Quoting Redd (Reply 99): I challenge you to prove one word of mine incorrect.

I did not say you were incorrect. You provided no names or source of reference. But if appears that GlobalPolicy.org believes the most monopolistic water companies in Latin America are actually European.

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 83): Aucklanders care a great deal, it's a crisis, and clearly you know nothing about Chinese property investing.

Not enough to pay what it costs, or to just not cash out and sell to the Chinese. You clearly don't know what "crisis" means, but suffice to say, foreigners showing up to wave money in your face to buy your house does not qualify.

I suppose it may qualify as a crisis if you have, as you do, clear opinions about who should have economic rights and who should not. It seems that at the root of it you have racist and jingoistic views.

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 83): This does not benefit the NZ economy at all,

...except for a Kiwi with a large sum now in their bank account.

Beyond that, surely such homes are maintained in some way. That is benefit to the NZ economy.

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 83): And this is relevant how?

It's relevant since you hold the erroneous view that one has a right to a commute of a limited distance. It's utterly ridiculous.

But, since it came up, I'm equally against government policies designed to keep lower income housing out. Let the market rule.

Quoting pvjin (Reply 84): My basic logic is that when a Finn is living on welfare for extended periods of time for no valid reason, in all likelihood at least his/her parents or grandparents have done something for this country, which makes it less bad than somebody who isn't a native Finn living on welfare for extended periods of time for no valid reason.

That is a feeble excuse for your racist views.

Surely then you would be in favor of government policy designed to favor the wealthy, since they bankroll the country.

Quoting pvjin (Reply 84): Those benefits should be available to everybody, not just to those who have fought for the interests of American economic elite.

Every version of the American Dream includes something about hard work. But now Bernie is complains that it is dead while simultaneously working to dismantle it. He isn't trying to provide education. He's trying to enable laziness.

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 86): There is no property tax in NZ,

Then there is nothing for you or your sister to complain about. Property taxes are generally bad because they have no accounting for ability to pay. People can live somewhere and see their assessments and taxes go into the stratosphere, but with no property tax that's not an issue.

Quoting tu204 (Reply 87): Well looks like those in command don't doubt it.

That's not what John Kerry said.

Face it, Putin is a punk putting on a show for marks like you.

Quoting tu204 (Reply 87): Cuba in your opinion robbed United States citizens.

It's not an opinion, it is a documented fact. But, if you have insight into how Batista could have packed up an oil refinery to pilfer it, please share.

Quoting tu204 (Reply 87): Can't speak for our Finnish buddy, but for me it had nothing to do with racism.

It is racist because neither you nor anyone else can get to the end of that thought without saying that you're okay supporting some people and not others. And the demarcation line is color, nationality and religion.

All the time people wonder why the US doesn't have universal healthcare or a stronger welfare system and cite those as human rights. But then it appears that it's really only a right in the eyes of the left if someone speaks the right language and goes, or doesn't go, to the right church.

Quoting YVRLTN (Reply 63): There was also probably half an eye on the importation of Cubans themselves as slaves too.

I was hoping for a little more insight on that statement....


Havana's inability to resist invaders was dramatically exposed in 1628, when a Dutch fleet led by Piet Heyn plundered the Spanish ships in the city's harbor.[26] In 1662, English admiral and pirate Christopher Myngs captured and briefly occupied Santiago de Cuba on the eastern part of the island, in an effort to open up Cuba's protected trade with neighbouring Jamaica.[26]

Nearly a century later, the English were to invade in earnest, taking Guantánamo Bay in 1741 during the War of Jenkins' Ear with Spain. Edward Vernon, the British admiral who devised the scheme, saw his 4,000 occupying troops capitulate to local guerrilla resistance, and more critically, an epidemic, forcing him to withdraw his fleet to British-owned Jamaica.[27] In the War of the Austrian Succession, the British carried out unsuccessful attacks against Santiago de Cuba in 1741 and again in 1748. Additionally, a skirmish between British and Spanish naval squadrons occurred near Havana in 1748.[27

The Seven Years' War, which erupted in 1754 across three continents, eventually arrived in the Spanish Caribbean. Spain's alliance with the French pitched them into direct conflict with the British, and in 1762 a British expedition of five warships and 4,000 troops set out from Portsmouth to capture Cuba. The British arrived on 6 June, and by August had Havana under siege.[28] When Havana surrendered, the admiral of the British fleet, George Keppel, the 3rd Earl of Albemarle, entered the city as a conquering new governor and took control of the whole western part of the island. The arrival of the British immediately opened up trade with their North American and Caribbean colonies, causing a rapid transformation of Cuban society. Food, horses and other goods flooded into the city, and thousands of slaves from West Africa were transported to the island to work on the undermanned sugar plantations.[28]

Quoting mham001 (Reply 102): I was hoping for a little more insight on that statement....

Im sorry, its 27 degrees here in YVR and I was outside in the sunshine...   Then I got a headache trying to figure out what the battle between BMI & pvjin has to do with Che.

In hindsight, that is not an accurate statement. I did not mean full on slavery. Maybe migrant workers is a more appropriate term. Maybe I am out to lunch on that, but it is hard to know what is accurate concerning mafia dealings. Of course a lot of the locals were pretty much subservient to the wealthy Americans at home too.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 101): It's not an opinion, it is a documented fact. But, if you have insight into how Batista could have packed up an oil refinery to pilfer it, please share.

He didnt, he had his finger in the pots of all the rich Americans he continued to allow in to Cuba and prosper, thats where he got his wealth and thats what he took with him.

BMI - what were Americans doing in Cuba? Who were they? Who funded them? And why was it OK for Americans to be pretty much running the entire show in a supposedly independent Cuba instead of Cubans?

Quoting YVRLTN (Reply 103): BMI - what were Americans doing in Cuba?

Business and tourism.

Quoting YVRLTN (Reply 103): Who were they?

Tourists, businessmen, some mobsters.

Quoting YVRLTN (Reply 103): And why was it OK for Americans to be pretty much running the entire show in a supposedly independent Cuba instead of Cubans?

Because they invested there. They bought and built things. Same reason it's okay for Mercedes to build a factory in Alabama and Hanjin to build a skyscraper in Los Angeles.

Quoting YVRLTN (Thread starter): You could argue that Cuba's current economic conditions are not a direct result of Che's socialist vision

You could, if you were a complete moron.

Quoting aloges (Reply 21): The people of the former GDR would like a quiet word with you.

Didn't you hear? Revolutions only happen when it is the left doing them - when it is the opposition they are just reactionaries. Someone is due for a refresher course in Doublespeak.

Quoting mham001 (Reply 30): LOL, "we" were also Europeans.

Not to mention that the Native American population at the time was somewhere between 2 million and 18 million people at its peak, in a country the size of the U.S. (versus over 300 million today), and most died from disease. And it is not like things were a paradise beforehand anyway...

Quoting Aesma (Reply 38): Like Puerto Rico ?

If Puerto Rico wants the duties and constraints that come with statehood they can join...

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 59): If you think they should have then you should have no problems providing names of those who should be tried, the crimes they should be convicted of, and the evidence against them. Go ahead.

Lord knows they tried (nothing would make an overzealous prosecutors' career more) but not even Spitzer himself could transform a natural level of optimism that makes someone (including most government employees) believe housing will always go up into an actual crime.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 59): Manhattan doesn't need the people who can't pay the rent, or at least if it did then the economics would work itself out.

Or if it really wanted them it could always remove the ridiculous restrictions on new housing.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 59): just like there's nothing keeping anyone from seeing a doctor except their lack of funds.

Not even that - there is always Medicaid. What they are advocating for, applied to food (which is also a basic necessity, even more so than healthcare) is a system where instead of getting food stamps if you really need them everyone gets served a dose of meatloaf and mashed potatoes every day for dinner, whether they can afford it or not, regardless of whether they actually want it, are feeling like some Italian food instead or are actually vegan.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 59): a mutual fund will never need a new dishwasher.

Or pay property taxes. Plus, it's a lot more liquid.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 64): We have been waiting for Reaganomics to work. We have been told that we would have vast wealth

I have in my pocket a computer that is far more powerful than any computer I or anyone could possibly think of buying in 1980, that allows me to watch any content I want on demand, or play some games to keep myself entertained, and allows me to speak for free with relatives half way across the globe while seeing them in real time over a video link. Oh, and it also allows me to make phone calls. All due to the wonders of capitalism. Lower class today is vastly wealthier than middle class in 1980. So yes, "Reaganomics" worked.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 64): Why are there so many pot holes everywhere?

Construction unions. Why are the states with the higher tax levels (NY and NJ in particular) the ones with the most piss-poor infrastructure?

Quoting zckls04 (Reply 93): And yet I'm not accosted by twelve year old prostitutes if I go out at night in Oahu, unlike in Cuba. Perspective is important here.

I'm sure if that was your thing you could probably find ont.

Quoting mham001 (Reply 94): Quite a lot less so than the natives of New Zealand.

Doubt it.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 101): Not enough to pay what it costs, or to just not cash out and sell to the Chinese. You clearly don't know what "crisis" means, but suffice to say, foreigners showing up to wave money in your face to buy your house does not qualify.

Then the NZ media also don't know what a crisis it either.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/n...ticle.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11579043
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/n...e.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11579491

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/n...e.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11590689

http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/book-ex...nd%E2%80%99s-housing-crisis-183320

http://www.metromag.co.nz/city-life/...olve-the-auckland-property-crisis/

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 101): ...except for a Kiwi with a large sum now in their bank account. Beyond that, surely such homes are maintained in some way. That is benefit to the NZ economy.

Except that kiwi has to buy another house in the same market, so no benefit there.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 101): It's relevant since you hold the erroneous view that one has a right to a commute of a limited distance. It's utterly ridiculous. But, since it came up, I'm equally against government policies designed to keep lower income housing out. Let the market rule.

The market has run rampent and needs govt controls put in place to slow it down, a capitol gains tax should be implemented on second homes and rental properties.

Definitely "Douche Bag"

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 106): Doubt it.

Ignorance is bliss. But that is another subject you'd be best to leave alone. Glass houses and all.

Though Havana, which had become the third-largest city in the Americas, was to enter an era of sustained development and closening ties with North America during this period, the British occupation of the city proved short-lived. Pressure from London sugar merchants fearing a decline in sugar prices forced a series of negotiations with the Spanish over colonial territories. Less than a year after Havana was seized, the Peace of Paris was signed by the three warring powers, ending the Seven Years' War. The treaty gave Britain Florida in exchange for Cuba on the recommendation of the French, who advised that declining the offer could result in Spain losing Mexico and much of the South American mainland to the British.[28] This led to disappointment in Britain, as many believed that Florida was a poor return for Cuba and Britain's other gains in the war.

The declaration of independence by the 13 British colonies of North America, and the victory of the French Revolution of 1789, influenced early Cuban liberation movements, as did the successful revolt of black slaves in Haiti in 1791. One of the first, headed by a free black, Nicolás Morales, was aimed at gaining equality between "mulatto and whites" and the abolition of sales taxes and other fiscal burdens. Morales' plot was discovered in 1795 in Bayamo, and the conspirators were jailed.

Quoting mham001 (Reply 108): Ignorance is bliss. But that is another subject you'd be best to leave alone. Glass houses and all.

Couldn't be more different if you tried, Hawaii was one nation under a Monarchy, NZ when the British arrived was populated by warring near stoneage people with no central govt and no notion of nationhood. The Treaty signed between the Maori and Crown was not like the annexation of Hawaii, it was a partnership, the Maori agreed to it unlike the native Hawaiians whose rights were supplanted by the white plantations owners. Hawaii was stolen from the Hawaiians, which is not the same as what happened in NZ.

Quoting Pyrex (Reply 105): Or if it really wanted them it could always remove the ridiculous restrictions on new housing.

Like I said, I'm equally against regulation restricting low income housing and regulation mandating it. Zoning regulations are something that should be very, very restricted. If building a Starbucks inside the city limits would be such an affront to citizens' sense of elitism then said citizens should buy the land rather than use the government as a weapon to ensure others use their property in ways they approve of.

Quoting Pyrex (Reply 105): Or pay property taxes.

Well those get rolled into the rent at some point, so I'm not really getting off there.

Quoting Pyrex (Reply 105): I have in my pocket a computer that is far more powerful than any computer I or anyone could possibly think of buying in 1980, that allows me to watch any content I want on demand, or play some games to keep myself entertained, and allows me to speak for free with relatives half way across the globe while seeing them in real time over a video link. Oh, and it also allows me to make phone calls. All due to the wonders of capitalism. Lower class today is vastly wealthier than middle class in 1980. So yes, "Reaganomics" worked.

Look at it as a spectrum. On one end, you have the poorest people from around 1950 or so (not Americans, I mean the really poor people in Africa, China, etc) and on the other you have a 2016 American billionaire. And you could consider this spectrum for many aspects of life: how you get around, where you live, what you eat, etc.

On this spectrum, plot the position of a 1950s average American and a 2016 average American. The 2016 American will have moved closer to the billionaire in pretty much every respect. Furthermore, the 2016 American will be far, far closer to the billionaire than the dirt poor folks on the other end. And if you were to construct a second such spectrum with a 1950s billionaire on the other end, the gap between average and super wealthy will have closed in the intervening decades.

Then consider the average Korean, Japanese, Indian or Chinese person on the same spectrum. They will have also moved far closer to the 2016 billionaire, in some cases approaching the 2016 American. The jump such people made in the 60-70 years will be larger than the Americans, but they started far, far closer to the opposite end. That is trickle down economics working.

It's easy to complain that trickle down economics doesn't work when you're standing at the top and don't realize it.

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 106): Then the NZ media also don't know what a crisis it either.

Apparently not.

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 106): Except that kiwi has to buy another house in the same market, so no benefit there.

Not necessarily. Regardless of how you slice it, they've just made a huge return on their investment. It's like saying that if you hit it big at the casino but you blow it all on a Ferrari then it's bad that you've just won.

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 106): The market has run rampent and needs govt controls put in place to slow it down, a capitol gains tax should be implemented on second homes and rental properties.

No it doesn't. That's just whining.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 110): Well those get rolled into the rent at some point, so I'm not really getting off there.

I know, but my point is that in the U.S. and many other countries,given the way property taxes work, you cannot ever own real property (you just rent it from the state) so might as well make it official. And don't even get me started on how property taxes (based on the value of your home, not your equity in it) are the most regressive form of taxation known to mankind.

Plus, I cannot really avail myself of property tax deductions from income tax (blame the AMT, the most asinine tax in history) so by renting I can leverage someone who can.

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 109): Couldn't be more different if you tried,

That's right. Unlike New Zealand, no guns were ever fired, no wars ever fought on Hawaii.

But this is about Cuba, the Caribbean and the abysmal role Europe played in its history over the course of hundreds of years....

As a result of the political upheavals caused by the Iberian Peninsular War and the removal of Ferdinand VII from the Spanish throne, a west separatist rebellion emerged among the Cuban Creole aristocracy in 1809 and 1810. One of its leaders, Joaquín Infante, drafted Cuba's first constitution, declaring the island a sovereign state, presuming the rule of the countries' wealthy, maintaining slavery as long as it was necessary for agriculture, establishing a social classification based on skin color and declaring Catholicism the official religion. This conspiracy also failed and the main leaders were sentenced to prison and deported to Spain.[29] In 1812, a mixed-race abolitionist conspiracy arose, organized by José Antonio Aponte, a free black carpenter in Havana. He and others were executed.

The main reason for the lack of support for these efforts was that the vast majority of Creoles, especially the plantation owners, rejected any kind of separatism, considering Spain's power essential to the maintenance of slavery. The Spanish Constitution of 1812, and the legislation passed by the Cádiz Cortes after it was set up in 1808, created a number of liberal political and commercial policies, which were welcomed in Cuba but also curtailed a number of older liberties. Between 1810 and 1814, the island elected six representatives to the Cortes, in addition to forming a locally elected Provincial Deputation.[30] Nevertheless, the liberal regime and the Constitution proved to be ephemeral: they were suppressed by Ferdinand VII when he returned to the throne in 1814. Therefore, by the end of the decade, some Cubans were inspired by the successes of Simón Bolívar in South America, despite the fact that the Spanish Constitution was restored in 1820. Numerous secret societies emerged, of which the most important was the so-called "Soles y Rayos de Bolívar", founded in 1821 and led by José Francisco Lemus. Its aim was to establish the free Republic of Cubanacán, and it had branches in five districts of the island. In 1823, the society's leaders were arrested and condemned to exile. In the same year, Ferdinand VII, with French help and the approval of the Quintuple Alliance, managed to abolish constitutional rule in Spain yet again and re-establish absolutism. As a result, the national militia of Cuba, established by the Constitution and a potential instrument for liberal agitation, was dissolved, a permanent executive military commission under the orders of the governor was created, newspapers were closed, elected provincial representatives were removed and other liberties suppressed.

