|
Apologies in advance for those who
are getting this twice; just delete it if you already read
it:
I.
There is no sense in pretending that both the publicity and the substance
of the circumstances surrounding Elian Gonzalez are, or should be
apolitical. In a class society, where classes express themselves through
politics, and even intra-class conflict is expressed through politics, it is
impossible for any event, certainly something as significant as the case
surrounding Elian Gonzalez, to be "apolitical."
If a Jewish mother had died while transporting her young son out of Germany
in 1940 and into England, and if the young boy's father back in Germany had
become a Nazi or Nazi collaborator (not an impossible circumstance), I would
oppose sending the boy back to Nazi-controlled Germany to be with his father. So
the political nature of the Cuban government is a relevant question. And those
who debate the issue, including those like me who believe that Elian Gonzalez
should be returned to his father, should debate the issue squarely instead of
trying to blur the discussion by simply taking a "pro-natural family"
position.
II.
As to conditions in Cuba: I am not a political supporter of Castro but I
continue to be surprised by the utter lack of understanding displayed by some
who consider themselves knowledgeable about international issues from a social
scientific standpoint (as opposed to those who "know all about Tibet from
something they saw on MTV"), but who nevertheless accept the
stereotypes of the mass media or who even take accurate information from Amnesty
International, etc. but take it out of context, as even AI often does.)
The reality is that a young man who does not break any laws, nevertheless
has a greater chance of dying by homocide, being arrested for expressing his
freedom of association or freedom of expression, and stands a greater
chance of being beaten by the police if he lives on the East Side of Gary,
Indiana (or dozens of other cities) than if he lives in Cuba. (He also
stands a greater chance of being illiterate and being deprived of basic health
care, although the Mayor of his city may have greater access to exotic medical
care in the U.S. than in Cuba.) There really are police who cruise around
stopping people at random, often robbing them, and jailing those with a
"bad attitude." (And the higher authorities know about this and
sanction it as part of their "terrorism" -- only opposing it if the
particular cops provoke an outrage or if the particular cops represent a faction
politically opposed by those who are doing the expose). This kind of police
terror is what we were always taught happened in places like Cuba, where in
fact, the AVERAGE person actually does not live in constant fear when
walking down the street. I have college students who are afraid to walk the
streets or drive their car in their own neighborhood out of fear of the police,
based on past abuses.
And now we have the very recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling which says that
it is not a violation of the U.S. Constitution for police to search and detain
someone displaying "nervous" behavior in the presence of the police,
even if there is no evidence that any crime has been committed in the area. The
police have the right to determine what constitutes "nervous"
behavior. So while the police always had the opportunity to lie outright
and still get away with it, now the highest protector of civil liberties has
told them and us that police have the jurisdiction to stop and search people
basically at will. Does anyone else see a contradiction between hailing
the supposed "eternal prosperity and goodness of U.S. capitalism" on
the one hand, and the massive numbers of youth in prison on the other hand,
perhaps three or four times as many as fifteen or twenty years ago? Why
are there so many jobs (and academic majors) in the misnamed "Criminal
Justice" area?
In Chicago, last week, a public school teacher has just been threatened
with discipline, including possible firing, for accompanying students to an
anti-Ku Klux Klan rally two years ago as well as for supposedly distributing
"communist" literature in the school. The students who went to the
rally all had the permission of their parents. Hundreds of other teachers who
accompany students to anti-gang protests or other "politically
correct" activities and who discuss all kinds of things in their classes
from patriotism to their own religious views have not been sanctioned. Why this
teacher? Because the activities she was involved in also included members of the
Progressive Labor Party, a communist group. She is the third such teacher to be
so attacked by liberal Mayor Daley in the past few years. Good thing she
doesn't live in Cuba, where she might be threatened for teaching something
Castro doesn't like!
Of course, most people are willing to suspend some civil liberties in time
of war. If a foreign country landed aggressive troops in Los Angeles or New
York, or even was in an official state of war overseas, most people would accept
the U.S. government's right to limit some civil liberties. Well, what about
Cuba? There are numerous admitted plots to assassinate Castro, including such
schemes as poisoned cigars (approved by Democrats as well as Republicans.) And
there has been one outright invasion as well as numerous plots attempted by
those who would like to restore Cuba to the conditions of the previous
dictatorship (Batista), with its dreaded secret police. Without defending
Castro, it should be pointed out that the supposed "freedom" in the
U.S. and the supposed "authoritarianism" in Cuba need to be understood
in more complex ways than is presented by high school text books.
But what of the fact that so many people want to leave Cuba? One estimate
says that as many as 10% of the population would leave right now and come to the
mainland U.S. if they could. Is it to seek freedom? Consider that perhaps
30% of the population of Puerto Rico has left that island to come to the
mainland U.S. Were they escaping the politically repressive regime of Puerto
Rico to enjoy the benefits of U.S. freedom? But Puerto Rico is PART of the
USA. Same government. Same constitution. Obviously, they move back and forth for
jobs and other economic possibilities. Why assume that all the Cubans, including
Elain Gonzalez' mother, were merely seeking freedom?
---------------
Finally it needs to be understood that while the average person in the U.S.
does often have more freedom of expression (individually, although it is hard to
buy your own newspaper) for the time being than people in other countries, it
also needs to be understood that the reason why there are more extreme
dictatorships in many parts of the world is because those governments are set up
and funded by the U.S. government. The economic boom is not raising the
standard of living all over the world. It is barely affecting most people in the
U.S., whose spending power is mainly increased by the expansion of credit. And
accompanying that economic hardship in many parts of the world is severe
political repression. People who don't beat their own children but who go to a
different neighborhood to beat the children of families over there could be
congratulated for treating their "own" children well and being good
parents. And this whole e-mail has mainly focused on political repression. Add
into the mix the reality that dying of cholera at the age of six years old
deprives someone of the right to vote just as surely as a political dictatorship
and it becomes clear that all discussions about "freedom" have to
include a discussion about economic deprivation and oppression.
A comprehensive, well-rounded social scientific view seeks to explain
social circumstances and social processes in their context, including in their
international context. Cheerleading about the "benefits" of U.S.
capitalism betrays an enormous lack of understanding of these broader and deeper
issues.
Alan Spector
This is not to "defend" Castro, but some of us continue to be
surprised by the relatively uncritical description of U.S. capitalism.
|