>(To save clogging mailboxes and use up only a single post of my daily
>quota,
>I respond to Todd, Shane, and Charles below)
Heh! Good idea. Kudos on getting the e-mail fixed so I don't have to scroll sideways. >MUAH!<
>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.
I did. Skimmed enough to know I'll never get a good accounting from anyone wrt Arenas without doing LOTS more research than this e-mail's worth.
I did find this:
http://www.blythe.org/arenas.html
Which is critical of both Arenas and Cuba (or apologetic if you prefer).
I also thought this looked interesting FWIW: a thumbnail sketch of the history of Marxism and homosexuality. Don't know how much of its kosher.
http://www.etext.org/Politics/AlternativeOrange/2/v2n2_mth1.html
Both are old, so they might be dated.
>> . . . . 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"?
Well, a communist-style revolution, in theory is primarily interested in getting rid of capitalism. Getting rid of "macho culture" could be a part of it, owing to communism's liberal roots, but see the Hilson piece.
>>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.
I didn't ask about "should" but must.
>From what little reading I've done in the past few hours online, I've found
that the pre-Stalin USSR apparently didn't persecute queers. Apparently
Stalin also reversed an earlier policy of "pro-choice" vis-a-vis abortion.
>Three distinct men and cultures -- three deeply homophobic monsters. My
>question is why?
Read the articles. Even if they do turn out to be horseshit (and I know Mr. Pugliese's going to have his magic fingers flying into Google realm to check
!{)> ), they ennunciate some possible reasoning behind the actions taken.
>> 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.
Good. Problem is: what happens if it DOESN'T go that way . . . ?
>>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?
Depends on the dictatorship. Lumping any examples of the DoP in with a bourgeois dictatorship isn't a very productive start to the examination. You have to look at the context of the revolution and why queers were targeted.
>>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
While that particular page was edited as of May 8th, the page about Cuba was last edited October 30, 2003. And the latest info there is shown as coming from 1999 (and it seems things do seem to be improving somewhat).
>>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.
?? You mean the queer community was something else before capitalism came along? Something "pure"? And how does capitalism in general impede sexual freedom? Canada's got some pretty liberal stuff on the books now, and it's still a capitalist state.
>What would be best is for Castro & Co. to come correct and quit the
>persecution. Is there any hope of that happening? Who knows?
Could happen.
>I would also hope that leftists would stop praising other
>leftists/revolutionaries/marxists who hate and/or persecute queers.
Mmmm. It's possible to praise and condemn at the same time for different things . . . .
>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.
Well, it's hoped the working class will learn from what went on before, so cheer up.
Todd
_________________________________________________________________ MSN Premium: Up to 11 personalized e-mail addresses and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=http://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines