Originally posted at http://nyaf.blogspot.com
Reverend Eric Lee, leader of the Los Angeles Chapter of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, has been a vocal supporter of marriage equality. During the Prop 8 campaigns in California, he attended numerous No on 8 rallies while working especially close with the Courage Campaign.
During an interview with the the New York Times, he reported being apart of the minority at a convention of the SCLC'sleaders even though the organization has a publically neutral stance on the issue.
Now he is in danger of possibly losing his position.
Mr. Lee said, he was surprised to receive a call from the National Board of Directors summoning him immediately to Atlanta to explain why he had taken a position on same-sex marriage without the authority of the national board.Explaining that he was unable to come to Atlanta on such short notice, Mr. Lee then received two letters from the organization’s lawyer, Dexter M. Wimbish, threatening him with suspension or removal as president of the Los Angeles chapter if he did not come soon to explain himself.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/11/us/11gay.html?_r=1
I think this is just sad, but I don't want this to become an issue of finger pointing. We all know that after Prop 8 passed the media did a really good job of making it seem like the black vote was the main reason. And while 70% of the black voting population did pass Prop 8, they don't even come close to representing the 52% of votes it took to pass the hateful legislation. The article really doesn't do much to combat this misconception either.
All of this just seems like dividing and conquering. The media likes to pit one oppressed group against the other based on stereotypes and over-generalizations. There is no one "enemy" to blame for the passing of Prop 8, and the sooner we realize that, the sooner the queer community and its allies can unite. Queer reaches across lines of race, religion, ethnicity, ability, age, class, gender, and expression. We can only succeed when we begin to realize that queer rights, or for that matter the rights of all oppressed people, are civil rights. They keep us divided because divided we fall.
This quote comes from Reverend Lee...
"...any time you deny one group of people the same right that other groups have, that is a clear violation of civil rights and I have to speak up on that.”
Amen.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: What would MLK say?.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/14916
Who precisely is this "They" conspiring to turn blacks against gays? Black Californians voted the way they did autonomously, out of their own individual or community beliefs, not as vassals to some unidentified anti-gay malevolent but nameless evil presence.
That's my point. Black Californians voted as individuals based on their own convictions. "They" being the media overgeneralized the black community by blaming the "black vote" as if it were one collective anti-gay voice. Clearly, that is not the case, which is what I was alluding to in my post. Sorry if that was unclear.
The faceless media conspires to divide blacks and gays, because divided they fall?
Hmmm...well I don't know what kind of response you were looking for with that comment.
What I do know is that it takes numbers and organization to build a movement. I also know that movements aren't generally well received by those who are comfortable with the way things are.
Why fixed what's not broken?
Well for the queer community, and other communities of course, things are VERY broken.
Instead of fighting each other over semantics, I think our time and efforts as feminists are better spent making others aware of injustices. Uniting, finding our strength, finding our own voice while figuring out how we as individuals fit in with a collective voice, building a movement. I thought that was what feministing was for.
I apologize if I misunderstood that as well.
Everyone's reflex is to blame a faceless media conspiracy (see every speech Palin's ever given), but I want to know why you think so in this case. Most of the media coverage I saw of the Prop 8 battle was tilted against passage. The media (composed largely of educated white people from California and the Northeast) is much more liberal on gay rights issues than the country at large.
Well I think this is just a misunderstanding then.
I was referring to the country-wide media coverage post-Prop 8. There were countless news stories about how the "black vote" sealed the fate for prop 8. There were even a few posts on this site about the way some news stories portrayed the exit polls.
Once again, I'm almost positive we can agree that their statistics were not 100% accurate. (refer to Qi's post). And also once again, if I'm making any assumptions, I once again apologize.
...yes. I think Zaneta makes a valid point.
I think that as feminists, we can all agree that the media distorts information. Much of what is on this website has to do with how the media inaccurately portrays different groups of people. When people buy into these stereotypes, division can occur.
Think about how often organizations debate amongst themselves about whose community is more oppressed. While attending the CLIPPP Conference at Hamsphire College last year, I was disheartened by the bickering that took place between panels respresenting different organizations. One of the panelists even commented on how the LGBT "No on 8" campaigns in California were mainly white and did nothing to reach out to the black community. Imagine how much stronger a united front would have been between organizations that cater towards specific ethnic groups.
If there is no dialogue between groups, then we can not form a queer cohesive movement. Divided we fall.
Ahem,
"A new study on California’s Proposition 8 voting trends released Tuesday found that far fewer African-Americans voted to pass the gay marriage ban than the 70% suggested by exit polling and concluded that race was not the most significant factor affecting people’s vote for or against marriage equality.
After conducting in-depth analysis of election returns from five key California counties and using census data to estimate the racial makeup of the voters in those counties, researchers found that between 57% and 59% of African-Americans voted in favor of Proposition 8, which amended the state's constitution to prohibit same-sex marriage.