Quoting mham001 (Reply 112): That's right. Unlike New Zealand, no guns were ever fired, no wars ever fought on Hawaii.

It was a different age. The land wars came after the Treaty, a lot of Maori were on the British side during them as well. Hawaii was outright stolen by business interests.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 19): see an explanation for why such behavior did not draw a response in a post-USS Cole world.

Because this is a domestic political maneuver by Putin.
Look how much it inflates Russians to think about how mighty they are by doing dangerous fly-bys.

....ideal scenario for Putin is the US shoots down a Russian plane.
....makes a failing Ruble, failed foreign interventions and a shrinking nation in a declining economy less important to a guillable population who imagines they are important on the world stage.

Quoting tu204 (Reply 26): Realize that would have severe consequences for any US military hardware that gets anywhere near Russia?

No Russian weaponry is capable of defeating US naval defenses on full alert.
The US shuts down GLONASS with a few computer keystrokes and denies GPS to everyone but itself if necessary, it stops Russian missiles and planes well before they are in range of doing any harm.

The US need not respond to childish nonsense like this because the military threat is small, but as you prove the effect on Putin's domestic standing is enhanced.

Quoting bluejuice (Reply 47): seems the idealism of youth was genuine

The end of empires caused a decades long global cataclysm.
....in Europe the direct effect of ending monarchies/empires were 2 world wars
.... decades of strife across Africa and S America played out later and longer but has the same root cause.
.... created a fruitful time for ideological theories and leaders who allegedly solve all previous problems

Quoting Redd (Reply 89): , the biggest contributor to Latin American misery has been American Policy.

Sure, if you assume Americans are uniquely able to govern themselves while the rest of the world is incapable of choosing their own future.



Pu.

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 113): It was a different age. The land wars came after the Treaty, a lot of Maori were on the British side during them as well. Hawaii was outright stolen by business interests.

An agreement was made, no shots were fired. New Zealand cannot say the same.

But back to Cuba and that dastardly foreign intervention.....

In 1836, the first armed uprising for independence took place in Puerto Príncipe (Camagüey Province), led by Francisco de Agüero and Andrés Manuel Sánchez. Agüero, a white man, and Sánchez, a mulatto, were both executed, becoming the first popular martyrs of the Cuban independence movement.

The 1830s, also saw a surge of activity from the reformist movement, whose main leader was José Antonio Saco, standing out for his criticism of Spanish despotism and the slave trade. Nevertheless, this surge bore no fruit; Cubans remained deprived of the right to send representatives to the Spanish parliament, and Madrid stepped up repression.

Quoting Pyrex (Reply 111): I know, but my point is that in the U.S. and many other countries,given the way property taxes work, you cannot ever own real property (you just rent it from the state) so might as well make it official. And don't even get me started on how property taxes (based on the value of your home, not your equity in it) are the most regressive form of taxation known to mankind.

Property taxes are a very poor form of taxation. Any tax that forces people to pay to keep what they have is generally a bad method of doing business.

Taxes are a necessary evil to some extent, but they are entropy in economic processes. You always want to minimize the losses, but they're easier to deal with when you're actually doing something. Taxes like property taxes or inheritance taxes are just wasted doing nothing, like a car that leaks fuel when it's just sitting there.

Quoting Pyrex (Reply 111): Plus, I cannot really avail myself of property tax deductions from income tax (blame the AMT, the most asinine tax in history) so by renting I can leverage someone who can.

That is a fair point.

Quoting pu (Reply 114): Because this is a domestic political maneuver by Putin. Look how much it inflates Russians to think about how mighty they are by doing dangerous fly-bys.

I don't disagree with that at all, but like I said before, based on what I've seen I don't think the nationality and type of the aircraft is relevant in this case. I'd expect a hang glider to be shot down if it attempted the same.

I also disagree that there would be any "consequences" from the Russians. Like I said, Putin is all about the show.

Interestingly, the US bashers have gone strangely silent with the introduction of a Latin American history lesson.

In 1836, the first armed uprising for independence took place in Puerto Príncipe (Camagüey Province), led by Francisco de Agüero and Andrés Manuel Sánchez. Agüero, a white man, and Sánchez, a mulatto, were both executed, becoming the first popular martyrs of the Cuban independence movement.

The 1830s, also saw a surge of activity from the reformist movement, whose main leader was José Antonio Saco, standing out for his criticism of Spanish despotism and the slave trade. Nevertheless, this surge bore no fruit; Cubans remained deprived of the right to send representatives to the Spanish parliament, and Madrid stepped up repression.

Nonetheless, Spain had long been under pressure to end the slave trade. In 1817, it signed a first treaty, to which it did not adhere. With the abolition of slavery altogether in their colonies, the British forced Spain to sign another treaty in 1835. In this context, black revolts in Cuba increased, and were put down with mass executions. One of the most significant was the Conspiración de La Escalera (Ladder Conspiracy), which started in March 1843 and continued until 1844. The conspiracy took its name from a torture method, in which blacks were tied to a ladder and whipped until they confessed or died. The Ladder Conspiracy involved free blacks and slaves, as well as white intellectuals and professionals. It is estimated that 300 blacks and mulattos died from torture, 78 were executed, over 600 were imprisoned and over 400 expelled from the island.[32][33]

Quoting Pyrex (Reply 105): You could, if you were a complete moron.

How polite. You obviously did not read the context. Che has been off the scene in Cuba since 1965 and was long dead when it was declared that Cuba was in the axis of evil. It was Fidel's vision for Cuba, Che happened to share that vision, not specifically for Cuba, but globally and went along for the ride and obviously played a big role in the Cuban revolution. But Fidel and then Raul have had plenty of chance to change things in the 40 years since Che left. My point was I wonder if Cuba would be more like China today had they not been forced into the arms of the USSR, then indulged in the missile crisis with the resulting embargo. The embargo actually has little to do with the current issues in the grand scheme of things, sure it doesnt help, but its the failed system - even American money coming in will go the same way as the current Canadian money.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 104): Business and tourism.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 104): Tourists, businessmen, some mobsters.

You got the order the wrong way round. I am sorry, but anyone who went there ignorant of who was in control of the money and pulled the strings should have stayed under their rock. It sure was of no benefit to the Cuban people, which is the issue in question at the time of the revolution. But as long as those rich Americans can get richer, its all good in your book, it doesnt matter if it is at the expense of Cuban people who actually lived there.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 104): Because they invested there. They bought and built things. Same reason it's okay for Mercedes to build a factory in Alabama and Hanjin to build a skyscraper in Los Angeles.

They went a little further than that. Germany and Korea have not forced any Platt Amendment and integrated it into US constitution and effectively annexed the USA, set up a big German or Korean military base down in rural Arkansas and made it a no go area for Americans, then the POTUS said to rich German or Korean businessmen, hey here is BMIs land and assets, move on in, take it over and take the profits back to Germany or Korea as long as you give me and my cronies my cut. BMI can work his ass off for you, I suppose you best give him enough to buy a loaf of bread every Friday.

Quoting mham001 (Reply 117): Interestingly, the US bashers have gone strangely silent with the introduction of a Latin American history lesson.

I do find your posts very interesting, but I am wondering what these particular extracts have to do with the situation by 1958 and the actions of Che thereafter.

Quoting YVRLTN (Reply 118): I am sorry, but anyone who went there ignorant of who was in control of the money and pulled the strings should have stayed under their rock.

This is a BS approach to law and order. Imagine you had your car stolen and called the cops and they said "Sorry, you parked in a bad neighborhood. You're on your own."

Quoting YVRLTN (Reply 118): It sure was of no benefit to the Cuban people, which is the issue in question at the time of the revolution.

That is not the issue at all as it does not justify theft. Just because you decide you don't get a big enough cut doesn't make it okay to just take what you want.

Quoting YVRLTN (Reply 118): BMI can work his ass off for you, I suppose you best give him enough to buy a loaf of bread every Friday.

I don't think 1950s Cuba had any slavery.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 119): This is a BS approach to law and order.

Not when the American businessmen there are criminals.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 119): That is not the issue at all as it does not justify theft

Absolutely!! The Americans stole the property from Cubans.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 119): I don't think 1950s Cuba had any slavery.

It didnt. But the people were subservient to a dictator and rich American mafiamen who took away their property and wealth. Since 1959 they are subservient to communism. Cuba has never ever been totally free, thanks to the USA.

Quoting YVRLTN (Reply 120): Cuba has never ever been totally free, thanks to the USA.

Really. So you're still attempting to portray the US as the sole oppressor of Cuba?

Throughout the 1850s and into the 1860s, Cuban planters and business owners demanded fundamental social and economic reforms from Spain, which ruled the colony. Lax enforcement of the slave trade ban had resulted in a dramatic increase in imports of Africans, estimated at 90,000 slaves from 1856 to 1860. This occurred despite a strong abolitionist movement on the island, and rising costs among the slave-holding planters in the east. New technologies and farming techniques made large numbers of slaves unnecessary and prohibitively expensive. In the economic crisis of 1857 many businesses failed, including many sugar plantations and sugar refineries. The abolitionist cause gained strength, favoring a gradual emancipation of slaves with financial compensation from Spain for slaveholders. Additionally, some planters preferred hiring Chinese immigrants as indentured workers and in anticipation of ending slavery. Before the 1870s, more than 125,000 were recruited to Cuba. In May 1865, Cuban creole elites placed four demands upon the Spanish Parliament: tariff reform, Cuban representation in Parliament, judicial equality with Spaniards, and full enforcement of the slave trade ban.

The Spanish Parliament at the time was changing; gaining much influence were reactionary, traditionalist politicians who intended to eliminate all liberal reforms. The power of military tribunals was increased; the colonial government imposed a six percent tax increase on the Cuban planters and businesses. Additionally, all political opposition and the press were silenced. Dissatisfaction in Cuba spread on a massive scale as the mechanisms to express it were restricted. This discontent was particularly felt by the powerful planters and hacienda owners in Eastern Cuba.[1]

The failure of the latest efforts by the reformist movements, the demise of the "Information Board," and another economic crisis in 1866/67 heightened social tensions on the island. The colonial administration continued to make huge profits which were not re-invested in the island for the benefit of its residents[citation needed]. It funded military expenditures (44% of the revenue), colonial government's expenses (41%), and sent some money to the Spanish colony of Fernando Po (12%). The Spaniards, representing 8% of the island's population, were appropriating over 90% of the island’s wealth. In addition, the Cuban-born population still had no political rights and no representation in Parliament. Objections to these conditions sparked the first serious liberation movements, especially in the eastern part of the island.[2]

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 119): This is a BS approach to law and order. Imagine you had your car stolen and called the cops and they said "Sorry, you parked in a bad neighborhood. You're on your own."

Law and order has nothing to do with it. You preach for a system that benefits the few at the expense of the many. The day the many kick you out (if you're one of the few), don't be surprised.

Quoting mham001 (Reply 117): Interestingly, the US bashers have gone strangely silent with the introduction of a Latin American history lesson. In 1836, the first armed uprising for independence took place in Puerto Príncipe (Camagüey Province), led by Francisco de Agüero and Andrés Manuel Sánchez. Agüero, a white man, and Sánchez, a mulatto, were both executed, becoming the first popular martyrs of the Cuban independence movement. The 1830s, also saw a surge of activity from the reformist movement, whose main leader was José Antonio Saco, standing out for his criticism of Spanish despotism and the slave trade. Nevertheless, this surge bore no fruit; Cubans remained deprived of the right to send representatives to the Spanish parliament, and Madrid stepped up repression. Nonetheless, Spain had long been under pressure to end the slave trade. In 1817, it signed a first treaty, to which it did not adhere. With the abolition of slavery altogether in their colonies, the British forced Spain to sign another treaty in 1835. In this context, black revolts in Cuba increased, and were put down with mass executions. One of the most significant was the Conspiración de La Escalera (Ladder Conspiracy), which started in March 1843 and continued until 1844. The conspiracy took its name from a torture method, in which blacks were tied to a ladder and whipped until they confessed or died. The Ladder Conspiracy involved free blacks and slaves, as well as white intellectuals and professionals. It is estimated that 300 blacks and mulattos died from torture, 78 were executed, over 600 were imprisoned and over 400 expelled from the island.[32][33]

I have been at work during the last few days and no time to respond, but I want to make clear that at NO TIME I have condoned European or anybody else's colonialism.
As for Spain, up to 1975 (Franco's death) Spain was extremely backwards by European standards.
Filipinos I talked to were often very surprised that the way their ancestors were treated, was pretty much the same the Spanish land owning upper class treated their own peasants. Effectively they had serfdom way into the early 20th century, especially in the agrarian provinces of the South and the West, where a Mafia made up from the landowning aristocracy, the Catholic Church and the military (the oldest son would inherit the land, the second one would become an officer in the army and third would join the church) made sure that the peons were kept in their place.
This is also why these peons supported radical anarchist movements and many of them moved up north to the industrialised regions of Catalonia and the Basque Country, if they didn't decide post WW2 to move on e.g. to Germany or France.
This was also the societal mix which led to the Spanish civil war. Franco's victory extended the old rule for another 40 years, but after his death and Spain's membership of the EU Spain modernised rapidly. Most Filipinos haven't heard about the Spanish civil war and the reasons for it.
Practically the same happend in Portugal (with Salazar and Caetano, but no civil war) until the coup by leftwing military officers in 1974, which toppled the dictator.

Btw., in Barcelona you will find a Jose Rizal street. My Missus was very surprised when we stumbled upon it some years ago.

As for German colonialism during the late 19th century, recently published research showed how traders from the portcities o Hamburg and Bremen went there, cheated the locals in various deals, and when the locals rebelled, how they clled for the government to send the navy and to annex the land as colonies (e.g. Togo, Camaroon, Namibia, Tanganika and Zanzibar). There is one fomer Germany colony in the Western Pacific, where I have heard that the locals remember the German colonial rule fondly, but this was due to the short rule and the genial personality of the governor sent by the Imperial German government, who was apparently quite charismatic and actually improved the lives of the locals, for whom he felt responsible. Under a different governor with a different attitude this might have been different.
Similarly India was first colonialised by a private venture, the British East india Company, which had it's own private army and warships. Again, whe the locals rebelled in 1857 and they could not beat them down using their own means, they called for the British government to come and protect their investments.

As for the Philippines, they had an indigenous independence movement since the mid-19th century. I will write more later, with quotes.

Jan

[Edited 2016-04-24 09:06:11]

Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 123): I have been at work during the last few days and no time to respond, but I want to make clear that at NO TIME I have condoned European or anybody else's colonialism.

Maybe not, but you have repeatedly and grossly misrepresented the facts, either deliberately or ignorantly.

Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 51): Face it, the US has not been the liberator in many Latiin American and East Asian countries and they treated especially the Philippines like a colony, no better than the European colonialists. Just google General Ortis and his reputation in the Philippines.

I'm sorry, but nothing the US has done in those countries ever came close to the CENTURIES of slavery, pillaging, torture and genocide by European colonists.

Quoting mham001 (Reply 124): Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 123): I have been at work during the last few days and no time to respond, but I want to make clear that at NO TIME I have condoned European or anybody else's colonialism. Maybe not, but you have repeatedly and grossly misrepresented the facts, either deliberately or ignorantly. Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 51): Face it, the US has not been the liberator in many Latiin American and East Asian countries and they treated especially the Philippines like a colony, no better than the European colonialists. Just google General Ortis and his reputation in the Philippines. I'm sorry, but nothing the US has done in those countries ever came close to the CENTURIES of slavery, pillaging, torture and genocide by European colonists.

