Cuba, Castro and Che: A Disaster

Politics International Politics
1

More about the “true” glories of Communism and the ignorant leftist rabble that gravitates to it. The facts, however, may not sit well with the little lefties that revel in Castro’s “leadership”…

[quote]Andy Garcia blew it big-time with his movie The Lost City. He blew it with the mainstream critics that is. Almost unanimously, they’re tearing apart a movie 16 years in the making, which Garcia both directed and stars in. In this engaging drama of a middle-class Cuban family crumbling during free Havana’s last days, Garcia insisted on depicting some historical truth about Cuba – a grotesque and unforgivable blunder in his industry. He’s now paying the price.

Earlier, many film festivals refused to screen it. Now many Latin American countries refuse to show it. The film’s offenses are many and varied. Most unforgivable of all, Che Guevara is shown killing people in cold blood.

“Where did Garcia get this preposterous notion of pre-Castro Cuba as a relatively prosperous but politically troubled place?” ask the critics. All the Cubans he portrays seem to come from the middle class. “Where in his movie is the tsunami of stooped and starving peasants that carried Fidel and Che into Havana on its crest?” they ask. “Where’s all those diseased and illiterate laborers and peasants my professors, Dan Rather, CNN and Oliver Stone told me about?” ask the critics.

Garcia has seriously jolted the Mainstream Media’s fantasies and hallucinations of pre-Castro Cuba, Che, Fidel, and Cubans in general. In consequence, the critics are unnerved and disoriented and their annoyance and scorn are spewing forth in review after review.

“In a movie about the Cuban revolution, we almost never see any of the working poor for whom the revolution was supposedly fought,” sniffs Peter Reiner in The Christian Science Monitor. “The Lost City’ misses historical complexity.”

Actually what’s missing is Mr. Reiner’s historical knowledge. Andy Garcia and screenwriter Guillermo Cabrera Infante knew full well that “the working poor” had no role in the stage of the Cuban Revolution shown in the movie. The Anti-Batista rebellion was led and staffed overwhelmingly by Cuba’s middle – and especially, upper – class. In August of 1957 Castro’s rebel movement called for a “National Strike” against the Batista dictatorship – and threatened to shoot workers who reported to work. The “National Strike” was completely ignored. Another was called for April 9, 1958. And again Cuban workers ignored their “liberators,” reporting to work en masse.

“Garcia’s tale bemoans the loss of easy wealth for a precious few,” harrumphs Michael Atkinson in The Village Voice. "Poor people are absolutely absent; Garcia and Infante seem to have thought that peasant revolutions happen for no particular reason

2

The film that I’d like to see made is the one that traces Che from his early idealism and innocence (say, from the end of Motorcycle Diaries) to the time he became a still idealistic, cold-blooded killer. IMHO, that’d be a fascinating film.

3

I would imagine that any good psychologist could tell you that Che probably was not the idealistic innocent that you may have imagined. I think that he was a resentful class-obsessed upper middle-class twit of the first order. Argentina still is a very class-conscious society and when you are in it is heaven but I imagine that if you are out it could cause some very deep pathological hatred. No one outsnubs the Argentines.

I think he was a spoiled, coddled, hateful little shit who got what he deserved. Unfortunately, he took a lot of innocent people with him and left this aura of mystique that continues to fascinate the shallow, amoral and intellectually lazy.

4

There is one film on Che in pre-production now, but since it is a Hollywood production, I think the new movie (like with other recent Che movies) will continue to feed the “Che” cult amongst spoiled upper middle-class students from the suburbs. imdb.com/title/tt0374569/

I am always amused at the idiocy of left-wing students. Take China as an example. The 1968 riots in France were full of upper middle-class Maoists that knew very little about the horrors of the CCP. Now, 38 years later, their kids are protesting government reforms to their social safety net system because of a more competitive global economy, thanks in part to cheap labor and manufactured goods from China.

5

I want to reiterate that Cuba had a very high standard of living prior to the revolution and now look at it. This should be stressed over and over and over again to those nitwits who seem to think having some kind of advanced medical system is an excuse for the reprehensible state of affairs that exists today in Cuba. A true tragedy. Communism scores again.

6

There are plenty of people in the “free-trade” coffee shops of North London who think Mao was a revolutionary hero who, like, saved China from, er, something. Man.

The only thing I know about Che Guevara is that he’s part Irish and Fidel has a great beard. What else is there to know really? Jamaica’s next door and I don’t hear anyone getting all interested in the plight of the Rastafarian peasantry. The most widely known thing about Cuba is that Americans can’t go there or they will get eaten by Dick Cheney. Or something. (You see what I mean?)

7

Fred, I suggest you try reading a book to learn something about the subject instead of simply posting biased and uninformed internet articles you came across to support your preconceived notions.

Don’t forget last time you posted some random internet article on Che that you came across, that stupidly claimed Che had never fought in a battle when in fact he was (regardless of how you feel about him) widely respected for his heroism in many battles, shooting large guns, leading battles, getting injured, making wise tactical decisions and scoring huge victories. As you’ll recall, you naively believed that article and boasted that Che was a coward who never fought a battle, till you were decisively proved wrong, something that you admitted repeatedly.

Well, I daresay this article is no better than the last one you dredged up. In overthrowing Batista, Castro and Che were widely supported by simple, common people, not the upper-class as your article claims. You probably didn’t even notice the stupidity of one key claim in the article – the sneering allegation that the Cuban revolution was led by professionals, such as doctors and lawyers, and was therefor ironically “bourgeois.” That claim is stupid, of course, because Castro was a lawyer and Che a physician, but they hardly qualify as bourgeois.

We know you hate commies. Good for you. Now why don’t you go read a book on the subject and learn some facts instead of just looking for internet rumors to support your biases.

8

[quote=“Mother Theresa”]

You probably didn’t even notice the stupidity of one key claim in the article – the sneering allegation that the Cuban revolution was led by professionals, such as doctors and lawyers, and was therefor ironically “bourgeois.” That claim is stupid, of course, because Castro was a lawyer and Che a physician, but they hardly qualify as bourgeois. Now why don’t you go read a book on the subject and learn some facts instead of just looking for internet rumors to support your biases.[/quote]

MT,

I thought you had read many books on Castro. Surely you must have read that he was the son of a corrupt Spanish landowner.

bourgeois: conforming to the standards and conventions of the middle class; "a bourgeois mentality

9

And surely, Chewycorns, you must know that for all of that his family was hardly a raging economic success. Better off than most, but hardly swimming in champagne and caviar.

10

Rather typical and plain boring commie baiting red-herring. Has it really taken this long to turn this particular eye on Cuba?

Of course, Battista’s regime was doing so swimmingly it’s overthrow happened because a bunch of educated bourgie ne’r do wells forced an entire population at threat of gunpoint to rise up and throw the corrupted “compradours” and their “yankee overlords” into the sea. :unamused:

Revolutions happen in a vacumn, everybody knows that.

Seriously, I find the right’s obsession with re-writing history as equally alarming as the left’s.

HG

11

At least the country has the most educated putas in the world. They all have a science degree and had studied agriculture in DDR. So I grew tired of discussing German unemployment with them and did not take a single one up my room.

:stuck_out_tongue:

12

The point is, Fred is attempting to rewrite history by posting some nonsense claiming that the Cuban revolution was supported only by doctors and lawyers and other members of the upper-class, and common people were supposedly not supportive of Castro and the revolution. That’s complete BS. Regardless of what you think of them, throughout Cuba and Latin America, Che, Castro and the Cuban Revolution that overthrew the corrupt Batista regime were initially overwhelmingly supported by the masses of common people.

rcgfrfi.easynet.co.uk/ratb/cuba/history4.htm

[quote]January 8, 1959
Fidel Castro arrives in Havana, greeted by hundreds of thousands of people.[/quote]
oceanbooks.com.au/clibrary/a … chron.html

[quote]Hundreds of thousands of Cubans attending a May Day parade in the capital Havana roared with approval when their leader announced: “The revolution has no time for elections. There is no more democratic government in Latin America than the revolutionary government.”

According to BBC correspondent Erik de Mauny who arrived in Miami today by plane with Cuban refugees, Castro’s revolution seems to be popular with the peasants if not with the wealthier classes who have seen their land and property confiscated.

Our correspondent says the failed invasion has strengthened Castro’s hold on power and could inspire socialist rebels in other parts of the Americas. “The Castro regime has created a model to which many famished eyes throughout Latin America are inevitably drawn,” he reports.[/quote]
news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/date … 479867.stm

[quote]There was of course the feeling of liberation from Batista… Batista made it a point to show the bodies of the people that were tortured, the bodies of the people that were killed. He thought he could frighten Cubans. Instead, he revolted them. And I think there was a sense of enormous liberation when Batista was overthrown. All of Cuba, or most of Cuba, was against Batista.

But there is more than that. I think that Cubans have this concept of a revolutionary… Fidel comes in and he was the messiah, the savior. He was going to deliver people and deliver Cuba to its true greatness… There were pictures of Fidel in every living room. There were signs in every house, just about, that said, Fidel, esta es tu casa. “Fidel, this is your home.” When Fidel announced that he was Communist, they started a campaign, and the campaign simply said, Si Fidel es comunista que me pongan en la lista. Yo tambien, yo tambien, yo tambien. “If Fidel is a Communist, add my name to that list. Me too, me too, me too.” No matter what Fidel was, the Cuban people were going to be, and there was this overwhelming sense that this man had all the answers. . .[/quote]
pbs.org/wgbh/amex/castro/sfe … bosch.html

Here’s a picture of a few hundred thousand sugar farmers and other peasants out to support their savior, Fidel.

13

Out of the Batista frying pan into the Fidel fire.

14

Fine. Then you are disagreeing with the assertions regarding the state of Cuba’s economy and standard of living prior to the revolution? I would have to see some statistics from you showing that these very official reports on the per capita income and benefits enjoyed by Cuban workers prior to the revolution were not valid. Can you? I doubt it.

I admitted that I was wrong about Che never fighting in a battle. That was all. You seem to make a special point of noting that he was “shooting large guns.” My how Freud would have a field day with you… I still challenge all this nonsense about his “heroism” unless you count shooting unarmed men execution style is heroism. I still consider him a coward. I was merely wrong about his having fought in battles and I admitted that. I conceded THAT point.

No, the article makes a point that they were led by lawyers and professors and such and not the peasants and workers. I see you have posted many photos of the cheering crowds. First of all, how do you know that they were not “organized” by the Communist authorities? This is fascism and communism 101: the staging of major mass spectacles. I am supposing that you also believe that the major marches in the Soviet Union, China, Vietnam and today in Iran are “spontaneous?” Naturally, such large “spontaneous” movements have frequently been covered by the adulating press often without providing much circumspection. So let’s just ask: regardless of what crowds may or may not have attended such spectacles, is Cuba better off economically, socially and politically today than it was in 1958?

Awfully big words so here is the challenge. The article cited a number of statistics on the high standard of living enjoyed by Cubans prior to the revolution. Why don’t you find a site or some information that would discount these figures, prove them wrong if you will. I would love to see you try. So until then, those figures stand. Cuba was much better off under Batista. Castro and Che were a disaster for Cuba. As occurred elsewhere throughout the world, communism has been an unmitigated disaster wherever it was implemented. Now, don’t you think that the real question should be: given the proof of such, why is it that people like you continue to revel in the glories of the revolution? What kind of psychological needs is this fetishistic admiration for Castro and Che serving? Hmmm?

15

No challenge at all Fred. I’m absolutely sure you are right in the sense that all major economic meters would indicate Batista’s Cuba was firing on all economic cylinders. However, the ultimate measure of his failing was his widespread rejection by the Cuban people. That this later turned into a Castro gulag is rather simplisitic since it doesn’t take into account the impact of economic isolation imposed by the US, for example.

Still, I do agree on one point, it does make for an interesting “what if?” to consider a Cuba in which the people accepted Batitsta and his economic success flourished. However, we can also imagine the path of Castro’s Cuba freed of the constant attempted economic and military strangulation by the US, but ultimately both are pipedreams.

HG

16

I was speaking to MT not you… However, accept the challenge if you like…

Does that however translated into widespread support of Castro and communism? I am not sure that this has been proven. Care to try?

This is one of those excuses that is repeatedly trotted out to defend Castro and the abysmal state of economic and political affairs on the island. Can you prove that the authoritarian nature of Castro’s Cuba was due to US pressure? Also, given that every other nation in the world is and has been trading with Cuba and given that it received enormous Soviet subsidies throughout the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s, why would it matter so much that the US was not trading with Cuba? Add up all those Soviet subsidies and Cuba received enormous financial transfers… Despite these, it still failed economically as has every other nation that has attempted communism. Why is this even a point of discussion?

I disagree that both are pipedreams because we can know what Cuba would have been like economically by at the very minimum comparing its progress with other nations in Latin America. Surely, that would be acceptable? Today, Cuba is one of the poorest nations in the Western hemisphere. It used to be one of the richest.

17

[quote]Quote:
Hundreds of thousands of Cubans attending a May Day parade in the capital Havana roared with approval when their leader announced: “The revolution has no time for elections. There is no more democratic government in Latin America than the revolutionary government.”

According to BBC correspondent Erik de Mauny who arrived in Miami today by plane with Cuban refugees, Castro’s revolution seems to be popular with the peasants if not with the wealthier classes who have seen their land and property confiscated.

Our correspondent says the failed invasion has strengthened Castro’s hold on power and could inspire socialist rebels in other parts of the Americas. “The Castro regime has created a model to which many famished eyes throughout Latin America are inevitably drawn,” he reports.

news.BBC.co.uk/onthisday/hi/date … 479867.stm [/quote]

Well, what “seems” to have been the case, was not. Also, I note with irony that the reporter was on a plane with refugees fleeing Cuba? haha missed that point did you? So, let’s look again. Cuba a model for other Latin American countries? Really? How many today in Latin America want to have a government and economy like Cuba’s? Also, seems to me that an awful lot of Cubans have taken to the high seas to escape this communist paradise. Bit of an incongruity really I should imagine? Perhaps, they just did not understand the glories and triumphs of the system that they were living under or perhaps they were tired of being forced to attend Castro’s “events.”

Why let’s take a look… the country that used to receive such high levels of immigration (higher than the US)…

[quote]
From 1959 through 1993, some 1.2 million Cubans left the island for the United States [6], often by sea in small boats and fragile rafts
. In the early years a number of those who could claim dual Spanish-Cuban citizenship left for Spain. Over time a number of Cuban Jews were released to Israel in quiet negotiations; the majority of the 10,000 or so Jews who were in Cuba in 1959 have left. After the collapse of the Soviet Union many Cubans now reside in a diverse number of countries, some ending up in countries of the European Union. A large number of Cubans live in Mexico and Canada.[/quote]

So 1.2 million let for the US and hundreds of thousands of others are in various other countries. This is out of a population of 11 million now and about 5 milliion back then. that means that approximately 10 percent to 15 percent of the population has fled the country. So much for the hundreds of thousands of Cubans cheering Castro eh?

[quote]Quote:
There was of course the feeling of liberation from Batista… Batista made it a point to show the bodies of the people that were tortured, the bodies of the people that were killed. He thought he could frighten Cubans. Instead, he revolted them. And I think there was a sense of enormous liberation when Batista was overthrown. All of Cuba, or most of Cuba, was against Batista.

But there is more than that. I think that Cubans have this concept of a revolutionary… Fidel comes in and he was the messiah, the savior. He was going to deliver people and deliver Cuba to its true greatness… There were pictures of Fidel in every living room. There were signs in every house, just about, that said, Fidel, esta es tu casa. “Fidel, this is your home.” When Fidel announced that he was Communist, they started a campaign, and the campaign simply said, Si Fidel es comunista que me pongan en la lista. Yo tambien, yo tambien, yo tambien. “If Fidel is a Communist, add my name to that list. Me too, me too, me too.” No matter what Fidel was, the Cuban people were going to be, and there was this overwhelming sense that this man had all the answers. . .

pbs.org/wgbh/amex/castro/sfe … bosch.html [/quote]

This is a bit dishonest. It appears that this is a pbs report but it is an interview with one man who claims to have kissed the television every time he saw Fidel come on. This is not a report objective or otherwise but a fawning interview with ONE person.

18

So did Argentina Fred, which is closer to your heart, no?

In any case you’re an ideological snake, Fred. The outset of this was Cuba’s economy and the kicking out of Batista. I’m not attempting to defend Castro, Che or communism, but rather simply the fact the Cuban people turfed out Batisa. That this, like so many other movments was then co-opted by the commies and they then dropped the ball is obviously not in any doubt.

HG

19

So did Argentina what? What are your referring to? If you want a defense of mindless, populist leftist governments who have bankrupted nations, you will get none from me regarding Argentina’s leaders, particularly the filthy, inept Perons. Are you referring to the 30,000 “disappeared” by the Rightist government? No defense from me but at the time they were fighting a civil war against “youth” that were “inspired” by Che Guevara. Yet another nail in his coffin. All quite wrong, however, and to be condemned, BUT… is Argentina still the same nation today? No. Is Cuba still under such dictatorial rule? Yes. For those who claim to care so much about human rights, I find it shocking that so much attention is paid to minor US infractions while ignoring the major blatant violations that occur in Cuba. US score on Human Rights Watch and the UN Human Rights Commission: 1 the highest possible score. Cuba: 7 the worst possible score. Let’s ponder that again and really think about what that means.

20

Argentina is an example of a country that was likewise rich and is neow gutter poor, which is to say communism has no monopoly on bankrupting once prosperous nations.

But I say again:

A good point. I agree.

HG