Serve Buju Right!

I have been trying to hold my tongue on this one, even though everyone has been a-fire, or rather, a bun fyah fi di white bwai dem a ‘Merica whe’ decide fi tek set pan Buju an a cancel di óle a im concert dem.  A gwa’a seh sup’m bout dah campaign yah in a nex’ post.

Back row, L – R: Jonathan Mack, Bevan Dufty, Andrea Shorter, Eric Mar, Rebecca Rolfe, Tracii McGregor. Front row, Michael Petrelis and Buju Banton.)

But, I have been listening and reading and I cannot hear anybody in Ja. saying anything that hasn’t been said before.  Mostly, it’s the usual: dem fi lef Buju alone; im did sing di song ‘ow much year now, so why dem still a persecute ‘im. Dem gay people deh wa’an fi tell everybody whe’ fi do, an’ a  harass poor likkle Jamaica; dem w’aa tun wi country inna saddam an gomorrah, etc. etc. etc.

Even Bruce Golding ím a jump pan di case, ready fi tek di Charter of Rights whe’h dem politricksters fi pass fi ‘ow much year now, and tek it tun beatin’ tick ‘gainst gay an lesbian people.  Yuh evah ‘ear anyting guh so yet?  Instead a’ deh gi rights, im an’ an im combolloh dem w’aa fi use it fi mek sure seh gay an’ lesbian people kya’a nevah hupp’n wi mout’ an’ claim seh nobaddy a discriminate ‘gainst wi.  Ebery hadda country a create a bill of rights to protect its citizens. Fi wi Jamaica? No sah.  Fi wi Prime Minister a use it fi mek sure seh ím sheg up di smaddy dem whe’h ím nuh like.  Mi deh tell yuh seh mi nevah ‘ear nutt’n like dis so inna mi whole life.

But, mek mi jus’ seh whe’h mi come fi seh an done:

It serve Buju right seh dem people a America a shut dung im concert.

A ‘ow much year now im sing Boom Bye Bye? ‘ole éap.

A ów much year now im convert to Rasta? Nuff.

An nuh kyare ‘ow im a talk bout seh im n’aa sing BBB again and di “gay people dem” a fight ‘gainst ím fi no reason, im still nuh si seh if ‘im did fix im bizness a yaad im wud’n a ketch éll  a farrin.   Sake a ‘ow im a run dung farrin money, im nuh bizness bout im owna countryman dem whe’h im done declare war pan, an’ all gi di people dem war song fi sing an chant ‘gainst battyman an lesbian.   But, ketch ‘ow im run ga’an a di people dem country gaá push up imself, an’ wa’a dem fi pay im big money an promote im album, but a cuss babylon same time. Wha kin a foolishness dat?  Im nevah tink seh dem was gwa’a  lik out gains’ im?  An im di deh a gwa’an like seh im wa’a fi appease di white people dem dat im ga’an go siddung an tek pikcha wid dem.  Can yuh imagine:  im neva even badda fi w’aa deal wid im owna country people dem, but when di white people dem seh jump, in respond.  Im can now seh im did meet with a “gay rights group” for the first time.  What a shame, after all these years.   To mi, a money im a look.

Rasta a run dung money, while im bizness a ya’ad a spwile.

A dat mek mi stop an’ a considda.

Dis man a call ‘mself Rasta, and a chat bout ów im love black people and jah an all ki’n a ting.  But, yuh tink im did evah tink seh fi ím owna black people dem worth the time an’ effort fi siddung an reason ’bout how ‘im politics a cause people real pain?  No, cause we nuh important enough.  We nuh good enough.  Since wi n’aa put in nor tek money outta im pocket, im nuh bizness bout wi.  Wi a chichi whe’h fi im BBB spray shoulda tek care a long long time, nuh so?

Yes, mi a watch ‘ow di ting a go an mi really nuh like ów im a move a-tall tall.   Buju bizness more ’bout wha’ merican people dem affi seh dan bout wha’ fi im owna bredda an sistah dem a suffah a ya’ad.   A now mi really lose áffa im.

Mi tink seh im did ‘ave whole éap a time when im coulda seh sup’m like: im ‘ave fi im owna views pon homosexuality, yes, but im also a consider bout ów im music a affeck people and a perpetrate violence ‘gainst people, and im kyaa stan’ fi dat.  ‘Im coudda seh dat people fi ‘low adda people fi live dem life, an lef’ dem alone.  If a sup’m whe’h people feel seh it wrong, mek di law an’ Jah tek care a’ it.  And since ím a sing bout love and peace an what not, ‘im fi seh altho’ a fi’ im song, it did write at a time when im did young (im already seh dis anyway) an’ im n’aa ta’ak dem deh way again.  A strickly livity now.  But anno so im a seh.   An nuh kyare whe’ Mutabaruka wa’n fi seh, Buju still deh pan di war path; im just a change up im tactics, yuh nuh s’it?   A dat mi a seh.  So, yuh si di day when Buju can siddung an look inna one a fi im Jamaican bredda an sistah dem face an’ seh mek wi reason an’ si whe’h wi reach, when im can tink seh wi worth di time an’ effort fi come a meetin’ an come bump fist wid wi?   A ‘den mi wi rate im as a man, and as a Jamaican.  Buju need fi come karrec’!

But, since ím nuh tink wi worth nutt’n, mi kyaa’ defen’ im a raas.  Mi kya’ a sorry fi im none a tall.  So, mek im gwa’an suffa’h.  Mek im talk bout dem a persecute ím.  Im fi rememba seh when im a dig ‘ole fi smaddy else, im fi dig one fi imself tuh.  Is disrespect upon disrespect, an mi dun wid im.

An nuh badda tink seh dat easy fi mi fi seh.

All dem yah year whe’h pass an people a cuss an boycott Buju, mi still inna in corner.  Mi a seh, ‘low di man nuh! Yes, im did wrong wid di song an all wha’ im get caught up inna, but di ‘ole time mi a seh mek im tek im time an come roun’.  Gi’ im some space.  It come in like seh mi tek Buju like im is a bredda to mi, and mi gi’ im nuff chance.  Di óle time mi a seh to miself -  mi know seh mi an im nuh affi share the same views pon some tings, but wi share views pon nuff odda tings.  An’ mi a tink seh, jus’ like ów mi anno no Rasta an yet mi woudda march and chant and demand seh Rasta get di same rights as all we odda Jamaicans, mi deh expeck im fi do di same ting fi mi.  Just cause a some a di tings whe’h im a seh.   Anno im bring mi come pon dis yah earth, an im nuh suppose fi deh do nutt’n whe’h fi shorten fi mi days.  But it look like she Buju can’t even reach di point whe’h im can recognize seh people like mi a human being tuh.  An’ ím have whole heap a time fi consider and come up with a mature perspective.  Im nuh 18 years old again.   But, mi deh fi’n seh im tun ventriloquist now.  Ím nuh sing di BBB song all di time.  But wha’ im a do? Im jus’ a siddung an a cry victim, an a mek adda people a bun fyah an what not while im a look clean and Rasta-righteous.  Cause a di concert money dem im want.  A di stage show an di whole ‘eap a travel up an dung im want.  Mi nuh rate dat a tall.  Im a work ‘gainst mi, while mi deh work pon fi im behalf.  An nutt’n can go so.

Mi fi’n seh im nuh wa’a fi acknowledge what kind of impact ‘im áve pon Jamaican people psyche.  Is a helluva ting dat fi sing a song, an den people a tek it up as not only anthem, but as a statement of truth and affirmation that they can use to beat up other citizens.   No matter wha’ did mek ím sing di song inna di fus’ place, nuh matter what ím intentions, nuh matter that ‘im cannot control how people use ím work.  Im a a notice di effeck whe’h it a have, and im shoulda look inna imself an know seh im affi tek some responsibility fi di climate yuh a élp create.  But Buju can’t do that.

So yes, mi dun wid Buju.

On The Outcome of this Year’s Skin Parade

I sent a version of this to the Gleaner; I doubt they will publish it.

While I may be one of the few Jamaicans who do not care for the annual Miss Jamaica skin parades ie. “beauty pageants”, I find some of the criticisms about this year’s selection rather disingenuous and void of basic historical perspective.  To suggest that a light-skinned woman is not authentically Jamaican – ie. is a foreigner – and therefore should not even be in competition with or selected over a dark-skinned (more authentic?) Jamaican woman makes absolutely no sense.   While I agree with the basic critique concerning the everlasting lightness (with a few dark ones sprinkled in between) of the beauty queens, and agree that the judges’ choice reflects a pervasive racist notion that is rubbed in our face in an expensive and public way each year ie. that the closer one is to European-ness, the more beautiful one is considered.  However, I want to deal with the “authentic vs. foreigner” issue which keeps coming up – “she look like a foreigner” – because I think this way of framing a legitimate issue is historically and socially inaccurate, really disrespectful and utterly divisive.

The ancestors of those of us of darker African phenotype came to these shores often on the same boats as many of those European traders, sailors, etc. who are the ancestors of many Jamaicans, including Kerrie Baylis. Their histories are intertwined with ours in a complicated, sometimes exploitative and violent way, but too often, the cultural nationalist impulse to brand Jamaica as “Black” allows us to choose to ignore or forget these details, and to call them “foreigners”.

True, far too many of the brown elite will happily retrace their history to the 16th and 17th centuries when their forebears came as traders, merchants, bankers, etc. to these shores, and carefully ignore the role those foreparents played in chattel slavery, indentureship and colonization.

And it is true that many of the brown elite do treat this country as if it is their playground and black Jamaicans their natural servants, all the while claiming Jamaican-ness while distancing themselves socially and culturally from those of us who are of African descent and phenotype.

However, it is a mark of the Jamaican-ness of this same light-skinned elite that they can be such a fixture in these beauty contests for decades, since the “Ten Types – One People” beauty contest was launched in 1955!

That *particular* women have been regarded as the icons of Jamaican beauty is hardly an accident, but one that is carefully structured into and replicated in our everyday lives.   Indeed, our willful acceptance (and sometimes defense) of social hierarchies based on colour and class certainly helps us perpetuate what many are now railing against with the latest MJW decision.  Just think about this the next time one accepts that the light-skinned woman\’s needs MUST be more important than yours when she talks over your head and gets service before you who has been waiting to be acknowledged in a respectful way.  Many black Jamaicans have been very invested in the notion of brown women as somehow more desirable; those of us who can have altered our bodies to ally with this racist notion; others of us have resisted this idea by championing “black is beautiful.”  But all of us are intimately aware that these ideas are built into the beauty contest.

What is of issue here – and which is not being addressed – is not whether or not light-skinned women should even be in the contest.   I don’t think there should be a mandate – which is what many people are suggesting – that the Miss Jamaica contests should be reserved for dark-skinned women, or that light skinned women should never win.  I certainly don’t see how a parade of dark-skinned women would be a more just version, or would make me feel like the winner was a more “authentic” representation of Jamaica.

But I do think that if they are going to keep this ridiculous contest going, the judges etc. ought to raise the bar quite a bit so that is not just light skin and rich relatives that will determine the outcome. They ought to know something (besides what they read in Wikipedia or the Gleaner) and stand for something (besides world peace and saving the children).

Frankly, it is quite frightening that the worth of young women is often assessed based on whether or not she “looks” like she could win a beauty contest or be a model.  In this day and age, shouldn’t we be encouraging young women (of all hues) to ascribe more value to themselves than to specialize in “pageantry and aesthetics” i.e. parading up and down in bathing suits and expensive gowns before gawking audiences in a completely biased and ethically compromised beauty contest? Where’s the beauty in that experience? Can there really be a winner in this situation?  I don’t watch or listen to these beauty contests because I believe that they consistently lower the standards by which girls/women are measured and measure themselves.   I don’t want my daughter or any other girl child I know to aspire to be some man’s shoulder candy and to be applauded for making a basic statement that everyone already knows to be true.  That’s humiliating and I won’t support it.

I also wonder whether we have the courage to publicly acknowledge the social handicap that darker-hued women have had since the beginning, and to even call for an end the farce of the “beauty pageant” once and for all.  Indeed, it is only when this competition gains some integrity and moves beyond being the skin parade that it is, that it will be less of lightning rod when it comes to dealing with the entrenched antipathies about Blackness in  Jamaica, as reflected in this particular cultural event.

Until these shifts in our thinking take place, many dark-skinned Jamaicans will continue to feel that history has been vindicated when a Black woman wins the competition, and denigrated when a light-skinned woman – who can only be distinguished from a “foreign” European woman by the “place of birth” on her or her parents’ birth certificate – wins. And in a way, they will be right.

Thou dost protest too much

So, I was just reading today’s paper online, and I came across the headline “Hydel University Opens Its Doors.” I kiss my teeth.  Whe’h dem come wid university from now? Everybody getting into this business of education these days – starting a school and a church in this country guarantees a nice income from people desperate to be saved  – even and especially when they are members of the legislature.  I am reading the article and saying to myself, is how BG just up inna di ting so, making all kinds of pronouncements and talking as if Jesus Christ himself had come down and told him he wanted to host the next Last Supper in St. Catherine.  Does the PM, his wife and the Min of Ed. go to every university opening? Well, maybe the Min. of Ed.  Then I paused. Wait deh likkle bit!  Thought again, reached into my memory, called up google, and there it was:

The story that broke in November 2008 is that Hyacinth Bennett, a current senator and longtime friend and political ally of Bruce Golding’s, had somehow managed to get the government agency UDC to buy the property that her private school was located on, and to lease it back to her at less than market value.

When the Gleaner reported the story and suggesting that there was some impropriety in the deal, Bennett cried foul and Golding said, Oh, we always had plans for that property. Of course.

The Observer story had a PNP person saying that he thought that even the shady UDC wasn’t totally on board with it. Why? Probably because they wouldn’t make any money from this deal. As revealed in the July 2009 story in Sunday Herald, this “sweetheart deal” arrangement included all kinds of oddities, such as: tying HYDEL’s rent to the amount of tuition collected from students each semester. That’s like having the bank determine how much your rent/mortgage will be based on how much money you made this past month, not including your pardner draw or Western Union remittances. Very generous arrangement indeed.

So, reading today’s story, all I can think is, how these people brazen wid dem corruption so??? Dem really tek wi fi heediyat bwai.

Back in November 2008, The PM went on record to defend the school with more speculation and fear-mongering than fact.   But, to hear him at this event, it is very clear that he has had inside knowledge about Hyacinth’s plans for the expansion of the school.  His comments demonstrate that he has thought about what impact he wants it to have, and clearly intends to direct government monies and resources to support the expansion of this particular institution in the future.  Apparently, he sees this as a model school.  First mi hearing bout this revelation.  So, anybody who want to do something similar, the UDC will give them a sweetheart deal too, right? Ring your bell first.

This is all happening at the same time that Min of Ed. Holness has announced that there is not sufficient monies to build additional public (primary and secondary) school facilities that he promised – and which he probably shouldn’t have anyway – and clearly didn’t realize that the “new” schools coming onboard were not going to be public schools, but a private one run by a fellow labourite who’s real chummy with your boss.  I guess Holness wasn’t on board with diversion of monies to the HYDEL plan?  What a slap in the face.  So, who exactly is guilty of “political mischief” here, you tell me.

All I want to know is this:
$ If the country is so broke an no money n’aaa run, how could this deal with Hydel have been made in anything but shady circumstances?

$$ Given that even a blind, stupid person could recognize the conflicts of interest at all levels of this deal, why has the PM never been asked to explain these obvious ethical violations?

$$$  If the IMF deal requires that line items be cut from the budget, then shouldn’t a private school be expected to pull it’s own weight, including paying it’s own rent? (In case you missed it, the Golding administration is SUBSIDIZING the operations of the privately owned Hydel Schools and thus draining money on an entity that was not budgeted for). How can they even justify this to even the most hard of hearing person? Since when is paying the rent for a private institution a necessary expenditure, but building public schools is not?

$$$$  What are the legal provisions that govern how legislators and government officials participate in the private sector while they are in office? What are the rules governing how they can use their influence as well as access to information to maximize their own personal fortune? Was there not a big stink with Donald Wehby of GraceKennedy about his role in the corporation while also serving as a senator? So why has Hyacinth Bennett been allowed to use her time, status and access as a senator to build and advocate for her private corporation from which she draws a hefty paycheck?  Has she been living out the Caribbean dream i.e. securing a gov’t position so that she can use the gov’t's resources to do her real job?

$$$$$  Are the HYDEL even accredited? By who? How do we know that there is anything of quality and substance going on in there in the first place? Just because you call a place a school and a university does not mean that it behaves like one.  How do we know this is not just another setup to hoodwink innocent people who think that an education is what will get them up the ladder, when in practice they paying to have a textbook read to them? Where are the procedures and documents to attest to the credibility of this place as an institution of higher education?

$$$$$$  Where the hell is Greg Christie? Or has he been told to stay out of this – “not his jurisdiction”?

Well, if he can’t ask questions, I sure can.

Breaking the fast

Thanks for sticking around and wondering where I’ve been.  My ears have been burning.

I didn’t intend to be gone for so long.  Actually, I didn’t intend to be gone at all.

But “later” turned into “soon come” turned into “kyaa badda” turned into “but wait deh likkle!” and then I started to feel bad.

Really bad.

Especially when I got emails asking me which part mi deh and when mi coming back.  So thanks for that.

Sorry about the prolonged absence.

Won’t happen again.

Destroying What We Don’t Understand

That lizard story from yesterday really bothered me.  See the letter I penned below.

P.S. Here is the published version of the letter.

Dear Editor:

What is joke to you is death to me.  I suppose this might be what the lizard would think, if we were able to deduce the animal’s state of mind while it was under direct attack: by stones, slingshots, and physical pursuit.

I read Robert Lalah’s article with a feeling of bemusement and sadness, much like my response to the episode with the snake on the wharf several months ago. In this case, we have several adult men who have set aside whatever it was that they were doing to single-mindedly search out and attempt to destroy a creature that they share a habitat with.

And many will greet this account as a joke – the hijinks of groups of men – while upholding the core aspect of story – that they were entirely right to be trying to kill this creature.

The fact of the matter is, this kind of irrational fear of reptiles is cultivated and reproduced in our society in ways that are disastrous for everyone.  Our educational and cultural institutions have done absolutely nothing to dispel these ridiculous ideas of reptiles as “nasty” and fearsome creatures.  And so children – and as we see – adults have come to learn that it is entirely acceptable to engage in killing sprees of snakes, alligators, snails, lizards, frogs, etc.

That a lizard of that size exists in that particular place is a good thing, and tells us something about what it takes to sustain populations of indigenous wildlife.  Persons interested in preservation of wildlife habitats in Jamaica should immediately follow up on this story. The irony of course, is that people do come to Jamaica all the time to study these creatures, and end up creating knowledge that we didn’t even know was in our backyard, because we have been so busy ridiculing and exterminating them.

We have yet to learn and internalize that all of these creatures are essential to managing our environment. They eat the mosquitoes, flies, and other pests that would otherwise feed on us and on the plant life that we treasure.  The absence of these creatures actually makes our lives more unpleasant. I came to this understanding in a really visceral way by experiencing the garden of someone who lives in Kingston, and who takes great pains to collect lizards from all over the country.  Why? Because their active presence around means that he doesn’t have to use pesticides on his plants or to deter mosquitoes away from his guests.  The evidence is in the lushness and comfort of his garden, which is admired – lizards and all – and envied by all who visit.

But these men did not know these things, and come across in this story as ignorant buffoons or cruel, childish pranksters.  I also suspect that Robert Lalah did not share any alternative perspective with them.

When I consider how much effort we put into destroying what we don’t understand – whether its people or lizards – I do wonder how much longer we can sustain these levels of ignorance and mistreatment, before we begin to see empathy, fairness and valuing our natural environment as endangered traits.  We can and should turn this around. And we can start with leaving the lizards alone.

The Art of Cell Knowledge

Caught on Tape: HIV Infecting T-Cells

I’m Having a Pat Parker Moment

I am posting two poems from the work of one of my favourite poets, Pat Parker. These are taken from her anthology Movement in Black. I “met” Pat during my early college days, and then met her all over again when I was involved in a relationship with a woman who thought Pat walked on water.  While she has made significant contributions to African American lgbt community and culture  – at least one community centre is named after her – I have a feeling few people under 30 know of her.  To say Pat’s words lit a fire under me is to state the obvious.   I was reflecting on an email conversation I have been involved in about the importance of building solidarity and creating meaningful alliances etc.,  and her words came to me in the midst of my response to one person.   I reproduce the poems here, entirely without permission, because I think it’s better to read them than not to.  While the referents are undoubtedly U.S.-centred, I do think that she provokes serious thought about the problems of complicity – “going with the flow” – and silence, as well as why having integrity and speaking up for what is right and just really do matter.

I. FOR THE STRAIGHT FOLKS WHO DON’T MIND GAYS BUT WISH THEY WEREN’T SO BLATANT

You know, some people got a lot of nerve.
Sometimes I don’t believe the things I see and hear.

Have you met the woman who’s shocked by two women kissing

and in the same breath, tells you she is pregnant?
BUT gays, shouldn’t be so blatant.

Or this straight couple sits next to you in a movie and you can’t hear the dialogue because of the sound effects.
BUT gays shouldn’t be so blatant.

And the woman in your office spends and entire lunch hour talking about her new bikini drawers and how much
her husband likes them.
BUT gays shouldn’t be so blatant.

Or the “hip” chick in your class rattling like a mile a minute while you’re trying to get stoned in the john,
about the camping trip she took with her musician boyfriend.
BUT gays shouldn’t be so blatant.

You go in a public bathroom and all over the walls there’s John loves Mary, Janice digs Richard, Pepe loves Delores, etc., etc.
BUT gays shouldn’t be so blatant.

Or your go to an amusement park and there’s a tunnel of love and pictures of straights painted on the front and grinning couples are coming in and out.
BUT gays shouldn’t be so blatant.

Fact is, blatant heterosexuals are all over the place.
Supermarkets, movies, on your job, in church, in books, on television every day day and night, every place-even- in gay bars and they want gay
men and woman to go and hide in the closet.

So to you straight folks I say, “Sure, I’ll go if you go too”
BUT I’m polite so, after you.

II.  Where Will You Be?

Boots are being polished
Trumpeters clean their horns
Chains and locks forged
The crusade has begun.

Once again flags of Christ
are unfurled in the dawn
and cries of soul saviors
sing apocalyptic on air waves.

Citizens, good citizens all
parade into voting booths
and in self-righteous sanctity
X away our right to life.

I do not believe as some
that the vote is an end,
I fear even more
It is just a beginning.

So I must make assessment
Look to you and ask:
Where will you be
when they come?

They will not come
in a mob rolling
through the streets,
but quickly and quietly
move into our homes
and remove the evil,
the queerness,
the faggotry,
the perverseness
from their midst.

They will not come
clothed in brown,
and swastikas, or
bearing chest heavy with
gleaming crosses.
The time and need
for ruses are over.

They will come
in business suits
to buy your homes
and bring bodies to
fill your jobs.

They will come in robes
to rehabilitate
and white coats
to subjugate
and where will you be
when they come?

Where will we *all be*
when they come?
And they will come –

they will come
because we are
defined as opposite –
perverse
and we are perverse.

Every time we watched
a queer hassled in the
streets and said nothing –
It was an act of perversion.

Everytime we lied about
the boyfriend or girlfriend
at coffee break –
It was an act of perversion.

Everytime we heard,
“I don’t mind gays
but why must they
be blatant?” and said nothing –
It was an act of perversion.

Everytime we let a lesbian mother
lose her child and did not fill
the courtroom –
It was an act of perversion.

Everytime we let straights
make out in our bars while
we couldn’t touch because
of laws –
It was an act of perversion.

Everytime we put on the proper
clothes to go to a family
wedding and left our lovers
at home –
It was an act of perversion.

Everytime we heard
“Who I go to bed with
is my personal choice –
It’s personal not political”
and said nothing –
It was an act of perversion.

Everytime we let straight relatives
bury our dead and push our
lovers away –
It was an act of perversion.

And they will come.
They will come for
the perverts

& it won’t matter
if you’re
homosexual, not a faggot
lesbian, not a dyke
gay, not queer
It won’t matter
if you
own your business
have a good job
or are on S.S.I.
It won’t matter
if you’re
Black
Chicano
Native American
Asian
or White
It won’t matter
if you’re from
New York
or Los Angeles
Galveston
or Sioux Falls
It won’t matter
if you’re
Butch, or Fem
Not into roles
Monogamous
Non Monogamous
It won’t matter
if you’re
Catholic
Baptist
Atheist
Jewish
or M.C.C.

They will come
They will come
to the cities
and to the land
to your front rooms
and in *your* closets.

They will come for
the perverts
and where will
you be
When they come?

BLAKKA’S BOX: WHY IS ‘FUNNY’ SO FUNNY?

Commentary by Owen ‘Blakka’ Ellis.  Originally printed in The Jamaica Star. Republished with permission.

Caribbean people are very funny. We’re funny as in humorous, amusing, comical and witty. We are also funny in another kind of way. And here I mean funny as in odd, weird or peculiar. There’s also a third kind of ‘funny’.

Gay men, especially in Jamaica are often euphemistically referred to as ‘funny’, and I find our attitude to that kind of ‘funny’ to be sometimes funny, on one hand, while being confusing and contradictory on the other hand.  In Jamaica, a man who acts ‘funny’ onstage is a guaranteed commercial hit every time. But a man who’s genuinely gay off-stage lives with the risk of being literally and physically hit at anytime. And that’s not so funny.

But funny also sells.

In Jamaica, there’s an increase in the number of comedy promoters. There were eight major comedy shows in Trinidad & Tobago over the last two weeks. I performed on three and I saw the ads for the other five. As a Jamaican, one of the interesting features of Trinidadian comedy shows for me is the number of acts that employ cross-dressing men or men playing gay characters.  I find especially funny how the audiences find them funny. A man comes on-stage in neon coloured wig, skimpy bikini and bra, and the crowd goes wild. Chairs turn over, people run up and down and ‘buss blanks’ and di place nuh good again.

Two such acts appeared on the same events I did.  One was a man playing a woman giving tips and sharing recipes for women who want to learn to fix foods to keep a man tied. The other was a drag-queen-comic protesting the promoter’s decision to shorten his act when his motto, philosophy and mantra can be summed up in four words, “want it long!”

People loved it.

The thousands of people at Jean Pierre Complex, and Guaracara Park in Trinidad, as well as an unbelievably massive throng at Dwight Yorke Stadium in Tobago threw big cheers, applause and adoration at those performers. I couldn’t help thinking that if they were in Jamaica, the audiences would probably respond with not cheers, but chairs, tables, stones and other missiles.  But that’s not necessarily true.

You see homophobia’s very funny- and selective. Gay men are tolerated if they have the right connections, or they work in stereotypical spheres like cosmetology or choreography, and they are adored and celebrated if they consent implicitly to be perpetually framed as comic relief.  In fact, based on current official logic, it’s OK to be gay and acceptable for gay people to form groups as long as they don’t try screechie into Mr Golding’s cabinet, insert themselves into the police force or own guns.

But I wonder if we realise that technically there is no law in Jamaica that says it is illegal to be a homosexual. What’s illegal is buggery. And buggery means anal sex (whether it’s with man or woman!) Funny eeh?

Funniest part of the scenario for me is Ernest Smith the MP. He righteously condemns buggery in Parliament, but as a lawyer he has to earn his money yu see. So, based on what I read in the papers, here’s how it look to me. A noble lawyer, who’s a Smith, stands before an honourable judge, who’s a Pusey, and makes a plea in mitigation on behalf of a man who pleads guilty to buggery! Funny eeh? Well at least it’s funny to me.

Imagine if the government made JFLAG illegal. They could then become his clients and earn him some real funny money. Trust me, he might not be anywhere near as hilarious as ‘Bashment Granny’, but I think the South West, St Ann Member of Parliament is very, very funny.

What you think? box-mi-back@hotmail.com.

Safety and Negligence

Now, you send your child to school and the next thing you know is that police coming to your yard to tell you that your child is dead? And the child is not dead because of a stray bullet or some odda pickney stab them, but because some unthinking principal allows a big, heavy piece of furniture to be stored in in the schoolyard where young children play. Said principal also decides that it is ok to leave it there, because where else can they put it? There is no consideration of the fact that big pieces of furniture pose a serious risk for small children. Well, they know now, at somebody’s expense.

This was not an “unfortunate accident” and it is unconscionable to treat it as such. The death of this child is a clear example of negligence and the principal and whichever teacher was supposed to be supervising the children should be arrested, charged and fined for negligence!! And they should lose their licenses, too!

The parents of the children at the school need to get together and sue the Ministry of Education for not providing adequate safety guidelines for schools to follow, and sue the principal for endangering the lives of their children. That will teach the Ministry and di principal an teacha dem deh fi pay more attention to these issues!

I am completely enraged by this situation, especially since it is highly unlikely that community leaders in the area will step in and advocate on behalf of the parents who have a right to demand that the schools are safe for their children. Can you imagine how many other safety violations are in these schools and nobody is paying attention??

The Right Hand and the Left Hand

Let’s see:

The latest is that our esteemed PM still insists that “we” (must be the royal ‘we’, because he doesn’t speak for myself or many people that I know) are not going to yield to pressure” from “the most organized lobby in the world” to “liberalize”(what the hell does that mean anyway??) unjust laws which overly scrutinize and punish some men for engaging in consensual sexual practices with each other while allowing other men to fuck whichever women or girls and under whatever conditions they want. BG is still confusing and conflating legislation (ie. the structured framework within which the citizens act that designates “legal” and “illegal” behaviours) with morality (ie. notions of ideal codes of conduct that individuals use to define their actions). Maybe someone should tell him that not every behaviour that is designated as “legal” is necessarily “right”, and that law ought not to be used as a weapon against people you personally dislike. But, I digress…

Mi really starting to wanda a wha mek im fraid a homosexuality so? It does seem like BG is starting to develop some aptitude for nuance, in shying away from overt policing behaviour in private – or he’s leaving that to vigilante groups rather than the police – and bearing down on the side of punishing men who engage in sexual violence against other men. In this case, he wants to make special provisions to punish men who sexually assault other men or boys even further. I bet im nuh mek no special provision fi di “sexual grooming” or “sexual harassment” what deh gwa’an right inna fi’im backyard? Just mek sure seh your judge dem know seh demi fi treat rape against girls/women with the SAME seriousness as rape against men/boys, yuh ear mi, sah? If we need to take it to that level, then raping women should ALSO be a crime against the nation, dammit. Men are not more socially valuable than women, and we should not accept any legislation that enshrines this notion in any way.

At the same time, said BG has authorized much money to be spent on shoring up the bangbelly tourism industry, whose doyennes have identified the next big moneymaker market as – you guessed it – gay and lesbian tourism. No shit. So, either BG does not know that interest in this marketing strategy has been gathering steam for a couple years now in his own backyard independent of what he’s defending as “culture” (another post on that to come), or he simply does not understand that many in his government do not see any problem with taking the “pink dollar” from foreign hands, at the same time that he is saying that the battered, bloodied and dead bodies, which are inevitable as long as he chooses to defend this irresponsible double standard, are his business, not their’s. Frankly, it seems to me that the left hand is trying to force the right hand to soften its grip, and might well be succeeding, finger by finger. If BG continues with this ridiculous tirade and chanting against homosexual sex, he is going to be caught in a tight corner with his pants down, and it’s not going to be pleasant to watch. Somebody also needs to point out that he, like Ernie Smith, is riding this one for popular points, and he is starting to look just as foolish.

By the way, it’s well past time for you well-meaning heterosexuals to speak up and challenge this man. Here you have your Prime Minister using very strong language to suggest that HE is not going to listen to anybody – inside or outside – who disagrees with him on this issue. In fact, he has taken it on himself to decide what is “right” and “wrong” for Jamaicans. Imagine that! I didn’t know that’s what the PM was elected to do, maybe I should go back and do O-Level Civics to remind myself. Apparently, all a wi a gyingi fly whe’ im kyaa just swat whe’ when im ready. Again, a very telling response. Im is blasted out a order! If him can decide seh im n’ aa listen pon dis issue, yuh nuh tink seh a so im a go deal with wi pon every odda issue to? Now, with an attitude and example like this, why should the other legislators have any respect for citizens’ concerns, or feel that they are beholden to the citizens and not just to themselves and whateva fly up inna dem éad? He insists on framing this issue as being about “giving in” to the Enemy. Since when are gays and lesbians “the enemy”? Oh sorry, I forgot about the last 16 years. I just want to know if he really thinks that he is saying anything different from his buddy-ol’ pal Ernie? It’s clear to me that BG really doesn’t get that the best thing he can possibly do on this issue is to position himself as a reasonable man who is willing to listen and engage in a manner that his fellow citizens can learn from, whether or not he decides to change his mind. Somebody should really tell him. In all these ways, he is just like George Bush II. In fact, BG seems to be taking up where GB left off (a palindrome of sorts). Let’s just say BG is not my idea model for a good statesman or progressive national leader, and leave it at that for now.