Speech on Sexuality and Colonialism
Presented at the Nov 14, 2002, LGBTI program and at a Puerto Rican Cultural Center event
Roberto Sanabria
The Old Testament admonishes -- Men should not lay down with men as
they lay with women. To do so is an abomination and the land just
might vomit them out. This is arguably among the first apologias for
colonialism in recorded history. It is an important part of an
argument given to justify the Hebrew tribes' pushing aside people
already dwelling in lands between Mesopotamia and the Egyptian Empire
and laying claim to those lands. Is this to say that same sex love
was forbidden among the ancient Hebrews? At the very least, we can
say that one manner of same sex encounter was taboo in their time and
place. There is no mention, however, of women laying down with women
-- in any fashion, or even men loving men in ways other than those
which appear to have one man cast in the role of a woman. In other
words, the Bible's restriction is specific. Whatever you do, do not
make a man play the role of a woman. Aside from bestiality, adultery,
and incest, no other human sexual conduct is expressly forbidden. The
ancient Greeks are today renown for their same sex encounters.
Conventions of the time, nonetheless, were rigid. Males having sex
with each other needed to respect clearly delineated roles. One had to
be an elder with knowledge to impart -- and the other had to be
considerably younger, not yet recognized as an adult. Although the
pair would engage in anal sex, the adult would play the exclusive role
of the "top" or the active part while the younger played the role of
the object, the receiver of the adult male's sexual energy. This type
of love was celebrated, respected and immortalized in poetry and
legend. Should a couple deviate from this pattern, however, the elder
would be ridiculed and marginalized. In spite of the gulf that
divides the ancient Hebrews and the Classical Greeks with respect to
their sexual mores, one key element is harmonious. Men are not to be
"feminized." Helenistic society had few qualms with males playing the
"submissive" role -- so long as these males were not yet men -- but
older boys. Classical Rome was a good example of the adage -- the
more things change, the more they stay the same. In Rome, it was the
male citizen, who above all, had to maintain his "manhood." Wealthy
Roman citizens often owned male slaves whose domestic chores included
submitting to the masters' sexual overtures. The master/citizen,
however, was only allowed by Roman law to play the active role. Should
he deviate from this role, be it anally or orally, he would be
stripped of his citizenship, and although there is no record of this
actually occurring, he theoretically would be subject to harsh
punishments. Incidentally, on occasion, the male slave was called
upon to climb into bed with the master's wife. Although the slave
would perform the traditional male role, Roman prowess and
superiority, located exclusively in male citizens, were not perceived
to be undermined. Here is the thread that binds these cultures to one
another -- Men must not distance themselves from their privileged
positions, from their hegemony. How men define themselves as men often
has to do with their otherizing those who are not men, i.e. women, and
imbuing those differences with an exaggerated, mystical
importance. Most perceived differences between men and women are not
absolute; they are fluid constructs: hair, speech, values, thought
processes, physical prowess, etc. One primordial attribute, however,
that is perceived to hold true absolutely, is the reproductive roles
the sexes have been assigned. Therefore, the most absolute measure of
a man's otherness is the role he plays in the context of
procreation. This is the space, more than any other, I argue, where
men in these societies had constructed their identity as men, because
it is the most clearly articulated, and most intuitive of the
constructions of gendered otherness. That which undergirds all of
these cultural postures toward men who engage in sex with men is
misogyny. The marginalization of women, the sanctioned and
institutionalized stripping of her subjectivity, her relegation to the
realm of objects -- these do not exist in a vacuum. They are not
untethered, unidimensional activities. When men can declare that women
are objects, the sub text of what they are saying is that men are
subjects -- historical agents with a birth right to power. By denying
women power, men simultaneously seize power for themselves. In the
traditional household of Roman citizens, the men ruled in unambiguous
fashion. Women were chattel. Even their names were often no more than
patronyms or numbers. In fact, the etymology of family arrives to us
in English via Latin -- the language of Rome. Famulus means servant
and familia means domestic servants. The crux of my argument so far
is this, although there are many different reasons why we are plagued
with homophobia, the historic thrust of intolerance toward men who
have sex with men in the context of highly patriarchal cultures is an
outgrowth of a struggle to maintain male privilege. At first, it
seems counter-intuitive -- Why would males of any species care if
other males directed their procreative energies toward reproductive
dead ends? Indeed, some cultures, including that of Classical Rome,
had men of high station keep a bevy of women guarded by eunuchs. What
unfolds is the product of the tension between a man's drive to pass on
his genes -- and the desire to secure his hegemony. His domination of
other men is done through war, colonization, slavery, and economic
predation. His domination of women is done through convention, custom,
coercion, and sometimes brute force. The logic employed to bolster
these contrived customs and conventions is turned on its head when
gender differences are contested. Thus, those who wish to remain in
power must choose: clamp down on the "aberrations" those criminals of
convention; redefine and re-construct what it is to be male, or agree
to share power. How does this play itself out in colonialism?
