Some experts have said that Raúl Castro is more pragmatic. He has given signals he might try to follow the Chinese example of state-sponsored capitalism. But his regime has made no significant changes. In March 2009, Mr. Castro announced a shake-up in his administration.
People say they have seen small improvements in the economy that do not go far enough. Many roads in Havana have been repaired. Microwave ovens, DVD players and cellphones are now in stores, but most Cubans cannot afford them.
Please read the enrire article published by the New York Times, it is a very condense and good history.
1. I copied these three parragraphs in part because I could argue and I don't agree that Fidel Castro was the most important leader to emerge from Latin America since the independence of America in the 19th century. I have many reasons for why I think that way and I base my opinion in the facts and history itself.
2. Raul Castro is more pragmatic, and he did give signals of a change, but we are still waiting (since 2009) for him to "chake" his administration, it has not happened yet (now in 2011).
3. There were some small improvements in the economy, but not anything significant. What good is for you to have a cell phone if you can't call anyone else in or outside of the island, because only certain selected people can have cell phones, and by selected people I mean those who belong to the party. What good is it for you to have a microwave if you don't have electricity half of the day???
anyways, these are my responses to the article, please feel free to comment. Maybe I am being too negative...
This article is very interesting. I think the biggest problem is looking to one person to make changes. We will find ourselves duped over and over again if we put faith in cults of personality. The New York Times sounds as if the problems with U.S. relations is in regards to the particular president in office. However, if we go based on the fact that all humans are vulnerable to corruption including politicians in power then we know to look at the documents, and policies rather than good intentions of the policy. (we all can have good intentions, but some policies will be more naturally better for a country than others..)
ReplyDeleteI think it is naive and just plain wrong of The New York Times to state that Fidel Castro has had an important role. Maybe his only role was to show the world the most daunting exertion of control and force of his country's residents. The people who live under this control may not know any better life but they certainly hope and pray everyday for better. Some will give everything they know and love to be as free as an American.
How can The New York Times completely ignore the many citizens' restricted lives in Cuba and say that Fidel gave inspiration to leftists all across the world? Should common, everyday people be happy to hear that people are inspired by Fidel Castro's insane grip over who, what, when, where and why? How about him directing what you hear, see, and learn?
It is really awesome to see and hear your passion! Great job in keeping up with this blog on Cuba. It is great to have someone who knows and loves where they came from and wants to see it become a much better place. I hope for you and your family, that it will!