I am going to have to agree with Womanist Musings here and suggest that Dan Savage just say he is sorry for making racist statements about black voters and Prop 8. An issue that has been tackled by many bloggers. I won't say I am ready to throw him under the bus, but I do think as a thought leader in mainstream gay politics that Savage should figure out a way to articulate for his readers what exactly he is trying to say. Because the way it is coming out is not the strongest argument, if we are talking about a movement that puts at its center those most affected.
Check him out on Colbert.
Thoughts?
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Dan Savage doing the backpedal.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/10518
My first thought was, WTF you unbelievable hypocrite?
I'm still pretty much working through that one, actually.
I'm not totally clear on what the racist statement is. Is it "I do know this, though: I’m done pretending that the handful of racist gay white men out there—and they’re out there, and I think they’re scum—are a bigger problem for African Americans, gay and straight, than the huge numbers of homophobic African Americans are for gay Americans, whatever their color"? I think this statement is implying that when a racist gay white man outs himself as racist, society at large is pretty ready to call him on being a racist and to condemn his attitudes, but often homophobia (in this case in the African American community), while often frowned upon privately, is not agreed upon by the community as being just as reprehensible as racism. I mean, shouldn't homophobia be as disdained as much as racism is? Hate is hate, after all.
In Mr. Savage's blog, I don't think he implies that no other racial group is homophobic, or that ALL of one racial group is homophobic, but he is illustrating an example of recent homophobia in action and saying he feels hurt.
i was so bitter about dan savage even taking the CNN poll numbers and 6% black population as a *super important* part of the passage of prop 8. sure, homophobia in all communities should be addressed, but honestly i don't want want a white dude coming in and saying OH YOUR COMMUNITY BLEW IT. just ain't right.
even watching this is difficult because it still feels like he's dismissing the incredibly powerful hand of LDS. WHAT ABOUT ALL THE FUCKING WHITE PEOPLE WHO VOTED FOR PROP 8?!
ugh, i'm still so angry about the poorly aimed blaming, i'm not even articulate about it.
fwiw he's also advocating a gay/allies boycott of Utah.
My take is that he said something a lot more inflammatory than what he meant and that (privilege lens on) he doesn't think that his being mis-read requires an apology. It probably does.
On the other hand, he's spent a heck of a lot of time this past week very publicly trying to diffuse the whole gays-hate-blacks meme he (unintentionally) added to and while it's probably not enough I think that has to be recognised.
Apart from Colbert he was just on Anderson Cooper and Larry King where he was a lot more calm, collected and articulate than I would have been when faced with bigots the size of the ones sitting around him. Also read his blog - he's posting a lot on this.
SC
i know he's supporting that boycott, but i think that is something that should be brought to the forefront of his conversations about this rather than half-assedly backpedaling on his inflammatory and ignorant commentary.
you're right- i think that he totally doesn't embrace that what he said/added to this blacks vs gays stuff is worth apologizing for, but ignoring his own impact (whatever his intent) is the quintessential picture of privilege.
The boycott of Utah that Savage has advocated is a three-person boycott - he and his husband were planning to take their son skiing in Utah, and have decided to go to Colorado instead.
Excuse me, but if you mis-read what someone else wrote, YOU are the one who has the problem. They didn't make the mistake: YOU did.
I haven't respected Savage for a while for his biphobic statements. This issue just added to my dislike. Yes, he should clearly apologize.
Amen to that. I was just coming out of the closet as bisexual when he was in the full swing of his "there's no such thing as bisexuals" venom. I am not a fence-sitter, I am not trying to have my cake and eat it too, I am someone attracted to both genders. Not to mention his really hateful attitude toward the fat as well. See his rumble with Kate Harding of Shapely Prose and Rachel of The F-Word.
He's an ass.
Sorry, my rant button is stuck permanently down where he's concerned.
Really?
Wow... I'm stunned. What's with these handful of gay/gay-activists that are biphobic? You can love the same-sex and opposite-sex, but not both?
I agree with S.C. and MissE. This post is pretty much ignoring EVERYTHING that Dan Savage has been saying for the past two weeks in favor of cherry-picking one interview where he was misread.
Frankly, I don't think he needs to apologize, though that will ultimately make his path easier (and we all know how choosing the easiest path is the healthiest way to fight for civil rights). Part of his point these past few weeks is that the gay community has rolled over to EVERYTHING in order for a few scraps passed under the table, and that gay people need to speak out now.
Savage is also on CNN today talking with Hughley,
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/11/17/hughley.savage.prop.8/index.html?eref=rss_topstories
Also, there is a column by Mary Mitchell today in the Chicago Sun-Times who pretty much echoes everything Dan has been saying, while perhaps giving more context than is allowed in a 4 minute Colbert interview.
His remarks are the product of being shocked and angry by what happened. In a moment of anger, he made a comparison of the racism blacks experience from and within the gay community to the homophobia expressed by the black community that I don't necessarily agree with. I think it's simplistic to compare the two. It angers me, and it detracts from the real reason Prop 8 didn't pass - bigotry masked as religious belief.
But you know what makes me just as angry? Those who won't acknowledge that the black community has a problem with homophobia because of their historic connection with the church, and treat the situation as if this is simply the result of a failed PR campaign by the hugely racist white gay community.
There certainly is a lot of blame to go around. Yes, there could have been more outreach, but the testimonials I've read by people who did campaign in predominantly black areas is that they were ignored. It's hard to try to change someone's mind when they think that God himself told them they are right.
He has said extremely biphobic, extremely misogynistic things on many occasions. His privileged, racist, divisive response to the passage of Prop 8 was horrible, of course, but I can't believe anyone is surprised by it! He's no ally to any anti-oppression movement and I wish people would stop pretending otherwise.
I have problems with Dan Savage in general, so this last kerfluffle was kind of like the icing on the fail cake for how I feel about him.
The fact that he has been sexist, bi-phobic, fat-phobic and a general all around privileged jackass tells me that he is only responding to this situation because it has gone too far finally.
i agree. the amount of fat hating that savage does disgusts me. i am always shock when i hear feminists professing how much they love dan savage. yes, some of the things he says are fine, but overall he is a not an ally against oppression.
I have to agree with MissE. Granted, I couldn't play the Colbert report video (I find this to be the case with all comedy central internet stuff- it was on an infinite "loading" cycle) but I caught it on TV and read the link you provided to the Slog, and don't see what was so offensive about it.
I've had a couple of gay, black friends tell me that it was especially difficult coming out as an African American due to the lower level of tolerance towards homosexuality in the black community. Sure, there are certainly black icons who are standing up in defense of gay rights. I remember seeing Jessie Jackson arguing in favor of legal recognition of gay marriage with the daughter of MLK jr (can't remember her name- I was just astonished that she of all people would make such hateful comments about gay rights). And of course, who could forget Chris Rock's "gay people have a right to be as miserable as everybody else" routine in defense of same-sex marriage.
I was concerned about the large black voter turn out having an effect on prop 8 before the election, but as mentioned above- 70% of registered voters from 6% of the population probably wouldn't have swung across a 4 point spread. Hopefully this will get shot down by the courts anyway. Why is it that we can have a constitutioinal ammendment with a simply majority (instead of 2/3 of the vote)?
Yeah I dont know why Dan Savage thinks he can speak on behalf of the entire gay community. He needs to be stopped
Where does he claim to speak for every single gay person?
When he gets on tv and opens his mouth. He's the only one going around in the media right now in support of prop 8. Thus, those on the outside not knowing him or the background will assume hes speaking for all of us...
Then perhaps nobody should be speaking up in favor of gay rights on TV? Shall we leave public discussion of gay marriage to the Tony Perkinses of the world?
Could someone point out exactly what they find racist?
All he said is that homophobia is an issue in the black community, which it obviously is, since 70% of black voters voted for a blatantly homophobic measure (a much higher percentage than other groups). If he had said that being black means that an individual is homophobic, that would be racist, but he doesn't seem to have said anything like that.
Yeah, I've been trying to figure that out too.
Amen.
I don't think a simple acknowledgment of polling data is racist.
Yeah, I watched it and thought it must be the wrong clip. Simply stating facts isn't racist. I think the media attempting to pit two minority groups against each other is despicable, but I don't think that is what Savage did. In fact, I thought he made clear he was not doing that. I read the article too, and while I could tell he was upset when he wrote it, and an argument about "who has it worse" is stupid, (and not productive) I don't think he said anything racist. Just because a group is a minority group does not mean that they have a pass on the reportage of any unflattering facts or criticism. (Though the reasons behind reporting the info may not be pure for many of the media) Interestingly, his comments could be considered ageist if they are considered racist, and I thought his manner towards the "old" voters was a lot more hostile than the black voters. He pointed out that there are black gays but ignored that there are elderly gays. I find it interesting that nobody ever seems to comment on ageism.
he was perpetuating the black homophobe stereotype and race-baiting.
I just want to point out one thing, and make of it what you will, but Seattle (where Dan Savage lives and is the EIC of The Stranger) is remarkably homogeneous (as in milk). Really, we have a smaller percentage of non-white people than a lot of midwestern cities.
That doesn't excuse what he said, but I don't think that Dan is a racist. I know he's got a hot temper and a talent for sticking his foot in his mouth, but he's not a racist.
I don't think Seattle being largely white makes Dan Savage more or less racist. FYI, midwestern cities such as St. Louis and Chicago are extremely diverse and the Pacific Northwest is largely not, due to...that's right, historic racism (real estate laws, exclusionary laws, etc). Racism can be a result of not encountering diversity on a daily basis, so there's that to consider.
While I don't find this quote from Savage to be particulary racist, I do find him a general asshole. So I'm not too sad he's finally getting some flack for his thoughtlessness.
I think his being front and center reinforces the stereotype especially in the black community, that being gay is a white people thing.
OK, so maybe he should be silenced for that reason. Is there anyone else who's willing to publicily speak out for gay right? Is there anyone making themselves available for TV appearances to take on people like Tony Perkins? Because I think that just silencing one activist because you don't think s/he speaks for everyone in the group is not productive if that means leaving the dialogue to people like Perkins.
Wow...I didnt even say that.
I grew up in Seattle and have lived in a couple of midwest cities now, and in my experience there's more openly expressed racism here (in square-state-ville) than anywhere I lived on the west coast. But I agree that he's not a racist. Focusing on one (very mild) thing somebody says in a moment of frustration and anger and taking that as representative of their entire character is not very reliable.
Another Rachel from Seattle here...
Dan Savage has been an asshat for years. If you're tired of him being the spokegay, head on over to Facebook and join my "Dan Savage Doesn't Speak for Me" group.
It won't play for me *sighs*.
It isn't racist to point out facts. Black people, while not a huge group in numbers, disproportionately voted against marriage and this pissed him off. The Church of LDS is also a small group number-wise, but they also are disproportionately anti-gay marriage and he has called them out too (as have pretty much everyone else). He's not saying any groups are bad people, or all members of a group are homophobes. Why is it encouraged to call out one group, and racist to call out another?
Am I missing something here? What was so bad about what he said? Enlighten me, please.
I'm also unclear as to what's racist here.
So far as I can tell, he was talking specifically about black homophobes.
I don't know...
You can still make a point about the contributions and the campaigning and still acknowledge that homophobia exists in the black community. I don't get where just because some people have made the former points, it nullifies the latter. It doesn't.
Then people are still playing fast and loose with the math. The numbers of homophobic black folks are not HUGE (as he says) by any stretch. In fact just 200,000 "black" votes the other way, would have done the trick. To contrast, most voting blocks were on the order of millions of people.
Furthermore, the elephant in the room is the pitiful state of segregation in many California communities, both geographical and cultural segregation. Yet I see from the comments that people seem to be pretty understanding of the idea that Savage hailing from a homogenous community (Seattle) has colored (pun intended) his outlook somewhat...is that ironic? Or is that privilege?
Count me with the "where's the beef?" crowd. The numbers don't lie, and Dan Savage and other gays and lesbians have every right to be upset that the overwhelming majority of the African-American community has kicked them in the teeth. They're mad a Republicans, Mormons and other opponents, too, but they hoped for better from people they came together with to elect Barack Obama.
I am intensely confused why GLBT whites are acting like they did blacks some kind of favor by voting for Obama. Did you seriously go to the polls and think "You know what? Instead of voting for the circus act that is McCain-Palin, I think I'm gonna make some black person's day by voting for Obama instead. I hope they thank me!" ???? Not to mention the fact that nearly half the white and asian voters and more than half of the latino voters also passed prop 8, added to the fact that blacks are only 6.2% of Cali's population.
As a GLBT person of color, I am offering up the idea of patience. Civil rights for black in this country was a major and recognized issue from the 1800's all the way up til the 90's (not saying it isn't still a problem, but it's not at the forefront of politics). The gay rights movement didn't really come into the mainstream American focus until the mid 20th century. If it took blacks over 150 years to get anywhere near equal, why would gay rights just magically become a non-issue in 50 years?
I can't believe people don't see the divisive tactics being used to fragment our chances of ever getting enough support to overturn the amendments or win the next time around. If we banded together instead of some people being sore losers, we could ensure that a proposition banning human rights isn't enacted in the next election at all.
It's not a "quid pro quo" thing, it's a "hey! are we on the same team or not?" thing. I thought over here on the liberal/Democratic side we were for all sorts of equality. But a part of the team has decisively said, "hey, we like some kinds of equality but not others".
That's not acceptable. It needs to be engaged in a constructive manner. Some of the immediate venting is not constructive, but it is understandable. Calling everyone racist is also not constructive, and I find it a lot less understandable. I guess that makes me a racist, too.
I definitely see your point. I think they felt like there was this great sense of unity and working together and elation on election night that was quickly dashed by the election results on the gay-right props. I think the fact that so many white voters were celebrating the first African-American president made the contrast seem harsher and kind of caused a more extreme initial reaction. For what it's worth, all the white GLBTs I know are more upset with the LDS involvement than the color line, and think that it was a result of bad campaign planning, a difficult voter turnout to forecast, and outmoded campaign planning conventions.
I agree with the statement you make in the first paragraph, but my mouth kinda dropped at what you are saying in the second paragraph...
The part about blacks having had to go through 150 years of hard struggle before being able to gain civil rights. Yes, it's true oppressed groups have had to fight really hard and endure terrible horrible no good terrible horrible things for just basic rights...But, I wouldn't wish 150 years of this horror on anyone! I don't exactly know why you are saying that we should have to essentially 'pay our due' in terms of a 150 year movement before we can expect to make progress. Gays have been fighting, and enduring and facing persecution for centuries...yet, we need to have another 150 years of a "mainstream recognized movement" before our rights can be accepted by everyone else??? Huh?
But, don't we live an an age where we should all be considered full human beings no matter what? Demanding rights "NOW" doesn't make one "impatient". To tell the gay community that we need to continue fighting is one thing, but to say that we are impatient because "the gay rights movement didn't really come into the mainstream American focus until the mid 20th century" is just plain offensive. I'm sorry, but why do you think people chant things like "Equal rights NOW!"...It's not about "Equal rights 100 years from now, after a mainstream movement, when everyone else is more comfortable with gays and can accept that I should have the same rights as they do".
Besides, I don't care what the "mainstream" thinks, I don't care what the oppressors think; the constitution says we are equal, thus the majority should not get to decide upon or vote to deny rights to the minority. Again telling gays that they are not being patient enough it just plain offensive...there's no such thing as being impatient when it comes to demanding that you be treated as a full human being, with rights equal to everyone else in this country.
And, if I have misjudged your second paragraph, I'm sorry...that's just how I read it. I do however agree about the divide and conquer tactics...It's how the oppressors work...they encourage infighting and while that's going on they swoop in and steal from you...It's what's been going on for a long time in this country, it's why arguments are always presented in such black and white terms, left vs right, pro-war vs anti-war, pro-trade vs anti-trade, pro-life vs pro-choice, and on an on...and without fail nearly everyone always falls for it...and when we fall for it, they win.
I'm inclined to defend this statement:
Judging from the reaction to Prop 8, it does seem like many people did assume that the fight for equality would be easy or should be easy. Maybe it *should* be, just as civil rights for African Americans shouldn't have taken over a century, but that doesn't mean it will be. I've picked up on an overwhelming sense of impatience in the gay community over the past couple of years. Frankly, until Prop 8 passed, only very rarely did that impatience manifest itself in real action. There's at least one positive side to the Prop 8 fight, I think average gays and lesbians have realized that they're not going to be handed this on a silver platter, not even in liberal states like California.
I am intensely confused why GLBT whites are acting like they did blacks some kind of favor by voting for Obama. Did you seriously go to the polls and think "You know what? Instead of voting for the circus act that is McCain-Palin, I think I'm gonna make some black person's day by voting for Obama instead. I hope they thank me!" ????
The thing is, they aren't. Dan Savage didn't said this. Andrew Sullivan didn't said this. No poster in this thread said this. This is a complete strawman argument - I haven't seen a single GLBT white person act like this.
I have, however, seen a lot of GLBT people shocked because they didn't realize how socially conservative the black community is. They thought that blacks were, on average, more allies than not. It's simply a shock to the system to find out that's not the case. If you want to interpret this as merely "Helping out the black people" then go ahead, but it's naive.
I honestly think a number of white marriage-equality advocates were bordering on being smug. I think this manifested itself in their frequent citation of Loving v. Virginia as if black people have some reason to be ecstatic that they're now *allowed* to marry white people, as if marrying white people is such a prize that they should have been begging for it.
I think there are many ways to approach the black community and to convince them that marriage equality is the right thing, even if they're socially conservative, even if they don't like gay people very much. Acting like interracial marriage (to whites no less) was the best civil rights achievement ever is not the way to go about it.
Um... I saw the Colbert Report... rewatched it several times and still failed to find the racist statement... If we are going to be effective in calling out racism, I believe it would also be vital to be specific. I may not have seen everything he has ever done, but if this is the video being commented on, I feel like maybe some of you were a bit slow to catch the opening joke. He was kidding. When he said that he had "been held down by a few black men in the past," I am fairly certain that he was talking about being sexually "topped" or dominated by black men he had sex with. If you failed to catch the sexual innuendo, it is probably because you have not had many gay male friends. His interview on the Colbert Report seemed to acknowledge that gay people of color are the most adversely impacted... Tell me if I missed the racist innuendo.
I think Samhita owes Dan Savage an apology for falsely accusing him of making a racist comment.
I just posted, but I forgot this, in defense of Rachel Maddow, because I love her, that clip of hers was taken a bit out of context...It was actually part of a longer intro into a segment where she was describing what was being said about the vote on blogs and in the news, she goes onto say "but, african american vote only made up 7% of the voters"...Then there's a discussion and analysis with her guest, Melissa Harris-Lacewell...If you want to see the whole clip, check it out here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dcZVAlSqNbA&feature=related
hey folks. I was lucky enough to attend AWID's international feminist conference in Cape Town over the past few days.
