Under / over on # of Cuban Americans moving back to Cuba after Castro dies

heyabbott, you've written a lot of excellent things on this site that I've read, but this might be the best of them all.

The Cuban exile community is so widely given voice precisely because of the upper-class nature of many of its members. I applaud their collective professional success, and I certainly wouldn't have wanted to be in their shoes when Batista fell from power.

That being said, a legitimately heartfelt story of a once-affluent home gone decrepit is no more touching to me than is the story of the lower-class street bum out on the corner. Far be it from me to say which human tragedy is greater. Both are lamentable. The difference is, the bum on the corner doesn't have the resources to make his story known, or defenders to take his side. That, to me, is truly disturbing.

I'm not going to get into a lengthy discussion of political and economic philosophy here. But I'll say this: Communism and capitalism both have their losers and winners; let's not be naive about that. We know of Cuba's capitalistic losers quite well, at least those who have settled in Miami. And we should know about them, they deserve to be heard. They worked damn hard for their achievements pre-Castro. If I were them, I'd be ready to celebrate Fidel's death, too.

But from an outsider's perspective, I'm sorry, the pre-arranging of mass celebrations for the death of someone - anyone - is morbid and it is in bad taste, IMO. It might be justified, but it's kind of like pointing at a guy you're scoring a touchdown against before you get ready to flip into the endzone and get up and dance after you flip. It's bad form.

There's a reason why some of the people in ha's linked article feel nervous and a bit apprehensive about how these celebrations will look to the rest of America, and the world. The word is 'shame.' There's a reason shame exists, to help us understand when we do something wrong. The way Castro dealt with Cuba's upper class was shameful, and it appears the exiles are more than prepared to return the favor once Fidel expires.

I understand this, even sympathize with it. But there will be no 'attaboys' from this corner when the stated goal is to celebrate someone's death, in a public, grand fashion.

The mark of a mature person is being able to respond appropriately even when you haven't been dealt with appropriately. Have some dignity, people. You're better than this.

 

I think some of the old timers will want to go back, but there won't be as many people going back as you think. The two generations born in the US just don't have the same ties to the homeland as the old timers. You don't get 150 cable stations in Havana and you don't get to drive your leased BMW to shop like you do in Miami.

 

No different than the alleged celebrations in Patterson, N.J., and the Palestinian territories on 9/11, IMO.

 

I completely agree. Those 'festivities' were correctly pointed out as being in incredibly poor taste.

Hopefully, this 'celebration' will be covered in the appropriate manner. History is, after all, written by the victors.

 

There is a difference. The alleged celebrations in Patterson and Dearbornistan and the West Bank & Gaza celebrated the death of innocent murder victims. The planned celebrations in Miami for the demise of a dictator of an illness after a long life, while morbid and tasteless, are different.

The original goal of communism wasn't the sbjugation of people but actually the freeing people from the bondage and oppression from ancestoral and historic domination. As Homer said, In Theory Communism was good. From the point of view of those rich and privileged in Cuba who fled to Miami, communism and Castro were evil. To the peasants who suffered under the exiles in Miami, Castro and Communism were their only hope for the semblence of freedom. Communism failed everywhere, because human nature doesn't allow each of us to surrender our freedom for the betterment of a society, especially if freedom represented a personal material improvement over the general societal welfare state.

Castro was the hope of the majority of Cubans, he failed, as communism failed. Maybe if Batista and his Cuban compatriots who fled Cuba had indeed reformed Cuba before Castro, Castro would never have seized power.

 

Best post you've ever written, at least that I've read, h.a. Excellent grasp of the facts and the theories, as well as a Homer reference thrown in. Great, great job. This is one of the best posts I've read here, by anyone, and you did it succinctly, to boot.

 

Disagree completely, 21. It's absolutely morbid to hold celebrations for the death of someone -- anyone. There was plenty of suffering going on in Cuba prior to Castro under the Batista regime, which in many ways was just as corrupt as the Castro regime. These people celebrating when he dies will be the same people who have fought hard against normalizing relations with Cuba, which would have eased the human suffering.

I've been to Cuba, too, and my wife and in-laws are Cuban. While I was there I visited my wife's uncle, an old man who still lives in a bombed out, apartment building in the middle of Havana. The poverty is pretty bad.

But the people who will do the celebrating and shooting fireworks were Cuba's richest people and fled when they had their property taken away. They've had 50 years to try and take their property back (or get the U.S. to do it for them) and haven't figured out a way to get it done. They lost a civil war. There's no way you go back 50 years later and try to undo it.

Interesting note: According to Harry Truman, Castro sought support from the US (then under Eisenhower) when he first overtook the Batista regime and we turned away from him. That's when Castro aligned himself with the Russians.

 

I am very proud to be a member of SJ today. And it's not because I'm looking to bash the exile community, either, but because people are showing they can see both sides of this issue, and not just the USA's "anti-Castro" propoganda side.

 

cran --

It wasn't just Castor.

Ho Chi Minh begged for us aid for his country. When he didn't get it, he went to the Russians.

Ah, US foreign policy, the cause of and solution to all of life's little problems.

 

Gunnery Sergeant Hartman: Ho Chi Minh is a son-of-a-bitch!

Marines: Ho Chi Minh is a son-of-a-bitch!

Gunnery Sergeant Hartman: Got the blueballs, crabs and the seven-year-itch!

Marines: Got the blueballs, crabs and the seven-year-itch!

 

You're splitting hairs here. To me, a death is a death. Not condoning Castro's reign by any means. But to celebrate someone's death is vile.

 

Communism doesn't work not just because people are naturally unwilling to subjugate their freedom, but because there is zero motive to produce.

In a true communist society, the schlub who produces his "quota" and sits on his couch all day is going to get paid the same amount as the guy who busts his can, works 15 hours a day and produces 3 times his quota. What incentive is there to produce more when the rewards are the same?

That, and the wrong people are determining where resources go. In a free-market society, the laws of supply and demand (and price) correct imbalances and shortages in the market. In a command economy, the government does -- and often (as a dictatorship is wont to do) does so to serve its own interests. The USSR collapsed because what little resources it had, it poured into its military. China was once a bastion of pure communism, but after the Great Leap Backward and Mao's Cultural Revolution tried to rid the world of old ways, the country has all but given up on communism (but not one-party government). In turn, the material standard of living in China has drastically improved over the last 15 years. Communism doesn't work because there is no profit motive. When free-market reforms are introduced (like in China), the economy takes off.

Communism also doesn't work because it purports itself to be an equal society that is run by the workers overthrowing their leaders. The early revolutionaries like the idea of the workers overthrowing their bosses and running the factories themselves. Problem is, somebody has to take the lead and command the command economy. He also has to remove opposition to make sure there is no counter-revolution and create fear in the people. So a society that is initially based on equality becomes a society with oppressive leaders (and the revolutionaries go "wait a second, we didn't ask for this ... we just wanted to overthrow our bosses and get some land and fair wages"). Witness, the way the pigs take power in Orwell's Animal Farm -- one of the best treatises on communism and abuse of power ever written.

There is no economic system that's 100% perfect. But the free-market, as a whole, produces a substantial amount more than a command economy ever would.