NationStates Jolt Archive

I have been thinking lately, why is it that Cuba receives massive attention on every issue of it's politics etc from the US? I mean a geography reason can only go so far, if the US (as it says) is so concerned about it's definition of 'freedom' and 'democracy' then why isn't the US pursuing every country (including corrupt African regimes, Saudi Arabia etc) with the same political, diplomatic and indeed economic (embargo) intensity?

This is the question I asked myself, what's the big deal with Cuba, and I sprung this question to NSG, is the condescending and 'talk down' attitude of the US to Cuba just the lingering old-style American imperialism coming back? We all know the history of 18th century direct imperialism, but does the US (even unconsciously) consider Cuba to still be a part of America? The ambitions of the annexationists in the US to make Cuba a state of America is also well known, the flag was meant to reflect this. And if not directly part of the US, do you think the idea that the US 'sphere of influence' requires all neighboring and close countries to be pro-US?

I mean I think the role of the Cuban exiles is fundamental, or as I like to call them the Miami class, they don't see themselves as Cubans or of any nationalists, but as 'citizens of the world', and will naturally live where the most money can be made. Far from the nationalistic Cuban population Florida is portrayed as, increasing numbers of rich oligarchs from the whole region are flocking to Florida as majority poor (and indigenous) of their former countries take back their countries from the transnational oligarchies, this is happening in Bolivia, Venezuela, Argentina etc.

Does the Cuban exile itself represent the internationalism of US neoliberal influence?

The U.S. generally frowns on nations that don't do its bidding - the fact that one of those nations is 90 miles off our shore makes it no better.

It has nothing to do with Cuba's politics. The U.S. had no problem with anti-Soviet Communist states (Romania, PRC, post-1977 Somalia); however, being pro-Soviet, Cuba was hated. And, the hatred remains.

For someone whose political philosophy is bound by interpretation of historical forces, you seem to utterly ignore the cultural resonance of Cuba as an icon of the Cold War.

The ambitions of the annexationists in the US to make Cuba a state of America is also well known, the flag was meant to reflect this. And if not directly part of the US, do you think the idea that the US 'sphere of influence' requires all neighboring and close countries to be pro-US?

I mean I think the role of the Cuban exiles is fundamental, or as I like to call them the Miami class, they don't see themselves as Cubans or of any nationalists, but as 'citizens of the world', and will naturally live where the most money can be made.

Interesting observations, but I've noticed the opposite. Not only have I never heard anyone suggest Cuban annexation (sure you aren't thinking of Puerto Rico?), but I've found Cuban immigrants (and especially their kids) to be fairly accepting of their status as Americans, rather than cosmopolitan leaves in the wind. But that said, Cuba isn't ordinarily a major topic of discussion unless something is going on there (Castro sick/dying, refugees dying at sea, Elian Gonzales, etc.)

But that said, Cuba isn't ordinarily a major topic of discussion unless something is going on there (Castro sick/dying, refugees dying at sea, Elian Gonzales, etc.)

I think Cuba will essentially become less and less relevant to America as time passes.

People forget the enormous impact of the missile crisis - coming off the jingoism of winning the 2nd World War, America was plunged into a battle of values between democracy and communism, with all the corresponding hyperbole over the red threat and the march of communism across the world, something that was drummed as fear through each and every American.

This march came closest to America in the Cuban revolution of 1959, which was very closely followed by the missile crisis.

It can be argued that the missile crisis was the apex of the Cold War, more so than Vietnam. It was the farthest point, after which one could say the confidence of the USSR began to recede - they backed down.

Nearly all of the cultural associations we have now in regard to Cuba are formed from that moment.

The rest is just echoes.

Well, Cuba was/is hailed for long time as the only one Communist state in the Western Hemisphere that survived for longer time and was not drowned in uprising of domestic forces (supported by USA) or outright invasion of USA.
That had to hurt pride of government of USA (And they do not forget easily). And, of course, conflict of ideologies.

It's not really about Cuba. It's about the angry Cuban exiles who live in Florida. I don't mean the entire Cuban population, I am just talking about the ones who refer to Cuba as "our nation" the so-called 'business elite of Cuba' that was ousted by Castro. Florida is a swing state in the presidential campaign, and hence in Florida every vote matters, due to the out-dated Electoral College system we have. Yeah, yeah, it was great in the 19th century, times are chaging. Did you know that direct election of Senators only came about in the late 19th century? Of course you didn't, there's a document, called the US Constitution, read it! It's really a short read and it's something that should be taught in schools, but really isn't. Anyways, due to the power that these Cuban mafiosos, (remember not every Cuban is a mafioso, it's only like 1% of the population of Cubans in the US, probably less,) the US presidential candidate promises to be agressive towards Cuba. If we were to say elect Obama (a non-establishment candidate) and abolish the inefficient Electoral College that gives us presidents like Hayes and Dubya, you would see a rapid shift of US policy towards Cuba and an increase in American voting as well. But of course the establishment won't let us abolish their belove Electoral College, whose sole purpose is giving us Dubya-like candidates.

I have been thinking lately, why is it that Cuba receives massive attention on every issue of it's politics etc from the US?

The U.S. Government, Media, and anyone alive during the missile crisis, perhaps.

I myself don't really care...

I mean a geography reason can only go so far, if the US (as it says) is so concerned about it's definition of 'freedom' and 'democracy' then why isn't the US pursuing every country (including corrupt African regimes, Saudi Arabia etc) with the same political, diplomatic and indeed economic (embargo) intensity?

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11978733&postcount=125

- The last statement I made in that post kinda sums it up...

It's not really about Cuba. It's about the angry Cuban exiles who live in Florida. I don't mean the entire Cuban population, I am just talking about the ones who refer to Cuba as "our nation" the so-called 'business elite of Cuba' that was ousted by Castro. Florida is a swing state in the presidential campaign, and hence in Florida every vote matters, due to the out-dated Electoral College system we have. Yeah, yeah, it was great in the 19th century, times are chaging. Did you know that direct election of Senators only came about in the late 19th century? Of course you didn't, there's a document, called the US Constitution, read it! It's really a short read and it's something that should be taught in schools, but really isn't. Anyways, due to the power that these Cuban mafiosos, (remember not every Cuban is a mafioso, it's only like 1% of the population of Cubans in the US, probably less,) the US presidential candidate promises to be agressive towards Cuba. If we were to say elect Obama (a non-establishment candidate) and abolish the inefficient Electoral College that gives us presidents like Hayes and Dubya, you would see a rapid shift of US policy towards Cuba and an increase in American voting as well. But of course the establishment won't let us abolish their belove Electoral College, whose sole purpose is giving us Dubya-like candidates.

Is this satire? Just wondering.

I think Cuba will essentially become less and less relevant to America as time passes.

People forget the enormous impact of the missile crisis - coming off the jingoism of winning the 2nd World War, America was plunged into a battle of values between democracy and communism, with all the corresponding hyperbole over the red threat and the march of communism across the world, something that was drummed as fear through each and every American.

This march came closest to America in the Cuban revolution of 1959, which was very closely followed by the missile crisis.

It can be argued that the missile crisis was the apex of the Cold War, more so than Vietnam. It was the farthest point, after which one could say the confidence of the USSR began to recede - they backed down.

Nearly all of the cultural associations we have now in regard to Cuba are formed from that moment.

The rest is just echoes.

That's an accurate summary, no doubt. I don't think our politicians are particularly eager to re-fight the cold war, at least to the point of pressing for a belated victory in Cuba. The only imperialism in play here, if we're going to call it that, is economic - a turnaround in Cuba could mean a whole new market, and a fairly juicy one at 11 million people on the island alone.

I think Cuba will essentially become less and less relevant to America as time passes.

People forget the enormous impact of the missile crisis - coming off the jingoism of winning the 2nd World War, America was plunged into a battle of values between democracy and communism, with all the corresponding hyperbole over the red threat and the march of communism across the world, something that was drummed as fear through each and every American.

This march came closest to America in the Cuban revolution of 1959, which was very closely followed by the missile crisis.

It can be argued that the missile crisis was the apex of the Cold War, more so than Vietnam. It was the farthest point, after which one could say the confidence of the USSR began to recede - they backed down.

Nearly all of the cultural associations we have now in regard to Cuba are formed from that moment.

The rest is just echoes.

The really sad thing about this is, if the US hadnt embargoed Cuba after the revolution, Castro wouldn't have had to go to the USSR for support and the whole cuban missile crisis wouldn't have happened.

The really sad thing about this is, if the US hadnt embargoed Cuba after the revolution, Castro wouldn't have had to go to the USSR for support and the whole cuban missile crisis wouldn't have happened.

I believe that was the point, the same thing happened to the Sandinistas in Nicaragua, put extreme pressure (military and economic) on the independent country and force them to either be overtaken by pro-US forces or to go to the Soviet Union. If they go to the USSR then American can successfully play into the East-West ideological false dichotomy built up by propaganda in the US.

I think the fact that they are 90 miles away from America's shores is the primary reason they receive such attention, and why not? If they're the friend of one of America's enemies, and at the time they were, they pose severe threat to the United States as a launching point for a potential invasion. And yes, everybody likes to criticize this "latent US imperialism" - criticizing the US is quite fashionable these days it seems - but China did the same thing with Korea when we were trying to reunify it, Russia's doing the same thing with Eastern Europe right now, Iran's trying to do that with Iraq, and you want to know something, they're not stupid!

The reality is that NO country is an island - effects in other nations can have profound effects in your own, especially when they're nearby - and the chief role of any government is to protect it's own people. And sometimes that means making some tough spartan decisions about military engagement in a foreign land. Your "it's their country" speech ignores the simple reality that in the world of the airplane and, now, the internet, national borders cannot be said to exist in any meaningful sense. I don't know what that means for the future of national sovereignty, but we might start having to consider whether it's even a meaningful concept now.

I think the fact that they are 90 miles away from America's shores is the primary reason they receive such attention, and why not? If they're the friend of one of America's enemies, and at the time they were, they pose severe threat to the United States as a launching point for a potential invasion. And yes, everybody likes to criticize this "latent US imperialism" - criticizing the US is quite fashionable these days it seems - but China did the same thing with Korea when we were trying to reunify it, Russia's doing the same thing with Eastern Europe right now, Iran's trying to do that with Iraq, and you want to know something, they're not stupid!

The reality is that NO country is an island - effects in other nations can have profound effects in your own, especially when they're nearby - and the chief role of any government is to protect it's own people. And sometimes that means making some tough spartan decisions about military engagement in a foreign land. Your "it's their country" speech ignores the simple reality that in the world of the airplane and, now, the internet, national borders cannot be said to exist in any meaningful sense. I don't know what that means for the future of national sovereignty, but we might start having to consider whether it's even a meaningful concept now.

Oh I agree, borders are becoming meaningless now, and thus the sectarian elements of humanity will lessen, soon the only difference we will have is material (ie class). My point is that who will this 'globalization' serve? The whole of humanity or to simply exacerbate the material distinctions? The answer of course is obvious, the bourgeois have dug their own graves.

Oh I agree, borders are becoming meaningless now, and thus the sectarian elements of humanity will lessen, soon the only difference we will have is material (ie class). My point is that who will this 'globalization' serve? The whole of humanity or to simply exacerbate the material distinctions? The answer of course is obvious, the bourgeois have dug their own graves.

Or the bourgeois will bring the majority up with them, as appears to be the case in India and China right now.

Or the bourgeois will bring the majority up with them, as appears to be the case in India and China right now.
Have you been to China or India lately? Obviously not because if you had you wouldn't be making such ludicrous claims. The greatest myth that the capitalists perpetuate is that their are 'developing' countries, the only thing developing in the Third World is class antagonism, corruption and capitalist tyranny, capitalism requires underclass laborers, in 100 years the only changes in India and China will not be capitalist ones.

Have you been to China or India lately? Obviously not because if you had you wouldn't be making such ludicrous claims. The greatest myth that the capitalists perpetuate is that their are 'developing' countries, the only thing developing in the Third World is class antagonism, corruption and capitalist tyranny, capitalism requires underclass laborers, in 100 years the only changes in India and China will not be capitalist ones.

Ha ha, clearly you haven't either.

You only have to look at the danwei system of China, read Perry Link's Evening Chats in Beijing or Ha Jin's Waiting to understand that corruption of the human soul is far, far more damaging than any monetary corruption.

While you're at it, pick up In Spite of the Gods by Edward Luce for India.

I'm rapidly forming the conclusion that you lack the ability to comprehend history. You can parrot versions of it but you have no comprehension.

It's the very height of irony given the views you hold.

Oh I agree, borders are becoming meaningless now, and thus the sectarian elements of humanity will lessen, soon the only difference we will have is material (ie class). My point is that who will this 'globalization' serve? The whole of humanity or to simply exacerbate the material distinctions? The answer of course is obvious, the bourgeois have dug their own graves.

LOL.

You are so full of nonsense!

*throws a pine cone*

Anyways.

Why does Cuba get so much attention? Because it pissed of the US during the Cold War, and that anger is still remembered.

The really sad thing about this is, if the US hadnt embargoed Cuba after the revolution, Castro wouldn't have had to go to the USSR for support and the whole cuban missile crisis wouldn't have happened.

Easy hindsight is to benefit from I think - shoot me now :)

It's true to say that Castro himself, much like China, was very wary of USSR involvement and you're right, placing an embargo on Cuba drove them into the bear hug of the USSR.

I'm just not sure what possible decision they could have made otherwise given the mindset of America at the time, the one-for-one arms race was on, Eastern Europe had fallen, the world's largest population had switched - despite the fact that Chiang Kai Shek was nothing more than a triad in power - and now the communist revolution had arrived at the doorstep of America.

In a way, although I feel it remains an open question, it can be compared to Iraq.

America felt it needed to provide an example to the world, a remainder of its power, its refusal to tolerate disobediance. Their only option was to embargo and invade Cuba given that mindset.

I think it's a similar situation now and the experiment is whether, given the invasion, this works. The situation is different in that the invasion of Iraq, at least, was successful. Whether the occupation is the same remains to be seen.

EDIT: *I'm trying to squash a large subject into a small post here so if it has large gaps of connection I apologise*

Have you been to China or India lately? Obviously not because if you had you wouldn't be making such ludicrous claims. The greatest myth that the capitalists perpetuate is that their are 'developing' countries, the only thing developing in the Third World is class antagonism, corruption and capitalist tyranny, capitalism requires underclass laborers, in 100 years the only changes in India and China will not be capitalist ones.

Ha ha, clearly you haven't either.

You only have to look at the danwei system of China, read Perry Link's Evening Chats in Beijing or Ha Jin's Waiting to understand that corruption of the human soul is far, far more damaging than any monetary corruption.

While you're at it, pick up In Spite of the Gods by Edward Luce for India.

I'm rapidly forming the conclusion that you lack the ability to comprehend history. You can parrot versions of it but you have no comprehension.

It's the very height of irony given the views you hold.

Something that might interest both of you:

Economist Story about the Domestic Economy in China (http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?story_id=10688833)

I think you, Andaras, are working on the false assumption that because things are crappy now that means that they weren't worst before. It's a basic assumption of the left-wing that your emotions are always right. Don't forget, if China's demanding more oil that means more people are driving, which means that somebody can obviously afford both oil and a car. Also don't forget that only 15% of the United States lives below the poverty line - not exactly indicative of class oppression. It is not inconceivable that China may be on the track to become a new US.

Interesting observations, but I've noticed the opposite. Not only have I never heard anyone suggest Cuban annexation (sure you aren't thinking of Puerto Rico?), but I've found Cuban immigrants (and especially their kids) to be fairly accepting of their status as Americans, rather than cosmopolitan leaves in the wind. But that said, Cuba isn't ordinarily a major topic of discussion unless something is going on there (Castro sick/dying, refugees dying at sea, Elian Gonzales, etc.)

Maybe he might have been referring to the early 1900s when there was a strong movement to make Cuba a permanent part of the US.

There are two other issues here:

One is, what does the United States see as a threat? African dictatorships and thug-ocracies are generally not seen as a great challenge, however, the USSR, and by extention its servant states, was. If you perceive that you are threatened by a pack of wolves, you will pay great attention to an additional wolf, and ignore a rattlesnake.

The other issue is Cuban Imperialism.

Cuba was more active than the USSR in exporting its forces and its ideology elsewhere. Cuban troops were fighting in Angola, Cuban troops went to Grenada, Cubans fought in Ethiopia. Where Castro did not send soldiers, he sent terrorists such as Che. Same ultimate purpose- export of comunism by the gun. By contrast, other communist regimes like Poland and Hungary restricted their cruelty to their own people.

Non communist dictatorships in Africa and Latin America are generally uninterested in exporting ideology, they tend to be kleptocratic governments interested merely in domestic plunder. Non communist dictatorships in the middle east are a different case- fear of economic disruptions caused by oil embargos allows the Saudis to keep foreign governments, including the US and others, from opposing them.

Bear in mind that prior to Castro, there was no hostility towards Cuba or Cubans by the United States. Note the US reaction to "I Love Lucy". While I am sure a few wackos complained, no general outrage whatsoever over the idea of a nice redheaded all American girl marrying a Hispanic immigrant. In this same time, however, the idea of that girl marrying an American born citizen and veteran who happened to be black would have been far too controversial! A decade more would pass before TV's first inter-racial kiss, let alone marriage. So, at that time, clearlt, racism towards Cubans was a non-factor.

It's quite close to the US, we've had a long history of being intertwined with Cuba, and that whole Cuban Missile Crisis thing.

Latent my arse.

I don't think the USA is really interested in all the details of the Cuban political system.

I think they're more interested in their mythology about Cuba. For example, there are many unproven memes about Cuba that are thought of as 'common knowledge', though actual evidence is scanty.

Like the myth of Soviet support in the neighbourhood of billions of rubles. Every time I try to find some concrete support for this claim, all I find is vague references to 'Soviet support', but no details.

The same goes for gun control in Cuba. It's common for antigun control people to claim that gun control will lead to tyranny, like in Cuba. But no one ever bothers to provide evidence that there is gun control in Cuba.

And when Cuba does something good (http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/02/29/america/cuba.php), it is generally ignored.

Most of the US population can rember the Cuban Missile Crisis. JFK and whoever the Soviet leader at the time was, averted us from a nuclear exchange. Both of their advisors were telling them to push the proverbial red button. This would have killed millions. Cuba almost caused a nuclear holocuast. This is why there is general hostility toward Cuba.

I mean I think the role of the Cuban exiles is fundamental, or as I like to call them the Miami class, they don't see themselves as Cubans or of any nationalists, but as 'citizens of the world'....

That's where you are wrong, they consider themselves Cuban first, American second.