View Full Version : RIP Fidel Castro
Cuban revolutionary icon Fidel Castro dies: President
http://img-s-msn-com.akamaized.net/tenant/amp/entityid/AAkLFZx.img?h=696&w=1019&m=6&q=60&o=f&l=f&x=1663&y=548
Cuban revolutionary icon Fidel Castro died late Friday in Havana aged 90, his brother, President Raul Castro, announced on national television.
"The commander in chief of the Cuban revolution died at 22:29 hours this evening," the president announced on national television.
Raul Castro, who took power after his older brother Fidel was hospitalized in 2006, said that the revolutionary leader's remains will be cremated early on Saturday, "in compliance with his expressed will."
Raul Castro made the announcement just after midnight Friday (0500 GMT Saturday).
One of the leading world figures in the second half of the 20th century, Fidel Castro had outsized influence given the size of his small Caribbean island.
He was said to have survived countless US assassination attempts.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/cuban-revolutionary-icon-fidel-castro-dies-president/ar-AAkLIvW?li=BBnb7Kz
Sexy Celebrity
11-26-16, 03:06 AM
A year full of deaths.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yq6s8G5hwzE
RIP
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2e7LicRweOg
Chypmunk
11-26-16, 07:41 AM
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/02/28/article-2285852-18588C06000005DC-130_634x776.jpg
'High Fidelity'
R.I.P.
Cobpyth
11-26-16, 08:21 AM
Fidel Castro was a revolutionary idealist, but like many of his type, the only ideal he ultimately seemed to care about was gaining personal power.
Rest In Peace, El Comandante and may your legacy not be glorified!
Daniel M
11-26-16, 08:34 AM
Won't get too much into politics in this thread, but in my opinion a great leader who deserves to be studied and celebrated. RIP.
Well, if you're going to say something like that, we'll definitely be getting into the politics. Fidel Castro killed and imprisoned political dissidents. Great leaders don't do that. Full stop.
As a human, I hope he finds rest in death. But his legacy is one of oppression and the world is better and freer without him in it.
rauldc14
11-26-16, 10:59 AM
Completely agree with Yoda
Just to bazooka this whole thing in the bud:
https://twitter.com/BenSasse/status/802456597041647616
https://twitter.com/CChupik/status/802528301482790912
https://twitter.com/dhothersall/status/802435606299058178
matt72582
11-26-16, 12:05 PM
Castro > Batista
Well, if you're going to say something like that, we'll definitely be getting into the politics. Fidel Castro killed and imprisoned political dissidents. Great leaders don't do that. Full stop.
As a human, I hope he finds rest in death. But his legacy is one of oppression and the world is better and freer without him in it.
I cant argue, he was Saddam Hussein but with less resources and more competence. Even though Cuba will probably be better off without him, the fact that he pulled it off right next to us for so long...well, I dont know if its respect hes earned, but noteworthy just doesnt quite cut it as a descriptive either.
RIP Fidel, and I hope your country is better off without you.
Cobpyth
11-26-16, 12:19 PM
Castro > Batista
Castro = Batista
He fought a dictator to become a dictator himself.
matt72582
11-26-16, 12:21 PM
Bush kills MILLIONS in wars built on lies, Obama has been in 7 wars, but Fidel Castro is the big bad wolf...
Have fun with El Presidente Trumpo!
Bush kills MILLIONS in wars built on lies, Obama has been in 7 wars, but Fidel Castro is the big bad wolf...
The false equivalence in this statement is easily demonstrated in the fact that you're free to say that about the first two, whereas the third would've tortured you for it.
Castro > Batista
Using soldiers on your own people > Using soldiers on foreign dictators.
Apparently.
Citizen Rules
11-26-16, 04:17 PM
Fidel Castro was a revolutionary idealist, but like many of his type, the only ideal he ultimately seemed to care about was gaining personal power.
Rest In Peace, El Comandante and may your legacy not be glorified!Well said, Cob.
No leader is a 'freedom fighter' if he latter seizes power and denies his own people the freedom to choose their own government.
Too bad one of those exploding sea shells didn't kill Castro back in the 1960s. Another dead dictator, that's all he is.
Cuban exiles in Miami celebrate the death of Fidel Castro
Within half an hour of the Cuban government's official announcement that former President Fidel Castro had died at the age of 90, Miami's Little Havana teemed with life - and cheers.
Thousands of people banged pots with spoons, waved Cuban flags in the air and whooped in jubilation on Calle Ocho - 8th Street, and the heart of the neighbourhood - in the early hours of Saturday. Honking and strains of salsa music from car stereos echoed against stucco buildings and fireworks lit up the humid night sky.
Police blocked off streets leading to Cafe Versailles, the quintessential Cuban American hotspot where strong cafecitos - sweetened espresso - were as common as a harsh word about Fidel Castro.
"Cuba si! Castro no!" they chanted, while others screamed "Cuba libre!"
Celebration, not grief, permeated the atmosphere. That was no surprise. Castro has cast a shadow over Miami for decades and, in many ways, his policy and his power have shaped the city and its inhabitants.
Cubans fled the island to Miami, Tampa, New Jersey and elsewhere after Castro took power in 1959. Some were loyalists of Fulgencio Batista, the president prior to Castro, while others left with the hope they would be able to return soon after Castro was toppled. He never was.
Many others believed they would not be truly free under Castro and his communist regime. Thousands left behind their possessions, loved ones and hard-earned educations and businesses, travelling to the US by plane, boat or raft.
Many Cubans died on the ocean trip to South Florida and many never returned to see their childhood homes, their neighbourhoods, their playgrounds, their businesses and their relatives because Castro was still in power.
The ones who made it to Miami took a largely, and vehemently, anti-Castro stance.
In quotes | Fidel Castro
"Condemn me. It is of no importance. History will absolve me." - Castro in 1953, when the young lawyer was defending himself at a trial for his near-suicidal assault on the Moncada garrison in Santiago de Cuba
"I began the revolution with 82 men. If I had to do it again, I would do it with 10 or 15 and absolute faith. It does not matter how small you are if you have faith and a plan of action." - Castro in 1959
"I'm not thinking to cut my beard, because I'm accustomed to my beard and my beard means many things to my country. When we have fulfilled our promise of good government I will cut my beard." Castro in 1959, interview with CBS's Edward Murrow, 30 days after revolution
"A revolution is not a bed of roses. A revolution is a struggle between the future and the past." - Castro in 1959
"I never saw a contradiction between the ideas that sustain me and the ideas of that symbol, of that extraordinary figure (Jesus Christ)." - Castro in 1985
"One of the greatest benefits of the revolution is that even our prostitutes are college graduates." - Castro to director Oliver Stone in 2003 documentary 'Comandante'
"I realized that my true destiny would be the war that I was going to have with the United States." - Castro's opening quote in 'Looking for Fidel,' Stone's second documentary on the Cuban leader'
On New Year's Eve every year, Cubans in Miami utter a toast in Spanish as they raise glasses of liquor: "Next year in Cuba." But as the Cuban exiles aged, Castro outlived them and President Barack Obama eroded the US embargo, encouraging younger Cubans to return home, the toast rang silent in many households.
In Miami, where Havana is closer both geographically and psychologically than Washington, the news of Castro's death was long anticipated by the exiles. Rumours have come and gone for decades and his death had become something of a joke, mostly because it seemed to happen so frequently.
This time, though, it was real.
More here...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/11/26/cuban-exiles-miami-celebrate-death-fidel-castro/
Sexy Celebrity
11-26-16, 05:12 PM
Cuban revolutionary icon Fidel Castro died late Friday in Havana aged 90, his brother, President Raul Castro, announced on national television.
Condolences, Raul.
What was all the bad stuff Fidel Castro did? I must admit I don't know much about him. I hear Donald Trump is happy he's dead.
Frightened Inmate No. 2
11-26-16, 05:28 PM
when i was a kid he taught me it was okay to be weird. rip
when i was a kid he taught me it was okay to be weird. rip
http://img.picturequotes.com/2/3/2166/what-you-talkin-bout-willis-quote-1.jpg
gandalf26
11-26-16, 06:00 PM
Well, if you're going to say something like that, we'll definitely be getting into the politics. Fidel Castro killed and imprisoned political dissidents. Great leaders don't do that. Full stop.
