Love and Misery in Cuba is the next chapter in Looking For History. It explains the effects of tourism on Cuba. For many years Cuba was considered to be off limits especially to foreigners. People from other countries were only allowed in a small area of the country under supervision. Cuban citizens were regarded with same amount of precaution. Cuba has opened itself up to tourism recently and tourism has become the main source of income instead of sugar. “To say that Cuba has opened itself up to tourism in this context has connotations that are unfortunately true: the island has become an established part of the world sex circuit” (112). It seemed that allowing prostitution was the only way to keep the currency flowing in Cuba since it had to compete with other travel destinations that were more beautiful and interesting. Prostitution seemed to be the main attraction that brought many tourists from around the world to Cuba. Although Cuba had changed enough to allow for the expansion of tourism, it did not change much elsewhere. Anyone who disagreed with the government was sent to jail or forced to endure some sort of punishment. “Dissenters are invisible in Cuba, and inaudible. They have no access to the airways or the official press, and are not allowed to hold public meetings without permission, which in effect means that dissenters have never once held any public meeting—so it seems inevitable that those who feel the need to protest should end up talking to foreign reporters” (116). Cuban prisons are no stranger to this sad but true fact. They are full of political prisoners, any dissenter, that serve extremely long sentences for voicing their opinion to the wrong people. When the pope came to Cuba he asked Castro for the release of the many political prisoners. A large number of the prisoners were let loose after the pope’s visit but there was also a group of prisoners that “would be let out under no circumstances” (119). Most of the prisoners that were released had already served the majority of their term and would be up for parole anyway but as most Cubans know even when one’s time comes up for parole, one is kept for more than their actual sentence. “As a matter of course, they said, political prisoners are detained long past their parole date, until some important person—Danielle Mitterrand, the pope—comes to visit and speaks to Fidel on their behalf. No real amnesty is involved” (119). Gerardo Sanchez, brother of Elisardo Sanchez a political prisoner, was fired from his job as union leader as result of his brother’s arrest. Gerardo claims that the conditions for the political prisoners have improved somewhat because of the pressure from international forces. The regime will always be able to imprison whomever they see fit and be able to justify it legally until constitutional changes are made. Gerardo also had comments on the U.S. trade embargo and whether it was a useful weapon against Castro’s regime.
“Sometimes I have the impression that the embargo reflects a fear that this economic system might really work, that [the people who support believe] that if it were lifted today, tomorrow socialism would be viable. It probably couldn’t be done overnight, but there should be some thought how to lift the embargo gradually. It would put an end to the regime’s great excuse, which is to say that things are so bad here because of imperialism” (121).
Although Castro was once a rebel and defied what he thought to be wrong, any form of dissent whatsoever in modern day Cuba could cost one the better part of one’s life. Speaking out against the regime is a liberty that Cubans are not allowed to enjoy no matter how much Castro has modernized Cuba there are still liberties that have yet to be achieved.
Fidel in the Evening is a chapter about Fidel’s interview on National television. He is interviewed by a small panel of people who ask him different questions. At times, he tries to avoid the question or like a true politician answer one question with another. “No one is better than Fidel at talking forever about nothing when there is something he doesn’t want to say” (134). Fidel was able to create an intimate bond with the citizens of Cuba. He traveled all over the country talking to as many people as possible. People would tell the stories of how they had met him or how a friend of a friend had gotten to see him. His relationship with his people was tightened by the fact that the island was so small. “There’s no overthrowing him. The ability to inspire feelings of intimacy and awe in equal measure is what has kept Fidel Castro in power even through the years of awful hardship that followed the collapse of the Soviet Union, and it will, foreseeably, keep him in power as long as his remarkable energies remain” (134). Castro has a very strong bond and a strong fellowship among his followers. His tight bond with his people is a large part of what helps keep him in power.
All of the topics that Gillermoprieto addresses are important in discussing and understanding Cuba. Through the topics that she describes in her book, one is given background and modern impressions of the country. With the description of the legend of Guevara, we are given an impression of the type of society and the ideology of the time when Fidel was able to take control of Cuba. The visit from the pope was also a very important issue in the understanding of Cuba. It demonstrates how the people of Cuba react to the Catholic community and how leaders use religion as a bargaining chip in the international community. This section showed the attitude of the different groups that make up the Cuban population and how they feel about a certain faith and its implications. Love and Misery in Cuba shows the harsh realities that come with modernization. This section showed that the Cuban economy must support whatever keeps the economy going even if they have to ignore the plague of prostitution. Cuba relied heavily on sugar before but the dramatic change in economic priorities caused a change the attitude towards prostitution.
I found the section on Guevara to be a very interesting one. I had never read anything on him before. He was a very different individual in the way he acted but also in the way he was able to overcome any obstacle that was in his way. He seemed to believe very heavily all of his causes. I was intrigued by the relationship between Guevara and Castro. They seemed to be kindred spirits but after reading the whole way through and reading what Begnino had to say, I had to wonder whether Castro had a part in Guevara’s death. It made me wonder whether he did not agree with the ideas that Guevara would bring if he returned or if he wanted complete control without the worry of another strong figure always looking over his shoulder. This text gave a completely different view of Castro. It was that of a more objective writer. I wasn’t really able to draw a conclusion about his true character based merely on this writing. My readings have once again left me wanting to know more about the man who seems to have an overwhelming control on the people of his country. I found the section on the pope’s visit to be very interesting. I had no idea that so many people in Cuba were atheists and that Catholics were openly mocked. I had just assumed that it was mostly Catholic like many other Latin American countries. The reaction to the pope’s arrival however seemed very trivial in the long run to the Cuban people. I myself am Catholic and find it hard to believe that the people were able to act so nonchalantly toward such an awesome figure. Even though Fidel is an atheist, he was able to respectfully go to the masses and address the pope with reverence in a manner that seemed more than just politically correct. He really seemed to respect the pope.
The Three Poems by Miguel Barnet are a short description of the author’s portrayal of Cuba. In his first poem he describes a beautiful man and the American things that he has on him. The second poem is of a woman. This poem seems to be representative of the women of Cuba, the prostitutes, schoolchildren, and the communists. The last poem entitled The Sixties, refers to the sixties as a lie. It also demonstrates what people did in order to get their points across during the sixties.
This collection of three short poems is representative of Cuban poetry of the time. There was nothing that was too controversial and yet it seemed to describe the way things were and the political climate of the times. Poetry and all other forms of cultural expression were encouraged during the revolution.
I am not exactly sure what these poems represent but I interpret them as viewpoints of the time. I understand the second one to be geared toward the tourism of Cuba and how it brought about prostitution. The first one showed the love and fantasy involved with the U.S. and the relation in between the two countries. The third was a political statement that described what people did in order to get their point of view across and their beliefs but that it got no one anywhere. It was almost all a big lie and done in vain.
In the article, We Are Losing All Our Values: An Interview with Tomas Gutierrez Alea, Michael Chanan interviews Alea and asks him questions about his films and his views of Cuba. Chanan asks if his movie Fresa y Chocolate was a response to a documentary done by one of his colleagues. The attitude toward homosexuals seemed to be the focus of his colleague’s documentary but in a different way than demonstrated in Alea’s film. Alea had a different view on the controversial issue. “The macho tradition of our country, as in many other, especially Latin American, countries, is very strong, and the rejection of homosexuals is visible in all of them. [Only] part of the story is told and it’s not told in context. The real measure of these events is not given; instead, Nestor simply stated that there was repression” (48). Chanan then moves onto the subject of political and social criticisms. “[Fresa y Chocolate is a film with] strong criticism of our current reality and they say I’ve put on a mask in order to make it seem as if it is possible to criticize in Cuba” (51). Alea goes on to say that Cuban film makers unlike American ones must use their films, according to the public, to criticize society, whereas Americans can films of love or action and no one criticizes. Alea attributes this to the lack of political voices that are available. “[There] are no other voices. Journalism, for example, does not perform its mission of social criticism. In spite of this, people talk in corridors, in cafes, on the street, on sidewalks, in lines, but the problems of society are not discussed in the press. This is a great frustration and one feels the need to speak out” (51). Chanan next asks the controversial question of whether or not Alea believes that the Cuban crisis was a result of the Soviet Union’s collapse. Alea reacts rather wholeheartedly when he exclaims, “What happened is that the Soviet collapse unveiled or revealed a situation that was already not sustainable. It revealed that Cuba was living on the subvention or support of the socialist world, and especially of the Soviet Union, which is not a sane policy for any country. Cuba was not producing material goods; rather, it was producing politics and exchanging politics for oil” (52). No matter what he has said or will continue to say, Alea believes in his country and in many of the values that the country has to offer.
Looking at Cuba: Notes Toward a Discussion by Rafael Hernandez is a brief summary of some myths and ideas that are floating around about Cuban culture. “A growing market in experiences and perceptions about Cuba has developed in recent times. This renewed interest, in many corners of the world, has given rise to a veritable eruption of “Cubanology.” [I will] present and discuss a brief sample of those paradoxes as seen from a Cuban perspective” (124). The first paradox that Hernandez addresses is “To be credible, the author of a work on Cuba must be outside the country or be a ‘dissident’ within it” (124). Hernandez describes this as completely absurd and that many different types of people leave the country for different reasons and proclaim themselves as dissidents for another and that none of them might really be credible. They could be from any background they could have even been part of the regime at a time. “Once they set foot in Gander airport, or they move to Miami or Luxemborg, or they declare their “dissidence,” then the River Jordan has washed them clean. Overnight, they become independent intellectuals with the keys to credibility in their pockets” (125). The next paradox that Hernandez addresses is, “Fidel Castro is the source of the Revolution and all its evils” (125). Hernandez argues that Fidel is supported by the popularity, the revolution was a popular movement, one that enjoyed the support of all. He therefore contends that it could not all be blamed on Fidel Castro by any means. “…a revolution above all brings fundamental social transformation. Its energy is manifested in the political system and the ideological discourse, but it has its roots in civil society” (126). By saying this, he means that all the groups of society worked together in order to get where they are today. It was a collective collaboration not just the struggle of one man. Hernandez also goes on to say that the easiest way to decentralize and to transition the Cuban government into a democracy is Fidel. “The one who can lead this process in the least costly manner, with the least trauma for the social body and the most stability for the country, is Fidel Castro” (128). Hernandez shows his support of Fidel and also shows that the Revolution was not just Fidel’s because if new change were to come about it would be at the hands of Fidel Castro.

page 4 - Cuba