Right-wing confrontation with the gay community was in many ways a mirror image of the confrontation of the community with the wider straight society. The political and public energies of the gay community in the late s were turned to combating this new challenge to its identity and very existence, best symbolized by the successful efforts of Anita Bryant and her followers in to repeal Miami's law prohibiting discrimination against gay people, and by similar campaigns in several other cities.
Such was the gay community on the eve of its confrontation with AIDS, a complex community with a varied constituency and significant strengths and weaknesses. The AIDS crisis marks yet another major. The AIDS crisis challenged the most significant elements of the gay community as they had developed in the s.
The most obvious challenge was to its sexuality. Early in the epidemic scientists identified AIDS as a sexually transmitted disease, and the exuberant sexuality of the gay male community was implicated in its spread. From the start, in , AIDS was closely connected to homosexuals, since the first patients identified with the syndrome were gay men, and gay men have continued to form the largest single block of persons with AIDS. Early in the epidemic the connection seemed so self-evident that some researchers named the new disease "GRID" or gay-related immunodeficiency syndrome.
Gottlieb et al. The association of gay men with AIDS was, however, never quite so straightforward as it sometimes is made to seem. From the beginning, studies described non-gay persons with AIDS. Elizabeth Fee and Daniel M. Fox Berkeley: University of California Press, , pp. David T. In these circumstances it was probably inevitable that researchers should initially concentrate on what came to be known in both professional and popular discussion as "the gay life-style" in attempting to comprehend the etiology and epidemiology of the new disease.
The identification of homosexuality with AIDS was underscored once scientists publicized the epidemiological concept of high-risk groups. High-risk groups were those whose members were at especially great risk of being infected and of infecting others. The belief that the gay male community in toto formed a risk group lost whatever rationale it had early in the epidemic as it became clear that only certain sexual acts put one at risk for AIDS and that, even in the context of those acts, a large measure of safety was achievable through the use of condoms and other precautions.
Nevertheless, the idea that all gay men constituted a risk group was, for all practical purposes, never eliminated, even among professionals, who, as a group at least, had learned the weakness of such a belief and recognized that sexual practice varied among gay men as much as they did among non-gays. The persistence of the identification of the entire gay community as a risk group because of its sexual practices meant that gay sexuality itself was, in effect, identified as the "risky" factor. Scientific medicine thus appeared to support an old idea, largely discredited in the s through the efforts of the gay community, that homosexuality was itself a disease.
Among the groups that were most significant in determining the varying interpretations of AIDS, right-wing ideologists including leaders of conservative religious movements were of particular importance. As they extended their anti-gay offensive of the late s, AIDS was a powerful symbol for them, a way of negatively reinserting homosexuality into what one observer has called "a symbolic struggle between purity.
The isolation felt by the gay community was further intensified by the ambivalent role played by the federal government. Normally a leader in the struggle against disease, and to some extent a mediator among competing groups, the executive branch under President Carter and, to a greater degree, under President Reagan had begun to dismantle institutions aimed at securing the health of the population and was loath to spend additional funds on a new disease that appeared to strike only or mainly at disliked populations.
Fee and Fox, pp. Martin's Press, ; D. The gay community thus quickly found itself in a difficult situation. By accepting the identification of gay men and AIDS, it would open itself to the social distancing, hostility, and loss of community empowerment such an identification would entail; by refusing the identification, it would allow AIDS to be ignored and its members to die needlessly.
Consequently, the community had to find within itself—in its own institutions, identity, and history—the means to endure the epidemic and to save itself. Just as crucially, it also had to find allies among those groups, mainly heterosexual, that could ally with it for professional, ethical, or philanthropic reasons such as public health personnel, medical researchers, elements of the political left and center, and representatives of liberal churches.
The gay community in fact had little choice from the start but to accept one side of the dilemma: it had to identify itself with AIDS in. In embracing AIDS as a peculiarly gay problem and reality, however, it would not draw the same connections and conclusions from that identification that the non-gay world had drawn. Gay people could hardly accept common metaphors of AIDS that were based on fear and loathing of homosexuality itself. Unlike much of the heterosexual world, the gay community, if it was to survive as such, was incapable of constructing AIDS as a disease of "the other"—the outsider—but was forced to attempt to "normalize" it; that is, to deal directly with the pain, suffering, and social problems it caused without allowing it to abolish gay people and their sexuality in the process.