As a human, I hope he finds rest in death. But his legacy is one of oppression and the world is better and freer without him in it.
Wonder how many innocent men have been executed by the legal system in the US during Castro's reign.
Fewer than the number of people he had killed for the mere act of disagreeing with him. And all of them without due process or the right of appeal. Except for that time he literally invented an appeals process after a result he didn't like so he could execute the people who were found innoncent.
There is no equivalence here, in nature or numbers.
when i was a kid he taught me it was okay to be weird. rip
Yeah, when someone murders their political opponents, "quirky" is definitely the first word that comes to mind.
Daniel M
11-26-16, 07:49 PM
Using soldiers on your own people > Using soldiers on foreign dictators.
Apparently.
Was this the main crime that Batista committed? He was more guilty of the first himself, for a start.
No, that was in reference to matt's comments about Bush and Obama. Not that what Bush, Obama, or Batista did has any relevance in assessing Castro.
Daniel M
11-26-16, 07:55 PM
Freedom is subjective.
Right or wrong, people see different ways of their people being more free and how to go about such a system. In his view he made people more free overall through his regime, and that had that had it been different more people would have suffered overall, even if not directly. He did a lot of wrong things that I can not support, and he admits to some of them, but I think he had good intentions in believing that if he didn't the consequences would be greater. But he also did a lot of good, how about healthcare, education and noble causes that he supported around the world?
Freedom is subjective.
Please, keep going. Is freedom of speech subjective? Freedom of the press? Freedom of association? How about due process? Because he violated all of these. He violated them flagrantly, blatantly, and constantly.
Right or wrong
The second one.
people see different ways of their people being more free and how to go about such a system.
Again, see above, and my earlier posts in this thread. This is not some nuanced question about what value freedom has to the poor, or whether people can be better off sacrificing economic freedom for some greater social welfare. This is literally murdering people for disagreeing with you.
In his view he made people more free overall through his regime, and that had that had it been different more people would have suffered overall
Yes, I know what his view was (or what he says it was). I'm asking about your view: did he make people "more free overall" by depriving them of all the rights I mentioned above?
He did a lot of wrong things that I can not support, and he admits to some of them, but I think he had good intentions in believing that if he didn't the consequences would be greater.
Good intentions. I wonder what we can pave with that.
But he also did a lot of good, how about healthcare
Leaving aside how good their actual healthcare system was (spoiler: not very), are you suggesting you'd trade the rights mentioned above for socialized healthcare? And are you saying people should not be allowed to decide, democratically, to make this choice for themselves? Because that's what Castro did.
education
Just so long as you read what they tell you.
Daniel M
11-26-16, 08:46 PM
Please, keep going.
The point it, people talk about freedom, but even in countries where freedom is a priority and meant to be in large amounts, you still have to live within the structural boundaries that exist before you are born regardless of whether you accept them or not, and they determine just how much freedom you have.
How do we rank what is important in terms of being free, how is this determined? It's just preselected for the illusion of freedom.
Is freedom of speech subjective? Freedom of the press? Freedom of association?But these are chosen as the things people should be entitled to because the country allowed them to be. Where is this rule that every country should automatically have them or they are bad?
Okay, so you are going to say that if left to a democrat vote people will vote for these as the majority of humans consider them to be basic rights, and I would be one of them, but they are restricted by Castro and his government because they believe that if left to be "free" they will be exploited by certain forces that will use them to overthrow him, he didn't want people to swoop in, maybe outside forces like the USA, and destroy his "good" work.
How about freedom of movement, access to a home as a human right, access to healthcare as a human right, these things? Why aren't they held in such high regard as freedom of speech or freedom of press? Because we are taught that they are not important and fundamental aspects of being in the same way.
The second one.
A lot of people would disagree with you though.
Again, see above, and my earlier posts in this thread. This is not some nuanced question about what value freedom has to the poor, or whether people can be better off sacrificing economic freedom for some greater social welfare. This is literally murdering people for disagreeing with you.I do not think this is the reason why he murdered them though. You think he just wanted to kill them for the fact they disagreed with him? Or the greater implications that if opposition was afforded the opportunity to grow, external forces would soon be able to swoop in and overthrow him. He attempted to participate in legitimate elections and such earlier on in his life and had seen a US backed government suppress him, so he was attempting to do the reverse.
Yes, I know what his view was (or what he says it was). I'm asking about your view: did he make people "more free overall" by depriving them of all the rights I mentioned above?It's difficult to say because it's impossible to know absolutely everything about both his intentions, and exactly what he did.
What I will say is that I think if he lived longer, hypothetically lets say 50 healthy years more, it would have been more interesting to see what he would do post-Cold War. Once his position had been consolidated, international relations cooled and such, I think it could have been likely that reforms would make the country more democratic and give more rights to the people. I would say, admittedly hesitantly, that he did a good job of improving the country.
Leaving aside how good their actual healthcare system was (spoiler: not very)I'm not sure how correct "not very" is, but I'm pretty sure they had an important role in the Ebola crisis, they've been successful in getting rid of a number of diseases. Also stuff like infant mortality and that have decreased massively, life expectancies increased, clean water etc.
[quot]are you suggesting you'd trade the rights mentioned above for socialized healthcare? And are you saying people should not be allowed to decide, democratically, to make this choice for themselves? Because that's what Castro did.[/quote]I'm not saying that people shouldn't be able to decide, and it's not what I would have done. But I think it's understandable giving the circumstances.
Just so long as you read what they tell you.Okay. But what about stuff like them now having one of the highest literacy rates in the world?
Mr Minio
11-26-16, 08:47 PM
Well, in a country reigned by a dictator any opposition has to be nipped in the bud. All political opponents have to be throttled. Simply because any concurrent party, idea or opponent constitutes a threat of coup d'etat, rebellion, or some other jeopardy. So, any and every dictator uses terror to suppress both non-existent and existent threats, precisely in fear of losing power as well as to strengthen it.
Daniel M
11-26-16, 08:50 PM
Sorry if my posts are filled with a load of spelling mistakes, but I'm really tired and will probably go off soon.
Another question for people, what do think of people like Nelson Mandela and many others, when they see them praising Castro?
https://twitter.com/NelsonMandela/status/802428809811267584
AdamUpBxtch
11-26-16, 09:05 PM
Fidel stood up to the mighty US, and lived. He also refused to give up his communist ideals, which is why many revere him as a "brave & heroic revolutionist". He survived 8 assassination attempts in the 60s and he outlived every US President that tried to have him killed. He may be dead now but no matter how you feel about him, he won in the end.
How do we rank what is important in terms of being free, how is this determined? It's just preselected for the illusion of freedom.
I think freedom from being arbitrarily murdered by your own government should be pretty high on the list, since being dead has a way of cutting off your ability to exercise any other freedoms.
But these are chosen as the things people should be entitled to because the country allowed them to be. Where is this rule that every country should automatically have them or they are bad?
So, basically, your position is that there's no such thing as human rights?
Okay, so you are going to say that if left to a democrat vote people will vote for these as the majority of humans consider them to be basic rights, and I would be one of them, but they are restricted by Castro and his government because they believe that if left to be "free" they will be exploited by certain forces that will use them to overthrow him, he didn't want people to swoop in, maybe outside forces like the USA, and destroy his "good" work.
Yeah, I'm not asking you to play devil's advocate here. I'm not asking you about his intentions (though I find your interpretation of them highly credulous, given the obvious benefits to himself). I'm asking you to defend the idea that he was a good leader who helped his people, rather than one who consistently oppressed them.
How about freedom of movement
He forbid people from leaving the country and sometimes murdered them and their families for trying. So, knowing that, is this freedom suddenly moved to the list of "subjective" freedoms we only like because we're taught to?
Why aren't they held in such high regard as freedom of speech or freedom of press?
Because any "freedom" that only exists at the whim of a dictator isn't really a freedom at all. Therefore, the freedoms held in the highest esteem are the one which safeguard all the others. It's not arbitrary, and it's not just a cultural inclination: it's literally the only prioritization that prevents tyranny.
A lot of people would disagree with you though.
The difference being, my ideology says I should let them disagree, and theirs says they should be allowed to kill me if they think I'm persuading people with my arguments.
Which side of that do you take? And how many social welfare programs do they have to favor before you switch to the other side and say maybe killing me is worth it?
I do not think this is the reason why he murdered them though. You think he just wanted to kill them for the fact they disagreed with him? Or the greater implications that if opposition was afforded the opportunity to grow, external forces would soon be able to swoop in and overthrow him.
This is literally just another way of saying "he killed them for protesting because he was afraid they would persuade people."
He attempted to participate in legitimate elections and such earlier on in his life and had seen a US backed government suppress him, so he was attempting to do the reverse.
First: he promised free elections, which means at minimum he was lying about what kind of government he planned to install.
Second, is this really supposed to explain why he didn't hold free elections in 50 years?
It's difficult to say because it's impossible to know absolutely everything about both his intentions, and exactly what he did.
His intentions have nothing to do with the question. I am asking you to assess the results of his decisions: do you think he made the Cuban people "more free overall" by denying them the right to free speech, to a free press, to free assembly, to due process, and so on, in the name of socialized medicine?
What I will say is that I think if he lived longer, hypothetically lets say 50 healthy years more, it would have been more interesting to see what he would do post-Cold War.
He was in charge for 50 years! Your argument is that what he did was reasonable because it might have worked if he'd only been allowed to oppress people for another half-century?
I would say, admittedly hesitantly, that he did a good job of improving the country.
You know, I'll bet I could convince people I was doing a good job if I killed the people who said I was doing a bad job.
I'm not sure how correct "not very" is, but I'm pretty sure they had an important role in the Ebola crisis, they've been successful in getting rid of a number of diseases. Also stuff like infant mortality and that have decreased massively, life expectancies increased, clean water etc.
Infant morality is affected heavily by what you count as a newborn to begin with, for one. And it's a little difficult to take such statistics seriously coming from a government that claims, with a straight face, that Castro regularly receives 100% of the vote.
Okay. But what about stuff like them now having one of the highest literacy rates in the world?
As I indicated in my last response, I think that's of dubious value when you're controlling what people are allowed to read.
If you think a higher literacy rate justifies what Castro did, the obvious question is: why did he have to stop people from leaving? Tens of thousands of Cubans literally risked their lives (and many died) just for the chance of not living there any more. It doesn't take much humility to decide that it must not have been a very good deal, given the actions of the people who it was forced on.
Fidel stood up to the mighty US, and lived. He also refused to give up his communist ideals, which is why many revere him as a "brave & heroic revolutionist". He survived 8 assassination attempts in the 60s and he outlived every US President that tried to have him killed. He may be dead now but no matter how you feel about him, he won in the end.
What did he win?
Heres a true fact that doesnt get much press, Americans could take boat rides from Miami into Cuba, on their own in their own boats, and party like rockstars. They could bring household products, and normal grocery items into the country for women to have sex. It is not a rare occurence, they would go into their nighclubs, and take their pick which woman theyd buy for the night.
They were living in complete poverty, and it doesnt help that every hurricane that goes into the Gulf of Mexico has to hit Cuba first. With the way every cuban I know is reacting, that knows about what it is were talking about, I have to think now its only good news that hes gone.
Sorry if my posts are filled with a load of spelling mistakes, but I'm really tired and will probably go off soon.
Another question for people, what do think of people like Nelson Mandela and many others, when they see them praising Castro?
https://twitter.com/NelsonMandela/status/802428809811267584
I honestly do not know what to make of that. I just dont. Obviously he wasnt the devil incarnate.
The Gunslinger45
11-26-16, 09:38 PM
My only regret was that I was not in Miami for the party.
Guaporense
11-26-16, 11:03 PM
Fidel great? Even Hitler was better. At least he was macho enough to kill himself when his ideology was defeated.
Fidel was a feudal lord of a poor island country and just helped to make the place worse off. Why is he considered great? Just another crappy 3rd world dictator who claims to be populist. He is only famous because of the fact his regime was near the US's.
matt72582
11-27-16, 06:54 AM
Treason is punishable by death in the US too... The Cuban people have been so repressed so much (US Embargo) - if only they could have access to CNN free speech!
Treason is punishable by death in the US too
Yeah, treason as in giving out military secrets, spying, etc, not criticizing/disagreeing with your leader or half of America would be on Death Row. I'm staying out of this but that was a ridiculous comparison.
It's been really depressing watching people excuse and normalize human rights atrocities just because they were committed by someone on Team Socialism.
Rest in pieces, Castro.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GXfhO5vkWXg
Daniel M
11-27-16, 12:16 PM
So, basically, your position is that there's no such thing as human rights?
Nope, but I am saying how do we determine what are included and how we are judging them. And how do we order importance? Is it worth having freedom of speech when you don't have a home, healthcare or education? The decision was taken to suspend some in favour of others and that the benefit in the long term would result in improved human rights overall.
Yeah, I'm not asking you to play devil's advocate here. I'm not asking you about his intentions (though I find your interpretation of them highly credulous, given the obvious benefits to himself). I'm asking you to defend the idea that he was a good leader who helped his people, rather than one who consistently oppressed them.
And I am attempting to do that. I do believe that he did what he did with good intentions and that he believed what he was doing was right. And I do believe that he was able to help a lot of people in his country.
He forbid people from leaving the country and sometimes murdered them and their families for trying. So, knowing that, is this freedom suddenly moved to the list of "subjective" freedoms we only like because we're taught to?
That's just one of the freedoms I mentioned, and I mention it because in countries like US and UK its not seen as something that should be given out to people in the same way as freedom of speech. People are not free to travel where they want. I was using it as an example of how every country picks and chooses what freedoms they want to hand out to people to keep them happy and benefit themselves, rather than actually making freedom for people the number one priority.
Because any "freedom" that only exists at the whim of a dictator isn't really a freedom at all. Therefore, the freedoms held in the highest esteem are the one which safeguard all the others. It's not arbitrary, and it's not just a cultural inclination: it's literally the only prioritization that prevents tyranny.
I'm not sure how something like freedom of speech and press safeguards other freedoms are right like access to a home, healthcare and education. It's prioritised deliberately as it gives people the illusion that they have been given the ultimate gift, and they are ultimately to blame for their own failures in life, rather than a government who has failed to support them in other basic needs.
The difference being, my ideology says I should let them disagree, and theirs says they should be allowed to kill me if they think I'm persuading people with my arguments.
So does mine.
Which side of that do you take? And how many social welfare programs do they have to favor before you switch to the other side and say maybe killing me is worth it?
Personally I support freedom of speech, but I'm not in a war environment with people trying to assassinate me on a daily basis.
This is literally just another way of saying "he killed them for protesting because he was afraid they would persuade people."
Yes, kind of. But more complex, its not just persuasion he was afraid of, but coups, violent action, assassinations, all of which also go against human rights.
First: he promised free elections, which means at minimum he was lying about what kind of government he planned to install.
I was talking about how he attempted to get into politics through legitimate means which were quashed by the corrupt government at that time, so he knew about the extent people went to stop him getting into power (with the help of the US) when doing it fairly, so he knew the extent they would go to remove him once he was there.
Second, is this really supposed to explain why he didn't hold free elections in 50 years?
Yes, although I think 50 years is too long, I think it goes a long way in explaining it. It is normal in a war situation for elections not to be held or for supporters of enemies to be punished.
His intentions have nothing to do with the question. I am asking you to assess the results of his decisions: do you think he made the Cuban people "more free overall" by denying them the right to free speech, to a free press, to free assembly, to due process, and so on, in the name of socialized medicine?
And my answer is a hesitant yes. You keep trying to reduce his achievements down to simple labels like "socialized medicine" which you know they are greater than.
He was in charge for 50 years! Your argument is that what he did was reasonable because it might have worked if he'd only been allowed to oppress people for another half-century?[quote]
Yes, because the point is that the next 50 years would have been nothing like the previous 50 in terms of the world situation, the country is less at war, Obama looked like he wanted to improve relations and so on.
[quote]You know, I'll bet I could convince people I was doing a good job if I killed the people who said I was doing a bad job.
Not sure of this is relevant when there is a lot of evidence of the bad stuff he has done, and lots of people out there who openly criticise him that I am able to see. So this does not have an impact on by ability to form an opinion about him.
Infant morality is affected heavily by what you count as a newborn to begin with, for one. And it's a little difficult to take such statistics seriously coming from a government that claims, with a straight face, that Castro regularly receives 100% of the vote.
Well I choose to believe from evidence, articles and reports that Cuba has done a very good job in reducing infant mortality and done well in a lot of other areas of healthcare. It is not just the Cuban government saying these things, there is proof of a lot of good work they have done too, including stuff like Ebola. They often said aid to countries that need medical assistance where other countries including the US won't go.
As I indicated in my last response, I think that's of dubious value when you're controlling what people are allowed to read.
Again, that's just what "you think", I'm going to choose to believe what I have read and that's that literacy rates have massively improved.
If you think a higher literacy rate justifies what Castro did
Again like the socialized healthcare statement, you're reducing the argument down to simple things to try and make my support seem sillier, when you know that it is for more than just a "higher literacy rate".
the obvious question is: why did he have to stop people from leaving? Tens of thousands of Cubans literally risked their lives (and many died) just for the chance of not living there any more. It doesn't take much humility to decide that it must not have been a very good deal, given the actions of the people who it was forced on.
My guess is most of these people were upper class citizens how had benefited under the previous regime and thought they would now be better off in the US. If they wanted to leave I think he should have left them, but he was obviously worried about the image that this would create and the further implications that would arise from mass emigration.
Daniel M
11-27-16, 12:22 PM
Isn't killing people for disagreeing with them what countries like the US do constantly in their foreign policy, with places like Vietnam?
The were angered by Castro because he was so close to them, and that he was able to improve the country despite a US blockade.
What about a country like Israel responsible for mass human right abuses, why does the US continue to support them?
What about their support for Pinochet? Margaret Thatcher's support for him too for that matter?
How about their continued relations with countries like Saudi Arabia? When a recent dictator died there the UK flew a flag at Buckingham palace.
There are many countries with terrible leaders that commit many atrocities that have been supported and still are, because countries like the US and UK continue to profit off them. They only want to intervene when they can't benefit themselves.
Frightened Inmate No. 2
11-27-16, 12:26 PM
when i was a kid he taught me it was okay to be weird. rip
fyi this post is just a joke that's making fun of the reactions to the deaths of bowie, prince, etc. it's just my default reaction whenever someone dies now. i think fidel was pretty bad. he did some positive things, but i wish leftists wouldn't feel the need to act like he was good.
Isn't killing people for disagreeing with them what countries like the US do constantly in their foreign policy, with places like Vietnam?
The were angered by Castro because he was so close to them, and that he was able to improve the country despite a US blockade.
What about a country like Israel responsible for mass human right abuses, why does the US continue to support them?
What about their support for Pinochet? Margaret Thatcher's support for him too for that matter?
How about their continued relations with countries like Saudi Arabia? When a recent dictator died there the UK flew a flag at Buckingham palace.
There are many countries with terrible leaders that commit many atrocities that have been supported and still are, because countries like the US and UK continue to profit off them. They only want to intervene when they can't benefit themselves.
I promised myself I wasn't going to get involved but here I go. Is your argument we should be for all citizen abusing dictators or come to the aid of all these countries?
I will always agree there are hypocrisy in who and how we deal with human right violations. I would hate to think you would use this as an excuse for thinking someone like Castro was a good leader.
Citizen Rules
11-27-16, 12:57 PM
In today's age when young people endorse open mindedness and personal liberties....and bigotry and racism is rightly despised, there's still a lot of country-ism being aimed at America and American's. The hooray for Castro, is a backhanded way of saying they hate America and admire Castro for his staying power.
I'm for one am sick of people blaming America for all of humanities problems. Through out the course of history, all peoples and all nations have commented wrongs. America is a beacon of freedom. Countries like Cuba are dank prison cells where the population is controlled by one man's whims. No one person should have the right to control an entire country for life, that's a dictatorship, and an abomination to the free soul of mankind.
Twitter goes nuts over Canadian PM's Castro comments
The Canadian prime minister’s oddly warm remembrance of Fidel Castro set social media aflame Saturday as Castro’s many critics pilloried Justin Trudeau’s statement calling the dead dictator a controversial and “larger than life leader” but stopping far short of condemning his actions.
Trudeau has met Castro, and said his father considered the dictator a friend. Canada and Cuba maintained diplomatic relations during the U.S. embargo, and Canadians have long vacationed on the island.
“A legendary revolutionary and orator, Mr. Castro made significant improvements to the education and health care of his island nation,” Trudeau said in a statement released by the Canadian government. “While a controversial figure, both Mr. Castro’s supporters and detractors recognized his tremendous dedication and love for the Cuban people who had a deep and lasting affection for 'el Comandante.' "
Trudeau’s comments stood in stark contrast to American elected officials, including Sen. Marcio Rubio, R-Fla., whose parents left Cuba before Castro came to power. “Is this a real statement or a parody? Because if this is a real statement from the PM of Canada it is shameful & embarrassing,” Rubio said in a statement on Twitter.
President-elect Donald Trump condemned Castro as a “brutal dictator ... (with a legacy of) firing squads, theft, unimaginable suffering, poverty and the denial of fundamental human rights."
President Obama in his own statement extended a hand of friendship to the Cuban people and said "history will record and judge the enormous impact of this singular figure on the people and world around him."
Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, whose father fled Cuba during the Castro years, called Trudeau’s statement “disgraceful. Why do young socialists idolize totalitarian tyrants? Castro, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot — all evil, torturing murderers.”
Other Twitter users, as you’d expect, took it a lot further, using the #trudeaueulogies tag to mock the prime minister and satirize his comments.
"While controversial, Darth Vader achieved great heights in space construction & played a formative role in his son's life,” quipped Jason Markusoff, a correspondent for Canada’s Maclean's magazine.
Added Canadian sports commentator Mike Hogan: “Today we mourn the loss of Norman Bates, a family man who was truly defined by his devotion to his mother.”
And offered Australian news columnist Rita Panahi, “Although flawed, Hitler was a vegetarian who loved animals, was a contributor to the arts & proud advocate for Germany.”
^^^ This bitch needs to be fired.
https://twitter.com/markusoff/status/802572903900278784
https://twitter.com/e36ls1/status/802565705925169152
https://twitter.com/RitaPanahi/status/802669911667449856
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/twitter-goes-nuts-over-canadian-pms-castro-comments/ar-AAkNFVJ?li=BBnb7Kz
Daniel M
11-27-16, 01:06 PM
I promised myself I wasn't going to get involved but here I go. Is your argument we should be for all citizen abusing dictators or come to the aid of all these countries?
I will always agree there are hypocrisy in who and how we deal with human right violations. I would hate to think you would use this as an excuse for thinking someone like Castro was a good leader.
My point is that how come when someone like Fidel Castro dies, people are celebrating the death of a human rights abuser. Yet the same people have supported other people and regimes just as bad as him. Pinochet was worse and had US and UK support. Involvement in the Vietnam war was mainly down to being opposed to an ideology, yet we're being told we shouldn't murder people for disagreeing with you or having different ideas.
Saudi Arabia is a brutal country that murders all sorts of people and constantly violates human rights yet nobody cares because we are able to make great deals with them. It's all to do with economics, people are celebrating Castro's death because he was a communist, people are happy for people other horrible leaders to continue because they are capitalists and have good deals with the UK and US.
But that's not the reason why I think he is a good leader.
Daniel M
11-27-16, 01:09 PM
In today's age when young people endorse open mindedness and personal liberties....and bigotry and racism is rightly despised, there's still a lot of country-ism being aimed at America and American's. The hooray for Castro, is a backhanded way of saying they hate America and admire Castro for his staying power.
I'm for one am sick of people blaming America for all of humanities problems. Through out the course of history, all peoples and all nations have commented wrongs. America is a beacon of freedom. Countries like Cuba are dank prison cells where the population is controlled by one man's whims. No one person should have the right to control an entire country for life, that's a dictatorship, and an abomination to the free soul of mankind.
