Split between Cubans Deepens as They Debate Over Strategy and Attitudes

A curious split between some new Cuban exiles and those who have been steadily forced into exile for political motives since 1960 is deepening.

The latest confrontation has been reported by Cubaencuentro.com in Spanish accompanied by a butchered clip of Mario Diaz Balart's interview on 'One on One', almost identical to the one posted in YouTube this past week but subsequently pulled. The full 28 minute interview may be watched below (in English):

U.S. Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart on 'One on One'



Notwithstanding Diaz Balart's justified attack of Castro's tyranny one wonders what he meant when disclosing the pride he felt about his family's past. Mr. Diaz Balart's father was a 'minister' under Batista's illegitimate coup government (1952-1858), the one which with US help stepped on Cuba's democratic constitution, the crime that led to Castro's follow up tyranny.

I can understand if he loves his father but that should be a private matter. It's utterly unacceptable however that he claim to be proud of his father's collaboration with Batista's tyranny while attacking Obama's potential collaboration with Castro's. While I agree with Diaz Balart with regard to Castro, I believe he owes Cubans an explanation regarding his views on Batista's coup. If he does not condemn Batista's tyranny then he contradicts himself and should not be trusted with regard to any appeals he makes for democracy in Cuba. In such a case, we just would never know what he really means by 'democracy' or what respect and loyalty he believes is owed to a country's legitimate constitution. He can't have it both ways and Cubans should not allow him to.

Here's Mr. Diaz Balart's father's testimony before US Congress in 1960.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ironically, rather than questioning Diaz Balart's views of Batista, one unauthenticated reader posted a comment in Cubaencuentro.com referencing a letter attacking him for trivializing the Jewish holocaust in the interview. Did the writer focus on this because he would like Obama to further engage Castro's tyranny and would thus not have been consistent had he attacked Diaz Balart for his father's ties to Batista's?

Here's what said unauthenticated writer says in comment number 2:

"Analogias sin analisis como las del congresista Diaz Balart empobrecen nuestro debate nacional. Hitler es una metafora que solo debe ser usada para Hitler. El holocausto del pueblo judio no debe ser trivializado.

"No importa cuanto uno se oponga a esas practicas, ni las violaciones de derechos humanos en Cuba son comparables al holocausto judio ni es correcto llamar al embargo un genocidio.

"Necesitamos una discusion politica madura entre cubanos, en la que se discutan nuestros problemas en sus meritos, caracteristicas y especificidad, sin infantilismos ni insultos."

The writer is seemingly trying to represent his Jewish perspective on Diaz Balart's comments.

Why did he omit mentioning that the Jewish people have not lost their homeland unlike millions of Cubans? Is it perhaps because the Palestinians are the ones who've suffered a fate comparable to that of Cuban exiles? How about the thousands executed and imprisoned by Castro? The tens of thousand estimated to have died attempting to escape? The millions of Cuban families separated and dispersed all over the globe? The millions of exiled Cubans' descendants who don't even know their language and have never known their parents' homeland? The millions who have had their most elemental rights, even the freedom to move within their homeland, completely denied for half a century? What do we call all of that? What other ethnic, racial, religious or national group went through something like that for 50 years in the 20th century? 'Cultural genocide' is too light a term given that so mnany have been deprived even of their lives? What is it that it should be called since words are so important? What?

What about the fact that millions, even in the US, advocate on behalf of the criminal that has caused all of this? Even Robert Kennedy's daughter! What should they be called? What should those who want to make money on this whole thing be called? What about those who can only lament that they cannot travel and see but never utter a word about 'all of this'? What have they become? What should they be called? We, the victims, are the 'gusanos'? Who then are they? Who then are those who deny and hide and defend what's happening to the gusanera, uninterrupted, to this day?

"However, both the government of the United States and the gusanera (traitors in self-imposed exile) within and outside of Cuba have reacted with all kinds of arrogance."

Fidel Castro Reflection dated April 23, 2009

Arrogant. Gusanos (worms). Traitors. Self-imposed exile. Millions in the US and everywhere cheer him on.

How dare you.

--------------------------------------------

The confrontation between groups has been simmering for some time. Below is the video of a very recent debate (in Spanish) between a Cuban American Miami attorney versus another Cuban in the US who defends the right of Castro endorsed Cuban musicians such as Los Van Van to perform in Miami, where many who have had relatives killed or impsisoned by the regime are exiled.

The most confrontative part of the debate is towards the end. Here it is in Spanish:

UPDATED ON APRIL 26 AT 10:58 PM FROM ARGENTINA