Help with an incomplete thought

[Wildcard Ky]

First a little preface to my thought processes...........They're weird sometimes. There are days when I just let my mind ramble off in what ever direction it wants to go, and it winds up in the damndest places sometimes. Today was one of those days.

I was in a discussion on another board (political) about how tragic events or circumstances can serve a purpose of greater good. An example is how the assasination of Dr. King drew more people into the civil rights movement of the 60's. Or the imprisonment of Nelson Mandela bolstered the resistance against Apartheid. Each was a tragic event, but in the long run each aided the cause that they served. With me so far on this line of thought?

Okay, after that discussion was over with, I kept pondering on what other examples there might be, and one jumped into my mind that I can't come to a conclusion on. So I thought I'd post it here to get some feedback to help me clear up my thoughts:

Did HIV/Aids serve a greater good to homosexuality?

Here's why I ask the question. Before Aids, homosexuality was rarely accepted in the US. Basically it was shunned by mainstream. There was no protection of political correctness, no acceptance of diversity when it came to being gay. Homosexuals generally lived a hidden life with little hope of gaining mainstream acceptance.

Then along comes AIDS. It was purely a gay disease in the beginning. Some even called it gay cancer. Ignorance of the disease went hand in hand with the ridicule associated with it. Somewhere along the early line there seemed to be a turning point where the ridicule began to turn to sympathy. I don't know if it was icons like Freddie Mercury dying, or innocents like Ryan White dying, but sympathy began to grow. Aids was still a primarily gay disease, so sympathetic feelings from the population began to flow to homosexuals. For the first time, something other than ridicule was pointed at gays.

Of course, as time passed we gained more knowledge of the disease and realized that anyone could get it, but the initial feelings of concern and sympathy were directed at the gay community. For the first time, they were seen in a light other than ridicule.

We all know that acceptance of homosexuality is 10 fold better now than it was in the mid 80's. What caused this drastic change in public perception over the last 20 years?

Was AIDS this turning point? I honestly don't know if it was or wasn't, but the more I think about it, the more I think it's possible.

What's your thought? I need input from the wonderfully diverse group of people that congregate in this little corner of the net. Could Aids in all of it's horrible glory have served a greater good to the homosexual community?

 

[angelicminx]

I think you are on to something there, WC.

I agree, there's usually something that happens prior to "public awareness", though, sadly, it doesn't always have positive results.

 

[3113]

I was in a discussion on another board (political) about how tragic events or circumstances can serve a purpose of greater good.

Well, first, let's say that I disagree with the premis. SOMETIMES tragic events can serve a purpose, but not always. Abe Lincoln's assassination, for example, was arguably the worst possible thing that could have happened in post Civil War America.

Let's consider your example as well: After King's assassination, the civil rights movement became quite violent. There is a period there where the Malcom X/Black Panther black-only militant philosophy won out over Dr. King's pacifism. The best one can argue is that the movement had outgrown Dr. King and had to go through a certain period of militancy. That it would have left him behind anyway that the best he could do for it was to be martyred.

Did HIV/Aids serve a greater good to homosexuality?

Yes and no. Was the holocaust a good thing for the Jews? Because AIDs was equlivant to a holocaust. A lot of people died, and the government, at least, was doing nothing to stop it. It was seen as a gay disease rather than a sexual disease and money given to educate people on safe sex, investigate it, cure it was minimal. Ronnie Regan did the classic trick of making much about Drugs ("Just say no!") to draw attention away from the vastly more serious problem of AIDs and the fact that he was deliberately doing nothing about it.

You can imagine what this did to all these gay men (it was primarily men) to watch their friends and lovers get sick, be viewed as pariahs, to watch them die. Imagine if every third person on this forum announced, "I'm sick and I'm going to die." And you had to watch each one of us go through this terrible deteroiation, and then vanish from the forum. Till only you and a handful were left. And everyone you wrote to, asking to help us, turned their back on you. In fact, not only didn't they care, they seemed to want you to die. On radio and tv, you hear people saying, "Those erotica writers deserve to die!"

What did AIDs do for homosexuality? It killed off great artists and creators and brilliant minds. It taught the survivors to close ranks, be angry; it taught them that they couldn't rely or trust the government or the world to care about them. It taught them that if they wanted to save their community, they'd have to do it themselves.

The turning point, by the way, for the world accepting AIDs was Rock Hudson. But it was hardly much of a turning point. Ryan White was hounded for being gay (he wasn't) because AIDs meant gay. The sympathy came, sadly, for either beloved figures (like Hudson) or NON-gays who were also getting AIDs.

AIDs consolidated the gay community, it made them bitter, it made them strong, and certainly politically savvy and militant. They had to be. If it did anything, it forced the world to accept them because they refused to be ignored.

Turning points in acceptance of gays, however, include the supreme court finally outlawing sodomy laws, gays fighting and winning the right to be parents (I still remember a famous court case where a mother lost her son because she was a lesbian. The courts took him away from her for THAT reason alone!), and creating communities where they were both visible, unapologetic and successful.

Would this have happened without AIDs? I don't know. It was a crucible. But it didn't go both ways. It forced the gay community to transform and that, in turn, may have helped the U.S. move a step or two forward. But America did not respond well to AIDs. It did not step up to the plate, attempt to help and protect its citizen. Rather, it responded at it's very worst. Shamefully.

 

[Never]

Wildcard Ky:
"Could Aids in all of it's horrible glory have served a greater good to the homosexual community?"

Certainly, while you can see the early gay rights movement gaining momentum during the sixties and seventies, AIDS forced the gay male community to be far more organized, public, and aggressive. Tragedy can galvanize communities.


3113:
"Well, first, let's say that I disagree with the premis. SOMETIMES tragic events can serve a purpose, but not always."

I don't think that's the premise; he said tragic events can help not that they always help.

" Was the holocaust a good thing for the Jews? Because AIDs was equlivant to a holocaust."

The major difference between AIDS and the holocaust, in my mind, is the extent to which the two communities (gays and Jews) were complacent to their own demise. It's not just the tragedy but the reaction of the community to the tragedy that determines what good, if any, can be salvaged from it.

 

[Wildcard Ky]

Was the holocaust a good thing for the Jews? Because AIDs was equlivant to a holocaust. A lot of people died, and the government, at least, was doing nothing to stop it.

You can imagine what this did to all these gay men (it was primarily men) to watch their friends and lovers get sick, be viewed as pariahs, to watch them die. Imagine if every third person on this forum announced, "I'm sick and I'm going to die." And you had to watch each one of us go through this terrible deteroiation, and then vanish from the forum. Till only you and a handful were left. And everyone you wrote to, asking to help us, turned their back on you. In fact, not only didn't they care, they seemed to want you to die. On radio and tv, you hear people saying, "Those erotica writers deserve to die!"

What did AIDs do for homosexuality? It killed off great artists and creators and brilliant minds. It taught the survivors to close ranks, be angry; it taught them that they couldn't rely or trust the government or the world to care about them. It taught them that if they wanted to save their community, they'd have to do it themselves.

The turning point, by the way, for the world accepting AIDs was Rock Hudson. But it was hardly much of a turning point. Ryan White was hounded for being gay (he wasn't) because AIDs meant gay. The sympathy came, sadly, for either beloved figures (like Hudson) or NON-gays who were also getting AIDs.

Would this have happened without AIDs? I don't know. It was a crucible. But it didn't go both ways. It forced the gay community to transform and that, in turn, may have helped the U.S. move a step or two forward. But America did not respond well to AIDs. It did not step up to the plate, attempt to help and protect its citizen. Rather, it responded at it's very worst. Shamefully.

Thank you for this feedback. It's the kind of thoughts I was looking for. Here's my take on some of the things you said:

Was the holocaust a good thing for the Jews?

Would there be a modern day Israel without the holocaust? Israel as we know it was basically formed by UN charter after WW2. After WW2, there was a world wide sentiment to give the Jews a homeland after the near extinction of European Jews in the holocaust. If the holocaust hadn't happened, would Israel exist today? The sentiment to create Israel was a direct result of the holocaust.

You can imagine what this did to all these gay men (it was primarily men) to watch their friends and lovers get sick, be viewed as pariahs, to watch them die. Imagine if every third person on this forum announced, "I'm sick and I'm going to die." And you had to watch each one of us go through this terrible deteroiation, and then vanish from the forum. Till only you and a handful were left. And everyone you wrote to, asking to help us, turned their back on you. In fact, not only didn't they care, they seemed to want you to die. On radio and tv, you hear people saying, "Those erotica writers deserve to die!"

I think you've summed up where I think the sympathy from the general public came from. People everywhere began to realize that the things you've mentioned were happening to others. Once their eyes were opened to this, sympathy began to come their way. Sympathy inevitably leads to trying to understand.

But America did not respond well to AIDs. It did not step up to the plate, attempt to help and protect its citizen. Rather, it responded at it's very worst. Shamefully.

I agree, and I think the vast majority of Americans agree with that too. The shame that goes with the realization of how things were done is also a direct contributor to the sympathy that eventually came. That sympathy and attempt at understanding is where mainstream acceptance of homosexuality has it's roots. (I think).

Thank you for giving a well thought out points on all of this. As I said, I'm trying to complete an incomplete thought process here.

I was really hoping more people would weigh in on this.

 

[sophia jane]

Honestly, I don't think the sympathy aspect was as big as you're suggesting. It took a long, long time for AIDs to stop being the gay disease, and it wasn't so much sympathy that happened at the end, but a great knowledge of the disease and then a kind of lessening of the bias against AIDs. Does anyone remember when the movie Philadelphia came out- the anger about that movie?
But I also don't think there's as much acceptance for gays as you're suggesting either. The LGBT world is still seen as a deviant people, freaks of nature, sinners, corruptors, pedaphiles, etc. There's just more actual knowledge out there now, too.


On a similar note, I was just thinking today about the church's approach to homosexuality, to continually point out its flaws and deviancy, but to then follow that with asking for compassion and acceptance of "them." It just doesn't work like that, to teach how wrong, evil, morally bankrupt we are and then to say but be nice to those people anyway. The other day, in the town where I live, someone attacked a group of gay advocates, including at least one lesbian. He was just pissed they were pro-gay, basically. And I just don't understand that.

 

[CharleyH]

First a little preface to my thought processes...........They're weird sometimes. There are days when I just let my mind ramble off in what ever direction it wants to go, and it winds up in the damndest places sometimes. Today was one of those days.

I was in a discussion on another board (political) about how tragic events or circumstances can serve a purpose of greater good. An example is how the assassination of Dr. King drew more people into the civil rights movement of the 60's. Or the imprisonment of Nelson Mandela bolstered the resistance against Apartheid. Each was a tragic event, but in the long run each aided the cause that they served. With me so far on this line of thought?

Okay, after that discussion was over with, I kept pondering on what other examples there might be, and one jumped into my mind that I can't come to a conclusion on. So I thought I'd post it here to get some feedback to help me clear up my thoughts:

Did HIV/Aids serve a greater good to homosexuality?

Here's why I ask the question. Before Aids, homosexuality was rarely accepted in the US. Basically it was shunned by mainstream. There was no protection of political correctness, no acceptance of diversity when it came to being gay. Homosexuals generally lived a hidden life with little hope of gaining mainstream acceptance.

Then along comes AIDS. It was purely a gay disease in the beginning.

You are wrong here.

It was a gay male and Haitian and intervene drug addict disease in the beginning - NEVER was it traced to gay males ONLY until the gay Airplane steward, and even then it took a woman to get it before it was known. We still don't get the symptoms for women - very sad. Gay culture was there before AIDS.

No - AIDS DID NOT increase an awareness of homos or dykes or even acceptance. We were coming of age LONG before Aids.

Homosexuality has a long history my friend. Acceptance? Culture is the culprit for non-acceptance, Aids is not a reason for acceptance of homosexualitly or of anything but a need for compassion and a choice for us to help like we do with cancer or any other disease.

 

[3113]

The major difference between AIDS and the holocaust, in my mind, is the extent to which the two communities (gays and Jews) were complacent to their own demise. It's not just the tragedy but the reaction of the community to the tragedy that determines what good, if any, can be salvaged from it.

I was comparing the two because in both cases people lost so many that they loved and cared about. Because it was a matter of ending up with survivors, their lives changed radically because of this. In that respect they were very similar.

A gay friend of mine told me of how a holocaust survivor connected very strongly with a survivor of AIDS because they shared a similar bond of survival AND the fact that the world didn't seem to care or help about their demise. It has nothing to do with complacency to their own demise.

 

[3113]

I think you've summed up where I think the sympathy from the general public came from. People everywhere began to realize that the things you've mentioned were happening to others. Once their eyes were opened to this, sympathy began to come their way. Sympathy inevitably leads to trying to understand.

I think you misunderstood my summary. As pointed out by Charley and Sophia, there was very LITTLE sympathy at any point. To the contrary, at the time when it was seen as a gay disease there was talk of quarantines and, yes, concentration camps. No one wanted to touch or help these sick folk--except for those in the gay community (lesbians included) and a few very brave researchers, doctors and nurses.

You should read And the Band Played On by Randy Shilts. It's an amazing book that details just how badly the AIDS epidemic was handled on all fronts.

When people finally got it through their heads that anyone could contract AIDS, they still offered no sympathy to the gays. They offered sympathy to hemophiliacs, to children with AIDS...but not to gays. In short, the sympathy never came, nor did the shame over how badly AIDS and people with AIDS had been handled and treated. To this day, most Americans would argue that, where AIDS was concerned, gays got what they deserved.

Far from being at turning point, AIDS merely reconfirmed for gays what, historically, they'd known all along. That most of the world hated them and if they wanted anything, even to live, they were going to have to fight for it.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

Actually, the fight for Gay Rights and respect started in New York in the 60's, long before AIDS with a riot at a Gay Bar that was being raided by the cops. Damn me if I can remember the name of the bar, but its famous in the Gay community and the anniversary of the riot is still celebrated as a major turning point in Gay history - the day they stood up and fought back. They just decided they weren't going to be treated like criminals anymore and Gay Pride was born. That was just the start though.

The AIDS story is not one of the straight world's sympathetic underestanding of the Gays' plight though. Randy Shilts wrote a famous book about the start of the epodemic in San Francisco called And the Band Played On in which he chronicles the early rumors and alarm and finally blind panic as the disease spread through the community seemingly at random and the medical community did little or nothing, blaming it on some aspect of the gays' "deviant" lifestyles. In other words, treating it as one of the "wages of sin". One effect AIDS did have was to organize the gay community into a powerful political force that pushed and demanded action that finally mobilized the doctors to take it seriously and look for the cause, but it was a long and ugly struggle. There were riots and violence and for a while, gays were treated like lepers by a lot of straights, who were frankly tewrrified of them. Drug coimpanies were slow to start research into a drug for treating "homosexuals".

In the end though, I think you're probably right, Anyone who's seen stories like "Angels in America" can't help but be moved by the humanity of the people dying of this disease. Gayness itself often seems so "silly" or affected that it's sometimes difficult to see their strength and dignity too. It';s just too damned bad it has to be seen this way.

Funny, though. AIDS hasn't done a damned thing for junkies.

 

[sophia jane]

I think you misunderstood my summary. As pointed out by Charley and Sophia, there was very LITTLE sympathy at any point. To the contrary, at the time when it was seen as a gay disease there was talk of quarantines and, yes, concentration camps. No one wanted to touch or help these sick folk--except for those in the gay community (lesbians included) and a few very brave researchers, doctors and nurses.

You should read And the Band Played On by Randy Shilts. It's an amazing book that details just how badly the AIDS epidemic was handled on all fronts.

When people finally got it through their heads that anyone could contract AIDS, they still offered no sympathy to the gays. They offered sympathy to hemophiliacs, to children with AIDS...but not to gays. In short, the sympathy never came, nor did the shame over how badly AIDS and people with AIDS had been handled and treated. To this day, most Americans would argue that, where AIDS was concerned, gays got what they deserved.

Far from being at turning point, AIDS merely reconfirmed for gays what, historically, they'd known all along. That most of the world hated them and if they wanted anything, even to live, they were going to have to fight for it.

This is an excellent post. Well said. Even if it is depressing as hell.