America is the biggest, most famous, and most involved country in the world. It's natural that the country with such huge involvement, through maths, is likely to have been involved in the largest number of bad deals/wars and so on. People are allowed to criticise them. I personally hate it when people feel they have to defend their country and naturally be proud of it, why?
Daniel M
11-27-16, 01:10 PM
Fidel great? Even Hitler was better. At least he was macho enough to kill himself when his ideology was defeated.
Fidel was a feudal lord of a poor island country and just helped to make the place worse off. Why is he considered great? Just another crappy 3rd world dictator who claims to be populist. He is only famous because of the fact his regime was near the US's.
Also, how did this post, with this bolded statement, get three reps?
Macho enough to kill himself? Really?
Very black & white viewpoints from maybe the grayest leader of our generation...
Africa is not conflicted about Fidel Castro’s legacy
http://img-s-msn-com.akamaized.net/tenant/amp/entityid/AAkNRxu.img?h=574&w=1019&m=6&q=60&o=f&l=f&x=683&y=322
Cuban leader Fidel Castro was a liberation icon in Africa and remained committed to the continent
With Fidel Castro gone, Africa’s liberation leaders lose a loyal friend and a hero of the people.
When Africa was a battleground between the Cold War powers, Cuba emerged as a friend of liberation movements. Cuba’s involvement in Africa went beyond the ideological standoff between right and left to a real helping hand: sending soldiers, doctors and teachers when post-colonial Africa was perhaps at its most vulnerable.
Some critics saw Castro’s role on the continent as a shrewd power play. An independent, post-colonial Africa with socialist leanings would have fortified the Cuba and the power bloc led by the Soviet Union. Many African nations formed part of the Non-Aligned Movement in a bid to remain above the fray of the Cold War between the US and the Soviet Union.
In Castro, nonetheless, African activists found a leader willing to share flaming rhetoric as well as practical guidance to freedom at a time when Africans had few political allies. Those liberation leaders became the founding fathers of modern Africa, and they never forgot Cuba’s help.
In grainy black and white images, Castro is seen smiling with Ghana’s Kwame Nkrumah, Angola’s Augustinho Neto and Tanzania’s Julius Nyerere. Castro’s influence can be seen in Mozambican independence leader Samora Machel’s army fatigues and vociferous speeches. Cuba also became home to young African activists in exile.
In his own country, and to many in the West, Castro’s regime was a repressive, single-minded pursuit of a communist revolution, no matter the human cost, even while acknowledging his dynamic impact on the course of history over the last six decades. Many Africans, however, look to his leadership as one that sought equality and development, and they joined Castro in blaming sanctions for Cuba’s difficulties.
http://img-s-msn-com.akamaized.net/tenant/amp/entityid/AAkNBZy.img?h=504&w=896&m=6&q=60&o=f&l=f
Cuban leader Fidel Castro was a liberation icon in Africa and remained committed to the continent
It was perhaps Cuba’s willingness to fight side-by-side with Africans that made him such a towering figure on the continent. In 1975, as Angola gained independence from Portugal, it offered a safe haven to then liberation movements hunted in their own countries: the African National Congress, the Zimbabwe African People’s Union and Namibia’s South West African People’s Organization.
When the apartheid government, aided by the United States, attacked Angola, it was Castro who came to the Africans’ aid. He sent 36,000 pushing the South African troops back while also training African soldiers. Cuban troops remained in Africa until 1988, when an apartheid South Africa agreed to withdraw and grant independence to Namibia. Castro’s defiance of the United States was seen as defiance of imperialism and neo-colonialism by African freedom fighters.
Nelson Mandela once reportedly said that when he heard of the Cuban army’s victories in Angola, he was heartened by the idea of a non-white army out-maneuvering a white army. Upon his release, Castro was one of the first leaders Mandela met with, and dismissed criticism of his friendship with the politically isolated Castro.
“We are now being advised about Cuba by people who have supported the apartheid regime these last 40 years,” he said on a visit to Havana in 1991. “No honorable man or woman could ever accept advice from people who never cared for us at the most difficult times.”
Archive footage shows just how wide Mandela grinned and how tightly he embraced his friend Castro. South Africa’s parliament broke out in song when Castro visited and an emotional Sam Nujoma, the founding president of Namibia thanked Castro for helping to free his people. Even among ordinary Africans, Castro remains a hero with many babies bearing the name Fidel or Castro.
Castro’s backing of some African leaders, however, alienated others. In 1977, Castro sent as many as 15,000 troops to back Mengistu Haile Mariam’s fight against Somalia. The Cuban involvement forced Somalia to cede control of the Ogaden region—a blow to an army that believed victory was in their grasp. Some Somalis are still bitter.
https://twitter.com/YasminYonis/status/802504944767012865
https://twitter.com/YasminYonis/status/802504944767012865
https://twitter.com/ethiosun/status/802538927945121792
Castro’s commitment to Africa continued in post-liberation Africa. The country still trains African doctors, and continues to send doctors here. When Ebola ravaged Liberia, Sierra Leone and Guinea, Cuba lead international aid efforts when other world powers fretted. It is a relationship likely to continue long after Castro’s death.
https://twitter.com/PaulKagame/status/802525465168613377
https://twitter.com/MBuhari/status/802565756256972801
https://twitter.com/MYANC/status/802401024212406274
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/africa-is-not-conflicted-about-fidel-castro’s-legacy/ar-AAkNEaq?li=BBnb7Kz
Also, how did this post, with this bolded statement, get three reps?
Macho enough to kill himself? Really?
When I saw that I would have used the Neg Rep button, oh we need that back, and I know Id receive it more than most.
Citizen Rules
11-27-16, 01:17 PM
.. I personally hate it when people feel they have to defend their country and naturally be proud of it, why?Because I love my country, and I am proud to be an American.
Daniel M
11-27-16, 01:21 PM
Because I love my country, and I am proud to be an American.
That's fair enough if you are. But my question was more, why should people be automatically proud of their country and love it, and why should it be exempt from criticism of its bad side just because of the successes it has achieved.
That's fair enough if you are. But my question was more, why should people be automatically proud of their country and love it, and why should it be exempt from criticism of its bad side just because of the successes it has achieved.
I agree.
Citizen Rules
11-27-16, 01:26 PM
That's fair enough if you are. But my question was more, why should people be automatically proud of their country and love it, and why should it be exempt from criticism of its bad side just because of the successes it has achieved. I have a better question for you. You've said in the past and implied in this thread, that you think it's an unfair human rights violation for America not to have open borders and take in all people who wish to move here. BUT you seem to admire Cuba a country where people are forbidden to leave. How do you justify that?
Daniel M
11-27-16, 01:31 PM
I have a better question for you. You've said in the past and implied in this thread, that you think it's an unfair human rights violation for America not to have open borders and take in all people who wish to move here. BUT you seem to admire Cuba a country where people are forbidden to leave. How do you justify that?
I didn't say that it's a human rights violation for America not to have open borders, but I am asking, why isn't it considered one? Human rights and what should be provided/afforded freely to the people are chosen carefully by governments in order to keep the people happy and benefit the country. If they didn't fulfil both of these, they wouldn't exist.
Also it's possible to admire something, but to dislike certain elements of it.
Citizen Rules
11-27-16, 01:36 PM
I didn't say that it's a human rights violation for America not to have open borders, but I am asking, why isn't it considered one? Human rights and what should be provided/afforded freely to the people are chosen carefully by governments in order to keep the people happy and benefit the country. If they didn't fulfil both of these, they wouldn't exist.
Also it's possible to admire something, but to dislike certain elements of it.You dodged the question. I will restate it. You seem to imply that America should have open borders and that not to do so is morally wrong. I know you've posted such sentiments before. So how then can you justify admiring Castro, who forbids his people from leaving their own country?
I have a lot of sympathy for the young revolutionary. The one who wanted his country to stop being America's brothel and casino. The one who brought a lot of hope to the world when he started the revolution.
I have zero sympathy for the dictator, the one who killed opposers and incarcerated revolutionary comrates.
Fidel was both of them.
Because I love my country, and I am proud to be an American.
Why?
