I was involved in the Utah Fair Solutions Initiative farce that took place at the capitol building this month. I was brought in fairly late in the game to organize a counter-protest. Much of the discourse in the news media and among community members focused on comparisons between the proposal and Nazi Germany. In fact, a friend of mine expressed dismay at the use of the phrase “final solution” in the initiative. Her concern was that comparing the experiences of modern Queer folks in the United States to the experiences of Jews in Nazi Germany was not only disrespectful but also that The Final Solution referred to imprisoning and murdering Jews, not relocating or reeducating them as UFSI suggests doing to homosexuals in Utah. It took me quite a while to decompress after the protest at the capitol so I only recently responded to these concerns. Here’s my take on it.
So when this all went down I read the initiative and talked to the people who wrote it (since I wasn't involved in that part). The initiative is referred to as a fair solution almost exclusively both in writing and speech with the exception of one time in the actual wording of the document that says “a final solution” (never THE final solution). The person who wrote this says that the use of the phrase “final solution” was completely unintentional and expressed dismay that links to Nazism or the holocaust were made at all. The only historical references made throughout the entire campaign on the part of the organizers (from my perspective anyway) were references to relocation and reeducation within the US, namely those involving Native Americans and the internment of the Japanese and Japanese Americans during WWII.
Personally, while I think cautions can be drawn from Nazi trajectories during the 30's and 40's, and while I think that too often the unique experiences of Queer people under Nazi regimes are intentionally marginalized, I agree that equating the modern struggle of Queer people in the United States to Nazi Germany is wholly unnecessary and mostly inappropriate given the abundance of more applicable, more similar, historical and cultural examples of oppression and discrimination.
However, I certainly can acknowledge that media as well as community discourse revolved around the final solution reference, presenting it as a focal point. I believe that the forcing of this aspect of the initiative and the protest is indicative of several things.
Firstly, it represents the santaclausification of the Holocaust in this country. You’re right the holocaust isn’t talked about enough. But more importantly, it isn’t talked about in its totally complexity. I think that similarly to the way the Civil Rights movement is invoked by so many White gay people, the unidimensional way the Holocaust is talked about leads to the simplified, slippery slope, tag-line, colonizing way the Holocaust is invoked in reference to anything that has to do with taking rights away, as evident by this situation. Therefore, I think the forced comparison to this initiative to the Holocaust by media and community members is a considerably more offensive and more harmful privileged expression than the actual final solution reference.
Secondly, colonizing the Holocaust means that we as a society don’t have to engage the abundance of examples of civil and political atrocities committed within our borders. If we exoticizing the Holocaust then we get to be the heros of the downtrodden instead of the one’s wearing the boots. Taking any kind of responsibility or accountability for our own history is common-place in this country and is representative in the discourse around the farce and the final solution.
Finally, the straw-man focus on this element represents strategic methods of domination utilized under oppressive paradigms in order to propagate their continued rule. Throughout this process, there was a concerted effort to debase and demonize the farce. It was inappropriate. It was ineffective. It was offensive. It was unplanned. I’m not defending what we did as a pillar of civic virtue. Of course we struggled with a lot of intended and unintended consequences just as anyone does in the planning and execution of any protest. I believe, however, that simplifying it in terms of the Holocaust is a fairly effective way to delegitimize our efforts ensuring that any of the social, political, and cultural dialogue intended by the farce be suppressed. This country touts political participation as a paramount value but structurally and culturally alienates certain groups from the political process. This alienation is imperative for maintaining hegemonic control. This form of protest isn’t common in Utah. But as confusing or enraging as it was for many community members and members of the press, it was also threatening to stakeholders in power.
So in closing, I 100 percent validate your discomfort at flippant comparisons being made between modern Queer struggles and the experiences of Jews in Nazi Germany. I take responsibility for the consequences you’ve brought up of the use of the term “final solution” in the initiative. I recognize that its use is most likely a product of privileged oversight. However, I stand behind the farce completely. As a group, the Patriots for a Moral Utah, were incredibly mindful in their planning and execution of this event and I’m proud to have been a part of something so innovative and challenging to the status quo.
*I really want to thank my friend for caring enough about the farce and about their perspectives to put themself outthere, and question me about it.
Bo(nnie)
No comments:
Post a Comment