"I suppose I could state my support for this blogger [from Cuba] and this new [Cuban tv] defector right now, but unfortunately the doubts would still be there. The unavoidable and inescapable skepticism would stick in my craw. Blister my being with doubt. Put "Am I doing the right thing?" on replay in my mind.
"And I suppose I could use liberal amounts of mental Listerine to wash that bad taste away and open up the old heart and say "Blogger, defector, come on in, make yourselves at home." I suppose I could do my best to ignore the taste of doubt.
"But I dont want to be disingenuous, and youre not really being a friend without there being a mutual trust. And yes, doubt tastes like shit and it makes me feel a little rotten inside, but its better to have a little rotten feeling with a true heart and the bad taste of doubt, than a shattered heart of broken trust." — Val Prieto, Babalú, November 12, 2007
"Stick in my craw?"
"Blister my being?"
"Mental Listerine?"
I think I like "blister my being" best. Although "Mental Listerine" is certainly memorable and it is rare nowadays to see "stick in my craw" outside of Uncle Remus. "Craw," by the way, is the stomach of a lower animal.
I don't normally link to Babalú anymore; but this is a rare treat that must not be missed.
http://www.babalublog.com/archives/006790.html
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
A "Critique" that Requires Your Attention
If everything had gone as planned, October 14th would be celebrated today as the beginning of Cuba's first War of Independence. It is unlikely that the uprising would be known as the "Grito de Yara," and Francisco Vicente Aguilera, not Carlos Manuel de Céspedes, would be the Father of Our Country. But nothing went as planned. Spanish authorities learned beforehand of the uprising and cabled the local authorities to arrest its leaders. The telegram was intercepted by Cespedes' cousin, the town telegrapher, who delivered it to Carlos Manuel. Céspedes moved the date of the uprising to October 10th and launched the revolution at his own plantation with the symbolic act of freeing his slaves. Cubans understood, even if the Americans never did, that you can't fight for your freedom while denying it to others. It was not possible to inform Aguilera, the island's richest planter who had been chosen to lead the Revolution, of the change in plans. His reaction? Not only unconditional support, but Aguilera even agreed to serve as Cespedes' vice-president. This was the greatest act of abnegation in Cuban history, and if all the civil and military authorities had followed Aguilera's example, the monumental hecatomb of the Ten Years' War would have been crowned with victory. Instead, in the middle of the war, Céspedes was deposed and the Revolution deprived of the unity that alone could guarantee victory. The War ended in a truce in 1878, which at least obtained the freedom of the slaves who had fought for independence. The war would be resumed 17 years later, in 1895, by José Martí, who mended all the fences and united all the wills, and achieved the miracle of unity among Cubans in our definitive struggle for independence. The objective was achieved even if the victory was co-opted by the Americans who had been waiting 75 years for the apple to fall. Our wars of independence hold many useful lessons for Cubans both on the island and in exile. In his excellent "Critique" of recent events in Cuba, Charlie Bravo of Killcastro distills all these lessons as they apply directly to the dissident movement in Cuba today. His "Critique" is a primer for civil disobedience in Cuba, indeed, for any concerted action, whether civil or not. It should not seem odd that the lessons of our wars of independence should be applicable to this peaceful contest (peaceful at least on the side of the dissidents). But success or failure in either case depends on the same factors. Resistance to Castro will prosper or perish in accordance with how faithfully it adheres to the strategies outlined by Charlie Bravo in his critique, which we urge you to read and ponder.
http://killkasstro.blogspot.com/
http://killkasstro.blogspot.com/
Notable & Optimistic: BUCL's "Fine Work" Foments Protests in Cuba
"By the way, is the regime acknowledging BUCL's fine work when it says 'websites especially designed to undermine the foundations of our society' [fueled the protests]?" — Gusano, Babalú, December 12, 2007.
No. BUCL's "fine work" has nothing to do with it. The regime may be acknowledging, however, Babalú and the other anti-Castro blogs.
No. BUCL's "fine work" has nothing to do with it. The regime may be acknowledging, however, Babalú and the other anti-Castro blogs.
The Spain of the Catalan Ladies Is Martí's Spain
We were surprised when Babalú reported about the 10 Catalan women, officials in the regional government, who joined the "Ladies in White" in protesting the plight of Cuban political prisoners and demanding the return of democracy to Cuba. Since the inception of BUCL's Campaign Against Spanish "Explosion" (they meant "exploitation"), Spaniards have been portrayed on Babalú in only one color — black, which was all that was needed since Babalú transformed itself into the last redoubt of the "Black Legend" in non-leftist circles. They must have been surprised to no end when Hugo Chávez and Daniel Ortega began sputtering the same anti-Spanish propaganda at the Ibero-American Summit. Chávez, Ortega, Prieto & Gómez (sounds like a law firm that would really screw you) mistake Spanish corporations for the Spanish people. This is a grave mistake since Spaniards identify even less with their capitalists than Americans do with theirs. As for Zapatero's Socialist government, it is as unpopular in Spain as George Bush is here. The fact that there is a Socialist government in Spain is largely due to George Bush, whose mercenary wars of aggression proved as unpopular in Spain as in the U.S. Hapless Aznar supported Bush although he was up for re-election and Bush was not and sustained the defeat that would have been dealt Bush if he had to face the electorate across the morass that he has created in Afghanistan and Iraq. On the positive side, Zapatero's tenure is coming to an end and it is highly unlikely that he will be returned to office. He feels his vulnerability and confronted Hugo Chávez to increase his appeal among moderate voters, but his history is too well known for him to reinvent himself as a centrist. It will be interesting to see if Babalú's assault on the Spanish people will continue after the Socialists are banished from office. Is their hatred for the motherland so great that political parties and even contrasting policies towards Communist Cuba have no effect on their ingrained hispanophobia? We will see soon.
We had expected that the solidarity shown by the Catalan women would at least resonate with Babalu's readers, but such does not appear to be the case. The "Comments" section is full of the usual Spanish-bashing. Conspicious among the comments is one by Profesor Antonio de la Cova, patriot and historian, whom we introduced to Val Prieto two years ago in the hope that he could supply the historical perspective that was so wanting in Babalú. This Professor de la Cova has done for the most part. But he faltered and badly on this occasion. He admonished Val, "Don't expect any solidarity from the Spanish Socialist government. Spain has never acknowledged and refuses to apologize for their reconcentrado policy of 1896-97 that exterminated 170,000 Cubans (10% of the population) in 18 months." I have myself on more than one occasion (here and on Babalú) commented on the fact that the first concentration camps were established in Cuba by Valeriano "Butcher" Weyler, the greatest evil that ever befell Cuba before Fidel. This is not something, however, that the Spanish Socialists need to apologize for since they were the only party in Spain that not only denounced the camps but supported Cuban independence. Their leader then, Pi y Margall, whom Marti called an "Apostle," was the idol of the Cuban rebels who after independence named a street in Havana in his honor. The architects of Spain's reconcentrado policy were Spanish Conservatives led by Prime Minister Cánovas del Castillo, who in consequence was assassinated by an Italian anarchist who originally wanted to kill the boy-king Alfonso XIII or the Queen Regent but whom the great Puerto Rican patriot Ramón Emeterio Betances, Delegate of the Cuban Revolutionary Party in Europe, convinced to kill Cánovas instead. In the span of 100 years, the Socialists and the Conservatives have switched places in Spain in respect to Cuba: it is now the Conservatives who favor freedom for Cubans and the Socialists who are in complicity with the forces of reaction in Cuba. Of course, we would not expect Val to be familiar with any of this (he doesn't even know that the Cuban flag has 5 stripes instead of 13), but we did expect Professor de la Cova, who is, to place the blame for Spain's genocide in Cuba where the blame rightly belongs. Let's, by all means, demand an apology from Spain for the reconcentrado policy when the Conservatives are again in power and see what happens. The apology would ennoble them but would not alter history. It would still be wrong to hold modern Spaniards responsible for the crimes committed by political leaders who are long dead and unmourned. There should certainly be no bar sinister attached to nations because of "blood guilt." When Spain commemorated the centenary of its defeat in 1898, the most traumatic event in its history, it did not honor Cánovas del Castillo or the other fanatics who pledged to fight to the last peseta and the last soldier to keep Cuba a Spanish colony (even if Spanish honor was sacrificed too). Instead, Spain celebrated the life of the man who liberated Cubans from Spanish despotism and Spaniards from its ignominy as well. Democratic Spain has embraced José Martí (as earlier it did Simón Bolívar) as the highest expression of the Spanish spirit in the 19th century. This Spain, the Spain of the Catalan ladies, is Martí's Spain, which he acclaimed in Versos sencillos as "Franco, fiero, fiel, sin saña" (Frank, fierce, faithful, free of viciousness).
We had expected that the solidarity shown by the Catalan women would at least resonate with Babalu's readers, but such does not appear to be the case. The "Comments" section is full of the usual Spanish-bashing. Conspicious among the comments is one by Profesor Antonio de la Cova, patriot and historian, whom we introduced to Val Prieto two years ago in the hope that he could supply the historical perspective that was so wanting in Babalú. This Professor de la Cova has done for the most part. But he faltered and badly on this occasion. He admonished Val, "Don't expect any solidarity from the Spanish Socialist government. Spain has never acknowledged and refuses to apologize for their reconcentrado policy of 1896-97 that exterminated 170,000 Cubans (10% of the population) in 18 months." I have myself on more than one occasion (here and on Babalú) commented on the fact that the first concentration camps were established in Cuba by Valeriano "Butcher" Weyler, the greatest evil that ever befell Cuba before Fidel. This is not something, however, that the Spanish Socialists need to apologize for since they were the only party in Spain that not only denounced the camps but supported Cuban independence. Their leader then, Pi y Margall, whom Marti called an "Apostle," was the idol of the Cuban rebels who after independence named a street in Havana in his honor. The architects of Spain's reconcentrado policy were Spanish Conservatives led by Prime Minister Cánovas del Castillo, who in consequence was assassinated by an Italian anarchist who originally wanted to kill the boy-king Alfonso XIII or the Queen Regent but whom the great Puerto Rican patriot Ramón Emeterio Betances, Delegate of the Cuban Revolutionary Party in Europe, convinced to kill Cánovas instead. In the span of 100 years, the Socialists and the Conservatives have switched places in Spain in respect to Cuba: it is now the Conservatives who favor freedom for Cubans and the Socialists who are in complicity with the forces of reaction in Cuba. Of course, we would not expect Val to be familiar with any of this (he doesn't even know that the Cuban flag has 5 stripes instead of 13), but we did expect Professor de la Cova, who is, to place the blame for Spain's genocide in Cuba where the blame rightly belongs. Let's, by all means, demand an apology from Spain for the reconcentrado policy when the Conservatives are again in power and see what happens. The apology would ennoble them but would not alter history. It would still be wrong to hold modern Spaniards responsible for the crimes committed by political leaders who are long dead and unmourned. There should certainly be no bar sinister attached to nations because of "blood guilt." When Spain commemorated the centenary of its defeat in 1898, the most traumatic event in its history, it did not honor Cánovas del Castillo or the other fanatics who pledged to fight to the last peseta and the last soldier to keep Cuba a Spanish colony (even if Spanish honor was sacrificed too). Instead, Spain celebrated the life of the man who liberated Cubans from Spanish despotism and Spaniards from its ignominy as well. Democratic Spain has embraced José Martí (as earlier it did Simón Bolívar) as the highest expression of the Spanish spirit in the 19th century. This Spain, the Spain of the Catalan ladies, is Martí's Spain, which he acclaimed in Versos sencillos as "Franco, fiero, fiel, sin saña" (Frank, fierce, faithful, free of viciousness).
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
Will Cuba Lose Its Canadian Sex Tourists to Kenya?
According to a Reuters story linked below, sexagenarian British ladies are flocking to Kenya to indulge their intergenerational sexual fantasies with young Masai warriors just as their husbands have done in time immemorial, and what happens in the Commonwealth stays in the Commonwealth. Canadian and Australian sex tourists would doubtless be more at home in Kenya than Cuba and should consider following their English cousins there. I suppose that at some time the ex-colonials will rebel and hang them all by your nether parts, but until that happens they can at least have the assurance that the G-2 isn't following them around and filming them for future blackmail.
http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSN2638979720071126?sp=true
http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSN2638979720071126?sp=true
Val the Abolitionist vs. Henry the Slaver
Babalú is not the old Babalú anymore. In any case, it is not consistently the old Babulú, not that consistency was ever its strong point. This is evident in the rift that has developed between Val Prieto and Henry Gómez over the smuggling of refugees.
As readers of this blog know (see links below), Henry has a full-blown fixation with exposing and prosecuting smugglers who rescue Castro's captives and bring them to freedom. He has admitted to contacting MSM journalists in the past to encourage them to cover this story. He doesn't believe that Cubans who are brought here by smugglers are real "refugees." He questions their "amateur" status and wants them excluded from the "benefits" of the "Wet Foot/Dry Foot" policy. They can be harrassed, capsized and drowned like those who take to sea on improvised rafts, but should not be afforded asylum if they actually manage to evade the U.S. Coast Guard. As for the smugglers, who run the 21st century's equivalent of the Underground Railroad, Henry wants them to be prosecuted to the full extent of the law just as white southerners, in their day, clamored for the blood of the abolitionists.
In a post this morning, appropriately entitled "Finger Pointing," Val takes to task the "MSM concubines" for the sins of Henry Gomez. Specifically, he quotes an Associated Press story which blames Cuban exiles for financing the smuggling of Cuban refugees through Mexico's Yucatán Peninsula. The article also blames the U.S. policy of granting Cubans "automatic asylum" for fomenting the "illegal trade." And who is the source for this information? No, not Henry Gómez (this time), but Eduardo Medina Mora, the Mexican Attorney General. No words in any language signify corruption as do these three words: "Mexican Attorney General." It is the ne plus ultra of cynicism that Mexican politicians, whose epic raids over 80 years on the national wealth have driven tens of millions of their countrymen across the Rio Grande in search of a better life, actually have the nerve to complain because thousands of Cuban refugees use their territory as a conduit to asylum in the U.S.? If it were up to them, they would drive the entire Mexican populace across the border, leaving just enough workers to harvest the petro-dollars which should have made Mexico this hemisphere's wealthiest country, but which, instead, has made its presidents the world's richest oligarchs.
Val is right to rail against such hypocrisy. He should, however, have focused his ire on the Mexican politicos, not the Associated Press, which is merely doing their bidding as Henry wishes it would do his in the same cause. The greatest enemy of Cuban freedom among the "fraternal" Latin-American countries over the last 50 years has been the Mexican government. Call it revanchism by proxy. Too pusillaneous to confront the U.S. themselves, because that is where their ill-gotten wealth resides and where they hope some day to join it, they derive a vicarious satisfaction from Castro's tirades against the country that underwrites their predations. Since 1959, they have paid him billions in protection money, not, of course, so he would protect them from the U.S., but so that Castro would stay out of Mexico.
Henry Gomez, like the Mexico's Attorney General, blames Cuban exiles for financing the smugglers and the U.S. for enabling the "illegal trade" by granting "automatic asylum" to those whom they transport to freedom. Val now sees it another way: "See, it's either US policy's fault or, of course, the whipping-boy Cuban-American's fault that Cubans are being smuggled into the states via Mexico. It can't possibly be because the castro regime systematically violates Cuban's human rights, or because of the system of apartheid in Cuba, or because Cubans are basically slaves to the state in their own country, or because the castro regime prefers to have the Cuban family separated..."
At moments like this I feel that my head and the wall will eventually reach a happy accommodation.
Yes, it is Castro who is to blame. Castro and only Castro. Val has seen the light at last.
Will Henry?
Decide for yourself from his past fulminations on the subject:
One Man's Obsession: The Smugglers Who Risk All to Free Castro's Slaves
Angels Who Smuggle Men to Freedom
Alfonso Chardy is the New Oscar Corral
Fred Thompson: Cuban "Immigrants" Are Suitcase Bombers
Insanity, Homoeroticism and Xenophobia on "The Babalú [Faux] Radio Hour"
You Cannot Love Cuba and Hate Cubans
The Truth In Season
POSTSCRIPT:
Fantomas said...
deja eso... hay muchas noticias buenas... no te desvies
12/12/2007 4:04 AM
Manuel A.Tellechea said...
fantomas:
The good news around here is that Val Prieto, who, like you, is apparently subject to "kinder and gentler" spells, is no longer trying to cook Cubans in a pressure cooker, calling on them to shed rivers of blood, and even has good words to say about Spaniards (Catalans at least). Progress is being made. As for Henry, he is a lost cause.
12/12/2007 7:28 AM
As readers of this blog know (see links below), Henry has a full-blown fixation with exposing and prosecuting smugglers who rescue Castro's captives and bring them to freedom. He has admitted to contacting MSM journalists in the past to encourage them to cover this story. He doesn't believe that Cubans who are brought here by smugglers are real "refugees." He questions their "amateur" status and wants them excluded from the "benefits" of the "Wet Foot/Dry Foot" policy. They can be harrassed, capsized and drowned like those who take to sea on improvised rafts, but should not be afforded asylum if they actually manage to evade the U.S. Coast Guard. As for the smugglers, who run the 21st century's equivalent of the Underground Railroad, Henry wants them to be prosecuted to the full extent of the law just as white southerners, in their day, clamored for the blood of the abolitionists.
