by Milk, Harvey
. . .
Abe:
You have my “foreign policy” . . . here are some thoughts on one of my “domestic policies.”
People who make their money in San Francisco, but don’t live in San Francisco have at best an intellectual/financial commitment to the City. But they don’t have an emotional commitment. They’re not emotionally involved with the problems of the Police Department, the Fire Department, the conditions of the streets, the Muni, housing, etc. And it’s that emotional commitment that makes all the difference.
As a Supervisor and as a resident, I think that I can truthfully be described as “patriotic” when it comes to San Francisco. The most I’m doing when I attack people who make their money here but don’t live here is accusing them of a lack of local patriotism. Good God, the local boosters want the baseball team to stay in San Francisco, or the local football team, or whatever. What’s wrong in asking the business leaders of the city to stay in the city as well? It’s the same sort of boosterism.
How can the business leaders ask new industry and commerce to move to the city if they themselves don’t? How can the business leaders ask people—families—to move back to the city if they themselves don’t? The business leaders have a great opportunity to lead . . . to stop the exodus. To turn the tide. To start to move back to the city that they say they love.
Nobody has any intention of forcing people to live in San Francisco. In one sense, that would be denying them their right to live wherever they want. But then, aren’t those who have to live here—the poor, the retired—also being denied their rights if these outsiders run the city?
This is going to be an unpopular statement, but I think it might be a true one. Those of us who are left behind, or who desire to stay in the cities, are compelled to deal with the city’s problems. We have to. It’s only natural that we resent those who copped out, those who fled to the sanctuaries of suburbia but who still make their money from the city and want to run it their way.
In considering the problems of the cities, one factor becomes of extreme importance: the old minorities have become the new majorities. The city is no longer primarily white, established, middle class, or even primarily married with children. It’s yellow, brown, black, with a steady influx into the middle economic class of people who were formerly lower economic class. It’s also increasingly young marrieds with no children, or young couples who aren’t married, or extended families, or gays, or singles, and most certainly seniors. Some of the answers they see for the problems of the cities may differ drastically from some of the answers desired by those who used to live in the city but no longer do so. Above all else, we must consider the new demographics of the new city.
It should also be obvious, in considering the cities, that America is no longer in the position of tearing down and building anew. We no longer have those kind of resources. We no longer have that kind of wealth. And, increasingly we no longer have that desire. America is becoming Europeanized. In many cases, it’s cheaper to renovate than to rebuild. And it may be more aesthetically pleasing. The new generation doesn’t live in the future alone; it also lives in the past. We have an ancestry; we have roots. It’s nice to be able to look at that ancestry as we walk down the street. With the past still part of the present, we won’t suffer so much from future shock.
30
“Letter to Council Members re Judging People by Myths”
Public letter, March 13, 1978
One of the issues Milk was most passionate about that related to gay rights involved the popular and public misrepresentation of GLBTQ communities. He was specifically concerned about stereotypes and how a homophobic America accepted the “myths” passed around by a larger hegemonic system of oppression that painted GLBTQ folks into a corner of deviance. As he wrote in this letter to his fellow City Supervisors, his election as the city’s first GLBTQ political leader held the promise to shake up these myths. Of course, such stereotypes often translated into public policy, as it did for California State Senator John Briggs and his campaign, later in 1978, to ban GLBTQ individuals from working in public education. The specter of such myths were raised during Anita Bryant’s 1977 “Save Our Children” campaign that become the template for Briggs’ initiative. Calling GLBTQ people “human garbage” and aligning them discursively with prostitutes, pimps, and drug dealers, Bryant—followed by Briggs—fashioned a popular rhetorical career by misrepresenting GLBTQ communities. Just under a year following “Orange Tuesday,” Milk was back to stemming the tide of homophobic ideologies as he moved to curb yet another anti-GLBTQ campaign. This initiative, Proposition 6 (the Briggs Initiative), was ripe with stereotypes issued by Briggs. He often talked about GLBTQ teachers recruiting their students and in one pro-Proposition 6 pamphlet he reproduced pictures of men in drag with the caption, “Take a good look at this man in this photo wearing an earring and fingernail polish. Ask yourself this question, ‘Is this the kind of man I want teaching my children?’” Obviously playing to performative stereotypes, the underlying messages of Briggs’ rhetoric was one of bigotry through essentialization. Also, a New Times article reports that Briggs’ television spots often included “still photographs of young boys killed by homosexual Dean Allen Corll of Houston and of the victims of the trash bag murders in California, followed by film of their bodies being dug up or lifted out of garbage cans.” In this example, Briggs equated every GLBTQ individual with one particular criminal—who just happened to be gay. By extension, Briggs attempted to convince Californians that GLBTQ folks were dangerous—in the classroom and elsewhere. As he was fond of saying, “What scares me is people going into the booth and voting for that last great taboo.”