First, you presented a very onesided version of the American colonial period in the Philippines.
roversial character, who has mostly been thinking of himself, with dictatorial tendencies and possibly corrupt.
Secondly all of these countries had already indigenous independence movements long before the US intervened (and annexed them).
Third, you, like German, italy, Japan and Belgium, were late as the colonialists, when Britain, the Netherlands, Spain, Russia and Portugal had most of the world divided up between themselves.
You went in due to exactly the same reasons as the other colonial powers: Strategic and commercial interests, else you would have the local independence movements sort it out by themselves and not act as the great, benevolent, but strict white father. This is all derived from your 19th century attitude of manifest destiny, same as the German attitude of "Platz an der Sonne" and later "Lebensraum".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manifest_destiny
Both in the US and in Europe there existed anti-colonial movements, in the US e.g. around Mark Twain, even Carnegie offered to buy the Philippines from the US government and to give them true independence, in Germany around the Social Democrats and liberals.

Most European countries had abolished slavery and serfdom in the early 19th century, exceptions were Spain and Russia (plus the way Belgium treated their colonials in Kongo wa not officially called slavery, but pretty much the same). You still had it in the mid-19th century, and it took a civil war to get rid of it.

The history of Filipino independence is complicated (with some early, mainly landowning local, groups in favour of an autonomy within the Spanish Empire, like Rizal originally, then also revolutionaries, who wanted a redistribution of land to the tennants). I don't want to do it the easy way of quoting Wikipedia.

Jan

Quoting mham001 (Reply 121): Really. So you're still attempting to portray the US as the sole oppressor of Cuba?

Of course not, I have constantly spoken of Spanish colonialism. But between 1902-1959, yes.

I have also never gone as far as to say the USA as a nation were an oppressor during that period, though the activities of American businessmen / mafia subsequent to the Platt Amendment and ensuing support of a fascist regime and blind eye turned (even collusion) towards said activities had contributed to have that effect on the Cuban people.

The history is important, inasmuch as it shows us the backdrop to early 20th century Cuba, but when Che was on the scene, Spanish colonialism was already 60 years past - the revolution was against the Batista regime and all that it allowed in American capitalism which was thriving mightily by the 1950's, yet the only significant portion of that money which did not make its way back to the USA ended up in Batista's bank account, all of which is obviously against socialist ideology (again which I have said is equally not right).

Quoting YVRLTN (Reply 63): Yes and no, he was born in 1901. Prior to that Cubans were fighting Spanish colonialism and the US fully got involved in Cuba in 1898 as part of their greater Spanish American wars, which were basically successful in Cuba. The Cubans wanted independence and after the failure of the rebellion led by Marti they thought that maybe the only way they could get it was for America to do the grunt work for them. Palma who took over the rebellion leadership from Marti signed the Platt Amendment in 1902 which was inaugurated into Cuban constitution, it effectively gave Cuba independence but included the whole Guantanamo deal and a lot of US involvement in their dealings. The US reduced duties in a preferential way to facilitate the importation of Cuban sugar, thus Palma sold Cuba out.

Quoting YVRLTN (Reply 120): Cuba has never ever been totally free, thanks to the USA.

Sure, the USA is so magnificent that it chooses not only it's own destiny, but everyone else's as well. The Americans can govern themselves. Everyone else is governed by Americans. You really believe Americans are so special that they decide for themselves what they want while other peoples are merely subservient to America?

.
.
.

Do you think there is something magical about the Rio Grande that makes the US and Canada strong and prosperous democracies? ....while almost everywhere else to the south is a weak democracy at best and a corrupt economically sick fiasco at worst?


When assigning blame for Cuba's misery, why don't you factor in the subservient, docile and un-self-empowered mindset present in all of Spain's former colonies, ....WHY DON'T YOU FACTOR IN CUBAN/LATIN AMERICAN CULTURE?

...Spain discovered democracy only in the 1970s. Everywhere there is strong Spanish history there is no strong democratic imperative in the hearts of the people and a definite lack of interest in fighting for their own ethical democratic form of self government. They're followers. They do what their told. Authority intimidates them.






Pu.

Quoting mham001 (Reply 124): but nothing the US has done in those countries ever came close to the CENTURIES of slavery, pillaging, torture and genocide by European colonists.

While Spain, France, the Netherlands, UK, etc. were busy slaving, pillaging, torturing, etc. the US was doing exactly the same.... to any native American population they encountered.

You guys just had enough indians and virgin territory next door to worry about going overseas.

[Edited 2016-04-25 00:24:44]

Quoting JJJ (Reply 128): While Spain, France, the Netherlands, UK, etc. were busy slaving, pillaging, torturing, etc. the US was doing exactly the same.... to any native American population they encountered.

By people who still spoke with European accents.

Quoting YVRLTN (Reply 126): I have also never gone as far as to say the USA as a nation were an oppressor during that period,

You may have not but others here have.

Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 125): First, you presented a very onesided version of the American colonial period in the Philippines.

Much of it written by Europeans and Filipinos.

Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 125): Secondly all of these countries had already indigenous independence movements long before the US intervened (and annexed them).

Annexed before giving them full independence.

Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 125): You went in due to exactly the same reasons as the other colonial powers: Strategic and commercial interests, else you would have the local independence movements sort it out by themselves and not act as the great, benevolent, but strict white father.

You keep talking about commercial interests in PH, yet didn't know US firms were restricted at the time of US control. You did not know the history of Del Monte and hold them up as vestiges of US colonialism when it was Filipino government who allowed their growth. And you talk about one-sided history....it is at least more accurate than your version, which did not even know of the existence of the Organic Act.

What is indisputable is that the US built a government and judicial system, a school system, things never before had, and voluntarily without the threat of insurrection, gave them complete independence in ~40 years. After fighting off the Japanese invaders.

Your claim that the US acted as poorly as the Spanish in the Philippines is nothing less than history revision. Euro envy.

Quoting mham001 (Reply 129): By people who still spoke with European accents.

I checked the list of presidents of the US and up until 2009 all you see are European surnames.

You had conflicts with Native Americans even in the XX century, so stop pointing the finger overseas.

Quoting mham001 (Reply 129): You keep talking about commercial interests in PH, yet didn't know US firms were restricted at the time of US control. You did not know the history of Del Monte and hold them up as vestiges of US colonialism when it was Filipino government who allowed their growth. And you talk about one-sided history....it is at least more accurate than your version, which did not even know of the existence of the Organic Act.

The Philippines were a welcome market for American goods. Plus they were a strategic base and coaling station for the US Navy and a staging point for access to China. E.g. the American troops of the International (yes the other colonialists) force to fight the Chinese Boxer Rebellion were sent from the Philippines to protect American business interests.
Also, it didn't matter if e.g. the land taken from the Catholic Church and the natural resources were offiially owned by Filipinos in the pay of US interests (basically the whole pper class) or directly by Americans. The same families still control Filipino politics today.

As for releasing the Philippnes into indepence in 1946, whiy did you take the in first place? There are enough documents and quotes around, e.g. by McKinley and others to show the real reasons.

Quoting mham001 (Reply 129): What is indisputable is that the US built a government and judicial system, a school system, things never before had, and voluntarily without the threat of insurrection, gave them complete independence in ~40 years. After fighting off the Japanese invaders.

Only after a big change of government attitude.
You still speak as if the Filipinos at the time were not capable of running their own place, and that they needed Uncle Sam as a father figure to show them. You should never been there in first place.

Jan

Quoting pu (Reply 127): Sure, the USA is so magnificent that it chooses not only it's own destiny, but everyone else's as well. The Americans can govern themselves. Everyone else is governed by Americans. You really believe Americans are so special that they decide for themselves what they want while other peoples are merely subservient to America?

In the case of Cuba. yes. You too please go and read the Platt Amendment. American interest in Cuba was not limited to their greater wars against the Spanish. Cuba got independence - but... the Platt Amendment. I have explained what happened thereafter several times, right through to the CIA even collaborating with the mafia to take out the Castro's before imposing sanctions and maintaining a no go militarized zone right into 2016.

Quoting pu (Reply 127): When assigning blame for Cuba's misery, why don't you factor in the subservient, docile and un-self-empowered mindset present in all of Spain's former colonies, ....WHY DON'T YOU FACTOR IN CUBAN/LATIN AMERICAN CULTURE?

I know this is your pet subject. Rather than whitewash a whole race of people with blanket statements, maybe you can suggest how Cubans were supposed to become unsubserviant in the following historical timeline? You will see they sure tried.

1) The original Aboriginal inhabitants of Cuba were made extinct by the Spanish by genocide and disease, so the actual owners of Cuba no longer exist

2) Spanish colonialism lasted 387 years, the population then becoming a mixture of Spaniards and African slaves

3) By 1892, there was a resistance movement formed, led by a dissident named Jose Marti that was put down by the Spanish in 1895.

4) The resistance movement was taken over by Tomas Palma who recognized that any resistance movement could never fight against the Spanish forces, he therefore welcomed American help, who were more than excited to assist as part of their wars against the Spanish, as the USA had tried to purchase Cuba from the Spanish for decades prior. There were ultimately successful in 1898 culminating in the Treaty of Paris, and while Cuba on paper got its independence from Spain, the USA barred them from being part of any discussions of treaties, so Cuba was effectively a US protectorate for 4 years.

5) When Cuba finally got its independence in 1902, Palma was basically forced to sign the Platt Amendment and incorporate it into Cuban constitution and were effectively under orders from Washington.

6) The hardcore of the resistance movement were not happy because they really did not get what they wanted, so there was another uprising in 1906 against Palma, which was dealt with by the USA actually occupying Cuba and appointing their governor named Charles Magoon for 2 years. This was when the American businessmen started coming into Cuba.

7) Self governance was restored in 1908 with a string of presidents who were marked by corruption and scandal, which played into the hands of the American businessmen, as well as continued political interference from Washington, they even got their own Capitol building! Being so allied to the USA, the Wall Street crash of 1929 really screwed over Cuba too and the resulting austerity led to a further uptick in social unrest and general discord which had been prevalent since the early days of independence. Such a climate was not only ripe for political and social uprising of every flavor including pretty much civil war, assassination attempts and so on, but also for the growth of criminal activities.

8) Enter Fulgencio Batista, initially through some puppet presidents, but he was behind the scenes pulling the strings and controlled the military, kind of an important role with events progressing in Europe - and it was partly all orchestrated by the US Ambassador. By the 1950's Cuba had become pretty prosperous with a middle class, but the money was still largely controlled by US businesses because the mafia had been welcomed in shamelessly and any dissent was suppressed, elections were outlawed and Cuba turned into a police state, yet Batista was supported by the USA and even allowed to live there and "form relationships" between his presidential terms.

I think this quote from Wiki says it all as to Batista, but JFK did not acknowledge it went back much further than that, even before 1898, when 5 successive presidents tried to purchase Cuba from the Spanish.

On October 6, 1960 Senator John F. Kennedy, in the midst of his campaign for the U.S. Presidency, decried Batista's relationship with the U.S. government and criticized the Eisenhower administration for supporting him:

"Fulgencio Batista murdered 20,000 Cubans in seven years ... and he turned Democratic Cuba into a complete police state—destroying every individual liberty. Yet our aid to his regime, and the ineptness of our policies, enabled Batista to invoke the name of the United States in support of his reign of terror. Administration spokesmen publicly praised Batista—hailed him as a staunch ally and a good friend—at a time when Batista was murdering thousands, destroying the last vestiges of freedom, and stealing hundreds of millions of dollars from the Cuban people, and we failed to press for free elections. I believe that there is no country in the world including any and all the countries under colonial domination, where economic colonization, humiliation and exploitation were worse than in Cuba, in part owing to my country's policies during the Batista regime. I approved the proclamation which Fidel Castro made in the Sierra Maestra, when he justifiably called for justice and especially yearned to rid Cuba of corruption. I will even go further: to some extent it is as though Batista was the incarnation of a number of sins on the part of the United States. Now we shall have to pay for those sins. In the matter of the Batista regime, I am in agreement with the first Cuban revolutionaries. That is perfectly clear.

— U.S. President John F. Kennedy, to Jean Daniel, October 24, 1963

But it was all the Hispanic culture of course.... I believe Che and the Castro's were subservient, docile, unselfserving Hispanics, no?

Quoting YVRLTN (Reply 132): .... I believe Che and the Castro's were subservient, docile, unselfserving Hispanics, no?

Who said Hispanic culture is entirely to blame? I said factor it in.

Stop attributing to Americans super human ability to choose destiny for themselves and everyone else. Admit that in a life of failure, whether individually or nationally, the individual or nation strongly contributes to the failures. Che and Castro are Exactly the point - two men who recognised the docile Cuban people for what they are. Followers. Cubans accepted it. They keep on accepting it. You're just borrowing a page from Castro and Putin by placing the blame for Cuban problems onto the US. This mindset wilk NEVER produce a free and happy Cuba.

If Obama got really sick do you think the Americans would sit by and just let his brother Raul take over? The Castros are not Saddam/Hitler, they are easily toppled. Yes, some killing and others dangers will have to happen for this to take place, and it is precisely this cost of self government that the Cubans prefer not to pay, instead putting up with despots.

Your lengthy history is fine, but all it amounts to is democracy would have been costly and there would be blood spilled. So? The Americans beat the British, the Vietnamese beat the Americans - Cuba could have had self government at any time. They are a victim of their own culture mothered by Spain. Cubans, indeed most people not in Europe or N America choose to accept bad leaders because choosing otherwise might be hard.






Pu.

[Edited 2016-04-25 23:30:56]

[Edited 2016-04-25 23:35:02]

Quoting pu (Reply 133): Che and Castro are Exactly the point - two men who recognised the docile Cuban people for what they are. Followers. Cubans accepted it.

Where does overthrowing Batista fall into this? No docile population overthrows his president over a 5-year war.

Quoting pu (Reply 133): Stop attributing to Americans super human ability to choose destiny for themselves and everyone else

Cuba has no idea what independence is, how are they supposed to know what to do? In the 31-50 years of independence (depending how much you include of the formation of the Batista regime) out of their 500 years of existence since Spanish colonialism (so max 10% of their entire post Aboriginal history), America were more than heavily involved in running their affairs to the point they even put their interests into Cuban constitution.

I am not blaming American for what happened subsequent to the revolution, other than trying to continue to exercise their influence in the early days by toppling Fidel's regime of course and subsequently sanctioning the crap out of them when it did not work and including them in an axis of evil with Saddam and Bin Laden.

Quoting JJJ (Reply 134): Where does overthrowing Batista fall into this? No docile population overthrows his president over a 5-year war.

They tried it at least three times during independence, even against democratically elected presidents. There were also uprisings against the revolution, which was successfully put down, largely led by Che, with a lot of bloodshed.

Quoting pu (Reply 133): Cuba could have had self government at any time.

But it was very hard when every step was blocked of obfuscated by the USA in some way. Look at all the hurdles they had to face since 1898, I have listed many of them.

Quoting pu (Reply 133): They are a victim of their own culture mothered by Spain

Maybe, and America was more than happy for it to stay that way. Cuba are only where they are today because of the socialist regime, these other victims of mother Spain are all in better shape than Cuba to varying degrees.

Quoting pu (Reply 133): The Castros are not Saddam/Hitler, they are easily toppled. Yes, some killing and others dangers will have to happen for this to take place, and it is precisely this cost of self government that the Cubans prefer not to pay, instead putting up with despots.

Maybe many Cubans are happy and proud of their culture? I have honestly not interacted with a happier friendlier people, other than maybe in Malawi. And guess what, both have something in common, which I heard with my own ears in both places - maybe we dont have the things in life, but we have quality of life.

In some ways they are ahead of the likes of China and Russia with civil rights, with acceptance of LGBT rights and the abolition of the death penalty, so there are signs of progression. There is not a total ban on western media and everything we are used to online, it is available if you want to get it with limited to zero repression.

The next 5-10 years are going to be very interesting, the Castro's will be dead or extremely senile and there is no publicly known succession plan, relations with the US will be on their way to restoration, the split currency will be done away with. Maybe Cubans are just quietly waiting for nature to take its course, that is the impression I got. I just hope there is not some messy power struggle when someone tries to maintain the status quo for their own gains.

To all those (primarily Europeans) claiming that American companies were not entitled to their property in Cuba because Fulgencio Batista was a dictator, I am sure you will feel exactly the same way when the Chinese finally overthrow the Communist Party and decide to expropriate Airbus' factory in Tianjin and Volkswagen's factories all over and start churning out knock-off cars and planes...

