How Do We Learn to Hate Cuba?

Henry G. Delforn*

Florida Senator Rene Garcia
Florida Senator Rene Garcia.  Photo: wikipedia.org

HAVANA TIMES — How do we learn to hate what we don’t know? In the Gaza Strip, Palestine, a mother teaches her child how to throw a stone at the tanks of war against the Israelis. This useless act is not in defense but an act of hate transmitted from mother to child. In Hialeah, Florida, Cuban parents teach their child how to consume and produce propaganda against Cuba in the media war. This useless act is not in defense but an act of hate transmitted from mother to child.

Take the example of Florida Senator Rene Garcia. This young Republican, who was born in Hialeah in 1974 to Cuban parents, and as will be explained here, has done incalculable harm to the state of Florida with his hatred of Cuba as conveyed by his parents.

Rene Garcia’s hatred is not against a single individual, ex-president since 2008 Fidel Castro for example, or against any specific act done by the Republic of Cuba, as if the country did not have sovereignty for example.

No! Rene Garcia’s hate is a useless hate burden in his soul, his hateful acts only demonstrate his love since childhood of his parents. The word “gusanos” to refer to these parents only causes more pain, and I will not use it.

What has senator Rene García done? This young fellow is one of two that in 2012 originated a law prohibiting Florida companies to bid on contract jobs with the state of Florida, if that company does business with Cuba. Florida Governor Rick Scott, was forced by the “Cuban political mafia of Miami”, to sign the law. Rick Scott, after signing the law, said the law is contrary to the Constitution of the United States. Marco Rubio, U.S. Senator, critized Scott and supported the Garcia law.

With this new law, the political contacts of Rene Garcia introduced a lawsuit against a company in Florida, named Odebrecht with $3 billion in potential contract bids in construction with the state of Florida, only because Odebrecht has a remote connection to another company based in Brazil which works in the bay and port of Mariel, Artemis Cuba. The García political group did not take the time or effort to study the legal business connection of the company, and proceeded with their hatred lawsuit.

So what happened? After a year of incalculable costs in the legal courts of Florida, a cost paid by the citizens of Florida and a cost that could have gone to human projects, the federal court declared the same as was said by Florida Gov. Rick Scott when signed into law, that the law goes against the constitution of the United States and it was rejected!

The Odebrecht lawyer, James Moye, said that “The federal government is going to continue to establish whatever it believes is the proper relationship with Cuba. It’s not for the state or local governments to attempt to set the parameters for the relationship with Cuba.”

What does this all mean, who is to blame, is it like the song of Buena Fe, La Culpa, that “the damn fault is nobody’s”? – No sir! The blame is shared between two: the parents of Rene Garcia for teaching their child how to throw stones, and the son himself for not waking his adult conscious.

But perhaps Buena Fe helps us better with peace because René Garcia is simply a victim of the war machine and media propaganda against Cuba (the “Cuban political mafia of Miami”) who received this year $20 million for the promotion of hatred against Cuba.

The “Cuban political mafia of Miami” includes: Pan American Development Foundation; Grupo de Apoyo a la “Democracia”; International Relief and Development; National “Democratic” Institute; Foundation for “Human Rights” in Cuba; Pan American Development Foundation; National Endowment for “Democracy”; U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID); and the US Department of State who manages the money.

All this money that could have gone to human projects, all this money in the name of hate, useless hate, useless because the Cuban Revolution and the sovereignty of the Republic of Cuba is absolute and a fact of life, and the best thing that the “Rene Garcias” of the world can do is learn how to analyze their hatred against countries that they do not even know.

(*) Henry G. Delforn is an electrical engineer (Cuban-born U.S. citizen who lives in California and enjoys his independent political affiliation.


24 thoughts on “How Do We Learn to Hate Cuba?

  • February 18, 2015 at 11:49 am
    Permalink

    Apr 18,
    2013

    “Cuba remains the only
    country in Latin America that represses virtually all forms of political
    dissent. In 2012 the government of Raúl Castro continued to enforce political
    conformity using short-term detentions, beatings, public acts of repudiation,
    travel restrictions, and forced exile. During its first UPR review, Cuba
    rejected all recommendations addressing the arbitrary detentions of political
    prisoners, the lack of protection of human rights defenders, and restrictions
    on freedom of expression. Since then, Human Rights Watch has continued
    documenting cases of serious abuses of these rights Apr 18, 2013 “==================================================================================================

  • September 14, 2013 at 8:55 am
    Permalink

    Che and Raul may have had communists tendencies. Fran Pais, Huber Matos, Camilo Cienfuegos and even Fidel were no communists.
    The Communist party supported Batista in the 1940 elections. It condemned Castro’s attack on the moncada as “bourgeois”. The communists only joined the anti-Batista revolution after the “pacto de Caracas” in late 1958.

    The anti-Batista revolution was not communist.

    Cuba became communist after the coup of Fidel Castro with the support of the communists against the original revolutionaries. In the rebellion of the Escambray against his coup Castro survived only with the help of the Soviet Union.

    Just listen to what Fidel himself said: “We are no communists”.
    “The Cuban Revolution.”
    http://www.cubaverdad.net/revolution.htm

    Are you calling him a liar?

    In the course of the guerrilla struggle in the Sierra Maestra mountains, he (Castro) delivered another speech which, once again, stresses his distance from the Communists:

    “What right does Senor Batista have to speak of communism? After all, in the elections of 1940 he was the candidate of the Communist Party … his portrait
    hung next to Blas Roca’s and Lazaro Pena’s; and half a dozen ministers and confidants of his are leading members of the CP.”
    H.M. Enzenburger, Raids and Reconstructions, London, 1976, p.200.

    See:
    http://www.marxisme.dk/arkiv/binns/80-cucas.htm

    Castro was an opportunist. A caudillo that adopted the – very useful Stalinist – ideology of those that would keep him in power.

  • September 13, 2013 at 11:07 am
    Permalink

    Of these “patriotic Cubans from all shades of opinion who take a critical stance to the Cuban government”, how many are free to openly express their views in op-eds in Granma or debate freely on the Mesa Redonda TV program? Which of these patriots is permitted to publish books in Cuba which reflect their views. Is Pedro Campos free to speak his mind on the steps of Havana University? I oppose the REGIME that denies these RIGHTS to the Cuban people. I believe the embargo, while unsuccessful in its original intent to bring about regime change, has served to limit the resources available to the Castros to oppress the Cuban people and has certainly curtailed their capacity to spread their bankrupt ideology elsewhere. I also support my right to deny the regime access to US companies who benefit from my tax dollars. By the way it is Cuba who is well-versed in interfering in the internal affairs of a foreign country. Just ask most Venezuelans about that. It is a straw man argument to declare that the end result of helping Cuba to become a democracy is a Rumsfeld-written constitution. That is simply not going to happen. Finally, by your analysis, Cuba remains responsible for 85% of their economic woes. If the Castros had focused on real economic reform based on the 85% under their control as opposed to wasting resources on ‘ten million ton harvests’, super cows, and yellow ribbon campaigns, fewer buildings would be falling down and more buses would be on the road.

  • September 13, 2013 at 9:06 am
    Permalink

    Che was decidedly Communist in his political views, long before he joined Castro. Raul Castro was close to the pre-revolution Cuban Communist party, but at his brother’s advice, he did not officially join. Raul met with Soviet agents in Mexico before their return to Cuba in the Granma.

    To be strictly accurate, what happened between 1954 and December 31, 1959, was not really a “revolution”. It was in fact a broad based movement of several distinct groups to overthrow a dictator. While Fidel Castro made sure his 26 July Movement received all the credit, other groups also contributed to weakening Batista’s hold on power and forcing him to flee. The general agreement among all anti-Batista factions was that once the dictator was gone, there would be free & democratic multi-party elections under the Cuban constitution of 1940.

    The real Cuban Revolution began only after Castro had consolidated his grip on power. There would be no multiparty elections. All political parties were banned, except for the Cuban Communist Party, now remade under Castro’s control. The education system and state controlled media became tools of propaganda for inculcating the new Marxist socialist ideology. Private property was seized. Businesses were nationalized. Rationing was introduced. The Committees for the Defence of the Revolution were established to watch and control the people.

    If you had asked the Cuban people in 1958 if they wanted to be rid of Batista, the vast majority would have said , Yes! If you had asked them if they wanted to have Cuba become a Communist country, the vast majority would have said, No! Fidel understood this fact and therefore he constructed his strategy accordingly. He had the ultimate goal in mind from the beginning, but he knew he could not get there if he was open about it.

    The myth that subsequent events pushed Castro towards Communism is false. Actions by the US government, such as the Bay of Pigs invasion, certainly played into Castro’s strategy by polarizing the Cuban people and providing the opportunity to round up opponents. But Fidel intended on the taking Cuba down the Marxist path with himself as ruler right from the beginning.

