Yale Daily News

Dear "professionals working closely on Cuban foreign policy and human rights":

When was the last time you were living in Cuba as ordinary Cubans? I had many comments and notes to your article, but as a Cubam, I am outraged by how patronizing you sound.

Why do you and the world media make such a fuss over the cosmetic changes in Cuba under Raul's rule and no one actually has questions why it took over 25 years for the Cuban goverment to comply with its own constitution (access to tourist installations)? Why does no one ask why the goverment banned cellphones for Cubans and no sells them in hard currency? Why does not one question that the Cuban goverment pays the Cubans in one currency and sells most of the other basic stuff in hard currency?

Regarding the Avila-Alarcon video controversy you say that "such an exchange would have been impossible a few years ago" Keep in mind that ONLY after the video was seen around the world in youtube weeks after the meeting took place, did the Cuban goverment react to it!!! Had this video not made it to youtube, the Cuban goverment wouldn't have bothered talking about it

"But to dismiss as 'slaves' those Cubans who work day-in and day-out under these adverse circumstances to provide for their families demeans their integrity and insults their intelligence. [. . . ] In our experience on the island (in one case, for a period of nearly three months to conduct academic research), we rarely met a Cuban who passively accepted his or her circumstances. Though difficult, many seemed to be pushing against the system in small but important ways..."

This is one of the most insulting statements about slaves I've ever read. The two of you may want to write another article explaining yourselves. Do you honestly believe African slaves "passively accepted their circumstances" and never "pushed against the system in small but important ways"?

Of course not, Maria. Take a look at the article we were responding to (http://yaledailynews.com/articles/view/24691). The terms "slave" and "enslaved" are repeated throughout the piece, not to compare the Cuban people directly with African slaves, but to infer that Cubans are totally and utterly subjugated in moral terms - that they have little or no agency over their lives, at all. Are they constrained inhumanely in their opportunities and are their basic human rights repressed? Often brutally? Yes, and that is deplorable. Nevertheless, in a country where no "formal" institution of slavery exists as such, and in which people do "push back" in the ways we describe, we felt the use of the term "enslaved" in this context denied the Cuban people the agency they deserved and was counterproductive, inflammatory, and inaccurate.

That is not to in any way suggest that African slaves in the United States, Cuba, or elsewhere in the world ever "passively accepted their circumstances." Hardly.

Poor choice of phrasing perhaps, as no direct comparison was intended along the lines you suggest. I think if you read the original article you'll understand our point.

My parents fled Cuba under Castro. They arrived on the shores of the US with nothing but their newly-acquired freedom.

These so called 'professionals' are merely reciting Castro's propaganda as fact.

Oh yeah, I'm sure that someone who works for Human Rights Watch is a lapdog for Castro.

As for the infantile move of putting quotations around the word "professionals", their positions at respectable organizations pretty much define them as such. Aside from being the offspring of Cuban exiles (and, therefore, irremediably biased) what are your credentials? Who the hell are you?

"Cuban exiles" is an interesting phrase.

My parents snuck out of the country as my perfectly-sane grandfather was being locked away in an "insane asylum" (read: prison) in 1980 for trying to flee the country (on the tails of Castro's "anyone can leave" nonsense).

So if by "irredeemably biased" you mean "knows something beyond Castro's official line", then sure. The only reason that Raul Castro is allowing the sale of cell phones (along with Microwaves and DVD Players) because cell phones cost the equivalent of 6 months salary (and guess who sets prices in a communist country?) In other words, it's an empty gesture symbolizing nothing.

HRW, AI, and the Red Cross have all been denied access to the country. They're essentially working off of the propaganda because they have no real inside information. In other words, I happen to know more than "professionals" do about this issue. Good day.

Once again, the discussion has reached an impasse. I'm sorry, Mike and Liz, that your noble efforts to initiate a more or less "rational" discussion about the topic has once again failed to elicit more than angry, nonsensical responses. There's just no other way to describe those intent in calling your position "patronizing" or a recital of "Castro's propaganda as fact." How pathetic.

Also, reality-based, did you know that some of those human rights organizations you mention have repeatedly been denied access to CIA prisons outside the Unites States, especially in Iraq and Eastern Europe? So much for transparency in the free world. But maybe you should just ignore this. After all, maybe I'm just repeating Castro's anti-U.S. propaganda.

This is absolutely hilarious.

I attacked Castro for his lack of transparency. My argument was that it was impossible to tell what was going on in Cuba because human rights NGOs have been denied access.

Your response is a bashing of the CIA's prisons in Europe.

1) I think those prisons should be eliminated too. Freedom for thee and me.

2) Notably, human rights organizations have not blindly stated that all is well in CIA prisons. But for whatever reason, they're willing to take the Castros at their word when they tells the world that everything is cheerful and sunshiny in Cuba.

3) Why would you assume that all people who oppose a totalitarian dictatorship are necessarily Bush-supporting Republicans? I'm a pretty staunch democrat, just not a apologist for communist dictatorships.

Realitybased, thats a very ironic name, for someone not grounded in reality.

Have you ever realised that US foreign policy is basically summed up as:

"He may be a son-of-a-bitch, but he is our son-of-a-bitch"

I would rather support Fidel over the right-wing thugs propped by US imperialists.

Just because you are a democrat doesn't mean you are somehow better than the rest. It was your guy Clinton who made China the most favored trading partner. How does that sound for your anti-communist sensibilities?

I am a social democrat (not these pandering centre-right pansies we got here) and yes, I am ashamed at the authoritarian tendencies of Communist regimes. But back in the Soviet times, people had reliable heat, hot water, even though they had to stand up in long queues for food and no free speech. Now the poor have no heat, or hot water or food even but plenty of free speech (long as you dont bad mouth Putin - once again result of a flawed US/West policy to appease a weakening thug Yelstin)

I don't think I want Cuba to follow in that footstep. I don't think Batista or any US propped thug could have achieved the degree of literacy and healthcare in Cuba. I am not looking forward to the day when you "exile" folks invade Cuba en masse with your cheap Coca Cola sheise.

Just because HRW and AI dont support you exiles' hysteric propaganda doesnt mean that they feed off of Castro's propaganda

I'm glad that you make the choice of security over liberty FOR the people of the Soviet Union and Cuba.

Glad to know paternalism is alive and well on the far left.

Listen to yourselves. You're actually defending a regime that, at its very core, DOESN'T LET PEOPLE LEAVE THE COUNTRY. You can't do this and call yourselves true liberals.