(To save clogging mailboxes and use up only a single post of my daily quota, I respond to Todd, Shane, and Charles below)
Todd asks:
> Was the consequence of putting queers into concentration camps (BTW,
what's the validity for this?) . . .
Reinaldo Arenas among many others. Just google.
> . . . . the result of the Cuban Revolution, or was it a result of there
not being enough done by the Cuban government to combat the usual "macho"
culture of Cuba?
Well, I think queers being thrown into re-education camps was part of the revolution. And isn't the revolution supposed to liberate people from the oppression of such things as "macho culture"?
> Do you seriously think that a revolution must absolutely be about jack
boots, swaths of people getting killed or murdered, soldiers on every street
corner, watching for deviation from passers-by? I really get that
impression from reading this.
No, I do not think it should be that way at all, but if you look at history queer persecution seems to go along with revolution -- Stalin, Mao, Castro. Three distinct men and cultures -- three deeply homophobic monsters. My question is why?
> Can't it be something as orderly as a new government coming to power,
writing new laws
(reaction notwithstanding)?
That is what I think it should be.
> Mmmm. Slightly different context than dictatorship of the proletariat
By why do dictatorships (of the proletariat or otherwise) always seem to seek to crush the right of sexual self-determination? Are dictaorships by their nature masculinist and heterosexist? Do dictatorships demand clearly defined, inviolable sex/gender roles?
> The linked article's a bit old. Is there anything more up-to-date?
And I thought faggots were trend conscious. Obviously, they have nothing on marxists. Alas May 8, 2004 is the best that I can do. LOL
http://www.sodomylaws.org/world/world.htm
> If you don't mind my own insecurity showing: would you care if a
gay-friendly liberal-capitalist regime were re-installed there, or would you
rather Castro and Co. shape up and get out of people's
bedrooms/alleyways/bath-houses/wherever?
Capitalism is the last thing I want to see anywhere, both for the obvious reasons we all know, and for me, the very specific reasons that it distorts and corrupts the queer community and impedes sexual freedom and happiness.
What would be best is for Castro & Co. to come correct and quit the persecution. Is there any hope of that happening? Who knows?
I would also hope that leftists would stop praising other leftists/revolutionaries/marxists who hate and/or persecute queers. It is fine to say Castro accomplished some good things. But he and the revolution were not perfect and this should be acknowledged. Otherwise people will just emulate his "shining example" and commit the same atrocities over again.
> Hmmm. Well, successful at wresting power away from the capitalists at any
rate. Revolution's an on-going process, so long as capitalism's still
around.
Agreed. I am trying to understand the role of violence/persecution in this continuing revolution.
Shane wrote:
> Exactly where is the "compassion" in murdering a centenarian+ villain who
has not repented for and atoned for his crimes?
Hitler a centenarian? I didn't know he lived that long. LOL.
I always take those questions to mean what if you could have killed Hitler at the height of his power. That is when the question is vital. If he were alive today, of course there is no sense in killing him. It is more compassionate for him to live and have an opportunity to achieve some degree of enlightenment.
The question of violence is most pressing when you can (with violence) prevent a vast amount of suffering to occur. Is it justified if you do so with compassion? Can violence ever be done with compassion? Thich Nhat Hanh says that even if he were the last Buddhist on earth he would not use violence against someone who was trying to kill him. He believes that Buddhist insight/wisdom would survive even the murder of the last "Buddhist."
> Is it "compassionate" to sentence such a criminal to an afterlife
consisting of nothing but damned, impotent, regret?
Depends on how you define an afterlife. (This question brings in the issue of karma which I think is a little far afield for lbo-talk. There are good resources on the net or you can email me.)
> Justice would demand his execution, true, and would likewise represent a
measure of atonement and therefore compassion. But murder?
There is a great line in Ibuse's Black Rain: "Sometimes an unjust peace is better than a just war." I have often used it a koan in my practice. At this moment of typing I am still a believer in non-violence and compassion (surprise), but having been on the list for a while now and learned a good deal, I wonder if there is a "compassionate use" of violence to prevent vast amounts of suffering. I really do not know.
Charles wrote:
> However, defense of the revolution if necessary to survive must not be
forgone because of the abstract principle that often violence begets
violence.
To me "violence begetting violence" is not an abstract principle, but an established fact. Is violence ever to be forgone or is it always appropriate?
> I understand you are enunciating a Buddhist principle, but I am not
discussing a revolution being carried out based on Buddhist principles.
Got it. What I am trying to understand are the principles you are basing your revolution on, specifically the principles governing the use of violence.
> Who the hell am I to judge their mistakes, but specifically, no I would
not dissolve the Cuban revolution if what you say is true.
Judgement is allowed any human being and occurs all the time. I am not saying dissolve the revolution (you seem to take things to an extreme), but I am asking how one should respond to flaws in the revolution such as the persecution of queers (this is of course assuming one consider the persecution of queers a flaw).
> My assertion was that in many revolutions there have been unjustified
crimes, i.e. uses of violence and force that could not be justified as
defending the revolution from counterrevolutionaries.
Agreed.
> Nonetheless, the solution was not to windup the revolution, hand over
things to imperialism.
Agreed (again you jump to an extreme). But what is the solution when the right to sexual self-determination is abrogated? Is the persecution allowed to continue with the hope it plays itself out? What if those asserting the right to sexual self-determination are branded counterrevolutionaries? Are they? What (if anything) is counterrevolutionary about freedom/possession of one's own body? Isn't the revolution supposed to liberate people from the yokes that capitalism places on them?
> Specifically, whatever persecution of queers there has been in Cuba, does
not mean the
revolution or government or Party should be dissolved or removed from power.
Again, more extremes.
1) Are there any persecutions or uses of violence which might mean the party should be removed from power? 2) Does Marx in his writings indicate any limits on the use of violence/persecution, both generally and specifically with regard to queers/sexual self-determination.
Thanks for your help.
Brian Dauth Queer Buddhist Resister