How far can 'you' the modern day Guardian-reader be held accountable for slavery?

I mean ok I don't fully agree but sometimes don't you just feel Tatchell and co are taking full advantage of Jamaican dancehall artists being about one form of homophobia they'll certainly claim a victory over. I mean who's going to defend them?

Also most of the arguments against the MCs etc would lead you to believe that dancehall was not in fact music or noise but a series of gigantic black and white signs saying "kill homosexuals" or something.

well it could only ever be uneasy - the problem is Jamaican music remains so unaccessible to so many outsiders (irrespective of sexual preference even) - this is an obstacle Outrage! and supporters probably should work harder to overcome and if Aitkenhead's just pointing that out fair enough but if they're not being met halfway then they'll surely resort to cynical (arrogance rather than ignorance) tactics to get the publicity, 'for the greater good' so to speak.

Real liberal values would demand debt relief, fair trade, investment - all the boring, complicated features required for a functional and just society. If that happened, homophobia would soon organically dissolve.

I mean, really, is this true? I'm not convinced homohobia has "dissolved" in the UK - a fairly hefty proportion* of the population would, I suspect, proudly describe themselves as anti-gay. Probably greater if you factor in more insiduous homophobia of the pro-Clause 28 mob, or the "I don't mind what they do but why do they have to wave it on our faces" brigade.

* The ratio is probably even greater in the US, as well as in Catholic countries like Italy and Ireland. Citing empire and unequal trade relations as the principal reason for Jamaican homophobia seems disingenuous to me.

xpost - not really. Would people be homophobic is there was no such thing as homosexuality? I can't see how they could be, logically speaking.

Also, what definition of homophobia isn't centred around homosexuality?

everything is 'just so' in the guardian. do this obvious thing and the bad stuff will go away. but then since when was debt relief a liberal principle? it conflicts with the Big Principle of free trade. which is it to be? unfortunately the 'boring, complicated' task of history has to go beyond glib responses like 'slavery is to blame for today's homophobia'.

xpost this thread is not like that thread because it's not so much about the music, i guess -- i remember it well, but this article brought fresh game by making faux-historical bold claims.

to who though? and what strain of the music? i'm not sure if it's really gaining popularity as opposed to just retaining a constant level of it internationally - because of the opposing factors.

Not the best way to frame the argument in fairness. I don't hold with this "black people are crying whitey is getting at them" because I'm not sure there are many Jamaicans who are in the slightest bit bothered about Tatchell or anything he has to say. The debate is being conducted between liberals of one strand and another, from where I'm standing.

in her account, the answer is 'fully responsible' if you are white, 'not all all' if you are black. isn't this her logic? liberal good intentions are a modern form of subjugation; modern homophobia is an unfortunate consequence of that subjugation. the article is in a sense racist by making jamaicans less conscious 'bearers' than white britons. 'we' are responsible for holding views, 'they' are not.

But what you're criticising is the (ludicrous) spin put on the Guardian article by some jobbing sub-editor, which is not quite what Decca Aitkenhead herself says within the piece. The culpability of the man on the street, black or white, isn't the issue.

Inasmuch as this infantilizes the 'other', it's the first step toward objectification. Jamaicans need to be called on their shit as much as Britons or anybody else. If anti-homophobia groups are demonizing Jamaicans or certain kinds of music too generally, they are undermining the validity of their own cause.

My point was that alot of the attitudes which comprise homophobia, in Jamaica and otherwise, are surely not based entirely on the same attitudes which a homosexual man in Britain believes in.

Of course by definition homophobia and homosexuality are directly linked, but homophobia is not exactly a rational viewpoint either, I mean to many homophobes it's highly possible that "punishment-rape" has everything to do with homosexuality.

Because on this issue we're right. You can't just endlessly link all the injustices of the world. If we wait for everything to be perfect before we deal with any issue, nothing would ever get done. If the developing world and homosexual rights campaigners want to get into a tussle about whose cause deserves the more urgent priority, let them make their respective cases but to deny the legitimacy of either, at least at some level, would seem to me to be either in intellectual bad faith or basically erroneous.

there is something uneasy about a gay rights group pitted against Jamaican musicians in the way they have been.

Why? I'm sorry, I don't understand why pitting oneself against people who sing about wanting to kill you, and people like you, and who come from a place where people like you ARE regularly beaten up and killed, should be something to be uneasy about.

I'm not sure how one would try to do that and I'm positive it would be counterproductive.

I think it is perfectly possible to have experienced a colonial past and an impoverished present without resorting to such attitudes.

OTM, or if not, I think the English have got to start blaming the Danes and the Normans for everything that's bad about their country.

haha, well there's the obvious 'people wanting you dead/silenced = unease' aspect as i stated

yeah but I think Ronan was uneasy with white gays telling black people 'what to think'!

