When they denied rights for GLBTs, I kept silent, because I was not GLBT...

Hopefully, most of you know how the rest of it goes.

sw

I don't want the various churches in my bedroom any more than the LBGT community does. Since when was it their prerogative about what we are and aren't allowed to do anyway?

you are quoting Pastor Martin Niemoller and here it is in it's entirity.
Original Translation
Als die Nazis die Kommunisten holten,
habe ich geschwiegen;
ich war ja kein Kommunist.
Als sie die Sozialdemokraten einsperrten,
habe ich geschwiegen;
ich war ja kein Sozialdemokrat.

Als sie die Gewerkschafter holten,
habe ich nicht protestiert;
ich war ja kein Gewerkschafter.

Als sie die Juden holten,
habe ich geschwiegen;
ich war ja kein Jude.

Als sie mich holten,
gab es keinen mehr, der protestieren konnte.
When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.
When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for the Jews,
I remained silent;
I was not a Jew.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.

No offense but putting people into ovens, mass shootings and graves is NOT the same as voting against the right to marry, as much as I agree with the sentiment.

And the Iraqis disagree with your assessment of the situation, to boot.

I am confused. I am not saying that what has occurred is not good, but I think relating every persecution to Hitler is illogical.

I don't know if you fall into this category, but many people think of the holocaust as some sort of unique event that will never be matched either in magnitude nor in brutality. In truth, there was nothing remarkable about it, nor the people who did it. In nearly the same era, Stalin managed to outdo the "Fuhrer," and genocide is nothing new under the sun.

The reason I brought up the Iraqis is because our gov't has no problem with exterminating people that are in their way- that's why it's deadly important that the people in the LBGT community, dissenters and other "undesirables" have our full support and protection. It's just a short step from being labeled an "undesirable" to jails, camps and mass graves.

As I've said before, here, the holocaust didn't start with the ovens, and we need to be aware of the small and not so small steps toward such a thing.

To sum up, you missed the point of the quote- If you refuse to defend your fellow humans' rights because you can't relate to them, then you will quickly find yourself alone when you become the persecuted one.

I just think the jump to Hitler is often overused.

Hitler is not some sort of evil demigod/antichrist. What happened in Germany happened here in the US over the last 8 years on a smaller scale. People sat back and let an unelected dictator do pretty much what he and his cronies wanted. I'm lucky I didn't end up in some place like gitmo for speaking out, but in retrospect, I think Bushco knew that people like myself would be dismissed in favor of people who would stay silent or dismiss it as "not as bad as."

10 Trillion dollars later and over 5 million innocents displaced, raped, tortured and murdered...and all I hear is "It's not as bad as Hitler!"

they love their own self righteousness. YOu get over it.

Enjoy yourself. As I said back in 2001, count the bodies after this is over and say that I was wrong. Matthew Shepard was not an anomaly.

Why is it unless I hold the exact point of view that you have I am labled?

I am fully in support with the gay community, I just don't think that having Warren at the inauguration means what you think it means.

Saddam Hussein killed more of his people than we have in Iraq during his reign. I refused to let the Republicans make the Hitler analogy as their justification for war. I will likewise refuse to allow people to make such claims about comparing the holocaust to the gay rights issue in America.

We cannot logically jump from Warren to Hitler to Saddam Hussein. They are different issues.

Why is it unless I hold the exact point of view that you have I am labled?

You're trying to silence an argument by pleading that this isn't as bad as Germany was.

A lesser evil does not make it "good."

I am fully in support with the gay community, I just don't think that having Warren at the inauguration means what you think it means.

What am I supposed to think when the Democrat we elected gives a fundie this sort of forum? Obama had the best and brightest to choose from, and he picked this guy. I doubt it was a mistake.

If you're one of those people that claims this is a brilliant move on his part, spare me. The Fundies will never be his base...but apparently his real base doesn't matter to him at this point.

Saddam Hussein killed more of his people than we have in Iraq during his reign. I refused to let the Republicans make the Hitler analogy as their justification for war.

Saddam Hussein was our boy, as you might recall, so I'm not sure how that's relevant. I gave the Iraq example to show that our Gov't is fully capable of the most heinous behavior, so the defense that "We would never do that to the LBGTs" falls flat. I could just as easily pointed out Jose Padilla or Aafia Siddiqui as an example.

I will likewise refuse to allow people to make such claims about comparing the holocaust to the gay rights issue in America

What gives you that right? You claim to understand the meaning of "Never again" while interfering with the people who are actually trying to prevent such a thing. Inconsistency much?

