Is Being Gay A White, European Thing?

Photo: Wikimedia Commons

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


Ugandan parliament member David Bahati thinks so. The author of the East African country’s anti-gay bill told Harper’s contributing editor Jeff Sharlet that “‘If you come here [to Uganda], you’ll see homosexuals from Europe and America are luring our children into homosexuality by distributing cell phones and iPods and things like this,'” Sharlet recounts in an interview on yesterday’s “Fresh Air.” How iPods lead to same-sex relationships is beyond me save maybe constant replays of Katy Perry’s “I Kissed a Girl.” As Sharlet points out, it’s actually anti-gay hysteria that’s getting exported to Uganda, and the exporters are evangelicals from the US of A. An Advocate cover story penned by Sharlet sheds light on various anti-gay laws gaining traction throughout Africa, and the Americans that are funding them.  

But let’s go back to Bahati’s suggestion that Europeans and Americans are exporting homosexuality: It’s a claim I’ve heard before from some black people, my own family included. The rumor has it that being gay is a white inclination that’s seeped its way into the black experience via colonialization. It’s largely based on the misconception that gay people don’t exist in African history. And it’s comparable to the claims made by some conservatives that gay rights, specifically gay marriage, is a fad not rooted in “traditional values” or espoused by any society in history. Which is just plain false.

After some online sleuthing, I discovered a whole lot of gayness, and gay marriages, in various cultures around the world going back centuries. (I know, I know. Appealing to tradition is a weak way to prove a point, but it is educational and pretty darn fascinating). So from the Bronze Age in China, to the eunuchs of the Roman empire, and even to the cross-dressing mugawe in Kenya, here’s a brief (but handy) timeline: 

1st Century AD: Already married to a guy named Pythagoras, a lovelorn Nero publicly weds Sporus, a boy.

2nd Century: Roman emperor Elagabalus sends out a request for an out-of-town male athlete named Aurelius Zoticus, whom he later marries in a lavish ceremony.

342: The party is over. Christian Roman emperors Constantius II and Constans issue radical changes to marriage laws, barring same-sex unions and executing those who don’t comply.

1552: Francisco Lopez de Gomara reports in History of the Indies that men are marrying other men.

1569: Friar Gaspar de Cruz claims natural disasters in China are God’s punishment for its people’s acceptance of sodomy and same-sex marriages. (De Cruz calls this scene “a filthy abomination,” an annoyingly popular evangelical meme that’s still used today.) Turns out, homosexuality had been going on in China since the Bronze Age.

1576: History of the Province of Santa Cruz describes indigenous women in Brazil who follow the “berdache” tradition of mixing gender roles: “each has a woman to serve her, to whom she says she is married, and they treat each other and speak to each other as man and wife.” Male berdaches can also marry other men.

1600s: Poet Li Yu writes about same-sex marriage ceremonies in Fujian and southern China: “If he is a virgin, men are willing to pay a large bride-price.”

1937: Melville Herskovits, later the seminal author behind The Myth of the Negro Past, discovers that the Nuer society in Sudan recognizes woman-woman marriages, where an infertile woman divorces her husband, finds another woman to be her wife, and then finds a man to impregnate her wife. The wife’s kids consider the “female-husband” to be their father, a tradition that’s practiced by the Kikuyu and Nandi in Kenya, some Ibo and Yoruba in Nigeria, and dozens of other tribes.

1973: A British anthropologist discovers the mugawe—a religious leader of the Meru in Kenya—who cross dresses, is usually gay, and sometimes marries other men.

For more juicy info, check out this historian’s affidavit about the roots of gay marriage here (PDF).

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate