3 ms·

> Looking at the next-island neighbors in Haiti, or any number of comparable African countries, it seems the Cubans got the better deal. Why didn't you compar

> Looking at the next-island neighbors in Haiti, or any number of comparable African countries, it seems the Cubans got the better deal. Why didn't you compared Cuba before the coup, and after Fidel Castro established his dictatorship? Comparing Cuba to one of the lowest developed nations on earth, particularly while ignoring the other half of the island (Dominican republic) is a tad disingenuous.

epicureanideal 10y ago
I'm also not a "fan" of Castro and don't identify with socialist politics, but comparing Cuba before Castro and after Castro wouldn't be fair. Pre-Castro there was a lot of foreign investment, post-Castro there was an embargo. You can argue whether that's something that can be blamed on him, but if we were to give him the benefit of the doubt I wouldn't call that a fair comparison. For example, there was a story posted on HN long ago about a Soviet dissident who had his life ruined because he was known to be a dissident. They didn't imprison him and torture him, they just got him fired, made sure he couldn't find any but the most menial work, discredited him, etc. Would we say that it was his fault for adopting a pro-Western position? That it was "his policies" that ruined his life, family? Or that an external force opposed to his views and more powerful than him punished him for his views?
- crdoconnor 10y ago
  >comparing Cuba before Castro and after Castro wouldn't be fair. Pre-Castro there was a lot of foreign investment, post-Castro there was an embargo. How is the fact that they've done relatively well in spite of the embargo supposed to make the comparison not fair?
- geezerjay 10y ago
  > but comparing Cuba before Castro and after Castro wouldn't be fair. Pre-Castro there was a lot of foreign investment, post-Castro there was an embargo. Seems to be a direct consequence of Fidel Castro's political initiatives. I'm sure we can agree that Castro's regime has at least some responsibilities in this outcome. > You can argue whether that's something that can be blamed on him, but if we were to give him the benefit of the doubt I wouldn't call that a fair comparison. That assumption is rather disingenuous. There's a clear before/after period in Cuba. I'm sure you agree that Fidel Castro is the direct responsible for this revolution. If he is responsible for this change, what exactly leads you to believe that he holds no responsibility in any negative consequence that arose naturally from his direct political actions and planning?
  - Trombone12 10y ago
    Well, it's weird to call the foreign policy decisions of bordering nations "naturally arising". They are quite obviously very different consequences compared to pollution or traffic jams following heavy car subsidies.
    - geezerjay 10y ago
      > Well, it's weird to call the foreign policy decisions of bordering nations "naturally arising". So, you believe that the Cuban missile crisis was yet another misunderstanding that Fidel Castro had absolutely no say in the subject, do you? What an unfortunate saint, Fidel Castro has been. Those countless political asylum-seekers risking their lives in makeshift boats must be a whole bunch of ungrateful fools for not enjoying living in Castro's paradise on earth.
      - Trombone12 10y ago
        No, that is obviously a mischaracterization of my statement. Not only is the missile crisis a quite separate event than the imposition of sanctions, I was not discussing the agency of Castro but your assertion that the US had no agency over its foreign policy towards Cuba once Castro had power.
crdoconnor 10y ago
>Why didn't you compared Cuba before the coup Does this sound better? Back in power, Batista suspended the 1940 Constitution and revoked most political liberties, including the right to strike. He then aligned with the wealthiest landowners who owned the largest sugar plantations, and presided over a stagnating economy that widened the gap between rich and poor Cubans.[4] Batista's increasingly corrupt and repressive government then began to systematically profit from the exploitation of Cuba's commercial interests, by negotiating lucrative relationships with the American Mafia, who controlled the drug, gambling, and prostitution businesses in Havana, and with large US-based multinationals who were awarded lucrative contracts.[4][5] To quell the growing discontent amongst the populace—which was subsequently displayed through frequent student riots and demonstrations—Batista established tighter censorship of the media, while also utilizing his Bureau for the Repression of Communist Activities to carry out wide-scale violence, torture and public executions; ultimately killing anywhere from hundreds to 20,000 people.[6][7][8] For several years until 1959, the Batista government received financial, military, and logistical support from the United States.[9] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fulgencio_Batista https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fulgencio_Batista

epicureanideal 10y ago

I'm also not a "fan" of Castro and don't identify with socialist politics, but comparing Cuba before Castro and after Castro wouldn't be fair. Pre-Castro there was a lot of foreign investment, post-Castro there was an embargo. You can argue whether that's something that can be blamed on him, but if we were to give him the benefit of the doubt I wouldn't call that a fair comparison. For example, there was a story posted on HN long ago about a Soviet dissident who had his life ruined because he was known to be a dissident. They didn't imprison him and torture him, they just got him fired, made sure he couldn't find any but the most menial work, discredited him, etc. Would we say that it was his fault for adopting a pro-Western position? That it was "his policies" that ruined his life, family? Or that an external force opposed to his views and more powerful than him punished him for his views?

crdoconnor 10y ago
>comparing Cuba before Castro and after Castro wouldn't be fair. Pre-Castro there was a lot of foreign investment, post-Castro there was an embargo. How is the fact that they've done relatively well in spite of the embargo supposed to make the comparison not fair?
geezerjay 10y ago
> but comparing Cuba before Castro and after Castro wouldn't be fair. Pre-Castro there was a lot of foreign investment, post-Castro there was an embargo. Seems to be a direct consequence of Fidel Castro's political initiatives. I'm sure we can agree that Castro's regime has at least some responsibilities in this outcome. > You can argue whether that's something that can be blamed on him, but if we were to give him the benefit of the doubt I wouldn't call that a fair comparison. That assumption is rather disingenuous. There's a clear before/after period in Cuba. I'm sure you agree that Fidel Castro is the direct responsible for this revolution. If he is responsible for this change, what exactly leads you to believe that he holds no responsibility in any negative consequence that arose naturally from his direct political actions and planning?
- Trombone12 10y ago
  Well, it's weird to call the foreign policy decisions of bordering nations "naturally arising". They are quite obviously very different consequences compared to pollution or traffic jams following heavy car subsidies.
  - geezerjay 10y ago
    > Well, it's weird to call the foreign policy decisions of bordering nations "naturally arising". So, you believe that the Cuban missile crisis was yet another misunderstanding that Fidel Castro had absolutely no say in the subject, do you? What an unfortunate saint, Fidel Castro has been. Those countless political asylum-seekers risking their lives in makeshift boats must be a whole bunch of ungrateful fools for not enjoying living in Castro's paradise on earth.
    - Trombone12 10y ago
      No, that is obviously a mischaracterization of my statement. Not only is the missile crisis a quite separate event than the imposition of sanctions, I was not discussing the agency of Castro but your assertion that the US had no agency over its foreign policy towards Cuba once Castro had power.

crdoconnor 10y ago

>Why didn't you compared Cuba before the coup Does this sound better? Back in power, Batista suspended the 1940 Constitution and revoked most political liberties, including the right to strike. He then aligned with the wealthiest landowners who owned the largest sugar plantations, and presided over a stagnating economy that widened the gap between rich and poor Cubans.[4] Batista's increasingly corrupt and repressive government then began to systematically profit from the exploitation of Cuba's commercial interests, by negotiating lucrative relationships with the American Mafia, who controlled the drug, gambling, and prostitution businesses in Havana, and with large US-based multinationals who were awarded lucrative contracts.[4][5] To quell the growing discontent amongst the populace—which was subsequently displayed through frequent student riots and demonstrations—Batista established tighter censorship of the media, while also utilizing his Bureau for the Repression of Communist Activities to carry out wide-scale violence, torture and public executions; ultimately killing anywhere from hundreds to 20,000 people.[6][7][8] For several years until 1959, the Batista government received financial, military, and logistical support from the United States.[9] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fulgencio_Batista https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fulgencio_Batista