I thought the headline took a multi-layered story – about the author’s complicated feelings about being the granddaughter of Cuban expats, the differing viewpoints amongst Cuban-Americans of different generations, the authors feelings about never having visited Cuba, about Cuba’s isolation and impoverishment by U.S. policy, as well as Cuba being a country many Americans probably have overly-romanticized notions, and which focused on that final aspect and reduced it to “Here’s why you, the reader, are screwed-up about Cuba”. I thought making the headline about the intended reader was overly provocative, and in a sense objectified the author: “I, as a 3rd generation Cuban-American, am defined by your romanticized notions and your desire to
visit Cuba, and I resent it”.
I’ve re-read the article; the author actually spends more time on how she feels about “disaster-tourism” (the aspect of the article the headline evokes) than I first realized, and my reactions to the headline would have been more appropriately directed towards the article itself.
And I shouldn’t have generalized about TPM’s headlines based on a single headline without being prepared to back it up with some sort of cogent argument. I really do not like the expression “I try not to shit where I eat”, but I usually do try to avoid doing that, especially when the eating is completely cost-free to me. I spend a lot of time at TPM. If I didn’t appreciate it I wouldn’t spend the time here.
I understand your point about people’s attitudes toward headlines. I could probably discuss this with myself ad nauseam – “on the one hand; on the other hand” (I have many hands). I’m still not a fan of the headline, but I’m glad you called me out on it (though at this point you’re probably regretting it) and hope this helps.