Since Julie and I are part of the G.A.L.A. organization here, I get e-mail
of interest connected with the group.  The e-mail was for the vote for TIME's
1998 Man Of The Year.  Some years haven't followed this exact format and have
been more or less the top topic of the year.

Matthew Shepard was on that list.

While his death was quite tragic, it is unfortunate a vote is being considered
for what *happened* to him, not what he did.  Perhaps I do not consider the
election as loosely as TIME does, but I would prefer to see something
more..proactive.

I could be mistaken, but it just seems odd to give him the vote when it was
a senseless death.  If his death has brought about real change and new
awareness, then I could conceive it.  But all I remember was the shock and
the disbelief.

Perhaps I am mistaken in thinking that because he wasn't an active figure in
the community politics, that the vote is given primarily out of a knee-jerk
reaction.  But perhaps that's just the point.  He was more like everyday folks
like you and me.

Comments?  I can get you the website for the vote if you wish.

13 responses total.

If Time wishes to honor somebody fighting for fair treatment of queers, or
somesuch, there are plenty of people to nominate. Selecting somebody because
they were beaten to death is absurd.

What is the point of Time's (Hu)Man of the Year?  Is it a "payment for
services rendered" to a person who's kept himself or herself busy in the
public spotlight, thus helping to sell lots of news magazines?  Is it a
"soundbite sized" acknowledgement that a person belongs in the VVVIP 
section of "Who's Who..."?  An honorary diploma, such as a college might 
gives to a noteworthy person?  Or is it more like a military medal, that, 
like the Purple Heart, may be earned by anyone (volunteer or draftee) who
is wounded in a conflict that has turned violent?  By what little i've
read, Matthew Shepard didn't die as a mighty soldier might, throwing a 
grenade into the enemy's powder magazine with his last breath.  But the
way he lived his life has made his tragic death into a terrible defeat
for those who did or would kill him. 

Thank you both to Paul and i-- you articulated some of my sentiments
perfectly-- I figured you likely would, better than I could.  I am glad that
I am not alone.  It all seemed so desperate to me.  It seems like a viable
power play-- no other article on glbt violence (or any glbt issues in general,
for that matter) has gotten this much press coverage, nor have they received
as much special treatment, nor sparked as much discussion, as the news
concerning Matthew Shephard's death.  Did anyone see the ABC News story?  I
don't think we would have heard about the documentary a gay filmmaker was
making on gay violence if this event had not happened.

The images and footage was chilling, folks.  They showed clips of murder
scenes-- blood streaked everywhere, and even a shot with the corpse.  There
was a segment of an interview with someone who had killed a gay man because
he believed he was 'hitting' on a friend of his.

The sad fact is that gay violence has been an issue for much longer than most
of the general public realizes-- there were a number of 80's new wave acts
singing about it, and I think even the movie 'Cruising' touched on the subject
in an odd way-- from what I heard about it, it wasn't the usual self-loathing
closeted character who got violent.  I dunno.

Perhaps the award will be given because he became the first poster boy for
many gays who have been beaten up, some to death, already.  I agree it's still
a sad commentary, but I could believe that kind of journalistic angle.

"He leaves in the morning with everything he owns in a little black case /
Alone on a platform, the wind and the rain on a sad and lonely face."
        -- Bronski Beat, "Small Town Boy", ca. 1983

Matthew Shepherd was selected because of his orientation, but the people who
killed him were ostensibly/allegedly not "out to kill a fag." They were
ostensibly./allegedly out to mugh/kill someone, and it isn't clear that
Shepherd's orientation did anything but move him up the list of likely
candidates.

This is in contrast to the numerous people who have been killed, assaulted,
and so forth, specifically because of their orientation, and for no other
reason. The Jenny Jones case attracted some attention, but nowhere near as
much as this. In that case, Jones brought a guest on to meet his "secret
admirer." The secret admirer turned out to be male (a coworker, I believe),
and the admired one, unamused, shot the gay fellow to death in cold blood,
premeditatedly (some time after the show).

Many many more brutal slayings go completely unnoticed by the media. 

I think it's absurd and even a bit profane that Shepherd should be getting
this level of attention. I'm not saying that his death wasn't tragic, but
dammit, there's a Hell of a lot more tragedy that the media doesn't seem to
care about.

Whether the public likes it or not, the media is ultimately a reflection of
the populace at large-- the stories that sell the most are what make it big.
The public, therefore, doesn't seem to care about the other numerous and much
more significant tragedies as well.

Also, and maybe just as important, The Public (whoever the heck they are) seem
to be just now ready to hear about this sort of killing with a sympathetic
ear, and just now ready to care enough to follow this sort of story. Even if
similar events had been as heavily reported five years ago, it's not clear
that people would have had anywhere near the interest or attention span for
it as they do now.

Brighn, I remember the Jenny Jones murder. I heard that there was a 
lawsuit against Jones arising from that. Do you happen to know the 
result of the lawsuit? Just wondering.

I echo your sentiments about the... bizarre nature of nominating 
Shepard Man Of The Year. I was quite surprised myself when I first 
heard the suggestion, since he didn't actually do something, although 
his death was "tragic" as they say. 

The only thing I remember about the Jenny Jones lawsuit was that Ms. Jones
looked like a deer caught in the headlights when talking with the prosecutor
on the witness stand.

Seems to me that a lot of people are not please with the idea of Matt Shaepard
being nominated and possibly voted Man of the Year for Time Mag.

Personally, add my voice to yours.  I think it's ridiculous.  However, I can
understand why a lot of folks are behind the idea.  To get some recognition
for all the other unnecessary beatings and killings perpetuated on the
"deviant" community in general.  It's really a shame that it has to be done
that way, but, if it helps some, I say more power to them.  

Still, I wish it were more for something he did rather than something others
did to him.

At any rate, I thought Time had already named their Man of the Year, and that
it was Starr/Clinton

        Perhaps it should be changed to "symbol of the year"?

re #10:  Oh, good grief. :P

re #10  I'm with Jon.  Good Grief!

Response not possible - You must register and login before posting.

- Backtalk version 1.3.30 - Copyright 1996-2006, Jan Wolter and Steve Weiss