Two schools of thought exist in the activism world. One assigns worth based on your birth or economic status. Those two, especially the former, are outside our direct control. Then there is another perspective, one I prefer, based on our experiences and gathered knowledge.

Now, our birth and economic status do influence what we learn in life. No one can argue with that. What I can disagree with is the extent of the role those things play in our worth as an activist.

Have you ever walked down a street of houses or apartment buildings and wondered what goes on behind those walls? I have. I live in an upper middle class neighborhood. Have done so all my life. I can never come to a consensus in my mind about what goes on in these buildings. Those with the belief that birth and economic status are king might assume a homogeneous existence for the families that live in my section of town.

I cannot bear to do the same. Why would I? If civil rights has taught me anything these past 6 years, it’s the ignorance of looking only at the surface.

Those who know me probably figure this post is inspired by something in my daily life. In the past year I’ve had to deal with the suspicion and condescension attached to the strange (but humane) position of being a cisgender, heterosexual male that adores gay rights as well as other civil rights causes.

I’m not here to horn in on the activism of minorities. That’s never been what it’s about for me. I was under the impression, judging by the words and wisdom of the greatest activism leaders of all time, there was room for every person in every civil rights movement when your heart was open and true.

Is this the wrong way to think? Should civil rights movements establish a hierarchy based on levels of oppression (as in, the more alienated from society you are, the more authority you command), or can the wisdom born of any pure source rule?

As a present day example, I loved the coming out of Ellen Page. Not because she’s a lesbian, since that’s something outside her control, but since she came out in such a beautiful and eloquent way that can inspire the masses. It’s her bravery and strength of character within the context of a heteronormative society.

She also made commentary about unrealistic standards for the people of Hollywood and how they affect society. Page rocked it with more emotion and intelligence than most.

Inevitably, there will be those who belittle her efforts as puny compared to those with less privilege than her. It’s easier for her, they will say, because she’s white, financially well off and physically attractive.

Most of these things aren’t in her control. It is the play of the social conservative to hold what we can’t change against us, correct? If so, then why are any of us dismissing certain activists over these attributes?

What happened to the importance of diversity? It’s true, the heterosexual white male has had many positions of power over minorities throughout history. I can’t do anything about that. I’m not responsible for those terrible tragedies.

What I am responsible for are my individual actions and the impact my choices, not upbringing or birth, have brought upon this world.

Yet another lesson civil rights has taught me is the power of my individuality. The importance of fighting against the grain because that’s the only way anything can change for the better.

If most activists think my passion isn’t worth anything because of my privilege, then so be it. It is sad, because the gay community is a home to me, but this is how it will always be. I will always be viewed with suspicion by someone in this cause. That is why I seek out those who have seen my heart and judged it clean and free of the burdens within demographics.

I am not a white, heterosexual, cisgender and upper middle class civil rights activist that bends to the will of a majority (or minority) of any kind.

I am an activist that bows to no one and nothing but the philosophies of love, passion and the belief of hearts forever holding the endless fight of civil rights together. I am autonomous. I am one who can be hated or loved for this very post but still die happy someday knowing that my activism work triumphs.

With all the love in the world,

The New Optimist     

I am going to do something unusual with this column. I will be responding to a blog post written last month by another activist. One who I respect and do so even during disagreement. Because as we all know, if intelligent discussion has taught us anything, it’s that two people can look at the same circumstances but come to two totally different conclusions but both be right.

The blog in question is called Black Girl Dangerous, a decidedly more aggressive but well done source for opinion pieces and contributions to civil rights.

The post is “8 Ways Not To Be An ‘Ally': A Non-Comprehensive List” (note the quotes around ally.) I am on board with this idea, but a bit cautiously. As an activist, one of my main goals is to help bridge the divide between different communities and find common ground without sacrificing any of the needs of the gay and transgender community as well as any minority. I don’t like to be exclusionary, but indeed there are many who claim to be allies but in reality aren’t really up to the task. Let’s see what this writer has to say:

NOTE: As per the other blog’s policies, I can’t reproduce the bulk of that post here. You will have to click on the link here and read it there. Sorry about that!

http://www.blackgirldangerous.org/new-blog/2013/6/17/8-ways-not-to-be-an-ally

“Introductory paragraph”

I agree on this for the most part. Indeed, there are many poseurs out there who do one or two nice things for minorities, call it a day, then carry around the ally moniker forever. On the other side of the coin, I think we should realize that there are different tiers of allies and every one of those tiers are necessary for the quilt of equality we are trying to build for everyone.

Overall though, I can get in line with that first paragraph. Now for the next.

“1. Assume one act of solidarity makes you an ally forever.”

Can’t really argue with this one, especially with the (crude, but very fitting) metaphor at the end. Being an ally is a life long thing when you really mean it, and you should.

“2. Make everything about your feelings.“

I will say that it is indeed more important that the feelings of those you have hurt are more important in this instance. At least right off the bat. You do something wrong, you make it right. Goes without saying. To entertain the other side, though, there is something to be said about being an activist and receiving complaints about being racially insensitive. I am not perfect. I owned up to these mistakes and promised to do better in the future, but it’s hard not to panic when you feel like your credibility as an activist just took a serious hit. When activism is such a deep, personal and crucial part of your life and emotional psyche, how do accusations like this NOT affect you in some way? My women’s studies professor once said that feminism is where politics meets personal. She was right, and you could say the same for anyone and any cause. Civil rights is not just about honoring the feelings of others, but also yourself. Respect and take care of yourself. Always.

“3.  Date ‘em all.”

Totally in agreement with this. It grosses me out that people like this even exist. I’m dating a white girl right now, I have nothing to prove. Nobody should be dating anyone to prove anything. “Ew” is right.

“4. Don’t see race/gender/disability/etc.”

I think claiming to “not see” race, gender, disability, etc.” is well-intentioned but so off base, as is pointed out. I personally believe that we need to see and accept our similarities and differences. Even celebrate them. Oftentimes, our similarities are what originally binds us all together. It is our starting point. Then from there we learn about our differences and embrace them as a crucial part of the human experience.

“5. Don’t try any harder.”

I agree absolutely that trying harder is a necessity as an activist. It’s a 24/7 job one way or another. It’s a way of thinking. Of living. Of perceiving. You name it. Not only that, it can often be ever increasing in difficulty as life progresses That being said, I have some issues with affirmative action, as it can undermine individual achievement. I believe that people best qualified for a job should get that job. Comprehensive anti-discrimination laws and policies (as well as the elimination of glass ceilings of any kind) should be in place at every institution of learning, working and more. Hiring quotas, though? I’m not sure if I am up for throwing someone a bone while someone else way more hard working and qualified gets the shaft.

“6. Challenge oppression in personal situations but not in systemic ways.”

This one is a bit unfair unless you’re an activist in a position of great power. I wrote a column earlier this year about how much of civil rights exists in our interpersonal interactions. I will just go ahead and quote the related passage:

“Another myth is the perception that all civil rights activism is something like a loud shout and sign wave near the highway. That’s an admirable way to spend a day, in my eyes, since awareness is half the battle. Yet, on the other hand, it is understandably intimidating to newcomers because it is ostentatious.

I promise you that civil rights aren’t just about a black minister telling millions of people about his dream or a visionary gay politico shouting “I want to recruit you!” from a pedestal.

Civil rights is also about the quiet moments in life, like a shopkeeper from Kentucky that reaches for a smile instead of a shotgun as two men hold hands in his store. Civil rights is a mother embracing his son during a moment of truth. Civil rights is a counselor promising a rape victim that it is never, ever her fault…”

Challenging the system is tough but doable, yet not everyone has the influence and the time to do so. I am not sure we should be expecting everyone to be able to gain that influence, especially considering the many poor, disadvantaged minorities out there who are struggling just to survive while even the most powerful people must work so hard to make a dent into the patriarchy, heteronormativity, cisgender privilege, etc.

Make the change you can. Only so much can be asked of one person. And that’s OKAY.

“7. Take. Don’t give.”

Absolutely on target. Civil rights is a symbiotic relationship. More so when you have privilege, however. Like I said above, the poor and very disadvantaged minorities will need more help than they could possibly return, and that’s perfectly fine with me. After all, that’s why activists do what they do, right? I don’t expect everyone to give equally. No one should.

“8. Quote Audre Lorde.”

I find a bit of a disconnect in this paragraph when it starts out with criticizing people for quoting famous activists in conversation and on their Facebook then transitions into talking about people who pretend to know more about another group’s struggles then the groups themselves.

