"Growing Up, Out, And Powerful": An Excuse To Rant

Alternating between militancy and humor, Growing Up, Out and Powerful is a semi-improvisational, autobiographical theatre piece. "[Its intent is] to detail and dramatize the process of becoming a sane, healthy, lesbian/gay, progressive person of color in a world that tends to be otherwise," said John Patterson, the director.

Through poetry, songs, monologues, and discussion, the five performers (Patterson, Colin Robinson, Pam Lewis, Nestor Millan, and Lourdes Perez) attempt to fulfill that promise.

It runs through June 27 [1987] at the Castillo Cultural Center, 7 East 20th Street, in Manhattan, in six evening performances. Each of  those shows spotlights different guest poets, and is part of an overall celebration of Gay Pride Month.

Of the five, Patterson was the only experienced actor, which was obvious--he was the one who gave an unstilted, self-confident, and joyful performance.

Surrounded by the audience on three sides, Patterson and company occupied a sparsely furnished set that represented, said the press release, a living room in a railroad flat. Frankly, I couldn't tell where it was supposed to be.

Initially, the dialogue was lively and humorous as they exchanged reminiscences about being black or Latino homosexual adolescents. After about the first 20 minutes, the show began to go downhill. With the exception of Patterson, the autobiographies began to ramble; nothing significant was said. Other problems I found annoying were Nestor Millan's heavily accented English which made it hard to understand him and Pam Lewis's soapbox histrionics. In addition, the show ran close to three hours, with no intermission. It should have been cut to 90 minutes, have as its main focus the lives of three people, not five, and have a more cohesive structure.

As for the special guests--poets Cheryl Clarke and Jewelle Gomez, on the night that I attended--they should not have been isolated in a separate segment but integrated among the regular cast members in a five-minute cameo appearance. In so doing, they would have been given the chance to share a few lines of poetry as well as some thoughts in a manner that would not have destroyed the theatre piece's continuity.

It became apparent to me that Growing Up, Out, and Powerful was an excuse to put forth political ideas endorsed by the New Alliance Party, the left-leaning group that runs the Castillo Cultural Center. But then again, that fact should come as no surprise to anyone familiar with NAP and their tactics.

This article was submitted to the New York Amsterdam News on June 19, 1987. It was not published.

Something In The Milk Ain't Clean

To The Editor [of the New York Native]:

In Vera Hill's letter published in Issue 102 of the Native [ regarding "Celebrating Ourselves,"* a black gay supplement I guest edited in 1984]  she states that this newspaper is guilty of changing everything she wrote in her article for the black gay and lesbian supplement without obtaining her consent. As the editor of the supplement, I want to set the record straight. Anyone who carefully reads the edited manuscript against the published piece will clearly see that about 90 percent of what Hill wrote remained intact. And that whatever changes or omissions were made were done for clarity and conciseness. Any mention of Dennis Serrette [African American] and Nancy Ross [white] as running mates in the presidential election was omitted because I felt that Hill was trying to propagate the [radical left-wing] New Alliance Party's endorsement of that ticket.

The supplement's reason for being was to deal with as many different aspects of black gay and lesbian life , from as many different voices as we had space for. Although I did not object to political views being expressed, I did not want anyone using the limited amount of space we had as a political campaign tool. I would have been derelict in my duties as the editor if I were to allow that to happen in this section. In the National Alliance, NAP's newspaper, it was reported (by Jackie Salit, the paper's executive editor) that I told Hill that Patrick Merla, the Native's editor, had ordered the cuts. I never made any such statement.

I should point out that during the whole editing process, I never dealt with Hill directly but through a NAP go-between, Tammy Weinstein. So it is an example of false reporting on the part of the National Alliance to say that Hill accepted some revisions I offered. I never really knew what she thought because Weinstein was the one who kept calling me. When I asked where Hill was so I could get direct feedback, Weinstein would say that Hill was too busy organizing in the street to review the manuscript over the phone. Hill's piece was the only one I edited without the direct input of the writer.

In any future supplement, I will insist on working with the one who is the writer of a piece, not a stand-in. This rule will be applied without exception.

Hill, in her letter, tells Native readers that Serrette and Ross are "progressive, pro-gay candidates," and that Serrette was the only presidential candidate to take part in the gay pride march this year. To them I say, Bravo! But to say, as Hill does that the omission of Serrette's name from her copy is an attack on Serrette and "all Blacks and gays--who are on the front lines targeted for extermination by the right wing" is not only hyperbole but also paranoia. Whatever Dennis Serrette is, he is certainly not the straight black Messiah of black gay men and lesbians. And Hill and her ilk should stop trying to present him in that role.

Hill in our half hour telephone conversation called the Native a newspaper that was "fascist" and "right-wing." If that's the case, why bother to submit the article to such a paper, and, more importantly, why accept the enemy's money? Don't Hill and her colleagues at NAP worry that a "fascist right-wing" paper's money will contaminate  their "politically correct" organization?

I certainly have no argument with them about wanting campaign coverage of Serrette, but why, if I may be so bold to ask, did NAP not kick up a storm long before now?And why are they describing an editorial disagreement as "a fight that is currently underway in the gay community"? A "fight" that most of the gay community may not even want to participate in. Who are the combatants supposed to be anyway? And another thing, why is NAP so "eager"--that's their word--in their open letter to other gay papers to bring this "fight" to their attention? To quote Hill from her Native article, "Something in the milk ain't clean."

Sincerely yours,
Charles Michael Smith

The New York Native published this letter in 1984.

*The essay contributors included Joseph Beam, Craig Harris, and David Frechette. The poetry centerfold included Melvin Dixon, Essex Hemphill, and Salih Michael Fisher.

I give credit to Melvin Dixon for suggesting that I call the supplement "Celebrating Ourselves."