Charles writes:
> 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.
Again, this seems to be your personal definition of what a radical is and how she would act.
> 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.
The radical left has an okay history. I have older friends who were kicked out of the Communist Party for being gay.
> A liberal elevates "freedom" of criticism above defense of the revolution
in unity against the counterrevolution.
How about the disunity radicals showed by oppressing queers and denying them full equality?
> Who are you speaking to in the U.S. and what do you expect them to do in
Cuba?
In am speaking to radicals in Cuba and the US who would spread disunion in the movement by supporting queer oppression.
> Why is it that you feel you must speak to Americans about things wrong in
Cuba?
Because I think it is dangerous to praise a model of revolution that has not striven for sexual equality. Had radicals spoken up when Stalin began his campaigns against queers, maybe those who looked to Stalin as a model would not have incorporated the same hate in their version of the struggle.
> What are you trying to get Americans to do?
Support the right to sexual self determination everywhere.
> Why is it that you wouldn't confine your speech to Cubans only?
Because it is a many faceted problem.
> But not everybody who is a same sexer down through history is bred in the
bone. Many come through socially constructed processes.
What do you mean?
> Are you saying that all gayness is biologically inherited when you say
"bred in the bone"?
Queer desire is part of some human being's software. Just like het desire is part of other people's.
> I mean that some people are born gay and some people learn it.
How do you learn to be gay? How do you learn desire?
> 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.
Having sex with a man doesn't mean that you have gay desire. People eat caviar because they think it is posh without ever having a taste for it.
> 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.
See Homophobia: A History by Byrne Fone (2000).
> Right you continue to be queer, and you associate your queerness with the
other rightwing and liberal critics of Cuba.
You associate my queerness with critics of Cuba. That is your connection not mine.
> 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.
The Hitler's are the ones who oppress queers and do not support sexual self determination for all people.
Brian Dauth Queer Buddhist Resister