|
||
This Fourth: Freedom, Crispus and Gay Linguists (Remixed)
The following was originally posted on Huffington Post for the 4th of July in 2007. With the recent discharge of West Point graduate and Arabic linguist First Lt. Dan Choi from the New York National Guard for the high crime of wanting to serve his country openly, the piece seemed due for a remix and a repost. A hope, also, that this will be the last July 4th that passes in which such a post will be relevant:
Crispus Attucks was born a slave in the colony of Massachusetts.
Maybe he was born in Mass.
He might've been born around 1723. Perhaps he was born a couple of years prior. Or could it have been a couple of years after? Hard to be exactly sure. Crispus was born a slave. In the early 1700s nobody was much keeping stats on slaves beyond the quality of their teeth, the thickness of their hide and whether or not they had the audacity to make a run to freedom.
Crispus ran. Was never caught. Fell off the 18th Century version of the grid for twenty years.
The next significant event in Crispus's life was his last. March 5th, 1770. A fight broke out in Dock Square between a few good, upstanding Colonists and some nasty Brit soldiers. Crispus took up a stick, rallied a crowd and rolled out to back up the Colonists against the King's lackeys.
It was true then as it is now: don't bring a stick to a shooting match. The soldiers opened fired. Hit Crispus twice. Killed him, killed four others and wounded six.
Though the event was five years prior to the open rebellion, the Boston Massacre was one of the bloody precursors to the American Revolution. It was citizens rising up to physicalize their displeasure with the Crown. In giving his life, Crispus is considered to be the first patriot of the Colonial revolt. Born a slave, he died fighting for ideals society itself didn't extend to him. But, you know, sometimes those without freedom are precisely the ones who cherish it most.
It's a lesson that's been re-taught to the populace by the Tuskegee Red Tails and the Fightin' 442nd: that the desire to secure liberty, a sense of honor and duty are not the sole domain of any race, or gender, or faith.
Nor are they limited by sexual orientation.
And yet . . .
Since 1998 the US military has discharged 58 Arabic and Farsi translators because -- wait for it -- they were gay.
A REMIX NOTE: according to an article in the LA TImes: "Since "don't ask, don't tell" was enacted in 1993, about 13,000 military personnel have been discharged because of their sexual orientation." In his book Unfriendly Fire: How the Gay Ban Undermines the Military and Weakens America, historian Nathaniel Frank breaks down the numbers as follows: "11,000 capable service members under the policy, including over 300 linguists, 49 nuclear, biological, and chemical warfare specialists, 90 nuclear power engineers, 52 missile guidance and control operators, 150 rocket, missile and other artillery specialists, and 340 infantrymen."
Fired.
Sent packing despite the shortage of individuals skilled in speaking middle-eastern tongues. Here we are in the hard heart of the war on terrorism. We are told again and again that this will be a decades-long struggle to secure Western civilization which will require shared sacrifice from all.
So, isn't it ironic that securing freedom for all is not open to all?
Why is "Don't ask..." still our policy when it is the enemies of liberty who don't check a list and mark the particulars of their victimss? There was no type of individual that was not laid low by the attacks of September 11th or the bombings in Bali and Madrid and London. Why, then, would we place restrictions on those willing to stand against our attackers? Because of their sexual preference? Tell that to the dead left in the wake of the next successful Al Qaeda attack; actionable intel could not be verified because we could not abide the private lives of those who offered to help.
Fifty-eight willing to fight despite the bigotry some in the country level against them.
Fifty-eight willing patriots kicked to the curb among 11,000 uniformed men and women similarly set-aside since the early nineties. That's nearly a surge in itself.
This Fourth of July, consider the true cost of freedom. Beyond spilled blood and loss of life, it is tolerating those not like us, who wish to defend us.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
i kept looking for the part where mr ridley revealed crispus attucks was gay, but all he told us was what we already knew - that he was a black revolutionary war hero. cant understand why he (or the tuskegee airmen) was thrown in the article to make a point about gays in the military. this would have been a much more powerful argument if the writer had made an apple to apple comparison using a gay revolutionary war hero. i realize it would be very difficult to find an open & confirmed gay revolutionary war hero, but we're on the internet, so rumors & innuendo count too. (i suspect that the majority of the duels they fought back then were about gay allegations.) for the record, i'm a navy vet & i cant imagine how a fellow sailor's personal life would have made a bit of difference in the duties we performed, just as i work around gay ppl now & it doesnt make a bit of difference.
The point was clear to me, at least:
"Born a slave, he died fighting for ideals society itself didn't extend to him. But, you know, sometimes those without freedom are precisely the ones who cherish it most."
"'Since "don't ask, don't tell" was enacted in 1993, about 13,000 military personnel have been discharged because of their sexual orientation.' ... willing to fight despite the bigotry some in the country level against them."
"This Fourth of July, consider the true cost of freedom. Beyond spilled blood and loss of life, it is tolerating those not like us, who wish to defend us."
What part of this connection isn't clear? Crispus is an example of someone who fought for liberty that he wasn't afforded by the people he fought for. Homosexual troops are doing the same.
Ok, well then why compare the gay movement to the civil rights movement if you can't understand that then? You are a selective thinker. You select what you want to be true then you block whatever doesn't suit you.
Dr. Evelyn Hooker's research from 1956, which is the basis for the consensus today that homosexuality isn't a disorder, shows that the only problem is homophobia, not homosexuality. Gay people are equal to heterosexuals in job performance and in all other respects, making all forms of discrimination irrational.
Well said.
Nothing wrong with wanting to be a Gay and Happy man, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8c1JY20Pnd8&feature=related
I heard Frank's interview on NPR and one of the most frustrating things about this policy is that our soldiers are often embedded with forces from other countries who permit gays to serve. This policy was never meant to be a long term strategy and must be changed soon before our armed services are filled with under-achieving, ex-cons and others who are certainly less qualified to serve than those who are gay.
Whenever our troops are embedded with foreign troops they're fighting with foreign armies who have repealed any ban against gay citizens serving, if they ever had one. The US is alone in this policy among both the so-called coalition of the willing and all other NATO members. Somehow the foreign gay troops don't cause our troops to lose their morale, let alone flee in terror.
That's a simplified way of looking at it. They allow their soldiers to form unions, drink alcohol in combat zones, and some use conscription still. Should we adopt those policies just because it "works" for them.
At this point the only reason that DADT is still law, still enforced, is that Barack Obama does not oppose this policy. I don't believe that the story of Mr. Choi and the thousands of Veterans who have lost their jobs and lawfully earned benefits does concerns him. I believe the following holds true:
1. Barack and Michelle Obama, based on religious and cultural beliefs and traditions, do not believe that GLBT people are worthy of full civil rights.
2. Barack Obama and his staff believe that his support of DADT keeps his alliance of left and center together. He does not believe the GLBT community will leave him as they have no where else to go.
3. Keeping us GLBT people vocally angry at him reinforces to all those who support him, but not GLBT civil rights, that he is not in the pocket of the GLBT community and the kind of people who support him.
Barack Obama is the most intelligent President this country has had in a very long time. He knows exactly what he's doing, and GLBT people are being used by him to play to prejudices that will keep his coalition together, It's a mean game he's playing, and I will never spend one cent or one minute of my time supporting him.
John,
Thank you for so eloquently standing-up for gay rights. And for doing so frequently.
It is much appreciated.
Yes!
Life is short and challenging. Why do we have to make it unnecessarily complicated? If everyone in Choi's unit including his commanding officer said that he served honorably, what do we need DADT for? It seems DADT's only purpose is to continue to criticize people for being gay regardless of how well they serve or adhere to the military's code of conduct.
DADT makes a mockery of American Justice.
As a hetero veteran and tax payer, I can't for the life of me figure out why anyone would want to be where they know they are not welcome, though I believe it is their right to be where they wish, and to "serve" should they choose. Service to the people in some capacity should be mandatory anyway, and there are many ways to serve.
