An April 2005 article on NARTH’s website that defends slavery was recently brought to light by various websites including Ex-Gay Watch.
Update: The article, authored by NARTH advisory board member Gerald Schoenewolf, Ph.D, has been removed from public view, but a copy of the article is available — see update below.
Wayne Besen publicly called for NARTH to retract the article and Exodus co-founder Michael Bussee sent private correspondence and posted comments to NARTH’s blog admonishing them as well. (Update: Warren Throckmorton has weighed in and advised NARTH to pull the article.)
A NARTH blogger known by the handle “Sojourneer” has posted a response addressing Michael Bussee “and others.” For the record, “Sojourneer” is assumed to be an associate of NARTH because he/she has the ability to post entire blog entries (not just comments) to NARTH’s site as seen here. In other words, “Sojourneer” is not just an independent commenter. Here is NARTH’s response:
Michael and others, regarding Gerald Schoenewolf, Ph.D.
Michael, you are trying to discredit Narth by attacking individual members. You seem to be scouring the Narth website looking for information that you can distort and use for your disinformation campaign. Your resent attack on Schoenewolf is classic. If you can imply he is a racist then his opinion does not count and he becomes invalidated. Then by association, Narth is also racist, homophobic, or religious and Narth has no voice. I think you are doing this because Narth is making a difference in people’s lives and beginning to make an impact on a larger organization like the APA.
As far the article you refer to, I posted the link below for others to read the entire paper in context. It is a rather interesting article title, “Gay Rights and Political Correctness: A Brief History.”
My views on his comments about race are as follows. He is not saying slavery was a good thing nor, is he saying it was no big deal. What he is saying is that good things can come out of bad situations. The good that came out of it was that African people came to America. Coming to America was a great thing because America is the greatest country in the world. When a person has been victimized by some unfortunate circumstance, one way to cope with it is to get something positive out of it. This in no way minimizes the traumatic event. Slavery was an immoral practice and a shameful event in the history of the United States. However, slavery was not just practiced by America. Schoenewolf points this out in the paper. He says that slavery was practiced by the Africans themselves. In addition, slavery was used by many other cultures and countries for many centuries.
(hat tip Michael Bussee)
UPDATE: As the organization did with another article recently highlighted, NARTH has quietly removed the article referenced above with no explanation of why it was published, i.e. do they agree with it or not? You can view a Google Cache version for now, but this will expire soon. We call on NARTH to exhibit some intellectual honesty by not simply erasing this in an attempt to again revise their history.
Realising this was “NARTH’s reponse”…
But WHO actually replied on behalf of NARTH?
Bluntly, who the heck is “Sojourneer”?
Ah, the old “well, sure we do bad things, but they do it too!” defense.
That’s a pretty weak and lackluster defense. It doesn’t even attempt to address the criticisms anyone made about the article, but instead tries to reframe the whole controversy. Is it apparent to anyone else that the Sojourneer’s intended destination in all of this is, “What do you mean America is not the greatest country in the world?”
“The good that came out of it was that African people came to America.”
Let me finish that sentense: “… shoved into inhumane conditions on a ship with a high likelihood of dying on the trip only to be treated like cattle when they arrived with no sense of being a person and the knowledge that they, their children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren would be property and that even should they escape there would be no chance to return to their native people or that they could be rescued by their tribe and basically no hope whatsoever of a better lot in life.”
Somehow I don’t think that the Africans who arrived in chains looked around and said “Oooh, lucky me, I made it to the greatest country in the world.”
But here the semi-official response of NARTH is that Slavey was naughty (tsk tsk) but really all for the best. Can they really believe that saying this, much less defending it, isn’t a part of the reason that they are held in contempt not only by us but by the professional organizations?
More reasoned voices in the ex-gay camp certainly don’t share their permissive attitude towards slavery. David Blakeslee and (I believe) Warren Throckmorton were disturbed by what Schoenewolf said.
I wonder if there is a separation occuring in the ex-gay camp between those on one side who think reorientation is possible and perhaps effective and those on the other side who are either complete loons or willing to say anything to advance a political goal. Let’s hope so.
Perhaps we can come to some place of agreement with those advocates of reorientation who are reasonable honest and not having conversations with the voices in their head.
What do you mean America is not the greatest country in the world?”
But, surely, you jest Robis? We all know WHERE God’s Own Country is.
(and it aint Lebanon, today)
I know we may get stabbed in the heart by stingray every so often… but surely a cheap price to pay? No?
So long as NARTH chooses to authorize and host racist articles (as opposed to unauthorized third-party comments) on its website, it is complicit in that racism.
NARTH’s avoidance of morality and responsibility for its own actions is astonishing.
It is insufficient to rationalize or excuse racism, nor is it sufficient to simply delete the article without comment after having hosted and disseminated racist propaganda for an extended period of time.
Morality and common decency requires that NARTH issue a public statement — one that is permanently hosted on its web site — that repudiates the article and apologizes to the public for having helped to disseminate a member’s racist materials.
If NARTH were to once again respond by deleting immoral content from its web site without permanent official repudiation, then I would again consider NARTH’s action an unapologetic and immoral coverup of official views that NARTH does not want the public to know about.
My post on the NARTH blog
Mike’s interpretation of the article is a valid interpretation. The author is a psychoanalyst who views the world from the inside of his office and is completely oversimplifying complex social phenomenon: that oversimiplification is also biased against legitimate outrage against chronic injustices.
Victimhood is not just a perceptual problem of the individual which he must “overcome” or “percieve differently.” If oppression exists, part of overcoming it is railing against the forces that encourage it, out of empathy for future victims.
Mr. Jackson, I agree.
Accusing Mike of “scouring” the NARTH web page is troubling.
It exists to be examined and read. We shouldn’t accuse people of doing what we invite them to do: Read and Think.
I have notified Ron Oden (Palm Spring’s “openly gay”, African-American Mayor) about all of this. I left a message. I expect he will respond soon. I wonder if it would be a good idea to call Focus on the Family directly as well?
Feel free to tell them I’m the one who found it, not Mike. I’d tell them but they don’t seem to want to post stuff from me.
Here’s something I left at Throckmorton’s blog:
Here’s a passage I have trouble with:
“Subsequent to Marx, various human rights groups began using his ideology to rationalize their movements, primarily in America. First came the Civil Rights Movement, which began in the 1850s and was one of the causes of the Civil War. In this case, European-Americans (Caucasians) became the oppressors and African-Americans became the oppressed; European-Americans were demonized, and African-Americans were idealized; European-Americans who had practiced slavery or segregation were viewed as all-bad and African-Americans were seen as all-good.
African-Americans were urged by various leaders to unify and rebel against European-Americans and to demand special privileges as compensation for their suffering at the hands of the latter. Civil rights leaders, like Marx and Engels before them, believed that their way, and only their way, was the valid way to look at the issue. In the 1950s, the Civil Rights Movement went into high gear, and the leaders of the movement, just like Marx and Engels, began to punish anybody who was in any way critical of the movement or had any other point of view with respect to solving racial discrimination by labeling them “racists” and “bigots” and attempting to isolate and ostracize them.”
Note the first sentence of the second paragraph. African-Americans were being “urged by various leaders to unify and rebel against European-Americans” and to demand “special privileges.” Just prior to this he refers to the Civil Rights movement of the 1850s and just afterward to the movement of the 1950s, so which one was this sentence referring to? If it refers to the 1850s, then he’s just said freedom for African-Americans is a “special privilege.” If he’s referring to the 1950s, then he is saying that European-Americans are the masters of African-Americans even after slavery was abolished. Either way, this is an exceptionally racist statement, and not one that can be explained away by someone simply being too blunt or unclear in trying to make a point.
I’m sure I also hardly need to point out that it is extremely disingenuous to reduce the entire gay rights movement to a “Gay Revolution Party Manifesto” he read on some website, and that he would be extremely hardpressed to find any gay rights organizations who claim that straight people per se are “evil.”
OMG, I think I finally figured out how to italicize!!! I AM NOT A MORON!!!! WOO-HOO!!!
OMG, I think I finally figured out how to italicize!!! I AM NOT A MORON!!!! WOO-HOO!!!
Now you just need to separate the italics from the regular text so your comments are distinct 😉
Ok, well let’s just show Schoenewolf’s article to some African-Americans and see if they are so quick to excuse comments, such as:
“Africa at the time of slavery was still primarily a jungle, as yet uncivilized or industrialized. Life there was savage, as savage as the jungle for most people, and that it was the Africans themselves who first enslaved their own people.”
Pleas for “reason” from a man who doesn’t even know that Africa had sophisticated complex kingdoms in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries should fall on deaf ears. And, by the way, industrialization did not happen until the 1700s.
Sojourneer wants us to believe that all Schoenewolf is saying is that “good things can come out of bad situations.”
Well, if Sojourneer is a defender of NARTH, it’s no wonder that he is so eager to call black white and white black. That is actually clearly NOT what he said. He, using arguments virtually indistinguishable from pro-slavery racists of the seventeenth and eighteenth century, said that Africans were “better off” than they were in Africa, not that there was just “something positive” about slavery.
Schoenewolf was also mystified as to why people who had to stare down violent mobs and face REAL lynchings and REAL terror by the KKK and White Citizens Councils(not the figurative terror he accused Civil Rights activists of orchestrating) would get “emotional” about their civil rights. How were blacks going to reason with Bull Connor?
Ironically, it is just Schoenwolf’s kind of red-baiting hysteria that contributed to the violent response to the Civil Rights Movement by the Southern Establishment. Convinced that Civil Rights was some kind of Communist plot, the Southern elites rushed to crush it.
As far as his complaints about why someone would be upset that an open racist is on the advisory board of NARTH (not a mere member, but an advisory board member!), well, I think one should ask questions if the NARTH is attracting reactionary kooks and racists. It sort of says something about its political orientation.
There is just nothing to redeem this article. That NARTH is actually trying to defend it further illustrates the problem, and their disconnect with the real world. I can only shake my head when I consider how anyone could a) write this, b) post it for all to read, and c) attempt to justify it.
Narth claims to be a professional organization with the answers to one of the most important social issues of our time. Yet they support and endorse the opinions of a man who doesn’t even understand the intensely documented historical data on one of the most severe civil rights atrocities of modern times.
“The offensive article has been removed from the NARTH site. The criticisms have been duly noted.”
I found this on the NARTH blog this a.m.
Is it fair to say thta Martin Luther King’s nonviolent response to institutional bigotry was the polar opposite of a MARXIST idea?
I think so!
Anyone who has actually read Marx would know that the insinuation that he and Engles “believed that their way, and only their way, was the valid way to look at the issue” is a load of crap. So many people try to paint Marx with the brush of Soviet authoritarianism. That is a very misleading and misinformed opinion.
My understanding of Marx’s philosophy is that the progression towards socialism (and ultimately to communism) is a natural one. I don’t recall reading anything in the ‘Communist Manifesto’ about organizing violent, revolutionary campaigns. Marx did, however, attempt to wake up and rally the working class to their situation and to encourage them to work for change.
All authoritarian socialist states have failed, with the singular exception of North Korea. (I purposefully omit Cuba because it is my opinion that the American embargo of Cuba has done more to perpetuate Castro’s hold on power than the internal mechanics of Cuba’s political system… but that is an argument for another day! China is authoritarian, but hardly communist nowadays.) Successful socialist practices are in place in much of Europe (and Canada), however, and I don’t see that changing any time soon.
