Bantu persistence in Cuba, another prelude to the MogiNganga

One element slips away its silent presence in the political violence of Cuba's history, and that is its undeniable raciality; it may be invisible today, given the trauma that paralyzed all processes in the country, but latent in its rawness and potential. Of course, even the political trauma of the Cuban revolution exhibits its racial nature, in its own recurrences; but it has also camouflaged this nature of the conflict, with the myth of priorities, avoiding its transhistoricity.

Cuban racial violence would be submerged in politics since independence itself, which was already artificial; if in fact it did not count on the will of the people to redeem, but on the interests of his economic elite, which it legitimized. The first break would occur with the very first conflict of the republic, given its inconsistency, not directly but laterally racial; capitalizing on racial resentment in the face of the apathy and cynicism of that economic elite, which was already also political.

That would not be gratuitous, coming from the arrogance that justified this violence, with its literary and political fictions; which is the perversion inflicted with Martí's martyrology, like a useless Christ in that idealism of the modern spirit. Nor will it be gratuitous that the expression of times and place is Modernism, with its symbolist grandiloquence; surreptitiously perpetuating the postposition of black people, which is the one bringing some realism, in his existential pragmatism.

From there, like everything that is denied, that element will feed on its own negation, growing in its potentiality; not so total as to annihilate the nation, but enough to wash it down, in its impossibility. However, nothing can hide the contradiction, transparent in the inconsistency of the country's projections; and in which, what is frustrated with surreptitious racism is reality itself, rather than the black who expresses it.

The Negro, as a person in whom reality as a human is enhanced, cannot be frustrated in the face of difficulty; but only to remain in that same latency, looking for the way out in which to realize itself as that reality. Racial frustration is here the political trick with which he is manipulated, to tie him in symbol to transcendentalism; which as historical instead of metaphysical, does not offer him any possibility, but is what keeps him unreal.

The conflict then erupted in 1906, with Quintín Banderas, executed by the arrogance of his own naivety; in which, like the mythical popular simple faith of Catholicism, he mocked those he executed, in the name of his executioners. The conflict thus becomes scandalous with the massacre of 1912, but it is insidiously hidden, blaming Morúa Delgado; who covers the bastardy of José Martí, like the cursed inheritance of a nation arisen against the will of its people.

That’s why the conflict is retracted to the crisis of the Batistatos, making it clear that the problem is of a cultural nature; it is transhistorical instead of historical, not of transcendence but of immanence, denying the cosmos that sustains the black; and with it the whole adjustment of the Western culture, as the force in which the Negro would realize himself, if he overcomes the difficult. The peculiarity consists in the double religiosity that permeates Batista's culture, blackened in its popular character; with strong and cunning officials, such as the Coc of Buena Vista, positioned over the corpse of the one from San Isidro.

It is known that Morúa Delgado was a Freemason like Martí, it is speculated if that —unlike him— he could be a palero too; but it is known that Gustavo E. Urrutia was a palero, with fables of cauldrons buried in the gardens of Miramar; signifying, to the horror of Cuban Catholicism, that cultural advance, insidious because of hermeneutical in existentialism. Nor can it be gratuitous that the political violence against Batista was led by the Catholic university students; with a systematicity that provokes a reaction in accordance with its bloodthirstiness, but unforgivable for what it meant.

Frantz Fanon against Negritude, the mask

If Leopold Sedar Senghor is the capital figure of Negritude, Frantz Fanon is the reaction that tries to make it revolutionary; an effort in which he ends dissolving it, because it precisely attacks the exceptionality that gives it its meaning. Fanon's dynamic in this sense reproduces that of self-confessed communism, as in the case of the Haitian René Depestre; but it is more interesting than this, because his anti-culturalism is pseudo-culturalist, in his psychological diagnosis of the political problem.

To begin with, it is impossible to have an anti-culturalism that does not participate in the culturalism that is criticized, as it’s determination; the praise of Jean Paul Sartre, the target who rationalizes Senghor's poetics, subordinates it to him, is enough for suspicion. As with Senghor, Sartre seizes Fanon in the prologue to The Wretched of the Earth, imposing his exegesis; which responds to that false universalism of political determination, to which he reduces Marxism even from its economism.

In fact, Fanon's critique of Senghor —about the idealization of the African past— is erroneous and uncomprehending; for although Irrationalist is not romantic, and even romanticism is not historicist but referential in its reflexivity. This type of reduction is recurrent, precisely because of this misunderstanding of that object, in its extrapositivity; clarifying their incapacity, both to understand the real, and to provide a viable solution to their contradictions.

As if in an act of mockery (MogiNganga?), Fanon wears the black mask on the white spirit of Marxism; and gives lessons —although putting the body as a neo-cristical praxis— of how blacks should not be blacks but proletarians. Unfortunately, Fanon does not have the reference of English liberalism, which gives existential scope to W.E.B. Du Bois; his whole life is of a pure praxis, which does not allow him to peer into the paradoxical walls of history, but only to suffer it, at its feet.

Hence his poetic enthusiasm for the second verse of The Internationale, which still moves even its victims; even more so to his revolutionary and practical sensibility, not an intellectual one, exhausted in that pure existence. The mistake is in giving intellectual connotation to the groan of the slave who cannot maroon, believing in the contra mayoral; that Sartre of a ladino Marxism —not theoretical but political— as a monk who weaves theological subtleties about Marian virginity.

Fanon's books are thus only manuals of revolutionary theology, their reference is morality and not intelligence; and Negritude can do nothing in the face of this, because it is not a reality but a necessity, supposed as formal. Negritude, on the other hand, is another extension, not necessary but possible in its own formality, which is therefore not constrictive; instead of rational dogmatism, it responds to irrationalist probabilism, not to the psyche but to poetry, as poetic.

Fanon nevertheless has a capital value, enhancing the hermeneutical density, still necessary, by contradicting it; a function that becomes more amiable in that anti-culturalist pseudo-culturalism of his, instead of the political aridity of Depestre. After all, Fanon does not speak to the wretched of the earth but to himself, as yet another among them, hopeful; while Depestre participates in that elitism of the Haitian mestizo bourgeoisie, without the level of praxis that Fanon exhibits.

About the return to the native land, from Cesaire to Depestre

Cuba's impact on the projection of blackness as an identity is important, because of the problems it poses; first, it allows us to understand the legitimate function with which liberalism appropriates the problem and capitalizes on it. Even if it is presented as historical manipulation – which one is not?—, this has a raison d'être, also historical; which, in this sense, is not unaware of this emergence of the phenomenon as part of anti-imperialist and decolonization efforts.

Before the Cuban process, and for whatever reasons, England led anti-slavery efforts in the world; adding the payment for the manumission of slaves in their territory, with a debt that only ended in the twentieth century. The rise of the scientific-technical revolution can be argued, which required the development, production and sale of machinery; more efficient, but requiring a heavy investment, compared to the slave method, more onerous but already established.

We should remember that, at the height of the Enlightenment in France, it suffered a depression in England; which reaching the closure of universities, sees its elite emigrate to North America, refunding them in line with this process; which does not include this abolitionist aspect, at least as a political priority, but does include strong industrialization. But even in America, the emergence of the Democratic Party does not occur as a harmonious an organized liberalism; and the racist reticence of the first workers struggles in the United States, is soon overcome by a more radical faction.

This is the one that monopolizes, pointing to an openly socialist formula, and capitalizes on the racial cause; not the Republican Party, whose strategy is one of accommodation and appeasement with the country's sequential segregationist legislation; but that elite —Enlightenment if you will— that will lead the violent struggle for civil rights on the legislative front. The important thing here is not that it is a manipulation, but that it is already a legitimate historical fact; and which cannot solve the racial problem, because it’s not interested in it as such but as a class; but at least it does allow the development of this new phenomenon, although it must consolidate and mature by itself.

This is what dilutes the phenomenon of Blackness —like the so-called Harlem Renaissance— in its contradictions; given by its inevitable immaturity, as the first stage of that development, in which it will acquire that maturity. That maturity is what comes gradually, with the correction of precisely these problems and contradictions; as the set in which this phenomenon will organize its own hermeneutical spectrum, with its respective ontology.

That ontology in turn, obeying the decline of that of the West, would be the one that works regressively; as a recovery of the original reflexive functions, prior to modern political determinism of Modern philosophy; which, arising from the apotheosis in that sense of Christianity, would reach its own apotheosis in the Enlightenment. Therefore, these are not illegitimate or incomprehensible processes in any way, but only defective; which must be resolved in a constant and inevitably critical correction due to its contradictory nature, like all development.

Therefore, it is not strange but illustrative, that in this whole process contradictory and internal reflections arise; above all that these occur in art, at least in the case of the Francophonie, because of their reflexive scope. The example here is Aimé Cesaire's Notebook of Return to the Native Country, not A rainbow for the Christian West; but it is the complexity of Depestre, not the consequence of Cesaire, what will unfold all these contradictions with his life. That is why it is like the appropriation —in such a transcendental universal authorship— of one by the expression of the other; because in the end both are the expression of the same phenomenon, which is all less harmonious and clear in its ambiguity.

Negros cubanos del exilio

Por supuesto, los negros tendremos que organizarnos si queremos tener alguna influencia en el desarrollo de cuba; pero para eso tendremos que entender las experiencias anteriores, y la recurrencia con que fallan. El problema parece ser la ambigüedad, por la que la red de intereses personales se expande en los políticos; como una proyección social de los mismos, que es lo que los explica en su autenticidad, pero también los pierde.

Eso es entonces apenas natural, ya que los intereses no existen en abstracto sino en esa consistencia de lo personal; pero como una relación peligrosa, en que el peso del egoísmo y la mezquindad arrastra a la inteligencia en su falta de alcance. Es por eso que este esfuerzo no debería estar sesgado por esas limitaciones personales, no importa la premisa; y eso por una cuestión incluso práctica y no moral, en tanto proyección personal, que nunca generará la confianza que necesita.

La experiencia ha mostrado que como objeto común, la expresión política ha de ser colegiada; asumiendo la reunión de todos los intereses, no importa lo difícil que sea, y hasta las contradicciones que eso implica. En definitiva, la contradicción es sólo el condicionamiento de toda proyección, más allá de lo personal; que así deviene en práctica, en vez de sublimarse en el idealismo, cuya falsa moral la hace inconsistente.

Los negros cubanos podemos seguir intentando todas las exclusiones que queramos, legítimas o no; es la realidad misma la que se impone, decidiendo qué tiene futuro y qué no lo tiene. El error es la persistencia de posarse sobre el ego, ansioso de reproducir el poder blanco; porque esto es lo que resta posibilidades a toda proyección, con la misma soberbia que dice combatir.

El mismo hecho de que alguien lo reconozca y no se atreva a cruzar ese límite, sería la señal de peligro; que no reside en la legitimidad, sino en la inconsistencia, terminando por socavar esa legitimidad. ¿En definitiva, si una proyección es tan personal, cómo puede ser legítima y coherentemente política?; ese es el contrasentido que secuestró a la revolución cubana, conduciéndola al desastre antropológico que es.

Eso es lo que, por ejemplo, permite la manipulación en discursos que secuestran la fuerza colectiva; haciendo que los conflictos sean insolubles, abstraídos a su legitimidad, tras el prestigio personal; que es en definitiva aparente, ocultando sus falencias inevitables, y que no tendría que ser tan importante. Lo práctico es entonces lo que permite la solución de los problemas, explotando todas sus aristas; pero para lo que tiene que ir más allá de lo personal, desconfiando de ese genio sublime que no puede negociar.

El ejemplo de esto sería la incapacidad de los negros, para establecernos como fuerza política en el exilio; no importa el crecimiento proporcional desde el éxodo de 1980, que reconfiguró al exilio histórico. Quizás el problema esté en sus genios, ocupados en construirse un nicho político en la élite blanca de ese exilio; en vez de dirigirse a una mediación con los afro norteamericanos, que redunde en el debilitamiento de su liberalismo.

O quizás no, sino que ese puede ser precisamente el propósito, en un esfuerzo solapado por ese ascendiente; que con su fe en lo político marca al liberalismo desde su nacimiento, con la Modernidad. También quizás, esto provenga de que esos líderes no son genuinamente negros, sino sólo por defecto; porque los blancos les recuerdan que no son blancos, siendo negros por resentimiento y no por valores positivos. Esto explicaría esa dependencia del liberalismo blanco, que a cambio los usa como moneda de cambio; pero debilitándolos tanto que no pueden intentar ningún esfuerzo efectiva, dado que su consistencia es ideológica y no existencial.

Eso explicaría la incapacidad anterior para actuar en una mediación efectiva ante la fuerza política de los afroamericanos; a los que no se puede presentar una alternativa suficiente, en esa inconsistencia, que nos sume en su misma ambigüedad. Para eso necesitaríamos una proyección que comprenda incluso nuestro conservadurismo, que es pragmático y no moral; e incluso la verdadera hondura en una nueva profundidad ontológica, en vez de repetir lugares comunes con la mera esperanza de —por fin— hacer filosofía.

Another side of the black struggle

With a poem to Washington and Du Bois[1], Dudley Randall shown the root problem of the political black struggle; which is its reduction to a dialectical opposition, and so keep unsolvable in this oppositional nature as its own. The problem here is that each of them solves an aspect of reality, but ignoring the other on this effort of understanding; and so creating and imbalance in this comprehension, to which reality is reduced as an idea, not reality itself.

It doesn’t matter which side of reality a person chooses, it still needs the other to be real, overcoming its idealistic nature; and this relationship can’t even be of subordination of one to other but equal, so that reality is not distorted in this subordination. That's the problem with political conflicts, as a recurrent reduction of reality to a set of ideas, in a hermeneutical function; they’re always this formal reduction of reality to an idea of it, that then lacks its consistency, as an ideology.

Centering in ideology rather than reality itself, determinations will respond to a logic —but not to reality real— needs; as political, but when since politic is the expression and not the determination of reality, which is always culture. This is why both sides are irreconcilable, to the same irrationality, presented as a transcendental rationalization (Moral); but it doesn’t matter if one makes more sense than the other in its more practical nature, as with the capitalist scope of industrialism; it’s still irrational as pure counter rational, ignoring —and thus distorting— reality on its political projection.

As the other false contradiction of Socialism Vs Capitalism, this could be solved only by overcoming its dialectical fatality; with the proper understanding of reality, in its own trichotomic rather than dichotomic nature; thus in a trialectic rather than a dialectical way, that allow the better understanding of reality on its own scopes. This is the pertinence of Garveyan pragmatism, still dysfunctional without these projections of Washington and Du Bois; since all of then just have an intuition, but that of Garvey is just about the complementarity of the others two.

What Garvey had that the others lacked, was the moral consistency of his projection, as a real rather than a political need; but he lacked the ability to overcome his political difficulties, as the material ways to secure his own consistency. So Garvey —like the other two— failed in its own idealism, although he brought this intuition about complementarity; and so will lead any effort to establish a political reality for black people, but just as long as he can assembled what the others made.

It should not be a surprise that just a poet could understand the nature of this contradiction as purely formal, in a poem; because is art what truly understands reality, as an also formal projection that can understand it objectively. Is this what put the existential scope in the reflection of reality, finding its hermeneutical references in its own possibility; developing then as an effective probabilism, without the political vices of philosophy, in its own —and just apparently— gratuity.

It should not surprise either it were Garvey the one who brought the complementarity, from its root in reality; not even the pragmatism of Washington, based on its own political specialization with its faith in Capitalism; as idealistic as Du Bois with its own faith in Socialism, because both of them ignored the real nature of reality itself. Contrary to them, Garvey came from the syndical movement in the black Caribbean, with its ascendence in England industrialism; which was different from that of Washington, was based on the real conditions —and contradictions— of workers struggles. This was the cause of Washington own struggles with his own students at Tuskegee, because his own political specialization; that only Garvey could solve in a real —not just political— pragmatism, even if still in need of political the organization he never got.

---

[1] . Cf: Dudley Randall, Booker T. and W.E.B. Du Bois

Georgina Herrera on Cuban’s Language Day

Miguel de Cervantes was born on April 23, 1547, and William Shakespeare was born on the same date, but in 1564; because both of them, this date is recognized as the day of the Spanish and English languages, which reach their maturity with the work of the latter. This points to the undeniable transcendence of these men, because it is in literature that language is organized and matured; as an external support, which enhances reflection as existential, as a peculiar understanding of the world.

On that same date but in 1936, Georgina Herrera was born in Jovellanos (Cuba), giving a similar value to poetry; not yet to language, which has matured since Cervantes, allowing this other maturation of poetry in Cuba; but to this poetry, which is peculiar because it renews the instrumentality of language for reflection as existential. It is, therefore, an event of similar significance, although the proximity somewhat clouds this scope of hers; because it will be in this instrumentality that culture achieves its best integration, as specifically Cuban.

Namely, as a reflection of reality, culture is a network of relations as chaotic as the former; but now —different from the former— with a sense on its own, because of the peculiarity in which it is carried out, even more as Cuban. In fact, Cuba is the critical point at which Western culture bubbles, unable to materialize due to its innumerable contradictions; which can only be reconciled in a functional integration, starting from a given and progressive understanding of reality.

This progression is what language would provide, as well as its own development and maturity, given in its functionality; and this is what would reside in its ability to reflect the real, in a poetic structure that unveils the meaning of life. This is what recognises the transcendence of art and literature, explaining the scope of Cervantes and Shakespeare; such as Georgina Herrera, whose poetics constricts the formal nonsense of Cuban literature to its existential function.

We should remember that Cuban literature has been distorted by political determinism since nineteenth century; when pseudo-realist symbolism prevails over the nascent national costumeries[1], provoking the bitter critique of the real. This is the drama that unfolds from Cirilio Villaverde and Morúa Delgado, and extends throughout the national novelistic; but unresolved, because the novel —distinct from poetry— is too susceptible to the author's interference.

For this reason, the Cuban novel can only expose these contradictions, but not solve them as poetry can; and this not for its own sake or in fact, but to the extent that this poetry escapes that same political determinism. Herrera does this, as the link that unites the two periods of splendor and decadence of Cuban culture; emerging as a power that sums up the first, to materialize itself through all difficulties in the second. The undeniable transcendence of Cervantes and Shakespeare is given by their immanence, no less undeniable; Georgina Herrera's remains to be seen, but like that lies in this existential —not political— nature of her poetry.

In all three cases, it is the durability that guarantees the functionality of the form, already excellent in its own value; in the latter case, because of that stubborn existentiality that denses it, beyond the political flourish and even the beautiful phrase. Herrera's poetry establishes a hermeneutic from which to reflect on the existence of the nation in its culture, that is its value; and it is functional, fulfilling Morúa's claim to Villaverde, with that effective integration of the political margin into its existentiality; not as a black —although because her blackness— nor as a woman —although because her femininity— but in her extreme humanity.

---

[1] . It refers to “Costumbrismo” as a literary stile, based in the description of social costumes with similar sense to the Critical Realism of French modern literature.

From the series Georgina Herrera I

Regarding women's poetry in Cuba, Catherine Davies points out that until the triumph of the revolution there were no black women writers; which may be excessive, referring more to their visibility than to an undoubtedly improbable non-existence. In any case, the contrast is strong with respect to the sample of black writers, who cover the entire literary spectrum; curiously, with more resonance in conservative media —such as the Diario de la Marina—, becoming even a niche.

In any case, the difference refers to the political precariousness of black people, determining its priorities; more serious in the case of women, even without cases like that of Phillis Wheatley in United States, who had the patronage of her masters. In Cuba, on the other hand, social freedom did not make this type of patronage possible, which alleviated the harshness of the environment; which, though less rude, was still beyond the strength of individuals aspiring to such a specialty as that of poetry. With men it is different, because its projection —and connections— is always political, allowing for other developments; contrary to women, who must leap from the domestic, when this —and not poetry— was the priority, as a primary need.

However, history is not an immobile, universal and abstract phenomenon, to be looked at with absolute parameters; on the contrary, as a reality, it occurs in the concrete phenomena in which it is realized, punctual in its exceptionality. It was then a matter of time before some pioneer would put her pike of blackness in the Flanders of Cuban literature; a development traumatized by the triumph of the revolution, with what that meant institutionally and ontologically.

That is the strange circumstance of Georgina Herrera, who makes her literary debut with the new institutionality; curiously, on the losing (Ediciones el Puente) and not on the triumphant side, which persists in its racial elitism. In fact, her older age compared to her contemporaries exposes her as the pioneer who did not materialize; grouped in an extemporaneity that did not allow her to establish group but only her own references, in her sufficiency.

In another circumstance, Herrera would have renewed the national spectrum with her sentimental existentialism; in her actual circumstance, she was neutralized by her low political profile, persisting in that existentialism. Perhaps this made possible her special sensitivity to African openness, dubious outside of the country's political manipulations; and yet this allowed her to reconnect with a transcendence, in which identity transcends the problems of childhood.

Recognized in all its splendour, her poetry is nevertheless dragged down by the weight of mediocre criticism; that, resorting to the commonplace, still tries to put together a political discourse where there is only personality; It is also about overexploiting that other commonplace of motherhood, more complex and dramatic than idyllic in her. Herrera is, in any case, an enigmatic and complex figure in every sense, from thematic to strictly literary existentialism; because her poetry does not derive from the symbolism with which modernity culminated, in its critical rationalization of romanticism; but matures directly from this romanticism, probably thanks to her formation, unique and sufficient as her self-taught.

Georgina Herrera navigated the iron system with her apparent modesty, camouflaging her haughtiness in silence; which further guaranteed her existentialism, with her persistence in the low political profile, which preserved it. In the end, there is nothing more political than that scandalous silence of her, like the stamp of his African elegance; something that the country insists on disdaining, as if it were not the needle that gives consistency to world, only that she already was and will be.

On the racial contradiction of Cuban government, in the country and outside it

A problem for the existence of black Cubans outside Cuba, is the projection of their own government; exposing them in a special way to the economic impoverishment of the country, but not recognizing this precariousness either. As a principle, the Cuban problem in general is expressed as economic, but it is eminently political; since it consists in the incapacity of that government for that economic development, which it justifies in its historical transcendentalism.

In this regard, the people of Cuba in general suffer the hardships of this inefficiency, which insists on its political nature; in an eternal dispute with the United States, which has historical bases, but involving the government and not the people it sacrifices. In this sense, it is not the nature of this national institutionality to defend that dignity, but of individuals; whom as nationals, would have to endorse with political mechanisms the representativeness or not of that government. That is not possible in Cuba, which thus falls into the conventional category of political dictatorship; even with its violence, which is necessarily directed against the people, as a form of political control.

It is in this situation that black person is particularly affected, given his political precariousness; which is systematic and endemic, preying on the revolutionary process, but stagnating because of it. This may be a common state for the Negro in the West, but here he does not have the resources to solve it; which being in its transnationality, it comes up against the barrier of false solidarity with which its government interferes in these processes.

Indeed, one of the paradigms of the Cuban revolution is that of its solidarity with the international proletariat; as a single category, in which every stratum other than the bourgeoisie, including the blacks, is gathered. The first defect of this category is that as a determination it is political and not existential in nature; but beyond that technicality, the problem is the demonization of Black dissent by the rest of Blackness.

Thus, the black Cuban —like all conservatives by extension— is morally disqualified on principle, as anti-black; identifying racism with capitalism, as if all African development were not capitalist, for example. Worse than that, all of these categories are established by a white, Western, eighteenth-century ideology; which, acting in its own interest, subordinates everything else in its own sense of the historical, including the racial problem.

This would show the inconsistency of discourses on racial identity, at least in their political projection; in which they are only legitimate when they follow a direction, curiously established by the very ones who created the problem. It is not that identity does not exist as a sufficient object, or that it has not emerged from the postcolonial tradition; but the persistence of a political situation of the first half of the 20th century in the 21st, on an ideology of the 19th.

Above all, an ideology so Western that it is a derivation of its culture in the inhumanity of its Humanism; and that for that reason alone, it should force black people to look over the wall, even to contemplate the suffering of their brethren. In an incomprehensible way —or not at all— the intellectual elite of black Americans persists in averting their gaze; which is also not surprising, if they had already subordinated their own blackness, since the dissolution of the Niagara Movement by W.E.B. Du Bois.

The Black Problem in the Cuban Revolution

The problem with the Cuban revolution is that, like all revolutions, it justifies itself and within its own parameters; so that it reorders history, in an understanding that justifies it transcendentally, just like religions do. In fact, all this has been happening since Modernity, in which politics assumes the doctrinal character of religions; and in doing so, it assumes its own superstructural function[1], stripping culture of its existential value.

With respect to the Cuban revolution, this means its reordering of history in an ideological sense; which, functioning as a foundational myth, legitimize it in its political behavior as transcendent. The problem with these justifications is that they are proper to the historical transcendentalism, of the idealist tradition; and in this, they do not understand the basic problem of dialectics, as a Manichean reduction of reality, which cannot comprehend this. In this specific case, it ignores the determinations of the real, in its understanding of the historical; remaining political rather than existential, thus violating the effective determinations of history, with ideology.

In any case —consciously or not— this is a political process with existential repercussions, not the other way around; and in this way it will respond to the political determinations —not existential ones— of Cuban society, different from its culture. Cuban culture and society diverge from the determination of the latter, in the feat of independence; which, ignoring the popular will of the country in its relationship with Spain, imposes nationalism as a founding principle.

The problem here is the violence, intrinsic to Cuban political culture, from its origin in the voluntarism of its patricians; whom as warlords, settles their differences with that violence and popular manipulation, in populism. This, coupled with the growing racial differentiation of the economy, will increase these already typical contradictions; which erupts into systematic conflicts, such as successive revolutions and coups d'état, beginning in 1906.

In these conflicts, the Massacre of 1912 stands out, which bloodily culminated the Independent Party of Color; imposing a turn that definitively marginalize blacks, as an emerging force in the political tradition; and whose development, although contradictory and difficult, had led one of them to the presidency of the Senate[2]. Since then, blacks have tended to join the ranks of the Communist Party in politics, due to their patronage; as is characteristic of modern liberalism, insofar as it subordinates it to its own political cause against capitalism[3].

This is the national state in which the Cuban revolution triumphs, but —at least in principle— as a bourgeois revolution; which went against the dictatorship of Fulgencio Batista, precisely by that high bourgeoisie, because of its popular rather than populist character; as indeed it is that bourgeoisie, in its contradiction of this popular character of politics, that belches with Batista's violence. Note that the revolutionary process itself is as violent as Batista's, only justified in its transcendence; which is where the communist forces take it, organizing it ideologically, in the same sense of Christian theology.

In this sense, the advance of blacks is definitively interrupted by the strong political corporatization of society; which, responding to the political guidelines of communism, does not allow individual developments such as those that help black development. This may not be necessarily due to a racist character of the revolution, but to the racial nature of its bourgeoisie; which, being the one that feeds the revolution and integrates its political structure, reproduces typical behavior.

This process is also internal, not visible to the outside world behind the ideological curtain of socialism; which in its struggle against capitalism, subordinates all the contradictions of modern society. Thus, aligned with liberal anti-capitalism, the political emergence of the black Americans does not accede to this reality; having to contend with its own patronage by that same liberalism, which subordinates it to its particular political interests.

In any case, the inefficiency of the Cuban government would not be ideological but practical, due to its economic incapacity; and this is what makes it politically illegitimate, by justifying this incapacity in ideology, without effectively resolving it. It would be in this contradiction that blacks are especially affected, given their own political precariousness; in which they would lack the necessary resources to overcome it, due to the endemic disproportion of their poverty; that in the face of the revolution had alternatives in individuality, frustrated in this strong corporativity of socialism.

---

[1] tags. Cf: On the Structure [Politics of Society and Its Substructural Functions]

[2] tags. Cf: Martín Morúa Delgado

[3] tags. Cf: On the Dialectical Contradiction Between Capitalism and Socialism

From the Gustavo E. Urrutia’s series

It cannot be stressed enough the difference between the intellectuality of Morúa Delgado and the political acuity of Urrutia; they only share the pragmatism, which in one is probabilistic and in the other is socially projected, more tactical than strategic. Between them, they illustrate the diapason of black intelligence in Cuba, with all its conservative nuance; which the relative liberalism of exceptions such as Juan Gualberto Gómez barely manage to tinge, pointing out its functionalism.

The difference is not only strange but also functional, which is what makes them both important in this illustration; one with the organization of a cosmology in the dramatic value of the real, whose anthropology emerges in their literature; the other in the understanding of that cosmology, and implementing it meticulously, in the brief piece of journalism. That is why Urrutia can never dare —nor does he care— in a project like Morúa's Political Essay[1]; but he can push that vision, as the other cannot do in his literary excellence, speaking to the common man.

Urrutia's other value is the illustration of Cuban conservatism, in its political advance with the triumph of Batista; that cannot obey just to a folkloric frivolity or a mere immorality, which is what it is reduced to ideologically. Any understanding of Batista is determined by his violence, as if the revolutionary one were not just as vicious; as if violence were not the characteristic of Cuban political culture, from its very genesis in the voluntarism of the Creole landowners of the independence.

This persistence should draw attention to its nature, at least in the case of black Cubans; who since Morúa presided over the Senate, only with Batista —and never again— did they achieve any political preeminence. Batista means something that is more serious than the supposed fickleness of a people that no one bothers to understand; and that secret would be in this sarcastic shadow, which follows him like a sixty-four[2] that the country recurrently encounters.

Urrutia makes it clear that Cuban racism, distinct from its racial prejudice[3], is a mimicry of that of the American; which is why it is typical of a high bourgeoisie with aristocratic pretensions, distancing itself from all petty bourgeois and proletarian ties[4]. That is important, because it is this false bourgeoisie that rejects Batista as well as Cubans in general in politics; and in this game of dichotomies, the Cuban is that sarcasm that persistently crosses it, eventually with its own violence.

This is important, because it diverts to Cuba the possibility of development that is impossible in the United States; since humanity cannot be concretized in this violence of subjugation, if it depends on the will to relate ones to others. That what means Batista's strength, understandable in the incredibly liberal reasoning of Urrutia's conservatism; and it is the kind of subtlety that, in its extreme tactical practicality, escapes the great cosmologies such as that of Morúa and his literature.

There is a detail in the joy with which Urrutia refers to Nicolás Guillén, no matter the obvious ideological divergence; and that recalls the subreptitious persistence with which Guillén maintains the memoirs of Lino Dou and Morúa in the revolutionary Cuba. It is an identity that, not being political, is not racial either —in that same ideological sense— but existential; even if this existentiality comes —as pragmatism— from his experience, in the political precariousness of his race. It is the same silent effort —perhaps unconscious— with which Fernández Robaina collects them all and puts them in order; it doesn't matter if he does it underhandedly, in that context of the Aponte Society in Cuba, which others take advantage of to ripe the new slave market of American Universities.

---

[1] tags. It refers to the Political Essay or Cuba and Racial Integration.

[2] . 64, Grand Dead (ancestor) in Cuban Charade.

[3] . Racism and racial prejudice would be distinct categories, one referring to the organization of society as a principle, and the other to a cultural atavism with concrete practices; In this case, Cuban racial prejudice would be subordinated in principle to the integrationism of Iberian culture, while its racism would be subordinated to the mimicry of the Cuban high bourgeoisie of North American segregationism.

[4] . The excessive stratification of modern rationalism tends to identify the bourgeoisie as a single class, unaware of its own formation; with the upper bourgeoisie generated from the financial specialization of a part of it, which allows it to replace the traditional aristocracy, with the transformation of capital, from military to financial.// Cf: Onthe Reactionary Character of Every Revolution

The Rare Case of Cuban Hoodoo

More than religion, Hoodoo is a culture of the American black, with a broad religious expression; ranging from the conventional Christianity of Baptists and Methodists to magical practices of African origin. Although as a culture it is syncretic —like all others— it is original in this fusion, providing its own identity; which in many cases organizes itself in that original Christianity of his, and in others it refuses to do so with restraint.

This is the result of the relationship of these African cultures with the specific Christianity of Protestantism, which in its Baptist aspect —rather than the Methodist— enhances individual over collective responsibility; with great resonance in all African magical practices[1], especially those of Congo (Bantu) origin. In Cuba the relationship is reversed, given the peculiarity of Catholicism, susceptible in its imagery to this sensibility; to which the magical sense of its liturgy —no matter how much it is rationalized— and hierarchy also contributes.

This difference would cause Catholicism in Cuba to result in an inverse Hoodoo, as a popular expression of culture; which, contrary to its North American counterpart, is exhibited in all its syncretism, given the magical scope of its liturgy and devotional practices. This ambiguity, which permeates all religions in Cuba, reaches its maturity in the Kimbisa or Rule of the Christ for the Good Journey; an original religion, which effectively merges the three aspects that prevail in Cuba, Catholicism and the Lucumí and Conga rules. Such an artifice is due to a peculiar character—ñáñigo and tertiary Franciscan—, Andrés Facundo Petit; who not only created the Kimbisa Rule, as a result of his own syncretism, but also opened the Abakuá cult to the whites.

This is very important, as seen in the opposite sense of the North American Hoodoo, appropriating Christianity; which in fact is replicated in a certain way in Cuba with the Rule of Osha, before the Africanist purism that permeates the cult of Ifa[2]; but not to the point of an appropriation of blackness by whites, as in this case of Cuban syncretism. In fact, this syncretism permeates the entire cultural structure, from the promiscuity of the slums; that whites and blacks shared in the same humanity[3], without the economic differentiators of the American working class.

This is what is expressed in this religious appropriation by the whites, who thus integrate it as a political value; as blacks could not do so because of their political precariousness, added to the economic ones they shared with poor whites. That's important, because Christianity —as a Western cosmology—integrates this American cultural structure; It requires adjustments to restore its first function, as existential rather than political, but does not admit its negation.

This is what Cuban syncretism resolves, making possible the subreptitious movements of North American Hoodoo; And it does so because of this social projection of theirs, which compensates for the original individualism intrinsic to Protestantism; but without the political excesses that perverted it as Christianity, given the influence of traditional African practices. This functionality of a Cuban Hoodoo is not mysterious but pragmatic, given by practical —and not political— needs; and it would not have begun with Petit and the Kimbisa Rule or the entry of the whites into the Abakuá, but with Omí Ifá and the organization of the cult of Orula in Cuba; when —long before Petit— he consecrated whites in the orisha cult, to prevent their persecution by the African ogbonis.

---

[1] tags. Lidia Cabrera highlights the individualistic nature of African religious practices, including the cellular character of the family as the ultimate community expression. Cf: Lidia Cabrera, La sociedad secreta Abakuá, Ed. CR (Havana)/ 1958, Liminares.

[2] . It refers to a tendency, which arose with the relative officialization of the cult, to seek legitimacy in African origin; but more as part of the contradictions generated by this process of officialization, reverted as a snobbish and intellectualist attitude. In any case, given the conditions in which it is formed in Cuba, this cult is an original and autochthonous religion in itself; that although it recognizes its African origin, it has a peculiar, sufficient and proper development, alien to that of religion in Africa.

[3] tags. Manuel Granados describes the way in which whites incorporate the social behavior of blacks as vernacular, based on this promiscuity aroused by poverty. // Cf: Manuel Granados, Apuntes para una historia del negro en Cuba, Afro Hispanic Review, Vol. 24, N0. 1.