"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. -- Thomas Jefferson, Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776
"The negroes' own judgment in favour of the whites, declared by their preference of them, [is] as uniformly [manifest] as is the preference of the orangutan for the black women over those of his own species.
"I advance it therefore as a suspicion only, that the blacks, whether originally a distinct race, or made distinct by time and circumstances, are inferior to the whites in the endowments of both body and mind. It is not against experience to suppose, that different species of the same genus, or varieties of the same species, may possess different qualifications. Will not a lover of natural history then, one who views the gradations in all the races of animals with the eye of philosophy, excuse an effort to keep those in the department of man as distinct as nature has formed them? This unfortunate difference of color, and perhaps of faculty, is a powerful obstacle to the emancipation of these people." -- Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia, 1781
I have never held Jefferson in any special regard. He was more of a stylist than a thinker, and a vigorous style can sometimes overshadow deficiencies of the intellect. Here we see a powerful example of Jefferson's disingenuousness. I could have quoted many more: the deleted paragraph from the Declaration of Independence where he blames George III for "forcing slavery" on Americans. Someone must have reminded Jefferson, who never freed his own slaves, that King George had abolished slavery in England in 1772. Or I could have reproduced excerpts from an 1815 letter to his overseer, Jeremiah Goodman, where Jefferson explains at length how slaves should be mated (he had more than casual experience in that department himself). Whatever else the "Sage of Monticello" was, he was the precursor of the "science" of eugenics, which would be brought to its illogical conclusion by another grand theorist in the 20th century.
There is no question that when Jefferson wrote "all men are created equal" he meant all white men because he did not consider black men to belong to the human species, or, as he puts it, to "the department of man." To him "blacks were a "different species" or a sub-species "inferior to the whites in the endowments of both body and mind." He even has his doubts that blacks are a race and has the "suspicion" that they are a mutation of a race.
Enslaved blacks, the only ones with whom he had any acquaintance, seemed to him to recognize the superiority of whites over blacks and preferred their company as "the orangutan preferred black women over those of his own species." Well, you won't find those immortal words chiselled in marble over his statue at the Jefferson Monument. You can still find at Monticello, however, the cabinet which Jefferson caused to be built over his bed where he hid his mulatto concubine, Sally Hemmings, the half-sister of his late wife. At age 13 she became the maid of Jefferson's younger daughters (her biological nieces) and Jefferson's bedmate. She bore him five children whom Jefferson freed when they turned 21 (the only ones of his hundreds of slaves that he did free). Of course, he could have sold them down the river, as was the usual practice in his neck of the woods, or even made the girls his mistresses in substitution of their mother. That he did not may have had something to do with the fact that his affaire with Sally was exposed in the newspapers many years before and he wanted to be spared the further shame upon his name of having his own offspring sold at public auction after his death as his other slaves were in the largest such sale in Virginia history up to that time.
What he did with his own children, however, was not otherwise commendable. Although infinitely concerned about the education of his other daughters (he had no sons by his wife), of his nephews and grandchildren, and even of his friends' sons, he did not bother to teach his progeny by Sally Hemmings how to read or write. The last thing that he would have wanted would have been for them to become conspicuous in the world. Yet when they were allowed to leave his plantation three of them moved to other states where they passed as white. But, of course, they could never be whites in their father's eyes. In fact, he scarcely viewed them as human.
So, on this July 4th, when Americans celebrate the universal application of the Declaration of Independence's once meaningless assertion that "All men are created equal," let them remember, also, that Jefferson would not have approved.
PROLOGUE:
Subsequent to the publication of this post, the blog Miami & Beyond was deleted, and with it the exchange between Babalú's Sr. Cohiba and me, which was alluded to in the "Comments" section. Here it is for those who might be interested:
Srcohiba said...
The series was well done and thanks to DVR I was able to watch it. But you really have to read McCullough's book. The book is fantastic and after my reading it, forced me to read more about our founding fathers.
You should read His Majesty George Washington. One of the best Washington bio's out there which shows his real true greatness and shows that even all these centuries later, he was still the Greatest President of the United States. Washington had absolute power as Commander of the Army and he gave it up at the end of the war. After 2 terms as President, he could have had the office for life, but he let it go and set the model.
Washington was the only leader in world history -- the only revolutionary to have absolute power who relinquished it voluntarily. Not the same can be said for Cromwell, Napoleon, Lenin, Mao, and castro.
I also suggest you read Chernow's Hamilton and Isacson's Franklin.
Apr 23, 2008 6:22:00 AM
Manuel A.Tellechea said...
John Adams and his son were the only U.S. presidents in the first 50 years of the republic not to own slaves. If nothing else could be said on his behalf that alone would have been enough: He was not a hypocrite.
Apr 23, 2008 6:23:00 AM
Alex said...
I'm reading the book now. The series is pretty faithful to the book, which is another plus.
Apr 23, 2008 6:48:00 AM
Srcohiba said...
My only critique was that it condensed too much. I understand they were limited on time and could not make it another 6 hours. But a lot happened in his presidency and his greatest achievement was the mission to France which prevented war even though it cost him the election.
it was glossed over. Most folks who have not read the book would realize the significance of what he did.
Manny, Washington was not a hypocrite. Many of his slaves were dower slaves. He abhored the practice and would have loved to free them but by law at the time, he was prevented. He never seperate families and perhaps another example of his greatness was his will. His will demanded that none of the slaves would be sold or seperated and that upon the death of Martha, all the slaves were freed and given money to be educated. The ones that were too old were to be given money so that they could be taken care of for life.
Washington who was the wealthiest American of his day, loathed privilege and divided his entire estate equally among all his heirs so as to force them to fend for themselves.
Also, both Adams were from the North where slavery had already been abolished. Most of the Presidents we had were all from the South which sadly ran on a slave based economy.
Apr 23, 2008 7:19:00 AM
Manuel A.Tellechea said...
Sr Cohiba:
No one was ever prevented from freeing his slaves in colonial times and many did. Washington, of course, owned slaves in his own name. So called "dower slaves" (that is, those inherited by his wife) also belonged to him. In fact, women had no rights either pre-1776 or post 1776. It was Washington, not Martha, who decided the fate of their slaves.
There was a law in Pennsylvania that any slave who remained in the state for longer than 6 months was considered emancipated. While residing in Philadelphia as president, Washington had his slave cook periodically sent back to Virginia in order to circumvent that law.
Why don't you read a book about Carlos Manuel de Céspedes. You know, the father of our country. He freed his slaves immediately upon declaring Cuba's independence from Spain and so did all the other rich landowners who followed him.
Apr 23, 2008 8:37:00 AM
Srcohiba said...
Manny you are incorrect.
GW had no right to free dower slaves until after the death of Martha where he freed all the slaves. Remember in those days property rights were the same feudal rights from Britain.
Remember the time we're talking about ...1799.
Comparing to de Cespedes is a lousy analogy. The republic did not come about until the late 1860's, well after the US Civil War.
It took the deaths of hundreds of thousands of americans to free the slaves here in the US as that odious practice was ingrained in the South. the founders chose to ignore it and leave others to deal with it. Ironically, Britain had allowed slavery by this time.
Apr 23, 2008 10:28:00 AM
Manuel A.Tellechea said...
Sr Cohiba:
George predeceased Martha.
Washington certainly had the right to sell the "dower slaves" and did.
Women had no property rights in 1799 that superceded their husbands' rights over them and their property. Yes, it was like feudal times.
Céspedes and the Cuban Founding Fathers understood what their American counterparts never did: that it is incongruous to fight for your freedom while holding other men enslaved.
Apr 23, 2008 11:24:00 AM
Srcohiba said...
Manuel, you don't understand the concept of dower. GW did not have the authority to sell any dower property while Martha was alive. He did not have fee simple title to the property upon marriage to Martha. Under the common law at that time, only upon Martha's death could he have had fee simple title. The dower slaves were the property of Martha's first husband's estate (The Custus Estate).
Here's a copy of the will where again you will see that while it was GW's desire to emancipate them, he was prohibited by law.
Why don't you take a course in property law and then talk to me.
Apr 23, 2008 12:46:00 PM
Srcohiba said...
http://gwpapers.virginia.edu/documents/will/text.html
here's the link
Apr 23, 2008 12:48:00 PM
Rick said...
Heh.
He's choking on it, Senor. For once I approve of your approach.
.
Apr 23, 2008 4:31:00 PM
Manuel A.Tellechea said...
Sr. Cohiba:
1). Did George Washington own slaves in his own name?
Yes, of course he did. You do not refute that point which by itself makes my argument.
2). Did Martha's slaves work on George's plantation?
Of course they did, so George profitted by their labor directly no less than Martha did.
3). Could George have freed Martha's slaves?
Of course. He could have requested that it be done upon her death or he could have purchased the slaves outright himself from the entailment and freed them while still alive.
George Washington was the "Father of His Country" and the
master of his slaves.
Shall we have this discussion about Thomas Jefferson? It would prove even more interesting.
Apr 23, 2008 6:18:00 PM
Srcohiba said...
Again, you have no idea what you're talking about Manny. Notwithstanding the fact you have no clue about dower under 18th century english common law, if you would have read any legit bio of GW, you would have learned that GW despised slavery. First, it cost too much money to maintain and because of sick or older slaves, they were not cost efficient. Unlike others, GW refused to split up families. His plantation could have been more profitable if he could have eliminated slave labor altogether.
Again, what he did in his will, showed courage because it was not what one would have expected a Virginian planter to do. He not only willed that all his slaves be freed, but that they educated and taken care of for life.
Jefferson's slave ownership and his not freeing him was a stain on an otherwise brilliant contribution he made to the USA and the world. It's easy for a know it all like you to condemn him from your position in the 21st century.
Abe Lincoln was willing to keep slavery in the then existing southern states if it meant preserving the union. The South started the civil war and even then, the elimination of slavery was not on Lincoln's mind. Again, if you read American History rather than the Marxist revisionist historians that condemn all of the American founding fathers, you'd have learned that it was upon a promise Lincoln made to God re: a military victory that he would free the slaves; which he did with the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863.
I honestly don't understand why you have such a bug up your ass regarding the US Founding Fathers. But we wouldn't have the Constitution but for James Madison and Alexander Hamilton. We would have never made it as a nation if not for George Washington who was the greatest revolutionary in world history.
Last time I checked my history books, it was the Spanish that killed native americans and brought slavery to America and used the inquisition to murder the Jews.
So chill out and read some history from some legit historians.
Apr 23, 2008 7:56:00 PM
Manuel A.Tellechea said...
Sr. Cohiba:
More undigested legal gibberish signifying nothing. The facts are very simple: George Washington was a slaveholder, not merely through his wife but in his own right and name. That is an historical fact which no amount of dissimulation can erase. You ignore it because you cannot deny it. Your only mitigation is that he was a good master to his slaves, and personally, did not like slavery. (Sounds like the argument that Castro's apologists make on his behalf, doesn't it?).
This is like saying that a wife beater loves his wife and is personally opposed to wifebeating, but, nevertheless, practices what in theory he opposes.
Men's actions define them. That their supposed sympathies may be at odds with their actions only makes their actions all the more reprehensible. Knowing the difference between right and wrong is not an excuse for doing the wrong thing.
Slavery was as wrong in the 18th century as it is in the 21st, and there were men then, such as Adams (father and son), who opposed it.
While defending the icons of American history, you have no scrupples whatever about resurrecting the Black Legend to defame your own people.
The Inquisition was not unique to Spain. There was also an English Inquisition, which, incidentally, killed more people than its Spanish counterpart.
The extermination of the indigenous population of the Americas was never Spanish policy. In fact, Spaniards, unlike the English, mixed with the native population to such an extent that in most countries of Latin America they are completely melded.
In the enlightened 19th century -- four centuries removed from the Spanish Conquest -- the U.S. government did make the extermination of the native population its official policy.
But, as far as you are concerned, slavery and genocide are alike excusable if practiced by Americans.
Apr 23, 2008 9:12:00 PM
alex said...
Manuel, you contradict yourself here:
"Of course. He could have requested that it be done upon her death or he could have purchased the slaves outright himself from the entailment and freed them while still alive."
He died before her, so he could hardly free them after her death. Besides, if he owned them already by marriage as you assert -since Martha could not own property- then it's absurd to purchase them again from himself.
Céspedes had the advantage of almost 100 years of foresight since the American revolution. You conveniently leave off that he was a rich landowner who benefited from slave labor for decades before he freed them in 1868.
More importantly, you forget to mention that Céspedes freed his slaves with the intention of having them join him as his army. It wasn't just from the good of his heart. He understood that in order to muster the necessary men to fight the Spaniards, they needed the slaves from the plantations on their side. A war needs cannon fodder.
Every time you judge historic figures by contemporary standards it's a ridiculous argument. Ever found any laws you don't agree with but have to comply? You always say exiles can't invade Cuba because US law prohibits it. Well, there you go.
Apr 24, 2008 6:05:00 AM
Manuel A.Tellechea said...
Alex:
It was Sr Cohiba who said that Washington was legally prevented from freeing Martha's slaves in her lifetime. I countered that if that were the case, then he could have purchased them himself from the entailment and freed them, or at least requested in his will that Martha and her heirs do so. He did not not.
But all this is a smokescreen anyway. Even if George were prevented from freeing Martha's slaves he certainly was never prevented from freeing his own.
Why didn't he? From the mammy who weaned him to the slaves who prepared him for burial, George Washington was served by slaves all his life.
He knew that slavery was wrong, as Sr Cohiba asserts; but right or wrong he refused to place his slaves' dignity as men above his own creature comforts.
So what, if according to Sr. Cohiba, he was good to his slaves and provided for their education (health care, maybe?). He was still more a tyrant to them than George III was ever to him.
While a good master is certainly preferable to a bad master, no man would wish to be a slave to either.
As for Céspedes, he understood that he could not be both slavemaster and liberator. He freed his slaves when he declared Cuba's independence but did not compel them to follow him into battle, but most did. That is, perhaps, the greatest testament to him.
Cuban exiles did not make the laws of this country. Its Founding Fathers did. Domestic slavery was sanctioned by the Constitution and Washington himself urged, in his farewell address, neutrality in the face of foreign evil.
Apr 24, 2008 6:56:00 AM
Alex said...
In your comment of 8:37 you said:
"So called "dower slaves" (that is, those inherited by his wife) also belonged to him. In fact, women had no rights either pre-1776 or post 1776. It was Washington, not Martha, who decided the fate of their slaves."
You are asserting that Washington owned all the slaves because Martha could not own property (which is true, Martha's slaves were owned by her male relatives which dowed them to George). Washington couldn't purchase slaves he already owned. Hence your contradiction.
Céspedes was 49 years old when he freed his slaves. He had enjoyed the "creature comforts" and riches slavery afforded him since birth.
Apr 24, 2008 7:07:00 AM
Srcohiba said...
"But all this is a smokescreen anyway. Even if George were prevented from freeing Martha's slaves he certainly was never prevented from freeing his own."
if he had freed his slaves (which he inherited by the way) then he'd have to split up families.
Again Manny, I don't know why you have a bug up your ass about the american founding fathers. I would expect that from a pro marxist revisionist historian, but not from you.
Slavery was the most odious badge in the history of the new world. In the USA and in Latin American and the Caribbean.
You argue out of your bum rather than through historical references. I'm willing to bet the farm Manny that if you had been born in the South in the early 18th century to southern planters you'd have no qualms about owning slaves.
If you read Washington and Jefferson's writings, they loathed the practice. But the economy of the south was so entrenched with Slave Labor that it in a way bound their hands. Looking backwards from the 21st century was can easily say that they should have done the moral thing and freed them. It's easy to look back at time but it's not realistic.
All of the founders new that slavery was going to be the undoing of the nation. They chose to let future generations deal with it rather than kill the compromise regarding the passage of the Constitution.
Not everyone is a saint.
Instead of speaking out of your bum, why don't you read Gordon Wood's Revolutionary Characters and perhaps you may learn something.
Say what you will about the American founding fathers, but we've managed to have free elections for over 200 years and despite civil wars and world wars and 9/11 our constitution still stands. Can't say the same for what's happened in Latin America and in Cuba. But then again, it's the American's fault, right Manny?
Apr 24, 2008 7:51:00 AM
Manuel A.Tellechea said...
Alex:
Although I did not admit Sr Cohiba's point (i.e. that Washington couldn't free Martha's slaves because they were entailed to her first husband's estate), I did show how Washington could indeed have freed Martha's slaves even if such an entailment had existed (by buying them from the entailed estate and freeing them himself).
The point is that Céspedes did free his slaves on the eve of revolution. Washington did not. Doing so meant ruin for Céspedes and the other planters who followed him. Washington, Jefferson and the rest would do anything for the cause of freedom except impoverish themselves by granting men of a different hue the freedom that they claimed for themselves.
Apr 24, 2008 8:14:00 AM
Manuel A.Tellechea said...
Sr Cohiba:
"Bug up your ass" (2X)
"Argue out of your bum"
What is it with you today?
Is it now a requirement upon joining "Babalú's magnificent cadre of writers" to lower yourself to Val's level? If so, you are succeeding even beyond my expectations.
Yes, the U.S. has had a great many free elections over 200 years and some as well that were not so free: "Free elections" without the participation of non-property holders; African-Americans (nominally until 1865); women (until 1920); and American Indians (until 1923). "Free elections" with the suspension of habeas corpus (Lincoln); "free elections" where the candidate who received the most popular votes did not win; "free" elections like those that brought to power Rutherford B. Hayes, John F. Kennedy and, yes, George W. Bush in 2000.
As for U.S. complicity in the destruction of Cuba, I guess that U.S. intervention, The Treaty of Paris (1898), the Platt Amendment and the imposition of Fidel Castro had nothing to do with our current woes?
Cohiba, you are what Martí called a yankófilo, a Cuban who admires excessively the United States and is blind to the virtues of his own countrymen.
A perfect fit for Babalú.
Apr 24, 2008 8:38:00 AM
Friday, July 4, 2008
Thursday, July 3, 2008
Babaloo's Waterloos: The Old Stand Bys
These are not new questions. Val has posed them all 100 times, at least, in different ways, because he knows that they will strike a chord with his readers when nothing else does. The questions are intended to sow division and distrust among Cubans, to pit the newcomer against the longtime exile, and to blame all Cubans for what Castro and his henchmen have done to our country. The old stand bys, the tried and untrue bromides.
This time around Val added a dash of alliteration to the poisonous mix. The "Topic for Tuesday' was "The Cuban people's worst enemy is the Cuban people." It was presented without qualifiers and Val himself subscribed to his own proposition in the "Comments." We did not and devoted a post of our own to explaining how truly disingenuous that statement was.
The next day it was "A Wednesday Wondering." This time, not wishing to be identified with his own proposition, Val posed it as a "True or False" question: "When it comes to Cubans there are too many chiefs and not enough [I]ndians." Is this supposed to be a bad thing? The desire to excel and to lead is berated in no one except Cubans. Most people are content to be followers. If Cubans desire to be leaders, what is wrong with that? If it is by their merits and with the consent of others then there is absolutely nothing wrong with it. If, however, one man takes onto himself absolute power and governs arbitrarily and against the wishes of the people, as Castro and his clique have done for 50 years, then it is a dictatorial impulse for which the dictator should be blamed not his hapless people. The implication of this proposition is that every Cuban is a Fidel Castro in utero. No greater injustice could be committed or greater libel published against the Cuban people.
Today Val posited A Thursday Thought: "All Cubans are political asylees, regardless of whether they come solely for economic purposes. Sí o no?" Another misleading and tendentious question because no Cuban came to this country solely for economic reasons and no Cuban came to this country without at least some economic reasons, whether they came on January 1, 1959 or yesterday. We all political exiles and all economic exiles.
Cuban haters attract Cuban haters and the threads to these posts bear that out. Babalú is now the most notorious anti-Cuban blog in the Cuban-American blogosphere. What formerly was restrained is now in the open for all to see. No attempt is made to veil their hate and no excuse proferred for it. Vitriol flows in their veins in torrents, and so, in their opinion, should the blood of Cubans on the island to expunge the crime of 1959. Except that Cubans living on the island today are not guilty of the crime of 1959. 70% were not even alive then. They are the real victims of Castroism, not their contemporaries who were spared the horrors of Communism and now have the gall to blame its victims for not surrendering their lives so that some day they might be able to vacation in a country to which they owe no allegiance and for whose people they have only the greatest contempt.
This time around Val added a dash of alliteration to the poisonous mix. The "Topic for Tuesday' was "The Cuban people's worst enemy is the Cuban people." It was presented without qualifiers and Val himself subscribed to his own proposition in the "Comments." We did not and devoted a post of our own to explaining how truly disingenuous that statement was.
The next day it was "A Wednesday Wondering." This time, not wishing to be identified with his own proposition, Val posed it as a "True or False" question: "When it comes to Cubans there are too many chiefs and not enough [I]ndians." Is this supposed to be a bad thing? The desire to excel and to lead is berated in no one except Cubans. Most people are content to be followers. If Cubans desire to be leaders, what is wrong with that? If it is by their merits and with the consent of others then there is absolutely nothing wrong with it. If, however, one man takes onto himself absolute power and governs arbitrarily and against the wishes of the people, as Castro and his clique have done for 50 years, then it is a dictatorial impulse for which the dictator should be blamed not his hapless people. The implication of this proposition is that every Cuban is a Fidel Castro in utero. No greater injustice could be committed or greater libel published against the Cuban people.
Today Val posited A Thursday Thought: "All Cubans are political asylees, regardless of whether they come solely for economic purposes. Sí o no?" Another misleading and tendentious question because no Cuban came to this country solely for economic reasons and no Cuban came to this country without at least some economic reasons, whether they came on January 1, 1959 or yesterday. We all political exiles and all economic exiles.
Cuban haters attract Cuban haters and the threads to these posts bear that out. Babalú is now the most notorious anti-Cuban blog in the Cuban-American blogosphere. What formerly was restrained is now in the open for all to see. No attempt is made to veil their hate and no excuse proferred for it. Vitriol flows in their veins in torrents, and so, in their opinion, should the blood of Cubans on the island to expunge the crime of 1959. Except that Cubans living on the island today are not guilty of the crime of 1959. 70% were not even alive then. They are the real victims of Castroism, not their contemporaries who were spared the horrors of Communism and now have the gall to blame its victims for not surrendering their lives so that some day they might be able to vacation in a country to which they owe no allegiance and for whose people they have only the greatest contempt.
Notable & Emasculating: Cubans Are "Cowards"
"What about the Romanians, who finally had enough of Ceausescu and overthrew their version of castro? What about the Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto, who fought against the SS and the Wermacht? They gave the world the example of how not to be a victim. They may have died but at least they died with dignity and not being herded into a shower stall to be gassed with Zyklon B. These were real men. The Jewish women who fought in 1943 had more balls than I am seeing today in Cuba. -- George L. Moneo, "A Topic for Tuesday (comment), Babalú, July 1, 2008.
Since his ouster from Babalú and subsequent rehabilitation, George Moneo follows Val Prieto's directives with more than canine devotion. Here he is seen buttressing Val's argument that "Cubans are their own worst enemies" by comparing them unfavorably to the Romanians who rose against Ceausescu and the Jews who rebelled in the Warsaw Ghetto. We should be grateful, I suppose, that he limited himself to these examples. He could have cited thousands of other cases of heroic resistance to tyranny in immemorial history and used those to belittle Cubans as well. At the same time, of course, George would have had to ignore the many signal examples of courage and sacrifice that the Cuban people have given the world in these last 50 years and throughout their history in order to be able to brand them as "cowards."
The two comparisons which he does allow himself are more than enough to show that he is not only ignorant of Cuban history but does not understand the real transcendence of the other cases.
1
The overthrow of Ceausescu did not happen in a vacuum. It would not have happened in 1956, 1968 or 1980 when the Soviet Union was at the height of its power. The implosion of Communism in the Soviet Union was the catalyst that led to the overthrow of Ceausescu. Without that impetus a mummified Ceausescu would be lying in state in his mausoleum on Revolution Square, in Bucharest, and his son Nico, an even more despicable version of Kim Jung Il, would still be raping women at state banquets except from the head of the table.
For Cuba, the fall of the Soviet Union, though catastrophic in its economic consequences, did not challenge the political structure because its survival did not depend on the Soviet brigade stationed in Cuba for 30 years. Castro relied instead on the Kennedy-Khrushchev pact, which has never been abrogated and which the U.S. upholds to this day, not to protect itself from Russia (successor to the treaty obligations of the old Soviet Union), but to maintain "stability" in Cuba.
In Fidel Castro the U.S. believes that it has found a reliable ally in its war against the Cuban people. So long as Castro can stifle the Cuban people's aspirations to be free and maintain absolute control over his subjects, avoiding such disruptions of comity as Mariel, the U.S. will continue to act as the guarantor of Communism in Cuba, as it has done since 1962; and American presidents will continue to blather and fulminate about "Cuba Libre" while maintaining in place all pacts, agreements, and policies intended to assure Castro's continued subjugation of the Cuban people.
I have never discounted the possibility that outside factors could achieve or hasten the overthrow of Castro as was the case with Ceausescu. The United States, however, is not going the way of the Soviet Union, and it is this country which installed Castro in power and has maintained him there since 1962 by what amounts to a contractual obligation.
If George expects that outside factors will as in Romania hasten Cuba's freedom, then he must be hoping for a convulsion in this country comparable to that which rocked the Soviet Union in 1989 and precipitated the collapse of Ceausescu and the other Eastern European satraps.
2
The Warsaw Ghetto Uprising was a great moment in the history of the human spirit, and the Jewish people have provided many such moments in the history of mankind. But its glory lies in the fact that it was a exception, not the norm. 750 Jews participated in the uprising. 6-11 million Jews were killed in the Nazi gas ovens without ever having had the opportunity to fight for their lives as the Jews of the Warsaw Ghetto did. No one but the grossest and most insensitive of men would dare suggest that the Jews who did not fight the Nazis because they had no means to fight them "did not die with dignity" and are therefore less deserving of honor than those who did. So, too, is it offensive to allege that Cubans, who have upheld freedom's torch since the time of Yara (and before), are lacking the moral fortitude or spiritual greatness to challenge their own henchmen.
Why, then, aren't the Cubans who fought at the Bay of Pigs, Escambray and in a thousand actions, known and unknown, against the Castro regime since 1959, allowed to represent, as they undoubtedly do, the heroism and resistance of the Cuban people, as the Jewish defenders of the Warsaw Ghetto represent, and rightly so, the indomitable spirit of the Jewish people?
What does George mean when he writes that "[t]he Jewish women who fought in 1943 had more balls than I am seeing today in Cuba?" Those heroic Jewish women have their counterparts in Cuba in both men and women. Can anything be more despicable than to use one set of tyranny's victims to attack another? Frankly, when a man goes around questioning other men's balls he had better have more than the usual equipment himself. If he needs to use the metaphorical "balls" of women to accuse other men of cowardice, then one may suppose that his own are not suitable for that purpose.
The history of the Cuban people is told in centuries and the history of the Jewish people in millennia. This is a very important distinction to consider. Between Masada and the Warsaw Ghetto there is a distance of 1,870 years. The 50 years that Cubans have waited for their freedom is but a season in the history of the Jewish people. I doubt very much whether the mal that afflicts our country will last the thousand years of the proverb.
What is needed now is for the Cuban people not to shed their blood merely to sate the bloodlust of their detractors. Cubans don't need more martyrs; it is the one thing the Revolution has produced in quantity. What they do require is the means to make their resistance effectual. Until the United States decides that a free Cuba is in its best interests it will see to it that Cubans are denied those means. The recent arbitrary admission of North Korea (!) to the family of civilized nations shows that the U.S. can accept any degree of human degradation so long as the degraders do not cross certain propietary lines, or having crossed them have the prudence to effect a timely and beneficial retreat. The Castro regime knows the generous limits that the U.S. has granted it and will always fall exactly short of provoking its ire, which, for us, means a marriage of convenience between the two countries which must be dissolved before the great heroism of Cubans is rewarded with a proportionate measure of freedom.
Since his ouster from Babalú and subsequent rehabilitation, George Moneo follows Val Prieto's directives with more than canine devotion. Here he is seen buttressing Val's argument that "Cubans are their own worst enemies" by comparing them unfavorably to the Romanians who rose against Ceausescu and the Jews who rebelled in the Warsaw Ghetto. We should be grateful, I suppose, that he limited himself to these examples. He could have cited thousands of other cases of heroic resistance to tyranny in immemorial history and used those to belittle Cubans as well. At the same time, of course, George would have had to ignore the many signal examples of courage and sacrifice that the Cuban people have given the world in these last 50 years and throughout their history in order to be able to brand them as "cowards."
The two comparisons which he does allow himself are more than enough to show that he is not only ignorant of Cuban history but does not understand the real transcendence of the other cases.
The overthrow of Ceausescu did not happen in a vacuum. It would not have happened in 1956, 1968 or 1980 when the Soviet Union was at the height of its power. The implosion of Communism in the Soviet Union was the catalyst that led to the overthrow of Ceausescu. Without that impetus a mummified Ceausescu would be lying in state in his mausoleum on Revolution Square, in Bucharest, and his son Nico, an even more despicable version of Kim Jung Il, would still be raping women at state banquets except from the head of the table.
For Cuba, the fall of the Soviet Union, though catastrophic in its economic consequences, did not challenge the political structure because its survival did not depend on the Soviet brigade stationed in Cuba for 30 years. Castro relied instead on the Kennedy-Khrushchev pact, which has never been abrogated and which the U.S. upholds to this day, not to protect itself from Russia (successor to the treaty obligations of the old Soviet Union), but to maintain "stability" in Cuba.
In Fidel Castro the U.S. believes that it has found a reliable ally in its war against the Cuban people. So long as Castro can stifle the Cuban people's aspirations to be free and maintain absolute control over his subjects, avoiding such disruptions of comity as Mariel, the U.S. will continue to act as the guarantor of Communism in Cuba, as it has done since 1962; and American presidents will continue to blather and fulminate about "Cuba Libre" while maintaining in place all pacts, agreements, and policies intended to assure Castro's continued subjugation of the Cuban people.
I have never discounted the possibility that outside factors could achieve or hasten the overthrow of Castro as was the case with Ceausescu. The United States, however, is not going the way of the Soviet Union, and it is this country which installed Castro in power and has maintained him there since 1962 by what amounts to a contractual obligation.
If George expects that outside factors will as in Romania hasten Cuba's freedom, then he must be hoping for a convulsion in this country comparable to that which rocked the Soviet Union in 1989 and precipitated the collapse of Ceausescu and the other Eastern European satraps.
The Warsaw Ghetto Uprising was a great moment in the history of the human spirit, and the Jewish people have provided many such moments in the history of mankind. But its glory lies in the fact that it was a exception, not the norm. 750 Jews participated in the uprising. 6-11 million Jews were killed in the Nazi gas ovens without ever having had the opportunity to fight for their lives as the Jews of the Warsaw Ghetto did. No one but the grossest and most insensitive of men would dare suggest that the Jews who did not fight the Nazis because they had no means to fight them "did not die with dignity" and are therefore less deserving of honor than those who did. So, too, is it offensive to allege that Cubans, who have upheld freedom's torch since the time of Yara (and before), are lacking the moral fortitude or spiritual greatness to challenge their own henchmen.
Why, then, aren't the Cubans who fought at the Bay of Pigs, Escambray and in a thousand actions, known and unknown, against the Castro regime since 1959, allowed to represent, as they undoubtedly do, the heroism and resistance of the Cuban people, as the Jewish defenders of the Warsaw Ghetto represent, and rightly so, the indomitable spirit of the Jewish people?
What does George mean when he writes that "[t]he Jewish women who fought in 1943 had more balls than I am seeing today in Cuba?" Those heroic Jewish women have their counterparts in Cuba in both men and women. Can anything be more despicable than to use one set of tyranny's victims to attack another? Frankly, when a man goes around questioning other men's balls he had better have more than the usual equipment himself. If he needs to use the metaphorical "balls" of women to accuse other men of cowardice, then one may suppose that his own are not suitable for that purpose.
The history of the Cuban people is told in centuries and the history of the Jewish people in millennia. This is a very important distinction to consider. Between Masada and the Warsaw Ghetto there is a distance of 1,870 years. The 50 years that Cubans have waited for their freedom is but a season in the history of the Jewish people. I doubt very much whether the mal that afflicts our country will last the thousand years of the proverb.
What is needed now is for the Cuban people not to shed their blood merely to sate the bloodlust of their detractors. Cubans don't need more martyrs; it is the one thing the Revolution has produced in quantity. What they do require is the means to make their resistance effectual. Until the United States decides that a free Cuba is in its best interests it will see to it that Cubans are denied those means. The recent arbitrary admission of North Korea (!) to the family of civilized nations shows that the U.S. can accept any degree of human degradation so long as the degraders do not cross certain propietary lines, or having crossed them have the prudence to effect a timely and beneficial retreat. The Castro regime knows the generous limits that the U.S. has granted it and will always fall exactly short of provoking its ire, which, for us, means a marriage of convenience between the two countries which must be dissolved before the great heroism of Cubans is rewarded with a proportionate measure of freedom.
Tuesday, July 1, 2008
The Real Enemies of the Cuban People
"The Cuban people's worst enemy is the Cuban people."
Val has submitted this proposition to debate at Babalú. In the "Comments" he makes it clear that he personally subscribes to it, which is tantamount to asserting that slaves are to blame for slavery. This notion, odious as it may sound to us today, was one of the principal arguments used to justify slavery throughout its history. Slavery was a curse because the slave himself was said to be cursed. Of course it was not the slave who had forged his destiny, that is, forged his own chains. Nor, as history would show, were slaves reconciled to their chains but shed them gladly the moment that the entire weight of the state was not directed to keeping them in chains.
The worst enemy of the Cuban people is their slavemaster, Fidel Castro.
Val is so detached from the Cuban reality and so embittered against his countrymen that he is constitutionally incapable of seeing them as victims of the same tyrant who caused his own family to flee to this country.
He begrudges Cubans the scant food that they eat, the rags that they wear and even whatever pleasure they are still able to wring from life despite Fidel Castro, including laughter and sex (see link below). Their natural condition, the only one acceptable to Val, is a collective and continuous hemorrhage that should last as long as communism lasts or as long as the Cuban people last. Then, freed from one or the other (it makes no difference to him), he can realize his dream of returning to his native Bayamo and finding the tree against which he used to pee as a 3-year old and the other landmarks of his childhood. What is a little blood or torrents of blood compared to the realization of that cherished hope? Cruel and ungenerous have the Cuban people been to deny him all these years the opportunity to relive (relief?) la edad de la peseta which he missed out on.
The Cuban people are not responsible for the destruction of our country. They did not opt for national suicide in 1959; they did not tie the noose around their own necks. It was, first and foremost, the United States which delivered us to the scaffold and made it impossible for us to escape as a nation its decree of annihilation. Others, principally the Soviet Union, but also Western Europe, the Eastern bloc, China, Venezuela, and every other country that ever extended a subsidy or credit line to Castro, enabled the henchmen, unharried by any external forces, to practice their foul deeds on the writhing body of our country as a fulltime occupation.
Cubans are not their own worst enemy. The entire world has conspired against our liberty and abetted our enslavement. The world is the enemy.
And, of course, people like Val who exculpate all others in order to blame the victims.
No Food, No Freedom and No Sex Equals Freedom for Cubans, Says Val
Val has submitted this proposition to debate at Babalú. In the "Comments" he makes it clear that he personally subscribes to it, which is tantamount to asserting that slaves are to blame for slavery. This notion, odious as it may sound to us today, was one of the principal arguments used to justify slavery throughout its history. Slavery was a curse because the slave himself was said to be cursed. Of course it was not the slave who had forged his destiny, that is, forged his own chains. Nor, as history would show, were slaves reconciled to their chains but shed them gladly the moment that the entire weight of the state was not directed to keeping them in chains.
The worst enemy of the Cuban people is their slavemaster, Fidel Castro.
Val is so detached from the Cuban reality and so embittered against his countrymen that he is constitutionally incapable of seeing them as victims of the same tyrant who caused his own family to flee to this country.
He begrudges Cubans the scant food that they eat, the rags that they wear and even whatever pleasure they are still able to wring from life despite Fidel Castro, including laughter and sex (see link below). Their natural condition, the only one acceptable to Val, is a collective and continuous hemorrhage that should last as long as communism lasts or as long as the Cuban people last. Then, freed from one or the other (it makes no difference to him), he can realize his dream of returning to his native Bayamo and finding the tree against which he used to pee as a 3-year old and the other landmarks of his childhood. What is a little blood or torrents of blood compared to the realization of that cherished hope? Cruel and ungenerous have the Cuban people been to deny him all these years the opportunity to relive (relief?) la edad de la peseta which he missed out on.
The Cuban people are not responsible for the destruction of our country. They did not opt for national suicide in 1959; they did not tie the noose around their own necks. It was, first and foremost, the United States which delivered us to the scaffold and made it impossible for us to escape as a nation its decree of annihilation. Others, principally the Soviet Union, but also Western Europe, the Eastern bloc, China, Venezuela, and every other country that ever extended a subsidy or credit line to Castro, enabled the henchmen, unharried by any external forces, to practice their foul deeds on the writhing body of our country as a fulltime occupation.
Cubans are not their own worst enemy. The entire world has conspired against our liberty and abetted our enslavement. The world is the enemy.
And, of course, people like Val who exculpate all others in order to blame the victims.
No Food, No Freedom and No Sex Equals Freedom for Cubans, Says Val
Monday, June 30, 2008
Val Tries Again to Write a 5th Anniversary Post
I never set out to become Val's guru, just to correct his mistakes in logic and lapses in democratic discourse. That was a formidable enough task and more than any other man would willingly undertake for nothing. Yet I find that my influence over him has overstepped the bounds of my expectations and now makes me somewhat uneasy. Everything that I write here about Babalú is interpreted by him as a hint of sorts and elicits from him an instant reaction. If I suggest that Val is likely to do something, he is quick to do the exact opposite. Were I of a Machiavellian cast of mind, I could control his every move through the old chesnut of reverse psychology. This trick, which even children seem to know nowadays, is perenially new to Val. If, for example, I suggest that Val is likely to write a long and pompous panegyric for Babalú's 5th anniversary, he instead posts one word: "Wow." When I observe that his minimalism proves that he just doesn't a give a damn anymore, he produces the tendentious flummery that I first predicted.
In my own post on "Babalú's Fifth Anniversary," I noted Val's love for the word "humble" and how he has managed to invest that word with tints of insincerity which are not much seen outside of Dickens. Well, naturally, he made sure to use "humble" prominently in his second commemorative post. In fact, he used it twice in the same sentence, which created an effect of insincerity which is worthy of a better writer: "[I] dont know how it happened, but this humble blog of humble origins grew, it seems, almost exponentially form [from] one day to the next." He uses "humble blog" once more before he is done with it. Well, it was a humble blog once before Val started describing it as a "humble blog." Too much humility is only hubris in disguise. When that word is trotted out nowadays it is usually pulling a wagon load of manure.
I have often kidded Val about the dead chickens and coconuts which he claims are deposited on his lawn every week, urging him not to regard them as politically-motivated when they could just as well indicate that his neighbors don't like him. Still, in the annals of Babalú the dead chickens and coconuts hold a symbolic place and Val again alludes to them as an old veteran might point to his battle scars. Well, actually, an old veteran wouldn't.
In my own post on "Babalú's Fifth Anniversary," I noted Val's love for the word "humble" and how he has managed to invest that word with tints of insincerity which are not much seen outside of Dickens. Well, naturally, he made sure to use "humble" prominently in his second commemorative post. In fact, he used it twice in the same sentence, which created an effect of insincerity which is worthy of a better writer: "[I] dont know how it happened, but this humble blog of humble origins grew, it seems, almost exponentially form [from] one day to the next." He uses "humble blog" once more before he is done with it. Well, it was a humble blog once before Val started describing it as a "humble blog." Too much humility is only hubris in disguise. When that word is trotted out nowadays it is usually pulling a wagon load of manure.
I have often kidded Val about the dead chickens and coconuts which he claims are deposited on his lawn every week, urging him not to regard them as politically-motivated when they could just as well indicate that his neighbors don't like him. Still, in the annals of Babalú the dead chickens and coconuts hold a symbolic place and Val again alludes to them as an old veteran might point to his battle scars. Well, actually, an old veteran wouldn't.
Here's another priceless sentence: "Im incredibly proud of this endeavor. Never in my wildest dreams could I have imagined the extents the words posted herein would go to." The majesty of that sentence, which defies all attempts at parsing, must shine by its own black light.
And yet another gem of sophistry, more inscrutable than the last: "We have helped get the word out on the struggle and strife of Cuba's political and ideological prisoners and we have maybe opened some eyes or four." At least four eyes, we should hope.
In the comments section of this blog some have suggested that Val may have been referring to us when he mentions at length Babalú's "detractors." Since I have never called Val "a fascist, an evil bastard, a homophobe, a heartless so and so, an intransigent, anitquated [?] extremist terrorist, etc..." I am sure that he must have other detractors in mind. The things I have called Val he prefers not to mention because they would not be as easily dismissed as the strawmen that he cites.
One final observation: Val is not usually so atrocious a writer. He can only be inspired to these depths by some impetus of "humility."
Sunday, June 29, 2008
Are Cubans "Resentful" & "Unforgiving?" Carlos Alberto Montaner Thinks So
The future is unknown. The present lasts 24 hours. It is only the past which is always with us.
In his latest column in El Nuevo Herald ("El rencor y la historia," July 29), Carlos Alberto Montaner calls into question the wisdom of holding unto the past because he believes that doing so makes Cubans (and others) "resentful" and "unforgiving" of historical wrongs committed against them, which leaves them "aplastados por el pasado (crushed by the past)." Generalizations of this kind are always wrong, and though intended to show that the author is an incisive and impartial judge of history, what it really shows is that he is hypercritical and uninformed. The matter becomes even worse when Montaner maintains that Americans are mercifully free of such historical revanchism. Living in Spain, obviously, has not saved him from the yankofilia (Martí's word) which afflicts so many Cuban exiles here. I would not personally find anything offensive about an exaggerated opinion of this country if it were not always accompanied by the disposition to denigrate ours.
The specific case which Montaner cites as proof of Cuba's "cultura rencorosa" is our reaction to Spain's execution in 1871 of eight Cuban medical students during the height of the Ten Years' War. The eight Havana University students were falsely accused of desecrating the tomb of a pro-Spanish newspaper editor by scratching the glass plate on his crypt. Martí's best friend, Fermín Valdés Domínguez, also a medical student, proved that the glass plate had been scratched in the factory in Spain where it was manufactured and the dead man's own son confirmed it.
How did these "resentful" and "unforgiving" Cubans, men like Valdés Domínguez and Martí, react to this great injustice? As rational men would react: vindicating the memory of the dead by freeing their countrymen from the arbitrary authority that threatened the lives of all. Because revenge would not bring back the dead they were not interested in revenge. Because they could not hope to obtain justice from Spain, they did not seek it from Spain. They knew that only by ending Spanish tyranny in our country would justice prevail and they consecrated their lives to the great work of national redemption.
When Cuba achieved her independence no retribution was undertaken against those who had participated in the crime of November 21, 1871 or in crimes even more sanguinary committed by Spaniards against the Cuban people. Not a single Spaniard, and there were a million in Cuba at the time, was called to account for the murder of 300,000 Cuban civilians in campos de reconcentración during the war. Not a single Spaniard, not even former soldiers of the Crown (like Fidel's own father), was deported to Spain after the war. Not a single real of Spanish assets on the island was confiscated by the new Republic though Spain had confiscated the assets of all Cuban rebels and distributed them to its supporters. But that was not all: Spaniards were invited to immigrate to Cuba, whose population was depleted precisely because of their policy of extermination during the war. Over the life of the Cuban Republic (1902-1958), 1.2 million Spaniards settled in Cuba, which had a population of 3.8 million at the end of the Spanish-American War (1898). Cuba saved more than a half-million Spaniards, both Nationalists and Loyalists, from immolation in the Spanish Civil War.
Where, then, shall we find this "culture of resentment" which supposedly holds Cubans in its thrall? You are not going to believe this: in the fact that Cubans still "remember and commemorate with tears and fiery addresses that act of barbarity." Wow, we really are resentful, aren't we? 136 years after the execution of the medical students we still insist on remembering and commemorating their sacrifice! If Cubans were prone to bear grudges against Spaniards, as Montaner contends, there would be other and more recent reasons to do so.
Montaner contends also that Americans are not as resentful of historical wrongs as Cubans. Well, Americans have not really been the victims of many historical wrongs. They have inflicted historical wrongs on others but rarely had them inflicted on them. Montaner cites slavery, which was a self-inflicted wrong, and celebrates the fact that blacks have been able to transcend the fact that it was Democrats who supported slavery and Republicans who ended it. African-Americans may have switched party allegiances -- and parties do evolve over time, after all -- but they have not let go of their resentment about slavery and for many it still informs their conception of this country and of their place in it, Obama or no Obama.
Montaner does not compare slavery in Cuba to slavery in the U.S. and neither shall we. Instead, a better comparison of historical revanchism in both countries is the aftermath of their respective wars of independence. We have already seen that Cubans wreaked no vengeance on the Spanish or their local allies for their opposition to Cuba's independence. It was otherwise in the United States. At the conclusion of the American Revolution, colonists who had remained loyal to the king were deported en masse to Canada; their property was confiscated without compensation; many were tarred and feathered, others lynched and all forced on long marches where many thousands died of cold or starvation, including women and children. Before Americans practiced genocide on the Indians, they inflicted it on their own brothers.
Before 1959, there was no "cultura rencorosa" in Cuba. Not even in the wake of our bloodiest revolution (that would be the Revolution of 1933) did Cubans institutionalize barbarity in our country. No machadista was ever executed by the provisional government and the few that were imprisoned were released in 1936 when Congress approved a General Amnesty law. Three years for the wounds of a revolution to heal shows a remarkable political maturity as well as the total absence of the spirit of revanchism in our people. Cubans knew how to forgive those who had wronged them, whether foreigners or their own brothers.
Perhaps that is where we erred. We were always too prone to forgive and far to prone to forget, and this weakness, if it is a weakness, would one day be our undoing.
In his latest column in El Nuevo Herald ("El rencor y la historia," July 29), Carlos Alberto Montaner calls into question the wisdom of holding unto the past because he believes that doing so makes Cubans (and others) "resentful" and "unforgiving" of historical wrongs committed against them, which leaves them "aplastados por el pasado (crushed by the past)." Generalizations of this kind are always wrong, and though intended to show that the author is an incisive and impartial judge of history, what it really shows is that he is hypercritical and uninformed. The matter becomes even worse when Montaner maintains that Americans are mercifully free of such historical revanchism. Living in Spain, obviously, has not saved him from the yankofilia (Martí's word) which afflicts so many Cuban exiles here. I would not personally find anything offensive about an exaggerated opinion of this country if it were not always accompanied by the disposition to denigrate ours.
The specific case which Montaner cites as proof of Cuba's "cultura rencorosa" is our reaction to Spain's execution in 1871 of eight Cuban medical students during the height of the Ten Years' War. The eight Havana University students were falsely accused of desecrating the tomb of a pro-Spanish newspaper editor by scratching the glass plate on his crypt. Martí's best friend, Fermín Valdés Domínguez, also a medical student, proved that the glass plate had been scratched in the factory in Spain where it was manufactured and the dead man's own son confirmed it.
How did these "resentful" and "unforgiving" Cubans, men like Valdés Domínguez and Martí, react to this great injustice? As rational men would react: vindicating the memory of the dead by freeing their countrymen from the arbitrary authority that threatened the lives of all. Because revenge would not bring back the dead they were not interested in revenge. Because they could not hope to obtain justice from Spain, they did not seek it from Spain. They knew that only by ending Spanish tyranny in our country would justice prevail and they consecrated their lives to the great work of national redemption.
When Cuba achieved her independence no retribution was undertaken against those who had participated in the crime of November 21, 1871 or in crimes even more sanguinary committed by Spaniards against the Cuban people. Not a single Spaniard, and there were a million in Cuba at the time, was called to account for the murder of 300,000 Cuban civilians in campos de reconcentración during the war. Not a single Spaniard, not even former soldiers of the Crown (like Fidel's own father), was deported to Spain after the war. Not a single real of Spanish assets on the island was confiscated by the new Republic though Spain had confiscated the assets of all Cuban rebels and distributed them to its supporters. But that was not all: Spaniards were invited to immigrate to Cuba, whose population was depleted precisely because of their policy of extermination during the war. Over the life of the Cuban Republic (1902-1958), 1.2 million Spaniards settled in Cuba, which had a population of 3.8 million at the end of the Spanish-American War (1898). Cuba saved more than a half-million Spaniards, both Nationalists and Loyalists, from immolation in the Spanish Civil War.
Where, then, shall we find this "culture of resentment" which supposedly holds Cubans in its thrall? You are not going to believe this: in the fact that Cubans still "remember and commemorate with tears and fiery addresses that act of barbarity." Wow, we really are resentful, aren't we? 136 years after the execution of the medical students we still insist on remembering and commemorating their sacrifice! If Cubans were prone to bear grudges against Spaniards, as Montaner contends, there would be other and more recent reasons to do so.
Montaner contends also that Americans are not as resentful of historical wrongs as Cubans. Well, Americans have not really been the victims of many historical wrongs. They have inflicted historical wrongs on others but rarely had them inflicted on them. Montaner cites slavery, which was a self-inflicted wrong, and celebrates the fact that blacks have been able to transcend the fact that it was Democrats who supported slavery and Republicans who ended it. African-Americans may have switched party allegiances -- and parties do evolve over time, after all -- but they have not let go of their resentment about slavery and for many it still informs their conception of this country and of their place in it, Obama or no Obama.
Montaner does not compare slavery in Cuba to slavery in the U.S. and neither shall we. Instead, a better comparison of historical revanchism in both countries is the aftermath of their respective wars of independence. We have already seen that Cubans wreaked no vengeance on the Spanish or their local allies for their opposition to Cuba's independence. It was otherwise in the United States. At the conclusion of the American Revolution, colonists who had remained loyal to the king were deported en masse to Canada; their property was confiscated without compensation; many were tarred and feathered, others lynched and all forced on long marches where many thousands died of cold or starvation, including women and children. Before Americans practiced genocide on the Indians, they inflicted it on their own brothers.
Before 1959, there was no "cultura rencorosa" in Cuba. Not even in the wake of our bloodiest revolution (that would be the Revolution of 1933) did Cubans institutionalize barbarity in our country. No machadista was ever executed by the provisional government and the few that were imprisoned were released in 1936 when Congress approved a General Amnesty law. Three years for the wounds of a revolution to heal shows a remarkable political maturity as well as the total absence of the spirit of revanchism in our people. Cubans knew how to forgive those who had wronged them, whether foreigners or their own brothers.
Perhaps that is where we erred. We were always too prone to forgive and far to prone to forget, and this weakness, if it is a weakness, would one day be our undoing.
Babalú's Fifth Anniversary
Babalu's fifth anniversary deserved no better of its Founding Editor than a post with the single word: "Wow." Can there be a clearer definition of "I don't give a damn?"
Before Val became the Val that we all know today, with his pressure cooker and his rivers of blood, his suppression of dissent and of dissenters, his pomposity and self-absorption, there was another Val, a humble guy who set for himself a big mission, to "create an island on the net without a bearded dictator," dedicated to exposing Castro's misdeeds and defending his victims. He was not the first Cuban-American blogger. But his blog was the first serious and successful attempt to challenge the monopoly which leftists held over the Cuban debate on the blogosphere. Nor can it be denied that Babalú was a wellspring for other Cuban blogs, and Val himself, if we believe their testimonials, the inspiration for a spate of likeminded anti-Castro bloggers.
Somewhere along the road, however, the humble guy started using the word "humble" with much less sincerity. Whereas in the beginning he would debate any Castroite crackpot who wandered into his domain, he later became very picky about who commented on his threads and what was said there. He came to regard it as a personal affront if his commenters did not second his every opinion. Then he started to delete comments that did not and ban commenters who would not pay due obeisance to his monomania. To all his other laurels, Val added that of introducing the echo chamber to the Cuban-American blogosphere. There are those who consider Henry to be Val's Richelieu and blame his influence for all that went wrong at Babalú. I give Val more credit than that.
In any case, congratulations to Babalú, and, in particular, to its Founding Editor. I have spent a year trying to make you return to your better angels. What success I have had, if any, I will let others decide. It is an encouraging development that lately some modicum of free expression has returned to Babalú, though it is still likely to be met with the same abuse. The reason is that suppression of all dissent had turned Babalú into a ghost town, with miles of posts with nary a comment hitched to them.
Perhaps they have started to realize that diversity of opinion benefits both countries and blogs.
Let us at least hope so.
POSTSCRIPT:
Shocking. Of 16 commenters congratulating Val on Babalú's 5th Anniversary, only 8 are members of his "magnificent cadre of writers." The other 8 must have overlooked his "Wow" post. Time to thin the ranks?
Before Val became the Val that we all know today, with his pressure cooker and his rivers of blood, his suppression of dissent and of dissenters, his pomposity and self-absorption, there was another Val, a humble guy who set for himself a big mission, to "create an island on the net without a bearded dictator," dedicated to exposing Castro's misdeeds and defending his victims. He was not the first Cuban-American blogger. But his blog was the first serious and successful attempt to challenge the monopoly which leftists held over the Cuban debate on the blogosphere. Nor can it be denied that Babalú was a wellspring for other Cuban blogs, and Val himself, if we believe their testimonials, the inspiration for a spate of likeminded anti-Castro bloggers.
Somewhere along the road, however, the humble guy started using the word "humble" with much less sincerity. Whereas in the beginning he would debate any Castroite crackpot who wandered into his domain, he later became very picky about who commented on his threads and what was said there. He came to regard it as a personal affront if his commenters did not second his every opinion. Then he started to delete comments that did not and ban commenters who would not pay due obeisance to his monomania. To all his other laurels, Val added that of introducing the echo chamber to the Cuban-American blogosphere. There are those who consider Henry to be Val's Richelieu and blame his influence for all that went wrong at Babalú. I give Val more credit than that.
In any case, congratulations to Babalú, and, in particular, to its Founding Editor. I have spent a year trying to make you return to your better angels. What success I have had, if any, I will let others decide. It is an encouraging development that lately some modicum of free expression has returned to Babalú, though it is still likely to be met with the same abuse. The reason is that suppression of all dissent had turned Babalú into a ghost town, with miles of posts with nary a comment hitched to them.
Perhaps they have started to realize that diversity of opinion benefits both countries and blogs.
Let us at least hope so.
POSTSCRIPT:
Shocking. Of 16 commenters congratulating Val on Babalú's 5th Anniversary, only 8 are members of his "magnificent cadre of writers." The other 8 must have overlooked his "Wow" post. Time to thin the ranks?
Saturday, June 28, 2008
Bigotry Against Anti-Castro Cuban Gays at Babalú
Pototo, Babalú's oldest (surviving) commenter, has booted himself because of what he perceives as a pro-gay bias there. He says that he refuses to "get in bed" with homosexuals to fight Castro, as if that were necessary or even desired by them. Defending gays from being pumelled by our enemies is not tantamount to offering them your ass for consolation.
Val and George reacted with surprising aplomb to pototo's announcement, respecting his opinion without endorsing it, which may not be what pototo expected (certainly it wasn't what I expected). George maintained that gays have a place in civil society, whether here or in Cuba; and Val insisted, rightly, that condemning the persecution of gays is not an endorsement of their lifestyle. Also challenging pototo in somewhat more forcible terms was one of Babalú's two resident gay commenters, Cangrejero de Caibarien, whose presence on the blog has significantly increased the level of tolerance there. It was not too long ago that "the guys" were hurling gay insults at non-gay dissenters. The presence of these two prolific gay commenters has put the sophomoric trio on their best behavior, which is a good thing because our enemy's first line of attack has always been to try to label anti-Castro Cubans as the very thing that we denounce. This takes the form of equating intemperate words with intemperate acts; frustration with repression; and personal prejudices with state-induced pogroms.
Frankly, Pons' cartoon did not merit such a reaction from pototo since Babalú reproduced it without comment, that is, without explicitly endorsing it. Nothing is more detrimental to the cause of Cuban freedom than to fight among ourselves about which group has been victimized more by the anti-Cuban Revolution. But we live in the U.S. where the game of victimhood is a national obsession and it could hardly be unexpected that some Cuban exiles would also become addicted to it.
But let me correct myself. One thing is more deleterious than parsing one another's pain: To suggest that the persecution of some may be justified or even commendable. Tyranny is odious whatever its guise or whomever its victims. Once we sanction the persecution of one group, we have sanctioned persecution itself. Then its application to other groups becomes subjective, and tyranny devolves from being an absolute evil to a partial evil, or a tolerable evil, or a necessary evil, or even an acceptable evil. Acceptable for others, of course. Man rarely clamors for evil to be a part of his life. Nothing can be more noxious to Christ's new commandment than establishing exceptions to the Golden Rule.
In the struggle against Communism in Cuba homosexuals have not evaded their duty or shown less courage in confronting the regime than has any other group. In fact, the only victory that Cubans have ever obtained against Castro's propaganda juggernaut is owed to them. The documentary Improper Conduct (1984), which exposed the regime's systematic persecution of gays as gays, forced the liberal media to admit for the first time (25 years after the fact) that human rights were violated in Cuba, and convinced the "small s" socialist countries in Europe that had hitherto regarded Castro's Stalinism as a more disciplined version of their welfare states, to condemn in international forums what they had never condemned before -- Castro's persecution of his own people. Homosexual were regarded then in the most condescending manner by liberals: not as political beings entitled to their natural rights as citizens but as sexual beings indifferent to politics whose persecution, therefore, was onerous because it was unnecessary.
Nevertheless, regardless of the prejudices which sustained it, the reaction against Castro's persecution of gays as depicted in Improper Conduct was universal and devastating in the extreme to the proggresive image of itself which the regime projected to the world at large. Even today it is still struggling to shed the image of intolerance that replaced it, but it has stuck for good and no amount of burnishing at home or abroad over 25 years has managed to unstick it, not even the appointment of Raúl's daughter as Communist Cuba's "Gay Czarina." The cancelled Gay Pride March has given a needed reality check to those who regard the promise of free sex-change operations (which has nothing to do with homosexuals) as yet another Raulian reform and happy omen for Cuba's indefinite future.
The damage to the regime's international reputation caused by its persecution of gays has contributed more to making Castro's Cuba a pariah state than has its placement by the U.S. on the State Department's List of Terrorist States, which has now became a joke with Bush's opportunistic removal of North Korea.
When anyone in Cuba, white or black, young or old, gay or straight, sane or Obama-supporter, raises his voice against the regime or puts his life on the line to protest it, the last thing that any exile should do is shout him down.
POSTSCRIPT:
Guajiro de Broward took over where pototo left off, accusing Cuban gays of being allied with Fidel Castro in a worldwide conspiracy to destroy Christianity. Giraldo, coming from the other end of political spectrum on this issue, concluded like pototo that he could no longer continue to contribute to Babalú:
This blog's homophobia gives [me] the creeps. ¡Qué asco! I'll never come back here. Comparing the gays to Stalin!!! Incredible! Babalú's readers, in general, are just a bunch of intransigent troglodytes. If this is the kind of people we'll have to deal [with] in a free Cuba, then why take the trouble to change anything?
Posted by: giraldo at June 28, 2008 04:30 AM
Val and George reacted with surprising aplomb to pototo's announcement, respecting his opinion without endorsing it, which may not be what pototo expected (certainly it wasn't what I expected). George maintained that gays have a place in civil society, whether here or in Cuba; and Val insisted, rightly, that condemning the persecution of gays is not an endorsement of their lifestyle. Also challenging pototo in somewhat more forcible terms was one of Babalú's two resident gay commenters, Cangrejero de Caibarien, whose presence on the blog has significantly increased the level of tolerance there. It was not too long ago that "the guys" were hurling gay insults at non-gay dissenters. The presence of these two prolific gay commenters has put the sophomoric trio on their best behavior, which is a good thing because our enemy's first line of attack has always been to try to label anti-Castro Cubans as the very thing that we denounce. This takes the form of equating intemperate words with intemperate acts; frustration with repression; and personal prejudices with state-induced pogroms.
Frankly, Pons' cartoon did not merit such a reaction from pototo since Babalú reproduced it without comment, that is, without explicitly endorsing it. Nothing is more detrimental to the cause of Cuban freedom than to fight among ourselves about which group has been victimized more by the anti-Cuban Revolution. But we live in the U.S. where the game of victimhood is a national obsession and it could hardly be unexpected that some Cuban exiles would also become addicted to it.
But let me correct myself. One thing is more deleterious than parsing one another's pain: To suggest that the persecution of some may be justified or even commendable. Tyranny is odious whatever its guise or whomever its victims. Once we sanction the persecution of one group, we have sanctioned persecution itself. Then its application to other groups becomes subjective, and tyranny devolves from being an absolute evil to a partial evil, or a tolerable evil, or a necessary evil, or even an acceptable evil. Acceptable for others, of course. Man rarely clamors for evil to be a part of his life. Nothing can be more noxious to Christ's new commandment than establishing exceptions to the Golden Rule.
In the struggle against Communism in Cuba homosexuals have not evaded their duty or shown less courage in confronting the regime than has any other group. In fact, the only victory that Cubans have ever obtained against Castro's propaganda juggernaut is owed to them. The documentary Improper Conduct (1984), which exposed the regime's systematic persecution of gays as gays, forced the liberal media to admit for the first time (25 years after the fact) that human rights were violated in Cuba, and convinced the "small s" socialist countries in Europe that had hitherto regarded Castro's Stalinism as a more disciplined version of their welfare states, to condemn in international forums what they had never condemned before -- Castro's persecution of his own people. Homosexual were regarded then in the most condescending manner by liberals: not as political beings entitled to their natural rights as citizens but as sexual beings indifferent to politics whose persecution, therefore, was onerous because it was unnecessary.
Nevertheless, regardless of the prejudices which sustained it, the reaction against Castro's persecution of gays as depicted in Improper Conduct was universal and devastating in the extreme to the proggresive image of itself which the regime projected to the world at large. Even today it is still struggling to shed the image of intolerance that replaced it, but it has stuck for good and no amount of burnishing at home or abroad over 25 years has managed to unstick it, not even the appointment of Raúl's daughter as Communist Cuba's "Gay Czarina." The cancelled Gay Pride March has given a needed reality check to those who regard the promise of free sex-change operations (which has nothing to do with homosexuals) as yet another Raulian reform and happy omen for Cuba's indefinite future.
The damage to the regime's international reputation caused by its persecution of gays has contributed more to making Castro's Cuba a pariah state than has its placement by the U.S. on the State Department's List of Terrorist States, which has now became a joke with Bush's opportunistic removal of North Korea.
When anyone in Cuba, white or black, young or old, gay or straight, sane or Obama-supporter, raises his voice against the regime or puts his life on the line to protest it, the last thing that any exile should do is shout him down.
POSTSCRIPT:
Guajiro de Broward took over where pototo left off, accusing Cuban gays of being allied with Fidel Castro in a worldwide conspiracy to destroy Christianity. Giraldo, coming from the other end of political spectrum on this issue, concluded like pototo that he could no longer continue to contribute to Babalú:
This blog's homophobia gives [me] the creeps. ¡Qué asco! I'll never come back here. Comparing the gays to Stalin!!! Incredible! Babalú's readers, in general, are just a bunch of intransigent troglodytes. If this is the kind of people we'll have to deal [with] in a free Cuba, then why take the trouble to change anything?
Posted by: giraldo at June 28, 2008 04:30 AM
In the liberal media being attacked from both sides of an issue is considered proof of objectivity. Of course, it is no such thing. It merely shows that one is playing both sides.
Friday, June 27, 2008
Fidel Eulogizes Yet Another "Comrade" He Killed: Salvador Allende
"He [Salvador Allende] fought like a lion till his last breath." -- Fidel Castro, "Salvador Allende, un ejemplo que perdura," Granma, July 27, 2008
Well, not quite.
KGB agent/President Salvador Allende was impeached and deposed by the Chilean Congress for subverting the Constitution by conspiring to declare Chile a Marxist state. Since Allende refused to leave voluntarily, the Congress ordered the head of the army, Gen. Augusto Pinochet, to remove him forcibly from the presidential palace. What nobody knew then was that Allende himself wanted no part of a heroic resistance. As the aerial bombardment began, Allende, in a state of panic, ran down the corridors of the palace shouting, "We must surrender!" A logical if not exactly bold-spirited conclusion. Despite being a Soviet agent for 35 years, Allende was also a typical Latin American politician whose first instinct when in trouble is to head to the nearest foreign embassy (in his case, Sweden's).
Allende in fact requested and was granted a truce on several occasions during the siege, but his Cuban bodyguards, under orders from Castro, would not allow their hostage to surrender. When the army finally stormed the palace and all further temporizing was futile, the chief of Allende's security detail, Patricio de la Guardia, shot Allende point blank in the head. Castro, who neither trusts nor is loyal to any man, did no want Allende captured because he feared that he might try to save himself by revealing all he knew about Cuban penetration in South America. In any case, Allende as a martyr was infinitely more useful to Fidel than as a loose cannon. It was Castro's decision, therefore, that he should never leave the palace alive.
The bodyguards, led by de la Guardia, did manage to escape through an underground tunnel that took them to the nearby Cuban embassy. They could have taken Allende with them, of course, but saving him would have entailed greater risks for them and Castro. Allende had complained four months before his death that he had been "instrumentalized by Castro." Indeed, the Cuban DGI had infiltrated all government ministries and seized effective control of the executive branch. It would not have been farfetched to suppose that Allende would have blamed Castro for his fall. Mussolini, even after Hitler rescued him, blamed him for his.
For many years Allende's daughter, who was not in the palace at the time of the siege, insisted that her father had been killed by the army. Castro also backed this fabrication, which was calculated to discredit Pinochet. When Pinochet stepped down after losing the last plebiscite, Allende's daughter changed her story. She is now of the opinion that her father committed suicide with a submachine gun, a gift from Castro which he kept in his office. Some day, perhaps, after Castro's own death, she may finally admit what other Chilean leftists have long known: that Castro did provide the instrument of Allende's death, except that it was not a gun but the man who pulled the trigger.
In his wikipedia-like "Reflection" in Granma (June 27) on the centenary of Allende's birth, Castro also now appears to credit suicide as the cause of his death, without, of course, acknowledging the provenance of the gun that the deposed Chilean president supposedly used to off himself. With his usual cynicism Castro compares Allende to Cuba's own 19th century revolutionary heroes who always saved the last bullet for themselves rather than surrender to the enemy.
Fidel Castro, the intellectual author of Allende's assassination, confined the actual assassin to prison 20 years ago, not for killing Allende, of course, but on charges of drug-trafficking. Patricio de la Guardia was actually lucky. Castro executed his twin brother Antonio ("Tony") de la Guardia and the supposed ringleader General Arnaldo Ochoa. It was rumored at the time that they had conspired against Castro, although it is hard to know whether against his power or his interests.
That Patricio was the only survivor of the 1989 purge is attributed to the fact that he deposited an account of Allende's death in a Panamanian bank vault to be opened in case of his death.
Castro concludes his homage to Salvador Allende by declining to say, out of characteristic humility, all that he was prepared to do to save him(self). Let others, he demurs, speak of his colossal loyalty and generosity.
Has any man in history eulogized the allies he has killed more than has Castro? Perhaps one day he'll eulogize Hugo Chávez, too, who is also "protected" by Castro's handpicked bodyguards.
Well, not quite.
KGB agent/President Salvador Allende was impeached and deposed by the Chilean Congress for subverting the Constitution by conspiring to declare Chile a Marxist state. Since Allende refused to leave voluntarily, the Congress ordered the head of the army, Gen. Augusto Pinochet, to remove him forcibly from the presidential palace. What nobody knew then was that Allende himself wanted no part of a heroic resistance. As the aerial bombardment began, Allende, in a state of panic, ran down the corridors of the palace shouting, "We must surrender!" A logical if not exactly bold-spirited conclusion. Despite being a Soviet agent for 35 years, Allende was also a typical Latin American politician whose first instinct when in trouble is to head to the nearest foreign embassy (in his case, Sweden's).
Allende in fact requested and was granted a truce on several occasions during the siege, but his Cuban bodyguards, under orders from Castro, would not allow their hostage to surrender. When the army finally stormed the palace and all further temporizing was futile, the chief of Allende's security detail, Patricio de la Guardia, shot Allende point blank in the head. Castro, who neither trusts nor is loyal to any man, did no want Allende captured because he feared that he might try to save himself by revealing all he knew about Cuban penetration in South America. In any case, Allende as a martyr was infinitely more useful to Fidel than as a loose cannon. It was Castro's decision, therefore, that he should never leave the palace alive.
The bodyguards, led by de la Guardia, did manage to escape through an underground tunnel that took them to the nearby Cuban embassy. They could have taken Allende with them, of course, but saving him would have entailed greater risks for them and Castro. Allende had complained four months before his death that he had been "instrumentalized by Castro." Indeed, the Cuban DGI had infiltrated all government ministries and seized effective control of the executive branch. It would not have been farfetched to suppose that Allende would have blamed Castro for his fall. Mussolini, even after Hitler rescued him, blamed him for his.
For many years Allende's daughter, who was not in the palace at the time of the siege, insisted that her father had been killed by the army. Castro also backed this fabrication, which was calculated to discredit Pinochet. When Pinochet stepped down after losing the last plebiscite, Allende's daughter changed her story. She is now of the opinion that her father committed suicide with a submachine gun, a gift from Castro which he kept in his office. Some day, perhaps, after Castro's own death, she may finally admit what other Chilean leftists have long known: that Castro did provide the instrument of Allende's death, except that it was not a gun but the man who pulled the trigger.
In his wikipedia-like "Reflection" in Granma (June 27) on the centenary of Allende's birth, Castro also now appears to credit suicide as the cause of his death, without, of course, acknowledging the provenance of the gun that the deposed Chilean president supposedly used to off himself. With his usual cynicism Castro compares Allende to Cuba's own 19th century revolutionary heroes who always saved the last bullet for themselves rather than surrender to the enemy.
Fidel Castro, the intellectual author of Allende's assassination, confined the actual assassin to prison 20 years ago, not for killing Allende, of course, but on charges of drug-trafficking. Patricio de la Guardia was actually lucky. Castro executed his twin brother Antonio ("Tony") de la Guardia and the supposed ringleader General Arnaldo Ochoa. It was rumored at the time that they had conspired against Castro, although it is hard to know whether against his power or his interests.
That Patricio was the only survivor of the 1989 purge is attributed to the fact that he deposited an account of Allende's death in a Panamanian bank vault to be opened in case of his death.
Castro concludes his homage to Salvador Allende by declining to say, out of characteristic humility, all that he was prepared to do to save him(self). Let others, he demurs, speak of his colossal loyalty and generosity.
Has any man in history eulogized the allies he has killed more than has Castro? Perhaps one day he'll eulogize Hugo Chávez, too, who is also "protected" by Castro's handpicked bodyguards.
Thursday, June 26, 2008
Cuban Church Condemns Gay Rights Day March
There is no officially recognized gay organization in Cuba except the Catholic Church, and its leaders, most of whom are closet cases, are no friends of extending homosexual rights beyond their clique. When any soul, regardless of extraneous factors, raises his voice in demand of his human rights in Communist Cuba, he becomes a pariah and a target. The Church, if it will not plead for his rights, should at least refrain from joining the lynch mob gathering around him. But the hierarchs of the Cuban Church, who have witnessed passively and sometimes complicitly the destruction of civil society in Cuba, have raised their voices for the first time in 50 years in condemnation of a group of Cubans who desired nothing more and nothing less than to assert the right to be themselves in a public forum. A Church which has never condemned the regime's intolerance beckons it now to be more not less intolerant!
It is not the homosexual lifestyle that is the issue, but the reaction of the island's henchmen to that lifestyle. The Church's appeal to the Communist authorities to stop the peaceful protest provided them with the necessary cover to do so. Apologists for the regime will no doubt claim that in cancelling the march the regime succumbed to pressure from the Church, which in this respect, at least -- to frame the argument for them -- represents the reactionary thought and tendencies in Cuban society which the Revolution has fought but not entirely defeated since they are so ingrained in the Cuban character. Hence they will contend that it is not Castro who is principally to blame for the suppression of the Gay Rights March but the intolerant and homophobic Cuban people.
If the Gay Rights Day March had been allowed to proceed it would have been a great propaganda coup for the regime and its defiance of the Church's appeal to stop it would have been cited as proof of its greater openness and tolerance. But, of course, the regime could not allow such a public demonstration even if doing so rebounded to its favor as yet another instance of Raúl's so-called "reforms."
Why?
Because it would have constituted an actual reform as opposed to a sham one.
Had the gays been allowed to march theirs would have been the first non-official public demonstration in Cuba since the statue of Our Lady of Charity was carried in procession from one end of the island to the other in January 1960, the first and last gasp of the church militant in Cuba before submitting to the new Communist order. Perhaps church officials did not wish to be reminded of the role that the church forfeited in the life of the nation to preserve their isolated privileges and prerogatives, including their right to practice sodomy without retribution.
It is not the homosexual lifestyle that is the issue, but the reaction of the island's henchmen to that lifestyle. The Church's appeal to the Communist authorities to stop the peaceful protest provided them with the necessary cover to do so. Apologists for the regime will no doubt claim that in cancelling the march the regime succumbed to pressure from the Church, which in this respect, at least -- to frame the argument for them -- represents the reactionary thought and tendencies in Cuban society which the Revolution has fought but not entirely defeated since they are so ingrained in the Cuban character. Hence they will contend that it is not Castro who is principally to blame for the suppression of the Gay Rights March but the intolerant and homophobic Cuban people.
If the Gay Rights Day March had been allowed to proceed it would have been a great propaganda coup for the regime and its defiance of the Church's appeal to stop it would have been cited as proof of its greater openness and tolerance. But, of course, the regime could not allow such a public demonstration even if doing so rebounded to its favor as yet another instance of Raúl's so-called "reforms."
Why?
Because it would have constituted an actual reform as opposed to a sham one.
Had the gays been allowed to march theirs would have been the first non-official public demonstration in Cuba since the statue of Our Lady of Charity was carried in procession from one end of the island to the other in January 1960, the first and last gasp of the church militant in Cuba before submitting to the new Communist order. Perhaps church officials did not wish to be reminded of the role that the church forfeited in the life of the nation to preserve their isolated privileges and prerogatives, including their right to practice sodomy without retribution.
Enigma: Crip or Blood?
"There's only one thing different about Barack Obama when it comes to being a Democratic presidential candidate. He's half African-American.
"Whether that will make any difference, I don't know. I haven't heard him have a strong crackdown on economic exploitation in the ghettos. Payday loans, predatory lending, asbestos, lead. What's keeping him from doing that? Is it because he wants to talk white? He doesn't want to appear like Jesse Jackson? We'll see all that play out in the next few months and if he gets elected afterwards.''
"And it's clear from Sen. Obama's campaign that he is not willing to tackle the white power structure whether in the form of the corporate power structure or many of the super-rich -- who are taking advantage of 100 million low-income Americans who are suffering in poverty or near poverty." -- Ralph Nader, interview, Rocky Mountain News, June 24, 2008
The worst reason not to vote for Barack Obama is because he's black. Because he isn't. He may identify himself as black but that is only skin-deep (and not very deep at that). Ralph Nader, who in his dotage has become the little boy who says the emperor has no clothes, got it right. Obama "talks white" because he would look ridiculous trying to talk or act black (see picture above). He was was abandoned by both his black father and white mother and raised by his white grandparents, a World War II veteran and his wife, a bank vice-president. Obama's upbringing was not only white but skipped back a generation. That's no doubt part of his appeal to guilt-ridden whites: He is not only 50% white racially but 100% white attitudinally. Barack Obama is the "white hope" of blacks. If he can't be elected president, then there is little chance that any other black or mixed-race candidate ever will be.
Obama has spent much of his life trying to connect with his black roots, which are like a phantom limb which he feels but cannot quite grasp. The first black that he ever met was his own father, whom he saw for the first and only time during an airport pitstop in Hawaii. Those precious minutes were transmuted into a book about the "lessons" which his father taught him. Actually, the only "lessons" which he could have taught him were as a negative role model -- how to fail as a father, how to fail as a Harvard graduate, how to fail as a politician, how to fail as a man. His complete absence from Obama Jr.'s life allowed him to create a black identity which was mercifully free of his direct influence.
When Obama finished his law studies at Columbia, he moved to Chicago vent on pursuing a political career. It was then that he embraced his black identity, or, rather, decided that he should have one. He could not have accomplished this makeover himself, and, fortunately, he didn't have to. He had the active guidance of his spiritual mentor and father surrogate Rev. Jeremiah Wright, who was a caricature of black nationalism in the era of post-nationalism in the African world. Obama's white upbringing served him in good stead when deciding what to copy and what not to copy about Rev. Wright. The leopard skins, whether his father's or Wright's, he wisely discarded (except when he visited the "motherland"). What he adapted from Wright was his worldview, which in turn mirrored W.E.B. Dubois's after he became a Communist in his nineties. He also followed Rev. Wright's recommendation in the choice of a wife. She was (and is) his firmest anchor to the black community. Some have called her his "passport" to the African-American community.
Ralph Nader is again right when he says that there is nothing in Obama's politics that can be identified as distinctively "African-American." He is a liberal just as Nader himself, though certainly not independent of the Democratic Party. His brand of liberalism (known as socialism everywhere else in the world) has little in common with the core beliefs of most African-Americans, who tend to be as right-of-center on social issues as Obama is left-of-center. This is a real breach between Obama and the black community and his Father's Day speech about the responsibilities of fatherhood was a calculated attempt to bridge that enormous gap at the only point where it would be possible. Still, it was certainly ironic to hear the country's most prominent advocate of partial birth abortion (the medical murder of a baby who had the intrepidity to be born despite an abortionist's worst attempts to kill him in utero) lecture African-Americans (most of whom rightly see abortion as the white liberals's "final solution") about the damage done to children's psyches by invisible fathers. About the damage done to the bodies of babies, whose brains were smashed-in with a mallet or whose limbs were torn apart during partial birth abortion, Obama, who voted against outlawing the procedure, couldn't care less. (Yes, the Supreme Court has banned partial bith abortion, no thanks to Barack Obama).
If Barack Obama is elected president he will certainly not be an advocate for the concerns and interests of African-Americans unless these happen to coincide with his socialist core beliefs and agenda. A vote for Obama is not a vote for racial integration. Whatever that sign gesture is which Obama is mimicking in the photo chances are that any white kid today would know it better than he does. The truth is that America is already integrated and does need a token black to accomplish overnight what a historic process stretching over 400 years has already achieved to the benefit of all Americans.
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
Another Seemingly Meaningless Post By Val Prieto
Another seemingly meaningless post by Val Prieto. No, not the photograph of the curvaceous 1950s Tropicana dancer, that, at least, is historical in nature, or, rather, remarkable in natural history. There is no excuse for a nation filled with such women to have a declining birth rate. Except, of course, the national hecatomb that has rendered everything barren in our country.
The post to which I refer is entitled "Money for Nothing, Chicks for Free - Part Deux." The title does not deliver on its promise, as one might suppose. I thought at first that it might be yet another condemnation of remittances, which, as we all know by now, stifle the revolutionary instincts of the Cuban people by showering them with such luxuries as two meals a day. This time, however, it was not those mendicants who refuse to work for nothing on Castro's behalf that had ruffled Val's feathers.
The offenders this time were Cuban musicians who had settled in New Jersey, and lived "in a tiny, run-down apartment with a tiny, run-down kitchen, a tiny, run-down bathroom and a tiny, run-down bedroom." Now, if one did not know Val, one might suppose that this was a lament for Cubans who had fallen under the bell curve and were struggling to survive in a society that did not recognize their talents or reward them.
No such thing.
The reason these Cubans do not boast modern kitchens (that paradigm of success in this country) is that they prefer to accumulate gold jewelry, loads of it, which they proudly showed off in an old PBS documentary that caught Val's attention and appears to have wounded his sensitivities to the quick.
Ah, those ñangara musicians, even in la Yuma, prefer expensive trinkets to the rudiments of solid citizenship, such as a newly-refurnished kitchen. Of course, with gold now selling at the highest price in history, the Cuban musicians who invested their earnings in gold chains and such have reaped a mighty harvest, while those who remodelled their kitchens are begging for nails.
The post to which I refer is entitled "Money for Nothing, Chicks for Free - Part Deux." The title does not deliver on its promise, as one might suppose. I thought at first that it might be yet another condemnation of remittances, which, as we all know by now, stifle the revolutionary instincts of the Cuban people by showering them with such luxuries as two meals a day. This time, however, it was not those mendicants who refuse to work for nothing on Castro's behalf that had ruffled Val's feathers.
The offenders this time were Cuban musicians who had settled in New Jersey, and lived "in a tiny, run-down apartment with a tiny, run-down kitchen, a tiny, run-down bathroom and a tiny, run-down bedroom." Now, if one did not know Val, one might suppose that this was a lament for Cubans who had fallen under the bell curve and were struggling to survive in a society that did not recognize their talents or reward them.
No such thing.
The reason these Cubans do not boast modern kitchens (that paradigm of success in this country) is that they prefer to accumulate gold jewelry, loads of it, which they proudly showed off in an old PBS documentary that caught Val's attention and appears to have wounded his sensitivities to the quick.
Ah, those ñangara musicians, even in la Yuma, prefer expensive trinkets to the rudiments of solid citizenship, such as a newly-refurnished kitchen. Of course, with gold now selling at the highest price in history, the Cuban musicians who invested their earnings in gold chains and such have reaped a mighty harvest, while those who remodelled their kitchens are begging for nails.
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
Is This Guy an Episcopalian?
My friends, I must apologize to you. After inflicting the last interminable post on you, I am going to devote yet another one to Msgr. Carlos Manuel de Céspedes. I considered attaching it as postscript to the last but that would have been even crueler. Still, we must take advantage of this occasion because Céspedes will never be more topical than he is today, unless he jumps naked from atop Havana Cathedral (which, after you read what I have to tell you, may not seem that improbable).
If I implied previously that Msgr. Céspedes is a vile lickspittle who praises murderers for their "love of the poor" while himself detached from their suffering, then I made myself understood. If, however, I left the impression that he is a coward, then I do wish to take that back at least in part. He is a coward when it comes to defending the Cuban people. But the monsignor, unlike his distinguished ancestor and namesake, does not consider all Cubans to be his children or even his brothers. There is another group, however, whose civil rights he does champion even against the authority of the pope and his own best interests. This is remarkable because Msgr. Céspedes is the very definition of an establishment priest, and priests who curry Rome's favor as he does rarely challenge it publicly and notoriously as he has done.
What is this issue which is so close to his craven heart that he would risk his standing with Rome to champion it? What is this "human right" which trumps all others in his eyes and for which he would dispose of 2000 years of Catholicism to accomodate?
That's right. Msgr. Céspedes is the leading clerical exponent of homosexual "marriage" within the Universal Church. Not for priests (we believe) but for laymen.
In a column published last year in Palabra Nueva [July/August 2007], a diocesan publication that circulates among clerics and other religious in Cuba, Céspedes expressed his unqualified support for civil unions of homosexuals engaged in stable relationships. While claiming that he does not wish to set aside Catholic tradition, he asserts that the Church must "not ignore contemporary personal and familial realities" but be open to new "clarifications of marriage." He would not call same-sex unions "marriage," however. He wants a new word for this "new reality" and "legal and social" acceptance for it. Céspedes even asserts that his support for homosexual unions may have precluded him from becoming a bishop. This would be curious indeed because the practice of it has never stopped any Cuban priest from reaching the episcopacy.
So there you have it. The priest who has never raised one finger or one octave in defense of his long-suffering people raises his fist in the face of the pope himself to demand that gays be given the right marry and the Church accept their union in the spirit(!) if not the letter of Catholicism.
Although Rome took no official cognizance of Céspedes's column (besides, perhaps, denying him that bishopric), it is interesting to note that the digital edition of Palabra Nueva (below) has removed the monsignor's screed from its archives:
http://www.palabranueva.net/contens/0707/0001.html
POSTSCRIPT:
Msgr. Carlos Manuel de Céspedes published a formal repudiation and retraction of his article “El matrimonio y la familia a lo largo de la historia del cristianismo” in the Sept. 2007 (#166) edition of La Palabra Nueva. The original article which was the cause of the retraction has been deleted; but the retraction itself can still be read at http://www.palabranueva.net/contens/0709/000102-2.htm
I have copied it in full in case it too is deleted in the future:
NOTA ACLARATORIA
Sobre el artículo “El matrimonio y la familia a lo largo de la historia del cristianismo”, cuyo subtítulo es “Algunos señalamientos acerca de la Revelación, la Teología, el Magisterio Eclesiástico y la disciplina de la celebración matrimonial. El por qué de los requerimientos de la presencia de testigos y del registro de los archivos.” (Palabra Nueva, Nº 165, Segmento, pp. 29-42)
Motivo de esta “nota aclaratoria”
Se me ha dicho, por parte de la autoridad eclesiástica, que uno de los últimos párrafos (fin de la Pág. 41 e inicio de la Pág. 42) ha sido interpretado por algunos como distanciamiento y hasta como una contradicción, por mi parte, de la enseñanza de la Iglesia Católica acerca de las calificadas como “parejas de hecho” (del mismo sexo), para las que los organismos legislativos de algunos Estados ya han aprobado o discuten actualmente lo que se ha dado en llamar “protección legal”. En algunos casos ha llegado a la equiparación con el matrimonio civil. La raíz de la interpretación parece estar en la frase “con respecto a las relaciones estables entre personas del mismo sexo, no veo dificultad en que sean protegidas por las leyes civiles, pero no me parece conveniente que esa nueva figura jurídica reciba el nombre de matrimonio, etc.” Esta frase (y el resto de este párrafo) están evidentes incluidos solamente per transennam, conociendo la situación actual de nuestro País, y habiendo escuchado, por más de una voz, cuáles son los debates al respecto en el seno de al Asamblea Nacional.
Resumen y referencia
a algunas secciones del artículo
En la primera página del artículo, pág. 29 del número de Palabra Nueva, hago la historia del texto, escrito en el año 2004 para un encuentro de Historia de la Iglesia en Camagüey, en el que no pude participar debido a mis malas condiciones de salud en aquel momento. No recuerdo si, habiendo enviado yo el texto, se leyó o no a los participantes. Luego el texto fue reelaborado para una conferencia, el 12 de julio pasado, en el Centro Cultural San Agustín, a mi cargo, y para la Revista Arquidiocesana Palabra Nueva (número Julio-Agosto 2007). En esa nota introductoria, en letra cursiva, aclaro que se trata sólo de “algunos señalamientos”, no del tema en toda su integridad, y añado: “El tema al que se refieren los mismos debería estar siempre ubicado en ámbito central de los contenidos de la Fe, de la ética y de la actitud Evangelizadora de la Iglesia”.
En la página siguiente (pág. 30), en un recuadro afirmo: “La realidad familiar tiene como punto de partida la realidad del matrimonio entre un hombre y una mujer, considerado como una institución natural, elevada a la condición de sacramento, o sea, signo eficaz de la acción salvífica de Dios”. En la página 33, en el marco del análisis bíblico, y también en un recuadro, afirmo: “El matrimonio monogámico e indisoluble parece haber estado vigente en la situación original de las tribus o grupos humanos que llegaron a constituir el pueblo de Israel”.
Después de un recorrido por textos del Antiguo Testamento y del Nuevo Testamento, relacionados con el matrimonio, en los que recalco su valor vinculante, y ya dentro de la presentación del tema en contexto patrístico, aparece también en recuadro: “Como todo sacramento, el Matrimonio hoy supone también una celebración litúrgica en la que se hacen presentes todos los componentes de la visión católica del mismo”. Pasando por los teólogos medievales y por las distintas escuelas, llegamos al Concilio de Trento, del que afirmo que dirimió para siempre las diversas opiniones acerca de la sacramentalidad o no del Matrimonio, a favor de la sacramentalidad (contra la opinión de la Reforma protestante), y en que la enseñanza tridentina acerca de esa sacramentalidad está en la base de toda enseñanza católica posterior, hasta nuestros días.
De la conclusión (pág. 41), me permito copiar un párrafo: “La Revelación, que debe regir siempre el pensamiento, la ética, la disciplina y, en general, las acciones de la Iglesia, terminó con los Apóstoles y sus discípulos que pusieron por escrito sus enseñanzas (…) En ese proceso –me refiero al proceso de interiorización del dato revelado por la acción del Espíritu en el tiempo de la Iglesia– se va construyendo una especie de sedimento estable con el que se constituye la Tradición. Así, con mayúscula. En ese sedimento estable entran componentes irrenunciables de la Fe y de la Ética cristiana. La evolución en la visión del Matrimonio hasta su comprensión contemporánea como uno de los sacramentos o signos de la Nueva Alianza, con las características recogidas en la actual disciplina canónica y desarrolladas por los teólogos dogmáticos y por los moralistas católicos, es uno de esos ejemplos”.
Después de diversas referencias a situaciones en el mundo contemporáneo que contradicen la enseñanza y disciplina católica del Matrimonio, dentro de las cuales está la “frase problemática” (pág. 42), añado: “La Iglesia no va a renunciar a los criterios establecidos por la Revelación y fijados por la Tradición, en la que el Magisterio Eclesiástico, convenientemente contextualizado, es un componente irrenunciable”. Esa sección continúa con referencias breves a otros sacramentos –Bautismo, Eucaristía…–, y a la pastoral adecuada para participar en ellos.
Observaciones personales:
1) En mi visión de este texto, la consideración del Matrimonio no se limita a cuestiones “formales”, sino y sobre todo a doctrina teológica y praxis canónica sustancial. La referencia a las “uniones de hecho” es solamente parte de las referencias a las discrepancias entre algunas situaciones contemporáneas y las enseñanzas de la Iglesia. Siempre en mi visión de este texto, la posibilidad de una protección legal, en ese contexto, no es más que la alusión –insisto, per transennam dicta– al menor mal posible ante una situación que prevemos. Por mi cabeza jamás pasó una confrontación con las enseñanzas de la Iglesia acerca del Matrimonio y la disciplina eclesiástica católica. Si, a pesar de una lectura atenta de todo el artículo, y no sólo de algún párrafo, y del análisis cuidadoso del mismo y de las frases resaltadas, personas que saben más que yo acerca del valor lingüístico y proyectivo de frases semejantes y que, simultáneamente, están en posiciones responsables de Jerarquía Eclesiástica, entienden que algunas frases pueden ser calificadas como inexactas o erróneas, disociadoras de la disciplina eclesiástica, ofensivas al Santo Padre o merecer cualquier otra calificación análoga, téngase entonces la frase o frases como no escrita, ni pronunciada. En ese caso, yo renunciaría a ella. Me retracto de ella y Dios me concederá la gracia de que se me borre del pensamiento. Yo sé que puedo errar en cuestión de formulaciones lingüísticas y en el ordenamiento de estrategias pastorales. Pero también sé que, por gracia de Dios y ejercicio de mi responsabilidad, no creo haber errado en cuestiones que tengan que ver con los contenidos de la Fe católica, entre los que incluyo –y muy gustosamente– mi adhesión afectuosa al Santo Padre.
2) Ahora bien, durante todos estos años me he desempeñado como sacerdote con muy diversos ministerios pastorales (párroco, profesor, Director del Secretariado General de la Conferencia Episcopal, secretario de la Comisión Episcopal para la Fe, también para el Ecumenismo; he tenido responsabilidades en el CELAM durante varios años y periodos y, desde hace ya varios años, soy Consultor del Consejo Pontificio para la Cultura). Nunca, ni en ningún lugar, me he sabido bajo sospechas en materia de Fe, disciplina eclesiástica o distanciamiento de las enseñanzas del Santo Padre. Resultaría un absurdo que ahora, de repente, anciano ya como soy, en el ocaso de mi vida útil, sorprenda a todos con una discrepancia eclesial en situación tan delicada como es la disciplina matrimonial y el apoyo a la familia. Pocas realidades aprecio y valoro tanto como el Matrimonio y la Familia, tal y como los presenta la Iglesia y como tuve la fortuna de vivirlos en mi propia familia. Y esto se sabe de sobra en los círculos en los que me he movido siempre. ¡Se necesita no haber “leído bien” el artículo y no conocerme para imaginar el dislate que ciertos resúmenes periodísticos, sobre todo digitales, me atribuyen!
Monseñor Carlos M. de Céspedes García-Menocal
La Habana, 4 de septiembre de 2007.
If I implied previously that Msgr. Céspedes is a vile lickspittle who praises murderers for their "love of the poor" while himself detached from their suffering, then I made myself understood. If, however, I left the impression that he is a coward, then I do wish to take that back at least in part. He is a coward when it comes to defending the Cuban people. But the monsignor, unlike his distinguished ancestor and namesake, does not consider all Cubans to be his children or even his brothers. There is another group, however, whose civil rights he does champion even against the authority of the pope and his own best interests. This is remarkable because Msgr. Céspedes is the very definition of an establishment priest, and priests who curry Rome's favor as he does rarely challenge it publicly and notoriously as he has done.
What is this issue which is so close to his craven heart that he would risk his standing with Rome to champion it? What is this "human right" which trumps all others in his eyes and for which he would dispose of 2000 years of Catholicism to accomodate?
That's right. Msgr. Céspedes is the leading clerical exponent of homosexual "marriage" within the Universal Church. Not for priests (we believe) but for laymen.
In a column published last year in Palabra Nueva [July/August 2007], a diocesan publication that circulates among clerics and other religious in Cuba, Céspedes expressed his unqualified support for civil unions of homosexuals engaged in stable relationships. While claiming that he does not wish to set aside Catholic tradition, he asserts that the Church must "not ignore contemporary personal and familial realities" but be open to new "clarifications of marriage." He would not call same-sex unions "marriage," however. He wants a new word for this "new reality" and "legal and social" acceptance for it. Céspedes even asserts that his support for homosexual unions may have precluded him from becoming a bishop. This would be curious indeed because the practice of it has never stopped any Cuban priest from reaching the episcopacy.
So there you have it. The priest who has never raised one finger or one octave in defense of his long-suffering people raises his fist in the face of the pope himself to demand that gays be given the right marry and the Church accept their union in the spirit(!) if not the letter of Catholicism.
Although Rome took no official cognizance of Céspedes's column (besides, perhaps, denying him that bishopric), it is interesting to note that the digital edition of Palabra Nueva (below) has removed the monsignor's screed from its archives:
http://www.palabranueva.net/contens/0707/0001.html
POSTSCRIPT:
Msgr. Carlos Manuel de Céspedes published a formal repudiation and retraction of his article “El matrimonio y la familia a lo largo de la historia del cristianismo” in the Sept. 2007 (#166) edition of La Palabra Nueva. The original article which was the cause of the retraction has been deleted; but the retraction itself can still be read at http://www.palabranueva.net/contens/0709/000102-2.htm
I have copied it in full in case it too is deleted in the future:
Sobre el artículo “El matrimonio y la familia a lo largo de la historia del cristianismo”, cuyo subtítulo es “Algunos señalamientos acerca de la Revelación, la Teología, el Magisterio Eclesiástico y la disciplina de la celebración matrimonial. El por qué de los requerimientos de la presencia de testigos y del registro de los archivos.” (Palabra Nueva, Nº 165, Segmento, pp. 29-42)
Motivo de esta “nota aclaratoria”
Se me ha dicho, por parte de la autoridad eclesiástica, que uno de los últimos párrafos (fin de la Pág. 41 e inicio de la Pág. 42) ha sido interpretado por algunos como distanciamiento y hasta como una contradicción, por mi parte, de la enseñanza de la Iglesia Católica acerca de las calificadas como “parejas de hecho” (del mismo sexo), para las que los organismos legislativos de algunos Estados ya han aprobado o discuten actualmente lo que se ha dado en llamar “protección legal”. En algunos casos ha llegado a la equiparación con el matrimonio civil. La raíz de la interpretación parece estar en la frase “con respecto a las relaciones estables entre personas del mismo sexo, no veo dificultad en que sean protegidas por las leyes civiles, pero no me parece conveniente que esa nueva figura jurídica reciba el nombre de matrimonio, etc.” Esta frase (y el resto de este párrafo) están evidentes incluidos solamente per transennam, conociendo la situación actual de nuestro País, y habiendo escuchado, por más de una voz, cuáles son los debates al respecto en el seno de al Asamblea Nacional.
Resumen y referencia
a algunas secciones del artículo
En la primera página del artículo, pág. 29 del número de Palabra Nueva, hago la historia del texto, escrito en el año 2004 para un encuentro de Historia de la Iglesia en Camagüey, en el que no pude participar debido a mis malas condiciones de salud en aquel momento. No recuerdo si, habiendo enviado yo el texto, se leyó o no a los participantes. Luego el texto fue reelaborado para una conferencia, el 12 de julio pasado, en el Centro Cultural San Agustín, a mi cargo, y para la Revista Arquidiocesana Palabra Nueva (número Julio-Agosto 2007). En esa nota introductoria, en letra cursiva, aclaro que se trata sólo de “algunos señalamientos”, no del tema en toda su integridad, y añado: “El tema al que se refieren los mismos debería estar siempre ubicado en ámbito central de los contenidos de la Fe, de la ética y de la actitud Evangelizadora de la Iglesia”.
En la página siguiente (pág. 30), en un recuadro afirmo: “La realidad familiar tiene como punto de partida la realidad del matrimonio entre un hombre y una mujer, considerado como una institución natural, elevada a la condición de sacramento, o sea, signo eficaz de la acción salvífica de Dios”. En la página 33, en el marco del análisis bíblico, y también en un recuadro, afirmo: “El matrimonio monogámico e indisoluble parece haber estado vigente en la situación original de las tribus o grupos humanos que llegaron a constituir el pueblo de Israel”.
Después de un recorrido por textos del Antiguo Testamento y del Nuevo Testamento, relacionados con el matrimonio, en los que recalco su valor vinculante, y ya dentro de la presentación del tema en contexto patrístico, aparece también en recuadro: “Como todo sacramento, el Matrimonio hoy supone también una celebración litúrgica en la que se hacen presentes todos los componentes de la visión católica del mismo”. Pasando por los teólogos medievales y por las distintas escuelas, llegamos al Concilio de Trento, del que afirmo que dirimió para siempre las diversas opiniones acerca de la sacramentalidad o no del Matrimonio, a favor de la sacramentalidad (contra la opinión de la Reforma protestante), y en que la enseñanza tridentina acerca de esa sacramentalidad está en la base de toda enseñanza católica posterior, hasta nuestros días.
De la conclusión (pág. 41), me permito copiar un párrafo: “La Revelación, que debe regir siempre el pensamiento, la ética, la disciplina y, en general, las acciones de la Iglesia, terminó con los Apóstoles y sus discípulos que pusieron por escrito sus enseñanzas (…) En ese proceso –me refiero al proceso de interiorización del dato revelado por la acción del Espíritu en el tiempo de la Iglesia– se va construyendo una especie de sedimento estable con el que se constituye la Tradición. Así, con mayúscula. En ese sedimento estable entran componentes irrenunciables de la Fe y de la Ética cristiana. La evolución en la visión del Matrimonio hasta su comprensión contemporánea como uno de los sacramentos o signos de la Nueva Alianza, con las características recogidas en la actual disciplina canónica y desarrolladas por los teólogos dogmáticos y por los moralistas católicos, es uno de esos ejemplos”.
Después de diversas referencias a situaciones en el mundo contemporáneo que contradicen la enseñanza y disciplina católica del Matrimonio, dentro de las cuales está la “frase problemática” (pág. 42), añado: “La Iglesia no va a renunciar a los criterios establecidos por la Revelación y fijados por la Tradición, en la que el Magisterio Eclesiástico, convenientemente contextualizado, es un componente irrenunciable”. Esa sección continúa con referencias breves a otros sacramentos –Bautismo, Eucaristía…–, y a la pastoral adecuada para participar en ellos.
Observaciones personales:
1) En mi visión de este texto, la consideración del Matrimonio no se limita a cuestiones “formales”, sino y sobre todo a doctrina teológica y praxis canónica sustancial. La referencia a las “uniones de hecho” es solamente parte de las referencias a las discrepancias entre algunas situaciones contemporáneas y las enseñanzas de la Iglesia. Siempre en mi visión de este texto, la posibilidad de una protección legal, en ese contexto, no es más que la alusión –insisto, per transennam dicta– al menor mal posible ante una situación que prevemos. Por mi cabeza jamás pasó una confrontación con las enseñanzas de la Iglesia acerca del Matrimonio y la disciplina eclesiástica católica. Si, a pesar de una lectura atenta de todo el artículo, y no sólo de algún párrafo, y del análisis cuidadoso del mismo y de las frases resaltadas, personas que saben más que yo acerca del valor lingüístico y proyectivo de frases semejantes y que, simultáneamente, están en posiciones responsables de Jerarquía Eclesiástica, entienden que algunas frases pueden ser calificadas como inexactas o erróneas, disociadoras de la disciplina eclesiástica, ofensivas al Santo Padre o merecer cualquier otra calificación análoga, téngase entonces la frase o frases como no escrita, ni pronunciada. En ese caso, yo renunciaría a ella. Me retracto de ella y Dios me concederá la gracia de que se me borre del pensamiento. Yo sé que puedo errar en cuestión de formulaciones lingüísticas y en el ordenamiento de estrategias pastorales. Pero también sé que, por gracia de Dios y ejercicio de mi responsabilidad, no creo haber errado en cuestiones que tengan que ver con los contenidos de la Fe católica, entre los que incluyo –y muy gustosamente– mi adhesión afectuosa al Santo Padre.
2) Ahora bien, durante todos estos años me he desempeñado como sacerdote con muy diversos ministerios pastorales (párroco, profesor, Director del Secretariado General de la Conferencia Episcopal, secretario de la Comisión Episcopal para la Fe, también para el Ecumenismo; he tenido responsabilidades en el CELAM durante varios años y periodos y, desde hace ya varios años, soy Consultor del Consejo Pontificio para la Cultura). Nunca, ni en ningún lugar, me he sabido bajo sospechas en materia de Fe, disciplina eclesiástica o distanciamiento de las enseñanzas del Santo Padre. Resultaría un absurdo que ahora, de repente, anciano ya como soy, en el ocaso de mi vida útil, sorprenda a todos con una discrepancia eclesial en situación tan delicada como es la disciplina matrimonial y el apoyo a la familia. Pocas realidades aprecio y valoro tanto como el Matrimonio y la Familia, tal y como los presenta la Iglesia y como tuve la fortuna de vivirlos en mi propia familia. Y esto se sabe de sobra en los círculos en los que me he movido siempre. ¡Se necesita no haber “leído bien” el artículo y no conocerme para imaginar el dislate que ciertos resúmenes periodísticos, sobre todo digitales, me atribuyen!
Monseñor Carlos M. de Céspedes García-Menocal
La Habana, 4 de septiembre de 2007.
Sunday, June 22, 2008
Carlos Manuel de Céspedes III
Look at him (if you can stand it). This gargoyle of a man is Carlos Manuel de Céspedes y García-Menocal, great-grandson and namesake of the Father of the Cuban Nation. He will be the last lineal descendent to carry his glorious name and the last also to besmirch it. The celibacy of the priesthood has been fruitful in his case because it brought an end to such abortions of Nature. I suspect, however, that whether he had become a priest or not this Carlos Manuel would have been the end of the line for his family (his younger brother, Manuel Hilario, is Bishop of Matanzas). The laws of Darwin, if not the laws of God, would have checked such a descent of the species. His will not be the first great family in history that thinned its blood through intermarriage till it produced nothing but pharaonic monsters. It is the pride of ancestry of great families which is often their undoing. The Bourbons, of course, are the classic modern instance. The last king of Cuba, Alfonso XIII, managed to produce one healthy son, the current king's father. To avoid more hemophiliacs, deaf mutes and imbeciles Juan Carlos' children all married commoners. Their offspring are not only all healthy, but, as a bonus at a time when royals compete with movie stars, they are attractive, too. It is too late, of course, to bring the house of Cespedes back from extinction. Perhaps it is better that the main line of the family should pass into history since it will never add to the fame of its immortal ancestor and may only detract from it.
This Carlos Manuel has done more than any of his illustrious family to bring discredit on his name. More even than his aunt, Céspedes' grandaughter, the French novelist Alba de Céspedes, who lived in Paris all her life except for a brief visit to Cuba in 1968 as Castro's "guest of honor" for the centenary of the Grito de Yara. Said she on that ocassion: "I am a Cuban who adores her country and is willing to be the 25th member of her family to die defending her and the Revolution." Alba never met her grandfather. That much we can say on both their behalfs.
Even if Msgr. Céspedes, Vicar General of the Havana Archdiocese and director of the Cuban Conference of Bishops, had never written one word in praise of Che Guevara, his obsequiousness to the regime over 50 years would have been a bar sinister that could never have been erased from the family crest. He has even accepted an official decoration from the regime for his efforts to maintain cordial relations between church and state in Cuba. Yet even those who know of his long history of collaboration with the Castro regime were unprepared for his hagiographic treatment of Che Guevara in Granma. It is doubtful that even the most slavish Communist panegyric would have plumbed the depths of sycophancy which the monsignor effortlessly reached.
Not only does this screed confirm the worst fears of those who believe, as I do, that the Catholic hierarchy in Cuba has been completely compromised by Cuban Intelligence; but it shows that it is not in the least ashamed of proclaiming that fact to all the faithful, in Granma, no less, as a lesson and admonishment to all of them. The fact that it has chosen to cast its lot with the regime, more than just a token of reflexive opportunism, constitutes an affirmation on its part that there is no other future for Cuba or the Cuban Church but absolute submission to the Castro clan. In the past, the Church has refused sanctuary to Castro's victims (though it once granted it to Castro himself in the wake of the Moncada Attack); it has admonished Cubans to respect "lawful authority;" joined Castro in denouncing the U.S. "blockade;" and even offered prayers for Castro's recovery. It has done that and much worse.
But never before Céspedes took pen in hand did the Church excuse or sanction the crimes of the Revolution or accept the Marxist dialectic as the only means to understand recent Cuban history. More even than the praise lavished on Guevara himself, the Robespierre of the Cuban Revolution, the Church has disavowed any connection to the suffering of the Cuban people and placed itself firmly on the side of their tormentors. This, of course, has always been its historical position (even before Castro came to power). But to see it embrace as a virtue what should be its greatest shame really does constitute a new high-water mark in self-debasement. Where contrition and penance should be the order of the day we are instead treated to an auto-da-fé on behalf of the Revolution.
Céspedes' "Personal Look at 'Che' Guevara on the 80th Anniversary of His Birth," published last week in Granma [June 13], begins with an anecdote about John Paul II, remembered indistinctly, and, as it turns out, incorrectly by the author. He situates the pope in an airplane, en route to Africa, when a reporter asks him an unexpected question:
"The question was a direct one: 'What does Your Holiness think about Che?' According to the article I read at the time, the Pope reflected in silence for a few seconds then broke it by saying, with enlightening simplicity, "I don't know him intimately, but I know he was concerned about the poor. Therefore, he deserves my respect."
Readers may recognize that particular quote as a reworking of Martí's famous critique of Marx, without, of course, Martí's closing condemnation.
Yet Céspedes does not lie. John Paul did praise "Che" Guevera in different but similar words. Except that it wasn't on a trip to Africa that he was asked about Guevara. It was during his visit to Cuba in January 1998. Céspedes might have witnessed the scene himself, or read about it in the Osservatore Romano, Spanish edition, 30 January 1998, p. 6:
"Otra periodista le preguntó [al papa], también en castellano, por su pensamiento sobre Che Guevara, un protagonista de la historia reciente de Cuba, a lo que su Santidad contestó: 'Ahora se halla ante el Tribunal de Dios. Dejemos a nuestro Señor el juicio sobre sus méritos. Ciertamente, estoy convencido que quería servir a los pobres.'"
"A journalist asked [the pope], also in Spanish, his thoughts on Che Guevara, a protagonist in recent Cuban history, to which His Holiness replied: 'He is now before God's Tribunal. Let's let our Lord judge his merits. I am certain that he wanted to serve the poor.'"
One wonders if Céspedes would have dared to be so brazen in his praise of Guevara if he did not have the pope's ingenuous remark behind which to hide. John Paul knew very little about Cuba and what little he did know was shaped by the propaganda in Polish communist newspapers. On one occasion, when the pope received in a public ceremony the credentials of Castro's ambassador to the Vatican, he engaged him in a long conversation about the "achievements" of the Cuban Revolution, which John Paul did not dispute but praised in the most fulsome terms, as if Communism had been good for Cuba in a way that it had not for Poland.
Unlike John Paul before his visit to Cuba, Céspedes himself cannot plead ignorance of the Cuban reality even if he, like all hierarchs, is largely shielded from it. He is a Cuban; a bad Cuban but a Cuban nevertheless. He knows perfectly well the destruction, spiritual and material, that Castro's anti-Cuban Revolution has wreaked on our country. He knows also the ominous role which Guevara played in the revolutionary process which turned Cuba into the charnel house of the Western world. He knows more about it than almost any Cuban (excepting the perpetrators) because over the last 50 years he has made dozens of trips abroad and never had to rely on the regime as his primary source of information on a past which he is more than old enough to remember.
Nevertheless, Céspedes has the effrontery to claim that as an seminarian in Havana in 1956 he was completely shut off from all sources of information about the outside world and notes proudly that seminarians today do not labor under his disadvantage in Cuba! He makes that assertion to explain why he did not sufficiently admire "Che" at that time: it was simply because he did not know as much about him as he did about Castro, whom we suppose he did sufficiently admire.
For Céspedes, Guevara is still the most "enigmatic figure" of the leaders of the Cuban Revolution. That much, at least, is true. He knew nothing about him then and he knows nothing about him now. In fact, Céspedes actually laments never having had the opportunity to meet him personally. He should be glad their paths never crossed because the Argentine would surely not have been impressed by the name "Carlos Manuel de Céspedes." But not to fret. Msgr. Céspedes did have a very good friend who knew Guevara intimately and was glad to share his insights about him. His name? Manuel "Barbarroja" Piñeiro. Yes, the only man who may personally have shed more innocent blood in Cuba and elsewhere than Guevara himself, the head of the Central Committee's Americas Department, the monstrous "Redbeard" himself! If one wants to understand Guevara, there is no better "living primer" than "Redbeard," although any other serial killer would do almost as well. But Céspedes did not take advantage of the opportunity to study Piñeyro's pathology in order to understand Che's. Instead, he chose to see Guevara through Piñeyro's eyes. That is, he internalized the pathology in order to judge Guevara. It cannot surprise anyone that his verdict was entirely favorable:
"When judging a person's deeds, we should not avoid motivations that he or she had in commiting those deeds, in taking a certain attitude toward life. Che is no exception. The excesses that he may have committed in the framework of that "concern" are one thing; what men or groups do for the unjust reasons of selfishness and unbridled ambition is another, of a very different nature."
Let's see if we can actually make any sense of what Céspedes writes. He is a little obtuse here. Elsewhere we shall see, however, that he can be crystal clear. He tells us that we should not overlook a person's motivations when judging their acts. Well, yes and no. Motivations are important, but the act itself is more important when judging the act. If the deed a man commits is murder, premedidated and in cold blood, and without justification of any kind, what possible motives could there be that would explain much less justify the act itself? Would "cracking eggs" (or exploding heads) provide such a motive? Would becoming an "efficient killing machine" be enough to justify it? Is there any kind of "attitude towards life" that would justify the arbitrary termination of another's life? Is there any "framework" in which we can place murder that would transform it into a just "concern?" Well, Céspedes seems to think so. And what are these motivations that excuse Guevara's "excesses?" Or, rather, what "unjust reasons" were not manifest in his conduct: "Selfishness and unbridled ambition."
So there you have it:
"Thou shalt commit no murder except it be done without selfishness and unbridled ambition."
Elsewhere, as I've noted, Msgr. Céspedes is very forthright and does not require the services of an annotator besides a few punctuation marks and a word or two:
"All [!] the references coincide in affirming [Che Guevara's] almost rash daring in face of [other people's] danger, as well as his spirit of discipline."
"Almost everyone [!] also valued, since that time, the consistency between his convictions and his actions in life.
"He was said [!] to have a Marxist-oriented political culture, which for many Cubans of the time was an obstacle to regarding him positively. I admit that for me, that was not so much the case [!], because although I disagreed with his lack of a metaphysical philosophy and with his denial of the limits Marxism, I sympathized with the emphasis on socialism [!!!]. Obviously, Marxism was not, and is not, my philosophical/political orientation, but then neither was, or is, anti-communism, more visceral than rational [!!!]."
"I personally, related his presence within the Cuban Revolution with that of many other foreigners who collaborated with our 19th century independence movements, above all with that of Máximo Gómez [!!!]."
"...[M]y admiration [for Guevara] also increased in face of his existential and intellectual consistency, as well as his social sensitivity."
Céspedes began this diatribe by channelling John Paul II's ghost, and he ends it, naturally enough, by recoursing to that great exponent of "anti-communism, more visceral than rational:"
"All roads now merge for me in the comment by John Paul II quoted at the beginning of this reflection. Almost everything about Che should be contemplated in the light of his consistent and radical actions in defense of the poor; of his passion for what we used to call "social justice." So consistent and radical was his passion, so razor-sharp, that it led him to make the offering of his own life. And when an upright man goes to those extremes, the disagreements with him acquire another tone, because such a man deserves not only respect, but deep admiration."
It is a precept of the Catholic Church -- not that Céspedes is much of a Catholic -- that it is not enough for a man to die for his beliefs: he must embrace martyrdom willingly and die for a just cause. Guevara did not die "in the defense of the poor" unless one considers increasing their poverty and eliminating their freedom to be services rendered to them. Nor did he willingly "offer his life" but begged for mercy as none of the hundreds whom he shot ever did. Nor did he die with the cry of "Viva Cristo Rey" on his lips, as his victims, uneulogized by Msgr. Céspedes, did.
Msgr. Carlos Manuel de Cespedes is a disgrace to his God, his country, his family and the human species. Such a man deserves nothing but disdain and to be forgotten, and that only in deference to his name.
Saturday, June 21, 2008
Elián Is Still a Victim
I visited Uncommon Sense today and was very pleased to discover that Marc Másferrer no longer divides his Cuban Blogroll into "First Tier" and "Second Tier" blogs. We had chastened him before for such an uncharacteristic display of elitism, not to mention bad judgment, since he had actually consigned RCAB to the "Second-Tier."
Since then Marc has become Babalú's most independent contributor, challenging Val Prieto whenever he goes too far in his penchant to extract a pound (or 10, 20 or 30 lbs) of flesh from every Cuban who doesn't freely shed his blood on his (Val's) behalf. We could take that as an encouraging sign of glasnost at Babalú except for the fact that Marc is the only one of its 15 contributing editors who has ever voiced any objection to Val's well-known plan to render the Cuban people in a pressure cooker. We are today baptizing (excuse the pun) Val's pressure cooker theory as the "Hatuey Option." The "Hatuey Option," of course, succeeded only in making Cuba's indigenous population extinct. Castro, also, needless to say, has his own "Hatuey Option."
But to return to Marc. He has a post today about one of the youngest Cuban dissidents, 11-year old Raumel Vinajera Montoya, who defended "Las Damas de Blanco" in class when his teacher described them as "yankee mercenaries." The boy's family was subsequently visited by a state psychologist and social worker who threatened to put a "black mark" on his school dossier. Those familiar with Armando Valladares' autobiography know what can befall an 11-year boy in Castro's prisons who gets such a "black mark."
Marc performs an invaluable service to Cuban dissidents and the cause of freedom by highlighting cases such as Raumel's which might otherwise receive little or no publicity. He committed, however, a grave error in judgment himself by contrasting Raumel's conduct to Elián González's:
"Cuba's most famous teenager, Elian González, is now an official communist. Here's guessing 11-year-old Raumel Vinajera Montoya will not be joining him anytime soon, despite the best efforts of the dictatorship's 'psychologists' and 'social workers.'"
And again at the close:
"You have to give the dictatorship credit. With its strong-armed tactics, it knows how to start shaping the minds of Cubans while they are still young, whether it is a future communist big-shot like Elian Gonzalez or a future freedom fighter like Raumel Vinajera."
Personally, I have always avoided starting a sentence with: "You have to give the dictatorship credit." But what I object to is the suggestion that Elián has somehow been "tainted" or become "damaged goods" by his enforced association with the Castro regime. What exactly do we expect of him? Elián has been a literal prisoner since the moment he was deported to Cuba 8 years ago. His "security detail" is probably larger now than Fidel's. If the U.S. government would not protect him and his own father fed him to the wolves, what exactly is it that we expect this hapless boy to do to prove to us that he is still a victim? In fact, he doesn't have to prove a thing.
Elián is a victim of Fidel Castro no less today than he was when he was kidnapped at gunpoint and delivered to his tender mercies. Whatever atrocities might be visited on Raumel have already been visited on him. Even before he set foot in Cuba again, Elián was being administered psychiatric drugs while living in the home of Castro's (and Clinton's) lawyer Greg Craig, now Obama's adviser on Latin America. In fact, a doctor sent from Cuba to treat him was apprehended at the airport with a bag full of mind-altering drugs. Once back in Cuba, Elián disappeared from view for 3 months while he was interred in a psychiatric hospital. For years afterward his face exhibited the blank expression of one who was heavily medicated and emotionally drained of life. He was also forced endured to endure the indignity of becoming Fidel's marionette and the poster child of the "New Boy" and now "New Youth." As if watching his mother being eaten alive by sharks and seeing his father castrated was not trauma enough for a lifetime.
Elián is still as much a victim at 14 as he was at 6. He will always be a victim of the Castro regime and its American accomplices even when and if he becomes a Communist "big-shot."
Since then Marc has become Babalú's most independent contributor, challenging Val Prieto whenever he goes too far in his penchant to extract a pound (or 10, 20 or 30 lbs) of flesh from every Cuban who doesn't freely shed his blood on his (Val's) behalf. We could take that as an encouraging sign of glasnost at Babalú except for the fact that Marc is the only one of its 15 contributing editors who has ever voiced any objection to Val's well-known plan to render the Cuban people in a pressure cooker. We are today baptizing (excuse the pun) Val's pressure cooker theory as the "Hatuey Option." The "Hatuey Option," of course, succeeded only in making Cuba's indigenous population extinct. Castro, also, needless to say, has his own "Hatuey Option."
But to return to Marc. He has a post today about one of the youngest Cuban dissidents, 11-year old Raumel Vinajera Montoya, who defended "Las Damas de Blanco" in class when his teacher described them as "yankee mercenaries." The boy's family was subsequently visited by a state psychologist and social worker who threatened to put a "black mark" on his school dossier. Those familiar with Armando Valladares' autobiography know what can befall an 11-year boy in Castro's prisons who gets such a "black mark."
Marc performs an invaluable service to Cuban dissidents and the cause of freedom by highlighting cases such as Raumel's which might otherwise receive little or no publicity. He committed, however, a grave error in judgment himself by contrasting Raumel's conduct to Elián González's:
"Cuba's most famous teenager, Elian González, is now an official communist. Here's guessing 11-year-old Raumel Vinajera Montoya will not be joining him anytime soon, despite the best efforts of the dictatorship's 'psychologists' and 'social workers.'"
And again at the close:
"You have to give the dictatorship credit. With its strong-armed tactics, it knows how to start shaping the minds of Cubans while they are still young, whether it is a future communist big-shot like Elian Gonzalez or a future freedom fighter like Raumel Vinajera."
Personally, I have always avoided starting a sentence with: "You have to give the dictatorship credit." But what I object to is the suggestion that Elián has somehow been "tainted" or become "damaged goods" by his enforced association with the Castro regime. What exactly do we expect of him? Elián has been a literal prisoner since the moment he was deported to Cuba 8 years ago. His "security detail" is probably larger now than Fidel's. If the U.S. government would not protect him and his own father fed him to the wolves, what exactly is it that we expect this hapless boy to do to prove to us that he is still a victim? In fact, he doesn't have to prove a thing.
Elián is a victim of Fidel Castro no less today than he was when he was kidnapped at gunpoint and delivered to his tender mercies. Whatever atrocities might be visited on Raumel have already been visited on him. Even before he set foot in Cuba again, Elián was being administered psychiatric drugs while living in the home of Castro's (and Clinton's) lawyer Greg Craig, now Obama's adviser on Latin America. In fact, a doctor sent from Cuba to treat him was apprehended at the airport with a bag full of mind-altering drugs. Once back in Cuba, Elián disappeared from view for 3 months while he was interred in a psychiatric hospital. For years afterward his face exhibited the blank expression of one who was heavily medicated and emotionally drained of life. He was also forced endured to endure the indignity of becoming Fidel's marionette and the poster child of the "New Boy" and now "New Youth." As if watching his mother being eaten alive by sharks and seeing his father castrated was not trauma enough for a lifetime.
Elián is still as much a victim at 14 as he was at 6. He will always be a victim of the Castro regime and its American accomplices even when and if he becomes a Communist "big-shot."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
