We would have had a black president years ago if African-Americans had been less pushy

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

Funny how people trust their erroneous gut sense of how things should work more than real history.

The self-styled "reasonable" DU argument about gay rights is that accommodation, compromise, gratitude for past progress and generally keeping your mouth shut are the keys to civil rights progress.

I can construct a model of human nature and society where that would be true but it has little resemblance to the real world.

Being a middle-aged white fellow from an extremely liberal family, I have tons of first-hand experience from the 1960s and 1970s of how very progressive, well-meaning white liberals talked about civil rights among themselves. The suburban liberal viewed every impolite, insufficiently patient or deferential black gesture as a threat to civil rights. If only they weren't so pushy! Don't they realize that change would come faster if they were less strident and ungrateful? This view was commonplace among real liberals... not closet racists, but very serious white people with a sincere hunger for social justice and racial equality.

That is human nature. Everyone thinks the struggle of the moment would go faster if "they" were less pushy even though no past struggles seem to have ever been won using the reasonable crowd's idea of what works. We all want a world that makes sense and is full gold stars for good behavior so it is natural to wish that rights are granted to the likable but history shows that rights are granted to the OBNOXIOUS. Rights are denied to the polite, the acquiescent, the patient.

JFK and MLK had some real disputes about instances where JFK felt that soft-peddling and compromise would advance the cause faster. JFK sincerely believed that MLK was threatening the goal by pushing too hard. Who turned out to be right?

If it is so damned obvious that strident single-minded and uncompromising stances retard progress could someone provide a list of colonies that gained independence faster by not demanding it? Would women have gained the vote a generation earlier if Suffragettes hadn't laid down their lives by throwing themselves under carriages? Did those self-immolating monks actually prolong the Vietnam war? (Watch FOG OF WAR to see McNamara talk about how the self-immolation of one disturbed individual at the Pentagon essentially broke his spirit on Vietnam.) And the starting point of the gay rights movement was the Stonewall Riot, not the "Stonewall discussion among people of good-will of matters upon which reasonable people can disagree."

The bottom line is that nobody today (except a few closet racists) would claim that black pushiness and self-centered "whining" set back civil rights.

The seemingly "reasonable" view is always the conventional wisdom at the time, and a forgotten embarrassment after the fact.

[Richardo]

1. K&R - Well put

:thumbsup:

[Rockholm]

2. I agree. Excellent post.

[treestar]

3. Nobody agrees with "generally keeping your mouth shut"

MLK and Rosa Parks certainly did not.

We're talking about not exaggerating and blowing up at every little thing; abandoning your allies over a relatively minor point, insulting those who are on your side and expecting everyone to consider one issue the one and only issue that matters.

Feminists and atheists have just as much reason to be upset about this guy. Many gays on DU said they aren't so upset about it. Whoever is abandoning Obama over this is no more reasonable than the fundies who want abortion to be a capital crime.

Unreasonableness can strike anywhere. It never does any good. Implying Obama is as bad as Bush or the like on gay rights merely because he lets a fundie pastor say the invocation is as nuts as the claim he was born in Kenya. If McCrook had been elected, things would be worse and Warren would just seem consistent and there would be more to fear then.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

8. Heard it all, word for word.

It's always a "relatively minor point" when you don't give a shit about it.

And these has seldom been an election in my lifetime where "strident black who couldn't see the big picture" were not scape-goated as setting back the broader cause of progressivism.

Sorry, the fact that you consider yourself reasonable is understandable, but not probative. Who doesn't?

[tbyg52]

12. Saw the same thing (she said, giving away her age)

From a different perspective, as my dad was a racist. Nobody he disagreed with or saw as inferior could have spoken softly enough to suit him.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't, it seems. I'm on the loud and outraged side, myself.

[tbyg52]

9. >>Feminists and atheists have just as much reason to be upset about this guy

That would be me, and I am.

Just read the entirely of what I'm replying to...

Of *course* I'm not abandoning Obama. But this was a huge deal to me, and I'm somewhat more disillusioned than I already was. And I'm keeping a closer eye on him than I already was.

Do I understand where the people who go further than that are coming from? I sure do. We've been kicked in the teeth, whether he did it on purpose or by accident.

[Captain Hilts]

58. and Catholics and Jews and scientists. It's a real step BACKWARDS. nt

[ColbertWatcher]

66. Not to mention people who don't want America to become a theocracy. n/t

[Buzz Clik]

10. bingo.

[HamdenRice]

13. I was going to write something, but you said it all!

Especially, this paragraph:

"We're talking about not exaggerating and blowing up at every little thing; abandoning your allies over a relatively minor point, insulting those who are on your side and expecting everyone to consider one issue the one and only issue that matters."

The issue isn't whether or not to be "pushy" about marriage rights. It's about whether reaching out to, and coopting, the other side, something the civil rights leaders always did and promoted, is beyond the pale of acceptable political tactics.

Some very unrealistic, immature DUers say it isn't. The words of actual civil rights leaders from history say it is. And Obama says it is.

[Hannah Bell]

87. who is this "other side" that was reached out to & coopted?

tell me the names of the racist leaders who spoke at the march on washington.

[HamdenRice]

94. I realize that if you have your helmet on, no ideas can get in, but the answer has been given over..

and over again.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8031012

[Hannah Bell]

125. revisionist history. black wasn't in the kkk in 1937, when he was nominated,

he'd quit by 1925.

nor was he its representative or leader, nor did he publically support its goals, or legislate in accordance with them in his previous job as senator.

you're reaching to find a parallel, but there isn't one.

a parallel would be, if fdr had asked someone like father coughlin to give the opening prayer at his inauguration.

but he didn't.

you can skip the tin foil hat jokes, btw.

[JohnnieGordon]

15. Your post is full of so many strawmen it's like a Ray Bolger convention

Implying Obama is as bad as Bush or the like on gay rights"

Oh please, no one has done that, and no one is "abandoning" Obama, so melodramatic. You obviously can't deal with any criticism of Obama.

[HamdenRice]

18. You do realize that some DU GLBT people have set up anti-Democratic Party web sites, right? nt

[JohnnieGordon]

19. No, but if that's true, they're crazy, and crazy people exist in every subgroup of people

[Vanje]

20. What am I missing?

I thought I was up to date with the Gay Agenda (TM).
How did I miss this!?
Can I get a link?

[racaulk]

28. I didn't get the memo either.

I feel so left out. Did we forget to pay our dues this month? :shrug:

[awoke_in_2003]

74. Maybe I accidently got...

your copy of this months newsletter. I will forward you a copy :)

[NWHarkness]

27. Link please

First I've heard of it.

[HamdenRice]

30. I understand we're not supposed to link to that site.

but a little judicious searching of DU and googling will turn it up very quickly. The site was openly referenced here a few weeks ago.

[NWHarkness]

36. So PM it to me n/t

[NWHarkness]

52. I haven't received that PM yet.... n/t

[HamdenRice]

99. Check your inbox nt

[readmoreoften]

76. Here's that link!!!!

http://communistleague.us/

OH MY STARS! Somebody protect us from them!!!11! Elevens!!!

[Baby Snooks]

95. I like their bail-out plan!

I particularly like the $800 a week minimum wage since a vast majority of our population barely nets $800 a month. That barely pays rent. So a vast majority of our population are forced to work two jobs, sometimes three, just to pay rent, pay utilities and have food on the table for not only themselves but their children.

Both parties really have no idea how the majority of Americans live. Or barely live.

Congress keeps bailing out the crooks. And shooting the bird at their victims. But then Congress is merely protecting their own.

The Democratic Party has failed us just as much as the Republican Party has.

[racaulk]

29. Oh yeah? Prove it.

Prove that there are some anti-Democratic Party websites out there that have been set up by GLBT DUers.

Links, please.

[Maven]

34. You do realize GLBT antagonizers on DU make up absolute bullshit to cover their atrocious behavior

right?

[bluedawg12]

47. Some have made a fine art of misrepresenting us.

[bluedawg12]

48. Some have made a fine art of misrepresenting us.

[yardwork]

55. LOL! You define paranoia.

[Vanje]

57. Dude! PM me

I need to know about this.

[Vanje]

61. I am still eagerly waiting for your PM

I certainly want to know about secret anti-democratic gays.

[QC]

62. I bet they're nucular, too! n/t

[Bette Noir]

109. Didn't you know?

There are 57 secret anti-Democratic gays in the US Senate.

[Hannah Bell]

88. link them.

[TankLV]

131. That is YOUR spew - name them or shut up with the LIES...

There are no site "by DU GBLT"...

And I see you have yet to prove your LIES...

figures...

[eridani]

65. The implication was more that Obama is like JFK on gay rights

That is, needing to be pushed by people who are militant on the issue.

[NWHarkness]

25. If you start to feel a little crowded

you could make some room by getting rid of a few of those straw men.

[plantwomyn]

35. Rosa Parks?

"We're talking about not exaggerating and blowing up at every little thing; abandoning your allies over a relatively minor point, insulting those who are on your side and expecting everyone to consider one issue the one and only issue that matters."
REALLY?
Was it so important that an old hard working black woman was sick and tired of being pushed around and wouldn't get up and move? YES! Rosa Parks MADE it important. Her defiance was almost silent. She sat quietly and waited to be arrested. But the people around her understood how important what she did was to THEM. SHE WAS AND IS A SYMBOL and a LEADER. She lead by example. I'm still waiting for Obama to do the same.

"Implying Obama is as bad as Bush or the like on gay rights merely because he lets a fundie pastor say the invocation is as nuts as the claim he was born in Kenya."
Actually, NO IT ISN"T
The first is an OPINION the second is a LIE!
While you may, as I do, disagree with that opinion, I do not believe if someone holds that opinion that they are "nuts".
On the other hand a lie isn't nuts, it's just a lie.

[dbmk]

119. Its not a lie of you believe it.

[plantwomyn]

124. You're right.

It's a delusion.

[dbmk]

132. Hence nuts.

[Jakes Progress]

133. It's not a delusion.

It's a prejudice.

[MNBrewer]

46. The issue isn't us "abandoning" our allies

It's the reverse...

[Pale Blue Dot]

50. There was a time when people thought where you sit on a bus was a minor point. nt

[LostinVA]

137. Very nice way to put it

[bettyellen]

63. you are exagerrating and blowing up every little thing, LOL!

[ColbertWatcher]

64. The "shut your mouth" crowd really only want to ease their own guilt. n/t

[awoke_in_2003]

73. I am an atheist...

and I have a sister who is a lesbian. We are not abandoning Obama. But we do have to keep talking about this. People must hear the arguments of all sides, then maybe they might just change the way they think.

[FedUp_Queer]

77. Fine...

If feminists and atheists have reason, too, to be upset by Warren, then, by all means, they should and we should be yelling as well. However, did Warren refer to their relationships as pedophilia or incest? When are people going to realize this was not about a simple policy disagreement. This is about a man who referred to gay relationships as the same as pedophilia and incest. I can just see it: suppose a Reverend refers to interracial relationships as akin to a white person marrying a monkey. You think people would chalk that up to a "difference of opinion?" How about saying that a woman being beaten and raped by her husband should just lie back and enjoy great sex. You think people would chalk that up to a "difference of opinion?" Let me answer those questions: HELL NO. Nobody would refer to this as a "difference of opinion," and rightly so. I'm all for sitting down with those with whom I disagree, but this is much more than that. Warren's comments were disgusting and went beyond mere disagreement. As a gay person, I'm just sick and damn tired of being told that a person's religion can excuse their bigotry on my civil rights. I'm sick of hearing that I have to respect their religious beliefs and just grin and bear the bigotry.

[riqster]

104. Well put!

Amazing how things change when posts like yours and the OP put in some perspective. Thanks.

[t0dd]

120. Great Response

[LostinVA]

138. If you feel brave (or crazy) later

Make this an OP in GLBT.

[Bette Noir]

107. You're wrong.

McCain got an endorsement from somebody just like Warren during the campaign-- I foget his name now, somebody in Texas. When the media started running clips of his speeches, McCain denounced the endorsement.

That leaves the question, Is Obama less sensitive to public opinion than McCain, or do Republicans like Jews better than Democrats like homosexuals?

I haven't abandoned Obama. I feel very much that he has abandoned me, but I still hope he'll be a good Pres. I just don't expect it so much any more. Scaling back expectations-- is this what "hope" and "change" feel like?

[tbyg52]

4. Woo hoo! I got to be #5!

:kick:

[ProSense]

5. Ridiculous. More than 40 years have gone by

since the Civil Rights Act. By this logic, being "pushy" should have resulted in a black Presidency sooner.

[moriah]

157. I think you may have misread the OP, or I am misreading you.

We have no idea how long it would have taken if people fighting for civil rights had been "less pushy". My understanding of the OP was that she believed it would have taken longer than it has if people had been "less pushy" than the 40 years it's taken now.

And really, it's taken a lot more than 40 years. It's been 145 years since slavery was abolished.

But the fact that the squeaky wheel gets the grease is well-known. Look at the women's suffrage movement. From the time the UK Parliament confirmed that women could not vote (in 1832), until 1905 there was VERY little progress. Oh, women could vote in local elections if their local governments said was okay, but that was it.

In 1905 the movement changed. Women got mouthy. They interrupted a meeting demanding votes for women, and were arrested, charged with assault, and refused to pay the fine so they were jailed. They would release influential women if they were arrested, so in 1910 Lady Constance Lytton masqueraded as a seamstress, was arrested, and was force-fed in jail when she went on a hunger strike. Women had died from the force-feeding because they didn't always get the tube down the right hole. In 1913 a suffragette was trampled by the king's horse during a protest, and she died. Despite this, they preservered.

While the movement's activities did stop during the first World War, in 1918 -- less than 15 years after they decided to be "pushy", UK women over 30 got the vote. In 1928 men and women were able to vote on the same equal footing -- the same bill that gave voting rights to men as well that didn't have them due to not being property owners.

The only thing women were asking for was the right to vote. Women weren't scorned or hated or accused of being evil beyond the sins of Eve, or lynched simply for being women. Discrimination still occurred and occurs against women, and the sexism that was seen in the primaries (as demonstrated most atrociously by Tweety) shows that sexism is still alive and well. But compared to gays or blacks, women had it pretty easy. And they still had to die for what they believed in to be taken seriously.

How long would it have taken for America to vote for an African American president had we not been pushy?

[truedelphi]

6. It wasn't just JFK who thought King was pushing too hard. HIs own early supporters,

the other black ministers, turned against him, and King felt belittled and depressed, until he realized that his mission was to seek out the youth of America.

Once he made that realization, he and his community of young civil rights activists were able to make great strides. Then the other odler black ministers rejoined him.

And also, if King had lived, we might have well seen a black President years ago.

[Captain Hilts]

59. Eleanor Roosevelt tried to build a bridge to JFK for MLK. nt

[Baby Snooks]

96. The framework of the JFK view...

During the Eisenhower administration there were key appellate court decisions regarding integration/segregation but for some reason JFK didn't see, or didn't want to see, that in the South in particular the lower courts, the ones most of us are stuck with, were ignoring those decisions. In a perfect world, and a perfect country, the courts would have established civil rights. This is not a perfect world or a perfect country.

I have lost all respect for Barack Obama. I see nothing but further divisiveness coming as a result of his belief that unity comes through bringing everyone to the table. Some do not belong at the table.

But you know what? I am thrilled each day just realizing that an overwhelming majority of Americans put race aside and elected an African-American president. What a magnificent day November 4th was. And always will be.

A vast majority of Americans could have fallen for the racism of the primary campaign and believed this was not the time. That the governor of Pennsylvania, with the Clintons by his side, was right when he said white voters in Pennsylvania would never vote for a black man. That white voters in America would never vote for a black man. Instead, an overwhelming majority of white voters did.

Of all the people who do not belong at the table the Clintons more than anyone else do not and that more than anything else is why I have lost all respect for Barack Obama.

[truedelphi]

128. I found your first paragraph very educational.

I don't always think of history in terms of what the lower courts were doing. Good information you offer there.

Your other following paragraphs I could have writtten much as you did, but perhaps not as concisely.

[yowzayowzayowza]

7. The Civil Rights Movement worked very hard at ...

controlling perceptions of their activities, avoiding shear 'pushiness and self-centered "whining"' throughout. They certainly knew that not all 'pushiness and self-centered "whining"' was useful.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

11. "Knew" or "thought"? (The human nature described in the OP applies to all.)

Of course a lot of AA people *thought* being less strident was the better course. It's a natural thing to think. Doesn't make it correct.

[yowzayowzayowza]

14. Knew, as provocation without purpose is counterproductive. n/t

[bluedawg12]

51. Apparently, no matter how hard they tried, some still saw it as pushy.

That happens with sunshine allies.

[sundog]

16. good one

k+r

[ellacott]

17. It's amazing how people interpret things

Simply amazing

[blueladybird]

21. Barrack is biracial.

His mother was white and carried him for about 9 months. His father was black.

[sundog]

23. barack n/t

[blueladybird]

24. Barack is biracial.

[NYCGirl]

26. And he looks white, right?

:eyes:

[blueladybird]

33. And he's looks black, right?

No he looks like a mixture of the "two". Denial ain't just a river in Africa. Again, his MOTHER was a white woman.

[NYCGirl]

37. Tell that to the cab drivers who refused to pick him up in NYC. He self-

identifies as black. And he could not pass for white. He is the first Black President.

[blueladybird]

39. Calling him black is racist.

I guess you believe in the one drop theory. He's not PURE white now that he has even a drop of black in him. What's wrong with being biracial for God's sake????? As a black person, your cab driver rule is offensive.

[NYCGirl]

45. Obama said himself at the YouTube debate on CNN that he had trouble getting

a cab in New York. Is he racist?

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/07/23/debate.transcript/

COOPER: Senator Obama, how do you address those who say you're not authentically black enough?

(LAUGHTER)

OBAMA: Well...

COOPER: Not my question; Jordan's question.

OBAMA: You know, when I'm catching a cab in Manhattan -- in the past, I think I've given my credentials.

[Hannah Bell]

90. he can say what he likes. maybe he was wearing a hoody in brooklyn or something.

black men in obama's circles don't have problems getting cabs in nyc, the most international city in the us.

no, they don't. it's a myth left over from the 80s.

[Raineyb]

136. Then you don't know much about NYC or the cab system

Because in Brooklyn you don't tend to flag down yellow cabs you'd call a livery cab. Yellow cabs tend to congregate in Manhattan and the airports. And if you should take a yellow cab into Brooklyn the cab driver will likely head to the airport to get another fare going into Manhattan.

And that "Myth" that a black man can't get a cab... It's not a myth if it's true.

And even if he was wearing a hoodie, which I rather doubt, what difference does it make? Cabbies aren't supposed to discriminate by what you're wearing either.

Regards

[Hannah Bell]

146. it's a myth so far as folks in obama's class are concerned - since they wouldn't be flagging down

cabs anywhere...

[Raineyb]

164. Unless he has his own car of some sort people of Obama's class do take cabs.

Cabs are expensive and the subway runs all over Manhattan.

It is not a myth.

[LostinVA]

139. Oh, this one will be fun

[Hannah Bell]

89. ny cabbies don't refuse to pick up black men dressed in upper class attire.

in upper class neighborhoods.

sorry, they just don't. $$$$$$$

[Sebastian Doyle]

40. Well, actually he does.....

Because he looks a lot like this white man, his grandpa.

[blueladybird]

42. Umm, he looks just like grandpa.

If the man in the middle is his grandfather, he looks just like him. Which he should be proud of.

[stillcool]

69. What is it with you?

do you need permission to call someone 'bi-racial'? Do you need the term "Black, or "African American" defined in a more narrow manner, or do you want the term 'bi-racial' to be expanded? Is this a burning passion of yours to categorize people and designate labels that fit more accurately to the way you view race? Why do you care how an African American defines his/her self, when society has already made that choice for them long before this election?

[LostinVA]

140. I have never seen a photo of his grandad -- wow!

The genes run strong o that side of the family. He looks an awful lot like him.

[Two Americas]

44. welcome to DU

Race is a false concept to begin with, with no genetic basis.

It exists in the imaginations and fears of the dominant group, whites, and teaches people to "see" superficial physical characteristics in a certain way, and then assign people to a "race" based upon that.

A person who "looks Black" is Black, regardless of how much "white blood" - white ancestors - they have. It is a key feature of racism that a person with any of the superficial physical characteristics that are associated with "Black" is treated as Black.

Beyond that, Obama chose the AA community as his own.

In American society, he is Black in every sense that is meant by the word.

[donheld]

72. One-drop rule

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_drop_rule


The one-drop rule is a historical colloquial term in the United States that holds that a person with any trace of African ancestry is considered black unless having an alternative non-white ancestry which he or she can claim, such as Native American, Asian, Arab, or Australian aboriginal.<1> It developed most strongly out of the binary culture of long years of institutionalized slavery.

This notion of invisible/intangible membership in a racial group has seldom been applied to people of Native American ancestry (see Race in the United States for details). The concept has been chiefly applied to those of black African ancestry. As Langston Hughes wrote, "You see, unfortunately, I am not black. There are lots of different kinds of blood in our family. But here in the United States, the word 'Negro' is used to mean anyone who has any Negro blood at all in his veins. In Africa, the word is more pure. It means all Negro, therefore black. I am brown.

[JohnnyLib2]

22. Having come of age in the 60s, I totally agree.

Heard it personally about protesting Viet Nam and about the Freedom Riders and in reference to the assassination of MLK and about the "bra-burners" and ERA marchers and more.

Eartha Kitt, case in point.

K & R for K & H

[racaulk]

31. Excellent post!

:thumbsup:

K&R

[LWolf]

32. Conventional wisdom is always about maintaining the status quo.

It's not about revolutionary change.

Thanks for the reminder.

[bullwinkle428]

38. K&R

[RandomKoolzip]

41. Great post.

Recommended.

[asthmaticeog]

43. Enthusiastically K&R'd - great post.

:thumbsup:

[Balderdash]

49. K& a whole hearted R nt

[bluedawg12]

53. K&R. It is with protest and hard work that the center moves slowly.

[Sparkly]

54. Right on, as always!

:thumbsup: K&R :kick:

[LaydeeBug]

56. Be the change you wish to see in the world. nt

[Skip Intro]

60. K&R. Two thumbs up. Way up.

:thumbsup: :thumbsup:

:kick:

[cliffordu]

67. And yet 15 people show up at Warrens church to protest his stance of hate.

I guess being polite about it really DOES work.

[stillcool]

68. Wow...that's a tad surprising..

and sad.

[cliffordu]

70. I cannot understand it. Do people think it's too dangerous?

Fucking Fred Phelps gets a bigger turn out among his hate-based idiots and droolers.

[defendandprotect]

71. Wonderful comment on this kind of ...

inane reasoning --!!

Imagine had Segregation and civil rights been left up to the

Southern states, we'd probably still have slavery--!!!

[Q3JR4]

75. Thank you for this post.

I haven't been on DU for a couple of months and was weighing whether I should abandon the place permanently. As an openly gay man it concerns me that there are people on this board who want us to sit down, shut up, and wait our turn. It truly bothers me that we're treated the way we are by the very people we go out of our way to support.

This isn't just about warren. It's about proposition 8, it's about national politics, and it's about the every day Democrat who wants those damn queers to stop making so much noise.

I'm almost completely fed up with the whole party and may in fact be done with Democratic politics.

For those of you keeping count 5% of 300 million Americans works out to around 15 million GLBT voters. Also Obama won the election by less than 10 million votes. The Democratic party needs to decide whether it's really such a good idea to treat the GLBT wing of the party as unruly and wayward children.

The one thing that keeps me on DU is the fact that some out there who are not in the GLBT community have taken the time to fully understand why people like me feel the way we do.

Thank you for helping to make this place bearable.

Q3JR4.
That one guy who did that one thing that one time while wondering what real equality feels like and failing miserably.

[FedUp_Queer]

79. As a gay man

I'm glad to read your words, and I feel the way you do.

[Truth2Tell]

78. Recommended. Nice post. nt

[murielm99]

80. I remember that.

Even liberals like my parents thought that black people should "wait." If they were polite and waited, things would change. I guess they thought that things would change because times were changing, and people were being raised to be more open-minded. Change would happen naturally.

There are people on DU, and in my life, who think that change will just happen for gays too if they wait. They feel that the youth of today don't regard being gay as a big deal. They are more accepting than their parents and grandparents were. Change will happen naturally.

While attitudes are changing, it is not enough. For all the changing attitudes, there are the fundies and the bigots who are raising their families to be hateful toward gays. They are fighting change. There are influential people who will make sure that the laws never change. They are fighting change. "Waiting" did not work for African Americans. It will not work for gay people.

It has been a long time since I read "Why We Can't Wait," by MLK. Maybe I should go back and find that book. I have a feeling that much of what he said could be applied to the GLBT community as well.

If there are straight DUers who need their eyes opened, that is fine. Gays, do not sit down and shut up. Show us what to do to help.

[Maven]

81. There will be a lot of "forgotten embarrassments" who once posted here

when equal rights for GLBTs becomes a reality.

[AntiFascist]

82. K&R n/t

[Waiting For Everyman]

83. And so you think Obama was elected because he's so pushy and not polite?

That's news to me. Or is having the first black President elected not a step forward in black civil rights?

[LostinVA]

141. WTF are you talking about???

I read the OP twice, and didn't see anything at all like that in it.

[dbmk]

84. Can you tell me where you saw that?

This part:
"The self-styled "reasonable" DU argument about gay rights is that accommodation, compromise, gratitude for past progress and generally keeping your mouth shut are the keys to civil rights progress."

I would like to see who made a case for that?

[ThomCat]

85. There are a whole lot of posts about "not insulting your allies"

and "catching more flies with honey than with vinegar" that are exactly what this post is talking about. A lot of straight people here think they are allies of the LGBT movement, but wish we would stop being so angry, and wish we be patient and wait for our straight allies to get around to giving us equal rights all in good time.

We do have a lot of wonderful straight allies here. But a lot of the people here who think they are our allies really aren't. They're obstacles, constantly getting in the way and holding us back, derailing us in the name of being civil and polite.

This OP is excellent. Anyone who has volunteered in any branch or field of civil rights over the years knows damned well that the being calm and quiet accomplishes nothing. We need to be angry, organized, mobiled, and active. We need allies who understand our anger and aren't thin-skinned about it, who will help keep us mobilized and active.

[dbmk]

98. I fail to see the connection

People have not said not to be outraged. Not told anyone to shut up and play nice. At least not in numbers that warrants it being labelled as a silent policy of DU.

What they may have called for is a restraint in yelling enemy at friends. There is a difference between stating your case forcefully and alienating.

"The self-styled "reasonable" DU argument about gay rights is that accommodation, compromise, gratitude for past progress and generally keeping your mouth shut are the keys to civil rights progress."

Thats a strawman. Can't speak for all the posts here, but I have yet to see a post that advocated backing off on the demands for equal rights. What I have at most seen are warnings about not sacrificing progress at the altar of idealism. Rosa Parks would hardly have passed down in history by insisting about complete absolution of segregation before moving from the back of the bus.

There is not much ideological beauty in accepting partial results and fighting from there - but anyone arguing it is being labelled as an enemy of civil rights.

"They're obstacles, constantly getting in the way and holding us back, derailing us in the name of being civil and polite."
I would like for you to expand on that. I can accept an argument that such behaviour would not further the cause. But derail you and hold you back? That can only be true if viewed from a utopian perspective of complete righteous action and participation by everyone.

[Dawgs]

102. Great Post.

I'm sick and tired of being attacked for trying to discuss the best path to full rights.

I completely disagree with the OP.

[MNBrewer]

105. are you

any of these?

G
L
B
T
?

[LostinVA]

142. Well yes, they have said that -- even in this thread

[boppers]

86. STONEWALL

[biopowertoday]

91. Thank you.

[Baby Snooks]

92. Here's to "uppity" people...

I grew up hearing the word "uppity" which was an insult although the word itself merely indicates someone who has forgotten their place.

Had the African-American community decided to be polite and "remember their place" we would not have had a Civil Rights Act which people forget protects lots of other "minorities" who also from time to time "forgot their place" including, and particularly, women and Jews.

Eartha Kitt was uppity in the East Room. God love her. Personally I don't like uppity people. But you know, it's always the uppity people in a societal sense who force the changes. And god love them. In a societal sense, none of us has a place we should be required to sit silently in and be abused and oppressed in.

Here's to uppity people...

[DeSwiss]

93. K&R

[The Wizard]

97. What role

will Rick Warren play in Obama's policies?
Obama needs a certain element of the evangelical community to advance his agenda. Warren's 15 to 20 minute invocation is a token to that element. Getting people to the table to discuss differences is a step in the right direction.
Diplomacy is the art of telling the other guy to go to hell and have him convinced he'll enjoy the trip.

[riqster]

108. There are other Fundagelical preachers Obama could have chosen

...if he wished to build a bridge to the Fundies without burning the one to the GLBT community.

First McLurkin, now Warren. Obama is tone-deaf when it comes to this issue, and it will take a LOT of noise to get his attention. The OP is spot-on IMNSHO.

[theFrankFactor]

100. Warren's a Prick - Let's Reach Out to the Neo-Nazi's...

What bullshit. Fuck Rick Warren. He's runnin' around "redacting" his bigoted bullshit 'cause he gets to show his ass at the Inauguration. Barack should ask Mr. Hanky to the Inauguration.

[Zuiderelle]

101. Excellent post!

[Bette Noir]

103. You said it.

May I say it, now?

I've been saying for years that American women owe the rights we've gained since the 60s to a handful of angry Lesbians who wouldn't keep quiet. It's about time we returned the favor.

[Balderdash]

110. Thank you. nt

[LostinVA]

143. May I say I adore you???

:pals:

[Heidi]

106. Kick.

:kick:

[man4allcats]

111. Well said. I for one have always been of the opinion that

the squeaky wheel gets the grease!

[antimatter98]

112. We're ignorant of our own history, and we're paying for it.

The War of Independence
The Civil War
Women and the vote
Labor and the minimum wage, the 40 hour week---not without a fight
Civil Rights movement, and the killing of Martin Luther King
Getting out of Vietnam
Watergate, where Congress actually had spine
etc...

The power-elite in America have never easily given up power---it had
to be ripped from their hands, and this is a fundamental law of the
universe.

[McCamy Taylor]

113. The one advising you to break the law is the police infiltrator. Memorize this.

If you do not learn this lesson, your revolution will take a step back for every step forward. The Weather Underground must have been riddled with Nixon's men. They played right into his hands.

[NJmaverick]

114. You opininon is contrary to the facts

Obama did not run as an African American, he ran as an American. If he had done what you suggested, he never would have won the election.

[HEyHEY]

130. I've been appointed by a delegation of DUers to call you a "Choad"

Choad

[Vanje]

158. hahahahahh hhahaha hah Ahahahahahh haaaAAHHahaha

HHAAAa hahahah hhhahahahahahahahhhh ahahahahzAhahahaha hhhaaaAAHH ahahaahahah ahhhhah ahahahzAhahahahahh haaaAAHHah ahaHHAAAahahahahhhhahahahahaahAhahahahahhhaaaAAHHahahaahahahahhhhahahahahzAhahahahahhhaaa.

[Vanje]

159. That really worked my abs

Thanks

[QC]

160. Oh shit!

:rofl:

[racaulk]

165. !

:rofl:

[NYC_SKP]

115. MLK was not Obnoxious.

While I think I understand the point you wish to make, I don't think that the analogy is applicable for a number of reasons, not least of which is that the characters cited do not mirror the attitudes of the current situation.

[LostinVA]

144. He most definitely was considered obnoxious and pushy and uppity

By the people who disagreed with him. Reading what the media and others said about him at that time is both interesting and appalling. Coretta Scott King herself thought the attitudes were very similar.

[happygoluckytoyou]

116. Obama's victory should have been because of who he is... IT DIDNT HURT THAT W F'd the GOP!!!

A Handicapped Jewish Dwarf Spanish Deaf-Girl with Autism and a Severe Lisp could have beaten the REPUBLICANS this year.

[Political Heretic]

117. Seconding post above - MLK was not obnoxious

[Enrique]

118. MLK got a lot of shit for not being pushy enough

Malcom X for example ripped MLK's philosophy of loving the oppressor. Malcom thought the oppressor welcomed King's approach.

[Brazenly Liberal]

121. "The seemingly "reasonable" view is always the conventional wisdom at the time...

...and a forgotten embarrassment after the fact."

One of the truest things I've ever read at DU.

K&R

[Connie_Corleone]

122. It took hundreds of years to get civil rights in this country.

People act like the civil rights struggle started in the 60s. It drives me nuts.

[skepticscott]

134. And if angry people hadn't pushed hard for it

black Americans would still be attending segregated schools and eating at separate lunch counters. Racists and bigots concede no ground voluntarily, ever. If we wait for them all to come around before enacting any change, there will be no change.

[PatSeg]

123. K&R

[Exilednight]

126. Although your thesis holds some merit, your view of history is a bit skewed ........

LBJ is the one who eventually ended up signing the civil rights bill, but he did not do it out of any sense of honor, or actual belief that African-Americans deserved the same rights as whites, to the African-American population.

Second, trying to second guess if civil rights would of come faster if the African-American population is doing nothing more than playing arm-chair quarterback. The fact of the matter is, JFK died before we could actually determine what the outcome could of been. Some historians believe that JFK was trying to help the AA community, but the MLK movement was preventing him from gathering the support needed to make the transition smoother.

The fact is, we will never know since both men met tragic ends to lives that ended much too soon.

That is human nature. Everyone thinks the struggle of the moment would go faster if "they" were less pushy even though no past struggles seem to have ever been won using the reasonable crowd's idea of what works. We all want a world that makes sense and is full gold stars for good behavior so it is natural to wish that rights are granted to the likable but history shows that rights are granted to the OBNOXIOUS. Rights are denied to the polite, the acquiescent, the patient.

History is littered with rights actually granted to the polite and patient. The problem is, most people are either ignorant to history, or choose to ignore them. England managed, nearly 400 years before the founding of America, to achieve a functioning Republic that is still in use today. True it took many centuries of refinement, but for its time it was a miracle. Ask most Americans and they will tell you that the US is the first fully functioning form of representative government since Rome.

Now before someone gets upset, allow me to say that there are times when civil disobedience is a more than valid form of bringing about change and I am not faulting MLK for what he did. Put in the same situation I am not sure if I would of handled it with the same approach. All that I am saying is that it is stupid to second guess history to stop striving from bringing about change through ways that sometimes can do more harm than good. It's wonderful that we hold MLK up to the light, and we should for what he has done for our society. But on the other hand, there are those who claim to continue his work who hurt the movement more than help it.

[unblock]

127. actually, you need BOTH the obnoxious AND the reasonable

it's a team effort, even if the obnoxious and the reasonable aren't even on speaking terms.

you need the obnoxious to make the status quo an increasingly uncomfortable option, and to bring the issues to the front pages.
but the powers that be can never be seen to give in to the overly obnoxious.

you need the reasonable so that incremental progress can be made, and so that acceptance and the granting of civil rights can be seen as reasonable and normal and not scary. but these people would take forever to get real change, if they were successful at all.

BOTH groups are necessary.


and this works for all political purposes, not just in acquiring civil rights. shrub and the gang did very well by having screeching fascists out there like ann coulter and rush limbaugh and so on, in fact, they orchestrated it very well to make "them" get the nutcase label, leaving shrub and the gang to get the "conservative but reasonable" label, despite the fact that shrub and cheney are more right-wing than pat buchanan.

[varelse]

129. Telling the "pushy" people to back down and be patient isn't the reasonable position

For example, these eight "reasonable" and "moderate" people were holding the advancement of civil rights back, not advancing the cause: http://www.nathanielturner.com/alabamaclergymen.htm

[dbmk]

149. Blaming hateful response on peaceful protests is hardly moderate or reasonable.

[Utopian Leftist]

135. Exactly right!

It takes both the pushy people and those willing to compromise, to forge change.

I'm amazed by all of the animosity I'm seeing here on DU. Does anyone truly believe that MLK would have a problem with Obama's willingness to create a dialogue with Rick Warren? Look at what has already been accomplished. Warren has cowardly retreated on his stances and taken down anti-gay rhetoric from his website. He had a half-hour phone conversation with Melissa Etheridge. None of this is real progress, but WHAT IF? What if he can be persuaded to change his stances? Do we really believe that yelling in anger at the Rick Warrens of the world has ever accomplished anything but to make them more set in their ways?

I won't shut up about my rights but I still believe that persuasion is the most powerful tool we in the LGBT community (or anyone who is fighting for their civil rights) have at our disposal.

[dbmk]

151. He doesn't even have to change his personal stance

A cooling down of rhetoric alone gives the policy makers more room for maneuvering and create less fervour among opponents.

It could be a path that might seem dark at first, yet be a shortcut. Not sure of it, though. I still think Obama needs to be given a chance to produce results before he is written off on this subject.

[polichick]

145. People who take such positions just want to protect their own little world...

Some posters here keep starting threads about DU not being the place it used to be, the place that worked for them.

[LostinVA]

147. Do you think some peoplehave been forced to examine how they feel all about this

And not liking what they found? And thus get all blustery about it? Haruka and I were discussing this today, and wondering if that's part of it. It's how my Dad always act when you bring up something nutty Bush did, and how he voted for him.

[polichick]

148. That could be - maybe a nagging sense of guilt that they'd rather...

...make go away than look at too closely.

[dbmk]

150. Clarification needed

Are you saying those people do not want equal rights for the GLBT community?
In that case I hope you have reported them, as that is clearly against the rules of DU.

Or is it just easier to vilify people than having a discussion about the differences in approach on how to get equal rights?

This whole "we are being told to sit down and shut up" is textbook strawman.

[polichick]

152. I'm referring to the threads complaining about DU these days...

...how it's not the place they used to enjoy ~ which is what people often say when they're trying to maintain the status quo.

I'm not saying those posters are against equal rights, but they sure do want to curb the conversation. If not, they would simply start threads about things that interest them.

[dbmk]

153. I wouldn't agree with such an assesment either

I have been on DU for about a year now. And I am not seeing it as being different now from any point over that year. Can't say how it was before then. But this discussion is nothing different from what I would expect. For good and bad. :) In the end noone but Skinner can force on you what you can and can't say here.

But lets be sure we don't equate disagreeing about approach with wanting to shut people up. Because accusations of not really being for equal
rights can be viewed just as much an attempt at gagging as the the implication that one is "too much" for it (or hysteric or however we could label such implications).

Most clearly illustrated in the "Obama is an idiot and no good for inviting Warren" vs "Obama is smart about this". People should be able to be on both sides of that as long as it comes from a desire for the same end result.

