Identifying civil society with non-governmental organizations (NGOs), private enterprises, and the church, would have drawn a smile from the political philosophers of modern times and of the Illustration who coined the concept. To reduce it to the antithesis of the State, like two territories in perpetual conflict, separated by a real frontier, and in a zero-sum game in which what one party wins the other loses, is like seeing it through a brand of dark glasses belonging to the most basic conservative common sense. To identify it with the political groups in opposition to socialist governments, as is the case in Eastern Europe, just makes it an ideological relic of the later part of the Cold War. To characterize it as an instrument of the imperialist enemy intending to undermine Cuban socialism was the principal reaction among the ideologists of the Marxism-Leninism then in power, when the concept appeared in the intellectual debates of the nineties. To legitimize its use as just a synonym of the organizations recognized in our Constitution of 1976 is another reductionism, which obscures its significance and value for the policies of socialism.

Neither their ideologists, nor ours, understood that civil society is not a set of things, and neither is the State. Antonio Gramsci recovered it for Marxism, then by subsequent critical thought and by contemporary sociology, the term civil society refers to a space of interrelation, a level of the social dynamic and a perspective that privileges the interaction between groups and institutions like schools, the media, and social organizations˗˗especially the ones that are relevant to those agencies of the political power that are oriented towards the interchange with social actors.

Therefore, to ask whether in Cuba civil society “exists,” does not make sense; it’s like asking whether “there are raspberries.”  However, other questions do have relevance.

Do social movements exist in Cuba? What characterizes them? What are their origins and antecedents? Are they comprised of diverse groups? What factors had a bearing on their emergence? Centered on what problems? How did they develop before the existence of social networks? What are their main topics, priorities and activities? Are their differences in the agendas? Do they extend over the entire country, or are they concentrated in some regions? Have they evolved during the last few years? Do they work with foreign or international movements or organizations? Do they have specific qualities that relate to the same movements in other countries? What is their capacity to mobilize? What obstacles have they faced? To what point have they been able to make themselves heard? To what extent have they been able to have an influence in obtaining policy changes? What are their problems currently? And how can these be resolved?

In order to respond to these questions, and to appreciate the nature of the trends opposed to racial and gender prejudice, animal abuse and other actions organized to face forms of discrimination and injustice, it is not enough to appeal to feelings about “what is obvious”, opinions, or truths that are accepted and repeated without contrast.

Catalejo here launches a series of interview-essays among researchers and followers, with the aim of exploring the thoughts and social mobilization that characterize Cuba today.

*(Cabaiguán, Sancti Spíritus, 1974). Writer, journalist and advocate. For the last ten years she has been employed at the periodical Pionera. Her articles appear collected in various anthologies of children’s and young people’s literature.

A few years ago I surprised a bunch of boys who were playing, throwing a ball of fur. None were older than ten. The meowing of the terrified cat—being shaken from side to side, tossed around and sometimes being dropped because of the lack of skill in these children’s hands—took me towards the place where these children were…. amusing themselves? I scolded these thoughtless beings and took the victim to my home. It was a kitten of hardly two months old which, as a result of the beating, did not survive the night.

Were these demonic, killer, cruel children? No, of course not. If we look at The World We Live In [El mundo en que vivimos], a text of the third-grade studies program, we will see the following: “Many animals give us food, we use the skin of others to make suitcases, and shoes, and we use some as a means of transportation (…). It is everyone’s duty to protect animals because of the great use they are to us.” [1]

For decades the study plans—especially those of primary schools—have objectified animals, without going beyond the utilitarian view. According to the World Organization for Animal Health (OIE in its English acronym)—of which Cuba has been a member since 1972—states that “Animal wellbeing refers to the physical and mental state of an animal as related to the conditions in which it lives and dies.” And to this end, it upholds five fundamental freedoms: “to be free of hunger, thirst and malnutrition; free of fear and anguish; free of physical and temperature-related discomforts; free of pain, injury and sickness; free to manifest its natural behavior.” [2]

In addition, as of 2000 the OIE recognizes the concept of “One Health,” in which it establishes that human health and animal health are interdependent, and linked to the ecosystems in which they coexist. “It is currently estimated that 60% of human infectious diseases are zoonotic, 75% of the pathogens of infectious diseases emerging from human beings (including Ebola, HIV and Influenza), are of animal origin, 80% of the pathogenic agents that can be used for bioterrorist ends are zoonotic, and at least five new sicknesses appear every year, three of which are of animal origin.” [3]

Animal Rights Activists. Activist movement in Cuba. Characteristics.

The Royal Academy of the Spanish Language defines animalismo [sic] as “the movement that promotes the defense of the rights of animals,” and an animalista [sic] as a person who “defends the rights of animals”. [English usage: Animal rights and Animal rights activists]

In the article titled “About Animal Rights” [“En torno al animalismo”] by the researcher and writer Zoila Portuondo Guerra and published in the digital journal El refugio, the author establishes that “within the range of animal rights activism there are many and varied nuances. We find the advocate, the protectionist, the welfareist, the biocentrist, the true animal rights activist (the vegan), etc. The advocate, as we often see in Cuba, is an industrious activist who protects (or tries to protect) all animals that s/he finds in a situation of need or abuse. And who at times even valiantly faces the abusers. We see them in the street, feeding homeless animals or providing a home shelter where they offer refuge to the defenseless (at times, with the help of others). And s/he who does not have the resources to provide such services can also be considered an ‘advocate’ when s/he gives donations of time, money, and useful resources for the protection of animals, such as medicine, blankets, crates, etc. The advocates are passionate activists, committed and persistent, because they are moved by great empathy and intense love.

As for the protectionists, these are the people who oppose and fight against the extinction of species. They consider animals as goods that deserve conservation, and see them as resources that humans should exploit ‘sustainably.’

The welfareists are those who oppose animal abuse but still consider animals as resources that humans can exploit ‘humanistically,’ that is, by avoiding unnecessary suffering. The welfareist worries about the suffering of animals when this suffering does not entail a benefit to people. And, therefore, s/he opposes hunting, bull-fighting, fights and competitions between animals and other similar spectacles. But like the advocate and the protectionist, they are usually anthropocentric and specieist; they are not vegan or vegetarian and are not worried about using products made from animal parts or tested on animals, as is the case for cosmetics.

During the last decade a movement has started that has come from welfareism: the neo-welfareists. Their objective is to eliminate suffering in the world. The neo-welfareists therefore do not agree with animal exploitation. Their limitation is based on the fact that they feel that animals do need to be protected, but managed from the human point of view without taking into consideration their integrity and freedom.

Veganism, as an animal rights movement, considers that animals are individuals and that every life counts. It takes the rights of animals as its theoretical foundation and base for action, and rejects any form of exploitation, based on the principle of equality. The organizations that represent this movement are not well-known. Among them there are the so-called Animal Defense and DefensAnimal.org. Within veganism there are also many nuances: there are those who don’t value vertebrate and invertebrate animals in the same way—like insects, for example.

Finally, biocentrism, a term that appeared in the 1970’s, is a moral theory which states that all living beings deserve moral respect. Biocentrism values life above everything else. From this point of view, it is not specieist nor anthropocentrist. And although those who identify with this trend can consume animals, they do so with the outlook of the indigenous people: obeying a need, with respect and without exploitation—unlike industrial societies. The biocentrist feels that s/he belongs to nature, s/he does not feel separated from it like the common man, and hence their concordant and respectful attitude towards all forms of life.” [4]

More than thirty years ago our society began to be aware of the state of abandonment in which our animals lived—and still live—especially the itinerant ones, the strays and feral ones. Protective groups emerged, like the Cuban Association for the Protection of Animals and Plants (ANIPLANT) founded on March 4th, 1987 under the legal protection of Law 54 which allowed the creation of associations, and is the only one officially recognized in Cuba.

Afterwards, other groups—NGO’s—were added, like Cubans in Defense of Animals (CEDA), Animal Protection SOS (PASOS]), CAMPA of Artemisa, SALBA in Santiago de Cuba, BAC in Santa Clara—with a national range of activists—and others who have made the topic of the welfare and protection of animals visible through the growth of information technologies and the emergence of social networks.

For decades these groups of animal support, rescue and care have filled the gaps that the Cuban state has left open on this matter—and still does. They have carried out campaigns of anti-rabies vaccination, parasite treatment and massive sterilizations; they have organized adoption festivals and events for the dissemination of the treatment of animals. Links have also been created with foreign associations like the Spanky Project in Canada which, since 2003 coordinates and—together with the Office of the Historian of Havana and the [University of Havana] Veterinary School—participates in parasite treatment and sterilization campaigns.

However, there is scarce documentation on the existence—or non-existence—of a social movement on animal protection and welfare in our country, although many people do recognize it and feel that they  are part of it.

Valia Rodríguez, a neuroscientist, animal rights activist and founder of CEDA sees it that way: “I believe that there does exist a social movement in favor of the protection and welfare of animals—more so than on the rights of animals—that has been growing slowly and spontaneously during the past ten years. It will still take some time for it to grow mature enough to become concerned about animal rights.

The movement is non-homogeneous, horizontal and disjointed. It is non-homogeneous because it is diverse, it assembles people of the entire spectrum that exists in Cuba today, of all ideological colors, all tendencies, and also of other social movements that exist in the country. It is horizontal because although there are activists, some better known than others, there is no single leader. And, finally, it is disjointed because there are different types of groups, with different styles of work, and although they collaborate, they are not connected; and in addition there are also advocates who do not belong to any group.”

Gabriela Díaz, a young psychologist and co-founder of GAMPA, comments that: “I do think that, yes, those of us who work every day from different corners of our country to create an awareness are becoming ever more. There are not only animal rights groups that share a similar way of working, but there are also independent advocates. And I think that all of us are aiming for the same place, we all have the same goal, which is to succeed in sensitizing the population so that animals will be seen as beings with the capacity to establish affective connections, to learn, to create the rudiments of something that we could call culture.”

By the same token, Javier Larrea, a law student and director of BAC considers that: “Yes, I believe that there is a heterogeneous animal rights group with different viewpoints. And although some are vegans, others vegetarians, welfareists or with a more anthropocentric view; although some may be harsher in their claims or may be a bit more conservative, what they all look for in the end is the welfare of the animals.”

Nora García, director of ANIPLANT, states: “I would say that there is a large movement for the protection and welfare of animals, especially of pets. If we go back thirty years, we realize that there has been an obvious change, because there is now a number of active young people, enthusiasts, who grew up hearing and learning about the love and respect towards all forms of life.”

Origins and background of the defense groups in Cuba. Factors that impacted their emergence. Objectives and priorities.

“There have always been advocates. People with high sensitivity who shared the little they have with the animals of the street and who, using their own means, have sterilized the stray dogs and cats, so they will not continue to reproduce.

However, we have a very important forerunner in the North-American philanthropist who was based in Cuba at the beginning of the twentieth century, Mrs. Jeannette Ryder, who founded the Society for the Protection of Children, Animals and Plants, knows as the Edict of Mercy [Bando de Piedad] in 1906. This Edict of Mercy existed until shortly after the triumph of the Revolution in 1959. This institution did much good for animals, especially because of its opposition to allowing bullfights in Cuba, a struggle in which the Rotary Club of Havana also joined.

Then ANIPLANT started, in 1987, with the support of intellectuals and artists. Afterwards, around 2010, we, as a group of advocates began to meet in Havana, convened by Monique Peinchau, a French woman living in Cuba—and at the time a professor at the French Alliance [Alianza Francesa]—to discuss how to help stray animals. And so, PAC was formed, Protection of Street Animals [Protección Animales de la Ciudad]. Sometime after, in 2016, as a group of advocates we separated from PAC and created CEDA, Cubans for the Defense of Animals [Cubanos en Defensa de los Animales], and so other groups began to grow and appear spontaneously in Havana and then in the other provinces.

Undoubtedly it was the street animals that encouraged these groups to proliferate: the existence of dogs and cats roaming around the streets, hungry, ill with mange or ticks and being mistreated by many people.

Something else that had an influence was the bad management of the strays by the Department of Zoonotic and Transmissible Diseases of MINSAP, which gathers them together and sacrifices them through their Human Rabies Prevention Plan— round-ups and sacrifices that are much criticized by the population.

So, the rescuing of animals in peril or ill, and sterilization, were two of the fundamental objectives in the growth of the protection groups.” [5]

“The animal activist groups happened basically because of the absence of a law that backs, protects and shelters animals. We realized that it is very difficult to take on this mission by ourselves—it is no secret to anyone that it is an exhausting task; there are no holidays, weekends are unknown, and every day it gets more intense. And we have decided to unite, to come together according to criteria of localization, of main objectives, and even including the criteria of affinity.

Along the way we have encountered very many problems—and here I speak from my own experience: the further a town is away from the capital, the less its inhabitants have any awareness, and this not only regarding the subject of animal rights, it also applies to the place of women in society, or the implementation of child-rearing methods that empower the development and the psychological well-being of the child.” [6]

As we get further into this beautiful activity, we can, and must, change towards forms that could be better or more effective. For example, when we founded ANIPLANT we found the word “refuge” to be more like a salvation; but now we know that refuges are not a happy solution for the well-being of the animals, and we are working more towards preventing unplanned births; rather than collecting animals, we try to find a better quality of life for pets through responsible adoptions.” [7]

“Our priorities are to help the strays, reduce the population through sterilization, promote adoption, and educate against mistreatment. Also, working to have a Law of Animal Protection has been a priority for all, to have a legal framework that would allow us to fight cruelty.

The activities that we are developing are many, and they go from the notices of animals at risk or in conditions of abuse to obtaining transitory homes for these animals, management of food and economic support, sterilization and educational activities.” [8]

Development of the movement before and after social networks. Resources and interaction with foreign movements or organizations. Specific characteristics of Cuban animals as compared to other countries.

“In reality the phenomenon of the growth of the movement and the connectivity to the internet arrived together. Before that, many of us became informed of the sterilization campaigns of ANIPLANT through friends, or other advocates, by telephone or word of mouth.

But as of 2010 we began to use e-mail a lot; we had lists of emails of people we met on the street or at events, and in that way we informed them of the campaigns we would carry out. Then Facebook came, and later WhatsApp and Telegram, and that was the boost because it gave much visibility not only to the groups but also to the abuse and the situation of the animals in general in Cuba, which has had much influence on the growth of the movement, but also on the fact that the population as a whole is becoming informed of what is happening, and that it is reaching government institutions.

Thanks to the internet the capacity for mobilization is large, especially because when there is a question of condemning abuse or asking for a law that protects animals, people join. These are sensitive topics which, because they do not form part of any specific political party, unites many people together and that, precisely, has caused the State to pay attention to us. It has not been easy for us to be noticed, and again in this aspect the internet has been a very effective medium for spreading our message.” [9]

“With the propagation of the digital platforms and a greater access to the social networks, many independent advocates joined together, created groups, and—though advocating for a law of animal welfare in Cuba had been going on for years—there is no doubt that the computerization of society opened an infinite horizon to us.

The flow of information, being able to explore what other countries have established for animal welfare, but especially being witness to the offensive events against them has increased resources and touched people’s sympathy.” [10]

“I think that the networks have been a crucial point, because they have helped us communicate, organize, make our work visible, draw in new volunteers and create awareness. This last point is essential for us and is among our main objectives. If, after seeing our publications, even just one person becomes aware about the issues of treating pets responsibly, we have won, we are saving lives.

Someone who has no access to the internet is someone for whom we do not exist, because the media that are most used—radio and television—do not have space to make the work of the groups visible in the interior of the Island. And perhaps these people do feel empathy for animals, perhaps they would want to collaborate; this is a possibility we are losing, and all just because the ways to make us visible have not been created.

And the other fundamental problem is resources. Everything related to working with animals means a lot of money—cages, muzzles, tweezers, gloves, veterinary medicines…. These are very expensive things and do not appear easily. Very often the veterinarians do not have the instruments they need for their work, and that is also a problem for our work.” [11]

“We currently do not have sufficient resources to broaden our fields of rapid auxiliary assistance to old people who live alone and have many animals in their care, and who are prevented—and it bears repeating—prevented from having a better quality of life. We can also not reach all homeless animals either, nor those who are actually exploited and abused by their owners.” [12]

“We don’t have a lot of contact with international organizations or movements. Occasionally organizations from other countries visit us, but only out of curiosity. The group almost all of us have the most stable relationship with is the Spanky Project in Canada—who come to Cuba annually to perform sterilizations and parasite treatments. These activities, which at first were limited to the capital, had been extended to Trinidad even before the pandemic.

The main difference between the Cuban animal activist movement and the foreign ones is that in Cuba we are just now beginning. Outside of our country they have been organized for years and so there is a better knowledge and culture related to the different aspects of protection, and there is more activism. The Cuban movement is still very young.” [13]

“We did try to collaborate with the Spanky Project and they showed great interest, but they said that for there to be a collaboration we would have to be recognized by our government, so that has limited the possibilities of our cooperation.

I think that if there is a characteristic that distinguishes Cuban animal activists from the rest of the world it would be the capacity to reinvent ourselves, to make a cage from a plastic tube, to carry a 50-lb dog on a bicycle because we can’t afford a car, to cure dermatitis with feverfew, aloe vera and chamomile, or scabies with some kind of banana—I think that our capacity to overcome adversity and scarcity is something that doesn’t only characterize animal activists in Cuba but all Cubans in general.” [14]

Obstacles to face and influence of animal rights groups in favor of the current policies of animal welfare. Organizing a group; problems to solve; solutions.

“The main obstacle has been a lack of trust. Cuba does not have a culture of spontaneous social movements, and with the history of threats that the country has faced for these many years, people do not trust anything that is not related to a government institution.

Another obstacle has been to make people—those who are not much interested in animals, or those who are outside of the movement—understand that this is a problem for everyone to solve—although Cuba does have other life or death problems.” [15]

“Of course, the drawing power that animal rights has is immense; it has succeeded in uniting not only those who preach and fulfill the animal rights requirements, but also all people who love and defend animals, beyond ideologies or conceptual, philosophical, religious and even political differences.

The approval of the decree has been the response of the Cuban state to this demand of the citizenry, of the animal rights movement, of all the groups of animal protection, which have made themselves heard through the various audiovisual and digital formats—the only way we currently have to complain about animal abuse and make the government listen to us, as well as making our common efforts and objectives visible.” [16]

“I think that the continuous pressure that has been applied by the movement has been fundamental. There really was no other option than to listen and act. For example, it was the movement that launched the announcement and campaigned so that people would request the inclusion of a specific section on animal protection during their meetings of analysis of the draft of the Constitution. And people joined this petition, and this also had great influence in the development and approval of the decree-law on animal welfare.” [17]

“The animal rights groups in Cuba have very specific characteristics that make them different from foreign ones in terms of organization, forms of action, freedoms, financing, resources, etc.

The work of GAMPA is organized fundamentally through the networks, many of us even don’t know each other personally, because it is a group that was formed during COVID and mobility has been very limited.

We have a management team that is composed of seven working groups: Volunteer acceptance, Rescue and foster care, Adoption and follow-up, Veterinary activities and medications, Activities, Networks, Donations, funds and collaborations.

After having been accepted and interviewed, the volunteers proceed to the Whatsapp group related to the work they wish to do. This group of volunteers—of which all of us are members, without distinction of the type of help we can offer—organizes the transition and foster care rescue that constitutes the major parts of our work. In addition, we publish important information and the weekly summary of the group’s tasks.

We also have two subgroups: one of networks, and the other of interviews and follow-ups. In the Networks one are the volunteers who work together to create our page content (posters, texts, etc.), and the Interview and follow-up one trains the volunteers who will be in charge of interviewing future adopters and evaluating whether they are appropriate to assume the care of animals. They are also responsible for providing monthly information on the animals that have been adopted.

When we carry out an adoption it is always preceded by an interview with the future adopter; a certificate of responsible adoption is completed in which all the information on the adopter, on the rescuer and on the adopted animal is noted. All our animals are handed over with the commitment of obligatory sterilization.

We are a self-financed group; between us we contribute a modest monthly sum which goes into a joint fund which we have at our disposal when we need veterinary care, transportation and/or food for our rescued animals.

I think that something that characterizes Cuban animal rights activist groups is their organization, and this goes hand in hand with our capacity to mobilize. Wherever there is a notice, there is someone ready to go and help. This is a job in which feelings come into play, and for us to refuse to respond to a report is like a night without sleeping because our conscience won’t let us, so we move heaven and earth whenever we can, and I think that this is something that characterizes almost all animal rights groups in Cuba.

It is not a secret to anyone that the social pressure that animal rights groups have exercised in Cuba has been continuous and through very peaceful means. Optimistically, I think that changes relating to the population have been achieved, but not that many relating to the politics of animal protection. I think that the most palpable thing we have done over the years is the Decree-Law of Animal Welfare [18]. And though for the people this may be a great step forward, I—a nonconformist by nature—feel that in comparison to what has been achieved in other third-world countries, it is not much. I think that the work that animal rights activists have been undertaking up to now is worth much more than what has been achieved up to now.” [19]

“During these months we are resuming the creation of core agencies, that is, we have included groups of advocates of several provinces into our organization, with the objective of offering them support, detailed guidance for carrying out their work and helping them with the purchase of products, medication, as well as the working relationships with the various directors and functionaries of their municipality or province.

If we could obtain control programs applicable to areas, educational programs to raise the awareness of the population—not only for pets but for all living beings that fly, crawl, breathe and feel—this great movement would be, in the words of the Maestro [José Martí] “with everyone and for the good of everyone.” All united in one single voice, and with the Decree-Law that we have as weapon, we would achieve much more.” [19]

“We still have a lot of work ahead of us, inside and outside the movement. Starting with being accepted by the State as civil society groups, through solving how to do mass sterilizations to strays, and at low cost, succeed in obtaining public shelters within which advocates of rights activists can work, define how to manage the existing shelters, educate the movement and society on all the forms of animal abuse and the respect towards them, up to achieving that the decree-law shall be applied…. Problems? Yes, many. How to solve them? Step by step; we are only just beginning.” [20]

“Many demands will be refined in time; right now everything that we have achieved constitutes a victory, but we cannot stop here. We must go for more respect and love towards animals. I don’t think that the decree will fulfill all the expectations that we have as a movement, as activists, as animal rights people, but it will be a first step. There will be a before and an after the approval of the law.

But educational work must be done with the population. For me, education on animal rights values has a fundamental importance because this is what will make the Decree-Law not just a dead letter. Now, if it does not get social support from a majority that is willing to fulfill what it stipulates, we will have gotten nowhere. Therefore, to get children, adolescents and young people to change this utilitarian perspective—which has for years been taught in student centers in relation to animals—is vital so that people gain a culture of love and respect towards animals from a very young age. If we achieve that step we will have won 90% of the battle.” [21]

The animal rights movement is winning supporters; however, there remain challenges that are difficult to overcome, aggravated by the current economic situation.

To be recognized as a movement within Cuban civil society; to enrich the implementation of new educational parameters in the schools and even in the boroughs, relating to animal welfare and protection; to achieve an effective communication between independent advocates and groups; to negotiate contracts with food suppliers for the shelters; coordinate preventive activities with veterinary clinics; activate a network of transitions, foster care and adoptions to avoid the overpopulation of the refuges…. are some of the urgent actions that lag behind the current needs.

In the meantime, the abandonments, the strays, dog and cock fights, violence, mutilations, breeding without protection all continue, and then…., those kids….

NOTES

[1] El mundo en que vivimos [The World we Live in]; third grade. Ed. Pueblo y Educación, 10th reprint, 2013, pp. 66-67.

[2] https://oie.es [see https://www.oie.int/en/home/ ]

[3] Ibid.

[4] https://elrefugiocuba.org/2021/03/13/en-torno-al-animalismo

[5] Interview with Valia Rodríguez for this article

[6] Interview with Gabriela Díaz for this article

[7] Interview with Nora García for this article

[8] Valia Rodríguez

[9] Ibid.

[10] Interview with Javier Larrea for this article

[11] Gabriela Díaz

[12] Nora García

[13] Valia Rodríguez

[14] Gabriela Díaz

[15] Valia Rodríguez

[16] Javier Larrea

[17] Valia Rodríguez

[18] Consejo de Estado de la República de Cuba. Decreto-Ley de Bienestar Animal. Gaceta Oficial, 0.04.2021

[19] Gabriela Díaz

[20] Nora García

[21] Valia Rodríguez

[22] Javier Larrea

Traducción: Catharina Vallejo

The name of the dossier Culture in defense of the nation includes at least a couple of distinguishable terms: defense of the nation and culture. In this respect, what’s your view about culture? How wide-ranging or narrow do you think it is? How is it related to the defense of the nation?

Israel Rojas: You can be Cuban from either a narrow or a broad perspective. Cuban-ness encompasses from how you walk and behave to what you eat. It’s a very singular worldview even within the Caribbean context—as mestizo and mixed as it is insular, where it’s not always recognized but from which it definitely can’t escape—without necessarily being committed to the nation. Ideally, it would always be like that, but it’s not. Culture in itself has a life of its own. Contradictory as it may seem, cultural expressions don’t always assume of necessity the defense of nationality.

As I see it, the nation is something much more comprehensive, as it encompasses culture—no doubt— but it also goes beyond that. I’m not exactly a specialist in ethnology or sociology, but let’s say that given my limited view of what each field covers, perhaps I can’t describe it in technical words, but I do know how to distinguish it inwardly. I think there’s a way of going deeper into our own Cuban-ness as human beings as we get to know our country better and become more aware of all the different feelings coming from the various social strata that make up our Cuban self… People in [the town of] Baracoa are as different from those in [the province of] Pinar del Río as a black Cuban is from a white one, or a taíno descendant like me from someone who doesn’t recognize themselves as such. And of course, a Cuban who lives in Cuba today is different from another one who doesn’t, and even—why not?—from those who feel culturally Cuban even if they were born elsewhere to Cuban parents. I believe that as you go deeper into and get to know better the polychromy that we call «Cuban-ness» you become a little more Cuban, even when it comes to the flavors of the Cuban traditional cuisine.

On the other hand, I strongly believe that, after such a long time under siege and trying to exist, a nation like ours becomes more resistant, which in itself challenges and affects, sooner rather than later, our way of being as Cubans.

I also believe in the country that we make and dream of, conceived by every one of those who were once part of a vanguard that imagined, dreamed of, and fought to make that ideal country possible. A country with a political, economic and social system which leaves no one unprotected or out of the equation; the country «with all and for the good of all» that [Cuban national hero José] Martí described—he was not a socialist but had a vocation to cast his lot with the most disadvantaged. Such a way of preconceiving a supportive world and our overall perspective as Cubans also defines and makes us the way we are.

I definitely believe that Fidel was right when he said that culture was the nation’s shield and sword. Culture is part of the framework that shapes the defense of the nation. Such is my humble opinion.

It’s very interesting that you stress diversity when you speak of the nation as a wide-ranging and unifying concept. How to link the diversity of approaches to Cuban-ness from different perspectives with a much more comprehensive project like the national one?

Israel Rojas: I think that those patriotic concepts, found throughout Cuban history, are fairly strong considerations when it comes to shaping and articulating that diversity. I find it quite revealing, however casual it may seem to be, that history has woven with threads of glory the fact that Martí fell in Oriente and [independence war general Antonio] Maceo in Havana. Or that the popular imaginary of regions with high black population density like Songo La Maya or Guantánamo claims José Antonio Aponte as their own, when he was actually a native of Havana, a westerner, and you can make him part of your own history. There is a very strong base of national unity there.

The formation of the Cuban nationality has been closely related to these aspirations for freedom, to the reality of always having an antagonist who confronts and hinders you and an external element that challenges you. All of this gradually defined our Cuban-ness: the peculiar habit of thinking “what we would be like if…” I don’t know a better word than “aspirational”. We have always had a way of looking at ourselves: what we would be like had it not been for this or that obstacle. I don’t know whether it’s the same in every nation, but in Cuba the main heroes and the most important literary and musical works—produced by that cultural, political and even philosophical vanguard of thinkers—not only recreated their time but also thought about the Cuba of the future… Look at a man like José Antonio Saco, who was pro-Spain and yet endeavored to improve his own milieu and thought and created so much for the future. That’s why he is such an essential figure in Cuban history.

These aspirational elements are part of our own history and foundations as a nation. Maybe that explains everything, and it’s really very interesting. We are even geolectically different: people in Pinar del Río have a typical tumba’o [swagger]; we from eastern Cuba have another; people from the Habana-Matanzas Plains and up to Villa Clara have their own, which differs from those who live in Havana. People in the provinces of Las Tunas, Granma and Holguín speak differently than those in the cities of Santiago, Guantánamo or Baracoa. We have a few distinctive features. Nonetheless, despite those expressions of fruitless regionalism and provincialism, which divided and debilitated us to the point of frustrating our first wars of liberation, national unity became all the more necessary. We can’t ever overlook that fact. We shed a lot of blood to achieve territorial or cultural unity as a social construction, but whatever we can construct can just as easily be deconstructed.

I think we have been more separated by class stratification than by regionalism. In the long run, the economic issues have always played a more decisive role vis-à-vis the achievement of national unity than, say, your birthplace, so much so that you can recognize a Cuban—or someone said to be Cuban even if they are foreigners or born elsewhere—as long as they mingle with and behave as expected from a Cuban. Would you just look at such a big and beautiful detail! We can even accept, embrace and welcome perfectly well a Cuban wannabe as one of us simply because they wish to be so. I believe that’s a big thing.

You wondered to what extent our status as a besieged and resistant nation has been a unifying and influential factor to us. I think that it also has to do with resistance from the cultural viewpoint to the attempts at imposing a hegemonic culture worldwide. Are we now more or less vulnerable to those attempts? Why?

Israel Rojas: I couldn’t say whether we are more or less vulnerable. What I do know is based on the strengths and weaknesses that I see.

Our strengths spring first of all from education and instruction. I usually say that our own Egyptian pyramids and our Empire State are not tangible, but spiritual works. That on September 1 to 5, depending on the year and the day of the week, the Cuban school year beings for all children from San Antonio to Maisí regardless of their creed, race, or region, and that it’s only natural that Cuban seven-year-olds can read and write, that is a strength. I only thought of writing Pi 3.14 when I was totally convinced that any Cuban 15- or 16-year-old knows what Pi 3.14 is; even those who don’t have a head for mathematics know it, they had to learn it. A country with such strengths is a bit better prepared to be conscientious.

We even boast a philosophical culture. Cuba is no bed of roses for the terraplanists. Some major strata of our society are still very politicized and fond of political reflections, philosophy and arguments about the meaning of life. I think we still have a big critical mass here that supports, for instance, theater. I find it incredible and wonderfully positive that a work like Hierro is a box-office hit. It’s great to see that the jazz festivals enjoy good health; that in spite of all the hardships we still hold the Book Fair; that in spite of all the wheeling and dealing the Havana Biennial Art Exhibition remains a feast of fine arts; and that the Caribbean Festival in Santiago is a popular celebration. The resurgence of a regional event such as the Romerías de Mayo [May Pilgrimages]; that each territory has new or traditional cultural events in common; this speaks well for our strengths. So do the commendations we have received in Olympiads of exact or computer sciences at international level. Those are also strengths.

It’s not the case, I believe, in matters like our current lame policy of advancement to leadership positions. I wouldn’t describe it as terrible, but it’s definitely out of tune with our needs insofar as it fails to prioritize our best people for the best positions. A country like ours cannot afford that luxury, since the war against us is too fierce and harsh for us to keep believing that our people are recyclable: «don’t worry, dismiss him; stick your hand in the raffle box and take out another name». That’s not how it works.

Not long ago I heard one of the few things I consider very objective in this regard. It came from Alejandro Gil, our Minister of Economy, who said that the Cuban businesspersons should work with a margin of risk, which is equivalent to a margin of error. So, if we acknowledge that it’s impossible for the economy to work without a margin of error, why think that in politics a risk-taking politician or official who tries to change something will not make a mistake at some point? We often think that we have a factory of leaders at our disposal, but life is proving us wrong. We don’t. The most suitable people we have are not there where they are most useful. Or we keep them there for too long, and then we say, «We didn’t have anyone else».

We have paid the price. Of course, the historical generation has made a huge effort, but that has its negative side. Some comrades have held a position for too long, perhaps preventing the emergence of new cadres and people capable of doing the same job with great skill.

I think many people still fail to realize that [Cuban president] Díaz-Canel’s mandate has its days numbered, according to the dates and duration of the periods of office established in the new Constitution. He will be in office for only so much time. We should be thinking about and assessing the best names for the job. We should realize that it was [Fidel Castro’s brother] Raúl who nominated Díaz-Canel, and with great fanfare to boot, calling him the one who had survived. But that sperm policy will not work forever. Besides, in my opinion, it’s suicide, because we might have just discarded very good people in the process. We cannot just place the winning “sperm” at the helm of every stratum of our society. That’s not how things work. We have to qualify and train people, but keeping in mind our responsibilities, because things may change any minute and it could be you, if you’re ready, who will take over a given task by popular vote, perhaps out of a historical obligation or an ethical commitment to your fellow citizens. Even if it’s a form of recognition and a source of pride, it’s not a reward, and it will never be a privilege.

It’s one of the shortcomings that we usually disregard in relation to the huge challenges facing our nation, because a nation will be saved or killed by its best or its worst people.

There are plenty of examples in our country’s history as well as in the world.

This is very important to me, as it is to every lieutenant and captain, to every Intendant and Governor, to whomever holds a responsible position, including in the cultural, radio and TV sectors. Today our best people are excelling in the private sector rather than in the State system from which our cadre policy draws sustenance. What we have in the end is a short circuit.

It’s utopian to think that man has no aspirations. It has a nice ring to it, but it’s totally out of keeping with social psychology. The question is what you aspire to. Provide a better service? Bring down the wall. Be an example of transparency in regard to our personal and family wealth? Bring down the wall. Be remembered by our people as an example of dedication? Bring down the wall.

How to get organized so that our best people can take charge? Some of our first-rate people are already leaving us. Does that mean that we will have to build our country with third-rate people?

Are those of us who stayed here on that third-rate level? No, many first-rate people stayed here. What can’t happen is that those first-raters who stayed are not holding positions in which they can really help this country make much more progress. Everybody here knows that’s what makes the difference. It’s one of the problems we have and, I think, a major weakness.

Another extremely important variable that we have to deal with is the technological revolution and its impact on both global culture and ourselves. We can’t escape that.

Just as the Industrial Revolution changed the world, so too is the technological one. Things will have changed by the end of the century, what with the arrival of the Internet, the 5G network and whatever will follow, because it won’t stop there.

Are we ready to understand that process? To what extent were those cultural barriers actually cultural resistance? The information arrived slowly and you had time to prepare. Now it comes very quickly, often scientifically treated and—as we just saw in Illescas’s book[1]—almost surgically structured, with enough pounds of science to get us soaked through with the question of world hegemony… Either we learn to use the same techniques to save our nation, or we will be swallowed up. The circumstances have changed. We will be swallowed up much like the muskets and steel swords destroyed the arrows and spears of the indigenous peoples. You can’t defend a community with bows and arrows in the rifle age.

I honestly couldn’t say how ready we are for this. I have faith in the right things that we have done to reach this stage of our history, but I’m also very worried. We still have many subjective problems to solve together. Our people are known to come together in times of foreign aggression; that’s not a concern. What worries me is our inability to organize ourselves better. Because of our poor organization, we have fared worse much more often than during those times that our external enemy has overtaken us.

The ongoing technological revolution is too big and marked by hegemonic interests. We must understand that if we fail to be prepared we will wind up being a nice historic anecdote: «A nation that faced up to the Empire until, well, the Great Empire won in the end», or «They lasted a hundred years! But, alas, they screwed up in the long run». I hope I will not have to see that. On the contrary, I hope that the essence of all those wonderful ideas that Cuba nurtures and defends—about solidarity, love for one’s neighbor, respect for people and any other living being, care for nature, social conscience, how to put ourselves in other people’s place—and which define our true fortitude, will not only make us immune to all this mess but also become, perhaps, the spark that ignites everything around the hegemony of capital and creates another hegemony based on solidarity.

You mentioned different artistic manifestations such as the box-office hit Hierro and other events. What is the role of the artists and intellectuals in this struggle?

Israel Rojas: The artists and intellectuals have a key role to play. To begin with, it’s not in vain that the UNEAC[2] congresses—fortunately—become national events. There we talk about anything, from public transport to birthrates, ethics or politics. In those UNEAC congresses we talk about education as much and almost with the same conviction as they do in the congresses of Education. Through that project we help ourselves imagine a better country, and as I said—maybe because I’m an artist—I think that capacity is a distinctive quality of our country.

Every time a visual artist, a movie actor or even a culinary artist combines our flavors or creates a critical work, regardless of its topic but in essence profoundly Cuban, humanistic and glorifying—of those that when you look at yourself in them you see the individual and the country that you are, and your children and grandchildren will probably see the same—we are dreaming of, defending and making that country. We are complementing an ideology and doing politics, no doubt about it. It’s why I hold that you can’t separate one from the other, it’s simply impossible, even if by saying so I’m giving my adversaries the tools to harass me. I could not be so hypocritical as to say that art and politics have nothing in common; of course they do, they go together like hand and glove. One is part of and provides feedback to the other. The role of Cuban artists and intellectuals goes beyond reflecting, denouncing and dreaming: it’s all that plus the chance to leave their mark on the next generation, like passing an improved baton.

That’s how I see it. Besides, no one can claim to have come out of nowhere. No one has. We’re all heirs to a very rich body of work, to everything created before us. Of course, in the field of music, I obviously consider myself an heir to the Nueva Trova [New Song] Movement, to [singer-songwriters] Silvio, Pablo, Noel, Sara, Vicente, Amaury; to the generation of Santiago Feliú, Carlos Varela, Frank Delgado, Gerardo Alfonso, Donato Poveda, the «Generation of Moles», and to [bands such as] Mezcla, Síntesis, Moncada, Manguaré, Liuba María... each with their own experimentation.

Also extremely important is that Cuba, as a Caribbean island, has the capacity to process whatever comes from outside that is not inherent to our culture and make it our own. The best of what comes from outside, but then again, sometimes also the worst, but in the end the best remains. A mimetic work can be successful and functional at a given time, but it’s short-lived. Even the artists who at some point have defended more radically a certain genre end up realizing that choosing only functional and money-making works is suicidal. More often than not they undertake quests and experiments and merge their work with the entire existing artistic and cultural patrimony that is knocking at your door and asking, «Did you enjoy your moment of fame? Well now is the time to remix and relearn».

Making your hits last longer than the usual six or twelve months—you can only try, for it’s never a sure thing—calls for a great deal of serious work. I’m not talking about excelling in the market or in the big cultural industries, but about the influence of your art, so that in the course of time people revisit your work and rejoice in it again… That’s why NG La Banda is a classic whose place of honor other very popular bands never reached. I’m talking about works, not ideological positions. Like Adalberto Alvarez’s Y qué tú quieres que te den, which Rojitas sang in 1993… You play those songs and it seems that they sound better and better with each passing day. Many songs from those days were merely superficial in content and never stand the test of time. Good art is everlasting, whereas a simply eloquent work will only live until someone else makes something even more eloquent, and then what seemed to be a work of genius expires, dies, expires… Time has ferocious appetites.

I would like to have your opinion about an interesting thing. You placed particular emphasis on people’s common sense and on their subjectivity and also talked about the artists and intellectuals regarding our cultural patrimony. There is a cultural patrimony, but the contexts and circumstances have changed. How do you use that patrimony to reach people’s common senses and subjectivity, which in the end you somehow seek as well?

Israel Rojas: Of course. The equations don’t always give the expected results in social dynamics. The way people behave and relate or fall in love is always changing, as are the concepts of family, sexuality, fidelity, morality… If you don’t study, feel, and experience all of that every day you won’t be able to sing about it from the heart and will find it very hard to link the country that you’re describing with the one where you’re living. It’s very important that culture can project itself and be imaginative, but on the specific basis of our current circumstances. It’s like a tree, whose roots must go deep enough to really grow, blossom and bear fruit. As a creator, you should never stop.

You don’t live in the past. The past is there for you to revisit and learn from. [Cuban radio station] Radio Rebelde had a spot that I loved which said, «Cars have broad windshields to see what’s coming and small rear-view mirrors to see what’s gone». Contemporary Cuban society, which is not isolated from the world, is now under the influence of a prolonged economic attack as well as affected by the big cultural industries that keep delivering their products and by the new technologies. We have our share of botched jobs—both new and old—in fact quite a few of them. Today’s Cubans are like those of the eighties, but not the same as them.

For example, look at our tremendous effort and work for women’s liberation. Without proper guidance, a liberated teenager who has no prejudice toward virginity and has the right to abortion, education and work, but is submitted to the objectification and super sexualization of the world of music videos and the mainstream media, she might get confused and end up with exactly the opposite of liberation and fulfillment. It seems contradictory, but it’s what we’re seeing. All of this is already happening.

I once heard [former founder and president of the Cuban Film Institute] Alfredo Guevara say that he could not conceive of an artist, say, a filmmaker, who doesn’t have a new project. As a creator, I don’t always have a new immediate project. What is unacceptable is that if I don’t have any I will not study and do research until I come up with one.

I may not be creating anything, but I’m studying, which is not only about having your nose in a book: it’s watching the new Cuban and international cinema, trying to understand what goes on throughout our country and in this convulsed world, not just in Havana or in your neighborhood. That takes work, time, investment, searching for information, reading all kinds of media, making friends in other places who can tell you about reality from their standpoint… In other words, you have to concern yourself with learning. If you don’t, your art will start losing contact with life and reality and run the risk of getting stuck with old topics. I think that’s the worst that could happen to a creator.

I do everything I can so that each album becomes a new trip with new stories and views, trying to be different as I continue to be the same. It’s because I’m older and I have undergone some logical transformations. I’m a father and I have new concerns. That is, I face up to life from another window of my existence.

Now I understand perfectly that your artistic condition is not everlasting. You can keep on giving concerts, but as a creator you may be asleep. You have to go out in search of and fight for your status as a creator; you have to conceive things, like a researcher or anyone involved in synthesizing, interpreting, reflecting and projecting ideas and emotions. It’s an exercise in perception, meditation, synthesis, communication and, above all else, emotions. Of course, all of it must run through emotions. An artist is a social nerve.

Finally, do you know that Temas’s blog is called Catalejo? As I reviewed my questions, I remembered Catalejo, not only for the blog but also for your song. We talked about the defense of the nation, but this last question is, how we can prevent that defense coming from the field of culture from becoming entrenchment.

Israel Rojas: The defense of the nation is a historical, legal and moral obligation of the Cubans. The war they have waged on us is unjust, brutal and unjustifiable, but we must properly identify who are the direct and indirect victims and who are the victimizers.

As long as we don’t forget that dialectics is a tool for thinking and also for social construction and that defending anything necessarily involves putting yourself in somebody else’s shoes, we will avoid entrenchment. It’s easy to say, but quite difficult to accomplish.

To me, one of the cures for any unhealthy entrenchment is the ethics that [Cuban poet and essayist] Cintio Vitier defended so hard and [Cuban intellectual Fernando] Martínez Heredia spoke so much about. They referred to ethics as key to the process of personal construction, based on fundamental values of the most sublime humanism to construct an inclusive, democratic and socialist society. That’s essential to me.