Paradoxically, in order to deal with AIDS on these terms, the community was forced to strengthen rather than weaken its identification with AIDS: the stronger the identification, the greater the possibility that the community could control the social meaning of the disease, act effectively in dealing with it, and persuade or pressure the heterosexual majority to move in positive ways. It was forced, in other words, to "own" the disease.
The process of identifying the community with AIDS was, of course, never a simple one, nor was it the product of internal community unanimity. Some in the community saw that identification as a trap for gay people, in which the most important achievements of the past would be rolled back in the interest of the heterosexual majority. Many others were quite bewildered by the new epidemic and reacted in panic or disbelief, reactions that inevitably led to an inability to deal with it at all.
Eventually, a small group of gay men, mainly in New York and San Francisco, succeeded in convincing the great majority of the gay community of the need to identify with AIDS in order to combat it. These men alerted other gays to the problem, created new institutions to deal with it, and attacked what they saw as the sluggishness of the community in coming to terms with the new reality.
Qui-Lim Choo et al. Even after the community had basically accepted the identification with AIDS and the need to contend with the disease during and. The response to AIDS by the gay community was the product of innumerable and only minimally coordinated day-to-day actions, choices, and struggles by particular individuals and groups. That response appears, especially in hindsight, more coherent and rational than it actually was, because it was created within and through gay institutions that already had purpose and meaning and by a community with a relatively firm identity and history of struggle against oppression.
By themselves, however, the most determined gay efforts would probably have failed in these and many other areas of the AIDS struggle. What enabled them to succeed as fully as they eventually did was a combination of factors: an American tradition of self-help and voluntarism,  See Altman, AIDS in the Mind of America, chap. Putting this another way, one might say that it was the lack of other claimants to the ownership of AIDS—especially the scientists, physicians, and government officials who normally take control of disease, its meanings, and its treatment in our society—that allowed the gay community in large measure to make good its claim to own the disease and the manner in which it was dealt with.
The gay community thus was able to use the power of medicine, medical science, the healing and social professions, and government without granting them nearly as much power over itself as would otherwise doubtless have been the case. In addition, the relative weakness of other so-called groups within the crisis meant that, when they did enter the struggle, they were in large measure forced to negotiate with the gay community over many aspects of the crisis and to rely on it for much of the resources especially nonmonetary resources and skills that were necessary to deal with it.
Thus, in embracing AIDS, and in seeing that its own needs and structures were congruent, at least in this arena, with the realities of the wider American health and social spheres, the gay community was able. But at the same time, in so acting, the community consciously and unconsciously was shifting the site of major elements of its own identity, especially for gay men.
As sexuality became a sphere of uncertainty and danger, requiring significant alterations, it was displaced, to a large degree at least, from the center of gay male identity, to be replaced by a new sense of identity built up around the political, cultural, and health care aspects of the AIDS struggle itself.
Like sexuality, however, AIDS has both strengths and weaknesses as a source of gay identity. AIDS provided a powerful and renewed source of strength to gay identity and gay institutions because, at least temporarily, it made any divisions in the community relatively less important, since the common life-and-death struggle took precedence over almost all differences; it formed a set of issues around which all parts of the community, including those excluded by male sexual practice, could work together; and it created a sense of crisis that moved even the most nonpolitical homosexuals and those whose participation in the community had hitherto been marginal to provide their money, labor, and talent for the struggle.
At the same time, the gay community could never embrace AIDS as a source of identity without a profound sense of ambivalence. AIDS could never be truly gay in the same sense that sexuality had been. The disease had become gay in the circumstances of a specific historical conjunction, not because it was gay in any innate sense. AIDS would, thus, always remain tendenciously related to other aspects of gay identity. In addition, not only did non-gays also suffer from AIDS—and they would become increasingly important in the epidemic as time went on—but non-gay institutions also had an interest in the meaning and management of the epidemic, and would have to be dealt with by negotiation and compromise.
Finally, a more or less single-minded focus on AIDS could lead to the neglect of other issues important to the community.test8.expandit.io/shall-i-be-a-priest.php
Zines From a Revolution by Michael Bronski | Poetry Foundation
As a central focus of gay identity, AIDS therefore had serious weaknesses, weaknesses that would emerge more fully in the more recent stages of the epidemic. Nevertheless, AIDS did become central to gay identity, at least during most of the s, and determined the nature of the gay community and its activities in that period. A number of common, closely intertwined threads run through all the gay responses to the crisis in the period from to the present. It will be convenient to summarize them at this point, since they form the sometimes unspoken context.
