From: jarvis@psych.toronto.edu (Brian Jarvis)
Subject: Re: Year of the Queer
Organization: Department of Psychology, University of Toronto
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 04:54:54 GMT

In article <1993Jan11.225625.17635@spdcc.com> rdonahue@spdcc.com (Bob Donahue) writes:
>jarvis@psych.toronto.edu (Brian Jarvis) writes:
>>>->rogerk@queernet.org (Roger B.A. Klorese) writes:
>>>->>It is the observation of queerdom's most sacred holiday, the anniversary
>>>->>of the Stonewall riots.
>>>->>EVERY CITY IN THE WORLD should observe it on the last Sunday of June.
>
>>"Queerdom's most sacred holiday?"  Who is included in this "queerdom"?
>>Who isn't?  As I think of Stonewall as a significant historical fact and
>>not as some sort of sacred holy day, I assume I'm not to be included
>>in "Queerdom".
>
>>The anniversary of Stonewall has very little importance in my life.  It
>>is, to me, an American event, something that happened in a foreign country.
>
>	Right - as if the US never influenced events in Canada, or
>Toronto...

You wrote that, *and retained it*, even after reading my line below?

>>Yes, the social effects and implications have crossed borders, but an
>>event much more relevent to me is the repeal of the anti-sodomy laws in
>>Canada.  Should I now announce that the whole world should celebrate
>>this event on a single day?  Of course not:  the event has no importance
>>to much of the world's population.

>	Nor is it queerly-oriented.  Contrary to popular belief,
>sodomy can be practied by any two adults.  While sodomy laws are
>in fact used against non-hets, it is by no means the only tool
>used to oppress us.

So?  Neither were police raids.

I have stated my personal belief that the repeal of the antisodomy laws
is more important to me than Stonewall was.  You don't appear to believe
this.  Why?

>	Stonewall doesn't mark a significant bestowal of "rights"
>on us from the str8 community (which should have been there all along),
>Stonewall represents the genesis *of* the community, and of people
                                       ^^^
>coming to the realization that they *should* be proud.

The genesis of yours perhaps, and quite likely mine, but it's a person
with a very narrow view of the universe that declares that his own
personal experience must automatically be that of Everyman Q. Public,
no matter where on the planet he may be located.

"The community" is not a monolith; you've said that before over the
years.  Why do you disallow the concept in this instance?


>  It doesn't matter
>if that event happened in Java or Greenwich Village (would you as a
>Muslim, bemoan everything about your culture because it occur in
>a foreign  country?).

I never said it did.  What I said was that just because it occurred
and had a profound effect on one locality doesn't necessarily make it
portable to everywhere else.  Earth is not a trivial case.


>>As it happens, Toronto celebrates its Pride Week in the days leading up
>>to the march on the 4th Sunday of June.  It works for us:  the weather
>>is typically good and it's a good warm-up to the Canada Day week-end.
>
>	Ah - so GBLO* Pride is an appetizer for another party...

Not particularly.  Many people hereabouts start their vacations during
the Canada Day week-end, heading off to cottage-country in the Muskokas.
If Pride Day was any week-end after Canada Day, a large chunk of Toronto
wouldn't be around to see it.  (And in case anyone is thinking it, Canada
Day has been set for 125 years; don't bother suggesting changing it. B{))

>>I'd be just as content to have it in July or August.  If you were to come
>>to Canada and suggest that we permanently fix the date of our march to
>>co-incide with American marches celebrating an event in the U.S. which
>>had a profound effect on American gay culture, what do you think would
>>be my response?

>	Well, if there were a similar event in Canada to commemorate,
>you could suggest that we follow your lead.

Quite frankly, I find that thought abhorant (sp?).  What I've been saying
all this time is that these things are not as portable as many would
think because the world is no where as simplistic as that.  If we had
a similar event to offer, it would likely be as silly for me to trumpet
it in the U.S. as it would to trumpet it in Harare; it might work, but
the automatic assumption that of course it will should be heavily
rethought. 

  As there isn't, in
>the sense of it being truly GBLO*-oriented (as opposed to of GBLO*-interest,
>like your sodolmy law repeal), or GBLO*-instituted (as opposed to any
>day commemorating str8s "getting with the program" which is more of
>a str8 pride day than a GBLO*-pride day) and occurring before 1969...
>
>	Pride isn't a USocentric thing - that's why Roger put it
>in global proportions.

No, pride isn't.  That's why I suggested using it below.  However the
assumption that the whole world knows about Stonewall and owes its
existance as a community as a whole to this singular event and should
therefore cheerfully accept the 4th Sunday of June as the official
commemoration of the event is a simplistic and superficial assessment.

>>while Stonewall might have importance to you and me, it is quite
>>meaningless in many other areas of the planet; attempts to explain to these
>>areas why they should time their Pride Days to co-incide with an event
>>in our culture should be met with derisive laughter.
>
>	No, comments like this should be met with derisive laughter.
>The idea of people *any* people somewhere *anywhere* standing up
>for themselves in the climate that existed when Stonewall occurred
>is very bold and brave.

No one ever said that standing up and taking claim of one's society should
be met with laughter.  Read for content:  Stonewall is not the end-all,
be-all for all gays, lesbians & bis everywhere on the planet.  The
assumption that it is and that the world's GLBs should bow in reverence
on the Holy Day is ludicrous.  It is a part of the global culture and
history but only a part, and the size of its contribution varies from
region to region.

> 					 I'll bet that if Stonewall
>had happened in Europe or anywhere but the U.S. - you wouldn't have
>a complaint.  

An unfounded remark which discredits and devalues your article.  As a
courtesy, I'll assume you made it after a bad day at the office and
don't really believe I think such stupidity.

>>							  Stonewall should
>>be noted and remembered as part of the process that got the ball rolling,
>>but not by excluding and ignoring the victories since then.  Call me naive
>>(no doubt you already have) but I've always taken the name Pride Day at
>>face value:  it's about gay pride, which is more than just Stonewall.  

>	If we don't know where we've been we cannot know where we
>are going.  

What do you think my paragraph says?  I'm not suggesting that we
erase Stonewall from the history books.  I'm stating quite clearly that
Stonewall was an event in an ongoing continuum of events.  As Steve Dyer
wrote, deification of the date is probably not a step forward.
[Steve, feel free to blast me if I've taken entirely the wrong meaning.]

>>I'm all for having a global day of celebration and display of unity,
>>but you'd better offer something to rally around.  Gay pride would do it
>>for me.  Stonewall by itself would not.
>
>	Where and when did "gay pride" become an 
>objectively identifiable concept?  At what point did "we"
>become a community capable of group pride?  To celebrate it,
>we need to identify it and its roots.  Well, let me rephrase
>that, to celebrate it, unshallowly, we need to identify it and
>its roots.  Not the exact root - I'm sure there isn't one.

*Exactly*.  There's more than one.  And in more than just one country
and more than just one culture.  Heralding Stonewall as the centrepiece
to gay cultural celebration in the form of Pride Day for the entire
planet, sans qualifications, is just silly and unworkable.

>But any root.  Stonewall is documented, it certainly had an
>incredible effect.  The dates for these celebrations or theones
>that the other late-comers emulate were chosen to recognize Stonewall,
>and not Canada Day as some might suspect...

Sorry, I cannot and will not subscribe to a notion that history, lives
and cultures are so fixed that turnabouts in society and community
can be so easily pinned to a singular place and a singular day.  Even
the event we bandy about under the label "Stonewall" had a history before
and after.  As to the event itself, while it may be your cause celebre
for Pride Day, my life and the lives around me are more complex than
that.

Being gay in western society, Stonewall is a part of my local GLB culture
and heritage; I 've never denied that.  But so are Cherry Beach, the
Bath Raids, David Peterson and Pierre Trudeau.  More recently, I've
added names like Svend Robinson, Glen Murray, Jim Ferry, Graham Haig &
Josua Birch, Michael Leshner & Michael Stark and their accomplishments 
which have and continue to enrich my life and those of my friends.
Never heard of them? That's fine:  they're part of my culture but not
necessarily part of yours.  I celebrate them in my Pride Day, along with
memories of Stonewall and a vast number of other events and people. 

Should the whole planet bow in remembrance and unreserved honour
for Stonewall on the appointed Holy Day?  Is the whole planet obliged to?  
I still say we have no right to even assume that it is a big a deal
to the rest of the world as it might be to you or me.  We don't all
march to the same drum, no matter how many hand-waving appeals to
community loyalty and solidarity we make.

Each region on the globe has different needs.  Let them make their
own decisions and let them plot their own courses.  If they wish to
follow our paths, fine.  If they don't, let them go.  If they wish to
have a Stonewall Day instead of, or in addition to, a Pride Day, let
them; but don't deride them should they choose their own symbols
instead of yours.

--

If acceptance of diversity is so important to the gay community,
why is the idea of allowing variable levels of importance about
Stonewall such a hot issue?  Why does the idea of unclean thoughts
about the Holy Day strike some as heresy?  It smacks of the flag-burning
rhetoric of the past couple of years:  yes, we like freedom of speech,
but you can't touch *that* symbol!  It's sacred!

I think I can handle being excommunicated from "Queerdom".

Whose .sig went something like "Sacred cows make good hamburger?"

Brian
-- 

Brian A. Jarvis,          Rm. 4026, Sidney Smith Hall, Dept. of Psychology,
jarvis@psych.toronto.edu  University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
System Administrator      M5S 1A1  (416) 978-3948