The Role Of Beards In The Cuban Revolution

"Most regular armies in fact, command their men to shave closely...In the Sierra, hair beat the smooth chins, and military art was made to look ridiculous.

'Batista's soldiers," a companion of Fidel told me, 'found us so incorrect, so improper, that it gave them the willies. The beard according to them meant ambush, the law of the jungle, and extermination...Toward the end, when they saw, in a narrow mountain pass, a beard behind a shining rifle barrel, they broke ranks."

- Jean Paul Sartre in "Sartre on Cuba" 1961

Fidel in 1959 - Enigmatic Pragmatist

"The weeks which followed the Liberation, at the beginning of 1959, were weeks of gaiety and of unanimity. Although in that period, for reasons which we shall see, Castro was not in the government, he appeared in the eyes of all as the man of unity. He wanted it so and did nothing to dissipate the mystery which surrounded his intentions. The right, the left, the parties, the unions, asked themselves about him. What was he going to do?

One thing is sure. He reacted forcefully against those who threatened the unity of Cuban society.

This was noticed from the first days, apropos of the Good Lord. They had put back into effect the Constitution of 1940. God was mentioned in the preamble. The ministers thought it wise to remove Him.

When Castro learned of this, he fell into a violent anger. No matter what the convictions of the members of the government were, they couldn't touch this venerable word which had had figured in the fundamental text for twenty years and which everyone could read without offending the priests and their faithful worshipers and consequently without breaking the unity of the country.

The word "God" makes a body with constitutional law. It doesn't get in the way. In taking it up, the revolution doesn't declare itself Christian. In suppressing it, it proclaims itself Athiest.

In brief, during this short respite, all measures were taken with the view of consolidating the union."

- Jean Paul Sartre in "Sartre on Cuba", 1961

Huckabee Is Against Sending Rice to Cuba

Check out this video. It appears that Mike Huckabee, who once advocated exporting rice to Cuba, now sees sending rice to Cuba as supporting terrorism.

With the way Huckabee talks about Cuba (very prominently on his issues page), one might think he was running for President of Miami!!! Of course "scoring" (thats the word the reporter in the video used) the support of key Miamian Cuban emigrees is a key to any successful Republican's campaign. After reading what his website has to say about Cuba, I thought I would show what is actually implied in what he says. On the surface it may not sound so bad, but when you understanding some of the implications, it really is quite bad. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for a free and non-totalitarian Cuba, but this stuff Huckabee is saying is ridiculous.

ON CUBA

Huckabee says (with implications added):
"The United States must continue to lead the world in condemning the human rights abuses inflicted on the Cuban people [while ignoring those of other countries] and isolating Castro's tyrannical regime [and America's citizen's freedom of trade] both economically and diplomatically[, even though this sort of isolation has proven to aid rather than combat tyranny and is probably part of the reason Fidel is still in power]."

Huckabee says (with implications added):
"As President, I will oppose any efforts to lift trade and travel restrictions on the Cuban dictatorship [as well as American citizens right to practice capitalism with Cubans] and will veto any legislation seeking to lift these restrictions [on Cuba and our own citizens] until three conditions are met [by Cuba but not by a handful of other countries we have friendly relations with]: scheduling of free, fair and internationally-supervised multi-party elections, freeing of all political prisoners, and legalization of all political activity and [the] civil liberties [which our citizens have to some degree or another but I find rather unsightly, and will probably motion to veto them as the chance arises]".

Compare those thoughts of Huckabee (remembering of course, that my additions are not his literal words) with the simple but very sane advice of Ron Paul: "Stop interfering with Latin America; talk & trade instead...Actually, I believe we're at a time where we even ought to talk to Cuba and trade and travel to Cuba".

The U.S. Policies On Cuba

Here's a brief summary of key reasons why I don't agree with the U.S. sanctions / embargoes / travel ban against Cuba:

1. Three liberties fundamental to a free society are being violated by the policies: economic freedom, freedom of association, and the freedom for law abiding citizens to travel. If one wants to "export" freedom, the way to start is by allowing these fundamental liberties to their own citizens first.

2. Capitalism and freedom can only work through open lines of communication and association. By closing that door, Castro's government and ideologies are made more (not less) viable.

3. Cuba is no longer is the tactical and strategical threat that it was during the Cold War.

4. The policies have (and will continue to) provide a strong platform for future radical non-capitalist leaders in Cuba.

5. The policies have (and will continue to) provide local leaders with a good excuse to point their finger at external sources to their problems.

6. The policies are horribly inconsistent, and Cuba is singled out, perhaps because it is not as lucrative a market as other countries. I don't believe I've seen a shred of evidence that Cuba's human rights record is anything but better than that of China or Saudi Arabia. Commercial interests seem to have made way for special treatment towards those other countries.

7. If the policies were intended to starve Castro's government out of existence or cause revolt: NEWS FLASH, it has been over 40 years and it hasn't worked. I understand that the policies are not monolithic and some aspects of them haven't been around for 40 years, but it is clear that they still haven't worked.

I agree with the U.S. over and against Canada on a number of things. In fact, I identify myself with the U.S. political philosophy (at least in regard to its original intentions) more-so than I do with the Canadian one. But on the issue of the Cuban embargo, I side with Canada. The U.S. needs to overhaul their policy in regard to Cuba. I've been to Cuba twice and am glad I have had that opportunity (and would visit again if I have a chance). It is a beautiful country with many extremely friendly people that have been through a lot of hard times (and it isn't just Atheists that live there, I've come across Presbyterians and Church of God members there). And I say that as a non-communist non-liberal freedom-loving Christian.

Castro Swap

According to LA Times and many other sources, Fidel Castro is stepping aside momentarily in anticipation of ongoing surgery, and handing the reins over to his brother, Raul Castro. This should not be a huge suprise, as Fidel is nearly 80 years old. Raul, however, is not much younger--75 years old.

Ruthlessness aside, Fidel actually does have a lot of popular support. How else could a Latin American head of state remain in power since the late 50's / early 60's? An iron fist will keep you in there for a long time, but probably not that long.

The transition of power to the next leader of the country and how it will happen has been a topic of much speculation over the past decade or two. There are many factors working against a peaceful transition.

To tell you the truth, I think the best bet is to have someone from Fidel's inner circle (ie Raul) replace him as opposed to just about any other possible scenario. I think that is the only way that Cuba could be propolled to some greater future--gradually. And the disappearance of the "Fidel" persona, will probably do a lot to take away some of the antagonism that exists. However, if some US-supported exiles from rich beach homes in Miami install a future head of state (some of them have been itching to do this for a LONG time), I can only image what sort of chaos will abound on this island.

The current residents of Cuba (to generalize a bit..) are likely mixed in their support for Castro. Some love him, others hate him, with many in between. But many of those that hate Castro, hate the Miami-exiles even more. I imagine that many Cubans who would welcome attemps to depose the Castros would fight even harder to ensure a Miami-based solution never happens.

Anyways, I'm no expert, but this subject fascinates me and I have read quite a bit about it.

To conclude, I think sometimes we need to consider that the best thing we can do to promote democracy and freedom is to fascilitate gradual and peaceful changes with popular support, not embargoes or violently installing new heads of state. Many of the regime changes and "pressure towards democracy" that we have supported ('we' being North Americans) have been nothing but a successful apologetic for Marxism (or whatever else may be the competing politic/philosophy of the day). Imagine how a quick and thorough revoking of the embargoe would take the wind out of much of Fidel's stance. He then would be forced to stop blaming the U.S. to some degree and would be more obligated to show what he is doing for his people.

Never underestimate the power of a strong vocal Miami lobby in all of this.

Related Tags: fidel castro, cuba, politics, latin america, foreign policy