it is probably something that exists as the norm in the region - a search on wikipedia on neighbouring country ghana shows that lgbtq stuff has been outlawed since colonial times
it is probably something that exists as the norm in the region - a search on wikipedia on neighbouring country ghana shows that lgbtq stuff has been outlawed since colonial times
The leadership of a state doesn’t exactly have to follow such nonsense, so this explanation is not sufficient.
Furthermore, such views are not something that I understand, either.
their society is still an echo from previous iterations of society at the end of the day, and focusing intensely on the shortcomings on a country which is not aligned with western interests is a propaganda tactic - this rhetoric/sentiment is most likely common among the populace in neighbouring countries
That just means that antagonising LGBT people makes it easier for NATO to engage in this propaganda warfare.
I don’t think that that’s a good explanation. A country’s leadership is going to first consider their economic reasons, and, if some relevant superstructural stuff contradicts it, they can just ignore those, as they have always done.
I highly doubt that state leadership groups in general care about upholding minor individual prejudices when there is no evident benefit for a strong enough part of said leadership groups.
Banning homosexuality doesn’t have an obvious answer as to how it could be such a problem for the economy.
Furthermore, base-superstructure relations are only pressures that nudge things on a large scale. On shorter scales things can happen contrary to what base-superstructure would predict.
Although… because of Burkina faso’s relative lack of capitalist development, traditional family norms haven’t broken down there fully. Meaning that the base-superstructure relationship actually predicts such laws to be passed.
Banning homosexuality doesn’t have an obvious answer as to how it could be such a problem for the economy.
It doesn’t seem to help the economy while antagonising a part of the population, which will help NATO’s activities against Burkina Faso. So, I’d say there is a very obvious con and no apparent pros for the economy.
Furthermore, base-superstructure relations are only pressures that nudge things on a large scale. On shorter scales things can happen contrary to what base-superstructure would predict.
I find it hard to believe that a state’s leadership would not be class conscious, and would not understand their individual interests and the interests of other members of the ruling class. Relevant interests seem to be very good predictors of behaviour in such cases.
The leadership of a state doesn’t exactly have to follow such nonsense, so this explanation is not sufficient.
Furthermore, such views are not something that I understand, either.
i don’t really understand it fully tbh, the history of africa is foreign to me - that said i don’t think all things leadership do is always based in extensive theory and calculation - they see visibly the exploitation that has deprived the country of it’s own wealth (causing them to revolt and throw out the french), but may still harbour backwards views on certain topics (which is the product of their environment not thorough analysis)
the outlawing of the lgbtq is bad obviously. i am not trying to justify it - this is just analysis
i have met those in my life who are in leadership positions in local regions, that struggles for issues such as Palestine harbour stances that are backwards/ US talking points - it is often a reflection of these points being pushed on them very early and them taking it as gospel (as if there were not as existing ecosystem that has ulterior motives). it is just a product of being human and not always analyzing/poor analyses (of) their actions.
That just means that antagonising LGBT people makes it easier for NATO to engage in this propaganda warfare.
i don’t disagree, this is a more common perspective adopted. my wording is more me thinking in terms of systems and paying mind to how the liberal world order works to push forward it’s interests
it is probably something that exists as the norm in the region - a search on wikipedia on neighbouring country ghana shows that lgbtq stuff has been outlawed since colonial times
their society is still an echo from previous iterations of society at the end of the day, and focusing intensely on the shortcomings on a country which is not aligned with western interests is a propaganda tactic - this rhetoric/sentiment is most likely common among the populace in neighbouring countries
The leadership of a state doesn’t exactly have to follow such nonsense, so this explanation is not sufficient.
Furthermore, such views are not something that I understand, either.
That just means that antagonising LGBT people makes it easier for NATO to engage in this propaganda warfare.
The leadership of the country doesn’t come out of nowhere. Many of the popular prejudices will be adopted by them.
I don’t think that that’s a good explanation. A country’s leadership is going to first consider their economic reasons, and, if some relevant superstructural stuff contradicts it, they can just ignore those, as they have always done.
I highly doubt that state leadership groups in general care about upholding minor individual prejudices when there is no evident benefit for a strong enough part of said leadership groups.
Banning homosexuality doesn’t have an obvious answer as to how it could be such a problem for the economy.
Furthermore, base-superstructure relations are only pressures that nudge things on a large scale. On shorter scales things can happen contrary to what base-superstructure would predict.
Although… because of Burkina faso’s relative lack of capitalist development, traditional family norms haven’t broken down there fully. Meaning that the base-superstructure relationship actually predicts such laws to be passed.
It doesn’t seem to help the economy while antagonising a part of the population, which will help NATO’s activities against Burkina Faso. So, I’d say there is a very obvious con and no apparent pros for the economy.
I find it hard to believe that a state’s leadership would not be class conscious, and would not understand their individual interests and the interests of other members of the ruling class. Relevant interests seem to be very good predictors of behaviour in such cases.
State leaderships can also just make dumb decisions from time to time, some more than others.
i don’t really understand it fully tbh, the history of africa is foreign to me - that said i don’t think all things leadership do is always based in extensive theory and calculation - they see visibly the exploitation that has deprived the country of it’s own wealth (causing them to revolt and throw out the french), but may still harbour backwards views on certain topics (which is the product of their environment not thorough analysis)
the outlawing of the lgbtq is bad obviously. i am not trying to justify it - this is just analysis
i have met those in my life who are in leadership positions in local regions, that struggles for issues such as Palestine harbour stances that are backwards/ US talking points - it is often a reflection of these points being pushed on them very early and them taking it as gospel (as if there were not as existing ecosystem that has ulterior motives). it is just a product of being human and not always analyzing/poor analyses (of) their actions.
i don’t disagree, this is a more common perspective adopted. my wording is more me thinking in terms of systems and paying mind to how the liberal world order works to push forward it’s interests