In essence, these common threads involve the alteration of the perceived nature of the disease, the reconstitution of the community's institutions and self-identity around the struggle against the disease, and the restructuring of the community's relationship to the non-gay world. From the beginning the gay community insisted that AIDS must be viewed as a disease and not as a divine judgment or a revenge of nature. That is, it had to be understood and dealt with in the spheres of medical science, social welfare, and politics rather than those of morality or theology.
In short, persons with AIDS must be seen as human beings with a disease rather than as moral outcasts. As such, and as participants in the American "social contract," they deserve to have the full force of society's scientific, healing and caring, and material resources available in their struggle against a deadly pattern of disease. From a gay perspective, therefore, the AIDS crisis must be viewed as a full political and social struggle, in the broadest sense of those terms, and not merely as a medical event.
In this perspective gays were, if only implicitly, insisting on the social construction of AIDS as a disease, a social construction whose nature could be contested at every moment. The gay approach sought to empower not only persons with AIDS but the entire community as well. Through its insistence on its right to subjectivity and a voice in the epidemic, the community demanded that it be treated as a community with its own interests, and not merely as a set of individuals who are only loosely connected together by the fact of potential or actual disease.
Only the community as a whole could assert the interests of its individual members and combat the tendency of the wider society to exclude gay people as well as people with AIDS. Thus, for example, the community's resources, its legal defense and AIDS advocacy groups, were used in the struggle against HIV antibody testing, quarantine, exclusion from insurance, and the like. Although there was considerable disagreement within the community about the correct approaches to take on each of these issues, there was no debate over the need for gay leadership to defend gay community interests.
Throughout the crisis the gay community was aware that to meet the challenge of AIDS and survive, it would not only have to confront the outside world, but would, just as significantly, have to restructure its own institutions. This has been a twofold process, involving the creation of new institutions as well as the elimination or alteration of older ones.
With respect to new institutions, the provision of necessary services for those affected by the epidemic has naturally been at the center of the gay response from the earliest days. It is no accident that the first gay institutions that sprang up to deal with AIDS notably New York's Gay Men's Health Crisis and San Francisco's Shanti Project were devoted to the care of persons with AIDS and the provision of necessary social welfare services for them, and that the majority of the many hundreds of gay AIDS-oriented institutions that were eventually founded continue to be of this type.
In addition to such organizations, the community has created a number of more or less formal ways to deal with the grief, pain, and tragedy that AIDS has caused. John Preston New York: St. Martin's Press, , pp. Preston, pp. The community's attempts to meet the immediate and most urgent needs of people with AIDS through its own efforts have resulted in a partial break with past traditions of gay politics, whose major aims were those of civil liberties and rights rather than health care or the elements of material welfare.
See Peter S. At the same time, some of the most central institutions of the community, those organized around sexual expression, have had to be changed dramatically or, in some cases, simply jettisoned if gay people were to survive at all—HIV is, after all, transmitted, at least in part, through sexual intercourse. What was being abandoned, it is important to stress, were particular forms of sexual expression—in particular, those that took place in back-room bars, bathhouses, and other places where sexuality was freely available—rather than gay sexuality itself.
In this respect the community acted on the belief that it had to preserve itself during the health crisis without giving up its sexual existence and its control of its own sexuality. Here again, the major changes that emerged were accompanied by substantial, at times acrimonious, debate within the community over the role of multiple sexual partners and other aspects of gay sexuality as practiced in the s.
Some directly implicated "promiscuity" in the spread of AIDS even before HIV had been identified, and many in the community turned to a renewed emphasis on the importance of "monogamy. At times the controversies generated were unsolvable within the community, as in the bathhouse controversy in San Francisco and other cities, where certain members of the gay community deliberately used.
Safe sex organizing efforts before grew out of the gay community's understanding of the social organization of our own sexuality and from extrapolations of information hidden in epidemiologic studies. Informed by a self-help model taken from the women's health movement and by the gay liberation discussion of sexuality, safe sex was viewed by early AIDS activists, not merely as a practice to be imposed on the reluctant, but as a form of political resistance and community building that achieved both sexual liberation and sexual health.
Carter and Watney, pp. Ultimately, the effect of AIDS on the gay community and of the community's own efforts has been to render gay sexuality more like that favored by the wider society. That is, there has been an increased emphasis on monogamy and closer relationships and a decreased emphasis on mulitiple sexual partners and wide sexual experience. Concomitantly, those community institutions where sexuality was freely available have declined in importance.
That is, a smaller proportion of the community now frequents them, and they have become less significant to gay identity and the process of "coming out" into the gay world. At the same time, the newer caregiving, social support, welfare, legal, and political action groups organized around AIDS have become far more significant to the community—not only because of their overt purposes but because they serve as places to socialize and meet other gay people—and have become central to the identity of a large proportion of gay men and lesbians.
Changes of this sort in gay institutions have had major effects on various subgroups within the community—particularly older gay persons, for whom the muting of the sexual aspects of gay life has meant an opportunity to reenter the mainstream of the community as providers of care, money, and labor. AIDS has also played an important role in restructuring gender relationships within the community.
Hostility between gay men and lesbians. Many lesbians threw themselves into the struggle against AIDS at its beginning and have continued to play a major role in all gay AIDS-related institutions, even though, from an epidemiological point of view at least, AIDS mainly affects them indirectly. Their response to the suffering and death of their male friends and to a potential political disaster for the wider gay community has been little short of heroic. Ines Rieder and Patricia Ruppelt, eds. The renewed ability of lesbians and gay men to work together fruitfully, if not always without significant tensions largely, it appears, because of the persistence of sexism among many gay men , is attributable to the decline of sexuality as a major component of gay identity.
Whether this working relationship will continue in the future, as AIDS ceases to be the predominant issue of importance to the community, is uncertain. In large measure the outcome depends on the success of efforts currently being made by AIDS organizations—particularly the newer and more radical ones which we will deal with in the section headed "The Present and Future" —to eliminate sexism in their operations, to be more attentive to issues of concern to lesbians and other women, and to integrate women more fully into positions of leadership.
AIDS has had a paradoxical effect on the relationship of the gay community to the wider society. On the one hand, because of the close identity of gay people and a deadly disease, it has distanced the community from the heterosexual majority. On the other hand, it has brought the two closer through the need of the wider society to deal directly and explicitly with AIDS and its etiology, which naturally involves more open discussion of homosexuality and an end to gay invisibility; through the need of the wider society to work directly with the gay community to combat the crisis; and through those changes, already noted, that have made the community more like the straight world than ever before.
Two aspects of the community's relationship to the wider society, one that illustrates the distancing effect of AIDS and one that illustrates the opposite effect, will make these points clearer. AIDS has created a situation in which antipathy toward persons with AIDS as well as gay people in general has become a serious problem. The community has, through its political and legal structures such as.
These organizations have opposed particular instances of discrimination for example, in housing, employment, or insurance ; advocated the passage of protective legislation and the use of public agencies to protect the civil rights and other interests of gay people and persons with AIDS; and insisted that the gay community has the right to determine whether specific public health and related measures proposed as weapons in the fight against AIDS most notably the HIV antibody—testing controversy will have adverse or positive effects on its civil rights or liberties.
Bayer, Private Acts, Social Consequences, pp. The links between the gay community and the scientific and professional communities also define the relationship of gay people to the outside world. As a group, scientists, physicians, and other professionals have tended to monopolize control over the definition of, and response to, illness and other problems of social welfare in our society. This monopoly is precisely what the gay community has attempted to rupture in its desire to empower itself and act as a fully active subject in the case of AIDS. The problem for the community from the start of the epidemic was how to use the power and resources of medical and other professionals as well as government and private philanthropic bodies—resources that the community could scarcely muster by itself—without allowing those groups to attain, or regain, significant power over the community, its sexuality, and its institutions.
This problem placed the community in a difficult position, one that Ronald Bayer, in a felicitous phrase, has described as "between the specter and the promise of medicine," a description that could be expanded to all areas of science, healing and caring, and social welfare. This attempt was made in two closely interrelated manners. First, the community has insisted, both explicitly and implicitly, that professionals must provide their expertise to persons with AIDS and to gay people in general but that they must act in partnership with the persons they serve. Second, the community has in general attempted to learn as much as possible about medical care, epidemiology, and clinical research regarding.
It has clearly believed—as did the women's movement before it—that only through knowledge can it deal with professionals on a basis of relative equality and prevent them from simply imposing their interests, aims, and methodologies on the community and on individuals with AIDS. See Harold Edgar and David J. These approaches to the scientific and professional communities were handled through a complex process of negotiations over the terms of research into the nature of AIDS. The community could, in fact, enforce it role in this process precisely because its members were needed by scientists as research subjects, just as the community itself required the expertise of scientists and medical researchers.
One important illustration of this point involves negotiations over confidentiality of patient data within the research process, something that was naturally of great interest to a community concerned with the possibility of AIDS-related discrimination. During the first years of the epidemic, the insensitivity of public health researchers forced the gay community into a defensive posture.
For example, gay activists learned that the CDC maintained computerized files, with full identifiers, of all reported AIDS cases and had released names of such cases to local health departments and agencies not affiliated with the federal government—agencies such as the New York Blood Center. Because each needed the other, the gay community and the CDC negotiated. Having empowered itself by "owning" AIDS, the gay community was given de facto recognition as a partner by the U. As a result,.
Given the realities of the actual social and historical environment in which it had to operate, the gay community was only partially successful in the efforts we have been discussing. In spite of the gay political movements of the s, it had not yet achieved anything like full legitimacy in American society when AIDS struck. In addition, its search for legitimacy was hindered not only by AIDS itself but by the continued need to struggle on more than one front, most notably against the New Right.
The gay community had internal weaknesses as well. Not all cities or regions heavily affected by AIDS had equally visible or strong gay presences. Those in San Francisco, New York, and a few other large cities had the greatest success in creating caring institutions and in dealing with their local governments and societies. Others were often late in entering the struggle and sometimes failed to develop the full range of gay institutions needed to face the crisis. In this respect, the situation closely echoed the pattern of development of local gay communities and their strengths and weaknesses that had emerged in the s and s.
In addition, the community was never completely united. The community, is, as we have seen, a diffuse and diverse one without a single political voice, and much of its natural constituency is prevented from identifying with it publicly because of the persistence of homophobia and oppression. While the great majority of gays doubtless accepted the broad principles of dealing with AIDS that we have delineated here, many internal struggles arose over particular aspects of the crisis, the community's relationship to the non-gay world, and the community's own institutions.
These differences were most notable, as we have seen, in the sphere of sexuality, where conflicts arose over the desirability of closing bathhouses and other sexual establishments. As a result, essential decisions were taken out of the hands of the community and were made instead by governmental and medical personnel. Given these conditions and difficulties, the achievements of the gay community in the struggles surrounding AIDS have been substantial. Most notably, the community has provided services to persons with AIDS, has helped them to empower themselves, and has fought against discrimination.
There have, in addition, been substantial successes even in the more difficult areas of scientific research and the procurement of. A gay voice has been established in most major aspects of the struggle against AIDS, and large numbers of the scientists, professionals, and government agencies most intimately involved in that struggle have learned to listen to it, at least to some degree. The community has successfully restructured many of its most important institutions and made them into relatively effective forces in the struggle against AIDS.
Finally, although the community has not fully succeeded in changing the larger society's perception about AIDS and about homosexuality itself , especially the perceptions among right-wing groups, it has done so to some degree; and it has certainly in large measure ensured that the crisis has not been ignored even among the most vociferous and powerful opponents of gay people and persons with AIDS. The paradox seen here is that, just at the time when the wider society was distancing itself from AIDS and persons with AIDS and manifesting the greatest hostility toward gay people, gay people were able to exercise the greatest control over the crisis and to use what by any standard must count as a disaster to empower themselves within American society.
More titles to consider
If the anomalous features of the early period of the epidemic opened a window of opportunity for the gay community, that situation could not be expected to continue forever. By working to transform the crisis and render it more "normal," the community had helped draw other groups back into the AIDS epidemic. The window of opportunity that had opened in and thus began to close as early as , with the beginning of large-scale interest in the syndrome on the part of researchers and clinicians. By and other groups—mainly professionals, the mainstream press, and certain government bodies—had discovered AIDS and were beginning to stake their individual claims to portions of it.
By themselves these factors might have had only minor effects on the situation. More recent developments have probably been of greater significance. The epidemiology of AIDS and the public perception of its risk groups are changing substantially. While gay men continue to form the largest single number of AIDS cases, their numbers are declining as a percentage of total cases, steadily decreasing from over 90 percent during. Moreover, after a slow start, minority and drug-using organizations entered the AIDS struggle in a major way during the late s.
In large measure that may depend on the attitudes of the gay AIDS organizations themselves. Although jealous of the immense effort and money it took them to achieve their current position, they will inevitably have to share it with newer, non-gay groups. Many gay-founded groups are, indeed, beginning to do just that, and it is not an accident that gay AIDS organizations provide much of the care required by non-gay persons with AIDS.
In addition, many AIDS organizations that are mainly gay are examining, and attempting to correct, their own internal racism. Even though a large proportion of persons with AIDS who are gay are also people of color, the leadership and membership of most gay AIDS organizations have remained largely, although by no means entirely, white. In part this disparity reflects the general tendency in American society to offer white men, and to a rather lesser degree white women, more opportunities to create and support organizations.
In part it derives from what appears to be a traditionally lower gay consciousness among people of color. These factors are beginning to change, especially in the newer and more militant AIDS organizations, which have made a point of struggling against racism and sexism; but change is and will most likely continue to be slow in coming. Professionals in general, along with government bodies, are rapidly reestablishing their control over the meaning and treatment of AIDS.
Certainly, as we suggested above, by about both professionals and. Among them were many gay professionals, whose allegiance to their professions itself helped to create a bridge between the two groups.
- How AIDS Ends: An Anthology from San Francisco AIDS Foundation by Barbara Lee.
- Winter Counts | Cyber Tipi of PrePahHontoz.
- Zines From a Revolution.
- Monuments and memorials on the National Registe...!
In addition, the institutions that the gay community was instrumental in creating were, in their methods of operation and ways of viewing the epidemic and the world, molded by the professional and scientific world in which they operated; not surprisingly, when one deals with and utilizes the power and resources of outside forces, one has to play by their rules, at least to some extent. Finally, some gay people themselves have begun to question what they consider a single-minded attention to AIDS on the part of the gay community to the detriment of other important issues.
In an essay by Darrell Yates Rist, a gay activist, created a huge stir among gay people. Eric Rofes, "Gay Groups vs. These voices, although they do not necessarily represent the majority of the gay community, indicate that at least elements of the gay community no longer want to own the disease outright and to focus on it in a single-minded manner. They also indicate that the ambivalence at the heart of the gay acceptance of the identification with AIDS has begun to have negative consequences. Many organizations that arose through the efforts of the gay community are indeed uncertain whether they are AIDS organizations, gay organizations, or both.
This uncertainty has begun to affect some groups negatively. For example, AIDS caregiving. At least one organization, the San Francisco chapter of ACT UP, a radical AIDS activist group which we discuss further below , has had to split into two groups—one focusing purely on AIDS; the other on wider social issues, especially those of concern to gay men but also those of concern to lesbians and people of color.
While these indications themselves remain sketchy and the process is unfinished, the years from the beginning of the epidemic to roughly the present do seem to form a single period, one that has probably come to an end or is about to do so. Consequently, the role of the gay community in the epidemic will change significantly, and it will have to rethink its overall strategy if its aims and the principles upon which it based its response to AIDS in the first years of the epidemic are to continue to be even partially successful.
In all probability, the entire community will no longer be involved in the struggle against AIDS; instead, there will be increasing bureacratization and professionalization, on both the gay and the non-gay sides, which will tend to exclude significant elements of the community. That this change and other major changes are already under way is surely indicated by the rise, beginning in mid, of a new style of gay AIDS organizing and struggle, epitomized by the ACT UP AIDS Coalition to Unleash Power groups that have arisen in New York and numerous other cities specifically to struggle against the tendencies just mentioned.
This new style has less to do with the direct provision of care and lobbying for resources than with a far more confrontational demand for services, resources, and scientific intervention from government and professional bodies—including some established gay-founded and -run AIDS organizations—who are increasingly seen as in control of the epidemic. ACT UP represents a type of direct action that has rarely been seen so dramatically since the early post-Stonewall days. Indeed, many of its methods careful attention to news media; use of highly effective, eye-catching graphics; direct participation; decision making by consensus; street demonstrations and confrontations; emphasis on the importance of women, minorities, and IV drug users in the AIDS movement have much in common with the gay organizations of that period and with.
As Douglas Crimp points out, "We [in ACT UP New York] see ourselves both as direct heirs to the early radical tradition of gay liberation and as a rejuvenation of the gay movement, which has in the intervening decades become an assimilationist civil rights lobby. It has, for example, managed to combine its radical methods with an extraordinarily impressive attention to the nitty-gritty, scientific aspects of the crisis. It is no exaggeration to claim that many of its members know as much about many aspects of AIDS as the professionals and scientists who have devoted their careers to it.
Her pronouncement may be premature, but with huge increases in the number of people on treatment and the effectiveness of treatment as prevention now proven, a world after AIDS is now, just, imaginable. Brown started his own Foundation dedicated to finding a cure for HIV. Many of the pieces look back into the history of the epidemic, rather than forward to the future.
He becomes disillusioned with the s "fast lane" lifestyle dominating the gay subculture in and around New York. Lemish also expresses discomfort with the widespread use of multiple street and prescription drugs helping to maintain the party atmosphere. Faggots details the use of over two dozen s party drugs and intoxicants such as Seconal, poppers, LSD, Quaaludes, alcohol, marijuana, Valium, PCP, cocaine and heroin.
The book moves through, among oth. Terrence McNally born November 3, is an American playwright, librettist, and screenwriter. McNally has been described as "a probing and enduring dramatist" and "one of the greatest contemporary playwrights the theater world has yet produced". The honor of election is considered the highest form of recognition of artistic merit in the United States. Kurt Cobain's Seattle home, the location of his death pictured in On April 8, , Kurt Cobain, lead singer and guitarist of the grunge band Nirvana, was found dead at his home in Seattle, Washington.
At the time it was determined he had died by suicide three days earlier. The Seattle Police Department incident report states that Cobain "was found with a shotgun across his body, had a visible head wound and there was a suicide note discovered nearby. At the time, his management agency, Gold Mountain Records, remarked that Cobain had accidentally taken too many painkillers due to him suffering from influenza and fatigue. He probably forgot how many he took. But there was a definite suicidal urge, to be gobbling and gobbling and gobbling.
On the evening of 8 December , the English musician John Lennon, formerly of the Beatles, was shot and killed in the archway of the Dakota, his residence in New York City. The perpetrator was Mark David Chapman, a recently unemployed resident of Hawaii who was incensed by Lennon's lifestyle and public statements, especially his decade-old songs "Imagine" and "God" and his much-publicized remark about the Beatles being "more popular than Jesus".
Weeks earlier, Lennon released his first album since , Double Fantasy, which had marked a comeback for the musician. Chapman planned the killing over the course of several months and arrived in New York City two days prior. He began waiting for Lennon at the Dakota on the morning of 8 December.
During the afternoon, he met Lennon, who signed his copy of Double Fantasy before leaving for a recording session at Record Plant Studio. From the street behind them, Chapman fired five hollow-point bullets. Momordica charantia colloquially: bitter melon; bitter apple; bitter gourd; bitter squash; balsam-pear; with many more names listed below  is a tropical and subtropical vine of the family Cucurbitaceae, widely grown in Asia, Africa, and the Caribbean for its edible fruit.
Its many varieties differ substantially in the shape and bitterness of the fruit. Bitter melon originated from the South Indian state of Kerala and was introduced into China in the 14th century. Alternative names Bitter melon has many names in other languages, which have sometimes entered English as loanwords.
- Murder is Misunderstood (Bad Mothers Club Cozy Mystery #1) (The Bad Mothers Club).
- Green Haven.
- See a Problem?.
- Lesson Plan The Trial and Death of Socrates: Four Dialogues by Plato.
- Que les mots tant chantent ! (FICTION) (French Edition).
- Chastity Sisters - Husband Taming 101?
- Fifteen Visionaries Write the Final Chapter on AIDS in First-of-Its-Kind Anthology, How AIDS Ends.
Ian Charleson 11 August — 6 January was a Scottish stage and film actor. He is best known internationally for his starring role as Olympic athlete and missionary Eric Liddell, in the Oscar-winning film Chariots of Fire. He is also well known for his portrayal of Rev. Charlie Andrews in the Oscar-winning film Gandhi. He performed numerous Shakespearean roles, and in the annual Ian Charleson Awards were established, particularly in honour of his final Hamlet. The Houghton Mifflin Dictionary of Biography describes Charleson as "a leading player of charm and power" and "one of the finest British actors of his generation".