One of the many amazing panels that I attended was hosted by the Third Wave Foundation, Ms. Foundation, and the Astraea Foundation, along with some of their partner organizations. Rickke Mananzala, of the NYC-based organization, Fierce (http://www.fiercenyc.org/) raised a really important point, basically that the success of Prop 8 in California and similar bills in Arkansas and Florida points to a lack of willingness to build coalitions among those working in social justice movements. Although also recognizing the ridiculous amount of funding that went into the promotion of these bills, he stressed that the inability for organizations to work together across issues for greater social justice goals is a reflection of the lack of intersectionality in our movements. For example, if youth organizations, children's organizations and LGBT organizations would have come together to oppose the same-sex ban in Arkansas, who knows what would have happened??
Something to think about.
...I found this clip hilarious, especially since he was taking refuge in audacity and equally disparaging blacks, seniors, and mormons.
Also, now I can't get the idea out of my head of eskimos vs. the handicapped.
If 70% of African-Americans voted for the measure, and they're 6% of the voting total in CA, then they made up precisely 4.2 points of the 53 or 54 the measure passed with. Had they voted 100% against Prop 8, then it wouldn't have passed, but that's hardly how somebody does proximate cause analysis.
Lots and lots and lots of Obama voters crossed over to put discrimination in the California constitution. How about focusing on requiring more than a simple majority in order to make constitutional changes affecting basic rights?
You really need to get out of here with this logic nonsense ;)
And yet another vote for the pro-sanity, "where's the racism?" crowd. It's funny that he was on Colbert, and this post has "truthiness" written all over it. It doesn't matter if there weren't necessarily enough blacks to make the difference (that's like an individual who voted for the measure defending himself by saying "my one vote didn't do it"). The fact of the matter here is, you have a sub-population of the state that apparently has some homophobic tendencies - statistically speaking - and the intense irony makes it all the more interesting. This doesn't say anything about one individual, obviously, and I certainly wouldn't approach any one individual with the assumption that they were anti-gay. But if your cause is to advance gay rights, this is an important statistic. It tells you who to target, who needs help, which populations are still against your rights.
I'm sorry of the facts are offensive, but that's not going to change them. This sort of absurd use of "racist!" prevents the existence of a reasonable and valuable conversation on the matter. This is as ridiculous as the Mormons who are trying to say that it's offensive to criticize them. In both cases, there's something cultural going on that's causing a noticeable effect on the population's feelings towards the gay population. In the case of Mormons, it's clearly absurd theology. But the case of blacks is interesting to try to understand.
If 80% of white men voted against the right to choose I'm sure nobody would say anything to generalize white men into one group and apply negative connotations to that group.
I'm lucky enough not to know or socialize with people of any color who are against equality, but the numbers here don't lie. Black folks who voted were overwhelmingly bigoted and ignorant. It's patronizing to make excuses for them and it usually scans like the people making those excuses are disrespecting the intellect of the people they feel they are defending: "Well these people needed to have it explained to them better." is how I read most apologists statements. Well that's just bullshit.
Just because POC and me are allies in some struggles does not mean we are ideologically aligned in other struggles. There is clearly a core of homophobia in the black community (again, at least among those who voted; maybe most of the non-bigoted black folks forgot to vote) that is even more united in prejudice than that amongst whites, even white males.
Are GLBT rights the same as the earlier civil rights struggle that POC may more easily identify with? No. But so what? If a privileged, heterosexual, white Jew like me can figure out that letting two dudes get married is fine and none of my business then everyone should be able to figure it out, and especially people who have and continue to face discrimination.
Jesus Christ! Dan Savage did not make racist comments! Calling out the black community on their bigoted vote is NOT racist. Furthermore, blaming the gay community for not doing enough to protect their individual rights is VICTIM-BLAMING. There is obviously a HUGE homophobia problem in the black community.
Why has white guilt gotten so out-of-hand that you can't criticize bigots anymore who happen to be black? Ridiculous.
Oh, by the way ladies, your star Barack Obama just appointed another MAN.
Oh, by the way ladies, your star Barack Obama just appointed another MAN.
It amazes me that you expect to be taken seriously on this site when you take that tone. I'm somewhat sympathetic to your position, although I don't agree with you. But attacking people in a condescending tone and being nothing but sarcastic is not really the way to win them over to your position, in my experience. With that approach you merely guarantee your own continued marginalization. Good luck with that.
I am just pointing out the irrationality that is central to this blog.
It's not irrational for someone to act on what they take to be good reasons. You may not agree with those reasons, but that doesn't mean you can label the behavior irrational. Many people on this blog have explained to you why they felt that McCain and Palin were not pro-women candidates, and the reasons why they felt that Obama would be better for women. You don't agree with that, and that's fine. However, you can't label this as irrational just because you disagree.
If you're interested in reading more on the rational/irrational distinction let me know, and I'll link some basic philosophy articles that explore this distinction.
I think this piece really clarifies the position that what Dan Savage said was not only racist, but totally inappropriate: http://wiretapmag.com/blogs/race/43880
I read the wiretap article and agree that the way the campaign organizers dealt with this campaign was short-sighted and that some in the gay community are saying racist things right now. That seems pretty uncontroverial. But I still don't get the point about Savage.
It is not the responsibility of women to have to teach every bigoted man about their privilege. Nor is it the responsibility of POC to have to teach every bigoted white person about the privilege. But let's make this clear, you are saying that it is a gay person's responsibility.
The thing is - I agree with a lot of that article. I acknowledge that there could have been more active outreach and that was part of the problem. But that article is biased and, like you and Renee, gives a free pass on the black religious leaders and the black community themselves who were campaigning actively to deny gays civil rights.
You are not looking at the whole picture and selectively choosing what to focus on to support your preconceived beliefs. Simple confirmation bias.
My view of that what Savage actually said was non-racist. But he should have said some other things as well.
I'm in CA and I have seen racist comments by the queer community blaming and targeting the black community. Its ugly and it has been happening. When interviewed about the queer community response, queer community leaders have been trying to disavow this racist part of the community by saying "we just need to explain ourselves better and outreach more the POC communities".
While it is important that the queer community in general recognize its own rampant historical racism, that doesn't mean that we should hide our heads in the sand about other communities homophobia or say that "we just didn't explain" well enough our need for basic civil rights.
I think that Savage's comments would have been better received if he had explained WHY there are such bitter feelings in the community. It hurts more to receive discrimination from another discriminated group. The African American community in particular has experienced so much terrible discrimination that, psychologically, the queer community expects that there will be an instinctive recognition and empathy. Maybe its not rational, and it doesn't take into to account the entire experience of African American culture and history, but it is emotionally present.
This is not to excuse any racist statements that have definitely been made in the queer community, only that I think Savage's comments would have been clearer if they had given more context.
But again, anyone who is a fan of the Colbert report knows that Colbert makes it terribly difficult for his guests not to say stupid stuff, and I think Savage did pretty well considering.
And yes, I agree, Savage has said biphobic and fat-hating things. That doesn't mean that I think these comments are racist.
A lot of the comments in support of Savage here are pretty aggressive. Everyone piling on yelling about how not racist he is and demanding an explanation is not a great way to invite people who might have different experiences than you to share.
That's true, and we should always try to encourage dialogue as much as possible. But the "racist" label is a very serious and powerful one in our culture, like career-ending powerful, so I think we really should be careful about using it and be sure that what the person said really was racist. It should never be taken lightly. I've heard other people in the gay-activist community say some pretty bad things, but I don't think those should be attributed to Savage unless he has explicitly agreed with them or said these things himself.