Jamestown Settlement, founded 1607, America's "First Homosexual Community"?

[Bbucko]

This is what I understood when I read your post:

This is the sort of stuff conservitives and republicans point to as evidence of a radical gay agenda

Trying to find evidence of same-sex sexuality in historical unisexual environments angers conservatives and feeds their anxieties. This only leads to greater demonization.

and the fact that many things about who we are sexually aren't taken into account when someone comes out to say something like this only shows that there maybe an agenda indeed.

Their anxieties are well-founded, as even I can see that this information is more to promote an agenda with propaganda than maintain any historical perspective

If I were gay I would have a real problem with the gay communitties enthusiasm and willingness to paint someone as entirely gay so quickly instead of a more reasnonable explanation for the activity such as, he was a man and he got horny.

If I were gay, I'd have a real problem with fellow gays trying to rewrite history rather than accept the fact that our behavior is an artifact of the Sexual Revolution of the 1960s and therefore has no roots in the broader culture: sure guys got horny and fooled around, but that doesn't mean that they could/wanted to form emotional bonds with each other.

The one drop of blood theory obviously has more to do with wishful thinking and a sense of righteousness perhaps than that picky little thing we call reality.

I have reality on my side, as opposed to emotionalist projection of contemporary mores onto people who lived in the distant past. Wishful thinking and self-righteousness is not the same thing as responsible historical research.

If I have misinterpreted you, I'm sorry.

 

[Bbucko]

frustrating how polarized everything is.

it's interesting how two people can read the same words and derive different meaning
and intent, as in the case of post #16 (by 4inches). i really don't see a call for anyone to remain in the closet. i'm sure bbucko, as a fully functioning and highly evolved human being, is calling it as he sees it.

an attitude often from hetero and gay camps is "you're with us or against us", with bisexuals somewhere in the middle and seemingly always on the defensive. bisexuals owe a greater debt to gays for opening the doors that needed to be opened, however.

many bisexuals eventually move toward gay identification. it's been known to happen the other way around as well, though not as often (with gay identifying bisexuals becoming hetero identifying later in life).

marlon brando was out as having had sex with both men and women, though he may not have used the word "bisexual". michelangelo buonarroti, according to several historians, was
homosexual (and a southpaw!), and mick jagger primarily heterosexual, i have definitive confirmation of that from sources here in los angeles. btw you can put jack nicholson in the hetero stack too. (this post is now bordering on tabloid material.)

don't know what was going on in jamestown. sorry if i got off-topic.

If the crux of the argument is whether the Jamestown colonists were either "gay" or "bi", then you're absolutely right.

But I've presumed that the real question is whether members of the colony chose same-sex eroticism or abstinence: to me it's self-evident that while some were celibate, many (maybe most) were not. It's possible that they would overcome cultural and racial biases as well as linguistic difficulties and find sexual partners among the female Indians in the area, but that seems even more like projection and wishful thinking than to suggest that the men found comfort with each other.

 

[D_Rod Staffinbone]

thanks, bbucko for getting the thread back on track. most likely what happened in jamestown, stayed in jamestown. i acknowledge that the community of men in jamestown needed guys like you just to survive.

 

[Bbucko]

thanks, bbucko for getting the thread back on track. most likely what happened in jamestown, stayed in jamestown. i acknowledge that the community of men in jamestown needed guys like you just to survive.

Are you saying that, much like Ft Lauderdale, it was a colony of bottoms? :biggrin1::tongue:

 

[D_Rod Staffinbone]

Are you saying that, much like Ft Lauderdale, it was a colony of bottoms? :biggrin1::tongue:

:wink: i'll keep that one close to my chest, don't want to rile up the natives.
as midlifebear mentioned in post #11, sheep bottoms perhaps.

 

[B_4inches]

I can see how what I said may not have been totally clear but Im still uncertain of what your overall point is.

The point I was trying to make is that saying thngs like this really helps no one, not if you aren't gonna have all your ducks nailed in a row. I'm not a republican or conservitive and this sorta thing kinda of bothers me. When I was replying to this I was trying to show how I see it from several angles. I wasn't trying to lend another voice to rabid anti-gay sentiments but I do know for a fact that people on the left can be just as radical, although its the rights systematic anti-anything-left scream machine that bugs me most. Anyway, it's intent here that matters to me not just whats stated. My point was that saying anything about thier sexuality is A) to me useless info espicially since the speculation seems pretty flimsy and B) because it seems pretty flimsy it makes me wonder about the guys motives which is what I was really trying to call attention to. I don't get that this guy is simply trying to be historically accurate and even if he was it wouldn't to me end up meaning much, it would just be midly interesting bu thats because I really don't care who was gay when. I only see a persons sexuality as a large part of who they are if that's what they want me to see, so who historically ends up being straight or gay doesn't show up on my radar. If others want to put a lot of work into figuring that out fine, I'm just gonna eat a cookie. Well that and have pause as to why it's such a big deal to them.

You rewriting what I said in blue text confused the hell out of me for a bit

 

[B_Nick8]

I only see a persons sexuality as a large part of who they are if that's what they want me to see, so who historically ends up being straight or gay doesn't show up on my radar. If others want to put a lot of work into figuring that out fine, I'm just gonna eat a cookie. Well that and have pause as to why it's such a big deal to them.

You rewriting what I said in blue text confused the hell out of me for a bit

Look, we all understand that sexual behaviour doesn't necessarily equate to sexual orientation particularly in situations where heterosexual outlets are unavailable. However, sexuality has had a huge impact historically and to deny that is to be myopic in the extreme.

And by the way, Bbucko? I simply can't quote and reply to everything you write except to say that you sing my song. :clap:

 

[B_4inches]

Look, we all understand that sexual behaviour doesn't necessarily equate to sexual orientation particularly in situations where heterosexual outlets are unavailable. However, sexuality has had a huge impact historically and to deny that is to be myopic in the extreme.

Sigh, no kidding. But to me thats like saying having a left arm was important historially, or having 10 fingers which maybe why we use a base 10 math system. I'm not denying anything by not being that interested I just don't think that in this paticular context it's that big a deal and to compare it to how sexuality played out in all of history is a bit unfair. I have no problem with historical relevence, I love history but this situation isn't there yet and smacks of something else to me.

 

[B_Nick8]

I have no problem with historical relevence, I love history but this situation isn't there yet and smacks of something else to me.

*sigh* You're an argumentative little thing, aren't you?

I have tended to agree with most of what you've said but even a casual look at this thread shows that you simply have a comeback for everything.

Edit: Sorry, That wasn't a reference to your screenname. I meant no disrespect other than the obvious.

 

[B_4inches]

...I'm really sorry that's the way you chosen to see it. I was really enjoying the exchange and hope I could clarify my position. Last thing I wanted to do was be devisive. Second to last thing was get on the bad side of any of the more popular people on this board, unless they are a for real bastard which I have seen you are not. But clealy this isn't going well so I'll beg off. I really do apologize.

 

[B_Nick8]

There you go again. Just kidding. Carry on.

And trust me, I'm not that popular. Ask most anyone.

But I'm no bastard, either.

 

[Bbucko]

I can see how what I said may not have been totally clear but Im still uncertain of what your overall point is.

The point I was trying to make is that saying thngs like this really helps no one, not if you aren't gonna have all your ducks nailed in a row. I'm not a republican or conservitive and this sorta thing kinda of bothers me. When I was replying to this I was trying to show how I see it from several angles. I wasn't trying to lend another voice to rabid anti-gay sentiments but I do know for a fact that people on the left can be just as radical, although its the rights systematic anti-anything-left scream machine that bugs me most. Anyway, it's intent here that matters to me not just whats stated. My point was that saying anything about thier sexuality is A) to me useless info espicially since the speculation seems pretty flimsy and B) because it seems pretty flimsy it makes me wonder about the guys motives which is what I was really trying to call attention to. I don't get that this guy is simply trying to be historically accurate and even if he was it wouldn't to me end up meaning much, it would just be midly interesting bu thats because I really don't care who was gay when. I only see a persons sexuality as a large part of who they are if that's what they want me to see, so who historically ends up being straight or gay doesn't show up on my radar. If others want to put a lot of work into figuring that out fine, I'm just gonna eat a cookie. Well that and have pause as to why it's such a big deal to them.

You rewriting what I said in blue text confused the hell out of me for a bit

<le sigh>

Look: if you want to play Devil's Advocate and suggest a position that you don't actually feel yourself, then a couple of qualifiers along the way really help.

You seem to feel as though we're making this a personal thing, and it's not. I don't know enough of your posting history yet to really have any understanding of your POV.

You yourself may feel that sexuality or sexual orientation is irrelevant when it comes to judging the character of a person or his intrinsic worth as a human being, but our government is currently not as evolved as you. It's only been since 2003 that the Supreme Court struck down the last of the sodomy laws with Lawrence v Texas. These laws criminalized homosexual acts between two consenting adults: think of it for a second. It's only been six years since being gay just by itself hasn't been against the law in 14 states!

And as we are still considered unfit to serve our country or that the very nature of our relationships undermines marriage and family (DOMA is still the law of the land: it's the Defense of Marriage Act and it was signed by Clinton in the 90s), we remain effectively second-class citizens.

So, yeah: it is important to counter balance the lie that we materialized out of thin air on the week of Judy Garland's funeral in June 1969. Same-sex eroticism has been a feature of American society from the beginning.

But what we call "gay" is the culture that formed after the Stonewall Riots in 1969. The American Psychiatric Association only dropped homosexuality from its list of mental illness in 1972. To you that might sound like ancient history, but to me, it's not. I was 12 in 1972, and I could not have lived my life with the degree of openness that I have if I were considered mentally ill just for being me.

So, again, if anyone thinks that we're trying to say that Jamestown colony had Sunday Tea Dance and weekly drag shows, complete with rainbow flags and boom-boom dance music (gay gay gay) than no: of course not.

But the fact remains that there have been people who have lived in same-sex partnerships at least as far back as colonial times. Does the name Friedrich Wilhelm von Steuben ring any bells? He was a Revolutionary war hero:

Steuben became an American citizen by act of the Pennsylvania legislature in March 1784 (and later by the New York authorities in July 1786). With the war over, Steuben resigned from service in 1784 and first settled on Manhattan Island, where he became a prominent figure and elder in the German Reformed Church. However, even with Congress giving him large sums of money, he still managed to become largely indebted. Thus, congress gave him a yearly pension of $2,500 a year which he had to keep until his death. Steuben eventually settled on a small estate in the vicinity of Utica, New York, on land granted to him for his military service. He later assisted in the founding of the Society of the Cincinnati and was appointed a Regent for what evolved into the State University of New York. He never married and had no children. He left his estate to General Benjamin Walker and Captain William North, who had served as his aides-de-camp during the war, and with whom he had had an "extraordinarily intense emotional relationship".[4] He is buried at what is now the Steuben Memorial State Historic Site.

 

[B_Nick4444]

reminds me of this:

Sodomy and the pirate tradition ... - Google Book Search

 

[B_4inches]

<le sigh>

Look: if you want to play Devil's Advocate and suggest a position that you don't actually feel yourself, then a couple of qualifiers along the way really help.

You seem to feel as though we're making this a personal thing, and it's not. I don't know enough of your posting history yet to really have any understanding of your POV.

You yourself may feel that sexuality or sexual orientation is irrelevant when it comes to judging the character of a person or his intrinsic worth as a human being, but our government is currently not as evolved as you. It's only been since 2003 that the Supreme Court struck down the last of the sodomy laws with Lawrence v Texas. These laws criminalized homosexual acts between two consenting adults: think of it for a second. It's only been six years since being gay just by itself hasn't been against the law in 14 states!

And as we are still considered unfit to serve our country or that the very nature of our relationships undermines marriage and family (DOMA is still the law of the land: it's the Defense of Marriage Act and it was signed by Clinton in the 90s), we remain effectively second-class citizens.

So, yeah: it is important to counter balance the lie that we materialized out of thin air on the week of Judy Garland's funeral in June 1969. Same-sex eroticism has been a feature of American society from the beginning.

But what we call "gay" is the culture that formed after the Stonewall Riots in 1969. The American Psychiatric Association only dropped homosexuality from its list of mental illness in 1972. To you that might sound like ancient history, but to me, it's not. I was 12 in 1972, and I could not have lived my life with the degree of openness that I have if I were considered mentally ill just for being me.

So, again, if anyone thinks that we're trying to say that Jamestown colony had Sunday Tea Dance and weekly drag shows, complete with rainbow flags and boom-boom dance music (gay gay gay) than no: of course not.

But the fact remains that there have been people who have lived in same-sex partnerships at least as far back as colonial times. Does the name Friedrich Wilhelm von Steuben ring any bells? He was a Revolutionary war hero:

Well obviously I've touched on a bit of a nerve without intending to. Frankly your tone still confuses me as I'm not sure to be on the defensive or really what. I don't know why you think you need to clarify to me what exactly this means to you as if I conflated what that guy is postulating to what all or most gay people feel or anyone on this site for that matter, I was really just commenting on this one guy. Anyhow I said I wouldn't reply anymore to this topic and I really won't now. You have obviously taken from my post that which I never intended to imply and now I'm just left feeling second rate myself kinda. Frankly I am feeling realy quite anxious now about this whole thing because as a first exchange this wasn't ideal for me and as you don't know me from Adam it won't matter to you much.

I really do apologize for how misunderstood this all became. I've never really posted to the poltical forums and perhaps there is just some dynamic I'm not getting. Not quite a week ago I got a bit of a lashing for a really minor thing from someone else I had never spoken to that left me wondering why on earth did they say that? Perhaps I'm not cut out for this eh?

Bbucko you and Nick stay healthy.

 

[midlifebear]

When Secretariat, the famous race horse, finally died they discovered during the autopsy that he was a screaming queen, even though he had sired more than 109 colts.

 

[D_Rod Staffinbone]

When Secretariat, the famous race horse, finally died they discovered during the autopsy that he was a screaming queen, even though he had sired more than 109 colts.

rumor has it, though still unsubstantiated, that secretariat was hung like a horse.

 

[B_VinylBoy]

rumor has it, though still unsubstantiated, that secretariat was hung like a horse.

I heard all of Secretariat's photos were photoshopped. Such a faker. :biggrin1:

 

[D_Ireonsyd_Colonrinse]

Bbucko writes: But the fact remains that there have been people who have lived in same-sex partnerships at least as far back as colonial times.

--------------------

I'm sure same-sex partnerships existed in various forms throughout history.

Larry Kramer may be a bit misguided in wanting to "claim" the predominently male-only years at Jamestown as a "homosexual colony", but I understand his frustration. It "legitimizes" us in a sense; gives us a place in history.

With few exceptions, up until only about a hundred years ago, the history of the last two thousand years has been written by white european males. Women, gays, Africans, african-americans, North American Indians, a whole swath of peoples and groups have been whitewashed out of the official histories. Women may have been considered close to property in the "Dark Ages", but who doubts that many women contributed to european cultural history? Many such histories have not been recorded, or simply attributed to white (influencial?) men.


So, I understand Kramer's desire, that impulse, to want to go back into history and reclaim gay behaviour from obscurity (whether you find it in Michelangelo's life or in Lincoln's life or in the Jamestown Settlement in the Virginia colony).

 

[D_Tully Tunnelrat]

Well that certainly would shed new light on John Smith and Pocahontas...

Seriously tho' this hardly strikes me as news. Whether documented or not, there have, no doubt, been countless same sex communities throughout history. Just because it's a same sex community does not mean they are having sex however. Some people just happen to prefer the company of their gender. In Jamestown they had no choice, except for the adventuresome Mr. Smith, who almost lost his head in the process, or so the story goes.

As a sidebar, rarely did the English mate with the native women during colonization, giving some support to Mr. Kramer's Jamestown contention, however anachronistic it maybe. Quite unlike the French, and the Scots. The French would stay with their native wives even when the French ladies arrived. The Scots, often trying to out English, the English, would often dump the native wife, denounce their offspring, and remarry a white.

 

[442304]

Larry Kramer is a fool and never did anything of importance in his life and let's face it nobody cares about him anymore despite how much he wishes people did.