Today we finish our series of four pieces addressing LGBTI nomenclature, issues, and politics in Africa. The four authors whose short pieces we feature provide much food for thought, on the mythological constructions of history, religion, and culture, the abuse of power by national and international actors, and the pros and cons of communal identities and notions of “rights.” We look forward to our readers’ comments on this important series.
Today:
by Cilas Kemedjio, “Cilas Kemedjio on Human Rights”
I listened, a couple of years ago, to an intervention by a young Ugandan Gay activist who was visiting the city of Rochester, New York. He made his case for gay rights in Uganda, in the context of the so-called gay death bill. Among his many arguments, he claimed that same-sex practices existed in Africa before the advent of Christian missionaries. He was repeating an argument that basically faults Western missionaries for the suppression of sexual diversity in that is alleged to have been the feature of pre-colonial Africa. I found this argument about temporal legitimacy quite troubling. I am against the death penalty, a practice that has been documented since the pre-colonial age. Should I defend the death penalty in the name of some dubious cultural authenticity? Both sides of the gay debate in Africa unfortunately repeat this argument. The following response and the article being targeted for critique reiterate this dead-end approach through expressions such as Western concepts of human rights, African communitarianism, African traditional cultures, or cultural authenticity. Opponents of gay rights have seized on the cultural authenticity fallacy to cast themselves as defenders of African values against the imperialism of the “sexual-rights agenda” or the “human-rights agenda”. Beyond its rhetorical value, this terminology brings very little to our understanding of homophobic discourses and practices that are found in numerous African communities.
What is left unaddressed is the arrogance of the Western politicians such as Barack Obama who finds it convenient to publicly lecture Senegalese President Malick Sall or President Kenyatta on gays rights. What is the difference, one may asks, between Obama’s unleashing bombs in Libya (and doing nothing to resolve the disastrous consequences of his country military adventurism) and his public advocacy for gay rights? Advocates of gay rights need to pay more attention to this side of the debate. They would also be better served by being aware of the financial subservience of African-based LGBT organizations to Western NGOs and governments. It is imperative for these advocacy groups to form local coalitions that, in the long run, are more capable of generating popular, political, and institutional support that may ultimately bring about lasting change. Until the debate recognizes the urgency of an African-centered and grassroots approach, we are to remain in a rhetorical exchange fertile in hollow proclamations, name-calling, and misunderstandings.
Cilas Kemedjio is Director of the Frederick Douglass Institute for African and African-American Studies at the University of Rochester and co-editor of the CIHA Blog.
Previous:
by Ebenezer Obadare, “Ebenezer Obadare On Gay Rights, Same-Sex Marriage”
by Lilly Phiri, “Reflections on Ebenezer Obadare’s Insights on Gay Rights and Same-Sex Marriage”
by Michael Bosia, “Mike Bosia Comments on Lilly Phiri’s Article”