Archived Post February 2008

February 2008

Does Failure Negate the Attempt?

I started this article, several weeks back, writing: I voted for Rudy.  I was not sure until the moment I walked up to the booth.  I do not know if he stands a chance.  The momentum is growing for John McCain, and arguably he deserves the win; but Florida is Rudy’s first and last hope, I figured I owed him the chance. 

I failed to complete the article, but would like to try again.  Obviously Rudy did not win in Florida, and the loss prompted his decision to resign the attempt to seek the presidency.  As I watched him, gracefully bow out of the race, I thought about how very difficult it must be to have once felt that the Presidency, of the United States, was within your grasp; and then to watch as the hope of victory faded from view.  Yet, there must be some comfort in knowing that the effort was attempted – he could have won.

Little Luis sent me an article, from the Miami New Times, about the failed attempt, by exiled Cubans, to invade Cuba, in 1961.  The veterans, of the invasion, hope to build a permanent museum, in Miami, to commemorate the effort.  In the article, one of the men, comments on how different things would have been, had their endeavor succeeded. [1]

There was an overwhelming melancholy in the voices of these veterans, who are now at an age when one begins to reflect not only on youthful dreams and deeds; but also on folly and failure.  As morality looms, there is also a tendency to contemplate whether or not we achieved immortality – will be remembered, after we are gone?  Have our accomplishments been sufficient to provide a place for us in history?  What legacy do we leave behind?

It is quite delicious to reminisce about the glory days of our youth.  I think one of the mercies of memory is that we can be selective.  It is undeniable that there are certain unpleasant and painful memories which can not be erased; but there are others, like getting in trouble, for coming home late, which are forgotten when we retell the tales of Friday night football games and gymnasium dances.  Or if we must recall missed connections, bad food, or cold hotel rooms, when we think about our first trip abroad, we are able to laugh and joke about how very bad things were, and how it did not matter, because the imperfect can be made perfect, in our minds, especially if there are no newsreels to bare wittiness.  What however, do we do with our failed efforts, when they are observed? 

As I read the article, on the Bay of Pigs, I could not help but think of my father and me.  I thought about my father’s attempt and failure to impact the history of his homeland, and my attempt and failure to write my father’s history. 

The Brownsville Herald, Chicago Tribune, El Mundo, Columbus Citizen… all carried similar headlines on March 27, 1957: “Cuban Rebels Seized by the U.S. Coast Guard.”  The sub-headings went on to mention 20,000 dollars worth of arms,  a dispute over international waters, a 85 foot Nicaraguan vessel, Ecuadorian captain and crew; and Panamanian registration. [2]

 On that March morning, as the sun rose, a Coast Guard cutter rammed “El Orion” three times before they could make her halt.  On board with the captain and crew were the 36 Cubans, naturalized U.S. citizens and legal residents, whose prized cargo consisted of arms and supplies, destined for the Sierra Maestra. The men planned to join Fidel and the rest of the “26 de Julio” movement who were desperately waging war against the dictatorship of Fulgencio Batista, whom the United States supported.  Among the three leaders aboard “El Orion” was my father, Ignacio Mosqueda Avila.

In 1957, my father, like so many other Cubans, hoped that he was part of a movement that was going to rid Cuba of a despot; he could not have known that his failed efforts would be a part of the greatest tyranny Cuba has ever known, and that he would be on the wrong side of history.

When my father died, he left a very old and badly worn yellow, mailing envelope.  It contained a part of his history that was yet to be absolved.  Missing from his tales of honor and glory, but hidden within this envelope, was the moment in which he reached for his dream of a free Cuba. 

The first time I opened the envelope I had a strange sense of reverence, not because my father had passed away, but because I knew these papers had meant so much to him.  I remembered seeing them only once as a child, I had been excited to see pictures of my parents in the newspaper.  But, my excitement was quickly overshadowed by how deeply upset my mother became, insisting they be put away. Her intensity fascinated and bewildered me. I would often wonder what mystery lay between those creased and tattered pages. 

When these pages became mine, I decided to complete the story.  I now have hundreds of pages or research and writing, but have failed to finish his story.  In no small part, my failure is do to the fact that his story did not die with him, but lives in me and my dreams and my regrets.  His story haunts me, and so I come back, in these pages, to resolutions – I resolve to correct my failures, and at least attempt to finish his book.

