1
Political Science 349T Jim Mahon
Fall 2007 b22 Stetson
597-2236
OH: W 10-12
and by app’t
CUBA AND THE UNITED STATES
This course is a tutorial on selected topics from the last hundred years of Cuban political history and Cuban relations with the United States, emphasizing the Castro period.
After the organizational meeting, in the first full week we meet once in a regular class format (lecture and discussion) while finalizing pairs and time slots for the semester. For the last class of the semester weall meet again, this time for discussion, for which you write a one-page reflective paper. In between, there are ten weeks of tutorial.
During these weeks, each student writes five 5-to 7-page (about 1250- to 1750-word) papers, one every other week of class, and 2-page commentaries on alternate weeks. Please be advised that a week to write a commentary is not a “week off.” You are expected to develop a solid interpretation of all the readings, one that informs your written and oral responses. (Final grades are calculated as follows: the five longer papers, total 60 percent; the five commentaries, total 25 percent, the reflective paper for the last class, another 5 percent, and the quality of your participation during tutorial sessions, 10 percent.)
Writing papers for a tutorial is a lot like writing for other courses (regular Honor Code rules apply to these and to commentaries, of course). In the syllabus I suggest key issues for each week of readings, on which you can focus your presentation—but please do not feel constrained by these. If you focus on a different theme, just say so clearly at the beginning of your essay. Your partner and I need to have the paper by noon on the day before our meeting. I cannot emphasize this too much. Late papers can compromise or force the postponement of our meetings--so they will be marked down significantly.
What makes a good commentary? In this respect the work for a tutorial is most different from other courses. Think of it as having four parts: 1) a brief and coherent restatement of the argument in your partner's paper; 2) what you thought was good about the paper; 3) how you thought it could be improved, given your understanding of the author's own assumptions or goals; and 4) how the paper was weakest, given your interpretation of the week's readings. Commentators: don’t forget to bring 3 copies of your work to the meeting.
This syllabus is extensively annotated to provide a guide to the literature, to introduce the main topics, and to suggest themes for your essays.
SUMMARY OF TOPICS by week
1. (Lecture and discussion) Where did Castro come from? Sugar, the colonial legacy, and US imperialism
2. Who was Martí and why do Cubans care so much?
3. The Platt Amendment and after: what’ssovereignty worth?
4. Explaining a revolution
5. The Revolution’s radical turn: a result of US policy?
6. Culture and revolution
7. Gender, sexuality, and the Revolution
8. Race and national identity under Castro
9. Is this democracy?
10. The exiles and the embargo
11. The Castro regime and the “Special Period”
12. (Discussion) The future of Cuba
READINGS
BOOKS TO BUY:Ann-Louise Bardach, Cuba Confidential (Random House, 2002);
Samuel Farber, The Origins of the Cuban Revolution Reconsidered (U. North
Carolina, 2006);
Brian Latell, After Fidel (Palgrave, 2005);
Thomas G. Paterson, Contesting Castro (Oxford, 1994); and
Louis Pérez, Cuba and the United States, 3rd ed. (U. Georgia, 2003)
INTENSIVE RESERVE (marked "R" in schedule):
BOOKS AND PHOTOCOPIES:
Jules Benjamin, The United States and the Origins of the Cuban Revolution (Princeton
1990).
Guillermo Cabrera Infante, Mea Cuba (1994).
Fidel Castro, La revolución cubana (México: Era, 1972).
Central Intelligence Agency, CIA Targets Fidel: Secret 1967 Inspector General’s Report
(Ocean, 1996).
John Clytus, Black Man in Red Cuba (U. Miami, 1970).
Carlos Franqui, Family Portrait with Fidel (1984).
Lawrence Freedman, Kennedy’s Wars (Oxford, 2000).
David Alan Harvey [photographer] and Elizabeth Newhouse [essayist], Cuba (1999).
Robert Levine and Moisés Asís, Cuban Miami (2000).
Louis Perez, Cuba: Between Reform and Revolution3rd ed. (Oxford, 2006)
Armando Valladares, Against All Hope.
VIDEOS (in chronological order), all now at Sawyer reserve desk
Memorias del Subdesarrollo (Memories of Underdevelopment), 1968
Tomás Gutiérrez Alea
Retrato de Teresa (Portrait of Teresa), 1980 Pastor Vega
Fidel Castro: The Last Communist, 1992 (PBS Frontline)
Fresa y Chocolate 1995, Tomás Gutiérrez Alea and Juan Carlos Tabio
Guantanamera 1995, Tomás Gutiérrez Alea and Juan Carlos Tabio
Before Night Falls, 2000 Julian Schnabel [from the memoir by Reinaldo Arenas]
RECOMMENDED WEBSITES:
The Cuban government perspective:
The exile critics’ perspective:
THE REST OF THE READINGS, marked with an asterisk below, are in a packet available from the Political Science Department. The first part of the packet, covering the first two weeks, is available immediately, and the other two parts will be available by the middle of the second week. .
SCHEDULE OF TOPICS AND READINGS
Sometime before October 1: look at the photographs in David Harvey, Cuba, on reserve.
WEEK ONE (Sept 10): WHERE DID CASTRO COME FROM?
SUGAR, THE COLONIAL LEGACY, AND U.S. IMPERIALISM (lecture, discussion)
required:James G. Blight, Bruce J. Allyn, and David A. Welch, Cuba on the Brink: Castro, the
Missile Crisis, and the Soviet Collapse (Pantheon, 1993), first part of Chap. 4 (pp.
318 to about 332), “The Lunas”(pp, 247-62),and Letter of Oct. 26 from Castro to
Khrushchev (Appendix 2).*
Latell, After Fidel, prologue and chaps. 1, 2, 8 (pp. 1-4, 23-59, 161-80).
Pérez, Cuba and the United States, preface (xv-xix) and chaps. 1-4 (1-112).
Rev. J. Milton Greene, "What Americans Have Done in Cuba," Missionary
Review of the World 30:8 (August 1907).*
As a prologue to the other readings, I have assigned a few excerpts from Blight, Allyn, and Welch’s book on the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis, an event which marks the closest the world has yet come to a nuclear exchange between major powers (and the cities of the eastern US to nuclear annihilation). The book is a record of, and reflection upon, an unusual research project, whose basic method they reproduced on the subject of the Vietnam War (on this, Jim Blight accompanied Robert McNamara as they faced a crowd at Chapin Hall in the spring of 2001) and then on the Bay of Pigs. It involves bringing academics and historical actors, from both sides of a major conflict, together in a conference to discuss their memories of that conflict. Theproject was made possible by the sudden availability of so many ex-Soviet generals after 1990, but interestingly enough, it may have been more revealing about the Cuban role. Fidel Castro hosted the conference and played the dominant role (big surprise here) in the Cuban delegation. We first read the first part of the historical chapter and skip over the rest of it (we read those pages in Week 5) to an excerpt from a memorable exchange over “the Lunas” in which Castro says that he and the Cuban people were ready for nuclear annihilation in 1962, as long as the catastrophe also included the “imperialist aggressor”--all of which astounds McNamara. (The Lunas were tactical missiles capable of carrying nuclear warheads; they apparently would have been used against US forces had the US invaded). An appendix with Castro’s famous “heroic” letter to Khrushchev follows.
For US policymakers, and for this course, the key question this all raises is: how could somebody with this kind of worldview have arisen and achieved unquestioned power on an island ninety miles from the Florida keys?
The reading from Latell’s book is to get you started on the biographical approach to understanding the Castro brothers. His Chapter 8 has a bit on 1962 related to Fidel’s personality also. Then, using the Pérez chapters as background, we begin our historical consideration of Cuba-US relations. Thinking ahead to next week’s works on 1898, we will look at (among other topics) the political economy of sugar, the legacy of slavery, and the orientation of ruling circles in both Cuba and the U.S. around 1900. The last reading is a polemic written during the second intervention (1906-07) by an American missionary who had a straightforward explanation (and remedy) for Cuba's political fractiousness. It tells us something about the prevailing views of Cuba in the US during the early years of their special relationship.
WEEK TWO (Sept. 17-21): WHO WAS JOSÉ MARTÍ AND WHY DO CUBANS CARE SO MUCH?
required: José Martí, “Grover Cleveland” (7/ 1884) and “A Glance at the North American’s Soul
Today” (1/ 1886), from Baralt, ed., pp. 68-71 and 197-98 (see below); “The Truth
about the United States” (3/ 1894). from Foner, ed. Inside the Monster, pp. 49-55
(see below).*
José Martí, letter to Gonzalo Quesada (10/29/1889), “Manifesto of Montecristi,” letter to
Federco Henríquez y Carvajal (3/25/1895), letter to the New York Herald
(5/2/1895), and unfinished letter to Manuel Mercado (5/18/1895), all from Philip
Foner, ed., Our America.*
Carlos Rafael Rodríguez, José Martí and Cuban Liberation(1953), excerpts.*
Richard B. Gray, José Martí, Cuban Patriot (U. Florida, 1962), pp. 220-228.*
Luis Baralt, ed., Martí on the U.S.A. (Southern Illinois Univ., 1966), table of
contents and SKIM the first part of the Introduction.*
Philip Foner, ed., Inside the Monster (Monthly Review Press, 1975), table
of contents, preface, and SKIM the Introduction.*
John M. Kirk, José Martí: Mentor of the Cuban Nation (Univ. Presses of Florida,
1983),chaps. 1 and 3.*
Carlos Ripoll, José Martí, the United States, and the Marxist Interpretation of
Cuban History, (Transaction Books, 1984) chaps. 1, 3, and 5.*
Carlos Alberto Montaner, Cuba, Castro, and the Caribbean (1985) pp. 63-64, “The
Thought of José Martí (introduction)”*
On Radio Martí (all *):
U.S. Department of State Bulletin (SKIM)
The Economist (May 25, 1985)
"Rejecting 'Radio Goebbels'" World Marxist Review 28:8 (August 1985)
Fidel Castro interview with Mervyn Dymally and Jeffrey Elliot, from Nothing
Can Stopthe Course of History (Pathfinder, 1986), p. 191-93.
suggested: Pérez, Cuba, chap. 7.R
The tutorial sessions begin with the profound and illustrative dispute over José Martí and what he stood for. Was he a humanistic liberal or an anti-imperialistic radical? This divergence relates directly to one concerning the 1895-98 war. Was it mainly a fight for independence and freedom against Spain, in which the US helped Cuba, or was it a major phase in a long, anti-imperial struggle, whose completion was frustrated by the US? We start with several of his most important short essays on the US and its relationship to Cuba. The first of these are from two anthologies published in the heat of the fight over his legacy (see below), so you have to skip ahead in the packet. Once you’ve done that, you can engage the other readings about him, which are arranged chronologically. They begin with a very brief excerpt from a pamphlet by Carlos Rafael Rodríguez written for the centennial of Martí's birth in 1953. It shows the position of an "old Communist" who became a key figure in the Castro regime. The pages from the Gray book summarize some unsystematic on-the-street interviews about Martí, which he conducted in 1956-57 (note the equal status enjoyed by Antonio Maceo, the “Bronze Titan,” in many people's eyes). Then we return to those two anthologies, but from a critical standpoint. You need not assess them--you would have to read them completely, knowing the entire body of Martí's works, to judge if what was selected was representative. But note the capacity for great disagreement in selecting readings--and in the biographical introductions (which I asked you to skim). Two critical articles follow, broadly but less stridently (except for a few pages of Ripoll’s critique of Foner) representing the two camps. Finally, we have a few pages on the brouhaha surrounding the broadcasts of Radio Martí in 1985. The Economist gives background, while Valdés Vivó and the interview with Castro show the typically vehement reaction of the Cuban government. Key questions. Why do you think Martí is so important in Cuba? Who is right about him—and about 1898--in your opinion? Do you find evidence of deliberate misrepresentation of him on either side (or both sides) of the debate? Is it good that he is so important?
WEEK THREE (Sept. 24-28):
THE PLATT AMENDMENT AND AFTER: WHAT’S SOVEREIGNTY WORTH?
required:Pérez, Cuba and the US, chaps. 5-7 and first part of chap. 8 (113-218).
Aline Helg, "Afro-Cuban Protest: The Partido Independiente de Color, 1908-
1912," and
K. Lynn Stoner, "On Men Reforming the Rights of Men: The Abrogation of the
Cuban Adultery Law, 1930," both from Cuban Studies 21 (1991).*
Thomas Paterson, Contesting Castro, Introduction and chaps. 1-4 (pp. 3-57).
James McGuire and Laura Frankel, “Mortality Decline in Cuba, 1900-1959: Patterns,
Comparisons, and Causes,” Latin American Research Review 40:2 (June 2005).*
Carlos Alberto Montaner, "The Roots of Anti-Americanism in Cuba," Caribbean
Review 13:2 (Spring 1984).*
suggested:Jules Benjamin, The United States and the Origins of the Cuban Revolution,
chaps.3 and 4.R
This week we engage the idea of sovereignty--what it means, what it takes to obtain it, what some say it takes to earn it. This was a pressing issue for Cubans living under the Platt Amendment, and it remained very salient thereafter, with Castro and his movement seeing themselves as the final vindication of Cuban nationhood and sovereignty against the US. As with last week, readings on the history of the period are mixed with illustrative and interpretive works.
