CNN Anchor Don Lemon
(NOTE: I originally ran this piece here on this blog just a short three weeks ago. However, it just speaks so strongly to so many things that are in the forefront of my consciousness right now I felt a deep need and desire to re-post it. I also want to ensure the probability that as many young, black, same gender loving men get an opportunity to read this piece and seek me out for support if they so desire.)
Why does CNN News anchor Don Lemon's coming out mean so much to me personally? In short, because he's a black man. Yes, that pretty much sums it up.
Each member of the alphabet soup we know of as the LGBTQQI (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans --sexual and/or transgender--Queer, Questioning, Intersex) community faces both collective and unique challenges. For example, in the area of unique challenges, trans people are still considered personae non gratae to far too many gay and lesbian men and women who would seriously like to see them completely disappear from that alphabet soup altogether. Bisexual men are often viewed as semi-closeted gay men who simply haven't completely come out and/or who are taking a "safer" route. Therefore, their stance as bisexual men rather than loud and proud gay men is completely delegitimized. We humans seem to have never ending ways of splintering ourselves into ever more isolating sub-categories, each vying for some illusory sense of cultural privilege and entitlement. We are masters at finding ways to ostracize ourselves from one another.
As a black, same gender loving man I have also experienced first hand the specific challenges that come with being a member of both of those minority groups simultaneously. By far, the biggest of those challenges has come from members of the black community who are drunk on the bitter wine of Christian fundamentalism, who view being gay as a "white thang." And specifically, where gayness together with maleness is concerned, this dubious combination is seen as an absolute betrayal of what these people view as some supernatural birthright to over-the-top cartoon-like super masculinity. Newsflash: That version of masculinity really does only exist in comic books. When this unrealistic view of black masculinity is combined with a religious zeal I see as being blinded by hatred, ignorance and intolerance, the result is a form of bigotry unparalleled to any I've experienced in this life. Collectively and monolithically this is what I refer to as "The Black Church." The black church in general has very little tolerance for homosexuality as a rule. When blackness is added to that pot, it often becomes a simmering stew of madness that is really difficult to comprehend some 50+ years after the onset of the civil rights movement in these United States of America. To top it off, there are black ministers and black men and women devout churchgoers in this country who sincerely love their white spouses yet cannot even begin to fathom the legitimacy of gay, black people being members of God's beautiful family.
If only it stopped there. The racism that exists in the largely white, gay community in the US is well documented by numerous sources. So I don't need to address that here.What is less well documented and less well known are the various types of objectification of gay, black men by mostly white gay men that also exists. As a well educated, black, gay professional who is articulate, well spoken, smart, self assured and spiritually grounded, I have been told on more occasions than I care to remember by white men who were romantically interested in me, that ultimately I simply wasn't "black enough" for them. Hmm, what's up with that I thought. So being the inquisitive son of my mother I've always been, I inquired about this. I quickly came to understand that what that often meant was that I was not "ghetto" enough for these men. A further distillation of that revealed that these men had created some colonialist story that directed them to believe that the only valuable black partner was one who spoke in perpetual Ebonics, had gold teeth and lived either a real or pretend thug life---not that there's anything wrong with any of that. Its just that these men believed that having a black boyfriend had to be synonymous with being with a black man who exemplified those traits.
Lord Have Mercy!
It gets worse. During a period of time when I was actively involved in online dating while living in The San Francisco Bay Area, I made a conscious decision to attempt to date as many African American men as possible. I enjoyed and continue to enjoy the company of black men, socially and otherwise. I had too often lived in locales where dating black men was severely limited. So I attempted to rectify this when I lived in an area with a substantial black, gay community. No dice. Approximately eighty percent of the black gay men I encountered immediately informed me that they did not date other black men. What? That's right. I tell no lie. Roughly the remaining twenty percent informed me that they were intimidated by my level of education and intelligence. But that's not how they framed it. Usually they simply said I was just, "too white."
Lord Have Mercy!
I don't know if Don Lemon has a partner. If he doesn't, some of this madness likely awaits him as he tries to navigate the whole gay dating scene. I wish him luck. Of course, plain old unadulterated homophobia, racism and heterosexism await him as well.
I have just scratched the surface here of the trials and tribulations that face most openly gay black men in America. So I have a lot of respect for any back man, not to mention a well known public figure of a black man who chooses to enter this wild fray. I know Don Lemon has done so with the clear intention of positively impacting all that madness and making it easier for others who will eventually follow suit. You have my blessings, love and prayers my brother Don. May the force be with you. You're gonna need it, baby!
3 comments:
madness
LGBTQQI . . . groan! The acronym gets more ridiculous all the time. Soon, it'll be long enough to resemble a centipede! Who got permission to lump LGBT folk together with those who identify as "queers"? Who declared "questioning" a legitimate status(making LGBT identity sound tentative)? Who decided the Gay Rights movement would represent intersex individuals, most of whom are neither Gay nor Transgender? The mangling of LGBT is typical of how casually arrogant all too many self-described spokesmen for LGBT humanity are.
Nobody was ever made King or Queen of Gay Rights and given permission to expand the movement's reach to such an absurd extent! Often, "A" for allies is also mashed on to the acronym. Good grief, Bisexual and Transfolk have never been well-represented by the Gay Rights establishment, yet we want to claim all these other groups????!! It's outrageous. I wonder how the women's rights movement avoided having multiple interest groups tacked on to it? Maybe women's liberationists are just more grounded and serious than Gay liberationists are?
As for associating same-gender-loving folk with a toxic word like "queer", please read this:
http://ignoranceisplentiful.blogspot.com/2011/06/trouble-waters.html
Dear anonymous, I appreciate your comment very much. When I first started this blog almost three years ago I was of the inclusion mindset. Since then I have moved away from it and more or less agree with your perspective. I referenced LGBTQQI in this piece to emphasize how much diversity *could* potentially be viewed as being a part of the LGBT community not to legitimize that long alphabet soup perspective necessarily. Although I am able to clearly see how one could get that impression. And to some extent I referenced it as an "alphabet soup" sort of in a humorous/mocking way. At the same time I don't think the LGBTQQI reference is, by far, the most important element of this piece.
I subscribe to the blog Ignorance is Plentiful. I enjoy and appreciate many of the perspectives that are presented there. If you are the originator of that blog I can say that I have read the piece you referenced as I have read many of the pieces on the blog. I don't agree with every position that is presented on the blog. I do however, agree with a good percentage of it. I specifically agree with your stance of avoiding words of persecution in the quest to rehabilitate them into words of empowerment. I agree that this is likely an exercise in ignorance or naiveté in many cases.
I disagree with the assertion that trans folk have never been well represented in the Gay Rights establishment. My reading of Gay Rights History places them pretty much at the epicenter of the movement at the important Stonewall Inn, milestone in that history. I believe they have been pushed to the margins in the of the movement in the last couple of decades by certain bigoted, self-absorbed and entitled white, affluent, influential gay men in the movement who are primarily concerned with the liberation of other affluent, influential white, gay men. I believe they have also been pushed to the margins by a sentiment in the "community" that I became aware of in the 80s but that could been present earlier in which segments of the gay community became obsessed with assimilation. This was influenced in large part by the backlash to gay liberation that ensued during the conservative era that was ushered in by the Ronald Reagan and may have also been aided by the beginning of the AIDS pandemic. This is when religious and political conservatives began using images from gay pride marches and such as weapons against the community as a whole and as a scare tactic to frighten Mr. and Mrs. middle America. And to a great extent, it worked. Those in the LGBT community who were not viewed as being "respectable" representations of the community were pushed to the margins of the community and labeled misfits who were giving the entire community a bad name. This idea culminated, in my view, with Bruce Bawer's 1994, in my opinion, highly unfortunate book, "A Place at the Table" in which he very clearly outlined what "type" of LGBT person should be invited to sit at that table.
Post a Comment