cbd@iham1.UUCP (deitrick) (07/18/85)
*** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE *** The Palestinians hate America. The Iranians hate America. The ______ (fill in the blank) hate America. We seem to be universally reviled, despised, scorned, hated, and even (gasp!) disliked. The question of "Why is this so?" needs to be discussed, and I'll go first. First, let me point out a real contradiction by some examples. The countries in Central America hate America, yet the refugees from the wars in those countries try to come to America. It certainly would be easier to go to some other Central American country (Mexico, for example), yet they risk their lives to come here. Why? Naabi Berri (sp?), the Shiite Moslem leader involved in this most recent hijacking, has a green card from this country. Pretty peculiar for someone who hates America. Statistics published in the trade journals would have one believe that a large fraction of the students in American engineering schools are from foreign countries. A lot of the graduate students I knew when I was in grad school were from the Middle East. Two were Palestinian. One of those Palestinians wanted to become an American citizen. Strange that he would want to permanently live in such a despicable place. Five or six years ago I spent two weeks in Europe. I spent most of that time with European university students. The Europeans were very critical of America and Americans ( "You Americans are this. You Americans are that. You Americans are this other thing. America is too this. America is too that. America is too this other thing." Got rather tiring after a while), yet nine out of ten of them eventually admitted that they wanted to see and work in America. One student went so far as to ask me about probable salaries for graduate civil engineers. Horseback riding is a very popular sport in Germany, which also produces the best riders in the world. One of the best German riders (on the German National Event Team, an alternate for two Olympics, and also the Vice-President of a German manufacturing company) left fame and a comfortable life to come to this country and train horses (he's training mine). He's very critical of American horsemanship and is constantly talking about the way they would do something in Germany, but wouldn't go back there permanently for love or money. The pattern seems to be to revile America out loud but do all you can to get here. Just that we are so much in the minds of people in obscure places around the world means we offer no small fascination to the rest of the world. I submit that the source of that fascination if simple: we offer OPPORTUNITY. We offer economic opportunity, mostly, but also the opportunity to shuck stifling tradition and social strictures. We offer that opportunity, most other countries do not. America is also a powerful country (why we're powerful is a subject in itself), and, as such, we are bound to make enemies, both deserved and undeserved. I sense a strong current of resentment ( and perhaps envy ) in the anti-American rhetoric. That leads me to believe the rest of the world resents ( and envies? ) us because of our power, affluence, and potential. Before the trigger-happy flame-throwers out there load up on the jellied gasoline, be aware that I'm not saying America is perfect. We have problems (someone will no doubt point them out for us), have made a lot of stupid mistakes and will make more, and have bad points as well as good. However, that mixture of good and bad is normal in anything real. I believe the good outweighs the bad. If all these people hate us, we must be doing something right! Carl Deitrick ihnp4!iham1!cbd *********************************************** The opinions expressed in this article are mine and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of AT&T Bell Laboratories ***********************************************
dahlback@uiucdcs.Uiuc.ARPA (07/20/85)
I think anyone who's been overseas any length of time (or has had foreign visitors, e.g. via SERVAS) has listened with varying degrees of irritation to criticisms of America. Sometimes I think that this "America bashing" comes from the idea that we ARE so powerful, and therefore when we are irrational or unfair, it is noticed. We are held to higher standards than others because of our power. With less might and less influence (and, indeed, less benevolence) would come less criticism, because less would be expected. We can be very helpful, when we want to be. How many people do you know that really, truly enjoy being `helped'? Especially if the helper wants the helpee to be grateful? Let us help for help's sake and forget the gratitude.
