Amen to that Ziva!

At the time of Henry's post, I was one of those who liked the shirt, but thought that "Intransigent" would convey a somewhat negative connotation. However, it did not take me long to understand what Henry meant by it. I agree with you 100%. Now, more than ever we must remain intransigent regarding easing up things for the castro's brothers regime. Also let's remember that the embargo is not responsible for Cuba's misery. Cuba owes its misery solely to the castro regime's communist policies.

I wish you well :) Melek

"Wealth is not measured by how much money we earn, or how much assets we have. It is measured by how much FREEDOM we have to make the choices that are important to us: the freedom to choose where, how and why we live our lives." ~ Marquez Comelab

The great Cuban historian Carlos Ripoll wrote a study entitled "The Noble Intransigence of José Martí."

You can read it at:

http://www.lanuevacuba.com/noble-intransigencia-marti.htm

As a capitalist, there are any number of countries Cuba can trade with that can supply what is needed to sustain itself.

Look at the US trading partners like China and Japan.

Why is it that Japanese carmakers build plants in the US and not Cuba? No embargo from Japan.

The Canadians have free and open trade with Cuba, so why is Cuba a third world country?

The UK, France, Spain, Germany, the list goes on, including chavez and whatever clown runs Iran now.

The regime either chooses not to trade or the free market says loud and clear that there is nothing Cuba has that the world wants in sufficient quantities.

I am always amused by the hypocrisy of the regime, on one hand saying it doesn't need the US, that the US is imperialist, etc and on the other hand saying the reason thier economy sucks (a technical economic term)is the US embargo.

Either you need the US and will trade or you don't and shut up.

Besides, "comrades" you'll probably get pissed 'cause we'll start selling you satellite dishes!

When it comes to intransigence on the embargo and other issues, Val, George and Henry, just use Che's motto:

"Not one step backward, not even to gain momentum."

Stand fast.

The only constant in Cuban-American relations over the last 48 years has been Fidel Castro. If the embargo is still in place, it is Fidel Castro who bears the responsibility and the blame. On numerous occasions American presidents have sought a rapprochement with Cuba and been rebuffed by him. Gerald Ford had already agreed in principle to lift the embargo, and all the mechanisms were already in place to do so, when, on the eve of recognition, Castro launched the invasion of Angola. Jimmy Carter was also willing to reach an accommodation with Castro, and, indeed, had opened a U.S. Interests Office in Havana, when Castro unleashed the Mariel crisis. Even Ronald Reagan sent General Vernon Waters to Cuba to negotiate the normalization of relations, when Castro, already in dread fear of glasnost and perestroika, decided that it was wisest to say a "pox on both your houses" and retreat into his bunker to await the implosion of the Revolution.

If Fidel genuinely cared about the Cuban people rather than his own survival in power, the embargo would have been lifted
long ago. What would that have required of him? Simply that he adhere to the U.N. Declaration of Human Rights to which Cuba is a signatory. But the billionaire plutocrat lives to exploit his people, who are the source of his personal riches; and as he cares nothing about their civil or human rights, he cares even less about their economic rights. For him the Cuban people are mere chattel to be exploited, sold and bartered.

Fidel Castro trades with over 130 countries and has amassed the largest per capita public debt in the world (as well as the largest personal fortune in Cuba, estimated by Forbes Magazine at $950 million). Unfortunately, Castro doesn't pay Cuba's creditors (which serves them right for dealing with a thief). Every nation that has ever traded with Cuba has had cause to regret doing so.

As for the U.S. trade embargo, it does not in fact exist anymore. The Cuban regime is now allowed to buy foodstuffs, medicines, farm equipment, etc. from the U.S. without restrictions (except, of course, that they pay with cash up front). This seems to me the only sane way to "trade" with a bankrupt nation, which, moreover, owes the U.S. and American citizens billions of dollars for nationalized and confiscated properties.

The U.S. trade embargo on Cuba, incidentally, did achieve one very important American policy ojective — it brought down European Communism. The $260 billion that the Soviet Union was compelled to spend to prop-up Castro over 30 years effectively bankrupted it and hastened the collapse of Communism in Europe.

Finally, I do not care what the majority of the American people think about Cuba or Fidel Castro (although every poll shows that they detest him, despite the media's best efforts to avuncularize him a la Stalin). Cuba's future is a matter that concerns only the Cuban people, here and on the island.

I love this blog, It's the first item I look into when I get on-line.
I even agree with most of what it's author writes, maybe not the style, but definitely his intent. What I see as a problem is that you really don't have a strategy, or if you have one, it must be to piss off and ridicule any one who disagrees with you. Correct me if I am wrong, I am sure you will, maybe it is not the purpose of this blog to win over those who are wrong. As popular and effective as this blog is, you would think that it could be used for that purpose. Instead of alienating the castro/guevara lovers out there, why would you not want to win them over? Please, bear with me just a few more sentences. It is kind of like the approach a salesperson takes when talking to a prospective buyer. You want to get them to say yes at first, you want to get them to like you, respect you, trust you. Then you are in a better position to negotiate and put them in a less defensive position when you try to go for the close. The same happens when we are trying to convince others of the realities in Cuba.

Here, in Dallas, Texas, where I live, even though it is a conservative and Republican town, (at least 50%) the majority of the people do not know the truth about Cuba, they simply do not care. But I don't assume that they are insensitive, and I also don't assume that the other liberal che loving group are totally
unreachable. I am a commercial photographer and in my field I am surrounded by more liberals than the average person is exposed to. My liberal colleagues, aquaintances and friends, know for certain that they better not show up at my studio with a che t-shirt. But they also respect me, and listen to what I have to say about my brothers and sisters in Cuba, They listen and they end agreeing with me in the great majority of cases, why? Because I do not antagonize them, I don't call them names. And when they ask me, Manny, what do you think of the embargo? my first response is to tell them "the embargo has got to go"! At that moment they think I am on their side, and at that moment their ears and hearts are open for my follow up statement, "yes the embargo should be done away with, if and only if, the Cuban government agrees to the following..." And I proceed with the position that Mr Henry Gomez so clearly espoused in his post.
All this to say, that the first thing that we should not yell at them
is that we are "intransigent"! They will read that to mean closed minded, and there goes all your hopes and opportunities to reach them. Does anyone else feels that this is important?
Am I alone here?

Manny,

I appreciate the sentiments you expressed. As a contributing writer, I can tell you that the effort to educate those on the other side (those who side with castro) is a futile one. Believe me, it has been tried here, but all you get is the typical "it's the United States' fault", "Batista was worse", "Cuban-Americans were in the mafia back in Cuba" type of BS.

As far as enlightening those who simply don't know enough about Cuba, you couldn't be more right. This is the driving force behind this blog, the desire to educate those who are open-minded. Each writer has his/her own style, some of us are more direct in showing our emotions, some of us are more reserved. Sometimes, a post is written in frustration. Frustration over a combination of things. It's simply a reflection of the mood we're in on a certain day. It's reflection of our humanity, after all.

Can this be counter-productive? It depends on whether you want to listen to the message or to the messenger. Yes, we do need to be cognizant of how our message is interpreted, because a bad impression can ruin even the most solid and reasonable logic.

In the end, this blog needs to be read as a body of work, a book of sorts, not as a collection of individual posts. It's the best way that someone can begin to understand what we're trying to say.

Surprisingly, the word intransigence is derived from the Spanish word intransigente. It literally means "not to transact with," that is, not to engage in any transaction with someone else because compromise is impossible, whether because the interests of both parties cannot be reconciled or because one party in particular is incapable of engaging in honest dialogue. In this case, the party that will not compromise or engage in honest dialogue is Fidel Castro. Cuban exiles are intransigent because, recognizing the nature and objective of the enemy, they have concluded that no compromise is possible with him that would not entail surrender. The onus here is not on the exiles who recognize that it is impossible to transact any business with the Castro regime, but on Castro himself who refuses and will always refuse to create the conditions that would make dialogue possible in the first place. The creation of such conditions, in fact, would make dialogue a moot question since this would entail the recognition of our rights as men and citizens, which, again, Castro will never accede to.

The attitude of intransigence among some here and in South Florida is most fascinating. I will write about it at some point in the near future, but I want to agree with Manny here.

Manny made a good point of the PERCEPTION of intransigence being viewed poorly, especially when we live in a country that encourages open discussion and tolerance. Robert then makes some concession saying that maybe intransigents "do need to be cognizant of how our message is interpreted."

One way intransigence can be interpreted is as bigotry. In other words, others are wrong and their arguments are inferior.

This runs contrary to a vision for a democratic Cuba.

Another flaw in intransigence is the potential stalemate. Two parties can draw their lines in the sand and live happily apart. But, this model does not fit with the US/Cuba conflict.

If grievances are to be addressed between two hostile parties, a compromise MUST take place.

Intransigence, or similar positions, would abolish such options and, thus, allow continued abuses to happen, as has occurred for decades in Cuba.

MW,

Are you a supporter of the fidel castro government? Because it is apparent to all here that you prefer to blame the Cuban exile comunity for all that ails Cuba, as opposed to the true culprit, at least, that's what all of your comments to this blog say to me.

Another thing that is quite apparent is that you continually blame the embargo and restrictions and continually call for their removal, yet you offer no clear theory or plan as to how, exactly, lifting the embargo and restrictions will foster any kind of change in Cuba's government. All you do is muddy up the waters with references to myopic and dare I say slanted studies and polls that in efect, mean nothing as they all disregard the simple truth that the castro government has done, does and will do whatever it takes to maintain power.

Give us a break, for crying out loud, and take your nose out of the insulated world of academia and accept the god damned reality.

Val,

I must thank you for this comment! For me, there's no doubt about the mission of this great blog. We may agree to disagree at times, but we all share the same basic principles. To date, I have yet to read anything by this person remotely condemning the castro regime or positive about the Cuban exiles. If I were a betting person, I would bet that this individual is one of those who in his "distorted and idealistic world" believes that castro has done good things for Cuba. This person reminds me of some who believe the "I'm an intellectual, therefore, I have left-leaning tendencies". Sorry, but IMHO, his choice of words is just too telling. This person through his comments, clearly comes across as someone who feels above the rest, arrogant and condescending.
I know people like this. They praise the fruits of the Cuban revolution, hail che and castro from the comfort of their expensive homes, luxury cars, sailboats and express solidarity, while enjoying their "capitalistic" toys. They may want an end to the embargo, but not in the best interest of the Cuban people, just to benefit the oppressive regime. They would point out that there has not been a revolt against castro all these years, as a sign of success by the revolution. Yet, they neglect to mention why it's not viable for Cubans to revolt, even if they wanted to revolt because of the "modus operandi" of the castro's regime. My personal take from people who display positions similar to this person, is that they are "Victims of Intellectual Fallacy" They believe that anyone who holds "wrong views" in relation to their own, must do so because of personal stupidity or ignorance.

I wish you well :) Melek

"To be or not to be is not a question of compromise. Either you be or you don't be." ~
Golda Meir

MW,

Before you put any more words in my mouth...let me make myself perfectly understood to you (if that's at all possible). By WE, I meant EVERYONE needs to be cognizant of the image being portrayed when posting or making comments. This also includes you.

Of course, you took it to mean us dirty right-wing intransigents...but we all know you're much too eager to throw dirt on those folks.

Let me ask you a simple and direct question that you should be able to answer in no more than two sentences. You say that compromise "MUST take place" between US and Cuba. Fair enough.

So then: what compromises should Cuba offer?

Eagerly awaiting your response.