quote:Originally posted by Bokonon: Honestly I think most people, most of the time, don't think very abstractly about people at all, myself included.
Blayne is one exception:
quote: Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Takes cracking a few eggs to make an omlett. The loss of human lives is genraly overrated or exaggerated depending on ones point of view
Wow, this explains a lot. In Mao's case, the quote should read "Takes cracking a few million eggs to make an omlette."
No, there's no point in discussing a genocidal leader like Mao with someone who believes what you just wrote. Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
Murdering millions of people through policies designed to further your political aims is reprehensible. It is in fact so reprehensible that it is considered almost universally reprehensible. People who justify mass murder of this sort as "breaking a few eggs" are likely to be perceived as either running dogs of a given ideology or actual sociopaths.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
not one of the leaders I named intentionally murdered millions of people cite even one reference where even one deliberate ordered millions of deaths.
IP: Logged |
posted
Tom didn't say they deliberately ordered millions of deaths, Blanye. He said they murdered millions of people through policies designed the further their own political aims. Which is different from sending someone to a death squad, but no less reprehensible.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
There I disagree. Even so I do not recall anyone critisizing Ho Chi Minh, Castro, Lenin for millions of deaths, and they hardly acted as thieves. Only Mao is critizied for it and as I had explained before birth rates, standard of living, and overall steel production had overall increased as a result of the Great Leap Forward and the population incresed from 450-600 millions hardly the example of 80 million deaths s Chang Jung would want you to think. These coupled with inadequate statistical methods utilized by the west and the unreliability of the Chinese archives themselves (Since Deng Xiaopeng had far more to profit by diminishing Maos importance to achieve his political goals agaisnt the hardliners) casts serious doubt at the 80 mil figure and at th 30 mil figure frankly it is far more likely of 5-10 million and because of mostly poor agricultural policies inacted just BEFORE a series of the worst natural disasters in Chinese History occured. Floods, droughts, etc. Even then the PRC imported grain from Canada and Venuezala to take up the slack Stalin had exported despite famines Mao imported to make sure the people were fed.
My point is that one cannot demonize someone for an act of god, you can critisize for poor judgement at the time but surel for no more then that.
IP: Logged |
quote:Even so I do not recall anyone critisizing Ho Chi Minh, Castro, Lenin for millions of deaths....
Let me be the first, then. Although Castro's probably just shy of the scoreboard, given that Cuba's not all that large.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Last I checked the Vietnam war is the principle cause of deaths in Vietnam hardly Ho Chi Minhs falt considering how immoral i was for the USA to lie about being attacked in Tonkin as a means to inervene in a nations civil war.
And the Red Terror is justified they were in a war of national survival vs the White Russians who also had "White Terror" vs the Bolsheviks it was a very dirty war for both sides one cannot possibly pass judgement in uch circumstances consideirng this was before the Stalin era and the Bolsheviks were still in that early intelectual democratic stage.
IP: Logged |
posted
Castro is both a murderer and a thief. He has killed thousands of people (or had them killed) and stolen essentially all private property. People's houses were taken and turned into apartment buildings. Corporations were "nationalized." As far as his human rights records, it is one of the worst on the planet. Last time you spewed about what a hero Castro was, I linked to reports from every significant human rights organization about Castro's historical and recent human rights violations. Clearly you either do not read or do not learn, so I won't waste the time repeating the effort.
And to suggest that people would have died had my grandfather become president is ludicrous. He was not leading an armed rebellion. He was one of many leaders of a political movement that had already succeeded in getting Batista to give up power once before in 1944, and that had already, with the help of pressure from the US, gotten the promise of free elections. Batista was on his way out already, bloodlessly, before Castro ever sailed from Mexico to Cuba on the Granma.Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Only Mao is critizied for it and as I had explained before birth rates, standard of living, and overall steel production had overall increased as a result of the Great Leap Forward and the population incresed from 450-600 millions hardly the example of 80 million deaths s Chang Jung would want you to think. These coupled with inadequate statistical methods utilized by the west and the unreliability of the Chinese archives themselves (Since Deng Xiaopeng had far more to profit by diminishing Maos importance to achieve his political goals agaisnt the hardliners) casts serious doubt at the 80 mil figure and at th 30 mil figure frankly it is far more likely of 5-10 million and because of mostly poor agricultural policies inacted just BEFORE a series of the worst natural disasters in Chinese History occured. Floods, droughts, etc. Even then the PRC imported grain from Canada and Venuezala to take up the slack Stalin had exported despite famines Mao imported to make sure the people were fed.
