam Spaulding's article. Nor in the re-use of a Malcolm X metaphor. And further... I don't believe that Malcolm X, at least not the older Malcolm X who'd gone on Hijab, would object... were he still alive.

I am comfortable with this metaphor. I do not see this metaphor as an equivocation. I make this judgement without, in any way, diminishing the horrors that the African American community has endured.

It is the issue of "ownership" of language that I'm not comfortable with. There are certain terms (which I'll refrain from posting) which I am willing to accept the idea of "ownership" of for each of the communities in question, the African American and the LGBT... they've each suffered under certain words to the point that I'm willing to give each "ownership" over those words... but metaphorical comparisons of systems/tactics of power relationships... that, to me, is not the within the realms of "linguistic ownership". What next? Are women also to be barred, if they make another move to pass ERA, from using metaphorical comparisons with other struggles?

I, personally, am not willing to buy into the idea.

[omega minimo]

133. OK

You haven't listened to anything. :rofl: :spray: Only referencing what you already had stuck in your head.

That's okay. Silly me. I said I would try one time and I did it again............ :rofl:

[LooseWilly]

134. You haven't said anything new.

You repeat the same thing... apparently thinking that I'm going to review your references and suddenly gain new clarity as to how African Americans really do win the "oppression olympics"... and then you ask me to do a virtual tour of the Jim Crow museum for fun...

I'm not in any way denigrating the oppression of slavery or Jim Crow... I'm still saying that the use of metaphors comparing other struggles to that of the African American community are, if anything, a potential point of bonding between communities as each realizes that there are shared details in the distinctive struggles that each community faces.

:+ responding to your repetition is a nice form of typing exercise though...

Maybe... at some point, you will provide an analysis that consists of more than a link to the Jim Crow museum??

[omega minimo]

143. O

No, I guess I shouldn't hope that you might "suddenly gain new clarity." Sorry.

This was new:

We all have our experiences and our stories. I tried to say earlier that those who were sensitized to the struggles of the Civil Rights Era were trained to be tolerant or respectful -- even when they didn't relate or understand -- or at least pretend to. You replied as if I was trying to make some comparison to GLBT, which I wasn't. I'm saying I think that sense of respect was lost.

I think it was intentionaly killed by "Political Correctness" -- a RW trick to ridicule diversity and respect, not promote it. Those are the times we are living in. Tolerance and respect aren't the words we use. "Political Correctness" is near universally sneered at. Just as the pre-Luntz/Lakoff motherfoggers knew it would be.

Even so, it's still possible to listen to each other.

[kwassa]

140. of course you are comfortable with the metaphor.

You are not black. This metaphor doesn't bother you in the least. I'm glad to hear it.

This isn't about you, however, but how black people feel of the use of their history.

and no one has tried to restrict the use of the language of the black civil rights struggle, if it is done with historical accuracy and proportion, but that is not what has happened. That is the critique being made, by me and others.

You don't know what you don't know. You haven't displayed any particular knowledge of the civil rights struggle, as far as I can see, or of the thoughts and beliefs of African-Americans. Driving cabs is not a direct route to knowledge, either.

[omega minimo]

142. "Your references to history and horror... still sound like a form of "oppression olympics"."

"Your references to history and horror... still sound like a form of "oppression olympics"."

So, given that as a lead line, who can't take a hint, that the "oppression olypmics" meme has superseded any further discussion?

The sort of trivialization of the "history and horror" in that blase statement are what is being questioned in the use of specific, unique and devastating "metaphors."

One wants a list to refer to, rather than a sensitivity or sensibility of balance and appropriateness.

"I also still fail to see any indication that the LGBT activists/commentators are trying, in any way, to suggest that their struggle is in any way greater or lesser than that of the African American community as embodied by Malcolm X."

This is exactly the same logic used in the flap about "Senator" Barbara Boxer, aka "Madame Chair" and occasionally "Ma'am."

The issue was not whether or not the general INTENDED any particular affront. The point was that the Senator expressed her preference, which he acknowledged and acted upon.

That need to justify and claim innocence of any comparison of "greater or lesser" IS "oppression Olympics."

"It is the issue of "ownership" of language that I'm not comfortable with."

Funny. It's the issue of "ownership" language that American slaves and their descendants were not comfortable with.

[donco6]

94. I haven't seen that, either.

I would never claim that AAs have conquered discrimination, and I can't imagine anyone else doing it, either.

[LooseWilly]

97. I don't dispute the persistence of any other forms of discrimination.

I'm not African American. So I won't claim any "intimate" knowledge of the struggles you mention... but having driven a taxi in Oakland for 10 years (not just downtown or in North Oakland... but West and East Oakland), I have become rather familiar with many aspects of the struggles of the African American community. I've talked with the dealers, the hustlers... and some wonderful parents just trying to figure out how to raise their kids to be responsible people despite the nature of the communities... the communities that are left to call stores that sell Cheetoes, wilting bell peppers, frozen pizzas, and a refrigerator full of Olde English and King Cobra... a "grocery store".
I've lived there.

I've watched as nearby communities develop, while you could tell where the city line was simply by whether or not the storefronts were the usual Nail Salons, "Grocery Stores", and check cashing shops.

I've seen the signs "Will Buy Houses for Cash $$" posted especially thickly in the neighborhoods where the older generations (Malcolm X's generation's survivors, I guess) are particularly thickly clustered... a clear sign of Real Estate Developers hoping that the children and grandchildren will sell off the houses worked so hard for... and hopefully be too desperate to hold out for a reasonable price.
And I saw the WaMu close up shop in East Oakland... and heard the folks in West Oakland complain about the BofA that still remains... which BofA can't legally close because it is the last bank in the neighborhood offering banking services to the neighborhood... so they just give as shitty of service as possible... hoping to drive away customers so that they will have an excuse to close the branch.

And, for a stint, I also did some substitute teaching in the schools. I let a math class "discussion" digress into a discussion of "Gay Rights" when some of the kids in the back called something "gay"... and I called them on it. And I tried to get an explanation for the unease between the two communities out of a 6th grader... who couldn't say why it was a bad thing to be gay... but he knew that it was. And most of the class seemed to agree... or they hid any disagreement too well for me to spot it (or they just plain didn't want to have to think about it).

All of that said... I still can't help but think that "sharing" a metaphor of suffering at the hands of those members of the respective communities who would act as "apologists" for the power structure at large that resists allowances of equal treatment/acknowledges equality of rights ... I can't help but think that sharing a metaphor might be a way for those of each community who might be interested in addressing the inter-community unease to take a first step.

Or the two communities can choose not to share. Which, it seems to me, is win win for those who would deny both communities whatever rights/equalities possible.

(And, in the name of full disclosure as long as we're talking about race and sexual orientation and gender... I'm a half-white/half-Iranian who grew up in the post-Iranian revolution US... male, atheist, hetero... who's too punk rock to be anything but an outcast in the eyes of "mainstream" society.)

[kwassa]

101. I think I see the disconnect ...

I've also been a cab driver in a largely black neighborhood, but never felt it gave me particular insight to the black community.

That came from reading, study, life experience.

What is missing, mostly, from your background, in my opinion, is a in-depth knowledge of the history of the black civil rights movement.

I would also point out that black communities exist at different income levels, too, not just that of Oakland. There isn't one that represents all.

[LooseWilly]

107. So you're telling me that I can learn more about the continuing struggles of the black community...

... by reading and studying? And... hmm... spending 10 years driving people around the community and essentially becoming, at least peripherally, a part of the community... that's not "life experience"?

How do you define life experience?... if living in a black community, and working in a black community, and peripherally coming into contact with more members of that community than would be possible with in nearly any other set of circumstances imaginable... doesn't count?

"What is missing, mostly, from your background, in my opinion, is a in-depth knowledge of the history of the black civil rights movement." Uhh... does reading and studying count? In the interest of brevity I'll mention you two books... Their Eyes Were Watching God (Zora Neale Hurston, brilliant), the Invisible Man (Ralph Ellison, also brilliant)... to go on further would be to fall into an "intellectual olympics" trap... and I would rather not muddy the board thusly.

I will likewise refrain from participating in the "resume olympics". If you would care to address the actual content of my post... rather than my qualifications to post (which I think would be best interpreted by... reading the post)... have a good time. :)

[kwassa]

139. Yes, I am, through reading and studying

and through serious discussions about politics and viewpoints of African-Americans with African-Americans. It is quite easy to do this on the web, by the way.

Sorry, but most taxicab conversations are not too deep. You are an outside observer who has transitory contact with individuals which is, as you describe, peripheral. You really don't know their feelings on deeper subjects. You observe their struggles from outside, and you do as good job as an observer, and I think you are a good writer, but your experience is limited.

The point of your post was about sharing a metaphor, but you didn't touch the critical point that I have made here over and over; it is a poor metaphor, a poor analogy, because of the very great differences in the histories of the two communities. The principles of inequality are the same, and that is what should be stressed, in my opinion, but the metaphor involves a misuse of history.

and as wonderful as Ellison and Hurston are, you are reading fiction from 60-70 years ago that PRECEDES the significant years of the black civil rights movement. It doesn't tell you a thing about what black people in America today think and feel on the subjects, or particularly anything about events in the civil rights struggle. You are a first generation American, at least on one side of the family, and are born without the historical context, either.

I suggest that you try to have conversations with black people here on the web if you are truly interested in learning more, and read up on this history.

[LooseWilly]

157. In point of fact I was not trying to portray myself as a scholar of African American Studies.

But thanks for the tip.

You are obviously intent on de-legitimizing anything I might say on the basis of a supposed lack of knowledge. Firstly, I haven't seen any sign of qualifications on your part that convince me that you are qualified to judge my qualifications... and Secondly, I'm not interested in proving my qualifications to you in any case- as my experience with the African American community has informed me enough to know that anyone who comes into the community and begins trying to justify oneself with a resume comes off like the butt of a Stephen Colbert "My Black Friend" joke.

I'll leave it to others to judge the merits of what I've said on the merits of... what has been said.

In the meantime... in my "travels" back to the "I'm A Field Negro" thread... I found a post of bluedawg12's which, in concert with one of my own, I believe you might find illuminating.

I direct you to bluedawg12's post #190.... followed by my post #195.

A legal/definitional analysis, followed by a literary analysis. Fancy that...

;)

[omega minimo]

159. Analyses which ignore the realities of Jim Crow

[kwassa]

160. well, you can't judge my qualifications.

you don't know them.

I am intent on de-legitimizing what you are saying because it is really bad analogy, not a metaphor, that you are giving credence to. No other reason.

Since you don't trust me, I have a proposition for you.

Why don't you take this OP, and post it in the African-American group here, and have a discussion with the participants there on this very same topic?

If you are polite and respectful, you might have a very good conversation.

I don't think you will. You don't want to actually talk to black people about this, IMHO.

[Starry Messenger]

161. .

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=221x140150#141080

[kwassa]

162. thanks for the heads up.

[LooseWilly]

163. That is not a response to my post.

"it is a really bad analogy, not a metaphor" ?

My answer "it is not a really bad analogy, it is a metaphor".

}(

[kwassa]

164. I still challenge you

Put your OP in the African-American group.

but once again, I don't think you really want to talk to black people.

[LooseWilly]

166. You challenge me?

What are you, a 13 year old who thinks we're on the playground and you'll get a rise out of me by 'double dog daring me'?

Come to think of it, you're starting to remind me of a kid who used to like to taunt me on the playground by calling me a "Cambodian Refugee"... but even back then I had the good sense not to break his wrist... though I was sore tempted.

Tell ya what... you respond to my post intelligently, and I'll consider it. How's that for a challenge?? :+

[kwassa]

167. and what intelligent response are you looking for?

[LooseWilly]

168. Well, I'll settle for an intelligent analysis of why you think

that Aravosis ought not to quote Spaulding... and while you're at it, why ought Spaulding not quote Malcolm X?

I'd also like to hear how you actually interpret the comments of... let's say Aravosis, in the context of the DNC fundraiser which precipitated the commentary in the first place.

You can start with the third point, if you only feel like replying about one...

[kwassa]

169. Anyone can quote anyone

but there should be a meaning behind it.

Aravosis is surprised to be quoting Malcolm X, and should be, as he shows no knowledge about Malcolm. None at all.

Spaulding is quoting Malcolm in a very poor analogy, reasons stated before, and again and again. I think this is the part you really want to talk about.

I have no problems at all with Aravosis's critique of the fundraiser. I agree with him, actually. My critique is really of Spaulding's bad analogy, and of the destructive divisiveness it will create, as reflected in the historical predecessor of the black civil rights movement.

[Starry Messenger]

109. He didn't say it gave him insight into the black community.

He said that he had noticed the some of the side effects of the devastation of discrimination. Noiretextastique mentioned that she felt that that concern was lost in these discussions. The civil rights movement for the African American community has not actually ended was the point she was making. You seem to be saying that the history is a discrete point in time that one must study. I think LW was just trying to acknowledge that these points do not go unnoticed and are products of abuses of power, also fomented by the scourge of the Right Wing powers that be.

I hope noiretextatique will correct me if I am wrong. :)

[omega minimo]

111. a handout, a primer

The following link has much information about the Jim Crow laws, including a very interesting link to the Jim Crow Museum.

Please all, look at the information for yourself and determine how comfortable you are with this equivocation. When you see the history and the horror and understand the powerful resonance that these words/images have for those who understand, you may reconsider your own usage and point of view on what is appropriate -- or not.

