This just in:
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hTs ... W0eNihxYFQ
Some interesting changes could be happening, especially when it comes to american-cuban relations.
Any thoughts on the subject?
Fidel Castro resigns
-
max
- Australofrenchbrityorkus
- Posts: 3751
- Joined: 24 Apr 2002 00:12
- Location: Bondi Beach, Australia
- Contact:
Fidel Castro resigns
Maxime Boucoiran
French ConneXion
BFC
French ConneXion
BFC
-
Bringerofpie
- Fearless
- Posts: 508
- Joined: 31 May 2007 13:12
- Location: Fort Lauderdale, FL
- Contact:
I'm amazed I haven't been hearing about riots and whatnot. You have no idea how much a person who came over from Cuba on a homeade raft hates Castro until you live in the only place in the world where they make up a significant population.
"Fuck it man, you just gotta do it."
Joe Snyder
Representing FLF (Fort Lauderdale Footbaggers)
http://onlycountria.myminicity.com
Joe Snyder
Representing FLF (Fort Lauderdale Footbaggers)
http://onlycountria.myminicity.com
Your impression means nothing as there have been no fair elections in decades to prove it.Jeremy wrote:My impression is that most of the people who stayed in Cuba think their government is doing a great job.
The last time the Cuban government (temporarily) allowed people to leave freely was in 1980, when 125,000 Cubans left the country. That was 28 years ago. Were you born back then? What do you think, how many of today's Cubans have had a chance to really express their views?
I think it's a quite big decision to try sailing across the Caribbean on a raft. Especially if you must prepare the trip secretly. Even if you had a proper boat you'd still have to leave your home country and basically all you've got. And why should you leave your country and not those who rule it illegally?
Lauri Jaakkola
You're right, I wasn't alive in the country, and I certainly don't support the Cuban government, but I did spend a semester studying Cuban politics in school and the understanding I have from that subject is that Cuba is a very nationalistic country, where the vast majority of people think they're in a good position because of the government and blame the US trade embargo for the countries poverty (but are also very proud of their health and education in relation their wealth). Of course I could be wrong, and in such a country it's hard to know, but the impression I've been giving from formal education does offer a very easy explanation to your question of why there aren't "rights and whatnot" going on in Cuba. While I can see no explanation if what you're apparently suggesting is correct and the majority of Cubans feel oppressed. Cuba is not an exceptionally authoritarian or militarised country, while there are certainly a lot of issues surrounding free speech, people could definitely be protesting, especially at a time like this, if they wanted to.
Of course none of what I've said here, or in my other post is an attempt to support the Cuban government. I'm simply expressing the commonly held view that most Cubans are happy with their government. Of course it's entirely conceivable that they've been brainwashed by government propaganda, but that doesn't make my assessment any less accurate.
Of course none of what I've said here, or in my other post is an attempt to support the Cuban government. I'm simply expressing the commonly held view that most Cubans are happy with their government. Of course it's entirely conceivable that they've been brainwashed by government propaganda, but that doesn't make my assessment any less accurate.
Sorry for the slashes; posting from a proxy, but here is a fantastic article on Cuba from Dr Geralyn Pye, who is lecturer in Political and International Studies in the faculty of Social Sciences at Flinders University. I\'ve posted the link as well, and I think it\'s worth reading the comments, especially since Dr Pye addresses some of them.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008 ... 169472.htm
-------------------------------------------
Change afoot in the Fidelista social club?
By Geralyn Pye
Posted 4 hours 30 minutes ago
Updated 4 hours 2 minutes ago
With Fidel Castro stepping aside from formal political positions the question on many people\'s lips is: could this signal the beginning of a transition to democracy in Cuba? This question is impossible to answer with any certainty - only informed speculation is possible.
First, Fidel will more than likely continue to exercise considerable influence on the future of Cuba while he remains healthy enough to do so. This seems likely to rule out any immediate dramatic change in Cuba beyond a continuation of existing cautious efforts at economic liberalisation which have been occurring sporadically in Cuba since the late 1980s.
