If you'll allow me to be polemical, for once in my life, I'd like to venture a hypothesis about the state of American culture (past, present and future) as it relates to the Nazi idea of gum chewing.
America was founded as a quest for freedom and identity. Perhaps at first this was confined to a political or politico-religious venture, it has come over time to be a spiritual or socio-political-egomaniacal quest as well.
At the time our country was founded Britain was known for its colonial and industrial might, France was known for its politics, Germany (though organized into a loose unity by Napoleon) fought throughout the modern age to have the identity of a philosophical juggernaut. We see this very evidently in someone like Schleirmacher. In their quest for identity Germany wound up traveling down the long, hard road of Nazism, as we both know.
Now America is currently in a position of providing culture for the entire world: we're like a vending machine that way. However, we're still struggling for our own identity. As a country we failed to cope with the existential struggle. We have television shows that help us by demonstrating empirically what "The Real World" is and how we should be in relation to it. As a country we have a generic monopoly over world culture, though insofar as we design and dictate it, create the paradigms by which other cultures are rendered inferior, we have no "culture" of our own. We may have had one at some point, I'm not sure; but certainly we can both agree that what America is doing now is working on its "social skills" in lieu of having any intrinsic necessity to exist. In fact we have entered into such a multi-faceted and universalized mindset that any attempts to claim an identity for ourselves immediately falls under the category of hegemony and is swiftly rendered "politically incorrect." If America wants to have an identity, and it certainly must if we want to remain on top - and if there's anything America refuses to be it's SECOND in any capacity - we will impose kulture upon ourselves, quite possibly along Nazi lines.
We have too many personalities at the moment, and there are many who want to point to this as a positive thing (myself included), however that it's pulling us in every cardinal direction and threatens to draw and quarter us.
The real question for the future is, how can a country survive as a body when internally its citizens are incapable of giving themselves identities and personal freedoms enough to allow them to overcome the existential crisis. We're looking for some gum, if only to hold us together. If we have any gum currently, it's already lost its flavor and a new piece will have to be acquired if we are going to persist in chewing.
Our identity qua identity is that of the Madonna in Dick Tracy. We are the faceless man who is actually a woman under all those baggy clothes, the incognito bad guy who the hero lusts after. Like Madonna, we are not only a woman, but a virgin-whore who is getting old and losing her good looks but persists in trying push the envelope until she gets trampled and replaced.
As a country we've succumbed to international pressures and have begun to cut our own concept-albums; we've broken down and ventured into the land of Techno; we've created scandal for scandal's sake if only to stay in the spotlight just a little bit longer. When one can look around and see that one's country is, in actuality, Madonna, it's time to get off the boat. It's possibly that our country can save face, or at least get the press' attention by changing its name to an unpronounceable glyph - but that also means all the rest of the albums it cuts are bound to suck real hard and not compare at all to the groundbreaking work upon which its career was founded (and depended). That's right, my friends, we're an over-the-hill rockstar.
In the words of Freddie Mercury, "We're over the hill and looking for love." The fat is in the fire, but fat, as we all know, was, if nothing else, the prototype for gum itself.
Just something to chew on for a while....
This is an open letter to the community. I am an officer of LGBTU, and this letter represents my opinions of what I have seen as a trend. It has not been endorsed by LGBTU nor am I speaking for the group. The purpose of this letter is to express my concern over recent events that have put LGBTU under public scrutiny. Without going into detail, I will just briefly explain what I mean. From the beginning of the year, with the Westboro Baptist Church's threat to protest, it seems to me that LGBTU has been forced into a larger visibility. As an officer, I have felt that throughout this year, LGBTU has been put into a reactionary position, and we have devoted much time to dealing with this increased publicity.
Since Fred Phelp's threat to come, LGBTU was immediately put in the spotlight with a cover story in the Review. While I appreciate the coverage that the Review has been doing recently, which may have been lacking in the past, it has in no way been one of our goals this year to increase visibility. And this is exactly the point. In this delicate time period, most of our energies go towards developing goals and programs for the year, like Coming Out Week and community building. But threats that have put us into a scrutinized position have made us focus away from our goals, especially in the limited time we have in meetings. We have had to spend most of our time responding to such threats as the Westboro Baptist Church. I feel as an officer that LGBTU must put its members first, to care for their safety and emotional well being. Every year a new set of first-years join the group, many coming out for the very first time. The coming out process is a delicate time for many. LGBTU tries (and granted not always succeeds) in creating a community built around support for the social, political, educational and emotional well beings of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and questioning students, as well as those who may not feel they fit into these categories. Also in our charter, which I helped rewrite two years ago, is a commitment to interacting with other student organizations as well as the town community. This year I have found addressing these goals to be very difficult.
It seems, as well, that LGBTU's position on this campus has been utilized as a tool for people's individual agendas. As officers, we have had to deal with rumors that say we are against the chartering of the BD/SM group. LGBTU as an organization had not put out any opinion whatsoever on the chartering of the group. But, since these rumors were apparently being spread, we did hold a general meeting where we discussed it. The result of this was an endorsement by LGBTU for the chartering of the BD/SM group. The letter should appear somewhere in this paper. But again our position was reactionary. We had to clear our names of these rumors.
In addition, many incidents by members of the organizations have possibly offended some in the Oberlin community. While LGBTU may push it in some people's minds, the members of this organization, like all, have a right to speak anything they want. This in no way means that LGBTU as an organization, and even broader, LGBT community members and their allies, share these sentiments or opinions. Even this letter may not be agreed upon, but I have the right to speak it. LGBTU is a student organization, and therefore there is a process for which LGBTU endorses. We have, in reaction, implemented a number of guidelines that the organization uses in trying to prevent such instances.
To broaden these points, I hope that this letter helps people recognize what situations LGBTU has had to deal with. There is not enough time in our weekly meetings to attempt to achieve our goals when we have had to react to so much. Matthew Shepard's death, too, has given LGBTU another blow. At the tail end of Coming Out Week, a time of deep affirmation and community building, Shepard's death reopened some deep wounds for many. For me it seemed that everything we did in the previous week was null and void. And this too has put us into the spotlight at our most vulnerable. The recent events on this campus have been an attempt by the organization at dealing with the immediate needs of its members. It in no way should be seen as a lack of commitment to our broader goals.
As I see it, the organization is very excited about the future, especially in light of the Hewlett grant. It is my hope, then, that the community better understands LGBTU, our processes, our stated goals and therefore respects our space and method in attempting to fulfill our goals. I want to reiterate that this assessment is my own. In my own opinion, the members of LGBTU are very committed as well as critical towards LGBTU. And as an officer I think we do attempt to make those commitments and criticisms central in the evolution of our organization. Please e-mail us if you would like to send comments or ask specific questions.
I was being asked why it Mattered. "Why does it matter? Why are you asking him?" Him was Professor Blodgett and what I was asking was how he accounted for the silence of white historians on the question Jefferson's relationship with his black slave, Sally Hemmings. Mainly, why did it take DNA evidence to convince the prominent white historians that a relationship had occurred when so much other evidence already existed? Why did a relationship that was common knowledge not receive Official recognition?
As I tried to explain why it did matter, another woman from the back of the class jumped in. "Isn't it obvious? They were protecting their hero." This was true but it avoided the deeper "why." Why did white historians need to protect their hero by denying the importance of the Hemmings - Jefferson relationship? Underlying this protection is a larger need to maintain white purity. If you are white you are supposed to be right, your ideals are supposed to be clean, and your are not to have relations with blacks -at least not if you're Jefferson.
Truly, not all historians have been set on denying Jefferson's relationship with Hemmings. Professor Blodgett was quick to point out that Dumas Malone, an eminent Jefferson historian, carefully documented Jefferson's whereabouts during the times Hemmings conceived. He was home in Monticello each of the time periods nine months before her births. But yet Malone did not explicitly write about a Jefferson-Hemmings relationship. Perhaps Jefferson's liaisons made Malone uncomfortable.
Some historians have been captive of stronger feelings. Professor Blodgett also mentioned a conversation he had over lunch about Hemmings with another eminent Jefferson historian, Merrill Peterson. Blodgett asked Peterson if he thought the Hemmings relationship made Jefferson more human. Merrill responded negatively saying that no, it took away from his greatness.
Motivating the protection of Jefferson was the fear that his greatness would be diminished if it was known that he fucked a black woman, a slave. Jefferson's character wouldn't be the pure white thing some people thought it should be. Blackness, for them, somehow diminishes whiteness.
Perhaps this flaw in a mythological American figure (and the way that flaw has been protected) will allow people to see that white society isn't as "Pure" as some would have it be. The potent question before us (and I mean us white people) is: why must the purity of whiteness be defended? Why is it more precious than blackness? Why must it take DNA evidence for historians, white historians, to acknowledge a relationship?
Everyday, black people in America must contend with racial mixing that is part of America and part of the 'black community.' Yet many in the 'white community' continue to maintain the purity of whiteness. For them old unspoken equations hold true: greatness = whiteness = american!
Professor Blodgett remarked that perhaps it was easier for our generation to accept the flawed actions of Presidents, easier than it has been for past generations. Perhaps it is. For us, right now, it isn't enough, to look back on how history has been written and sign and say "they were just defending their hero." Not if we are to be people actively thinking. Some questions should penetrate us: Why does is take DNA evidence to prove "black" descendants were related to "white" Jefferson? Why is greatness linked with pure whiteness? Why is whiteness overvalued? Why haven't white historians spent time writing on Sally Hemmings; at least wondering how she lived and how slavery trapped her in a relationship -the frustrating things we cannot know. Why have most white historians not even attempted to protect her? These are questions for our generation, questions alive even at Oberlin.
'While it has become "cool,"' bell hooks has written, 'for white folks to hang out with black people and express pleasure in black culture, most white people do not feel that this pleasure should be linked to unlearning racism.' Racism here isn't just some vague abstract bad thing, it is the inability to question our whiteness; it is the inability to look history in the eye and see Jefferson's relationship with Sally Hemmings and more, it is the inability to see the significance of the way that relationship for so long has been overlooked or denied.
What stops us from seeing that greatness and whiteness are not the same thing? This is the Jefferson riddle. Answering it requires undoing the way whiteness, for such a long time, has been protected. That undoing begins with a daily questioning of what whiteness has meant and what's been carefully kept our of that meaning.
We all must wrestle with the contradictory values and social behavior of those who have lived here before us. And each day we must each in our way come to terms with what this means to our own identity. Doing this, perhaps we will discover what "America" really is. In this sense, what William Freehling writes of Jefferson is quite correct: "He succeeded, as such men will, in starting something destined to get out of hand."
This essay is meant to address the specific criticisms raised by the responses in last week's Review. After reading the responses, there were several points in various arguments that I need to address and refute.
One, the letter does not ignore or marginalize the queer people of color community. This point was made in four of the responses which I will quote.
"This completely erases the existence of queer people of color, implying that queer equals white...," -Heintz, et al.
"Partridge's letter...particularly denies the experience of queer people of color," -Owens.
"The exclusion in your letter of queer folk of color was duly noted. (You may not see us, but we see you.)," -Polk, et al.
"The letter also ignores the experiences of queer people of color...," -Vimalassery.
These points are invalid because the essay contains a statement that directly contradicts this charge. To quote, "[a]fter all, homosexuality knows no racial or ethnic bounds,...." Unless the only race or ethnic group on this earth is Caucasian, which is blatantly false, then the point raised by the first four quotes is invalid due to the fifth quoted statement. A possible counter to this criticism is that sure the existence of queer people of color was acknowledged, but their experiences were not discussed. This is entirely true, but it misses the point. The essay was not about the queer community, or the queer people of color community. This fact leads into the next point that needs to be clarified.
Three responses argued that the essay sought to address racism within the queer community, one did so explicitly and two implied the same argument. Again I will quote the specific points that comprised this argument.
"John Partridge's essay... claimed to address racism within the queer community...," -Heintz, et al.
"[H]omophobia within the Black and African-American communities as well as the racism within the 'gay' or queer community," -Nichols.
"This means we have to look deeply at the homophobia and racism that persists in our various organizations," -Owens.
The essay did not claim to address racism within the queer community. Instead, it "claimed," or better yet, tried to address one aspect of racism in American society using aspects of recent campus events as small scale illustrations of this. This point was made in my essay last week.
The next point I will address is the criticism raised in two responses about the implications of the quoted FBI statistics and the implied hierarchy of oppression. According to this critique my inclusion of statistical information implies that I somehow felt it necessary to address hate crimes against Blacks only.
"Partridge explicitly states it is racist to respond to the murder of a queer man (in fact, any hate crime not directed solely at Blacks) because anti-queer violence is not the first priority on his hierarchy of oppression," -Heintz, et al.
"...[R]acism is not just directed at African-Americans.... Hate-crimes directed at other Asian Pacific Americans and Latinos are often ignored,...they happen extremely rarely,...[are] not a major problem to be dealt with by US society," -Vimalassery.
No where in the essay is it stated "explicitly" or otherwise that it is "racist to respond to the murder of a queer man." Nor did I or would I ever argue that any hate crime not directed against Blacks or African-Americans should be ignored or does not warrant action let alone swift and active condemnation. A quote from the essay itself will serve to illustrate this fact. "This is not to say other minorities should be ignored, or disregarded in any way because that should never be the case." Hate crimes need to be addressed in all cases and need to be actively and vociferously condemned.
The last main point that I would like to make regards the accusation made in two responses, namely that I was attacking the queer community. This argument is evidenced by the following quotes.
"Instead of addressing his concerns constructively..., he chose the frame of a public attack on queers...," -Heintz et al.
"Partridge's letter fully silences the queer community and queer activism as a whole...," -Owens.
As argued in my essay last week, the essay did not attack the queer community, its focus was an aspect of racism on a macro scale using micro scale events to substantiate the argument. I would like to close with a few minor points of clarification.
First, I apologize if the fact that I omitted to identify my race and sexual orientation publicly. However, I do not think who I am has any significant impact on the focus of the essay because in a lot of ways I am a humanist due to my religious convictions. I view it as my responsibility as an "activist" to challenge the negative aspects of American society and culture. I see this same responsibility incumbent upon all who considered themselves opposed to racism, sexism, homophobia, ethnocentrism, etc. All activists need to be open to criticism self-criticism to insure that they remain truly sincere in their efforts. It is for this reason that I appreciate the responses, and while I disagree with a lot of the arguments they contain, they have caused me to reexamine the essay and myself. Another important point to address is my motivation in writing the essay. I wrote it as a white male who saw some negative aspects of racism in our community and decided to speak out against those aspects. I was not attempting to speak for people of color for two reasons. One, they have their own voice, and two, I cannot speak for them because I am not a person of color.
Second, there are several points in the responses which I feel need to be corrected. I did not criticize the vigil, speak-out, or GSA, nor did I say that the vigil was organized by GSA, or that the painting of the rock was based on the consensus of those at the vigil. Ms. Russom is wrong when she says I "put forward the false notion that the response to Matthew Shepard's death was just about hate crimes against white people." What I did say was that Mr. Shepard's killing made national news because he was white. A question she should answer for herself is why the demonstrations she discusses did not occur after Mr. Byrd's killing. Lastly, the endorsees, of which there were a total of 38, did so of their own free will. I did not have to "convince" anyone to endorse the essay. This includes the three endorsees who wrote responses critical of the essay. So, I am no "Jim Jones."
Copyright © 1998, The Oberlin Review.
Volume 127, Number 9, November 13, 1998
Contact us with your comments and suggestions.