Remembering A German Gay Civil Rights Pioneer: Karl Ulrichs

[Jingthing]

Karl Ulrichs had some very modern ideas! He was quite the gay activist. What amazing BRAVERY he displayed to be so open about his radical ideas in the environment he was living in. In the world today, there are other such brave gay activists continuing the INTERNATIONAL movement for civil rights for gay people. In these days, yes, the world is very CONNECTED around such things.

The Urning, too, is a person. … His sexual orientation is a right established by nature. Legislators have no right to veto nature … no right to torture living creatures who are subject to those drives nature gave them.’

‘The Urning … has civil rights; and according to these rights, the state has certain duties to fulfill as well.

Legislators should give up hope … of uprooting the Uranian sexual drive at any time. Even the fiery pyres upon which they burned Urnings in earlier centuries could not accomplish this.’

I admit I had never heard of this guy before now so wanted to share this as I reckon I'm not alone in that.

Of course I'm particularly interested in how his activities may have influenced the seeds of the American gay civil rights movement, through the father of the American gay civil rights movement -- Frank Kameny. I think Frank Kameny deserves to be lionized as a great American hero. Postage stamps, statues, schools named after him, etc. Harvey Milk may be a martyr but Frank Kameny was the real deal and had the chance to work on these issues for the bulk of his long life.

But following the war, many gay American soldiers who had been stationed in Germany returned home after learning of the German gay rights movement that had arisen before the Nazis came to power.

Some of these soldiers would be among the earliest members of the pioneering American gay rights group the Mattachine Society.

One of these was Frank Kameny, who co-founded the Mattachines' Washington DC chapter in 1961 after being fired from his job as an astronomer with the US Army Map Service in 1957.

http://www.gaystarne...-activist210712 Edited July 22, 2012 by Jingthing

[tombkk]

Indeed, first time I've about Karl Ulrichs, too. I actually thought the word "Urnings" was coined by Magnus Hirschfeld. Little did I know.

[LeCharivari]

..... Harvey Milk may be a martyr .....

"Great American hero", gay role model, first openly gay man elected to public office in the US who would almost certainly have gone on to higher political office : yes.

Martyr : no - but these things have a different meaning in Jingthinglish, of course.

[Jingthing]

..... Harvey Milk may be a martyr .....

"Great American hero", gay role model, first openly gay man elected to public office in the US who would almost certainly have gone on to higher political office : yes.

Martyr : no - but these things have a different meaning in Jingthinglish, of course.

Please resist making this personal with your snarky insults, OK?

This has nothing to do with me. This is what is WIDELY understood -- Harvey Milk WAS a martyr. So you're the outlier on this one.

I find it weird that anyone with the slightest knowledge of his life story and the circumstances of his assassination not seeing that clearly. So assuming you aren't ignorant of the history, again I was there, please let us know why you don't accept Milk as a martyr for the American gay civil rights movement? Frankly, I can't even imagine enemies of gay rights asserting that, so I am certainly curious also considering I was there.

Another question, if Milk wasn't a civil rights martyr, was Martin Luther King (widely accepted as a civil rights martyr) also not a martyr?

http://queerhistory....tyr-modern.html

Harvey Milk, Secular Gay Saint and Modern Martyr

http://en.wikipedia....iki/Harvey_Milk

Despite his short career in politics, Milk became an icon in San Francisco and a martyr in the gay community.

Harvey, pre-martyrdom. Sounds very well rounded.

Edited July 22, 2012 by Jingthing

[LeCharivari]

..... Harvey Milk may be a martyr .....

"Great American hero", gay role model, first openly gay man elected to public office in the US who would almost certainly have gone on to higher political office : yes.

Martyr : no - but these things have a different meaning in Jingthinglish, of course.

...This is what is WIDELY understood -- Harvey Milk WAS a martyr. So you're the outlier on this one.

.... So assuming you aren't ignorant of the history, again I was there, please let us know why you don't accept Milk as a martyr for the American gay civil rights movement?...

Another question, if Milk wasn't a civil rights martyr, was Martin Luther King (widely accepted as a civil rights martyr) also not a martyr?

Difficult to know how Milk can be a "martyr" when his killing had NOTHING to do with his being gay or with his supporting gay rights. He and Mayor Muscone (who was shot just before him, if you remember) were shot by White because he blamed them for his not being re-instated as a supervisor. His killing, like that of the Mayor, had NOTHING to do with "the American gay civil rights movement" however much you (and others) may wish it had and Milk is no more a martyr than Muscone.

Being murdered rather than dying of old age or under a bus doesn't make someone a martyr for a cause unless there is a connection between the two. There wasn't.

Whether you think James Earl Ray, Henry Clay Wilson, or some government conspiracy killed MLK, what is uncontested is that he WAS killed for his beliefs, for leading the African-American Civil Rights Movement. That makes him a martyr. QED.

[LeCharivari]

Indeed, first time I've about Karl Ulrichs, too. I actually thought the word "Urnings" was coined by Magnus Hirschfeld. Little did I know.

Ulrichs is recognised as Hirschfeld's greatest influence and main reference in the field of sexual reform and sexual orientation, where they were both undoubtedly pioneers in unexplored/unquestioned territory. My only reservation about their ideas today is that both would probably have been considered as transexuals rather than "gay", as they considered that they (and gays generally, although Ulrichs later modified his views) were anima muliebris virili corpore inclusa (females born in a male body). This was at odds with Karl-Maria Kertbeny's view, of much the same time, who coined the terms heterosexual and homosexual, which was that gays were not by nature effeminate.

All of them, as well as the other German/Austrian/Prussian "activists" of the time, agreed that homosexuality was inborn rather than a choice, which was considered revolutionary at the time (and is still refuted by some even one hundred and fifty years later). What I find curious is that although homosexuality was recognised (and criminalised) elsewhere any political activism at that time seems to have been concentrated exclusively in Germany/Austria/Prussia while elsewhere it was more "social" of the Oscar Wilde variety, and that it then faded away from view almost completely from the 1920's until the early 60's. Any ideas why?

[Jingthing]

..... Harvey Milk may be a martyr .....

"Great American hero", gay role model, first openly gay man elected to public office in the US who would almost certainly have gone on to higher political office : yes.

Martyr : no - but these things have a different meaning in Jingthinglish, of course.

...This is what is WIDELY understood -- Harvey Milk WAS a martyr. So you're the outlier on this one.

.... So assuming you aren't ignorant of the history, again I was there, please let us know why you don't accept Milk as a martyr for the American gay civil rights movement?...

Another question, if Milk wasn't a civil rights martyr, was Martin Luther King (widely accepted as a civil rights martyr) also not a martyr?

Difficult to know how Milk can be a "martyr" when his killing had NOTHING to do with his being gay or with his supporting gay rights. He and Mayor Muscone (who was shot just before him, if you remember) were shot by White because he blamed them for his not being re-instated as a supervisor. His killing, like that of the Mayor, had NOTHING to do with "the American gay civil rights movement" however much you (and others) may wish it had and Milk is no more a martyr than Muscone.

Being murdered rather than dying of old age or under a bus doesn't make someone a martyr for a cause unless there is a connection between the two. There wasn't.

Whether you think James Earl Ray, Henry Clay Wilson, or some government conspiracy killed MLK, what is uncontested is that he WAS killed for his beliefs, for leading the African-American Civil Rights Movement. That makes him a martyr. QED.

Like I suspected. You are totally ignorant of the political environment at the time of the murders in San Francisco. Glad you aren't writing the history because it's already written. Harvey Milk is a martyr and hostile people like you can never change that truth. I would take the energy to educate you about the complexities of what was going on there at the time to refute your bizarrely simplistic unsophisticated characterization of it, as yes, I was there and deeply involved in it, but it would be a waste of time as your hostility towards gay activists is well documented here. What happened is also well documented. If you're really interested, which I know you're not, refer to them and you will learn why Milk is a martyr. No, not a saint. But a martyr nonetheless. But knowing that wouldn't serve your curious eccentric agenda, hanging around a gay forum, disrespecting gay activists and the gay civil rights movement at every available opportunity.

I have also picked up a deeply anti-American streak in your anti-gay activist postings here. He doesn't have to be your martyr, OK? But for the American gay civil rights movement, he is OUR martyr and he always will be, and there is nothing you or anyone else can do about it.

As far as actually getting things done in the long term, I do hope that over time Frank Kameny becomes as famous as Milk. He probably won't as he died naturally in old age. That's just the way things are.

"If a bullet should enter my brain, let the bullet destroy every closet door."

Harvey Bernard Milk

Edited July 23, 2012 by Jingthing

[LeCharivari]

....Like I suspected. You are totally ignorant of the political environment at the time of the murders in San Francisco. .... What happened is also well documented.

If it is so "well documented" maybe you could point me to ANY reference that links the murders of Muscone and Milk and "the political environment at the time" or "the American Gay Civil Rights Movement", rather than all those which make it clear that the murders were the result of nothing more than one man's anger at losing his job. ...... or, as usual, maybe not.

[Jingthing]

Harvey Milk. Gay Rights Movement Martyr.

[Jingthing]

In the U.S., where Milk was from, Milk is widely accepted as a martyr for the gay civil rights movement. Not just by gays but this is how the history books are being written You can argue that he doesn't DESERVE that description, but because he IS perceived that way, then that is what he IS. A martyr is a symbol of a greater movement and that definitely applies to Harvey Milk.

Notwithstanding the modesty of his office and the tragic foreshortening of his tenure, Milk, among the first openly gay elected officials in the country, had a profound impact on national politics, and his rich afterlife in American culture has affirmed his status as pioneer and martyr.

http://movies.nytime...?ref=harveymilk

A good reference is Randy Shilts The Mayor of Castro Street.

This time and place was the most pregnant time in the history of the gay civil rights movement in America and Harvey Milk was the most visible leader at that historic time and place.

Again, you have to understand the political context of the political murders (Dan White was right wing, anti-gay, and represented traditional blue collar Irish/white, pro old style POLICE San Francisco ; Moscone and Milk represented the new progressive, liberalized POLICE, multicultural San Francisco which had become the gay capital of the world) beyond the revenge aspect and understand what led up the murders and ALSO what happened AFTER the murders. The trial, the gay riots, etc. Gays were seen as outside invaders to Dan White's constituency. They had literally taken over an old working class Irish neighborhood and were expanding further into the Mission District. White had indeed intended to murder ALL of his political enemies on the board of supervisors plus the Mayor. He only got the two.

You saying Milk isn't a martyr is like a Jew telling a Catholic that Saint Christopher isn't a saint! Do you get the concept? You can say it all you want and not believe in it, but to Catholics he will ALWAYS be a saint.

I don't expect you to ever regard Milk as a martyr even if you read 100 books on the topic and talk to 100 people like me who were there. And it matters not one bit. Milk will always be a martyr anyway. I think on one level you KNOW that but for some reason (his leftist politics? his promotion of gay identity politics) that really annoys you. Too bloody bad!

Edited July 23, 2012 by Jingthing

[Jingthing]

Some more important historical context as background for why Milk is a martyr. The White Night Riots. Yes, I was there in the crowd, but did not do anything illegal.

[LeCharivari]

(edited)...... A martyr is a symbol of a greater movement and that definitely applies to Harvey Milk. ...

A martyr is a symbol of a greater movement may be true in Jingthinglish, but not in English. End of story.

(edited)...... White had indeed intended to murder ALL of his political enemies on the board of supervisors plus the Mayor. He only got the two.

There is no evidence nor is there any record (apart from here!) that "White had indeed intended to murder ALL of his political enemies on the board of supervisors plus the Mayor. He only got the two." According to the evidence, his alleged confession and all records he intended to kill those he blamed for his not being re-instated (something I have said twice); in addition to Muscone and White this included Carol Ruth Silver and Willie Brown.