We cannot logically jump from Warren to Hitler to Saddam Hussein. They are different issues.

You were the one who brought up Saddam. The original quote could apply to any country where massive purges have occurred, but you seem to be stuck on Hitler not being in charge as a reason to dismiss the obvious universal truth and how it applies...and have even dismissed hard evidence that I presented by relating it to larger tragedies...as if that somehow makes it ok.

I'm beginning to think what another DUer pointed out was correct- you don't support this issue. If this was affecting you adversely for being whatever sexual orientation you are, I suspect you wouldn't be trying to silence people in the name of your superior moral understanding.

I didn't bring up Hitler, you did. You tried to equate the holocaust in Nazi Germany to the gay rights movement in America. Not the same...by far.

I never claimed to like Warren. Obama made it clear that his approach would be inclusive from the start. His red/blue speech back in 2004 was clear that he considered all americans part of his country and his plan. Having Warren, regardless of whether or not you like him, speak is part of that. So to claim that he is dissing his base when he has been talking inclusion is intellectual dishonesty on your part.

Whether or not Saddam Hussein killed more was never my issue. I pointed out that your use of the Hitler argument was not logical when the Republicans used it to justify war, nor is it relevant to your attempt at trying to use it to justify your position. I recognize that Saddam was our lapdog but that is irrelevant to the argument.

To compare 6 million Jews, Catholics, trade unionists, gypsies, gays, intellectuals etc who died under Hitler's reign to the plight of the gay american is very very dishonest. Gays are not tattoed and placed in ovens. In fact Gay rights has increased and there is more tolerance than ever. Is it perfect, hell no, and we still need to fight, but placing as much power on this single issue about Warren and butchering Obama because of it, is blowing this totally out of proportion.

THAT is a LIE.

Or did you not know that?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_gay_men_in_Nazi_Germany_and_the_Holocaust

and anyone who did not figure into Hitler's master race.

That is different than comparing the denial of marriage to the Holocaust regardless of who suffered. That is not occurring here.

There difference is merely in degrees.

Yet I believe the fundamental point of the correlation between the two remain the same (and thus valid), that is-- the use of law to undermine the civil rights of a minority, and in doing so, making them a de-facto second, third or even fourth class citizen.

cute

based upon what Warren has said. True, his words are anti gay, but to compare him to Hitler or what is occuring to the holocaust is vastly differnt

I am in full support of the GLBT community. I am just able to pull back and see the forest through the trees and not personalize everything that comes out of the White House.

You see Warren's invite as a slap in the face to the GLBT community. I see it as a political ploy, the ramifications of which we will not see until Obama has some time to make change.

This is what I was talking about. If I do not agree with you, If I don't get upset and dramatic, I get labled "non supportive". I think that sucks and is reminiscent of the freerepublic and their lockstep mentality.

That is why many "progressives" are not different than freepers.

Or does he have to swing the hockey stick himself? I use hockey stick because when my first boyfriend got beaten, it was with a hockey stick, so it's the image always in my head.

http://www.bilerico.com/2008/02/an_unsettling_trend_of_antigay_violence.php

http://www.365gay.com/news/anti-gay-violence-feared-rising/

Vastly different stage of the process of dehumanization and elimination

You need to realize that the master race rhetoric didn't even start in 1933, but way earlier, like 1898

Kind of jarring to read it in a document c. 1914

And if you asked any German in 1898 if he believed that something like the holocaust would happen they'd laugh in your face

So this is why this needs to stop now

dup.

Dykes like me just got "rehabilitated" with the prostitutes.

the modern age? Where in the US are 50k to 100k being tortured to death?

...oh, wait.

It's not like official government policy has resulted in the death of millions...

...oh, wait.

It's not like the Nazi's actually targeted gays...

...oh, wait.

There are similarities, and there are differences.

Where the Niemoller quote is apt, and applicable, is that many have remained silent about the way the US treats GLBT people, because "they aren't one". Where it is less applicable is that there hasn't been the same scale of persecution.

Yet.

would round us up into detention camps, even in 'liberal' California. The process almost started with Prop. 64 in the 80s.

THIS group of human beings is less important/valuable/worthy than THAT group of human beings.

sw

"Where the Niemoller quote is apt, and applicable, is that many have remained silent about the way the US treats GLBT people, because "they aren't one". Where it is less applicable is that there hasn't been the same scale of persecution."

It is that point you missed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paragraph_175">Paragraph 175

But I'm sure you already knew that. ;-)

It's the uneducated others that need to have this point driven home.

you are wrong, it started with insignificant things like the hate for gays that some Americans have, and now can express

By the way, they removed the rights of a whole class of people, how far behind are the rest of us?

When the fascists came for the Muslims,
I remained silent;
I was not a Muslim.

When they came for the Liberals,
I remained silent;
Because I was a "third way centrist".

When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
Who needs unions in the 21st century?

When they came for the gays,
I remained silent;
I was not gay.
Besides, those damn drama queens
were always bitching about something.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.

No, they did not. First came demonization of Jews and others, and then stripping them of civil rights.

...

It was disgusting. Associating being gay with nambla is not a progressive thing to do.

For the love of god....

take your hate elsewhere...

Gays today are in danger of being treated like the Jews, gays, gypsies and disabled were treated under Nazi Germany. Anyone who believes otherwise is a lunatic.

That being said, we all need to fight like heck to ensure gays have the same rights that heteros do.

No correlation whatsoever. (And before you open your mouth, I'm a gay Jew.)

Gay Jew thing!

Pierre Seel Dies; Bore Witness to Nazi Torture of Gays

By Matt Schudel
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, December 2, 2005; Page B06

Pierre Seel, who was imprisoned in a Nazi concentration camp during World War II for homosexuality and later broke decades of silence to speak out about the horrors he endured, died of cancer Nov. 25 at his home in Toulouse, France. He was 82.

Arrested on suspicion of being a homosexual, Mr. Seel served six months in a prison camp before he was released and, improbably enough, drafted into the German army. After the war, he married and had a family and revealed nothing of his ordeal. When a French bishop railed against homosexuals in the 1980s, Mr. Seel reasserted his identity as a gay man and wrote a searing autobiography as one of the few surviving victims of a little-known chapter of wartime atrocity.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/01/AR2005120101637.html

... Operation "Make Rick Warren Eat His Words" http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=4680741&mesg_id=4680741

It just doesn't seem to change, does it?

Not EVERYTHING is about YOU!!!!!!

I thought Bobbolink was just pointing out the lack of advocacy for any oppressed seems to be across the board..and for a homeless person to be advocating for anyone besides herself and not just focusing on basic survival is just plain admirable to me; please place yourself in her position! thanks!

A person says "don't forget the poor" and you say "it is not all about you?"

sadly, you are wrong. When it comes to speaking out for the poor, for the most part it unfortunately is "all about" Bobbolink. But that is not her fault. That is our shame.

What is the crime here? I assume that you do not object to someone saying "don't forget the poor." May I say that? Is your problem with people who are poor speaking for the poor? So then the crime is being poor?

Or perhaps you harbor a personal hostility toward this one member. Your post diminishes all people who are poor - millions now. Do you think it is justifiable to do that for the sake of some petty personal hostility you have toward the poster?

yet you continue to fight US

amazing :eyes:

I certainly don't see how my post could be interpreted as a "fight" about anything. For me it was simply a meditative/philosophical statement -- along the lines of "What diminishes one, diminishes all", or "Whatsoever you do to the least of my brethren, you do to me."

sw

Thank you for "state-ing" what it's all about.

that it seemed to get a few people's backs up. :)

sw

..about native rights, the rights of my people, only because you aren't native, where the fuck were you? Why do blacks, GLBT, and others get to the front of the freaking line when this is OUR land, and not yours? I can hazard the guess that you don't really want me to post the answer to that question here in this forum....

I will scream just as loudly as I am doing now. The issue is about Obama sticking a bigotted asshole onstage who hates gays and women at the moment.

you won't have a voice because you will be told that because you are not native american you couldn't possibly know what it is like.


then you will be called a host of other nasty names.

best to keep silent when the time comes. even if you agree with the native americans, you will be vilified.

to sit down and behave.

but that apparently isn't important

I've spent many years as an invited ally to native activists. It can be done.

sw

Some of us are native or have native blood, or are otherwise outspoken allies on behalf of native issues.

Remember that old cliche about assumptions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersectionality

--C, Queer, with Freeman ancestry.

ran an online discussion forum devoted to native issues. He and I had begun writing a book together on American Indian treaty rights when he died suddenly of a heart attack in November 2000.

I still live just a couple miles from a reservation, I have friends there that I've known for years. For several years running I was the outreach officer in my local DFL party organization and coordinated get-out-the-vote efforts on the reservation with the Mille Lacs Band government representatives.

I'm not native, but I've done my best for many many years to be a bridge between my native friends and the whites around me. I'm sure there's always more that I could do, but I can unequivocally state that I have not kept silent about native rights, not since I first saw the poverty on the Mille Lacs Reservation as a child in the early 50s.