A little more belief that people want whats right - even though one might not agree with their appreciation of what is possible - would go a long way. Most of the heat generated atm is from the clash between ideology and political practicality. Not on whether equal rights for all is right or wrong.

I have appreciation for both sides of the scale. I understand that coming of as entirely practical about it, can seem cynical and indifferent in relation to the goal and the pains the lack of equal rights inflict on people. And it can reach a point where it might well be cynical and indifferent.
But I can also understand the ones that are afraid that real results and supports are being lost in the hunt for the perfect ideological solution and the rhetoric it generates.

I guess I am saying; This is not easy, but lets try and appreciate the difficulty together?

[pipi_k]

154. Quite a few people have said it, over and over...

and so have I

Be as outraged as you please. Just don't expect the same level of outrage from those of us who are, quite frankly, emotionally spent from eight long goddamned years of outrage. Can't do it anymore, OK? Believe it or not, there does come a time when someone's mental and physical health matter more to them than a stinking two minute prayer that will largely be forgotten as other issues arise.

Nobody says "Shut up and wait your turn"

At least, I haven't seen it in the 49+ assorted threads on the subject.

What we're saying is that it's OK to be outraged. People can be as outraged as they want to be. Go wild. Just don't expect those of us who can't spare the energy involved in doing that to accept your invitation...or should I say, DEMAND...that we feel the same sense of indignation.

I just don't understand something...and so far nobody has been able to explain it so it makes sense...and some avoid the question altogether, once again jumping on the "You're telling us to STFU" bandwagon...

Please, just tell me how throwing around the hissy fits here at DU where most of the people are behind the civil rights for all cause is going to help matters any.

"Bigots"..."Homophobes"..."Gay haters"

that's what your DU allies have been called.

Nice going. Again I say...why not take all that anger and direct it toward the people who really and truly do NOT have your best interests at heart, out in the real world. Letters...protests, etc.

Instead of coming here to kvetch about the same old shit day after day, how about coming in and telling us what positive things you (the collective "you") have done in the real world? And let me tell you...it doesn't include calling people names, no matter how hateful their opinions are.

Case in point..a relative of mine was, at one time, totally against gay marriage. When my state made it a law, this person was just disgusted. I could have called this person names but I didn't. I patiently explained some things to him and used his own children as examples...he loves his kids...yep. He wants the best for them...yep. If any of them were gay, wouldn't he want them to have the same right to marry as he did, for the same reasons? Yep.

So now this person, while probably not 100% for gay marriage, is at least 95% of the way there.

Yet there are some out there who would reject even that progress.

Don't look at the positive...no...keep looking at the negative all the time....call people names if they don't support your cause 100%. My guess is that if more than half of the GLBT people here got a hold of this person, they would end up calling this person nasty names.

To which his response...instead of seeing reason...would have been "fuck you and the horse you rode in on".

Your call. Get more flies with honey or alienate people who might otherwise be amenable, given a bit of education and some civil persuasion.

[LostinVA]

155. "Nobody says "Shut up and wait your turn"

[nankerphelge]

156. Amen...

There is no such thing as waiting to do what is right and just.

[caseymoz]

161. I believe that prejudice against GLB&T is evil.

But . . . I would look at what the strategy has done for you so far, especially this year. Your movement is going backward and not forward. IMHO, something else is needed besides tearing some pages out of previous rights movements' play books. People find it harder to identify with different sexual orientations and behaviors than they do with different races-- many previous strategies and tactics are not going to apply, and it's going to be in some ways a harder fight.

In the meantime, don't get discouraged.

BTW:

"The suburban liberal viewed every impolite, insufficiently patient or deferential black gesture as a threat to civil rights. If only they weren't so pushy! Don't they realize that change would come faster if they were less strident and ungrateful? This view was commonplace among real liberals... not closet racists, but very serious white people with a sincere hunger for social justice and racial equality."

I think white liberals you mentioned were trying to avoid saying that they too had started to feel insulted and scared them the Black radical movements. Most liberal whites were in denial thinking that black anger was some sort of strategy.

[bluedawg12]

162. Amen to that, evil it is.

I think we are going forward.

It's uphill, our opponents on the right are very motivated to keep what's left of their power, but the momentum is forward.

Just ask Nate Sliver, he always knows the future! :)

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/12/on-transition-website-obama-promises.html

"By contrast, (from the election web site) the Change.gov website includes a section addressed explicitly to the gay community, and it covers not only ENDA and hate crimes, but also promises Obama's support for the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell, an expansion of adoption rights for gay couples, his backing of "full civil unions that give same-sex couples legal rights and privileges equal to those of married couples", and his opposition to a Constitutional ban on same-sex marriage.

One consequence of the Rick Warren controversy is that Obama may now be under a greater amount of pressure from Democrats to repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell, to pass ENDA, and to expand hate crimes statutes, and to do all of the above relatively quickly. As we have pointed out before, large majorities of the public are in line with the Obama position on all three issues. If Obama is not willing to expend the relatively modest amount of political capital required on those, then one can reasonably anticipate that he won't be willing to touch more controversial subject areas like adoption or civil unions."

......

[sampsonblk]

163. We WERE less pushy than most

If you look at other social movements around the world, the civil rights movement of blacks in this country was acquiescent and accomodating by comparison. Too much so for people like myself.

Even so, MLK and other understood that the public character of the movement could make or break it. They needed to get more people to agree that they were right, so they couldn't afford to do things that were wrong to gain that agreement. So no violence, no foul-mouthed tirades, no shouting down of critics, and no threats. It would be hard, they thought, to claim to be right if they themselves were doing things that were obviously wrong.

In my opinion, it didn't come down to the pushiness, it came down to doing the right thing, and highlighting the fact that the behavior on the other side was immoral and just plain atrocious.

And there's my two cents.