Why?

I was shocked to learn that while 68% of whites and 73% of people of mixed race supported Renee Webb's recent bid to ban discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation, a mere 19% of blacks did so.

Black homophobia is not unique to Bermuda. In a study of the phenomenon published in Public Opinion Quarterly in 2003, Gregory Lewis concluded that

"Once religious and educational differences are controlled, blacks remain more disapproving of homosexuality but are moderately more supportive of gay civil liberties and markedly more opposed to antigay employment discrimination than are whites. Yet religion, education, gender, and age all have weaker impacts on black than on white attitudes, suggesting that black and white attitudes have different roots."

The abstract gives no indication of what these different roots might be, however, and unfortunately the full text of the article is only available to subscribers.

Any ideas?

Comments

[selkieman on 20.07.06 at 06:18]

Black people tend to score higher on most measures of social conservatism than whites, regardless of whatever other geo/socio-demographics are in play. African and diasporic blacks show very similar levels of social conservatism. This might suggest that the experiences of colonalism and slavery have had similar impacts upon black people's thinking, or that African social structures and organisation have survived both onslaughts pretty much intact.

The ubiquity and strength of the extended family in black culture is central here, and has a major place in black commnunities' survival throughout the vissicitudes of racism, slavery and colonialism. Anything which is seen to threaten that is bound to be viewed with suspicion. Ditto the importance of black churches and their response to same.

The social construction of black maleness, power and sexuality is deeply flawed and contested territory, largely again because of the impact of slavery and colonialism, both upon black consciousness and attempts by the prevailing white culture to co-opt these. The white-imposed images of the brutalised defeated slave and the hyper sex-god of the Mandingo syndrome are opposite sides of the same coin, and neither sit comfortably when you are in a black man's skin. You can see that many of the forms that black male masculinity takes are either a flight from, celebration of, or subversion of these imposed images. However you look at it, the conceptualisation and practice of black maleness is a highly contested space.

The experience of being 'other' is common to all gay people, which is why identity lies at the heart of all gay politics. With the identity of the black male already already reeling under the onslaught of white racism, the introduction of homosexuality into this mix takes this politics of identity to a whole new level.

Furthermore, you have to distinguish between 'gayness' and 'homosexuality'. The latter is a set of behaviours and particular erotic objectification around same gender sexuality. Gayness, as we know it today, is a late 20th C western consumerist conceptualisation of homosexual behaviours. This is why you get the common claim of black people that gayness is a white man's disease or that gayness doesn't exist with in the black communities, when homosexuality quite patently does.

However, that experience of homosexuality and the forms it takes are very different for black people than for white. It's no accident that 'gayness' as constructed by urban whites in the West is seen as a threat to the trad, nuclear family. Queer politics set out to breakdown traditional forms of gender relations. It's no accident either that this politics came up against a brick wall when it encountered how homosexuality is experienced by black males in general. They quite simply didnt buy into this set of politics, because it didnt address their experience, or how sexuality is constructed in black communities. It's no accident that HIV workers had to come up with a new category 'men who have sex with men' when trying to tackle infection within the black community. It's why being on the downlow has become an visible expression of black male homosexuality within that community, (because it always was acceptable). There are very large numbers of black men having sex with other men who would never identify as being 'gay'.

The bottom line here I think is that a lot of black people are deeply suspicious of any attempt to define sexuality within their communities other than within traditional forms because of how racism has impacted upon their percieved sexuality by white people. I think that racism has appropriated and sexualised how black people experience any form of intimacy that many instinctively respond negatively to any attempt to label that sexuality, or lay it open to white scrutiny.

That many more black people support human rights for gay people than whites, reflects I think, the fact that many black people have little or any problem with homosexuality per se, but rather a deeper perception that all human rights are equal rights, and that much of the hostility to gay rights is little more than literally skin deep.

[anarchy on 20.07.06 at 07:37]

Being Black and Gay in a small community must be considered a double curse especially for the gay guys.....we live in a world that is controlled by men. Most men would 'tolerate' gay girls (for various reasons) but gay men, especially black gay men seem to be treated like leapers by everyone...poor bastards........

[jake on 20.07.06 at 08:37]

I don't think that's correct. Many gay black men are accepted in mainstream white Bermudian society.

I am not so sure those statistics play out where the white population is more bible belt America. Bermuda has quite a small white population, many of whom are probably more East Coast in their orientation.

Interesting response from WB. I guess you have been on the receiving end of 'race issue' allegations. I wonder why?

[ace on 20.07.06 at 08:57]

Jake,

It highlights a basic political and socio economic paradox that many black in Bermuda must find themselves in.

Politically many blacks in Bermuda, yourself included, are supporters of a labour party. Labour parties have always traditionally been "left" of the centre of the political spectrum. "Usually" this left leaning tendancy is also associated with strong social liberal philosophies.

Oddly, many of these same labour supporters are waaaaay to the right in their social beliefs in Bermuda as evidenced by the large and vocal anti-gay bible thumping lobby.

The white bible belt American population you mention are fiercley Republican in their politics. This is consistant with their political and social "values" but black Bermudians appear to be at both ends of the spectrum.

It is difficult for many people to reconcile this position. Politically left and socially right.

No criticism or attack here...just wonder what your thoughts are?

[Bill Cook on 20.07.06 at 09:20]

If we combine all whites and those of mixed race together how many Bermudians would that leave ?

[Polixenes on 20.07.06 at 10:38]

Royal Gazette online July 20, 2006 “Furbert: We erred by not debating amendment”
http://www.theroyalgazette.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060608/NEWS/106080124

QUOTE
(Mr. Furbert) also said that, in his view, the protest last Friday was white-dominated and claimed that black people are more likely to be against homosexuality.
END QUOTE

Ascribing being “against homosexuality” to sections of the general public, mostly the black community, may not have been Mr. Furbert’s actual words but paraphrasing by the journalist, but it’s an interesting turn of phrase.

Being “against homosexuality” as if it’s something that should be stamped out, like being “against” crime, or disease, or war, or poverty. Homosexuality is something you are born with; it’s not a poor choice, or a social condition inflicted upon the homosexual.

Being “against homosexuality” makes about as much sense as being “against black skin.”

[selkieman on 20.07.06 at 12:06]

Being gay and being homosexual are not the same thing. There is no such thing as a homosexual, only homosexual activity and behaviour. There are people who choose to be gay in order to function as a person of homosexual behaviour, but there's many ways in which social and sexual indentities interact. Current Western thinking, as usual, spits us all up into groups - bi, hetero and homo - which forces us all into either/or mindsets, which have little bearing on anyone's actually experience of sexuality.

Most black consciouness around sexuality does not function in this way - it's a far more fluid and flexible system. If black people are seeing men in particular in their communities making choices as to the gender of their sexual partners, then they're more likely to view homosexuality per se as a choice, rather than the result of the compex interplay of genes and foetal development. This argument being the main one used by white liberals to justify a braoder definition of human rights to include discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation. The fact that we of the homosexual tendency might be making any choices about our sexualties has them running for them hetero hills as quickly as an ACE pastor.

If you come from a right wing fundamentalist christian perspective, then you're going to believe the BS that these churches routinely spew out about homosexuality. Within the wider black community, social conservatism will provide a backdrop where it is entirely feasible to be left wing politically and economically and yet confound white sensiblities on a liberal social agenda. Nothing special there - the white left throughout the West managed to hold this position for nearly 100 years until the gender politics of the '80s.

These look like contradictions if you're looking at it only through white eyes, and ahistorical ones at that.

I think its for these reasons and the ones I've mentioned above that black political and cultural response to sexuality doesn't fit the preconceptions of white society. And nor should it.

[The Right Reverend Uncle Elvis on 20.07.06 at 12:27]

Huh?

[The Right Reverend Uncle Elvis on 20.07.06 at 12:41]

I would love to read the reference where you're getting this stuff.

Is there any, or are these just your opinions?

[selkieman on 20.07.06 at 12:43]

any particular bit of 'huh', or is it the totality of 'huh' that's the issue ? ;o)

[The Right Reverend Uncle Elvis on 20.07.06 at 12:55]

Actually, I'd just like you to back up your statements.
I say statements, as they were not presented as opinions, but as facts.

Like I said... where are you getting this stuff?

[Denis Pitcher on 20.07.06 at 13:02]

Selkeiman,

I do enjoy reading your posts, however I am quite confused by your suggestion that "African social structures and organisation have survived both onslaughts pretty much intact."

My knowledge of religious history is very limited, and I do apologize for my ignorance, but perhaps you can answer this question for me: Were Africans forced to convert from Islam to Christianity as part of the colonial movement?

If so, why is it that some Blacks in Bermuda feel so tightly entwined by their churches and Christianity (or the various variations), considering that it also represents the same oppression and colonialism that many now hope to achieve independence from? Should we not be witnessing mass conversions to Islam as well?

[SmokingGun on 20.07.06 at 13:05]

Not for nothing but I'm going to just accept that selkieman knows a heck of a lot more on this matter than I so I'll take this as an opportunity to try to learn something new. If there are studies and relevent pieces all the better.

But I will have to admit that in this day and age I would have naturally expected black people to be a lot more accepting and supportive of gay/homosexual peoples civil rights. Not just moderately more.

[SmokingGun on 20.07.06 at 13:08]

"Were Africans forced to convert from Islam to Christianity as part of the colonial movement?"

Denis - Was Islam the predominant religion in Africa before Christianity?

[Denis Pitcher on 20.07.06 at 13:18]

SG,

Unfortunately I have no idea. I am only basing this perspective on my very limited knowledge which I am hoping someone with a much greater knowledge of religious history can clarify.

Various prominant Black individuals converted to Islam and took on a new name because it was a symbol of their ancestors' enslavement and that Christianity was apparently a white man's religion forced upon enslaved blacks. I do not know this for fact, however.

Prominant examples of those who changed their names and converted to Islam are Muhammad Ali (aka. Cassius Clay) and Malcolm X (aka. Malcolm Little).

So, if this is indeed true, I am surprised that more Blacks who still feel oppressed by what was done to our ancestors do not choose to renounce the Christian religion and convert to Islam.

[The Right Reverend Uncle Elvis on 20.07.06 at 13:24]

Smokes, I'm not sure why you're going to accept that at face value?
If what he's presenting are just his opinions and not facts, you're only learning his opinion, which is worth exactly the same as anyone else's.

Denis,

Some were. Most were not. Please remember that Africa is... well.. frickin' HUGE!
The early Christian missionaries hit first as they travelled south. Islam followed after.

Remember also that Islam is significantly younger than Christianity, which, in turn is significantly younger than Judaism.

[Denis Pitcher on 20.07.06 at 13:27]

Ah, thanks Uncle Elvis,

That has been something I have wondered about for some time yet have been uncertain as to where to go to find more definitive information on the subject.

[The Right Reverend Uncle Elvis on 20.07.06 at 13:38]

Various prominant Black individuals converted to Islam and took on a new name because it was a symbol of their ancestors' enslavement and that Christianity was apparently a white man's religion forced upon enslaved blacks

This motivation is VERY valid. Slaves were forced to turn Christian or face beatings or being killed.

However, this does not mean that they were Muslim first.

Muhammed Ali and Malcolm X turned to Islam as it was quite prominant in prison and... well.. it wasn't the White Man's religion.
This doesn't mean they were reverting back to their ancestor's religion, just renouncing Christianity.

[SmokingGun on 20.07.06 at 13:45]

Uncle E: the only thing I'm taking at face value is that I know that I do not have a deep understanding of the subject.

Denis - the reason for the question was to assess if you already knew the answer when asking selkieman. As Uncle E. points out, Africa is a very big place. African Americans have become involved with Islam not necessarily because of their African heritage. You made a suggestion that Islam tied in with slavery. Maybe Muhammed Ali & Malcolm X could have converted to Judaism if they wanted the tie in. Much like Sammy Davis Jr. The Jews were slaves in Africa well before any Africans were enslaved by Europeans.

[Bill Cook on 20.07.06 at 13:50]

Denis,

There is evidence that religion existed in Africa before either Judaism or Christianty and Islam was about the 7th century and England was not developed until after William The Conqueror 1066 so its not so easy to determine first religions first you hve to define religion.

In Africa you have tribalism primitivism and witchcraft and in areas are still strong.

On the other hand culture per se' was advanced as if you look at the origins of sculpture the early Greek and Roman statuary originated in Africa.

If you look at the most populated country which is Nigeria you will see the divide of the Muslim North and the Christian South

[The Limey on 20.07.06 at 13:54]

Denis/Elvis

What is the relationship between Christianity and black attitudes to homosexuality though? Many whites are Christians too. And Lewis' study seems to be suggesting that religion is not the root cause of the greater hostility to homosexuality in the black community.

[Ruby Tuesday on 20.07.06 at 13:59]

The desperate Stalinist airbrushing of Malcolm X's homosexuality by certain interest groups has always intrigued me. Is this a lazy latent prejudice to protect whatever remains of his "legacy"?

[Ali on 20.07.06 at 14:41]

"a mere 19% of blacks" supported the bid to ban discrimination was the statistic. Selkieman wrote that "many more black people support human rights for gay people than whites". Am I mssing something? Doesn't seem that it can be both ways to me. I won't pretend to be anywhere near as educated as Selkieman on this topic but it appears that racism is responsible again.

[Raptor on 20.07.06 at 14:49]

Limey, what I have trouble with in the Gregory Lewis quote is that his study was controlled for “religious and educational differences.” That is very vague, even for just a quote. I would want to know which religions, which denominations, and the numbers involved. There are huge differences between Christian denominations alone. Granted, I haven't purchased and read the entire report.

I have read repeatedly that the black churches have been one of the biggest hurdles to dealing with HIV/AIDS in black communities as the disease manifests itself in the black gay/downlow populations.

I have been told by a minister in one of these conservative churches that the Bible says homosexuality is wrong (Leviticus, etc.), and if his church steps back on that, some of their other beliefs can be challenged. He is a highly educated person.

What I’m getting from reading the Lewis quote and conclusion is that “homosexual” is one very heavy word. Maybe there is also something of a semantics issue here, as in situations where that word is removed blacks are said to be more supportive of gay rights.

