Occasionally there is an event where the responses to the event are almost more interesting than the event itself. That was the case this weekend with the death of Fidel Castro. He had been, as some of the obituaries noted, the longest serving head of state in the world; though it would probably be fair to add that this is not quite so much of an achievement if your country has no elections.

I have my own history with Fidel. As a teenager I had the iconic poster of Che Guevara, the famous Guerrillero Heroico, in my bedroom, and not far from it was a photograph of Che and Fidel. I also had Mao’s little red book. Today I wouldn’t regard any of these as heroes, though equally I wouldn’t consider Fidel one of the world’s worst tyrants.

But it seems hard for many people to offer a balanced critique right now. Fidel Castro was a dictator, and he was guilty of significant human rights abuses. But he also led a country that managed, given its resources, to establish highly effective systems of education and healthcare. He was not the devil, but neither was he a hero. His death however seems to have reignited, at least for a moment, the spirit of the Cold War, with numerous politicians and celebrities suggesting he was one or the other of these. Irish President Michael D. Higgins was quick off the blocks, suggesting this, at the very best somewhat surprising, assessment:

‘Fidel Castro will be remembered as a giant among global leaders whose view was not only one of freedom for his people but for all of the oppressed and excluded peoples on the planet.’

That Castro was much exercised by freedom for his people is doubtful. But the Irish President was not alone: similar epitaphs were suggested by other politicians from the international socialist community, including British Labour’s Jeremy Corbyn.

Others were less effusive. The US President-elect suggested that Castro was no more than a ‘brutal dictator’.

The truth of course lies somewhere in between. Fidel Castro toppled a corrupt and repressive régime when he took power in 1959. He subsequently had to grapple with the completely unreasonable campaign by the United States to remove him and isolate his country. He was nevertheless able to develop a society of well-educated people with a very effective system of health and social care. On the other hand his own government was repressive and  undermined basic freedoms; his treatment of the gay community is a particular example. And he also practised the oppression of political dissenters and controlled the media.

As for me, on Saturday I neither rejoiced nor mourned. But I did note Fidel Castro’s passing, and maybe mourned the gradual disappearance of my youth over the horizon.

Explore posts in the same categories: politics

Tags: ,

You can comment below, or link to this permanent URL from your own site.

3 Comments on “Fidelity”

  1. Vincent Says:

    Sections of America had turned that entire island into an abusers paradise. There were facilitated by the old colonial families, the catholic church and the newer republican families that established themselves after the Spanish American war.
    So, what if not the revolution, well that’s a relatively simply answer, El Salvador, Nicaragua but more directly Panama, or Haiti. But in truth anyplace south of where Trump wants his wall. All of them became fascist dictatorships with the active connivance of the USA.
    Do I consider Castro et al heroes, no, but I do consider them Patriots.

  2. Anna Notaro Says:

    “As for me, on Saturday I neither rejoiced nor mourned. But I did note Fidel Castro’s passing, and maybe mourned the gradual disappearance of my youth over the horizon.”

    I think what you have captured in this sentence is the very peculiar phenomenon of the ‘celebrity death’. When a political icon or a music legend passes away we feel a special kind of grief, we don’t mourn the individual per se (as it’s the case for a personal friend or a family member), rather we mourn a memory and ourselves.
    It’s a form of nostalgia – a longing for what we’ve already experienced, remembering a time gone by and who we were then. The icons of our youth have inspired us and helped us become who we are today, we had a deep connection with the faces on the walls of our bedrooms or with the sound of their music. They were, and always will be, part of our life. What makes their loss significant is that we are granted awareness of our own deaths, causing the death of our ignorance and innocence within the same moment. It is this which causes us the most pain. And yet *fidelity* to (some of) the ideals of our youth is the only instrument capable of making the transient quality of existence more bearable.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: