And radicals keep their mouth shut? Sorry that is just too Hitleresque. Follow the bouncing Fuhrer and only sing his praises and the praises of the Reich.
^^^^
CB: Radicals, as I mentioned before, would communicate it in such a way as not to feed into the anti-Cuban campaign. I didn't say keep your mouth shut. I said say to the Cubans only and don't say it to Americans.
^^^^
> Who is your audience in this criticism ? Is it just the Cubans who you
are trying to persuade of your position ? No, now you are including the
U.S. imperialists who have been trying to overthrow Cuba for 45 years.
When you are queer you must fight the radical right as well as the radical left. Both have a horrendous history of equality for queers (and women).
^^^^ CB: Your history is wrong in that the radical left has a good history on these struggles and the radical right, of course, has a horrendous history on these struggles. You weaken rather than strengthen the gay liberation movement by ignoring this difference. Gay liberation would not be very far today without the left.
Women's liberation is a fundamental part of the left.
^^^^
Okay. So since I criticize I must be a liberal, therefore, I am in on the overthrowing of Cuba. This only holds true if one accepts you notion that a liberal criticizes while a radical holds her tongue.
^^^^ CB: A liberal elevates "freedom" of criticism above defense of the revolution in unity against the counterrevolution. Well they don't really defend the rev.,.but.. Radicals speak a lot, don't hold their tongues in general, but struggle with the contradiction that criticism of an oppressed nation in an imperialist country can feed into war and blockade against oppressed nations
Again who is your audience ? Who are you speaking to in the U.S. and what do you expect them to do in Cuba ? Why is it that you feel you must speak to Americans about things wrong in Cuba ? What are you trying to get Americans to do ? Why is it that you wouldn't confine your speech to Cubans only ?
^^^^ Well, if Cuba weren't oppressing queers I wouldn't have anything to criticize would I?
^^^^ CB: Given what has come out on this thread on the facts gays in Cuba today, you don't really have much to criticize about Cuba, do you ?
>> Same sex sex has a long history , and roots in a number of traditions,
including rightwing and liberalism.
Same sex has roots in every tradition. It is bred in the bone. No matter where or in what tradition I was raised, I would have wanted to suck c**k.
^^^^ CB: But not everybody who is a same sexer down through history is bred in the bone. Many come through socially constructed processes.
Are you saying that all gayness is biologically inherited when you say "bred in the bone" ?
^^^^^
Oh, I realize that. Liberals usually like it on their backs, while riightwingers holla for doggy-syle.
Seriously, "paths to gayness"? What does that mean? Either you want your own sex (or both) or not.
^^^^^ CB: I mean that some people are born gay and some people learn it. Of the people who learn it, there are different ways that they learn it. In ancient Greece, they learned it because it was considered high culture or the like. Today, I would hypothesize that people learn it in different ways ( and some are born with a potential inclination) .
^^^^
> In other words, part of the skepticism about gayness in Cuba has probably
been because it has a tradition as a ruling class custom down through the
ages.
Please. That is the excuse dredged up to justify homophobia, not the other way around.
^^^^^ CB: From what I can tell, it is a fact. I don't know what you mean by the other way around. Scholarship ( by gay scholars) on the history of same sexing reports on various ruling classes in this regard. I don't have my book with me now, and I can't remember the author. They don't report it as bad, they just report on these kings and sultans etc.
^^^^^^^^^^^
So the Cuban people have this nuanced understanding of queerness, but cannot understand the nuance of being both praised and criticized.
^^^^^ CB: What's nuanced about it ? I'd imagine that they associate it with the privileged from experience. Their understanding of "the praised and criticized " issue is more sophisticated than yours, so.....right back at you.
&&&&
Also, seeing "same sex sex as a royal delicacy" is the product of homphobia not the cause. You have gotten things ass-backwards.
^^^^^ CB: No, it is historically based. Your notion of ass backwards doesn't make sense. People weren't homophobic and then started trying to rationalize it by saying it was associated with the rich. It was associated with the rich in fact, and then people made the connection.
^^^^^
... ( You are a Yankee in this context, whether you like it or not).
I never said I wasn't. I just added that I am also a queer. Or do I stop being queer when I criticize Cuba?
^^^^^^ CB: Right you continue to be queer, and you associate your queerness with the other rightwing and liberal critics of Cuba. That's the point. You should have a nuanced enough position to not associate yourself with the anti-Cuban politics.
Being queer doesn't put you outside other politics.
^^^^^
Yes Mein Fuhrer! (think Stangelove). You are now trying to tell me how to wish? how to desire? That is not radical; that is dictatoral. (Also, radicals never split infinitives, liberals do. You SHOULD have written "You should wish only to praise . . . ")
^^^^^^
CB: Sticks and stones will break your bones... This is advice on an email list. You don't cognize the difference between it and Hitlerian commands backed by force.
In fact, you are the one falling in step with the "Hitlers" of today who run the USA. That's what I am advising you on. Don't associate yourself with anti-Cuban, "Hitler"-USA, because there is a ruling class, gay tradition too, and you will be categorized in it.
Radicals are changing the rules of grammar.