A United Force?

[geminimikie]

I have had this troubling me for a while and I just want to throw this out there and see what everyone else thinks.
Why is it the LGBT community as whole can not unite and become Large united front? Yes you have a few that want to try and make a difference but unless every LGBT person stands up with the rest the number is too small that no one will listen. I know our numbers are there that if we could all unite and stand together we could really make a difference. When I first moved to this city I attempted to try and join organizations that would (you think) attempt to make a difference but they turned out to be were alternative hook-up places for people that didnt want to go to the clubs. And, not much got accomplished. Dont get me wrong I believe we should have some social clubs to give an alternative to bars and clubs, but there is a time and place for that.
I am at a point that when I complete college I am going to move to a different city that does have other options for LGBT persons (any suggestions LOL:D ).

[Diane Vera]

I have had this troubling me for a while and I just want to throw this out there and see what everyone else thinks.
Why is it the LGBT community as whole can not unite and become Large united front? Yes you have a few that want to try and make a difference but unless every LGBT person stands up with the rest the number is too small that no one will listen. I know our numbers are there that if we could all unite and stand together we could really make a difference. When I first moved to this city I attempted to try and join organizations that would (you think) attempt to make a difference but they turned out to be were alternative hook-up places for people that didnt want to go to the clubs. And, not much got accomplished. Dont get me wrong I believe we should have some social clubs to give an alternative to bars and clubs, but there is a time and place for that.

What are these organizations officially trying to accomplish? Have you made any attempts to help them accomplish more?

I am at a point that when I complete college I am going to move to a different city that does have other options for LGBT persons (any suggestions LOL:D ).

The largest gay communities, as far as I am aware, are in New York and San Francisco.

[Zerbie]

I have had this troubling me for a while and I just want to throw this out there and see what everyone else thinks.
Why is it the LGBT community as whole can not unite and become Large united front? Yes you have a few that want to try and make a difference but unless every LGBT person stands up with the rest the number is too small that no one will listen. I know our numbers are there that if we could all unite and stand together we could really make a difference. When I first moved to this city I attempted to try and join organizations that would (you think) attempt to make a difference but they turned out to be were alternative hook-up places for people that didnt want to go to the clubs. And, not much got accomplished. Dont get me wrong I believe we should have some social clubs to give an alternative to bars and clubs, but there is a time and place for that.
I am at a point that when I complete college I am going to move to a different city that does have other options for LGBT persons (any suggestions LOL:D ).

Hi Mikie,

I so empathize with your frustration. It has taken me over a decade of trying just to get opportunities to get started. I joined group after group, and went to meeting after meeting over a period of 12 years - most groups were either social groups, support groups, or else they were geared towards politics but were completely ineffectual. I am sensing some change coming, with the internet, with groups like Soulforce which is not ONLY a national organization, but has local chapters in which people can be directly involved.

Does your area have a local Soulforce chapter? If so, try there. If not, perhaps you are the person to organize one.

Now, the entire LGBT world is not going to organize systematically under one umbrella - there is too much diversity of opinion, value system, etc, for that to happen.

But regarding numbers - no, the gay community alone does not have the numbers to defeat the homophobia that runs our institutions. But we do have the numbers if we add in all the non-gays who believe that all Americans deserve equality under the law, and all the non-gays who know and love someone who is gay. Getting those people motivated to stand up and be counted, and to keep speaking out, is going to be key to turning the tide on these issues. I am continually surprised by the things my straight friends do NOT know about - like the fact that it's legal in my state to fire someone just for being gay. I mentioned it sort of off-hand to one of my friends a few weeks ago, assuming it was old news to her, and she was shocked. I say it's up to those of us who know and understand the problems to inform our friends about them - because the most well-intentioned caring people in the world aren't going to know that gay people get evicted from homes for being gay and are allowed no legal recourse because the law permits housing discrimination, UNLESS SOMEONE TELLS THEM.

Off of soapbox. :sing:

[marutidas]

You know I have asked the same question,

It would be great to everyone in the Gay community united like the Blacks in the 50's and 60's. I just don't see it as possible, maybe because it is as tom much of a big deal, I mean it today anyway, we have come a long way from stonewall. we are not so disciminated against, just in some parts of the country, like the south mainly. So getting Gays in a part of the country like california up and going on a movement might be easier than a place like alabama or mississippi (scared into the closet).

And if it's not that, just some of us could not give a flying flip as long as they get theirs.

Thats the real danger of the civil rights movent, when we win one victory we think its over, so we go home and then out of the blue the opposition really hits you where it hurts. So we just have keep on fighting.

Thank you for hearing my ramblings,

Maruti Das

[Vortex]

One observation I see is an absence of leadership, whether it is a central organization or a single individual. Now this may beg the question of whether or not such centralized leadership is even necessary, but one only needs to look back at the modern day civil rights movement where an organization like the NAACP or a single individual like MLK Jr. were very influential in rallying support and acting as a catalyst in getting things accomplished.
Within the GLBT community today we have many organizations but no single organization that we all can point to and say “yes that organization represents me and what I’d like to see done”. Also while there have been individuals who have contributed considerably, there is still not that one individual whose charismatic appeal is enough to both embolden the fearful within our community and also shake those who would be our allies out of apathy.


How do we shake people out of apathy? Sadly even those whom our cause would benefit seem nihilistic that anything can be done. Think about how our situation differs from that of African Americans during the times of blatant inequality and segregation. It didn’t matter if you were rich, lived in a nice house and wore the best of clothing, if you were black, you still had to drink from the ‘colored’ fountains, use the colored restrooms, sit in the back of the bus etc. Today in our community you can be gay have a partner, make lots of money, live comfortably (economically speaking), and have everyone around you assume you’re like them. I don’t know, this maybe more fear than apathy? Anyways I hope this made some sort of sense, it is very late and I’m not thinking all that clearly. :confused:

Then there are those of course like Zerbie mentioned who would be our allies but are just ignorant of how things are because it doesn’t really directly affect them.



Now, the entire LGBT world is not going to organize systematically under one umbrella - there is too much diversity of opinion, value system, etc, for that to happen.


I still have not given up on this idea Zerbie. I don't think we have to agree on all things for this to work, we only have to all agree on one thing.

EQUALITY


Vortex

[Vortex]

You know I have asked the same question,

It would be great to everyone in the Gay community united like the Blacks in the 50's and 60's. I just don't see it as possible, maybe because it is as tom much of a big deal, I mean it today anyway, we have come a long way from stonewall. we are not so disciminated against, just in some parts of the country, like the south mainly. So getting Gays in a part of the country like california up and going on a movement might be easier than a place like alabama or mississippi (scared into the closet).

And if it's not that, just some of us could not give a flying flip as long as they get theirs.

Thats the real danger of the civil rights movent, when we win one victory we think its over, so we go home and then out of the blue the opposition really hits you where it hurts. So we just have keep on fighting.

Thank you for hearing my ramblings,

Maruti Das


Thanks Marutidas I don't feel as crazy now in my own ramblings. Took me an hour to iron out my paragraph on this point and in that time you managed to get this post in and make it clearer. :)


Vortex

[Diane Vera]

One observation I see is an absence of leadership, whether it is a central organization or a single individual. Now this may beg the question of whether or not such centralized leadership is even necessary, but one only needs to look back at the modern day civil rights movement where an organization like the NAACP or a single individual like MLK Jr. were very influential in rallying support and acting as a catalyst in getting things accomplished.
Within the GLBT community today we have many organizations but no single organization that we all can point to and say “yes that organization represents me and what I’d like to see done”. Also while there have been individuals who have contributed considerably, there is still not that one individual whose charismatic appeal is enough to both embolden the fearful within our community and also shake those who would be our allies out of apathy.

We don't need a central organization or leader. The GLBT rights movement has accomplished an awful lot over the past several decades, without one big organization. I think we're best off with a wide variety of smaller groups, as long as the groups are aware of each other and capable of cooperating on at least some common projects. For example, here in New York City, there are something like a couple hundred different groups that march in the annual Gay Pride parade every June. (Although some people may diss it, the Gay Pride parade is very important. It fosters a sense of community among GLBT people, and it shows the politicians that we are indeed a force to be reckoned with.) And it seems to me that the many small groups are better at motivating people to march than one big group would be. If we were all in one big organization, we'd all be spending a lot of time arguing over that one organization's strategy. With many smaller groups, there's less to argue about, because people can just join the groups that appeal to them.

However, even here in New York, we still have a problem with a lot of people being apathetic.

How do we shake people out of apathy? Sadly even those whom our cause would benefit seem nihilistic that anything can be done.

It would probably help a lot to educate people about the history of the GLBT rights movement and its accomplishments over the past several decades.

Also, political organizations cannot exist in a vacuum. They need to have working relationships with local social clubs, religious groups, public service organizations, etc., whose leaders support the political group.

Think about how our situation differs from that of African Americans during the times of blatant inequality and segregation. It didn’t matter if you were rich, lived in a nice house and wore the best of clothing, if you were black, you still had to drink from the ‘colored’ fountains, use the colored restrooms, sit in the back of the bus etc. Today in our community you can be gay have a partner, make lots of money, live comfortably (economically speaking), and have everyone around you assume you’re like them. I don’t know, this maybe more fear than apathy?

The black civil rights movement had a problem with apathy too. One thing that helped the black civil rights movement a lot was the support of black churches and other black religious groups. Similarly I think the gay rights movement could benefit a lot by encouraging GLBT Christians to join GLBT-friendly churches whose pastors support the gay rights movement.

It is also vitally important to have a network of secular organizations (social clubs, support groups, public service organizations, etc.) whose leaders support the gay rights movement and are willing to encourage their members to attend rallies, etc.

[Allyson]

Two insights (that may or may not be very insightful) from the t-side of GLBTQ:

1. Perhaps part of the reason it's so hard for us to come together is that we're so diverse. There is, for example, a quiet but very real debate in some GL circles over whether it is helpful to include trans-people in "the cause."

2. I think sometimes that the apathy of some GLBTQ people stems from the fact that they have things pretty good where they are. Even though whole regions of the U.S. (and the world, obviously) remain very homophobic, one's own comfort can easily silence the cries of the oppressed when they're not right next door.

[Diane Vera]

Two insights (that may or may not be very insightful) from the t-side of GLBTQ:

1. Perhaps part of the reason it's so hard for us to come together is that we're so diverse. There is, for example, a quiet but very real debate in some GL circles over whether it is helpful to include trans-people in "the cause."

Every subculture has its debates on "who's in, who's out," it seems. See, for example, In Defense of Pagan Polyamory (http://www.cauldronfarm.com/writing/polyletter.html) by Raven Kaldera.

One problem is that people confuse politics with public relations. They aren't the same. When doing public relations for the GLBT community, e.g. when appearing on a national television talk show, it is generally best to stick with just one issue at a time; the attention span of the average viewer can't deal with more than that. On the other hand, when dealing with politicians, what's important is to be able to prove that you're backed by a significant voting bloc -- and, to that end, it pays to be inclusive, and to be able to present a united front on related issues.

Thus, for example, the Gay Pride parade has been criticized as not being good for public relations with mainstream America. But public relations with mainstream America is not the purpose of the Gay Pride parade, whose purposes are: (1) to llet GLBT people know that they are not alone, (2) to build a sense of community among the organizations that participate in the parade, (3) to let the politicians know that we are a force to be reckoned with, and (4) to have fun! (Not nearly as many people would attend if it weren't fun.)

Communication with mainstream America is important too, but is not the only or main thing our movement needs to do, and should not be the one and only litmus test of everything that every organization in our movement does.

2. I think sometimes that the apathy of some GLBTQ people stems from the fact that they have things pretty good where they are. Even though whole regions of the U.S. (and the world, obviously) remain very homophobic, one's own comfort can easily silence the cries of the oppressed when they're not right next door.

Yep. In particular I think this is a problem here in New York. Some gays who live in Chelsea have somehow managed to forget that the rest of the world is very different and that Chelsea doesn't singlehandedly elect the federal government.

[Vortex]

We don't need a central organization or leader. The GLBT rights movement has accomplished an awful lot over the past several decades, without one big organization. I think we're best off with a wide variety of smaller groups, as long as the groups are aware of each other and capable of cooperating on at least some common projects. For example, here in New York City, there are something like a couple hundred different groups that march in the annual Gay Pride parade every June. (Although some people may diss it, the Gay Pride parade is very important. It fosters a sense of community among GLBT people, and it shows the politicians that we are indeed a force to be reckoned with.) And it seems to me that the many small groups are better at motivating people to march than one big group would be. If we were all in one big organization, we'd all be spending a lot of time arguing over that one organization's strategy. With many smaller groups, there's less to argue about, because people can just join the groups that appeal to them.


I’m sure there in the big city the Pride Parades have done a lot to inspire local unity among groups (at the very least for that day), but for those of us here in the ‘sticks’ the Parades are hardly a blip on the screen. I’m also not so sure they have the real political clout to change laws. If I’m correct both NY senators are opposed to gay marriage despite being elected in what is said to be one of the most liberal states. I may disagree with my senators on most things but at least I know where they stand. They’ll look me in the face and tell me because I’m gay I’m inferior, not smile in my face, march in my parades, and then spit in the face of equality.

When you have so many groups, so many egos, all trying to get their voice heard, politicians need only to appease a few of them and ignore the rest. If you have one organization powerful enough to say to a politician “if you don’t support equality for all people, then with the support of our community and our allies I can guarantee you will not be elected. “ This is real political clout, the kind of clout not easily bought, as may be the case with a smaller entity. This is the power of true organization, which is what I believe the original poster was seeking, and what many others within the community are seeking.



Vortex

[Zerbie]

I still have not given up on this idea Zerbie. I don't think we have to agree on all things for this to work, we only have to all agree on one thing.

EQUALITY


Vortex


Well I think that too Vortex,:) but plenty of folk turn away from organizations if they disagree with the details and/or the strategy, or a real or perceived dominant religious or political party affiliation. The result is a lot of arguing, a lot of division, and still no one unified front.
Any gay rights organization is going to hear cries from one side that it isn't going far enough, and cries from the other side that it has gone too far and sabotaged the cause. Split. Split. Split.

Glad to see you back around. :) It's been a while!

[kara speltz]

Two insights (that may or may not be very insightful) from the t-side of GLBTQ:

1. Perhaps part of the reason it's so hard for us to come together is that we're so diverse. There is, for example, a quiet but very real debate in some GL circles over whether it is helpful to include trans-people in "the cause."
2. I think sometimes that the apathy of some GLBTQ people stems from the fact that they have things pretty good where they are. Even though whole regions of the U.S. (and the world, obviously) remain very homophobic, one's own comfort can easily silence the cries of the oppressed when they're not right next door.

Every time I see gay people raise this issue, it drives me crazy. I faced this problem when I attended a New Ways Ministry conference and they refused to include bisexual and trans people. It made me so angry. For God's sake, don't gays comprehend that Stonewall was about transgender people?

Sylvia Rivera, one of my big S/heros was one of the leaders of the trans community and fought until her very last day (as she lay dying in a hospital) to get T's included in the struggle. We cannot afford to separate our struggles because we won't be free until everyone is.

kara

[u-dog]

Freedom and equality that is achieved by stepping on someone else's head is not freedom or equality. Either everybody makes it out of oppression or nobody does. if including Trans people and Bi's makes the struggle take an extra 20 years to accomplish then so be it.

[tpdncr4christ]

Is that nothing is yet horrible enough for us to leave aside our smaller beliefs for the large ones. We don't have slavery. We don't have the Holocaust. We don't have years of suppression. We just have intolerance, and inequality. No one cares enough about us, not yet. Nothing too horrible has happened to us, so no one cares. That is why the seemingly smaller things get pass.

We can't unite because there is nothing for us to unite against. We are all to wrapped up in our definitions of ourselves, about whether we are Christian or Agnostic, Gay or straight, Black or White, that we forget we are just people. We will unite when people realize we are just people, all from the same place, all heading to the same place. We will unite when we leave ourselves behind, and realize we are all just people, wanting to be people.

Whatever we have suffered through, just hasn't been bad enough to turn enough heads. That's why we can't unite.

[Diane Vera]

I’m sure there in the big city the Pride Parades have done a lot to inspire local unity among groups (at the very least for that day), but for those of us here in the ‘sticks’ the Parades are hardly a blip on the screen. I’m also not so sure they have the real political clout to change laws.

By themselves, indeed they don't. However, they play a crucial role. Among other things, they are evidence that can be cited by lobbyists.

If I’m correct both NY senators are opposed to gay marriage despite being elected in what is said to be one of the most liberal states.

New York is a "liberal state" only because of New York City. Most of the rest of the state might as well be a red state. The State Senate has a slim Republican/Conservative majority.

Our U.S. Senators Hillary Clinton and Charles Schumer favor "civil unions" rather than same-sex "marriage," but they opposed a federal ban on same-sex marriage, and they do favor gay civil rights on most other issues. They're not 100% on our side, but it seems to me that they are at least 80% to 90% on our side.

I may disagree with my senators on most things but at least I know where they stand. They’ll look me in the face and tell me because I’m gay I’m inferior, not smile in my face, march in my parades, and then spit in the face of equality.

Personally I feel that it's better to have someone who is 80% to 90% on our side than to have someone who consistently opposes us. It's up to us to try to convince them to move the 80% to 90% closer to 100%.

When you have so many groups, so many egos, all trying to get their voice heard, politicians need only to appease a few of them and ignore the rest. If you have one organization powerful enough to say to a politician “if you don’t support equality for all people, then with the support of our community and our allies I can guarantee you will not be elected. “ This is real political clout, the kind of clout not easily bought, as may be the case with a smaller entity. This is the power of true organization, which is what I believe the original poster was seeking, and what many others within the community are seeking.

But how can this kind of clout be achieved? Even Saul D. Alinksy (http://www.soulforce.org/forums/showthread.php?t=2467) didn't build his "people's organizations" from scratch. Rather, what he did was to bring together many smaller organizations, including labor unions, civic associations, and churches, and got them to cooperate and form coalitions which spoke for entire communities.

My point is that the many smaller organizations should be seen as a building block rather than as a barrier.

[Diane Vera]

Every time I see gay people raise this issue, it drives me crazy. I faced this problem when I attended a New Ways Ministry conference and they refused to include bisexual and trans people.

How long ago was this? What year was this?

It made me so angry. For God's sake, don't gays comprehend that Stonewall was about transgender people?

Sylvia Rivera, one of my big S/heros was one of the leaders of the trans community and fought until her very last day (as she lay dying in a hospital) to get T's included in the struggle. We cannot afford to separate our struggles because we won't be free until everyone is.

With this I fully agree. The prejudices against gays and trans people are definitely intertwined, because they are both gender-related prejudices. Hence they need to be fought together, not catered to by avoiding one or the other. And the prejudice against including bi people is just silly. That's like a prejudice against people of mixed race.

[Diane Vera]

Is that nothing is yet horrible enough for us to leave aside our smaller beliefs for the large ones. We don't have slavery. We don't have the Holocaust. We don't have years of suppression. We just have intolerance, and inequality. No one cares enough about us, not yet. Nothing too horrible has happened to us, so no one cares. That is why the seemingly smaller things get pass.

We can't unite because there is nothing for us to unite against.

First, there are indeed plenty of horrible things that have happened to GLBT people, such as kids being thrown out of their parents' houses.

Second, the effectiveness of a political movement isn't necessarily related to how horrible a problem it faces. For example, the National Rifle Association has a very effective lobbying arm, even though restrictions on gun ownership are hardly the worst fate that could possibly befall someone.

One of the NRA's strengths is that it is not primarily a political organization. It is primarily an educational organization which trains people in the safe and responsible use of firearms. Thus it attracts a lot more people than a purely political organization could.

Similarly, GLBT political groups need to cultivate close working relationships with GLBT groups that are essentially nonpolitical.

We are all to wrapped up in our definitions of ourselves, about whether we are Christian or Agnostic, Gay or straight, Black or White, that we forget we are just people. We will unite when people realize we are just people, all from the same place, all heading to the same place. We will unite when we leave ourselves behind, and realize we are all just people, wanting to be people.

It will be a long time in the future, if ever, before that happens. It seems to me that humans are naturally tribal. And, in my opinion, we shouldn't assume that there's nothing we can do until a hoped-for disappearance of human tribal instinct. There's plenty we can do in the meantime.

[Sherrie Z]

It seems to me that humans are naturally tribal. And, in my opinion, we shouldn't assume that there's nothing we can do until a hoped-for disappearance of human tribal instinct. There's plenty we can do in the meantime.

Yes, there's plenty we can do ... and are doing already ... if tribes are instinctual, we don't need to demolish tribes as such, we just need to make them coalition-friendly.

Maybe we can use those tribal instincts to our advantage ... after all, we've already formed a "coalition tribe" here at Soulforce ... and we're not the only ones doing so ...

As for what we can do, there are loads of brilliant suggestions in this thread already. We don't need to re-invent the wheel ... we don't need to view our goal as an impossible dream, or an overwhelming task ... look at the progress we've made already ... I'm very encouraged.

We do have a lot of work ahead of us ... but what we're doing now is already working, so we'll just keep going. Nothing can stop us as long as we don't talk ourselves out of what might seem like a monumental task ... and we can get there ... as long as we keep working together ...

In 1993 the "GLB" organizers of the Washington DC march actually voted not to include the "T" ... (yikes!) ... that division is long standing ... but that same vote wouldn't happen now ... so we're making progress but we still have a lot of work to do ...

As some have commented above, this sort of division makes me steaming crazy too, so let's keep discussing and strategizing on this ...

Those of us who understand that gender-based prejudice is the common enemy of all of us -- of every human and every tribe -- can continue to speak out in favor of coalition building ... on that basis ... feminists, all gender variant minorities, and allies all share this common enemy.

It's always more fun and inspirational to work FOR something rather than AGAINST something ... the common enemy -- gender based prejudice -- can energize us to a degree ... but to stay energized, we need to keep looking to the positive goal of working together, coalition building, inclusive tribe building ... step by step ... "eyes on the prize" and all that good stuff ... so here's to full spectrum rainbow coalition building ... gender variant tribes and allies unite! Gender benders, blenders, and menders unite!

In a "Survivor" TV program analogy ... we don't vote anyone out of the tribe here ... we build alliances ... we all have immunity ... we all survive ... and WE ALL WIN!

In Solidarity,

Sherrie Z

[Zerbie]

Is that nothing is yet horrible enough for us to leave aside our smaller beliefs for the large ones. We don't have slavery. We don't have the Holocaust. We don't have years of suppression. We just have intolerance, and inequality. No one cares enough about us, not yet. Nothing too horrible has happened to us, so no one cares. That is why the seemingly smaller things get pass.

We can't unite because there is nothing for us to unite against.
Whatever we have suffered through, just hasn't been bad enough to turn enough heads. That's why we can't unite.

Here's where your age comes into play. It shows that you are only 18, reading that. See, at 30, I'm a young woman. And in MY lifetime, there HAS been something horrible enough. When I was a little girl, a mysterious disease appeared on the scene, killing gay men by the tens of thousands. We were all told (I was taught by all the grown ups around) not to worry about curing or treating the disease - it was okay to let the disease go unchecked, because it was killing off The Bad People - The Homosexuals. Gay men were LEFT to die by the tens of thousands. It took YEARS to kick our institutions in the butt enough to fund research and get affordable treatments to the sick and the dying. Austin, that WAS horrible enough. It wiped out a huge portion of an entire generation. And as we know of course, the disease rapidly spread worldwide - those wasted years in the beginning when no one cared probably could have prevented millions of infections.

Just pointed out how recently the gay community has faced something truly catastrophic. Austin, it's not that long ago. I think the problem is the American attention span. It's short. People like to think that since we have treatment drugs, it's no longer a problem. Or as you and some others (Allyson I think) mentioned, because their own lives are fairly privileged.

[Sherrie Z]

Then there are those of course like Zerbie mentioned who would be our allies but are just ignorant of how things are because it doesn’t really directly affect them.

They only think it doesn't affect them.

We can -- gently and diplomatically --show them how it really does affect them. Any prejudice anywhere hurts all people everywhere.

Never underestimate the power of sharing a personal story ... your story, or the story of someone you know, or someone they know ... who has suffered due to gender based prejudice. They won't want to think of themselves as someone who wouldn't care if their neighbor's gay kid got kicked out of their home.

[kara speltz]

Here's where your age comes into play. It shows that you are only 18, reading that. See, at 30, I'm a young woman. And in MY lifetime, there HAS been something horrible enough. When I was a little girl, a mysterious disease appeared on the scene, killing gay men by the tens of thousands. We were all told (I was taught by all the grown ups around) not to worry about curing or treating the disease - it was okay to let the disease go unchecked, because it was killing off The Bad People - The Homosexuals. Gay men were LEFT to die by the tens of thousands. It took YEARS to kick our institutions in the butt enough to fund research and get affordable treatments to the sick and the dying. Austin, that WAS horrible enough. It wiped out a huge portion of an entire generation. And as we know of course, the disease rapidly spread worldwide - those wasted years in the beginning when no one cared probably could have prevented millions of infections.

Just pointed out how recently the gay community has faced something truly catastrophic. Austin, it's not that long ago. I think the problem is the American attention span. It's short. People like to think that since we have treatment drugs, it's no longer a problem. Or as you and some others (Allyson I think) mentioned, because their own lives are fairly privileged.

Dear Zerbe: As usual you are right on the mark, AIDS is to the gay community what small pox and deliberate extermination of native american people was about during the "frontier days." Americans still live in denial that we stole the land from the Indians.

There were months when I lost six or seven friends, I knew one guy who said he'd lost a dozen friends in one month. People forget our history way too quickly. I spend one morning a week at an AIDS center, the same one I was at some 15 years ago. Now it's rare for us to have a memorial service, we have only 3 or 4 a year, compared to monthly ones where we said our goodbyes to large numbers of young men.

kara