The excerpt Elizabeth Dore quotes of Carlos interview with the two Cuban journalists struck powerful(see top of p.41). In expressing his thoughts on the Communist governments propaganda, Carlos associates with the Revolution some new ideas: hypnosis, collective hysteria, manipulation, psychology, belief versus non-belief, self-interest, honesty, secrets. This caused me to reflect on how the enticing effects a specific socio-context can have on your conditioned beliefs and thought processes, and how that has prevailed in all histories, times, spaces, and places. Furthermore, Carlo’s adds how ‘rhetoric-tuned-on-repeat,’ can have a sublime sort of power to penetrate into your very internalizations. To quote: “They can make you believe that you are happy and, I just don?t know. They repeat things so many times they end up making you believe?” As Dore demonstrates, the beliefs Cubans developed with the fervour and enthusiasm as true, and for the revolutionary, didn’t always meet to coincide with their feelings, and experiences.
I found both articles we read this week very fascinating. The Chapter’s from Oscar Lewis’ project “Neighbors” was certainly more quaint and less politically charged than Elizabeth Dore’s works, but still portrayed urban civilian life in an accurate and detailed manner. I thought it was interesting to see how the apartment building that all of the people interviewed had lived, began as housing for the rich people in the neighborhood like diplomats and government officials but then sort of became a hovel where many people were forced to cram into such a tiny space. Very few of the people who talked to Lewis it seems had much to say negatively about Castro and the Revolution at least explicitly. The first person we read in Lewis notes that the family that she served did not agree with Castro but none of the other interviewees really express any outright opposition to Castro, rather they complain about their neighbors! Elizabeth Dore’s chapter I found to be quite different. Dore notes that among the older generation of people she interviewed, most of them expressed gratitude towards Fidel Castro and the Revolution and explain that they have benefited from such a regime. Dore goes on to explain how on the other hand the younger generation is quicker to express their frustrations with the communist regime they are forced to live in. I think this shows very clearly how much people can fall into a mob mentality when they are exposed to such a powerful force. Whereas if you are not present during the initial uprising then it may be harder to get behind it or perhaps it is just easier to take the blinders off and look at the big picture unadulterated.
In Dore’s reflection it is interesting how many of the older generation felt a paternalistic conection to Fidel and their access to well-being. Even though they were older and grew up in the age of modernity, and may have seen several authorities promoting the “right way” to live, the revolution provided them something that the young people did not see. The young student feels that her parents are being degraded by waiting in lines for the crumbs off the table of elite rulers, even though the revolution’s propaganda promotes an egalitarian society where nobody is left wanting, it creates a unilateral relationship imbued with hierarchy and dependence. The interviews in “Neighbors”, as a source, are both the medium and the message. these people are coping with living within the Revolution but they are the Revolution. So their living is the living of the success or failure of its aims. And living together in a happy family is not always the easiest task. So many complaints! I guess this is what complaining within the confines of the Revolution is all about! The varying degrees of comfort and contexts which give rise to people occupying different social housing situations is fascinating, I could see why that movie where the unburied corpse is so pertinent.
This week’s readings provided a very interesting look into the everyday lives of people under Fidel’s communist regime. Elizabeth Dore sought to demonstrate how the Cuban life was perhaps different, or unique when compared to other socialist countries. Rather than fall in line under the official rhetoric, many Cubans were more than willing to voice their displeasure with the government and the general state of affairs dictated by the Revolution. What I found to be most intriguing was how she demonstrated that both the Revolution’s ‘all’s fine’ narrative, and the Western ‘Communism is oppressive’ narrative were equally wrong. As is the case with most competing beliefs, the truth lies somewhere in the middle. Many Cuban citizens were very happy with the egalitarian status quo that had been developed when they were receiving Soviet financial assistance. Many more were equally unafraid to express all the issues that were missed, or under-served by the regime. Furthermore, Oscar Lewis’ chapter provides a more concrete example of what really occurred during everyday life that reaffirmed Dore’s argument. These families, which had all been given an apartment by the regime, were more upset by each other than by the regime. The vast majority of complaints had to do with issues that you and I would face. Unruly neighbours, alcoholics, and waiting in lines at the government building are all issues that relate to human behaviour and organization, not government types. These readings demonstrate that regardless of what is done at the top, day-to-day relations will have more of an impact, and if needed, we can always blame the government for our shortcomings.
The interviews by Dore’s team of researchers provide diverse opinions among Cubans on the quality of life and the ways that it has changed under the Castro government . Some of these differences were found to be on age based lines, with the older people being more thankful to Castro while the younger people are disgusted by the system. It is very interesting that most people who were alive at the time think that the period of Soviet influence from the 1960’s through the 1980’s were better, happier times for individual Cubans than in the modern mixture of capitalist and socialist influence. The socialist political regime that once promoted equality amongst it’s citizens can no longer provide for every person so individuals have found their own ways to make money, with varying success. Dore explains how this slackened reliance on the state has freed up many people to speak their minds about the failures of the government. This is historically uncommon in a communist state, one of the reasons why attempts to create oral histories have been neither accurate nor successful under these types of regimes. I found Dore’s discussion of the failings of oral histories in communist countries to be a good intro to her experiment in the same field. Her reasoning for why her project was successful in the Cuban context when it had not been before was insightful and based on both internal and external events. She comments multiple times in the article that the openness to speak to her and her colleagues grew even within the 6 year period of their study.
This week I found a parallel between Dore’s article and Moore’s article from a couple of weeks ago. Through this course I think we have learned that the Cuban people are many things and they are such a complex people under such a complex regime that making a blanketing statement can be quite ignorant. However, I will make one nonetheless! Through both articles and really through many of the readings from this course I found that the Cuban people are a very brave and determined people. They know what they like, although they may not all agree on what that is, but they will fight for it within their own respective assemblies. Although the regime technically does not allow for much criticism, Dore’s article clearly depicts that some people are not afraid to voice their honest opinion. Lewis’ writings also support this idea because although the regime was very much present in their minds, the people around them in their immediate environment were the cause of angst for most people interviewed. These readings really showed that although the government is very much active, the Cuban people live their lives somewhat skirting around the big regime and some find more importance in focusing in their personal lives.
I thought Dore’s use of Jan Vanisna’s quote “Oral history is past and present in a single breath” (7) was a nice way of tying this week’s readings together. Lewis looks at the life of people in the Frozen zone in the 1960’s while Dore examines people from all ages and locations in Cuba in 2004-10, where the elderly in her work would have been the age of those examined by Lewis. Lewis work shed some light on what was discussed in class regarding the life of an apartment building from housing diplomats and officials to becoming reassigned as to fit as many people and families as possible, how housing exchanges would happen/come about and how ration books were assigned and used. Non of the people in his work seemed to overtly have anything negative to say about Castro’ regime and rather couldn’t imagine any families or people leaving because of the government. While I liked Lewis “Neighbors” approach at getting at changes happening during the revolution, I enjoyed Dore’s more political and commentary like approach where she noted changes in language, voices and posture of the people she examined as the interviews took their course. Her commentary on the matter showed much more clearly the differences between the generations in Cuba and how the things one generation appreciated (such as guaranteed work for everyone) and referred to as paternalism under Fidel Castro was referred to as brainwashing under mass-psychology by the younger generation. I thought the opportunity that the willingness to speak out against communism in Dore’s work provides to oral history in countries previously under communism was especially noteworthy. As Dore states Cuba might be a different case in oral history and the willingness to open up and talk as Fidel Castro did rule by popular consent and as it appears not through the repressive means of other communist governments such as the USSR, but I think her work opens up a critical door into the examination of people under communism that definitely needs to be explored further as it could provide valuable insight into the thoughts and feelings of generations.
This weeks readings were really interesting especially Dore’s . I found it really fascinating how sheltered I was from looking at how communism has been tied to this image a big evil creature that threatens all of Western thought. But in Dores article we see how communism has its ” pleasures and pains’ with the description of elderly thanking Castro for everything they have , while younger generations are challenging the idea that their parents are so bound by .It is unique to see people voices their opinions freely in Dores article as we see that less and less in today’s societies because of fear of repercussions. It was imperative that Cubans are uniquely open to discussing the problems in the society and whether fear factors have influence other oral history of communist countries . It was interesting seeing how Dore not only studied the narrative of her subject but also their emotions , posture and similar things like that . Lastly Dore’s article made me think critically about how an individual story in history can be twisted or molded by emotion and not be an accurate description of a narrative , so the question I would propose is how would historians moving forward document peoples honest opinions and how can we dissect past narratives to prove whether their not solely made positive out of fear of repercussions
The catharsis of sharing information that has been suppressed is incredibly interesting to see in Dore’s work. For some reason I imagine this catharsis as almost manic. That might be because I myself cannot truly imagine being in that position.Dissidence is so prevalent in contemporary Canadian society that it’s normalized whereas there is obviously a high risk in sharing this information of those Dore interviewed. The difference between elder and youth accounts is also striking. Haydee feeling embarrassed for his parents waiting in line “acting so docile” versus Maria, the sixty-something year old claiming her gratitude for the revolution. Maria’s account is eerie to me: the success of propaganda resonates. But also, much like the divide in Canada between the predominantly conservative elders and the (somewhat) radical youth are echoed here. Younger people seem more willing to speak against the Revolution because there may be less understanding of the risk that their parents and grandparents had received. Barbara’s account embodies both elder, to begin her story, and youth, as she decides to speak out about her woes under the Revolution. I may be attributing mobilization and conversation too much to the recklessness of youth but Dore’s interviews present it as such.
It was not surprising yet still interesting to read the older generations feelings toward Castro. They thanked him for their health care, education, housing, etc. The contrast between the younger and older generations feelings was pretty big. One student who was interviewed found it embarrassing, and humiliating the system the revolution had brought upon their older generation, waiting in lines, for “crumbs”. The differences of opinion in Cuba and the huge change the Cubans went through with their dependancy on the state changes how they voice their opinions as well. There was a time where their survival was dependant on the state. Then what the state gave them was not enough anymore and standard of living continued to decline. Cubans found other ways to survive and maintain their standard of living and this made them less fearful of speaking out loud, because not like the state was offering them anything. I think this was really beneficial for the public, firstly they were independent second after everything Cuba has gone through they need people to voice their opinion, this is what the fought for.
I loved reading the personal accounts found in Lewis’s chapter. It is always a pleasure to read something so raw and honest. After reading Dore’s article however, it got me thinking about just how honest these accounts are. As Dore points out, it is possible for people to fabricate or withhold information out of fear of who might hear it. Depending on what is at stake, an interview can begin to feel more like an interrogation. One thing that stood out for me in Dore’s article was Carlos expressing how he used to think that he loved the revolution, but now feels that he was hypnotized, after hearing the same thing so many times that he started to believe it. It is an interesting thing to hear because I agree that this is possible to some extent. I believe that human beings are by nature collective and do tend to follow the crowd. Perhaps this was a tactic of the revolution, which gained its support. Yet at the same time there is also a point where independent thought emerges. I think it is in these intimate settings of oral interviews which allow individual thought and expression to surface.
I found this weeks readings to be very interesting, especially Elizabeth Dore?s. It was great to hear from such a wide range of people sharing such diverse opinions openly about their experience under the communist government. The varying opinions and experiences are most divided by the different age groups; elderly speaking out with gratitude while the young expressing discontent. Those who were older had benefited from the Soviet influence and shared memories of happiness and unity as a country as well as immense gratitude to Castro. They had such gratitude based on their attribution of accessible education, health care, housing, and general well-being to him and his regime. The young, on the other hand, spoke out for reasons of huge discontent. The changes that resulted from the government?s inability to accommodate all Cubans made individuals feel a sense of disconnect from both the country and one another. Individuals expressed that the state was no longer reliable, therefore they had to take matters into their own hands, sparking black market jobs outside of the state. I saw this first hand when I went to Cuba on a mission trip where we visited a hospital. Somehow it came up how much doctors make, and our guide informed us of the very low wages doctor receive, and that most people aspire to go into tourism, outside of the state. He told us how occupational wages were reversed in the sense that people strived to work in tourism because it is one of the higher paying jobs compared to doctors, teachers, ect. Based on the fact that many individuals felt they were no longer being looked after, therefore not benefitting from the systems in place; they felt from freedom in expressing their feelings of discontent.
As mentioned by Dore, many other communist countries ?oral histories? where often biased in that many would not speak out. This was not the case in Cuba, many spoke out all with different reasons and intention varying from immense gratitude to total discontent.
Dore opens her article by stating that there is a consensus among historians in which communist countries oral history is fatally flawed because people fear talking about their lives. This opening sentence really stood out to me because it led me to question whether or not this view contributes to the larger perspective that historians have in which they believe memoirs and sources that feature memories and personal accounts as less reliable than “official” primary sources that can be regarded as more concrete and reliable. While Dore does not focus on this aspect, it was one that was of interest to me as I read the beginning of the article. Nonetheless, I think that Dore’s argument in which she proposes that by remarking that all oral histories from communist communities are fatally flawed and thus creates a flattening effect on the understanding of life under communism is one that I agree with. By stating that all memories and oral narratives made during Communist are unreliable and “flattened” because fear causes people to change their narrative to reflect what the government wants undermines the fact that some narratives on life during Communism is not made under fear with double speak (the narrator would say what they did not think and think what they did not say). Although it could be argued that the Cubans interviewed in Dore’s piece only answered and narrated their stories with openness and did not hold back because they were promised anonymity, I think the fact that Cuban society did not rule with a heavy hand in comparison to other Communist countries made people less critical of life under Communism. It is clear from the narratives, that from the 1960s to the 1980s, people were quite satisfied with how things were; the narratives only start to become more critical when it speaks about the emergence of inequality among people. In the older generation of Cubans, although it was not ideal, they were satisfied with how the state provided everyone with jobs, food, housing, education and health care and even when the population was suffering, there was the sense of comfort in which Cubans knew they were suffering along. Following the 1990s, when the state could not longer provide for everyone as a result of economic crisis, class disparity starts to become a bigger problem and the Cuban’s resentment towards inequality is evident in their narratives and interviews.
I really enjoyed the Lewis reading, as it gave a really interesting perspective on how communal living in Cuba was like. It definitely shattered my preconceived notions of what it was like. One part that particularly stood out to me was when Fontanes recalls the doctora crying “You deceived me, Fidel. You said You’d never make Cuba communist!”. This brought me back to our class discussion the other day about the 10 million ton harvest, and how this performance of citizenship was practice by only about 3000 people – on behalf of the whole population. Though Fontanes’ account comes before this, it made me question what was the “breaking point” for people who eventually left Cuba.
Lewis/Fontanes’ accounts also give faces and stories to your average “Communist Cuban”, and we realize that they really are just normal people trying to live as normal lives as possible under Communism.
Reading about these experiences makes me wonder about my grandmother and great-grandparents’ experiences in communist Cuba. I’m curious to know if they owned one of these large houses, or if they ever lived in communal housing. This reading has inspired me to go figure all this out!
The Cuban life stories Elizabeth Dore collects between 2004-2010 are classified as oral history, but I felt that her article went beyond an analysis of various anonymous recordings. Oral histories are by nature very personal and this is certainly communicated in Dore’s text. The catharsis felt by the interviewed subjects, the subtleties of language, the diverse backgrounds people came from, and the complex, nuanced picture Dore paints of life in Cuba as a result of these elements is striking in and of itself. Even more than that though, I was struck by Elizabeth Dore’s evident personal investment in the project. Reading her article, it was clear to me that she was deeply immersed in Cuban Voices. Usually I would expect a historian to attempt to build a distance between herself and her material, but Dore does not. In fact, she opens her article by recounting her own experience trying to get the project approved in Cuba. Thus the first story she tells is in some ways her own. Furthermore, the history she presents is not merely oral, it is also visual as she includes several images of Cubans as they go about their daily lives. These are not the same Cubans she interviews, because she preserves their anonymity, which leads to the reading questioning why they are added to the article in the first place. Dore’s investment in this project is, on a micro-level, personal, and, on a macro-level, dedicated to representing the multitude of stories Cubans have to tell in multiple ways. I really appreciated the way she wrote about and showed pictures of the many Cuban Voices as an unapologetically personal history.
In Dore’s work, the contrast between two generations living under the same regime generates the plausibility to believe that “Todo tiempo pasado fue mejor” (the past was a better time). The people who lived within the two decades, after the revolution took power, seem to be fond of the experience because not only they received basic needs but because they experienced certain level of social justice and egalitarian government. However, the new generation voices its discontent as the gap between the poor and the rich widens in a country, which policies claim to promote impartial wealth. It seems that Castro, truly knew how to manipulate the “revolutionary discourse” not only thru media but also thru psychology. It is well known that most habits are better acquired through repetition, just like learning a new language. Castro’s language to learn was “we suffer for the motherland together.”
Lewis’s reading displays a pragmatic account of how some people lived in the city during the first years of Fidel’s regime. The urbanization process starts as people from the countryside move into the city and some do not know how to adapt. To quote “You better remember that this is the city, not the country.” (12) The process of subletting casonas (mansions) becomes a trend in most big cities in Latin America as the former owner(s) fled due to political crisis that could place in danger the status of the aristocracy. The interviews shed light on how people were more preoccupied about their neighbours and daily life rather than the political climate.
I found Dore’s reading to be particularly interesting as I am currently in a Soviet History class and her approach to oral history has shed new light on the material I am learning in that class as well. She begins the article with her intention to deconstruct the flattening effect that oral accounts have seemed to produce. It appears through the accounts given that Dore achieved her goal of adding complexity to the Cuban narrative, in that many accounts given actually went against the grain of public discourse on communism in Cuba. In particular I found it interesting how the economic crisis provided an avenue for free speech as the people did not have to fear of losing income because the wages earned were so low or negligible. It appears as though it is largely though these kinds of circumstances, that in a way, provided Cubans with the ability for free speech, although this does not explain their willingness to speak. As an ending note I did especially enjoy the manner in which she wrote her article, which I found through the process of naming the individuals and at times recording their expressions provided a humanizing effect often missed in many accounts.
I found Elizabeth Dore’s article fascinating, not just in Cuban history it examined, but also its critique of oral history. I am not particularly familiar with oral history as a discipline and so was particularly interested in the impact it had on the history being told. I found the idea of the present influencing people’s depiction of the past especially interesting, with the quote from Jan Vansina saying that ‘oral tradition is past and present in a single breath’. The intertwined nature of the present and past in the telling of oral history is explored in the example where at the time of the interviews it was a popular way of defying authority to praise egalitarianism and condemn inequality. It was therefore through this lens that many Cubans told their personal histories, with a yearning for the earlier decades of the Revolution and a disappointment in recent increases in inequality. Despite some initial thoughts that this was a corruption of the history, after thinking about it I concluded that it instead gave me a different perspective of Cuba’s history, one that is informed by the current situation. As long as one is aware of the influences acting on people when they tell their version of history, it can greatly enhance our understanding of the past and present.
Elizabeth Dore’s article was really fascinating, hearing uncensored, unfiltered and very diverse commentary on the regime. Of course it is always cool to hear about how people really feel about communist governments; the stories of East Germany, Moscow and Budapest are incredibly moving. But what was so interesting about this article and these interviews is that many Cubans were okay, or even happy with Castro’s government. The reviews of the government were critical, they acknowledged aspects of the regime that were bad, but for some of these people – mainly the older generations, they were pleased with what Castro had done for them. While Dore seems to think that the older Cuban folks may be brainwashed, afraid or caught in hysteria, I think it’s just a typical phenomenon that is seen around the world. The older generation is generally content with the way things are going, and does not want change, and the younger generation is very critical of the status quo and desires change.
The difference here though, and why I think Dore speaks better of the younger Cuban generation, is that in terms of ideology the roles have been reversed in Cuba in contrast to North America. Here, and in the USA, it is the older generations want things to go back to how they used to be – conservative (low taxes, little gov’t involvement, lots of liberty, etc.) and the younger generations want things to move more to the left toward socialism (high taxes, lots of gov’t, regulations). And these norms are flipped in Cuba, with the older generations supporting socialism and the youngsters supporting the free market.
I found Mckercher’s chapter on Canadian-Cuban relations from the Krull reading to be very pertinent considering Canada’s recent shift in parliament. It was interesting to me that the “golden age” of relations between Canada and Cuba took place during the premiership of Pierre Elliot Trudeau, “who expanded bilateral contacts between the two countries and, in 1976, became the first Western leader to travel to Havana” (113). Although the relationship eventually iced-over due to differing perspectives on Human Rights, I think the positive intentions of Pierre Trudeau are something that could be mirrored in current times with Justin as Prime Minister. Justin seems to carry the same wish for inclusive engagement and conversation, so I am curious as to how Cuban-Canadian relations will continue to evolve in the wake of the recent opening of US and Cuban embassies in both countries.
On another note, this chapter revealed the clear diplomatic stance of Canada regarding U.S-Cuban relations. I thought it was notable that Diefenbaker effectively “stood his ground” at the turn of the Revolution, and refused to cave to U.S pressures to support the economic embargo. As Mckercher affirms, Diefenbaker “laid the foundation” of the “special relationship” between the two countries, which “has held for more than fifty years” (110). I respect Ottawa’s firmness in recognizing that “ideological orientations did not provide sufficient grounds for breaking diplomatic or economic relations”, especially under the pressure of U.S. partnership. I think Canada’s overarching diplomatic approach of “constructive engagement” has helped Canada build stable and trustworthy economic and political ties with Cuba. The positive ramifications of this approach are exemplified “when Cuba’s government moved to nationalize foreign owned firms, [and] Canadian economic interests were protected and dealt with in a non confrontational manner” (111).
For this week’s reading, I explore Cuba’s international diplomatic relationship with Canada and China. At first, I think the fundamental difference that leads to these two countries’ different attitudes to Cuba is political system. Cuba shares some similar ideologies and values (p 17) with China. They both are big supporter for socialism. However, Canada, and US are in the coup of capitalism. These two systems brought huge conflicting to the relationship between Cuba and western countries, such as Canada and US. In the flux of globalization, collaboration becomes the key term in Cuba’s international diplomatic relationship. On the one hand, for example, China and Cuba, China import nickel, raw sugar, and oil from Cuba (p.10). Cuba regards China as a strategic ally. In return, Cuba and China boost bilateral economic and trade relations in various ways such as medical academic exchange, tourism. One the other hand, for Canada and US, things are not so easy. US and Canada had divergent in dealing with Cuba. In Canada, Diefenbaker laid the “foundation” of the “normal relationship” between the two countries (p.110). Furthermore, in the premiership of Pierre Elliot Trudeau, he brought Canada and Cuba in to the “golden age” and became the first Western leader to travel to Havana (p.113). From the policy of “constructive engagement”, even though, with fundamental different in ideology, Canada still treated Cuba in a view of dispassion rather than anger (p.111).
In addition, the question brought up by our professor that whether Cuba is using capitalism to save socialism is really interesting to discuss. From my perspective, sometimes, policies in economic and politic can be separate. Or in other words, the capital approach in economic is a way for the sake of achieving the final goal of socialism.
The excerpt Elizabeth Dore quotes of Carlos interview with the two Cuban journalists struck powerful(see top of p.41). In expressing his thoughts on the Communist governments propaganda, Carlos associates with the Revolution some new ideas: hypnosis, collective hysteria, manipulation, psychology, belief versus non-belief, self-interest, honesty, secrets. This caused me to reflect on how the enticing effects a specific socio-context can have on your conditioned beliefs and thought processes, and how that has prevailed in all histories, times, spaces, and places. Furthermore, Carlo’s adds how ‘rhetoric-tuned-on-repeat,’ can have a sublime sort of power to penetrate into your very internalizations. To quote: “They can make you believe that you are happy and, I just don?t know. They repeat things so many times they end up making you believe?” As Dore demonstrates, the beliefs Cubans developed with the fervour and enthusiasm as true, and for the revolutionary, didn’t always meet to coincide with their feelings, and experiences.
I found both articles we read this week very fascinating. The Chapter’s from Oscar Lewis’ project “Neighbors” was certainly more quaint and less politically charged than Elizabeth Dore’s works, but still portrayed urban civilian life in an accurate and detailed manner. I thought it was interesting to see how the apartment building that all of the people interviewed had lived, began as housing for the rich people in the neighborhood like diplomats and government officials but then sort of became a hovel where many people were forced to cram into such a tiny space. Very few of the people who talked to Lewis it seems had much to say negatively about Castro and the Revolution at least explicitly. The first person we read in Lewis notes that the family that she served did not agree with Castro but none of the other interviewees really express any outright opposition to Castro, rather they complain about their neighbors! Elizabeth Dore’s chapter I found to be quite different. Dore notes that among the older generation of people she interviewed, most of them expressed gratitude towards Fidel Castro and the Revolution and explain that they have benefited from such a regime. Dore goes on to explain how on the other hand the younger generation is quicker to express their frustrations with the communist regime they are forced to live in. I think this shows very clearly how much people can fall into a mob mentality when they are exposed to such a powerful force. Whereas if you are not present during the initial uprising then it may be harder to get behind it or perhaps it is just easier to take the blinders off and look at the big picture unadulterated.
In Dore’s reflection it is interesting how many of the older generation felt a paternalistic conection to Fidel and their access to well-being. Even though they were older and grew up in the age of modernity, and may have seen several authorities promoting the “right way” to live, the revolution provided them something that the young people did not see. The young student feels that her parents are being degraded by waiting in lines for the crumbs off the table of elite rulers, even though the revolution’s propaganda promotes an egalitarian society where nobody is left wanting, it creates a unilateral relationship imbued with hierarchy and dependence. The interviews in “Neighbors”, as a source, are both the medium and the message. these people are coping with living within the Revolution but they are the Revolution. So their living is the living of the success or failure of its aims. And living together in a happy family is not always the easiest task. So many complaints! I guess this is what complaining within the confines of the Revolution is all about! The varying degrees of comfort and contexts which give rise to people occupying different social housing situations is fascinating, I could see why that movie where the unburied corpse is so pertinent.
This week’s readings provided a very interesting look into the everyday lives of people under Fidel’s communist regime. Elizabeth Dore sought to demonstrate how the Cuban life was perhaps different, or unique when compared to other socialist countries. Rather than fall in line under the official rhetoric, many Cubans were more than willing to voice their displeasure with the government and the general state of affairs dictated by the Revolution. What I found to be most intriguing was how she demonstrated that both the Revolution’s ‘all’s fine’ narrative, and the Western ‘Communism is oppressive’ narrative were equally wrong. As is the case with most competing beliefs, the truth lies somewhere in the middle. Many Cuban citizens were very happy with the egalitarian status quo that had been developed when they were receiving Soviet financial assistance. Many more were equally unafraid to express all the issues that were missed, or under-served by the regime. Furthermore, Oscar Lewis’ chapter provides a more concrete example of what really occurred during everyday life that reaffirmed Dore’s argument. These families, which had all been given an apartment by the regime, were more upset by each other than by the regime. The vast majority of complaints had to do with issues that you and I would face. Unruly neighbours, alcoholics, and waiting in lines at the government building are all issues that relate to human behaviour and organization, not government types. These readings demonstrate that regardless of what is done at the top, day-to-day relations will have more of an impact, and if needed, we can always blame the government for our shortcomings.
The interviews by Dore’s team of researchers provide diverse opinions among Cubans on the quality of life and the ways that it has changed under the Castro government . Some of these differences were found to be on age based lines, with the older people being more thankful to Castro while the younger people are disgusted by the system. It is very interesting that most people who were alive at the time think that the period of Soviet influence from the 1960’s through the 1980’s were better, happier times for individual Cubans than in the modern mixture of capitalist and socialist influence. The socialist political regime that once promoted equality amongst it’s citizens can no longer provide for every person so individuals have found their own ways to make money, with varying success. Dore explains how this slackened reliance on the state has freed up many people to speak their minds about the failures of the government. This is historically uncommon in a communist state, one of the reasons why attempts to create oral histories have been neither accurate nor successful under these types of regimes. I found Dore’s discussion of the failings of oral histories in communist countries to be a good intro to her experiment in the same field. Her reasoning for why her project was successful in the Cuban context when it had not been before was insightful and based on both internal and external events. She comments multiple times in the article that the openness to speak to her and her colleagues grew even within the 6 year period of their study.
This week I found a parallel between Dore’s article and Moore’s article from a couple of weeks ago. Through this course I think we have learned that the Cuban people are many things and they are such a complex people under such a complex regime that making a blanketing statement can be quite ignorant. However, I will make one nonetheless! Through both articles and really through many of the readings from this course I found that the Cuban people are a very brave and determined people. They know what they like, although they may not all agree on what that is, but they will fight for it within their own respective assemblies. Although the regime technically does not allow for much criticism, Dore’s article clearly depicts that some people are not afraid to voice their honest opinion. Lewis’ writings also support this idea because although the regime was very much present in their minds, the people around them in their immediate environment were the cause of angst for most people interviewed. These readings really showed that although the government is very much active, the Cuban people live their lives somewhat skirting around the big regime and some find more importance in focusing in their personal lives.
I thought Dore’s use of Jan Vanisna’s quote “Oral history is past and present in a single breath” (7) was a nice way of tying this week’s readings together. Lewis looks at the life of people in the Frozen zone in the 1960’s while Dore examines people from all ages and locations in Cuba in 2004-10, where the elderly in her work would have been the age of those examined by Lewis. Lewis work shed some light on what was discussed in class regarding the life of an apartment building from housing diplomats and officials to becoming reassigned as to fit as many people and families as possible, how housing exchanges would happen/come about and how ration books were assigned and used. Non of the people in his work seemed to overtly have anything negative to say about Castro’ regime and rather couldn’t imagine any families or people leaving because of the government. While I liked Lewis “Neighbors” approach at getting at changes happening during the revolution, I enjoyed Dore’s more political and commentary like approach where she noted changes in language, voices and posture of the people she examined as the interviews took their course. Her commentary on the matter showed much more clearly the differences between the generations in Cuba and how the things one generation appreciated (such as guaranteed work for everyone) and referred to as paternalism under Fidel Castro was referred to as brainwashing under mass-psychology by the younger generation. I thought the opportunity that the willingness to speak out against communism in Dore’s work provides to oral history in countries previously under communism was especially noteworthy. As Dore states Cuba might be a different case in oral history and the willingness to open up and talk as Fidel Castro did rule by popular consent and as it appears not through the repressive means of other communist governments such as the USSR, but I think her work opens up a critical door into the examination of people under communism that definitely needs to be explored further as it could provide valuable insight into the thoughts and feelings of generations.
This weeks readings were really interesting especially Dore’s . I found it really fascinating how sheltered I was from looking at how communism has been tied to this image a big evil creature that threatens all of Western thought. But in Dores article we see how communism has its ” pleasures and pains’ with the description of elderly thanking Castro for everything they have , while younger generations are challenging the idea that their parents are so bound by .It is unique to see people voices their opinions freely in Dores article as we see that less and less in today’s societies because of fear of repercussions. It was imperative that Cubans are uniquely open to discussing the problems in the society and whether fear factors have influence other oral history of communist countries . It was interesting seeing how Dore not only studied the narrative of her subject but also their emotions , posture and similar things like that . Lastly Dore’s article made me think critically about how an individual story in history can be twisted or molded by emotion and not be an accurate description of a narrative , so the question I would propose is how would historians moving forward document peoples honest opinions and how can we dissect past narratives to prove whether their not solely made positive out of fear of repercussions
The catharsis of sharing information that has been suppressed is incredibly interesting to see in Dore’s work. For some reason I imagine this catharsis as almost manic. That might be because I myself cannot truly imagine being in that position.Dissidence is so prevalent in contemporary Canadian society that it’s normalized whereas there is obviously a high risk in sharing this information of those Dore interviewed. The difference between elder and youth accounts is also striking. Haydee feeling embarrassed for his parents waiting in line “acting so docile” versus Maria, the sixty-something year old claiming her gratitude for the revolution. Maria’s account is eerie to me: the success of propaganda resonates. But also, much like the divide in Canada between the predominantly conservative elders and the (somewhat) radical youth are echoed here. Younger people seem more willing to speak against the Revolution because there may be less understanding of the risk that their parents and grandparents had received. Barbara’s account embodies both elder, to begin her story, and youth, as she decides to speak out about her woes under the Revolution. I may be attributing mobilization and conversation too much to the recklessness of youth but Dore’s interviews present it as such.
It was not surprising yet still interesting to read the older generations feelings toward Castro. They thanked him for their health care, education, housing, etc. The contrast between the younger and older generations feelings was pretty big. One student who was interviewed found it embarrassing, and humiliating the system the revolution had brought upon their older generation, waiting in lines, for “crumbs”. The differences of opinion in Cuba and the huge change the Cubans went through with their dependancy on the state changes how they voice their opinions as well. There was a time where their survival was dependant on the state. Then what the state gave them was not enough anymore and standard of living continued to decline. Cubans found other ways to survive and maintain their standard of living and this made them less fearful of speaking out loud, because not like the state was offering them anything. I think this was really beneficial for the public, firstly they were independent second after everything Cuba has gone through they need people to voice their opinion, this is what the fought for.
I loved reading the personal accounts found in Lewis’s chapter. It is always a pleasure to read something so raw and honest. After reading Dore’s article however, it got me thinking about just how honest these accounts are. As Dore points out, it is possible for people to fabricate or withhold information out of fear of who might hear it. Depending on what is at stake, an interview can begin to feel more like an interrogation. One thing that stood out for me in Dore’s article was Carlos expressing how he used to think that he loved the revolution, but now feels that he was hypnotized, after hearing the same thing so many times that he started to believe it. It is an interesting thing to hear because I agree that this is possible to some extent. I believe that human beings are by nature collective and do tend to follow the crowd. Perhaps this was a tactic of the revolution, which gained its support. Yet at the same time there is also a point where independent thought emerges. I think it is in these intimate settings of oral interviews which allow individual thought and expression to surface.
I found this weeks readings to be very interesting, especially Elizabeth Dore?s. It was great to hear from such a wide range of people sharing such diverse opinions openly about their experience under the communist government. The varying opinions and experiences are most divided by the different age groups; elderly speaking out with gratitude while the young expressing discontent. Those who were older had benefited from the Soviet influence and shared memories of happiness and unity as a country as well as immense gratitude to Castro. They had such gratitude based on their attribution of accessible education, health care, housing, and general well-being to him and his regime. The young, on the other hand, spoke out for reasons of huge discontent. The changes that resulted from the government?s inability to accommodate all Cubans made individuals feel a sense of disconnect from both the country and one another. Individuals expressed that the state was no longer reliable, therefore they had to take matters into their own hands, sparking black market jobs outside of the state. I saw this first hand when I went to Cuba on a mission trip where we visited a hospital. Somehow it came up how much doctors make, and our guide informed us of the very low wages doctor receive, and that most people aspire to go into tourism, outside of the state. He told us how occupational wages were reversed in the sense that people strived to work in tourism because it is one of the higher paying jobs compared to doctors, teachers, ect. Based on the fact that many individuals felt they were no longer being looked after, therefore not benefitting from the systems in place; they felt from freedom in expressing their feelings of discontent.
As mentioned by Dore, many other communist countries ?oral histories? where often biased in that many would not speak out. This was not the case in Cuba, many spoke out all with different reasons and intention varying from immense gratitude to total discontent.
Dore opens her article by stating that there is a consensus among historians in which communist countries oral history is fatally flawed because people fear talking about their lives. This opening sentence really stood out to me because it led me to question whether or not this view contributes to the larger perspective that historians have in which they believe memoirs and sources that feature memories and personal accounts as less reliable than “official” primary sources that can be regarded as more concrete and reliable. While Dore does not focus on this aspect, it was one that was of interest to me as I read the beginning of the article. Nonetheless, I think that Dore’s argument in which she proposes that by remarking that all oral histories from communist communities are fatally flawed and thus creates a flattening effect on the understanding of life under communism is one that I agree with. By stating that all memories and oral narratives made during Communist are unreliable and “flattened” because fear causes people to change their narrative to reflect what the government wants undermines the fact that some narratives on life during Communism is not made under fear with double speak (the narrator would say what they did not think and think what they did not say). Although it could be argued that the Cubans interviewed in Dore’s piece only answered and narrated their stories with openness and did not hold back because they were promised anonymity, I think the fact that Cuban society did not rule with a heavy hand in comparison to other Communist countries made people less critical of life under Communism. It is clear from the narratives, that from the 1960s to the 1980s, people were quite satisfied with how things were; the narratives only start to become more critical when it speaks about the emergence of inequality among people. In the older generation of Cubans, although it was not ideal, they were satisfied with how the state provided everyone with jobs, food, housing, education and health care and even when the population was suffering, there was the sense of comfort in which Cubans knew they were suffering along. Following the 1990s, when the state could not longer provide for everyone as a result of economic crisis, class disparity starts to become a bigger problem and the Cuban’s resentment towards inequality is evident in their narratives and interviews.
I really enjoyed the Lewis reading, as it gave a really interesting perspective on how communal living in Cuba was like. It definitely shattered my preconceived notions of what it was like. One part that particularly stood out to me was when Fontanes recalls the doctora crying “You deceived me, Fidel. You said You’d never make Cuba communist!”. This brought me back to our class discussion the other day about the 10 million ton harvest, and how this performance of citizenship was practice by only about 3000 people – on behalf of the whole population. Though Fontanes’ account comes before this, it made me question what was the “breaking point” for people who eventually left Cuba.
Lewis/Fontanes’ accounts also give faces and stories to your average “Communist Cuban”, and we realize that they really are just normal people trying to live as normal lives as possible under Communism.
Reading about these experiences makes me wonder about my grandmother and great-grandparents’ experiences in communist Cuba. I’m curious to know if they owned one of these large houses, or if they ever lived in communal housing. This reading has inspired me to go figure all this out!
The Cuban life stories Elizabeth Dore collects between 2004-2010 are classified as oral history, but I felt that her article went beyond an analysis of various anonymous recordings. Oral histories are by nature very personal and this is certainly communicated in Dore’s text. The catharsis felt by the interviewed subjects, the subtleties of language, the diverse backgrounds people came from, and the complex, nuanced picture Dore paints of life in Cuba as a result of these elements is striking in and of itself. Even more than that though, I was struck by Elizabeth Dore’s evident personal investment in the project. Reading her article, it was clear to me that she was deeply immersed in Cuban Voices. Usually I would expect a historian to attempt to build a distance between herself and her material, but Dore does not. In fact, she opens her article by recounting her own experience trying to get the project approved in Cuba. Thus the first story she tells is in some ways her own. Furthermore, the history she presents is not merely oral, it is also visual as she includes several images of Cubans as they go about their daily lives. These are not the same Cubans she interviews, because she preserves their anonymity, which leads to the reading questioning why they are added to the article in the first place. Dore’s investment in this project is, on a micro-level, personal, and, on a macro-level, dedicated to representing the multitude of stories Cubans have to tell in multiple ways. I really appreciated the way she wrote about and showed pictures of the many Cuban Voices as an unapologetically personal history.
In Dore’s work, the contrast between two generations living under the same regime generates the plausibility to believe that “Todo tiempo pasado fue mejor” (the past was a better time). The people who lived within the two decades, after the revolution took power, seem to be fond of the experience because not only they received basic needs but because they experienced certain level of social justice and egalitarian government. However, the new generation voices its discontent as the gap between the poor and the rich widens in a country, which policies claim to promote impartial wealth. It seems that Castro, truly knew how to manipulate the “revolutionary discourse” not only thru media but also thru psychology. It is well known that most habits are better acquired through repetition, just like learning a new language. Castro’s language to learn was “we suffer for the motherland together.”
Lewis’s reading displays a pragmatic account of how some people lived in the city during the first years of Fidel’s regime. The urbanization process starts as people from the countryside move into the city and some do not know how to adapt. To quote “You better remember that this is the city, not the country.” (12) The process of subletting casonas (mansions) becomes a trend in most big cities in Latin America as the former owner(s) fled due to political crisis that could place in danger the status of the aristocracy. The interviews shed light on how people were more preoccupied about their neighbours and daily life rather than the political climate.
I found Dore’s reading to be particularly interesting as I am currently in a Soviet History class and her approach to oral history has shed new light on the material I am learning in that class as well. She begins the article with her intention to deconstruct the flattening effect that oral accounts have seemed to produce. It appears through the accounts given that Dore achieved her goal of adding complexity to the Cuban narrative, in that many accounts given actually went against the grain of public discourse on communism in Cuba. In particular I found it interesting how the economic crisis provided an avenue for free speech as the people did not have to fear of losing income because the wages earned were so low or negligible. It appears as though it is largely though these kinds of circumstances, that in a way, provided Cubans with the ability for free speech, although this does not explain their willingness to speak. As an ending note I did especially enjoy the manner in which she wrote her article, which I found through the process of naming the individuals and at times recording their expressions provided a humanizing effect often missed in many accounts.
I found Elizabeth Dore’s article fascinating, not just in Cuban history it examined, but also its critique of oral history. I am not particularly familiar with oral history as a discipline and so was particularly interested in the impact it had on the history being told. I found the idea of the present influencing people’s depiction of the past especially interesting, with the quote from Jan Vansina saying that ‘oral tradition is past and present in a single breath’. The intertwined nature of the present and past in the telling of oral history is explored in the example where at the time of the interviews it was a popular way of defying authority to praise egalitarianism and condemn inequality. It was therefore through this lens that many Cubans told their personal histories, with a yearning for the earlier decades of the Revolution and a disappointment in recent increases in inequality. Despite some initial thoughts that this was a corruption of the history, after thinking about it I concluded that it instead gave me a different perspective of Cuba’s history, one that is informed by the current situation. As long as one is aware of the influences acting on people when they tell their version of history, it can greatly enhance our understanding of the past and present.
Elizabeth Dore’s article was really fascinating, hearing uncensored, unfiltered and very diverse commentary on the regime. Of course it is always cool to hear about how people really feel about communist governments; the stories of East Germany, Moscow and Budapest are incredibly moving. But what was so interesting about this article and these interviews is that many Cubans were okay, or even happy with Castro’s government. The reviews of the government were critical, they acknowledged aspects of the regime that were bad, but for some of these people – mainly the older generations, they were pleased with what Castro had done for them. While Dore seems to think that the older Cuban folks may be brainwashed, afraid or caught in hysteria, I think it’s just a typical phenomenon that is seen around the world. The older generation is generally content with the way things are going, and does not want change, and the younger generation is very critical of the status quo and desires change.
The difference here though, and why I think Dore speaks better of the younger Cuban generation, is that in terms of ideology the roles have been reversed in Cuba in contrast to North America. Here, and in the USA, it is the older generations want things to go back to how they used to be – conservative (low taxes, little gov’t involvement, lots of liberty, etc.) and the younger generations want things to move more to the left toward socialism (high taxes, lots of gov’t, regulations). And these norms are flipped in Cuba, with the older generations supporting socialism and the youngsters supporting the free market.
I found Mckercher’s chapter on Canadian-Cuban relations from the Krull reading to be very pertinent considering Canada’s recent shift in parliament. It was interesting to me that the “golden age” of relations between Canada and Cuba took place during the premiership of Pierre Elliot Trudeau, “who expanded bilateral contacts between the two countries and, in 1976, became the first Western leader to travel to Havana” (113). Although the relationship eventually iced-over due to differing perspectives on Human Rights, I think the positive intentions of Pierre Trudeau are something that could be mirrored in current times with Justin as Prime Minister. Justin seems to carry the same wish for inclusive engagement and conversation, so I am curious as to how Cuban-Canadian relations will continue to evolve in the wake of the recent opening of US and Cuban embassies in both countries.
On another note, this chapter revealed the clear diplomatic stance of Canada regarding U.S-Cuban relations. I thought it was notable that Diefenbaker effectively “stood his ground” at the turn of the Revolution, and refused to cave to U.S pressures to support the economic embargo. As Mckercher affirms, Diefenbaker “laid the foundation” of the “special relationship” between the two countries, which “has held for more than fifty years” (110). I respect Ottawa’s firmness in recognizing that “ideological orientations did not provide sufficient grounds for breaking diplomatic or economic relations”, especially under the pressure of U.S. partnership. I think Canada’s overarching diplomatic approach of “constructive engagement” has helped Canada build stable and trustworthy economic and political ties with Cuba. The positive ramifications of this approach are exemplified “when Cuba’s government moved to nationalize foreign owned firms, [and] Canadian economic interests were protected and dealt with in a non confrontational manner” (111).
For this week’s reading, I explore Cuba’s international diplomatic relationship with Canada and China. At first, I think the fundamental difference that leads to these two countries’ different attitudes to Cuba is political system. Cuba shares some similar ideologies and values (p 17) with China. They both are big supporter for socialism. However, Canada, and US are in the coup of capitalism. These two systems brought huge conflicting to the relationship between Cuba and western countries, such as Canada and US. In the flux of globalization, collaboration becomes the key term in Cuba’s international diplomatic relationship. On the one hand, for example, China and Cuba, China import nickel, raw sugar, and oil from Cuba (p.10). Cuba regards China as a strategic ally. In return, Cuba and China boost bilateral economic and trade relations in various ways such as medical academic exchange, tourism. One the other hand, for Canada and US, things are not so easy. US and Canada had divergent in dealing with Cuba. In Canada, Diefenbaker laid the “foundation” of the “normal relationship” between the two countries (p.110). Furthermore, in the premiership of Pierre Elliot Trudeau, he brought Canada and Cuba in to the “golden age” and became the first Western leader to travel to Havana (p.113). From the policy of “constructive engagement”, even though, with fundamental different in ideology, Canada still treated Cuba in a view of dispassion rather than anger (p.111).
In addition, the question brought up by our professor that whether Cuba is using capitalism to save socialism is really interesting to discuss. From my perspective, sometimes, policies in economic and politic can be separate. Or in other words, the capital approach in economic is a way for the sake of achieving the final goal of socialism.