Well, at least they agreed that isolating Korea, Cuba etc might be why they have such policies. @SpookyGenderCommunist@hexbear.net that was a really well written comment.
It does raise a good point. Why are DPRK and Cuba so different? Liberals hate both, of course, but socialists generally like Cuba openly, and only communists claim to support the DPRK. I’m just thinking out loud here, but Cuba tends to have better social policies, or at least ones we can easily see (its closer and in a language that is much more accessible than Korean for most Americans). So, I guess proximity might play a big role, along with racism and anti-Asian sentiment making it much easier to “otherize” Koreans.
Also, their new leader is not a Castro, so that represents a significant step in moving away from a “dynasty.” Why did dynasty, which developed in both, remain so strong in one and not the other? I guess partly because DPRK has always been under threat of a military invasion (also why they developed nukes) whereas US policy to Cuba has been more economic, especially in the past few decades. I wonder why…
If I can chime in on your question, I think it has a lot to do with orientalism, like you said. But I think there’s a language barrier component as well, people in the US can speak Spanish more readily than Korean.
And I think it’s a matter of Korea having been so violently ripped in half, while Cuba isn’t. Similarly, the part of Korea that makes up the DPRK is all mountainous and rich in mineral resources, but lacks a lot of abundant farmland, meanwhile Cuba has farmland in spades.
I once wrote a paper about this for a class comparing the political economies of Cuba and Venezuela, but I still think it works if you slot in the DPRK. A country with resources that largely come from the ground is going to develop a more centralized bureaucracy around those resources, since imperial powers will want access to them. You can’t easily diversify your economy, so you have to defend and make use of what you have.
A mainly agricultural exporter, as Cuba historically was, can diversify easily, because you can just plant different things in the ground. Similarily, while the US might be pissed that it lost its sugar colony, and reprimand Cuba for stepping out of line, it can get sugar elsewhere. It can imperialize a different nation rich in agricultural land.
So Cuba is more free to diversify its economy, and be more self sustaining, because it can grow food for its people, and not have to centralize power quite as severely, as a result. The Special Period, for instance is full of examples of innovative, decentralized, urban agriculture and permacultural experiments.
The Arduous March, meanwhile, was a time of general food scarcity, and rationing. The DPRK is forced to make due with minimal agricultural land, and heavy sanctions mean it can’t take proper advantage of its unique mineral resources. The few that its able to make use of need to be more vociferously defended, in the face of imperialism.
The language barrier is surely a major factor. Spanish is a much more widely-spoken language in the US compared to Korean, and the DPRK’s one longtime ally, the PRC, of course speaks Chinese, so they are much easier to slander than one Spanish speaking nation among many that it maintains good relationships with.
Also, not to fully repeat our comrade, the ongoing existence of the RoK, which has cause to endlessly vilify specifically the DPRK, is observably connected to western propaganda about it.
North Korea is one of the 3 most bombed places in the world. The Korea peninsula was occupied by the brutal Japanese and then the US nuked Japan and took over for them and the brutality was continued.
Cuba was a settler state of Europeans with black slaves. The indigenous Tainos were almost entirely absent for the revolution, mostly because they were trying to survive. Cuba has all the trappings of a European country and all the guilt of a slave society.
![[CW: extreme liberalism] You just doubled down on using Holocaust denial logic. I wonder why.](https://hexbear.net/pictrs/image/d3da0ded-5afa-4e47-8a0c-6258a8c4c767.png){kind=link}
Well, at least they agreed that isolating Korea, Cuba etc might be why they have such policies. @SpookyGenderCommunist@hexbear.net that was a really well written comment.
It does raise a good point. Why are DPRK and Cuba so different? Liberals hate both, of course, but socialists generally like Cuba openly, and only communists claim to support the DPRK. I’m just thinking out loud here, but Cuba tends to have better social policies, or at least ones we can easily see (its closer and in a language that is much more accessible than Korean for most Americans). So, I guess proximity might play a big role, along with racism and anti-Asian sentiment making it much easier to “otherize” Koreans.
Also, their new leader is not a Castro, so that represents a significant step in moving away from a “dynasty.” Why did dynasty, which developed in both, remain so strong in one and not the other? I guess partly because DPRK has always been under threat of a military invasion (also why they developed nukes) whereas US policy to Cuba has been more economic, especially in the past few decades. I wonder why…
Thank you very much!
If I can chime in on your question, I think it has a lot to do with orientalism, like you said. But I think there’s a language barrier component as well, people in the US can speak Spanish more readily than Korean.
And I think it’s a matter of Korea having been so violently ripped in half, while Cuba isn’t. Similarly, the part of Korea that makes up the DPRK is all mountainous and rich in mineral resources, but lacks a lot of abundant farmland, meanwhile Cuba has farmland in spades.
I once wrote a paper about this for a class comparing the political economies of Cuba and Venezuela, but I still think it works if you slot in the DPRK. A country with resources that largely come from the ground is going to develop a more centralized bureaucracy around those resources, since imperial powers will want access to them. You can’t easily diversify your economy, so you have to defend and make use of what you have.
A mainly agricultural exporter, as Cuba historically was, can diversify easily, because you can just plant different things in the ground. Similarily, while the US might be pissed that it lost its sugar colony, and reprimand Cuba for stepping out of line, it can get sugar elsewhere. It can imperialize a different nation rich in agricultural land.
So Cuba is more free to diversify its economy, and be more self sustaining, because it can grow food for its people, and not have to centralize power quite as severely, as a result. The Special Period, for instance is full of examples of innovative, decentralized, urban agriculture and permacultural experiments.
The Arduous March, meanwhile, was a time of general food scarcity, and rationing. The DPRK is forced to make due with minimal agricultural land, and heavy sanctions mean it can’t take proper advantage of its unique mineral resources. The few that its able to make use of need to be more vociferously defended, in the face of imperialism.
The language barrier is surely a major factor. Spanish is a much more widely-spoken language in the US compared to Korean, and the DPRK’s one longtime ally, the PRC, of course speaks Chinese, so they are much easier to slander than one Spanish speaking nation among many that it maintains good relationships with.
Also, not to fully repeat our comrade, the ongoing existence of the RoK, which has cause to endlessly vilify specifically the DPRK, is observably connected to western propaganda about it.
North Korea is one of the 3 most bombed places in the world. The Korea peninsula was occupied by the brutal Japanese and then the US nuked Japan and took over for them and the brutality was continued.
Cuba was a settler state of Europeans with black slaves. The indigenous Tainos were almost entirely absent for the revolution, mostly because they were trying to survive. Cuba has all the trappings of a European country and all the guilt of a slave society.
They are massively different states.