Category Archives: History

September 26, 2010

A Message to LGBT Educators

By Joe

image I recently received a letter from the Human Rights Campaign asking me to contribute.  The first thing I will say is that I am not the HRC’s biggest fan. I believe that the HRC sees only the Democratic Party as America’s LGBT saving grace.  image Now I am a Democrat, there is no doubt about it.  However, I don’t believe that the sun shines out of the ass of every Democrat. Promises were made to the LGBT community by the current administration that have not been kept.  Instead of praising the Obama administration for requiring hospitals to allow visitation by LGBT partners and family members and praising them for saying that they want Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell repealed, we should be telling them to do more, do what they promised, and push even harder for equality.  There should be national laws against discriminating against LGBT people in the workplace.  We should have every legal right to fully recognized civil marriages (or unions).  I personally think that marriage is a religious ceremony and that all people should be required to have a civil and/or a religious marriage for it to be recognized by the government.  When the government gives out a marriage license at the local courthouse, they should not be able to discriminate against someone because of their sex.  If two people love one another, they should be able to get married, whether it is two men, two women, or a man and a woman.  The GLBT community should be more vocal about the shortfalls of the Obama administration and the slowness for “CHANGE” that has come.  The HRC spends far too much time placating the Democrats and not enough time working on ending the problems of discrimination.  When the HRC gets serious about LGBT rights and quits being merely a minority spokesperson in the Democratic Party, I will contribute again.  Also, they need a stronger nationwide organization.  Far too often, the HRC ignores the South.  When they are in the South, it is largely an elitist organization.  If you are going to fight for equality, fight for the equality of all, not just the elite in certain areas. 

So that was my rant about the HRC.  Now for what I began writing this post about in the first place.  I want to gives some advice about school bullying:

This post comes from Dr. Marlene Synder, the Director of Development for the Olweus Bullying Prevention Program. Dr. Synder is also a member of the Welcoming Schools National Advisory Council. She discusses the links between Welcoming Schools and Olweus, the world’s foremost bullying prevention program.

We all want our children to learn, thrive and become productive adults. Many students find it difficult to learn, thrive and dream of their futures because of school-based bullying (both traditional and cyber bullying) . We know that bullying is pervasive in our schools. National prevalence studies consistently show that roughly one in five students have been bullied regularly and a similar number have bullied others. Many others witness bullying going on around them, so in fact, there are millions of students who have to deal with the issue of bullying in our schools each day.

Students who bully generally bully students who they perceive as different and/or weaker than they are. Sometimes the bullying might be focused on a student’s family or something about the student that makes him or her stand out from the norm. Perhaps the student has two moms or two dads or lives with his or her grandparents. A bullied student might speak with a strong accent, or be of a racial or religious minority. A student might be bullied because of his or her size, or because he or she does not like to do the things that are expected for his or her gender. We are all too aware of how devastating the results of this kind of bullying can be, as we have heard all too often of students as young as 11 years old committing suicide after being severely bullied at school.

Dr. Dan Olweus, whose program has been researched for the past 30 years, clearly asserts that bullying is peer abuse and it is a civil rights issue. Our schools need to be a place where every student feels safe in school regardless of their family structure or identity. No student should be hurt, humiliated, or excluded at school. School is not a place that any student should fear. School should be a place where everyone feels welcome and a place where students enjoy learning and can grow as a part of a larger community.

The Olweus Bullying Prevention Program (OBPP) was brought to United States schools more than a decade ago. The guiding principles for the OBPP are:

1. Warmth, positive interest and involvement with students and their families are needed on the part of all adults in the school. The responsibility for developing and ensuring a safe and welcoming school climate rests with adults.

2. We need to set firm limits to unacceptable bullying behavior. Clear, consistent rules and messages against bullying behaviors should be present throughout the entire school.

3. Consistent use of nonphysical, non-hostile negative consequences when rules are broken. Because OBPP is research-based, program procedures and guidelines should be followed as closely as possible.

4. Adults in the schools should function as authorities and positive role models. Children learn by example from all adults; teachers and their families.

The content of Welcoming Schools is in alignment with these guiding principles. Welcoming Schools helps the adults in the school become comfortable with interrupting bias-based bullying. Welcoming Schools involves families and the larger community. And Welcoming Schools helps adults proactively create a school climate that is welcoming of the diversity that we find in our schools. Welcoming Schools helps remind us that it is possible to create positive school climates that limit negative behavior and promote respect for all students.

The more we can work together to promote consistent messages against bullying behaviors, our children will learn, thrive and realize their dreams for their futures.

One thing that I think the HRC is doing right is their involvement with anti-bullying campaigns.  image Now I teach in a private school where the environment is far from being accepting.  In fact our principal believes that bullying is good for the kids because it teaches them to conform to societal norms.  We are not all Baptist, right-wing, Tea Partiers.  Some of us are good loving Christians who welcome the diversity that is in our world.  Needless to say, but with our principals attitude toward bullying and his politics, there is no way that our school could have a gay/straight alliance or any other kind of alternative group where everyone could feel safe. Instead the only real student club is the Fellowship of Christian Athletes, whose sponsoring teacher firmly believes that it really should be the Fellowship of Christian Students because all students, not just athletes should feel welcome.  I really admire the faculty sponsor for this club.  He is truly a good hearted Christian, who like me believes in acceptance, not hate.

The point I am getting to is that we may not be able to have a GSA in every image school, but we can still provide a safe and welcoming environment for all, no matter what amount of diversity they have.  In my classroom the students know by now that I do not tolerate the word “nigger” or “faggot”.”  I do not allow bullying or any anti-gay slurs.  In my classroom, all students are equal and treated with respect.  I don’t care if they are gay, straight, bisexual, closeted, curious, etc.  I don’t care if they are black, white, Muslim, Asian, or Native American.  They are my students.  They are there to learn.  They are there to feel safe.  They are there to have me teach them.  I will admit that one of the freedoms that I have with teaching at a private school is that I can teach using Christian examples, and I can teach Christian love and acceptance.  At least once every two weeks, they have to hear me give my lecture about The Golden Rule. I may not be able to stand in front of my class and say that I am gay and if anyone needs to talk, if anyone is having problems, I understand, and I am hear to listen and give advice.  However, I can stand in front of the class and teach tolerance, love, and charity and say if anyone needs to talk, if anyone is having problems, I understand, and I am hear to listen and give advice.

I hope that all LGBT educators out there will do the same.  We may not always have the option of being out of the closet at school, but we control the environment in our own classroom.  We can teach tolerance.  We can teach love and acceptance.  If we are able to teach one mind these things, then we have made a difference.  If they admire us in the classroom, they may one day want to emulate us, and we have made a difference.  It may be a slow process but as Booker T. Washington said at the Cotton States and International Exposition in Atlanta in 1895 in what became known as the Atlanta Compromise Speech:

image A ship lost at sea for many days suddenly sighted a friendly vessel. From the mast of the unfortunate vessel was seen a signal,“Water, water; we die of thirst!” The answer from the friendly vessel at once came back, “Cast down your bucket where you are.” A second time the signal, “Water, water; send us water!” ran up from the distressed vessel, and was answered, “Cast down your bucket where you are.” And a third and fourth signal for water was answered, “Cast down your bucket where you are.” The captain of the distressed vessel, at last heeding the injunction, cast down his bucket, and it came up full of fresh, sparkling water from the mouth of the Amazon River.

Sometimes, our situations are not perfect.  Sometimes you have to work with what you have.  Sometimes you have to “Cast down your bucket where you are.” When you can, fight for what you believe in.  The HRC has the money and influence to make a difference, they no longer need to “Cast down their bucket where they are.” Not all of us have money influence in power and must “Cast down our bucket where we are.”  So my message is, teach tolerance in all that you do. 

Do unto others, as you would have then do unto you.

By the way, here is an interesting link for GLBT teachers out there:

A Gay Teachers Battle to Teach

10 Comments | posted in History, Inspiration, Politics, Resources

September 24, 2010

History and Geography of Ritual Circumcision

By Joe
map-mgm66LARGE
Introduction

Ritual circumcisions can be separated into two types, depending on the circumstances in which they are performed:

Spiritual circumcisions expressing a community identity, usually religious, are wrapped in complex meanings that invoke numerous myths, notably Biblical and African.

circumcision11 The secular model of ritual circumcision exemplified in the USA includes—apart from intensely debated medico-scientific justifications—a real social dimension and also reflects a desire for membership in a community.
Whatever the circumstances, physicians may be asked to perform circumcision and should be aware of the significance of this procedure.

Mutilations prescribed for oneself or others are of ancient origin and universal in scope: practically no body part has been spared their impact. Sexual mutilations are the most frequent: noteworthy are subincision, practiced by Australian aborigines,[34, 43] Fijians, and Amazon Indians; hemicastration, found in Ethiopia, Egypt, and the islands of Micronesia; castration of harem keepers and choir boys (to preserve high voices); genital mutilations of girls (excision, infibulation, clitoridectomy); and finally circumcision, probably the most common of these practices.

map-usa-notfund Etymologically, the term “circumcision” denotes excision of all or part of the prepuce and comes from the Latin “circum” (around) and “caedere” (to cut). Semantically, the word bears no direct relation to the prepuce. Sometimes [in French] the terms “posthectomie” or “péritomie” are used.

The historical conditions in which circumcision arose are obscure. The practice probably began around the 4th century B.C. as attested to by statues and paintings depicting circumcision among Sumerians, Ethiopians, Phoenicians, Babylonians, as well as by circumcised Egyptian mummies. However, the frequency of circumcision in these periods and its possible social significance are unclear.

75_circumcision-safety-has-its-price A schematic distinction can be drawn between two major types of circumcision, based on the circumstances in which the operation is performed: therapeutic circumcision, which is beyond the scope of this paper, and ritual circumcision. The latter can be subdivided into religious circumcision, as in a ceremony marking a rite of passage and affirming membership in a group, usually religious, and secular circumcision, in which a religious motive is not invoked presumptively. The routine circumcision practiced in the USA for controversial prophylactic reasons is an example of the secular type.

Despite this conceptual distinction, we will see that both religious and secular circumcision are laden with complex meanings heavily impregnated with morality and social identity.  history of circumcision Click on images for a larger version.

This begins a new series on The Closet Professor about Male Circumcision.

Leave a comment | posted in History, Resources

September 22, 2010

Gay Rights Movement: Post-Stonewall

By Joe

This post continues a new series on The Closet Professor about the history of the early gay rights movement. Most if not all of you have heard of the Stonewall Riots, and though most people credit Stonewall with the beginning of gay rights, there were precursors to the movement. This series is based on a paper I once wrote about the gay rights movement but has been updated to some extent. I hope you enjoy it and find it informative.
image image Not all gays believed that the riots and “revolution” were a good thing. The older and more wealthy gay men who frequented Fire Island in the summer either ignored the riots or were embarrassed by then. They belonged to the beliefs of the Mattachine Society who believed in assimilation and accommodationist tactics. The Mattachines wanted gays to act like heterosexuals and thus blend into the greater society.[1] The differences between the accommodationists and the liberationist will be a trend in gay politics to this day.
image On the evening of July 4, 1969, the New York Mattachine Society called a meeting. The purpose of the gathering was to stop anymore riots and to get gays and lesbians to follow more closely their view of how the revolution should proceed, mainly for them to act like straight people and gain respect among normal society. Most of the gays in the room that night were tired of the Mattachine’s tactics. They wanted a new movement, one that challenged what normal was, one that was more militant, and one in which they did not have to change who they were. That night, the gays and lesbians at the Mattachine Society meeting formed the beginnings of the Gay Liberation Front.[2]
image The Gay Liberation Front (GLF) never had the same organizational hierarchy that the Mattachine Society had. The GLF allowed for each chapter to move in its own direction and determine how best to achieve their overall goals in their local area. The GLF was also more visible than many people actually preferred to be, but for the GLF to succeed they had no choice but to use the “We’re here, we’re queer, get used to it” tactics.[3] The GLF had their share of splinter groups and unlikely alliances, such as with the Black Panthers.
image The gay liberation movement also moved into more proper politics in the early 1990s. The AIDS epidemic took a great deal of the steam out of the movement that had continued to build during the seventies. In the early nineties, groups like the Human Rights Council, the largest gay and lesbian political action committee, the Gay and Lesbian Task Force, and the Lambda Legal Defense Fund tackled legislative and legal issues pertaining to gay and lesbian rights. Gays and lesbians even entered the political arena with a branch of the Democratic Party, the Stonewall Democrats, and with a branch of the Republican Party, the Log Cabin Republicans. The same old issues of whether gays should assimilate into society or make society accept them for who they are and at the same time have equal rights are still apparent in the splits that exist within the gay community.[4]

[1]Ibid., 206-207.
[2]Ibid., 211-212.
[3]James T. Sears, Rebels, Rubyfruit, and Rhinestones: Queering Space in the Stonewall South, (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 2001), 60, 64.
[4]Benjamin H. Shepard, “The Queer/Gay Assimilationist: The Suits vs. the Sluts,” Monthly Review: An Independent Socialist Magazine 53:1 (May 2001): 49-63.
Further Reading:
“ 4 Policemen Hurt in ‘Village’ Raid,” The New York Times, 29 June 1969.
Duberman, Martin. 1994. Stonewall. New York: Plume.
“Hostile Crowd Dispersed Near Sheridan Square,” New York Times, 3 July 1969.
Meeker, Martin. 2001. “Behind the Mask of Respectability: Reconsidering the Mattachine Society and Male Homophile Practice, 1950s and 1960s.” Journal of the History of Sexuality. 1:78-116.
“Police Again Rout ‘Village’ Youths,” New York Times, 30 June 1969.
Sears,James T. 2001. Rebels, Rubyfruit, and Rhinestones: Queering Space in the Stonewall South. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.
Shepard, Benjamin H. 2001. “The Queer/Gay Assimilationist: The Suits vs. the Sluts.” Monthly Review: An Independent Socialist Magazine 53:1, 49-63.
Smith, Howard. “Full Moon Over the Stonewall,” The Village Voice, 3 July 1969.
Suran, Justin David. 2001. “Coming Out Against the War: Antimilitarism and the Politicization of Homosexuality in the Era of Vietnam.” American Quarterly 3: 452-488.
Truscott,Lucian, IV. “Gay Power Comes To Sheridan Square.” The Village Voice. 3 July 1969.
“Village Raid Stirs Melee.” New York Post. 28 June 1969.

Leave a comment | posted in Gay Icon, History, Politics, Resources, Stonewall

September 20, 2010

Gay Rights Movement: Stonewall Riots

By Joe

This post continues a new series on The Closet Professor about the history of the early gay rights movement.  Most if not all of you have heard of the Stonewall Riots, and though most people credit Stonewall with the beginning of gay rights, there were precursors to the movement.  This series is based on a paper I once wrote about the gay rights movement but has been updated to some extent.  I hope you enjoy it and find it informative.
image While the two movements described by Meeker and Suran are precursors of the gay liberation movement sparked by the Stonewall Riots, the most often cited catalyst of the gay liberation movement is the series of riots that began on the night of Friday, June 27, 1969, after a raid on the Stonewall Inn, which continued for the next three nights. Raids of gay bars in New York City, particularly Greenwich Village, were not uncommon in the summer of 1969, what made the raid on the Stonewall on June 27 so different was that the patrons of the bar resisted instead of going peacefully.
1post The New York Post was the first of the New York newspapers to report the raid and the first “melee” that followed the raid. The Post described the scene following the raid on the Stonewall Inn, “a tavern frequented by homosexuals at 53 Christopher St.” The raid was staged because of the unlicensed sale of liquor. On that first night twelve people were arrested with charges ranging from assault to disorderly conduct because of the impromptu riot that soon ensued. As the police drove away with those in custody from the raid, the newspaper describes how “hundreds of passerby” shouted “Gay Power” and “We Want Freedom” while laying siege to the bar with “an improvised battering ram, garbage cans, bottles and beer cans in a protest demonstration.” More police were sent to 53 Christopher Street where the disturbance raged for more than two hours.[1]
1times1 For the next two days and again on July 3, the New York Times ran small pieces about the “Village Raid.” On June 29, the Times reported that shortly after 3 a.m. on the previous day, that the bar had been raided. About two hundred patrons were thrown out of the bar and soon were joined by about two hundred more in protest of the raid. Police seized several cases of liquor from the establishment, which the police stated was operating without a liquor license. The Times reported that the “melee” lasted for only about forty-five minutes after the raid before the crowd dispersed and thirteen people in all were arrested with four policemen suffering injuries, one a broken wrist. The June 29 article also stated that the raid was one of three conducted in the last two weeks, and on the night of June 28, “throngs of young men congregated outside the inn. . .reading aloud condemnations of the police.” [2] image The June 30 edition of the newspaper stated that on the early morning of June 29, a crowd of about four hundred gathered again on Christopher street and a Tactical Patrol Unit was called in to control the disturbance at about 2:15 a.m. The crowd was throwing bottles and lighting small fires. With their arms linked, the police made sweeps down Christopher Street from the Avenue of the Americas to Seventh Avenue, but the crowds merely moved into side streets and reformed behind the police. Those who did not move out of the way of the police line were pushed along and two men were clubbed to the ground. Stones and bottles were thrown at the police and twice the police broke ranks to charge the crowd. Three people were arrested on charges of harassment and disorderly conduct. The June 30 article also states that the crowd gathered again on the evening of June 29 to denounce the police for “allegedly harassing homosexuals.” Graffiti painted on the boarded up windows of the inn stated “Support gay power” and “Legalize gay bars.”[3] A July 3, article in the New York Times stated that a chanting crowd of about five hundred gathered again outside the Stonewall Inn and had to be dispersed by the police, while four protestors were arrested.[4]
1nyt0703 On July 3, 1969, The Village Voice published two, more substantial articles on the incidents surrounding the Stonewall Inn. Of the two articles, Lucian Trusctott IV’s article is written in a tongue-in-cheek style focusing on the several days of riots that ensued after the first raid. Truscott reports that the crowd, which returned on Saturday night, were being led by “gay power” cheers: “We are the Stonewall girls/ We wear our hair in curls/ We have no underwear/ We show our pubic hair!” The article is mostly sympathetic to the gay cause and quotes Allen Ginsberg, a gay activist, stated “Gay Power! Isn’t that great! We’re one of the largest minorities in the country–10 percent, you know. It’s about time we did something to assert ourselves.” Truscott is prophetic when he end his article by stating:

We reached Cooper Square, and as Ginsberg turned to head toward home, he waved and yelled, “Defend the fairies!” and bounce on across the square. He enjoyed the prospect of “gay power” and is probably working on a manifesto for the movement right now. Watch out. The liberation is under way![5]

The other article, by Howard Smith, is much more subdued. Smith, a reporter for the Voice, only relates the night of the raid, when he stayed with the police for protection. Although his article is not exactly pro-gay, Smith does offer some interesting observations that the other reports of the Stonewall Riots leave out. imageFirst of all, Smith reports on the number of men in drag that actually fight back. All other reports in The New York Times and The New York Post only state that the young men who resisted the police were young men, but Smith states that their were men in drag and a number of lesbians who resisted the police. Smith also describes in detail the “melee” especially concerning the attack on the police wagon while he was inside with the police for protection against the mob. Lastly, Smith points out the connection with the bar being owned by the mafia, although he only states that the men who own and run the establishment are Italians. Smith does relate that statements to the police were basically: “we are just honest businessmen, who are being harassed by the police because we cater to homosexuals, and because our names are Italian so they think we are part of something bigger.”[6]
imageWhile the newspapers provide a glimpse at the reaction of the New York press as the riots were happening, several further accounts were later retold in memoirs of the Riot. The most thorough account is given by Martin Duberman in his book Stonewall. Mostly through oral history interviews, Duberman is able to relate the events of the Stonewall Riots with more accuracy than the accounts in the New York City newspapers.
No one really knows what set off the “flash of anger” that began the riots. Most of the people who were there just say that all of a sudden the crowd grew angry and either began throwing bottles or trying to free one of the men in drag who were being arrested.[7] Even if it cannot be determined what set off the anger that went through the crowd, it must be asked, why that night. 1times2Many factors could have contributed to why the people in the Stonewall Inn fought back. It could have been because most of them had reached their breaking point, with the criminalization of their behavior to the Vietnam War that had raged for the last four years in the living rooms of every American with a television. One interesting theory could be that with Judy Garland’s funeral earlier that day, the men in the Stonewall Inn were distraught over losing their greatest icon. Probably what compounded most of the anger that rushed through the crowd was that most of the patrons were high on some type of drugs.[8] Another factor was that the raid occurred early in the morning. Usually raids happened earlier in the evening so that the bar could open back up. Police were being bribed, so raids were rarely major incidents.[9]
  Once the crowd did begin to fight back, the fervor of rebellion and the feeling that a revolution was happening among the gay community swept through the crowd.[10] No longer were gays going to work with the system to make themselves feel more normal. They wanted to be accepted for who they were, not for who the establishment wanted them to be. African-Americans had made great strides in their civil rights struggle, and women were just beginning to make strides for women’s liberation and equality. As pointed out by Alan Ginsberg earlier, gays and lesbians were a large minority in the United States. If they could make themselves heard, this could change everything for them. No longer would they be forced to only socialize with each other in dank and dingy, mafia owned bars, that could be raided at anytime and served watered down drinks so the owners could make more money. The law in New York City stated that a person must wear at least three articles of clothing appropriate to one’s own gender.[11] Gay bars were not allowed to have a liquor license and most were not allowed to have dancing.

“[1]Village Raid Stirs Melee,” New York Post, 28 June 1969.
“[2]4 Policemen Hurt in ‘Village’ Raid,” The New York Times, 29 June 1969, 33.
“[3]Police Again Rout ‘Village’ Youths,” New York Times, 30 June 1969, 22.
“[4]Hostile Crowd Dispersed Near Sheridan Square,” New York Times, 3 July 1969.
[5]Lucian Truscott IV, “Gay Power Comes To Sheridan Square,” The Village Voice, 3 July 1969, 18.
[6]Howard Smith, “Full Moon Over the Stonewall,” The Village Voice, 3 July 1969, 25.
[7]Martin Duberman, Stonewall, (New York: Plume, 1994), 196-197.
[8]Ibid., 181-196.
[9]Ibid., 194-195.
[10]Ibid., 198.
[11]Ibid., 196.

