In case you hadn't noticed, we are in the middle of October's annual observance of Gay History Month. Nor would anyone's failure to notice be surprising.
Gay History Month has been institutionally homeless in recent years, so no organization is really publicizing it. The Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation was once eager to host it, but quickly lost interest. A few gay Web sites, email lists, gay community centers and gay newspapers have continued to promote gay history, but too few and too little.
I suppose the question arises, Why should anyone bother with gay history? After all, the past is only prologue to our own time. It's over. The important point is to move on from here. So learning about gay history is a merely antiquarian enterprise.
True enough, you can live a reasonably happy and satisfying life without knowing any gay history. But I don't see it as quite so irrelevant to our own time. I think knowing gay history has some continuing value. For one thing, we can be encouraged and energized by learning about the lives and pioneering activist efforts of many gays in the past.
I admire the courage and self-confidence of the gay men and women who came out in the 1950s and 1960s-before the "Stonewall" street theater of late June 1969 gave a populist boost to the gay movement. And I admire the continuous struggle, sometimes successful, sometimes not, to find an audience for gay-affirming arguments among politicians and the media in order to confront the culture's homophobia at a time when it was much more pervasive than now.
No one can fail to be moved by the story of San Francisco city supervisor (i.e., city councilman) and pioneering activist Harvey Milk who was assassinated on Nov. 27, 1970s. Milk had a premonition that he might at some point be assassinated, and in a tape of his "political will" he made the now famous statement, "If a bullet should enter my brain, let that bullet destroy every closet door."
Randy Shilts's book "The Mayor of Castro Street" (1982) tells the story. It also contains Milk's speeches, including one called "The Hope Speech," in which he said our goal as gay activists is to provide hope for isolated young gays in such places as Altoona, Pa., and Richmond, Minn. Longtime Chicago activist Tim Drake once told me he re-reads that speech at least once a year.
Another reason to learn some gay history is that we can find out from the experiences of gays in the past what survival techniques and what activist measures worked better and worse and what ones didn't work at all, all the more important since so much of the world (and the U.S.!) is still not very enlightened about gays.
Most people find it helpful to think of themselves as part of a community. And that community extends not only to other gays in the neighborhood and the city but back in time. From there it is but a short step to realizing that each of us is the latest but not last element in that community. There are young gays just being born and there are gays yet to be born who will continue our struggle for legal equality and social acceptance. They will build on whatever we are able to achieve culturally and politically and whatever institutional structures we are able to create.
At present, learning gay history is a "do it yourself" project. Fortunately, there are several good books covering different phases of gay history. If they aren't available to bookstores, public libraries probably have them. The earliest good one is John D'Emilio's Sexual Politics, Sexual Communities (1983) which covers the period 1940 to 1970. The more recent Out for Good (1999) by Dudley Clendinen and Adam Nagourney covers the period from 1969 to the late 1980s.
Three collections of accounts of gay activists provide valuable historical perspective: Before Stonewall (2002) begun by Wayne Dynes and completed by Vern Bullough contains brief biographies of nearly 50 early gay figures. The others are Eric Marcus's two overlapping but enjoyable collections of interview material, Making History (1992) and Making Gay History (2002).
And there are plenty of books on specialized topics-the history of the AIDS epidemic, homosexuality in 17th-century England, gay activism internationally, gays in the military, homosexuality in ancient Greece and homosexuality in New York City from the late 1890s to the 1930s. Perhaps the most comprehensive book of all is Louis Crompton's beautifully illustrated Homosexuality and Civilization (2003). Do not deprive yourself of the pleasures of these books.
19 Comments for “Gay History Month. Again.”
posted by Westie Boy on
If you want to know about gay history, here’s one of the most fascinating books I’ve ever read on the subject: Secrets of a Gay Marine Porn Star, by Rich Merritt
posted by Ashpenaz on
None of that is gay history to me. Stonewall was a huge setback. Harvey Milk was an idiot. There is nothing in the “gay gene” which requires me to revere these events or people. Because of Stonewall, gay is forever associated with drag, and they are two entirely different things. Harvey Milk incarnates the in-your-face style made even more repulsive by Rosie O’Donnell and Elton John.
Gay history is the 19th Century where gays could live in peace. Lincoln could sleep in the same bed as his friend. Cowboys could dance together. Whitman could cradle his soldier buddies. All without any oppression.
Further back, gay is Alexander and Hephaeston, Achilles and Patroclus, Jonathan and David–men who loved men without fear of losing their masculinity.
Thoreau, Gerard Manley Hopkins, Lawrence of Arabia, Cole Porter, St. Aelred, Richard I, Socrates, Michelangelo–this is gay history. Men who weren’t oppressed and who didn’t define themselves with outlandish behavior or wallow in their victimhood.
Let’s use gay history month to celebrate a time when the Pride gays hadn’t taken over everything and caused so much backlash that states everywhere want to change their constitutions to prevent us from getting married and adopting children. Thanks for that, Stonewall. Great job, Harvey. Thanks for nothing.
posted by guapoguy on
We gay people are a diverse lot, and as a whole we are a patient lot, which is why I must remind myself that it’s alright for Ashpenaz to live with his fantasies of a Never-Nevergayland that never existed. Sigh….
posted by Ashpenaz on
Exactly which part of my post didn’t exist? The 19th century never happened? Here’s the history of gay oppression in the 19th century–nothing, nothing, nothing, Oscar Wilde maybe, nothing. . .
There was a time when being gay was not defined by victimhood. There was a time when gays didn’t feel obligated to support exotic, flamboyant behavior–can you imagine Lincoln or Herman Melville at a Pride parade? There was a time when gays lived normal lives with well-defined social roles.
I want to celebrate the pre-Stonewall days before triangles and equal signs and dildo puppets. Let me know when there’s a Confirmed Bachelor History Month.
posted by Pat on
Ashpenaz, if you really need to revision the 19th Century, that’s your right. But how do you know that Whitman, et al, were satisfied with “confirmed bachelor” euphemistic garbage. Sure, they seemed able to thrive by making the best of a bad situation, which most successful people are able to do. But I imagine they would have preferred freedom, like most of the friends, family, and colleagues. Or perhaps they really enjoyed their second or third class status and enjoyed coming up with silly euphemisms to describe themselves.
While there are still Pride parades, and persons exhibiting exotic and flamboyant behavior today (and not just gay people, by the way), there was plenty of this, if not more in the 70s. Why wasn’t there any backlash then? Because there was, at that point, never even a question of who could get married. The backlash occurred only when people started advocating same sex marriage and it started taking hold. DOMA happened partly because states like Hawaii started considering same sex marriage. But the biggest backlash occurred soon after Vermont approved civil unions and Massachusetts legalized same sex marriage.
Celebrate “Confirmed Bachelor History Month” whenever you want. But don’t expect many people to “celebrate” with you. It’s harder to find people today who don’t support freedom and enjoy status as a second class citizen who need to resort to euphemisms to demean themselves and their relationships.
posted by Zach on
I wonder how those who would idealise the 19th century fit things such as the Cleaveland Street Affair, the Labouchere Amendment and the fact that British law permitted the death penalty for “sodomites” until the 1840s, the severe depression and suicide of some gay men like Tchaikovsky, the infamous Oscar Wilde trial, etc. It may not have been hell, but the 19th century certainly wasn’t heaven, either.
posted by Ashpenaz on
When you look at gay history, you see homosexuality integrated into a wide variety of cultures. It was accepted among the Greeks and Romans. Native Americans had specific roles for gays. The Mideast called us “eunuchs” (there is no evidence that eunuchs were castrated or celibate–simply men unsuited for traditional marriage). Oriental cultures had specific roles.
In the Middle Ages, we had liturgy to celebrate same-sex relationships. There was Richard I and St. Aelred. The Renaissance had Michelangelo, Shakespeare, Raphael. In the 19th Century we have Whitman and Tennyson writing openly and powerfully about same-sex love. We have D. H. Lawrence, Hart Crane, Lawrence of Arabia and all the stories of male love from WWI at the start of the 20th century.
You can read gay history as a dull monologue of oppression and victimization, but that simply isn’t the fact.
Incidentally, the word “gay” is a euphemism. If Uncle Jack was “gay,” it meant he lived a frivolous, carefree life free from the shackles of marriage. If Uncle Jack was “queer,” it meant he was eccentric and not suited to married life. Why are these euphemisms better than “confirmed bachelor?” Why is it better to use the euphemism “gay” for Uncle Jack than “confirmed bachelor” when what we’re trying to do is avoid a literal description of what Uncle Jack does with his dear friend Joe?
posted by Attmay on
Because some of us are not “confirmed bachelors.” We have boyfriends. We intend to build lives, relationships, and families with them and not hide them from others. Our lives are not a joke. Our relationships are not a joke. Our families are not a joke. If the heterosexual supremacists (like everyone running in the current Presidential race) and “queer liberationists” don’t like it, tough titties.
posted by Pat on
Ashpenaz, the fact is (and from what you described), unless you played word games and hid your sexuality, you were oppressed, fined, jailed, or assaulted for being gay in the 19th Century. Even then, not all were spared.
“Gay” was a euphemism in the past. But only for a limited view, everyone knows what “gay” means today. When a man says, “I am gay and this is my boyfriend,” there’s almost no doubt what that means. When a man says, “I am a ‘confirmed bachelor’ and this is my ‘roommate,'” one can interpret it more than one way. I’m not against euphemisms. When a man calls his wife “my better half” or “my old lady,” again, it is clear by almost all what is meant. He is not trying to hide from a significant portion of his family, friends, or community that he is married to a woman. Nobody is worried about avoiding “a literal description” of what he and his wife do when a man actually calls his wife “his wife” or the above euphemisms, because, again, the meaning is clear. No one would expect this man to say he is a “confirmed bachelor” and his dear female friend is his “spinster roommate” or some other demeaning way to describe his relationship.
Two of the more flamboyant persons of the 70s that come to mind were Paul Lynde and Liberace. They were masters of double entendres. Those who didn’t care about one’s sexuality picked up on it. Those who did care, and would be upset, just assumed they were straight and played along with it. Interesting, these people didn’t care about their flamboyance. I guess it was okay, unless you were known to be gay.
posted by Ashpenaz on
Please name one person, Wilde excepted, who was fined, jailed, or assaulted for being gay in the 19th Century. Tennyson, whose very public poem In Memoriam was dedicated to his “best friend?” Whitman, whose Calamus poems became classic literature? Melville? Ruskin? Lincoln? Any of the many cowboys or miners in the West? Any of the confirmed bachelors who frequented Men’s Clubs? There were many men who were known to be homosexual who lived very public lives and were fully supported by society. Look at the many photographs from that era. Where do you think those photos were? I suspect they adorned many piano-fortes and credenzas.
Go back further. Were those who took public vows in same-sex liturgies beaten up? Were those who sat around with Socrates fined? Were the various eunuchs guarding the harem jailed?
The concept of “gay as oppressed victim” is purely a late 20th century phenomenon. And it’s really annoying.
posted by Pat on
Ashpenaz, the fact that even famous persons had to play demeaning word games to describe themselves and their relationships clearly shows oppression. That’s not bad enough? What we don’t know are the countless ordinary people of those times, who couldn’t use their fame to stop any assaults or persecution.
The fact that clubs that catered to gay persons had to be secret was bad enough. You’ve mentioned Stonewall as a negative turning point, and caused this “gay as oppressed victim.” Stonewall happened partly because men were arrested for dancing with men. There were laws on the books that specifically outlawed homosexual activity. Whether or not it was always enforced is beside the point. Gay persons had to play the word games and always had to watch to not cross the line of having the temerity about being honest and open in the same way that straight persons were honest and open about their sexuality and their relationships.
I get your point about not playing the oppressed victim. Even the famous men you mentioned, who despite being unfairly oppressed knew how to have successful lives. But that does not make their treatment as citizens fair and just. That does not make revisioning the 19th Century as an era of glorifying “confirmed bachelors” accurate.
Fast forward to today, there is still inequality and injustice when it comes to gay persons. But it is best to not play victim, to succeed in spite of it, and to try to make things better for the next generation. Unfortunately, there are also elements of the gay community who try to oppress their own. Same advice for those who are oppressed in this manner, don’t play the victim, succeed in spite of it, and try to make things better for the next generation. As bad as it is for people to turn on their own, at least they do not have the power to force someone to attend pride parades, to behave flamboyantly or act feminine or whatever, or be promiscuous and irresponsible. Also their rights to play word games and call themselves “confirmed bachelors” or by referring to their partners “roommates” are not infringed, even if there is no real need to use these word games.
Thankfully, the trend is towards full freedom and equality for gay persons. Of course, there is a cost. People are responsible for their own happiness, because no one will be trying to take it away from them. In other words, there will be no need to succeed in spite of oppression, because it is no longer there. I suppose there will people who, despite the freedom, will choose to be unhappy and blame those who do not have power over them. Too bad, but it is their right.
posted by Ashpenaz on
Exactly how was Tennyson oppressed? In Memoriam is one of the most honest, emotional poems in the English language, and it is dedicated to another man. How more out does he need to be? None of the men I mentioned hid anything about themselves. They were quite open about what they felt and who they loved.
Also, why are the words “gay” and “queer” somehow not demeaning while “confirmed bachelor” and “dear friend” are? Please read these words out loud–do you see the difference?