Such a trend is even more likely under the probable immediate continuation of Fidel\'s brother, Raúl Castro, as the formal leader of Cuba. Politically, Raúl, while long sympathetic to some economic liberalisation and decentralisation, has displayed little tolerance for political liberalisation and has his power base in the Armed Forces of Cuba. Fidel\'s brother, unlike Fidel, is unpopular among much of the Cuban population, but wariness is likely to constrain any rebellion among the populace.
These circumstances mean that in the expected event that power is retained by Raúl on February 24 (Cuban time) significant change in Cuba is unlikely, though it is not possible to be absolutely certain about the reaction of Cuba\'s people to the transfer of power in Cuba and particularly to Fidel\'s death sometime in the future.
On the other hand, despite the impression sometimes created in the West of Communist systems, Raúl and Fidel are not the only important political players in Cuba.
Others include National Assembly President, Ricardo Alarcón (age 70), Foreign Minister, Felipe Pérez Roque (age 42) and Vice President, Carlos Lage (age 56).
Alarcón, while popular and likely to continue to be influential, may find that his age works against him for any prospect of future leadership, especially when we consider Fidel\'s explicit reference to younger leaders in his statement that he would not lead Cuba anymore.
While Pérez does represent a younger generation of leaders the exact extent of his influence is not clear. His political position is reputed to be a more hardline commitment to continuing Fidelista socialism. Though this might imply a certain pragmatism and flexibility in regard to precise policy, few expect him to become the preeminent player in Cuba.
Those who wish for change in Cuba favour Carlos Lage as preferred successor, if not to Fidel, then to the Castro brothers some time in the future. Lage has driven much of the economic liberalisation that has occurred in Cuba thus far. He seems the most likely of the current leadership group to lead more significant change in Cuba, but there is no certainty in this.
Much will depend on the continued influence of the Castro brothers and the balance of power among the leaders of Cuba. The collapse of the former USSR might also create a cautious approach by Cuba\'s rulers.
The most likely short-term outcome for Cuba is minimal change. Current US policy will not change this.
Continued US antagonism towards Cuba and calls for democratisation will most likely work against change in Cuba.
Nationalist rejection of US influence was a strong force in driving the Cuban Revolution and remains a key factor for both the country\'s leaders and its people.
Ironically, given their own strong nationalism, the apparent failure of US policymakers to grasp the importance of Cuban nationalism, combined with the influence of Cuban-Americans in the US itself, creates a lack of flexibility in a US policy on Cuba which has failed to encourage change in Cuba for almost 50 years.
Perhaps a change in US policy, especially economic engagement, would be the most effective first step for those who wish for capitalism and perhaps a Western style democracy in Cuba.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008 ... 169472.htm
-------------------------------------------
Change afoot in the Fidelista social club?
By Geralyn Pye
Posted 4 hours 30 minutes ago
Updated 4 hours 2 minutes ago
With Fidel Castro stepping aside from formal political positions the question on many people\'s lips is: could this signal the beginning of a transition to democracy in Cuba? This question is impossible to answer with any certainty - only informed speculation is possible.
First, Fidel will more than likely continue to exercise considerable influence on the future of Cuba while he remains healthy enough to do so. This seems likely to rule out any immediate dramatic change in Cuba beyond a continuation of existing cautious efforts at economic liberalisation which have been occurring sporadically in Cuba since the late 1980s.
Such a trend is even more likely under the probable immediate continuation of Fidel\'s brother, Raúl Castro, as the formal leader of Cuba. Politically, Raúl, while long sympathetic to some economic liberalisation and decentralisation, has displayed little tolerance for political liberalisation and has his power base in the Armed Forces of Cuba. Fidel\'s brother, unlike Fidel, is unpopular among much of the Cuban population, but wariness is likely to constrain any rebellion among the populace.
These circumstances mean that in the expected event that power is retained by Raúl on February 24 (Cuban time) significant change in Cuba is unlikely, though it is not possible to be absolutely certain about the reaction of Cuba\'s people to the transfer of power in Cuba and particularly to Fidel\'s death sometime in the future.
On the other hand, despite the impression sometimes created in the West of Communist systems, Raúl and Fidel are not the only important political players in Cuba.
Others include National Assembly President, Ricardo Alarcón (age 70), Foreign Minister, Felipe Pérez Roque (age 42) and Vice President, Carlos Lage (age 56).
Alarcón, while popular and likely to continue to be influential, may find that his age works against him for any prospect of future leadership, especially when we consider Fidel\'s explicit reference to younger leaders in his statement that he would not lead Cuba anymore.
While Pérez does represent a younger generation of leaders the exact extent of his influence is not clear. His political position is reputed to be a more hardline commitment to continuing Fidelista socialism. Though this might imply a certain pragmatism and flexibility in regard to precise policy, few expect him to become the preeminent player in Cuba.
Those who wish for change in Cuba favour Carlos Lage as preferred successor, if not to Fidel, then to the Castro brothers some time in the future. Lage has driven much of the economic liberalisation that has occurred in Cuba thus far. He seems the most likely of the current leadership group to lead more significant change in Cuba, but there is no certainty in this.
Much will depend on the continued influence of the Castro brothers and the balance of power among the leaders of Cuba. The collapse of the former USSR might also create a cautious approach by Cuba\'s rulers.
The most likely short-term outcome for Cuba is minimal change. Current US policy will not change this.
Continued US antagonism towards Cuba and calls for democratisation will most likely work against change in Cuba.
Nationalist rejection of US influence was a strong force in driving the Cuban Revolution and remains a key factor for both the country\'s leaders and its people.
Ironically, given their own strong nationalism, the apparent failure of US policymakers to grasp the importance of Cuban nationalism, combined with the influence of Cuban-Americans in the US itself, creates a lack of flexibility in a US policy on Cuba which has failed to encourage change in Cuba for almost 50 years.
Perhaps a change in US policy, especially economic engagement, would be the most effective first step for those who wish for capitalism and perhaps a Western style democracy in Cuba.
OK I may have misinterpreted your message Jeremy, but I found the original post I commented on highly provocative (especially the part "most of the people who stayed in Cuba").
Anyhow, if the majority of Cubans really think they're government is doing a great job, the government must have a very low self-esteem as they haven't organised fair elections. I don't question this; the same is happening in Russia atm: although over 70 % of the people support Putin's homeboy Medvedev as the next president, Kremlin still, for some reason, wants to ban some candidates who wouldn't get more than maybe 2 % of the votes anyway.
Anyhow, if the majority of Cubans really think they're government is doing a great job, the government must have a very low self-esteem as they haven't organised fair elections. I don't question this; the same is happening in Russia atm: although over 70 % of the people support Putin's homeboy Medvedev as the next president, Kremlin still, for some reason, wants to ban some candidates who wouldn't get more than maybe 2 % of the votes anyway.
Lauri Jaakkola
-
BainbridgeShred
- Post Master General
- Posts: 2352
- Joined: 10 Nov 2004 23:22
- Contact:
Regardless of any of the other factors that go into this argument, I think it's absolutely moronic for anyone to cite the fact that people who have been living under a dictator for 50 years think that said dictator is doing a "great job" as any kind of relevent evidence. Can anyone guess which moron I might be talking about?
Honestly, I think the masses opinions should always be taken with a grain of salt, whether in America, or Cuba, or China, or Singapore or where ever. Most people don't know what the fuck is right for them. This might seem to go against a lot of other things I said in the past, and I still think every man should have complete control over his life, but that is only because the individual is better suited to determine his own self, as opposed to the individual determing his and others paths by committee. The individual is the lesser of two evils when matched versus the group.
Honestly, I think the masses opinions should always be taken with a grain of salt, whether in America, or Cuba, or China, or Singapore or where ever. Most people don't know what the fuck is right for them. This might seem to go against a lot of other things I said in the past, and I still think every man should have complete control over his life, but that is only because the individual is better suited to determine his own self, as opposed to the individual determing his and others paths by committee. The individual is the lesser of two evils when matched versus the group.
Evidence for what Dan? Evidence for the reason why they're not rioting in the streets?
"People aren't rioting in the streets because they think their leaders are doing a good job" is a "moronic" statement? Nobody in this topic has claimed that the Cuban government was actually doing a good job, and I thought I made it pretty clear that I don't support the government and that it's entirely conceivable that the people think the government is doing a good job because of the information they're given from the government.
Nevertheless, I would say it's an accepted fact that the majority of Cubans think Fidel Castro was a good leader. I've already citied Dr Geralyn Pye from Flinders University, and I put out the challenge to those who disagree with this to provide evidence for the apparent claim that the majority of Cubans dislike Fidel Castro.
"People aren't rioting in the streets because they think their leaders are doing a good job" is a "moronic" statement? Nobody in this topic has claimed that the Cuban government was actually doing a good job, and I thought I made it pretty clear that I don't support the government and that it's entirely conceivable that the people think the government is doing a good job because of the information they're given from the government.
Nevertheless, I would say it's an accepted fact that the majority of Cubans think Fidel Castro was a good leader. I've already citied Dr Geralyn Pye from Flinders University, and I put out the challenge to those who disagree with this to provide evidence for the apparent claim that the majority of Cubans dislike Fidel Castro.
-
BainbridgeShred
- Post Master General
- Posts: 2352
- Joined: 10 Nov 2004 23:22
- Contact:
I shouldn't have tied you in to the post Jeremy. I was trying to make a larger point about how it is silly to base a leaders ability on whether or not the people support him. You actually touched on this point earlier when you mentioned that these people might just be brainwashed, but I didn't read any of the posts in this thread so I didn't see it. What I was generally trying to explain was that I thought that mass of the human race is incapable of creating a better world, and thus as I said, their opinions should be taken with a grain of salt.
Which brings me back to my original point, that the modern individual is a sad, pathetic vessel incapable of judging their situation rationally, and incapable of placing blame where it is due.
Actually going back and reading these posts, I found this absolutely hilarious. A Communist country (Who is also very Nationalistic? Hmm) blames their poverty on a "trade" embargo with a country that embodies thr Capitalistic nature? Hahaha, let the fucking Cuban's rot then. They let their leader jepordize their country by allowing the Soviet's to put nukes there, and he still hasn't apologized for it. Let the entire fucking nation go further to hell until they wise up and overthrow Fidel. Why should the United States feel obligated to do business with countries we don't feel like doing business with? If you want us to end the trade embargo, then end the regime.the understanding I have from that subject is that Cuba is a very nationalistic country, where the vast majority of people think they're in a good position because of the government and blame the US trade embargo for the countries poverty (but are also very proud of their health and education in relation their wealth).
Which brings me back to my original point, that the modern individual is a sad, pathetic vessel incapable of judging their situation rationally, and incapable of placing blame where it is due.
I don't understand what you're trying to say with this argument. Lenin, Hitler, Stalin and Mao were very popular leaders, too. Do you think other countries shouldn't intervene Cuba's affairs (e.g. human rights violations) just because the majority of Cubans likes their leaders?Jeremy wrote:Nevertheless, I would say it's an accepted fact that the majority of Cubans think Fidel Castro was a good leader. I've already citied Dr Geralyn Pye from Flinders University, and I put out the challenge to those who disagree with this to provide evidence for the apparent claim that the majority of Cubans dislike Fidel Castro.
What comes to rioting by the way - what use would rioting be for Cubans? Riots hardly ever make anything better, although those throwing bricks at the police in anti-globalization "demonstrations" seem to think so.
Lauri Jaakkola
I'm not saying that their popularity at all justifies their actions. I'm making an observation, that I was told in formal study of Cuba in my 20th Century History Class on the focus of nationalism that led on from studying The Cuban Revolution, that Fidel Castro was very popular. This is the same sentiment that Dr Geralyn Pye said, and I've read a number of other journalists recently say the same thing. The majority of Cubans by all reports thought that he was doing a good job.
Despite what modern day philosophers might try and tell you, what people think doesn't make that idea a reality. It doesn't make it real for them, and it doesn't make it real for us. Fidel Castro may have done a terrible job. He may be the most evil person in the world. He also may have done a fantastic job, and my perception of him (which is that his job overall was good, but at too high a cost to civil liberties and freedoms, and that is inability to compromise was a serious weakness that makes him responsible for the poverty at the hands of the US sanctions, which does not absolve the US of their responsibility, but means that both sides could have solved that issue decades ago if they actually wanted, and both can take blame irrespective of the other sides actions) might be complete wrong.
What I'm saying is that people's opinions on whether he did a good job or a bad job don't effect the truth of whether he actually did a good or bad job and I think it's an easily observable fact that people in Cuba think he did a good job. I'm not talking about the reality of whether he did a good job or not, I'm talking about whether people think he did a good job or not, and unless you're a amateur philosopher, like everybody seems to be these days, those are completely different things.
(Also yes I understand the paradox of my dig about amateur philosophers, and I was making a very ironic post modernist joke. If you don't get it, I'm not going to explain it, just ignore those 6 words).
Despite what modern day philosophers might try and tell you, what people think doesn't make that idea a reality. It doesn't make it real for them, and it doesn't make it real for us. Fidel Castro may have done a terrible job. He may be the most evil person in the world. He also may have done a fantastic job, and my perception of him (which is that his job overall was good, but at too high a cost to civil liberties and freedoms, and that is inability to compromise was a serious weakness that makes him responsible for the poverty at the hands of the US sanctions, which does not absolve the US of their responsibility, but means that both sides could have solved that issue decades ago if they actually wanted, and both can take blame irrespective of the other sides actions) might be complete wrong.
What I'm saying is that people's opinions on whether he did a good job or a bad job don't effect the truth of whether he actually did a good or bad job and I think it's an easily observable fact that people in Cuba think he did a good job. I'm not talking about the reality of whether he did a good job or not, I'm talking about whether people think he did a good job or not, and unless you're a amateur philosopher, like everybody seems to be these days, those are completely different things.
(Also yes I understand the paradox of my dig about amateur philosophers, and I was making a very ironic post modernist joke. If you don't get it, I'm not going to explain it, just ignore those 6 words).
-
BainbridgeShred
- Post Master General
- Posts: 2352
- Joined: 10 Nov 2004 23:22
- Contact:
This might be the slimiest, most pathetic, digusting thing I've ever read on Modified. The high estimates for the number of Cuban's deaths Fidel is responsible for sits at 141,000. Does that make up for the amount of people Cuba's "stellar" healthcare system has cared for? You must probably feel like a piece of shit huh Jeremy.my perception of him (which is that his job overall was good, but at too high a cost to civil liberties and freedoms,
What responsibility? If tomorrow the US decided to stop trading with Australia, what argument would you have against us. What we do with our treasure is our business and our business alone. The Cuban people are just as responsible for Castro as Castro is. Apparently, they are fine with having their "block captains" report any suspicious activity they engage in. Apparently, they are fine with the government having the authority to deny them housing and employment (Which they control of course). Apparently, they are fine seeing their neighbors being exiled to detention camps for the smallest of violations. Apparently, they are fine being denied the ability to practice religion or form workers unions.His inability to compromise was a serious weakness that makes him responsible for the poverty at the hands of the US sanctions, which does not absolve the US of their responsibility, but means that both sides could have solved that issue decades ago if they actually wanted,
Cuba is not Stalinist Russia. If the people wanted to overthrow Castro, their have been numerous instances where they could have. Instead they seem more willing to muddle in mediocrity while destroying any potential economic future they might have. Not that it is my place to tell Cuban's what to do. But when people cry about our sanctions liek we have a responsibility to take care of the entire world, I say fuck you. If you aren't on board with us, if you're going to act like savages, you aren't going to see shit from us.