[LeCharivari]

(edited) ..... You saying Milk isn't a martyr is like a Jew telling a Catholic that Saint Christopher isn't a saint! Do you get the concept? You can say it all you want and not believe in it, but to Catholics he will ALWAYS be a saint.

I have no problem with a Jew (or anyone else) telling me that St Christopher is not a saint - ignorance is not a sin, and it only becomes annoying when the ignorant refuse to acknowledge the facts.

St Christopher (otherwise known as St Menas, or Christophoros the Christ-bearer) is listed as a saint in the Martyrologium Romanum (the official list of the Roman Catholic saints, the Roman Martyrology) and the idea that he was somehow "de-listed" as a saint in 1969 by Pope Paul VI in Muto Proprio Mysterii Paschalis is totally incorrect, even though it is a popular misconception outside the Catholic church. His feast day was simply removed from the Calendar of Saints because it was not of Roman tradition, had been entered in the calendar late, in 1550, and had only been given limited observance, but it could still be observed locally* putting it in line with the Tridentine Calendar.

St Christopher is a saint (oh, and a martyr as he was decapitated for his faith). I was raised a Jesuit, as I believe I have mentioned.

Thank you, though, for providing an excellent example of a misconception that is repeated so often that the uninformed believe it and use it without even bothering to check if they are correct or not.

*: Memoria S. Christophori, anno circiter 1550 in Calendario romano ascripta, Calendariis particularibus relinquitur: quamvis Acta S. Christophori fabulos a sint, antiqua inveniuntur monumenta eius venerationis; attamen cultus huius Sancti non pertinet ad traditionem romanam

Edited July 24, 2012 by LeCharivari

[LeCharivari]

(edited) ..... I don't expect you to ever regard Milk as a martyr even if you read 100 books on the topic and talk to 100 people like me who were there. And it matters not one bit. Milk will always be a martyr anyway. I think on one level you KNOW that but for some reason (his leftist politics? his promotion of gay identity politics) that really annoys you. Too bloody bad!

You have, as usual, come to an incorrect conclusion.

I have no problem with Milk's politics, which by other countries' standards are not particularly "leftist" - you may have overlooked that before becoming a Democrat he worked on Republican Barry Goldwater's presidential campaign in 1964.

I also have no problem with his using his homosexuality to get the gay vote - he tried "gay identity politics" in 1973 and failed to be elected. In 1975 and 1976 he tried again after he had had a haircut, wore a suit, and swore off marijuana and gay bathhouses, trying to get a much broader base (which he did) and in 1977 he reverted to "gay identity politics" when the voting system was changed and he stood in a largely gay district, where he was elected.

What I have a problem with and what "really annoys" me, and I am afraid that you only have yourself to blame for my spelling it out since you raised the point and I deliberately avoided naming him before when I mentioned this as an example, is his selling his friends out for personal political gain - I know that's "only politics", but I find it unacceptable. When "Bill" Sipple saved President Ford's life in 1975 he did not want to be named at all and certainly did not want to be "outed" as gay, although his friends knew (but not his parents). Milk informed the press personally, justifying it because "It's too good an opportunity. For once we can show that gays do heroic things, not just all that ca-ca about molesting children and hanging out in bathrooms" - that was only partly true, as only a fortnight before Time magazine had run a cover story on a decorated Vietnam veteran, a pilot, who was being discharged for being gay (but that story obviously did not name Milk) . The full truth was that Milk told the press, against his friend's express wishes, on condition that they named him as a friend of Sipple and a leader of the San Francisco gay community who was running for election. Even in politics, I find that inexcusable.

There are other instances, but this is the worst - while I respect his political ability and what he did to raise the profile of gay rights (as well as his politics, such as health care, public transport, civilian control of the police, etc) I simply cannot respect someone personally just because they are gay.

JT, you often raise interesting, valid and thought provoking points but all too often they are obscured by the flood of unsupported personal abuse against anyone who disagrees with you and the pedestal you insist on building at every opportunity for Harvey Milk (and other "gay activists") and on which you try to put yourself by some tenuous association. I'm sorry to say that doing so does neither you nor them much credit.

[Jingthing]

The memory of gay civil rights martyr Harvey Milk lives on and he will always be seen as the Martin Luther King of the gay civil rights movement in America. What some petty, obviously anti gay as a political identity pedant thinks about it adds up to absolutely nothing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pzQ3NFXwpV8

"He was our Martin Luther King. Our martyr."

That is correct!

Edited July 25, 2012 by Jingthing

[taiwanatoa]

(edited) ..... I don't expect you to ever regard Milk as a martyr even if you read 100 books on the topic and talk to 100 people like me who were there. And it matters not one bit. Milk will always be a martyr anyway. I think on one level you KNOW that but for some reason (his leftist politics? his promotion of gay identity politics) that really annoys you. Too bloody bad!

You have, as usual, come to an incorrect conclusion.

I have no problem with Milk's politics, which by other countries' standards are not particularly "leftist" - you may have overlooked that before becoming a Democrat he worked on Republican Barry Goldwater's presidential campaign in 1964.

I also have no problem with his using his homosexuality to get the gay vote - he tried "gay identity politics" in 1973 and failed to be elected. In 1975 and 1976 he tried again after he had had a haircut, wore a suit, and swore off marijuana and gay bathhouses, trying to get a much broader base (which he did) and in 1977 he reverted to "gay identity politics" when the voting system was changed and he stood in a largely gay district, where he was elected.

What I have a problem with and what "really annoys" me, and I am afraid that you only have yourself to blame for my spelling it out since you raised the point and I deliberately avoided naming him before when I mentioned this as an example, is his selling his friends out for personal political gain - I know that's "only politics", but I find it unacceptable. When "Bill" Sipple saved President Ford's life in 1975 he did not want to be named at all and certainly did not want to be "outed" as gay, although his friends knew (but not his parents). Milk informed the press personally, justifying it because "It's too good an opportunity. For once we can show that gays do heroic things, not just all that ca-ca about molesting children and hanging out in bathrooms" - that was only partly true, as only a fortnight before Time magazine had run a cover story on a decorated Vietnam veteran, a pilot, who was being discharged for being gay (but that story obviously did not name Milk) . The full truth was that Milk told the press, against his friend's express wishes, on condition that they named him as a friend of Sipple and a leader of the San Francisco gay community who was running for election. Even in politics, I find that inexcusable.

There are other instances, but this is the worst - while I respect his political ability and what he did to raise the profile of gay rights (as well as his politics, such as health care, public transport, civilian control of the police, etc) I simply cannot respect someone personally just because they are gay.

JT, you often raise interesting, valid and thought provoking points but all too often they are obscured by the flood of unsupported personal abuse against anyone who disagrees with you and the pedestal you insist on building at every opportunity for Harvey Milk (and other "gay activists") and on which you try to put yourself by some tenuous association. I'm sorry to say that doing so does neither you nor them much credit.

Well said! Thanks for some truth!

[Jingthing]

Equal civil rights rights for gay people is not only for "A gays" or socially acceptable gays. No, OF COURSE being gay (or being black, Jewish, Muslim, or Roma) isn't any more of an accomplishment or any less of an accomplishment than being any sexual orientation (or minority ethnic group). That's rather the point. All people deserve the same basic and equal CIVIL rights under the law and in societies because we are all HUMAN BEINGS. Period.

Of course the gay people today in countries that now have a good level of equality most definitely owe a debt of gratitude to the historic gay activists of the past. The martyred Harvey Milk is a good example of such an activist who is indeed being honored and respectfully remembered in America. Happily, sniping voices such as we are hearing from "LC" are few and far between in America (except of course predictably from the right wing).

There are people today in a number of countries taking similar risks to the martyred Harvey Milk. There probably will be 200 years from now as well.

Disrespecting gay activists on a gay forum isn't exactly what I would call truth. I would call it what it is: crass and nauseating ingratitude for the hard work and sacrifices made and yes ... disrespect.

Edited August 2, 2012 by Jingthing

[LeCharivari]

....Of course the gay people today in countries that now have a good level of equality most definitely owe a debt of gratitude to the historic gay activists of the past. .....

No "of course" about it.

I, and none of those in any of those "countries that now have a good level of equality" "owe" HM or any other American gay activists anything - their actions have had NO effect on gay rights or equality outside the USA - except in the case of those groups/activists such as the GLF who extended their influence outside the US and who made gays there the object of ridicule, negating any prospect of gay rights and acceptance until they were gone and forgotten.

As Rob Epstein, who directed the film version of Randy Shilts' biography of HM said "At the time, for those of us who lived in San Francisco, it felt like it was life changing, that all the eyes of the world were upon us, but in fact most of the world outside of San Francisco had no idea. It was just a really brief, provincial, localized current events story that the mayor and a city council member in San Francisco were killed. It didn't have much reverberation."

*

I have already said that HM was a " "Great American hero", gay role model, first openly gay man elected to public office in the US who would almost certainly have gone on to higher political office", that "I have no problem with Milk's politics, which by other countries' standards are not particularly "leftist"", that "I also have no problem with his using his homosexuality to get the gay vote" and that "I respect his political ability and what he did to raise the profile of gay rights (as well as his politics, such as health care, public transport, civilian control of the police, etc) ".

What I have a problem with is his disgraceful and inexcusable "outing" of an erstwhile friend, against his express wishes and destroying his life, purely for personal gain. You may think that merits his being "honored and respectfully remembered" and choose to ignore it. I don't.

Edited August 3, 2012 by LeCharivari

[nongkhai]

mar·tyr   [mahr-ter] noun

1. a person who willingly suffers death rather than renounce his or her religion.

2. a person who is put to death or endures great suffering on behalf of any belief, principle, or cause: a martyr to the cause of social justice.

3. a person who undergoes severe or constant suffering: a martyr to severe headaches.

4. a person who seeks sympathy or attention by feigning or exaggerating pain, deprivation, etc.

Mr LeCharivari is quite correct ... certainly according to a strict definition of the word 'martyr'. Mr Milk was murdered. but not martyred. If you ~ Jingthing ~ insist on martyred it seems you should greatly reduce the size and scope of the causal blanket you're throwing around willy-nilly. Milk didn't get gunned down for any gay cause.

And then there's this (at LeCharivari):

" ... Like I suspected. You are totally ignorant of the political environment at the time of the murders in San Francisco. Glad you aren't writing the history because it's already written. Harvey Milk is a martyr and hostile people like you can never change that truth. I would take the energy to educate you about the complexities of what was going on there at the time to refute your bizarrely simplistic unsophisticated characterization of it ... "

... rather directly after writing this (after reading "insult', where probably none was intended):

" ... Please resist making this personal with your snarky insults, OK? ... "

Mr Jingthing as drama queen personified. And, as always ... never disappoints.

[Jingthing]

I may or may not be a so called drama queen. Although I don't regard myself that way, perhaps my posting style gives that impression. It's a trifle. Such insults don't faze me one bit.

However, one thing I am not is a pedantic literalist.

Harvey Milk is widely REGARDED as a martyr for the gay civil rights movement in America and that will not change.

If y'all think that is so wrong, best get involved with trying to change his wiki article and countless other descriptions of how Harvey Milk is in actually regarded. Reactionaries on a "gay" forum in Thailand are hardly a threat to his historic legacy.

http://en.wikipedia....iki/Harvey_Milk

Despite his short career in politics, Milk became an icon in San Francisco and a martyr in the gay community.

Seriously folks if he was just another politician who didn't represent a larger MOVEMENT, in this case gay civil rights, why do you think there were RIOTS when his murderer was given a slap on the wrist sentence? People weren't rioting about Moscone, they were rioting because of Milk because of the greater thing he represented. Again, I was there, I know what it meant then, I know what it means now, and the history is already written CORRECTLY as I actually saw it directly. You think you people who weren't even there are going to change the history? Not a chance.

