On Race, Privilege, and Medicine
  • oRPM
  • ...mini-blog...
  • Contact Me!
  • Didactics and Consulting

DADT: A Repeal of Convenience

12/31/2010

4 Comments

 
Am I the only queer person in the country that is sad about the repeal of "Don't Ask Don't Tell"? The long-delayed bill just signed into law has destroyed my plan to avoid any future military conscription.

Let me explain. Many of my male friends in college photodocumented their participation in pacifist activities.  They explained that this was their insurance policy against any eventual military draft: solid proof to support a history of conscientious objection.  As a queer person, I had another plan, though:  If anyone tried to compel me to serve in the military, before anyone could even "ask," I planned to "tell" by yelling, "I'm gay, and not in the happy way!" loudly and repeatedly, until no branch of the military would want me. Just for extra measure I would threaten to convert any and all women that I ran across.

Now, in the wake of another victory for queer rights in this country, it seems silly to not have taken pictures of myself at anti-war protests anyway.

But I have mixed feelings about the repeal of DADT for other reasons, too.  With queer folks now allowed to serve openly, it seems that yet another oppressed minority group has been pulled into being exploited by the American military-industrial complex.
The American military's track record of inclusion is poor by even the lowest of standards.  Black Americans were first allowed to serve in the military during the Revolutionary War, when Lord Dunmore, the governor of Virginia, promised freedom to any runaway slave that fought for the British army. George Washington, needing more soldiers, followed suit. I'll let you guess how many of them actually received their promised freedom. Due to fears of giving Black folks weapons and racist doubts that they were mentally capable of being good soldiers, they were not even allowed to officially serve and enlist until 1862 during the Civil War, despite having fought courageously since the revolutionary war. During WWI, US military leaders decided they would rather use black units for suicide missions where they would likely die, instead of sending their white counterparts. For their valiant efforts, no awards or citations would be given to those soldiers of color until 1996, nearly 80 years later.

This philosophy of contempt and "we'll let you serve, but only on our terms" is not limited to race.  Women, even those who meet the physical ability requirements, are officially banned from ground combat.  But once again, when bodies are needed, the military conveniently changes its mind. In Iraq and Afghanistan, it's been well known that due to manpower shortages, women have been serving in front-line positions identical to those of men, yet there has been no budge in the official policy.  And lest you even entertain the notion that the ban represents some sort of arcane but well-intended form of chivalry, consider that a 2003 survey of female veterans found that 30 percent reported being raped while in the military (women serving in Iraq were reportedly being hospitalized for and even dying of dehydration because they would avoid drinking water in order not to have to make runs to the lavatory alone at night). That's not even counting cases of sexual assault and harassment. In 2007, only 181 out of 2,212 reported sexual assaults were referred to courts martial. The equivalent arrest rate for these charges among civilians is five times that.

These days, military recruitment across the country continues to focus on poor communities of color.  Non-citizens are promised fast-tracked citizenship if they serve (promises that are often later broken).  The military's MO is clear: they identify the underprivileged and exploit those inequities for combat.  In exchange they don't even bother to ensure they get basic human rights.

Of course it's true that queer folks should have the right to serve if they want to.  And I'm relieved that those who have dedicated their lives to the military, those who believe the military is where they belong, can now serve without fear.  However, as a labor activist and former union member, it occurs to me that the queer community missed a huge opportunity to make more significant gains.

For example, it's well understood in the labor community that corporations--entities that only care about money and profit--never offer any more than is demanded.  Experience and history have shown that incrementalism does not work either.  Nor has just sitting tight and waiting for the powerful to have moments of benevolence ever paid off.  True rights are won and maintained when workers, united, leverage their power and indispensibility and insist on what they deserve.

Consider now that we queer folks are estimated to comprise at least 10% of the population.  Though that’s far from the majority, in a volunteer military mired in multiple conflicts, and facing diminishing enlistments, we comprise a substantial portion of current and future military personnel.  In the fight to repeal DADT, we used public outcry and protest, but we never demonstrated our indispensibility.  In fact, I'm not even sure what was won represented a difficult victory.  A Washington Post-ABC News poll this month revealed that 75 percent of Americans say that gays and lesbians who publicly disclose their sexual orientation should be able to serve in the military.  Even 67 percent of conservatives felt that way. Repealing DADT was preaching to the choir.

But what would have happened if every queer soldier and ally refused to work, fight? What if queer folk just refused to enlist?  From infantry to engineering to culinary services, all fronts of the American military would have been crippled.  Would we have been able to demand equality in more controversial areas in addition to the simply right to serve?

We've sold ourselves short.

During the Vietnam War, the voting age was lowered to match the age of the draft.  Young people were demanding that right. If you were old enough to fight and die for your country, it seemed only fair that you should be able to vote in its elections.  It is strange that gays and lesbians should be able to serve without being allowed similar basic rights: equal marriage rights, rights to have a family through adoption, and discrimination protection (the federal Equal Opportunity Employment Law still doesn’t bar firing or harassment over the issue of sexual orientation).  Partners of queer military personnel won't even be eligible for health benefits, because that benefit requires a marriage certificate.

In the end, I can't help but feel saddened. In the best case scenario, queer folks will honorably fight to protect and demand the rights of Americans and those around the world without ever having won all those rights themselves.  However, what I suspect is more likely is that we will have struggled merely for the “right” to fight in unjust wars and to help support US imperialism; all without even being afforded complete civil rights in our home country.

This piece is a cross-post with This Can't Be Happening. It was also picked up by truthout.org and Counterpunch.
4 Comments
Lou
1/2/2011 09:44:29 am

I would be really interested in seeing some documentation about how the military is focussing its recruitment efforts on people of color. I see a lot of combat related photos on the net, and the boots on the ground are mostly white.

Reply
Lou
1/2/2011 09:47:24 am

Oh, and another thing. BBC did a poll in England which showed 1.3 % of the population is queer. How you arrive at 10% is way beyond believeable.

I'd be more than happy to email you the BBC article as I saved if for just such an ocassion. Just pulled that 10% right out of thin air, huh?

Reply
Jess
1/9/2011 09:23:16 am

The difficulties of quantifying the percentage of the population that is queer are numerous. Like all statistics, the way questions are asked, phrased, and the venue in which data is collected greatly effects the results. I have seen polls and studies that return results from as little as 1.3% (as you pointed out) to as much as 30%. Briefly, these obstacles include how you define gay/queer (ie same-sex attraction, same-sex sexual relations, only same-sexed attractions, etc), if you include any past experiences or only the present (incidence vs prevalence), and the wide-variation in self-reporting.

US Census data also suggests 1-2% of the population, but obviously that data is also flawed because it only recognizes those that report being in a stable, single, same-sexed household. If we counted heterosexuals by that standard as well, everyone who was unmarried wouldn't be straight.

Most experts and think tanks that I've seen generally estimate that it's approximately 10% so that's the number that I go with.

A brief link that summarizes this: http://gaylife.about.com/od/comingout/a/howmanygays.htm

Reply
Jess
1/9/2011 09:40:43 am

The existence of a low income and minority recruitment bias is one that has been and continues to be hotly debated. The studies and statistics that exist, both supporting and against the theory, are all flawed because folks draw conclusions from the data that, in my opinion, are large leaps of faith and logic.

For example, the widely cited Heritage Foundation study has been presented as proof that the "poverty draft" does not exist. However, the conclusions that are drawn from the study, basic demographic data of who currently serves in all parts of the military, are far too broad. How can we conclude anything about recruiting, a completely separate part of the process, from that data? How can we conclude anything about recruitment when the military obviously has many types of positions that encompass differing amounts of skill, education, and danger.

However, if you google "military recruitment target low income minority" a large number of articles pop up with quotes from actual military recruiters. Some of them even admit that they focus their efforts where it is most effective: in high schools where kids are likely to enlist/have no other better options: poor communities and communities of color.

Reply



Leave a Reply.

    What I've been reading:

    Double Dexter
    ​
    by Jeff Lindsay

    Picture

    about this blog

    A place where I can write my thoughts on race, on privilege, on class, on being a doctor. Part of the endless struggle to become a little bit more enlightened and feel a little less alienated.

    Agree with me. Call me out. Pass it on.

    I post once or twice a month with smaller comments on mini-blog.

    about me

    My name is Jess. In the interest of full disclosure: I'm a 30-something-year-old Chinese American and believer that the quest for social justice and equity must be an intentional and active one. I'm a Family Medicine physician. I'm queer. I'm a radical. I grew up in a mostly white suburb and my parents are white-collar workers.  And I don't eat meat, but I miss it sometimes.

    categories

    All
    Conferences
    Film
    Food
    Interracial Relationships
    Labor
    Lessons From The Motherland
    Links
    Medical
    News
    Prattle
    Race
    Rainbow
    Reading Group
    Writings
    Yellow

    archives

    March 2018
    June 2017
    May 2017
    March 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2014
    June 2013
    December 2012
    August 2012
    July 2012
    June 2012
    May 2012
    April 2012
    March 2012
    January 2012
    November 2011
    October 2011
    September 2011
    August 2011
    June 2011
    April 2011
    March 2011
    February 2011
    January 2011
    December 2010
    November 2010
    September 2010
    August 2010
    July 2010
    June 2010
    May 2010
    March 2010
    February 2010
    January 2010
    December 2009
    November 2009
    October 2009
    September 2009
    August 2009


    Subscribe via email!
    (no lists ever sold)

    Picture
    a radical news collective

    Featured on BlogHer.com
Copyright © 2016 by Jessica Guh