Is no-one else seeing this as an example of tension between 'left-wing neeks' involved in the scene and grime's core audience of predominantly black male teenagers? It's a bit of an elephant in the living room.
I would argue that material conditions are EXCLUSIVELY responsible for either tolerance or intolerance of homosexuality. The rise of the reproductive bourgeois family, which was arguably responsible for "creating"/codifying homosexuality as its own inverted image, laid the framework for the re-integration—a couple of centuries later on—of those same previously unassimilable and unreconcilable bodies. Capitalism can reconcile anything, sometimes it just takes a couple of centuries. Look at San Francisco. It's a wealthy place, no? I couldn't afford to live there. Lots of gays there too, no? Jamaica? Not so rich. Not so friendly to the gays sometimes. I refuse to see this as a failing of "Jamaican" culture or "Christian" culture or "Black" culture or anything else. Homosexuality is less likely to create stress when material conditions are very good. If I don't like gays (or whoever) I can roll up the windows of my SUV and drive on by. Similarly, if I'm rich, I don't have to worry about homosexuality reducing the number of potential offspring among my family/community (and of course, children always = a chance of a better life) since I already have the other economic (which incl. educational/medical/judicial) factors in place for the kiddies that do appear. This is obviously oversimplifying it a bit, but I'm doing my best here.
I don't really see race as the elephant, since it can only lead us back to arguments which will always circle around Jamaican culture. I think the elephant in the living room is really capitalism, or perhaps more specifically a bottleneck in the processing of westerners into the mum/dad/kids/car/ipod/gays continuum. Soon grime will be made in a factory in China and this thread will cease to matter. Everybody wants a fucken SUV.
Last edited: