Earlier this year, the UN, bowing to pressure in the form of an ammendment proposed by Benin, decided to remove sexual orientation from the list of criteria that constitutes a crime of discrimination in case of execution. In other words, the UN decided that for gay people to be murdered for being gay is OK - or at the very least, not worthy of specific UN condemnation.
Fastforward a bit, and a Ugandan paper publishes a list of gay Ugandans - with adresses and photographs. During this time, a bill that would make homosexuality a crime punishable by death is pending in the Ugandan government - coincidentally, this law was introduced shortly after a visit by American missionaries who preached about how to turn gay people straight, condemned the gay rights movement as "an evil institution" meant to destroy marriage, and accused gay men of anally raping teenage boys. Did I mention that the tag in the magazine article that featured those photos read "Hang them'? Well, that becomes a bit more relevant given that today David Kato, one of the gay men from that article, lies dead, beaten to death with a hammer.
First of all, this crime shows that gay rights is a global human rights issue. Second of all, I don't get the missionaries: You fly to a foreign country to teach about Jesus, and the one message you choose to focus on is not "Love thy neighbor as thyself" or "Turn the other cheek", but - hate gay people. No, not kill - that is merely implied. Of course, both the magazine and the missionary group have already disclaimed any responsibility for the murder.
Quite frankly, if stopping homosexuality matters to you enough that you are willing to travel across the globe to do it (or rather, to stop others from doing it), then I think you probably have major issues. The two possibilities that pop to mind (like a cherry?) are: 1. You can not control your own sex life, and this manifests itself in a need to control the sex lives of others.** 2. You are homosexual and hate yourself for it because of your religious beliefs, and the need to expunge homosexuality from others is a displaced urge to expunge your own sexual preferences. I would like to point out that, given the biological and uncontrollable nature of sexual urges (as opposed to actions, which are controllable), these two theories complement each other, since someone who is homosexual against his will may feel he does not have control over his own sexuality.
Even more interesting, however, is that many in Uganda feel that homosexuality is a Western import, and an immoral one at that. The fight against homosexuality in Ugandan society is reflective of a backlash against globalization and Western cultural imperialism - a backlash that theoretically, as a liberal, I should support. Indeed, in an African country whose official language is English, it is not hard to understand why one would feel resentful of the cultural theft that is one of colonialism's more lasting legacies.
However, given that homosexual orientation occurs not only across the human species, but in other specieis as well***, it is most likely a natural biological phenomena, not the result of any cultural imports - especially given Western society's own homophobic past (and present). Furthermore, this specific political campaign against gay people seems to be a very expression of the culutral imperialism it is meant to combat, having been imported by American missionaries.
Africa - or at least, West-Central Africa - has a long tradition of more flexible sexual identities and tolerance of homosexuality, which was then upset by the imposition of Christianity by European missionaries and by the Western values that came across the ocean with the colonizers. Thus, Antonio/Victoria, a slave from Benin who had the body of a man but worked as a female prostitute in Portugal, was confused as to why he was hauled up in front of Inquisition authority. Antonio explained that he was a woman, but when a physical examination by the Inquisition revealed normal male genitals, he was sentenced to the king's galleys - showing that even in phallocentric Western culture, there were times when having a phallus could be a detriment. In light of Antonio's story, it is ironic that Benin was the country that proposed excluding homosexuality from the list of protected categories when it comes to discriminatory executions. James H. Sweet, who brings the above story in his book, "Recreating Africa" (p. 53), goes on to say (p. 54) that in Central Africa, especially Angola and Congo, there were male transvestites who engaged in sodomy, who were known as jinbandaas. Not only was this behavior not considered negative, but jinbandaas (quimbandas) played an important role in many Angolan societies, and may have been entrusted with religious powers.
Of course, Uganda is in Eastern Africa, not West-Central. However, the details of Sweet's book, as well as other sources, ascribe a less rigid gender/sexual dichotomy in many African societies than in Western ones - meaning, that a more accurate rebellion against Western culture might actually be to accept homosexuals.
In general, sexual issues have become a popular way to rebel against Western cultural hegemony as a result of colonialism and globalization, and is why for some - but not all - women, the decision to wear a hijab may be as political as it is religious. Of course, it is dangerous to reduce hijab-wearing to a counter-Western statement, since for many women it is not, but rather a deep profesison of religious faith - many women wear hijab, and each has her own reasons. Furthermore, it is important to not deligitimize the reaction against Western culture - as long as this reaction is peaceful and does not involve human rights violations, there is no reason to oppose it. It is also hard to distinguish between an action done for political reasons, and a religious establishments appropriating political languge in order to convince a segment of society to engage in a certain action. This quandary applies to both the Uganda and the hijab situations - not that they are morally comparable, since one involves killing people and the other involves a peaceful expression of one's beliefs.
I hope to read "The Politics of Piety" by Saba Mahmood, which examines women's roles in the Islamic Revival movement in Egypt, to understand more about the complicated relationship between politics and religion for Muslim women in Egypt. I wonder if I will find any parallels with the experiences of Orthodox Jewish women - though that IS NOT my motivation for reading the book - I am not THAT ethnocentric.
* This is part of why I view the UN as an organization that is not morally credible, and why I do not put any stock in their criticism of Israel. I believe that the UN has "editorial bias" in which situations it chooses to comment on and not to comment on, and to what extent. This bias is one against Israel, at the expense of more serious human rights violations elsewhere. That is not to say I think Israel is perfect, rather, that I think the morality or immorality of Israel's actions is in no way connected to or reflected in the UN's comments about those actions.
** Lives of Others - great movie.
*** A quick Wikipedia check reveals cheetahs, dolphins and caribou - oh my!
No comments:
Post a Comment