It’s cool how you make broad assumptions about an entire nation of people while criticizing them for doing the exact same. Lol
It’s not unreasonable to want to see Cubans thrive under a socialist government led by the people while simultaneously criticizing Castro for being an oppressive dictator.
I am speaking of the subconscious roots of this. I think most people would generally say they want the Cuban people to succeed. However, the underlying base for how information about Cuba, and Castro in particular as a special “demon,” is interpreted is guided by bias. The essay I linked makes a great case for such a process explaining why people believe what they believe even in the face of proof to the contrary, provided by myself and other pro-Cuban commenters.
I didn’t intend to demonize him. He’s just not the man of the people that a small socialist nation needed to prosper. Castro wasn’t always authoritarian. I think he may have been kept in check by Che’s idealism, had he not died.
Can you explain any of this, though? Why do you say he was a dictator? Why do you say he wasn’t a “man of the people,” what could he have done to better help his people prosper? Che and Fidel got along quite well, the anticommunist “left” mostly uses the fact that Che died early to support the idea that the Cuban Revolution was “betrayed,” it’s a convenient rhetorical technique that allows you to claim Leftist aesthetics while agreeing entirely with the US State Department, who wishes to recolonize Cuba.
Absolutely. Fidel was more pragmatic compared to Che. My point was that I believe Che’s idealism could have had a positive effect on Fidel’s career had he survived.
Why do you say he was a dictator?
In 1959, Castro promised free and fair elections the following year. He was the longest-serving non-royal head of state in two centuries with a 50 year reign, and never held an election.
There were elections in many areas, of course, and you conveniently leave out the Bay of Pigs. Ultimately, the measure of democracy in a country is the extent to which the people are satisfied by how much their input is taken into account. The Cuban People supported Fidel, which is why he remained.
There’s no need for name calling. I could just be misinformed, and this could be your chance to change that. I’d appreciate a reply without the condescension.
Everything I’ve read has been to the contrary. Do you have a source on Fidel’s elections? Surely Cuba or its allies must have written at least one article on their free and fair elections in the past fifty years.
I’m sick and tired of westerners barging in and confidently making claims about subjects they know nothing about: If you don’t know anything about Cuban elections, you shouldn’t be proudly making ignorant assertions.
What exactly have you read that “has been to the contrary”?
Dumbfuck Westerners are so ignorant that they think Castro is still alive, yet still feel they have the right to spout off on the topic of Cuban democracy.
I’m fully aware that Fidel died in 2016, and his brother Raul was elected into power in 2013.
None of that changes the fact that Fidel promised free and fair elections then proceeded to remain in power, without holding elections, for five decades.
Dumbfuck Westerners are so ignorant that they think Castro is still alive, yet still feel they have the right to spout off on the topic of Cuban democracy.
It’s cool how you make broad assumptions about an entire nation of people while criticizing them for doing the exact same. Lol
It’s not unreasonable to want to see Cubans thrive under a socialist government led by the people while simultaneously criticizing Castro for being an oppressive dictator.
I am speaking of the subconscious roots of this. I think most people would generally say they want the Cuban people to succeed. However, the underlying base for how information about Cuba, and Castro in particular as a special “demon,” is interpreted is guided by bias. The essay I linked makes a great case for such a process explaining why people believe what they believe even in the face of proof to the contrary, provided by myself and other pro-Cuban commenters.
It’s absolutely worth hearing Dr. Michael Parenti speak of the Cuban Revolution, who actually visited and spoke with Cubans on the ground.
I didn’t intend to demonize him. He’s just not the man of the people that a small socialist nation needed to prosper. Castro wasn’t always authoritarian. I think he may have been kept in check by Che’s idealism, had he not died.
Can you explain any of this, though? Why do you say he was a dictator? Why do you say he wasn’t a “man of the people,” what could he have done to better help his people prosper? Che and Fidel got along quite well, the anticommunist “left” mostly uses the fact that Che died early to support the idea that the Cuban Revolution was “betrayed,” it’s a convenient rhetorical technique that allows you to claim Leftist aesthetics while agreeing entirely with the US State Department, who wishes to recolonize Cuba.
Absolutely. Fidel was more pragmatic compared to Che. My point was that I believe Che’s idealism could have had a positive effect on Fidel’s career had he survived.
In 1959, Castro promised free and fair elections the following year. He was the longest-serving non-royal head of state in two centuries with a 50 year reign, and never held an election.
That’s a dictator.
There were elections in many areas, of course, and you conveniently leave out the Bay of Pigs. Ultimately, the measure of democracy in a country is the extent to which the people are satisfied by how much their input is taken into account. The Cuban People supported Fidel, which is why he remained.
He literally did hold elections you utter dumbfuck.
There’s no need for name calling. I could just be misinformed, and this could be your chance to change that. I’d appreciate a reply without the condescension.
Everything I’ve read has been to the contrary. Do you have a source on Fidel’s elections? Surely Cuba or its allies must have written at least one article on their free and fair elections in the past fifty years.
I’m sick and tired of westerners barging in and confidently making claims about subjects they know nothing about: If you don’t know anything about Cuban elections, you shouldn’t be proudly making ignorant assertions.
What exactly have you read that “has been to the contrary”?
So no source then? Lol
Dumbfuck Westerners are so ignorant that they think Castro is still alive, yet still feel they have the right to spout off on the topic of Cuban democracy.
I’m fully aware that Fidel died in 2016, and his brother Raul was elected into power in 2013.
None of that changes the fact that Fidel promised free and fair elections then proceeded to remain in power, without holding elections, for five decades.
Lol, demonstrating your own proud ignorance. Raul is also dead, dumbfuck
So you’ve graduated from making bullshit claims that you have no basis for to outright lying and making claims you know are false.
So Raul wasn’t elected in 2013 because he’s dead now? Ridiculous. Do you have a source to substantiate Fidel’s elections?
Your childish outrage proves nothing. Find a credible source or accept that you’re repeating hearsay.
As ever, western fascists like you have to resort to pretending to be illiterate.
Funny how you believe you don’t need sources or to actually know anything, but everyone else does. Arrogant fuck that you are.
I want a credible source because I don’t trust the words from some internet stranger.
Maybe if you followed the same educated approach to information you’d have a different opinion of Castro too. Lol
Dumbfuck Westerners are so ignorant that they think Castro is still alive, yet still feel they have the right to spout off on the topic of Cuban democracy.