The continued reference to Mary Cheney by the Dems

OK, stand corrected on details. And complete agreement on Alice Paul of course. :-)

Point is, in terms of overriding national public opinion -- which is what we have been talking about, the public morality et al -- women had rights legislated and enforced before black people did. A white woman had many more rights and priveleges in the south in 1955 (say) than a black man did.

I'll bring it back to popular culture, what was happening when -- Sesame Street was only 2 years after "Guess Who's Coming to Dinner" (I thought it was more, was surprised when I looked that up), "Sugartime!" is 12 years after "Philadelphia." It's time for the rest of the small steps to continue what legislation started.

Oh, not so corrected. Followed the link:



What one person was willing to do does not indicate what the country was ready to accept. I'm sure there were people who started working for gay rights immediately after the Civil Rights acts/ 26th amendment were passed, too.

In fact, the 26th amendment was passed in 1971 (!) (learning stuff here), 2 years AFTER Sesame Street started airing.

My brothers were 7 and 81/2 years older than I. That means that I was exposed to the idea of homosexuality from the time I was born.

As most of you have acknowledged, children ask questions when they are ready to know. Their questions are as detailed as the answers to them should be. "Why was my brother beaten up today;" "Why does he like boys and not girls?" There were many, many more questions asked by my younger self while growing up, usually provoked by the nasty, inhospitable way both brothers were treated by the folks at our Christian church. Yes, I learned the lesson well...the lesson about hypocrisy and religion and how goodness is what a person lives everyday of his or her life, not while they are quoting the bible.

The lesson of homosexuality didn't really take until I became sexually aware and found it extremely strange that my brother didn't like girls but, he was my brother and I loved him and didn't think anything further about it except that I was horrified that he had to suffer so badly for something he couldn't do anything about.

I didn't ever want to be a homosexual, it wasn't my taste in sexuality, and living with one from the time I was born didn't affect my sexuality. The attitudes of others did harm me. They were terribly hurtful. But again, I learned...religion doesn't make any difference in what is right or wrong and it doesn't make one's life better or safer or more tolerable.

I would have allowed my children to watch the Postcards programs on Mormons although i really dislike many aspects of that religion; the same for any of the segments. If one of them had been terribly offensive to me, I would have found somthing else to do that day. Ask the government to intervene??? "How idiotic do you think I am?"---would have been my answer if someone had asked me if I wanted that segment removed.

I'll grant you you've matched the bigotry angle very well, but what you cannot provide, because it doesn't exist is a secondary excuse for the opposition. Racist hatred was (is) about as biblical as witch burning, no? I think the big book is a little clearer on man lying down with another man and I think the tale has remained fairly consistent for a very long time.

Now I haven't heard anyone come in here fag-bashing or seen any other displays of overt ignorance. Everyone seems to be in agreement that adults should be free to do as they please unmolested. I simply don't think it's necessary to encourage the behavior in young children to show tolerance of it. I think it can unnecessarily put an adult burden on the mind of a child, as well be viewed as advancing counter Christian Ideal's on someone else's children. I don't think we'll get any closer on this.

I know my Korean friend's mom ultimately accepted his Guatemalan fiancé... but you can bet your last dollar she didn't encourage the deviation and wouldn't have appreciated Korean Television doing so either. I don't think she's hateful or even ignorant for her views… I think she just values her traditional upbringing. Like most things, I think the intent is as important as the result. <shrugs>

Diane, I'm sorry you and your brothers had to suffer such treatment. Us humans can be an awful lot. It is precisely that kind of ignorant meanness that I would prefer my children be able to avoid learning about for as long as possible. Surely seeing your brother beaten robbed you of some of your innocence and perhaps even stole the childhood-induced rose-colored perspective I'm grateful to have been brought up with. :sad: (((( Diane ))))

<smiles> The 26th amendment didn't so much establish rights as it did outlaw ridiculous conditions. As I'm sure you know our "civil libertarian" forefathers only included white male landowners as men who were "created equal". :wink: Gradually, it got broader from there. In 1971 they finally did away with interesting Southern rules like "You have to be able to read at least a 6th grade reading level" and other clever ways to restrict the participation in elections. Blacks, of course, suffered heinous oppression to keep their voices from being heard. But remember, this wasn't the rule. In most northern states blacks could vote unmolested long before.

Of course now that we provide education for all citizens (as well as all non citizens) in this country, that rule about needing a 6th grade reading level to vote looks better all the time.

Bill, thank you for your concern, but I wasn't harmed that badly by those good, decent Christians; I had many opportunities to learn how rich our lives can be with acknowledged diversity and understanding.

If I understand your post, you feel that since homosexuality is considered a sin it, unlike racism (which isn't a sin???) it should legitimatly be removed from the TV schedule?

