Quoththe RavenMiami, FL FOR REALRegistered Userregular
edited February 2008
I don't know if I'd call life in Cuba thriving at the moment.
But ending the embargo might help that out.
As others have said, that would likely lead to another Puerto Rico or something similar. Manufacturing jobs moving south for cheap labor, hospitality industry going hog-wild, a Starbucks on every corner in Havana and a McDonalds on every other corner. Or maybe that's a bit cynical, who knows.
Thanks to the people who answered my question about the embargo. I've always been ambivalent about it and it looks like I had good reason to be, even if I didn't know what those reasons were.
Edit: Really, I can't say that your assessment is accurate or inaccurate. I can only say that from my family's perspective, things were going to hell in a handbasket and they got out as soon as they could. It had nothing to do with entitlement or power. And none of the other people I know left because of that, either, they left because they couldn't get work or couldn't get food, or both. My friend's mom would get up before dawn to get in a line to get bread and eggs and meat, and usually by the time she got to the front, everything was gone. That was after the revolution.
I hope Raul re-opens the old casinos from the film noir movies. I'd hope on the first boat and spend the ensuing months smoking in alleys, drinking, and being a general scumbag.
Again, Quoth, I'm not saying that all of the emigres were the entitled upper class who benefited from the Batista-era power structure. But at the same time, considering what you said about your family, you have to admit that they most likely were middle class, and as such were shielded from a lot of the darker aspects of the Batista era of rule. I'd really recommend that you read up on what Cuba was like in the 20s and 30s - from what I've heard and read, it was like a blend of Las Vegas, New Orleans, and Tijuana all wrapped up into an offshore haven.
Finally, our well designed policy toward Cuba is paying off!
I can just imagine George scrawling 'Today I defeted Castro.' in his little journal before bed.
All inch-high rule spacing with that convienient dotted line down the middle to remind you where the top of the "e" goes. All written in blue crayon with dinosaur stickers in the margins.
Finally, our well designed policy toward Cuba is paying off!
I can just imagine George scrawling 'Today I defeted Castro.' in his little journal before bed.
All inch-high rule spacing with that convienient dotted line down the middle to remind you where the top of the "e" goes. All written in blue crayon with dinosaur stickers in the margins.
I don't know if I'd call life in Cuba thriving at the moment.
But ending the embargo might help that out.
As others have said, that would likely lead to another Puerto Rico or something similar. Manufacturing jobs moving south for cheap labor, hospitality industry going hog-wild, a Starbucks on every corner in Havana and a McDonalds on every other corner. Or maybe that's a bit cynical, who knows.
McD's and Starbucks pay well, though. Having a bunch of good-paying jobs with decent benefits isn't cynicism. It's not like they're putting a Fidel Burger or Castroffee chain out of business to pay them half of what they were making before. I'm not a major supporter of American corporate imperialism, but it may actually help some people in their case.
I don't know if I'd call life in Cuba thriving at the moment.
But ending the embargo might help that out.
As others have said, that would likely lead to another Puerto Rico or something similar. Manufacturing jobs moving south for cheap labor, hospitality industry going hog-wild, a Starbucks on every corner in Havana and a McDonalds on every other corner. Or maybe that's a bit cynical, who knows.
McD's and Starbucks pay well, though. Having a bunch of good-paying jobs with decent benefits isn't cynicism. It's not like they're putting a Fidel Burger or Castroffee chain out of business to pay them half of what they were making before. I'm not a major supporter of American corporate imperialism, but it may actually help some people in their case.
Except that's how we got into the mess in the first place - American corporate interests tried running Cuba as their personal fiefdom, trampling the underclass, which in turn sowed the seeds for revolution.
I don't know if I'd call life in Cuba thriving at the moment.
But ending the embargo might help that out.
As others have said, that would likely lead to another Puerto Rico or something similar. Manufacturing jobs moving south for cheap labor, hospitality industry going hog-wild, a Starbucks on every corner in Havana and a McDonalds on every other corner. Or maybe that's a bit cynical, who knows.
McD's and Starbucks pay well, though. Having a bunch of good-paying jobs with decent benefits isn't cynicism. It's not like they're putting a Fidel Burger or Castroffee chain out of business to pay them half of what they were making before. I'm not a major supporter of American corporate imperialism, but it may actually help some people in their case.
McD's and Starbucks will not thrive in Cuba. You underestimate how much the Cuban people don't like the USA. 50 years of economic sanctions, multiple assassination attempts against their leader, a failed invasion, and multiple attempts to create sock-puppet political movements to stir social unrest tend to spoil a people's opinion of the US in a way that even a good deal on a hamburger and fries can't make up for.
