POZ Community Forums
Off Topic Forums => Off Topic Forum => Topic started by: woodshere on October 30, 2007, 10:58:01 am
-
I hope Iggy doesn't mind, but I find this a very interesting question that is being discussed in forum thread. Rather than keep it there and hopefully get more input I thought I would bring it here.
If a group of pozzies gather for a social activity is it a political event. I am a member of a gay poz social group. We dine out every other week. It is completely social with no political agenda. None of us wear HIV t-shirts or carry signs. Of course 15-20 loud men at one table in a restaurant does cause people to wonder and probably decide it is a bunch of gay men. So if no one knows we are HIV+, I am not sure it could be called political. Maybe it is, but I am not sure.
I am reminded of the statement if a tree falls in the woods and nobody is around to hear it does it make a sound. So if a group of pozzies gather and no one else knows they are HIV+ does it make a political event.
Just wondering what others think,
Woods
-
Iggy doesn't mind ;)
Just to be clear I want what I said to be in this thread:
I am shocked that anyone doesn't see a gathering of POZ people who are being open about their status in such an event as not being political. Yes. This is not an event that is structured around political events, but it is high time that we realize that we are by nature a political issue just by our existence. Unfortunately I think that loss of vision of something that is so basic is why so many of us feel so hopeless in so many areas.
My point to clarify for those who may not understand is that the very act of gathering is a political statement regardless of it being recognized as such.
My wish is that my point was recognized by many and start being used as strength for taking action in both our daily lives and our very future whether through direct action or quiet resolve to not go quietly into that good night.
-
No, I don't think so. I'm aware some see any gathering of a marginalised group as a political activity, but I personally feel that's stretching the definition so much it becomes rather meaningless. A social group is not inherently political (although it might encourage some people to consider activism further down the road). Had you been meeting to discuss or organise activism like lobbying, petitions, demos, happenings, etc, then yes.
-
Cool, because I think it is a great question that really needs a thread of its own.
My point to clarify for those who may not understand is that the very act of gathering is a political statement regardless of it being recognized as such.
I guess what I am having trouble with is if no one knows you are poz how is it a political statement and would not just be seen as a group of friends having dinner. I definitely feel it helps the individual to stand tall as a person living with HIV. Perhaps that in itself is political. Maybe I am not being broad enough in what I think a political statement is.
-
I guess what I am having trouble with is if no one knows you are poz how is it a political statement and would not just be seen as a group of friends having dinner.
I get your point about how it is not outwardly visible as a political activity. I think though there is a muddling in many peoples mind with politics and activism.
My view of a political act is akin to these definitions:
# involving or characteristic of politics or parties or politicians; "calling a meeting is a political act in itself"- Daniel Goleman; "political ...
# of or relating to your views about social relationships involving authority or power; "political opinions"
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
# Politics is the process by which groups make decisions. It is the authoritative allocation of values. Although the term is generally applied to behavior within governments, politics is observed in all human group interactions, including corporate, academic, and religious institutions.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political
In my mind any form of organizing of a group is a political act regardless of the lack of an overt political agenda.
Before stonewall a gathering of homosexuals (even just to drink in a bar) was considered a political act which was often prohibited by local law enforcement agencies.
The political act of it resides in the organizing of the group.
-
Ahhhhh, interesting. I think I understand a bit more. The gray line between political statement and activism, is slim, but based on what you said, I can see one does exist. May not completely agree, but do see the difference. Thanks.
-
I see political statements as many types of expression.....gatherings of any kind for almost any purpose can be a political statement...some gatherings are deliberately labeled "political" and gather that type of attention.... usually very public... but other types of gatherings not deliberately labeled may also be completely "political" especially if they are designed to encourage or create some sort of activism....I now that many "political" actions can happen quietly behind closed doors and with little fanfare ( happens all the time in politics at all levels) but if that situation is not yielding the results desired by a group the overt action ( labeling a gathering) may be more appropriate....so are all gatherings "political" ? maybe...they certainly could be but I suspect many are just social networking with familiar and common interests as the impetus
Nick
-
I think though there is a muddling in many peoples mind with politics and activism.
Before stonewall a gathering of homosexuals (even just to drink in a bar) was considered a political act which was often prohibited by local law enforcement agencies.
The political act of it resides in the organizing of the group.
What an interesting discussion. Mind if I throw in some thoughts?
I definitely agree that it's a definition problem. (Stupid American English language ;))
I understand how (twisted) legal decisions from before Stonewall gave bigots the right to prohibit gays gathering together. I can understand how a group of people gathered (ie a group of coworkers, activists, even a ball team) has a political (not governmental) meaning due to a heirachy amongst the parcipitants.
However, a bunch of friends gathered for fellowship, not an agenda, just doesn't seem to fit a "political" mold. If I gathered a dozen of my friends (straight and gay) for drinks, without a specific celebratory occasion, I can't see that the situation could be construed as political.
In Woods supposition, without knowing the poz status, how could this group be judged "political"? Because they are all men? Because of an assumption that they are all gay? Because at the basis of any gathering of mammals, we fall into an alpha-dominance ordering - now that fits a meaning of "political", though it seems a bit esoteric and not really the "common" meaning of the word to most people.
I think, like Woods, that there is a line, although at times it can be quit line and really depend on who is trying to make the delineation and for what reason.
-
What a spiffy little thread. Love discussions like this.
While not overtly political, it sure is hard to completely remove political elements out of such gatherings. You can take examples as large as AMG or as small as the local pub to see how entwined they can be. For things like AMG, politics figures into the very choosing of a location and to the financial realities of whether people can even attend. But even with a meeting at the local bar, it can be argued that socio-political forces are a driving factor in leading people to want to meet up in the first place. I mean, wearing T-shirts or not, why would a "group of pozzies" feel the need to seek each other out and meet up socially in the first place - if not for shared experiences ranging from the medical to perceived stigma and the like? And all of those things have pretty obvious political underpinnings.
So while not necessarily an activist endeavor, I can see where there is an element of the political simply in the gathering. It would be a part of the motivation for the gathering to occur, and would almost certainly be woven into the conversations that happened there.
-
In my mind any form of organizing of a group is a political act regardless of the lack of an overt political agenda.
I want to add that maybe we can borrow a legal concept - explicit vs. implied. "Explicit" is easy enough - that people gather for an agenda, made known publicly through voices, signs, gestures, etc. And whether a gathering can be understood as "implied" depends on circumstances.
A group of monks gathering is common enough in, say, Thailand, but for those gathering in Rangoon recently obviously was a political act even no one shouted anything during their "parade", and the dictatorship acted accordingly.
If I have all HIV+ friends gathered together for lunch in the middle of, say Castro, it probably won't be considered as political unless we make it so (making it explicit). But if we decide to gather in an open cafe next to a Methodist Church that believes AIDS is God's publishment, no matter whether we intend the lunch to be political (say, just someone book us in a wrong place), people will still imply that it's.
Just my 2 cents, Shaun
-
For me, AMG, was not political. It was a social gathering. Except for the memorial, HIV wasn't the subject of conversation that often. AMG was a chance for me to see some good friends again, as well as meet new people.
I can see what Iggy is getting at, but still, for me AMG was a social event. There were no rallies, no political statements made, minimal topical discussion and no one outside our group knew we were positive. HIV took a backseat (mostly) to just getting to know people outside of the written communication world.
-
Tim and Shaun got the gist of my thinking on this.
I suggest all also consider what was the genesis of this point in the gatherings forum - the U.S. travel restrictions for people with HIV to enter the country. It truly seems incredulous to suggest that we hold the AMG in the U.S. and claim that there is no political nature to this event in the same breath.
Encouraging people to break U.S, law is an act of political defiance regardless of whether or not you want to address the elephant in the room by its name.
-
I suggest all also consider what was the genesis of this point in the gatherings forum - the U.S. travel restrictions for people with HIV to enter the country. It truly seems incredulous to suggest that we hold the AMG in the U.S. and claim that there is no political nature to this event in the same breath.
Encouraging people to break U.S, law is an act of political defiance regardless of whether or not you want to address the elephant in the room by its name.
iggy today you are god to me, i cannot thank you enough for your posts on this matter
i would like to add for those who still are not convinced, that even if you dont consider AMG to be a political meet it could by it's nature become political for purely the reasons outlined by iggy above. should one of us foreigners be caught, charged and deported surely any response to this would become political? and for the individual involved, potentially life-changing.
i personally am not asking people not to ask us to come to the US for AMG for solely political reasons but for personal ones too with respect to the risks involved. however, yes, i do believe that we should not hold AMG in the states until the law is changed, because it implies that we as a group of positive people support the political decision to exclude us from the visa waiver. therefore, for me an american AMG is both political and an insult to those of us who are not american. however, that's a bit off topic so i'll save it for another thread.
finally, to answer in more general terms the question posed in the title of the thread, i think it depends. and as illustrated in previous posts it can sometimes depend not on the participants but on the views of observers, lawmakers etc.
loving this thread by the way, a refreshing change from some of the recent nonsense, so thanks to all participants for making my day richer
-
I suggest all also consider what was the genesis of this point in the gatherings forum - the U.S. travel restrictions for people with HIV to enter the country. It truly seems incredulous to suggest that we hold the AMG in the U.S. and claim that there is no political nature to this event in the same breath.
Encouraging people to break U.S, law is an act of political defiance regardless of whether or not you want to address the elephant in the room by its name.
I agree entirely with what you say here.
why would a "group of pozzies" feel the need to seek each other out and meet up socially in the first place - if not for shared experiences ranging from the medical to perceived stigma and the like? And all of those things have pretty obvious political underpinnings.
Political on a personal level but to me not in a political manner that brings about change or make others aware that people are living their lives as poz people. Which is more towards activism. I guess I associate political statements, activities, etc as a way to increase awareness or bring about change.
Thanks for the great exchange of ideas
edited to insert Iggy's entire post rather than just a portion.
-
Political on a personal level but to me not in a political manner that brings about change or make others aware that people are living their lives as poz people.
Yep, but "political on a personal level" still counts because the original question didn't specify any such levels. I'd also suggest that I'll bet a bunch of truly "activist level political events" have had their roots in such "personal level" social gatherings. Well, I'm sure somebody already mentioned Stonewall above. And like Shaun said, a lot depends on location, location, location. Let's go meet up in Kansas near the Phelps camp and see how long it takes until it gets all out political.
And while primarily a social event, I know that in my AMG experience HIV related things were in conversation throughout the event. It was something that was just inherently woven into it.
-
I went camping this weekend with all gay men. Quite a few were HIV+, too. Was this a political gathering? If making a few jokes about politicians makes it political, then I guess it was. And all this time I thought I was attending a recreational / social gathering.
If one wants to put a magnifier to everything, I suppose everything is political, on some level. I think that there's a difference between something being political in nature and there being possible political results. Not buying Chinese goods because doing so funds the Chinese govt. is a political statement. Buying good because they're cheap is not, although the results are often the same. This is a bad example, because Chinese products are generally bought because they are cheap, but I think I'm getting the point across.
This discussion, in a way, reminds me of the old saying from back in the day... "if a tree falls, and nobody hears it, does the tree make a sound?"
David
-
David,
What do you think a bunch of Conservative Christians would think of your gathering? Would they see it in pure social gathering/recreational terms?
-
As Matty the Damned was taught at Labour and Socialism camp when he was a teenaged pain-in-the-arse, the personal is the political.
MtD
-
David,
What do you think a bunch of Conservative Christians would think of your gathering? Would they see it in pure social gathering/recreational terms?
Now let's use some common sense. They wouldn't think of 'my' gathering, if at all possible! If they did, I'm sure it would be as a sinners' gathering, not anything political.
BTW, the current owners are just that... Conservative Christians. Inheritance laws didn't follow any sort of conservative or religious rules, in this case. The church down the road hasn't caused any problems, either, from what I've heard.
David
-
I've long been convinced that EVERYTHING is political. It's just a matter of focus and paying attention to the details.
It's ALL political. Really.
And my totally comfortable and subjective opinion is this is a swell thread.
-
Now let's use some common sense. They wouldn't think of 'my' gathering, if at all possible! If they did, I'm sure it would be as a sinners' gathering, not anything political.
Yeah - Because we have seen time and time again that Conservative Christians go out of there way to avoid making any political issues out of gays ::)
David - Are you for real with this? I think you should take your own suggestion of applying common sense here.
-
Yeah - Because we have seen time and time again that Conservative Christians go out of there way to avoid making any political issues out of gays ::)
David - Are you for real with this? I think you should take your own suggestion of applying common sense here.
Iggy, I am for real. Ask anybody who knows me (there are many here who've met me). If you'd like to discuss any particulars of where I spent my weekend (what I assume you mean by not being real), Jeromy has my phone number, or I can PM it to you.
David
-
I wonder how many of the Americans who are a ware of the "ban " on travel for HIV+ persons have written their political representatives ...congressmen, senators, governors etc......It is easy to do and I have reliable information from my local congressman that his staff considers a letter from a constituent to represent about 1500 votes ( the silent majority) .......If this is drifting toward taking "political" action then why not prepare a "letter to your congressman" asking him/her to vote to repeal or rescind this ban...I know it was a presidential order at first but it is incorporated into a law now and will take Congressional action to change it....
Nick
modified for bad spelling
-
You are very correct Nick. I think that should be there be two steps taken here.
An agreement that no official AMGs be held in a place that discriminates against poz people (indigenous or those wish to travel to it) and an official campaign to fight the discrimination in the U.S.
I'll draft a letter and post tomorrow in a separate thread.
It will be interesting to see where people fall in this proposed action
-
...
If a group of pozzies gather for a social activity is it a political event. I am a member of a gay poz social group. We dine out every other week. It is completely social with no political agenda. None of us wear HIV t-shirts or carry signs. Of course 15-20 loud men at one table in a restaurant does cause people to wonder and probably decide it is a bunch of gay men. So if no one knows we are HIV+, I am not sure it could be called political. Maybe it is, but I am not sure.