My point is that one cannot demonize someone for an act of god, you can critisize for poor judgement at the time but surel for no more then that. [/QB]
Grain exports continued until the end of the Great Leap Forward in 1961, after millions had already starved to death.
quote:Although actual harvests were reduced, local officials, under tremendous pressure from the central authorities to report record harvests in response to the new innovations, competed with each other to announce increasingly exaggerated results. These exaggerated results were used as a basis for determining the amount of grain to be taken by the State to supply the towns and cities and export markets. This left barely enough for the peasants to eat, and in some areas, starvation set in. During 1958-1960 China continued to be a substantial net exporter of grain, despite the widespread famine experienced in the countryside, as Mao sought to maintain face and convince the outside world of the success of his plans. [...] The agricultural policies of the Great Leap Forward and the associated famine would then continue until January 1961, where, at the Ninth Plenum of the Eighth Central Committee, the restoration of agricultural production through a reversal of the Great Leap policies was started. Grain exports were stopped, and imports from Canada and Australia helped to reduce the impact of the food shortages, at least in the coastal cities.
I've quoted this before, Blayne, but you still insist on claiming an increase in steel production during the Great Leap Forward.
quote: Mao encouraged the establishment of small backyard steel furnaces in every commune and in each urban neighbourhood. Huge efforts on the part of peasants and other workers were made to produce steel out of scrap metal. To fuel the furnaces the local environment was denuded of trees and wood taken from the doors and furniture of peasants houses. Pots, pans, and other metal artifacts were requisitioned to supply the "scrap" for the furnaces so that the wildly optimistic production targets could be met. Many of the male agricultural workers were diverted from the harvest to help the iron production as were the workers at many factories, schools and even hospitals. As could have been predicted by anyone with any experience of steel production or basic knowledge of metallurgy, the output consisted of low quality lumps of pig iron which was of negligible economic worth.
Melting down useful pots and pans and other iron implements to make useless lumps of pig iron is not "increasing steel production." Mao himself later realized that steel could not be manufactured in small back yard furnaces, but "maintained his policy so as not to dampen the revolutionary enthusiasm of the masses." Including one impressionable Canadian kid.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:one cannot possibly pass judgement in uch circumstances...
*raises hand* I can and will.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
"Political Leaders of the 20th Century: Mao Tse-tung" by Penguin books claims otherwise that there was a net IMPORTING of grain during the great Leap Forward. And as soon as Im home ill show the link that show the average 10-15% increase in GDP/Steel production every year starting in 1949.
IP: Logged |
posted
A net importing of grain doesn't mean squat; there were significant exports that should have been redirected for famine relief.
Also, an average 10-15% increase doesn't mean it increased that much in all those years, it just means that if you take the total increase and divide by the years you get 10-15%. Heck, there's been enough growth in steel and GDP in the last two decades to average out to that much.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The men Blayne cites (accept for Mao whom I shall not touch with any length of pole) are interesting cases.
All were idealists who evidently truely wished to bring an end to human suffering. All were willing to make sacrifices to do so. All made such sacrifices, far too many by most standards, but none achived their goal.
Che Guvera is a better example of this than perhaps any other. There is no doubt in my mind that his motives were extreamly noble in purpose. I even confess to a certain admiration of the young Che, but his life did little good and some harm. He overthrew some of the most represive governments in history, but those that took their place were little better and the revolutions spilled blood to exchange one tyrant for another. For the average Cuban, life under Castro is, in fact, a little better than under Batista. However Cuba no es libre.
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think Churchill would have serious problems with being told he had and acted upon deep morals or was an idealist. He was an extreme pragmatist, and more than willing to do pretty much anything in the execution of his duties.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Churchill was in no way an extreme pragmatist. He would have cut the Russians off while fighting the Germans from Greece if he had had his way.
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Pelegius: The men Blayne cites (accept for Mao whom I shall not touch with any length of pole) are interesting cases.
All were idealists who evidently truely wished to bring an end to human suffering. All were willing to make sacrifices to do so. All made such sacrifices, far too many by most standards, but none achived their goal.
Che Guvera is a better example of this than perhaps any other. There is no doubt in my mind that his motives were extreamly noble in purpose. I even confess to a certain admiration of the young Che, but his life did little good and some harm. He overthrew some of the most represive governments in history, but those that took their place were little better and the revolutions spilled blood to exchange one tyrant for another. For the average Cuban, life under Castro is, in fact, a little better than under Batista. However Cuba no es libre.