Generally whenever a “conservative” invokes Marx, he’s trying to smear someone. Americans have been so heavily propagandized against Marxism that their reaction to even the mention of Marx’s name is negative. The intent is to invoke the same feelings about others who he compares to Marx.
What a shock. Bigots are bigots. You can expect this kind of thing to happen over and over.
Marx’s ideas as lived out politically in Russia, China, Vietnam, Cambodia and other locations does cause some concern…
But now we are very far afield.
NARTH pulled the article without explanation or apology today.
without explanation or apology today.
This repeated lack of accountability is troubling. Transparency is absolutely essential for any organization that presumes to deal with facts and truth. Narth is not even practicing what they demand of others.
I trust someone cached it or whatever you call it?
Open letter no NARTH, posted there (though I doubt they will print it.)
“Removed without ANY apology or explantion. One sentence, hidden deep in a discussion on “Games Lebian Therapist’s Play…” Who would even THINK to look here?
You don’t even have the intellectual courage to post the retraction with a headline, just as you didn’t with Berger’s mess. No apology or explanation from the writer of the piece, as with Berger. I assume both men will remain on your panel of “expert” advisors. You just make it all disappear. POOF…
Would any other “legitimate” “scientific” organization that wants credibility from the APA do this? I aggree with David Robert’s post on Exgay watch — who at least gives his full name, not a handle like “sojourneer” or “jjohnson”. Doesn’t NARTH have a president or CEO? Is anyone in charge there? Is anyone reading these things before NARTH makes them public? Is anyone awake there?
David said: “This repeated lack of accountability is troubling. Transparency is absolutely essential for any organization that presumes to deal with facts and truth. Narth is not even practicing what they demand of others.”
No wonder the APA (and every other LEGITIMATE scientific of professional organization) repeatedly denounces NARTH for lack of scientific evidence and a potential for harming clients. Buyers, beware.”
I checked the NARTH blogs for “jjohnson” and found several posts on different topics from “Jeremiah Johnson”. I assume this is the the same “jjohnson” who posted the announcement that the Schoenewolf article had been “removed” and “criticisms duly noted”. The only other reference I could find on line was for the movie: “Jeremiah Johnson”, Directed by Sydney Pollack, Produced by Joe Wizan, Starring Robert Redford and
Will Geer, Distributed by Warner Bros. Release date September 10, 1972 (U.S. release)
Here’s the plot: “Jeremiah Johnson (1972) is a film about the mountain men who hunted for furs, primarily beaver, during the first part of the 19th century. It was directed by Sydney Pollack, and starred Robert Redford as Jeremiah Johnson and Will Geer as Bear Claw. This movie is said to have been based in-part on the life of the legendary mountain man Liver-Eating Johnson. It is also based on the novel Mountain Man by Vardis Fisher.”
Looks like “jjohnson” is a just a pseudonym for another cowardly NARTH member, like “sojourneer”.
No one takes responsibility. How can anyone take NARTH seriously, when the person who retracts the offending article hides behind a screen name?
Joseph Nicolosi is President of NARTH so wouldn’t it make sense to think he is responsible? I looked on Narth website and he has been president for several years.
I have a cache of the web page if someone wants it
Michael Bussee said:
Looks like “jjohnson” is a just a pseudonym for another cowardly NARTH member, like “sojourneer”.
Lest anyone feel we are making unreasonable requirements, there is nothing wrong with using a pseudonym, esp if it is used consistently. The main reason for this is so that one can be accountable for statements made in more than one place. The actual identity of a person in the “real world” is not a big concern unless one needs to reference activities there to hold the person accountable for material authored online. Indeed, this type of anonymity is sometimes necessary for the free expression of thoughts and ideas.
However, it does seem extremely odd that those involved with Narth would choose pseudonyms to use on a blog they sponsor. In this case their real world identities are already referenced with Narth, but on the next page they want to post ideas, presumably without shame, and do so without revealing their identities in connection with Narth. This does strike me as dishonest, and somewhat cowardly. Noted exceptions are Dr. Warren Throckmorton and Dr. David Blakeslee, both of whom have been honest enough to also post here under those names.
This practice only adds to my concern over the lack of transparency at Narth. Consider how odd it would be if XGW started posting position papers in a separate section of our site, yet Mike Airhart wrote under the pen name “The Traveler” or whatever. He could then argue for or against positions held under his name on the blog.
Come on Narth, what are you afraid of?
Here is the Google Cache version of the article. This will not stay up long, so anyone interested should save it now.
In my view the Schoenewolf article STANDS — unless someone OFFICIAL at Narth comes out PUBLICLY to explain why it was removed and WHO removed it. It also stands until Schoenewolf himself either retracts it, explains it more clearly, and/or apologizes for its content.
For all we know, “jjohnson” has NO authority at ALL to speak on behalf of NARTH and may not even be associated with NARTH. Let’s hear from someone with authority and credentials to speak on behalf of NARTH. It’s their blog, their advisor and their article. Time to come clean, Joe. This is PRECISELY why you have NO credibilty with ANY major psychological, professional or scientific organization in this country or elsewhere.
Nicolosi sure hasn’t taken any responsibility here. It’s not retracted until it is done CLEARLY and by a person with a NAME. No other “professional” or “scientific” psychological/therapeutic organization would be so cowardly. This is CLASSIC NARTH.
David said, “This repeated lack of accountability is troubling. Transparency is absolutely essential for any organization that presumes to deal with facts and truth. Narth is not even practicing what they demand of others.”
I don’t want to name names but didn’t we have a certain someone from NARTH say just a week or so ago, “Oh, transparency! I get it now! We’ll get it right from now on!”
Apparently he didn’t really get it.
Removed without ANY apology or explantion. One sentence, hidden deep in a discussion on “Games Lesbian Therapist’s Play…” Who would even THINK to look here?
Kind of appropriate, in an ironic way. Perhaps someone needs to write an article on “Games NARTH Therapists Play”…
Scheonewolf on those evil militant feminists:
http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/narth/militant.html
Similarly, there has been a plethora of questionable research and skewed statistics by feminist groups which purports to prove that the problems of women are not caused by female neurosis (or abnormalities), but in fact by male sexism. (In each case, the blame is put on heterosexual males.)
It would be interesting to know exactly what “problems of women” he believes are caused by “female neurosis.”
It would be interesting to know exactly what “problems of women” he believes are caused by “female neurosis.”
Is that something like Female Hysteria? This is quickly degrading into quack science.
All we need now are the bottles of alcohol and mophine based “cures” and the picture will be complete.
David
Don’t forget the leaches. Leach that ol’ gay away.
This just posted on Wayne Besen’s blog:
“In Letter, National Black Justice Coalition Urges Dr. Joseph Nicolosi To Apologize For His Organization’s Divisive Article
MIAMI BEACH, Fla. – Truth Wins Out called on Focus on the Family today to cancel a Saturday keynote speaking appearance by Dr. Joseph Nicolosi, the Executive Director of The National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH), after a column was discovered on the group’s website that appeared to justify slavery.
The National Black Justice Coalition (NBJC) also wrote a letter to Dr. Nicolosi this afternoon, calling on his organization to apologize for posting the article. NBJC is a national civil rights organization of black lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered people that fosters equality by fighting racism and homophobia.
“In the name of propriety, respect, common decency and professional integrity, the National Black Justice Coalition strongly urges NARTH to issue a public apology on the front page of its website for publishing such an outrageous and offensive article,” wrote H. Alexander Robinson CEO/Executive Director in the group’s letter. “We also hope that you reevaluate your relationship with Dr. Schoenewolf whose peculiar views have no place in civilized discourse.”
Still absolutely NOTHING by way of apology from NARTH and no one in authority at NARTH taking ANY responsibility.