Edited August 3, 2012 by Jingthing

[LeCharivari]

....... Reactionaries on a "gay" forum in Thailand are hardly a threat to his historic legacy ......

Something which is just as well for HM's "legacy".

Your continual attempts to associate yourself with him because you might have shared the same urinal at some time in the dim and distant past, or whatever, do him little credit - and your introducing him in the context of "outing", which was his major public failing and which most of his genuine supporters would try to downplay, is so counter-productive to his "legacy" that it is simply bizarre.

You seem so intent on epitomising everything that is generally disliked about gays and gay "activists" and now dragging HM down with you that I am beginning to think that, far from being "there", you are some form of agent provacateur intent on giving gays here as bad a name as you can. Thank God no-one here takes you and your agenda (whatever it may be) seriously.

[Jingthing]

Dude, THIS thread which I started is about a German gay civil rights activist who happened to inspire American gay civil rights activist Frank Kameny (who I also knew). I connected Milk to this because Milk is already a gay civil rights icon and martyr and I think Kameny's historic legacy is probably going to fade away. I guess it shows the PR benefit of being murdered. Oh well.

BTW, as said before, Milk promoted gay people to come out VOLUNTARILY so that we would be more visible and have a better chance of being recognized as everyday human beings (brothers, sisters, friends, coworkers, mailmen, you name it) with the goal of winning civil rights. Yes he thought that would help and I agree with him. I know that you, with the bias of your personal obviously closeted history, don't feel that way. However, I don't associate him with a militant forced outing movement. Do you?

If you're really interested in the details of my personal associations with a number of historic figures in the gay American civil rights movement, you can PM me. I haven't said that I am such a historical figure. I know you're not really interested. You're just here to hurl the personal insults, your insulting urinal comment being typical.

Edited August 4, 2012 by Jingthing

[LeCharivari]

.... I know that you, with the bias of your personal obviously closeted history, don't feel that way. Your right. However, I don't associate him with a militant forced outing movement. Do you?

No, I ASSOCIATE HIM WITH HIS ACTIONS - outing someone who had thought he was HM's friend, against his wishes, purely in order to further his own political career which until then had resulted in two failed attempts at local election including rejection by the local gay establishment.

If you're really interested in the details of my personal associations with a number of historic figures in the gay American civil rights movement, you can PM me. ..... I know you're not really interested.....

You're right, for once - I'm not interested at all, and your continuing to mention "outing" in connection with HM, repeatedly highlighting the most unpleasant aspect of his personality, makes me wonder about your agenda and your supposed "associations" even more.

I'm not really interested in the "historic figures in the gay American civil rights movement" much either, to be honest. HM, Frank Kameny, Barney Frank, Barney Rubble, whatever - as I said above "their actions have had NO effect on gay rights or equality outside the USA" and the only affect any American gay activists have had elsewhere has been an adverse one.

My "obviously closeted history"? I have never been in or out of the closet (as I have said before).

[Jingthing]

Well, again, as I did start this thread, I was interested in the roots of Kameny's inspiration from the German dude as I do think Kameny was much more important than his limited fame indicates. I'm not suggesting non-Americans would be interested in Kameny. Not suggesting you should be. However for someone who isn't interested in the gay American civil rights movement you sure have lots of strong opinions about Harvey Milk! Of course Milk was no saint; nobody said he was! His political agenda about coming out was about people voluntarily coming out. There is no way anyone could assert he was a leader in a movement to force out people against their will. You can't find anything in his speeches promoting that, and if you can, I'll give you a prize!

(BTW, Martin Luther King wasn't a SAINT in his personal life ... either.)

Edited August 4, 2012 by Jingthing

[LeCharivari]

..... Of course Milk was no saint; nobody said he was!

Ummm ....

.....

http://queerhistory....tyr-modern.html

Harvey Milk, Secular Gay Saint and Modern Martyr

Edited August 4, 2012 by LeCharivari

[LeCharivari]

......His political agenda about coming out was about people voluntarily coming out. There is no way anyone could assert he was a leader in a movement to force out people against their will. You can't find anything in his speeches promoting that, and if you can, I'll give you a prize!

(BTW, Martin Luther King wasn't a SAINT in his personal life ... either.)

I'm NOT talking about his "political agenda" or his "personal life". I'm talking about WHAT HE DID FOR PERSONAL GAIN. I don't know what part of that you don't understand.

In your first post in the "Outing" thread you wrote that " Obviously, it is wrong to violate the privacy of people by outing them." HM didn't just "out" Bill Sipple, he outed him despite his being his close friend and supporter, despite Sipple asking him not to, despite knowing that Sipple's Baptist parents would reject him, despite knowing that he had severe psychiatric problems after being wounded in the head in Vietnam, and all JUST TO GET HIS OWN NAME IN THE PRESS.

Utterly disgraceful and unforgivable, as is your insinuation that MLK ever did anything similar - or do you have some agenda about discrediting him too?

[Jingthing]

You are getting very upset about this. It's very odd to me why you are so invested in one detail of Harvey Milk's life. No, of course I am not interested in discrediting Milk or King, just saying that people who become famous civil rights leaders and martyrs aren't perfect. No human is.

As far as the Sipple story, you seem obsessed about it. Why is that? I am guessing it is personal to you because of your personal military schtick. In any case I had to look it up as I don't even recall it from that era. It rings a bell but during that time, it was NOT a big deal. It was obviously a big deal to Sipple. I think you're correct, Milk was wrong in outing Sipple even though his motivations were that it would be good for the gay civil rights movement for the public to know a heroic person like that was gay. But wrong is wrong. It doesn't change the fact that Milk will always be regarded as a historic gay civil rights icon and martyr.

Edited August 4, 2012 by Jingthing

[Jingthing]

..... Of course Milk was no saint; nobody said he was!

Ummm ....

.....

http://queerhistory....tyr-modern.html

Harvey Milk, Secular Gay Saint and Modern Martyr

OK, someone did. You win a gold star.

[LeCharivari]

..... I think you're correct, Milk was wrong in outing Sipple even though his motivations were that it would be good for the gay civil rights movement for the public to know a heroic person like that was gay. But wrong is wrong......

His motivation was simple, whatever excuse he used - to get his name in the papers, associated with Sipple's, while mentioning that he was standing for election. Nothing more - Time magazine's front cover a fortnight before had featured a decorated Vietnam vet (a pilot, if I recall) who was being discharged for being gay so Milk's excuse was worthless. It was sadly typical of Milk who happily used any tactic to get elected - outing his friend, abusing the gay establishment (the "Alice") when they refused to support him, assuming "gay identity politics" in a predominantly gay zone when he had failed to get elected any other way once the electoral areas were revised, etc. He achieved considerably more by being murdered by the Twinkie killer than he ever had when alive, which is a sad reflection on both him and on American gay civil rights.

[Jingthing]

I wonder if we have revealed here on this Thai forum a man who is the most obsessed person on the planet about how bad Harvey Milk was. I have found some negative articles about him, mainly from anti-gay far right wing media and also a few right wing gay people who seem motivated to diss Harvey because Harvey was a left winger, but the poisonous tone we can read right here really takes the cake. Not to mention the transparent anti-Americanism. Again, Harvey Milk was no saint. That was part of his charm.

I do want to say Milk wasn't comparable to what Martin Luther King represented to the American black civil rights movement. However, be clear, the American gay civil rights movement has been modeled after the example of the American black civil rights movement, and for American gay people, Harvey Milk was as close as we have gotten to Martin Luther King. As the movement is now already well established and the goal of equal civil rights is in sight, we probably don't require another martyr representing the movement. So bottom line, like him or not, Harvey Milk is IT. Yes the movement still would have happened without our martyr (or any martyr), Harvey Milk, but that doesn't mean that he won't always be remembered as a significant catalyst for that movement.

Edited August 5, 2012 by Jingthing