Thank you, thank you, thank you for posting this video/presentation! I think using rhetoric African American Civil Rights rhetoric is, superficially, effective and I understand why one could and would use such rhetoric. However, once broken down and closely examined, it’s extremely problematic. Ms. Woolman’s research clearly shows how it is problematic and how it isolates the struggles of people of color and the particular challenges non-white GLBTQ people face in a racist, homophobic society. Also, “gay is the new black” (from The Advocate’s headline) is not just odd; it’s also presented through a commodified and distorted representation which is extremely troubling. Who is the speaker? And, most importantly, who is the audience? Once those questions are answered, it is then interesting to look at how class is functioning in this rhetoric. The Advocate is considered a “high brow” magazine and its readers are predominately white upper-middle class. So, the story is constructed through this white, upper-middle class voice and then interpreted by a white, upper-middle audience. With this in mind, it makes sense why one would make black oppression synonymous with gay oppression because one can have his/her views reinforced without ever really having to think about or address the connected elements of systematic social inequality. Obviously, as Woolman points out, this framework is too narrow. I keep asking myself why do we, as a society, continue to group movements together into a rigid box—a box that ultimately prevents the continuity of that movement (whether it’s civil rights, gay rights, women’s rights) and destructs efforts to address and challenge the undeniable flaws of American racial, gender, sexual, & constructs? It’s frustrating. For me, another great point focused on how such language implies that the racial injustices of Jim /Jane Crow like housing discrimination, voter discrimination, racialized poverty, inequalities in institutionalized education, etc. have “ended” and do not exist; as if the struggle for civil rights is “over” and thus racial justice has been achieved. The rhetoric the woman used (“It’s like getting a ticket to the back of the bus”) in order to evoke an emotional response is, like Woolman said, baffling: attending a GLBTQ Easter-egg hunt at the White House and legalized segregation in public transportation is not the same thing. However, she is also glossing over and over-simplifying the Civil Rights Movement (it was much more than refusing to “[sit] in the back of the bus”). It’s interesting how memory and imagery are working here because her audience has to know what she’s referring to and respond in the way she expects them to respond—so I’m wondering if age or generation influences who uses this rhetoric? I do believe racism, sexism, homophobia, classism, ageism (and all of the other “isms”) are linked. But, one has to understand how each is linked and then, and only then, can an honest dialogue occur.
My perception of African American Civil Rights Rhetoric is that one has to be closely associated to understand or walk in the shoes of this upper middle white to understand. I am speechless and I will leave that at that.
Thank you, thank you, thank you for posting this video/presentation! I think using rhetoric African American Civil Rights rhetoric is, superficially, effective and I understand why one could and would use such rhetoric. However, once broken down and closely examined, it’s extremely problematic. Ms. Woolman’s research clearly shows how it is problematic and how it isolates the struggles of people of color and the particular challenges non-white GLBTQ people face in a racist, homophobic society. Also, “gay is the new black” (from The Advocate’s headline) is not just odd; it’s also presented through a commodified and distorted representation which is extremely troubling. Who is the speaker? And, most importantly, who is the audience? Once those questions are answered, it is then interesting to look at how class is functioning in this rhetoric. The Advocate is considered a “high brow” magazine and its readers are predominately white upper-middle class. So, the story is constructed through this white, upper-middle class voice and then interpreted by a white, upper-middle audience. With this in mind, it makes sense why one would make black oppression synonymous with gay oppression because one can have his/her views reinforced without ever really having to think about or address the connected elements of systematic social inequality. Obviously, as Woolman points out, this framework is too narrow. I keep asking myself why do we, as a society, continue to group movements together into a rigid box—a box that ultimately prevents the continuity of that movement (whether it’s civil rights, gay rights, women’s rights) and destructs efforts to address and challenge the undeniable flaws of American racial, gender, sexual, & constructs? It’s frustrating. For me, another great point focused on how such language implies that the racial injustices of Jim /Jane Crow like housing discrimination, voter discrimination, racialized poverty, inequalities in institutionalized education, etc. have “ended” and do not exist; as if the struggle for civil rights is “over” and thus racial justice has been achieved. The rhetoric the woman used (“It’s like getting a ticket to the back of the bus”) in order to evoke an emotional response is, like Woolman said, baffling: attending a GLBTQ Easter-egg hunt at the White House and legalized segregation in public transportation is not the same thing. However, she is also glossing over and over-simplifying the Civil Rights Movement (it was much more than refusing to “[sit] in the back of the bus”). It’s interesting how memory and imagery are working here because her audience has to know what she’s referring to and respond in the way she expects them to respond—so I’m wondering if age or generation influences who uses this rhetoric?
ReplyDeleteI do believe racism, sexism, homophobia, classism, ageism (and all of the other “isms”) are linked. But, one has to understand how each is linked and then, and only then, can an honest dialogue occur.
My perception of African American Civil Rights Rhetoric is that one has to be closely associated to understand or walk in the shoes of this upper middle white to understand. I am speechless and I will leave that at that.
ReplyDelete