This is topic Upcoming book claims we've already had a gay president - and he was Republican! in forum Books, Films, Food and Culture at Hatrack River Forum.
quote:Book Questions Abraham Lincoln's Sexuality By Jennifer Viegas, Discovery News
Dec. 8, 2004 — A forthcoming book claims that the sixteenth president of the United States, Abraham Lincoln, was a homosexual, based on evidence ranging from a post-assassination interview with Lincoln's stepmother to a poem about gay marriage written by the Civil War leader.
The book, entitled "The Intimate World of Abraham Lincoln," will be published on Jan. 11 by The Free Press, a Simon & Schuster company. It was authored by C.A. Tripp, associate professor of psychiatry at the State University of New York, and a researcher who worked closely with Alfred Kinsey on studies concerning human sexuality.
Tripp died at the age of 83, just two weeks after finishing the book, which he worked on over the last 14 years of his life.
A spokesperson at The Free Press told Discovery News that Tripp's book would not be available to the media until closer to January, but the L.A. Weekly published sections of the book, on which this article is based.
To argue his case that Lincoln (1809-1865) was gay, Tripp gathered biographical texts contemporary to Lincoln's time, private correspondence, and other books and documents culled from his database of more than 600 Lincoln-related texts, which now are housed at the Lincoln Institute in Springfield, Ill.
The L.A. Weekly also published Lincoln's poem about gay marriage. The poem, which he wrote when he was a teenager, may have been the most explicit of its kind for America in the 1800s. It reads:
"I will tell you a Joke about Jewel and Mary It is neither a Joke nor a Story For Rubin and Charles has married two girls But Billy has married a boy The girlies he had tried on every Side But none could he get to agree All was in vain he went home again And since that is married to Natty So Billy and Natty agreed very well And mama's well pleased at the match The egg it is laid but Natty's afraid The Shell is So Soft that it never will hatch But Betsy she said you Cursed bald head My Suitor you never Can be Beside your low crotch proclaims you a botch And that never Can serve for me"
The book also includes affectionate correspondence between the former president and merchant Joshua Speed, with whom Lincoln shared a bed for four years from his late 20s to early 30s, and an account written by Lieutenant Colonel Thomas Chamberlain, a 19th century historian.
Chamberlain wrote that in Mrs. Lincoln's absence, the president would sleep, share nightshirts, and conduct an "intimacy" with David Derickson, who was captain of Lincoln's bodyguard Company K.
Additionally, the book contains descriptions of Lincoln from his stepmother, who said he "never took much interest in the girls," and poet Carl Sandburg, who wrote that both Speed and Lincoln possessed "a streak of lavender, and spots soft as May violets."
Jean Baker, professor of history at Goucher College and the author of "Mary Todd Lincoln: A Biography," told Discovery News, "I believe that Lincoln engaged in homosexual acts with several men, but this was an era before any understanding of the concept of self-identifying as an homosexual. The word was not even used during Lincoln's life."
As for Lincoln's wife, Baker believes she knew nothing of her husband's purported relationships with men.
"I think that his homosexuality was not noticed by either his wife, or many of his friends, which is one reason why we are only finding out about it today," Baker said.
Tripp was not the first to theorize about Lincoln's sexuality. Charles Shively, University of Massachusetts at Boston professor emeritus of American history, described what he viewed was a homosexual relationship between Lincoln and Speed in his book concerning the private life of poet and naturalist Walt Whitman, whom many researchers also believe was gay.
Conservative groups have denounced the suggestions, and several historians remain skeptical about the Lincoln claims.
Douglas L. Wilson, co-director of the Lincoln Studies Center at Knox College, told the Southern Voice newspaper, "(Lincoln) and Speed were soul mates and all the indications I have seen show they had this close relationship. They were both the same age and in the same situation. They were concerned about this transition from bachelorhood to marriage and all that."
Wilson added, "I can see how that is suggestive and points in other directions but it really indicates that they saw things in very similar ways and had the same emotional take on the world."
Personally, I tend to be skeptical of these kinds of attempts at historical psychoanalysis. But I bet we hear some yelling about this for awhile.
[ December 16, 2004, 02:33 PM: Message edited by: sndrake ]
Posted by WheatPuppet (Member # 5142) on :
Revisionist history, at its best.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
It might even be true. Who knows?
Answer: Nobody.
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
I probably won't ever read this book, since I don't care enough to read speculation on something I don't personally care much about.
But I was already struck by this passage in the article:
quote:The L.A. Weekly also published Lincoln's poem about gay marriage. The poem, which he wrote when he was a teenager, may have been the most explicit of its kind for America in the 1800s.
Poem about gay marriage???
First line of poem:
quote:I will tell you a Joke about Jewel and Mary
Laying aside the question of Lincoln's sexual orientation, is the description of the poem an accurate one? And does the author article (and maybe the book author) underestimate the capacity of 19th century people generally - and Lincoln specifically - for appreciating ribald humor?
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
True. Which means there's no reason to assume he wasn't gay, either. I just don't think it'll make any difference to people hearing about it.
If homosexuality doesn't bother you, this is no big deal. You already know that homosexuals are no less (or more) capable than anyone else.
If homosexuality does bother you, this is in no way a justification for homosexual acts.
It'll be fun reading the horrified commentary, though...
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
It might be [true], but it'll take someone who isn't associated with Kinsey saying it before I take it seriously.
Edit so my post follows mph's.
[ December 16, 2004, 11:48 AM: Message edited by: AvidReader ]
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
I am sure talk radio will be all over that. Seriously, I have all but lost my faith in understanding history.
All writers of History have an agenda. Whether it is a political agenda (like the winning side of a war writing it's version of world history), a social agenda, or a personal agenda, there is always a skewed point of view.
If I was to write the history of my family, it would be very different then my brothers. What we remember and what we choose to put down is affected by our belief system, world view, and values.
How can we trust history? I love history, but it seems there is so much revision. I remember seeing a book (not too long ago) that set out to show one of the Mormon Prophets was homosexual.
Not being a huge fan of Mormonism, I didn't stop to investigate (now I forgot the name of the book), but I remember thinking, "I know many Mormons, and I have a hard time believing a prophet was gay."
Incidentally, for this post I tried to find the book, but I could only find this book.
It is impossible for me to believe that the book about Lincoln was not written with an agenda. It is impossible for me to believe that the naysayers will be driven by an equal and opposite agenda. It will be emotion, not history, that will drive these debates, and frankly, I have too many other things I need to focus on. I could care less either way.
The only thing I can say for sure about Lincoln is that he makes a great scary looking guy in a horror book/movie. Evil Lincolns and possessed kids are the two things that always give me the jeebs!
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
Although many of us might not care much about Lincoln's sexual orientation, it will matter to some people very much.
As Chris mentioned, there will be "horrified commentary" from the usual suspects.
But I think a lot of gays will want this to be true. I know it matters - a lot - to many people with disabilities that Franklin Roosevelt governed the country from a wheelchair (Jeb Bartlett recently reminded us on "West Wing.").
Anyway, I think there will be more than enough impassioned and articulate people wanting to talk about this that there'll be some good entertainment ahead on the news shows for those who like that kind of thing. Posted by Olivetta (Member # 6456) on :
It doesn't have to be an either/or type of thing. I mean, don't Mormons encourage people with homosexual desires to 'close their eyes and think of the [whatever]'? It stands to reason that there could be lots of 'mormosexuals' in the church. Not that it matters at all to me.
Which is why this book gets a big ol' *SHRUG* from me. Who cares if he danced the wicked with the occasional man? It doesn't change anything.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
entertainment? *barfs*
edit: this is in reply to sndrake
[ December 16, 2004, 12:08 PM: Message edited by: mr_porteiro_head ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Maybe Phelps will picket the Lincoln Memorial.
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
I can see Phelps now with signs that read:
"God Hates Lincoln"
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Terrible.
This is the sort of thing that should never see the light of day.
Who knew Lincoln was such a terrible poet? I mean, REALLY, there's no meter, no sense, not even any angst! And rhyming is quite out the door!
16th president, and poetic failure. The shame. The sham!
The chammois. . .
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
This is why you should burn any poetry you wrote as a teenager. It always comes back to embarrass you.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Well, one never knows.. Does it matter? Not really. Lincoln was, for the most part, cool no matter what. But, it is a bit interesting...
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Maybe Phelps will picket the Lincoln Memorial.
I expect that Phelps would be much more likely to picket the cemetary where the author of this book was buried, cursing to himself that he missed the opportunity to picket the man's funeral.
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
For those who are interested in this sort of thing you should go over to Ornery and read posts by Richard Dey. He purports to be a historian, and according to him every famous person who ever lived was gay.
Just as a tangentially related aside- I despise revisionist history which seeks to imprint the values of our society onto historical figures. I recall reviews of a book a few years back which congratulated an author for his "unflinching honesty" in painting Lincoln as a racist because he laughed at and even *gasp* told "darkie" jokes.
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
Yes he was Republican... back in a time when Republicans were generally liberals by comparison to democrats. So that really has no meaning, pollitical parties of the past generally have little relation to political parties of the present. Just thought I'd point that out.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
One way to lend yourself legitimacy is to inject yourself into the story. That's why the Romans invented the story of Romulus, why people love to trace a bloodline back to William the Conquerer, why people believe that Steve Martin is Mormon, why the most popular etymology of "hip" is that it comes from Africa, and why, every once in a while, a group proudly announces that someone you admire was gay.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Jacare, Coming to here to bad-mouth someone behind their back using what I'm pretty willing to bet is a pretty significant misharacterization of their beliefs is not proper behavior for this forum. At least, I really hope it isn't. Leave the high school stuff (with appologies to any high school students) on Ornery where it's apparently acceptable.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:This is why you should burn any poetry you wrote as a teenager. It always comes back to embarrass you.
Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
quote: All writers of History have an agenda. Whether it is a political agenda (like the winning side of a war writing it's version of world history), a social agenda, or a personal agenda, there is always a skewed point of view.
Very good statement, lem. Histories aren't really histories of the time written about so much as they are histories of the people who wrote them. Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
quote:Yes he was Republican... back in a time when Republicans were generally liberals by comparison to democrats. So that really has no meaning, pollitical parties of the past generally have little relation to political parties of the present. Just thought I'd point that out.
Yeah, I titled the thread the way I did for purely shameless, sensationalist, attention-grabbing reasons.
Just for amusement, Alcon, you ought to try making your points at a Republican event right after a speaker has referred to the GOP as the "Party of Lincoln."
We'll be glad to hear about the reaction it gets from whatever parts of you that are left.
[ December 16, 2004, 01:28 PM: Message edited by: sndrake ]
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
Just had a thought. I'll bet the Log Cabin Republicans will be all over this story, although it's not on their website yet. Lincoln is featured on the upper left hand of the webpage.
Couldn't find any info, but I wonder now if they took their name from earlier rumblings about Lincoln's sexual orientation.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
NAW. They like Lincoln, that's all.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"One way to lend yourself legitimacy is to inject yourself into the story."
The problem with this statement is that it suggests that people don't otherwise have that legitimacy.
If you'd like to see why my thoughts on this, there's a thread over on ornery I started called dominant cultural hegemony. Basically, in this sort of case, a way that a minority group shows that it, too, is important to the larger culture which it lives in is by showing that people who have made the larger culture great are part of the minority culture. This is true whether it be blacks, jews, muslims, hindus, asians, latinos, gays, women, etc.
" Leave the high school stuff (with appologies to any high school students) on Ornery where it's apparently acceptable."
No more acceptable there then here. I've said this numerous times. Stop trying to ship the trash that occurs here over to ornery. We don't appreciate it.
Posted by screechowl (Member # 2651) on :
The fact that this book was written or that this thread exists indicates to me how little our tolerance horizons have grown in the past 100 years.
Bottom line: Who cares if was gay or hetreo.
edited for spelling error
[ December 16, 2004, 01:49 PM: Message edited by: screechowl ]
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
I was just wasting time doing some searching around and found a really great article from 4 years ago in a Vermont LGBT publication called "Out in the Mountains." It's about a speech that someone other than Tripp gave on the subject (but is mentioned in the NY Times article). It's a really thoughtful analysis of the issues, but I'll just give you the closing paragraphs:
quote:Kramer’s argument misses the point. True acceptance will come not because the gay community can suddenly use Lincoln as a poster-boy.
Acceptance will come only when all Americans live by the principles he set: with malice towards none, with charity for all.
[ December 16, 2004, 01:51 PM: Message edited by: sndrake ]
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I think it would be nice if people barely blinked if they heard someone was gay. If they just didn't care, if it didn't really even matter... At least there wouldn't be those gay rumour articles in those rags.
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
Syn,
I think that's the point the author in "Out in the Mountains" was trying to make.
Posted by BelladonnaOrchid (Member # 188) on :
I read the name of this thread and thought that you had meant that the actual person who posts in Hatrack (Book) claimed that Lincoln was gay. Now I find that Book has made no such remark!
How preposterous! I propose a 'change-of-thread-name' so that poor, innocent victims are not accused of things that they quite clearly did not do!
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
And I propose people stop using common nouns as screen names to avoid needless confusion.
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
Hmmm....
I missed this bit in the article by Heather Peake:
quote:This isn’t to say homosexuality didn’t exist. To the contrary, it probably flourished in the mid-19th century, as increasing urbanization made it easier for potential partners to meet. Sometimes two men living together meant just that. Lincoln’s predecessor in the White House, James Buchanan, is politely described as our only bachelor president. He shared quarters with fellow Senator William King for 15 years, until King’s death in the 1850s.
Washington insiders knew exactly what kind of relationship Old Buck had with “Nancy” King. Of course, who wants to embrace the weak, ineffectual Buchanan as our first gay Chief Executive? Most historians would like to forget he was Chief Executive at all.
Note: According to online sources, James Buchanan was one of six American presidents born in a log cabin. He was a Democrat.
[ December 16, 2004, 02:40 PM: Message edited by: sndrake ]
Posted by WheatPuppet (Member # 5142) on :
I don't care, one way or another, about Lincoln's sexuality. What I do care about is the "revalation" that Lincoln must be gay because of x, y, and z when it really isn't clear.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Agreed. Following that logic, I know some people who "must" be gay even though they are happily married.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
Am I reading that link correctly to say regardless of Lincoln's orientation, we've had a gay president in Buchanan? Out of 42 men, not much of a surprise. Especially back in the times when the President was given more reverance and privacy.
Posted by JohnKeats (Member # 1261) on :
Question: if someone could prove beyond the shadow of a doubt--a very high order, of course--that a famous historical figure of good rapport such as Abraham Lincoln preferred to express their sexuality with members of their own sex, what are the conditions for releasing that information without having it attached to the 'revisionist' meme?
I mean, I have not read the book and it's been a long time since I've visited the 19th century, so I can't say anything as to the veracity of this specific claim, but I find some of your reactions a bit... defensive, maybe?
We say we don't care because it doesn't change anything. That's pretty true. But some of us believe that oppressive attitudes toward unconventional sexual behaviour throughout history have been among the many lenses through which we have been taught to understand the various histories of our species (see someone's comment on agendas, above).
Can the anti-revisionist see any value in making a discovery such as this? Are we to teach that the Earth was flat up until Columbus' time because that is how the world was understood in its proper historical context?
Would it mean nothing to you that the author of the emancipation proclamation and the Gettysburg address was a man who's passions were so scorned by the culture in which he lived that it could not even have been reasonable to discuss (or historically record) until now? Again, I'm not going to just accept this on faith without having done my own study, and there likely isn't enough evidence to say definitively either way (although there may be such a thing as a retrograde gaydar). But personally I find the possibility intriguing, and I consider the truth of the matter to be worth knowing.
Posted by The (Member # 7134) on :
quote:And I propose people stop using common nouns as screen names to avoid needless confusion.
I couldn't agree more strongly, sndrake. It's high time that spoke up against this sort of tomfoolery!
By the way, I'll be leveying a fee of 5 cents for each use of my name here on the forum. You don't like it, come up with your own definite article.
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
Of all t-e nerve! Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
"I read the name of this thread and thought that you had meant that the actual person who posts in Hatrack (Book) claimed that Lincoln was gay. Now I find that Book has made no such remark!"
This is a joke, right???
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
"The" Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
I've been trying to figure out why this bugged me, but I think Caleb's post got it for me.
I feel like, with this, Lincoln has been forcefully "outed". He did great things in his presidency, and pretty much everyone knows his wife was such a shrew he was unlikely to be too enthused about jumping in the sack with her. But whether or not he had homosexual feelings and/or sex was unimportant to the time, especially in the context of his accomplishments. He didn't crow it from the roof of the White House, so it obviously was not as important as, say, freedom for slaves. This book feels like a tabloid "outing" of a revered celebrity.
Very distasteful for me, in any case. Same for the "outing" of Buchanan. My point is that Lincoln is revered for what he did as President, not for who he slept with, what positions he liked, how many partners at one time, etc. Serving our time's voyeuristic, voracious hunger for this kind of garbage is the only purpose behind this speculation.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Well, I would imagine some people think it helps to destigmatize being gay.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Pretty much. It makes a person who is gay feel so much less like a mutant or a freak. Especially young people. You can just say, "See, not all gays are the way the Right says they are. <Insert famous person here> was gay too!"
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
But it doesn't! That's the point. It serves to say "Hey, Lincoln was gay and flaunted it, so you should too!"
The point is that the accomplishments of the person are of far greater importance than who he sleeps with. Lincoln didn't discuss, as far as I know, *anything* about his sexuality. It was *unimportant* in the context of his purposes. In other words, it might have been important to him personally, but not important in the grander scheme of what he meant to accomplish. By the same token, a young person, no matter what their sexual preferences, should focus not so much on their sexuality but on who they are as people and what the purpose of their lives might be. I believe Lincoln found his purpose with great art and dedication.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Not really, as to a certain extent gayness IS a part of someone's personality... More so than straightness in a way, because it's focused on more nowadays and like gaining too much weight, it can be something a person can fret about a lot. Maybe they thought about it differently. Perhaps, like in ancient Japan homosexuality was a hobby. Most folks, even married folks probably had a piece of cake on the side... Perhaps... And there was no label of homosexuality, just, someone with an odd proclivity. Perhaps it was better that way. Although, Tchiachosky's homosexuality is extremely interesting. It really fueled his music. It's so amazingly diverse! Like Eugene Onegin and Moj Genii, Moj Angel, Moj Drug...
Posted by Jonathan Howard (Member # 6934) on :
quote: This is why you should burn any poetry you wrote as a teenager. It always comes back to embarrass you.
DAMN!
Posted by JohnKeats (Member # 1261) on :
quote:Well, I would imagine some people think it helps to destigmatize being gay.
Precisely.
And of course one could call that an agenda.
And I might agree with jeniwren if this were a book about, say, Billy Graham or Ronald Reagan. But I think there's a statute of limitations of some sort for this kind of thing, because you wouldn't necessarily object to discovering that Charles Darwin flunked science class or that Christopher Columbus had three failed marriages or whatever else. If the point of history or the point of a biography is to attempt to understand the events/motives/outcomes of the past, then of course it would be relevant to know that Lincoln engaged in homosexuality.
I have to be careful here because I can't say that he did, only that conceptually speaking, the fact that it would have been a tabloid story in the 1800's (more likely impeachment and/or lynching, one would think) doesn't mean it's on that level to reflect on it today.
For example, if we accept this theory at face value, is it not relative to our understanding of Lincoln that he would have been motivated to keep this secret well-guarded for the sake of the Union? Why must it be tabloid material that one of our greatest heroes was forced to live in the closet for the sake of his career, and ostensibly the United States itself?
To me this paints a picture of a self-sacrificing hero. Why do you look at it as if it were smut?
[ December 16, 2004, 05:27 PM: Message edited by: JohnKeats ]
Posted by punwit (Member # 6388) on :
We will never know for sure whether he was or wasn't gay. I guess I'm with Sndrake in my perception that it dosen't really matter either way but it will make for some incendiary discussions.
*Ponders if Lincoln spent much time in rapt appreciation of the Washington monument*
Edit to add that the monument wasn't completely erect during Lincoln's Presidency so it might have been chagrin that marked his countenance rather than rapt appreciation
[ December 16, 2004, 05:35 PM: Message edited by: punwit ]
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
Caleb, the thing is, though, that if Buchanan was sleeping in the same bed as a male senator for years and years, it's fairly clear that as long as the sex itself wasn't flaunted in public, it wasn't something that kept him out of office. I propose that it is *our* time that has such an issue with it, not previous times where people were relatively circumspect about their sexuality, regardless of which direction in swung. At the time, it wasn't socially acceptable to say "pregnant" in mixed society. But obviously it was more than okay to BE pregnant.
The gay thing is such a hot button because there is a tug of war. On the homosexual side, correct me if I'm wrong, the desire is to be able (and accepted) to flaunt it as garishly as heterosexuals have come to do. And on the conservatives side, they want not only for homosexuals to keep it in the bedroom, they want heterosexuals to go back there too. And shut the door, please. That isn't to say that sex of all kind should stop -- it means that it has its place, and that place isn't in the middle of Main Street.
Honestly, I've never given it a second thought what Lincoln liked sexually. Think he liked oral sex? Who CARES?? That's not what he was about.
And really, isn't this the same argument that was used to excuse Clinton's indiscretions? It wasn't what he was about, but because he was 'outed', even though it was without a doubt TRUE, it has tainted what his presidency might otherwise have represented.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I wish they hadn't even mentioned that whole thing with Clinton. Who needs those images in their head?
Posted by maui babe (Member # 1894) on :
quote:To me this paints a picture of a self-sacrificing hero. Why do you look at it as if it were smut?
I just re-read the entire thread to see if I could see anyone who suggested this was smut. The overwhelming sense of everyone who's posted here has been a resounding "So what?"... I don't know who you think is calling it smut... Posted by JohnKeats (Member # 1261) on :
And yet it would not be possible to write an accurate historical represtation of Clinton's presidency without exploring the Lewinsky issue in detail.
Of course, you are right in that this is so much more true for Clinton because during THIS period we are the ones who made such a big deal out of it. In fact, Presidential infidelity has only recently become a subject for the masses. Welcome to the information age.
On the other hand, I object very much to your assertion that this is about equality in flaunting. For while it is true that I am often resentful toward heterosexuals that have no appreciation for the ease with which they are able to fulfill their desires and gel with their communities, as well as their penchant for public displays of affection, I consider homosexulity to be a gift to be cherished and understood.
....
And I have to go home now, so I'll have to continue my thoughts later. But it does occur to me to that it's really not possible to understand history outside of the human sex drive. It may have been taboo to say so way back when, but the orgasm is among the most powerful of influences on human events.
Posted by JohnKeats (Member # 1261) on :
Mauibabe,
quote:our time's voyeuristic, voracious hunger for this kind of garbage is the only purpose behind this speculation.
...this is the sentiment I used to arrive at the word smut. I didn't mean to mischaracterize anyone's opinions, I was merely trying to save up on words. Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
I suppose I'll delve a little bit here.
First, the gay rights movement isn't about having equal ability to flaunt. Its about being accepted in the community. Its about having families headed by homosexual couples being given equal respect as families headed by a heterosexual couple, as well as having equal protections. Its about the ability to get into a hospital and see a loved one who is dying. Reducing this to a "flaunting" of sexuality suggests that you don't really understand the gay rights movement.
Secondly, imagine you're a gay student in high school. You've grown up in a school system that acknowledges the contributions of heterosexual couples, such as the Washingtons. But you look around, and don't see any gay people in the curriculum. You think "has anybody like me done ANYTHING for this country?" The answer that many people would have us believe is "No, and if so, who cares?"
It matters a lot to gay people, thats who cares. If gay people have never done anything for the country, for the world, then it forces you back into hiding, as a gay person. But, ahha! if Abraham Lincoln, one of the most revered american presidents, was gay, then perhaps I have some value as a person after all!
THis is the reason we have black history month. Going through american history, until 1850, its hard to find very many blacks who did anything for the construction of the country. For a black student, going to school and never seeing your face on a person you're studying, causes you to devalue your education, and thus accomplish less. Its a hindrance to education, not to see "your" face on people you learn about in school.
This sortof stuff is, perhaps, tabloid, since it explores sexual exploits of famous people. But its rather important to the gay community, to find people in history who have been gay, and be able to say "Yes, we too, can contribute to society."
This post took a long ass time to write because I was doing three things. I apologize if stuff cropped up in between when I started, and now.
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
Paul, that's like saying that a red-headed high school student might look through society's heros and say to himself, "There aren't any red-headed heroes. That must mean there's something wrong with being redheaded. I can never accomplish anything, because redheads never do, as history has shown." But that doesn't make it true. It's only true because they've chosen to believe it.
Kids who get picked on by bullies are markedly different than kids who don't. Kids who don't, do something different. They have a certain "yeah, right, blow me" attitude that says without words, "I'm no victim."
Kids experience all sorts of inadequacies, and it is important as adults to come along-side and help them see that focusing on what makes them (to their viewpoint) weak or inadequate only makes them *more* inadequate. Being unable to walk doesn't make someone worthless or incapable of doing great things. The first step is believing it. That is the inspirational power of stories like "Simon Birch". Being *gay* doesn't either, and believing that is the responsibility of the person. Be great no matter what, find out who you are and what your gifts and purpose are, then do them with everything you have. That is the lesson Lincoln can teach, without a microscope to his bedroom activities.
(Caleb, I have to run, but I will think more on what you wrote and respond later.)
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"Paul, that's like saying that a red-headed high school student might look through society's heros and say to himself, "There aren't any red-headed heroes. That must mean there's something wrong with being redheaded. I can never accomplish anything, because redheads never do, as history has shown." But that doesn't make it true. It's only true because they've chosen to believe it."
And thats exactly the point. What if no red-headed people had ever accomplished anything, and you were born with red hair? And, beyond that, having red hair was a social drawback in some important ways. For example, having red hair meant everywhere you went, people assumed you were going to steal their merchandise, or mug them, and would be significantly less likely to offer you a job, be significantly less likely to help you achieve in school, that if you did get a job people would assume you couldn't do it properly? You would probably try to dye your hair, and pretend you aren't a red head. More importantly, you would view having red hair as a extremely negative aspect of yourself.
Yes, SOME people can overcome this sort of stigmatization and marginalization. But its a significant disadvantage when approaching school, the marketplace, or finding a spouse. It breaks down social strengths. You know that 70% of children born to black parents are born out of wedlock? How much of that has to do with the huge social stigma against blackness in this country?
Likewise, gay people are absolutely vilified in most communities around the country. They are forced to pretend they aren't, and if they do come out, face severe social penalties, and often violence. Several gay students in my small high school were attacked for being gay. And this was in an extremely liberal town and high school. What future damage are we doing to gay people by pretending that being gay matters LESS then being black, when sexuality is such an important part of our day to day lives, perhaps as much as skin color?
Of course, if you think the homosexual act is a sin and damns you to hell if you decide you are gay, and should live out your life that way, then you will think that such social stigmatization is an acceptable outcome for embracing a sinful lifestyle, in much the same way that prison is an acceptable outcome for a thief.
But for those of us who dont' think sexuality is a sin, and that probably includes at least half the country, finding out that gay people HAVE been productive, weakens our willingness to ostracize. If Lincoln was gay, then perhaps my neighbors Billy and Bob could reasonably be good people as well.
I just recently did a whole thing on this over on ornery, in an entirely different context, but the principle is the same.
People from minority groups, within a larger society, face hundreds of little discriminations everyday, that are not active bigotry, but rather just acceptance for the dominant culture over the minority cultures. Some of them matter more then others. In this country, being white, and heterosexual, are the greatest advantages you can have, in terms of being accepted by society. If you aren't of those groups, you have to work HARDER to get equal treatment.
Part of breaking down those barriers, and gaining more equitable treatment, is showing how people that aren't of the dominant culture, have contributed to what makes the dominant culture so good.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
It's a shame that things even have to be like that. It should be obvious that all people can contribute to a better society despite race or sexuality. It should be implicit knowledge.
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
Paul, I'll concede that working toward social change against prejudice and injustice is a worthy fight. I wasn't trying to say that bullies should stay bullies just because victims decide not to be victims anymore. I had a touching, enlightening experience with a lesbian couple this summer while I was travelling. They were wonderful women and I honor them. I would be horrified to discover that someone treated them unkindly simply because of their sexual preferences. So from that perspective, I grant you your point.
quote:You know that 70% of children born to black parents are born out of wedlock? How much of that has to do with the huge social stigma against blackness in this country?
Well, that's certainly one way of looking at it. Bill Cosby was vilified in the media for pointing out that the black people of that statistic are the ones *choosing* to have babies out of wedlock, for choosing *not* to get an education and speak proper English. Today, black people have more rights in this country than they've ever had. Colin Powell might well have been the first black President of the US if he'd chosen to run. How long after the bullies are tamed do they continue to get the blame for the substandard lives of their victims? Cosby's point was not to "blame" the black man and woman, but to kick them in the butt to make better choices.
It is part of the human condition to experience injustice. It happens to us *all*. Life just isn't fair. That doesn't mean we don't strive for better, but it does mean that because it happens to us all, it is no excuse to say "well, because X happened to me, I will never amount to much".
And this is a digression from the point at hand, which is that Lincoln was a great president because he chose to lead the country against itself for what was right. "Outing" him as gay, especially when there can be no proof and no way to refute absolutely it, cannot possibly be good for gays -- it creates a point of identification and relationship that may well be false to give justification for what needs no justifying. And builds yet another wall between gays and those who might otherwise find acceptance and kindness.
It is, in some ways, like those confused school administrators who say students can't use the word Christmas in PA announcements. It can do little more than create overreaction to overreaction.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
" "Outing" him as gay, especially when there can be no proof and no way to refute absolutely it, cannot possibly be good for gays -- it creates a point of identification and relationship that may well be false to give justification for what needs no justifying. And builds yet another wall between gays and those who might otherwise find acceptance and kindness."
In the short term, perhaps, in the long term, not at all. When people can accept that abraham lincoln might have been gay, and it not change their opinion of him as a president, then they'll be able to accept their gay neighbors as people as well.
As far as the whole Cosby bit, while I respect and admire Bill Cosby, I would argue that while there are perhaps black people choosing not to get an education, that the social pressures acting against black people in this country are still astounding, and while its possible to completely overcome them, being black in the US means you start about 2 major steps below being white in teh US, in terms of access to equitable treatment.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Just my take on it, but I don't think Cosby was coming down on blacks who choose not to seek education as much as he was coming down on blacks who choose to glorify ignorance, brutality, misogyny, and crime. He spoke out against both but he seemed the most upset about the second. IMO, anyway.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
In a perfect world, outing Lincoln would result in, at best, indifference, and at worst, mild curiosity. It shouldn't matter.
While I'm not in favor of outing people without their consent, I am in favor of finding out that our heroes were human. Textbooks that paint the founding fathers as paragons of virtue and moral compasses do a disservice to our founding fathers and to each new generation by making their achievements the actions of gods and not men. Look, these people were perfect and good and unblemished, it's almost no wonder they achieved greatness. Schoolchildren can aspire to their level but never reach it, which means it's OK if they can't act like their heroes because the bar is impossibly high. And it makes our present politicians look like insufferable, criminally self-serving morons in comparison.
History bored me to tears during school for just this reason. It wasn't until afterwards, when I started reading history texts that didn't have to pass a state school board's approval, that I got interested in it. You know what? People don't change that much. I loved reading about the backbiting and fighting amongst the Constitutional Congress. I loved finding out that at the time most Americans didn't want to revolt and that some careful propaganda sped things along. I loved reading that the British Tea Party likely came about because colonials that were smuggling tea were afraid they'd be undercut (which finally explained to me why Britain lowering their tea tariffs would enrage us so).
Finding out that our founding fathers were human did not lessen them in my eyes. It made their incredible accomplishments that much more impressive and inspiring.
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
quote:When people can accept that abraham lincoln might have been gay, and it not change their opinion of him as a president, then they'll be able to accept their gay neighbors as people as well.
Sorry, but that's just silly. The possibility that he might have been gay makes no diffference to my opinion of his giftedness as a leader. The aggressive assertion that he *must* have been gay because of this or that "proof" makes me resentful of a political movement that IMO should get a clue. The interactions I have personally with gays are FAR AND AWAY more likely to to influence my feelings about gays than silly speculations on whether or not Lincoln played patty-cake with some of his male friends. At least, my positive feelings about gays. My negative feelings about gays largely come from what I see is an aggressive campaign to legitimize something that is largely none of my business and that I would just as soon not know anything about.
I had a very positive experience with a wonderful lesbian couple this past summer. Last year when our final round of layoffs took one particular co-worker off the payroll, unlike the dozens of others before her, I *cried* when she was let go. I wanted to quit, knowing they'd let her go and not me. She's the only one I felt that way about -- and yes, she's gay. She's a wonderful person and I am glad I worked with her the years I did. These are positive experiences that prove to me that homosexuality does not the person make. I liked these women because of who they were. Personally, I hope they didn't walk away from me thinking, "Wow, that heterosexual woman was so good/kind/thoughtful." My sexual preferences do not make me who I am. I hope my laid-off coworker thinks "I miss working with Jen. She was good to work with." I hope the lesbian couple I met this summer think "I hope I run into that woman we met again. She was interesting, and we had so much in common." I know that's what I think of them.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Jeniwren - if everyone was willing to accept homosexual people for what they were actually like as opposed to labeling them and forgetting them (or labeling them and discriminating against them), it wouldn't be an issue.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"Sorry, but that's just silly."
Silly, yes, but sadly, also true.
Which becomes cause and which effect, I don't know, and perhaps neither is an effect of the other but both are causes. The fact is, though, that without people we know are good being "X" then X must not have any redeeming qualities. One of the quirks of the human mind that absolutely sucks.
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
Chris, I don't disagree. I found it...well, difficult to stomach at first...when I learned that MLK, Jr. was a philanderer. But the more I learned, the more...I don't know, it made it better to know that he wasn't perfect. That God still chose him for a mission and purpose in life that changed the world.
But we know he had sex with women other than his wife. We do not *know* that Lincoln did, and the speculation thereof, is, IMO, unnecessarily divisive if not purient tabloid trash. I'll note too, that it's not particularly PC (again, IMO, appropriately so) to focus on MLK's sexual indiscretions. It's not relevent to his life's work and some people find it detracts from their admiration of him.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
I agree that the book and the subsequent media attention is heavily laced with agenda and is leaning heavily towards pandering. Like I said, if this came out somehow as a proven fact I'd shrug and go "OK" and not worry about it. Lincoln's accomplishments stand on their own. As it is, it's like speculation over David's relationship with Jonathan in the Bible. Impossible to prove, based solely on interpretation of writings that can't easily be read in context, and no big deal anyway.
But I can understand the desire some may have to be able to say, look, one of our greatest Americans was gay. Not just because, as Paul suggests, to give homosexuals inspiration, but to try and force people who condemn homosexuals into confronting their own beliefs by acknowledging a hero.
Over the next few months, if the story doesn't fade away, you can expect to see a bit of "there's no real proof" reasoning and a lot of "how dare you sully our hero with your lies" statements, as if the stigma of homosexuality automatically renders all his other accomplishments unworthy. Finding out Lincoln was gay would in fact lessen him in the eyes of many people. That's the truth that saddens and confuses me.
Posted by WheatPuppet (Member # 5142) on :
I call this particular book revisionist because from what I've learned about it, it appears to be really circumstantial. The poem, having a close male freind, and a few other points. It doesn't coagulate for me.
I also don't buy that there would be something positive coming from decalring Lincoln homosexual. I don't understand the the train of reasoning that goes, "if there are no heroes like me, than I cannot become a hero." I'm left-handed, and I've never come across a left-handed hero. Nobody points that stuff out, but I identify myself as left-handed sooner than I identify myself as of Scandinavian descent, and there are plenty of Scandinavian heroes to look up to. When I was a kid, I was dyslexic--I never came across a dyslexic hero. The lack of heroes like me doesn't change the fact that I think I can achieve great things and be a role model.
As an aside, I always wondered why in Black History Month nobody mentions African history. Black people have been there a lot longer than in the New World, and they did some really awesome things that most people don't know about.
Mansa Musa is probably one of the greatest heroes of West Africa, but nobody talks about him? Why? Nobody seems to know that he was a revolutionary leader who used unprecedented tactics and diplomacy to consolidate the entire western Sahelian zone. Black history month reading should consist of the Epic of Mali.
What about Usman Dan Fodio? A very intelligent Muslim scholar who led to a series of populist Jihads that overthrew the Fulani government and formed one of the most powerful states in late precolonial West Africa. The Sokoto Caliphate? Anyone...?
Posted by ae (Member # 3291) on :
quote:"Outing" him as gay, especially when there can be no proof and no way to refute absolutely it. . .--jeniwren
quote:We do not *know* that Lincoln did, and the speculation thereof, is, IMO, unnecessarily divisive if not purient tabloid trash.--jeniwren
quote:I call this particular book revisionist because from what I've learned about it, it appears to be really circumstantial. The poem, having a close male freind, and a few other points. It doesn't coagulate for me.--WheatPuppet
Rather strong judgements to visit on a book you haven't read.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote: As an aside, I always wondered why in Black History Month nobody mentions African history. Black people have been there a lot longer than in the New World, and they did some really awesome things that most people don't know about.
No doubt, but Black History Month is an American event, and most of the teaching is about American History, so that is why if focuses on events that happened in this country.
Kwea
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
quote:Paul, that's like saying that a red-headed high school student might look through society's heros and say to himself, "There aren't any red-headed heroes. That must mean there's something wrong with being redheaded. I can never accomplish anything, because redheads never do, as history has shown."
quote: I don't understand the the train of reasoning that goes, "if there are no heroes like me, than I cannot become a hero." I'm left-handed, and I've never come across a left-handed hero.
There is no institutionalized prejudice against left-handedness or red-hairedness. Nothing at all like the systemic prejudice against identifying as non-heterosexual.
When one has reasonable expectation that revealing of a particular personal characteristic might lead to marked problems where one works, where one lives, with one's family, etc., then it is a different sort of characteristic.
Someone find out that you are left-handed during a job interview? Not going to make a difference (at least, not systematically). Let a few red hairs escape from your scarf when you are going before the condo association for membership? Not going to matter. But being gay -- yes, it is reasonable to be concerned about discrimination in theses cases, for such discrimination is far from beyond the pale.
The characteristics in the above quotations aren't sufficiently analogous to serve.
[ December 17, 2004, 09:27 AM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
"You know what? People don't change that much."
This is so true. Sometimes, I hear people talk as if homosexuality is a new thing. The only thing that is new about it is that it has become more acceptable in our society. Even that isn't true, since the Greeks and Romans were very open about it.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
quote: Of course, if you think the homosexual act is a sin and damns you to hell if you decide you are gay, and should live out your life that way, then you will think that such social stigmatization is an acceptable outcome for embracing a sinful lifestyle, in much the same way that prison is an acceptable outcome for a thief.
Two things.
1) Believeing active homosexuality is a sin does not automatically mean a person will be mean to gays. That's a stereotype, too.
2) Thieves deserve to go to jail becuase they broke the law, and the law says that's the punishment. Now that the old laws have been struck down, homosexuality is not a crime. Sure, there's some white trash that'll be mean to gays. But they're the same bullies that pick on blacks, Jews, fat people, and anyone they think won't physically attack them. Those fools will never be nice to anyone; they don't know how to accept themselves, let alone anyone else.
Posted by JohnKeats (Member # 1261) on :
Jeni, may I ask why it is that you tell your coworker story in this category: "a positive experience with Lesbians"?
Not to put too fine a point on it, but, how is it any different for hatrackers to learn that there are perfectly normal lesbians that Jeniwren used to work with--and, indeed, much was found in common between them--what is the difference between showing us that story and telling the story of how President Lincoln was a perfectly normal homosexual (let's assume that it's true for the sake of the more important argument here) who managed to save the United States of America? (more subjective reasoning, please excuse)
In your story, the argument is that your friendships are built on the people involved, and sexuality never comes into play because, naturally, that's just none of your business. I can understand that sentiment. And yet, in your mind and even in public, you label and identify these women by their sexuality all the same. Is that because you wish to demonstrate the humanity with which you are able to say 'just be a person and keep the sex out of it because it's not necessary'? For your own story to have purpose, do you see how it's important to our understanding of YOU to know that these women enjoyed a healthy sex life with one another?
Could your story even have meaning without acknowledging their love for one another?
In what way might this also be true for famous historical figures? Is it not intrinsic to our understanding of John Coltrane and Jimi Hendrix that they were drug addicts? What would it mean to us to learn that King James, in addition to introducing scripture to the masses, shared his heart and his flesh with other men?
To me it seems like you're struggling to understand why it should make a difference. And that's simple, really. You can't take sex out of history because sex IS history and history is sex--even the gospels start out with this way!--no one is able to observe history who has not been created by and/or driven by sex. You can't just take sexuality out of a person's identity any more than you can ask us to be color blind. Red hair is intrinisic, and expressed. Left-handedness is nature or nurture, it is expressed. Blackness is intrinsic, it's culture is expressed. Whiteness is intrinsic, its culture exponentially expressed.
Foreignness is endemic, which brings us of course to: Gayness is... what? What's politically correct, here? Gayness is identity? Gayness is choice? Action? Expression? Shame? Awkwardness? Loneliness? Gayness is a lesbian coworker that was a good friend of mine but her sexual preference isn't an important part of our story? We had much in common. President Lincoln had a streak of lavendar. He and I had much in common. We're both Sun Aquarians and Lavender Moons and lions and tigers and bears, oh my, we both spend all our time trying to whip redneck America into behaving like a decent democracy.
Objection sustained!
*takes a seat*
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
quote: even the gospels start out with this way
Not to nitpick, but Mary was a virgin. Kind of an important bit.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
If the book is true, then Lincoln was an adulterer.
Does this reduce his importance or greatness? No.
But it does make me think less of him.
Dagonee
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
quote:But I can understand the desire some may have to be able to say, look, one of our greatest Americans was gay. Not just because, as Paul suggests, to give homosexuals inspiration, but to try and force people who condemn homosexuals into confronting their own beliefs by acknowledging a hero.
Not sure if this is exactly analagous, but a lot of these issues were similar to ones fought out during debate on whether or not to have the FDR Memorial have a statue depicting him in a wheelchair. The memorial was originally designed with no representations at all of FDR in a wheelchair.
Why was this? It wasn't a secret that FDR had partial paralysis from polio. All Washington insiders knew it and the public had a dim awareness of it. FDR couldn't walk - he could stand with braces and crutches. To get around, he used a wheelchair.
The reason for the controversy was that Roosevelt himself prevented any image of himself in a wheelchair from being taken and published. The press - in what was a very different time - cooperated. The "conspiracy" was so successful that there are - I think - only two photos known of FDR in wheelchair.
So there the controversy revolved around whether or not the memorial should continue FDR's own efforts at hiding his disability or - for the sake of historical accuracy, and even "inspiration" - have at least one portrayal of him in his wheelchair.
In the end, as an afterthought, a statue of FDR in his wheelchair was added to the memorial.
Quote from Bob Dole, taken from the article linked to above:
quote:He will surely be recalled by many as a master politician; an energetic and inspiring leader during the dark days of the depression; a tough, single-minded Commander-in-Chief during World War II; and a statesman. No doubt about it, he was all these things. But he was also the first elected leader in history with a disability, and he was a `disability hero.'
[ December 17, 2004, 10:53 AM: Message edited by: sndrake ]
Posted by JohnKeats (Member # 1261) on :
quote:Not to nitpick, but Mary was a virgin. Kind of an important bit.
Was referring to the beginning of Matthew. Mary may reportedly have been a virgin, but there sure was a lot of beggetting and begotting along the way!
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Mansa Musa is probably one of the greatest heroes of West Africa, but nobody talks about him? Why? Nobody seems to know that he was a revolutionary leader who used unprecedented tactics and diplomacy to consolidate the entire western Sahelian zone. Black history month reading should consist of the Epic of Mali.
What about Usman Dan Fodio? A very intelligent Muslim scholar who led to a series of populist Jihads that overthrew the Fulani government and formed one of the most powerful states in late precolonial West Africa. The Sokoto Caliphate? Anyone...?
Yeah WheatPuppet, I wonder about that one too. Seems very odd. West African history is rich in figures that are deserving of admiration, and yet it's virtually never mentioned, at least in this country.
It's staggering to think that what Mansa Musa did to the economies of the countries he passed through while on pilgrimage to Mecca, isn't it?
And the Sokoto Caliphate is one of the best examples ever of a true meritocracy, and yet it's almost unknown, at least in the US.
Posted by JohnKeats (Member # 1261) on :
quote:If the book is true, then Lincoln was an adulterer.
Does this reduce his importance or greatness? No.
But it does make me think less of him.
Dagonee
Thank you, Dag, for illustrating another way in which this topic can be important to us.
Consider Lincoln's position, if you will. If on the one hand he was destined to hold the United States together through his persistance and breadth of vision, and on the other hand he lived in a time when, much like FDR in the story above, one could hardly be successful without portraying a certain image of themselves (rather like today and all other times), do you think less of him because he sold out and lived the double life? Or are you able to think MORE of him because he was able to discern which of his purposes, concerns and covenants were truly binding? Can it be possible that his wife was aware of it? Don't know, haven't read the book or met either one of them. Intuition tells me that the old gal was probably IN on the deal, if not at least marginally aware of it. Nature usually finds a way to express itself.
(Aside: since I pointed it out earlier, I might also mention that Lincoln and I have a number of other similarities. We were both born under an Aquarius Sun in its third decantes. Both born under a Capricorn Moon. And we both share these attributes with none other than George Washington [the original GeeDubya, can I get an amen] himself, who also has earned his share of speculation regarding homosexual tendencies.)