Right now Im having a hard time with this. Freedom? We are not the only country in the world that enjoys these freedoms.
Right in front of our own face we are deconstructing. We cannot afford to give blind loyalty anymore.
Friendly Mushroom!
11-27-16, 01:41 PM
http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/665/706/eda.gif
Sums what I think of this thread.
Citizen Rules
11-27-16, 01:47 PM
Originally Posted by Citizen Rules (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=1611404#post1611404)
Because I love my country, and I am proud to be an American.
Why?
Right now Im having a hard time with this. Freedom? We are not the only country in the world that enjoys these freedoms.
Right in front of our own face we are deconstructing. We cannot afford to give blind loyalty anymore.
Then you misinterpret what I said. I didn't say everyone should love their country, that wouldn't be freedom. Freedom is the ability to even hate your country or it's leaders. I'm not blindly loyal. Blind loyalty leads to nothing good. I'm personally grateful I live in America...we're not perfect but we have a lot more freedoms and are better off than Cubans have it.
Then you misinterpret what I said. I didn't say everyone should love their country, that wouldn't be freedom. Freedom is the ability to even hate your country or it's leaders. I'm not blindly loyal. Blind loyalty leads to nothing good. I'm personally grateful I live in America...America is not perfect but we are a hell of lot more freedoms and are better off than Cubans have it.
Why are you proud to be an American right now? I cant think of any reason myself.
Friendly Mushroom!
11-27-16, 01:51 PM
I never would have thought we would have a debate on THIS forum whether or not Castro was a good person. Even with Yoda's earlier post, the debate is still going on!
Daniel M
11-27-16, 01:51 PM
You dodged the question. I will restate it. You seem to imply that America should have open borders and that not to do so is morally wrong. I know you've posted such sentiments before. So how then can you justify admiring Castro, who forbids his people from leaving their own country?
How have I dodged the question, I answered it fairly and clearly. Morals are subjective and down to people, I believe, and I do not believe it to be morally wrong for a country to restrict movement of people reasonably, even though my own personal preference is in favour of more free movement. What I have been posting in this thread, is a question to ask people, and that is why are certain rights considered must-haves and human rights, and others not, how are these determined?
Castro's sole policy was not to forbid people leaving his country. As I have said, it is possible to like/admire someone, or a country, whilst disliking certain elements of it. I disagree/dislike a lot of what Castro did, this is very clear.
Friendly Mushroom!
11-27-16, 01:52 PM
Why are you proud to be an American right now? I cant think of any reason myself.
We can still fix stuff somehow. Remember Citizen doesn't like Trump either (same here)
We can still fix stuff somehow. Remember Citizen doesn't like Trump either (same here)
True. We do have the means to make change.
Ok cool. :)
matt72582
11-27-16, 02:16 PM
I don't like groupthink.
Chypmunk
11-27-16, 02:19 PM
I don't like cabbage :nope:
Mr Minio
11-27-16, 02:23 PM
I never would have thought we would have a debate on THIS forum whether or not Castro was a good person. Last time I checked the debate refered to whether or not Castro was a great leader.
Nope
If you believe in human rights, then please define the term for me. Do people have innate rights simply by virtue of existing, and if so, what are they?
And I am attempting to do that.
I don't see how. Direct quotes:
Me: "I'm asking about your view: did he make people 'more free overall' by depriving them of all the rights I mentioned above?"
You: "It's difficult to say because it's impossible to know absolutely everything about both his intentions, and exactly what he did."
Me: "I'm not asking you about his intentions ... I'm asking you to defend the idea that he was a good leader who helped his people, rather than one who consistently oppressed them."
You (just now): "I believe that he did what he did with good intentions."
I never asked about intentions, and you replied by talking about his intentions. I then explicitly said I wasn't asking about his intentions, and you again defended his actions based on his intentions.
So no, I don't see any actual attempt to answer the question. I see you saying you think he meant well (a statement for which there is precious little real evidence, anyway, but one thing at a time).
That's just one of the freedoms I mentioned, and I mention it because in countries like US and UK its not seen as something that should be given out to people in the same way as freedom of speech.
The point is, it's one of the "other" freedoms you chose to emphasize, and one that varies a bit more than the others in terms of culture...and he completely denied people that right. Shall we compare your reaction to Brexit and its effect on freedom of movement, to your reaction to the life of a man who completely denied people the ability to leave his country, and literally killed them when they tried?
I'm not sure how something like freedom of speech and press safeguards other freedoms are right like access to a home, healthcare and education.
It's obvious in both theory and practice.
In theory, the ability to speak, report, associate, and vote freely are the mechanisms people have to replace anyone who would tyrannize them. Without them, no other freedom is real, because it only exists at the whim of the tyrant. You don't really have a "right" to something if someone can unilaterally take it away.
In practice, you can look throughout the world and find basically no despotic state where people have these rights. And you can also see that the places where they do have them are almost universally among the happiest and most prosperous.
So does mine.
What good is that belief if you can't bring yourself to criticize people who would suppress it? What on earth does it mean to believe something if you not only won't criticize people who work to destroy that belief, but are willing to actively praise them?
Personally I support freedom of speech
You're trying to have it both ways. You say Fidel was a great leader, but when I point out all the terrible things he's done, you just say "I wouldn't have done it like that" or "I personally support those freedoms." So he's a great leader whose entire governing philosophy is at odds with what you believe? Huh?
but I'm not in a war environment with people trying to assassinate me on a daily basis.
Notice how self-fulfilling this is: you oppress people, so they want to overthrow you, which you in turn use to justify oppressing them more. Control is used to justify more control. This is how tyranny works.
Yes, kind of. But more complex, its not just persuasion he was afraid of, but coups, violent action, assassinations, all of which also go against human rights.
This is another way of saying "he killed civilians to protect himself." Which is, quite possibly, the worst thing a leader can do.
I was talking about how he attempted to get into politics through legitimate means which were quashed by the corrupt government at that time, so he knew about the extent people went to stop him getting into power (with the help of the US) when doing it fairly, so he knew the extent they would go to remove him once he was there.
...which makes no sense as an explanation, given that he put a government just as corrupt, if not moreso, in its place. How can his outrage at government corruption be the argument for his own government corruption? If government corruption is justified, he has no grounds to overthrow Batista. If it isn't, then he has no grounds to stop people from overthrowing him.
Every bit of logic you use to support his coup is simultaneously an argument against his resulting reign. It is logically inevitable that you will end up arguing either for Castro the revolutionary and against Castro the dictator, or the other way around, because his arguments before and after seizing power are mutually exclusive.
Yes, although I think 50 years is too long, I think it goes a long way in explaining it. It is normal in a war situation for elections not to be held or for supporters of enemies to be punished.
It's also normal for wars not to last 50 years, or result in the wholesale suspension of civil liberties at all, let alone for the entire duration.
There really isn't any way to pretend, several decades in, that any kind of "war" was really going on, anyway. Unless you count Castro's own citizens repeatedly wanting to overthrow him.
And my answer is a hesitant yes. You keep trying to reduce his achievements down to simple labels like "socialized medicine" which you know they are greater than.
They are not much greater than that, no. And you seem to be setting the bar absurdly low. You say he "improved the lives of his people," but you seem to only mean "in some ways." Improving the lives of your people in some ways is quite easy, especially if you dramatically harm them in many others. There is no world leader in history who did not improve the lives of their people in some way. That doesn't make someone even a mediocre leader, let alone a good or great one.
Yes, because the point is that the next 50 years would have been nothing like the previous 50 in terms of the world situation, the country is less at war, Obama looked like he wanted to improve relations and so on.
You realize you could make this argument about any tyrant, at any point in history, right? You can always say something had changed, and therefore they were about to start being good. Your claim is not based on any evidence, or any reason. It's just trying to use the unknowable nature of the future to justify the unjustifiable.
Not sure of this is relevant when there is a lot of evidence of the bad stuff he has done, and lots of people out there who openly criticise him that I am able to see. So this does not have an impact on by ability to form an opinion about him.
The point is that staying in power and oppressing people affords one a lot of control over the narrative.
I'm literally watching Narcos right now, a show about Columbian drug lord Pablo Escobar. The similarities are striking: he preys on people, murders anyone who gets in his way...and then, when he has more money and power than he can ever use, he gives a little of it away to the poor. What's the difference between him and Castro? Because as far as I can tell, you're basically saying you can look the other way on any horrific act if the person committing it turns around and hands out a few textbooks.
And yes, that is a deliberately glib summary of Castro's social programs, because it is manifestly ludicrous to put things like the literacy rate up against torture, murder, and basic human rights.
Well I choose to believe from evidence, articles and reports that Cuba has done a very good job in reducing infant mortality and done well in a lot of other areas of healthcare. It is not just the Cuban government saying these things, there is proof of a lot of good work they have done too, including stuff like Ebola. They often said aid to countries that need medical assistance where other countries including the US won't go.
Nobody said Castro was bad at PR. Just bad at improving the lives of his citizens.
Again, that's just what "you think"
It isn't what you think, too? You would accept state-controlled media and literature if it came with a higher literacy rate?
I'm going to choose to believe what I have read and that's that literacy rates have massively improved.
I'll accept this for the sake of argument, and point out that this is a ridiculously low bar to clear.
Again like the socialized healthcare statement, you're reducing the argument down to simple things to try and make my support seem sillier, when you know that it is for more than just a "higher literacy rate".
It isn't far more: it is very little more, and it is massively outweighed by slaughtering civilians, torturing journalists, jailing homosexuals, and doing all sorts of other things you would rightly decry if anyone in your nation or mine came within a hundred miles of.
I can't believe I'm trying to convince you that these things are, first, unjustifiable, and second, if not unjustifiable, certainly not justified by the paltry list of "accomplishments" Castro's defenders always trot out.
My guess is most of these people were upper class citizens how had benefited under the previous regime and thought they would now be better off in the US.
This makes it sound like you think the abuses we're discussing were just in the midst of the revolution! They're not. They've been going on the entire time, so no, it's not just people who were well-off under the previous regime. It is largely the poor who want to escape, and are desperate enough to risk their lives to try.
Please, spend a little time perusing the Cuba Archive (http://cubaarchive.org/wordpress/) before you continue downplaying the abuses we're discussing.
How have I dodged the question, I answered it fairly and clearly. Morals are subjective and down to people, I believe
...except you're being explicitly asked about your own morals.
If your moral beliefs cannot be used to condemn Castro, I don't see how they can be used to condemn anything. But I'm quite sure I've heard you express negative political opinions before, about far lesser abuses, with far fewer nuance or qualifications.
What I have been posting in this thread, is a question to ask people, and that is why are certain rights considered must-haves and human rights, and others not, how are these determined?
Invoking moral relativism as a defense is self-contradicting, because the other half of your argument is talking about the supposed moral good he did. Which is it? Can you justify the bad he did by pointing out the good, or are good and bad subjective, and thus not something you can comment on either way?
I disagree/dislike a lot of what Castro did, this is very clear.
It has been far from clear, and certainly wasn't originally:
"...in my opinion a great leader who deserves to be studied and celebrated."Not only is there no disagreement, there isn't even a passing acknowledgement that anyone disagreed with him (a summary he worked hard to cultivate, funnily enough).
Please answer honestly: how much of what I'm detailing were you aware of before I said it?
I don't like groupthink.
And odd defense of a man who tried to control what people could read and say.
Also, not sure I've ever heard basic human rights called "groupthink" before. So congrats on that.
matt72582
11-27-16, 03:10 PM
And odd defense of a man who tried to control what people could read and say.
Also, not sure I've ever heard basic human rights called "groupthink" before. So congrats on that.
I wasn't defending anyone. I don't pick favorites, I think everyone should be fair game.
I honestly can't think of a time I heard anyone defend Castro till he died. I'm flabbergasted, and hearing it from the left who pretty consistently call conservatives fascists is even more perplexing.
I wasn't defending anyone.
C'mon. You just randomly decided to compare him to Batista, and then imply an equivalence with Bush and Obama, and then make a false equivalence with U.S. treason laws, all while totally silent about the myriad abuses being discussed. This is how people sorta-kinda defend things they don't want to actually defend.
I honestly can't think of a time I heard anyone defend Castro till he died. I'm flabbergasted, and hearing it from the left who pretty consistently call conservatives fascists is even more perplexing.
"I don't understand how anyone could vote for Donald Trump!"
*two weeks later*
"I know Castro tortured protesters and jailed gay people, but at least they had free healthcare."
matt72582
11-27-16, 04:37 PM
C'mon. You just randomly decided to compare him to Batista, and then imply an equivalence with Bush and Obama, and then make a false equivalence with U.S. treason laws, all while totally silent about the myriad abuses being discussed. This is how people sorta-kinda defend things they don't want to actually defend.
False equivalence? Why are you defending THEM?
Your question is a non sequitur. Pointing out that two things are manifestly different is not a defense of either. You can disapprove of two things and still recognize that one is worse.
Moreover, suggesting otherwise contradicts what you just said about how your own comparisons are actually not a defense of Castro.
Daniel M
11-27-16, 05:14 PM
I honestly can't think of a time I heard anyone defend Castro till he died. I'm flabbergasted, and hearing it from the left who pretty consistently call conservatives fascists is even more perplexing.
To be honest I always thought he was fairly well regarded and a key figure in socialist movements, and everyone I know in person has said they they thought he was a good leader. And the reaction I have seen from sources I subscribe to and that are generally positive.
I was a bit surprised about such a negative reaction, but not too much with so Americans on here.
"I don't understand how anyone could vote for Donald Trump!"
*two weeks later*
"I know Castro tortured protesters and jailed gay people, but at least they had free healthcare."
Is this a reference to me? Because if so it's a false statement as I have never said I can't understand how people could vote for Trump, I wouldn't vote for him, and I disagree with people who do, but I can understand it.
I'll reply to your longer post later/tomorrow.
Captain Steel
11-27-16, 05:34 PM
Last night on the radio, a reporter said that Castro was responsible for the deaths of 10,000 innocents - and these are the known accounts. The report said this was a conservative minimum estimate and the actual number of unknown people murdered or indirectly caused to die by the Castro regime may be much higher: upwards of 100,000.
The problem is many people only skim the surface when it comes to political figures. Or popular figures in general. I mean take someone like Mother Teresa, who is revered by most, especially in pop culture. Yet you delve deeper into her history and you'll find an entirely different person than the saint everyone deems her to be. But I digress. This isn't entirely their fault when the media plays a big role in shaping the opinions of their respective culture. Sure, we should all know better by now, but many still have faith in the media to give them unbiased news, showing every angle possible to a particular story. Unfortunately, it just doesn't work that way. So then you end up with someone thinking a dictator who oppressed his people and used his power for his own benefit is someone to revere. Even if we assume he started out with good intentions, the end result was anything but.
Friendly Mushroom!
11-27-16, 08:53 PM
I had Daniel M as Secetary of Labor in this thread (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?t=47310). Given recent events, I changed him to Fidel Castro. :p
To be honest I always thought he was fairly well regarded and a key figure in socialist movements, and everyone I know in person has said they they thought he was a good leader. And the reaction I have seen from sources I subscribe to and that are generally positive.
This doesn't surprise me at all. In fact, this is what I thought the topic would ultimately end up being about: I figured I'd mention his abuses, a handful of members from overseas would say "wow, I didn't know most of that," and then we'd get into why various news sources from around the world had done such a poor job of accurately representing his life.
Is this a reference to me? Because if so it's a false statement as I have never said I can't understand how people could vote for Trump, I wouldn't vote for him, and I disagree with people who do, but I can understand it.
No, not meant to be a reference to you, or anyone specifically. Though if we delve into people's worldviews, I suspect we'll find positions that end up being awfully close to this. For example, I imagine you agree that he's had an authoritarian tone, and are/were concerned by it, which is nigh impossible to reconcile with the support for a man who did far worse things than Trump even vaguely suggested, in his worst moments.
A little more on Castro's horrendous gay rights record (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/11/27/don-t-forget-fidel-castro-s-brutal-oppression-of-gay-people.html):
It wasn’t long after Castro came to power that police began rounding up gay men. In 1965, the regime established prison work camps known as Military Units to Aid Production (UMAP), into which it deposited homosexuals, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and other “undesirable” elements.
...
Though the Cuban regime closed down the UMAPs in the late 1960s, it continued to repress gay men as ideologically subversive elements. Openly homosexual people were prevented from joining the Communist Party and fired from their jobs. One of the country’s most distinguished writers, Reinaldo Arenas, recounted the prison experience he and countless other gay men endured in his memoir Before Night Falls. “It was a sweltering place without a bathroom,” he wrote. “Gays were not treated like human beings, they were treated like beasts. They were the last ones to come out for meals, so we saw them walk by, and the most insignificant incident was an excuse to beat them mercilessly.”
Last night on the radio, a reporter said that Castro was responsible for the deaths of 10,000 innocents - and these are the known accounts. The report said this was a conservative minimum estimate and the actual number of unknown people murdered or indirectly caused to die by the Castro regime may be much higher: upwards of 100,000.
:eek:
OoooK then. I can definitely see why they were celebrating in the streets of Miami now.
Cobpyth
11-28-16, 02:06 PM
If you agree with any of these statements strongly:
- Gays should not be killed/harrassed for simply being gay;
- A leader should not emprison/kill people who disagree with his way of governing;
- A nation deserves a free press, not one controlled by the government;
- Non-criminal people should be able to leave their country when they want to;
- People have a right to own something privately. Not everything should be owned by the government primarily;
I think you should at least recognize that Castro demonstrably violated that particular statement (he violated all of them) and think about that fact profoundly, before trying to observe which aspects of his reign may have been somewhat positive.
I've said it to Daniel in a private conversation already, but I'll say it pubicly here as well: the first thing you should do when judging a nation's leader, is trying to empathize with the experiences of all the people who had to live under his/her leadership. In Castro's case, it's very clear to me that large and essential parts of that experience would be profoundly stifling and scary.
Well, he was a dictator. There were worse though. I understand Americans may see him as the greatest evil of all time, but charactes-wise, I see him as not the worst. Obviously an evil guy, let's not fool around here. But he's human like all of us and he deserves peace. RIP
I'm running out of things to say, but to this point I've mostly just pointed out that, whatever benefits Castro has allowed his people, they've come at a terrible cost.
But it's actually worse than that. I want to detail how illusory those benefits are, anyway, as well as call into question the idea that he meant well, whatever the results.
First, the supposed benefits. Many people have dissected Cuba's health care system (Google for 30 seconds and you'll find them), but you can find a decent summary in The Myth of Cuban Health Care (http://www.nationalreview.com/article/432680/myth-cuban-health-care). Here's a quote:
Then there is the real Cuban system, the one that ordinary people must use — and it is wretched. Testimony and documentation on the subject are vast. Hospitals and clinics are crumbling. Conditions are so unsanitary, patients may be better off at home, whatever home is. If they do have to go to the hospital, they must bring their own bedsheets, soap, towels, food, light bulbs — even toilet paper. And basic medications are scarce. In Sicko, even sophisticated medications are plentiful and cheap. In the real Cuba, finding an aspirin can be a chore. And an antibiotic will fetch a fortune on the black market.
A nurse spoke to Isabel Vincent of Canada’s National Post. “We have nothing,” said the nurse. “I haven’t seen aspirin in a Cuban store here for more than a year. If you have any pills in your purse, I’ll take them. Even if they have passed their expiry date.” The equipment that doctors have to work with is either antiquated or nonexistent. Doctors have been known to reuse latex gloves — there is no choice. When they travel to the island, on errands of mercy, American doctors make sure to take as much equipment and as many supplies as they can carry. One told the Associated Press, “The [Cuban] doctors are pretty well trained, but they have nothing to work with. It’s like operating with knives and spoons.”
Second, on the infant mortality numbers, expounding on the "depends on what you count as an infant" thing I alluded to earlier (emphasis added):
The regime is very keen on keeping infant mortality down, knowing that the world looks to this statistic as an indicator of the general health of a country. Cuban doctors are instructed to pay particular attention to prenatal and infant care. A woman’s pregnancy is closely monitored. (The regime manages to make the necessary equipment available.) And if there is any sign of abnormality, any reason for concern — the pregnancy is “interrupted.” That is the going euphemism for abortion. The abortion rate in Cuba is sky-high, perversely keeping the infant-mortality rate down.
As to his intentions: if they were so noble, why did his personal fortune explode (http://www.ibtimes.com/fidel-castro-net-worth-2016-how-cuban-leader-built-wealth-after-1959-revolution-2451623), while the standard of living for Cubans remained stagnant for decades?
https://twitter.com/davidfrum/status/802494229515739136
what about che guevera ? was he a better person and more really committed to the socialist cause ?
The problem is many people only skim the surface when it comes to political figures. Or popular figures in general. I mean take someone like Mother Teresa, who is revered by most, especially in pop culture. Yet you delve deeper into her history and you'll find an entirely different person than the saint everyone deems her to be. But I digress. This isn't entirely their fault when the media plays a big role in shaping the opinions of their respective culture. Sure, we should all know better by now, but many still have faith in the media to give them unbiased news, showing every angle possible to a particular story. Unfortunately, it just doesn't work that way. So then you end up with someone thinking a dictator who oppressed his people and used his power for his own benefit is someone to revere. Even if we assume he started out with good intentions, the end result was anything but.
mother teresa used to deny painkillers to those sick people she cared for because she believed that pain and suffering was the path to heaven . and she tried to convert anyone who got close to her to christianity , something that was not liked by many hindus .
matt72582
11-30-16, 08:28 PM
mother teresa used to deny painkillers to those sick people she cared for because she believed that pain and suffering was the path to heaven . and she tried to convert anyone who got close to her to christianity , something that was not liked by many hindus .
Maybe you'd like this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZiKAeJ9mAU
Guaporense
12-01-16, 12:50 AM
This thread reminds me that I am have become an Adolf Hitler fan actually. After I read some biographies of him I undertood him better and now I greatly admire his passion, persistence, simplicity and strenght of will even though I would disagree with his methods and ideology. Hitler was the most important person to live in the last 140 years or so and also the most evil. Fidel is a similar figure in that sense: a very memorable evil character. Although Fidel never had Hitler's balls.
Usually the most important and memorable people are also the worst because the "greatest" thing a person can do is to kill other people. Nothing comes to negative impact since destruction is easier than creation.
Frightened Inmate No. 2
12-01-16, 01:52 AM
jfc
jfc
X1000 What the hell is going on
On the plus side there's at least 12 signature worthy quotes in that abomination of a post.
Frightened Inmate No. 2
12-01-16, 01:49 PM
his user title makes a lot more sense now, but i think he needs a comma after "obsessed."
Captain Steel
12-01-16, 11:00 PM
This thread reminds me that I am have become an Adolf Hitler fan actually. After I read some biographies of him I undertood him better and now I greatly admire his passion, persistence, simplicity and strenght of will even though I would disagree with his methods and ideology. Hitler was the most important person to live in the last 140 years or so and also the most evil. Fidel is a similar figure in that sense: a very memorable evil character. Although Fidel never had Hitler's balls.
Usually the most important and memorable people are also the worst because the "greatest" thing a person can do is to kill other people. Nothing comes to negative impact since destruction is easier than creation.
Well, he was Time Magazine's 1938 "Man of the Year".
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Sfdp7qnWpkY/Uqi-gSpwBEI/AAAAAAAAAD0/iGfcgiJ4LQk/s1600/hitler+man+of+year.png
Mr Minio
12-02-16, 08:34 AM
https://stalinsmoustache.files.wordpress.com/2014/08/stalin-on-time-magazine-1939-and-1942.jpg
Movie Max
01-16-17, 10:58 AM
This gave me a good chuckle.:D
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GoWp_82Hx2M
Friendly Mushroom!
01-16-17, 12:50 PM
This gave me a good chuckle.:D
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GoWp_82Hx2M
Why did you bump this for a conspiracy theory video with only 3,000 views posted on Dec 1st?
Movie Max
01-16-17, 12:56 PM
Just because it's a Castro thread, I guess.
vBulletin® v3.8.0, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.