It’s the hyperbole that makes most minority politics laughable. The need to be a singular voice for a rather diverse group makes it easy to smooth out any rough edges and say things that are either dubious or kooky. A few days ago David Kaufman, over at Huffington Post, announced Scott Brown won in Massachusetts because “Spaulding, Queerty, Mixner and Co. practically cheer-led the former Cosmo-hunk to this critical triumph.”

The unholy cheerleaders are blogger Pam Spaulding, the folk who run Queerty.com, and activist David Mixner.  From what I can discern Kaufman is put out these folk, and other gay writers, focus only on marriage and are critical of President Obama without keeping an eye on the greater good. OK. That’s an argument that has been around for ages (W.E.B. DuBois made similar claims when he told black folk to join the World War I effort, even though the country made lynching its national past time). But then Kaufman does something that is really off the rails.

“Most crucially, same-sex marriage advocates must finally understand they cannot equate their struggle with the African-American battle for Civil Rights or South African movement to end Apartheid. Not because Marriage Equality is not a noble goal, but because they are simply not the same thing. And — yes, I’ll dare say it — because they simply have not earned it!”

The last sentence did Kaufman in. No one is going to argue the struggle for rights varies with different groups. But who knew equality was something that had to be earned? Fought for? You bet! Debated? For sure! But last time I checked the Bill of Rights had no application process. Is it just me or is there some crazy racial subtext here? “You (mostly) white activists have no right to the glorious struggles of the brown and down.”

From there Kaufman spirals into some hot mess about critical thinking, betrayal, and how he is ready to fight. I couldn’t pay it too much attention because of the “earned it” line.

Disagreement is a good thing, but if it’s not going to be  fair, or be a  hyperventilating free zone, why even do it? To preach to the choir? Stew in some moral indignation? Prove how down you is with the struggle unlike others in the tribe?

Oh sweet Jesus! A little over a week before the big to do in Washington, DC and look at what the folk at Queerty do. Throw out some provocative essay about race, activism, and the “gay community.” Lord help us. Hide the children and bar the doors!

Nakhone Keodara comes out swinging with his “The Whites Can Have LGBT Activism: I Quit.” He argues  the concerns of gays and lesbians of color are never at the table when white gay activists get together, that Anglo gays are always quick to make the argument that discrimination is discrimination without ever giving their white privilege a look over, and that the freedom of all gays and lesbians, no matter their racial background, is not the care of the gay freedom movement.

“We’re frustrated with being shut out, discredited and slandered when we attempt to speak up and represent the interest of the people of color LGBT community. Now I see that it’s fruitless because they just don’t understand that their white privilege has prevented them from having empathy or compassion concerning discrimination the people of color LGBTs have endured even within the LGBT community.”

So in response to this Keodara is calling an end to his gay activism and leaving it to white folks. There are a few things about Keodara’s jeremiad that need to be called out. The whole reasoning behind white privilege is rickety at best. Oh it can get a few applauds, but it it’s too  broad and imprecise to have any meaning, especially now that race lacks its rigid legal codification.

As for “quitting,” that is an option only “the privileged” can consider. Right now I’m reading Slotkin’s No Quarter: The Battle of The Crater, 1864 and if black Union soldiers dealt with the racial barbarity of the Confederate enemy and the perfidy of too many of their white Union comrades, Keodara can keep keeping on with the annoying assumptions of some of his white brethern and sistern.

Keodara also engages in the type of thinking that he critiques Anglos for.

“The Anglo LGBT community refuses to listen to any of the concerns of the people of color within this movement and it will do what it pleases regardless of the consequences.”

If we as gays of color hate it when a few whites describe communities of color with sloppy and general terms, it makes no sense to use that same schedule. Broad strokes are consistently unhelpful, no matter who uses them.

With all of that said though, whenever the topic is race, electronic comment boards do show an ugly underside that at some point has to be talked about. It would have been nice if a few of the folk commenting on Keodora’s words would have kept their white sheets at home, but that is becoming typical for us as a community. When the topic is race ( can we say Prop 8 defeat?) we rev up in overdrive and type out stuff that is ugly. It would be cool if “the community” actually had a conversation about race, but that is never going to happen because we have much invested in this fantasy that we are just one big happy gay family.

.

Remember when Chris Crocker had his Youtube breakdown about Ms. Britney? Was talking to a straight woman about it and she said Crocker was an embarrassment to gays and lesbians. Why I asked her. Crocker’s Britney rant was all his and he doesn’t have a history of speaking for anyone but himself.

I’m sure when some straight person leaves a hot mess on the Youtube world, no one ever accuses that person of being a blight to straights. She granted my points, but noted in the real world rules are different for minority groups. The individual equals the group and the group equals the individual. Therefore Crocker’s rant is a stand-in for other gays and lesbians.

This conversation came to mind after heading over to Queerty.com yesterday (can never stay mad at them). They had an interesting piece about the whole Carrie Prejean/Perez Hilton pony show. They wonder if Hilton’s antics, which are more suited for a cat fight over a man, are really helpful to the progress of gay rights.

“In bringing up the gay rights question at the Miss USA pageant, Perez was putting our issues in the public spotlight, but naturally, he made it all about him and in doing so, actually lost the battle he was trying to wage. In calling Prejean a “bitch” and making her out to be evil as opposed to ignorant, he only reconfirmed the anxiety of many straight people that anyone who disagrees with gays and lesbians will be treated as less than human.”

All fair to a point, but if a straight person gets nervous because of the rantings of Hilton, then the issue is with the hetero not Hilton. Pointing to a media mouth or any other gay or lesbian who decides to act a fool, as an “embarrassment” plays into the very rigged game that keeps us from being judged on our own individual terms. It doesn’t mean we can’t be critical or have serious disagreements with each other, but straights lie through their lying teeth when they say gay rights would be so much easier to obtain if every queen was demure, quiet, and wore a Brooks Brother suit. No disrespect meant at all to all my proper Brooks Brothers wearing sisters. A few of you need to call a brother but that conversation is for another time.

I love my Queerty.com brothers. Visit the site everyday and like their take on things. While I’m on the confessional tour, my Querty ardor would  be the same even if they didn’t let me write a few things for them back in the day. So serve me Queerty juice chilled thank you. However, yesterday the site crossed the line. Stepped in a big pile of mess they could have easily avoided.

The topic was radio host Don Imus and his prostate cancer announcement. Queerty decided to say this:

“At least there’s one good thing to come out of racist talking head Don Imus getting another radio show: He had a platform to make an announcement … that he has cancer. What type of cancer, you ask? The type that’s totally fitting for [jerks] like Imus: prostate cancer. This blog isn’t the place to wish physical harm nor death upon anyone, but sometimes the universe can be a wondrous, merciful place.”

Call me an Uncle Tom, a  heterosexual apologist, or whatever tired phrase used to show your “radical” street cred,  but this is over the line. If Ann Coulter said something similar about a liberal icon, people would be leaving comments about how she is a hateful female Nazi dog.

After being called on the Imus post in the comment section (yes I added my two cents), editorial director David Hauslaib responded  with how gay baiting is bound to make you sick. Really Doc H? So when a gay person gets the same disease that queen has some self loathing issues?

No one is looking for crocodile tears for Imus; he is going to get care that most of us can only dream of.  But talking about health issues like they are some karma payback is a game that no one wins.

1. There is no leadership.

Queerty pointed out that those who lead the No on 8 campaign were just those who showed up. There is no sense of who the community leaders are and what their responsibility is. For the religious right, the hierarchy is somewhat already in place. But for the gay community, definition of community, let alone the leaders, causes problems. Some might say that the leaders should be those in charge of the largest organizations in the country, however the Human Rights Campaign and the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force did not come to the fore in the original Prop 8 struggle. Which leads me to my next point…

2. There is no fundraising strategy.

The Human Rights Campaign spent only 6 million dollars on the No on 8 drive. That’s compared to the over 40 million dollars spent by the No on 8 side as a whole. Building a movement takes a lot of money (Barack Obama showed us that) and even a cute grassroots campaign needs a serious dollar influx. The gay community needs a fundraising center – a place where the dollars can go and the leadership can determine the likelihood of success and failure in its spending strategies. HRC didn’t make Proposition 8 a priority so our money didn’t help that struggle. This is probably because it was a state specific issue…..

3. There is no strategy.

There hasn’t been a huge effort to determine where dollars are best spent and which campaigns will have the most impact. I think that a focus on DOMA exclusively will be the most effective strategy in the long run and a way to engage HRC and the NLGTF across the country. Likely Prop 8 was thought of as a discreet issue and no one anticipated what a lightning rod it would be for the entire country. Someone needs to be running those numbers and picking the battles.

Now, it’s never fun to succumb to leadership you didn’t elect to run campaigns you don’t control about issues you may not have picked. But what Queerty’s account illustrates is that choices have to be made. Just the act of making the choice will be effective. For my money, put the HRC in charge, focus on DOMA, and fun a huge fundraising drive to raise awareness about the struggle for national marriage rights.

Of course, we all love to hate the HRC, so I assume many of you will object to my strategy. Still, the important thing is to have a plan. What’s yours?