A great quote from Ce'cile on the subject - "I think it's ridiculous that people are so homophobic in dancehall. I have nothing against people being gay and never will. Men being homophobic are also, by implication, being misogynist to me and I will keep saying that, no matter what."

I don't think it's really possible for her male counterparts' attitudes to be excused on the grounds of colonialism; what's always overlooked is that the reasons for Jamaican homophobia are probably very similar to the reasons for homophobia elsewhere, in terms of who is perpetuating the social value system &c.

OTM, or if not, I think the English have got to start blaming the Danes and the Normans for everything that's bad about their country.

Good point, and there is also the additional question of why I should feel responsible for the repugnant views or bad behaviour of dead people merely because they used to live in the same geographical space as I do.

The real conflict for liberals though is the less novel one. Should I respect beliefs held by other cultures even if I find them odious? I can't see how this can be settled by consistent principle: it can only be settled case by case, on a "lesser of two evils" basis.

You can analyse the reasons, but a crucial reason is that the individual holding the view is a twat. For example, I know that there are strong econcomic factors taht make some people in Burnley feel the BNP offers them an outlet and a way to make things better. Those factors notwithstanding, I think such people are racist fuckheads who have dark hearts who respond to fear more than hope, who wish to scapegoat rather than unite, and blaming the exigencies of global capitalism for being a twat is a fucking abuse of Marxian analyses.

!

I don't think they are the same at all. You have to consider the relative economic strength of the countries involved.

that is so true.

this is not a good point. it would only be a good point if the british economy had and was being pushed down to third world levels of grinding poverty by the danes and normans. maybe a better illustration of this would be scotland - many scots would be quick to blame the english for the nastier sides of their society. and with some justification IMO

perhaps they are, and perhaps there are those that aren't. and perhaps going to burnley and telling the people there that they are bunch of racist fuckheads isn't the best way of changing peoples minds. its divisive, polarising, and counter-productive. in fact, it made people less sympathetic to anti-racism. and, then, fuckheads or not, is that really the idea? people from outside, with their nice lifestyles, coming in, and telling people less well off, how to live, never goes down well

I'm sure if you spoke to the average Northumbrian in the late 8th Century or the average Englishman, especially the Northenrs, in 1090, s/he would have disagreed.

I agree with Gareth. The most important things aren't to be right, to be smarter, or to be more self-righteous. The most important thing is to affect change.

Ditto Burnley - do you beat the BNP by tipping around the fact that people have choices in how they interpret their circumstances? No, you put up another interpretation and try and persuade and convince and lobby for it. Some people have been misled or are misguided. But others are just nasty bastards who like hate, who l;ike division, who hate difference. I don't see why the left's desire to understand better and to bring about change should extend to providing a haven for cunts. Saying 'youse are all racist bastards' to Burnley isn't productive not true. Sayiong that there are people in your community who feed off your depression and stoke your hate, and you need to reject them is actually the truth.

I appreciate the point, but I'm getting weary of a kind of attitude on the left which says that because we must understand the specificities of a situation, we cannot presume to judge. Fuck that. I'm not a relativist, and neither is being on the left. By all means be strategic and clever in activating your view and persuading others of it, but if you lose sight of the moral core of it under a welter of maybes, buts, reasons, excuses and such like, then you talk yourself in to a view its hard to make change because everything is so overdetermined, and even it were possible, it's especially hard for you to do it because of a swathe of other factors.

Seriously though, I can't help feeling that whilst what you're saying is true, what's the upshot? How do you create an environment where such people don't become racist or homophobic if you don't actually live there? Can you? Or are you reduiced to being unable to help without that level of committment to the area? And if so, if I can't help, merely observe, then I'll retreat to my original point that racists are cunts.

It's like crime - poverty is obviously linked to crime. Any attempt to seriously tackle crime at a macro level must address the poverty issue head on. But the micro level approach - what do we do about the criminal we're dealing with right now - can't take that approach, as it's not so clear cut. Choices have been made that others, when faced with similar circumstances, have chosen differently and aren't criminals. You can understand and condemn at the same time.

therefore surely it's important to combat cynical attitudes in the press and media as much as anywhere or anyone else, if not more so.

And surely they wouldn't have any impact - a national newspaper is produced by outsiders whoi'd have no truck with out of towners bringing their opinion down our way etc etc.

i'm not convinced the people writing the articles hold the same views as the people they're patronising/catering for, they just have an idea of what sells papers/what people want to hear...a cynical calculation tapping in to people's ability to say the wrong thing (Ron Atkinson) whether or not they truly believe it or to what extent they believe (i.e. if racism in the media or society is a Richter Scale i don't think Atkinson's infamous comment amounts to more than a tremor when all's said and done, because funny ideas about the differences between races is not the same as actual hatred). still the tabloids pilloried him which shows how homophobia is tolerated far more than racism in our society now and i think Outrage! tactics may in turn be a cynical reaction to that but perhaps a necessary one?

(i think we've still got some more rooting to do, so in answer to the question: quite far i think!!)