After reading the Article “ Batista is Dead” by Alejandra Bronfman I had various thoughts on her argument and how it can relate to current Canadian events.
In the article Bronfman makes the statement that in 1940s-50s Cuba the radio or media generally was seen as “an actor, rather than an observer of events”, as it had a heavy influence on the public and its political mobilization. Focusing on such cases as the take over of Radio Reloj, spread of rumours , and the suicide of Eddy Chibás, the case is made clear that power over the radio in early Cuba was considered parallel to actual ( politically and potentially violent)power. While obviously a mild case compared to the violent political uprisings in 1945-60s Cuba, the notion of the media influencing the political events of a country reminded me of the reports and polling during the 2015 Canadian election. Being the longest campaign period in Canadian history, at various times the polls suggested three different winners. In the days prior to the election, a Liberal minority was suspected. It’s my belief that the polls released may have spurred a strategic vote, therefore making Conservative voters and NDP Voters compromise and select the center-ish liberal party. Again, this is a mild case in comparison to Cuba 1950s Cuba. Overall I really enjoyed Bronfman’s article and its focus on the peculiar role of media in the intersection of political mobilization and political power.
In our professor’s article, I like the idea of the media as an actor, a generator of political events instead of simply being used as a tool to reflect on or relate events. Social movements and the state understand media as something that can broaden a movement or ensure people of its accessibility and stability, or promote the cause (which is the cause in itself, to broaden its’ reach and acceptance). I have often called Vancouver a city of reactions without preliminary happenings, and it is interesting to rework history as a series of consequences instead of looking for causal relationships with what we know will eventually happen. The aspect of this revolutionary radio that is most interesting is the participatory part, where people can write in, effectively creating news, and receive information. This reminds me of something that Garcia Marquez related in his biography about a series of public rumors that would be posted outside weekly which would circulate local news.
Just as history becomes politicized to fit within a certain desirable narrative, so too does entertainment and music become charged with revolutionary attitudes in 1960s Cuba. It is odd to me however how a popular government does not accept open armed the popular music which unites people, but then considers dance music “low class” or something of “black people,” effectively dividing their constituency and not embracing their party’s core values.The serious and harmonic music of Silvio Rodriguez is awesome, but I never knew it triumphed over dance music at the time. We have seen how Cuba was exotisized by outside influences, is this socialist stopping of dancing to reduce this care-free North American retreat rhythmic image?
There is a really interesting movie with awesome music about the situation of musicians in Cuba in the 90’s called Havana Blues, where artists are asked to write songs condemning Castro and Socialism but will have to choose to make it big with a US recording studio but they will have to leave their home. To leave they would have to face the intimidating insults by officials that they were “worms” or “scum,” as the article states. A movie worth checking out.
The manipulation of communication technology is very clear in Bronfman’s “Batista is Dead”. This manipulation is immortal, for the written record of the speech given by Echeverria has been kept as authentic although the reality of the speech was much different. I found it very interesting that both parties, the rebels and Batista used the media in a method beneficial to them. Additionally, I was also surprised that the radio was used without a lot of precautions. The rebels announced Batista’s death before they could verify their actual success. Knowing that their message would be heard by a large amount of Cubans, I would think they would have been more patient and restrain from the urgency of their announcement. Lastly, I would also like to discuss the manipulation of the exhibition at the Museo Dela Revolución in Havana. I assume that almost all of the exhibit has been approved of by either Castro or a member of his crew. The Fast Delivery Truck used by the students is depicted as a symbol of the courage and perseverance of the students that attacked the Palace. The plaque that marks the point of assassination of Echeverria shows that those who created the exhibit have put an effort to erase the animosity between Castro and Echeverria. All of these instances perpetuate the different uses of the Cuban media throughout time.
The 8 page reading by Sweig had me recognizing how malleable social ideologies will conform itself to context, and how philosophies which can be compromised in a single term such as ‘Communism’ and ‘Democracy’ can only be so loosely defined. This might be demonstrated by the differentiation in Moscow’s Communism, in comparison to Castro’s communism, as noted by Sweig. Yet, as remains so common in the present day, they are terms taken as a given by audiences susceptible to putting their faith in political expressions of propaganda, that make use of the terms to further the validity of their rule. Batista did it with the term democracy, and Fidel did it with Communism. However, both of them defied the democratic and communist ideal when conflicting self-interest threatened the stability of both their capacity to maintain themselves as the power-stronghold, and their validity. The following quotes presented by Julia Swieg, touch base:
“Fidel really remained a hybrid thinker, willing to draw from his entire history and experience to interpret events, his response to them, and his efforts to shape them” (43).
“Indeed Castro’s philosophical musings about moral incentives for productivity, and vague hopes to eliminate the use of currency did little to solve the practical economic problems of the day.” (46)
“As armed resistance picked up in some parts of the country, and as the United States intensified its harassment of the Castro regime, these defensive conservative impulses were reinforced, making national security and survival the priority.” (46)
That last chord on “national security” and “survival [being] the priority” so crucially compares with the argument our professor Bronfman makes in her article, on “flows of information” and “popular mobilization” as shaping political outcomes, and, in turn, adding, or detracting from the survival of those figures in strife to both maintain and increase their power.
What really resonated with me in this week’s readings was the importance of media throughout Cuban history and the discrepancies highlighted in Bronfman’s article between the audiences and those in power in their use and expectations of the radio.
As we have seen from our previous readings and lectures, one of the reasons for the U.S. involvement in Cuba in 1898 was the media and their depiction of Cuba as a damsel in distress in need of saving by Uncle Sam from the villain Spain. This depiction was encouraged by Cuban media in its desire for independence from Spain. With the increased distribution of telephone cables and the radio the influences of media on the Cuban population rose in the 20th century. Under Batista the media was instrumental in the control of the population with restriction on freedom on speech and censorship imposed on its outlets. The rebels in Cuba also made use of the media in advancing their cause, not only in spreading rumors of the assassination of Batista in order to incite rebellion, but also in their attempt to use media from outside Cuba. The fact that media from outside Cuba could penetrate into the heavily censored Cuba as it did with Castro’s reemergence from the dead and incite rebellion to such a large extent is really interesting to me. Especially against the background of heavy censorship of the media that is outlined in the three articles. The publics believe that “the radio would offer solutions to local disputes, predictions of their future, and access to spiritual healing powers” in contrast to “those in power and those at the margins imagined radio not just as a source of entertainment and information, but also as a medium through which to engage in and disrupt political practices” makes it evident how the control of the media steers the narrative of a political system. Furthermore, the radio in this day and age is not used by politicians to the extent that it was in the 20th century, while it is public knowledge that some stations are associated with a certain point of political view they aren’t controlled by government and it makes you truly cherish the freedom of speech that media brings today.
I agree with Jade’s comments about how the control and manipulation of media and communications in 1950’s Cuba is relatable to what took place during the recent Canadian election campaign. Bronfman makes it clear that exercising control of communications was a key political tool for both Batista and the rebels. Creating a narrative, whether it is true or not, and broadcasting it to a large mass of people is an incredibly effective way of exercising political power.
In the case of the Canadian election, only a few days before polling day, it was released that the two major Canadian newspapers, The National Post and the Globe and Mail, were undeniably endorsing Harper through a top-down ownership mandate. That is, editors, reporters, and readers were not free to vocalize their opposition, at least not publicly. Given that the greater majority of Canadians read these two newspapers as a viable source of information, the degree of political influence that this kind of top-down control and censorship entails is undeniable.
Bringing this back to Cuba, I think Bronfman makes an important point in highlighting the key role of technology and communications in the day-to-day construction of the revolution. As she suggests, the generalized narrative that the Revolution was the inevitable outburst of increasing political and subversive tensions, it fails to acknowledge the particularities of how emergent communication systems enabled both sides of the conflict to exercise power in new ways.
On a macro perspective, this reading made me think about the power of narrative in general, and the capacity that stories have to move people, resources, emotions, and nations. Its astounding to realize that most of our political and social systems are founded on narratives, or ideologies of some sort. Due to the massive influence of media in contemporary society, few people stop to think about what might actually be true. How do we know what is true? Where does truth come from? From whose perspective? Which perspective is true? These are the kinds of questions make me realize the extent of the influence that communications technologies have had on politics and society since their invention in the 19th century. Cuba’s Revolution is just one instance of many that demonstrates how media communications came to be used as a powerful political weapon and strategy.
Something that stood out to me in the readings this week was the growing censorship in Cuba both before and after the 1959 revolution. As Bronfman highlights Batista implemented strict censorship of television and radio stations after the student’s fake assassination announcement. This signifies that with improved technology also came a barrier to its freedom of expression. The revolutionary groups were met with government regulation that made the dissemination of their cause via technological communication more difficult. Moore also emphasizes censorship used after the 1959 revolution, in the art and entertainment realm. Increasingly the owners of television and radio networks pushed artists to “express their sympathies with socialist issues through their lyrics or verbal segments” (pg. 155). Artists in Cuba now had to conform to communist aims or lose their mass audience or even suffer exile. The new government under Castro understood the power of telecommunications and how it was an effective tool for power.
The growth of technology in Cuba brought new freedoms and limitations. On the one hand, Cubans were able to connect with politics, current events and one another better than ever before. But on the other hand, tools of mass media provided the government the platform to influence and control a significant amount of the population.
I agree with Sasha’s comment on the power of the narrative and I wonder how Cuban people felt about the developments and governance of media throughout the 1950s and 60s. Did the broad population question the validity of their sources? Or instead take the media’s portrayal as truth?
After reading the assigned pages on Sweig’s book, the first thing that came to my mind was a question asked in Tuesday’s class, “what were the revolutionists fighting for?”. I thought the answer might be in some of the questions Sweig answers through pages 39 to 47, but to be honest, that question still lingers unresolved for me. Yes, Batista became a bad leader and an effective response from the opposition groups (which were many) was long overdue. But the portrait of Castro painted throughout the answers that Sweig gives, that of a charismatic, political, and calculative man, lacks an ideology within or beyond the persona he presented to the world. A leader who had everything planned to get the power over the island, but beyond that point, didn’t have a structure for the future. Yes, he read some Marx here and there but still thought of the Communist Party as an inconvenience, declaring himself a communist only when it was the only apparent next step in his war of words and money with the US. He seemed more clear on what he wanted for himself and how the people saw him though, by not openly taking the top political post in Cuba but sort of managing everything from “backstage”, picking candidates and placing them strategically. I believe that this slow process of not being the main man in the government (at least in paper), gave out the idea to the people that this, his revolution, was not focused on his rise to power but more so, a complete shift on Cuba’s reality where EVERYONE was involved; that being so because Fidel seemed to represent those who were not in power before.
On the other hand, our professor’s article about the importance of the radio during the 1950s gives a parallel story to the reality nowadays and the public perception of the truth. With social media, people seem to be always connected, sharing and elevating what could have been simple local news to worldwide, “viral” publications and videos. It seems to me that the meaning of “the media” and what people relate it to has shifted dramatically, since no longer the radio, the t.v., or a news anchor are the only sources of official, trustable information on what it is really happening out in the streets; people are informing everyone, all they need is a cellphone. All the rumors and misinformations of the 1950s such as who was alive and who wasn’t seem impossible these days, but they nonetheless denote the crucial role of the radio inside the rapidly changing island and the main concerns of those listening closely to it in search for some answers.
The Bronfman and Moore articles from this week go hand in hand. They both highlight the importance of communication (radio, music) and how it can be used as a political tool. It’s a tool that both sides can access and utilize equally. Batista (and later Fidel as well) used this new technology as a platform to spread government ideals and also of course to control the population by applying censorship. In a way, the rebels did the same. They used the radio as a platform to reach out and rally up support, but of course in a less obvious way, and they too used it to influence people’s thoughts. Just like these two parties I think the musician’s from Moore’s article did the exact same thing. The radios allowed a larger amount of people to hear their music and receive their message. Of course censorship kicked in and the musicians were limited but this doesn’t change the fact that they were able to contribute to Cuban culture and society.
I believe the invention of the radio had a large impact on Cuban culture, society, and politics. It allowed for messages to be sent and received on such a scale where practically everyone was on the same page. It allowed for control yet it also allowed for freedom. The role the radio (and other forms of media) plays, like Prof. Bronfman mentioned in her article, is not only the role of a platform but is also seen as an “actor”. The radio is so influential that it had a strong relationship with violence. In the Bronfman article a connection is made between technology and violence, where “control over technology was related to control over violence.” I think the connection between the two is important because we can see from the scenarios described to us in this article both sides use the technology to control the violence and swing it in their favour.
It is very clear from the Bronfman article that both Batista and the revolutionaries understood the importance of controlling sources of information. These information sources were obviously less ubiquitous than in modern North American or even modern Cuban society. It was so important to control the relatively limited media precisely because the amount of media sources were limited. If a group, either the revolutionaries or the government, could gain access to a media source, such as a radio program, it was likely that they would be able to broadcast their message to a significant number of people. Unlike modern times where there are so many different media outlets as well as social media that people can get their news from, there would have been only a few places to gain access to news programming in 1950’s Cuba. If the Directorio Revolucionario at Radio Reloj had been able to effectively broadcast their message without being cut off they would have had a much better chance of mobilizing public support and causing the mayhem they needed for their plan to be successful. It is obvious to say that they would have had a greater chance of success but this shows the effect that control over one of the limited number of media sources could have. Those who did have a radio in their homes or gathered in public places to listen to the radio would not have had many choices of radio stations to choose from and having control over one meant that a large number of this active population would hear the broadcast. Similarly, this worked in the same way for any government forces, in this case Batista, who intended to silence public access to information. Due to the limited number of broadcast outlets it would have been easier to target and shut down these stations.
I really enjoyed the “Batista is Dead” article. One question that I had while reading was, do the advances in technology hinder or advance rebellion/revolution? As I read the article I tried to come up with an answer. I think the answer is obvious – it is both yes and no. The article was great in highlighting how important radios were in education but also controlling the public sphere. It was almost a double edged sword in that sense. It had the power to bring people together both physically and ideologically, but also had the power to cause fear and force people to stay at home where it was safe. The radio could also connect people of all classes together as it seemed to be something easily accessible (it seemed like they were in radios, restaurants, public places, etc.). Thus, we could see why exactly Batista would want such a tight grip on something like this.
I also found it really interesting how the “final plan” of the Batista is Dead broadcast was created. From the proposed airing of his cadaver on television to something that despite much planning, didn’t even get on the air really. I particularly found it interesting how they planned to announce, then play advertisements as usual, and intermittently release more snippets, with the intent to allow crowds to gather somewhere to listen in. To me, it seemed like the DR had figured everything out except for one small detail that ultimately led to the failure of their plan – the small fact that the radio would stop transmitting if there was a loud noise.
Some of the main themes in the professor’s article, “Batista Is Dead”, highlight the contradictions within an age of increasing communications technology. First of all, the irony that lied beneath the plan of attack (that the announcement of Batista’s death would prompt an instant response that contrasted with the inability to maintain it’s progress) shows how technology adds a whole new dimension, and almost takes a life of its own, in the political world. The polarizing effects of the media and the capabilities to influence viewers around was used on both ends – by the revolutionaries and the government, “The failed coup was not a cause of the eventual overthrow of Batista but rather a consequence of years of engagement of communications technology by political actors.”
As media becomes a means for political control, the same patterns emerge today. Adding on to the above comments – not only does it raise questions regarding legitimacy, but how are stories framed? And how may it distort a viewer’s perception of other people, places, and culture? Political mobilization and contemporary means of communication enable a sort of façade regarding transparency and connection; people are given a sense of global awareness and understanding, but it at the same time has undermined itself in newer ways.
I found there to be a fascinating contrast between the usage of radio in “Batista is Dead” by Prof. Bronfman, and the 1959 Revolution. Though it seems a little too good to be true, the downfall of Echeverria’s revolution was due to the failure of a radio, and less than a decade later, a major driving force behind the recruitment and advertising process of the 1959 Revolution was the use of the radio from the Sierra Maestra mountains. So to put it simply, the radio stopped one revolution and propelled another. Not necessarily related to the specific history of Cuba, but it’s interesting to see the effects of modern technology on major events around the world. For instance, also mentioned in “Batista is Dead” is the implementation of the telephone and telegraph helped make business more efficient. While many years later in 1987, the implementation of computers in stock trading caused the stock market crash infamously named ‘Black Monday’.
Despite technology’s failures, it is still amazing to see what it has done for communications, and the ability to organize. For all revolutions, the 1959 Cuban Revolution, the 2011 Egyptian Revolution and even the French Revolution, the main factor that had made victory possible was the presence and utilization of technology to communicate. For the Cuban Revolution it was the radio, for the Egyptian Revolution it was Facebook and for the French Revolution it was the newspaper/magazine. I think it is clear to see then that if Cuba really wants to enter the modern world and see real change, it needs to fully accept and use the incredible technology we have available today.
Of all the readings this week, the one I found most interesting was “Batista is Dead.” The article argues that the acquisition of communication technologies transformed political practices and this is one point that I really agree with. In the context of Cuba, it was evident that the two different sides used similar tactics to sway and use the public as a political force. The radio show and written document of Echeverria’s speech (although very different in tone and “medium in the message”) was used by Echeverria as a tool to rally up public forces to fight against Batista. Thus, the role of media and communication networks in this period in the political context of Cuba is of great importance. The emergence of media has allowed the public to become mobilized and have an impact on the conflict or event. Prior to the use of media, it would seem as if political events and conflicts were simply controlled by the players involved, but with media, the public is no longer isolated. The public’s actions are crucial to the outcome and political leaders such as Echeverria and Batista manipulate the media in hopes to use it for their own advantage.
Another point that the article makes is the importance of power and control over communication networks. In 1957, we witness Echeverria’s attempt to use media as a tool of politics to bring Batista down. Ultimately, Echeverria’s broadcast did not go through and Batista was able to quell rumors and declarations of his death. When reading this part of the article, I couldn’t help but think that even if Echeverria’s broadcast did go through to the public, would the results of the event be any different? Batista had firm control over communication networks and Echeverria’s broadcast and plans were not unknown to Batista and this is evident in his bodyguards and troops he had prepared. Batista was able to foil the rebel’s plans because his communication networks were superior to those of Echeverria’s; his firm grip over these technologies allowed him to retain control of the political situation.
Our professor’s use of the ‘collapse of space’ in her Batista article made me think of a theory we use in the geography department called the ‘annihilation of space’. This theory speaks to the increasing interconnectedness of the world through technological advances, and ties in to things like industrialization and globalization. It is used more so in the context of the pursuit of capital, and as such has a darker underbelly of aggressive resource extraction and foreign occupation. Even the word itself, ‘annihilate’, is violent.
I found this theory to be a contemporary, larger scale representation of the role of the ‘collapse of space’ in Cuba. It occurred at a more localized level, where closing space through radio became a political means of control. There’s an irony to the fact that radio, designed to reach beyond the confines of space, ends up being a tool to restrict movement and choice. Student action and insurgent use of broadcasting in Cuba can be seen as a smaller scale, but no less important parallel to movements against the changes wrought by space annihilation, still happening today. The implication of radio manipulation as anti-government action is much larger than the events that occur in Cuba – they represent a movement to reclaim sound, and to reassert control over the ways that space can be collapsed.
Importance of radio and media in Cuba during the mid-twentieth century was clearly enormous, and it seems Batista really understood this. He utilized the power of the radio during both his rise to power, and during his regime. The struggle Batista faced against the Directorio Revolucionario seemed to me to be a form of psychological warfare but in a revolutionary, internal sense. Psychological warfare became prominent in the Americas in the years after World War II, and the US used it to great affect particularly in Guatemala and Chile, to displace leftist leaders Arbenz and Allende respectively. So clearly radio and other sources of propaganda were weapons of sorts, capable of psychologically damaging opponents, or motivating others to become opponents. The revolutionaries in Cuba knew this, and played cleverly to defy Batista’s censorship, by using events such as baseball games to put themselves in the public eye. It is surprising how little historical coverage the media receives in Cuba considering its importance. The radio in particular, using the evidence in the article, can be seen as the initiator of political events, not just a commentator.
The article “Batista is Dead” by our professor made me realized how the media and radio broadcasting in Cuba could be so effective in terms of being a political actor as well as a medium to the crowd. In particular during the student movement to overthrow Batista, we could see how Echeverria tried to communicate using radio technology to broadcast his speech across the nation. This also made me realized how powerful the radio-broadcasting tool was in Cuba, especially during the revolution period where Batista and his government would take full control of it knowing how much potential power technology could be at that time.
Another instance that I found interesting is how Cubans during that time already knew the power of the radio and know if they got hold of the technology, they could help influence others through being able to pass on the message they want to address. The example of Eddy Chibás in “Batista is Dead” shows how he would go on to shoot himself while broadcasting on radio to create a larger awareness and attention, but only to fail due to people not hearing it and being cut to ads.
The innovation of technology and the use of radios in Cuba have further helped modernize the country through the ability to organize and further spread an issue faster such as during the revolution period. This also reminds me of how advanced the Cuban society is and even till modern day Cuba we could see similar traits of radio-broadcasting and technology sharing through the video of ‘El-Paquete’ we watched in class of how Cubans continue to share and use technology as a way of communicating to each other.
The censoring of Cuban dance music had many layers. Music was still taught in schools but only the classics. There was racial contention attributed to dance music – the elitist upper-class equated it to their perceived vulgarity of the Afrocubans and the lower-class. There is also a Marxist fundamental element that underpins the censorship of dance music that dictates the strict restriction of the arts because it is viewed as a gateway to laziness and promotes an excessive propensity for luxury. However, from a socialist perspective, rewarding workers for their service boosts morale. As Moore recounts, the government would congratulate factory workers for their high productivity with parties that included food, drinks, and dance music. As Moore states, the government did realize that “severe policies that threatened this facet of the music industry had the potential to anger the public and foster a negative image of the revolution” (155). Artists were then pressured to create music that portrayed socialist ideals in a positive fashion. It reminded me of Batista’s early days as a political figure and his attempt to win the people’s favour by adopting a populist platform. Both government’s under Batista and Castro employ the media to assert a certain degree of control which shows how powerful of an agent it truly is.
“Batista Is Dead”, was an interesting article read and was crucial in helping me change my opinion of the importance of communication technology and the spreading of information.It was interesting reading how media played more as an “actor’ than a observer of events . It made me think of today’s media and how events are portrayed and are influenced. As shown in the article the radio becomes a critical tool in controlling the masses regardless of education or through the use of fear . Which made me think of how today’s media sources are certainly becoming more fear based rather than factual . Cuba’s Revolution is just one case that media communications have come to be a tool in creating not only political reform but social reform . An example of this I can remember distinctly was KONY 2012 , how a small issue on the world political stage became a for front issue of many individuals , but as quickly we saw KONY come to our Facebook feeds we watched it disappear. In conclusion overall I really enjoyed Bronfman’s article and it gave me insight into the critical importance of propaganda and how it was evident that the two different sides used the public control of media as a structured force that applied correctly can be instrumental in change .
I enjoyed reading the importance of radio in Cuba and the huge impact it had on social and political life. On the one hand radio was used by producers for entertainment purposes as well as informative, while in some cases it was used for political propaganda or to disturb the political status quo. The most important thing about the radio in Cuba was that it became part of the daily routine of people and as a result became a tool for those who wanted to enact change in their society. Since the radio changed the dynamic of space and time it produced new possibilities for certain people to take matters into their own hands. Moreover, Batista saw the potential of radio and knew that it was important to maintain his rule. It was interesting to see how the radio attracted such diverse purposes, including the state, politicians and opposition as well as the general public. This was the case with the underground student group that planned to overthrow Batista by killing him while simultaneously broadcasting the announcement of his death on radio. This is a clear example of new technologies and media becoming an actor for political action. While reading this article I kept thinking about the impact of social media on politics. On the one hand information spreads more quickly and reaches diverse parts of the planet thanks to twitter, Facebook, and instagram. Social media has also proven to be an integral factor for revolution in some cases. However, because of social media I feel that people become less proactive and believe that through a “like” or a “share” one is doing their part for change. Moreover, similar to the way Batista acknowledged the importance of radio to his rule, it made me wonder how politicians today are using social media in order to appeal to the public.
“Media as an actor, rather than an observer of events” (40), this quote really stuck for me. It might be naive but today when I watch the news I 100% think that the information they provide me is accurate, or they have absolute proof of that information, even if it turns out incorrect, I trust them not to lie. The fact that the media in Cuba was not exactly a reliable source makes me feel like if I was Cuban citizen at that time I would be in panic, because if not through, radio, tv, books or newspaper and now social media how would I know if information is true? In the article Dr.Brofman states, Batista retained a firm control over technology therefore, he retained control of the whole situation. The fact that the media could be the start of rebellions seems accurate, the information supplied over the radio, or television could cause this shows that Batista was wise not to underestimate the importance of media and payed close attention to it by imposing censorship. It is reasonable to think that if the students plan to air the gunshot did go through as they would have thought, they would have received a positive response from the public.
In Moore’s article shows that politicians even tried to control music. “With media in the hands of officials,one eitherconformedto Party guidelines or lost access to airtime” (156), music and musicians are supposed to express themselves but the politicians sought to control them as well. They would either conform to what they wanted or risk their music being banned. I could not possible imagine that happening today, musicians today have so much power to promote whatever they like, and even if they get paid to do it, it is their choice. The don’t have to conform the way artists had to in Cuba. Another thing that surprised me was that U.S profited so much by banning works of Cuban artists, but appropriating that music for their own commercial gain. With music becoming so popular and the media, people in power seemed to do all they could do use it for their benefit.
In this week’s reading “Batista is Dead” the importance of technology, particularly the radio, in influencing the political world of 1950s Cuba comes to the forefront. I was struck by the same thing that Vivian and Zack were while reading – the relationship between technology and revolution. In the post Arab spring world we tend to credit technology (in that case, camera phones, computers and social media) with enabling revolution because of how it enables communication and organization. To us it is a “no brainer” that something like a radio could incite a revolution – social media regularly incites all kinds of popular movements in our lives from KONY 2012 to the #Iamastudent protests at UBC last year as others have observed above.
But I don’t think this comparison should be taken too far – radio is a fairly one way means of communication unlike social media. This makes radio much easier to control. Batista was able to take back control of the radio just by making phone calls to make sure that his supporters would correct the situation. He had already innovated the use of radio as a political tool, as recapped in the article, and the students were attempting to use his tool to overthrow him, something that in the end made their plan more vulnerable.
I’m not sure that we can make truly compelling comparisons to social media driven revolutions for that very reason. This was an attempt to co-opt a political tool of an oppressive regime and turn it against them.
Two themes I noticed in this weeks readings were national unity, and the use of radio in political organization and mobilization. National unity is evident in the anti-imperialist resistance towards the United States, such as Fidel’s nationalization of goods, or anti-imperialist sentiments expressed by revolutionaries. The radio served as an important tool for transmitting a sense of unity throughout Cuba. Whether you were against Batista or not, radio waves would have created a sense of connection between listeners, unifying private domestic spaces into a collective audience. In turn, connection through radio was a powerful tool in political mobilization among like minded listeners. So powerful a tool that the need for censorship would make a lot of sense under any dictatorial regime. I find it interesting that radio was so censored under Batista and Castro, yet it was also still able to be utilized. It sort of reminds me of El Paquete, and how despite strict regulations, the public still find a way to stay connected and maintain a sort of public autonomy.
I enjoyed both the Moore and Bronfman pieces for this week’s readings. My dad worked in the telecommunications industry for many years, so I saw a personal connection with the topic. I remember when he told me about how revolutionary the first submarine telephone cable from Kong to the United States was. For the first time communications weren’t routed through the British colonial network, but more importantly it marked Hong Kong’s economic takeoff. We see the same having taken place in Cuba in the 1920s, with telephone links being established between Cuba and the United States as a result of economic ties. Telegraphs weren’t fast enough, so to expedite business communications, telephones became ubiquitous in Cuba.
It’s no surprise that telecommunications was used for more than just business in Cuba. Political control via telecommunications is particularly effective given its speed and penetration. This compression of time and distance opened so many new frontiers for political oppression. By retaining that special power to take over the radio waves at any time, Batista’s regime possessed a powerful propaganda tool that reached right into the homes of Cubans.
In this week’s readings, I found that the introduction of new technology, most importantly radio and communication technology, created a huge change in the way the political climate unfolded in Cuba. The idea of new and exciting technology was both utilized greatly by a variety of different groups, but also suppressed by political players such as Batista and Castro. The way that radio and communication technology advanced at this time, providing people with such a breadth of information and knowledge, while also acting as a tool of political propaganda and personal gain is extremely reflective of Cuba at this time. The way in which it provided a “mechanism of mobilization” while also providing a platform for someone like Machado to respond, and try to defend himself, is conflicting, and created a rapid social deployment of actions, opinions and retaliation in Cuba. This shows a struggle for political and social freedom within a people governed by a dictatorship, and that governing body anxious to control new technologies unfamiliar to the entire nation.
On Tuesday, professor talked about some interesting stories about media corruption. Combined with this week?s reading, media played important role in Cuba. Firstly, media itself was a useful tool of spreading news and information. Therefore diminishing distance from Cuba to the rest of the world. Secondly, media acted as a tool of contention, people used media to convey their distention with corruption or to obtain better life. For example, in 1955, communications workers used telegraph to urge people to join the strike (Bronfman, 47). On the other hand, there were some situations that media was applied improperly, especially in politics. From the example of Batista is dead, it shows that media in the early twentieth century transformed political practices. Similarly, army expressed their support of battalions via radio broadcasts (Bronfman, 45). And some governors tried to use media to silent violence. In a word, it is a good thing that media itself brought good changes to Cuba. However, applying media associated with politics also lead to violence.
This week’s articles guide the readers on the direction of understanding that the success of the Cuban revolution in 1959 is not the action(s) of a single leader but rather a conglomerate of events and pieces that interlock on favour of Castro’s uprising; however, Castro will repeat history by imposing antidemocratic decisions in the name of democracy.
Sweig nicely introduces many of the human actors that lead to the events of 1959. An argument I find fascinating is that ideologies can be totally opposite even when using the same name for it. Castro’s revolution does not automatically mean communism; however, the USA unwillingly to understand Castro’s ideals of social justice, material and social dignity ends up labeling his actions as something opposite to capitalism.
Bronfman’s article goes beyond the human actors of the revolution and brings radio not as an object but as an important actor at the center of political behaviour. The article stresses that the power of radio was vital for the Cuban revolution to become a success by moving the masses towards a common goal; furthermore, it also exposes the dangers that media is able to bring if it is not used wisely. In an era when technology is relatively new and affordable to Cubans, radio becomes the main source of information and entertainment, transcending space and time. Batista recognizes the great capabilities of radio and imposes censorship on it, but “silencing” radio will become his Achilles tendon.
Moore joins Bronfman’s argument on the power of media. Sadly, the same totalitarian control that Batista enforces on media will be done by the Castro regime suppressing dance Cuban music by justifying that it does not build citizen character, it is low-class, or it is intended only for Afro-Cubans. The practice of separating music nowadays into racial groups is still alive, it is embarrassing to see how the US took the Cuban music out of Cuba and inserted it in main stream America without respect for the creators by just giving it a new name – salsa. Culture appropriation denies origin, creates invisibility and boxes people into categories; perhaps, after all, Mariah Carey was not crazy when she left Sony because she was too ‘white’ to play hip hop, or Nicky Minaj ranting against Iggy Azalea for playing black music.
While reading ‘Batista is Dead’ I found Bronfman’s commentary on the use of technology as a revolutionary force, I find it particularly interesting to think about the way that technology worked as a force of protest. While obviously technology worked both ways, helping both the government and protesters, it is interesting the degree to which it helped either. It seems likely that the development of technology was more proportionately useful to protesters than the government. It not only gave them a specific point to attack, such as attacks on phone lines mentioned on page 11, it also provided them with a vital tool for organization. It would be interesting to see the effects that technology would have had on the organization of slave revolts and to what degree the capability for planned organization would have helped their cause. It appears as though creating accessible technology gives the public access to tools of protest in circumstances where the government has so much power- which emphasizes the need for control of technology and media as a tool of suppression.
Revisiting Bronfman and Moore works very well as a summary of some of the major themes that we have explored in this class. Rebellion and cultural heritage always seem to go hand in hand for Cuba. Whether it was the drum circles that brought Paul Ganga and his co-conspirators together, or Emma Goldman’s revolutionary socialist dancing, the there was always some uniting social activity. Furthermore, despite being seen as euphoric and trivial activities, these pull people together. Together in these circles, they are amongst like-minded people, and they can speak more liberally. This connectivity is also inherent in radio programs; the listener has tuned in for a purpose, and is often of the same mind as the speaker.
I have always found that gathering places are incredibly important in history. They show a commonality and forge friendships and a sense of belonging. Regardless of the outside world and any government control, this is a space for militants to get together. In that sense, it’s understandable that the Directorio Revolucionario would use the medium as a call to arms. While the idea was misguided and there would need to be some far more effort for a real revolution to occur, they were still a credible threat to the regime. Batista apparently understood the effect of mass media and cracked down on these radio shows. Later, Castro would also use the radio to his benefit, in a similar way that dissidents now use the internet. If anything, Cuban history so far has shown that there is always a way to spread your message and find allies.
After reading the Article “ Batista is Dead” by Alejandra Bronfman I had various thoughts on her argument and how it can relate to current Canadian events.
In the article Bronfman makes the statement that in 1940s-50s Cuba the radio or media generally was seen as “an actor, rather than an observer of events”, as it had a heavy influence on the public and its political mobilization. Focusing on such cases as the take over of Radio Reloj, spread of rumours , and the suicide of Eddy Chibás, the case is made clear that power over the radio in early Cuba was considered parallel to actual ( politically and potentially violent)power. While obviously a mild case compared to the violent political uprisings in 1945-60s Cuba, the notion of the media influencing the political events of a country reminded me of the reports and polling during the 2015 Canadian election. Being the longest campaign period in Canadian history, at various times the polls suggested three different winners. In the days prior to the election, a Liberal minority was suspected. It’s my belief that the polls released may have spurred a strategic vote, therefore making Conservative voters and NDP Voters compromise and select the center-ish liberal party. Again, this is a mild case in comparison to Cuba 1950s Cuba. Overall I really enjoyed Bronfman’s article and its focus on the peculiar role of media in the intersection of political mobilization and political power.
In our professor’s article, I like the idea of the media as an actor, a generator of political events instead of simply being used as a tool to reflect on or relate events. Social movements and the state understand media as something that can broaden a movement or ensure people of its accessibility and stability, or promote the cause (which is the cause in itself, to broaden its’ reach and acceptance). I have often called Vancouver a city of reactions without preliminary happenings, and it is interesting to rework history as a series of consequences instead of looking for causal relationships with what we know will eventually happen. The aspect of this revolutionary radio that is most interesting is the participatory part, where people can write in, effectively creating news, and receive information. This reminds me of something that Garcia Marquez related in his biography about a series of public rumors that would be posted outside weekly which would circulate local news.
Just as history becomes politicized to fit within a certain desirable narrative, so too does entertainment and music become charged with revolutionary attitudes in 1960s Cuba. It is odd to me however how a popular government does not accept open armed the popular music which unites people, but then considers dance music “low class” or something of “black people,” effectively dividing their constituency and not embracing their party’s core values.The serious and harmonic music of Silvio Rodriguez is awesome, but I never knew it triumphed over dance music at the time. We have seen how Cuba was exotisized by outside influences, is this socialist stopping of dancing to reduce this care-free North American retreat rhythmic image?
There is a really interesting movie with awesome music about the situation of musicians in Cuba in the 90’s called Havana Blues, where artists are asked to write songs condemning Castro and Socialism but will have to choose to make it big with a US recording studio but they will have to leave their home. To leave they would have to face the intimidating insults by officials that they were “worms” or “scum,” as the article states. A movie worth checking out.
The manipulation of communication technology is very clear in Bronfman’s “Batista is Dead”. This manipulation is immortal, for the written record of the speech given by Echeverria has been kept as authentic although the reality of the speech was much different. I found it very interesting that both parties, the rebels and Batista used the media in a method beneficial to them. Additionally, I was also surprised that the radio was used without a lot of precautions. The rebels announced Batista’s death before they could verify their actual success. Knowing that their message would be heard by a large amount of Cubans, I would think they would have been more patient and restrain from the urgency of their announcement. Lastly, I would also like to discuss the manipulation of the exhibition at the Museo Dela Revolución in Havana. I assume that almost all of the exhibit has been approved of by either Castro or a member of his crew. The Fast Delivery Truck used by the students is depicted as a symbol of the courage and perseverance of the students that attacked the Palace. The plaque that marks the point of assassination of Echeverria shows that those who created the exhibit have put an effort to erase the animosity between Castro and Echeverria. All of these instances perpetuate the different uses of the Cuban media throughout time.
The 8 page reading by Sweig had me recognizing how malleable social ideologies will conform itself to context, and how philosophies which can be compromised in a single term such as ‘Communism’ and ‘Democracy’ can only be so loosely defined. This might be demonstrated by the differentiation in Moscow’s Communism, in comparison to Castro’s communism, as noted by Sweig. Yet, as remains so common in the present day, they are terms taken as a given by audiences susceptible to putting their faith in political expressions of propaganda, that make use of the terms to further the validity of their rule. Batista did it with the term democracy, and Fidel did it with Communism. However, both of them defied the democratic and communist ideal when conflicting self-interest threatened the stability of both their capacity to maintain themselves as the power-stronghold, and their validity. The following quotes presented by Julia Swieg, touch base:
“Fidel really remained a hybrid thinker, willing to draw from his entire history and experience to interpret events, his response to them, and his efforts to shape them” (43).
“Indeed Castro’s philosophical musings about moral incentives for productivity, and vague hopes to eliminate the use of currency did little to solve the practical economic problems of the day.” (46)
“As armed resistance picked up in some parts of the country, and as the United States intensified its harassment of the Castro regime, these defensive conservative impulses were reinforced, making national security and survival the priority.” (46)
That last chord on “national security” and “survival [being] the priority” so crucially compares with the argument our professor Bronfman makes in her article, on “flows of information” and “popular mobilization” as shaping political outcomes, and, in turn, adding, or detracting from the survival of those figures in strife to both maintain and increase their power.
What really resonated with me in this week’s readings was the importance of media throughout Cuban history and the discrepancies highlighted in Bronfman’s article between the audiences and those in power in their use and expectations of the radio.
As we have seen from our previous readings and lectures, one of the reasons for the U.S. involvement in Cuba in 1898 was the media and their depiction of Cuba as a damsel in distress in need of saving by Uncle Sam from the villain Spain. This depiction was encouraged by Cuban media in its desire for independence from Spain. With the increased distribution of telephone cables and the radio the influences of media on the Cuban population rose in the 20th century. Under Batista the media was instrumental in the control of the population with restriction on freedom on speech and censorship imposed on its outlets. The rebels in Cuba also made use of the media in advancing their cause, not only in spreading rumors of the assassination of Batista in order to incite rebellion, but also in their attempt to use media from outside Cuba. The fact that media from outside Cuba could penetrate into the heavily censored Cuba as it did with Castro’s reemergence from the dead and incite rebellion to such a large extent is really interesting to me. Especially against the background of heavy censorship of the media that is outlined in the three articles. The publics believe that “the radio would offer solutions to local disputes, predictions of their future, and access to spiritual healing powers” in contrast to “those in power and those at the margins imagined radio not just as a source of entertainment and information, but also as a medium through which to engage in and disrupt political practices” makes it evident how the control of the media steers the narrative of a political system. Furthermore, the radio in this day and age is not used by politicians to the extent that it was in the 20th century, while it is public knowledge that some stations are associated with a certain point of political view they aren’t controlled by government and it makes you truly cherish the freedom of speech that media brings today.
I agree with Jade’s comments about how the control and manipulation of media and communications in 1950’s Cuba is relatable to what took place during the recent Canadian election campaign. Bronfman makes it clear that exercising control of communications was a key political tool for both Batista and the rebels. Creating a narrative, whether it is true or not, and broadcasting it to a large mass of people is an incredibly effective way of exercising political power.
In the case of the Canadian election, only a few days before polling day, it was released that the two major Canadian newspapers, The National Post and the Globe and Mail, were undeniably endorsing Harper through a top-down ownership mandate. That is, editors, reporters, and readers were not free to vocalize their opposition, at least not publicly. Given that the greater majority of Canadians read these two newspapers as a viable source of information, the degree of political influence that this kind of top-down control and censorship entails is undeniable.
Bringing this back to Cuba, I think Bronfman makes an important point in highlighting the key role of technology and communications in the day-to-day construction of the revolution. As she suggests, the generalized narrative that the Revolution was the inevitable outburst of increasing political and subversive tensions, it fails to acknowledge the particularities of how emergent communication systems enabled both sides of the conflict to exercise power in new ways.
On a macro perspective, this reading made me think about the power of narrative in general, and the capacity that stories have to move people, resources, emotions, and nations. Its astounding to realize that most of our political and social systems are founded on narratives, or ideologies of some sort. Due to the massive influence of media in contemporary society, few people stop to think about what might actually be true. How do we know what is true? Where does truth come from? From whose perspective? Which perspective is true? These are the kinds of questions make me realize the extent of the influence that communications technologies have had on politics and society since their invention in the 19th century. Cuba’s Revolution is just one instance of many that demonstrates how media communications came to be used as a powerful political weapon and strategy.
Something that stood out to me in the readings this week was the growing censorship in Cuba both before and after the 1959 revolution. As Bronfman highlights Batista implemented strict censorship of television and radio stations after the student’s fake assassination announcement. This signifies that with improved technology also came a barrier to its freedom of expression. The revolutionary groups were met with government regulation that made the dissemination of their cause via technological communication more difficult. Moore also emphasizes censorship used after the 1959 revolution, in the art and entertainment realm. Increasingly the owners of television and radio networks pushed artists to “express their sympathies with socialist issues through their lyrics or verbal segments” (pg. 155). Artists in Cuba now had to conform to communist aims or lose their mass audience or even suffer exile. The new government under Castro understood the power of telecommunications and how it was an effective tool for power.
The growth of technology in Cuba brought new freedoms and limitations. On the one hand, Cubans were able to connect with politics, current events and one another better than ever before. But on the other hand, tools of mass media provided the government the platform to influence and control a significant amount of the population.
I agree with Sasha’s comment on the power of the narrative and I wonder how Cuban people felt about the developments and governance of media throughout the 1950s and 60s. Did the broad population question the validity of their sources? Or instead take the media’s portrayal as truth?
After reading the assigned pages on Sweig’s book, the first thing that came to my mind was a question asked in Tuesday’s class, “what were the revolutionists fighting for?”. I thought the answer might be in some of the questions Sweig answers through pages 39 to 47, but to be honest, that question still lingers unresolved for me. Yes, Batista became a bad leader and an effective response from the opposition groups (which were many) was long overdue. But the portrait of Castro painted throughout the answers that Sweig gives, that of a charismatic, political, and calculative man, lacks an ideology within or beyond the persona he presented to the world. A leader who had everything planned to get the power over the island, but beyond that point, didn’t have a structure for the future. Yes, he read some Marx here and there but still thought of the Communist Party as an inconvenience, declaring himself a communist only when it was the only apparent next step in his war of words and money with the US. He seemed more clear on what he wanted for himself and how the people saw him though, by not openly taking the top political post in Cuba but sort of managing everything from “backstage”, picking candidates and placing them strategically. I believe that this slow process of not being the main man in the government (at least in paper), gave out the idea to the people that this, his revolution, was not focused on his rise to power but more so, a complete shift on Cuba’s reality where EVERYONE was involved; that being so because Fidel seemed to represent those who were not in power before.
On the other hand, our professor’s article about the importance of the radio during the 1950s gives a parallel story to the reality nowadays and the public perception of the truth. With social media, people seem to be always connected, sharing and elevating what could have been simple local news to worldwide, “viral” publications and videos. It seems to me that the meaning of “the media” and what people relate it to has shifted dramatically, since no longer the radio, the t.v., or a news anchor are the only sources of official, trustable information on what it is really happening out in the streets; people are informing everyone, all they need is a cellphone. All the rumors and misinformations of the 1950s such as who was alive and who wasn’t seem impossible these days, but they nonetheless denote the crucial role of the radio inside the rapidly changing island and the main concerns of those listening closely to it in search for some answers.
The Bronfman and Moore articles from this week go hand in hand. They both highlight the importance of communication (radio, music) and how it can be used as a political tool. It’s a tool that both sides can access and utilize equally. Batista (and later Fidel as well) used this new technology as a platform to spread government ideals and also of course to control the population by applying censorship. In a way, the rebels did the same. They used the radio as a platform to reach out and rally up support, but of course in a less obvious way, and they too used it to influence people’s thoughts. Just like these two parties I think the musician’s from Moore’s article did the exact same thing. The radios allowed a larger amount of people to hear their music and receive their message. Of course censorship kicked in and the musicians were limited but this doesn’t change the fact that they were able to contribute to Cuban culture and society.
I believe the invention of the radio had a large impact on Cuban culture, society, and politics. It allowed for messages to be sent and received on such a scale where practically everyone was on the same page. It allowed for control yet it also allowed for freedom. The role the radio (and other forms of media) plays, like Prof. Bronfman mentioned in her article, is not only the role of a platform but is also seen as an “actor”. The radio is so influential that it had a strong relationship with violence. In the Bronfman article a connection is made between technology and violence, where “control over technology was related to control over violence.” I think the connection between the two is important because we can see from the scenarios described to us in this article both sides use the technology to control the violence and swing it in their favour.
It is very clear from the Bronfman article that both Batista and the revolutionaries understood the importance of controlling sources of information. These information sources were obviously less ubiquitous than in modern North American or even modern Cuban society. It was so important to control the relatively limited media precisely because the amount of media sources were limited. If a group, either the revolutionaries or the government, could gain access to a media source, such as a radio program, it was likely that they would be able to broadcast their message to a significant number of people. Unlike modern times where there are so many different media outlets as well as social media that people can get their news from, there would have been only a few places to gain access to news programming in 1950’s Cuba. If the Directorio Revolucionario at Radio Reloj had been able to effectively broadcast their message without being cut off they would have had a much better chance of mobilizing public support and causing the mayhem they needed for their plan to be successful. It is obvious to say that they would have had a greater chance of success but this shows the effect that control over one of the limited number of media sources could have. Those who did have a radio in their homes or gathered in public places to listen to the radio would not have had many choices of radio stations to choose from and having control over one meant that a large number of this active population would hear the broadcast. Similarly, this worked in the same way for any government forces, in this case Batista, who intended to silence public access to information. Due to the limited number of broadcast outlets it would have been easier to target and shut down these stations.
I really enjoyed the “Batista is Dead” article. One question that I had while reading was, do the advances in technology hinder or advance rebellion/revolution? As I read the article I tried to come up with an answer. I think the answer is obvious – it is both yes and no. The article was great in highlighting how important radios were in education but also controlling the public sphere. It was almost a double edged sword in that sense. It had the power to bring people together both physically and ideologically, but also had the power to cause fear and force people to stay at home where it was safe. The radio could also connect people of all classes together as it seemed to be something easily accessible (it seemed like they were in radios, restaurants, public places, etc.). Thus, we could see why exactly Batista would want such a tight grip on something like this.
I also found it really interesting how the “final plan” of the Batista is Dead broadcast was created. From the proposed airing of his cadaver on television to something that despite much planning, didn’t even get on the air really. I particularly found it interesting how they planned to announce, then play advertisements as usual, and intermittently release more snippets, with the intent to allow crowds to gather somewhere to listen in. To me, it seemed like the DR had figured everything out except for one small detail that ultimately led to the failure of their plan – the small fact that the radio would stop transmitting if there was a loud noise.
Some of the main themes in the professor’s article, “Batista Is Dead”, highlight the contradictions within an age of increasing communications technology. First of all, the irony that lied beneath the plan of attack (that the announcement of Batista’s death would prompt an instant response that contrasted with the inability to maintain it’s progress) shows how technology adds a whole new dimension, and almost takes a life of its own, in the political world. The polarizing effects of the media and the capabilities to influence viewers around was used on both ends – by the revolutionaries and the government, “The failed coup was not a cause of the eventual overthrow of Batista but rather a consequence of years of engagement of communications technology by political actors.”
As media becomes a means for political control, the same patterns emerge today. Adding on to the above comments – not only does it raise questions regarding legitimacy, but how are stories framed? And how may it distort a viewer’s perception of other people, places, and culture? Political mobilization and contemporary means of communication enable a sort of façade regarding transparency and connection; people are given a sense of global awareness and understanding, but it at the same time has undermined itself in newer ways.
I found there to be a fascinating contrast between the usage of radio in “Batista is Dead” by Prof. Bronfman, and the 1959 Revolution. Though it seems a little too good to be true, the downfall of Echeverria’s revolution was due to the failure of a radio, and less than a decade later, a major driving force behind the recruitment and advertising process of the 1959 Revolution was the use of the radio from the Sierra Maestra mountains. So to put it simply, the radio stopped one revolution and propelled another. Not necessarily related to the specific history of Cuba, but it’s interesting to see the effects of modern technology on major events around the world. For instance, also mentioned in “Batista is Dead” is the implementation of the telephone and telegraph helped make business more efficient. While many years later in 1987, the implementation of computers in stock trading caused the stock market crash infamously named ‘Black Monday’.
Despite technology’s failures, it is still amazing to see what it has done for communications, and the ability to organize. For all revolutions, the 1959 Cuban Revolution, the 2011 Egyptian Revolution and even the French Revolution, the main factor that had made victory possible was the presence and utilization of technology to communicate. For the Cuban Revolution it was the radio, for the Egyptian Revolution it was Facebook and for the French Revolution it was the newspaper/magazine. I think it is clear to see then that if Cuba really wants to enter the modern world and see real change, it needs to fully accept and use the incredible technology we have available today.
Of all the readings this week, the one I found most interesting was “Batista is Dead.” The article argues that the acquisition of communication technologies transformed political practices and this is one point that I really agree with. In the context of Cuba, it was evident that the two different sides used similar tactics to sway and use the public as a political force. The radio show and written document of Echeverria’s speech (although very different in tone and “medium in the message”) was used by Echeverria as a tool to rally up public forces to fight against Batista. Thus, the role of media and communication networks in this period in the political context of Cuba is of great importance. The emergence of media has allowed the public to become mobilized and have an impact on the conflict or event. Prior to the use of media, it would seem as if political events and conflicts were simply controlled by the players involved, but with media, the public is no longer isolated. The public’s actions are crucial to the outcome and political leaders such as Echeverria and Batista manipulate the media in hopes to use it for their own advantage.
Another point that the article makes is the importance of power and control over communication networks. In 1957, we witness Echeverria’s attempt to use media as a tool of politics to bring Batista down. Ultimately, Echeverria’s broadcast did not go through and Batista was able to quell rumors and declarations of his death. When reading this part of the article, I couldn’t help but think that even if Echeverria’s broadcast did go through to the public, would the results of the event be any different? Batista had firm control over communication networks and Echeverria’s broadcast and plans were not unknown to Batista and this is evident in his bodyguards and troops he had prepared. Batista was able to foil the rebel’s plans because his communication networks were superior to those of Echeverria’s; his firm grip over these technologies allowed him to retain control of the political situation.
Our professor’s use of the ‘collapse of space’ in her Batista article made me think of a theory we use in the geography department called the ‘annihilation of space’. This theory speaks to the increasing interconnectedness of the world through technological advances, and ties in to things like industrialization and globalization. It is used more so in the context of the pursuit of capital, and as such has a darker underbelly of aggressive resource extraction and foreign occupation. Even the word itself, ‘annihilate’, is violent.
I found this theory to be a contemporary, larger scale representation of the role of the ‘collapse of space’ in Cuba. It occurred at a more localized level, where closing space through radio became a political means of control. There’s an irony to the fact that radio, designed to reach beyond the confines of space, ends up being a tool to restrict movement and choice. Student action and insurgent use of broadcasting in Cuba can be seen as a smaller scale, but no less important parallel to movements against the changes wrought by space annihilation, still happening today. The implication of radio manipulation as anti-government action is much larger than the events that occur in Cuba – they represent a movement to reclaim sound, and to reassert control over the ways that space can be collapsed.
Importance of radio and media in Cuba during the mid-twentieth century was clearly enormous, and it seems Batista really understood this. He utilized the power of the radio during both his rise to power, and during his regime. The struggle Batista faced against the Directorio Revolucionario seemed to me to be a form of psychological warfare but in a revolutionary, internal sense. Psychological warfare became prominent in the Americas in the years after World War II, and the US used it to great affect particularly in Guatemala and Chile, to displace leftist leaders Arbenz and Allende respectively. So clearly radio and other sources of propaganda were weapons of sorts, capable of psychologically damaging opponents, or motivating others to become opponents. The revolutionaries in Cuba knew this, and played cleverly to defy Batista’s censorship, by using events such as baseball games to put themselves in the public eye. It is surprising how little historical coverage the media receives in Cuba considering its importance. The radio in particular, using the evidence in the article, can be seen as the initiator of political events, not just a commentator.
The article “Batista is Dead” by our professor made me realized how the media and radio broadcasting in Cuba could be so effective in terms of being a political actor as well as a medium to the crowd. In particular during the student movement to overthrow Batista, we could see how Echeverria tried to communicate using radio technology to broadcast his speech across the nation. This also made me realized how powerful the radio-broadcasting tool was in Cuba, especially during the revolution period where Batista and his government would take full control of it knowing how much potential power technology could be at that time.
Another instance that I found interesting is how Cubans during that time already knew the power of the radio and know if they got hold of the technology, they could help influence others through being able to pass on the message they want to address. The example of Eddy Chibás in “Batista is Dead” shows how he would go on to shoot himself while broadcasting on radio to create a larger awareness and attention, but only to fail due to people not hearing it and being cut to ads.
The innovation of technology and the use of radios in Cuba have further helped modernize the country through the ability to organize and further spread an issue faster such as during the revolution period. This also reminds me of how advanced the Cuban society is and even till modern day Cuba we could see similar traits of radio-broadcasting and technology sharing through the video of ‘El-Paquete’ we watched in class of how Cubans continue to share and use technology as a way of communicating to each other.
The censoring of Cuban dance music had many layers. Music was still taught in schools but only the classics. There was racial contention attributed to dance music – the elitist upper-class equated it to their perceived vulgarity of the Afrocubans and the lower-class. There is also a Marxist fundamental element that underpins the censorship of dance music that dictates the strict restriction of the arts because it is viewed as a gateway to laziness and promotes an excessive propensity for luxury. However, from a socialist perspective, rewarding workers for their service boosts morale. As Moore recounts, the government would congratulate factory workers for their high productivity with parties that included food, drinks, and dance music. As Moore states, the government did realize that “severe policies that threatened this facet of the music industry had the potential to anger the public and foster a negative image of the revolution” (155). Artists were then pressured to create music that portrayed socialist ideals in a positive fashion. It reminded me of Batista’s early days as a political figure and his attempt to win the people’s favour by adopting a populist platform. Both government’s under Batista and Castro employ the media to assert a certain degree of control which shows how powerful of an agent it truly is.
“Batista Is Dead”, was an interesting article read and was crucial in helping me change my opinion of the importance of communication technology and the spreading of information.It was interesting reading how media played more as an “actor’ than a observer of events . It made me think of today’s media and how events are portrayed and are influenced. As shown in the article the radio becomes a critical tool in controlling the masses regardless of education or through the use of fear . Which made me think of how today’s media sources are certainly becoming more fear based rather than factual . Cuba’s Revolution is just one case that media communications have come to be a tool in creating not only political reform but social reform . An example of this I can remember distinctly was KONY 2012 , how a small issue on the world political stage became a for front issue of many individuals , but as quickly we saw KONY come to our Facebook feeds we watched it disappear. In conclusion overall I really enjoyed Bronfman’s article and it gave me insight into the critical importance of propaganda and how it was evident that the two different sides used the public control of media as a structured force that applied correctly can be instrumental in change .
I enjoyed reading the importance of radio in Cuba and the huge impact it had on social and political life. On the one hand radio was used by producers for entertainment purposes as well as informative, while in some cases it was used for political propaganda or to disturb the political status quo. The most important thing about the radio in Cuba was that it became part of the daily routine of people and as a result became a tool for those who wanted to enact change in their society. Since the radio changed the dynamic of space and time it produced new possibilities for certain people to take matters into their own hands. Moreover, Batista saw the potential of radio and knew that it was important to maintain his rule. It was interesting to see how the radio attracted such diverse purposes, including the state, politicians and opposition as well as the general public. This was the case with the underground student group that planned to overthrow Batista by killing him while simultaneously broadcasting the announcement of his death on radio. This is a clear example of new technologies and media becoming an actor for political action. While reading this article I kept thinking about the impact of social media on politics. On the one hand information spreads more quickly and reaches diverse parts of the planet thanks to twitter, Facebook, and instagram. Social media has also proven to be an integral factor for revolution in some cases. However, because of social media I feel that people become less proactive and believe that through a “like” or a “share” one is doing their part for change. Moreover, similar to the way Batista acknowledged the importance of radio to his rule, it made me wonder how politicians today are using social media in order to appeal to the public.
“Media as an actor, rather than an observer of events” (40), this quote really stuck for me. It might be naive but today when I watch the news I 100% think that the information they provide me is accurate, or they have absolute proof of that information, even if it turns out incorrect, I trust them not to lie. The fact that the media in Cuba was not exactly a reliable source makes me feel like if I was Cuban citizen at that time I would be in panic, because if not through, radio, tv, books or newspaper and now social media how would I know if information is true? In the article Dr.Brofman states, Batista retained a firm control over technology therefore, he retained control of the whole situation. The fact that the media could be the start of rebellions seems accurate, the information supplied over the radio, or television could cause this shows that Batista was wise not to underestimate the importance of media and payed close attention to it by imposing censorship. It is reasonable to think that if the students plan to air the gunshot did go through as they would have thought, they would have received a positive response from the public.
In Moore’s article shows that politicians even tried to control music. “With media in the hands of officials,one eitherconformedto Party guidelines or lost access to airtime” (156), music and musicians are supposed to express themselves but the politicians sought to control them as well. They would either conform to what they wanted or risk their music being banned. I could not possible imagine that happening today, musicians today have so much power to promote whatever they like, and even if they get paid to do it, it is their choice. The don’t have to conform the way artists had to in Cuba. Another thing that surprised me was that U.S profited so much by banning works of Cuban artists, but appropriating that music for their own commercial gain. With music becoming so popular and the media, people in power seemed to do all they could do use it for their benefit.
In this week’s reading “Batista is Dead” the importance of technology, particularly the radio, in influencing the political world of 1950s Cuba comes to the forefront. I was struck by the same thing that Vivian and Zack were while reading – the relationship between technology and revolution. In the post Arab spring world we tend to credit technology (in that case, camera phones, computers and social media) with enabling revolution because of how it enables communication and organization. To us it is a “no brainer” that something like a radio could incite a revolution – social media regularly incites all kinds of popular movements in our lives from KONY 2012 to the #Iamastudent protests at UBC last year as others have observed above.
But I don’t think this comparison should be taken too far – radio is a fairly one way means of communication unlike social media. This makes radio much easier to control. Batista was able to take back control of the radio just by making phone calls to make sure that his supporters would correct the situation. He had already innovated the use of radio as a political tool, as recapped in the article, and the students were attempting to use his tool to overthrow him, something that in the end made their plan more vulnerable.
I’m not sure that we can make truly compelling comparisons to social media driven revolutions for that very reason. This was an attempt to co-opt a political tool of an oppressive regime and turn it against them.
Two themes I noticed in this weeks readings were national unity, and the use of radio in political organization and mobilization. National unity is evident in the anti-imperialist resistance towards the United States, such as Fidel’s nationalization of goods, or anti-imperialist sentiments expressed by revolutionaries. The radio served as an important tool for transmitting a sense of unity throughout Cuba. Whether you were against Batista or not, radio waves would have created a sense of connection between listeners, unifying private domestic spaces into a collective audience. In turn, connection through radio was a powerful tool in political mobilization among like minded listeners. So powerful a tool that the need for censorship would make a lot of sense under any dictatorial regime. I find it interesting that radio was so censored under Batista and Castro, yet it was also still able to be utilized. It sort of reminds me of El Paquete, and how despite strict regulations, the public still find a way to stay connected and maintain a sort of public autonomy.
I enjoyed both the Moore and Bronfman pieces for this week’s readings. My dad worked in the telecommunications industry for many years, so I saw a personal connection with the topic. I remember when he told me about how revolutionary the first submarine telephone cable from Kong to the United States was. For the first time communications weren’t routed through the British colonial network, but more importantly it marked Hong Kong’s economic takeoff. We see the same having taken place in Cuba in the 1920s, with telephone links being established between Cuba and the United States as a result of economic ties. Telegraphs weren’t fast enough, so to expedite business communications, telephones became ubiquitous in Cuba.
It’s no surprise that telecommunications was used for more than just business in Cuba. Political control via telecommunications is particularly effective given its speed and penetration. This compression of time and distance opened so many new frontiers for political oppression. By retaining that special power to take over the radio waves at any time, Batista’s regime possessed a powerful propaganda tool that reached right into the homes of Cubans.
In this week’s readings, I found that the introduction of new technology, most importantly radio and communication technology, created a huge change in the way the political climate unfolded in Cuba. The idea of new and exciting technology was both utilized greatly by a variety of different groups, but also suppressed by political players such as Batista and Castro. The way that radio and communication technology advanced at this time, providing people with such a breadth of information and knowledge, while also acting as a tool of political propaganda and personal gain is extremely reflective of Cuba at this time. The way in which it provided a “mechanism of mobilization” while also providing a platform for someone like Machado to respond, and try to defend himself, is conflicting, and created a rapid social deployment of actions, opinions and retaliation in Cuba. This shows a struggle for political and social freedom within a people governed by a dictatorship, and that governing body anxious to control new technologies unfamiliar to the entire nation.
On Tuesday, professor talked about some interesting stories about media corruption. Combined with this week?s reading, media played important role in Cuba. Firstly, media itself was a useful tool of spreading news and information. Therefore diminishing distance from Cuba to the rest of the world. Secondly, media acted as a tool of contention, people used media to convey their distention with corruption or to obtain better life. For example, in 1955, communications workers used telegraph to urge people to join the strike (Bronfman, 47). On the other hand, there were some situations that media was applied improperly, especially in politics. From the example of Batista is dead, it shows that media in the early twentieth century transformed political practices. Similarly, army expressed their support of battalions via radio broadcasts (Bronfman, 45). And some governors tried to use media to silent violence. In a word, it is a good thing that media itself brought good changes to Cuba. However, applying media associated with politics also lead to violence.
This week’s articles guide the readers on the direction of understanding that the success of the Cuban revolution in 1959 is not the action(s) of a single leader but rather a conglomerate of events and pieces that interlock on favour of Castro’s uprising; however, Castro will repeat history by imposing antidemocratic decisions in the name of democracy.
Sweig nicely introduces many of the human actors that lead to the events of 1959. An argument I find fascinating is that ideologies can be totally opposite even when using the same name for it. Castro’s revolution does not automatically mean communism; however, the USA unwillingly to understand Castro’s ideals of social justice, material and social dignity ends up labeling his actions as something opposite to capitalism.
Bronfman’s article goes beyond the human actors of the revolution and brings radio not as an object but as an important actor at the center of political behaviour. The article stresses that the power of radio was vital for the Cuban revolution to become a success by moving the masses towards a common goal; furthermore, it also exposes the dangers that media is able to bring if it is not used wisely. In an era when technology is relatively new and affordable to Cubans, radio becomes the main source of information and entertainment, transcending space and time. Batista recognizes the great capabilities of radio and imposes censorship on it, but “silencing” radio will become his Achilles tendon.
Moore joins Bronfman’s argument on the power of media. Sadly, the same totalitarian control that Batista enforces on media will be done by the Castro regime suppressing dance Cuban music by justifying that it does not build citizen character, it is low-class, or it is intended only for Afro-Cubans. The practice of separating music nowadays into racial groups is still alive, it is embarrassing to see how the US took the Cuban music out of Cuba and inserted it in main stream America without respect for the creators by just giving it a new name – salsa. Culture appropriation denies origin, creates invisibility and boxes people into categories; perhaps, after all, Mariah Carey was not crazy when she left Sony because she was too ‘white’ to play hip hop, or Nicky Minaj ranting against Iggy Azalea for playing black music.
While reading ‘Batista is Dead’ I found Bronfman’s commentary on the use of technology as a revolutionary force, I find it particularly interesting to think about the way that technology worked as a force of protest. While obviously technology worked both ways, helping both the government and protesters, it is interesting the degree to which it helped either. It seems likely that the development of technology was more proportionately useful to protesters than the government. It not only gave them a specific point to attack, such as attacks on phone lines mentioned on page 11, it also provided them with a vital tool for organization. It would be interesting to see the effects that technology would have had on the organization of slave revolts and to what degree the capability for planned organization would have helped their cause. It appears as though creating accessible technology gives the public access to tools of protest in circumstances where the government has so much power- which emphasizes the need for control of technology and media as a tool of suppression.
Revisiting Bronfman and Moore works very well as a summary of some of the major themes that we have explored in this class. Rebellion and cultural heritage always seem to go hand in hand for Cuba. Whether it was the drum circles that brought Paul Ganga and his co-conspirators together, or Emma Goldman’s revolutionary socialist dancing, the there was always some uniting social activity. Furthermore, despite being seen as euphoric and trivial activities, these pull people together. Together in these circles, they are amongst like-minded people, and they can speak more liberally. This connectivity is also inherent in radio programs; the listener has tuned in for a purpose, and is often of the same mind as the speaker.
I have always found that gathering places are incredibly important in history. They show a commonality and forge friendships and a sense of belonging. Regardless of the outside world and any government control, this is a space for militants to get together. In that sense, it’s understandable that the Directorio Revolucionario would use the medium as a call to arms. While the idea was misguided and there would need to be some far more effort for a real revolution to occur, they were still a credible threat to the regime. Batista apparently understood the effect of mass media and cracked down on these radio shows. Later, Castro would also use the radio to his benefit, in a similar way that dissidents now use the internet. If anything, Cuban history so far has shown that there is always a way to spread your message and find allies.