Many progressives have compared and contrasted the contemporary fight for same-sex marriage with the black freedom struggle. The shared quests for equal justice under the law and civil rights protections have been affirmed, even as others of us question the political expediency of direct correlations and uncritical appropriations.
Calls for historical and contextual specificity, however, should not trump coalition building. While it may be too glib to declare gay the new black, we must acknowledge that to be gay and/or a person of color is to be queer in the American cultural context. Over at Killing the Buddha, informed by the indomitable courage of civil rights icon Bayard Rustin, the Rev. Osagyefo Uhuru Sekou makes this case with analytic sophistication and intellectual precision.
Rustin, who himself lived under the double-jeopardy of being black and gay in America, maps the route for us “From Montgomery to Stonewall.” Having to resist biblically-sanctioned and culturally condoned violence against one’s humanity is the tie that binds. And Rev. Sekou argues that living in a contemporary condition of existential uncertainty, denied opportunity and deferred democracy is why the gay rights movement understandably looks to the black freedom struggle as an example of how to resist the niggerization process in America.
Cornel West contends that being niggerized should not be reduced to the dehumanization, economic exploitation, and political disenfranchisement of black people. He unracializes the term insofar as it becomes a much broader category to describe the bastardizing and impeding of democracy. Turning citizens into “intimidated, fearful and helpless subjects,” according to West, is what it means to be a Nigger.
For this reason, Rev. Sekou argues convincingly that while Gay may not be the new black, with the passing of Prop 8 and other state constitutional amendments proscribing the lives and liberties of our gay brothers and sisters, “Gays Are the New Niggers!”
Tags: civil rights, civil rights movement, cornel west, lgbt, lgbtq
Yoko Ono once said that "Woman is the nigger of the world". Well being Gay is similar. Until the 14th amendment applies to me as a lesbian, I would say that I am indeed an intimidated, fearful & helpless subject of this country.
Well, usually I appreciate and agree with what Brother Cornel says, but for me "nigger" is wholly rooted in race and ultimately skin color. I understand the point and what he's trying to make and within that respect I do understand and agree. But I think to use the idea with the root word being nigger is to negate the horrible history associated with that word.
Don't be ridiculous! Depravity is not a civil right!
If we accept one deviant act as a civil right we will have to accept all forms of depravity! The pedophile, beastility and ect.
It is interesting that gays think they will find their goal of equality through un-constitutional "laws". It is a hollow goal. The more you try to FORCE acceptance of a sinful act the more you will be resisted. No one I know condones violence against another -- gays bring that on themselves when they get "in the face" of others -- they are asking for some sort of a response. Homosexual sex is a sin. Trying to FORCE a society to believe otherwise will continue to ignite more sinful results from its people. Activist gays are committing two sins -- 1) the homosexual sex - and 2) tempting their brother to sin as a they seem to REQUIRE that others accept their sinful acts as un-sinful. Gays assert that they have "a right" to live that way -- and they wonder why people don't accept them. (duh) Yes, you have a right to do whatever you want in the privacy of your own home. Once you bring it into the public arena you "ask for" people to give you feedback about your choices. If you want to live a gay life -- get back in the closet. It will never be universally accepted as ok. [it's like someone saying -- I don't believe in cencorship, but what those Christians are saying must be stopped!]... you can't have it both ways. The truth will always prevail in the end.
My thoughts exactly!
As I read your comment, I wondered about other sins and what public reactions are acceptable. I read in Scripture how divorce is a sin and anyone who marries a divorced person is an adulterer (Mark 10:11). Yet when I see these adulterous couples in public are they not guilty of the two sins that you describe - 1)the adulterous sex - and 2)requiring that others accept their sinful act as un-sinful? Where is the feedback that these adulterous heterosexual couple are "asking for"?
It seems to me that you are bringing a hermeneutical standard that puts homosexuality on a different level than other sins. How is that justified? What does the scripture about how we (the public) should respond to these sinner?
To suggest that gays and lesbians bring violence upon themselves for simply being in the "public arena" is absurd and asinine reasoning that is clearly informed by the deepest levels of hatred evident in this impulsive but illogical post of "Anonymous."
Is the robbery victim guilty for carrying cash and credit cards in public? Is the female rape victim guilty of having a vagina? Was Emmett Till, James Byrd and the thousands of African Americans who have been lynched guilty of being black in the "public sphere"?
Maybe all these folks should just "get back in the closet" as to not provoke the "innocent" muggers, rapists and white supremacists who just can't help giving "some sort of response."
I don't know if homosexuality is a sin or not (personally I don't believe so no more than heterosexuality, but you are free to your own theological opinion). I do know, however, that hatred and failure to "do unto others" most definitely is. And there is historical evidence that this latter truth, along with the price persons pay for it, is an empirical fact that indeed "ALWAYS" prevails in the end. Just ask Jefferson Davis, Hitler, Bull Connor and Bernie Madoff.
Comments closed
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.