Cuba and the US is again the main comprehensive reading. Thenwe consider Helg’s article on the 1912 rebellion, an event that defined the sociopolitical milieu of the early republic. In the next article, Stoner makes a similar contribution to our understanding of gender politics (we will make later reference to all of these readings). Paterson paints a picture of Cuban dependence (the story about Fidel Castro being recruited by the US major leagues is only apocryphal, however), while McGuire and Frankel, dealing with a longer time period, show us a different side. On Benjamin's 1990 book (suggested): even if you don't have time to read it, it's worth picking up to look at the pictures in chapter 3 which illustrate his point about how US caricatures of Cuba changed before and after independence--particularly in the racial question in justifications of the US protectorate.
Key questions. The last required reading, and the most provocative thing you will read this week, will be the article by Carlos Alberto Montaner, an exile literary scholar. You might want to react to it, to compare his position to others in the readings, to support his position or to formulate an alternative thesis about Cuban sovereignty and the US in this period. Is Montaner right about Cuba? About the nature of sovereignty? About what it takes to develop and exercise real sovereignty? There are also observations about the way the regime exercised its power of decision, in the Stoner, Helg,and McGuire and Frankel articles, that you might want to link to the question of to what extent Cubans were responsible for their politics during this period of limited sovereignty.
WEEK FOUR (Oct. 1- 5): EXPLAINING A REVOLUTION
required: Pérez, Cuba and the U.S., second part of chap. 8 (218-37).
Paterson, Contesting Castro, chaps. 5-8, 10-11, 13, 16-17, and 21 (pp. 58-98, 109-38, 150-59,
183-205, and 241-54).
Latell, After Fidel, chaps. 3-5 (pp. 61-120).
Samuel Farber, The Origins of the Cuban Revolution Reconsidered (2006), chap. 2
(pp. 34-67 only).
Javier Corrales, “Strong Societies, Weak Parties: Regime Change in Cuba and Venezuela in
the 1950s and Today,” Latin American Politics and Society 43:2 (2001).*
suggested:Luis E. Aguilar, Cuba 1933: Prologue to Revolution (Norton, 1972), chap. 17
("Reflections").*
The period we consider this week begins and ends with coups d’etat, on 10 March 1952 and 1 January 1959. Adding detail to Pérez’s account, Paterson frames the period in terms of U.S.- Cuba relations in various spheres of life. As you characterize his argument, pay special attention to his chapter 21. Latell gives you a Fidel-centered version of the story. Two other readings emphasize the political and institutional context: Aguilar (suggested) is an exile historian recently retired from teaching at Georgetown; Corrales grew up in the Miami exile communityand teaches at Amherst.
At some cost in nuance we might posit that these pages present three explanations for the victory of the Castro forces. One says that Cuba was “ripe for revolution” because of its economic dependence on the U.S., with all this implied in terms of corruption and inequality. It could note how this dependence also fostered U.S. complacency. Another explanation centers on political culture in Cuba and how Fidel Castro reflected and boldly used it in his path to power. A final one looks at the weak institutionalization of Cuban politics, which left open a clear field for a relatively small guerrilla movement to attract mass support and thus, defeat a dictator. Each uses explicit or implicit comparative reasoning (that is, comparing Cuba to other countries or to itself at different times) to make its point.
Key questions. Consider the somewhat differing theses put forward by the authors about the domestic political climate in Cuba and the victory of Castro and the 26th of July Movement, and how we might decide among them (or combine them). A few key questions might include: What were the key problems arising from a U.S.-linked economy and politics? Where did the movement's main support come from? What circumstances or strategies favored Fidel Castro's emergence as the unchallenged leader? Was it a problem of weak parties? Were domestic political institutions and ideologies somehow weakened or otherwise affected by Cuba's relationship with the US?
WEEK FIVE (Wed. Oct. 10- Tues. Oct. 16):
THE REVOLUTION’S RADICAL TURN: A RESULT OF U.S. POLICY?
required: Pérez, Cuba and the US, chap. 9, through sec. V only.
Read the rest of Chap. 4 of Blight, Allyn, and Welch, Cuba on the Brink (first packet).*
Latell, introduction and chaps. 6-7 (pp. 5-21, 121-58).
Political chronology 1959-76 (from Pérez, Cuba).*
Alan Luxenberg, "Did Eisenhower Push Castro into the Arms of the Soviets?"
Journal of Interamerican Studies and World Affairs 30:1 (Spring 1988).*
Farber, The Origins of the Cuban Revolution Reconsidered, chaps. 3 and 4 (pp. 69-136).
Thomas Paterson, Contesting Castro, chap. 22.