Not a chance- Americans are still terrified of Communists, socialists, and anyone else with “-ist” in their name that isn’t capitalist.
USCIS officers still ask immigrants whether they have ever been members of communist parties.
In 2009.
I agree with XT. Early relations between the United States and Castro were friendly. But even in these first few months, Castro was showing what direction he planned on going. He had hundreds of political prisoners executed, eliminated any opposition to his personal rule (including former allies), tripled the size of the army and put in new officers who were loyal to him personally, and set up a secret police agency. And this was all done before he sought any alliance with the Soviet Union or nationalized any foreign companies. Castro pretty much just took over the methods Battista had been using.
The United States probably could have “befriended” Castro by making him a good enough offer. But it would have been no different than our support of Somoza or Marcos or Diem or the Shah - overlooking an oppressive dictatorship because it agreed with us in foreign affars.
Sorry. Can’t resist.
Castro had to deal with Batista’s thugs’ crimes against humanity. He was opposed by the Catholic Church and a relatively small but organized and wealthy middle-class which was not disposed to share with the poor what they had appropriated from them AND a just-off-shore haven for counter-revolutionaries in the US. Maybe he was heavy-handed, maybe not. Faced with, imo, much less of a threat, we have had the Patriot Act, illegal wiretapping, an illegal war, etc. and WE are the world’s great exporter of democracy.
Oh, please. Check out the four thugs mentioned above. They (and many others like them which we have installed/supported around the world) welcomed US/foreign investment. This was our only condition for “friendship” and if violently repressing the poor was necessary as a corollary, it was just fine with us. Castro was well aware of the “benefits” of corporate control of the Cuban economy and wasn’t having any. From the US pov, Castro just wasn’t “friendly” like Batista.
Castro is just another thug. Being a left wing thug doesn’t make him any morally better than a right wing thug.
So there!
If you’d like the make the comparison more specific, I’ll point out that Castro was arrested in Cuba after leading a coup attempt against Batista in 1953. He was tried and sentenced to fifteen years in prison. Harsh perhaps (although he and his followers were given an amnesty two years later) but you’ll note that he was given a trial and was not summarily executed.
No, but Castro had to contend with the almost certain threat of American-supported anticommunist revolutionaries; Batista only had to contend with “organic” revolutionaries.
Does that mean Castro was justified in killing political prisoners? Of course not, but in order for his revolution to be successful he would have to have taken more drastic measures than Batista.
Look. I have not been talking about relative “thugness”. Way back when, I said,
In case it’s slipped your mind, the OP is “Could the US have befriended Cuba right after the Revolution?” and my answer is above.
In my post (#43), I was not saying that Castro was a nice guy or even that he was nicer than Batista, although that’s what you seem to have gotten out of it. I was merely pointing out that Castro was not “our kind of guy” and that’s why the answer to the OP is No. Being a thug has never been a disqualification to anybody willing to further our corporate investment.
Wait, I’m not sure you’re claiming what I think you’re claiming but just in case.
Castro was not opposed by the Cuban middle class. The entire revolutionary hierarchy was composed of the Cuban middle class. Fidel himself was a member of the upper class, a lawyer, politician, and son of a wealthy farmer. It is probably correct to say that most of the Cuban upper class opposed Castro, but then again it would probably be correct to say that most of the Cuban upper class also opposed Batista.
In fact, after the Moncada Barracks attack in 1953, Castro was sentenced to 13 years in prison. In 1955, mostly due to pressure from political leaders, intellectuals, and publishers the Cuban Congress issued Castro a pardon, which Batista signed. The Cuban middle class was not against Castro, at least not until 1965 when Castro eliminated private property, including homes and small businesses.
As for the offshore counter-revolutionaries, you might not know, but all Cuban revolutions, including Castro’s had offshore beginnings and support. Castro himself spent most of 1955 traveling between Miami, Mexico, and New York collecting money and personnel from the exile communities to sponsor his landing in 1956.
God say, “Hey boy, listen up. You know why Cuba and the US can’t get it together?”
All God’s chillen say, “No.”
God say, “Chile, it simple, Castro has no common interest with the US corporate agenda. He a rare one who can’t be bought.”
All God’s chillen say, “Oh.”
As I and others have pointed out, Castro had American support in the beginning. He chose to throw it away.
I’ve never bought this variation of exceptionalism. Castro, or anyone else, cannot justify immoral actions by claiming that they’re more moral than other people. If you’re more moral, then you don’t act immorally. If you’re acting immorally, then you can’t claim moral superiority.
In this specfic case, Castro and Batista were two Cuban dictators. You’re claiming that Castro is allowed to be more drastic than Batista because he’s better than Batista. I’m saying that the fact that Castro was more drastic than Batista makes him worse than Batista.
My final word on the subject.
Sounds like you were looking for opinions, not debate. Perhaps IMHO would have been a better forum.
It seems like this should have been addressed BrainGlutton. Also, given all the conflicting givens, the question is not debatable and should have been trotted off early to IMHO. Imho.
You should report the thread then.
I think i’ll just unsubscribe.