“Cuba has probably the nearest thing to perfect equality between whites and blacks in the world today.”
Barred from the Havana Yacht Club--But elected Cuba's President! (BTW, imagine the fate of any Cuban country club that had banned the Castro's admittance in 1959-60!)
Our good friend and Big Hollywood Columnist, Joe Lima, sends word of the above.
Alas, the quote comes from Life magazine circa 1938!!!
Scroll down to p. 20 for their article on the UNSPEAKABLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Fulgencio Batista, circa 1938.
Sweig, Bardach, Peters, Marifeli,--not to mention the Congressional Black Caucus and most of our dear, dear, DEAR "Latino" brothers and sisters might finally learn something about pre-Castro Cuba from reading it.
Two years after this article's publication, Cuba (73 per cent white at the time) freely elected a Black (by U.S. standards) President.
Hear THAT Obama-Tons!!??
Unreal.
The mag also says that Batista "runs a disguised dictatorship," that "He wavers between Cuba's new Fascist movement and the extreme radicalism of Mexico," that his government runs schools for orphans where "Military drills are part of the curriculum," and best of all, next to the same photo where it mentions the racial equality, that the school in the picture "is a part of the Three-Year Plan for social betterment which Batista gives by turns a Fascist or Communist tinge."
Also, I would point out that being the "nearest thing" to racial equality in 1938 isn't saying much.
But thanks for sharing the link, it was a really intersting magazine issue and it's fascinating to see how the American press commented on the developments in Europe in the leadup to WW2.
The article is actually pretty unfavorable to Batista - but the contents look to be true from what I know of the time. He was certainly a Caudillo of the early Fidel mold, and Cuba has been wrecked by both of their egos.
But it is very funny how they refer to Batista as a dictatorship, and today very rarely o never do they refer to fidel castro as a tyrant or dictator.
OFF TOPIC: Penultimos Dias has a great video of a black Cuban scholar speaking about racism in castro's Cuba. I've heard him speak before and I don't agree with everything he says, but he delivers a clear message to the Congressional Black Caucus, the NAACP, and to the likes of the Danny Glovers in the world, and in English to boot.
http://www.penultimosdias.com/2009/11/13/carlos-moore-sobre-el-apartheid-en-cuba/
Man, what is this fetish that you have with Batista?
Perhaps one mayor component of Batista's rejection by the Havana Yatch Club was the fact that he had directly or indirectly executed quite a few people especially at the surrender of Atares and Hotel Nacional ... The actual killings--after surrender-- were probably done mostly by Guiteras's idiots but still Batista was to blame over all.
I have always viewed Sumner Welles as a supporter of Batista and thus the idea that Welles was an antagonist of Batista (as state in this article)seems inaccurate,
Life Staff 1938 (accessed 11-14-09) The U.S. Gets a Look at Fulgencio Batista, Strong Man of Cuba Life 5(21) Nov 21, 1938 pages 20-22 http://books.google.com/books?id=Zk0EAAAAMBAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q=&f=false Page 22 “… He met Roosevelt and Hull as well as his old antagonist (sic), Under Secretary of State Sumner Welles, who gave him several parties. …”
Because the rich people in Cuba did not like Batista (because he was black) they gave money to Fidel Castro to buy arms and to fund his “REBOLUTION” to overthrow Batista; the rest is history.
Talk about “CHANGE”, and it was definitely for the worse.
The common thread between Batista & Fidel is that both felt that firing squad execution was the best way to rid themselves of political opponents. Before La Cabana was used by Che, it had been used by Batista and even earlier by the Spanish (circular irony).
What seperates them is that Batista wanted a thriving economy so that he skim off the top, while Fidel wants a crumbling economy so he can take all the bottom.
Gotta admit I was surprised by the ads. Some people were living comfortably during the Great Depression.
you know what is kind of funny? that the people who always talk about how great relations were between blacks and whites were in Cuba way back when are all white. Not saying things weren't better then in Cuba than in the US, just saying it wasn't nirvana. I do believe that the US has made greater strides in the last 50 years while Cuba is the same as it ever was... as you would expect from a revolution led by the scion of a super rich white family.
Everywhere I read it is said Batista is a mulato or black, however I was always under the impression he was an Indian. From what I'm told in the part of Oriente province he was from there were some remnants of what was leftover of the Indians that used to live in Cuba. He does not look remotely African at all, look at any of his descendents they look more like Colombians than Cubans. There used to be a cartoon on Cuban tv that made fun and criticized him called "el indio" (The Indian), ironically it was shown during the reign of this "brutal dictator"...the same "brutal dictator" who legalized the communist party in Cuba.
C.E. He is obviously part neo-Taino, this is or was common in Oriente. In present times mitochondrial DNA shows this as "fact."
During both terms of the UNSPEAKABLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Batista--
Cuba experienced NET IMMIGRATION.
Spygirl,
You confuse "fact" with "fetish." The point was/is/will always be, that Batista was a "soft" dictator. While he was in power the Cuban people were free to do whatever they wanted with their lives. They could travel anywhere they pleased. The economy thrived and the Cuban people wanted for nothing. By 1956 there were 14 prisons on the island versus the 250 prisons since the castro's took over. There was no "Committee for the Defense" keeping tabs on what you do, buy, sell, or say; There were no "Rapid Response Brigades" to beat you, or kill you if you didn't tow the government "line." There was no food rationing. There was private and public education for everyone including Blacks. Medicine was FREE for the POOR and those that couldn't afford it. etc. etc. etc.
We don't mind the media calling it like it is... A dictator (except for when he was elected president) but they should do the same with the castro brothers. They've been murdering totalitarian dictactors for over 50 years and the MSM refer to them as "Presidents." It's the double standard of the leftist media we have a "fetish" with.
Spygirl....
is it the same fetish you have with "the one"? Do you feel that "tingle" up your....er....leg when ever you see the "one who walks on water"?
Henry, I have no idea what you are blathering about.
Firefly, I know what the Castros have done to Cuba, they have turned it into a hellhole. We all know that in this blog. You're telling me what I already know.
What I find bizarre is Humberto's constant fetish with Batista. Batista was a gangster in charge of a gang of cutthroats and he looted the country.
I mean, I just don't get it. It's like as if you had two criminals; one has killed a person and the other has crippled another person. Who in his right mind is going to eulogize the second one simply because the first criminal is a murderer. I simply cannot understand Humberto's apparent love affair with Batista.
Spygirl,
Apparently, you dont understand Humberto's postings about Batista because you havent been paying attention. Here, let me spoon feed you. Habre la boca que aqui viene el avioncito:
The reason Humberto brings up Batista is not because Humberto is a supporter, but to highlight the unbridled hypocrisy of the left, the MSM and Cuba experts, who have, for fifty years ignored the absolute brutality of fidel castro while decrying same in Batista. To those aforementioned, fidel castro can do no wrong while Batista was the most evil, most vile man that ever existed.
and castro, certainly responsible for much more mayhem and much, much more human costs, is rarely, if ever, efered to as a "dictator." while the same moniker is glued in front of Batista' name in every single mention.
Traga.
“Batista was a gangster in charge of a gang of cutthroats and he looted the country.”
Spygirl,
By the way, your line above correctly applies to Castro and his gang instead of Batista.
But you just decided to echo the line from the MSM regarding Cuba before Castro and it shows your complete ignorance of Cuba under Batista.
You tell this line to the elders that lived Cuba before Castro and they’ll laugh at your stupidity.
Yes Batista was corrupted and people were killed on his orders but his actions and sins were a small fraction compared of what Castro and his henchmen have done to Cuba for the last 50 years.
And by the way, the reason that Humberto writes about Batista regularly is to debunk the statement you made that I just pointed to you.
Why? Because that truth and the fact of the matter is (that is not accurately portrayed by the MSM) is that life in Cuba under Batista’s murderous, corrupted regime was much better for the Cuban people and the country as a whole that it has been for the last fifty years under the Castro brothers dictatorship.
Just ask yourself the following question:
Why if Batista and his regime was so bad to Cuba very few Cubans back then left the island to live in exile instead of the two millions plus that left Cuba after Castro got to power?
When you analyze this fact, you’ll get the answer that the MSM has never accurately addressed for the last fifty years regarding Cuba.
Val,
I DO understand the MSM hypocrisy; I see it every day I turn on the TV, OK? I DO know. Also, for those of you who gloss over what I wrote, let me repeat it, so you don't have to convince me of what I am already saying: Yes, Castro is a hundred times worse. OK? You got it? You sure now?
Having said that, the undeniable fact remains that Batista and his followers were gangsters as well and should be despised by every Cuban (just like Castro should be despised by every Cuban). Tell me: what is so hard to understand about that? Tell me.
And I have to disagree with you about something. Humberto does not post that in order to make comparisons. I have read many of his postings (and believe it or not, I do agree with the majority of his postings, but not on this issue)on this subject and he is definitely infatuated with Batista. It's bloody embarrassing.
Oh, and "Fredom4" I have talked to many of the older Cubans. They all agree that Batista was an sob.
(I can't believe that we're even arguing about this)
Spygirl,
Im my views Batista was an sob for not killing Castro and facilitating his arrival by overthrowing the democratic process in Cuba. Trust me many of the elders feel this way too.
Compared with Castro Batista was a "soft" dictator. And not all the people that followed Batista were gangsters as you claim (that's another bullshit line from the MSM).
We are still arguing about this because life in Cuba before Castro (even under Batista) was way much better (even with its flaws) than it is today (the last fifty years are living proof of that fact) and it seems that you don't want to see it this way.
Even under Batista the Cuba people had their culture and their way of life that Batista would not dared to interfere with or destroy and then came Fidel Castro and destroyed it all.
After all that has happened for the last fifty years I wonder how many Cubans that helped overthrow Batista in favor of Fidel Castro are regretting their actions and wished they had chosen another venue other that violence to remove Batista from office. I have a feeling the majority regret their actions.
In 1959 in Cuba an evil was replaced by a much greater evil and yet the MSM does not accept this fact to this day. The fact that Cuba could never go back to what it was back then (even with all it's vices) which compared to the shit hole that Fidel Castro has turn it into today makes many long for the old days and I don't blame them a bit for doing so.
Spygirl,
I dont find - and I think I can speak for the majority here - that Humberto is "infatuated" with Batista. he simply uses the former "dictator" which everyone refers to as a dictator to hammer the fact that the man in charge in Cuba is, by each and every means, a dictator.
As long as the media refuse to refer to fidel castro as a dictator, and by the same token use the term dictator to refer to the man castro overthrew by violent means, not only does Humberto have every right to keep bringing up Batista, it is his duty, as it is ours, to continue to do so.
You know, Ive been doing this for almost 7 years now and One thing Ive learned is that you can tell a lot about a person not just by their comments, but on what they comment on. You always get more bent out of shape over some artistic and semantic license used by our writers than about, say, the beating of three Cuban bloggers in Cuba.
Funny, that.
FFC,
After all that has happened for the last fifty years I wonder how many Cubans that helped overthrow Batista in favor of Fidel Castro are regretting their actions...
every single one.
As the guy who stumbled over this story and forwarded it to Humberto (there, I'm finished blowing my own horn) I'd like to submit that we are missing the main point here. To me, the most significant part of this story is that it offers evidence, from 1938 !!!!!! that pre-Castro Cuba had achieved a remarkable level of equality between blacks and whites. To Cubans, and to Americans of Cuban heritage, that frankly ain't news; we all know that the great Antonio Maceo was a black man who gave orders to white soldiers, but here is an outside observer from two decades before Castro's Robolucion writing that blacks and whites in Cuba enjoyed the "nearest thing to perfect equality between whites and blacks in the world today.” That is a significant point for our side in this debate- let's not miss it, let's use it, let's remind the left of it at every opportunity, let's bookmark it, e-mail it, print it and keep it in our glove compartments and wallets if we have to!
The Castros, whom Humberto has pointed out are lily-white, have for years sold naifs like the Congressional Black Caucus and others the idea that pre-Revolutionary Cuba was some kind of tropical South Africa under apartheid. We have always known this to be patently false. This article offers evidence (photographic, at that) of what we have always said, and that's why this seventy-something-year-old article is relevant to today, IMHO.