This is why I don't believe you know much about either situation historically. Your distinction suggests that Native Americans weren't being
oppressed or/and
butchered long after the places they lived in were colonized, taken over, whatever you'd like to call it. A basic US history review shows that to be false. So again, the question remains, is there such a thing as a moral or immoral oppression of peoples? No.
That aside, I can see why people are doing the same thing you are doing when it comes to Castro. Our own feelings on the man aside, he
was a hero to many Cubans who didn't benefit from Batista's regime as much as the Italian mob did. Then, the man, in a grasp for power, ended up torturing any opponents in order to secure what benefits he'd given a large percentage of the country. That same percentage who wouldn't have otherwise had access to what are generally known as some of the best schools in Latin American when it comes to medicine. This is a fact accepted even by states in the region generally opposed to Castro (Traditionally: Mexico, Colombia, Ecuador, etc).
The guy
also eradicated literacy problems to the point where Cuba has stood miles above its Latin American neighbors and rivals those of practically any industrialized nation. You'd be hard pressed to go to Cuba and find a Cuban who cannot read. I' spent years in Mexico and regularly found people living IN medium sized cities who couldn't
speak Spanish much less read it.
Then again, I find that the man's biggest crimes were his eradication (as my wife's father puts it - he's Cuban
of all political institutions existing before 59, his complete information isolation of the island (i.e. no widely available sources of information like the internet even in the 90s, his destruction of a
somewhat* free press, etc) and finally his support for guerillas
outside in Latin America.
In short, the man was a dictator but to
believe he did anything for his people that an average citizen living under Batista
wouldn't justify after 59 is absolutely insane. Kind of like how you're defending certain slaughterings as moral because well, if we go by your statements, war is hell.
Your position is myopic
at best.