At any rate, poor Lincoln was assassinated (the rednecks always were sore losers) a mere five years after he took office. Why, from the man who wrote and issued the Emancipation Proclamation in a time and place where such a thing meant white boys who had grown up with one another out in the sticks would start spilling each other's blood... who knows what other edicts or initiatives or revelations Lincoln may have been intending to get around to. Sure this is all conjecture, but here's the point: trying to understand who Lincoln really was--regardless of whether we are talking about vegetarianism, sexualities or political parties--is important because these are the stories we use to understand OURSELVES. Do you respect the apostle Paul any less because he had a "thorn in his side"? Does it matter to you what the thorn is? Does it matter to you that Paul believed that God himself had given him the thorn? Do you think the epistles are purposefully vague on this "thorn" of his so that anyone could identify with it, maybe even Presidents who loved men and mankind too much to love them publicly? *shrugs* Who knows.
But I can say this much. For an entire population of people who have never had a significant public role model or leader whose personal struggles are related to their own, the deck is stacked pretty hard against them. Kinda hard to find historical homosexuals with great accomplishments since, historically, known homosexuality pretty much precluded one from being able to have great accomplishments... unless one managed to conform, or appear to conform, to the culture around them.
There is more to this than adultery and tabloid sensationalism. Would you forget Martin Luther King's infidelity, or would you analyze his shame and his drive and try to admire the way he sought his own redemption? Or did he? Fun questions. Wasn't he killed by another sore loser redneck, too?
[ December 17, 2004, 12:21 PM: Message edited by: JohnKeats ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I think less of Martin Luther King Jr. because of the way he did not keep the most important promise of his life. Marital infidelity is the one of the most selfish, cruel things one human being can do to another, and yeah, I think of historical figures if I find out they did it. MLK did some absolutely incredible things with his life, he's less of a person in reality than he would have been if he'd kept his vows.
Posted by JohnKeats (Member # 1261) on :
So, kat, imagine yourself to be a biographical scholar who comes to this quite unpopular opinion about MLK, and say you're the first in your profession to do so. Do you sweep it under the rug, or do you publish? What would you say to those who see no purpose in your revelations?
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
quote: Kinda hard to find historical homosexuals with great accomplishments since, historically, known homosexuality pretty much precluded one from being able to have great accomplishments... unless one managed to conform, or appear to conform, to the culture around them.
The great artists are the exceptions then? Did Michaelangelo actually conform to the culture around him? What about the great military generals who were gay? Or the basic acceptance of it in the Far East for what appears to be the majority of their history. I think you're looking at history pretty shortsightedly if you are looking at homosexuality as a "handicap" in most historical cultures other than the short relatively recent history of the US.
I'm not saying that the personal discrimination that you may personally face on a daily basis, isn't real or wrong. And I think people are always going to be discriminatory about *something*. We haven't risen above our own natures that much. But historically it isn't always necessarily homosexuality that is the unfairly discriminating point either.
AJ
Posted by JohnKeats (Member # 1261) on :
Thanks, AJ. Please consider my comments and reflections to be about my understanding of Western Civilization and the culture whose history with which I am most familiar: our own.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Michaelangelo *is* Western Civilization and so is Alexander the Great (no I haven't seen the movie, I've read my history books...)as well as huge number of other gay and bisexual people in the history books though I'm just picking a few of the biggies for simplicity. Toss Richard the Lion Heart in for good measure and you've got a pretty wide time range, from the beginnings of Western Civilization to the Rennisance.
We might be able to blame our current prudery on the Puritans. I think they are the ones who invented bundleboards...
AJ
[ December 17, 2004, 12:44 PM: Message edited by: BannaOj ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Bundleboards? *goes to google*
Banna, you lost me. I can't find a good explanation on Google.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:do you think less of him because he sold out and lived the double life? Or are you able to think MORE of him because he was able to discern which of his purposes, concerns and covenants were truly binding? Can it be possible that his wife was aware of it?
One of the many things Lincoln is known for is his honesty. Breaking solemn marriage vows (which he did whether his wife knew about the affairs or not) is not honesty.
Certainly it is worth examining the implications of a system that causes even someone known for their honesty to lie and break promises.
But, Lincoln broke the promise. Moral rules about truth telling are at their most important when the choice is difficult.
So while those difficult choices may make it easier to understand and "forgive" someone who makes the immoral choice, especially choices that may be induced by an aspect of society considered unfair or repressive, they do not excuse the behavior nor make it less blameworthy.
[ December 17, 2004, 01:01 PM: Message edited by: BannaOj ]
Posted by JohnKeats (Member # 1261) on :
quote:So while those difficult choices may make it easier to understand and "forgive" someone who makes the immoral choice, especially choices that may be induced by an aspect of society considered unfair or repressive, they do not excuse the behavior nor make it less blameworthy.
Nor should you consider me an apologist on the matter. Lincoln himself probably felt the same way, though if this book is to believed he obviously was of more than one mind on the subject.
Of course, it is not our place to condemn or forgive him anyway, is it?
[ December 17, 2004, 12:58 PM: Message edited by: JohnKeats ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
That's why "forgive" was in scare quotes.
Dagonee
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Oooh this one is good and even has poetry from the time...
Banna, it is highly entertaining when you get on kicks.
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
quote:it does occur to me to that it's really not possible to understand history outside of the human sex drive. It may have been taboo to say so way back when, but the orgasm is among the most powerful of influences on human events.
Caleb, do you *really* mean this? If so, could you give examples of what you mean? I'm hard pressed to see how orgasm shapes human events, except as it regards possible resulting children. (And let's please leave Clinton's blue dress out of it too, since I am really looking for *positive* results of orgasm on human events. Negative results can be had easily enough, but I thought we were looking for why this book has any good purpose to exist.)
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I think theories of history say more about historians than they do about history.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
Thanks for the links, AJ. I really liked that.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote: think less of Martin Luther King Jr. because of the way he did not keep the most important promise of his life. Marital infidelity is the one of the most selfish, cruel things one human being can do to another, and yeah, I think (less) of historical figures if I find out they did it. MLK did some absolutely incredible things with his life, he's less of a person in reality than he would have been if he'd kept his vows.
I could not agree with this more.
And as to your point Caleb, as to whether or not you keep it silent - you investigate to find out if it's true before you publish it. With MLK, that was possible, with Lincoln it's not - there is a substantial gap in the years between his death and the publication of this book.
I haven't read the book (and neither has anyone else, since it hasnt' been published yet) but from what is in that article we're talking about some pretty flimsy evidence.
Not to say the guy shouldn't have published it - he can publish any opinion about Lincoln he wants to, free speech and all that. It should however, be treated as the unsubstantiated opinion of one man, and certainly we shouldn't be rushing out to re-write the textbooks our kids read in school.
Of course, being one of those conservatives that jeniwren mentioned that want the door shut no matter what your orientation is, please - I don't want the sexual orientation of Lincoln to be in an elmentary textook regardless. I don't think the fact that MLK was an adulterer should be in an elementary textbook either. I think we should teach history to kids without telling them what people did in their bedrooms.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)