situation.

>I don't think he was trying to dismiss the civil rights era
>in America either, not intentionally at least, but your
>tremendously generous interpretation still leaves plenty of
>room for the idea that he simply didn't bother to think that
>these movements are:
>
>a)meaningfully connected, as the struggle against capitalism
>and colonialism in Cuba and the civil rights struggle in the
>United States and elsewhere clearly were
>
>b)relevant to the world as it presently stands
>
>Item "a" is just obnoxious, but the sort of thing I've gotten
>used to from exactly his type - people who majored in
>humanities but actively forget everything they learned when
>they start to make real money. Which is whatever.
>
>Item "b" is more of a problem because it fails to recognize
>the ways that the United States has created the context for
>our own disastrous foreign (and domestic) policy decisions. I
>care about his casual dismissal of Latin American coups in the
>70s and 80s much more than him thoughtlessly forgetting that
>the civil rights movement was part of a global struggle for
>freedom during that period because those are literally still
>occurring. And somebody who finds them to be isolated
>curiosities when we've, in the last six months, tried to upend
>Maduro and successfully upended Evo Morales is, at best, an
>extreme idiot and at worst, a dangerous bad actor.
>

He was speaking to the american people, tho. I think we need to be careful about assuming the vast (or even a significant) majority of people are regularly reflecting on the hierarchical parallels between Cuban and Black American revolutionary politics. Very few people would hear what he said and unpack it to this extent. Which isn't to say your interpretation isn't justified, but to say it's possible that someone could be fully aware of these nuances but tailoring their point to the average american.

>People who say that our foreign activity in the world over the
>last fifty years doesn't matter are announcing their
>intentions to do harm.
>


Lol but he literally didn't say any of this tho. And even if someone did, such a view sounds more like a libertarian framework than a neocon one. And to be clear I'm neither, but just want to suggest some guardrails for these extrapolations.

>
>Yeah, that framing should be rejected. It's harmful.
>

You see harm, I see optimism :)