The Tragedy of the Holy Two-Spirited Fag
by Giulianna LamannaGay and lesbian citizens of the Navajo Nation almost faced a serious setback last month when the tribal council unanimously voted to outlaw same-sex marriage. To anyone who’s familiar with traditional Navajo culture, the very idea seems absurd. These are the people who honored the nadleeh - the man with two spirits, one masculine, one feminine. Whenever such a man was born in a Navajo community, he would be permitted to dress like, act like, and perform the duties of a woman. He could even marry another man, and the community considered that to be equivalent to any heterosexual marriage. However, in recent years, the traditional Navajo point of view on homosexuality has been so devastated by western influence that… well, that we now have Navajos trying to ban same-sex marriage.
In a 2003 Associated Press article, anthropologists Wesley Thomas and Harry Walters discussed the issue:
Thomas and Walters said the traditional understanding of nadleeh is disappearing, in part because the cultural significance has not been passed from one generation to the next, and because of changing attitudes.
With the arrival of Western religious influences, Navajo families began to hide homosexual relatives or encourage them to live a heterosexual lifestyle, Thomas said.
“The nadleeh were very much a part of Navajo culture right into the late 1800s,” said Thomas, who is also a gay tribal member. “Now we have children and grandchildren who dismiss [nadleeh] as part of Navajo culture. It was . . . relegated to something that was part of Western culture and not Navajo.”
Sound familiar? Just as many conservatives see homosexuality as an outside force intruding on their way of life, the Navajos pushing the Diné Marriage Act did so under the guise of protecting their traditional values. As Larry Anderson Sr., the sponsor of the resolution put it, “in (the) Navajo way, you don’t have same-sex marriages.” Delegate Lorenzo Curley added, “We want to say to [the tribe’s young people], ‘Hold on fast to your society, your roots, your values.’ We are here to defend the foundation of our society. That’s what is at stake here.” Their statements rely heavily on a very selective reading of Navajo history - wherein “nadleeh” refers only to hermaphrodites - all too reminiscent of conservative Christians’ own selective reading of the Bible to justify the same discrimination.
Of course, traditional Navajo family values are under attack. Navajo President Joe Shirley Jr. provides a laundry list of problems the nation is facing, including “family violence, child abuse, sexual assault, gangs and the breakdown of the Navajo family.” When faced with such a crisis, it’s natural to look for someone or something to blame. And conservative Christians have given the Navajo just such a scapegoat: gay marriage. It’s the same explanation Christians have always given the Navajo; the same explanation they’ve given indigenous cultures all over the world for centuries: that their savage, barbaric ways have led them into sin and unhappiness, and the only way they can improve their situation is to be just like us.
Of course, the real culprit is - and has been all along - civilization. This would appear to be the final chapter in the Europeans’ conquest of the American Indians. We’ve killed them, we’ve sent their children to abusive boarding schools, we’ve forced them onto the only land we didn’t want, then forced them onto even smaller pieces of land when we changed our minds. But only now have we succeeded in destroying their culture so thoroughly that they don’t even need our help to continue the work. They’ll rewrite their own history, reinvent their own culture, trample on their own way of life and replace it all with the most hateful bile our hideous mess of a culture can produce. What a wonderful time to be a colonialist: the natives no longer have to be forced into submission. They’re fully willing to do it themselves.
Thankfully, President Shirley vetoed the bill last Sunday, claiming that it “[went] against the Navajo teaching of non-discrimination and doing no psychological or physical harm.” Shirley’s veto is evidence that there is still hope for cultures that offer a place for people like homosexuals, rather than pretending they don’t exist or trying to change them. We call gays and lesbians sexual deviants; tribal cultures honor them. We call schizophrenics mentally ill; tribal cultures make them shamans. We create strict and very specific molds for people to fit into, and fail to accept those who don’t fit. Tribal cultures let people be people. And that’s why it is vital to all people that the Navajo prevail.
Fag?
Offensive word.
I don’t like censorship, so it’s not like I want to ignore the problem. But perhaps your language can be more all-inclusive?
Interesting post, though. I agree that civilization is the cause of the problems of the Navajo.
Peace,
Devin
Comment by Devin — 12 May 2005 @ 8:41 PM
Devin, I agree that fag is a derogatory word, as is nigger. Which is why you’ll hear black comedians and rappers frequently use the word nigger and gay and lesbian entertainers frequently use the words fag, dyke, etc. It’s a way of turning something negative into something positive; of stripping an offensive word of all its discriminatory power. Furthermore, the term “two-spirited” is sacred. The term “fag” is profane. It’s the juxtaposition that makes it a joke. I’ll grant you that it may be a bad joke, though.
Comment by Giulianna Lamanna — 12 May 2005 @ 9:28 PM
Devin, Giuli wrote the book on accepting homosexuals. Literally.
Too often, euphemisms white-wash our heinous deeds. We drop the “N” word and pretend racism doesn’t exist any more. We rob our language of its moral force. It’s easy to talk about post-colonialist constructions of globalization, but G-d forbid we talk about a continuing reign of terror from cruel and distant empires.
“Fag” is offensive, all right–which makes it the perfect word to use. The nadleeh was sacred. He had an honored place in tribal life. “Fag” is profane; they are hated and reviled as unnatural. Their mere existence is a threat to our very civilization.
It’s the juxtaposition of the sacred and the profane that makes it work so well–that allows the title to encapsulate the entire article. The Navajo are shedding an ancient and venerable tradition, something that worked well for them for thousands of years, in trade for the latest fashions in our perverse, backwards and barbaric hate-mongering. What better way to put such a tragedy?
Comment by Jason Godesky — 12 May 2005 @ 9:34 PM
I agree with both of you, honestly. I just try to be very sensitive to that. Maybe it would have helped to put an Author’s Note at the bottom or something, just so people wouldn’t have misconceptions. Like me - I do not really know you, and though I’ve read that long-ago essay (I think it was Jason who wrote it) about gay marriage, I simply wanted to express that message.
I’ve been active with the LGBT community this spring - I recently addressed City Council and gave quite a passionate speech on why the LGBT community should be given equal rights. This has given me a heightened awareness of any possible discrimination… and I subsequently find it difficult to use the words that are used to hurt people I have come to know so personally.
Do you think there is a way to not whitewash the oppression without running the risk of some seriously negative misinterpretations? I do not usually believe in trying to avoid any form of pain, but maybe there are some special circumstances.
Perhaps just putting the word in quotes would help.
Peace,
Devin
Comment by Devin — 13 May 2005 @ 1:21 AM
Hey–
You know, outside of the british usage (fag=cigarette), I have only really heard ‘fag’ used within the gay community…. that may significantly taint my perception…. but I almost feel like complaining about Guili’s use of it in the title here is somewhat comparable to the banning or red ink in schools….
There comes a point, where I really just wanna say ‘get over it, people!’
Ah well, I can be ornary that way
Janene
Comment by Janene — 13 May 2005 @ 7:44 AM
I totally get what you’re saying, Devin. When I was younger, I was much more passionate about gay rights, and I perceived homophobia to exist in many more places than it actually did. I have heard some immature teenage boys use the word “fag” in a derogatory manner, but the only other people I’ve heard use the word have been gay people.
GLBTs do have a lot of prejudice to deal with, but they don’t need to be held with kid gloves.
P.S. Is this the article you were talking about?
Comment by Giulianna Lamanna — 13 May 2005 @ 10:16 AM
Janene - being in high school and on an all-white, more-than-somewhat-country soccer team, I’m pretty much submersed in homophobia. Constantly. Not to mention that I just recently went up to Washington D.C. for a Youth Activism Conference - while up there, we watched a movie entitled “The Education of Shelby Knox”. The movie was about abstinence-only sex education and its failures, and also showed very strong support of the GLBT community. What will forever stick in my mind is the protest of a Gay-Straight Alliance at a high school in Texas… posters with “God HATES Fags”, and “Burn in Hell, Fags” and many more, and the hatred on their faces. My gay friends around me crying because of their personal experiences. *makes himself vulnerable* Me crying because I just couldn’t (read: wouldn’t) stop it. Those images and those feelings will never leave me.
So, yes, I was “complaining about it” in the title. Call it a knee-jerk reaction, call it what you will. I simply wanted to express my perspective. And I don’t think the community should be held with kid gloves, either… but it cannot possibly hurt to emphasize open-ness and be sensitive in this area. Maybe I’m being irrational, here, as there are many other world problems to be just as sensitive to that I’m NOT as sensitive to… but being irrational isn’t such a bad thing after all. (I’m working on developing a sensitivity to those other problems.)
Peace,
Devin
p.s. Yes, that’s the article.
Comment by Devin — 14 May 2005 @ 2:45 AM
Hey Devin –
Yeah, I guess I have never really been exposed to the extremes of the anti-gay reality…. that would certainly change my perspective. Obviously, there have always been plenty of people that have a problem with it. I had two gay friends in high school (openly gay….) and they got a lot of greif. But most of the time it was relatively innocuous — not much more than the ‘anti-punk’ greif that we all had to deal with.
So what does that make me? ‘Anti-sheltered’????
Janene
Comment by Janene — 14 May 2005 @ 8:52 AM
Fag?
Offensive word.
Oh, sure. Green Day can use the word, and no one cares. But can Giuli use it?
Oh, the double standard!
Comment by Mike Godesky — 16 May 2005 @ 4:14 PM
Did you read what I wrote as the conversation developed?
I would sincerely appreciate it if you did, or at least sought some understanding of where I was coming from. If you have read the dialogue following, then I do not feel understood. Lament a double standard if you will, but that is not where I was coming from.
Peace,
Devin
Comment by Devin — 16 May 2005 @ 11:37 PM
Did you read what I wrote as the conversation developed?
I would sincerely appreciate it if you did, or at least sought some understanding of where I was coming from. If you have read the dialogue following, then I do not feel understood. Lament a double standard if you will, but that is not where I was coming from.
“Sir, the thread has become too serious! Our irony is unable to penetrate it! We have to retreat!”
“Get us out of here, helm. Maximum warp!”
Comment by Mike Godesky — 16 May 2005 @ 11:58 PM
Maybe you haven’t noticed, Devin, but Mike is our Trickster-in-Residence–he has a bit of fun when he sees people acting a bit too serious. Apparently, he’s tagged you as such. Maybe you aren’t; maybe you are. I tend to think the latter, but maybe it’s something to consider.
Giuli asked me to respond and explain her point-of-view, and I asked to what purpose? What can be said? You have a point; I don’t think it’s a terribly good one, but it’s all about feelings and such. I can never prove you wrong, and it’s unlikely I’ll ever say anything that can dissuade you. I’ve certainly not heard anything that would make me consider changing the title. Giuli bemoaned that everyone was discussing the title and seemingly ignored the article–something quite fascinating, actually. For that, she did consider changing the title. I dissuaded her; I think the title is perfect. And ending a petty discussion on the title won’t automatically replace it with a deep and interesting discussion of the article.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 17 May 2005 @ 7:25 AM
Hey –
If it helps…. the article inspired a long discussion between me and Jim and his buddy last weekend
(and yes, I did think it was a great article — that’s why I had nothing to pick on!)
Janene
Comment by Janene — 17 May 2005 @ 7:31 AM
Devin, chill. I wasn’t attacking you personally. I was just talking about the usage of the word “fag” in general.
Giuli, welcome to the blogosphere. You can’t make people comment exactly the way you envisioned them doing. It’s much more organic. People will discuss the points in the article that they want to talk about. You should just be glad when something you write can spark conversation at all. Okay, so maybe the discussion hasn’t been about the main point of the article. But it is a pretty interesting look at the proper use of the word “fag.” And that’s kind of cool.
Comment by Mike Godesky — 17 May 2005 @ 8:33 AM
I’m always pretty relaxed, but I was just concerned. Anyway, I’m “Chilled”… but if you’re going to talk about the usage of the word in general, don’t quote me. :p
“Sir, the thread has become too serious! Our irony is unable to penetrate it! We have to retreat!”
“Get us out of here, helm. Maximum warp!”
…Bastard.
Just to let you know, Giuli, I enjoyed the article. I’m surprised I didn’t mention it before. It inspired a conversation with a couple of my friends about (what would you call it? it’s a bit stronger than “influence”) western society’s approach to other cultures. Seek and destroy. Then, perhaps years later, apologize to those still around, blame them for their problems, and westernize them. Their problems come from not being like us, right? sigh.
I’m thinking the Navajo were finished when they first made contact with the white settlers.
Peace,
Devin
Comment by Devin — 17 May 2005 @ 10:42 AM
I’m very laissez-faire about comments, and I’m happy anytime an article sparks any discussion. But I’d sayy starting so many people talking face-to-face counts a lot more than some comments left on the page itself.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 17 May 2005 @ 10:54 AM
Hey ya all;
As a proud dyke myself, I just wanted to add in that although it’s very uncool to slag us most of the time, we are really only talking the western hemisphere, with some exceptions like Calgary Ab Canada, (were I’m sitting now) and the occasional amazing asian country (can’t think of it right now - really hude tranny pop?) So really, the fight is still on until WE ARE ALL FREE — am I right or am I right? Just walk into any school and you can hear Fag spoken more freely than any “swear” in Canada, cause as yet, few teachers have the balls to make such a stand:(
Comment by Rebecca — 21 December 2005 @ 10:34 PM