|
I have been thinking about this lately due to all the Howard Dean won't connect with minorities threads and articles of late. I realize that treatment of one minority isn't always indicative of treatment of all minorities. We all know of racist gays, homophobic African Americans, and other combinations that give one pause. But I have often found that how politicans treat one minority is very indicative of how they treat other minorities. Members of the Black Caucus are very good on gay and lesbian issues. The handful of gay and lesbian lawmakers are quite good on racial issues (even Kolbe).
But if it isn't a mainstream idea on the left that gays and lesbians are indeed minorities then my theory isn't very good. I do realize there are significant advantages that white gays have over blacks. We can pass as straight and thus can be treated like other white people. We grow up in white families and thus have recieved many advantages that others don't. But we also grow up isolated from history and culture. We have literally no where to turn for that since we usually grow up in straight families, live in straight communities, and go to straight schools. We also don't have civil rights laws in a majority of the nation's states with close to 3/4 of its populaiton. I am by no means trying to enter a who has it worse contest. I think blacks do hands down. But I do think we are a minority and thus Dean is appealing to at least one minority big time. I also think how he treats gays, lesbians, (and though not a minority) women, is indicative of how he would treat blacks, hispanics, and other minorities. And we could do a whole hack of a lot worse then that in my opinion.
|