From: twpierce@amhux1.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.african.american
Subject: Re: Black Agenda and Homosexuality issue
Date: 14 Apr 92 19:15:48 GMT
Organization: Amherst College, Amherst, MA

In article <1992Apr13.230940.1@wharton.upenn.edu> wrightb@wharton.upenn.edu writes:

>For those of you who would like to mix the issues of gay rights
>with the problems that face the BLAK COMMUNITY I say this: One
>issue at a time folks! Gay rights and the issues of the blak community
>have nothing to do with each other. First let's try to overcome the
>problems of our community then for those of you that want to you can
>deal with the gay issue at your leisure.These issues do not go hand in hand
>so stop the madness or folx wiil get so caught up in other issues that the 
>main topic will be forgotten and once again we get side tracked by that 
>father of liars (and we all know who this is). It's just another barrier
>being erected to get our minds off fighting for the rights we deserve and
>reaching our main objective.

I uncovered the following article in one of my classes this week.  I
found it rather enlightening, especially considering that it appears
to have been published over thirty years ago.  Its title is partially
chopped off of my Xeroxed copy, but it appears to be

 A LETTER TO OUR REVOLUTIONARY BROTHERS AND SISTERS ABOUT THE WOMEN'S
	       LIBERATION AND GAY LIBERATION MOVEMENTS:

          During the past few years, strong movements have developed
     among women and among homosexuals seeking their liberation.
     There has been some uncertainty about how to relate to these
     movements.
          Whatever your personal opinions and your insecurities about
     homosexuality and the various liberation movements among
     homosexuals and women (and I speak of the homosexuals and women
     as oppressed groups), we should try to unite with them in a
     revolutionary fashion.  I say "whatever your insecurities are"
     because, as we very well know sometimes our first instinct is to
     want to hit a homosexual in the mouth and want a woman to be
     quiet.  We want to hit the homosexual in the mouth because we're
     afraid we might be homosexual; and we want to hit the woman or
     shut her up because we're afraid that she might castrate us, or
     take the nuts that we might not have to start with.
          We must gain security in ourselves and therefore have
     respect and feelings for all oppressed people.  We must not use
     the racist type attitude like the White racists use against
     people because they are Black and poor.  Many times the poorest
     White person is the most racist, because he's afraid that he
     might lose something, or discover something that he doesn't have;
     you're some kind of threat to him.  This kind of psychology is in
     operation when we view oppressed people and we're angry with them
     because of their particular kind of behavior, or their particular
     kind of deviation from the established norm.
          Remember, we haven't established a revolutionary value
     system; we're only in the process of establishing it.  I don't
     remember us ever constituting any value that said that a
     revolutionary must say offensive things towards homosexuals, or
     that a revolutionary should make sure that women do not speak out
     about their own particular kind of oppression.  Matter of fact
     it's just the opposite: we say that we recognize the women's
     right to be free.  We haven't said much about the homosexual at
     all, and we must relate to the homosexual movement because it's a
     real thing.  And I know through reading and through my life
     experience, my observations, that homosexuals are not given
     freedom and liberty by anyone in the society.  Maybe they might
     be the most oppressed people in the society.
          And what made them homosexual?  Perhaps it's a whole
     phenomenon that I don't understand entirely.  Some people say
     that it's the decadence of capitalism.  I don't know whether this
     is the case; I rather doubt it.  But whatever the case is, we
     know that homosexuality is a fact that exists, and we must
     understand it in its purest form: That is, a person should have
     freedom to use his body in whatever way he wants to.  That's not
     endorsing things in homosexuality that we wouldn't view as
     revolutionary.  But there's nothing to say that a homosexual
     cannot also be a revolutionary.  And maybe I'm now injecting some
     of my prejudice by saying that "even a homosexual can be a
     revolutionary."  Quite on the contrary, maybe a homosexual could
     be the most revolutionary.
          When we have revolutionary conferences, rallies and
     demonstrations there should be full participation of the gay
     liberation movement and the women's liberation movement.  Some
     groups might be more revolutionary than others.  We shouldn't use
     the actions of a few to say that they're all reactionary or
     counterrevolutionary, because they're not.
          We should deal with the factions just as we deal with any
     other group or party that claims to be revolutionary.  We should
     try to judge somehow, whether they're operating sincerely, in a
     revolutionary fashion, from a really oppressed situation.  (And
     we'll grant that if they're women, they're probably oppressed.)
     If they do things that are un-revolutionary or
     counter-revolutionary, then criticize that action.  If we feel
     that the group in spirit means to be revolutionary in practice,
     but they make mistakes in interpretation of the revolutionary
     philosophy, or they don't understand the dialectics of the social
     forces in operation, we should criticize that and not criticize
     them because they're women trying to be free.  And the same is
     true for homosexuals.  We should never say a whole movement is
     dishonest, when in fact they're trying to be honest, they're just
     making honest mistakes.  Friends are allowed to make mistakes.
     The enemy is not allowed to make mistakes because his whole
     existence is a mistake, and we suffer from it.  But the women's
     liberation front and gay liberation front are our friends, they
     are potential allies, and we need as many allies as possible.
          We should be willing to discuss the insecurities that many
     people have about homosexuality.  When I say "insecurities," I
     mean the fear that they're some kind of threat to our manhood.  I
     can understand this fear.  Because of the long conditioning
     process which builds insecurity in the American male,
     homosexuality might produce certain hangups in us.  I have
     hangups myself about male homosexuality.  Where, on the other
     hand, I have no hangup about female homosexuality.  And that's
     phenomena in itself.  I think it's probably because male
     homosexuality is a threat to me, maybe, and the females are no
     threat.
          We should be careful about using those terms that might turn
     our friends off.  The terms "faggot" and "punk" should be deleted
     from our vocabulary, and especially we should not attach names
     normally designed for homosexuals to men who are enemies of the
     people, such as Nixon or Mitchell.  Homosexuals are not enemies
     of the people.
          We should try to form a working coalition with the gay
     liberation and women's liberation groups.  We must always handle
     social forces in the most appropriate manner.  And this is really
     a significant part of the population, both women, and the growing
     number of homosexuals, that we have to deal with.

                                              ALL POWER TO THE PEOPLE!

                                                   Huey P. Newton,
                                                   SUPREME COMMANDER
                                                   Black Panther Party
-- 
____ Tim Pierce                / "Someone here suggested blue square badges for
\  / twpierce@amherst.edu      /  straights.  Maybe we should try mauve
 \/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) /  heptagons?" - Damian Cugley, on soc.bi