Tracy Morgan’s homophobic rant is about black manhood
By Rev. Irene MonroeWhile I will continue to argue that the African American community doesn’t have patent on homophobia, it does, however, have a problem with it.
And Tracy Morgan, comedian and actor on NBC’s “30 Rock,” is another glaring example of the malady.
During a standup performance this month at the Ryman Auditorium in Nashville, Tennessee, Morgan’s “intended” jokes about LGBTQ people were instead insulting jabs:
“Gays need to quit being pussies and not be whining about something as insignificant as bullying.”“Gay is something that kids learn from the media and programming.”
“I don’t “f*cking care if I piss off some gays, because if they can take a f*cking dick up their ass…they can take a f*cking joke.”
Morgan has publicly expressed his mea culpas to the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD), the nation’s lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBTQ) media advocacy and anti-defamation organization, and he has now — as part and parcel of his forgiveness tour — spoken out in support of LGBTQ equality.
But Morgan, like many of us who have grown up in communities of African descent — here and abroad — cannot escape the cultural, personal, interpersonal, and institutional indoctrinations in which homophobia is constructed in our very makeup of being defined as black.
And the community’s expression of its intolerance of LGBTQ people is easily seen along gender lines. For example, sisters mouth off about us while brothers get both — verbally and physically — violent with us.
My son “better talk to me like a man and not in a gay voice or I’ll pull out a knife and stab that little n-gger to death,” Morgan told his audience at the Ryman Auditorium.
(Just as the LGBTQ community got on Morgan for his homophobic rant, the community should have also called him out on his use of the n-word. Let’s not forget about the racist rant in 2006 by Michael Richards, who played the lovable and goofy character Kramer on the T.V. sit-com “Seinfeld,” for his repetitive use of the n-word in the context of supposed humor that has, many of us feel, cost him his career.)
CNN’s Don Lemon, who just recently came out, gives a window into the male perspective on homosexuality.
“It’s quite different for an African-American male,” Lemon told Joy Behar on her HLN show. “It’s about the worst thing you can be in black culture. You’re taught you have to be a man; you have to be masculine.”
Black GBTQ sexualities within African American culture are perceived to further threaten not only black male heterosexuality, but also the ontology of blackness itself, which is built on the most misogynistic and homophobic strains of Black Nationalism and afrocentricism that were and still are birth, nurtured, and propagated in black churches and communities.
The belief that exposure to LGBTQ people and anti-homophobia workplaces, classrooms, workshops and trainings lessens, if not eradicates, the prejudice is true. But for African American males that is not always the case.
More below the fold.
For example, life imitated art for Isaiah Washington, but he, like Morgan, went on his black male homophobic rant nonetheless.
In 2007 Washington’s public apology to the LGBTQ community for the derogatory comments he deliberately and repeatedly made about his costar T. R. Knight’s sexuality was a disingenuous statement to deflect attention away from his desperate effort to save his job.
Washington knows of both the psychological damage and the physical harm the word “faggot” engenders. And he knows it not only from empathizing as an African American where the n-word has been hurled at him, but he also knows of the harm the word “faggot” engenders from being called one.
Washington played the handsome Dr. Preston Burke on the hit drama “Grey’s Anatomy,” but he has taken on many other roles. His most challenging and rewarding role was that of an African-American gay male in the context of the most dangerous environment one can be in — the company of homophobic black men.
In Spike Lee’s 1996 film Get on the Bus, Washington and Harry J. Lennix play a black gay couple (Kyle and Randall, respectively) in the midst of a breakup that gets played out in high homophobic drama in the cramped quarters of a group of African-American men taking a cross-country bus trip from Los Angeles to our nation’s capital in order to participate in Minister Louis Farrakhan’s historic Million Man March — a march that explicitly forbade women and gay men to attend.
Playing the role of a black gay Republican Gulf War veteran, Washington imparts to the group the violent acts of homophobia and racism he incurred on an ongoing basis from his fellow comrades, like being purposely shot at by his own platoon because of both his sexual orientation and race.
In October 2006, Washington got into fisticuffs with “Grey’s Anatomy” costar Patrick Dempsey by grabbing him by the throat and outing Knight, saying, “I’m not your little faggot like [T.R. Knight].” Washington plays out a similar scene as Kyle in Get On the Bus.
Morgan’s homophobic rant is not about LGBTQ people, but rather it’s about the tightly constructed hyper-masculinity of black manhood.
In my brothers cultivating “images of strong black men,” can the brotherhood also include the diversity of their sexual orientations?




Tracy Morgan’s homophobic rant is about black manhood
58 Comments


Another black gay person as mouthpiece for white gays blahs blahs saying nothing. One would have to examine the black journey in America to get to the root of homophobia in the black community. And people don’t want to do that because it directly leads to slavery and the debasement of the black male. That and the evils of white Christianity now entrenched in black culture.
aka it’s all white America’s fault.
But of course Irene Monroe would never say that. Not on Pam Spaulding’s site or any other of the gay white male online watering holes she writes for.
Be a responsible and courageous black woman for once in your life Monroe. Tell the truth and quit bashing black men.
Uh, I need to give a Negro please to this comment, Derrickeven if it’s all “white America’s fault” (all? really?), it’s still “the black man’s problem”.
What, do you really think that white America is gonna solve the black man’s problem? Please.
Let me add a personal note, renwl so that you understand where I am coming fromToday happens to be my 15th sober anniversary.
I could have spent so much of my time, fo example, crying and whining about particular ways in which my family and other treated me that made me…well, crazy as a betsy bug to be brutally honest about. In fact, I have done quite a bit of that.
I could even go so far as to blame “white America” and slavery for the way my family is structured the way it is and why they do the things that they do.
I’m the one who has the problem. And I have to look for and apply the solutions that are best for me at a particular point in time.
I ain’t waitin’ on nobody.
Important note here and I’ll leave it alone…Rev. Monroe says “African American culture” Which to me, would be accurate since renwl is talking about American slavery (I do agree with renwl that a portion of theAfrican American “ick” is rooted in American slavery).
But is all “black manhood” (meaning more than just African Americans) like this?
ComparisonLet’s not forget about the racist rant in 2006 by Michael Richards, who played the lovable and goofy character Kramer on the T.V. sit-com “Seinfeld,” for his repetitive use of the n-word in the context of supposed humor that has, many of us feel, cost him his career.
I, for one, still won’t watch Sienfeld.
Morgan’s homophobic rant is not about LGBTQ people, but rather it’s about the tightly constructed hyper-masculinity of black manhood.
I’m not seeing that. It’s about homophobia; whether or not that homophobia is entwined in a particular gender-based cultural expression just means whether or not homophobia needs to be removed from that particular gender-based culture as well as the individual.
The evidence we’ve seen in other groups appears to suggest that if you remove the homophobia from enough individuals, the cultural expression corrects itself without outside assistance. So from most standpoints, that entwinement (or lack thereof) is irrelevant.
To me, the big difference between Morgan and Richards is that in a short period of time afterwards, Morgan admitted to the charges, apologized repeatedly, and offered to march with us. I’m willing to consider that while he was not an ally a month ago, he may become one.
I’ve yet to see Richards in a Black Civil Rights march. It’s been nearly 5 years, now.
Wow…Yet ANOTHER PHB post attacking black men!
No wonder so few of us turn up here.
Oh and I forgot one more thing: As far as this MIME black gay mouth pieces for white gay men and the black gay mouthpieces “highlighting” the hypermasculinity blah blah and homophobia and so forth and whatever tired explanation they’re coming up with these day?
Um, the two guys who killed Matthew Shepherd were not black. What was their deal?
@Kevin: I mean this sincerely: Happy birthday and my deepest congratulations on your 15 years. That is indeed quite an accomplishment.
Now getting back to this post: Kevin you’re missing the point. I don’t know if you read a post I wrote awhile back. Monroe’s blah blah is almost identical to the blah blah Keith Boykin was babbling about a couple of weeks ago. Let me see if I can find it. Hold on.
As a matter of fact you commented on it now that I look at it again. Anyway, here it is.
http://www.renwl.org/black-com…
And I’m saying that the creation of what is now black America didn’t just start some 50 or 60 years ago.
Look at this passage Monroe wrote:
“Black GBTQ sexualities within African American culture are perceived to further threaten not only black male heterosexuality, but also the ontology of blackness itself, which is built on the most misogynistic and homophobic strains of Black Nationalism and afrocentricism that were and still are birth, nurtured, and propagated in black churches and communities.”
The problem with the poor analysis of those like Monroe and Boykin is they limit black America to the last 50 or 60 years. I will say Monroe in this case was at least generous enough to lightly hint at Garveyism aka black nationalism. But that is as far as she goes.
That’s irresponsible in my view if someone is going to attempt to address the roots of homophobia in the black community.
What we’ve seen in the gay press is that for gay purposes in being critical of blacks and homophobia is that blacks didn’t exist until the civil rights movement. So there’s this mass thinking of “they should” support someone elses civil rights journey without taking in the entire journey of African Americans. We saw that same thing with the desegregation of the military and the “swipe of a pen executive order” blah blah. None of that took in account that it took that swipe of pen six years to get desegregation a real thing.
Now we have black gay mouthpieces once again creating blacks with an implied false origin just to support their platform on black men and homophobia.
And I’m saying why don’t these people stop creating these false origins and just start at the real one for African Americans?
But people don’t want to do that. Because to do that would most definitely mean a shared responsibility in what black America culturally in many respects has become today.
OK
I might amend that statement to say “for the purposes of promoting gay civil rights…” because in other contexts black American (and even black gay) history does show up…just not in the context of civil rights discussions and you know how I get about that…
With the 50-60 year timeline…
If one were to say, for example, that at one time it seems that blacks were far more progressive than whites about homosexual issues, then I would allow for the 50-60 year timeline and then tie in modern (modern = post-60′s in this case) notions of homophobia in the African American community with cultural assimilation. And Rev. Monroe has made that argument as well, just to be fair to her.
And what I’m suggestingis that prior to desegregation and integration…yes, we were all black inspite of our differences.
That’s no longer true, even if in the gay press (for the most part) you often see monolithic constructions of the black community (although thatt’s true of the press in general).
The entire topic of whether integration has been “good” for African Americans is another issue that bubbles under the surface here.
This is an interesting commentI don’t agree with it, but this IS a PHB post attacking STRAIGHT black men, right?
As to why it’s an interesting commentwell, here’s why.
Ok
OK, now this is incendiary.
I think that this statement would be true for any and all ethnicities and genders.
And being as quite a few straight men rely on me during football season for my near encyclopedic knowledge of contemporary history of the game, I’ve experienced this first hand.
I think you’re avoiding the issue, here.I normally stay pout of discussions here that revolve around race, for reasons I’ve stated numerous times in the past. But I simply have to comment here.
Rev. Monroe’s post is not so much about homophobia as it is about the aggressive hypermasculinty displayed by many (no, by no means all) black men. Trying to shift the discussion to homophobia–which is only part of that syndrome–misses the bigger issue. In fact, by reacting so aggressively to the post, you’re only demonstrating that Rev. Monroe has a point.
And I have to say that blaming it all on on “the black journey in America” seems disingenuous. After all, black women have made that “journey” too. Black women were slaves too. Right?
You’re right…I read this essay as being more about sexism than homophobia…this is a case where the homophobia is a by- product of the sexism.
But derrick is right too, in that in order to completely excavate the issue here you would have to go back to slavery.
One thing that derrick neglects, though, is that prior to integration and assimilation there were spaces made for gender variant men within the black community. Rev, Monroe is right in that black nationalism brought over more overt forms of homophobia (which the overwhelming majority of nationalisms tend to do).
I read it as a postattacking a problem plaguing black men.
Interrestingly, it’s not limited to black men, of coursethis happens with Latinos too, but the context is very different.
I think this hypermasculinity has happened with gay men (of all “races”) too.
I’m sure there are commonalities to be found in all the sub-groupssince we do all belong to the same larger culture. But as you say the history and context will be different (although sometimes overlapping) for the different subgroups.
Uber-UghThis latest missive by “Rev” Moore is so laden with jargon and dying for copy-editing that it’s barely readable. Nonetheless, Moore — once again — easily picks up where the KKK left off 50 years ago. Not only has Moore — a Black woman — annointed herself spokesperson for the Black Male, she’s done so with little to no empirical evidence to serve as back-up. Along the way, she has succeeded writ-large in declaring what so many White Gays could only hint at — that Black men are inherently and irrevocably homophobic. That homophobia in part and parcel of Black male heterosexuality.
I think not.
Like Spaulding, Moore uses her race, gender — and I presume sexuality — to bash Black culture and particularly Black men with a level of impunity that can only make her White/Gay/Male target audience salivate with envy. But in doing so, not only does she rendr herself a buffoon and a sell-out — she only further alienates Black people from the “Mainstream/Gaystream’ equality struggle.
Moore’s clear — and sad/saddening — desire for White-male approval is yet another sorry example of Black self-hatred given new life in an LGBT context. Women like Moore and Spaulding may not “lie” with white boys in the Biblical context, but they clearly seek to make their bed with them.
The bitter truth is that no matter how pretty a bow you wrap around your Blackness, ladies, this quest can only serve up diminishing returns.
My home town of Pittsburghwas a major center of black culture back during the 20s and 30s. The first regularly published black newspaper in the country was born here (and it’s still being published). The jazz clubs in the Hill District–Pittsburgh’s equivalent of Harlem– were major nightspots. Duke Ellington, Billie Holiday, Alberta Hunter, Bessie Smith Count Basie and all the rest performed here regularly. And those clubs were oases of what today the Klan would call race-mixing. The atmosphere, from what I’ve been able to learn, was even more open and casual than Harlem; most of the clubs did not have the black employees/white patrons policy that seems to have been common in Harlem, for instance. And I’ve been told by some gay seniors who remember that time (yes, there are gay men older than me) that homosexuality was quite open and accepted in that culture, and in some cases even celebrated.
Now, the black folks who owned, operated and frequented those clubs were products of of the slave experience too, and they were several generations closer to it than we are today. Many of them actually had parents or grandparents who were slaves. And yet the culture they built on the Hill couldn’t have been more accepting of gay people.
None of this is to discount slavery in any way. It’s clearly the original sin on the soul of America. But suggesting that that experience alone can explain homophobia in the black community is facile and unconvincing. I don’t claim to know what does account for it, but it can’t be as simple as that.
“… sisters mouth off about us while brothers get both — verbally and physically — violent with us”?Maybe Irene should ask the transgender woman in the McDonalds who had the shit kicked out of her by “Sisters”, if she thinks that sister’s only mouth ABOUT us. Apparently she’s under the impression that only the brothers are verbal TO us or physically violent.
Simple questions…Simple answers.
Um, the two guys who killed Matthew Shepherd were not black. What was their deal?
Religion. Russell Henderson is a mormon, and Aaron McKinney went along for the ride.
LOLare you serious
Every last one of us- black, white, man, and woman is inherently homophobic…every last LGBT person was raised in a larger culture that is inherently homophobic and, of course, that homophobia is still in every last one of us.
renwl actually has his finger on it far more so than you do Kaufman and QScribe (a “white boy”) does too.
Of course black America didn’t begin 50-60 years ago. But over the course of time black America and the black community has gone through various changes. Remember, this is the same culture that producced Little Richard and Michael Jackson although…given the nationalism that really has washed over the black community since the 1960′s (and, even more importantly, the 1980′s and 90′s) I don’t think that the black community could gift the world with a Liitle Richard, a Michael Jackson, or a Prince.
YesThe same atmosphere existed in Chicago.
In that link to Rod 2.0, Rod correlates the rupturing of LGBTs and straights within the black community to the AIDS crisis. I agree with him.
Kevin…..Clearly 15 years of sobriety has not been enough to rehabilitate your reading comprehension skills — or perhaps they weren’t that good to begin with.
Like Pam and Rev. Irene, you like to skim through shit and filter only what jives with your agenda.
Note, I wrote “inherently and irrevocably homophobic” — with the latter adjective worthy of as much consideration as the first.
Factor in my full thoughts before you choose to dismiss them!
you still have a problemThe fact that you are taking more responsibility for the things that you have control over does not mean you get to be silent about whose fault the big things are. If you do not invest at least some of your effort in helping people understand whodunit and who needs to pay to clean up the mess THEY created, you will be waiting a lot longER time.
NO, you canNOT fix yourself BY yourself.
Just because white people have been bashing black men for centuriesDoesn’t mean I can’t do it too. I will bash all I dangwell feel like. Yes, “it’s the white man’s fault”, but it’s not ALL the white man’s fault. That’s the ROOT cause but it doesn’t EXCUSE MALadaptation. SOMEbody has to point out to oppressed people that they ARE MIS-reacting. That is every bit as true for working-class whites who are fool enough to vote Republican as it is for black people who are fool enough to embrace bigotry.
Who “us” ??I’m here.
I agree that Rev.Irene did not exactly get this one right (her direct comparison between a white comedian and a black one using the n- word was tone-deaf to put it charitably and ignorant to put it bluntly, especially since, in order to get there, she had to overlook his calling HIS OWN SON the n- word — that, surely, is MORE relevant than what ANY white person did). But bashing “the tightly constructed hyper-masculinity of black manhood” IS ENTIRELY appropriate. Surely the whole point is that Bayard Rustin IS a man, and so IS Michael Jackson.
