| Subject: Reagan and AIDS? |
Author:
Dave McDonald
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: Wednesday, June 09, 06:26:41pm
I must admit to being somewhat surprised by Perry's letter in today's Age.
In relation to spending on AIDS research under Reagan, I find the figures quoted an absolute indictment on his presidency. Is it just me, or does there seem to be a strange correlation between increases in spending with the recognition that AIDS is something which doesn't just target 'special populations' - ie gay men and injecting drug users. As medicine began to demonstrate that AIDS couldn't be 'contained' in the way that original scientific reports seemed to suggest, then we see increases in funding. This seems to suggest (call me a cynic) that the gravity of this illness was only articulated in the form of research spending when the 'general population' (read: heterosexual, white, non-injecting drug users) were seen as threatened with transmission.
Secondly, after having a quick glance of Reagan's 1986 State of the Union address, I couldn't find any mention of HIV/AIDS. Can you elaborate, because it seems we appear to be reading different speeches. You say there were five references to it. Help me out here - I can't find any!!!
Thirdly, I make no apologies for publishing my position in the Student Union. I was elected on an explicitly left wing platform, and am not about to moderate my political activity on the basis of my role as queer officer.
I'm not sure what avenue of action your sentiments leave open to an office bearer - in fact, the consequences of your argument (that I cannot and do not speak on behalf of all students) can only lead to a state of paralysis. Can I ever speak on behalf of all students? Let me know if you have any great ideas, because I certainly don't.
I believe that because I was elected on an explicitly left wing platform, it is only right (indeed, I believe I am compelled) to act in accordance with the principles I was elected on. If you have a problem with this, I'd encourage you to get involved in elections later this year.
I also think it's important to recognise that Unions are only as strong as thier members. I encourage anyone who wants to get active around queer issues to get involved in the department. The idea that office bearers exist in some kind of ivory tower is nebulous. I conceive of the queer department as a collective space, and that office bearer's do not 'lead' queer students. Rather, my role is to try and facilitate and resource the work that people want to get involved in.
Was Reagan homophobic? I believe he was. Indeed, take a glance at www.intellectualconservative.com/article2805.html. I cite this webcite specifically because it is conservative. I could have chosen countless other articles on Reagan, but seeing as you seem to have some kind of problem with the "anti-Reagan Left", thought I'd try to be a little more 'impartial'. Have a read of this passage from the article:
"Edmund Morris writes Mr. Reagan once said of AIDS, ‘Maybe the Lord brought down this plague,’ because ‘illicit sex is against the Ten Commandments.”
Rock singer Sebastian Bach once wore a t-shirt on stage that said “AIDS Kills Fags Dead.”
Which is worse?"
…
Is this is way we should be evaluating Reagan's response to AIDS? That because someone else did worse, he's off the hook. The article goes on to say that "if he was biased, he wasn’t the only one"... I don't think I need to point out just how fragile this argument is.
I believe that there can be no doubt that Reagan's inaction was an expression of his moral objections to homosexuality, and that the consequence of this was the death of too many people.
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 