Pointing out the pain that misappropriated terms/imagery brings to those sensitized to African American history in no way undermines or ignores the civil rights struggles of others.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=5866170

[Starry Messenger]

121. I read it and rec'd it when you posted it omega.

I'm an artist, I know the power of images. I went to art school for my BFA and MFA and took a seminar with Fred Wilson, though that is certainly not my only exposure to this material or the history of Civil Rights. I think it is good to have these discussions on an ongoing basis. We are all trying to communicate in text here. I find that assuming good faith on the part of everyone is usually the best policy.

[omega minimo]

126. Thank you, dear Starry

[Starry Messenger]

128. I think everyone here has a similar understanding.

I don't think gay DU-ers are people calloused by exposure to right wing excoriation to "political correctness".

[omega minimo]

129. anyone who targets and ridicules other groups for entertainment and bonding, surely has.

It's epidemic these days. I was not trying to make a comparison b/w causes but b/w times. By way of explaining a perhaps anachronistic expectation of mutual support and tacit tolerance.

[Uzybone]

106. Hilarious.You are familiar with aspects of the black struggle because you drove a cab in Oakland?

you drove a cab in inner city Oakland and that is your basis for familiarity with the black struggle? What a joke.

If a heterosexual said some thing similar about familiarity with the gay experience because he drove a cab in some part of the city he would be excoriated.

[Duncan Grant]

117. If one drove a cab in San Francisco for 10 years, they'd know everything about gay life here.

If you want excoriate your ally (and LooseWilly is your ally) then knock yourself out. It's your loss.

[LooseWilly]

130. Well, maybe I should get to work on that...

Oakland doesn't seem to want me... and the economy can't support the cab drivers it has (and apparently doesn't want them anyway)... So... what's everyone's favorite SF cab company?... I'm in the market for a new job. (I'm thinking Yellow, but I've heard good things about DeSoto).

[Duncan Grant]

132. My husband knows someone who drives for Luxor (only twice a week) who does fine.

Yellow is probably the favorite in SF. They're everywhere and their phone number is so easy to memorize (626-2345).

I don't see many DeSoto cabs anymore. Maybe they're running a smaller fleet?

C'mon over. Might as well drive in SF. Unless you know someone who'll pay you to read books. ;)

[LooseWilly]

135. Heh... Luxor or Yellow it is (DeSoto must be working mostly from the airport these days)

I was kind of hoping for some other driving job to help me learn the SF streets (Market really makes the City a pain in the ass to navigate)... but apparently 10 years as a cabbie makes me unemployable (heh... BA in English, minor in Computer Science... speak fluent Spanish... but he drove a cab??... don't hire that asshole!). I guess I'll spend a month or so just driving laps, to get a better feel for the City... that ought to be fun!

(Ironically, in the years I was driving in Oakland... I heard of a lot of cabbie murders in SF, but none in Oakland... I guess the shields in Oakland really do make a difference... I know I've used then to great effect at times... though I never did have the nerve to actually take a shot at one and see if a 9mm round would penetrate it.)

[cali]

136. this is an excellent, though provoking OP- the best of what DU has to offer.

I don't agree with every word you wrote, but you made me think and re-evaluate. For that I heartily thank you.

k&r

[imdjh]

144. Well said, and to make one more comparison. Anne Frank could hide too, for all the good it did her.

to deny the LGBT community the legitimate right to compare a struggle for rights to another struggle for rights is a form of discrimination, IMO.

The idea that gay people are somehow less entitled to call our struggle "civil rights movement" because we can theoretically hide our identity borders on the "it's a choice" argument, an argument which only makes sense to people who don't know what they are talking about, or unfortunately those who are themselves gay or bisexual but playing straight because their choices and goals require it.

[omega minimo]

148. That's not what this or the previous discussion were about

"the legitimate right to compare a struggle for rights to another struggle for rights"

That's an unfortunate misunderstanding. The discussions were regarding certain direct language and comparisons that are problematic.

The OP fudged that over, the author of the blog in the parent thread changed his title, it's all gotten a bit confused.

Pointing out the pain that misappropriated terms/imagery brings to those sensitized to African American history in no way undermines or ignores the civil rights struggles of others.

[Deep13]

150. I think comparisons to other civil rights efforts are apt.

In all cases it is a fact-based argument asserted by a social minority to overcome an assumed popular prejudice, usually reinforced by the pulpit and the general powers that be. In all cases, false morality based on implicitly religious notions about how we are "meant" to live props up the majority, anti-reality argument.

One factual point. At this point it appears highly unlikely that the Hebrews were ever slaves in Egypt. It seems that after the Hebrews migrated to Canaan (Palastine) from Goshen on the Egyptian border, another ethnic group later joined them who had been slaves, probably of a now extinct bronze-age near East state. They brought monotheism to the Hebrews as well as the prior slavery myth.