Your response seems kind of long. The last sentence is basically unadulterated racism and you could just note it as such.
This is your advice for how I would avoid inspiring a defensive reaction?
I missed that part of the instructions. Sorry.
There's a strong pattern of disillusionment among reggae fans in the last decade or so, as various dancehall stars take turns making public statements (or writes lyrics) about how all gays should be killed, followed by public statements indicating confusion that any of his fans would disagree with these principles. This has happened with Buju Banton, Beenie Man, Bounty Killer, and Capleton, to my memory.
Anyway, your response sounds good. The important part is reminding B___________ that she may be guilty of a tiny amount of generalization and negative assumptions about a large group of people, in her quest to spread the word about how bad it is that others are prejudiced.
Right, because you're not going to consider a whole gender to be small minded and incapable of handling democracy.
I take it the draft response is geared specifically to the tone you'd tend to adopt with B---. If it were for general consumption, and since you're asking for feedback, I'd scale way back the final paragraph, which sounds apologetic for gay-bashing when it occurs.
I get what you're saying in it, of course, but the main message really should be (to my mind) that a full-scale boycott of everything Jamaican is not the answer. What would it accomplish?*
B---'s remark that "These people clearly don't have a whip of democratic spirit" makes little sense, by the by.
* Heh: since you speak of becoming a therapist, I can't help but recall that the best therapist I ever saw continually asked me, "Will that accomplish what you want? What outcome do you want? Will that action tend to accomplish it? I'm not being rhetorical: you're the one who knows the situation."
B---'s remark that "These people clearly don't have a whip of democratic spirit" makes little sense, by the by.
And his next sentence makes even less. Beliefs are people?
I was assuming it should have been not a whit of democratic spirit.
I'd swept by that upon reading the "democratic spirit" remark.
It's tough to respond to B---. He's basically being intolerant of intolerance, and one some might want to explain why that's not workable in every situation.
Maybe Tia could make him defensive about his language usage and then point out the racism after he's already played his "defensive" card.
11 to 9.
I dunno, I think I'd probably just ditch Tia's draft final paragraph in favor of saying that the history of the country is important to consider, in order to understand the current forces at play with respect to sexuality.
I know I've mentioned my Jamaican cow-orker before. He's occasionally said things that indicate somewhat... old-fashioned views about homosexuality, but in general he seems pretty tolerant of it in practice. So, there's one data point in favor of the proposition that not all Jamaicans are homophobes.
He's basically being intolerant of intolerance
What? I'm writing a longer comment in response to your other one, but then I saw this one and really wanted to ask, what?
He's not being intolerant of intolerance. He's painting an entire country with a sweeping generalization (it does seem to be the case that most Jamaicans are homophobic, but most is still different than all, and homophobic is different from violent or murderous). Even though he's not entirely coherent, he's using language that's obviously borrowing from tropes about stupid savage brown people being incapable of forming a fair or just society. That isn't intolerance of intolerance. It's really vicious racism. I think this email is incredibly offensive or I wouldn't be taking on the responsibility of replying.
If B had omitted the last sentence I'd be ok with the e-mail. It's a rant, not something addressed to moderately homophobic Jamaicans as something to change their minds. I also think your response goes a bit too far in offering mitigating factors. I've seen rants about the Russians in recent months, and while I think they're sometimes over the top, I think it's a bit too easy to excuse the Russians by referring to their remarkably hellish twentieth century. Yes, I saw the 'doesn't excuse' but it still goes a bit too far in the 'tout comprendre, c'est tout pardonner' direction.
"A guy I know online knows a Jamaican guy in Alaska who is not openly homophobic."
I'm pissed that 17 beat me to the punch. But since it did, I guess I'll note that intolerance of intolerance is no vice.
Anyway, it's my genuine, spontaneous response to hearing about people doing bad/shitty/horrific things, even often shitty things they're doing to me, as resulting from a long chain of causes. I have a lot of spontaneous compassion for the perpetrators of violence. I definitely don't have some objective, moral problem with my second paragraph, but if it's not rhetorically effective, I'm happy to leave it out.
The murder of that teen is truly horrifying.
But that doesn't excuse B--- for going off on such a (yes, a little bit racist!) rant. Also, his last line ('beliefs are a people'?) doesn't really make sense.
I like the reference to Portia-Miller: a specific, positive example that undermines B---'s negative (and overheated, and no doubt written in the heat of the moment) generalization.
I agree with Parsi that your last paragraph might come across as an apology for gay-bashing (though I realize this is not your intent).
How to support LGBT rights around the globe, and denounce violations of said rights when and where they occur, without falling into the trap of racist or ethnocentric stereotypes? Feminists, and other supporters of women's rights, often face a similar dilemma (the campaigns against FGM are a case in point, but there are many other examples). Short answer: it's not always easy.
"to think of them as resulting from a long chain"
I think I'd ditch the final part of the second paragraph. Put a period after ..."a consequence of brutality the perpetrator experienced," and end it there. I'd lose the second sentence in the first full paragraph, too; your point is stronger without the speculation.
