No Fond Farewells for Fidel, Who Leaves Behind a Repressive and Impoverished State
| Tue Feb. 19, 2008 9:17 AM PST
Please, no tears for Comrade Castro, as he finally gives up power in Cuba. It's a good thing he's going. But his departure has taken far too long (in fact, decades too long) and, alas, in all that time he did little to ease the transition to the free society that Cuba will eventually be. His exit leaves Cuba a repressive state and a nation not prepared for the future. The gains of his revolution—such as the decent universal health care system—are imperiled by the changes that will sooner or later hit Cuba. Rather than manage a transformation from one-party (one-man!) communism to a more open system, Castro has set up Cuba for a possible cataclysmic counterrevolution that may not benefit the people of Cuba.
I've often wondered why some American leftists have been soft on Castro. How could anyone who gives a damn about human rights and freedom root for Castro in his face-off with the Yanquis of the North? As the Committee to Protect Journalists noted last August,
With 24 independent journalists in prison, Cuba continues to be one of the world's leading jailers of journalists, second only to China. Twenty-two of these journalists were jailed in a March 2003 crackdown.
Late last week, Spanish Foreign Minister Miguel Angel Moratinos announced that Cuba would release two of those journalists. That would leave Cuba with 22 reporters behind bars and still in second-place globally as a jailer of journalists. (Iran, as of December, had 12 imprisoned journalists.) As CPJ has described the obvious, there is no freedom of expression in Cuba: "The government owns and controls all media outlets and restricts Internet access. The three main newspapers represent the views of the Communist Party and other organizations controlled by the government."
What's so revolutionary about denying citizens access to the Internet?
Continues Below
Continued From Above
But criticism of Castro's tyrannical ways should never be confused with support for the U.S. government's absurd policies regarding Cuba—policies that have been supported by Democratic and Republican administrations. Yet justifiable opposition to Castro's repression has too often been used to justify these policies. And Barack Obama this morning showed how easily that can be done.
Obama's campaign released a statement that began:
Today should mark the end of a dark era in Cuba's history. Fidel Castro's stepping down is an essential first step, but it is sadly insufficient in bringing freedom to Cuba.
Cuba's future should be determined by the Cuban people and not by an anti-democratic successor regime. The prompt release of all prisoners of conscience wrongly jailed for standing up for the basic freedoms too long denied to the Cuban people would mark an important break with the past. It's time for these heroes to be released.
So far, so good. Then Obama joined the forces of the status quo:
If the Cuban leadership begins opening Cuba to meaningful democratic change, the United States must be prepared to begin taking steps to normalize relations and to ease the embargo of the last five decades. The freedom of the Cuban people is a cause that should bring Americans together.
Lifting the embargo need not wait until freedom flourishes in Cuba. The embargo allows the Cuban leadership to keep its hold on power (with or without Castro), and it penalizes Cubans for living within a repressive state. Unfortunately, such a state will probably continue with Castro gone—as will the U.S. policies that have done nothing to bring positive change to Cuba.
Photo by Flickr user peamasher used under a Creative Commons license.
Comments
Submitted by capt (not verified) on Tue Feb. 19, 2008 12:27 PM PST.
Supreme Court Refuses To Review Warrantless Wiretapping Case (2/19/2008)
Ruling Allows Executive Branch To Police Itself, Says ACLU
NEW YORK ? The U.S. Supreme Court today refused to review a legal challenge to the Bush administration's warrantless surveillance program. The case was brought by the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of prominent journalists, scholars, attorneys and national nonprofit organizations who say that the unchecked surveillance program is disrupting their ability to communicate effectively with sources and clients. The court's decision today lets stand an appeals court's ruling on narrow grounds that plaintiffs could not show with certainty that they had been wiretapped by the National Security Agency.
The following quote can be attributed to Jameel Jaffer, Director of the ACLU's National Security Project:
"Congress enacted the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act intending to protect the rights of U.S. citizens and residents, and the president systematically broke that law over a period of more than five years. It's very disturbing that the president's actions will not be reviewed by the Supreme Court. It shouldn't be left to executive branch officials alone to determine what limits apply to their own surveillance activities and whether those limits are being honored. Allowing the executive branch to police itself flies in the face of the constitutional system of checks and balances."
The following quote can be attributed to Steven R. Shapiro, Legal Director of the ACLU:
"Although we are deeply disappointed with the Supreme Court's refusal to review this case, it is worth noting that today's action says nothing about the case's merits and does not suggest in any way an endorsement of the lower court's decision. The court's unwillingness to act makes it even more important that Congress insist on legislative safeguards that will protect civil liberties without jeopardizing national security."
*****
Amerika, WAY better than those communists. We do it electronically and legally.
Submitted by capt (not verified) on Tue Feb. 19, 2008 12:27 PM PST.
Supreme Court Refuses To Review Warrantless Wiretapping Case (2/19/2008)
Ruling Allows Executive Branch To Police Itself, Says ACLU
NEW YORK ? The U.S. Supreme Court today refused to review a legal challenge to the Bush administration's warrantless surveillance program. The case was brought by the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of prominent journalists, scholars, attorneys and national nonprofit organizations who say that the unchecked surveillance program is disrupting their ability to communicate effectively with sources and clients. The court's decision today lets stand an appeals court's ruling on narrow grounds that plaintiffs could not show with certainty that they had been wiretapped by the National Security Agency.
The following quote can be attributed to Jameel Jaffer, Director of the ACLU's National Security Project:
"Congress enacted the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act intending to protect the rights of U.S. citizens and residents, and the president systematically broke that law over a period of more than five years. It's very disturbing that the president's actions will not be reviewed by the Supreme Court. It shouldn't be left to executive branch officials alone to determine what limits apply to their own surveillance activities and whether those limits are being honored. Allowing the executive branch to police itself flies in the face of the constitutional system of checks and balances."
The following quote can be attributed to Steven R. Shapiro, Legal Director of the ACLU:
"Although we are deeply disappointed with the Supreme Court's refusal to review this case, it is worth noting that today's action says nothing about the case's merits and does not suggest in any way an endorsement of the lower court's decision. The court's unwillingness to act makes it even more important that Congress insist on legislative safeguards that will protect civil liberties without jeopardizing national security."
*****
Amerika, WAY better than those communists. We do it electronically and legally.
I am just curious, at what date exactly did the CIA or NSA take over MotherJones? There are so many articles and headlines that simply scream the "party-line" that this has simply stopped being the hard-hitting bastion of factual journalism it once was. Fidel Castro, it should be said, left Cuba possibly poorer than it might have been but under constant sanctions, embargoes, assassination attempts, and culumny from the US and its toady supporters, I do not see how he might have done better. He also managed to create a society that has a higher literacy rate than the US, better health care, and a better international reputation amongst poor countries who received aid and support from Cuba without mandatory submission or purchase agreements for US armaments. It is clear to me that MJ has no interest in reporting the facts anymore. What a sad day indeed.
Submitted by capt (not verified) on Tue Feb. 19, 2008 9:36 AM PST.
"I've often wondered why some American leftists have been soft on Castro."
Really?
They have their collective heads up their collective backsides.
Some seem to care more about 2 dozen in a prison than the hundreds that have been killed in Dumya's quest to spread de-mock-racy and save the middle east from itself.
I guess American leftists just aren't what they used to be.
Submitted by Eric Ferguson (not verified) on Tue Feb. 19, 2008 9:44 AM PST.
Cuba has been off the foreign policy radar ever since the Cold War ended. We probably put the Balkans first in the 1990's, and the Middle East has come first in this decade. Cuba is down the list somewhere, so it should be no surprise even someone who generally thins outside the foreign policy box like Obama hasn't thought about Cuba. Though I'm sure relations with the US is at the top of the Cuban agenda, the fact is we have a bunch of issues and Cuba is way down there, at least until events push it to the top.
wow. let's guess how many of the comments were made by cubans. answer: none.
as someone from latin america, with family still in cuba, i find it repulsive and sadly amusing that people actually believe the literacy and health care statistics that come out of that fascit monster's mouth. It is not by coincidence that every Cuban that makes it out of the island has nothing but hate for the regime. Perhaps its time we listen to those that have the first hand experience, and not the ivory tower smugness.
Try wearing your little Che Guevara shirts around Miami and see what happens.
Indeed, I have to agree, this coverage is disappointing. There is always much to critisize about any government and it is clear that Americans will not give up the smallest amount of freedom in order to raise levels of health, education and child care for all its citizens. But such is not the case everywhere and it has been a joy for me to see that Cuba, under Castro, has been able to resist the seemingly unending and powerful pressure of the United States to GIVE BACK THEIR CORPORATIONS (oil) "stolen" after Batista was cast out by the Revolution, and let the world's most greedy nation have its way with them.
I totally agree with you. If a small country like Cuba can stare down the intimidation and wrath of the mightest nation of the world and refused to be strangled in terms of sanctions, embargoes, assasination etc, I have to salute her. Yet, in the midst of these assaults, Cuba can offer universal helath care to her citizen and USA has 47 million unisured. This speaks volumes of this little country tenacity to fight the political/miltary/industrial/corporate interest of USA. It is really an achievement for 50 odd years.
Talking about moral standing of USA, is there any freedom left now in USA with the Patriots Act? Did not USA torture not convicted prisoners using waterboarding and have secret rendition, torture chambers like Guantanamo and Abu Grahib? Did USA not invade a country (Iraq) without any reasons and destroy a 4,000 civilisation society and want to force that country to accept "USA democracy" at the barrel of the gun?
USA, at this point of history, has no moral standing to lecture anyone on freedom, democracy, care for their own citizens or jailing and treatment of prisoners. USA must SHOW THE WORLD BY ACTIONS that it can abide by the rules of law and not ruled by the law of the guns and bombs.
Submitted by capt (not verified) on Tue Feb. 19, 2008 12:27 PM PST.
Supreme Court Refuses To Review Warrantless Wiretapping Case (2/19/2008)
Ruling Allows Executive Branch To Police Itself, Says ACLU
NEW YORK The U.S. Supreme Court today refused to review a legal challenge to the Bush administration's warrantless surveillance program. The case was brought by the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of prominent journalists, scholars, attorneys and national nonprofit organizations who say that the unchecked surveillance program is disrupting their ability to communicate effectively with sources and clients. The court's decision today lets stand an appeals court's ruling on narrow grounds that plaintiffs could not show with certainty that they had been wiretapped by the National Security Agency.
The following quote can be attributed to Jameel Jaffer, Director of the ACLU's National Security Project:
"Congress enacted the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act intending to protect the rights of U.S. citizens and residents, and the president systematically broke that law over a period of more than five years. It's very disturbing that the president's actions will not be reviewed by the Supreme Court. It shouldn't be left to executive branch officials alone to determine what limits apply to their own surveillance activities and whether those limits are being honored. Allowing the executive branch to police itself flies in the face of the constitutional system of checks and balances."
The following quote can be attributed to Steven R. Shapiro, Legal Director of the ACLU:
"Although we are deeply disappointed with the Supreme Court's refusal to review this case, it is worth noting that today's action says nothing about the case's merits and does not suggest in any way an endorsement of the lower court's decision. The court's unwillingness to act makes it even more important that Congress insist on legislative safeguards that will protect civil liberties without jeopardizing national security."
*****
Amerika, WAY better than those communists. We do it electronically and legally.
I am also disappointed by Mojo's reporting on Fidel Castro's departure. Presidente . F. Castro and the Cuban people have made enormous social and political accomplishments since the overthrow of the U.S. supported Batistan government.
All nations have their faults and struggles. F. Castro can not and should not be demonized. The United States has more than its' fair share of political and journalistic prisoners still in custody. Need I mention the U.S. & Guantanamo Bay, the practices of Secret Rendition, warrant less wiretapping/ eavesdropping, preemptive military strikes upon independent and sovereign nations and the countless assassination attempts made of the life of Fidel Castro?
Cuba is an international beacon for ensuring that its' citizens have access to quality health care and education.
The country has been unable to flourish economically due in large because of the choke hold the U.S. has maintained against Cuba for half a century.
I could go on and on but the point is . . . Mojo WHAT"S UP WITH YOUR ARTICLE & THE IDEA OF FAIR AND BALANCED REPORTING?
you guys are all fucking idiots. yes, cuba was so wonderful that half my family and millions of other cubans have risked life and limb on a damn balsa to come over here. ITS NOT ABOUT AMERICA. We can criticize other countries without reverting back to the Evil Empire.
Please feel free to look through the wonderful conditions Fidel has offered.
Yes, Cuba is a Stalinist country. It would benefit it to have working class democracy, which might save it from counter-revolution.
However, there are gains in Cuba, like guranteed housing, education, food and health care that even Corn can't take away. Of course, Mr. Corn is a pro-capitalist liberal, so being against Cuba is par for the course. I was in Cuba in 2000 and know, though, how poor and pinched life there was. However, I've been in Mexico and seen worse.
As for being ready for the 21st century, Cuba's agriculture has become the most organic in the world, due to their inability to rely on fossil fuels. I'd say that might be a 'bene' in the future.
When we criticize Castro, it cannot go without criticizing the US and its henchmen. Castro is an egotist who has built up a cult of personality, correct. The poverty of Cuba is in large part due to economic sanctions. When I hear 'democracy' and 'freedom' being brought to the people of Cuba by the US, I can only think of neoliberalism and 'free trade'. Just imagine of all the impoverished citizens eagerly awaiting their own exploitation. Castro's resignation has been a goldmine in the making for the IMF, the World Bank, and whatever other capitalist pigs that wish to set up shop. Let us not forget also, that while Castro isn't the best leader in the world, his discursive presence has partly stemmed the flood of US hegemony and capitalist repression in places outside of Cuba.
Additionally:
If we, the US, is going to bring freedom to Cuba, let's not forget not only the prisoners in Guantanamo who legally don't exist, but that the US claims to have no political prisoners. And for a country that locks up 1/4 of the world's prisoners, with a population something to the effect of 330 million in a world over six billion, it seems to me that the US is trying to repress more than criminal minds.
oh my god. what is with the instant ' i hate america ' reaction? is it impossible to have a discussion about the shortcomings of another country? Castro didnt GIVE anyone health care, as it was the Cuban people, through ridiculous taxation that paid for shitty care. There is no personal freedom there. THEY CHOOSE YOUR JOB. THEY DO NOT ALLOW PEOPLE TO USE THE INTERNET. You guys are to the left of Pol Pot; horribly insufferable 'let them eat cake' leftists that do not understand how a regime can possibly be bad because it redistributes income.
Total hypocrites...enjoying the wealth that a (semi) free and prosperous nation gives you while verbally denyiing those same freedoms to others. Cuba is great! For Cubans right? Not for us respectable Americans who have different needs and are just darned spoiled. Disgusting.
I invite all of you to come to Miami and state what you said in front of any Cuban. would love to see it.
Justin, there are more than 2 nations on this planet.
American leftists are every bit as insular and ignorant about the non-American world (history, culture, politics) as is the American right.
If, the words of Justin,
"When we criticize Castro, it cannot go without criticizing the US and its henchmen."
Then we have to extend the same logic to the Soviets, don't we? Did you know, Justin, that during the Cold War there was another super-power called the Soviet Union? See, Castro was a pawn, a minion of the Soviet Union who was in ideological conflict with the United States. The Soviets used Cuba as a proxy for their Latin American operations, just as the Americans used Greece and Turkey, for example. To pretend that there was this little lovely nation called Cuba that was just abused by the big bad USA is more than [deleted]. It is down-down incorrect. Context, nuance. Are you able?
Either way, Castro was an [deleted] to his own people. Final answer, full stop. If you think that this is excusable because you don't like Bush, then kiss my more-intelligent-than-you [deleted]. An intelligent person is able to hold two thoughts in your mind at once.
For example:
1) Castro was bad
2) Bush is bad (or whoever is the American boogieman de jour)
No contradiction.
If we are going to really challenge the mindless American leftist fools posting above, we can add a third (maybe even a fourth):
3) Bush's negative outcomes do not excuse Castro's negative outcomes.
Ok. I just lost some of you. I know.
And if we are really, really going to push these little American leftist minds to the extreme:
4) There are no American boat-people escaping to Havana from Miami. Castro has been worse to his own people than every American president since the 60's.
WHOH!
Now. There are more than 2 nations on earth. Stating that Castro was, on balance, bad for his country is among the most self-evident things that can be said. Ditto for Bush.
But, when I criticise Bush nobody ever ever ever says OH YEAH WELL CASTRO IS BAD TOO. Even Rush wouldn't do that. I slam Bush all the time and not once has anybody said that Putin/Castro/Hugo/Hu or anybody else is "bad" too and we really need to keep that in perspective. Only leftists do this. Cause they are myopic.
So, American leftists, the lesson you need to learn if you want to be anything other than the ideological opposite (but intellectual equivalent) of Rush, Sean, Bill and Anne, it is possible to be critical of bad men. Even if they are not named George.
And being critical of a totalitarian government does not make one a puppet of the CIA. Are you [deleted] 4 years old Douglas?
If you really want to examine Cuba with international context, compare it to my nation of residence, Singapore. (All the posters above just said "isn't Singapore in China??").
Elisabeth; I hope that you are not torturing yourself by living in the "world's most greedy nation" that you seem to find so abhorrent. Unlike those in, say, Cuba, folks in the United States are free to leave and to live elsewhere, somewhere where their "values" are reflected, free from the "horrors" of American freedom, captialism, consumer choice, and all the rest. Elisabeth: have YOU emigrated to Castro's Communist paradise???
Thought so.
I remember reading a reporter's dialogue with Fidel and how he and his brother approached the U.S. for help in bringing down Batista while fighting in the mountains during the early days. The CIA turned them down. Out of desperation, they turned to the Soviets. With full trade status, Batista's Cuba was a haven for breeding revolutionaries and the U.S. kept him in power. I've seen reports that stated that Bush senior was the CIA operative who lined up the boats for use in the Bay of Pigs.
The pressure cooker which became Cuba under Fidel was helped by the embargo put in place because of the blowback of American policies. I'm certain that the Castro brothers and others of the "Revolution" believe "their" Cuba is better than the one of American doing which they were going to inherit. Just as we embargoed Iraq and cost countless deaths,,,, our "leaders" can't find anything wrong with that either.
What does it matter to humanity as a whole who does what to others versus doing it to their "own" people? I would venture to guess that under a world court system, it would matter little. Withholding trade and causing the death of others? Implementing disastous financial polices and forcing another country to accept those policies thereby causing the deaths through those policies??? Impoverishing nations other than your own just to stay on top of the heap? For a few pennies more?
What did the average citizen of the U.S. receive as a benefit for the embargoing of Cuba and Iraq? What did the average citizen of those countries' embargoed receive?
Many of the Cubans who left and lived outside of Miami faced discrimination right off of the bat. Miami became known in a short time as "Little Havana". And, as a colleague related to me in the Eighties after being forced to lay in the street while a full fledged fire fight took place overhead with automatic weapons, not a safe place to be.
One of my teachers in high school(northern Florida) was from Cuba and not only had known the Castro brothers but had gone to University with them. More than once, he told me, they would show up for class with bullet holes in their Cadillac.
This teacher was a lawyer in Cuba and spoke five languages to a varying degree and yet could only get a job as a replacement teacher for Spanish language. He'd worn out his welcome in Cuba after successfully defending a Florida National Guardsman for espionage. He was warned it would no longer be safe for him. All during that time with him in the classroom, he never once said anything bad about the Castros and he had lost everything except for his family.
Batista's Cuba was a very corrupt place and it was said to have many poor. American corporations owned a lot of the businesses and it was known in Florida locally as a place to stay out of due to the influence of the mob and so forth.
It is easy to demonize someone in a position of power but in the end, they are only humans reacting to the stresses presented to them of real or imagined significance.
The Bush's or the Fidel's of the world? Neither, but they do exist and not independently.
Castro quarantines people with AIDS. On the Isle of Pines, they have their separate quarters. It's also disappointing to see Che Guevara glorified . The man was a Marxist-Leninist of the worst kind: He presided over the Cuban Revolution's first firing squads; he assisted in the persecution of homosexuals, herded into buses and trucks, the 'unfit' would be transported at gunpoint into concentration camps organized on the Guanahacabibes mold.
Submitted by corneilius (not verified) on Wed Feb. 20, 2008 10:19 AM PST.
As regards Cuba, compare the production of food in Cuba with that of the USA, and bear in mind that quality and cleannliness of food is far more important to people in terms of health benefits and overall well-being, than access to consumer goods, on any measurble scale!
Cuban Food production is fundamentally based upon small scale organic farming, and most Cubans eat a diet that is low in processed foods, has no toxic chemicals and more importantly, many, many Cubans grow a fair amount of their own food in their cities. No joy for Wal-Mart there! Nor is there any joy for the Chemical Health Industry which thrives upon avoidable diet related diseases, the 'treatment' or 'suppression' of ensueing symptoms of which they rely upon for a large slice of their profits.
One of the 'side effects' of the tansition process from Industrial Pharming to Organic Food growing this was that community cohesion was increased, because people were trading both foods and useful information with each other as they learned what worked and what did not work. What we share enriches us all!
The fact that Cuba was forced to make these changes as a result of the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1989 is besides the point. They have made the changes and for the most part the people were willing participants (witness the large numbers of people who returned to the countryside to become small farmers!).
Americans and Europeans will have to do likewise, and the sooner they do the better for all concerned.
Whilst Cuba is not perfect or even idyllic, the same can be said of all nation states. And for every transgression people quote about Cuba, there are far larger transgressions on the side of the USA. 1 million dead Iraqis for a start!
Time for all people to get realistic, and to ditch ideology in place of what actually works!
It would help, Cornellius, if you would cite some- credible- evidence of your claim that the US has killed 1m Iraqis. Interesting- and telling- that you seem to have little concern for those murdered by Saddam's regime.
But since you seem to want to quantify regimes by their scale of people killed, never forget that Stalin killed more of his own citizens than Hitler, Mao killed more of his own citizens than Stalin, Pol Pot killed a greater percentage of his citizens than- perhaps- any regime, ever. The Krazy Kim family in No. Korea, anyone? What ideology do all of them share in common? I'll let you connect the dot. (And unlike Americans displeased w/ their government, few captives of the various and sundry- and cruelly titled- "People's Republics" were/are free to leave.)
Some here have at least had the intelligence to state the obvious; opposition to any- all?- US policies does not have to equate defending/amking allowances for a thug such as Castro.
Iraq, Saddam and Mao...
Submitted by Corneilius (not verified) on Thu Aug. 13, 2009 9:16 AM PDT.
in response to RJ : Saddam was put in place by the US; Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot were all supported by the US, covertly.
The US Government is historically directly responsible for the murder of millions of Native Americans and the sequestering of their lands.
The fact that I did not mention Saddams victims (courtesy of US support) says nothing about my comments.
The question then is : Are you either a deeply conditioned person who cannot see beyond the rethoric and revised history of school texts or an active supporter of the policies of the US Government? Either way, you are a problem creator not a problem solver.
To the Castro bashers just how successful do you think Canada would be if it was embargoed by the US for decades? Just why do you think that America has the right to tell every other country what type of government they MUST have? The hubris, impunity, arrogance and violence of America is astounding.
Submitted by Anthony McCarthy (not verified) on Wed Feb. 20, 2008 12:46 PM PST.
So far I've seen Cuba compared to Miami and Canada. How about comparing it to similar countries in the region and compare them to Cuba. Only that's not possible because Cuba was embargoed by the United States for most of the past 50 years.
What has America's, um, 'friendship' brought to the people in Latin American countries showered with the approval of those blaming Cuba for not being like Miami? And, for the record, there have been plenty of people trying to flee those paragons of freedom and capitalism too, just they aren't welcome with open arms but with deportation and threats of the Bushlin Wall.
It's so funny to read blog posts like these and then hear liberals SCREAM whenever their patriotism is questioned. It should be questioned. Many liberals are unpatriotic to the core. Reds. Reds. Reds. Anti-American reds. Conservatives are not Orwellian; we simply judge you by your words and actions. Sucks doesn't it?
Submitted by Michael Sparkman (not verified) on Wed Feb. 20, 2008 12:53 PM PST.
Just who is it that went around the world these last 50 years poking out so many third eyes? How many of those who responded to this Mojo blog have actually been to Cuba? How many 1st person accounts of life on this tragic island have each read? Has anyone talked to Patrick Symmes or Carlos Erie, or read their painful accunts about life in Cuba, both before and after the revolution? When it comes to American Foreign Policy in Cuba - all together now - FUBAR! JFK and W, and every American President in between has, with equal opportunity, gotton Cuba completely wrong. So here we read the Mojo that sticks a needle in the eye of both the left and right - both sides who have kept their collective heads up their keesters while the people of Cuba suffered Fidel's paraniod delusions of grandeur. If Obama is not careful, he will be lose his third eye, too. "Saludos" Mojo!
Yubi, let me guess, your family were big fish in a small pond over there and now you have to work for a living? Cry me a river. Life's not perfect over there, life's not perfect over here. Life's not perfect anywhere. I guess I would rather have the good education and the health coverage even if it means the press has to think about what it writes once in a while instead of being a pack of irresponsible troglodytes selling pornography in code.
Wow. The fierce confrontational nature in most of the comments about the Cuba blog post say much about the polarization of American politics. The ignorance, and lack of context, in many of the statements is stunning. This Canadian wonders how America, "leader of the free world," is going to lead if even its literati are aggressive, mud-slinging combatants.
I've been to Cuba, traveling off the beaten track from big to rural agricultural areas. The guy with the machine gun at the airport didn't let me bring in my reading material. The families I visited ate mostly rice and beans. Their people lack the human rights we North Americans have. The last time I went they still used firing squads, an appalling situation given that every civilized country in the world long ago banished capital punishment.
But I've also been to slums in Caracus, to inner American cities, and to other impoverished Latin American places. There, I was struck by the dull eyes of malnourished (obese on US junk food or emaciated in the third world) children, by the crime and by the educational poverty of the adults.
In Cuba I was struck most by watching bright-eyed and fit children in Cuba, dressed in clean uniforms, walk along potted roadways each day on their way from homes North Americans would consider hovels to attend school each day. I was impressed by the articulate, fit adults. Among the few Cubans I met with wordly exposure, many thoughtfully criticized their autocratic government but were grateful that their kids were not begging for food in the slums of many other countries.
Cuba's an appalling place when considering many human rights, and it's far less than perfect considering many basic needs like food and shelter. But is it better now than it would be if Batista and the American free-enterprisers and organized criminals who ran the place before 1959 had continued in power, with CIA interference?
Are people in Cuba better off alive, healthy and educated without human rights, than dead in the slums of another place?
To ponder that question look at the recent history of any number of other Latin American countries under the sway of the U.S. since it first exerted power under its Monroe Doctrine, and ask yourself if people in Haiti, Chile, Nicaragua or Honduras are better off than Cubans.
There are some worthwhile issues to discuss in all these areas -- if people would bite their tongues and holster their firearms in order to think first -- and engage instead of fight.
This article is highly disappointing, racially charged, one-sided and very inaccurate. Fidel Castro has had a 50 year run of opposing oppression, occupation and refusing to sell-out to the U.S. or any other world power when it came to giving up their ideology. Keep in mind, the revolution in Cuba was won by the people and it has remained because of the people. Their 95% voting rate has proven that. And the journalists and individuals who have been jailed are there mostly because of their attempts to endanger and possibly end individuals LIVES through CIA funding. Trust me, as someone who's visited Cuba and had many conversations with the people on the island, there is such a thing as freedom of speech and thought. The thought is universal because it's an ideology of inclusion, equity and mental and physical prosperity. Has the revolution had its glitches - of course! But Castro has been very open to learning from their mistakes and has taken actions to tackle issues of racism, gender equality and has done loads for LGBTQ rights. The US embargo and travel ban has immensely limited the amount of material goods available in Cuba but it hasn't and never will hurt it's ideology. Cuba has transformed from a Communist country to a Socialist country because of the will of the people. Fidel was their chosen leader. Unlike Bush, twice. The ideas of the people will remain after Fidel. And even if they change, as they have over the last 50 years, they will be changed by the people.
Mother Jones should have a little more courtesy towards its readers and ensure that the articles they choose to post are accurate and respectful of our movements. This article is another example of faulty journalism. And I can't agree more with all of the previous comments opposing it.
You are correct. I'm really getting tired of this right-wing swing. Those of us who remember that Cuba was run by the Mafia and a U.S. appointed dictator for "far too long" gag on this anti-Castro BS Under Batista the people lived in poverty, had no health care, no schools, and the short lifespan of all the poor people under our boot heels.
Perhaps we could get a report on the number of times the C.I.A. tried to kill Castro and overthrow the Revolution.
Cuba Si, Yankee No!
OT: "RJ" challenged "Cornelius's" claim of one million dead Iraqis since the U.S. invasion. In 2006 a credible study overseen by Johns Hopkins University's Bloomberg School of Public Health and published in the Lancet estimated there had been, at that time, a total of 655,000 estimated "excess deaths" from violence and disease and other causes, or about 500 unexpected violent deaths per day throughout the country. These were in excess of the deaths expected under Saddam Hussein's regime, had there been no U.S. invasion. http://www.jhsph.edu/publichealthnews/press_releases/2006/burnham_iraq_2...
I'll leave it up to "Cornelius" to explain the "one million" comment -- but it could be approximately reached by extrapolating from the 2006 study: add up 500 deaths per day for two more years, and you get 365,000 on top of the 655,000 in the study.
LOL at these pro-Castro comments! All of you guys need to get on TV immediately and declare your support for Barack Obama. Please let the entire country know what you stand for...we are a very educated people and we can make decisions for ourselves.
Sam North: where have you been? That study was just torpedoed by National Journal a few weeks ago. LOL, you guys are so much fun.
Well, I'm not Cuban, so I guess the Cuban exiles would say I have nothing to say. But I have several comments and questions:
One: I lived in Miami for many years, and can state definitively that I've heard far more hateful and anti-American drivel spouting from the mouths of so-called Cuban Americans than I ever have from the Cuban govt. If, as the current version of history states (as taught by UofM, for example), all the original Cuban immigrants were poor and simply escaping Castro, why is the community as a whole not grateful to the US for helping them move so quickly up the economic scale?
Two: I've found other versions of Cuban American history that indicate the original Cuban exile community was largely made up of former privileged elites and mobsters who exploited the starving populace under Batiste, and whom Castro ran out of the country. Is that true? It certainly explains both the intensity of hatred for the American left and for Castro, and the unique political influence this group wields over our political process.
Three: If Castro's legacy is so repressive, why has there been no concerted mass effort at protest or revolution in 50 years? Even in the poorest Third World nations, the people only settle for so much pain before they start rioting in the streets. And why is the Cuban exile community here not actively funding and agitating for such change in Cuba? Why is it only in the US that we hear all these horror stories of overwhelming Cuban repression?
Four: Has everyone here forgotten the little boy, Elian, whom the Cuban exile community exploited for their own political purposes? How the exiles disregarded the values they say make them different from Castro, and then acted just like him for their own ends?
Five: Every Cuban I know is more literate, articulate and educated than their American counterparts, and the stats I found show a literacy rate far above ours. How does a dictator repress an entire population of aware, informed and literate citizens
without resorting to repeated armed force?
I'm not saying Castro was a saint, simply that the US govt and the Cuban exiles have failed to convince me of their arguments, and both have done much to indicate they're being disingenuous on the subject.
even do castro ruz has resigned from power in cuba, we all know that as long as he lives, decitions will be his doing.
His brother has been along side him since the very beggining and knows exactly how to rule exactly like him.
after the castro regime, there is a lot of catching up for the cuban people to do.
Refusal to support the idiotic American policy towards Cuba is not romanticizing a dictator. If we say Christian values are so important, and Capitalism is so effective, then why didn't we fight the Cold War, and Fidel, by letting our Christian values guide our Capitalist principles? The result would have been a much different war, with the United States co-opting communist cells and socialist agitators by working to improve the lot of the world's poor, and to end human suffering, all the while supporting Democracy, even when the results installed Socialist governments. The end product would be a powerful world leader in Washington, standing on the pinnacle of the moral high ground, instead of a tottering empire, wasting trillions of dollars on military hardware, and trillions more on unnecessary and empire sapping war. America's blockade did as much as anything Castro ever envisioned to keep Castro in power. And all to placate a minority of Cuban-Americans in Florida, who were originally supporters of a dictator who prostituted Cuba for American business, who had nothing to offer his people other than low paying jobs, prostitution for tourists, and poverty.
I was having breakfast at a little cafe one morning near Chicago a few years back. At the table next to me were 2 videographers from National Geographic. I asked them since they had visited nearly every country, which one would they like to live in, and they BOTH said Cuba. For the quality of life. Nuff for me !! They have more credibility than anyone in my book.
Tony, thanks for the url for the study critique.
BTW, who are "you guys," and why are whoever "you guys" are so much fun that you laugh out loud?
I don't understand -- I I were American maybe I would get the joke -- but such jokes seems limiting to any dialogue outside the inner circles or the borders of one country.
