Fidel Castro dies aged 90

[Unmutual]

I'd agree, none.

And I'm not lauding the man, I'm just making a point with regard to context. If Castro was bad, then we have had some incredible tyrants in the western world. Yet, most of those leaders won't attract a tenth of the criticism you see people attaching to Castro. At the very least we should be consistent in our moral outrage. That's the only point I'm making.

Such as?

 

[JustAFan]

in place of trade with the U.S. they had billions of aid and trade with the USSR and other communist countries. Their economy should have been fine. If however they needed to do business with the US and other western nations then Castro did a piss poor job in making sure relations were good.

 

[Carolina Red]

Is it a knee jerk reaction for those defending Castro to automatically bring up the United States' actions?

 

[surf]

I'd agree, none.

And I'm not lauding the man, I'm just making a point with regard to context. If Castro was bad, then we have had some incredible tyrants in the western world. Yet, most of those leaders won't attract a tenth of the criticism you see people attaching to Castro. At the very least we should be consistent in our moral outrage. That's the only point I'm making.

Castro presided over a failed system for 50 years, which must be some kind of a record. You do a lot more damage that way than if you are slung out after a few years.

 

[Mciahel Goodman]

Such as?

Every president to occupy the White House since the US started its expansionist policies at the turn of the previous century, if these are the standards people want to use. Churchill, racist, questionable acts in war. The list becomes just endless once you condemn the likes of Castro for doing far less.

 

[JustAFan]

Is it a knee jerk reaction for those defending Castro to automatically bring up the United States' actions?

It is the knee jerk reaction in the CE. Some how if you point out a negative of some leader they automatically have to say "what about X" as if that somehow excuses the negative aspect of that leader.

 

[Mciahel Goodman]

Castro presided over a failed system for 50 years, which must be some kind of a record. You do a lot more damage that way than if you are slung out after a few years.

But how is it a failed system? You have to compare it with what went before, and it's better in most aspects. Contrast the two regimes.

Is it a knee jerk reaction for those defending Castro to automatically bring up the United States' actions?

I know it must get tiresome, and I get sick of doing it, but the two are linked and you can't talk about one without the other.

 

[JustAFan]

Every president to occupy the White House since the US started its expansionist policies at the turn of the previous century, if these are the standards people want to use. Churchill, racist, questionable acts in war. The list becomes just endless once you condemn the likes of Castro for doing far less.

Of course if you want to toss in other murderous tyrants in history Stalin and Mao out do even Hitler. But that has nothing to do with whether Castro was good or not.

 

[Mciahel Goodman]

Of course if you want to toss in other murderous tyrants in history Stalin and Mao out do even Hitler. But that has nothing to do with whether Castro was good or not.

Yeah, both were terrible murderers, I'd agree. It's only relevant if people condemning Castro also fail to condemn these same people for doing a lot worse.

It isn't so black and white as people are making it. Or, if it is, then a lot of world leaders become war criminals very fast.

 

[JustAFan]

I know it must get tiresome, and I get sick of doing it, but the two are linked and you can't talk about one without the other.

But why can't you? If person A does something wrong, do you have to point out all the other wrongs other people have done?

Does it suddenly make person A right? Or change his wrong into a right?

If I rule a country and kill 10,000 of my own people who opposed me, does it make it less wrong because someone like Mao killed tens of millions of his own people? Or can you just point to my killing 10,000 and say it is wrong period?

 

[JustAFan]

Yeah, both were terrible murderers, I'd agree. It's only relevant if people condemning Castro also fail to condemn these same people for doing a lot worse.

It isn't so black and white as people are making it. Or, if it is, then a lot of world leaders become war criminals very fast.

Funny thing is, none of the Castro defenders or those who keep bringing up the actions of the west brought up Stalin or Mao as examples. So who knows if they condemn them at all.


But in a thread about Castro shouldn't the discussion be about Castro


Has anyone in this thread said Castro was bad but everyone else in the world was good? Nope they have not,

 

[Unmutual]

Every president to occupy the White House since the US started its expansionist policies at the turn of the previous century, if these are the standards people want to use. Churchill, racist, questionable acts in war. The list becomes just endless once you condemn the likes of Castro for doing far less.

Castro has murdered somewhere between 15,000 and 100,000 of his own people, mostly political prisoners but also trade unionists, gay people and others. Given the relative sizes of the countries, that's like America killing somewhere between 5 and 30 million of its own citizens. That's the scale of the slaughter we're dealing with. Are you really comparing that to the actions of Churchill or even George Bush?

 

[surf]

But how is it a failed system? You have to compare it with what went before, and it's better in most aspects. Contrast the two regimes.


I know it must get tiresome, and I get sick of doing it, but the two are linked and you can't talk about one without the other.

He could and should have done much better. Leadership has to be adaptable and change with the times, and he was too rigid for too long. He ought to have learnt something from how China changed after Mao was gone.

 

[bleedred]

Castro has murdered somewhere between 15,000 and 100,000 of his own people, mostly political prisoners but also trade unionists, gay people and others. Given the relative sizes of the countries, that's like America killing somewhere between 5 and 30 million of its own citizens. That's the scale of the slaughter we're dealing with. Are you really comparing that to the actions of Churchill or even George Bush?

I am not, but if you want you can pull some numbers and them two you mentioned would be way higher than Castro.... You have mentioned some bad examples in your defense...

 

[ArmchairCritic]

Castro has murdered somewhere between 15,000 and 100,000 of his own people, mostly political prisoners but also trade unionists, gay people and others. Given the relative sizes of the countries, that's like America killing somewhere between 5 and 30 million of its own citizens. That's the scale of the slaughter we're dealing with. Are you really comparing that to the actions of Churchill or even George Bush?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/soutikbiswas/2010/10/how_churchill_starved_india.html

Churchill is a bad example, as is Bush.

 

[Mciahel Goodman]

But in a thread about Castro shouldn't the discussion be about Castro?

Castro was created by the US backing a fascist dictator who sowed enough ill will with Cubans that a revolution became viable. How can we talk of Castro without talking about the US? They're almost synonymous.

It's very difficult to discuss Castro without also discussing the US because from the very beginning Castro's regime has been one of opposition.

He could and should have done much better. Leadership has to be adaptable and change with the times, and he was too rigid for too long. He ought to have learnt something from how China changed after Mao was gone.

Maybe he could have done better than he did, but he did do better than what went before him.

 

[Carolina Red]

I know it must get tiresome, and I get sick of doing it, but the two are linked and you can't talk about one without the other.

No, you can definitely talk a good bit about the negatives of Castro's domestic policy without ever mentioning the United States, you just choose not to.

 

[Mciahel Goodman]

No, you can definitely talk a good bit about the negatives of Castro's domestic policy without ever mentioning the United States, you just choose not to.

I'm not sure you can, at least, I don't think you can and then claim to have painted a full picture.

 

[bleedred]

No, you can definitely talk a good bit about the negatives of Castro's domestic policy without ever mentioning the United States, you just choose not to.

Embargo- atleast if we are talking about economic policies.

 

[jackofalltrades]

On the news now. Can't help thinking how much it reminds me of when Franco died.

Españoles, Franco ha muerto.

 

[Fingeredmouse]

No, you can definitely talk a good bit about the negatives of Castro's domestic policy without ever mentioning the United States, you just choose not to.

In fairness, not very easily given the root cause of the revolution, the missile crisis, the embargo and the USSR all being enormous defining factors in Cuban domestic policy.

 

[JustAFan]

Castro was created by the US backing a fascist dictator who sowed enough ill will with Cubans that a revolution became viable. How can we talk of Castro without talking about the US? They're almost synonymous.

It's very difficult to discuss Castro without also discussing the US because from the very beginning Castro's regime has been one of opposition.


Maybe he could have done better than he did, but he did do better than what went before him.

His actions after coming to power were his own though. He always had choices and they were his own choices to make.

There of course I'd a difference between talking about Cuban-US relations and trying to excuse the wrongs of Castro because of the wrongs of other leaders. He owns the decisions and actions of his regime, he was the leader who chose those actions.

 

[Carolina Red]

I'm not sure you can, at least, I don't think you can and then claim to have painted a full picture.

Embargo- atleast if we are talking about economic policies.

@Fingeredmouse

I'm talking domestic policy as in his policies toward Cuban people.

https://www.hrw.org/news/2016/11/26/cuba-fidel-castros-record-repression

There's a whole lot of things he did to his people that don't require mention of the United States. The US is seemingly being used as a crutch to prop up Castro's image regardless of the facts of his time in power.

