Statement Condemning Cuban Repression.
This is a joint statement, not authored by me, that will be sent to the Cuban mission to the United Nations and several publications.
We are women and men of the democratic left, united by our commitment to human rights, democratic government and social justice, in our own nations and around the world. In solidarity with the people of Cuba, we condemn the Cuban state’s current repression of independent thinkers and writers, human rights activists and democrats. For “crimes” such as the authorship of essays critical of the government and meeting with delegations of foreign political leaders, some 80 non-violent political dissidents have been arrested, summarily tried in a closed court, without adequate notice or counsel, convicted, and given cruel, harsh sentences of decades of imprisonment. These are violations of the most elementary norms of due process of law, reminiscent of the Moscow trials of the Soviet Union under the rule of Stalin.
The democratic left worldwide has opposed the US embargo on Cuba as counterproductive, more harmful to the interests of the Cuban people than helpful to political democratization. The Cuban state’s current repression of political dissidents amounts to collaboration with the most reactionary elements of the US administration in their efforts to maintain sanctions and to institute even more punitive measures against Cuba.
The only conclusion that we can draw from this brute repression is that Cuban government does not trust the Cuban people to distinguish truth from falsehood, fact from disinformation. A government of the left must have the support of the people: it must guarantee human rights and champion the widest possible democracy, including the right to dissent, as well as promote social justice. By its actions, the Cuban state declares that it is not a government of the left, despite its claims of social progress in education and health care, but just one more dictatorship, concerned with maintaining its monopoly of power above all else.
To add your name to the list, send e-mail to Leo Casey. Current signatures are below.
Theresa Alt Eric Alterman Ayaz Ahmed David Anderson Kevin Anderson Stanley Aronowitz Tony Avirgan Margot Backus Sanda Balaban Ike Balbus Ivan Baxter David Bensman Marshall Berman Michael B?rub? Asatar Bair Ken Brociner Dan Brook Ricardo Brown Wendy Brown Wayles Browne Chaz Bufe Eamonn Callan Lorenzo Canizares Leo Casey Aaron Cohen Marc Cooper Francesco D’Alessandro Lennard Davis Bogdan Denitch Bill Dixon Mark Dow Mel Dubofsky Christopher Rhoades Dÿkema Taner Edis Itzhak Epstein Stuart Elliot Victoria Elliott Andy English Miriam Erlich Gertrude Ezorsky Hampton Fancher Michelle Fine Barry Finger Joyce Fitzgerald Nancy Fraser Adil Hajjoubi David Garrow Joyce Gelb Todd Gitlin Peter Goodman Andrew Hagen Andrew Hammer Patrick Nielsen Hayden Richard Healey Michael Hirsch Peter Hudis James Hughes Maurice Isserman Doug Ireland David Jacobs Alan Johnson Ira Katznelson Michael Kazin Harvey Kaye Gary Kent Michael Kircher Eric Kirk Gary Kinsman Peter Kosenko Magali Sarfatti Larson Lee Levin Jeffrey Levine Mark Levinson Ernie Lieberman Ann Lieberman Melvin Little Chris Lowe Josh Lukin Anora Mahmudova John G. Mason Marvin and Betty Mandell Shannon McLeod R. Miles Mendenhall Mark Crispin Miller Cary Nathenson Nathan Newman Rafael PiRoman Maxine Phillips David Plotke Stephen Plowden Katha Pollitt Danny Postel Samantha Power Adam Przeworski Michael Pugliese Peter Reardon Matthew Rothschild Joel Rogers Michele L. Rossi John Sanbonmatsu Anders Schneiderman Joseph M. Schwartz Jason Schulman Michael H. Shuman Timothy Sears Mark Seddon David Norman Smith John Soldini Clifford Staples Judith Stein Paul Thomas Daniel Walkowitz David Walls Bert Wand Peter Waterman Luke Weiger D. Langlois Williams Ian Williams Ellen Willis Reginald Wilson Elisabeth Young-Bruehl Robert H. Zieger
Update: 18 April 2003. Junkyard Blog comments. (*) Glenn Reynolds comments. (†) Thanks, guys.
Update: 19 April 2003. Some people have apparently gained the misconception that I had a hand in writing the petition. I did not. It is a joint statement, and I’m not quite sure who wrote it. I believe Leo Casey had a hand. If you look at other web log entries on this site, you’ll see that whenever text is presented in the yellow box, that is a block quotation, it comes from an external source, and is not my own work. Furthermore, I’ve appended the phrase “not authored by me” to the web log entry. If anyone mistook me for the author of this joint statement, I am very sorry and I apologize. Of course, by affixing my signature to the statement, I’ve committed myself to supporting it.
Update: 29 April 2003. It isn’t surprising that the International ANSWER coalition has come out in defense of the arrests of the dissidents. (‡) This is what happens when the independent Left allows sectarian groups like International ANSWER (§) to gain even a shred of legitimacy. They use it to advance their own program, inevitably at variance with what is right.
April 18th, 2003 at 09:35
This is all well and good, and I am glad to see the names I’d hoped would be there (like Todd Gitlin and Mark Crispin Miller– but hmm, where’s Nick DiGenova)? But then there’s still this:
"The Cuban state’s current repression of political dissidents amounts to collaboration with the most reactionary elements of the US administration…"
Yes, we always have to work in the Chomskyan view that the US is pulling all the strings all over the world. Just throwing in a "tacit" or "effective" would have made the obvious and sensible point– that Castro is the last tyrant standing precisely because he’s used our dumb embargo to help keep his hold on power. But no, we have to shift it to where it implies that Jesse Helms is keeping him in power on purpose. It’s all about the sugar, I’m sure.
April 18th, 2003 at 10:08
How feeble and weak this "condemnation" is. What is it about Fidel Castro that so enthralls the left in the United States, so much so that they’re unable to even criticize him by name, instead of saying "the Cuban government" or "the Cuban state?"
Here’s my "Statement Condemning Cuban Repression":
FIDEL CASTRO IS A MURDEROUS, REPRESSIVE DICTATOR WHO RUTHLESSLY CRUSHES THOSE WHO DARE OPPOSE HIM. EVERY ADDITIONAL BREATH HE DRAWS IS AN AFFRONT TO HUMANITY. THE CUBAN PEOPLE WOULD BE FAR BETTER OFF IF HE WERE GONE AND THEY WERE ALLOWED TO CHOOSE THEIR LEADERS.
See, that wasn’t so hard now, was it?
April 18th, 2003 at 10:12
I didn’t see Alexander Cockburn’s name on the list. Wait a minute! A knee-jerk Castro apologist criticizing "El Jefe?" What was I thinking? That would have required Cockburn to remove Castro’s dick from his ass long enough to form an independent opinion. I expect to soon read a Cockburn byline that praises Castro for protecting the Revolution. As Joseph Stalin’s apologists always insisted "Sacrifices must be made."
April 18th, 2003 at 10:51
You guys would have a lot more credibility on this issue if you could just issue a straightforward denunciation of a brutal dictator, without also having to resort to cheap shots on your domestic political opponents, to wit:
"The Cuban state’s current repression of political dissidents amounts to collaboration with the most reactionary elements of the US administration…"
Since the most "reactionary elements of the US administration" are most likely the same ones who would like to see Castro dead and buried, how exactly is Castro "collaborating" with them by extending and deepening his reign of terror, the very thing that these "reactionary elements" despise him for?
Pfah. Way to shoot yourself in the foot and suck all the credibility out of a much-needed lefty condemnation of Castro.
April 18th, 2003 at 10:57
This statement would be amusing if it was not so pathetic. Castro has been brutally silencing all forms of dissent since 1959. But all of a sudden, forty-four years after the fact, the petitioners have reached the conclusion that Castro — who, of course, is left unnamed — "does not trust the Cuban people. . . ," and his government is just "one more dictatorship" concerned only with preserving its monopoly of power. Wow! What an insight! And how courageous the signers must feel that they feel free to state the obvious.
The next thing you know the signers will issue a proclamation claiming that they’ve also concluded, after much debate, that Stalin was indeed a dictator responsible for mass murder. My, think of the old classroom lectures that will have to be revised to incorporate that profound judgment.
April 18th, 2003 at 11:47
You have it backwards, "The only conclusion that we can draw from this brute repression is that Cuban government does not trust the Cuban people to distinguish truth from falsehood, fact from disinformation."
Actually, the Castro regime knows all too well that the Cuban people can easily parse fact from fiction, which is why they are so sensitive about "trouble-makers" who point out the obvious realities of Cuban repression. These newly imprisoned dissidents were engaging in that classic liberal activity: speaking truth (Castro is a brutal dictator who shoots people who try to leave the "Socialist Paradise") to power.
One could conclude, from the way this statement is worded, that the "truth" in Cuba is in favor of the Castro dictatorship. It implies that the Stalinist brand of communism practiced by Fidel, now history in nearly every corner of the old Soviet world, is a good thing that would be revealed as such if only Castro had the guts to let it all hang out. Excuse me, but this is B*******!
April 18th, 2003 at 12:30
Your kidding, right?
April 18th, 2003 at 12:50
I agree that the statement is weak. I’d sign a stronger statement, along the lines of what T. Hartin and Dave Glasser suggest. I’d like to see an explicit call for immediate, free, and fair elections, for example.
As for the wording, it does say "amounts to" collaboration. Therefore, at least in my interpretation, it doesn’t charge the US government and Castro with fomenting an actual conspiracy or any such thing. It just "amounts to" collaboration.
I signed it partially because there needs to be a new approach to politics by the Left. This is a step in the right direction. I know that many of the signers of the statement are longtime Leftists who have opposed Castro for a long time. I’ve always opposed Castro.
I’d also like to see the Bush Administration pay a lot more attention to Cuba. It’s time to turn the heat on Castro. This statement calls for an end to economic sanctions. I’d be willing to support sanctions if I thought they would work help dislodge the dictatorship and free the people of Cuba.
Currently, I think a change in policy toward allowing more economic interaction seems most advisable.
April 18th, 2003 at 13:20
But if you just quit oppressing people who write for a living, we’ll go back to playing apologist for all the other people you butcher…
April 18th, 2003 at 13:20
I have two problems with this petition. First, it’s weak and tries to link Castro and Bush with that "amounts to collaboration" nonsense. If you want to find actual collaboration with Castro, look no further than the left wing of the Democrat party. Hollywood and media elites, Ron Dellums, Jesse Jackson, Jimmy Carter et al have spent decades coddling Castro. The GOP has been solidly against Castro and Communism for decades. Second, what is this petition supposed to accomplish other than making the signatories feel good about themselves? Is even one person languishing under Castro’s thumb helped one bit by this thing? Is there any chance at all that any of them will be? All this petition does is give lefties some fig leaf to hide behind while they denounce any and every action the Bush administration does or does not undertake to counter Castro and free Cuba.
April 18th, 2003 at 14:02
Nice points, Bryan and others.
We need a new Left, not the old "new Left" of the 1960s, but a newer new Left. The way I see it, we need to grapple with the real problems of the day, and be willing to get our hands dirty. That would mean supporting, where appropriate, the Bush Administration. We need to return to our core values of supporting freedom and enlightenment. This is a Left that will oppose a Castro just as soon as it will oppose a Pinochet. It would be a return to principles.
Your point as to the statement’s ineffectuality is well put. If we had a more principled movement, we could once again speak with moral force, the only true power wielded by the Left. If we could delegitimize Castro in the eyes of Hollywood (Oliver Stone is just one example) and certain other American lefties, we’d be on our way.
April 18th, 2003 at 14:02
40 years too late
April 18th, 2003 at 14:33
I understand democracy and dissent but fear that social justice is a term so vague and ambiguous that I could not subscribe to it wholesale as you request.
April 18th, 2003 at 15:17
The Right wing always blasts the Left for not protesting brutal regimes. Now that the Left tries to do just that the Right finds it unacceptable.
What can we conclude from this? Maybe the Right just doesn’t give a shit what anybody left of Rush and Hannity think.
There is only one answer.
Let’s get serious and invade Cuba and kill us some Cubans!
Then lets invade China, North Korea, Iran, all of Africa and California.
Come on my Right Wings conrades! The world is ours!
April 18th, 2003 at 15:40
Well, Matt, if one was REALLY interested in freeing people from oppression and tyranny- well, yes, invading and liberating Cuba would be the ticket to accomplishing that goal.
April 18th, 2003 at 16:01
Matt,
We blast the left for lacking the will to protest brutes because you so seldom do, yet you blast the US as easily as you breathe. The left often even sides with tyrants against the US, from Vietnam to Castro to the nuclear freeze movement. We also blast you because your protests tend to be ineffectual, such as the petition above, and not grounded in actually achieving results. It’s just puffery and feel-good politics, and doesn’t help anyone who is actually under Castro’s repression. And we blast you because you can’t seem to criticize any foreign brutes without immediately turning around and firing on your own countrymen. We almost never hear unequivocal condemnation of the likes of Castro from the left without some attack on the anti-Castro Cubans, or on conservatives, or on Bush. Especially Bush. You guys seem to hate him as much as it’s possible to hate anyone.
That’s why I’m critical of the petition above. I’d actually like to see more efforts like this from the left, but calibrated to make a difference where it counts and free of the anti-American baggage that infests so much of the left these days.
April 18th, 2003 at 16:46
Let’s not lose sight of the decades of failure of American policy in regards to the Middle East. Mossadegh was removed from power by a CIA and MI6 backed coup after he refused to continue sending the bulk of Iran’s oil money to Britain. Saddam Hussein was not opposed with sufficient vigor by the US until just recently. We have supported the House of Saud nearly uncritically.
We have a mess on our hands. It’s partially our fault. Now we’re going to clean it up. Iraq is a good start.
Lest anyone think differently, in no way do I say that terrorists were justified in any attack, such as 9/11. They are unjustified and they had nothing to do with US foreign policy. The 9/11 attacks in particular were an unprovoked act of aggression perpetrated on the USA by human scum. That said, if we are going to have more than a small number of long-term friends and allies in the region, we needed to change course, stop supporting dictatorships, and start supporting democracy. That’s what we’re doing now, more or less.
Invading Cuba when they pose no threat to the US? That would seem to open a gigantic can of worms. If we do that, why shouldn’t China invade Taiwan?
April 18th, 2003 at 17:24
Why shouldn’t China invade Taiwan? Well, they can if they want to and no American official has ever said or wrote they can’t try, but they would have to figure out a way to get their ships and planes across the China Sea without being obliterated by an American force. This is in fact a reason why China hasn’t ALREADY tried to forcefully take Taiwan.
The whole, "well, if we take out Castro, then that means China can take out Taiwan" anti-intervention rational is absolute nonsense. If the United States or the world ‘community’ decides to rid itself of Fidel ‘I’m Really a Nice Guy’ Castro, that doesn’t mean China is going to invade Taiwan or that they have the right to. If China did attempt an invasion, it wouldn’t have any moral credibility whatsoever, because of an action taken against Fidel ‘Want a Cigar?’ Castro. Overthrowing Castro would be done in the name of freedom and Democracy, which is clear to both the Left and the Right apparently, while China would be making a naked land and economic grab in the name of Chinese nationalism.
April 18th, 2003 at 18:36
What? Cuba has a government? I thought they just had the best health insurance and public education system in the world, like almost Utopia or something. Did Fidel Castro really arrest some journalists? CNN never said anything about it, so I doubt this story is really true. Everyone knows that Castro loves peace and the Cuban people adore him. That’s why he’s so popular even with American movie-stars. What probably happened is Trent Lott and Jesse Helms paid some Cuban criminals to go on a rampage looting and burning and stuff, so Fidel just did what he had to do. Assuming folks were actually arrested, that is. But I don’t think Fidel would do such a thing. He’s the only dictator in the region who really cares about human rights, even in America. That’s why he and Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, Oliver Stone, and Rosie O’Donnell are such good friends. They know him best and wouldn’t be friends with him if he did bad things. If it weren’t for US sanctions, Cuba would be just like Florida. The only reason there aren’t elections in Cuba is because not everyone is as smart and strong as Fidel. Some Cubans are so afraid of the US, that they might surrender and compromise the Revolution, which would mean an end to their freedom and cause poverty, racism, and anarchy in the most successful socialist state in the world. We just can’t let that happen, so we should not sign this petition but start another one demanding that everyone stop reporting bad things about Cuba and Fidel, and fight against US imperialism and capitalist exploitation of the world. If it weren’t for Castro, we would never have an example of how much better socialism and communism are than the corrupt and racist policies in the US. At least in Cuba, everything and everyone is free and by cooperating together, they all have healthy, happy lives. So I think this "statement" is off-base, doesn’t support the Revolution, and therefore should not be signed by anyone. It just perpetuates the lie that Castro is a dictator, he suppresses the people, he gets his wealth from slave labor, and all that other right-wing propaganda that everybody knows isn’t true. Can’t we all just get along?
April 18th, 2003 at 18:59
We haven’t exhausted all other recourses yet with regard to Cuba. Besides, Cuba doesn’t pose much of a threat to the US.
April 18th, 2003 at 20:34
current repression
What do you mean by "current?" From the moment Castro had a glimmer in his eye of building socialism Cuba has experienced repression.
It is very simple. Socialism IS repression.
For years you lefties have viewed Castro as a socialist success story even after he encouraged Kruschev to lob nuclear missiles at the US.
You guys are pathetic. After 40 years of Castro’s crimes against humanity, you finally make some idiotic hollow statement. I’ll know you’re really serious when you start pasting "Free Cuba" bumper stickers on your smoke-belching 15 year old Volvos.
When are you going to give up on socialism? Isn’t 100 million dead enough? I say no more blood for socialism.
April 18th, 2003 at 21:16
We haven’t exhausted all other recourses yet with regard to Cuba? We’ve just gone through the Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, H.W. Bush, Clinton, and W. Bush administrations. During this time Cubans were imprisoned, beaten, and murdered. Intellectuals for writing books deemed ‘counter-revolutionary’ were imprisoned; thousands fled Cuba in hope of a better life, a life free from State persecution; and hundreds died trying. Often forgotten in the Elian Gonzalez affair was the fact that he was the ONLY survivor in the group he was in. The world watched and did NOTHING… yet after all this time there are other ‘recourses’?
Please, Andrew, engage us with your plan to rid the world of Fidel Castro. What other recourses are there? Either the world does something, which removes Castro from power, or it doesn’t, which leaves him in power(the status quo).
He isn’t a threat to United States of America? Who cares if he threatens the U.S.? He’s a threat to the Cuban people right now and the Cuban people are human being just like you and I. RIGHT NOW, just miles away from Florida, Cubans are in prison for calling for free elections. What a pathetic and selfish people we are to think that since Fidel ‘Free Health Care’ Castro doesn’t threaten us, the Cuban people must continue to suffer. Progressive thinkers are NOT supposed to be SELFISH or propose SELFISH do-nothing policies. So if you want to call yourself a Progressive, break from the status quo and figure out a way to get Saddam Hussein With A Smile off that island.
April 18th, 2003 at 22:27
HA, The statement references the current spate of repression. The anti-Castro wing of the American Left is quite large and has a long track record of opposing Castro’s regime. Like you, I oppose socialism.
Lyle, the Bush Administration is taking action along diplomatic and economic fronts to further isolate Castro’s regime. That’s good. I think it would actually be better to reduce sanctions, because that would undermine Castro faster. At least, however, Bush is doing something firm with regard to Cuba.
