America: The Home of Gay Rights?

[Wintereis]

"You certainly are successful at exporting, but reception can be mixed, have you ever seen a French demonstration against McDonald's?"

No, I've not seen a French demonstration against McDonalds, but I--as most Americans are--am well aware of the anti-American sentiment in Europe as well as other regions of the world. This is why I don't entirely buy your idea that Hollywood would lose "British" irony, as Americans find the anti-Americanism quite ironic considering the consumption of American cultural products by those same groups. But it is all well. We take it in stride. Having the world's eyes fixed on you is not the easiest thing as the British well know. I certainly get annoyed when my culture is reduced to burgers and Britney spears as much as a Brit might get annoyed at having his culture reduced to Spotted Dick (Richard, from what I hear now) and Roan Atkinson.

"Thanks for the explanation of Queer Theory, I also read the wikipedia page on it (interestingly that classes Queer Theory as part of sociology). It seems (at least to my scientific biases) as a discipline that has far more to do with the analysis of academic discourse than the analysis of real life as lived by actual real people”

Hmmm, that is interesting. I'm sure it spills over into many different fields. I personally learned much of it from literary criticism. What I have read of it is unquestionably philosophy with heavy sociological implications.

As far as having to do with real life or being an academic discipline based on an academic discipline, this goes the same route as what you stated about Hollywood movies always being from an American perspective. Perspective is inescapable, the episteme is inescapable. American filmmakers can't possibly make films from anything other than an American perspective. It is finite relativity as is science. We, as humans, cannot reach objectivity or escape the socio-temporal locus of our own perspective. So every discipline including science is subject to a relative perspective. From Margret Mead, Freud, Derrida, and Einstein . . . all reached the same basic conclusion in a different manor. Newtonian philosophy has certainly made a stride toward objectivity, but true objectivity is illusive.

As far as Judy, the death of Judy Garland is often cited as a catalyst for the Stonewall riots. The police were treating gay people no differently than they had on previous nights. The difference for the spontaneous uprising seems to be that her funeral was that day. Perhaps, and again this is only a thought, the universal appeal of Garland to gay Americans at the time gave them something beyond their own oppression to galvanize around. It is not fact, but it is the best thing I can come up with.

[fredv3b]

As far as Judy, the death of Judy Garland is often cited as a catalyst for the Stonewall riots. The police were treating gay people no differently than they had on previous nights. The difference for the spontaneous uprising seems to be that her funeral was that day. Perhaps, and again this is only a thought, the universal appeal of Garland to gay Americans at the time gave them something beyond their own oppression to galvanize around. It is not fact, but it is the best thing I can come up with.

To be honest I don't find it convincing as an explanation for the historical significance. That significance would have had to have taken hold among gay Americans across the nation before the memory of her funeral faded. I don't dispute that the coincidence may have sparked the riots.

[Wintereis]

Also, I should add that it is a common assumption that philosophy and/or sociology (what ever we want to call it) has no real life implications. But history says something quite different, as philosophy has had as much to do with how societies change as science. If it were not for the philosophy of the age of enlightenment the United States would not exist as it does today nor would the U.K. France, Germany and most any other country on earth. If it were not for the philosophy of Marx China, Cuba, North Korea and even large swaths of European and American governmental systems would be quite different. The philosophy of people like Heidegger and Spencer is as much to blame for the Holocaust as the mishandling of Darwinian Theory. It is true, philosophy has long been engaged in trying to locate the Platonic ideal, but it is not without its real life implications.

[Wintereis]

<<To be honest I don't find it convincing as an explanation for the historical significance. That significance would have had to have taken hold among gay Americans across the nation before the memory of her funeral faded. I don't dispute that the coincidence may have sparked the riots.>>

Yes, well, I tried

[fredv3b]

While I agree with you regarding philosophy, I have to admit holding the standard view with regard to sociology (I see them as separate if partially overlapping entities). The extent of Marx's influence is particularly notable since he wrote so little about what the historical inevitability of communism would be like, how it would be ordered, etc.

[fjp999]

Is it just me or does anyone else instinctively think of the US as the home of the gay rights movement?

[COLOR="Purple"]I never thought of the USA as being in the forefront of a gay life style... maybe aggressiveness :biggrin: but always felt that the Europeans were much more progressive (I may be wrong but I usually think of the Brits as Europeans).

btw, the above discussion has been a very interesting read. Thanks all.

btw2, Wintereis if you want to quote someone you should see a "Quote" button on the bottom right corner of the persons post. If you want to quote multiple posts then hit the "Multi" button and it will turn red... when you have chosen all the multiple quotes then hit the "Quote" button on the last persons "Multi" button you turned red. WoW, that seems complicated but is really easy, I hope...[/COLOR]

[marshlander]

... (I may be wrong but I usually think of the Brits as Europeans) ...

Now there's a can of worms

[fredv3b]

(I may be wrong but I usually think of the Brits as Europeans).

Now there's a can of worms

I there weren't an English Channel, we would have to dig one.

[princealbertofb]

About the initial question, I'd say the Greeks started it, a long long time ago. Then there was the Stonewall riots and all the civil movements for peace and equality etc in the 60s in the USA, which maybe furthered many causes and made the world come to some new conclusions. Then there was also Dr Kinsey who said that sex between men was commoner than one would have previously thought. But you are right in thinking that Europeans have furthered the cause to a greater degree than the USA now. Incidentally, it was very much easier for gays to be gay in pre-war Germany, as stories by Christopher Isherwood, and films etc attest. Unfortunately, Hitler and his nazi regime put an end to that little island of happiness.
This German silent film by Richard Oswald : Anders als die Andern 'Different from the others) by Richard Oswald (1919) was a forerunner.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0009878/

A review:
It's a wonder any of this film exists; if not for the wear of age (it's said that most films of this era are lost), one would think censorship and the Nazis would have annihilated it. Yet, much of the footage remains. The Kino release of the reconstruction fills in the rest of the story with explanatory intertitles and still photographs, nearing the film's original runtime. That's the first wonder.

The second is its message of tolerance and understanding of homosexuals. Message films, social realist films, or "enlightenment films" were not too common in the silent era, probably because the lack of sound takes away from the capacity to lecture. Lois Weber is an exception that I'm familiar with; she made a career out of selling morals to audiences. 'Different from the Others' includes the tact of a self-referential scene, which Weber broadened to more interesting depths in her best work. This is a film pleading for the equality of homosexuals, and it features a lecture within the lecture doing the same: the "sexologist" Magnus Hirschfeld giving a slideshow presentation, which is attended by Else. I think it makes the film more honest, and, at the same time, it's a way for the filmmakers to be as blunt as possible.

It's difficult to appreciate the film aesthetically, anymore. The gay nightclub scenes are frank, but the film seems to shy away from too much intimacy between homosexuals. 'Philadelphia' (1993) has been criticized for its lack of a kiss, too, so I suppose it's asking too much of a film from 1919. The camera-work appears rather static, as well. On the other hand, Conrad Veidt was an admirable man and quite an actor. This is as much bravery from a prominent actor as you'll ever see. And, he was outspoken against the Nazis, as opposed to Emil Jannings, probably the other major male star of German silent film. Although Veidt's performance is much in the style of the time, he shows the right balance of effeminacy without being stereotypical.

Other than Veidt, the film isn't of much entertainment or artistic value. The film's message, however, is very important, even today; as the reconstruction introduction says, Germany, while a generally liberal government and populace today, Paragraph 175 wasn't repealed until 1994. And, there's the marriage debate in the US and elsewhere. 'Different from the Others' is powerful in that way.

Part one


Part two


Part three

[princealbertofb]

That brings out another question. Why has everyone heard of the Stonewall riots but not the Black Cat riots two years earlier in L.A?

Good question, Fred. Would you like to enlighten us?