Respectfully,
sw

...is that everyone is howling that Obama has seemingly turned his back on the GLBT folks, but no one here, at least, seems concerned that native issues aren't even on the radar. Why are these other groups in the front of the line?

shiny object. Right now, Rick Warren is the shiny object.

I've been waiting to see who Obama was going to pick for Secretary of Interior. That just happened, but it hasn't caught much attention due to the Rick Warren stuff.

I'm only vaguely familiar with Ken Salazar, the new nominee for Interior, and have no idea where he stands when it comes to native rights. I honestly haven't had any spare time since his name was announced to do any research.

I've already expressed my dismay over the pick for Attorney General, but it's who gets in as head of the Civil Rights Division that will have the most immediate impact on Indian Country, and that person hasn't been named yet. Same with the BIA.

I have no intention of falling asleep during the Obama adminstration, I've already howled over many different things regarding his cabinet picks -- you just happened to see the one OP I've made this week.

Obviously, the bush administration had NOTHING for native concerns. It's not clear to me yet how an Obama administration will do in that regard. All I can tell you is that I WILL be paying attention, and I WILL howl if natives are getting the shaft.

Personally, I hope to see a revival of the push to honor the terms of the 1868 Fort Laramie Treaty and give the stolen Black Hills back to the Lakota. I would be happy to help that effort in any way I can.

sw

..that there's not a single traditional native amongst any of the cabinet appointments. Why the hell do white folks get to run the BIA?

It sucks. I don't think the BIA head for the Obama administration has been picked yet -- unless I missed it. If you know of a traditional native who should be put forward, I'd gladly lobby for him or her.

How would you feel about Elouise Cobell?

...would be a better choice than virtually any other we have had. I would be concerned, though, that she might be too cozy with the powers that be. That said, I'd support her.

a plaintiff in the trust lawsuit.

The other names that come to mind are Wilma Mankiller and Winona LaDuke.

Do you know of any men who be good possibilities?

sw

Why are my people still at the back of the line?

"Why are my people still at the back of the line?" is that it's because you're invisible. There are no news items coming out that have to do with native matters, there's no one on DU bringing native issues up, nobody actually knows what's happening in Indian Country -- much less understands the problems there.

Maybe you could help change that here on DU, at least. I'd be happy to kick and comment on any topic you post.

sw

... in the past, and the responses ranged from " oh, that's terrible", to " why don't you get over it already?". There is a deeper dynamic at play than just the lack of native visibility. The idea of full restoration of native rights, especially land issues, is threatening to the status quo that most duhmuricans enjoy, including many so-called progressives. Sorry for my ill tempered first post on this thread, but sometimes that's what it takes to get people to take notice.

I'm certainly NOT going to make excuses for the "so-called progressives" here, I lock horns with them all the time. Scratch a self-proclaimed "liberal" on DU, and as often as not you'll find a white privilege reactionary underneath. I totally get where you're coming from.

No need to be sorry for your first post, I'm really glad for the opportunity to have a conversation with you.

I mean what I said about pm'ing me. I sort of miss going into battle over native issues. There's an awful lot of educating to be done.

sw

History is going the other way. We're not going to see nonwhites or women start losing the rights they gained - we're going toward gay people having equal rights.

rights for one group can not and must not be justified.

sw

:eyes:

Your concern is duly noted, though.

Perfect. Wish I had remembered this famous quote.

Yes, THIS is the point!

The best argument for standing up for the rights of others--if you cannot bring yourself to do it because it is the right thing to do--is that you never know when you'll be next.

I'm not gay, but I'm a hardcore leftist -- a subgroup on DU that has always been subject to a great deal of derision, dismissal and scorn on this forum.

I don't for a moment equate that in any way with the oppression of my GLBT fellow humans, but I think it makes me more easily inclined to empathize with those whose voices so many would prefer not to hear.

sw

If gays had a color. it would all be clear and transparent racism.

I think the cause for gay marriage is strong enough, that no one should ever have to scare people by saying "vote for gay marriage or they'll come to get you next!"


California banned gay marriage. It sucked. And I do personally hope the supreme court overturn it. Or failing that, it goes back to the ballot and gay marriage passes there. But, this idea that since they banned gay marriage, they'll stop Latinos from voting or stop black people from voting is absurd. Its hyperbole. When you leave gay marriage up to the states, it will pass some places and not pass in others. It that simple. It doesn't mean anyone 'is next.'

If you accept rights being denied to one group of your fellow human beings, then you are accepting the proposition that the rights of anyone can be denied.

"What diminishes one, diminishes us all."

sw