Part 2- as the festivities ramp up even more, some further reflection on the irrationality of basing institutionalized prejudice and violation of human rights and equality in Bronze Age ideologies.
In case you missed it, or don’t want to read the whole of Part 1 (although I’d love it if you did), let me explain. No, there is too much. Let me sum up: (to steal a line from Inigo Montoya).
This week SCOTUS made landmark rulings, overturning Prop. 8 (which banned same-sex marriage in California) as unconstitutional and invalidated the provision of DOMA that prevented same-sex couples from accessing the same benefits available to heterosexual couples.
This is a GOOD thing.
As usual, and as noted by George Takei, the bible thumpers are out in force screaming about the whole thing- regardless of the fact that it affects the lives of heterosexuals in NO way, shape or form.
We talked briefly about the mythologies of Mesopotamia and Greece- two of the major cultures that influenced the development of biblical mythology- and found that…
I might have missed the first weekend of festivities- sitting on the dock of the bay, and all- but we returned to find the City lit up in all the colours of the rainbow for World Pride, 2014.
So many things to see and do- it’s going to be a great week as we welcome the world. I wrote this two-part post last year ’round this time. The underlying reasons why such celebrations of diversity and acceptance shouldn’t be forgotten- even if, hereabouts, we sometimes tend to forget that not all people in the world have the same freedoms that generations of people have worked hard to achieve in Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
I have mentioned before that I have a tendency to be more-than-a-little complacent in my Canadian-ness. I love this country (most of the time, anyway). We have it great here- certainly in comparison with other places in this wide world- but that reality can, and does, lead to apathy. It’s not apathy with any sort of animosity, but it is still apathy.
Watching various news feeds and tweets from the Twitterverse over the past couple of days, I admit to some bemusement, stemming from a latent, well-meaning, sense of moral superiority. Same-sex marriage has been legal here for 10 years- a happy milestone we celebrated recently. Toronto is basking in the afterglow of association since the wonderful, brave, incomparable Ms. Edie and her life partner were married here, as it was not permitted in their home state at the time. Can’t blame us- it is nice to be associated- however remotely- with something positive for a change.
This past weekend started off with tonnes o’ summer fun and ended with some heavy reflection. There was a whole lot going on in the City and on the world stage that took me down some well-travelled paths of both hope and despair.
The 2013 Pride celebrations wrapped up successfully, with all indicators pointing to a good time having been had by all- including the Premier of the Province of Ontario, who participated in most of the events (‘our’ mayor having absented himself once again)- and the excitement is already building for next year’s World Pride Celebration. A great finish to a week that saw some pretty cool stuff happening- basic human rights-wise– in the US.
Canada Day Spectaculars were held across the country- including in Calgary- where their mayor (a man definitely worth the title) asked his residents to take a day off from the flood clean up and enjoy themselves after all their trials and hard work over the past couple of weeks. Amazing to see the way that neighbours are helping each other out and moving forward in the face some pretty hefty devastation.
Cmdr. Chris Hadfield sang on Parliament Hill- solidifying his presence as a science celebrity and positive influence for curiosity, education and the arts (not so separate from the sciences it turns out) and bringing smiles to the faces of everyone watching- whether on the Hill or from home (and Metric rocked hard. As usual).
But…
Egypt is in the middle of crisis (Canada closed its embassy there today), the situation in Syria hasn’t stabilized any, the RCMP stopped a terror plot to blow up the British Columbia legislature…
From genuinely thinking that hey, this world is a pretty great place, back to feeling overwhelmed by power- and hatred-driven craziness. There was that anomie again, and I was feeling as if attempting to affect change is very much a ‘one step forward, two steps back kind of undertaking.’ Not an ideal way to start the work week.
Add to that the fact that Nelson Mandela has been on my mind- and in the collective thoughts of most of us- I started thinking back to that peculiar period back in the 80’s, when apartheid was still an institutional evil and shameful blemish on the face of the world.
Cruising the YouTube I found this:
(Is that Bono or a leprechaun at 4:28? And who dances like Peter Wolf? Ah, memories).
Way back in 1985 I was pretty much oblivious to larger world affairs, including the mounting opposition to the racial segregation that was the institutionalized reality for generations in South Africa. I was deeply into my books and the music that provided an interesting soundtrack to that period of my life.
I knew that some countries- and the UN- were imposing economic sanctions against the government and growing louder in the condemnation of the system of state-sanctioned racism.
I proudly learned a little piece of Canadian history that noted that Prime Minister Diefenbaker, in 1961, was responsible for breaking the deadlock of Commonwealth leaders regarding whether or not South Africa would remain part of the Commonwealth. His suggestion that the application not be denied outright, but that racial equality as an important principle of the Commonwealth be emphasized, resulted in South Africa withdrawing its application- a key Canadian contribution to international politics on an important human rights issue.
One would think that the opinions of the West had grown even more opposed to the system of apartheid– the Afrikaans term for ‘a state of being apart’ (there it is again- that irrational fear of the ‘other’)- as the decades of oppression stretched on and the situation grew increasingly violent. Peaceful protest- by students and labour unions- ended with gunfire and death at the hands of the military powers of the government.
Many strong voices against the government were killed or imprisoned in attempts to silence the opposition and maintain the status quo- even amid increasing international pressures.
The Roman Catholic Church- and its leader Pope John Paul II- stood in solidarity with the chorus against apartheid. Anglican Bishop Desmond Tutu supported the economic boycott of his homeland- despite the hardships it would cause the poorest of the poor. On the other side, the Dutch Reformed Church in South Africa remained committed to the system of apartheid- impeding political reform from within the country.
International sports associations like FIFA banned South Africa from participation in sporting events. Academic and cultural institutions were encouraged to terminate links with the country as long as racial discrimination continued.
in 1985, (Little) Stevie Van Zandt became involved with the anti-apartheid movement, initially upon hearing that the system was influenced by the American model of Indian reservations. Since the issues of North America’s First Peoples was a primary focus of Stevie’s interest, the parallels between them and black South Africans struck a particular chord. While traveling to research his next album, he became particularly upset by the ‘resort’ area, Sun City, a gambling mecca in a bantustan (Bophuthatswana)- a created ‘homeland’- in an impoverished rural area.
He gathered ‘rockers and rappers’ who joined together to speak against the injustice of apartheid and the American government’s official position on South Africa.
As Joey (miss that guy) notes at 2:22- “Constructive engagement (was) Ronald Reagan’s plan.” Unlike the UN and most of the rest of the Western World, the US government promoted this mandate as an alternative to economic sanctions against South Africa. (Although Maggie Thatcher echoed the policy during her tenure as British PM).
This political stance meant that only about half of US radio stations played “Sun City”. But in countries without such resistance to positive and necessary change, the song became a major success- raising awareness and seeking freedom for the entire population of South Africa.
As that awareness continued to grow, the Reagan administration maintained its stance against the ANC and resistance t0 the imposition of trade embargoes and economic sanctions. But the voices against what Bishop Tutu called “an abomination, an unmitigated disaster” (in a 1984 speech on Capitol Hill) began to increase, even in the conservative US of the 1980’s.
The Republican party turned against its President on this issue, and Congress overrode Reagan’s veto of the Comprehensive Anti-Apartheid Act of 1986, ending constructive engagement and instituting the imposition of economic sanctions that caused South Africa’s economy to drop to among the lowest in the world.
Between 1990 and 1996 apartheid was systematically abolished. In April 1994 20,000,000 South Africans cast their votes in the first free elections, and in May of that year Nelson Mandela was sworn in as South Africa’s President.
At times when we seem to be increasingly divided by our differences, it is extremely valuable to remember that we have worked together to affect positive change and to realize the revocation of significant ideological evils- changes that work for our common good and prosperity.
Regardless of particular story variations or political maneuvering for the sake of greed we CAN work together toward what we know is right. Even when it seems as though our political leaders are all about economic bottom lines and support of the status quo as a means of maintaining power.
Songs like “Sun City” tap into the popular culture to raise awareness and inform those uninterested inbored jaded by the political posturing that detracts from the real issues of rights and freedoms, as the pundits and talking heads spout policies based in ideologies (and stories) that should be left to history.
Once that awareness grows we can collectively tell our elected leaders just exactly where we ain’t gonna play. History shows us that if enough of us shout it out they do have to listen.
I realized this morning that I didn’t define my terms very well. Bad Historian. ‘Constructive engagement’ sounds nice on the face of it- after all, ‘constructive criticism’ is meant to improve the thing being criticised, right? And being ‘engaged’- in all senses of the word- is also something positive.
Reagan advocated using incentives rather than sanctions to encourage South Africa to move away from its institutionalized policy of human rights violations. The reason? Political expediency. In the Cold War of the 1980’s, the Reagan Administration feared the growth of communism in Africa, and viewed the white minority government of South Africa as an ally in its prevention. Ignoring a nation’s human rights record in order to further a particular agenda? Doesn’t sound at all like the Harper government’s relationship with China and their increasing involvement in oil and gas development and their investment in the oilsands at all.
The parallels can be extended to include the West’s intervention- or lack thereof (depending on self-interest) in the various actions taking place in the Middle East, and right here at home to our Idle No More movement.
As Little Stevie wrote, in 1985, “This quiet diplomacy ain’t nothing but a joke.” It’s time to get back on the right side of history and follow our own example. Working together we can begin to solve our collective problems so we can stop being “always on the wrong side.”
In case you missed it, or don’t want to read the whole of Part 1 (although I’d love it if you did), let me explain. No, there is too much. Let me sum up: (to steal a line from Inigo Montoya).
This week SCOTUS made landmark rulings, overturning Prop. 8 (which banned same-sex marriage in California) as unconstitutional and invalidated the provision of DOMA that prevented same-sex couples from accessing the same benefits available to heterosexual couples.
This is a GOOD thing.
As usual, and as noted by George Takei, the bible thumpers are out in force screaming about the whole thing- regardless of the fact that it affects the lives of heterosexuals in NO way, shape or form.
We talked briefly about the mythologies of Mesopotamia and Greece- two of the major cultures that influenced the development of biblical mythology- and found that neither of them took any issue with homosexuality, nor proscribed against it.
Which leads us to that much-thumped book of stories (terrible way to treat stories- all that thumping).
Starting at the beginning (or the re-beginning, anyway):
Genesis 9.1 And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth.”
Genesis 9.7. “And you, be fruitful and multiply, bring forth abundantly on the earth and multiply in it.”
This is YHWH speaking with Noah and the fam post-flood. Right after the deity had just completely wiped out his own creation (with the exception of one family and those animals that made it onto the boat. Poor dinosaurs and unicorns. Sniff). No over-reaction there.
He is setting the scene with this initial covenant (ironically- given its use by the LBGTQ community- represented by the appearance of a rainbow in the sky) for the big-C-Covenant-to-come by setting out some initial commandments and telling Noah and his progeny to go forth and re-populate the earth that he had just finished destroying.
Obviously, this would be difficult if there was much of a homosexual component to Noah’s family (being, as it was, the days before artificial insemination). These early passages set the stage for the oft-cited idea that marriage is all about procreation, a key facet of upholding the covenant with the deity.
The laws found in Leviticus echo this idea with a more definite attempt at controlling behaviour. Leviticus 18.22 and 20.13 both suggest that ‘lying with mankind as with womankind’ is an ‘abomination’. The Levitical laws are social controls– meant to establish order in the new nation under the covenant established with YHWH.
Some of them are practical concerns (the food laws are generally accepted to have had a whole lot to do with lack of refrigeration capabilities in the desert and therefore efforts to avoid having the population die out from food poisoning), while others were meant to set the Israelites apart from their neighbours, and those they conquered in the name of their god.
The gods, mores and practices of the Canaanites (the original residents of the ‘Promised Land’) had a great deal in common with those of the Mesopotamian City States, which were not institutionally against homosexuality. To distinguish themselves- and assert the holiness of their covenant- the Israelites had to adhere to an identity that was very much against the ‘other’- which meant distancing themselves from the social realities of the surrounding cultures.
Biblical literature is full of examples of the Israelites falling off the YHWH-wagon and taking up the pastimes and habits of those around them- which often included the worship of their gods. Major covenant violation there- breaking of Big Rules #1 and #2, in fact. Not going to please the old man at all. Best to enforce the complete separation from the other by reinforcing mores that are supported by earlier Hebrew myths.
Going back to Genesis, the story of Sodom and Gommorah is usually dragged out as the main justification for the ‘abomination’ associated with homosexual acts, because the mob at the door wanted to access Lot’s angelic visitors and to ‘know’ them- in the biblical sense. Even Lot offering his own virgin daughters to placate the crowd in their stead did not turn the citizens away from their violation of the laws of hospitality and lack of charity to visitors (I should think that the impulse to rape guests in the city would definitely qualify as being inhospitable).
If you read the Prophets (Ezekiel for example) and early Talmudic tradition, the ‘sin’ of Sodom and Gommorah was identified as this social injustice and lack of hospitality. Since violating the proper social order leads to chaos, such actions were deemed dangerous and punishment was required (with YHWH again following his pattern of the overkill model of punitive judgement).
Later interpretations and compositional strands in the mythology itself- and stronger shout-outs against homosexuality drawn from the influence of Zoroastrianism from the period of the Babylonian exile- tended toward a more completely negative view of same-sex pairings, based in cultural bias rather than social prescriptions. Even with this syncretism of prejudices, it wasn’t until the 1st century CE that Jewish writers- such as Philo of Alexandria and the Roman historian Josephus- unequivocally asserted that homosexuality was, in fact, the great sin that caused the destruction of the twin cities.
When it comes to support of anti-homosexual proclamations from the OT, basically we are talking about examples of institutionalized aversion to the other, as the political and religious powers sought to maintain control and social order in a developing nation, while avoiding the assumption of outside ideas into Jewish beliefs and practices.
Moving on to the NT…
Jesus says nothing, nada, zilch about homosexuality in the words that are attributed to him. In fact, in Matthew 10.14-15, he compares the fate of anyone who is unwelcoming of his followers to the lack of hospitality displayed at Sodom and Gommorah- noting that any towns that turned them away would suffer even more than the Sodom and Gommorah-ites.
Jesus was a 1st century CE Jew who was looking to reform the religious tradition in which he was raised. He welcomed those from the margins of society and his mission was one of inclusion- values that he felt were being ignored by the authorities of the Temple. If Christians want to maintain that his message was all about the love, they really need to stop involving him- completely undeservedly- in their hate-mongering. Poor guy must be rolling over in his grave.
On the other hand, the early Christian writers- Paul of Tarsus for example- were seeking to develop a minority new religious movement within a larger social, political and religious background. Like the Israelites, they had to differentiate themselves- first from the Jews and then from other cultural groups that were in any way displeasing to the Roman officials.
There are mentions made in some of the canonical epistles (Romans 1.26-27 and 1 Corinthians 6.9-11 come to mind) that speak against all kinds of perceived sexual improprieties, but this is hardly surprising. Paul wasn’t a big fan of sex in any form. Have a look at 1 Corinthians 7, if you have any doubts about that reality.
The upshot of all this discussion (and I could go on, believe me), is that ideological objections to homosexuality drawn from biblical mythology are few and far between (especially given the volume of canonical literature alone). Those that do exist are clearly culturally and temporally driven- by political expedience for the purpose of the maintenance of social order, flying under the radar of the ruling majority and/or in order to support increasing the number of followers of the deity of the covenant. Yet people want to use 2000-3000 year old political and cultural ideas as the basis for life-affecting legislation in the 21st century?
Sigh.
My wonderful friend Tracey had a conversation with her son about the events of the week. Hopefully more people will finally embrace the reality that this amazing child knows intuitively. It is beyond ridiculous to hold to the proscriptions dictated by Bronze Age people, looking to assert their national dominance (and that of their god) over the indigenous peoples of the land they sought to conquer and claim as their own. And citing the epistolary writings of the PR people for a struggling new religious movement trying to find its footing in the face of majority persecution- against the model and words of the ‘founder’ of said movement? You call that justification?
Humbug.
The SCOTUS decision is a welcome step toward the arrival at a point that should have become moot long ago. I honestly can’t believe we are still talking about this. Yet seeing the vitriolic responses in the ‘news’, the comments sections of opinion pieces and in various incarnations of social media, I realize that dialogue apparently remains necessary. Still. So let this be my two cents- and my happy (and relieved) reaction to an historic ruling that upholds equality, intellectual rationale and just plain common sense.
Happy Pride everyone. May the fact that human decency, fairness and reason finally saw some light this week set the tone for a joyful weekend.
I have mentioned before that I have a tendency to be more-than-a-little complacent in my Canadian-ness. I love this country (most of the time, anyway). We have it great here- certainly in comparison with other places in this wide world- but that reality can, and does, lead to apathy. It’s not apathy with any sort of animosity, but it is still apathy.
Watching various news feeds and tweets from the Twitterverse over the past couple of days, I admit to some bemusement, stemming from a latent, well-meaning, sense of moral superiority. Same-sex marriage has been legal here for 10 years- a happy milestone we celebrated recently. Toronto is basking in the afterglow of association since the wonderful, brave, incomparable Ms. Edie and her life partner were married here, as it was not permitted in their home state at the time. Can’t blame us- it is nice to be associated- however remotely- with something positive for a change.
It is easy to forget, when one surrounds oneself with like-minded individuals as one has a tendency to do, that important-if-taken-for-granted things like equality and respect are not an ideological ‘given’ for large portions of the population- even here in Canada (don’t get me started on the putative mayor of this town again. Just don’t). The noise of the preparations being made for this year’s Pride celebrations is a joyful backdrop as I walk the neighbourhood this week. It’s enough to drown out the prejudices of some of those around me- people I have to spend time with by circumstance of environment rather than choice.
The positive voices in response to the SCOTUS decision by FAR outweigh the naysayers- at least in my chosen circles- but the ‘nays’ are there and, as ever, ready to thump a bible in support of their willful blindness to that which is morally and politically the right answer.
That EVERYONE is entitled to the same rights and freedoms under our SECULAR laws.
FULL STOP.
In a lovely piece for the Washington Post, that maven of the interworld, Mr. Sulu, cited the biblically-based ‘reasoning’ for attacks on same-sex relationships. Discussing those who attempt to ‘justify’ their homophobic stance through use of the ancient text, he writes:
“(they) turn to the Bible, perhaps because science doesn’t lead to the conclusion that homosexuality is unnatural… But references to the Bible or other religious texts are not a solid footing on which to base notions of traditional marriage. Concerns about the separation of Church and State aside, traditional marriage has never been what its homophobic proponents believe.”
All true, largely because they never actually take into account the context in which such texts were written and meant to be followed. Assuming they’ve even read them in their entirety, that is. And THAT’s a mighty big assumption.
So. Did the Ancients condemn homosexuality as categorically as prejudiced pundits would have us believe? Gather ’round children and we’ll take a glimpse into their myths- and the contextual reasoning behind them…
Let’s begin with Gilgamesh. (I know, not himAGAIN– but the Mesopotamia Exhibit at the ROM began last week and I can’t seem to get that there King of Uruk out of my head.) Since I’ve already briefly recounted his story I won’t do so again, except to say that his relationship with Enkidu has been interpreted in many circles as being more than one of simple comrades-in-arms.
Enkidu is adopted as another son by Gilgamesh’s mother and the gods show him great favour and celebrate his relationship with the King. Gilgamesh’s grief at his death is overwhelming and is the catalyst that sets him off on his quest to circumvent the laws of nature so that he can bring his partner back from the dead. The intensity of the relationship is palpable throughout their travels together, and Gilgamesh’s failed quest. His last conversation with Enkidu’s shade is heart-wrenching.
The Ancient Mesopotamians referenced androgynous humans in their stories- among them, the priests in of the goddess Innana. They were purposely-created by the god Enki to fulfill this specifically-ordered purpose. As can be seen in myths like the creation story Enuma Elish and the Descent of Innana into the Underworld, men ‘acting as women’ were not only not shunned, they were elevated to positions of power within the society.
Those examples not overt enough for you? Let’s move to Greece.
All garish clichés aside, Greek mythology and philosophical literature is filled with examples of same-sex relationships. It is so much the norm in their stories and the structure of their culture that one of their creation myths suggests that while engaged in the ongoing act of creation, Prometheus, while drunk, created some humans with the ‘wrong genitalia’. Etiologies- stories that explain the origin of things like natural phenomena- about same-sex inclinations or androgyny would not have been required if these things were not commonplace occurrences.
Other myths that include the celebration of same-sex relationships include the stories of Zeus and Ganymede, Apollo and Hyacinth (who was beloved of both the sun-god and the West Wind, Zephyr), Heracles and Hylas and Hermes and Krokus, to name but a very few. These stories demonstrate that the gods AND the greatest human heroes were subject to both homosexual and heterosexual attractions.
Sappho was a 7th century BCE poet who wrote of passion and love for both sexes, although she has become more associated with writings about same-sex pairings. Her name, and that of her island homeland, have become directly equated with same-sex love among women.
I could continue to cite examples from Australia, Oceania, India, China, Japan and on and on and on…
But the environments and cultures that influenced biblical mythology were those of the Ancient Near East and the Eastern Mediterranean areas, so in the next post we will move onward to discuss the ammo that the homophobic lobby tends to misfire most frequently…
... au gré des trouvailles, au fil de l'inspiration. Ma devise : rester humble, devant l'infiniment petit, tout comme face au très grand... angle :) Merci à toi visiteur furtif ou ami de longue date...
colemining 