<HTML><HTML> From: BklynMagus Charles writes: >  If in your political activism for gay liberation you ignore the impact of your activism on other liberation movements, you will be categorized as a rightwing, gay liberationist. I criticize, therefore I am rightwing?  LOL ^^^^ CB: Yes Liberal Out Loud , LOL. or Loudmouth LIberal , LL.  , a liberal conception of the sacred right to criticize 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. > Your public criticism of Cuba on gay rights will be used to support invasion, blockade, etc. It will be used to bolster the claim that it is terrible, anti-democratic country. I can hear it now: "Mr. President.  Brian that Buddhist faggot has reported that there is queer oppression in Cuba."  etc. ^^^^ CB:  Your joke does not make your point. Liberals are in on overthrowing Cuba too. Your protest will become part of a liberal petition against Cuban "repression" , the twin of the rightwing attacks on Cuba.  Kennedy, a liberal , is the only one who organized an actual invasion of Cuba. The "Mr President in your joke will be a Liberal. ^^^^   > Thus, your public attacks on Cuba on gay issues is likely to cause the Cubans to group you with the rightwing and liberals AND THEREBY IGNORE AND REJECT YOUR PROTEST. Are you saying that Cubans automatically group with the rightwingers anyone who criticizes them, even if that person supports them in other areas?  Are they that phobic? ^^^^ CB:  Actually, the Cubans might be more understanding than I am on this.  I am also saying there is such a thing as a bourgeois gay liberationist. Same sex sex has a long history , and roots in a number of traditions, including rightwing and liberalism.  Your queer theory needs to cognize that there are rightwing and liberal paths to gayness.  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. Kings and Sultans have engaged in same sex as a kind of royal delicacy.  Most people know about the Greek ruling class custom. So, you would want to differentiate yourself from the bourgeois gay tradition, and by ignoring that your method ( "my sacred right to criticize outloud ") is more like a liberal than a radical. > In other words, practically speaking you are less likely to achieve your goal of improving gay rights in Cuba by making your protest public. Cubans wished only to be praised in public? ^^^^ CB: Look around you. Wake up. There is an ongoing attack against Cuba for 45 years from the Yankees ( You are a Yankee in this context, whether you like it or not)  Public attacks on Cuba in the U.S. all potentially feed into this imperialist campaign.  Yes, American radicals should not be feeding into it. You should wish to only praise Cuba in public, so as not to be grouped with the imperialist liberals and rightwingers. &&&&&& > Your arguments for gay liberation will be bourgeois, and rejected on that basis. If you think that type of attack will help gay rights in Cuba, I think you are wrong. > Praising the Cuban revolution is very important in order to try and win people to support it and end the U.S. blockade, retain hope among leftists that socialism hasn't been wiped out in the world. Praise for its socialism should not be silenced for its shortcomings with respect to gay liberation. As I wrote before it should be praised for what it got right and criticized for what it got/gets wrong. ^^^^ CB: See above ^^^^ > No the Cubans are not killing people for being gay. This is a careless and exaggerated assertion in this specific context and discusion. I am not talking of just physical mortality.  I am also speaking of queer spiritual and queer cultural death. ^^^^ CB: The slogan comes from the anti-AIDS campaign and refers to physical death. ^^^^^ > I don't have statements from Castro individually on homosexuality. He has gotten better over the years.  A Castro sampler: ^^^^ CB:  Well... ^^^^^ 1965: "We would never come to believe that a homosexual could embody the conditions and requirements of conduct that would enable us to consider him a true Revolutionary, a true Communist. A deviation of that nature clashes with the concept we have of what a militant Communist should be." "I do not believe anybody has a definitive answer as to what causes homosexuality. I think the problem must be considered very carefully. But I will be frank and say that homosexuals should not be allowed in positions where they are able to exert positions of influence on young people." 1992: "I'm not going to deny that, at a certain point, this machista thing, influenced the approach that was taken toward homosexuality. I personally -- you are asking me my personal opinion -- do not suffer from this type of phobia against homosexuals. Truly, in my mind, that's never been there and I have never been in favor nor have I promoted it, nor have I supported it, policies against homosexuals." "I don't see homosexuality as a phenomenon of degeneration, but rather I see it in another way. The approach has been of another sort: a more rational approach, considering the tendencies and natural things of the human being, who simply must be respected. This is the philosophy with which I view these problems. I think that there has to be consideration shown toward the family that suffers these situations. I would hope that the families would have another mentality, that they would have another approach when something of this sort happens. I am absolutely opposed to any form of repression, disdain, contempt or discrimination with respect to homosexuals. That's what I think." When asked about queers being militant members of the Communist Party: "I can tell you that there have been many prejudices around this issue, that's true, that's the reality, I won't deny it; but there have been prejudices of other kinds against which we have focused our struggle. "There was, for example, one standard for judging the personal conduct of a man and another for a woman. We had this situation for years in the party and I led fights and argued a lot about this. If there was infidelity in a marriage on behalf of the man, there was no problem, no worry, on the other hand it was a subject of discussion in the [party units] when there was infidelity on the part of the woman. There was one way of judging sexual relations of men and another of women. I had to fight hard, against deeply rooted tendencies that were not the product of any sermon or doctrine, or education, but the machista concepts and prejudices that exist at the heart of our society. "Of course, I didn't answer your question about free love. I have absolutely no objection. I don't know what is meant by free love. Interpreting it to mean the freedom to love, I have no objection." CB: Gotta go. More later </HTML>