Is the Reggae Community doing anything for World AIDS day?
Rdawta
seen, there are threads of hope out there, enlightning and encouraging
us to move forward. AIDS has taken the lives of so many that it is
now called a "Pandemic" with over 40 million people infected with the
virus, and Women being the majority of the cases, there have been some
artists who have come out to show their support and increase awareness
in the hip hop and r&b communities.
What is reggae doing?
I'd like to know because reggae being the most socially and
politically aware music, why is organizing so low in producing
awareness on AIDS in the reggae community.
I think its well about time that AIDS be a strong motivating force to
create and organize concerts/festivals around the music as much as Bob
Marley is a motivating force for concerts/festivals throughout the
year.
If anyone is interested in seeing what forces we can combine to make
this a reality. contact me @ rda...@hotmail.com. I look forward to
the day that reggae music's impact will draw on its talents to do the
work that is so very needed.
Give Thanx
Adjua Dubb
Just my .02
ras adam simeon
> What is reggae doing?
Jamaica Observer, November 26, 2004
Tony Rebel, one of the island's leading cultural reggae artistes, on
Tuesday urged his colleagues to join him in sensitising the younger
Jamaicans on the implications of the dreaded HIV/AIDS virus.
He was one of several dancehall and reggae acts who attended a
meeting, hosted jointly by the ministry of health and UNICEF, at the
Hilton Hotel.
The meeting entitled 'Artistes Against AIDS' came out of recent
research, which revealed that adolescents and other young persons see
popular entertainment personalities as the prime messenger on
information having to do with sexuality and HIV/AIDS prevention.
"We have to stay strong, we have to support this organisation with
(our utmost) effort," Rebel told his colleagues.
The organisation which started three years ago, is aimed at using the
influence of the music fraternity in promoting safer sex messages
including abstinence and the use of condoms.
Many of those present at Tuesday's meeting said they were yet to meet
someone who has the deadly virus before a young man, who was HIV
positive, was introduced to the group. For almost 15 minutes, the HIV
positive man told his story to the gathering.
Senior medical officer at the health ministry, Yitades Gebre also made
a presentation on the status of HIV/AIDS in Jamaica.
Gebre revealed that most of the new HIV/AIDS cases reported locally
occur among persons between ages 15 and 24, with the cases among girls
three times as much as boys.
It is estimated that there are as much as 22,000 HIV-infected persons
in Jamaica, 50 to 60 per cent of whom are unaware of their HIV status.
From the discussions, artistes came up with their own ideas for
advocacy, such as public service announcements and adding lines to
their music to promote safe sex.
At the end of the meeting Voicemail, gave their new sample blurting
"It's roll up time now," similar to the tune of It's A Jiggy Time
Again, done by Bogle, Delly Ranks et al.
http://miyard.com/webbbs/pics//pic73851.jpg
Sista Irie
but didn't have my password. Tony Rebel has long worked (also in collaboration
with other reggae artists) on AIDS related awareness issues in Jamaica and
internationally. He was chosen as a representative to the United Nations
participating in AIDS awareness issues just a few years ago. The United Nations
called out for musical artists all over the world to submit songs to be used in
their ad campaigns. Tony, along with other Jamaican artists (I can't remember
them all, however, Luciano was one of them) created a song that was later chosen
as the number one entry. Tony as an active spokesperson is in the news with AIDS
awareness through his Artist Against Aids group more than others, however, there
is an ongoing group of reggae artists who contribute to awareness on this
subject. Baaba Mal is another singer who is very active in his own country
working to reduce the suffering of AIDS.
I think your question is a good one RDawta and there is still so much to be
done. It would be only right for those who believe in global issues to be
involved. The devastation to Africa is horrendous and easy to overlook because
it is not in our own back yard. I hope the sudden attention to dancehall
anti-gay lyrics does not play some role in people backing away from wanting to
help. There is still alot of misconception that AIDS is just a disease
associated with homeosexuality. I personally don't care how someone gets sick,
this a cruel disease which creates thousands of orphans a year. Some of the
recent television programs show little children, toddler, orphaned and combing
the fields of Africa for food. It is a horrible situation. I appreciate your
post and hope this is a subject that maybe can help unify members of the reggae
community to generate more awareness and help for these victims.
Bless, sis irie
Sista Irie
Artistes against AIDS
11/25/04
By GERMAINE SMITH, Staff Reporter (The STAR)
DANCEHALL ARTISTES HAVE traditionally been largely unrecognised for doing
works of charity and goodwill, but Tony Rebel and his team of entertainers
are seeking to change that perception.
As chairman of the group Artistes Against AIDS, he hosted a meeting on
Tuesday which got the support of several prominent members of the
fraternity.
The meeting was held at the Hilton Kingston Hotel with the aim of
sensitising artistes to the tremendous power they wield over the nation's
youth, and to encourage them to use more lyrics that promote responsible
sexual relations.
At their meeting, close to a dozen artistes pledged their support by their
attendance to the session. The list included CéCile, Danny English, Zumjay,
Yogi and Voise Mail.
The entertainers were part of the group which listened and participated in
frank discussions about the rapid rise of AIDS/HIV cases in the island, and
what they, as entertainers, can do to raise awareness about safer sexual
practices.
The session was chaired by Tony Rebel but there were presentations made by
Dr. Yitades Gebre, senior medical officer and executive director of the
National HIV/STI Control Project; Verity Rushton of UNICEF; Audrey Brown,
behaviour change communication officer of the Ministry of Health's Southern
Region and Yvette Rowe, broadcaster and lecturer at the University of the
West Indies.
Alarming statistics
Gebre revealed alarming statistics about the rapid rate at which the
disease is spreading. He put this figure at 14,000 new cases worldwide each
day, adding that close to 2,000 of these cases represent teens under 15
years old.
He stated that in Jamaica alone, there were close to 22,000 people living
with HIV/AIDS, with 12,000 of them unaware that they carry the disease.
On that note, he encouraged the artistes present to use their influence to
promote condom use and safer sexual practices.
As the leader of Artistes Against AIDS, which was formed four years ago,
Rebel stated that he was pleased to see the turnout of artistes at
Tuesday's session. Tony Rebel noted that the group has organised the
recording of tracks which promote safe sex, to which Elephant Man, George
Nooks, himself, and other deejays had given their support. This, he argued
though, was not enough.
"There is so much more we need to do but we just need to get more organised
and try to get more support," he told the gathering.
"We, as artistes, can do something by curtailing the youth dem behaviour
and get them more aware ... we need to do something in the music now
because this is not a private sector or public sector thing, this is we.
Just as how we can make 20,000 people scream and call our names, we can try
to change their behaviour."
Joel Spencer wrote:
>
> Here is an editorial in part on the subject in this morning's NY Times.
> As depressing as this piece is, I am heartened at least to see that the
> word "reggae" is not once used in association with the gay-bashing
> coming out of the dancehall.
>
> rgds
> Joel
> --------
>
> December 2, 2004
> EDITORIAL
>
> 'Hated to Death' in Jamaica
>
> With the second-highest H.I.V. infection rate in the world, after
> sub-Saharan Africa, many Caribbean nations have been working hard to
> improve their public health and AIDS education efforts. Jamaica,
> however, needs to work harder.
>
> A disturbing new report from Human Rights Watch suggests that Jamaica
> cannot win the battle against AIDS until it confronts the virulent forms
> of anti-gay bigotry that run through the country's popular culture, its
> police force and much of its medical system. The report, grimly titled
> "Hated to Death," alleges that a pervasive anti-gay bias is driving the
> epidemic by forcing people at risk to avoid hospitals, and by making it
> difficult for them to acquire condoms and other things that would help
> them remain free of the infection.
>
> Not surprisingly, "Hated to Death" has drawn fiery condemnations from
> some in the Jamaican government. But it will take more than angry
> denials to sweep away the distressing testimony in this report, which
> recounts the experiences of gay Jamaicans forced to flee their homes
> under threats of violence and death. One of the bedrock problems is the
> government's timidity in the face of a primitive set of laws that
> criminalize gay sex among consenting adults. The police appear to extend
> their harassment to outreach workers, who are sometimes persecuted for
> passing out condoms.
>
> The medical system is improving, but still problematic. It sometimes
> abuses gay patients and sometimes turns them away. The report coincides
> with disturbing data suggesting that the AIDS epidemic may be deepening
> in Jamaica and that unprotected sex is far more common than it should be.
>
> The Jamaican government has already embarked on an effort to provide
> AIDS sufferers with broader access to important medicines. But these
> efforts cannot become fully effective until the government can summon
> the courage to attack the virulent anti-gay prejudices that are driving
> this epidemic by making people at risk fearful of seeking treatment.
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/02/opinion/02thu2.html?th=&pagewanted=print&position=
Joel Spencer
rgds
Joel
--------
December 2, 2004
EDITORIAL
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/02/opinion/02thu2.html?th=&pagewanted=print&position=
dg
If gay Jamaicans are not seeking condoms for fear of being labeled gay, the
problem isn't the gay bashers-its just plain stupidity.
--Dan
"Joel Spencer" <NAFISP...@ReggaeMusic.us> wrote in message
news:318iaqF...@individual.net...
Joel Spencer
> The article sounds like BS to me,
It's a NY Times Editorial - would you expect it to be anything other
than BS \:--]
rgds
Joel
Crystal
escalate in Jamaica. It takes a LOT of time and persuasion for people to
understand that HIV does not care about sexuality. I applaud this minimal
effort, but until heterosexual men and women step forward and speak, I do
not think things will change. In my experience with HIV education in this
country (since the very first cases in the early 1980"s) I have seen no one
more effective than people who are living with aids. Unfortunately, no
musical genre has been as effective as those who are living it daily. And
unless a reggae artist somewhere is HIV positive and dares to speak, I fear
the change will not come.
that is my opinion...
much respect,
Crystal
"Rdawta" <Rda...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:f1fb7acc.04120...@posting.google.com...
Joel Spencer
to start divorcing its hand-in-glove association with the AIDS dilemma.
Discrimination against homosexuality is just that - hatred and
discrminination. The problem with AIDS is not one of discrimination, but
rather one of healthcare services, personal behavior and cultural
"tradition".
There of course is a solid fringe minority of people who are going to
forever discriminate against homosexuals simply b/c of who they are.
That minority is greatly expanded, even if subconciously, though when
you bring AIDS into the picture.
Most people (including most of my homosexual acquaintances) have a hard
time understanding how a responsible person can even put themselves at
risk for AIDS, and have almost no understanding of how (as the AIDS
lobby likes to imply) humanity as a whole is somehow responsible for
AIDS and thus we all should be slaving to stop it. Just like the
cirrhotic alcoholic, you can have a lot of sympathy for the person's
plight, yet you can also quite reasonably kick back and say "well, they
brought that plight upon themselves, and I'm going to learn from their
experience not to lead my life as they did."
When you factor in that in the US last year 18,000 people died of AIDS,
whereas nearly 700,000 people died of heart disease, 500,000 from
cancer, 150,000 from stroke, 75,000 from diabetes, 65,000 from cold/flu,
60,000 from Alzheimers, etc. - the notion that "AIDS is not my problem,
nor is it that big of a problem relatively, so why do I keep hearing so
much about it" is reinforced, and inevitably leads to a 'backlash'
sentiment from those who are being told they should feel so guilty.
The strategy that the AIDS lobby has been using the past few years of
saying "more heterosexual women than men now are affected by AIDS" while
it may be true, does not diminish the backlash either, b/c the women who
get AIDS are often viewed more as victims of their AIDS-infected mates
than of the disease itself - which in fact stokes the backlash against
the AIDS sufferer.
So anyway - my point, before you start flaming away is that gay
discrimination is one issue, AIDS is another. Conflating AIDS with gay
discrimination, only serves to diminish the fight against
discrimination. In my mind, the more pressing problem to be addressed
(at least in the US and Jamaica) is the gay discrimination issue, not
the AIDS issue.
As for AIDS in the third world, the only thing that is going to solve
that is cultural change - homosexuality must be tolerated not suppressed
and stigmatized, women must be given basic rights and equality and the
tyranny of patriarchal society cast aside, and traditional values must
be made subordinate to modern norms (i.e. condoms are okay, monogamy
makes you safer, just b/c you have a disease doesn't mean you have to be
shunned by society, etc.). You can build all the clinics and research
all the cures and pump all the life-preserving drugs in you want to try
and treat the disease once it's extant, but unless you stop the disease
at its source (that being the needle and the rampaging penis), you will
never lessen the severity of the problem, much less eradicate it.
rgds
Joel
Joel Spencer
> I believe that the other artists who project
>> hatred or scream out against the chi chi man, batty man, are influencing
>> thousands of young minds against a select group of people and the
>> misunderstandings concerning AIDS and how it is spread will be reinforced in
>> their minds as one more acceptable reason to continue bashing homosexuals. We
>> all know that musical idols can contribute to forming the foundation of values
>> within the youth.
Amen - one's true values are most often formed in our teen years, and
we're losing a whole generation of dancehall listeners now to hate \:--[
> However, as long as there is a faction of artists
>> 'bunning' the chi chi man, I doubt that the two subjects can co-exist as
>> separate issues since both are in the news at the same time.
Amen again - AIDS gives the discriminators the psychological and
rhetorical out of being able to say "See I told you so - homosexuality
is immoral and immorality leads to AIDS." Just as racists to this day
use the ploy of saying "See all the crime in the black community, I told
you I was right about those people."
It seems the separation of the issues tho will be a problem b/c many of
the anti-gay discrimination groups are closely aligned if not the same
as the AIDS activists (Act Up for example), and regardless both factions
tend to be represented in the media by their more militant proponents
using tactics that turn most of us commoners off to their message, no
matter what it may be. The AIDS activists in fact appear even more
militant than the anti-discrimination activists, which seems sort of
backwards to me. No matter, separating the two issues effectively will
be more beneficial to the anti-discrimination cause, and likely to the
AIDS cause as well.
>> What is so interesting to me is that the whole anti-gay attitude may well be
>> rooted in the early colonialization and Christianization of Jamaica by
>> missionaries.
No doubt! I will say tongue-in-cheek here tho, maybe Jamaica could do
with a little re-colonialization in order to combat these problems.
Spain esp. under Zapatero is moving rabidly secular, and the Brits
aren't far behind. And if we place the colonists into the nouveau
collective category of being just "European", well you can't get much
more anti-religious than the EU! Perhaps if Jamaican were re-colonized
by all these modernist anti-religious nuts, we could reverse all the
atrocities wrought by the pro-religious nuts of old!
A serious question tho just popped into my mind - is Rastafarianism
considered a fundamentalist religion? I would think so given its
messianic foundation. If so, is Rastafarianism considered a more
acceptable form of fundamentalism than Christianity?
And thirdly, does hate-dancehall have one whit to do with Rastafarianism?
> Some of the artists who speak out the most against colonialist
>> thinking are perpetuating dogmatic fundamentalist Christian values in their
>> music.
Well nothing new there when it comes to anyone who is militant, most of
whom seem to be walking bubbling masses of contradiction. My little
cousin sent me two emails last week - the first one asking me to donate
money to an Angolan Famine relief fund, and a second email the next day
encouraging me to protest a recent legal victory Monsanto apparently had
re: importing genetically modified foods to Africa. I sent him a message
back asking which was it - would he rather the famine be solved, or the
frankenfoods be banned - you can't have both. He replied by telling me
that we should be sending to Africa the surplus grain rotting in
American silos and we wouldn't need GM foods, and that Monsanto should
be put out of business and its executives thrown in jail, at which point
I just gave up and blamed it on his youth!
rgds
Joel
Sista Irie wrote:
> Good morning, Joel! I totally agree that the subject that AIDS and gay rights
> need to be divorced. Fat chance, though. Your last sentence reinforces the point
> Tony Rebel states in the article I posted earlier "We, as artistes, can do
> something by curtailing the youth dem behaviour and get them more aware ... we
> need to do something in the music now because this is not a private sector or
> public sector thing, this is we." I believe that the other artists who project
> hatred or scream out against the chi chi man, batty man, are influencing
> thousands of young minds against a select group of people and the
> misunderstandings concerning AIDS and how it is spread will be reinforced in
> their minds as one more acceptable reason to continue bashing homosexuals. We
> all know that musical idols can contribute to forming the foundation of values
> within the youth. I grew up in the sixties and I can assure you that experience
> made me who I am today. The reggae artists who are promoting education and AIDS
> awareness are not mixing their personal opinions about homosexuality with their
> desire to reduce the rampant spread of the disease so in that case it is a
> separate issue. In fact, in most cases, we do not know how they feel on the
> subject of homosexuality. However, as long as there is a faction of artists
> 'bunning' the chi chi man, I doubt that the two subjects can co-exist as
> separate issues since both are in the news at the same time. I think Tony Rebel,
> who I admire greatly, and other artists are on the right track starting out with
> music that educates and promotes safe sex. I hope down the road there can be a
> meeting of the minds within the reggae fraternity (I hate that word but it is
> used extensively in Jamaica) to come together and promote the love of humanity.
> What is so interesting to me is that the whole anti-gay attitude may well be
> rooted in the early colonialization and Christianization of Jamaica by
> missionaries. Some of the artists who speak out the most against colonialist
> thinking are perpetuating dogmatic fundamentalist Christian values in their
> music.
Rdawta
until aids hits home, then, we will see more voices in music talking
about it.
I assume messages of safety, protection, death and disease do not sell
very well. I presume its the approach in which reggae artists in
particular could use that can add value to their message. I think its
important for them to do concerts, and raise money, that is the most
important aspect. Raise money for people out there. They can tour
however many months out of the year for their own pockets, they can do
show here, there, why not raise money for Aids awareness and patients
at least put a stamp out there that Reggae is doing it, somewhere.
Tony Rebel is to be highly commended for his activism, but Lord Tony
can't do it alone. Its not fair. And with this disease taking so
many lives in the Caribbean community, it makes it that much more for
organizers/artists/fans, etc. to rally for this change.
The dancehall/anti-gay factor is a sorry excuse, and sadly is being
used to undermine the real essence of reggae music, and dancehall
artists whether they like chi chi man or not, has to talk about this
issue, because its hurting women far more than men all around.
Thankyou for your input. I hope this will move forward.
Adjua Dubb
"Crystal" <cryst...@caj.net> wrote in message news:<Lo2dnbt5JMT...@comcast.com>...
Sista Irie
the reference to women. It's probably obvious but I didn't get it! I spoke to
some major foundation artists recently, some singers, some very well known
players of instruments, who mentioned the dancehall controversy, cancellations
and so on has hurt their income as well.
"The dancehall/anti-gay factor is a sorry excuse, and sadly is being used to
undermine the real essence of reggae music, and dancehall artists whether they
like chi chi man or not, has to talk about this issue, because its hurting women
far more than men all around."
Sista Irie
much awareness for certain kinds of cancers and other diseases is because of
celebrities who have life experiences with these diseases speak out.
dg
feeling
> escalate in Jamaica. It takes a LOT of time and persuasion for people to
> understand that HIV does not care about sexuality.
One can only agree with your statement about HIV not caring about sexuality,
I mean anybody can get it from having sex with an infected person, gay or
not. Because of this, it has always struck me as odd that those surveys you
have seen that tell you how likely you are to have HIV/AIDS always seem to
start with something like "have you had unprotected sex with a homosexual
man". It is really weird. I just tried to google up a survey to show this,
but the surveys I found seem to have dropped that question. Still a curious
thing, why would it matter if your partner was a gay man or not?
Growing up and being taught about AIDS in school I always raised that
question when told that AIDS was not a gay disease. I would ask "well then
why even put this question on the survey?" It is apparently a serious
factor to consider or they wouldn't put that question on the survey. None
of the HIV educators gave me an answer to that, in fact it seemed to even
enlighten them as if they had never noticed it. Maybe times have changed
and the ratio of gay and straight HIV positive have evened out more, which
does bring out the conspiracy theorist in me about the govt. trying to kill
off gays or something like that-why were the gays so strongly affected by
AIDS back in the 80's.
--Dan
Crystal
"dg" <dan...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:wW1sd.28179$zx1....@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
Caribreizh
<NAFISP...@ReggaeMusic.us>a écrit :
>
>When you factor in that in the US last year 18,000 people died of AIDS,
>whereas nearly 700,000 people died of heart disease, 500,000 from
>cancer, 150,000 from stroke, 75,000 from diabetes, 65,000 from cold/flu,
>60,000 from Alzheimers, etc. - the notion that "AIDS is not my problem,
>nor is it that big of a problem relatively, so why do I keep hearing so
>much about it" is reinforced, and inevitably leads to a 'backlash'
>sentiment from those who are being told they should feel so guilty.
american figures reveal things about the US, of course, but they are painfully
irrelevant when it comes to the situation in Africa, where most of the
treatments for "first-world" countries are far from being as readily available.
Joel Spencer
>> treatments for "first-world" countries are far from being as readily available.
Umm, let's see -
- Don't do drugs that require needles
- Don't fuck anyone other than your spouse
- Don't fuck anyone you have to pay
- Don't fuck anyone you haven't known at least a month
- Wear a condom
Those seem like treatments readily available to anyone, in any world.
Adopting them would do wonders for the AIDS epidemic.
rgds
Joel
Caribreizh
<NAFISP...@ReggaeMusic.us>a écrit :
>mm, let's see -
>
>- Don't do drugs that require needles
>- Don't fuck anyone other than your spouse
>- Don't fuck anyone you have to pay
>- Don't fuck anyone you haven't known at least a month
>- Wear a condom
>
>Those seem like treatments readily available to anyone, in any world.
>Adopting them would do wonders for the AIDS epidemic.
>
as you say yourself, "seem", but are not always, as surprising as it may seem
for people who, like us, live in the so-called "first world".
as for the 4 th option, well, not too sure about that though.
i agree with 1 and 5, the other ones leave me with some doubts : some hint of
christian moralising, maybe ??? (but on the other hand, seeing certain
disastrous situations , they can make sense...)
Joel Spencer
>> for people who, like us, live in the so-called "first world".
It's a lot more than "seem" my friend. Almost 90% of AIDS cases are due
to unprotected sex with an infected person or IV drug use. Black and
white facts, no matter where you are. The trick is convincing people not
to have unprotected sex, and to stay away from IV drug use.
Think of it this way - I'm guessing you are probably one of those folks
who want to get rid of all guns (apologies in advance if my guess is
wrong, tho I'll continue with the analogy if you please). Getting rid of
all guns is the equivalent to stopping IV drug use and curbing dangerous
sexual activity to prevent AIDS. Get rid of guns so that people stop
dying unnecessarily - get people to adopt more safe lifestyle choices so
that people stop dying unnecessarily.
Now if what you're telling me is that the AIDS fight should be focused
more on vaccines and cures and providing drugs to those already doomed
to die, then I would ask why is it then that instead of focusing on
banning guns, we don't focus on improving the medical treatments that
will save more people from dying from gunshot wounds.
>> as for the 4 th option, well, not too sure about that though.
Then consider yourself at higher risk for contracting AIDS one of these
days. Have fun getting laid, and good luck.
>> i agree with 1 and 5, the other ones leave me with some doubts : some hint of
>> christian moralising, maybe ???
Where is either the word Christian or "moral" included in any of my
statements?
See, this is the problem with the AIDS fight - you tell people to stop
behavior that will kill them, and instead of heeding that call and
looking at the facts that support it, the anti-progress crowd gets all
religiophobic and starts blaming Jesus for everything! It's just like on
the 'anti-globalisation' front. China wants to build a dam so that the
poorest of its people can have electricity, but the environmental and
anti-progress wackos then turn around and say "but you'll kill all the
fish and species will become endangered", all the while not caring about
the people who are suffering b/c they don't have electricity. Monsanto
invents a strain of rice rich in Vitamin A that can virtually eliminate
the plague of blindness in children in developing countries, but then
the anti-GM wackos step in and cry "frankenfood!", not giving one whit
about all the children they are allowing to go blind by their actions.
Cut nose, spite face, sit fat and happy on a false moral highground,
hold your nose to the death and suffering caused by your spite. It's crazy.
>
> (but on the other hand, seeing certain
>>> disastrous situations , they can make sense...)
Well, I'm sure they'll be happy to hear you've given your imprimatur at
last of the historical record. Good man!
rgds
Joel
(but on the other hand, seeing certain
>> disastrous situations , they can make sense...)
Crystal
it's simple...
no unprotected sex
no iv drugs.
I always thought that the "public" information about HIV is not strong
enough. I think if there was footage of a person who has brain lesions
(which occur in approximately 75% of cases)...on their deathbed gasping for
air as they pass from this world to the next, these two facts may be driven
home.
much respect,
Crystal
"Joel Spencer" <NAFISP...@ReggaeMusic.us> wrote in message
news:31e38nF...@individual.net...
Caribreizh
<NAFISP...@ReggaeMusic.us>a écrit :
>
>Then consider yourself at higher risk for contracting AIDS one of these
>days. Have fun getting laid, and good luck.> thanks but you don't know me, you
don't know of my lifestyle, i don't need to be "saved" and see the light.
you don't get it : why do you have to have a "spouse" to practice safe sex ????
you don't have to be married to live with the woman or man you love !
this is my point about the moralising thing.i don't care about religion but i
can care about someone who is religious, still.
you keep harping on the leftist wackos, the alter-mondialist wackos and such
but have you ever considered for one second that you may well be seen as a
typical US educated christian fundamentalist wacko in the eyes of many people.
arguing to no end and taking your beliefs and outlooks as the one and only
gospel. good for you !
i happen to agree with a number of your posts about this precise topic BUT i
also think a number of points are tainted with warped and extremely biased
reasoning where everything seems to be clear-cut.
to me, it is just "strange", especially in a world as complex as today's Earth.
and i am sure many other people feel the same about people who think they own
the right cure for the rest of the world.as for your rethorics about guns,
well, i won't go down that slippery road : the figures of all the "civilised"
western countries speak for themselves.
Joel Spencer
> Dans l'article <31e38nF...@individual.net>, Joel Spencer
> <NAFISP...@ReggaeMusic.us>a écrit :
>
>
>>Then consider yourself at higher risk for contracting AIDS one of these
>>days. Have fun getting laid, and good luck.> thanks but you don't know me, you
>
> don't know of my lifestyle, i don't need to be "saved" and see the light.
Nobody said you did. You just need to be smart and responsible when it
comes to your actions.
>
> you don't get it : why do you have to have a "spouse" to practice safe sex ????
I never said you had to have a spouse to practice safe sex. I said if
you have a spouse, be faithful to them, and you probably won't get AIDS.
> you don't have to be married to live with the woman or man you love !
I never said you did.
> this is my point about the moralising thing.i don't care about religion but i
> can care about someone who is religious, still.
Who's moralising? I never said any of the things about marriage and
spouses you are implying I said.
Here, I will post for you again my exact 5 methods for not contracting
AIDS. Pls point out to me where I said you "have to have a spouse" or
that you "have to be married".
- Don't do drugs that require needles
- Don't fuck anyone other than your spouse
- Don't fuck anyone you have to pay
- Don't fuck anyone you haven't known at least a month
- Wear a condom
> you keep harping on the leftist wackos, the alter-mondialist wackos and such
> but have you ever considered for one second that you may well be seen as a
> typical US educated christian fundamentalist wacko in the eyes of many people.
That doesn't bother me - I've been called many names before. Let me ask
you tho - why do you think I'm a Christian (I'm not)? And why do you
think I'm a fundamentalist (I'm not)? What is your definition of a
fundamentalist anyway - sounds like it's probably anyone with whom you
disagree.
Just so you know - I believe in god, as does 99% of the planet (and no,
I don't believe he's some old white dude hanging out in heaven, but I'm
not going to get into that whole discussion - if you don't believe in
god now, you will someday, at some point, I have full confidence. It's
part of being human, in my opinion). As for religions, I've never
belonged to one, don't intend to, and don't feel I need to. I've never
belonged to Rotary or Greenpeace or Alcoholics Anonymous or the country
club or any other club either that I can think of. You make an awful lot
of assumptions, and you know they say about ASSuming...
> arguing to no end and taking your beliefs and outlooks as the one and only
> gospel. good for you !
Again, where have I expressed any beliefs or "gospel"? I'm expressing
opinions, just as you.
> i happen to agree with a number of your posts about this precise topic BUT i
> also think a number of points are tainted with warped and extremely biased
> reasoning where everything seems to be clear-cut.
Please tell me which points you find tainted and warped and extremely
biased, then we can debate their merits.
> to me, it is just "strange", especially in a world as complex as today's Earth.
What is "strange"?
> and i am sure many other people feel the same about people who think they own
> the right cure for the rest of the world.
I'm not claiming any cures. I'm offering common sense methods for how
you can avoid getting AIDS - common sense methods that were reasoned out
long before I posted them.
as for your rethorics about guns,
> well, i won't go down that slippery road : the figures of all the "civilised"
> western countries speak for themselves.
Yeah, those civilised countries like France that was invaded then aided
and abetted the killing of six million Jews - Jews who shortly before
they were slaughtered had all of their guns taken away by their
government, so that they had no means to defend themselves. Or how about
the 3 million Cambodians slaughtered, shortly after they had all their
guns taken away? And hey, let's talk Armenia. Or heck let's just go
modern and talk about Bosnia, where it was the UN who instituted a gun
ban that led to the genocidal killings of Muslims in Srebernica just in
1995? I say bring on the slippery road, and let's debate whether or not
it is good to have guns only in the hands of the government, and never
in the hands of the common folk.
I'll let Admiral Yamamoto address the stupidity of banning guns, as no
one ever said it better than he:
> "'You cannot invade mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind
each blade of grass.' Admiral Yamamoto, advising Japan's military
leaders of
the futility of an invasion of the mainland United States because of the
widespread availability of guns. It has been theorized that this was a
major contributing factor in Japan's decision not to land on North America
early in the war when they had vastly superior military strength."
That right there, is the reason we have a second amendment in the US,
and a primary reason we have not suffered as a nation some of the same
sort of fates as some of those other "civilised" western countries you
mention.
rgds
Joel
Jan
only my opinion, but when I first heard about HIV/AIDS - beginning of
1984 in San Francisco a Sunday newspaper had a big article about this
new disease that seemed to hitting only homosexual men. My memory is
that they were referring to it after that as GRID and similar - with
the focus on gay men. It was definitely quite a while after that
before other people were publicly being acknowledged as getting it.
Everywhere I worked at that time had a lot of gay guys, and really,
most of them were starting to freak out as the months went by,
including well-educated men.
Back in those days, as far as the media seemed to tell it, being gay
was the only factor. I was in San Francisco for that whole year and
nothing much changed. When I eventually came back to Sydney the gay
fear & blame was even worse, given that we were supposed to have the
world's 2nd highest ratio of gays, there was & still is a lot of
homophobia.
Jan in Oz
> >
> > --Dan
> >
> >
Jan
> >> for people who, like us, live in the so-called "first world".
>
> >> i agree with 1 and 5, the other ones leave me with some doubts : some hint of
> >> christian moralising, maybe ???
>
> Where is either the word Christian or "moral" included in any of my
> statements?
>
> See, this is the problem with the AIDS fight - you tell people to stop
> behavior that will kill them, and instead of heeding that call and
> looking at the facts that support it, the anti-progress crowd gets all
> religiophobic and starts blaming Jesus for everything! It's just like on
> the 'anti-globalisation' front. China wants to build a dam so that the
> poorest of its people can have electricity, but the environmental and
> anti-progress wackos then turn around and say "but you'll kill all the
> fish and species will become endangered", all the while not caring about
> the people who are suffering b/c they don't have electricity. Monsanto
> invents a strain of rice rich in Vitamin A that can virtually eliminate
> the plague of blindness in children in developing countries, but then
> the anti-GM wackos step in and cry "frankenfood!", not giving one whit
> about all the children they are allowing to go blind by their actions.
> Cut nose, spite face, sit fat and happy on a false moral highground,
> hold your nose to the death and suffering caused by your spite. It's crazy.
>
discussion, but that's just my opinion. Seeing as you started the
topic though, did you hear anything from the anti-dam brigade? Less
to do with killing fish than to do with flooding cities, creating
future river floods, destroying fertile farmland, increasing water
pollution ... people were allegedly forced into small areas of crappy
land with no way to make an income and so it goes on.
Re Monsanto, all I can say is, if you think chemical-laden food is
fine, then I imagine you must be a young person who was raised on the
stuff. And I feel sorry for you not knowing what you've missed not
having plain old natural food :-((
Jan
Joel Spencer
>> discussion, but that's just my opinion. Seeing as you started the
>> topic though, did you hear anything from the anti-dam brigade? Less
>> to do with killing fish than to do with flooding cities, creating
>> future river floods, destroying fertile farmland, increasing water
>> pollution ... people were allegedly forced into small areas of crappy
>> land with no way to make an income and so it goes on.
Considering that in in nearly all of these "anti-dam" cases the
"anti-dam" people are outsiders, and the local populations
overwhelmingly support the dam projects (even the ones being moved b/c
of the dam), I would say that the "anti-dam" people are doing more harm
than good, and more than that meddling in affairs which are not theirs
in which to meddle.
There is an excellent article on this whole topic in the last issue of
Foreign Policy (the UN magazine) that is a fine analysis of this whole
issue. The title and link is -
NGOs: Fighting Poverty, Hurting the Poor
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/files/story2672.php
And I will just copy for you here the lead-in paragraph -
"The war against poverty is threatened by friendly fire. A swarm of
media-savvy Western activists has descended upon aid agencies, staging
protests to block projects that allegedly exploit the developing world.
The protests serve professional agitators by keeping their pet causes in
the headlines. But they do not always serve the millions of people who
live without clean water or electricity."
Dams are good. Just ask anyone who drinks water in San Francisco (I live
outside of San Francisco in Pacifica), or cooks bread in Egypt.
>>
>> Re Monsanto, all I can say is, if you think chemical-laden food is
>> fine,
First off, I agree with you on the chemicals. I think one of the biggest
shocks western civilization may be in for is what will two generations
now of consumption of almost entirely preserved foods do to our health
and well-being.
However, the the Monsanto/GM food debate is not about chemicals - it's
about genetically manipulating seed grain and livestock.
And the problem is that the opponents of GM food are almost laughably
ignorant of both history and the genetic manipulation of cultivated foods.
Shortly after agriculture itself was invented, man began genetically
manipulating plants through simple grafting of one plant to another.
After awhile, tools were invented that specifically aided in this
genetic manipulation of foods in the field. After a longer while, man
found he could more effectively control the genetic mutation of plants
by doing the manipulating not in the field, but in the greenhouse (and
from such greenhouse work the Christian monk (that one's for the
anti-Christian Cabriezeh) Gregor Mendel gave us the entire field of
genetics). And now in the modern age, companies like Monsanto simply
have moved from the greenhouse to the laboratory and invented more new
tools. So, man has been genetically modifying food since long before the
word food was ever coined, and all the hysteria now is simply killing
people and disabling children by depriving them of basic sustenance.
then I imagine you must be a young person who was raised on the
>> stuff. And I feel sorry for you not knowing what you've missed not
>> having plain old natural food :-((
I love natural food. Unfortunately, I'll bet you a carton of sprouts
that the little 5-year-old Bangladeshi child who goes to bed blind every
night b/c he doesn't get enough Vitamin A in his diet and his retinae
are deteriorating, would love to have Monsanto's "unnatural" genetically
modified rice that will allow him to see again. I feel sorry for you, if
you don't feel sorry for the little Bangladeshi child enough to let him
have the damn Monsanto rice \:--[[
rgds
Joel
>>
>> Jan
Joel Spencer
>> http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/files/story2672.php
>>
>> And I will just copy for you here the lead-in paragraph -
>>
>> "The war against poverty is threatened by friendly fire. A swarm of
>> media-savvy Western activists has descended upon aid agencies, staging
>> protests to block projects that allegedly exploit the developing world.
>> The protests serve professional agitators by keeping their pet causes in
>> the headlines. But they do not always serve the millions of people who
>> live without clean water or electricity."
I just got a note that the link above may take you to a subscribers only
portion of the Foreign Policy website. If that is the case, and you are
interested in reading this full article, just let me know and I will
send it to you. It's a worthy read.
rgds
Joel
Crystal
gay disease early on. It's called "and the band played on". Unfortunately,
I had personal experience with the deaths of heterosexuals even before we
had a reliable test developed for this disease. Many of the early stats
never came out regarding heterosexuals. That's just the way this society
is.....and out media? please don't get me started.....
much respect,
Crystal
"Jan" <ya...@ihug.com.au> wrote in message
news:ad112b82.04120...@posting.google.com...
Caribreizh
<NAFISP...@ReggaeMusic.us>a écrit :
>
>Nobody said you did. You just need to be smart and responsible when it
>comes to your actions.
you did, in other words ! i can be smart and responsible when it comes to my
actions without following your guidebook 100 %.to me, a number of things you
say are perfect common sense, other ones belong to a philosophy which will
never be part of my existence.
Caribreizh
<NAFISP...@ReggaeMusic.us>a écrit :
>
>That right there, is the reason we have a second amendment in the US,
>and a primary reason we have not suffered as a nation some of the same
>sort of fates as some of those other "civilised" western countries you
>mention.
nonsense ! it is basically bcs you live on a territory so huge that you don't
even have to bother with what your neighbours think, how they live, etc...many
US citizens don't even have a clue when it comes to fellow citizens 'lifestyles
in different sides of their country !
we in europe live in small countries when compared to yours, we fought against
each others for hundred of years as we were more or less evolving at the same
time, shared more or less the same judeo-christian principles, killed the
minorities...no big pride is suppose !
but the US rulers did very well for themselves in some two hundred years,
didn't they ?
more guns in the hands of everybody, more paranoia, more hatred, more
ignorance...
they are needed in times of war, i know but still, why is the US the only
western country where guns are seen as a tool for freedom ? i'm afraid the
pro-gun posse will never lay down their weapons but after all, it's their
country, not mine.if hell breaks loose some day, they will have to face the
facts.
Erik T
Joel Spencer wrote:
Yes, that is too bad. It's too bad people are starving all over the world and now, years after
Monsanto showed off their giant turnips, these starving people can't seem to grow Monsanto stuff and cure
blindness and end starvation, just as you suggest this is why Monsanto is in business.
Too bad Gregor Mendel's selective breeding has been confused, centuries later, with combining
different life forms like plant and animal, like putting genetic material from pigs into vegetables. This
is not some mixed tomatoes or indica and sativa experiment! Now that Monsanto has bought their way in to
post secondary institutions they are capitalizing on decades of government funded research which has
brought their knowledge of genetics to where it is today. They unfortunately got to convince a court that
patenting life forms is acceptable. Now that Monsanto has successfully patented life forms, they have
pursued farmers in court for infringement of this patent, even after they were forced to concede the
Monsanto strain (which private investigators in Saskatchewan tresspassed to find) could have blown off a
truck or another farm on to the accused farmer's property. These champions of feeding the world are too
busy suing innocent farmers in North America to feed poor people anywhere. They managed to convince some
scientists on their payroll that GMO's will end starvation, but they haven't specified how much money
they want for this. Is that controversial Bovine Growth Hormone another Monsanto product? Then there's
all the surplus food we destroy, all the American farm subsidies to support a highly inefficient business
model that helps keep the third world the third world. All those belt-tightening Repugs couldn't resist
feeding Rural America destructive subsidies that, uh, kept them from standing on their own two feet;
something along the lines those giant hypocrites tell Urban America. So while millions starve, North
Americans who used to produce more food than neccessary can now produce more food than ever. Except the
farmers who are paid to do nothing some years. Just don't call it welfare.
Back to AIDS- ostensibly the topic at hand.
A few people pointed out this disease shouldn't be associated with gays, and some with their heads buried
really far up their ass even suggested gay people initiated this notion themselves, rather than had it
stuck on them- anyhow, here's a bit of an article I found interesting from Eye magazine 11.25.04 p12,
likely at eye.net somewhere- It is an interview with Stephen Lewis, the UN's Special Envoy for AIDS/HIV
in Africa. In it, he says-
"It wasn't until we were 22 years into the virus that the West began to respond with some
incremental flow of money. But it's still way short of what is needed", says Lewis. UNAIDS, the main UN
program focused on the epidemic, estimates it will need US$15 billion to treat AIDS in 2005 and 20
billion in 2007. Last year, 6.6billion was spent.
And then there is the struggle for cheap anti-retroviral drugs, which can keep people alive. It
took a huge fight to convince pharmaceutical companies to drop the price of drugs to between US$ 550-700
per year instead of US$ 12000-15000. Only now has Bill Clinton's foundation negotiated with generic drug
companies in India to supply drugs for US$ 150 a year."
... As Lewis has repeatedly said, AIDS in Africa has a woman's face. Of the 6.2 Million people between 15
and 24, 75% are women and girls.
Far out, huh? I suppose drug companies are in business to help the sick... as long as they're wealthy.
How about Abstinence teaching?! Anyone see a Washington Post article last week describing some of the
wisdom imparted by this sort of "teaching"? According the the Post article, the abstinence
crowd/rightoids tell impressionable youth 1 in 4 gay teens has AIDS, "touching" can cause pregnancy, all
kinds of zingers which will help keep the youth of America in the dark.
Any John Stewart fans here? There was a pharmacist on there who wouldn't sell contraceptives because of
his conscience! Not ru486 or any other 'morning after pill', but rather plain ol' contraceptives! With
nuts like these in charge of who gets to use birth control, small wander the AIDS fight is so
discouraging. Unlike Joel Spencer, I can see why people might have unprotected sex at some point(s) in
their lives, especially when large chunks of the population have no easy access to condoms or pills. The
abstinence/No sex until marriage crowd is so far removed from what happens on planet Earth they might as
well pray to Aeolis to blow all their problems away.
Sista Irie
with this issue based on how it it effecting the messengers of the music
fraternity. Here is a very interesting article in today's Observer with quotes
from Rastafarian scholor Rex Nettleford.
http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/news/html/20041205T020000-0500_70828_OBS_THE_GAY_DEBATE.asp
I'll try to recopy it here. Not sure how it will reproduce.
Gay backlash coming, academics warn - Rex Nettleford sees
homosexual debate as waste of time.
The increasing pressure for Jamaicans to
accept
homosexuality and homosexuals may trigger a
terrible
backlash against gays, local academics have warned.
"Even middle-class persons who were
previously very tolerant
of homosexuality are becoming offended and
energised and
sensitised. That is where the danger for them
lies," cautioned Dr
Orville Taylor, a sociologist with the
University of the West
Indies (UWI).
The latest round of the long-running debate
on homosexuality
was sparked by the stepped-up activities of
local gay group
J-FLAG, the Jamaicans for Lesbians,
All-Sexuals and Gays, and
Outrage!, their British counterpart.
The seeming target has been dancehall deejays
who spout
anti-gay lyrics and advocate violence against
gays, though
entertainment industry sources suggest that
Jamaican buggery
laws are the ultimate goal and musicians are
merely being used
as cannon fodder.
NETTLEFORD.
if people have
money and
position they
are able to
protect
themselves
In the past year, Outrage! has gone after big
names such as
Beenie Man, Vybz Kartel, Elephant Man and
several other
deejays, gaining support from the UK-based
rights group
Amnesty International as well as America's
Human Rights
Watch (HRW).
But there is a danger, Taylor warned, that
constantly focusing
on the issue might backfire. "As opposed to
getting support for
their minority opinions and their moral
behaviour, I think what
they are going to end up with is a very
strong, negative
backlash," he cautioned.
UWI's urban anthropologist Herbert Gayle
agreed. While
Jamaicans will never accept homosexuality,
they may eventually
learn to become more tolerant of it - but
only if those pushing
for tolerance play their cards right, he said.
"I have said to people abroad, if you want
Jamaicans to be more
tolerant then don't present homosexuality as
an option of
sexuality, appeal to the human side of
people," he said. "The
tolerance will grow, but (homosexuality) as a
sexual option? No.
Because it goes right through the politic of
who we are."
TAYLOR.
even
middle-class
persons who
were very
tolerant of
homosexuality
are becoming
offended
But weighing into the debate, Professor Rex
Nettleford, former
UWI vice-chancellor believed too much time
was being spent on
an issue which ran the risk of detracting
from productive
endeavours in the society.
"I think there are far more things to worry
about in this country
in terms of mutual respect, and self-respect
and finding a place
and a purpose rather than spending so much
time on this," he
said.
Nettleford added: "A great many productive
people
throughout the world are supposed to have
that (homosexual)
preference. What is the big thing? The
wasting of time on the
discussion is what will deflect us from
(other important issues)...
We certainly don't stone our adulterers - and
we have them
aplenty."
Heated discussions have followed the November
16 release by
Human Rights Watch of an 81-page report
entitled 'Hated to
Death - Homophobia, Violence and Jamaica's
HIV/AIDS
Epidemic'. In it, HRW accused the Jamaican
government of
facilitating the abuse of gay men and called
for constitutional
changes to legislation which now makes it
illegal for two men to
engage in anal sex - buggery.
HRW also called for an amendment of the
anti-discrimination
clause in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms
in the Jamaican
Constitution to include 'sexual orientation
and gender identity'
and 'sex'.
The group also argued that the island's
homophobia was
hampering the treatment of people with
HIV/AIDS, a point
which critics have seen as "a slick way to
squeeze
homosexuality in through the AIDS back door".
Such arguments against Jamaica have come not
only from
organisations like HRW. For instance, at a
recent conference in
St Kitts on HIV/AIDS, Britain's junior
minister for international
development Gareth Thomas launched a
broadside against
Jamaican dancehall deejays for their anti-gay
lyrics, claiming
that it helped drive both homosexuality and
AIDS
underground.
Like HRW, he and others at the conference
urged Caribbean
governments to remove their buggery laws.
"We need to change legislation that
legitimises stigma and
discrimination and which, in turn, makes
tackling AIDS more
difficult, such as the legislation
prohibiting sex between men,"
Thomas said.
However, the government has blasted HRW for a
similar call,
telling the group it had no right to tell a
sovereign nation what
laws it should or should not have on the
books. There were also
strong denials that there was widespread
discrimination against
gays.
But the HRW report has gained traction and in
an editorial last
week, The New York Times - the well-respected
US newspaper
- parroted the group's claim that Jamaica's
fight against AIDS
"cannot become fully effective until the
government can
summon the courage to attack the virulent
anti-gay prejudices
that are driving this epidemic by making
people at risk fearful
of seeking treatment".
But for the average man on the streets of
Jamaica, the HRW
report is just a storm in a teacup. There is
no widespread
discrimination against gays, most insist,
even as they strongly
denounce homosexuality.
Sixty-four year-old Lloyd Byfield, who lives
in the Kingston 8
area, was clear. The outsiders who had
intervened were talking
nonsense and they should fix their problems
at home before
trying to "fix" Jamaica.
"Some a dem people de a total idiot," he
said. "Some of dem a
come yah and a talk 'bout it (the treatment
of homosexuality)
and it worse inna fi dem country. Dem
shouldn't a come yah
come tell wi what we should do and should not
do. First yuh
must clean-up yuh own backyard before yuh
come clean up a
next man own, and fi dem backyard more dirty
than our own."
This type of reaction fits with Dr Taylor's
assertion that if there
is ever to be a change in how Jamaicans
perceive
homosexuality, that change will have to come
from those who
live here.
"If that is going to happen, then it has to
happen from within.
Let us face it, every society has a right to
determine what it
considers to be normal and abnormal
behaviour," he said. Like
Taylor, Gayle argued that Jamaicans have
actually become more
tolerant of gays over the years.
"Yes, we have strong prejudices against gays
but it is nowhere
near (the levels) as it has been
(portrayed)," Gayle said. "In fact,
there are persons who are frightened at the
degree of tolerance.
People who work with the street children will
tell you we have
a situation where we are finding kids who
literally act as male
prostitutes with homosexual males in the night.
"Plus, we are now at a stage where we are
having freaky sex in
these go-go clubs and there has been some
amount of open
anal sex on stage. How homophobic are we?"
asked Gayle.
HRW had also complained that Jamaican police
officers often
trivialised the complaints of gays who had
been attacked
because of their sexuality, a claim the
police force has firmly
rejected. According to Dr Taylor, there is
little or no
institutionalised discrimination against
homosexuals in the
island.
"We don't ostracise homosexuals in the
professions. There are
people who are almost openly gay and people
don't
(discriminate against them)," he argued. "So
this whole thing
about widespread and rampant discrimination
is (untrue). Acts
of discrimination may take place at lower
levels of the society; I
don't know that there is any serious bit of
discrimination in the
middle class."
He added: "There are popularly-held views
that there are gay
people in the island's two major political
parties, in the youth
arms of the parties, in academia, in commerce
and there are
even people in the church who are suspected
of being
homosexual; but I don't think there is any
widespread
discrimination against them."
But there is no denying that many Jamaicans -
brought up on
the teachings of the Bible and able to quote
chapter and verse
about the sins of Sodom and Gomorrah - have
strong views
about homosexuality.
Tavares Gardens resident Annette Cunningham,
33, was
adamant that Jamaicans must be allowed to
express these
views. She believes that homosexuality had
become all too
prevalent. "We have a right fi feel a way
'bout it because right
now the whole a Jamaica full a homosexuals,"
she said. "So wi
need fi get rid a dat completely."
Nadine Bailey, 29, also of Tavares Gardens,
thinks outsiders are
to be blamed for what she sees as the
island's homosexual
problem.
These negative responses and others like
them, according to
Gayle and Taylor, have their genesis in the
days of slavery
when some black men were sodomised by slave
masters who
simultaneously owned and controlled their
(black) women - all
as part of the process of dehumanising the race.
