1
   

'Dig a hole and dump them in it.'

 
 
Katy
 
Reply Thu 9 Dec, 2004 08:24 am
http://www.guardian.co.uk/arts/features/story/0,11710,1369643,00.html

'We have to protect people'

President Bush wants 'pro-homosexual' drama banned. Gary Taylor meets the politician in charge of making it happen

Thursday December 9, 2004
The Guardian

What should we do with US classics like Cat on a Hot Tin Roof or The Color Purple? "Dig a hole," Gerald Allen recommends, "and dump them in it." Don't laugh. Gerald Allen's book-burying opinions are not a joke.

Earlier this week, Allen got a call from Washington. He will be meeting with President Bush on Monday. I asked him if this was his first invitation to the White House. "Oh no," he laughs. "It's my fifth meeting with Mr Bush."

Bush is interested in Allen's opinions because Allen is an elected Republican representative in the Alabama state legislature. He is Bush's base. Last week, Bush's base introduced a bill that would ban the use of state funds to purchase any books or other materials that "promote homosexuality". Allen does not want taxpayers' money to support "positive depictions of homosexuality as an alternative lifestyle". That's why Tennessee Williams and Alice Walker have got to go.

I ask Allen what prompted this bill. Was one of his children exposed to something in school that he considered inappropriate? Did he see some flamingly gay book displayed prominently at the public library?

No, nothing like that. "It was election day," he explains. Last month, "14 states passed referendums defining marriage as a relationship between a man and a woman". Exit polls asked people what they considered the most important issue, and "moral values in this country" were "the top of the list".

"Traditional family values are under attack," Allen informs me. They've been under attack "for the last 40 years". The enemy, this time, is not al-Qaida. The axis of evil is "Hollywood, the music industry". We have an obligation to "save society from moral destruction". We have to prevent liberal libarians and trendy teachers from "re-engineering society's fabric in the minds of our children". We have to "protect Alabamians".

I ask him, again, for specific examples. Although heterosexuals are apparently an endangered species in Alabama, and although Allen is a local politician who lives a couple miles from my house, he can't produce any local examples. "Go on the internet," he recommends. "Some time when you've got a week to spare," he jokes, "just go on the internet. You'll see."

Actually, I go on the internet every day. But I'm obviously searching for different things. For Allen, the web is just the largest repository in history of urban myths. The internet is even better than the Bible when it comes to spreading unverifiable, unrefutable stories. And urban myths are political realities. Remember, it was an urban myth (an invented court case about a sex education teacher gang-raped by her own students who, when she protested, laughed and said: "But we're just doing what you taught us!") that all but killed sex education in America.

Since Allen couldn't give me a single example of the homosexual equivalent of 9/11, I gave him some. This autumn the University of Alabama theatre department put on an energetic revival of A Chorus Line, which includes, besides "tits and ass", a prominent gay solo number. Would Allen's bill prevent university students from performing A Chorus Line? It isn't that he's against the theatre, Allen explains. "But why can't you do something else?" (They have done other things, of course. But I didn't think it would be a good idea to mention their sold-out productions of Angels in America and The Rocky Horror Show.)

Cutting off funds to theatre departments that put on A Chorus Line or Cat on a Hot Tin Roof may look like censorship, and smell like censorship, but "it's not censorship", Allen hastens to explain. "For instance, there's a reason for stop lights. You're driving a vehicle, you see that stop light, and I hope you stop." Who can argue with something as reasonable as stop lights? Of course, if you're gay, this particular traffic light never changes to green.

It would not be the first time Cat on a Hot Tin Roof ran into censorship. As Nicholas de Jongh documents in his amusingly appalling history of government regulation of the British theatre, the British establishment was no more enthusiastic, half a century ago, than Alabama's Allen. "Once again Mr Williams vomits up the recurring theme of his not too subconscious," the Lord Chamberlain's Chief Examiner wrote in 1955. In the end, it was first performed in London at the New Watergate Club, for "members only", thereby slipping through a loophole in the censorship laws.

But more than one gay playwright is at a stake here. Allen claims he is acting to "encourage and protect our culture". Does "our culture" include Shakespeare? I ask Allen if he would insist that copies of Shakespeare's sonnets be removed from all public libraries. I point out to him that Romeo and Juliet was originally performed by an all-male cast, and that in Shakespeare's lifetime actors and audiences at the public theatres were all accused of being "sodomites". When Romeo wished he "was a glove upon that hand", the cheek that he fantasised about kissing was a male cheek. Next March the Alabama Shakespeare festival will be performing a new production of As You Like It, and its famous scene of a man wooing another man. The Alabama Shakespeare Festival is also the State Theatre of Alabama. Would Allen's bill cut off state funding for Shakespeare?

"Well," he begins, after a pause, "the current draft of the bill does not address how that is going to be handled. I expect details like that to be worked out at the committee stage. Literature like Shakespeare and Hammet [sic] could be left alone." Could be. Not "would be". In any case, he says, "you could tone it down". That way, if you're not paying real close attention, even a college graduate like Allen himself "could easily miss" what was going on, the "subtle" innuendoes and all.

So he regards his gay book ban as a work in progress. His legislation is "a single spoke in the wheel, it doesn't resolve all the issues". This is just the beginning. "To turn a big ship around it takes a lot of time."

But make no mistake, the ship is turning. You can see that on the face of Cornelius Carter, a professor of dance at Alabama and a prize-winning choreographer who, not long ago, was named university teacher of the year for the entire US. Carter is black. He is also gay, and tired of fighting these battles. "I don't know," he says, "if I belong here any more."

Forty years ago, the American defenders of "our culture" and "traditional values" were opposing racial integration. Now, no politician would dare attack Cornelius Carter for being black. But it's perfectly acceptable to discriminate against people for what they do in bed.

"Dig a hole," Gerald Allen recommends, "and dump them in it."

Of course, Allen was talking about books. He was just talking about books. He never said anything about pink triangles.



Any thoughts on this? I have some, but they're all rather hostile and belligerent at the moment.. Evil or Very Mad
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 7,769 • Replies: 158
No top replies

 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Dec, 2004 08:27 am
How I wish I was able to believe that this was a hoax.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Dec, 2004 08:46 am
Quote:
President Bush wants 'pro-homosexual' drama banned.


What? What kind of shoddy journalism is that?
0 Replies
 
woiyo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Dec, 2004 08:51 am
Allen does not want taxpayers' money to support "positive depictions of homosexuality as an alternative lifestyle".

I agree. What's the problem?
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Dec, 2004 08:53 am
Ticomaya wrote:
Quote:
President Bush wants 'pro-homosexual' drama banned.


What? What kind of shoddy journalism is that?


Shoddy policy.
0 Replies
 
shewolfnm
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Dec, 2004 08:55 am
ooo damn.
this is a thread I dont want to stay out of
but I think I have to so I dont get booted off of A2k.
I will say this..
This type of thinking is why I didnt vote for bush and why I dont understand people who did.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Dec, 2004 08:55 am
woiyo wrote:
Allen does not want taxpayers' money to support "positive depictions of homosexuality as an alternative lifestyle".

I agree. What's the problem?


Lol - so depictions of homosexuality must be made to be miserable and awful, or not occur at all - despite the numbers of folk who ARE homosexual - and therefore presumably have an interest in seeing their lives depicted, with all the good and bad, as they are, in art?

Your bigotry appears to have overcome your reason.

Not to mention those of us who have an interest - not crippled by prejudice, despite not being gay - in seeing the WHOLE of human life depicted in art.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Dec, 2004 08:59 am
woiyo wrote:
Allen does not want taxpayers' money to support "positive depictions of homosexuality as an alternative lifestyle".

I agree. What's the problem?

Did you read the rest of the article and see the examples we're talking about here? And what is a "positive depiction of homosexuality"? Any play, book or TV show that features a happy gay couple? How do you avoid this? Only feature miserable gay couples? Never feature any? What are we - or you - talking about here?
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Dec, 2004 09:00 am
I must say it is a not unexpected rock bottom.

Let's hope it IS the bottom on this.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Dec, 2004 09:11 am
shewolfnm wrote:
ooo damn.
this is a thread I dont want to stay out of
but I think I have to so I dont get booted off of A2k.
I will say this..
This type of thinking is why I didnt vote for bush and why I dont understand people who did.


Let me see if I have it straight ... you didn't vote for Bush, and don't understand those who did, because an Alabama state senator has proposed legislation, in the State of Alabama, because he doesn't want taxpayer money to be used to support "positive depictions of homosexuality as an alternative lifestyle"? How is that attributable to Bush?

Carrying your logic through (and making a point I made on another thread), another reason you probably didn't vote for Bush is because a few Democratic lawmakers proposed legislation to require a draft.

Rolling Eyes

dlowan wrote:
woiyo wrote:
Allen does not want taxpayers' money to support "positive depictions of homosexuality as an alternative lifestyle".

I agree. What's the problem?


Lol - so depictions of homosexuality must be made to be miserable and awful, or not occur at all - despite the numbers of folk who ARE homosexual - and therefore presumably have an interest in seeing their lives depicted, with all the good and bad, as they are, in art?

Your bigotry appears to have overcome your reason.

Not to mention those of us who have an interest - not crippled by prejudice, despite not being gay - in seeing the WHOLE of human life depicted in art.


With all due respect, why don't you just buy your own gay books?

nimh wrote:
woiyo wrote:
Allen does not want taxpayers' money to support "positive depictions of homosexuality as an alternative lifestyle".

I agree. What's the problem?

Did you read the rest of the article and see the examples we're talking about here? And what is a "positive depiction of homosexuality"? Any play, book or TV show that features a happy gay couple? How do you avoid this? Only feature miserable gay couples? Never feature any? What are we - or you - talking about here?


It seems to me the problem is ascertaining where to draw the line.
0 Replies
 
Einherjar
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Dec, 2004 09:11 am
This is bad.
0 Replies
 
woiyo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Dec, 2004 09:17 am
I do not want taxpayer money to promote a homosexual lifestyle.

Let the homosexual community try to promote their own lifestyle.
0 Replies
 
the prince
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Dec, 2004 09:21 am
woiyo wrote:
I do not want taxpayer money to promote a homosexual lifestyle.

Let the homosexual community try to promote their own lifestyle.


Why ? Don't homosexuals pay tax as well ?

I don't want tax payers money to promote heterosexual lifestyle.

Let the heterosexual community try to promote their won lifestyle.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Dec, 2004 09:22 am
Ticomaya wrote:
shewolfnm wrote:
ooo damn.
this is a thread I dont want to stay out of
but I think I have to so I dont get booted off of A2k.
I will say this..
This type of thinking is why I didnt vote for bush and why I dont understand people who did.


Let me see if I have it straight ... you didn't vote for Bush, and don't understand those who did, because an Alabama state senator has proposed legislation, in the State of Alabama, because he doesn't want taxpayer money to be used to support "positive depictions of homosexuality as an alternative lifestyle"? How is that attributable to Bush?

Carrying your logic through (and making a point I made on another thread), another reason you probably didn't vote for Bush is because a few Democratic lawmakers proposed legislation to require a draft.

Rolling Eyes

dlowan wrote:
woiyo wrote:
Allen does not want taxpayers' money to support "positive depictions of homosexuality as an alternative lifestyle".

I agree. What's the problem?


Lol - so depictions of homosexuality must be made to be miserable and awful, or not occur at all - despite the numbers of folk who ARE homosexual - and therefore presumably have an interest in seeing their lives depicted, with all the good and bad, as they are, in art?

Your bigotry appears to have overcome your reason.

Not to mention those of us who have an interest - not crippled by prejudice, despite not being gay - in seeing the WHOLE of human life depicted in art.


With all due respect, why don't you just buy your own gay books?

nimh wrote:
woiyo wrote:
Allen does not want taxpayers' money to support "positive depictions of homosexuality as an alternative lifestyle".

I agree. What's the problem?

Did you read the rest of the article and see the examples we're talking about here? And what is a "positive depiction of homosexuality"? Any play, book or TV show that features a happy gay couple? How do you avoid this? Only feature miserable gay couples? Never feature any? What are we - or you - talking about here?


It seems to me the problem is ascertaining where to draw the line.


Well, after reading Tico's post here, I have nothing more to add other than to say good answers.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Dec, 2004 09:23 am
the prince wrote:
woiyo wrote:
I do not want taxpayer money to promote a homosexual lifestyle.

Let the homosexual community try to promote their own lifestyle.


Why ? Don't homosexuals pay tax as well ?

I don't want tax payers money to promote heterosexual lifestyle.

Let the heterosexual community try to promote their won lifestyle.


Hear! Hear!

The government shouldn't be promoting ANYONE'S lifestyle!
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Dec, 2004 09:23 am
woiyo wrote:
I do not want taxpayer money to promote a homosexual lifestyle.

Let the homosexual community try to promote their own lifestyle.


You might have a point if we were talking about books titled "Homosexuality and You: How to be Gay in Five Simple Steps".

But we're talking about all books that depict homosexuality without condemning it. Are there not stories with homosexual characters that are about more than just homosexuality?

I want taxpayer money to serve the public good equally. If we're going to support libraries and promote reading as a means to intellectual and personal development then those libraries need to serve all people. We need to make sure that libraries do not become an instrument for state sponsored moralistic propaganda.
0 Replies
 
Einherjar
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Dec, 2004 09:30 am
I can't belive we're debating this. How about banning all books featuring criminal activity, thats one genre out the window. And then we can get rid of books which feature black characters.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Dec, 2004 09:32 am
I can't believe we're debating this either.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Dec, 2004 11:00 am
Neither can I, this is the most asinine thing I've ever heard.

We should ban all books that aren't the f*cking bible, apparently. Man, this makes me mad.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
shewolfnm
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Dec, 2004 11:06 am
shewolfnm wrote:
ooo damn.
this is a thread I dont want to stay out of
but I think I have to so I dont get booted off of A2k.
I will say this..
This type of thinking is why I didnt vote for bush and why I dont understand people who did.


It was only an attempt at 'dry' humor since the article has nothing to do with bush, but yet opens with his name.
sorry. Rolling Eyes

I will try harder next time. Laughing
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » 'Dig a hole and dump them in it.'
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/03/2024 at 01:45:27