There's been a great deal of controversy swirling around HB2, a bill recently passed in North Carolina and signed by Governor Pat McCrory. The law prevents transgender individuals from using public restrooms of the gender with which they identify. This has led to a series of boycotts, ranging from businesspeople to athletes to musicians and beyond. One musician who cancelled a show in North Carolina due to the controversial bill was "The Boss" Bruce Springsteen. In response to his cancellation, several conservatives criticized the rock star for being hypocritical, as he cancelled a show in the U.S. due to anti-LGBT legislation yet didn't do so in foreign countries which possessed far more extreme anti-LGBT laws. I've heard this line of reasoning on multiple occasions from conservatives, especially with regard to the LGBT community: "Things aren't so bad here. Just be grateful you don't live in Africa or the Middle East" or "Why do you criticize our LGBT laws so much while ignoring harsher ones in other countries?"
At the surface, these conservatives are right - many (lesser developed) countries do possess stricter laws than the United States with regard to the LGBT community. They'd also be correct to say, regardless of the country, there's no such thing as a "moral" anti-LGBT law. But that's where the similarities end, as when we dig deeper and look at the complete picture, we realize this isn't an apples-to-apples type of situation.
What it really comes down to is a home-first mentality and the potential impact of such boycotts. While many of us would love to Miss Universe contestants finally get their wish of "world peace" and feel it's our duty to continually contribute to that cause, most of us also feel it's our duty to focus on our own problems first and foremost. Looking at things on a smaller scale, while I'd love to solve the problems of all U.S. families, my main focus is of course going to be on my own family. How can we realistically solve all other countries' problems when we've yet to solve our own? Also, if American musicians perform in oppressed countries, while they may not directly prompt legal changes, they could very well inspire others to get involved and help bring about these much needed changes. In our own country, it's much more likely we can directly prompt legal changes, which make boycotts like Springsteen's significantly more effective.
No, anti-LGBT laws are never moral and we should do everything in our power to repeal them, but we need to start here at home. It does no good to criticize underdeveloped nations for their laws when ours are just as flawed. It does no good to deprive citizens of these nations of the music, inspiration, and hope we often times take for granted here in this country. It does no good to declare ourselves the greatest country in the world while comparing ourselves to lesser developed nations due to similarities in anti-LGBT legislation. If we truly want to be the world's model for morality, we'll have to start showcasing this more regularly, instead of pointing to those living in poverty thousands of miles away and saying, "Well, they're worse than us." With that kind of mentality, the U.S. should simply strive for second-to-last in every Olympic event.
At the surface, these conservatives are right - many (lesser developed) countries do possess stricter laws than the United States with regard to the LGBT community. They'd also be correct to say, regardless of the country, there's no such thing as a "moral" anti-LGBT law. But that's where the similarities end, as when we dig deeper and look at the complete picture, we realize this isn't an apples-to-apples type of situation.
What it really comes down to is a home-first mentality and the potential impact of such boycotts. While many of us would love to Miss Universe contestants finally get their wish of "world peace" and feel it's our duty to continually contribute to that cause, most of us also feel it's our duty to focus on our own problems first and foremost. Looking at things on a smaller scale, while I'd love to solve the problems of all U.S. families, my main focus is of course going to be on my own family. How can we realistically solve all other countries' problems when we've yet to solve our own? Also, if American musicians perform in oppressed countries, while they may not directly prompt legal changes, they could very well inspire others to get involved and help bring about these much needed changes. In our own country, it's much more likely we can directly prompt legal changes, which make boycotts like Springsteen's significantly more effective.
No, anti-LGBT laws are never moral and we should do everything in our power to repeal them, but we need to start here at home. It does no good to criticize underdeveloped nations for their laws when ours are just as flawed. It does no good to deprive citizens of these nations of the music, inspiration, and hope we often times take for granted here in this country. It does no good to declare ourselves the greatest country in the world while comparing ourselves to lesser developed nations due to similarities in anti-LGBT legislation. If we truly want to be the world's model for morality, we'll have to start showcasing this more regularly, instead of pointing to those living in poverty thousands of miles away and saying, "Well, they're worse than us." With that kind of mentality, the U.S. should simply strive for second-to-last in every Olympic event.
Comments
Post a Comment