Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1996 14:50:02 -0600 (CST) From: "Richard D. Reitsma" <rdreitsm-AT-artsci.wustl.edu> Subject: Re: Fanon and sexuality Thank you for your comments. Allow me to respond briefly. First, I did not mean it as an ronic juxtaposition. I was merely pointing out that earlier in the anti-apartheid struggle, a black activist (whose name I have forgotten) was rejected by his fellow anti-apartheid protesters, when he revealed he was gay. FUrthermore, during the Winnie Mandela trials when issues of homosexuliaty came up, protesters (black) vehemently denied the presence of homosexuality in the black community, claiming it to be something utterly unnatural to the balck experience, and, in fact, claiming it to be a white import, in some cases resulting >from the economic deprivations. There are several studies on this particular issue. Rather than being ironic, I find it laudable that the anti-apartheid movement was capable to incorporating sexual rights into its politics as part of total liberation. As for the spread of HIV: I realize that HIV is spread in the sae way gloablly. However, in countries/sopcities which regulate one's sexuality by the position one holds (i.e. active=straight, macho, "passive"=feminine, irreagrdless of gender) in the sex act, HIV is spreading more rapidly, in part due to a lack of information regarding how the disease is transmitted. In my work with AIDS education among Latinos and Latin American commuinities, the statistics show that the fastest growing population of AIDS infected people are Latina women and children, followed by african americans. In large part, that is due to the idea that only gays (i.e. passive males, queens, transvestites) carry/contract the diseas, whereas straight men, and their partners don't. The way sexuality is constructed in a given culture definitely does correlate to the rate of HIV transmission, due in part to how information/educationi is disseminated (e.g. condoms is a difficult issue of Latin American social workers attempting to combat the spread of the disease, partly because it is seen as a threat to masculinity, also because of religious taboos of employing birth control -which can double as disease control). Finally, in resp[onse to your critique that a BLACK MAN CANNOT SEXUALLY OBJECTIFIY THEW MASTER OR THE MASTER"S SON, I believe Mark has replied more eloquently than I would be able to. However, I find your statemnt does not take into account race in the issue of white women's power, or the objectifiying gaze of the white woman. Thank you for your critique of my original post. I hope I have clarified more some of my ideas. Thanks, Richard On Tue, 12 Nov 1996, * Gqola, P, Pumla, Ms wrote: > > Richard > > > I think, ofr example, of the antiapartheid movement in South Africa, and > > the denial of homosexuality in the black community, and the rejection of > > the activist because of it. On the other hand, at least their consitution > > has written into it protection for homosexuals as well. > > I struggle to find the intended relationship between these two > sentences. Is irony the desired effect? What does it therefore mean, > for you and your interest, that despite the denial of homosexual > activist discourse in struggle politics (I assume this is what you > mean by `the antiapartheid movement'), the constitution protects gay > rights? > > > others, adhere to the notion that homosexuality is a bourgeouise > import, a > > white disease, and so forth, yet it is quite clear that sexual practices, > > especially in many so called Third WOrld/PC coutnries, while ostensibly > > not homosexaul in nature, account for the incredible spread of HIV. > > And how, in your opinion is the `incredible spread of HIV' spread in > "First World" countries. > > > As for Fanon, the idea of getting into the > > masters bed, preferably with the wife, is interesting: a sort of desire > > for the white woman, yet also an obvious form of vengeance. ANd if the > > wife is not available, I wonder if a son, or even the master himself would > > do? > What are you talking about? You are not considering any issues of > gender relations/politics. A Black man couldn't "use" a son of the > master (or the master). The point of "using" a white woman is that as > a Black man, he has *some* patriarchal rights and can therefore take > hie renvenge in white men by objectifying the bodies of *his* > woman/women. A BLACK MAN CANNOT OBJECTIFY THE MASTER OR THE SON OF > THE MASTER WHO OBJECTIFIES HIM. > > > > > > > **************************************************************** > I am sitting among you to watch; > and every once in a while I will > come out and tell you what time of night it is. > - Sojourner Truth > > But then I could also be censoring myself as I > visualise theory-hunters hounding me or driving me back to the margin > of the woods .... - Sisi Maqagi > ****************************************************************** > ------------------------------------ > Pumla Dineo Gqola > English Department > University of Cape Town > Private Bag > Rondebosch > 7700 > South Africa > E-mail: pumla-AT-beattie.uct.ac.za > ------------------------------------ > --- from list postcolonial-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005