What Got Harvey Killed

What Really Got Harvey Killed

By Jab Raven Allen

12/9/2018

Harvey Milk: college, Navy, Stock Analyst — move to San Francisco and engaged in open homosexual relationship. Major socio-political and economic move was eliminating Coors  Beer from various bars in San Francisco. His Next move of this nature was helping to make the concept of district elections a reality. Each district elected their own Supervisors ( socio-economics, group politics and recuperative Spaces) He ran for political office in 1973 (Tokenism and political power), and at 47 years old was elected to Board of Supervisors.

Despite the outrage that my statement may cause; Harvey’s election was a contradiction in terms; ”gay men did not possess a political voice”, yet they were white males. What were gay white males not recognizing that caused them to issue this statement as a political belief. The adorning of “otherness” and the problem that they posed as a “splinter group”. As a splinter group; upper-class gay white males were part of a covenant that Feinstein made with upper-class whites to prevent blacks from moving into upper-class white neighborhoods. Thus, white gay males possessed a political voice within San Francisco city government through their ability to enter into such socio-economic agreements. According to Slate’s Evan Urquhart in his article “The Benefits of the Closet” (Jan 31, 2014) – “ Often perceived as a barrier to equality, at times the closet was anything but. Instead, it allowed a gay fifth column to flourish, far behind enemy lines, among the privileged and the powerful in American society. Even as out and outed gay people were being marginalized and discriminated against, some closeted gays (mostly white, male, affluent ones) were able to achieve positions of power, wealth, authority, and influence. Though small in number, these individuals were ideally positioned to influence their fellow elites in ways that other marginalized groups, whose access to the upper echelons of society was severely limited, could only dream about’.

Yet, Dan White’s assignation of Harvey Milk signaled a strong conflict within white male supermacy ideology in terms of how those possessing this ideology would deal with white splinter groups that challenged its claim to socio-economic and political dominance based upon white heterosexuality’s claim that it was supported by a strong Christian “ethos” – “right to rule “others” through a God given decree. Thus, Dan White’s action of political assignation of Harvey Milk blatantly stated that it would not become inclusive of its diversity but remain exclusively the domain of white males.

For many, it is believed that what caused Milk’s assassination was his willingness towards Recognition of Universal Humanism: jobs, housing, education, medical care, police protection for all citizens regardless of their disparate physical/sexual or national identities; adequate neighborhoods, ability to shape public and government policies. In fact, Milk’s action resulted in 1977 – 1978 repeal of Gay rights prop 6. However, individuals leading this charge lived in a Lacanian paradigm (belief that an individual’s personal reality projected upon reality as it currently exists is reality). Despite gay rights being lost, gay whites were still able to retain rights and privilege as part of a white majority. According to Surina Khan of Political Research Associates in her article “Gay Conservatives: Pulling The Movement to the Right” (Apr 19, 1996) “Gay conservatives, like their heterosexual counterparts, generally reject welfare and affirmative action, and are opposed to immigration. They have strong libertarian leanings in that they believe in limited government, individual rights, and individual “responsibility”- values they claim to share with the majority of American people. These conservative values contribute to the ideological tensions intrinsic to gay conservatism. The principal tension is between their conservative values, which lead them to support the status quo, and their pariah status within that status quo. Like many gay religious people, gay conservatives have beliefs that are part of a structure that often excludes them”. Thus, from reading Khan’s article it is easy to see how Dan White’s actions would cause the relationship between Jews and GLBT-Q population to come into conflict—once  again creating a split within white supremacy/hegemony through the Griggs initiative. The statement made by Milk which may have caused those possessing a white supremacist mind set to justify –even reward White’s act of assassination of Harvey Milk “they will go back into their closets and close the doors tight behind them” may have caused these individuals to see White as a savior of white supermacy. At that time polls projected a close vote between yes and no of these initiatives —yes vote was defeated by a vote of 7 – 4. The question of white identity,  Harvey’s challenge of America’s white Christian hegemony through social justice threatened its dominant paradigm — this is what got him killed. In short, Harvey Milk was not a GWC – gay white conservative seeking to make LGBTQ issues the only issues worth resolving peacefully and satisfactorily to all, but an individual that much like Mayor Moscone sought to create a city that was worthy of all for the shake of all.