Fidel Castro was a dictator who used intimidation and other terror techniques to get his way. There is no doubt that he committed some heinous crimes as any dictator would. To be honest, we rarely find in history that someone who wields absolute power leaves the office untainted. Comparing him to any President would be unfair. The President has two political bodies that exists to keep him from doing anything too tyrannical (and yet we still find horrible instances of Presidential overreach). Castro had no such check, given the haphazard nature of his ascension.
But make no mistake: Castro was a symptom of the problem, not the root cause of distress in Cuba. What many of the Cubans who were exiled tend to leave out was how they were essentially benefiting from an incredibly stratified society. Certainly some Cubans were removed out of political malice in a way that is unacceptable, but there were many who left because the vast wealth they accumulated on the backs of an abused working class was going to be confiscated. As these revolutions tend to go, the rich don't fare well. While such violence is morally reprehensible, so is starvation and constant exhaustion. What I mean to say is the middle class and rich folk, who like to condemn Castro have no right. The notion that Cubans in the states depict an accurate depiction of him is false. These are those who did not thrive in his regime. It would be like asking the Japanese in the United States after internment what their thoughts were on the U.S. as an agent of moral good.
As for Castro's socialist rhetoric, one must wonder what would have happened if the the United States hadn't thoroughly crippled its economy? People who claim Cuba is a failed socialist project have very little proof. Citing instances of poverty in Cuba is meaningless given that the United States essentially spent the past 40 to 50 years maintaining that poverty. Cuba's medical advances have been well documented and the fact that college is completely free to Cubans is also to be congratulated. The quality of these institutions is dubious, but the mere sentiment cannot be scoffed at by people from a country that essentially enslaves their citizens in perpetual debt when it comes to these very institutions.
Castro is a controversial figure. I find that the one sided American propaganda given about him is not an accurate depiction. Even more interesting, is the question of whether America's embargo and international influence actually strengthened his hold in Cuba. What if America had simply allowed him to be, while also taking every opportunity to let Cuban citizens into the United States? We've seen instances of people using the money and influence they gain abroad to help affect change in their home country. That could have easily been the case in Cuba. And instead focusing on a half caricature of the United States as a capitalist beast that intended to put a puppet government in Cuba; the Cubans may have focused on the deficiencies of their own leader. My point is that people are acting mighty new about Castro and Cuba. I know some of my friends have deep and bitter histories concerning this subject, but I wonder if their families were on the right side of history.
As I think of being on the right side of history, I realize how economic stratification is often the true cause for political strife. Socialism addresses some of these issues, but even in socialist government we find inequality. Capitalism in its purest form actually addresses these issues as well. This is a completely rudimentary assessment of these sort of issues, but I feel socialism works best in a small localized government. Cuba was the perfect place for socialism. For huge conglomerates like Russia, China and the U.S., capitalism works best.
But make no mistake: Castro was a symptom of the problem, not the root cause of distress in Cuba. What many of the Cubans who were exiled tend to leave out was how they were essentially benefiting from an incredibly stratified society. Certainly some Cubans were removed out of political malice in a way that is unacceptable, but there were many who left because the vast wealth they accumulated on the backs of an abused working class was going to be confiscated. As these revolutions tend to go, the rich don't fare well. While such violence is morally reprehensible, so is starvation and constant exhaustion. What I mean to say is the middle class and rich folk, who like to condemn Castro have no right. The notion that Cubans in the states depict an accurate depiction of him is false. These are those who did not thrive in his regime. It would be like asking the Japanese in the United States after internment what their thoughts were on the U.S. as an agent of moral good.
As for Castro's socialist rhetoric, one must wonder what would have happened if the the United States hadn't thoroughly crippled its economy? People who claim Cuba is a failed socialist project have very little proof. Citing instances of poverty in Cuba is meaningless given that the United States essentially spent the past 40 to 50 years maintaining that poverty. Cuba's medical advances have been well documented and the fact that college is completely free to Cubans is also to be congratulated. The quality of these institutions is dubious, but the mere sentiment cannot be scoffed at by people from a country that essentially enslaves their citizens in perpetual debt when it comes to these very institutions.
Castro is a controversial figure. I find that the one sided American propaganda given about him is not an accurate depiction. Even more interesting, is the question of whether America's embargo and international influence actually strengthened his hold in Cuba. What if America had simply allowed him to be, while also taking every opportunity to let Cuban citizens into the United States? We've seen instances of people using the money and influence they gain abroad to help affect change in their home country. That could have easily been the case in Cuba. And instead focusing on a half caricature of the United States as a capitalist beast that intended to put a puppet government in Cuba; the Cubans may have focused on the deficiencies of their own leader. My point is that people are acting mighty new about Castro and Cuba. I know some of my friends have deep and bitter histories concerning this subject, but I wonder if their families were on the right side of history.
As I think of being on the right side of history, I realize how economic stratification is often the true cause for political strife. Socialism addresses some of these issues, but even in socialist government we find inequality. Capitalism in its purest form actually addresses these issues as well. This is a completely rudimentary assessment of these sort of issues, but I feel socialism works best in a small localized government. Cuba was the perfect place for socialism. For huge conglomerates like Russia, China and the U.S., capitalism works best.
