The [Stonewall] story conceals the fact that gay liberation existed prior to the Stonewall riots. This is causally important, as gay liberation was a precondition for the recognition of the political potential of the situation at the Stonewall Inn. Without a radical political approach, activists would not have responded by escalating the conflict. They would not have created or circulated grand narratives of its importance, nor would they have planned commemorative rituals.
The Stonewall story also conceals that the contemporary gay movement did not originate in New York. Movement development in multiple cities was a precondition for national commemoration of Stonewall. If Stonewall had not been successfully commemorated outside of New York the first year, it is unlikely that it would have acquired national significance. Instead, it might have suffered the fate of San Francisco’s New Year’s Ball. Los Angeles activists, by participating in Stonewall commemoration the first year, played a crucial role in the survival of the Stonewall story. Ironically, the fact that Stonewall occurred late in a series of police/homosexual conflicts contributed to the success of its claim of being first.
The notion of Stonewall as the “spark” of gay liberation
cultivates a “wildfire myth” of movement development. People often suggest that
the riots “ignited” gay liberation, which spread spontaneously across the
United States. Other movements, including the civil rights movement, have also
been described as “spontaneous” (Polletta 1998a). These accounts, according to Meyer
(2006:213), make activism seem “inevitable or mystical,” possibly undermining
future mobilization. Gay liberation did not spread like wildfire—it spread
through the numerous, deliberate activities of individuals and groups.The popular
account does not distinguish between the processes generating riots and those
attributing significance to them. This conflation conceals complex class, race,
and gender dynamics in the development of gay politics. Street queens and
hustlers—marginalized by class, gender-presentation, and often race— were more
willing than others to confront police, and were important in the riots at both
Compton’s and the Stonewall Inn. What Stonewall had, and Compton’s did not,
were activists able and willing to capitalize on such rioting: high-resource,
radical gay men.This hints at the role that variation in social resources has
played in gay movements more generally. More affluent, educated, and
politically connected gays have supplied and mobilized resources, run
newspapers, and engaged in extended legal challenges. Less-privileged
individuals have often served as a source of innovation and a “radical flank”
of the movement (Haines 1984). At Stonewall, the openness of white gay men to
radical ideas enabled them to recognize a riot as an opportunity. These radical
impulses moderated quickly, however, as the movement coalesced around a gay
rights/gay pride political agenda (Armstrong 2002). Moderation was already
underway by the first parade, which was framed as a display of cultural pride.
As the movement took shape, it centered the experience of middle-class white
gay men and marginalized the concerns of less privileged individuals.
(“Movements and Memory: The Making of the Stonewall Myth“ by Elizabeth A. Armstrong & Suzanna M. Crage; final paragraph break mine)
Urocyon's Jaunts 2.0 
You must be logged in to post a comment.