[article] As pretty as a Picture...Fidel Castro

mike65

From examiner.

AN Irish painter has been commissioned to paint a portrait of Cuban President Fidel Castro.

Bill Griffin, a one-time oil-rig contractor, is to travel to Cuba in November for a series of sittings with the famous revolutionary leader.

In 1999 he returned to full time painting to considerable success. His work is widely collected and he has had nine solo exhibitions in the last five years.

During his high-flying career in the oil business, Mr Griffin regularly rubbed shoulders with world leaders, including Colonel Muammar Gadaffi of Libya. However, in 1999 in what he describes as “a moment of madness”, he abandoned his career and returned to painting full-time.

Mr Griffin may have his work cut out for him in more ways than one. Fidel Castro is noted for his vigorous and often many hour long speeches and is known to keep people waiting. He led the rebel uprising in Cuba against Fulgencio Batista in 1959 that resulted in his rise to power.

A group of 25 friends of the painter have arranged to fly from Shannon to Havana next November to support Mr Griffin as he becomes the first Irish painter to be commissioned to paint Fidel Castro’s portrait.

“The only trouble is,” said one, “that if Castro doesn’t like the painting, we’re all knackered.”

From rte interview this lunchtime.

"I have a grudging admiration for I him, would'nt find it difficult to paint him. I do admire him, we need people like him in the world..."

http://web.amnesty.org/web/ar2002.nsf/amr/cuba?Open

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2863005.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4681021.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2673213.stm

http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/internet/01/21/cuba.internet.reut/

As an arty type I do dispair of so many of my fellow creatives and thier cretinous politics.

Mike.

Sand

Mike, youve forgotten the golden rule of Arts student politics...Is the slightly dodgy Latin American dictator supported or criticised by Washington?

If theyre criticised by Washington then theyre merely misunderstood and misrepresented by the imperialist media.

If theyre supported by Washington then theyre the scum of the earth and another example of Washinton immoral dealings in the world abroad.

If anything Castro is actually not as sexy for the Arts students as he was - some disturbing rumours about him not being all that nice really are finally sinking in to brains that were deadened long ago by campus posters and protest politics.

So instead theyve moved on to their new beau, Mr Chavez of Venezeula whose appointing military men to civillian positions, creating a paramilitary organisation to attack dissidents, raiding currency reserves of state companies to finance plans under his own personal direction without oversight (no chance of corruption there!), rewriting laws and the constitution so he can pack state institutions with his cronies and doing his best to cement his hold on every aspect of life before he predictably declares himself El Presidente. The democratic credentials of man who previously led a military coup arent exactly reassuring.

But thats all okay, because he and Bush dont get on so Mr Chavez must be great. And the same people who spout this will criticise the US for backing horrific regimes simply because they opposed communism.

county

you have to give some credit to castro,the best heath care system in the world,lets send mary harney over there!!

Hobbes

Sand wrote:

Mike, youve forgotten the golden rule of Arts student politics...Is the slightly dodgy Latin American dictator supported or criticised by Washington?

and you have forgotten what a Strawman is.

Castro is no angel, but the situation in Cuba is not of his doing.

So instead theyve moved on to their new beau, Mr Chavez of Venezeula whose appointing military men to civillian positions, creating a paramilitary organisation to attack dissidents, raiding currency reserves of state companies to finance plans under his own personal direction without oversight (no chance of corruption there!), rewriting laws and the constitution so he can pack state institutions with his cronies and doing his best to cement his hold on every aspect of life before he predictably declares himself El Presidente. The democratic credentials of man who previously led a military coup arent exactly reassuring.

Throw some links behind those will you. I love your somewhat revisionist history. (prehaps in a new thread which has to do with Chavez and not Castro).

But thats all okay, because he and Bush dont get on so Mr Chavez must be great. And the same people who spout this will criticise the US for backing horrific regimes simply because they opposed communism.

Nice pulling the thread off topic.

cal29

http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=682&id=707772005

http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=682&id=680462005
http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=682&id=960002004
http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=682&id=951052004


Feeding and housing the poor winning internationally recognised fair elections and referendums
Is there no depths this man wont sink to

Orizio

I dislike Castro more then most but the US sanctions are the main problem here.Sanctions rarely work and more importantly cutting dictatorships,no matter how unpleasant,off from the international world never works.Clear example is the US sanctions in Iraq that served only to weaken the resolve of the people,created stro anti-Western feelings and gave the Baathist regime greater control over the people's lives.Destroying a countries economy never helps the peple.Invariably even dictatorships want tro open there economies to the world market to make profit,a decision that historically leads to a new business class and a real balnce of power and chance of liberalisation.The sanctions on Castro are a backward and pointless policy that don't work and seem to be sustained simply at the pressure of anti-Castro lobbyist's in Florida.

rsynnott

mike65 wrote:

As an arty type I do dispair of so many of my fellow creatives and thier cretinous politics.

Mike.

In fairness, he was a hell of a lot better than the previous rulers of Cuba.

mike65

In fairness, he was a hell of a lot better than the previous rulers of Cuba.

Apart from denying stuff like multi party elections, the freedom to leave, read, watch and listen to what you like rather than what the state chooses. For decades religious freedom was'nt tolerated. Independent journalists are targeted and jailed by the regime. Even those who have managed to get online risk punishment.

The man took power after an uprising against another dictator. Castro was bankrolled by the Soviets rather than US oil dollars.

So meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

I wonder would the same artist have been willing to paint say Ferdinand Marcos?.

Mike.

FTA69

:rolleyes: How is Castro the "same" as Batista? Castro abolished racial segregation before your beloved US did, he also managed to create an equitable and excellent health and education system in the face of extreme opposition and bullying by the USA, this compared to Batista who was actually propped up by the American government. Cuban soldiers also defended the people of Angola and Namibia from the South African apartheid regime and Cuban doctors still do fantastic, free aid work in third world countries.

I see what you mean him being a complete monster when compared to the shining example of the glorious US of A though... :rolleyes:

county

its ashame he`s a communist,but some lessons could be learned from the man!

mike65

FTA69 wrote:

:rolleyes: How is Castro the "same" as Batista? Castro abolished racial segregation before your beloved US did, he also managed to create an equitable and excellent health and education system in the face of extreme opposition and bullying by the USA, this compared to Batista who was actually propped up by the American government. Cuban soldiers also defended the people of Angola and Namibia from the South African apartheid regime and Cuban doctors still do fantastic, free aid work in third world countries.

I see what you mean him being a complete monster when compared to the shining example of the glorious US of A though... :rolleyes:

Batista propped up by the US Castro propped by the USSR - same difference really. As for Cuban soldiers defending the ppl of Angola that was just the cold war by proxy, UNITA (read USA) vs MPLA (read USSR) the irony is that after the war finally ended the winners, the MPLA abandoned Marxist- Leninism.

Mike.

ps if the choice is freedom or better health care (a false choice of course) I'd take freedom first.

Hobbes

mike65 wrote:

The man took power after an uprising against another dictator. Castro was bankrolled by the Soviets rather than US oil dollars.

Castro wasn't bankrolled until during the Cold War the current US president told Castro to get lost because he was busy playing golf (on US national TV). This is when he came to the US to ask for help. After that embarrassment he went to the Soviets for help.

Of course this snub was due to the fact that Castro overthrew a dictator that the US helped keep in power (as they did with the previous dictator of Cuba) which was about as democratic as Saddams elections. Also the Mafia had ties to Cuba at that time and ran various rackets out there.

During Batista control 75% of Cuba was owned by US businesses.

So as I said, Castro is no angel but his push into power and the state of Cuba today has less to do with him and more to do with the US.

jank

Nice pulling the thread off topic.

Its what Sands Does best.

Should be interesting what he comes up with(Im talking about the actual art here)

Seen some of his stuff and its very different and kinda funky. A bit like Picasso on LSD, there is probably a proper arty word for it.

Id say for such an important figure though he will be more traditional in his approach.

The Corinthian

All this discussion tends to overlook the political arrests and disappearances and general repression that his regime has produced that has cost thousands of lives in the last forty years. I do find the way that some people will do this then cite other dictators, such as Pinochet, stomach-churningly hypocritical.

FTA69

Batista propped up by the US Castro propped by the USSR - same difference really. As for Cuban soldiers defending the ppl of Angola that was just the cold war by proxy, UNITA (read USA) vs MPLA (read USSR) the irony is that after the war finally ended the winners, the MPLA abandoned Marxist- Leninism.

It doesn't change the fact they actually tackled apartheid forces on the ground in the defense of those whom the racists had invaded.

ps if the choice is freedom or better health care (a false choice of course) I'd take freedom first.

Freedom? Like the freedom of Cuban immigrants in Miami to work in sweatshops for slave wages all to live in a festering ghetto wracked with poverty and drugs? I'll take the actual freedom Cuba has thanks.

All this discussion tends to overlook the political arrests and disappearances and general repression that his regime has produced that has cost thousands of lives in the last forty years. I do find the way that some people will do this then cite other dictators, such as Pinochet, stomach-churningly hypocritical.

And I'm sure you condemn those right-wing terrorists backed to the hilt by the USA who have murdered so many within Cuba?

Sand

Castro is no angel, but the situation in Cuba is not of his doing.

Sure it is. Hes runs the place doesnt he? He cracks down on and jails dissenters, prevents access to information sources like the internet and is currently planning to install his brother as his successor in true dynastic fashion. The sanctions are a result of his policies, and have survived so long because the influential Cuban-American lobby which dominates that corner of US foreign policy is so embittered by the misrule of Castro. Hundreds of thousands have fled his little socialist paradise, for a reason, and they tend to have a real demand than the sanctions are continued to bring down the regime that persecuted them and forced them to make a dangerous crossing to the US.

Nice pulling the thread off topic.

Hey Mike noted the political stupidity of the arts crowd, I merely cited the underlying logic in their support for dictatorships, and demonstrated that it still applies today. As for info on Chavez, read up on Veneuzelan current events from a source other than indymedia.

All this discussion tends to overlook the political arrests and disappearances and general repression that his regime has produced that has cost thousands of lives in the last forty years. I do find the way that some people will do this then cite other dictators, such as Pinochet, stomach-churningly hypocritical.

But he made the trains run on time. Socialism is generally sympathetic to political repression anyway - its required to remove rights like private property, freedom of speech and association. Like I said the basic underlying logic is whether the dictatorship is pro or anti-american. The repressive policies themselves are unimportant.

Hobbes

Sand wrote:

Sure it is. Hes runs the place doesnt he?

As I said, how do you think he got into power? Why do you think he had support at the beginning that allowed him gain his powerbase? Do you think he would of went running to the Soviets if the US had extended the hand to support him when he asked for it?

It is so easy to forget about the history up to that point that created the person to make your argument all that rosey.

As for info on Chavez, read up on Veneuzelan current events from a source other than indymedia.

Way to attack the poster. You made the accusations its up to you to back them up (in an on topic thread). Not to made some kind of moronic insult.

Victor

mike65 wrote:

As an arty type I do dispair of so many of my fellow creatives and thier cretinous politics.

You seem to mistake a political potrait for a piece of art.

Ajnag

Umm whats the argument here?

Lets see hold up communist cuba against her us supported neighbours and.......
wow! the entire caribbian is a ****hole for its inhabitants.

So ye were saying?
Oh yeah, One of two solutions out of the many possiblitys must be right! :rolleyes:

Sand: Id be intrested in sources of the points you made against chavez.

Von

Sand wrote:

the influential Cuban-American lobby

Novel way of describing the mafia.

Sand

As I said, how do you think he got into power? Why do you think he had support at the beginning that allowed him gain his powerbase? Do you think he would of went running to the Soviets if the US had extended the hand to support him when he asked for it?

It is so easy to forget about the history up to that point that created the person to make your argument all that rosey.

Oh great. Politics from 40 ago years and his romantic struggle against Yankee imperialist oppression justifies his crushing of dissent and homegrown socialist oppression today. What progress El Presidente Castro has brought. Im reminded of that saying, capitalism is the exploitation of man by man. Under socialism its the exact opposite.

You might say that Cubas economic misfortune is a result of the US embargo (though given your average socialists favourable disposition to protectionism and hostility to globalisation youd wonder why theyd view the US helping them out by preventing foreign capitalist imperialist investment a problem) but certainly it is not forcing Castro to be as repressive and hostile to even mild dissent as the regime hes idolised for removing.
cialism

Novel way of describing the mafia.

Novel way of describing Cuban Americans.

Way to attack the poster. You made the accusations its up to you to back them up (in an on topic thread). Not to made some kind of moronic insult.

Please - The hyperventilating over anything mildly critical has gotten a little tiresome. It started with one particular poster using the report bad post button to report everything he disagreed with, now its spread to viewing everything and anything as a personal attack.

You can find the information you demand on any mainstream news site, that doesnt confuse "President Bush" with "Warmonger Bush" for example. Its cute the way you attack me for dragging the post off topic, inviting a personal attack from another poster, when I cite an example of the political blindspot suffered by arts types, and now youre demanding that the example becomes the topic of the thread....

Sand: Id be intrested in sources of the points you made against chavez.

Like I said check out any mainstream news site. The BBC for starters.

Orizio

Ajnag wrote:

Sand: Id be intrested in sources of the points you made against chavez.

As for Chavez,he's a typical illiberal democracy leader,just like in Nigeria,Ghana or Russia.In 92 he took part in a miltary coup and in 99 he was elected on a populist and nationalist platform(again typical of a illiberal leader)with 57% of the vote.In a continous attack on the countries liberal institutions,he proposed a referendum that would replace the countries constitution and weaken the powers of the legislature and judiciary.The referendum was passed with 92% of the vote and months later his party took 92% of the the newly created 'Constituent Assembly'.The new constitution allowed Chavez's term to increase by a month,he could now rule till 2013 and among other things the assembly could dismiss judges.The congress and supreme court were soon dismissed.

After this things looked bad as protests and support for the opposition grew amid Chavez's 'reconstructering' of the countries institutions and a failing economy.In 2002 there was a coup but Chavez was back in power by two days.Protests continued and by october 1 million Venezualans marched in Caracas.In a attempt to force Chavez from office there wa a 62 day national strike that devestated the economy further.Soon 2.8 million signatories were collected to demand Chavez to hold elections but the CNE,at the time Chavez was deeply unpopular and probably would have been voted out of government,said it was invalid.I could go on and I haven't even started about crime,the police,more attacks on the instututions that uphold a liberal democracy.Suffice to say the guy is dragging Venezuala backwards with his nationalist,anti-America,illiberal and populaist agenda that worringly seems to be gaining speed throughout South America.

Hobbes

Sand wrote:

Oh great. Politics from 40 ago years and his romantic struggle against Yankee imperialist oppression justifies his crushing of dissent and homegrown socialist oppression today. What progress El Presidente Castro has brought. Im reminded of that saying, capitalism is the exploitation of man by man. Under socialism its the exact opposite.

Strawman again. Where did I say romantic struggle? He came to power because the US helped keep a dictator in power which was as bad as Castro. He is still kept in power because of his "Look the US is evil" and the US doing actions to help justify that. Like the embargo, attempted assination attempts, failed coup, chemical+biological warfare to spread disease and cause famine on the island. Not to mention gems like Operation Northwoods where the US actually had a plan on the table to kill its own citizens and blame Cuba.

You might say that Cubas economic misfortune is a result of the US embargo

Actually I would say it is partly that and mostly due to the fall of the communist Russia that was breaking the embargo.

Novel way of describing Cuban Americans.

Most of the Cuban Americans who are lobbying for Castros removal are displaced land owners. Some of them have/had Mafia connections. Remember the Mafia were running gambling and prostitution out of Cuba before the revolution.

Like I said check out any mainstream news site. The BBC for starters.

You know the forum rules. Here let me help you a little seeing as you are having problems backing up what your saying.

http://newssearch.bbc.co.uk/cgi-bin/search/results.pl?q=chavez&x=0&y=0&scope=newsukfs&tab=news

Pick out the stories.

Von

Hobbes wrote:

Most of the Cuban Americans who are lobbying for Castros removal are displaced land owners. Some of them have/had Mafia connections. Remember the Mafia were running gambling and prostitution out of Cuba before the revolution.

What about this chap - Luis Posada Carilles - influential lobbyist or terrorist?

The Corinthian

So I take it that posters here feel that the nature of the regime that preceded Castro justifies his past and present policies of repression and human rights abuse?

i bet castro is biding his time till he can break the taliban and al queda out of guatanamoand then go jihad on americas ass.

sovtek

The Corinthian wrote:

So I take it that posters here feel that the nature of the regime that preceded Castro justifies his past and present policies of repression and human rights abuse?

Nope, not this one...

Hobbes

The Corinthian wrote:

So I take it that posters here feel that the nature of the regime that preceded Castro justifies his past and present policies of repression and human rights abuse?

Absolutly not. Justify is the wrong word. Allowed him to carry out these actions easier would be a better wording of it.

The Corinthian

Hobbes wrote:

Absolutly not. Justify is the wrong word. Allowed him to carry out these actions easier would be a better wording of it.

Sounds like a justification to me, or at the very least an excuse. Either one makes you an apologist. Of course, that you are is your own business, as long as you consistently apply the same metre to all dictators.

sovtek wrote:

Nope, not this one...

Then why are people falling over themselves to defend him here? Especially given that were he a right wing or pro-American dictator the same people would most likely condemn him?

Has no one actually considered that such a duplicit stance could be a teeny weenie bit hypocritical?

Hobbes

The Corinthian wrote:

Sounds like a justification to me, or at the very least an excuse. Either one makes you an apologist. Of course, that you are is your own business, as long as you consistently apply the same metre to all dictators.

Not sure where you got that stretch of the English language from. Please tell me where I said I agree with Castros actions?

Castro is kept in power partly because of his army/etc and partly because he has public support of his country. You think that public support comes from his speeches? If you read up on some of the crap the US has done to Cuba to try and oust Castro you can clearly see all they are doing is helping him in proclaiming he is protecting them from the great evil.

No one is defending Castros actions but a lot of us are quite aware that he didn't just magically come into power and that all Cubans hate Castro. If Cubans hated Castro so much he would of been out of power long before now.

The Corinthian

Hobbes wrote:

Not sure where you got that stretch of the English language from. Please tell me where I said I agree with Castros actions?

I never said you agreed with them, I said you were an apologist for them.

Castro is kept in power partly because of his army/etc and partly because he has public support of his country.

Like Pinochet was? Or Ferdinand Marcos? I think you’ll find that a lot of dictators have (had) popular support.

No one is defending Castros actions but a lot of us are quite aware that he didn't just magically come into power and that all Cubans hate Castro.

Actually you are defending his actions. Indeed you shy away from discussing his actions and simply justify - sorry, explain - them by pointing out how it is understandable how he came to power.

But as I said, if you want to be an apologist for dictators, feel free to do so, just be consistent and do the same for the others.

If Cubans hated Castro so much he would of been out of power long before now.

Just like the Iraqi’s kicked Saddam out of power. Or the North Koreans have kicked Kim Jong-il out. Or not.

Hobbes

The Corinthian wrote:

I never said you agreed with them, I said you were an apologist for them.

Which equates to the same thing. So kindly stop trying to claim I am saying one thing when I am not. Next you will be saying the Gardai are apoligists for criminals (using your flawed logic).

Like Pinochet was? Or Ferdinand Marcos? I think you’ll find that a lot of dictators have (had) popular support.

I don't understand your point here? All you are doing is agreeing with me.

Actually you are defending his actions. Indeed you shy away from discussing his actions and simply justify - sorry, explain - them by pointing out how it is understandable how he came to power.

What is there to discuss? In my personal opinion Castro should be removed (through a system that doesn't make it worse then it already is). Others are saying "Castro = Evil" I am saying "Yes Castro is Evil, but doesn't equate to Castro did it all himself". Evil men don't magically get into power.

Somehow trying to equate that to that I am saying that I think Castro should stay in power is insulting.

Just like the Iraqi’s kicked Saddam out of power. Or the North Koreans have kicked Kim Jong-il out. Or not.

Iraqis didn't kick Saddam out of power, The Americans did. Saddam ran. He also had a power base in Iraq that kept him in power similar to Castro.

As for Kim Jong-il, NK is totally disconnected from the West and has a skewed view of the rest of the world. A lot of NK actually believe the tripe KJI feeds them because they have been raised on it.

The Corinthian

Hobbes wrote:

Which equates to the same thing. So kindly stop trying to claim I am saying one thing when I am not. Next you will be saying the Gardai are apoligists for criminals (using your flawed logic).

It does not equate to the same thing unless you are intentionally attempting to twist said logic. One may excuse the actions of another citing extraneous circumstance without necessarily agreeing with those actions. One may even excuse those actions, without necessarily agreeing with them, on the basis that the alternative would have been worse. That’s what an apologist does.

As for your Gardai example - what on Earth are you on about?

I don't understand your point here? All you are doing is agreeing with me.

I’d only be agreeing with you if you judged all dictators by the same standards. Feel free to show me where you’ve been equally explanatory for Pinochet, Marcos or any other pro-US dictator and then you might appear consistent.

What is there to discuss? In my personal opinion Castro should be removed (through a system that doesn't make it worse then it already is). Others are saying "Castro = Evil" I am saying "Yes Castro is Evil, but doesn't equate to Castro did it all himself". Evil men don't magically get into power.

Again, feel free to show me where you’ve been equally explanatory for Pinochet, Marcos or any other pro-US dictator and then you might appear consistent.

Somehow trying to equate that to that I am saying that I think Castro should stay in power is insulting.

From what I can see, up to your last post you never suggested that he should be removed, only that the situation in Cuba was not his fault and that the previous regime was worse.

So what does that sound like to you? A man campaigning for Castro’s removal or an apologist for him?

Iraqis didn't kick Saddam out of power, The Americans did. Saddam ran. He also had a power base in Iraq that kept him in power similar to Castro.

As for Kim Jong-il, NK is totally disconnected from the West and has a skewed view of the rest of the world. A lot of NK actually believe the tripe KJI feeds them because they have been raised on it.

Do either of those points make your assertion that “if Cubans hated Castro so much he would of been out of power long before now” any less wrong then?

Hobbes

The Corinthian wrote:

From what I can see, up to your last post you never suggested that he should be removed, only that the situation in Cuba was not his fault and that the previous regime was worse.

So what does that sound like to you? A man campaigning for Castro’s removal or an apologist for him?

Castro is no angel, but the situation in Cuba is not of his doing.

So as I said, Castro is no angel but his push into power and the state of Cuba today has less to do with him and more to do with the US.

Where did I say romantic struggle? He came to power because the US helped keep a dictator in power which was as bad as Castro.

Sorry I missed the bit where I said Castro was great. Prehaps you can point it out.

There are numerous points in history where Castro could of been removed through showing how bad he was or support, as opposed to making the situation worse.

I don't recall any comparisons to pinochet in this thread except by you either. Only other leader mentioned here who I think is not a dictator is Chavez.