Has anyone noticed an increase in Cuban music on radio?

Archive - Caveat Emptor!

Moderator: Super Moderators

Ninerism
Pirate
Posts: 5288
Joined: 10-17-2000 02:00 AM

Post by Ninerism » 08-09-2006 11:26 AM

HB3 wrote: Here's a clip from a slate.com article on the most annoying "cult of che"....a friend of my "ex" wrote this movie, so I got to be exposed to this mentality a little bit....

The hipsters and apologists never mention, for instance, Che's institutionalized hatred for homosexuals...Allen Ginsberg got himself in serious hot water for casually referring to Che as "cute" while visiting Cuba....


The Cult of Che
Don't applaud The Motorcycle Diaries.
By Paul Berman

Posted Friday, Sept. 24, 2004, at 7:33 AM ET

The cult of Ernesto Che Guevara is an episode in the moral callousness of our time. Che was a totalitarian. He achieved nothing but disaster. Many of the early leaders of the Cuban Revolution favored a democratic or democratic-socialist direction for the new Cuba. But Che was a mainstay of the hardline pro-Soviet faction, and his faction won. Che presided over the Cuban Revolution's first firing squads. He founded Cuba's "labor camp" system—the system that was eventually employed to incarcerate gays, dissidents, and AIDS victims. To get himself killed, and to get a lot of other people killed, was central to Che's imagination. In the famous essay in which he issued his ringing call for "two, three, many Vietnams," he also spoke about martyrdom and managed to compose a number of chilling phrases: "Hatred as an element of struggle; unbending hatred for the enemy, which pushes a human being beyond his natural limitations, making him into an effective, violent, selective, and cold-blooded killing machine. This is what our soldiers must become …"— and so on. He was killed in Bolivia in 1967, leading a guerrilla movement that had failed to enlist a single Bolivian peasant. And yet he succeeded in inspiring tens of thousands of middle class Latin-Americans to exit the universities and organize guerrilla insurgencies of their own. And these insurgencies likewise accomplished nothing, except to bring about the death of hundreds of thousands, and to set back the cause of Latin-American democracy—a tragedy on the hugest scale.

The present-day cult of Che—the T-shirts, the bars, the posters—has succeeded in obscuring this dreadful reality. And Walter Salles' movie The Motorcycle Diaries will now take its place at the heart of this cult. It has already received a standing ovation at Robert Redford's Sundance film festival (Redford is the executive producer of The Motorcycle Diaries) and glowing admiration in the press. Che was an enemy of freedom, and yet he has been erected into a symbol of freedom. He helped establish an unjust social system in Cuba and has been erected into a symbol of social justice. He stood for the ancient rigidities of Latin-American thought, in a Marxist-Leninist version, and he has been celebrated as a free-thinker and a rebel. And thus it is in Salles' Motorcycle Diaries.


HB3, Ok, I just realized, I did see that movie, rented to view at my home.

That movie surely had nothing to provide anyone the knowledge that Che Guevarra became or was a very violent individual.

The realities of his life are totally obscured, if not "romanticized" in that movie, now that bits and pieces come back to my memory.....and to me it is disgusting that such a film would present a young man's life as a "freedom fighter", a young man out for a free-wheeling life of adventure on his friend's motorcycle, and yet, not reveal the true essence of Che's mad-personality and murderous hate-filled character!

I cannot believe it .....I feel a bit duped now, too, by having watched that film, seemingly "harmless" entertainment! It makes me feel angry, deceived, not connecting the dots. I did not know the real history of Che Guevarra .....but now being better informed, I feel that that film is totally subversive about the real man, Che Guevarra.

This really is upside down reality, and makes me feel disgusted by a film that promotes total distortions about Che's real personality and character. I don't know if I will ever think of R.Redford in the same way again -- not that I had any notion, one way or the other, but that he seemed to want to protect the environment.

Repeatedly, from what I recall, that film presented Che as a very kindly sort, a kind soul who cared about people.

Ok, when will Redford promote a real film about the real Che?!

When reading your statement: Che presided over the Cuban Revolution's first firing squads..... I was stunned to read that bit of history. That tells me everything about the cult of Che, too.

Not long ago, I saw another movie, had some scenes in Mexico, and a guy working at a restaurant as a waiter, supposedly an intellectual, was sporting a t-shirt with 'CHE' on it. He was a young man of twenty-thirtyish ......and so this false imagery apparently is being promoted to a young group of totally mis-informed and misled younger people, how very disgusting to know.

Ninerism

User avatar
Corvid
Anchors Aweigh
Posts: 5678
Joined: 12-31-2002 03:00 AM

Post by Corvid » 08-09-2006 12:10 PM

Glamorous wrote: Gee I guess you could look at the plethora of political prisoners in Cuba, or you could look at the immense immigration America recieves from Cuba,(1.2 miilion from 1959-1993) you could also look at all the athletes that defect from Cuba every year.

Where do you want to start Corvid.

Or maybe you like to live in a country where the higher estimates of purposeful death against the citizens of Cuba, by Castro's government is 141,000.

You might want to research "stuff" so it doesn't sound like you are speaking from an empty bottle.



I was speaking specifically to the question of US military intervention... not Castro. I realize that you might have a reading comprehension problem but what was the crack about the bottle subba?

Military intervention by any foreign power is not necessary for freedom in Cuba.... it is, indeed, what caused the major problems.

Now, go "reasearch" some "stuff" for yourself.... and you might then not sound so much like a freeper.

User avatar
Corvid
Anchors Aweigh
Posts: 5678
Joined: 12-31-2002 03:00 AM

Post by Corvid » 08-09-2006 12:21 PM

There is great Cuban music. Those interested might want to check out "The Buena Vista Social Club" (CD and DVD). Wnderful interviews and music assembled (in part) by Ry Cooter.

http://www.haro-online.com/movies/buena_vista.html

SETIsLady
Pirate
Posts: 19872
Joined: 04-14-2003 08:52 PM

Post by SETIsLady » 08-09-2006 12:36 PM

Corvid wrote: There is great Cuban music. Those interested might want to check out "The Buena Vista Social Club" (CD and DVD). Wnderful interviews and music assembled (in part) by Ry Cooter.

http://www.haro-online.com/movies/buena_vista.html
Yes Corvid, mentioned this in my reply as well. Its awesome, there were a couple of parts when they were walking threw NYC, that I started crying, seeing America through the eyes of those that don't know freedom.

User avatar
Corvid
Anchors Aweigh
Posts: 5678
Joined: 12-31-2002 03:00 AM

Post by Corvid » 08-09-2006 12:58 PM

SETIsLady wrote: Yes Corvid, mentioned this in my reply as well. Its awesome, there were a couple of parts when they were walking threw NYC, that I started crying, seeing America through the eyes of those that don't know freedom.


Sorry, SETIsLady... I did not see that (was responding to a post that I did not see 'till today and I skipped some posts between there and the end. ;)

This is a crucial point in Cuban history and I have a feeling that the new direction for Cuba will be a rational one. Those beneficial aspects of the current regime (and there are some) might be retained. There are (despite the US embargo) established trade relationships with Germany, Japan (pharmacuticals for machinery) and much of Europe. Tourism (except for US citizens) is a large factor in the (recent) economy.

Those despotic elements of the current regime (and there are many) will, I am sure, be tossed.

Cuba is unique.... may she also be Independant and Free.

User avatar
majda
Pirate
Posts: 2518
Joined: 01-09-2006 04:09 AM

Post by majda » 08-09-2006 02:05 PM

Ninerism wrote:
He loved his homeland, wanted to make Cuba better and fought hard to educate the younger generations. But finally,he felt, in order for him to experience artistic freedom AND his own personal needs to be fulfilled as a gay man, that he had to leave Cuba. He was deeply hurt that his life-style was extremely oppressed and officially disdained by the Cuban regime.

He finally found it all too oppressive, and filed his case for moving to the United States.



I wonder how many gay people would say that they experience complete freedom from oppression, bigotry, government exclusion/bigotry, and hatred here in the United States? I hope that this gentleman finds his peace. In Cuba the oppression is out in the open. Here, the oppression is disguised; hidden in governmental and religious double-speak.
"The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government -- lest it come to dominate our lives and interests." ~ Patrick Henry

User avatar
Iris
Pirate
Posts: 13539
Joined: 01-01-2003 03:00 AM

Post by Iris » 08-09-2006 02:53 PM

Niner, thanks for sharing about that movie; sounds like it was good. I would have loved to have heard the music. I take it back; I did hear Cuban music -- but only if "I Love Lucy" counts. ;)
Ninerism wrote: Iris, last night I happened to watch a movie from Cuba, 'Strawberry & Chocolate' 1993, about an artsy writer who happened to be gay, and the oppression he experienced while residing in Cuba.

He loved his homeland, wanted to make Cuba better and fought hard to educate the younger generations. But finally,he felt, in order for him to experience artistic freedom AND his own personal needs to be fulfilled as a gay man, that he had to leave Cuba. He was deeply hurt that his life-style was extremely oppressed and officially disdained by the Cuban regime.
Opression of homosexuality is an extreme right-wing value.
What I found disturbing, is that there was a constant sense by those in the know, that if they expressed liberal or progressive values that their lives were in constant surveillance, even by neighbor against neighbor.
Musollini was that way, too, another extreme rightie.
There were constant indoctrination programs sponsored by the government. I really had not thought of Cuba in that way.
Interesting. I hate to see our own beloved America going in that direction.
Obviously, social-communism does not work very well,
This is not true, my friend. True communism (extreme left) means everyone owns everything; all resources are shared. Think of tribes, and clans all over the world where social communism works perfectly. Think of the communes of the 60s, where everything was shared, from the work load to the goodies. One documentary I saw on PBS years ago stands out in my mind. It was an African tribe, and everything ran perfectly. There was no murder, no thievery, no abortion, no unwanted children, no crime. There was no marriage and no divorce, and the children were regarded as belonging to everyone, so every child was always under loving watchful eye. There was no isolation, no loneliness. Everyone was valued. Everyone had free health care, and the helpless and elderly had total care. Everyone shared the load and the wealth.

The important point about this is it is *voluntary* communism, not state-induced communism.

and it is mostly by authoritarianism,
BINGO! It is authoritarianism that has caused the extreme suffering, be it on the left like under Stalin, or be it on the right like under Musollini.

Think of the Political Compass chart (I was hoping you'd let me put you on the chart, btw). The lower left quadrant is voluntary sharing, like communes. The upper left quadrant is state-dictated sharing, where Stalin and Lenin are to be found.

even though the people enjoy being fed, clothed, basically housed, and mostly educated -- they are quite literate! It looked like a lifestyle of complete servitude, and people always made fearful to really speak their mind.
You're quite right to identify that as authoritarianism. It's always one complete lunatic at the top, and everyone under him living in fear and suffering. And I did note that this description sounded a lot better than what Linda is telling us. The pictures she showed us testified that people are not fed, clothed, etc.
The little scummy uneducated lifeless neighbors, one's who never had a real thought of their own, the one's with nothing else to do but make other's lives miserable by always surrying about and spying upon their own neighbors, well, that film to me emphasized how wretched becomes a society in which the little monsters can so easily prey upon the most educated and creative people. It was as if the scummiest people were promoted for being veritable scorpion-vampires, feeding upon other's creativities and sucking their energy, immersed in their own miseries and constantly seeking to sting and poison other's lives with their trumped-up self-importance as little spies.
Now you're reminding me of some of the groups where I worked at Boeing. Plus, you're sounding a great deal like what my friend describes of working for Homeland Security; it's not what you know or how you perform your job -- it's who you know that determines your promotions.

Anyway, what you're describing sounds just dreadful, as did Linda's descriptions and what she shared with us. But that's not the fault of communism; it's the fault of authoritarianism.

Don't get me wrong; I'm not a communist. It has been my observation that the best governments are those which retain a balance between liberalism (think public beaches, parks, libraries, police, school, protected wildlife and wildlands, public roads, and courts; economic safety nets; controls to keep all the wealth from drifting to the top creating extreme poverty and anhialating the middle class; balanced trade policies; protected liberties and civil rights), and conservatism (think protected Constitution, rule of law, the right of private ownership, fiscal responsibility, the conservation and protection of all that is of value to us). Now keep in mind that is what conservatism is *supposed to be.* Today's "conservative" administration is *not* conservative, nor are their followers.

Those scorpion-vampires sting came from government police, eager to spy upon and arrest any who stepped out of line. It's a miserable existence, no matter how authoritarianism attempts to dress-up and posture and pose itself.
Indeed it is. That is precisely why our Founding Fathers set us up in a *liberal* democracy (not an illiberal democracy, which is arguably not even a democracy, and which is the direction Iraq is headed) with checks and balances. It was never the intention to have only two parties in power, and it was even less the intention to have one party predominantly own the power.

Dear readers, this is the outline we must follow if America is to become a great country once again. We must take the best of both liberalism and conservatism and keep them in balance, while being very careful to resist an authoritarian state.
Last edited by Iris on 08-09-2006 03:04 PM, edited 1 time in total.
We must, indeed, all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately. B. Franklin

HB3
Moderator
Posts: 11919
Joined: 11-02-2000 03:00 AM

Post by HB3 » 08-09-2006 03:53 PM

majda wrote: I wonder how many gay people would say that they experience complete freedom from oppression, bigotry, government exclusion/bigotry, and hatred here in the United States?



How many people would say that they experience complete freedom from oppression, bigotry, government exclusion/bigotry, and hatred here in the United States?

User avatar
majda
Pirate
Posts: 2518
Joined: 01-09-2006 04:09 AM

Post by majda » 08-09-2006 06:36 PM

HB3 wrote: How many people would say that they experience complete freedom from oppression, bigotry, government exclusion/bigotry, and hatred here in the United States?


Yes, I agree with your point HB3, and it's well taken. But as a non-gay citizen 'I' am not subjected to that same kind of high level gay oppression and bigotry that US society is so permeated with am I? As I said before, in the US, gay bigotry is a little more disguised. (i.e.: Protecting the sanctity of marriage, etc.). In Cuba, it is out in the open...you're illegal...period...end of story. Point being, I hope this man finds what he is looking for here, and that he does not end up disappointed.
"The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government -- lest it come to dominate our lives and interests." ~ Patrick Henry

Ninerism
Pirate
Posts: 5288
Joined: 10-17-2000 02:00 AM

Post by Ninerism » 08-10-2006 08:23 PM

Corvid wrote: I was speaking specifically to the question of US military intervention... not Castro. I realize that you might have a reading comprehension problem but what was the crack about the bottle subba?

Military intervention by any foreign power is not necessary for freedom in Cuba.... it is, indeed, what caused the major problems.

Now, go "reasearch" some "stuff" for yourself.... and you might then not sound so much like a freeper.


Why, Corvid, I remember subba, too! LOL

Ninerism

Ninerism
Pirate
Posts: 5288
Joined: 10-17-2000 02:00 AM

Post by Ninerism » 08-10-2006 09:05 PM

Iris wrote: Niner, thanks for sharing about that movie; sounds like it was good. I would have loved to have heard the music. I take it back; I did hear Cuban music -- but only if "I Love Lucy" counts. ;)

Opression of homosexuality is an extreme right-wing value.

Musollini was that way, too, another extreme rightie.

Interesting. I hate to see our own beloved America going in that direction.

This is not true, my friend. True communism (extreme left) means everyone owns everything; all resources are shared. Think of tribes, and clans all over the world where social communism works perfectly. Think of the communes of the 60s, where everything was shared, from the work load to the goodies. One documentary I saw on PBS years ago stands out in my mind. It was an African tribe, and everything ran perfectly. There was no murder, no thievery, no abortion, no unwanted children, no crime. There was no marriage and no divorce, and the children were regarded as belonging to everyone, so every child was always under loving watchful eye. There was no isolation, no loneliness. Everyone was valued. Everyone had free health care, and the helpless and elderly had total care. Everyone shared the load and the wealth.

The important point about this is it is *voluntary* communism, not state-induced communism.

BINGO! It is authoritarianism that has caused the extreme suffering, be it on the left like under Stalin, or be it on the right like under Musollini.

Think of the Political Compass chart (I was hoping you'd let me put you on the chart, btw). The lower left quadrant is voluntary sharing, like communes. The upper left quadrant is state-dictated sharing, where Stalin and Lenin are to be found.

You're quite right to identify that as authoritarianism. It's always one complete lunatic at the top, and everyone under him living in fear and suffering. And I did note that this description sounded a lot better than what Linda is telling us. The pictures she showed us testified that people are not fed, clothed, etc.

Now you're reminding me of some of the groups where I worked at Boeing. Plus, you're sounding a great deal like what my friend describes of working for Homeland Security; it's not what you know or how you perform your job -- it's who you know that determines your promotions.

Anyway, what you're describing sounds just dreadful, as did Linda's descriptions and what she shared with us. But that's not the fault of communism; it's the fault of authoritarianism.

Don't get me wrong; I'm not a communist. It has been my observation that the best governments are those which retain a balance between liberalism (think public beaches, parks, libraries, police, school, protected wildlife and wildlands, public roads, and courts; economic safety nets; controls to keep all the wealth from drifting to the top creating extreme poverty and anhialating the middle class; balanced trade policies; protected liberties and civil rights), and conservatism (think protected Constitution, rule of law, the right of private ownership, fiscal responsibility, the conservation and protection of all that is of value to us). Now keep in mind that is what conservatism is *supposed to be.* Today's "conservative" administration is *not* conservative, nor are their followers.

Indeed it is. That is precisely why our Founding Fathers set us up in a *liberal* democracy (not an illiberal democracy, which is arguably not even a democracy, and which is the direction Iraq is headed) with checks and balances. It was never the intention to have only two parties in power, and it was even less the intention to have one party predominantly own the power.

Dear readers, this is the outline we must follow if America is to become a great country once again. We must take the best of both liberalism and conservatism and keep them in balance, while being very careful to resist an authoritarian state.


Iris, I appreciate your taking the time to reflect upon my posting above.

On one thing I have to differ, and that is what I called 'social-communism', which was to differentiate between the imposed communism, say of Cuba, or Russia.

My conflicts, from what I have seen and witnessed, is that very few communes, ie. social-communists, actually thrive. There have been many experimental communes in the United States, going back into the 1800's, as you know. Most of those simply die a hard death, eventually, or quickly.

It occurs to me, after seeing people being given things, that they begin to have an attitude of righteous expectation's, so they begin to slack, put less effort into their own work. Others simply are gold-bricks, laying one so slowly upon the next, you can hardly see them moving at all, and that is when they are working! HA HA HA

I just have seen so much, what could be called outright laziness, that I just don't believe that most people will put in a full day's effort to produce labor, if they believe they can be clothed and fed by performing less than a half-day's work. Others who may work very hard, doing double the work of the slackers, only are providing a way for the slacker's to "justify" their own non-productivity.

If you can point to me any social-communes which have survived for more than one-hundred years, i would probably think that they had some other way of having support outside their group, that is through giftings and such. Cuba was always a failure as a communist imposed regime; but that differs from social-communism. Cuba received so much assistance from the USSR, from what I have read. It does manage to feed and clothe and provide good hospital/health care, so i've read, but true individual freedom does not exist.

If we look to Israel as promoting social-communism via kibbutz, well, still, Israel does not economically thrive by itself alone as a nation, and has only existed by the outpouring of generosity by the United States government. Also, most people, israelis residing in a kibbutz are of a common ethnic identification, and a common religion. (other readers, no, Zionism is NOT a religion!) To show that Israel's kibbutz, or social-communism is a failure, look to all the young people fleeing Israel to reside in Europe (not just because of war-torn strife, either). Even many older Israeli's have grown tired of the economic plight of that tiny nation.

If we look to Scandihoovian nations, oh, yes, some will say that they have successfully amalgamated a social-communism/socialism with a state-owned derived economic platform, eg, off-shore oil wealth. In other words, something larger than individual enterprise and labor sustains even those Scandihoovian nations which provide social networks such as national health care, national education, good vacation benefits, and other socialistic endeavors, though at a great price, usually via very high taxes.

In any case, personally, I would have to reject social-communes, if only because I have personally witnessed an astounding reality: People who use/rent other people's property, rarely take care of it! They act as if others are obligated to provide them property, somehow. If they rent others property, many rarely respect the property itself, rarely keep it up, rarely keep it in good condition. They act as if the owner of the property is the person who is responsible for every problem which they themselves might create.