You seriously don't know what the hell you are talking about. Batista was not a totalitarian dictator. Under Batista, Cuba had the third highest standard of living in this hemisphere. Under Castro, it is a bottom dweller. Cubans no longer have freedom of speech or mobility, and for thirty years of Cuba's closest relationship with the Soviet Union, Cuba's brightest kids were sent, like my cousin, to study in the USSR against their will, or sent, like my other cousins, to fight in Angola against their will. Cuba has less unemployment and more universal health care, but in every other way you look at, including poverty and freedom, they are worse off. Whichever teacher told you otherwise doesn't know jack.
I believe that Che was an idealist. A stupid one, but I do think he believed in what he was doing. Castro's actions during and immediately after the revolution make it clear that he was no such thing.
I really can't stand it when people who don't know what the hell they are talking about pontificate about Cuba.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Icarus, I have come to expect a degree of audacity from you every time you address me, but for you to stand upon your pulpit of pedanticism and accuse me of pontification is grotesque.
I do not appreciate the totally undisguised condescension with which you are accustomed to treat anyone younger than yourself.
"Whichever teacher told you otherwise doesn't know jack."
Remarkable though it may seem, it is actually possible for students to form their own opinions on an issue, mine happens to be supported by facts.
Batista was very much a dictator. He seized power by a coup and was "elected" by 100% of voters, an impressive feat which has been accomplished by an astonishing number of third world leaders, and yet not by any leader that I know of in the developed world. Batista's accomplishment is made all the more remarkable to observers from the developed world by the fact that he was not, in the strictest sense, legally allowed to run for office, due to the term limits imposed by Batista's own 1940 Constitution.
If this were not enough to label Batista as a dictator, his use of Secrete Police and show trials would be. His execution and torture of strikers in April of 1958 was done without even bothering to hide the acts from international obsessors, which did not lead to popularity then any more than now.
At the time of his downfall, Batista had little support even among the middle class and the Church. Indeed, the Mafia may have been the only group to mourn his passing— not that all of Batista's opponents were supporter's of the 26th of July movement either.
I am not, in anyway, a supporter of Fidel Castro's regime in Cuba, nor have I ever defended it except to say that Cuba's advance infrastructure as developed both before and during Castro's rule should allow for a successful transfer to democracy.
My own sympathies lie with the Liberal opposition in the form of Unión Liberal Cubana and the Partido Solidaridad Democrática.
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Pelegius: Icarus, I have come to expect a degree of audacity from you every time you address me, but for you to stand upon your pulpit of pedanticism and accuse me of pontification is grotesque.
Do you know what these words mean? I don't think you do. You might wish to look them up.
You continually accuse me of treating young posters with condescension. We already established last time you did this, that virtually nobody shares your view. Would you like to go through this again? We can start a thread inviting young posters to vote on whether or not they feel that I condescend to people younger than me. You have the same peculiar negative habit as Blayne Bradley does: when someone proves one of your assertions wrong, you just wait about a month or so before you begin making again, hoping that everyone will have forgotten that you were already proven wrong. It speaks very badly of you that you are not interested in truth, only in looking smart.
You also don't know how to read very closely. I didn't say that Batista was not a dictator, I said that Batista was not a totalitarian dictator. He was an authoritarian dictator. If you are not up to looking up the difference, I'd be happy to find a source for you to read, though I'm frankly not conviced you would. You have shown in the past that you have no interest in learning from the people that know more than you do. For instance, I know far more about Cuba than you or anybody else posting on this forum. But I don't expect you to give anything I say a shot, because in your arrogance you are incapable of ever changing your misconceptions.
Cuba has not advanced in infrastructure under Castro, and is not more ready for democracy now than it was before (except, possibly, through the absence of the US's corrosive influence on Cuban democracy). A brain drain, both through refugee escapism and through sending the best and brightest to the Soviet Union, does not strengthen an infrastructure. Crippling economic mismanagement and disaster does not strengthen an infrastructure either. Destroying the Cuban infrastructure is precisely what Castro has accomplished in his regime--a regime far more brutal than that of the previous dictator.
Look, you can insult me as much as you want. You won't succeed in making yourself look good and me look bad, because most people around here like me and most people here find you insufferable. So you're not really accomplishing anything. Beyond that, though, in this particular issue you don't come close to having as much knowledge as I do. You haven't read as many books as I, you haven't taken as many courses on the topic as I have, and you don't have as much access to people who lived through it as I do. All you will do is make yourself look stupid, as well as looking like an ass. Seriously, you can't win this.
Frankly, I'm tired of this thread. I take no pleasure from flame wars with people who are clearly ignorant. But it's hard to let it go, because erroneous statements like yours are harmful, and need to be challenged, not for your own sake, but for the sake of anyone impressionable enough believe you know what you are talking about. Americans love to romanticize people, but Castro is not somebody who should be romanticized. He is a brutal murderer and a thief. To romanticize anything about him is to do a grave disservice to the people he has robbed and killed.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
No, I am of the habit of just throwing words together with no knowledge of their meaning.
You claim that Batista was not totalitarian, clearly this is the case. I am left bewildered as to why you say this, seeing as Castro is not totalitarian either. During the height of his powers during the 1960s, he might have been able to have claimed that title, but not now. Hitler was totalitarian, as was Stalin, Mao and Pot. Most dictators, including Mr. Castro can not claim that degree of power.
" Americans love to romanticize people, but Castro is not somebody who should be romanticized."
I have never found Mr. Castro to be romanticized in the U.S., I have certainly never romanticized him, although you clearly wish to give the impression that I somehow have.
"You have the same peculiar negative habit as Blayne Bradley does: when someone proves one of your assertions wrong, you just wait about a month or so before you begin making again, hoping that everyone will have forgotten that you were already proven wrong. "
Icarus, your posts, including this last one, positively drip with condescension. Am I seriously to believe that you have somehow proved that you are not condescending? I cannot prove that you are being intentionally so, but I challenge anyone to read either of your last two posts on this thread and believe that you are not.
"If you are not up to looking up the difference, I'd be happy to find a source for you to read, though I'm frankly not conviced you would. You have shown in the past that you have no interest in learning from the people that know more than you do.. For instance, I know far more about Cuba than you or anybody else posting on this forum. But I don't expect you to give anything I say a shot, because in your arrogance you are incapable of ever changing your misconceptions. "
An excellent example of Icarus being respectful, humble and in no way condescending.
Seriously man, you are by no means the only one here with the tenth grade education needed to understand the difference between authoritarian and totalitarian dictatorships. I have actually cited several historical events, events which are not questionable in veracity, and you have ignored them in favor of arguing ad hominem.
" because most people around here like me and most people here find you insufferable. "
Most people around here are smart enough to avoid falling from a classic argumentum ad populum.
" I take no pleasure from flame wars"
Your habit of starting them is interestingly perverse then, have you talked to any sort of therapist?
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Pelegius: Castro is not totalitarian either. During the height of his powers during the 1960s, he might have been able to have claimed that title, but not now. Hitler was totalitarian, as was Stalin, Mao and Pot. Most dictators, including Mr. Castro can not claim that degree of power.
quote:Consider [Castro's] superlative permanence in power: 47 years. That is 17 more years than Mexico's Porfirio Díaz, 12 more than Paraguay's Alfredo Stroessner and 11 more than Spain's Francisco Franco. Even North Korea's Kim Il Sung -- the gold standard of aged despots -- totaled only 46 years in power. To match Castro, Chávez would have to remain in office, without interruption, until 2045, past his 90th birthday.
Such prolonged rule is possible only in a totalitarian dictatorship that leaves no space for dissent. In Castro's case, the Cold War helped him win absolute control over Cuban society. With a powerful and ever-present enemy so close, Castro could always manipulate the fear of an imminent invasion to militarize Cuban life. Any opposition was more than political -- it was treasonous. Castro thus governed unencumbered by domestic adversaries. [Emphasis added]
Here is a nice article explaining the difference between an authoritarian and a totalitarian dictatorship, with Castro's as an example of the latter. You cannot read the entire article online, but you can ask your librarian at your school to get it for you. If you'd like, I will have a librarian here in Florida download it and I will e-mail it to you.
quote:Originally posted by Pelegius: "You have the same peculiar negative habit as Blayne Bradley does: when someone proves one of your assertions wrong, you just wait about a month or so before you begin making again, hoping that everyone will have forgotten that you were already proven wrong. "
You don't actually address this, so I am left quoting myself.
Let's go back into the wayback machine, to the last time you said I was condescending to all young people:
quote:Originally posted by Pelegius: Actualy, you are being more than a little insulting, to Jeesh, to me and to young people throughout the world. I am sure you mean well, but you are being extreamly offensive to a very large group.
quote:Originally posted by Jeesh: Icarus, I wasn't taking offense.
quote:Originally posted by Kamisaki: Well, I just want to pipe in quickly to say that Icarus was definitely not bullying Pel in any way. Also, to say that Pel is a prime example that intelligence does not equal maturity.
quote:Originally posted by Shigosei: I'm 21. There's a good chance that I'll be graduating with the major I started with. That said...
I don't find Icarus's assertions about young people insulting.
You don't speak for all or even most young people, and most young people don't agree that I am condescending. In fact, I didn't mention your age, just your ignorance. Your age is simply the particular chip on your own shoulder.
quote:"If you are not up to looking up the difference, I'd be happy to find a source for you to read, though I'm frankly not conviced you would. You have shown in the past that you have no interest in learning from the people that know more than you do.. For instance, I know far more about Cuba than you or anybody else posting on this forum. But I don't expect you to give anything I say a shot, because in your arrogance you are incapable of ever changing your misconceptions. "
An excellent example of Icarus being respectful, humble and in no way condescending.
I am condescening to you, because I have run out of patience to you. While you have improved in some ways as a writer and as a poster, you still are insufferably dismissive of other people's background and knowledge, particularly when those other people have a far deeper background in a subject than you do. As far as humility, I believe you are misusing this word. When you say "humility," you seem to be wiching that I would show false modesty--of course, you are guilty of showing neither humility nor modesty, so I'm not sure why you expect it of me. But why should I be falsely modest? I made a claim I believe to be true. I am Cuban-American, I attended Cuba's premier preparatory school, I have taken a good half dozen courses on Latin American history, and I have read dozens of books on Latin American history in general, and on Cuba and Castro in particular. I am only aware of one other Cuban-American who posts on this forum, and I don't think he would disagree with my self-assessment. Does someone here think they know more about Cuba than I do? Step up and say so. If not, then why is it a character flaw for me to say, hey, I happen to have more expertise on the topic than others posting here? (Silly me, I actually know the answer. The answer is because I am calling you out for being wrong, and for posting ignorantly. That, in your eyes, is the unforgivable character flaw.)
quote:" because most people around here like me and most people here find you insufferable. "
Most people around here are smart enough to avoid falling from a classic argumentum ad populum.
Apparently, you don't know what an argumentum ad populum is, because I was not arguing that I was right because I am more liked. I was arguing that your tactic of defaming my character will not work because I am more liked. That is an accurate and logical statement, and perfectly appropriate. When the very question is whether or not you can succeed in defaming my character, my perception by others is fair evidence.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
This is a far better summary of the facts then of capitalist propoganda Icarus aspires to.
I'm sorry, can you say this in English?
-o-
I haven't said anything about Mao, Blayne. This seems to confirm my impression that you don't actually read other people's posts.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know. I think being condescending to pelegius is doing exactly what he's earned through his posts.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Do you know what these words mean? I don't think you do. You might wish to look them up
Icky, I can't believe you passed up the perfect opportunity to quote "The Princess Bride"!
"You keep on using those words. I do not think they mean what you think they mean" (slight variation).
Posts: 2827 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Icarus you implied whether directory or indirectly that the leaders I listed were thieves or murderors and others have been arguing with em about the Great Leap for a long time now, my sentence howevr seems unfortunately seems ambigious so I'll clarify that I wasnt refering to you perosnally just the information that people like you seem to like citing.
IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, I directly stated that Castro was both. While I believe that the others you listed are similarly evil, I won't get into a specific argument on them, because I recognize the things I am not an expert on.
(There are plenty of people far more qualified than I to expose the incorrectness of your claims with regard to Mao. )
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
"I am Cuban-American, I attended Cuba's premier preparatory school,"
Experience is important, but so is objectivity.
If you would please be calm enough to note two things:
One, that I have not here nor elsewhere praised Mr. Castro or the Communist Party of Cuba or Communism in general. Actually I have, here and elsewhere, been very careful to state my anti-Communist beliefs.
Two, I admit to becoming angry at you, but you will see that you accused me, I who agree with as to the matter of Mr. Castro, of being completely ignorant on the subject. Sometimes I do not think you know to whom you are speaking. I am Pelegius and Blayne is Blayne, please do not confuse us.
I will also submit to you that Mr. Castro is not a totalitarian dictator, not because he does not wish to be, but because he does not have that power. This is due to two factors, a. that Cuba is not and has never been economically independent and b. that the Roman Catholic Church still exerts a considerable amount of authority. Totalitarianism is necessarily centered around a cult of personality, in exclusion of other religions.
To say that Cuba is not a totalitarian dictatorship is not to belittle the deaths of dissenters, only to point out that all dictators, authoritarian and totalitarian murder dissenters. Dictatorship, in all its forms, is not pretty.
I will again state clearly that idealizing a pre-revolutionary Cuba is as invalid as idealizing Cuba today. Cuba under Batista failed and Cuba found herself, like so many countries in Latin America, stuck between the Skylla of corrupt dictatorship and the Charybdis of a strong man.
Finally, I feel obliged to point out that Fidel Castro is unique only in his longevity, he is not any more brutal than the many countless dictators and juntas that have plagued Latin América for the past century and a half.
I too hope for a truely free Cuba, as for a truely free world.
Yours for Peace and Freedom, Pelegius.
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Icarus: I am only aware of one other Cuban-American who posts on this forum, and I don't think he would disagree with my self-assessment.
Is that me is there someone else I don't know about?
I attended the same school Icarus did, a school in which I was taught by at least one teacher that was in Fidel Castro's graduating class (did we mention that Fidel went to the same school we did, only about fifty years earlier, and was responsible for shutting down its presence in Cuba?).
My mother's side of the family still resides in Cuba to this day. I had a grandfather that was imprisoned for a few years long ago, and I have other relatives that served (unwillingly, to some degree) in the Cuban military. And, unlike Icarus, I have actually been on the island; although it was in 1980, things haven't changed a whole hell of a lot.
And I currently live in Miami and have been here for 30 continuous years, which is the closest thing anyone can come to without stepping foot on the island.
But I admit that my knowledge of Castro and what he is is incredibly biased by my direct family and their horrible experiences with the environment he has created on the island.
But when Icarus says that he probably knows more about Castro and Cuba than anybody else on this board, I believe him without any hesitation.
I just wanted to chime in with that because some of you might not accept it if that statement of fact comes from Icarus alone.
posted
That was an extremely polite post, Pelegius; I will endeavor to reply in kind.
You are mistaken on a a few key points, though. My accusation that you romanticized Castro was due to your characterization of Castro as an idealist who wanted to bring an end to human suffering. This is an incorrect, and romanticized, characterization, basically buying into his press. Look at his actions, look at his brutal repressions and his betrayal of even his own henchmen as he consolidated his power to see that he was no idealist.
Castro has less power now that Cuba does not have the Soviet Union to lean on, but at this point he still has all the weapons and all of the soldiers. He also has fifty years of Orwellian-style control of the schools, neighborhood comités, and brutal reputation. There does not appear to be much of a spirit of rebellion left to test his resolve.
Where you are the most mistaken, perhaps, is in your assertions about the Roman Catholic Church. The existence of the Church in Cuba is a recent artifact, and it was borne of John Paul II's visit in the nineties, and of Castro's desire to play for the world stage. For forty years before that, the practice of Catholicism was illegal, and something children were taught to inform on their parents for. Also, Roman Catholic priests were expelled in large numbers from the island within the first years after the revolution. I can tell you from first-hand accounts that vanishingly few people were brought up with Catholic beliefs in the last two or three decades. There were no churches that were not underground, there was an atmosphere of distrust, and there were close to no priests. What I hear from the family members I have had contact with who were in Cuba until the 90s was that Catholicism was a religion of very old women only, and not active or practiced. In the last decade or so, Catholicism has ceased to be illegal, but I don't believe that the Catholic Church can possibly be a very powerful influence, when two generations have been brought up out of the faith.
I have idealized neither Batista nor pre-revolutionary Cuba. If you go back and read my posts to Blayne, you will see that my grandfather was the head of an anti-Batista party. But the difference between Batista and Castro exemplifies perfectly the difference between an authoritarian and a totalitarian dictator. The difference between them--and I don't mean to be condescending by defining what you say you know, but merely setting up the point I am trying to make here--is that in an authoritarian dictatorship, "varying degrees of autonomy regarding elements of civil society, religious institutions, court, and the press. On the other hand, under totalitarianism, no individual or institution is autonomous from the state's all-encompassing ideology" (Jeane Kirkpatrick, paraphrased in Wikipedia). This is exactly the distinction between Batista and Castro. Catholicism was legal under Batista; it was not under Castro for forty-plus years. Under Batista, there was usually freedom of the press, aside from crackdowns after any *especially* bad editorial. (Batista, in his misguided way, wanted the love of the people. He was famous for cracking down and backing off. With Castro, there was no backing off.) Under Castro, the only press is the state-run Granma news service. Under Batista, the universities had specific political autonomy. Even when the press was being interfered with, the universities were not. Castro closed the universities, and later reopened them under government control. Under Batista, there was freedom of movement within the island and off of it. My grandfather, as an acknowledged political adversary, could travel freely and without harrassment. Under Castro, there is not. Very few people can leave the island at all, and usually only in circumstances where beloved family members, such as spouses and children, are not travelling with them.
Castro patterned every element of his government after the Societ Union. Professing the wrong thoughts will land you in jail. Failing to profess the right thoughts will land you in jail. Not just at the highest levels, but at the lowest levels. If you do not pledge to the revolution at your job (kind of like the pledge to the flag in American schools, but with teeth) you will be harrassed, and if you persist, you can go to jail.
Castro's is a textbook totalitarian government. In fact, most middle and high school textbooks, when they make the distinction, specifically mention Cuba as an example of totalitarianism.
You can claim that Castro has been no more bloody than any other Latin American dictator, but it simply is not so. His human rights record is the worst in the region. The only regimes that rival Castro's for killing their own people are located in Africa and Asia.
There is plenty of documentation for what I am saying, but one book in particular that I recommend, because it is a powerful firsthand account, is Contra Toda Esperanza, by Armando Valladares. It is available in translation. Valladares was a postal employee (IIRC) who was jailed after failing to pledge his support to the revolution. While in jail, he discovered a love of writing poetry, and began to write on walls, scraps, whatever he could. People who left prison after their sentences were up, or after they recanted their wrong views, and visitors to the prison snuck much of his poetry of longing for freedom out with them, and eventually it found an audience. Valladares came to the attention of Amnesty International, who started to put pressure on Cuba for his release. Eventually, Castro bowed to the international pressure, including direct pressure from François Mitterrand, and released Valladares, and expelled him from the island. Since being freed, Valladares served as the United States's ambassador to the UN Human Rights Commission, and was awarded the Presidential Citizens Medal. If you are interested in reading this book, I would be willing to track down a copy in English and send it to you. It would give you a much clearer look at what life has been like under Castro, and a sense of how it's not enough to lie low and mind your own business: if you don't support the revolution, you are a criminal.
posted
As far as the issue of impartiality, I am not a knee-jerk Miami Cuban. I don't ask my candidate for mayor what his foreign policy is. I don't base my vote for president on their plans for Cuba. I don't owe my allegiance to the Republican Party. While I believe it was a tragedy for Elian González to have to return to the island after having escaped it, I felt that his father had much more of a right to custody than anybody living in Miami, and that Cuban-Americans picked the wrong issue to rally around--disastrously, in fact, as their standing in Miami and beyond has still not recovered from that debacle.
Impartiality is a great thing, but I think it can be placed on too high a pedestal. In particular, it can be used as a weapon specifically to render null the opinions of the very people who know most on a topic. When Ed Asner and Jane Fonda claim to know more about Cuba than the people who once lived there, and even more than the people who risk their lives to escape to this very day, I don't think it's a virtue. I think it's willful ignorance and self-absorption.
The points I have stated are documented fact. I have painted no rosy pictures of Batista as a great leader. My bias is not an issue here, because my arguments have been based on documented facts. What my bias is responsible is merely the fact that I will not let any admiring statement about Fidel Castro go unchallenged (unless you simply admire his longevity). I can't, because when inaccurate statements get thrown around, people who don't know better are liable to take them at face value. And a man who has had thousands killed needs to be named for the evil that he is. It compounds the injustices he has committed when people understate their magnitude. So yeah, that's where my bias lies. Nighthawk knew that when he started joking about the roller coaster ride; he knew I would not let Blayne's admiring statements lie. Blayne should know it too, because it has come up before.
But my bias does not make up facts.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
(My father also went to the school that Nighthawk, Fidel, and I attended.)
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
How is the nationalizing of uncooperative buisnesses thievery? Iranian President did similar before the CIA overthrew him and replaced him wiht the Shah.
Is it not standard practice that if someone who is rich comits a very serious crime his assets are frozen and depening on the circumstnaces his property confiscated to compensate the victoms? In revolutionary Cuba there were a number of American owned refineries and other corporations that refused to refine the oil that came in from the Soviet Union, so they get nationalized for being unproductive.
Also it is standard practice by any civil war or revolution of any kind to benefit your side at the expense of the other, if a number of rich people had opposed Castro frankly one shoudnt be surprised theyre property would be confiscated the Americans stole the property of the Loyalists did they not and refuse to give it back?
Also my statements in regards to Fidel Castro are based on descriptions as being a charismatic leader I do not eny he may have acted veyr much like most dictatorships do but noentheless I also hold the belief that he does hold certain admirable traits, my former Prime Minister(s) Pierre Elliet Trudeau and Jean Cretien both liked him and in the case of the former were even friends.
Canada has always been friendly with Cuba and its leader and I so no reason why not to do so.
IP: Logged |
posted
Countries near the US are often friendly with Castro specifically as a way to thumb their noses at and assert their independence from the US. They invite him to the opening ceremonies of their summits and whatnots, and then they immediately go back to being good little capitalists and try to make favorable trade arrangements with the US. It doesn't matter who Castro is or what he does, it matters that the US is big and powerful and the US (government) hates Castro.
It's pretty stupid and immature actually, but there you have it.
(This thought is not unique with me; plenty of other commentators have mentioned it, and I could probably dig some of the stuff I have read on it up.)
So your PM befriends a murderous dictator to show how much he is not under the thumb of the US, and you think it's a good idea for you to do the same. Way to think for yourself.
-o-
It wasn't just US businesses that were nationalized. All businesses were nationalized. All church property was siezed. This is stealing. And saying "Well, they were rich anyway" is pretty morally bankrupt. The rich make better targets for theft, because they have more, than the poor do, but that doesn't make stealing from them okay. This isn't Robin Hood. Not every owner of a corner grocery got to be in that position by stealing from poor people.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
" All businesses were nationalized. All church property was siezed. This is stealing."
Well, from a capitalist perspective, certainly.
I'm not going to argue that Castro is sunshine and light. He certainly isn't. He's been one of the most murderous men in history, and I'll never defend that.
But if you're going to accuse him of stealing, do so on grounds other then capitalist vs socialist ideology.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"My accusation that you romanticized Castro was due to your characterization of Castro as an idealist who wanted to bring an end to human suffering."
I believe that this was true to an extent, at least during the planning of the revolution in Cuba. I am not entirely sure what Mr. Castro wanted then, but Che's intentions were very clear, and very noble if not very well-informed.
It is certainly true that Mr. Castro allowed the world to guess at his ideology while anlysing who would give Cuba the most aid, the U.S.S.R. proved to be more willing to do so than the United States, which was hesistant do to Che's overt Marxism.
However, since then, Mr. Castro has proved to be probably the least hypocritical Communist leader since Lennin, if we rule out Allende's short administration. Now, a lack of hypocricy, or rather an exteremly relative lack of hypocricy, does not make Mr. Castro a better leader or make Cuba a better country to live in. I, like almost any other, would rather live under a democratic hypocrite like JFK than any dictator, and even under the hypocrisy of Mr. Gorbechov than Mr. Castro's apparent sincerity.
"You can claim that Castro has been no more bloody than any other Latin American dictator, but it simply is not so. His human rights record is the worst in the region"
If Mr. Castro has killed more of his countrymen than Gen. Pinochet or Gen. Videla, then it is primarily becouse he has had much more time to do so. Latin America does not have a great history with such matters, although you are right in pointing out that Asia and Africa have suffered more.
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"How is the nationalizing of uncooperative buisnesses thievery?
I would argue that if you can't call this thievery, nothing is thievery."
Sure you can. From a socialist perspective, businesses are illegally controlling the means of production by withholding those means of production from the government, which is the rightful owner, as an extension of the entire population, of that wealth.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:From a socialist perspective, businesses are illegally controlling the means of production by withholding those means of production from the government...
*nod* Which is why pretending that the government is a person is so freakin' dangerous. Once you start extending the government itself any rights at all, you wind up restricting to it all of the rights that matter.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Of course the government has all sorts of rights that individuals don't. I cannot seriously expect people to pay taxes to me, yet almost every government does.
Nor can I arrest people for breaking my laws. The list goes on.
Citizens also have many rights which legitimate governments do not have.
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
If I take a job at the corner bar as a busboy, work my ass off, get promoted to bartender, continue to work my ass off, live like a pauper, and eventually buy a little grocery store, I have not stolen anything from "the workers." If the government comes in and tells me that the grocery store is not mine, and it is, in fact, theirs, that is theft. It was mine, it is now theirs, they stole it.
That is my maternal grandfather's story.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
in communism there is no money and if you had a store yould run it for the sake of distributing goods to the people for the sake of doing so, to demand money for such services could be equally attributed as coercian, denying the people essentials for your own personal profit.
Socialism is the transitional state when under the Dictatorship of the proleteriat where you become a Communist Society.
Denyin this makes you a reactionary element that will enevitably be swept away into the dustbin of history.
IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
)
