Can anyone explain what I heard on Bill Moyers last night?

I mean, I know there's an *obvious* explanation - I'm just hoping it's wrong.

It was late, and I was sleepy, so I just checked out what I thought I heard poet Nikki Giovanni reading, with Moyers nodding and smiling.

Yep, I *did* hear her read a poem containing the phrase "the big bad sheriff on his faggoty white horse." I copied it straight off the website:
http://project1.caryacademy.org/echoes/poet_nikki_giovanni/Samplepoemsnikkigiovanni.htm

I'm not a big literary analyst, but I don't think that's a character other than the author of the poem speaking - in other words, those are her own words and thoughts, I think. I'd be happy to be corrected. Anyone know anything about this poet? (Last night was the first time I'd heard of her.)

Even if there's an explanation, I am somewhat shocked that she chose that particular one to read on Moyers's show, and that he didn't even flinch (I don't think) as the word went by.

I am surprise Moyers would approve of that.

out spoken as hell, but, surely she was making some point, I just don't know what.

It really depends on what year this was written in, I suspect she was using vernacular. But, I really don't know why she chose that word. Impact but what impact? She is not antigay so, all bets are off for me.

Did a quick google search of the line and came up with several explications of the poem but none that dealt with the most obvious ( to us) feature.

Don't remember exactly which site procduced the date.

Along with inspiration from black family culture, and racial issues, many of Nikki Giovanni’s poems showcase her strong faith in God, as well as womanhood. (from her website)

Vicious, 'throwaway' sexism comes from all kinds of people, I guess.

that word? meaning she uses it. her slip was showing.


(people can be ignorant about neutering)

and Bill Moyers reacted the same way. That's why I couldn't believe I heard it until I looked it up this AM.

Maybe she was echoing vernacular for poetic authenticity or impact? You know, poets do poety things.

It looks like Prof. Givanni has been writing poetry since the late 1960's.

I remember her being interviewed after the Va. Tech school shooting and she seemed really cool, always in a kind if suit or shirt and tie, and actually, while she is older now, she is very cute, a little like a pussy cat through the eyes, a Cheshire.


Giovanni speaks to a group of mourners at Cassell Coliseum following the Virginia Tech massacre

Here's some more context:

http://www.campustimes.org/nikki_giovanni_speaks_to_ur_at_mlk_event-1.1317332
She stressed in particular the importance of unionization and added that it was imperative that women make the same amount of money as men, because these finances would help raise children and keep family life stable. She also supported gay marriage rights.


“Civil rights are civil rights,” she said, before humorously adding, “If anyone is crazy enough to marry, then they ought to be able to.”

.........


http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05081/475232-44.stm

Giovanni is amazed that some black people don't view gay marriage as a civil rights issue. There was a time when interracial marriage was illegal.

"Gay marriage is just the other end of that street," she says.

She believes Bush uses issues such as the gay marriage to distract the public from his other policies and programs.

"The president is against gay marriage and in the meantime he's bombing people every day," she says. "It's time we lifted some of these curtains."

.........

I feel better about hearing that go by, given the information about the poet, but I am still quite puzzled.

>>>but I am still quite puzzled.>>>>>

As I said, I don't know when or why she wrote that word.

I can think of political implications, or poetic ones, or irony or bigotry.

On the downside, if you google Giovanni and "faggoty" you find a lot of contemporary sites picking up this term, which is not good, as it perpetuates a slur.

On the puzzling side, may be not so puzzling, within the gay community there is a musical group called "Faggoty attention" which is explained as either non-cholance to the word, or maybe reclaiming it?

my thought, it's a little too soon to reclaim a word that is still actively used as a slur, and alive on the snouts of bigots. But any way, as an FYI, I did find this:

http://www.windycitymediagroup.com/gay/lesbian/news/ARTICLE.php?AID=18410

The two openly gay New York City-based musicians were joking one day that Joseph should write a song about converting straight boys and call it “Faggoty Attention.”

The song eventually was played by local DJs; he performed it around the New York City club scene, and it ultimately landed on LOGO.

And he wasn't worried that using the word faggoty was offensive, “because in my circle of friends in New York, we use that term all of the time, and it's definitely not < said > to offend people.

“I think this is one of the first songs where the word faggoty is looked at in a positive light, not as a slur. I just think that people who aren't used to it may say that it's a little too out there for them. But there also are a lot of people who get it; they get the comedic, playfulness of the song. Maybe some people aren't ready for the song, sure.

“I think it's great to shock people; that's what an artist is all about.”

............

Sounds like you're coming close to saying that 'cause some in the gay community are "reclaiming" the word ( it was never a gay word to begin with so there's really no question of reclaiming anything, but that's not my point right now), it's OK ( or it *might* be ok) for Giovanni to have written it in '68 and to public-read it in '09.

"Faggoty." Hmmm... this is pretty hard to rationalize.

"On the puzzling side, may be not so puzzling, within the gay community there is a musical group called "Faggoty attention" which is explained as either non-cholance to the word, or maybe reclaiming it?

my thought, it's a little too soon to reclaim a word that is still actively used as a slur, and alive on the snouts of bigots. But any way, as an FYI, I did find this..."

Innocence by association is your take on it.

I have made it clear that I don't know what Prof. Giovanni meant and I still don't know. Do you know what the poet meant? In 1968 and on Moyers show? I still don't.

I have said here, repeatedly, that I wish Moyers would have asked her when she was on the show and reading that poem.

Rationalize and understand are two different things.

I also said, that the use of the “f” word has a downside and gave an example of why:

"On the downside, if you google Giovanni and "faggoty" you find a lot of contemporary sites picking up this term, which is not good, as it perpetuates a slur."-bd12

That is not claiming “innocence by association,” that is pointing out the downside of setting loose a term such as “faggoty” in 1968 and finding that it has life in 2009 on MySpace. I said, that such a thing was not good.

"Sounds like you're coming close to saying that 'cause some in the gay community are "reclaiming" the word ( it was never a gay word to begin with so there's really no question of reclaiming anything..." - Smarmie Doofus


I did find the actual word “faggoty” in contemporary use, from a gay band. I speculated, meaning "I wondered," if they thought they were “reclaiming” the word? I didn't say they were.

Can one claim something that is not one’s to start with? That’s an interesting question.
Pejorative terms belong to society and when the victim of a pejorative term seeks to “reclaim it” my understanding is they are reclaiming the term because it is found in common public usage, in an attempt to change it from a negative to a positive meaning. I could be wrong. If so, please show me why.

Let’s look at the concept of reclaiming slurs.

You can draw your own conclusions as to what a gay band calling themselves “Faggoty attention” meant, if anything, but I did include the band’s explanation, in addition to the further question about reclaiming, that I raised. Here’s what they said about why they used it:

"And he wasn't worried that using the word faggoty was offensive, “because in my circle of friends in New York, we use that term all of the time, and it's definitely not < said > to offend people."

This is an interesting finding in use in 2009, but no where did I say that because the gay band used the term, I did or did not agree with the term's use in a poem in 1968. I can’t say more about the poem because, as I said, I don’t know what the poet meant.

So I wondered, if the gay band thought that perhaps they were reclaiming the word? Speculation on my part.

Is it politically relevant to point out that gays cannot reclaim words they don’t use, but are the subject/target of? An interesting semantic distinction but is it missing the point?

Should the term be something like: desensitize it, defuse the negative context of, rather than, reclaim? Maybe demagnitize is a better word?

While we pick lint from our navels here, the world spins onward. Indeed, the issue of the reclamation of slurs does have a political genesis and intent.

For example:
.........

http://www.gaylesbiantimes.com/?id=10704

"Faggot linguistic friend or foe? 2007
When you go around names of groups like ‘Queers and Allies’ and ‘Dykes on Bikes,’” agrees Sherman, “straight people – society as a whole – is going to be uncomfortable engaging you in dialogue, because from the very outset they have trouble with the words. They know they have a history of negative use, and so they are put in this sort of dilemma where they don’t know where to start.”

Need for education
In the final analysis, Kircheck argues, using the term “queer” does one of two things: It “radicalizes the demands of the gay rights movement or promotes the marginalization of gay people.”
“When people are so used to hearing the words ‘fag’ and ‘faggot,’ then it becomes almost acceptable for the general population to take in,” Mallory adds.

... If we are going to take on the rights to use words, and give ourselves the privilege of demagnetizing those words, then we also have to take on the responsibility that comes along with it. We have to educate on the hateful nature of
words.”
.......

Maybe these semantic discussions are a nit picking distinction without a difference?
Maybe gays just want “special rights” and maybe this is the “new left thought police” and we are taking “PC too far?”

To belabor the obvious, I have put those terms in quotes in case someone had the notion that those were my words. They are not. That was a straw man predicate to my question, using the language of the rabid right.

To answer the hypothetical rightwing voice, these words do matter. I think they do personally, that’s why I said the “f” word is still too much in use today as a negative to reclaim it, That's just MHO.

On the other hand, maybe that’s just me? well, not really, there was a pretty lengthy discussion on the inter net at a blog site that I like and a blogger whom I admire and often quote here on GLBT, from Pam’s House Blend.

Words hurt. Nuances are important and even gays and allies are prone to committing some offenses when using certain terms. It’s a matter of education first, not condemnation, that’s my opinion. Oh, in case that is misunderstood, education first and not condemnation, unless the subject is recalitrant and refuses to understand the nature of the hurtful pejoratives.

Here is what the Pam’s House Blend discussion looked like:
.....
http://www.pamshouseblend.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=9316

“Nuance Lost On Some LGBT Journalists Using The Term "Tranny"
by: Autumn Sandeen
Tue Feb 03, 2009 at 06:00:00 AM EST

There are three gay men and a lesbian at a bar. Gay Man A calls Gay Man B a "faggot" in the course of the conversation. Gay Man B says to Gay Man A:

"Please don't call me a 'faggot'; I believe the term 'faggot' is derogatory. My friend was beaten up recently, and his attackers screamed 'faggot' at him while they were beating him up. I find the term offensive.
Gay Man A replies:

Gay Man C and I read in an interview that a bisexual who starred on the L Word said that gay people are reclaiming the word 'faggot.' So, we think it's identifying gay men as 'faggots' is fine because the actress said it was fine.
Hey, we're going to keep calling us all 'faggots,' and we think you're overreacting in objecting to being called 'faggot.' We're reclaiming the word for our community, and you should too.

Lesbian A chimes in:

Oh, okay. Since gays are now reclaiming the term 'faggot' for their community members, I'll start calling all gay men 'faggots' too.”
...............

How about reclaiming the word, “queer?”

Was that ever a gay word? Not when I was growing up. It was a slur and coming from certain non-gay quarters today, it still is.

Yet, the word queer has been considered as a term that may be politically “reclaimed” or ripe for political reclamation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queer
“Because of the context in which it was reclaimed, queer has sociopolitical connotations, and is often preferred by those who are activists, by those who strongly reject traditional gender identities, by those who reject distinct sexual identities such as gay, lesbian, bisexual and straight, and by those who see themselves as oppressed by the heteronormativity of the larger culture. In this usage it retains the historical connotation of "outside the bounds of normal society" and can be construed as "breaking the rules for sex and gender." It can be preferred because of its ambiguity, which allows "queer" identifying people to avoid the sometimes strict boundaries that surround other labels. In this context, "queer" is not a synonym for LGBT as it creates a space for "queer" heterosexuals as well as "non-queer" ("straight-acting") homosexuals.”

................

Thats was fun, Paul. Got me thinking.

:hi:

>>>>>>>>Innocence by association is your take on it.

I have made it clear that I don't know what Prof. Giovanni meant and I still don't know. Do you know what the poet meant? In 1968 and on Moyers show? I still don't.

I have said here, repeatedly, that I wish Moyers would have asked her when she was on the show and reading that poem.

Rationalize and understand are two different things.

I also said, that the use of the “f” word has a downside and gave an example of why:

"On the downside, if you google Giovanni and "faggoty" you find a lot of contemporary sites picking up this term, which is not good, as it perpetuates a slur."-bd12

That is not claiming “innocence by association,” that is pointing out the downside of setting loose a term such as “faggoty” in 1968 and finding that it has life in 2009 on MySpace. I said, that such a thing was not good.

"Sounds like you're coming close to saying that 'cause some in the gay community are "reclaiming" the word ( it was never a gay word to begin with so there's really no question of reclaiming anything..." - Smarmie Doofus>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

.....on one or two points ( significant enough to bring them to your attention) , do I really have to go thru a litany of every thing you say with which I agree before I ask you to address the ... in this case, ONE... point with which I take issue? I hope not. You're not on trial and this is a message board and not a courtroom.

Yes. You prefaced you're remarks (responsibly, I might add) with multiple caveats and qualifications. It goes without saying that you would do so as this is your style and it is one of the reasons people here take you seriously. ( I myself have duly noted the thoroughnness of your research in the past and commented on it. True?) I even imitate it.

On to specifics:

1. no I do not "know" what Ms. Giovanni meant by her use of the word and said as much in another reply upthread.( no I don't know which one, but it's there.)That said: "faggoty" generally means "faggoty". Ms. Giovanni knows what its generally shared meaning is in the vernacular as do I, as do you. She alone knows what she meant to convey by its use and the rest of us are free... or compelled... to apply common sense as we read the poem.

2. If you aren't trying to mitigate the opprobrium attached to the use of a a blatantly homophobic term why bother including the reference to the gay band, "The Faggoty... whatevers" in the first place?


I'm not saying that's the ONLY thing you're doing or trying to do ( you'll likely say you're establishing perspective, context etc. etc.etc.). I'm saying that still doesn't hold up. The fact that some gay people ( idiotically in my view) wish to appropriate, or.... ugh! "reclaim"... "faggot" does not make a sound foundation for an argument, or even speculation, that it might now be "ok" for a non-gay academic to use it... even obscurely.


More later... if I can hold up. You've got evertything below but the proverbial kitchen sink. Suffice it to say you demonstrate a " youth and vigor of which I retain but a dim memory." ( It's a line from a movie.)

You'll excuse any typos; writing uncomfortably from my son's laptop. Shhh... I I must now re-reply to the OP.




I did find the actual word “faggoty” in contemporary use, from a gay band. I speculated, meaning "I wondered," if they thought they were “reclaiming” the word? I didn't say they were.

Can one claim something that is not one’s to start with? That’s an interesting question.
Pejorative terms belong to society and when the victim of a pejorative term seeks to “reclaim it” my understanding is they are reclaiming the term because it is found in common public usage, in an attempt to change it from a negative to a positive meaning. I could be wrong. If so, please show me why.

Let’s look at the concept of reclaiming slurs.

You can draw your own conclusions as to what a gay band calling themselves “Faggoty attention” meant, if anything, but I did include the band’s explanation, in addition to the further question about reclaiming, that I raised. Here’s what they said about why they used it:

"And he wasn't worried that using the word faggoty was offensive, “because in my circle of friends in New York, we use that term all of the time, and it's definitely not < said > to offend people."

This is an interesting finding in use in 2009, but no where did I say that because the gay band used the term, I did or did not agree with the term's use in a poem in 1968. I can’t say more about the poem because, as I said, I don’t know what the poet meant.

So I wondered, if the gay band thought that perhaps they were reclaiming the word? Speculation on my part.

Is it politically relevant to point out that gays cannot reclaim words they don’t use, but are the subject/target of? An interesting semantic distinction but is it missing the point?

Should the term be something like: desensitize it, defuse the negative context of, rather than, reclaim? Maybe demagnitize is a better word?

While we pick lint from our navels here, the world spins onward. Indeed, the issue of the reclamation of slurs does have a political genesis and intent.

For example:
.........

http://www.gaylesbiantimes.com/?id=10704

"Faggot linguistic friend or foe? 2007
When you go around names of groups like ‘Queers and Allies’ and ‘Dykes on Bikes,’” agrees Sherman, “straight people – society as a whole – is going to be uncomfortable engaging you in dialogue, because from the very outset they have trouble with the words. They know they have a history of negative use, and so they are put in this sort of dilemma where they don’t know where to start.”

Need for education
In the final analysis, Kircheck argues, using the term “queer” does one of two things: It “radicalizes the demands of the gay rights movement or promotes the marginalization of gay people.”
“When people are so used to hearing the words ‘fag’ and ‘faggot,’ then it becomes almost acceptable for the general population to take in,” Mallory adds.

... If we are going to take on the rights to use words, and give ourselves the privilege of demagnetizing those words, then we also have to take on the responsibility that comes along with it. We have to educate on the hateful nature of
words.”
.......

Maybe these semantic discussions are a nit picking distinction without a difference?
Maybe gays just want “special rights” and maybe this is the “new left thought police” and we are taking “PC too far?”

To belabor the obvious, I have put those terms in quotes in case someone had the notion that those were my words. They are not. That was a straw man predicate to my question, using the language of the rabid right.

To answer the hypothetical rightwing voice, these words do matter. I think they do personally, that’s why I said the “f” word is still too much in use today as a negative to reclaim it, That's just MHO.

On the other hand, maybe that’s just me? well, not really, there was a pretty lengthy discussion on the inter net at a blog site that I like and a blogger whom I admire and often quote here on GLBT, from Pam’s House Blend.

Words hurt. Nuances are important and even gays and allies are prone to committing some offenses when using certain terms. It’s a matter of education first, not condemnation, that’s my opinion. Oh, in case that is misunderstood, education first and not condemnation, unless the subject is recalitrant and refuses to understand the nature of the hurtful pejoratives.

Here is what the Pam’s House Blend discussion looked like:
.....
http://www.pamshouseblend.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=9316

“Nuance Lost On Some LGBT Journalists Using The Term "Tranny"
by: Autumn Sandeen
Tue Feb 03, 2009 at 06:00:00 AM EST

There are three gay men and a lesbian at a bar. Gay Man A calls Gay Man B a "faggot" in the course of the conversation. Gay Man B says to Gay Man A:

"Please don't call me a 'faggot'; I believe the term 'faggot' is derogatory. My friend was beaten up recently, and his attackers screamed 'faggot' at him while they were beating him up. I find the term offensive.
Gay Man A replies:

Gay Man C and I read in an interview that a bisexual who starred on the L Word said that gay people are reclaiming the word 'faggot.' So, we think it's identifying gay men as 'faggots' is fine because the actress said it was fine.
Hey, we're going to keep calling us all 'faggots,' and we think you're overreacting in objecting to being called 'faggot.' We're reclaiming the word for our community, and you should too.

Lesbian A chimes in:

Oh, okay. Since gays are now reclaiming the term 'faggot' for their community members, I'll start calling all gay men 'faggots' too.”
...............

How about reclaiming the word, “queer?”

Was that ever a gay word? Not when I was growing up. It was a slur and coming from certain non-gay quarters today, it still is.

Yet, the word queer has been considered as a term that may be politically “reclaimed” or ripe for political reclamation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queer
“Because of the context in which it was reclaimed, queer has sociopolitical connotations, and is often preferred by those who are activists, by those who strongly reject traditional gender identities, by those who reject distinct sexual identities such as gay, lesbian, bisexual and straight, and by those who see themselves as oppressed by the heteronormativity of the larger culture. In this usage it retains the historical connotation of "outside the bounds of normal society" and can be construed as "breaking the rules for sex and gender." It can be preferred because of its ambiguity, which allows "queer" identifying people to avoid the sometimes strict boundaries that surround other labels. In this context, "queer" is not a synonym for LGBT as it creates a space for "queer" heterosexuals as well as "non-queer" ("straight-acting") homosexuals.”

................

Thats was fun, Paul. Got me thinking.

For good measure: I’ll even throw in the proverbial kitchen sink.



There are three reasons I might reply in length, given that this is a forum.

1.) I find something peaks my curiosity and it’s fun and a challenge to study and explore it further and to organize my thoughts in writing.

2.) Sometimes, “ I disagree,” requires more of an explanation and I anticipate the person I am chatting with might enjoy a detailed reply.

3.) In doing some research someone else not involved in the person-to-person discussion of the moment, may come across the discussion and find the research and discussion edifying.

It's a beautiful sunny Sunday morning and you have your little guy on your lap--go enjoy your son and this beautiful day! :hi:

Here’s your error In logic.

Sorry I missed this on the first pass read of your reply. I do enjoy chatting with you and take you and your comments seriously, which is why I do not want to appear to be ignoring your question. I should never post before the first cup of Java is down the hatch. :eyes:

You have assumed erroneously that I provided an example of the contemporary usage of the word “faggoty” by the gay band calling themselves “Faggoty attention” as a kind of mitigating argument to lessen the impact of the word faggoty, or as you stated, the “opprobrium attached to the use of a blatantly homophobic term why bother including the reference to the gay band, "The Faggoty... whatevers" in the first place?”

