That cold war conformity gave rise to new forms of sexual and social order in the first decade or two after the second world war. We talked about how the cold war conformity established a white suburban, middle class heterosexuality as the domestic ideal and norm in america, and how Nuclear Families came to be the kind of central calling card of american normalcy. That, in turn of course, as we have discussed before, left a lot of other people outside that norm, especially those left behind in american cities, including people of color, and those who are choosing not to get married in what was the most marrying generation in American History. Namely lesbians and gay men, but not exclusively so. Those groups, as we talked about before, came to be seen as socially and sexually deviant, as threats to American Family and democracy, and as people who should be excluded from society and the abundance of the postwar economic order. Now we are moving into the late 1960s and early 1970s to look at some of the rebuttals to those notions of cold war conformity and normativity. There are an array of social and cultural movements that arise in the 1960s and 1970s to challenge this notion that white middleclass suburban heterosexuality is the ideal american identity. Those included the civil rights and later a more radicalized black Power Movement, the Antiwar Movement and protests against vietnam, the counterculture, womens liberation and the feminist movement. Today, we are to start out by looking at the emergence of the Gay Liberation movement and the challenges that it offered to the established cold war order. By the end of class, i hope we have figured out four major kings. One, that we have a pretty good idea what the Gay Liberation movement was. Although i am calling it gay and lesbian liberation, it was initially referred to as the Gay Liberation movement and was believed to encompass both gay men and womens ideas and wishes. We will also have a better sense of when the Gay Liberation movement began, how we might position it in American History. Whom it sought to liberate, and what the achievements and shortcomings of the movement were. Those are going to be our main focal points for today. How i want to start is by asking you, if you had to take a moment in history based on your readings or from your understanding of gay and lesbian politics, when would you say the gay and lesbian Liberation Movement began . If you had to pick one movement. Early late 1960s, 1970s. Professor heap so, the late 1960s, early 1970s. Is there some particular moment in time you would attach the movement to . Stonewall riots. Professor heap to the stonewall riots . So the stonewall riots are seen as a kind of mythical beginning of the gay and lesbian Liberation Movement. Already by 1972, and these are riots that occurred in 1969. They began on friday, june 27 in 1969 as a kind of uprising that arose when the new York Police Department raided a gay nightclub in Greenwich Village known as the stonewall inn. They were ostensibly cracking down on nightclubs in the city that didnt have the proper licenses to sell liquor to their audiences, or their consumers. And for some reason on this particular night in june 19 of they the patrons decided have had enough and they did not win their establishment to be raided. Although the customers were not being arrested in any large numbers, they were being turned out of the club. They began to fight back. The stonewall uprising encompassed three nights of uprisings in Greenwich Village. The first night of the initial arrests of the crackdown, and then people reassembled on two subsequent evenings to protest the actions of the police and to make a stand about oppression against gay and lesbians consumers in american cities. At the time this occurred, it wasnt a very notable activity. It happened at about 2 00 a. M. Or 3 00 a. M. On friday night into saturday morning. It was too late to appear in the saturdays newspaper, but made its way into the sunday newspaper. The New York Times thought it was so important they buried it on page 33. And the New York Daily News put it on page 30. The headlines at the time was four policemen hurt in village raid, and only if you begin to read, according to the times, that hundreds of young men went on a rampage in Greenwich Village shortly after 3 00 a. M. Yesterday after 4 plain clothed policemen raided a bar that was well known for its homosexual clientele. The times reported that after they were turned out of the club, the young men threw bricks, garbage, and a parking meter at the policeman, who had a search warrant to investigate report of illegal liquor sales. They estimated that about 200 young men were turned out of the bar. As the uprising went on, the crowd grew close to 400, in a melee that the times reported lasted about 45 minutes. Daily reported very similarly and briefly about the events and noted also that the same bar had been raided the week before and had not provoked any controversy or uprising, but for some reason the second time , people had fought back. The daily news provides us with one of our few contemporary news images of what happened at the stonewall inn, and who was rioting. I apologize, this is not as quite as clear as it might be. It suggests to us that the audience was a little bit different, or the people participating in the riots were different than those pretrade by the New York Times. We have in this image not just a picture of hundreds of young men, although there are not hundreds in this photo. But they are primarily young men. Unlike the characterization in the times, in this image from the New York Daily News, we see young men of color who have been completely written out of the times account. In the background, you can see a group of africanamerican men. In between the two policemen we see the face of what appears to be a latino young man. And in the image that appears in the more extensive coverage that the Village Voice offered in its july 3 issue, we see the presence of transgender or crossdressing individuals and young street hustlers and a variety of other people who had been written out of the accounts. What is not visible in these accounts is the kind of legendary lesbian who supposedly threw the first punch at stonewall, according to the myths that circulated about these events and became especially prominent in the 1980s as it began to be remobilized as a way of uniting lesbian and gay politics as a Political Movement again. What occurred here was fighting back against Police Discrimination and harassment, and an attempt to parlay it into a broader and social Political Movement. Rioting continued far into the night that first night. By the next day, when the windows of stonewall had been boarded up, graffiti begin to appear on the windows proclaiming gay power, and marking this is a place that would come to have a substantial place in gay and lesbian political memory as a kind of origin point for the Gay Liberation movement. But what is not usually recognize today when people talk about stonewall is that this was not the first revolutionary movement in gay and lesbian politics. It was not the first time that anybody called for a revolution, as the Gay Liberation activists would do in the subsequent weeks. Already in march of 1969, an activist in San Francisco named leo lawrence, the editor of a magazine published by the society for individual rights, had called for the homosexual revolution of 1969, which he said would be a chance for a gay men and lesbians to join the black panthers and other radical groups to come out in large numbers and challenge the broader social order. Nor was it the first time that gay men and lesbians fought back against the police and perceived harassment. We know of at least two other times that this happened on the west coast. In 1959 in los angeles, and tell uselieve that drag queens and street hustlers that hung out at coopers doughnuts and were frequently harassed by los angeles Police Department fought back after the Police Arrested three people, pelting them with donuts and coffee cups. And Susan Stryker tells us in august of 1966 at San Franciscos compton cafeteria, when the management called the San Francisco police to crack down on what they perceived to be raucously behaving transgender individuals in the cafeteria, that the transgender individuals fought back when Police Arrived to arrest them as well. And yet, even before those events, we had other street protests against discrimination against lesbians and gay men. We have talked before about the emergence of what historian David Johnson has categorized as the lavender scare, the purge of gay men and lesbians from the federal governments workforce in the 1950s and 1960s. In washington, a group of gay and lesbian activists, known as the Madison Society of washington, began to assemble to combat this discrimination and access to jobs in the federal workforce. They began also by 1965 to stage a series of pickets in washington, d. C. The first of these pickets happened in april of 1965, and was prompted somewhat unusually and unexpectedly by the New York Times article that had announced the establishment of labor camps for men convicted of homosexual crimes in cuba. So you might ask yourself, why is the Mattachine Society going to protest these labor camps in cuba . And why do they think a good way to protest them is holding a picket in front of the white house . Which they did on saturday, april 17, 1965, the first organized picket of the federal government, which was attended by seven men and three women. It is not a large group, but it is the first time to take up signs and picket signs and josh and march in front of the white house. This movement was led against the cuban government by calling on the same cold war anticommunist rhetoric that had often been used against gay men or lesbian who were thought to pose similar threats to american democracy. And they picketed with signs for instant that said russia, cuba, and the United States unite to persecute homosexuals. They use this instance of persecution in cuba and communist cuba and compared it to what they viewed as the persecution of homosexuals or exclusion of gay men and lesbians and the purging of them from the federal Civil Service. Over time, they began to picket more widely in washington. They picketed in front of the pentagon, in front of the Civil Service commission. Which is pictured here on the dder, lesbianlatte publication from the 1950s, and they begin to call attention to the federal governments attacks on gay men and lesbians. But that version of gay protest is a little bit different from the version and the visual representation of gay protests that would come in the post stonewall period. What i would like to get us to do is to talk about, if we look t the cover of the ladder, the lesbian publication from 1955, and compare it to the Gay Liberation front poster from 1970, what are some of the differences we can see in the way that the gay and Lesbian Movement is representing itself . In the very back, if you wait just a moment. [indiscernible] they were a lot more aggressive and straightforward. It was more straightforward, saying, we are here and there is wasnt very and it aggressive, but i guess powerful. Professor heap the Gay Liberation front image gives you a sense of more powerful outrage . We have fists instead of picket signs. You said it gives a sense of being a bigger and more boisterous movement. Which might be the case. Although there are as historian Richard Meyer tells us, there are only 17 people who showed up to take the photograph for this image. The Gay Liberation front, which had emerged as a selfproclaimed revolutionary organization after stonewall, had a membership of about 150 people at the time and they only managed to get about 17 to show up to take the picture for this image. There are probably a few other people left out of this image on the ladder. So the number is not all that different, but we have a different display of them. They are filling the frame more fully in the image for the Gay Liberation front. They seem, even though there may not be that many more people actually there, they seen to be they seem to be a larger number of people. Is there anything else that you notice that is similar or different . Here in the middle. In the reading, it talked about in the ladder, the woman was wearing a skirt and the men were wearing suits, and they were conforming to gender identity to make it seem like they were with society. And they were not that they were at the same, not different, that they were not this crazy group that they were actually normal like everybody else. Professor heap what about the Gay Liberation front image . They were i dont remember exactly what it said, but they are adapting to the more hippie lifestyle. They are being free, men have the longer hair and they are not really conforming to the gender identity they are supposed to be. Professor heap we see a generational divide in the gayrights movement. In the image from the ladder, because these are only separated for about five years, but we see older professional men and women who are dressed in gender conforming attire. The society had a rule that women to wear skirts or dresses when they appeared in public protests and men had to wear coat and tie. It was about presenting themselves as respectable, middleclass, gender conforming individuals to claim a sense of a level of respectability and not call attention to them being different, but to call attention to their similarities. Whereas the younger crowd in the Gay Liberation front, we have less gender specific clothing. The men and women are dressed in much more similar fashion. They are in much more casual attire, and they seem to be refuting the notion that they have to conform to a particular gender norms or expectations. Anything else that you notice . What about the wording on the cover in the poster . What do you notice that is similar or different about that . In the second poster, the wording and also the image invokes a sense of community. It talks about joining the sisters and brothers, they are happy to be there. They have their arms around each other and it looks like a tight knit community with more of a family vibe. Whereas the other one is much more professional with the professional where they were told the professional way they were told to wear. Professor heap we have a more communal effect in the Gay Liberation front image, asking people to join them and to join their sisters and brothers because this is a family. There are several women at the front of this image. Richard meyer points out that this is an idealized notion of what people wanted the movement to look like. And that the movement is an front of this image. Incredibly maledominated movement, both in the numbers of membership and leadership at the time. It is a kind of utopian idea of what Gay Liberation might look like. What about on the first image , the ladder on this image talks about the homophile groups. We have a different meaning. They are calling themselves homophile groups, which many societies developed to sort of distance themselves from the sexual connotations of homosexuality and the medicalized ideas that characterized it as deviance, medically and psychologically. They have taken that kind of greek terms, homo meaning same, and philia anyone goes with it means . Love. They are focused on love of people of the same sex. Homophile rather than homosexual, they are calling attention to the same kind of love you note is being displayed by the Gay Liberation front. But they are doing it as a way of distancing themselves from accusations of abnormality. Whereas the Gay Liberation front is embracing those accusations of abnormality and finding the kind of revolutionary possibility for overturning broader social orders. Again, we have this notion of the homophile groups picketing in a nations capital. We have invited properly conforming activists who are playing a particular role, primarily rebutting the kind of discrimination that gay activists saw coming to them from the federal government. And their exclusion from federal employment. In the Gay Liberation front poster, we have a call to action, come out. And gay men and lesbians are being heralded to make themselves known visibly, to make their identities known. And to see that as a kind of political tactic. We talked about how in the early 20th century, gay men and women and lesbians came out then, as well, but they were coming out into the Gay Community in the same way that a debutante came into society. By the late 1960s and early 1970s, they have taken that formulation and are now saying, come out, but they mean, come out to the public. Come out