Related videos:
For more than six decades, millions of Cubans grew up hearing that the United States was the main enemy of the Revolution.
They learned it in school, read it in newspapers, and heard it in speeches, slogans, and political events. The "Yankee imperialism" was not an occasional expression nor just another slogan in the revolutionary repertoire: it was one of the pillars of the political narrative constructed by the regime since 1959.
Therefore, the words of Raúl Guillermo Rodríguez Castro, known as El Cangrejo, were surprising when he stated in the first public interview of his life that the historic leaders of the so-called "Cuban revolution" always aspired to a cordial, respectful, and civilized relationship with Washington.
"Since that moment, the historical leaders of the Revolution have always projected, and made it known to the world and to various governments of the United States, that Cuba and its revolutionary government have always been willing to maintain a cordial relationship, a relationship of respect, a civilized relationship," declared the grandson of Raúl Castro.
The statement is relevant for several reasons. Not only because it comes from a figure considered part of the inner circle of real power in Cuba, but also because it appears to be part of an emerging narrative that seeks to present the historical relationship between Havana and Washington in a different light than the one that has predominated for decades.
The question is inevitable: was that really the story they told the Cubans?
The construction of the enemy
From the early years following the revolutionary triumph, the confrontation with the United States occupied a central place in the political identity of the new regime.
The Bay of Pigs invasion, the October Crisis, the covert operations against Cuba, the assassination attempts against dictator Fidel Castro (exaggerated by official history), and the economic embargo contributed to solidifying a deeply conflicted relationship between the two countries.
However, beyond these historical events, the confrontation with Washington ultimately became a structural element of the Cuban political discourse.
The First Declaration of Havana, proclaimed in September 1960, openly condemned American imperialism. Since then, and up to his last and senile Reflections, Castro dedicated countless speeches to warning about the alleged threats coming from the United States.
Decades later, anti-imperialist language continued to hold a prominent place in official media, Communist Party documents, and public education.
Generations have grown up hearing expressions like "Yankee imperialism," "historic enemy," "imperialist aggression," "genocidal blockade," or "besieged plaza".
The narrative was clear: Cuba was resisting because it was under siege.
The pedagogy of confrontation
The confrontation with the United States was not merely a matter of foreign policy. It also became a tool for political education.
Textbooks, youth organizations, educational programs, and state media have conveyed a worldview for decades in which the conflict with the United States plays a central role.
The national history was often presented as a long struggle against attempts at foreign domination. Anti-imperialism became an essential component of revolutionary identity.
In political events, in the editorials of Granma, and in official speeches, a single idea was reiterated: the survival of the Revolution depended on resistance to Washington's pressures.
The existence of an external enemy served an evident political function. If the threat was permanent, so too must be the mobilization. If the danger was constant, so was the need for unity around revolutionary leadership.
For decades, much of the country's economic and political difficulties were explained through that narrative framework.
The problem of "always"
The words of El Cangrejo are not striking because they assert that Cuba has been open to dialogue with the United States. This willingness has been expressed at different times by Fidel Castro, Raúl Castro, and even by Miguel Díaz-Canel.
What is truly significant is the use of the term "always". Because by stating that revolutionary leaders always sought a cordial and respectful relationship with Washington, Rodríguez Castro seems to suggest that this was the historical essence of the Cuban stance.
However, that interpretation exists uncomfortably alongside six decades of speeches, political campaigns, educational programs, and institutional propaganda that have made the confrontation with the United States one of the cornerstones of the revolutionary narrative.
It is not about denying that there were moments of self-interested dialogue or opportunistic attempts at rapprochement. It is about recognizing that confrontation occupied a much more prominent place in the official narrative for decades than cooperation.
That's why the relevant question is not whether Cuba has ever been willing to engage in dialogue. The question is why today that part (to a certain extent marginal) of history is emphasized while another that has been at the center of the official discourse for more than sixty years is diminished.
A new language
El Cangrejo's statements do not emerge in a vacuum. In recent months, signs of a broader change in official Cuban rhetoric have surfaced.
Some diplomatic statements have significantly reduced the use of historically ubiquitous terms such as "imperialism," "enemy," or even "blockade."
In parallel, leaders and officials are increasingly discussing investments, economic development, market diversification, business partners, and international cooperation. The vocabulary of the Cold War seems to be giving way to a more pragmatic language.
It is clear that this is a tactical adaptation to current circumstances, but words matter, and the regime knows this. Therefore, when the words change, so does the way the dictatorship rewrites history.
When the official history changes
Perhaps the most important question is not what the regime thinks about the United States today.
The question is what happens when a generation that grew up hearing a story discovers that story is starting to be told in a different way.
For millions of Cubans, official anti-Americanism was not a footnote or a passing episode. It was part of their political and emotional education, their understanding of the world, and the moral justification for many collective sacrifices.
For decades, they were told that the Revolution was resisting a powerful enemy intent on destroying it. Today, some representatives of that same system seem to suggest that a cordial relationship with the United States was always the goal.
For those who grew up under the classic narrative and epic of the "Cuban revolution," the contrast is hard to ignore.
Because if a respectful relationship with Washington has always been the fundamental aspiration, what then is the place of six decades of discourse about the imperialist enemy? How did it become impossible to build a normal relationship, and now, suddenly, is there an attempt to make us forget that they were the "external enemy," the "threat to sovereignty," and the "menacing empire"?
The question is no longer what the Revolution thought about the United States in 1961. The question is why, in 2026, some of its heirs seem determined to tell that story in a completely different way.
Filed under: