on your desktop, phone or tablet for the presidential debate. on lectures in history, george washington university professor chad heap teaches a class about the origins of the gay rights movement. he describes how participants found common ground with antiwar protests, the black movement and other groups fighting against the status quo of american cold war society. he also talks about different groups within the gay rights movements, which were focused on more specific issues, like removing the ban on lesbians and gays from holding governmental jobs. his class is about one hour. professor heap: so welcome back to class. today, we -- our topic is going to be gay and lesbian liberation. i want to spend a bit of time setting that up for you and we will move right into discussion of some of the issues. for the last couple of weeks, we have been talking about the ways

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 1960's and early 1970's 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 1960's and 1970's to challenge this notion that white middle-class 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, women's 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 women's 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 1960's, 1970's. professor heap: so, the late 1960's, early 1970's. 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 didn't 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 wasn't 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 saturday's 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 african-american 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 cross-dressing 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 1980's as it began to be re-mobilized 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 cooper's 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

francisco's 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 government's workforce in the 1950's and 1960's. 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 anti-communist 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 1950's, and they begin to call attention to the federal government's 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 wasn't 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 self-proclaimed 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 don't 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

gay-rights 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, middle-class, 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 male-dominated 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 nation's 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 1960's and early 1970's, they have taken that formulation and are now saying, come out, but they mean, come out to the public. come out and make yourself known and transform this simple act of pride of coming out of the closet into a form of self affirmation and an opportunity to build community and to challenge a wide array of social inequities that the gay liberation front is recognizing. in fact, the gay liberation front is playing on, and building on all of the lessons the other array of social and cultural movements from this period are developing. the antiwar movement, the civil rights and black power movement,

women's liberation movement, they are taking the best aspects of those and building upon them. they are also situating themselves in alliance with those groups and are seeing their attempts to transforming american society. not simply as claims to help lesbians and gay men avoid discrimination and oppression, but an opportunity to transform american society more broadly. the organization, and activists within the organization, began to conceive of their activism as a way of overturning traditional american social structures. carla j, an activist who edited an important collection of gay liberation documents called "out of the closet: voices of gay

liberation," wrote in her introduction that "we perceive our oppression as a class struggle, and our oppressor as white middle-class male dominated heterosexual society, which has relentlessly persecuted and murdered homosexuals and lesbians since the oppressor has had power". -- power." so she is conceiving it in the way that many left movements did during the anti-capitalist movement. here we see a lesbian liberation but from the 1970's that says "we will never get it under capitalism." we will never be liberated under capitalism because gay liberation and lesbian liberation, like many other leftists movements at the time, thought that it was capitalism that held people in their place, that oppressed people. that required the kind of cold war conformity, the traditional stay-at-home mom and nuclear

family as a way of supporting the booming american economy. that limited some people from participating in that economy in order to shore up a social power, cultural power, and political power of white, male heterosexuals. lesbian liberation was saying the only way to achieve true liberation is to escape from capitalism. lesbian feminists would offer a variety of ways of doing that, including developing their own cultural products that they marketed to each other through lesbian periodicals and newspapers, that they are sometimes willing to give away rather than make money in order to refute the norms of capitalism. and finding freedom for sexual sexual and self-expression through in anti-capitalist

enterprise. gay groups -- the gay liberation front also teamed up with the antiwar movement, the anti-vietnam war movement and saw themselves as part in parcel of that movement, and saw that movement adding to the liberation of gay men and lesbians. so that rather than fighting to end the ban on gay men in the military, which has been a more recent focal point of the gay-rights movement, the gay liberation front decided to capitalize on the fact that gay men were excluded from the military, and saw in that a kind of political strategy for fighting the war. they offered slogans such as "send the troops to bed together," or "soldiers, make each other, not war." a kind of variation of make

love, not war, but exporting the -- exhorting the soldiers to make out with each other, not to fight war. or perhaps in a slogan that will probably be bleeped, suck cock to beat the draft. that if you did not want to be drafted or go to work, you could be gay. that was the best strategy to get out of the vietnam war. they also went on the counterculture. they would get together in public places and they were just groovy and cool. the gay liberation front started staging gay-in's in america, gathering in new york central park and los angeles griffith park, where tens of thousands of women and men gather to be gay. to claim public space, express

affection in spring of 1970 and subsequent years. they also built upon the black power movement and feminism. right here we see the black power raised fist recast as the gay liberation emblem, and the gay liberation front very often marched in solidarity with groups like the black panther party and saw themselves as an integral part of a larger movement of oppressed minorities seeking to overthrow what they saw as a destructive social order. following black power assertion that black is beautiful, they -- the gay liberation front increasingly insisted that gay is good. they are adopting the same kind of rhetoric of black power, black is beautiful, gay power and the gay liberation front says that gay is good.

they began to think of themselves as a revolutionary group that sought gay and sexual liberation more generally. you can see on the right, this image from new york university, gay power is leaning towards black power, women's power, all power to the people. it is thought of as part of this broad movement of social groups who are not endeavoring just to get rights for gay and lesbians, but endeavoring to transform american society more broadly. carla j said our struggle reflects the struggles of other revolutionary groups and the other oppressed people, such as blacks, chicanos, american indians and women. in fact, the women's movement and radical feminism probably played one of the most central roles in the early years of gay liberation by providing them

with some of their clearest targets for social and structural reform. martha shelley, a lesbian activist, wrote in a 1970 essay good, that we as women and men from the earliest time have been in revolt against the sexual structure and nuclear family structure," so that they begin to say it is the nuclear family and traditional gender roles that are holding down progress and social progress, and that gay and lesbian liberation offers a unique opportunity to work with women's liberation and feminism to overturn this social order. she went on to say, "it is difficult for me to understand" and it is interesting, pay

attention to the groovy language -- "it is difficult to have each hate can other in a relationship, hike and relate to each other in spite of your sexual, it must be awfully difficult to talk to each other when the women is oppressed and the man is trained to express and vice versa. do straight men and women talk to each other, or does the man talk and woman not approvingly? his love possible between heterosexual, or it is all a case of women posing as nymphs, men as sex objects and men writing the poetry of romantic illusions to these walking stereotypes?" she is taking the popularly held notion that homosexuality is somehow deviant, oppressive and abnormal and is instead calling into question the norms of heterosexuality. it is suggesting that it may be heterosexuality that is ultimately more oppressive and

abnormal than homosexuality. she even questions, is it possible for men and women to truly love each other when society requires these kind of traditional gender norms that privileged men over women, and encourage women to submit to men, or at least to downplay their own emotions and needs and desires in the face of male desire. this kind of attack on gender conformity carried over as well into the embracing of alternative gender markers within the gay liberation movement. we had this brief moment in the late 1960's and early 1970's where a kind of androgynous male, and in some cases female , gay figures begin to be used to market the movement to a

wider variety of people and to challenge the notion of gender conformity and the social order. in this photo on the right from "life" magazine in the next was bouffant 1971, we see hair, bearded men in glam rock attire, in the middle we have the gay liberation fist that is also drawing upon black power, and suggesting this is the kind of a pity me of gay power on the left. it is being advertised by this kind of psychedelic gay male butterfly, probably playing on stereotypes with homosexuality being associated as butterflies, as the spanish slang is used to characterize gay men in that way.

it is embracing this non-gender conforming images as the kind of place where power can be found within the movement, and for the social and sexual order can be overthrown. it is not just sort of gender conformity that is under attack, gay liberation also believes that marriage should be done away with and it is a problematic activity. this is counter to recent trends , which have embraced the call for legalizing same-sex marriage. during this kind of revolutionary moment of gay politics in the late 1960's and early 1970's, carl whitman, and activist in san francisco, wrote in his gay manifesto that marriage is a prime example of a straight institution fought with role-playing. traditional marriages the run,

oppressive institution, a contract which smothers both people, denies needs, and places impossible demands on those people. gay people must stop gauging their self-respect by how well they mimic straight marriages. he goes on to suggest that they liberation -- that gay liberation can offer new ways of seeking about relationship. he says we are all looking for a feeling of belonging and being needed, but these needs can be met through a variety of living conditions and social relationships. things we need to get away from, he says, r, one, exclusiveness, property attitudes toward each other, a mutual pack against the rest of the world. so he is rebelling against the notion of monogamy and lifetime exclusivity or thinking about

your spouse as your property, or someone you have control over or own. he says we need to get away from promise about the future, which we have no right to make, and which prevents us from or makes us feel guilty about growing. this is more of the groovy language of the day. we should not promise relationships into the future because we are going to grow, expand and explore new horizons. let's not make these promises that we cannot keep that will make us feel bad about ourselves. he also says that marriage, one of the problems with marriage is the inflexible rules, roles which do not reflect us at the moment but are inherited through mimicry and inability to find a quality in relationships. he sees gay and lesbian relationships as an opportunity to redefine the relationship

