The Half Ashed Cigar Forum

I'm torn about Castro. I am. I'd never post this on an "open" forum, such as Facebook, but I'll gladly post it here for our discussion. First off, here's a funny little article I didn't see any coverage on elsewhere. Even in death the revolutionary turned dictator leaned on his faithful devoted more than he should.

http://jalopnik.com/of-course-the-russi ... 1789684182

Regarding my wide thoughts on Castro, read on. Also, before I get into it, I know no one here asked me for this. I don't pretend to think I'm an authority here and doing you all the favor of hearing my opinions. Rather, we're a tight knit group with varied opinions I respect and enjoy listening to. Please, respond, have an emotional rebuttal, be respectful and educational, even if that education is only spreading your emotional reactions. (For all you right wingers sick of this stuff...) Enjoy this "safe space". Heh.

I honestly think Castro started as a revolutionary with honor. I think his law degree and distaste for corruption, plus love of country, caused a passionate and naive view of what was necessary (and possible). Fidel, Raul, Che, et al departed Mexico on Granma with honest thoughts of freedom and equality. What followed was a series of challenges that ultimately led to the realization (in my mind) that the task was bigger than ideology and the fear of isolation and retribution gave way to bigotry and hatred. Power corrupted. Fear ruled. Ideology waned.

Che saw an entire latin American revolution and my understanding was that Fidel initially did as well. It wasn't until Cuba was overthrown and tensions relived, slightly, that the move was made to continue off-island. Fidel chose to go no further and concentrate inward on "his" island and his own abilities as a ruler. He dove in, he turned early and he lost control. He became a cog in the machine and didn't have the backbone to be honest. He valued his own life, at this point, more than the livelihood of country. Fidel from early on to the mid 50's was gone. Alive was the dictator who brought the world to the brink and brought his country to its knees.

When Fidel left in the 50's he left with intentions of communism in its true sense. Unfortunately there's such a low percentage chance that this could ever work that he had little ability to maintain. In my opinion communism is an oft misunderstood philosophy. It is a beautiful thing where all are provided for and taken care of and, most importantly, all must give all. The ridiculous notion here is that all will give all. The notion of a state assisting and overseeing is one thing. A state providing and over-lording is altogether different.

With different geopolitical climates during the two instances where this form of government truly took hold (1917 Bolsheviks and 1959 Cuba), it could possibly have stood a chance as a more modified socialist outlook. Think of Star Trek as an example. It's never said but Earth and the Federation (within which Starfleet is contained) are communist in the 23rd and 24th century. There is no money. There are no "nations". There is no war and all citizens are equal (on earth). It's an interesting philosophy that I applaud. I don't think we could ever achieve it but I think there's no reason not to strive for it.

Fidel took a chance. I believe he quickly realized he was greatly flawed, had made irreversible mistakes and became a modern butcher of men. That doesn't mean that on a micro-scale we all couldn't attempt to act this way in our daily lives. All deserve equality and all respect. Don't just try to uphold your part of this agreement, view the agreement as something only with yourself where your task is to do what you can, not what you must. The danger of a contract is not that you won't do your part, it's that you'll judge others as not doing theirs. Whenever opinion and judgement enters the arena it is only a matter of time before it takes over.

There's a part of me which thinks Fidel could be recognized as taking a stand towards equality. He should be recognized more so as only succeeding in becoming a monster but, that shouldn't necessarily preclude us from recognizing what I believe to be intent. I also recognize that this is an unproveable opinion, which I have. Perhaps it's more telling of who I am than who he was. I wish he would have lived up to his initial philosophy. I hope that philosophy is what I lend him credit for. Unfortunately, It seems a dubious possibility since most of what we have proof of is violence and most of what we have speculation of is peace.

Perhaps I have not lost all of my faith just yet.

In formal and informal debates there is a notion of graciousness. The idea is to throw out the cartoony, straw-man views of the other side and deal with their ideas and words with the best possible interpretation and not the worse.

That said, I can (or I think I can) see the point in Fidel's story where ideals turned sour and he doubled-down on power instead of admitting to wrongs and trying to change course or seek aid. Can we give him the grace that it all started out rosy? Maybe. But I think we have to judge people on who they are, not on who they've been. It's a story as old as time, but maybe one day it will work better than all previous attempts.

Also, that's funny as hell that his final ride broke down! The universe has a sense of humor, or maybe one last CIA effort

Are you teaching next semester's course on political "Cross-Aisle" relations, Mr.Winchester? I'd sign up.

I'm not sure you're 100% right with the idea that we're judged by our more recent actions over those of the past. For a throw-away analogy, that would be like disliking a band because their later music wasn't as good as their early stuff. Perhaps a better thought is that we're judged by the quantity of quality in all of our achievements cumulatively. As such, Fidel's failed. There's no doubt about that. I guess the point of this thread is that I don't actually want to do this. Perhaps more accurately, I don't want to do ONLY this. I'd like to consider actions, not cumulatively or individually, but appropriately. If multiple actions are tied together, judge them.

I'll put myself out there with another little story. I was a pretty typical Neo-Con back about a decade. Cigar store. Bumper sticker that said "We could all use a little more Bush - For President - 2000". Anti-Climate Change. Anti CFCs causing Ozone depletion. Pro water-boarding. The thing is, I started realizing that the more I researched and the more I read, the more I separated myself from these right leaning stereotypes. In 06 I started researching energy efficient construction and found links between fossil fuel output and climate modifications. I read info on 9/11 and was in France in 03 when Colin Powell gave his infamous UN speech. I started learning more about refrigeration and CFCs, HCFCs & HFCs, R11, R134, R410a and started reading papers on how certain things have certain reactions and those reactions cause other reactions and when multiplied by 50 million uses, the impact can add up. The point being, I withdrew. This presidential cycle I withdrew further. I don't want to go into politics here (more so than a discusion on Castro inevitably will go) but my unquestionable break from the Republican party completed in late 2015 when reason and political reasoning abandoned civility and embraced a niche political hot-button and ignited an uproar of hatred within our citizens. I don't disagree with many of the political strategies being proposed. I disagree with the associated hatred that many followers tie into said strategies.

That brings me to Fidel Castro and his death. I'm handling this emotionally. I understand that. Sometimes the lens of emotion reveals aspects that aren't visible under normal light. They're not "real", per every day living, but they are valid in that specific instance. They are worthy to feed our individual expression. My view on Fidel's early "career" is undoubtedly being viewed through the lens I find myself using often this year. I choose to look also at the good in the path, otherwise I would only be mired in the negative. The hate. The pessimism. I choose the light. Will Donald Trump make a decision to end all humanity? Possibly. Will Donald Trump make a decision that breaks down the walls of traditional partisanship and begin to redefine politics on beliefs and not solely benefit? Possibly. I'm willing to look at all of it and not pigeonhole based on only some of it. I feel like I have to. I have to also see the good.

As to your first post, Kurt; if what you and I think is true in the fact that I think Fidel lost what he intended so quickly, then how do you think he was living with himself in the last years. He must have had SUCH a weight on his conscience in the latter part of his life. You could only imagine thinking and dreaming one thing, only to profoundly change things in a way you were not imagining or hoping.
Tortured soul. I don't doubt he lived a hell through his life that would have killed lesser men of heart attacks or strokes long ago.

Zedman05 wrote:As to your first post, Kurt; if what you and I think is true in the fact that I think Fidel lost what he intended so quickly, then how do you think he was living with himself in the last years. He must have had SUCH a weight on his conscience in the latter part of his life. You could only imagine thinking and dreaming one thing, only to profoundly change things in a way you were not imagining or hoping.
Tortured soul. I don't doubt he lived a hell through his life that would have killed lesser men of heart attacks or strokes long ago.

You're undoubtedly right about the stress but I think it wasn't as you're saying.
FYI, this is where my understanding and interprutation of history turns to presumption.
I think he lost his ideology at some point in 1958. More accurately, I think his ideology changed. I'm not an expert at Cuban citizen political leaning in the 50's. If I had to guess, I'd assume it was much the way that it was in the 60's. I bet the fringe, more tropical and isolated areas of the nation were secluded enough to neither support or oppose the Batista regime. I'd guess that these politically isolated people resisted the "26th of July" movement as it marched north on the island and Fidel was faced with an unexpected problem. He had to kill those who didn't support the then president even though they did nothing besides defend their family.
Knowing a little something about leadership, I bet Fidel had to support things he didn't necessarily want to support, under the guise of it being for the greater good. As such, he sacrificed his own morals in the hope that it would ultimately lead to the fall of Fulgencio Batista's government and the removal of its installed collective yoke.
Fast forward to January 1st, 1959. Batista leaves the country for Fidel and his rebels to rule. Fidel slowly continues on his journey towards Havana, which he doesn't reach right away. Steven Soderburg uncovered some things for the movie "Che" that lead me to guess that Fidel milked the end of his journey as a way to try and win over the rural areas of the island. To me, I wonder if it was a way to try and convince himself that what he did to "those people" was justified. Unfortunately what I guess happened was that he judged his efficacy and "place" in the nation by how those collar regions received him. I'd guess as a deity.
That emotional ploy of Fidel's seems to have had a the impact of making him think that he was infallible; almost God-like. And like so many other rulers in the past, his fear of losing that inherited power completed its corruption over him. His beautiful intentions finished giving way to sinister fears and likely cave-ins of reason. Instead of ruling for the people he began his rule over the people. In this genesis of his tenure, I believe he believed the notion of divine right and stopped feeling guilt for his actions and started feeling burden of his responsibility. That was, no doubt, stressful but in the sense that he could feel sorry for himself instead of being ashamed of his actions. It all seems to have changed in January 1959. He went from a revolutionary with skeletons in his closet to ruler with weight on his shoulders. The latter certainly easier to bare.

I want to be clear on this. I've read a lot about Castro and the entire 26 de Julio movement. BUT much of what's above is the story that fills in the blanks between what I've read. --Highlight "story".-- No one knows. As I said initially, this is all meant as a discussion starter. What's better to start a discussion than a polarizing political figure, tied to a nation so deeply ensconced in cigar lore? Come on. What are your thoughts on it all? I want to hear them.

Craig, totally agree with what you're saying. What I was shooting for was that a "good" past doesn't always make up for the present.

...I started that sentence days ago and just now finished it

IWinchester wrote:

Where have you been all my life!