15: I didn't mean much more than that he's seeing vicious, intolerant behavior among some people in a society and declaring that the entire society must be boycotted, because clearly they're all pathetic and diseased.
I think I wanted to say that he's being intolerant of an entire country/society, when in fact an entire country/society is going to have some of this awful stuff going on. It just is.
Better to go with the theme of generalizing from the particular, than with my "intolerance of intolerance" thing.
My guess is that last line was meant to end with not "...are a people" but something like "...are held by [some] people." That is, they're ashamed that there exists anyone who thinks that way, that we haven't moved past that, etc. That doesn't strike me as very offensive, but perhaps I'm being too lenient.
It might also be worth mentioning that we aren't exactly great on trans issues.
24.last: Hell yeah, that's been sticking in my craw. But in a Facebook response that's supposed to be effective in some way, it's probably not best to go "Oh Yeah, like the US is that much better????!"
P.S. "Sticking in my craw": strange phrase, vaguely evocative of crows or something, don't know where it comes from. I could look it up.
24.1 is charitable, and might provide for a better final paragraph.
Tia, do you want to say, or gently suggest, that you found the post racist? If so, you could go in the direction of 24.1: "that last line was meant to end with not "...are a people" but something like "...are held by [some] people." You could say, erm, that, um ...
god, I don't know how you say that diplomatically.
Several people referred to the Russians, as a comparison with Jamaica. I'll go further. Most "crackers" in the South suffer under the thumb of inequal economic and power relations. It's probably fair to say that to a certain extent, the elites in the South fostered a "divide and conquer" strategy. I grew up in the the South. And I'm brown. So here's what I think:
(1) they're my fellow citizens, and I -want- them raised out of the darkess of their lives, their backwardness, their bestiality. They're my fellow citizens.
BUT (2) I wouldn't stand silent while -ANY- brown person with children moved to the South. I'd (and have) tell them what I thought. That the South was an unsafe place to raise brown children, because of the racism that would be inflicted upon them. Maybe safe for adults who can process it. Unsafe for children.
>> He's painting an entire country with a sweeping generalization (it does seem to be the case that most Jamaicans are homophobic, but most is still different than all, and homophobic is different from violent or murderous).
Yeah. I remember growing up in Fort Worth. Every decade or so, a few Mexicans would end up floating in the Brazos. We all figured they were done in by the Ft. Worth police. And I'm sorry, but "homophobic is different from violent or murderous" is like excusing "rape culture" because they're not -currently- raping some woman.
It doesn't take more than a few murderous homophobes to ruin somebody's life. Just like those few men who rape, take sustenance from the generalized rape culture that blames the victim, etc.
>> It reminds me that some of the most brutal behavior is really a consequence of brutality the perpetrator experienced
I don't mean this in a belittling way, but this reminds me of Monty Python's "Dead Bishop on the Landing" and "I blame society". Yes, these people suffered brutally. Sure. Doesn't -ever- excuse what they do to others. Might cause us to consider therapeutic interventions. But you don't absolve a madman of murder b/c he's mad -- you treat and heal him.
So coming back to to a boycott: yes, boycott Jamaica, boycott Russia.
And I'll continue to urge my brown friends to stay away from the South.
P.S. One might retort "Oscar Grant" (I live in SF). To which I would note "James Byrd" and "Jasper, TX". Oh, and Trayvon Martin. And the -atmosphere- of racism in the South is just of a different character than anything I've encountered in the North. As in: in Texas I would never hold the hand of a white woman in public. In the North? PDA felt safe. 'nuff said.
P.P.S. Yeah, the racism was pretty awful. And yet, I realize they're my fellow citizens. And I don't want evil to be visited on them. I -want- them to be healed. That doesn't mean I don't recognize a dangerous, sick, evil culture, and recognize that it's healthy for me to stay away from it.
why not make it all about the content of what B wrote-- e.g. just saying "I wonder, though, if it's fair to generalize to all Jamaican people, even if it does sound from the article that Jamaica is a particularly dangerous place to be queer/trans. I'm sure you didn't intend it this way, but the phrasing of your last sentence could read as a little bit racist." That is direct (current draft is so gentle I fear B will actually miss the point), doesn't appear to in any way excuse the violence, and gives B a 'save self from total shame' out, and perhaps will lead to better future behavior.
I'm sorry, but "homophobic is different from violent or murderous" is like excusing "rape culture" because they're not -currently- raping some woman.
I would not say something like, "members of fraternities are a bunch of rapists," even if I thought a very large portion of members of fraternities bore some responsibility for holding or promoting rape-supportive beliefs (I'm not sure I do believe that; I'm just trying to continue the banned analogy). My grandmother was homophobic and it made me very angry and I fought with her about it. She never hurt anyone physically, nor would she have. She was different from the kind of people who would beat someone up or kill them, in character, in degree of moral responsibility for the oppression of LBGTQ people, in a lot of ways.
And his next sentence makes even less. Beliefs are people?
Corporations *are* beliefs, my friend.
If you're all about being constructive... maybe there's some way to explain that "boycott Jamaica" is about the laziest and least effective thing you can do -- but boycotting always makes the boycotter feel better, and personally squeaky-clean! -- and that, at the very least, doing a little research on the country might help him find more targeted and useful forms of engagement. Donations to, say, global trans human rights advocacy groups would be better than a boycott that he admits will require little to no change in the lives of anyone he knows. If he's upset enough about this for high dudgeon bigotry on Facebook, maybe that means he's upset enough to want to do more. Blaming Jamaica for the parade of horrors visited upon transgender women worldwide is not going to save even one fucking life. You could then call him a coward and sign off -- er, exhort him to do things that get results, not things that feel mentally cleansing.
That said, I generally try to give people space for their anger. There are swords that are never going to swing down on my head, but I also remember a couple of fleeting episodes of real fear being out with another girl in public. He's saying some incoherent bullshit, but on some level he is responding, viscerally, to a threat. I'm virtually immune: if I went to Jamaica with my husband, I might have to witness this cruelty, but it wouldn't be pointed at me.
27 is sort of distressing, thinking about how many freaking minority Texan children I know. Obviously I know that Texas has a lot of shitty racists, but I probably couldn't live here if I didn't do quite a bit of compartmentilization.
"boycott Jamaica" is about the laziest and least effective thing you can do
You had me at "laziest."
Tia, do you know if B---- is gay himself?
Thanks to all for the feedback. I particularly like: 31's alternative suggestion of donating to or working with global trans activism groups, and the 24/26 strategy of asking, "Did you mean to say those beliefs are held by some people?"
34: I would guess yes, but I don't know.
I appreciate (but maybe don't fully, viscerally understand) how threatening this feels to him, and that it makes him very angry. It's one of the reasons why I was trying to choose a very gentle tone. It actually probably would have pissed me off less if it were on Facebook. That's not where it came from, though; he emailed it to me (and other people). This difference in medium makes me feel that he has included me in a circle where he thinks it's acceptable to say things that I think are racist. If he wants to email me to tell me he's angry about violence against LGBTQ people, he's welcome to, but I want to push back against people sending me racist emails, even when they're understandably enraged.
Yeah, sorry for multiple misreadings: you didn't say he was gay and said it was not on FB (I think the reference to "the other place" stuck in my head and the email line didn't). And despite the sententiously superior tone of my second paragraph, I don't actually have a clue about educating people who say horrible things in anger. I usually withdraw or say hedgy stuff. It rarely happens in a context where I can respond or engage at all (the exception is my sister, who finally provoked me to go off a bit by her comments about Down Syndrome; results were not great).
I should actually try to find a suitable advocacy group for donations.
36.2: That it was via a (private? subscription-only?) email circle makes quite a bit of difference.
Yeah, push back on the generalization, but probably include a bit about the racist-sounding tone involved in the way the generalization was made. I myself would be dissatisfied if I didn't make that fairly plain.
I think the key is to sympathize with his anger and redirect it towards the most productive and coordinated use and away from the generalizations.
I understand your interest in the history of oppression and how it contributes to further oppression, but I think it's important to subordinate that to directing his anger away from generalizations and towards useful actions. E.g I wouldn't talk about sympathy for the oppressor until I had laid out that a) generalizations aren't helpful, b) this is outrageous, and here are ways to express solidarity with the people affected that don't require painting everyone on the island with the same brush.
It's not apparent to me that, in this instance, boycotting is the wrong approach. There is a Boycott Jamaica organization, and it appears to have a clear target, winning the prime minister's and the government's commitment to ending attacks on gays. However most of the news articles are from 2009 and the BoycottJamaica web page is down. Given that uncertainty, I think the suggestion of contributing to a human rights group is wiser.
I'm really not contradicting anything you've already come to in 35.
lk: I didn't think you were being sententiously superior at all. I wanted to acknowledge the truth of what you were saying, but clarify what it was about the medium that made me want to respond.
It's almost certainly my natural tendency to be a dick, but I've got to say I find the reference to the history of slavery and oppression, etc., itself mildly racist, or at least seriously rich-white-guilty-liberal condescending. As one of the things you link to points out, the Jamaican extreme form of murderous anti-gay sentiment does (a) seem to be a particularly Jamaican thing that's not shared to a similar extent in other Caribbean islands with similar histories with the slave trade and (b) is relatively recent. On the general "boycott Jamaica" thing, sure the email sender sounds like an idiot: on the other hand I was down with the whole "no tourism in Arizona" thing even though I know -- in real life! -- Arizonans who are liberals and don't hate Mexican people.
I've got to say I find the reference to the history of slavery and oppression, etc., itself mildly racist, or at least seriously rich-white-guilty-liberal condescending.
So, here's what I meant, and maybe it is mildly racist or condescending, but I'll expand so at least I know I've expressed myself fully. I was actually in the middle of trying to write some of this in an older comment I was writing in response to parsimon:
The ideology of homophobia is not some necessary result of oppression. But if you combine the ideology of homophobia with an environment in which a lot of people are growing up under a lot of extreme stress from both violence and poverty, then it's not surprising that homophobia has a particularly brutal manifestation in that environment. I don't think of it as excusing behavior to think about the context that created it, to think about how perpetrators of violence have themselves been victimized, or even if they haven't been, just to feel for compassion for the perpetrator's alienation from basic human sympathy when they do something that horrible to another person.
I quite consistently express something very similar about (even privileged, white) rapists in the U.S.
The article you linked in your response is fascinating, Tia. I think supporting any of the organizations mentioned in it --
The role of AIDS Free World is to support JFLAG. In my role as legal adviser of marginalized groups, I was responsible for designing and executing public service advocacy strategies. We work in partnership with JFLAG and other groups, such as Representatives of Jamaicans for Justice, Families Against State Terrorism and other human rights allies. It's a broader group of persons than just JFLAG.
--would be effective.
Maurice Tomlinson's theory about Jamaican homophobia seems to be that evangelical churches were much stronger than other, more Catholic Caribbean countries. And he says that it's a relatively recent development -- his mom says it wasn't at all a fact of life when she was growing up.
It's cool. The water has stopped working in my remote vacation home, and I've responded by drinking bourbon, so who knows what I may say or not say.
Can't you just sip from the sex grotto?
Yes, fancy a cup o' jism fresh off the grot?
There is a fresh water source nearby. But will it clean the dishes?
So you finished the cup already?
42: But if you combine the ideology of homophobia with an environment in which a lot of people are growing up under a lot of extreme stress from both violence and poverty, then it's not surprising that homophobia has a particularly brutal manifestation in that environment.
I'm not taking issue with this, but I'm weirdly having trouble connecting with it, because I tend to think of homophobia as a distinctly religiously-inflected phenomenon in any given culture.
What am I missing? Maybe I'm just missing a step: I have country cousins who aren't particularly religious (though generally christian in some vague way) who are intensely homophobic -- though they're getting better -- and they were raised in, well, just very traditional, redneck type, settings. Not liberal, not advanced educations, very few material advantages. Why would stress and poverty lead to homophobia?
What is the homophobic ideology, I guess I'm wondering. If it's not religious.
Further to 49: I think I wasn't reading 42 carefully enough: IF you have an ideology of homophobia, then violence and poverty will exacerbate its manifestations. Okay.
The article you linked in your response is fascinating, Tia.
It really is. That guy sounds really smart and interesting.
Maurice Tomlinson's theory about Jamaican homophobia seems to be that evangelical churches were much stronger than other, more Catholic Caribbean countries. And he says that it's a relatively recent development -- his mom says it wasn't at all a fact of life when she was growing up.
This would certainly explain why my co-worker (who is in his forties and emigrated in his teens) doesn't seem to show it.
Whatever Tia says in her response, I think she should definitely be sure to include that link.
My understanding of Jamaican homophobia from (white) family connections there is that it is tied into an extreme form of machismo, and of boy children being spoiled.
So there is immense pressure on boys to come top of the penis pole (kind of like a totem pole, but not native Americanist) and the accusation of "gay" means as it does in the schoolyard, weak, bulllyable, to be trampled underfoot by the strong.
My immediate response is that it would be a bad idea to send the reply as it stands. A good reply would be something that
a) expresses extreme disapproval of what is happening in Jamaica
b) supports, or at most very tactfully disagrees with, the call for a boycott
and then, if you really think it's necessary
c) makes some tactful reference to the fact that not all Jamaicans are bad on this issue.
Portia Simpson-Miller is an improvement on her predecessors, but the promise of a free vote on changing the law is a pathetic token effort to change a situation of massive, government-enforced discrimination and hostility, and of very widely tolerated intimidation, violence and murder, as the article you linked to makes pretty clear.
I think it would be massively inappropriate to start making excuses on grounds of slavery and/or violence. The immediate comparison that comes to mind is "...but on the other hand, you have to remember that the Great War was extremely traumatic for a lot of Germans, there were a lot of rich Jews like the Rothschilds who had a lot of political influence, and, after all, you guys did kill Jesus!"
Nor is it really appropriate to put in the little dig about how Jamaica has at least managed to elect a female head of government, unlike the US. NOT THE POINT.
I don't think the last sentence about your personal objectives will go down too well either. It comes across as "let me tell you how this is all about me" - even though I'm sure that's not how it's intended.
I'll only have a minute to respond but our closest Jamaican friend is gay, so anecdote point. And hell yes he's still sending money home to his mother, who's also been lovely to Lee and me. I'm not sure at the moment the last time he and his partner went back to visit, but it was recent. So there are gay Jamaicans going through the same things gays elsewhere do, balancing personal safety/comfort against the idea that the best way to change minds and hearts is through personal contact. Staceyann Chin has drawn tons of attention to the issue both here in the US and in Jamaica through telling her own story and using that platform to advocate for others. There's been a well-publicized lesbian wedding in Jamaica probably five years ago. None of this mitigates any of the homophobic violence or corrective rape or anything like that, just that to people who've been paying attention for a while there's clearly nuance.