todd@SCIRTP.UUCP (Todd Jones) (07/24/85)
> get here. Just that we are so much in the minds of people in obscure places > around the world means we offer no small fascination to the rest of the world. > I submit that the source of that fascination if simple: we offer OPPORTUNITY. > We offer economic opportunity, mostly, but also the opportunity to shuck > stifling tradition and social strictures. We offer that opportunity, most other > countries do not. America's strength is built largely by leeching resources from other countries. We trade guns for butter with some puppet despot who doesn't begin to represent his citizens. When the citizens get frustrated and flirt with Marxism, we sell 'em more guns. How can they pay for more guns? With butter of course! I fully support the ideals of democracy, especially over those of Marxism, but we are anything but democratic toward our fellow globe-inhabitors. This, I believe, is why we are hated- we exploit; and why others want to come her- Americans reap the fruits of this exploitation. This makes perfect sense to me. Any takers? ||||| || || [ O-O ] Todd Jones \ ^ / {decvax,akgua}!mcnc!rti-sel!scirtp!todd | _ | |___|
barry@ames.UUCP (Kenn Barry) (07/25/85)
> The countries in Central America hate America, yet the refugees from >the wars in those countries try to come to America. It certainly would be >easier to go to some other Central American country (Mexico, for example), yet >they risk their lives to come here. Why? > Naabi Berri (sp?), the Shiite Moslem leader involved in this most recent >hijacking, has a green card from this country. Pretty peculiar for someone who >hates America. >[other examples of America-bashers who nonetheless want to live in the >US, excised for brevity] I think the contradiction's in us, not them. The US treats US residents much better than the governments of many countries treat their citizens and guests, and we're rich to boot. Nothing hard to understand about people wanting to come here. But our treatment of the peoples of other lands is all too often exploitative and self-serving. Simply put, they hate America's foreign policy, but like how we run our country internally. - From the Crow's Nest - Kenn Barry NASA-Ames Research Center Moffett Field, CA ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- USENET: {ihnp4,vortex,dual,nsc,hao,hplabs}!ames!barry
bobn@bmcg.UUCP (Bob Nebert) (07/25/85)
> *** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE *** > The Palestinians hate America. The Iranians hate America. The ______ >(fill in the blank) hate America. We seem to be universally reviled, despised, > scorned, hated, and even (gasp!) disliked. The question of "Why is this so?" > needs to be discussed, and I'll go first. > etc. > etc. > etc. > If all these people hate us, we must be doing something right! > > > Carl Deitrick > ihnp4!iham1!cbd > ] And I'll go second. I was glad to read your article Carl. You hit the ] nail right on the head. I get so tired of hearing these shitheads popoff ] against the U.S. and fight to be first in line to get U.S. aid, free ] money, weapons, food (dont count Eitheopia in this). Sure we make some ] mistakes but damnit we DO SOMETHING besides bitch. ] Now for part 2, -people who say what are we doing in somebody elses ] political affairs-. ] WHO ELSE IS GOING TO ] What are you going to do? Wait around with your finger somewhere and ] say "It's none of my business" It damn sure is . This is the only ] planet I know of to live on and I, for one, want to live the best ] way I know. FREEDOM is earned every day. It is guarenteed to us ] because we fought for it. If you stand around and watch country by ] country drop under there will nobody left to help you. ] ] Boy that's a lot of my mind. ] ] Bob Nebert ] sdcsvax!bmcg!bobn
gene@batman.UUCP (Gene Mutschler) (07/27/85)
From the discussion on why all those third world types want to be first world types... > I think the contradiction's in us, not them. The US treats US > residents much better than the governments of many countries treat their > citizens and guests, and we're rich to boot. Nothing hard to understand > about people wanting to come here. Exactly. > But our treatment of the peoples of > other lands is all too often exploitative and self-serving. You have *recent* examples, of course. A lot of those people would gladly trade that "exploitation" for that of their current "President For Life". The names Nyerere (sp?), Obote (and before him the ever-popular Idi Amin), Mengistu (who once settled an argument at a cabinet meeting by shooting his antagonist between the eyes), Khadaffi, Khomeini(ask a Bahai, if there are any left), Karmal, Castro, and Pol Pot spring to mind. > Simply put, > they hate America's foreign policy, but like how we run our country > internally. This presumes that the US has a foreign policy. As far as I can tell, we haven't had one since Kennedy gave Cuba to the Soviets after the Cuban missile crisis. > > - From the Crow's Nest - Kenn Barry > NASA-Ames Research Center -- Gene Mutschler {ihnp4 seismo ctvax}!ut-sally!batman!gene Burroughs Corp. Austin Research Center cmp.barc@utexas-20.ARPA (512) 258-2495
lkk@teddy.UUCP (07/29/85)
In article <146@batman.UUCP> gene@batman.UUCP (Gene Mutschler) writes: >> But our treatment of the peoples of >> other lands is all too often exploitative and self-serving. > >You have *recent* examples, of course. > >A lot of those people would gladly trade that "exploitation" for that of >their current "President For Life". The names Nyerere (sp?), Obote (and >before him the ever-popular Idi Amin), Mengistu (who once settled an >argument at a cabinet meeting by shooting his antagonist between the eyes), >Khadaffi, Khomeini(ask a Bahai, if there are any left), Karmal, Castro, >and Pol Pot spring to mind. Its funny the crew that you mentioned. They all came to power (with the exception of Karmal), as part of popular uprisings against oppressive U.S. supported govts. Maybe there's a lesson there? If we don't want the likes of Khadaffi and Khomeini, perhaps we might be more amenable to promoting popular empowerment in those countries, BEFORE IT IS TAKEN BY FORCE. A case in point. When the racist regime in S. Africa finally falls, how do you expect the new leaders to feel about the U.S. (who with Britain blocked manditory sanctions in the Security Council last week). And if the U.S. and allies support the White Regime 'till the bitter end, what kind of leaders do you think will be in charge afterwards? BITTER ones! and do you think they'll give a damn about western style democracy? -- Sport Death, Larry Kolodney (USENET) ...decvax!genrad!teddy!lkk (INTERNET) lkk@mit-mc.arpa
gene@batman.UUCP (Gene Mutschler) (08/01/85)
I mention a particularly motley crew of Third World despots... > > > >A lot of those people would gladly trade that "exploitation" for that of > >their current "President For Life". The names Nyerere (sp?), Obote (and > >before him the ever-popular Idi Amin), Mengistu (who once settled an > >argument at a cabinet meeting by shooting his antagonist between the eyes), > >Khadaffi, Khomeini(ask a Bahai, if there are any left), Karmal, Castro, > >and Pol Pot spring to mind. [BTW--since this posting Obote has been replaced by somebody else--so much for the President-for-Life biz...] > > Its funny the crew that you mentioned. They all came to power > (with the exception of Karmal), as part of popular uprisings against > oppressive U.S. supported govts. Bull. By no stretch of the imagination were the governments of Ethiopia or Cambodia or Cuba in anything like the same league as their successors. Likewise, the government of Idris (Libya) was the best kind of government at all--it almost wasn't one. > Maybe there's a lesson there? If we don't > want the likes of Khadaffi and Khomeini, perhaps we might be more amenable to > promoting popular empowerment in those countries, BEFORE IT IS TAKEN BY > FORCE. Khaddaffi took power in a military coup. How does this qualify as "popular empowerment"? On the other hand, the Khomeini regime did indeed take over by popular demand. Indeed, most of the people (still) there think it's great. It just so happens that Moslem don't like Bahais very much, so they killed them all (the word genocide keeps rearing its ugly head). So we finally have a popular government after all--too bad its so bloodthirsty. The Bahai's were better off under the Shah. > > A case in point. When the racist regime in S. Africa finally falls, how > do you expect the new leaders to feel about the U.S. (who with Britain blocked > manditory sanctions in the Security Council last week). More Bull. Both countries abstained on the resolution calling for voluntary sanctions, which means that it was not vetoed, and was (as I recall) passed. It seems to me that voluntary sanctions ought to be sufficient for those nations awash in Liberal Guilt to have a chance to feel good about themselves--which is the whole point of the exercise as nearly as I can tell. > And if the U.S. and > allies support the White Regime 'till the bitter end, what kind of leaders do > you think will be in charge afterwards? BITTER ones! and do you think they'll > give a damn about western style democracy? There is a key point here which you left-wingers keep missing. The government in Pretoria is NOT an unrepresentative oligarchy. It is in fact more moderate than most of its supporters--the Afrikaaners. An Afrikaaner is just as much an African as a Zulu. In fact, what we have here is a tribal conflict, not unlike those which have raged across Africa for centuries. When it "hits the fan" in South Africa, what you will see is not a government falling--you will see open warfare, and it will be amazing to behold. No way are the Afrikaaners going to let themselves be pushed out of South Africa, and they've got the guns to see that it doesn't happen. If indeed the government "changes", it will ONLY be after this bloody civil war. Now, as for why we should not intervene: do we intervene in every two-bit intertribal struggle in Africa? Hell, no. To suppose that this one is special because one of the tribes happens to be white is an outgrowth of that old bugaboo Liberal Guilt. As such, it is patronizing at best, racist at worst. As for why intervention would not help anyway: the South African government has been trying to build up a moderate black leadership class. Guess who has been the chief targets of the current violence-- you guessed it-- the moderates. This is no accident. The African National Congress (ANC) is a well-known front for the USSR. As such, it is ANC policy to kill off all moderate black opposition leaders. (If I were Bishop Tutu, I'd watch my backside). This has two effects 1) it eliminates competition for the ANC and 2) it means that the level of violence on both sides increases as there are fewer and fewer moderates. This has the effect of polarizing those who were previously neutral as the government is forced to take ever more repressive measures to quell the violence. The only way out for the government is to do just what they are doing--declare a state of emergency and lock up the agitators. (I note with amusement that all the left-wingers want the state of emergency lifted so that the people can have their liberties back; but wait, I thought you guys were telling us the people didn't have any to start with....) [This is all classic Communist tactics--Marighella wrote a manual on how to do it in the sixties. The most famous practitioners of it were the Tupamaros and the Brigate Rossi. Both ultimately lost because the target governments knew the trick and eliminated the cadres instead of the mobs.] Finally, as to the best course for the USA: continued investment and the much-maligned "Constructive Engagement". Investment: The only thing that will beat a Communist-inspired revolutionary movement is a revolution of rising expectations. This is achieved when living standards are raised for everyone. This is best brought about by the US companies in South Africa that have, under the Sullivan Principles, brought about equality of treatment and trade unions, among other things. The trick is to make all the blacks rich--then they won't stand for the chickenshit treatment at the hand of the Afrikaaners, but then neither will they stand for a Communist takeover. Constructive Engagement: Believe it or not, the party in power in SA is now considered liberal. There are other overtly racist Afrikaaner parties which could well win the next elections. The role of Constructive Engagement is to press the party in power to do as much as possible without bringing one of these parties to power. If that happens, the afore-mentioned Civil War is a virtual certainty. It is a business that calls for careful diplomacy, not the ham-fisted approach of the left-wingers in the US House. Sorry about the length of this--there is much more I wanted to say. -- Gene Mutschler {ihnp4 seismo ctvax}!ut-sally!batman!gene Burroughs Corp. Austin Research Center cmp.barc@utexas-20.ARPA (512) 258-2495
berman@psuvax1.UUCP (Piotr Berman) (08/01/85)
> In article <146@batman.UUCP> gene@batman.UUCP (Gene Mutschler) writes: > > >> But our treatment of the peoples of > >> other lands is all too often exploitative and self-serving. > > > >You have *recent* examples, of course. > > > >A lot of those people would gladly trade that "exploitation" for that of > >their current "President For Life". The names Nyerere (sp?), Obote (and > >before him the ever-popular Idi Amin), Mengistu (who once settled an > >argument at a cabinet meeting by shooting his antagonist between the eyes), > >Khadaffi, Khomeini(ask a Bahai, if there are any left), Karmal, Castro, > >and Pol Pot spring to mind. > > Its funny the crew that you mentioned. They all came to power > (with the exception of Karmal), as part of popular uprisings against > oppressive U.S. supported govts. Maybe there's a lesson there? If we don't > want the likes of Khadaffi and Khomeini, perhaps we might be more amenable to > promoting popular empowerment in those countries, BEFORE IT IS TAKEN BY > FORCE. > > A case in point. When the racist regime in S. Africa finally falls, how > do you expect the new leaders to feel about the U.S. (who with Britain blocked > manditory sanctions in the Security Council last week). And if the U.S. and > allies support the White Regime 'till the bitter end, what kind of leaders do > you think will be in charge afterwards? BITTER ones! and do you think they'll > give a damn about western style democracy? > > Larry Kolodney The exists tendency to either ascribing all the evil to USA or USSR. Yes, superpowers are powerful, but not that powerful. Larry overlooked that not only Karmal, but also Amin, Obote, Nyerere are exceptions to his rule (they haven't came to power in any uprising against USA-supported govt). In general, tyrants already existed before both USA and USSR did. Without imperialism and colonialism there would be still aplenty of them. Apropos promoting democracy and helping other countries. It is not easy. Promoting democracy requires much more sofisticated and long-termed policy than either Democrats nor Republicans are capable to conceive and promote. Carter have several very good ideas, but rather clumsy execution of them. On the other hand Carter was criticized that his policy doesn't yield any results. People must learn that good policy may yield fruits only in the long time. Look: USA have opinion of a bully (or Satan), America bashing is a duty of almost every Third World politician. It will not change after merely 4 years of "nice" foreign policy. Another point: current economical relationship with Thirld Word forms a melange of inefective help and effective exploitation. Currently those economies are usually in such a mess that even effective help would improve them only after some long time. In the meantime, lots of troubles and no political dividents. But if you "save Granada", then whole country marvels at your stamina and resolve. Piotr Berman "It will be much worse before it will be a notch better"
tos@psc70.UUCP (Dr.Schlesinger) (08/05/85)
Some of Mutschler's arguments re. South Africa are reasonably
informed and deserve at least discussion. However, the style and
the pathetically simplistic ideological personalizing negate that.
Anyone differing with him is a "left-winger" -- and even more ridi-
culously, "left-wingers" are pro-communist and therefore bad -- and
he seems unaware that he's thereby casting himself as a "right-winger"
i.e. a supporter of American Nazis, KKK, John Birch Society, etc.
Tom Schlesinger
Plymouth State College,
Plymouth, N.H. 03264mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (08/07/85)
>> Its funny the crew that you mentioned. They all came to power >> (with the exception of Karmal), as part of popular uprisings against >> oppressive U.S. supported govts. > >Bull. By no stretch of the imagination were the governments of Ethiopia or >Cambodia or Cuba in anything like the same league as their successors. Interesting that Castro can wander around among crowds of his people, and Reagan can't. Could Baptista? -- Martin Taylor {allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt {uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsri!dciem!mmt
tan@ihlpg.UUCP (Bill Tanenbaum - AT&T Bell Labs - Naperville IL) (08/12/85)
> Interesting that Castro can wander around among crowds of his > people, and Reagan can't. Could Baptista? > Martin Taylor ------------------------------ The above has more to do with the relative availability of concealable handguns in Cuba and the U. S. than with the relative popularity of Reagan and Castro in their own countries. Also, we Americans who dislike Reagan (I am one) are all still here and running around, while those Cubans who dislike Castro are either in Miami or in jail. Hitler could and did wander about crowds of his people. So what does that prove? -- Bill Tanenbaum - AT&T Bell Labs - Naperville IL ihnp4!ihlpg!tan
kurtzman@uscvax.UUCP (Stephen Kurtzman) (08/15/85)
*** Martin Taylor writes: > > Interesting that Castro can wander around among crowds of his > people, and Reagan can't. Could Baptista? > Reagan might be able to wander safely in the US if he did the same things as Castro. Namely: a) kill or imprison people with opposing political views b) send criminals and mental patients to some other country as Castro did in the Mariel exodus. Mr. Taylor, have you ever wondered why so many people wanted to leave Cuba during the Mariel exodus? Have you heard or seen hoards of people forsaking their homes and friends to flee oppression in the US? I am not saying that Reagan is a good president (in my opinion he is a very bad one - but that is not relevant to the point I wish to make). I am not saying that the US has no serious problems. I am saying that the situations in Cuba and the US are different. In the US, people have inalienable rights which cannot be abbrogated by the president. In Cuba people are subjects of Castro's dictatorship; they have no rights; they only have privileges granted at the whim of Castro. Castro and his regime has systematically removed all opposition. I would not like to see this approach taken in the US. The rights of the people affirmed in the US Declaration of Independance and the Bill of Rights are too precious to throw away in exchange for a quick solution to the problem of Reagan's safety in a crowd.
mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (08/18/85)
>Reagan and Castro in their own countries. Also, we Americans who dislike >Reagan (I am one) are all still here and running around, while those >Cubans who dislike Castro are either in Miami or in jail. Hitler could >and did wander about crowds of his people. So what does that prove? >-- >Bill Tanenbaum - AT&T Bell Labs - Naperville IL ihnp4!ihlpg!tan I haven't heard of a significant reduction in the Cuban population since Castro took power, and both Canada and the US (I believe) have a higher per-capita prison population. This suggests either that the above is false, or that Castro is much more popular with his people than any other major leader (where do you see real popularity polls going much over 60%?). If, as some have suggested, the difference between the countries is that Cuba bans private ownership of guns, then I say Cuba is one country with some sense. I wish that the US would stop shipping guns and the idea of guns (TV etc) across our border. -- Martin Taylor {allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt {uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsri!dciem!mmt
tonyw@ubvax.UUCP (Tony Wuersch) (08/19/85)
In article <895@uscvax.UUCP> kurtzman@uscvax.UUCP (Stephen Kurtzman) writes: >Mr. Taylor, have you ever wondered why so many people wanted to leave >Cuba during the Mariel exodus? Have you heard or seen hoards of people >forsaking their homes and friends to flee oppression in the US? Mr. Kurtzman is forgetting that Cuba permitted NO emigration to the US, and the US permitted NO immigration from Cuba, for many years until the Mariel exodus. If the Mariel exodus were divided up between all the years in which no emigration/immigration was permitted, it wouldn't add up to more (and probably less) than any other Latin American country. There are many countries in this world where people itch to leave and try life somewhere else. And there are also many countries which have large segments of their population living permanently abroad and urging everybody else to leave and join the good life abroad. For instance, Ireland, Norway, and Switzerland, along with the Philippines, Mexico, and Portugal, along with India, Hong Kong, and Korea. Many countries have their whole social support system organized around the presence of an escape valve. For instance, Switzerland can have such strict public laws in part because it knows that people who don't like them can and often do leave. Mexico can do less in rural economic development because people can and do leave. Ireland doesn't have to worry as much about its huge unemployment because people can and do leave. Many in the Mariel exodus, as reported in the news, want to go back to Cuba. For instance, most of the Marielistas are dark-skinned and don't like American racism. Many Mexican immigrants plan to return home, as do many Filipinos. Nothing new in this, unless you believe the ideology that people who come to the US come to stay, rather than just try it out. Or that the desire of people to leave a country is a fundamental indictment of that country's system. Not so. Tony Wuersch {amd,amdcad}!cae780!ubvax!tonyw
goodrum@unc.UUCP (Cloyd Goodrum) (08/23/85)
In article Martin Taylor writes: > > >Interesting that Castro can wander around among crowds of his >people, and Reagan can't. >-- Not to mention the fact that the Cuban press likes Castro a lot better than the American press likes Reagan. You never read a harsh word about him in the Cuban press. (Do I REALLY need a :-)??) > >Martin Taylor Cloyd Goodrum
tan@ihlpg.UUCP (Bill Tanenbaum) (08/24/85)
> >[Stephen Kurtzman] > >Mr. Taylor, have you ever wondered why so many people wanted to leave > >Cuba during the Mariel exodus? Have you heard or seen hoards of people > >forsaking their homes and friends to flee oppression in the US? ------------------ > [Tony Wuersch] > Mr. Kurtzman is forgetting that Cuba permitted NO emigration to the US, > and the US permitted NO immigration from Cuba, for many years until the > Mariel exodus. If the Mariel exodus were divided up between all the > years in which no emigration/immigration was permitted, it wouldn't > add up to more (and probably less) than any other Latin American country. > > There are many countries in this world where people itch to leave and > try life somewhere else. And there are also many countries which have > large segments of their population living permanently abroad and urging > everybody else to leave and join the good life abroad. For instance, > Ireland, Norway, and Switzerland, along with the Philippines, Mexico, > and Portugal, along with India, Hong Kong, and Korea. > > Many in the Mariel exodus, as reported in the news, want to go back to > Cuba. For instance, most of the Marielistas are dark-skinned and don't > like American racism. Many Mexican immigrants plan to return home, > as do many Filipinos. > > Nothing new in this, unless you believe the ideology that people who > come to the US come to stay, rather than just try it out. Or that the > desire of people to leave a country is a fundamental indictment of > that country's system. Not so. ---------------- Mr. Wuersch is so good at seeing the trees that he misses the forest. Cuba is distinct from the other countries he mentions (except to some extent the Phillippines and a smaller extent Korea). The people leaving Mexico do so almost solely for economic opportunity, i. e. jobs. Ask them about the Mexican Government, and you won't get much of a reaction. Most of the people that left Cuba since the Castro takeover left for quite different reasons. Ask them what they think of the Cuban Government! They're not all former Batista henchman, you know. Your comments about the Marielistas are correct but irrelevant. Many of them are common criminals and not at all typical of Cuban immigrants to the U. S. Mr. Kurtzman picked a bad example in the Mariel boat lift, but his main point is right on the mark. -- Bill Tanenbaum - AT&T Bell Labs - Naperville IL ihnp4!ihlpg!tan
mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (08/25/85)
>Reagan might be able to wander safely in the US if he did the same >things as Castro. Namely: > > a) kill or imprison people with opposing political views > b) send criminals and mental patients to some other country > as Castro did in the Mariel exodus. > >Mr. Taylor, have you ever wondered why so many people wanted to leave >Cuba during the Mariel exodus? Have you heard or seen hoards of people >forsaking their homes and friends to flee oppression in the US? > If (a) were true, the population of Cuba would be largely in prison or greatly depleted, unless most people agreed with Castro. If both (b) and the implications of the next sentence are true, then the answer to (b) is already given. As to the final sentence, the answer is YES (presuming you mean hordes, since I haven't heard of US people stashing away other people since slavery was abolished). Examples (old) the Underground railway of slave days; (newer) McCarthy times; (relatively recent) VietNam. Lots of people have fled oppression in the US to live in Canada, just as they have fled oppression elsewhere to come to the USA. It's all a question of how you see the world as to whether you agree those people were actually oppressed. They thought they were. -- Martin Taylor {allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt {uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsri!dciem!mmt
bob@pedsgd.UUCP (Robert A. Weiler) (08/25/85)
Organization : Perkin-Elmer DSG, Tinton Falls NJ Keywords: In article <1131@ihlpg.UUCP> tan@ihlpg.UUCP (Bill Tanenbaum) writes: >Mr. Wuersch is so good at seeing the trees that he misses the forest. >Cuba is distinct from the other countries he mentions (except to some >extent the Phillippines and a smaller extent Korea). The people leaving >Mexico do so almost solely for economic opportunity, i. e. jobs. Ask >them about the Mexican Government, and you won't get much of a reaction. >Most of the people that left Cuba since the Castro takeover left for >quite different reasons. Ask them what they think of the Cuban Government! >They're not all former Batista henchman, you know. Your comments about >the Marielistas are correct but irrelevant. Many of them are common >criminals and not at all typical of Cuban immigrants to the U. S. >Mr. Kurtzman picked a bad example in the Mariel boat lift, but his main >point is right on the mark. >-- As someone who lived for a long time in South Florida ( 1968-1984 ), I knew a fair number of Cuban refugees. In general ( emphasis on general ) I would say they fell into 3 classes: Those who owned property and lost it : violently anti-Castro would return to Cuba if they could get their property back. Those who had jobs, but didnt own property: Moderate Anti-Castro prefer US due to increased economic opportunity, probably wouldnt return if he left. Those who had neither property or jobs: Dont care about Castro, maybe even prefer him to Batista, but would rather stay in US for economic opportunity. Most of the freedom rhetoric comes from the first group, and I may be overly cynical, but I dont believe it is truly heart felt. The others are here because they can live better in the US. They certainly do appreciate the freedoms we enjoy, but it isnt the major factor. As I have never been in Cuba, this is all second hand. I invite any Cuban-American netters out there to present more definitive assessment. >Bill Tanenbaum - AT&T Bell Labs - Naperville IL ihnp4!ihlpg!tan Bob Weiler.
tw8023@pyuxii.UUCP (T Wheeler) (08/26/85)
Mr Wuersh, i'm sorry to inform you, but Cuba DID permit emigration before the great muriel exodus. There were two official flights per week out of Havana via Pan Am that were used for this purpose. The problem being, if one wished to skip out, one had to give everything to the state. The idea for these flights was to cut down on highjackings and was an agreement between the State Dept and the Cubans. The flights also worked the other way. One could conntact the State Dept and ask to be sent to Cuba. The only problem being was that Cuba had to agree to taking the person. T. C. Wheeler
tan@ihlpg.UUCP (Bill Tanenbaum) (08/26/85)
> [Bob Weiler] > As someone who lived for a long time in South Florida ( 1968-1984 ), I > knew a fair number of Cuban refugees. In general ( emphasis on general ) > I would say they fell into 3 classes: > > Those who owned property and lost it : violently anti-Castro > would return to Cuba if they could get their property back. > > Those who had jobs, but didnt own property: Moderate Anti-Castro > prefer US due to increased economic opportunity, probably > wouldnt return if he left. > > Those who had neither property or jobs: Dont care about Castro, maybe > even prefer him to Batista, but would rather stay in US > for economic opportunity. > > Most of the freedom rhetoric comes from the first group, and I may > be overly cynical, but I dont believe it is truly heart felt. The > others are here because they can live better in the US. They certainly > do appreciate the freedoms we enjoy, but it isnt the major factor. ---------------- To sum this up, we can agree that most of the post-1959 refugees could tolerate a corrupt inefficient dictatorial government that left them alone economically (Batista), but not a relatively efficient totalitarian one that maybe took away their property as well(Castro). I should also point out that many of the refugees originally supported the Castro revolution, and left only when Castro came out of the closet. -- Bill Tanenbaum - AT&T Bell Labs - Naperville IL ihnp4!ihlpg!tan
ray@rochester.UUCP (Ray Frank) (08/28/85)
> > >Reagan and Castro in their own countries. Also, we Americans who dislike > >Reagan (I am one) are all still here and running around, while those > >Cubans who dislike Castro are either in Miami or in jail. Hitler could > >and did wander about crowds of his people. So what does that prove? > >-- > >Bill Tanenbaum - AT&T Bell Labs - Naperville IL ihnp4!ihlpg!tan > > I haven't heard of a significant reduction in the Cuban population since > Castro took power, and both Canada and the US (I believe) have a higher > per-capita prison population. This suggests either that the above is > false, or that Castro is much more popular with his people than any other > major leader (where do you see real popularity polls going much over 60%?). > > If, as some have suggested, the difference between the countries is that > Cuba bans private ownership of guns, then I say Cuba is one country with > some sense. I wish that the US would stop shipping guns and the idea of > guns (TV etc) across our border. > -- > > Martin Taylor > {allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt > {uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsri!dciem!mmt Did you ever stop to think that Cuban prisons are not full because most anti- Castro types never make it that far. Iran murdered 10,000 of their own citizensin four years, how many did Castro murder in the past thirty years? The prisons in the US are not full of political prisoners. In Cuba, you would most likely find the ratio of political prisoners to convicted felons much higher than in Canada or the US.
csanders@ucbvax.ARPA (Craig S. Anderson) (08/29/85)
In article <1659@dciem.UUCP> mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) writes: > >>Reagan and Castro in their own countries. Also, we Americans who dislike >>Reagan (I am one) are all still here and running around, while those >>Cubans who dislike Castro are either in Miami or in jail. Hitler could >>and did wander about crowds of his people. So what does that prove? >>-- >>Bill Tanenbaum - AT&T Bell Labs - Naperville IL ihnp4!ihlpg!tan > >I haven't heard of a significant reduction in the Cuban population since >Castro took power, and both Canada and the US (I believe) have a higher >per-capita prison population. This suggests either that the above is >false, or that Castro is much more popular with his people than any other >major leader (where do you see real popularity polls going much over 60%?). He is popular in part because there is no free press in Cuba. Just think how Reagan uses the media to his advantage; In Cuba, it is the same way, except they have no New York Times or ABC-TV to expose his shortcomings. If you have ever read '1984' you would learn that 'Big Brother' was very popular because the government controlled media portrayed him as a great leader. Same principle. > >If, as some have suggested, the difference between the countries is that >Cuba bans private ownership of guns, then I say Cuba is one country with >some sense. I wish that the US would stop shipping guns and the idea of >guns (TV etc) across our border. One cannot own guns in a totalitarian society because one could threaten the government. However, criminals use other weapons. >Martin Taylor >{allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt >{uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsri!dciem!mmt Craig Anderson csanders@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU