Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84 exptools; site ihlpg.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!ihlpg!tan From: tan@ihlpg.UUCP (Bill Tanenbaum) Newsgroups: net.politics Subject: Re: America-bashing (really emigration from Cuba) Message-ID: <1206@ihlpg.UUCP> Date: Mon, 9-Sep-85 15:53:16 EDT Article-I.D.: ihlpg.1206 Posted: Mon Sep 9 15:53:16 1985 Date-Received: Tue, 10-Sep-85 05:13:30 EDT References: <1548@bbncca.ARPA> <315@ubvax.UUCP> Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories Lines: 63 > >[Ron Rizzo] > >What Tony Wuersch ignores in trying to deny the unique significance > >of emigration from Cuba is that 10% of Cuba's entire population > >has left since Castro came to power, the highest proportion in > >all of Latin America. > > > >But statistics aren't the only indicator: it's fairly easy to > >differentiate between large emigrations like Mexicans to the US > >Southwest and Cubans to the US & Spain as to cause & motive, > >& thus identify the unique character of flight from Cuba. ------- > [Tony Wuersch] > A born-again counterrevolutionary has spoken again. When did most > of these people leave Cuba? Did they have any problems leaving? > > I'll bet they left at the beginning of the Cuban Revolution, just > as Tories (lots) left the USA and French (all) left Algeria. If they > left then, they also had little problem leaving (aside from problems > associated with the mood of panic at the time -- you can't expect a > new regime to be an efficient emigration-cum-travel agency too --). > > If a significant minority of Cubans (remember, the number is 10%) > decide they can't afford to wait and see if a revolution helps them > or hurts them (and why should they wait if they were part of the groups > the revolution was made against?), they leave. And the Cuban > government didn't restrain them from exercising their choice. > > After the first big emigration, how much is left, Ron? I don't know, > but I don't think much. 10% for a small country is not a whole lot. > What's so unique about that? ------ An apologist for totalitarianism has spoken again. First, Tony's analogies are ridiculous. The Tories left after the American revolution because they considered themselves to be British subjects, and wished to remain so. Likewise, the French living in Algeria were Frenchmen, and did not wish to remain in Algeria when it was no longer part of their country. The people leaving Cuba were CUBANS, leaving what undeniably was their own country. If I lived in Puerto Rico, and it became independent, I might choose to leave because I am an American, not a Puerto Rican, regardless of the nature of the new government. Secondly, 10% in a period of a few years sounds like a lot to me. It's a lot more than left, say, Chile when the brutal Pinochet took power, or than left Argentina during the worst of the killings there, or than left Brazil during all its years of military rule. But of course, those were right-wing torturers and murderers, so they are bad. Left wing (excuse me, "progressive") torturers and murderers are exempt unless their abuses are so well publicized that even you can't ignore them. I was only slightly heartened to see you mention the "excesses" of the Dergue in Ethiopia in another posting. If it had been Haile Selassie, you would have used a lot stronger term than excesses. Let's see, Hitler was a mass murderer, but Stalin was merely "excessive". Thirdly, Tony characterizes the refugees as "part of the groups the revolution was made against". Only a small portion were large landowners. Many of the early refugees were middle class professionals or small business owners. Of course, these people are beyond Mr. Wuersch's pale. I would conclude by stating that Fidel Castro is far from the worst dictator in the world. He really does believe in the economic and social welfare of his people, and does not appear to be a personally cruel or venal man. However, tyranny is still tyranny. -- Bill Tanenbaum - AT&T Bell Labs - Naperville IL ihnp4!ihlpg!tan