Talk:Cuba/Archive01

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents 1 ""What is this about "unsourced" 2 Opening comments 3 Cuban Presidents 3.1 Pro-Castro snipping 4 Havana vs La Habana 4.1 consistency the bugbear of small minds 4.2 Batista did not overthrow Machado 5 Template 6 Recent edits 6.1 insertions with odd English syntax 6.2 side comment 7 Sugar Crop 7.1 when ignorance is bliss 7.1.1 Insertions on Racism in Cuba 8 Reservations vs Encomiendas 8.1 Geological origens 8.2 National Parks 8.3 Bronze Age economics 9 Protected 10 info box 11 unsourced 12 Cuba Health Data 13 art 14 references or sources 15 Castro's power 16 Human rights again 17 unsourced statements can still be true 18 Cuban Education Data from UNESCO 19 More Deletions 20 Treaty of Paris 21 Culture 22 I need help! 23 Constant deletion of mention of Castro diddling in Latin America 24 Mention of Castro Espionage is verboten 25 Women in Cuba 26 its authority is moral 27 What is the name of the political police? 28 Interesting Technique 29 Lies, lies, lies 30 Charles McKelvey 31 Supporters of the Cuban government argue that the human rights record, living standards and health care in Cuba are better than those which existed under Fulgencio Batista, and would have continued im 32 Council of Europe - report about Communism

""What is this about "unsourced"

OwenX What is this about unsourced? It does not make any sense, my posts are always specifically referenced. El Jigüe 12/05/05

Archive

Opening comments

I removed the section on human rights because it is an aberration from the standard form for Wikipedia country others. In other articles there are a series of standard sections on history, politics, economy, and demographics-- each with a link to their respective main articles, along with a "miscellaneous" or "other" section for everything else. In other articles, human rights go under "other" or under the related articles. This is the case for the United States. It is even the case for other communist countries like People's Republic of China. [2] Thus, it appeared that the inclusion of a section on human rights in this article was at best arbitrary or at worse politically determined without reference to the NPOV policy. 172 | Talk 09:57, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I went down further in the article and noticed that "education," "healthcare," and "republic" (a long extra section on contemporary Cuban history) were also left up as extraneous sections. Editors need to follow the standard templates. Human rights, education, and health might be the compelling political issues on both sides of the Florida Straits, but on Wikipedia we have a set of standards we need to follow and thus have to stay as consistent as possible across articles. Health, eduaction (sic), and human rights do not get individual self-standing sections in the country entries. Therefore, I created a miscellaneous topics section featuring links to the main articles, which is standard in country entries. 172 | Talk 10:11, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Caerwine,

The saracastic comment on my talk page was not a sufficient reason for restoring improperly placed text. You say that the article has been subject to many edit wars. That is the case because the content was politically determined (what else explains why sections left under the "other" heading become the foci in this article?), not determined by the standard encyclopedic template, until my edits. Once this article follows the same template as United States, Russia, People's Republic of China, Colombia, Mexico, et al only then will the page history be stable. 172 | Talk 22:46, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Caerwine,

You keep on reverting back to the nonstandard version while ignoring the talk page. You have yet to explain why this article should follow a nonstandard template, and focus on the Castro regime, instead of general information on the country. Take it to this talk page-- not my user talk page. 172 | Talk 22:54, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually the sections that had been left under the now former Republic section haven't been the focus of the edit war. They were a result of hasty cut and paste merge from the former Republic of Cuba article which hadn't been integrated at all into the main text. Simply deleting that text because you didn't like the format was sloppy editting. Same with the Healthcare section, you deleted the content and added a redlink for a Healthcare in Cuba article. The least you could have done was put that content in a new article under that redlink. Nice formatting is all well and good, and a desirable good, but deleting text only because of its format is ludicrous.

The content of the infobox and of the History section, which are as standard as one could hope for in their formatting, so attributing the edit war to the way this article has been formatted is plain incorrect. Incidetally, I asked you to please tell me where this Wikipedia policy for the format of Country articles is spelt out. I'll happily follow a hashed out policy or recommendation, but I'm not going to take the word of any single person who apparently deletes content just because he doesn't like how it is formatted. Caerwine 23:16, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

You seem to have things upside down. Hasty cut and paste merges from redirected articles constitutes sloppy editing. Removing long, rambling, extraneous material so that an article conforms to standards, however, constitutes proper copyediting. If someone writes a lot of material but doesn't find a proper place for it, the thing to do is store it in a temp article (say) Republic of Cuba/temp, rather than just dumping it in any article... If you want to know how the format is spelled out, compare the articles on you own. Take a look at the entries on Russia, People's Republic of China, United States, Colombia, and Mexico (2-3 of which too have controversial human rights records like Cuba), as I suggested earlier. 172 | Talk 23:25, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I wasn't the one who did the hasty cut and paste, and in any case, that merge is now complete. I don't see anything here that I would consider extraneous, tho it is still verbose in places. I do find it strange that you kept deleting the Education and Health sections when there is an Education secction in the United States and Mexico articles and a Public health section in the People's Republic of China, so those two sections can clearly be justified by the examples you've given. Caerwine 23:34, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

The new version does not "satisfy my tastes." It is clear that the choice to start assessing the criticisms of human rights groups of the government in this article but not other country articles is politically determined. (Ironically those human rights groups are based on a paradigm that human rights are universal.) It is also clear that the choice to start focusing on UNESCO's more upbeat assessments of the country's public health in this article but not other country articles is politically determined-- the only difference is that this section throws a bone to the Castro apologists. 172 | Talk 23:35, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

With the current content of the human rights section, if it doesn't get separated out in a section of its own it would belong in the Politics section. I certainly would see nothing wrong with incorporating a Human rights section in every country article. I'm still waiting for you to indicate where one can find a Wikipedia guideline or policy concerning the content and formatting of Country articles. I'll happily defer to that, as such a guideline or policy would help reduce the edit wars here, but at this point all I see now is a question of taste in presentation now that the merge from Republic of Cuba has been completed. Caerwine 23:49, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually the choice of using WHO data (not UNESCO, that's the Education section) for the Public health section was motivated solely because it had a broader set of measures than those included in the CIA factbook. (I was the one who added that table to the then already extant Healthcare section.) The data that was gotten from the WHO source, is if anything, less upbeat than that of the CIA factbook, tho that may be due solely to differences in the data year used. Caerwine 00:12, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Shall we start by putting a human rights section in United States then, and expand to other countries if that's successful? It would solve this discussion, it would improve wikipedia, and it would mean that we're not accused of being biased against certain countries. There's already an article at Human rights in the United States, but it's listed in small print, halfway through "other topics" in an infobox at the bottom of the page, rather than having a top-level section to itself. Perhaps someone should start by discussing plans at Talk:United States, or propose a wikiproject. Ojw 17:10, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Cuban Presidents

One notes that some appear to have a dislike for the succession of Cuban presidents, and keep deleting any references to them except Batista. Could this be taken to suggest a bias against elected presidents in general? Or does this censor find Cuba's democratic traditions distasteful? (El Jigüe, 10/11/2005)

What it indicates that this article is the wrong place to list every leader of Cuba. Note that there are a grand total of seven presidents mentioned in the United States article, over a longer period of time than the Republic of Cuba. The article could use one or two references to people between de Cuellar in 1511 and Marti in 1895, but between 1895 and 2005, I think mentioning Marti, Palma, Batista, and Castro should be sufficent for this article unless there is something of signifcance that can be mentioned about them. Unfortunately, on a topic as broad as all of Cuba, simply winning an election is not sufficient enough. Caerwine 00:57, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

I disagree, to eliminate the democratic presidents, is to fall under a self serving propaganda thesis of Castro, that Cuba never really had a democracy, a thesis that is patently absurd. In the US peaceful transition was almost always the rule, as much as Jefferson Davis Wanted to change that. Still a tabulated list of US presidents would be nice. Marti never was an elected President in Cuba the Spanish would never allow an election that is why the Cubans were fighting remember. Marti was President in Arms (e.g. President of the Republic in Arms). Batista's 1940 election was irregular to say the leasr. Castro is not really a president, he was never elected (except later by rubber stamp communist party hacks) and said "electiones para que" remember.

BTW When you wrote de Cuellar for a moment I did not realize who the heck you were talking about, Diego Velazquez de Cuellar is commonly called Diego Velazquez. the de Cuellar refers either to his birth place or is his mother's last name. I will get you a few Spanish governors a good one and a bad one Conde de Pozos Dulce or Martinez Campos and Weyler the Butcher (Angel Castro Castro's father served with him). However, they were appointed by the Spanish king usually for four years, and were supposed to raise their own salaries in any way they could. Often they simply soaked the people on the Island and then left after their term taking their monies back to Spain.

