« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »
10/26/2011
Troubled by most recent gay teen suicide? Then you are soooo on trend, you fashionista you!
Anyone who has been through the American public school system and who is honest with his or her memories will admit, with few exceptions, that LGBT people, actual or perceived, are among the most bullied of students. In every state, in virtually every community.
But if you believe syndicated columnist Thomas Sowell, it's not the obvious, sweeping, and continued trend of targeted bullying or the eye-opening spate of suicides that have put anti-LGBT harassment into the public eye. No, no -- it's just that gays are trendy little trendoids:
Back in the 1920s, the intelligentsia on both sides of the Atlantic were loudly protesting the execution of political radicals Sacco andVanzetti, after what they claimed was an unfair trial. Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote to his young leftist friend Harold Laski, pointing out that there were "a thousand-fold worse cases" involving black defendants, "but the world does not worry over them."
Holmes said: "I cannot but ask myself why this so much greater interest in red than black."
To put it bluntly, it was a question of whose ox was gored. That is, what groups were in vogue at the moment among the intelligentsia. Blacks clearly were not.
The current media and political crusade against "bullying" in schools seems likewise to be based on what groups are in vogue at the moment. For years, there have been local newspaper stories about black kids in schools in New York and Philadelphia beating up Asian classmates, some beaten so badly as to require medical treatment.
But the national media hear no evil, see no evil and speak no evil. Asian Americans are not in vogue today, just as blacks were not in vogue in the 1920s.
Meanwhile, the media are focused on bullying directed against youngsters who are homosexual. Gays are in vogue.
KEEP READING: The media and 'bullying' [Sowell via AFA's One News Now]
First and foremost: Obviously we want to stop all bullying, both in the general and specific sense. Any group that is specifically targeted should earn focus, as we strive for that idealistic state where no human being's internal feelings of aggression become externalized torment.
The truth is that the Asian American bullying problem that Sowell mentions has received considerable attention. Both national and local media outlets picked up the story, and the U.S. Department of Justice even stepped in to curb bullying in the South Philadelphia community where the problem came to a head. Obviously not every public school problem receives that kind of attention. Sure, there could be more focus to this and every bullying situation. We, as a nation, can and should do more, across the board. That is the struggle here: To bring focus, concern, and eventually remedy (or as close as we can get) to ALL FORMS of bullying. On this we should find no-brainer, bipartisan agreement.
It's extremely offensive for the conservative Sowell to ascribe an "in vogue" label to gays and this bullying plight, as if pocket squares, gingham, and gay bullying will someday buoy the inevitable VH1 special, "I Love the 2010's." Because while yes, reality mandated perseverance, and perseverance brought forth attention, it's not like any of us wanted this attention. This attention was born out of the obvious. And in fact, the members of the local Asian student group of that South Philadelphia high school mentioned above took time to specifically say they hoped the DOJ's action would also bring attention to LGBT bullying. Because the problem is SO OBVIOUS!!
Most any of us who fight this contrived "culture war" would rather be doing a million other things. But nowhere is this desire to get beyond the problem more heartfelt than with this, the gut-wrenching matter of bullying, shame, and suicide. If bullying is prioritized, it's because keeping kids safe is an unapologetically high priority! To reduce that dutiful drive to some sort of fad or trend? Well that is as anti-intellectual as it is deeply dangerous!