The “Little War” of 1879 Cuba gives us a small window into the push and pull factors influencing opposition to Spanish colonialism. The movement opposing the Spanish seems to split at an ideological level around this time. The reformists, taking the new opportunities provided by the Pact of Zanjon, established political and social societies which opposed the Spanish rule, but in a peaceful and comparatively non-threatening way. Rather than attempt to achieve independence, the reformists (such as the Autonomist Party), pursued a strategy of incremental concession and autonomy from the Spanish state. In contrast the rebels based in the eastern provinces, such as Santiago de Cuba, used military strategies to disrupt plantation output and rally slaves to their cause. The new insurgency was made up of many of the same people who had fought in the Ten Years War but new leaders did emerge, mostly of black heritage. The new rebellion was seen as one with a more radical character which increased the separation between the reformists and rebels. The reformists, especially the Autonomous Party did not want to lose their new political freedom to oppose the Cuban conservative forces while the rebels were not interested in Spanish concession and eventual emancipation but rather immediate independence and abolition of slavery. The divide between the two groups suited the aims of the Spanish perfectly and they were able to end the Little War in 1880. The Spanish consolidated their power and strengthened their position against the Autonomist Party and other political opponents by technically moving toward the abolition of slavery (a lottery system to free slaves beginning in 1885) but in practice leaving slaves and plantation owners in very familiar positions.
Cuba seemed extremely unstable, especially with the many political groups and bandits in the countryside. It was as though the country was ripe for revolution (yet again?). However, in this type of situation, how does a person/group/political party manage to bring together people of different racial and socioeconomic backgrounds?
I also realized from Ch. 4 that emancipation of the enslaved was only half the battle. Their lives after, though not restrained and forced to work, still had many challenges, and it seemed like there was some degree of discrimination as well. This made me think of the infamous Dreyfus Affair in France – even though the Declaration of the Rights of Man stated that Jews were citizens, nearly a hundred years later Alfred Dreyfus still faced the same discrimination, leading to a paradox of expanding rights and enduring discrimination.
A final note was on the roles of Women: I always find their roles particularly interesting. While often times they are not the ones in battle (not always the case though!), it can be argued that their roles within the home and their environments are just as important and significant than those on the fronts.
Scott’s account of the varieties of events in the late 19th century in Cuba is fascinating, detailed and concise. I find the reading to be different from Barcia’s because it is rather condensed and exhaustive, perhaps explained on an institutional and less individual level. Through this, she is also able to include an abundance of facts but also many interesting arguments that I enjoyed learning about for the first time. I am particularly fascinated by the cross-racial emergence of Cuban nationalism and how it developed from the initiation of the Ten Years War towards the very end. Did it arise from the socio-political fragmentation that would both divide and unite the various groups? Or from sharing a center of gravity toward independence? From our discussion in class on Tuesday we were somewhat unsure of who would be part of the wars and what it would look like. I think that in all three wars the promise and popularization of a “Free Cuba,” was perhaps romanticized; yet it appears to have been the clear alternative to the elitist Spanish rule, albeit not a strong one. I was amazed by the fact that female rebel fighters would be involved in the final wars, and also that veterans form the Ten Years War would get involved in the subsequent wars. It might show that there was widespread hostility against the Spanish rule, and that it was slowly consolidating. We could clearly see that the Spanish got more and more desperate, issuing various decrees that never really functioned properly, but which seemed to put things in check for a short period. Scott presents us with a lot of information which is perhaps difficult to sort out towards the end. Her final argument about how the soldiers entered the new era with contradictory experience sort of sums up what I was concerned about throughout the chapters. How do you reconcile the sudden shift from oppression, slavery and bloody warfare into a new society? Who decides what shape will it take? How do the newborn respect and solidarity follow the soldiers into the new era? What were the ambitions, goals and ideals from the past that would carry on into the next and unfamiliar formation of an independent Cuba?
I enjoyed reading these chapters a lot after Tuesday’s class. Our prediction of Cuba’s future was mostly wrong but it helped me understand what happened and why it happened. I did however find these two chapters jam-packed with information, which clouded the clarity of the order of events.
The beginning of the end of slavery had many contributing factors. Of course there was the fact that the “slave trade” was now illegal, but more importantly I think that over time the Spanish government gradually broke down slavery. They introduced the Moret Law and outlawed practises like putting slaves in stocks or irons. They also allowed more and more enslaved people to buy their freedom. I would like to investigate further if these actions were mostly taken because there were rebellions brewing in Cuba and they were hoping this would keep the peace in society or because of the European abolitionist’s influence on the Spanish government and pressure from Spain’s citizens. It does however seem like a natural progression of events because other countries had already completely abolished slavery.
When Cuba started to split into pro and anti separation from Spain, majority of the enslaved people were free and were selling their labour for a small salary. I would have liked Scott to give us a bit more context relating to everyday life. For example, what would one Cuban peso equal in today’s currency and what was the cost of living? This would help me put the situation into perspective.
The group who attributed Cuba’s independence to an outside intervention was definitely heading in the right direction. When the US declared war on Spain they occupied Cuba and the organization of Cuban society had to change yet again. In this new society I wonder what role racism played. Because they were occupied by the US (at that time a country revolving around the separation of races) I wonder to what extent that reflected on Cuban society. Near the end of the 5th chapter Scott does mention that years later Cubans of color and whites moves to the cities and countryside in search of a place to live. I get the impression that the mixture of races means there was mutual cooperation. Were all these different cultures living in harmony or was there still obvious discrimination? And what role did social status play in racism; was it easier to climb the social ladder now and were those on top from different backgrounds?
After reading chapter 4 and 5, I gained some new ideas about slavery. It seems that abolition slavery is more than an activity with the aim of freedom. When talks about slavery, it is not only an evidence of black misery. It more represents a period of loss. In the long progress of fighting freedom, enslaved people, even free of color, lived in panic situations. There are many battles and conflicts in that period. Too many uncertainty in their lives. Besides becoming formal freedom, they also faced social transitions. How lives will be after emancipation? Where could they find job? How to gain access to education? There are so many questions that bothered them. They may feel lost about future after emancipation. In addition, this kind of transitions is inescapable which they have no choice.
Scott’s account of Louisiana and Cuba’s journey to eventual emancipation is clear, detailed, and delves deeper into specific people’s cases in comparison to Barcia’s. Paralleling Cuba with Louisiana is a useful illustration to see how prevalent the role of politics was in both regions, Republican and Democratic in Louisiana, yet was more nuanced in Cuba in regard to the development of essentially symbolic programs to somewhat conditionally liberate slaves under law. The ‘patrocinados’ program and ‘colono’ contracts are two scenarios in which a conservative grasp on the past yet a liberal progressive envisioning for the future were at war with one another (no pun intended). The gradual shift to emancipation greatly illustrates how challenging and disillusioning it must have been to organize a new society under the auspice of emancipation. It is no surprise that three different wars occurred over the three decade period and how ultimately an independent Cuba was at the forefront of most Cuban natives initiatives. Although Barcia and Scott’s accounts vary widely across time and in terms of their description and focal points, the sense of fear and devotion to attempt to maintain control at a time of great ideological, economic, and political fluctuation is ever present. For example, there were slave hunters after the Great Slave Revolt of 1825, as explicated by Barcia, and Spanish and white protection of estates in Cuba in the 1880s. This illustrates an acknowledgment of a loss of control or a gradual slipping of control of the colonizing power otherwise this protection would not be occurring at all. As well, the multiracial alliances that were being made demonstrates peoples prerogative to get Spain out of Cuba and Cuba out of Spain. To echo Erika’s sentiments above, what would the new independent Cuba look like after a time of great contradiction, wayward policy making, and an enormous shift in the notions of race and one’s role in Cuban society? How swiftly, or not, will fluidity of class, much like the fluidity of race during the time of alliance-building during the wars, continue or discontinue? What more is there to continue quarrelling about? A lot, I presume.
I find Scott’s historical accounts in Louisiana during 1862 – 1896 and in Cuba 1868 – 1898 captivating; the amount of detail combined with personal stories makes the reading approachable and personal. As it was mentioned in class, both societies thrived on the production of sugar with almost the same slavery system; however, the road to emancipation once gained created different societies due to external and internal factors as well as ideologies of the 19th century.
It is saddening that the slaves in Louisiana after emancipation are practically shunned and the right of voting gets denied to them until 1965, even though it was proposed in legislature in 1892. It feels like the Negroes were simply used as instruments because segregation does not give them the same rights as the whites. The Democrats discourse tarnishes the emancipation through the usage of the white supremacy discourse; such propaganda instills fear within the white society, which results in decades of moral and justice abandonment towards the black population.
On the contrary, slave emancipation in Cuba lies on the work of alliance and fraternidad among the minority groups, and I think that the emancipation process happens backwards compared to Louisiana. In Cuba, slavery is gradually abolished through decrees such as lottery, the Moret law and self-purchase; this slow process allows the understanding and trust of different social and racial groups. At a certain point, the non-blacks stop believing what little knowledge and prejudice the Spaniards use against the slaves to instilled hatred in order to remain in power. Ultimately, the ‘divide and conquer’ tactics used by Spain do not stop the slave emancipation and along Cuba becomes independent. However, does independency comes out from the heart of the USA? What interests does the new “friend” of the island have? And how will the views of the Americans towards non-white people affect the interactions in the new Cuban society at the end of the 19th century?
Although Spain was caught between two movements that were split ideologically, it’s interesting how Spain attempted to leverage the schism between the liberal reformists and the hardliners. On one hand there were reformers who worked towards greater autonomy one concession at a time and the rebels who resorted to shows of force. However, were these concessions faithful attempts at moving towards abolition or were they simply damage control? Were the concessions influenced by abolitionists or were they Spain’s desperate last ditch attempts to hang onto Cuba?
The emergence of free labour and the waning influence of Spain left me wanting to find out more about what Cuba’s social, economic, and political landscape looked like after this change. Estate owners were suddenly put under the pressure of operating in a competitive labour market, one in which workers hopped in hopes of higher wages. While this resulted in operating costs cutting into profits, I was surprised to see workplace conditions improve for some plantation workers. For example, there was the Soledad administrator who proposed to a plantation owner to improve living conditions to attract workers, thus alleviating his labour shortage. With the mixture of races happening in the countryside, was there more conflict or cooperation? Who would form an alliance with whom? What about racism, and how did that compare with Louisiana? There is simply so much uncertainty in this period, it’s no wonder the Spanish were having difficulties with their decrees and overall governance of Cuba!
The chapter four and chapter five of Scott’s book triggered my interest in the economics of plantation in Cuba during the transition from slavery to wage labour. Scott says that the transition was rather smooth but doesn’t really explain why. It is interesting that the sugar industry was still very profitable and booming though technically the plantation owners suddenly incurred higher expenses of wages. Was the demand for sugar that huge? Also, chapter four and five gave me strong sentiments that prosperity is subject to decline in long history as these chapters really showed me decadence of Spanish colonial power. I was surprised by the Moret Law’s shadiness since it’s too obvious that Spain is trying to keep slavery as much as possible while keeping up appearance in the world politics. Later Spain even relaxed the condition of the use of the title “Don” and access to Spanish citizenship in order to demonstrate more equal rights for Cubans of color. That information showed me the vicissitudes of Spanish power very clearly.
Through comparison, Scott creates an interesting depiction of post-emancipation life in Louisiana and Cuba. I found the difference in the societal treatment of previously enslaved people to be revealing of the race relations in each place. In Louisiana, and America overall, the end of slavery was not met with immediate integration of African Americans into society. Rather it became a hundred year struggle, starting to improve with the Civil Rights Act in 1964. In contrast, Cuba’s emancipation of slavery took on a different process. For example the introduction of wage labour was not viewed as economic ruin for the planters, and it improved the lives of the workers. While the Cuban slaves still did face discrimination I feel they were more quickly integrated into post-emancipation Cuban life. I wonder if this is partly due to the second challenge, the fight for independence that faced Cuba in the second half of the nineteenth century. For free Cubans, it was in their interest to integrate all people and strengthen their ability to be independent from colonial rule. The Spanish power on the other hand as Scott argues wanted to keep slavery in Cuba while avoiding continued war. One way Spain did this was through the Moret Law of 1870, granting some slaves freedom. While a move towards freedom, the Moret Law was really just to appease some Cubans and their place in international relations. Overall, I find the differences in post-emancipation to speak to the way race was viewed in Louisiana vs. Cuba, and I wonder if the structural racism in Louisiana that followed was as prevalent in Cuba.
Going off-script here, but Laura’s comment (above) gave me an opening for something I was thinking about as I read through the last few chapters. There are some haunting similarities in both Louisiana and Cuba to race conflicts that have occurred within the last couple years. Plessy v. Ferguson, the death of Private Willie – these are echoes of incidents in our very recent history of like the death of Michael Brown, and allegations of voter suppression in African American communities. Allegations and charges that lead to no indictments and no internal probes, just like the events of a century ago. The implications are really disheartening, and really showcase how much each ‘degree of freedom’ needs to be clawed and fought for, without the guarantee that it won’t be revoked or repeated. That’s grim, I realize, but it was the biggest takeaway for me from these chapters. Did anyone else notice this, any thoughts?
It is interesting how a rhetoric emerges around race intended to unite Cubans at the disregard of race, and in fact to dismantle racial discrimination and provide opportunities to those black people who are emancipated from slavery, actually oppresses them. While there are many blacks attaining positions of power within the framework of the emerging independent Cuba, within the Liberal party especially as veterans fought for them, when a partido emerges with a strong backing in the Oriente province which highlights ongoing injustices to black people, it sparks fear once again throughout the nation of the threat of race war. Another Haiti! Haven’t we read this before, that even among the groups in the ten years war tried to sway the support of the slaves but then tried to downplay their role? And now, after emancipation elites continually use media to demonstrate how people demanding their rights on a platform within the emerging legal infrastructure are trying to create divisions within the country. If I remember correctly, Oriente is where Fidel and his troops land when launching a rebllion against Batista and find support amidst this region, what is the significance of this area? I thought it was awesome how the case study of the Quesada descendants was followed through the court case, and imagine this was not just an isolated event and there were others appealing to courts for their freedom. Something that the book deals with but does not give me a firm resolution with, is what happens to these appeals to land rights? Without fully autonomous development and the right to be proprietor of their own tract of land, were descendants of emancipated slaves better or worse off when involved with wage labor?
These last two chapters were in my opinion very easy to read and full of interesting information. Right after the abolition of slavery politics seems to be the main route taken to reach equality. But it isn’t as easy as it seems, especially after years of segregation and racism. They do however soon come to the conclusion that cross-racial alliance is and should be the future of Cuban politics. This chapter really shows that there is a long way to go to get to equality. The question of race doesn’t disappear and racism was still evident in their politics. Often it seems like there is a battle between voting for someone because of their race or voting for someone because of their ideas and what they stand for. For example they believed that a place with a black majority should have a black representative but that doesn’t necessarily mean that this representative stands for what the public wants. That is easily seen with the Independent Party of Color. Not all people of color supported this party and what they stood for. We can see that so clearly when the party rises up.
This situation is so interesting because there is constantly a threat that the US will come in and occupy Cuba again. So there is a lot of pressure to keep the situation with the Independent Party of Color quiet. The media made it seem as if the protests were only an issue of race. I think this is of course the obvious choice since the US was experiencing similar race issues in the south which would mean the US would likely ignore it. Yet it is very important to realize that politics was part of the issue the Party was protesting but racism was a big issue too, it wasn’t just a cover. Racism didn’t disappear with the abolition of slavery.
What does the right to vote really mean when there is nobody who represents the needs of a large group of people. I really think that was one of the biggest problems the general public (previously enslaved people) struggled with. They were given this right but had no real use for it. It didn’t have much power therefore I wonder was it a real attempt at equality or just for show.
While reading chapters 8 and 9, I tried to take a look at what might have caused the paradox that I mentioned last week (expanding rights and enduring discrimination). While each case is different and I don’t think there is a clear answer (yet? Maybe there is and I missed it!), a few things stood out to me. First, Scott mentions that “In moments of crisis, a color line could be drawn” (254). This is the basic “us vs. them” argument, and I think this was easy to “fall back” into because of slavery. Were the emancipated slaves ever seen as equals, or were they always seen as inferior? They’re still seen as a threat and not entirely trusted (224/247).
Another question I had was what does “public” mean. On page 256 Scott compares Cuba to Louisiana, but states that public was defined broadly. I think this also taps into the paradox as well.
I found it very interesting how immediately after Cuba’s independence from Spain, how the Quesada family wanted to assert their rights of equal citizenship by contesting the will of Jose Quesada after the debacle with the Blanco family in claiming ownership of his estates. The fervor for equality must have been very high at the time of independence and it must have caused a raft of similar challenges to the old establishment.
One aspect of post-colonial Cuba that I expected was the racial tension amongst those of African descent and those of European descent. Scott goes into great detail into the racial tensions that plagued Cuba in its early years, which eventually came to head in 1912 when the government had to suppress the majority black population in Oriente. This all came about because of the Morua Amendment, which banned all single race parties in Cuba. I find that what this Amendment led to was the preservation of power amongst the white Cuban ruling elite. When the Independent Party of Color led by Evaristo Estenoz and Colonel Pedro Ivonet began to challenge the ruling party for power in the Cuban government, it was seen as illegal by the government. Thus the Independent Party of Color led an armed protest in Oriente in 1912 that was followed by a brutal crackdown by the government.
With the Morua Amendment banning all parties that classified its members along a single guideline such as class, wealth, or race, it effectively helped to dilute the resistance against the ruling party, as they would have to join existing parties, which were considered legal. Apart from the uprising in Oriente, I wonder why the black population of the rest of Cuba did not resist the effects of the Morua Amendment as well? The racial tensions since Cuba’s independence has had a profound effect on its people culminating in the 1912 uprising. Similarly as Scott points out, that while Louisiana may have had a different outcome after the abolition of slavery, Cuba had to suffer greatly as the question over racial equality became a prominent theme.
Chapter 8 and 9 from the Scott readings provided a lot of insight on Cuba following the abolition of slavery. It brought to my attention how the issue of race and segregation was a significant barrier and conflict that needed to be addressed before equality could be achieved. It is interesting to me, how the residents of Cuba had relied on cross-racial relationships and alliances in the workplace and in their public lives, yet at the same time they were willing to create political divisions based on race and colour such as in the Independent Party of Color. It seems to me that because of the fact that coloured Cuban residents may have suffered disrespect from white power-holders, they were willing to ignore the need for mutual respect between races despite the fact that political racial division would undermine many existing modes of operation. Thus, it has really stood out of me how in an attempt to unite Cubans as an independent republic against colonialism (whether it be the Spanish or Americans) and provide opportunities for coloured slaves who have been emancipated, political divisions that focus on race creates a coloured vs. white rhetoric that actually weakens the political makeup of Cuba and hinders any advances of political equality.
I find it interesting how the narrative of cross-racial unity in Cuba both served and hindered the process of achieving widespread equality. It is clear that cross-racial collaboration was a key factor in the success of Cuban Independence and the construction of a national identity, but as Scott attests, “A practiced eye could easily detect the element of hypocrisy in the Cuban system” (256). On the ground level, it seems that race could not be ignored or transcended. Nonetheless, these institutional commitments allowed Cubans of color to strive for equality with greater legal footing than their counterparts in Louisiana. Even if the cross-racial narrative was not 100% true in practice, the theory provided Cuban society with an imaginative on which their structures could be founded. From my perspective, this factor – the inclusion of people of colour in the national narrative (similar to the inclusion of indigenous peoples in other parts of Latin America) is what allowed for a more extensive integration of Afro-descendents and traditions into Cuban society and culture in the 20th century. I would ask then, how did the national narrative of the United States affect the integration of Afro-descendents into American culture?
In this weeks reading I really felt as though the two storylines Scott tells of Louisiana and Cuba finally blended together. Thus far in Degrees of Freedom I’ve felt as if the histories of the two colonies have been told in isolation of each other. When reading this week’s chapters there were various times where I thought Scott really combined the two storylines into one. For example, there is discussion of African American troops that were recruited from Louisiana and sent to Cuba by the USA intervening forces. These actors alone combine the two separate storylines as Scott presents their letters home to loved ones in which they state their astonishment at the lack of color lines in Cuba. For me the main points of the last four chapters were to demonstrate to readers how gradual of a process freedom was for former enslaved peoples. Slavery didn’t just end with a piece of legislation or a war as some historians purport, instead it was a painfully slow process. By showing the histories of Louisiana and Cuba, Scott really makes clear how gradual the process is, taking readers from early Cuba where slavery is still exists to a point where Cubans of African decent are able to challenge their former owners in a court of law. While these legal endeavours covered by Scott were unsuccessful they nonetheless show a process of change. By finally tying the two storylines together Scott contrasts the two experiences but also shows how they are examples of this gradual process.
It was not surprising to see that after Cuba gained independence there was still citizenship struggles to be dealt with. I think that by contrasting Louisiana and Cuba’s different efforts for citizenship by formerly enslaved people Scott effectively showed Cuba as transcending racial divisions to fight for their rights. Most interesting was the constant battle between the Cuban government and the Partido Independiente de Color, since the government employed Machiavellian tactics to try and squash the political party. I was a little surprised that this ‘battle’ culminated in the event at Oriente, however this highlights that the President was fearful of the independientes and thus decided to act drastically. In the end Scott argues that people who endured slavery with different ‘degrees of freedom’ continued to fight on by joining together and making their stance clear in order to gain recognition and respect in their daily lives.
What I found most interesting in this section of the book was that the fight for freedom became, even more so, a conflict of human civil rights and dignity. I think Andrea Quesadas’ case was interesting because it demonstrates a public platform for free Cuban slaves (although it appears as though it was very limited) where there wasn’t one before. Scott points out that the fighting during the war and the civil rights crusade in Cuba was meant to be a “cross-racial fraternity” and not a race war. However, though the fight for independence began with a hierarchical class system, it blossomed into a fight for civil rights for coloured people. While there was progress – such as the formation of the Independent Party of Colour – reiterating Sophie’s earlier statement of a lack of definitive results for people like Andrea Quesadas, mirrors current events issues that are still deeply rooted in racial strife.
I enjoyed reading Andrea Quesada’s case claim for ‘gracias’ intended by her former master. Although the lawsuit had been overruled, the description of her willingness to put up a fight stood out for me. Issues surrounding race relations that continued to echo throughout the last two chapters in terms of the politics seemed to (and still are) a never-ending problem. However, what often gets lost in translation when recalling past events are individuals who seek to challenge existing power relations. The ways in which the division of races had manifest in the electoral game can often overwhelm the individual cases (like Quesada) that amount to the gradual process of post-emancipation slavery, and the ways in which it continues to develop today.
I admitted in discussion last week that I hadn’t particularly liked Scott’s book after reading the opening chapters; however the latter half of Degrees of Freedom (the last two chapters in particular) have made a deep enough impression on me to change my prior opinion. To me, the first half acted as a blueprint and reference guide for ideas, events, and people that would play crucial roles in the second half as the differences between Louisiana’s and Cuba’s struggle for freedoms became more and more apparent. Scott makes it abundantly clear that in both situations, the newly-emancipated peoples of African descent attempted similar techniques to express their newly-found agency like forming trade groups, forming militias, or running for office; however the different background conditions in the two regions would then change the way that the former oppressors reacted, forcing the newly emancipated to react differently in turn, and so on. It appears to me that one of the most significant forces mentioned in the text that shaped the futures of Louisiana and Cuba were the policies of their local and national governments. In Louisiana, the highly segregated nature of the region’s demographics helped the White Supremacists in the state legislature consolidate their power, and the federal government was too far away to care about the plight of the former slaves, much less to support them. On the other hand, the demography in Cuba lent itself much more towards integration between African and White in most aspects of public life, and while certain racial boundaries were not to be crossed this integration would be further reinforced in their many wars against the Spanish.
I very much liked Scott’s use of microhistory to examine post-emancipation Louisiana and Cuba, although admittedly it took me a few chapters to acclimatize myself to the style. It would have been impossible to remember every single detail like in a conventional textbook, and once I learned to let that go I had a much better time getting through the book. The style also allows Scott to move through every level of the two societies, giving agency to those who typically would have been ignored in a more broadly-sweeping narrative like Barbara Perez. That being said, a moderately-detailed timeline of important events to serve as a companion guide while reading the text would have been extremely helpful (e.g. a date, an event, and a few bullet points to summarize and explain the significance).
Question: What was the experience for the Chinese indentured workers in Cuba during this period of time? This appears to be the only group in the book that is not given any significant notice, being mentioned only a few times in the beginning and near the end. Were they considered people of colour as well? Did they fight alongside the rebels in the wars of independence?Would they be motivated to support one particular movement or another?
Scott mentions the media as a recurring factor at play during the rebellion and subsequent armed repression in the early summer of 1912. While the violent repression of the uprising instigated by the Independent Party of Colour occurred predominantly in the eastern part of the island (Oriente), the reaction and involvement of the media had a widespread influence both before and after. In 1910 for example, local newspapers reported that members of the Independent Party of Colour wanted to “carry out a war of extermination and vengeance against whites,” (237) and the coverage of the 1912 protest of newspapers across the island focused on the perceived “broad ‘Movimiento Racista,’” (240). I thought it was really interesting to see how the press manipulated the events in favour of the Liberal Party, who responded to the revolt with violence. Even more interesting is the backlash the Liberal Party suffers in the aftermath, such as through the “hostile editorial cartoons in the press,” (250) of President José Miguel Gómez. The relationship between the government, the population, and the media is deeply intertwined. Finally, while reading I thought about Scott’s descriptions of rumours, exaggerations, and fear. In some ways it reminded me of our class discussion about rumours in Cuba following the Haitian Revolution. The rumour factor is not unique to only one event. Perhaps it is even a universal factor in social, cultural, and political change. If this is so, does that mean historical progression is to a certain extent shaped by falsehood and misunderstanding as opposed to (or in addition to) a collection of events?
While reading chapters 8 and 9, I was particularly interested in the legal history presented in chapter 8. I liked that Scott chose a single lawsuit in post-emancipation Cuba in order to illustrate an atmosphere created by larger social and political changes at the time. I feel that it was a good representation of the transition of former slaves as property under the law, to citizens able to mobilize the legal system to their advantage. This case is important because it shows that while the formerly enslaved people were able to gain significant agency, the transition was not necessarily a smooth one. Scott describes Andrea Quesada, a formerly enslaved woman who felt she had been owed a “gracias” and sought legal representation for compensation. Scott mentions that allowing such a lawsuit would reinforce the Cuban political agenda, promoting an ideology of transracial citizenship and characterizing racial inequality as a thing of the old Spanish regime. From this one can infer that it would be politically advantageous for Quesada to win her suit. However, Quesada’s lawsuit did not succeed in both the lower and supreme courts. It may have been that her case was simply not strong enough under the law, however, I wonder if her failure is perhaps indicative of a struggle to move beyond racial prejudice in a society in which slavery was such a recent reality. I think this case highlights the logistical failings in an attempt at such a radical shift in ideology over a short period of time, from a country driven by slavery to one in which transracial citizenship was supposedly a reality.
Chapter 8 vividly depicts the fragmentation of Cuban politics after emancipation and the struggle for racial integration. Andrea Quesada’s case is interesting as she and her followers were so smart that they knew the lawsuit itself means a lot for their social status in terms of fully exercising their citizenship even though they lose the case. I think they had a very long-range point of view because bringing the case was likely to be quite pricy for them. The story of Partido Independiente de Color is also fascinating. It is interesting that the rebellion happened in Oriente, from where the Cuban Revolution started later on, and at the end the Liberal Party had to pay a price for what they did due to the existence of democracy.
Chapter 9 makes her whole argument throughout the book very clear, and I see her effort to make it easier to understand even though “history rarely embodies narratives that are purely heroic or purely tragic, for it does not script itself according to dramatic conventions” (258). I personally really appreciated the clearer and easier to understand conclusion as reading the book had been quite hard to grasp the larger theme due to the lack of definitive causal explanation which in reality didn’t really exist so she didn’t write about it.
Scott makes it very clear that by focusing on Louisiana and Cuba in such detail, we have been able to see that although they have had very similar experiences in their journey to emancipation, they have been left with different outcomes. In chapter nine, Scott describes Cuban nationality as transracial in character, which is very interesting in comparison with Louisiana where natives would probably not consider it to be a transracial state. It is interesting to think about what factors could have led to these two closely tied arenas to have been played out so differently. Scott argues that because of the continuing growth of the sugar cane industry in Cuba, it allowed for more immigration of many kinds of different people and this allowed for a more multiracial workforce. As opposed to Louisiana where they relied heavily on an almost exclusively black workforce which perpetuated the white supremacist doctrine. Since black people in Cuba were on equal terms with their white coworkers there was no reason that they shouldn’t have the vote or be involved more influentially in the politics of the nation. This was the complete opposite of Louisiana where although African-Americans did receive a short burst of political voice immediately after emancipation, the Democrats very quickly took power back and black people were no longer able to hold office or vote due to threats of violence from white Democrats. Therefore Scott ultimately argues that the effects of the “degrees of freedom” were due mostly to the sugar cane industry. Because Cuba’s economy continued to grow during this time, there were more opportunities for people of colour to aspire to, but in Louisiana the sugar cane industry was dwindling and therefore the people of colour there were stuck in poverty.
I found chapter 8 and 9 to be very interesting. Through her micro-history style Scott demonstrated what life and political engagement was like post slavery. In Louisiana, there was aggressive exclusion of people of colour from integration and voting. For example, following a brief stint of political authority for men of colour, White Supremacist militias formed in order to keep African American men away from the polling booths. In Cuba, alternatively it became commonplace for men of colour to vote and hold office after 1898 (228). While Scott makes it clear that racism and inequality persisted in Cuba after emancipation and independence, the power to vote signifies the “formal equality” that the government endorsed. This formal guarantee allowed Cubans to affirm their citizenship in a way that emancipated slaves in Louisiana could not do. For example, Scott highlights when the United States officials came to Cuba they found the public statement of rights for men of colour and cross-racial alliances to be suprising. In addition the U.S. authorities were hopeful that English-speaking, white men could reaffirm class rule in Cuba. The actions by the U.S. officials demonstrate that while inequality and racial prejudice continued in Cuba after 1898, it was not federally backed or structurally built in to the extent that racism was in the U.S. post-emancipation. Scott, through her detailed style does an excellent job indicating the similar slave history of Cuba and Louisiana, but how post-emancipation life was achieved and handled politically and socially different.
The “Little War” of 1879 Cuba gives us a small window into the push and pull factors influencing opposition to Spanish colonialism. The movement opposing the Spanish seems to split at an ideological level around this time. The reformists, taking the new opportunities provided by the Pact of Zanjon, established political and social societies which opposed the Spanish rule, but in a peaceful and comparatively non-threatening way. Rather than attempt to achieve independence, the reformists (such as the Autonomist Party), pursued a strategy of incremental concession and autonomy from the Spanish state. In contrast the rebels based in the eastern provinces, such as Santiago de Cuba, used military strategies to disrupt plantation output and rally slaves to their cause. The new insurgency was made up of many of the same people who had fought in the Ten Years War but new leaders did emerge, mostly of black heritage. The new rebellion was seen as one with a more radical character which increased the separation between the reformists and rebels. The reformists, especially the Autonomous Party did not want to lose their new political freedom to oppose the Cuban conservative forces while the rebels were not interested in Spanish concession and eventual emancipation but rather immediate independence and abolition of slavery. The divide between the two groups suited the aims of the Spanish perfectly and they were able to end the Little War in 1880. The Spanish consolidated their power and strengthened their position against the Autonomist Party and other political opponents by technically moving toward the abolition of slavery (a lottery system to free slaves beginning in 1885) but in practice leaving slaves and plantation owners in very familiar positions.
Cuba seemed extremely unstable, especially with the many political groups and bandits in the countryside. It was as though the country was ripe for revolution (yet again?). However, in this type of situation, how does a person/group/political party manage to bring together people of different racial and socioeconomic backgrounds?
I also realized from Ch. 4 that emancipation of the enslaved was only half the battle. Their lives after, though not restrained and forced to work, still had many challenges, and it seemed like there was some degree of discrimination as well. This made me think of the infamous Dreyfus Affair in France – even though the Declaration of the Rights of Man stated that Jews were citizens, nearly a hundred years later Alfred Dreyfus still faced the same discrimination, leading to a paradox of expanding rights and enduring discrimination.
A final note was on the roles of Women: I always find their roles particularly interesting. While often times they are not the ones in battle (not always the case though!), it can be argued that their roles within the home and their environments are just as important and significant than those on the fronts.
Scott’s account of the varieties of events in the late 19th century in Cuba is fascinating, detailed and concise. I find the reading to be different from Barcia’s because it is rather condensed and exhaustive, perhaps explained on an institutional and less individual level. Through this, she is also able to include an abundance of facts but also many interesting arguments that I enjoyed learning about for the first time. I am particularly fascinated by the cross-racial emergence of Cuban nationalism and how it developed from the initiation of the Ten Years War towards the very end. Did it arise from the socio-political fragmentation that would both divide and unite the various groups? Or from sharing a center of gravity toward independence? From our discussion in class on Tuesday we were somewhat unsure of who would be part of the wars and what it would look like. I think that in all three wars the promise and popularization of a “Free Cuba,” was perhaps romanticized; yet it appears to have been the clear alternative to the elitist Spanish rule, albeit not a strong one. I was amazed by the fact that female rebel fighters would be involved in the final wars, and also that veterans form the Ten Years War would get involved in the subsequent wars. It might show that there was widespread hostility against the Spanish rule, and that it was slowly consolidating. We could clearly see that the Spanish got more and more desperate, issuing various decrees that never really functioned properly, but which seemed to put things in check for a short period. Scott presents us with a lot of information which is perhaps difficult to sort out towards the end. Her final argument about how the soldiers entered the new era with contradictory experience sort of sums up what I was concerned about throughout the chapters. How do you reconcile the sudden shift from oppression, slavery and bloody warfare into a new society? Who decides what shape will it take? How do the newborn respect and solidarity follow the soldiers into the new era? What were the ambitions, goals and ideals from the past that would carry on into the next and unfamiliar formation of an independent Cuba?
I enjoyed reading these chapters a lot after Tuesday’s class. Our prediction of Cuba’s future was mostly wrong but it helped me understand what happened and why it happened. I did however find these two chapters jam-packed with information, which clouded the clarity of the order of events.
The beginning of the end of slavery had many contributing factors. Of course there was the fact that the “slave trade” was now illegal, but more importantly I think that over time the Spanish government gradually broke down slavery. They introduced the Moret Law and outlawed practises like putting slaves in stocks or irons. They also allowed more and more enslaved people to buy their freedom. I would like to investigate further if these actions were mostly taken because there were rebellions brewing in Cuba and they were hoping this would keep the peace in society or because of the European abolitionist’s influence on the Spanish government and pressure from Spain’s citizens. It does however seem like a natural progression of events because other countries had already completely abolished slavery.
When Cuba started to split into pro and anti separation from Spain, majority of the enslaved people were free and were selling their labour for a small salary. I would have liked Scott to give us a bit more context relating to everyday life. For example, what would one Cuban peso equal in today’s currency and what was the cost of living? This would help me put the situation into perspective.
The group who attributed Cuba’s independence to an outside intervention was definitely heading in the right direction. When the US declared war on Spain they occupied Cuba and the organization of Cuban society had to change yet again. In this new society I wonder what role racism played. Because they were occupied by the US (at that time a country revolving around the separation of races) I wonder to what extent that reflected on Cuban society. Near the end of the 5th chapter Scott does mention that years later Cubans of color and whites moves to the cities and countryside in search of a place to live. I get the impression that the mixture of races means there was mutual cooperation. Were all these different cultures living in harmony or was there still obvious discrimination? And what role did social status play in racism; was it easier to climb the social ladder now and were those on top from different backgrounds?
After reading chapter 4 and 5, I gained some new ideas about slavery. It seems that abolition slavery is more than an activity with the aim of freedom. When talks about slavery, it is not only an evidence of black misery. It more represents a period of loss. In the long progress of fighting freedom, enslaved people, even free of color, lived in panic situations. There are many battles and conflicts in that period. Too many uncertainty in their lives. Besides becoming formal freedom, they also faced social transitions. How lives will be after emancipation? Where could they find job? How to gain access to education? There are so many questions that bothered them. They may feel lost about future after emancipation. In addition, this kind of transitions is inescapable which they have no choice.
Scott’s account of Louisiana and Cuba’s journey to eventual emancipation is clear, detailed, and delves deeper into specific people’s cases in comparison to Barcia’s. Paralleling Cuba with Louisiana is a useful illustration to see how prevalent the role of politics was in both regions, Republican and Democratic in Louisiana, yet was more nuanced in Cuba in regard to the development of essentially symbolic programs to somewhat conditionally liberate slaves under law. The ‘patrocinados’ program and ‘colono’ contracts are two scenarios in which a conservative grasp on the past yet a liberal progressive envisioning for the future were at war with one another (no pun intended). The gradual shift to emancipation greatly illustrates how challenging and disillusioning it must have been to organize a new society under the auspice of emancipation. It is no surprise that three different wars occurred over the three decade period and how ultimately an independent Cuba was at the forefront of most Cuban natives initiatives. Although Barcia and Scott’s accounts vary widely across time and in terms of their description and focal points, the sense of fear and devotion to attempt to maintain control at a time of great ideological, economic, and political fluctuation is ever present. For example, there were slave hunters after the Great Slave Revolt of 1825, as explicated by Barcia, and Spanish and white protection of estates in Cuba in the 1880s. This illustrates an acknowledgment of a loss of control or a gradual slipping of control of the colonizing power otherwise this protection would not be occurring at all. As well, the multiracial alliances that were being made demonstrates peoples prerogative to get Spain out of Cuba and Cuba out of Spain. To echo Erika’s sentiments above, what would the new independent Cuba look like after a time of great contradiction, wayward policy making, and an enormous shift in the notions of race and one’s role in Cuban society? How swiftly, or not, will fluidity of class, much like the fluidity of race during the time of alliance-building during the wars, continue or discontinue? What more is there to continue quarrelling about? A lot, I presume.
I find Scott’s historical accounts in Louisiana during 1862 – 1896 and in Cuba 1868 – 1898 captivating; the amount of detail combined with personal stories makes the reading approachable and personal. As it was mentioned in class, both societies thrived on the production of sugar with almost the same slavery system; however, the road to emancipation once gained created different societies due to external and internal factors as well as ideologies of the 19th century.
It is saddening that the slaves in Louisiana after emancipation are practically shunned and the right of voting gets denied to them until 1965, even though it was proposed in legislature in 1892. It feels like the Negroes were simply used as instruments because segregation does not give them the same rights as the whites. The Democrats discourse tarnishes the emancipation through the usage of the white supremacy discourse; such propaganda instills fear within the white society, which results in decades of moral and justice abandonment towards the black population.
On the contrary, slave emancipation in Cuba lies on the work of alliance and fraternidad among the minority groups, and I think that the emancipation process happens backwards compared to Louisiana. In Cuba, slavery is gradually abolished through decrees such as lottery, the Moret law and self-purchase; this slow process allows the understanding and trust of different social and racial groups. At a certain point, the non-blacks stop believing what little knowledge and prejudice the Spaniards use against the slaves to instilled hatred in order to remain in power. Ultimately, the ‘divide and conquer’ tactics used by Spain do not stop the slave emancipation and along Cuba becomes independent. However, does independency comes out from the heart of the USA? What interests does the new “friend” of the island have? And how will the views of the Americans towards non-white people affect the interactions in the new Cuban society at the end of the 19th century?
Although Spain was caught between two movements that were split ideologically, it’s interesting how Spain attempted to leverage the schism between the liberal reformists and the hardliners. On one hand there were reformers who worked towards greater autonomy one concession at a time and the rebels who resorted to shows of force. However, were these concessions faithful attempts at moving towards abolition or were they simply damage control? Were the concessions influenced by abolitionists or were they Spain’s desperate last ditch attempts to hang onto Cuba?
The emergence of free labour and the waning influence of Spain left me wanting to find out more about what Cuba’s social, economic, and political landscape looked like after this change. Estate owners were suddenly put under the pressure of operating in a competitive labour market, one in which workers hopped in hopes of higher wages. While this resulted in operating costs cutting into profits, I was surprised to see workplace conditions improve for some plantation workers. For example, there was the Soledad administrator who proposed to a plantation owner to improve living conditions to attract workers, thus alleviating his labour shortage. With the mixture of races happening in the countryside, was there more conflict or cooperation? Who would form an alliance with whom? What about racism, and how did that compare with Louisiana? There is simply so much uncertainty in this period, it’s no wonder the Spanish were having difficulties with their decrees and overall governance of Cuba!
The chapter four and chapter five of Scott’s book triggered my interest in the economics of plantation in Cuba during the transition from slavery to wage labour. Scott says that the transition was rather smooth but doesn’t really explain why. It is interesting that the sugar industry was still very profitable and booming though technically the plantation owners suddenly incurred higher expenses of wages. Was the demand for sugar that huge? Also, chapter four and five gave me strong sentiments that prosperity is subject to decline in long history as these chapters really showed me decadence of Spanish colonial power. I was surprised by the Moret Law’s shadiness since it’s too obvious that Spain is trying to keep slavery as much as possible while keeping up appearance in the world politics. Later Spain even relaxed the condition of the use of the title “Don” and access to Spanish citizenship in order to demonstrate more equal rights for Cubans of color. That information showed me the vicissitudes of Spanish power very clearly.
Through comparison, Scott creates an interesting depiction of post-emancipation life in Louisiana and Cuba. I found the difference in the societal treatment of previously enslaved people to be revealing of the race relations in each place. In Louisiana, and America overall, the end of slavery was not met with immediate integration of African Americans into society. Rather it became a hundred year struggle, starting to improve with the Civil Rights Act in 1964. In contrast, Cuba’s emancipation of slavery took on a different process. For example the introduction of wage labour was not viewed as economic ruin for the planters, and it improved the lives of the workers. While the Cuban slaves still did face discrimination I feel they were more quickly integrated into post-emancipation Cuban life. I wonder if this is partly due to the second challenge, the fight for independence that faced Cuba in the second half of the nineteenth century. For free Cubans, it was in their interest to integrate all people and strengthen their ability to be independent from colonial rule. The Spanish power on the other hand as Scott argues wanted to keep slavery in Cuba while avoiding continued war. One way Spain did this was through the Moret Law of 1870, granting some slaves freedom. While a move towards freedom, the Moret Law was really just to appease some Cubans and their place in international relations. Overall, I find the differences in post-emancipation to speak to the way race was viewed in Louisiana vs. Cuba, and I wonder if the structural racism in Louisiana that followed was as prevalent in Cuba.
Going off-script here, but Laura’s comment (above) gave me an opening for something I was thinking about as I read through the last few chapters. There are some haunting similarities in both Louisiana and Cuba to race conflicts that have occurred within the last couple years. Plessy v. Ferguson, the death of Private Willie – these are echoes of incidents in our very recent history of like the death of Michael Brown, and allegations of voter suppression in African American communities. Allegations and charges that lead to no indictments and no internal probes, just like the events of a century ago. The implications are really disheartening, and really showcase how much each ‘degree of freedom’ needs to be clawed and fought for, without the guarantee that it won’t be revoked or repeated. That’s grim, I realize, but it was the biggest takeaway for me from these chapters. Did anyone else notice this, any thoughts?
It is interesting how a rhetoric emerges around race intended to unite Cubans at the disregard of race, and in fact to dismantle racial discrimination and provide opportunities to those black people who are emancipated from slavery, actually oppresses them. While there are many blacks attaining positions of power within the framework of the emerging independent Cuba, within the Liberal party especially as veterans fought for them, when a partido emerges with a strong backing in the Oriente province which highlights ongoing injustices to black people, it sparks fear once again throughout the nation of the threat of race war. Another Haiti! Haven’t we read this before, that even among the groups in the ten years war tried to sway the support of the slaves but then tried to downplay their role? And now, after emancipation elites continually use media to demonstrate how people demanding their rights on a platform within the emerging legal infrastructure are trying to create divisions within the country. If I remember correctly, Oriente is where Fidel and his troops land when launching a rebllion against Batista and find support amidst this region, what is the significance of this area? I thought it was awesome how the case study of the Quesada descendants was followed through the court case, and imagine this was not just an isolated event and there were others appealing to courts for their freedom. Something that the book deals with but does not give me a firm resolution with, is what happens to these appeals to land rights? Without fully autonomous development and the right to be proprietor of their own tract of land, were descendants of emancipated slaves better or worse off when involved with wage labor?
These last two chapters were in my opinion very easy to read and full of interesting information. Right after the abolition of slavery politics seems to be the main route taken to reach equality. But it isn’t as easy as it seems, especially after years of segregation and racism. They do however soon come to the conclusion that cross-racial alliance is and should be the future of Cuban politics. This chapter really shows that there is a long way to go to get to equality. The question of race doesn’t disappear and racism was still evident in their politics. Often it seems like there is a battle between voting for someone because of their race or voting for someone because of their ideas and what they stand for. For example they believed that a place with a black majority should have a black representative but that doesn’t necessarily mean that this representative stands for what the public wants. That is easily seen with the Independent Party of Color. Not all people of color supported this party and what they stood for. We can see that so clearly when the party rises up.
This situation is so interesting because there is constantly a threat that the US will come in and occupy Cuba again. So there is a lot of pressure to keep the situation with the Independent Party of Color quiet. The media made it seem as if the protests were only an issue of race. I think this is of course the obvious choice since the US was experiencing similar race issues in the south which would mean the US would likely ignore it. Yet it is very important to realize that politics was part of the issue the Party was protesting but racism was a big issue too, it wasn’t just a cover. Racism didn’t disappear with the abolition of slavery.
What does the right to vote really mean when there is nobody who represents the needs of a large group of people. I really think that was one of the biggest problems the general public (previously enslaved people) struggled with. They were given this right but had no real use for it. It didn’t have much power therefore I wonder was it a real attempt at equality or just for show.
While reading chapters 8 and 9, I tried to take a look at what might have caused the paradox that I mentioned last week (expanding rights and enduring discrimination). While each case is different and I don’t think there is a clear answer (yet? Maybe there is and I missed it!), a few things stood out to me. First, Scott mentions that “In moments of crisis, a color line could be drawn” (254). This is the basic “us vs. them” argument, and I think this was easy to “fall back” into because of slavery. Were the emancipated slaves ever seen as equals, or were they always seen as inferior? They’re still seen as a threat and not entirely trusted (224/247).
Another question I had was what does “public” mean. On page 256 Scott compares Cuba to Louisiana, but states that public was defined broadly. I think this also taps into the paradox as well.
I found it very interesting how immediately after Cuba’s independence from Spain, how the Quesada family wanted to assert their rights of equal citizenship by contesting the will of Jose Quesada after the debacle with the Blanco family in claiming ownership of his estates. The fervor for equality must have been very high at the time of independence and it must have caused a raft of similar challenges to the old establishment.
One aspect of post-colonial Cuba that I expected was the racial tension amongst those of African descent and those of European descent. Scott goes into great detail into the racial tensions that plagued Cuba in its early years, which eventually came to head in 1912 when the government had to suppress the majority black population in Oriente. This all came about because of the Morua Amendment, which banned all single race parties in Cuba. I find that what this Amendment led to was the preservation of power amongst the white Cuban ruling elite. When the Independent Party of Color led by Evaristo Estenoz and Colonel Pedro Ivonet began to challenge the ruling party for power in the Cuban government, it was seen as illegal by the government. Thus the Independent Party of Color led an armed protest in Oriente in 1912 that was followed by a brutal crackdown by the government.
With the Morua Amendment banning all parties that classified its members along a single guideline such as class, wealth, or race, it effectively helped to dilute the resistance against the ruling party, as they would have to join existing parties, which were considered legal. Apart from the uprising in Oriente, I wonder why the black population of the rest of Cuba did not resist the effects of the Morua Amendment as well? The racial tensions since Cuba’s independence has had a profound effect on its people culminating in the 1912 uprising. Similarly as Scott points out, that while Louisiana may have had a different outcome after the abolition of slavery, Cuba had to suffer greatly as the question over racial equality became a prominent theme.
Chapter 8 and 9 from the Scott readings provided a lot of insight on Cuba following the abolition of slavery. It brought to my attention how the issue of race and segregation was a significant barrier and conflict that needed to be addressed before equality could be achieved. It is interesting to me, how the residents of Cuba had relied on cross-racial relationships and alliances in the workplace and in their public lives, yet at the same time they were willing to create political divisions based on race and colour such as in the Independent Party of Color. It seems to me that because of the fact that coloured Cuban residents may have suffered disrespect from white power-holders, they were willing to ignore the need for mutual respect between races despite the fact that political racial division would undermine many existing modes of operation. Thus, it has really stood out of me how in an attempt to unite Cubans as an independent republic against colonialism (whether it be the Spanish or Americans) and provide opportunities for coloured slaves who have been emancipated, political divisions that focus on race creates a coloured vs. white rhetoric that actually weakens the political makeup of Cuba and hinders any advances of political equality.
I find it interesting how the narrative of cross-racial unity in Cuba both served and hindered the process of achieving widespread equality. It is clear that cross-racial collaboration was a key factor in the success of Cuban Independence and the construction of a national identity, but as Scott attests, “A practiced eye could easily detect the element of hypocrisy in the Cuban system” (256). On the ground level, it seems that race could not be ignored or transcended. Nonetheless, these institutional commitments allowed Cubans of color to strive for equality with greater legal footing than their counterparts in Louisiana. Even if the cross-racial narrative was not 100% true in practice, the theory provided Cuban society with an imaginative on which their structures could be founded. From my perspective, this factor – the inclusion of people of colour in the national narrative (similar to the inclusion of indigenous peoples in other parts of Latin America) is what allowed for a more extensive integration of Afro-descendents and traditions into Cuban society and culture in the 20th century. I would ask then, how did the national narrative of the United States affect the integration of Afro-descendents into American culture?
In this weeks reading I really felt as though the two storylines Scott tells of Louisiana and Cuba finally blended together. Thus far in Degrees of Freedom I’ve felt as if the histories of the two colonies have been told in isolation of each other. When reading this week’s chapters there were various times where I thought Scott really combined the two storylines into one. For example, there is discussion of African American troops that were recruited from Louisiana and sent to Cuba by the USA intervening forces. These actors alone combine the two separate storylines as Scott presents their letters home to loved ones in which they state their astonishment at the lack of color lines in Cuba. For me the main points of the last four chapters were to demonstrate to readers how gradual of a process freedom was for former enslaved peoples. Slavery didn’t just end with a piece of legislation or a war as some historians purport, instead it was a painfully slow process. By showing the histories of Louisiana and Cuba, Scott really makes clear how gradual the process is, taking readers from early Cuba where slavery is still exists to a point where Cubans of African decent are able to challenge their former owners in a court of law. While these legal endeavours covered by Scott were unsuccessful they nonetheless show a process of change. By finally tying the two storylines together Scott contrasts the two experiences but also shows how they are examples of this gradual process.
It was not surprising to see that after Cuba gained independence there was still citizenship struggles to be dealt with. I think that by contrasting Louisiana and Cuba’s different efforts for citizenship by formerly enslaved people Scott effectively showed Cuba as transcending racial divisions to fight for their rights. Most interesting was the constant battle between the Cuban government and the Partido Independiente de Color, since the government employed Machiavellian tactics to try and squash the political party. I was a little surprised that this ‘battle’ culminated in the event at Oriente, however this highlights that the President was fearful of the independientes and thus decided to act drastically. In the end Scott argues that people who endured slavery with different ‘degrees of freedom’ continued to fight on by joining together and making their stance clear in order to gain recognition and respect in their daily lives.
What I found most interesting in this section of the book was that the fight for freedom became, even more so, a conflict of human civil rights and dignity. I think Andrea Quesadas’ case was interesting because it demonstrates a public platform for free Cuban slaves (although it appears as though it was very limited) where there wasn’t one before. Scott points out that the fighting during the war and the civil rights crusade in Cuba was meant to be a “cross-racial fraternity” and not a race war. However, though the fight for independence began with a hierarchical class system, it blossomed into a fight for civil rights for coloured people. While there was progress – such as the formation of the Independent Party of Colour – reiterating Sophie’s earlier statement of a lack of definitive results for people like Andrea Quesadas, mirrors current events issues that are still deeply rooted in racial strife.
I enjoyed reading Andrea Quesada’s case claim for ‘gracias’ intended by her former master. Although the lawsuit had been overruled, the description of her willingness to put up a fight stood out for me. Issues surrounding race relations that continued to echo throughout the last two chapters in terms of the politics seemed to (and still are) a never-ending problem. However, what often gets lost in translation when recalling past events are individuals who seek to challenge existing power relations. The ways in which the division of races had manifest in the electoral game can often overwhelm the individual cases (like Quesada) that amount to the gradual process of post-emancipation slavery, and the ways in which it continues to develop today.
I admitted in discussion last week that I hadn’t particularly liked Scott’s book after reading the opening chapters; however the latter half of Degrees of Freedom (the last two chapters in particular) have made a deep enough impression on me to change my prior opinion. To me, the first half acted as a blueprint and reference guide for ideas, events, and people that would play crucial roles in the second half as the differences between Louisiana’s and Cuba’s struggle for freedoms became more and more apparent. Scott makes it abundantly clear that in both situations, the newly-emancipated peoples of African descent attempted similar techniques to express their newly-found agency like forming trade groups, forming militias, or running for office; however the different background conditions in the two regions would then change the way that the former oppressors reacted, forcing the newly emancipated to react differently in turn, and so on. It appears to me that one of the most significant forces mentioned in the text that shaped the futures of Louisiana and Cuba were the policies of their local and national governments. In Louisiana, the highly segregated nature of the region’s demographics helped the White Supremacists in the state legislature consolidate their power, and the federal government was too far away to care about the plight of the former slaves, much less to support them. On the other hand, the demography in Cuba lent itself much more towards integration between African and White in most aspects of public life, and while certain racial boundaries were not to be crossed this integration would be further reinforced in their many wars against the Spanish.
I very much liked Scott’s use of microhistory to examine post-emancipation Louisiana and Cuba, although admittedly it took me a few chapters to acclimatize myself to the style. It would have been impossible to remember every single detail like in a conventional textbook, and once I learned to let that go I had a much better time getting through the book. The style also allows Scott to move through every level of the two societies, giving agency to those who typically would have been ignored in a more broadly-sweeping narrative like Barbara Perez. That being said, a moderately-detailed timeline of important events to serve as a companion guide while reading the text would have been extremely helpful (e.g. a date, an event, and a few bullet points to summarize and explain the significance).
Question: What was the experience for the Chinese indentured workers in Cuba during this period of time? This appears to be the only group in the book that is not given any significant notice, being mentioned only a few times in the beginning and near the end. Were they considered people of colour as well? Did they fight alongside the rebels in the wars of independence?Would they be motivated to support one particular movement or another?
Scott mentions the media as a recurring factor at play during the rebellion and subsequent armed repression in the early summer of 1912. While the violent repression of the uprising instigated by the Independent Party of Colour occurred predominantly in the eastern part of the island (Oriente), the reaction and involvement of the media had a widespread influence both before and after. In 1910 for example, local newspapers reported that members of the Independent Party of Colour wanted to “carry out a war of extermination and vengeance against whites,” (237) and the coverage of the 1912 protest of newspapers across the island focused on the perceived “broad ‘Movimiento Racista,’” (240). I thought it was really interesting to see how the press manipulated the events in favour of the Liberal Party, who responded to the revolt with violence. Even more interesting is the backlash the Liberal Party suffers in the aftermath, such as through the “hostile editorial cartoons in the press,” (250) of President José Miguel Gómez. The relationship between the government, the population, and the media is deeply intertwined. Finally, while reading I thought about Scott’s descriptions of rumours, exaggerations, and fear. In some ways it reminded me of our class discussion about rumours in Cuba following the Haitian Revolution. The rumour factor is not unique to only one event. Perhaps it is even a universal factor in social, cultural, and political change. If this is so, does that mean historical progression is to a certain extent shaped by falsehood and misunderstanding as opposed to (or in addition to) a collection of events?
While reading chapters 8 and 9, I was particularly interested in the legal history presented in chapter 8. I liked that Scott chose a single lawsuit in post-emancipation Cuba in order to illustrate an atmosphere created by larger social and political changes at the time. I feel that it was a good representation of the transition of former slaves as property under the law, to citizens able to mobilize the legal system to their advantage. This case is important because it shows that while the formerly enslaved people were able to gain significant agency, the transition was not necessarily a smooth one. Scott describes Andrea Quesada, a formerly enslaved woman who felt she had been owed a “gracias” and sought legal representation for compensation. Scott mentions that allowing such a lawsuit would reinforce the Cuban political agenda, promoting an ideology of transracial citizenship and characterizing racial inequality as a thing of the old Spanish regime. From this one can infer that it would be politically advantageous for Quesada to win her suit. However, Quesada’s lawsuit did not succeed in both the lower and supreme courts. It may have been that her case was simply not strong enough under the law, however, I wonder if her failure is perhaps indicative of a struggle to move beyond racial prejudice in a society in which slavery was such a recent reality. I think this case highlights the logistical failings in an attempt at such a radical shift in ideology over a short period of time, from a country driven by slavery to one in which transracial citizenship was supposedly a reality.
Chapter 8 vividly depicts the fragmentation of Cuban politics after emancipation and the struggle for racial integration. Andrea Quesada’s case is interesting as she and her followers were so smart that they knew the lawsuit itself means a lot for their social status in terms of fully exercising their citizenship even though they lose the case. I think they had a very long-range point of view because bringing the case was likely to be quite pricy for them. The story of Partido Independiente de Color is also fascinating. It is interesting that the rebellion happened in Oriente, from where the Cuban Revolution started later on, and at the end the Liberal Party had to pay a price for what they did due to the existence of democracy.
Chapter 9 makes her whole argument throughout the book very clear, and I see her effort to make it easier to understand even though “history rarely embodies narratives that are purely heroic or purely tragic, for it does not script itself according to dramatic conventions” (258). I personally really appreciated the clearer and easier to understand conclusion as reading the book had been quite hard to grasp the larger theme due to the lack of definitive causal explanation which in reality didn’t really exist so she didn’t write about it.
Scott makes it very clear that by focusing on Louisiana and Cuba in such detail, we have been able to see that although they have had very similar experiences in their journey to emancipation, they have been left with different outcomes. In chapter nine, Scott describes Cuban nationality as transracial in character, which is very interesting in comparison with Louisiana where natives would probably not consider it to be a transracial state. It is interesting to think about what factors could have led to these two closely tied arenas to have been played out so differently. Scott argues that because of the continuing growth of the sugar cane industry in Cuba, it allowed for more immigration of many kinds of different people and this allowed for a more multiracial workforce. As opposed to Louisiana where they relied heavily on an almost exclusively black workforce which perpetuated the white supremacist doctrine. Since black people in Cuba were on equal terms with their white coworkers there was no reason that they shouldn’t have the vote or be involved more influentially in the politics of the nation. This was the complete opposite of Louisiana where although African-Americans did receive a short burst of political voice immediately after emancipation, the Democrats very quickly took power back and black people were no longer able to hold office or vote due to threats of violence from white Democrats. Therefore Scott ultimately argues that the effects of the “degrees of freedom” were due mostly to the sugar cane industry. Because Cuba’s economy continued to grow during this time, there were more opportunities for people of colour to aspire to, but in Louisiana the sugar cane industry was dwindling and therefore the people of colour there were stuck in poverty.
I found chapter 8 and 9 to be very interesting. Through her micro-history style Scott demonstrated what life and political engagement was like post slavery. In Louisiana, there was aggressive exclusion of people of colour from integration and voting. For example, following a brief stint of political authority for men of colour, White Supremacist militias formed in order to keep African American men away from the polling booths. In Cuba, alternatively it became commonplace for men of colour to vote and hold office after 1898 (228). While Scott makes it clear that racism and inequality persisted in Cuba after emancipation and independence, the power to vote signifies the “formal equality” that the government endorsed. This formal guarantee allowed Cubans to affirm their citizenship in a way that emancipated slaves in Louisiana could not do. For example, Scott highlights when the United States officials came to Cuba they found the public statement of rights for men of colour and cross-racial alliances to be suprising. In addition the U.S. authorities were hopeful that English-speaking, white men could reaffirm class rule in Cuba. The actions by the U.S. officials demonstrate that while inequality and racial prejudice continued in Cuba after 1898, it was not federally backed or structurally built in to the extent that racism was in the U.S. post-emancipation. Scott, through her detailed style does an excellent job indicating the similar slave history of Cuba and Louisiana, but how post-emancipation life was achieved and handled politically and socially different.