When George Zimmerman pulled out his 9mm pistol and took the life of Trayvon Martin it had nothing to do with Martin's sexual preference. When Officer Darren Wilson unloaded his service weapon into Mike Brown it was without regard as to whom Mike Brown was romantically involved. When officers applied an illegal choke to Eric Garner there was no consideration as to whom Garner was married. Twelve year old Tamir Rice's gender identity was not a factor in the shooting that cost him his life. Walter Scott's death is totally unrelated to his sexual history. John Crawford III was killed in an Ohio Walmart without regard to which sex he chose to identify with. If sexuality, gender identity and marriage were not factors in these killings, why are they tied to the resulting Black Lives Matter movement?
Brandon Ellington Patterson wrote an blog called "Why you can't be Pro-Black and Homophobic at the Same Time." In it he states:
It's problematic for members of any one marginalized group to challenge the progress made by members of another, especially when both groups suffer as a result of the same system—a system that favors being white, male, straight and "cisgender," a term used by academics and advocates to describe the opposite of trans.
But it is especially problematic for black people to reject the LGBT rights struggle, especially when, over the past year, black people have been particularly vocal about their own racial oppression, via sustained, high-profile protests that have swept the nation.
Most glaringly, it's problematic because blackness and LGBT identities are not mutually exclusive. There are lesbian black women, gay black men, bisexual black people, transgender black men and women, "genderqueer" black people—identifying as neither gender or both—and black people who are any combination of any of the above.
And black LGBT people and their allies have made incredible contributions to the black liberation struggle, from Bayard Rustin during the civil rights movement toAudre Lorde, a poet, feminist, and LGBT advocate, as well as the three women who founded the hashtag #BlackLivesMatter and the organization that birthed the movement: Alicia Garza, Patrisse Cullors, and Opal Tometi.
Patterson makes two arguments as to why black issues and LGBT issues are intertwined. His basic arguments are that our struggles are so intertwined that progress for one group is progress for all. He goes on to say that the struggles are not mutually exclusive given that there are LGBT individuals who are also black.
His first argument regarding intertwined struggles seems to be a burden that only blacks are forced to carry. In 2015 Roland Emmerich released Stonewall, a movie based on LGBT riots in 1969. While these riots, celebrated in LGBT pride cultures, were largely started by blacks, Emmerich creates a white hero who takes the first brick out of the hands of a black man to throw and begin the riots. To his surprise, Emmerich faced some backlash from the LGBT community. He explained his decision to center the movie around a white fictional character by stating:
You have to understand one thing
I didn't make this movie only for gay people. I made it also for straight people.
As a director you have to put yourself in your movies, and I'm white and gay
By Emmerich's admission, he could not identify with a black leading character and changed history in his movie to make a movie more accepting to mainstream. The ties Patterson describes that supposedly bind blacks and gays are more often a bind to blacks. Gay causes can be championed at protests for black murder victims but a gay director thought it best to replace a black historical figure with a white imagined figure. I'm not upset that Roland decided to rewrite history. My point is that our struggle as blacks is not intertwined with LGBT causes and that we should not accept being shackled with that burden.
Patterson's second point is less of an argument and more of an emotional plea. It is an appeal to the lowest common denominator; an implication that we should support gay blacks for no other reason than because they are black. I'm always leery of people who attempt to appeal to a wide demographic by way of appealing to a common denominator. We are comprised of more than our basic similarities.
I don't use the term lowest common denominator to insult my heritage. I mean it only as a large basis to which some believe I can be appealed to. Why did Donald Trump meet with black pastors? Because it represented two large bases by which to attempt to appeal to people without understanding who you are appealing to.
In John 6:44 Jesus says that no one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him near. I have been saved, not because God made an appeal to my lowest common denominator. I have been saved because God drew me near and Jesus died for me. I won't compromise the guidelines left for me by someone who died for me because of appeal thrown at my race.
I am pro-black in that I believe we should all get due process. I am pro-black in that I believe a black man killed with an illegal choke hold or a child shot while breaking no laws deserves the right in death to have their killers accused in a court of law. While I am pointedly pro-black, that in no way ties me to the LGBT movement. The two are not mutually exclusive, and to say so is an insult to the history of African Americans.
His first argument regarding intertwined struggles seems to be a burden that only blacks are forced to carry. In 2015 Roland Emmerich released Stonewall, a movie based on LGBT riots in 1969. While these riots, celebrated in LGBT pride cultures, were largely started by blacks, Emmerich creates a white hero who takes the first brick out of the hands of a black man to throw and begin the riots. To his surprise, Emmerich faced some backlash from the LGBT community. He explained his decision to center the movie around a white fictional character by stating:
You have to understand one thing
I didn't make this movie only for gay people. I made it also for straight people.
As a director you have to put yourself in your movies, and I'm white and gay
By Emmerich's admission, he could not identify with a black leading character and changed history in his movie to make a movie more accepting to mainstream. The ties Patterson describes that supposedly bind blacks and gays are more often a bind to blacks. Gay causes can be championed at protests for black murder victims but a gay director thought it best to replace a black historical figure with a white imagined figure. I'm not upset that Roland decided to rewrite history. My point is that our struggle as blacks is not intertwined with LGBT causes and that we should not accept being shackled with that burden.
Patterson's second point is less of an argument and more of an emotional plea. It is an appeal to the lowest common denominator; an implication that we should support gay blacks for no other reason than because they are black. I'm always leery of people who attempt to appeal to a wide demographic by way of appealing to a common denominator. We are comprised of more than our basic similarities.
I don't use the term lowest common denominator to insult my heritage. I mean it only as a large basis to which some believe I can be appealed to. Why did Donald Trump meet with black pastors? Because it represented two large bases by which to attempt to appeal to people without understanding who you are appealing to.
In John 6:44 Jesus says that no one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him near. I have been saved, not because God made an appeal to my lowest common denominator. I have been saved because God drew me near and Jesus died for me. I won't compromise the guidelines left for me by someone who died for me because of appeal thrown at my race.
I am pro-black in that I believe we should all get due process. I am pro-black in that I believe a black man killed with an illegal choke hold or a child shot while breaking no laws deserves the right in death to have their killers accused in a court of law. While I am pointedly pro-black, that in no way ties me to the LGBT movement. The two are not mutually exclusive, and to say so is an insult to the history of African Americans.
