A good degree of the origins of the gay rights movement in the US sprung out of direct cooperation with the radical black power movement, Indian movement, and other similar movements which espoused concepts and actions of solidarity, and these were very successful...
Where the HELL are you getting that??? Stonewall happened because of a bunch of enraged drag queens and other gays, traumatized by the funeral of Judy Garland a few days earlier, rebelling against an unwarranted police raid on the Stonewall bar. THAT'S when gay rights began nationally in the US.
NOBODY embraced the gay rights movement when it started, and to this day other US minorities are only just now beginning to offer tentative support. On the contrary, many Black leaders rejected the connections bewtween the struggle for Black civil rights and the gay rights movement.
No, for the first decades the gay rights movement was on its own. Especially after the HIV/AIDS epidemic hit, and everyone ran for cover. Long before you were born.
But I know you're young, and apparently influenced by some bad revisionist history you've read. Sit back and listen here. You might learn something.
Stonewall did not occur in a vacuum. There was a slow development of a Gay Liberation movement which was taking place prior to Stonewall, and they were taking rhetoric and even ideology directly from the Black Power movement, which was also heavily influencing women's liberation movements and the Indian movement, among others. Further, Huey P. Newton, a major Black Panther party leader, spoke and wrote in favour of supporting gay and women's liberation movements.
And you talk about the gay rights movement being on its own? Well, they weren't alone, on their own. As AIDS hit the gay community, the Black Power movement had already been virtually destroyed, either by targeted assassinations, arrests and political trials, or by heroin and later crack (both, courtesy, of the CIA - the Cocaine Import Agency, this is no historical secret, and is widely documented, by the way).
And the term "revisionist history" is one that is eternally confusing. As history continues to unfold in the present, and as we gain more access to more information than ever before in human history, we should add to our understanding of history. And yes, that means "revising"! Heaven forbid that we adapt our understanding and knowledge to the ever-expanding wealth of information. One might dare refer to this process as "education". And thankfully, history is continually revised, otherwise, we would still be reading the history books from centuries and decades past, replete with all the racism and horrors they sought to justify.
Ever heard of the "new historians" in Israel? After a wave of declassification of old government documents dating back to the origins of Israel as a state, many prominent historians in the country went through the treasure-trove of documents and began to 'revise' the history of Israel, according to the new information made available. The conclusions of the new historians has been so damaging to the propaganda system and legitimacy of the state of Israel that the government has been moving to re-classify everything. That is a good type of revisionism that is necessary, and only made possible by expanding the information we base our understandings upon.
Your statement that "no one" supported gay rights early on neglects the influence that Black Power politics had in the very origins of organizing the Gay Liberation movement (some of which predates Stonewall, I might add). And over time, that translated into other forms of support, despite your claims to the contrary. Further, your comment, I found, to be most interesting, was thus: "and to this day other US minorities are only just now beginning to offer tentative support
Okay, so you expect all other groups to come to the defense of 'your group' and to fight for 'your cause'. Okay, fine. Now, tell me, what have you done to end the modern slavery system that is the U.S. prison-industrial complex, the drug war/prohibition, and all of the other institutional and ideological structures of oppression against so-called 'minority' groups? If they should come to your cause, should you not come to theirs? That's the principle of solidarity to which I was referring, and which was articulated by Huey Newton, I might add. But that sense of solidarity requires one to break out of "identity politics" and move into radical politics to find solutions of substance, more than symbols.