This essay was originally published in September of 1993 as an OUT in Left Field column in the LGBTQ newspaper Between the Lines. OUT in Left Field ran from March of 1993 through January of 1995; Between the Lines was distributed throughout the state of Michigan, USA.

I was hard at work on the promised column on tactics for the queer rebellion when I heard something on the TV that pushed me over the edge. So, that column will have to wait while I ventilate.

What set me off was hearing yet another newscaster refer to an indigenous Somalian leader as a “warlord.” (If you’re thinking, “oh no, now she’s off on foreign policy . . . no wonder they call this column ‘out in left field,’” please bear with me and read on. The relevance to the domestic concerns of U. S. queers will become clearer as we go.)

Leaving aside the question of whether or not this particular so-called “warlord” is evil incarnate, let’s think about words and pictures. At the start of U. S. military involvement in Somalia, we were shown pictures of a country beset by chaos and starvation. We were told that the reason for these problems was that “warlords” were rampaging through the countryside, wreaking havoc and preventing the “charitable” distribution of food by more civilized nations. Of course, no one actually said that Western nations were more civilized. The word “warlord” took care of that. Imagine them calling George Bush “warlord” instead of “Commander in Chief,” and you’ll see what I mean.

The dramatic imagery of the “warlord” also served to obscure the real reasons for the tragic conditions in Somalia. For centuries, African cultures were depopulated by the slave trade and destabilized by colonization . African natural resources were plundered to profit the invading Europeans. African nations have struggled mightily since decolonization, but the damage done by centuries of such abuses cannot be undone in a couple of decades. The natural resources, of course, are gone forever, and the countries which profited from their theft now consider themselves charitable when they give back a pittance of what they stole in the form of loans and “donations.” Could any of this have anything to do with starvation in Somalia? No, it’s all the fault of those rampaging warlords.

This tactic - the use of dramatic and degrading phases to devalue the enemy and hide the true source of the problem - is often used against people of color at home and abroad. It has also been deployed against queers and others whose image is already debased in the popular imagination of the dominant culture. The use of such dismissive phrases tends to set the terms of the debate and block legitimate discussion of complex issues. When that happens, everybody loses.

Back in the U. S., the female equivalent of the warlord is the “queen.” If I were a gay man, I’d be outraged by the frequent use of this term to degrade and ridicule African American women. It all started with Ronald Reagan and his sneering references to “welfare queens” who reportedly drove around in Caddilacs while their children starved. While race was not explicitly mentioned, the references to Caddilacs assured that most whites would see Black. According to Reagan, these “queens” were responsible not only for their own poverty but also for the economic woes of the whole country. Never mind deindustrialization, profiteering by big business, or tax subsidies for the rich. It’s all the fault of those rampaging welfare queens. Sound familiar?

More recently, Lani Guinier learned what it’s like to be queen for a day. One minute, she was a respected law professor and Justice Department nominee; the next minute, she was the “quota Queen.” Never mind that she had never advocated quotas; it was a catchy phrase, so the name stuck. In short order, Guinier was history. The truth was no defense against the orchestrated perception of her as a quota-slinging “reverse racist” hell-bent on destroying the very fabric of democracy. Clinton withdrew Guinier’s nomination without allowing her to explain her true views to congress and to the voting public. In the process, we lost not only an exemplary nominee but also the opportunity to conduct a national dialogue on the ideas that Guinier actually does support.

The next African American woman to be dubbed was Joycelyn Elders, who was ridiculed as “the condom queen” upon her nomination to the post of Surgeon General. Only Bill Clinton’s fear of his own humiliation, should yet another nomination go down in flames, led Elders to get the support necessary to withstand the attack.

The frequency, fervor and effectiveness of this queen-calling should tell us something about the powerful intersection of racism, sexism, and homophobia. The popular imagination is pervaded by perverse and/or threatening images of people of color. The word “queen,” originally reserved for powerful (therefore masculine therefore perverse) women, is further tainted by its association with homosexual (therefore perverse) men. Put it all together and you can bring down a Presidential nominee with a single word.

Well, I say, if the word “queen” is so powerful, let’s turn it against our common enemies. It’s no accident that the queen-callers have all been opponents not only of decent subsidies to people living in poverty, affirmative action, abortion rights, and public AIDS education but also of gay and lesbian rights. They are scared, straight, white men, clinging to their power and privilege by any means necessary. We need to take that power away from them.

As Lani Guinier learned, reason and integrity are no match for ridicule and exaggeration in the media circus that passes for a free press these days. The only way to fight back is to wrest control of the image and, in so doing, to rearrange the terms of the debate.

I’ll leave it up to some enterprising Radical Faerie to figure out a creative way for gay men to stand in solidarity with African American women, turn the tables on the queen-callers, and reclaim “queen” as the proud queer emblem that it is. Remember, the trick is to find a dramatic image, combine it with a catchy phrase, and deploy both in a way that will ridicule and intimidate the opposition. The only difference is that the goal is to expose, rather than hide, the true face of the oppressor. I’ll be watching to see what you come up with.