Here are a couple of sentences from letters to the editor of Salon addressing Spelling's statement:

My sincere hope is that shows like

"Arthur" and "Buster" teach this

generation of kids to maintain a level of

maturity and human decency that apparently

escapes you.

-- Jane Istvan
==================================

Perhaps you can keep yourself from

proselytizing long enough to find some

time to pick up a dictionary, or, better

yet, the Bible. It seems to me that your

education is severely lacking in knowledge

of the golden rule.

-- Shannon Evans
=========================

Foxfyre, I will ask for your tolerance. I don't understand your post. Of course, I don't read as well as most on this thread...

And, BTW, my post wasn't a bid for sympathy, it was simply a real life example of a child living and growing up with homosexuality and not being adversely affected by it--only by the offensive and narrow minded attitudes of others.

Tolerance? I have been intolerant? My post was in response to Bill's comment/observation re the literacy tests used to keep black people from voting in a previous generation. That of course is no longer any kind of issue. I don't see any homophobia or racism from anybody on this thread and very little evidence of either anywhere on A2K. I was just expressing a not-quite-tongue-in-cheek wish that those who vote in this country be literate/educated enough to have at least a 6th grade reading level. What did that have to do with the subject of the thread? Absolutely nothing.

Er - as far as I can see now we have actually come down to arguing about whether bigoted christians have more than a little biblical excuse for their bigotry?

It appears there is seen to be some difference in how ok it was to oppose racism because there is little biblical excuse for it, and how ok it is to oppose homophobia because there is a tiny bit more?


That the majority of white southern churches appear to have opposed civil rights etc (so much so that a huge one - the southern Baptists has the grace and decency to make a formal apology) is not enough to say that christianity in the south was deeply implicated in maintaining the racist status quo, just as sectors of the church are now maintaining the homophobic status quo?

Sesame Street in the 60's was good - a tiny segment on a program whose avowed intent is to teach about diversity is bad, and taking parents' rights away?

That showing Mormon deviants, for example, of whom I disapprove, is fine - showing gay parents is not - though both are simply true representations of diversity.


To clarify here - Bill, Lash etc - would, or would you not, have approved of showing a mixed race couple on Buster in the south in 1969? You would have, believe me, received a christian backlash there far beyond the homophonbic craziness the worst of the fundamentalist churches would deliver you on the gay one. (Which is not to deny that there were also churches which DID support blacks).

Would that have been taking away parental rights?

Diane, I didn't take it as a bid for sympathy... and you wouldn't get sympathy from me for asking either. You got it because that's what I felt… and feel, whether you want it or not.
For a parallel there; being black would have to be the sin, Diane. I believe racism is a sin in the eyes of your average Christian. I certainly hope so anyway. You're mistaken if you think I'm advocating censorship of any kind. I'm not. My point is simply that there are more reasons to oppose the promotion of homosexual lifestyles to young children than bigotry. I've already exemplified my point as best I can... which apparently wasn't good enough to be understood.


I think she was referring to my post to Soz on this one. :wink:

Foxy, did you follow that link? Check out the third, fourth and fifth paragraphs of this one for an example of a deep south pre-1971 literacy test .

Yeah, those Northern states are pretty enlightened. States like, ya know, Vermont. *coff* ;-)

Our whole discussion has been about not pockets of enlightenment but the national attitude, and whether that national attitude should dictate things like Sesame Street being taken off the air having an integrated cast.

Have I accused anyone here of fag-bashing or other displays of overt ignorance? I've responded pretty specifically to specific posts. It's probably clear that I don't care very much for Mr. Spongebob, the guy who said something about misleading depictions of homosexuality or whatever, and I'm certainly not happy with Ms. Spelling. But my mentions of bigotry etc. have been general, and I have several times specifically indicated that I do not ascribe the epithet of "bigot" to anyone here.

I'm a bit confused by the Christianity angle. It's not been a major part of my argument. (I started to say "hasn't been any part", but I may have mentioned it in response to someone and don't want to go back through everything to find out.) I don't excuse anyone for being racist or homophobic just because their preacher, parents, or neighbors taught it to them. I understand, but I don't excuse. In that, I see the two kinds of prejudice as being exactly parallel. Racism was handed down through the generations, as is homophobia. I don't see the difference between being taught racism or homophobia by a church or a parent as being particularly significant. Both entities are in positions of authority.

Great posts, Diane.

Soz, I brought up Christianity because that is what seems to be the power behind the presidency and the voice that is trying to impose its beliefs on the rest of us.