Quoting pu (Reply 127): When assigning blame for Cuba's misery, why don't you factor in the subservient, docile and un-self-empowered mindset present in all of Spain's former colonies, ....WHY DON'T YOU FACTOR IN CUBAN/LATIN AMERICAN CULTURE?

What misery? Cubans are doing no worse than people in most other nearby countries based on HDI. Sure, they don't have a parliamentary democracy, but so what? Since when has a parliamentary democracy been a good measurement of people's well being? As a citizen of a nation with parliamentary democracy I've learnt that it's a highly overrated system which usually doesn't work very well and can be a total disaster.

The reason why Castro's are still in power is that most Cubans like them, nothing else. Can't blame them for that when the alternative system, parliamentary democracy with free market, has such a poor track record in nearby countries like Haiti and Dominican Republic, both countries with inferior HDI compared to Cuba.

Quoting Pyrex (Reply 136): To all those (primarily Europeans) claiming that American companies were not entitled to their property in Cuba because Fulgencio Batista was a dictator, I am sure you will feel exactly the same way when the Chinese finally overthrow the Communist Party and decide to expropriate Airbus' factory in Tianjin and Volkswagen's factories all over and start churning out knock-off cars and planes...

I would have no problem with that. In fact to prevent such overthrow and resultant from a much liberalized economy, salaries are increasing exponentially in China, to the point that many western investments there don't make sense anymore, the only reason to stay or to come is to sell to the Chinese, with not that much benefit for the home countries of those companies.

Now I don't believe it would be that easy to make "knock-off" cars and planes, especially planes, Airbus is only making the final assembly in China, and as we're seeing with their competing products, they're learning it's not that easy to pull off. Then to sell them outside China will be another story still.

Quoting pu (Reply 127): ...Spain discovered democracy only in the 1970s. Everywhere there is strong Spanish history there is no strong democratic imperative in the hearts of the people and a definite lack of interest in fighting for their own ethical democratic form of self government. They're followers. They do what their told. Authority intimidates them.

Hmm. I guess you can say the same of ex French, Belgian, Dutch and Portuguese colonies. Actually I think ex-Spanish colonies in general became independent earlier and are doing better than pretty much any other, if we are to give any credit to the UN's HDI.

Quoting pu (Reply 133): Cuba could have had self government at any time. They are a victim of their own culture mothered by Spain.

Try existing next to the most powerful country humankind has known, while being hundreds of times smaller and ethnically unrelated.

Quoting pu (Reply 133): The Americans beat the British, the Vietnamese beat the Americans

Yeah... lots of factors here. Do you realize what the distance between Cuba and the United States is?

Disclaimer: I'm not a fan of the Cuban revolution and I don't think of Che as a hero.

Quoting AM744 (Reply 139): Hmm. I guess you can say the same of ex French, Belgian, Dutch and Portuguese colonies. Actually I think ex-Spanish colonies in general became independent earlier and are doing better than pretty much any other, if we are to give any credit to the UN's HDI.

That's curious, the lowest HDI in South America goes to the only ex-English (and formerly Dutch) colony. The lowest HDI in Central and North America goes to the biggest former French colony.

Quoting YVRLTN (Reply 135): Cuba has no idea what independence is, how are they supposed to know what to do?

Oh, I agree with your sentiment here, but the fact that they there are ignorant to "what independence is" according to you is not anyone else's fault but their own. How did India figure it out? Mexico? America? etc...

Quoting YVRLTN (Reply 135): But it was very hard

EXACTLY!!!!

...that's my point. It is very hard to effect self government. Always. Most people in the world choose not to govern themselves, although in the past 100 years there is a slow trickle towards self-government.

Quoting YVRLTN (Reply 135): But it was very hard when every step was blocked of obfuscated by the USA in some way.

Perhaps, but to quote a rock singer, "Everyone has had to fight to be free." Deciding not to fight is a Cuban decision.

Quoting YVRLTN (Reply 135): Maybe, and America was more than happy for it to stay that way.

Being a second class citizen in America is better than being a first class citizen almost anywhere else, likewise, being a de facto American colony would have been better than the course Cuba took. By now Cuba would be something like Puerto Rico or even a state if left under the US control you claim it suffered.

If Cuba were settled by the English it would be a lot like Florida - rich and receiving 100 000 000+ visitors a year. Instead, it fell into Spanish control and has forever since then been a backwards place compared to the US and Canada. Culture matters. Throw off a dictator from Germany, Japan, Korea, the Balkans etc. and democracy finds a strong home - but throw off a dictator from Cuba, Iraq, Vietnam etc. and you just get another dictator.

Quoting YVRLTN (Reply 135): Maybe many Cubans are happy and proud of their culture?

Not sure how this is germane to your thesis that America is responsible for Cuban misery.

Quoting YVRLTN (Reply 135): maybe we dont have the things in life, but we have quality of life.

This point is contradictory to your whole thesis, which is that Cuban problems stem from American policy. If in fact the Cubans are happy being poorer and have a better quality of life, great, there is no problem, American influence or not. The constant, 50 year+ train of Cubans to Miami seems to contradict your contention here, but whatever.

Quoting YVRLTN (Reply 135): aybe Cubans are just quietly waiting for nature to take its course,

Exactly. They are waiting. That's their mindset.

When Castros disappear they will be replaced by the next authoritarian leader. It's the same in Russia and most of the world, so Cubans are not unusual in this situation.

Quoting JJJ (Reply 134): Where does overthrowing Batista fall into this? No docile population overthrows his president over a 5-year war.

Again, study the word docile and the works of Che/Castro closely: the Batista-Castro transition proves my point. The Cubans follow strong leaders, end of story. They don't take it upon themselves to actively govern their nation, they follow whoever is most powerful.

Quoting pvjin (Reply 137): What misery? Cubans are doing no worse than people in most other nearby countries based on HDI. Sure, they don't have a parliamentary democracy, but so what?

I am more than happy for Cuba to continue on in their own form of government, if that is their wish, just as I'm happy for you to give up everything Europe and Scandinavia have worked for to live Russian-style under whoever is the strongest leader of the day.

However, the thesis of this thread is that Cuba has had misery. Misery caused by America.

Quoting AM744 (Reply 139): Try existing next to the most powerful country humankind has known

Canada does fine with this wonderful benefit.

The Western Hemisphere without the US and Canada would look like Africa. The US has since forever been the only thing keeping Latin America from sliding down much further. A colony of the US (or UK in its imperial days,) is a much better situation than most people of the world are capable of creating for themselves. The massive Hispanic immigration to the US proves my point - better to be illegal in America than legal in Latin America, or so immigration flows indicate.





Pu.

Quoting pu (Reply 141): How did India figure it out? Mexico? America? etc...

They were granted full independence.

Quoting pu (Reply 141): Deciding not to fight is a Cuban decision.

They fought multiple times from 1895 through to 1933, even right through to the early 1960's. But constant fighting causes instability which was taken advantage of by the right wing, then the left. A pretty common trend at the time.

Quoting pu (Reply 141): By now Cuba would be something like Puerto Rico or even a state if left under the US control you claim it suffered.

Probably, hindsight is 20/20. But they wanted independence just like all the other Caribbean islands and colonized countries. I admit I know nothing about PR, I guess they did not want independence.

Quoting pu (Reply 141): Not sure how this is germane to your thesis that America is responsible for Cuban misery.

Quoting pu (Reply 141): This point is contradictory to your whole thesis, which is that Cuban problems stem from American policy

Quoting pu (Reply 141): Misery caused by America.

To be very clear, the conversation went that way looking at how the revolution came to be, but really it is one part of a three part problem, and an historical one which contributed to the state of things which led to a dictator then the revolution. The other two parts are Spanish colonialism and the current socialist regime including too close ties with the USSR.

Of course in 2016 only one of those three factors are still in place and there is absolutely no question that the current regime is the prime cause of the current state of the Cuban economy, that is totally indisputable. In the 80's things were not too bad and there were huge Soviet funded infrastructure projects, but the collapse of the USSR hit Cuba very very hard and ended it all, they were forced back to subsistence farming to survive and the whole thing was brought to its knees, which forced some reform and opening up of relations with other non communist countries such as Brazil and Korea, and now they are somewhat back on their feet again.

The other two factors however have played their part historically and left their marks.

American policy with a view to incorporating Cuba against their wishes, rampant American mafia funded capitalism (the proceeds of which largely did not remain in Cuba - which was what the revolution was against as much as anything), support of a dictator, CIA incompetence even corruption, right through to modern history of maintaining sanctions and lumping Cuba in with Iraq and Afghanistan have very much played a part in where Cuba are at. But it is not the number one primary cause for Cuban misery in 2016 (if they are miserable).

Quoting pu (Reply 141): the Batista-Castro transition proves my point. The Cubans follow strong leaders, end of story

I understand what you are saying, but not everyone can be leaders, that is anarchy. How far do you go? Do Americans always follow strong leaders like George Washington, FD Roosevelt, Ronald Reagan or Donald Trump? Do Swedes always follow strong leaders like Louis De Geer, Karl Staaf or Stefan Lofven?

Cubans always had a leader to represent them from the days of Marti through to elected presidents, until Batista's 2nd term. Someone has to take charge, while Che was an Argentinian mercenary, the Castro's and the rest of the gang were very much Cubans and the communists had strong support. If you look at the history through the 20's and 30's, the communists were quite a force but always ended up on the losing side in elections and uprisings. No different than in Germany actually, the right won out and went on to a dictatorship, funnily enough both started their rise to the top in 1933. After a sample of the right wing and how Batista did nothing but line his own pockets, I guess Cubans were ready to try the other side of the political spectrum. It is incredible it has lasted this long.

Quoting YVRLTN (Reply 142): They were granted full independence.

Granted?

The Mexicans and Americans fought a war of independence; the Indians proved wars of independence don't have to be violent. For America and Mexico, it wasn't some administrative action or a "grant" from anyone, the Mexicans and Americans self-actuated their own destiny. The Cubans choose not to. They are limping along behind an aging authoritarian pair of brothers who could easily be forced out if anyone in Cuba cared to do anything about it.

The Canadians, Australians etc. were granted independence after democracy was already an established force in the British empire.

Quoting YVRLTN (Reply 142): I understand what you are saying, but not everyone can be leaders, that is anarchy. How far do you go? Do Americans always follow strong leaders like George Washington, FD Roosevelt, Ronald Reagan or Donald Trump? Do Swedes always follow strong leaders like Louis De Geer, Karl Staaf or Stefan Lofven?

The Americans and the other democracies don't change governments with every new charismatic leader the way Cubans, Russians, and most of the world do. That's the difference between a docile people, like the Cubans, who will always follow the next big man, and cultures who embrace their own destiny without so much dependence on great leaders...and all this is cultural. Spanish culture's promulgation of the Catholic church means decades of subservience to authority and hierarchy was ingrained in Cuban mindset.

All the negatives of Cuba and the rest of Latin America are much more a result of Spanish culture and the Catholic church than the Americans.






Pu.

Quoting pu (Reply 141): Again, study the word docile and the works of Che/Castro closely: the Batista-Castro transition proves my point. The Cubans follow strong leaders, end of story. They don't take it upon themselves to actively govern their nation, they follow whoever is most powerful.

Quoting pu (Reply 143): the Mexicans and Americans self-actuated their own destiny. The Cubans choose not to.

Sorry but if anything the Castros show that Cubans are anything but docile.

They took up a 6 year war against a dictator that was supported by the US and most of the ruling elite. Just like they had previously rebelled against the Spanish administration and the criollo elite (who for the most part changed sides in time to be the ruling class of American-ruled Cuba).

Quoting pu (Reply 143): The Americans and the other democracies don't change governments with every new charismatic leader the way Cubans, Russians, and most of the world do. That's the difference between a docile people, like the Cubans, who will always follow the next big man, and cultures who embrace their own destiny without so much dependence on great leaders...and all this is cultural. Spanish culture's promulgation of the Catholic church means decades of subservience to authority and hierarchy was ingrained in Cuban mindset.

Sorry, but I would define "docile people" as bunch of sheep who allow their government to mess up things badly and do nothing about it. By that definition Cubans are anything but docile (after all they started an armed revolution against a murderous foreign puppet dictator). By that definition the most docile people in the world would probably be swedes or people from some other EU nation where leaders are now messing up things year after year, yet the foolish population votes same clowns into the government each time elections are held.

Especially with the way things are going in likes of the United States, Germany and Sweden any decent population would have risen up against their leaders already. But what separates these docile populations the most from less docile populations (like Cubans and Russians) is the lack of real values. As long as the economy doesn't totally collapse the economic elite can do whatever they want without consequences in morally weak western countries.

Quoting JJJ (Reply 144): They

Quoting pvjin (Reply 145): they

No.
Wrong.

There is no "they" meaning the Cuban people in explaining how Batista was overthrown. There was no popular uprising of millions or even thousands of Cuban people.

It was entirely Castro and a handful of followers. The major events of the Cuban revolution are fought by dozens or hundreds of men.

The entire Cuban population just sat back and watched as a few rebels took on a few Batista forces: neither side was particularly strong or big in numbers. That's why when Castro quickly became an authoritarian despot, no one to this day bothers to stop him.

THE CUBAN PEOPLE WERE NOT PART OF THE CUBAN REVOLUTION JUST AS THEY CHOOSE NOT TO GOVERN THEMSELVES TODAY.

....just like most everyone else in the world the Cuban people sit back and watch as strongmen and warlords battle it out for control.....Russia, Cuba, Iraq, China and all of Africa likewise cede control of their destiny to whomever kills the last guy in charge.




Pu.

Quoting pu (Reply 146): The entire Cuban population just sat back and watched as a few rebels took on a few Batista forces: neither side was particularly strong or big in numbers. That's why when Castro quickly became an authoritarian despot, no one to this day bothers to stop him.

You probably overestimate the amount of people ready to take arms on any country at any given moment. Iraq fought a full-blown insurgency against the Western occupation that tied up thousands of Western and local troops even though there were just a few hundred fighters (and several orders of magnitude more supporting them in varying degrees).

How many people just watched the different national resistances to the Nazis during WW2? Very, very few. Same here.

Quoting pu (Reply 146):

In the vast majority of revolutions anywhere in the world it's just a small portion of the population doing most of the work.

Quoting pu (Reply 146): That's why when Castro quickly became an authoritarian despot, no one to this day bothers to stop him.

Why should the current regime be stopped? Thanks to it Cubans have enjoyed better quality of education and healthcare than people in neighbouring countries do. Cubans have every reason to be relatively happy with the regime.

I think people in western world highly overestimate the importance of things like democracy and freedom of speech. The first one, and I'm talking about true democracy here, doesn't really even exist anywhere but very few places in the world. The second one typically useless because voters are idiots, and as a result those in power don't have to listen or keep their promises, and the whole parliamentary democracy ends up as a failure.

Quoting pvjin (Reply 148): In the vast majority of revolutions anywhere in the world it's just a small portion of the population doing most of the work.

Quoting JJJ (Reply 147): You probably overestimate the amount of people ready to take arms on any country at any given moment

Thanks for finally coming around to reality on this minor point and implicitly retracting your romantic and idealistic ideas in posts 144 & 145 that the "Cuban people" overthrew the US-backed Batista regime. The Cuban people did nothing to change their government. As always. They are docile and follow anyone who takes over from the last guy in charge.

...and no I'm not overestimating the amount of people, JJJ, ready to take up arms. Outside of Europe and North America there are almost no places where the people can and do easily change their governments at will. They prefer to let whatever happens, happen. The Cuban people are not alone in their docility.

Quoting JJJ (Reply 147): How many people just watched the different national resistances to the Nazis during WW2?

Agreed.

The French in particular have a dreadful record. Not only did they give up fighting, they began actively collaborating via the Vichy regime. The Poles and the English stood up to the Germans giving 100%. Everyone else, including my own country, simply gave in to their power.

Quoting pvjin (Reply 148): Why should the current regime be stopped?

I personally don't give a damn what the Cuban people decide to do with their government, keeping in mind their current government is their choice. If they want to be poor and keep sending people to America because life is so great in Cuba, fine, I don't care. However, the point of this thread is that Cuba has big problems, blamed on America. My point is that whatever their condition, good or bad it is the responsibility of the Cubans primarily.





Pu.