A reader put me in touch with John Tredway of USA Youth Debates, an organization that takes American high school and college students abroad to debate foreign counterparts. The organization sponsored debates in
The license “kind of came out of the blue,” Tredway told me, but he is now eagerly starting to organize a trip where students from the New College of Florida will debate Cuban students.
In the 2000 programs, students debated in the congress format, where a proposition is put before the house, debaters make three-minute speeches, and then vote. The Cubans weren’t thrilled with the three-minute rule, Tredway says, but the format worked. They debated whether the United States should end the embargo (the Cuban students were surprised that the Americans were divided on that question), whether both countries should adhere to UN human rights standards, whether multinational companies should make Internet access available to students in Cuba and the United States, whether the United States should return the Guantanamo naval base, and more.
Tredway tried but failed to get licenses to conduct more debates during the Bush Administration. In 2005, he said, a State Department official told him that the activity was “within the scope of the regulations, but as a policy matter we are not going to support it.”
Congratulations to Mr. Tredway for his persistence, good luck to the students on both sides, and one cheer to the Obama Administration for granting the license. I would offer three cheers, but in
Peters, a debate between US and Cuban students is an irrelevant side show. What is needed is an open debate AMONG THE CUBAN PEOPLE as to what kind of future they want for their country.
ReplyDeletechingon
chingon what is needed is for people like you to get your head out of the sand, any dialogue between usa and cuba at any level is good.
ReplyDeletewhat is also needed in american is for the American people to decide what kind of future they want, apparently most want universal health care, apparently corpotracy won't let them.
but then you CANF types just won't accept anything unless its your perspective of what's good for cuba, which in most cases is the last thing that's good for cuba.
and that's the definition of a gusano. for all those who seem to be consistently confused
Chingon, how about both?
ReplyDeleteanybody know what chingón stands for? i do. lol.
ReplyDeletewhat does it stand for Mano? something you play with all day?
ReplyDeleteanon, so a debate among Cubans about the future of their country is the "last thing that is good for Cuba"? and you're calling someone else confused?
ReplyDeletechingon
TO: CHINGON
ReplyDeleteI think that what Anon-1:18 means (and wrote) is that "your perspective of what's good for Cuba [...] in most cases is the last thing that's good for Cuba."
I interpret that as meaning that the debate should be held by Cubans on the island, as opposed to Cubans (and/or their descendants) who live overseas.
Do I read you correctly, Anon-1:18?
anon 1036; the cubans on the island are most important to determine their future, those who have left have the right to their own opinion for sure, but not the determining factor. of course dialogue in cuba by cubans is important, (which happens far more extensively than chingon will ever admit) but that has nothing to do with chingon's agenda
ReplyDeletewhat is objectionable about chingon and the others of his type is the blind, pavlovian response to anything that is perceived to be in service to the cuban government. how could anyone object to a group of american students debating their counterparts in cuba? well, apparently chingon does and not surprisingly, he turns it into an anti castro screed totally unrelated, and as usual, meaningless.
when someone sees both sides of what is going on in cuba you can have a rational discussion with them; when someone sees only bad (and on the other side only good) it is impossible to talk to them on an intellectual level. you can be a critical supporter of cuba but for chingon and his ilk there is nothing but hate and support for the continuation of policies that continue to hurt the cuban people -- and they maintain their position under the disingenuous rationale of 'freedom', a concept they only understand under their terms. That's what makes it near impossible to take anything they say seriously because they are either cubanologists, CANF dupes or simply useful idiots. There is such a long and extensive history of the anti-revolution industry, and one always wonder how much these people get paid for their rants. And of course, they know more about cuba than anyone else, adding arrogance to ignorance.
ANYTHING that helps move serious dialogue between USA and Cuba is seen as a positive for most rational people -- for the others it is simply a threat to their own ideological fantasies, and that's why you can always count on them to be negative, critical and ultimately of no value.
(and between you and me, now lets see how chignon or his minions react to this)
mitio
and when waas the last time chingon talked to real cubans, in cuba, who want change under their terms, not dictated by outsiders under the direction of a foreign govt.
ReplyDeletethere is no self respecting cuba in cuba who supports american policy or the disgusting commission for assistance to a free cuba. but chingon and his friends just ignore or discount it, it must be wonderful to live in such a fantasy world.
Debate is like an academic sport and while U.S. students practice it on an annual basis, Cuban students are very good at making their points too. What is the harm in having a public performance in Cuba in which many issues are raised? Even President Raul Castro has indicated a need for debating critical issues. Why not take him up on that offer? The old policies haven't worked for more than 50 years of diplomatic isolation. Why not try engagement?
ReplyDelete