Reports that Fidel Castro is dead

[hornblower]

What kind of a brainwashed Marxist - Leninist would I be if I didn't take this opportunity to share the Internationale?  :P 


hey, more random facts. Billy Bragg wrote new English lyrics because he was asked to by Pete Seeger when they were performing at the Vancouver Folk Festival, days after the Tienanmen Square massacre & Pete wanted to sing the song for the protesters. Billy explains how it all went down & does a powerful acapella version here at Pete Seeger's 90th Birthday concert. 

 

[madteaparty]

It's quite distubing to me to hear the imperialist tone in some posts re Cuba.

 

Amnesty report on the illegal US embargo against Cuba.

 

 

Thank you for the Internationale, hornblower. I shall listen with my little statue of Lenin by my side.

It's like the red scare didn't happen...

[bibiche]

re nationalization

 

 

Oil, and also the United Fruit Company, the agent that sowed the geopolitical seeds we'll continue to reap for decades to come.

Here is the Pable Neruda poem in Spanish too:

http://www.writing.ucsb.edu/faculty/dean/Upload501B-Fall06/PabloNeruda.pdf

[Carol in Cal.]

 

 

Castro wasn't always a radical.

He executed over 400 people in his first year in office, including many who had professed support for him and for the revolution.  This was while he was still claiming not to be a Communist.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

He executed over 400 people in his first year in office, including many who had professed support for him and for the revolution.  This was while he was still claiming not to be a Communist.

 

Pretty sure his life didn't start the year he got in office.

 

And while no one should condone executions, a lot of what happened early on was revenge for what the Cuban people suffered under previous regimes. 

[Carol in Cal.]

 

 

And while no one should condone executions, a lot of what happened early on was revenge for what the Cuban people suffered under previous regimes. 

Oh right, not so he could consolidate his own power.  Not because of THAT.  Because, you know, it's so inconsistent with the rest of his life.

[Guest]

So I have to ask, Did Pol Pot have two sides too? Is he shades of gray and some good things came from it? Where do we draw the line? I really don't understand justifying heinous acts by saying well someone else worse was so what he did was excusable. Or hell, even understandable. I don't care who did what to whom when or where. It doesn't excuse taking people's businesses. It doesn't excuse taking people's LIVES. It doesn't excuse making an entire country suffer because of an egomaniac.

 

I find it interesting that this same behavior by another nation is inexcusable but in his case he gets a pass?

[Guest]

I don't give any of them a pass ......not sure who else you want to talk about ideology wise. None of its excusable.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Oh right, not so he could consolidate his own power.  Not because of THAT.  Because, you know, it's so inconsistent with the rest of his life.

 

You think revenge for what Batista's minions did wasn't a factor?  Okay then.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I don't give any of them a pass ......not sure who else you want to talk about ideology wise. None of its excusable.

 

Except we have kept a boycott on Cuba while ignoring worse abuses among our "allies" in the same region.

 

[ChocolateReignRemix]

So I have to ask, Did Pol Pot have two sides too? Is he shades of gray and some good things came from it? Where do we draw the line? I really don't understand justifying heinous acts by saying well someone else worse was so what he did was excusable. Or hell, even understandable. I don't care who did what to whom when or where. It doesn't excuse taking people's businesses. It doesn't excuse taking people's LIVES. It doesn't excuse making an entire country suffer because of an egomaniac.

 

I find it interesting that this same behavior by another nation is inexcusable but in his case he gets a pass?

 

The real point is that it shouldn't be excusable, but we (the United States) have given a pass to worse many, many times.  Even some of of our own actions pale in comparison to some of Castro's.  Yet we have kept him as a boogeyman for no apparent reason other than to pander to a political base in a populous state and because "Eek! Communism!"

 

[Guest]

Except we have kept a boycott on Cuba while ignoring worse abuses among our "allies" in the same region.

 

 

I don't look to the US government to determine what is right or wrong morally. I also don't think that just because I disagree with a US foreign policy means that the target of said policy is given a free pass. The boycott has zero to do with him being an immense asshole. He chose to do that on his own. He was one before the boycott. It's not like he was some innocent choir boy and then we turned him into a monster. I'm sorry but people decide what they want to be- the circumstances may show their true colors but too many people manage to remain noble in difficult circumstance to give him a pass on any of those that take the low road and massacre their own people in droves. 

 

I really don't get how come the actions of the US are being used to excuse him for anything. It's two totally different discussions. I mean, the US and Iran don't have a great history either. Does that excuse the way everything has played out there for the last 40 years? No. Just because you have crappy circumstances handed to you doesn't excuse you to be an asshole. (Not literal you- you as in political players). Quite a few political figures have managed to rise above. There's something to be said for dignity and caring for ones people instead of exploiting them for one's ego. 

[ktgrok]

Except we have kept a boycott on Cuba while ignoring worse abuses among our "allies" in the same region.

 

 

Yes, the government has. that does not mean that those responding to this thread, or Cuban Americans, etc, support dictators of any political stripe. I can hate cruel dictators all over the place, me not liking Castro doesn't mean others get a pass. 

 

Nor does it mean I supported the embargo, i didn't/don't. 

Edited November 30, 2016 by ktgrok

[Guest]

The real point is that it shouldn't be excusable, but we (the United States) have given a pass to worse many, many times.  Even some of of our own actions pale in comparison to some of Castro's.  Yet we have kept him as a boogeyman for no apparent reason other than to pander to a political base in a populous state and because "Eek! Communism!"

 

 

Then that's a separate topic. But that's the point here- Castro. But somehow that keeps being deflected.  It's turning into because America has done some shitty things, well he pales in comparison and we should laud his efforts? WTF ever. Again. If he was so great, and if his government was so great, I have to ask why people weren't immigrating there in droves. He's a boogeyman because he's a boogeyman. Just because there are worst ones doesn't mitigate the torture he put so many people through. 

 

I have to ask if you guys say these things to the Cuban migrants you meet in real life. Are you really going to make excuses for him or present the shades of grey to them? This is unbelievable to me. Assuming you have Cuban friends, I have to wonder how those discussions go over because I can't imagine it being well received by the Cuban people I know. 

[Guest]

Carry on without me - I've said enough on here enough times :sleep:

Edited November 30, 2016 by Arctic Mama

[Amira]

Efraín Ríos Montt

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efra%C3%ADn_R%C3%ADos_Montt

 

While I don't think people here would be cheering this guy on, he certainly had US support.

 

Reagan said, "President Ríos Montt is a man of great personal integrity and commitment. ... I know he wants to improve the quality of life for all Guatemalans and to promote social justice."

[Guest]

Efraín Ríos Montt

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efra%C3%ADn_R%C3%ADos_Montt

 

While I don't think people here would be cheering this guy on, he certainly had US support.

 

Reagan said, "President Ríos Montt is a man of great personal integrity and commitment. ... I know he wants to improve the quality of life for all Guatemalans and to promote social justice."

I disagree with Reagan on that. *shrug*. So? (ETA - nobody is infallible but I think that's about as ridiculous of an overstatement as Trudeau's in this case. Rosy glasses are not a one party thing - I missed part of your original post and wanted to amend myself since I think this came out snarky somehow)

 

I also think Castro's scale and scope of human suffering much longer and broader by orders of magnitude and depth of dysfunction, at a plain look comparing the two side by side. That doesn't make Montt right either, but I don't know who on here says he was? I would disagree with them too.

Edited November 30, 2016 by Arctic Mama

[Carol in Cal.]

Nah, he doesn't get a pass - as I said pages back, he did terrible things - but it's deeply ironic and telling that a special vitriol is reserved for authoritarians on the left. Making one wonder to what extent the loathing is ideologically based.

Actually, what is ironic and telling is the defensiveness because he's on the left.

Making one wonder to what extend the defensiveness is ideologically based, particularly when it's coupled with so many transparently false parallels.

[bibiche]

I also think Castro's scale and scope of human suffering much longer and broader by orders of magnitude and depth of dysfunction, at a plain look comparing the two side by side. That doesn't make Montt right either, but I don't know who on here says he was? I would disagree with them too.

Then you need to examine them a little more closely, because Castro didn't come near the horror of Reagan supported Rios Montt. And we did that, we propped that horrid murderer up. But perhaps he was a good man, because he went on television every week to evangelize, even as he was ordering the slaughter of innocent Maya.

 

https://consortiumnews.com/2014/02/06/how-reagan-promoted-genocide-2/

http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2013/05/19/what-guilt-does-the-us-bear-in-guatemala/guatemalan-slaughter-was-part-of-reagans-hard-line

[Guest]

Efraín Ríos Montt

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efra%C3%ADn_R%C3%ADos_Montt

 

While I don't think people here would be cheering this guy on, he certainly had US support.

 

Reagan said, "President Ríos Montt is a man of great personal integrity and commitment. ... I know he wants to improve the quality of life for all Guatemalans and to promote social justice."

Yep. This guy sounds like an asshole too. What does that have to do with Fidel Castro? Because the US supported one and not the other? Again. Sorry. I don't take my moral direction from governments. I can think there both wrong and not have to excuse either. If you want to argue that to someone somewhere who thinks Ronald Regan was a saint, be my guest but no one seems to be doing that in this thread. I'm not seeing anyone say the US is saintly here.

 

But bringing up this guy sounds like just another way to excuse what Castro did by pointing out he's not the only one. There are lots of psychopaths in this world. Let's call a spade a spade and say they can all be degenerates who shouldn't be venerated. Because they fall on one side of the political spectrum or the other doesn't negate their behavior either way. Evil is evil. Perhaps if we quit making excuses for them there would be fewer of them in power in this world instead of giving them a free pass because some of their politics align with out political leanings.

[Guest]

Then you need to examine them a little more closely, because Castro didn't come near the horror of Reagan supported Rios Montt. And we did that, we propped that horrid murderer up. But perhaps he was a good man, because he went on television every week to evangelize, even as he was ordering the slaughter of innocent Maya.

 

https://consortiumnews.com/2014/02/06/how-reagan-promoted-genocide-2/

http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2013/05/19/what-guilt-does-the-us-bear-in-guatemala/guatemalan-slaughter-was-part-of-reagans-hard-line

So what you're saying is because you think this guy was worse that Castro was good? Why can't they BOTH be seen for what they were/are. Murderers. I don't understand why that's such a difficult concept. It doesn't have to be either or. They can both be seen for what they were. You want a scale? Like Ted Bundy was worse than another serial killer? Does it really matter?

[Amira]

I don't have a problem with calling out the bad things Castro did and many people have certainly done so. But his legacy, both the bad and the good, is tied up with US involvement in Cuba. I think that the way the US has supported or suppressed different dictatorships is very relevant to this conversation. Ríos Montt obviously doesn't excuse Castro, but US support for him does expose our hypocrisy.

 

Or, what ChocolateReign said in post #130.

Edited November 30, 2016 by Amira

[bibiche]

So what you're saying is because you think this guy was worse that Castro was good? Why can't they BOTH be seen for what they were/are. Murderers. I don't understand why that's such a difficult concept. It doesn't have to be either or. They can both be seen for what they were. You want a scale? Like Ted Bundy was worse than another serial killer? Does it really matter?

No, that is not what I am saying at all. (Well, actually, Rios Montt is, objectively speaking, worse, but that is not my point). What I am saying is that people should be aware of the policies of this country and the effects they have and not blindly listen to propaganda. It's not all black and white. So before people start celebrating the death of someone that they have been told their entire lives was evil incarnate, they should maybe become informed about the horrors their own USA! USA! USA! has unleashed upon the world. We are not always the good guys.

[Guest]

No, that is not what I am saying at all. (Well, actually, Rios Montt is, objectively speaking, worse, but that is not my point). What I am saying is that people should be aware of the policies of this country and the effects they have and not blindly listen to propaganda. It's not all black and white. So before people start celebrating the death of someone that they have been told their entire lives was evil incarnate, they should maybe become informed about the horrors their own USA! USA! USA! has unleashed upon the world. We are not always the good guys.

I don't think anyone here is saying that. I also give people in general credit enough to think they're not all idiots blindly following propaganda because they think he was evil. I didn't throw a party when I heard the news. But I'm definitely not going to be a hypocrite and look down my nose at those who are AND who happened to have had to ride a junk built raft of death to escape him. That's their right. You know, the people who actually lived there and decided they'd rather be here? At the risk of death? Those are the people who's judgment of him I take seriously in the end.

 

To try and minimize the suffering of the Cuban people because someone supported by a Republican president was an arguably worse tyrant? Seriously? That kind of reeks of being selective on who you feel is being "truly" persecuted and that seems a bit racist to be honest. Like the Guatamaleans were tortured and murdered but the Cubans weren't? Or wait- they were but it was okay because Batista was an asshole too. That makes what he did a-ok. Yeah. No sorry. Being supported by the US or not doesn't make the innocent people's of either country any less of a victim. They all got a bad lot. Their leaders all deserve to be called out. The people who excuses them need to be called out. No one is making excuses by saying they're all bad people. Well except for the ones saying Castro wasn't bad. Them. They're making excuses for bad behavior.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Yes, the government has. that does not mean that those responding to this thread, or Cuban Americans, etc, support dictators of any political stripe. I can hate cruel dictators all over the place, me not liking Castro doesn't mean others get a pass. 

 

Nor does it mean I supported the embargo, i didn't/don't. 

 

But we do have here trying to justify why the embargo is justified when the reality is we have and do trade with worse.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I don't think anyone here is saying that. I also give people in general credit enough to think they're not all idiots blindly following propaganda because they think he was evil. I didn't throw a party when I heard the news. But I'm definitely not going to be a hypocrite and look down my nose at those who are AND who happened to have had to ride a junk built raft of death to escape him. That's their right. You know, the people who actually lived there and decided they'd rather be here? At the risk of death? Those are the people who's judgment of him I take seriously in the end.

 

To try and minimize the suffering of the Cuban people because someone supported by a Republican president was an arguably worse tyrant? Seriously? That kind of reeks of being selective on who you feel is being "truly" persecuted and that seems a bit racist to be honest. Like the Guatamaleans were tortured and murdered but the Cubans weren't? Or wait- they were but it was okay because Batista was an asshole too. That makes what he did a-ok. Yeah. No sorry. Being supported by the US or not doesn't make the innocent people's of either country any less of a victim. They all got a bad lot. Their leaders all deserve to be called out. The people who excuses them need to be called out. No one is making excuses by saying they're all bad people. Well except for the ones saying Castro wasn't bad. Them. They're making excuses for bad behavior.

 

Nonsense.  You are ignoring that Castro's actions are used to justify an embargo that has added to the suffering of the Cuban people for no justifiable reason when we have not only not imposed sanctions on worse but also outright kept them in power.

 

[Guest]

Nonsense. You are ignoring that Castro's actions are used to justify an embargo that has added to the suffering of the Cuban people for no justifiable reason when we have not only not imposed sanctions on worse but also outright kept them in power.

 

What on earth does the embargo have to do with him stealing, pillaging, and killing his own people? The US made him do it? Oh please. Sorry. Not buying.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

What on earth does the embargo have to do with him stealing, pillaging, and killing his own people? The US made him do it? Oh please. Sorry. Not buying.

 

Um...no?

It points out the hypocrisy in U.S.policy.  The embargo has limited the access to medical technology in Cuba and has negatively impacted the Cuban economy and the people of Cuba.  And we can't stake a moral high ground for the embargo when we as a nation have REPEATEDLY and ACTIVELY supported worse dictators than Castro.

 

Castro wasn't a good guy by any stretch, but in the world rankings of villains he isn't at the top of the list by any stretch.

[Guest]

Nonsense. You are ignoring that Castro's actions are used to justify an embargo that has added to the suffering of the Cuban people for no justifiable reason when we have not only not imposed sanctions on worse but also outright kept them in power.

 

You're changing the subject from whether or not he was a decent individual who took care of his countrymen instead of exploiting them and driving them to their deaths either directly or indirectly as they fled him and his regime. The embargo as a US policy has zero to do with Fidel Castro's moral merits as a person. i honestly really would love to know how these conversations you have go with people from Cuba. Do you bring this up with them? Do they blame the US for the monster he was?

[Guest]

Um...no?

It points out the hypocrisy in U.S.policy. The embargo has limited the access to medical technology in Cuba and has negatively impacted the Cuban economy and the people of Cuba. And we can't stake a moral high ground for the embargo when we as a nation have REPEATEDLY and ACTIVELY supported worse dictators than Castro.

 

Castro wasn't a good guy by any stretch, but in the world rankings of villains he isn't at the top of the list by any stretch.

I didn't realize it was a contest and we were rankikg villans on the world stage. I thought this thread was about Fidel Castro. I think he did enough to merit his own discussion on his deeds alone.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

You're changing the subject from whether or not he was a decent individual who took care of his countrymen instead of exploiting them and driving them to their deaths either directly or indirectly as they fled him and his regime. The embargo as a US policy has zero to do with Fidel Castro's moral merits as a person. i honestly really would love to know how these conversations you have go with people from Cuba. Do you bring this up with them? Do they blame the US for the monster he was?

 

Actually it does, as the embargo one of the (failed) goals of the embargo was to drive Castro out of power, and his behavior as a dictator has often been cited as the justification for keeping it in place.

 

And I have met Cubans who hated Castro and others who didn't.  The ones who didn't don't see him as the "monster" that others do.

 

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I didn't realize it was a contest and we were rankikg villans on the world stage. I thought this thread was about Fidel Castro. I think he did enough to merit his own discussion on his deeds alone.

 

Personally I don't find a thread that simply involves everyone agreeing that Castro was bad to be particularly interesting.  Castro, Cuba, and their relationship with the U.S. (and this does include the embargo) is a complicated topic and worthy of a discussion that extends beyond calling someone a villain.

[Guest]

No, that is not what I am saying at all. (Well, actually, Rios Montt is, objectively speaking, worse, but that is not my point). What I am saying is that people should be aware of the policies of this country and the effects they have and not blindly listen to propaganda. It's not all black and white. So before people start celebrating the death of someone that they have been told their entire lives was evil incarnate, they should maybe become informed about the horrors their own USA! USA! USA! has unleashed upon the world. We are not always the good guys.

Why are you jumping to hyperbole? 'People' do know this and have acknowledged the nuance on here over and over. Of course no country, especially one with revolving leadership, is always going to be right. Even in Guatemala you have the genera difficulty of the policy aim (managing and uprooting the communist regimes) with the actual regional issues and actors at hand (who were arguably not much better for all the promises made). As a more current demonstration of this, it is the same issue with Obama and Turkey/Saudi Arabia/Pakistan, or the tenuous balance of control between China and NK at present. Every leader must choose their alliance and support in foreign policy, and deal with the ramifications of it. Sometimes the wrong choice is made even with the best of intentions, and sometimes the intentions stated don't match the motivations undergirding them.

 

Humans understand this across the globe, as this forum evidences well enough. Many more don't know or don't care. Some are self deceived and willfully blind, sure. This is not some unique American issue of ignorance or nationalism, and I'm not seeing that claimed on this thread by anyone on the anti-Castro side of the discussion. Knocking down straw men is hardly a feat, and why it keeps coming back to them is desperate.

 

On a note you brought up I can address - the numbers out of Guatemala I've seen that are anything above about 8,000 come from the two decades civil war and ethnic cleansing, but a much smaller portion are attributable to direct orders from the year and a half Montt was presiding. Lots more are claimed as people disappearing and that's the case with Castro too - thousands dead by execution or imprisonment, but does that account for the off the books deaths, famine, people dying while fleeing, etc. Getting good and accurate data on those counts without under or overstating is very difficult for both men, but I'll state again that I have no support for Montt even as I see why Reagan made the choices he did in line with his other Central and South American foreign policy. I wouldn't have made the same, I don't think, but hindsight and lack of personal responsibility for the mantle of power makes that easier to say than do.

 

Again, nobody on here is playing 'our dictator did good things!' on the right, nor that one country'a foreign policy is somehow infallible at every point. I have explicitly stated the opposite and cannot say it in more clear terms.

[Guest]

Actually it does, as the embargo one of the (failed) goals of the embargo was to drive Castro out of power, and his behavior as a dictator has often been cited as the justification for keeping it in place.

 

And I have met Cubans who hated Castro and others who didn't. The ones who didn't don't see him as the "monster" that others do.

 

So wait. The US having an embargo against Cuba justifies the immoralities of Castro? The devil made him do it? So what he did was somehow excusable? I'm going to have to agree to disagree. My moral compass isn't going to be able to make that swing that his behavior was excusable. For any reason.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Why are you jumping to hyperbole? 'People' do know this and have acknowledged the nuance on here over and over. Of course no country, especially one with revolving leadership, is always going to be right. Even in Guatemala you have the genera difficulty of the policy aim (managing and uprooting the communist regimes) with the actual regional issues and actors at hand (who were arguably not much better for all the promises made). As a more current demonstration of this, it is the same issue with Obama and Turkey/Saudi Arabia/Pakistan, or the tenuous balance of control between China and NK at present. Every leader must choose their alliance and support in foreign policy, and deal with the ramifications of it. Sometimes the wrong choice is made even with the best of intentions, and sometimes the intentions stated don't match the motivations undergirding them.

 

Humans understand this across the globe, as this forum evidences well enough. Many more don't know or don't care. Some are self deceived and willfully blind, sure. This is not some unique American issue of ignorance or nationalism, and I'm not seeing that claimed on this thread by anyone on the anti-Castro side of the discussion. Knocking down straw men is hardly a feat, and why it keeps coming back to them is desperate.

 

On a note you brought up I can address - the numbers out of Guatemala I've seen that are anything above about 8,000 come from the two decades civil war and ethnic cleansing, but a much smaller portion are attributable to direct orders from the year and a half Montt was presiding. Lots more are claimed as people disappearing and that's the case with Castro too - thousands dead by execution or imprisonment, but does that account for the off the books deaths, famine, people dying while fleeing, etc. Getting good and accurate data on those counts without under or overstating is very difficult for both men, but I'll state again that I have no support for Montt even as I see why Reagan made the choices he did in line with his other Central and South American foreign policy. I wouldn't have made the same, I don't think, but hindsight and lack of personal responsibility for the mantle of power makes that easier to say than do.

 

Again, nobody on here is playing 'our dictator did good things!' on the right, nor that one country'a foreign policy is somehow infallible at every point. I have explicitly stated the opposite and cannot say it in more clear terms.

 

Except the history of U.S. intervention, particularly in Central America, has frequently been focused on keeping leaders in power who will protect the interests of U.S. corporations, and this behavior on our part has been consistent across numerous administrations.  The pattern of who we have chosen to support and why is pretty clear, and has nothing to do with not grasping the possible ramifications of those decisions.  By and large we don't care if it protects our (and by our I mean corporate) interests.

 

[ChocolateReignRemix]

So wait. The US having an embargo against Cuba justifies the immoralities of Castro? The devil made him do it? So what he did was somehow excusable? I'm going to have to agree to disagree. My moral compass isn't going to be able to make that swing that his behavior was excusable. For any reason.

 

At this point I have to believe you are intentionally missing the point.

 

[Carol in Cal.]

There was a big push in the US during the 1970s to tie human rights issues to foreign aid and alliances with other countries.  I thought that that was good, but it didn't really last, and that was because of the complexities of many situations in which there was a horrendous foreign leader but no reasonable hope for a better successor if that government should fall.  Should we be the world's police force?  I am a bit ambivalent about that question myself.  Certainly at a minimum we should be able to bring pressure to bear.

 

Regarding Cuba vs. Guatemala, I happen to live in an area where there were a lot of very passionate people that took direct action to oppose US involvement in Guatemala, including several members of my extended family and my campus minister, who actually travelled there several times for interfaith solidarity conferences of the 'the world is watching' type.  Rigoberta Menchu visited my city, and I went to her talk and actually met her.  Nevertheless, I personally know a lot more about the communist regime in Cuba than about the details of the regime in Guatemala, though I know quite a bit about the social/economic system there.  

 

The subject of this thread is Castro's very recent death, and so naturally that is what people are talking about today.  Rigoberta Menchu won the Nobel Peace Prize almost 25 years ago, and there have been regime changes and civil rights improvements in Guatemala since then.  Opposing torturous regimes and evil people is a matter of principle, not of politics, and it's important to keep that in mind.  Deciding what to do about them is not free of complexity, however.  I certainly didn't think, for instance, that we should invade Cuba and overthrow its government and leave the people there to figure out what to do next; and neither has anyone else in this discussion.  Should we have blockaded Cuba?  I'm thinking not.  To me, the embargo seemed like a measured response that was supported over the years by most Cuban-Americans to the point where it took on a life of its own.  And Cuba was and probably will be largely evilly ruled, like many other countries are today.

 

Edited November 30, 2016 by Carol in Cal.

[Carol in Cal.]

At this point I have to believe you are intentionally missing the point.

 

No, clearly she gets your point but disagrees with it.  

[SKL]

There are people in the US who believe Castro was on balance a good man, a hero.  That is what is disturbing, especially since these people are politically active and their goal is for US leadership to emulate Castro.

 

And all this "what about the other bad guys" is just a distraction, since this is a thread about Castro.  Why is a distraction needed?

[Amira]

Discussing the hypocrisy in how the US has treated different dictators is very relevant to Castro's legacy, whether that legacy is generally considered horrible or good. US support or disapproval for various dictators has a huge impact on the way they're viewed, and maybe none more so than Castro. I think this is an opportunity for the US to consider whether the embargo and other punitive actions toward Cuba have been effective, warranted, and moral. Simply cheering his death indicates that some important lessons are being ignored.

[Faithful_Steward]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

bbl. Can't quote right now for some reason.

Edited November 30, 2016 by Faithful_Steward

[ktgrok]

But we do have here trying to justify why the embargo is justified when the reality is we have and do trade with worse.

 

I actually haven't seen a single person on here say they support the embargo. I don't. But I think Castro was a terrible person and I'm not sorry he's dead. 

 

I did grow up in South Florida, knowing people whose families escaped Cuba, people that still have relatives there, etc. I'm not basing this on US government propaganda. 

[Guest]

It's interesting that political dissident arrests in Cuba have gone up significantly in recent years. Looks like this year's may be the highest yet.

 

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2016/11/29/cuban-dissidents-fidel-castro/94619200/?utm_source=feedblitz&utm_medium=FeedBlitzRss&utm_campaign=usatodaycomworld-topstories

[Bluegoat]

There is no need to look at other dictators that are supported - we can look at the direct policy decisions of government, which decides to sacrifice people every day in order to satisfy its political interests and maintain a way of life.  In most western countries we don't execute politically dangerous people.  We do kill innocent people in other countries, and make decisions that will result in death, profound environmental and social problems, and political subjugation.  We imprison people who are economically disadvantaged or mentally ill, in the US it's done in huge numbers and they can in fact be executed.  Perhaps its no surprise that in a country with capilaism as its reigning ideology, economic threats are the most quickly crushed.

 

Every state exists because at some level they believe the end justifies the means.  This is our way of life, and we will maim, oppress, and kill for it, and do so whether it is legal or illegal.  Because we believe that way of life is worth it.  When we draw a line between the means our own government allows, and another's, we are not drawing a line between fundamentally different things, we are drawing a line between grades or types of the same thing.

 

So, we look at a Pol Pot who manages to extinguish 25% of his people in a few short years, a shocking extreme simply numerically, or a leader who acts only for his personal good, or someone like Hitler, who identifies the good in a way that we find intrinsically disordered, and we saw these are the worst types of leaders, really walking the path to Hell.

 

As for Castro, I think it would take a lot of sophistic argument to say that his basic ideology - economic and racial equality, freedom from foreign oppression - were intrinsically disordered, even if we disagree with the details of how to achieve those things.  Nor was he a crazed murderer who put no value on life, nor did he act purely or even mainly for his own good and no other - he did in fact govern the country.  So no, I would not compare him to a Pol Pot or even a Stalin.

 

I've wondered why Castro was so inclined to authoritarianism.  Perhaps not right around the revolution, but afterwards I think he could have accomplished much of what he wanted with less centralized power.  He doesn't seem to have been interested particularly in the cult of personality.  I wonder, if he hadn't perceived the ideals of the revolution would be destroyed by outside forces in the event of the his death or removal from power, if things might have been different.  By all accounts he was a leader who liked to know everything that was going on, so perhaps he was a sort of control freak.

 

 

[ChocolateReignRemix]

No, clearly she gets your point but disagrees with it.  

 

Clearly she does not as I never posted anything that said the embargo gave moral justification to any of Castro's actions.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I actually haven't seen a single person on here say they support the embargo. I don't. But I think Castro was a terrible person and I'm not sorry he's dead. 

 

I did grow up in South Florida, knowing people whose families escaped Cuba, people that still have relatives there, etc. I'm not basing this on US government propaganda. 

 

Arctic Mom or whatever her name is gave a meandering defense of the embargo in an early post.

 

Castro was a terrible person, and I do not believe Cuba is any kind of socialist wonderland, even though I do find their efforts to provide healthcare and education for all to be better than what most in that region receive.

[Audrey]

I actually haven't seen a single person on here say they support the embargo. I don't. But I think Castro was a terrible person and I'm not sorry he's dead. 

 

I did grow up in South Florida, knowing people whose families escaped Cuba, people that still have relatives there, etc. I'm not basing this on US government propaganda.

I grew up in S FL, too and lived with many Cuban refugees around me and in school. It definitely shows you one side of the story. As a Canadian, I've had the privilege of vacationing in Cuba. That was a whole 'nother side of the story, too. Quite the eye opener. IMO and IME, it's a good thing to be able to view multiple perspectives of the same issue. It is a game changer, that's for sure.

[Penelope]

Tourism in Cuba is still highly controlled, is it not? It is not like America where you can basically visit any area you'd like and do whatever you'd like to.

[TravelingChris]

By the way, Hitler was neither right winged nor really far left winged.  His party was the Nationalist Socialists.  I doubt that you will find many conservatives praising socialism,  And Hitler was definitely against communism when it suited his purpose since he put German communists in concentration camps but at first was allied with Stalin.  

 

And no, Castro didn't kill as many as Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot or Mao Tse Tsung.  But I denounce murderers who kill one person not just mass murderers or serial murderers.  And many of us here aren't just talking about murders.  We are talking about imprisoning dissidents, Stasi like police and atmosphere, unequal treatment of his people - a great medical system for tourists and the powerfully elite, no aspirins or antibiotics for the lowly masses, taking of people's property, and on and on and on.

 

Another aside is that businesses are allowed to sell products in Cuba.  They are not allowed to extend them credit which frankly I would be hesistant to extend credit in any communist country or any country ruled in such a way where confiscations of private property are a normal course of action (thinking of Venezuela here ).

[SKL]

Tourism in Cuba is still highly controlled, is it not? It is not like America where you can basically visit any area you'd like and do whatever you'd like to.

 

I've toured many developing countries, and usually the tours are arranged to only see the nice parts (even when it isn't a communist country).  China was amazing, but then, the tour guides were under tight control (though this varied depending on the region).  The guide that took us to Tienanmen Square was not allowed to comment on its worldwide notoriety at all (even when asked).  She just told us Tienanmen means "Gate of Heavenly Peace."  And the place did look lovely.  According to most of the guides, there is no poverty in China, there is full religious freedom, and the [then] one-child policy didn't apply to most people.  (From having Chinese friends, the reality is extremely different, like a whole family shares one shirt different.)

 

I would not use my tourism experiences as proof of the general state of a country.

Edited December 1, 2016 by SKL