|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
Something which is overlooked in the discussion over conditions on the border is how the US has contributed to conditions in the countries asylum seekers are emigrating from. One example is Guatemala, the second largest source for US asylum seekers after Venezuela in 2018.
In 2007 Guatemala set up the International Commission against Impunity in Guatemala (the CICIG) in cooperation with the UN with funding and support from the US. The organization's mandate has been renewed for two year terms since then. It is well regarded and has been successful in prosecuting high profile individuals, including the previous president, for corruption. Corporate interests are upset about this. Enter the Trump administration:
Today, after an intense effort by Morales to lobby the Trump administration, it’s the corruption-busters themselves who are on the ropes. Morales [Guatemalan president] has vowed to shut down the widely praised commission.
What has stunned Guatemalans isn’t just the commission’s demise, but the Trump administration’s role in it. The U.S. government has been largely silent as Morales’s government has ramped up pressure on the anticorruption team — kicking its leader out of the country and sending armored Jeeps to patrol outside its headquarters.
Morales, a former TV comedian, has proved skillful in his dealings with Washington. His envoys have argued that the commission represented out-of-control U.N. interference, winning a sympathetic ear from Trump officials wary of the world body, U.S. officials say.
Guatemala also moved its embassy in Israel to Jerusalem just after the Trump administration did — providing a rare sign of support amid a wave of global condemnation. Relations grew so warm that Guatemalan diplomats hosted Jared Kushner, President Trump’s son-in-law, at a $5,000 dinner, according to government documents and interviews.
...
Morales sent envoys to convince Washington that Velásquez [the head of the CICIG] was a leftist bent on undermining the conservative government, said a former U.S. official involved in Latin America policy. The president’s allies in Guatemala spent heavily on American lobbyists. As the allegations flew, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) temporarily froze $6 million in U.S. aid for the anti-corruption commission over concerns of Russian manipulation. But the State Department found no evidence of wrongdoing.
...
As for Morales, he is not eligible for reelection. He will lose his immunity from prosecution when his term ends in January.
But he will not have to worry about the anti-corruption commission. It’s slated for closure on Sept. 3.
How U.S. apathy helped kill a pioneering anti-corruption campaign in Guatemala
An essential component in dealing with the refugee crisis is to make conditions safer in refugees' home countries. Shutting down the CICIG does the opposite. A cynical person might conclude that the Trump administration is activity trying to make the crisis worse so they can continue to score political points off of it.
|
On July 26 2019 22:40 Ryzel wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2019 22:29 Jockmcplop wrote:On July 26 2019 22:25 Ryzel wrote:
I mean the refugee/immigrant problem is obviously ethically complicated. I personally would be more interested in a deeper discussion on the underlying issues. For example...
1) Should it be a basic human right for anyone to settle wherever they choose, regardless of country?
2) Since a population in a democracy could theoretically vote to have open borders and allow all refugees in and reduce their suffering, does that mean said population has an ethical obligation to do so? Alternative scenario: if a refugee knocked on your door and asked to stay at your place, and you had an extra room that you weren’t using, are you ethically obligated to let him/her stay? 1) I think it should. This is one of those questions where you tend to get brick wall answers and ideological divide that you can't cross though. 2) Ethics are relative to the society you live in, but the answer to these questions is literally no. I think the answer should be yes, but it isn't. A further question I would ask is: If there are laws determining how you have to treat prisoners who were born in your country, is there any reason these laws shouldn't apply to people who were arrested while attempting to illegally enter your country? I’d say that depends on whether the citizenship of the country in question is what entitles you to/justifies those protections, or if it’s being a human. Intuitively it seems to be the latter though; it’s not like Americans specifically have an issue with starving in prison and needing laws guaranteeing sustenance. I guess the most simplified version is... Does a human’s “right to claim ownership” trump a human’s “right to pursue minimization of suffering by any means necessary”?
For me personally the answer is a resounding no, in the US, both parties say yes imo.
EDIT: It's like the farmers that let their crops rot when they couldn't find workers rather than just turn their farms into free/discount "u-picks" or anything else.
|
On July 26 2019 22:34 farvacola wrote:
And as Jock’s follow up implies, the fundamentals here are not actually as important as the practical realities facing a country as continually attractive to immigrants as the US. The issue isn’t one of open borders or the essential character of a national identity, rather it is one of “can we process immigrants in a way that is both humane and a component of a legitimate legal procedure?” The answer to that is yes, and no, it doesn’t require godly fortitude or divine organizational skills.
No arguments here. I’m just personally more interested in the philosophical discussion. I kinda’ assumed it was a given that the whole process could be done more effectively and humanely from a policy standpoint, but unless we’re discussing the merits of actual policy decisions being mulled over in Congress, it’s just not a discussion I’m interested in.
|
On July 26 2019 22:44 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2019 22:40 Ryzel wrote:On July 26 2019 22:29 Jockmcplop wrote:On July 26 2019 22:25 Ryzel wrote:
I mean the refugee/immigrant problem is obviously ethically complicated. I personally would be more interested in a deeper discussion on the underlying issues. For example...
1) Should it be a basic human right for anyone to settle wherever they choose, regardless of country?
2) Since a population in a democracy could theoretically vote to have open borders and allow all refugees in and reduce their suffering, does that mean said population has an ethical obligation to do so? Alternative scenario: if a refugee knocked on your door and asked to stay at your place, and you had an extra room that you weren’t using, are you ethically obligated to let him/her stay? 1) I think it should. This is one of those questions where you tend to get brick wall answers and ideological divide that you can't cross though. 2) Ethics are relative to the society you live in, but the answer to these questions is literally no. I think the answer should be yes, but it isn't. A further question I would ask is: If there are laws determining how you have to treat prisoners who were born in your country, is there any reason these laws shouldn't apply to people who were arrested while attempting to illegally enter your country? I’d say that depends on whether the citizenship of the country in question is what entitles you to/justifies those protections, or if it’s being a human. Intuitively it seems to be the latter though; it’s not like Americans specifically have an issue with starving in prison and needing laws guaranteeing sustenance. I guess the most simplified version is... Does a human’s “right to claim ownership” trump a human’s “right to pursue minimization of suffering by any means necessary”? For me personally the answer is a resounding no, in the US, both parties say yes imo. EDIT: It's like the farmers that let their crops rot when they couldn't find workers rather than just turn their farms into free "u-picks" or whatever
See, this is what I’m talking about. I haven’t actually given that question much in-depth thought, but intuitively I feel I agree with you (not quite as resoundingly though).
Do you think humans have a “right to claim ownership” at all?
|
|
|
On July 26 2019 22:53 Ryzel wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2019 22:44 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 26 2019 22:40 Ryzel wrote:On July 26 2019 22:29 Jockmcplop wrote:On July 26 2019 22:25 Ryzel wrote:
I mean the refugee/immigrant problem is obviously ethically complicated. I personally would be more interested in a deeper discussion on the underlying issues. For example...
1) Should it be a basic human right for anyone to settle wherever they choose, regardless of country?
2) Since a population in a democracy could theoretically vote to have open borders and allow all refugees in and reduce their suffering, does that mean said population has an ethical obligation to do so? Alternative scenario: if a refugee knocked on your door and asked to stay at your place, and you had an extra room that you weren’t using, are you ethically obligated to let him/her stay? 1) I think it should. This is one of those questions where you tend to get brick wall answers and ideological divide that you can't cross though. 2) Ethics are relative to the society you live in, but the answer to these questions is literally no. I think the answer should be yes, but it isn't. A further question I would ask is: If there are laws determining how you have to treat prisoners who were born in your country, is there any reason these laws shouldn't apply to people who were arrested while attempting to illegally enter your country? I’d say that depends on whether the citizenship of the country in question is what entitles you to/justifies those protections, or if it’s being a human. Intuitively it seems to be the latter though; it’s not like Americans specifically have an issue with starving in prison and needing laws guaranteeing sustenance. I guess the most simplified version is... Does a human’s “right to claim ownership” trump a human’s “right to pursue minimization of suffering by any means necessary”? For me personally the answer is a resounding no, in the US, both parties say yes imo. EDIT: It's like the farmers that let their crops rot when they couldn't find workers rather than just turn their farms into free "u-picks" or whatever See, this is what I’m talking about. I haven’t actually given that question much in-depth thought, but intuitively I feel I agree with you (not quite as resoundingly though). Do you think humans have a “right to claim ownership” at all?
I see a practical application for personal property, distinct from private property. Basically personal property is your toothbrush, private property is the factory where toothbrushes are made. Capitalism doesn't make this distinction.
|
On July 26 2019 22:56 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2019 22:53 Ryzel wrote:On July 26 2019 22:44 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 26 2019 22:40 Ryzel wrote:On July 26 2019 22:29 Jockmcplop wrote:On July 26 2019 22:25 Ryzel wrote:
I mean the refugee/immigrant problem is obviously ethically complicated. I personally would be more interested in a deeper discussion on the underlying issues. For example...
1) Should it be a basic human right for anyone to settle wherever they choose, regardless of country?
2) Since a population in a democracy could theoretically vote to have open borders and allow all refugees in and reduce their suffering, does that mean said population has an ethical obligation to do so? Alternative scenario: if a refugee knocked on your door and asked to stay at your place, and you had an extra room that you weren’t using, are you ethically obligated to let him/her stay? 1) I think it should. This is one of those questions where you tend to get brick wall answers and ideological divide that you can't cross though. 2) Ethics are relative to the society you live in, but the answer to these questions is literally no. I think the answer should be yes, but it isn't. A further question I would ask is: If there are laws determining how you have to treat prisoners who were born in your country, is there any reason these laws shouldn't apply to people who were arrested while attempting to illegally enter your country? I’d say that depends on whether the citizenship of the country in question is what entitles you to/justifies those protections, or if it’s being a human. Intuitively it seems to be the latter though; it’s not like Americans specifically have an issue with starving in prison and needing laws guaranteeing sustenance. I guess the most simplified version is... Does a human’s “right to claim ownership” trump a human’s “right to pursue minimization of suffering by any means necessary”? For me personally the answer is a resounding no, in the US, both parties say yes imo. EDIT: It's like the farmers that let their crops rot when they couldn't find workers rather than just turn their farms into free "u-picks" or whatever See, this is what I’m talking about. I haven’t actually given that question much in-depth thought, but intuitively I feel I agree with you (not quite as resoundingly though). Do you think humans have a “right to claim ownership” at all? I see a practical application for personal property, distinct from private property. Basically personal property is your toothbrush, private property is the factory where toothbrushes are made. Capitalism doesn't make this distinction.
Interesting, I wasn’t expecting that answer. From the previous posts, we can also assume that when one is exerting their right to minimize suffering, the other should give up their personal property if necessary?
|
On July 26 2019 22:10 GreenHorizons wrote:
Since corporate media is blasting us with another wave of "Russia runs our elections" it dawned on me the trolliest thing they could do is blatantly campaign for Democrats to win
They could still campaign for Trump too and make it a wash issue that neither side can discuss. Knowing our politicians they'd probably just argue about who they are helping more though.
I still maintain that Russia WILL do this. All they have to do is change one vote and be "sloppy" enough that we find out that it happened (ideally Russia doesn't actually get caught as the ones doing it, just that it is found out that people's votes were changed).
The shitstorm would be unstoppable. Trump would declare the election invalid if the vote were changed from R to D and cause an actual, for real constitutional crisis. If the vote were changed from D to R he would say it's Russia Hoax part 2 but there would be concrete proof that would fuel the narrative the left has been telling for 3 years.
Why would they not do this? They've got the best opportunity ever with Trump and the current division in the country, we have essentially no way of stopping it, and it's not even that expensive or difficult.
|
|
|
On July 26 2019 22:56 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2019 09:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 26 2019 09:15 JimmiC wrote:On July 26 2019 08:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 26 2019 08:45 JimmiC wrote:On July 26 2019 08:31 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 26 2019 08:25 JimmiC wrote:On July 26 2019 08:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 26 2019 08:14 JimmiC wrote:On July 26 2019 08:08 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
What do you suggest non-violent revolutionaries do when they are targeted by the state for harassment, abuse, incarceration, and/or assassination like in the cases of MLK jr and Fred Hampton for example?
(should respond in the appropriate thread imo). *posted in the appropriate thread by request. Won't that get us to the point that made you upset with me in the first point. Where you are asking me about the next steps and not focusing on the first ones? The revolution itself? I'm fine to go there as long as you are willing to go there with me and I don't think you are, so let's just stick to the first part and we have that all sorted out where everyone agrees or at least knows where everyone stands we move on. Fair? I'm just saying they have to protect/defend themselves if/when targeted and I'm trying to understand what your opposition/alternative to that is? If I go down this path with, are you willing to go down the path of either, is the violence worth it? and too do so we have to decide what is reasonable for the war we are talking about. Or what are the guarantee's that the revolution accomplishes the original goals and how will we make sure that happens? If you are happy to go down either rabbit hole with me, I'm happy to do so with you and anyone else who jumps in. Happy? No. We agree on revolution (at least for this exercise), you just want to avoid violence (I think you're argument doesn't recognize ongoing unaddressed massive violence required to take the more measured approach you prefer). I'm asking you for your alternative/opposition to non-violent revolutionaries defending themselves from being targets of the state. I mention that MLK jr shared that tag and it's pretty ubiquitously accepted that his requests of the oligarchy/white club were totally reasonable and wholly non-violent. For which there was a conspiracy to assassinate him and endless accusations, even from alleged allies, of him inciting violence. I’m confused because of what Drone said and what you said. I feel like we are racing towards the same issues. Where you try to disprove that peaceful revolution happening, and then me saying OK let’s agree do you think it will be worth all the violence and Death. And you saying your not wanting to talk about it and me getting accused of saying you are talking about a violent revolution and you saying that I’m mis characterizing your point. I presume since you were mentioning PM'ing with Drone and others he's made some sort of commitment to assist in moderating this discussion. This would be the point when whoever was going to try to bridge our communication gap should step in and help us see where we're missing each other at this point. I agree that nothing about your approach thus far indicates to me we're going to have a different result and would rather you just make a post saying whatever you think about what I post and I could choose to either address any valid/popular argument I see in it or not without directly engaging with you. That option seems to not be on the table. As such, I'm entertaining this exercise to the best of my ability. As Drone said, the solutions aren't mine to craft alone and in your commitment to the revolution (in this exercise should it remain non-violent) you are expected to join me. So, our very first issue is the violence you want to avoid. So my question to you is: I'm asking you for your alternative/opposition to non-violent revolutionaries defending themselves from being targets of the state. within the context of our history in the US. I mention that MLK jr shared that tag and it's pretty ubiquitously accepted that his requests of the oligarchy/white club were totally reasonable and wholly non-violent. For which there was a conspiracy to assassinate him and endless accusations, even from alleged allies, of him inciting violence. and I still believe: ...[Y]ou're argument doesn't recognize ongoing unaddressed massive violence required to take the more measured approach you prefer As I mentioned, I'm more then willing to get into it. But if we come to a point where we can't agree, or worse where we do agree that violence and a bloody revolution is a must are you willing to discuss the next logical point which is, how many people will die, what will be the cost to the environment and therefore should we have the revolution or look for another solution? I'll go as long as I have to, do you not remember I'm not allowed to not answer your direct questions? I'd prefer if you were just comfortable rather than feeling forced, but I guess I will take what I can get. So to get back to your question. Show nested quote +*posted in the appropriate thread by request.
Won't that get us to the point that made you upset with me in the first point. Where you are asking me about the next steps and not focusing on the first ones? The revolution itself?
I'm fine to go there as long as you are willing to go there with me and I don't think you are, so let's just stick to the first part and we have that all sorted out where everyone agrees or at least knows where everyone stands we move on. Fair? I'm just saying they have to protect/defend themselves if/when targeted and I'm trying to understand what your opposition/alternative to that is?
I think successful revolutions of any kind are super rare, so I'm sure we can both find many many examples where they didn't work. More often than not they lead to different powerful people ruling with a power and wealth imbalance.
It depends what you mean by defend themselves. If you mean that the leader should have body guards, I would agree. If you mean that if they killed some of "our guys" we should kill some of "their guys" I would disagree. More often than not these lead to so much hate on each side that they go on for generations.
You bring up MLK jr, and you know way way more about him then I ever will. So Im not going to argue with you on that. I'll give you my opinion as an outsider (both not African American or from the USA). But, your understanding on that subject is far greater than mine.
MLK jr, assassination was one of the biggest black marks in your countries history. Because of everything he represented. His assassination was horrible, he did not deserve it, he was promoting peace. That event made it clear to moderates and foreigners who were the "bad guys" and who were the "good guys" in a way race war never would have. It leaves MLK Jr's side clean and doesn't allow for the whataboutism that is so present in for example Palestine/Israel or so many others. It was the peace against all odds, him being so much better than the oppressors that was so powerful to me.
What we need now will have never been accomplished before, that's just an unfortunate reality we face imo.
One example would be: If the police are beating them (already happens regularly at tame protests), do you think they should allow themselves to get beat until people's good conscious takes over (that moment never came for nazis) or defend themselves?
Your opinion on MLK is popular but based in a lack of information (or deliberate mistelling, depending on perspective) about the time and the circumstances, that's not a personal thing, it's more popular than having any clue what happened for people actually living in the US or even through the actual events.
The truth is they were terrified of social collapse and had to bend a little, it wasn't a moral awakening and it took a while. For example, Fred Hampton (Black socialist) was assassinated by Chicago PD in coordination with the FBI more than a year and a half AFTER MLK Jr. was assassinated (by a conspiracy that included the federal government) and long after the Chicago riots, Watts riots, Tulsa terrorists, etc...
Besides constantly being accused of inciting and advocating violence by allies while alive (as were the people that followed in his footsteps), his assassination simply didn't have the impact you think. A third of the country said he brought it on himself (like answered a live pollster that MLK jr. deserved to be assassinated).
Nixon went on to win the 1968 Election (the year of MLK's assassination in coordination with the government) and implement the drug war which has been explicitly described by one of it's creators as:
"You understand what I'm saying? We knew we couldn't make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin. And then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities," Ehrlichman said. "We could arrest their leaders. raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did."
https://www.cnn.com/2016/03/23/politics/john-ehrlichman-richard-nixon-drug-war-blacks-hippie/index.html
Miami, LA riots, Ferguson, Trump, today. I could fill in the larger gaps if it's not clear there was no great awakening for moderates or the US in general.
I can't speak to the international image stuff though.
|
|
|
|
|
On July 26 2019 23:11 Ryzel wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2019 22:56 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 26 2019 22:53 Ryzel wrote:On July 26 2019 22:44 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 26 2019 22:40 Ryzel wrote:On July 26 2019 22:29 Jockmcplop wrote:On July 26 2019 22:25 Ryzel wrote:
I mean the refugee/immigrant problem is obviously ethically complicated. I personally would be more interested in a deeper discussion on the underlying issues. For example...
1) Should it be a basic human right for anyone to settle wherever they choose, regardless of country?
2) Since a population in a democracy could theoretically vote to have open borders and allow all refugees in and reduce their suffering, does that mean said population has an ethical obligation to do so? Alternative scenario: if a refugee knocked on your door and asked to stay at your place, and you had an extra room that you weren’t using, are you ethically obligated to let him/her stay? 1) I think it should. This is one of those questions where you tend to get brick wall answers and ideological divide that you can't cross though. 2) Ethics are relative to the society you live in, but the answer to these questions is literally no. I think the answer should be yes, but it isn't. A further question I would ask is: If there are laws determining how you have to treat prisoners who were born in your country, is there any reason these laws shouldn't apply to people who were arrested while attempting to illegally enter your country? I’d say that depends on whether the citizenship of the country in question is what entitles you to/justifies those protections, or if it’s being a human. Intuitively it seems to be the latter though; it’s not like Americans specifically have an issue with starving in prison and needing laws guaranteeing sustenance. I guess the most simplified version is... Does a human’s “right to claim ownership” trump a human’s “right to pursue minimization of suffering by any means necessary”? For me personally the answer is a resounding no, in the US, both parties say yes imo. EDIT: It's like the farmers that let their crops rot when they couldn't find workers rather than just turn their farms into free "u-picks" or whatever See, this is what I’m talking about. I haven’t actually given that question much in-depth thought, but intuitively I feel I agree with you (not quite as resoundingly though). Do you think humans have a “right to claim ownership” at all? I see a practical application for personal property, distinct from private property. Basically personal property is your toothbrush, private property is the factory where toothbrushes are made. Capitalism doesn't make this distinction. Interesting, I wasn’t expecting that answer. From the previous posts, we can also assume that when one is exerting their right to minimize suffering, the other should give up their personal property if necessary?
Again socialists, anarchists, etc... have different perspectives with some overlaps and distinctions and I don't think I know for certain what's best but we're not all wholly unreasonable in recognizing that shifting from capitalism to a society without private property requires an adjustment period (it's in the lit if you want to know more).
How about a practical example of what you're asking (like my toothbrush example)?
|
On July 26 2019 23:33 JimmiC wrote:
The miss spellings were typo's, and considering how many times you have read my posts I think you by now know that I just suck at typing (and I'm not great at spelling either.
As mentioned you know far more than I do about that.
Is it your position that we would be in a better place now if MLK jr. and his followers had taken up arms and fought a war against the American government?
I am not arguing that the US government is just. I don't believe them to be, historically or now. Non of that is a counter to my beliefs because I believe them to corrupt. I am not arguing in favor of the US government. They would be near the bottom of my list of free countries to emulate.
Edit: edited out some of the above as it was getting really messy.
I don't know what the misspellings and typos were (or why you're mentioning it?)
I'm not talking about what MLK jr should have done (the hell am I to do that lol?)
I was just addressing your errant opinion about what happened in the US after MLK's assasination.
|
|
|
On July 26 2019 23:46 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2019 23:43 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 26 2019 23:33 JimmiC wrote:
The miss spellings were typo's, and considering how many times you have read my posts I think you by now know that I just suck at typing (and I'm not great at spelling either.
As mentioned you know far more than I do about that.
Is it your position that we would be in a better place now if MLK jr. and his followers had taken up arms and fought a war against the American government?
I am not arguing that the US government is just. I don't believe them to be, historically or now. Non of that is a counter to my beliefs because I believe them to corrupt. I am not arguing in favor of the US government. They would be near the bottom of my list of free countries to emulate.
Edit: edited out some of the above as it was getting really messy. I don't know what the misspellings and typos were (or why you're mentioning it?) I'm not talking about what MLK jr should have done (the hell am I to do that lol?) I was just addressing your errant opinion about what happened in the US after MLK's assasination. OK then back on course. What is the revolution that comes to mind to you as a successful one that involved violence and worked out to what you would describe as good conclusion?
Cuban I guess? Obviously they still have issues (who doesn't?). I sense I must remind you we must accomplish something we've never accomplished or we're boned anyway. So make sure this line of questioning is relevant to your alternative to revolutionaries defending themselves from a terrorist state.
Or simply answering the question would be preferable.
|
GH, as a person with Cuban heritage, I find that statement pretty dumb, since I'm assuming you've never been to Cuba, I'm sure you wouldn't want that kind of revolution. The Cuban revolution was only successful depending on your view, for a select few, the top 0.01%, while everyone else lives in horrible misery. If you think Cuba is a communism, you're completely wrong, that's strictly a dictatorship with ties to North Korea, Russia, and other dictatorships.
The Cuban government is actually one of the reasons why Venezuela started down it's dictatorship path. Cuba is supplying the Venezuela government soldiers, and doctors.
|
On July 27 2019 00:35 ShoCkeyy wrote:
I'm assuming you've never been to Cuba, I'm sure you wouldn't want that kind of revolution. The Cuban revolution was only successful depending on your view for a select few the top 1% while everyone else lives in horrible misery.