between two individuals as more egalitarian or what he calls the quality in relationships that do not exist within a more structured or finalized male, female, masculine roles. it is also challenging the notion of the nuclear family, arguing that homosexuality is not an abnormality, but a natural capacity in everyone that has been suppressed by the nuclear family, and by society. alan young, another gay activist, claimed that gay is good for all of us. the artificial categories of gay, and heterosexual, have been laid on us by a sexist society, of which the family is a primary means in which it is created and forced. our understanding of sexism is premised on the idea that in a

free society, everybody will be gay. he is differentiating here between gay and homosexual. he is saying that the categories of heterosexual and homosexual have been created by society and placed upon all of us and reinforced by traditional family structures, and that the family mechanism that reinforces the notion that there is something different about heterosexuality and homosexuality and that values heterosexuality over homosexuality. he is suggesting that gay is good for all of us. so that gayness becomes a sign of sexuality freed from hierarchical assumption of male supremacy and from the nuclear family. the gayness becomes, in his figuration, the way to move beyond a heterosexual and homosexual binary.

we have this radical challenge to the social structure that is similar to those that are being enacted by black power, by feminism, by the counterculture, and other movements. so far, all we have really seen is the way that those playoff philosophically or ideologically in the manifestoes and ideas that people are involving. in fact, we have already talked about how some of these things in the revolutionary groups are looking for in the late 1960's and early 1970's, a refusal to go to war, a refusal to marry have become undone by more recent gay and lesbian political movements, where the right to serve in the military, and the right to get married have become valorized conceptions. it is pretty clear that gave

-- that gay liberation failed to overturn the social structure, in the same way that a lot of other movements failed to have major impacts. what i want to do is spend a little bit of time talking about some of the early achievements that gay liberation did manage to achieve in the early 1970's, and some of the shortcomings of the movement that were already becoming clear and that period. among other things, the call to come out and make oneself visible and to take a public and political role in american society, have the effect on transforming gay visibility in the united states and of energizing the political activism that continues up to this day. by 1973, there were over 800 gay and lesbian organizations that had been formed in the united states.

in just a four year period or so. by the end of the decade, the 1970's, their numbers reached into the thousands. these included political organizations, but also community organizations, and businesses alongside gay bars, synagogues, health clinics, community centers, travel agencies, newspapers, a hold -- a whole array of services that were building roles within the community. in a more concrete example, i 1973, gay activists had managed to convince the american psychological association to remove homosexuality from the manual, where it had been previously diagnosed as a mental disorder, so we are

talking about it arriving in the cold war period of homosexuality being a mental illness that psychiatrist and psychologist could be called in to treat. gay activists are rebutting that successful in getting the american psychological association to remove homosexuality from its list of mental illnesses. i the mid-1970's, gay and lesbian -- openly gay and lesbian political activists began to be elected into office. most famously, in 1977 harvey milk is elected to the board of supervisors in san francisco. the equivalent of their city council, but even before him, elaine noble had been elected into the first open lesbian in the state of massachusetts in 1974. and kathy and 10 check go -- and kathy was elected to the ann arbor, michigan city council. we began to see publicly,

visible and elected, and publicly endorsed gay and lesbian officials. by 1975, activists in washington and elsewhere are able to convince the u.s. civil service commission to lift its ban on the employment of gay men and lesbians in the federal government. those are all very concrete of gay and lesbian liberation. although they have become more mainstream activities. other developments that we can see arising from gay liberation also give us some hint of the shortcomings of the movement. here we see, in these two images, one from "life" magazine and another from a unknown photographer, the gay liberation parade. on the left from 1971, the gay liberation parade in new york.

these parades, and they continue today, we used to call them gay liberation day, or gay freedom day. i think san francisco still refers to it as gay freedom day. most people now call it gay pride day, but we have had a slight change in the nomenclature and in the meeting -- meaning of the movements. they were originally held -- the first one was held in 1970's. the fact that they are held in late june is no accident. they are intended to be commemorations of the stonewall uprising. the first one is held in new york, it quickly spread throughout the rest of the country. they are meant to symbolize freedom, and they serve as a political march initially. the gay freedom day parade in new york, the first one started in greenwich village near the site of the stonewall inn.

the hub of gay life at that point, and they marched into the city, ending up in central park. there are these political events that march through the streets with people yelling out, "come peopleme out," and leaving their homes and joining the march as they move into the heart of the core of new york, and into central park where they held political rallies. they were certain political rallying points. if we think about what they have become today, the gay pride movement was the gay pride parades now in new york, they start somewhere up near central park on 5th avenue, and they march down the city and into the gay neighborhoods, and gay nightlife district and have become less sort of political rallying points. they usually still hold a political rally on the day preceding the march, and more for the mass consumer events

that embrace gay pride, what -- but have done away with the kind of political valence of the marches. it has done away with gave -- gay liberation fronts, or attacks on capitalism. because they have become all about capitalizing on lesbian and gay identity and building up that aspect of the economic power of the gay and lesbian community. we also see the lower image, the development of the lesbian liberation front -- or the lesbian feminism liberation movement that is similar to other problems with gay liberation. it did not always address the needs of everyone in its midst. carla j noted that the movement also included struggles within it, because we are by no means a homogeneous group.

carla j wrote "the movement reflects our struggles with each other, and gay men oppress gay and so she signaled, right, this need for gay liberation to combat what she called our own chauvinism, our own sexism, our own racism, as well as our oppression by straight society. and groups like the lesbian feminist liberation movement begin to separate out from gay liberation because they do not feel that their needs are being addressed and feel that the men in the movement are oppressing them and are not paying attention to women's needs within the movement. activists of color also begin to separate out from the movement as do activists that we would consider to be transgender today, who feel that they are not being properly represented. and the gay liberation front itself basically dissipates and

falls away in the early 1970's, and is replaced not just by lesbian feminist movements and other sort of splinter groups, but is replaced by organizations like in new york, the gay activist alliance, which is an exclusively male organization, which no longer sees itself being involved in sort of transforming the social order, but rather is focused primarily on discrimination against gay men for their sexuality. and is not seeing themselves engaged in broader social struggles, and we see this here in one of their most famous activities from 1971, again, reported in life magazine, as the gay activist alliance, pioneers a new political movement or practice called the zap where they sort of descend upon public officials or media

officials to harass them into doing what they want them to do. and here, though, the first and most famous zap that they called a protest at city hall in new york city for marriage rights. right, in 1971. so that already by 1971 this kind of radical attempt to transform america culture and society and to challenge the normalcy and predominance of marriage is being embraced -- is being undermined and gay activists are now embracing heterosexual marriage or marriage in general as a kind of model for their inclusion into society and are moving away from the kind of radical revolutionary movement that they had pioneered in earlier years. so we'll leave off there, and we will begin again next week, talking about some of the other radical political movements that challenged the social order in the 1960's and '70's.

[captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> this weekend on american history tv on c-span 3, today at 7:00, texas general land office commissioner george bush, jose menendez, and musician phil collins talk about the spanish mission, the alamo, at the 2016 texas tribune festival in austin. >> the memories i have of that time was that this group of people were going and they knew they were going to die but they went. or they were there. they kind of -- they were something noble, very romantic. i have learned it wasn't quite as black and white. that's one of the things i think would be good in this day and age. we put it into context. >> sunday evening at 6:00 on american artifacts -- >> macarthur is upfront and he

is not wearing a weapon. he often led attacks with nothing but the riding crop. and the men look at this and realized the kernel -- colonel, if he can take it, i can take it too. >> we visit the macarthur memorial in norfolk, virginia to learn about the early life of douglas macarthur had commanded allied forces in the pacific in world war ii. at 8:00 -- >> the great leaders served as conscience, with the highest level of integrity. with a moral compass locked on true north. we can always count on them to do the right thing when times get tough or when no one is looking. has his 10oston commitments for presidential leadership, and provides examples of presidents that excel to each one. for our complete tv schedule, go to c-span.org.

>> the next, the lives of lars and isabel anderson, wealthy american socialites that owned multiple east coast estates during the gilded age. mr. moskey is author of "larz and isabel anderson: wealth and celebrity in the gilded age." the society of cincinnati hosted this hour-long event. >> synnex talk is inspired by the life of isabel anderson and our current exhibition on view behind me, closing this sunday. isabel anderson filled her life, which spanned the centennial of the american revolution and world war ii with pursuits that both fulfilled and challenged the expectations for a woman of her generation. she was a philanthropist, warners, little commentator, -- political commentator, patriot, author, and arts patron. her story and personality have largely remained hidden to the glamour of her role as a wealthy