I think it would be massively inappropriate to start making excuses on grounds of slavery and/or violence. The immediate comparison that comes to mind is "...but on the "but on the other hand, you have to remember that the Great War was extremely traumatic for a lot of Germans, there were a lot of rich Jews like the Rothschilds who had a lot of political influence, and, after all, you guys did kill Jesus!"
I think this comparison is pretty silly; I pretty clearly didn't say anything that would attribute responsibility to the victim. Maybe you just mean it would somehow read it that way.
As I said, I stand by the content of what I said, which is a moral instinct I have in response to all kinds of atrocities, but if it doesn't accomplish anything helpful I will happily ditch it. I've seen people get really pissed when anyone writes about compassion for perpetrators before, so it doesn't surprise me. I follow the Men Can Stop Rape/Project for Healthy Masculinity page on Facebook and a few months ago, after a high-profile rape case, I don't remember which one, the founder wrote this letter about having compassion for perpetrators, who themselves have been hurt by being taught to hurt other people. It had a very unfortunate title, and I wondered whether it had been written by someone else: "now is a time for compassion, not anger." But I think it would have attracted the same apoplectic response even without the title. I commented and said I agreed we should work toward compassion for perpetrators, but that I didn't think compassion and anger were mutually exclusive and it was unhelpful to ask people to give up their anger. No one else said anything so mild.
For whatever reason, I actually tend to get angrier at the people who remain comfortable and passive when they know horrible things are happening around them, or who lick the boots of power. Maybe because I see myself in the latter kind of person.
NOT THE POINT
I'll leave out anything that isn't useful, but: if someone says something in the neighborhood of: this entire country is full of people who are too thick and bigoted to form a good society, I think it is on point to observe that whole societies/countries are complicated, and often have both achievements they can point to and be proud of alongside of the elements they should be ashamed of.
Incidentally, I'm not straight. I'm not particularly queer-identified, but I'm not closeted about being involved with women when I am, either. I benefit from being able to touch and kiss women in public and having that feel safe for me. Because I live in relatively non-homophobic environments, I'm gender conforming, and I've mostly dated men, I've never been gay bashed. I did once go to a monster truck rally in the Midwest with my female date, and I acted affectionate with her both around my undergrad RA, who was also there and who I saw notice and process "hey, lesbians", and all the other people at the monster truck rally, I'm sure at least some of whom weren't totally comfortable with gay people. So policing the public space where LGBTQ people can move around isn't an issue of absolutely zero personal relevance (even apart from its potential effects on my friends), although I would never claim I don't benefit from straight privilege.
In terms of the e-mail you got, I think it's better to gently push what I think is your main point. Something like, hey, you probably didn't mean to sound like this, but what you've written echoes a lot of rationalizations made about colonialism (that blacks were backwards and incapable of enlightened self-government). I think everything else is secondary. I think the points about whether boycotting is effective (vs other QUILTBAG supportive efforts) and the issues of compassion for perpetrators of violence are totally valid discussions as well, but perhaps not in the same e-mail, unless those are your primary concerns.
As an alternative, you could suggest that Jamaicans were noble savages living in paradise until the corrupting influence of the white (evangelical) man.
I'd want to know more about the person who wrote the email. Frankly, if that person were or were partnered with or were otherwise really close to a trans person, I'd be inclined to respond differently than I would if they're not. I am....more like a trans person than not a trans person, although that's something I'm still working out, and one of my very dearest friends is a trans woman who has recently started her transition, and honestly, I hear this shit all the time and it makes my blood run cold. I don't think that justifies the last couple of sentences in that email, or makes them not racist or unworthy of being called out, but I think that if this were an intemperate email by someone who has been or is close to someone who has been a victim of transphobic harassment or violence, that puts a huge different spin on it, and should be mentioned in your response. (Or, honestly, if it's from someone who is GLBT and very visibly out and has suffered because of it. Just judging from how I've experienced the world in moving from queer-but-straight-passing to visibly-queer-and-or-non-gender-conforming, I feel that there's a huge difference in one's experience of homophobic harassment and violence based on whether one reads as straight to casual passers-by.)
Like, go ahead and say "Like "I know that transphobic violence really hits home for you." Don't end that sentence with a "but". Just acknowledge that fact, if it is a fact.
It's difficult for me to think clearly about countries where homophobia is widely accepted and fairly aggressive. I don't think I'm obliged to be all hand-wavy because of white guilt, actually, any more than someone from Jamaica should be obliged to hand-wave racism because of entrenched homophobia in Jamaica. I don't think that active discrimination and violence are things that people do on a large scale purely because of harm that has been done to them, and that all the responsibility should be laid at the door of slavery and white supremacy.
I guess I'd be inclined to say to this person that transphobia and homophobia are deeply structured by white supremacy (I mean, phrase it in a different way). I don't think I'd lean the whole email on "but there are some Jamaicans who aren't homophobic", because even if every single Jamaican were committed to homophobia, it wouldn't undercut the ways that white supremacy structure that. I'd emphasize that trans women of color here in the US are far more likely to be killed, assaulted, jailed, homeless or poor than pretty much any other GLBTQ group, and that black people here in the US are far more likely to be discriminated against, jailed, harassed by police, lose wages, etc. That it's a system, in which we are enmeshed and/or implicated too. And it's not just about the past - it's about ongoing economic exploitation by the US (resorts, manufacturing, criminalization, etc).
I don't like the framing "I was really interested in the observation in the article that queerness is seen as especially threatening in Jamaica because men raped other men as punishment when there was still slavery". I think that plays straight into the usual narrative of "oh, it's understandable to hate the gays because rape/perversion/pedophilia". I would be much more comfortable with saying that white supremacy [the slave system?] was all about creating and enforcing abusive gender hierarchies - white masculinity above all, black men and women routinely having their relationships destroyed and families destroyed, enslaved people having very little control over their own sexuality and no guarantee of freedom from sexual assault - and that under slavery, gender and sexuality were forced into rigid and violent hierarchies which persist today.
I know that seems like a longer way of saying the same thing, but I want to situate this all away from "men were raped during slavery, so naturally men today view gender-non-conforming and non-straight people as threatening and thus they commit violence without thinking about it", which I think really oversimplifies what happened both in the now and historically.
I would also emphasize how there's lots of transphobic violence in the US - that if "they" do this, then so do "we".
I also want to say that it's good, it's okay, to be angry when a young girl is killed. It's good to remember and mourn her, it's good to be angry at her killers. It would be terrible for her friends and family to hear everyone all "oh, well, in Jamaica there was slavery and therefore it's basically understandable."
I'd complicate this person's email, too, by saying that the murdered girl had friends, and there are communities of GLBTQ Jamaicans and their friends and supportive family - those people are Jamaican too! Those people have to negotiate being Jamaican and GLBTQ, and it's no service to them to trash on Jamaica as a whole, because that's their culture too.
I think I'd also situate this in the fact that because of slavery and neo-imperialism, Jamaica has been a very violent place. I'd say that growing up surrounded by violence and inequality (like the rich and gated resort areas, for example, where white tourists go) hurts people, it damages them. And that this girl's death is both the result of that damage and is going to cause more damage and pain to those around her. That you don't have to be a non-homophobe to be horrified and damaged by violent death around you.
And maybe mention that there's a creepy sexual culture of white tourists going to Jamaica, particularly white women, for informal sex tourism. It's maybe not the creepiest kind of sex tourism in the world, but in a place with a past and present structured by white supremacist and neo-liberal violence, that's got to fuck with your head, and give you feelings that you still don't get to call the shots about your own sexuality, and you're still enmeshed into a bunch of horrible stereotypes about masculinity.
Basically, I'd write more even at the risk of TLDR. This is a really complicated thing to have feelings about, and I think the more complicated a picture of Jamaica and Jamaican/US-relations you can paint, the better a political argument you can make.
Is it okay to boycott Jamaica? I think that's the wrong question - Jamaica is in this horrible neo-liberal/tourism relationship with the US, and things aren't going to get better there until that's fixed, no matter how anyone feels.
Honestly, I'd suggest that this person channel their feelings of pain and rage into support for organizations both in the US and internationally which support trans women of color.
Oh, I would also add (assuming this person is white) that white GLBTQ communities have a big history of racism (you can give details if that's helpful - everything from sexual fetishization to social discrimination to talking as if there are no GLBTQ people of color to blaming people of color for homophobia) and that there's no way to universally end homophobia and transphobia without looking at the racism of the white GLBTQ community, because there are GLBTQ people of color. And thus, it's really, really important for white people not to refer to groups of people of color as "diseased", for example, or to talk about "them" as if "they" are a totally undifferentiated group. Also add that it's pretty fucking rich to talk about "lacking a democractic spirit" as if the US were established on the purest democratic principles instead of on slavery. I mean, how much "democratic spirit" do we have here? How much of our lifestyle in these United States depends on suppressing the "democratic spirit" globally?
It's okay to criticize others, but it's really important to be wise to yourself and to history, I guess I'd say.
27 is sort of distressing
27 is a tad bananas, and I agree with the general premise of "the South, it's different". Dead bodies end up in rivers for a variety of reasons, but usually not because the local cops are offing some Mexicans for the hell of it. And teh Google confirms that Ft Worth is minority white these days, so it seems likely that interracial couples are not the big deal they were in the past.
Dead bodies end up in rivers for a variety of reasons
It seems to happen at least a dozen times a summer around here. Sometimes suicide. Sometimes murder. Sometimes a guy falls off a barge.
I guess it happens in the winter also, but not as often. It seems that the bodies have a tendency to be found by the Science Museum. I'm not sure if that's because of currents or because that's just where people happen to be looking at the river.
"Let's take the kids out to see the WWII submarine parked in the river."
"Where?"
"By the corpse."
And teh Google confirms that Ft Worth is minority white these days, so it seems likely that interracial couples are not the big deal they were in the past.
I was trying to speculate how awkward I'd feel as an interracial couple. My guess was "Most of the time, not very awkward, and then every now and then horribly self-conscious and aware of bigots." But maybe that's because I'm not aware of dog-whistles, etc, that bigots are sending towards minority people.
I suppose (ol buzzkill) Thorn might have some useful insight. AGAIN.
I was trying to speculate how awkward I'd feel as an interracial couple.
But with four arms, you'd be unbeatable.
I guess it happens in the winter also, but not as often.
Usually a few bob up in the spring because they don't bloat until the weather warms up.
But with four arms, you'd be unbeatable.
Unless they all came straight out of the top of my head.
66: Actually, I have gay privilege on that front and the people who are that bigoted don't necessarily pick up on the fact that we're a couple. (We've been asked on multiple occasions if we're sisters because we're about the same height and both have glasses and the askers always see us together. Um. I realize there's a lot of diversity in skin color and hair texture within black families, but it blows my mind that that's the most plausible explanation.) That said, I've mentioned before that we don't hold hands much in public because Lee is nervous about it and that the first time she kissed me goodbye on the porch of the house where we both lived was after we'd already lived there three years or something.
I think I'd respond to Tia's friend by saying, "I know, isn't it horrible? I'm so glad you're drawing attention to this! I also think we have to be careful not to make it sound like all Jamaicans are complicit. There are great local LGBTQ groups like (name a few) doing work on the ground and I hope people will continue to support them whether or not they're participating in the larger boycott. I think it's especially important not to encourage people to think of a majority-black country as full of savages who can't treat people with respect or anything like that. I don't just want people's mental stereotypes to change from Jamaica as a nation of laid-back stoners to one of subhuman homophobes, because both are racist oversimplifications."
67: INTERRACIAL POLYVOLTRON will crush your puny prejudices.
66: having been half of one, the answer is not really awkward at all - at least in this country. In some other countries I would definitely have felt differently: mainly because a lot of the interracial couples you tended to see in those countries that matched us in colour/gender terms tended to be rather more temporary and constructed on a strictly commercial basis.
I think we only average 3-4 bodies per year in the river, but that could be because of the environmentalist efforts to clean up the Charles.
...tended to be rather more temporary and constructed on a strictly commercial basis.
You mean Benetton ads? I didn't know those were still a thing.
I was trying to speculate how awkward I'd feel as an interracial couple. My guess was "Most of the time, not very awkward, and then every now and then horribly self-conscious and aware of bigots." But maybe that's because I'm not aware of dog-whistles, etc, that bigots are sending towards minority people.
But you were in an interracial couple on the internet, until you started explaining where his name came from.
I think we only average 3-4 bodies per year in the river, but that could be because of the environmentalist efforts to clean up the Charles.
They're in there trying to scoop out some rubbish or rehabilitate a contaminated otter, they fall over, hit their heads... it's amazing there aren't more. Still, they die in a good cause.
70.2 is nicely done. The blog is an excellent ghostwriter.
If there's a connection between poverty, violence, and homophobia (I think there is in the case of Jamaica), then an effective boycott makes things worse, not better. Fortunately the boycott seems unlikely to have anything beyond a symbolic impact.
I understand the impulse to understand the perpetrators, but at the same time fuck those assholes. It's not like it's hard to figure out that beating someone to death is a bad thing to do, regardless of how shitty your background is.
I'd suggest focusing the response just on the fact that a boycott is unlikely to do anything and that an effective response would be to give money to Jamaican LGBTQ organizations instead. The fact that the last bit veers into racist territory should IMO just be handled with something along the lines of "don't generalize too broadly and sweep up a bunch of innocents in your net."
77.1 was my kneejerk response, but I have no idea if it's accurate or anything, so it was nice to hear it from togolosh too, and I think his whole response is great.
To blithely comment on long after things have pretty much stopped on this thread: If you wanted to keep it short, you could just say that referring to people of color as "diseased" and "lacking in democratic spirit" is pretty much the same language that white supremacists have used to justify violence and colonization. No matter what happens in a situation, it never justifies racist language, or "proves" the truth of racist assertions. There isn't any individual moral excuse for beating a girl to death, but there isn't any individual moral excuse for using racist generalities either.
79: I like that. Short and to the point.
Doesn't exactly meet the requirement of "won't inspire defensiveness", though.
3 to 81, but not very convincingly so.
I guess calling people on their racism and sexism is a good thing to do. I think my racist, sexist cow-orker is genuinely confused about why everyone has stopped being friendly toward him.
83. Has anybody tried explaining why?
I'll work on incorporating all the feedback. I'm at work right now, but I just wanted to say thanks to Thorn and Frowner especially, as basically always; even when I'm just lurking I think your perspective is invaluable.
84: I don't think so. People call him out on individual comments he makes but I think he views these as abstract intellectual debates, which he thinks he wins.
This page has a map of countries that oppose or support LGBT rights at the United Nations:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_by_country_or_territory
Team support is much better than team oppose.
I suspect a boycott would be more effective in Jamaica than most other places, given its sensitivity to tourist dollars and consumption of foreign media (again, this is described in the piece Tia links to). Of course the boycott would need to be organized to be effective, but one thing it could easily do is make the Jamaican elite less likely to tolerate this kind of nonsense and actually do something about it, even in the face of popular support to the contrary.
Normally, I tend toward the view with respect to third world homophobia that "actually, it's not so very long ago that we were like that ourselves". But specifically with respect to Jamaica, it is in fact a very long time ago, possibly forever, that we were anything like that ourselves. It's a very very bad thing about the culture there that should not be minimised, excused or yaddayaddaed
Maurice Tomlinson's theory about Jamaican homophobia seems to be that evangelical churches were much stronger than other, more Catholic Caribbean countries. And he says that it's a relatively recent development -- his mom says it wasn't at all a fact of life when she was growing up.
My somewhat simpler theory is that Jamaican homophobia is not so very much stronger in and of itself than the rest of Latin America, but the problem really comes when it interacts with the amazingly toxic culture of Jamaican violence. Jamaica is an amazingly violent country - year in year out, the murder rate is higher than it was in Northern Ireland in July 1972. Iraq only got above the baseline, non-election year Jamaican murder rate for the period 2005-2008. I really have no understanding of how anything like normal life goes on in ex-tourist Jamaica. This is also a good occasional point to make when people blah on about how smoking dope just makes you all mellow maaan.
ok, new draft:
______________________
hey B---
That's really horrible. I know we haven't had occasion yet to have a conversation about our sexual and gender identities, so I don't even know all the ways hearing about this kind of thing affects you or people you care about. It's awful that anyone has to worry about being safe because of their gender identity. I'm pretty lucky that I've lived in relatively safe places to be gay or bi, so that on the occasions when I've been publicly affectionate with a woman, I wasn't too worried that some gang was going to hurt me because of it. I understand feeling really shocked and disgusted. I do too.
I'm glad you're calling everyone's attention to this, and that you're really angry and motivated do something about it. You might be interested in this article: http://dailyxtra.com/canada/news/gay-activist-jamaica-disappoints-and-surprises?market=210. One useful thing about it is that it mentions an advocacy organization if you want to get more involved (if you're not already). I don't know what kind of activism you do or don't do already, but if you want more information about good local or global trans advocacy groups, I have some trans friends I could ask.
Another thing that article does is give an example of a straight-identified Jamaican who is at least expressing some support for gay rights, even though it's not going far enough. When I read your email, I wondered whether you meant everything you said as you literally wrote it -- whether you wanted to refer to some people in Jamaica rather than the whole country. I think it's a good idea to avoid really sweeping generalizations about the whole Jamaican people, or using language about them that's very similar to the language that's sometimes used to justify white supremacy and colonization. LGBTQ people, and some of their loving family and friends, are Jamaican too.
-[Tia's real name]
_____________________________
I started to try to give form to all Frowner's observations, some of which were what I was trying to say, better expressed, but I gave up. It seems like there's a risk I'll be read as somehow apologetic or making excuses, and I don't know how to disclaim to avoid that interpretation. Maybe if I wind up in a longer conversation with him, I'll say more.
I do really value my own ability/instinct to see bad actions as products of a long chain of causes, and to feel that the impulse to hurt another person is itself a form of suffering -- as a characteristic of mine, not something that everyone needs to share. (Though I know this characteristic of mine is related to others that cause me problems.) It's also a pretty automatic response I have to child sexual abuse, another situation in which I think the modal reaction is just anger and horror. It helps me contextualize terrible things (which is what I said), and thinking about context and systemic causes is more ... peaceful for me than just thinking about how monstrous some wrongdoer is. I know that I can do it even when I have maximal skin in the game, and I know it has real value in the world. There are real live people who've done Bad Things who know that I can both strongly disapprove of the Bad Things but still hear about them and not reject and demonize them, and I know that helps them. (I sometimes apparently project this quality so strongly that people choose to confess a bunch of shit to me on the first or second date, which is usually a bad dating strategy on their part.)
But anyway, it's just what works for me. It's not important to communicate that to him right now. I think I was trying to share something with him about how I dealt with and thought about violence, and maybe to invite a conversation about our mutual goals and the role of health care workers in global health and justice, but maybe it was just clumsy. I don't want to seem dismissive.
I'm not sure how necessary that first paragraph is; since you don't actually know his own orientation, it might not be good to speculate about how it would affect his reaction.
90: Kinder and more rhetorically effective. I'd delete the second sentence rather than the whole first paragraph as teo suggests, but nice draft!
89.last makes sense. Jamaica is remarkable for the degree of violence that takes place. There are some really nasty gangs in Jamaica's slums, people who give the Zetas a run for their money.