Take a photo of a barcode or cover
A review by holatortuga
Stonewall: The Riots That Sparked the Gay Revolution by David Carter
3.0
A very conflicting book. On the one hand it is a beautifully detailed story told through intimate accounts of the gay scene of the 60s and how stonewall came to be. in relation to the people interviewed, it was balanced and allowed all the different sides of the story to come through. this made the narrative so evocative and memorable. I dozed off reading it and had a dream about the GLF that's how immersive it was. so as an account of a time and a place, it's super.
however, as a work of history, it comes with some serious prejudices, which really come through in the authors notes at the end. David Carter REALLY wants us to know this was a movement of cisgender, white gay men. for a book that prides itself on plurality of opinion, I found this strange. wherever a lesbian is mentioned (especially in the initial fracas that sparked the riots), Carter is quick to say 'may have' or 'contentious' and totally trust the suggestions of his subjects that there just weren't any women about.
moreover, it's obvious carter is very uncomfortable with saying there were trans people involved - especially trans women. he argues the terminology then meant these people shouldn't be considered trans in the way they may be today. I find that argument weak. sure, gender expression has been in flux across the years, much less the decades, but that doesn't mean transgender people didn't exist because the terminology wasn't there. the same line of thinking has been used to deny the historic existence of gay people!
this brings me back to what I think is the foundational flaw of this book: the approach to sources. Any period in history, much less a time where so many were forced to lead double lives, requires us to reflect on the biases within our sources and how we can understand gaps and silences in the archives. gay men are not immune to the misogyny of their day. maybe there is a reason the interviewees sought to diminish the role of women - especially trans women - when the documentary evidence suggests otherwise.
Basically, the author didn't really interrogate or analyse the sources he presented and its just as well those sources are so rich in their own right - at least it makes a brilliant story. I appreciate that our understanding of gender and transness has come on a lot in twenty years. but that said, it's hard to fully get into the story of an oppressed people on the rise when it's committed to excluding those most on the margins.
however, as a work of history, it comes with some serious prejudices, which really come through in the authors notes at the end. David Carter REALLY wants us to know this was a movement of cisgender, white gay men. for a book that prides itself on plurality of opinion, I found this strange. wherever a lesbian is mentioned (especially in the initial fracas that sparked the riots), Carter is quick to say 'may have' or 'contentious' and totally trust the suggestions of his subjects that there just weren't any women about.
moreover, it's obvious carter is very uncomfortable with saying there were trans people involved - especially trans women. he argues the terminology then meant these people shouldn't be considered trans in the way they may be today. I find that argument weak. sure, gender expression has been in flux across the years, much less the decades, but that doesn't mean transgender people didn't exist because the terminology wasn't there. the same line of thinking has been used to deny the historic existence of gay people!
this brings me back to what I think is the foundational flaw of this book: the approach to sources. Any period in history, much less a time where so many were forced to lead double lives, requires us to reflect on the biases within our sources and how we can understand gaps and silences in the archives. gay men are not immune to the misogyny of their day. maybe there is a reason the interviewees sought to diminish the role of women - especially trans women - when the documentary evidence suggests otherwise.
Basically, the author didn't really interrogate or analyse the sources he presented and its just as well those sources are so rich in their own right - at least it makes a brilliant story. I appreciate that our understanding of gender and transness has come on a lot in twenty years. but that said, it's hard to fully get into the story of an oppressed people on the rise when it's committed to excluding those most on the margins.