Vladimir, Joseph, and Mao
Has anybody here seen my old friend Vladimir?
Can you tell me where he’s gone?
He freed a lot of people,
But it seems the good they die young.
You know, I just looked around and he’s gone.
Anybody here seen my old friend Mao?
Can you tell me where he’s gone?
He freed a lot of people,
But it seems the good they die young.
I just looked around and he’s gone.
Anybody here seen my old friend Joseph?
Can you tell me where he’s gone?
He freed a lot of people,
But it seems the good they die young.
I just looked ’round and he’s gone.
Didn’t you love the things that they stood for?
Didn’t they try to find some good for you and me?
And we’ll be free
Some day soon, and it’s a-gonna be one day…
Anybody here seen my old friend Fidel?
Can you tell me where he’s gone?
I thought I saw him walkin’ up over the hill,
With Vladimir, Joseph and Mao.
Statement by the Prime Minister of Canada on the death of former Cuban President Fidel Castro
Report
Statement by President Juncker on the passing away of Fidel Castro
Report
Sic transit ad ultimum communistae.
It was at some point in the Clinton Administration that it occurred to me, “The embargo isn’t working, Castro is just laughing at us because the rest of the world will trade with Cuba no problem, even with the Soviets gone now. Meanwhile, the U.S. Government cuddles up to all sorts of really objectionable dictators and juntas and stuff, under the rationale that by having them as allies we can work with them to curb and eventually end their human rights abuses. So why the f[ish] are we still embargoing Cuba and pretending like that’s going to do anything meaningful?”
Then, of course, the 2000 election happened and suddenly everyone cared a lot about Cuban Republicans.
So what will Trump’s Cuba policy look like now? I’m guessing it looks a lot like “The Trump Havana.” It’s going to be a beautiful property, with only the best amenities and it’s going to create a lot of jobs for those Cuban workers. A lot of jobs.Report
I’m envisioning a group of Trump casino investors gathered on a rooftop in Havana, celebrating with a cake the shape of Cuba.
But this being a Steve Bannon affair, Hyman Roth will be not be invited.Report
Very nice.Report
So what will Trump’s Cuba policy look like now? I’m guessing it looks a lot like “The Trump Havana.”
Trump’s theory of international policy will be to expand the global presence of Trump Enterprises, in the form of golf courses and luxury hotels, with peace following therefrom. In that sense it will be a reversal of the Golden Arches theory of international policy, where peace follows from other countries acceptance of open markets. Our new reality is that peace will follow from and be predicated on embracing Trump’s Golden Toilet.Report
A brief googling shows that Trump wants to reverse Obama’s order to end the Cuba embargo. But who really knows.Report
The beatings will continue until the golf course is approved!Report
Even better. As long as he keeps that in his pocket, he’s sure to get some sweet real estate deals.Report
So what will Trump’s Cuba policy look like now?
I’m thinking about this… I heard noises that Trump would have wanted to re-instate the embargo but, now that (Fidel) Castro is dead, I’m pretty sure that the floodgates will open.
Hundreds (thousands?) of classic-car collectors will now descend on Cuba and make a number of automobile owners overnight hundred-thousandaires. Tourism will now totally flood the island and there is going to be a huge spike in Cuban Cigar sales quickly followed by everybody wondering why in the heck everyone made such a big deal out of these things.
Note to self: purchase Cuban cigar.
Fidel needed the embargo.
I’m wondering whether Raul needs it. I hope he doesn’t.
Fidel’s death makes a lot of things possible, but, dang… a lot of damage was done to Cuba and it’s going to take years and years to fix. How long were there problems after German reunification?
The good news: Cuba has its own mini-West Germany in the Cuban community in Florida. I hope that our government and Cuba’s government allow them to help.Report
Statement by the President on the Passing of Fidel Castro
Report
I’d call that a remarkable bit of prose for its careful neutrality regarding the numerous… unpleasantnesses of years past. But I also know that every President since Reagan has had the State Department tee up an obituary statement like this to be at the ready. For all we know, it’s been the same one sitting in the can all along, and the only challenge today was that someone had to remember how to start up the old CP/M OS down in Sub-Basement 2 in Langley to PIP C:/DOCS/PROTOCOL/FIDELOBI.TXT.Report
For all we know, it’s been the same one sitting in the can all along
Meditating on this. Trying to think of a president who would have said something significantly different than the above…Report
Commie Fidel said some nasty things about America, really nasty. But he was a yuuge figure, really yugge. Now that he’s dead, someone is going to have to talk to Cuba and make deals with them. And I’m very good at that. Everyone says “Donald, you’re the best one to make deals with the Cubans.”Report
President? No. President-elect? See below.Report
Report
The telegram sent from the Vatican:
Telegram for the death of Fidel Castro
Report
If you replace Fidel Castro for “random former head of state and brother of current head of state” and Pope Francis for “random head of state”, it doesn’t particularly feel out of place, except perhaps for the reference to our Lady of the Charity of CopperReport
Francis is getting roasted for this online.
That seems somewhat inappropriate given that it is arguably the job of the Pope to pray for recently deceased world leaders. (Well, his duties include that sort of thing, anyway.)
It’s not like JPII’s statement would have been significantly different.Report
There is also the context of the increasing raproahcment the Catholic Church has had with Cuba under Francis and Raul. There is some personal diplomacy going on here.Report
Report
He’s released a longer, rather more colorful statement than that. Sure to be reprinted on your twitter feed as anyone on the rightward side of the newly-realigned spectrum is loving the red meat.Report
Oooh, found it:
Report
What’s always interesting to me about anti-Communist rhetoric or anti-left rhetoric in general is that it never seems how bad the regimes that came before the left were.
The Tsars were bad and oppressive. The Nationalists in China were corrupt and bad and the old Emperor was decadent. Batista was bad and basically propped up by American agriculture and sugar corporations like United Fruit. A few were wealthy, most lived in dire poverty.
Yet the Overton Window has moved so far to the right that we are not allowed to think “Maybe there was a reason that Lenin, Mao, Ho Chi Min, and Castro* were successful in their revolutions. What lessons can we learn about colonialism, corporate rule, and corruption?” Instead we just here “Communism is horrible. Down with the Communists!!”
*Not a defense of Castro but merely an observation on how the right-wing has been successful in writing history. A few decades ago, you could have conversations about how bad the Tsars were and express sympathy for revolutions. Now it is Capitalism all the time, liberal democracy or not.Report
We went from arguments about how bad Cuba is in comparison to Chile and Mexico to arguments about had bad Cuba is in comparison to Guatamala, El Salvadore, and Haiti.Report
@jaybird
I’m not impressed. I recently read a book on the 1850s by the British historian Ben Wilson. What really made the West mad about Asia was not the kind of government but the fact that large segments of the world were closed to them for trade and/or they could not think of anything that China wanted for their tea and porcelain until they came up with Opium or sent warships to Japan.
I hear a lot of high-minded talk from libertarians and others on the right about how capitalism and liberal democracy go hand in hand but it seems to me that many business owners and corporations don’t really care about liberal democracy, they care about making money and will put up with any regime that gives them access to markets and cheap labor.
I’d like to see libertarians and the right-wing be able to say “What came before Lenin was bad and anti-democratic and therefore immoral” and mean so seriously.Report
While it’s certainly true that Trump is bad, you have to look at Obama’s presidency to truly understand why Trump got elected.Report
Obama’s popularity ratings sure are something aren’t they.Report
He really did do wonders for the party.Report
And his popularity is up. There is also this thing called the Democratic Party which actually is supposed to be finding people to run and doing strategy kind of stuff.
Obama is popular. The D’s are made several key mistakes. There are a lot of lessons to learn from this election. Not all the ones conservatives want to see.Report
“Hey guys. Do you think we could get Greg to defend Obama in the comments to a post about Castro dying?”
“No. I don’t think you could do that.”
“Watch this.”Report
“Hey do you think we could get Jay to criticize Obama in a post about Castro dying?”Report
I didn’t criticize Obama, Greg.Report
So what’s the point then. How far off thread are you aiming? Not that staying on the topic of the OP has ever mattered.Report
Please don’t think that I was arguing that we need to stay on topic. Heaven forbid!
It’s more that we’re going through the motions we always go through.Report
I’m more curious about what you meant with your original point.
What is it that we have to understand about Obama that will help explain Trump?Report
It was in response to the comment that said “I’d like to see libertarians and the right-wing be able to say “What came before Lenin was bad and anti-democratic and therefore immoral” and mean so seriously.”
Instead of writing what I wrote, I could have also written something to the effect of “Fidel Castro died peacefully in his bed, unlike Trayvon Martin and Tamir Rice.”Report
There is something there, though — isn’t there?
We do have a tendency to forgive some monsters their crimes against humanity while loudly declaring that others must always be thought of as Evil, and we do so in a way that has nothing to do with said crimes.Report
Well, SlateStarCodex’s wonderful essay “I Can Tolerate Anything Except The Outgroup” has with a lovely little story comparing the responses to the deaths of Osama Bin Laden and Margaret Thatcher:
And here we are with Castro’s death.
Is Castro more like Margaret Thatcher or more like Osama Bin Laden, do you think?Report
I’ve seen this exact same thing in reverse, applied to living people. Eg., I was discussing the Diallo
massacreshooting, claiming that the cops oughtashould been prosecuted for murder, and the liberalish I was conversing with kept insisting I wasn’t appreciating how each of those cops had their own experiential histories informing their own choices creating a complex nexus of sympathy-based reasoning my cold, dead heart was incapable of appreciating in a fully human way.I don’t know if she cheered Thatcher’s death or not.Report
Watch for “well, you have to understand” when it comes to any explanation of… let’s use the word “controversial”… events.
“Can you believe that this horrible thing happened?”
“Well, you have to understand…”
On whose behalf are you most likely to ask others to stand back and take a moment to understand?Report
What do you think?Report
I kinda already wrote a post comparing him to three guys, Kazzy.Report
Thatcher vs Bin Laden? Now you’re just gaming the comparison to let everyone but liberals off easy.
Here’s a better person and more topical person to compare Castro and the reactions people have to him: Putin.
People who righteously cannot forgive one dictator’s torturing and disappearing people have a way with letting bygones be bygones with another because, you know, something something strong leader.Report
Thatcher vs Bin Laden? Now you’re just gaming the comparison to let everyone but liberals off easy.
So, you think liberals were sympathetic to Bin Laden?
{{evil snicker}}Report
Tod, I swear, I was quoting someone else and then going on and running with the examples that they gave.
Here’s a better person and more topical person to compare Castro and the reactions people have to him: Putin.
I honestly don’t think that it is possible to have a topical person to use as a comparison point. Castro was the leader of one of the last “Communist” countries in the world.
The best people we could use for comparisons are all dead. Many for decades.
Castro (and Cuba, for that matter) have been trapped in amber. A dinky little throwback that demonstrates what happens when you don’t allow progress.
Which should not be read as a defense of Putin. Heaven forbid.
Just saying that comparing Castro to Putin doesn’t map well. Compare Castro to Brezhnev. Andropov, maybe. Chernenko.Report
Pinochet
The shame with both deaths is that they happened so late.Report
Funny. The main online reaction I recall to bin Laden’s death was that he wasn’t important anymore so Obama should get no credit for it.Report
That’s cuz BO posted pictures of himself being all Decidery while the operation was underway. Who’d do that if they weren’t completely focused on optics and the shell game??!!!Report
Yeah, that “Assassination Accomplished” banner was a bit much.Report
I was never that impressed by the comparison. One was targeted and killed by our government, and one died peacefully in bed. Does that makes no difference to your opinion of celebrating their death? Even if not, the distinction is well worth discussing.Report
To be quite honest, this is the first time I’ve ever encountered the argument that one died in bed/one was shot and that distinction makes a difference when it comes to the appropriateness of celebrating a controversial political figure’s death.
Castro died in bed, I presume.
What rules apply?Report
What rules apply?
Good question, since we all appear confused on this topic.
1. Violent deaths at the hands of gummint cannot be celebrated; peaceful deaths resulting from God’s Will can.
2. If the person who dies is a political opponent, 1 does not hold.
3. Non-partisan “critiquers” who are obviously “above the fray” can selectively criticize partisans for violating either 1 or 2.Report
Has anyone here celebrated his death?
It’s like we’re all holding our breath waiting for someone to say “Good. I’m glad the bastard is dead and in Hell.” (Or just dead. Maybe our someone is a materialist.)
But nobody has said that.Report
Oh, I think it’s entirely possible to celebrate the death of Fidel-the-dictator while feeling bad about the death of Fidel-the-humanbeing.
Death sucks.
Unless it’s the death of communism.Report
Possibly the biggest tragedy is when the dictator Fidel Castro murdered the former ballplayer and idealistic lawyer who wanted to raise the Cuban people up and shield them from the imperialists who alternated between directly invading Cuba and merely propping up brutal thugs.Report
4 If it’s Hitler, we can be glad no matter what.
5. 4 is not a general rule.Report
@jaybird
I’m still not convinced by this argument and I find it perplexing that people of a libertarian bent or former libertarian bent are so enamored by it. This argument is treated like it can shut down any liberal claim.
Liberals: “I don’t think people should be denied economic services or job opportunities based on their race, religion, creed, ethnicity, gender, sexual identity, etc.”
Libertarians/Conservatives: “You are tolerant of everything but the out group.”
Liberal reaction: “This is supposed to defeat us how? Part of modern liberalism is the belief that people are not truly free unless they have full access to civil and economic life. No one claimed that this was going to make everyone happy. Of course bigots are going to be opposed to civil rights legislation. Why should the rights of bigots be superior to the rights of minorities?”
Suppose there was a conservative here saying “I don’t understand why liberals always support gay couples who are refused service at bakeries”; would you quote the Scott Alexander essay to them or are LBGT people too cultural elite to be an outgroup. Is there anywhere in your moral universe where conservatives are the in group and liberals are the out group?Report
“Under Castro, Cuba was a cesspool where political prisoners were brutalized, tortured, and held indefinitely without trial. Nor was this completely confined to Guantanamo.”Report
While it’s certainly true that Trump is bad, you have to look at Obama’s presidency to truly understand why Trump got elected.
{Jeff Foxworthy: “If you think Obama was SO BAD he made Donald Trump look good, you might be an ideological opportunist.”}Report
I think you’re missing the point:
Inferring that some predecessor of horrible X must have been worse because there could have been no other explanation for X is obviously mistaken. Trump, like the communists won because the proletariat tend to be suckers for charismatic populists.
Perhaps the Tsars were bad, but their badness does not explain the revolution. That;s because the revolution may have happened anyway. Notice that Trump won even though Obama has made things somewhat better. (in at least some areas if not all)Report
Thats because the Communists were always much more oppressive than who ever they replaced by an order of magnitudes. Not even the most oppressive and authoritarian of the Tsars came up with anything matching Stalin’s regime of terror. The Bolsheviks didn’t even over throw the Tsars. They over through the Provisional Government led by Kerensky.
The Nationalists in China might have been corrupt but Chiang Kai Shek did not kill tens of millions of people in man-made and devised sociological experiments. The island that Chiang Kai Shek took over after the Nationalists lost the Civil War is now a prosperous democracy while China is at best a semi-prosperous authoritarian dictatorship.
The less said about North Korea and Cambodia the better.
Castro was the least damaging of all the Communist dictators and even he managed to much more harm than Batista by staying in power decades longer than Batista. Cuba was one of the most prosperous countries in Latin America and the wealthiest Caribbean island when the Cuban Revolution happened. Now is one of the poorest and least democratic.Report
Now is one of the poorest and least democratic.
And still ranks right next to the USA in terms of healthcare!
OK, that aside, good comment. I’m not sure arguing that going outa the frying pan and into the fire constitutes an improvement is all that compelling.Report
How much of that wealth was controlled by a small sliver of the population? Most of whom were gangsters and/or lackeys for United Fruit?Report
United Fruit was a banana company and not very involved in Cuba. Their bailiwick was Central America. The Cuban economy at the time of Batista was based on sugar, tobacco, rum, and tourism and some mining and industry.
According to Cuban historian Louis A. Perez, Jr. in Cuba: Between Reform and Revolution, pgs. 224-225, Cuba had 5.8 million people in 1953. 220,000 were peasants engaged in small scale farming. 575,000 were paid agricultural workers, 500,000 in manufacturing, commerce, or transportation, and 200,000 in the services. The middle class consisted of about 621,000 people. In 1957, Cuba had the second highest per capita income in Latin America. Was third in radio ownership in Latin America but first in telephones, newspapers, private motor vehicles per individual and rail mileage per square mile. 58% of all households had electricity. 76% of the population was literate, the fourth highest literacy rate in Latin America.Report
+500 for this comment and the one before it @leeesq .Report
Thank you.Report
Just because I’m a stickler for historical accuracy, you should check Nicholas I (1825-1855) (*)
I grant you that technological advances allowed Stalin to reach economies of scale on oppression that dwarve what was available in very backward’s Nicholas I Russia.
The sad part is that Nicholas I was personally a good, extremely hard working, man, who did what he did out of a complete lack of imagination, and a total conviction that he was working tirelessly for Russia.
(*) You could say (ok, I’m saying it) that Nicholas I not only created the repression tools (secret police, internal exile, Siberian prisons). He also created the totalitarian concept that every decission, no matter how small, belonged to the Tsar alone (later to the Secretary General), that any independent thinking on any matter was rebellious per se. Nicholas I created Leninism (**). And that’s why Leninism took root in Russia first.
(**) Vladimir’s (the Vladimir in the post’s title) elder brother Alexander was studying at Saint Petersburg University. Involved in political agitation against the absolute monarchy of the Tsar Alexander III (Nicholas I’s grandson), he studied the writings of banned leftists and organised anti-government protests. He joined a revolutionary cell bent on assassinating the Tsar and was selected to construct a bomb. Before the attack could take place the conspirators were arrested and tried, and in May 1886, his brother Alexander was executed by hanging.Report
The idea of the right of the Tsar to rule alone dates back to at least Peter I if not earlier to Ivan the Terrible. The ultimate root is that the Russians received their concept of monarchy from the Byzantine Empire and the Byzantines believed that the Emperor was God’s vice-regent on Earth. Many of the tools of Russian authoritarianism also go back long before Michael Romanov became Tsar of All Russia. The idea of sending trouble makers to Siberia is just as old as Russia’s conquest of Siberia.
I agree that technological limitations and a relatively un-imaginitive civil service provided a blunted the ability of the Tsars to be as brutal as the latter Soviet Secretary Generals. Interestingly enough, Das Kapital was allowed to be translated into Russian and published because a Tsarist censor thought it was such a dry and boring work that it was safe to let people read.Report
“I love Havana- My good friend Johnny Ola,- he’s the best, he really is- showed me around the clubs there.”Report
“I join the many Cuban Americans who supported me so greatly in the presidential campaign, including the Brigade 2506 Veterans Association that endorsed me…”
Never let a thing like death and powerful emotions on all sides get in the way of reminding everyone how well liked you are.Report
I’m with Burt on the ineffectiveness of the Cuban Embargo. It shows the distorted power of American politics that it lasted for so long because everyone wanted the Cuban vote in Florida every four years. More if you were a Florida politician perhaps.
Anyway, I prefer Communist by John Berryman:
‘O tell me of the Russians, Communist, my son!
Tell me of the Russians, my honest young man!’
‘They are moving for the people, mother; let me alone,
For I’m worn out with reading and want to lie down.’
‘But what of the Pact, the Pact, Communist, my son?
What of the Pact, the Pact, my honest young man?’
‘It was necessary, mother; let me alone,
For I am worn out with reading and want to lie down.’
‘Why are they now in Poland, Communist, my son?
Why are they now in Poland, my honest young man?’
‘For the people of Poland, mother; let me alone,
For I’m worn out with reading and want to lie down.’
‘But what of the Baltic States, Communist, my son?
What of the Baltic States, my honest young man?’
‘Nothing can be proven, mother; let me alone,
For I’m worn out with reading and want to lie down.’
‘O I fear for your future, Communist, my son!
I fear for your future, my honest young man!’
‘I cannot speak or think, mother; let me alone,
For I’m sick at my heart and I want to to lie down.’Report
The admiration or hatred that many had for Castro perplexes me. It’s true that he overthrow an authoritarian dictatorship but he replaced it with his own. He build a decent healthcare system but made one of the most prosperous countries in Latin America poor. He wasn’t that murderous though. His dictatorship ruled with a lighter touch than many others at the time. The emotions Castro could muster in people seem disproportionate to his actual worth.Report
As with most foreign leaders, Americans usually sort them into our own political camps like sort of a draft pick.
Every event on the world stage gets translated into our own framework to stand as a totem of our own issues and concerns. Even if we have to hammer them all out of shape to do so.Report
Amnesty International:
Report
It’s true that only a few backward and barbarous regimes still practice the death penalty.Report
But torture and lawless imprisonment still exists in Cuba!
Well, mostly centered around Guantanamo Bay but still.Report
If the US is so bad you should move to Cuba. Its funny bc I don’t see all the Trump hating liberals fleeing to Cuba. They should get a real taste of despotism and then they might appreciate this country more.Report
It’s almost as though one thing being bad doesn’t exclude the possibility that other things might be bad. I will think on this and get back to the group with my results.Report
This is no time for accuracy, dammit!Report
This discussion makes it clear to me why I describe myself politically as being a dialecticist. (I’m not sure that’s a word, but I’m using it anyway). The things I want, the things I love, are praised in one regime and condemned in another because of other factors that don’t mean much to me. Castro did terrible things to maintain his regime, and so did those who came before him. Those things were terrible things no matter who did them. Freedom that is freedom only for people who belong to The Party, and who say the right things, is not freedom. Crushing poverty with reasonable housing and healthcare is better than crushing poverty without those things, but it’s still crushing poverty.
I feel like the course I want a government to pursue is a river cutting its valley between two peaks of ideology. The valley wanders and jags a bit. The turns are not always gentle, either. But the river stays in the valley between the peaks, and the people live there, and not on the mountaintops.
Does Castro’s death change anything for the people of Cuba? I am ready to celebrate an improvement of their lives, and I think a change of regime might do that. Is the regime changing? Meanwhile there is a human level. Someone must have loved him, someone must mourn him. Does his death affect my life at all? Do I have any personal reason to mourn or celebrate?
I have listened to Chinese people tell me why they loved Mao so much. It seemed genuine to me, and not particularly ideological. And the system of censorship and party privilege he spawned is clearly damaging to China and to the world. Is it so difficult to hold on to both these thoughts?Report
Very interestjng, @doctor-jay .Report
Paul Ryan’s Statement on the Death of Fidel Castro
Report
The first order of business is to cut their taxes and get rid of their government health care. Freedom!Report
I can never understand why the Cubans were so willing to make boats out of trucks and try to get to the US.
They had near-universal literacy!Report
Every one of them! The island is completely empty now, kind of like Roanoke.Report
Absolutely true.
Only a very small percentage of Cubans were willing to risk shark-infested waters to go to Florida.Report
At least when they arrive, they’re brave heroes. Totally different from those illegals from Mexico and Central America that we need to deport and build a wall to keep out.Report
Wait, I’m not following the thread.
What should I see as equivalent that I’m not seeing as equivalent?Report
Castro and all the murderous dictators the US supported, or at least had no real problem with, because they weren’t Commies.Report
Okay, fine.
There were many proxy wars in the Cold War, and Cuba was only one of the battle grounds.
The Nicaraguan Revolution had the Contras vs. the Sandanistas and the Salvadoran Civil War between the FMLN and the government were all horrible parts of the Central American Crisis.
The people living in these countries were used as pawns by two empires and hundreds of thousands (millions?) died as a result.
Hell, going back further to The Banana Wars would probably give a context as to why the Soviets were so quickly and efficiently able to get a foothold in Central America.
This is the context that we need to keep in mind as we look at Fidel Castro.
As bad as he was, both sides do it.Report
So when the same guy who ran on walls and deportations makes a special thank-you to Cuban immigrants, what can we conclude?Report
That he’s in favor of legal immigrants and not illegal ones?Report
In this case, Cubans are “legal” immigrants only because we determined that all Cubans that touched the USA would be automatically granted a green card (*), as another way to undermine the Castro government, not because they went through the rigmarole that other nationals have to jump through
(*) Real story: a Canadian friend was born in Cuba, the daughter of Belgian nationals (dad was an expat in a multinational company) months before Castro gained power. When she moved to the USA in 2004 (husband got a job here with an H1B visa) she presented her Cuban birth certificate (she hadn’t returned to Cuba since she was an infant) and she, husband, and two daughters were granted permanent resident status in the USA.Report
Holodomor Memorial Day – November 26, 2016
Seems appropriate for the day.Report
FWIW regarding smugness and wing nuttery and such, the wife of one of my right wing cousins is just sure all liberals must just be crushed with the death of the F Man who is one of our heroes.Report
Nancy Pelosi’s statement:
Report
An online record of the deaths, disappearances and torture carried out under Castro’s regime:
http://cubaarchive.org/wordpress/Report
Weird how JFK had a more sober response to Castro 53 years ago than people today.
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=25660
“First, we refused to help Cuba meet its desperate need for economic progress. In 1953 the average Cuban family had an income of $6 a week. Fifteen to twenty percent of the labor force was chronically unemployed.
Only a third of the homes in the island even had running water, and in the years which preceded the Castro revolution this abysmal standard of living was driven still lower as population expansion out-distanced economic growth.
Only 90 miles away stood the United States – their good neighbor – the richest Nation on earth – its radios and newspapers and movies spreading the story of America’s material wealth and surplus crops.
But instead of holding out a helping hand of friendship to the desperate people of Cuba, nearly all our aid was in the form of weapons assistance – assistance which merely strengthened the Batista dictatorship – assistance which completely failed to advance the economic welfare of the Cuban people – assistance which enabled Castro and the Communists to encourage the growing belief that America was indifferent to Cuban aspirations for a decent life.”
Also, I hope I can find somewhere on this site @jaybird being just as upset about the US saying nice things about the dictators we favor – http://www.vox.com/2015/1/23/7877395/king-abdullah-reformer
“Saudi Arabia’s deceased King Abdullah, according to just about every obituary in major Western publications, was a reformer. The New York Times, Washington Post, BBC, and NPR all describe Abdullah as a ruler committed to reforming Saudi Arabia’s notoriously repressive practices. Sen. John McCain called Abdullah an advocate for peace; IMF head Christine Lagarde called him a “strong advocate for women.””
But, I guess King Abdullah was OK with capitalism so there’s no need for 50 posts on the topic. Weird.
Guess what, Castro was shitty. Abdullah was shitty. Lots of leaders have done shitty things and good things. We can point out both. I mean, after all, Friedman gave Pinochet good advice on economic reforms, right?Report
There’s a lot in here, Jesse.
I’m not sure of the best way to respond.
Do you want me to find a post or comment where I complain about the government snuggling up to bad people? I’ll get on the google…Report
Yeah, it looks like I’ve never complained about the government snuggling up to bad people.Report
Good work Jay.Report