Who's to blame for African homophobia? We are, of course
ROD LIDDLE
These are exciting times to be a worshipper in the Church of England. We may be about to have a schism. It was a schism which, if you recall, led to the creation of the Church of England. As a result of that schism, we have Christians today who believe that the Pope is godly and infallible, and omnipotent. And then there are the rest of us, who think that he's just a bigoted old Pole.
This latest proto-schism is not about whether or not the Pope's a bigot -we can all agree on that, these days — but whether or not it is OK to bugger someone. Someone of the same sex, I mean. There is no schism yet about heterosexual buggery. I don't think the bishops have thought about that. Maybe they should sit down and watch Sex and the City or read that new novel, Politics, by Adam Thirlwell and subsequently pronounce their views on what has become, beyond question, a new hobby for the shiny metropolitan elite. We all of us need guidance, I think.
Anyway, this being the Church of England, there is the prospect not simply of one schism but of about 20 schisms. For example, there are those who say that everything which smacks of homosexuality is a crime against God, and the perpetrators should repent or burn in Hell, tormented for eternity by Satan's vindictive and deeply homophobic imps. Most of those who think like this are black people, although they are usually referred to as 'evangelicals'. And then there are those who say that homosexuality is absolutely tickety-boo and a valid expression of God's love, so bugger away and peace be upon you. Most of these are white people, although they are usually referred to as 'Anglo-Catholics'.
But between these two fundamentalist positions there are plenty of bishops occupying what we might call the middle ground. There are those who say that the trappings of homosexuality — an inordinate affection for Doris Day and Gloria Gaynor songs, too careful attention to grooming and an overwhelming desire to present late-night chatshow programmes on Channel 4— are perfectly fine, but that felching and rimming and fisting are definitely out. You won't find the words 'fetching' or 'rimming' or 'fisting' in Deuteronomy (a favourite reference point for the evangelicals, or black people); God has instead presumably spoken to these bishops directly.
The Archbishop of Nigeria, Peter Akinola, is a most outspoken persecutor of the sodomites and he's definitely black. He compares the disgust that he and fellow Africans feel towards those who are gay to the way we feel about the practice of genital mutilation of women, which is common in (especially northern) Nigeria. In Pete's country you can get locked up for 14 years for consensual gay sex. If you're lucky. If you're discovered enjoying consensual gay sex in the north of his horrible, lawless, primitive, corrupt country — the bit run by the mad mullahs — you'll get stoned to death instead.
Almost all the African bishops hate homosexuals. except for one or two enlightened souls in South Africa. Homosexuality is illegal in some 29 African states; basically, if you want to bugger somebody of the same sex in Africa, safely, you have to move to Eritrea or Chad. And — just a tip — stay away from Zimbabwe altogether. When they don't actually screech about the horrors of homosexuality, they pretend it doesn't exist. Take this quote from Bishop of Michael Luger of Sudan, a country even fouler than Nigeria, by the way: 'In the Sudan we know nothing of homosexuality. We only know the gospel.' Yeah. sure, Mike.
However, the supporters of eternal sodomy, if I can so describe it, tend to come from the relatively affluent liberal Left. And this means that their attacks on the African bishops need to be tempered by something that is perhaps best described as `utter hypocrisy'. The liberal Left likes Africa, and is disinclined to condemn it directly for its palpable barbarism, intolerance and despotism. So Peter Tatchell, a brave campaigner against Mugabe and a voice of sanity on our own Sexual Offences Bill, loses his grip a little when it comes to the reasons for African opprobrium towards gays. According to Peter Tatchell, guess whose fault it is? Yep, got it in one. It's our fault, natch. Here's one of his quotes: 'Homosexuality among Africans became a rationalisation for racist notions of white supremacy.' In other words, when the colonial masters witnessed homosexuality among black Africans, it served to support their notions of racial superiority and, as a result, these black Africans have 'internalised' these cultural norms, which has resulted in pronounced homophobia today. They're not to blame, you see; we are. Trouble is, there's an obvious contradiction here. If it was the colonial white hegemony that imposed homophobia on black Africa, how come Tatchell and co. are not equally guilty of imposing their own cultural assumptions on Africa today? They are, after all, attempting to force the Africans to adopt the sexual mores of the colonial West, just as those racist, imperialist slaveowners did in the past. Isn't it a bit patronising to insist that the Africans don't really know what they're saying; that they're just parroting the ideology imposed on them by their previous white masters?
So, they haven't thought for themselves in 150 years? Come on, Peter; get a grip. Mind you — he's not alone. There are plenty of liberal Anglicans in the Church who subscribe to this view, including one female American minister who insists that we first imposed our cultural homophobia on Africa in the 2nd century AD. The truth is that there have always been homosexuals in Africa and, by contrast, there has almost always been a societal sanction in Africa against homosexuality. For a more detailed analysis I would point you towards Boy Wives and Female Husbands by G. Shepherd, a book about homosexuals in Africa which eschews Mr Tatchell's pat — and politically correct — assumptions.
Not that the black Africans are entirely alone; there is a growing and vociferous evangelical wing of the Anglican Church in the US that is every bit as stupid and virulent in its homophobia as anything you'll hear from Peter Akinola. One evangelical website insists that gays are 'rotten, plague-carrying, man devils' and asserts that 'public contempt and ridicule and rebuking of the fag and the dyke will please the Lord God Almighty'. These are the nutters who force creationism down the throats of their children.
I suspect I'd have supported the last schism, the one about the Pope. And I'd certainly support the latest. I do not feel a need to be part of a Church which, through its institutional desire to be as large as possible, includes people who would deny salvation to fellow worshippers over the question of what they want to do with their sexual organs. So split, and let Akinola go his own way.
Previous page