  • September 13, 2013 at 8:41 am
    Permalink

    What does Donald Rumsfeld, the former Secretary of Defence, have to do with the current US policy toward Cuba?

    Batista revivalists? Give me a break. The old dictator is dead and gone. Nobody wants to bring him back. You are following the Castro line of painting any and all critics with the same old brush.

    There are some Cuban Americans who call for ending the embargo, and some who call for maintaining it. There are some Cuban dissidents on the Island who support the embargo, and others who oppose it.

    When the Cuban government engages in the illegal smuggling of tonnes of military hardware with North Korea, contrary to a UN prohibition, the Castro regime stands on very weak ground when condemning the embargo.

  • September 13, 2013 at 8:32 am
    Permalink

    That’s hogwash and you know it.

  • September 13, 2013 at 7:27 am
    Permalink

    The thing is if you are pro-embargo you are in effect neo-Platist in that you are saying that another country has a right to interfere in Cuban internal affairs and the end result of this is Donald Rumsfeld running the country and writing the constitution.
    Let’s take Hilary Clinton’s figure and say 15% of Cuba’s economic problems are caused by American policy. So this is 15% hardship that is totally unnecessary and could be removed at a stroke. Are pro-embargo people really saying that political change is dependent on 15% of Cuba’s problems remaining.
    I have dealt with the South African situation before. It was completely different – the sanctions were brought internationally and at the request of the leader of the majority of the population. This isn’t true with Cuba. The only people who are pro-embargo are a tiny group of Batista revivalists.
    So IMHO you can’t be pro-embargo and pro-Cuban at the same time, though this is not the same as being “pro-Castro”. There are plenty of patriotic Cubans from all shades of opinion who take a critical stance to the Cuban government (Pedro Campos just to name one) but don’t support the embargo.

  • September 13, 2013 at 7:23 am
    Permalink

    Firstly: anti-Cubans are those that support the violation of human rights of the Cuban people by the Castro regime.
    Secondly: the trade sanctions deny the Cuban regime the opportunity to use US companies and markets to exploit the Cuban people.

  • September 13, 2013 at 7:21 am
    Permalink

    You are wrong: Castro couldn’t get US support even by declaring himself non communist (see the “pyjamas interview” in the old Hilton now Habana Libre). To survive he turned to the communist party and the Soviet Union.
    The Cuban revolution wasn’t communist as even Che Guevara stated.

    The quote:
    “The Cuban revolution is not a class revolution, but a liberation movement that has overthrown a dictatorial, tyrannical government.”
    From: Che Guevara Speaks: Selected Speeches and Writings, G. Lavan ed. (New York: Pathfinder, 1967), p. 13.

    For the complete story see:
    The Cuban revolution the truth behind the lies” http://cubaverdad.net/revolution.htm

    Note: the page has the video of the “pyjamas interview.

  • September 13, 2013 at 1:28 am
    Permalink

    How to love Cuba, go there with open ears and eyes and you will love CUBA. The people, the politics, the music, the lifestyle, the beaches, THE REVOLUCION and most of all the socialism. VIVA CUBA.

  • September 13, 2013 at 12:02 am
    Permalink

    The embargo is criminal

  • September 13, 2013 at 12:01 am
    Permalink

    I grew up in Cuba, nobody is oppressing anybody. 99% of the people we come here for economical reason, not for political reason, but in Miami we have to say whatever they want to hear in order to survive.

  • September 12, 2013 at 9:30 pm
    Permalink

    The usual Castroite apologists and their reinterpretation of
    anti-Castro actions as being against the Cuban people thereby implying
    that the Castro regime represents all the people born in Cuba where
    nothing could be further from the truth.
    This is the favorite tactic of the regime and its fellow travelers as if the
    constant repetition of this transference legitimizes the totalitarian
    rule by two brothers and their henchmen of the most beautiful island in
    the Caribbean…

  • September 12, 2013 at 8:38 pm
    Permalink

    How original. So eloquent.
    /

  • September 12, 2013 at 8:37 pm
    Permalink

    Well said!

  • September 12, 2013 at 8:34 pm
    Permalink

    Here are a few thoughts. In my opinion Mr. Delform is to be commended for trying to expose and analyze a difficult subject, difficult to examine because if we ourselves are not in a hating mood, we are likely to recoil from the discussion of hate, difficult to examine rationally because our own extreme negative emotions have understandably clouded our objectivity and motivation. If someone like Mr. Delform or Fidel Castro or even Moses Patterson chooses to differentiate between “hatred” of persons, countries or peoples and their particular behaviors or policies, this is one good step away from blind hate and fear and toward the next possibility – checking the facts against the values.

    Mr. Delform’s thesis follows basic human psychology and sociology – and illustrates the way combatants are wound up to go slaughter or be slaughtered. His thesis as I understand it, is simply that young minds are especially susceptible to being emotionally and cognitively swayed by their caregivers. That is why most kids follow the same religion of their family, even if their are other religions nearby. Most children of parents who “hate” people who are different (in appearance, culture or specific behaviors) will most often do and think as their parents. It takes a major and persistent series of social conflicts (usually with some violence) for the children to later in life adopt different views than their parents.

    So for the logic of the “haters” of Castro, communism, socialism, egalitarianism, naive liberals – and this list could be continued down a long spectrum of ideological differences – to persuade us, we would have to accept that they (and by some extension the parents teaching their kids the “right” think) are absolutely right and the people who they condemn (for whatever reason) are all wrong.

    Let’s be blunt. Many commentators on these lists are so full of hate (and fear of thinking complex thoughts) that they couldn’t care less about nuanced or troublesome facts. It’s like the old U.S. joke where a cop is accidentally beating a counter-protester who cries out “But I am anti-communist!” and the cop replies “I don’t care what kind of communist your are!” and continues to beat him.

    Lastly, the top of the pecking order in Empires, corporations and reactionary movements are usually a lot smarter and capable of introspective and relative thinking, they just find it personally most rewarding to continue to exploit these human vulnerabilities.

    The end result of such power is vast human suffering topped by a few better off on one side and on the other the suicidally ignored, looming coming of catastrophic climate changes that are likely to arrive sooner than even the conservative scientists believed. Imagine if we put all that military money and effort into alleviation human suffering? We might even find more effective ways to spread the wealth and health.

  • September 12, 2013 at 6:03 pm
    Permalink

    Daniel, do you write “anti-Cuban” when you mean “anti-Castro” or do you simply not know or understand the difference. I supported anti-apartheid sanctions against South Africa years ago. For the sake of argument, I assume you did too. I was certainly anti-Botha, the former President of South Africa and anti-South African government, but at no time was I anti-South Africa. The sanctions, no doubt, hurt all of South Africa, but the goal was to weaken the regime and its apartheid policies. Cuba also supported these sanctions. Was Fidel Castro anti-South Africa? Of course not! My wife is Cuban. I, literally, love Cuban people but I hate the Castro regime. There is a difference.

  • September 12, 2013 at 2:49 pm
    Permalink

    Funny how the anti-Cubans always say that the blockade is meaningless economically, and that it is just an excuse for the Revolution’s failures. Yet, they stop at nothing to deform and hobble the Cuban economy with any and every available tool.

  • September 12, 2013 at 2:17 pm
    Permalink

    Castro would not be a USA puppet so he was made an outcast! But you know that!

  • September 12, 2013 at 2:16 pm
    Permalink

    USA/Cuba Embargo=Terrorism American Style

  • September 12, 2013 at 2:15 pm
    Permalink

    Well said. Castro apologists, either intentionally or out of ignorance, seem to believe that if one disagrees with the Castro dictatorship, one must be at odds with the Cuban people. Just the opposite is true. What is ironic is that even the Castros love to say that they oppose the US government but they like American people. Why can’t the author understand that anti-Castros like Rep. Garcia feel exactly the same way towards the Cuban people.

  • September 12, 2013 at 11:10 am
    Permalink

    Thank you so much, you nailed, Mr Delforn don’t deserve to live in the US, he should move to Cuba and kiss Castro a..

  • September 12, 2013 at 9:24 am
    Permalink

    The port development in Mariel is owed by GAESA, the holding company of the Cuban FAR. Senator Garcia doesn’t hate Cuba or the Cuban people. He hates the military dictatorship which oppresses the Cuban people. Supporting human rights in Cuba is not hatred. Supporting those who deny human rights & freedom for Cubans are the ones who truly hate the Cuban people.

  • September 12, 2013 at 6:44 am
    Permalink

    The author makes one very basic mistake: he confuses “Cuba” with “Castro”.
    The answer to the question: “How do we learn to hate the Castro regime?” is a lot easier: by seeing how it treats the Cuban people. It is not a case of “hating what we don’t know”. It is a case of hating because one knows the reality in Cuba. Those that support the regime are those that don’t know or that are in denial.
    Those that confuse Castro with Cuba, as the author does, are the ones showing ignorance and bias.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *