Nancy Morejon, who?

Nancy Morejon is one of Cuba's best known contemporary writers. But, I must confess, I never heard of her until I came upon DeWayne Wickham's item in USA TODAY, June 15, 2010.

Be that as it may, late in 2009, the Princeton professor, Cornel West, and 59 other African-Americans sent an open letter to Cuban President, Raul Castro, accusing his government of mistreating civil rights activists and showing a "callous disregard" for its black population.
Ms. Morejon, also black, mildly rebuked the writers of this letter, saying that they were taking sides on something of which they had no actual knowledge.

The Cuban regime has long made public pronouncements against racial discrimination, but evidence of the disadvantages faced by its own black population is easily found. An example, cited by Mr. Wickham, is that the best jobs in Cuba's growing tourism industry are overwhelmingly held by whites. These jobs include hotel doormen, chambermaids, tour guides, translators and restaurant waiters.

If such jobs don't strike you as something marvelous, something to aspire to, let me explain: people in these service jobs are in a position to receive tips from the foreign traveler. These tips can earn the worker in one day what a doctor or a governmental bureaucrat is paid for an entire month's labor. It's not the salary provided by these jobs that counts, it's the tips.

I should add that the people who run the tourism enterprises must contract with the government. That means that what each employee is paid is determined by the government and it is paid to the government. It's the government that pays the worker. Tips, however, circumvent governmental controls. That's how it works in a communist state.

Anyway, despite the control that Cuba exercises over its workers, blacks are largely left out.

There are two points in Mr. Wickham's piece that I found jarring. One is the anti-American slant Mr. Wickham introduces in some of the things he writes. For example, he writes, "Cuba's struggle for racial equality dates back more than a century. It is rooted in the changes wrought by the U.S. occupation of Cuba (1898-1902) and the brutal annihilation in 1912 of the leaders of a black movement for racial justice. It predates the Castro regime but has survived (Castro's regime's) condemnation."

Sorry, Mr. Wickham but your characterizations of how Cuban history evolved is nonsense.
That the U.S. interfered in Cuban affairs is undisputed. But, back then, Cuban affairs were Spanish affairs. As various groups struggled to gain an upper hand with Spain, the U.S. undeniably inserted itself. That's what countries did then. It's what they continue to do to this very day. It had nothing to do with Cuba's blacks. (Is it really necessary for me to point out that the U.S.'s role in the enslavement of blacks in Spanish Cuba was limited to U.S. citizens providing transport for the black people sold into slavery by competing black clans and Muslim traders. And, in this despicable trade the American merchants had strong competition from citizens of other western nations.)

And, indeed, blacks did revolt in the early 1900's with the aim of setting up a black nation somewhere in Cuba. And, this revolt was indeed ended in a most brutal fashion. But, this was an event in which the U.S. had absolutely no role whatsoever.

Lastly, I'd like to mention that I turned to population statistics for Cuba and found something quite remarkable. Whites were listed as amounting to something like 65% and blacks amounting to something like 11%. But, there was another category; namely, mulattoes. For this category, the number was something like 20%. Really? Mulattoes? I looked that word up and found that technically it referred to persons who had one black parent and one white parent. In common usage, it can also refer to someone with some percentage of "black blood" other than 50%.

Isn't that interesting. As an American, I had to gaffaw. Our President Obama isn't really black. He's a mulatto. (Admit it. This stuff gets to be pretty funny.) In my opinion, any country that breaks down its black population into "black," "mulatto," "octroon," or whatever else is clearly racist. But, I guess the Cuban government doesn't see it that way.

Wake Up Israel! Theatrics Do Count

This Gaza flotilla brought it all home. Once again, Israel does it all right. But, once again, Israel gets dumped on. When will Israel learn to play the game.

The story line from the U.S. news cable shows seems to be as follows:
1. By its behavior, Israel has offended its closest Muslem ally.
2. Israel's behavior in commandeering the flotilla in international waters was illegal.
3. Even if this flotilla didn't get through, something must be done to help the suffering Gazans get food and medicine.

And, this we get from shows not outwardly hostile to Israel.

There is no need for me to answer the above points. But what I do want to do is show that there was no need to ever have been confronted with them in the first place. Allow me to illustrate.

The relationship with Turkey, while not necessarily the most important item above, is the one I'll take up first. Note the following:

Turkey did not just suddenly turn away from Israel. The process began some time ago when Turkey decided it would not participate in military exercises with its fellow NATO countries if Israel were included in the exercises. Indeed, this was but one of a great many signals showing clearly that the Turkish PM and his party had made a decisive turn towards Iran and away from the West.

This turnabout by Turkey must have been abundently clear to Israel. And, so, when Turkey allowed the Gaza flotilla to set sail on its mission to Gaza from a Turkish port, it was a clear and blatant act of hostility and aggression. (Every country decides who uses its ports. Other countries would never have allowed this flotilla to use their ports.) And, so, when the flotilla left Turkey, Israel should have immediately recalled its ambassador from Turkey. It should have done so openly and with considerable fanfare. Instead, it left it to Turkey to diplomatically disrespect Israel.

The take-over in international waters: This is a legal issue, one on which Israel stands on solid ground. No need for me to comment.

Regarding getting aid and supplies to the Gazans: Israel does this on a regular basis. But, this is not something that seems known or appreciated in the West. What Israel should have been doing right along and what they should do now is as follows: They should paint simple, but very large labels, on the trucks that are being sent into Gaza on a regular basis. The labels should describe the contents e.g. food and/or medicine or whatever. It should send photos of these trucks entering Gaza and distribute them to western publications.

But, the plan needs a Part 2, because the pictures just described will no doubt be found wanting of news value by much of the media. Part 2 would have Israel getting Israeli demonstrators screaming at the trucks and carrying signs opposing the transfer of these goods into Gaza. But, of course, Israel, with the help of the IDF would make sure that the goods did, in fact, get into Gaza.

(The demonstrators could be citizens of Sderot demonstrating against shipments going into Gaza while Gazans persist in shooting their rockets into Israel, with Sderot being a prime target. They could carry placards with the names and pictures of those who had been killed or maimed by Gazan rockets.)

Israel should also do a better job of showing photos of fancy restaurants in Gaza. They should show fancy cars being driven by the wealthy in Gaza. These would be cars that were disassembled in the Sinai, carried through the tunnels, as parts, from Egypt into Gaza and then reassembled in Gaza. You could also show a rocket that made the same trip from Egypt.

The point I'm trying to make is that Israel has got to show, and not merely tell.

If I can think up the above ways of trying to do some PR for Israel, surely Israel, with all its brain power, can do far better.