Cuba: The Last Refuge of Excuse-Making Scoundrels

Wednesday, 27th May 2009

I suppose one ought not to be surprised that there remain some folk for whom the Cuban revolutionaries remain unblemished heroes. Equally, there is, alas, no great reason to be too astonished that the Guardian still publishes panegyrics saluting the brilliance and ineffable wisdom of Castro and Guevara. Nevertheless, Simon Reid-Henry's* article today may take the biscuit in terms of recent contributions to the genre:

After the war, what had begun as little more than an association of convenience developed into one of the most intriguing of all political partnerships. Their different working styles and approaches to revolution helped the Cuban leadership negotiate the hazardous switch from American to Soviet patronage. But from around 1963 they found themselves drawn along different lines by the fratricidal split within the socialist camp between the Soviets and the Chinese. Things came to a head in 1965. El Fifo (Castro) and el Che (Guevara) had a terrific slanging match after Che went too far in criticising the Soviet Union. Shortly thereafter Che left Cuba for good. The two could not quite bring themselves to part company, however, and the last two years of Che's life would see them working together – in defiance of the Soviets, and just about everyone else too – on their most quixotic adventure yet.
There is of course far more to the history of revolution in Latin America than the lives of these two men. But while the Cuban story resonates widely, and Castro and Che have become, as individuals, two of the most recognisable figures of the 20th century, the history of their actual relationship has always been kept obscure. More's the pity, for it casts a unique light upon the early years of the Cuban revolution, and offers fresh insight into the experience of a whole generation of young Latin Americans who felt that their often corrupt and backward-looking political systems did not offer them the means to address the pressing issues of their time. Now, 50 years later, we might do well to bear in mind the lessons of what they did and did not achieve by taking matters into their own hands.

What a shame! Here at least we may agree: the lessons of what Castro and Guevara "did and did not achieve" do indeed remain instructive. A warm-weather island gulag is still a gulag.

Equally, it ought to be possible for sensible folk to decry the corruption of Latin American regimes without also celebrating the ghastly record of the ghastly thugs who have subsequently destroyed Cuba. This too is not a tricky or complex point...

*Mr Reid-Henry is, according to the Guardian, "a lecturer in the department of Georgraphy [sic], Queen Mary, University of London."

Filed under: Cuba (14 more articles) , Hackery (218 more articles)

Previous Back to Alex Massie Next

Blogs: Martin Bright | Susan Hill | Melanie Phillips | Coffee House | Faith Based

Actions: Print this article | Email to a friend | Permalink | Comments (6)

Post this entry to: del.icio.us | Digg | Newsvine | NowPublic | Reddit

Post comment

cuffleyburgers

May 27th, 2009 7:02am Report this comment

I can only imagine the reaction if, in a fit of evenhandedness (admittedly unlikely), he were to pen such a hagiography of say the late unlamented Pinochet? (who despite his sometimes brutal tactics, set Chile on a course of sane economic development which is the envy of its southern cone neighbours...)

Not so different from us really - lying, grasping unprincipled Blair is lauded to the skies (wow he won three elections!) and Thatcher who actually saved the economy from total destruction is even now blamed for the failure of Gordon Brown's hopeless regulatory structure.

What is wrong with us?

Scot Richards

May 27th, 2009 9:37am Report this comment

I still find it astonishing that British society will not tolerate the BNP but willingly accepts - and indeed praises - their Communists and Socialist equivalents. To me all Leftists and Nationalists are misguided and more than just a lttle bit thick.

It's indicative that many of our not-so-well-educated voters are planning to switch from the dumb Labour Party (Socialists) to the just-as-dumb BNP (Nationalist-Socialists). This is what Tony Blair had in mind when he said 'Education, education, education'. Keep 'em dumb - Keep 'em Labour.

And before you criticise, unlike most of the fashionable Leftistas I've actually lived and worked in REAL Socialist and Communist countries like North Korea, China and Scotland.

Ray

May 27th, 2009 9:47am Report this comment

Cuba: East Germany with palm trees!

John Thomas

May 27th, 2009 11:34am Report this comment

Apparently Castro and Guevara between them eliminated a greater percentage of their population than even Stalin managed (usually put at 12-15m). For all people of power/politicians (but most examples are/were Left) ordinary lives, individual humans, are worthless.

Fergus Pickering

May 27th, 2009 5:31pm Report this comment

Well I don't know. My unpolitical sister went to Cuba and liked it. What was beautiful Cuba like before? Was it like, oh I don't know, Freedom Loving Guatemala, Happy Panama, Haiti? And isn't that stuff about their slaughtering of the poosition bollocks. Aren't they all alive and living in Florida? Stalin killed a bloody sight more than 15 million by the way. I don't know how many but Bob Conquest would. He's still alive and staying at the Travellers Club. You could ask him.

Statler

May 27th, 2009 9:48pm Report this comment

This isn't that hard, right? The romanticism of the story is what draws people to the Cuban Revolution. People believe a lot of things that aren't true because they conform to pre-existing narratives. The way in which the narrative of "revolutionary" (always a romantic trope) was defined by the actions of Fidel and Che in the 50's explains a lot of their enduring appeal.

Also, it's hard to sell people on the idea that things would've been totally awesome under Batista. To switch Mr. Massie's point around, a right-wing gulag is still a gulag.

Post comment