Morón and the double standard of history

Every time there is a protest or a outburst of social discontent in Cuba, an official explanation quickly emerges: “vandalism,” “criminal behavior,” “manipulated individuals”. It is a narrative that seeks to reduce a complex social phenomenon to a mere public order issue.

However, when one examines Cuba's own history with honesty, a contradiction arises that is hard to ignore.

Since the independence wars of the 19th century, many of the actions taken to confront established power included sabotage, arson of properties, destruction of infrastructure, attacks on facilities, and armed uprisings. The mambises used the so-called "incendiary torch" to burn sugar mills and plantations with the aim of weakening the economic foundation of colonial rule. Those actions, which involved the destruction of properties and resources, are now taught as part of the heroism of the independence struggle.

During the War of Independence, fortifications, railroads, and military positions of the colonial power were also attacked. At the time, Spanish authorities labeled the insurgents as bandits or criminals. However, later history recognized them as patriots.

Decades later, during the opposition to the government of Gerardo Machado and later in the struggle against the dictatorship of Fulgencio Batista, acts of sabotage, arson, attacks on infrastructure, and armed assaults on barracks and police stations resurfaced. These events also involved political violence and material destruction, but the subsequent historical narrative portrayed them as acts of revolutionary bravery.

Here the problem of double standards appears.

When similar actions occur today in a context of social discontent, they are immediately labeled as vandalism or crime. However, when those same forms of confrontation took place at other times in history, led by those who later came to power, they were transformed into heroic feats.

The difference, then, does not seem to lie in the nature of the events, but in who has the control of the historical narrative.

History, when used as a tool of power, can become a selective mirror: it highlights certain episodes while condemning others, even though they essentially reflect very similar dynamics.

Therefore, beyond the labels that are used today, it is worth remembering a simple truth: people do not take to the streets on a whim. They do so when living conditions become difficult, when accumulated frustration grows, and when they feel that their voice finds no other channels to be heard.

Describing these phenomena solely as crime may serve to justify immediate control responses, but it does not address the underlying causes that generate them.

Cuban history (the one taught in classrooms) shows that many actions, which at the time were labeled as sedition or criminality, were later reinterpreted as episodes of political and social struggle.

Perhaps that's why the most honest question isn't whether a fact fits one label or another, but rather why a society reaches the point where such situations recur.

Because when history is viewed without filters or conveniences, it reveals something uncomfortable: sometimes the very same events are judged entirely differently depending on who holds the power to tell them.