A while ago, I saw a scene in the TV show «L.C.B. La otra guerra 2» [Struggle Against the Bandits: The other war] that kept me thinking through the night. After dismantling the gangs of bandits, Mongo—the character that Osvaldo Doimeadiós plays so brilliantly—chastises a young militiaman who was rejoicing about the victory, reminding him of the mothers and families on both sides that would receive bad news. Then he turns to El Gallo—no less superbly performed by Fernando Hechevarría—and says, “That’s why, heartbreaking as it may be, we have to keep ‘cutting the orange in half’.” This confrontation that we are living through is precisely about that. Sometimes you have to keep “cutting the orange in half”. The question is that the heartache should never go away, even if you’re exercising your inexorable right of self-defense. We must always put ourselves in somebody else’s place and try to cause as little or irreversible damage as possible. No damage at all, if possible. Finally, insofar as we are more active than reactive, as well as more daring, brave, advocate and participatory, in, as well from, the sphere of culture, we will have by our side not only our respective audiences, but also the people as a whole.

Rafael Hernández: Eduardo, when you speak about culture’s role in the defense of the nation, what do culture and defending the nation mean to you? What does that defense entail in the field of culture?

Eduardo Torres-Cuevas: First of all, we must define those concepts. The term “culture” has been used with very different meanings, and there are many ways to understand it. In my view, culture has to do with a people’s way of being and doing; it is the foundation of any cultural process. It can manifest itself in the streets, in our way of thinking, doing and saying. And this leads eventually to the consolidation of that culture in its intellectual, artistic and musical expressions.

Cuba’s overall historic evolution reveals the emergence of fields born from the Island’s own internal process. A great diversity of people, ethnic groups and nationalities came from all over the world—Spain, Africa, other European countries, Asia—at different stages of our history and converged in what I call the acriollamiento (or “going native”) process. Criollo means being raised at home; not born, but raised, regardless of your descent. This paves the way, first of all, for a process of creation of all kinds of cultural traditions and customs—eating, dressing, speaking and other habits. Every city, town and village creates its own traditions, and from there a more nationwide tradition arises even if there is still no nation per se. Culture precedes the nation, which will be the outcome of a cultural process.

I have always liked very much one of Fernando Ortiz’s phrases. «What is being Cuban? It’s an ajiaco»[1], he says, «made of diverse ingredients», with a quality of its own that is different to its original components. And he adds, «Our culture is the quality of Cubanness». That is, its quality is that of its people.

As those criollos and reyoyos[2] start to take shape, such a mixture of elements becomes a combination that creates its own expression as the ultimate characteristic of a nation. For instance, eighty-five ethnic groups came from Africa, where many of whom were even rivals.

RH: Eighty-five African ethnic groups!?

ET: Those eighty-five ethnic groups had a single identifying feature: they were black people. But in Africa, since they were all black, there was no such identifying factor. The same thing happened in Spain, and in Spanish America. In the 16th century there was an assortment of kingdoms and dynasties that included titles like king of Aragon, Castile, and Leon… Spain only came into being as a concept when there really was a vision of the Hispanic world, just like American-ness did during the same process in the 16th, 17th and 18th centuries.

Our culture identifies us by the way we are, do and speak as much as by the habits, traditions and customs that we created throughout those first three centuries, especially after the 19th, when the process became rational. Until then it had been more about feelings that could not always be described or narrated, but the predominance of the Age of Reason and modern science in the 19th century and the philosophy sprung from the French and British Encyclopedias of the late 18th century allowed for their rational articulation.

RH: When we speak of defending the nation we think first of all about a clash with external hostile, negative, alienating factors, originated mainly in the United States. That is the most usual context of the phrase.

Now, when we speak about it not in military, economic, or political-diplomatic terms but from the viewpoint of culture, it implies that we are defending a culture with ingredients that originate in the North. How does this cultural relation affect the defense of the nation?

ET: When I said that Cubanness is made up of all those transcultured ingredients I am also including the North American one. In the 18th and 19th centuries, Cuba and the United States had close commercial and cultural relations in every field, which became more political in the 20th century.

When Martí said that we lie astride the pivot of America and that the struggle for Cuban independence was also for the balance of the world, he took into account the North American factor, mainly because this vast Latin America and the American-ness that I mentioned before had to do with the characteristics of the Spanish Empire. But throughout the 19th century Havana had a permanent link with New York and New Orleans. Havana is not on the southern coast; it’s not a Caribbean city. It faces the North Atlantic, right opposite Florida, and it’s very close to the port of New Orleans, where there are French and Spanish criollos. That is why when Napoleon sold Louisiana to the United States many of those French criollos came here and established big coffee plantations in western Cuba. Others who came as a result of the Haitian Revolution settled mostly in the eastern region and in the city of Cienfuegos, founded by Don Louis de Clouet, a French criollo.

Now, that link with the United States made many things possible for Cuba, particularly to be close to the processes of development not only in Europe but also in Anglo-Saxon America. This even led up to the annexationist movement and the disagreement between [Jose Antonio] Saco and El Lugareño [The Villager][3], which remains, without any difference, a very current issue nowadays. El Lugareño argues: «An annexed Cuba means five hundred thousand Yankees; devils and demons, but white devils and demons with enough capital to make the Island advance. What do you expect from Spain, that it will bring you five hundred thousand African blacks?» To which Saco replies: «I understand, it’s true that we would get all those benefits», and goes on sarcastically, «but I still see a slight contradiction in that project: the loss of the Cuban nationality». It’s true that Saco is referring to a white nationality, but at the same time he was stressing the fact that this country had been raised in the Catholic religion. But religion is the least significant component of this concept; what’s most important are the whole cultural, ethical, and even artistic elements inherent in the original Catholic view of the world. At the other end are the Anglo-Saxon and Protestant whites. That is why he speaks of «the loss of my nationality», and says: «While I have been able to be a foreigner abroad, I would not be able to be a foreigner in my own homeland, nor will I ever bow to the gleaming stars of the American flag». He’s saying that he will not allow himself to lose his culture. So every economic effort has to be channeled into the preservation of independence and of the Cuban nation.

Therefore, speaking of the nation involves not only political but other more profound considerations. It’s about who we are and whether we can stop being what we are, and that’s the crux of the cultural matter.

RH: The present is also history, and all antecedents that you mention are key to understanding it. But if we look at the confrontation between the Revolution and the United States, and the former’s claims to national culture and the nation as part of its project, would you say that this moment is more challenging and threatening to the defense of the nation than back in the 1960s? Or have not that nation and its culture been under attack and harassed since the beginning of the Revolution? If we agree that is the case, what’s different today?

ET: It’s a wide-ranging question, but yes, I would say that never before has the nation and its culture been in greater danger. I will quote someone who is not exactly a supporter of the Cuban Revolution: Mario Vargas Llosa, from his excellent book La civilización del espectáculo [Notes on the Death of Culture: Essays on Spectacle and Society]. This is also related to the way modernity has dismantled all contemporary rationalistic projects and even the very concepts of nation, homeland, and people’s sense of duty. For the last thirty years we had a rational discussion which included the arguments that the right wing used in its political discourse, so it was possible to have a clear-headed debate. Today we no longer need that rational discourse because there are other post-modern considerations about ethics and esthetics that affect not only the revolutionary ethics, but also the religious ethics itself, like, say, in Catholicism. This phenomenon is much broader and global; it’s not limited to a certain region, nor is it a Cuban problem, but a universal issue.

On the other hand, in the 1960s the mass media—radio, television, the press, the news exchanged between agencies—were, in retrospect, seen as primitive. Now you can use a cell phone to send messages all over the world. There are examples, particularly of what has been called the fourth generation warfare, as in the case of the Arab Spring, the effects of which differed considerably from the expectations that many of the millions who took to the streets really expected.

Moreover, the concepts have changed or modified their content. Nowadays everybody speaks of democracy, but the problem is how to know what democracy you are talking about, the extent of its scope, and its mechanisms and power groups, which existed to some degree. Now the control over the media is absolute. For instance, in the 1950s there were in Havana eleven national newspapers, ranging from the communists’ Hoy to the Diario de la Marina, on opposite ends of the spectrum. We also had El Crisol, Prensa Libre, El Mundo, El País, and there was a visible debate in which we would either gain or lose ground every day. Today the right-of-center, the rightists and the centrists have much stronger control over the media than the left-wingers, among other things for economic reasons. On that score, nothing to do with the struggle of the 1960s, when the debate, the way to debate and the purpose of that debate were different. There were multiple choices, but all were intended to make improvements. Now even the worst can prove to be the best, since everything depends on your discourse and your powers of persuasion. Furthermore, the simplest discourse is usually the most convincing; the more theoretical it is, the less the great masses will understand it. The semi-fascist and far-right leaders, among others, use sentences and phrases, at times even without verbs, and thus they make affirmations that people accept. But the axiom of saying something that could be totally false hinges on the old principle of lie, lie and lie. Something always sticks, and then when you put up a defense, it’s too late. All these factors make these times all the more complicated.

The left-wing movement around the world went through a phase of confusing views, when the left attacked the left following the crisis of the socialist bloc, the Soviet Union, etc. I am not judging the communist parties, but after this phase they took a considerable nosedive, and now the socialist parties, who thought they would rise at the former’s expense—as they did in the beginning—find themselves at a disadvantage. The discourse that prevails today has knocked down some of the traditionally strong parties in Latin America. That’s what’s happening in Costa Rica and Peru, where parties long aligned with the left or the center, and even with the right, are faced with such a crisis that they don’t even have a strategic program. What’s the only strategic program on the table now? The neoliberal and neoconservative one, with both forces engaged in a discussion to which the left can only reply.

RH: Defensively.

ET: Yes, as long as there is a proposition I respond. What the left is lacking now is a coherent discourse and the capacity to say things in simple terms that everybody can understand, but based on finely elaborate theoretical thoughts.

RH: Is our own position or the message that we are sending also defensive?

ET: Of course. One of the most interesting aspects is that we are not measuring up to the proposal that we must bring forward. Our responses, more or less elaborate though they may be, are excellent. We only have to be goaded and there will be a response, be it by reminding the speaker about their mother, delivering a fancy speech, etc. As I see it, our problem is that we are currently designing a new proposal that is not yet articulate or tested; the very dynamics of the process can provide the answer.

Let me respond to your question from a different angle. The offensive being launched today is not neoliberal, but neoconservative in nature, and I make a distinction in that respect. Obama may be the embodiment of neoliberalism, while Trump is that of neoconservatism, as he even attacks some elements of the former. Such a neoconservative offensive seems to be the extreme right’s usual response whenever left-wing thinking is in crisis; they also become more aggressive against economic movements. In other words, it happens every time there is a crisis and it’s necessary to organize the advance of big business.

RH: When it comes to defending the nation in the field of culture and the culture that represents us, today our nation is more present than usual beyond our borders, and not for the first time. There are Cubans all over the world, as there were during the independence wars, etc. From the strategic viewpoint, what does the inclusion of the Cubans who live abroad, who are part of our nation, who are not our enemies and do not behave as enemies or collaborate with them, mean to a cultural policy or a plan to defend the nation from the field of culture?

ET: Being Cuban is not conditioned by the part of the planet where you live, be it the North Pole, Hawaii or Burkina Faso. And a most important thing, going back to Fernando Ortiz: today I’m…

RH: A fan of Ortiz.

ET: Yes! He asked, «What is being Cuban?», that is, the awareness and willingness to be it. You choose whether or not you want to be Cuban, but that involves a cultural, not a political definition, even if the political consequences follow close behind. In the beginning, I want to be like the other, not like I am; I want to acculturate.  But among the Cuban émigrés—we both know plenty of them—there are many who have discovered who they are as opposed to others; that is, I realize that I am Cuban because I act and think in a different way, and maybe I have to hide to eat black beans, but that’s the dish I want, rice and beans. Like Cuban music, which gets you on your feet wherever you are and makes you say, ‘That music!’ Culture keeps us being Cuban regardless of where we are.

RH: If defending the nation engages Cubans here and elsewhere, and if culture is what unites us, what do you recommend to include in a cultural strategy to defend the nation that will not be overcome by populism, folklorism, or the small-town provincialism that Martí criticized? How to guard against that danger?

ET: It’s a complicated problem. There is what you could rationalize about the problem and also what is an irrational part of the concepts and attitudes related to it. We must start by identifying those values, wherever they are, and place them where they should be. Now, that means that you must harness every available media to sensitize the relevant spheres, be they political, social or economic.

It’s a way of identifying ourselves with those feelings and thoughts related to the evolution of Cubanness which, incidentally, has evolved and will keep evolving because it will always live through different historic periods. Martí wrote many of his best works—in fact, most of them—in the United States, all of the above notwithstanding.

The solution lies in the realization that any new space will keep creating or growing insofar as we are capable of enlarging them. It’s a clever, slow-moving task that cannot be expected to produce results overnight. Many people, many Cubans everywhere can contribute to it. We know that many of them, who live in the United States even since the days of Operation Peter Pan, are excellent sources of integrative thinking and producers of Cuban culture from abroad. It would be absurd for us to disregard them, but they have to be recognized, just like they have to become aware of many things.

RH: My last question is related to the previous one. If we defend our culture and nation by reinforcing the proper cultural institutions and by avoiding any form of entrenchment or attitudes that might make us look fearful mainly when coming into contact with foreign things: how to develop that defense by bolstering and promoting exchange instead of closing our mind to it? How can we do this in order to strengthen a more self-assured cultural awareness?

ET: Your last phrase is very important. The question is how self-assured we are in our awareness. It´s not about building trenches of stone. They do not allow for any progress nor for the defense of what must really be defended. Ideas know no bounds; culture has no borders. Our culture is ours, but it’s also universal, because it’s another component, not a small-town culture. If nothing else, what makes Cuban culture so rich—maybe because of what you asked before; Cuba is close to the United States and closer to Europe than to other places, with the sea connecting us rather than isolating us; it’s harder to reach the center of America on horseback than travel to Europe by ship—is the character that Cuban culture has always had. If you don’t let it breathe and give it room it becomes weak, and the weaker you make it the more exposed you are to lose territory and end up in an unfortunate situation.

We need to have a dialogue and spaces to understand what everybody has achieved and done. The Cubans in other countries have jobs because, first of all, they had an education that included the influence of all the aspects originating in the more developed world. And even if you say, «I don’t want to go through that», somehow you will, because there are no limiting boundaries in today’s world. And it will happen in such a way that we will not always know—unless we have a clear policy in place—what is valid and what is not, so we have to enter into a dialogue that makes room for what is valid. Otherwise, you are doomed to die.

RH: Thank you very much, you have my appreciation.