Queer history, queer present

[cosmolinguist]

A friend of mine pointed out to me Johann Hari's review of a book called A Queer History of the United States.

I wasn't really queer while I was in the United States myself, but I have friends who are queer and/or activists, and I like to keep up with the current struggle to treat LGBT people like human beings.

I know even less about its history than I do about its present, though, and was delighted and fascinated to read, say, some pre-Columbian attitudes towards gender and sexuality: "a woman who led men in battle and had four wives was a respected chief"!  I'm childishly amused that what would be California already had in 1775 a reputation "the sin of sodomy prevails more than in any other nation".

And there's good stuff later on too, though in this review at least it seems that America was entirely, unproblematically comprised of Puritans -- except for one town, which "built an 80ft phallic symbol in the town centre".... but even they were people who sometimes intermarried with Native Americans, "suggesting many of their members were heterosexuals."  Right. Because what else could you be but heterosexual if you're getting married?

But the book quickly looks disappointing as it's making the current crop of USian right-wingers' case for them: that gay people should be a threat to marriage and society, because they are inherently different and revolutionary.  Hari clearly believes the author is failing to see the message of his own cast of characters, who didn't choose to be thrust to the margins of society, didn't want inequality, and aren't well served by this notion that being homosexual makes a person inherently against monogamy, marriage, or family.  

And yes not every gay person wants to get married, but then neither does every straight person.... and if you're bi, it's damn spooky to think that it is arbitrarily okay to marry some of the people you might like to, but not others.  

Besides, even people who couldn't care less about marriage must appreciate how much it'd suck to be edited out of your partner's obituary, and told you have the same status as a pet.  This is not just about big fat gay weddings.  Something I didn't appreciate until I got married is how much it legitimizes a relationship, in all kinds of contexts.  Not just to your local paper, but to banks, lawyers, nurses, grandparents, receptionists, doctors, in-laws, someone who randomly calls you up from your phone company... 

This part of the book seems to disappoint even Johann Hari, but he in turn is just disappointing me, saying things like

Why is his book called a "Queer History" and not a "Gay History"? It seems to be because the word "queer" is more marginal, more edgy, more challenging to ordinary Americans.

 Maybe it's asking a lot for a gay man to appreciate that the word "gay" doesn't cover everyone.

Being disappointed even in his expressions of disappointment, I really don't know what to think of this book. I want to like it; I want there to be a good book on this subject, but now I'm feeling uneasy enough that I can't be sure this is it.

Comments

[uglybuffy.livejournal.com]

The legitimising of a relationship is the reason I want to get married. I never know what to call Spuddy when talking to mortgage advisers etc - I choke on "partner" but "boyfriend" sounds so teenage. "My boyfriend and I are buying a house! We're going steady! It's great to have a boyfriend!" And I didn't object when Spuddy wasn't invited to my cousin's wedding, as she doesn't know him, but it did annoy me that it would have been different had we been married, as we'd been together longer than a lot of the married couples who were there. Am v in favour of marriage rights for all.

Oh, and I would expect Semtex to be in my obituary if I died tomorrow.

[cosmolinguist]

Aww. Yes, Semtex is such a huge part of your life. Still I am glad that you haven't died today.