I would like to once again thank everyone for his or her comments and input. I have refrained from commenting myself, in order to view where the current conversation was going. Let me state from the onset, that my knowledge of the events is limited to those that I have already given in the story, since as I stated before, I never touched upon the subject again with my friend. That said here is my take:

First of all, I do not view the father as a blind irrational optimist – a joyous and optimistic man he was, but blindly so?  There is a historical perspective here that must be taken into account. Castro’s revolution had not just moved Cuba from Democracy to Communism, but from a Militarist Semi-Republic to Communism. Antonio has already lived his entire life under a corrupt and semi-dictatorial government.  What Castro did was take away the prefix ‘semi’ to the word dictatorship. To give you an analogy; it would have been as if Mussolini had been replaced by Joseph Stalin. I believe that it was within this context that Antonio would utter, “a chance for Cuba to finally find its soul”. Remember that in April of 1961 Castro had been in power less than a year and a half, and had only recently declared Cuba to be a Marxist-Leninist state. Antonio may have believed (as did many Cuban intellectuals of this period) that the harsher and far more totalitarian regime of Castro would be the ‘tipping’ point that would ignite a genuine revolution to establish a democratic republic. I am making an assumption here – but no more so than some of the assumptions that many of you have made as well.

Secondly, there is Antonio’s brother involvement in anti-communist activities; my friend never indicated to me whether or not his father was, or was not involved in his brother’s activities. However, it is not a leap in logic to assume that he was. In fact his pervasive optimism even after the horrors of Castro’s regime were becoming apparent, may have been a result of an unrealistic expectation of a pending counter-revolution or at the very least a popular uprising leading to dramatic reforms. The early years of Castro’s regime were spent ‘weeding out’ those that would not submit, and it was not until the Bay of Pigs fiasco in March of 1963 that the majority of the Cuban populace resigned itself to the idea of Castro’s dictatorship as a permanent state of affairs.

In spite of Antonio’s wife’s belief that the ‘birthday cake’ incident was his break point – I do not agree. I believe that this incident took on a greater importance than it should have because it was the last time she saw her husband as a ‘feeling’ and expressive human being. That same night he is taken away to a ‘re-education’ camp. Once again lets take in the historical reality of the time. During the early years of Castro’s regime his slave labor camps were modeled after the ones existing in the Soviet Union. They were a combination indoctrination/slave labor camp. Bearing in mind that his arrest was for complicity in anti-communist activities, one could reasonably assume that his first few weeks of arrest were spent under ‘soviet style’ interrogations for information and/or the mandatory ‘confession’. His wife's statement that when he returned 9-months later, he was, “... shattered, both physically and mentally”, tend to confirm this and lead me to conclude that he had been severely tortured for quite some time.

The stoic, harsh, and brooding man that returned was not the result of any ‘evasion’ from reality, or a choice to “believe what he believes regardless of the evidence”, but the product of a brutalized and traumatized mind and body. Once again, I am making an assumption here – but no more so than some of the assumptions that many of you have made as well – and an assumption that in my opinion is far more probable. Anyone who has ever spoken to a concentration camp survivor (I have) will quickly learn that a human beings spirit can be so severely battered that many times, when the horror is finally over, all that is left is a shell of the former person. The more sensitive, optimistic, educated and perceptive the person was in the first place – the deeper and more life affecting the damage often is. It is estimated that over 14,000 Cubans were executed during Castro’s first 3 years in power, and over 90,000 thousand others were tortured and interned in camps for some period of time.

As to why I wrote this story, well let me say that when it was first told to me I was very moved. For me the story was an example of the crushing effects of any prolonged exposure to tyranny to even the best of men. It was Mr. Setzer who most closely identified my second reason when he stated, “… a picture of tragedy and triumph -- tragedy over the father's loss of his optimism and triumph in gaining a better life for his children.” - except that I would say that what was murdered in Antonio was not his ‘optimism’, but the very thing that makes optimism possible: his joyous sense of life. 

Sincerely,

George W. Cordero

(Edited by George W. Cordero on 8/12, 10:48pm)

(Edited by George W. Cordero on 8/12, 10:54pm)

(Edited by George W. Cordero on 8/12, 11:51pm)

(Edited by George W. Cordero on 8/13, 1:46am)

Your comments throughout this thread hit upon a particularly common error of many objectivists – myself included. Let me relate a story using my own poor judgment as the example.

My wife was born and raised in Germany. As a result we visit her family in Dortmund once a year. Around 10 years ago (about 2 years into my delving into objectivism) during one of these visits, my wife introduced me to an uncle she had never met before due to his having lived in the former Communist East Germany.

The gentleman was well educated and spoke flawless English. He seemed thrilled when he learned that I was an American and immediately began speaking to me. He told me how much he admired the United States and all things American. He told me what an inspiration America was to so many people in Germany, and how many of the American ideals were the same ones that he espoused when he was active in a small anti-communist cell during the '70s. The man seemed to be bursting with delight at being able to talk about his personal struggle for ‘freedom’ to an American. His image of America caused him to assume an automatic bond between himself and any American he met.

During the course of his speaking, he told me about the evils of the Erich Honecker government, and how much the East Germans had been made to suffer. At some point while he was describing the ideals of the anti-communist cell he was in, he told me that they were a group of people dreaming of the day when Germany could finally be free and enjoy the benefits and rights of a ‘socially conscious democracy’. Upon hearing the words, “socially conscious democracy” my hypersensitive objectivist alarm went off. When I asked him what he meant by that, he described a type of government that would make John Kerry smile and Thomas Jefferson weep.

In those days I had 2 favorite words: evasion and inevitable. I wish I had a dime for every time I alienated a person with these 2 words. I lectured the man on the evils of social democracy, and how it must ‘inevitably’ lead to Communist dictatorship, besides not to recognize these facts was a massive ‘evasion’ of reality. The cherry on the cupcake was when I said how social democracy was in no way equivalent to the American ideal that he said he respected so much. In simple terms, I was a complete and total jackass!

In the intellectual ivory tower I had created for myself I could not fathom the mans ignorance. The ignorance however, was all mine. In the tradition of many novice objectivists (and some old time ones as well), I was not thinking contextually. If every aspect of the mans conduct or ideals didn’t fit my perfect little world – then he had to be an evader, and the results had to be 'inevitable'.

Never mind that to advocate for Social Democracy in East Germany was a crime – a crime because in spite of the mixed economy half-socialist/half-capitalist theme of Social Democracy – it would have been a gigantic leap forward in freedom for East Germany, as it is now under a unified socially democratic German Republic, in spite of the ‘inevitability’ of my arguments. Never mind that the man risked his life for a modicum of the freedoms I take for granted. Never mind that the mans ideals, however flawed, were inspired by the American dream. Never mind that I was speaking to a genuinely heroic man that had been thrilled by my very presence as an American, - oh no – I had to crap all over it didn’t I – he wasn’t the John Galt of revolutionaries! What was it you said, Mr. Thompson – ‘The John Galt complex/syndrome ‘ – very well put.

Trust me when I tell you that I know that Social Democracy is a terrible compromise, and a great step down from the ideal. Trust me when I say, that I despise those socially democratic trends within my own country, and advocate against them, and yes it can lead to a socialist state, - or worse, in extreme cases even an outright tyranny. That said, within the context of that mans experience and body of knowledge, the Social Democracy of West Germany was a by-product of American influence and the ideal to be fought for – and you know what, within that context – it is. I had taken the axiom of a single objective reality, and used it as a means for context dropping. It was my excuse for minimizing or trivializing the experiences of all of humanity, it blinded me to greatness, benevolence and the poignant; a false and irrational standard was used, and all else was ‘evasion’.

George W. Cordero

PS: I long ago apologized to the old gentleman, and we are great friends. By the way, he is now a free market advocate and strongly opposed to German participation in the EU. Well, well wouldn’t you know it – the old gent seems to still be quite a remarkable man. I guess it was inevitable!

(Edited by George W. Cordero on 10/21, 7:32pm)