During this past week, the official Cuban media have shown very reliable evidence of how it is possible to use information from international events to mask and to try to dilute conflicts within the Island. There is no doubt that government journalism takes the cake in what I normally call the squid effect: a dark stream of dark ink for slipping away in the midst of the confusion and coming away unscathed. At the same time, it tries to create the false expectation that a reversion to communism in Europe is close at hand and viable. In Spain, no less.
The latest news acquisition by the media to squirt its ink on the national disinformation spectrum has been the demonstrations that have been taking place in several Spanish cities, and the press has instantly launched into its fabrication of an environment supposedly conducive to communism in these expressions of social discontent. Judging by what the written press and TV newscasts are publishing, the popular clamor in Spain is inspired by a spirit between Marxist and anarchist, capable of bringing down Capitalism, Transfiguring the social order and establishing the first labor commune of the XXI century. As simple as that. Of course, it doesn’t show it explicitly, but those are the intentions underlying the reports. A simple example is the “declarations” of one of the protesters expressly interviewed by the newspaper Juventud Rebelde…via e-mail. Could it be that this subject was carrying a sign with his e-mail address, to make things easy to the journalists on this side? Coincidentally, the individual is a Communist sympathizer or militant. The journalists in our national press have such good aim! Thus, the mobilization of Spanish citizens, mostly young, under the legitimate claims of changes capable of reversing the current economic crisis, unemployment, corruption and other ills afflicting the Iberian country, have been converted, by the grace of the official Cuban press, into a revolution ready to destroy Capitalism and establish a system change.
It is no coincidence, then, that the unusual role is being granted to the United Left from the official media, as if it were the party that organized, convened, and sustained the protests in the plazas, and counted on an overwhelming social support. And, in addition, it is an occasion to celebrate! From the logic of journalism at the service of power, movements against Ahmadinejad in Iran, or against Muammar Gaddafi in Libya don’t qualify as real, national, people’s demands, but they are uprisings organized from outside by the West, though the peaceful protests that take place in the heart of a Western democratic society constitute practically a prelude to a legitimate and vindicating Marxist labor revolution by the will of the majority of Spaniards.
Without a doubt, a minority party would do everything possible to seize the day’s critical moment to try to grab a larger share in the current political scene. It is exactly what this United Left seems to be doing. It is clear that many Spaniards are fed up with the crisis and are making use of the advantage of living in a democracy; that is, they are exercising their right to protest, to demonstrate publicly, and to claim what they consider just. That is infinitely more than we Cubans can dream about right now, sunk in the manure of Tropical Communism, so I hope that Spaniards know enough to safeguard those civic spaces they enjoy. I hope that the protesters in the Spanish Squares are able to achieve their goals without waiving their right to demand them whenever they see fit to do so. I hope that the vicissitudes of their long and rich history will allow them to discriminate between the word “change” and its main antonym “communist system”. I have great faith that the country that knew how to develop a remarkable transition after the tensions of a long dictatorship will be able to respect the constitutional order and achieve its aspirations without turning violent its civility, a pillar of liberty that cannot be surrendered. May their crisis be about growth and not regression. These are my best wishes for Spain, from the depths of my communist hell.
At the close: Monday May 23, the results of the regional and autonomic elections were published, and the Partido Popular won. The Cuban media, curiously, have refrained from mentioning where the United Left came in.
Our Lady of Charity, Patron Saint of Cuba. Photo from the Internet
During this past week, Mr. Carlos Valhuerdi, an independent journalist at the Cubanacán Press website, has been telling me about some recent developments beginning on the night of May 7th through the 8th in the city of Santa Clara, after the death of John Wilfredo Soto, resulting from a brutal beating at the hands of four uniformed police officers and which, with unusual haste, was denied by government authorities in a press release issued on Monday the 9th.
On May 12th, Granma published an additional whole page article (page 3) titled: “Cuba Scorns Lies” with some eyewitness accounts – among them one of an inexplicably smiling sister of the recently deceased Soto — as “evidence” of the falseness of the beating. There are always people lacking in scruples ready to surrender to fear, whether they are relatives of the victims of repression or not.
What Granma has not reported is the death, on the night of May 11th, of one of the policemen involved in the beating, as a result of a gunshot to the head by his own hand on the same Sunday afternoon, the 8th. According to testimony not published by Granma and revealed to me by phone by my colleague Valhuerdi, the policeman’s name was Alexei Herrero, and he shot himself in the bathroom of his home, located on the outskirts of Santa Clara known as Callejón de San Antonio, on Camajuaní Road, after having returned from the second meeting he had been summoned to by investigators into the death of Soto. The wake for Alexei — an individual with propensity for violence, according to testimonies — was held under heavy police presence at the Santa Clara Funeral Home (formerly Camacho Funeral Home), an action that extended to the deceased’s own home.
Tension has prevailed in the capital city of Villa Clara, with a steady eye on the opposition, threats, and even retaliation. Héctor Bermúdez, a member of the group led by William (Coco) Fariñas, was stoned after making public statements about the police operation that broke out in the provincial hospital Arnaldo Milián and the pressure that was put on doctors when Juan Wilfredo Soto was admitted, which he witnessed personally. Bermúdez suffered a head wound, as he headed back home, that required stitches.
On Friday the 13th Santa Clara was still not peaceful. Valhuerdi again told me about an incident that day at Parque Vidal, in the heart of the city. This time, a group of citizens — not organized members of an opposition group — orchestrated a spontaneous repudiation rally against Amado Gómez Rodríguez, , a flower seller around said park and one of the witnesses presented by the newspaper Granma, who had stated that Soto did not receive a beating as the “enemies of the revolution were describing”. The group in question was accusing Amado of being “a snitch” and other epithets along those lines at the top of their voices, until uniformed policeman peacefully broke up the angry Santaclareños without hitting, fining, or arresting anyone. Lesson learned, or wisdom of the moment, the truth is that this is not the best time to do something like this in Cubanacán.
In closing, this Sunday the 15th, Our Lady of Charity came to Santa Clara, following the pilgrimage route through Cuba to mark the 400th anniversary of her appearance, to be held in 2012. It is said that the Cuban Holy Patron’s reception in Santa Clara was exceptionally outstanding, with a massive congregation of believers and nonbelievers who attended under the force of her symbolic significance in the popular fancy: it is, so to speak, the Cuban Holy Virgin of Freedom since her presence in the fields of the Independence peasant fighters. Cubans, after half a century of broken illusions, are seeking a faith that will unite and sustain them.
Despite the grief that loss of life due to violence incited from power signifies, it is appropriate that the authorities have received, loud and clear, an unequivocal signal: sooner or later, people get fed up with their oppressors. Legitimization of violence, as unwritten guidelines of the VI Congress, could backfire against the dictatorship one of these days. Let’s not forget that clever saying: For they have sown the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind.
Santa Clara, Cuba. This travel blog photo’s source is TravelPod page: Under Construction – City of CHE
After the close of the Sixth Congress of the Communist Party, which officially established its approval of the stagnation of the system, and circumvented the changes of large social sectors, including official sectors, the only point on the official agenda that seems to be right on the mark is the repression of the alternative groups that have been growing at a significant pace in recent years.
During the month of April and until today, we have witnessed a marked upsurge in acts of harassment, arrests, intimidation, house searches, seizures and threats against members of the dissidence, both opposition party members and representatives of the independent civil society, in an escalating repression that has even caused the death of a citizen, Juan Wilfredo Soto a victim of a brutal beating by the local police last May 8th (Mother’s Day) in the city of Santa Clara.
A strategy of reducing protesters while at the same time reinforcing fear in the population is the strategy chosen by the “reformist” General, who aims to establish his cosmetic measures in order to retain the most absolute control over the social actions and thoughts in a country where the tensions and the absence of rights, long violated by the dictatorship, continue to accumulate the ingredients awaiting the suitable breeding ground for an eventual process of protests.
The General wants to introduce an artificial peace, though for his zealous subordinates – not exactly characterized by having a high IQ — this might literally be the sepulchral peace. That is why, with cynicism that impunity allows, the official media were, with unusual speed, quick to “clarify” with its “moral fortitude” its own truth: the “murder victim” (whose exact meaning, according to Aristos dictionary, is “killed violently”) was no less than “a delinquent” who “fulfilled his two-year prison sentence”. In short, from the perspective of the regime, Juan Wilfredo deserved to die, although it would be inconsistent to assume that the lynching by kicking an opponent was exactly the General’s intention when he called from his mock revolutionary congress for revolutionaries to defend the streets.
Simultaneously, the authorities are also developing a quiet but steady purge job within official places, using extreme measures in the presence of any suspicion, primarily in relation to Internet usage. In this regard, the Telecommunications Company (ETECSA), now completely controlled by the Ministry of the Armed Forces, has gone so far as to fire young computer techs from their jobs because of the absurdly punishable circumstances of having occasionally connected to Facebook, or “of having used the Internet excessively”, or under the pretext that those responsible for computer security “have lost track” of sites they connected to, which shows that the social networks and the access to information currently constitute true threats to the regime.
Careful monitoring of its employees, forced to convincingly justify every minute of virtual navigation, collaterally contribute to the establishment of a state of permanent fear in those individuals known to be monitored. Paradoxically, such a system only manages to breed a sense of rejection of the government, because young people subject to such controls can thus more clearly perceive the castration of their freedoms.
In short, if the physical and psychological repression is the strategic card chosen by the regime, little would be left for it to do. It is the most effective method it could have found to help, sooner rather than later, to fill the dissent ranks.
The recent Congress of the CCP, with all its greyness and its whiff of pre-epitaph – since it is probably “the last” where the so-called historical generation will be in attendance — has clearly demonstrated some issues that, until now, were cause for speculation among the Cuban reality analysts: behind the charade reform of the “new” Cuban President, only the conservative nature of the regime is concealed, something that should not be a surprise or a mystery to anyone.