In memorium Rogelio González Corzo (alias Francisco), leader of Catholic youth shot in la Cabaña, on the 20th of April 1961. We went to the University of Havana together he always will be 29, and I just get older. (El Jigüe, 10/11/2005)

It wasn't Davis, it was the warmongering Lincoln who did that. :)

This is not the History of Cuba article as much as you seem deteremined to make it that. If you feel it disproportionately emphasises the post-1959 era, it would be much better to trim that portion than to add more elsewhere. Caerwine 05:06, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Caerwine hmmmmmmm Davis, you "Welsh" really stick together (:>) Seriously I have addressed your comments as carefully as I can, but not checked all the material for the dislexic spellings of others. (El Jigüe, 10/12/2005)

What is the rational for removing even the one line on Castro's activities, yet leaving endless stuff on what Castro claims done to him (El Jigüe, 10/12/2005)

Pro-Castro snipping

It is interesting to note that in the introductory History section Castro's claims of mistreatment are given much space (I think he is up 600 plus claimed assassination attempts, every economic or agricultural disaster is said to be a function of CIA involvement, all who leave Cuba do it for economic reasons, ad nauseum), while anything that describes the over 50 plus years of Castro's rigid rule and overseas adventures in destabilization, are snipped out and removed. It seems that Castro's words "History will absolve me..." is interpreted by his supporters to mean he is shrived of all guilt and such "negative" matters are to be expunged from history (El Jigüe, 10/14/2005)

The interesting thing is that not even Castro's military feels that this is appropriate. For instance Brigadier General Tete Puebla while writing in "Marianas in Combat: Tete Puebla and the Mariana Grajales Women's Platoon in Cuba's Revolutionary War 1956-58" (published by the extreme left wing Pathfinder Press, ISBN: 0873489578) while taking an very partisan view does not bother to hide such events at the "War Against the Bandits" or the myriad of overseas adventures (El Jigüe, 10/14/2005). Leaving aside the lucious sex mad Marianas (who were said to copulate while rhythmically machine gunning the Batista troops as they tried to relieve Lt. Blanco Navarro's troops at Guisa) one could read Spanish the history volumes of Enrique Ros would give one a quite different and to my view closer to factual slant on these matters. Besides you need to read the first hand passages in my book on the "War Against Batista" when it comes out. Xe xe (El Jigüe, 10/14/2005)

Havana vs La Habana

There have been certain revert warriors that among other changes, have been insisting that the capital of Cuba be identified by its Spanish name, La Habana. Given that this is en.wikipedia.org, the capital of the Czech Republic is identified as Prague, and not Praha, and the capital of Italy is identified as Rome, not Roma. Given these conventions, why should Havana be identified as La Habana contrary to the existing conventions? --Bletch 14:37, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Blech, You are probably correct, however this should not be taken to extremes because then Guantanamo would be known as Cumberland xe xe (El Jigüe, 10/12/2005)

Given that the guideline is standard use in the English language, and Guantanamo Bay is called just that in English, I'm not sure how the name "Cumberland" fits in to things. --Bletch 18:13, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Bletch that was a joke. Cumberland was the name given to Guantánamo when the English took it in the first part of the 18th century, but then [3]],[[4]], [[5]], all this relates to the war of Jenkins ear, and Admiral Lord Vernon (and through him to George Washington's halfbrother Laurence after whom George named his famous residenc residence). Cumberland (Guantanamo) was where in 1790 the English Garrison died of fever as had another English force previous [[6]] , before they could attack Santiago by land [[7]]. All this goes on and on until 1898 where Cuban scouts have save the neck of the Marines, in a story variously told, and involving Steven Crane. (El Jigüe, 10/12/2005)

Ahhh ok... funny the Guantanamo Bay article does not have the word Cumberland in there at all. Care to add this info to that article? --Bletch 23:27, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

I have often wondered about this. Which spelling came first? Considering that the Havana spelling would in Spanish be pronounced as Habana, it looks a bit odd to see the 'b' in the Spanish spelling. DirkvdM 06:52, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Good question; a quick Google search doesn't seem turn up anything. I'm somewhat inclined to guess that it was Havana in Spanish at some point; for whatever reason, English speakers have not mutilated the spelling of Latin American city names the way they have European city names. --Bletch 16:47, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Bletch I checked Alfredo Zayas former elected Cuban president's book Lexografia Antillana 1914 edition, you are correct it was once spelled with a v, its full name was San Christoval of Havana , however, the name Havana is Taino, believed although Zayas does not say so to sabana (savanna). In present day vernacular Spanish the v and the b are pronounced almost the same in most areas. The English version was originally Havanne. BTW I inserted the Guantanamo stuff as suggested (El Jigüe, 10/13/2005)

Most guides that I have read say that Spanish does not distinguish between b and v. Certainly in modern Cuban pronunciation both fall somewhere between the two English pronunciations. I doubt that "San Christoval of Havana" is the correct Spanish spelling - the h inserted in Cristobal seems an anglicisation. -- Beardo 00:19, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

• This still seems to be going on. Primarily with User:Comandante. Given consensus is Havana, I will treat it as vandalism and revert it. Wikibofh 21:39, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

• • I left a message on his talk page which he promptly deleted. Further edits will be treated as vandalism. Wikibofh 22:03, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

consistency the bugbear of small minds

""A foolish consistency", according to Ralph Waldo Emerson, "is the bugbear of small minds"."

"Many developers would agree wholeheartedly with that sentiment -- particularly if they've had "consistency" forced upon them by over-zealous usability people." [[8]]

Batista did not overthrow Machado

Someone is removing that fact that Batista did not overthrow Machado. This someone is easily identified as one writes English a non "native" speaker because he or she keeps using the word "subdual" which is a noun instead of the verb subdue(d). Batista was a nobody, outside the of non-commissioned ranks of the Cuban army, when Machado fell. He could not have done anything because the officers of the Cuban Army (still in control of the Army), the civic leaders of Cuba, and the US embassador Sumner Welles negotiated with Machado who already under pressure from continuous revolts and armed resistance through out the country could not really hang on anyway.

This is akin to the incorrect notion that Lenin overthrew the Zar of all the Russias. Lenin, after taking power from the transitional government, merely murdered the Zar and all his family, after taking over the (Dumas) Parliament falsely claiming to be the representative of majority, (Boshevik means majority), overthrowing the Alexander Kerensky government.

What Batista did was to be part of a generalized mutiny of non-commissioned ranks, and became prominent because the mutiny sent out orders under his name as telegraph sargent. Batista gradually accreted power with the help of US Ambassador New Dealer Sumner Wells, first taking over the leadership of the mutiny, the leadership of the army, defeating and killing his enemies, on the right and the left. (El Jigüe, 10/14/2005).

Template

The template is there for a reason. If you don't like it put a Vfd on it, and on all the others fromm other countries. If you have a problem with infobox comntent edit the template. Do not remove the template so you can spread your edit wars over this page, SqueakBox 19:44, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template: Cuba infobox

Recent edits

My attention to this article was drawn by the last edit summary -

"Encyclopedia's do not call France or the US "capitalist state", so it is not fair to call Cuba a "communist state". 2nd: it implies that the communist party is "ruling" the country, which is false" -

what they do say is that the USA is a "federal republic" that the United Kingdom is a constitutional monarchy and that France is a unitary republic. It is disingenuous to describe Cuba as a Republic when the only legal political entity is the Communist Party and all other forms of political expression are prohibited. That means that the country is ruled at the discretion of the Communist Party - ergo - it is a communist state. Our definition at communist state lists Cuba as a prime example. Jooler 16:57, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

insertions with odd English syntax

Insertions, generally those promoting Castro's point of view, are often written with most odd usage, syntax and style sprinkled with grammatical errors. This might lead an objective observer to think that this is due to poor literal translations of Spanish language originals. However since to do such would be against Wikipedia “rules,” I refuse to believe that this is attributable to verbatim copies of sections from Castro propaganda sources. (El Jigüe, 10/18/2005).

side comment

I removed this parenthetical comment:

He says that if the United States get hit, the economy of the rest of the country will take the blow (although that was slow to start up when Hurricane Katrina hit), ...

It is not relevant to the article, and it states a non-neutral POV about the government's actions regarding Katrina, which is a controversial issue. --147.154.235.53 14:16, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Sugar Crop

The Cuban sugar crop has dropped at least 70% by the most recent figure to about 1.6 million tons in 2004 [9]. Cuban government experts are blaming the drought and expect the drought to continue as hurricanes rage off shore. This strange drought may well be real and a product of extremely poor land management (El Jigüe, 10/17/2005)

The nine million tons you are taking as the baseline was in fact the highest annual yield reached before the ten million ton target was acknowledged as unrealistic. The diversification away from sugar monoculture started years ago and the recent figures need checking against the target yield for the year in question. What is strange about the drought? How many years has this been going on? I haven't visited since 2000 but market gardeners I talked to then were complaining then about lessening annual rainfall. They were doing their best to maximise water conservation: your "extremely poor land management" is just another of your desire to blame Castro/the Cuban government for anything negative that happens in Cuba. MichaelW 17:02, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

The two year dip to 1.5 million is probably due to weather. However the dip from 7 million on average to 3.5 million, clearly is due to the end of the Soviet era. Considering the low price of sugar on the unsubsidized international market, once the Soviet gravy train ended, it made excellent economic sense to cut back sugar production. What I would like to see and include in the article would be yield per hectare and hectares planted. That would be less susceptable to POV bias. Caerwine 22:54, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Michael and Caerwine, between the removal of many of the remaining trees of the plains and the massive dams that choked the flow of underground streams Castro's plans have been as much a disaster as similar Soviet projects. As a result the recycling of evapotranspiration which can account for as much as 60% of the rainfall is much diminished; the "roughness" coefficient of the arboreal vegetation that moderates prevailing winds is severely decreased; and probably the ecological function of hydraulic lifting by savanna shrubs which also once contribute to climate moderation is gone with loss of these shrubs. The riverine gallery forests with their water sparing and recycling properties are also essential gone. This plus soil structure degradation because of poor cultural methods have reduced soil water retention and increase run-off. Sugarcane is a C-4 plant and thus more tolerant of drought; however to successfully grow cane in close proximity requires inorganic fertilizer, it appears that Castro's so called organic farming has done nothing but mine the last essential minerals from the soil. Castro's own people have presented remedial projects against salt water intrusion and desertification but these are "a dollar short and a day late". There are some good scientists in Cuba who know what to do; however, the present government is downwardly directed and micromanaged and will not allow them to work effectively. BTW I used the simple equation of 100-1.65/7 to get 100-23.6 or roughly 76.4% drop. Check my calculations. (El Jigüe, 10/17/2005)

I just can't see the >50% drop between the 2003 and 2004 production as being due simply to soil depeletion, not when the 1992-2003 total held relatively steady. Clearly there was something drasticaly different between 2003 and 2004. The projection for 2005 production is slighlty higher than that for 2004. I'd wait until a 2006 projection is available before crowing over yet another of Castro's problems. Caerwine 04:24, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to know where you (El J) are getting your information from. It appears to be at least 20 years out of date in terms of official attitudes. The Era of Rectification launched in 1986 began addressing the gigantism of the Soviet era. The onset of the Special Period may have scuppered the resources needed but the attitudes didn't revert.

Re trees: In 2000/2001 the Ministry of Agriculture in Havana was giving major support to reforestation and agroforestry (combining annual crop/animal pasture with forestry). The Green City plan (My Green Programme) launched in 1999 called for 18 million trees to be planted in the Province of the City of Havana, including two and a quarter million fruit trees. A major project at the Havana Botanic Gardens was concentrating solely on propagation of productive trees for distribution via community groups.

As I said up there, sugar production was never part of the organic farming development. What was drastically different about 2003 and 2004 was most likely the deliberate cutback in sugar production - tourism has long taken over as the main earner, and the production of fruit and veg for the tourist industry has become a priority land use. Still as Caerwine infers, we need some basic data to work with. MichaelW 15:57, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Michael the Cuban sugar crop has been in decline for some time, from a high of 8 (supposed to be ten), then to 7, to 5, 3 and for two years in a row below million tons, surely this establishes a trend. Castro is now ordering even more a sugar mill closings.

Vegetable (truck farms) and fruit crops do not take up much space; however, inputs of N-P-K and minor "nutrients" are essential for all rational crop production. The problem is the source of "organic nutrients." There are massive sanitary problems with human waste, thus only the most skilled organic growers can grow produce well without inorganic or offensive sources of inorganics.

It is one thing to anounce grand plans as you describe above another is to carry them to completion. As to basic data you could read the academic literature (some of which cited) or you could go to http://earth.google.com/and see the disaster for yourselves(El Jigüe, 10/18/2005).

I've spent time working with organic growers in Cuba, I've seen the development there over several years and as an experienced organic grower myself I can tell you are talking through your offensive source. There are several ways of increasing soil fertility without using human manure, and from what I have seen there are many, many Cuban cultivators who are very skilled in those areas. E.g. their development of soil inoculants was, 10 years ago, way beyond what has been developed in the UK. Their development of worm farming (lombricicultura)was methodical and widespread.

What you say of sugar production offers nothing to assert your suggested reasons of mismanagement over deliberate downsizing. Could you please list some academic studies (cited where?)rather than offer dead links. MichaelW 18:32, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Mike you might read (Díaz-Briquets and Pérez-López, 1993; Wotzkow, 1998), one can infer grudging confirmation from recent officially sanctioned reports from Cuba (e.g. Riera 2003; Grogg, 2005):

“Ministry of Agriculture studies indicate that 12 percent of all agricultural land in Cuba is desertified to some degree, a proportion that will rise to 15 percent by 2015.” Anonymous 2005 b

Of course you can always "cop out" by claiming that climate change not Castro was at fault. However, you may note the recent hurricane season did not do much

In reference to earth worms Darwin worked on that some years ago (;>), and as to soil inocculants that is old hat too...it is somewhat inconsistant to argue that Cuba is so advanced in these techniques and yet the crops are poor.....You see the problem is not that Castro's ideas are not good, but that the implementation of such downwardly directed ideas in a rigid controlling society are quite a little bit less than perfect.

As to the "Era of Rectification" that unfortunate term could also be applied to a far different procedure related to rear-end alignment...you might read the final scene in John Barth's novel 'Giles Goat-Boy.' (;>)

Anonymous 2005 (accessed 10/19/2005) Women Fighting Drought in Eastern Cuba Periódico 26 (Tunas). Updated on Friday Oct 2 2005 http://www.periodico26.cu/english_new/tunas/women260905.htm

Díaz-Briquets, Sergio and Jorge F. Pérez-López, 1993 Water, Development, and Environment in Cuba; A First Look Cuba in Transition 3 found on line at: http://lanic.utexas.edu/la/cb/cuba/asce/cuba3/briquets2.html

Grogg, Patricia 2005 (accessed 10/19/2005) Environment-Cuba: homegrown formula against desertification. San Antonio del Sur, Cuba, Jul 25 (ips) Inter Press Service News Agency Wednesday, August 10, 2005 22:50 gmt http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=29637

Riera, Lilliam 2003 (accessed 10/19/2005) Desertification Cuba's main environmental problem. A look at Cuba. Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Republic of Cuba http://www.cubaminrex.cu/English/Look_Cuba/Society/society_Desertification%20cuba's%20main%20environmental%20problem.htm

Watzkow, Carlos 1998. Natumaleza Cubana, Ediciones Universal, Miami

(El Jigüe, 10/18/2005)

Interesting links, but how exactly do they support your arguments? The salinisation of the soil is attributed to centuries of monoculture, not communist initiatives. The drought in the east of the island has been going on for years, years where as one article point out, resources have been scarce. The grudging I see is from you when you describe altered state attitudes as too little too late. The articles describe community based responses, not top down diktat. The government provides what resources it can to support those initiatives.

Is it worth pointing out that they are not Castro's ideas? The organic and community farming and gardening efforts are down to a bunch of researchers who had been quietly exploring agroecology for ten or twenty years and were the only people with an answer to the food crisis of 1992-4.

Your description of Cuban society as rigidly controlled is quite incorrect, it is a very flexibly controlled society. Ideas in the food and health areas are not downward directed but spread by community groups, in schools, by educational TV, put together not by some ministry of propaganda but by community based educators. The ministry of agriculture in Havana, ten years ago, set up an Urban Agriculture Department. Their job was to give support and co-ordination to community initiatives all of which were using organic methods. Within 5 years the whole of the Minagri was promoting organic methods and each of the areas covered by the Urban Ag Dept was now a department of its own. A description of the workings of the organic farming/gardening scene in Havana can be found at http://www.cosg.orgf.uk/mario.html

Fidel had nothing to do with this! It was a local government response to popular enthusiasm for ideas generated originally in the University of Havana. Your desperate demonisation of Castro as the spider who controls the web which is Cuba is an insult to millions of your fellow Cubans who work hard of their own choice not only for their own well being but also to maintain an independent and relatively harmonious nation. Yes, very much less than perfect, but then how would you describe the US or UK???

MichaelW 20:41, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Michael; there are whole series of false premises in your arguments; for instance while sugar cane has been grown for centuries in Cuba, it was only in the early 20th Century that sugar was produced in large scale in eastern Cuba. Thus while it is true that problems such as salinization were present, such as near the Cauto delta, they were at a far lower level than at present. Since Castro has been in power now for 47 years it is difficult for his regime to avoid blame. The need for urban gardens may reflect a breakdown in the transportation system and the loss of small holdings such as those near Guines. I should advise you that many good intentioned people have gone to help the Cubans, Castro has exploited and spoiled all they do, and these innocents end up in a state of absolute disappointment. Castro has said “El que vive de ilusiones muere de desengaños” “He who lives on illusions dies of disappointments,” you might bear this in mind (El Jigüe, 10/21/2005)

Come on then, list those false premises. Your example is weak given that your aim is to blame the Cuban Revolution for the depleted soils of the Eastern provinces. The agricultural methods of the Green Revolution have been in use, globally, for the last sixty years. Cuba was no different in the 1960s in promoting chemically enhanced monoculture. I'm not claiming that Castro's government is innocent in this. By following Green Revolution methods they contributed substantially to the ongoing process of soil destruction. Since this is no different than what has happened in various ways all round the world, focusing the blame on Castro and his government is daft.

As I have noted before, your information seems to be completely out of date. Diversification, of crops grown,started in the mid 1980s and the privations of the Special Period have meant that Cuba is one of the few places where critics of Green Revolution methods have gained considerable influence. The links you posted describe examples of community based initiatives aimed at reversing the damage. My experience is that these kind of initiatives have been taking place all over the island for the last 10 years in many basic fields, including food, health and energy production. MichaelW 14:27, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

when ignorance is bliss

"When ignorance is bliss tis folly to be wise" attributed to Erasmus [10] and sometimes to others.

I don't know whether to laugh or cry when some insert erroneous data. Today Guyana [11] is an English speaking country east in Venezuela, yes there is an adjacent region of Venezuela called Guayana [12], however the students who died in the plane crash were Guyanese, not Venezuelan. Apparently the deleted Guyanese family, North Korean “cultural attaches,” the young ministry of the interior guard and the Cuban spy.fishing fleet commissars were "chicken liver."

Such mistakes and the selective deletions that accompany it call into question not only the immediate data presented but the whole section on Cuba, and in general it reflects badly on Wikipedia. When all this is summed with the arrant devotion of the zealous defenders of the Castro regime and the errors of spelling, their insistance on the most odd choice of words, and syntax the whole section becomes absurd (El Jigüe, 10/18/2005)

Michael while sugar cane has been grown for centuries in Cuba, it was only in the early 20th Century that it was produced in large amounts in Eastern Cuba. (El Jigüe, 10/21/2005)

Insertions on Racism in Cuba

Insertions on alleged racism in Cuba are extremely poorly informed and are best removed. That person or persons should added this "information" should first of all contemplate a photograph of Dictator Batista, or photographs of his senior staff or ranks.

Persons of Color, a more correct term in Cuba, since the Wars of Independence have always held high positions in the military. The fortified army barracks at Santiago, is named after the "Ebony Giant" Guillermon Moncada a War of Independence Hero (see his image at [13]). As to the presence of "Blacks" in Castro rebel ranks, my memory tells me that there were in far lower proportion than in the Batista Army ranks. I remember only about three who I knew personally, and of course Comandante Almeida, the rest of us seemed have skins that varied from "white" (really a kind of sunburned pink) through a range of varied browns.

Yes there was a certain amount of social conflict in certain parts of Camaguey and among a few of the social societies in Havana, but there were never separate toilets or things of that kind. Darn it one only had to look at the statues along the Malecon to see that being a person of Color in Cuba was not a matter of shame. (El Jigüe, 10/18/2005)

I have added links and documentations. - NWOG

Where?

Reservations vs Encomiendas

The Indigenous Cuban population, including the Ciboney and the Taíno, were forced into reservations encomiendas during the Spanish subjugation of the island of Cuba.

Besides being an awkwardly phrased sentence, this is ambiguous. Encomiendas were not reservations, in at least the sense of Native American reservations in the United States. If I knew more about the precise situation, I'd remove either the word reservation or encomienda, depending on what what exactly happened. Can anyone shed some light here? --Bletch 16:45, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Encomiendas is the early colonial circumstance when groups of Indigenous Cubans were assigned to a Spanish leader, for his use and supposed care and instruction. This leader el encomendado was similar to an "Indian Agent" charged with a reservation. However, the word Encomienda derives from a Spanish term meaning roughly to be in charge of ([14]). A famous encomendado was Vasco de Porcaya or de Porcalla, or Porcallo de Figueroa [15], [16] who maintained a hareem of about 300 Tainas (Jose Barreiro's estimate is considered sober by many other accounts); this gave him much status because such were the prerogatives of a great Cacique. Vasco and his half Taino sons went to Florida with Juan Ponce de León. Vasco returned and eventually became a priest. (El Jigüe, 10/20/2005)

Yes I am familiar with the encomienda system; what I am trying to figure out is whether the passage in question needs to be changed to encomienda, or reservation, or something else. --Bletch 01:35, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Bletch apparently the encomienda system seemed to be quite variable, there are times when they were like reservations, some times towns like Jiguani, but Cuba was both wild and an island so one could wander but not too far. Territorial precision was hard to determine in heavy forest. Even landgrants to Spanish were circular, 5 or ten leagues around a certain point around the main residence comprised La Hacienda or Hato. (El Jigüe, 10/21/2005)

Geological origens

Some might find it interesting to know [17] that

" The ocean between North and South America was partially cut off from the Atlantic and completely cut off from the Pacific by two massive shifts of land. First, Cuba and Hispanola moved in from the Pacific and formed the eastern border of the Caribbean. Other continental fragments moved in later but stopped farther west, eventually creating Central America. These closures created the Gulf of Mexico and the adjacent Caribbean marginal basins of the Atlantic, altered gene flow between the oceans, and established the major current patterns that area still prevalent today."

I will get to describing the geology and its relationship to the suphides and oxides and other minerals that played such a role e.g. Guanín (Taino), caona and Guanín (bronze) (El Jigüe, 10/21/2005)

National Parks

I saw a show on alligators the other day (yes I admit it was the Crocodile Hunter!) that said there was a Cuban national park created specifically for their protection after the Revolution. Can anybody inform me about it? I also saw in a bird book that several species of North American birds are now only present in Cuba, is this because of differences in land development, or geography, or environmental protection strategy between Cuba and the United Sates? What is the environmental policy of the Cuban government? Is there an article on the national park system there?

Note: This question is not meant to start a political debate. --RPlunk 23:25, 3 November 2005 (UTC) (just curious)

There are two crocodile species in Cuba: Crocodylus rhombifer [18] a indigenous species and the wider ranging C. acutus. Castro has also introduced a third specie from South America. Hybirdization occurs between species [19] There are a number of legally declared national parks in Cuba, and although these parks are given much publicity there is much discussion as to the level of protection provided in them. El Jigüe 12/31/05

Bronze Age economics

Given their cultural complexity [ISBN: 0813338778], [ISBN: 0252027582] and their achievements in diverse areas such as crop breeding and indigenous pharmacology [Robineau, Lionel (editor) 1991), and artifacts of copper alloys there are some who argue that the Taíno were in, or were in trading contact with Bronze or Copper age cultures Copper Age.

Earle, Timothy 2002 Bronze Age Economics: The First Political Economies Westview Press ISBN: 0813338778

Hill, Jonathan David (Editor), Fernando Santos-Granero (Editor) 2002 Comparative Arawakan Histories: Rethinking Language Family and Culture Area in Amazonia University of Illinois Press ISBN: 0252027582

Robineau, Lionel (editor) 1991. Towards a Caribbean Pharmacopoeia. End-Caribe, Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic.

Protected

Please resolve your disputes here. When they are resolved, send me a message and I'll unprotect the page. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-10-28 23:10

Brian perhaps the conflicts will not be resolved until Castro dies in that case we have along time to wait. One problem is that Castro has a large propaganda establishment which is reflected indirectly by insertions with weird syntax, unusual word usage, strangely precise numbers taken from Castro's speeches, and most odd turns of phrase (El Jigüe, 10/28/2005)

And on the other side you have a bunc of Castro haters who want to blame him for everything significant in recent Cuban history. Face it its a contentious subject and will be for a long time (MichaelW)

About the food consumption Per capita consumption of cereals, tubers, and meat are today all below 1950's levels. Tubers are basically potatoes. Cubans don't eat potatoes but rice (roughly speaking). Whereas before the revolution there will probably have been many more potato eaters from the US. In how far this affects the cereal and meat consumption I don't know (but it will also affect the number of cars and tv's). The most popular foodstuffs in Cuba are rice, beans, pizzas and icecream. So these figures are at least partly irrelevant and thus misleading. Also, a comparison is made between 1954 and 1997, which is unfair to say the least. In 1997 things were already starting to look up a bit, but Cuba was still suffering form the so-called 'periodo especial', when it was starting to look at a new source of income after the collapse of (trade with and support from) the USSR. A quote from the Rough Guide (2000 edition): "Shortages have slackened off and although everyone has enough to eat, choice is still rather limited, meaning that meals can seem rather repetitive and formulaic".

I've already commented on this exact text a while ago, and I've now found where; in the no longer existing 'republic of cuba' article. See talk:Republic_of_Cuba#Food statistics and the thread following that. I'd like to add to that that the amount of phones per phone line will be far higher than it was in the 1950's. A house with 4 households (one per floor) will often have one phone per household, but they share the same line, connecting each other through. Not ideal, but it works (well, not always that well for long distance calls, as I experienced, but that's a different matter). DirkvdM 08:40, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

It seems logical to me that Castro should hold some responsability for what happens in Cuba after all he has been Cuba's "head" of state for about forty seven years. If as Castro maintains the Cubans have suffered for all this period merely because of external pressure from the US, while the rest of the world supports his rule, perhaps Castro should have modified the situation. (El Jigüe, 10/29/2005)

To say that "tubers are basically potatoes..." in the Cuban context is not a good argument for it could be taken to suggest that the writer, and surely this is wrong, that the writer is less familiar with the island and its history. (El Jigüe, 10/29/2005)

Cuba once grew a lot of potatos; however, because of viral accumulation potato "seed" tubers need to be replaced frequently (even in the US) from stock grown in areas with relatively hard winters that kill the insects that are viral vectors. This is difficult and requires a modern agriculture. While the potato is of American origin it comes from Andean centers and was originally a high altitude crop, growing best in cool climates. In pre-Castro times it was grown during the winter using "seed tubers" from the US. Tubers in Cuba have a quite different meaning, there are perhaps three or more tubers in most frequent use usually of Taino origens, there is yuca (Manihot esculenta) [20] a crop with perhaps 10,000 years of development in the Americas, boniato the "sweet potato" (Ipomoea batatas)[21], malanga (Xanthosoma sp.) [22]. Malanga, which has a slightly acrid taste, was once the food of hardship, to say "comiendo malanga" once meant one was suffering hardship and had only malanga to eat. (El Jigüe, 10/29/2005)

As to rice, present Cuban production of rice is only slightly higher than in pre-Castro times and now has to feed at least four million more people. Then it was supplemented by high quality US grain, now it is imported as the lowest quality Vietnamese and Chinese grain. Perhaps if Castro had not jailed commandante Huber Matos who was a rice grower as well as a teacher and who helped Castro survive the initial days after landing, brought critical weapons to keep up the fight, and then fought Batista on the plains when Castro was still hiding high up in La PLata, there would be far less of a problem (El Jigüe, 10/29/2005)

Thus the arguments presented by DirkvdM appear to be less strong, and might well be given less weight (El Jigüe, 10/29/2005)

It seems more than a little patronizing to believe that foreigners who have spent little or no time in Cuba, know more about Cuba than the over a million who have escaped and those who still risk their lives to leave. The excuse that all these were "rich and exploiters of the poor" is to admit that Cuba, before Castro, was a relatively prosperous country. To envoke the similar excuse that those who left were Batistianos is absurd, since Batista's power base was not that large (he could not win the elections of 1952 remember) or defeat an insurgency. (El Jigüe, 10/29/2005)

Hmmmmmmm no other anonymous pro-Castro gremlins have shown up yet. One wonders if Philip Agee will send a response from Cuba xe xe (El Jigüe, 10/31/2005)

Who are you calling anonymous? You're not logged in either. DirkvdM 08:15, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Would it be malicious of me to point out that the extra-phones link to the spies and minders of the Comite de Vigilancia.. or that the rice from Vietnam and China is not vitamin enriched like US rice is (El Jigüe, 10/31/2005)

Another day passes without response hmmmmmmmmmmmmm (El Jigüe, 11/2/2005)

Still stalling Can't find anything to say eh what!!!!!!!!!!! xe xe (El Jigüe, 11/3/2005)

Are you talking to yourself? Or is the other side of this argument being deleted?--RPlunk 23:25, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Okay - childish sniping aside, how about we look at the problem and see if there is any way to resolve the hostilities and carry on developing this page. Being relatively new to this I don't know if this is the latest in a string of incidents, or culmination of a drawn out conflict. With a phenomenon like Cuba there is no way to avoid seriously conflicting views. In my opinion, beyond certain points there is no NPOV to be achieved and the best that can be done encyclopedically is to illustrate the opposing views and leave it up to readers to find the true path...

MichaelW 23:43, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

In other words, add rather than substract (I believe this is also a Wikirule). And then if something gets too drawn out, move it to a separate page and then point out the dispute and links to that page. (So maybe the arguments of El Jigue should be moved to a separate page? - Just kidding :) ) But sometimes the dispute is over the wording, which cannot be solved in this way. DirkvdM 07:32, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Hmmmmmmmffffffffffffff I will lurk at the bottom of my river pool as a good jigüe should. However, one should keep in mind that Castro employs a large contigent of far from benign Agi-prop personnel to try to cover up his tracks (El Jigüe, 10/31/2005)

El Jigue - I doubt very much that you will be lurking for long before you once more attempt to single handedly convert all wikipedia entries regarding Cuba to your own charmingly right wing Point Of View. Dont get me wrong, I have deep respect for your knowledge and experience regarding Cuba and seemingly all things Cuban, I am simply suprised that you cannot abide your views to be balanced with those of the current residents of Cuba and the rest of the world, even just the U.N. would be a good start. Or perhaps they are all part of Castro's Agit-prop personell too (you seem to have done an excellent job in identifying the Welsh employees (xe xe/he he)).

While I am on the subject of conspiracy theories, how come you have managed to single handedly write so many castro critical articles, without reverting a single edit - see

• Cuban-American lobby
• Cuban espionage and related extraterritorial activity revised(good title by the way)
• Tactics of Apologia

to mention but a few and yet still not manage to log in under a username? if it is as you say elsewhere that you are an academic, then I truly hope you do not advise your students to follow your example of using selected sympathetic sources and deleting references to all things contradictory. Your use of a psuedonym makes all that you say seem rather unsubstantial, why dont you just reply as User Talk:205.240.227.15 at least that way casual readers can check your other contributions and get a clear sense of your passionate dissatisfaction with the Castro regime.

Finally to pre-empt your deductions in true sherlock holmes style that I am in someway affiliated with any communist conspiracy because of my use of grammar or spelling, I am simply located outside of the two streams of propaganda eminating from the US and Cuba respectively and from that distance can see the disinformation flying, even if there is no truth to be had. DavidP 04:10, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Dear Dave:

You really should check my references to see that they come from all kinds of view points including those from inside Cuba. However, as I said I am not Manichean, and I parse the Cuban information with great care, since the Castro system is totalitarian and dislikes dissent. In the US one can write, from any view point, and still be published. Here in the US there are whole printing houses and unfortunately too many academic departments where the marxist view prevails. Strangely perhaps the most aggressive critics of Castro are often not "right wingers," but "trocolocos" (Troskyites), anarchists and arrepentidos such as Norberto Fuentes, perhaps they dislike the competition. ¡xe! ¡xe! (El Jigüe, 11/22/2005) .

I had you down for more of a Bogomil - but wouldnt wish you the same fate at the hands of the christian right. DavidP 05:10, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

info box

I have re-reverted the change by CJK from Socialist state to Comunist state back to Socialist state.

to annotate the change at 00:29, 29 November 2005 - CJK said "(rv, why? Cuba is well known to be a communist state)" It being well known doesn't make it a true or a fact. to support my revert i quote the UNHCRH which says:

26. The Cuban State, as at present organized and constituted, derives its legal authority from the Constitution of 1976, amended in July 1992 in line with the economic and social changes that have taken place in the country. In article 1 it states that "Cuba is a socialist workers' State, independent and sovereign, organized with and for the benefit of all as a unitary and democratic republic, for the enjoyment of political freedom, social justice, individual and collective well-being and human solidarity".

27. In the Republic of Cuba sovereignty is vested in the people, from whom stems all the authority of the State. This authority is exercised directly or through the Assemblies of People's Power at their various levels and through the other State organs which derive from them, in the manner and according to the legal norms established by the Constitution and the laws (art. 3, first para.).

28. The Cuban State is made up of the higher organs and local organs of people's power, which organize and implement their activities on the basis of socialist democracy. The higher organs of people's power consist of the National Assembly of People's Power and the Council of State, and the local organs of the Provincial Assemblies and Municipal Assemblies of People's Power. The Council of Ministers, which constitutes the Government of the country, is a non-representative body included among the higher organs of People's Power.

29. The National Assembly of People's Power is the supreme organ of State authority, representing and expressing the sovereign will of all the people. It is composed of deputies elected by free, secret and direct vote of the electors for five-year terms.

the source can be found here [[23]]

I appreciate that sometimes the UN is riddiculed by certain members of the US public, but neverless it serves as the nearest thing there is to a neutral stance on this subject that exists - In a bid to get some NPOV balance on this page I have gone to the one source that has the majority of consensus throughout the world. I hope that is good enough for most fair people. DavidP 01:21, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

user Hottentot reverted the above change without any explanation - given that I have explained the research and sources used as the basis for my original revert, I cannot just watch it be trashed, so I have changed it back, and will continue to do so all the while it is simply reverted without discussion, comment or even acknowledgement - I hope that you will agree that this is fair? DavidP 03:55, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Utter shite. It is the very definition of a communist state see my comment further up; actually don't bother. I'll repeat is here - the USA is a "federal republic" the United Kingdom is a constitutional monarchy and France is a unitary republic. It is disingenuous to describe Cuba as a Republic/Socalist State when the only legal political entity is the Communist Party and all other forms of political expression are prohibited. That means that the country is ruled at the discretion of the Communist Party - ergo - it is a communist state. Our definition at communist state lists Cuba as a prime example. Jooler 07:51, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the trouble to reply Jooler - I hear what you say and agree with most of it, but let me take your own logic a step further - because the only 'party' in Cuba is comunist it doesn't follow that the mode of government is 'comunist' any more than the US is a republican state or the UK a labour state. As there are elections that are not formaly dependent on party membership there is theoreticaly the possibility of non party involement.

In defence of your statement and reversion you have simply reiterated a statement that you made earlier, one that you say fairly forcefully, but that contains no supporting evidence. Unless of course you count other wikipedia pages, which as we all know are liable to POV and regular changes.

The wikipedia page communist state that you refer to and the page Socialist state both support my assertion that Cuba's mode of government is socialist, perhaps you missed it because it isn't in a list, it is in the body of the first paragraph following the line "this term is technically an oxymoron because Communism's ultimate goal is the creation of a classless society, without a state."- followed by "a socialist state is a transitional state after the abolition of capitalism and before the realisation of comunism". You are therefore by your reversion crediting the cuban state with completion of its mission to realise a communist state, something that most, even the cuban government would agree is not yet true.

I appreciate that the subject is vexed and it is not my intention to add to the point scoring that is so prevalent on this subject, I am simply trying to be precise. DavidP 15:23, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

'because the only 'party' in Cuba is comunist it doesn't follow that the mode of government is 'comunist' any more than the US is a republican state or the UK a labour state - completely flawed argument - the UK and the USA are not one party states. Cuba is, and that party is the communist party. Jooler 19:29, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Of course the data of the UN accepts for its official documents is the unverified material provided by the Cuban government xe xe El Jigüey 11/29/05

Perhaps one should consider the use of capitals, for instance the US is democratic (lower case), but it is not ruled by the Democratic (first letter in upper case) Party. The US has a Republican (upper case) Party majority in Congress, but it is a republic (lower case). Cuba is ruled by the Communist (upper case) Party, but althought the Cuban (uppercase) rulers may declare it a Socialist state, it is considered by common usage to be a communist (lower case) state. David please note the word Cuban is upper case in English, cubano lower case in Spanish. For examples see [24]. xe! xe! El Jigüe 11/29/05

seeing that capitalisation bothers you so much El Jigue and that is can clearly be misconstrued to form some kind of code that can be deconstructed to provide all sorts of hidden information - from now on i will not use capitals at all in my posts, i hope it makes you feel a bit better. in the meantime perhaps you could refrain from adding a parenthasised sic to any inadvertant spelling mistakes in my text, after all I am happy to gloss over your faulty grammar without comment.

Jooler, El Jigue - i understand that you are suspicious of the united nations, but it doesnt alter the fact that it (the un) is the nearest thing that we have to an international consensus and as such is more authorative and subject to international agreement than any single states official view - which is, after all, the core of the problem here - the aim of wikipedia is to present neutral point of view information. wikipedia is an international resource and though it may be 'common usage' in your particular location to call cuba a communist state, it certainly is not universal, nor is it accurate and therefore not encyclopedic DavidP 00:02, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

David the point is that Wikipedia customs also make the suggestion that Capitalization be used in this form. And the distinction between Communism with a capitalized (xe! Xe! no pun intended Han! Han!) C and communism with a lower case c, is customary and useful. The distinctions you make are mostly derived from internal Communist doctrine, which to most outsiders makes as little sense as the Catholic dogma of transubstantiation. Please feel free to correct any errors in my syntax, grammar or spelling if find such useful. I am also glad to read your loyal defense of the UN with the present mess in Sudan, the Oil for food scandal, and past sad history the UN can use as many supporters as it can. A really evil cackle xe! xe! El Jigüe 11/29/05

from wikipedia manual of style

• Philosophies, doctrines, and systems of economic thought do not begin with a capital letter, unless the name is derived from a proper noun: lowercase republican refers to a system of political thought; uppercase Republican refers to a specific Republican Party (each party name being a proper noun).

to quote El Jigüe 29/11/05 "Communist doctrine, which to most outsiders makes as little sense as the Catholic dogma of transubstantiation" and "the UN with the present mess in Sudan, the Oil for food scandal, and past sad history the UN can use as many supporters as it can" - so no pov evident here then. DavidP 12:02, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

• Seems I started a mess here!
  • Communist State was changed to Socialist State because as said the first term is an oxymoron. The argument by others that "ya well it is commonly viewed as/called a communist state" is bunk because that is from primarily an American point of view (English Wikipedia does not mean that the views of english speaking Americans is the correct one).
  • Furthermore the addition of the term 'state' attached to either communist or socialist seems POV (to undermine the credibility of the country) to me; the info boxes for other countries may say Democratic or Democratic Republic, but certainly never Democratic State or Democratic Repulic State.
  • I suggest it be changed to Socialist Republic (it certainly is a Republic and it certainly has Socialist characteristics (that is written in the new constitiution))and the question of wether Cuba is Democratic, or Authoritarin, or Communist, or what ever be left up to the disscusion.
    • Apologies for the crappy spelling!

--RPlunk 19:02, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

The socialist/communist discussion is neverending and I don't see a way out either (by the way, I'm in favour of 'socialist' for roughly your reasons and because Cuba calls itself socialist - it's their country, so who are we to disagree). The use of the word 'state' is something like the word 'regime'. They both have perfectly neutral meanings, but most to most people they have a flavour and are therefore perceived as pov. So that's tricky. Should we be correct or follow common usage (such as in the media)? Or simply avoid the issue by not using the words? Ultimately, the best solution seems to be consistent. So if we call this a state, we should also use that term for democracies, as you point out. So I'm with you on this account too, but it remains a messy issue. DirkvdM 11:42, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Dirk to call the Cuban government "socialist" without a modifier does a injustice to democratic socialist states such as Sweden. El Jigüey 12-3-05

El J - why then is it necessary for you to add the modifier to Sweden's designation? "Socialist" is not such a narrowly defined term as you want it to be. The debate as to what variety of socialism Cuba practises belongs her in the talk pages, not in the main article. MichaelW 14:09, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Michael Oh! So sorry! So terribly wrong of me!!!! I should have realized that the "socialism" that Castro practices is equivalent to that of Sweden. Of course now I know, for you have informed me so, that in the one party state of Sweden, the dictator, Göran Persson who has held power for almost fifty years has people arrested for "disrespect" and for "dangerousness," and makes sure that all gather to do "voluntary" labor or to hear him speak for hours. Please accept my most abject apologies. El Jigüey 12-3-05

Dear J - your sarcasm is as wonky as your logic - I thought I was pointing out that Sweden's form of socialism was different from Cuba's. Socialism has historically taken many forms and the Cubans have as much right to define their system as socialist as does Sweden. MichaelW 22:23, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, Sweden is a capitalist society with some socialism thrown in. Actually, quite a lot of it (just as in the Netherlands, by the way, so it's my home turf that's being discussed here :) ). But 'capitalism' isn't really an imposed ideology. It's laissez faire, laissez aller, basically leaving people to do as they wish. To some extent of course. Every country has some provisions for the poor, handicapped, unemployed and what have you. In other words, some redistribution of money superimposed on the capitalst basis. So there's a bit of 'socialism' in every country. Just more in Sweden, but that doesn't make it a socialist country. It's a demoracy, so that's the term that should go in that country's infobox (in fact, it says 'constitutional monarchy', which is pretty lame considerng the king doesn't have any real power).

Cuba is a socialist country. Not a communist country. It's really quite simple. Communism is an ideology that hasn't yet been (and can't be, if you ask me) realised. Socialism is an attempt to do something similar but more realistic. If that's the imposed (undemocratic) economic philosophy of a country (even if imposed by, confsingly, a communist party) then you've got a socialist country (for which the term socialist state is usually used). If there's some amount of socialism in a democracy then the term is democracy. That's the regime (even though that term is rarely used in connection with democracy). Read the articles.

Well, ok, so it isn't so simple :) . And it's extra confused by the term socialism often being used for the sort of things advocated by socialist parties in capitalist countries. It would be simpler to use the term communism for a country run by a communist party (undemocratically). But then what to call the original communism? I can't think of an alternative and it would be silly if we would unilateraly start thinking of one. This reminds me of vegetarianism, a term that was misused so much that vegetarians had to come up with the term veganism. There's some sense in using terms the way they are normally used, but we shouldn't take that too far (we should also educate where 'common knowledge' is 'wrong') and the use of the term 'socialist state' for a country like Sweden is disputed to say the least, so let's stick to the official meanings of the terms. DirkvdM 09:23, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Xe xe It seems that one first has to define Cubans as those who decide the country is socialist. Right now it seems that there are few Cubans, lets see Fidel Castro, Raul Castro...mmmmmmmm. Ah yes there are the "true believers," even though these are now mostly non-Cubans outside of the country (Hoffer, 1989). Cite follows

Hoffer, Eric (reissued 1989) The True Believer: Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements. Perennial (HarperCollins) ISBN: 0060916125

so we have to redefine Cubans as Fidel Castro, Raul Castro,... plus the non-Cubans outside of Cuba. El Jigüe 12/5/05

Once that is taken care of we can get to the definitions. Apparently to the true believer: communism is the final and future state of a socialist country, where all is wonderful and the happy people stand around sing the International, while waving their rumps in rhythm to their words and music; and if somebody is not happy they shoot them.....that way all who are alive are glad they are not dead. xe xe El Jigüe 12/5/05

• Are two people or just one person talking here? You guys need to sign your postings.--RPlunk 21:34, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

unsourced

What is this about unsourced, OwenX has his Welsh up about it and I do not know why. Would somebody explain El Jigüe 12/5/05

Cuba Health Data

It is important to remember that although Cuba's healthcare system is widely regarded as one of the best in the developing world. WHO data cited here comes directly from national health authorities of each country [25].

So that's an even playing field then, leaving Cuba with its reputation intact.MichaelW 20:27, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Uhhhhhh!!!!!!!!! Reputation intact?????? This is "I am not a communist" "Why weapons" Castro we are talking about remember!!!!!!!!! El Jigüe 12/6/05

And there's me thinking we were talking about Cuba's healthcare system. Oh silly me. MichaelW 15:14, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Xe xe Michael What I am pointing out is that Castro's statements vary from time to time, and his and consequently the Cuban government's data is unreliable. There are sites that document this at nauseum will post a few when I have time. Is there anything about Cuba that is not political. We will just have to do the best we can to approximate "objective" truth. El Jigüe 12/7/05

art

• Off topic* cuba is currently under a dicktatorship rule by phidel castro.

references or sources

This is puzzling me I keep adding sources to article and the tag still stays on, this is unfair so I am removing it. El Jigüe 12/07/05

Castro's power

There is an minor edit war going over at List of dictators over Casto's election (see Talk:List of dictators#Castro edits. The main problem now seems to be how Castro retains power. Is he elected, appointed or does/has he declared himself president? If he is elected then who does this? I have read National Assembly of People’s Power of Cuba, Council of State of Cuba, Cuba#Politics, Cuba#History, Elections in Cuba, Politics of Cuba and Communist Party of Cuba. Not one of these indicates how he obtains the post of president. Can someone clear this up. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 17:18, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Essentially the same way that Tony Blair became Prime Minister of the UK. He's elected just like all the other members of the national assembly, except unlike a good percentage of the other candidates his nomination/election is certain. In the UK this is known as a safe seat. He's leader of the dominant faction of the dominant political tendency in the country and therefore ends up elected to the position of top dog. Formally the Council of State is elected by the National Assembly and the Council of State elects the inner circle. (this is from memory so I may have the names wrong but it is an identical route of indirect election/nomination as that which produces our government i.e PM and Cabinet. MichaelW 21:48, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Pretty much the same then as Canada. I think this needs to be added to at least one of the articles. I've copied your comments over to Talk:List of dictators#Castro edits. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 06:26, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Amazing and I thought that Canada was democracy with several active political parties. Hmm somebody must be adding odd things to Molson Export A. Xe xe El Jigüe 12-23-05

Oh by the way it is a serious crime in Cuba to disrespect the authorities [26] El Jigüe 12-25-05

Maybe so, but the internal stability of those authorities is not based on oppression and fear. If we believe you Castrophobes, a country whose history for hundreds of years is a tale of stress, rebellion and reaction, has, for the last forty plus years, continued to be ruled by tyrants using such laws to keep the populace under control. The trouble is the evidence isn't very strong. The survival of the Castro government, these last 15 years, has been founded on a flexibility which denies your assertions. Illegal economic activities, were not repressed but legalised. The popular eruptions of the last forty years have never developed beyond outbreaks of economic frustration. You want us to believe that the rebellious spirit of the Cuban people has been kept suppressed by a dictatorial regime. I don't.

All you are looking at is the political - power is economic and political. If we in the capitalist countries disrespect the (economic) authorities we get slapped down pretty damn hard. The prisons of the US are packed with those who have. Yes we get to choose between parties, all of them firm supporters of their capitalist economic masters. Those socialist parties that do make it to power by election are economically or militarily subverted and neutralised before they can stabilise. For us the choice is capitalism.

To restate the point of this section - Castro is elected to the top of the Cuban political tree by a similar indirect route to that of many other countries, including UK and Canada. That route in all cases is a formality, in the sense that all party leaders are elected in safe seats, where they can only lose by a massive political reaction. To get to the top of the US tree you must get chosen by a financially loaded process of selection, not involving direct election at any point in the process. Not even a safe seat to be seen there, just loads of money...

It is impossible with Cuba to achieve a Neutral Point of View. There is a polarisation of viewpoint which is what can be described. Most of your oneshot comments have only one message - "Fidel Castro (and his merry regime) are ba-a-a-a-d, and anyone who says otherwise is asserting a delusional, and therefore not neutral, POV". We know that - what hav you got to add to the point under the lens? The Cuba Wiki pages can remain a battleground or we can agree to differ and concentrate on mapping the battlefield. MichaelW 18:46, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Human rights again

The paragraph on human rights is rather weasely and problematic. "Many argue that several/many/whatever thousands..." is absolutely ambiguous. Who are those many (cite a few, "Many organizations, such as...") and what are their exact estimates (cite minimum and maximum)? --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 15:24, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Pablo see today's additions El Jigüe 12-21-05

unsourced statements can still be true

"there is no record of any candidate for the national assembly ever being rejected by the voters"

Can anyone find any record to the contrary for this statement???

If there no record of any contrary fact, how can I provide documentation. I am being asked to prove a negative. Its not a matter of controversy.

Voss 749 posted 12/24/05

Cuban Education Data from UNESCO

" UNESCO data is reported as “estimates compiled from national population censuses and household surveys and updated to 2005” [27]. Cuba’s literacy rates by this criteria at 15 to 24 years of age both male and female is 100% [28]." And of course we must accept Cuban national population censuses. Now to the main matter of that bridge in Brooklyn that is for sale... El Jigüe 12-25-05

More Deletions

It is interesting to note that recent deletions included not only scholarly estimates of the numbers of Castro killings, but also the unarguable fact that Batista built the monuments in what is now known as the "Plaza de la Revolution" (Revolutionary Square). El Jigüe 12-30-05

xe xe The credit for "la raspadura" is gone again. Why even the Castro government recognizes that Batista built it [29],and many other items such as the tunnels under the Bay and the Almedares River [30], along with xe xe El Jigüe 12-30-05

The title now reads as shown

. However, I am sure this is not enough for the Wikipedia ultra-Castroites who insists nothing good ever happened before Jan 1 1959. El Jigüe 12-30-05

Treaty of Paris

It seems more appropriate to list the formal declaration of Cuban independence as May 10, 1902 rather than the surrender of the Island from Spain to the US in the Treaty of Paris, signed I believe on or about December 10, 1898 where Cubans were only represented as observers. El Jigüe 12/31/05

Culture

I've been participating in this article for some time but stopped a while back because I got tired of the constant bickering and thus left the article to the pitbulls, so to say. For some time I thought about maybe doing something about the culture section because that is one of the most interesting aspects of Cuba. Now I noticed that it has been expanded and starting reading. But it's 2/3 religion and the rest is 2/3 bickering. I won't remedy that because I've gotten tired of seeing most of what I do here reverted. But it's a shame. If the fanatics want to complain about Castro they've got room enough in other sections. But at least leave the cultural part its worth. That extends way beyond the present situation. This is not supposed to be a political podium.

The two most interresting things about Cuba are politics and culture. As the article is now it's almost all politics and even the few lines about culture are made into political bickering. It's a shame. DirkvdM 10:57, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Xe xe and what are sculptures and architecture. Oh and by the way if it is fanatical to complain about Castro what is it to praise Castro.I opened a section for literature (with a few crumbs as a start)..Xe Xe Now Dirk put your input where your mouth is xe xe El Jigüe. 1/2/06

Yes, you are indeed one of the fanatics I was thinking about. I already explained why I won't do any more editing here. It seems you still haven't learned to read. DirkvdM 10:44, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Dirk, great excuse so I add culture and you still complain xe xe El Jigüe. 1/3/06

I need help!

Main

1.President- Castro (one party system) 2.state capital- Havana 3.Population- about 11 million 4.state bird- The Cuban trogon (Priotelus temnurus) in Taino that is tocoloro or guatiní 5.state tree-Royal Palm (Roystonea regia) Yagua in Taino

                    -Erica

Erica hope this helps El Jigüe 11/10/05

Constant deletion of mention of Castro diddling in Latin America

He He One notes the desperate delition of mention of Castro's continuing diddling in Latin America and the US. Thus we see this Wikipedia article essentially ignoring recent events of this kind.

For instance today the "Miami Herald" [31], reports: "A Florida International University professor and his wife, an FIU counselor, were accused Monday of operating as covert agents for Cuba's communist government for decades, using shortwave radios, numerical-code language and computer-encrypted files to send information about Miami's exile community to top Castro intelligence commanders.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Andrea Simonton expressed such dismay over the alleged espionage-related history of Carlos M. Alvarez, 61, and his wife, Elsa, 55, that she denied them bond before trial on a charge of failing to register with the federal government as foreign agents."

Thus although I place similar information yesterday and that was removed. Newer information was placed today, althought I have little doubt that some with also purge it it immediately without comment. xe xe El Jigüe 1/10/06

Hmm only two cycles of erasures somebody is getting lazy xe xe El Jigüe 1/11/06

Still the process of Cuban-Venezuelan directed destabilization of Latin America continues [32] El Jigüe 1/11/06.

Mention of Castro Espionage is verboten

For some the rules of the Cuban section seem quite clear: mention of alleged continued US involvement in "terrorist activities" must be emphasized despite the fact that US intelligence in Cuba has long been co-opted. However, any mention of the continued Castro espionage in the US and Latin America must be deleted. While this is clearly POV nobody else seems to object. El Jigüe 1/14/06.

Women in Cuba

"Women in Cuba" is an important topic and thus, additional information and a number of reference, the original article only had one, have been added. Then as suggested, the revised article has been inserted into Cuba. El Jigüe 1/14/06

Some prudish soul, with the appropriate label of "Commandante" has reinserted POV for Castro and bashfully deleted almost all the discusion on sexual culture, El Jigüe 1/15/06

its authority is moral

Who says so? Ever visited any Communist country? Xx236 11:11, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

It probably means "moral" by Castro's own definition. xe xe El Jigüe 1/16/06

What is the name of the political police?

Any Communist country is based on political police. What is the name of the Cuban one? Xx236 12:43, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

That could mean a whole array of different repressive agencies in Cuba where everything is political. In general, it has varied, it means "Seguridad del Estado" State Security [33]. El Jigüe 1/16/05

Interesting Technique

Somehow without leaving an apparent trace in history, some one has completely erased a highly revised, if perhaps too verbose, multisource "women in Cuba" section, and replaced it with the former version, a one book based (Liss, 1994), article. It does not seem to matter that the Liss book appears based entirely on (non attributed) quotations of Fidel Castro, and the "statistics" that Castro has presented in his speeches. I find it interesting that such an orthodox religious view point (communism is a religion "you know") finds its way here .... El Jigüe 1/16/05

Lies, lies, lies

"Alleged censorship". I haven't found anything about the political police in Cuba. Is ist "alleged", too? "It has a relatively large influence in Cuba, but its authority is moral, not on any legal authority." This moral authority contains terror and robbery. Xx236 13:04, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you'd like to give examples rather than just making blanket statements which reveal no more than your political prejudices. MichaelW 17:25, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I just put in examples and "Sam Korn" removed them in minutes El Jigüe 1/20/2006

I'm answering MichaelW. 1. I believe that people who write an article about any subject should have reliable sources. Governmental propaganda isn't fully reliable in any country, it should be supported by independent sources. Where are the sources for Cuba? 2. No ruling party in the world has only moral authority. There are thousands of Marxists texts about applying terror against the enemies. How can a Marxist party use only moral arguments agianst its enemies? The other part of the sentence states, that the Cuban party doesn't have any legal authority. I don't oppose this time. Any Communist country was ruled illegally by its Communist party and after a certain period several parties tried to legalize the system - any legalization failed, as far as I know. The Cuban party hasn't started yet. 3. How can an election be free in a country where only one party exists? Where the party controls all media? 4. Why doesn't the text inform about the basis of any Communist state - political police? 5. How do you recognize the police when you visit Cuba? Do they wear moustache or better clothes? 6. Did you live by a Cuban family or in a supervised hotel? 7. Do you speak Spanish fluently? Xx236 14:51, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

7 Regretfully no.

6. & 5. The only night in a hotel we were introduced to the 'secret' policeman within a couple of hours of getting there. Bit shabby if you ask me, but I think he did have a moustache.

6 again. With Cubans I was working with, with friends & renting from strangers.

1. I believe that Cuban official statistics are no less reliable than any other country. There are plenty of independent sources of information on Cuban affairs Go to the Guardian website – find their special report on Cuba.Check out the Caribbean news websites. Work your way through the links at the bottom of this Cuba page. Since the edit behind this discussion is about Cuban elections especially read the The Electoral process in Cuba. It covers your concerns very well and what I know of Cuba fits well with its description. The issue with Cuba is not the lack of independent sources but the impossibility of neutrality. If you are, at root, hostile to communism then you will dismiss any sympathetic reports as fantasy or lies.

2 The Cuban Communist party no longer has a particular place in the Cuban government, nationally or locally. That is what is meant by it having no legal authority. It is the Cuban equivalent of the Masons, except open, not secretive, generally concerned with the survival of independent Cuba, not with the promotion of the individual members’ material interests.

3.When that party does not organize to gain the election of its members it cannot be taken as an equivalent to political party of the capitalist democracies. In the way you are defining a political party, Cuba has none. The most powerful media in Cuba is the strength of community of the majority of the Cuban population.

4.Here’s your entry point. Your definition of a Communist state – must be based on political police. Sorry to inform you, but every country in the world has political police. You think the FBI is politically neutral? Just doing their job defending the status quo. That’s the job of a political police. Communism is based on government control of the economy.

Read that article then let’s discuss an NPOV entry for Cuban elections. (The link is actually wrongly labelled - it leads to ‘The Myth of Cuban Dictatorship’ – which is what I’d ask you to read.)

El Jigüe You put your links into the article, which isn probably not allowed. Put them here or as external links after the article. Xx236 14:57, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

XX236 Yes it is allowed, to do otherwise does not allow ready assignation of appropriated citation to the particular detail of matter cited. Wikipedia soft software handles it nicely. El Jigüe 1/22/06

According to my sources the number of political policemen in Cuba is about 100 000. Has the FBI 3 000 000 officers? Why don't Cuban people from Cuba take part in this discussion? "Myth of Cuban Dictatorship." A number of people in the West used to love the better worlds of Soviet Communism, Nazism, Maoism. Only few options are left and Castro is much better than the guy from North Korea. When Castro dies, where will the Western leftists look for a new idol? In Venezuela? Cuban people aren't any worse than you, they should have the right to exchange their leaders, to be informed about the outside world. Why does any Western country exchange the leadership any few years? Do we have problems with our minds? Xx236 08:27, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

And your sources are? Are you going to share them with us? Are you another of those folks who are hung up on Castro? More the question is where will you and the rest look for their new villain when he quits the scene. In the West we only change our political leaders, we have no say whatsoever in who our economic leaders are.

What about Cuban elections? That is the edit in mind. Do you dismiss everything in the article? MichaelW 09:52, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

And your sources other than Castro's speeches are? Why don't you move to Cuba if they found there the solution of all human problems? Why do you suffer the oppressions of the capitalism? Do I understand you correctly that Florida Cubans are worse Cubans than Cuban Cubans? They allegedly don't understand their situation, manipulated by the FBI and CIA? The last crime of the US capitalists - to show the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in Havana. Xx236 15:36, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not in the habit of reading Castro's speeches, I posted a source for Cuban elections. What do you have to say about the contents? They have't found the solution to all human problems - but they are looking in the right direction. No, you don't understand me, only misrepresent me. Have you come here to help put together a balanced Wiki entry on Cuba or solely to air your anti-communist opinions? MichaelW 18:00, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

" For those of us on the Left, Cuba's achievements represent the fullest attainment of our hopes. The Cuban revolutionary project is deserving of our active and engaged support." Charles McKelvey declares his non-academic bias. He even does not pretend...

Pretend what??? He's not an academic deluding himself that he can be unbiased. I assume from your response that anyone sympathetic to the Cuban Revolution can be assumed to be a complete liar. How does his enthusiasm taint his basic observations? MichaelW 18:14, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

To "put together a balanced Wiki entry on Cuba" we need to know the opinions of Cuban prisoners. You seem don't care about them. There is a long tradition of pro-Communist propaganda in the West - GB Shaw, Sartre. Walter Duranty of New York Times obtained in 1932 Pulitzer prize for his series of dispatches on Russia especially the working out of the Five Year Plan. According to Charles McKelvey they have revolutionary democracy in Cuba. A revolution led by senile old men isn't a revolution but conservation. Any communist system uses words giving them opposite meaning - socialist democracy is lack of democracy, socialist economy is destruction. Cuba seems to continue the tradition.

Alarcon, Lage and Roque are the triumvirate which heads the Cuban government these days. What's their average age? The word is that the Cubans are deliberately promoting a younger generation of leaders. Read the Financial Times report which has been posted here [34]. The FT can hardly be considered a pro communist rag! MichaelW 18:14, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm old enough to remember Mao's invention - continuous revolution - and the results of it.

The Cuban system - let's assume that all Cubans in Cuba want it - divides the Cubans like formerly Germans and till today Koreans. A connection of such two worlds will be very difficult, if possible. When the Cuban system collapses the world will have to finance the Cuban reservation. It's a real tragedy for Cuban youth, who doesn't have a chance to visit the world, to contact people outside. If the system is so strong, why is it so terrified? Xx236 09:20, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Don't talk rubbish. The US resident Cubans are for the most part economic migrants just like so many other incomers from the Caribbean and Latin America. You don't hear Mexicans crossing the Rio Grande described as 'escapees'. The anticommunist core is a politically disaffected minority which was able to run for shelter in the U.S. rather than stay in Cuba and live with majority rule. Divided Germany, Korea and Vietnam were the result of superpower standoffs. With Cuba it is a small nationalistic nation resisting superpower domination. If Cuba was a part of the Cold War system, how come it never collapsed 15 years back? MichaelW 18:14, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

You are right, the Cubans are economic migrants. Exactly. The Cuban government doesn't allow to run businesses. The majority of people all around the world want to decide about their lives rather than obey and obtain ration cards. Xx236 08:23, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Charles McKelvey

Charles McKelvey. A bunch of such people claimed that the "socialist" states invented socialist democracy, much better than degenerated western democracies. Sooner or later a child will shout - the king is naked. And everyone will say - there was no democracy in Cuba 2006. Xx236 15:48, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Supporters of the Cuban government argue that the human rights record, living standards and health care in Cuba are better than those which existed under Fulgencio Batista, and would have continued im

Batista - it was 45 years ago. The main problem with socialist economies is socialism, not the outside sanctions. The Cuban system might have had collapsed without the sanctions, the existence of the Enemy supported the system. Xx236 09:29, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Are you saying the Cuban system is a result of collusion between the United States government and the Castro gang? MichaelW 17:03, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm saying that totalitarian systems need enemies, to legitimize themselves - capitalists, Jews, RC clergy, Jehova witnesses, USA, CIA, MI5, Western Germany. Some aspects of the US policy toward Cuba are used as explanation of internal problems. The same problems existed in any socialist state, so the problem is socialism, not its enemies. What you are saying is yours. Xx236 08:02, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Council of Europe - report about Communism

http://assembly.coe.int/Documents/WorkingDocs/Doc05/EDOC10765.htm

It's a draft version. Xx236 07:51, 26 January 2006 (UTC) http://assembly.coe.int/Mainf.asp?link=/Documents/AdoptedText/ta06/Eres1481.htm Xx236 14:22, 26 January 2006 (UTC)