[observor on 20.07.06 at 14:57]

Good point Ruby. I wonder how the current government would react to Bruce Perry's biography when taking into consideration Renee's amendment efforts.

[onevote on 20.07.06 at 15:18]

Raptor, "controlled for religious and educational differences" means he statistically eliminated those as influences on the results, in order to determine the influence attributable to race.

[selkieman on 20.07.06 at 15:27]

Hmmm.....

1st of all I meant AME and not ACE when I referred to a black pastor above.... I think.

and sorry, I got the 'many more black people support human rights for gay people than whites' wrong... I meant ...than support homosexuality per se.

And dear Elvis, I did think about putting a reading list together for you, but you've had yr compilation for the year from me. Google 'queer theory' 'black attitudes to homosexuality' - that kind of thing - it's all there.

Suffice to say, I was cutting my teeth on this stuff 25 yrs ago in Thatcher's London whilst upto my neck in separatist feminist lesbians. As a social psychologist, queer theory and identity/gender politics informed my work, and as a new-fledged faggot on London’s fast-expanding gay scene, its diversity was a fast-track intro into how other people see things. For a lot of us on the political and cultural wings of the gay movement, none of this is new information.

As a scots gay man who has had the fortune to include a ..number.. of black gay men as mates and/or lovers/partners, the same information comes back. So the empiricist in me kind of has to conclude that maybe there's more than a little truth in this kind of analysis.

And by the way, I may have given the impression that all black men who have same-sex relationships are on the downlow, which is far from the truth - it's just that for large numbers of black men, being on the downlow is their experience of homosexuality as it is expressed and understood within their cultures.

But just as many black men have made the political connection between their social status as black men and as gay men, and have adopted a gay identity. It is this gay identity which is far more threatening to conservative straight black culture, for the same reasons as it is in the straight white community.

In a word, family. The mistake that a lot of white people make about black sexuality is that its just like theirs and socially mediated in the same manners and forms, when it's quite patently not. That's why discussions on the subject are often at cross-purposes. What's the norm for the nuclear, is emphatically not so for the extended.

And this, Denis, was what I meant when I talked about the survival of african social systems, not religion. As far as colonialism and slavery were concerned, the Europeans either co-opted animist religions within a christian framework or imposed, (they thought), forms of christianity upon black slave populations. That many blacks took up the Christian cross and ran with it is a whole other debate. One thing the Europeans never did was convert an existing muslim population.

I'm just trying to point out that it’s a mistake for any one group to assume that other people work in the same mind set or values framework, and its not enough to tut-tut from the bleachers of one's one moral high ground. Any debate about black responses to any debate about sexuality will inevitable be framed within the wider context of racism and race. It would be niave to think otherwise.

[The Right Reverend Uncle Elvis on 20.07.06 at 15:40]

Limes, I'm not sure. In my experience with African culture, mainly Southern African: Shona, Ndebele (Zulu), the IS an intolerance against homosexuals (even though, apparantly, they don't exist), but more of a tolerance towards the act.
Mining towns, trucking, etc., where there are not a lot of women, the act is tolerated, much like in prisons... But homosexuality is not.
In African American society, there's also "The Down-low", where the acts are done, but they're not "gay".

I have a feeling that much of the hostility stems from the guilt that the brand of religion that was forced on them brandishes like a weapon. Fire and Brimstone, lots of focus on Revelations, going to hell for the slightest indiscretion. That, juxtaposed with a subconscious acceptance creates much tension.

Just my opinion... and not terribly well written. *grin* Hope the point comes across

[Raptor on 20.07.06 at 15:40]

"'controlled for religious and educational differences' means he statistically eliminated those as influences on the results, in order to determine the influence attributable to race." (Posted by onevote on 20.07.06 at 15:18)

I know what it means to control for studies. But just how would Lewis get at and “eliminate” the influence of religion? I think some of those influences are so powerful--and cultural--they cannot necessarily be "statistically eliminated."

[selkieman on 20.07.06 at 15:44]

On the point about adoption of christianity by black populations, there's little evidence to suggest that this was in any sense a co-ercive enterprise by whites, at least not in Africa wher the bible and bullet went hand in hand.

In the West, it may have started out that way, but christainity was comprehensively and enthusiastically adopted by slave populations, often to the bemusement of their white betters. As today, many early black church leaders were by necessity also community leaders and educators. Things only came to a nasty head when black churches attempted to affiliate with their white christian brothers, with the predictable result, with the notable exception of the Quakers.

Again, its easy to make the mistake that black christianity, like black sexuality operates in the same way as that for the white population. In addition, whilst many black churches are rabidly homophobic, many are not, and there have been a number of recent intiatives coming from many black churches to meet the issue of homophobia head-on, largely in the face of the downlow issues raised above, but also out of the common humanity that mainstream christianity holds dear.

[SmokingGun on 20.07.06 at 15:47]

See I learn't something already: Who'd a thunk downlow mean't secret sex between black men? Heck "let's get down" was one of my catch phrases at Disco40 when picking up a longtail 25 odd years ago. Thank goodness I didn't use it on any of my ace boys. ;-)

[The Right Reverend Uncle Elvis on 20.07.06 at 15:57]

"On the point about adoption of christianity by black populations, there's little evidence to suggest that this was in any sense a co-ercive enterprise by whites, at least not in Africa wher the bible and bullet went hand in hand."

Can you expand on this, 'cuz I think you got it backwards.
There is PLENTY of evidence that the forcing of Christianity on native populations was coercive, as you said with "bible and bullet wen hand in hand".

That is, of course, if you mean coercive as in "the practice of compelling a person to involuntarily behave in a certain way (whether through action or inaction) by use of threats, intimidation or some other form of pressure or force" (Wikipedia)

You may have a different meaning for it.

[Onion on 20.07.06 at 16:06]

Limey,

To talk about acceptance of homosexuality would be similar to a talk about the acceptance of Israel belonging only to the Jews or Muslims. The topic is rooted in religious beliefs that people hold dearly. Blacks in Bermuda are more likely to be in the evangelical churches which tend to be more Bible centred than your average Anglican Church. But we must also remember that the Webb Bill and all its ramifications have not been properly debated in any open forum.

You should do a study to see why more white people are more inclined to march/rally for the rights of dolphins, the spotted owl, the cahow, circus animals and the rights of gays than for other black people.

[Bill Cook on 20.07.06 at 16:14]

What about mixed race people ? where do they factor in to the equation ?

Are there more mixed race people than Black or White ?

Inquiring minds want to know !

[selkieman on 20.07.06 at 16:29]

Rev.... maybe I didnt make it clear that I was distinguishing between the african and diasporean experiences of christianity. In the main I was talking about the experience under slavery rather than the colonial version.

In the US, and by extension, the Caribbean and Bermuda, had a very different experience of christianity, very quickly developed their own churches, largely because the white ones of whatever denomination wouldn't take them on. The large black churches we see today are the direct descendants of that early adoption of, and separation from white christianity.

What I was saying is the the place of the family and christianity have a very different role and place amongst diasporean blacks and the white population, and that this to some extent explains a greater resistance to acceptance of gayness, not homosexuality.

On that point, you have to be very clear what youre dealing with here. Gayness and homosexuality are not the same thing. Gay is not a modern word for homosexuality, but something else entirely. The words are not interchangeable. If you want Limey's question to make any sense at all you have to grasp that as a basic, and then see how black experience of sexuality, family and the church impact upon them both.

[SmokingGun on 20.07.06 at 16:32]

You should do a study to see why more white people are more inclined to march/rally for the rights of dolphins, the spotted owl, the cahow, circus animals and the rights of gays than for other black people.

Onion - you've got to be kidding me. You mean I missed the cahow march? Damn. If you were there can you tell me if there were any black people there?

[jake on 20.07.06 at 16:37]

I smile when I read some of the analysis that poses for thought here.

Every road leads to the conclusion that blacks are the more racist, more homophobic, more violent, least educated and least politically astute.

Is that because the site and its posters are primarily white?

[SmokingGun on 20.07.06 at 16:43]

"least politically astute.?"

Jake - I happen to know of some the smartest, savviest and politically astute people around. And they are black. They're just not currently running the show. ;-)

[Onion on 20.07.06 at 16:46]

Jake!! Stop stirring the pot you hate-monger!!

[The Right Reverend Uncle Elvis on 20.07.06 at 16:56]

No, selkie, you were quite clear when you said "there's little evidence to suggest that this was in any sense a co-ercive enterprise by whites, at least not in Africa...".

That's why I asked you to expand on it, as I think you have it backwards. There is PLENTY of evidence suggesting that it very much WAS a coercive enterprise by whites, forcing Christianity on native people and slaves as a means of control. Heavy rules, heavier punishments, all about control. To suggest otherwise is... well.. wrong.

Also... you kill me. There's a difference between gayness and homosexuality? And we need to understand this before we can understand Limey's question?

You make this statement, THEN DON'T EXPLAIN WHAT THE DIFFERENCE IS!

Thanks fer edjikatin' all us dumb ol' breeders. We don' know nuthing 'bout no homeseckshuls.

You're serious with this?

I asked you to elucidate, or at least back up these "facts" and got your CV. Thanks for that.

Now, how about some explanations to this nonsense?

[jake on 20.07.06 at 17:16]

Smoking Gun,

Fair point. Agreed.

[selkieman on 20.07.06 at 17:31]

rev - please READ previous posts..... I think I covered your ....concerns ... there already.

[The Right Reverend Uncle Elvis on 20.07.06 at 17:55]

OH! I wasn't sure I believed that you were disputing the current thinking on the subject and injecting your own unfounded opinions as fact.
I can only assume these are only your opinions, that there's no such thing as a homosexual but there is such a thing as a gay, and they're not the same thing, even though Gay, meaning happy, was adopted as a way to say homosexual.

You talk of homosexual behaviour and activity. Do you mean Gay behaviour? I would assume that homosexual behaviour and activity, by definition, would refer to the sex.

You're right, though. There is a difference between homosexual and gay. Homosexual means that you like people of the same sex. Gay means happy.
When you use gay in the context of homosexual, yep. They mean the same thing.

If you are trying to educate us with some new way of thinking that goes against all other "Western" thinking on the subject, you gotta do a HELL of a lot better than you're doing.

Back your stuff up.

I also notice you haven't answered my questions on the coercive stuff. DID you mean that there is little evidence, or did you get it backwards. Was that a typo?

[The Right Reverend Uncle Elvis on 20.07.06 at 17:57]

I forgot to finish that sentence! *lol*

"I can only assume these are only your opinions,..."

because you have backed them up with NO links, NO reference, NO proof of any kind. None whatsoever.

[Raptor on 20.07.06 at 19:05]

"I smile when I read some of the analysis that poses for thought here. Every road leads to the conclusion that blacks are the more racist, more homophobic, more violent, least educated and least politically astute. Is that because the site and its posters are primarily white?"
Posted by jake on 20.07.06 at 16:37

What a broad brush. It does no one any good.

I’ve lived places where the white people were really poor. Guess what? They had low levels of education, they were more violent, there was more domestic abuse, sexual abuse, incest, little if any political thought, and they sure as hell had no use for anyone who wasn’t their colour or who was gay. Self-esteem? I don’t think they knew what that was. They were scary. They didn't have much more use for someone like me than they would for a black person. Bermuda is nowhere near some of what I saw, but Bermuda does have disadvantaged children and families, and the colour thing is reversed. I.e. some of what you’re referring to has to do with poverty.

My black friends and family members tend to be highly educated, extremely politically astute, non-violent, not racist, tolerant, and a lot of fun.

[queerblackbermudianmale on 20.07.06 at 20:49]

Pastor Elvis,

Breathe… in...out..in..out...
I've read this thread with a quiet interest but have decided to add my voice to clatter. First of all what selkieman mentions in his post is common thought in "western" Queer politics. I don’t have links for you but next time your browsing your local queer book store, as I'm sure will be doing as I can read that your interest has been peaked, and go to the queer politics/philosophy/sociology section and you will find hundreds of books which will either touch on gay vs. homosexuality or will be a complete thesis on the topic. One such book is 'The Modern Homosexual'.

Your scathing attack on Selkieman's 'opinion' comes across as simply the rants of a man who seems to be uninformed about a large segment of social thought. But I don't blame you, many 'breeders' don't spend enormous amounts of their time coming to terms with how their sexual identity relates to and communicates with the world around them.

Gay in the modern sense of the word, and yes in the modern world, the word ‘gay’ has come to mean a man/woman with sexual desires for the same sex. It also is a construct of recent times. It is in this knowledge that we can say that Elton John is Gay but Alexander the Great was not, and not for what you may think as the obvious reasons. Gayness has a culture, a language that has been developed over the last century amongst some of the queer community. Some may argue that Oscar Wilde heralded in this new era. All of this however is not interchangeable with homosexuality.

Gayness exists within homosexuality but homosexuality in itself is not Gay.

Now the proof is in the pudding. I, myself, when I came out found it very difficult to identify with gay culture as I came across it. It appeared to me overtly sexist and racist as well as media and image driven. As time went on I created a relationship with this culture where I grew to understand and somewhat accept elements of it as part of me, as I am part of it. During this time I moved towards identifying myself as Queer.

Queer has been reclaimed by many, coming to mean something more inclusive rather then exclusive. Under the Queer umbrella you’ll find transsexuals, bisexuals as well as straights who may have a sexual/social identity that fits in with what we may see as the ‘norm’ and I use that term extremely loose.

But back to the point, and the proof in the pudding. Many queer men have this same uncomfortable relationship with gayness and not necessarily for the same reasons as myself. Each queer person will meet this culture and either assimilate into or choose not to or move into because they precise there isn’t an alternative. And times go on, the lack of alternatives are growing less and less as ‘gay’ seems to more and more tolerated by the straight community. Within these confines any alternative to ‘gay’ will be harder to identify and develop.

How many ‘gay’ men do you know who complain about the scene or the structures in which the feel the must operate around? How may ‘gay’ men and women who will claim to despise other gay men/women? Or turn their backs on the life in general and choose to live lives that many would not label as gay at all. That’s because gayness as a culture is not the culture of the homosexual. And it is a western construct. The culture thrives in western countries because of common histories. However it struggles in other parts of the world because it operates as a culture/language that cannot be translated directly. Yes, often those that are unable and sometimes unwilling to translate it (and rightfully so for some) are people of colour. It is not a way of life that speaks to them or harmonizes with their traditions and ethnic principles. Yet, homosexuality can and does operate outside the western model of gayness = homosexuality.

Now for Christ sakes Pastor Elvis don’t go whirling around on the floor of your gospel hall; let’s acknowledge first these are my opinions. Mine differ slightly with selkieman, but they confirm that he is not alone and neither am I. And if you want to begin with references I have a stacked up bookshelf of queer philosophy of my own. Feel free to browse.

[lickinalong on 20.07.06 at 21:10]

It's all about whether you view people as people or as objects. For the longest time white people viewed black people as objects, an asset, something to be used or abused but not as people. There are still some white people who think that way but many of us have learnt at least a part of the lesson. It's a bit like the Germans and their anti-semitism. Most Germans know that their attitude to Jews before and during the second world war was wrong. Germans and white people cannot hide away from the reality of their history. It's pretty chastening.

On the other hand black Bermudians do not carry the same burden or benefit. By benefit, it is facing up to the reality that we as humans have the capacity to do great wrong to others. It is the essence of being human. So perhaps those of us who are white and face up to the reality of our whiteness and its legacy are more tolerant of those who are different. Perhaps if I was black and secure in my self-rightousness, I would find it easier to see those who are different such as gays, as being less than human and less deserving of respect.

[The Right Reverend Uncle Elvis on 20.07.06 at 21:20]

See, that was a reasoned explanation. That defined terms.

Thank you.

Thank you also for expressing these as opinions.

If I understand you right, and please correct me if I'm wrong, there is a difference between behaviours, which here we'll define as "Gay", and actual sexual attraction.
Gay would be the affectations, homosexual would be, basically, whether you like boys or girls.
Yes?
Or do I have it backwards?

Selkieman says "There is no such thing as a homosexual, only homosexual activity and behaviour. There are people who choose to be gay in order to function as a person of homosexual behaviour, but there's many ways in which social and sexual indentities interact". It was his use of the phrase "homosexual... behaviour" that threw me for a loop, because, as far as I could tell, the difference is between activity (i.e. the attraction and actual sex) and behaviour (i.e. Gayness).
I think I understood the difference, but it seemed.. well.. that he didn't. There seemed to be contradictions in what he was saying and, in later posts, things that are completely wrong.

QBBM, if you're who I think you are, judging by your email, you know me. You know how I think. We've had conversations on many subjects and you know how I argue. I put out an opinion or idea and argue, debate and fight until it's ironed out. I'm pigheaded, but I'll admit when I'm wrong when finally proved so.

Your explanation opened my eyes and made things - ideas and concepts that weren't too fully formed - in my head settle into place.
I was having a conversation with a friend of mine the other day, a gay man, about pretty much this very subject, affectations vs. attraction. I was saying that I thought there was a difference between being gay and acting gay. I didn't put it as eloquently as you, as I didn't have the vocabulary or the proper definitions, but I was saying that I have a pet peeve with people that I grew up with who have realized that they are homosexual. Their behaviour and mannerisms changed completely and they began affecting the feyness that is so commonly stereotyped when talking about the subject. What my peeve is is that they are usually the first ones to say things like "Why can't you love me for who I am?" It cracks me up, because, in this day and age, people... at least people that I hang with... don't really have a problem with them liking guys. However, and you know me... I'll ridicule anyone! *grin*..., the "Why can't you love me for who I am?" is generally after someone, not just me, makes fun of the affectations. I'm talking specific cases here, not a general thing, as I said, people who I have grown up with who have taken on the fey aspects of their sexuality. I understand it's a comfort thing, it's a fitting in thing, much of the time, but this doesn't negate the fact that it IS an affectation. As selkie says, it is a choice.
I just want to grab these guys and shake them and say "I DO love you for who you are. It's the shit that's NOT who you are that I'm making fun of!"
I make fun of Bermudians who affect a British accent to sound more "professional", too.

Anyway... enough babbling. I just want to say thanks QBBM for clearing it up and actually explaining.

Now I'm gonna go whirl. I think I need a gospel hall.

If you're still on island and are interested, I'd love to read a selection you pick out of your library. I'll freely admit that, while I'm not as dumb as I may seem, I'm not as educated as I think sometimes.

[The Limey on 20.07.06 at 21:39]

I started this thread because I wanted to get some insight into why such a small proportion of the black community supported Renee Webb's bill. Stay focused on that topic, please.

[selkieman on 21.07.06 at 08:34]

Rev, I've said three times now that I was not specifically interested in this post about the violence that accompanied the christianisation of africa, but the development of black churches in the west. Perhaps I wasn't too clear in the 1st post, which may have led to your confusion. Maybe yesterday's heat was getting to my brain. But its cooler today.

In answer to limey's initial question, one of my points was to highlight the very early and continuing independence of western black churches from mainstream white christianity, in order to show the special place they have for many black people and their communities. Community, family, the church and the individual have a different kind of social contract in black and white cultures.

My reason for bringing this point up was to deal with the research point that religion was not in itself a marker for how blacks and whites view homophobia. What I'm saying is that the research may not be picking up religious difference as it may be trying to compare like with like, when in practice, christianity has a different set of purposes and praxis in the black and white communities, and it may be this unmeasured material which is skewing the results away from any religious component per se.

Furthermore, I brought up the 'gay'/homosexual' distinction because, because what we understand by both is critical to revealing what is going on in the two communities, vis a vis homophobia. I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Homosexuality is about behaviour, gayness is a western political and social construct which frames how that homosexual behaviour can be expressed. It is not about 'activity' versus 'behaviour'. And like I say, blacks have more problems around 'gayness' than they do 'homosexuality'. The point being here, that the questions being asked may be skewed against exploring the real reasons for black attitudes to homophobia.

Now I was trying really hard not to go here, but I can’t let something you've said pass. You seem to have taken the conclusion from QBBM's post that gayness = campness, and 'affectation'. I don't see where you get that from.

If you think there's nothing more going on in this particular situation than an empty emulation of a set of even emptier gestures by some poor, confused queen, you're really missing the point of what a gay man is doing being camp in straight company.

What myself and QBBM are both saying is that 'gayness' is a white, western and primarily urban conception of 'how to be a homosexual'. Despite the fact that the vast majority of other cultures have large incidences of homosexual behaviours, it is a mistake to subsume all of those within the western model of 'gayness'. If the very practice of those behaviours is very different across cultures, then the attitudes to it, and the forms by which societies attempt to conceptualise will be very different within each of those cultures. Why don't you deal with this central point of both our posts ?

Leaving aside what yr motivations may be for doing so, you've asked me for evidence for the views I hold, and the theoretical standpoint that I take. I said from the start - go and google it – it’s all there. The reason for putting in the 'CV', was to show you that not only has this been a theoretical and political interest of mine for more years than care to think about, but also that I've LIVED that life.

So: I don’t often claim expertise, but here I do. If I tell you something's a fact in this particular area, you can more or less take it as a given that it is. If you're sufficiently exercised to disagree with me, the material's there to read, but you're never going have had my 30 yrs of intense and ongoing personal experience of the topic. Can you 'eat' that ? I mean, really 'eat' it ?

But I don't expect you or anyone else to have that knowledge, and I'm doing my best to break it down for the 'layman'. I expect a certain amount of resistance to concepts that may be new or difficult for people. What I won't accept is any attempt to abuse me rather than deal with the arguments. I would rather discuss the subject.

Personally I'd rather stick to the point. If you've got valid questions or criticisms, I'm always happy to give you my time and opinion, as I afford to you. I’m not here to have petty squabbles with people. I’m here to listen to, take part in, and learn from what others are saying.

[The Right Reverend Uncle Elvis on 21.07.06 at 12:09]

Rev, I've said three times now that I was not specifically interested in this post about the violence that accompanied the christianisation of africa, but the development of black churches in the west. Perhaps I wasn't too clear in the 1st post, which may have led to your confusion. Maybe yesterday's heat was getting to my brain. But its cooler today.

No, no you haven't. But you DID make a statement that was patently wrong and, when questioned about it, and even given an out, evaded that question. Now you're dismissing me out of hand.
You were incorrect with your statement regarding conversion and coercion and now it doesn't matter? How are we to take any of what you say seriously when you won't back yourself up?

In answer to limey's initial question, one of my points was to highlight the very early and continuing independence of western black churches from mainstream white christianity, in order to show the special place they have for many black people and their communities. Community, family, the church and the individual have a different kind of social contract in black and white cultures.

And we agree on this point.

My reason for bringing this point up was to deal with the research point that religion was not in itself a marker for how blacks and whites view homophobia. What I'm saying is that the research may not be picking up religious difference as it may be trying to compare like with like, when in practice, christianity has a different set of purposes and praxis in the black and white communities, and it may be this unmeasured material which is skewing the results away from any religious component per se.

Then why the statement that there was no coercion?

I harp on this because you contradicted yourself in that paragraph and I am just curious whether you actually mean what you said, or just got it mixed up...

Furthermore, I brought up the 'gay'/homosexual' distinction because, because what we understand by both is critical to revealing what is going on in the two communities, vis a vis homophobia. I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Homosexuality is about behaviour, gayness is a western political and social construct which frames how that homosexual behaviour can be expressed. It is not about 'activity' versus 'behaviour'. And like I say, blacks have more problems around 'gayness' than they do 'homosexuality'. The point being here, that the questions being asked may be skewed against exploring the real reasons for black attitudes to homophobia.

What behaviour? The attraction? The sex?

"It is not about 'activity' versus 'behaviour'."

Then what is it about? I honestly want to know!
The phrase "...western political and social construct which frames how that homosexual behaviour can be expressed" means nothing to me. You aren't explaining yourself. PLEASE help me to understand what you mean.

If you think there's nothing more going on in this particular situation than an empty emulation of a set of even emptier gestures by some poor, confused queen, you're really missing the point of what a gay man is doing being camp in straight company.

Then explain it to me.

What myself and QBBM are both saying is that 'gayness' is a white, western and primarily urban conception of 'how to be a homosexual'.

selkieman. I do not understand what you mean by that statement. Would you please be so kind as to expand on the statement and elucidate so that I may, perhaps, come to some understanding.

Despite the fact that the vast majority of other cultures have large incidences of homosexual behaviours, it is a mistake to subsume all of those within the western model of 'gayness'. If the very practice of those behaviours is very different across cultures, then the attitudes to it, and the forms by which societies attempt to conceptualise will be very different within each of those cultures. Why don't you deal with this central point of both our posts ?

Um.. because I already agreed with that portion of it in my post about Southern Africa.

Leaving aside what yr motivations may be for doing so, you've asked me for evidence for the views I hold, and the theoretical standpoint that I take. I said from the start - go and google it – it’s all there. The reason for putting in the 'CV', was to show you that not only has this been a theoretical and political interest of mine for more years than care to think about, but also that I've LIVED that life. So just stop the 'nonsense' about giving you the facts. I am - you just don't care to listen to them.

Facts are verifiable. EASILY verifiable. When we were talking about addiction, Chris B., acting as resident expert, which you seem to be trying to do for this subject, would put facts out, then link them to resources, studies, papers, etc. etc.

QBBM offered his library to me should I wish to use it.

Show me where to learn about this if it's so important to the topic. Explain what you mean when you throw out concepts that you know will be foreign to us.

So: I don’t often claim expertise, but here I do. If I tell you something's a fact in this particular area, you can more or less take it as a given that it is.

No. No no no. Not unless you back it up.
Why should I take your word for it? I don't know you from Adam's off ox.

On topic anyone ?

Ok.. back on topic.
I think that religion and the particular brand of Christianity that was forced on Black Africa, a religion of fire and brimstone, of punishment for the slightest indescretion or sin, plays a big part in Black society's views on homosexuality. I also think that there is a deep-seeded, almost innate, cultural acceptance of homosexuality that goes back to before Christianity that, when combined with the guilt brought on by the religion they were forced to take on, creates a lot of tension and disfunction, as can be seen in cases of the down-low, where black men participate in homosexual activity, but aren't, nor do they consider themselves, gay, or even bi, they are straight men.

So I'm going to ask one more time, as I think it IS on topic.

When you said: "On the point about adoption of christianity by black populations, there's little evidence to suggest that this was in any sense a co-ercive enterprise by whites, at least not in Africa wher the bible and bullet went hand in hand."

Are you saying that Christianity WASN'T forced on Black Africa and the slaves? When you say "there's little evidence to suggest that this was in any sense a co-ercive [sic] enterprise by whites" do you mean coercion, as in getting someone to do something by force, or is there another meaning I wasn't aware of, or did you make a typo and did you mean to say that there IS evidence... or did you get it backwards.

I ask because I think it's important in the argument, as I think that religion, the TYPE of religion and HOW they got that religion is a VERY salient point to this discussion.

[The Right Reverend Uncle Elvis on 21.07.06 at 12:21]

I should have added, "I also think that there is a deep-seeded, almost innate, cultural acceptance of homosexuality that goes back to before Christianity and is pretty panAfrican, as far as I can tell..."

[Raptor on 21.07.06 at 15:00]

Slaves were not allowed to read. Like many peoples, they conflated their own religions with Christianity. Although slave masters were selective on what part of Christianity they let their slaves hear (Biblical readings on obedience, etc.,), the slaves also created a whole different understanding for themselves by seeing what Christianity could offer them--as a source of hope and transcendence--in certain passages of the Bible and in the music and songs they sang, which often carried hidden meaning.

I think there is an understandable reluctance to make changes to a religious experience that has now served those of African ancestry well for many hundreds of years. The black churches in Bermuda are very impressive institutions and have served their congregations and the island well. All churches take time to change, in one direction or another. I hope there is more discussion in these churches about homosexuality and how people should not be discriminated against for who they are, from birth.

As has been pointed out, there is a range in acceptance of homosexuality in black churches, just as there is in white churches. I would like to hear more about the issue of homosexuality as it is perceived in various black churches of Bermuda.

I think the black churches have been so important, such core institutions, that they cannot afford to take chances of fragmenting over homosexuality. All around them--in the U.S., Africa, etc., Christianity is more to the right and growing. Evangelical Protestant churches have made huge inroads in Central and South America. In other words, it's all going in their favour, so maybe there's less of an incentive to hash it out. The HIV/AIDS epidemic has prodded some churches to learn about and deal with homosexuality though.

Homosexuality is something a lot of religions/denominations are either against, or struggle with, or accept and welcome, not just those in Bermuda. Yes, the Anglicans are more middle ground, but look what's happening with them in the U.S. and internationally now--Rev. Gene Robinson, elected a bishop, and he is a gay man in a long-term relationship. On top of that, the Episcopalians (U.S. Anglicanism) just elected a woman archbishop, further pissing off their right wing. That church might actually split.

So, I am guessing that the black Bermudian churches are weighing these issues just as many other churches in other countries are.

I am for full inclusion.

[selkieman on 21.07.06 at 15:02]

OK, it’s 35 deg, 95% humidity and 100% elvis….

Working backwards with impunity…

Elvis,

I'll try and be clear, and maybe not try to pontificate, but I’ll probably try and slip an encyclical past you.

So, just once and for all, I agree with what you're saying about christianity and Africa. I agreed my writing was initially confusing, and I've corrected that three times. What else can I say ? I made a mistake – I missed an ‘as’ out….. Mea Culpa, Mea Culpa, Mea Maxima Culpa. I’ll put this in a line on its own:

I’m not talking about Africa in this thread.

What I'm talking about is the Western Churches. If you read any good history about the development of the black christian churches you'll come across all the stuff I've been talking about the independent adoption and development of Christianity. As you say yourself, type and provenance matter. We agree. So that’s a start.

Can we move on.

As for the impact of all of this on perception of black sexuality and practice -. we agree, so far. And maybe we, as white Christians, (at least culturally), need to move out of our position of absolutist morality, to one where other cultural systems are at least recognised for what they are. Then the kind of research which prompted this thread can maybe get close to truth by asking better questions.

I’m not going to deal with the ‘how have I abused you stuff’. If you can’t see how you may be coming across when you talk to me…. As for the lovely double bind – you want facts, dates, links, faces and places, but you don’t want me to lecture you – at a bit of a loss there, sorry. And as for being ‘mental’, very probably. It goes with the territory. The ‘eat it’ thing, comes from a very old Israeli proverb about the man who could not hear, the man who could hear but not listen, the man who could listen but not take it in, the man who could take it in, but not eat it, and the man who could do all of that, and shit it out, thus making his shit his own.

Your ‘Facts’ issue…You haven’t questioned me about any ‘facts’. You’ve attacked my opinions and knowledge base. I’m not claiming resident expert status, I just have a set of experiences, ideas and ways of thinking that I don’t expect to be mainstream. They may be off the wall for you, but they are at least pertinent to the thread, and offer a set of insights to the issues. Just because they’re different doesn’t make them nonsense. I offered you a set of ideas that might help how to think about what’s happening in this research and others like it. And I’m afraid that Google is as far as I will go in providing back up. I’ve done lots of keyword searches on this stuff, and there’s plenty of reading material. If there’s anything in particular you’d like a hand with, no problem. Treat yourself, start with Alice Walker.

HOW does the western, white society expect someone to "be homosexual"? Quite simply by co-opting a ground–based social movement of the 70’s and 80’, commercialising it, and then selling it back to the target market in the biggest supermarket in history. One of the greatest marketing wheezes – gays are the first group in history to commodify and sell themselves to each other, just like in ‘Sex and Shopping’. Very large numbers of men who the straight world would classify as gay do not operate within this model. There are many different models of how homosexuality can operate and be defined with a wider straight culture, not just the one that happens to be prevalent in the liberal and fundamentalist Wests at the moment.

Camp…. It’s OK, I don’t expect you to get ‘camp’. Don’t worry about it. It’s not vital to life that you get ‘camp’. As for the gay/homosexual thing, I’m asking you to think about it in a way that you’re not used to. It’s as QBBM says - one contains the other, but it’s a one-way street. They’re two different levels of analysis and praxis. To conflate them is to make a ‘category error’. The one that is cultural that frames the other – behavioural. When gay people in the’70’s onwards caught onto to the idea that there was literally no space in our societies for ‘gay’ – that our whole world was defined by how straight people wanted to see us, it is a profound political act to create that space. I think we did that rather well. But only for some of us, which is why Queer politics still matters, and why within the community the debate around sexuality and its consequences is wide open. But any queer person in their right mind would have to accept that the space we have created is still a highly contested one, both in how it relates to a wider straight society and how that operates within different cultural contexts.

Most straight people make the mistake of seeing gay and homosexual as the same thing, because they’ve rarely been personally challenged on that, or had to consider how this affects your sense of indentity. On top of this identity issue, there’s how the politics and culture of any one individual impact upon their thinking. In what I’ve been arguing, one of my central points is that ‘gay’ and ‘homosexual’ operate in different ways in different communities, and that that this in particular is germane to black people’s perception of both. I’m also arguing that any discussion of black perceptions of sexuality in general, and homophobia have to start from there.

On a historico-political note. Concerning the use of the word ‘faggot’. The present truce negotiated in the gender wars in the 80’s means that we of the homosexual tendency took all our words back. They’re ours to use with impunity, and yours to use with care. Sorry mate. Spoils of war

[selkieman on 21.07.06 at 15:22]

Raptor (good post):

Its interesting that this, and other initiatives like it are going on...

http://www.aegis.com/news/lt/2006/LT060107.html

That black american churches are beginning to grapple with this issue is heartening.

There seems to be a move across the demominations against the co-option of the christian message by the right. Homosexuality is just one of many issues the two sides might 'go nuclear' on. It'll be interesting to see how it plays out in the churches.

It does seem to me however that attitudes are so driven on each side that some kind of shake down in affiliations and beliefs across the board is on its way.

[The Right Reverend Uncle Elvis on 21.07.06 at 15:49]

Look. I'm done with this. Judging from your post, you aren't listening, don't want to listen and probably will never listen to what I have to say. Cool.

Just.. um...

"I'll try and be clear, and maybe not try to pontificate, but I’ll probably try and slip an encyclical past you."

You'll try to slip a papal letter past me? So you ARE the Pope? The ultimate authority on the subject.
Gotcha. Thank you, your holiness.

So, just once and for all, I agree with what you're saying about christianity and Africa. I agreed my writing was initially confusing, and I've corrected that three times.

Must have missed those three times. Still missing them, but bygones. That's over. You were wrong and you admit it. Goodgood.

What I'm talking about is the Western Churches. If you read any good history about the development of the black christian churches you'll come across all the stuff I've been talking about the independent adoption and development of Christianity. As you say yourself, type and provenance matter. We agree. So that’s a start.

You're right, however, the INITIAL "Christianizing" WAS coercive and done by force. THIS is the problem I have with what you're saying. It is AMAZING what they did with this and I admire and respect how the early Black church took this horrible aspect of Christianity that was forced on them and turned it into a wonderful thing. They proved what the church is all about. Brotherhood, fellowship, protection, a place to be together. This is awesome and I adore this aspect of it.
However, the initial push, the initial conversion was pretty gruesome. As Raptor said, "Although slave masters were selective on what part of Christianity they let their slaves hear (Biblical readings on obedience, etc)..." Even after the conversion, they were only taught the punishment aspect of the Bible. The fire and brimstone, as I've said.
These aspects continue today, leaving a conscious and/or subconscious fear of punishment (as with other churches) for any indiscretion. Anything seen as wrong or different will be punished in the most horrible way. It's not hard to see where this comes from.

Can we move on.

Absolutely..

Yaddayadda Yaddayadda

I think I'm just going to have to accept that you're not going to answer direct questions. I'm not gonna ask any more.

Case in point:
HOW does the western, white society expect someone to "be homosexual"? Quite simply by co-opting a ground–based social movement of the 70’s and 80’, commercialising it, and then selling it back to the target market in the biggest supermarket in history.

Wal Mart?

One of the greatest marketing wheezes – gays are the first group in history to commodify and sell themselves to each other, just like in ‘Sex and Shopping’.

The Judith Krantz novel?

Very large numbers of men who the straight world would classify as gay do not operate within this model

Which model?

What do you mean by 'men who the straight world would classify as gay'? Who are you talking about? This is the kind of nebulousness I'm talking about.

There are many different models of how homosexuality can operate and be defined with a wider straight culture, not just the one that happens to be prevalent in the liberal and fundamentalist Wests at the moment.

Such as?

Camp…. It’s OK, I don’t expect you to get ‘camp’. Don’t worry about it. It’s not vital to life that you get ‘camp’. As for the gay/homosexual thing, I’m asking you to think about it in a way that you’re not used to.

I'm trying, Lord knows I'm trying!

It’s as QBBM says - one contains the other, but it’s a one-way street.

Tell me that's a joke! *grin* (On the common macho straight line "Up de bumpy? No way... that thing's a one way street) If it was, good one! If not... carry on.

They’re two different levels of analysis and praxis. To conflate them is to make a ‘category error’.

Who's doing what now? This is layman's terms?

The one that is cultural that frames the other – behavioural. When gay people in the’70’s onwards caught onto to the idea that there was literally no space in our societies for ‘gay’ – that our whole world was defined by how straight people wanted to see us, it is a profound political act to create that space.

Again. What do you mean by "gay"? I still don't know what the difference is!

I think we did that rather well. But only for some of us, which is why Queer politics still matters, and why within the community the debate around sexuality and its consequences is wide open. But any queer person in their right mind would have to accept that the space we have created is still a highly contested one, both in how it relates to a wider straight society and how that operates within different cultural contexts.

Lost me here. Contested by whom?

Most straight people make the mistake of seeing gay and homosexual as the same thing, because they’ve rarely been personally challenged on that, or had to consider how this affects your sense of indentity.

Or because they've never been told exactly what the difference is. I know I haven't.
I understand the indentity issue and I understand that straight people do not think about how they define themselves sexually, as it is generally taken for granted.

On top of this identity issue, there’s how the politics and culture of any one individual impact upon their thinking. In what I’ve been arguing, one of my central points is that ‘gay’ and ‘homosexual’ operate in different ways in different communities, and that that this in particular is germane to black people’s perception of both. I’m also arguing that any discussion of black perceptions of sexuality in general, and homophobia have to start from there.

That's fine, but you STILL haven't defined what you mean when you say "gay" and when you say "homosexual".

This is what I have a problem with.

On a historico-political note. Concerning the use of the word ‘faggot’. The present truce negotiated in the gender wars in the 80’s means that we of the homosexual tendency took all our words back. They’re ours to use with impunity, and yours to use with care. Sorry mate. Spoils of war

I understand that completely. I just wanted to make it clear that I don't use that word, nor do I like it, regardless of who uses it. If you owning that word makes you feel better, more power to you, but throwing it in my face to make an angry point isn't owning it. It's implying that that is how I feel.

It's not.

[NUFAN on 21.07.06 at 15:54]

You people read way too much in this, most whites don't have a problem with gays, most blacks do. That's it. Do you guys who write these long drawn out comments about geo-political reasons for this have a job or what?

[The Right Reverend Uncle Elvis on 21.07.06 at 16:04]

Wow, NU.. thanks for clearing that up for me.
Now, I'll ask you the same thing I asked selkie.
Where's the proof?

Are you taking into account generational aspects? I know that older folks are prone to be less tolerant than younger generations. Did you count them in?

How about cultural? I think that if you check out some European countries, or even the South in the US, you'll find whites with "a problem with gays". Did you count them?

Thanks for the broad generalizations.

Next

[JJ on 21.07.06 at 16:42]

So basically, not all homosexuals are gay and not all gays are homosexuals. Am I getting this?

[Ishouldbeworking on 21.07.06 at 16:59]

This has been mildly interesting but I still have no idea why most blacks surveyed oppose Renee Webb's recent bid to ban discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation.

If this comes from such deep cultural and historical roots, why was Ms. Webb so surprised at the results?

Also, what about those who respond simply: “because the bible says it’s wrong”; I’ve heard this sentiment from blacks in Bermuda (and whites in the southern US, etc) over and over…..is that reasoning just too banal to be offered in this sophisticated space?

Hopefully all the bombastic dialogue has been exhausted and more distilled and digestible comments are offered....some of us are not that clever.

[Raptor on 21.07.06 at 17:53]

"So basically, not all homosexuals are gay and not all gays are homosexuals. Am I getting this?" (Posted by JJ on 21.07.06 at 16:42).

I think he said not all homosexuals are gay, but all gays are homosexual or bi-sexual or trans-gendered. This is not common knowledge!

"This has been mildly interesting but I still have no idea why most blacks surveyed oppose Renee Webb's recent bid to ban discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation. If this comes from such deep cultural and historical roots, why was Ms. Webb so surprised at the results?" (Posted by Ishouldbeworking on 21.07.06 at 16:59).

I don't know why she would be so surprised. Maybe she thought "banning discrimination" was a "contained" idea, i.e., that it was very specific. Whereas the churches and others may see such a vote as the path to legalizing gay marriage. Lewis should have done part of his study in Bermuda.

What the Bible says, and what it doesn't, and cherrypicking throughout it, have been covered so many times here, which is probably why it hasn't been repeated, that, for instance, all those who commit adultery should be stoned to death, etc. Population in Bermuda would surely drop.

[Bill Cook on 21.07.06 at 20:23]

Raptor,

You will find however that quite a high percentage ARE stoned trust me !!

[Reader on 21.07.06 at 21:07]

Why does one jump straight to the conclusion that Ms. Webb's bill was for 'gay people'? I thought it was an across the board legislation to stop discrimination based on ones (ALL OF OUR) sexual orientation. Not just gays!

[jsm on 22.07.06 at 09:38]

"Why does one jump straight to the conclusion that Ms. Webb's bill was for 'gay people'?"

...because reading comprehension is severly lacking?

[jsm on 22.07.06 at 09:39]

Oh, and back in the 70's it was cool to hate gays....and that's kind of where Bermuda still is...behind the times....just look at what people wear!