Archive of Hope

by Milk, Harvey

  . . .

  No matter which way the vote went in Florida last Tuesday, Gay people won; there was a victory deeper than the actual vote. And it is only the beginning. Too many people look only at the vote count; they do not understand what the vote means.

  Without Anita Bryant there would not have been: a cover story in “Newsweek” which dispelled many of the myths about homosexuality; headlines, day after day, in major city after major city, talking about Gay rights and homosexuality; national television nightly covering Gay rights. In short, the entire nation finally opened up and talked about Gay people. Dialogue that had never before taken place became a daily occurrence. The drawing of lines put many of our enemies out in the open where they can be counted and seen. It also brought to the side of Gay people groups like the Dade County Democratic Party (where were the Republicans on this one?). Once people took the stand on the side of the Gay people, they became deeply committed.

  AN AWAKENING—AND WHAT IS NEW?

  Homosexuality is no longer a taboo subject in the media and in the homes and schools of a nation. The crack in the dam has taken place. While there has been much said and printed against Gay people during the campaign, that is nothing new. The laws have been there for centuries. The hatred has always been there. What was new are the words that were pro-Gay. Never before has so much positive been said and printed. Anita Bryant got in print what so many Gay people for so long have tried to do in vain. She herself pushed the Gay movement ahead, and the subject can never be pushed back into the darkness.

  THE TRUE NATIONAL GAY MOVEMENT

  The second victory out of Florida was from the statement made by Bryant that she would not take their campaign to San Francisco because “the Gays are too organized there.” What that statement said to Gay people all over the nation is: “Let’s find out just what they did in SF and how they did it. Then, let’s do it here.” Anita Bryant told the Gay communities of every city in the nation: GET ORGANIZED LIKE THEY DID IN SAN FRANCISCO! She has, in fact, started what so many of us have talked about—a true national Gay movement.

  CALIFORNIA GAY CONFUSION

  The result: We in the Gay community should copy the other movements. We must organize beyond our local areas and personal beliefs. We should start with a California state-wide convention next spring of Gay people from all over the state from ALL political philosophies. And we should invite every candidate who is running in all the primaries for all the state offices to talk on one subject only: where they stand on Gay rights and just what they are going to do for Gay people. They should be instructed that at this particular convention there is only ONE issue that we want to hear about. There will be no endorsing. No partisan play. No games. But that their stands and comments will be made public, and that their absence will also be made public.

  The Blacks do this on a national level. There is no reason why, in the future, there is not a national Gay convention of Gay people from all political factions asking the candidates for President where they stand and just what they will be doing for Gay people if elected. Then when we look at the candidates on the other issues, we will at least have their Gay rights views up front and not clouded by other issues.

  No longer should we allow any candidate (even our “friends”) to evade the issue because it will “hurt” them with other voters. If none appear, then none should get our votes. Our votes should go to one of the minor party candidates if any of them show up.

  This political action has worked, to a large degree, in SF. It should be now used on a state-wide level and then expanded on to the national level.

  Anita Bryant has told us to organize all over the nation as we have done in SF. Thank you for that one, Anita!

  24

  “Gay Economic Power”

  Column, Bay Area Reporter, September 15, 1977

  As noted earlier, the idea of economic power—and the independence it wrought and community it inspired—had long been a part of Harvey Milk’s politics. The struggles of disenfranchised and marginalized communities had always been situated centrally within Milk’s ideological views and his public commitments. Even as early as his 1973 campaign for Supervisor, a San Francisco Examiner article quoted him as saying, “I stand for all those who feel that the government no longer understands the individual and no longer respects the individual.” And, at the same time, he waged multiple campaigns against moneyed downtown redevelopment interests and their political allies.

  In the summer of 1974, just a scant few months after opening Castro Camera Shop, Milk helped organize the boycott of Coors beer throughout the string of gay bars in and near the Castro [see Document 19]. This was done as a showing of both GLBTQ solidarity and blue-collar sensibilities. During his early political campaigns, Milk had also offered unwavering support to San Francisco’s unions, while other candidates and elected officials simultaneously balked at strikes planned by teamsters and firefighter unions.

  His populist aims of supporting local economies translated, too, into his joining the Eureka Valley Merchants Association, the local guild that protected area business from what Milk called San Francisco’s “giants.” However, as discussed previously [see Document 15], when this group refused to allow openly GLBTQ businesses to associate with the other Castro burghers, Milk formed the Castro Village Association expressly to promote GLBTQ businesses. This was 1974, a time when Milk used for the first time publicly the expression, “Buy Gay.” A brochure, shopper’s guide, and Village map that he created in 1973 invited patrons to “Shop and Play” in the Castro. His contention in those early days was that businesses did not just generate dollars, but rather constituted communities and uplifted neighborhoods. Indeed, he would center much of his political campaigning in the coming years on supporting the GLBTQ community; as he noted later, “Gay for Gay. That’s my issue. That’s it. That’s the big one.”

