Category: Translator: Norma Whiting

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.

Translated by Norma Whiting

April 21 2011

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.

Translated by: Norma Whiting

5 April 2011

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.

Translated by Norma Whiting

1 April 2011

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

23 March 2011

Mr. Calvet:

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.

Regards,

Eva-Miriam

Translated by Norma Whiting

25 March 2011

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!

Translated by Norma Whiting

March 21, 2011

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)

March 14, 2011

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.”

Translated by Norma Whiting

1 March 2011

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

February 25, 2011

While in Egypt hundreds of thousands of people decided the fate of their country by speaking out through strong and sustained public protests against a 30-year dictatorship, in a local Havana setting a dispute was being resolved by a diametrically opposite philosophy dictated by survival: the battle for the potato. The comments might seem like a joke, but they are about completely real facts that I was a witness to.

The location was the farmers market adjacent to Parque Trillo, a popular geographical site in Centro Habana. The actors were crowds of Cubans eager to acquire the favored root vegetable, virtually absent from stall counters since they were “liberated” — that is taken off the ration system through the announced process of state subsidies — while the plot was the bitter fights to negotiate the 10 pounds allocated to each buyer after standing on line for three hours, and all the pushing and shoving they had to endure before leaving with their valued purchase.

The incidents took place just over two weeks ago, when the potato distribution began at 18 locations allocated for their sale in the capital, and Havana’s population threw themselves after those potatoes as if it were the freedom conquest. As far as I could ascertain, the mentioned location in Centro Habana has been one of the most chaotic and crowded. The line was over one block long, and it was made up by a human mass in complete disarray, struggling to get ahead and cut the line in any way possible, which resulted in knocking down and trampling over several people, including some elderly persons, plus a fight that led to the intervention of several police patrols and one vehicle to stop the more combative. There were broken bones, contusions and lacerations.

In subsequent days, each truckload of potatoes has been followed immediately by law enforcement officials trying to prevent the fights from escalating. It is common, starting in the morning, to see how the more disciplined begin to line up, waiting to see if the desired tuber arrives, “just in case”. People are resigned to wait for hours, taking turns to hold their place in line, and patrolling the area until the awaited truck appears, if it decides to appear. This is the level of misery of spirit a great part of the population has allowed themselves to be reduced to. This explains how it is possible for a social explosion for freedom to occur in the most arid geography in this planet, while in a fertile tropical island, people hit and hurt each other over 10 pounds of potatoes. Can you perceive the “subtle” difference?

However, despite the sad spectacle, I allow myself some hope. I detected it in many other Cubans I saw come by the place, look reprovingly, almost with disgust, at the scene, and leave outraged. Many say they prefer to choke on yams than to undergo the humiliation of fighting other people over some potatoes. “Shame!” lamented an old man, “Never in my life have I seen such a slaughter over a few pounds of produce! How far are they going to drag us?!”

“As far as we let them, grandpa”, I responded. And I was surprised by the immediate support I got from most of the onlookers gathered across the street.

Translated by Norma Whiting

18 February 2011

Recently, a friend and regular reader of our blog made a comment about a very controversial post in which he argued that the Mariel migration was triggered by the fact that “two Cubans launched a bus against an embassy in Havana.” In effect, that action was the public and visible event, but in any case, in my opinion, his approach, alluding to such a critical and controversial event in Cuba’s history in the last 50 years, tends to simplify an event marked by deep political connotations whose climax was the exodus of a quarter of a million Cubans.

That is why I decided to dedicate a special post to the subject, without attempting to exhaust the many complexities involved. It turns out that I was 20 by then, and these events marked a decisive turning point in my life, so they are sharply etched in my memory. The Mariel Boatlift was actually the last in a sequence of events that begun with talks between the Island’s government and a group of Cuban émigrés, agreements which took place during the Carter administration in the late 70’s, which led to the opening of travel for Cubans residing in the US to visit Cuba — popularly known as “Community Trips” — under which, relatives from either side of the Florida Straits could be reunited, after being long separated due to the politics of demonization which up to that point the Cuban government had maintained against the émigrés.

It is possible that some of my readers won’t agree with me, but I am willing to bet that when he accepted these discussions, F. Castro had underestimated their political cost. For the first time in 20 years the government was inconsistent, and those that until then had been “worms”, people without a country, pro-imperialists or traitors — epithets the revolutionaries used to describe the émigrés — were now returning as born-again, revalued and re-christened as “our brothers of the Cuban community abroad”, by the grace of a speech of the leader of the Revolution himself. Automatically, without the benefit of logic or explanation, maintaining relationships with family members who had left the country was no longer censured. Moreover, the re-encounter was blessed and we could jubilantly welcome them into our homes once again. Many began to discover that we had been scammed, and it became clear that the discredit towards emigration had been a clever manipulation of government policy.

Family ties that should be — and in fact, are — the most natural thing in the world, acquired for Cubans a special connotation due not only to the split between those who were leaving and those remaining in Cuba that had often marked irreconcilable antagonisms, but also because on this shore, for two decades, power had woven its ideological supremacy based on the rejection of certain values considered “decadent” and “representative of a dehumanized dead society” which were now returning under the guise of consumer goods brought as presents by the émigrés to their impoverished relatives on the Island. All of a sudden, Cubans here found out that their “northern” relatives, without communism, marches, voluntary work, without slogans or speeches, were more prosperous, better off, and had more possibilities for professional and personal success. The New Man, with his ugly khaki pants and stiff boots for the sugar cane fields, staggered first, and then fell before the charms of the consumer society. Jeans and sneakers, the greatest expressions of the “ideological diversionism” — a doctrine that hung like a guillotine over the head of any young person on the Island — were stronger than the Marxism-Leninism manuals that cluttered our heads in schools, and faith in the system underwent its first major fissure.

In 1980, the death of Cuban guard Pedro Ortiz Cabrera during the Peruvian Embassy events in Havana was the perfect excuse Fidel Castro needed. The incident occurred just when the government needed to create and nurture a situation at all costs that allowed it to self-retract, strengthen the patriotic discourse and fortify itself in the figure of confrontation against the external enemy. It became urgent to inject a strong dose of patriotism into the people, and for that, Carter’s conciliatory and friendly spirit had to be bombarded, mainly by creating an artificial crisis. It was urgent to offer the world an image of a Cuba perversely manipulated by the common enemy of all the peoples, which, with its siren’s song, encouraged delinquents and made the biggest softies, the ones “in hiding” and the false revolutionaries change their course. And so it was that, right after the event, guards at the embassy of Peru in Havana were withdrawn, which was broadcast intentionally through the media so that the “new worms” grouped under the epithet of “scum” (who shortly after would once again be “brothers of the community” and would come back to visit Cuba) could have access to the embassy grounds.

I don’t think even Castro himself was able to imagine the enormity of the masses that in just 72 hours swamped the Peruvian Embassy, let alone, when the Mariel-Miami route was opened, that the number of Cubans willing to emigrate would multiply exponentially. His surprise was translated into a furious indignation that seemed to have no limits. His speeches were more aggressive, bitter and angrier than ever before, only now it was directed against many who, until then, had been our dear friends, our neighbors of a lifetime or our fellow students, so the message lost its legitimacy. The revolutionary dream of a nurtured generation of youth born between the 1950’s and 60’s had broken. The age of innocence had ended and we would never be the same again.

Linked to the whole course of discussions-émigrés’ visits-events at the Embassy of Peru-Mariel exodus, were other associated phenomena, that happened simultaneously and affected the social psychology within Cuba, such as, for example, that which is known under the name Consciousness Study Process –- a purge that in 1980 expelled from the ranks of the Young Communist League and the Cuban Communist Party those who did not obey the requirements that communist model dictated, were suspected of “diversionism” or questioned the dogma; the shameful repudiation meetings, which publicly highlighted the essence of the fascist regime, and the so-called Combative People’s Marches, created to demonstrate the commitment of the people toward their government.

Castro assimilated the teachings of those events and managed to use them to his advantage: he broke the process of becoming close with a country that was more useful to him as his enemy, he opened an escape valve to relieve tensions within Cuba through the exodus of tens of thousands of Cubans, and he managed to reinforce terror in the population through the powerful repressive machinery disguised as “the angry people” trained to dole out beatings to the defenseless who dared to express the least displeasure or to even an intent to leave the country. Similarly, from abroad, it reinforced the support of the USSR and the socialist camp, and the Cuban government was able to improve the living conditions of the population, to some extent, with the creation that same year of the parallel market that widened significantly the supply of consumer goods and the emergence of non-state agricultural markets, which also elevated the food possibilities. The short years of false socialist prosperity were being born, just before the end of the Eastern Europe regime.

Apart from this account, I remind the reader friend who inspired these memories in me that the demonstrations of those years were never explicitly against the government, but in favor of emigration. It is true that a mass migration like the one that took place then is the most tangible expression of a peoples’ discontent in relation to their government, but none of those 200 thousand Cubans thought for a moment to concentrate all that critical mass in front of the Government Palace to demand the rights and opportunities they wished for, none shouted “down with the Castro dictatorship”. And there wasn’t — as there isn’t now — political or civic will in the Cuban people capable of changing the status quo. Such is our character, like it or not, which is why it is crucial to help create civic consciousness as soon as possible.

I agree that the current conditions in this country can cause any event, however insignificant it may seem, to trigger a popular revolt; I don’t know to what point it could become a massive uprising. We are approaching a real dead-end from which not even the government tricks could get us out of. Today, Cuba needs a miracle that I, in spite of everything, believe possible. I also hope that miracle occurs through peaceful means and that the new generations, free from the doctrines that slowed their ancestors (our parents and us), are the renewing power of a future Cuba. It is true that no one can predict when and how changes will occur, but if they are unleashed through feelings of hatred, revenge and violence, we would only aggravate the present and dangerously compromise our future as a nation.

Our dear reader can consider himself privileged in that he was able to experience an exceptional process in his country, since conditions were very different to ours — despite our cultural similarities marked by history — Francisco Franco, “Leader of Spain by the grace of God”, who failed to remove the republican sentiments in Spain despite the outcome of the bloody Civil War, died quietly his hospital bed, sickly and at a very old age, just as his Caribbean counterpart will surely die. The Spanish were lucky that Franco was not as long-lived as Castro. In Spain, unlike Cuba, at the time of the dictator’s disappearance, there were –- as always — owners, social classes with well-defined interests, opposition (including the Communists), civil society and an emblematic figure, Prince Juan Carlos — supported by Franco himself to counter the republican spirit — with enough intelligence and will to foster strong leadership to an agreed transition. All of this prevented a bloodbath.

Our situation is different. Politics in Cuba have historically been decided by a chosen few elite groups; Cuban people, by nature, have always rejected politics and have resigned themselves (settled for?) to having others carry it out for them. Since 1959, Castro took care to dispel any vestiges of citizenship and to crush any semblance of independent thought, annulled the economic capability of society and reduced individuals to the status of “mass.” He had on his side the proverbial political apathy of Cubans and a curiously infantile enthusiasm for leaders and revolts. It is thus that almost all popular manifestation of nonconformity in the past half a century have been reduced to escaping the country (let’s remember, for instance, the “Maleconazo” and the boat people crisis of 1994) and not to even ask for political reforms or changes. If only a few thousand Cuban felt their civic duty we would not have the dubious distinction of carrying on our shoulders and minds a half a century-old dictatorship. The end of the Cuban dictatorship is near, I don’t doubt that, but I am afraid that the new nation’s labor is going to be a slow and extremely painful one.

Translated by Norma Whiting

22 February 2011

Sometimes it is hard to calculate how far the media can achieve fictional expectations. The process for popular uprisings that has been taking place in some North African countries against their dictatorial governments, particularly the prolonged protests that continue to occur in Egypt, have inevitably brought to the foreground the case of Cuba, which sadly holds the record of having the longest dictatorship in the Western Hemisphere. Thus, the hopes of an undetermined number of Cubans abroad have been stirred into believing that the moment has come (it’s now or never!) to convene a peaceful people’s uprising within the Island.

The strongest proposal seems to come from two Cubans residing in Europe, who have launched a call for the uprising, which would presumably start between February 19th and 26th, advertised by them through social networking sites (Facebook or Twitter). The commotion the proposal has caused in the media interested in the Cuban situation, primarily in Florida, but also in some areas in Europe, forces us to reflect on the issue. The time is right to establish certain considerations that, without a doubt, will not be shared by the most avid “pro-uprising” groups.

Let’s discreetly review how questionable it is to call for civil demonstrations in Cuba from abroad, given that the masterminds (or “cyber-messiahs,” as befits the information age) have not given us their confirmation that they will land in Cuba to place themselves at the head of the imaginary uprising; ergo, we would contribute the bulk of the massacred bodywork here. Readers who have placed their faith in this new “now’s the time!” that has arrived from afar, forgive me, but if the matter were not this serious, it would even be laughable. Just look a few small details, like the fact that there is virtually no Internet access in Cuba or that not too many Cubans have access to social networks. This makes it almost impossible for the democratic liberation to start via the virtual channels, through the use of computers — or perhaps simply through cell phones — by today’s experienced cyber-leaders of ours.

Let’s also make obvious a trivial circumstance (I am referring to our orphan internet), let’s politely suppose that uprising orders came, even if — in a fit of mambí* nostalgia — it was rolled into a cigar, and let’s analyze its impact objectively, not from the standpoint of our wishes and hopes, but from the Cuban context. It is true that practically all conditions exist in Cuba to produce a social explosion: persistence of a dictatorship in power for over 50 years, permanent economic crisis as a result of the failure of the imposed system, high majority of the population surviving in that precarious balance between poverty and misery, loss of faith in government, uncertainty about a potentially devastating future, and all the rest which almost every one of us knows. Paradoxically, in our country, the absence of demonstrations is not due to the conditions that exist, but to those that DO NOT EXIST and are critical:

– We do not have independent civil society organizations capable of coordinating an uprising of this kind in Cuba.

– The Cuban people, ignorant even of their squalid rights and generally apathetic, are helpless against the repressive machinery of a system trained in resistance to retain power, possessor of an efficient repressive apparatus, of the mass media experienced in misrepresentation. Thus, there isn’t an effective vehicle for weaving, in the short term, a citizen network able to paralyze the country and force the government not even to abdicate, but to just negotiate in search of a pact. This is so true that there are still almost a dozen political prisoners remaining in Cuba who should have been released since this past November under the government’s commitment.

– Contrary to what happens in Egypt, to name the most conspicuous example, in Cuba there is no known opposition program able to present effective resistance against the government (this resistance transformed into positive action). In the case of an uprising, opposition parties in our country cannot offer the people a modicum of social order guarantees nor agreement proposals that address the broader interests to push for change towards democracy.

– The Cuban people, the vast majority of whom does not know the opposition parties, their members, or their platforms (in those cases when they have them), nor has the work of independent journalists and bloggers been sufficiently disseminated through the Island to influence the opinion of “the masses.” No wonder the government keeps a tight monopoly on the media.

– There isn’t even a set of popular claims, properly structured or at least rooted in the social spectrum, capable of bringing together a critical mass of different social sectors willing to face the consequences of a supposedly peaceful rebellion.

Looking at other considerations, it is more likely that, in our case, the ranks of the “rebels” will be nourished by some of the opponents and dissidents in general, who represent the limited sector truly determined to confront the authorities, which would give government a golden opportunity to lock them up on a charge of “attempting to subvert” or some other similar charge, and thus weaken the resistance cells inside the country. It would be a devastating blow to the nascent independent civil society in a time when disgruntled sectors of the population are increasing, when spontaneous popular consensus on the need for change is beginning to emerge, and the breeding ground needed to guide these feelings of frustration and dissatisfaction towards democratic gains for the Cubans begins to form.

We could cite many other circumstances that threaten the success of this controversial “peaceful” uprising, such as the long accumulated resentment in society, the result of policy differentiation, mutual surveillance, betrayal, and mistrust among Cubans, which this regime has systematically planted for over a half a century. A popular revolt in Cuba, without known civic forces or a mass media that would control by calling to order (as the Polish, and even the Rumanian process fortunately had) surely would lead to violence, settling of scores, looting and destruction similar to what took place during the Haitian Revolution 200 years ago, with the subsequent final destruction and possibly the end of a Nation. Because it would end in that: a rebellion of runaway, blinded slaves without direction; the condition to which the dictatorship has reduced us by virtue of the proverbial indifference of generations of Cubans. There currently isn’t any reason to feel superior to Haitians of that era; and we don’t have the solid national civic tradition of the Polish or the self-esteem and awareness of the Egyptians, able to protect, in the midst of protests and violence stemming from clashes between rival groups, the treasures of their rich historical and cultural heritage.

This does not mean that social upheaval is not possible in Cuba. Unfortunately, reality indicates that the country is heading towards a dangerous point of impact. It is no coincidence that some pockets of rebellion in specific regions have already been brewing. These are the first practical signs of general nonconformity that will worsen as the government’s layoff plan, the elimination of “subsidies” and other problems that can already be perceived over the medium-short term scenario. It is no accident that the government is intensely preparing anti-riot forces equipped with new weapons and newly acquired techniques.

In spite of all this, I am one of those who insist on seeking peaceful and negotiated solutions to conflicts. I believe we must keep the pressure on the system flaws, build bridges with sectors that favor organized changes, take advantage of the weaknesses of the system and seek to expand civic spaces as much as possible, because, without people, no democratic change in Cuba will be possible or permanent. In this, Cubans living abroad in democracy and those of us who have found freedom inside ourselves will play an important role. Someone once said, brilliantly, that there are only losers in war. I would add that there are only winners in dialogues and negotiations.

Translator’s note: Mambí is probably derived from an indigenous word meaning the rebellion against the chiefs living in hiding in the forests. Spanish soldiers, noticing similar tactics of the revolutionaries in the use of machetes, started to refer to them as “men of Mambí”, later shortened to mambís. (www.wikipedia.com, Spanish edition)

Translated by Norma Whiting

February 11, 2011

One of the characteristics of the scandal unleashed late last year by the website WikiLeaks is the frequency with which certain developments that should not be a news flash for anyone are revealed. Simultaneously, an idea seems to be enthroned that tends to overestimate the importance of this site as the information legitimizer. Something like saying that “if it came out in WikiLeaks, is true,” which means the birth of a sort of absolute cyber-dictatorship for informational truth: the substitution of a monopoly (the mainstream media, which WikiLeaks claims to fight) by the monopoly of a supposed “freedom of information” which, in fact, tends to advocate anarchy.

Paradoxically, it is said that the Spanish newspaper El País “has exclusive rights on information filtered by Julián Assange’s Web.” Could it be that this is a free exclusivity deal by virtue of a freedom of expression defense turned offering? Why would a major media, the Spanish language newspaper with the largest circulation, be the repository of filtered “firsts”?

As for me, among the cables published by such a site that somehow make reference to Cuba, I have not found any new news items. I think I am not mistaken if I declare that most Cubans do not need the new defender of published news reports of the US Interests Section in Havana to find out, through its former representative, Michael Parmly, that “corruption in Cuba has become a widespread phenomenon that reaches both the Communist Party leadership and professionals without political affiliation.”

Other cables reaffirm the same, detailing aspects of Cuban life that have been reported by independent journalists and alternative bloggers for a long time, such as “corrupt practices, including bribery, misappropriation of state resources and accounting shenanigans, including purchased jobs for hundreds or thousands of dollars that will later spin off copious interchanges of influence.” We are well aware of that social cancer metastasis, corruption, that has even invaded the police, one of the most affected sectors; but it is absolutely present in every niche of national life. Even the comandante himself, the generator of the Cuban National Disaster, acknowledged in 2005 that the revolution could implode because of the great corruption that exists on the Island. He stated it much later than the independent press. WikiLeaks, through El País, merely sanctifies through the mouthpiece of a foreign official what many honest Cubans –- many of whom are in prison because of it — have denounced in the first place and, more recently, as if to conjure old faults, it has been acknowledged even by the olive green gerontocracy and its most reverent acolytes.

Among the latest of the retro-exclusive news flashes that the site of the famous Julián Assange has regaled us with these last few days is Parmly’s own communication that contains “confidential information” provided to him by Vilmar Coutinho, a Brazilian who in turn received it from the Brazilian foreign minister Celso Amorim (what a mess!). According to the “revealing” communication, the latter “had a talk with Raúl Castro” in which the General declared “that he had no intention of doing away with the white card” — the travel permit required to leave the country — because “that would produce a mass exodus,” whose host country would be fundamentally Mexico, which “would harm bilateral relations” between Cuba and that country.

Thank you, WikiLeaks! But we Cubans already knew that the white card is one of the government’s more lucrative diabolical “milking” mechanisms. As a Cuban-American economist coined it, the “emigration industry” produces juicy dividends for the Cuban government, at no cost whatsoever, and the famous little card is one of its sources. The so-called white card, which allows native Cubans to exit the country costs only 150 CUC, and it can be obtained, in the first instance, only through the corresponding letter of invitation from abroad, paid to the Cuban government in hard currency, with the exception of those who have obtained their Spanish citizenship, who need no letter at all to go to Spain, though they still need their white card. Add to that the application for a regular passport which has a price of 55 CUC. Considering the large and continuing flow of Cubans to immigration offices to perform procedures related to this, it is easy to calculate that the amount of income generated could be, at least, in the order of hundreds of thousands annually. Add to that the monthly rent required to be paid to the Cuban consulates abroad by Cubans who left only temporarily and expect to return to the Island. That is why the General could not eliminate the white card, not because a supposed massive exodus to Mexico (more like the United States, the main and dreamed-of destination of almost all Cubans aspiring to escape). The cynicism of the General when recognizing the possibility of a “mass exodus” is not a WikiLeaks news flash either.

I could cite other examples, but that would be to extend myself in vain. I agree with those who have found only a great source of old gossip in the controversial site. If you look closely, it is only useful for fleeting chitchat, and to show that the Internet also has that dark and sinister side that that puts issues under a microscope that perhaps should remain in some office files and drawers. Apparently, for media that thrives on scandal, the personalities implicated in the gossip are more important than the news itself. Personally, I’m not very interested in revelations after the fact, unless they have the purpose of amending errors, an issue that is beyond the scope of a mere mortal like Assange. Nor does it seem ethical to me to advocate the collapse of a site –- be it official, famous, or not — as some cyber-fundamentalists have done to avenge the attack to the new idol, because I defend freedom of speech in its universality. As an independent blogger living in a dictatorship, I know what it feels like when an absolute power blocks that right.

I don’t know what WikiLeaks proposes to do ultimately; perhaps it is only about good intentions gone wrong. Maybe my assessments take me beyond a critique, but my readers know I am not complacent, and I hope that they can clarify some of my doubts. I count on that. As for the referenced website, I think so much internet talent could continue, though based on better causes (he’s done it before), and promoting the free flow of information in areas where there are serious access restrictions, while respecting the right to privacy. Freedom should not be synonymous with chaos. The WikiLeaks experience is, in my opinion, one more demonstration of the human capacity to deal ethically with technological advances, just like it has happened so many times before in history. And forgive me, readers, if this seems like an old fashioned presumption, but sometimes what we call “information” is nothing but stupidization disguised as news.

Translated by: Norma Whiting

February 3, 2011

Divinations

Note: This work was originally written for and published in Voices magazine #5, in January, 2011.

I want to start with a statement of principle absolutely rigorous and rigorously true: I respect the religious beliefs of all people anywhere in the world. The second statement I will make is as vertical and solid as the first: I reserve the right to question certain aspects of magical or religious practices when they cause me doubt — whether motivated by my own ignorance or by the nature and consequences of such practices — and I also claim my legitimate right to publicly expose what I think in that respect. An agnostic of my own doing, and anthropologist by training, man himself, beyond creeds or doubts, is most important to me. That said, I will address the issue.

Throughout history, mankind has always been tempted to decipher the future, and each culture has, at one time or another, in some way, succumbed to it. From the very beginning, primitive cave dwellers consulted the stars, the entrails of animals, and even trees and stones; they devoutly painted rustic cave walls with beautiful drawings and practiced propitiatory rites to enable the arrival and establishment of prosperity and good times. Several millennia have transpired since we supposedly left “barbarism” behind us and since the rise of “civilization”. Those years were a hard journey for humanity, and the inspiration for the oracle was ever-present. To date, the practice of predicting events for self-preservation, protection against them, or the conjuring of threats remains and attracts millions of people from the widest spectrum of creeds and cultures across the globe. To claim that the techno-scientific development achieved by humankind has displaced the magical practices of oracular character is nothing short of pedantry by the more educated: inside, man is still as superstitious as when he inhabited caves, and almost as ignorant, with apologies to cavemen. In fact, today, some oracles are available online, in what might seem, at first glance, the inversion of the equation: technology at the service of superstition.

Thus, no society, no matter how highly developed or sophisticated, has abandoned that universal tradition of divination. Regardless of the vehicle used for the prophetic ritual — whether the Tarot, the I-chin, the Horoscope or any other means — the fascination of peeping into a future subject to the enigma of a predetermined supra-human Destiny seems to defy time. And no wonder. Man is the only living being aware of his mortality, of his ephemeral character, and of his very weaknesses, which transforms Destiny into one of the most tempting mysteries in human existence.

However, from a certain point of view, concerns about the future – despite its romantic halo, a mixture of mystery, magic and enchantment — is not but a manifestation of a deep practical sense: to know what will happen allows us to optimize our brief stay in this world. And, without a doubt, the most practical of all men were, and still are, the wizards… the prophets; because they, as the occasional interpreters of arcane symbols, have others not just believe they possess superior gifts to probe the secrets of the future, but they actually have the ability to influence the will of large sectors of human societies, and to benefit from it.

Cuba, prophecies of survival

The magic substrate of prophecies is well cultivated in religion. In all of them there are omens, predictions, miracles, and even spells that can’t all be listed here. Universal mythology in the generic sense, with its fascinating poetic charge, has planted images, parables and traditions in the cultures of humankind. Cuba, a country with a peculiar religious syncretism, is no exception. The uneven and never clearly defined mixture of Spanish-inherited Catholic religion, the complex animist beliefs of African heritage, and certain magical-religious vestiges of our extinct indigenous cultures, characterized by ancestor worship — as fundamental components of this syncretism — seems to imprint in a large part of Cuban society a sort of natural predisposition to religiosity, a predisposition that has grown exponentially in recent years, marked by deepening shortages, the loss of values, and the urgent search for solutions.

Sociology and history indicate that religious practices –- like the people who profess them — parallel their eras. The sign of “anything goes” that characterizes permanence in a precarious state of survival has empowered Cuban spirituality to the point that many people look for hope and reason simultaneously in every niche of faith. All faiths are worthy when envisioning a personal solution to the crisis, so it is not difficult to find one individual in settings as diverse as a mass at the Cathedral, in consultation with a fortuneteller or at the trays of Ifá. Rosaries, runes, cards and seashells might be the barricade that will protect against the evils that could launch their attacks from any corner.

In the midst of such kaleidoscopic magic-religious outlook, the predictions of the Letter of the Year, a tradition of remote Nigerian origins, beliefs greatly diminished in Africa under the overwhelming Protestant push first and then by the Muslims, paradoxically has been gaining popularity in Cuba, some attracted by the momentum of sincere faith, others by the need to find a glimmer of hope, and all seeking a sign of a future being made ever more uncertain by circumstances.

However, as a phenomenon peculiar to this society and this time, not even the Letter of the Year can escape the unwritten rules that survival and uncertainty impose. There are many contradictions hidden behind a ritual ceremony that — perhaps unintentionally — reflects in part the same original vices than those of a society seeking to make predictions. To begin, each year, two Letters are disclosed in Cuba: one published by the Cuban Council of Elder Priests of Ifá, a consortium whose headquarters is a large house located on Prado, opposite the Parque de la India, in the capital, openly worshiped, recognized and protected by the Cuban authorities to serve their political interests, and one that is spread by the Organizing Committee of the Letter of the Year “Miguel Febles Padrón”, declared “independent” and made available from a modest temple-house in the Diez de Octubre Municipality in Havana, where every year many babalawos* get together and who, this time – according to statements in the printed document that they published — had “the support of the Priests of Ifá, of all the families in Cuba, and of their descendants in the world”, which in itself contradicts the fact that there are two independent predictions within the same religion.

On the other hand, the universal character that the priests of Ifá declare for their oracles causes inconsistencies in its credibility by releasing such general predictions that result in predictable events, without consulting any divination tray. I will return briefly to this point a little later.

Other elements to consider are the predictions themselves, taking into account annual sequences, the events of social interest that they forecast, the recommendations they make, etc., as well as the compliance or lack thereof of the previous years’ Letters; the intelligibility of their sayings and the ambiguity and vagueness of their language, among other key issues. I am referring to the independent nature attributed to the Letter dictated by the Organization Committee based at the Diez de Octubre Municipality location, avoiding, as far as possible, the contaminating official stench that could emanate from the other one.

For example, the Letters published in 2005 and 2007 are identical in many of their contents. The sections that were dedicated to serious diseases, events of social interest, statute’s axioms, and almost all the recommendations, were literally copied from the former to the latter. Two years, that, however, turned out to be quite different from each other in many ways, and right in the middle of which came Fidel Castro’s momentous proclamation (2006) delegating power to his brother and a small committee of characters holding high government positions who were, among others, three of the ousted acolytes of today. If a message about this was stated in the January 2006 Letter, it had to be very cryptic, because no one discovered it among predictions, recommendations and maxims.

Needless to say that some other elements in the Letter of the Year are pure garbage. The announcement of “the death of older people and public figures in culture and politics” that has appeared in one of the last letters is really obsolete, though most fans insist that the deaths of several elderly historic Cubans were announced by the board of Ifá and its interpreters, the babalawos. Predicting the likelihood of death for elderly or public figures of culture and politics “who are around 80 years old or have crossed that threshold — especially when it is known that many officials in high positions are old men engaged to that nomenclature — is not only an immature absurdity, but it makes a mockery of people’s intelligence. The announcement of “power struggles” also seems like a dramaturgical job, in light of the forced retirement of the senile commander.

We don’t have to shake any seashells to “guess” that the interests accumulated by the ruling class for over half a century will inexorably lead to bitter conflicts between the different tendencies that inevitably exist in the ruling elite as soon as the unifying ruler of those historical forces stepped down from the presidential recliner. The numerous purges that have taken place in recent years are a reflection of the realignment of forces that emerge from these conflicts, which, in the long run, will possibly delineate the political landscape that will host the long-awaited transitional changes.

The always ambiguous language used by the interpreters of Ifá allows each person to essentially fit the speech to his own liking, and to interpret whatever he might understand out of its convoluted and faulty syntax, especially when universal significance is given to its predicted effects. Rain, tsunamis, droughts, epidemics, war, military occupation, earthquakes, hurricanes and shipwrecks are omens that lose authenticity when applied generally to the whole planet; it is obvious that these are recurring events that invariably take place each year in one or other region on Earth. Shouldn’t Ifá be more specific in order to have his aid be more effective? Or is it his priests who do not interpret his predictions exactly? In my opinion, these limitations are caused by the effort to apply universal relevance to local-type religions, typical of lower stages of development.

The most recent one, the 2011 Letter of the Year, repeats the 2010 reigning symbol, it has Oggún (patron saint of blacksmiths and the military) as its regent divinity, which some Cubans have interpreted as a complacent acquiescence, or perhaps a friendly wink to General Raúl Castro. This year, the very handy threat of war, confrontation and “military intervention” is maintained, too much like the Cuban government’s discourse, overused and repeated ad nauseam, in order to keep the subjectivity of “the people” around an imaginary enemy attack. Shouldn’t Ifá be more creative? No, the priests will probably say that the Letter refers to events that will occur in other countries of the world.

It also seems a curious coincidence that, pursuant to the “renewal of the model” advocated by General Castro begun some time ago, with measures such as distribution of land in usufruct to the peasants, the 2011 Letter of the Year takes advantage to include in its recommendations “to absolutely restore or eliminate old political schemes to enjoy a new social order.” And with that, all is right with God and the Devil: change has been the popular outcry for years, as is, of late, the regime’s urgent need to retain power through a grace period. It would seem that, instead of proposing prophecies to lead us properly through life, the Ifá’s proposals, through his priests, keep us dependent on the rhythm of the official model, survival, and the vagaries of the system.

However, believers are struggling to find rationalization to support their faith and their hope of improving life among the ambiguities and detours of the year’s patakies**. That’s why, in contrast with the alleged universalism of the Ifá oracle, Cubans seek out even the slightest sign of progress for Cuba… and he who seeks will always find. This is influenced by not only the critical economic situation we’ve been mired in for a long time, but also by the chronic misinformation that the vast majority of Cubans are suffering from, dependent on the meager communication they receive from the strictly government-controlled media.

Contrary to what I discuss here, it could be argued that the Rule of OSA, the Ifismo, or anything related to traditions and principles of this religion do not indicate a political character, in fact, this is what many priests allege, but this is not fully adjusted to the truth. The religions of African origin have been as persecuted by the regime as all other religions, or even more so, given that their practices were largely demonized, their rituals had to be hidden, and their faithful belonged to the poorest and most marginalized levels of society. These circumstances, and the act of existing under a totalitarian government, lend a political edging to every element of social life in Cuba that religions cannot escape.

A priest’s views

Victor Betancourt himself, a babalawo who regularly participates in the ritual of the Letter of the Year Organizing Committee, has recently responded to questions addressed to him by several readers of Diario de Cuba, and recognizes what I would define as a lack of commitment to the predictions and their effects. According to Betancourt, in response to whether or not the prophecies of last year’s Letter came true, “it is very difficult to determine the accuracy of the predictions for those who don’t have within reach data sources, annual ephemeris, annual statistical data, etc. (…) therefore, I cannot ascertain if they were met or not”. In the same setting, Betancourt asks for reporters’ help to verify such compliance, since they are more informed than he is (and Ifá himself, I may add) about what is happening in the world. With this, Betancourt attributes a purely media character to the predictions and their effects.

In response to another reader, concerned about the final fate of Fidel Castro, this Ifá priest states that Castro (Fidel) “abides by the recommendations of Ifá” and that is why he hasn’t died. I remember, however, that Victor Betancourt dedicated a religious ritual to safeguard the life of the eminent commander when, in 2006, he was on the verge of death. He doesn’t seem to recognize any influence his prayers before Ifá had on that occasion, or possibly, he doesn’t want to create a stir on that chapter of his religious career. At any rate, for a priest, I am of the opinion that he lacks a smidgen of faith.

Nevertheless, we have to believe that his prayer for the longest-lived dictator of this hemisphere has no political character, or that his regret is sincere when he says that “many journalists’ questions are always directed at the policy of the revolutionary government and at the leader’s health. We always believed that if we stated publicly, as now, that diseases whose rates will increase are the pulmonary ones, we would be sending a direct message to the health ministers of all countries, as well as to health providers in that specialty who have all the recourses and finances to strengthen this sector. We thought it would be more plausible, before we let the prophecy reach the people with asthma, tuberculosis, etc.” For me, I cannot imagine that the Health Ministers in the UK, Canada or Sweden are waiting for the Letter of the Year and the recommendations of Ifá’s priests to come out to allocate the corresponding budgets and to map out the strategies of the case.

After the predictions, the realities

I must confess that, in recent years, I have shown interest in the Letter of the Year as a phenomenon that brings together a significant number of individuals. It awakens in me a curiosity to understand the motives of human spirituality. Believers or not, “just in case”, almost everyone asks at the beginning of January, “What did the Letter come out with this time? Who is in it? What does it predict?” without ever understanding that they are the ones who must find answers to the crisis of their own existence. Still, this is an event that doesn’t get too contaminated in the midst of this tense and expectant society: it doesn’t offer enough hope as to awaken a mobilizing expectation, it lacks the strong propensity to spark a flame. That is why it is astutely tolerated by the authorities.

But, beyond trickery, credos or incredulities, Cuba’s destiny is not exactly played out on Ifá’s tray. Oggún, the legendary warrior, is useless to me, as is Raúl Castro, myth of the warrior who never was. We Cubans need peace after warring against ourselves for half a century. Enough is enough.

With all due respect, without Ifá’s stone tablets, I can predict that the era of the dictatorship is nearing its end; that there will be changes, perhaps more than we can imagine; that we will finally have an imperfect democracy that will have to be polished for many more years; that tomorrow’s children will not have to swear that they will become like Ché… or even better, that they will not be Little Pioneers; that there will be a multi-party system; that we will have rights; that the remnants of totalitarianism will be swept away by the young and by future generations, that the road will be long and difficult; that we will have to continue to expose chiefs of state, the opportunistic, and the corrupt. The Orishas will not make this omen come true, we will. If Orishas finally decide to help us, all the better. As for me, don’t give me magic seashells… give me Internet.

Translator’s notes:
*A babalawo, meaning ‘father or master of the mysticism’ in the Yoruba language, is a title that denotes a Priest of Ifá. Ifá is a divination system that represents the teachings of the Orisha.
**Patakies: Myths and legends of the Yoruba religion.

January 31, 2011

In the absence of a complete chronology of the struggle for freedom of the press in Cuba, it is possible to follow, step by step, the increasing deterioration of the “national information system.” Tune in to radio and television newscasts, or browse through the newspapers which, as a rule, repeat misinformation or misrepresentations of what happens in the world. This emphasizes, in uppercase, all that is omitted, and with it, the lack of freedom, initiatives and opinions by industry professionals. The official “journalistic” activity on the island is now an occupation lacking in veracity, dignity or in the minimum decorum, with very few exceptions. And it must be really hard to serve a master as deceitful as the Cuban government while maintaining respect for a profession that is as old as it is necessary in a globalized world at the height of the age of the Internet.

Examples to support what I’m stating abound, but one of the most typical is being created right now. This past January 10th all the nation’s media announced the start of the trial in the United States against Luis Posada Carriles on charges of fraud, obstruction of justice, perjury and false statements, “despite his long history of terrorism against Cuba.” That day, the Round Table TV talk show was also devoted to this conspicuous character (on that occasion, the TV evening ritual was titled Posada Carriles and the Route of Terror, and it had two parts, aired on successive days), and — if that were not enough — the Cubavisión channel aired a special evening program conveying what they usually call “new evidence” against Posada, based on the very credible testimony of a Salvadoran rumored to be a confessed terrorist, sentenced to a 30-year prison term in Cuba, whose life was spared through the generosity of revolutionary justice, (which was exemplary and inflexible with three young Cubans shot against the wall in 2003 for highjacking a passenger vessel).

At this point, I leave a personal note: I do not defend Mr. Luis Posada Carriles, nor do I condemn him until, beyond any doubt, his participation in the heinous 1976 Barbados crime is established, as well as other criminal acts he is accused of by the Cuban government. I condemn any acts of violence, mainly those that threaten innocent lives, even if they wear the make-up of any supposedly higher ideal. To blow up a civilian airliner in flight is as criminal as to down planes or to sink ships full of defenseless people, so a much longer and fuller bench is required to judge the culprits of terrorism.

Daily since its beginning, the Cuban press has reported details of the trial being held in El Paso, Texas. Posada Carriles was, once again, the media’s supreme obsession, until someone from up high was forced to react to the dust under our own rugs: alternative bloggers again, with the usual nonsense, were pointing insistently to the absence of trials in Cuba for the murders at Mazorra. So, on January 17th, a week after choking us with the terrible shortcomings of the judicial system of the enemy Empire, which continues to ignore the proverbial Cuban government impartiality, the authorities allowed its anti-informative spokesmen to issue a brief, bare-bones note announcing the beginning, that same day, of the trial “against the principals involved in the untimely death of patients” at Havana’s Psychiatric Hospital that took place the previous year. The note closed with a significant sentence: “Once the judicial process has been concluded, the results will be made public.”

After that, Cubans have continued to learn everything about Posada Carriles’s trial that the authorities have seen fit to disclose, while the process that follows the deaths of scores of psychiatric patients in Cuba has remained a stubborn official silence, despite the impact that the crime had in people’s sensibilities at the time. Needless to mention that the transparency of the El Paso trial, with the disclosure of what happens in a U.S. court, contrasts against the murky conspiracy brewing inside the inaccessible and secret confines of a Cuban court. Management of information in Cuba, with its typical contempt for public opinion, has reached unparalleled heights of shoddiness.

Meanwhile, and in the absence of official reports, popular opinion declares that there are many obscure points in the trial being held in the capital’s Provincial Court. It is said that “all who should be there are not,” that filling the courtroom with people chosen by the authorities is not really “in public view,” that among the notable absentees from the bench of the accused is the then Minister of Health José Ramón Balaguer Cabrera, one of the darlings of the lesser Castro. It is said that, once again, a selection of scapegoats will cover responsibility for the corruption and the lack of scruples of the higher-ups. Only the naive and the morons will settle for the results of this farce.

The Cuban press, as always, is silent, but many people are not. And the national state of disbelief at the government is not the only thing, but the general discredit that employees playing a part in the media suffer in their unhappy compromise with a dictatorship doomed to extinction. Obtusely lacking common sense, they are a manifest reflection of the deceptiveness of the system, and, in the long run, as responsible as their master.

Note at closing: Today, Monday January 24th, the official press published the following information: “sentence ruling concluded in trial for the events at the Havana Psychiatric Hospital.” I suggest to readers that they visit the official website cubadebate.com and assess the news for themselves.

January 24, 2011