Word: castros
(lookup in dictionary)
(lookup stats)
Dates: during 1960-1969
Sort By: most recent first
(reverse)
Draper scoffs at the attempts to determine Castro's motivations and intentions: "... more to the point is what [Castro] said and what he did." But the author himself quietly makes a crucial character judgement of Castro which shapes the book's entire analysis of the Cuban revolution. Consider this passage: "... once power came into [Castro's] hands, he refused to permit anything that might lessen or restrict it. He would not tolerate the functioning of a government that was not the facade of his personal rule or of a party that might develop a life of its own." Although Draper...
Since the book claims to be an analysis of Castro's actions, it never quite says that Castro wanted to secure complete personal power. Occasionally, however, the choice of words and the method of argument indicate that Draper thinks Castro did deceive his democratic followers. An author's personal opinions need not impair an academic analysis, but in this book they do. Draper is so convinced of Castro's commitment to personal hegemony that he never even considers whether Castro might have been satisfied with less. Some leaders of nationalistic revolutions have clung desperately to power, others have not. Therefore...
Other writers have suggested that Castro turned to the Communists not because he cared first for his personal position, but because he tried to implement the 1940 Constitution. The land reform provisions especially were so radical that no previous government had sought to carry them out. The argument is that Castro attempted to realize them, lost middle class support as a result, and had to call in the Communists or forfeit his entire revolutionary effort. Draper does not comment on this analysis, or upon any of the arguments citing Cuba's economic problems at the time Castro assumed power...
...does talk about the role of the United States in Castro's turn to Communism and decides it was very small. This conclusion may be correct, but it is not too convincing, since Draper reaches it by slighting Cuban nationalism and America antagonism. Draper clarifies the extent of United States aid to Batista and touches upon the effect which this and American actions over the years have had on Cuban attitudes toward the "Yanquis." Yet, he ignores anti-American nationalism when analyzing Castro's relations with this country. He sees the famous visit and aid dispute, for instance, solely...
...April, 1959, three months after reaching power, Castro came to the United States, without an official invitation from this government. Draper believes that Castro did not want an invitation and that Eisenhower did not want to offer him one. For a leader from a small country harboring considerable hostility and suspicion toward the United States, there is probably an important difference between being offered an invitation and having to ask for one. Once here, similar complications arise in maneuvering for aid. Castro apparently told his entourage not to discuss the issue, even with American officials who might be offering assistance...