There are many reasons that social-communism cannot promote the best welfare for most people, I do believe. However, in that regard, I would support your last paragraph, ideas and ideals which to me are very important! Seeing to it that a careful balance exists between so-called conservatism and liberalism. The so-called conservatism is quite a joke given that fiscal responsibility and ethics seems gone with this Republican Party, such that there is truly the CORPORATE-SOCIALISM that is undermining the Middle Class, providing far too much money to the corporate heads, and stealing monies from the American people by hook and by crook and graft and greed and incredible political corruptions.

If we just addressed the incredible thievery now occurring within doctrines promoting the sanctity of corporatism, at the expense of the common good.

Oilgarchs are growing filthy rich, while the Middle Class is being destroyed; and the largest working group of workers are subjected to the economic tyranny of imposed very low-wage minimum wages, which minimum wages have not changed much since the mid-1960's, and keep people living at the edge of poverty.

This is not the sort of laissez faire capitalism that promotes the common welfare, when many families can barely afford to heat and cool their homes, and cannot afford to purchase gasoline to drive to and from work these days.

It's a form of laziest fair capitalism that is consuming so much of our nation's wealth and going into the pockets of a very low percentage of American citizens. It's a form of capitalism that is driving corporatism/fascism, and reducing our nation to a Third World status of imported or illegally derived illegal immigration status providing cheap labor. It's become a vicious capitalism that is destroying our entire protective labor unions! It's a heartless capitalism that imports starving labor of WalMartizations which few can afford not to buy, given that labor unions are mostly a thing of the past, and minimum wage reigns supreme. It's a driven hidden taxation whereby all commodities and products and services costs are driven ever higher by the soaring costs of gasoline and utilities.

Balance desired. Yes! Balance achieved? Hell no!

I think it is time that we must collectively advocate for the abolition of corporate owned oilfields owned and controlled solely by corporate oilgarchs.

Oil ought to be considered largely a national commodity, and if national security issues are involved, we all ought to be fully apprised of the bidness deals, too, and who is making all the money.

I think that something igniting the SHERMAN ANTI-TRUST ACT ought to investigate, and then recommend how oil companies can be owned and controlled by government agencies, since the high-costs and obscene oil profits via spoils of war-making are driving too many oilgarch's support of hidden agendas.

If we can provide for productive cheaper fuel via corn, or hemp etc, then our government ought to begin active productions and distributions so that all Americans can afford a "Sundae" and Sunday drive.

Ninerism

Divinorumus
Pirate
Posts: 3712
Joined: 08-09-2004 10:17 PM

Post by Divinorumus » 08-10-2006 09:46 PM

It's GWB again, he's trying to start another war darn it:
U.S. increases TV transmissions to Cuba
HAVANA - Cuba‘s allies urged the United States not to interfere with the communist country during Fidel Castro ‘s absence from power, while the U.S. increased its television transmissions to the island and encouraged anti-Castro activists to push for change. ...

And now the citizens get their butts kicked for trying to listen:
Cuba Denounces US Satellite Programming

User avatar
spaceprophet
Pirate
Posts: 4052
Joined: 11-20-2002 03:00 AM

Post by spaceprophet » 08-11-2006 12:05 AM

If marathon showings of Hogan Knows Best and American Idol don't make the Cuban people want to revolt nothing will.

Give me freakin break, sheesh. :rolleyes:

I can't wait till these idiots are thrown out of Washington.
It takes a big man to cry, but it takes a bigger man to laugh at that man. - Jack Handey

User avatar
SquidInk
________________
Posts: 5862
Joined: 03-15-2007 03:48 PM

Post by SquidInk » 01-24-2012 11:42 AM

The GOP has formed a musical group called "Los Bombarderos Locos", and their first single is "Habana Fuma". The democrats are providing the back-up vocals, no doubt.
Last edited by SquidInk on 01-24-2012 11:55 AM, edited 1 time in total.
For if it profit, none dare call it Treason.

Post Reply

Return to “Politics and Government Pre-2007”