Why Black People Don’t Like It When White Gays Co-opt the Black Civil Rights Movement
Happy Black History Month! We’ve never addressed the above topic on RENWL.org. We think it’s high time that we do with today being the first day of Black History month.
There was an interesting Huff Post a few months ago written by Pam Spaulding of Pams House Blend. The title of it was Black, Gay and Reclaiming ‘Civil Rights’. The premise of the post was in reaction to those blacks who took offense at white gays calling the battle for marriage equality a civil rights battle. In her essay Spaulding took these people to task about multiple issues including homophobia, being out, racism, the definition of blackness, cultural and political courage and the silly notion that the term “civil rights” only belongs to blacks.
In that sense we completely agree with Miss Spaulding. No one owns the trademark to civil rights so therefore there’s no such thing as the term being owned by one particular group. The mere notion is ridiculous.
What wasn’t explored in Miss Spaulding’s essay was the fact that many blacks just don’t like white gays comparing the LGBT rights battle to the civil rights battle of black America’s. And most importantly—-WHY they don’t like it.
To that end, we don’t like it, either. We don’t like it simply because it’s not the same battle or not even close to even having similar characteristics. Yes, gays are fighting for their civil rights. And yes, so did blacks. So where in lies the discrepancy, you ask?
Instead of telling you we’ll provide the vast differences between the movements visually:
The following description of this event is taken directly from Wikipedia:
The Civil Rights Movement received an infusion of energy with a student sit-in at a Woolworth’s store in Greensboro, North Carolina. On February 1, 1960, four students Ezell A. Blair Jr. (now known as Jibreel Khazan), David Richmond, Joseph McNeil, and Franklin McCain from North Carolina Agricultural & Technical College, an all-black college, sat down at the segregated lunch counter to protest Woolworth’s policy of excluding African Americans.
LGBT civil rights rally Los Angeles, CA, May 26, 2009: President Barack Obama came to Los Angeles for the Democratic National Committee fundraiser held at the Beverly Hilton Hotel. LGBTs show up to demonstrate that Obama is the cause of their unhappiness and responsible for LGBTs not currently enjoying full civil rights.
Notice the difference? The visual of the Black civil rights movement is marked by risk-taking, action, potential harm, civil disobedience, radical grassroots activism, tremendous courage, personal responsibility, commitment, spirituality, a faith and belief in a power greater than ourselves and own egos, strategy and above all—empowerment. They took matters into their own hands.
The LGBT civil rights scenario: lip service, irresponsible blaming and finger-pointing, victimization, no strategy, demands backed by more demands, inaction, lack of commitment, more lip service, and yet more lip service, more finger-pointing and operating ONE HUNDRED PERCENT FROM THE COMFORT ZONE. No risk or challenge whatsoever. On the contrary, complaining, victimization and whining is the hallmark and bedrock of the LGBT civil rights movement. We’re just being real folks. Very very little if at all action. All of this behavior is aggressively encouraged and supported by LGBT leadership and media figures. 
Not only that, very influential white gay leadership, popular LGBT bloggers and media figures have made the LGBT civil rights movement almost exclusively about President Obama. This includes:
Rick Jacobs of the Courage Campaign
Geoff Kors of EQCA
Rachel Maddow of MSNBC
David Mixner
Michael Signorile
Dan Savage
Pam Spaulding
On the other hand:
The Black civil rights movement was about CIVIL RIGHTS.
We know Pam Spaulding of Pam’s House Blend and Transracial blogger David Kaufman have been exchanging some serious words on Huff Post regarding such issues (and we’ve been trying to steer clear of it all) but we have to say we agree with a statement Kaufman made in his recent blog post ENOUGH: Homo-Toms, GayKK-ers and the Betrayal of the LGBT Left:
Most crucially, same-sex marriage advocates must finally understand they cannot equate their struggle with the African-American battle for Civil Rights or South African movement to end Apartheid. Not because Marriage Equality is not a noble goal, but because they are simply not the same thing.
We believe civil rights are civil rights. But the comparison of the LGBT rights movement and the Black civil rights movement is laughable. And it’s laughable because quite frankly there’s no battle being fought in the LGBT community for civil rights. None at all. If so, where is it? So if anyone is ever confused or concerned as to why African Americans (including ourselves) don’t like it when gay white people compare the LGBT movement to the Black civil rights movement, all of the above should quickly get you up to speed. And once again, happy Black History Month:)
Possibly Related Posts:
- Small Child Offers Ping Pong Challenge After Double Husband Revelation
- Obama Mulls Sunday Brunch Invites To Ugandan Gays; LGBT Press In US Pretends Not To Notice
- DC Blacks, People Of Color, First In Line To Seek Same Sex Marriage Licenses
- In Fight For Same Sex Marriage DC Blacks Show California How It’s Done
- Now You Too Can Talk To Your Favorite Negros About LGBT Rights
2 February, 2010 at 4:45 am
Derrick, I'd love to hear your ideas on how it should be framed. This is a topic I'm very interested in exploring, and one that I'm admittedly growing increasingly frustrated with, as I feel boxed in on both sides.
If there is a socially acceptable, common understanding of how we will frame the movement (when it exists), it would go a long way toward advancing our agenda.
2 February, 2010 at 6:07 am
Thanks, Derrick, as always for a different take on something we share so much in common! I too get frustrated, mostly because there is very little attention to the idea of COOPTATION and very little recognition that either side feels the need to know deeply the HISTORY of both movements. If we all truly knew the history of both movements we would agree that there is a diverse set of meanings to the words "civil rights" and that marriage equality is in fact one of a bunch of civil rights.
We've talked about this before, so I shan't (such a wonderful pseudo-word!) continue further, but I'm so glad you: a) recognized the 50th anniversary of the Greensboro sit-in today and b) brought us together to talk about this yet again.
2 February, 2010 at 6:11 am
Derrick, this is dead on. Thank you for pushing this out.
1 February, 2010 at 10:36 pm
I agree that gay cooptation of the black civil rights movement is laughable at best and usually far worse, but I think your comparisons are a little… wrong.
Queer people HAVE had people rise, we’ve had sit-ins and riots, we’ve had a lot of that sort of thing…
…unfortunately, the modern movement has been trying to make it seem as though those things never happened. They have been coopting more than just the black civil rights movement. They have been coopting the Stonewall riots, the ACT-UP demonstrations in the ’80s, and all the queer uprisings that WEREN’T petty crap in order to gain access to a few equally petty privileges.
2 February, 2010 at 6:45 am
While I understand the sentiments, I think there are some big gaps that aren't addressed by you (or mainstream media, for that matter).
The LGBT civil rights movement is structured like everything else in mainstream America – it is centered around white people. This is what makes the Black Civil Rights movement and ours extremely different. The only thing the media pays attention to are people in positions of power, and historically, white people have held those keys for a long, long time. So yes, the rhetoric and the agenda that the LGBT Bloggers and other prominent LGBT Leaders are putting forth seems quite ridiculous when we take a look back and see what our brothers and sisters of color went through, what they fought for, and accomplished.
It becomes problematic when we associate those leaders and bloggers with LGBT people and issues as a whole. I know you make it quite clear that you're talking about the "influential white gay leaders" but in your critique, why not give voice to the rest of the LGBT community/activists/leaders who fight their whole lives against prejudice, who show tremendous courage in being who they are and face death, beatings, abuse, and discrimination in ways that bring back images of half a century ago.
I'm talking about trans women of color who experience hate crimes in disproportionate numbers, murdered in some of the most gruesome ways known to mankind; lgbtq youth who get kicked out of their homes by the people who brought them into this world, pushed to the brink of suicide; people who are forced into gay conversion therapy causing them tremendous amounts of psychological and emotional harm.
Listen, I know it's important to critique what's going on, I'm right there with you in everything you said, but I also think it's important to keep these other issues in mind as well, as a corollary to the critique and argument. Otherwise we just sound like all those other people who hate us but don't know about these things or don't think they're pressing issues. We know better. And we should be better. If every blogger who was out there critiquing the white LGBT leadership's critique/agenda was ALSO spending more time talking about this discourse and these stories, then maybe we'd ALL be able to move past the whining.
2 February, 2010 at 6:46 am
Hey Jordan,
Thanks for your comment and I very much appreciate your words. Actually, what sparked me to write this post was a posting of Robin McGehee's. I liked what she did because she posted that very same photo of that black civil rights sit-in. But it was the words that followed which spoke of sensitivity and respect on her behalf. Here's what she wrote underneath the photo:
"Tomorrow marks the 50th anniversary of the lunch-counter sit-in's. It is time to RISE UP and demonstrate the injustice we suffer because of the lack of liberty and justice for ALL. Organizing now to add those images, for Dan Choi, Anthony Dietrich, Peter Yacobellis, Layne Soares Layne Soares and the tens of thousands… who have been discharged or would like to serve, so hopefully one day they will not continue to be further evidence of the clear discrimination we face."
I thought her using the photo with those words was highly appropriate in acknowledging a movement prior to the LGBT movement and the actions they took in terms of risk in the battle for their civil rights—as example for similar actions that can be taken in the LGBT rights battle. There's absolutely nothing wrong in acknowledging the black civil rights movement, it just gets a problematic when one is voicing them as the same or identical. When LGBTs experience the risk, loss, bloodshed and untold violence that these people during the black civil rights movements experienced and walked then a legitimate comparison is appropriate.
The wrong way to do it is the Michael Signorile way in calling up black civil rights saying, "well blacks got their civil rights and blah blah."
That's a lot of nerve for someone making demands who has yet to demonstrate what he'd be willing to put on the line for his own civil rights. Signorile can talk about blacks and civil rights when he has authentically fought for his own—not just as an indignant mouthpiece making comparisons that really don't measure up in terms of what it took blacks to get their civil rights.
I hope this helps.
2 February, 2010 at 6:56 am
Jackon I agree. And actually during the late 80s and early 90s ACT UP ACTED UP! Those activists and their courage are solely responsible for the arena known today as "gay politics." Honey those boys did not play! And lesbians got right beside them. I don't mean imply that throughout history the LGBT has never got down 'n' dirty fighting the good fight. Cause that would be an out 'n' out lie. No, I'm talking about today's so-called political arena and what it looks like right now. It's a different world today and unfortunately different voices are at the helm. Thank you for your comment!
dm
2 February, 2010 at 6:34 pm
hey D-
oooh chile, way to stir the damn pot. btw-can we make that top image into a t-shirt & sell it to raise funds for the revolution? i want one in small. black, of course.
Homo-toms! hahahahaha..you KNOW i'll be using that real soon..xxx
W
2 February, 2010 at 9:46 pm
Agreed!
3 February, 2010 at 2:07 pm
Great piece, and some very valid points, but I think you oversimplify the LGBT movement. It isn't some big, monolithic thing. There are people within the LGBT movement who are engaging in protest, civil disobedience, non-violent and direct action. Soulforce has been around for years and uses civil disobedience and direct action to challenge religion-based prejudice. In the past, their youth division has used civil disobedience and direct action to challenge anti-LGBT Christian schools and universities and the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy. And someone else mentioned this here in the comments, but this piece also ignores the long history of civil disobedience and direct action by LGBTs from the Mattachine Society in the 1950s to the Stonewall Inn to the work done by ACT UP and other activists through the 80s and mid-1990s.
I was born in Winston-Salem… just 30 minutes from Greensboro, where the famed 1960 Woolworth sit-ins began. I also went to school at UNC-Greensboro. As a youth, I was greatly, greatly inspired by the Civil Rights Movement being so steeped in it in my childhood surroundings. I think it harms all people who are oppressed when these oppressed groups start fighting with each other. Our movements for equality and civil rights, while different in many respects, are also the same in many respects. Taken in the perspective of history, we are each fighting for what we rightly deserve and what the constitution guarantees us.