"This is a far cry from the [National Exit Poll] estimate,” said Kenneth Sherrill of Hunter College, one of the lead authors of the study.
Sherrill also noted that four pre-election polls put black support for the antigay ballot initiative anywhere between 41% and 58%. “While that’s quite a range, none venture above 58%,” he said. “On this basis alone, the NEP estimate of 70% would appear to be an outlier.”
..
Egan and Sherrill also concluded that age, religiosity, party identification, and ideology had more of an effect on whether voters backed Prop. 8 than any other factors. For instance, the rate of support for the initiative among African Americans and whites was nearly the same for those who attended church services regularly."
http://www.advocate.com/news_detail_ektid70200.asp
Yeah. And the word "down-low" is a mythical word that white conservatives made up to turn blacks against gays. Please.
This is not a myth. This is not a fiction. This is a real attitude that exists in the black community. Don't believe the hype.
It's not about hype. It's about using exaggerated and false claims to bolster arguments as was done in the fallout after prop 8.
And speaking of the downlow, this is another exaggerated claim that simply doesn't hold up under greater scrutiny.
Most folks knew the downlow is real. But they questioned the link to increased HIV rates, and rightly so.
And indeed several studies have since found that gender imbalances, multiple hetero partners---specifically in communities where men are in and out of jail--- and plain ignorance thanks in part thanks to abstinence-only nonsense, etc contribute far more to the HIV epidemic in the black community than men being on the DL.
excellent point.
Actually, the "down low" is arguably an idea, based in homophobia, used to blame men who have sex with men for 'bad things' happening in the black community. The practice of straight men secretly having sex with men is seen across all ethnic groups. The "down low" related specifically to black men who have sex with men is used to explain the higher rates of HIV infection in heterosexual black women. By blaming new infections of HIV in the black community on men who have sex with men, it further demonizes the concept of being gay/bi/not stereotypically hetero.
So, in relation to your comment, I don't think the 'down low' was made up by white conservatives to turn blacks against gays. It is perpetuated by ALL media and is, in a lot of ways, a myth. (Though like all myths, it has some roots in fact, it is certainly not to the level it is often portrayed to be.)
Obviously, these attitudes exist in black communities. They also exist in white communities, hispanic communities, in LOTS of communities. But not to the extent that the media plays it up. There are lots of articles that show that many of these stereotypes are played up to create divides between the LGBT movement and oppressed people. Divided we fall, and they're good at dividing.
This is awesome! I just wished that more mainstream media adopted these statistics instead of focusing on "outliers" or single dimensions of one's identities.
Well said.
I think that as a high-ranking representative of an organization, it was questionable to publicly comment on the individual opinions in the group if they had taken an officially neutral stance. That's something that would concern a lot of organizations, regardless of the issue. For one thing, once you take on a role at that level, your public opinion becomes linked with the position of the organization, whether they are actually in line or not. And to comment on the opinions of others in the room is professionally unwise unless you're actively trying to prove a point. (In which case, you're also prepared for the pushback. This may very well be the situation here, as he was critical of leadership in the conference.)
That being said, his opinion was in line with the local chapter. I think one of the problems here is that the national board of the SCLC is interfering with local autonomy. The article said that it's unclear whether they even have the power to remove him, or whether the local group has violated any procedures. From a political perspective, it would be smarter for the national folks to issue a statement re-asserting their neutrality while acknowledging that local autonomy exists under their umbrella.
I totally see where you're coming from. I would want to find out if any members of the SCLC who spoke out for Prop 8 were also asked to appear in front of a board to review their actions.
I think that if the SCLC states that Lee violated their neutral stance, then they would also have to contact those who spoke out for Prop 8.
Absolutely! If it's a matter of people not adhering to national positions in public settings, the SCLC can address ALL of those issues. If the board is only concerned about Rev. Lee and his minority opinion, there's a very different problem.
However, if their concern is about him talking about the opinions of others in the group, I'm not sure that's in the same argument. (It sounds more like they were angling at the neutral stance violation, but...) Orgs take neutral stances for various reasons, but they're nearly all about political capital or legal restrictions. The only thing the public is supposed to see is the official stance, not the individual opinions or group decisions that led to it. That's where the capital comes in. If someone violates one of their rules (written or otherwise thoroughly understood) regarding decision-making, it's just not the same issue.
Its fascinating that minority groups, and more generally minority individuals, don't find common cause with one another. Hispanics fight blacks who fight Jews who fight Muslims who fight gays...vice versa, and whatever. While "The Man" might sometimes be at work here, I think more often than not the common culprit is our inherent tribalism.
While its disappointing, this reminds us of the central importance in finding easily understood examples of how discrimination hurts our common humanity. For instance how Arkansas stripping gay couples of the right to adopt means fewer adoptive parents for the black children who are wards of the state; or how the lesbian neighbors of your elderly mother who never fail to check in on her, will never be able to marry. I can see the difficulties in an overtly religious organization like the SCLC supporting gay marriage, but at the same time as MLK said, "injustice anywhere threatens justice everywhere."
