Cuba

Hear Hear

 

To provoke further discussion...

And furthermore, what about the Empire building at the expense of the 'native Americans'? That is how the Colonies of America were started, so this is colonialism, or Empire-building.
The Americans then expand westward, slightly later, using the same technique of sending in settlers to hold the land & soldiers to protect them. (This is rarely a planned manouver - but it has worked oh so many times).
So, is this not Empire-building?
America can hardly take the moral highground on Colonial issues when the very country they live in is basically a system of colonies. (I'll allow them the East coast - colonised before America was America, so to speak)
The West was taken from the 'Native Americans', the South was taken from the Mexicans, anyone heard of Manifest Destiny?

America apparently made around 400 separate peace treaties with the poor native chappies, and broke every one.

The British Empire was not that bad...

 

Poodle, Cuba is in the Caribbean, not the Pacific. But you're right, it was not anything like heaven in the days before Castro, any more than it is in the days since he became dictator there.

 

I don't think that the people conquered by the British would agree with that particular notion. Consider what was done to the Zulus, just as an example.

 

Yes look at the Zulu's
Didn't they do well since we went there?

 

What about the USA annexing Hawaii?

 

That was the us being friendly.

 

But did we make hundreds of peace treaties with them & break every single one?
(I love a quote taken out of context!)

Yes, the Brits broke the power of the Zulu, but:

1) The Zulu were the Colonial Power of South Africa. Ever heard of the 'Time of Wandering and Crushing'? So was their defeat by a superior power their just desserts?
2) Things really got bad for the Zulu after the Boers took over...

 

Interesting that nobody has sprung to the defence of the world's largest colonial power, aside from a spirited attempt at a tangent!

 

No empire has ever been built without dipping it hands in blood a few times.

America's ongoing irratation with Cuba is nothing to do with wanting only the best for the Cuban people. The US wasn't particulally concerned with Castro until he nationalised the US oil industry in Cuba. Only when he threaten US oil did he become the enemy (where have we heard that since?)

Yes Castro isn't a saint, yes things in Cuba will change when Castro pops his clogs. Will Cuba be left to find its own way? Not a hope in hell.

 

Cuban oil production (1998) is all of 12,000,000 barrels. That's what Boznia and Lithuania produce yearly. Since they consume 18,000,000 a year, they would hardly be worth the trouble........

Let's try sugar-cane, tobacco fields, and gambling. There might be a point to be made there. Yes Castro had a large amount of support at first and, as is always the case with psuedo-Communists, once in power he jailed/killed anyone who could challenge him and has continued to do so ever since. Gee, what an improvement over Batista!

Cuba's GNP per capita is $1,700, the Domincan Republic is $1,920! With the loss of it's "Soviet Sugar-Daddy" this little petty dictatorship can only come to one end, collapse. (source Encyclopedia Brittanica BOOY 2004)

I do agree that if anyone has a right to bash America, it is the American Indian. These people were treated shabbily, but then again the countries of Europe weren't exactly treating each other with the utmost respect during those times either.[/i]

 

I believe this has been pointed out before - the American embargo on Cuban sugar is what did for their economy, and what (in part, at least) caused their need for a 'sugar-daddy' (oh, the appropriateness of that phrase!).
This embargo was placed, of course, when Cuba (ie: Castro) went over to the USSR.
Before that event, the USA had no problem with Cuba (ie: Castro)

 

If most of the world also had an embargo, this could be true. Everyone trades with them but us. To say the U.S. embargo is killing the Cuban economy is simply a straw dog in order to excuse the inherent lack of efficiency present in every Communist system.

 

Well, Cuba tended to sell her sugar to the USA.
Europe has a more convenient source of supply (Africa, plus more recently the wondrous sugar beet)

Yes, the Communist economic system is basically a non-starter, save in Utopia, which only ever existed in the head of Sir Thomas Moore...

But anyway. If the main buyer of a country's product stops buying, what happens? Look at Japan's dependancy on the silk trade in 1929.

 

Once Castro took over their sugar industry was doomed to mediocrity anyways. Replacing savy businessmen, even if corrupt ones, with "Party Officials" always yields the same result. And don't forget, Hawaii had become a major producer of sugar cane and was admitted as a state in 1959 (particularly bad timing for Castro).

 

I'll say.

 

So I've been reading about the US colonization of the Philipines.

(Btw pity you didn't give me tips on books SgtBob)

I've read (parts of) twelve books about the colonization proces in asia and the pacific.

Most writers qualify the US handlings as colonial. Only one book written by an american author was political correct.

More important is the fact that present day insurgents and guerilla groups have their fundaments in the series of uprises during the US colonization.
Examples are the Moro liberation front and the Mindanao Islamic liberation movement.

The Philipines government was on paper in charge but the reality was that, just like it was in the other colonized countries, the US governers or military officers decided. Just as the so called Philipines army wasn't led by Philipines but by US officers. The Philipines army couldn't even move without permission.

Morst important feature of colonization is to break opposition.
How can you better see if it is a colonization then when you compare the US way of dealing with an uprise with the way the French, British and Dutch did.

Just like the other colonial powers the US used the RAZORBLADE methode.

It means that a area where the uprise occured is sealed and then everything being cut, sawed, burned an demolished what stands one feet above the ground. This way you create a moon landscape where no insurgent can hide and at the same time you try to deterr.

All togheter there is no other conclusion possible; the US DID colonize the Philipines the same way as the other colonial powers did.

 

Won't argue with much of what you say here Anton (believe it or not), but there's only one country that gave the Philippines its' true independence after WW II, and that was the U.S. True the U.S. had a substantial presence there and still could pressure Marcos, but they were truly independent non-the-less. And the Philippine government is still regretting forcing the U.S. out of Subic Bay and Clarke AF Base. Their economy in these areas is still suffering.

 

So, out of interest, why did the USA colonise the Phillipeans, if their aim was to grant it independance?

 

The Philippines was sort of a bonus prize the U.S. got after picking a fight with Spain in order to throw Spain out of the Western Hemisphere. The sinking of the battleship Maine in Havana harbor lit the match, blamed on "Spanish Spies". The U.S. Fleet went to the Philippines for a showdown with the old Spanish Fleet and decimated them. The Phiippines provided the perfect place for a large naval base the U.S. wanted for their Pacific Fleet.

And no, Anton did [/b]not post this as my name.