Recall that at Ahmadinejad's recent speech at Columbia, he responded to a question about Iran's oppression of homosexuals by claiming that "in Iran we don't have homosexuals like in your country." His statement was met with a chorus of boos and catcalls, the only thing he said that really riled up the politically correct crowd of Morningside Heights.
Well, it may come as a surprise to Columbia faculty and students to learn that a current professor at Columbia has argued that there are no homosexuals in the entire Arab world, except for a few who have been brainwashed into believing they have a homosexual identity by an aggressive Western homosexual missionizing movement he calls "Gay International." The article is called, "Re-Orienting Desire: The Gay International and the Arab World," and it appears in Volume 14, issue 2 of the journal Public Culture, and was elaborated upon in a book, Desiring Arabs, published by University of Chicago Press (UPDATE: BTW, I read the article, which is accessible through my GMU library account, but not the book). According to the author, "It is the very discourse of the Gay International which produces homosexuals, as well as gays and lesbians, where they do not exist" (emphasis added).
The author doesn't deny that same-sex sexual contact exists in Arab countries, but claims that the category of "homosexual" is purely a Western one exported to the Arab world by Western cultural imperialists. He suggests that by encouraging Arabs to adopt a Western homosexual identity, westernized Arab homosexuals have naturally provoked a counter-reaction against the importation of decadent Western culture into their societies. The article, to say, the least, is not at all sympathetic with the Western gay rights movements, and the author could easily write, replacing "Iran" with "the Arab world," "in the Arab world we don't have homosexuals like in your country." (See here for a good critique of the author's thesis.)
Oh, and the author/professor is Joseph Massad, whose name has come up in this blog many times before because of his "creative" scholarship, such as claiming that the movie "Exodus tells the story of the Zionist hijacking of a ship from Cyprus to Palestine by a Zionist Haganah commander." (As I've noted previously, this is analogous to saying that Schindler's List was a movie about Jews taking a working vacation in Poland.)
Massad, of course, is a current darling of the far Left, because friends of Israel have raised questions regarding his alleged discrimination against Israeli students and pro-Israel students, and about his scholarship. I guess this means that in certain circles, even Ahmadinejad-ish ideology regarding gays can be forgiven so long as one can portray oneself as a martyr to the struggle against Israel and its American friends.
UPDATE: I just discovered that Columbia History Professor Richard Bulliet, who acted as the go-between arranging for Ahmadinejad's speech at Columbia, has this to say (in an interview to be broadcast Sunday morning) about the relationship between Ahmadinejad's and Massad's views (link to interview transcript here):
DeDAPPER: Two things that I noted. One, when the question that led to this was about the persecution and actual execution of gay people in Iran, why do you do that, he says there are no gay people. But the thing that I noted and you were in the audience, so I was only watching on TV, is he seemed--there were people that had clapped for things he had said in the audience and as it sounds like as many who were opposed to him. But on that one, it sounded like the entire audience is laughing at him and he seemed a little surprised that even people who'd clapped for him were laughing. Was that the case?
Prof. BULLIET: But that was a kind of a shocking thing. No one had ever heard him ask that question. Never heard him reply to that question. The irony is that one of the most controversial professors at Columbia, Professor Joseph Massad, has recently written a book called "Desiring Arabs" in which he says exactly the same thing, that homosexuals of the sort you have in America, that is to say where you have movies about homosexuality, you have queer theory, you have a gay rights movement and so forth.
DeDAPPER: There's an open gay culture, yeah.
Prof. BULLIET: Yeah. An open gay culture. He says that isn't what you have in the Arab world or in the Middle East. You have a long history of same sex relations that takes a variety of forms. Is not defined as gay or not gay. And Massad would say that the whole notion that gay culture is the same the world wide is an imposition of Western cultural imperialism. But people haven't read Massad's book yet, and so they aren't quite aware that that sort of gay denial of that type actually is academically respectable. Certainly, Ahmadinejad has not read that book.
I think there's something to it, too, since homosexual acts have been around since the dawn of time, but the homosexual identity (and associating it with an exclusive preference) seems to be a modern invention.
Exactly why these people would build an identity around their fetish is an interesting question-- I'm sure the answer has something to do with the increasingly-harsh attitudes of the formative days toward homosexual acts.
Presumably for the same reason that you "build an identity" around your "fetish."
It does tend to cut through the clutter though.
In context to other things he says though, who knows, the guy really isn't wrapped too tight.
A professor at Yale has made a good theoretical case for why Ahmadinejad should have been arrested under certain articles of the Geneva Convention for inciting genocide, and taking certain steps to make that genocide possible.
Perhaps. But he also clearly stated that Iran has freedom of speech and that he isn't aware of any journalists that are oppressed. To every question put to him about human rights abuses in his country, he said he has no information on that, and that any statements about it must be wrong.
Taken in this context, it would mean that he is saying there are no homosexuals period.
There is likely a whole culture of 'toe-tapping' in bathroom stalls there.
Ours are much more fabulous!
any proof of this? or are you letting your own bias get the best of you?
A google search of his name revealed a single positive article on him within the first 70 or so listings...and that was written 2 and a half years ago. If he is the "current darling of the far Left" shouldn't many more and much newer positive articles have shown up?
One meaning is, "nobody who engages in sexual acts with a member of the same sex".
Another is, "nobody whose primary or exclusive sexual partners are of the same sex".
Yet another is, "nobody who identifies as 'homosexual' when asked".
And yet still another is, "nobody who identifies with a social movement having something to do with the Stonewall Riots in New York City and the Castro neighborhood in San Francisco".
David B: He might have meant "There are people who engage in homosexual activity, but they aren't homosexuals like the ones in your country" or "...they aren't 'gay' according to your definition, they're just bisexual."
Or he might have meant "There are no homosexuals in Iran, because we kill them all as soon as we catch them."
Either way, it makes Andrew Sullivan's comments about "the Agony of the Left" even more appropriate.
When the question was asked, everyone was thinking about Iran killing gays. If he gave an intelligent answer, he is then on tape defending the practice.
Instead, you are thinking "what a moron." Irans homosexuals, who are being tortured and murdered, are now forgotten.
The people pulling this guys strings aren't as dumb as they want us to believe he is.
Why not?
It's the sort of thing that only a rational and consistent person would not mean.
This is surprising enough. But what seems more startling, at least from a Western perspective, is that some of the men having sex with other men don’t consider themselves gay. For many Saudis, the fact that a man has sex with another man has little to do with “gayness.” The act may fulfill a desire or a need, but it doesn’t constitute an identity. Nor does it strip a man of his masculinity, as long as he is in the “top,” or active, role. This attitude gives Saudi men who engage in homosexual behavior a degree of freedom. But as a more Westernized notion of gayness—a notion that stresses orientation over acts—takes hold in the country, will this delicate balance survive?"
Ahh I have long read that for much of history in the East this was the standard concept, that only the "receiver" is gay.
I wouldn’t give Ahmadinejad any credit here because it would be hard to misinterpret him when he repeated himself and clarified. After he made that statement didn't he say something like "We don't have this phenomenon like you do here" then "I don't know why". He is just a liar is all.
What I'm waiting for is the punch line on who is behind the western agenda of creating gays in the muslim world. You know who it must be...
Throughout history, there have been situtations where it is societally acceptable to engage in same-sex relations ebcause of culture (ancient Greece, parts of the middle east) or because the avenues for heterosexual relations were curtailed (some modern Islamic countries, such ass Saudi Arabia).
It would also appear that their has been a stigmatizing affect in those socities from either 'acting as a woman' or 'identifying as gay', even where same-sex relations where explicitly or implicitly tolerated. Punishment and stigma is reserved not for same-sex conduct, but rather for 'offense' of (for lack of a better term) being gay.
Therefore, there was a larger population engaging in same-sex activities, but this was considered an identity. Those who preferred it were stigmatized. In the west, now, we have moved to a binary model of hetero/homo, with considerably less fluidity.
Except in skinemax movies with girls.
Also don't think Ahmadinejad had any of this in mind when he made his comments.
"A professor at Yale has made a good theoretical case for why Ahmadinejad should have been arrested under certain articles of the Geneva Convention for inciting genocide, and taking certain steps to make that genocide possible."
Professor Small, perfectly named. So long as there is room at Yale for Small, I guess there can be room at Columbia for Massad.
We gain from trying to parse their words--because there are plenty of leftists who think it's just dandy for Ahmadinejad to have nuclear weapons, because he's anti-Western, but who still know that executing gays is wrong.
Guardian 9/25/2007
Whitaker's review of Massad's Desiring Arabs
What strikes me is that so many would try to carefully parse his words, and cite articles purporting to shed light on "what he really meant". At the same time, if Bush splits an infinitive, many seize upon it as definitive proof that he is Chimpy McHitlerBurton running death camps.
Ahmadinejad is a butcher. He is proud of it. No weasel wording, and no scholarly articles on subtle cultural differences regarding homosexuality, can change that.
The double standard is mind boggling.
Apparently Iranian poetry is replete with "love poems" having open or veiled homosexual themes. Though I can't find it now, I distinctly recall an Iranian poet lamenting that a river separated him from a boy with a "bottom like a ripe peach". During the Shah's reign "closet" homosexuality was tolerated, but the Revolution ended even that.
Plenty? Like who?
And someone please tell me how the person who wrote the article in question is a "darling" of the left.
This is why I've been walking away from conservatism these days -- rightists make the same idealogical exaggerations and vilifications they accuse everyone else of.
DU
As we can see, same sex activity occurs with far more frequency than people, or even Larry Craig, are willing to admit.
What did he mean? He meant both, either, or neither, depending on the audience.
I really don't get the value of this Manichaean categorizing and stereotyping. If you want to do it, I'm sure that's fine, but I suspect that far leftists are all over the map on issues like these. The whole "gay rights" vs. Castro was pretty disruptive for a group that I would place on the far left.
They would love for Bush to honestly say some day that gays no longer exist in America.
DU: You have to understand, conservatives have such a bankrupt philosophy that the only way they can still survive is to think that 'leftists' somehow want to destroy America for some never-articulated reason. I've participated in some threads on this VC and that is actually argued by people.
I just don't seen the need for categorizing. There are more traditional Marxists, certainly on the far left, who are among the most severe critics of the ethnic/gender orientation far left or the deconstructionist far left. I'd call Christopher Hitchens far left, but I assume he has no fondness for Assad.
SNL last night
When I was in college spokesmen or apologists for non-democratic nations would say things like, "In [China/Vietnam/name your country] there is no venereal disease because there is no sex outside marriage."
This sort of comment is a conversation stopper for three reasons, First, if you persue it, it leads to a surreal discussion as to whehter the ideology in queation ran actually prevent [adultery/sex outside marriage/homosexuality/choose your practice]. Second by not having to admit that the activity takes place, the spokesman can deny that bad things happen to those who practice the disfavored activity. Finally, the spokesmen are used to the situation in thier country when an authority figure is challenged. If an authority figure like A'jad tells a group with little power (like an audience of Iranian students) that the sky is green, the latter must agree or else face punishment by the state.
You forgot to point out that the emphasis in the Bulliet quote is yours.
the petition you hold up as scathing evidence of the far left, was circulated 2 and a half years ago...and, not surprisingly, was also mischaracterized by you. it was a support of academic freedom against what appeared to be a right wing hit job against someone who is not pro-isreal...just view the petition that tried to get him fired. (it can be found on www.petitiononline.com)
What does norman finkelstein have to do with massad? your claim has to do solely with massad. if the only way that you can defend your claim about massad is to point to someone else entirely, that just shows how false your original claim is.
I'm not "pointing to Finkelstein." I suggested Googling both names together; if you do so you will see that they are now enshrined together in the far left pantheon of purported free speech martyrs.
Senator Larry Craig said . . .
Oh yeah, Iran is not Arab.
As I understand, there's a pretty common teenage circle jerk culture. It's a bit like English prep school: lots of gay activity that isn't identified as such. It's just something people go through, rather than an identity as such. Alternately, that kind of lack of identity creates all kinds of "queered" social spaces (like the traditional trannie musicians of Afghanistan)
It's certainly an interesting argument. Since I can't track the article down, I can't go much further than that.
You mean the same way that the right just knew they were legitimate complaints when they called for his termination? And that they knew the how he was really horrible professor because they all actually had classes with him? I'm surprised you even tried to use this defense...it so easily cuts both ways. It wasn't even a month ago that this site was bashing the "left" for not rushing to the defense of the duke players and praising the "right" for rushing to the defense of the players before they were completely exonerated. So, is the left damned if they do and damned if they don't? that's hardly a principled position.
I suggested Googling both names together; if you do so you will see that they are now enshrined together in the far left pantheon of purported free speech martyrs.
I did. I even did one better...I actually read some of those articles. Mentioning massad in a single sentence at the beginning of the article before launching into a long defense of finkelstein hardly qualifies saying that massad is the darling of the far left. I find it telling that a search of massad's name alone brings up nothing, as i mentioned above, that is not more than two and a half years old.
Nick
http://volokh.com/posts/1173901930.shtml
As as for Massad being a "darling" of liberals, count me out.
Do you actually know anything about antisemitism in the Middle East? It really does have connections to Hitler. People there are even named after him.
The categories of what constitutes a homosexual act versus a homosexual identity is just one example.
BTW, back when I was in Peace Corps, our trainers gave us a worldwide cross-cultural training manual describing the kinds of cross-cultural experiences we would likely face, based on the PC 30 years of worldwide experience. The PC said there were four nations where male volunteers would face a much higher level of pressure for sex from local males. Those countries were Morocco, Sri Lanka, Turkey ... and Iran.
So Iran not only has homosexuals, it has a much higher percentage than most countries. So Ahmedwhatmaccilt is full of shit. That said, Iranians no doubt conceptualize homosexual acts differently ... and in that sense, it is western arrogance to simply reconceptualize their cultural paradigms according to ours. They see the act differently and think about it differently.
But as hippie backpacker learned, on the concrete level, it still means in Iran, you're gonna get hit on by other males. Be prepared if you travel in Iran.
You are absolutely right that it is western arrogance to reconceptualize one culture to ours.
I was just wondering -- we haven't heard from any women here. ARen't they always so "prepared" whenever they travel to ANY country? Or even just walk down a street in the US?
I mean, it's always funny when straight men suddenly have to learn how to learn how to reject unwanted advances when in fact women have to do it every day of their lives. Talk about turning the tables!
Uh, no, this is false. The opponents ask, in what time or culture has gay marriage even been recognized? Classical civilization tolerated gay sex (although not between equals), along with female infanticide.
You might want to work on your reading skills.
What about lesbians in Iran? Or, excuse me, same-sex relations between women in Iran? Anyone have any inside information? Can't let ALL the discussions of homosexuality be about men!
American conservatives don't want the government to let homosexuals have marriage licenses. The Iranian mullahs don't want to let homosexuals have oxygen.
American conservatives want to prohibit having sex in public restrooms. Iranian mullahs prohibit homosexuals from having sex in private.
American conservatives would prefer homosexuals go back into the closet, or into reparative therapy (although no organized conservative group would demand that either be enforced by the government). Iranian mullahs put homosexuals into the grave.
If Randy R. thinks that these are equivalent, then he probably thinks a nickel is the same as $100,000, and a poster of bikini-clad models is the same as a picture of hardcore group sex.
Saddam Hussein grew up in a home with posters of Hitler on the walls. His uncle's claim to fame was writing a book titled, "Persians, Jews, and Flies." Hitler's anti-Semitism and hostitlity to Britain was very popular in much of the Middle East in the 1930s and 1940s, and the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem organized a Muslim SS division that was part of the Holocaust.
I blogged a while back about the absurdity of the left end of American politics, including homosexuals, feminists, and civil libertarians doing their darndest to prevent us from winning the War on Terorrism—and pointed out that there are historical parallels, such as German rabbi Joachim Prinz, who argued shortly after the Nazis took over that it was unreasonable to take an anti-Nazi position because of all the good they were doing Germany, and Kiel University Professor Felix Jacoby (who was Jewish), who was proud to have voted for Hitler from 1927 onward. Jacoby argued that while it might not be good in the short run for him because he was a Jew, it was good for Germany.
so you run away from facing me directly and then try to spew more falsehoods about me? yeah, like that's the actions of an honorable man we should be listening too.
I don't deny that Massad is intensely disliked on the pro-Israel right. That has nothing to do with whether he is a darling of the anti-Israel far left.
That doesn't make him the darling of the anti-Isreal far left though.
"And we have never seen Brian K and burrnini together in the same room at the same time."
That's false (and weird). It was met with spontaneous laughter.
But I guess your misrepresentation allowed you say "politically correct crowd"... which you presumably wanted to do since you don't think they like Israel enough.
You are the most intellectually dishonest blogger here by a wide margin.
As if there was no Eastern arrogance projecting their culture. All people project, all cultures project, all peoples of nations project. I think you just expose a certain hatred of the West is all.
randal, did you watch it? At the first second people laughed as they probably thought he was joking. Almost immediately there were boos and catcalls. Watch it again before making such accusations of dishonesty.
Brian K, you are or you are not that burrnini? (For the life of me, I couldn't understand the colnvoluted, obfuscatory, evasive response to that question you gave when asked it recently in the course of another thread. This time, please, a simple, unequivocal "yes" or "no," then you can explain if you wish.)
As for "run(ning) away from facing (you) directly," I haven't. Attempts at discourse with you were a waste of time, and I choose to waste no more time trying.
yes, i have explicitly denied this and you continue to make the claim, therefore you are spreading falsehoods about me.
neurodoc: "Now ought we to address you as Brian K or as Burrnini, the nom de plume you have used in the past"
Brian K: "no you shall not. i have never used that name in the past."
i don't know if it is possible for me to get any more explicit than this. the fact that you couldn't understand this says a lot about you.
As for "run(ning) away from facing (you) directly," I haven't. Attempts at discourse with you were a waste of time, and I choose to waste no more time trying.
just because you repeatedly say something does not make it true. instead of countering my arguments and the data i provided, you chose to use ad hominem attacks against me using imagined evidence. this is pretty clearly running away from facing me directly.
Brian K may not realize it, but he has linked an email address to his posts here, that email address being burrnine@hotmail.com. Mirable dictu, what a coincidence, Brian K isn't burrnini, it is pure happenstance that he shares an email address with a "burrnini" who expressed an opinion so much like ones Brian K has expressed in the course of VC threads. [If one looks to the previous thread in which I challenged Brian K to step out of the closet and acknowledge that he is indeed burrnini, they will see how remarkably "convoluted, obfuscatory, evasive" was his explanation of the "coincidence." (Sorry, don't have the date, but believe it was within the past 2 weeks.)]
Brian K didn't clearly and unequivocally deny that he was the same person as burrnini. I took what he did say (e.g., he, like burrnini, has a cousin who is a practicing obstetrician-gynecologist,), though, as tantamount to an admission, albeit a reluctant one, and joked, "And we have never seen Brian K and burrnini together in the same room at the same time." Now, in a Larry Craig-like move, it seems Brian K wants to withdraw his "plea" and now claims so ridiculously that I can produce no evidence other than that he and burrnini have never been seen at the same time in the same place?! This is going from funny to absurd.
Well, it's time to put up or shut up. If Brian K will send a check in the amount of $100 to the host of this blog, another UCLA alum, Eugene Volokh, I will send EV a check in the amount of $200, and we will ask EV to compare the address from which Brian K has posted to the one from which burrnini has posted. If they are one and the same, then EV can return my $200 to me and send $100 to a suitable charity; if they are different, then EV can return Brian K's $100 to him and give him my $200 too.
So Brian K, I am calling you out as a L-I-A-R. If I am wrong, then take my money and I will apologize too. What is it to be, Brian K, will you put up or shut up? (If EV doesn't want to participate in this, then we can try to find another referee, someone who can check the IP addresses.)
this was already addressed in the previous post...you are more than welcome to go back and read it. if you have specific questions about things i said i'd be happy to answer them...but i'm not about to indulge some sick fantasy you have about me that allows you to ignore the substance of my posts...you still haven't posted any rebuttal to my comments. (and had you bothered to check the mail link on this very post you will see it is burrnini and not burrnine...see i am not denying it nor am i attempting to "obfuscate" anything) but i do notice that you conveniently forgot to mention that the poster burrnini used a different e-mail address than the one i use. (neurodoc, it appears you are the one attempting to misrepresent facts)
Brian K didn't clearly and unequivocally deny that he was the same person as burrnini.
so wait, the excerpt in my previous post wasn't a clear and unequivocal denial? do you just ignore everything that doesn't fit you preconceived notions of what is "true"? (this is rhetorical...i know the answer to yes. your earlier responses to the substance of my posts proves this beyond a doubt)
I took what he did say (e.g., he, like burrnini, has a cousin who is a practicing obstetrician-gynecologist,), though, as tantamount to an admission, albeit a reluctant one,
There are over 30000 ob/gyns in this country...are you seriously contending that i am the only person who has a cousin that is an ob/gyn? I come from a big family. i have relatives (and cousins) in most higher educated fields. academia? yes. medicine? about 10 of them (not including me). politics? yes, at the lower levels. law? yup. PhD? yes again.
Here is the exact text (in fact its the entire paragraph...no ellipses and no removal of sentences from the beginning or the end) of your claim: "Nothing in the posts you own up to conflict with the burrninni one that you would disclaim. And we have never seen Brian K and burrnini together in the same room at the same time."
- this sure doesn't sound like a joke. it is coupled to a serious statement. and you sure didn't make the argument that it was a joke when i challenged the absurdity of the claim. that's twice (at least) that you've blatantly misrepresented the facts and the arguments. Remind the other readers why they should take anything you say as true?
I am calling you out as a L-I-A-R.
And I will call you out for what you are, a B-I-G-O-T. Your slander against me started as your pitiful attempt to maintain the false belief that all muslims are terrorists or supporters of terrorists. you virtually admitted it in the prior post.
This one just proved to juicy to ignore. You, the person who when faced with evidence he couldn't a) effectively rebut or disprove and b) couldn't come up with any ad hominem attacks that would let him ignore it chose to attack me instead and thus completely ignore my points altogether is accusing me of not faithfully arguing? This is absolutely hilarious. It is something i would expect from a 5 year old...to them "na na na i can't hear you" and "you're a poopie head" are effective rebuttals. but i would expect better from someone who claims to be as well educated as you do.
And please share with everyone the date of the thread in which you explained the extraordinary "coincidence" by which it happens that you and <b>burrnini</b> use the same email address (burrnini@hotmail.com), which you claim is somehow to prevent spam. Then others may evaluate for themselves the (im)plausibility of your denial, and hence your credibility, as well as the significance of that 3/15/07 post. (The ob-gyn thing comes from a post to another website by <b>burrnini</b>, in which he said he had an ob-gyn cousin, and you say that you too have an ob-gyn cousin. The two of you do have some remarkable things in common.)
you don't know what it is? you were a party on the same thread. hmm...maybe that's why your argument is so horrible...your memory is shot.
use the same email address (burrnini@hotmail.com)
WRONG! and you call me the liar. the e-mail addresses are different. why is it so hard for you to get facts straight? could it because you have no argument unless you make things up? i think so.
in which he said he had an ob-gyn cousin, and you say that you too have an ob-gyn cousin
doubtful. i've previously said on this very site (IIRC in a conversation with Mac, who unlike you is very civil even when we disagree) that i have an obgyn cousin...me and probably a quarter of a million other people in this country. you always forget that it was stated at a site i had never visited before. if you tried this stunt in a court a law you'd be rightfully laughed out of the courtroom.
i'm through trying to correct your falsehoods civilly. come back with hard evidence that is not an outright lie or some other form fakery and i'll debunk that too, otherwise stop attempting to slander me. (and no, i have no intention of indulging your fantasy anymore...because that is ALL it is...a fantasy that allows you to rationalize your bigotry)
link