First, I love Audre Lorde. I have quoted her a few times in conversation and on Facebook with no regrets. She was smart as a tack and often on point more than most activists I have ever read about or encountered. One of the reasons I read her writings so intently is because I know she knows more about her group’s struggles then I do. WAY more.

That’s… why I quote her. She knows more. Which is why it puzzles me that quoting her is the same as saying that I know more than her. The exact opposite is true.

Then the paragraph and the entire piece ends with a sarcastic remark about wanting to punch certain people in the face. Well, if she wants to punch me in the face she can, I suppose, but…

The phrase “civil rights” has “civil” in it. Also…

“The master’s tools will never dismantle the master’s house,” — Audre Lorde

This is all for now. I will have a follow up piece written soon.

With true love for all people,

The New Optimist

Related Link: http://www.dailytitan.com/2013/02/straight-talk-a-promise-made-to-honor-a-cause/

It’s potentially arousing but almost primal in its display of superficiality. Frankly, some of the women within seemed to have undergone some sort of cosmetic surgery. Just judged off this first scene, it would seem Spring Breakers has put the “ideal” sort of beauty on a pedestal like many other forms of media, as feminist writer Debra L. Gimlin would probably agree.

“Cosmetic surgery… epitomizes the astounding lengths to which contemporary women will go to obtain bodies that meet current ideals of attractiveness,” Gimlin writes in the article, Cosmetic Surgery: Paying for Your Beauty.

As hard as it is to believe, the film has a beneficial rhyme and reason for this superficial sheen.

After the opening we cut to two of the leads, Brit (Ashley Benson) and Candy (Vanessa Hudgens) as they are smoking marijuana in a college dorm. Unlike the scene before it, there isn’t much to admire here in a prurient manner. There is no sense of joy or energy. It’s not stimulating to the audience, given that the watchers are looking for something surface.

It feels like we have been teased with a fantasy then thrown into a reality. One that may look especially bad to a casual viewer focusing on the sexual elements of the film. Benson and Hudgens are usually considered attractive by mainstream standards, and are displayed as such for most of the film, but not in this scene as it is portrayed.

Why must women “act” attractive to be attractive in media? Does this also extend to day to day life? It’s evident in the tabloids where there is this perverse fascination with celebrities without makeup, as if females must “do” beauty to be beautiful.

Once we reach beyond this prologue, the story settles into a more straight forward fashion. Brit, Candy, Cotty (Rachel Korine) and Faith (Selena Gomez) are desperate to leave school for some spring break action in St. Petersburg, Florida. Lacking in funds, Brit, Candy and Cotty rob a diner to gain some.

“Pretend it’s a video game,” Brit said before their car pulls up to the building. Her and Candy enter with water pistols and bravado, screaming, “Get down, muthafucka, get down!” to the patrons and owners.

It’s never said, or even implied that any of these women have had violent attacks committed against them in the past, but the brutality comes so naturally to all but Faith. The closest motivation we ever learn is this need to escape from their allegedly boring middle class existence.

Feminist scholar Laurie Schaffner would be unsurprised, as would I, if the fictional biographies of these women contained violence committed against them. While it’s not always wise to stereotype people, behaviors must have origins.

“Researchers find that children exposed to multiple forms of family violence report more than twice the rate of youth violence as those from nonviolent families,” Schaffner said.

Whatever the cause, the four women set off to Florida and imbibe drugs, sex and fun in their adventures. These times alternate between fun and horrifying. They spend time with multiple people drinking, snorting cocaine and making out with other women.

Straight Girls Kissing, by Leila J. Rupp and Verta Taylor, posits three possibilities for this activity: Getting attention, experimentation and same-sex desire. Which one of these applies to the film isn’t entirely clear, but considering the heteronormative (but not homophobic) scope of Spring Breakers, getting attention is probably the culprit.

So it’s no wonder the four ladies eventually attract the attention of a local rapper and criminal Alien (James Franco, blending into his role as usual). He bails the ladies out of jail after a drug bust and takes them around the town to have a good time. Soon Faith, the most moral one of the group, leaves. The rest stay and commit many crimes with Alien for fun and profit.

It should be noted that the leading ladies are almost always in revealing bathing suits during this movie. Even when in the courtroom in front of a judge. This may lull Alien into a false sense of security as well as titillate the audience.

Keep in mind that Alien does not hold these women physically captive. Faith is able to leave, just as Cotty does near the end of the running time. However this does not diminish the significance of a pivotal scene between Alien, Brit and Candy.

The man is in his bedroom with the two women as Cotty sleeps in another. Alien is showing off his guns, money and cologne, saying, “Look at this shit! Look at all my shit!” These material possessions are power to him. He is the dominant male. Alien has been leading these women. The ladies need him.

Not necessarily so, as Brit and Candy pick up two loaded guns and point them at Alien’s face. While the attitude is of playfulness for the women, Alien seems to show genuine fear for a short period. He warns them that the pistols are loaded. The girls are giggling and laughing. Eventually Alien changes his tune and simulates oral sex on the guns pointed at his face to the delight of the women standing above them.

The meaning of oral sex in contemporary society can run the gamut from loving to domination, but in this context it is submission. All of a sudden the direction of the film changes. Not all is what it seems. The bathing suits, the partying and exhibition for the benefit of men now seem misleading when the pawns suddenly become the queens.

The turning of the tables is further cemented when Brit, Candy and Alien confront Big Arch (Gucci Mane) after a painful shooting scared Cotty into leaving St. Petersburg. Alien is obviously afraid leading up to the final rampage against Arch while the ladies seem fairly confident.

In the fight, Alien dies quickly while Brit and Candy succeed in defeating Arch and his gang. It is the supposed “weaker” sex that conquers all. It is the “fair” gender to walk away alive.

This leads to the final question: Is Spring Breakers good for feminism?

The upending of expectations set up between the female leads and Alien certainly criticizes the converse perception between beauty and strength in a light positive toward feminism. The glamour of spring break is also shown to be fleeting, as in the final scene when Brit and Candy drive back home with a feeling of emptiness etched in their faces despite their “victories”.

What is ultimately beneficial to feminism is ending the patriarchy and all the violent and oppressive practices that come with it. Brit, Candy and Cotty did not seek to end those rituals but instead continued them.

Audre Lorde once wrote, “For the master’s tools shall never dismantle the master’s house.” This is evidenced by the numerous dead bodies and shattered souls left in the wake of a spring break gone wrong.

I’m not going to play the clueless activist and say that privilege plays no part in our day to day life. I am a white, upper middle class, heterosexual and educated male. Recently, I added the advantage of a “taken” relationship status to the mix. Let’s face it, society caters to the straight couples.

It’s common knowledge I am an LGBT activist as well. It is the 21st century and all of these labels still seem to contradict with the final one. There is the reason popular with the non-activist (Why do you care so much? You’re straight!) then the one from the activist crowd…

Which is not much different, sad to say. The sting is actually worse coming from my activist brothers and sisters, as it renders my five years of work useless in their eyes just because of my privileges.

Privileges, by the way, which have done little to prevent my stepfather’s death, oldest brother’s suicide, my depression, anxiety and many other tragedies that have befallen me and everyone I hold dear.  

Above all else, civil rights has been about unity since its inception. I don’t mean in the way of assimilation or sacrificing of individuality. Instead it’s the celebration of the differences and similarities we all have and finding a way to connect them all. 

If so, then why does the existence of privilege hurt my credibility? Does my race protect me from alienation? How about my sexual orientation… Does this mean I have never felt rejected or out of place in society?

I will never know exactly what it’s like to be gay, transgender, black or any other minority, but emotional roller coasters discriminate much less than any conservative fundamentalist and everyone pays the same price of admission.

Some of the peaks and valleys differ but we’re all on a similar ride. Or at least in the same amusement park. 

I look within and see shards of my reflection through most everyone. We all have that ability to do the same, but I understand if some don’t want to. It’s a painful gift as well as a curse. It used to be just the latter for me, but civil rights has made the other side of the moon shine as well.

This is why it is painful (and ironic) to experience discrimination from other activists who accuse me of having no empathy or understanding to spare. That I should just sit back and let those of lesser privilege dominate the dialogue. 

I have too much to share to do such a thing. I will not silence myself for this reason or any other. Why should I? To be quiet would just continue a cycle that bigotry has kept up with LGBT people. Some of those individuals, in a sad twist, being the ones attempting to stifle my voice.

If they haven’t learned from their own experiences how cruel that is, that should NEVER be my problem. Not in this way.

Never fear, readers, because I will always continue. Always.

Through every beginning and every end,

The New Optimist 

Unsurprisingly, he was often teased as a kid for his big nose, ears and feet. Milk was known as the class clown and athlete in high school, but otherwise was considered very unassuming. No one suspected he was gay, as he was “the man’s man”. He eventually went to college to study mathematics, of all things.

After that he joined the Navy. In his political career, which came much later, Milk would use his supposed dishonorable discharge for being gay as talking points in a few of his speeches. In reality, he finished copacetic as a junior lieutenant. Otherwise he was usually fairly honest, as politicians go.

Once finished with the military, Milk sort of wandered through life for awhile. Sure, he had an intense love life and successful careers with financial firms in New York but it was commonly known that his heart wasn’t in his work. Funny enough, he was pretty politically conservative for most of his life, despite the more liberal attitudes of many of his loves during this time.

In fact, Milk was indifferent and even occasionally hostile toward the idea of any gay rights involvement. A part of this had to do with his more conservative upbringing. Another was the times. Sure, the Mattachine Society was around, but most gays were still of the mindset that “this is just how life is and always will be, so why bother?”

On a more personal level, Milk’s financial livelihood and literal distance from the gay community at large contributed to his apathy. He had relatively little contact with others of his kind outside of his relationships. This would change dramatically in his move to San Francisco, although his politics would evolve before then. Little did he know that what he distanced himself from all this time was what his heart was really looking for.

Eventually Milk got frustrated with American wartime politics and grew his hair out, leading him to be fired from the firm he was working for at the time. He drifted across the country for awhile, getting involved with the hippy population in the process. He met Scott Smith (Franco’s character in Van Sant’s Milk) in New York. Together they moved to San Francisco, which has been a gay hotbed since WWII due to its status as a military port city and the numerous dishonorable discharges against gays that didn’t want to go back home to face shame from their families.

In 1973 they opened a film shop. It’s here where Milk finally became interested in politics in the way most people know. There are various reasons for this tipping point, which involved extraneous taxes, more frustration with national politics (Watergate) and dismay at the lack of funding for local schools.

In typical Milk fashion, he jumped right in and decided to run for supervisor. Most people don’t know that his main opponents in politics were fellow gay men, believe it or not. San Francisco was currently going under a major change. Places like Castro Street were being reinvigorated with a blooming, and more importantly, a more OUTSPOKEN gay population.

Despite some very liberal pockets, the politicians and especially the POLICE population were very conservative. The cops were predominantly older, Irish and conservative. It was practically set in stone for the police forces to regularly raid gay bars for arrests. They did this mostly to set an example and scare the gay population. It also doesn’t help that gay sex was still illegal at the time.

Regardless, the vast majority of gays arrested were set free the next day. However the ones in the closet didn’t stay that way because of these arrests. Many gays lost families, jobs and lives this way (suicide, murder by hate crime). On that note, the police always turned the other way during hate crimes, as they were guilty of many of them anyway.

Milk became very active in protecting and championing the gay population to combat this sort of thing. His strategy was the consolidating of power, like allying himself with the Teamsters and other labor unions. The gays boycotted Coors because of their anti-labor policies, and in turn the unions supported Milk and gay establishments.

Harvey ran for political office and failed several times, much of it having to do with districting. As a matter of fact, if this hadn’t been an issue he would have won way back in 1973.

The other issue was that many didn’t take him seriously. Back then his hair was still long, clothes ragged and organizing, well… unorganized. In 1975 he cut his hair, took on new clothes, swore off marijuana and stopped going to bathhouses. This made him in common with other civil rights leaders such as MLK and Gloria Steinem, with all three having a great media presence and well put together personas. Despite the clean up, Milk was still much more aggressive about gay rights compared to the other pro-gay and even fellow homosexual politicians in the city. Milk hated that the existing gay groups and politicos in the city basically bent over backwards to back the Democrats and received little to nothing in return.

An underrated change, and one I can connect with intimately, is his switch to more positive politics. His earlier speeches focused on injustices done against gay people and others. They were downers and lacked an uplifting punch. Luckily, Harvey was an incredibly fast learner and soon took on the more motivational tone along with a great sense of humor in his speeches.

His politics were populist and very in favor of anyone possibly disadvantaged. He was DEFINITELY not just in it to help gay people. He also had a soft spot for senior citizens and unions and courted them aggressively throughout his campaigns. In the end he was in it to help everyone and supported policies that helped anyone except for the elite business interests. He felt that big business was draining the life out of the city and had been for a long time, with politicians in their pockets.

A less known fact was his sometimes adversarial relationship with George Moscone, who was elected mayor in 1976. Moscone’s back room deals with other politicians enraged Milk, and fueled his last few campaigns as the “political underdog”. It wasn’t until Milk was elected that the two got along, and politics played the biggest part in that. Moscone ended up courting the gay community along with Milk, and vice versa.

Milk finally won in 1977, the year before he dies. A combination of new political policies (supervisors were now elected by neighborhoods, not city wide ballots), national political movements which influenced gay emigration to the Castro Street (Anita Bryant’s crusades throughout the country) and Milk at his best helped him win the seat against Rick Stokes, another gay man who actually had more experience with discrimination than his competitor. Stokes was also out of the closet for longer. Despite this, Milk campaigned as the “every day gay man” who had more connections and compassion toward the gay community than Stokes.

It should be noted that Harvey and Scott Smith were no longer together by this time. Smith was still a senior organizer and supporter of Harvey during his campaigns, but all of the rigorous campaigning and financial stress had robbed them of passion and time together. Harvey started seeing Jack Lira, who was a drunk and a liability to his campaigns. Eventually, Lira killed himself. Harvey spoke little of his death to anyone. Milk had little understanding of suicide, and was presumably silent because of it.

Much of his politics during his career I have either discussed above already or was covered in film and popular media. Milk was the first non-incumbent openly gay man in the United States to win an election for public office. He compared himself to Jackie Robinson, interestingly, around the time of his election to office.

In addition to Milk, many other first time supervisors were elected at the same time, including a Chinese American and single mother.

Milk was very intelligent and compassionate concerning his fellow supervisors, but he was also unafraid to vote against more experienced peers. One of them was Dianne Feinstein, a name probably familiar to some of you.

Interesting fact, during this time she kept a loaded gun in her purse at all times. Now she is a staunch advocate for gun control. You will see why later.

Harvey would commonly do things such as bring groceries to supervisors that were home sick, or attend their birthday parties and christenings of their children. That last one Milk did for Dan White. As a matter of fact the two of them got along well enough in the beginning. It’s not until Harvey voted against a critical issue in White’s view did things go bad between them. After that, White voted against all of Milk’s projects.

A few things about Dan White. He wasn’t really all that homophobic. I think it would be easier to say that he was traditional and fearful of the changes that were coming to San Francisco. Most of all he was frustrated with the politics and his inability to fulfill his campaign promises.

It’s been said many times that the assassination against Milk and Moscone was a surprise, but I don’t think so. White was a bit of a creeper from the beginning. His critics pointed out how robotic and overly restrained he was much of the time. I suppose it is subjective.

There was then the Briggs Initiative. Everyone knows about that. Milk and his allies basically kicked the crap out of a Prop that would have banned gay people and their supporters from working as teachers. It was shot down, thankfully.

White, frustrated with the politics and the low pay of his position, resigned. After pressure from his supporters, he changed his mind and asked Mayor Moscone to reinstate him, and he initially agreed. However, fellow supervisors, including Milk, wanted Moscone to pick someone that was more representative of a diversifying political landscape to replace White.

When White was tipped off about this, he loaded his pistol with hollow bullets and went to the courthouse. He snuck through a basement window and first confronted Moscone. The mayor was shot several times. After that, White marched over to Milk’s area and asked him to step into his office. Milk obliged. Very quickly, White shot him five times. The last image Harvey ever saw was the San Francisco skyline.

Dianne Feinstein was the first to find Milk dead. She had to be carried out by the sheriff, as she could not stand. This is why she is now a gun control advocate.

White was arrested an hour later. He turned himself in.

That night a candlelight vigil stretching from Castro Street to City Hall (between 25,000 and 40,000 people) took place. The next day, the gut wrenching headline, “A City in Agony”, was published by the San Francisco Examiner. The news of Milk and Moscone’s death came with updates of the Jonestown suicides. It was one of the darkest days in San Francisco history.

When the trial against White came around… It was a farce. The entire jury was every demographic that a man like Milk could never ever appeal to. In addition they were clearly stacked in White’s favor. You knew it was bad when a few on the jury wept sympathetically at White’s testimony.

The prosecution was also fairly weak. The DA put up little of a fight and missed several crucial opportunities to defeat the defense. The most egregious sloppiness was his stunning lack of pointing out White’s obvious grudges and aggression toward Moscone and Milk leading up to the assassinations. In this way, the murders came off as unpremeditated. Bad move.

As a result, White got pretty much the softest judgment possible. Hence the White Night Riots where a stunning amount of damage was caused to cars, buildings and other things. White eventually got out some years later but killed himself.

Oh, and Milk left a recording behind that recommended four possible replacements for his seat. Feinstein almost chose Anne Kronenberg, one of Milk’s top aides. Instead Harry Britt was chosen. He sucked.

Milk has had an incredibly legacy on gay rights and his closest followers have often gone on to do great things themselves.

One of the most emotional things I have ever heard about his death was a conversation that took place between Scott Smith and another friend of Milk’s after the politico’s funeral. The friend told Smith that after Milk’s election, he brought the friend into City Hall and said, “What do you think of my new theater?”

Smith Wept.

What’s ironic about perception vs. reality is how much power the former can have over the latter. Events, relationships and eras come and go but a stubborn perception can be unstoppable.

It works both ways, as any depressive can tell you. Find an incurable optimist and they will say so also. Upbringing, genetics… I honestly don’t have a definitive answer for where these perspectives are born. They are both right, I do know that. I also know that one keeps my blood pressure lower, and that’s pretty important. 

The purpose of this blog is not to shoot down the negativity that feels overbearing in the present day, but champion a new era of optimism that we so desperately need. It would be hypocritical of me to fight negativity with negativity, after all.

I will publish once a week, maybe more when really inspired, about a current event. It may be about a film, politics, school or anything under the sun. The only requirements on my part are a 600 word count minimum and an optimistic spin.

You may find what I say naive and delusional, or reasonable and logical. All are fine, because if rational discourse can teach us anything, it’s that two different people can look at the same evidence, come up with wildly different conclusions and yet both still deserve respect.

A little about me.

I am 25 years old, white, middle class, cisgender and straight. I am also a gay rights activist, American patriot and incurable optimist. Those last two I have caught flak for, and that’s why I speak up. Not just for myself but others that may forget that it’s not so much about what you believe, but how you believe it.

– 

Just recently, I have encountered the assertion of equating All-Americanism with xenophobia. This isn’t particularly new to me. When you spend enough time on the internet you will end up hearing everything. 

Before this, I knew “All-American” was a sports phrase, referring to the best of the best athletes in the United States. I have also heard “All-American” in a derogatory way, talking about rednecks and other ignorant folks.

What’s startling to me, is when I think about Americanism what comes to mind is diversity. I think about whites, Asians, blacks, gays, transgenders and every kind of people under the beautiful sun. I think of the many fingers becoming a fist to shake for change. The many hearts, one family depending on each other to survive and thrive.

Why has the idea of the All-American become so ugly? Better question, why did it NEED to become this way? The grotesque should not take on the identity of a nation or its people as a whole.

If we are to dream of a united world and stamp out bigotry of all kinds, let us not reserve any human nature to any one group. For example, prejudice is not exclusive to political conservatives. I have encountered self-proclaimed liberals and moderates who take on hatred toward entire groups of people as well. 

It can be more difficult to see in some because we believe that prejudice is a concept only involving things we cannot control. Race, gender identity, sexual orientation… But hatred toward belief systems is prejudice as well.

Not to say that all prejudice is bad. Sometimes we must protect ourselves. But it’s when it hurts others in a way we could and should have avoided, then it is usually a problem.

I view it as an issue when I do my best to live a life of decency but have it swept away in the eyes of others just because I consider myself a proud American. An American who embraces diversity. An American who accepts all peaceful cultures, races, genders, orientations and religions. An American who feels that alignment strengthens, not weakens him. 

Sincerely,

The New Optimist