No, Kevin, iti s NOT incendiaryIt is entirely factual, so what you “would think” is NOT the least bit relevant.
And your knowledge of football is not experiencing first hand how being exposed to black men eradicates prejudice against them. My first-hand experience is that it instead motivates them to spout such inanities as “I don’t think of you as ”black”. ” A lot of people really did ask, about the President, why he was being characterized as “black” when an equal percentage of his parentage was “white”.
now THIS is incendiary (re flaming musicians)“I don’t think that the black community [in America, post-millennium] could gift the world with a Liitle Richard, a Michael Jackson, or a Prince.”
Come ON. They are out there. They are not getting promoted as much under current dictates of style and popularity but they OCCUR in EVERY generation, and they occur in the black community. The world is not producing any fewer pop male singers than it did before, but that category is being dropped from the Grammys because there is not enough product in it any more. Give THE INDUSTRY AS RUN BY WHITE PEOPLE some credit (or blame) for what becomes famous. As for US, WE are STILL EVERYwhere, and when.
that homophobia is part and parcel of the cultureto greater degree in black neighborhoods of a certain economic class THAN it is in white ones is NOT really open to debate. Where is David Kaufman even living??
One could just as easily accuse David Kaufman of seeking black men’s approval and subordinating his public writing to that private goal.
I don’t seek anyone’s approval, my friend.I think you would find just as strong homophobic sentiments in many Latino, White and Black socio-economic groups. The issue here is this — Pam and Irene have an agenda to promote: That Black men are more homophobic than white men, and that this cannot be rectified.
That is their OPINION. It is not fact. And until they prove so empircally, it may certainly be debated.
The sad and scary part — at least judging by postings such as Cloudy’s — is that their mission appears to be succeeding.
But you have to ask — as Black women, why are they promoting this agenda? How does it benefit them, let alone the many BLACK MEN I assume still populate their lives?
PS, bitchI live in HARLEM!
ask a stupid question…“Um, the two guys who killed Matthew Shepherd were not black. What was their deal?”
Their deal was they were in a place where there were ALMOST NO BLACK PEOPLE and where they WERE part of a poor/meth subculture and WERE divorced from an educational/achievement ethos DESPITE the fact that they were in a college town, and
the other part of the deal is that while this is arguably exceptional for white boys OUTside cities, it is arguably TYPICAL for black boys INside cities.
Since you asked.
All that is blatantly obvious to the CASUAL observer.
Hence the title.
you don’t know them” The issue here is this — Pam and Irene have an agenda to promote: That Black men are more homophobic than white men, and that this cannot be rectified. ” The issues here are 4:
1) You don’t know Pam. I don’t know Irene and I view this column as a SMALL amount of evidence FOR your position about her, but re Pam, you’re just wrong.
2) Motive ascertainment is impossible. Why you would presume to express confidence that Pam is essentialist about ANYthing (“black” anything has property “x” and this “can’t be rectified”) ONLY GOD knows.
3) You’re just wrong. More to the point, you’re just being hateful. You’re being anti-journalistic and anti-objective.
Anything that’s wrong is wrong REGARDLESS of the agenda of the speaker. The speaker could have a nearly perfect agenda and STILL be wrong about a point. Your whole mindset in even trying to prove that somebody has an agenda and that that’s what the problem is ridiculous.
4) It’s HER house.
Well,. Harlem explains a lotHow much opposition did black members of the NY House and Senate who represent Harlem (or Brooklyn or Queens) get if they supported gay marriage? How much support did they get if they opposed it? If they decided (e.g.) to do the wrong thing, WHY did they so decide? Didn’t they have CONSTITUENTS WHO WANTED THEM to so decide??
Harlem may be more pro-gay than most gang-banging places but it is hardly more pro-gay than the rest of New York. If all you have is New York City, you have FACTUAL CONFIRMATION IN YOUR OWN TOWN than black men are more homophobic than white ones. The whole point of those of us who are beating you down here is that this is a NEW thing; NObody believes it “cannot be rectified” since it was not always like this to start with anyhow. For you to accuse opponents of believing something that nobody believes embarasses you more than it does them.
Hypermasculinity IS the problem…and you don’t have to debase anyone to stand up to it.
It shows up across a spectrum of groups, and can even be manifested in women (women who expect this of their men…mothers, wives, girlfriends, whosoever.)