I believe we need a revolution that removes the current government, Cuba accomplished that. I do want that kind of revolution (as opposed to the many that didn't get that far). I don't want violence, which is one reason why I believe revolution is necessary. (So does JimmiC for this exercise btw, but he's not playing his role very convincingly imo)
I think it's obvious (whether I agree with your characterization of Cuba or not) that my goal isn't for the 1% to live in luxury and everyone else in "horrible misery".
|
On July 27 2019 00:42 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2019 00:35 ShoCkeyy wrote:
I'm assuming you've never been to Cuba, I'm sure you wouldn't want that kind of revolution. The Cuban revolution was only successful depending on your view for a select few the top 1% while everyone else lives in horrible misery. I need a revolution that removes the current government, Cuba accomplished that. I do want that kind of revolution (as opposed to the many that didn't get that far). I think it's obvious (whether I agree with your characterization of Cuba or not) that my goal isn't for the 1% to live in luxury and everyone else in "horrible misery".
The revolution gave the people of Cuba an even worse dictatorship. If by removing the current government, what makes you think that there's going to be a better one after? I think that's the reason why you don't see people on the streets as much. They choose to keep going on there everyday life, non affected, rather than deal with the outcome of trying something "crazy" until it affects them.
|
On July 27 2019 00:47 ShoCkeyy wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2019 00:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 27 2019 00:35 ShoCkeyy wrote:
I'm assuming you've never been to Cuba, I'm sure you wouldn't want that kind of revolution. The Cuban revolution was only successful depending on your view for a select few the top 1% while everyone else lives in horrible misery. I need a revolution that removes the current government, Cuba accomplished that. I do want that kind of revolution (as opposed to the many that didn't get that far). I think it's obvious (whether I agree with your characterization of Cuba or not) that my goal isn't for the 1% to live in luxury and everyone else in "horrible misery". The revolution gave the people of Cuba an even worse dictatorship. If by removing the current government, what makes you think that there's going to be a better one after? I think that's the reason why you don't see people on the streets as much. They choose to keep going on there everyday life, non affected, rather than deal with the outcome of trying something "crazy" until it affects them.
I've mentioned before step one is Critical consciousness, conscientization, or conscientização. Which simply put is replacing the banking/pitcher model of education with critical engagement. The goal basically being the realization that the world is what me make of it. It's as wicked and cruel as we make it.
As to the recognition/why people rhetorically lament white club but prefer it to building revolution, I think we covered that pretty well already. I guess it goes back further
Further back is the tiers of whites list that is too good to not also reference.
Kwark is being a bit satirical btw for people unfamiliar.
EDIT: Only fair to include an alternative perspective of Cuba that overlaps with the refugee topic.
UNHCR article detailing some experiences from Refugees that went TO Cuba.
+ Show Spoiler +“Cuba is a country with very warm, helpful and generous people and although much time is spent looking for cheap food in the market, I am grateful,” says Marie Rose, looking appreciatively around her flat full of lovingly cared-for plants.
Also having crossed the world, Ramin arrived in Cuba in 2000 at the age of 14, having fled with his family from the oppressive Taliban regime in Afghanistan.
“I was almost illiterate when I first came to Cuba, but I got the chance to graduate from technical high school. I also learned to speak English and Spanish,” said Ramin, now resettled in Finland.
All of the 697 refugees in Cuba are what is called “mandate refugees” which means UNHCR has given them refugee status as the government which has not signed the refugee Convention, has no mechanism to recognise refugees. Mandate refugee status gives refugees temporary asylum in Cuba, while UNHCR, which operates there with a minimal staff, works to find countries which will accept them on a permanent basis.
After five years in Cuba, Ramin and his family last year left for Finland. This has taken some getting used to.
“It’s like you were living inside an oven, and all of a sudden you move to a fridge,” says Ramin. But it was not just the shock of the climate. “Cuba and Finland are totally different. Here, people are very quiet; you can hardly tell if someone is around. They are also very shy and they don’t make friends easily, but they are really nice and honest people.”
By the time Ramin left Cuba, he was studying dentistry at Havana University. Now his ambitions have changed and he has applied to study international law.
“I hope I will pass the exam. I would really like to work in an organisation like UNHCR, so that I could help thousands of people in need.”
Marie Rose is still in Cuba waiting to be resettled. “I want to reunite with my husband and our three children,” she says, her smiling face concealing the horrors she has been through before managing to flee. Marie Rose who suffered threats and physical attacks is now looking forward to beginning again. “And we will have a better life. I hope I can use everything I learned in Cuba,” she says in perfect Spanish.
www.unhcr.org
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