Woods
To respond to the original question, your gathering may or may not be political depending on the make-up and behavior of the group. If you're in a gay group that is/was typical and popular 20 or so years ago or later, and the general public perceive you as gay men then you're political. If you're in one of the groups of men more popular in the last 10 - 20 years, men so anal they'd rather die before they'd gesticulate, embrace "masculine" over "feminine" in terms the most fervent patriarch would approve, believe their "personal life" is their "own business" and "who I sleep with is not what I am" then you might even pass for, ick, straight, but it's not bloody likely. Most such groups are as obvious as any group of queens but they like to think they're different.
If your group is not obviously composed of poz men (and short of matching shirts/caps/costumes I can't think how that would be done -- "HIV+" tattoos on foreheads might work, a la William F. Buckley) it says nothing political about being poz. Of course since gay men and HIV are so well linked in many people's minds a group of men perceived as gay will also be perceived as having HIV/AIDS, and offer an ostensibly better reason to request to be seated as far from the filthy sodomites as possible.
I was in a poz social group in the mid to late 90s and it was fun but there were 3 or 4 women in it and several members looked sick (were sick) so on public outings I don't know if the perception was of HIV/AIDS so much as a few fag hags and some fags, or whatever expression you prefer. Our socializing was mostly at each other's houses/apartments so it wasn't political by choice. Members ran the gamut from straight women with different political bents to Log Cabin Republicans to mostly uninterested gay men and people subsisting on SSI to those who could sell everyone 2 or 3 times over. That was often an interesting dichotomy to see in action -- someone would recommend a regimen of $350 worth of nutritional supplements to someone they knew got $421 from SSI every month. The temptation to kick hard under the table often had to be resisted -- mainly because there wasn't a table to hide the kick under.
JA
-
If you're in one of the groups of men more popular in the last 10 - 20 years, men so anal they'd rather die before they'd gesticulate, embrace "masculine" over "feminine" in terms the most fervent patriarch would approve, believe their "personal life" is their "own business" and "who I sleep with is not what I am" then you might even pass for, ick, straight, but it's not bloody likely.
You said anal. Heh.
MtD
-
...
You said anal. Heh.
MtD
I did not. I typed it.
Heh.
JA
-
Too cool.
I did not. I typed it.
Heh.
JA
You're exactly the sort of pedant I took you for when I read your earlier post.
:)
MtD
-
Did someone say group anal? I'll bring the poppers!
;D
bry
-
But won't that give us KS?
MtD
-
But won't that give us KS?
MtD
only if you inhale
-
Interesting, I think I'd have to come down on the side that it is political. If government/society was treating us fairly, would there be as much need for an internet forum like this? How much is the disease, and how much is the reaction to it (especially in the field of adequate gov't funding)?
In terms of the AMG gathering, holding it in the USA makes it a political action for us foreigners. We have to choose between breaking US law to be with group or not breaking it. And in this case wouldn't that law-breaking be in the nature of the civil rights movement: the law is unjust, so it should not be followed.
-
Hey Woods,
Over the past 7 years, I have been Chair of the Persons Living With HIV?AIDS Committee, a member of The Sonoma County Commission on AIDS, a member of approximately 7 subcommittees, a founding member of Community Reconnect and have published and managed a website re: the reauthorization of the Ryan White Care Act. I have published a few articles and appeared on TV on HIV issues.
For 5 years prior to that, I was living in a beach house in L.A.., had AIDS and many many parties. Before HIV, I owned an advertising agency which managed the campaign advertising for a District Supervisor and a Justice Court Judge. My radio talk show featured California Governor Pete Wilson and Assemblyman Richard Mountjoy Keynote Speakers for a Town Hall meeting, I set up at the Sheraton LAX.
I believe I am qualified to make this comment: If 15-20 gay men meet in a public restaurant, with no agenda it is a social event. If this same group met with agenda, facilatator, chair and spoke under the terms and conditions of The Brown Act, that could be considered political. I have been blessed with the opportunity to walk and work with some very fine people. If I had the opportunity to do it over, I would have a social dinner with 15-20 gay men on a regular basis and keep it social because... I do not have many friends. Have the best day
Michael
(who only attended 1 AMG and that was social) I had the best time ;D
-
If 15-20 gay men meet in a public restaurant, with no agenda it is a social event. If this same group met with agenda, facilatator, chair and spoke under the terms and conditions of The Brown Act, that could be considered political.
I'd agree with this point. When I go out with my poz friends there's nothing political about it. We just have dinner and/or drinks, talk about our life (which sometimes includes our health), enjoy sharing each other's company, busting on each other and that's it. A lot of times there are even a few neggies in the mix depending on who brings who. As with so many words, they may have a set definition, but people apply it differently. I don't see any application for "political" for me personally when hanging out socially with my poz friends.
-
You're exactly the sort of pedant I took you for when I read your earlier post.
:)
MtD
I'm not a pedant. I've never touched a child in my life!
How dare you, sir?!? I demand a pubic apoplexy!!
Heh.
JA