 

[JustAFan]

I'd agree, none.

And I'm not lauding the man, I'm just making a point with regard to context. If Castro was bad, then we have had some incredible tyrants in the western world. Yet, most of those leaders won't attract a tenth of the criticism you see people attaching to Castro. At the very least we should be consistent in our moral outrage. That's the only point I'm making.

Just going back to this post, particularly the last two sentences since they Echo a point I made much earlier in this thread.

 

[Unmutual]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/soutikbiswas/2010/10/how_churchill_starved_india.html

Churchill is a bad example, as is Bush.

I'm not au fait with that example, so I'll have to look into it further.

But comparing global impact is almost impossible when you're considering two of the most influential global powers. They are certainly responsible for more ill in the world, but by the same token they are responsible for more good than most too. They're responsible for more impact of every type, cultural, economic and military, commensurate with their respective influences.

But the fact remains, if you're a left winger like me, who believes that values like democracy, equality and freedom of speech are of paramount importance, then its impossible to see Castro as comparable to pretty much any other modern western leader.

 

[Mciahel Goodman]

His actions after coming to power were his own though. He always had choices and they were his own choices to make.

There of course I'd a difference between talking about Cuban-US relations and trying to excuse the wrongs of Castro because of the wrongs of other leaders. He owns the decisions and actions of his regime, he was the leader who chose those actions.

This is where it gets a bit sketchy for me. How much of a leader's actions are reflected in the action of a state? I honestly have a hard time with this concept. Sometimes I conveniently find myself attributing the agency of a leader to the agency of a state, and vice versa. If we take your view, then Castro would be a murderer and a crook, and yet it wouldn't even matter much because he'd be a very minor criminal in the world of international relations.

There is plenty that Castro's Cuba did wrong, though. I think almost all of it would be social policy in my estimation.

@Fingeredmouse

I'm talking domestic policy as in his policies toward Cuban people.

https://www.hrw.org/news/2016/11/26/cuba-fidel-castros-record-repression

There's a whole lot of things he did to his people that don't require mention of the United States. The US is seemingly being used as a crutch to prop up Castro's image regardless of the facts of his time in power.

OK, but even this article mentions the United States.

Efforts by the US government during Castro’s rule to press for change in Cuba repeatedly failed. In the 1960s, those efforts took the form of covert military action to unseat Castro, including the failed Bay of Pigs invasion, and multiple botched assassination attempts. President Dwight Eisenhower established the embargo in 1960, which was later expanded by President John F Kennedy and eventually locked in place by the 1996 Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act. Also known as “Helms-Burton,” the law prohibits the US president from lifting trade restrictions until Cuba has legalized political activity and made a commitment to free and fair elections. It also prohibits lifting the embargo as long as Fidel or Raúl Castro remains in office.

You have to laugh at the revisionism there, too. They make it sound like the US was concerned with liberation -- I can't really credit this article after reading that.

 

[bleedred]

I'm not au fait with that example, so I'll have to look into it further.

But comparing global impact is almost impossible when you're considering two of the most influential global powers. They are certainly responsible for more ill in the world, but by the same token they are responsible for more good than most too. They're responsible for more impact of every type, cultural, economic and military, commensurate with their respective influences.

But the fact remains, if you're a left winger like me, who believes that values like democracy, equality and freedom of speech are of paramount importance, then its impossible to see Castro as comparable to pretty much any other modern western leader.

If you believe that, then I am sorry to say, you are either naive or rather you are not a left winger. I really don't mean that in a condescending way and I am sure many would agree, what the western leaders have done is as bad and as appalling as Castro.

 

[2mufc0]

Castro has murdered somewhere between 15,000 and 100,000 of his own people, mostly political prisoners but also trade unionists, gay people and others. Given the relative sizes of the countries, that's like America killing somewhere between 5 and 30 million of its own citizens. That's the scale of the slaughter we're dealing with. Are you really comparing that to the actions of Churchill or even George Bush?

Right, so it's OK to kill people as long as it's not your own people? US have killed vast numbers of people in foreign lands it pales in comparison with the likes of Castro.

 

[Carolina Red]

OK, but even this article mentions the United States.

Yeah, look at all the stuff they talked about that Castro owns to himself before having to mention the US... Hence, my point being made.

You have to laugh at the revisionism there, too. They make it sound like the US was concerned with liberation -- I can't really credit this article after reading that.

Seems to me the only revisionist is you. You're reading into that excerpt what you want to read.

 

[jackofalltrades]

I'm not au fait with that example, so I'll have to look into it further.

But comparing global impact is almost impossible when you're considering two of the most influential global powers. They are certainly responsible for more ill in the world, but by the same token they are responsible for more good than most too. They're responsible for more impact of every type, cultural, economic and military, commensurate with their respective influences.

But the fact remains, if you're a left winger like me, who believes that values like democracy, equality and freedom of speech are of paramount importance, then its impossible to see Castro as comparable to pretty much any other modern western leader.

If you want to read anything in more detail Thomas Keneally's book, Three Famines: Starvation & Politics. contrasts the Irish, Bengali and Ethiopan famines.

 

[Ban]

One tyrant less. I see lots of hypocrisy and revisionism on the internet. Lauding him as some kind of hero, people being sad and so on.

Many people got their head stuck in the past.

If you ask me communism, fascism, nazism, it's all the same.
But no, communism is cool you know, wearing Che on the shirt is ultra cool and so on.
(same with Tito here)
You kill 100.000, a million, whatever, doesn't matter, it's always justified somehow.
Mind blowing.

 

[JustAFan]

Did the guy who said we have to be consistent in our moral outrage really just point to 100,000 killed as the actions of a minor criminal just because there were worse murderers in history?

 

[Unmutual]

If you believe that, then I am sorry to say, you are either naive or rather you are not a left winger. I really don't mean that in a condescending way and I am sure many would agree, what the western leaders have done is as bad and as appalling as Castro.

There's a strand of left wing thinking that sees the US as the ultimate malign hegemonic force. That's partly the reason that many forces that oppose the US end up with the support of the left wing movement, even when they're fascistic dictators. However that's just the line of thinking that has led to the emergence the regressive left movement in the 80s and 90s. I'm not just a leftie, I'm a Eustonian, and I don't believe the US's many ills should be used to cast a positive light on dictatorships elsewhere.

Right, so it's OK to kill people as long as it's not your own people? US have killed vast numbers of people in foreign lands it pales in comparison with the likes of Castro.

No, just that Castro/Cuba were so lacking in influence globally, there's no way to compare. Put it this way, if Castro had as much global influence as Geroge Bush, given the total disregard for human rights Castro showed, do you think he'd have done more good than the US?

If you want to read anything in more detail Thomas Keneally's book, Three Famines: Starvation & Politics. contrasts the Irish, Bengali and Ethiopan famines.

Thanks

 

[Mciahel Goodman]

Seems to me the only revisionist is you. You're reading into that excerpt what you want to read.

Maybe, although everyone is guilty of this to some extent.

Still, trying to be as objective as I can, Wikipedia tells me "HRW has been criticized for perceived bias by the national governments it has investigated for human rights abuses,[11][12][13] and by NGO Monitor,[14] and HRW's founder, and former Chairman, Robert L. Bernstein.[15] Bias allegations include undue influence by United States government policy, and claims that HRW is biased both for Israel and against Israel. HRW has routinely publicly responded to, and often rejected, criticism of its reporting and findings.[16][17][18][19][20][21][22]".

Which doesn't surprise me as the tone of the article is condemnatory. Also, "Efforts by the US to press for change..." comes late in an article that criticizes Castro as a human rights violator (which, I would concede is true). That seems to me a statement loaded with propaganda -- "change" can be read as standing in opposition to human rights violation, which affords the US a very specific role as protector of such rights. Why don't they say "Efforts by the US to colonize..."? That would be far more accurate. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Rights_Watch#cite_note-22

 

[Mciahel Goodman]

Did the guy who said we have to be consistent in our moral outrage really just point to 100,000 killed as the actions of a minor criminal just because there were worse murderers in history?

Relatively minor, and the figure is about 14,000. I say relatively minor, despite that being a large figure, because we would have to then actually consider Bush to be personally responsible for over a million deaths. Obama for many many thousands. That's why the whole concept of state agency versus agency of a leader is genuinely troublesome.

 

[Carolina Red]

@Mciahel Goodman
1) A human rights organization writing with a "condemnatory" tone about a regime that committed countless human rights abuses over the course of decades - I'm shocked.

2) The word "change" is propaganda to you, but "colonize" isn't - Shocked again

 

[Mciahel Goodman]

@Mciahel Goodman
1) A human rights organization writing with a "condemnatory" tone about a regime that committed countless human rights abuses over the course of decades - I'm shocked.

2) The word "change" is propaganda to you, but "colonize" isn't - Shocked again

Well, that particular agency has been criticized by its own founder for having an ideological slant toward the US.

Colonization wouldn't be propaganda because it would actually be historically correct. The first attempts of the US to colonize Cuba came in the 1820s, but it has never really relented. The US ambassador had as much power in Cuba as Batista. But even if we disregard that, would you honestly say that the United States has not been trying to control Cuba?

 

[JustAFan]

Relatively minor, and the figure is about 14,000. I say relatively minor, despite that being a large figure, because we would have to then actually consider Bush to be personally responsible for over a million deaths. Obama for many many thousands. That's why the whole concept of state agency versus agency of a leader is genuinely troublesome.

So basically 14,000 killed is no big deal to you. But then again even Bush does not come close to non-westerners who led nations who supported Castro.

But even if we hold Bush responsible for millions we should still be able to have enough moral conviction to criticize Castro. Unless of course 14,000 to 100,000 deaths are okay with you.

I mean is it really beyond your morals just say killing people is wrong and not try to deflect into comparisons?

 

[2mufc0]

No, just that Castro/Cuba were so lacking in influence globally, there's no way to compare. Put it this way, if Castro had as much global influence as Geroge Bush, given the total disregard for human rights Castro showed, do you think he'd have done more good than the US?

Depends on who you ask mate, there will be millions of people in the world where the US whether through military or political meddling lives are much worse off. I'm all for human rights and i'm not saying Castro is some sort of saint, but the hypocrisy in this thread ridiculous, a bit of balance in views is required.

 

[Carolina Red]

Well, that particular agency has been criticized by its own founder for having an ideological slant toward the US.

Say they are ideologically slanted toward the United States, does your attack on the source make what they wrote in the article about Castro's numerous human rights abuses untrue?

Attacking the source does not negate true statements by the source.

Colonization wouldn't be propaganda because it would actually be historically correct. The first attempts of the US to colonize Cuba came in the 1820s, but it has never really relented. The US ambassador had as much power in Cuba as Batista. But even if we disregard that, would you honestly say that the United States has not been trying to control Cuba?

In what way is the word "change" historically incorrect propaganda?

 

[berbatrick]

@InfiniteBoredom
What was your experience that you think the 100% literacy may not be true? I was in China for a year and didn't see anyone who couldn't read/write, unlike in India, so I didn't generally doubt Commie achievements in education. Plus Cuba has been more open than the Iron Curtain/China/DPRK so if the reality was very different I'd expect it would have been revealed by now.

 

[Mciahel Goodman]

So basically 14,000 killed is no big deal to you. But then again even Bush does not come close to non-westerners who led nations who supported Castro.

I didn't say that, I just said that if we consider the actions of a leader to be the actions of a state then 14,000 people killed would be relatively minor. That's accurate, as far as I can tell.

But even if we hold Bush responsible for millions we should still be able to have enough moral conviction to criticize Castro. Unless of course 14,000 to 100,000 deaths are okay with you.

I agree, we can criticize both. Any murder is deplorable.

I mean is it really beyond your morals just say killing people is wrong and not try to deflect into comparisons?

I try to avoid ad hominem as much as possible.

Anyway, comparisons arise as a matter of course. They are the logical conclusions of exercising logic.

 

[Cheesy]

As much as there's plenty of merit in a discussion on his impact, whether he had a positive/negative influence on Cuba and the world etc, the hero worship for him you see in some sectors as this great leader is rather baffling.

An influential man no doubt, but one who oversaw human rights abuses, was inherently anti-democratic, censored the press, and was no stranger to backing plenty of revolutionary groups out there who aligned with his views or interests irrespective of how damaging those people were. Not to mention he was willing to cosy up with a pretty awful Soviet regime who were no strangers to terrible activities themselves.