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 the newspapers, and heard it in speeches, slogans, and political events. The "Yankee imperialism" was not just an occasional expression or another slogan within the revolutionary repertoire: it was one of the pillars of the political narrative built by the regime since 1959.
That is why the words of Raúl Guillermo Rodríguez Castro, known as El Cangrejo, surprised many when he stated in the first public interview of his life that the historical 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 always projected, and made it known to the world and the 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 closest circle to the real power in Cuba, but also because it seems to be part of an emerging narrative that seeks to present the historical relationship between Havana and Washington in a different light than that which prevailed for decades.
The question is inevitable: was that really the story told to the Cubans?
The construction of the enemy
From the early years following the revolutionary triumph, the confrontation with the United States held 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 the dictator Fidel Castro (exaggerated by official history), and the economic embargo contributed to solidifying a deeply contentious relationship between the two countries.
However, beyond those historical events, the confrontation with Washington became a structural element of Cuban political discourse.
The First Declaration of Havana, proclaimed in September 1960, openly condemned American imperialism. From then until his later and more aged Reflections, Castro devoted countless speeches to warning about the alleged threats coming from the United States.
Decades later, the anti-imperialist language continued to hold a prominent place in official media, Communist Party documents, and public education.
Entire generations grew up hearing expressions like "Yankee imperialism," "historical enemy," "imperialist aggression," "genocidal blockade," or "besieged square".
The narrative was clear: Cuba resisted 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 for decades a worldview in which the conflict with the United States held a central place.
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, one idea was repeated: the survival of the Revolution depended on resistance to the pressures from Washington.
The existence of an external enemy served a clear political function. If the threat was permanent, so too had to be the mobilization. If the danger was constant, so was the need for unity around the revolutionary leadership.
For decades, many of the economic and political difficulties of the country were explained through that narrative framework.
The problem of "always"
The words of El Cangrejo are not striking because they state that Cuba has been willing to engage in dialogue with the United States. This willingness has been expressed at various 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, this interpretation coexists uncomfortably with six decades of speeches, political campaigns, educational programs, and institutional propaganda that have made confrontation with the United States one of the pillars of the revolutionary narrative.
It is not about denying that there were moments of interested dialogue or opportunistic attempts at rapprochement. It is about acknowledging that confrontation occupied a much more prominent place in the official narrative for decades than cooperation.
Therefore, the relevant question is not whether Cuba was ever willing to engage in dialogue. The question is why today that part (to some extent marginal) of history is being emphasized while another, which has been at the center of the official discourse for more than sixty years, is being downplayed.
A new language
El Cangrejo's statements do not come from nowhere. In recent months, there have been signs of a broader shift in official Cuban rhetoric.
Some diplomatic statements have significantly reduced the use of historically omnipresent 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 the current circumstances, but words matter, and the regime knows it. 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 being 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 enduring against a powerful enemy that aimed to destroy 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 place do six decades of speeches about the imperialist enemy occupy then? How did it become impossible to establish a normal relationship, and now, all of a sudden, is there a desire to make us forget that it was the "external enemy," the "threat to sovereignty," and the "lurking empire"?
The issue is no longer what the Revolution thought about the United States in 1961. The issue is why, in 2026, some of its heirs seem determined to tell that story in a completely different way.
Filed under: