Culture wars: LGBT or straight, postcolonial or postmodern?
Steve Hayes
Pretoria. About 250 people gathered from various countries in Africa and there
were a few from other countries as well.
"Amahoro" is a word in Rwandan languages meaning "peace", and I think it was
chosen to represent the rebuilding needed in that country following the
horrific genocidal strife that took place there 15 years ago. The gathering
was billed as "empowering emerging leaders", so perhaps I shouldn't have been
there at all, not really being a leader, and at my age I'm submerging rather
than emerging.
Much of it was about what it means to be Christian in a postmodern and
postcolonial world. I won't say much about it here -- I've blogged about that
in my other blog, with pictures. But it was useful, because words like
"postcolonial" have often been bandied about and I wasn't too sure what they
meant, and I think I now have a better idea.
For some of the younger people there it was a lifechanging experience, and if
you're interested in reading about it there are links to some of the blog
posts about it here
http://methodius.blogspot.com/2009/06/amahoro-gathering.html
One of the things that seemed to come to the fore, in discussions at the
conference and in some of the blog posts afterwards, was the question of
identity.
And it strikes me that there are very different approaches to this question in
different places, and in different places in cyberspace. In these blog posts
(mostly by white South Africans) identity seems to be seen in broad cultural
terms. One of them, Nic Paton, asks, in effect, "Should I identify myself as
African or European, as Postmodern or as Postcolonial?
There are several Christian newsgroups on Usenet, and to judge from
discussions there, entirely different questions are being asked. Identity
seems to be constructed in terms of sexual orientation, or in the USA, in
terms of politics -- am I heterosexual or homosexual? Am I Democrat or
Republican. In the UK it seems to be in ethnic terms -- am I British or
English or European? The increase in support for the fascist British National
Party in the recent European elections makes this look more important.
The following snipped of a discussion that took place in the alt.usage.english
newsgroup illustrates one aspect of this. It was part of the discussion of the
language and usage in a current British "Big Brother" TV series:
=== begin quote ===
In article <ak1g3511uc26a46o1...@4ax.com>,
Peter Duncanson (BrE) <ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote:
>I've just read this in a forum:
> It does seem odd that so many are either gay or bisexual. Only a
> small percentage of the population is gay or bisexual,
I wonder what evidence the (webforum) writer has for this. He/she/it
seems to assume a discrete classification of individuals that is not
supported by the evidence of history or modern society. (Repeat after
me: "'Sexual orientation' is an invention of modern Western European
culture.")
-GAWollman
=== end quote ===
That might be a theme that deserves more exploration.
Certainly, from what I've observed in blogs and electronic forums like Usenet,
the Anglican Communion is tearing itself apart over questions of sexual
orientation, and that last statement -- "'Sexual orientation' is an invention
of modern Western European culture." could go some way to explaining it.
At least part of the debate within the Anglican Communion (at least the part
that I've seen in the blogosphere and on Usenet) seems to stem from cultural
imperialism. Africans who accept the Western cultural narrative are seen as
good, and others as bad, and some of the rhetoric used to describe them could
come straight from the jingoistic imperialism of the late Victorian era.
I realise that for many this is not the dominant narrative. Usenet is
increasingly becoming the home of cranks and fanatics, and sane people steer
clear of it for the most part. I'm in it mainly for alt.usage.english and the
genealogy newsgroups. The rest, including the Christian ones, are mainly
filled with insane rants, and the proportion of messages that I download to
read grows smaller and smaller. But this also gives the impression that the
sane proportion of society is also growing smaller and smaller.
Electronic communication has made it easier to talk to people around the
world, and people talk of the world becoming a global village, but I'm not so
sure. As long as we ignored each other, we got along OK. There was stuff that
other people do and think that we really don't want to know, and perhaps we'd
get along better if we didn't know.
--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Web: http://khanya.wordpress.com
Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com
The instruments of the churl are evil: he deviseth
wicked devices to destroy the poor with lying words,
even when the needy speaketh right.
But the liberal deviseth liberal things;
and by liberal things shall he stand (Isaiah 32:7-8).
1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist
last 50 years.
What was accounted as grossly wicked and disgraceful for thousands of years
are now widely accepted in most churches as normal behaviour and such wicked
persons are welcome to participate in their fellowships even when
fornication or adultery is openly going on.
Indeed, Christ forbidden divorces and remarriages, homosexual perversion are
rife throughout these evil places call churches.
__
Veff...
God knows best......"Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate,
saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean; and I will receive you, 18 And
will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the
Lord Almighty. " 2 Cor 6:16-18 (KJV)
----------------------
"Steve Hayes" <haye...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3flj35pedndugqh95...@4ax.com...
- .. -- Tim .-.
One reason for change seems to be the mechanism by which people select a
mate in Western culture, compared with that of Biblical times or indeed
other cultures in the world today. In the West we are so used to the idea
that people pair up on the basis of love and attraction (not necessarily in
that order) and that they choose their own mate. In many other cultures,
many marriages were or are 'arranged' in some way or other, by families,
parents or others.
Consequently, individuals were 'paired up with' a person of the opposite
gender for reasons such as family alliances, financial considerations,
political reasons, etc. Their own choices perhaps had little relevance.
Thus in those days people of homosexual orientation would be paired up with
an opposite gender partner, or indeed perhaps a man would be paired up with
several wives. Interestingly, IF there is a genetic component in the
causality of homosexuality, this system made passing on the genes much more
likely than a pure choice system, in which one might expect such genes to be
unlikely to be passed on.
It was probably quite common for homosexual persons in such arranged
marriages to seek out same-gender sex 'on the side', and might explain some
of the cultural acceptance in Roman and other cultures of ancient times.
Because in the West the majority select their own partners, it is logical
that homosexual people would select a same-gender partner. However, it also
illustrates how rules and morals for one culture may well not fit another,
either historically or even among contemporary cultures.
Tim.
Steve Hayes
<broadband1234[remove]@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>Steve.....Christendom has gone down the tubes....never more so then in the
>last 50 years.
>
>What was accounted as grossly wicked and disgraceful for thousands of years
>are now widely accepted in most churches as normal behaviour and such wicked
>persons are welcome to participate in their fellowships even when
>fornication or adultery is openly going on.
>Indeed, Christ forbidden divorces and remarriages, homosexual perversion are
>rife throughout these evil places call churches.
Right.
But your response doesn't seem to relate to anything that I wrote.