Do you believe Castro betrayed Che's legacy?

[buffalosoldr]

I was just wondering if anyone else agrees with me about that topic. Castro had complete and total power and I think he went mad with it. He was dangerously homophobic (he claims to regret this now), he would execute anyone with a blink of an eye, etc...(most of us know the history so I won't list it). I just believe that if Che was to get up tomorrow and review Castro's record that he would be ashamed, if not, angered by what Castro has done and in some cases continues to do.

[WUOrevolt]

I think that it is highly possible.

[ReD_ReBeL]

From Face to face with Fidel Castro

Tomás Borge: Many people think that there is sexual discrimination in Cuba. What are your views on homosexuality?

Fidel Castro: I don't consider homosexuality to be a phenomenon of degeneration. I've always had a more rational approach, considering it to be one of the natural aspects and tendencies of human beings which should be respected. That's how I view it... I am absolutely opposed to any form of repression, contempt, scorn or discrimination with regard to homosexuals. That's what I think.

[ComTom]

I believe that Castro did betray Che. When Che sent out a message to Castro to announce to the world he was still alive and starting a struggle in Bolivia, Castro did not realize of the letter. With this Che lied in the jungle, wondering why no Bolivians joined his struggle and wondering why none of them heard his call to arms. Castro was also the guerilla leader, but he never took place in any battles and according to Che, only participated in one minor gun battle. Castro has been responsible for many oppression against homosexuals, Allen Ginsberg, famous leftist beatnik poet visited the country and speaked out against the discrimination and Castro personally ordered that he be deported. Here is a good link:

Cuba's oppression of gays (http://www.galha.org/glh/213/cuba.html)

[ReD_ReBeL]

Please read this i know its long but very informative. This writing is by a north american male homosexual visiting Cuba(modern day, and he isn't famous just a regular bloke), i found this on the net....

"Over the past year, I have spent nearly three months in Cuba on two
different occasions, much of that time in Havana, but also in a variety
of other cities, including Santiago de Cuba. As a gay man, it was
personally important to me to find out as much as possible about the
status of gays and lesbians in Cuba. What I found contrasts sharply with
the portrait of gay life in Cuba drawn by Arenas. His take may have been
accurate for its time (I cannot claim to know), but I suspect it was
considerably exaggerated. (I say exaggerated because Arenas' fantastic
claim to have bedded 5000 guys in something like two years is not
credible. And, if we are to believe him, every young stud on the island
between the ages of 15 and 22 was constantly on the alert to jump his
bones. Well, maybe not.)

To prepare for my visit, I read the book, "Machos, maricones, and gays:
Cuba and homosexuality," by the Canadian, Ian Lumsden. Lumsden is a
luke-warm supporter of the revolution and gives a fairly critical take
on Cuban gay history during the early years of the revolution and the
current status of gays on the island. It is a useful introduction. I
also watched the film "Gay Cuba," made around 1995. It consists mainly
of a series of interviews with gay guys and lesbians who speak frankly
about their lives. (One of the producers of the film, an interviewee
himself, now works as a tour guide and gave me useful background
information on the film.) Gay Cuba was shown at the Havana International
Festival of Latin American Cinema to public and critical acclaim.
However, a few of the Cuban gays who had seen it had reservations and
told me that they felt it gives an accurate, but incomplete, picture of
gay life on the island.

Gay Cuba is not the only documentary on Cuban gay life. A perhaps more
interesting take is "Mariposas en el Andamio," (Butterflies on the
Scaffold). Mariposa is a Cuban term for drag queen and the film
documents the daily life and the performances of Cuban drag queens in a
neighborhood called La Guinera. At my request, I was invited there for a
special show. La Guinera was very poor before the revolution and remains
what we might call working class. Many of these drag shows are sponsored
by the local CDRs (Committees for the Defense of the Revolution) and
play to large and wildly enthusiastic audiences. (If you're wondering,
the performers were great!)

What I found in Cuba was a gay community with many parallels to the gay
community in North America and a few differences as well. For one thing,
there are no laws on the Cuban books that discriminate against gays.
(This is to be contrasted with the United States where all too many
states retain outdated sodomy laws and where, increasingly, repressive
legislation is enacted at the state level.) I have talked with literally
hundreds of gays (mostly men) in Cuba and I found none who believe they
are being persecuted by their government. Discrimination by individuals
is reported, however, and there is also a lot of resentment of the
residual macho attitudes that remain stubbornly embedded in some levels
of Cuban society, attitudes that perpetuate highly dichotomized sex
roles and prejudice against homosexuals amongst the population at large.
But none reported active or systematic repression by the state.

One question that I always asked gay guys was "would you feel
comfortable holding hands with your boyfriend on the street?" About 80%
responded with a qualified yes. Many stated that they do just that. (Two
guys or women holding hands is not an uncommon sight in Havana.) But
some also said that they would stop holding hands in front of a police
officer. Not unlike societies to the north, Cuba recruits a high
percentage of young macho hot dogs to their police force, some with a
chip on their shoulder against gays. But, I want to make it clear: No
gays that I talked to reported governmental repression, although many
older Cuban gays did talk about "the bad old days."

It seems to me that it is important to put Cuba's past record of
mistreatment of gays in its proper perspective. For example, thirty-five
or so years ago, in Boise, Idaho, hundreds of gay men were persecuted,
driven from their homes and families and imprisoned in one of the more
infamous anti-gay actions in our history. Florida itself has a dreadful
record in terms of gay rights and only about 10 years ago in Adrian,
Michigan, the police staked out a public park for months and then
arrested over 30 men at their homes, in front of their wives and
children and, in a couple of cases, grand-children. (With one exception,
all of these guys were married self-identified heterosexuals.) Cuba's
past record on gay rights may be no better than our own, certainly
nothing to be proud of, but in my experience gays in today's Cuba are
better off than they are in any other Latin American society (check the
murder rate in Rio) and better off than they are in many states in our
Union (think Matthew Shepherd).

Cuban society, like most North American and European societies, is
undergoing a profound review and reconceptualization of its attitudes
towards gays and lesbians. Most of you probably know about the film
Strawberry and Chocolate, the first Cuban film to deal openly and
directly with homosexuality. (If you haven't seen it, I recommend it.)
What you may not know is that the film was wildly popular in Cuba
(indicating, no doubt, a repressed need to talk about this issue).
Apparently it played simultaneously at 10 or 12 theatres in Havana for
months to lines several blocks long.

Another seminal incident along the road to acceptance for Cuban gays
occurred in 1996. Pablo Milanes, a Cuban nova trova singer who has
achieved quasi-sainthood amongst the island's population, wrote a song
about gay men entitled Original Sin (available on his CD entitled
Origines), a song he dedicated to all Cuban homosexuals. Introduced at
his annual holiday concert held in the vast Karl Marx Theater in the
Miramar neighborhood of Havana, El Pecado original took the audience and
the country by storm and did much to advance the cause of gay
acceptance.

For me, one of the most striking things I learned about Cuba during my
recent visits was the vitality of the cultural and intellectual life,
particularly, of course, in Havana. Gay themes are prevalent in the
theatre, in lectures and in concerts. For example, I recently saw a play
entitled Muerte en el bosque (A Death in the Woods), about the
investigation of the murder of an Havana drag queen produced by El
Teatro Sotano in its Vedado theatre. Through the investigation of the
crime, Cuban attitudes toward and prejudices against gays are examined
at every level of society. (It also included a terrific drag show during
the intermission!)

On a lighter note, a group called La Danza Voluminosa (voluminosa as in
volume; come on, you get it!) produced a marvellously funny and dramatic
ballet version of Racine's Phedre, with gender-blind casting. (Yes,
Phedre was danced by a man.) And a one-man (yes, one man) stage version
of Strawberry and Chocolate played to considerable success this season.
It is also worth noting that in last December's film festival in Havana,
easily half of the Latin American films shown had gay themes or
subtexts.

It may be of some interest to note that theatre tickets cost Cubans 5
pesos (25 cents). Movies cost 2 pesos. To me, a striking contridiction
in Cuban society today is the contrast between the rich cultural and
intellectual life that is available and affordable and salaries that
makes the purchase of a bar of soap an event that has to be planned for.
In Havana, gay-run and gay-clientele restaurants are not hard to find,
try the elegant French cuisine at Le Chansonnier, for example, or La
Guarida, located in the apartment in which Strawberry and Chocolate was
filmed. The famous (and rather infamous) Fiat Bar on the Malecon
continues to attract hundreds of gay twenty-somethings who, on weekend
nights, spill across this emblamatic Havana thoroughfare and line the
sidewalk facing the sea.

In sum, I believe that what I have given you in this posting is context.
Context that allows the discussion of Cuban libraries and other issues
that Kent & Company generate on this and many other lists to be cast in
a light that is not shed by Mr. Kent's narrowly focussed torch. Context
is, of course, precisely what Mr. Kent wishes to avoid. By insisting
upon a discussion of "intellectual freedom" unfettered by the realities
of the world, he can set a very high bar for Cuba and easily find her
wanting. (So, pick a country, guys, we can all do that.)

I, for one, do not believe it helpful to hold Cuba to an abstract
standard that no other country in the world (certainly including my own)
can claim to have reached. More useful, it seems to me, is to view this
small island nation within the rich context of current reality. How well
is Cuba doing compared to the rest of Latin America? How well is Cuba
doing relative to our own country? How much progress has Cuba made on a
variety of fronts, including intellectual freedom and access to
information over the past forty years. A vision of Cuba very different
from that of Mr. Kent's then emerges.

Gay culture in Cuba indeed may have been repressed 30 years ago. Where
wasn't it in that pre-Stonewall age? But, this is not the reality of
what I found in today's Cuba. Indeed, it seems unlikely that Out
magazine (a slick and trendy guppy publication) would feature Havana as
"The New gay hot spot ... hot boys, drag-heavy bars, and a whole lot
more" in its current February 2001 issue if Cuba were as repressive as
Kent's colleagues state. By insisting upon a sterile discussion devoid
of context Mr. Kent constructs a reality in which any discussion the
very real and quantifiable progress Cuba has made since the beginning of
its revolution is ruled out of bounds; it also has the advantage of
protecting him from discussion of his own highly questionable sponsors
and their thinly veiled motives.

My suggestion is not to engage Mr. Kent and his agents directly. The
most effective way of dealing with provocateurs is to discuss the
issues, but ignore the provocations. "

[buffalosoldr]

red rebel, that was a really interesting piece. I have been to Havana several times and I haven't seen any "gay oppression" for myself.

what i meant by Castro's stance on gays, is that during his early reign, many intellects who were gay he treated them like criminals and did forbid their contributions. It was said he executed several and ran some out of Cuba. Some spent time in prison-like camps with hardened criminals. Eventually, Castro realized this was wrong and did apologize for his actions in an interview. I have to look up my source for this. I hate giving out information without proof.

[ReD_ReBeL]

yea look that up it should be interesting. But you really got to look at the historical facts, In Scotland(where i'm from) it was illegal to be a homosexual up until 1980, which is just practically 10 less years than Cuba, which isn't that bad. I dont support repression of gays atall, im all for gay rights, but anti-gayness back then was more or less a trend not just with Cuba, but atleast that is gone now.We really got to be looking at the current governments which still condemn homosexuals ie.Iran, who executed by hanging, 2 male teenagers for being homosexuals(and this was just last year).

[chebol]

A couple of points.

One, this kind of discussion is, in my opinion, a bit ridiculous.

Two, if you are going to engage in it, you need to be clear about what you are actualy talking about. So, WHAT is Che's legacy precisely? And HOW EXACTLY has Fidel betrayed it?

Until you answer those 2 questions, this whole topic is not only moot, it is silly (and rather counterproductive, as it encourages all kinds of baseless speculations).

Sources, people.
WHICH blink of an eye?
WHERE is there proof of Fidel's homophobia, or power-madness?
WHAT EVIDENCE DO YOU HAVE TO "JUST BELIEVE" CHE WOULD DISAPPROVE?

Or is it simply because you don't really know enough about Fidel, Che, or Cuba?

[Wanted Man]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2006, 02:25 AM
I believe that Castro did betray Che. When Che sent out a message to Castro to announce to the world he was still alive and starting a struggle in Bolivia, Castro did not realize of the letter. With this Che lied in the jungle, wondering why no Bolivians joined his struggle and wondering why none of them heard his call to arms. Castro was also the guerilla leader, but he never took place in any battles and according to Che, only participated in one minor gun battle. Castro has been responsible for many oppression against homosexuals, Allen Ginsberg, famous leftist beatnik poet visited the country and speaked out against the discrimination and Castro personally ordered that he be deported. Here is a good link:

Cuba's oppression of gays (http://www.galha.org/glh/213/cuba.html)
What the fuck are you talking about? Castro was aware that Che was going to Bolivia, was he not? Also, how the hell was Castro responsible for Bolivian communists failing to help Che?

[Comrade J]

I think he's trying to say that because Fidel didn't tell the world Che was alive, the Bolivian communists didn't know and thus didn't go to help him.

[buffalosoldr]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2006, 08:29 AM
A couple of points.

One, this kind of discussion is, in my opinion, a bit ridiculous.

Two, if you are going to engage in it, you need to be clear about what you are actualy talking about. So, WHAT is Che's legacy precisely? And HOW EXACTLY has Fidel betrayed it?

Until you answer those 2 questions, this whole topic is not only moot, it is silly (and rather counterproductive, as it encourages all kinds of baseless speculations).

Sources, people.
WHICH blink of an eye?
WHERE is there proof of Fidel's homophobia, or power-madness?
WHAT EVIDENCE DO YOU HAVE TO "JUST BELIEVE" CHE WOULD DISAPPROVE?

Or is it simply because you don't really know enough about Fidel, Che, or Cuba?
First of all, you are entitled to your opinion. Secondly, if you read further into the responses, you would see that I am working on my sources for that. I don’t know the apparent depth of your “expertise” on this topic, but if you know more, please enlighten us. I just joined this forum yesterday and threw the topic out there because it was something I have been thinking about for a while. A while back, I read several biographies about Fidel and some of the information was in them, despite the fact that a couple of the books were pro-Castro and anti-Castro, contained information about things that Castro did during the years after Che’s death that was, in some ways, in my opinion, “power mad.” I’m currently looking up the title and author of the books online b/c I read them in a library back home and the books aren’t on campus here. This post was not meant to be anti-Fidel because honestly, I actually like him and some of his policies, but I don’t agree with everything he does. I just stated my opinion and wanted to see how others felt on this topic and whether or not I just could be mistaken. Maybe I don’t know “enough” about Castro, Che or Cuba, but I’ll have you know that this is something I have been interested in for years and I have done a lot of research and reading about all three plus Communism, Marxism, Leninism, etc.. You should know that I’m not some joyriding poser running around because I think the t-shirt is “cool”.

[Janus]

I think he's trying to say that because Fidel didn't tell the world Che was alive, the Bolivian communists didn't know and thus didn't go to help him.

In 1966, Castro released a picture of Che in order to quell the rumors that Che was dead. Ironically, it was this photo that helped the Bolivians get on Che's trail. The Bolivians did know of Che's small group and some tried to join I believe. However, Che was counting on mass support from the peasants since he was operating in their community. But he didn't gain this support due to the fact that he and his group were distrusted by the villagers since they were foreigners.

[ComTom]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 25 2006, 04:43 PM
I think he's trying to say that because Fidel didn't tell the world Che was alive, the Bolivian communists didn't know and thus didn't go to help him.
Yes this is what I meant thanks Comrade J. But Che did release a gigantic pamphlet on his mission in Bolivia and told Castro to spread it amongst the people of the world. Fidel ignored this message and left Che in the jungle. Didn't Che also break one of his guerilla warfare rules, not to start a guerilla war in a country of a democratically elected leader even if he fixed himself in? Castro disliked Che's comments on the issue of his goverment and his policies. I think that Castro came to dislike Che, I think its as simple as that.

[ComTom]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 25 2006, 04:43 PM
I think he's trying to say that because Fidel didn't tell the world Che was alive, the Bolivian communists didn't know and thus didn't go to help him.
Yes this is what I meant thanks Comrade J. But Che did release a gigantic pamphlet on his mission in Bolivia and told Castro to spread it amongst the people of the world. Fidel ignored this message and left Che in the jungle. Didn't Che also break one of his guerilla warfare rules, not to start a guerilla war in a country of a democratically elected leader even if he fixed himself in? Castro disliked Che's comments on the issue of his goverment and his policies. I think that Castro came to dislike Che, I think its as simple as that.

[chebol]

Didn't mean to be harsh, it's just that this type of Q comes up all too often, and I get a bit sick of it.

I don't have time right now to take this up (whatever the level of my 'expertise'), but just one point.

The Bolivian CP's betrayal was a key reason foer the failure of the Guerrilla in Bolivia, and Che's subsequent death.

Think Fidel didn't like Che? You can't know unless you ask him. I've seen no evidence to support it.

[Severian]

There have been about 500 threads on whether Fidel betrayed Che in Bolivia, and nobody's given anything like a valid reason to think so. Here's the thread on the subject pinned at the top of this forum. (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=42762) All the evidence is laid out there.

Now, whether Fidel betrayed Che's ideas is a bit new.

There's no evidence of major political disagreement between them in Che's lifetime. And without a ouija board no way of knowing what Che would have thought about all the concrete situations the Cuban Revolution has faced since his death.


Castro had complete and total power and I think he went mad with it.

He doesn't have complete and total power; in fact he has less unilateral power than the U.S. president - who can even launch nuclear weapons without anyone's approval!

Major decisions are made by the collective leadership of the Cuban Communist Party, first of all, as well as bodies like the Council of State and the National Assembly. Major economic policy decisions have sometimes been discussed by workers' assemblies all over Cuba, and modified as a result, before being adopted.


He was dangerously homophobic (he claims to regret this now),

The worst period of Cuban persecution of homosexuals was the 60s...in other words it's improved since Che's death.


he would execute anyone with a blink of an eye, etc...

In fact, there are relatively few executions in Cuba...none at all some years. Look up the annual Amnesty International reports for a few years back if you don't believe me.

There was a larger number of executions of Batista-regime henchmen immediately after the revolution, but compared to other revolutions still small.

Your statement would be more accurate if it was about Texas instead of Cuba.


most of us know the history so I won't list it).

After reading your post I don't think you know the history.

[Janus]

But Che did release a gigantic pamphlet on his mission in Bolivia and told Castro to spread it amongst the people of the world.
Che tried to keep his presence a secret so spreading a pamphlet about it would've ruined that.


Fidel ignored this message and left Che in the jungle.
I think that Che was unable to communicate with Cuba because his radio transmitter was broken. Either way that wouldn't have affected Che's group very much. As was already mentioned, the revolt failed because the Bolivian Communist Party and the native peasants didn't support Che. Also, Che had underestimated the Bolivian army a bit as well as US military support.


Didn't Che also break one of his guerilla warfare rules, not to start a guerilla war in a country of a democratically elected leader even if he fixed himself in?
Well, Bolivia wasn't a democracy at the time. Rather, it was ruled by a military dictatoship that had deposed the last president Víctor Paz Estenssoro. Furthermore, Che chose Bolivia because of its location and proximity to the other South American nations.