RENWL

We’ve seen it umpteen thousand times. We’re sure many of you have as well. Some of you might even be guilty of it—-white gay person uses to support their argument or criticism aimed at the government/military/Obama/society in general/etc—a dark chapter from black history in America to underscore their point in regards to any opposition or perceived sluggishness towards LGBT rights.

Case in point, today there’s a Huff Post piece written by Emma Ruby Sachs titled Petraeus Sells Gay Troops Down the River. She’s pissed because General Petraeus announced that he supports a year long review of the military’s Don’t Ask Don’t Tell policy. Sachs’ thinks the review is a stalling tactic to potentially derail the repeal of the anti-gay military regulation. She’s also exceptionally irked that General Petraeus made the statement:

“As you said I believe in my office the likely effects could go in either direction… I believe you told me, either negative or positive, the study could show.”

Okay. Whateves, right? It’s not the first rant we’ve read on why LGBTs should be permitted to serve openly yesterday in the military. We will say however that we don’t entirely agree with Miss Sachs in this respect. To ensure a “safe and smooth” transition for gay and lesbian military personnel we feel a well-thought out game plan might be just the thing.  But differing in opinion with Miss Sachs is not our grievance. It’s the responses to her post that makes the kink in our ‘fro straighten out.

Namely, the overly tired singsong responses by gay white folks who quickly dredge up Harry Truman’s executive order to desegregate the military in 1948 as an arrow aimed at President Obama and his unwillingness to do the same with the repeal of DADT.

If we’ve not seen this hundreds of times we’ve seen it thousands. Here’s the part that these people either ignorantly not wanting or caring to know black American history—- or conveniently and purposefully conceal. And that is, Truman’s executive order was issued in 1948. It took FIVE YEARS before integration was completed. And even then the last all black unit wasn’t disbanded until 1954.

Here’s our question: how you gonna use that as an argument against a proposed year long study to repeal DADT?  Exactly. You can’t. You’d sound like goddamned fool for doing so—which by the way—-is what these people sound like.

While there’s absolutely nothing wrong with using as example historical aspects of racism against blacks in America and/or the black civil rights struggle to drive home why everyone should be entitled to the same rights, there is something VERY WRONG with this practice when:

A. You’re using historical examples of oppression and racism against blacks specifically to “clown” your black president passive aggressively with the insinuation that because and ONLY because he’s black—–full equality for LGBTs should’ve happened the moment he removed his hand from the bible right after being sworn in.

B. Citing black historical examples as part of your argument for LGBT rights when not only do you not know what you’re talking about but obviously too arrogant to even bother fact-checking your own statements before revealing to one and all your ignorance.

From our tip jar: there’s this handy Web site called Wikipedia.com. We love it. Although not 100% accurate all the time, it’s fairly resourceful in quickly checking up on any claims you’re about to make on someone else’s history or culture. Our preferred quick fact-checking site however is Brittanica.com. We find online encyclopedia sites like this a godsend if we’re not remotely interested or curious about another culture’s backstory but just want to borrow a quick historical tidbit for argument sake —and come off informed on the subject while we’re doing it. We cheerfully encourage those who are bereft on the finer points of black struggles in America to please take advantage of these free and useful databases of information.

Once again, nothings wrong with respectfully acknowledging another culture’s journey to highlight one’s argument for LGBT equality. Just be sure you’re actually citing the facts and not just parroting something you’ve read on embittered online fag rags from the likes of those such as David Mixner, Dan Savage or John Aravotisis’s Americablog. Although we will say Aravotisis chilled big time lately on the Obama-hate. Well, the last time we glanced at it a month ago.

Huff Post: Petraeus Sells Gay Troops Down the River

Possibly Related Posts:

• THE KIDS ARE ALL RIGHT, BUT NOT THE QUEER MOVEMENT
• The Tragedy Of The Black Gay Blogosphere Keeps Getting More Tragic
• Cleo Manago On The National HIV/AIDS Strategy (NHAS): Will It Benefit Black People?
• Shirley Q. Liquor, Equality And The Double Standards Of Gay White Male Culture
• Nation’s Oldest Black Frat Joins Arizona Boycott And Why We Think They’re Bogus