People's pride is determined by place in the hierarchy, competition for status. No one wants to be the bottom of the pile, so when kicked by someone higher who is immune to retaliation the response is to kick someone lower. If you haven't read it, I recommend How the Irish Became White by Noel Ignatiev, it demonstrates how people establish their place by separating themselves from those of lower status.
No doubt...Is this book a history of the Scots-Irish or Irish Catholics?
It's been a few years, but I think Irish Catholics because I remember it mostly taking place in the cities of the north (Boston, NY, probably Chicago). I could be entirely wrong but I think of the Scots-Irish as being more rural and southern, and also probably more easily accepted as "white" in the US.
To your point, you might find it interesting that while the Scots-Irish came here starting in Colonial times (skipping the cities & migrating directly to Appalachia & the southern hinterlands) the term "Scots-Irish" didn't originate until the late 1800s migration of Irish Catholics. Until then the Scots-Irish were known as just "Irish". The term was meant to distinguish those Protestant Irish who already had roots here, from the newly arrived Catholic Irish. So your point about keeping at least 1 rung ahead of other groups is well made.
While "The Man" might sometimes be at work here, I think more often than not the common culprit is our inherent tribalism.
I really wonder though. How many elements of tribalism can be traced to some power structure in a community be it a church leader, business people, elders, etc? In a global sense, it seems many of these modern divisions have been manufactured, for example by governments redrawing borders, land grabs, religious power structures, forced segregation, forced migration etc.
For example, there was an early period in US history where poor southern whites folks and black folks economically and culturally had a lot in common and together might have been a force to be reckoned with in fighting for economic and social justice.
But instead, white privilege was born, and in its infancy it was raised on a steady diet of legislation such as 1-drop rule and other Jim Crow era laws. Elsewhere in the Americas fledgeling governments created a mixed-race middle class, again by purposefully giving privileges to some and denying rights to others, to act as a buffer against racial tension and to keep folks divided and from focusing on targeting the real power structure.
While I agree that people have a propensity for tribalism, I think the primary motivation is indeed coming from people at the top. That is, for most instances, I do not think xenophobia or mere prejudice etc, in a community is enough to see the huge divisions that we see today in many places. You can find parallels in European history surrounding Church sanctioned discrimination of Jews for example. If I'm not mistaken I think there are many instances where divisive laws can be traced back to certain Popes, Kings and other officials who single handedly changed the rules, decide which languages or dialect would be the official one, which church denomination would be the official one, etc. I'm sure there are plenty of other examples in other cultures...
You raise some interesting points Spike. I think white prejudice well pre-dates the Civil War and even the founding of this country. As far back as Charlemagne in the 8th century you can see racist screeds concerning the Moors for instance. As far as the political alliance between blacks & poor whites you're referring to is concerned, I'm unfamiliar with that. Perhaps you can educate us.
I agree with you insofar as this, opportunists have certainly seized & fanned latent prejudices in order to gain power, extract concessions, or deflect criticism. Hitler's anti-semitism, Idi Amin's expropriation & expulsion of Asians, Robert Mugabe's attacks on white Zimbabweans...and Karl Rove's anti-gay marriage campaign of '04 are all examples of that...My main point was that we, as individuals, have a lot of influence--through our family, friends, colleagues & churches--to mitigate the fanning of flames, or the Oppression Olympics, as some call it.
Spike the Cat is referring to economic alliances between poor southern whites and blacks after Emancipation. Economically, they had a common enemy in the plantation owning upper class. The main point of segregation was to separate poor whites and blacks into opposing camps so that they could not unite to force economic change. Essentially, poor whites were given the middle position in a new caste system (that largely resembled the slavery era caste system) so that they'd be proud and happy in their poverty and not challenge the oligarchs.
"The south politician preaches to the poor white man: You've got more than the blacks, don't complain."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fffHzrtHhZM&feature=related
Errr, "[I think] Spike the Cat is referring . . ."
As for the classification of skin color as indicative of classes of humanity, that was mostly born out of the Enlightenment. The idea that all men were created equal (end of serfdom) posed the question of who was then going to do the dirtiest jobs, which was answered by classifying non-whites as not fully human and therefore subject to enslavement. This process was repeated somewhat after Reconstruction, when excuses had to be made for depriving blacks of their explicit Constitutional rights as undeniable citizens.
Yep, that's what I was referring too, Lol. I think it was Tim Wise and also The People's History of the United States by Zinn that clued me in on this stuff.
I'm also thinking about the way religion was used in the infancy of our nation specifically as a means to assimilate blacks and then ironically became the principal means (even the only means in some instances) for blacks to assemble and organize for social justice. People don't seem to recognize how this legacy relates to the iron clutch on the hearts and minds that the church has in some communities relative to others.