EC Blog: Braithwaite Lecture
Dr. Richardson’s talk on Tuesday March 26 brought up something
I had never realized or really thought of before. He spoke on how the LGBT people of color are
missing when it comes to the awareness of Black peoples past. As if black people don’t want to acknowledge
that these people are a part of their history.
He told us about the Museum on the African Diaspora (in San Francisco)
and how they pay homage to all these black historical figures but those people
who were/are queer aren’t mentioned.
Even when it comes to big stars who definitely should not be forgotten
or ignored. His example was that in the
exhibit where prominent musical artists were, Luther Vandross was not in
it. I was offended because I love Luther
and his music, so I definitely want to see homage paid to him as an
artist. But the thing that gets me is
that there were only rumors and speculation that he was gay. He never openly affirmed that. So, is queerness something so horrible and
taboo in black history that those in charge of the archives want to erase all
memory of not only all gays but all those who were even rumored to be so?
What is
it about queerness that scares people so?
I’m not queer or gay myself but I don’t hate and ostracize gay
people. I think people should be able to
do what they want and love who they want, even if its themselves that they want
to love or no one at all (some asexual people, for example). But my opinion is that, generically speaking,
black people are a very religious people and many people say that being LGBT is
a sin against God and rebuked in the bible.
With that said, they don’t want to taint the image of black people with
the sin of transsexuality and same sex relationships. An argument could be made that the overall
image of the black person, although tortured, is clean at least historically
speaking. Reminding you that Richardson
was saying that the queer person of color is missing from the archives, not the spotlight today. The black person of the past is humble and
subservient, which is why they made such great slaves, and also religious. So, in keeping this historical image up, they
don’t want sinful queerness to become associated with the black people. This could be the reason the queer person of
color is so hard to find within the archives of black history.
If my
previous statement holds true, what does that mean for anyone’s memory of
history? Will things be forgotten simply
because one person or group of people find it to be less than desirable? Who is to say what does and doesn't get ‘published’
in the history book? Shouldn't it be the
collective people who decide what that is, as opposed to a few elites who have
access to this power? I guess that this
could qualify them as the subaltern and that they are trying to find their voice
among history. And how can Spivak apply
when we are talking about hearing the voices of the past?
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.