Richy on
0
Options
Quoththe RavenMiami, FL FOR REALRegistered Userregular
Again, Quoth, I'm not saying that all of the emigres were the entitled upper class who benefited from the Batista-era power structure. But at the same time, considering what you said about your family, you have to admit that they most likely were middle class, and as such were shielded from a lot of the darker aspects of the Batista era of rule. I'd really recommend that you read up on what Cuba was like in the 20s and 30s - from what I've heard and read, it was like a blend of Las Vegas, New Orleans, and Tijuana all wrapped up into an offshore haven.
The thing is--and it seems like you're more knowledgeable about it than I am so you can correct me--I don't get how Cuba today is better off than it was back then. Is it? I know someone who just came over here with his brother, and he didn't seem to think things were so hot over there.
Obviously I'm surrounded by people who say things like "Batista was bad, but Fidel was much worse" and I don't like to push my grandparents on it because they're old and sensitive. But from the descriptions I get, it seems to parallel Iraq in the sense that things were shitty for some people, they were okay for most people, and they were totally sweet for a minority of people. Perhaps my proportional assignments are wrong and it was shitty for most people and okay for some, I don't know. But then Castro came along under the guise of eliminating corruption, and instead he fucked everybody over except the poor, kind of like how America went into Iraq to save them from a dictator and look where we are now.
I mean, is it really okay to tell everyone you're trying to get rid of a dictator and then after the fact say, "Actually, what I really wanted to do was make this country communist, and if you disagree then get out." And then when the middle class started to leave, it was, "Wait a minute, I know I said get out, but what I meant was shut up and do what I say." My grandfather had to get some kind of special dispensation (illegally, I think) because he was a doctor and the government stopped giving visas to doctors because there was a mass exodus and Castro had promised free medical care to everyone. Whoops.
I'm going to go ahead and say that, while ending the embargo would be a good thing, it won't turn Cuba into a prosperous first-world nation. The rest of the world doesn't have a problem dealing with Cuba, and the USA can't provide something that can't be obtained from elsewhere in the world at a competitive price. Sure the USA would have the advantage of geographical location, but that doesn't make much of a difference these days.
Cuba's economic problems don't come from the fact the US won't deal with them, but from the fact the government instituted a strict top-down control on economic activity. That's a horrible way to run an economy, as experience showed time and time again. And it's made worse by the fact Cuban money is worth so little and tourists flock to the island, bringing with them their valuable foreign currency or, more recently, the over-inflated exchangeable peso, and use those for tips or to buy souvenirs, thus making jobs in the tourist industry ridiculously more profitable than any other profession.
Those are the problems the Cuban economy face, and ending the embargo won't affect them.
On a positive note, in recent years the government did begin to allow some limited private employment, and Raul Castro is very aware of the tourism money problem and looking for ways to fix it quickly.
Except that's how we got into the mess in the first place - American corporate interests tried running Cuba as their personal fiefdom, trampling the underclass, which in turn sowed the seeds for revolution.
Did I say that McDs should set up McDonaldland and have armed guards and whores on the dollar menu?
No? I didn't think so. I said they could probably offer good jobs, so it's not a bad thing to open up the embargo. There's a difference between learning from history and refusing to budge from history.
Well, nobody's going to say that Cuba today is a land of milk and honey. But your proportionality is wrong - most of the Cuban populace was pretty much treated like shit at the time. There's also the fact that Batista was pretty much in bed with La Cosa Nostra - it makes me wonder if mob investment in Vegas was due to their eviction from Havana. In addition, it can be argued that Castro's turn to the Soviets was a response to the fact that the US gave him the cold shoulder thanks to his reining in of American corporations used to having free reign in Cuba. (When you look at this in comparison to Iran and Vietnam, it's pretty clear that we tend not to learn our lessons.)
No, Castro's not a saint by any stretch of the imagination. But there's a reason he came to power, and there's a lot of our own stupidity that could have prevented a lot of what happened.
Batista ran a violent oppressive military regime, routinely torturing and executing dissidents (20,000 of them in 7 years, if Wikipedia is to be trusted). He opened up the island to outside gangsters and casinos, hoping to turn it into a tropical Las Vegas, while slaughtering Cubans who opposed him.
Castro ran a much less oppressive regime. While he does keep prisoners of conscience, I haven't heard about thousands being tortured and executed, and in fact recently the regime has relaxed its grip and freed many prisoners. Local-level democratic movements are allowed. Castro also provided free healthcare and education to Cubans; today Cuba's healthcare system is ranked only slightly under the USA's, and research labs commonly collaborate with those of first-world European nations.
With all due respect to your grandparents, I'm going to go ahead and call bullshit on that "Fidel is worse than Batista" line.
Batista ran a violent oppressive military regime, routinely torturing and executing dissidents (20,000 of them in 7 years, if Wikipedia is to be trusted). He opened up the island to outside gangsters and casinos, hoping to turn it into a tropical Las Vegas, while slaughtering Cubans who opposed him.
Castro ran a much less oppressive regime. While he does keep prisoners of conscience, I haven't heard about thousands being tortured and executed, and in fact recently the regime has relaxed its grip and freed many prisoners. Local-level democratic movements are allowed. Castro also provided free healthcare and education to Cubans; today Cuba's healthcare system is ranked only slightly under the USA's, and research labs commonly collaborate with those of first-world European nations.
With all due respect to your grandparents, I'm going to go ahead and call bullshit on that "Fidel is worse than Batista" line.
Also they prove how awesome car manufacture was in the 50's: people there still drive those huge tank Caddies.
Also they prove how awesome car manufacture was in the 50's: people there still drive those huge tank Caddies.
At least if you believe modern folklore.
No, they really do drive those. I even took a picture of a beautiful 1950s Cadillac Eldorado I saw in Varadero - and it was running, I saw someone drive it shortly after. Cubans are apparently very skilled tinkerers, and can keep those things running for decades.
The government also has import quotas for cars, so when you have a working car you find ways to keep it going, because you might not get another one for a while. It's kinda stupid, really. Cuba had limited oil, so the government limits the number of cars on the island to limit oil consumption (makes sense), which in turn means that Cubans can't get modern and more efficient cars and have to drive older and more gas-consuming models.
Richy on
0
Options
Quoththe RavenMiami, FL FOR REALRegistered Userregular
edited February 2008
Now having read that paper provided by AngelHedgie, I'm wondering if there are indications that life has improved in Cuba since the revolution?
It seems fairly clear, despite the flaws in the evidence, that things in rural areas were not great. It also seems like the not-greatness extended to between 35% and 50% of the population, which is a pretty big amount but does not appear to constitute a majority (unless I am misreading something). If that figure is correct, it would mean that the other half of the country was fine or in good shape, and therefore either before or after the revolution, however you look at it, half the country was screwed.
Am I looking at that correctly? If so, then all Castro did was tip the balance the other way, and the same number of people got fucked. I can't say that it's more fair one way or the other, but I guess that's the class struggle for you.
Batista ran a violent oppressive military regime, routinely torturing and executing dissidents (20,000 of them in 7 years, if Wikipedia is to be trusted). He opened up the island to outside gangsters and casinos, hoping to turn it into a tropical Las Vegas, while slaughtering Cubans who opposed him.
Castro ran a much less oppressive regime. While he does keep prisoners of conscience, I haven't heard about thousands being tortured and executed, and in fact recently the regime has relaxed its grip and freed many prisoners. Local-level democratic movements are allowed. Castro also provided free healthcare and education to Cubans; today Cuba's healthcare system is ranked only slightly under the USA's, and research labs commonly collaborate with those of first-world European nations.
With all due respect to your grandparents, I'm going to go ahead and call bullshit on that "Fidel is worse than Batista" line.
Um, again, I only have hearsay evidence, but they knew plenty of people who were tortured and/or killed by Fidel. Actually, Raul was supposed to be the barbaric one of the two, so it's interesting to see how the dynamic has apparently changed. But of course, I don't have facts or figures at my disposal--do you? And I mean that seriously, not facetiously; this discussion has shown me how little knowledge I have of my own cultural history, and I appreciate being educated.
Now having read that paper provided by AngelHedgie, I'm wondering if there are indications that life has improved in Cuba since the revolution?
Life in Cuba did improve a lot after the revolution. But the nation's economy was also aligned with the Communist block, and in particular with the Soviet Union, which bought Cuban goods at inflated prices and thus artificially boosted the nation's level. So when communism fell in Europe and the USSR was dissolved, Cuba took a major hit and the Cubans' quality of life plummeted.
Today the nation is slowly getting back on its feet. Quality of life is definitely better than it was a decade ago, but not back up to where it was during the Cold War. There are still a lot of people living in absolute poverty. But at the same time there seems to be a re-emerging middle class with a descent quality of life.
One point was that the Cuban Revolution wasn't just a class-based struggle, but also a racial one as well. Most of the underclass were of Afro-Cuban stock, while the middle and upper classes were mainly of Spanish descent. (There's a similar dynamic in Mexico, where the lower classes tend to be disproportionately made of indigenous and black stock, while the upper classes have more Spanish blood in them.) So there's quite a bit of racial animosity there as well.
