posted
I'm Cuban. If there is one man's death worthy of a great party, Castro is the guy. His death won't fix everything that's wrong with Cuba, but it'll be a huge positive step forward, and this is worthy a a celebration.
Posts: 407 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think it's natural to welcome the death of someone you see as an oppressor to your people or your ideals, but unnatural to have a formalized (state sanctioned?) location to celebrate it.
Posts: 1480 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree that it's somewhat freakish to make it an official function. It's not only pandering; it's tasteless pandering. That said, I suspect that they're hoping by having an official "destination" for the party that they'll avoid riots in the streets.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
HOW was he capable of ruling for fifty years?
What's the power structure like in Cuba that will topple on his demise?
He's got supporters who have supporters, etc. Is there anything to say that his death will bring Cubans more than moral relief?
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well seeing as how we have tons of examples of state sponsored oppression of minorities, perhaps one example of state sponsored support of minorities is warranted.
Can't really back that up ethically, but I can in a sort of emotional, feel good sort of way.
The British celebrate Guy Fawks day, this could be the same deal.
Ok but honestly, I think I agree that the government should NOT be involved in this. The Cubans and their friends in Miami are intelligent and wealthy enough to have a perfectly effective celebration without governmental assistance.
I can't pretend to know enough about the infrastructure of Cuban government to effectively comment on what Castro's death will mean for Cuba. As far as I know, it could go both ways.
When Chairman Mao died, the Chinese were fed up with communism but Deng Xiao Ping managed to hold the country together with economic reforms, while simultaneously continuing China's policy of human rights abuses.
Russia's communism did not fall with Stalin's death. I will not be surprised if Castro's death allows for a more progressive Cuba, completely disassembles the communist regime in Cuba, or becomes old news in a week and everyone goes back to work.
edited: for a word omission mistake so large it reversed my opinion on the whole matter.
posted
As I see it, Tom has the right of this. They're gonna be a massive party regardless (judging from the fact that it seemed the only substantial complaint was not having it in Little Havana) so I don't see any harm in trying to avert a potentially insane gathering that everyone feels like they have to go to or their not happy Castro died.
Posts: 2827 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Icarus: Tom, FWIW, Cubans have never rioted.
Nah... We just shoot some guns in the air, play a few rounds of dominoes, have some coffee and after all that rioting seems like... well... work.
Posts: 3486 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
As to it being "wrong on so many levels", sure it's distasteful to celebrate the death of a human being. I think it's something which, in the abstract, should be discouraged. But we don't live by abstracts, we live in a world with people like the Castros and those who suffered under his rule, and for those of us fortunate enough not to, I think we lack the perspective necessary to pass specific moral judgement on them.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think we lack the perspective necessary to pass specific moral judgement on them.
The same argument can be used to excuse any number of actions, regardless of how barbaric they may be.
I think that our ability to empathize with someone and still condemn their actions is what allows us to create society as we know it.
Posts: 1480 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, I forgot that we have to roast a pig for the occasion, too.
Cubans pretty much celebrate *everything* in about the same way, you understand. Castro's death... Child's birth... Got new shoes... we pretty much don't hold anything back ever in that regard.
The only near exception is New Years in which, in addition to all of the above, we have to eat a dozen grapes in under a minute.
Posts: 3486 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
What specifically makes it unethical to be glad and celebrate that a person who overtly harms people everyday will no longer do so?
Laying disagreements about whether Castro fits that statement aside, assuming its true, what is unethical about it?
Are we really meant to love humanity so much, that those who make it a lesser race need to be esteemed equally with those who try to make it better?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I will celebrate in some way when he is gone. I will be happy when he is gone. I may not go to Miami to do it, though. An official celebration may be a bad idea because of how it looks to outsiders; the Cuban community has still not recovered from the Elian fiasco, which made it okay to openly hate Cubans like never before.
Think of me what you will. *shrug*
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: Are we really meant to love humanity so much, that those who make it a lesser race need to be esteemed equally with those who try to make it better?
It's not about loving or hating someone, or agreeing or disagreeing with their actions in life.
In my opinion, reveling in death, in any form or manner, demeans humanity as a whole.
Posts: 1480 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
he was a friend of Trudeau that to me is enough for me to not like people partying when someone dies.
IP: Logged |
quote:I think that our ability to empathize with someone and still condemn their actions is what allows us to create society as we know it.
I think it's impossible to truly empathize without some measure of real understanding of what it means to have been that person, THT. What understanding do you have of what it means to have been a Cuban living under Fidel Castro's rule? (Note: "I've read about it" doesn't really hold water. Knowledge of history does not confer empathy.)
I also don't think empathy without condemnation has much to do with our society as we know it. I think condemnation without outright persucution has a whole lot more to do with it, to be honest.
quote:In my opinion, reveling in death, in any form or manner, demeans humanity as a whole.
Why does reveling (or celebrating) death demean humanity, THT? A reasonable argument could be made that death is every bit as much a part of humanity as life.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Like the previous poster said, death is indeed part of life. Its not some synthetic aspect that is prevalent in humanity, its part of every being sentient or otherwise.
He is not dead, and I do not know when he will be, but why not celebrate that a terrible event "the existance of Castro" has come to an end, and it ended without another human being doing something wrong to make it so.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by pH: Do you really think that can be the case? That someone can just be fundamentally terrible?
-pH
No, but a person's actions can overwhelmingly be more terrible then good. Who cares about whether or not Castro use to be a good person. As children I am sure 99% of us were all good people. But he has lived a long life and has opted to spend that time not in the service of others, or even at the least in gratifying himself without injury to others. Instead he has chosen that only in the misery of others can he be truly happy and thus his life is not one in which we should celebrate its existence.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Do you really think that can be the case? That someone can just be fundamentally terrible?
-pH
Sure. There are animals who are born with an instinct to hurt other people; what makes it so unlikely that there are humans who are born with an instinct to hurt other people?
Posts: 3060 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: he was a friend of Trudeau that to me is enough for me to not like people partying when someone dies.
I'll raise a mojito specifically for you, Blayne.
-o-
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: Why did the Elian thing make it ok to hate Cubans?
Because the Cuban community came down on the side that public opinion overwhelmingly opposed. My own opinion aside--that it was the wrong cause for Cubans to rally around, and that, further, Elian belonged with his father, but that Reno's actions were unnecessary, borne of not bothering to understand her "opponents," needlessly violent, and capriciously endangering of human life--it is simply a fact that, right or wrong, expressing derision of Cubans in public became acceptable in pretty much all quarters (read: liberal or conservative) after it was all over. Cubans were perceived as a bunch who would put their politics above the relationship between a father and his son. Immediately afterward, I heard gringos at work say unabashedly anti-Cuban things, and, in subsequent visits to Miami (which I moved away from in 2001) I have heard anti-Cuban sentiments and racially-motivated humor on the street, on the internet (okay, seen, not heard), and even on AM sports radio in Miami. Heck, on the day of the raid, I saw Miami cops use mace and pepper spray on Cubans who were demonstrating nonviolently, and I never heard of any investigation taking place. People wanted an excuse to show Cubans how obnoxious they found them. Cubans spent all their credibility and destroyed their standing in that fracas. So much so that, as far as I heard, nobody even investigated Sr. Jeanne O'Laughlin's [not a Cuban, mind you] claim that Elian's father asked for asylum during his visit, and was not granted it by the Clinton administration, in order to avoid further political fallout.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:So much so that, as far as I heard, nobody even investigated Sr. Jeanne O'Laughlin's [not a Cuban, mind you] claim that Elian's father asked for asylum during his visit, and was not granted it by the Clinton administration, in order to avoid further political fallout.
I never heard that. If true, that's awful. Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Icky: Wow.. things must be different there.. All I saw was a little boy who's mommy died trying to get him to freedom and then the gov't was going to send him back. I was on the Cuban's side all the way. I didn't hear any anti-Cuban rhetoric the whole time.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Icky....sorry, but my bullshit meter went off on that one. (not from you, but about that non-story)
Nothing would have pleased the Clinton administration better than having him ask for protection....and there is no way the press wouldn't have run with it at that point.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
In a cursory search for documentation for you, I could not find documentation that Lázaro Gonzalez asked for asylum, but I did find documentation that at least one of Elian's grandmothers did (according to O'Laughlin, anyway).
From the February 20th, 2000 Miami Herald, by Herald staff writer Meg Laughlin:
quote:After three weeks of silence, Sister Jeanne O'Laughlin has decided to tell exactly why she abandoned her position of neutrality and became an advocate for those who believe that 6-year-old Elian Gonzalez should stay in the United States rather than return to Cuba.
O'Laughlin now says that the night Elian met with his grandmothers in her home in Miami Beach, she learned that one of the grandmothers wanted to defect.
She says she learned that the father and his family knew about Elian's mother's plan to bring him to Miami on a boat 10 days before they left.
And as to why the Clinton Administration would not have wanted to let Elian stay, here is what Thomas Sowell had to say in an editorial:
quote:Clinton couldn't risk Elian's being granted asylum
Wants Full Diplomcatic Relations with Castro's Cuba
After the seizure of Elian Gonzalez by heavily armed marshals in the early hours of the morning, the spin from the Clinton Administration-echoed by CNN and CBS-was that Elian was now reunited with his father. But, even before this raid was launched, the Cuban government itself revealed that Elian is destined to go to a special place being prepared for him in Havana not in Cardenas, where his father lives.
. . .
But none are so blind as those who will not see-or hear. And too many Americans, especially in the media, fall into that category. The story of the special center being prepared for Elian in Havana was carried in the N.Y Times-back on page 17, under a bland headline about Elian's classmates' awaiting his return.
The other great piece of political spin out of the Clinton Administration is that Atty. Gen. Janet Reno "had no choice" but to send in marshals, in order to uphold "the rule of law."
Like so many things that are said inside the Beltway, this was the direct opposite of the truth. The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals had already set forth the other choice: a hearing on an application for asylum on behalf of Elian Gonzalez by his uncle in Miami. That may well be what set off this pre-dawn seizure of the little boy, precisely to prevent that choice from being exercised.
The political stakes are just too high, for both the Clinton Administration and the Castro regime, to take a chance on Elian Gonzalez's being given asylum in the United States. What this little boy could have said freely in an American court of law was likely to be radically different from what he will be saying now that he is, for all practical purposes, in the custody of Cuban officials in the United States-much less what he will say after he is "re-educated" in Havana.
As for the father's desire to be reunited with his son, he could have come here months ago for that purpose.
No one has yet faced up to the question asked by Dominican nun Sister Jeanne O'Laughlin, whose home has served as a neutral meeting place for those involved in this controversy: "What, if not fear, could keep a person from making a 30-minute trip to reclaim his son?"
This has never been about reuniting father and son. From day one, the overriding consideration has been political damage control by preventing any revelations or defections that could set back the years-long efforts of the left to get full diplomatic relations established with the Castro regime in Cuba. Janet Reno made her move when the Circuit Court of Appeals ruling made that political disaster a very real prospect.
In any case, it's really secondary to the issue. I think the Cuban exile community was on the wrong side of this issue, based on the facts as they are generally understood--and I already said so. So I don't want to reopen the Elian thing, but I'm explaining why Cuban-Americans have been largely seen in a bad light for the last eight years or so, and why it has been okay in South Florida to say things about them that would be outrageous if they were said about any other minority group. My point being that an excess of jubilation over someone's death--no matter how appropriate that jubilation may be--will, I fear, be yet another black eye for my people, and lead to more scorn and prejudice. Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals had already set forth the other choice: a hearing on an application for asylum on behalf of Elian Gonzalez by his uncle in Miami.
IIRC, this, at least, is true. Reno could have waited for that hearing without endangering the rule of law. If the application were denied and Elian still withheld, then force would be necessary.
States traditionally have power over child custody issues. The only reason the feds were involved was because of the immigration issue. There were still legal avenues under immigration law that might have led to asylum being granted.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think it's terrible to think that the existence of a person is in and of itself a terrible event.
I believe it is naive at best and foolish at worst to think that there are some people, throughout history, whose overall impact on the lives around them and on humanity as a whole could be correctly labeled 'terrible'.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
We shouldn't have executed the Nazi's at Nurimburg. Agree or disagree?
Oh, and I was all for the Cuban community keeping the boy in the United States and knew no one who didn't agree with that. Then again, I live in the part of the U.S. where anything Clinton did was evil and wrong.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Out of curiosity, were you or your family victims of the Nazis?
Not that I'm aware of. Why? Is this the point in the conversation where you point out how I couldn't possibly understand why they would celebrate?
If so, then you can stop there. You're right, I don't understand, and I don't think I ever will. I've already stated that I can understand being thankful and glad that someone who perpetrated such evil is no longer alive, but I cannot accept that a joyous celebration is a fitting response.
Posts: 1480 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here's a crazy thought . . . you could respond to my statements after I make them, and not before.
If you look at my earlier posts, you'll see that I pretty much made it clear that I thought this party was a bad idea--mostly because of reactions like yours. That being said, though, I think that before you sit in judgment of a group of people whose situation you have never been in, you should give a little extra leeway for responses you have already acknowledged being unable to understand. That doesn't mean we can never judge things we have not experienced; just that we should try to be a little more understanding. I'm not saying this party is a good idea. I am saying I understand, and can't particularly blame, the sentiment behind it.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
The same thing came up very recently when Saddam Hussein was hung. I think it would be wrong for us in America (not connected to Iraq) to throw huge parties over it, but I don't condemn Iraqis for celebrating.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:But I don't think that the sum total of a person's actions being terrible makes his/her very existence terrible. That's what I'm saying.
I don't really understand the difference you're making. It's a much larger question, but what value does someone's existence have? How do you measure that, if not by their impact on those around them?
-------------
Icky, I think you got caught up in a bit of heat towards me there with THT
--------
THT,
quote:Not that I'm aware of. Why? Is this the point in the conversation where you point out how I couldn't possibly understand why they would celebrate?
If so, then you can stop there. You're right, I don't understand, and I don't think I ever will. I've already stated that I can understand being thankful and glad that someone who perpetrated such evil is no longer alive, but I cannot accept that a joyous celebration is a fitting response.
If you cannot understand why they would celebrate, you're just not trying. I believe you're lying to yourself, if you cannot even imagine yourself ever joyous at someone else's death. I don't think that sort of saintliness exists outside of, well, saints-and to be honest, I don't think even saints could instinctively fail to feel joy (or, well, celebration) if someone who murdered their entire family and tortured them for years were put to death.
If I'm correct, and you really can't even imagine yourself celebrating such a thing...then yes, I believe you lack the experience, perspective, imagination, or understanding necessary for your moral judgement to have any weight whatsoever on the topic, beyond its weight to you personally.
I wish we lived in a world where everyone couldn't imagine themselves celebrating, because it would mean that the amount of human suffering would necessarily be much lower for everyone. But we don't, and since I haven't even walked a yard in their shoes, much less a mile, I'm not going to pronounce moral criticism on them for their response to something I've only read about.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:If you cannot understand why they would celebrate, you're just not trying.
I don't have it in my heart to celebrate anyone's death, however deserved it may be.
quote:I believe you're lying to yourself, if you cannot even imagine yourself ever joyous at someone else's death.
I refuse to be branded as a liar because you can't accept my position as one borne out of a deep understanding of myself as opposed to a deliberate self-deception.
I'm sorry that you can't accept that I feel this way, but I've been surrounded by too much death in my life to take any joy in it, regardless of its necessity or its deservedness.
quote:If I'm correct, and you really can't even imagine yourself celebrating such a thing...then yes, I believe you lack the experience, perspective, imagination, or understanding necessary for your moral judgment to have any weight whatsoever on the topic, beyond its weight to you personally.
I can't really respond to this.
We have differing personal opinions, but you feel a need to ascribe mine to a lack of perspective, experience, etc.
By the same token, I could assert that your position is incorrect because you "lack the experience, perspective, imagination, or understanding necessary for your moral judgment to have any weight whatsoever on the topic, beyond its weight to you personally."
It looks good, but it doesn't really move things forward.
quote:I wish we lived in a world where everyone couldn't imagine themselves celebrating
Well, at least we can agree on this Posts: 1480 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: HOW was he capable of ruling for fifty years?
What's the power structure like in Cuba that will topple on his demise?
He's got supporters who have supporters, etc. Is there anything to say that his death will bring Cubans more than moral relief?
He ruled through the military, and he rewarded the military's loyalty by giving them all the best things that Cuba could import. He also created an Orwellian system of checks and rewards for loyalty. Only communist party members can have such luxuries as a telephone, a television, or a car. Pledges to the revolution are mandatory at most places of employment. Each neighborhood has a committee, but rather than looking at the color of your drapes or the size of your grass, they report back on suspicious, antirevolutionary neighbors. Those whose loyalty is not beyond question will be harassed at the very least. If the suspicions turn out to be accurate, those people can go to jail. Children are indoctrinated with revolutionary doctrines in school, and taught that it is heroic to turn in any traitors, including those in your own family. Parents are afraid to contradict the messages children learn in school, so they come to believe that those messages are true.
I don't have a whole lot of reason to believe that things will get much better with Castro gone.
I am all but convinced that the embargo has been a failure--particularly since it was basically a unilateral embargo. I think that American culture is almost viral in nature, and the best way to undermine a competing ideology is to import as much of our culture as possible. The Cuban government itself realized this: a decade or so ago, Cuba used to steal American programming through satellite and provide it, free of charge, to communist party members who had televisions. The it occurred to them that having Cubans, even loyal Cubans, see all this evidence of America's prosperity and freedom was bad for morale and loyalty, so they stopped.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
