On November 25, 2016, Fidel Castro, former leader of Cuba who ruled from 1959 to 2008, died at the age of ninety. The man who survived over six hundred attempts on his life and everything from violent revolution to exploding cigars and poisoned milkshakes couldn’t outlast the current year. His death sends an important message to the rest of us: Father Time is undefeated and will eventually always win. Ever since his expulsion of Fulgencio Batista from Cuba in 1959 and his confrontations with the United States in the early 1960’s, Castro has been hailed as a hero by his followers and sympathizers. He has been described as a hero of social justice and revolutionaries throughout the world, and a symbol of defiance against so-called American imperialism and “repugnant” capitalism.

Reflecting his polarizing legacy, world leaders’ reactions consisted of two different flavors. Oddly enough, the majority of the reactions were positive or neutral. Leader of the UK’s Labour Party, Jeremy Corbyn said Castro was a “huge figure in our lives” and President Obama released a diplomatic statement, saying among other things: “At this time of Fidel Castro’s passing, we extend a hand of friendship to the Cuban people,” Canadian prime minister, Justin Trudeau even said, “It is with deep sorrow that I learned today of the death of Cuba’s longest-serving President.” He went on to call the dictator a “larger than life figure who served his people for over half a century” and a “remarkable leader”. Perhaps he genuinely felt bad about Castro’s passing, but it’s more likely Trudeau said such misleading statements in an attempt to project his own decency. Meanwhile, others did not offer condolences. President-elect Donald Trump’s initial reaction was captured in a tweet: “Fidel Castro is dead!” A later official Trump statement compounded his thoughts on the event, calling the former leader a “brutal dictator who oppressed his own people for nearly six decades” and whose legacy is “one of firing squads, theft, unimaginable suffering, poverty, and the denial of fundamental human rights.” Naturally, left-leaning media jumped on Trump’s statements, stating that his gut reaction is “indicative of his character” and using it as another opportunity to attack him. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not a Trump supporter, nor am I defending Trump for what he said. Personally, a gut reaction like that is not preferable and a statement of condolence would have been more necessary at first. At least do that before making any criticism. After all, someone just died, and that has to be acknowledged. After the initial emotions, however, comes the time to analyze the deceased person’s life and critique their flaws.

The internet seems to be swamped with people on the left mourning and praising the late dictator as if he were a hero. He is, however, responsible for heinous crimes against his own people. For instance, if you support LGBTQ rights, you cannot logically consider Castro a hero. He considered homosexuality “counter-revolutionary” and “bourgeois decadence”. His regime established prison work camps into which he forced gay people, Jehovah's witnesses, and other groups that he considered “undesirables”. Those who openly identified as gay were barred from the Communist Party of Cuba and fired from their jobs. In the 1980s, during the height of the AIDS epidemic, he locked HIV-positive individuals into sanatoriums. This is a pretty condemning past for a country claiming to be a champion of LGBTQ rights. His atrocities don’t stop there. In 1987, it was estimated that Castro’s regime was responsible for the deaths of anywhere between 35,000 and 141,000 people, the median estimate of which is 78,000 up until that point. This figure consists of political dissidents, those who were killed in work camps, and others who tried to flee Cuba. Unfortunately, this is not enough information to confirm how the contemporary death toll because of how little communication exists between our two countries. I understand that world leaders must be more diplomatic in order to not escalate tension between countries, but individuals on the internet have less leeway. When someone dies, it’s the norm to discuss their lives. What I find ridiculous is the praise that Castro is receiving from those who should be relieved. How can my fellow liberals claim to stand up for oppressed peoples and then praise an oppressor of groups they claim to defend? How is Castro someone that you can look up to?

Sympathizers bring up supposed successes in Cuban socialism as examples of Castro’s leadership. One thing often said is that he liberated Cuba from capitalist influences. In 1959, Cuba’s GDP per capita per year was $2, 067, comparable to Puerto Rico’s ($3, 239)  and Panama’s ($2, 322) from the same year. By 1999, Panama’s GDP per capita per year was $5, 618 and Puerto Rico’s jumped to $13, 738. Meanwhile, Cuba’s stagnated, and was $2, 307. This is due to the nature of Cuba’s centrally planned socialist economy owning the vast majority of the country’s businesses at the expense of the private sector, a situation that continues even today. This doesn’t allow individual Cubans to earn money for themselves and it perpetuates a cycle of poverty.  A 2016 survey of Cubans revealed 27 percent make under $50 per month, 34 percent earned $50-$100 per month, and 20 percent earning $100-200. Only 1.5 percent of those surveyed made over $1,000 per month. Clearly, Castro didn’t make his people more prosperous after more than fifty years of rule. Bleak economic conditions remain the norm for ordinary Cubans and are likely to continue under Fidel’s brother, Raul.

Cuba has a universal health care system, investing 10% of its $80.66 billion GDP (in US Dollars) in 2014. Advocates for socialist programs will use Cuba’s health care programs as an example that the entire world should follow, citing the well-run hospitals visited by celebrities and tourists. They also point out Cuba’s life expectancy (79 years in 2016 matched that of the United States) and infant mortality rate (4.76 deaths per 1,000 in 2013 compared to 5.9 in the United States). These are valid statistics and are used by advocates of universal health care to try to prove their point. These hospitals are reserved, however, for the previously-mentioned visitors, government officials, and the elite. The rest of the population has to make do with poor-maintained, short-staffed, and dirty medical facilities. According to intensive care specialist Maritza Martinez, thousands of people have to wait for months to get basic medical care, and often have to resort to bribery in order to get access. Hospital wards are often not disinfected, some bathrooms lack toilets and sinks and have inconsistent supplies, and infested with c***roaches and mice. Issues are exacerbated by a domestic doctor shortage, ironic since there are thousands of Cuban medical staff working around the world and government denial of diseases such as cholera and dengue fever. The ignorance of these conditions is somewhat understandable because the good hospitals have received more media coverage and are talked about more. Stories like these paint the picture of a utopian Cuba that appears worthy of praise. Castro sympathizers will only post and share stories that confirm their biases and worldview, but they don’t do enough research to uncover the full story. Once that is uncovered, it reveals a man as divisive in death as he was in life.