The good news is that the younger generations, especially the third and later generations, of Cuban-Americans just don't care about regaining their lands at home. They're integrated into America, and see the US, not Cuba, as their rightful home. The old guard is waning in power. Of course, there are the sugar beet growers as well, who have also contributed to the mess (they don't want to compete with the sugarcane powerhouse that is Cuba.)
Quoththe RavenMiami, FL FOR REALRegistered Userregular
edited February 2008
So I just read the Wikipedia article, and what the crap. Maybe my grandparents are thinking of the pre-50s Batista government or something, or maybe I totally misunderstood what they were talking about. What a bunch of shenanigans. Batista was a real scummy dude.
Castro is still a douchebag, and Wikipedia says that he killed thousands of suspected Batista supporters. Are there any figures of how many people Batista offed?
I still think communism is a load of crap, though, and I hope things don't get more serious down in South America. Chavez is about as crazy as it gets, and that kind of crazy does not need to be spreading.
Batista ran a violent oppressive military regime, routinely torturing and executing dissidents (20,000 of them in 7 years, if Wikipedia is to be trusted). He opened up the island to outside gangsters and casinos, hoping to turn it into a tropical Las Vegas, while slaughtering Cubans who opposed him.
Castro ran a much less oppressive regime. While he does keep prisoners of conscience, I haven't heard about thousands being tortured and executed, and in fact recently the regime has relaxed its grip and freed many prisoners. Local-level democratic movements are allowed. Castro also provided free healthcare and education to Cubans; today Cuba's healthcare system is ranked only slightly under the USA's, and research labs commonly collaborate with those of first-world European nations.
With all due respect to your grandparents, I'm going to go ahead and call bullshit on that "Fidel is worse than Batista" line.
Um, again, I only have hearsay evidence, but they knew plenty of people who were tortured and/or killed by Fidel. Actually, Raul was supposed to be the barbaric one of the two, so it's interesting to see how the dynamic has apparently changed. But of course, I don't have facts or figures at my disposal--do you? And I mean that seriously, not facetiously; this discussion has shown me how little knowledge I have of my own cultural history, and I appreciate being educated.
Well, for one thing, I guess we could turn to Amnesty International. They are controversial, but in doubt they go on the side of the people rather than the government, and can even be accused of making things look worse than they really are. Here is their report on Human Rights in Cuba.
They note that there are prisoners of conscience (according to them, 69 in prison and another 20 out of prison due to health reasons) and note that protesters are threatened and intimidated. But there's nothing about torture or crackdowns against protesters.
The thing is that Castro's support of communism was more or less tepid and mainly based on a) getting the support of the USSR and b) the fact that Che Guevarra was one of Castro's supporters than any real Marxist fervor on Castro's part. One need only look at what's happened after the collapse of the Soviet Union to see that they really weren't all that wedded to the Marxist ideal.
One point was that the Cuban Revolution wasn't just a class-based struggle, but also a racial one as well. Most of the underclass were of Afro-Cuban stock, while the middle and upper classes were mainly of Spanish descent. (There's a similar dynamic in Mexico, where the lower classes tend to be disproportionately made of indigenous and black stock, while the upper classes have more Spanish blood in them.) So there's quite a bit of racial animosity there as well.
The good news is that the younger generations, especially the third and later generations, of Cuban-Americans just don't care about regaining their lands at home. They're integrated into America, and see the US, not Cuba, as their rightful home. The old guard is waning in power. Of course, there are the sugar beet growers as well, who have also contributed to the mess (they don't want to compete with the sugarcane powerhouse that is Cuba.)
I can unfortunately attest to that, but with some qualifications.
My grandfather is a truly racist dude, but he is only racist against poor blacks. He worked with a lot of middle-class black people, both here and in Cuba, and he had no problem with them whatsoever. But over the years, he got more and more intolerant of what he perceived as a shift from "black people trying to live the dream" to "black people trying to take advantage of white people." It's so weird the way his mind seems to work on the issue; he'll say things like "those lazy blacks make all black people look bad" and so on.
But I don't know whether the attitude developed here or back in Cuba. If I had to guess, I'd say it was here, but I don't know for sure. But his family was indeed from good Spanish stock, and I think his mother would actually go back to Spain to have the kids there so they wouldn't be born in Cuba. Or that might be his grandmother, I don't know. But yeah, I can attest to the divide in that respect.
So I just read the Wikipedia article, and what the crap. Maybe my grandparents are thinking of the pre-50s Batista government or something, or maybe I totally misunderstood what they were talking about. What a bunch of shenanigans. Batista was a real scummy dude.
I do not know of any examples off the top of my head where a communist revolution was held where the people who were in power before them were all that nice to the people beneath them. The Czars were corrupt. Chiang Kai Shek was Al Capone with an army. North Korea was a shithole compared to South Korea, even when all of Korea was relatively poor. Vietnam was one of the last vestiges of neglectful European colonialism. You pretty much have to have a pissed off section of folks for any revolution to work, and "Communism" as has been practiced (not theoretical Communism) uses the underclasses as its footsoldiers. You can't sell it as easily to a group of people (e.g. Western Europeans, Americans) who are fat & sassy.
So I just read the Wikipedia article, and what the crap. Maybe my grandparents are thinking of the pre-50s Batista government or something, or maybe I totally misunderstood what they were talking about. What a bunch of shenanigans. Batista was a real scummy dude.
I do not know of any examples off the top of my head where a communist revolution was held where the people who were in power before them were all that nice to the people beneath them. The Czars were corrupt. Chiang Kai Shek was Al Capone with an army. North Korea was a shithole compared to South Korea, even when all of Korea was relatively poor. Vietnam was one of the last vestiges of neglectful European colonialism. You pretty much have to have a pissed off section of folks for any revolution to work, and "Communism" as has been practiced (not theoretical Communism) uses the underclasses as its footsoldiers. You can't sell it as easily to a group of people (e.g. Western Europeans, Americans) who are fat & sassy.
Well Communism was pretty dammed strong in W Europe from the 30s right till the 80s so far as I know. In France and Italy there were strong Communist Parties throughout the Cold War and in the first decade post WW2 they were pretty popular. A lot of people thought that Communism would gain power electorally in those countries, as well as Britain (although in the latter case they only managed to get elected to local government I believe). There was of course a lot of sympathy for the USSR after WW2, and a lot of people believe the rhetoric that communism had the answer, which isn't so surprising given that Europe was recovering from six years of war.
McD's and Starbucks will not thrive in Cuba. You underestimate how much the Cuban people don't like the USA. 50 years of economic sanctions, multiple assassination attempts against their leader, a failed invasion, and multiple attempts to create sock-puppet political movements to stir social unrest tend to spoil a people's opinion of the US in a way that even a good deal on a hamburger and fries can't make up for.
I don't know. There's also a country we nuked twice and that we don't allow to have an army, and they like us plenty.
It's not like McDonald's would sell a menu you'd see in Cleveland or New York. Go to a foreign country and you'll see 'weird' things like eggs and shit on hamburgers. They'd research the market then make their move. That's why large American companies, really any multinational in general, are so insidious.
McD's and Starbucks will not thrive in Cuba. You underestimate how much the Cuban people don't like the USA. 50 years of economic sanctions, multiple assassination attempts against their leader, a failed invasion, and multiple attempts to create sock-puppet political movements to stir social unrest tend to spoil a people's opinion of the US in a way that even a good deal on a hamburger and fries can't make up for.
I don't know. There's also a country we nuked twice and that we don't allow to have an army, and they like us plenty.
Go figure.
Yeah but you spent the last 60 years helping them get on their feet, not kicking them while they're down.
Money changes everyone's minds. It's not even McDonald's or any other American company and whether or not they make a buck. If we dropped the embargo, Cuba would become a major target for investment in tourism. The Cuban people would make a killing off of that shit. Not to mention their farmers and cigar manufacturers. Once we start buying their shit, they'll learn to deal with us. Maybe they'll never love us, but not many countries do.
Money changes everyone's minds. It's not even McDonald's or any other American company and whether or not they make a buck. If we dropped the embargo, Cuba would become a major target for investment in tourism. The Cuban people would make a killing off of that shit. Not to mention their farmers and cigar manufacturers. Once we start buying their shit, they'll learn to deal with us. Maybe they'll never love us, but not many countries do.
Cuba is already a major target for investment in tourism. Hell, the whole peninsula of Varadero is nothing but hotel after hotel and they're building new ones like mad, and all the Cayos are being covered with 5-star all-inclusive resorts. Cuban rum and cigars are already being exported worldwide.
Which is not to say that opening up a new, wealthy, 300,000-consumer market right next to the island won't be profitable. I just don't think it will make the night-and-day difference some people seem to expect.
Besides, someone correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't the foreign branches of fast-food restaurant chains considered different companies? Like McDonald's Canada is a Canadian company distinct from McDonald's in the US and subject to Canadian laws and taxation. My point is that they would be exempt from the embargo, since it's a US law and not applicable to Canada. So if it was possible and profitable to open McDonald's in Cuba, McDonald's Canada (or of another nation) would have done it already.
