State Sponsored Homophobia: World Homosexuality Laws

[pat grimshaw]

^ so you accept the hip modern gay anthrops but disregard frumpy Mead?

 

[Alnitak]

I think this is an extremist viewpoint tbh. As a Brit, i know full well that some shameful things have occurred because of the British in its long history, but i DO take offence at this particular view.

Well frankly you need to own this too. The British penal code introduced sodomy laws to Africa and that is a fact.

The former British colonies are the only countries in Africa with sodomy laws with little exception. The worst countries for gays right now Uganda and Nigeria were British colonies.

Look at a map of British colonies, and African countries with sodomy laws. It's the same damn map. The ring of French colonies around Nigeria do not have sodomy laws and today are relatively tolerant. Portuguese Mozambique is one of the most tolerant of them all.

If you consider Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and Malta, are the British to be given credit for their tolerance??? Of course not.

Of course.

Those are developed majority white countries that changed with the rest of the Western Hemisphere in the sexual revolution of the 1960s and 1970s. The UK decolonized before it repealed Section 377, leaving the law in place in those countries that declared independence before 1967. The culture of the time was frozen since the British withdrew.

South Africa also had Madiba and understood prejudice well because of apartheid.

Its one thing to be responsible for introducing crappy laws decades in the past, quite another to suggest that those laws are to blame. Its the people that count, and their culture.

Actually, the worst places in Africa to live for gays and lesbians are in former British colonies. It has nothing to do with African culture whatsoever.

 

[pat grimshaw]

^



"nothing" you say

 

[xbuzzerx]

^ so you accept the hip modern gay anthrops but disregard frumpy Mead?

I accept that Anthro and Soc have been ongoing, evolving fields developing better and better techniques and improving on the massive pitfalls that contaminated much or most of the earliest work in the fields. And that the same statement will be true about today in a century. In particular the notion that only the studied, academic, western and largely English-language "written accounts" of field work and research should be an unqualified voice of authority on these topics without regard for input from firsthand sources has greatly eased over the past century or two, which has resulted in a much greater understanding of many social structures or cultural practices that might have been lazily mis-labelled as an ordinary matter of course by someone like Boaz.

And none of this is surprising. Exactly the same evolution occurs in many fields-- medicine, Psychology, History. Your insistent clinging on some of the early pioneers in these fields who were working with far less extensive knowledge and understanding about their subject matter is quite selective for supporting many of your ridiculous viewpoints.

 

[Alnitak]

You cannot blame the British for this, for to do so, where do you stop? We could blame the Italians, if they hadn't have invaded the British Isles during the Roman Empire, we wouldn't have been so inspired by Christianity...

You completely ignored the fact that the countries in Africa with sodomy laws were British colonies. You just gave me examples of countries that had Islam before the French invaded, and one exception, Angola. So that being said:

The French colonies don't have this law.

The Belgian colonies don't have this law.

The Portiguese colonies don't have this law.

It's the British ones that do or countries in North Africa where Arabs invaded in the Middle Ages.

 

[Alnitak]

Yet YOU seem to be ignoring the fact that those sodomy laws being present or not are irrelevant. I just gave you some examples of non-British controlled nations who have just as harsh punishments for homosexuality. Its not the laws that are the problem, its the dominance of religious fundamentalism.

Of course you disagree. You are saturated with pride no matter how many of the facts are shoved in your face.

No, the French did not introduce sodomy laws to Muslim countries such as Algeria. Islam banned homosexuality for a 1000 years before the French took it over.

And how you ignore these maps is inexplicable by logic.

And actually the map is wrong. French colony Benin does not have a sodomy law.

Congo, Mali, Gabon, Central African Republic, Chad, Niger, Benin, Mali, Burkina Faso, Cote d'Ivoire, were French and Belgian colonies without sodomy laws.

It's not a coincidence.

 

[Alnitak]

I am not saturated with pride lol. I am saturated with rationality. You are cherry-picking what is historical fact and applying that to the troubles of homosexuals in Africa today, whilst ignoring those former British controlled nations that do not have sodomy laws (South Africa and Sierra Leone) and ignoring those non British ones that do (Liberia, Mauritania and Angola - the examples i gave).

You pointed out yourself by using Algeria as an example, that it was religion responsible for their anti-gay laws ultimately, before the french got there. The fact that those laws may not have existed in African nations prior to British occupation, is largely irrelevant, because its the nations today that have their own control over their own laws. If they choose to maintain anti-gay stances, its not because the British had visited. Its because they are influenced by their religious beliefs. There is no pride involved whatsoever in standing up and saying, "let's get something straight". That is all that i have done.

You are the one who is cherry picking. Look at those maps. They don't lie. So you pointed out some exceptions. Congratulations.

 

[Alnitak]

The maps don't lie, you're correct. That bears little relevance to human interpretation unfortunately. If you wanna continue to ignore the exceptions that fundamentally prove that its far more than British history which is responsible for Anti-gay Africa, be my guest, its not my mind being self-constricted.

I've never seen you in a LGBT rights thread before, so it is hard for me to gauge what your stake in this is besides being a British citizen.

I have years of experience on this site and elsewhere researching LGBT issues worldwide, so I know what I am talking about, and the map record above clearly supports my arguments. If you want to help please do. Otherwise you can go about your merry way.

 

[Alnitak]

World Bank delays approving a $90 million loan to Uganda

Uganda’s just-enacted antigay law is having further financial repercussions: the World Bank has indefinitely delayed action on a loan to the nation because of the legislation.

Democrats in the House helped persuade the World Bank president.

House minority leader Nancy Pelosi and other members of Congress as well as former member Barney Frank had spoken to World Bank president Jim Yong Kim to share their concerns about the law, BuzzFeed reports.

 

[Callum]

I'd be hard pressed to blame the British for the sodomy laws/homosexuality problems in those countries, mostly because the former colonies that *don't* have them are a handful of few with same-sex marriage and protections. The disparity between former British colonies is too extreme to place 'blame' on anyone. It would be much more useful to examine heteronormativity, biology as an ideology, and other invalidation ideologies within the 'state sponsored homophobic' countries.

Can't really assume other countries are bastions of human rights, either. Canada has a treacherous track record -- particularly with LGBT folk. The state did not persecute sexual minorities, it just used the medical system as a tool of oppression in its absence. Same-sex marriage came through a legal evolution, not revolution. We conveniently like to ignore addressing contentious issues in Canada.

 

[TX-Beau]

Well, colonialism probably didn't help, but this isn't a colonialism problem, or even a religion one, it's an education problem, and poverty problem. Poor uneducated people are easy prey.

 

[Alnitak]

I'd be hard pressed to blame the British for the sodomy laws/homosexuality problems in those countries, mostly because the former colonies that *don't* have them are a handful of few with same-sex marriage and protections. The disparity between former British colonies is too extreme to place 'blame' on anyone. It would be much more useful to examine heteronormativity, biology as an ideology, and other invalidation ideologies within the 'state sponsored homophobic' countries.

Can't really assume other countries are bastions of human rights, either. Canada has a treacherous track record -- particularly with LGBT folk. The state did not persecute sexual minorities, it just used the medical system as a tool of oppression in its absence. Same-sex marriage came through a legal evolution, not revolution. We conveniently like to ignore addressing contentious issues in Canada.

The problem with your argument is that you would expect these laws to be evenly distributed throughout Africa. They aren't. Aside from some of the exceptions named above, they are all former British colonies. Why? Because France and Belgium decriminalized sodomy in 1791 and 1795 respectively. For example, despite being deeply Islamic, Mali does not have this law because colonials never passed one. There are no witch hunts against gays in that country today unlike Nigeria, which is surrounded by tolerant formerly French colonies.

It is quite a stretch for you and DreamTeam to call that a coincidence.

Fact: Section 377 is part of the old British Penal Code. Unfortunately, the Empire left it in place before Africa decolonized. When the white West came to its senses and repealed its sodomy laws, African colonies, India, Pakistan, Malaysia, and Singapore (all still have Section 377) had already declared independence and were left behind. Those countries are home to 2 billion people, the majority of those living with sodomy laws.

It is really that simple.

 

[Callum]

No, what's simple is colonial laws don't mean anything when it comes to culture, or the absence/existence of said laws. Just because something looks pretty on paper doesn't make it true [ex. sexual minorities in South Africa] -- back to what DreamTeam said. A sexual minority in Mali is going to have the same shitty experience as a sexual minority in the CAR, Uganda, Nigeria. By dividing countries into what's legal and illegal, you're blatantly ignoring the sociology behind the law. Which is precisely what TX-Beau is speaking of in post #77. It's of no use to examine something as absolute.

 

[Alnitak]

No, what's simple is colonial laws don't mean anything when it comes to culture, or the absence/existence of said laws. Just because something looks pretty on paper doesn't make it true [ex. sexual minorities in South Africa] -- back to what DreamTeam said. A sexual minority in Mali is going to have the same shitty experience as a sexual minority in the CAR, Uganda, Nigeria. By dividing countries into what's legal and illegal, you're blatantly ignoring the sociology behind the law. Which is precisely what TX-Beau is speaking of in post #77. It's of no use to examine something as absolute.

You are also ignoring an obvious gradient by your own cultural argument.

The worst places in Africa to live culturally if you are gay, Nigeria, Uganda, the Gambia, and Cameroon, are all in the former British colonies that instituted sodomy laws. Why? Because anti-gay laws and British attitudes created an anti-gay culture in those countries. We are witnessing this today in Russia before our very eyes. No one in a former French colony has asked Melanie Nathan for help leaving Africa, because they don't need it.

 

[Alnitak]

This material was published by the HRC in a report from 2008

"More than half of the world's remaining "sodomy" laws -criminalizing consensual homosexual conduct - are relics of British colonial rule, Human Rights Watch showed in a report published today.

...

The Human Rights Watch report shows, however, that British colonial rulers brought in these laws because they saw the conquered cultures as morally lax on sexuality. The British also wanted to defend their own colonists against the "corrupting" effect of the colonies.

...

Versions of Section 377 spread across the British Empire, from Africa to Southeast Asia. Through it, British colonists imposed one view on sexuality, by force, on all their colonized peoples.
"

'Sodomy' Laws Show Survival of Colonial Injustice

 

[TX-Beau]

This material was published by the HRC in a report from 2008

"More than half of the world's remaining "sodomy" laws -criminalizing consensual homosexual conduct - are relics of British colonial rule, Human Rights Watch showed in a report published today.

...

The Human Rights Watch report shows, however, that British colonial rulers brought in these laws because they saw the conquered cultures as morally lax on sexuality. The British also wanted to defend their own colonists against the "corrupting" effect of the colonies.

...

Versions of Section 377 spread across the British Empire, from Africa to Southeast Asia. Through it, British colonists imposed one view on sexuality, by force, on all their colonized peoples.
"

'Sodomy' Laws Show Survival of Colonial Injustice

Are you sure all of these places had negative opinions on homosexuality forced on them? That entire argument rests on the idea that there was no homophobia until GB pushed it on them, but at least in the case of India, I really don't think that was the case.

 

[Alnitak]

Are you sure all of these places had negative opinions on homosexuality forced on them? That entire argument rests on the idea that there was no homophobia until GB pushed it on them, but at least in the case of India, I really don't think that was the case.

Yes, this isn't my original research. This whole thread is packed with papers, studies, facts, history, diagrams, and figures surrounding my claims. It would be one thing if you, Callum, Pat, and DreamTeam were doing the same, but you're not. Africa for the most part was either indifferent or tolerant of homosexuality before the British brought their Victorian crackdown on homosexuality, and made off like a fat rat before repealing these sodomy laws.

 

[TX-Beau]

Oh come on, before post #81 you made one post about "traditional" African homosexuality from some site called "Afropunk." I went back an looked.

It may well be that the technical prototype for legal (as in the way a law is written) modern discrimination was established in the British colonial legal code, but that does not mean that these colonial societies were not anti gay to begin with, Islam and Hinduism were major religions under the British empire and neither of them are gay friendly, British law or no British law. I suspect that aboriginal cultures just like everywhere else in the world were also a spectrum of kinds of toleration and persecution, to say it's all just the British and that's just the end of it is myopic.

- - - Updated - - -

Oh I forgot the maps. You get credit for those also.

 

[mightbe]

Altinak, I think you have yet to call attention a key point. Present-day countries that were used as extractive colonies by the British are the ones that have these laws. The more industrialized, commercialized and educated colonies that weren't poor plots for the taking have a much better HR record. Those poor areas weren't previously bound by a common legal code. The introduction of one was only half of the issue. That they were kept intact is a virtue of those countries' poverty and uneducated citizens. It's no accident that South Africa is much further along socially than, say, Tanzania (formerly Tanganyika and Zanzibar). South Africa had a thriving trade based economy, therefore better education and was subjected to a fair degree of global influence. Very few British holdings in Africa had those opportunities.

Furthermore, colonies that were given autonomy within the British Empire were by no coincidence the most prosperous and beneficial to Britain. Those given greater autonomy had successful economies; a result of their prominence in international trade. Australia, South Africa, Canada. The reason they got this control is a direct result of their ability to hold their own in a pre-WWI global economy. Those that failed to hit the mark saw greater "supervision" by Britain. As such, they weren't allowed to create their own legal systems like the others had. Again, it is no accident that such an arrangement came about. Britain awarded legitimacy to those that were financially successful. That's the entire premise of their colonial system. Reward the "good" ones. Hold the other ones down until they got lucky, which would probably never happen because these countries were geopolitically unable to match up. Canada, India, Australia and South Africa were trading kings. They could perform. They were given self-rule. They have more progressive social laws. Central Africa failed to prosper (to no one's surprise). It follows logically.

Africa was called the "dark continent" because its inland regions were economically and culturally impenetrable, for both geographic and social reasons. It's frankly not that bad of a description. These areas have yet to see widespread economic success. It just so happens that in Britain's land-grabbing spree in the time between the Franco-Prussian War and WWI took up most of east and central Africa. The original idea was to build a Cape Town-Cairo rail network. German East Africa always prevented this (one of Wilhelm II's earliest foreign policy moves), but Britain owned the rest of the land all the same.

"The White Man's Burden" by Rudyard Kipling exemplifies the attitude taken toward colonies; it was a moral "burden" to bring these "half-devil, half child" peoples into a more European state of existence. That necessitated a European legal code; however, I don't defend this sort of imperialism, but one must understand it from their perspective. WWI permanently put the "Christianize and civilize" plan on hold (though it must be noted that by then the Victorian influences on the colonial penal code were out of fashion within Britain proper), and these very insignificant colonies could do nothing better than to work with what they had. Once the colonies became independent, they simply kept what they knew because they lacked the resources and know-how to create anything else. Why else would their laws be so fundamentally similar?

Your stance is that these countries would suddenly have the foresight, money, power, ability and conviction to create an entirely new system. That frankly was, and IS impossible for many of them. At this primitive stage in development, most of these countries are UNABLE to change at present. That's no excuse, but it does explain why they are the way they are. The various warlords that seized power in the decades after independence aren't ready to relinquish their power, and the few somewhat democratic countries are not in a position to fully rectify their situation. They're poor, and uneducated. They're uneducated because they're poor, and they're poor because they're uneducated. We can't expect a whole lot.

For exactly the same reasons; many are disappointed at Russia's behavior. They have the ability to be doing so much better. They're not some central African dictatorship.

 

[mightbe]

I should make it clear; I don't discount the racism used by the British when granting special privileges, but it wasn't the only factor. Canada, Australia and etc. were both "white" colonies (but important to remember the treatment of Aborigines) and economic successes. Truth be told, they were as much white as they were educated (making them more successful), all of which (in addition to being favored) culminated in their being considered dominions with a degree of self-governance.