actionforum@comcast.net wrote:
------------- Original message --------------
On 10/10/05, Tony Sidaway wrote:
Wrong, it hasn't gotten worse, at least Batista is no longer called a dictator, as he once was. That is how much the clique, did not want Castro labeled a dictator. Note that Batista still has a regime, which has been regarded as POV on other pages. Batista did not shoot people trying to escape Cuba, Castro does.
Well, do you not see that all you're talking about is a tit-for-tat affair? What does the issue of killing people trying to escape Cuba have to do with the question of whether we call Batista or Castro dictators? Both of them instituted a government by force of arms, so they would both fit the traditional standard. Shah Pahlavi, for that matter, when dismissed by Massadeq, was reinstalled by military force, so I guess we could call him a dictator too. But the editors of the Pahlavi article, for whatever reason, are not squabbling.
You can call it tit-for-tat, but when a clique has control of a page, and is claiming a certain standard in rejecting your edits such as "dictator" being POV and pejorative even when applied to a world class dictator like Fidel Castro, you can at least embarass them some with their hypocrisy if they insist on maintaining the term for a petty corrupt dictator such as Batista. His oppression only extended to the measures necessary to keep him in power and luxury. There is a difference between being anti-democratic for selfish reasons, and essentially enslaving (because they can't leave) a pool of cheap labor to implement your grand plans for the economy.
If this weren't so hilarious I would be tempted to see it as the ravings of an anti-Catro lunatic. The notion that a person who bases his dictatorship on personal gain and profit is morally superior to one who does so in order to achieve honest reforms is beyond belief.
Ec