As for the use of military force, sometimes it is necessary, like in Iraq. With Cuba, however, there are things we can do and are doing short of force.
Furthermore, Castro is old. There is no obvious successor waiting in the wings. It would be imprudent to use military force recklessly. I would not rule out the use of force, of course.
April 18th, 2003 at 23:21
I was in high school when Castro took power. Back then, we saw him as a hero, and to an extent he was - for a fleeting moment. But as the years rolled along and more and more of the men who had helped him overthrow Batista were either imprisoned, tortured, executed, or deported, we began to see through his rhetoric. Then, when just ordinary Cubans were seen as expendable in this terrible regime, we stepped off the ship entirely. But not all of us, evidently.
It has been more than thirty years since I praised Castro, and in the last twenty I have prayed that the Left would come to see who and what he really was and stopped supporting him. Short of that, the Left needs to stand up and be counted as being for liberty and against tyranny, real tyranny, not this putrid, childish moral equivalency I read in this "statement." Weasely inferences that there is some kind of cryptic connection between the American Right and Castro. What brazen poppycock. Here’s the prescription: Grow a pair. The guy is a murdering tyrant. Just say it. I did, and I’m no braver than the next man, maybe just a little better at saying, "I was wrong."
Cordially,
ekw
April 18th, 2003 at 23:23
Andrew,
Fair enough, but Fidel Castro could go on living for a number of years yet. I agree that since he may die soon military action wouldn’t be prudent, but that’s IF he dies. If he doesn’t die these democrats, independent thinkers, writers, and human rights activists will be sitting in jail for awhile and the Cuban people will remain where they are. Not to mention Castro will never have been brought to trial for his crimes against humanity. It amazes me we can sit back for so long watching our fellow man suffer, and the best we can do is stand up and condemn it.
Oh, and a problem with Bush’s ‘firm’ posturing with regards to Castro… Europe isn’t going to adopt a very similar line, which means Saddam stays until he dies. Sure, they are jaded by this latest crackdown, like Castro is acting out of character or something, and will scale back their trade with him, but no way are they going to stand side by side with Bush and put enough pressure on Castro to end his regime. Then’s there Latin America who adores him for standing up to ‘Yankee Imperialism’. They aren’t going to do anything either to bring him down (like no more State visits or whatever else they do with him).
What the World could do though is ban Cuba from sending its sports athletes and teams to the Olympic Games, Pan-American Games, and other world sporting events. That would really hurt him personally and the people of Cuba probably be quite mad with Castro for screwing their athletes over. Sports is such big thing in Cuba, you know.
If the South Africa can be banned from the Olympics and world sporting events over Apartheid, Castro’s Cuba can be banned for oppressing its people. Right?
April 19th, 2003 at 02:41
Why are you doing this, Fidel? Don’t you realize that your "current" murder spree only serves the interests of the real bad guys? Congressional Republicans. If you must kill people who disagree with you, please try and do so in a less public manner so that we can go back to doing free PR work for you in the US.
P.S. Viva la Revolucion!
April 19th, 2003 at 03:55
Pfahhhhhh.
That’s the sound of this big fluffy soufle falling as flat as the moral high ground of the left–at a time when a brick would have answered better.
So this is what we get when the "women and men of the democratic left, united by…commitment to human rights, democratic government and social justice" (sheesh…and these people say fundamentalist Christians are self-righteous?) finally work up a scolding for their buddy Fidel?
Oh wait, my bad. They don’t actually ever mention the Ol’ Bearded One himself. Probably because they were too busy drawing a bead on "the most reactionary elements of the US administration". It is, after all, the real source of any trouble, anywhere.
Well, "women and men of the democratic left", thank you so much for your latest pro forma responce to human suffering. We’ll take it from here. The ANSWER protest is over there. Run along, now.
April 19th, 2003 at 10:30
A real "new Left" in America would be working hard for social justice within the parameters of a capitalist economic system.
Why capitalism? Because though a harsh system, the competition in the system makes business continually increase efficiency. Profit makes people work hard to produce more goods with fewer resources. This is very good. Desirable even. Despite the continual job losses it produces. The profits such a system produces allows for many tries in the effort to create new ways of delivering consumer satisfaction.
If I was still on the left (currently I consider myself a libertarian oriented pro-war Republican) I would be first of all working day and night to end the American gulag, otherwise known as the drug war. I would be working hard on the death penalty. I would be working hard to improve minority schooling instead of supporting the system that keeps minorities in poverty.
It is past time that the left lost its romantic notions about economic systems that do not work. If you are serious about lifting the poor the best combination to do this is capitalism combined with a working educational system. In America we have one without the other. Our school system in the K-12 grades is not working. Compare this with our outstanding college system. In the college system the consumer has choices. In the K-12 system Stalinism prevails. The system is run for the benefit of the so called producers (the teachers) not the consumers (the students).(this is a clue).
I joined the new left in the 60s in the hopes of making a better world. In the last 40 years the left has been about as effective as Mao’s great leap forward. For the same reasons.
April 19th, 2003 at 13:29
Andrew Hagan makes me believe that there’s hope for the left. I walked away from the Democrats five years ago because I decided that they treasured power over principle. I’ll never go back, but I would be interested to hear, SPECIFICALLY, what actions short of invasion could remove Fidel Castro from power?
We also must shake off the relativism that grips our discussion about the use of US power for moral means. The difference between a US invasion of Cuba and a Chinese invasion of Taiwan? Come on, that’s easy! We would build democratic institutions and return power to the citizenry — the Chinese would turn Taiwan in Tibet.
April 19th, 2003 at 21:08
Whoever said the part about "feel good behavior" was right. Just like all those unassimilated, self-righteous anti-war protesters and their fellow travelers last weekend in D.C.
A now-deceased anthropologist friend of mine had the perfect description for this brand of activity, as commonly practiced by leftists who think they have something to say: "masturbatory behavior." I think of the phrase every time I see something like the DC protests or the missive at hand.
Also: I guess I’ve forgotten, but would someone explain to my simple mind why an embargo and sanctions against South Africa were desirable and sound policy, while they are not against Castro’s Cuba?
April 20th, 2003 at 10:30
What does it tell you that most of the comments fromt the right here are against the left?
April 20th, 2003 at 16:53
Well, why would the United States (Democrat or Republican)care about the Cuban people (like they ever had before, please) when it can keep the island opressed enough for Florida to rake in the tourist money. Oh, and let’s not forget the "stupid third world Cubans" who built the city of Miami, why would we want to? Yeah, in the sad but true words of many Cubans "Esto (USA) es un COMUNISMO con comida!! Yeah, and for those of you that think every country in the world speaks English get a dictionary and figure out what was said. Unfortunately, even after a translation you won’t understand. This kind of understanding does not involve nike shoes and SUV’s. Keep on thinking your college degrees make you the authority on things you don’t understand like SUFFERING.
April 21st, 2003 at 12:40
I was happy to see this letter if for no other reason that I’m frankly tired of this Conservative Black-and-White polarism on issues involving international policy. Whether you feel that this letter is an accurate(mostly)indictment of the Cuban dictator from the usually more coy American left(which I do)or a weak apology for a brutal dictator and iconcoclast,I feel that there is a bigger issue. Maybe you know this or maybe you don’t,but Castro is a problem that our country helped create!When our government won over Cuba’s independence in the Spanish-American War,we insisted upon governing the island to varying degrees,practically colonizing it and propping up the various dictators for the better part of the sixty years prior to Castro’s "26th of July Revolution". The way I’m to understand it,the man Castro replaced,Battista,was not much of a lamb himself,either.
I feel as a nation we’ve done about all we can to try to shape Cuba.I know it sounds kinda passive and lame,but maybe the only alternative left IS to loosen the embargo restrictions on the island nation and wait for Castro to die. Lord knows we’ve tried just about everything else to get rid of the S.O.B.