For those who are more interested in debating points rather than having a slanging match may I make a point or two. This thread is called "Fidel- my hero" Rightly we have widened the narrow topic to include all sorts of rights and wrongs that have gone on in the past but I would be interested in who agrees or does not agree with the following. 1 It is surprising to have a person considered a hero when he is responsible for the deaths of around 50,000 people. (low estimates 10,000 and high 100,000) That is not all media invention is it? 2 Almost all civilisations throughout history have been expansionist at some time - Egyptian, Greek, Roman, *****l, British and many, many more. An expansionist civilisation is usually responsible for warfare and therefore death. Carping on about which is worst - British, German or American is futile. By today's values in civilised society we do not approve of any purely expansionist regimes. The Americans have managed to complicate matters somewhat by claiming that their intervention in other countries is either for the good of the people there or to get rid of evil. That of course is their perspective and that is where the difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter comes in. Mandela and Begin started out as terrorists (or freedom fighters) - as did Castro. Yet Ghandi managed to engage in revolutionary protest without violence. The only hero I might name amongst them is Ghandi.
"Ours is one continued struggle against degradation sought to be inflicted upon us by the European, who desire to degrade us to the level of the raw Kaffir, whose occupation is hunting and whose sole ambition is to collect a certain number of cattle to buy a wife with, and then pass his life in indolence and nakedness."
Just responded to the PM so take this with a pinch of salt - I mean this in the sense that personalities are often turned into myth and we forget about everything they do. If the perfect Ghandi, who I recognise very much as a political hero, said a number of things that were, well, racist. Interestingly there was a book by a Colonel Singh, I think, that disputes the credibility of his whole 'non-violence' rhetoric.
I agree with most of your point 2. Begin killed British soldiers in the King David's hotel (I think, I'm now questioning the name?) in around 1946. Mandela, too, as you point out, killed too. As did Castro, in terms of leading a revolutionary attack (the other two would've said the same of themselves no doubt). Even Ghandi was not without fault though, as I have posted. But I fully accept these things need to be put into context of history. As with Fidel's treatment of homosexuals. Point 1 is more contentious. Who came up with the figures? What is added to the 100,000? I'm glad you used the words "responsible for" rather than "murdered" which is often the word used by British media. It includes the oringal revolution (fair enough) but is Lenin remembered primarily as a murderer? Perhaps by some. It includes those Cubans killed in the Bay of Pigs! It includes 78,000 of people "fleeing" peaceful Cuba. It includes 14,000 Cuban troops killed in Angola. They were helping Namibia gain independence from South Africa (during which they trained doctors and gave other resources), helping to ending apartheid in the process.
I might do if he saved my family from oppression hunger etc... and lived in that environment... it is all about perception It is all to easy for those outside to look in and crit. Because of my links with the Tibetan struggle I obviously dont.... as most Tibetans dont...
Shameless avoidance of the question. Go on, SH, please watch the video in full and read what I wrote. Then let me know. And if you return with the last time you saw Paul Simon in concert I will feel let down.
2 points about Castro. He believed completely that the end justified the means, and considered all life, including his own, as being immaterial compared to his goals. Whatever his goals were, or whether they were achieved or not, I find it difficult to attach the label 'hero' to him. I respect the achievements which were made in Cuba but, there is a realm of difference between fighting on a field and mistreating prisoners and political opponents. He was, however, a product of his time and place. Before him Cuba had never known a democracy - and torture of prisoners was the norm. He also allowed a personality cult to develop around him, which was the absolute antithesis of his professed Marxist beliefs. But how can we judge historical figures ? Was eg. Oliver Cromwell a hero ? His was probably the first military take over in history, and it was none too gentle - but he was also probably the father of the British Parliament. He too, having gained power through the use of arms, found it difficult to throw them away afterwards.
I wonder how many of you who are talking about Castro have actually been to Cuba whilst he was in power? Please can you post a simple yes or no?