The experience has left Jamaican, and
Caribbean men as a
whole, with a fragile sense of self so that
today any perceived
threat to masculinity will be rejected, the
academics said.
Homosexuality is among those threats, with
the homosexual
male referred to in Jamaica and elsewhere in
the region as
"anti-man" or "batty man", indicating that he
is less than a man.
"Men here were basically breeders (during the
days of
slavery)," Gayle said. "You were not treated
as a man. Manhood
is something you claim by your ability to
have a woman, to take
care of that woman, which you weren't able to
do during
slavery. 'Backra' took care of your woman.
'Backra' owned your
woman. 'Backra' gave your woman one-eye
rooster (penis)."
He added: "That is what we are coming
through, where we
don't have control. Now that we have left
slavery, the more
woman you have, the more manly you are
because you are
now claiming property. It is deep psychology.
Our masculinity
is extremely fragile with massive
implications for even
homosexuality." Dr Taylor agreed.
"In Jamaican society, homosexuality has
always been something
seen as abnormal," he explained. "Somewhere
on the plantation,
we might have developed these anti-homosexual
feelings. I
personally feel that it has to do with the
whole process of
dehumanisation, which took place, especially
those acts of
violence, which were visited upon our men -
those acts of
sodomy to bring men into subjection."
It is this fragile masculinity of the black
male that has also been
credited for the double standard in how
Jamaicans view male
homosexuals versus women who sleep with other women.
"Lesbianism is not a threat to our fragile
patriarchy or our
fragile masculinity," Gayle said simply.
Taylor also argued that because men do not
feel threatened by
women, this had resulted in a less critical
view of female
homosexuality.
"A man doesn't feel threatened by a woman;
but a man who is
doing something to another man is taking away
his
masculinity," he said. "In any event, female
homosexuality is
probably seen as something that is attempted
but does not
really work. So a man probably doesn't feel
that his woman is
being violated by another woman."
For Nettleford, that double standard on how
lesbians and gays
are perceived is just a part of the hypocrisy.
"The hypocrisy is rampant everywhere," he
said, "but that's part
and parcel of the thing because views on
homosexuality in a
male-dominated society are that a man is
feminised if he is
expected to participate in homosexual male
relations. The
women can do anything."
Dr Taylor pointed to the issue of money and class.
"I have always noticed, though, that the
tolerance of
homosexuality in this country - and not just
homosexuality but
any kind of act outside of what the society
considers to be
normal sexuality - varies according to
socio-economic
background. So the further up the ladder the
individual goes,
the more likely he is to be more accepting,"
he said.
Gayle shared his view: "If you live uptown,
you don't need to
knock down a man to prove you are a man," he
said. "Your
masculinity is not threatened. It is
threatened downtown where
a guy feel say him a man more than you.
Uptown, everybody is a man. Downtown, you
have guys who
are (more) man than other man. And
homosexuality is anti-man.
It is against your macho; it is an attack on
your macho."
However, Professor Nettleford suggested that
perhaps it was
not so much that persons at the higher end of
the
socio-economic strata were more accepting,
but that
homosexuals from that group had the resources
to protect
themselves from prejudice and discrimination.
One could never
be sure, he said, as there had never been any
research done on
the issue.
"Like anything else, if people have money and
position they are
able to protect themselves. But the truth of
the matter is that
there is a lot of hot air about this without
any real knowledge,"
he said.
Meanwhile, Gayle has predicted that the
outside pressure for
Jamaicans to accept homosexuality would not
ease any time
soon as it was seen as a major challenge to
be won. Jamaica, he
said, was being targeted by gay rights groups
because it had a
powerful popular culture - one that was
potently heterosexual -
that extended beyond its shores.
To get Jamaicans to accept homosexuality, he
said, would be
like David slaying Goliath. "There is a
campaign. If they can
achieve this in Jamaica, then who else can
they not tear down
'cause we sell this image of 'badman nuh
bow', which is the
image every working-class youth around the
world wants, in
terms of their own survival," he explained.
"If you go to England, people drive with
Jamaican flags in their
cars - even if they are white - as a symbol
to say, 'the state
mustn't mess around me'. A lot of us don't
understand this but
the point is, we sell a culture of resistance."
He added: "Jamaica has to be a target because
you want the
culture that is most visible on this issue to
bow. We, here,
underestimate our power; but believe me, if
you can get
Jamaica to accept something, you have not
(simply) made a
dent, you have literally closed a chasm.
And that is what it is about; it is not
primarily about so many
people being mistreated, because it is not true."
Joel Spencer
>> even have to bother with what your neighbours think,
I see - so now you're saying you know exactly what people like Admiral
Yamamoto REALLY think, despite what they themselves said. This is a bad
bad habit of yours.
how they live, etc...many
>> US citizens don't even have a clue when it comes to fellow citizens 'lifestyles
>> in different sides of their country !
And you know how every other American thinks as well. You should get
yourself a 900 number and start charging people for psychic readings!
>> we in europe live in small countries when compared to yours, we fought against
>> each others for hundred of years as we were more or less evolving at the same
>> time, shared more or less the same judeo-christian principles, killed the
>> minorities...no big pride is suppose !
>> but the US rulers did very well for themselves in some two hundred years,
>> didn't they ?
Obviously, we are the most prosperous country in the world. We invent
nearly all of these drugs and technologies that you are screaming we
don't provide enough of to the developed world. I would say we've done
pretty good for ourselves.
And don't forget - when America was founded, and for a couple centuries
after, America was populated primarily by Europeans. We are you! So
bitch about our past, and you are bitching about your own ancestors.
>> more guns in the hands of everybody, more paranoia, more hatred, more
>> ignorance...
Talk about warped views. Do you realise that this gun-ridden, paranoid,
hateful, ignorant country is still, and growing moreso every year, the
top immigration destination in the world. So I guess you're saying all
of those immigrants clamoring, some risking their lives and dying, to
get into this country, are not only stupid, but just begging to become
paranoid, hateful and ignorant. Again - warped.
Have you ever been to this country by the way, or do you just watch al
Jazeera and the BBC all day?
>> they are needed in times of war, i know but still,
Great, thanks for the admission. So I guess you're suggesting that in
the future, all wars should be planned out far enough in advance so that
we can be sure to arm all the potential victims of the war to prevent
any mass slaughter and genocide of those unable to defend themselves.
Cool - good luck on that one as well.
why is the US the only
>> western country where guns are seen as a tool for freedom ?
Because it works obviously, just ask Admiral Yamamoto.
Have you ever looked up btw the violent crime statistics of say the UK
and Australia after they embarked on their gun-banning crusades? You
should do some googling - you might be surprised.
i'm afraid the
>> pro-gun posse will never lay down their weapons but after all, it's their
>> country, not mine.if hell breaks loose some day, they will have to face the
>> facts.
Why, thank you for kindly letting us run our own affairs. Now please
pass the word on to the corrupt Kofi Annan to keep his hateful nose out
of our business as well.
rgds
Joel
Joel Spencer
> Dans l'article <31ffsnF...@individual.net>, Joel Spencer
> <NAFISP...@ReggaeMusic.us>a écrit :
>
>
>>Nobody said you did. You just need to be smart and responsible when it
>>comes to your actions.
>
>
> you did, in other words !
Please cite specifically the words I posted suggesting that, as you put
it (and conveniently snipped from this response), you "need to be
"saved" and see the light."
And please please stop re-interpreting everything I post. Unless of
course you really are a mindreader, which you can prove by telling me
precisely the word that I am thinking of right now \:--]
i can be smart and responsible when it comes to my
> actions without following your guidebook 100 %.
It is not my guidebook. It has been advised for the past twenty years
that the best way for one to avoid AIDS is to engage in responsible sex
and not use IV drugs. You don't have to follow these suggestions, it's
your life - just don't try to guilt trip me into paying your medical
bills once you get infected.
to me, a number of things you
> say are perfect common sense, other ones belong to a philosophy which will
> never be part of my existence.
Instead of your incessant generalisations, please post specifically what
things I have said with which you disagree. We can not have a reasonable
debate when all you ever say is "You're wrong and I'm right," without
ever providing any substantive reasons for why you are so right and I am
so wrong.
rgds
Joel
Joel Spencer
This article was published just this morning in the Sydney Morning
Herald. Even in progressive Australia, they acknowledge that unsafe sex
is a surefire way to contract AIDS. I don't even know why we're having
this discussion, except that some folks need to express their hatred for
anything that smacks of "Western values" or "morality" is far more
important to them than saving lives.
rgds
Joel
> Backpackers snub casual sex warning
By Damien Murphy
December 6, 2004
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/12/05/1102182157176.html
>
>
> A survey of overseas backpackers in Sydney and Cairns has revealed
> Australia as the get lucky country, with more than half having sex
> with a new partner in the previous three days.
>
> It found 39 per cent had casual sex with someone they had first met
> that day or night.
>
> On a more sombre note, 1 per cent of the backpackers surveyed
> admitted to be HIV positive and half to having sexual intercourse in
> Australia without a condom.
>
> Academic Cari Egan told a national sex conference at Sydney
> University yesterday that her survey underscored the need for public
> health campaigns to target backpackers and prevent the spread of HIV
> and other sexually transmitted infections.
>
> She said the disturbingly high consumption of alcohol among
> backpackers lowered inhibitions and caused them to jettison many of
> the safeguards they automatically adopted when contemplating sex with
> new partners back home.
>
> Ms Egan, who is completing her doctorate at the University of NSW,
> said she had interviewed 559 backpackers aged 15-39 and there were
> indications that few understood the risks associated with casual sex.
>
>
> "Half of the sample inconsistently used a condom during sex with
> someone new. Twenty-five per cent of backpackers never used a
> condom," she said.
>
> Ms Egan said more than 500,000 international and domestic backpackers
> visited Sydney each year and there was little appreciation of their
> effect on public health, either among themselves or the general
> population.
>
> "The global health implications of unprotected sex within the context
> of travel have been of great concern to many researchers and sexual
> health clinical staff," she said.
>
> "The results of the survey show the anonymity, need to make friends
> and companions, and the lowering of inhibitions that go with
> backpacking makes people indulge more in casual sex without condoms."
Joel Spencer
>> And then there is the struggle for cheap anti-retroviral drugs, which can keep people alive. It
>> took a huge fight to convince pharmaceutical companies to drop the price of drugs to between US$ 550-700
>> per year instead of US$ 12000-15000. Only now has Bill Clinton's foundation negotiated with generic drug
>> companies in India to supply drugs for US$ 150 a year."
Just one last question for you. Do you know if an AIDS victim who has
successfully 'remissed' their disease by using ARV drugs, is still
communicable and can spread the disease to others? I don't know the
answer, but I ask b/c if the answer is "Yes, a person on ARV drugs can
still spread AIDS", then we are back to point that in order to stop the
spread of AIDS, behaviors must change - it won't matter how many drugs
you pump to keep those already infected alive, the epidemic will continue.
Lastly, in trying to find the answer to that above question, I came upon
this bit of advice from the government of India -
> Fortunately, the way to stop the spread is completely in our hands
if we have the will. If people abstain from risky sex (unprotected sex
with casual partners whose HIV status is not known) and the
medical-dental community implements very strict control over blood
transfusions and sterilization of instruments, the spread of HIV/AIDS
can be stopped overnight.
rgds
Joel
Erik T
Joel Spencer wrote:
> There is too much conspiratorial blather in your post to respond in
> full,
Is that why you sent 3 responses to my 1 post?
> so I will just say I agree with your point about Monsanto and
> their patent strategies, which I find totally ridiculous as well. The
> problem tho is that the GM food crowd is not protesting the patents,
> they are protesting the fact that the food is genetically engineered.
> This protest is the ultimate in hypocrisy as well b/c most of these same
> people are all for therapeutic cloning and stem cell research and all
> that, both of which are pure genetic engineering not of plants, but of
> people!! (And before you start putting words in my mouth again, I am for
> both therapeutic cloning and stem cell research - I am merely pointing
> out here the intellectual hypocrisy of the anti-GM food folks.)
Just as I pointed out the hypocrisy of the pro-Monsanto crowd. I brought up the controversial BGH issue because
many people find it emblematic of the dangers of so-called 'Franken-foods', but of course my main issue with
your support of Monsanto was the suggestion that Monsanto have even a passing interest in ending starvation,
childhood blindness and whatever else.
>
>
> As for AIDS, if you want to deny that at least in the West, it is the
> gay population most effected by AIDS, then you are absolutely and
> foolishly wrong.
I didn't. I merely took issue with another poster back up in this thread, and I think it was you but I could be
mistaken so I didn't attribute it to you at the time, who suggested gay people themselves went out of their way
to somehow take ownership of the disease, as if the publicity was good or something.
> In the third world AIDS may not be a gay disease, but
> here in the first world it is, which only reinforces the fact that AIDS
> is more the result of behavior than anything else since monogamy and
> safe sex practices are the rule rather than the exception among both
> heterosexuals and homosexuals. The reason homosexuals were so affected
> in the US is b/c AIDS is primarily a blood-borne disease, and about the
> only common sex act that results in skin being broken and blood being
> exposed is anal sex.
>
> Here are some stats from avert.org reflecting the latest US AIDS
> statistics. As you can see, AIDS is still overwhelmingly a gay disease
> here.
>
> >
> > At the end of the December 2002, the US Center for Disease Control
> and Prevention (CDC) estimates1 that 384,906 persons were living with
> AIDS in America.
> >
> > Of the 298,248 men (13 years or older) who were living with AIDS,
> > • 58% were men who had sex with men (MSM)
> > • 23% were injection drug users (IDU)
> > • 10% were exposed through heterosexual contact
> > • 8% were both MSM and IDU.
> >
> > Of the 82,764 adult and adolescent women with AIDS,
> > • 61% were exposed through heterosexual contact
> > • 36% were exposed through injection drug use.
> >
> > An estimated 3,893 children were living with AIDS at the end of 2002.
>
> >> And then there is the struggle for cheap anti-retroviral drugs, which can keep people alive. It
> >> took a huge fight to convince pharmaceutical companies to drop the price of drugs to between US$ 550-700
> >> per year instead of US$ 12000-15000. Only now has Bill Clinton's foundation negotiated with generic drug
> >> companies in India to supply drugs for US$ 150 a year."
>
> That all may be, but prevention is the key. If you can stop people from
> getting AIDS, you don't have to worry about the drugs. It is very easy
> to stop people from getting AIDS if you can convince them to engage in
> safe sex practices.
But you admitted you don't even bother! Oh wait, I almost forgot your little 'at least a month' caveat... Kudos
to your self control, even if your one month rule seems arbitrary. Do you ask these lucky gals about every
encounter they've ever had before you came along? Where I come from that's something of a mood killer...
>
>
> > Unlike Joel Spencer, I can see why people might have unprotected sex at some point(s) in
> >> their lives, especially when large chunks of the population have no easy access to condoms or pills. The
> >> abstinence/No sex until marriage crowd is so far removed from what happens on planet Earth they might as
> >> well pray to Aeolis to blow all their problems away.
>
> I've had lots of unprotected sex, but it's largely been "safe" sex b/c I
> knew the people with whom I was having sex, and was reasonably confident
> they didn't have AIDS.
Yes, yes... unlike every philandering spouse who passed it along, I mean they must have known they were going
to contract a fatal disease beforehand. And homeless people really want to live on the streets.
>
>
> > The
> >>> abstinence/No sex until marriage crowd is so far removed from what happens on planet Earth they might as
> >>> well pray to Aeolis to blow all their problems away.
>
> You are the only person here talking about abstinence and no sex till
> marriage - so please don't attribute these statements to me. Are you
> like cousins with Caribriezeh or something, b/c you have the same
> penchant for making a lot of assumptions and putting words in people's
> mouths.
That's right, everyone here who disagrees with you is related. You must be a distant cousin of Ashanti and RME.
Ahem, you phrased it more eloquently than I might have, when your words of wisdom included- "Don't fuck anyone
other than your wife" and "Don't fuck anyone you have to pay"- of course you didn't at that time share with us
here at rec.music.reggae that you too enjoy unsafe sex, but somehow maintained your sense of sexual
self-righteousness because you've perhaps been lucky... same regards back atcha...
>
>
> rgds
> Joel
Joel Spencer
Good point - I noticed you didn't answer my other two posts. I'm
particularly interested in your insight as to whether or not pumping
AIDS-abating drugs into the third world is going to end the AIDS epidemic.
>> Just as I pointed out the hypocrisy of the pro-Monsanto crowd. I
>> brought up the controversial BGH issue because many people find it
>> emblematic of the dangers of so-called 'Franken-foods', but of
>> course my main issue with your support of Monsanto was the
>> suggestion that Monsanto have even a passing interest in ending
>> starvation, childhood blindness and whatever else.
I never said Monsanto was interested in ending starvation. My point is
that people who oppose GM food are the ones who have no interest in
ending starvation. Monsanto is a business and I'm sure is interested in
profits - sometimes ending starvation and blindness can be profitable,
as well as publicly responsible.
And I'm not pro-Monsanto. I'm pro-ending starvation and blindness. Has
any other company, or philanthropic individual I guess, besides Monsanto
developed a strain of rice rich in Vitamin A? If so, pls let me know and
I will support them as well, maybe even over Monsanto.
It seems to me that there are two choices here for the anti-GM food
folks - support ending starvation and malnutrition, or oppose big
corporations like Monsanto. I think they're making the wrong choice in
opposing Monsanto and letting the children keep going blind.
>>> I've had lots of unprotected sex, but it's largely been "safe"
>>> sex b/c I knew the people with whom I was having sex, and was
>>> reasonably confident they didn't have AIDS.
>>
>>
>> Yes, yes... unlike every philandering spouse who passed it along,
I
>> mean they must have known they were going to contract a fatal
>> disease beforehand.
Precisely, which is why the second suggestion on my list was "don't
philander or you might get AIDS." Personally, I think the better reasons
not to philander is that a) it's not very nice to a person one proclaims
to love, b) it's really bad for the kids if there are any and c) it
don't feel so nice when your spouse philanders right back at you now
does it?
And homeless people really want to live on the
>> streets.
>>
Well there's a false analogy. Are you suggesting that people who have
unprotected sex have no control over the fact that they are having
unprotected sex, just as most homeless people have no control over the
fact they've become homeless?
> That's right, everyone here who disagrees with you is related.
I don't think that, however I do wonder if everyone like you and
Caribriezeh who seem only able to make your points by putting words in
other people's mouths are somehow related. It is a bizarre affliction I
find.
You
> must be a distant cousin of Ashanti and RME.
Where is RME anyway?
Ahem, you phrased it
> more eloquently than I might have, when your words of wisdom
> included- "Don't fuck anyone other than your wife"
See - there you go again. I did not say anything about wives. I said
"Don't fuck anyone other than your spouse". I consider a spouse to be
anyone with whom one is in a committed long-term relationship, be they
married or unmarried, man or woman. As for the sageness of fucking
around on one's spouse, see above.
and "Don't fuck
> anyone you have to pay"- of course you didn't at that time share with
> us here at rec.music.reggae that you too enjoy unsafe sex,
I have never paid anyone to have sex, not even where it's legal. Why -
b/c the whole notion of having sex with a stranger, particularly a
stranger who most likely just got done being paid to have sex with some
other stranger just 10 minutes prior and still has the juices of that
stranger flowing through them, is not only weird, but dangerous!
If you disagree, how is it again that much of the sub-Saharan AIDS
epidemic has spread.... Yeah - I thot so.
The unsafe sex I was mentioning was that without condoms and with people
I had known less than a month, back in the day before I had a spouse.
but
> somehow maintained your sense of sexual self-righteousness because
> you've perhaps been lucky... same regards back atcha...
I absolutely consider myself lucky - I had a few years there in my
younger days when I might not have been so lucky. Of course, when AIDS
started spreading, I figured it was best to scale back on the risk
factors that I did have. Just as right after I got a DUI I never again
went drinking and driving, b/c it's just not worth it. So, feel free to
disparage my "alcohol self-righteousness" if you like - I'll keep
considering it common sense.
Rdawta
Sista Irie wrote:
> Could you explain this statement in more detail? I agree but did not
understand
> the reference to women. It's probably obvious but I didn't get it! I
spoke to
> some major foundation artists recently, some singers, some very well
known
> players of instruments, who mentioned the dancehall controversy,
cancellations
> and so on has hurt their income as well.
>
> "The dancehall/anti-gay factor is a sorry excuse, and sadly is being
used to
> undermine the real essence of reggae music, and dancehall artists
whether they
> like chi chi man or not, has to talk about this issue, because its
hurting women
> far more than men all around."
>
Sure Sis. Irie, I mean the media is stating that the dancehall anti gay
music is contributing to the spread of the disease because those who
are gay fear being caught and therefore do not seek treatment, I would
assume they are talking about men, more so than women, however women
are the ones who are being most affected by this disease. Reggae music
as a whole has suffered as a result of these dancehall lashings, but
artists need to continue pushing their message, and AIDS awareness
needs to be part of that message, raise funds, help people, let the
music have an annual benefit/concert for this cause. It may not change
the world, but it surely will give Reggae a much adventagous edge to
combat the negative publicity its been receiving.
BTW -- I do not like the new format of rec.reggae...ugh!
Adjua Dubb
>
>
> Rdawta wrote:
> >
> > Very powerful statement Crystal. I am inclined to believe you,
that
> > until aids hits home, then, we will see more voices in music
talking
> > about it.
> > I assume messages of safety, protection, death and disease do not
sell
> > very well. I presume its the approach in which reggae artists in
> > particular could use that can add value to their message. I think
its
> > important for them to do concerts, and raise money, that is the
most
> > important aspect. Raise money for people out there. They can tour
> > however many months out of the year for their own pockets, they can
do
> > show here, there, why not raise money for Aids awareness and
patients
> > at least put a stamp out there that Reggae is doing it, somewhere.
> >
> > Tony Rebel is to be highly commended for his activism, but Lord
Tony
> > can't do it alone. Its not fair. And with this disease taking so
> > many lives in the Caribbean community, it makes it that much more
for
> > organizers/artists/fans, etc. to rally for this change.
> >
> > The dancehall/anti-gay factor is a sorry excuse, and sadly is being
> > used to undermine the real essence of reggae music, and dancehall
> > artists whether they like chi chi man or not, has to talk about
this
> > issue, because its hurting women far more than men all around.
> >
> > Thankyou for your input. I hope this will move forward.
> >
> > Adjua Dubb
> >
> >
> >
> > "Crystal" <cryst...@caj.net> wrote in message
news:<Lo2dnbt5JMT...@comcast.com>...
> > > I would imagine this will be a huge challenge as the
anti-homosexual feeling
> > > escalate in Jamaica. It takes a LOT of time and persuasion for
people to
> > > understand that HIV does not care about sexuality. I applaud
this minimal
> > > effort, but until heterosexual men and women step forward and
speak, I do
> > > not think things will change. In my experience with HIV
education in this
> > > country (since the very first cases in the early 1980"s) I have
seen no one
> > > more effective than people who are living with aids.
Unfortunately, no
> > > musical genre has been as effective as those who are living it
daily. And
> > > unless a reggae artist somewhere is HIV positive and dares to
speak, I fear
> > > the change will not come.
> > >
> > > that is my opinion...
> > >
> > > much respect,
> > >
> > > Crystal
> > > "Rdawta" <Rda...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:f1fb7acc.04120...@posting.google.com...
> > > > As we embark on this most threatening human tragedy the world
has ever
> > > > seen, there are threads of hope out there, enlightning and
encouraging
> > > > us to move forward. AIDS has taken the lives of so many that
it is
> > > > now called a "Pandemic" with over 40 million people infected
with the
> > > > virus, and Women being the majority of the cases, there have
been some
> > > > artists who have come out to show their support and increase
awareness
> > > > in the hip hop and r&b communities.
> > > >
> > > > What is reggae doing?
> > > >
> > > > I'd like to know because reggae being the most socially and
> > > > politically aware music, why is organizing so low in producing
> > > > awareness on AIDS in the reggae community.
> > > > I think its well about time that AIDS be a strong motivating
force to
> > > > create and organize concerts/festivals around the music as much
as Bob
> > > > Marley is a motivating force for concerts/festivals throughout
the
> > > > year.
> > > >
> > > > If anyone is interested in seeing what forces we can combine to
make
> > > > this a reality. contact me @ rda...@hotmail.com. I look
forward to
> > > > the day that reggae music's impact will draw on its talents to
do the
> > > > work that is so very needed.
> > > >
> > > > Give Thanx
> > > > Adjua Dubb
> > > >
> > > > Just my .02
Joel Spencer
>> combat the negative publicity its been receiving.
Hear hear! I have brought up the subject with a couple individuals (some
time ago now) on this group of formulating a concerted effort to
advocate particularly to the press that the gay-bashing coming from some
of the dancehall artists is not representative of the reggae community.
I have also brought the idea up to the Board of Directors of RAW that
this would be an excellent and worthwhile undertaking for RAW. Reggae is
already suffering I think from the association with the anti-gay
dancehall artists, and it hasn't even really begun. We don't want it to
get to the point where when you buy a reggae CD or wear a reggae shirt
people automatically assume you are anti-gay - and that day may well
come if something isn't done. While the recent NY Times editorial on the
subject (the most high profile mention yet) did not use the word reggae,
most other press outlets reporting on the festival cancellations etc.
have liberally used the word reggae in association with gay-bashing.
Anyone interested in this idea please speak up. Please visit the RAW
website too [ http://www.reggaeambassadors.org ] and forward a message
there letting your thots be known. It's unconscionable I find that
reggae is being made to suffer solely b/c of the whacked-out hatred of a
handful of dancehall artists, who as someone pointed out recently here
seem to have more in common now with gangsta rap/hip hop than reggae.
Someone needs to speak up "officially" in defense of reggae on this matter.
rgds
Joel
Caribreizh
<NAFISP...@ReggaeMusic.us>a écrit :
>
>I don't think that, however I do wonder if everyone like you and
>Caribriezeh who seem only able to make your points by putting words in
>other people's mouths are somehow related. It is a bizarre affliction I
>find.
obviously you really have more time on your hands to try to counter whatever we
say than we do : you are a good propagandist, i'll give you that, but why do
you always urge people to prove what they say ?do you do likewise ? no, you
just take more time to write more elaborate posts, following a logic which is
yours.you seem to be a pontificating lecturer, and apparently take great pride
in it.that might be considered as "bizarre affliction" too !
get off your high horses once in a while !
a lot of the sources you cite are strangely from your side of the world, apart
from a few foreign quotes here and there (oh boy, that makes you look sooo
well- read, that Japanese army officer bit !).
and your swipe at some homophobic dancehall artists is well funny as well :
"gay-bashing from some dancehall artists is not representative of the reggae
community". of course it reads as if you know better than everyone, once more.
are you a perfect representative of the reggae "community", whatever that means
? i don't know what the phrase "representative of the reggae community"
means.in my experience, what strikes me about reggae is the variety among those
who enjoy this music.i have also been learning about types whose existence i'd
never have suspected before coming to this ng.
maybe you should go down to JA and give them a lecture about some of their
cultural traits?
full stop.
Sista Irie
be very interesting to see where this all goes. Give thanks for starting the
thread. Sis Irie
Lil' Clef
has not church structure; no doctrine." Rastafarianism has various
interpretations and several view points.
Lil' Clef
Sista Irie
posts. The references are to the Bobo dreads and their style of fundamentalism.
Rastafari, even tho not religion, is still a belief concept. All religions are
belief concepts but not all belief concepts are religions. I believe it was Rex
Nettleford who pointed that out in one of his early books. That actually was my
whole point earlier in this thread. Although the old time Binghi dreads have no
churches, or heirarchy, etc. the fundamentalist arm of rasta, which is the Bobo,
has brought an extreme amount of ideology and fundamentalist thinking which
seems to contradict the way of the early Binghi dread. This has been magnified
in the rhetoric of bun fyah lyrics regarding homeosexuality.
Joel Spencer
>> say than we do : you are a good propagandist, i'll give you that, but why do
>> you always urge people to prove what they say ?
Oh, gee - I don't know!
Don't you find this a bit of contradictory question on your part,
considering you just called me a propagandist. Weird.
do you do likewise ? no, you
>> just take more time to write more elaborate posts, following a logic which is
>> yours.you seem to be a pontificating lecturer, and apparently take great pride
>> in it.that might be considered as "bizarre affliction" too !
>> get off your high horses once in a while !
As to you. And while you're at it, get off your hate horse, too.
>> a lot of the sources you cite are strangely from your side of the world, apart
>> from a few foreign quotes here and there (oh boy, that makes you look sooo
>> well- read, that Japanese army officer bit !).
You sound a little jealous.
>> and your swipe at some homophobic dancehall artists is well funny as well :
>> "gay-bashing from some dancehall artists is not representative of the reggae
>> community". of course it reads as if you know better than everyone, once more.
So then, you are a proponent of gay-bashing. Again, get off your hate horse.
>> are you a perfect representative of the reggae "community", whatever that means
>> ? i don't know what the phrase "representative of the reggae community"
>> means.in my experience, what strikes me about reggae is the variety among those
>> who enjoy this music.i have also been learning about types whose existence i'd
>> never have suspected before coming to this ng.
To my knowledge, until the recent gay-bashing phenomena, reggae has
never ever been associated with hate or discrimination. You are right,
reggae can be representative of a lot of things, but those two were
never on the list that I could tell.
>> maybe you should go down to JA and give them a lecture about some of their
>> cultural traits?
>> full stop.
I'm counting on Jamaicans to do that. It's their country, their future.
Reggae I would say is much bigger than a Jamaican thing now tho, and for
that it is going to take the world reggae community to rise up and
denounce the gay-bashing from those who claim to be a part of that
community.
rgds
Joel