In my book, “manning up” only happens when one confronts the attitudes within ones’ self and in others saying that men should dominate other people…
The attitudes that allow a man to call a woman bitch, because he doesn’t like what she is saying…
The attitudes that say all lesbians need a good man to **** her and she’ll go straight…or that it will settle any woman’s attitude…
The attitudes that say getting a girl drunk or drugging her so that she can be conquered…or that she is of no value because she is not conforming to some standard of beauty…
The attitudes that cause a man to assault or kill another male because he couldn’t tolerate non-conformance to the hyper-masculine ideal…
The attitude that lets someone look the other way when someone else acts this way…
Man up, folks, and lose this shit.
Is there a termite jumping up and down on your “caps lock” key?
The way in which Rev. Monroe wrote that sentenceyou would think that “hypermasculinity” is unique to black culture. It is not.
But is she saying taht these workshops ALWAYS work with men other than African American males.
Maybe she needs to read about the cases involving John Rocker and Ozzie Guillen…
It’s not always the case that this type of education works with ANY MALE, not simply African American males.
Again with the personal insultsClearly this is a very complex subject matter covering several fields of study and would have to take into acct. black history from slavery times on and must account for changes in the culture.
Not saying that Rev.Irene get everything right here but surely you can do better than the old “the black woman is teaming up with the white man to bring down the black man” canard.
Yes they are out there but…my point is that hypermasculinity has become so acute in the black community (particularly since the 1980′s) that I don’t think that “gender bender personas” like Michael Jackson or Prince would gain the popularity in the black community that they did (being from Detroit, I have moreknowledge of Prince’s case)
LOLwhat black woman artist or writer worth her salt HASN’T been accused of “promoting this agenda?”
I’m a black man too, and if you are gonna stick up for me then you need to do a better job than this old and tired bullshit.
Tiresome DerrickWhatever your personal shortcomings, Sir, not everything dates back to anti-bellum America.
Maybe Pam just doesn’t know her placewhich is to be led by men, right?
Thanks Karen!Well Put, honest and well done…
I would just like to add to thatthe legacy of black jazz musicians who came from Pittsburgh, some of the finest musicians in the world, such as Ray Brown and Paul Chambers (who was born in Pittsburgh, but lived most of his childhood in Detroit), who are two of my favorite fellow bassists. Here’s a nice list of Pittsburgh jazz musicians:
http://www.clpgh.org/research/…
Except for that in this case, it does.The problems faced by people of color in Usamerica are directly related to the ways in which people of color were denied citizenship and participation in our society. While we did experience a short period of time following the Civil War in which PoC were better included, that was quickly quashed by the flood of segregationist laws and enshrined as the law of the land by Plessy v. Ferguson.
It is easy for white people to rationalize that things are different now, but cultures are not built in one generation, or even two or three. We are, at this very moment, only 47 years past the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, only 44 years past the final end of anti-miscegenation laws with Loving v. Virginia, a case which holds particular interest for me, being the child of an interracial couple that was married in 1967. Less than 50 years have passed since race became a protected category in this country.
Given this legacy, a legacy that we cannot deny was forcibly imposed upon non-white people in our country, how can we possibly expect things to turn around overnight?
This legacy doesn’t just impact forcibly transported African-Americans and their descendants. As a person of Filipino descent, I am particularly aware that the primary reason that the Philippines was granted Independence was racism. Filipinos, being residents of a US Territory, were taught Usamerican English in schools, and found it very easy to assimilate into mainland US culture.
Philippine Independence, combined with the Tydings-McDuffie Act of 1934 and the Filipino Repatriation Act of 1935, put an effective stop to Filipino immigration, not to mention actually pressured Filipinos who were already here legally to leave the country. That doesn’t even get to the fact that Filipinos couldn’t even become Naturalized Citizens until 1946, with the passage of the Filipino Naturalization Act.
This effective ban on Filipino immigration (only 50 people per year were allowed in under Tydings-McDuffie), lasted until the passage of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, which enabled my father, a physician recently graduated from Far Eastern University in Metro Manila, to enter the United States and become a Naturalized Citizen. He settled in New York City and began his residency at Beekman Downtown Hospital, and met my white mother, married her, and had three children with her by 1974.
Did you know that Filipinos are the second largest Asian group in the USA after Chinese (and nearly the same size group as the Chinese, to boot)? When was the last time you ate in a Filipino restaurant? I bet you’ve eaten Korean, Japanese, Thai, Vietnamese, and Indian food, possibly even Mongolian, Indonesian, and the cuisines of even smaller Asian groups, but I bet you can’t even name a Filipino restaurant near you!
