31 thoughts on “Week 6, Whitney, Perez on modernity”
This week Cuba has undergone drastic changes from where we left off with Scott! Modernity arises as the new fad in Cuba and many things are “modernized” and made more convenient. Perez begins to talk about the new sugar mill towns that began appearing due to American investment in the Cuban sugar industry and mill towns begin to look like modern American suburbs and Whitney’s article focuses on how Batista used technology and modernization in order to create popular support for his government.
One thing I found very surprising was the modernization of politics described by Whitney. In his article he describes some of the reforms being made in Cuban legislature by Grau. Grau used popular ideals in order to garner popular support of Cubans but these aspirations created very modern and surprising legislature, such as the eight-hour work day, minimum wages, maternity leave, more jobs for women, paid vacation, and pensions. These are all part of the modern day struggle in many countries, even in Canada and the United States today, so its very interesting to see Cuba implementing reforms like this as early as the 1930s.
Rather than modernity, I found the issue of a growth of a national sentiment to be the most interesting ideas in this week’s readings. Perez describes how the increasing American presence in the sugar industry and the increase of American goods and customs and tourism in Cuba created a budding nationalist sentiment among Cubans. This along with The American backing of Batista (although he had garnered popular support up to 1940) led to an anti-American sentiment as it was crushing Cuban nationality in favour of American assimilation. Although we are not quite there yet, it was interesting to see the early seeds of the Cuban Revolution being sown in these two readings this week.
Robert Whitney’s article about Fulgencio Batista was very surprising to me. Prior to reading this, my knowledge of Batista was based on his second rein, from 1952 to 1959, which was characterised by corruption and oppression. And so to learn that during his first stint in power (albeit behind a puppet leader) he was a populist is very surprising. He also seemed fairly liberal during this initial stint in power; offering up maternity leave, and striving towards gender equality in the workforce. But what is most surprising is his shifting stance on foreign influence in the economy. In his second stint Batista opens Cuba up to the Americans, gifting to them highly profitable monopolies over numerous entertainment industries (although mainly vice industries). This is highly contrasting to his policies during his initial time in office. As the article identifies, Batista’s policies were strongly nationalistic in this period, as many of the foreign workers were expelled in order to open up jobs for Cubans. His social reforms were also surprising, with the implementation of workers’ rights (8 hour-days, minimum wage, maternity leave, paid vacations), social security (including pensions) and his Three year plan. Not only were these reforms surprising because of Batista’s reputation, but also because of how progressive and modern they were. For instance many of these reforms were only introduced in the US in the same decade (e.g. The Social Security Act of 1935), showing just how progressive these ideas were at the time.
This week?s readings about modernity were very interesting especially against the background of Scott, the issues in Cuba prior to the turn of the century and its relationship with the US. Where Whitney brings across a union of the masses in a desire to take part in the government politics, a sense of nationalism, and Perez details the involvement of the US in the modernization of Cuba.
Whitney interestingly examines the problems of prescientism, specifically the fact that Batista?s earlier actions in his populist phase 1937-40 are greatly overlooked in the context of his actions post-1959. I found it interesting that Batista was the first political leader of Cuba who incorporated a sector, namely the clases populares, into politics, especially at such a large scale. This support of the popular masses and of the military is what later gave him his power to take control of the government. Whitney states that Batista?s three-year plan marked somewhat of a turning point in his popularity with the working masses (due to the sugar coordination law), but it also brought some benefits unforeseen to Cuba in the previous years such as new social (schools, health insurance etc.) and economic reform (new national bank) earning him the title of ?the architect?.
The importance of the Sugar production was also apparent in Perez article on the modernization and to some extent Americanization of the sugar mills (mill towns). I found the relationship with the US during this time fascinating considering the US earlier foreign policy aims based largely on the issue of race (not wanting to incorporate countries of a different racial background to their own as well as issues of geographical climate (associated with race)). Nevertheless, the change in US foreign policy aims to those of trade acquisition also greatly influenced Cuba as becomes increasingly apparent in Perez article. This not only pertains to the economy of Cuba but largely also to its society, which became increasingly more interested in a higher standard of living (health insurance, general well-being), bilingual and accepted American cultural pillars such as Baseball eagerly into their culture. As also discussed in class I again found the issue of race in connection with the US one that jumped out at me (segregation in the US yet such cross-racial involvement in Cuba). The fact that many changes apparent in Cuba at this time, as they pertain to modernization, couldn?t be found in many other countries around the world until later in the century, goes hand in hand with this.
Modernism in Cuba was an interesting read for me and meant different things for people of the various social classes on the island. Perez highlights that those fortunate enough to belong to the elite class had a lifestyle similar to the Americans on the island and those in America with the best of American consumer products and technologies in their households. To many other Cubans, the effects of modernism were not as evident in terms of material wealth and their standard of living. Cubans working in the American Zones were often considered as second class by the American staff and could not benefit from modern American goods and services. Guantanamo was seen as a seedy place littered with brothels for the US servicemen.
The Americans did introduce new sports with one becoming very prominent, baseball. Baseball became a very important aspect of Cuban life with many plying their trade in the US. Communal sports, such as baseball can help modernize a society by bridging the gaps between the different social classes, unlike in the older colonial Spanish sports such as bull fighting.
Whitney provides a very thorough account of Batista’s rise and time in power during the 1930s and 1940s. With Fulgencio Batista coming to power, the rights of the people did improve with his changes in the constitution in 1940. Batista as a populist, catered towards the majority of Cubans and introduced many welfare polices that benefited the middle and lower class Cubans. By increasing the minimum wages especially for cane cutter on sugar plantations, Batista could garner the great support from the labor force. Previously those who had low income could only afford their basic necessities, unlike Cubans who worked in the cities.
Modernism in Cuba in the early 20th century is different to what it means to me today, however the underlying foundations that helped to modernize Cuba remain the same today. While for me modernization can be seen with the increase in internet speeds for example, early 20th century Cubans would have considered the ability to have radio broadcast similarly important. The advancement of technology and society would remain the same today as it did in the early 20th century, although in different forms.
A quote from the Perez article intrigued me. The quote from a Cuban journalist was about the lack of local economic engagement between the American mill workers and pre-existing Cuban society. “Nothing that these enterprises consume comes from the country, but is all imported from abroad”. This comment was not a criticism of the American sugar plantation worker in Cuba but rather a critique of the way large American corporations had set up their isolated communities. It is not a criticism of the isolation as much as the desire of the Americans to have brand names they recognized rather than Cuban equivalents. Obviously specialty items did not exist in Cuba but certainly some staples, such as lumber, could have been utilized to support the economy of the country that these communities occupied. This saturation of the Cuban market with American products occurred outside the plantation communities as well and may be the result of natural cultural integration. However, I would question why the cultural integration of consumer products did not occur both ways. Perhaps the answer is that being an advanced capitalist society the United States had superior products to offer, but this is to simple an explanation. This is no doubt a factor in the domination of American products in the plantation community stores but other factors could be the capitalist impulse of the corporations to keep all the profit for themselves as well as potential prejudice in believing Cuban products to be inherently inferior.
In the Whitney article, I didn’t realize how many progressive, liberal improvements the Provisional Revolutionary Government of 1933 were able to make. As Whitney notes, the ability to make these advances seemed to be predicated on no longer being tied to the will of an imperial force as Cuba had been for so long with Spain and the US. Although the government did not last for more than a few months it did make a lasting impression on the political climate of Cuba. The fact that a movement which occupied a very small length of time in the long term had a significant effect on the direction of the country is very inspiring. I would speculate that without this liberal interlude Cuba would have sooner been subjected to policy that closer resembled the Batista of 1952 rather than of 1940.
It is interesting how emotion seems to guide historical memory. All I have ever heard of Batista paints him as a tyrant and an impediment to progress, but this article by Whitney contextualizes his reign within the frameworks of populism and an aversion to the oligarchy as well as imperialist oppression. While Batista was mestizo, I wonder what factor race played in his aversion to foreign workers in Cuba, kicking out Jamaican and Haitian rural workers to replace it with Cubans? As much as it sounds tyrannical, I sort of like the idea of the campaign against idleness where everyone must be employed. It sounds familiar…hmmm, perhaps to what the British navy did during wartime where they would impress anyone caught at a pub or in public that wasn’t already drafted, or, maybe to Fidel’s programs! Modernity is characterized as a progressive work force that enables everyone access to land and labor. It is interesting how his early efforts to nationalize and consolidate Cuban participation in the economy give way. How does learning about and including all aspects of Batista change the narrative we usually are confronted with about “pre-revolution” Cuba?
In Perez’ piece we hear of all the infrastructure foreign investment creates in Cuba, including a railroad. While deemed as modern, they are instituted as as sources of extraction which take national and natural resources away from the everyday person. Even Hershey’s chocolate was in on it! These 19th century corporate mill towns still exist all around the world, creating little European/North American enclaves everywhere where a profit is possible. (I have a Venezuelan friend who has lived in Exon communities in Texas, Nigeria, and Abu Dabi and all were identical) It seems like everything North American suburbia-ish was considered modernization. It is a North American imposed imagery, and it is only allotted to the few and presented as bringing sewage systems and improving public health but this is a facade.
Something I like about sports is that colonized or oppressed peoples adopt many behaviors and attitudes of those exerting force and control on them, and get better at them. Winning a baseball game as a Cuban or Puerto Rican person, while a personal pursuit, may represent a form of resistance. We see evidence of this in previous English colonies to this day which are the best as cricket (Pakistan and India) and rugby (definitely the All-blacks not France).
I’d argue that many historical events occur based on reactions to extreme situations, and Cuban history to this point in the course has been no exception (slavery, insurgency, war). Usually, however, these events involve leaders who champion one cause steadfastly – Batista surprised me with his polarity. He spent his military career against organized labour, and then empowered the working class. He asked for the vote and then staged a coup.. He aligned himself with the communist party and then seized dictatorship. Maybe this makes him a really good politician, but it seems more than that. In the historical events we know, there’s generally an accepted moral judgment about who the ‘good guys’ are, but Batista navigated back and forth across this line for the duration of his career. The irony isn’t lost when Whitney quotes him saying that ‘extremes are fatal for Cuba’. Whitney alludes to Batista being an ‘engineer’, and this I found this to be more satisfying than his accepted spot in history as a villain.
Love of a sport or a team often creates a feeling of community. This is particularly noteworthy when it happens on a national scale and examples abound in recent history. In 1954, West Germany won the FIFA World Cup and for the first time since the end of the Third Reich had a positive event to tie their country to. In 1995, the Rugby World Cup helped South Africans find some sort of common ground after the end of apartheid. In 2008, China hosted the Summer Olympics and presented a whole new national image of solidarity and unification to the world.
All of these examples help illustrate why I was so surprised to learn about the role baseball played not in creating a national Cuban identity apart from the United States, but rather tying Cuban popular culture closer to the American way of life. This being said, it is certainly understandable why Cubans would wish to play a sport so popular in the US, a symbol of modernity, freedom, and democracy. Furthermore, the cultural effects of baseball in Cuba leaves its mark on the US as well. Perez shows this in his discussion of race and baseball, with black Americans playing in big leagues as Cubans, or the coming together of Cuban and American players in a league of their own. Comparing the strong cultural and economic influence the US exerted over Cuba, as highlighted by Perez, with the more nationalist and populist approach to politics Batista takes in the 1930s leading up to 1940, as described by Whitney, highlights just how many overlapping factors were at play in Cuba during this time period. Reflecting on all of this, I think it is important for me as a reader to remember that sports, like history, is not necessarily tied to the nation as such, but is much more complex in its development and its effects. And that sometimes, the matter is as simple as a universal love for hitting a ball across a field with a bat, regardless of whether the player is Cuban, American, or a little bit of both.
Whitney’s article made me think about how “great leaders” were all, in some sense (but also arguable), populists. For example, Adolf Hitler strongly appealed to the German people because of his promises to restore the German economy and break free out of the shackles of the Treaty of Versaille, which were extremely appealing to the Germans. I think something similar could definitely be said for Batista. In addition, he was backed by the US, which added more fuel to his rise. He also made specific political moves (such as seek an alliance with Communists) to again, gain more popularity. Another aspect of the Whitney article I found particularly interesting was the efforts to enforce more Cuban labour and boost the Cuban economy.
After reading the Whitney article, I read the Perez chapter. I should have probably read Perez first, and then Whitney because it would make more logical sense. Perez really opened my eyes on just how American Cuba was. At the same time though, it made me question why Cubans accepted this almost “friendly” colonization. Yes, the American sugar mills provided jobs and “modern” homes and amenities for the workers, but it caused a dependency on American-made jobs and imports. There is also a pattern among US Military Interventions in the 19th and 20th centuries: they always involve capitalism, places to collect revenues, and/or create a dependency-driven relation to benefit themselves. Cuba is a prime example, alongside many other nations. Haiti also faced a similar situation, though it was more neo-colonialism. Major General Smedley D. Butler wrote a piece called “War is Racket” and it highlighted exactly what the US was doing in all these places, relating it to Al Capone’s control over three districts (in the US case, it is over 3 continents).
However, this isn’t to say that US influence was completely terrible either – take the case of baseball for example!
I was surprised to find evidence of growing Cuban nationalism in this week’s readings. The increase in American presences seems to force the Cuban population together and find common ground. Often a common enemy will create a platform where people (in this case Cubans) are able to put aside differences and discuss issues and find solutions. As a result, I believe the 1933 revolution came about and many changes were put in effect under the Grau government. Then again in 1934 when Batista and his colleagues staged a coup and Cuba changed further. Cuban society kept changing. I think modernity and nationalism go hand in hand this week. The Cubans seem to see that they need to move forward and “…drew the conclusion that a new and modern state should intervene in society in order to modernise the countries political and economic structures.” (Whitney).
The expulsion of the Platt Amendment in an attempt to get rid of international intervention in Cuba, made me think that the Cubans (Grau and perhaps Batista) were a bit naïve. With the sugar plantations increasing output every year that sugar needs to be exported which means economic deals with other countries. Because the US was on its way to becoming one of the Great Powers it might have been foolish to think they could simply get rid of them. The US established a naval base in Guantanamo Bay and the base greatly influenced the local economy. The cities and towns close by structured themselves around the needs of the naval base. It was interesting to read how politically the US didn’t have much to say but they could still influence their economics, even if it was just at a local level. The naval base also influence the daily lives and living conditions of the people in this area, the English language and American products surrounded them. Even though it was unintentional it had a large effect. I think this is relevant because I know we are slowly rolling up to talking about communism and closing Cuba’s doors to and from the rest of the world and this just shows that isolation or elimination is hard task! (We have already seen that with the circulation of el paquete.)
Although I have known that most politicians go through a “populist” phase to become known and liked throughout the masses, I never imagined Batista being one of those politicians. All I had known prior to Whitney’s article was that Batista had been a dictator in Cuba and from there made his way to the ‘Corner of the Cretins’ in the Museo de la Revolucion in Havana. The new-found community within Cuba was emerging in which previously scattered groups of people seemed to slowly become one and Batista took full advantage of this. As the article states, Batista became the representative of the Cuban people who demanded to be heard after years of suppression. However, as we well know, this populist phase would not last forever…like the presidents he had claimed not to be, Batista became extremely corrupt and once again widened the gap between the rich and the poor.
Whitneys article was interesting to read and gather evidence of growing populists in politics . Its interesting to see in Bautista’s case that the majority of this support came from the army and police . Its interesting how populist leaders leaders all tend to find a way to appeal to the masses and their particular ideals. Whether it be Hitlers mass rally to restore Germany to its former great power in Europe or in Bautista’s case tapping into nationalist sentiment from former years and working with labour issues . It was also interesting reading into Bautista’s alliance with the Communist party and allow his transition from military leader to civil leader . Whitney’s article provided a different insight into how I view the leader as i used to believe him not much more than a tyrant / controversial leader. Now I look at him as a progressive thinker in his society , much like Stalin would be with his 5 Year Plan in 1928
Perezs article was very cool to read about in the aspect of how a sport can redefine an nation to an extent . I enjoyed reading about the first integration american baseball had to go through was playing winter leagues in Cuba . Sports tend have a way of bringing together the masses and they also provide a escape from the day to day situations of ordinary life and escape the country if they want a way. Its no different how all of Canada was linked together a nation during the 2010 Olympics and especially with hockey. And how hockey is a cult in our society . So with a sport such as baseball that has very large american influence and its closeness in distance , its not surprising Cubans began making it their pastime. But it was very interesting reading was able bring together different social classes compared to the sports of the Spanish colonial era.
“Many want to forget that I am the chief of a constructive social revolution… my idea of order is that of an architect rather than that of a policeman…”
Isn’t this what most populist strongmen say before seizing power and establishing authoritarian dictatorships? Didn’t Lenin, Mussolini, and Hitler make similarly reassuring statements too?
I didn’t know much about Batista’s earlier political activities prior this week’s reading, having mostly believed the mainstream version of events leading up to the 1959 revolution. It was interesting to see how his earlier years in Cuban politics actually benefitted the masses, albeit causing panic amongst many members of the upper class were wary of Batista’s rule. Legalizing trade unions here, allowing leftist political parties there, all at the same time kicking out foreign plantation workers and implementing (rather ineffective) 3 year plans, Batista demonstrates his mastery at navigating populist politics.
At this point, sugar continues to play a major role in Cuban politics and economics. I didn’t realize so much infrastructure was required to support a sugar mill that mill towns began to take on the character of small cities. As usual, where money and power is involved, the US is most likely involved. It was also nice to see a familiar name in the Perez piece, with Canadian railway tycoon William Van Horne participating in Cuban sugar production as well.
I found this week’s reading by Perez to be fascinating because of how often popular culture issues like sport can be overlooked yet can offer such crucial insights into nations and national consciousness. Though I was somewhat aware of the popularity of baseball in Cuba, I didn’t know much about the roots of the sports popularity and how far back it stretched. I think that it is very easy for people in the West (especially Canada/the US) to assume that the attitudes of other nations are based on/result from the same causes as our own. We don’t often think about how their experience with a particular sport like baseball in this case might be unique and nationally developed making it incredibly personal for a nation like Cuba, rather than just being a passion for the American version of Major League Baseball. Even though the MLB/American Baseball were still factors in the Cuban passion for baseball, the reasons that Cubans were so passionate was because of their own connection to the sport. The interactions between the American institutions and the Cuban ones are especially interesting because I didn’t realize how the development of the sport was occurring in both countries and through the exchange of players and ideas. The fact that Cuban integration made US integration possible shows how closely the sport was linked in the two countries.
Reading Whitney’s article was quite interesting as the read, opening up my eyes to the Batista’s rise to becoming the “architect” of the Cuban state. Batista’s approach at his early stages in politics made him seem secluded and sort of an inferior military leader. But he eventually took over the popular national tendency by building alliances with the communist party and by allowing the Cuban Confederation of workers to occur, at the same time he was able to keep certain people occupied, as he implemented his populist project. The approach and the way Batista did his politics was very much in the way Adolf Hitler ruled Germany. Saying what the public wants to hear in order to gain the power and loyalty to do as you please while in charge leading to Batista eventually becoming extremely corrupt. The Read was good, and help me understand a little more about the past powers and their effects on the Cubans.
The dissemination of information, or lack thereof, was critical to Batista’s regime. In order to obtain power, during his initial political run, he relied on a populist platform to secure popular support. His championing of the working class by enacting labour laws is an example of this. However, his second stint in politics saw him seize control and viciously censor any opposition. The whole notion of modernization and progression is consolidated with conceptions of information and knowledge – the amount of information we have leads us to believe we are more knowledgeable, therefore, we are more progressive. It’s not that this doesn’t hold true but that Batista recognized this and attempted to put a stop to it in order to maintain power.
To me, modernity today means capitalism, technology, the notion of civilization and the use of human reason that motivates the advancement of civilization, architectural advancements much like the bayets in Cuba in the early twentieth century as elaborated on by Perez, efficiency, and Western society’s reverence for celebrities.
Despite my attempt to show that 2015 is quite contrary to that of Cuba, I am realizing that each of what I posed above was very much prevalent in Cuba in the early twentieth century. Can the definition and understanding of modernity be pinpointed? I’m not so sure.
With regard to capitalism during Batista’s reign, the privatization of sugar plantations, as discussed by Whitney, shows the onset of capitalism in Cuba. As well, Perez’ clearly illustrates how United Fruit and the profits extrapolated from Cuban land were central in Cuba’s development for the upper-class (business owners) and unfortunately to the oppression of the lower-class (Cubans).
Those who were making the decisions about Cuba, as illustrated by Perez, were Americans who dictated the land yet had screens on their doors and were thus foreigners to Cuba who had staked a claim and imposed US hegemonic power on Cuba’s resources and society. In this case, human reason could be interchangeable with US hegemony and imperialism. Both capitalism and human reason is illustrated by their elaborate houses quite out of place in traditional Cuban society.
With regard to celebrities, they are frighteningly ubiquitous in North American society, i.e. at every news stand, on every TV channel, etc. and are revered. Their ubiquity sort of equates them with this divinity and can create a distraction from reality for the ‘masses.’ I use this term carefully after reading Whitney’s article. In Cuba in the early twentieth century it was not television stars that were revered but baseball players. I’d say Cubans were more progressive in that Cubans were not excluded from this divine realm and played in the major leagues as much as others.
This leaves me in great speculation of what modernity means. Does it mean that a majority of middle-upper class people in North America have iPhones? Does it mean that efficiency has been achieved in sectors such as transport, agriculture, the economy, etc.? Or is modernity just not an agrarian society but rather one that claims to be “civilized”? I’m not sure I would agree with colonialism as being civil and would argue that it was/is incredibly far from it.
In the Perez reading it was interesting to see the effect of American involvement and infiltration in Cuba, creating modernity as it sought to almost americanise the land and people, with the entry of consumerist goods on the market, sports & railways etc. It is surprising the amount that Cuban’s would now be relying on America, for example within a decade of Cuban independence, virtually the entire northern coast of Oriente had passed into the hands of North American sugar corporations, and statistically in 1905 21% of mills were owned by the US which increase significantly to 63% in 1926. Cubans did oppose this expansion, which they felt a sense of not belonging, and estrangement in their own land. But Melendez Victorero for example felt obliged to work for the sugar company for necessity even though he had a degree it was simply part of Cuban life. It seems many were unhappy, but willing to go along with it and not challenge the system. I thought it was also interesting just how much of a impact baseball played in Cuba, as at first when I started to read that the discussion was on baseball I didn’t know what role it was going to play in Cuba and whether it would be that important (as I had no prior knowledge beforehand). However, it turns out that baseball was more then just a sports game to Cubans. It created a source of national identity and collective unity (of race, class or gender), which gave Cubans pride and patriotic spirit. It was also interesting the role Cuban baseball played in the US, that it contributed to transforming major league play due to transcending boundaries of race being broke down in Cuba, with white and blacks playing together being inconceivable in the US.
I found it quite remarkable that after independence and the Spanish had been kicked out of Cuba the U.S implemented their own sphere of influence over Cubans. It’s almost ironic that the new U.S authority was mainly based around the sugar mill. Communities were transformed into company towns (sugar corporations) and managed and functioned by American interests.It seems that the Spanish were simply replaced by Americans post independence because of the stark manner of living between the American communities and Cubans. Americans in Cuba lived in huge properties and enjoyed luxurious lifestyles while certain parts of Cuba were described as being more New York than Havana. The mills employed everybody in the communities, and acted as a powerful transmitter of North American cultural forms. The North American presence in the community was a privileged one as well as possessive. Moreover, the mill evoked an image of being outside and above the law and it became an important factor in local politics. Also, the American influence in Cuba was seen as bringing modernity, which suggests that Cubans were backwards. The American presence in Cuba was very authoritarian and for these reasons I thought it was not very different to Spain, although of course slavery had been abolished, Americans transformed Cuba in order to fulfill their economic interests. So how is that different to Cuba before independence? In both instances Cuba is being robbed of it’s abundance in sugar.
In this week’s reading by Whitney, what interested me the most was the rise of populism by Batista and how it has reconstructed Cuba. By competing against his rival Ramon Grau for support in Cuba, Batista has opened up to many new plans such as the Sugar Coordination Act, which shows signs of modernity and organization in Cuba already at an early age in the 1930s. Batista’s way of politics involves many social benefits for its people such as realizing a disparity between its people and needed “economic balance” where he would then reshuffle the entire sugar plantation system by benefitting Cubans and repatriating workers back home. It is also noteworthy how Guerra y Sanchez mentions about what Batista is trying to do, “convert the sugar industry of Cuba into a huge national enterprise.” This to me suggests that like other signs of modernity, Batista wants Cuba to have national recognition as well as identity.
From Perez’s article, it is also important to see how American sports like baseball has emerged into the Cuban society and helped change their focus on revolution. “Baseball also represented economic opportunity. Players recruited from the mill labor force were paid over the course of the dead season.” This to me shows how many of the Cubans found this as a way out from the past in plantations to having hope and the ability to earn money to provide for their families instead of the low-paid labor. This also reminds me about some of the Cuban professional players like Yasiel Puig who has used baseball to escape the conditions of hard labor in Cuba and find an alternative to be an athlete and represent.
Part of me was really disheartened reading about life for the average Cuban in the Perez chapter. Despite all of the struggle that the rebel rebels like Maceo and Marti went through, it looked like the majority of Cubans in the early 20th century were still confined to working on sugar plantations and in poor living conditions (albeit better than slavery). I also thought of a connection between baseball in Cuba in the early 20th century and basketball in American ghettos today; success in sports as a way to escape systematic racism and discrimination, even though they were still discriminated against in sports as well. Reading the Perez chapter before the Whitney article also helped me understand some of the social pressures that propelled a populist like Batista into power. This may be looking ahead a little bit, but the economic disparity and demographics in Cuba during this time make it clear to me that Marxist rhetoric would be extremely persuasive as well; a small, insanely wealthy bourgeoisie literally shipping wealth away from Cuba and exploiting the native population for profit.
In my reading of Perez’s On Becoming Cuban, I was saddened by the state of the Cubans following the country’s independence, but I wasn’t particularly surprised. When we began discussing the idea of modernity and the intervention of the United States in Cuba in class, many predispositions started forming in my mind about the history of U.S. intervention in general. From what I have learned in the past, a common theme surrounding the U.S. intervening in other countries is often somewhat of a “civilizing mission”, an imposition of U.S. culture, and a way to extract resources from the country. While slavery had been abolished in Cuba, it seems that a new, although less severe, type of slavery was quickly imposed. The Cubans living in these “company towns” were figuratively “slaves” to the North American corporations running the sugar plantations. Cubans were still subject to poor living conditions, especially in contrast to the privileged lifestyles of North Americas, and their lifestyles were being guided entirely by North American plantation owners, even in terms of cultural and religious norms, a similar story to state of Cuba before slavery was abolished. I felt that Perez epitomized what life was really like in Cuba following independence, exhibiting the continuing problems that stood at the forefront of and independent Cuba.
Though it seems the social aspect of the readings seem to be the highlight of this week, I couldn’t help but be captured by the economic aspects of Batista’s reign. In Whitney’s article, he explains in great detail the plight of unemployment, and foreign workers. And while reading about how Batista and his government attempted to tackle such an overwhelming problem, I felt frustrated with how ignorant the attempts seemed. Of course I am no economist (so I could be totally wrong) but one cannot simply pull jobs out of thin air, and that’s what Batista appeared to be doing. I agree that too much foreign investment and too many foreign workers not only hurts an economy but it also hurts national identity, so I understand the political motivations, however, the economics just isn’t sound in Batista’s plan. By expelling all foreign workers, skilled and unskilled, Batista expected to be able to simply fill those empty spaces with Cubans. But along with the new 50 per cent law, was also a plethora of workers rights to follow that would cost employers exponentially more to employ untrained Cubans who, it seems, did not even want to work in the first place. While I personally feel as though workers’ rights are infinitely important, it was absolutely ridiculous for Batista to expect all of the sugar mills etc. to cough up the extra cash to employ some lazy, untrained Cubans. On top of that, the numbers simply did not add up. Whitney explained that many of the Jamaican foreigners could not find jobs so they just roamed the Cuban streets looking for work, so how did Batista expect to eliminate Cuban unemployment by deporting foreign workers who could not find work because there were no jobs? Instead Batista should have temporarily spurred economic growth by providing incentives to hire Cubans, give tax breaks to the average Cuban (middle class) and get Cuban products out to international market. Of course these conditions are not always the best for long-term growth, but in a period of stagnation where Batista wanted to see a quick boost in jobs, this would be a better plan than his ironically Fidel inspired plan.
P.S. – I like his social policies but his economic policies did not fit for the situation (example – the drastically reduced US investment in 1938)
Batista was an interesting figure and after reading Whitney’s article I’d like to know a bit more about him, since the article left me with a lot of questions. Batista had great ideas for the working class, minimum wage, social security and that women shops should have 50% women employees. These would definitely garner him support from the masses, the middle class and women, which is quite clever now that they are able to vote. Then Batista comes up with this three year plan and his promises are not fulfilled, it seems a bit baffling that he gained so much support and won the election. He seemed to know which buttons to push to win himself support. As Whitney mentions the change from a military Governor to a social reformer is a big one and though he changed the army officer part of him was very much intact, like the fact that he didn’t cut the cost of the military he used everything to keep in order when Cuba’s economy is not in a good shape. Batista also came at a time where a lot was in chaos and Cuba was changing, how he managed to keep the majority happy shows that he was a really smart politician.
In Perez’s chapter the influence of U.S films, merchandise and household products shows how heavily influenced the Cubans were by the U.S. What I found particularly interesting because how I can relate to it today is how much sports can impact ones life. The hope that baseball represented and how it joined U.S and Cuba together and something they were a bit more equal in, they were playing against each other rather than Cubans being under the command of the Americans. They wanted to implement baseball as a part of the cold war strategy and seemed to have succeeded. Baseball, just like it does today was a source of national identity, pride and unites the country.
I really enjoyed the article on the Architect of the Cuban state. There were a lot of political events that intertwined and required careful reading, yet it was also interesting to see the various forces and politicization that was shaping Cuban society at the time. Maybe it was a result of the fragmentation that the state was in after the war for independence, or maybe it was the external forces from nations that were evolving and progressing at this time. I had never seen or studied Batista’s rise or way of consolidating his power, only the reactions that emerged during the revolution. Therefore, it was great to get some background to the simple image that I think a lot of people have of Batista; oppressive right-wing military leader. Whitney’s article made me realize the mechanisms through which Batista established his power, and the unique and perhaps even very intelligent manner in which he did so. The modernization of Cuba is so strong and bold in this period, and so clearly juxtaposed to the realities of what was happening just decades before; the faithful island, the last remaining colony and the level of quasi-independence. For some reason this made me think of the way many people see Cuba today; cut out and living years back in time. At the same time the readings made me realize how fast changes are happening and how quickly the Cubans have to adapt to changes. Or were they always in need of change due to their struggles in the 19th century?
I am starting to think of the forces in society which are emerging during this pre-revolution point; to see how they will relate to the next phase. Most significantly, I think the emergence of an anti-American sentiment was a stepping-stone towards the revolution. Overall, what was most important to me this week was to establish a political context of what is happening; and to realize that Batista was never just the generalized military dictator image that emerged from examining him only during the Cuban revolution. One question that I kept thinking about; how does equality in Cuba play out during these years, in particular in regards to race and gender?
Something that struck me while reading the Perez chapter was how fundamentally out of touch American mill owners were from their Cuban workers in the early 20th century. It seemed as if the American elite believed they were doing a great charity by providing westernized services, and expected grateful compliance in return. A quote I found particularly striking came from Katherine Ponvert who describes her uncle’s reaction to his workers attempting to organize unions, writing, “our batey families had always received free electricity, free ice, and free milk…we provided a primary school and church service…Don Elie was truly and personally hurt, and I do not think he ever…quite recovered from the shock and disappointment of this movement” (Perez 230). I found this passage to be revealing of the social inequality between the Cubans and the American elite. Operating on a flawed assumption that Western ideals were the paramount of civilization and modernity that could be applied cross-culturally, it is clear, the condescending tone that Katherine Ponvert takes. To her and the American elite, the Cuban workers were certainly not equals to be negotiated with, rather, a group that could be characterized as ungrateful in the face of the American “generosities” they had received.
Thinking back to Barcia, this reaction reminded me of the naïve slave owners who were surprised to find the slaves rebelled despite being granted “freedoms” such as being able to move between plantations. I think that in both cases, the elites being so far removed from a non-western perspective were unable to fully comprehend the extent of the inequality they had fostered and consequently the resentment of the subordinate groups.
What called my attention while reading chapter 4 of On Becoming Cuba is the amount of, maybe expected, Americanization of the island and its people; most of them reluctant to the change. What struck me was how in so little time, Cuba already looked like, for some, the suburbs of Pennsylvania, as Warren Miller denotes at some point in the reading. It is outstanding to me how economy, especially the sugar production became quickly a conglomerate, an enterprise highly attached to the ideas and ways of capitalism and as a result the gap between the work force and those in positions of power broadened even further. All the land that we read about in class beforehand, the plantations in Matanzas and such places, were being sold or divided, or turned into a piece of land belonging to a bigger company. In part, it felt like the history we just finished reading about, all the events starting from 1825 to which these plantations served as scenarios were also disappearing with the arrival of new owners and rulers. I guess it must have been that same sentiment at the time for Cubans: a history of effort and battles to obtain independence, only to remain observant while another potency takes control of what they please. We all know how the American model ended in Cuba, so I think is very interesting to learn as much as we can about what happened right before that breaking point, and so far with disruptive foreign control over land and with oppressive and corrupt politics, it becomes clear how a second era of colonialism didn?t appeal to many Cubans at the time, who started to identify themselves as communists, later to become revolutionists.
This week, we shift our view to the modernity of Cuba. Compared what we discussed about Cuba before, this part is really fresh and interesting. Huge changes happened to Cuba in 20th century. Perez’s article that contains many photos helped me to know how Cuban’s lives vividly facing modernity. Therefore, providing me useful approach to explore how their lives in term of modernity. From picture of house of mill town, the modern house is clean and beautiful which equipped with electricity and supply of drinkable water. Those equipment are urban and modern which express that life in Cuba was comfortable and convenient. In mill town, many public facilities such as schools, bank, and dental hospital were complete. America style sugar plantation offered job for people in town. What’s surprised me most was the introducing of baseball to Cuba. The author talks about baseball and race in Cuba. Similar from those images about baseball, the smile on their faces shows the popularity of baseball in Cuba. This way of entertainment also delineated that the improvement of Cuban’s life standard. From the article of Perez, I am glad to see so many pleasant changes happened to Cuba. However, these changes modernized Cuba into more American-style. I am sure this kind of preference is good or not. And how Cuba people thought about this kind of life-style at that time. In term of modernity, indeed this changes are gratified.
The chapter by Pérez shows the important elements that contributed to the evolution of identity construction of Cuban people under U.S. influence. I’m surprised by the likely tremendous effects of U.S. ways of life, evangelical church and baseball on identity construction of Cubans. If Modernity means materialization and capitalization of one’s life, I think those elements surely modernized Cubans. It is very interesting to me that even church was largely modernized in terms of Capitalism and materialism as “protestant ministers were directly concerned with the material condition of their congregations, without which the spiritual message could not reasonably be expected to possess relevance or resonance” (253). This modernization of religion is fascinating to me because I think religion itself is one of the least modern things. Besides that, the quotes such as “what they often shared, albeit in different ways, was a sense of alienation, of being Cuban in Cuba, for which they were the object of discrimination” (234), “The sugar mills are independent states within the Cuban State” (237) and “there is no law here except the Company” (237), really reminds me about Jim Crow colonialism practiced by U.S. companies, such as United Fruits, in Guatemala. It seems like that Cuban case might be a little better than Guatemalan case thanks to other factors, such as church and baseball etc., but it makes me feel that the transnational companies from U.S. committed the same inhumane practices everywhere in Latin America and Caribbean.
Whitney’s article offers me more neutral understanding of Batista. I’m surprised by the fact that Batista actually modernized the Cuban politics as he is one of the politicians who first practiced mass politics in Cuba. I think one of the most important elements of modernity is democracy, so the fact that Batista once contributed to democracy is very ironic as modernity in Cuba rugged behind also because of Batista’s dictatorship.
The following taken from Robert Whitney’s piece is a stunning:
“What was remarkable about the early Batista was how he at first emerged as an isolated and apparently subservient military figure, then, taking advantage of the popular nationalist sentiment…he built alliances with sectors previously excluded from state politics.”
Batista’s rise to authority, and then dictatorship, and his conniving ability to maintain himself as the face and stronghold of Cuban power was a result of his ability to closely examine the societal grievances of the Cuban population of the day, and then prey on them for his own advantage. This reminded me how many of dictatorship’s of this present day continue to withhold legitimacy.
What struck me the most is how modernization meant different things to different people. In the 1920s it became apparent to Cuban politicians that the “masses” needed to be included in the political process more directly (Whitney). The idea of a more participatory political system is a sign of modernization, a shift from a system of oligarchy to one of democracy. The question of how to involve the masses also signifies the way modernization is a challenge; Whitney discusses how politicians and officials did not know how to create new political frameworks and institutions to be more inclusive. Once in power, Grau made important shifts towards modernization including a minimum wage, more female representation, maternity leave, an eight-hour workday and more. This demonstrates how Grau was able to garner popular support in order to modernize the country.
Perez’s article shows a different side of modernization, one that included cultural and economic aspects. I found how American corporations like United Fruit came into Cuba to be very imperialistic. While the American companies did not exert direct political force, they became the prominent controllers of sugar production. For example North American corporations controlled 63% of the sugar production on all the Northern Coast. This amount of economic control created an influential American presence that also had a persuasive cultural impact on Cuba. Culturally this impact can be seen with retail, houses and baseball. I found the American’s homes and lifestyle to make working class Cubans feel less modern. While the Cubans possessed more rights and political power than previously, the sugar mill workers were constantly witnessing American upper class. Even though the American presence in Cuba did work to modernize industry, increase foreign investment and create the love for baseball, I think it also bolstered a class system that made many Cubans feel less than.
This week Cuba has undergone drastic changes from where we left off with Scott! Modernity arises as the new fad in Cuba and many things are “modernized” and made more convenient. Perez begins to talk about the new sugar mill towns that began appearing due to American investment in the Cuban sugar industry and mill towns begin to look like modern American suburbs and Whitney’s article focuses on how Batista used technology and modernization in order to create popular support for his government.
One thing I found very surprising was the modernization of politics described by Whitney. In his article he describes some of the reforms being made in Cuban legislature by Grau. Grau used popular ideals in order to garner popular support of Cubans but these aspirations created very modern and surprising legislature, such as the eight-hour work day, minimum wages, maternity leave, more jobs for women, paid vacation, and pensions. These are all part of the modern day struggle in many countries, even in Canada and the United States today, so its very interesting to see Cuba implementing reforms like this as early as the 1930s.
Rather than modernity, I found the issue of a growth of a national sentiment to be the most interesting ideas in this week’s readings. Perez describes how the increasing American presence in the sugar industry and the increase of American goods and customs and tourism in Cuba created a budding nationalist sentiment among Cubans. This along with The American backing of Batista (although he had garnered popular support up to 1940) led to an anti-American sentiment as it was crushing Cuban nationality in favour of American assimilation. Although we are not quite there yet, it was interesting to see the early seeds of the Cuban Revolution being sown in these two readings this week.
Robert Whitney’s article about Fulgencio Batista was very surprising to me. Prior to reading this, my knowledge of Batista was based on his second rein, from 1952 to 1959, which was characterised by corruption and oppression. And so to learn that during his first stint in power (albeit behind a puppet leader) he was a populist is very surprising. He also seemed fairly liberal during this initial stint in power; offering up maternity leave, and striving towards gender equality in the workforce. But what is most surprising is his shifting stance on foreign influence in the economy. In his second stint Batista opens Cuba up to the Americans, gifting to them highly profitable monopolies over numerous entertainment industries (although mainly vice industries). This is highly contrasting to his policies during his initial time in office. As the article identifies, Batista’s policies were strongly nationalistic in this period, as many of the foreign workers were expelled in order to open up jobs for Cubans. His social reforms were also surprising, with the implementation of workers’ rights (8 hour-days, minimum wage, maternity leave, paid vacations), social security (including pensions) and his Three year plan. Not only were these reforms surprising because of Batista’s reputation, but also because of how progressive and modern they were. For instance many of these reforms were only introduced in the US in the same decade (e.g. The Social Security Act of 1935), showing just how progressive these ideas were at the time.
This week?s readings about modernity were very interesting especially against the background of Scott, the issues in Cuba prior to the turn of the century and its relationship with the US. Where Whitney brings across a union of the masses in a desire to take part in the government politics, a sense of nationalism, and Perez details the involvement of the US in the modernization of Cuba.
Whitney interestingly examines the problems of prescientism, specifically the fact that Batista?s earlier actions in his populist phase 1937-40 are greatly overlooked in the context of his actions post-1959. I found it interesting that Batista was the first political leader of Cuba who incorporated a sector, namely the clases populares, into politics, especially at such a large scale. This support of the popular masses and of the military is what later gave him his power to take control of the government. Whitney states that Batista?s three-year plan marked somewhat of a turning point in his popularity with the working masses (due to the sugar coordination law), but it also brought some benefits unforeseen to Cuba in the previous years such as new social (schools, health insurance etc.) and economic reform (new national bank) earning him the title of ?the architect?.
The importance of the Sugar production was also apparent in Perez article on the modernization and to some extent Americanization of the sugar mills (mill towns). I found the relationship with the US during this time fascinating considering the US earlier foreign policy aims based largely on the issue of race (not wanting to incorporate countries of a different racial background to their own as well as issues of geographical climate (associated with race)). Nevertheless, the change in US foreign policy aims to those of trade acquisition also greatly influenced Cuba as becomes increasingly apparent in Perez article. This not only pertains to the economy of Cuba but largely also to its society, which became increasingly more interested in a higher standard of living (health insurance, general well-being), bilingual and accepted American cultural pillars such as Baseball eagerly into their culture. As also discussed in class I again found the issue of race in connection with the US one that jumped out at me (segregation in the US yet such cross-racial involvement in Cuba). The fact that many changes apparent in Cuba at this time, as they pertain to modernization, couldn?t be found in many other countries around the world until later in the century, goes hand in hand with this.
Modernism in Cuba was an interesting read for me and meant different things for people of the various social classes on the island. Perez highlights that those fortunate enough to belong to the elite class had a lifestyle similar to the Americans on the island and those in America with the best of American consumer products and technologies in their households. To many other Cubans, the effects of modernism were not as evident in terms of material wealth and their standard of living. Cubans working in the American Zones were often considered as second class by the American staff and could not benefit from modern American goods and services. Guantanamo was seen as a seedy place littered with brothels for the US servicemen.
The Americans did introduce new sports with one becoming very prominent, baseball. Baseball became a very important aspect of Cuban life with many plying their trade in the US. Communal sports, such as baseball can help modernize a society by bridging the gaps between the different social classes, unlike in the older colonial Spanish sports such as bull fighting.
Whitney provides a very thorough account of Batista’s rise and time in power during the 1930s and 1940s. With Fulgencio Batista coming to power, the rights of the people did improve with his changes in the constitution in 1940. Batista as a populist, catered towards the majority of Cubans and introduced many welfare polices that benefited the middle and lower class Cubans. By increasing the minimum wages especially for cane cutter on sugar plantations, Batista could garner the great support from the labor force. Previously those who had low income could only afford their basic necessities, unlike Cubans who worked in the cities.
Modernism in Cuba in the early 20th century is different to what it means to me today, however the underlying foundations that helped to modernize Cuba remain the same today. While for me modernization can be seen with the increase in internet speeds for example, early 20th century Cubans would have considered the ability to have radio broadcast similarly important. The advancement of technology and society would remain the same today as it did in the early 20th century, although in different forms.
A quote from the Perez article intrigued me. The quote from a Cuban journalist was about the lack of local economic engagement between the American mill workers and pre-existing Cuban society. “Nothing that these enterprises consume comes from the country, but is all imported from abroad”. This comment was not a criticism of the American sugar plantation worker in Cuba but rather a critique of the way large American corporations had set up their isolated communities. It is not a criticism of the isolation as much as the desire of the Americans to have brand names they recognized rather than Cuban equivalents. Obviously specialty items did not exist in Cuba but certainly some staples, such as lumber, could have been utilized to support the economy of the country that these communities occupied. This saturation of the Cuban market with American products occurred outside the plantation communities as well and may be the result of natural cultural integration. However, I would question why the cultural integration of consumer products did not occur both ways. Perhaps the answer is that being an advanced capitalist society the United States had superior products to offer, but this is to simple an explanation. This is no doubt a factor in the domination of American products in the plantation community stores but other factors could be the capitalist impulse of the corporations to keep all the profit for themselves as well as potential prejudice in believing Cuban products to be inherently inferior.
In the Whitney article, I didn’t realize how many progressive, liberal improvements the Provisional Revolutionary Government of 1933 were able to make. As Whitney notes, the ability to make these advances seemed to be predicated on no longer being tied to the will of an imperial force as Cuba had been for so long with Spain and the US. Although the government did not last for more than a few months it did make a lasting impression on the political climate of Cuba. The fact that a movement which occupied a very small length of time in the long term had a significant effect on the direction of the country is very inspiring. I would speculate that without this liberal interlude Cuba would have sooner been subjected to policy that closer resembled the Batista of 1952 rather than of 1940.
It is interesting how emotion seems to guide historical memory. All I have ever heard of Batista paints him as a tyrant and an impediment to progress, but this article by Whitney contextualizes his reign within the frameworks of populism and an aversion to the oligarchy as well as imperialist oppression. While Batista was mestizo, I wonder what factor race played in his aversion to foreign workers in Cuba, kicking out Jamaican and Haitian rural workers to replace it with Cubans? As much as it sounds tyrannical, I sort of like the idea of the campaign against idleness where everyone must be employed. It sounds familiar…hmmm, perhaps to what the British navy did during wartime where they would impress anyone caught at a pub or in public that wasn’t already drafted, or, maybe to Fidel’s programs! Modernity is characterized as a progressive work force that enables everyone access to land and labor. It is interesting how his early efforts to nationalize and consolidate Cuban participation in the economy give way. How does learning about and including all aspects of Batista change the narrative we usually are confronted with about “pre-revolution” Cuba?
In Perez’ piece we hear of all the infrastructure foreign investment creates in Cuba, including a railroad. While deemed as modern, they are instituted as as sources of extraction which take national and natural resources away from the everyday person. Even Hershey’s chocolate was in on it! These 19th century corporate mill towns still exist all around the world, creating little European/North American enclaves everywhere where a profit is possible. (I have a Venezuelan friend who has lived in Exon communities in Texas, Nigeria, and Abu Dabi and all were identical) It seems like everything North American suburbia-ish was considered modernization. It is a North American imposed imagery, and it is only allotted to the few and presented as bringing sewage systems and improving public health but this is a facade.
Something I like about sports is that colonized or oppressed peoples adopt many behaviors and attitudes of those exerting force and control on them, and get better at them. Winning a baseball game as a Cuban or Puerto Rican person, while a personal pursuit, may represent a form of resistance. We see evidence of this in previous English colonies to this day which are the best as cricket (Pakistan and India) and rugby (definitely the All-blacks not France).
I’d argue that many historical events occur based on reactions to extreme situations, and Cuban history to this point in the course has been no exception (slavery, insurgency, war). Usually, however, these events involve leaders who champion one cause steadfastly – Batista surprised me with his polarity. He spent his military career against organized labour, and then empowered the working class. He asked for the vote and then staged a coup.. He aligned himself with the communist party and then seized dictatorship. Maybe this makes him a really good politician, but it seems more than that. In the historical events we know, there’s generally an accepted moral judgment about who the ‘good guys’ are, but Batista navigated back and forth across this line for the duration of his career. The irony isn’t lost when Whitney quotes him saying that ‘extremes are fatal for Cuba’. Whitney alludes to Batista being an ‘engineer’, and this I found this to be more satisfying than his accepted spot in history as a villain.
Love of a sport or a team often creates a feeling of community. This is particularly noteworthy when it happens on a national scale and examples abound in recent history. In 1954, West Germany won the FIFA World Cup and for the first time since the end of the Third Reich had a positive event to tie their country to. In 1995, the Rugby World Cup helped South Africans find some sort of common ground after the end of apartheid. In 2008, China hosted the Summer Olympics and presented a whole new national image of solidarity and unification to the world.
All of these examples help illustrate why I was so surprised to learn about the role baseball played not in creating a national Cuban identity apart from the United States, but rather tying Cuban popular culture closer to the American way of life. This being said, it is certainly understandable why Cubans would wish to play a sport so popular in the US, a symbol of modernity, freedom, and democracy. Furthermore, the cultural effects of baseball in Cuba leaves its mark on the US as well. Perez shows this in his discussion of race and baseball, with black Americans playing in big leagues as Cubans, or the coming together of Cuban and American players in a league of their own. Comparing the strong cultural and economic influence the US exerted over Cuba, as highlighted by Perez, with the more nationalist and populist approach to politics Batista takes in the 1930s leading up to 1940, as described by Whitney, highlights just how many overlapping factors were at play in Cuba during this time period. Reflecting on all of this, I think it is important for me as a reader to remember that sports, like history, is not necessarily tied to the nation as such, but is much more complex in its development and its effects. And that sometimes, the matter is as simple as a universal love for hitting a ball across a field with a bat, regardless of whether the player is Cuban, American, or a little bit of both.
Whitney’s article made me think about how “great leaders” were all, in some sense (but also arguable), populists. For example, Adolf Hitler strongly appealed to the German people because of his promises to restore the German economy and break free out of the shackles of the Treaty of Versaille, which were extremely appealing to the Germans. I think something similar could definitely be said for Batista. In addition, he was backed by the US, which added more fuel to his rise. He also made specific political moves (such as seek an alliance with Communists) to again, gain more popularity. Another aspect of the Whitney article I found particularly interesting was the efforts to enforce more Cuban labour and boost the Cuban economy.
After reading the Whitney article, I read the Perez chapter. I should have probably read Perez first, and then Whitney because it would make more logical sense. Perez really opened my eyes on just how American Cuba was. At the same time though, it made me question why Cubans accepted this almost “friendly” colonization. Yes, the American sugar mills provided jobs and “modern” homes and amenities for the workers, but it caused a dependency on American-made jobs and imports. There is also a pattern among US Military Interventions in the 19th and 20th centuries: they always involve capitalism, places to collect revenues, and/or create a dependency-driven relation to benefit themselves. Cuba is a prime example, alongside many other nations. Haiti also faced a similar situation, though it was more neo-colonialism. Major General Smedley D. Butler wrote a piece called “War is Racket” and it highlighted exactly what the US was doing in all these places, relating it to Al Capone’s control over three districts (in the US case, it is over 3 continents).
However, this isn’t to say that US influence was completely terrible either – take the case of baseball for example!
I was surprised to find evidence of growing Cuban nationalism in this week’s readings. The increase in American presences seems to force the Cuban population together and find common ground. Often a common enemy will create a platform where people (in this case Cubans) are able to put aside differences and discuss issues and find solutions. As a result, I believe the 1933 revolution came about and many changes were put in effect under the Grau government. Then again in 1934 when Batista and his colleagues staged a coup and Cuba changed further. Cuban society kept changing. I think modernity and nationalism go hand in hand this week. The Cubans seem to see that they need to move forward and “…drew the conclusion that a new and modern state should intervene in society in order to modernise the countries political and economic structures.” (Whitney).
The expulsion of the Platt Amendment in an attempt to get rid of international intervention in Cuba, made me think that the Cubans (Grau and perhaps Batista) were a bit naïve. With the sugar plantations increasing output every year that sugar needs to be exported which means economic deals with other countries. Because the US was on its way to becoming one of the Great Powers it might have been foolish to think they could simply get rid of them. The US established a naval base in Guantanamo Bay and the base greatly influenced the local economy. The cities and towns close by structured themselves around the needs of the naval base. It was interesting to read how politically the US didn’t have much to say but they could still influence their economics, even if it was just at a local level. The naval base also influence the daily lives and living conditions of the people in this area, the English language and American products surrounded them. Even though it was unintentional it had a large effect. I think this is relevant because I know we are slowly rolling up to talking about communism and closing Cuba’s doors to and from the rest of the world and this just shows that isolation or elimination is hard task! (We have already seen that with the circulation of el paquete.)
Although I have known that most politicians go through a “populist” phase to become known and liked throughout the masses, I never imagined Batista being one of those politicians. All I had known prior to Whitney’s article was that Batista had been a dictator in Cuba and from there made his way to the ‘Corner of the Cretins’ in the Museo de la Revolucion in Havana. The new-found community within Cuba was emerging in which previously scattered groups of people seemed to slowly become one and Batista took full advantage of this. As the article states, Batista became the representative of the Cuban people who demanded to be heard after years of suppression. However, as we well know, this populist phase would not last forever…like the presidents he had claimed not to be, Batista became extremely corrupt and once again widened the gap between the rich and the poor.
Whitneys article was interesting to read and gather evidence of growing populists in politics . Its interesting to see in Bautista’s case that the majority of this support came from the army and police . Its interesting how populist leaders leaders all tend to find a way to appeal to the masses and their particular ideals. Whether it be Hitlers mass rally to restore Germany to its former great power in Europe or in Bautista’s case tapping into nationalist sentiment from former years and working with labour issues . It was also interesting reading into Bautista’s alliance with the Communist party and allow his transition from military leader to civil leader . Whitney’s article provided a different insight into how I view the leader as i used to believe him not much more than a tyrant / controversial leader. Now I look at him as a progressive thinker in his society , much like Stalin would be with his 5 Year Plan in 1928
Perezs article was very cool to read about in the aspect of how a sport can redefine an nation to an extent . I enjoyed reading about the first integration american baseball had to go through was playing winter leagues in Cuba . Sports tend have a way of bringing together the masses and they also provide a escape from the day to day situations of ordinary life and escape the country if they want a way. Its no different how all of Canada was linked together a nation during the 2010 Olympics and especially with hockey. And how hockey is a cult in our society . So with a sport such as baseball that has very large american influence and its closeness in distance , its not surprising Cubans began making it their pastime. But it was very interesting reading was able bring together different social classes compared to the sports of the Spanish colonial era.
“Many want to forget that I am the chief of a constructive social revolution… my idea of order is that of an architect rather than that of a policeman…”
Isn’t this what most populist strongmen say before seizing power and establishing authoritarian dictatorships? Didn’t Lenin, Mussolini, and Hitler make similarly reassuring statements too?
I didn’t know much about Batista’s earlier political activities prior this week’s reading, having mostly believed the mainstream version of events leading up to the 1959 revolution. It was interesting to see how his earlier years in Cuban politics actually benefitted the masses, albeit causing panic amongst many members of the upper class were wary of Batista’s rule. Legalizing trade unions here, allowing leftist political parties there, all at the same time kicking out foreign plantation workers and implementing (rather ineffective) 3 year plans, Batista demonstrates his mastery at navigating populist politics.
At this point, sugar continues to play a major role in Cuban politics and economics. I didn’t realize so much infrastructure was required to support a sugar mill that mill towns began to take on the character of small cities. As usual, where money and power is involved, the US is most likely involved. It was also nice to see a familiar name in the Perez piece, with Canadian railway tycoon William Van Horne participating in Cuban sugar production as well.
I found this week’s reading by Perez to be fascinating because of how often popular culture issues like sport can be overlooked yet can offer such crucial insights into nations and national consciousness. Though I was somewhat aware of the popularity of baseball in Cuba, I didn’t know much about the roots of the sports popularity and how far back it stretched. I think that it is very easy for people in the West (especially Canada/the US) to assume that the attitudes of other nations are based on/result from the same causes as our own. We don’t often think about how their experience with a particular sport like baseball in this case might be unique and nationally developed making it incredibly personal for a nation like Cuba, rather than just being a passion for the American version of Major League Baseball. Even though the MLB/American Baseball were still factors in the Cuban passion for baseball, the reasons that Cubans were so passionate was because of their own connection to the sport. The interactions between the American institutions and the Cuban ones are especially interesting because I didn’t realize how the development of the sport was occurring in both countries and through the exchange of players and ideas. The fact that Cuban integration made US integration possible shows how closely the sport was linked in the two countries.
Reading Whitney’s article was quite interesting as the read, opening up my eyes to the Batista’s rise to becoming the “architect” of the Cuban state. Batista’s approach at his early stages in politics made him seem secluded and sort of an inferior military leader. But he eventually took over the popular national tendency by building alliances with the communist party and by allowing the Cuban Confederation of workers to occur, at the same time he was able to keep certain people occupied, as he implemented his populist project. The approach and the way Batista did his politics was very much in the way Adolf Hitler ruled Germany. Saying what the public wants to hear in order to gain the power and loyalty to do as you please while in charge leading to Batista eventually becoming extremely corrupt. The Read was good, and help me understand a little more about the past powers and their effects on the Cubans.
The dissemination of information, or lack thereof, was critical to Batista’s regime. In order to obtain power, during his initial political run, he relied on a populist platform to secure popular support. His championing of the working class by enacting labour laws is an example of this. However, his second stint in politics saw him seize control and viciously censor any opposition. The whole notion of modernization and progression is consolidated with conceptions of information and knowledge – the amount of information we have leads us to believe we are more knowledgeable, therefore, we are more progressive. It’s not that this doesn’t hold true but that Batista recognized this and attempted to put a stop to it in order to maintain power.
To me, modernity today means capitalism, technology, the notion of civilization and the use of human reason that motivates the advancement of civilization, architectural advancements much like the bayets in Cuba in the early twentieth century as elaborated on by Perez, efficiency, and Western society’s reverence for celebrities.
Despite my attempt to show that 2015 is quite contrary to that of Cuba, I am realizing that each of what I posed above was very much prevalent in Cuba in the early twentieth century. Can the definition and understanding of modernity be pinpointed? I’m not so sure.
With regard to capitalism during Batista’s reign, the privatization of sugar plantations, as discussed by Whitney, shows the onset of capitalism in Cuba. As well, Perez’ clearly illustrates how United Fruit and the profits extrapolated from Cuban land were central in Cuba’s development for the upper-class (business owners) and unfortunately to the oppression of the lower-class (Cubans).
Those who were making the decisions about Cuba, as illustrated by Perez, were Americans who dictated the land yet had screens on their doors and were thus foreigners to Cuba who had staked a claim and imposed US hegemonic power on Cuba’s resources and society. In this case, human reason could be interchangeable with US hegemony and imperialism. Both capitalism and human reason is illustrated by their elaborate houses quite out of place in traditional Cuban society.
With regard to celebrities, they are frighteningly ubiquitous in North American society, i.e. at every news stand, on every TV channel, etc. and are revered. Their ubiquity sort of equates them with this divinity and can create a distraction from reality for the ‘masses.’ I use this term carefully after reading Whitney’s article. In Cuba in the early twentieth century it was not television stars that were revered but baseball players. I’d say Cubans were more progressive in that Cubans were not excluded from this divine realm and played in the major leagues as much as others.
This leaves me in great speculation of what modernity means. Does it mean that a majority of middle-upper class people in North America have iPhones? Does it mean that efficiency has been achieved in sectors such as transport, agriculture, the economy, etc.? Or is modernity just not an agrarian society but rather one that claims to be “civilized”? I’m not sure I would agree with colonialism as being civil and would argue that it was/is incredibly far from it.
In the Perez reading it was interesting to see the effect of American involvement and infiltration in Cuba, creating modernity as it sought to almost americanise the land and people, with the entry of consumerist goods on the market, sports & railways etc. It is surprising the amount that Cuban’s would now be relying on America, for example within a decade of Cuban independence, virtually the entire northern coast of Oriente had passed into the hands of North American sugar corporations, and statistically in 1905 21% of mills were owned by the US which increase significantly to 63% in 1926. Cubans did oppose this expansion, which they felt a sense of not belonging, and estrangement in their own land. But Melendez Victorero for example felt obliged to work for the sugar company for necessity even though he had a degree it was simply part of Cuban life. It seems many were unhappy, but willing to go along with it and not challenge the system. I thought it was also interesting just how much of a impact baseball played in Cuba, as at first when I started to read that the discussion was on baseball I didn’t know what role it was going to play in Cuba and whether it would be that important (as I had no prior knowledge beforehand). However, it turns out that baseball was more then just a sports game to Cubans. It created a source of national identity and collective unity (of race, class or gender), which gave Cubans pride and patriotic spirit. It was also interesting the role Cuban baseball played in the US, that it contributed to transforming major league play due to transcending boundaries of race being broke down in Cuba, with white and blacks playing together being inconceivable in the US.
I found it quite remarkable that after independence and the Spanish had been kicked out of Cuba the U.S implemented their own sphere of influence over Cubans. It’s almost ironic that the new U.S authority was mainly based around the sugar mill. Communities were transformed into company towns (sugar corporations) and managed and functioned by American interests.It seems that the Spanish were simply replaced by Americans post independence because of the stark manner of living between the American communities and Cubans. Americans in Cuba lived in huge properties and enjoyed luxurious lifestyles while certain parts of Cuba were described as being more New York than Havana. The mills employed everybody in the communities, and acted as a powerful transmitter of North American cultural forms. The North American presence in the community was a privileged one as well as possessive. Moreover, the mill evoked an image of being outside and above the law and it became an important factor in local politics. Also, the American influence in Cuba was seen as bringing modernity, which suggests that Cubans were backwards. The American presence in Cuba was very authoritarian and for these reasons I thought it was not very different to Spain, although of course slavery had been abolished, Americans transformed Cuba in order to fulfill their economic interests. So how is that different to Cuba before independence? In both instances Cuba is being robbed of it’s abundance in sugar.
In this week’s reading by Whitney, what interested me the most was the rise of populism by Batista and how it has reconstructed Cuba. By competing against his rival Ramon Grau for support in Cuba, Batista has opened up to many new plans such as the Sugar Coordination Act, which shows signs of modernity and organization in Cuba already at an early age in the 1930s. Batista’s way of politics involves many social benefits for its people such as realizing a disparity between its people and needed “economic balance” where he would then reshuffle the entire sugar plantation system by benefitting Cubans and repatriating workers back home. It is also noteworthy how Guerra y Sanchez mentions about what Batista is trying to do, “convert the sugar industry of Cuba into a huge national enterprise.” This to me suggests that like other signs of modernity, Batista wants Cuba to have national recognition as well as identity.
From Perez’s article, it is also important to see how American sports like baseball has emerged into the Cuban society and helped change their focus on revolution. “Baseball also represented economic opportunity. Players recruited from the mill labor force were paid over the course of the dead season.” This to me shows how many of the Cubans found this as a way out from the past in plantations to having hope and the ability to earn money to provide for their families instead of the low-paid labor. This also reminds me about some of the Cuban professional players like Yasiel Puig who has used baseball to escape the conditions of hard labor in Cuba and find an alternative to be an athlete and represent.
Part of me was really disheartened reading about life for the average Cuban in the Perez chapter. Despite all of the struggle that the rebel rebels like Maceo and Marti went through, it looked like the majority of Cubans in the early 20th century were still confined to working on sugar plantations and in poor living conditions (albeit better than slavery). I also thought of a connection between baseball in Cuba in the early 20th century and basketball in American ghettos today; success in sports as a way to escape systematic racism and discrimination, even though they were still discriminated against in sports as well. Reading the Perez chapter before the Whitney article also helped me understand some of the social pressures that propelled a populist like Batista into power. This may be looking ahead a little bit, but the economic disparity and demographics in Cuba during this time make it clear to me that Marxist rhetoric would be extremely persuasive as well; a small, insanely wealthy bourgeoisie literally shipping wealth away from Cuba and exploiting the native population for profit.
In my reading of Perez’s On Becoming Cuban, I was saddened by the state of the Cubans following the country’s independence, but I wasn’t particularly surprised. When we began discussing the idea of modernity and the intervention of the United States in Cuba in class, many predispositions started forming in my mind about the history of U.S. intervention in general. From what I have learned in the past, a common theme surrounding the U.S. intervening in other countries is often somewhat of a “civilizing mission”, an imposition of U.S. culture, and a way to extract resources from the country. While slavery had been abolished in Cuba, it seems that a new, although less severe, type of slavery was quickly imposed. The Cubans living in these “company towns” were figuratively “slaves” to the North American corporations running the sugar plantations. Cubans were still subject to poor living conditions, especially in contrast to the privileged lifestyles of North Americas, and their lifestyles were being guided entirely by North American plantation owners, even in terms of cultural and religious norms, a similar story to state of Cuba before slavery was abolished. I felt that Perez epitomized what life was really like in Cuba following independence, exhibiting the continuing problems that stood at the forefront of and independent Cuba.
Though it seems the social aspect of the readings seem to be the highlight of this week, I couldn’t help but be captured by the economic aspects of Batista’s reign. In Whitney’s article, he explains in great detail the plight of unemployment, and foreign workers. And while reading about how Batista and his government attempted to tackle such an overwhelming problem, I felt frustrated with how ignorant the attempts seemed. Of course I am no economist (so I could be totally wrong) but one cannot simply pull jobs out of thin air, and that’s what Batista appeared to be doing. I agree that too much foreign investment and too many foreign workers not only hurts an economy but it also hurts national identity, so I understand the political motivations, however, the economics just isn’t sound in Batista’s plan. By expelling all foreign workers, skilled and unskilled, Batista expected to be able to simply fill those empty spaces with Cubans. But along with the new 50 per cent law, was also a plethora of workers rights to follow that would cost employers exponentially more to employ untrained Cubans who, it seems, did not even want to work in the first place. While I personally feel as though workers’ rights are infinitely important, it was absolutely ridiculous for Batista to expect all of the sugar mills etc. to cough up the extra cash to employ some lazy, untrained Cubans. On top of that, the numbers simply did not add up. Whitney explained that many of the Jamaican foreigners could not find jobs so they just roamed the Cuban streets looking for work, so how did Batista expect to eliminate Cuban unemployment by deporting foreign workers who could not find work because there were no jobs? Instead Batista should have temporarily spurred economic growth by providing incentives to hire Cubans, give tax breaks to the average Cuban (middle class) and get Cuban products out to international market. Of course these conditions are not always the best for long-term growth, but in a period of stagnation where Batista wanted to see a quick boost in jobs, this would be a better plan than his ironically Fidel inspired plan.
P.S. – I like his social policies but his economic policies did not fit for the situation (example – the drastically reduced US investment in 1938)
Batista was an interesting figure and after reading Whitney’s article I’d like to know a bit more about him, since the article left me with a lot of questions. Batista had great ideas for the working class, minimum wage, social security and that women shops should have 50% women employees. These would definitely garner him support from the masses, the middle class and women, which is quite clever now that they are able to vote. Then Batista comes up with this three year plan and his promises are not fulfilled, it seems a bit baffling that he gained so much support and won the election. He seemed to know which buttons to push to win himself support. As Whitney mentions the change from a military Governor to a social reformer is a big one and though he changed the army officer part of him was very much intact, like the fact that he didn’t cut the cost of the military he used everything to keep in order when Cuba’s economy is not in a good shape. Batista also came at a time where a lot was in chaos and Cuba was changing, how he managed to keep the majority happy shows that he was a really smart politician.
In Perez’s chapter the influence of U.S films, merchandise and household products shows how heavily influenced the Cubans were by the U.S. What I found particularly interesting because how I can relate to it today is how much sports can impact ones life. The hope that baseball represented and how it joined U.S and Cuba together and something they were a bit more equal in, they were playing against each other rather than Cubans being under the command of the Americans. They wanted to implement baseball as a part of the cold war strategy and seemed to have succeeded. Baseball, just like it does today was a source of national identity, pride and unites the country.
I really enjoyed the article on the Architect of the Cuban state. There were a lot of political events that intertwined and required careful reading, yet it was also interesting to see the various forces and politicization that was shaping Cuban society at the time. Maybe it was a result of the fragmentation that the state was in after the war for independence, or maybe it was the external forces from nations that were evolving and progressing at this time. I had never seen or studied Batista’s rise or way of consolidating his power, only the reactions that emerged during the revolution. Therefore, it was great to get some background to the simple image that I think a lot of people have of Batista; oppressive right-wing military leader. Whitney’s article made me realize the mechanisms through which Batista established his power, and the unique and perhaps even very intelligent manner in which he did so. The modernization of Cuba is so strong and bold in this period, and so clearly juxtaposed to the realities of what was happening just decades before; the faithful island, the last remaining colony and the level of quasi-independence. For some reason this made me think of the way many people see Cuba today; cut out and living years back in time. At the same time the readings made me realize how fast changes are happening and how quickly the Cubans have to adapt to changes. Or were they always in need of change due to their struggles in the 19th century?
I am starting to think of the forces in society which are emerging during this pre-revolution point; to see how they will relate to the next phase. Most significantly, I think the emergence of an anti-American sentiment was a stepping-stone towards the revolution. Overall, what was most important to me this week was to establish a political context of what is happening; and to realize that Batista was never just the generalized military dictator image that emerged from examining him only during the Cuban revolution. One question that I kept thinking about; how does equality in Cuba play out during these years, in particular in regards to race and gender?
Something that struck me while reading the Perez chapter was how fundamentally out of touch American mill owners were from their Cuban workers in the early 20th century. It seemed as if the American elite believed they were doing a great charity by providing westernized services, and expected grateful compliance in return. A quote I found particularly striking came from Katherine Ponvert who describes her uncle’s reaction to his workers attempting to organize unions, writing, “our batey families had always received free electricity, free ice, and free milk…we provided a primary school and church service…Don Elie was truly and personally hurt, and I do not think he ever…quite recovered from the shock and disappointment of this movement” (Perez 230). I found this passage to be revealing of the social inequality between the Cubans and the American elite. Operating on a flawed assumption that Western ideals were the paramount of civilization and modernity that could be applied cross-culturally, it is clear, the condescending tone that Katherine Ponvert takes. To her and the American elite, the Cuban workers were certainly not equals to be negotiated with, rather, a group that could be characterized as ungrateful in the face of the American “generosities” they had received.
Thinking back to Barcia, this reaction reminded me of the naïve slave owners who were surprised to find the slaves rebelled despite being granted “freedoms” such as being able to move between plantations. I think that in both cases, the elites being so far removed from a non-western perspective were unable to fully comprehend the extent of the inequality they had fostered and consequently the resentment of the subordinate groups.
What called my attention while reading chapter 4 of On Becoming Cuba is the amount of, maybe expected, Americanization of the island and its people; most of them reluctant to the change. What struck me was how in so little time, Cuba already looked like, for some, the suburbs of Pennsylvania, as Warren Miller denotes at some point in the reading. It is outstanding to me how economy, especially the sugar production became quickly a conglomerate, an enterprise highly attached to the ideas and ways of capitalism and as a result the gap between the work force and those in positions of power broadened even further. All the land that we read about in class beforehand, the plantations in Matanzas and such places, were being sold or divided, or turned into a piece of land belonging to a bigger company. In part, it felt like the history we just finished reading about, all the events starting from 1825 to which these plantations served as scenarios were also disappearing with the arrival of new owners and rulers. I guess it must have been that same sentiment at the time for Cubans: a history of effort and battles to obtain independence, only to remain observant while another potency takes control of what they please. We all know how the American model ended in Cuba, so I think is very interesting to learn as much as we can about what happened right before that breaking point, and so far with disruptive foreign control over land and with oppressive and corrupt politics, it becomes clear how a second era of colonialism didn?t appeal to many Cubans at the time, who started to identify themselves as communists, later to become revolutionists.
This week, we shift our view to the modernity of Cuba. Compared what we discussed about Cuba before, this part is really fresh and interesting. Huge changes happened to Cuba in 20th century. Perez’s article that contains many photos helped me to know how Cuban’s lives vividly facing modernity. Therefore, providing me useful approach to explore how their lives in term of modernity. From picture of house of mill town, the modern house is clean and beautiful which equipped with electricity and supply of drinkable water. Those equipment are urban and modern which express that life in Cuba was comfortable and convenient. In mill town, many public facilities such as schools, bank, and dental hospital were complete. America style sugar plantation offered job for people in town. What’s surprised me most was the introducing of baseball to Cuba. The author talks about baseball and race in Cuba. Similar from those images about baseball, the smile on their faces shows the popularity of baseball in Cuba. This way of entertainment also delineated that the improvement of Cuban’s life standard. From the article of Perez, I am glad to see so many pleasant changes happened to Cuba. However, these changes modernized Cuba into more American-style. I am sure this kind of preference is good or not. And how Cuba people thought about this kind of life-style at that time. In term of modernity, indeed this changes are gratified.
The chapter by Pérez shows the important elements that contributed to the evolution of identity construction of Cuban people under U.S. influence. I’m surprised by the likely tremendous effects of U.S. ways of life, evangelical church and baseball on identity construction of Cubans. If Modernity means materialization and capitalization of one’s life, I think those elements surely modernized Cubans. It is very interesting to me that even church was largely modernized in terms of Capitalism and materialism as “protestant ministers were directly concerned with the material condition of their congregations, without which the spiritual message could not reasonably be expected to possess relevance or resonance” (253). This modernization of religion is fascinating to me because I think religion itself is one of the least modern things. Besides that, the quotes such as “what they often shared, albeit in different ways, was a sense of alienation, of being Cuban in Cuba, for which they were the object of discrimination” (234), “The sugar mills are independent states within the Cuban State” (237) and “there is no law here except the Company” (237), really reminds me about Jim Crow colonialism practiced by U.S. companies, such as United Fruits, in Guatemala. It seems like that Cuban case might be a little better than Guatemalan case thanks to other factors, such as church and baseball etc., but it makes me feel that the transnational companies from U.S. committed the same inhumane practices everywhere in Latin America and Caribbean.
Whitney’s article offers me more neutral understanding of Batista. I’m surprised by the fact that Batista actually modernized the Cuban politics as he is one of the politicians who first practiced mass politics in Cuba. I think one of the most important elements of modernity is democracy, so the fact that Batista once contributed to democracy is very ironic as modernity in Cuba rugged behind also because of Batista’s dictatorship.
The following taken from Robert Whitney’s piece is a stunning:
“What was remarkable about the early Batista was how he at first emerged as an isolated and apparently subservient military figure, then, taking advantage of the popular nationalist sentiment…he built alliances with sectors previously excluded from state politics.”
Batista’s rise to authority, and then dictatorship, and his conniving ability to maintain himself as the face and stronghold of Cuban power was a result of his ability to closely examine the societal grievances of the Cuban population of the day, and then prey on them for his own advantage. This reminded me how many of dictatorship’s of this present day continue to withhold legitimacy.
What struck me the most is how modernization meant different things to different people. In the 1920s it became apparent to Cuban politicians that the “masses” needed to be included in the political process more directly (Whitney). The idea of a more participatory political system is a sign of modernization, a shift from a system of oligarchy to one of democracy. The question of how to involve the masses also signifies the way modernization is a challenge; Whitney discusses how politicians and officials did not know how to create new political frameworks and institutions to be more inclusive. Once in power, Grau made important shifts towards modernization including a minimum wage, more female representation, maternity leave, an eight-hour workday and more. This demonstrates how Grau was able to garner popular support in order to modernize the country.
Perez’s article shows a different side of modernization, one that included cultural and economic aspects. I found how American corporations like United Fruit came into Cuba to be very imperialistic. While the American companies did not exert direct political force, they became the prominent controllers of sugar production. For example North American corporations controlled 63% of the sugar production on all the Northern Coast. This amount of economic control created an influential American presence that also had a persuasive cultural impact on Cuba. Culturally this impact can be seen with retail, houses and baseball. I found the American’s homes and lifestyle to make working class Cubans feel less modern. While the Cubans possessed more rights and political power than previously, the sugar mill workers were constantly witnessing American upper class. Even though the American presence in Cuba did work to modernize industry, increase foreign investment and create the love for baseball, I think it also bolstered a class system that made many Cubans feel less than.