In light of the present practice of applying modern information to the past and then judging people according to what they could not have possibly known at that time and the parlor game of seeing what we can claim as proof that the Stonewall Generation had done everything it could to whitewash the event so non-Whites have been erased and replaced with cisgender, Gay, White males because the people then refused to acknowledge the gender differences present, I am offering this list of terms and when they entered the conversation, got defined, and became applicable, as a follow up the the previous Stonewall/Compton blog. 

The fault is not that of those of that generation but that of those who validate themselves by refusing to build on their own strengths but attempt to increase their value by diminishing that of others even if that is based on ignorance, easily eliminated but too inconvenient to do so.

Based on this list, how can the young blame the Stonewall Generation for whitewashing when they, themselves, have erased a mixed-race Lesbian whom several eyewitness statements testified was the person who actually incited the Riot, and reached back three years and 3,000 miles away to pluck someone from one historic event, plant them in the Stonewall story, and assign that position to a person whose own statements show was not even there until two hours after the riot began.

 When psychoanalysis began there had to be an established normal and an abnormal and this was based on the fathers of the discipline being normal and all else abnormal with causation.

The term Homosexual came about around 1869 to name the abnormal with Heterosexual following decades later to name the normal as well. These, however, were clinical terms and with the general population being told one was abnormal and unnatural, without a universal term for everyday speech, people used existing labels that implied the abnormal. Nancy boy, Mary, Queer, sick, Mariposa were interchangeable and assigned to and not chosen by those to whom they were applied.

Until this time, sex was sex. Men and women got married first for legal and then religious reasons with the couple expected to have children to whom they could pass on any fruits of their labor with only the issue from marriage having a legal claim to any inheritance regardless which person, husband or wife, may have had children outside of the bonds of wedlock. Beyond being charged legally or socially with being unfaithful for not providing for or doing right by their kids otherwise, there was no special name for it even when people of the same sex might have had intimate moments, unless this led to  the dereliction of family responsibilities, or if one Lesbian assumed the male role, the pitcher, or one Gay partner betrayed his maleness by assuming the female role, catcher, people just accepted it for what is was, unfaithfulness to the marriage commitment and not much more.

We had no name for ourselves. We were what we were called. It was only among ourselves that we used chosen terms.

Even among ourselves what we knew of us was limited by what we learned from those around us, but not like us, and we did not have the knowledge or vocabulary to correct misconceptions that we too had assumed was the way we were. We got no more information from our elders than they had, so, their misconceptions were ours as well. It was only with World War II’s needing people from all over requiring people mixing with people they may not know existed until this forced migration. People lived largely among those like themselves, ethnically, religious, and culturally connected.

 Just as the rest of society had years to learn what we, ourselves, would need a period of self education to learn, it was not always easy because we, too, had to accept differences among ourselves..

Gay was the first term we chose to be publicly  known by, not assigned to us. Just as the people of North and South America had existed and did not come into existence only when Columbus discovered them but had been here, the continuum of gender existed before it was named, but it had been here, undiscovered.

Although the gender variants existed, the revelation and understanding of them took time and part of that was abandoning assumptions.

To assume that people in 1969 had the knowledge and proper terminology we have today and condemning them for knowing as much while ignoring it is ludicrous and rather ignorant.

These are the presently known terms and, rather than claim what was unknown is proof of conscious whitewashing of events, it must be accepted that those people made it possible to bring shadowed things into the light as their activism and demands for the acceptance of our existence and the reality of our personhood, brought about the gender studies that gave names to what was there but unnamed.

They did not whitewash anything but did help bring identity about in the years after Stonewall.

Glossary of terms

–Homosexual 1869 (clinical term)

–Lesbian 1870–

–Bisexual 1892

–Transvestite 1910

–Transexual 1950 (my birth year)

–Gay 1951

–STONEWALL RIOT 1969 (I was 19)

–Nonbinary 1980s (I was in my 30s)

Gender Queer 1980s

Polyamory 1990   (I was in my 40s)

Pansexual 1990s

Transgender 1990s

Intersexed 1993

Cisgender 1994

Genderfluid 1994

Gender Dysphoria (replacing Gender Identity Disorder) 2013 (I was in my 60s)

The people of 1969 should not be held responsible for not knowing terms that only came later. I learned the new terms as they were introduced. I, like so many others, was incapable of knowing yet to exist terms.

Rather than waste time condemning people in the past from our privileged standing of having the knowledge they did not have, we should appreciate that from Stonewall on, our knowledge and vocabulary grew because of the people whose condemnation now is a popular thing that makes the present generation self-satisfied with how superior we are to those from the past while reducing them to stereotypes so easily put down to build ourselves up.

.

.

..

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

You may have liked the “old girl” while she met your needs, but sadly, once done with her, we sell the old car for parts.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Before slavery was abolished in Massachusetts upon ratification of John Adams’s State Constitution in 1780, Prince Boston was born into it on Nantucket Island. Although his parents were given their freedom, their children were to remain in bondage until their late 20s when they would be free as well.

 As his slave, Prince Boston was signed onto a whaling ship by William Swain, a Nantucket merchant. When the ship returned with its oil and bone, Mr. Swain arrived at the settlement house to collect Boston’s share of  what the crew was to receive, but was denied it.

The Quakers who ran the whaling industry on the Island did not approve of slavery, though they had to live with it, and, because of their belief in the equality of man (debate among yourselves), a man was owed the wages for which he had worked. Mr. swain may have owned the slave but the slave, not he, was the one who had done the work and, so, it was to him the wages belonged to do with as he chose and, whether or not he gave all, some, or none to Mr. Swain was up to him. If he wanted to earn those wages, Mr. Swain was welcome to work for them. 

The earned wages were held in escrow until Mr. Swain’s court case to obtain them was adjudicated with the Supreme Judicial Court agreeing with the Quakers that Prince Boston had earned and was owed the wages. He got both his wages and his freedom in 1773.

Considering this event, the soon to be ratified State Constitution, and the influence the Quakers in New Bedford wielded as the whaling and manufacturing tycoons who knew the important people and, like most such men, exerted both overt and covert control in the running of things, their influence went far beyond the harbor of New Bedford and into the halls of the state house in big and powerful ways.

In spite of Boston’s claiming to be the birthplace of the Abolition Movement, it began among the South Coast Quakers who did everything they could to interfere where they could not abolish or prevent slavery. 

Things had been bad enough when any Black crew members who had signed on from whatever country a whale ship had passed while needing additional crew on global voyages along with the American Black crew had to be protected from bounty hunters and false claims of previous enslavement and escape when entering southern ports, but the Fugitive Slave law of 1793 allowed this to spread far beyond the South into non-slave areas by requiring people in non-slave states to cooperate with bounty hunters in retrieving someone’s “property”.

What had been a concern for ships and their crew when entering Southern ports now became a concern for everyone and in Massachusetts, a state with major ports and harbors, beyond annoying. It was met with the usual New England coldness to people, from other places telling us what to do and imposing their regional attitudes on us where we do not want it and did not ask for it. 

Many northern states enacted laws to protect free black Americans as well as runaway slaves that required slave owners and fugitive hunters to produce evidence that their captures were truly fugitive slaves in order to protect free black residents from being kidnapped and sold into servitude in the South on just the claim they had been a slave with no proof of that.

Whereas the other state with freedom laws may have addressed slavery directly, Massachusetts chose a broader approach, protecting everyone in the state, regardless of past or present circumstances and standing in society by enacting Part 1:Title XV: Chapter 93: Section 102 of the General Laws in 1843 which states:

“(a) All persons within the commonwealth, regardless of sex, race, color, creed or national origin, shall have, except as is otherwise provided or permitted by law, the same rights enjoyed by white male citizens, to make and enforce contracts, to inherit, purchase, to lease, sell, hold and convey real and personal property, to sue, be parties, give evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, penalties, taxes, licenses, and exactions of every kind, and to no other.”

The law covers ALL persons regardless of anything and gives the remedies for violations:

(b) A person whose rights under the provisions of subsection (a) have been violated may commence a civil action for injunctive and other appropriate equitable relief, including the award of compensatory and exemplary damages. Said civil action shall be instituted either in the superior court for the county in which the conduct complained of occurred, or in the superior court for the county in which the person whose conduct complained of resides or has his principal place of business.

(c) A violation of subsection (a) is established if, based on the totality of circumstances, it is shown that any individual is denied any of the rights protected by subsection (a).

(d) An aggrieved person who prevails in an action authorized by subsection (b), in addition to other damages, shall be entitled to an award of the costs of the litigation and reasonable attorneys’ fees in an amount to be fixed by the court.

Perhaps as Homeland Security and ICE are having a good time being the middle school bullies with permission and encouragement from the equally weak, this needs a revisit.

In the name of John  Adams, we need to enforce our truth, “All persons within the commonwealth, regardless of sex, race, color, creed or national origin, shall have, except as is otherwise provided or permitted by law, the same rights enjoyed by white male citizens.”

.

.

.

.,

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

IF we do not preserve and respect our own history we cannot demand that others do and if that upon which we base our stories is demonstrably faulty yet vehemently defended, we hand others a weapon that can be used against us.

The Tenderloin District in San Francisco was established shortly after the Gold Rush began in 1849. It is a downtown neighborhood that sprang up on the existing dry land  and would be later separated from direct waterfront location as parts of the Bay were filled in. Its main street now separates Chinatown on one side from North Beach, the Italian section on the other and cuts from the shore to the city’s center. Because of the activity taking place in its various establishments and accompanying nightlife, it was called the “Tenderloin” for obvious reasons as far back as the 1890s. Almost all of the buildings there were destroyed by the Earthquake in 1906 and were immediately rebuilt as it was considered part of Downtown. 

By the 1920s, the ”Tenderloin” was known  for gambling, billiard halls, boxing gyms, speakeasies, theaters, restaurants and other nightlife, into which, because of the Red Light Abatement Act, prostitution and other vices took residence as these were forced into one section of the city to make the rest clean. Other cities over time began to do this and that is why, for a while, Boston had its Combat Zone while others created Red Light Districts. It also provided work for many musicians in the neighborhood’s theaters, hotels, burlesque houses, bars and clubs.

Historically a hotel area, housing was mostly single room and occupied by mostly singles and those who could not afford to live in nicer areas either because of low incomes, or certain professions and personal modes of expression, platonic and intimate. 

On August 13, 1961, the Tay-Bush Inn, a gathering place for Gays and Lesbians, was raided, and on New Year’s Day in 1965, police raided a Mardi Gras Ball at California Hall during an event sponsored by the Council on Religion and the Homosexual during which 600 people were photographed, several being prominent citizens.

These raids were common in this city and others, but this did not give any prominence to any of them with any press coverage just being short mentions of them in the newspaper until the next one. A place was raided, people arrested, and lives ruined, mainly for prurient interest and the need to read about “scandals”, which seem to come frequently.

Vanguard, begun in 1965 by Adrian Ravarour, was one of the first Gay, youth liberation groups in America and, beyond the raids, the Compton’s Cafeteria Riot was one of the earliest known GLBT uprisings in the U.S. 

In August 1966 at Compton’s Cafeteria in The Tenderloin, a refuge for transgender people, drag queens, and others in the community, after having been called by management who found those gathered to be getting rowdy and, in Pre-Starbucks style, sans laptops, were hanging out in the coffee shop without many purchases, a police officer tried to arrest a transgender woman. There were few people known to be Transgender at the time, the term not becoming common until the 1990s and this person, known to be “Transexual” resisted by throwing coffee in the officer’s face, a riot began as patrons defended her, threw dishes, and clashed with police outside. 

Sadly, being routine and with little coverage is an obscure isolated event in an area where the fringe was expected, it not only went under-reported, but a fire in SFPD headquarters in later years would erase all records and reports of the event with details becoming a distant memory with the name of the actual Transsexual person who actually threw a real thing to start the riot being lost except to those who were there and may have passed the name passed down to others later. It did, however, begin the collaboration between advocacy groups and city officials to address discrimination and laying the groundwork for future Rights efforts.

The founder of Vanguard has had his and Vanguard’s history rewritten to please an audience that craves history as they want it but do not accept it as it was.

Adrien now sees himself referred to as a “hustler”, with all that label entails with sex, drugs, and a sketchy lifestyle, when he had been a Mormon priest addressing a need he had seen to give those in The Tenderloin guidance and assistance.  In the mid-1960s, there were very few transgender people in urban areas especially in unsafe ones, and the universal lack of understanding, then as now, often had the Trans people on the outside looking in with a bit of phobia directed toward them. Vanguard made it clear that Trans people were as welcomed as everyone else and were part of the larger Community, but recent accounts claim that, in spite of the founder’s own words and history, it had been a Trans organization from the beginning when, in reality, it was founded to help all the abandoned youth and members of the Community of which Trans people were accepted as part.

Three years later in June 1969, close to closing time of the Stonewall Inn in Greenwich Village in New York city, a bar whose last night of operation before its unpublicized imminent closing, was anything but routine as police entered the bar for what could have been an attempt to get the precinct’s last protection payment before the closure and perhaps the owner disappearing, ran into a problem that resulted in what would be seen as the Stonewall Riot and subsequent days of rebellion. This event, taking place on the same street as the offices of the Village Voice a few doors over, some of whose staff were in the office working on the upcoming issue, got immediate real time coverage unlike the many previous raids there and in other locations around the country and became labeled as the spark that ignited the modern Gay Rights Movement. 

Although multiple eyewitness accounts of those present and familiar with the usuals who frequented the Inn point to Stormé DeLarverie, a mixed race, middle aged, butch lesbian, who at one point was being bundled violently into the back of a police car from her customary seat the the Stonewall’s entrance, yelling, “Aren’t you going to do something?”, and a later interview said, “The cop hit me, and I hit him back. The cops got what they gave”, in the modern version of that night, Storme is missing, unless in a quick reference.

The claim is made that, in an attempt to be the stars of the story much has been done by Cisgender, Gay, White Males to erase the leading role of Transgender people who may have been part of the riot, but can only claim being the instigators by erasing Storme’.

She has been replaced by a Transgender person who was not there the first night but whom they have chosen to be her replacement, Marsha Johnson who at the time was 23 and had yet to be known beyond her friends and associates, has often been credited with throwing a shot glass inside the bar while yelling she had had enough or throwing a brick outside as a signal for any action to begin, denied starting the uprising in a 1987 interview recalling that she had arrived at around “2:00”, that “the riots had already started” and by that time the Stonewall building had already been set on fire by police. 

The riots reportedly started at around 1:20 a.m. with the attempted arrest of Storme’. Although many agreed that someone on the second night had climbed up a lamppost and dropped a heavy bag containing a brick onto a police car, shattering the windshield, the person’s identity would not be known to most of the people present, and this role would become part of Johnson’s legacy only later, after her murder, when people went back to look for details about her that may or not be actually True.

It’s important to remember that Johnson’s legacy lies in her activism for GLBT rights, particularly for Transgender and homeless youth, that began after Stonewall and for which she was chiefly known during the years between Stonewall and her joining the Gay Liberation Front, and her murder, rather than any alleged single act during the Stonewall riots. Which can easily be disproven.

On the morning before her funeral, as I was having coffee with Randy Wicker and his staff at his antique store in the Village, I was told many things about her, a bit of catharsis for them, and among their recollections was her absence the first night and what they claimed was her big moment, dropping the bagged brick onto the Police car windshield. 

So, to recap and make clear that those of us attempting to preserve history are attempting to do so while being accused of erasure by the very people who accuse us.

A riot began when a Transgender person threw something in response to a police officer’s action, except it was three years before Stonewall, three thousand miles away, and what was thrown was not a brick or shot glass but a cup of coffee.

While this juxtaposition is satisfactory for those who prefer it, the process of recasting involves erasing a mixed race, middle aged, butch, Drag King who deserves recognition for reality, it also shows that those Cisgender, Gay, White males protecting her legacy are not the ones erasing race, age, Gender identity, Sexual Orientation, or the personhood of the real person for the sake of the Patriarchy, but fighting against erasure and rewriting while being condemned for that by those actually doing that.

Instead of allowing all the people there that night regardless of race, color, national origin, gender, gender expression, or sexual orientation to have been part of a huge, spontaneous reaction to injustice, we now spend our time looking for ways to divide the crowd up and decide who truly does not belong by dividing the community into separate identities and in doing so insultingly erasing actual people in favor of combining two events separated by distance and time, recasting and rewriting roles to come up with a history they like. 

Compton Cafeteria: 1966, began when a known and seen Transsexual person threw a cup of coffee on a police officer and was witnessed doing so by all the people present.

Stonewall: 1969, began when a mixed race, middle aged, butch lesbian, known to many and witnessed by most present, yelled to the crowd to do something. Nothing was thrown the first night.  

The modern story has replaced a coffee cup thrown by one person face to face with the other and, so, a more courageous act, with a brick no one saw thrown at a building from a distance, a less courageous one, by a person who was not there.

Those old enough and respectful enough of real history, having lived it, know this and see its misapplication and the danger creates.