7 Comments | posted in Gay Icon, History, Resources, Stonewall

September 17, 2010

Gay Rights Movement: The Anti-War Movement

By Joe

This post continues a new series on The Closet Professor about the history of the early gay rights movement.  Most if not all of you have heard of the Stonewall Riots, and though most people credit Stonewall with the beginning of gay rights, there were precursors to the movement.  This series is based on a paper I once wrote about the gay rights movement but has been updated to some extent.  I hope you enjoy it and find it informative.
For some more information about the history of Gays in the Military, check out this article from Time Magazine: Brief History of Gays in the Military.
image In more modern times, the United States and most countries of the world criminalized homosexuality (sodomy) and therefore banned gay men and women from serving in the military. The Mattachine Society, founded in 1950, was one of the earliest homophile (gay rights) organizations in the United States, probably second only to Chicago’s short-lived Society for Human Rights (1924). Harry Hay and a group of Los Angeles male friends formed the group to protect and improve the rights of homosexuals. Because of concerns for secrecy and the founders’ leftist ideology, they adopted the cell organization of the Communist Party. In the anti-Communist atmosphere of the 1950s, the Society’s growing membership substituted a more traditional ameliorative civil rights leadership style and agenda for the group’s early Communist model. Then as branches formed in other cities, the Society splintered in regional groups by 1961.
Youths rebelled against older homophile organization, which often refused to take a stance on the Vietnam War. Young gay men had to chose whether or not to reveal or conceal their homosexuality when they came before the draft image board, because with the draft board being composed of local citizens, this could mean being outed to friends, neighbors or parents. The dilemma faced by gay youths polarized the gay liberation movement and gay youths joined in on the antiwar protests.[1] While older homophile organizations saw non-participation of homosexuals in the American military as detrimental to gay rights, youths of the antiwar stance saw it as a positive good. Suran contends that there are four major assertions by gay men in the antiwar movement. First, young homophiles saw military service as politically and morally counterproductive. Second, they declared war as a masculine affront to gay men. They cited the “effiminist” nature of homosexual men and refused to participate in macho role playing. Third, the young activists viewed imperialism as an extension of heterosexist ideology. Finally, they perceived homosexuality itself as antiwar antiestablishment, and anti-imperialist. With these four beliefs, young homophiles refused to embrace the older homophile tradition of assimilation in to “normal” society through military service.[2]
image Though the Mattachine Society fell apart by the 1970s, one of their focuses was on protesting the US policy against gays serving in the military. They believed they could serve their country in any capacity, whether it be in government (gay men and women were not allowed to serve in government positions because their sexuality could be used as a basis for blackmail by communist spies) or in the military.
When more public gay rights groups formed after the 1969 Stonewall Riots, image gay men had moved away from support for military service. With the Vietnam War and the draft still very much a reality, gay rights groups turned their backs on the issue of military service because they did not want to be drafted. However, the government also turned their backs on the ban and forced many gay men who were drafted to serve, deciding that they needed the manpower more than they needed to uphold the ban on military service. In the United States today, sodomy is no longer illegal thanks to the Supreme Court decision, Lawrence v. Texas, and in 1973 the American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality from its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. Therefore there is no legal or medical reason that can be used to deny gay men and women the right to serve openly in the military.
image

[1]Justin David Suran, “Coming Out Against the War: Antimilitarism and the Politicization of Homosexuality in the Era of Vietnam,” American Quarterly 53, no. 3 (2001): 453.
[2]Ibid., 471-472.

Next: The Stonewall Riots

Leave a comment | posted in History, Politics, Resources, Stonewall

September 15, 2010

Gay Rights Movement: Mattachine Society

By Joe

This post continues a new series on The Closet Professor about the history of the early gay rights movement. Most if not all of you have heard of the Stonewall Riots, and though most people credit Stonewall with the beginning of gay rights, there were precursors to the movement. This series is based on a paper I once wrote about the gay rights movement but has been updated to some extent. I hope you enjoy it and find it informative.

image Most historians agree that the movement towards gay rights, at least, nominally began with the founding of the Mattachine Society in Los Angeles in 1950 as the first gay rights organization in history. Harry Hay founded the organization and gave it its name after the medieval group of court jesters who satirized the government and royalty by wearing masks to keep themselves anonymous. Mattachine went through two different phases in its development. Early leadership based the leadership of the organization on the cell structure of the Communist Party with a secret hierarchical structure and a very centralized leadership. The seven founding members of the Mattachine Society remained anonymous as the mysterious “fifth order” who ran the organization through their leadership. The organization had three primary goals: to unify homosexuals as a group and with the dominant heterosexual culture, to educate both homosexuals and heterosexuals on the subject of homosexuality, and to enter the realm of political action.[1]

Due to the insistence of the first Mattachine Society that homosexuals adapt to the homophobic society of the Cold War by adopting the social and cultural mores of heterosexuals, the organization began to lose influence and membership. imageBy 1957, the organizations national headquarters moved from its base in Los Angeles to San Francisco where it remained until the national organization disbanded in 1961. With the end of the national organization and its insistence on conservative politics, the local chapters began to become more radical in their quest for gay liberation.[2] The Communist Party structure and tactics of the Mattachine Society ultimately hurt the organization more that it would help it. imageWith the Red Scare during the Cold War, the politics of the movement had a difficult time getting any recognition. Besides its communist association, this early homophile organization was never that large of a political organization. The fear of being publicly discovered as a homosexual was worse than having freedoms during the 1950s, when coming out meant that you were considered mentally ill, a social deviant, often classified as a criminal, and were barred from holding civil service jobs.

In his examination of the radicalization of the gay liberation movement, historian Justin David Suran shifts the focus from the radicalization of local homophile organizations to the gay participation in the antiwar movement. Local homophile organizations were still working for homosexuals to be “normalized” by assimilating into imagethe heterosexual cultures, most by allowing gay men and women to serve discretely in the U.S. Armed Forces. With the ability to be deferred from the draft by being labeled homosexual, many young gay men saw the opportunity to stay out of the Vietnam War. As the war continued into the early seventies, the deferment for homosexuality would have to be proved by a doctor or an arrest report in order to receive the deferment because of the prevalence of heterosexual men posing as homosexuals to stay out of the military.[3]

[1]Martin Meeker, “Behind the Mask of Respectability: Reconsidering the Mattachine Society and Male Homophile Practice, 1950s and 1960s,” Journal of the History of Sexuality 10, no. 1 (2001): 83.

[2]Ibid., 79.

[3]Justin David Suran, “Coming Out Against the War: Antimilitarism and the Politicization of Homosexuality in the Era of Vietnam,” American Quarterly 53, no. 3 (2001): 458-463.

Next: The Anti-War Movement

Leave a comment | posted in History, Politics, Resources

September 13, 2010

Gay Rights Movement: Introduction

By Joe

This post begins a new series on The Closet Professor about the history of the early gay rights movement.  Most if not all of you have heard of the Stonewall Riots, and though most people credit Stonewall with the beginning of gay rights, there were precursors to the movement.  This series is based on a paper I once wrote about the gay rights movement but has been updated to some extent.  I hope you enjoy it and find it informative.
The summer of 1969 showed the best and worst of America. In June, President Nixon announced Vietnamization as a way to get America out of image the Vietnam War, which reminds me a lot of our present policy of Iraqization of the now (supposedly) ended war in Iraq. Man stood on the moon for the first time on July 16 with the Apollo 11 landing. In August, Woodstock demonstrated to the world the epitome of the flower children’s culture and the height of the counter culture movement. While such events were celebrated in American culture, the summer of 1969 was also marked by a series of tragedies. Judy Garland died from an overdose of drugs. The Manson Family murdered actress Sharon Tate, her unborn child, and four others in Bel Air, California, in what has image become known as Helter Skelter. Mary Jo Kopechne died in a drunk driving accident with Ted Kennedy in Chapppaquiddick, Massachusetts. And 248 people perished in Mississippi when Hurricane Camille crashed into the Gulf Coast. The Civil Rights Movement was also going through a change. With the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr. in Memphis in 1968, the end had come to the classic period of the Civil Rights Movement. The movement was becoming more radical and began to splinter off into more groups of people, including women and the gay and lesbian community.
With the Stonewall Riots, the modern gay and lesbian rights movement had its beginnings in Greenwich Village, New York, during the summer of 1969. image The Stonewall Riots marked a change in the direction of the gay liberation movement that had been brewing since the end of World War II with the founding of the Mattachine Society in Los Angeles with chapters in New York, Philadelphia, and San Francisco. Gays and lesbians worked with the Civil Rights Movement, participated in the anti-war movement, and kept their sexuality in the background. But the “Friends of Dorothy” and “Daughters of Bilitis” were determined to no longer stay in the background and have homosexuality criminalized as it had been in the past. On the night of June 27, 1969, the gays and lesbians in the Stonewall Inn fought back after a police raid, and the modern gay liberation movement was born and would continue to grow as gay pride marches marked the subsequent anniversaries of the Stonewall Riots each year in New York during the month of June.
Although most historians of the gay liberation movement place the climax of image the beginning of the modern movement on the Stonewall Riots, some west coast historians give the metropolitan centers of the movement as Los Angeles and San Francisco in the fifties with the founding of the Mattachine Society, the earliest homophile activist organization, and the antiwar movement in San Francisco during the sixties. Martin Meeker of the University of Southern California presented a re-evaluation of the Mattachine Society in his article “Behind the Mask of Respectability: Reconsidering the Mattachine Society and Male Homophile Practice 1950s and 1960s,” and Justin David Suran of the University of California, Berkeley examines the effects of the Vietnam War on the gay liberation movement in “Coming Out Against the War: Antimilitarism and the Politicization of Homosexuality in the Era of Vietnam.”
Next: The Mattacine Society
Announcement:  I have decided that I will try something new with The Closet Professor.  Most college classes either meet on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays or on Tuesdays and Thursdays.  Therefore, I have decided that The Closet Professor, which has a very loyal but also relatively small following, will begin posting only on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays.  These posts take more time to put together than the posts on my other blog, so I have chosen to give you quality not quantity.  I love this blog, and it is the blog I love to do: teach.  I hope that you will continue to read and comment as the posts slow down just a bit.  Occasionally, I will randomly post things for other days as the mood strikes but for now, I plan to follow the new schedule.
Thanks for reading.

4 Comments | posted in History, Stonewall

September 12, 2010

The Golden Rule

By Joe

1030[4]
The Golden Rule or ethic of reciprocity is a maxim, an ethical code, or a morality, that essentially states any of the following (see examples below):

  1. One should treat others according to how one would like others to treat one’s self (positive, passive form)
  2. Treat others as you would like to be treated (positive, active form)
  3. One should not treat others in ways one would not like to be treated (prohibitive, passive form)
  4. Do not treat others in ways you would not like to be treated (prohibitive, active form. Also called the Silver Rule)

The Golden Rule has a long history, and a great number of prominent religious figures and philosophers have restated its reciprocal, bilateral nature in various ways (not limited to the above forms).
The Golden Rule is arguably the most essential basis for the modern concept of human rights, in which each individual has a right to just treatment, and a responsibility to ensure justice for others. A key element of the Golden Rule is that a person attempting to live by this rule treats all people with consideration, not just members of his or her in-group. The Golden Rule has its roots in a wide range of world cultures, and is a standard which different cultures use to resolve conflicts.
The Golden Rule, as a concept, has a history that long predates the term “Golden Rule” (or “Golden law,” as it was called from the 1670s). The ethic of reciprocity was present in certain forms in the philosophies of ancient Babylon, Egypt, India, Greece, Judea, and China. The “Golden Rule” however usually refers to the saying of Jesus of Nazareth: “Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them.” (Matthew 7:12, see also Luke 6:31) The common English phrasing is “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”. A similar form appeared in a Catholic catechism around 1567 (certainly in the reprint of 1583).
The ethic of reciprocity has been a part of culture and religious laws from what seems to be the beginning of time. It is present in the first law code: The Code of Hammurabi. Here are some examples of the ethic of reciprocity in various religions, societies, and philosophies:

Ancient Egypt

An early example of the Golden Rule that reflects the Ancient Egyptian concept of Maat appears in the story of The Eloquent Peasant which is dated to the Middle Kingdom (c. 2040–1650 BCE): “Now this is the command: Do to the doer to cause that he do.” An example from a Late Period (c. 1080 – 332 BCE) papyrus: “That which you hate to be done to you, do not do to another.”

Ancient Greek philosophy

The Golden Rule in its prohibitive form was a common principle in ancient Greek philosophy. Examples of the general concept include:

  • “What you do not want to happen to you, do not do it yourself either. ” – Sextus the Pythagorean The oldest extant reference to Sextus is by Origin in the third century of the common era.[15]
  • “Do not do to others what would anger you if done to you by others.” – Isocrates
  • “It is impossible to live a pleasant life without living wisely and well and justly (agreeing ‘neither to harm nor be harmed’), and it is impossible to live wisely and well and justly without living a pleasant life.” – Epicurus
  • “One should never do wrong in return, nor mistreat any man, no matter how one has been mistreated by him.” – Plato’s Socrates (Crito, 49c) (c. 469 BC–399 BCE)

Buddhism

Putting oneself in the place of another, one should not kill nor cause another to kill.

One who, while himself seeking happiness, oppresses with violence other beings who also desire happiness, will not attain happiness hereafter.
—Dhammapada 10. Violence

Confucianism

Zi Gong asked, saying, “Is there one word which may serve as a rule of practice for all one’s life?” The Master said, “Is not RECIPROCITY such a word?
—Confucius, Analects XV.24 (tr. Chinese Text Project)

Never impose on others what you would not choose for yourself.
—Confucius, Analects XV.24 (tr. David Hinton)

Hinduism

One should never do that to another which one regards as injurious to one’s own self. This, in brief, is the rule of dharma. Other behavior is due to selfish desires.
—Brihaspati, Mahabharata (Anusasana Parva, Section CXIII, Verse 8)

For those who set their hearts on me
And worship me with unfailing devotion and faith,
The way of love leads sure and swift to me.
Those who seek the transcendental Reality,
Unmanifested, without name or form,
Beyond the reach of feeling and of thought,
With their senses subdued and mind serene
And striving for the good of all beings,
They too will verily come unto me.
—[Bhagavad-Gita, Chapter XII.]

Islam

Hurt no one so that no one may hurt you.
—Muhammad, The Farewell Sermon

Jeffrey Wattles holds that the golden rule appears in the following statements attributed to Muhammad:

“Woe to those . . . who, when they have to receive by measure from men, exact full measure, but when they have to give by measure or weight to men, give less than due”
—Qur’an (Surah 83, “The Unjust,” vv. 1–4)

The Qur’an commends:

“those who show their affection to such as came to them for refuge and entertain no desire in their hearts for things given to the (latter), but give them preference over themselves”
—Qur’an (Surah 59, “Exile,” vv. 9)

Jainism
In Jainism, the golden rule is firmly embedded in its entire philosophy and can be seen in its clearest form in the doctrines of Ahimsa and Karma
Following quotation from the Acaranga Sutra sums up the philosophy of Jainism:

Nothing which breathes, which exists, which lives, or which has essence or potential of life, should be destroyed or ruled over, or subjugated, or harmed, or denied of its essence or potential.
In support of this Truth, I ask you a question – “Is sorrow or pain desirable to you ?” If you say “yes it is”, it would be a lie. If you say, “No, It is not” you will be expressing the truth. Just as sorrow or pain is not desirable to you, so it is to all which breathe, exist, live or have any essence of life. To you and all, it is undesirable, and painful, and repugnant.

Judaism
The concept of the Golden Rule originates most famously in a Torah verse (Hebrew: “ואהבת לרעיך כמוך”):

You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against your kinsfolk. Love your neighbor as yourself: I am the LORD.
—Leviticus 19:18[45], the “Great Commandment”

Taoism

The sage has no interest of his own, but takes the interests of the people as his own. He is kind to the kind; he is also kind to the unkind: for Virtue is kind. He is faithful to the faithful; he is also faithful to the unfaithful: for Virtue is faithful.
—Tao Teh Ching, Chapter 49

Regard your neighbor’s gain as your own gain, and your neighbor’s loss as your own loss.
—T’ai Shang Kan Ying P’ien

The Golden Rule is how I live my life. It is an ancient law and religious belief. If all people would understand that this is the central tenement of major morals of the world, we would live in a world of peace, wisdom, and true virtue. I try to live my life as an example of this principle, sometimes I fail, but I work daily in order not to. So treat your fellow human as you would like to be treated. If we all did this, there would be no Manhunt ads stating “No fats, No Fems.” Accept your fellow man, whoever they may be. The central tenement of the Chinese philosophy of Legalism is that all mankind is evil and through strict laws, the government can rid people of that inherent evil. I actually believe the opposite: All of mankind is good, they just need to be given the chance to show that goodness. If one day, the world realizes this concept, there will be no homophobia, there will be no racism, there will be no sexism, there will be no war, there will be no discrimination or hate of any kind.
Over on my blog Cocks, Asses, and More there is a companion post to this one. It is also about the Golden Rule but describes it in a more personal way.
Thanks for reading.

4 Comments | posted in History, Inspiration, Miscellaneous, Religion, Resources, Theory

September 11, 2010

The First Amendment and Book Burning

By Joe

They came first for the Communists,
and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew.

Then they came for me
and by that time no one was left to speak up.

Martin Niemöller (1892–1984)

The above poem was featured on my friend crothdiver’s blog Anything Male, the other day in a post he wrote about the recent controversy surrounding a pastor in Florida who was planning on burning the Qur’an. The whole subject has had my riled up for days and has had me thinking of American’s First Amendment rights, censorship rights, and the ignorance of book burning. So I thought I would address these three ideas from my own perspective.

First of all, who was Martin Niemöller? German theologian and war hero as a submarine commander in World War I, he became a minister in 1924. When the Nazis came to power in 1933, he was originally a supporter of the Nazi party, but later he protested their interference in church affairs and helped combat discrimination against Christians of Jewish background. As founder of the anti-Nazi Confessing Church, he worked to oppose Adolf Hitler. Arrested in 1937, he was interned until 1945. After the war he helped rebuild the Evangelical Church. Increasingly disillusioned with prospects for demilitarization, he became a controversial pacifist; for his efforts to extend friendship ties to Soviet-bloc countries, he received the Lenin Peace Prize (1967) and West Germany’s Grand Cross of Merit (1971).

The First Amendment

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

image

I agree with the President on this issue. Mr. Jones may have the right to speak out against Islam and may technically have the right to burn books. However, by burning the Qur’an, Mr. Jones has incited riots and hatred toward Americans around the world, when we are currently at war with religious extremists, he is attempting to burn their word of God. The Qur’an is literally the word of Allah, as spoken through his messenger, the Archangel Gabriel, and memorized and recited by the prophet Muhammad. Quite honestly, I can see 100 percent why this would upset even the most peaceful Muslims in the world. This act also puts our soldiers overseas at an even greater risk. In Afghanistan, we are dealing with people who need only the slightest provocation to seek retribution. The act of burning the Qur’an is more than just the slightest provocation. The Taliban used the natural disaster of the floods in Pakistan to attack innocent people, they have no morals. These are not true believers, if they were, they would honor Allah, not desecrate his name. Why fuel the fires of average Muslims with the burning of their holy book. By even the threat, Mr. Jones has aided Al Qaeda and the Taliban in their methods of recruitment. He has put the national security of America and the security of American citizens and soldiers abroad at risk. It has been a long standing tradition and backed by laws in America that using the excuse of freedom of speech is not legal if you are inciting danger. Just as you are not able to yell fire in a crowded building when there is not a fire, you also cannot incite world wide riots for your own publicity seeking exploits as Mr. Jones has done.

Book Burning

image First, let me say that I am a total and complete bibliophile. I love and cherish books. Some of my most prized possessions are books. I find the written and printed word to be sacred. To burn a book is one of the most destructive and horrific events that can one can do to an inanimate object.

Book burning, biblioclasm or libricide is the practice of destroying, often ceremoniously, books or other written material and media. In modern times, other forms of media, such as phonograph records, video tapes, and CDs have also been ceremoniously burned, torched, or shredded. The practice, usually carried out in public, is generally motivated by moral, religious, or political objections to the material.

Some particular cases of book burning are long and traumatically remembered – because the books destroyed were irreplaceable and their loss constituted a severe damage to cultural heritage, and/or because this instance of book burning has become emblematic of a harsh and oppressive regime. Such were the destruction of the Library of Alexandria, the obliteration of the Library of Baghdad, the burning of books and burying of scholars under China’s Qin Dynasty, the destruction of Mayan codices by Spanish conquistadors and priests, and some seem more for publicity for a cause such as Nazi book burnings, the burning of Beatles records after a remark by John Lennon concerning Jesus Christ, and the destruction of the Sarajevo National Library.

image There have been many religious leaders in history who have burned books that they found offensive. In 1497, followers of the Italian priest Girolamo Savonarola collected and publicly burned pornography, lewd pictures, pagan books, gaming tables, cosmetics, copies of Boccaccio’s Decameron, and all the works of Ovid which could be found in Florence. Savonarola’s dictatorship in Florence also led to the persecution of homosexuals, as did nearly every other existence of extreme dictatorships and book burnings. That is why I find the poem at the beginning of this post to be so poignant.

In my opinion, whether it is an off-the-wall extremist minister in Florida, a crazy monk in medieval Florence, or a ruthless anti-Semitic leader in 1930s and 1940s Germany, it is a very dangerous first step to the destruction of all that America holds sacred. Book burning is symbolic and pure censorship and only leads to extremism.

4 Comments | posted in Art, History, Poetry, Politics, Theory

September 9, 2010

2012

By Joe

image

This post really doesn’t have anything to do with GLBT culture, but I saw this picture and it reminded me about the whole Mayan Calendar thing.  There are a lot of people out there who do not understand the belief of the Mayans that the world would end in 2012, so I thought I would explain it from my perspective.

In order to correctly orient oneself to the cycles of time, one must be able to calculate these cycles with great accuracy. To this end, the Olmecs, and later they Mayans, developed a number of calendrical systems. At the center was the tzolkin, or sacred calendar, which consisted of 260 days; this calendar worked on two cycles, a cycle of 13 numbered days and a cycle of 20 named days. These two cycles would repeat themselves every 260 days. In addition, they had the tun, or ceremonial calendar, which was 360 days long plus five concluding, unlucky days. Another calendar was the katun, which was a cycle of 20 tuns. They also used a Venus calendar (584 days), a half-year lunar calendar, and cycles of the sky gods.

In combination, these calendars made the Mesoamericans the most accurate reckoners of time before the modern period reaching an accuracy of being one day off every 6000 years (which is far more accurate than our calendar).  All the days of these calendars in their incredible complexity served as astronomical almanacs that rigidly controlled behavior and religious ceremony.  The Olmec and Mayan Long Count calendar runs for 5125 solar years at which time these societies predicted the world could end in fire. The current cycle began in 3114 bce and is scheduled to end on December 21, 2012.

This is one of my favorite topics in history.  I just find it fascinating.  To explain this a little better than just giving a description of the calendars, they Toltecs and Mayans believed that when the cycles ended that the time was ripe for the destruction of the world.  It did not necessarily mean that the world would end, but just that it could.

So don’t vote for Sarah Palin, Hell won’t freeze over, and the world will continue, LOL.

Leave a comment | posted in History