Dr. Matembe Part II: A “Discussion” on Homosexuality

Recently, Uganda has found its way back into the world news headlines. After decades of commendable development success and leading the fights against AIDS in Africa with brilliant strides immediately following a tumultuous period of fear and destruction under Idi Amin, Uganda appears to be backtracking. AIDs is on the rise again, schools are failing, and now a new bill has been introduced which would codify discrimination.

But is Uganda taking steps backward or merely displaying precisely where it stands in the “development” process?

Prompted by a question posed by one of the SIT students, Dr. Matembe explained her own double-standard when it comes to discriminating against homosexuals and bisexuals (she didn’t even know where to start on Transgendered, transsexuals, queer, and any other new letters that have been added to GLBTTQ). Ultimately, she summed up her position and the position of most Ugandans to the fact that they do not properly understand alternate forms of sexuality. Because of her strong stance on gender equality, Dr. Matembe has been approached by people of the GLBTTQ community for support. Where I fully sympathized with her argument was in her explanation that no one has been able to explain the situation in a satisfactory way. She said that people need to come, not saying that Ugandans are wrong and backwards, but that they need to approach the issue from a culturally and historically sensitive perspective.

Uganda has changed quite a lot in the past, almost 50 years of independence. Yet the severe marginalization of women in this society alone should be an indicator to Americans that perhaps Uganda just is not ready to fully except such obscure ideas as homosexuality. Is the United States, supposedly one of the most “developed” and progressive countries in the world, not also grappling with the issue of homosexuality?

A New York Times article came out about a week before I left for Uganda, which traced the new-found fervor against homosexuality back to a few Evangelical Christians from the U.S. They came to Uganda spewing the typical propaganda that “homosexuality is an attack against the family,” and that “homosexuals will come into your schools and convert your children.” (not direct quotes) Dr. Matembe recited some of these slogans in order for us to know what the current, popular understanding of homosexuality in Uganda is. What these evangelicals didn’t understand is the culture of Uganda. Here, the family is everything. Family is above the individual, above the state and everything else except God. When something is said to be an “attack against the family,” supported by Bible verses (perverted and decontextualized though they may be), Ugandans will not respond merely by boycotting Spongebob. It is no wonder that it was so easy to drum up enough fervor to want such a “threat” abolished.

Yet most Ugandans I have heard from are not in favor of this bill. Mostly, the consensus seems to be that this is not an issue that parliament should be spending time on. First and foremost, there are already so many things that need attention: schools, roads, and healthcare. Secondly, this is an issue which is better dealt with inside the home. and Thirdly, the issue of homosexuality is so small and obscure in Uganda that there is no need to spend any thought, time or effort on such an irrelevant bill.

Though I am not sure I agree with the last reasoning, it is interesting, and in a way comforting, to hear such ambivalence toward the bill, especially when it has been so hyped up on the global stage.

Unfortunately, Dr. Matembe’s response got rather personal and strayed from merely giving a cultural and contextual perspective of the Ugandans to giving her own personal opinion of homosexuality. It’s an argument I’ve heard dozens of times before, complete with the verse from Leviticus, (which also houses rules against eating shellfish), and adamant swearing of loving the person and just wanting them to be “normal.” Hearing these horribly misguided arguments always gets my heart pounding and my fist a’clinching. I probably gained about 12 grey hairs, but I kept my mouth shut. Why?! Why would I stay silent when a woman of power and influence who claims to be a follower of the god of mercy and compassion uses a book about love in order to validate her ignorant discrimination? Because it was neither the time nor the place.

However, some of my colleagues did not think the same way as I. With a few impassioned remarks from the students and poorly guided prompts from Dr. Matembe, the conversation turned into an attack of the speaker’s personal ideals and views. This is what I mean by not the time nor place. The place was an academic setting in which a speaker came to discuss the gender issue in Uganda. The time was shortly after she had explained what the issues are surrounding the homosexuality bill; too soon for us to be able to address the many faults and failings of her argument in a way that would be calm, controlled, situationally sensitive, and most of all, productive. When it comes to homosexuality, the issue in the United States is political and religious. When the same debate occurs in Uganda, between American and a Ugandan, it is tricky to see that we are not just dealing with a mere problem of misinterpreting the Bible and not understanding that homosexuality is not a choice. These two problems continue to create hurdles in the fight for gay rights in the U.S., so now add in a completely different culture which we have only started to understand these past 3 weeks.

As students studying abroad, we are meant to enter another culture with patience and understanding; to take a step back from issues in order to view them in a more neutral and anthropological stance. This is why I was ashamed by my colleagues who instead turned the situation, into an absurdly uneven and nonacademic debate. My goal was to learn as much as I could from the speaker about the issue, use my own time and further conversations and research to understand more fully the situation. That knowledge then could be used to form a more solid stance on which the argument against this bill can be made. And considering the bill to criminalize homosexuality is fast approaching, this is a far more important and pertinent debate which needs to happen before anyone can even begin to explain why homosexuals deserve every right and freedom as heterosexuals. From what I could tell, the students who turned against the speaker had no goal except to feel a sense of justice from telling one woman that she is wrong; not convincing, not changing anything, just letting the room know that his/her view on homosexuality is precisely what everyone, including Dr. Matembe, suspected.

So there we were at square one: Americans who have come to Africa not to explain, not to teach and develop, but to tell Africans that their thoughts and understandings are wrong, without providing any sufficient or sustainable alternative. Well done...