The title is misleading. This book is not so much about Stonewall but about the history prior to Stonewall. I would estimate the stonewall takes up the last 25% of the book. There is missing history in this book that I read about from other, better books. I really just feel like the author hated the people involved. Stonewall was definitely a secondary or tertiary part of this book, he probably should've named it something else.

Massive Trigger warnings for just about everything sexual abuse, child abuse, emotional abuse, violence on and on. I really wanted to read about Stonewall, I wish I'd picked another book.

We had to read & write an essay on a non-fiction book about American history for school, so here it is: 

Stonewall: The Definitive Story of the LGBTQ Rights Uprising that Changed America, by Martin Duberman, chronicles the lives of six activists (Craig Rodwell, Yvonne Flowers, Foster Gunnison, Sylvia Rivera, Karla Jay, and Jim Fouratt) of the Stonewall period, following them as they grow up and step into prominent roles in the late 1960’s gay rights movement. I selected this book because I didn’t know much about the Stonewall riots or early LGBTQ+ rights activists and wanted to learn something new about the beginnings of the pride movement in America. 
Duberman’s main argument is that the Stonewall riots were primarily rebellions against police brutality, the role of the police raids in the gay bar scene, and the oppression and violence towards the LGBTQ+ community. The book describes how the riots at the Stonewall Inn began due to a raid by local police officers. While these raids were not uncommon in gay bars at the time, the patrons of such bars had begun to grow tired of the constant threats of violence and arrest by law enforcement. When the police raided the Stonewall Inn on June 27, 1969, the patrons began to protest, taking to the streets to physically fight with the cops. News of the Stonewall uprising spread through the gay community of New York City, and hundreds of people from throughout Greenwich Village, where the Stonewall Inn was located, joined in. Sylvia Rivera reports that the riot got violent at times: dozens of LGBTQ+ protestors were injured by the cops, suffering broken knees, bloody noses, and even the loss of fingers (Duberman 248). This shows how the Stonewall Riots were primarily rebelling against the violent police. Furthermore, signs appearing on the Stonewall Inn’s broken windows after the first night of rioting declared “THEY [the police] INVADED OUR RIGHTS,” showcasing the anger gay people felt towards the police (Duberman 249). The riots continued over the next few nights, gaining traction from coverage by local newspapers and literature spread by activists; on the second night of protesting, thousands of participants and onlookers gathered outside the Stonewall on Christopher Street. Police brutality towards the rioters continued, with countless broken bones and bruised heads: “...at least two men were clubbed to the ground” (Duberman 253). When the riots had ended, Craig Rodwell wrote a flyer on behalf of the group he ran, the Homophile Youth Movement (HYMN), proclaiming “GET THE MAFIA AND THE COPS OUT OF GAY BARS” (Duberman 253). The anger LGBTQ+ people felt towards the police, and the mafia who ran Stonewall and many other gay bars, was palpable. 
One thing that I found interesting was how many prominent activists, authors, and important figures the main six seemed to know: from Sylvia Rivera’s close relationship with Marsha P. Johnson, a famous gay liberation activist and drag queen, to Craig Rodwell’s romance with Harvey Milk, a well-known gay politician, to Yvonne Flowers’s friendship with the famous lesbian writer, Audre Lorde, early LGBTQ+ rights activists seemed to have had a tight-knit group. However, there was also a significant amount of drama and hostility between early homophile groups. I found it interesting that although these groups were all working towards the same common goal of freedom and equality for gay and lesbian people, they often seemed to clash due to differing levels of support for other marginalized communities, such as people of color and women, and their varying placements on a political spectrum. Although all of these groups were undeniably liberal (they were fighting for gay rights, after all), only some supported feminist causes, the Black Panthers, and other such groups, and only some opposed the war in Vietnam. Additionally, Stonewall explained that anti-war activists, feminists, and others, were not always sympathetic to the gay rights movement. In particular, Karla Jay, Yvonne Flowers, and Jim Fouratt had struggles in fitting into multiple political groups. Karla and Yvonne, as lesbians, often found that they did not fit into the primarily-male gay rights movement, but were also shunned in feminist circles for their sexualities. Additionally, Yvonne was a black woman, leading her to feel uncomfortable in both feminist and LGBTQ+ spaces. Eventually, she created a small group of black lesbians and other lesbians of color in the GLF (Gay Liberation Front), but it was not until a few years after the Stonewall Riots that she was successful in creating a strong, long-lasting group of black lesbians. Furthermore, Jim Fouratt began his political career with the Yippies, a group of young, countercultural hippie activists who opposed the Vietnam War and advocated for free speech. However, Jim found that groups of straight activists, no matter how politically liberal, often did not accept his sexuality or want to support gay rights causes. I feel like I have a much better understanding of the radical political landscape of the 1960s: Stonewall does a great job of challenging the assumption that all radical activist organizations worked together to create one unified far left group. 


4.5/5 stars. I thought it focused too much on Craig Rodwell (who, to be fair, was pretty important). Other than that it was good, just a little long. 


"... they had all somehow come through, had managed to arrive at this unimaginable coming together, this testimony to a difficult past surmounted and a potentially better future in view." 

Incredibly informative, very intersectional, but easy to read, which is not a trait that a lot of historical books have.