In light of all concern lately in the news about the victims of Latin American dictators see if you can find the terms “anti-Pinochet extremists” or “anti-Pinochet hardliners” or “rabidly anti-Pinochet hotheads” linked to any of those who sought “justice” for the Chilean Junta’s “human rights abuses.” Look for any hint that these noisy Chilean malcontents are “intransigent,” and “living in the past.”
Okay, now replace the word “Pinochet” in the above phrases with the word “Castro” and see if you manage to find any of these terms ABSENT from any media mention of those who seek justice for a list of (genuine) victims that dwarfs the one for Pinochet’s rule.
While we’re at it, go back a bit and see if you find the term “anti-apartheid extremists” or “anti-aparthied hardliners” or “rabidly anti-aparthied hotheads” used for those who advocated economic sanctions against South Africa.
Okay, now replace the word “apartheid” with the word “Castro” and see if you find the qualifiers ABSENT from any media mention of those who advocate economic sanctions against Cuba. While you’re there, please notice the names of those who advocated–at the top of their lungs –sanctions against a regime that practiced segregation. You’ll note that, from George Mc Govern to Chris Dodd and from Jesse Jackson to Charles Rangel, it’s almost the identical gang who advocate –at the top of their lungs—an END to economic sanctions against a regime that practices segregation AND Stalinism.
Now see if you can find the words “hypocrites” or “scoundrels” associated with any of these people. On second thought, don’t waste your time…..Okay, maybe that wasn’t so much fun after all.
Humberto
I was once called a “Cuban hothead” during the Elian crisis. We must be special to be so loved…
I’d say you bagged it Humberto.
So true, Humberto.
The reason people admire Castro is because they hate the United States. If you think the United States has been a force for good, you will see Castro as the totalitarian that he is. If you criticize the United States, you will see Castro as a man who stood up bravely to the “Yankee imperialists.” There are few exceptions to this rule. In a truly delusional manner, this hatred of the United States turns the phrase “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” into “the enemy of my enemy is a great figure in history.”
The opposite can be true as well. Some virulent anti-Communists may see Pinochet as a hero, but that feeling should be resisted. Even if one thinks Pinochet’s rise was a good thing for the region, one should view whatever good came about it in purely pragmatic terms, lest one begin to think that violent coups and murder of the opposition are good things. So, as you hear the condemnation of Pinochet, remember that unless that person would also condemn Castro as well, he’s just upset that Pinochet wasn’t on his side.
http://www.asymmetricblog.com
I’d be honored to be called an “intrasigent” “hothead” considering what I’m being intransigent and a hothead about.
They’re both dictators but the situation surrounding their rise to power and U.S. foreign policy isn’t similar.
Was there ever a large Chilean community in the U.S. concentrated in one area lobbying local and national politicians to impose travel and trade restrictions? I’m not aware of any such community. Is there a Chilean version of the Cuban Five? Not that I think a Chilean community in the U.S. would be successful since we didn’t have much of a problem with Pinochet, but without such a community to “nag” politicians about their plight and without the community backing terrorist activities at any cost your comparison is weak.
I will say, though, that generally speaking, Americans don’t give a shit about human rights abuses unless it personally affects them in some way, and when it affects them the public goes apeshit… like allowing the White House to delude them into believing that Iraq posed a threat, or had something to do with 9/11.
“They’re both dictators but the situation surrounding their rise to power and U.S. foreign policy isn’t similar.”
Hello Lesly. Please tell us all about the situation regarding Castro’s rise to power. Please include names (first and last) of key players, and dates (within a year or two) of major events. Please do this without consulting Wikipedia.
Otherwise, we will all have to assume that you don’t know what you are talking about, and we’d like to be able to give you the benefit of the doubt.
I don’t understand your objection, Franke[n]stein. Are you refuting the fact that Castro is a dictator?
Very clever of you, Lesl(ie). Fidel is OF course a dictator (the longest-standing dictator in the history of Latin America), and much, much more: a TOTALITARIAN dictator, along the lines of Lenin, Stalin and Mao. He’s much, much worse than a mere dictator.
Pinochet’s worst enemies claim he killed 3,000. It would be charitable to Castro to say that Castro killed only 18,000. When complete numbers can finally known, it will be seen that Castro killed many, many more than 18,000 people.
And yet, Pinochet got much more negative press than Castro.
My objection to your comment is this: Travel and trade restrictions were imposed a long time before Cuban Americans were a significant voting block in the U.S. In fact, there were practically no Cuban Americans to speak of at the time, only a few thousand Cuban exiles. When you say that we “nag” politicians, it makes me think that you don’t like us Cuban-Americans very much, Lesl(ey).
And, by the way, Lesl(ee), I’d like to see how much you actually know about how Castro came to power, because my gut tells me you don’t know much at all.
Franke[n]stein wrote:
Very clever of you, Lesl(ie).
Thanks. I wasn’t trying to be clever.
Travel and trade restrictions were imposed a long time before Cuban Americans were a significant voting block in the U.S. In fact, there were practically no Cuban Americans to speak of at the time, only a few thousand Cuban exiles.
The unofficial embargo began in ’58 with Eisenhower primarily motivated by, in my cynical opinion, economic interests. Did Pinochet pose economic instability like Castro?
I’m not sure such restrictions would survive to this day without a significant Cuban voting bloc in south Florida. You’re free to speculate the embargo would remain in effect without those Cubans.
When you say that we “nag” politicians, it makes me think that you don’t like us Cuban-Americans very much, Lesl(ey).
This is what happens when you bring emotional baggage to a discussion. I am Cuban, born and bred, but thankfully I don’t share your paranoia. You obviously didn’t miss the quotes around the word nag and went ahead and assumed the worst.
“the public goes apeshit… like allowing the White House to delude them into believing that Iraq posed a threat”
What was that about “paranoia” and “baggage”?
Oh you’re right, Frank. I forgot the invasion proved Iraq did have a smoking gun in the form of a mushroom cloud. Wow, my recent history is way off.
On a serious note, I was trying to illustrate that lately, as in a few decades, the American public seems to shift between apathy and overreaction where foreign affairs is concerned. There doesn’t seem to be a middle ground for serious discourse. I’m not sure how much of that is due to eroding trust in government and how much of that is due to people simply being too engrossed in their daily lives with their daily problems to care.
The mountain of rhetoric surrounding Cuba doesn’t help put conditions on the island today in context, either.
Les,
So I’m guessing that the 500 tons of yellowcake they found at Al—Tuwaitha were for recreational purposes? Anyway, Iraq is not what Humberto’s post is about. I commend you for your clever attempt to hijack this thread, but let’s talk about Humberto’s post.
The point of Humberto’s post is that the press is hostile to anti-Castro Cubans (using words like “nag” to describe their participation in the American political system) and friendly and unchallenging to anti-Pinochet Chileans. I don’t think you can dispute that.
Frank wrote:
So I’m guessing that the 500 tons of yellowcake they found at Al-Tuwaitha were for recreational purposes?
They were for economic purposes and not subject to IAEA regulation. Now, if you want to argue that yellowcake should come under IAEA inspection and the economic interests of western nations subject to the NPT and rogue developing nations be damned, I’ll happily agree with you.
I commend you for your clever attempt to hijack this thread, but let’s talk about Humberto’s post.
I was unintentionally clever again? Thanks for pointing it out.
The point of Humberto’s post is that the press is hostile to anti-Castro Cubans (using words like “nag” to describe their participation in the American political system) and friendly and unchallenging to anti-Pinochet Chileans. I don’t think you can dispute that.
I haven’t disputed the fact that the public is hostile to Cuban-Americans seeking redress and recognition. In fact, I’ve pointed out that the public feels that way. What I disagree with is the idea that Pinochet and Castro shed light on this duplicity. They don’t. As I said, the circumstances surrounding their rise to power and the absence of a politically active Chilean community in the U.S. makes the comparison flawed. You haven’t directly disagreed with me on this.
Leslie,
Humberto doesn’t say that it’s the “public” but the press who is hostile to Cuban-Americans or anyone who is against left-wing dictators. If the dictator is on the right they hate him, but dictators on the left, no matter how murderous, are left alone or called “President.” There is a double standard and always has been.
Humberto is not the only person saying this. I’ve read a few others echoing the same idea. Here’s a good one.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=26029
“If the dictator is on the right they hate him, but dictators on the left, no matter how murderous, are left alone or called “President.” There is a double standard and always has been.”
Well put.
A murderous dictator is a murderous dictator, the number “about 3000,” is bandied about as if someone is keeping score on who is worse. I think that is tacky as hell… and seems to miss this important point:
Chile’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission. Commissioned after the country’s transition to democracy in 1990, it found that some 3,197 Chileans had been killed, 29,000 tortured, 957 “disappeared,” and untold thousands banished into exile during Pinochet’s 17-year reign.
Eh, in case you haven’t figured it out yet… DISAPPEARED is DEAD! None of these people are going to suddenly reappear and proclaim Pinochet a Saint.
As an African American, I find it equally disgusting that somehow Castro’s persecution of his people is somehow supposed to be more heinous than what happened under Apartheid. I live in Latin America, love Latin Culture, and have met some wonderful Cuban people, but I find that many of the white Cubans, and even some that obviously have more African Blood than European, somehow consider themselves better than blacks. This is stupidity in it’s highest, and one of the reasons that we all get pissed on. Apartheid was a criminal system of monstrous proportions, as was the political murder of Pinochet opponents. I have no problem sympathizing with those who would seek to oust Castro, but Frank at the Beach is a hypocrite. A dictator who murders his own people, on the Right or Left, is a murderous dictator, and anyone who acts as an apologist for them is a morally bankrupt person.
