To the Editor:
Amiri Barksdale should be commended for his most recent preposterous essay, "Gays and the Civil Rights Movement" (Jan. 18, The Dartmouth). The last time he riled enough anger in me (and many people) was with his "satire" on dating black women published early last term. As a teaching assistant for a freshman English class, it provided great opportunity to show exactly how bad writing can confuse and anger your readers. It is refreshing to see that here Mr. Barksdale does not attempt a form of writing he has no control over, instead letting his true emotions show.
Barksdale states that gay people, assuming homosexuality is not genetic, "are wholly responsible for that choice and the persecution it may bring." Does he also assumes that persecution in general is a good thing sometimes? In the ideal world that all civil rights movements dream of, there is no persecution; in the world we live in, there is- but that doesn't mean it is right. Persecution is something that should not happen to anyone, black, white, red or purple, man or woman, a citizen of this country or not, Jewish or Catholic or Mormon or agnostic, gay or straight. All civil rights movements work toward the end of persecution and to say that persecution of one group is OK while another is evil incarnate seems a tad counterproductive.
But I should be ashamed, for here I am saying exactly what Barksdale does not want me to say: that the civil rights movement of the '60s should not be equated with the gay rights movement of the '90s. This is true: they are very different movements. But permit me to draw a couple of analogies along his own lines. Early in his piece he says, correctly, that the civil rights movement "was based on a need to be recognized as human beings and a need to be protected by the law after centuries of physical abuse and oppression - in short, the need for humanity." Perhaps he does not remember that Rodney King was not the only beating to hit the media last year, but also that of Allen Schindler, the naval officer who was beaten to death worse, according to the doctor who did the autopsy, than anything he had ever seen. Rodney King survived to tell the tale; Allen Schindler did not survive to watch a fellow officer show no remorse following his sentencing. And as for oppression, we have no further to look than the Hanover post office, where a Dartmouth student watched a postal officer say "This is what I think of your lesbian money" and rip it up in front of her face. Inhumanity, believe it or not, exists in both rights movements and in many others.
But slinging accusations back and forth is not in the interest of anyone: nobody wins in the end. Barksdale is probably right to say that the gay rights movement should not be equaled to the civil rights movement for blacks or women. Then again, looking at the Oxford English Dictionary, "civil rights" is first used as a phrase in 1721 and applies only to "the rights of each citizen to liberty, equality, etc." Since when is civil rights only applicable to one group? Shouldn't civil rights be attainable by all? Perhaps I am a bit too much of an idealist, but the "everyone is created equal" adage is much more favorable in my eye than the Orwellian amendment "but some are more equal than others," that Barksdale seems willing to propose.
Barksdale says in his essay, "I am sure this column will be labeled reactionary and homophobic, and I will be criticized for being insensitive to the oppression of others - an accusation all the more horrible because I am black." He is right: the column - and the message he so carefully wants us to distinguish from the messenger - is reactionary, homophobic, and insensitive. And it is horrible to say so. But it is horrible because he is a person, not because he is black.
The sooner he realizes this, perhaps the sooner we can all come together and understand one another as people. If only Barksdale weren't the only person who needed to realize this.
JEFFREY MIDDENTS '93