  The editorial included here is a later representation of Milk’s GLBTQ-centered politics, as expressed in economic terms. Following from the tradition of Black nationalism (and immigrant enclave pride), Milk’s May 6, 1977, forum piece entitled “Gay Economic Power” served as a call to all GLBTQ merchants to do their part in bolstering their communities. Milk’s focus on the “responsibility of the gay merchant” indicated that he viewed GLBTQ economic power transactionally. That is, he first thought that GLBTQ business owners should compete responsibly and equally with “straight merchants” and, moreover, contribute to GLBTQ community causes. In turn, Milk insisted that community members themselves enter into the relationship symbiotically so as to support the GLBTQ businesses. As he said in a June 1977 letter to business owners, urging them to join his Community Guild, “There is more to being a gay business than immediate personal gains. . . . Please reach out and help build your community. It will cost you a lot . . . a little energy, a little time, and a deep concern for your community.” Though he conceded that sustaining a GLBTQ economic nationalism would be difficult, what would ease this inconvenience was “Gay Pride.” To that end, this document comprises Milk’s views on the importance, power, and possibilities of a GLBTQ-centered economy. Importantly, this editorial demonstrates that Milk kept the issue of economics always at the forefront of his political thought. As he prepared himself for his 1977 Supervisor campaign during this month (May 1977), Milk reiterated the need to “Buy Gay”—this would have been a savvy political maneuver, as San Francisco had moved to district elections; District 5, as noted earlier, comprised the Castro and much of the city’s GLBTQ-centered and GLBTQ-friendly communities.

  . . .

  In the last issue I talked about the concept of “Buy Gay.” I talked about the fact that we go out of our way to drink at gay bars across town rather then drink at convenient neighborhood bars and the importance of carrying that concept through to other gay business. Why not go out of our way to shop at a gay store rather than a convenient neighborhood store? However, there is another important side to the concept. A side that must never be overlooked. And that i
s the responsibility of the gay merchant.

  If “Buy Gay” spreads and the gay community starts to bring this concept to a high level then there is indeed the responsibility of the gay merchant not to become the rip off. He must offer the product at prices competitive to straight merchants. He must offer competitive service. If his business increases due to BUY GAY then he must not take advantage of the situation. His responsibility goes deeper then giving fair prices and good service . . . he must bend more towards the gay customer. If a person is going to go out of their way to support gay economic power then the merchants must show their appreciation by returning that support. This can be done in one of several ways. Better than favorable prices and service or returning some of the financial gains to the gay community.

  There are many gay businesspersons who contribute heavily to the support of gay activities and organizations. There are many gay organizations that need help and as long as they are offering the gay community needed services and do not “demand” help they should be supported. The gay businesspersons who do so must be congratulated for their aid. They are needed and will be for some time.

  Then there are the gay business[es] that offer better than competitive prices even though they do not have to. Some of the gay restaurants offer meals that not only are good but are at prices that are below straight competitors. What is sad is the restaurant that makes it on the gay business and then because it becomes an “in” place forgets how they got started and who their supporters were in their time of growth.

  Let me also explain what I have done with my camera shop in appreciation of buying gay. There are very few neighborhood camera shops that cut prices on film and supplies. The large camera giants offer discounts to students and professionals. These range up to 20%. But they do not offer discounts to the general public unless they buy in volume. At first I could not match the 20% for my costs. I was only able to give 15%—but I gave that to all. Then I got together with another gay owned camera shop—Eye Food. Together we are able to buy in larger amounts and our costs dropped. Thus I cut my prices on film and supplies across the board to 20% off of list. That makes a price that both of our stores offer to all customers equal to the best that the camera giants offer only to their special customers. Through joint buying we are able to sell to everyone at a price that is equal to but wider-spread than any of the giant camera shops. We do that because we believe that we owe it to the community that supports us.

  This type of responsibility . . . passing financial gains on to gay causes and competitive prices is the other side of the picture if BUY GAY is ever to be a reality. It can not be only on the side of the purchaser. In order to make it work in my case I joined my purchasing power with that of another gay shop. More of this can take place. One of the interesting things that is happening is the formation of new gay business associations. The Community Guild is only one of these. Their members may find ways to achieve joint buying and to pass the lower prices on to their customers. That association is also committed to helping the San Francisco Gay Community Building and the Guild Foundation. It is that kind of attitude that benefits the entire gay community.

  More merchants must join in the BUY GAY movement by understanding their responsibility. Their profit margins may be lowered but their volume will increase and they will be helping make a stronger total gay community. It is a step towards gay civil rights.

  We have to pay our taxes and we are denied our civil rights. One way to help to bring about a change in this is through keeping as much of our money circulating within the gay community. It may be inconvenient to “Buy Gay.” It may be inconvenient to get to your favorite gay bar at night . . . but you get there . . . you can also find a way to get to your gay shops. What eases the inconvenience is something called Gay Pride.

