(CNN) -- A soldier and his shadow sit alone on wrinkled sheets. With his knees pressed tightly up against his chest, he wraps his arms around his legs and bows his head.
In another photo, a soldier stands before a mirror. His raised hand covers just enough of his reflection to protect his anonymity.
But it's not photographer Jeff Sheng from whom these men are hiding their identities.
It's the military.
Sheng's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" exhibit, two years in the making, conveys the stories of the gay and bisexual men and women who serve in the U.S. military. And because his subjects are forced to keep their sexual orientations under wraps in order to serve, Shen's photos are portraits without faces.
The Los Angeles, California-based artist said many of his subjects were grateful for the opportunity to make a statement "without fully revealing themselves and losing their jobs."
"If this person got outed, they would lose their pension, their retirement benefits -- their 20 years of service in the military would be gone," he said.
Sheng asked many of those he photographed why they continue to serve despite the inequality.
"I asked, 'Why do you still serve with this policy in place? Why would you do it?' " Sheng said. "And they all looked at me and said, 'Because it's serving the country. It's the most honorable thing that I can think of doing right now in my life.' "
There is no honor in doing something honorable for the dishonorable.....
ReplyDeleteThat is heroic.
What confuses me is all the non-serving Chickenhawks running around screaming for war that very few of them are offering up themselves or their kids to go fight. That people who are abused should want to join and continue to serve under such conditions is strange.
ReplyDeleteThis, too, shall pass. For all the one step forward, two steps back we've seen, the impetus for replacing a failed, half-measure policy with simple fairness for all is remarkable. Yes, it should come more quickly, but our politics and democracy are a mess right now.
ReplyDeleteThe good news is that the die is cast, and DADT's days are numbered.
Sheng asked his subjects, "Why would you do it?" They answered, "Because it's serving the country."
ReplyDeleteTAO commented, "There is no honor in doing something honorable for the dishonorable."
So, you're saying that because of DADT, our country is dishonorable?
Such a broad-stroke judgment would've left the U.S. in quite a spot in 1941. African Americans, Jews, Native Americans, Chinese and, overnight, Japanese, were all targets of discrimination. Very open, blatant and, by today's standards, harsh discrimination. Those dark of skin were especially susceptipbe to rough justice of the lynching kind.
I'm glad a whole lot of Americans felt that despite America's flaws there was enough good about this country, enough potential for ending injustices, that they were willing to serve the country's defense.
I disagree with your statement. I think every time a person chooses to do an honorable thing, he or she strengthens their own integrity and sense of self worth.
Gays have been serving and dying for this country since the revolutionary war.
ReplyDeleteDADT is no longer an issue of doing the right thing but rather a political issue (as witnessed by the John/Cindy McCain stupidity).
Yes, I find the whole issue of DADT, as it has been dealt with over the last year to be dishonorable.
I also think the fact that 1 out of 3 women in the military admit to being sexually assualted.
That too is dishonorable.
I believe that the whole meltdown of Wall Street was dishonorable and how we have dealt with it to be dishonorable.
If people are willing to serve and die for their country then they should be respected for that and it does not need to be put up to a vote of the military to decide if it is okay for them to join the fraternity.
Did we send out a questionaire asking the troops what they thought about allowing blacks in the military?
Beach: I agree but the fact is that they do it anyway. I'm sure not all of them are totally motivated by serving the country but maybe to a certain degree by job security and job training, education and so forth. So many of them come from such impoverished environments that I guess they think risking their lives overseas is no worse than risking them on the streets of their own country.
ReplyDeleteTAO: That it's heroic is an understatement. Every LGBT in the military deserves a special medal as they seem to be fighting on two fronts.
SW: I cannot speak for TAO, but my comment to him is how I interpreted his words.
I don't think it's fair to compare WWII to Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan. There is nothing honorable about these unnecessary wars. In all cases we have been lied to by the military industrial complex which has resulted in our troops and civilian populations being killed in the name of a sham. None of these wars serve in any way as a defense for our country.
Maybe it was noble for Jews, Blacks, Native Americans, etc., to put up with discrimination and to fight for the country in WWII but the way they were treated - especially when they came home - is a black spot on our history and should not be forgiven or forgotten. Integrity and sense of self-worth probably doesn't mean much to the veteran who is homeless and hungry and suffers from PTSD.
TAO: Our comments criss-crossed each other and I didn't see your until after I posted.
ReplyDelete"If people are willing to serve and die for their country then they should be respected for that. .. "
Exactly and I think I indicate that in my comment. I also might add that just because this country and our military have shamefully discriminated against various groups because they are somehow "diffeent" for over 200 years is not a good argument for continuing the practice.
Any organization that requires a person to lie about who he or she is in order to remain in that organization is dishonorable.
ReplyDeleteAs I wrote on another blog where this discussion was ongoing and where someone said gay is "not normal" and not "what God intended":
If you believe God creates life, then you believe God created homosexuals; homosexuals are attracted to the same sex; therefore, they behave in exactly the way god intended."
And I don't tolerate people saying homosexuality is "not normal." I counter that with, no, homosexuality is quite normal, it's been around since Adam and Steve. And there is scientific studies of homosexuality in non-human beings. So as a naturally occuring non-hetero sexual state of being--it is quite normal.
But Homosexuality is a minority sexual state of being. So?
To state that homosexuality is "not normal" carries a perjorative connotation. Would anyone say that having blue eyes is "not normal" just because a majority of human beings have brown eyes?
As for using religion as an excuse to demonize gays and lesbians, I'm done with that. People who do so will, of course, lose this battle as did those who were against any other acceptance and advancements of minorities.
Its odd that this debate is still going on and guys like John McCain are still beating the same drum.
ReplyDeleteMaybe McCain was sleeping in 50 plus years ago in Annapolis when the American Revolution was discussed, and the story of how Baron von Steuben arrived at Valley Forge, and trained the shoeless and freezing soldiers and militiamen there.
Maybe even more than Washington himself, von Steuben could be called the savior of the Continental Army that winter. Though he spoke little English, under him a rabble became an army.
Baron von Steuben had no other place to go but to America....he was discharged from the Prussian Army for homosexuality, and his reputation kept him out of other European armies.
The training methods employed by von Steuben were used by the American military for the next 30 years.
Shaw: "Any organization that requires a person to lie about who he or she is in order to remain in that organization is dishonorable."
ReplyDeleteTotally and with no exceptions. I think there are probably more people who have blue eyes who claim that people with brown eyes are not normal. Thinking of similarities to Germany here.
Hugh: I'm getting ready to post a video about McCain here. I've written several times about his propensity to change snake skins.
I did not know that about von Steuben. Thanks for the history lesson.
TAO asked, "Did we send out a questionaire asking the troops what they thought about allowing blacks in the military?"
ReplyDeleteNo, racial integration of the military could be done legally by executive order. DADT became policy through an act of Congress. The best information I have is that an act of Congress is therefore required to end it.
tnlib wrote: "I don't think it's fair to compare WWII to Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan."
ReplyDeleteEvidently the point of my comment was as clear as mud. America fell far short of the principles and ideals of the Declaration of Independence and Constitution from the beginning, e.g., slavery, women's lack of rights and much more. Pick any point in our history right up to today and you can find problems with fundamental unfairness toward various groups and individuals.
Had earlier generations adopted the attitude that this lack of perfection was so distasteful they'd be damned if they were going to actually join up and fight — the War of 1812, the Civil War, World War II, whatever — we wouldn't have had a country to make fairer.
"There is nothing honorable about these unnecessary wars."
I think the Afghanistan war was bungled from the beginning, but was called for and honorable. The Iraq war and Vietnam were not, IMO.
"In all cases we have been lied to by the military industrial complex which has resulted in our troops and civilian populations being killed in the name of a sham."
That could be said of the Spanish-American War. Where would we have been if because of that no Americans were willing to go and fight in the two world wars?
"Integrity and sense of self-worth probably doesn't mean much to the veteran who is homeless and hungry and suffers from PTSD."
Very true.
Look, considering how the military keeps going off to fight ill-conceived, no-win wars, bringing dishonor on itself and the country, then casting off its damaged personnel like yesterday's newspapers, maybe we should just shut it down. We could save a lot of money.
But then, the military doesn't slip off to fight ill-conceived, no-win, dishonorable wars on its own, does it? No, elected officials decide when and where the military will go to fight. Given what a bad history we have with letting our elected officials make those decisions, maybe we should take that authority away from them, or else just do away with elected officials.
I think the reality is, America is a work in progress and has been from the beginning. The people elect their leaders, and sometimes make spectacularly lousy choices. Elected leaders determine military policy and actions, sometimes getting it terribly wrong.
It's so imperfect and subject to unsatisfactory, even dishonorable, outcomes. But it's democracy, with ultimate responsibility resting on the people's shoulders. That means people who inform themselves and bother to vote, as well as all those who do neither.
It's been said of democracy that it's the worst way to run a country — except for all the others.
Sw: "Pick any point in our history right up to today and you can find problems with fundamental unfairness toward various groups and individuals."
ReplyDeleteThis is true but should we just keep doing it? Should we just close our eyes and accept it as something that's always been? Should we not put pressure on our so-called representatives to repeal this horrid act? Just because we've been doing it wrong for two centuries, should we just make excuses for keeping on doing it wrong?
Sheria, who is an attorney, has a very informative piece up on her blog. I urge everyone to link to it.
http://theexaminedlife-sheria.blogspot.com/2010/11/repeal-dadt-yes-we-can.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+blogspot%2Fsheria+%28The+Examined+Life%29
SW,
ReplyDeleteI have too much respect for you to argue with you...
I think the biggest difference in our perspective is that you still believe that we as a nation are on a path of "constant improvement" while I am tending more to the belief that we have stopped and are now a country hell bent on "gettin' while the gettin' is good."
We are no longer fighting the good fight for improvement but rather seem to be fighting rear quard skirmishes...
...but of course I also think all the debate about DADT is not really about gays in the military but rather is just another chip that is used in the big game of politics....
tnlib wrote: "This is true but should we just keep doing it? Should we just close our eyes and accept it as something that's always been?"
ReplyDeleteOf course not. Nowhere have I even hinted at such a thing. Unfairness should be pointed out, in speaking, writing, conversations, public forums and communications with public officials. It's unacceptability should be made unrelentingly clear. The more who do that, the more likely it becomes the public will consider, then accept the idea of, and eventually maybe even actively support change for the better.
That's the cool, steady, force-of-nature approach. It usually takes longer, but when it works, it tends to avoid backlash and yields the fewest problems.
The hot, hard-hitting, sometimes faster but in many ways more risky approach is for people to man the barricades, raise hell in the streets, hold sit-ins in public places, stage strikes and that sort of thing. Even when it achieves the desired result, in America, this approach is backlash prone. It can result in backsliding or boomerang altogether.
tnlib, an old saying goes, "There's usually a little bit of bad in the best of us and a little bit of good in the worst of us." I believe that's true for our politics and politicians, our institutions including the military, and our country.
I'm getting the impression you feel that if something is not just so, it's no good. Our government, leaders, military and so on are never above or immune to criticism. Condemnation is another matter.
TAO, I do believe we're on a path to improvement, but not constant. Like many things in life, it comes in fits and starts, sometimes with extended lags between times.
ReplyDeleteLooking back over 230-plus years of American history, I see that improvements do keep coming. Not always quickly, easily and gracefully, but they do keep coming. That does give me confidence about the future.
SW: "I'm getting the impression you feel that if something is not just so, it's no good."
ReplyDeleteI sure haven't meant to give that impression. I've been one of the ones who is usually saying that we can't have all we want the minute we want it in response to the progressives who have condemned Obama to hell and back. And this is why Sheria's article makes such good sense to me.
I have nothing but respect for you and TAO. You're both enormously talented and far more knowlegeable than I am. I'm not into the doom and gloom thing but I am concerned about what we're seeing and hearing these days - and not just from the right - and I get frustrated from time to time. But I always appreciate your optimism SW because you bring your knowledge of history with it. Not all of us, including me, have that knowledge except for bits and pieces.
Saying that the government is dishonorable for having DADT (or racial discrimination) in place does not equate to saying that the country is not worth defending. Anderson is conflating the two.
ReplyDeletePeople throughout history have willingly fought for the survival of their own country even when they knew that its leadership was dishonorable, even despicable. Think of all the Russians who willingly fought to the death against the Nazi invasion even while their country was led by Stalin, one of the most evil men in history.
Yes, America has always been worth fighting for and to do so was heroic, and yes, the leaders who kept Jim Crow in place and who keep DADT in place today are dishonorable and despicable. There's no contradiction between the two points. That's the way the world is.
That says it nicely Infidel and is what I was thinking but for some reason couldn't put it together yesterday. I think I was having a mind warp.
ReplyDeleteOnce again, Frodo learns a thing or three. So, Von Steuben, eh? Bilbo would've been shocked to learn that there were gay people in America before World War II. She always told Frodo that was the case.
ReplyDeleteFrodo looks at those who are younger, and he often shakes his head and promises never to put pods in his ears. Then he sees that 70% of those in the active military don't give a rat's butt about the sexual orientation of those with whom they serve.
Frodo would hate to be the TSA employee who frisked McCain when he read that. That was a real bomb in his underwear.
Infidel753 wrote: "Saying that the government is dishonorable for having DADT (or racial discrimination) in place does not equate to saying that the country is not worth defending. Anderson is conflating the two.
ReplyDelete"People throughout history have willingly fought for the survival of their own country even when they knew that its leadership was dishonorable . . ."
But much earlier in this conversation, I wrote:
"I'm glad a whole lot of Americans felt that despite America's flaws there was enough good about this country, enough potential for ending injustices, that they were willing to serve the country's defense.
". . . I think every time a person chooses to do an honorable thing, he or she strengthens their own integrity and sense of self worth."
Infidel, with all due respect, I'm not conflating anything. I made essentially the same arguments as you. A little more time spent reading my comments, from the beginning, should make that clear.
This has been a very interesting thread and I've been presented with a lot of new things to think about and have learned more than a few things from your comments. In reviewing these comments, I find, in mine at least, that I seem to be flip-flopping all around ala McCain. I think this is because I agree with some of what is said in a comment but not always everything. Plus, I've had a migraine which makes clear thinking almost impossible.
ReplyDeleteI did not interpret TAO's first comment in any way as a slam against our country, but against those people who are so eager to send our men and women off to kill and be killed, all too often wars that have been started based on the lies of our leaders. I believe that indeed the decision to serve by LGBTs, Blacks and other minorities is "heroic" - especially in light of how they are treated, not only while in service but after their tour of duty is over.
History is important, but I don't think we can use past transgressions as an excuse to continue cruel and unusual treatment of any one group. This is 2010, not 1776, 1941 or 1973. It's high time that the DADT gets overturned. I think this video is quite simply a very poignant reminder of what our gays do for our country. I think it is a moving tribute to them.
One more thing. I love this country passionately - warts and all. We're going through a very ugly time in our nation's history but I'm not about to cave in to the hate mongers on the right. To be a messenger of doom and gloom is to hand these yahoos the country on a silver platter. To give up and shut up is to capitulate to the most ignorant and basest segments of our country. Not me, babes. I'm going to keep screaming at the top of my lungs until Bessie the cow comes home.
ReplyDelete