I have enjoyed reading your numerous articles in this site, but not this one. It needs a complete re-write. For example, how come in a short piece like this, President Obama is tirelessly bullied by your pen and called more than 10 hostile names he does not deserve to have? Names like - this joker, empty suit, gangster, con artist, apparent hip hop clown, cave in, narcissist, clown, poor idiot, and weak man? This is unscholarly. Unfortunately also, recounting the heavy psychological feelings you have of his policy and administrative outcomes, the essay did not mention even one positive achievement President Obama's administration accomplished for Americans and the world.
The present article is simply a ferocious recap of what the Republicans have articulated to campaign against him and it appears to me that this piece is their mouthpiece, their own political script, not a fair assessment of a scholar. You can do better than this. For one to kill a dog, one first of all tries to call it a bad name. This is what I seem to draw from this submission. It does not meet a critical assessment of Obama and his administration. I suggest a fair appraisal of Obama is called for. Moreover, the title of your article appears to run contrary to what a reader might expect from the content. A reader hopes to read about homosexuality and Obama's policy on human rights around it; instead the article focused more on Obama's fights with the Republican Party in America and other foreign policy issues such as Iran, Syria, Israel, Libya and Egypt. America could not have changed in two and half years of Obama's leadership given the mess and depressive economic and social status Republicans under President Bush left it.
Next sad approach your article took is the sweeping claims on Homosexuality. I recommend that you do some serious reading about homosexuality. There are massive books and clear intensive researches available. Universities such as University of Alberta in Canada have departmental programs and serious courses on Homosexuality. Back in Africa, I stand for promoting and sustaining African values and their religious cherishes. Your article did not touch on experiences of homosexuality in Africa, including even Nigeria where boys and girls practice "supee" at homes and boarding schools. Ladies in particular enjoy themselves sexually together even more than men enjoy them. Globalization is a critical impact on cultures across the world. I had hoped your article would have discussed this more critically on the spread of homosexualism rather than the sweeping assertions put out.
If I may go further, I think that your article would have served readers better knowledge to discuss the question "What is Homosexuality and Why Can't Africans Reject It" rather than writing about the one-sided view point on criticizing Obama's administration. Do you not see this piece as insulting even when it digressed to point fingers at Obama's wife?
American ECONOMIC AIDS to Africa will ever continue, but I agree that Obama should step it up now rather waiting till the end or last year of his administration to focus more on Africa. I believe he is not a fool or and I not accept that he does not like helping Africa as your article is trying to portray him and his administration. You know better what the Republican White Americans will start saying of him if Obama will today start favouring black American more than the whites or other groups. Obama was elected to do what he promised and I think he requires a better positive political environmental premise to initiate and realize them. Under the "No', No', shouting by the Republicans, do not expect much more than he can accomplish as a fighter for the American poor.
The fight on "No", "No" approach to Obama's administration by the Republicans against Obama is a fight between blacks and whites. Obama is targeted as much as you know it better for failure and ridicule so that blacks will not think of occupying the Whitehouse and presidency in future. Your article is crudely supportive of this race and class racism in America. Not so? Check the list of name calling on Obama to buttress this ego and bias.
I am not a homosexual neither do I live with homosexuals. But I have the opportunity to teach courses homosexuals participate in, including having friends who are friends to homosexuals – males and females. In addition, I have had circumstances to persuade my interest to ethnographically study homosexuals. As such, I do understand what the cultural and biological phenomenon is all about. It is not a disease as you wrongly asserted. It is also not a psychiatric issue. That it was before considered a psychiatric label before it was re-labeled like many other disease experiences and claims shows that there is power and authority around who gives a scientific pontification of rights and wrongs, humans and non-humans.
Homosexuality exists not only in humans but also in animals of all kinds. It is like any other biological feature of humans and in animals too. That a male is sexually inclined to another male is a matter of biological predisposition, a natural and environmental given and driven interest. And that a female is predisposed or inclined to another female is equally a matter of biological genetic cause. Culture, that a shared belief and practice by as to how they want to think, act and exist as group is a concept of instituting and enforcing norms and behaviours. That way, humans or those who had authority had seen male and female marriage or sexual relationship as the only singular appropriate sexual lifestyle. Anyone not fitting into this category is a disorder, a disease as you asserted. Why do have humans varying in all manners of shapes, colours, talents, intelligence, heights, strengths, and all else? Are differences in human heights a disease or a disorder? Why particularize it to sex alone?
What defines sin and morality for a society? Christians follow the bible, I agree as a Christian myself. But again cultures apportion morality through their own beliefs and values to endure what they consider as their identity and heritage. But what we cannot forget to add here is the concept of culture change as a biological change too. Human societies have recently realized that there are numerous peoples we cannot continue to ignore or sideline by treating them as non-humans because their sexual orientation much like humans who were twins, pygmies or giants were treated differently in the past. Science is redefinition of morality in a scientific way (we can debate on this in another session). So what I am saying is that let us not go too far to draw the line where culture starts and ends and where science starts and ends including religion. The best we can do is to keep all disciplines open as they face new challenges in our modern world in recreating our humanity, society, values and beliefs. Human values are not static nor can they be fixed to a particular place or region in a fast changing world of cultures.
Homosexuality, for instance, is for those who find their lives livable in that ethnical, religious, biological and environmental economics of choice. You cannot force them out of it or deny them human rights because they differ from yours. Sex is a private thing and people can sex themselves. Recall that masturbation is also not of African value. In the west masturbation was treated as a huge disease in the past, and even of a possessive and spiritual curse due to religious beliefs. Little was known about it as a biological urge and that it could have earlier on been better turned into a process of psychological sexual release. Not until psychologists and psychiatrists and sex therapists revered the notion and taboo attached to masturbation and turned it into an acceptable life-way, anyone practicing masturbation would be publicly ridiculed, culturally sanctioned and sentenced to hospital and divinatory care. In Africa, people continue to live in the closet as it has been the case since history to avoid public humiliation based on laws of cultural taboos and lack of exposure. Humans want to be accepted the way they are as long as they are not disrupting social order, unless when they are consistently denied and persecuted unjustly.
The sweeping assertion that nobody wants to be like Obama in America today – suggests that to Americans in the view of his political opponents that Obama is a bad man, and therefore meets all the names you have labeled him with is a give away. Do you buy into that? Of course, how can one's political opponent wish the Americans to follow Obama as a phenomenon and as a black man and then hope to win by saying good things about him?
Since day one Obama took over office, he irritated the white supremacy for they see him as someone in a wrong place at a wrong time. That is American modern racism. From day one when the congress became dominated by the Republican Party, they made it clear that they have one mission in common and that mission is to not support Obama no matter what and that they want him to fail. TV show businesses like Daniel Trump are not hiding from claims like this. They have been doing it and they will continue to do it. Dr. Osuji, did you not follow the debt ceiling debate in America? Aren't you following the tax debate today? When did it become an economic policy that the rich should not pay more than the non-rich? That PAYE (pay as you earn) – a tax policy we were taught even in primary schools is not what it should be now that Obama is in power?
The issue of stimulus plan for America was a commonly shared economic view of Americans and their expert economists from all sides of the polities to address the Bush's economic malaise Obama inherited. It was agreed upon to believe in stimulus package – that a way to go is to give the depressive economic state a jump start, a boost while considering and working out other critical measures to rebuild the distressed economy and social situation. Was that not the case? Your paper went all out to twist facts and seem to portray the hard situation to seem like a child's play for Obama as if the readers do not follow American politics. Your assessment requires a better work.
Now on Obama and homosexuality in Africa given the recent bill banning homosexual marriages in Nigeria, it is clear Obama is protecting the Interest of Americans who might be homosexuals living and working in Africa, particularly Nigeria. We argue this all year round without agreeing but the point is America puts its funds where its interests rest as a public policy. I truly urge you to rethink.