For once, I would like an answer to how on earth this little program promotes homosexuality??? That is what all this hand wringing seems to be about. Do some of you see something that many of us don't see? Do you see the promotion of homosexuality in maple sugaring and two women in a picture of smiling children? Is there ANYTHING threatening or sexual about that? Is there anything that would harm a child in that picture? If so, please tell me what it is. I really do not understand.

Diane, actually I was responding to this in Bill's post:



This seems to be saying that a part of my argument I haven't supported is that racism is as bible-based as homosexuality -- only problem is I haven't made that argument.

I think it might be true, but I don't know, and my argument is based on other things. (Like the Sesame Street example is equivalent to the "Postcards" episode because racism then is about where homophobia is now -- and neither should be encouraged.)

(I know this whole thing is hard to follow! I keep hoping nimh will step back in but I imagine him seeing how many pages have been added since he last posted and him saying gawd, forget it...)

Still way behind because I'm playing cards at the same time.

Still going out of your way to not get it, eh Deb? YES. For the last time. The good fight needs to be fought, but you don't wage the first battle in the head of a three year old. As Foxy made very clear: if you want to send the message the sin of homosexuality is really okay to a 3 or 5 year old, then someone else is going to want to send the message that it isn't. Such is the way life works. You nobly seek to rid the world of bigoted scum so the children don't have to deal with it. The opposition nobly seeks to keep the children from suffering eternal damnation for committing sins against God. Now you both believe your messages are in the best interest of the child, right? Should a 3 or 5 year old be faced with such an equation because you can't hold your water? Or should a children's station have the good sense to not allow either heavily biased opinion onto their airwaves and thereby remove the burden from parents who don't want their young children exposed to such dilemmas yet.

Sesame Street was waging the battle of anti-racism in the heads of three year-olds.

And this one sure as heck isn't the first battle. That's part of the point of the timeline I gave before -- the anti-homophobia battle has been going on a long time, only now trickling down to the level of two moms being shown in the background of an episode about making maple sugar on kids' TV.



Like the heavily biased opinion that there's nothing wrong with miscegenation, for example?

As a matter of interest (and when I finish looking at this, i am gonna be looking up the role of the churches in the civil rights movement here in Oz - because it is fascinating stuff - here in your south, we appear to have black churches as bastions of the movement - and many of their white siblings as bastions of opposition - proof of how infinitely malleable is faith to our ruling culture)

Here is an interesting essay on this, which gives an historial perspective going back well before the sixties:

http://www.apsanet.org/PS/june00/calhoun.cfm

Upon This Rock: The Black Church, Nonviolence, and the Civil Rights Movement

Allison Calhoun-Brown, Georgia State University


ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Allison Calhoun-Brown is associate professor of political science at Georgia State University. Her research interests include various aspects of religion and politics, especially the political influence of African-American churches. She is a past president of APSA's Organized Section on Religion and Politics.


Here is an interesting look at a book about how the white Southern baptists came to grips with their racist past:

http://www.natcom.org/pubs/ROC/one-one/moon.pdf

(bit full of academic-speak - but interesting)

And here is a long essay which looks at the roles of both black and white christians - reassuringly talking of white christians who came to support the movement - especially, apparently, after the march on Washington.

http://www.nd.edu/~relpol/relpol2.pdf


(AND I have discovered, I think, where all this "gay agenda" stuff is sourced from - a very interesting find: http://www.publiceye.org/eyes/hatetape.html )

Here is an ANTI-racist christian site, which cites - in debunking them - a number of the scriptural sources said to support racism and condemn inter-racial marriage.

There seem to be fully as many as condemn homosexuality - the difference, I think, Bill, is not in the detail of the scriptures, but in the difference in where the churches are at in interpreting them:

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-sum/sum-g003.html

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/race-blacks.html

Er - just for interest - a send-up of what was, apparently, a Baptist campaign about homosexuality - and how they can change!

http://www.bettybowers.com/exnegro.pdf

(Here is the orignal: http://www.bettybowers.com/focus/focusgroup.html )

Er - I am adding to this post - sorry if that confuses folk - but it is just a resource post, I think.)


And - for something completely different - Salon.com's take - not sure if this is premium content ot not:

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2005/02/04/pbs_and_conservatives/index.html

and - comment from someone who has actually SEEN the program!

In the wake of all the pre-broadcast hype, those watching WGBH in Boston Wednesday may have been most surprised by what they didn't see in the "Buster" episode, titled "Sugartime!" "It was totally benign," says Peggy Charren, the children's programming advocate and public television pioneer who serves on the board of trustees of WGBH, the PBS station that produced the series. "I was expecting there to be a discussion about lesbian families. There was nothing. I watched the tape twice and then called over to 'GBH and said, 'Are you sure this is what all the fuss is about?' The amount of information about lesbian families in the program is zero. I learned more about cows -- that all cows are female -- than I did about lesbians."

Other PBS veterans agree that the Republican reaction was wildly overblown. "I viewed the episode and it's a lot of hullabaloo about very little," says Jeff Clarke, president and CEO of KQED, the San Francisco PBS outlet. "It's about kids milking cows and playing in hay. It's not about pushing any agenda." PBS president Pat Mitchell initially agreed, giving the episode a green light after reviewing it. But four days later, on Jan. 25, she reversed course and announced that PBS would not distribute the show nationwide. The same day, Spellings' office issued a blistering letter denouncing the program and demanding a refund of the government's grant. (PBS will not refund any money to the Education Department but, rather, ask WGBH to create a new, replacement episode so that the "Postcards From Buster" series can still broadcast the planned 40 episodes.)

(I know lots of you guys will jeer, cos it is Salon.com - but it raises the issue of a new level of direct government interference with PBS)

And - a little history on that:

Ever since America's public television system was established through the 1967 Public Broadcasting Act, it has had to dodge political bullets, nearly always fired by Republicans. Despite the consistent and high-profile presence on PBS over the years of right-leaning pundits such as William Buckley, John McLaughlin, Ben Wattenberg, Fred Barnes, Peggy Noonan, Tony Brown and Morton Kondracke, Republicans have insisted for decades that the network is guilty of a liberal bias. During the early '70s the Nixon administration, reportedly unhappy with public television's voluminous coverage of the Watergate hearings, tried to silence the network by curtailing funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, a presidentially appointed oversight body that channels federal dollars into PBS and local stations. Originally conceived as a way to shield PBS stations from political pressure, the CPB under Nixon tried to do the opposite by exerting more control over programming decisions.

During the Republican revolution of the '90s, the attack was more frontal, with House Speaker Newt Gingrich declaring a war on "Sesame Street's" Big Bird and deriding PBS as "this little sandbox for the rich." He proposed to "zero-out" its federal subsidies, dismissing the network's supporters as "a small group of elitists who want to tax all the American people so they get to spend the money." The offensive put PBS on notice, but politically it was a failure. So Republicans adjusted their sights. As Ken Auletta noted in the New Yorker last year, "The American right has stopped trying to get rid of PBS. Now it wants a larger voice in shaping the institution." And it's clearly getting that voice........

.....Yet relations between PBS and Republicans have been surprisingly cordial over the last couple of years. Laura Bush, a former librarian, has spoken warmly about PBS's children's programming and embraced the Ready to Learn initiative, an effort to help prepare kids for school. And against the backdrop of congressional hearings on indecency in commercial broadcasting and bipartisan opposition to further media consolidation, PBS has been able to stake out a unique, and largely welcomed, territory in the eyes of Congress. PBS has also worked at ingratiating itself with Republicans. It tapped Gingrich as its keynote speaker in 2003, when PBS station managers made their annual pilgrimage to Washington to schmooze with politicians and ask for funding. That's one reason why Spellings' full-throated attack on a cartoon bunny caught so many people off-guard.

And - a final footnote from PBS - criticising the episode itself:

Wilson, the PBS programming executive, says the show was yanked because it failed, adding that it failed, ironically, because the gay mothers played too small a role in the episode. "If the goal was to explore alternative family structures, we would have done it thoroughly and thoughtfully. Instead, the episode opened the door to a sensitive issue and then didn't fully explore it, [which] then lets parents down." Of course, if Spellings found a pair of lesbian mothers in the background objectionable enough to demand a refund, who knows how far she would have gone if PBS had produced a full-fledged exploration of gay parents in its children's programming.

It's possible the lobbyists are right, and that yanking "Sugartime!" off most PBS stations will help preserve the network's working relationship with those who have the power to cut funding, or hold hearings on the network's "bias," as has occurred in recent years. But Charren wonders at what price. "I don't think you can afford to have a relationship like this," she warns. "It doesn't help PBS at all to have the public think that whenever the White House snaps its fingers, PBS jumps. People don't give money to PBS in order to have the White House tell it what to do."

That self critique is an interesting slant. (Bolding mine)

And more cartoon characters in trouble! I hope you can access this - it is very funny:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2005/02/05/cartoon_characters/index.html

Sorry? Is that a yes, you would have supported a Buster on an inter-racial marriage?

If so, I give up. There is no point in farther belabouring what is, to many of us, an absolutely blindingly obvious point, and is to some of us, invisible and obviously wrong.

If your answer is no - well, fine - you are being, at least consistent.


Eiher way - that's all folks from this li'l black duck. Brick walls look so attractive right now that I am off to find one, just to have a little fun!!!