The quasi-Shakespearean essence of the Cuban government’s dilemma (to change or not to change) lies in its very controversial and intractable nature: a totalitarian system cannot change, because change is precisely the genesis of its own destruction. The contradiction is compounded if we consider that, irrefutably, it is urgent to introduce changes to allow a breathing space for the Cuban economy and to make allowances for a grace period for the lords of the manor to consolidate the permanent control over the territories, already distributed among its heirs and acolytes.
At this point, one might wonder whether those in power really believe in the possibility of the “renewal” of an obsolete model, or if they just seek to sow this ingenuous belief among the slaves of the plantation, to encourage hope in them in the midst of an infinite wait. I favor the latter. This will keep the rhetoric of “revolutionary”, touched up with critical nuances that literally fall in a no-man’s land. In the official discourse there is a disembodied group of defendants on the bench: “bureaucracy”, “the inability of those in charge of enforcing the above guidelines”, “a lack of knowledge about the functioning of the economy” and a lengthy and timely “etcetera” which, once again, serves to cover-up under a pious cloak the sins of the olive green caste and its responsibility in the precipitous national ruin.
The surprise statement by the General of a breach in the agreements arising from each of the five previous congresses has been interpreted by some analysts as a veiled criticism of his older brother. Whether this conjecture is true or not, no official document has been disclosed that reflects changes in the original guidelines of the order to the VI Congress, the agreements stemming from that event are unknown, and no clear strategies were offered to guarantee that, this time, the new phantom accords will be met in five years, a period of time established by the statutes of the PCC of holding the single-party new congress, and the time appointed by the General to start to reap the fruits of his work as head of the government.
An interesting aspect to analyze, beyond the formal requirements and the undeniable will to cling to power — as it is reflected clearly, for instance, in the structure of the Politburo, where calculating radiocarbon age is more practical than calculating the ages of those in charge — would be the real ability of controlling an eventual “reforms” situation within the Island. They have at their disposal the monopoly over all the economic, social and political structures, regardless of their obsolescence, with an almost total orphan Cuban civic society and the whole repressive apparatus at their service, ready to be fully activated at will. Against them is the time factor, the failure of half a century of experimentation – with its undeniable decline in people’s conviction — and an international panorama not favorable to dictatorial repression.
When viewed from the perspective of the possible, the next five years could mean an opportunity for alternative groups that have been generated within Cuban society since the last decade of the twentieth century, with a slight upward trend in the increase of new civic phenomena in the last ten years of this century. A slow process, as befits societies under totalitarian regimes, but a progressive sign that could constitute a major breakthrough in the promotion of democratic venues if political opponents, independent journalists, bloggers and dissidents of all stripes would take advantage, with their intellect, of the scenarios that could be drawn from an influx of new economic and relatively autonomous factors, in which might underlie the seeds of new interests and the beginning of a long-restrained social mobility.
In this case, the challenge of the various groups seeking more radical and effective changes than the government intends to implement, if they really intend to gain space and mobilize wills, is to try to reconcile the interests of broad social sectors found in the alternative proposals, a road to long-lasting collective and self-realization, a difficult task to accomplish under current conditions in Cuba, and whose platform signage should be the broad and inclusive nature of its proposals. In this regard, we must not neglect the role that some groups could play in the face of eventual change processes, those groups that have reform propensities, that today are among the “revolutionaries”, and that are sending interesting signals. In the next five years, dissidents must seek consensus, alliances and strategies that will allow them to overcome the status of survivors in a hostile environment, for which they will need to explore real growth. Beyond ideological trends, most of these groups share minimum essential elements: hopes for a democratic Cuba, the vision of the need for changes in order to achieve it, the commitment for a peaceful and gradual transition, and the will to continue to work towards these goals. That could be a start.
The Sixth Congress has been the consecration of the stagnation of the Cuban system, a goal in itself, perhaps the swan song of the Antillean communist experiment. No renewal is possible within the old structures of the regime. The so-called irreversible socialism is nothing more than a meaningless slogan, and it has aptly proven its failure after half a century of setbacks. Now it is the duty of the citizens to transform what is real and possible into what will be desirable for most Cubans, a dictatorship-free Cuba.
Translated by Norma Whiting
(Article originally published in the Diario de Cuba dated April 4th, 2011)
With such discipline as my training provides, I am carefully reading, for the second time, an article published on page 3 of Granma (May 4th, 2011), in a section created to reminisce about the revolutionary liturgical and dated events of the moment, which they named Remember Girón. The referenced article, entitled “I was the youngest combatant at Bay of Pigs”, is signed by someone named Ramón Jerez Carmenate, recounting in the first person his own experiences from participating in that battle 50 years ago.
In case any readers are now wondering what kind of morbid masochist wish has me reading a Granma article more than once, let me assure you that I would not have conceived such journalistic cynicism otherwise. Let me suggest to you to share my impressions from a brief account of what Jerez Carmenate states. This gentleman says: “I turned barely 13 August 20th, 1960 and joined the militia with my brother Luis, who was born in ‘46”, which means he was a mere boy then, as was his brother, just 14.
Anyone in their right mind would question, for starters, what kind of parents would allow their underage children to become part of an entity destined for war; so the author justifies it his way: “My old man tried to persuade us and talked to us about joining the Youth Patrols and Rebel Youth, but we always wanted to do what we had not been able to accomplish during the war: to fight the enemy face to face”.
Another question would be what kind of institution or government would authorize the recruitment of children into armed militias, and here again the author explained: “Thus, in Jaimanitas, where he lived, they finally allowed me to become militia, though I, at least, was put through huge obstacles because of my age, and I can’t even remember how it was that they let me in”. It is a pity that Ramón Jerez’s memory failed at this point, though he must be only around 63 today, and – curiously — does remember that “The FAL rifle they assigned to me was almost bigger than I was, but I managed to get along with it”. On the other hand, Jerez recognizes that “… this was the age of playing, and pencils, and notebooks, and I was already acquainted with guns, and bullets, and machine guns”. Granma sketches his testimony this way, as the adventures of a cute militant boy.
But that child’s participation in the militia was not merely symbolic, judging by his own words. The writer recalls that in the midst of the events at the Bay of Pigs, “on the morning of April 17, my unit, J, was sent into the combat zone, which we didn’t even know where it was located…” and later he summarizes his personal experiences those war days in other passages. I quote, because they are self-explanatory:
“… The four mouth kids gave the mercenary aircraft hell, and those that we didn’t down, we prevented from completing their mission of massacring the population and attacking our troops.”
“On April 18th, at the entrance to Playa Larga, I really found out what it was to fight against airplanes, because we found ourselves facing two enemy B-26. In the afternoon, we continued the charge, and if it wasn’t because a portion of our location was changed, we would have suffered several casualties, because a rocket fell where we had just been”.
“Then we continued the advance towards Playa Girón, and on the morning of the 19th they greeted us with a shower of mortars, cannons and machine-gun-50 bursts”.
On seeing the fall of other members of the militia, Ramón Jerez states that, “Those scenes of seeing dead and wounded comrades, instead of filling you with fear, they make you fight against the enemy with more hatred and anger”. The author himself confesses that he was unaware of being the youngest fighter at the Bay of Pigs, until writer José Mayo — author of a book entitled “Hero Children of Bay of Pigs” — confirmed it.
In short, in 1961, not in Batista’s Cuba, but already in the revolutionary era of social justice, the socialist character of the process just recently declared by group acclamation, and in clear violation of any civilized human principle, the Cuban government allowed sending children to war.
However, I may not been paying much attention to a Granma chronicle, which was, by the way, certainly splashed with bravado, but because I remembered that the same newspaper, dated instead April 1st 2011, had published an article titled Children of War (page 7) signed by Sara Cazal Sardón, where she, very rightly so, denounced the violation of the Facultative Protocol of the Convention of the Rights of Children, which manifests itself in the actual recruitment of minors by government groups and insurgencies in Africa and other underdeveloped areas of the world, in order to have them engage in war. The reporter wisely argued that “children are cannon fodder.
It doesn’t matter whether they are recruited by force or voluntarily. Once trained for war, they fear nothing”. And she pointed out that “In addition to the physical effects that come with participation in conflict, children suffer severe consequences on an emotional level.” I could not agree more.
But her article did not just refer to Third World regions as responsible for such violations. Cañizal also noted that “… though in Europe and the United States minors do not participate in wars, they are trained in recruitment camps for minors. In the US, the Pentagon recruits children in schools as young as 14 (…). The purpose is the same: to train them to kill”. And she concludes by launching a sentence I would gladly subscribe to 100%: “The recruitment of children is a war crime and it goes against the declaration of Children’s Rights. In any situation, children should be the first to receive protection and aid, and they must be isolated from all kinds of cruelty and exploitation. A world that sends its children to war is doomed to its own destruction”.
What I don’t understand is how the official journalism could have forgotten – if it’s about an oversight and not about flagrant disrespect to its readers — what it published before about this issue and now, after just one month, can contradict itself in such an absurd manner. Is it any less criminal to recruit militant children at Playa Girón? Even taking into account that it was the exception and not the rule than those of other children of the world in times of war? Is it that the main Cuban newspaper, at the same time it grants itself the right to criticize the Pentagon, has the nerve to ignore the existence of military schools for teens in Cuba, such as Camilo Cienfuegos Military Schools, nicknamed “the Camilitos”? Don’t these military Cuban schools also teach our young “to kill”?
What could also be categorized as criminal is the cult of war violence and the use of weapons against other Cubans, established as values to be imitated, which each anniversary are endorsed in children’s representations of an imaginary attack the Moncada Barracks, the landing of the expedition of the yacht Granma, the attack on the Presidential Palace, the fighting guerrillas in the Sierra Maestra, the invasion of the Rebel Army and of many other acts of war being taught to students of primary and secondary education as top examples of heroism. It seems that the Cuban government is in possession of a special license that allows it to promote war in a child’s fancy, without constituting a reprehensible or sinister incident.
It would be nice if the director of Granma and all those responsible for the official Cuban press would be a tad more careful when selecting the themes of their “news” media. After they have already lost their professionalism and decorum, a bit of silence could be useful, at least to save decency… if decency has indeed survived all the shooting.
Nursery school children. Photo taken from the Internet
Readers, allow me to tell you a recent anecdote. Zamira, a close friend whose son started attending Kindergarten just a few months ago, was very alarmed when she received guidance from the director to teach her four year old toddler who Fidel, Raúl and the “Five Heroes” are. Appalled, Zamira flatly refused, to the amazement of the director, who did not understand how a mother could refuse to comply with what was stipulated. “You will make me look bad with the inspectors” insisted the teacher, and to convince Zamira that it was not a personal whim, the good lady (she really is) showed her the teaching agenda for three and four year olds, a worthy rival of the Surrealist Manifesto, that – indeed — makes clear that indoctrination is a goal of educators in order to instill “patriotic values” in kids who only yesterday opened their innocent eyes to the world, little people who will leave their place in line in pursuit of a toy, candy or ice cream, who do not have the faintest idea of the meaning of the word homeland, and whose main ambition is to play and romp. But Zamira would not budge an inch, “Look, ma’am, try to have the inspectors ask another child and not mine, because I want him to be a child, not a political laboratory mouse.”
This was at a Kindergarten in the capital, but it also goes on throughout the Island. All is needed is to visit any of these centers to notice the presence of wall murals of leaders of the revolution, many dead celebrities, the yacht Granma and even violent scenes of the assault on the Moncada Barracks. A recurring image is that of the Sierra Maestra guerrillas with guns raised and faces fierce with screaming expressions, subliminally encouraging violence as part of the revolutionary culture. A real crime.
The fact is neither an exception nor a novelty. The fierce indoctrination to which children are subjected in Cuba since the early years of their life is widely known, as it’s endorsed in primary school textbooks, including those textbooks with which students in first grade, only six years of age, learn to read.
Unfortunately, almost no mother is as courageous as my friend Zamira. It is common for parents to tolerate in silence the violence of the doctrine and the implementation of methods, because “What the heck, children do not know about that. Back at home we will make sure they think about other things”. And that’s when a dramatic clash of values in which the children receive twice the impact of a controversial discourse: Fidel Castro and the “Five Heroes” in the morning, in daycare or at school, and Mickey Mouse, Donald and Spiderman on video in the afternoon, upon returning home. No need to clarify which of the messages is more attractive (and appropriate) for children. In fact, in private life, all children want to be like Ben 10, like Superman or Zorro, never like Ché. No one has ever seen a child in a private costume party dressed as the legendary Argentine guerrilla fighter, as Camilo or as Fidel Castro. These “heroes” do not belong in the children’s repertoire, but are only used to meet the requirements at the official venues.
But, simultaneously, without adults trying, they are planting in very young children the hypocrisy of the double standard that the system has fostered, the false belief in something that even they don’t believe, thus supporting a process that our friend Dagoberto Valdés has defined as anthropologic damage, whose harmful effects will long survive the regime that produced it.
For my part, I think that even protesting sectors in the country have ignored for too long the relevant details of the rights of Cuban children. We have prioritized our rights to freedom, democracy, to participate fully in our own individual and collective destinies, but we have neglected the most vulnerable sector of society: children. We assume that, by giving our children our love and guaranteeing them food and material wellbeing, we are doing our part. We are thus committing the same error as our own parents: we are allowing the State to carry out the sacred mission of educating our children morally and completely instead of doing it ourselves, as we are able to and as we can freely choose to. We thus prolong in our children the saga of slavery of thought, of pretense, and of corruption of spirit of which we were victims, and which we so condemn.
Children are born with the right to be educated, but it is a flagrant violation of their rights and those of their families to plant an ideological doctrine in their minds. It is an appalling distortion of human nature and it should be denounced in the strongest terms, so that we may finally banish the collective consciousness of violence, submission, and lies that half a century of dictatorship has sown in Cubans.
The General, in the framework of the Central Report to the Sixth Congress, made reference to the need for new journalism. Picture taken from the Internet.
A friend of mine, knowing about my quest for information and of my online time constraints, is kind enough to send me, from time to time, items he considers “interesting”, published in places that I don’t usually visit basically because of the above reasons and for my preference to prioritizing other venues within those limits.
Recently, the same friend has brought me two works published in Kaos on the Web, a site commonly classified as “leftist” and heavily visited by fundamentalists of various stripes, judging by the tone of many of the comments they dump there. These articles (“Cuba: Raúl’s worst enemies,” of April 4th, 2011, and “Yoani Sánchez and Cuban TV compete in their clumsy Manichaeism” of April 7th, 2011) are signed by a person calling himself Orlando Pérez Zulia, a Cuban with no other details, who, under apparent critical presuppositions about the reality of the Island, only succeeds in throwing dirt in the readers’ eyes, a practice much employed by more than a few collaborators of such a website.
I think I should stop and briefly explain two points about this issue: 1 — Why, if the articles mentioned seem so biased to me, do I waste my valuable time commenting on them? And 2 — Why does my kind friend classify these articles as “interesting”?
The answer to the first question is very simple: It’s clear that Kaos — voluntarily or otherwise — serves to support the authorities’ campaign of demonization against Cuban dissident sectors, in particular against the blogosphere, though its support for the government is presented — as happens in this case — masked in a language apparently critical of official sectors, in what constitutes an insult to people’s intelligence and an infamous manner of contributing to the chronic misinformation that affects Cuban society. It’s imperative, therefore, to denounce the exercise of media hypocrisy hidden behind this maneuver.
Regarding the second question, the answer is that my friend has undoubtedly become a victim of the illusion projected by Kaos: he wants to prove to me what he considers a sign of change. According to him, these types of articles seem “interesting” in that they indicate, at the very heart of the revolutionaries, the emergence of a critical group that openly and courageously points out the faults of the system. My good friend thinks that this official sector could help in transitioning a future Cuba into a more democratic and inclusive country. Such naiveté!
So it’s not exactly a useless waste of time to analyze in brief the result of the neuronal outgrowths of Orlando Pérez, without inferring intent to exhaust the subject completely, or attempting a theoretical positioning of someone who seems to consider himself a thinking bombshell. I do not intend to ascend to such a high level of intellect.
I couldn’t begin to enumerate here the number of words and empty phrases deployed in both his writings, which stand out for their lack of substance. I’ve become bowlegged in the face of some that I have found truly novel, but what is incredibly sinuous is the discursive strategy of attack against both dissident writers (independent journalists, alternative bloggers, etc.), as against the official media, including the regular press and Cuban TV, the latter charged — or so Orlando tells us — with spreading false social and economic achievements of the revolution and giving credit to dissidents for devoting space to its stoning. I admit that, in this, we have some common points. Either way, this position also curiously coincides with the criticism that the Gray General directed at official journalists in his Central Report to the Sixth Congress of the CCP … Pure coincidence?
However, a position as “condescending”, yet energetic, on Orlando’s (?) part, with its masquerade of justice, tends to sanctify as tested truths certain lies that also circulate through the official media, born of invocations from the constant repetition of “information” about internal dissent, particularly their mercenary character with respect to the ever-satanic Northern Empire (the “wealth” of some of these mercenaries, stemming from payment of their salaries reaches fabulous figures, judging from these and other means, which Orlando also asserts). But the writer fails to go beyond the exclusionary nature of the system and its representatives, when one attributes the ability to determine how and who can disagree with the government. The subliminal message is clear: “the right to dissent is for revolutionaries”. Without a doubt, the desperation of this regime is making its lackeys give birth to truly amazing subterfuges.
Of course, the direction of the revolution is still being presented as immaculate in the writings of this champion of fair criticism who — as any other follower of the dictatorship — shows signs of generous and profuse flattery: “President Raúl Castro has undertaken a Cyclopean task to route Cuban society through the trails of efficiency, which will culminate into a minimum state of welfare, always promised to our people but frequently postponed. His speech at the closing session of the December 18th, 2010 National Assembly of Popular Power was impressive by his clear and forceful self-criticism”. This is stated by the writer as a premise to a new generational Messianism, according to which “Cuban revolutionaries” are being summoned at this dramatic hour to assume “a commitment of historic dimension”. It’s the new “Now, indeed!” of the hour, which assures us, by the reforming hand of the cabinet General, his exemplary punishment of the corrupt and deceitful leaders (like himself, I would add), the advent of the promising future with which the regime has gripped our lives for the past 52 years.
It turns out that Orlando Pérez, like his ancient olive-green idol, is also a reformer, something like a reformism theorist. That is why he considers it “a mistake” to attack all internal dissidents alike, since they are not all “pathetic hustlers”, “brainless puppets”, or “mercenaries without values” (the latter suggests the existence of “mercenaries with values”, a complete tribute), so he asserts that Yoani Sánchez — paradigm of evil, witch among witches — should be allowed to leave Cuba so she can show “the shallowness of her analyses” (she is “a lesser being”). That is why Orlando (“a higher being”, for certain) also wonders: “Are individuals who have been or are still imprisoned for unclear crimes menacing enemies, who are often limited to express different ideas, though some of them have flexed their muscles in the foreign news media? Are those who have done so without being jailed also menacing enemies? And in the next sentence he states that they are not a menace, which has been demonstrated by the “unilateral” liberation” (?) that they have been receiving. It might seem that political prisoners released in recent months — due to the many pressures on the Cuban government, both by foreign governments and institutions, and by civil society groups and dissidents within the Island, and not by the political willpower of the dictatorship — belong to a faction that is also holding government representatives imprisoned and has not agreed to give them their freedom in turn. Or that independent journalists in Cuba waste opportunities they are offered to publish in the national media, so they publish (muscle-flex) in the foreign media.
Orlando is a very sharp guy, so he arrives half a century behind with the discovery of “the serious errors leading to the prevailing precariousness and its consequences: corruption and absurd and ubiquitous prohibitions, both born of the glaring incompetence of the methods used, to date, to produce confidence and prosperity”. And only a group of corrupt officials, notable among them, “the sons of Acevedo, of Guillermo García, of Maciques, of Lusson and of Torralba”, among others, are responsible for those evils that dissidents point out in such vile and opportunist ways. So easy and simple. Not the Castro brothers. They are not responsible for anything. Because, without a doubt, the writer knows the golden rule of the tricks of the trade: play with the chain, but don’t touch the monkey, so he takes good care of not reporting the names to the nouveau riche, the original sin that accuses Yoani and El Nuevo Herald. As you can see, he is indeed a convincing guy.
I must admit, however, that Orlando (why does that have a false ring to me?) is right, at least to the extent that the official media are liars, boring, tiring, manipulative and insistent. However, he avoids basic issues: whose media is it? Is the national press better than the media trash he criticizes so much? Why doesn’t he mention that the eyesore Cuban TV also illustrates the “cultural decadence” that affects our nation? And, as far as the alternative media, specifically the blogosphere, why does he try to present Yoani Sánchez as dissident analyst of the Cuban reality, a title that she has never claimed for herself, instead of mentioning a space of such serious and substantial analyses of our history and our reality as, for instance, El Blog de Dimas? (this is a rhetorical question. Obviously, reading that website would leave the referenced writer standing in his underwear on his lofty platform of media purity).
Maybe Orlando Pérez Zulia — who would be more credible and respectable if he had presented himself with his true identity in any forum — may be part of a new and devious official strategy born out of impulses of the much publicized and artificial “media war” a new conflagration designed by a government that thrives only in confrontations. At any rate, with or without a pseudonym, he has shown with these two deliveries that he still has a lot of imperfections to polish in his worn-out race of web misinformation. May he forgive me if I don’t wish him luck in his endeavors.
The General, in the framework of the Central Report to the Sixth Congress, made reference to the need for new journalism. Picture taken from the Internet.
Thanks! You have opened... a blog... and can now begin... to post. (Cartoon from the internet)
Just four years have elapsed since the emergence of the blog Generación Y, which soon started a proliferation of the presence of independent citizens on the web, an effect that is known in the media as the blogger phenomenon, or the Cuban alternative blogosphere.
Much has been said among the dissident sectors and opposition groups in Cuba about the alternative blogosphere, however, few know the true nature of such a phenomenon, therefore, quite erratic, inexact or unfortunate opinions appear frequently about something that is obviously not well understood. I think that, first of all, we would have to start from a premise: the Internet exists, though it is not accessible to many, and it has well-recognized access limitations. Beginning a few years ago, before Cuban blogs were born, several members of the opposition already managed their respective web pages and some independent periodic publications in digital magazine format also existed.
Practically all members of the opposition and dissidents whom I know, or know of, already had their own e-mail accounts and had many friends and collaborators abroad, which is fine with me. That is, by having friends who are ready to give support –- let’s say, to lease an internet domain to launch a digital platform — using templates or free software, acquiring a minimum of computer knowledge, and applying themselves to work and offer proposals, almost any individual of average intelligence can have a blog. So, what is the problem some people have with the existence of the blogosphere? Why do some feel that the alternative bloggers are grabbing something from them or stripping them of some legacy?
I recently had access to some of Darsi Ferrer’s work, published by martinoticias last March 30th (Alternative Bloggers, a lesser evil for the Castros), which might well indirectly illustrate what some others, with a sense of proprietorship, may be gossiping about. I will address some points of the article only as partial reference and not as foundation, so this post absolutely should not be considered as an outline of his. I insist that the alternative bloggers are not the adversaries of the opponents and vice versa, as was demonstrated on the episodes of the TV series “Cuba’s Reasons”, an offensive against all individuals and groups criticizing the government, and not against one of their sectors.
The independent Cuban blogosphere is, as the name implies, a phenomenon unrelated to either government or the opposition. That is, it does not respond or belong to anyone, it lacks programs because we are not a political group — or a group of any nature — we don’t have leaders, but are, instead, about a totally free and individual phenomenon, which means that opposing bloggers may exist or that some blogs (like this one) may choose to publish opinions about matters related to politics.
But beyond all this, some common interests may lead bloggers to share views, knowledge of digital technology, information, and many other issues, so it’s not unusual that we meet informally, without compromise, without impositions and without mutual obligations. This has created an atmosphere of empathy and, in some of us, the feeling of belonging to a common phenomenon these days: the spirit that comes from the flow of information, the use of computer technology and the civic will to exercise freedom of expression.
We practice a particular and innovative way to address the lack of freedom imposed by the government in a venue that, until now, for whatever reasons, had been underutilized both by the government and by opposition groups: the virtual space. The Internet is neither our monopoly nor our feudal property.
Ferrer stated in his article that “the work of the alternative blogosphere has achieved significant external impact, but less of an internal impact in the country, given our particular conditions”. Certainly, the Internet access limitations and the technological lag slow down the blogosphere’s influence in Cuba. Nevertheless, real webs, not virtual, have been created spontaneously among our Cuban followers, who covertly divulge our blogs by means of CD’s or flash drives, having them circulate from one computer to another; readers outside Cuba have also volunteered to be activists in our spaces, conveying our work via e-mail to their relatives and friends.
And I must mention Radio Martí, many of whose programs spread the Cuban blogger activity. I can’t see how the limitation of bloggers to publish their work is any more difficult than that of opponents to spread their proposals or move their initiatives, nor can I understand how blogger activity on-line is less deserving of credit or does any more harm than what opposition groups do in the streets.
Also, the projection of the opposition has been more outwards than into the country — the reasons are obvious — therefore, to say that “a virtual dimension” in Cuba “has a popular limited and controllable impact in general terms” is relative, because, in that respect, the opposition has not demonstrated having a greater “impact” or being less “controllable”, in spite having been in existence longer than the blogosphere.
Another distinguishing feature of the blogosphere with respect to the so-called “traditional opposition” has to do with the supposed “objectives” that they attribute to us. The opposition parties respond to agendas, statutes and guidelines that correspond to the vertical structure of that type of organization, and in order to comply with them, adherence to certain objectives is expected. The blogosphere is just the opposite: each blogger determines what, when, and how she does it; there isn’t a “blogger structure”, blogger objectives, or, even less, a hierarchy.
The greater or lesser visibility of a blog depends more on the empathy achieved with the readers, the quality of its design or of its posts, and the personal status reached among those readers. Viewed from the proper perspective, I don’t know of any blogger who has been nominated to “overthrow the dictatorship” from the virtual space, although it would be childish to ignore that undermining the government’s monopoly on the media threatens its structure… and let’s not forget the power of information and circulation of ideas, hence the official attack on the blogosphere is actually not so “surprising” or so “unusual.”
Instead, what does seem truly bizarre is that some opponents feel that bloggers are taking away from them even the hatred that the government should direct only towards them; it’s one of the most pathetic things that I could have imagined three years ago, when I started this blog.
As for “standing our ground”, I would like to know specifically what Darsi Ferrer was alluding to. I prefer to think that everyone stands their ground in his own territory. For example, the blogosphere took advantage of its “outward” visibility to support the marches of the Ladies in White, denouncing the abuses they were victims of, and demanding the release of political prisoners, among other campaigns.
Guillermo Fariñas’s hunger strike recently reached international dimensions due, in good measure, to the coverage the blogosphere gave to it, which Fariñas himself recognizes. I will take this opportunity to note that the Ladies are not a political or an opposition party, according to their own statements, and they have met with and maintain good ties with the alternative blogosphere.
I also don’t remember any independent blogger who has attacked, from his blog or from other means, an opponent or colleague, as – unfortunately — the reverse has indeed occurred; nor do I know of any blogger who requires unification around him or around one of his proposals, or one who considers whether he is not taken into account for some meeting, event, interview or program. To do so would constitute complete failure. More than one opposition member would be surprised at how many issues alternative bloggers have disagreed on without involving feuds, personal attacks, or hostility among us. We practice peaceful disagreement with healthy regularity, and we enjoy it.
There is a persistent habit of mentioning “the alternative blogosphere’s young people”, ignoring that it has a large group of the “not so young.” For example, of its first year founders, only Yoani is young, the rest — Reinaldo Escobar, Dimas, Eugene and I — span from 51 to 68 years of age. Subsequently, even some bloggers over 70 years old have joined in. As can be seen, we are young, but not so much so.
Today, just entering the platforms Desde Cuba and Voces Cubanas is evidence that the faces of most of the bloggers have left the freshness of their youth behind, though we have retained our freshness of spirit. It also is not true that notices of our meetings are posted regularly on Twitter, or that access to our virtual platforms (not only “the Generación Y blog”) has been “unlocked.”
In fact, the filter that blocks access to the administration of our blogs was only lifted during the days when the International Computer Science and the International Book Fair events were held in Cuba, evidently to indicate that our complaint of the blocking of said platforms is false. Sometimes they unblock those pages for a day or a few hours, intermittently and irregularly. Apparently, the government disinformation tricks also work for some gullible people here, who unwittingly join the chorus.
I fully agree with Darsi Ferrer in that “the vehicle for social mobilization in Cuba will not be the Internet or the social networks because of their limited presence”. In fact, I have published several articles in support of that view, not only in my blog, but also in the Voices magazine and the Diario de Cuba, which, of course, brought me quite a few detractors.
I would only add that I don’t think that the supposed “social mobilization” has the traditional opposition groups as its driving force or as its “trigger and coalescing force”. I can’t see, right now or soon, what the social factors and actors of a mobilization that I doubt will take place would be, for reasons that are irrelevant to repeat here because I have exposed them extensively in the mentioned publications.
As to the alternative blogosphere being an “elitist phenomenon”, the same, and with equal justness, could be said of the opposition. In totalitarian regimes, individuals or groups who dare to oppose and confront power in any way always constitute elites, minorities. So that the term “elitist” envelops a precise connotation, completely extraneous to the blogosphere, because that word implies “being in favor of the elites.” I guess the author’s bad use of the Spanish language in this case may be involuntary. If our vocation were “elitist,” how do you explain the explosive growth of the blogosphere with authors, subjects and interests of the most varied tendencies?
Once again, we are linked to the popular uprising that was actually summoned from abroad through Facebook, not the Cuban blogosphere on the Island. I must confess to Mr. Darsi that I am not aware if any of the thousands of internet users who joined the web of potential “insurgents” was an alternative blogger in Cuba. At least, the ones I know did not take part in the campaign, so that no one should be surprised that we were not present at the place and time of the appointed date.
We did not summon nor felt obligated to respond to summons without previous consultation, except if a blogger, on his own, wants to join in, for each is free to decide. Here is exactly what some do not understand: we are not a herd, let’s not put on cowbells, let’s not be charmed by slogans nor be obedient and complacent.
As for me, I congratulate myself for the release of the Black Spring political prisoners and other prisoners of conscience. Anyone who confronts the regime with his best willpower, talent, and bravery deserves admiration and respect, and I will always support him from my little virtual space. Their activities, like ours, embrace peaceful actions that challenge the dictatorship and aim to democratize the Island.
At the same time, though, in my capacity as citizen journalist, I feel I have the right to respectfully question any plan aimed at proposing the future of a nation that belongs to all and not to one or another group or leader. As several opposition members so brilliantly once enunciated, “The Motherland belongs to ALL”; except that, seemingly, some feel they carry within them their own, distinctive, personal Motherland.
Regardless of my sharing with many dissidents of the most diverse trends the hope of changes for Cuba, some bilious views within the opposition make me suspect that the official control patterns some claim to be against inexplicably repeat themselves in them.
The psychology of exclusions is thus maintained, according to which, a sort of dissident pedigree exists that establishes hierarchies according to what activity is carried out by whom, exactly the same as a system of meritocratic government.
Such a waste! It would truly be healthy indeed to overcome so much angst so that – each in his own way — everyone contributed to a pluralistic and inclusive Cuba. For now, it appears that the activity of alternative bloggers is, somehow, indeed affecting the regime’s slumber… and also, painfully, that of others.
Former President Jimmy Carter has just completed a new visit to Havana and an air of expectation lingers among some alternative sectors of society. Carter is tied, without a doubt to several processes of movement of the official strategic policies that have had repercussions on the Island. In the late 70’s, during his presidency, Carter promoted an intelligent approach towards the Cuban regime; he was successful in establishing a dialogue between official Cuban authorities and emigration representatives –- an event that opened the gates to their travel to the Island and allowed family reunions between Cubans from both shores after 20 years of separation — and the corresponding Interest Sections in Havana and Washington were also established. Under the Carter administration, the migration accords were established to regulate the legal exit of thousands of Cubans to the US, and a climate of relative truce took place in the antagonism that had dominated politics between the two governments for two decades.
In 2002, Carter’s first visit to Cuba would mark an unprecedented milestone when, in a venue as official as the Great Hall of the University of Havana, he gave special credit to the Varela Project, whose creator, Oswaldo Payá , was a member of the opposition. It was the first time that a proposal from the much demonized opposition sector was made public on the national stage in Cuba.
Now, for the second time, Jimmy Carter visited Havana prompted by an invitation of the new ruler in the same decrepit dictatorship, but the scenery and the circumstances are currently markedly different from his previous visit. The guilty verdict against Alan Gross, a U.S. contractor accused by the Cuban authorities of collaborating with an alleged internal network to overthrow the government; the recent release of the 75 Black Spring and other prisoners of conscience; the upcoming conclusion of the VI Congress of the Communist Party, primarily addressing the legitimization of the economic transformation of the country to “renew” a proven failure and the deepest structural crisis that the revolutionary process has experienced since its inception are some of the factors that make the difference. On the other hand, positive steps are being taken by the current United States Administration designed to ease the restrictions set by previous administrations, thus undermining the old Cuban government’s pretext to keep a besieged position on the Island.
At a lesser level, Carter’s visit also coincided with the process of “media lynching”, a term coined by journalist Reinaldo Escobar to describe what the Cuban authorities have unleashed against independent civil society sectors. So, shortly after four chapters of the deplorable series having aired on TV, portraying the Ladies in White as mercenaries of the Empire and Dagoberto Valdés and a group of independent bloggers as other demons of the dissidence, the government allowed a meeting of these “paid employees” with Jimmy Carter, a delegate of the very Empire that “subverts” them. And, since the people are so spontaneous, there were neither repudiators’ gatherings nor temporary arrests against the evil traitors; no henchmen prevented the dangerous enemies from taking part in the meeting and exchange of views with the former President of the hostile power. It seemed that, in order to offer a friendly image to the visitor, the miracle of “the dignified peoples” who appreciate and respect differences had taken place.
In summary, the expectations awakened by Carter’s visit are based on the hope of the end of official inaction, because every instance when he has come close to the Cuban government has weakened the Cuba-US discrepancies, an essential Cuban foreign policy stance for over half a century. Regardless of the specific concerns that have prompted this visit, we must recognize that Carter’s conciliatory attitude, his capacity for respectful dialogue and interaction with representatives from both the official line and sectors of the opposition and independent civil society mark a particular style that crashes against the belligerence on which the Cuban regime feeds.
Some suggest that, in Cuba, the sustained and increasing harassment of dissidents and independent civil society groups responds to a government offensive strategy designed to eliminate pockets of resistance to the dictatorship, marked at times by a preponderance of alternative civic sectors and the use of information technologies and communications. For my part, I don’t share this view. Far from being an “offensive”, I think this is a desperate defensive strategy to try to stop the unstoppable.
After watching the four television broadcasts of the pitiful series “Cuba’s Reasons” aired so far, there should not be any doubt that the blogging activity developed in recent years is hitting the regime’s ideological structure. The “cyber-war”, the central theme of the latest chapter in this series (Monday, March 21, 2011, 8:30 pm) was specifically about bloggers, in an unsuccessful attempt to make us subject to American Federal resources which, according to them, reached us through awards won by Yoani Sánchez and, as the result of the tricky official math, amounts to the fabulous amount of half a million dollars. As usual, this time they failed to present any evidence, so they were forced to offer their supreme action: deceit.
On this occasion, the clumsy manipulation began with a macabre introduction: the US government (who else!) is developing a frightening new war: the cyber-war, for which it has trained its agents in Cuba (that’s us, of course), called on to destabilize the revolution and the country, to subvert and destroy the people’s gains, which subliminally suggests the fragility of a “deeply rooted people’s process”, jeopardized by a scant group of “cyber-warriors” in a country with an almost nil level of Internet access.
To reinforce the lie, the written press tiresomely repeats it, asserting that the external enemies “are trying to promote the so-called ‘independent bloggers
“in order to demonize the country before international public opinion, so that they may offer an image of cyberspace as the genuine and only world, from which to speak and act” (Granma, March 22, 2011, p. 4). The truth is that the government has already has made great strides towards that mission of soiling itself before international opinion by keeping the repudiation brigades active against defenseless civilians; imprisoning journalists and others for expressing and defending differing ideas; allowing a political prisoner to die in a hunger strike; killing completely defenseless psychiatric patients through malnutrition, cold, lack of care and several other niceties. I don’t think that blogging activity could surpass that record.
Incidentally, the press omitted one small detail: the blogosphere uses the net because it is the only channel available to citizens since the government has a monopoly on the press; in contrast, we do not have a monopoly on the Internet. This detail is what allows the government to unleash a major campaign against independent bloggers based on a sack of lies absolutely counter to the spirit that has prevailed in the blogosphere –- which defends peaceful changes and civic principles before ideological ones — designed for the ongoing deception of the people. “Bloggers have appealed to uprisings in Cuba during interviews, they encourage violence, support the Cuban Adjustment Act, justify the blockade, deny that the most reactionary exile sector in Miami is an enemy of the Cuban people, state that Luis Posada Carriles’s case is a smokescreen, and even openly express the change of the political system … ” (Ibid, pg. 5)
Particularly poignant in the TV series is the revisiting of the bogus reference to Luis Posada Carriles as one of the alternative blogosphere links in a vulgar attempt to touch a sensitive nerve in people still moved by the memory of the dead from the heinous Barbados crime, an event that the aforementioned character has been systematically accused of by the Cuban authorities. Only a very sick government may so unscrupulously manipulate the sensitivity of the people. Seventy-three people, mostly young Cubans, were killed on that fateful day, and the regime has made use of this tragedy for nearly 35 years. They should show more respect for the memory of those killed and their relatives.
However, despite everything, we should be grateful to the Castro media for the free propaganda. It is very possible that, even with low ratings of the series, some sufficiently apprehensive Cubans –- some of those that we seem to have too many of — who, until now, were unaware of the blogger phenomenon, might begin to explore on their own and arrive at us and at the reality of what we are. Maybe the new breed of cyber-warriors will be composed of some of those young students to whom the anti-cyber TV chapters are directed. For the time being, it is noteworthy that this is the first time they have not presented a new infiltrated agent, which may be due to the transparent character of the alternative blogosphere, where we express publicly what we think in private. We have repeatedly publicly expressed a clear interest for whatever agents they want to assign to us to participate in our courses and meetings, without having to go through the cumbersome process of their infiltration, but they have never responded.
Definitely, the alternative blogosphere has conquered, alone, a place on the Internet. The system is surprised at the freedom call of a handful of Cubans that has managed to remain on the net based on will and modesty, and has enjoyed the understanding and support of thousands of its exiled countrymen, as well as of many other citizens of the free world. Authorities fear, logically, the spread of this terrible virus, the feeling of civic freedom. And since this is our own achievement, beyond governments, assumed financing, and interests outside the pure exercise of freedom of expression that moves us and which we practice without asking anyone’s permission, I am speaking on my own behalf and not as a representative of my colleagues, because independent bloggers have the additional quality of not being affiliated with a common platform or the guidelines of any institution.
