Charles writes:
> I don't think the hate of the ruling classes originated
because the ruling classes had same-sex practices, but
because the ruling classes oppressed and exploited them.
I wasn't clear. I think that ruling classes were hated for being exploitative, then were depicted as being queer (something else people hated) to boot.
> Seems a stretch to say it is the origin of all hate of
same-sexers down through the ages, but perhaps we
can research it.
When one group of human beings sees another group of human beings enjoying a pleasure without the dangers or restrictions faced by the first group when they try to do the same thing, many strange things occur.
> In other words, the audience to be persuaded is a large
number of the people of Cuba, not the leaders.
And the leaders, if they are progressives and opposed to heterosexism should be in the vanguard of the persuaders.
> Most likely, the Party members are the most modern in
attitude on this.
Whatever their attitude, the only things can be measured are their actions and the decrease/increase these actions effect on the level of heterosexism.
> Just using your posts to this list as a measure, one wouldn't
really notice that you are pro-Cuban revolution nearly as much
as you are pro-queer liberation.
The fault in your methodology would be using only my posts to this list. Wouldn't that be considered a sampling error Miles?
It would be silly to post anti-imperialistic posts to LBO since most everyone on the list is anti-imperialist. Also, most anything I would post would merely be a rephrasing of what I learned from other members on the topic. My posts encouraging/supporting progressive/anti-imperialist politics are mostly made to my queer lists. In doing so, I seek to move the Log Cabinites/HRC'ers toward a more progressive understanding of the world. In fact, just tonight someone posted to one of my lists that Margaret Thatcher was the greatest leader of the 20th century. You have no idea of the trouble I've seen.
My area of expertise on LBO is queer/kinky sexuality. LBO is a fairly conventional/conservative list when it comes to sexuality (remember the kink thread? I do. LOL). Most members seem to have chosen to follow the conservative path of vanilla heterosexuality. I am hoping I can demonstrate that freedom of sexual expression is vital to human happiness and progress, and that it deserves to be at the top of the list along with other vital, urgent needs. Of course, with this stance I am offering a direct challenge to the Heterosexual Imperium.
> My advice is concentrate on your own activities, and don't try to
arrange Fidel's practice, especially as you are a Yankee ( I mean so am I),
with nowhere near the revolutionary accomplishments of Castro.
Just because Castro has some revolutionary accomplishments doesn't mean he is a sexual radical. Success in one area doesn't mean success in another. Einstein was a great scientist, but could he make a souffle as well as TJ?
Also, you obviously have a lot of knowledge and experience in revolutionary activism. But that did not prevent you, when you chose your sexuality, from chosing the safe, conservative, conformist route of vanilla heterosexuality. There is nothing radical, queer or revolutionary about the choice you made or the path you follow. You behaved as your parents, society and culture expected/raised you to. The same is probably true of Castro. Clearly, one can be radical in one area and conservative in another.
> Fredrick Douglass on power and all that.
Why so dismissive? You are not a fan?
> You can insult the Cuban revolutionaries all you want, to rag people
like me who are Communists, but you will only achieve the self-satisfaction
of insulting someone while you will undermine any project to help queers in
Cuba.
I am not insulting anyone. I am merely pointing out a fact. Now, maybe you would prefer that I do not point out this fact, but that does not alter the fact.
> I was responding on point as it was framed on this thread: a comparison
between centrally planned economies and markets
Maybe it would have been useful if you responded to what I had asked instead of to something else.
> I'd say it's a better strategy to praise progress as a way to get more
of it.
That is the way of Log Cabinites/HRC. Not very effective. "George, we love that you let the Justice Department let queers celebrate. Do you think now you could do something about Tom DeLay?" NOT.
> It is imperialistic for you a Yank to make demands on the Cubans about
their Constitution. This is a main flaw in your approach.
It is merely one queer brother helping other queer brothers and sisters achieve equality. As a member of the Heterosexual Imperium you might be unable to understand/comprehend the bonds that exist between queers. Your sexual privilege interferes with your appreciating/experiencing this phenomenon. But since you chose to be a het, you must live with the consequences however ugly they may be.
Brian Dauth Queer Buddhist Resister