Spanish Conquistadors in the Americas did not find one homogeneous
society with towns and villages neatly interspersed throughout the
hemisphere. Instead they found highly ordered empires such as the
Aztec capital --Tenochtitlan, as well as less militaristic and more
egalitarian villages, such as those of the Taino found throughout most
of the northern Caribbean. Patriarchy is a byproduct of
civilization. In the wake of European conquest, all Native peoples
found their social organizations destroyed and replaced by something
alien. In all colonized societies, women and men lost their prestige
and rank. The men of those societies had slight compensation. They
lost their shaman, their healers, their chiefs, their counsels, their
gods -- their very way of looking at the world and making sense of it
was uprooted. Among the ashes, the men found their subordinated roles
as colonized subjects to have one perk -- they were now junior
partners in the European subjugation of women. As they fell from their
positions as autonomous, self-determined subjects, newly colonized men
grasped at one last straw -- their ability to wield power over
women. As I mentioned, the Pre-Columbian Americas was not a
homogeneous land, thus this state of affairs, this relegation of women
to subservient roles was nothing new to the defeated imperialist
states of the Aztecs and Incas, but to varying degrees -- it was for
countless other Native peoples. Moving ahead a few centuries, we find
that among leftist movements and in particular among anti colonial
movements there have been on-going, internal struggles concerning
misogyny and homophobia. Until very recent, there have many
Left-progressive organizations, most notably the Revolutionary
Communist Party, that had sanctioned anti-gay and anti-lesbian
positions and had woven them into their platforms. Today, only a few
remain. The arguments behind those oppressive stands have varied, but
for the most part they are covered by ... We need to build up strong
revolutionaries among our ranks; Women need to be concerned with
producing strong revolutionaries and themselves remain strong, stoic,
-- disciplined -- obedient to the males' natural leadership;
Homosexuality is a product of bourgeois society; its values are
dubious and even hedonistic, it has no productive or material
benefits. In the 1980's, the Puerto Rican Cultural Center wrestled
with those issues, and arguably became the first anti-colonial
movement in history to take a clear, well-articulated, and passionate
stance against homophobia, and promoted the participation of gay and
lesbians in its leadership. I read from the MLN's own Program and
Ideology -- a document that came out of its first Congress and
published in 1987: Homosexuality and bisexuality, as long as they are
not destructive and do not degenerate into pure economic interests,
should be accepted and not judged negatively as they have been
throughout history. Later, at the end of the 87 page platform, the
writing concludes... Neither patriarchal tendencies nor sexual
preferences should be a factor in accepting anyone as a member of this
organization. How did position surface? What conditions were in place
that allowed this seemingly anachronistic change to take effect?
Among many, one example figures prominently -- Bartolo De Jesús. He
was a Puerto Rican, born in New York City, moved to Chicago -- who led
the gay and lesbian struggle for inclusion into the broader
anti-colonial struggle. He fought to be heard. He insisted that he was
a member of the The Puerto Rican community. That the Puerto Rican
nation was fractured, incomplete, and seriously weakened without its
lesbian and gay sisters and brothers. In other words, you cannot talk
of a Puerto Rican community unless it was understood that gays and
lesbians were an integral part of that community. Any movement for
independence that denied this would be divided and fall short of its
potential. My first contact with the Puerto Rican Cultural Center
goes back to when I was seventeen. Shortly after that, I met
Bartolo. However, my contact with him was always brief; an exchange of
greetings -- nothing more. He seemed an intense man, his movements
were quick and deliberate; he was often surrounded by people and
engaged in passionate dialog. I was a nervous and exceedingly shy gay
teen who didn't dream of approaching him with small talk. I do
remember, however, my shock when Bartolo -- the consummate artist and
poet, performed an autobiographical dramatization at one of our
political events. Up to that point, the struggles of the Puerto
Ricans in Chicago to denounce homophobia and embrace gay and lesbian
participation were undertaken without my knowledge. Here was Bartolo,
in a well-attended, public space in Humboldt Park demanding his right
to be seen and heard -- to be respected -- not made invisible. He was
a young, Puerto Rican gay man living with AIDS, in an era when AIDS
was a virtual death sentence. He appeared ill, yet he was powerful and
riveting. Bartolo's presentation was the first overtly affirmative
embrace I received in the Independence Movement -- it was an embrace
that took in my entire being, with all my hidden and closeted
complexities. In 1987, Bartolo flew to Puerto Rico to be one of our
representatives in a gathering of all the Puerto Rican Left that took
place on the campus of the University of Puerto Rico at Río
Piedras. There, he brought to the table the same challenge he issued
to us here in Chicago. That the Puerto Rican Left reject homophobia
and evolve. As a result of this, many (although not all) Puerto Rican
organizations went back to their members and drafted new, and more
inclusive platforms. It is only fair to include the role of the
anti-colonial White Left in this change. Bartolo and other Puerto
Rican lesbians and gay men arrived at their positions and their
commitments to struggle through dialogical encounters. No movement
and no thought exist in a vacuum -- -no movement is an island unto
itself. Progressive North American women and men articulated arguments
and issued challenges that were instrumental in the Puerto Rican
Independence Movement's initial steps toward its historic
anti-homophobic platform. Having said that, I also need to make clear,
in all fairness, that this was not a unidirectional process. The
Puerto Rican Movement was critical of the White Left's assumptions
and, at times, of its methods of interaction with us. And I believe
that this criticism led many people to reassess their assumptions and
postures -- postures that sometimes mirrored the old and entrenched
colonizer / colonized dynamic. I offer a personal anecdote. One that
goes back to my involvement with Vida/SIDA -- when that organization
was in its infancy.A little background information -- Vida/SIDA began
in the late 1980's as an alternative health clinic for people living
with HIV/AIDS in the Puerto Rican community. I believe it was 1990,
Mayor Daley appointed a Roman Catholic nun, Sister Sheila, to head the
City's Health Dept. ACT-UP took the correct position that someone who
represents an institution, such as the Catholic Church, whose official
platform condemns the use of condoms, should not direct a department
that must respond as well as be proactive to the AIDS pandemic, unless
of course that person were overtly a conscientious objector of her
institution's position. ACT-UP placed a call to Vida/SIDA and
requested our solidarity in an action slash press conference
denouncing the appointment of Sister Sheila. With the cautious
blessing of the Vida/SIDA collective, I volunteered to attend this
press conference. Once at the conference, I was directed to hold a
poster and stand in certain places -- usually, behind someone
speaking. As a political organization, ACT UP was quite efficient. It
made elegant political statements with dramatic flare. They groomed
members who were articulate, expert at delivering sound bytes, and
charismatic. These individuals would be thrown at the media. One would
look at this and be compelled to conclude their tactics were sound and
scientific. Science notwithstanding, their methodology, as I intimated
earlier, resembled the old colonizer/colonized relationship once the
other was among them. I, was not allowed to speak to the media. I was
invited to attend; I was encouraged to march, I was encouraged to
chant anti-Sheila slogans. When an ACT UP member was expressing to a
news crew that the demonstration was an expression of many
communities, including the African American and Puerto Rican
communities, I was pointed at. On cue, my face as well as the black
one beside me lit up. I became painfully aware of how it felt to be
seen as an object. I was reduced to a colorful backdrop in front of
which lesbian and gay North Americans performed for the world and
exercised their agency. The press conference grew more bizarre when a
news crew from the Spanish language press interviewed an Anglo
American struggling with his high school Spanish in an attempt to get
in his sound bytes. Frustrated, the reporter asked if there were any
Latinos she could speak with. I was signaled. She asked me, ¿Habla
español? I said, "Mejor que él?" She chuckled and we had a short
interview. After I had time to digest this and overcome my anger, I
spoke with Anglo ACT UP activists and made my criticism. They were
reflective and sad. The point is this. In an anti colonial struggle,
growth is not one-dimensional. The Puerto Rican Movement is blessed
with the solidarity of thoughtful and deeply committed North Americans
who have stood by us and struggled tirelessly. Reciprocally,
progressive, anti-imperialist North Americans have critically listened
to our criticisms and continue to struggle with their own postures and
assumptions. Nothing but good can come out of these ongoing
dialectics. Jumping to the present, I see many gay, lesbian,
bisexual, and transsexual faces among us. Homophobia has not
disappeared. It continues to rear its ugly head -- mostly in the guise
of humor. Few people today would dream of making bigoted and
derogatory statements about differing sexualities and life styles at
the Puerto Rican Cultural Center. This not so much because of fear,
but I believe truly from a sense of tolerance, reflection, and
analysis. On a less conscious level, however, there still is language
and humor, the sub text of which implies a less tolerant and (I like
to believe) a less evolved way of thinking. Examples I've heard
recently from members of the Cultural Center include ... Don't go to
that store; they'll fuck you up the ass. If this guy were man enough,
then he'd -- bla bla bla The less subtle, Fulano is a maricón!
Recently a friend joked ... What's the difference between Russia and
the US? They have Putin and we have Putón. The slam is on George
Bush, but the effect is achieved by calling him a big faggot! Gay
sexuality is no longer invisible at the Puerto Rican Cultural Center,
nor has it it been for a long time. We have gone from a low in the
80's when a teacher was slapped in the face at our alternative high
school for simply revealing he was a gay man to today when we have a
transsexual male to female teaching Spanish without so much as a roll
of an eye or a snicker. This is our most important achievement -- the
destruction of invisibility. Regardless of what a visitor might
think, she will be exposed to beautiful expressions of same sex
love. Men greeting each other with kisses and affectionate hugs, women
snuggling up and holding each other on long bus rides to
demonstrations, straight people asking their lesbian and gay comrades
how their lovers are doing ... all of these have become old hat. I
would love to see them more frequently, but at the very least they are
there; they are not invisible or marginalized. I believe our challenge
in building a progressive movement that is more tolerant and inclusive
of differing sexualities begins with being vigilant. We need to call
people out on their comments even if the intent of the comment was not
to be offensive -- sometimes these are the most insidious. An out
right "So and So is a faggot." sets off alarms and red flags in the
consciousness of a progressive mind. However, saying that "Someone who
showed courage had balls." or conversely, "Someone who lacked courage
was a pussy." A man who whined was "being a little bitch." ... these
can enter underneath our radar, undetected, and therefore go
unchallenged and dangerously assumed. In 1997, arguably one of the
most difficult periods for the Cultural Center, the FBI sponsored an
underground paper circulated throughout our community. This paper
lampooned different members of our community and our Center. Its
intent was to destabilize the leadership as well as the rank and file
by calling into question their sexualities and their sexual practices.
Everywhere, men and women were referred to as putas, bitches, --
maricones. The writers referred to themselves and other statehooders
as being virile, having large balls and being able to please women
while independentistas were effeminate, married to ugly women, and
sometimes sold their ass on the corner in order to get bus
fare. Language about sexuality is as old as language itself, and
sexual language that is oppressive is as old as patriarchy. It has
become part of our daily routine -- often without our being conscious
of it. Being vigilant of this, becoming analytical and critical of
the implications of our language and that of others, I argue, should
be among the principal points of our present struggle.
|
home about us campaigns & alerts resources calendar contact search