This cannot be said about the official “blogger” block — created and controlled by the government to angrily reply with the same old slogans — which stays comfortably protected, without any risk, under the shadow of the longest dictatorship in the Americas. Alternative bloggers are not slaves to any power, and we represent only ourselves as individuals. Paradoxically, that, far from weakening us, makes us morally strong before the colossal repressive government machinery that plagues us.
And, though some readers believe that it’s futile to try to disprove so many lies born of the insecurity of a regime that is past its glory days, I want to challenge the government, from this small venue for a people’s forum, to show its intended strength and its conviction of people’s faith in the revolution by publishing at least part of our posts, or to broadcast the blogger-video “Citizens’ Reasons” in its media. Although, of course, it is clear they will not have enough courage to do so.
Or, on second thought, perhaps it would be enough for the people of this country to have full access to the Internet so they can see for themselves the “lies” that we the “cyber-warriors of the Empire” publish. That way, they would have an opportunity to fight us with true knowledge of cause, without intermediaries. For my part, I would gladly assume the consequences of such a risk.
Translated by Norma Whiting
Welcome back to our arena. You are really proving to be an itsy-bitsy difficult reader. You’ll have to excuse me, but, with your comment to my March 21st post that you uploaded on the 23rd, you almost succeeded in confusing me. As I see it, your questions have the wrong focus from the beginning. For starters, why should Yoani or anybody else have to explain “reasons” to visit an embassy? Why can’t an average person have “contact” with foreign officials? Why are such things turned into crimes by the Cuban authorities? What would happen, for instance, if an American should walk into the Cuban consulate in Washington? Doesn’t the fact that Yoani (and others) go openly into those embassies tell you that we are convinced that we are not committing any violation? Don’t you know that the embassies that the Yeomen of the Cuban regime mention will not refuse entry to any Cuban citizen who requests it, whether he is a revolutionary, dissident, or completely oblivious to matters of politics? Do you have any idea of how prohibitive the costs of accessing the Internet are from the scarce and generally slow public sites, if such access is not denied, as can happen? Don’t you know that some embassies allow time to access the Internet not just to members of the independent civil society or the terrifying opponents, but also to individuals who side with the government? The interesting detail is that the latter don’t have the authorization of their very own government to enter these embassies. Curious detail, right?! And do you know, outspoken reader Calvet, why permission is not granted to them? Because the “rations” of Internet that the Cuban government offers –- and only to its most devoted supporters — are also carefully monitored by intelligence agents, which could not be possible if such connections were carried out inside a diplomatic environment. You got that? Or are you still confused about this?
In another paragraph, you consider Cuba’s “reasons” are proven truths rather than suppositions. They are outlined in an official TV video, and such “reasons” are actually those of the Cuban authorities, not of “Cuba”. That’s why you assume that there really are 90,000 cyber-warrior agents at the keyboards and that Obama has placed in our hands all kinds of equipment and technology to overthrow the Castros (it’s obvious you have never seen my old and dear second-hand cell phone, a present from a friend, on which I allow myself to send twitter messages barely once a week). You obviously believe in what the soppy words of a young official revolutionary blogger by the name of Elaine suggest, who appears in the government’s video babbling about her “not having Internet at home” and informing us that “her granddad is happy though he doesn’t have Internet”. That is to say, the underlying message is that alternative bloggers do have home connections and that, unlike the girl’s loving grandfather, we have a very consumerist concept of happiness. As if the government would allow us to have a home network! Look here: you and people like you are one of the “reasons” the Cuban government goes to the trouble of concocting such poor quality stuff.
To your disappointment, I can confirm that the slender, long-hair girl with the orange blouse and sunglasses in the video presenting her credentials at the checkpoint to enter the SINA is indeed Yoani Sánchez Cordero. Even better, I, Miriam Celaya González, am the woman in the brown skirt, black strappy knit top and also wearing sunglasses standing beside her. That day, we both went to collect our passports and visas (I suppose you know that visas are processed at the consular offices of the countries where one is expected to travel, and not at the Committees for the Defense of the Revolution), and, by chance, we happened to coincide with the SINA press officer, an extremely nice and caring Puerto Rican whom we got to know because that lady is interested in press matters (she is so rare!) and we bloggers carry out a special kind of press, known as civic journalism. Can you grasp the issue now?
But, since you brought up the point, and I am assuming that you are full of good intentions and that your doubts are sincere, I will add information that was not published in the video “Cuba’s Reasons”. Both Yoani and I were then in the midst of visa negotiations because we had been invited –- by academic institutions and not by the Federal government — to a trip that included universities in Canada and the United States. This was in the year 2009, that is, they are pretty old images, but they were the only ones that the front men for the dictatorship had on hand. The friends that invited us on this trip processed the invitation letters in our names and paid for the appropriate consular transactions to the Cuban authorities at the exorbitant prices that the system stipulates. Not only did such letters never come to be in our possession, though we went to the International Legal Counsel in Cuba to claim them, but, in addition, our friends were never reimbursed for the money they paid, though they tried to claim it by presenting all receipts and vouchers from the process. Got that?
I am glad that you saw the bloggers’ video “Civic Reasons” which I was honored to participate in, with friends whom I deeply admire and respect, and I am glad you came away with the impression (true and correct) that we have no link to what has been called the “U.S. interests.” Let me take this opportunity to point out that if the assumed grim imperialist interests are for Cubans to have freedom and democracy, I openly declare that I agree with them, which does not mean I am a “salaried” employee of that government or that I have “feelings of annexation” or any such label. I would also like to make it clear that “the Cuban dissident blogosphere”, as you refer to us, and this is what we are, does not constitute an organization, does not have a common agenda, is not affiliated by bases or statutes, but instead, we are part of a spontaneous phenomenon, individual in its character, so that neither Yoani Sánchez nor Ernesto Hernández Busto are “at the head” of something that has no head. It is an official maneuver of the Cuban government specifically to try to create a visible head in order to be able to decapitate it. Speaking for myself, personally, I am not subordinate to anyone. I just subscribe or co-write the documents and principles that I share. Is it really so difficult to understand this? Such inflexibility is not expected from someone who lives in a free society.
A sound suggestion, Mr. Calvet: dissociate yourself from all prejudice; watch videos, programs, or blogs with a critical eye, and think with your own intellect, though you don’t need to share my views. Long live diversity of beliefs! The easiest thing, as I see it, would be for all of us — Tyrians and Trojans — to orchestrate a campaign for free Internet access for Cubans on the island, especially now that the very supportive Hugo Chávez has pitched our way a fiber optic little cable, and our current capabilities can spread to very high levels. I invite all bloggers, the free and the bound, to unite our wills in a desire that should be common: free Internet. How much do you want to bet that the government and its paid bloggers will not support this initiative? I hope I have made clear (for the second time), at least to some extent, your great confusion.
University of Havana. Photograph from the Internet
If someone had told us in the distant 70’s that the day would come when attendance at a march or other event in support of the revolution would be guaranteed by assigning quotas, I’m sure we would have made a face, incredulous. However, what back then would have been unthinkable is today a palpable reality.
Just a few days ago, the official press announced the forthcoming implementation of a parade to mark the 50th anniversary of the proclamation of the socialist character of the Cuban revolution and the victory at Bay of Pigs to be held on April 16th with the massive participation of children and the young in the municipalities of Havana “on behalf of the Cuban people.” What the press did not report is they had begun a process of selection in primary schools, secondary technical schools and colleges days before, pledging a fixed number of potential participants to ensure a respectable attendance at the event. A similar process has been taking place at universities and workplaces, where grassroots committees of the UJC (Communist Youth League) have had to mandatorily meet a quota to pay tribute at the parade. This is not really very difficult, given that the capital has a population of two million people and the event will begin with a military parade, which will swell the march.
It seems clear that the authorities know the lack of spontaneity of “the people” when holding the ceremonies of the revolutionary anniversaries. In previous years, many study centers were not limited to collecting lists of the disposition of their young to march in different events, but they were coerced into taking part in the ritual using resources previously unimaginable. For example, the School of Stomatology used a procedure sui generis for a more massive achievement at the March of the Torches — a fashion reminiscent of the Brownshirts youth of Nazi Germany — which in Cuba ends before the Marti’s Flame. The repressor-wannabes of that university faculty have established, throughout the course of that march, three control points to which each student must report, preventing the classic dispersing into side streets after the young people leave the march starting point: the aforementioned faculty is located at Carlos III and G Streets. I heard that other schools are using the same method as the only resource for the parade to be sufficiently attended.
The procedure for the allocation of quotas has become widespread and in a way that even the repudiation rallies have had to appeal to it. At the March 18th march, the Ladies in White were the target of further harassment by pro-government mobs that prevented a march of remembrance for the crackdown of the Black Spring. The repressive forces were ordered to deploy an operation to block the exit from Laura Pollan’s and Hector Maseda’s house, and from Neptune, a main street. Meanwhile, they arrested several people who were preparing to participate voluntarily and spontaneously in the march.
They also mobilized their hordes of people to keep the participants at bay, hordes that were maintained throughout the day on Friday the 18th and Saturday the 19th shouting pro-government slogans and yelling insults. To achieve this, they rely on the quota system. This is why every base committee of the UJC at all campuses in the capital and the suburbs had to allocate at least one militant for such an bothersome mission. Since Friday, for example, 18 young CUJAE (Technical University) militants had to guarantee the ones who would concentrate the next morning at Parque Trillo, Centro Habana, to go to “repudiate” outside the home of Laura and Hector. The operation, of course, was a “success.”
According to reliable sources, this has led to the establishment of a sort of lottery, through which militants that are called raffle off “the package.” There are discussions among those who already participated “the last time” and who wield in their defense the phrase “I already did it.” A total aberration of what once was a true and enthusiastic support for the revolution and its leaders.
Having learned about such unorthodox procedures to force young people into shameful practices, I feel even more contempt for the system that turns people into beasts and more compassion for the unaware youths that lend themselves to such a degrading service. Poor rookies, who condemn themselves to have to hide, tomorrow, such a mean and cowardly attitude!
Pursuant to the uprisings that have taken place in countries of North Africa and the Persian Gulf, many views seem to converge in Cuba. The recurring question, “why don’t Cubans rebel?” leaps out in every conversation with journalists or foreign friends, while among many Cubans living outside the Island a cyber-rebellion seems to have become the most promising hope. Few manage to explain how the formula applied in that region would not work for Cuba, simplifying the whole phenomenon in an equation as basic as it is fictitious: dictatorial government + social networks + popular discontent = mass uprising; all of which would imply, by itself, freedom and the miraculous advent of democracy.
It would be enough to look, for the second time, at the proposal in order to identify some shortcomings. Let’s say that the squalor of our social networks throws the equation out of balance. In that case, to achieve results we would have to multiply the components by the civic will of the Cuban people. Obviously, the math does not relate to human societies.
The opportunity for freedom released in the Maghreb, on the other hand, has become, for many Cuban exiles, the source that powers the new apple of discord when the most radical positions are put in the spotlight, spurring anger and insults that prevent rationalization of the facts. Once again, the proverbial inability of the Creoles to disagree without offending one another is evident: one of the main causes of our eternal failures. Those who consider improbable the success of an immediate uprising in Cuba, organized via Facebook or Twitter, are classified as “pessimistic”, and even as “Castro agents”. Those labeled as “optimists” are the ones who believe strongly in the end of the dictatorship, delivered through the powerful magic of bytes.
What is undeniable, however, is that a significant sector of Cubans of all parties agrees on the imperative need for change in our country. The debate should be directed at this elemental consensus.
Why not in Cuba?
It is a fact that — beyond technology, the effectiveness or failure of its scope, and our desire to get rid of a dictatorship that spans over half a century — people drive the changes, so that we cannot bet on a plot while ignoring the actors. History does not respond to coincidences, nor do transitions take place outside the realities of the scenarios they roam. The events that cause radical sociopolitical transformations tend to not have the spontaneity that is sometimes attributed to them either. Revolutions are preceded by multiple factors in which social actors of change are cardinal pieces. The history, culture, traditions, the idiosyncrasies of the people are elements that play major roles in the processes of transformation, so that events cannot be moved tritely from one region to another hoping that they will have the same effect.
About the controversial announcement launched at the meager Cuban social networks for a “peaceful” uprising in the Island, played out mostly by young people who would congregate at a particular point in the capital on February 21st, much has been speculated. When this article sees the light of day, that date will have passed, and the uprising –- should it have taken place — will also be a thing of the past. The cyber-debates that have preceded the events, however, will be valid for a longer period because they have been useful in having us face the possibility, not immediate, but very logical, of a process of change in Cuba, to measure the real potential of those transformations, and to ask ourselves how and to what extent we would be able to turn them into reality.
My position on the edict in question has been skeptical, which some have labeled as “pessimistic” or having lack of drive. It is neither one nor the other. I just happen to prefer battles where there are better chances for success. If, in response to the much discussed call to the uprising, the miracle of a concentration of at least 200 individuals in Cuba (of course, not including in that number the political police and the inevitable “indignant people”) should take place, I would be the first to acknowledge my error. However, I don’t believe in immediate nor improvised acts to solve the secular evils of Cuba. The damage the nation has suffered has been so colossal that an emergency freedom would be insufficient to strengthen the civil rights. The most risky and uncertain thing on the Island today would be a revolt –- a peaceful one, ideally — which would be followed by…what? an intervention? an interim governing junta? made up of whom? negotiations with the army? Once again, we are facing an imagined situation whose course nobody seems to know. The proposals for an uprising have not come hand-in-hand with that other additional, but necessary, plan for social order to follow the uprising, once the overthrow of the regime is achieved. It does not seem serious to me.
But my lack of faith — dictated by common sense and knowledge of my daily life here — has not prevented me from continuing to meditate on the subject, so, trying to find a balance between the extreme positions, it occurs to me to ask the question in reverse. The point would not be, then, to clarify why there has not been an uprising in Cuba. For me, it is a fact that, if all the conditions for the rebellion existed, it would not be necessary to even go to the social networks: it would be sufficient for each young person or each discontented Cuban to personally convene their most trusted friends and family to share their dissatisfaction with the status quo and orchestrate, together, a demonstration banging their saucepans as a sign of protest. Why not do it? After all, human societies have staged uprisings throughout time, with or without technology. In this case, a better question could perhaps be if it would be necessary to gather the few Cubans with access to some social network for a demonstration in a country where –- it’s no big secret — the regime controls both the army and the enforcement entities, and maintains a monopoly over the media so, consequently, the event could unleash a wave of violence that would not benefit anyone.
Adapting ourselves to the Island’s reality, as many Cubans have suggested already, it would be more effective to appeal to the effectiveness of the resistance through the non-demonstration. A regular reader of the blog I manage (SinEVAsión) called to this through a phrase sui generis: in Cuba “what has to be done is to do nothing”; that is, to not do CDR guard duty, to not attend meetings, to not attend rendering of accounts, the elections, the official marches, etc. etc. What would be the cost of this passive rebellion? None, if we follow the law; minimum, compared with the signal we would be broadcasting to other Cubans, to the government, and to the world.
To this “doing-nothing” we could add an almost infinite list of uprisings of the most varied nature and nuances. Let’s take, for example, that the young people who are willing to “demonstrate” in this manner would choose not to attend official concerts set up on the university steps or on the “protestdrome” or would not to attend, during their vacation, the so-called University Labor Brigades; or, if they simply dress in black clothing on February 23rd in memory of Orlando Zapata Tamayo, a dignified Cuban who, by dying in prison as the result of a hunger strike in defense of his rights –- and ours — triggered the dignity of many, and unleashed a whole series of events that forced the government to initiate the process of freeing the political prisoners. It would be an effective way to put our usual inaction at the service of freedom and rights; making use of what, up to now, has been a hindrance. What would someone in those circumstances be charged with?
The so-called “double standard” of Cubans attending a CDR meeting or marching while secretly preparing a floating contraption with which they will cast themselves onto the uncertain and dangerous waters of the Florida Straits, or those who just pretend to approve of the system and comply with the rules of the game imposed by the regime to maintain their meager wages or some ridiculous perk, is one of the most efficient weapons the government uses to maintain subjected the people’s will. Wouldn’t it be better to be consistent with our feelings of dissatisfaction and attack the evil at its own roots?
The Internet, the social networks, the new technology as a whole are undoubtedly a powerful tool. This is an assertion so real you could say that in recent years none of the battles for human rights on the Island would have been possible without the use of these technologies. They have allowed us to project ourselves into the world, break the impunity of the government and its repressive forces, and place in the public eye many of the hitherto hidden stains of the dictatorship. However, technology alone can’t bring democracy and rights. Before it can, it’s necessary to instill in people the will power to change.
Perhaps a good call would be one that will have us break the historical curse, once and for all, to have the tendency of becoming “the last” instead of wanting to always seem like “the first” in everything. Yesterday, we were the last ones to shake off the colonial yoke and — after many ups and downs and good, but truncated intentions — we seem destined to be the last to get rid of a dictatorship that lingers until the absurd. We may also try a call to definitively banish from us the messianic spirit that overruns us, the apathy, the resentments that gnaw at us, the passions that divide us, the distrust that they have sown in us, the inability to discern a future without chiefs, the cowardice. When these calls get here, from anywhere and by any means, count me in.
Translated by Norma Whiting
(Article originally published in Issue 6 of Voices digital magazine, February 25th, 2011)
Carlos heroically confronts a gladiolus. Photograph from the Internet
Once upon a time, there was a very brave guy. His name was Carlos Serpa, and he was so reckless that he even risked his life by infiltrating the terrible Caribbean amazons known as The Ladies in White, who had the very dangerous habit of taking long walks through Havana’s streets wielding their deadly gladioli and threatening everybody’s existence and the civic peace because of the simple and whimsical misfortune that their husbands or sons had been locked up by a kindly old ruler who only wanted the best for the slaves at his service… sorry, I meant for his people.
But Carlos (aka “Emilio” in “real life”), courageous beyond reproach, never daunted. He was not going to shrink in the presence of the Ladies’ fury, who insisted again and again on demanding freedom for their frightful relatives, magnanimously held in tactful withdrawal to prevent polluting society with their crazy ideas of that scourge of humanity called democracy. No sir. Such evil would not go unpunished while he could prevent it.
So it was that this popular hero pretended for years to be the spokesperson for the awesome Ladies who caused so much damage. He would report how the Ladies never had the courage to retreat before the just indignation of the people and how they would cowardly insist on marching every Sunday. They are so scary! Carlos also wanted to show that, in addition, they would make public pilgrimages because they received funding from a nearby, powerful, satanic empire that never ceases to envy the prosperity and happiness of Cubans.
The Ladies are so ungrateful. They have all the opportunities of this regime, with the privilege of a generous ration card that guarantees your power, with the most spanking-new health care system that any country has ever had, and with all the advantages that being a relative of a political prisoner in Cuba entails! They, who most likely refuse to offer their services to agriculture or house construction, while the leaders of this country are in charge of the complex issues of its administration and make sacrifices in their lives by traveling the world over and exerting themselves staying in luxury hotels to denounce, fully aware of the consequences, the vices of capitalism.
Those ladies, I repeat, should be ashamed to be getting help and support from abroad, from that same capitalism that our leaders insist on unmasking by pretending to be bourgeois, and having to waste in those grand purposes enormous resources that could well be utilized in other of the country’s needs. Damn the imperialist embargo!
Fortunately, Carlitos’s sensitivity has no limits, so, with the heroism that the action called for, he didn’t hesitate in propagating fallacies through enemy radio, in order to demonstrate that such a malevolent radio station and its malevolent financiers are liars. I don’t think I need to comment here on the lack of solidarity of that radio station’s journalists, who sometimes took as much as two minutes in responding to the desperate claim of Carlos Serpa (they are such criminals!) while he waited to put in a claim for the imaginary damage he received from the national Revolutionary Police and for the fake threats that the political police made. It is well-known to independent journalists, political and common prisoners in this country, and even to the terrific Yoani Sánchez that those nice boys are incapable of causing harm to anyone, not even with the petals… of a gladiolus.
Perhaps due to the lack of space, or because for that proverbial modesty that characterizes our valiant fighters at the Interior Ministry, Carlos –- who didn’t waver when he declared that the enemy empire finances the insurrection inside this Island — never told us how much money he had been paid in his capacity as spokesperson for the financed Ladies. He also did not state how we would be able to confirm the information he provides. Because it is clear that we are not going to fall into the same vices as the enemy radio, which encourages fabrications without verifying the truth of the information, and blames the errors on the reporter (as if a mere reporter were under the obligation of being responsible for what he reports). What’s next! This was probably one of Carlitos’s mental lapses. Poor baby. Either that or the haste with which the material to keep our people informed was prepared. Because, without a doubt, this material is directed at our people, and only at our people.
I don’t want to overwhelm my readers with any more details of this fantastic story. Such was Carlos’s glorious media success. Not only have the newspapers here published an interview with the long-suffering defender, now emotionally penitent after facing so many deadly dangers, but he has also appeared and reappeared on TV repeatedly, in a documentary about his covert activities in which he made great display of pretending and cold-bloodedness. That’s why many of us are left with the wish to know more.
We wanted to know, above all, what reasons our brave leaders had to “dismiss” now such a valuable employee who had climbed so high and hard on the podium of subversion, and who seemed to enjoy the full confidence of the enemy. He even had a valuable US visa, which he could have used to reach the very belly of the beast and become the sixth. He would have been infinitely more useful unmasking such powerful opponents.
I don’t know. I tend to think that our paternal government feared exposing him so much and losing him. But, at any rate, it’s a shame that they have unmasked him now, when so, so many uprisings of ungrateful agitators are being produced in the world, who also receive financing in exchange for being massacred: we must keep the bad guys in the crosshairs. I think we were better protected when our veteran agent “Emilio” lost sleep for our benefit inside the very same den of this kind of postmodern jellyfish, the Ladies in White.
Let’s hope to God that, this time, it’s not like in 2003, when a small group of agents of the Ministry of the Interior, captured inside the ranks of the counterrevolution itself, was presented to the public. At that time, the political guard worked so convincingly that it even succeeded in converting a pervert into a combatant; however, with the show of heroes throughout Cuba, they could not prevent that, incomprehensibly, after incarcerating the most dangerous internal enemies, groups of dissidents proliferated within the country. This multiplying of enemies has no explanation, for almost each of the infiltrated agents that have been unmasked, ten hostile reporters have surfaced. And, apparently, the pool of mercenaries is guaranteed; Carlos Serpa himself tells us so when he assures us that “there will always be an Emilio.”
I have taken some time to reply to the many comments to the post “Fantasies and realities of a virtual rebellion”, but I had good reason to do so. The reactions from readers, in the face of what might have seemed like a cold shower, were diverse, but expected. They did not disappoint or surprise me. The truth is that such participation shows that the topic was interesting to many … The lords of certain “leanings” that are scattered around here would love to see Cubans show such interest in debating them! Thank you sincerely for nurturing this little forum with your ideas.
There’s been everything, “as in a drug store”, like my grandmother used to say. Some comments show some misunderstandings, I’m guessing due to reading too fast. There are also those who respectfully offer opinions that don’t agree with mine, which offers the opportunity to incorporate different perspectives about matters that affect all of us, while some that do agree with irrelevance or with few possibilities to achieve a demonstration or with little prospect of achieving an Egyptian-style uprising on the Island not only provide arguments, but they also suggest other avenues for action. I won’t even bother to respond the offenses, of course.
In general, analyzing the compliments readers have honored me with, I could not help feeling like that perverse childhood friend, who, with malicious intent, not only told us that the Magi were not real, but –- in addition — took us by the hand with evil pleasure to prove it by showing us the hiding place where our parents, almost with the same enthusiasm as ours (or maybe even more enthusiastically) kept our new toys hidden until the camels’ expected arrival. We felt both a passing anger towards the illusion-breaker that, with his clean stabbing, smashed a beautiful childhood dream, we would end up being grateful for having shown us the deceit. Better yet, after the bitter pill of disappointment, we had the advantage to negotiate directly with our parents for toys each year, according to the possibilities, without going through the hassle of writing the necessary letter –- also full of deceit — to Melchior, Gaspar and Balthazar in order to demonstrate that we were worthy of their grace.
I use this parable also quite deliberately, because most of the time, when facing difficult situations we behave with the immaturity typical of a kid who doesn’t want to see reality. Behold! this time, I was the evil friend who opened the closet door and showed the hidden toys while, knowing our reality, I insisted that no protest would ever come to fruition in Cuba. Some reactions were so ardent in their fury that I was even accused of spoiling the successful achievement of the uprising with my “pessimistic” attitude, without considering that it is not about what I want or don’t want, but about the Cuban reality, such as it is. Those who think that way are overestimating my extremely limited (almost nil) influence over the opinion of a people who in their majority does not have Internet access and — as a result — does not know my blog. I truly believe that I am more useful in helping to sow the little civil seed than encouraging revolutions of doubtful outcome. In any case, civil awareness promotes men, while revolutions unleash beasts. You can bet that, hypothetically, if I had the power to influence the thoughts and actions of my countrymen, I never would have called for any exercise that could lead to violence, in the same way that I never suggested to Cubans living abroad to stop helping to maintain the regime with their family remittances or with their trips to the Island. I understand the powerful reasons of those whose parents, children or siblings are still living here, though I also know of some opportunists on this side of the strait who live without the slightest effort, waiting for the manna that comes from the sacrifice of his relatives abroad. I have spoken: there is a bit of everything.
I digress at this point to place an unavoidable marker. To my personal satisfaction, and to respond to a dart someone threw at me which I did not deserve, I maintain that I am one of those Cubans who does not receive any remittances, either from individuals or from institutions, for which I congratulate myself more every day. My income stems from my own work, though — given the circumstances in Cuba — I don’t just work for the money, but also for the satisfaction of helping to bring on change, doing what I consider useful. I accept handouts from absolutely no one; therefore, the possibility of rubbing that in my face does not exist. This does not mean, however, that I haven’t accepted cell phone account refills from some of my friends and supporters, internet cards I’ve been given and other items like flash drives, discs, etc., that have supported my work as blogger. I’ll be eternally grateful for this.
Another reason why I delayed in writing this reply, possibly unnecessary, judging by the experiences life has taught us, was to miss the date of the alleged revolt to which so loudly and for so long before we were being summoned, giving both the rebels the opportunity to prepare and the regime to prevent it. Just as we knew beforehand, on February 21st there was no protest at all. And it was clear that there couldn’t be one, not only by the limitations that I indicated in that controversial post and that numerous commentators have expressed, but because the better part of those who might have joined the protests were detained at police units, or under house arrest by the repressive forces; not to mention the deployment of the instruments of the regime throughout the area of the Avenida de las Misiones (across the street from the former Presidential Palace) — selected location for the start of the action — with the task of preventing any demonstration attempts.
Incidentally, similar measures were taken throughout the Island for days prior to February 23rd to prevent public commemoration of the first anniversary of the death of Orlando Zapata Tamayo. There have been arrests in almost all provinces. In places like Banes, for example, the town was literally taken over by the political police and troops were placed at strategic points. Reina Luisa Tamayo’s house was surrounded from all accessible points by soldiers with rifles. Government fear has been so impressive on the face of the symbolic stature of Zapata that even they, paradoxically, have helped to increase it with such excessive deployment.
But, back to the original topic, I would have preferred that the passion had not blinded the good sense of some readers. You can be in disagreement of certain criteria or positions (I enthusiastically welcome the lack of unanimity), but I insist that we must not confuse our desires with reality. I live here, how I wish for change! I don’t know if somewhere in the world what people want will occur exactly; I allow myself to doubt it. I do not pretend to pontificate on political thought, since I have no capacity for it, but to exchange criteria by offering my views. I cannot, however, share absurd generalizations as someone who holds that “all dictatorships are the same” –- the truly shocking example of Pinochet — Chile’s economic benefactor who saved the country from communist ruin, but over whom weigh thousands of deaths and disappearances; nor can I consider as a “minuscule sum” the deaths of “10, 20, 30, or maybe 100 Cubans”, especially when those who seem to consider them a kind of collateral damage is safe from risk. I really prefer to not label such an attitude: the epithet would not sound pleasant.
Finally, I have not chosen to “wait.” In my own way, I do what is possible for me to do to contribute to changes in Cuba. I’m not sitting around, waiting. I’m doing, as my fellow travelers are, and also those beyond the reefs, who support and encourage us. Personally, my wish for Cuba is a process of gradual and orderly changes, whose synergy will arise from the maturity and coherence that all social components would achieve. It would not be a 15-day process, but neither is it expected to be too long. After 52 years of totalitarianism, any hint of an aperture would accelerate the changes. More than a century of improvisations and patches have proven to be fully ineffective, and if we want to ultimately attain a strong and lasting democracy, we also need to have citizens, just like Estrada Palma stated in the early faltering and truncate Republic. I have no answers but I do have hope, which negates any presumption of pessimism about me. I also have the will and perseverance to continue, as do my measured energies and meager talents, doing my tiny job just like a polyp piercing the wall. Believe me, this is an exercise of pure faith nurtured on the most resounding optimism.
Translated by Norma Whiting
Mr. Calvet:
