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.

Comments

[iskelton]

All Americans should salute Crispus Attucks -- the first American to die for the cause of freedom.

We may never know whether he was actually the first man to go down that day in a pool of blood but he was on the front lines at several rallies for freedom before that ill fated day. He was probably the most fearless and someone who inspired others to demand their rights as free citizens.

Let's also remember that our first president, General Washington, was utterly racist and too fearful of a black man with a firearm to allow black men to fight the Redcoats as part of the colonial militia.

[ObamaSheeple]

"too fearful of a black man with a firearm to allow black men to fight the Redcoats"

I'm pretty sure that is incorrect.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history_of_African_Americans

It's wikipedia but it jibes with what I remember reading in history.

[SiberianRat]

Wikipedia does have quite a lot of factual stuff--I don't know why it gets slammed so much.

[vim876]

To my knowledge, that ban on black men with guns was repealed soon after the war started. Washington may have been a bigot, but he wasn't an idiot. You don't fight the strongest imperial power in the world without giving everyone on your side a gun, regardless of color, creed, or anything else.

If the US were in an honest to goodness war for survival (with conscription, etc.) there would be riots in the streets (by people of every sexual orientation) to remove DADT.

[mbaty]

Even Isreal allows it's enlisted to serve openly. Isreal! We are so behind the times on social issues it's embarrasing. End DADT. Erase DOMA.

[JohnJames]

Israel's an advanced country. We're behind Uruguay of all all places, which ended its ban several months ago. I'd like to say this policy is starting the make the US look like a third world country except that would be an insult to many third world countries.

[PitBull6]

When does the world turn to Israel or Uruguay for military force? No one's even close.

[vim876]

You can be an advanced country and still have a tendency to be behind on certain social issues, especially if your nation has a large, politically powerful religious extremist contingent. We are Americans. We should be the first fighting for freedom, not in the wishy-washy middle.

[natturnerx]

i'm sure there were some gay revolutionary war heroes that would have made a much better example for your argument than crispus attucks. when champions of gay rights attempt to advance their issue by the non sequitor logic of comparing it to african-american civil rights, it makes it appear that their argument cant stand on its own merits. that comparison is made even less credible by the well-known fact that african-americans themselves reject the comparison. plus, its not even necessary; if i were so inclined, i'm sure i could come up with numerous taking points in favor of that issue without piggy-backing on african-american civil rights.

[natturnerx]

correction : "numerous talking points..."

[MirzaBesirovic]

Piggy-backing on African-American civil rights? What?
There's no piggy-backing; the cases are on an equal plain value-wise because they both deal with the position of a social group and therefore merit mutual comparison. Plus, I can't think of an African-American who'd mind the social ails of her or his people compared to the same of the LGBT(IQ) community unless that person were also bigoted.

More on-topic: DADT is an incredible example of military hypocrisy, one which I am still struggling to understand. This is discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation/identity pure and simple and obvious homophobic bigotry masked in the lamest, most offensive excuse I've ever heard. Affect troop morale? Disrupt the military lifestyle? And all because they obviously assume all the commonly heard stereotypes and prejudices about gays.

It's just mind-boggling that such ignorance and primitivism, and an obvious violation of civil rights, can be institutionalized in the America of the 21st century.

[natturnerx]

the second 2 paragraphs of your comment are exactly what i'm talking about. in those 2 paragraphs you made a very plausible argument for your position on its own merits - and you didnt have to compare it to an unrelated issue.

[TERRYKEITH4]

Uh, excuse me.... Bigoted Black person? How many gay people do you know who have been denied entrance into school because they were gay?
How many gay people do you know who have been frisked by the police or even murdered on the streets of america because they were gay?
How many gay people do you know that have been denied housing or even made to sit in the back or stand up on a bus so a straight person could sit down because they were gay? How many gay people do you know who were shot down in the middle of the street by a straight person in front of countless witnesses for exercising their right to vote, and never received justice? Huh? You show me those numbers. I voted against prop 8, but I'll never do that again since I was mobbed in the streets of Santa Clara County by gay activists even though I tried to help. You've just turned me against you. Nice job.

[vim876]

Please tell me why it's a non-sequitur. I (and Coretta Scott King) beg to differ. How does the fact that some African-Americans disagree with an argument make it invalid. I thought we were supposed to judge arguments on their actual merits, not who else agrees with them. Try this: read Loving v. Virginia (the Supreme Court case that ended bans on interracial marriage). But, in your head, replace every reference to race or color with a reference to sexuality. Then tell meagain that there are not any significant parallels between the two movements. And don't give me that 'homosexuality is a choice' bunk. Look, I didn't choose to be straight; I'm just naturally sexually attracted to men. I couldn't live as a lesbian if I wanted to. So I don't have 'a choice,' and neither do gay people.

[celticjag]

Mr.Ridley, you are historically inaccurate when describing the Boston Massacre. The crowd of "a few good, upstanding Colonists" were actually a crowd of thugs and troublemakers who were taunting and finally attacking the troops , with snowballs, sticks and stones. Alcohol played an important part in this adventure, as most had been drinking. The "nasty Brit soldiers" were in fact scared and panicked while under attack. John Adams described Crispus Attucks as an instigator who led the attack and the crowd as "rabble-rousers" and "common thugs". You should have discussed the Tuskegee Airmen.
As to 911, there was solid intelligence that Al-Qaeda was in the U.S. and planning to attack with hijacked planes. The Bush administration chose to ignore this intelligence.
Yes, DADT should be repealed, but to use these specialists to further the criminal wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, I don't think so!

[joyf1]

Thank you for correcting the story of the Boston "Massacre". The soldiers did nothing while drunk colonists threw snowballs at them and acted in a threatening manner. Let's stop the propaganda of colonial days and those "founding fathers". If Americans would only read their own history.

[vim876]

A regular army should not respond to 'snowballs' and taunts with bullets. Even if the crowd was trying to provoke them, they should not have let go of their military discipline. Keeping that discipline was part of the job description.

[noneIn2008]

Don't make excuses for Obama not delivering his promises. Words are cheap, promises are meaningless. Judge him by the results. He has not delivered. We must hold him accountable.

[Scarletyoshi]

A military that can't handle non discrimination is a military that's not worth having. We say our military is the best in the world, that our country is the best. It's time to prove it. Tomorrow, when we celebrate our country's achievements, we should reflect on its past and present failures and work to get closer to that more perfect union.

[Indra]

You may be right but you may be wrong. I don't think a gay culture in the military would be a good idea but I could be wrong. I guess we will see what happens and when the time comes we will see how and if open gay-ness can be workable with the current military culture.

[abbeysbooks]

The famed Samuri were bi-sexual for the most part. It was felt that sexual closeness led to closer ties in battle. The Israeli military enlisted women and men long before we did. a knowledge of history will help us avoid repeating the mistakes of the past. and copying the strategies that worked.

[FearlessFreep]

Not to mention the Spartans!

[Soulmentor]

*******It was felt that sexual closeness led to closer ties in battle.***********

This is a little understood reality of battle, if only because homophobic attitudes hide the truth and prevent the knowledge and understanding. For those who aren't up on history, let me present The Theban Band. It was a battle unit of several hundred pairs of homosexual lovers defending Thebes against Alexander that even Alexander's vast army could not defeat until he created a similar unit of his own to fight them. What a battle that must have been.

I am a military veteran and tho I have never been in combat nor ever had to defend a lover, I can tell you from my own heart, there is NOTHING more fierce than two male lovers defending each other, save perhaps a mother defending her child. I smile when I think of the "foxhole" meme. A foxhole attacker should hope he never attacks one with gay lover defenders. If you are a homophobic basher type, pray you never come up against a gay male couple that is armed and able.

Indeed, maybe we need to stop being so pacific. Don't push it, people. We aren't all pushovers.

[PitBull6]

The Israelis also relegate them in many ways to combat support and service support jobs. Oh, and they also use conscription.

[Dynamohum]

It works in most of the industrialized nations of the world!! So what is there to see???????
Are you blind? Deaf? D? Oh never mind. I could list a hundred facts and the fact is once a person is a bigot they usually don't change, so have your WRONG opinion.

[BBC9nch]

Throwing around names like bigot is counter productive and does not help your cause. If you read the statement Indra is basically saying that he/she is an agnostic on the issue and didn't take a stand one way or the other. That's being a bigot? Isn't this exactly the kind of person that may be swayed over to your position with an intelligent argument? But you insult them with name calling instead.

[The Ghost]

It looks like some American's are more afraid of gay soldiers than they are of another 9/11.

[DANOSC]

Americans are more afraid of gay people than anything else, terrorists included.

[Soulmentor]

Yeah, where does that come from and how incomprehensible? Even they, when pressed, can't explain it.

[superstition]

Hardly. Up to 75% of the public want DADT ended right now, including majorities of conservatives and church-goers.

[coolhandhand]

Refer to my common above. It is not fear.

[blueberry331]

are you only telling us this cause he is black?