Fidel Castro, internationally renowned, respected and loved, died on Friday, November 25, at the age of 90. He will always be remembered for his dedication to the well being of the people, not only the people of Cuba but people worldwide.
Toward the end of 1958, after close to 7 years of battle, Cuban rebels, led by Fidel, his brother Raul, and his comrade, Che Guevara, defeated the forces loyal to the Cuban dictator, Fulgencio Batista, and by New Years Day 1959 marched triumphantly into Havana.
It should be noted that Batista gained power in Cuba by gathering military support and taking power right before the scheduled election of 1952.
So, here we have the president of Cuba, a man who forcibly took power and was also known as a punitive dictator. What was the relationship between Cuba and the U.S. during the Batista era?
U.S. President Harry S. Truman quickly recognized Batista’s return to rule providing military and economic aid. The Batista era witnessed the almost complete domination of Cuba’s economy by the United States, as the number of American corporations continued to swell, though corruption was rife and Havana also became a popular sanctuary for American organized crime.
Cuba encouraged foreign investment and a large number of wealthy Americans bought homes there, and U.S. companies invested heavily in the country. The arrival of so many wealthy Americans led to a rapid increase in the value of attractive properties; an increase in the number of luxury bars, restaurants and fashion outlets.
But the Cuban people were not privy to any of the benefits of these extraordinary investments of wealth. They continued to labor at low wages and struggled at a subsistence level.
The island became heavily reliant on the U.S. Most of the industry and agricultural land was U.S. owned and the people in government had little choice but to pander to the whims of U.S. corporations. Consequently there was little investment in education, health or social welfare.
What happened to the relationship between Cuba and the U.S. once Castro assumed power? One of the things that Castro’s government did was redistribute wealth. This resulted in land that had been owned by American companies being given to poor Cubans. Castro also nationalized a lot of industries. This also affected American companies as much of Cuba’s economy had been dominated by U.S. industry.
The U.S. saw Castro’s policies as un-American. Of course any attempt to deprive U.S. corporations or wealthy individuals access to the wealth of other nations is considered grossly un-American and a threat to U.S. national security.
To punish Castro’s Cuba, the U.S. implemented and enforced an embargo on Cuba. One of the rationales for the embargo was Cuba’s close trade relationship with the Soviet Union, a relationship fostered by the U.S. when it refused to purchase various Cuban goods. A U.S. embargo is still in effect today, close to 60 years after it was first implemented.
The U.S. has labeled Castro a dictator because he was not elected but took power at the end of the revolution and has demanded that Cuba must legalize all political activity, release all political prisoners, commit to free and fair elections in the transition to representative democracy, grant freedom to the press, respect internationally recognized human rights, and allow labor unions.
First, let me refer to Michael Parenti when he stated, during a recent presentation, that we must evaluate a revolution by considering what the people have now compared to what they had before the revolution. Parenti spoke of a conversation he had with a peasant farmer in the hills of Cuba, a man who was delighted because now there was a medical clinic available to his community whereas, before Fidel many died because of lack of medical care.
Parenti also spoke emotionally about his father, a man who could not read and, therefore, cried because he could not read his son’s published books. He referred to the damning effect illiteracy has on the human psyche, his father’s as well as a majority of the Cuban peasants prior to the Revolution. Today, over 95% of Cubans are literate compared to only 86% of the people in the U.S.
Let’s take a closer look at these demands. Legalizing ALL political activity when there have been U.S. and Cuban- American sponsored attempts to overthrow the revolutionary government is naive to expect from Cuba. This especially in light of the more than 600 attempts to assassinate Fidel, some by organized crime (Mafia) with U.S. official consent and some by legal organized crime (CIA), a U.S. agency.
It is ironic that the U.S. should insist that Cuba release all political prisoners while they, the U.S., are operating a torture chamber at Guantanamo which is located in Cuba. We also should mention the Tuesday morning meetings in which President Obama and his advisors make a list of people who are to be assassinated because of their anti-American rhetoric. This includes American citizens such as Anwar Awlaki, a man who spoke harshly and critically about U.S. policies. Two weeks after his death, his son, Abdulrahman Awlaki, 16 years old, was targeted and killed during a drone strike. WHY, you might ask? Because some day he might grow up to also speak against the U.S.
Two other American citizens were targeted and killed, Samir Khan and Jude Mohammed. None of the 4 victims were offered due process. They were accused, convicted and executed by the president of the United States.
