03/07/2021
“Historical patterns repeat themselves. The same tactic of feigning defenselessness Europeans used to disarm our ancestors long enough for them to destroy them, also applies to homosexuals. Homosexuality is not just a harmless, individual sexual practice/orientation. It systematically works to pull us further into clutches of a eurocentric worldview by using yet another meaningful confusion to drag us even deeper into their chaotic mentality. Homosexuality is inseparable from their personality. And homosexuals conscious of the crusade-like aggressive nature of homosexuality play on this politicized image of their harmlessness, of being incapable of bringing destruction like their heterosexual brothers. Lest we forget, they are also Europeans, if by nothing else, by sexual thought and behavior.
Deception remains their fundamental cultural tactic, also. It is inherent to the people who discovered and institutionalized the rhetorical ethic. It is the perfected practice of finding which lie, which posture, what type of “human” love people will succumb to, and using that to their eventual advantage. That tactic has worked again and again and again on the world’s people of color.
Seeing homosexuals as mentally weak has also played to their advantage politically. It has allowed them to organize right under the noses of heterosexuals. The uncontested portrayal of male homosexuals as lust-driven airheads, carefree, giddy and, therefore, harmless in the media has left them defended by the same people whom they wish destroyed. And destruction does not automatically mean physical annihilation. Mentacide is destruction. Becoming your ancestor’s enemy is destruction. Physical destruction, however, should not be ruled out of the reasonable possibilities. Nonetheless, the first attempt in their dealings with each other in the company of others is negotiation and coercion. The first attempt will be to change each other’s minds. As a people, Europeans deal with each other quite differently than they deal with those outside their family. They turn a number of other people into them and then let them loose on their own.
So, in understanding the power of language, one must ask why the homosexual community still embraces and advocates the label “gay,” or “funny” or “queer” for that matter. “Gay,” as all self-created homosexual labels, connotes childishness, playfulness, or a childish, careless glee. As derived from this definition, it first crept in the English language as a slang for homosexual males in the mid-20th century “apparently shortened from g*y cat homosexual boy (about 1935, in underworld and prison slang).” A main reason for maintaining this label is because, as a weapon against those who would not remain silent in their questioning of homosexuality, it is a disarming tool. Thinking about gaiety conjures up oil painted scenes of harmless, pastel children frolicking playfully like butterflies around a maypole in a green meadow on a cloudless, warm day. The idea of gayness evokes sympathetic fairy tale images. It disarms the minds of would be critics by creating the aura of virgin innocence.
Coopting the rainbow’s colors as their symbol is another indication of this conscious attempt to garner support by waving a flag of fairy tale colors at would be attackers and detractors. Rainbows are symbolic of children’s fairy tales. And such symbols invite us to “taste the rainbow” and form “coalitions.” Some of us have even made the mistake of assuming that claiming the rainbow means homosexuals are less racist than their heterosexual brothers. The implication being that European male homosexuals have adopted the rainbow’s range of colors as a their symbol of fighting for an diversified, inclusive, integrated, color-blind new world order. But, we must remember that flags are political symbols. And the use of the rainbow by homosexuals as their flag is no more than a political tactic. The homosexual community is no more diversified, inclusive, integrated or color-blind than the heterosexual one.
The deepness of this colorful political tactic goes all the way back to nature by implication. Light is natural, a part of nature, a creator in nature. Without light, nothing has visible form. The rainbow is seen as the amplification of light into the entire spectrum of color. Transparent, cut crystals become prisms that make rainbows of light. From the beauty of pure light comes an even more beautiful, multi-colored light. In the context of homosexual politics, this transformation symbolizes a change from sameness to difference, which, in the rhetoric of European style progress, by default, means improvement. I.e., homosexuality comes from light and is its most ideal and balanced representation; the homosexual adds color to an otherwise unknowing limited, sexually repressed, monotonous, colorless, sterile world. In fact, the heavy emphasis in popular youth subculture on difference is what has attracted a number of our sons and daughters to the homosexual sexstyle. They equate difference with identity.
Moreover, by itself, the rainbow is one of nature’s most beautiful visual manifestations. It is seen as natural and is directly associated with water and cleanliness in that rainbows usually appear with moisture. Most commonly, their arrival heralds the ending of a good, strong cleansing rain. We also cannot overlook the fact that rainbows carry the Creator’s blessing. In the Bible we find them. After the flood, the Creator paints a rainbow across the sky as a sign that he would never destroy life by water again. Historically, in many societies, rainbows have been seen as symbolically uniting heaven and earth, if not being the path one could actually walk across to make this journey, if one could just find the rainbow’s beginning on Earth.
If we do not see through the conscious use of this natural symbol as homosexual politics, we will mistakenly view homosexuality as natural, beautiful and an cleansing agent of change. Through its use in homosexual politics, a beautiful symbol has become contaminated. Thankfully, this attempted transference of meaning from Nature to something not natural has not completely taken hold. For most still realize that homosexuality is neither natural nor cleansing. Like nations, groups, political organizations, religions, businesses, other social entities and individuals have chosen and changed their symbols/trademarks/name in order to remove a bad name or gain a good one, the homosexual community has chosen the rainbow to transform its image. No matter. We know that “the snake may change its skin but stays a snake. It has always two tongues.””
Mwalimu K. Bomani Baruti
