Fidel - Goodie or Baddie?

Imperator said:
Here are some useful links which give information on the current situation in Cuba. Human Rights Watch and Amnesty are not absolutely objective, but a lot of information can be obtained from these sites.



[broken link removed]
Click to expand...

Read those reports. Also interesting Amnesty's views on [broken link removed]

and also the [broken link removed]

If one is to read what Amnesty says about Cuba and say it's true, then one must agree that what it says about Ireland and the USA is also true. If you ask me the report on the USA is much scarier than Cuba. If you were to put Castro or Saddam's name on the USA report would you not be seeking to remove that government also?
 
Betsy Og said:
Sherman,

My thread was curiosity about the Cuban situation derived, to some extent, by ambiguous media coverage in the face of evidence of evidence of human rights abuse.
Click to expand...

I understand where you're coming from, but I do believe the reason we don't hear about the evils of the Castro regime is as pointed out above by Purple - we in Europe don't hear the full horror of his rule, as, in world terms, he and indeed Cuba, are an irrelevance, threatening no one realistically but his own people, and the European media these days are innately anti-American - they seem to see him as some avuncular oul' rogue sticking the fingers up to the US.
 
That rings a bell but I thought it was the US army around the end or (or just after?) the Second World War. Anyway, the details don’t matter and your point is a good one.

Betsy Og said:
Was trying to reason why Fidel Saddam isnt getting the bad rep from journalists who presumably are aware of what the Amnesty sites etc. say. Maybe its the uninformed keeping a myth going.
Click to expand...
I answered that as best I can in my last post. Basically editors publish what will sell papers. Sherman’s post broadens the same point very well.

Edit - post crossed woth sherman
 
In fariness to Betsy Og, I introduced initially the USSR among other countries because for a long time commentators in the West thought the Soviets perhaps had the right intentions but the wrong methods, and that now we all know the truth about that region. There is a lot of similar commentary about Cuba today, saying they are not so bad, great health service etc., and the information that comes out of Cuba after the end of communism will give us a better picture.

As I stated, Amnesty is not always objective, and I would regard their coverage of some countries as not as critically important as others. For example, in an even half-assed free democracy, there will be debate about government, policing etc. I know that in Ireland I can be reasonably certain that I can debate politics, religion with friends in a bar and I won't be picked up by the secret police. This is an aside, in general I support Amnesty.

The point about Castro's or Saddam's name appearing on a report is drawing us into the ground of moral equivalence, which might be a debate for another thread. I notice that Israel has been mentioned also, and while I'm all for a wide ranging debate (as happens in most pubs!) to summarise the contents of my posts, and in answer to Betsy Og's question: Fidel was a baddy. Refer to the sites listed above as a starting point for information.
 
Listening to the news this morning, I heard that Condoleeza Rice offered the support of the United States to the people of Cuba. If a shiver ran down my spine, how the hell must the Cubans have felt?

Would any country be glad to hear this?
 
Having visited Cuba and spoken freely with people its a mixture of love and hate. They are proud of Castro and what he did to free the country but since the collapse of the USSR the country is penniless. The ones that hate Castro are motivated primarily by economic reasons. They really have nothing of material value and the infrastructure is literally collapsing around them. There are huge 6 lane highways across the country built by the Soviets that have weeds growing in the lanes.

However having spoken to students they are proud that for the first time ever they are are not ruled by a foreign power. The Spanish, English, Americans and Soviets have all invaded and ruled over the years. Cubans are understandably not too keen on becoming an American outpost.

Perhaps it says a more about America that they are so afraid of a poverty stricken island. Everytime they attack Cuba (commercially or militarially) all they do is solidify Castro's support.

As for police states I'm more comfortable going to Cuba than being fingerprinted entering the US.
 
CN624, you haven't given an answer to the original question. You spoke to the people of Cuba, in the current climate, they are not a reliable source of information. As previously stated, they have no free press, radio, right to assembly or rights to form political parties. You will not necessarily get an open or honest conversation from people living in fear. In addition to fear, they have been fed political propaganda most of their lives.

A good article here by Theodore Dalrymple gives a good account of his visit to Cuba.

"Perhaps it says a more about America that they are so afraid of a poverty stricken island. Everytime they attack Cuba (commercially or militarially) all they do is solidify Castro's support.

As for police states I'm more comfortable going to Cuba than being fingerprinted entering the US."

The prescence of absence of the USA or its policy would not, in my opinion, have made Castro less of a dictator. If you're more comfortable going to a communist dictatorship, where cubans can be picked up by the police for talking to you, then that's your choice.
 

The people who live there aren't a reliable source?? Then who is?
The people I spoke to were educated and intelligent. More than capable of expressing their own opinions and not afraid to do so. Many were students that had travelled to Europe and seen some of the world so they could tell propaganda when they saw it. (Not sure what they would make of Fox News though)


US policy has simply strengthened the will of the Cuban people to remain independent. Its very easy to unify a nation when they are under constant attack from a huge imperial enemy.
As for getting picked up by the police for talking to the wrong person, have a look at Uncle Sam. Which are you more afraid of, a tiny penniless poverty stricken communist dictatorship or a capitialist superpower who invades sovereign countries to satisfy their own economic interests?

And I'm more than comfortable to go to Cuba and see what the situation is for myself than sit on my ass pontificating from afar.
 
Will you please give your opinion on the following, and say if in general terms it is a good or bad thing. Each of these is an item previously highlighted by me as to Castro's (and his system) malign influence, and which you have not addressed.

There is one political party, no others are permissible under law.
There is one trade union, no others are permissible under law.
There is no free press.
There is no free radio station.
There is no freedom of assembly.
There is practically no free enterprise.
Over one million people have left the country, many to the USA.
Amnesty and the International Red Cross are banned.

In today's information age it's possible to get some meaningful information by, believe it or not, reading about issues. If expressing opinions based on wide-ranging reading and reasonably-accessible research leads to charges of ass-sitting and pontification, so be it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register