because he was Latin.
And does that make it acceptable?
> Jerry suggests that there may have been an identification of open
gayness with the status of Havana as a U.S. brothel; and, only in that
sense, was the opposition to gayness politically motivated: to oppose
gayness was to oppose that influence.
Well, that was certainly stupid (and would seem to mitigate against Yoshie's claim that Castro was brilliant).
> The criticism of Fidel and the socialist revo in Cuba for oppressing
gays is hypocritical as is is A) just a means of getting lefties to
attack a socialist country--
I am attacking a particular practice of a particular socialist country. Is the fact that a country is socialist immunize it from crtiticism when it commits crimes against queer humanity?
> the people who want to restore Capitalism in Cuba are no more gay
friendly than Fidel is
But criticizing Cuba for persecuting queers is not the equivalent of supporting those who wish to restore capitalism to Cuba. That is the mental jump you are making and then trying to ascribe to me.
> B) those people don't seem to be equally sensitive and vocal about far
worst excesses that the U.S. is currently guilty of and therefore the
motives
or intelligence of these people is suspect.
But Jerry cannot possibly know about my (or anybody else's) sensitivity in this area. Such a leap is just as dumb as Castro's when he equated queerness with capitalism (though there is a certain idiot logic symmetry between the two positions).
> It is true that they were quarantined, but this quarantine makes perfect
> sense
in that it protected others from certain death.
So AIDS patients should be quarantined to protect other people?
> I dont' call that oppression.
Of course not. But teaching people to practice safe sex is a lot less oppressive than quarantining them.
Brian