My memory is that I met Jim Kepner at ONE when I was at loose ends, and we talked over a coke (after meeting at ONE’s offices on Hill St. (I think that old elevator was on the Broadway side) in the Thrifty Drug across from Pershing Square. He said he was going to the convention. I decided to go—I must have had a car, but I went anyway. I wonder if there are any records of who signed up, any brochures if any? I know it got lots of publicity in the 2 papers-The Denver Post and Rocky Mountain News. I don't know if Jim wrote it up in his journals. I don't remember any of the meetings or even the speakers.
But they all are relatively unimportant-also what did Hal write up about it later? I'm not sure if Don Lucas was there. BECAUSE people there were so excited at how well things were going, publicity etc, that they paid little attention to a sneaky proposal to honor the mayor of San Francisco for being so helpful and in a sense gay-friendly. Now as I recall San Francisco was NOT all that good in those days. But no one thought much about it and it passed along with some other things and the convention ended and everyone went home—except the members who had done such a great job and lived in Denver. All hell broke loose—they lost jobs, etc.
AND suddenly Wolper or whatever the politician’s name was that was running against Christopher started publicizing the queer, I forget what term he used, organization honoring Christopher and how terrible that was for San Francisco’s image, etc. and of course the voters should NOT vote for Christopher.
Talk about unintended consequences—the papers, etc., which were NOT gay-friendly, took out after the man, calling HIM a troublemaker and supporting Christopher. Hal, et al., loved it of course—it got Mattachine great publicity. I'm not sure how many new members it got, but in those days neither Mattachine nor ONE got much help from all the publicity they got—which wasn't that much anyway.
I am not sure of the dates, but I must have gone to San Francisco then and that is when I first (of two times) stayed with Hal and worked a week or so in the PanGraphic office, and the only record is the book review I did of Advise and Consent, which appeared later.
I had actually lived a few months in San Francisco earlier and did not contact Mattachine at the time—I was working the last “regular” job, as “caller to check on credit” at Retailers Commercial Agency-Retail Credit, now called something else, in Atlanta GA. Ironically my first job after getting kicked out of the Army at Ft Riley, dropping off my car in Bossier city, taking the train to L. A., and following Don Slater’s idea, even before I knew him, I lied and neither firm ever checked on my military service (and thus Undesirable Discharge) but did send for my lousy transcript at LSU—was a southern company that should have checked as that was their business—the first company was southern also, Anderson, Clayton Cotton co, of Houston, and some parts still in business, on 6th St. at Lafayette Park. Retailers in L. A. had been on Wilshire near downtown, across from the hospital. I was not doing well, so they transferred me to try San Francisco, and finally we just mutually called it quits.
I took a bus trip around the country, Boston, N. Y., etc. Left car parked on hill in S. F. and it was in good shape when I returned. Then returned to L. A. and went to work for ONE, and rest is history.
But it seems important to think that what we or they thought was the main thing at the convention turned out to be nothing and yet the convention put Mattachine on the map andin a sense started San Francisco toward being what it is today and that was NOT what the agent provocateur had wanted.
A lesson rightwingers might want to consider.
Thursday, July 31, 2008
Wednesday, July 2, 2008
A newsletter that should be read by the people at the LGBT Journalists Association
I have been looking around at material and found a copy of our newsletter #55, of Fall/Winter, 1996.
If we don't let the world know any more about our work, they should know the information and views expressed in the reviews of the books and the books themselves, mainly the two relevant to NLGJA: Straight News: Gays, Lesbians and the News Media, by Edward Alwood (Columbia University Press, 1996) and Unspeakable, the Rise of the Gay and Lesbian Press in America, by Rodger Streitmatter (Faber & Faber, 1995).
The reviews say that for the most part the books give information and history that journalists, and everyone, needs to understand how this movement got to where it is today.
But the reviewers also point out the misinformation, and that is important since for the most part later historians will just quote from the books without checking to see if there are any errors.
Straight News is reviewed by Joseph Hansen, famous not for being an editor and writer for ONE/Tangents Magazine, but as a gay writer of gay mysteries. But he knows the facts. And he points out important things relevant even to the discussion I have had with NLGJA people and the editor of Bay Windows.
Gay/lesbian journalists of today may not even know how bad the situation was in the ’50s and ’60s and how awful the media covered us, in the few times they did cover homosexuality.
Later journalists still did not check their facts. As Joe points out, sometimes he, Morris Kight, Troy Perry or others may have been at the same event and the newspaper coverage only gave one view-usually Morris’s. One strange point is that AIDS got us attention.
You will understand the feeling I have even now, reading Joe’s closing remarks: The efforts told to us in story after story in Edward Alwood’s fine book, efforts by numberless heroic men and women down the decades to educate and awaken to our common humanity the people among whom we lived should lift your hearts.
"Not that the war is won as this grisly century dies. Many battles lie ahead, not the least to wipe antihomosexual laws off the books of ALL states. But reading this account of the equal-rights battles already won should give all of us courage to fight on with the certainty that if we do, in the end our victory will be complete." Joe and Don would rejoice to see how much has been done so far.
Unspeakable is reviewed by Jim Kepner. He of course points out the conflict among g/l journalists,which in the early days seemed to be that “professional” college trained journalists looked down on the first g/l journalists who trained on the job. He says rightly that Streitmatter seems to not have really read his material and makes statements that are simply not true, such as that ONE was not forceful on seeking rights, or that we were not as good as the Mattachine Review and The Ladder, which is by any objective view simply nonsense. Hal Call merely used “professionals” and copied items and ONE did original work, and we never allowed “professionals” to tell us about us: we told them.
He points out that there were publications before Vice Versa, and that even Henry Gerber is ignored. And Jim's work is completely misunderstood by Streitmatter—Jim didn't merely quote the news, he commented on it—the very title of the Tangents section was news and views. But ONE has to be given credit as the first public and continuing-for two decades homosexual publication. And the NLGJA honored Don Slater as its editor and his struggle to make the magazine professional and something our community could be proud of.
Jim also points out the constantly repeated error that ONE was an all-male publication/organization. Obviously he never looked at the credits as for years the main editor was a woman and Stella Rush, still alive and kicking was a writer as was Betty Perdue (as Geraldine Jackson).
If we don't let the world know any more about our work, they should know the information and views expressed in the reviews of the books and the books themselves, mainly the two relevant to NLGJA: Straight News: Gays, Lesbians and the News Media, by Edward Alwood (Columbia University Press, 1996) and Unspeakable, the Rise of the Gay and Lesbian Press in America, by Rodger Streitmatter (Faber & Faber, 1995).
The reviews say that for the most part the books give information and history that journalists, and everyone, needs to understand how this movement got to where it is today.
But the reviewers also point out the misinformation, and that is important since for the most part later historians will just quote from the books without checking to see if there are any errors.
Straight News is reviewed by Joseph Hansen, famous not for being an editor and writer for ONE/Tangents Magazine, but as a gay writer of gay mysteries. But he knows the facts. And he points out important things relevant even to the discussion I have had with NLGJA people and the editor of Bay Windows.
Gay/lesbian journalists of today may not even know how bad the situation was in the ’50s and ’60s and how awful the media covered us, in the few times they did cover homosexuality.
Later journalists still did not check their facts. As Joe points out, sometimes he, Morris Kight, Troy Perry or others may have been at the same event and the newspaper coverage only gave one view-usually Morris’s. One strange point is that AIDS got us attention.
You will understand the feeling I have even now, reading Joe’s closing remarks: The efforts told to us in story after story in Edward Alwood’s fine book, efforts by numberless heroic men and women down the decades to educate and awaken to our common humanity the people among whom we lived should lift your hearts.
"Not that the war is won as this grisly century dies. Many battles lie ahead, not the least to wipe antihomosexual laws off the books of ALL states. But reading this account of the equal-rights battles already won should give all of us courage to fight on with the certainty that if we do, in the end our victory will be complete." Joe and Don would rejoice to see how much has been done so far.
Unspeakable is reviewed by Jim Kepner. He of course points out the conflict among g/l journalists,which in the early days seemed to be that “professional” college trained journalists looked down on the first g/l journalists who trained on the job. He says rightly that Streitmatter seems to not have really read his material and makes statements that are simply not true, such as that ONE was not forceful on seeking rights, or that we were not as good as the Mattachine Review and The Ladder, which is by any objective view simply nonsense. Hal Call merely used “professionals” and copied items and ONE did original work, and we never allowed “professionals” to tell us about us: we told them.
He points out that there were publications before Vice Versa, and that even Henry Gerber is ignored. And Jim's work is completely misunderstood by Streitmatter—Jim didn't merely quote the news, he commented on it—the very title of the Tangents section was news and views. But ONE has to be given credit as the first public and continuing-for two decades homosexual publication. And the NLGJA honored Don Slater as its editor and his struggle to make the magazine professional and something our community could be proud of.
Jim also points out the constantly repeated error that ONE was an all-male publication/organization. Obviously he never looked at the credits as for years the main editor was a woman and Stella Rush, still alive and kicking was a writer as was Betty Perdue (as Geraldine Jackson).
Tuesday, July 1, 2008
GQ and New Republic article on homosexual issues
Being a retiree, and having time, if not money, I spent several hours in my local library yesterday, just to see what was in the magazines. I had liked the current issue of Time, which I get for $15 a year as a senior citizen (a term Don Slater hated) but can't see every publication, and Jim Kepner would be nuts by now with all the good coverage on our issues in lots of publications, much less tv soap operas.
The July issue of GQ magazine has a great long article on Bishop Gene Robinson.
The June 11th issue of The New Republic has a 2 view article on the CA marriage decision. One view is that it, and this is the Don Slater view, is wrong to say we are a suspect class and it could hurt the cause. It could be a victory in the battle but could prolong the war for a decade due to backlash. I think that was the Jeffrey Rosen view.
The other view is that we would have had to face the issue sooner or later, just enjoy it and don't worry the amendment may not pass—the view of Richard Just.
I see no email address for the publication, but someone should thank them for the discussion and make the obvious point that—for us this is a win-win situation—we will not have lost something we never had and, as it says, this is an education process that has to take place anyway. It may be costly for us, but think how much time, energy and money the bigots are having to waste—including the Catholic and Mormon churches. That alone would make it something Don would have to be a part of.
Names are not exclusive, and so what two names jumped out at me in different publications: Dale Jennings, in San Diego—and the letter (I think it was in American History) was talking about an article that told about J Edgar Hoover’s desire to end habeas corpus and arrest all the dissidents he disliked—the claim is that arrangement for jails has—been made already.
And in a religious magazine, Charisma or Christianity Today, there is mention of a Paul Cain, in regard to a religious event in Lakeland FL, and I gather he has been accused of sexual violations (hetero).
And in the same type of book on black civil rights history like the one I reviewed on Bayard Rustin, herein The Nation is a review of a book that should mention him, but in the review does NOT and yet has coverage of the same issues—use of communistic issues to attack the movement yet that may have been a source that helped it. AND here is coverage of a black, cross-dressing lesbian feminist, named Pauli Murray, and this is in the 1940s I think, but she was involved in some type of March on Washington that I think was before Rustin's.
The book is Defying Dixie, radical roots of civil rights, by Glenda Elizabeth Gilmore, published by Norton, $39.95. I think she either went to Howard later and may have taught law.
And finally, the question in New Orleans Magazine about an early bar-and it is the My-O-My, which I knew about but never went to, a female impersonation bar on the lakefront in New Orleans.
And this is only a few publications. Poor Jim Kepner. He would not have been able to do the news section even if he spent 24 hours a day. What a wonderful problem though: almost every article is favorable. Even a mention of the marriage in either Charisma or Christianity Today (or maybe Christian Century, but I don't think so as it is a liberal publication anyway) which refers to the logical way to handle it saying: things can be immoral but not illegal.
I think we miss a lot by not going to our library once in a while and just seeing what we have missed. Again, I know of no LGBT publication that covers such things. I glance at things like Queer News and it is limited in what it covers.
The July issue of GQ magazine has a great long article on Bishop Gene Robinson.
The June 11th issue of The New Republic has a 2 view article on the CA marriage decision. One view is that it, and this is the Don Slater view, is wrong to say we are a suspect class and it could hurt the cause. It could be a victory in the battle but could prolong the war for a decade due to backlash. I think that was the Jeffrey Rosen view.
The other view is that we would have had to face the issue sooner or later, just enjoy it and don't worry the amendment may not pass—the view of Richard Just.
I see no email address for the publication, but someone should thank them for the discussion and make the obvious point that—for us this is a win-win situation—we will not have lost something we never had and, as it says, this is an education process that has to take place anyway. It may be costly for us, but think how much time, energy and money the bigots are having to waste—including the Catholic and Mormon churches. That alone would make it something Don would have to be a part of.
Names are not exclusive, and so what two names jumped out at me in different publications: Dale Jennings, in San Diego—and the letter (I think it was in American History) was talking about an article that told about J Edgar Hoover’s desire to end habeas corpus and arrest all the dissidents he disliked—the claim is that arrangement for jails has—been made already.
And in a religious magazine, Charisma or Christianity Today, there is mention of a Paul Cain, in regard to a religious event in Lakeland FL, and I gather he has been accused of sexual violations (hetero).
And in the same type of book on black civil rights history like the one I reviewed on Bayard Rustin, herein The Nation is a review of a book that should mention him, but in the review does NOT and yet has coverage of the same issues—use of communistic issues to attack the movement yet that may have been a source that helped it. AND here is coverage of a black, cross-dressing lesbian feminist, named Pauli Murray, and this is in the 1940s I think, but she was involved in some type of March on Washington that I think was before Rustin's.
The book is Defying Dixie, radical roots of civil rights, by Glenda Elizabeth Gilmore, published by Norton, $39.95. I think she either went to Howard later and may have taught law.
And finally, the question in New Orleans Magazine about an early bar-and it is the My-O-My, which I knew about but never went to, a female impersonation bar on the lakefront in New Orleans.
And this is only a few publications. Poor Jim Kepner. He would not have been able to do the news section even if he spent 24 hours a day. What a wonderful problem though: almost every article is favorable. Even a mention of the marriage in either Charisma or Christianity Today (or maybe Christian Century, but I don't think so as it is a liberal publication anyway) which refers to the logical way to handle it saying: things can be immoral but not illegal.
I think we miss a lot by not going to our library once in a while and just seeing what we have missed. Again, I know of no LGBT publication that covers such things. I glance at things like Queer News and it is limited in what it covers.
Sunday, June 29, 2008
ONE homosexual liberal Democrathas a message for Obama
Senator Obama, it could be that you have a conflict within your supporters over what may be the most important issue, national security.
And it could be that you are only hearing, for instance, the “gay” view from a small, elitist, professional “gays” crowd that do not represent the vast majority of homosexual voters.
I am a homosexual, liberal, Democrat, and I have common sense—I may only know what I read in the newspapers, but what I know is that where Islam controls, they are killing homosexuals.
Therefore, it is clear to me that I must support any war that keeps Sharia law from taking over, any place. I think too many “gays” only read the slick gay publications that ignore our issues and try to sell us expensive cars, clothing and cover only “gay entertainment,” most of which is by non-gays. I see little on the “gay” network (LOGO) that helps our community/movement-what I see are old movies.
I'm not saying you should not use these resources, but don't think you have reached the vast majority of homosexual voters, or our friends,neighbors, families, allies by reading the Advocate.
It is good to get same-sex marriage, but that will be of no value if we allow Muslims to take over our government and impose Sharia law. (Obviously that is true of extremist “Christians” too, including the “religious” preacher person from New Orleans that just lost a lawsuit in Wisconsin where he suggested, in some way, that listeners should shoot homosexuals.) But homosexuals, I say again, are being killed in Islamic countries.
To quibble over whether or not Iraq is worse off now than before is nonsense when we should not be bringing the troops home- the “heterosexual” troops (since our nation still fears homosexuals as much as Islamists so we are, in theory, not allowed to fight for our country even when we would suffer more under Islamic control than heterosexuals, although women would also)-but sending them to Afghanistan to actually fight the people who attacked us and are still in control makes discussion of when to withdraw, etc., irrelevant.
How to stop sending our money to enemies like Saudi Arabia (for oil) I can't help you with. But I tell you security may hurt you if you only listen to those who want you to be an idealist and ignore
reality.
Something these young “gays,” making lots of money running gay organizations don't know is that our community/movement has succeeded beyond our wildest imagination, because our pioneers did NOT work for money or power but for their beliefs in change within the system and from one secret organization we grew each decade. What these young people—as young people in all civil rights struggles—need to remember is they started from where we brought them, taking risks they don't have to. Which, come to think of it, is true of all Americans, who benefit from what the founders of this nation, and subsequent citizens have done to bring us to where we are today as we celebrate another 4th of July.
And it could be that you are only hearing, for instance, the “gay” view from a small, elitist, professional “gays” crowd that do not represent the vast majority of homosexual voters.
I am a homosexual, liberal, Democrat, and I have common sense—I may only know what I read in the newspapers, but what I know is that where Islam controls, they are killing homosexuals.
Therefore, it is clear to me that I must support any war that keeps Sharia law from taking over, any place. I think too many “gays” only read the slick gay publications that ignore our issues and try to sell us expensive cars, clothing and cover only “gay entertainment,” most of which is by non-gays. I see little on the “gay” network (LOGO) that helps our community/movement-what I see are old movies.
I'm not saying you should not use these resources, but don't think you have reached the vast majority of homosexual voters, or our friends,neighbors, families, allies by reading the Advocate.
It is good to get same-sex marriage, but that will be of no value if we allow Muslims to take over our government and impose Sharia law. (Obviously that is true of extremist “Christians” too, including the “religious” preacher person from New Orleans that just lost a lawsuit in Wisconsin where he suggested, in some way, that listeners should shoot homosexuals.) But homosexuals, I say again, are being killed in Islamic countries.
To quibble over whether or not Iraq is worse off now than before is nonsense when we should not be bringing the troops home- the “heterosexual” troops (since our nation still fears homosexuals as much as Islamists so we are, in theory, not allowed to fight for our country even when we would suffer more under Islamic control than heterosexuals, although women would also)-but sending them to Afghanistan to actually fight the people who attacked us and are still in control makes discussion of when to withdraw, etc., irrelevant.
How to stop sending our money to enemies like Saudi Arabia (for oil) I can't help you with. But I tell you security may hurt you if you only listen to those who want you to be an idealist and ignore
reality.
Something these young “gays,” making lots of money running gay organizations don't know is that our community/movement has succeeded beyond our wildest imagination, because our pioneers did NOT work for money or power but for their beliefs in change within the system and from one secret organization we grew each decade. What these young people—as young people in all civil rights struggles—need to remember is they started from where we brought them, taking risks they don't have to. Which, come to think of it, is true of all Americans, who benefit from what the founders of this nation, and subsequent citizens have done to bring us to where we are today as we celebrate another 4th of July.
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
Bayard Rustin: Troubles I've Seen
Bayard Rustin, by life and words, left a message that too many black preachers have not learned from. I suggest they need to stop preaching hatred of homosexuals since their lives today are better because of a black homosexual: Bayard Rustin.
Do they not know that it was a homosexual who was the main force behind the work of Dr. Martin Luther King, and the main strategist for several early black civil rights groups? If not, they can read, among other books, Jervis Anderson's biography of Rustin, titled: Bayard Rustin; Troubles I've Seen. It would also be a very worthwhile book for all Americans to read, especially activists today in the black and homosexual civil rights movements.
The most important point about Rustin's life is that he, as the book shows, did not waste any time trying to explain his homosexuality to his co-workers, all of whom where heterosexual, male and female, black and white, young and old. You "hear" of his arrest on sex charges in Pasadena CA early in his career, and that is the end of discussion except for the bigots in the FBI and black organizations who tried to use the arrest to prevent him from doing his work, which they were jealous of.
There is a direct parallel between the black and homosexual civil rights movements, and only ignorant people try to deny it. Rustin was the perfect example. The tactics used by southern racists against him were due to his being a proud black man who happened to be homosexual. He combined the two movements even though he only worked for the black movement.
The issues he and the black organizations faced were the same that homosexual movement pioneers faced. They were both attacked by the FBI and politicians and churches. There are many examples given, but one that stands out to show how the media was complicit in working against both civil rights movements is that the Alabama paper allowed itself, as did the New York Times, etc, to be used by his enemies to attack Rustin and the black leaders of the march in Alabama. And it is not widely known that Rustin was a main organizer of this work, as well as the famous March on Washington. People in the black movement who were jealous of his power and influence, including Adam Clayton Powell, who blackmailed leaders to keep him out of the movement. Some good leaders tried to stop Rustin because they felt he, as was and is true of both movements today, was trying to join/combine too many issues together, in his case pacifism and black civil rights, and poverty, etc. An issue relevant today in politics thanks to Senator Clinton's famous remark that Dr. King's work and words were important but it took president Johnson to change the laws, was used by Roy Wilkins against Dr. King—he said to King, your words have not changed any laws.
Rustin, in the black movement, like Don Slater in the homosexual movement, was not always in agreement with the views and tactics of the majority of his co-workers. Many plans and events that Rustin warned his friends against turned out to do harm to the movement when his warnings were ignored. His views on affirmative action were not in the mainstream. Same with Don slater. He came to think that the time of marches had passed. Same with Don Slater. He was the most important person in the background in several organizations and few knew of his great work. The same is true of Don Slater.
Southern racists used Rustin's skin color against him. Jealous co-workers used his homosexuality against him. In the end Rustin remains the most important unknown person in the black civil rights movement. His words are as important today as when he was speaking them. And it would be a good idea for Senator Obama and his associates to take the time to read about Bayard Rustin-as he was the person behind the scenes who helped make Dr. King and later black civil rights leaders who they were. And he planned what they did.
Again, the book is: Bayard Rustin: Troubles I've Seen, a biography by Jervis Anderson, published by HarperColins, in 1997.
Do they not know that it was a homosexual who was the main force behind the work of Dr. Martin Luther King, and the main strategist for several early black civil rights groups? If not, they can read, among other books, Jervis Anderson's biography of Rustin, titled: Bayard Rustin; Troubles I've Seen. It would also be a very worthwhile book for all Americans to read, especially activists today in the black and homosexual civil rights movements.
The most important point about Rustin's life is that he, as the book shows, did not waste any time trying to explain his homosexuality to his co-workers, all of whom where heterosexual, male and female, black and white, young and old. You "hear" of his arrest on sex charges in Pasadena CA early in his career, and that is the end of discussion except for the bigots in the FBI and black organizations who tried to use the arrest to prevent him from doing his work, which they were jealous of.
There is a direct parallel between the black and homosexual civil rights movements, and only ignorant people try to deny it. Rustin was the perfect example. The tactics used by southern racists against him were due to his being a proud black man who happened to be homosexual. He combined the two movements even though he only worked for the black movement.