Besides, someone correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't the foreign branches of fast-food restaurant chains considered different companies? Like McDonald's Canada is a Canadian company distinct from McDonald's in the US and subject to Canadian laws and taxation. My point is that they would be exempt from the embargo, since it's a US law and not applicable to Canada. So if it was possible and profitable to open McDonald's in Cuba, McDonald's Canada (or of another nation) would have done it already.
Well, those companies are just branches, but they are still owned by McDonalds, and all US citizens are prohibited from doing business with Cuba. So it's indirectly illegal. Beyond that, the embargo was later expanded to include foreign subsidiaries of US companies, so it's also directly illegal.
And I'm not claiming dropping the embargo will mean that Cuba will all of a sudden be waving American flags. But by opening their economy to a market that would flood their economy with billions of dollars, they're going to be much less antagonistic towards the US and be more open to their ideas. I would assume that within 20~30 years we would see some degree of democratization as the old guard loses power and the newer, more cosmopolitan generations come into their own. But I think we both agree on that.
Well, those companies are just branches, but they are still owned by McDonalds, and all US citizens are prohibited from doing business with Cuba. So it's indirectly illegal. Beyond that, the embargo was later expanded to include foreign subsidiaries of US companies, so it's also directly illegal.
I dunno about that... when I was in Cuba in 2003, our hotel's gift shop sold Coca-Cola. I was told they got it through the Mexican subsidiary of Coca-Cola. So either there's some kind of loophole companies can exploit, or some companies just don't care about the embargo.
And I'm not claiming dropping the embargo will mean that Cuba will all of a sudden be waving American flags. But by opening their economy to a market that would flood their economy with billions of dollars, they're going to be much less antagonistic towards the US and be more open to their ideas.
That's another question I've been wondering about. If the embargo is dropped, let's say even right now for the sake of discussion, will US investors flock to Cuba? I was under the impression that most Americans still had a negative view of Cuba. If that's the case, I would expect them to be very reluctant to invest there.
Another thing is that, even though a small, limited private economy is allowed, the Cuban government still maintains a very strong control over the economy. They won't change that just because the US drops the embargo, and they won't allow billions of dollars of investment to flow from the US into Cuba without going through them.
I would assume that within 20~30 years we would see some degree of democratization as the old guard loses power and the newer, more cosmopolitan generations come into their own. But I think we both agree on that.
Absolutely. In fact, there is already some real democratization at the municipal level, and questionable democracy at the national level. The old guard stays in power mostly by virtue of being the heroes of the Revolution, who literally put their lives on the line for Cuba. As they fade out, I fully expect their replacements, who will not be able to make such claims to gather public support, to be elected democratically.
We should also notice that McCain, who is nearly as old as time, got the Republican nod.
One question is that of when we should start associating w/ Cuba, generally based on how long the wait should be to avoid perception of impropriety. Definitely not before the election, of course, as that would be meddling.
I'm bringing this thread back from the dead. Yeah it's been a month... but what a month! Raul is not wasting time making real changes to the country. He seems to have a hatred of government centralization and monopolies that would make ElJeffe proud.
And although it's not economy-related: Cuba set to pass the most liberal gay rights policy in Latin America.
That last one was pushed by Raul's daughter Mariela, the head of the National Centre for Sex Education. The bill will recognise same-sex unions (but stops short of calling them 'marriages' for practicality's sake) and will give transsexuals the right to free sex-change operations.
Posts
But ending the embargo might help that out.
As others have said, that would likely lead to another Puerto Rico or something similar. Manufacturing jobs moving south for cheap labor, hospitality industry going hog-wild, a Starbucks on every corner in Havana and a McDonalds on every other corner. Or maybe that's a bit cynical, who knows.
Thanks to the people who answered my question about the embargo. I've always been ambivalent about it and it looks like I had good reason to be, even if I didn't know what those reasons were.
Edit: Really, I can't say that your assessment is accurate or inaccurate. I can only say that from my family's perspective, things were going to hell in a handbasket and they got out as soon as they could. It had nothing to do with entitlement or power. And none of the other people I know left because of that, either, they left because they couldn't get work or couldn't get food, or both. My friend's mom would get up before dawn to get in a line to get bread and eggs and meat, and usually by the time she got to the front, everything was gone. That was after the revolution.
All inch-high rule spacing with that convienient dotted line down the middle to remind you where the top of the "e" goes. All written in blue crayon with dinosaur stickers in the margins.
Is there a gold star somewhere on the page?
Except that's how we got into the mess in the first place - American corporate interests tried running Cuba as their personal fiefdom, trampling the underclass, which in turn sowed the seeds for revolution.
