« Castro=God | Babalu Blog - Main Page | Babalu Radio Hour tonight | NEW TIME 9:00 PM EDT »

Michael Fernandez's tragic misreading of Michael Bustamante and Elizabeth Jordan's insightful column for the Yale Daily News begins with the latter's name (he calls her "Erin") but doesn't end there.


When questioning the authors' claim that improved material conditions could help bring change to the island, he tells us that, for that to be true, "one has to assume" two things. First, it must be said that this is a flawed rhetorical strategy; just because Fernandez makes certain assumptions and claims that they are necessary to reconcile the point in question does not make them true. Assuming they were, however, I find neither of his assumptions problematic -- it's just that he words them in a way that makes them seem preposterous.


First, it's not that Cubans need incentives to fight off the Castro regime. But it's simply human nature to strive for something (in this case, more liberties) once we begin getting a taste for it; to dig harder when we start seeing light at the end of the tunnel, so to speak. As for the "meager hand-outs", the authors never claim that they make up for anything. In fact, they agree that many of the changes are inconsequential, calling them "cosmetic". However, even a baby step is a step forward, and the problem with Michael Fernandez and those who share their ideology is that their bias blinds them to the extent that they endeavor to turn even the positives into negatives, simply to strengthen their position.


The rest of Fernandez's response is even worse, as only the most twisted reading of Bustamante and Jordan's column could lead him to his conclusions? Far from claiming that Cubans are "willing participants in their own victimization", the authors talk about how ordinary Cubans work against the regime in their own way. Nor do the authors claim that "Cubans should accept their servitude" in exchange for anything or that only affluent Cubans want freedom. I struggle mightily to see from where in the authors' column Fernandez draws those conclusions.


Michael Fernandez and those of his ilk treat the Castro regime as the epitome of evil, ignore the nuances of a complex situation and fail to admit that Cuba's leaders have even the capacity to do anything which could be remotely considered positive. That is the true insult to Cubans everywhere, as it undermines whatever productive discussion there could be between people like him, Bustamante and Jordan, who obviously (like myself) all share the dream of a free Cuba.

Although I am very glad that we all share the dream of a free Cuba, I am saddened that for someone who raises the notion of productive discussion, the bulk of your comment consists of an attack on Mr. Fernandez.

I understand the temptation to look at these changes and hope that they signal something greater. But as a person knowledgeable about Cuba, you must know there is absolutely no basis in fact to do so.

I would ask why "baby steps" are not only acceptable but laudable when it comes to Cuba. Around the entire globe we can defend the oppressed, but when it comes to Cuba we are to make excuses.

Either the populace is enslaved or it is not. There is no nuance. Are there other means that might be more effective? Possibly. However, as long as those of your "ilk" continue to minimize the situation, those of mine will continue to tell the truth, that the regime is in fact evil, and no amount of propaganda spouted by the well-intentioned will not make it so.

I am not attacking Michael Fernandez personally -- though I have met him a few times, and if I were to attack him personally I suppose I might say that he makes some peculiar wardrobe choices and he is not as good a dominoes player as he'd like to believe. But that's neither here nor there.

I am simply criticizing what I believe is a twisted reading of a fine column which raises some interesting points. Now allow me to tackle your comment, point by point:

First, there never is much of indication of change in Cuba. Certainly (as far as I know) nobody saw the recent changes coming. It would be curious, however, if these minor concessions stood alone as opposed to being a prelude to more changes down the road. But the truth is that, with Cuba, you never know.

Second, nobody is excusing anything, nor suggesting that these "baby steps" are fine and dandy all by themselves. Indeed, the idea that they may indicate that more change is on the horizon stems from the belief that much more change is necessary.

Finally, saying that the situation is completely black and white and refusing to admit any sort of complexity or nuance strikes me as ignorant. It makes for fine rhetoric, but surely someone as knowledgeable of Cuba as yourself must know it's not true. Calling the situation nuanced is not a way of minimizing it, but of trying to approach it in a realistic way that might be more productive than simply pointing at it and shouting "EEEVIL!!!!" Just a thought.

Hello Albert,

Let me get straight to the heart of the matter:

You object to my claim that Bustamante’s and Jordan’s assertion that “improved material conditions could help bring change to the island” is based on one of two premises. If their argument stems from some other premise, please tell us what it is. There’s no need to be bashful here…

You say that “it's simply human nature to strive for something (in this case, more liberties) once we begin getting a taste for it.” So, what would happen if the regime didn’t give the Cuban people a “taste of freedom”? They wouldn’t strive for it? Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t that another way of saying that the Cuban people need incentives from the Castro regime to fight off... well... the Castro regime...

You say that the problem with me and other individuals with my “bias” (i.e. values) is that “[we] endeavor to turn even the positives into negatives.” Tell me, what standard of value should I use to define “positive” and “negative”? Why?

According to Bustamante and Jordan, I create “the image of an Orwellian world, where the line between the controllers and the controlled is clear cut. Rarely in any society, and certainly not in Cuba, are power dynamics this transparent.” Really?—Why don’t you tell that to all the brave men who were executed at La Cabaña... Oh, wait… you can’t…they were murdered …. Well, I suppose you could tell the brave men and women who languish in the regime’s gulags that Cuba isn’t an “Orwellian world”…Oh, wait… that’s going to be hard, since they’re rotting in a jail for… challenging their controllers…

Feel free to hold me in contempt for treating “the Castro regime as the epitome of evil.” I’m not going to apologize for having a moral center or for framing issues in moral terms. Communism is EEEVIL, plain and simple.

Let me conclude by saying that I do not share a common cause with you, Bustamante and Jordan. We differ on ends and means. Please do not pretend that we have the same goal for Cuba. We are worlds apart.

-Michael

Michael,

First of all, you really should start getting people's name's right. Mine is Alberto, not "Albert", and I particularly dislike seeing it Americanized. Again, allow me to go point by point:

First, here's the alternative premise for you: any loosening of chains, even the slightest, most seemingly inconsequential loosening, is bound to make it easier to, eventually, fully be free of those chains. Now, if you'd like to argue that the recent changes in some Cuban policies don't even constitute a loosening at all, I suppose you could say that. But the truth is that Cubans can do something today that they could not do yesterday, even if it's something that doesn't widely benefit the masses. To answer your third point, that seems like something "positive", by definition, to me.

Second, I should have added the word "harder" after the word "strive", though I think my tunnel analogy makes quite clear that what I mean is not that people begin resisting once they get some incentive, but that it can be the tiniest of encouragements to resist even harder, to work towards things that they may not have thought possible because, hey, I'm sure many didn't think these changes possible but, they happened.

Also, you're pulling a little misdirection with the "clear cut relationship between the controller and controlled" argument. Of course, in the extreme cases of people who were murdered or are captured, the degree of control is absolute. However, that is not the case for the ordinary Cuban citizen -- those are the people Bustamante and Jordan (and myself) are referring to. Is the Castro regime liable to kill or imprison any of them at any time, asserting complete authority? Of course, regrettably so. But, as long as they're not, things are not that simple.

Finally, while you're completely justified in calling the Castro regime the epitome of evil, how's that worked out for the Cuban exile movement in the last half century? Made a lot of progress with that rhetoric? Made a lot of money, sure; Cuba-bashing is practically a profession in Miami. But other than that...

And, you're right, I don't know what your specific goals for Cuba are (just as you don't know mine, by the way) but I'm going to take a wild guess that we're not in agreement. I was just trying to be conciliatory when I wrote that, so sue me.

Nuances. Nuances. Man, Albert, you're the very epitome of nuanced. A nuanced commie, going through shades of red and pink, but nuanced nevertheless.

Hi Albert,

Wonderful, so now I’m a Cuba basher... Next thing you know, I’ll be branded an
“extremist” (if not worse).

Criticizing the communist regime is not the same thing as criticizing the Cuban people.
Let’s be a bit more “nuanced,” please. Honestly, you don’t gain a lot in the way of
credibility by sounding like one of the regime’s henchmen. Besides, it’s just crass to
accuse Cuban exiles—who left their homeland because of political persecution—of
Cuba-bashing.

You claim that Bustamante and Jordan’s argument is based on the premise that “any
loosening of chains, even the slightest, most seemingly inconsequential loosening, is
bound to make it easier to, eventually, fully be free of those chains." I don’t know how
to break this to you, but that’s just a restatement of what I said. Here’s why:

According to Bustamante’s and Jordan’s, Raul, “[by] improve[ing] the material conditions of Cubans’ daily lives, runs the risk of raising not just economic but political
expectations among the Cuban people beyond what he is prepared to deliver.”

In other words, the regime’s reforms will bring about change by creating incentives for the Cuban people to turn against their rulers—i.e. “raising political expectations among the Cuban people” (In case you haven’t caught on, that’s the first premise that I pointed to in the letter).

Bustamante and Jordan don’t tell us how the Cuban people’s “rising expectations” will
bring about change. I hope that they don't expect the regime to willingly open up after
what Granma said in April (which they, as “professionals working closely on Cuban
foreign policy and human rights,” are doubtless acquainted with).

Less than two months ago, Granma said that:

"No hay espacio para sueños de adversarios, de quintacolumnistas y mercenarios internos. Los cambios "estratégicos" que añoran los agoreros del imperio no tendrán lugar porque, sin equívocos, habrá más socialismo perfectible, sostenido y defendido por un pueblo unido, bajo la guía de Fidel y Raúl y la dirección del Partido."

In light of the recent crackdown and detentions, I think it's clear that the regime isn't
kidding...

Still, I suppose that the improved material conditions will allow the Cuban people to afford pots and pans—and maybe even pitchforks—with which to throw themselves at the regime’s tanks….

In any case, you’re claim concerning the nature of the regime’s control is just as foolish as your other claims. Let me get this straight, so long as people aren’t in prisons
or dead, they are free? Huh?

I suppose you’re also going to tell me that the privileges enjoyed by the members of the
Communist Party and the FAR—the masters—don’t serve to highlight the distinction
between the “controllers” and “controlled.”

Let me conclude with this thought: there are people out there who don’t consider the
regime evil. They are the same kind of people who would’ve been applauding when the regime was staging the paredones, that is, summary show trials that ended with the execution of countless innocents. Tell me, why should I waste my precious time trying to convince them that their support for the communist regime is wrong?

Lord Acton once said that “few discoveries are more irritating than those which expose the pedigree of ideas.” He was right. You and others of your ilk are up in arms over my letter to the editor because it has exposed the rather despicable and heartless notions that underlie leftist thinking on Cuba. Their opinion, and yours, is of no concern to me.

-Michael

P.S. Please don’t refer to the Cuban people as the “masses.” It’s quite offensive. They
are living, breathing human beings not chattel…

Miguelito,

When I said Cuba-bashing, I was referring to criticizing the regime. Which is a completely legitimate thing to do, I just think it's a little distasteful the way it's practically become an industry. But that's just my personal opinion. And we're both smart enough to know that not all exiles left/leave Cuba because of political persecution, though you would surely have us believe that is the case.

I disagree that my premise is a retelling of yours -- "creating incentives for the Cuban people" is not quite the same as "raising political expectations". Also, the process I refer to (and hope for, believe it or not) is a more organic and complex one which involves not just raised expectations but raised internal and international awareness, greater ease of information flow into and out of Cuba, and many other factors which could, in the long run, result in improved conditions for the Cuban people.

"In the long run" is a key phrase, and it's why I reject your argument that change clearly isn't coming just because Granma said so three months ago and because there has been a recent spike in detentions. In fact, one would expect especially tough rhetoric (such as what you quoted above) and, unfortunately, tighter restraints in some areas after the recent changes and concessions. Sure, it could be a sign that (as you seem to think) there's no reason to expect things getting any better. But it could also be a way to appease hard-liners, "compensate", in a way, for the concessions and avoid them being seen as a sign of weakness. It is regrettable that such "compensation" would even have to occur, that the regime would have to tighten some chains even while loosening others, but it does not seem wholly unlikely.

No, it's not that people who aren't imprisoned or dead are free. But they're MORE free. Or, less enslaved, if that wording suits you better. Can we not agree on that basic reality? I was (and am) claiming that the average Cuban's relationship with the controlling regime is, yes, one of domination, but one a little more complex than the unfortunately complete domination suffered by those who are in cells or body bags and therefore cannot, say, walk down the street, or talk to their children. Not free. But free-er.

Two final thoughts, if my opinion were of no concern to you, you would not be writing such long (albeit flawed) responses to me unless you were extremely bored or loved the sound of your own voice -- or whatever the written equivalent of that is. I suppose you could be doing it for the same reason I am: the intellectual stimulation of a good argument, in which case I would beseech you to try harder so that I actually have to think a little bit.

And, as for your "offense" at my use of the word masses, I see no reason to be insulted. Masses can simply mean "The principal part; the majority" We agree that the majority of people can't buy cell phones or stay in hotels, right? It seems my use of the word was accurate.

Even if you bristle at the word's connotation of those of low socio-economic status, I would think you'd agree with me there, as well. Aren't you always trying to tell us how the Cuban people live in massive, perpetual poverty? Isn't that, precisely, the reason why they can't afford laptops? I'm really quite perplexed as to why you'd be offended, then.

All the best,
Your brother from another mother,

Alberto

Dear Albert,

I am not writing this for intellectual stimulation. After reading what you've written, it's clear to me that you're incapable of comprehending even common sense arguments. It might help you if you hear it from another person though so here it goes:

Castro's regime is evil.

Simple enough for ya Albertico?

Too, simple, actually. That's exactly the problem. Then again, what can one expect from a simpleton?

I really had to laugh at that one. Not only are you obviously Puerto Rican but you're also pretty nerdy...simpleton??? Are you serious?? AHAHHAHA!

Come back down to earth and stop being so defensive. People that know what they're talking about...CUBANS...who have lived and suffered the consequences of Castro's oppressive regime and have learned it the hard way...through blood and tears...are trying to teach you the lesson they have learned.

Now I was a Political Science and Philosophy major and I'm currently a third year law student. If you want to debate and try to sound intellectual on some blog, I can entertain that fantasy, but quite frankly my only interest in communicating with you is to open your eyes with regards to that monstrous and heinous regime that has oppressed my family and fellow countrymen for so many decades.

Come back down from the moon BoricuaEnLaLuna and stop bashing Cubans who love and live and dream for a free Cuba. Cubans don't need ignorant individuals such as yourself to dictate what we should do with our country.

I really don't expect for you to open your eyes and see the lack of logic in your arguments. You haven't lived it. Go on with your theoretical talk...as for this simpleton, I'll keep laughing at the ignorance people like you and your "ilk" keep throwing out there.

Thanks for humoring me though.

Sincerely,

The Simpleton (ahahaha that really was a good one)

Glad to humor you, Simpleton. Unfortunately, you've done nothing but call me "nerdy" (really?), tout your academic credentials and make the exquisitely arrogant point that Cubans have a monopoly on the truth about their country. I'm flattered by the first comment, amused by the second, and the third I just outright dismiss; there's just no engaging with that kind of willful ignorance.

I wish Miguelito would come back, at least he tries to make an intelligent argument. And even his failure to do so adds more to the discussion than you do.

I wish you luck in your future career; judging by what I've read here, you're most certainly going to need it.

-Albert(o)

Albert, don't you see that I'm just teasing you? I'm simply messing around with you when I'm bored. I really hope Michael doesn't come back to waste his time either. Your mind numbing arguments can't be taken serious. The only people that are going to speak to you are people like me who are bored in class or up late doing hw looking for a good laugh. I have to say...you do produce some pretty laughable material.

As for Michael..please don't waste your time with this non-sense unless you're having fun like me. You are evidently a very intelligent and well versed individual, and I wish you nothing but the best in your endeavors. Cubans need more young leaders like you.

Taken "seriously", not "serious". Also, "nonsense" is not a hyphenated word. However, you should've hyphenated "mind-numbing" and "well-versed".

Do they let anybody into law school these days?

LOL! I was laughing with a friend last night at this whole little back and forth. Guess what, we predicted you would be lame enough to write back.

I'm writing to someone who makes less sense than a monkey, not my law school professor, and I'm doing it to see you get all worked up...which is evidently working. It didn't take much to get down to your level of education my comma splicing, fragment user friend. It was "Too, simple, actually."

I really don't have the time to start going through your writing pointing out all of your grammatical errors. I haven’t called you out for them because I realize that you're writing on a blog.

As for the law school question...they really do let anyone in... They let in lots of people who are different shades of pink and red....so even you might stand a chance getting in.

Peace out boricua, I'm getting bored chatting with you...I think I've had my share of fun wasting your time with non-----sense. =] It's really no fun when the fish keep taking your bait and not putting up a good fight. I hope you're at least laughing as much as I am because otherwise I really do pity you.

Whoops. You're right about that comma; thank you for pointing that out. It's probably the most useful thing you've done this week.

As for not putting up a good fight, I really wish you had actually made an argument at some point. Sadly, you haven't, so you've forced me to stoop down to criticizing your grammar. It's a a little sad, I know. The things we do for amusement...

I'm guessing you wouldn't be "lame" enough to write back so I bid you adieu as well and I commend you for accomplishing something I never though possible: making me pine for Michael Fernandez.

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

URL:
Remember me? YesNo

Comments: