Related videos:
A message from the leader Miguel Díaz-Canel for the anniversary of the uprising by Carlos Manuel de Céspedes sparked criticism on social media, after the president claimed that the Cuban revolution had "born" that day.
“This day, but in 1868, the Cuban Revolution was born in the batey of the La Demajagua sugar mill,” wrote the regime representative, presenting that event as a “compass and guide” for Fidel Castro's rise to power in 1959. Users criticized him for “mixing” distinct historical processes and appropriating the independence legacy to legitimize the current regime.
"The radicalness and virtue of the protagonists of that uprising continue to be a compass and guide," he said.
Thus, he linked the Grito of 1868 with the revolution led by Fidel Castro. Díaz-Canel's stance generated a wave of responses that question this historical continuity.
Among the most shared reactions, a user asked: “What does the liberation of the slaves by Céspedes have to do with Fidel's ‘revolution’? Don't mix up history any more. In 1868 there was evolution, and in 1959 there was destruction.”
Others demanded not to "take over the fight of the liberators" nor to "stain their memories," and accused the current government of massacring the people.
It was also mentioned that "the struggle for independence ended on May 20, 1902 with the establishment of the Republic of Cuba,” referring to the conclusion of the independence cycle against Spain.
There were also responses with foul language that directly confronted the ruler.
The exchange revealed the rift between the regime's narrative and the sentiments of the people.
"If those mambises were alive today they would have beheaded all of you c with a machete charge, which is what Cuba needs right now," exclaimed another internet user.
While the Government tries to present a line of continuity between the independence wars of the 19th century and the process that began in 1959, part of the citizenry insists on separating these two periods, asserting the republican character achieved in 1902 and rejecting its political exploitation.
The controversy ignites the debate on historical memory and official narrative in Cuba.
For many historians and citizens, such claims aim to manipulate the past to justify the present, seizing upon liberation struggles that predate the process initiated by Fidel Castro in 1959.
Frequently asked questions about historical manipulation in Cuba
Why does Miguel Díaz-Canel connect Céspedes' uprising with the Cuban Revolution of 1959?
Díaz-Canel tries to present a historical continuity between the uprising of Carlos Manuel de Céspedes in 1868 and the revolution of 1959 led by Fidel Castro. His goal is to legitimize the current regime by linking it to the 19th-century independence struggles, although many believe this to be a manipulation of history to justify the current political situation in Cuba.
What has been the reaction of Cubans to Díaz-Canel's statements about Céspedes and the revolution?
Díaz-Canel's statements have been criticized by many Cubans who believe that mixing different historical processes is a way to manipulate history. Citizens have expressed their discontent on social media, accusing the government of appropriating the legacy of the liberators to legitimize the current regime and of massacring the people.
How does the Cuban regime use history for its political narrative?
The Cuban regime utilizes historical figures such as Céspedes, Martí, and Fidel Castro to construct a narrative that legitimizes its ideology and current actions. There is often a reliance on the exaltation of these characters to justify the continuity of the regime and silence criticisms regarding the current situation in the country, presenting an image of resistance and historical struggle.
Filed under: