In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

Conclusion I have shown key ways by which the idea of a uniformly heterosexual African identity came into being, was debated and, while somewhat changed over time, still persists in major venues in the face of strong evidence against it. Originally it was European authors who sought to lump all of Africa together according to perceived or preconceived sexual practices and mores. They did so in often blatant language of racial prejudice, fear, or titillation—unspeakable tribal rituals, Black Peril, non-Sotadic zone, adult suckling, voodoo eros, and more. Often the sweeping generalizations were confidently asserted without the author ever having visited Africa, learning a language, or talking to more than a (male) missionary or colonial official or two. Indeed, they quite commonly were male missionaries and colonial officials and their intent was frequently hostile or proudly colonizing. The “African sexuality” that they asserted was central to their construction of an African, Native, or Bantu identity that justified a host of discriminatory laws, restrictions on mobility especially for African women, and racially segregated urban development. This African sexuality stood in stark contrast to and so helped define “European ,” “white,” “modern,” “civilized,” “respectable,” “assimilé,” “evolué,” and many of the other identities that colonial rule and apartheid privileged. Exceptions or eccentricities when noted at all were commonly explained by reference to other Others, such as the Arabs, further justifying supposedly paternalistic colonial protection. Despite such origins, elements of the idea of an African sexuality were picked up and adapted by people who were clearly sympathetic to African struggles against racism and colonialism. Henri Alexandre Junod, Max 160 You are reading copyrighted material published by Ohio University Press/Swallow Press. Unauthorized posting, copying, or distributing of this work except as permitted under U.S. copyright law is illegal and injures the author and publisher. Gluckman, and Wulf Sachs, for example, put in significant effort and personal, lifelong commitments to understanding the subtleties of African cultures, histories, and the social stresses in rapidly changing environments. Such men were joined from the 1920s by African intellectuals such as S. M. Molema, Alfred Nzula, and Jomo Kenyatta. Over the decades of struggle for political independence, many other prominent African authors in professional fields and literature promulgated their own visions of an African sexuality as a counterweight to the old racist ones. From Communists to Presbyterians and from chiefs to womanists, the common denominator was the elevation of heterosexuality to a defining characteristic of Africanness, often exemplified in terms of virility, fecundity, and an organic confidence in the naturalness of sharply distinct yet smoothly complementary gender identities and sexual roles. Sometimes this African sexuality was framed in “respectable” terms of Christian monogamy. Often, however, particularly in literary representations through the 1960s and ’70s, it asserted African men’s ostensible right or even obligation to multiple partners as a marker of mature masculinity. Homosexuality —rarely defined with any precision—emerged in the process as an insidious , corrupting antithesis of African identity, dignity, and independence. Claims about so-called African sexuality swelled in volume after a flurry of overstated interventions by Western scientists, demographers, and activists in the first flush of anxiety at the onset of HIV/AIDS in the mid-1980s. These interventions rarely questioned the consensus on homosexuality. However, they did stir controversy by pathologizing the multiple-partner aspect of African sexuality in ways that were strongly reminiscent of the old colonial discourse. This in turn produced a defensive reaction by many African leaders and intellectuals . With some notable and largely discredited exceptions (J. Caldwell , Rushton), the most vocal proponents of a distinctive African sexuality from the mid-1990s are now African politicians and theologians who emphasize what they regard as its positive or moral elements in comparison to corrupting Western influences. Prominent among these positives is the supposed absence of homosexuality. As most dramatically illustrated in the case of threatened schism of the African Anglican churches from the world Anglican congregation, and in Nigeria’s 2006 prohibition of same-sex marriage bill, the issue has revealed a striking harmony of opinion between secular, traditionalist , Christian, and Islamic leaders. Defense of this idea has also resulted in some extraordinarily strange intellectual bedfellows. Supporters of the samesex marriage prohibition bill reached as far back as Edward Gibbon, Richard Burton, and Jacobus X to justify their position, even as they excoriated the supposedly neocolonialist mentality of African intellectuals who favor human rights for sexual minorities.1 Conclusion w...

Share