As this presidential season plays itself out, I shall continue thinking about the people who dare to attempt, whether or not they fail.  I think too often the fear of failure prevents us from even attempting to enter the arena of life, instead we delegate ourselves to the side lines, often watching as others live the life we dreamed of, or in some cases the dream we would not permit ourselves to enjoy. 

History is riddled with failed invasions of the Bay of Pigs, but the failure does not negate the efforts, because occasionally the troops do land on Normandy and Omaha Beach, and do push the Axis forces back, and do liberate France, and do demolish the walls of concentration camps, and do make the world a better place.  Whether or not we succeed, we must try – that is all for now.

[1] http://news.miaminewtimes.com/2008-01-17/news/bay-of-pigs-vets-fight-for-home

[2]  Private papers in the possession of the writer.

~ M ~

February 2008

February 19, 2008 — Castro Quits

“The foreigner, or the pedant, or the opportunist can write these names without trembling, but not the good Cuban.  The impetus was Céspedes’, the virtue, Agramonte’s.   The one was like a volcano, emerging, awesome and imperfect, from the bowels of the earth; the other, like the blue firmament that crowns it.  Céspedes’ was the passion; Agramonte’s, the purification.  The one challenged with the authority of a king’ the other triumphed with the power of light.  History will come, with its judgments and its justice; and after it has nibbled them away, and retouched them to suit its taste, there will still remain the impulse of the one and the dignity of the other, fit subjects for an epic.  High-flown words are unnecessary when speaking of great men.  Let others, on some other occasion, cast up the balance sheet of their errors, which will never equal their achievements.”[1]

Could the headlines be less romantic?  I have awoken to a grey, over cast, Floridian sky; and as is my routine, I walk to the computer, to check the headlines.  The news is not as I expected, but certainly these are words of hope.

It is true that he has robbed us of a complete victory.  He is not dead.  He is resigning – quitting – calling it a day – retiring!  When did revolutionaries start retiring?  Let him go fishing, I am sure he makes Lenin, Stalin, and Mao proud.  He has managed to postpone our celebration, but time is finally on our side. 

The dictator will die, as will his deeds.  Cuba may not be free today, but it shall one day soon.  He, however, will not define us.  He is not our revolutionary, and he does not get to be our legacy.  History will not absolve him.  Our history is richer than him. 

Cuba began the quest to control her destiny with the Ten Years’ War (1868-1878), which would also end without victory, but not without honor.  The men and women who valiantly took part in this costly attempt at independence – among them Maximo Gomes, Salvador Cisneros Betancourt, Ana Betancourt, Francisco Vicente Aguilera, Bernarda Toro, Bartolome Maso, Pedro Figueredo, Mariana Grajales, Tomas Estrada Palma, Antonio Maceo, Maria Magdalena Cabrales Isaac, Ignacio Agramonte, and Carlos Manuel De Céspedes, the first president of La Republica de Cuba en Armas, are our legacy.  It was this revolution, and these warriors which inspired Jose Marti and all of those who would later battle for freedom. 

The thirty-seven members, of the Junta Revolucionaria de Cuba, gathered on October 10, 1868, at La Demajagua, Carols Manuel De Céspedes’ plantation.  Once the members were called together, Céspedes issued an order freeing all of his slaves.[2]  He then boldly issued the “Grito de Yara.”  It was a call for Cuban independence, and for the creation of a provisional republic. “Among the reasons cited by Céspedes to justify his call for independence were the Cubans’ failure to obtain effective political representation, the continuing limitations on associational rights and freedom of speech, an unjust tax and tariff system penalizing Cuban producers, bureaucratic parasitism, and discrimination against criollos in business and public affairs.”[3]

Céspedes was forty-nine years old, when he undertook the task of leading his nation out from under Spain’s grasp.  He had been born in Bayomo, on April 18, 1819.  Céspedes attended secondary schools in Havana, and later enrolled at the University of Havana.  He earned a Bachelors degree from the University of Barcelona, and a Doctorate of law from the University of Madrid.[4] 

After travels in Europe, Céspedes returned to Cuba, in 1844.  In Bayamo, he opened a law practice and became involved in business.  This was a time of a strong anti-Spanish movement, “Narciso Lopez’s unsuccessful filibuster expeditions against Spanish power in Cuba and his subsequent execution in 1851 had an impact on the young Céspedes.”[5]  He was arrested for his political views, and banished from Bayamo, to Oriente, where he began to organize the move for independence.[6]  He believed that Cuba could, and would defeat Spain.  He told the Cubans that if Spain “still appeared great and powerful, it was because ‘for more than three centuries we have looked at it from our knees.’[7]

It was time for a change, but the change would not come easily.  The Spanish forces not only out numbered the Cuban rebels, but they were better organized, better armed, and better trained.  The Cubans decided that their best hope for victory laid in a guerilla war.  “The first military encounter at Bayamo characterized the Ten Years War, when it pitted Spanish Calvary and infantry with muskets and cannons against untrained campesinos with machetes.”[8]  What ensued was a long, deadly war.            

As the hostilities progressed, the face of the rebel army began to change.  No longer was it merely a force of thirty-seven Creole members of a Junta Revolucionaria.  They had been joined by “peasants, workers, poor whites, and blacks, former slaves – a vast social amalgam for whom rebellion in pursuit of reform was becoming increasingly unacceptable.”[9]  Each of these individuals brought their own dreams, desires, and demands into the rebel movement.

In April of 1869, the rebel forces once again met.  In Guaimaro, they held the first constitutional convention.  There was a clash between those who wanted a more progressive platform, led by Ignacio Agramonte, a young lawyer, who believed that revolution could bring reform.  He wanted the immediate abolition of slavery, feared that Céspedes had too much power, and was weary of a presidency that would be unchecked.  At the convention they adopted a constitution, which thanks to, Ignacio Agramonte, “obtained a large degree of authority for the House of Representatives, including legislative power and control over presidential decisions”[10]  Agramonte also introduced “Article 24 of the constitution which declared ‘all inhabitants of the Republic to be absolutely free.’”[11] This was a noble attempt to establish abolition.  He did not have the power to free the slaves, in the present, but he hoped for the future.   It was here that Céspedes was elected president of the Republica en Armas.  They also adopted the flag which Narciso Lopez, had created, and which still represents Cuba today. [12]

From the convention, they went back into the war.  They had laid a foundation for what they hoped would be a brighter future.  The men, who so passionately inspired Jose Marti, would not survive to see the Pact of Zanjon, which brought the war to a compromised end, nor the birth of the Republic.  Ignacio Agramonte was killed on May 11, 1873, and Carlos Céspedes was killed on February 27, 1874.[13]   But the end of the war was not the end of the Revolution.

It has been Cuba’s curse to see her greatest and brightest leaders die before they blossomed.  How Cuba’s future might have been different, had Agramonte and Céspedes had an opportunity to debate their ideas, like Jefferson and Hamilton, in a safe and secure forum?  What might these men have learned from one another?  How might Cuba have benefited?  We will never know, for they join the likes of Jose Marti, Antonio Maceo, and Eduardo Chibas – all brilliant, passionate men, who died before they were able to fulfill their service to the Republic.

I suppose there are some who would say that the dictator of the past 49 years is the heir of Céspedes and Agramonte.  That he is the one who inherited the revolution.   That it is he who finished what so many before him began.  If that is so, then perhaps he would do well to remember the words of his forebears, as he decomposes in his green, military fatigues, and scraggly beard.  Upon returning from battle, Agramonte spoke to his beloved bride, saying: “Never, Amalia, will I be a soldier when the war is over.  Today it is an honor, tomorrow it will be a crime.”[14]  Soon the dictator will be dead, and his life will have been lived without honor.  

So I wait, but meanwhile here is to all of those who did not make it to today.  Here is to the countless men, women, and children, who thought he was going to be Cuba’s salvation, only to find that he was worse than his predecessor.  Here is to all of the men, women, and children, who lost their lives, at sea, trying to escape the dictator, on anything which would float.  Here is to all of the families ripped apart by his malevolence – the Pedro Pan children whose parents died before ever seeing them again.  Here is to grandparents who perished without meeting their grandchildren, born in exile.  Here is to the wives and husbands who were executed in Cuban prisons.  Here is to all of those who died of a broken heart, to Ignacio Mosqueda, Angel Aparicio, and Reynaldo Arenas of the exilio.  

Jose Marti also said: “Death is not rest – there is no rest until the entire job is complete – the world purified.  There is pleasure in suffering well.  I am afraid of dying before having suffered enough.”  We have suffered enough – that is all for now.   

[1] Jose Marti, The America of Jose Marti, trans. Juan De Onis  (New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1968), 292.

[2] Miriam Mata, “El Diez de Octubre” Habaguanex Ciboney, Web Magazine of Cuba in Exile, 1996, http://www.netside.net/~ciboney/octartmm.htm (18 April, 99).

[3] Juan M. del Aguila, Cuba, Dilemmas of a Revolution (London: Wesview Press, 1988), 14.

[4] Jamie Suchlicki, “Cuba: From Columbus to Castro,” n.d., <http://www.grin.net/~sierra/cuba/

history/cespedes.htm> (18 April, 99).

[5] Ibid.

[6] Ibid.

[7] Ibid.

[8] K. Lynn Stoner, From the House to the Streets, The Cuban Woman’s Movement for Legal Reform, 1898-1940 (Durham: Duke University Press, 1991), 18.

[9] Louis A. Perez Jr., Cuba, Bewteen Reform and Revolution (New Cork: Oxford Press, 1988), 123.

[10] Suchlicki, 2.

[11] Ibid.

[12] Mata, 2.

[13] Ibid.

[14] Marti, 298.

~ M ~

February 2008

When Will We Have Justice?

            Last week, one of Kate’s colleagues said that she was too pretty to be taken seriously, professionally.  Her supervisor has said that he believes she will be the employee of the year, and will out perform everyone else on their team, despite the fact that she is the newest addition to this group.  She has received the highest evaluations possible, and has countless letters of commendation.  Yet, this tiny little man, who introduced himself by saying that he was very married, has the audacity to make a blatantly sexual comment, in corporate America, where such behavior is at least in theory, viewed as unacceptable. 

            Can anyone imagine someone saying that a man is too rugged to be taken seriously?  What about someone saying that a man is too thin to be president, or that his hair has thinned too much, to be president?  I have not heard those statements made, yet I have certainly heard quite a lot abut how Hillary Clinton’s hair and clothes and even about how catty she behaves. 

         We are at a crossroads, in our nation.   I do not like Senator Hillary Clinton, yet as this election season continues to confound us all, I find myself rooting for Hillary Clinton – at least for her victory over Senator Barak Obama. 

         When Ohio went for Hillary, Kate said she was proud to be an Ohioan.  Kate would like Hillary to win, as would my Mother.  My Mother said that Senator Clinton would make a good president because, of all she has had to endure and overcome with her husband – it is an interesting logic. 

          This race has become a matter of gender and race.  I have always been puzzled by the fifteen and nineteenth amendments.  White men granted black men, whom they had previously considered property, the right to vote; prior to allowing their mothers, wives, and daughter’s suffrage. How can it be that white men thought more of their slaves than their wives? 

           I am not saying that I do not believe that black men should have been granted suffrage, what I am questioning is why white men only granted suffrage to black men?  What about the women, both black and white? 

           I know that a lot of women believe it is time for the United States to have a female Commander in Chief, after all Israel, Great Britain, India, Argentina, Philippians, Pakistan, Iceland, Nicaragua, Finland, New Zealand, Ireland, France, Canada, Poland, Turkey, Norway, Bolivia, Chile, and even Germany, among others, have all elected women to lead their countries – why not the United States?

           I suppose for a lot of black people, the same principal must apply, even if Senator Obama is only half black.  But why is it, that we, as a nation, are being censored in this argument?  Why is it that we can not simply say that this is a contest between two Democrats, with parallel educational backgrounds, community service, and ambitions – one does have more experience, as she has been around longer, but the difference between these two people is gender and race.

            In a recent article, http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2002232/posts Black Entertainment Television founder, Bob Johnson, agreed with Geraldine Ferraro’s comments about why Senator Obama found himself on the verge of receiving the Democratic parties nomination: “What I believe Geraldine Ferraro meant is that if you take a freshman senator from Illinois called ‘Jerry Smith’ and he says I’m going to run for president, would he start off with 90 percent of the black vote?” Johnson said. “And the answer is, probably not. Geraldine Ferraro said it right. The problem is Geraldine Ferraro is white. This campaign has such a hair-trigger on anything racial it is almost impossible for anybody to say anything.”

            He went on to add, that the reason white, liberals are flocking toward Obama is because: “They sort of dislike Hillary for her vote on the war. They don’t want to see Bill and Hillary in power again,” he said. “So Obama comes in and runs a smart campaign. But that’s not the Second Coming, in my opinion, of John F. Kennedy, FDR or the world’s greatest leaders.” Oddly, Mr. Johnson has not been forced to hit the media merry-go-round, and defend his comments, like Ms. Ferraro. 

            Also, can anyone imagine the uproar that any white minister would have caused, had they made a series of statements similar to the ones made by Reverend (I use the title with trepidation) Wright, who condemned and attacked the United States and white America, for among other things, perpetrating genocide on black Americans.  Yet we are told that this is acceptable pulpit behavior, for black ministers; and that the Senator from Illinois has no intention of disassociating himself from his spiritual advisor. 

I read an article at http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,350916,00.html, about singer Alicia Keys, who proclaimed that gangster rap was “a ploy to convince black people to kill each other, that the government and media are working together to fuel the bicoastal feud between rappers, to prevent another great black leader from existing, and that she wears a gold AK-47 pendant, around her neck to symbolize strength, power, and killing them dead.”  I guess she must not view the Senator Obama as a powerful black leader; I know that a white artist making similar comments would be booed off the stage.

             Men across American are exhorting Hillary Clinton to resign her presidential bid, in favor of Barak Obama, whose delegate lead, of 152, would all but disappear if the Florida and Michigan delegates were seated, at the convention. I see the Democrats in a tight race, which has not yet finished; and according to the numbers, with two polarizing candidates, neither of which will have enough delegates to win their parties nomination, without some concessions. 

            Why is it that once again it is the women who have to concede? Why is Senator Clinton being forced to say that she thinks Senator Obama is electable?  Why is she being attacked for destroying her party and causing dissension?  Why is she being accused of creating problems?  Will we have to wait another fifty years to see a woman in the White House?

            Doubtless, America is still a nation of raciest and sexist, along with countless other issues.  I believe that everyone has the right to voice their concerns about these matters, what I do not agree with, is the notion that black America can claim to be disadvantaged, any more or less than every other minority.  Nor do I believe that addressing the issues in black America should be limited to black Americans.  Every time that Hillary Clinton has attempted to raise the blatant sexual discrimination, which she has encountered, she has been attacked, yet Barak Obama continues to use the race card, as carte blanche.  I have had enough. 

            I remember working for a group of black executives, at Xerox, years ago.  Most of these people had graduated from the University of California, at Los Angeles, in the first wave of students accepted through Affirmative Action programs.  They had all seen an opportunity, at a higher education, as a gift, and none of them had ever looked back.  It did not occur to them not to study and not to succeed.  They had grown up in Los Angles, they had survived the sixties and the Watts riots and all of the various clichés, and had all managed to succeed – both black men and black women.   

            There must be a dialogue, but everyone – even white men, must be given a chance to speak, without fear of repercussion.  The White House should not be a prize for having survived discrimination, it should be a responsibility shouldered by the individual most equipped to lead. 

            I do not see either of these candidates addressing the issues which concern me, which is okay, as I am voting for Senator John McCain, and hope that once again the in house fighting, in the Democratic Party, will assure a Republican victory.  However, the Clinton – Obama conflict can serve to illuminate a deep divide, in our nation, which should be addressed; but this will only happen if we are all allowed to voice our concerns.  If the Mr. Right and Ms. Keys want to discuss their conspiracy theories, then so be it, after all the Democrats thrive on conspiracies, and I believe in the First Amendment; but there must be room for white America to discuss black on black violence, and why if one black man can make his way toward the White House, then why is black America still insisting that America is a land without opportunities?

            Meanwhile, Kate is the most level headed person I have ever met.  She is strong, intelligent, well informed, with God given leadership skills, who supports Israel, a strong military, is pro-choice and pro-gay rights, is against taxation without representation, believes in personal responsibility, and I think she should run for president, even if she is a Democrat – let the fund raising begin for 2012 –  that is all for now.

This entry was posted on February 4, 2008 at 3:20 am and is filed under Archived Post. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.