A case of believing your own propaganda
A book review by Max J. Castro
Cuba in the American Imagination: Metaphor and the Imperial Ethos
By Louis A. Pérez Jr.
“The Americans viewed [post-1959] developments in Cuba with a mixture of incomprehension and incredulity…Without historical depth perception, the Americans were unable to comprehend that the Cubans were addressing a history, not a policy.”
“Cuba occupies a special place in the history of American imperialism.” That is the first sentence of Louis A. Pérez’s brilliant and intellectually challenging analysis of the metaphors that have shaped and informed the American view of Cuba over the last 200 years.
The Cuba that has existed in the minds of Americans and that has been reflected in various forms — the declarations of politicians, press accounts, caricatures, the movies — have varied in content while serving a common if unstated purpose: the depiction of Cuba as gratefully and properly subordinate to the United States.
Pérez deploys an abundant number of 19th century examples the common theme of which is that of Cuba as fruit to be picked or allowed to fall in the lap of the United States as if by the laws of nature. During the second war of independence (1895-1898), the most common metaphor is Cuba as a woman abused by a cruel male figure (Spain). The ideal of chivalrous duty is employed to suggest the necessity of U.S. intervention to rescue the damsel in distress. During this period, Cuban independence fighters are portrayed as valiant freedom seekers confronting a genocidal enemy.
Things change drastically once the battle is joined and Spain is defeated. Now that the Cubans press for an independence which they have fought for decades to achieve, the picture takes on a different color. Now the metaphor of age is introduced and the Cuban is portrayed as a child — sometimes an unruly one — in need of assistance and discipline from Uncle Sam. This view of Cubans is crystallized in the Platt Amendment, which grants Cuba a bastardized form of sovereignty. Raw racism, a point Pérez demonstrates but does not emphasize sufficiently, is part and parcel of the American view of the Cubans once the invading American soldiers and civilian authorities confront “the really existing Cuban” rather than the idealized heroic (and white) specimen so convenient to stir popular sentiment in favor of war.
The lack of displays of Cuban gratitude is a shock to the American “liberators.” For the Americans, the United States fought Spain for the liberty of the Cuban people. It would not be the last time that invading Americans were not greeted with flowers and candies. That Cuban ingratitude might be related to the way the Americans denied the Cuban patriots the status of subjects in their own liberation does not occur to those who were bitter about the ingratitude of the Cubans.
The Cuban Revolution of 1959 was the sum of all Cuban ingratitude. Pérez shows how such a transgression was impossible for American officials to even understand. This leads them to interpret Fidel Castro and his revolution as a case of psychopathology. This suggests that the metaphors that concealed domination were less cynical than self-delusional, a case of believing your own propaganda.
One aspect that stands out clearly regarding U.S. policy toward Cuba is the continuity in its justification. From the Platt Amendment to today’s cruel embargo, Americans have viewed their policy as beneficial to the Cuban people, and it makes a lot of difference to Americans for Cubans to share this view. It is no wonder then that a hard-line policy has been maintained despite vast changes in the world. The Cuban Revolution, by word and deed, continually contradicts the Americans’ view of their own virtue.
My only quibble with Pérez is that he underestimates the influence of the anti-Castro constituencies on U.S. policy. There was a long period when the dog indeed wagged the tail; Cuban Americans were mere instruments of U.S. policy. But for some time now the tail has wagged back, and with great force. I am convinced that absent the Cuban lobby, there would not be an embargo today despite the great hatred for Fidel Castro and all he represents among those Americans who feel the Revolution is a slap in the face of the United States.
This an essential book for those seriously interested in a deep understanding of Cuba-U.S. relations. But be forewarned that the theoretical substructure of the book does not make for easy going for the casual reader. Here is a sample of what I mean:
“The depictive efficacy of metaphor is contained within the larger moral system from which it originates, whereby the exercise of power deemed proper and proclaimed appropriate in one domain obtains validation by association with another.”