There are more than twice the number of Filipino-Americans as the number of Japanese-Americans, yet despite the fact that the Philippines was our ally and former territory and Japan our enemy in World War II, you can’t swing a dead fish without hitting a sushi joint in this country, and the nearest Filipino restaurant I am aware of is more than an hour drive away. Mind you, I live in New Jersey, a state with a relatively large Filipino population.
Even today, when many people find out that I am half Filipina and half white, they immediately assume that it is my mother who is Filipina, and that my father was a white Usamerican serviceman, another fine example of the intersectionality of misogyny and racism.
The legacy of systemic, institutionalized Racism in our country has placed many minority groups at extreme economic disadvantage. This is what is at the heart of many of the forms of oppression practiced among minority groups, and it is not limited Do you really expect all that to change in just the couple of generations that have passed since we finally put the legal legacy of Racism to rest, when we still have not yet really surmounted the cultural legacy?
As a mixed-race Usamerican……it really pisses me off that it is so rarely pointed out the Barack Obama is of mixed-race descent. Nothing like a little invisibility to brighten up your day. This, BTW, is a problem that I have often found myself bringing up in PoC spaces.
But Barack Obama self-identifiesas African-American…but I understand the problem here…black Americans have had a tendency to get angry at those that self-identify as being of mixed race.
I think that just goes to show the extent to which most black Americans buy all of the racial bullshit that American whites concocted.
Derrick is right about this, Maurait’s incomplete, IMHO, but you cannot discuss hypermasculinity in black American males (as as far as I can tell, it has affected straight and gay males) without discussing the debasement of the black male throughout American history and you cannot discuss that without discussing slavery.
What Derrick fails to mention, though, is that there is an extended period of time in black American history where transgression of gender norms by men had a certain amount of respectibility that it no longer has.
That was true at least from the period of the Harlem Renaissance up to the black civil rights movement of the 1960′s.
I think that the canard of “black people are more homophobic than white people” is not simply old and tired but also the wrong question.
I think that the right question is whether black people and black communities are more homophobic than they used to be and all the available evidence that I’ve seen indicates that…yes, black people are more homophobic than they used to be with the hypermasculinity playing a role in it.
And…Pam has touched on this topic in the past.
Pam’s old thread is here.
Damn straight we doNObody self-identifies. CALLING yourself this or that DOES NOT SUFFICE TO ESTABLISH your identity. NO MATTER WHAT you call yourself, THERE WILL STILL BE a median of the SOCIETAL response; there will still be a PEAK of the bell curve; it will still be A MATTER OF FACT, NOT opinion — not YOURS OR ANYBODY’s — that society at large, at the median, perceives and classifies you AS IT perceives you. And it is THAT SOCIETAL CLASSIFICATION THAT IS your identity, for purposes of this discourse! THAT is what we ARE TALKING about, when we talk about identity! We are NOT talking about what you THINK is going on! We are talking about a SOCIAL construct and the EVILS it is heir to!
You do not have the option of being identified as “mixed” UNTIL you live in a polity that acknowledges that, that decides for ITself that IT thinks you’re “mixed” and not “black”. Barack Obama IS OBJECTIVELY mixed, if mixed exists. He DOES NOT “self-identify as black as opposed to mixed”. Barack Obama, UNlike MOST BLACK AMERICANS,
LITERALLY IS African-American: he does NOT need to self-identify as THAT, EITHER! ONE of his parents FACTUALLY WAS AFRICAN! The other FACTUALLY WAS AMERICAN!! That is FACTUALLY, OBJECTIVELY African-American, in a way that most black Americans ARE NOT. The use of the term for black Americans is SLOPPY. Excuse me for being FROM RALEIGH, but I am from a town WITH TWO BLACK PRIVATE colleges, BOTH of which, since the early 1970s, have NEEDED to recruit AFRICAN students in order to remain fiscally solvent. Now that this has been going on for more than a generation, and many of these alumni have stayed here, or brought extended family here, or had children here, I LIVE IN A SOUTHERN CITY THAT ACTUALLY HAS AN AFRICAN-AMERICAN COMMUNITY. That does NOT make ME as a black American part of THAT community. Indeed, in places other than here, even Afro-CARIBBEAN-Americans are AT PAINS to insist that they are NOT “black”.
The terminological change was just fundamentally misguided.
Before it occurred, people needing a more formal variant of the equally inexact (for other reasons) “black” were using Afr*O*-American. Which was obviously NOT about a hairstyle and which was actually accurate, by comparison.
What we “buy” almost doesn’t even matter.“As a mixed-race Usamerican…
…it really pisses me off that it is so rarely pointed out the Barack Obama is of mixed-race descent.”
Well, you need to stop being so pissed off.
In the first place, you’re JUST LYING.
People DON’T NEED to “point out” that Barack Obama is of mixed race because EVERYBODY KNOWS it. It’s COMMON KNOWLEDGE. He just went TO IRELAND this summer while Michelle, WHO IS JUST AS LIGHT AS HE IS, went to Africa.
In the second place, THIS IS AMERICA, and America is a place where having 1 black parent and 1 white parent MAKES YOU BLACK. STROM THURMOND’S DAUGHTER lived her life AS A BLACK WOMAN, not by any choice of her own but because THAT’S HOW HER SOCIETY CLASSIFIED HER.
There are no two black people in America who are the EXACT same shade of brown. Obviously it is a legacy of slavery that white men got to father children by their black slaves (or by almost any black woman) regardless of what any black people thought about it. Thomas Jefferson’s children by his black concubine (the half-sister of his white wife) were born into slavery (despite being 7/8 white) and did not become legally white until they escaped or were freed.
The nadir of race relations at the turn of the 20th century resulted by 1924 in many states (including Tennessee and Virgnia) legally codifying THE ONE-DROP RULE. What you are “complaining” about (as having happened to President Obama) IS AND HAS BEEN THE NORM IN AMERICAN CULTURE FOR A CENTURY.
As such it is NOT something that anybody gets to COMPLAIN about until and UNLESS they are going to insist that all of us have been wrong all along. And, I’m sorry, the fact that it was WRONG to classify families as light as my mother’s as second-class citizens DOES NOT CHANGE the fact that THAT IS WHAT HAPPENED and that THEREFORE, THEY ARE BLACK, BECAUSE that happened to them. DITTO HALLE BERRY.
DITTO BARACK OBAMA.
We can only guess what has been happening to You.
Meanwhile, a CLUE:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O…
I have lighter skin than Barack Obama, and my mother has lighter skin than I do. Her father had lighter skin than she did, and had the incredibly ironic misfortune, after NEVER having been QUITE light enough to “pass” throughout his under-privileged life, to be MISTAKEN for white ON HIS DEATHBED, as a result of which the hospital sent a white fundamentalist Southern Baptist chaplain to attempt to comfort me and my mother!
My point is simply that “having some white ancestors” HAS NEVER MADE ANY black American LESS BLACK. It may have given him or her a little more white-skin-privilege, but even after that happened, s/he WAS STILL a black person benefiting from light skin, NOT something OTHER than a black person.
THAT is the historical context that the President AND YOU BOTH arrive in. It would help if you would learn some of it instead of just trying to apply your individual narrow perspective to a tribe of tens of millions in a nation of hundreds of millions.
All good pointsbut it’s still terribly disappointing that some in the black community are still so virulently homophobic when those in the gay community always have and continue to be outspoken civil rights activists.
Oh, please. Get over yourself.
Again. Get over yourself.
I think it is also not particularly helpful……to frame the question as if it is a problem that exists solely in the black community. It exists in all communities of all colors, even white, but it is particularly evident in economically disadvantaged communities of color. You can certainly see the same type of behavior in Hispanic communities, as well as in certain Asian communities. However, the common thread isn’t race or skin color, but wealth.
As to why it seems that the AA community, in particular, has become more hypermasculine, I cannot say with any certainty, but it wouldn’t surprise me in the least if it closely tracks the same trend in society as a whole for greater wealth disparity over the last several decades.
I haven’t framed the problem in that waylook closely at my comments in this thread, i am aware that this is not a problem solely in the black community; in fact, I think that a version of this has also hit the gay community in several waves (the 1970′s, the 1990′s, etc.)
Now while many different communities go thew hypermasculine route, the reasons are almost always very culturally specific. In fact, in part this latest surge in hypermasculinity in the black community can be traced back to the AIDS crisis. But then again so does the latest surge of hypermasculinity in the gay community in the 1990′s…granted, the hypermasculinity expressed itself in VERY different and culturally specific ways.
Gemma, my closest friendwho is an ex partner whom I still love is Filipina..would that there were a good Filipino restaurant near me, I got spoiled when we were together.
I stand corrected and accept the correction gracefullybut lets not underestimate the impact of evangelical protestantism upon the issue.