I am personally very proud of our Armed Multinational Corporate and Big Oil Protection Forces.
As for the true believer cannon fodder and sycopant officers, as Heysoose was supposed to have been quoted as saying... "forgive them, for they know not what they do..." I paraphrase because of course there is no proof Heysoose said anything of actionable value during his torture and execution...as we have no first hand sources... hmmm, how convenient all of the witnesses ended up dead...
Oh please. I don't need figures to tell me how many awesome soldiers have been kicked out in the military. If it's been 13 or 13,000, uh, obviously it hasn't dealt such a devastating blow the the efficiency of the military that they're calling on a full repeal of DADT. The main people who want it overturned are politicians -- most of whom haven't served themselves.
I've always thought DADT didn't make a lot of sense to me, because I'm not in the military and I'm not responsible for making sure it works. Neither are most people who complain about how discriminatory and bigoted the policy is. It's easy to judge when you yourself have nothing on the line.
Non sequiturs. It's a fact that firing people like Lt. Col. Victor Fehrenbach, or anyone else, for bigotry alone is a waste of talent, training, money, time, et cetera.
Firing Arabic linguists, for instance, does undermine efficiency. The mistake you're making is you're assuming that simply because the military continues to function that it's functioning as well as it would have without these unnecessary firings. That's just not the case.
You can see all the combat hours he put in here. You can see the facts:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8NZDRjEKwtQ
Apparently it doesn't undermine efficiency to the extent that the military is begging Congress to repeal it. It isn't a non sequitur to point out the only people who want it overturned have an agenda.
"The main people who want it overturned are politicians -- most of whom haven't served themselves."
False. 75% of the public wants the policy ended right now, and so do highly decorated and trained veterans with medals for heroism like Lt. Col. Victor Fehrenbach. Former colonels like Margarethe Cammermeyer (RN, Ph.D, COL, Ret), too:
Your continued attempts to justify a policy of blatant and corrosive discrimination with half-truths and blatant lies (like your assertion that it hasn't been proven that homosexuality isn't a disorder) fail because there are facts others can see for themselves. Dr. Hooker's 1950s research was independently verified by multiple experts and has not been countered since. Gay people are equal to heterosexuals in every respect, including job performance. There is no rational justification for DADT, DOMA, or any other form of heterosexist discrimination.
You can't prove that 75% of the public wants it overturned, and 75% of the public hasn't served in the military either, so what do they know?
Quit whining all the time. You know I'm right and you can't prove me wrong. All you can do is whine and cry about discrimination. I guess if you ignore all other relevant data besides your feelings, you can convince yourself you're making some sense.
I find it ironic that many gay and lesbian people want to serve but can't......while so many of the priveledged brat offspring of prominent chickenhawk right wingers would not serve if their lives depended on it. They hide in the enclaves and universities of the well connected rather like W,Cheney, Limbaugh, Wolfowitz, Kristol, etc did during the Vietnam era. Many of our gay and lesbian people want to put their priorities to good use on behalf of us all while the others have "other priorities" like Cheney did in the '60's.
Thank you for the re-post. Very good. It needs to be shouted from the rooftops that a person's sexual orientation has nothing to do with his/her willingness to serve our country.
Always remember: Tolerance≠unconditional love.
Thank you for reminding us that American Liberty is not a finished product and probably never will be. "Some Assembly Required" should be our national motto!
thank you John.
Thank you. Americans shouldn't just be taught history. They should have their noses rubbed in it!
I'd have to ask though why LGBTs even want to serve in the military to defend the people who work to deny them equal rights and say all sorts of crazee shoit about them. Find something that contributes toward the betterment of mankind rather than going into an organization designed to off people you've never met and which actively discriminates against you.
Yes Siberian Rat
While the LGBT compares itself to the Black Civil Rights Movement; ask that same question to any Black Vietnam vet who was drafted and forced to fight for a country that was bent on not extending rights and justice to him. You just ask them and see what answer you get.... eh!
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
