We are pleased to add a new link to our "Fraternal Blogroll." It is Blogs Sobre Cuba, which has so far assembled links to 300 Cuban-themed blogs. It grows by a few more blogs every day and we should not be surprised if it eventually reached into the thousands. Right now it is the most comprehensive list yet compiled and you are encouraged to add to it by making suggestions in the Comments Section. The compiler does not categorize or make distinctions about the blogs. You will find there the whole political spectrum in more shades than you could ever imagine. You are free, of course, to visit or not visit any of the blogs. As a reader of this blog, you already are in the habit of thinking for yourself.
The link to Blogs Sobre Cuba will be found at the bottom of this page. But because we know that you are especially anxious to visit it, here's a shortcut:
http://www.blogssobrecuba.blogspot.com/
Saturday, December 8, 2007
University Students Re-Assume Historic Role As the Vanguard of All Cuban Revolutions
University students have always been the agents of change in Cuba since the founding of the Republic. The revolutions that overthrew Machado and Batista were in large part their doing. It is debatable whether either revolution was necessary but unquestionable that the evils which briefly followed the first and interminably the second were much worse than those which the students sought to remedy. The Revolution of 1933, the greatest bloodbath which our country had known since independence, did no harm to the institutions of the republic. If anything it strengthened them with the adoption of such reforms as the 8-hour working day and women's suffrage; and the greatest achievement of the Revolution of 1933, the abrogation of the Platt Amendment. Also, in just 3 years, all jailed Machado officials had been pardoned (none was ever executed) and many of these were returned to office in the elections of 1936.
The events of 1933 led many casual observers to believe that national reconciliation was impossible. They were wrong. Alliances were formed between the old politicos and the new without reference to the immediate past. Because the basic foundation of the republic was undisturbed, and barbarism was checked early by those who initially benefitted by it, the Revolution of 1933 was more of a generational shift than a seismic break with the past.
Gerardo Machado, the last general of Cubas's War of Independence to occupy the presidency, was the most popular president in Cuban history. At one time, all parties supported him and the people's adulation of him was real and near universal. His monumental public works programme, which transformed Cuba in every way, gave us the country which we know today. Then, practically overnight, he became the most hated man in Cuba. The Cuban economy was not immune to the effects of Great Depression but Machado may have weathered even that if he had not attempted to prolong his mandate by extending the presidential term from 4 to 6 years after winning re-election. Fearing that he might use this expedient to perpetuate himself in office, the students initiated a campaign of terrorism against the regime which threw the country into chaos. There were no battles between the rebels and government troops; there was not even the pretense of such battles as in the Castroite revolution. In fact, after Machado was overthrown, the constitutional army, which had been faithful to him, remained in place. The students were in charge of the government but not the army. It required another coup, within the army itself, to dislodge the old guard. This, too, was a generational revolution. This revolution-within-the revolution was led by a young sergeant, Fulgencio Batista, who was promoted to colonel and named head of the army by Ramón Grau San Martín, a university professor whom the students had chosen as president. Nothing is more amazing about the 1933 Revolution than the fact that the students chose one of their professors as their leader. Grau and Batista would dominate Cuban politics for the next 25 years, first as allies and then as rivals. Both were populists and progressives whose programmes never differed substantially; it was therefore possible for them to coalesce briefly to create the greatest monument of the Cuban Republic, the Constitution of 1940.
What brought about the Revolution of 1933 would also precipitate the Generation of 1953 to rebel against Batista. Not tyranny, because it was precisely the freedoms which Cubans enjoyed under both Machado and Batista which made these revolutions possible. Without the Rule of Law and constitutional protections neither revolution would have succeeded. The fact that Machado never unleashed the army on the students, and that Batista refused to bomb the Sierra Maestra or offer more than token resistance to the mock rebel army, no doubt had something to do with an older generation's condescension to a younger one which would one day judge it. The advanced state of Cuban civilization and national cohesion prevented a real civil war both in 1933 and 1953. The death penalty was never applied by Machado against his opponents nor by his opponents against Machado's followers. The Constitution of 1940, which abolished the peath penalty in Cuba, made Castro and his cohorts immune to the consequences of their actions; nor did Batista show any disposition to punish them beyond the bounds of the law. In no other country in the world, certainly not in the U.S., could terrorists have attacked an army barracks and been set free almost immediately to continue their campaign of terror. (Well, yes, something like it happened in the Weimar Germany; its leniancy with the putschists of 1923, who also benefitted from the Rule of Law, would have catastrophic results for Germany and the world). Batista used to refer to the rebels as "los muchachos." He believed that he could control them as Machado before him believed. He was more mistaken than Machado. The Revolution of 1933, incredibly, had no leader from its own ranks; an entire generation rebelled without a visible leader and when the time came to chose one, they deferred to someone (Grau) who did not belong to their generation and was very much in the mainstream of the establishment. The 1953 Revolution did have an undisputed leader who saw to it that all who might dispute his authority disappeared. He was no typical Cuban revolutionary because his revolution was not just generational but institutional. Fidel Castro's real goal was not to dislodge an entrenched autocrat but to destroy the Cuban Republic and establish the island's first real dictatorship. This Batista did not see, nor, indeed, did anybody else. Yes, Batista correctly identified Castro as a Communist; but Batista had co-opted the Communists before and did not realize that these particular Communists were not interested in being part of the establishment or even subverting it, but in destroying it. Castro's own democratic followers were either fooled by him or also thought they could control him, as the German junkers believed they could control Hitler. All were too late in realizing the peril he posed to the country, not merely to its political and social institutions, but to its freedom and independence.
Castro learned much from Machado and Batista. He learned from their mistakes not to repeat them. He knew that to enshrine himself in power indefinitely it was necessary to end that generational cycle which had brought him to power, that is, he had to suffocate the revolutionary spirit of future Cuban generations; only by neutering them could he perpetuate his rule and extend the influence of his generation for several generations. The Generation of 1953 refused to cede its place to its children, grandchildren or great-grandchildren. While the other Cuban generations which succeeded it withered and died from apoplexy before their time, it remained, if not eternally youthful, at least eternally omnipotent. It sublimated the revolutionary instincts of the other generations in failed sugar harvests and mercenary wars; but, especially, by focusing their attention on present necessities rather than future opportunities, which it accomplished by substituting the quest for self-realization with the struggle for survival. Castro's revolution was the revolution to end all revolutions: the everlasting revolution, which superceded the nation as the ultimate loyalty and nationality as the common identity. The Revolution became the sole unifying force in society, except that its object was not to unify but to divide the Cuban people. Like all Communist revolutions, Castro's was an anti-nationalist revolution which confounded and eventually replaced the nation with the party, or, more precisely, with a monopolistic plutocracy which exists to combat the public good.
Recently, the first indication appeared that a new generation of Cubans may rekindle the revolutionary spirit which once defined coming of age in Cuba, which made and unmade governments before 1959 without eviscerating the essence of the country. Now, however, it is not a question of preserving our national idiosyncrasy but of resurrecting it from under layers of brine meant to leave no trace of it.
5000 university students, faculty members and graduates with university degrees have signed a petition requesting that the regime allow universities to function independently of the state and reopen the country's former Catholic University, which was closed along with all the country's parochial schools at the start of the Revolution. On their part, it is not a symbolic gesture. Carrying a bus up the monumental stairs of the University of Havana in 1951 and sending it crashing down to protest a one-cent hike in the bus fare was a symbolic gesture. The students knew that they would face no repercussions. Although it may seem a bolder gesture, it was nothing but a stunt. This petition is another matter. It is the equal of hurling a 5000 bombs at Raúl's entourage or through Fidel's hospital window. The provocation should be judged not on the basis of the act itself but the reaction to it. Students didn't petition Machado in 1933 or Batista in 1953. If they had, a delegation would have been received at the presidential palace by the chief executive and their petition duly filed for further consideration. Certainly nothing would have happened to the students for pursuing their complaints through regular channels, not that anything would have changed. But engaging the Castro regime in a civilized manner and even availing themselves of the illusory rights in Castro's sham constitution to petition for change could have dire consequences for the students. At the least, it could end their lives as students. No student was ever expelled from university in Cuba before the Revolution because of political activism. The University, along with churches and embassies, were inviolate in pre-revolutionary Cuba and all three could and did offer asylum to political dissidents. Castro's own life was saved in the wake of the Moncada by the Church. The University itself was autonomous, which meant that it was off limits to the police or any other government entity. The University of Havana had thousands of "students" on its rolls that had not attended classes in decades, gangsters like Castro who, in effect, used the University as a hideout. Still, the government respected the extraterritoriality (which would be a more correct term than "autonomy") of the universities since it preferred the students to confine their activities to its precincts than run amok. You could say that the University was the "headquarters" of both the Revolution of 1933 and the Revolution of 1959. Given that fact, it is inconceivable, of course, that the Castro regime would ever grant the universities autonomy. You might as well petition it to grant all Cubans freedom. The petition is instructive, though, because it shows that Cuban students are acquainted with the history of their predecessors and willing, like them, to assume the vanguard role in challenging the government even without the protections and immunities which Castro and his generation enjoyed when they were students. It gives the lie to the notion that the Revolution was made for them and that they are its heirs. Rather, it shows that the Revolution robbed them of their birthright and that they know it.
The events of 1933 led many casual observers to believe that national reconciliation was impossible. They were wrong. Alliances were formed between the old politicos and the new without reference to the immediate past. Because the basic foundation of the republic was undisturbed, and barbarism was checked early by those who initially benefitted by it, the Revolution of 1933 was more of a generational shift than a seismic break with the past.
Gerardo Machado, the last general of Cubas's War of Independence to occupy the presidency, was the most popular president in Cuban history. At one time, all parties supported him and the people's adulation of him was real and near universal. His monumental public works programme, which transformed Cuba in every way, gave us the country which we know today. Then, practically overnight, he became the most hated man in Cuba. The Cuban economy was not immune to the effects of Great Depression but Machado may have weathered even that if he had not attempted to prolong his mandate by extending the presidential term from 4 to 6 years after winning re-election. Fearing that he might use this expedient to perpetuate himself in office, the students initiated a campaign of terrorism against the regime which threw the country into chaos. There were no battles between the rebels and government troops; there was not even the pretense of such battles as in the Castroite revolution. In fact, after Machado was overthrown, the constitutional army, which had been faithful to him, remained in place. The students were in charge of the government but not the army. It required another coup, within the army itself, to dislodge the old guard. This, too, was a generational revolution. This revolution-within-the revolution was led by a young sergeant, Fulgencio Batista, who was promoted to colonel and named head of the army by Ramón Grau San Martín, a university professor whom the students had chosen as president. Nothing is more amazing about the 1933 Revolution than the fact that the students chose one of their professors as their leader. Grau and Batista would dominate Cuban politics for the next 25 years, first as allies and then as rivals. Both were populists and progressives whose programmes never differed substantially; it was therefore possible for them to coalesce briefly to create the greatest monument of the Cuban Republic, the Constitution of 1940.
What brought about the Revolution of 1933 would also precipitate the Generation of 1953 to rebel against Batista. Not tyranny, because it was precisely the freedoms which Cubans enjoyed under both Machado and Batista which made these revolutions possible. Without the Rule of Law and constitutional protections neither revolution would have succeeded. The fact that Machado never unleashed the army on the students, and that Batista refused to bomb the Sierra Maestra or offer more than token resistance to the mock rebel army, no doubt had something to do with an older generation's condescension to a younger one which would one day judge it. The advanced state of Cuban civilization and national cohesion prevented a real civil war both in 1933 and 1953. The death penalty was never applied by Machado against his opponents nor by his opponents against Machado's followers. The Constitution of 1940, which abolished the peath penalty in Cuba, made Castro and his cohorts immune to the consequences of their actions; nor did Batista show any disposition to punish them beyond the bounds of the law. In no other country in the world, certainly not in the U.S., could terrorists have attacked an army barracks and been set free almost immediately to continue their campaign of terror. (Well, yes, something like it happened in the Weimar Germany; its leniancy with the putschists of 1923, who also benefitted from the Rule of Law, would have catastrophic results for Germany and the world). Batista used to refer to the rebels as "los muchachos." He believed that he could control them as Machado before him believed. He was more mistaken than Machado. The Revolution of 1933, incredibly, had no leader from its own ranks; an entire generation rebelled without a visible leader and when the time came to chose one, they deferred to someone (Grau) who did not belong to their generation and was very much in the mainstream of the establishment. The 1953 Revolution did have an undisputed leader who saw to it that all who might dispute his authority disappeared. He was no typical Cuban revolutionary because his revolution was not just generational but institutional. Fidel Castro's real goal was not to dislodge an entrenched autocrat but to destroy the Cuban Republic and establish the island's first real dictatorship. This Batista did not see, nor, indeed, did anybody else. Yes, Batista correctly identified Castro as a Communist; but Batista had co-opted the Communists before and did not realize that these particular Communists were not interested in being part of the establishment or even subverting it, but in destroying it. Castro's own democratic followers were either fooled by him or also thought they could control him, as the German junkers believed they could control Hitler. All were too late in realizing the peril he posed to the country, not merely to its political and social institutions, but to its freedom and independence.
Castro learned much from Machado and Batista. He learned from their mistakes not to repeat them. He knew that to enshrine himself in power indefinitely it was necessary to end that generational cycle which had brought him to power, that is, he had to suffocate the revolutionary spirit of future Cuban generations; only by neutering them could he perpetuate his rule and extend the influence of his generation for several generations. The Generation of 1953 refused to cede its place to its children, grandchildren or great-grandchildren. While the other Cuban generations which succeeded it withered and died from apoplexy before their time, it remained, if not eternally youthful, at least eternally omnipotent. It sublimated the revolutionary instincts of the other generations in failed sugar harvests and mercenary wars; but, especially, by focusing their attention on present necessities rather than future opportunities, which it accomplished by substituting the quest for self-realization with the struggle for survival. Castro's revolution was the revolution to end all revolutions: the everlasting revolution, which superceded the nation as the ultimate loyalty and nationality as the common identity. The Revolution became the sole unifying force in society, except that its object was not to unify but to divide the Cuban people. Like all Communist revolutions, Castro's was an anti-nationalist revolution which confounded and eventually replaced the nation with the party, or, more precisely, with a monopolistic plutocracy which exists to combat the public good.
Recently, the first indication appeared that a new generation of Cubans may rekindle the revolutionary spirit which once defined coming of age in Cuba, which made and unmade governments before 1959 without eviscerating the essence of the country. Now, however, it is not a question of preserving our national idiosyncrasy but of resurrecting it from under layers of brine meant to leave no trace of it.
5000 university students, faculty members and graduates with university degrees have signed a petition requesting that the regime allow universities to function independently of the state and reopen the country's former Catholic University, which was closed along with all the country's parochial schools at the start of the Revolution. On their part, it is not a symbolic gesture. Carrying a bus up the monumental stairs of the University of Havana in 1951 and sending it crashing down to protest a one-cent hike in the bus fare was a symbolic gesture. The students knew that they would face no repercussions. Although it may seem a bolder gesture, it was nothing but a stunt. This petition is another matter. It is the equal of hurling a 5000 bombs at Raúl's entourage or through Fidel's hospital window. The provocation should be judged not on the basis of the act itself but the reaction to it. Students didn't petition Machado in 1933 or Batista in 1953. If they had, a delegation would have been received at the presidential palace by the chief executive and their petition duly filed for further consideration. Certainly nothing would have happened to the students for pursuing their complaints through regular channels, not that anything would have changed. But engaging the Castro regime in a civilized manner and even availing themselves of the illusory rights in Castro's sham constitution to petition for change could have dire consequences for the students. At the least, it could end their lives as students. No student was ever expelled from university in Cuba before the Revolution because of political activism. The University, along with churches and embassies, were inviolate in pre-revolutionary Cuba and all three could and did offer asylum to political dissidents. Castro's own life was saved in the wake of the Moncada by the Church. The University itself was autonomous, which meant that it was off limits to the police or any other government entity. The University of Havana had thousands of "students" on its rolls that had not attended classes in decades, gangsters like Castro who, in effect, used the University as a hideout. Still, the government respected the extraterritoriality (which would be a more correct term than "autonomy") of the universities since it preferred the students to confine their activities to its precincts than run amok. You could say that the University was the "headquarters" of both the Revolution of 1933 and the Revolution of 1959. Given that fact, it is inconceivable, of course, that the Castro regime would ever grant the universities autonomy. You might as well petition it to grant all Cubans freedom. The petition is instructive, though, because it shows that Cuban students are acquainted with the history of their predecessors and willing, like them, to assume the vanguard role in challenging the government even without the protections and immunities which Castro and his generation enjoyed when they were students. It gives the lie to the notion that the Revolution was made for them and that they are its heirs. Rather, it shows that the Revolution robbed them of their birthright and that they know it.
Friday, December 7, 2007
On the Anniversary of Antonio Maceo's Death (1896-2007)
"I am now and I will always be on the side of liberty as my principles and sense of duty dictate. You say that we are confronted by insurmountable obstacles, but what was impossible yesterday may prove possible today. It is easy and fashionable for the defeatists among us to claim the gift of prophecy and condemn an entire people to perpetual degradation when even death by the tyrant's sword is preferable to living like debased savages under his heel. Given Cuba's present situation, what could be worse than to have our rights trampled by rapacious foreigners; our people exploited by befouled henchmen and political intriguers and submitted to hellish tortures and executions without end? Prison, chains, gallows, all this is still to be preferred to the shame of never having fought without respite for our liberties." — Antonio Maceo
Today marks the 111th anniversary of the death in battle of General Antonio Maceo, which was commemorated in Cuba as our Memorial Day. Half a million Cubans died besides Maceo in our wars of independence. Maceo exemplified for Cubans that vast legion of heroes who shed their blood more generously for freedom's cause than any other people in the history of this hemisphere. To appreciate the magnitude of that sacrifice, it is enough to point out that 4000 Americans died in Washington's Revolution and 10,000 South Americans in Bolívar's. Maceo was the greatest soldier and the greatest loss that the cause of Cuban arms ever sustained. No date is more fitting to remember all who have laid down their lives for our country, then and in all times, than the anniversary of Maceo's death.
José Martí said of Maceo that his mind was just as powerful as his arm. His letters, both personal and public, show him to have been a profound student of history who synthesized its lessons in sculpted sentences worthy of Caesar. Yet he is known, and has always been known, not as one of the political architects of our country — though he certainly was that — but as the intrepid soldier; the tireless fighter for his country's freedom; a veteran of three wars and more than 1000 battles; the man who bore on his body the scars of 22 combat wounds; and, of course, the peerless general — in sum, the arm of the Revolution. His military genius has always been acknowledged even by his enemies, who rejoiced at his death as at no else's because they believed, wrongly, that it would mean the end of the war so sure were they that no one could replace him (and, indeed, no one man could; but many men did). As a leader of men, it is enough to say his general staff included white men from Cuba's first families and that their loyalty and obedience to him were absolute and transcended race and all other superficial differences which then were less superficial than today. In him the general stood no higher than the citizen. His commitment to republicanism and the Rule of Law, his abhorrence of anarchy and barbarism, his fundamental sense of justice, and, above all, his noble intransigence, made him an exemplar of not only military but civic virtues.
Some day his tomb, desecrated hundreds of times by the Communists, who not only buried Blas Roca beside him but paraded troops destined for mercenary wars before it, will again become the altar of patriotism which it always represented to our people before history was buried in our country.
Today marks the 111th anniversary of the death in battle of General Antonio Maceo, which was commemorated in Cuba as our Memorial Day. Half a million Cubans died besides Maceo in our wars of independence. Maceo exemplified for Cubans that vast legion of heroes who shed their blood more generously for freedom's cause than any other people in the history of this hemisphere. To appreciate the magnitude of that sacrifice, it is enough to point out that 4000 Americans died in Washington's Revolution and 10,000 South Americans in Bolívar's. Maceo was the greatest soldier and the greatest loss that the cause of Cuban arms ever sustained. No date is more fitting to remember all who have laid down their lives for our country, then and in all times, than the anniversary of Maceo's death.
José Martí said of Maceo that his mind was just as powerful as his arm. His letters, both personal and public, show him to have been a profound student of history who synthesized its lessons in sculpted sentences worthy of Caesar. Yet he is known, and has always been known, not as one of the political architects of our country — though he certainly was that — but as the intrepid soldier; the tireless fighter for his country's freedom; a veteran of three wars and more than 1000 battles; the man who bore on his body the scars of 22 combat wounds; and, of course, the peerless general — in sum, the arm of the Revolution. His military genius has always been acknowledged even by his enemies, who rejoiced at his death as at no else's because they believed, wrongly, that it would mean the end of the war so sure were they that no one could replace him (and, indeed, no one man could; but many men did). As a leader of men, it is enough to say his general staff included white men from Cuba's first families and that their loyalty and obedience to him were absolute and transcended race and all other superficial differences which then were less superficial than today. In him the general stood no higher than the citizen. His commitment to republicanism and the Rule of Law, his abhorrence of anarchy and barbarism, his fundamental sense of justice, and, above all, his noble intransigence, made him an exemplar of not only military but civic virtues.
Some day his tomb, desecrated hundreds of times by the Communists, who not only buried Blas Roca beside him but paraded troops destined for mercenary wars before it, will again become the altar of patriotism which it always represented to our people before history was buried in our country.
Thursday, December 6, 2007
Cuban Memorial Day: Remembering the Heroic Defenders of the Republic
A photograph sometimes tells more than a thousand words. This one from July 26, 1953 depicts the heroic defense of the Moncada Army Barracks (actually, the nearby Saturnino Lora Hospital, which was the real target of the attack). A patient crouches on his hospital bed as a soldier of Cuba's Constitutional Army stands guard over him and the liberties of the Cuban people. This was the beginning of Fidel Castro's reign of terror. If the determination of this brave soldier had been shown by his military superiors and his Commander-in-Chief, this defeat would have been the first and last of the Castroite Revolution.
On this Cuban Memorial Day we pay homage to all our countrymen who at any time defended the Republic with valor and honor against enemies foreign or domestic.
Mitt Romney: The Buck Stops With the Landscaper
Mitt "Patria o Muerte" Romney has fired his landscaper for hiring illegal immigrants to tend the grounds of his estate in suburban Boston, which Giuliani memorably referred to in a recent debate as "sanctuary manor." The landscaper, of course, was merely the middleman, whose job it was to hire and pay the workers. The boss, who paid both the landscaper and the workers, was Mitt Romney; but the buck stops with the landscaper (literally). Not very presidential, to say the least; but eminently patrician.
Of course, we believe Romney when he says that he didn't know for a fact that his lawn, hedges and trees, the mini forest in which he immures himself, was tended by undocumented workers. He didn't see the workers for the trees. He could have walked right pass them and he wouldn't have noticed them. He should have known, however, that no one in Boston works for $5.00 an hour except "illegals." If he can even find white or black landscapers in Boston, he had better be ready to pay them more than $5.00 per hour. He certainly can afford not to break the law or compromise his xenophobic principles.
It must be in the water that both Democrats and Republicans imbibe in Massachussetts. Political craveness, that is. The Kennedys have no monopoly on it, and it's a miracle they have been contaminated to the extent they have because water is not exactly their favorite drink. It is Romney's only drink and he takes it undiluted since not only alcohol but coffee, tea and soda are forbidden to Mormons.
This may explain why Romney is as hateful and warped as he is: not because he is a Mormon (the Latter-Day Saints, after all, consider the Mexican descendents of the Aztecs to be God's chosen people, to whom Christ supposedly appeared in North America after His Crucifixion with a new revelation contained in the Book of Mormon) but because he is the creature of a political culture which, whether on the right or left, is nativist and exclusionary, as Irish immigrants learned 150 years ago and as Hispanics are learning today. The Boston nabobs eventually accepted the Irish, who, after all, were white if Catholic. (The Ku Klux Klan, too, would eventually accept Catholics as white). But whether Hispanics will ever be tolerated, let alone embraced, by the establishment in Romney's neck of woods, remains to be seen. Of course, nothing is impossible. The Mormon Church banned blacks from its priesthood from the time of Brigham Young because it considered them the accursed children of Ham, condemned to labor as slaves. In 1978, the Prophet of the Mormon Church (yes, that's his official title), received a revelation that blacks were no longer cursed and could enter the Mormon priesthood (to which all male Mormons belong). I remember that The New York Times was actually able to find one black Mormon sympathizer who rejoiced at the prospect of being the first black sheep to be let into the fold.
Romney can still play the race card in Massachussetts with no backlash from his white constituents since they use undocumented Hispanic workers exactly as Romney did, because their labor is cheap and they are powerless. It is in their interest, as in Romney's, to keep them that way. If Mexican migrants were granted legal residency, not only would they be ill-disposed to accept slave's wages but they would support the only party that doesn't demonize them, and this is something that someone like Romney cannot allow. Republicans in Massachussetts are already a minority; it is doubtful how much more of a minority they can become and still remain viable after bogeyman Ted Kennedy passes from the scene. For Romney there is no compromise; he will not concede even an inch to common decency or humanity. He made that quite clear at the last presidential debate where he savaged Mike Hucklebee for granting merit scholarships to undocumented high school students in his state. This is not even Romney at his most draconian. He also favors excluding these students from public schools and, at the very least, denying them school lunch. What he really wants, of course, is a Constitutional amendment that would deprive the U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants of their citizenship. With the exception of Hucklebee and Giuliani, the rest of the Republican candidates are just as xenophobic as Romney though somwhat more discreet (except Tancredo, without whom Romney would be the Ultima Thule of nativism in the Republican Party).
There are those who believe that Cuban-Americans receive a "free pass to white" from Republicans. This is simply not true. Republicans can't tell a Cuban from a Mexican, and, much worse, they regard Mexicans as the real threat to the stability of this country, not Castro and his South American disciples. Not that Democrats are any different. But Cuban exiles, of course, don't support Democrats.
Of course, we believe Romney when he says that he didn't know for a fact that his lawn, hedges and trees, the mini forest in which he immures himself, was tended by undocumented workers. He didn't see the workers for the trees. He could have walked right pass them and he wouldn't have noticed them. He should have known, however, that no one in Boston works for $5.00 an hour except "illegals." If he can even find white or black landscapers in Boston, he had better be ready to pay them more than $5.00 per hour. He certainly can afford not to break the law or compromise his xenophobic principles.
It must be in the water that both Democrats and Republicans imbibe in Massachussetts. Political craveness, that is. The Kennedys have no monopoly on it, and it's a miracle they have been contaminated to the extent they have because water is not exactly their favorite drink. It is Romney's only drink and he takes it undiluted since not only alcohol but coffee, tea and soda are forbidden to Mormons.
This may explain why Romney is as hateful and warped as he is: not because he is a Mormon (the Latter-Day Saints, after all, consider the Mexican descendents of the Aztecs to be God's chosen people, to whom Christ supposedly appeared in North America after His Crucifixion with a new revelation contained in the Book of Mormon) but because he is the creature of a political culture which, whether on the right or left, is nativist and exclusionary, as Irish immigrants learned 150 years ago and as Hispanics are learning today. The Boston nabobs eventually accepted the Irish, who, after all, were white if Catholic. (The Ku Klux Klan, too, would eventually accept Catholics as white). But whether Hispanics will ever be tolerated, let alone embraced, by the establishment in Romney's neck of woods, remains to be seen. Of course, nothing is impossible. The Mormon Church banned blacks from its priesthood from the time of Brigham Young because it considered them the accursed children of Ham, condemned to labor as slaves. In 1978, the Prophet of the Mormon Church (yes, that's his official title), received a revelation that blacks were no longer cursed and could enter the Mormon priesthood (to which all male Mormons belong). I remember that The New York Times was actually able to find one black Mormon sympathizer who rejoiced at the prospect of being the first black sheep to be let into the fold.
Romney can still play the race card in Massachussetts with no backlash from his white constituents since they use undocumented Hispanic workers exactly as Romney did, because their labor is cheap and they are powerless. It is in their interest, as in Romney's, to keep them that way. If Mexican migrants were granted legal residency, not only would they be ill-disposed to accept slave's wages but they would support the only party that doesn't demonize them, and this is something that someone like Romney cannot allow. Republicans in Massachussetts are already a minority; it is doubtful how much more of a minority they can become and still remain viable after bogeyman Ted Kennedy passes from the scene. For Romney there is no compromise; he will not concede even an inch to common decency or humanity. He made that quite clear at the last presidential debate where he savaged Mike Hucklebee for granting merit scholarships to undocumented high school students in his state. This is not even Romney at his most draconian. He also favors excluding these students from public schools and, at the very least, denying them school lunch. What he really wants, of course, is a Constitutional amendment that would deprive the U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants of their citizenship. With the exception of Hucklebee and Giuliani, the rest of the Republican candidates are just as xenophobic as Romney though somwhat more discreet (except Tancredo, without whom Romney would be the Ultima Thule of nativism in the Republican Party).
There are those who believe that Cuban-Americans receive a "free pass to white" from Republicans. This is simply not true. Republicans can't tell a Cuban from a Mexican, and, much worse, they regard Mexicans as the real threat to the stability of this country, not Castro and his South American disciples. Not that Democrats are any different. But Cuban exiles, of course, don't support Democrats.
Wednesday, December 5, 2007
A Last Observation on the Elenita Case
I haven't commented on this before because it seemed rather cursi to me, but since this is the last post on this subject for a long time and nobody else has remarked on it, I can indulge in the observation that it is highly coincidental and eminently allegorical that the champion of authentic cubanidad in this judicial contest should be named "Cubas" and Castro's black knight "Izquierdo."
"What Can You Do for Me, Baby?"
The famous pig and malanga farmer from Cabaiguán, who came to the U.S. with the expressed purpose of delivering his daughter to Castro, will instead be residing with his family here until 2010 or 2012, when, supposedly, he intends to return with his prize to the fatherland. In the meantime, he needs a job, his stipend from the G-2 apparently not being sufficient to support the lifestyle to which he has become accustomed. Although both pigs and malangas are a lot more common here than in Cuba, Rafael Izquierdo is afraid that he may not find suitable employment in his chosen line of work (chosen from a list of noble proletarian jobs which he likewise never held). I am sure that some generous pig farmer in Florida will allow him to wallow with his pigs if he grows tired of his handlers. It appears, however, that Izquierdo would prefer to do electrical work here. The poor man is unaware that, unlike in Cuba, there are independent unions in this country. Joe Cubas has generously offered to assist him and his family (there have been private discussions about that) but Izquierdo says that he prefers to work. It will certainly be a new experience for him as his neighbors from Cabaiguán never knew exactly what he did for a living but don't remember him with any special essence de porcine. America presents other opportunities for him: he could, for example, increase his stable of common-law wives.
Whatever happens on Rafael Izquierdo's road to assimilation at least his daughter will be safe for the next two and one-half years. As expected, Circuit Judge Jeri B. Cohen approved the out of court settlement between Cubas and Izquierdo which granted the latter custody and gave him a generous grace period in which to decide whether he wishes to raise his daughter in slavery or freedom.
The trial ended with Cubas and Izquierdo shaking hands and hugging. Maybe Cubas can adopt Izquierdo.
Tuesday, December 4, 2007
Notable & Venting: Henry Among the Freaks
"There's a jealous freak out there that says I wanted Elián to be sent back to Cuba. Forget for the moment that this jealous freak doesn't even know me, has never spoken with me and certainly didn't even know who I was back during the Elián saga, my words regarding Elián speak for themselves. Jealous lying freak." — Henry Gómez, Cuban-American Pundits, "Jealous Freak," November 27, 2007
I will first have you note that he is afraid even to address me by name. Nor does he dare to do so on Babalú, where he knows that I (and others) would notice. Instead, he hides on his own hugely unread blog and hopes that his fulminations will not reach me. Fond conceit. Everything that Henry says about me always reaches me. His friends see to that.
So I am a "jealous lying freak?"
It is rather pathetic, isn't it? The enormity of his ego matches his girth. I do not know of even one attribute of Henry's that I could covet. If I did it would be only because I wanted to demean my own talents. And why would I do that?
He has a right to be ashamed of his past and I cannot blame him for walking away from it. Still, he cannot rewrite his personal history or call me a liar because I am acquainted with it. I am not the only one. I will not betray what was told to me in confidence. But there is no doubt in my mind that Henry was fanatical about Elián being returned to Cuba. His disdain for Elenita is but a faint reflection of his conduct at the time of the Elián affaire. It was the good opinion of his Anglo neighbors and judges that mattered to Henry, not the life of this hapless boy. So it was then and so it is now. At least among Cuban exiles, it was Henry's stance which qualified him as a "freak." Of course, among "American-Cubans" — the label which he invented for himself — his conduct may have been quite "normal."
I must confess that I find Henry's puerile petulance rather amusing. I'm just glad that I can be amused at a distance. I should not be pleased if I actually had to witness his temper tantrums, which is the price that his intimates must pay for associating with him.
POSTSCRIPT:
Since 2005, Henry has been against returning Elián to Cuba. He has cited numerous posts to prove it. In a related story, Gretta Himmelgeister claims to have hidden Jews from the Nazis in 1950.
I will first have you note that he is afraid even to address me by name. Nor does he dare to do so on Babalú, where he knows that I (and others) would notice. Instead, he hides on his own hugely unread blog and hopes that his fulminations will not reach me. Fond conceit. Everything that Henry says about me always reaches me. His friends see to that.
So I am a "jealous lying freak?"
It is rather pathetic, isn't it? The enormity of his ego matches his girth. I do not know of even one attribute of Henry's that I could covet. If I did it would be only because I wanted to demean my own talents. And why would I do that?
He has a right to be ashamed of his past and I cannot blame him for walking away from it. Still, he cannot rewrite his personal history or call me a liar because I am acquainted with it. I am not the only one. I will not betray what was told to me in confidence. But there is no doubt in my mind that Henry was fanatical about Elián being returned to Cuba. His disdain for Elenita is but a faint reflection of his conduct at the time of the Elián affaire. It was the good opinion of his Anglo neighbors and judges that mattered to Henry, not the life of this hapless boy. So it was then and so it is now. At least among Cuban exiles, it was Henry's stance which qualified him as a "freak." Of course, among "American-Cubans" — the label which he invented for himself — his conduct may have been quite "normal."
I must confess that I find Henry's puerile petulance rather amusing. I'm just glad that I can be amused at a distance. I should not be pleased if I actually had to witness his temper tantrums, which is the price that his intimates must pay for associating with him.
POSTSCRIPT:
Since 2005, Henry has been against returning Elián to Cuba. He has cited numerous posts to prove it. In a related story, Gretta Himmelgeister claims to have hidden Jews from the Nazis in 1950.
Well, This Is Nice
Yes, it is. Bloggers United for Cuban Liberty (BUCL) has turned the corner. It is no longer preaching ethnic hatred or pursuing self-delusions, as it did with its "Campaign Against Spain" and its "Campaign for Sting's Soul." It's third and latest campaign is neither evil nor whimsical, but grounded in the reality of the present day, following rather than attempting to lead a movement which must originate on the island and which we may hope to assist but should not try to preempt or co-opt.
BUCL will launch on December 7th its "Campaign for CAMBIO" with the unveiling of a painting by Carlos A. Navarro celebrating the heroism of the young people in Cuba who have defied the status quo by donning wristbands calling for CHANGE. Posters of the painting will be sold (but why only a "limited number?") with the proceeds going to dissidents in Cuba. This activity is described by Babalú as intended to commemorate International Human Rights Day on December 10th. Surely they are also aware that December 7th is the anniversary of Antonio Maceo's death, commemorated by Cubans as our Memorial Day.
There is nothing spectacular about BUCL's Third Campaign: no airplanes with streaming banners, no grandiose calls for a crusade against a kindred people; just genuine caring and the disposition to be useful. Greatness is always simple and never calls attention to itself; artifice always seeks effects rather than results and attention instead of anonymity.
BUCL will launch on December 7th its "Campaign for CAMBIO" with the unveiling of a painting by Carlos A. Navarro celebrating the heroism of the young people in Cuba who have defied the status quo by donning wristbands calling for CHANGE. Posters of the painting will be sold (but why only a "limited number?") with the proceeds going to dissidents in Cuba. This activity is described by Babalú as intended to commemorate International Human Rights Day on December 10th. Surely they are also aware that December 7th is the anniversary of Antonio Maceo's death, commemorated by Cubans as our Memorial Day.
There is nothing spectacular about BUCL's Third Campaign: no airplanes with streaming banners, no grandiose calls for a crusade against a kindred people; just genuine caring and the disposition to be useful. Greatness is always simple and never calls attention to itself; artifice always seeks effects rather than results and attention instead of anonymity.
Babaloo's Waterloos: Shilling for the Republican Party
Proving, yet again, as if it were necessary to belabor the point, that Babalú is a shill for the Republican Party, the shilliest of all its editors, Henry Gómez, self-described political animal since the age of 5, has delivered himself of his latest mock campaign poster for the Democratic Party. In this one he reproduces the photograph of Bay of Pigs commander Erneido "Tony" Oliva handing the flag of the Brigade 2506 to President Kennedy at the Orange Bowl as Manuel Artime looks on. Note the profound expression on Artime's face conveying the disdain of all freedom-loving Cubans for the dilettante president who had betrayed them.
Henry Gómez has added this caption to a picture that needs no caption: "In 48 weeks we'd like you to vote Democrat and let bygones be bygones." Quite apart from the sheer offensiveness of exploiting the selfless patriotism of those men, there is the implication that the Republicans have been historically more sympathetic to Cuba's freedom than have the Democrats, which is simply not true. For those who are historically-challenged, like Henry Gómez, it was the Republican administration of Dwight D. Eisenhower which installed Fidel Castro in power. Ironically, in the previous post, Alberto de la Cruz had linked with high praise an interview where Humberto Fontova states exactly that.
I must confess that I find it difficult to conclude which are the most to blame: the Republicans who put Castro in power or the Democrats who have maintained him there. All Democratic presidents since Johnson, and all Republicans presidents since Nixon, have sent emissaries to negotiate with Castro. They have all lied to us and betrayed us. Cubans owe no special fealty to either party and have every reason to despise both.
Henry Gómez has added this caption to a picture that needs no caption: "In 48 weeks we'd like you to vote Democrat and let bygones be bygones." Quite apart from the sheer offensiveness of exploiting the selfless patriotism of those men, there is the implication that the Republicans have been historically more sympathetic to Cuba's freedom than have the Democrats, which is simply not true. For those who are historically-challenged, like Henry Gómez, it was the Republican administration of Dwight D. Eisenhower which installed Fidel Castro in power. Ironically, in the previous post, Alberto de la Cruz had linked with high praise an interview where Humberto Fontova states exactly that.
I must confess that I find it difficult to conclude which are the most to blame: the Republicans who put Castro in power or the Democrats who have maintained him there. All Democratic presidents since Johnson, and all Republicans presidents since Nixon, have sent emissaries to negotiate with Castro. They have all lied to us and betrayed us. Cubans owe no special fealty to either party and have every reason to despise both.
Monday, December 3, 2007
Fidel Castro: No Elections in the Interest of Fairness
"Elections could not be held now because they would not be fair. We have an overwhelming majority at present and it is in the interest of the nation that the political parties become fully developed and their programs defined before elections are held." — Fidel Castro, The New York Times, February 28, 1959
Ever so solicitous of the interests of the opposition Fidel Castro declined to hold elections in 1959 because it "would not be fair" as support for the Revolution ("his" party) was overwhelming and other political parties needed time to "fully develop" and "define their programs" before becoming viable.
Well, it's been 48 years that Castro has patiently waited for the evolution of other political parties. But the opposition has failed to do its part by not becoming viable despite much encouragement from him (you know, the blood of martyrs fertilizes the seeds of freedom).
Can anyone blame him, then, for his unitary-party elections or the fact that he will run yet again unopposed for the People's Assembly of Popular Power (or whatever it's called)?
Too bad for Chávez that Venezuela's political parties are so damnably viable. He's going to have to find some way to "pacify them" and it's not going to be at all democratic.
Ever so solicitous of the interests of the opposition Fidel Castro declined to hold elections in 1959 because it "would not be fair" as support for the Revolution ("his" party) was overwhelming and other political parties needed time to "fully develop" and "define their programs" before becoming viable.
Well, it's been 48 years that Castro has patiently waited for the evolution of other political parties. But the opposition has failed to do its part by not becoming viable despite much encouragement from him (you know, the blood of martyrs fertilizes the seeds of freedom).
Can anyone blame him, then, for his unitary-party elections or the fact that he will run yet again unopposed for the People's Assembly of Popular Power (or whatever it's called)?
Too bad for Chávez that Venezuela's political parties are so damnably viable. He's going to have to find some way to "pacify them" and it's not going to be at all democratic.
The Real Results of the Venezuelan Election
Does anyone even remotely believe that if the real margin of defeat in the Venezuelan Constitutional Referendum had been just 1.4 percentage points that Chávez would not have tried to invert that margin?
Does anyone remotely believe that if he had indeed lost by 1.4% Chávez would not have petitioned the Supreme Court (which he controls) to order a recount?
Clearly, Chávez's margin of defeat was at least 2 digits and perhaps even as high as 30 points or more.
Even a 70-30 loss would not accurately reflect the popular dissatisfaction with Chávez because 44 percent of the electorate boycotted the election. Certainly Chávez supporters had no reason to boycott, so it stands to reason that those who did were against Chávez but afraid of the very real repercussions of voting against him.
If we compute their passive resistance as a negative vote, then a minimum of 75% and a maximum of 95% rejected Chávez's constitutional reforms aimed at making Venezuela a Marxist state and himself dictator till 2050.
Still, this means nothing because he can do both extraconstitutionally and will.
POSTSCRIPT:
Charlie Bravo said...
Yes, Manuel, he's teary eyed, but he's not stepping down. Somehow it reminds me of the gambit played by Fidel Castro when he "quitted," or he suggested that he "would quit" at the beginning of the robolution. Almost fifty years later he's still there, advising el Mico Putumayo on how to go at it.
A 1.5% would have not triggered such reaction from Chávez. On the contrary, he would have easily obliterated the difference and declared himself winner with more than 30% advantage.
The numbers were probably such that the only way of declaring a victory would have been a self-coup-d'etat. So he is now buying some time, and no later than the end of this week we will see what he's got in the bag for Venezuela.
Now, there's no constitutional reform, but ... who ever said that a dictator needs a constitutional reform to rule?
He will obliterate the constitution by signing some edicts, and some emergency measures, and by suspending the public freedoms and guarantees whenever he feels it convenient.
A tyranny doesn't consult with the people, that's why it's not called democracy.
This was just a farce, and believe me, both Castro and Chávez had this trick properly codified in case that the numbers were against the monkey-boy. The only objective of a revolution is to install a tyranny — in most cases. But the only objective of a tyrant is to keep himself in power, in all cases.
12/03/2007 11:44 AM
Does anyone remotely believe that if he had indeed lost by 1.4% Chávez would not have petitioned the Supreme Court (which he controls) to order a recount?
Clearly, Chávez's margin of defeat was at least 2 digits and perhaps even as high as 30 points or more.
Even a 70-30 loss would not accurately reflect the popular dissatisfaction with Chávez because 44 percent of the electorate boycotted the election. Certainly Chávez supporters had no reason to boycott, so it stands to reason that those who did were against Chávez but afraid of the very real repercussions of voting against him.
If we compute their passive resistance as a negative vote, then a minimum of 75% and a maximum of 95% rejected Chávez's constitutional reforms aimed at making Venezuela a Marxist state and himself dictator till 2050.
Still, this means nothing because he can do both extraconstitutionally and will.
POSTSCRIPT:
Charlie Bravo said...
Yes, Manuel, he's teary eyed, but he's not stepping down. Somehow it reminds me of the gambit played by Fidel Castro when he "quitted," or he suggested that he "would quit" at the beginning of the robolution. Almost fifty years later he's still there, advising el Mico Putumayo on how to go at it.
A 1.5% would have not triggered such reaction from Chávez. On the contrary, he would have easily obliterated the difference and declared himself winner with more than 30% advantage.
The numbers were probably such that the only way of declaring a victory would have been a self-coup-d'etat. So he is now buying some time, and no later than the end of this week we will see what he's got in the bag for Venezuela.
Now, there's no constitutional reform, but ... who ever said that a dictator needs a constitutional reform to rule?
He will obliterate the constitution by signing some edicts, and some emergency measures, and by suspending the public freedoms and guarantees whenever he feels it convenient.
A tyranny doesn't consult with the people, that's why it's not called democracy.
This was just a farce, and believe me, both Castro and Chávez had this trick properly codified in case that the numbers were against the monkey-boy. The only objective of a revolution is to install a tyranny — in most cases. But the only objective of a tyrant is to keep himself in power, in all cases.
12/03/2007 11:44 AM
Sunday, December 2, 2007
Babalú Brands Castro's Victims as the "The Cuban Problem"
If there's one thing that Babalú doesn't like it is immigrants. They support having the Great Wall of China erected along the Mexican border to protect the U.S. from their peace-loving "Mongolians." Of course, if one considers history, it is the Mexicans who should have built the wall at the time they gained their independence 200 years ago. The greatest threat to Mexican sovereignty has always been the United States; never has Mexico posed any threat to the sovereignty of the U.S. Yet, it is the predator that seeks to protect itself from the prey. It is, in any case, a very American conceit. Americans have a propensity to see themselves as victims in every situation even if they are the catalyst for their own "victimization." Cuban-Americans — or, I should say, "American-Cubans" — are indeed more American in this respect than Cuban. The pathetic Mexicans who worship Fidel Castro for having done for nearly 50 years what they would not do for one day — that is, defy the U.S. — are the photographic negatives of these "American-Cubans" — they hate blindly what the other loves blindly. As Martí warned, blind adulation or hostility to our Northern neighbor is alike unadvisable: both carry the seeds of our own destruction.
As for the Wall of Shame, the Babalunians only regret that such a barrier cannot be constructed along the Eastern seaboard to thwart Cuban refugees. Although they are not as explicit in their condemnation, it is their fellow Cubans that they fear the most and whose fate concerns them most because it impacts them also. The "American-Cubans" regard the newcomers as a sub-species who resemble us in some respects but are unlike us in many more. They despise the similarities especially because these are all that Anglos can see. These new refugees threaten the status quo of previous generations of exiles. This is not a new phenomenon; assimiliated Jews were often embarrassed by immigrants from the ghettos and sought to distance themselves from them. This politic indifference no doubt contributed to the tardy and half-hearted exertions on the part of establishment Jews to rescue their European brethren before Hitler delivered on what he had long-promised. Many Cuban exiles, like those Jews, have found an accommodation here which they do not desire to be disturbed by those who do not share their assimilationist tendencies, which do not exclude even annexation.
In a Babalú post this morning, rsnlk, whose views are probably closer in line with Val and Henry's than any of the new batch of editors, laments what may or may not be an increase in the number of Cubans fleeing to this country, even labelling it a "mass migration" bigger than Mariel (1980) or the Balsero Exodus (1994). This is plain looniness. If a crisis of comparable dimensions existed at this time, Dade-County would be paralyzed now as it was then. Of course, it is not. The newcomers are absorbed without straining available resources because it is not a mass exodus. The mass exodus which they fear will come and soon, and it will test to the breaking point all mechanisms in place to prevent or stem it. We all know when this crisis will come and what will trigger it. It certainly will not be Raúl's interrregnum.
Cubans fleeing Castro's island hell, whether singly or as a group, is not a new phenomenon and Castro has never had to encourage it, though when he did the numbers of refugeees naturally increased. Still, because they do not want the refugeees to come here, whether by their own volition or Castro's leave, they take it as a "foregone conclusion" that any migration from Cuba will be "favored" by the Castro regime and hence should be opposed by the U.S. These children and grandchildren of old Cuban refugees see the new refugees as "deserters" who owe them what their own parents and grandparents couldn't give them — a free Cuba purchased with their blood. This is the "red carpet" that the "American-Cubans" expect will be rolled out for them. They regard migration from Cuba unfavorably because it is "as an escape valve to relieve the periodic build-up of internal socioeconomic pressures." The Babalunians don't like valves on their pressure cookers, as we have pointed out on more than one occasion. Their fondest wish, as they have on more than one occasion admitted, is for the pressure cooker to blew up. The new Cuba that they foresee has no place for those who are actually living there now. Their exclusionism is nicely balanced by Castro's acolytes here, who want Cuban exiles to be excluded altogether from any part in Cuba's future. The notion that Cuba belongs to all of us, which Cuban dissidents on the island have always stressed, is regarded as apostosy here by hardliners on the right and the left. To the latter, the exiles forfeited their citizenship (and everything else) by leaving Cuba; to the former, all who stayed are collaborators and should be proscribed in the future.
A civil war should not be Castro's fatal legacy to the Cuban people. Those who foment it on either side are the ones who don't deserve to be called Cubans.
POSTSCRIPT:
Anonymous said...
Manuel,
So in summary, you want:
- Permanent legal status on demand for all Cubans who step anywhere outside the island regardless of numbers. Lets coin this the new "Off Island Foot" policy - step off the island and you're in.
- Unlimited visitations to the island by anyone (is the 1 year and a day waiting period for new arrivals OK or is this too restrictive?)
- Unlimited remittances without restrictions or limits.
- I believe you are also in favor of the US continuing the "embargo" (wink) right?
And this is supposed to result in a free Cuba? Socialist or capitalist? With Castro Inc. or without? Also, who or what will catalyze this change after we pump those few extra billion a year in remittances into the Cuban economy?
You are against the "pressure cooker" idea which is based on hardship-as-catalyst for change. So if I read you right, once everyone is flush with donated dollars from remittances, able to eat, dress and live well thanks to newfound access to the FAR's CUC stores. All relatives able to visit each other as frequently as their dollars can take them, etc. etc. — then what? Is there a timeframe for freedom that we can expect? You're concept is that once people don't have to worry about food, fashion and electronics then they'll revolt?
You also don't want a civil war — here I am definitely with you — who can want anyone to die?
The only problem so far, is that all I see is — not much.
I want to believe! I just need more info.
12/02/2007 11:09 PM
Manuel A.Tellechea said...
Anonymous:
This is what I want:
1). The laws of the United States to be obeyed. The Cuban Adjustment Act (1966) is the law of this land. It requires that all Cuban refugees who apply for asylum and are not otherwise excludable under U.S. laws be granted asylum here. This is the reason that you are here and that I am here. A law — any law, not just the Cuban Adjustment Act — cannot be altered by presidential fiat, which is an expedient used only in dictatorships. Yet that is precisely what Clinton did by inventing the "Wet Foot/Dry" policy. Bush is just as guilty as Clinton because he has enforced that legal travesty longer than Clinton did.
2). I have never visited the island nor would I while any vestige of the Castro regime remains. I recognize, however, that others are free to do as they please in accordance with their own circumstances. I do categorically reject the idea that Castro or the U.S. has the right to tell any Cuban whether he can return to his country or dictate the conditions of his return. We are not hostages in this country nor is Castro the one who determines if we are Cubans.
3). Yes, unlimited remittances. Starving the Cuban people is not the only course available for securing their freedom. In fact, all it accomplishes is to extend Castro's control over them.
4). Yes, the embargo should remain in place. The fact that Castro wishes it to be removed is sufficient reason to retain it.
I never claimed that "all this" would result in a free Cuba. Neither what I recommend nor its exact opposite will result in a free Cuba. Unfortunately, we cannot legislate freedom to the Cuban people. I do believe, however, that there is a right and a wrong way to react to the Castro regime and that my way is the right one.
You are wrong when you say that nobody wants a bloodbath or civil war in Cuba. You should read Babalú rather than just write for it.
There has never been a successful populist uprising against Communism because tanks are mightier than fists. Either Communism must implode as it did in the Soviet Union or someone who controls the tanks (like Pinochet) must use them to rescue the people.
***
rsnlk said...
Manuel, You have treated me more than fairly in the past. And I respect your obvious knowledge and intellect, although I think you often squander it in pursuit of the "Babalusians." Yes, I read your blog and cheer you on when you take on the useful idiots on the web. But enough presumption on my part.
I do have to object, however, to the characterization of my post as lamenting the mass exodus. I very deliberately refrained from commentary because I wanted the numbers to speak for themselves. A look at the title should have linked the numbers to the situation on the island. Other than that, I left it to the reader to make whatever connections he or she wished.
The only direct commentary had to do with the way statistics were being used- two years worth of arrivals were being compared to those of one summer and seven years to two — to make it seem as if we were being overrun. That is hardly in keeping with the position you ascribe to me.
And if my views, in general, are similar to Val and Henry's, so be it. I admire what they have done, given a voice to our common cause: the liberation of Cuba. For that is the most fervent wish of all of us.
I am saddened. I had hoped to avoid getting involved in this internecine warfare, because I think it is counterproductive. To wit, I have commented once to set the record straight, and you are free to do what you do with my comment. However, as far as I am concerned, it ends here.
12/03/2007 9:21 AM
Manuel A.Tellechea said...
rsnlk:
I am glad that you are a reader of this blog. Most of Babalú's editors are, and the few who aren't simply don't read other blogs. However, you don't appear to know much about me. Unlike your boss, I do not delete comments — ever; I do not ban commenters, nor issue anathemas against them. It is my belief, which I defended long before Val banned me, that so-called moderation is preemptive censorship and I have never practiced it on RCAB. Hence you need not fear what I will "do" with your comments. I will do nothing but answer them.
You and the other new Babalunian editors have real gifts which you are squandering in the service of Val Prieto. Like ancient Rome, Val co-opts and assimilates his potential competition. I should not be surprised if next year there are 15 more editors at Babalú and 15 less Cuban blogs. Very sad indeed, but nothing that I can do about it.
Finally, if what you say here is what you meant to say in your post, then you should have said it. I cannot read your mind or react to what you meant to say.
As for the Wall of Shame, the Babalunians only regret that such a barrier cannot be constructed along the Eastern seaboard to thwart Cuban refugees. Although they are not as explicit in their condemnation, it is their fellow Cubans that they fear the most and whose fate concerns them most because it impacts them also. The "American-Cubans" regard the newcomers as a sub-species who resemble us in some respects but are unlike us in many more. They despise the similarities especially because these are all that Anglos can see. These new refugees threaten the status quo of previous generations of exiles. This is not a new phenomenon; assimiliated Jews were often embarrassed by immigrants from the ghettos and sought to distance themselves from them. This politic indifference no doubt contributed to the tardy and half-hearted exertions on the part of establishment Jews to rescue their European brethren before Hitler delivered on what he had long-promised. Many Cuban exiles, like those Jews, have found an accommodation here which they do not desire to be disturbed by those who do not share their assimilationist tendencies, which do not exclude even annexation.
In a Babalú post this morning, rsnlk, whose views are probably closer in line with Val and Henry's than any of the new batch of editors, laments what may or may not be an increase in the number of Cubans fleeing to this country, even labelling it a "mass migration" bigger than Mariel (1980) or the Balsero Exodus (1994). This is plain looniness. If a crisis of comparable dimensions existed at this time, Dade-County would be paralyzed now as it was then. Of course, it is not. The newcomers are absorbed without straining available resources because it is not a mass exodus. The mass exodus which they fear will come and soon, and it will test to the breaking point all mechanisms in place to prevent or stem it. We all know when this crisis will come and what will trigger it. It certainly will not be Raúl's interrregnum.
Cubans fleeing Castro's island hell, whether singly or as a group, is not a new phenomenon and Castro has never had to encourage it, though when he did the numbers of refugeees naturally increased. Still, because they do not want the refugeees to come here, whether by their own volition or Castro's leave, they take it as a "foregone conclusion" that any migration from Cuba will be "favored" by the Castro regime and hence should be opposed by the U.S. These children and grandchildren of old Cuban refugees see the new refugees as "deserters" who owe them what their own parents and grandparents couldn't give them — a free Cuba purchased with their blood. This is the "red carpet" that the "American-Cubans" expect will be rolled out for them. They regard migration from Cuba unfavorably because it is "as an escape valve to relieve the periodic build-up of internal socioeconomic pressures." The Babalunians don't like valves on their pressure cookers, as we have pointed out on more than one occasion. Their fondest wish, as they have on more than one occasion admitted, is for the pressure cooker to blew up. The new Cuba that they foresee has no place for those who are actually living there now. Their exclusionism is nicely balanced by Castro's acolytes here, who want Cuban exiles to be excluded altogether from any part in Cuba's future. The notion that Cuba belongs to all of us, which Cuban dissidents on the island have always stressed, is regarded as apostosy here by hardliners on the right and the left. To the latter, the exiles forfeited their citizenship (and everything else) by leaving Cuba; to the former, all who stayed are collaborators and should be proscribed in the future.
A civil war should not be Castro's fatal legacy to the Cuban people. Those who foment it on either side are the ones who don't deserve to be called Cubans.
POSTSCRIPT:
Anonymous said...
Manuel,
So in summary, you want:
- Permanent legal status on demand for all Cubans who step anywhere outside the island regardless of numbers. Lets coin this the new "Off Island Foot" policy - step off the island and you're in.
- Unlimited visitations to the island by anyone (is the 1 year and a day waiting period for new arrivals OK or is this too restrictive?)
- Unlimited remittances without restrictions or limits.
- I believe you are also in favor of the US continuing the "embargo" (wink) right?
And this is supposed to result in a free Cuba? Socialist or capitalist? With Castro Inc. or without? Also, who or what will catalyze this change after we pump those few extra billion a year in remittances into the Cuban economy?
You are against the "pressure cooker" idea which is based on hardship-as-catalyst for change. So if I read you right, once everyone is flush with donated dollars from remittances, able to eat, dress and live well thanks to newfound access to the FAR's CUC stores. All relatives able to visit each other as frequently as their dollars can take them, etc. etc. — then what? Is there a timeframe for freedom that we can expect? You're concept is that once people don't have to worry about food, fashion and electronics then they'll revolt?
You also don't want a civil war — here I am definitely with you — who can want anyone to die?
The only problem so far, is that all I see is — not much.
I want to believe! I just need more info.
12/02/2007 11:09 PM
Manuel A.Tellechea said...
Anonymous:
This is what I want:
1). The laws of the United States to be obeyed. The Cuban Adjustment Act (1966) is the law of this land. It requires that all Cuban refugees who apply for asylum and are not otherwise excludable under U.S. laws be granted asylum here. This is the reason that you are here and that I am here. A law — any law, not just the Cuban Adjustment Act — cannot be altered by presidential fiat, which is an expedient used only in dictatorships. Yet that is precisely what Clinton did by inventing the "Wet Foot/Dry" policy. Bush is just as guilty as Clinton because he has enforced that legal travesty longer than Clinton did.
2). I have never visited the island nor would I while any vestige of the Castro regime remains. I recognize, however, that others are free to do as they please in accordance with their own circumstances. I do categorically reject the idea that Castro or the U.S. has the right to tell any Cuban whether he can return to his country or dictate the conditions of his return. We are not hostages in this country nor is Castro the one who determines if we are Cubans.
3). Yes, unlimited remittances. Starving the Cuban people is not the only course available for securing their freedom. In fact, all it accomplishes is to extend Castro's control over them.
4). Yes, the embargo should remain in place. The fact that Castro wishes it to be removed is sufficient reason to retain it.
I never claimed that "all this" would result in a free Cuba. Neither what I recommend nor its exact opposite will result in a free Cuba. Unfortunately, we cannot legislate freedom to the Cuban people. I do believe, however, that there is a right and a wrong way to react to the Castro regime and that my way is the right one.
You are wrong when you say that nobody wants a bloodbath or civil war in Cuba. You should read Babalú rather than just write for it.
There has never been a successful populist uprising against Communism because tanks are mightier than fists. Either Communism must implode as it did in the Soviet Union or someone who controls the tanks (like Pinochet) must use them to rescue the people.
rsnlk said...
Manuel, You have treated me more than fairly in the past. And I respect your obvious knowledge and intellect, although I think you often squander it in pursuit of the "Babalusians." Yes, I read your blog and cheer you on when you take on the useful idiots on the web. But enough presumption on my part.
I do have to object, however, to the characterization of my post as lamenting the mass exodus. I very deliberately refrained from commentary because I wanted the numbers to speak for themselves. A look at the title should have linked the numbers to the situation on the island. Other than that, I left it to the reader to make whatever connections he or she wished.
The only direct commentary had to do with the way statistics were being used- two years worth of arrivals were being compared to those of one summer and seven years to two — to make it seem as if we were being overrun. That is hardly in keeping with the position you ascribe to me.
And if my views, in general, are similar to Val and Henry's, so be it. I admire what they have done, given a voice to our common cause: the liberation of Cuba. For that is the most fervent wish of all of us.
I am saddened. I had hoped to avoid getting involved in this internecine warfare, because I think it is counterproductive. To wit, I have commented once to set the record straight, and you are free to do what you do with my comment. However, as far as I am concerned, it ends here.
12/03/2007 9:21 AM
Manuel A.Tellechea said...
rsnlk:
I am glad that you are a reader of this blog. Most of Babalú's editors are, and the few who aren't simply don't read other blogs. However, you don't appear to know much about me. Unlike your boss, I do not delete comments — ever; I do not ban commenters, nor issue anathemas against them. It is my belief, which I defended long before Val banned me, that so-called moderation is preemptive censorship and I have never practiced it on RCAB. Hence you need not fear what I will "do" with your comments. I will do nothing but answer them.
You and the other new Babalunian editors have real gifts which you are squandering in the service of Val Prieto. Like ancient Rome, Val co-opts and assimilates his potential competition. I should not be surprised if next year there are 15 more editors at Babalú and 15 less Cuban blogs. Very sad indeed, but nothing that I can do about it.
Finally, if what you say here is what you meant to say in your post, then you should have said it. I cannot read your mind or react to what you meant to say.
Saturday, December 1, 2007
A Prophet
"I certainly don't care that he called for the assassination of Hugo Chávez. That is the most Biblical thing Pat Robertson ever said as anybody who has ever read the Bible knows." — Manuel A. Tellechea, RCAB, April 10, 2007
The Bellman Tolls the Death of Democracy in the Americas
Whatever the outcome of tomorrow's elections in Venezuela, Hugo Chávez will emerge victorious. If his constitutional reforms are rejected by the electorate (that is, if he lets the Venezuelan people reject them), Chávez will be hailed as a "democrat" though his "reforms" were intended to establish a Communist dictatorship. If he prevails through fraud or chicanery, he will claim a mandate to take his country down the road of ultimate perdition, where it is already far advanced.
While George W. Bush committed the U.S. to wars of aggression on Araby's coast (ongoing or contemplated), he ignored the brush fire in America's backyard that has now grown into an uncontrollable conflagration. What Castro could never accomplish by himself, he has achieved with an assist from George Bush. I thought it impossible once but it is now entirely conceivable that this president will prove even more calamitous to this country's interests than did Jimmy Carter. And what lies in the wings gives us absolutely no hope: both parties have fielded their worst and most stupid, and, whatever the outcome of the U.S. presidential primaries or the 2008 elections, the bellman will toll the death of democracy in the Americas.
God save the people of Venezuela! God save Latin America! God save Cuba! And God save the United States!
While George W. Bush committed the U.S. to wars of aggression on Araby's coast (ongoing or contemplated), he ignored the brush fire in America's backyard that has now grown into an uncontrollable conflagration. What Castro could never accomplish by himself, he has achieved with an assist from George Bush. I thought it impossible once but it is now entirely conceivable that this president will prove even more calamitous to this country's interests than did Jimmy Carter. And what lies in the wings gives us absolutely no hope: both parties have fielded their worst and most stupid, and, whatever the outcome of the U.S. presidential primaries or the 2008 elections, the bellman will toll the death of democracy in the Americas.
God save the people of Venezuela! God save Latin America! God save Cuba! And God save the United States!
Heredia's "The Exile's Hymn"
I applaud — how could I not? — rsnlk's decision to bring culture and patriotism to Babalú and hope that this trend continues and expands. We should take inspiration from those who suffered and endured in past centuries what we have been called upon to suffer and endure in this one, especially when they are our countrymen. José María de Heredia (1803-1839), the first Romantic poet in the Spanish language as Martí was the first Modernist, left like Martí many poignant hymns to his love of country and the terrible ordeal of exile. Even in his most famous poem, Heredia's "Ode to Niagara," he mentions his condition as an exile (Niagara itself is the perfect metaphor for the torrential anguish of exile). The greatest of his patriotic poems, however, is his "Himno del Desterrado." Rsnlk is right to say that no English word conveys the pathos of desterrado. "Expatriate" would do if Americans had any inkling of the Latin roots of their language. Of Anglo-Saxon words, "banished" probably comes closest. With the exception of the Loyalists in the American Revolution (whose "Americanness" was denied by their countrymen) and journalist Clement Vallindingham (who was forcibly exiled to Canada by Abraham Lincoln during the Civil War), the experience of exile is not one known to Americans. It is for that reason, more than the lack of an exact equivalent to "desterrado," that it is difficult to translate Heredia's poem. Yet it was done and very credibly so at the height of Heredia's fame in this country. The translation was long credited to Heredia's friend, the great American poet William Cullen Bryant, who translated other poems by Heredia. In fact "The Exile's Hymn" was translated by William Henry Hurlbert, the author of Gan-Eden (1856), the best travelogue of Cuba ever written by an American. His empathy for the Cuban people and their struggles for freedom is clearly felt in his stirring translation, which, in accordance with 19th century norms, takes certain liberties which will go unnoticed by most readers. Still, it is the best translation of Heredia's poem and one of the best patriotic hymns in the English language.
The Exile's Hymn
Fair land of Cuba! on thy shores are seen
Life's far extremes of noble and of mean;
The world of sense in matchless beauty dressed,
And nameless horrors hid within thy breast.
Ordained of Heaven the fairest flower of earth,
False to thy gifts, and reckless of thy birth!
The tyrant's clamor, and the slave's sad cry,
With the sharp lash in insolent reply, —
Such are the sounds that echo on thy plains,
While virtue faints, and vice unblushing reigns.
Rise, and to power a daring heart oppose!
Confront with death these worse than deathlike woes.
Unfailing valor chains the flying fate;
Who dares to die shall win the conqueror's state!
We, too, can leave a glory and a name
Our children's children shall not blush to claim;
To the far future let us turn our eyes,
And up to God's still unpolluted skies!
Better to bare the breast, and undismayed
Meet the sharp vengeance of the hostile blade,
Than on the coach of helpless grief to lie,
And in one death a thousand deaths to die.
Fearest thou blood? Oh, better, in the strife,
From patriot wounds to pour the gushing life,
Than let it creep inglorious through the veins
Benumbed by sin, and agony, and chains!
What hast thou, Cuban! Life itself resign, —
Thy very grave is insecurely thine!
Thy blood, thy treasure, poured like tropic rain
From tyrant hands to feed the soil of Spain.
If it be truth, that nations still must bear
The crushing yoke, the wasting fetters wear, —
If to the people this be Heaven's decree,
To clasp their shame, nor struggle to be free,
From truth so base my heart indignant turns,
With freedom's frenzy all my spirit burns, —
That rage which ruled the Roman's soul of fire,
And filled thy heart, Columbia's patriot sire!
Cuba! thou still shalt rise, as pure, as bright,
As thy free air, — as full of living light;
Free as the waves that foam around thy strands,
Kissing thy shores, and curling o'er thy sands!
The Exile's Hymn
Fair land of Cuba! on thy shores are seen
Life's far extremes of noble and of mean;
The world of sense in matchless beauty dressed,
And nameless horrors hid within thy breast.
Ordained of Heaven the fairest flower of earth,
False to thy gifts, and reckless of thy birth!
The tyrant's clamor, and the slave's sad cry,
With the sharp lash in insolent reply, —
Such are the sounds that echo on thy plains,
While virtue faints, and vice unblushing reigns.
Rise, and to power a daring heart oppose!
Confront with death these worse than deathlike woes.
Unfailing valor chains the flying fate;
Who dares to die shall win the conqueror's state!
We, too, can leave a glory and a name
Our children's children shall not blush to claim;
To the far future let us turn our eyes,
And up to God's still unpolluted skies!
Better to bare the breast, and undismayed
Meet the sharp vengeance of the hostile blade,
Than on the coach of helpless grief to lie,
And in one death a thousand deaths to die.
Fearest thou blood? Oh, better, in the strife,
From patriot wounds to pour the gushing life,
Than let it creep inglorious through the veins
Benumbed by sin, and agony, and chains!
What hast thou, Cuban! Life itself resign, —
Thy very grave is insecurely thine!
Thy blood, thy treasure, poured like tropic rain
From tyrant hands to feed the soil of Spain.
If it be truth, that nations still must bear
The crushing yoke, the wasting fetters wear, —
If to the people this be Heaven's decree,
To clasp their shame, nor struggle to be free,
From truth so base my heart indignant turns,
With freedom's frenzy all my spirit burns, —
That rage which ruled the Roman's soul of fire,
And filled thy heart, Columbia's patriot sire!
Cuba! thou still shalt rise, as pure, as bright,
As thy free air, — as full of living light;
Free as the waves that foam around thy strands,
Kissing thy shores, and curling o'er thy sands!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
