° "T'he Battalion/Friday, August 1, 1986
$$$$§$
Cuban prisoner's tale reveals
true nature of Castro regime
Shortly after a
C u b a n t r i b u n a 1
sentenced Hum
berto Sori Marin
to death, his
mother went to
visit Fidel Castro
to plead for her
son’s life. Marin
a n d C a s t r 6 had
fought as com
rades in the
m o u n t a i n s, and
after the revolution they often dined to
gether at Marin’s home with Senora
Marin doing the cooking. At the meet
ing Castro assured her: “Don’t worry,
nothing will happen to Humberto.” The
next night Castro himself ordered the
execution.
That incident comes from the pen of
Armando Valladares, whose book,
Against All Hope, is an account of the
22 years he spent in various Cuban pris
ons for the “crime” of speaking out
against communism. To say that the
book is compelling is to understate its
power; to say that it is horrific is also an
understatement. With this book, Fidel
Castro takes his place as yet another of
this century’s mass murders.
The execution of Sori Marin was just
another day’s work for Castro. Turning
on enemies and former colleagues alike,
the Cuban dictator dispatched several
thousand political prisoners (the exact
figure is unknown) and imprisoned
countless others. Valladares gives an ac
count of a Latin Gulag where prisoners
were terrorized, beaten, starved, tor
tured and casually executed, often on.
the caprice of some uniformed sadist.
Many were like Valladares — convicted
by tribunals that, for the sake of effi
ciency, handed down their verdicts be
fore the trial had begun.
One of the benefits of being a liberal
in a conservative era is that easy assump
tions get challenged. One of those as
sumptions has been that Fidel Castro
was not, all in all, such a bad guy. He
was credited with improving the stan
dard of living — particularly health care
— for most Cubans, with cleaning up
notorious Havana (the prostitution capi
tal of the Western Hemispere) and, of
course, with toppling the repressive Ba
tista regime.
It was conceded that he was a dicta
tor, that he was responsible for human
rights abuses. But it was argued that
these were insignificant and paled in
comparison to what was happening else
where in the hemisphere — Chile, Ar
gentina, Guatemala and El Salvador.
Liberals held their fire.
In an essay in a recent issue of The
New York Review of Books, Aryeh
Neier tries to account for such a double
standard. Neier, vice chairman of the
American Watch Committee, attributes
the left’s preoccupation with atrocities
by rightist regimes to the tendency of
those regimes to label their own enemies
Castroites.
It seemed that to concede the case
against Castro would also concede the
case, right-wing dictators were making
against their own dissidents — not to
mention the case being made by Ameri
can conservatives. The reasoning is no
more sophisticated than the old maxim
that the enemy of my enemy is my
friend.
Neier’s credentials as a critic of all op-
presive regimes are beyond reproach.
He offers some reasonable justifications
for what amounted to Castro playing
American liberals for a patsy, but they
in no way take the left off the hook. In
fact, not only were Castro’s crimes ig
nored, but the man himself was de
picted as the romantic revolutionary —a
baseball-playing companero, a macho
Hemingway type in the land of “Poppa”
himself. Castro’s compelling and attrac
tive antics totally overshadowed the si
nister aspects of his reign — so much so
that even conservatives, who loathed
Castro for his communism, remained
ignorant of the true nature of his re
gime. For whatever reason, the Ameri
can left is at last coming to terms with
Castro. The Neier essay, plus the re
views that Against All Hope received in
The Washington Post and The New
York Times, has done much to rectify
matters.
Now it is the conservatives who follow
false messiahs. President Reagan’s char
acterization of virtually any Third
World anti-communist as a “Freedom
Fighter” is the moral equivalent of call
ing Castro an agrarian reformer. We
await patiently the mea culpas from the
right.
According to America Watch, at least
110 political prisoners remain in Cuban
jails and hundreds more in so-called
“political education programs.” Some of
them have been incarcerated for more
than 25 years — old men whose execu
tions effectively have been played out in
slow motion.
In Against All Hope, Valladares tells
their story just as surely as he tells his
own. Through the personal intercession
of French President Francois Mitterand,
Valladares was freed from Castro’s
grasp. Through his book, so have we all.
Copyright 1986, Washington Post Writers Group
Richard
Cohen
r
V'LUO-nncL lenocu
-Hit'ncis I like.
one of
dboot
CJel/j evercj dacj as J sor-^
4/Lrot^gA- my w\cl\ t f as
I pass a
Ca/V. ---
Study measures economic status
by assests instead of income
A new Census '
Bureau study has John
created a stir in Cunniff
political and eco- AP ciruthst
nomic circles be-
cause, among other things, it reveals a
sharp disparity of assets between white
and blacks.
But it does something more as well: It
removes the focus from income, which
long has been the primary measure of
economic status, and shifts that focus to
The Battalion
(USPS 045 360)
Member of
lex as Press Association
Soulhwcst Journalism Conference
The Battalion Editorial Board
Michelle Powe, Editor
Kav Mallett, Managing Editor
Loren Steffy, Opinion Page Editor
Scott Sutherland. City Editor
Ken Surv, Sports Editor
Editorial Policy
The Battalion is .1 non-profit, self-supporting newspn-
pei operated .is .1 community set vice to 1 e\.is .\&M and
Bt \ .m-Collcgc Station.
Opinitnis expressed in The Battalion are those of the
Editor ia! Board or the authoi . and do not necessarily rep
resent the opinions of l exas A&M administiators. faculty
01 the Bo aid of Regents.
The Battalion also ser\es as a lahotatot t new spaper for
students in repot ting, editing and photography classes
yyithin the Department of Journalism.
Second class postage paid at C'ollege Station. IX 77S~f;i.
BOS I \rAS IE:R: Send address changes to The Battal
ion. 2l<i Reed McDonald, l exas AN .M L 'niy ct sity. College
Station I X 77S-4A.
a more significant measure, the manner
in which that income is used.
Why is it that two families of like in
come can live radically different lives,
one accumulating assets, the other a pile
of bills?
The consumer’s dollar is the subject
of a great battle every day of the week,
with billions of stimuli constantly bom
barding him and her to spend. To
spend is easy, but to know what to spend
on is not.
For example, many families place
home ownership at the top of the their
list, and sacrifice in order to achieve the
down payment. Some families prefer to
have the use of their income immedi
ately, and rent rather than buy.
While some families are better off
renting, and conceivably can come out
ahead by doing so, home-ownership is
by far the biggest factor in the sharp di
versity of assets noted in the Gensus
study.
Home ownership receives special
treatment in the United States and in
many other countries. Homeowners are
allowed various tax deductions, whereas
renters receive few. Homeowners also
receive preferential treatment from
banks.
Because part of their monthly pay
ments are used to build equity, home-
owners are automatic savers. They are
investors too, since home prices gener
ally rise, often sharply. Some, in fact,
have doubled in the past four years.
In contrast, those who pay rent re
ceive few, if any, tax benefits. And they
build no equity. Moreover, they are of
ten damaged badly by inflation, whereas
homeowners sometimes benefit from
that condition.
Oddly, assets as a determination of
economic well-being — as opposed to
income — has been all but ignored by
public officials and sometimes even by
bankers.
The granting of home-mortgage
loans, for example, is often on the basis
of income rather than assets — even to
day, when assets such as home equity are
sometimes as available for spending as
money in a checking account.
That is, equity that once was frozen in
a house until the homeowner sold or
took out a second mortgage can now be
borrowed by the stroke of a pen. Unlike
the situation just a decade ago, equity is
now a liquid asset.
No wonder the Gensus Bureau study
has created so much attention. It fo
cuses on “permanent” assets, an objec
tive measure, as a determinant of wealth
— rather than on. income, which can
mean many things, depending on how it
is used.
John Cunniff is a business analyst for
The Associated Press.
Mail Call
On our high horse 1 j
EDITOR: j| <
While the Battalion Editorial Board gloats over the economic and poliJ , \
unrest in South Africa, why not examine the “benefits” of divestment. Be <
yet, let’s examine America’s “moral convictions” which are being savedkM
hearted big business.
Monday’s editorial reported that whites were emigrating from Soutli
Africa in increasing numbers. Many of these whites come from South AIm <
slumped business sector. What is not stated in the editorial is that South '
Africa’s business sector is made up of whites of British descent. Thesepeof 1
didn’t invent, didn’t implement and do not condone apartheid.
The South African government was purged of high-ranking Britons |,
when the National Party came to power in 1948. The whites who will
invariably remain are, of course, Af rikaners. Their presence in South AfnM
is justified in a myriad of historical events both real and legendary. There*
run 350 years deep, roots which no sanction will ever kill.
On television, we see images of chanting blacks, protesting, demandinii
The crowd moves to a fevered pitch. Then, the police move in to crushth I
fire in the crowd. Is this Soweto? Gape Town? Durban? Try Miami,Chicaj■
Watts or Birmingham. America has a so-called “moral conviction” tobrinj It
change to South Africa.
The United States, a nation which has more civil rights laws on thebocni
than any other, is still grappling with its own racial problems. America,at 1
that subdued, exploited and practically exterminated its native peoplestve l
South Africa to give its blacks a degree of universal f ranchise that fewblad I
Africans will ever see.
What a high horse we have mounted for ourselves.
Aaron P. Kiker [:
Writing about stereotypes
EDITOR:
1 was very disappointed with Loren Steffy’s column of July 29. Forthe 1
most it was caricature and ridicule, relying on catch-phrases like "monkey I
trial” and “bible banging.” The ideas and questions involved were statedi l
briefly and in the most simplistic terms and a simplistic answer given. Itkl
the column was a waste of Steffy’s writing ability, and I would like tomake;|
couple of suggestions.
I would suggest first that Steffy write more about ideas and issuesandil
about personalities. T here are important ideas involved, and they areseer. I
most clearly when one actually does compare the two “monkey trials.’Tlif I:
authorities were the plaintiffs in the first trial, in the second they are the 1
defendants. In the first trial the state was asserting that only a certain
religious and philosophical position could be taught. T he state was certain!'|l
wrong to do that.
In the second trial, the parents are accusing the state of this sameoffeaJ
They say that the required reading propagates a specific philosophy. IfthiK
accusation is true, then the answer Steffy gives, “Go to a private school,"^!
bad as telling Scopes to go teach in a private school.
Of course, Steffy may think that their allegations are false. Me should nil
his column to show their fallacy. He should give us his thoughts on howontll
deals with ideas in literature and philosophy in the setting of public schools 1.
It is a hard question, because the law not only protects the majority from I
religious minorities, but also those minorities from the majority.
Second, if Stef f y does write about people, he should do so with respect
Enough name calling. He should put himself in their shoes. He need not :
agree with them, but his columns would be better if he wrote about real
people, not stereotypes.
Randy Davy
Graduate student
Department of Chemistry
Locking actual experience
EDITOR:
In reference to William Buckley’s article in the July 22 BattaliomnA
Mark Ude’s on July 23: I think that we are making a pitif ul mistake by simpl) I
labeling as “wrong” the widespread growth of drug usage in our society.
Neither Buckley or Ude seem to have any actual experience with drugs (and!
this is not unusual for detractors) — the illustration of the drug user that
Buckley offers is limited in that for him, “it is agony whether you goontodij'
or whether you go on to live.” This seems ridiculous. T hey never consider ,
why the person chooses to use drugs in the first place — and so it is not
diff icult for the pair to mouth support for the death penalty for anyone
caught selling drugs.
When asked, many people will respond that they use drugs to, “havea
good time ... to party,” which is word for word the reason many use tojusti! 1 !
drinking, which is, of course, a completely legal, though no less dangerous ;;
escape from reality. I think that this is only a superficial explanation fora
general dissatisfaction with life.
It is not difficult to see that there are ample justifications for a personto ||
occassionally escape from the “realities” of modern existence: alienationfroF
other humans, who, like everyone else, feel themselves alienated; the limited ;
possibilities of ever finding a career that is both truly fulfilling and truly
humanizing in a society that is becoming less and less personal (there is
nothing attractive about becoming an emotionally bankrupt, brain-dead
television addict); the rise of the power of some obsolete religion to influentf
final decisions relating to morality that, in the end will affect us all — andtli
that same religion is operating in what seems to be exactly the opposite inteff
of the very word of the founder! . . . need I continue?
For many, it is only by the temporary derangement of the senses, by a !
conscious letting-go of reality that they are able to assume a new position andr.
see suddenly either the ignorance and fallacy of the path of their existence®!
perhaps glimpse the heaven that may have been sitting right beside them all j-
along. And this is a dangerous thing in a society of machines, for it is very b
often by this same process of “poisoning” that so many have begun to
question and/or reject the norms of society, and continue, long after the ;
discontinuation of their drug use, the process of finding themselves and
becoming that ultimatemodern criminal — the individual.
And what is it about the “individual” among the herd that excites so miK |
emotion? I am talking about those rare people that cross our actual existence !
from time to time and who draw out most often completely conflicting
inward and outward responses. The bonds of kinship tighten when the '
individual is among us — we eye each other knowingly, making all sortsof j
supposedly secret gestures and acting as if there is something faintly obscene |
and humorous about his or her words, actions and demeanor, while inward! j
we feel both jealously and the hope that they will soon fail and conveniently ;
disappear. The true individual among us is the ultimate modern criminal,!! 1 '^
it is his or her courage that exposes so blatantly our own cowardice.
A law in itself is not necessarily correct by the virtue of simply being law! <
only hope Ude will someday more caref ully consider his point of view befortl
digesting wholesale the morality and prejudices of his great-great grandfa- ;
thers.
Cara Clark
Bill Sparks
Letters to the editor should not exceed 300 words in length. The editorial staff reserves therfi
to edit letters for style and length, but will make every effort to maintain the author's inH*l
Each letter must be signed and must include the address and telephone number of the writer j
. - i
■H