  25

  “You’ve Got to Have Hope”

  Speech, June 24, 1977

  As Milk’s political career moved into the 1977 race for the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, he stayed true to the vision he had forged through his three previous campaigns. A campaign advertisement from the summer of 1977 noted this vision succinctly: “You know Harvey Milk means it when he says that he will: Fight to save the Gay Community Center from demolition, Introduce an anti-discrimination ordinance covering all businesses in San Francisco, Work for gay affirmative action . . . Sue, if necessary . . . Make sure that the gay community gets its fair share of City services.” As one would expect, Milk never wavered from his position that GLBTQ communities needed an avowed GLBTQ leader in office, and one who was not beholden to those straight liberal “allies” who retreated from their GLBTQ supporters when times got tough. During this campaign, Milk first called for a statewide gay caucus that would mobilize and gather community across political, social, and other lines to create a unified front and influential block designed to test the commitment of any aspirant politician on gay issues. He inspired kids from small towns everywhere where the closet needed to be opened to hold onto “hope”—this became Milk’s mantra.

  Milk’s vision still bore the marks of the populist, neighborhood activist fighting for “the people” in District 5 and across San Francisco, reaching out throughout the campaign to African Americans, Latinos and Latinas, women, the elderly, and heterosexuals. This was still Milk’s signature theme, one that made his call to his GLBTQ family broadly resonant, even in moments of oppression. Recall that 1977 was the year of Anita Bryant’s “Save the Children” campaign, a dovetailed effort to smear publicly and occlude legally GLBTQ communities. Bryant and her campaign in Dade County, Florida, succeeded in repealing the City of Miami’s gay rights ordnance. Though Milk was not officially enlisted as a leader in what would be called the Orange Tuesday debacle, he became an interpreter of the event for GLBTQ folks in San Francisco. In its June 9, 1977, issue on “The Battle over Gay Rights,” Newsweek mentioned that “Bryant is proving to be a catalyst for the gay-rights movement . . . drawing attention to the issue and mobilizing homosexuals to organize politically and raise funds.” Part of the backlash of her “Save the Children” campaign was that leaders of GLBTQ communities stepped-up into the breach to lead their respective communities against bigotry and homophobia. Milk was a part of this invigoration of gay rights, and as he mobilized GLBTQ communities in San Francisco, his star began to rise, thereby giving way to his decision to run for the Board of Supervisors in 1977.

  The need for a leader like Milk intensified as California State Senator John Briggs announced days after Orange Tuesday that he would campaign to remove GLBTQ teachers from the public schools of California. His smear and bait effort prompted some municipal politicians in California to shut down district elections (which allowed actual neighborhoods to select their leaders through a citywide vote). Importantly, the campaign helped homophobic forces remove GLBTQ-friendly officials from seats of power. If a GLBTQ person was allowed into the political fold at all, she or he was typically conservative—and silenced. As Milk once wrote of gay conservative forces, “The homosexual will never be given [freedom] as long as he is led by what blacks label ‘Uncle Toms’ . . . maybe we can call them ‘Aunt Marys’ . . . these are people who, for whatever personal reasons, tell us that we ‘never had it so good’ and brag about the crumbs thrown to homosexuals . . . [until] the gay community gets rid of the Aunt Marys and puts together their strength . . . we will remain oppressed and used.”

  Once again opposed by said conservative gay leaders, once again helped by talented young, inexperienced volunteers, and once again outspent (according to the Bay Area Reporter in November 10, 1977, gay frontrunner for Supervisor, Rick Stokes, spent $50,000 to Milk’s $8,000), Milk had finally won in November 1977. And in the process, he crafted his most vital campaign speech—one spotlighted in Randy Shilts’ book The Mayor of Castro Street and immortalized in Gus Van Sant’s feature film Milk.

  What came to be called “The Hope Speech” was initially conceived as a stump address, wherein Milk attempted to embolden a strong GLBTQ na
tionalism within the Castro, while also appealing for an alliance with other disenfranchised groups and straight folks. The speech was delivered at the San Francisco Gay Community Center on June 24, 1977, where Milk announced his third bid for candidacy for City Supervisor. The topos of “hope” was a central theme—a transcendent “hope” that “all will be alright.” According to his speechwriter Frank Robinson, the “hope trope” was used because Harvey saw his campaign and success as a synecdoche of possibilities for all. He scripted the promise of GLBTQ, subaltern, and allied communities across his campaign. His election would become the manifest reality, the material embodiment, of that promise by moving the ideal of progress into the literal offices of City Hall, thereby illuminating the way for GLBTQ communities across the nation. Or, as he later said in his victory statement: “I understand the significance of electing the first Gay person to public office and what his responsibility is not only to the people of San Francisco, but to Gay people all over. It’s a responsibility that I do not take lightly.”