The question is honesty. If I can communicate the truth about myself by saying “confirmed bachelor” then I don’t need to the political and cultural baggage of the word “gay.” The only reason you want me to call myself “gay” is so that you can put me on the Pride mailing list. You don’t want people coming to terms with their sexuality and using the words which they think best communicate who they are to the world–you want numbers to fill your rallies. You want uniformity so that we are easier to identify and control.
posted by Pat on
Ashpenaz, you’d have to ask Tennyson and the others whether or not they were oppressed. I contend they were, because they had to play word games, and did not have the freedom that their straight counterparts they had. They may or may not have had terrible lives, but they did not live as openly as you contend.
“Gay” and “queer” can be demeaning depending on the context either are said. But when a person is using “gay” to describe his sexual orientation, it is not demeaning. “Queer” is a different story. Some people are comfortable using that term to describe their sexual orientation, and some aren’t. However, “confirmed bachelor,” in my view is demeaning. Bachelor indicates that a male is never going to be committed to a person, usually of the opposite sex. For a responsible gay person, of course, they would never commit themselves to a person of the opposite sex. But saying one is a confirmed bachelor when one is either in a committed relationship or would like to be in a committed relationship demeans the type of relationship that they are in or intend to be in. At best, it’s a sin of omission. On the other hand, a straight person would never say they were a “confirmed bachelor” unless they really intend on being a bachelor for the rest of their lives. A straight male who is married or intends to be committed to someone in the future would never demean their committed relationship or their intent of a committed relationship by referring to themselves as “confirmed bachelors.”
I don’t want you to be called anything you don’t want to be called. I believe a gay person calling oneself a “confirmed bachelor” is demeaning themselves, and you obviously disagree. I respect your opinion, but it doesn’t change mine either. It doesn’t best communicate to the world what they are. I use the word gay, but I am not on any Pride mailing list. And I so don’t want uniformity.
Like you, Ashpenaz, there are elements of the gay community I don’t like and don’t have the perceived characteristics. I am left of center, but I am not an insider. I have never attended a Pride parade (although I still may some day). I like theatre, but I also like sports. And I couldn’t be described as promiscuous, even by Dobson’s criteria. “Gay” describes a sexual orientation, but does not describe all the different charactistics that members of a gay community have. On the other hand, “confirmed bachelor” demeans committed gay relationships, and also connotes the person is in the closet.
Anyway, it doesn’t appear that we will agree on this issue. Feel free to respond to any points I made. But it appears we’ll just have to agree to disagree.
posted by Ashpenaz on
Here’s what I would like: I want to be treated as an adult male who has looked carefully at all my options and, based on my reason and experience, has come to a mature conclusion about how I want to identify myself. I am willing to agree to disagree if you are willing to stop calling me a self-loathing closet case (which you haven’t, but which those who share your self-identification have).
I would like to be treated as if I can read many books on history and the lives of gays and reach a reasonable conclusion that does not follow “gay” orthodoxy. It’s possible for people to look at the same evidence and reach different conclusions. Apparently, it’s only in gay history departments that all the professors have to agree.
I don’t want to identify as “gay” or be part of the “gay” community because it adds a lot of unnecessary political and cultural baggage to what is really just a simple desire to live forever in the arms of Jason Statham. “Nazi” probably started out as a good word for those who just wanted to see the trains start running on time, but I bet there came a point when lots of people started realizing that “Nazi” didn’t work for them anymore.
How about adding to that “willing to agree to disagree” a little bit of unfeigned respect for those who see things differently?
posted by Pat on
Here’s what I would like: I want to be treated as an adult male who has looked carefully at all my options and, based on my reason and experience, has come to a mature conclusion about how I want to identify myself. I am willing to agree to disagree if you are willing to stop calling me a self-loathing closet case (which you haven’t, but which those who share your self-identification have).
Okay, Ashpenaz, but this is a two-way street. As you suggested, I did not call you self-loathing, or a closet case. And I suggest that you don’t generalize that those who choose to identify as gay have the characteristics that you perceive persons in the gay community have.
I would like to be treated as if I can read many books on history and the lives of gays and reach a reasonable conclusion that does not follow “gay” orthodoxy. It’s possible for people to look at the same evidence and reach different conclusions. Apparently, it’s only in gay history departments that all the professors have to agree.
It’s not clear we’ve looked at the same evidence, but I respect your right to reach a different conclusion. Since I have agreed to disagree, for the sake of argument, agree with your conclusion for the moment. That the 19th Century was a golden age for gay persons (or however they wanted to identify themselves). We don’t live in that century any more. We have to deal with what we have to deal with today, and do the best we can with it.
I don’t want to identify as “gay” or be part of the “gay” community because it adds a lot of unnecessary political and cultural baggage to what is really just a simple desire to live forever in the arms of Jason Statham. “Nazi” probably started out as a good word for those who just wanted to see the trains start running on time, but I bet there came a point when lots of people started realizing that “Nazi” didn’t work for them anymore.
Lots of times the baggage one carries is because the person chooses to carry the baggage.
How about adding to that “willing to agree to disagree” a little bit of unfeigned respect for those who see things differently?
Fair enough. But this is a two-way street as well.
posted by Ashpenaz on
I respect you. I’m in dialogue with you.
“Lots of times the baggage one carries is because the person chooses to carry the baggage.”
OK, if that’s true, try calling yourself a Nazi for a day. What assumptions do you think people will make about you? If you say, “What I mean by Nazi is having the trains run on time,” do you think they will accept that?
It seems rather pointless to me to use the word “gay” when I am pro-life, I believe in Intelligent Design, I believe in the Nicene Creed, I think sex is for lifelong monogamy, I think that drag and transexual are not homosexual but a form of heterosexuality, I support Sarah Palin, I think civil unions are better than gay marriage, I think Stonewall was a huge step backward, etc. etc. Which bar, disco, parade, or rally can I walk into and be myself? Exactly why would I want to deal with all the crap I’d have to deal with to be part of the gay community?
So, let’s have a month for all those confirmed bachelors who are shunned by the gay community for not buying into gay orthodoxy. We are family, I’ve got all my uncles with me.
posted by Pat on
OK, if that’s true, try calling yourself a Nazi for a day. What assumptions do you think people will make about you? If you say, “What I mean by Nazi is having the trains run on time,” do you think they will accept that?
Since “Nazi” clearly means more than train schedules, I have no interest in identifying myself as a Nazi. “Gay,” on the other hand does not have a negative connotation unless someone wants to put one on it. For example, a person who, in 2008, still uses the Bible or some other irrational reason to condemn homosexuality is not going to give “gay” a positive connotation. Their loss, not mine.
It seems rather pointless to me to use the word “gay” when I am pro-life, I believe in Intelligent Design, I believe in the Nicene Creed, I think sex is for lifelong monogamy, I think that drag and transexual are not homosexual but a form of heterosexuality, I support Sarah Palin, I think civil unions are better than gay marriage, I think Stonewall was a huge step backward, etc. etc. Which bar, disco, parade, or rally can I walk into and be myself? Exactly why would I want to deal with all the crap I’d have to deal with to be part of the gay community?
You’ve picked a lot of issues, so it may be hard to find many others who espouse all of those views. But many gays share some, or even most, of the views you share. Except they may not have abondoned the “gay” identity, and would feel as strongly as I do about being referred to as a “confirmed bachelor.”
So, let’s have a month for all those confirmed bachelors who are shunned by the gay community for not buying into gay orthodoxy. We are family, I’ve got all my uncles with me.
Good luck. If you can find such persons, go for it. As I posited, the issue isn’t so much for not buying into “gay orthodoxy,” but the “confirmed bachelor” identity. I may be wrong about this, but I don’t think there are too many people who would find being called a “confirmed bachelor” acceptable. Except those persons, especially straight, who really have no intention of entering a committed relationship.
posted by Ashpenaz on
OK, this is Gay History Month. Let’s look at history for a term you’d like better than “confirmed bachelor.” How did men with same-sex attractions refer to themselves throughout history? In societies, say, Ancient Greece, where homosexuality was acceptable, what term did they use? How did they identify themselves to each other? In the American West, in the Renaissance, in the Middle East, what was the term?
My point is that gay history points to the fact that men with same-sex attractions didn’t spend their lives calling attention to their orientation. Instead, they fought side by side, slept in the same bed, wrote poems, made statues, danced together and simply went about the business of loving each other. And nobody cared–except Oscar Wilde’s sociopathic best friend’s schizophrenic father.
OK, here’s my alternative to identifying myself as a “confirmed bachelor.” Following the examples of history, I’m not going to identify myself as anything. I’m going to love who I love and let others decide to label that or ignore that or whatever they want. My sexual orientation is not a political ideology. My love is not a label. (Oooh–there’s my bumper sticker. I hope it outsells “We are everywhere.”)
posted by Pat on
Again, I don’t agree with your perspective of history, Ashpenaz. But I’ll agree with you that no label is better than “confirmed bachelor.”