Then, the U.S. has the chutzpah to insist that Cuba hold “free” and “fair” elections. I guess they mean elections similar to that which we have in the U.S., extravaganzas that are more show business than serious politics. Since when have elections in the U.S. been free. Millions of dollars are spent by candidates running for office, monies donated by wealthy individuals who are buying influence in the government. Once in office, the elected are now indebted to those who financed their successful campaigns. I don’t see anything fair to the people about these elections nor representative since none of the candidates represents the interests of the people.
I would like to mention for the reader’s information that there are elections in Cuba. The Cuban elections are primarily at the grassroots level. Local elections are organized to select the municipal delegates (city council members), and general elections take place to choose provincial assembly delegates and the members of the national parliament.
A successful electoral experience that took place thirty years ago in Matanzas province led to a green light for setting up what are called the People’s Power government institutions. These are considered the highest form of truly representative and genuinely democratic government and provide the people with real institutional participation.
An element that makes the Cuban electoral system unique is the way candidates are nominated, a process in which individuals nominate those who they think should be candidates.
Can you imagine the people actually nominating candidates in the United States?
As for a free press, when is the last time you saw or heard accurate, true reporting? There is a reason why the American people are the most uninformed or misinformed people in the Western world. Our free press is owned by corporations and its mission is to indoctrinate the people with the news that is favorable to the government’s agenda. They are the most sophisticated propaganda machine in the world and have successfully dumbed down the American populace.
Labor in Cuba is not adversarial, industry is not controlled by profit driven capitalists. Everyone makes a livable wage and everyone is given a job. Therefore, labor unions are not necessary to represent the workers.
As for the issue of human rights, let’s look at “dictator” Fidel’s contribution to Cuban society.
Cuba is the only country in the Americas without child malnutrition and hunger.
Cuba has the lowest child death rate in the Americas.
Cuba has eliminated homelessness.
54% of Cuba’s budget is used for social services.
Cuba has the best education system in Latin America.
Cuba has graduated 130,000 medical school students since 1961.
Cuba developed 4 vaccines against cancer.
Cuba sent 796 doctors and nurses to Liberia and Guinea during an Ebola outbreak.
Cuba was the first country to eliminate mother to child transmission of HIV.
This was all accomplished while the U.S. attempted to, and in many ways succeeded, in crippling Cuba’s economy with the embargo.
I would like to share with you excerpts from a piece written by Eduardo Galleano in his book, Mirrors.
Fidel
But some things his enemies do not say: it was not to pose for the history books that he bared his breast to the invaders’ bullets,
he faced hurricanes as an equal, hurricane to hurricane,
he survived 637 attempts on his life,
his contagious energy was decisive in making a country out of a colony,
and it was not by Lucifer’s curse or God’s miracle that the new country managed to outlive 10 U.S. presidents, their napkins spread in their laps, ready to eat it with knife and fork.
And his enemies never mention that Cuba is one rare country that does not compete for the World Doormat Cup.
And they do not say that the revolution, punished for the crime of dignity, is what it managed to be and not what it wished to become. Nor do they say that the wall separating desire from reality grew ever higher and wider thanks to the imperial blockade, which suffocated a Cuban-style democracy, militarized society, and gave the bureaucracy, always ready with a problem for every solution, the alibis it needed to justify and perpetuate itself.
And they do not say that in spite of all the sorrow, in spite of the external aggression and the internal high-handedness, this distressed and obstinate island has spawned the least unjust society in Latin America.
And his enemies do not say that this feat was the outcome of the sacrifice of its people, and also of the stubborn will and old-fashioned sense of honor of the knight who always fought on the side of the losers, like his famous colleague in the fields of Castile.
AMEN!
The issue of “dictatorships” has a history in the U.S. In 1970, Salvador Allende, a Marxist, was elected president of Chile. This was too much for the U.S. to deal with and accept. In 1973, Secretary of State Henry Kissinger was instrumental in helping a military coup (regime change) unseat President Allende and install General Augusto Pinochet as the new president. Pinochet was a fascist dictator who assassinated thousands of dissidents and Allende supporters and yet, was able to maintain U.S. support.
Does that surprise you?
Another U.S. “dictator” was Libyan president Muammar Gaddafi. The U.S. led a campaign to demonize Gaddafi and in 2011, then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton led a movement to overthrow Gaddafi’s government (regime change) and install a more friendly government in Libya.
The U.S. then implemented bomb attacks over Libya, destroying its infrastructure and supported the mercenary troops on the ground who proceeded to destroy the government. Gaddafi was hunted down, captured, sodomized with a sword up his rectum before they killed him.
Hillary Clinton, during an interview referred to Gaddafi by stating, “We came, we saw, he died.” And then, finding this humorous, she giggled.
Gaddafi was not friendly to the U.S. He was in favor of a Pan-African economy, independent of the U.S. dollar and in favor of Arab nationalism and socialism. His ideological beliefs were a “danger” to U.S. security. So, they killed him.
What did this “dictatorial tyrant,” Gaddafi, offer the people of Libya?
The following data comes from Global Research News:
Everyone was entitled to a home.
Education and medical treatment were all free.
Gaddafi carried out the world’s largest irrigation project making water available to all Libyans across the entire country.
Any Libyan who wanted to start a farm was given a house, farm land, live stock, and seeds free of charge.
When a Libyan woman gave birth she was given $5,000 (US) for herself and the child.
Electricity was free in Libya meaning absolutely no electric bills!
Before Gaddafi only 25% of Libyans were literate. This figure was brought up to 87% with 25% earning university degrees.
Libya had its own State bank, which provided loans to citizens at zero percent interest by law and they had no external debt.
It is ironic that both Castro and Gaddafi offered the people of their respective countries dignity, opportunities for personal advancement, and an economic safety net, things that are not available in our so-called “democracy.” I say so-called democracy because we have been brainwashed into accepting that, because we have the right to vote, we are a democracy.
And now, it’s Syria and Bashar al-Assad who present us, the U.S., with the problem of how to help the people of Syria recognize they need new government leadership. Assad is the current “tyrant dictator” despite the fact that he was elected to office with 86% of the popular vote. He has held office since July 17, 2000.
Current surveys show that, despite the propaganda coming from the Western media, a significant majority of the Syrian people continue to support Assad. This, after 6 years of war and bloodshed.
The claim that Assad is a dictator can be disputed by the fact that there are elections held on a national level for a head of state as well as a 250 member People’s Council in which members serve 4 year terms. (Wikipedia)
Why is the U.S. going after Assad? According to Gareth Porter in his article in Truthout, the US decision to support Turkey, Qatar and Saudi Arabia in their plan to overthrow the Assad regime was primarily a function of the interest of the U.S.’s permanent war state and in its regional alliances. The three Sunni allies control US access to the key US military bases in the region, and the Pentagon, the CIA, the State Department and the Obama White House were all concerned, above all, with protecting the existing arrangements for the US military posture in the region. Those military bases are what allow the United States to play at the role of hegemonic power in the Middle East.
The massive, direct and immediate power interests of the US war state drove the US policy of participation in the war against the Syrian regime.
As we can clearly see, the definition and use of the label “dictator” is flexible according to the needs and agenda of the U.S. ruling class. As I have described, some of these “dictators” have demonstrated a stronger commitment to the well-being of the people they lead than has the United States of America.
Until the people of this country wake up, we will continue to think we are “exceptional” and passively smile and watch television while we are exploited and thrown away when we are no longer useful.
GOD BLESS AMERIKA!!
Dave Alpert has masters degrees in social work, educational administration, and psychology. He spent his career working with troubled inner city adolescents.
RSS
The U.S. defines dictatorship
Posted on December 6, 2016 by Dave Alpert
Fidel Castro, internationally renowned, respected and loved, died on Friday, November 25, at the age of 90. He will always be remembered for his dedication to the well being of the people, not only the people of Cuba but people worldwide.
Toward the end of 1958, after close to 7 years of battle, Cuban rebels, led by Fidel, his brother Raul, and his comrade, Che Guevara, defeated the forces loyal to the Cuban dictator, Fulgencio Batista, and by New Years Day 1959 marched triumphantly into Havana.
It should be noted that Batista gained power in Cuba by gathering military support and taking power right before the scheduled election of 1952.
So, here we have the president of Cuba, a man who forcibly took power and was also known as a punitive dictator. What was the relationship between Cuba and the U.S. during the Batista era?
U.S. President Harry S. Truman quickly recognized Batista’s return to rule providing military and economic aid. The Batista era witnessed the almost complete domination of Cuba’s economy by the United States, as the number of American corporations continued to swell, though corruption was rife and Havana also became a popular sanctuary for American organized crime.
Cuba encouraged foreign investment and a large number of wealthy Americans bought homes there, and U.S. companies invested heavily in the country. The arrival of so many wealthy Americans led to a rapid increase in the value of attractive properties; an increase in the number of luxury bars, restaurants and fashion outlets.
But the Cuban people were not privy to any of the benefits of these extraordinary investments of wealth. They continued to labor at low wages and struggled at a subsistence level.
The island became heavily reliant on the U.S. Most of the industry and agricultural land was U.S. owned and the people in government had little choice but to pander to the whims of U.S. corporations. Consequently there was little investment in education, health or social welfare.
What happened to the relationship between Cuba and the U.S. once Castro assumed power? One of the things that Castro’s government did was redistribute wealth. This resulted in land that had been owned by American companies being given to poor Cubans. Castro also nationalized a lot of industries. This also affected American companies as much of Cuba’s economy had been dominated by U.S. industry.
The U.S. saw Castro’s policies as un-American. Of course any attempt to deprive U.S. corporations or wealthy individuals access to the wealth of other nations is considered grossly un-American and a threat to U.S. national security.
To punish Castro’s Cuba, the U.S. implemented and enforced an embargo on Cuba. One of the rationales for the embargo was Cuba’s close trade relationship with the Soviet Union, a relationship fostered by the U.S. when it refused to purchase various Cuban goods. A U.S. embargo is still in effect today, close to 60 years after it was first implemented.
The U.S. has labeled Castro a dictator because he was not elected but took power at the end of the revolution and has demanded that Cuba must legalize all political activity, release all political prisoners, commit to free and fair elections in the transition to representative democracy, grant freedom to the press, respect internationally recognized human rights, and allow labor unions.
First, let me refer to Michael Parenti when he stated, during a recent presentation, that we must evaluate a revolution by considering what the people have now compared to what they had before the revolution. Parenti spoke of a conversation he had with a peasant farmer in the hills of Cuba, a man who was delighted because now there was a medical clinic available to his community whereas, before Fidel many died because of lack of medical care.
Parenti also spoke emotionally about his father, a man who could not read and, therefore, cried because he could not read his son’s published books. He referred to the damning effect illiteracy has on the human psyche, his father’s as well as a majority of the Cuban peasants prior to the Revolution. Today, over 95% of Cubans are literate compared to only 86% of the people in the U.S.
Let’s take a closer look at these demands. Legalizing ALL political activity when there have been U.S. and Cuban- American sponsored attempts to overthrow the revolutionary government is naive to expect from Cuba. This especially in light of the more than 600 attempts to assassinate Fidel, some by organized crime (Mafia) with U.S. official consent and some by legal organized crime (CIA), a U.S. agency.
It is ironic that the U.S. should insist that Cuba release all political prisoners while they, the U.S., are operating a torture chamber at Guantanamo which is located in Cuba. We also should mention the Tuesday morning meetings in which President Obama and his advisors make a list of people who are to be assassinated because of their anti-American rhetoric. This includes American citizens such as Anwar Awlaki, a man who spoke harshly and critically about U.S. policies. Two weeks after his death, his son, Abdulrahman Awlaki, 16 years old, was targeted and killed during a drone strike. WHY, you might ask? Because some day he might grow up to also speak against the U.S.
Two other American citizens were targeted and killed, Samir Khan and Jude Mohammed. None of the 4 victims were offered due process. They were accused, convicted and executed by the president of the United States.
Then, the U.S. has the chutzpah to insist that Cuba hold “free” and “fair” elections. I guess they mean elections similar to that which we have in the U.S., extravaganzas that are more show business than serious politics. Since when have elections in the U.S. been free. Millions of dollars are spent by candidates running for office, monies donated by wealthy individuals who are buying influence in the government. Once in office, the elected are now indebted to those who financed their successful campaigns. I don’t see anything fair to the people about these elections nor representative since none of the candidates represents the interests of the people.
I would like to mention for the reader’s information that there are elections in Cuba. The Cuban elections are primarily at the grassroots level. Local elections are organized to select the municipal delegates (city council members), and general elections take place to choose provincial assembly delegates and the members of the national parliament.
A successful electoral experience that took place thirty years ago in Matanzas province led to a green light for setting up what are called the People’s Power government institutions. These are considered the highest form of truly representative and genuinely democratic government and provide the people with real institutional participation.
An element that makes the Cuban electoral system unique is the way candidates are nominated, a process in which individuals nominate those who they think should be candidates.
Can you imagine the people actually nominating candidates in the United States?
As for a free press, when is the last time you saw or heard accurate, true reporting? There is a reason why the American people are the most uninformed or misinformed people in the Western world. Our free press is owned by corporations and its mission is to indoctrinate the people with the news that is favorable to the government’s agenda. They are the most sophisticated propaganda machine in the world and have successfully dumbed down the American populace.
Labor in Cuba is not adversarial, industry is not controlled by profit driven capitalists. Everyone makes a livable wage and everyone is given a job. Therefore, labor unions are not necessary to represent the workers.
As for the issue of human rights, let’s look at “dictator” Fidel’s contribution to Cuban society.
This was all accomplished while the U.S. attempted to, and in many ways succeeded, in crippling Cuba’s economy with the embargo.
I would like to share with you excerpts from a piece written by Eduardo Galleano in his book, Mirrors.
Fidel
AMEN!
The issue of “dictatorships” has a history in the U.S. In 1970, Salvador Allende, a Marxist, was elected president of Chile. This was too much for the U.S. to deal with and accept. In 1973, Secretary of State Henry Kissinger was instrumental in helping a military coup (regime change) unseat President Allende and install General Augusto Pinochet as the new president. Pinochet was a fascist dictator who assassinated thousands of dissidents and Allende supporters and yet, was able to maintain U.S. support.
Does that surprise you?
Another U.S. “dictator” was Libyan president Muammar Gaddafi. The U.S. led a campaign to demonize Gaddafi and in 2011, then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton led a movement to overthrow Gaddafi’s government (regime change) and install a more friendly government in Libya.
The U.S. then implemented bomb attacks over Libya, destroying its infrastructure and supported the mercenary troops on the ground who proceeded to destroy the government. Gaddafi was hunted down, captured, sodomized with a sword up his rectum before they killed him.
Hillary Clinton, during an interview referred to Gaddafi by stating, “We came, we saw, he died.” And then, finding this humorous, she giggled.
Gaddafi was not friendly to the U.S. He was in favor of a Pan-African economy, independent of the U.S. dollar and in favor of Arab nationalism and socialism. His ideological beliefs were a “danger” to U.S. security. So, they killed him.
What did this “dictatorial tyrant,” Gaddafi, offer the people of Libya?
The following data comes from Global Research News:
It is ironic that both Castro and Gaddafi offered the people of their respective countries dignity, opportunities for personal advancement, and an economic safety net, things that are not available in our so-called “democracy.” I say so-called democracy because we have been brainwashed into accepting that, because we have the right to vote, we are a democracy.
And now, it’s Syria and Bashar al-Assad who present us, the U.S., with the problem of how to help the people of Syria recognize they need new government leadership. Assad is the current “tyrant dictator” despite the fact that he was elected to office with 86% of the popular vote. He has held office since July 17, 2000.
Current surveys show that, despite the propaganda coming from the Western media, a significant majority of the Syrian people continue to support Assad. This, after 6 years of war and bloodshed.
The claim that Assad is a dictator can be disputed by the fact that there are elections held on a national level for a head of state as well as a 250 member People’s Council in which members serve 4 year terms. (Wikipedia)
Why is the U.S. going after Assad? According to Gareth Porter in his article in Truthout, the US decision to support Turkey, Qatar and Saudi Arabia in their plan to overthrow the Assad regime was primarily a function of the interest of the U.S.’s permanent war state and in its regional alliances. The three Sunni allies control US access to the key US military bases in the region, and the Pentagon, the CIA, the State Department and the Obama White House were all concerned, above all, with protecting the existing arrangements for the US military posture in the region. Those military bases are what allow the United States to play at the role of hegemonic power in the Middle East.
The massive, direct and immediate power interests of the US war state drove the US policy of participation in the war against the Syrian regime.
As we can clearly see, the definition and use of the label “dictator” is flexible according to the needs and agenda of the U.S. ruling class. As I have described, some of these “dictators” have demonstrated a stronger commitment to the well-being of the people they lead than has the United States of America.
Until the people of this country wake up, we will continue to think we are “exceptional” and passively smile and watch television while we are exploited and thrown away when we are no longer useful.
GOD BLESS AMERIKA!!
Dave Alpert has masters degrees in social work, educational administration, and psychology. He spent his career working with troubled inner city adolescents.