The perpetrator, Adam Lanza, fatally shot his mother before murdering 20 students and six staff members at Sandy Hook Elementary School, and later committing suicide. Various conspiracy theorists have claimed, for example, that the massacre was actually orchestrated by the U. Romero Britto born October 6, is a Brazilian artist, painter, serigrapher and sculptor. He combines elements of cubism, pop art and graffiti painting in his work, using vibrant colors and bold patterns as a visual expression of hope, dreams and happiness.
Biography Born in Recife, on the Northeast side of Brazil, Britto lived an extremely modest childhood while growing up among a big family of eight brothers and sisters. However, his innate creativity allowed Britto to fill his life with images of a bigger and more beautiful world beyond his own. Self-taught at an early age, he painted what he saw and what he imagined on surfaces such as newspapers, cardboard or any scraps that he could find. With an inordinate passion to excel, he prospered academically. Still, Britto's artistic nature eventually led him to seek experiences outside the classroom.
In , Britto went to Paris, France where he was introduced to the works of Matisse and Picasso. After exhibiting in a few galleries and private sh. She was born sometime in , after her parents got married. Getting her registered for a pre-school was the reason why Janice and Bobby were not able to take care of Junior the night he shot Tony. Domenica rode the amusement ride with her mother at the Feast of St. She longed for another ride and Tony later spun her around at the feast, to her joy. Janice kept her away from the water in fear she could drown.
Anthony "Tony B. Austrian Viktor Lowenfeld — was a professor of art education at the Pennsylvania State University. His ideas influenced many art educators in post-war United States. In particular, he emphasized "ways in which children at different stages of artistic development should be stimulated by appropriate media and themes, and Through his personal narration, Lowenfeld mentioned that he was pulling toward music at an early age — probably four or five. He started to play violin at the age of nine or ten. This early exposure to the visual and performing arts led him to a career devoted to the practice of educating himself and the public in art.
Lowenfeld graduated from the College of Applied Arts in Vienna, a. Joy Ufema, also known as Joy Counsel born , is a retired American nurse and thanatologist. She is noted for her work with terminally ill people in the U. Ufema garnered national attention after 60 Minutes aired a segment about her, and she became the subject of a television film, A Matter of Life and Death.
Join Kobo & start eReading today
Early life and education Her mother was Cecelia Counsel — from Eldorado, Pennsylvania, and her father Ernest Victor Counsel — was a machinist for the Pennsylvania Railroad in Altoona. Henrietta Lacks born Loretta Pleasant; August 1, — October 4,  was an African-American woman whose cancer cells are the source of the HeLa cell line, the first immortalized cell line and one of the most important cell lines in medical research. An immortalized cell line reproduces indefinitely under specific conditions, and the HeLa cell line continues to be a source of invaluable medical data to the present day.
These cells were then cultured by George Otto Gey who created the cell line known as HeLa, which is still used for medical research. Lacks grew up in rural Virginia. After giving birth to two of their children, she married her cousin David "Day" Lacks. In the young f. A crucial figure in the transition between the classical and romantic eras in classical music, he remains one of the most recognized and influential musicians of this period, and is considered to be one of the greatest composers of all time.
He displayed his musical talents at an early age and was vigorously taught by his father Johann van Beethoven, and was later taught by composer and conductor Christian Gottlob Neefe. At age 21, he moved to Vienna and studied composition with Joseph Haydn. Beethoven then gained a reputation as a virtuoso pianist, and was soon courted by Prince Lichnowsky for compositions, which resulted in Opus 1 in The piece was a great critical and commercial success, and was followed by Symphony No.
This composition was distinguished. Though physiographically a part of the continent of North America, Greenland has been politically and culturally associated with Europe specifically Norway and Denmark, the colonial powers, as well as the nearby island of Iceland for more than a millennium. Greenland is the world's largest island Australia and Antarctica, both larger than Greenland, are generally considered to be continental landmasses rather than islands.
With a population of about 56, , it is the least densely populated territory in the. Sense8 a play on the word sensate is an American science fiction drama web television series created by Lana and Lilly Wachowski and J. Michael Straczynski for Netflix. Smith portraying eight strangers from different parts of the world who suddenly become "sensates"; human beings who are mentally and emotionally linked.