What do you think?
Rate this book
Cien horas con Fidel
Varios han sido los libros publicados en el mundo a partir de largas entrevistas o conversaciones con Fidel Castro. Pero ninguno como éste alcanza la magnitud, la diversidad, la amplitud, el alcance y la trascendencia que tiene esta entrevista realizada entre 2003 y 2005 por el intelectual y periodista francés Ignacio Ramonet, director del mensuario parisino Le Monde Diplomatique, una de las voces más prestigiosas entre la intelectualidad progresista europea contemporánea, autor de numerosos libros y ensayos sobre temas de comunicación social y política internacional, uno de los principales impulsores y animadores del movimiento mundial de lucha contra la globalización neoliberal y amigo leal y sincero de Cuba y de la Revolución Cubana. Por el nivel de información y sagacidad del entrevistador, por la agudeza y pertinencia de sus preguntas, pero, sobre todo, por la profundidad, franqueza, modernidad y hondura de las respuestas del entrevistado, la apasionante conversación contenida en este libro tendrá, sin lugar a dudas, un valor perdurable, más allá de coyunturas y circunstancias.
813 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2006
About the author
Ignacio Ramonet
102 books43 followersIgnacio Ramonet es un periodista español establecido en Francia. Es una de las figuras principales del movimiento altermundista.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews
Read
August 6, 2025Leaving without a rating because I see it as a primary source rather than as a secondary one that it makes sense to rate.
This is not a work of journalism. Not critical journalism, anyway, and Ramonet says as much in his introduction. This is more a memoir or political testament by Fidel Castro, with occasional pushback here and there from Ramonet more to elucidate Fidel’s position clearly than to catch him in a lie or point out spin (of which there is much).
I think that the book is sufficiently wide ranging and with such an important figure in Cuban history that you should probably read it if you’re researching post-1959 history. I have found myself discovering multiple surprising little confirmations of things I had suspected here and there, which I will use in my own research. However, you should come into this as you would any political memoir; suspicious of factual claims and the honesty of the historical actor’s arguments.
More than simply being ‘aware’ of how he is perceived historically, Fidel was arguably obsessed with crafting the image of himself that he wanted in the history books. In order to project that you’ll find him committing all sorts of dishonesty, half truth, and omissions. Just some examples:
1) his defense of government policy during the UMAP forced labor and reeducation camps during the 60s, used here, was so unsustainable that he abandoned it in an interview with Carmen Lira of La Jornada in 2010 (look it up and read them side by side). Even his reformed answer in 2010 soft pedals the truth, so look into it more deeply to understand how dishonest he is being here.
2) dissidents are framed as ‘mercenaries’ or as tools of the U.S., without much of any agency of their own. Anything done by the dissidents is framed as being done entirely at the behest of American paymasters rather than because they genuinely believed in these causes.
3) Fidel’s defense of the allegedly democratic nature of the political system or the high quality of Cuba’s official press are laughable. Even Eduardo Galeano’s short bit on Fidel in his book Mirrors admits Fidel was a “king without a crown” who “preferred echoes to voices” and that “if Napoleon had had [the official communist party organ] Granma, nobody would have learned of Waterloo.
4) Fidel’s role in repeatedly derailing opportunities for normalization with the U.S. are left unmentioned (in the 70s, then again in the 90s) while the U.S. is the omnipresent excuse for any and all problems.
5) his excuses for the sinking of the 13 de Marzo boat in 1994 don’t stand up to basic scrutiny and directly contradict numerous survivors and the findings of Amnesty International; no way Cuban coast guard would have rammed the ferry boat like that without orders.
In short, read it critically as a highly curated primary source rather than as a work of journalism in which you can count on the journalist to do his job.
This is not a work of journalism. Not critical journalism, anyway, and Ramonet says as much in his introduction. This is more a memoir or political testament by Fidel Castro, with occasional pushback here and there from Ramonet more to elucidate Fidel’s position clearly than to catch him in a lie or point out spin (of which there is much).
I think that the book is sufficiently wide ranging and with such an important figure in Cuban history that you should probably read it if you’re researching post-1959 history. I have found myself discovering multiple surprising little confirmations of things I had suspected here and there, which I will use in my own research. However, you should come into this as you would any political memoir; suspicious of factual claims and the honesty of the historical actor’s arguments.
More than simply being ‘aware’ of how he is perceived historically, Fidel was arguably obsessed with crafting the image of himself that he wanted in the history books. In order to project that you’ll find him committing all sorts of dishonesty, half truth, and omissions. Just some examples:
1) his defense of government policy during the UMAP forced labor and reeducation camps during the 60s, used here, was so unsustainable that he abandoned it in an interview with Carmen Lira of La Jornada in 2010 (look it up and read them side by side). Even his reformed answer in 2010 soft pedals the truth, so look into it more deeply to understand how dishonest he is being here.
2) dissidents are framed as ‘mercenaries’ or as tools of the U.S., without much of any agency of their own. Anything done by the dissidents is framed as being done entirely at the behest of American paymasters rather than because they genuinely believed in these causes.
3) Fidel’s defense of the allegedly democratic nature of the political system or the high quality of Cuba’s official press are laughable. Even Eduardo Galeano’s short bit on Fidel in his book Mirrors admits Fidel was a “king without a crown” who “preferred echoes to voices” and that “if Napoleon had had [the official communist party organ] Granma, nobody would have learned of Waterloo.
4) Fidel’s role in repeatedly derailing opportunities for normalization with the U.S. are left unmentioned (in the 70s, then again in the 90s) while the U.S. is the omnipresent excuse for any and all problems.
5) his excuses for the sinking of the 13 de Marzo boat in 1994 don’t stand up to basic scrutiny and directly contradict numerous survivors and the findings of Amnesty International; no way Cuban coast guard would have rammed the ferry boat like that without orders.
In short, read it critically as a highly curated primary source rather than as a work of journalism in which you can count on the journalist to do his job.
March 26, 2016
Excelente! Totalmente remarcable su predisposición a responder las preguntas mas incomodas. Una mente privilegiada y brillante, que no le esquiva a ninguna cuestion.
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews