Talk:Mwanga II of Buganda

message: The LGBT-related categories are supported by this text: "...defied the king by rescuing the young royal pages in their care from Mwanga's pederastic sexual exploitation..."  Mwanga was a king who had sex with boys.  His bio therefore justifies the LGBT and pederasty categories.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:56, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed it because I thought it was offensive to comflate forcible pederasty with homosexuality. Do you not agree? Lobojo (talk) 17:37, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While it would be mislabeling to cateforize the pages as LGBT, since it was forced on them, I think it is acceptable to state the somebody who is into porking said pages is indeed homosexual. Jeffpw (talk) 18:06, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So consistency would imply that you would support including all the pedarsts who have articles on wikipedia in a :Category:LBGT pederasts in cases when the abuser and the abused were of the same sex? I really think that this is offensive frankly. Diddling boys does not mean a man is gay; a man that abuses boys is sick and twisted and should not be grouped as though they were part of some LGBT community. Lobojo (talk) 18:14, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: LGBT

message: ++++++++++++++++++++++++++
*I am cited as the source for the Mwanga II article. I agree with many of the thoughful contributions above, except for the fact that Mwanga, sharing the same AGE as most of the pages in general, should not, therefore, be called a pederast. Though it is an archaic term [and I understand the frustration around terminology], isn't it still a term that supports the idea of an older man being with younger "boys?" Additionally, there is the subtext of effiminacy that goes with many accounts.
Moreover, despite the difference in power, who knows the sexual content, the desire, the 'drama,' in the royal court?...a drama that radically changed when  the Christians targeted anal sex and coveted the discursive power that condemnation of it [anal sex ie] would gain them. Kenneth Hamilton, Ph.D.
:Thanks for your comment!  We really appreciate it.  
:Certainly at the time of the Uganda martyrs scandal, Mwanga was a young man and might have been sexually exploiting males relatively near his age.  But do you think that he stopped doing this when he was older?  I suspect that most people would consider a 30-year-old man having sex with a 15-year-old to qualify as pederasty.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:54, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The Uganda Martyrs were executed in 1887. Mwanga was himself 19 years of age! This image of an old man exploiting young boys is a clear case of demonisation. Contaldo80 (talk) 11:22, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Error

message: Does anyone know the age of the boys Mwanga was having (or wanting to have) sex with?  If I did the math right, Mwanga was about 16 when he came to power, and he started killing the pages and their protectors almost immediately.  If the pages were pretty much his age, then we have a case of neither pedophilia nor pederasty, but a pair of careless assumptions:  that sexually abusive kings are middle-aged, and that sexually victimized pages are pre-teens or young teens.  
I have also not seen any sources which discuss his sexual practices in his 20s and 30s (and he was only 35 when he died in exile).  Can anyone else find anything?  WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:45, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm. Maybe I am no expert on the subject, it is clear the pederasty is not approriate here either way. Even if it was I would opose the LGBT cat here, since pederatsy advocacy is generally rejected by the LGBT community, NAMBLA the most famous pederast advocacy group is widely shunned, though they try to present themselves as the "cutting edge" of the grouping. I wont remove the cat again though since I don't need any more abuse from Jeffpw for the next few days. Lobojo (talk) 18:54, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm just argeeing with you and pointing out that based on the current information that we have we cannot say. But also adding that pederasty is certainly *not* the correct language, since this is rape. I do not know but if it is forced he isnt called a pederast. That much I know. Lobojo (talk) 21:02, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's a mistake to imply that Mwanga was a paedophile. Researching about the Uganda Martyrs (the pages that rejected his sexual advances) it's clear that the bulk of the them were in the 20s and late teens when they died. The youngest, St. Kizito, was 14 when martyred. If we assume that Mwanga did away with them fairly soon after they spurned him (rather than wait 10 years or so) then it's wrong to see them as children. The word 'page' implies someone young but in fact at least one of them was in his 50s. More likely that the local churches deliberately conflated the issues in order to demonise the king (who was hostile to missionary christianity). Contaldo80 (talk) 10:45, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources

message: I don't see a source for the section which details Mwanga II's main opposition to Christian missionaries being that his page boys turned to Christianity and insolently refused his sexual advances. It's not that this is an extraordinary claim; in fact, it's quite believable, but what evidence is there to back up this claim? Can anyone provide me with a source that shows this was the reason for his purging of Christians and missionaries? There would certainly be other factors for a King in such an area, like the cultural aspects of such an invasive ideology, etc. If anyone has a verifiable source for this claim, it would be nice to include it in that section of the bio. Thanks. Mavriksfan11 (talk) 23:26, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources for Mwanga II's relationships with his page boys