In a post this morning, appropriately entitled "Finger Pointing," Val takes to task the "MSM concubines" for the sins of Henry Gomez. Specifically, he quotes an Associated Press story which blames Cuban exiles for financing the smuggling of Cuban refugees through Mexico's Yucatán Peninsula. The article also blames the U.S. policy of granting Cubans "automatic asylum" for fomenting the "illegal trade." And who is the source for this information? No, not Henry Gómez (this time), but Eduardo Medina Mora, the Mexican Attorney General. No words in any language signify corruption as do these three words: "Mexican Attorney General." It is the ne plus ultra of cynicism that Mexican politicians, whose epic raids over 80 years on the national wealth have driven tens of millions of their countrymen across the Rio Grande in search of a better life, actually have the nerve to complain because thousands of Cuban refugees use their territory as a conduit to asylum in the U.S.? If it were up to them, they would drive the entire Mexican populace across the border, leaving just enough workers to harvest the petro-dollars which should have made Mexico this hemisphere's wealthiest country, but which, instead, has made its presidents the world's richest oligarchs.
Val is right to rail against such hypocrisy. He should, however, have focused his ire on the Mexican politicos, not the Associated Press, which is merely doing their bidding as Henry wishes it would do his in the same cause. The greatest enemy of Cuban freedom among the "fraternal" Latin-American countries over the last 50 years has been the Mexican government. Call it revanchism by proxy. Too pusillaneous to confront the U.S. themselves, because that is where their ill-gotten wealth resides and where they hope some day to join it, they derive a vicarious satisfaction from Castro's tirades against the country that underwrites their predations. Since 1959, they have paid him billions in protection money, not, of course, so he would protect them from the U.S., but so that Castro would stay out of Mexico.
Henry Gomez, like the Mexico's Attorney General, blames Cuban exiles for financing the smugglers and the U.S. for enabling the "illegal trade" by granting "automatic asylum" to those whom they transport to freedom. Val now sees it another way: "See, it's either US policy's fault or, of course, the whipping-boy Cuban-American's fault that Cubans are being smuggled into the states via Mexico. It can't possibly be because the castro regime systematically violates Cuban's human rights, or because of the system of apartheid in Cuba, or because Cubans are basically slaves to the state in their own country, or because the castro regime prefers to have the Cuban family separated..."
At moments like this I feel that my head and the wall will eventually reach a happy accommodation.
Yes, it is Castro who is to blame. Castro and only Castro. Val has seen the light at last.
Will Henry?
Decide for yourself from his past fulminations on the subject:
One Man's Obsession: The Smugglers Who Risk All to Free Castro's Slaves
Angels Who Smuggle Men to Freedom
Alfonso Chardy is the New Oscar Corral
Fred Thompson: Cuban "Immigrants" Are Suitcase Bombers
Insanity, Homoeroticism and Xenophobia on "The Babalú [Faux] Radio Hour"
You Cannot Love Cuba and Hate Cubans
The Truth In Season
POSTSCRIPT:
Fantomas said...
deja eso... hay muchas noticias buenas... no te desvies
12/12/2007 4:04 AM
Manuel A.Tellechea said...
fantomas:
The good news around here is that Val Prieto, who, like you, is apparently subject to "kinder and gentler" spells, is no longer trying to cook Cubans in a pressure cooker, calling on them to shed rivers of blood, and even has good words to say about Spaniards (Catalans at least). Progress is being made. As for Henry, he is a lost cause.
12/12/2007 7:28 AM
Monday, December 10, 2007
Notable & Late in Coming: Henry Gómez Learns the History of Man
"It's as if we live in some bizarro world where the evil are praised and rewarded for their evil." — Henry Gómez, commenting on the crackdown on human rights activists by the Cuban regime, Babalú blog, December 10, 2007
No, Henry, it would be a much better world if everybody were a little bit more "bizarro." Bizarro in Spanish is a compliment, which means dashing and fearless. It would be correct, for example, to refer to the bizarro general Antonio Maceo; but wholly inaccurate to say that Fidel Castro was bizarro even one day of his life. If it is bizarre that you mean — and we could not imagine that you could mean anything else — the word is extraño. And, yes, it is a strange, strange world that we live in, and Cubans are at the epicenter of that strangeness.
No, Henry, it would be a much better world if everybody were a little bit more "bizarro." Bizarro in Spanish is a compliment, which means dashing and fearless. It would be correct, for example, to refer to the bizarro general Antonio Maceo; but wholly inaccurate to say that Fidel Castro was bizarro even one day of his life. If it is bizarre that you mean — and we could not imagine that you could mean anything else — the word is extraño. And, yes, it is a strange, strange world that we live in, and Cubans are at the epicenter of that strangeness.
Saturday, December 8, 2007
Blogs Sobre Cuba (300 Links to Cuban Blogs)
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/
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/
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