The issues he and the black organizations faced were the same that homosexual movement pioneers faced. They were both attacked by the FBI and politicians and churches. There are many examples given, but one that stands out to show how the media was complicit in working against both civil rights movements is that the Alabama paper allowed itself, as did the New York Times, etc, to be used by his enemies to attack Rustin and the black leaders of the march in Alabama. And it is not widely known that Rustin was a main organizer of this work, as well as the famous March on Washington. People in the black movement who were jealous of his power and influence, including Adam Clayton Powell, who blackmailed leaders to keep him out of the movement. Some good leaders tried to stop Rustin because they felt he, as was and is true of both movements today, was trying to join/combine too many issues together, in his case pacifism and black civil rights, and poverty, etc. An issue relevant today in politics thanks to Senator Clinton's famous remark that Dr. King's work and words were important but it took president Johnson to change the laws, was used by Roy Wilkins against Dr. King—he said to King, your words have not changed any laws.
Rustin, in the black movement, like Don Slater in the homosexual movement, was not always in agreement with the views and tactics of the majority of his co-workers. Many plans and events that Rustin warned his friends against turned out to do harm to the movement when his warnings were ignored. His views on affirmative action were not in the mainstream. Same with Don slater. He came to think that the time of marches had passed. Same with Don Slater. He was the most important person in the background in several organizations and few knew of his great work. The same is true of Don Slater.
Southern racists used Rustin's skin color against him. Jealous co-workers used his homosexuality against him. In the end Rustin remains the most important unknown person in the black civil rights movement. His words are as important today as when he was speaking them. And it would be a good idea for Senator Obama and his associates to take the time to read about Bayard Rustin-as he was the person behind the scenes who helped make Dr. King and later black civil rights leaders who they were. And he planned what they did.
Again, the book is: Bayard Rustin: Troubles I've Seen, a biography by Jervis Anderson, published by HarperColins, in 1997.
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
Thinking about how the internet would have affected the pioneers of the homosexual civil rights movent
At first it seems that if the pioneers of the homosexual civil rights movement would have been able to do a lot more if they had the tools, such as computers and the internet and cell phone, that we have today.
I don’t think so. You can not judge such things by looking back. But it is clear that nothing they could have said to more people with the internet, or had cheaper ways of reaching people, etc. would have affected the world of that day any better than they did.
We forget, not only in the homosexual civil rights movement but in all civil rights movements, that it is not just the words and “news” that the public gets that instantly changes them, but education over time. We also forget that the same “media” in the 1950s and ’60s that were extremely anti-gay were also extremely anti-black, etc.
It might be a good sociological learning experience to read a biography of Bayard Rustin, the Don Slater of the black movement, such as Bayard Rustin, The Troubles I've Seen. He was one of the greatest organizers of his time, and did the March on Washington. But he had to constantly fight the lies of the FBI, jealousy of other black leaders who were afraid Dr. King et al. would get more credit for changing things than they did. If you think Senator Clinton’s words saying that it took President Johnson to fulfill the dream of Dr. King, you will know find that Wilkins and the NAACP were thinking the same thing: he once told King that he had spoken good words but had not changed a single law, which is the same argument.
And it was the local newspaper that tried to get Bayard killed, and worked with bigoted politicians to try to stop the marches in Alabama. Nothing a computer or the internet could have done then would have changed that fact. And when Bayard’s homosexuality was used by jealous black leaders, nothing at the time would have prevented that. Rustin, like Don Slater, and sort of like the Barney Franks of today, was a practical person who didn’t waste time talking about some dream but worked to get things done that could be done at the time.
So I don't think we need an article praising the computer and internet. We need to use it today, but it would have made no difference in the ’50s and ’60s. AND, it can be helpful today ONLY because of what we did in the ’50s and ’60s to prepare people to “hear” the truth.
While is is truly frustrating in each decade to hear young people say they did not know there were others like them, and they can now find information and chat rooms on the internet, these were available from the day Mattachine’s group opened shop as ONE in 1952 and had a phone, public office, and a magazine that was available on newsstands in most major cities. Anyone who sought information in the 50s could have found ONE Magazine, and then the Mattachine Review, The Ladder, Drum, Vector, Advocate, and we were holding national meetings, appearing on radio and television shows, so that there has to be some other explanation if people in the ’60s on did NOT know that homosexuals were speaking out. We were winning court decisions in the U. S. Supreme Court in 1958. The media ignored this and only ran terror articles accusing us of being child molesters, or traitors-quoting McCarthy without doing any checking for facts, which they are guilty of today. And so it seems to me that it is the fault of these people if they did not learn about homosexuality until they saw Ellen, or saw some cute girl or guy on a TV show.
And when people seek information on the internet today, which websites do they go to? HRC’s? The Tangent Group’s? Or do they go to some sex chat room and share ignorances?
What has truly changed is that the media can no longer just publish or speak what anti-gay bigots say. And MTV shows homosexuals living with heterosexuals in The Real World. And Brothers and Sisters shows discussion of a gay wedding, and reaches people no gay publication can. LOGO does nothing that helps promote homosexuality. And the glossy gay men’s magazines do little for our community/movement—they promote expensive cars, clothing, and vacations. If that is what the computer and internet have given us, it is no improvement.
Where is serious discussion of issues of homosexuality? The media is flooded with “news” about same sex marriage. Is that the only issue homosexual Americans face? What about how we deal with issues that are not simple. For instance, we oppose in theory the war in Iraq, BUT we must face the news everyday that Islamists are killing homosexuals. What do you think we should do if you oppose the war? If you have no altgernative, you are no better than the present administration. Again, even Bayard Rustin had to come to a view about dealing with the world that he did not have at first as a pacifist. And he had to deal with the issue of trying to work for more than one cause at the same time. He chose the black cause, but never doubted that the homosexual cause needed support too, but knew that it would hurt both causes if they were combined. That is an issue we face today.
Are all of these courses/classes in colleges actually giving information on homosexuality any better than MTV? Are all of these websites and blogs on the internet giving us any better ideas? THAT is why we need the pioneers back. They were thinkers. I don't see any thinkers in our community today. And the internet, so far, can not doing the thinking. And much of their thinking is available today, in our dozen or so libraries/archives. But the gay press ignores these resources. They aren’t “sexy.”
The only hope is that once we get all of our history on the internet, some day serious citizens will seek this information out and it will be there, thanks mainly to the pioneers.
I don’t think so. You can not judge such things by looking back. But it is clear that nothing they could have said to more people with the internet, or had cheaper ways of reaching people, etc. would have affected the world of that day any better than they did.
We forget, not only in the homosexual civil rights movement but in all civil rights movements, that it is not just the words and “news” that the public gets that instantly changes them, but education over time. We also forget that the same “media” in the 1950s and ’60s that were extremely anti-gay were also extremely anti-black, etc.
It might be a good sociological learning experience to read a biography of Bayard Rustin, the Don Slater of the black movement, such as Bayard Rustin, The Troubles I've Seen. He was one of the greatest organizers of his time, and did the March on Washington. But he had to constantly fight the lies of the FBI, jealousy of other black leaders who were afraid Dr. King et al. would get more credit for changing things than they did. If you think Senator Clinton’s words saying that it took President Johnson to fulfill the dream of Dr. King, you will know find that Wilkins and the NAACP were thinking the same thing: he once told King that he had spoken good words but had not changed a single law, which is the same argument.
And it was the local newspaper that tried to get Bayard killed, and worked with bigoted politicians to try to stop the marches in Alabama. Nothing a computer or the internet could have done then would have changed that fact. And when Bayard’s homosexuality was used by jealous black leaders, nothing at the time would have prevented that. Rustin, like Don Slater, and sort of like the Barney Franks of today, was a practical person who didn’t waste time talking about some dream but worked to get things done that could be done at the time.
So I don't think we need an article praising the computer and internet. We need to use it today, but it would have made no difference in the ’50s and ’60s. AND, it can be helpful today ONLY because of what we did in the ’50s and ’60s to prepare people to “hear” the truth.
While is is truly frustrating in each decade to hear young people say they did not know there were others like them, and they can now find information and chat rooms on the internet, these were available from the day Mattachine’s group opened shop as ONE in 1952 and had a phone, public office, and a magazine that was available on newsstands in most major cities. Anyone who sought information in the 50s could have found ONE Magazine, and then the Mattachine Review, The Ladder, Drum, Vector, Advocate, and we were holding national meetings, appearing on radio and television shows, so that there has to be some other explanation if people in the ’60s on did NOT know that homosexuals were speaking out. We were winning court decisions in the U. S. Supreme Court in 1958. The media ignored this and only ran terror articles accusing us of being child molesters, or traitors-quoting McCarthy without doing any checking for facts, which they are guilty of today. And so it seems to me that it is the fault of these people if they did not learn about homosexuality until they saw Ellen, or saw some cute girl or guy on a TV show.
And when people seek information on the internet today, which websites do they go to? HRC’s? The Tangent Group’s? Or do they go to some sex chat room and share ignorances?
What has truly changed is that the media can no longer just publish or speak what anti-gay bigots say. And MTV shows homosexuals living with heterosexuals in The Real World. And Brothers and Sisters shows discussion of a gay wedding, and reaches people no gay publication can. LOGO does nothing that helps promote homosexuality. And the glossy gay men’s magazines do little for our community/movement—they promote expensive cars, clothing, and vacations. If that is what the computer and internet have given us, it is no improvement.
Where is serious discussion of issues of homosexuality? The media is flooded with “news” about same sex marriage. Is that the only issue homosexual Americans face? What about how we deal with issues that are not simple. For instance, we oppose in theory the war in Iraq, BUT we must face the news everyday that Islamists are killing homosexuals. What do you think we should do if you oppose the war? If you have no altgernative, you are no better than the present administration. Again, even Bayard Rustin had to come to a view about dealing with the world that he did not have at first as a pacifist. And he had to deal with the issue of trying to work for more than one cause at the same time. He chose the black cause, but never doubted that the homosexual cause needed support too, but knew that it would hurt both causes if they were combined. That is an issue we face today.
Are all of these courses/classes in colleges actually giving information on homosexuality any better than MTV? Are all of these websites and blogs on the internet giving us any better ideas? THAT is why we need the pioneers back. They were thinkers. I don't see any thinkers in our community today. And the internet, so far, can not doing the thinking. And much of their thinking is available today, in our dozen or so libraries/archives. But the gay press ignores these resources. They aren’t “sexy.”
The only hope is that once we get all of our history on the internet, some day serious citizens will seek this information out and it will be there, thanks mainly to the pioneers.
Thursday, June 5, 2008
Will ONE ever quit hounding us?
As probably only one of two living people who "were there" and parties to the separation of ONE, Inc, into two parts, starting in 1965, I am shocked that supposedly responsible people active in efforts to save the history of this civil rights movement, would be sounding like anti-gay bigots and would still be attacking my integrity without ever seeking the facts, which are on our website (tangentgroup.org).
Why would CLAGS believe the lies of Joseph Hawkins and the other incompetents at ONE Institute, and why would USC support the group that attacks on another homosexual archives/library? Hawkins, nor any other person at ONE Institute, which is NOT ONE, Inc, since about 1965 have ever known the facts, nor apparently read the legal documents giving HIC the material we possess. And why would anyone believe that material acquired obviously since 1965 be subject to false claims by Hawkins, et al?
It is curious that CLAGS would be trying to act "legally" where no other internet groups or service is including Yahoo, Google, etc.
I want to state clearly, that Hawkins is a liar, everyone who claims that HIC material is theirs is a liar, and if there ever was any question of material belonging to ONE, Inc., Dorr Legg would have taken legal steps to get it back, as he did to keep control of the name (ONE, Inc). ONE Institute cannot legally or otherwise act in the name of ONE, Inc. It is not ONE, Inc. ISHR owns the name, just as The Tangents Group owns the name Homosexual Information Center, Inc., even though the "group" is the dba.
I knew ONE, Inc, and the Institute for the Study of Human Resources, as I was a paid staff member of both at the time of the separation in 1965. And I can tell you that the present people at ONE Institute are not ONE, Inc. people. Dorr would never have had them around more than a month. It is a disgrace that the wonderful work of Jim Kepner and Dorr Legg has ended up with such incompetent and unethical people, and USC should think about its association with the organization.
But it is a serious question of how the homosexual community/movement will continue to stand aside and ignore the lies of one and the attacks of one organization on another. This very issue is mentioned in the book coming from Chicago, (Out and proud in Chicago). If we can't support the honest work of groups, then we can hardly wonder why anti-gay people and groups find us unreliable.
It is not the integrity and work of the Homosexual Information Center and me, as co-founder and vice-chair, that is in question. It is the competent and ethics of the rest of the homosexual community and academia.
Why would CLAGS believe the lies of Joseph Hawkins and the other incompetents at ONE Institute, and why would USC support the group that attacks on another homosexual archives/library? Hawkins, nor any other person at ONE Institute, which is NOT ONE, Inc, since about 1965 have ever known the facts, nor apparently read the legal documents giving HIC the material we possess. And why would anyone believe that material acquired obviously since 1965 be subject to false claims by Hawkins, et al?
It is curious that CLAGS would be trying to act "legally" where no other internet groups or service is including Yahoo, Google, etc.
I want to state clearly, that Hawkins is a liar, everyone who claims that HIC material is theirs is a liar, and if there ever was any question of material belonging to ONE, Inc., Dorr Legg would have taken legal steps to get it back, as he did to keep control of the name (ONE, Inc). ONE Institute cannot legally or otherwise act in the name of ONE, Inc. It is not ONE, Inc. ISHR owns the name, just as The Tangents Group owns the name Homosexual Information Center, Inc., even though the "group" is the dba.
I knew ONE, Inc, and the Institute for the Study of Human Resources, as I was a paid staff member of both at the time of the separation in 1965. And I can tell you that the present people at ONE Institute are not ONE, Inc. people. Dorr would never have had them around more than a month. It is a disgrace that the wonderful work of Jim Kepner and Dorr Legg has ended up with such incompetent and unethical people, and USC should think about its association with the organization.
But it is a serious question of how the homosexual community/movement will continue to stand aside and ignore the lies of one and the attacks of one organization on another. This very issue is mentioned in the book coming from Chicago, (Out and proud in Chicago). If we can't support the honest work of groups, then we can hardly wonder why anti-gay people and groups find us unreliable.
It is not the integrity and work of the Homosexual Information Center and me, as co-founder and vice-chair, that is in question. It is the competent and ethics of the rest of the homosexual community and academia.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