Oh, and I forgot to say, I am sure that at some point the 29000 who were tortured, probably wished they were dead.
Dear David Scott Anderson,
You write, “the number ‘about 3000,’ is bandied about as if someone is keeping score on who is worse. I think that is tacky as hell”
And then you go on to quote a bunch of statistics. What was that you said about keeping score? How tacky. And more than a little hypocritical.
By the way, to suggest that Castro has killed more people than Pinochet does not amount to a defense of Pinochet.
“I find it equally disgusting that somehow Castro’s persecution of his people is somehow supposed to be more heinous than what happened under Apartheid.”
Who said that? Where has anybody on this thread said that?
“I think that is tacky
As an African American, I find it equally disgusting
I live in Latin America
I find that many of the white Cubans
I have no problem sympathizing
I forgot to say
I am sure
Me, me, me, I, I, I.
Eh, learn to read frankfruter. I quoted the statistics simply as a way to illustrate that the 3000 is only part of the story, and that isnt even quoted correctly, since there are nearly 3,200, and if you count the other nearly 1,000 disappeared, it brings the total to what 4,200 or so… Whatever… And as far as the me, me, I I shit, you seem to be doing a lot of that yourself. So lets not bring hypocrisy into the discussion. On the apartheid thing, maybe if you paused from your brilliant rebuts for a few minutes, you could go back and read the post that started all of this, and Apartheid was poohed poohed… At any rate, I am going to blog this myself… If you HAVE a blog, feel free to do so also. I don’t get into pissing contest with narcissist on other people’s blogs.
Paz
I don’t think Apartheid was pooh poohed in the original post. Humberto was just pointing out that those of us who oppose Castro are routinely depicted in the press as extremists, hardliners, hotheads, etc. Humberto did not defend Apartheid. He just pointed out that the opponents of Apartheid and Pinochet got much kinder press coverage than anti-Castro Cubans; they did not get labeled with tags like the ones that are hung on us constantly. We get really, really bad press, and it’s not fair.
As for your contention that murder is murder, whether it’s carried out by a rightist or a leftist regime, well, I couldn’t agree with you more, David. If only the press saw it that way.
Felices Pascuas
Okay Frank, I could buy that argument if we were talking about apples and apples. We are not. Each of these situations are different. Not better or worse, just different. I have no opinion on the Anti Castro movement. I recognize that any despot, and anyone who kills their people is evil. Perhaps I am wrong, and if I am, I am sure you will educate me, but I don’t ever remember hearing of Anti Castro activist being concerned about anyone else.
Perhaps if they had joined those opposing Apartheid, more of those activist would be concerned about your struggle, but since that struggle was against a Right Wing government… Well you got the picture. Again, I am open to being corrected.
My family has a long history of fighting against oppression, my parents marched with King, and I marched against Apartheid. I do remember some Cubans being there, but they were wearing Che t-shirts.
On the Ellian thing, I have to say I was squarely opposed to the Right Wing Cubans in Miami interfering. I have no doubt that was a PR coup for Fidel, but as a Father, I objected strongly to anyone making a decision about that kid, but his surviving parent. Whether “we,” think that decision was right for the kid or not.
I have read little on the Cuban Revolution, but I am aware of how bad Castro is. I am also aware of the repression under his regime. I do however know a LOT about Pinochet, and I can tell you that the extent of his crimes against humanity, were only limited by his resources and the medium sized leash that the CIA kept on him.
I cant control what the press reports, or how they phrase things. Those actually interested in reality will read sources other than the New York Times.
I can only stress that bringing Apartheid and Pinochet into the argument, will not win any converts to your cause…
David Scott Anderson,
You totally missed the whole point of Humberto’s post. It has NOTHING to do with which dictators are/were better or worse. His POINT is that the MSM (U.S. and International) has a set of double standards when dealing with groups that OPPOSE a dictatorship of the Right vs. those that OPPOSE a dictatorship of the LEFT. Since the group that OPPOSED Pinochet’s cruel dictatorship were LEFTISTS they were treated with respect by the MSM and Pinochet (as it should be) was maligned.
On the other hand, Cuban exiles which OPPOSE a dictatorship of the LEFT are constantly maligned and castro is treated with respect.
Humberto mentioned South Africa’s Apartheid only in the context of the economic sanctions that were placed unilaterally (which later contributed to the rapid political change in South Africa) vs. the U.S. embargo on Cuba. He points out that Cuban exiles are constantly being called by the MSM embargo extremists or embargo hardliners or rabidly embargo hotheads, whereas those that advocated for sanctions against South Africa were not given the same LABEL (for the simple reason that the LARGE majority were LEFTISTS). There is NOTHING on Humberto’s post that indicates apartheid was not a criminal system (and if you had read Cuban-American newspaper articles of the time you would know that the Cuban-American community totally supported the sanctions and was happy to see apartheid end).
castro has been in power for 48 years come January 1, 2007 (with over 100,000 dead, I’m not going to mention those that were tortured that “wished they were dead” or the ones that disappeared” who are not going to suddenly appear”). Throughout all this time, Cuban exiles have walked ALONE with NO ONE championing our cause. We are constantly maligned by the MSM and labeled with different epithets quite simply because we fight for a cause the MSM is against. And please, correct me if I’m wrong, but not once do I remember any African-American political leader, individual, or organization come to our defense.
On the Elian case, because you too are a parent, you need to understand that in Cuba the GOVERNMENT, not the parent, has “Patria Potestad” which means the government decides EVERYTHING that has to do with your child. After the age of seven (Elian was six at the time) your child ceases to belong to YOU! The government can do what it WANTS with YOUR child. Elian’s father was as much of a prisoner in the U.S. as he was in Cuba. When he came to the U.S. he had left behind an older child and his family. What would you have done if the life of those you left behind was threatened? Sending Elian back to Cuba or leaving him in Miami was not for Elian’s father to decide… Elian was a political tool used by the Clintons and castro. Soon we will know the truth.
A most ironic part of “David Scott Anderson’s” post is his view on the Elian saga. Ironic because I live in the USA since 1962 exactly because of the castro regime’s “patria potestad” law of 1961 which stated that Cuban children belonged to the state and not to their parents. My parents, early supporters of castro against batista, understood clearly this law’s implications and decided then and there to send me and my brother to the USA un-escorted.
Mr. Anderson altruistically supported the return of Elian to a state that did not BY LAW recognize his father as a father at all! The irony of this is unfathomable to me.
What are cuban-American’s doing so wrong? Why is our message so distorted by the MSM? I’ve read Mr. Fontova’s book and it is as compelling and fact-laden as can be.
I’m not sure this is relevant but I’ve stopped posting in this blog because I discovered early on it is nothing more than a private backyard romp for Val and his buddies (MacCamp anyone?). There are 1/2 dozen “CDRs” and the rest better watch what they say or they are instantly declared castro supporters, useful idiots, or worse.
Could this be a clue to the cuban-american perspective’s ineffectiveness and unmarketability?
Do we want “our truth” more than victory that much?
Sad indeed because our story is sooo universally compeling! And now more than ever.
PS: Guys, I don’t expect this post to make it through with the “personal” criticism and all but maybe it will get some of you thinking at such a critical time in our history.
Good bye.
cheomedalla,
Cry me a river, dude.
Mr. Anderson:
I don’t recall the exile community NOT supporting the rally against apartheid. We I do recall, was the deafening silence from the rest of the world, and even the SUPPORT of a regime that instituted a different kind of apartheid, one against ALL of its people in the form of a communist regime.
Sure, Mr. Mandela spent many years in prison as well documented by the main stream media. What the MSM doesnt say is that many Cubans spent even MORE years in prison due to the aparthied and repression I mentioned and they weren’t mentioned. I URGE you to read a book called “Against All Hope” by Armando Valladares that documents the torture, death and imprisonment of many – including blacks.
Yet, Mr. Mandela chose to ally himself with a regime that did the same to others as was done to him! I guess it is more important to be anti-American than have common sense?
Some of you insist on lifting the so-called embargo against the communist regime, yet supported a SUCCESSFUL embargo against the aparthied in South Africa. Double standard?
Lastly, I will stess that Elian belongs to the state, NOT his father according to the regime’s law – rendering your argument useless about reuniting him with his father.
Lastly, during the Elian affar, the ultimate paradox of how unfairly treated exiles are was seeing whites waving confederate flags (symbol of slavery) at anti exile rallies, and to my astonishment seeing blacks with them!
If you are under the illusion that blacks are fairly treated under the communist regime of freedome I invite you to research Dr. Oscar Biscet, a black physician imprisoned in Cuba for well documenting how badly blacks are treated.
Let’s not forget the other salient fact always left out of the laudatory pieces about Mandela: The African National Congress was (and still is) an avowed Communist organization. His support of fidel is quite understandable once that is known. I was against the system of apartheid as much as anyone; but promoting a worthy cause with a communist — and not telling anybody of the sordid deeds committed by Mr. Mandela, his wife, and his entire organization — is a rather sad commentary on our world.
Come on, sing along, folks….
FREEEEEEEE. NELSON MANDELA!!!!!