Reports that Fidel Castro is dead

[Slartibartfast]

FWIW as of the last Census there is 1.7 million Cubans in the US.

 

It isn't like none of us know any...many have made their homes here and the US welcomed them. At this moment I live closer to Cuba than I do my hometown.

[liber]

The direction this thread had taken is so completely bizarre, I just don't even know what to say. Wowzers.

 

Leftist/Marxist semantics or indoctrination thinking.

[Slartibartfast]

Leftist/Marxist semantics or indoctrination thinking.

 

Wwwhhhaaa??

 

What exactly in this thread is Marxist?

[Bluegoat]

Pretty much all political leaders make nasty choices.  And arguably, they have to.  They have to decide to send people to war, or accept the consequences of not doing so, or allow political unrest and whatever instability comes from it or to squash disagreement, to take unpleasent measures to reach goals quickly or accept slower change.  Choices about economics, who to offer medical treatment to, and all the rest, all can have outcomes that most people, if we saw them doing that in their daily life, we'd be horrified.

 

I doubt there are leaders of every country that aren't making those choices.  To come down on Castro as some sort of monster seems completely out of proportion unless the same is said of the political leaders in many countries, and that includes the American presidents who opposed him.  They seem to have been doing very similar kinds of things - making decisions to do what they thought was important and necessary to ensure a way of life, even when it required pretty extreme sacrifices - usually from others.  But to say that he wasn't trying to better life in Cuba, that he wasn't a hard worker, intelligent, physically brave, decisive when that was required - in all those ways Castro was very much a person who was beyond what we often see in public leaders. 

 

Those are good qualities.  Which makes for a mixed individual, not someone wholly evil.

 

 

[IfIOnly]

Obama vocally and not just sideswipingly opposed gay marriage when he entered office in 2008.

 

Hillary opposed it and then lied about it later (no surprise there): http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-marriage-is-always-between-a-man-and-a-woman/

[Slartibartfast]

Ugh nvm I think I would be breaking the rules 

 

Edited November 27, 2016 by Slartibartfast

[Guest]

Ugh nvm I think I would be breaking the rules

There's a whole lotta rule breakin' goin' on here...

[Slartibartfast]

There's a whole lotta rule breakin' goin' on here...

 

 

Yeah...I don't even know how to respond anymore without breaking the rules.

 

:lol:

[Guest]

Yeah...I don't even know how to respond anymore without breaking the rules.

 

:lol:

Me neither. Lol

[Garga]

I know now whose posts I'll be reading with a huge grain of salt in the future.  I see now that I disagree greatly with some of my fellow boardies.

 

And I admit that I've fallen for the "propaganda" hook, link, and sinker that Castro was one nasty dude and has been the cause of widespread human misery.  I don't buy the spin that he's just complicated.

[SKL]

Neither country is paradise.

 

I would just say, be careful what you believe about what state-controlled media reports.

 

There are many people in the USA who left Cuba (at great risk to themselves) because life in Cuba was pretty awful.  This despite propoganda in Cuba about how horrific life is in the USA.  Meanwhile, I am not aware of any people who are trying to move to Cuba because they would have a better life there, by any measure.

Edited November 27, 2016 by SKL

[bibiche]

I don't get my news and analysis from state controlled media reports.

We don't either. Yet!  :lol:

[bibiche]

For example, if I want to learn about Cuba's health system, I read academic papers like this.

 

Commie! Commie! Red! Intellectual elite!!

[Slartibartfast]

I don't get my news and analysis from state controlled media reports.

 

For example, if I want to learn about Cuba's health system, I read academic papers like this.

 

Would this be the wrong time to mention that NIH is a Government entity? https://www.nih.gov/

[bibiche]

I might even go to primary sources, like this collection of speeches given by Mandela and Castro, Castro having been an early and ardent opponest of apartheid in SA, even as Western governments continued to give tacit support to SA.

 

Such sources adding to an understanding of Cuba as complex.

 

Don't make me bring out the pitchforks!  This is going too far!

[Slartibartfast]

An academic paper is not 'state sponsored media' and you know it.

 

That's about as state sponsored as it gets here.

 

There are A LOT of people here who HATE Castro because of his actions on their families and not anything to do with what the government says. That doesn't mean our government isn't terrible sometimes but that doesn't mean that Castro was a nice guy.

 

When the US started working with Cuba again many of those people were outraged.

[Slartibartfast]

Has anyone actually argued in this thread that Castro 'was a nice guy' ? I don't think so. 

 

Then what are you arguing about?

 

People in the US don't necessarily like Castro. We have a lot of Cubans here and that has an impact on our viewpoint. We don't need state sponsored media to complain about Cuba because there are people here who actually came here trying to escape him.

 

Complaining about Castro doesn't mean it is necessary to admonish the US. Yeah, we have done crappy things. We have even done crappy things to Cuba but Castro was still a monster.

 

 

Castro gave a speech in the US and people asked him questions, they asked him about murdering his opponents and do you know what he said? He didn't deny it, he complained about the media. How dare they tell people that he was murdering people.

[Slartibartfast]

I assume you are joking about academic papers being 'state sponsored media reports' and that the American Journal of Public Health (where the article I linked to was originally published) isn't generally considered to be a tool of our governing overlords. 

 

Being outraged about a failed policy being changed ( and boy, did it fail!) seems a little odd to me, but OK>

 

I was making a joke, the US does not have state sponsored media, Americans get angry when the press isn't rude to the government, no one likes for them to get along. That isn't their job.

 

Castro murdered their families and destroyed their lives, they are still mad and don't want the US working with a Castro (his brother is still in charge) It could very well have cost the Democrats Florida.

 

Many Americans want the policy changed (I want it changed, I am glad for the changes)  but the people who fled to the US from Cuba do not.

 

Cuba is less than 100 miles from US soil. People have gotten into rowboats and rafts or worse to escape Castro.

Edited November 27, 2016 by Slartibartfast

[Slartibartfast]

I don't know why you think I don't know all this.

 

This is an area of longstanding interest to me, along with the plight of Palestinians, and I'm quite aware of this basic level of information.

 

I see zero point in using words like 'monster' to describe Castro. 

 

There is far more utility in describing what he achieved, both postive and negative. 

 

Otherwise it's just a crowd at a hanging, enjoying the entertainment. Which seems to be what most posters here would prefer. 

 

People will always see the monster in him because of the way he took power. 

 

Sure, he did great things in healthcare and education.

 

I would never celebrate someone's death.

[hornblower]

I think people who only know of Castro as the communist dictator of a small country on your doorstep which has been thumbing its nose at the whole foundation of your political system for decades, then all you get is the "Castro, bad, bad man" viewpoint.

I know your views. I've heard your views & studied these views for years.  

I'm saying it's illogical to hang all your arguments on 'but he's used torture' because your country supports other countries who use torture, and other leaders who say things like  "Waterboarding? I like it a lot. I don't think it's tough enough." "Believe me, it {torture} works."  (Hint, it's not a Castro quote).  

 

I've also pointed out you've also supported & continue to support plenty of other dictator regimes which deny their citizens numerous rights. But you just glide right over that & keep coming back to "Castro bad" 
   

What is clear is that some are for the first time hearing that others have more nuanced views about Castro and his actions and global contributions.   The whole "I can't believe this thread"  comments are really a key to this - you'll believe it if you just take a moment to think that people are not just bs'ing about this. There are other ways to view this. 


"let’s take Cuba’s role in the liberation of Africa. It’s an astonishing achievement that has almost been totally suppressed. Now you can read about it in scholarship, but the contribution that Cuba made to the self-liberation of Africa is fantastic. And that was against the entire concentrated power of the world. All the imperialist powers were trying to block it. It finally worked and Cuba’s contribution was unique. That’s another reason why Cuba is hated. Just the plain fact that black soldiers from Cuba were able to beat back a South African invasion of Angola sent shock waves throughout the continent. The black movements were inspired by it. The white South Africans were psychologically crushed by the fact that South African forces could be defeated by a black army. The United States were infuriated. If you look at the next couple of years, the terrorist attacks on Cuba got much worse."  source


Did you guys know  that the US embargo against Cuba has been ruled in violation of the Charter of the the UN every year since 1992?    

 

 

 

[EmseB]

Not arguing about this anymore, but the #trudeaueulogy hashtag on twitter is amusing.  And if 2016 has taught us anything, it's that any situation can be helped with hashtags.

[Slartibartfast]

He was right about South Africa.

 

I am against torture and I have never and will never vote for someone that endorsed it. I was referring to his firing squads and executions, not torture. Many world leaders from sixty years ago would have similar skeletons in their closet and if we were talking about them it would come up but we are discussing Castro. He lead a country for generations, that is mind boggling. Anyone who has lead a country that long would have a lot to answer for.

 

You know our views and have studied them for years? Many people here have different views. If I asked my mother she would recall that he told the USSR to use a nuclear weapon against the US (that is on video) if I asked my daughter she would talk about their cancer research, she wants to be a physician, if one leads a county for sixty years there is going to be a vast spectrum.

 

The people in the United States have a nuanced view of Castro, most people approve of lifting the embargo but my point was that the people who are here FROM Cuba do not. I was talking about Americans who came from Cuba.

 

They do not have a nuanced view of him. That is what I am trying to explain. Cubans in America celebrated his death.

Edited November 27, 2016 by Slartibartfast

[hornblower]

random & little known fact: Castro was an honorary pallbearer at former Prime Minister Pierre Elliot Trudeau's state funeral.   
 

 

[frogger]

I can see true statements as in basic facts on both sides of this argument but I have no idea what people are arguing about.  I think most people when questioned will probably agree:

 

A) Propping up evil dictators is evil even if it is the USA doing it. (I'm not sure how many know how often it is done though)

B) Torture is bad even if the USA is doing it. (Maybe not everyone but I think most)

C) Fidel Castro did evil things.

 D) American politicians have other motives than freedom and democracy when choosing whom they will support.  (They just say such words to please the masses. )

 E) Just because American politicians have done awful things in no way changes the fact that Castro did awful things.

F) Just because there is such a thing as American foreign policy doesn't mean individual Americans support it. For all those not hanging around here right now I would say precious few Americans are happy with their government.  

 

 

What exactly this thread is about though, I'm really not sure.  

Edited November 27, 2016 by frogger

[gardenmom5]

I haven't seen any mention - but his  own sister criticized his polices and brutality, and years ago fled cuba. she has stated she will NOT be going  to his funeral.

[Guest]

I thought this was a good, balanced biography. Put out by the Associated Press, which is, of course, a US enterprise. But still...

 

(It's a bit long.)

 

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/1dbdb4d7e1cd4160b5637057ba04491d/castro-cuban-ruler-who-defied-10-us-presidents-dies-90

[Bluegoat]

Not arguing about this anymore, but the #trudeaueulogy hashtag on twitter is amusing.  And if 2016 has taught us anything, it's that any situation can be helped with hashtags.

 

I thought it was a little bizarre.  What did people expect him to say? 

 

Generally you have to be pretty uneqivically an evil nut job to have other world leaders say nasty things about you when you die.  I really dislike J.Trudeau - who isn't nearly as interesting or insightful as is father was - but he didn't say anything odd and it's very much the kind of thing other world leaders said. 

 

And it's the kind of thing American leaders say about the deaths of other world leaders, or what typically gets said about American leaders when they die.  Public statements don't tend to bring up the innocent people they killed or the wars they supported, unless they are the bitterest of enemies and see political gain in speaking that way.

 

And aside from that, whether you like him or not, he fits the description of a legendary revolutionary leader pretty well, and he was a larger than life figure.

[frogger]

The questions about helping and hindering etc. are good ones as they relate to our future actions. Did trade embargoes do anything but hurt the populace of Cuba? Etc.

 

 But really I don't care if people all over mourn or don't mourn. The people who were affected the most were the people living under his rule. They are the ones whose opinion on mourning counts in my book. Period. 

[bibiche]

My answer? People who lack depth are easy to manipulate. Seeing everything in black and white, Us Against them, being scared of countries that don't follow our belief/political system, blaming all our problems on those deemed beneath us. It's a perfect example of how we ended up with a populist, authoritarian president elect.

 

Exactly.  The US does something and by dint of that it is a good thing that must be supported at all costs?  I am firmly of the opinion that blind patriotism is immoral, and the unwillingness to examine the actions and subsequent effects of one's country is extremely damaging to the country.

[Guest]

Ignorance and media narrative isn't actually the reason many people opposed Castro. I think this piece lays out the experience of Cuba so well, with context:

http://www.city-journal.org/html/last-communist-city-13649.html

 

Note the dateline, it's not new. Believing communism is a scourge on the freedom and safety and prosperity of people is so commonly reduced to a Cold War byline, I hear it even on this thread. But evaluating the system on its promises and outcomes and judging the success therein has merit. This is not to say that other world forces didn't respond to Cuba and also shape its destiny, including continued trade with many other nations as well as the embargo with the US, but pretending Castro didn't draw those lines himself with his tactics, beliefs, and policies for the country is rewriting history.

 

Embargos and sanctions are the main tools utilized to apply pressure to an enemy state without force of arms. Of course it hurts the citizens of the given state, because a dictator will always cling to power at the expense of the populous - all the more to cast the opposition as a bogeyman and try to maintain their own power base. That doesn't mean the dictator is correct in blaming their economic woes on injustice from an outside country and not on their own flagrant mismanagement or abuse of their own power, but it does often get cast that way. When the world press is complicit in the narrative of the tyrant it gets more worrisome though, and I'm glad to see that there is a fair bit of circumspection and sense in how Castro is being addressed and remembered. Giving context to his failures and evils as is necessary, the scope of human suffering isn't to be ignored. However it's also fair and needed to discuss how and why it came about and what impulses and philosophies lead to the genesis of communism there to begin with.

 

Personally, I find precious little to laud and think the entire worldview is bankrupt and an insult to human dignity and freedom, wrong on its foundation and proven so in implementation, but that can certainly be debated. Thinking this isn't some intellectually lazy or ignorant lockstep and casting those who have come to this position as such is insulting. Everyone has a worldview and perspective, and they can be argued. The question becomes which narrative is true - based on the real behavior and motivations of men (not ascribed but described) as well as fairly assessing the outcome.

 

Given the options available to respond to Cuba and the countries Castro allied with, embargo and blockade were the least aggressive and damaging options, both in terms of domestic loss within the US of military lives and finances, as well as for the Cuban people. It left them to live with the Revolution, arguably evil, but allowed the experiment to continue while protecting the interests of the US in terms of security in the time it was enacted. This time is different and global politics look VERY much changed, so a re-evaluation of the situation makes sense. But given how the entire mess down there proceeded and what ideology brought it about, the diplomatic solutions available seem the lesser evil than outright confrontation and war. Doing nothing was no option, though, given the position the US was in, and I think the Bay of Pigs demonstrated why less intervention was preferable to more for the sake of BOTH countries - arguably having made matters worse than better and cemented Castro's position.

 

I hope Cuba can move away from a single party communism to something that gives the citizens a choice. With Raul in power and the current state of the government in that country it's unlikely, but with the persistence of the human spirit and the results of communism at the fore of Cubans' minds I am hopeful. Time will tell.

Edited November 28, 2016 by Arctic Mama

[Bluegoat]

Ignorance and media narrative isn't actually the reason many people opposed Castro. I think this piece lays out the experience of Cuba so well, with context:

http://www.city-journal.org/html/last-communist-city-13649.html

 

Note the dateline, it's not new. Believing communism is a scourge on the freedom and safety and prosperity of people is so commonly reduced to a Cold War byline, I hear it even on this thread. But evaluating the system on its promises and outcomes and judging the success therein has merit. This is not to say that other world forces didn't respond to Cuba and also shape its destiny, including continued trade with many other nations as well as the embargo with the US, but pretending Castro didn't draw those lines himself with his tactics, beliefs, and policies for the country is rewriting history.

 

Embargos and sanctions are the main tools utilized to apply pressure to an enemy state without force of arms. Of course it hurts the citizens of the given state, because a dictator will always cling to power at the expense of the populous - all the more to cast the opposition as a bogeyman and try to maintain their own power base. That doesn't mean the dictator is correct in blaming their economic woes on injustice from an outside country and not on their own flagrant mismanagement or abuse of their own power, but it does often get cast that way. When the world press is complicit in the narrative of the tyrant it gets more worrisome though, and I'm glad to see that there is a fair bit of circumspection and sense in how Castro is being addressed and remembered. Giving context to his failures and evils as is necessary, the scope of human suffering isn't to be ignored. However it's also fair and needed to discuss how and why it came about and what impulses and philosophies lead to the genesis of communism there to begin with.

 

Personally, I find precious little to laud and think the entire worldview is bankrupt and an insult to human dignity and freedom, wrong on its foundation and proven so in implementation, but that can certainly be debated. Thinking this isn't some intellectually lazy or ignorant lockstep and casting those who have come to this position as such is insulting. Everyone has a worldview and perspective, and they can be argued. The question becomes which narrative is true - based on the real behavior and motivations of men (not ascribed but described) as well as fairly assessing the outcome.

 

Given the options available to respond to Cuba and the countries Castro allied with, embargo and blockade were the least aggressive and damaging options, both in terms of domestic loss within the US of military lives and finances, as well as for the Cuban people. It left them to live with the Revolution, arguably evil, but allowed the experiment to continue while protecting the interests of the US in terms of security in the time it was enacted. This time is different and global politics look VERY much changed, so a re-evaluation of the situation makes sense. But given how the entire mess down there proceeded and what ideology brought it about, the diplomatic solutions available seem the lesser evil than outright confrontation and war. Doing nothing was no option, though, given the position the US was in, and I think the Bay of Pigs demonstrated why less intervention was preferable to more for the sake of BOTH countries - arguably having made matters worse than better and cemented Castro's position.

 

I hope Cuba can move away from a single party communism to something that gives the citizens a choice. With Raul in power and the current state of the government in that country it's unlikely, but with the persistence of the human spirit and the results of communism at the fore of Cubans' minds I am hopeful. Time will tell.

 

I don't think I would be willing to say that because Castro stuck to his guns about communism, and therefore was subject to the US embargo, his regime was responsible for the economic consequences of that.  I would never say that about many other ideological positions, as if they should be given up or compromised because others choose to impose consequences for them.   That would get into some pretty dark waters.

 

I think that sometimes economic embargo can be justified, much like sometimes force of arms can be.  But people who make that decision have a pretty significant responsibility for the direct results of those actions, you can't spin it as the intrinsic nature of the ideology being opposed or those who support it.

 

As for the embargo, it was illegal by UN standards, and only the US and Israel voted that it was ok.  That is nothing like a clear mandate, even from the western democracies.

[Slartibartfast]

We placed the embargo because Cuban government nationalized some US owned Cuban oil refineries without any compensation.

 

We do a lot of assy things over oil, another argument for alternative energy.

 

Sure we *say* it is about human rights and freedom of speech but it started over oil.

Edited November 28, 2016 by Slartibartfast

[Guest]

Resources and commerce are what keep society moving and what constitutes national wealth. Every country protects and fights for resources. This is as true for Canada and Australia as the US, and water, mineral, and energy rights are critical to secure and the foundation of most trade pacts to boot. That isn't inherently evil, it's the economic reality of living on a planet with commerce, borders, and no resources being gathered from outside said planet except temperature gradients/radiation.

 

US trade embargoes did not stop commerce with many soviet countries, as well as dozens of other free countries that were not even of like ideological stripes. Embargo cannot explain the devastation of Cuba, especially long term, given the flow of commerce from other countries. Trade is not blocked from third parties, only between US citizens and business entities and Cuba. The embargo isn't even complete - cash can still be traded for goods, but not any credit leveraging.

 

I'm not sure embargo makes sense moving forward if Cuba agrees to US trade terms and financial claims - that's always been the case. Each country has the right to set its own trade policies and then the ball is out of their court. If Cuba wants to comply moving forward that would be huge, we shall see.

[Guest]

We placed the embargo because Cuban government nationalized some US owned Cuban oil refineries without any compensation.

 

We do a lot of assy things over oil, another argument for alternative energy.

 

Sure we *say* it is about human rights and freedom of speech but it started over oil.

Unfortunately crude oil and liquid fuels are still the most practical, inexpensive, and easiest to utilize energy source for mobilization and transport. But I agree that continued private expansion and development of enhanced battery technology, in particular, is a key component in the next wave of tech developments. The fact remains that most of the world still needs oil and that resource is intrinsically tied to land rights. Wars have been fought over swaths of land as long as humans have been around to do it, and this is just the current form it takes.

 

Land and resources will always drive human economic behavior, no matter how awesome our energy diversification becomes. But on its own merits I hope we continue to diversify and expand our technological capabilities in the area of energy utilization. Crude oil will always be needed though, and given how multinational the contracts are for wells and transport of it the ability to play ball nicely with neighbors over the subject remains as critical now as it was back in the 50's when the original issue with those rigs came about.

 

That's neither here nor there, but your point is well met. Where we likely differ on this is that I see no inherent evil in oil any more than cropland, logging, fishing and whaling, and everything else that countries have fought over in terms of resources. Advances in use and broadening of technology is great for everyone and the market is driving those points forward where they make economic sense to do so.

[Audrey]

You took Cuban boat people but you sent back the Haitians.

Don't be so generous. They sent back the Cubans, too. Coast Guard and Naval patrols scoured the waters between Key West and Cuba, routinely intercepting craft with Cubans aboard and sending them back to Cuba. Because the law was that as soon as they touched American soil, they had to be accepted as refugees. So, they made sure a lot of them could never touch American soil. This is a fact I lived. Boat search after boat search while we lived in Key West. Almost any time we ventured far enough, there would be a patrol pulling alongside to check your boat, clearly asking if there were any "undocumented individuals" aboard.

[Audrey]

That also happened in the United States as well as Australia.

 

No one has any business pointing fingers.

 

Castro is dead...I hope things get better for Cuba. I am glad we are going to be working with them more.

In Canada, too. We have the shame of the legacy of residential schools to address still.

[Bluegoat]

Unfortunately crude oil and liquid fuels are still the most practical, inexpensive, and easiest to utilize energy source for mobilization and transport. But I agree that continued private expansion and development of enhanced battery technology, in particular, is a key component in the next wave of tech developments. The fact remains that most of the world still needs oil and that resource is intrinsically tied to land rights. Wars have been fought over swaths of land as long as humans have been around to do it, and this is just the current form it takes.

 

Land and resources will always drive human economic behavior, no matter how awesome our energy diversification becomes. But on its own merits I hope we continue to diversify and expand our technological capabilities in the area of energy utilization. Crude oil will always be needed though, and given how multinational the contracts are for wells and transport of it the ability to play ball nicely with neighbors over the subject remains as critical now as it was back in the 50's when the original issue with those rigs came about.

 

That's neither here nor there, but your point is well met. Where we likely differ on this is that I see no inherent evil in oil any more than cropland, logging, fishing and whaling, and everything else that countries have fought over in terms of resources. Advances in use and broadening of technology is great for everyone and the market is driving those points forward where they make economic sense to do so.

 

I think the point was that it is a bit dodgy to claim the moral high ground as reason for one's actions when it was actually about money.  It wasn't to help the Cuban people achieve freedom or resist oppression.  It was to punish the leadership for nationalizing Cuban natural resources which had, until then, been enriching oil executives.

[Carol in Cal.]

Actually, Cuba became (long ago) a proxy for the Cold War conflict between the US and the USSR, and a very strategically placed physical threat to the US.  Additionally, there are MANY Cuban refugees and their descendants in the US, and they are a very actively engaged group politically--heavy citizenship rates, heavy voting rates, heavy participation in government.  In fact, this year two of the major contenders for the Republican presidential nomination are from that demographic.  Hence this is a force to be reckoned with in American politics, and typically not one that is very sympathetic to the current regime, to say the least.  

 

The descent from earlier really bad poverty into present horrendous poverty in Cuba was primarily caused by the USSR ceasing to purchase Cuban products at wildly inflated prices in order to prop up the regime, which started to be phased out during the late 1980's.

 

"Soviet subsidies of Cuba, mainly through Moscow's supply of low-cost oil and its purchase of Cuban sugar at inflated prices, have been estimated at $4 billion to $5 billion a year. "  Source:  http://www.nytimes.com/1988/03/16/world/soviet-said-to-reduce-support-for-cuban-economy.html

 

And actually, the USSR was a SUPPLIER of petroleum and related products to Cuba, not a purchaser of them, which is interesting.  However, a more recent (2008) discovery of very large oil reserves in the region (although ownership is disputed between Cuba and Mexico) could make local oil production into an economic driver again in the next decade or so.  http://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/US-and-Cuba-Open-Relations-But-Offshore-Resources-Still-Disputed.html

 

At current oil prices it's not clear to me whether existing or still to be developed oil reserves are economically viable or not, but certainly if they aren't now they probably will be sometime in the future.

 

The US embargo on Cuba did not EVER prevent Cuba from trading with other nations--hence it's not a blockade in any sense.  Cuba had every opportunity to develop any other markets that it was capable of, and it wasn't able to do so to any realistic extent.  It's true that the embargo followed and responded to the Cuban nationalization of their oil without any compensation to American firms, but it has been sustained additionally by many further claims of former Cuban citizens, now US citizens, subsequently; as well as a clear and utterly serious threat of nuclear strikes on the US--I can't imagine anyone saying with a straight face that we should just bend over for that.

IOW, the embargo did not cause the descent into the current poverty levels (although it certainly did contribute to the previous ones), nor does the embargo now have just a single cause or goal.  But additionally, the Cuban system was not designed to be a reasonable and functioning one, and it has continuously been enforced by a stunning lack of liberty and basic freedoms, and by horrendous torture and an appalling lack of rule of law/due process that is unacceptable to many Cubans but which they have not had the power to improve.  I don't see that changing anytime soon, but I'm not willing to whitewash it.

Since this thread is about Cuba and Castro, I'm not going to comment broadly on other countries, except to say that:

1.  To the extent that other nations have these same conditions, I deplore them, and

2.  Although the US is hardly a perfect nation, there is such a tremendous difference of degree between our internal problems and those of Cuba that to equate them seems disingenous and indeed dishonest; and quite ridiculously hostile.

Edited November 29, 2016 by Carol in Cal.

[Guest]

I think the point was that it is a bit dodgy to claim the moral high ground as reason for one's actions when it was actually about money. It wasn't to help the Cuban people achieve freedom or resist oppression. It was to punish the leadership for nationalizing Cuban natural resources which had, until then, been enriching oil executives.

I disagree. That is a massive oversimplification. It's fair to say the mobilizing action was financial, after the roiling geopolitical issues came to a head in that way. That is far from the most compelling or even longstanding issue at hand up until 1992.

[Slartibartfast]

Unfortunately crude oil and liquid fuels are still the most practical, inexpensive, and easiest to utilize energy source for mobilization and transport. But I agree that continued private expansion and development of enhanced battery technology, in particular, is a key component in the next wave of tech developments. The fact remains that most of the world still needs oil and that resource is intrinsically tied to land rights. Wars have been fought over swaths of land as long as humans have been around to do it, and this is just the current form it takes.

 

Land and resources will always drive human economic behavior, no matter how awesome our energy diversification becomes. But on its own merits I hope we continue to diversify and expand our technological capabilities in the area of energy utilization. Crude oil will always be needed though, and given how multinational the contracts are for wells and transport of it the ability to play ball nicely with neighbors over the subject remains as critical now as it was back in the 50's when the original issue with those rigs came about.

 

That's neither here nor there, but your point is well met. Where we likely differ on this is that I see no inherent evil in oil any more than cropland, logging, fishing and whaling, and everything else that countries have fought over in terms of resources. Advances in use and broadening of technology is great for everyone and the market is driving those points forward where they make economic sense to do so.

 

Anything can be made into an evil.

 

If greed over land and resources weren't an issue I would have been born on the east coast instead of Oklahoma and I would have a lot more relatives.

[Guest]

Anything can be made into an evil.

 

If greed over land and resources weren't an issue I would have been born on the east coast instead of Oklahoma and I would have a lot more relatives.

 

This is me thinking out loud - excuse the rambling that was only partially prompted by this thread :lol:

 

Oh I don't disagree greed can be an issue. But when it comes to energy everyone needs it, everyone wants more, and prosperity is directly linked to control by and large (though as Cuba and others have proven mismanagement can squander even the most resource rich land). Competition and control are givens, so the question becomes one of ownership. Nationalizing a resource, especially confiscating it from a private share to do so, has proven time and again to be a failure. I can think of literally dozens of examples from diamond mines to farm land to fishing permits, rice paddies, and yes, oil wells.

 

This isn't something unique to America now or even decades ago, unless we are going to claim that enslaving Jews or brutalizing sharecroppers didn't happen either. Private ownership with clear terms for trade and use, along with sparing oversight in key areas, seems to yield to least human wreckage and the most prosperity but that balance is always at threat of upset from more aggressive parties. Force, aggression, compulsion, these are the factors that govern the shape of our national boundaries as much as our cultural mores. Castro and Eisenhower didn't create that any more than Columbus did. It's always about resources in the end, and given that someone is going to exert control and ownership of every scrap at any given moment I am firmly in favor of the choice that yields the most prosperity and freedom and the least control of the individual therein.

 

I don't think the record of Cuba bears out that the communist impulse to manage the population and their wealth is the one yielding the most individual happiness and human flourishing. If you didn't read it, that City Journal piece I linked back in post 90-something really lays this out clearly and compellingly.

 

And I think when greed overwhelms moral governance that the human wreckage is immense - as you referenced for many native populations. My ancestral Scots and Irish learned that one the hard way too, with devastation and famine and confiscation of enormous amounts of land and wealth. When it comes to geopolitical intricacies it becomes so complicated - every side with power has their own interests and aims and then there are the citizenry, caught up in the crush. As I said in a prior post there is room for argument as to what worldview and policy aims are the least damaging in this respect, but I personally try to be fair in assessing what will cause the least damage and the most long term good in action and inaction on a national and global scale, mindful as well of the fact that if one power doesn't exert itself another one will (and it may be a far worse outcome for all involved).

 

Someone must be in control, nature abhors a vacuum. But mindfulness of balance and the people caught up in these enormous forces of policy and need is something to not forget.

[Bluegoat]

There are a fair number of examples of good results with nationalized industries, if you want to actually look for them.  And energy industries are a among the ones that seem to do particularly well when they are nationalized, often in countries that aren't communist.

 

I'd not lay the experience of the Scots and Irish at the door on nationalization - if anything, it's the opposite.  Those people were very much the victims of privatization of land resources. 

 

But how this makes embargos justified, or makes someone eveil even if they mistakenly believe that nationalization is the answer in a specific case, I don't understand.

Edited November 29, 2016 by Bluegoat

[ChocolateReignRemix]

There are a fair number of examples of good results with nationalized industries, if you want to actually look for them.  And energy industries are a among the ones that seem to do particularly well when they are nationalized, often in countries that aren't communist.

 

I'd not lay the experience of the Scots and Irish at the door on nationalization - if anything, it's the opposite.  Those people were very much the victims of privatization of land resources. 

 

But how this makes embargos justified, or makes someone eveil even if they mistakenly believe that nationalization is the answer in a specific case, I don't understand.

 

Norway being the perfect example.

[Pam in CT]

re nationalization

 

We placed the embargo because Cuban government nationalized some US owned Cuban oil refineries without any compensation.

 

We do a lot of assy things over oil, another argument for alternative energy.

 

Sure we *say* it is about human rights and freedom of speech but it started over oil.

 

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

[Carol in Cal.]

 (in a speech) "he stressed that his experience had taught him the need for vigilance in defense of freedom: 'Just as there is a very short distance between the U.S. and Cuba, there is a very short distance between a democracy and a dictatorship where the government gets to decide what to do, how to think, and how to live. And sometimes your freedom is not taken away at gunpoint but instead it is done one piece of paper at a time, one seemingly meaningless rule at a time, one small silencing at a time. Never allow the government — or anyone else — to tell you what you can or cannot believe or what you can and cannot say or what your conscience tells you to have to do or not.'"

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/442515/fidel-castro-brutal-dictatorship-armando-valladeres-cuban-dissidents-tortured?utm_source=nr&utm_medium=facebook%3Futm_content%3Dhabeeb%3Futm_campaign%3Dtorture

[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.

 

Thank you so much for sharing that Neruda poem, Pam.  It is a powerful one.  I do wish Americans educated themselves (since clearly they will never be educated about these things in school) on the things their government has done that have caused so many of the problems that their country complains about today.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

 

 (in a speech) "he stressed that his experience had taught him the need for vigilance in defense of freedom: 'Just as there is a very short distance between the U.S. and Cuba, there is a very short distance between a democracy and a dictatorship where the government gets to decide what to do, how to think, and how to live. And sometimes your freedom is not taken away at gunpoint but instead it is done one piece of paper at a time, one seemingly meaningless rule at a time, one small silencing at a time. Never allow the government — or anyone else — to tell you what you can or cannot believe or what you can and cannot say or what your conscience tells you to have to do or not.'"

 

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/442515/fidel-castro-brutal-dictatorship-armando-valladeres-cuban-dissidents-tortured?utm_source=nr&utm_medium=facebook%3Futm_content%3Dhabeeb%3Futm_campaign%3Dtorture

 

 

I wonder why we never discuss the dissidents of the dictators we have supported?

 

If we didn't want a Castro on our borders, perhaps it would have been wise of us to not support the dictator before him?  Just a thought.

[Carol in Cal.]

I wonder why we never discuss the dissidents of the dictators we have supported?

 

If we didn't want a Castro on our borders, perhaps it would have been wise of us to not support the dictator before him?  Just a thought.

I do, actually.  But this is not that thread. 

 

And blaming us for Castro's excesses is a bridge too far.  His ideology was a murderous 'end justifies the means' one that demonstrated a commitment to rule by terror and to absolute state control that is consistent from one leader who adopted it to the next, consistently.  Or does the fact that Karl Marx lived in Germany and that there are a lot of people of German descent in the US mean that Marxism is our fault too?  It makes about as much sense.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I do, actually.  But this is not that thread. 

 

And blaming us for Castro's excesses is a bridge too far.  His ideology was a murderous 'end justifies the means' one that demonstrated a commitment to rule by terror and to absolute state control that is consistent from one leader who adopted it to the next, consistently.  Or does the fact that Karl Marx lived in Germany and that there are a lot of people of German descent in the US mean that Marxism is our fault too?  It makes about as much sense.

 

We helped create Castro.  Our government directly supported an oppressive regime for the benefit of U.S. business interests which lead to the revolution that brought him to power.  This really can't be debated.

 

Castro wasn't always a radical.

[madteaparty]

I feel like we must be talking about different people, or that the number of people who think that the ends justify the means when the means are killing those who disagree is a lot higher and scarier than I thought.

 

This has nothing to do with the cold war or political opinions or economics or the relativism of who might have done worse things. How can running forced labor camps and executing people for being against your political leadership be a gray area?

Prison labor. Debtors' prison. Right here in the old USA.

(I know nothing about Cuba or Castro.)

Edited November 29, 2016 by madteaparty