-
9. Dialogue
- University of Notre Dame Press
- Chapter
- Additional Information
Chapter Nine Dialogue The Church continually invites us . . . [to dialogue]. —Manolo Fernández (1969) Despite integrating into new societies, Cubans remained deeply engaged with their homeland. For years the overwhelming majority of exiles agreed with the fundamental goal of dislodging the Cuban government from power by any means at their disposal. Slowly, however, some came to see this as unrealistic and began in the late 1960s to adjust their thinking and strategies when it became clear that Castro now enjoyed the full support of the Soviet Union and could not be overthrown without a large-scale assault by a major power. Many exiles like Jorge Mas Canosa came to recognize that armed actions had little possibility of changing Cuba and instead turned to influencing the United States political system, mostly attempting to mobilize support for hard-line diplomatic positions toward the Cuban Revolution. Exile attitudes in this regard were not unanimous, however. Also by the late 1960s, a considerable number of exiles had grown weary of a constant climate of anger and violence. Almost a decade and a half of struggle against Castro, 240 and Batista before, had caused much death, frustration, and confusion. Though clearly a minority, those with this perspective developed very different views, rejecting violence altogether and advocating dialogue and engagement with Cuba, which not only enjoyed a firm theological basis and Vatican backing but also reflected the ethnic experiences and educational formation of a new generation who learned to interpret the Cuban revolutionary experience from different vantage points. These were views not generally tolerated within the Cuban communities themselves. In response to this deeply controversial proposition, the majority community immediately condemned dialogue with the Cuban government as treachery and even denounced public discussion and debate of this alternative among exiles themselves. Throughout the 1970s, Catholics participated in these discussions and increasingly revealed diverse opinions, but, whatever their positions, they brought theological as well as practical political considerations to the debate, influenced by their experiences as exiles and ethnics. Dialogue The most enthusiastic promoters of dialogue and pragmatic approaches to the Cuban situation were those who left Cuba as children, adolescents, or young adults. What perhaps seemed so black and white in earlier years revealed different hues in light of complex world events, especially in Latin America. Many Cuban Catholics came to the conclusion that they needed to abandon aggressive stances and simplistic Cold War sloganeering and enter into the difficult realities of the Cuban problem with deeper analysis and informed argumentation. They lamented the deep intransigence of most exiles that ruled out anything but hostile approaches, and they condemned the hard-line voices that controlled the media and intimidated those with nonconformist political perspectives. Certainly these new voices remained a minority opinion among exiles but did nevertheless advance an ethic of free discussion and diversity of perspectives that emerged slowly and painfully and not without considerable harshness of language and deed. Many, though not all, offering these alternative ideas came from Catholic families; they embraced the intellectual traditions of their faith, concern for their homeland, and concrete international realities. Their formative and educational experiences outside Dialogue 241 [3.92.84.196] Project MUSE (2024-03-29 14:31 GMT) of Cuba molded their worldviews, which were quite distinct from their traumatized parents, who lost all they had worked for. They blazed their own path in a way that considered the local perspectives and realities of the communities in which they lived while simultaneously considering how they might reengage their homeland. Often living outside the south Florida region, they gained different perspectives difficult to see in Miami’s highly politicized environment and controlled discourses. Experiences associated with their emerging ethnic identities and socialization in their new places of residence during a particularly turbulent period inspired many to think in new ways about the homeland they had departed as children, adolescents , and young adults. Like their parents, they remained deeply marked by exile and focused on Cuba, but they differed in their instincts, which encouraged intellectual explorations, including options for dialogue and engagement rather than confrontation and intransigence. This certainly did not create consensus; indeed it led to divisions and even violence among exiles themselves. At the same time, this process did open a conversation among exiles that after the 1970s became more acceptable and even routine, though no less controversial . Opening the dialogue proved very difficult but necessary, and their commitment to civil discourse eventually gained a permanent backing even among exiles in south Florida. Many paid...