I found Meet The Press mostly devoid of substance today until New York Times correspondent Helene Cooper added a compelling counter-argument to the Fidel Castro generic American narrative. It is important for several reasons.
Panelist counter-narrative on Fidel Castro
Helene Cooper provided a counter-narrative to the Americocentric narrative of Fidel Castro by giving it a perspective seldom heard by Americans. Chuck Todd first read President Obama’s response to the death of Castro.
Statement by the President on the Passing of Fidel Castro
At this time of Fidel Castro’s passing, we extend a hand of friendship to the Cuban people. We know that this moment fills Cubans – in Cuba and in the United States – with powerful emotions, recalling the countless ways in which Fidel Castro altered the course of individual lives, families, and of the Cuban nation. History will record and judge the enormous impact of this singular figure on the people and world around him.
For nearly six decades, the relationship between the United States and Cuba was marked by discord and profound political disagreements. During my presidency, we have worked hard to put the past behind us, pursuing a future in which the relationship between our two countries is defined not by our differences but by the many things that we share as neighbors and friends – bonds of family, culture, commerce, and common humanity. This engagement includes the contributions of Cuban Americans, who have done so much for our country and who care deeply about their loved ones in Cuba.
Today, we offer condolences to Fidel Castro’s family, and our thoughts and prayers are with the Cuban people. In the days ahead, they will recall the past and also look to the future. As they do, the Cuban people must know that they have a friend and partner in the United States of America.
“I have to say,” Chuck Todd said. “Helene Cooper, it’s the most positive statement that I have ever heard a President of the United States put out on Fidel Castro. Why was it so positive?”
Cooper responded with a narrative that Americans need to understand to look at Fidel Castro and other leaders we object to in the proper context.
First of all, I think I disagree with you,” Cooper said. “You present a very, — and Marco Rubio just did that — a very Americocentric view of Cuba which is Castro as the Satanic demon that the United States has, and in many ways, he has been. But I think what President Obama’s statement reflects is that nobody in the rest of the world agrees with you. The Castro that I grew up knowing as a child growing up in Liberia was a Castro who fought the South African apartheid regime that the United States was propping up. It was a Castro that sent Cuban soldiers to Angola and helped to bring down apartheid South Africa. And there is a lot of ambivalence when you look at Fidel Castro that’s usually not reflected here. I think what President Obama’s statement was doing is reflecting that.”
Chuck Todd acquiesced, “She brings up a good point in that Castro’s reputation is much different than it is here.”
Another panelist interjected saying that Castro was harsh on those who opposed him using the usual anti-Castro rhetoric. Did he crush dissidents? Yes. Did that include killing some? Yes. But how different is that from what all countries do, including our own?
The panelist at the end of click made a statement that shows why many times America is insular in thought which is a detriment to our people.
“I disagree a little with Helene,” Matt Bai, Yahoo’s national political columnist, said. “I take your point about the worldview. Although President Obama is the president of America. He is not the president of the world. And there is an American view.”
So we are the leader of the world only when we want to be? And no, there is the government view which Obama is trying to change. There are many different American views on the Castro issue.
The former leader of Cuba was a dictator named Fulgencio Batista. America supported him. He killed thousands of Cubans. Under the Batista regime, one must remember that black people and other people of color were relegated to servitude without the ability for real professional growth. Under Castro, black Cubans and others became lawyers, doctors, engineers, etc. In fact, as poor as Cuba is, they exported physicians and engineers around Latin America and Africa. They’ve provided free education for doctors from the U.S. and around the world.
The real issue with the indoctrination where Fidel Castro is all evil is the narrative generated by the remnants of the Cuban plutocracy who wants their ill-gotten gains that were repatriated, returned. Normalization puts that all in peril. The largest plutocracy in the world needed to make Cuba an example.
If it were about the killing of dissidents, the suppression of the press, and much more, how comes we had constructive engagement with then apartheid South Africa. How comes we engage with China as near co-equals? Why did we not engage constructively with Cuba?
Do we have the moral authority to discuss the killing, maiming, and lack of freedom of others when for decades those realities were lived by many in our country? Do we have that moral authority when many police officers can kill our citizens without fear of being convicted?
The world is a complex place. There is no need to sugarcoat realities. Fidel Castro was a complex human being with an ideological bent he thought was best for his people. Every leader and country for that matter tend to do bad things in the name of the good they purport to be doing. It is important that we do not allow false, incomplete, bias, and intellectually dishonest narratives to cause us to take our eye off the ball which is the well-being of all human beings. Let us all always look at the complete picture.