I hope your readers appreciate the good news in the article by Matt Hanne that has the news that the material Bruce McKinney has collected and saved over the years, The Berdache Archives, is now at KU, Special Collections and that the University of Kansas person who helped place it there, Tami Albin, the Women's Gender and Sexuality studies special collections librarian understands the value of the material.
I had not heard of this collection, which for some years was located in the glbt center until it closed. (McKinney had started the collection when he started the Student Homophile Alliance at WSU, the name came from an article in Blue Boy magazine, about Native Americans,something Mattachine/movement founder Harry Hay would appreciate.
This once again points to the need for the community/movement to at least support the few such archives, much less trying to get others started. Let's hope that publications, such as The Advocate, will find space among its articles on celebrities, who want to thank their gay consumers, to report this good new resource that will be available not only to students, faculty and researchers in the MidWest, but perhaps online someday to everyone seeking knowledge of this historic part of the civil rights movement in America.
There needs to be a listing of our archives/libraries,that include this one and the few others, some held privately, such as Lesbian Herstory in New York, Lavender Library in Sacramento, Stonewall Library in Fort Lauderdale, Lambda Archives in San Diego, ONE Archives at USC (Los Angeles) and Mazer Archives in West Hollywood and some in educational institutions, such as Frank Kameny's at the Library of Congress, the Homosexual Information Center's archives at Cal State, Northridge-the Don Slater Collection, with Vern and Bonnie Bullough's Human Sexuality Collection.
We need to be proud of our history, celebrate it, add to it and save it for future generations.
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
Thursday, October 2, 2008
Can we talk—about waiting for perfection and getting what we can each day for our civil rights?
The founders of our nation were willkng to risk their all to make us free and to set a goal of equal rights for all who would become Americans. The leaders were intelligent, and did not all agree on issues but put aside their disagremetns for the good of the cause.
The same thing can be said about the founders of the civil rights rights movement for homosexuals. They wisely understood that the then radical idea that homosexual Americans had equal civil rights was going to take a while to get across to even intelligent, thinking Americans, sadly including most homosexuals.
The main problem of any cause is that some people insist on perfection in order for them to support it. And it seems to me that the companion problem is, for instance, that many people, in ignorance, support and believe in some one or some idea that has a perfect answer, a simple answer, that doesn't take any thinking or study, or explanation, and doesn't leave room for doubt. They want instant certainty. That is why, for instance, the fundamentalist churches are successful more than the main stream ones that don't tell the believers that religion has the perfect answer for every issue, including ones never thought about by early Christians, etc.
A politician who promises instant solution to any problem may win, and even after years of his or her failure to actually solve the problem, many voters still keep trusting them, election after election. A church that promises that by just doing one thing, getting the right type baptism, or giving the right portion of income to the church will get you to heaven will get suport even when common sense tells us that that is not true.
Unfortunately, homosexuals are just like heterosexuals, and in our cause/movement/community we keep getting people who push their way to the front, get control of newspapers, organizations, and, like the bigots who want to force us all to follow their beliefs, thus taking away our right to choose, these sudden experts on all things homosexual—while they fervently tell us only to use the “right” terms—usually the word gay—spend their time, energy and space in publications attacking those who disagree with their beliefs, rather than attacking the real enemy: those bigots who want to, at the least, make us second-class citizens, and at worst (think radical Islamists) kill us.
So their prerception keeps them from the big picture, and they spend their time seeking for the small things. That is why, when a big, historic event happens, they miss the important point and focus on the small irrelevant word or idea included in the event. A perfect example again is the columnist in the Washington Blade, who hears Gov. Palin, and then Senator McCain actually say they have gay friends, and seek our vote which is a notable first for Republicans. What the columist "hears" is that Palin uses the word “choice.” Horrors!
Well, friends, no one hs the final anser as to much about sexuality, and certainly about homosexuality. And so no one can say that no one can use the word choice. No one has the authority to speak for our community/movement.
But I question the “gayness” of anyone who feels the need to force their beliefs on everyone else. It seems as though they are not comfortable being gay. And the most important point is that it is irrelevant, since our civil rights—and the civil rights of all Americans—do not depend on if we chose a lifestyle, or who we choose to have sex with, or our skin color, or gender. They are guaranteed in the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Now if only certain U. S. Supreme Court Justices could learn of these documents, especially the Ninth Amendment. But those who want to speak for our community/movement have a duty to learn about homosexuality first, and our history. They don't have all the answers. Unless they are as fearful of democracy as the bigots who want to kill us.
Get more out of the Web. Learn 10 hidden secrets of Windows Live. Learn Now
The same thing can be said about the founders of the civil rights rights movement for homosexuals. They wisely understood that the then radical idea that homosexual Americans had equal civil rights was going to take a while to get across to even intelligent, thinking Americans, sadly including most homosexuals.
The main problem of any cause is that some people insist on perfection in order for them to support it. And it seems to me that the companion problem is, for instance, that many people, in ignorance, support and believe in some one or some idea that has a perfect answer, a simple answer, that doesn't take any thinking or study, or explanation, and doesn't leave room for doubt. They want instant certainty. That is why, for instance, the fundamentalist churches are successful more than the main stream ones that don't tell the believers that religion has the perfect answer for every issue, including ones never thought about by early Christians, etc.
A politician who promises instant solution to any problem may win, and even after years of his or her failure to actually solve the problem, many voters still keep trusting them, election after election. A church that promises that by just doing one thing, getting the right type baptism, or giving the right portion of income to the church will get you to heaven will get suport even when common sense tells us that that is not true.
Unfortunately, homosexuals are just like heterosexuals, and in our cause/movement/community we keep getting people who push their way to the front, get control of newspapers, organizations, and, like the bigots who want to force us all to follow their beliefs, thus taking away our right to choose, these sudden experts on all things homosexual—while they fervently tell us only to use the “right” terms—usually the word gay—spend their time, energy and space in publications attacking those who disagree with their beliefs, rather than attacking the real enemy: those bigots who want to, at the least, make us second-class citizens, and at worst (think radical Islamists) kill us.
So their prerception keeps them from the big picture, and they spend their time seeking for the small things. That is why, when a big, historic event happens, they miss the important point and focus on the small irrelevant word or idea included in the event. A perfect example again is the columnist in the Washington Blade, who hears Gov. Palin, and then Senator McCain actually say they have gay friends, and seek our vote which is a notable first for Republicans. What the columist "hears" is that Palin uses the word “choice.” Horrors!
Well, friends, no one hs the final anser as to much about sexuality, and certainly about homosexuality. And so no one can say that no one can use the word choice. No one has the authority to speak for our community/movement.
But I question the “gayness” of anyone who feels the need to force their beliefs on everyone else. It seems as though they are not comfortable being gay. And the most important point is that it is irrelevant, since our civil rights—and the civil rights of all Americans—do not depend on if we chose a lifestyle, or who we choose to have sex with, or our skin color, or gender. They are guaranteed in the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Now if only certain U. S. Supreme Court Justices could learn of these documents, especially the Ninth Amendment. But those who want to speak for our community/movement have a duty to learn about homosexuality first, and our history. They don't have all the answers. Unless they are as fearful of democracy as the bigots who want to kill us.
Get more out of the Web. Learn 10 hidden secrets of Windows Live. Learn Now
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
Good and bad in current Washington Blade
The historic news that the Republican party's candidates for president and vice president have said they are gay-friendly is good, and I have suggested that people view the McCain interview in your publication, online.
You also did a good coverage of our community/movement loss of Del Martin. I have not seen coverage of the loss of John Burnside. But this is the time in our movement’s history, which essentially started in Los Angeles in 1950 with Harry Hay, Dale Jennings, et al. and early Mattachine, from which came the first public organization and publication, ONE Inc and ONE Magazine (Jan. 1953), and then a different Mattachine under Hal Call, and then Del and Phyllis and the Daughters of Bilitis, SIR, etc., when those who got us started are leaving us.
So it is good that Equality Forum and others are aware of just who did start this movement. The question is why they have not been able to cite the words of Don Slater, Jim Kepner, Stella Rush, or mention the history as recorded in the book Vern Bullough edited, Before Stonewall, or in Paul Cain's Leading the Parade, etc.
And my worry is that in your pages some of us see the major event of McCain's interview, but what your columnist seems to only see is that Palin, equally historic, says that terribly un-pc word: choice. In what world is that the most important word she said? How does an intelligent, objective person ignore the other words? And who gave your columnist the authority to decide technical issues such as what makes us homosexual or heterosexual, etc? That sure sounds just like the bigots, who come from the most ignorant part of society but, seem to personally know when life begins and want the authority to force the rest of us to let them make our choice-in other words we have no choice.
Perhaps serious homosexuals or gays should go back and read a few of the great articles in ONE Magazine and Tangents where the founders put forth their ideas, and then tell us why such ideas are wrong. That might be difficult of course, since those are the ideas that have got us to where we are today—which is a great place to most of us.
You also did a good coverage of our community/movement loss of Del Martin. I have not seen coverage of the loss of John Burnside. But this is the time in our movement’s history, which essentially started in Los Angeles in 1950 with Harry Hay, Dale Jennings, et al. and early Mattachine, from which came the first public organization and publication, ONE Inc and ONE Magazine (Jan. 1953), and then a different Mattachine under Hal Call, and then Del and Phyllis and the Daughters of Bilitis, SIR, etc., when those who got us started are leaving us.
So it is good that Equality Forum and others are aware of just who did start this movement. The question is why they have not been able to cite the words of Don Slater, Jim Kepner, Stella Rush, or mention the history as recorded in the book Vern Bullough edited, Before Stonewall, or in Paul Cain's Leading the Parade, etc.
And my worry is that in your pages some of us see the major event of McCain's interview, but what your columnist seems to only see is that Palin, equally historic, says that terribly un-pc word: choice. In what world is that the most important word she said? How does an intelligent, objective person ignore the other words? And who gave your columnist the authority to decide technical issues such as what makes us homosexual or heterosexual, etc? That sure sounds just like the bigots, who come from the most ignorant part of society but, seem to personally know when life begins and want the authority to force the rest of us to let them make our choice-in other words we have no choice.
Perhaps serious homosexuals or gays should go back and read a few of the great articles in ONE Magazine and Tangents where the founders put forth their ideas, and then tell us why such ideas are wrong. That might be difficult of course, since those are the ideas that have got us to where we are today—which is a great place to most of us.
Monday, September 22, 2008
The Gay & Lesbian Review’s election issue (9-10/08) is good
I find the coverage of homosexual issues in The Gay & Lesbian Review usually good-discussions that are more in depth than our weekly g/l newspapers can cover. So while we almost daily,on some websites, get political news—and even Barney Frank every hour now due to the financial crisis without any mention of him being homosexual, it is good to hear his thoughts in this issue of GLR along with what others are thinking about the election.
But we also hear views on homosexuality from several people that are interesting (the people and views)—some of which fit my thoughts and experiences.
And I see that GLR will have an issue thinking about how the internet is going to affect our community/movement. But it was almost completely covered on the inside cover of this issue by William Percy's ad for his website (williamapercy.com). It said it all.
We can now share our ideas and news online. Free. Fast—perhaps too fast. While it took a month to get out ONE Magazine, and almost as much trouble writing and making copies of a newsletter, and it cost lots of money to have a phone and call long distance, today we can do it instantly, and if needed get a reply instantly.
That changes everything about communication. I can now “talk” to people in a few minutes that I had to write a letter to, or spend money calling (and often not reaching) and waiting for a response. And I can talk to several people at the same time, we can share our ideas and news. That should make our community/movement work better—even if it also can do the same for our enemies.
But there is much of importance in this issue, on politics and lives of homosexuals. And the article by Michael Hattersley got it started well. He thinks that there is much about our movement’s issues in this campaign that is like all civil rights issues—from 1948s campaign on and especially like that of the black civil rights movement. And he points out something that is seldom discussed in the black movement’s history but is relevant to us—it is possible that purists—in our case leftwingers—may lose the election for Obama by demanding perfection where they do not ask that of McCain/Republicans. That happened in some cases in the black struggle for equal rights, and what politicians to support. (Duberman, covered later, might speak to this.) The advantage of Obama is that he is not a child of that past era and its internal conflicts.
A humorous note is found in the BTW when it is “reported” that an ”untended consequence” of the Bush attempt to “Stimulate” the economy was that some people used the money to buy pornography.
The article by Barney Frank of how we as a community should view this election is important. We can not forget the question of who will make the next appointments to the U. S. Supreme Court. And we as a community need to tell the world, and politicians that we are a large voting block, and we have family and friends who will vote to help get us our equal/civil rights, and the irony is that the nation is further along on this path than many politicians.
In thinking of the question of Obama being the “real deal” Timothy Patrick McCarthy mentions an interesting “connection” between Lincoln and Obama—since the hope is that Obama will slowly come to our view of homosexuality and our rights, as Lincoln slowly came to believe in the rights of black Americans, some of whom were slaves. And that we, like blacks then, deserve our rights as a family and our dreams are as important as those of the majority.
Christopher Burnett (CSULB) is right when he, as others, says that how the vote goes on same sex marriage in California will be important to all of America, and is a vital election to win.
The article on Martin Duberman’s “return” to Harvard (for an award) makes two points that I personally have thought about much. First, young people (at Harvard today for instance) can have no idea how miserable it was to be homosexual in the ’50s. And how much harm the “professions” then were to us, especially mental health people, in his case a psychotherapist—who DID harm.
And the article by Chris Freeman (USC) on Isherwood and Bachardy is good, as is the documentary—Chris & Don: a Love Story—and among the good information I found most interesting, because it fits my personal thoughts as well as many others, is Bachardy’s thought that it was almost fate that he and Isherwood get together.
And another example, as if we needed it, of how our reluctance to be open is a waste, is found of all places in a book, The Ground Under My Feet, by Evan Kollisch, (reviewed by Lillan Faderman) mainly about a woman who escpaed as a child from Nazi germany but is also a lesbian and didn't feel free to say this at a meeting of others who had the same life changing experience. Finally she did speak of it and found total acceptance.
It is always interesing to see the list of research going on, mentioned in the Bulletin Board section. But it was funny to see the ad for Larry Townsend’s book, TimeMasters, having lost him, as well as so many people of his generation (mine too) such as Del Martin and John Burnside, to mention a few.
But they and GLR give us reason to continue to work for our cause.
But we also hear views on homosexuality from several people that are interesting (the people and views)—some of which fit my thoughts and experiences.
And I see that GLR will have an issue thinking about how the internet is going to affect our community/movement. But it was almost completely covered on the inside cover of this issue by William Percy's ad for his website (williamapercy.com). It said it all.
We can now share our ideas and news online. Free. Fast—perhaps too fast. While it took a month to get out ONE Magazine, and almost as much trouble writing and making copies of a newsletter, and it cost lots of money to have a phone and call long distance, today we can do it instantly, and if needed get a reply instantly.
That changes everything about communication. I can now “talk” to people in a few minutes that I had to write a letter to, or spend money calling (and often not reaching) and waiting for a response. And I can talk to several people at the same time, we can share our ideas and news. That should make our community/movement work better—even if it also can do the same for our enemies.
But there is much of importance in this issue, on politics and lives of homosexuals. And the article by Michael Hattersley got it started well. He thinks that there is much about our movement’s issues in this campaign that is like all civil rights issues—from 1948s campaign on and especially like that of the black civil rights movement. And he points out something that is seldom discussed in the black movement’s history but is relevant to us—it is possible that purists—in our case leftwingers—may lose the election for Obama by demanding perfection where they do not ask that of McCain/Republicans. That happened in some cases in the black struggle for equal rights, and what politicians to support. (Duberman, covered later, might speak to this.) The advantage of Obama is that he is not a child of that past era and its internal conflicts.
A humorous note is found in the BTW when it is “reported” that an ”untended consequence” of the Bush attempt to “Stimulate” the economy was that some people used the money to buy pornography.
The article by Barney Frank of how we as a community should view this election is important. We can not forget the question of who will make the next appointments to the U. S. Supreme Court. And we as a community need to tell the world, and politicians that we are a large voting block, and we have family and friends who will vote to help get us our equal/civil rights, and the irony is that the nation is further along on this path than many politicians.
In thinking of the question of Obama being the “real deal” Timothy Patrick McCarthy mentions an interesting “connection” between Lincoln and Obama—since the hope is that Obama will slowly come to our view of homosexuality and our rights, as Lincoln slowly came to believe in the rights of black Americans, some of whom were slaves. And that we, like blacks then, deserve our rights as a family and our dreams are as important as those of the majority.
Christopher Burnett (CSULB) is right when he, as others, says that how the vote goes on same sex marriage in California will be important to all of America, and is a vital election to win.
The article on Martin Duberman’s “return” to Harvard (for an award) makes two points that I personally have thought about much. First, young people (at Harvard today for instance) can have no idea how miserable it was to be homosexual in the ’50s. And how much harm the “professions” then were to us, especially mental health people, in his case a psychotherapist—who DID harm.
And the article by Chris Freeman (USC) on Isherwood and Bachardy is good, as is the documentary—Chris & Don: a Love Story—and among the good information I found most interesting, because it fits my personal thoughts as well as many others, is Bachardy’s thought that it was almost fate that he and Isherwood get together.
And another example, as if we needed it, of how our reluctance to be open is a waste, is found of all places in a book, The Ground Under My Feet, by Evan Kollisch, (reviewed by Lillan Faderman) mainly about a woman who escpaed as a child from Nazi germany but is also a lesbian and didn't feel free to say this at a meeting of others who had the same life changing experience. Finally she did speak of it and found total acceptance.
It is always interesing to see the list of research going on, mentioned in the Bulletin Board section. But it was funny to see the ad for Larry Townsend’s book, TimeMasters, having lost him, as well as so many people of his generation (mine too) such as Del Martin and John Burnside, to mention a few.
But they and GLR give us reason to continue to work for our cause.
Friday, September 19, 2008
Recent Publications
I glanced at movement publications at the book store (B&N) and two had articles of interest.
OUT has an article, if I understand it, on a visit now to a bar where Mattachine New York had a sit-in about 1967 that changed the legal rules for bars, before Stonewall. As part of the article there is a picture of the original group, and some of them were talked to about this event, and pictures of the cover of Mattachine Review and Mattachine Midwest. (Ironic that none from a New York publication.) A positive coverage of our history.
A false coverage is in the large, glossy English publication, Refresh Magazine, and is a travel article on Philadelphia and PA. (such as New Hope). The problem is that no part ofthe community/movement is covered except Equality Forum-not the Philadelphia Gay News, the local g/l center, etc. But what is unforgivable is that either EQ claimed, or the writer is incompetent in his "research" as he reports, that the gay civil rights movement started in Philadelphia in 1965. How can anyone believe this? Unless they also believe Gov. Palin when she says she said no thanks to that bridge to nowhere, when on tape she is shown asking for it, as she asked for earmarks galore as she makes Alaska a welfare state for American taxpayers.
OUT has an article, if I understand it, on a visit now to a bar where Mattachine New York had a sit-in about 1967 that changed the legal rules for bars, before Stonewall. As part of the article there is a picture of the original group, and some of them were talked to about this event, and pictures of the cover of Mattachine Review and Mattachine Midwest. (Ironic that none from a New York publication.) A positive coverage of our history.
A false coverage is in the large, glossy English publication, Refresh Magazine, and is a travel article on Philadelphia and PA. (such as New Hope). The problem is that no part ofthe community/movement is covered except Equality Forum-not the Philadelphia Gay News, the local g/l center, etc. But what is unforgivable is that either EQ claimed, or the writer is incompetent in his "research" as he reports, that the gay civil rights movement started in Philadelphia in 1965. How can anyone believe this? Unless they also believe Gov. Palin when she says she said no thanks to that bridge to nowhere, when on tape she is shown asking for it, as she asked for earmarks galore as she makes Alaska a welfare state for American taxpayers.
Thursday, August 28, 2008
To NBC News for their lousy coverage of Olympic Gay Diver Matthew Mitcham
NBC should be ashamed of itself for doing what too many politicians have done: doing something they know is wrong and then lie about it. The day is near when they will pay for such deceits. They will have fewer viewers and will be in the league with Fox News.
NBC should apologize to the swimmer and the homosexual community/movement. Our shame as a community/movement is that so-called gay and lesbian journalists (ncluding GLAAD) have done nothing to protest your incompetent and unethical behavior—certainly to expose their unprofessional work.
NBC should apologize to the swimmer and the homosexual community/movement. Our shame as a community/movement is that so-called gay and lesbian journalists (ncluding GLAAD) have done nothing to protest your incompetent and unethical behavior—certainly to expose their unprofessional work.
Friday, August 22, 2008
Why people love and leave West Hollywood
To the Editor of WeHo News (http://wehonews.com/z/wehonews/):
I think I understand the feelings of Geroge Reese on trying to understand the people who come to WeHo, usually with some reason in mind, stay a while, can’t seem to feel they belong, then leave, and to explain their “failure” blame the people who have lived there for years.
How many of these people are "gay?" Although it isn't mentioned, is money a problem? I’m sure living costs in So Cal are high. And if it is hard to find friends, that is hard too. But if they left somewhere else, that should give them a clue to look at themselves.
I lived in L. A. for over 30 years, love it, and still find it worthwhile to read WeHo News, Los Angeles Magazine (have you seen the current issue—a very anti-establishment issue even with the lead article on finding the best school for kids) and the Los Angeles Times.
The obvious answer to feelng a part of somewhere or some group is to JOIN and work. You do some good and meet people. If you have come to a gay-friendly city and can't find some organization to join, you have a problem being "gay." I wonder, for instance, how many women, and men, have visited the Mazer Archives there?
But what is wrong with young people moving around while they have the chance and enjoying lots of cities? Readng gay/lesbian publications, such as Lesbian Connection—women seem to be good at talking among themselves about how they feel about where they live-and publications aimed at people with special interest, such as RFD and Maize, aimed at people living in smaller towns, rural areas and in communes. I think it would be fun to experience living in Santa Fe, then Palm Springs, then Fort Lauderdale, etc.
The only issue is if you feel when you leave that you have to explain why you were not staying.
I think I understand the feelings of Geroge Reese on trying to understand the people who come to WeHo, usually with some reason in mind, stay a while, can’t seem to feel they belong, then leave, and to explain their “failure” blame the people who have lived there for years.
How many of these people are "gay?" Although it isn't mentioned, is money a problem? I’m sure living costs in So Cal are high. And if it is hard to find friends, that is hard too. But if they left somewhere else, that should give them a clue to look at themselves.
I lived in L. A. for over 30 years, love it, and still find it worthwhile to read WeHo News, Los Angeles Magazine (have you seen the current issue—a very anti-establishment issue even with the lead article on finding the best school for kids) and the Los Angeles Times.
The obvious answer to feelng a part of somewhere or some group is to JOIN and work. You do some good and meet people. If you have come to a gay-friendly city and can't find some organization to join, you have a problem being "gay." I wonder, for instance, how many women, and men, have visited the Mazer Archives there?
But what is wrong with young people moving around while they have the chance and enjoying lots of cities? Readng gay/lesbian publications, such as Lesbian Connection—women seem to be good at talking among themselves about how they feel about where they live-and publications aimed at people with special interest, such as RFD and Maize, aimed at people living in smaller towns, rural areas and in communes. I think it would be fun to experience living in Santa Fe, then Palm Springs, then Fort Lauderdale, etc.
The only issue is if you feel when you leave that you have to explain why you were not staying.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