Milk’s present letter likely came as a precursor to his internal Board campaign to urge for a gay rights ordnance for the City of San Francisco. The law would protect GLBTQ communities against discrimination in the workplace and in education. Moreover, safeguards against police brutality and economic discrimination (i.e., banking, loans) would later be considered as a part of the reform Milk urged. Milk was successful in getting committee support, and ultimately he persuaded the Board to vote in the affirmative. But he never had a chance to see the citywide law come to fruition, as he would be assassinated some eight months later by fellow Board Supervisor Dan White. Coincidentally and tellingly, White was the only Board Supervisor to vote against Milk’s gay rights ordnance.
. . .
Dear Council Members:
As the only openly gay elected official in California, I would like to share with you a few comments on what my election to the San Francisco board of Supervisors means.
For too many years, gay people have generally not taken any active part in the government. For many years, many gay people, feeling disenfranchised, have given up hope for a better tomorrow. Hope that all will be right. Hope that the system does in fact work.
With that kind of background, many gay people and their energies are not put into use in the democratic society that we have.
We have learned from the past that once any group of people who are excluded from the system are brought into it, they not only dispel the fears and myths about them, but also add greatly to the general welfare of the society. So it was in the earlier days of this nation when the Irish were regarded as second class citizens, so it was with the Asians who worked on the railroads, so it was with the Blacks, the Jews, the Spanish-speaking persons. We no longer judge any of these people by their myths about them. We judge them by their elected officials and their leaders.
Now we have come to the test of our tolerance. We are judging gay people by the very few gay criminals and the myths about gay people. As more and more gay people move into positions of leadership, we are seeing all the myths being shattered. We are finding out as one of our presidents once stated, that “We have nothing to fear but fear itself.”
I have found out since my election that gay people and other minorities across the nation see in my election a symbol of hope. That
if I can achieve my position that [means that] the system is now open to all people, be they Black, Brown, Asians, the handicapped, seniors or gays. My election was a green light that the nation says we can all indeed move forward.
The future will follow the paths of prior history. Sooner or later, gay people will follow the roads of the Irish, Jews, Asians, Blacks, and Latins we have all accepted. And as that happens, more people will be given hope. While one cannot live on hope alone, I feel strongly that without hope, life is not worth living. Thus, the move toward acceptance of all people and their rights follows in the great tradition of this nation.
Gay Pride Week means just that. In San Francisco, we now not only recognize the importance of that Week, we now fund the Gay Pride Parade. We understand the need to give a nation of people hope. Nothing more, nothing less. Giving hope is, indeed, the greatest thing that any elected official can give.
Warmly,
Harvey Milk
31
“Resolution Requiring State Department to Close the South African Consulate” and “Closing the Consulate”
Press releases, March 22, 1978
A champion of human rights, Milk often took stands on international issues, for as he reasoned oppression knew no region, color, gender, religion, or sexuality. As a populist, he was committed to coalition building in San Francisco, to be sure. But he also viewed the joint oppression of people across geographical boundaries as vital to those in his own community. Milk was quoted in a 1978 Desert Sun article issuing a charge to President Jimmy Carter: “I’m tired of all the silence from the White House. Jimmy Carter, you talk about human rights—in fact, you want to be the world’s leader for human rights. Well, damn it, lead!” His suggested resolutions to close the South African Consulate and to withdraw investments in South Africa in the midst of the segregationist policy of apartheid spoke to his emphasis on human rights. His commitment in this milieu was similar to his challenge to the Canadian government to withdraw its proposed homophobic initiatives. As Milk told his supporters in two letters (also included) asking them to attend the Board of Supervisors meeting where the resolution would be debated, “I think this would be an emphatic statement that San Franciscans support human rights for all people and are outraged at the South African government’s continuing policies of racial hatred.” In the end, the resolutions garnered support from the Board of Supervisors but did not move beyond the governmental channels from there. Regardless, the four documents below exhibit just how passionate Milk was about joint oppression. Even in the crucible of San Francisco’s and California’s own struggles in 1978—not too mention the travails of Milk’s own GLBTQ community—he took the time and energy to include a much larger public than his “city of neighborhoods” in his reform goals.
. . .
Dear Friend,
I appreciate your interest in supporting the human rights of blacks in South Africa. As you may know, there are currently two resolutions in the Board of Supervisors which would be strong statements of San Francisco’s outrage at the South African government’s continuing policies of racial hatred.
I have introduced a resolution requesting the State Department to close the South African consulate here. And a resolution was introduced recently by Supervisors Hutch, Silver, Feinstein and myself urging withdrawal of investments from South Africa.
Both resolutions will be up for a public hearing in the State and National Affairs Committee on Friday, April 7 at 2:00 PM in Room 228, City Hall.
I urge you to attend the meeting to express your concerns. Hopefully, the Board will take these strong actions and your support would be very helpful.
Warmly,
Harvey Milk
Dear Friends:
On January 30th, I introduced a resolution in the Board of Supervisors requesting the State Department to close the South African consulate in San Francisco.
I think this would be an emphatic statement that San Franciscans support human rights for all people and are outraged at the South African government’s continuing policies of racial hatred.
The matter will most likely come before the Board’s State and National Affairs Committee on Friday, March 3 at 2:00 PM. The Committee is composed of Supervisors Gonzales, Pelosi and Silver.
I would be deeply grateful for your support of this resolution, both in testimony before the Committee in letters to the Committee members. If you are willing to testify, please call Dick Pabich at my office, so that we can organize the testimony. And please send me a copy of any correspondence you have with the Committee members.
Thank you for your interest.
Warmly,
Harvey Milk
THE STATE DEPARTMENT TO CLOSE THE SOUTH AFRICAN CONSULATE IN SAN FRANCISCO
WHEREAS, The City and County of San Francisco has long upheld equal rights and opportunities for anyone regardless of race; and
WHEREAS, The racial policies of the Republic of South Africa are a violation of the rights of many of its citizens; now therefore be it
RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors requests the State Department to close the South African consulate in San Francisco.
RESOLUTION URGING THE WITHDRAWAL OF INVESTMENT FROM AND DISAPPROVAL OF FUTURE INVESTMENT IN CORPORATIONS AND BANKS DOING BUSINESS IN OR WITH SOUTH AFRICA
WHEREAS, In many countries in South Africa, the racist apartheid government of four million whites totally dominates the lives of fifteen million Blacks and three million “Coloreds” (those of mixed blood and Asians); and
WHEREAS, Apartheid, the complete subjugation of Blacks and “Coloreds” to white supremacist rule, is the law of the land, denying the most elemental civil liberties—the right to move about freely, the right to a job with fair wages and working conditions, the right to live where one wants to live, and more—are officially denied to Black people; and
WHEREAS, The anti-apartheid freedom movement has been ruthlessly outlawed and subjected to fascist terror, its leaders have been imprisoned with maximum sentences, brutalized and slain, driven into exile; and
WHEREAS, United States corporations and banks which invest in and do business in these countries in South Africa perpetuate these undemocratic, political and economic practices against the majority of its citizens; and
WHEREAS, The City and County of San Francisco has substantial investments in corporations and banks which do business in countries like South Africa practicing apartheid; and WHEREAS, The City and Country of San Francisco, on behalf of all its citizens, could make an impact on corporations and banks involved in such South African countries by withdrawing its investments in such corporations and banks; be it
RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors of the City and County of San Francisco urges the immediate withdrawal of all City funds invested in corporations and banks which do business in South African countries practicing apartheid; and be it
FURTHER RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors communicates directly to corporations and banks informing them of its action; and be it
FURTHER RESOLVED, That copies of this resolution be forwarded to the Mayor, the Retirement System Board and the City Treasurer.
32
“Letter to President Jimmy Carter”
Private letter, April 12, 1978
As 1978 moved ahead, Milk’s leadership efforts garnered intensively more visibility and authority on local, state and national political scenes. He was interested in the establishment of party politics and the importance of organizing GLBTQ individuals within those political circles. One of the projects that Milk completed was successfully organizing the California Gay Caucus, a gathering across party, ideological, and social divides to create a politically united front that political candidates would (hopefully) have to address in both official rhetoric and in person at public events. This would be so if those mainstream politicians hoped to receive increasingly vocal and consequential GLBTQ votes. The caucus enacted Milk’s political vision long sought in his voter registration efforts and calls f
or GLBTQ economic and political power and GLBTQ-centered leadership, embodying his belief that “Gay political clout must move forward in the face of the recent defeats in St. Paul and Wichita”—what he presciently called “the rise of the Right.”
On April 12, 1978, Milk invited President Jimmy Carter to deliver the keynote address at the annual dinner of the San Francisco Gay Democratic Club. Though Carter declined the invitation, Milk nonetheless took the opportunity in his invitation to exhort the President about the importance of GLBTQ citizens and, of course, GLBTQ voters. In his letter, Milk wrote of a distant future in the Democratic Party where not only traditional minorities and labor unionists would be a party majority, but also GLBTQ groups. His immediate point seemed clear. That was, dominant politicians ought to consider expediency in listening to, and supporting, GLBTQ communities. As the minority caucus would grow, so went the argument, so too would its influences. Perhaps not rendered as a political threat, Milk’s letter to Carter nevertheless resounded with the oncoming inevitability of GLBTQ power and the potential mistakes of ignoring its breadth on the local, state, and national landscapes.