The thing is--and it seems like you're more knowledgeable about it than I am so you can correct me--I don't get how Cuba today is better off than it was back then. Is it? I know someone who just came over here with his brother, and he didn't seem to think things were so hot over there.
Obviously I'm surrounded by people who say things like "Batista was bad, but Fidel was much worse" and I don't like to push my grandparents on it because they're old and sensitive. But from the descriptions I get, it seems to parallel Iraq in the sense that things were shitty for some people, they were okay for most people, and they were totally sweet for a minority of people. Perhaps my proportional assignments are wrong and it was shitty for most people and okay for some, I don't know. But then Castro came along under the guise of eliminating corruption, and instead he fucked everybody over except the poor, kind of like how America went into Iraq to save them from a dictator and look where we are now.
I mean, is it really okay to tell everyone you're trying to get rid of a dictator and then after the fact say, "Actually, what I really wanted to do was make this country communist, and if you disagree then get out." And then when the middle class started to leave, it was, "Wait a minute, I know I said get out, but what I meant was shut up and do what I say." My grandfather had to get some kind of special dispensation (illegally, I think) because he was a doctor and the government stopped giving visas to doctors because there was a mass exodus and Castro had promised free medical care to everyone. Whoops.
Cuba's economic problems don't come from the fact the US won't deal with them, but from the fact the government instituted a strict top-down control on economic activity. That's a horrible way to run an economy, as experience showed time and time again. And it's made worse by the fact Cuban money is worth so little and tourists flock to the island, bringing with them their valuable foreign currency or, more recently, the over-inflated exchangeable peso, and use those for tips or to buy souvenirs, thus making jobs in the tourist industry ridiculously more profitable than any other profession.
Those are the problems the Cuban economy face, and ending the embargo won't affect them.
On a positive note, in recent years the government did begin to allow some limited private employment, and Raul Castro is very aware of the tourism money problem and looking for ways to fix it quickly.
No? I didn't think so. I said they could probably offer good jobs, so it's not a bad thing to open up the embargo. There's a difference between learning from history and refusing to budge from history.
No, Castro's not a saint by any stretch of the imagination. But there's a reason he came to power, and there's a lot of our own stupidity that could have prevented a lot of what happened.
Castro ran a much less oppressive regime. While he does keep prisoners of conscience, I haven't heard about thousands being tortured and executed, and in fact recently the regime has relaxed its grip and freed many prisoners. Local-level democratic movements are allowed. Castro also provided free healthcare and education to Cubans; today Cuba's healthcare system is ranked only slightly under the USA's, and research labs commonly collaborate with those of first-world European nations.
With all due respect to your grandparents, I'm going to go ahead and call bullshit on that "Fidel is worse than Batista" line.
Also they prove how awesome car manufacture was in the 50's: people there still drive those huge tank Caddies.
At least if you believe modern folklore.
The government also has import quotas for cars, so when you have a working car you find ways to keep it going, because you might not get another one for a while. It's kinda stupid, really. Cuba had limited oil, so the government limits the number of cars on the island to limit oil consumption (makes sense), which in turn means that Cubans can't get modern and more efficient cars and have to drive older and more gas-consuming models.
It seems fairly clear, despite the flaws in the evidence, that things in rural areas were not great. It also seems like the not-greatness extended to between 35% and 50% of the population, which is a pretty big amount but does not appear to constitute a majority (unless I am misreading something). If that figure is correct, it would mean that the other half of the country was fine or in good shape, and therefore either before or after the revolution, however you look at it, half the country was screwed.
Am I looking at that correctly? If so, then all Castro did was tip the balance the other way, and the same number of people got fucked. I can't say that it's more fair one way or the other, but I guess that's the class struggle for you.
Um, again, I only have hearsay evidence, but they knew plenty of people who were tortured and/or killed by Fidel. Actually, Raul was supposed to be the barbaric one of the two, so it's interesting to see how the dynamic has apparently changed. But of course, I don't have facts or figures at my disposal--do you? And I mean that seriously, not facetiously; this discussion has shown me how little knowledge I have of my own cultural history, and I appreciate being educated.
Today the nation is slowly getting back on its feet. Quality of life is definitely better than it was a decade ago, but not back up to where it was during the Cold War. There are still a lot of people living in absolute poverty. But at the same time there seems to be a re-emerging middle class with a descent quality of life.
The good news is that the younger generations, especially the third and later generations, of Cuban-Americans just don't care about regaining their lands at home. They're integrated into America, and see the US, not Cuba, as their rightful home. The old guard is waning in power. Of course, there are the sugar beet growers as well, who have also contributed to the mess (they don't want to compete with the sugarcane powerhouse that is Cuba.)
Castro is still a douchebag, and Wikipedia says that he killed thousands of suspected Batista supporters. Are there any figures of how many people Batista offed?
I still think communism is a load of crap, though, and I hope things don't get more serious down in South America. Chavez is about as crazy as it gets, and that kind of crazy does not need to be spreading.
Well, for one thing, I guess we could turn to Amnesty International. They are controversial, but in doubt they go on the side of the people rather than the government, and can even be accused of making things look worse than they really are. Here is their report on Human Rights in Cuba.
They note that there are prisoners of conscience (according to them, 69 in prison and another 20 out of prison due to health reasons) and note that protesters are threatened and intimidated. But there's nothing about torture or crackdowns against protesters.
Contrast that with their report on China, for example.
I can unfortunately attest to that, but with some qualifications.
My grandfather is a truly racist dude, but he is only racist against poor blacks. He worked with a lot of middle-class black people, both here and in Cuba, and he had no problem with them whatsoever. But over the years, he got more and more intolerant of what he perceived as a shift from "black people trying to live the dream" to "black people trying to take advantage of white people." It's so weird the way his mind seems to work on the issue; he'll say things like "those lazy blacks make all black people look bad" and so on.
But I don't know whether the attitude developed here or back in Cuba. If I had to guess, I'd say it was here, but I don't know for sure. But his family was indeed from good Spanish stock, and I think his mother would actually go back to Spain to have the kids there so they wouldn't be born in Cuba. Or that might be his grandmother, I don't know. But yeah, I can attest to the divide in that respect.
Well Communism was pretty dammed strong in W Europe from the 30s right till the 80s so far as I know. In France and Italy there were strong Communist Parties throughout the Cold War and in the first decade post WW2 they were pretty popular. A lot of people thought that Communism would gain power electorally in those countries, as well as Britain (although in the latter case they only managed to get elected to local government I believe). There was of course a lot of sympathy for the USSR after WW2, and a lot of people believe the rhetoric that communism had the answer, which isn't so surprising given that Europe was recovering from six years of war.
I don't know. There's also a country we nuked twice and that we don't allow to have an army, and they like us plenty.
Go figure.
I'm planning to visit Cuba mid year just in case the place does join the globilisation train.
Which is not to say that opening up a new, wealthy, 300,000-consumer market right next to the island won't be profitable. I just don't think it will make the night-and-day difference some people seem to expect.
Well, those companies are just branches, but they are still owned by McDonalds, and all US citizens are prohibited from doing business with Cuba. So it's indirectly illegal. Beyond that, the embargo was later expanded to include foreign subsidiaries of US companies, so it's also directly illegal.
And I'm not claiming dropping the embargo will mean that Cuba will all of a sudden be waving American flags. But by opening their economy to a market that would flood their economy with billions of dollars, they're going to be much less antagonistic towards the US and be more open to their ideas. I would assume that within 20~30 years we would see some degree of democratization as the old guard loses power and the newer, more cosmopolitan generations come into their own. But I think we both agree on that.
That's another question I've been wondering about. If the embargo is dropped, let's say even right now for the sake of discussion, will US investors flock to Cuba? I was under the impression that most Americans still had a negative view of Cuba. If that's the case, I would expect them to be very reluctant to invest there.
Another thing is that, even though a small, limited private economy is allowed, the Cuban government still maintains a very strong control over the economy. They won't change that just because the US drops the embargo, and they won't allow billions of dollars of investment to flow from the US into Cuba without going through them. Absolutely. In fact, there is already some real democratization at the municipal level, and questionable democracy at the national level. The old guard stays in power mostly by virtue of being the heroes of the Revolution, who literally put their lives on the line for Cuba. As they fade out, I fully expect their replacements, who will not be able to make such claims to gather public support, to be elected democratically.
One question is that of when we should start associating w/ Cuba, generally based on how long the wait should be to avoid perception of impropriety. Definitely not before the election, of course, as that would be meddling.
So if McCain wins, we can expect another four years of pointless and retarded bad relations between the US and Cuba.
Here's to an Obama presidency!
Raul decentralized the sale of farming supplies.
Raul lifted restrictions on the sale of prescription drugs that had been in place since the shortages caused by the fall of the USSR.
Raul removed all restrictions on the sale of cell phones to the publc.
And although it's not economy-related:
Cuba set to pass the most liberal gay rights policy in Latin America.
That last one was pushed by Raul's daughter Mariela, the head of the National Centre for Sex Education. The bill will recognise same-sex unions (but stops short of calling them 'marriages' for practicality's sake) and will give transsexuals the right to free sex-change operations.