The short answer: because it is out there, right on the first page of the search terms, “Giovanni+ faggoty.”

In the course of attempting to locate an explanation of why she used that term, I found several unfortunate examples of the persistence of the term faggoty in modern usage.

Having set aside the intention of the poet, which none of us know, I then moved on to discuss the contemporary repercussions of the use of such language from 1968 and found that after googling the word “faggoty” it was still in use forty years later.

I gave examples of that and wrote:

“On the downside, if you google Giovanni and "faggoty" you find a lot of contemporary sites picking up this term, which is not good, as it perpetuates a slur.”

That clearly indicates my position on the use of that word: it perpetuates a slur.

So why mention the gay band? Because, I had just suggested that if you google the words faggoty and Giovanni you will find the term in contemporary usage.

Further, if you google the word faggoty, and I anticipated others might, I found on the very first page of the search the hit for the band “Faggoty attention.” I assume, and correctly, that if this is something I found with an easy search, it will also be a search result others will find, should they be inclined to repeat the same search.

So, my answer was:

a.) truthful
b.) pre-emptive

Because the gay band with that name does indeed exist. I could anticipate someone claiming gay hypocrisy, because on the one hand we are critical of the use of the word “faggoty” and on the other, here is a gay band using it as their name. If that question were posed, it would be valid and would require an answer.

So, next, I speculated as to why a gay band might use a toxic word in it’s name.

1.) Nonchalance, (which I spelled wrong initially) meaning indifference, as in who gives a rats buttocks, it doesn’t affect us.

2.) Another possibility came to mind, perhaps they were reclaiming the pejorative word from common usage and making it a positive.

Then, after pondering this myself, I provided the band’s answer, which comes closer to nonchalance: “because in my circle of friends in New York, we use that term all of the time, and it's definitely not (meant) to offend people."

Then, I concluded with my own thought, “it's a little too soon to reclaim a word that is still actively used as a slur, and alive on the snouts of bigots.”

So, if your question hinged on why did I include a discussion about a gay band which uses the word “faggoty” and wasn’t I trying to exculpate the author’s use of the word “faggoty” by doing so, the answer is no.

The band was included in the discussion because their existence and name are a fact and easily discoverable. I think it is best to get out in front of facts and explain them, rather than being broadsided with them.

There is another argument I might have used. The “context” defense. The plea to use common sense, for example: “It’s all about context. Use common sense. If friends with good intentions call each other ‘faggot’ what the big deal? It’s all about intent.”

That’s not a bad defense, but I eschewed it for a couple of reasons. Keep in mind that we have also had prior conversations on DU about the use of slurs and what constitutes toxic language and when.

My opinion is that there are two audiences, public and private.

What friends say among themselves is one thing, what is put out in the public domain is another. What is offensive and where, is also a little murky because it is highly subjective.

The simplest rule would to never use pejoratives at all.

The next simplest rule would be to only use terms that are perceived as pejorative, when you belong to that group yourself and only in private. However, once a pejorative is let loose, there is always a chance that someone will be offended, that’s a fact.

The next simplest rule would be to only use terms that are perceived as pejorative, when you belong to that group yourself in private or public. However, once a pejorative is let loose, there is always a chance that someone will be offended, that’s a fact.

–> That’s what the group “Faggoty attention” is doing.

The least simple and most controversial rule would be: that anyone, wether they belong to that group or not, can use that term in private and public. Good luck with that one, because that is the basis for creating social ill will and lot’s of societal friction.
–> BTW, that appeared to be the basis for concern about this poem and this poet’s use of the term “faggoty.”

She carefully selected a word of utter bigotry and contempt. Don't know the work enough to know why.

But 1968 being the date of the poem changes every single thing I had posted here a moment ago. She's not a hack, if that is not current work. She was doing the moment well...
Not a word to toss around...but 68...lots of tossing in 68.

(as I said in the OP, I was just about ready to go to bed when I was watching the show last night).

I wonder if he knew she was going to read that poem?

The poem is from 68. So that means different things about her and her work and the on time nature of her work. In 2008 this would be a throwback to, well, 1968.
The year and context should have been highlighted I think. But in historic context, everything is different, including the poet's use of voice and strong stance as being correct when others are wrong. At that time, she was pretty subversive, and taking on a voice that was then unheard, I'd say.
But I'm guessing. It could also be a word she might not select today. I'll give her benefit of the doubt for having written some strong truth back in that day. Even if she was not fully grown then, she seems to have good intent, subversive intent.

to the tune of faggot in '68. It doesn' t say much for the artist then or now

The poem "Poem for Black Boys" was published in 1968.
http://www.aavw.org/special_features/pofidr_poetry_giovanni.html
The True Import Of Present Dialogue, Black vs. Negro (For Peppe, Who Will Ultimately Judge Our Efforts)
by Nikki Giovanni

And this
http://www.ur.umich.edu/9899/Jan25_99/keynote.htm
She criticized conservative Black Americans’ indifference to civil rights violations suffered by gay and lesbian people—injustices much like those endured by past and present generations of African Americans.

“What’s the difference between dragging a Black man behind a truck in Jasper, Texas, and beating a white boy to death in Wyoming because he’s gay?” Giovanni asked. “Everybody wants to make that understandable. Well, it’s not understandable.”

Giovanni said that the younger generations of today must build on the civil rights advances made through the sacrifices and struggles of the 1950s and ’60s. She spoke of the murder of 14-year-old Emmett Till, a Black youth killed by whites in Mississippi in 1955. She described Rosa Parks’ refusal to give up her seat to a white person on a Montgomery, Ala., bus in 1955, and recounted the lunch counter sit-in movement begun by four college students in Greensboro, N.C., in 1960.

“Everybody wants to say ‘Oh, Rosa Parks’ feet were tired,’” Giovanni said. “Rosa’s feet weren’t tired. Her soul was tired. The bus driver said, ‘Make it easy on yourself.’ She said, ‘I can’t. I can not.’ He said, ‘I have to arrest you.’ She said, ‘You have to do what you have to do, but I shall not be moved.’”

That's a good thing.

I doubt she would use the word today, unless she was being subversive and throwing it back in the face of society.

I wish Moyers would have asked why she used the word back then. But then, it was a word in a poem being read out loud, perhaps he focused on the whole poem. I don't know. I can't know what others intend, nor can I control them, but, I can control me and make almost anything into a learning experience, as I see many of us have done here. We can read about her, understand her history, her cause, her anger and learn something. That's all we ever get to do as people, make the best of things we don't control.

Also, art is a funny thing, it is what it is and often does not lend itself to literal analysis. For example, the Mona Lisa is literally a small painting of a young woman smiling, but then, it is something more.

I personally dislike the word but I am actually more curious as to what she meant by faggoty. A gelding maybe?

Last night I put together a few of her videos here. Some are poems but two (about Cosby and about Condi Rice) are just her talking to an audience. The link to the Moyers' video is in this OP:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5050634

take it for what it's worth; as in pertaining to a nelly faggot

and enjoy what she says about Condi Rice. Nikki is a woman of parts.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=csClroAFG-I&feature=related

It *appears* that the 'faggoty' poem is included in a sort of video montage near the beginning of the interview. It appears to be grainy footage. The Nikki Giovanni delivering the poem seems like a much younger version of the person in the *live* interview on the Moyers show. Ithink the footage is from the 1970's, but I may be wrong. ( I don't think I'm wrong.)

I tried to watch the rest of the interview so that I could say for sure that she did not read the poem live on the Moyers program in 2009. The interview is... shall we say... *extremely * lengthy. I fell asleep after what seemed like thirty minutes of what looked like to be forty-minute interview.

She didn't read the poem live during the time I watched. There is a trascript ( I'll presume it's all inclusive) on the website aslo. I checked it quickly this a.m. Saw no further reference to The Faggoty Poem (TFP).

My conclusion: she probably did NOT read TFP live on the Moyers' show in 2009.

Hope this adds a bit of clarity.

Thanks for your research. :)

and can't do my own research if it involves video or websites that load slowly (which 90% of them do.... :-( )

I'm glad to know it wasn't live. I'd still just as soon something else was chosen.