JACK'S BLOG
|
|
CubaAMERICAN INGENUITY INDUSTRIALIZED the sugar industry in Cuba. Larger mills were built. Railroads were added to carry the cane to centrales that now dominated Cuba's sugar production. Corporations, principal among them American Refining Company, Hershey Chocolate Company, Hires Root Beer Company, and Loft Candy Company, acquired the largest plantations. Production rose. Profits rose. The latifundia (large plantation system) thrived on cheap labor and American capital. Unfortunately, the latifundia proved too successful. The island began producing more sugar than even the United States could consume. They turned to other markets but found them closed by World War I. Thus, the price of sugar plummeted and granitos or little farmers were forced to sell their cane to the centrales at lower and lower prices until they had no choice but to sell their farms to the larger plantations. The colonos or workers became vassals of the centrales.
Until the 1920s, Cuba's economic policy had been guided by the Americans who insisted that the island could achieve prosperity and political stability through increased production of sugar. The capital investment in Cuban sugar and other properties which had increased from $50 million in 1898 to $1.25 billion by the mid-1920s, wasn't producing the expected return. Then came the Fordney-McCumber tariff of 1922 which levied extra duties on Cuban sugar imported into the United States to offset the damage done to the sugar beet industry in Colorado and the competing sugar cane industry in Hawaii. Thomas Chadbourne, a lawyer from New York, was retained to represent Havana at a convention in Brussels where ministers from the sugar producing nations were meeting. Together with Java, Czechoslovakia, Germany, Poland, Belgium, and Hungary, they agreed to limit production and increase sugar exports only as prices rose. The plan produced only marginal results. Ultimately, the prosperity that was supposed to insure political stability in Cuba never materialized. Thus, political stability never materialized. At no time in the decades that followed, from the end of the Spanish-American War until Castro's rise to power, did any Cuban government ever sit easily in Havana. Stability was only achieved so long as the threat of American intervention prevailed, and the island's government remained committed to maintaining the status quo for American businessmen on the island.
1 Comment
11/14/2012 0 Comments Why did Cubans dislike Americans?Cuba“AMERICANS GENERALLY are not liked in Cuba,” wrote the American minister in 1910, “because most of those who come here wish to make money and develop the country on American lines...” Thus, the second intervention brought American interference in economic affairs as well as political ones. This involvement would linger decisively until Fidel Castro rose to power. Although Leonard Wood, as military governor of the island until 1902, had worked assiduously to prepare the Cubans for self-rule, the island's economy was in tatters when he departed. The sugar industry was virtually bankrupt. The problem was that Spain had been the only market for Cuba's produce. With the colonial ties broken following the Spanish-American War, America had to step in. It was the only logical market.
Theodore Roosevelt's Secretary of State, Elihu Root, warned that orderly self-rule in Cuba depended on the island's prosperity. Without it, perpetual revolution would reign. American entrepreneurs were only too happy to help. They had beaten their heads against the walls that had been erected against free trade between Cuba and the United States. With the Spaniards gone, all saw a rich potential that could only be realized by American capital. “No better field for the expenditure of capital,” declared James Bryce, “could be wished for. Under a wise and firm government, and in the hands of our energetic race, it might attain to a very high measure of prosperity.” Bryce was an American inventor who rose to become chief engineer at IBM in its early years. Elihu Root directed their attention to the sugar industry as he reported, “More than half of the people of the island are depending directly or indirectly upon the success of that industry. If it succeeds we may expect peace, plenty, domestic order, and the happiness of a free and contented people to reward the sacrifice of American lives and treasure through which Cuba was set free. If it fails, we may expect that the fields will again be wasted, the mills will again be dismantled, the great body of laborers will be thrown out of employment, and that poverty and starvation, disorder and anarchy will ensue...” Despite these grim warnings, the American sugar beet industry delayed ratification of a commercial treaty for a year. The treaty stipulated that Cuban products then entering on the free list would remain on the schedule and that other products would enter at a special discount of twenty percent less than similar items for other nations. American exports to Cuba received equal privileges. American capital began pouring into Cuba as soon as the treaty was ratified. Ownership of the bankrupt plantations quickly passed into American hands. Cuba's prosperity may not have been insured, but prospects looked bright for Americans investing in the island. CubaAMERICA WAS DISAPPOINTED with Cuba's failure in their first attempt at self-rule. Most Cubans, for their part, expected a large-scale deployment of American troops. Some might say that they were looking forward to it. American soldiers based in Cuba would infuse much needed cash into the economy and represent the return of a benevolent dictator. People, both in Cuba and America, began speaking hopefully of annexation. John W. Foster, then former Secretary of State and grandfather of John Foster Dulles, Secretary of State under President Eisenhower, argued against annexation. He wrote that it not only violated the Teller Amendment, but also would result in a lengthy military occupation. Foster also argued that it would aggravate America's social divide. Certainly he was concerned with an increase in the numbers of blacks but, more importantly, annexing Cuba would vastly increase the number of Catholics in American society inasmuch as the island's residents predominately adhered to that religion. Economically, annexation would prove harmful to domestic beet sugar and tobacco industries.
The American military governor during the 1906-1909 intervention, Charles Magoon, was another disappointment. As an administrator in Cuba, Magoon was a dispenser of patronage rather than an effective administrator. Cubans and Americans alike lined up for jobs and Magoon handed them out. He even created jobs for political cronies. Construction projects were ordered from Washington. They included public works projects: sewage, paving, and an aqueduct. All were poorly financed and the contractors delivered shoddy products. To his credit, Magoon ordered a study of Cuban legal systems and instituted changes. He transferred selected powers to the Cuban Congress and established a civil service system mirroring the one employed in America. Charles Magoon and Leonard Wood, a former military governor in Cuba, have often been compared. The Cubans revere Wood and regard Magoon with scorn. Interestingly, Wood was more of an authoritarian. Magoon only requested compliance. Wood was a military hero. Magoon was a military administrator, his previous experience having been in overseeing the operation of the Canal Zone in Panama. However, neither accomplished their goals in Cuba, of teaching to people how to rule themselves. CubaTHEODORE ROOSEVELT BLAMED Cuba's failure to succeed at self-rule on their inability to compromise. He sent a detachment of Marines to guard the island's national treasury while the government sorted itself out. Thus, began another thirty years of American paternalism in the Caribbean. Cuba's first President, Tomas Estrada Palma, attempted to lead the island through the transition from a Spanish colony to independence. However, he would begin a pattern that repeated itself through the decades up to and including the presidency of Fidel Castro. Once in power, they all wanted to remain in power. The people, more comfortable following a strong man than governing themselves, were inclined to allow them. However, others wanted the power and refused to accept the will of the people, threatening revolution if they didn't get their way. As Palma's first term in office drew to an end, two other parties advanced candidates: The National and the Republican. When Palma announced that he was going to seek a second term, these two coalesced into a Liberal alliance and announced that they would not accept Palma's reelection. They proclaimed that they would not accept the results of an election that favored Palma and would resort to revolution to overthrow his government. The Liberals made good on their threat when Palma was reelected and the President employed the military to break the revolt. The Liberals responded with accusations that Palma had pilfered public funds to finance his campaign and, since reelection, hiring guerrilla assassins.
Theodore Roosevelt saw this as a failure of the Cubans to compromise which he held as essential to the effective functioning of government. Is it, really? He urged the Cuban Congress to intervene, but this only caused Palma to resign. As he left office, every member of his cabinet, the ones that were part of the succession of power in Cuba, resigned with him. Moderate supporters of Palma in the Congress refused to attend sessions and, thus, a quorum was prevented. The island was left without a government. Thus, all of America's efforts to prepare the islanders for self-rule failed. Roosevelt blamed the failure on their inability to compromise. Is that why America's efforts to build new nations in Iraq and Afghanistan failed? Is it possible that compromise just isn't possible in some places or situations? Good ReadsJUST ABOUT THE TIME you have life figured out, it changes. Birth. Puberty. Emancipation. (No proclamation required. We all go through it or stay forever tied to mom's apron strings.) Embark on a career. (You'll probably go through about three of those. I made it through six – no, seven.) Marriage. (Most of us.) Divorce. (Too many of us.) Parenthood. (More of us.) Retirement. (Looking more distant, isn't it?) Senility. (Better than Alzheimer's Disease.) Death. Damn, it just isn't fair. It just keeps changing. Change. It's not easy. There you are, all warm and safe in your mother's womb and suddenly, you're evicted. Someone smacks you on the bottom. It's cold. Truthfully, that's about the easiest transformation you'll experience. Trust me, I know. I just made it past retirement, just in time. There's a rather large gang following me. I was born during World War II. The Post-War Baby Boomers have been chasing me ever since. A friend of mine, Claude Nougat had the bright idea of writing books just for them. Interestingly, the young adult genre pretty much came into existence while they were adolescents. Why shouldn't more mature books begin as they come of “that” age. (You don't know what “that” age is? Maybe I'll address it in another blog posting.) Claude wrote a novel about a baby boomer struggling with retirement. What? You thought that retirement was going to be easy. Have you looked at your IRA lately? Actually, that's the least of your problems. Remember growing up? Making career decisions? If you think that was hard, wait until you have to decide what you're going to do with your life once you retire. You don't have the energy you had when you were beginning a career. You don't adapt to change as easily. Some of us are lucky. We have a talent that we've been waiting to pursue. Remember the old adage: “To a businessman, time is money”? Well, there's a corollary: “To an artist, money is time”. Money is what allows every artists to pursue their muse. Now, unless you have a commission from the Pope or some ducal prince, you're going to need a retirement income to be an artist. (Sorry, garrets in Paris aren't as cheap as they once were. Watch an episode or two of House Hunters International and you'll see what I mean.) If you're lucky enough to have a retirement income that provides a living, you too can be an artist, like Claude and I. Claude exposes the life in her book, A Hook in the Sky. Fundamentally, it is the story of a man coping with retirement. He casts about for a new direction, a new purpose in his life as he retires from a demanding career working at the United Nations. He discovers that his home and marriage, long neglected as he traveled the world on special assignments, have fallen into disarray. Surprisingly, the author, a woman, demonstrates a better grasp of male characters and their motivations that I expected. I only wish that I handled female characters as well in my own stories. Let's get the basics out of the way first. A Hook in the Sky is well-written. The story is well-told. It's also well-edited. You won't be distracted with a lot of typos and grammatical errors. It's a very polished manuscript.
The author understands the milieu: art and artists in present day Europe. In fact, if you are an artist or an art lover, you probably will be thrilled with this story. You might even learn something as you read it. If you are neither, don't worry. Most of us can appreciate specialized genres of books without understanding the specialized knowledge that the author brings to them. The characters in A Hook in the Sky are three-dimensional. The principal protagonist is likable despite his human frailties and fumbling. Stick with him to the end. You'll be rewarded for the effort. Ultimately, this is a very mature novel. There is nothing frivolous about it which is why it needs the right audience. Rest assured, if you enjoy the sample, you will not be disappointed in reading all of it. 11/10/2012 8 Comments Why are they gloating?Election 2012WHY DO THEY TAKE malignant pleasure in the defeat of Mitt Romney? Why don't they just celebrate their victory while you can. If I'm right and they're wrong, they won't be celebrating very long. Of course they think I'm wrong. They know I'm wrong. Barack Obama is a great leader. Mitt Romney is just a spoiled rich man. Our health care problems are solved. The economy is growing. Unemployment will soon be a distant memory. Terrorists are laying down their arms and flocking to embrace us.
I suspect that the Republicans who control the House of Representatives will fight them in every way they can. They will hang onto the desperate notion that they can still rescue America. Unfortunately, their efforts will only be seen as the cause of any and all failures in the coming years. They will be blamed even though the damage is already done. Honestly, I hope they step aside and grant all your wishes. I don't want them to have any excuses. Let all that is about to befall on the United States and the world land squarely on their shoulders. Will I gloat if events prove me correct and that they chose unwisely? No. I will cry with them. I simply got a head start. I awoke with a sense of dread at 3:00 am on the morning following the election. I began crying. I was crying for my nation and my children. I even cried for them. Then I prayed. I prayed that I was wrong. I prayed that the future I saw was an illusion. No other election has affected me this way. I'm sure that some of them are now laughing, just as many of them laugh at the doctored photograph of Mitt Romney as a weeping clown, the one that I found on my Facebook wall the day after the election. Do they really think that he's sad for losing? I can only imagine that he's relieved. I know that his wife is. He had volunteered for a monumental task, an almost impossible one. No, if he's sad now, I imagine that he is sharing my sadness. This election was the tipping point. Barack Obama's dream has come true. America is fundamentally changed. He had achieved his father's dream. Just as he wrote in his book, he has brought America down a notch. We will never again bully the world. However, neither will we save the world again. I hope that all our friends in other nations who are gloating will remember that when they are desperately seeking someone to bail them out. What will Mitt do now? I don't know but, if I were him, I'd clear out. Take my wealth and head for a tropical paradise. Wealth is very portable. If he hangs around, the government will eventually confiscate it. They will invest it in more bankrupt businesses like Solindra and General Motors. Do you really think that General Motors is thriving? So what if they were wrong? If things turn out as badly as I expect, they can always put them back together, can't they? Well, actually, no. They can't. Where will they find the investment capital to rebuild the health care industry? The manufacturing industry? Where will they find entrepreneurs? Why would anyone trust them and take a chance on America again? Good luck with any of that. “All the king's horses, and all the king's men...” CUBA SITS ASTRIDE the shipping lanes to and from the Panama Canal. Hostile forces, or pirates, based at Guantanamo Bay could easily disrupt these strategic routes. Although the canal was not completed until 1914, twelve years following Cuban independence, the United States Navy wanted a coaling station and a base there to insure that they could properly defend the region. Coal fueled ships in the early Twentieth Century, even warships. Bunkers had to be replenished much more frequently than oil-fueled ships that dominated the American Navy during World War II and beyond. (Nuclear fueled engines are used only on submarines and aircraft carriers, even today.) Thus, coaling stations were needed at key locations, especially strategic ones like the Caribbean sea lanes to the Panama Canal. Guantanamo was perfectly situated to support this purpose. Guantanamo Bay also is well protected against the ravages of tropical storms. The smaller classes of warships and patrol boats needed to guard littoral waters, close to shore in and around Cuba, can snuggle easily within its confines. These vessels converted to oil-fired boilers, but the station at Guantanamo was still needed by larger, capital warships that continued burning coal well into the Twentieth Century. Today's littoral warships are busy protecting the approaches to the Suez Canal where Sudanese pirates are active these days. The United States continues to occupy Guantanamo over the objections of Fidel Castro. He has argued that the lease resulted from a treaty that was imposed on the Cubans under coercion, and that such treaties are null and void under Article 52 of the Vienna Treaty on the Law of Treaties, negotiated in 1969. However, his claim fails on two counts. First, there was no coercion. The United States made no threats to gain Cuba's agreement. Secondly, the Vienna Treaty explicitly precludes its application retroactively.
Thus, the United States makes its lease payment to Cuba every year by check and Castro refuses to cash them. CubaTHE PLATT AMENDMENT is an amendment to the Cuban Constitution that was crafted in Washington. The Cubans were obligated to accept it before the Americans turned over control of the island. At first they rejected it until faced with the reality that complete independence would make them the target of every ambitious despot in the region. The Amendment was introduced into Congress by Senator Orville H. Platt. It altered the relationship between Cuba and the United States that had been codified by the Teller Amendment to America's declaration of war on Spain. The original intent of the Teller Amendment, to preclude American annexation of the island, remained intact. It did, however, provide for continued American protection of Cuba. It authorized the Americans to prevent any other nation from annexing the island. The Cubans themselves promised not to invite such annexation by any other country. It even provided for the Americans to resume the occupation if things got out of hand and the lawful Cuban government requested their assistance. Furthermore, the Cubans agreed to make no treaty that provided a foothold in the Caribbean to any other nation. Of course, the Cubans could have disclaimed the Platt Amendment and discarded it from their constitution after the Americans withdrew. However, its provisions were also codified in a Cuban-American Treaty signed in 1903, and thus they were barred from altering their relationship to the United States in perpetuity. Although most of the provisions of the Platt Amendment were negotiated out of existence in 1934, as part of Franklin Roosevelt's Good Neighbor Policy, one remained in effect and has been an unrelenting irritant to Fidel Castro: the perpetual lease of Guantanamo Bay. Whereas the Teller Amendment was an explicit policy eschewing imperialism, the Platt Amendment has been excoriated as imperialistic. That's a bit of a stretch. Although the United States retained a measure of control over Cuba's foreign affairs, at least until Roosevelt rescinded those provisions, the American base at Guantanamo was fairly bought and paid for. The mere fact that subsequent iterations of the island's government may be unhappy with the deal does not make it inequitable.
Often times, those who protest governmental policies and actions are more concerned with contemporary and changing senses of what is fair, but have little knowledge of law, especially international law. However, governments, as well as individuals and businesses, depend upon the sanctity of contracts. CubaAMERICA DID NOT send military forces to Cuba as a prelude to annexing the island as a colony or territory. Senator Henry M. Teller of Colorado made sure of that. When legislation was introduced into Congress authorizing military incursion to put an end to revolution in Cuba, he offered an amendment whereby the United States “...hereby disclaims any disposition of intention to exercise sovereignty, jurisdiction, or control over said island except for pacification thereof, and asserts its determination, when that is accomplished, to leave the government and control of the island to its people.” The Senate passed the amendment, 42 to 35, on April 19, 1898, and the House concurred on the same day. President McKinley signed the joint resolution on April 20th, and an ultimatum was sent to Spain. Some have argued that Teller fought for the proviso to protect his state's sugar beet farmers from the Cubans flooding the market with cheap cane sugar. Not only cheap, but also better. For whatever reason, the Teller Amendment laid the groundwork for paternalism rather than annexation, and the Americans focused on preparing the Cubans for independence. Interestingly, I lived in Colorado for a few years and was given the false impression that sugar beet farming arose there following the Cuban embargo that began in 1962. Living in Fort Collins, I would pedal my bicycle past miles of fields planted in sugar beets. Most were owned by farmers of Japanese descent who had been displaced during World War II. They remained in Colorado following the war rather than return to their homes and fight to regain them. However, it was in fact the opening of trade with Cuba that American farmers feared. It was not the end of trade that drove them to grow sugar beets. In any case, the conduct of the American military governors in Cuba supports the contention that the primary motivation of the United States in occupying the island was to prepare them for independence. They corrected every deficiency of Spanish colonial rule. The Cubans benefited immeasurably from the infrastructure that the Americans built. They had never before known justice in their courts or felt the beneficent hand of competent governance.
With the end of the period of paternalism in Cuba, American occupation ended. However, another amendment, the Platt Amendment, insured the continued presence of American forces on the island, not to subjugate the Cubans, but rather to protect American interests on the island as well as the approaches to the Panama Canal. CubaTHOSE WHO ACCUSE America of imperialism have a hard case to approve. America has never acquired colonies. Nations follow America or not of their own volition. Unfortunately, they are blinded by America's economic success. They mistake the fundamental nature of the American experiment that makes it successful. They confuse America's Puritanical drive to achieve as greed. They emulate greed instead of honest labor. Thus, they attract the worst elements of America, charlatans and gangsters. Those who are forced to operate in the shadows, outside the law inside America, operate openly in nations that envy America. That is what happened in Cuba. When Leonard Wood's term as territorial governor ended in Cuba after just two years, only four years of American paternalism had transpired. Wood honestly thought that the American's had done enough. By 1901, under American tutelage, Cuban rural guardsmen returned to the countryside to enforce law and order. Local law enforcement received payment from local governments. Cuban soldiers assumed command of coastal defenses. Democratic elections were held and Cubans were franchised with the vote if they were twenty-one, had no criminal record, and possessed either literacy, an honorable discharge from the Cuban military, or $250 in property. Wood was justifiably proud of the occupation and its accomplishments: fair administration, treasury surpluses, equitable enforcement of the laws, public schools, hospitals, asylums, highways, and railways. The Americans had built a new Cuba.
It was time to grant Cuba its freedom. However, the American's wanted safeguards in place to insure that Europeans didn't take advantage of the inherent weakness of a fledgling nation. There was no fear of Spain returning. It was bereft of the will as well as the resources to risk another confrontation with the United States. France and England were too distracted with problems in other parts of their far-flung empires. However, Germany was beginning a rise to power. It had a modern navy and seemed interested in establishing bases in the Caribbean to support adventures in South America. Some American statesmen argued that the Monroe Doctrine would discourage German incursions. Others argued that it was only policy. A law was needed. The first such law they advanced was the Teller Amendment, to be embedded in the thread of war against Spain. It announced America's intentions, not only to the Spanish, but also to the rest of the world. We see this same mistake echoed throughout history. Most recently, America was accused of invading Iran to seize its oil. Even now that American forces have been withdrawn and not one drop of oil was purloined, people, even in the United States, continue to make the charge. They seem incapable of imagining any motivation other than greed. Is it possible that they are misguided by their own base intentions? |
More than 500 postings have accumulated since 2011. Some categories (listed below) are self explanatory, others require some explanation (see below):
CategoriesAll America Army Life Blogging Cuba Election 2012 Election 2014 Election 2016 Entrepreneurs Food Good Reads History Humor Infantry School In The News Korea Middle East Oh Dark Thirty Opinion Sea Scouts Short Story Sponsored Survey Technology Television Terrorism Today's Chuckle Veterans Vietnam Writing Explanations |
Copyright © 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022 Jack Durish All rights reserved
|
Web Hosting by iPage
|