The statements made by Fidel Antonio Castro Smirnov regarding the alleged scientific dimension of his grandfather sparked a flurry of reactions among readers of CiberCuba, who specifically used the terms employed by the grandson of Fidel Castro to question the legacy of the Cuban dictator.
The post was based on a statement by Castro Smirnov during an interview with teleSUR: he claimed that Fidel Castro acted as a researcher, but his “object of study” was not a sample in a test tube, a Petri dish, or a cell, but rather “a nation.”
The Cuban scientist went even further to explain that in this way of acting, "trial and error" was not applicable, as "experiments often had irreversible consequences".
The combination of the words "object of study," "experiments," and "irreversible consequences" generated numerous critical responses.
"With so many experiments, the object of study was completely destroyed", summarized one of the comments.
Another reader was equally straightforward: "It has truly been a human laboratory of the Castros".
The idea was reiterated with different formulations. “Poor millions of laboratory mice belonging to these people,” joked another user, transferring the scientific metaphor used by Castro Smirnov to those who have been subjected for decades to the political and economic decisions of the Cuban regime.
"The statistical sample was the entire nation."
Among the reactions, more extensive analyses also emerged regarding the implications of presenting a country as an object of experimentation.
One of the readers described what happened in Cuba as a "social experiment" and questioned that "the statistical sample was the entire nation". In his reflection, he argued that the citizens subjected to those policies could not choose to participate in them and linked the results to the current lack of expectations, discouragement, and despair.
The criticism precisely aligns with one of the most striking aspects of Castro Smirnov's words: he did not speak metaphorically about a small project or a specific policy, but explicitly identified a nation as the "object of study" of Fidel Castro.
Other comments responded with sarcasm.
"Object of study, yes; from the subject he failed," wrote a reader. Another summed up the idea in two words: "private laboratory."
There were also those who directly linked that alleged scientific method to the current situation in Cuba, pointing out that the results of decades of government decisions can be seen today in shortages, power outages, and economic deterioration.
From the Cordón of Havana to the Ten Million Harvest
Several readers took advantage of the concept of "experiments" to recall projects personally spearheaded by Fidel Castro.
One of the most detailed comments listed the Cordón de La Habana, attempts to extend certain crops, and the Ten Million Harvest of 1970 as examples of what it referred to as a "nationally applied experimental field."
«Your grandfather used the nation as material for study and experimentation», stated the user before recalling several of those projects.
The comment ultimately established a link between those decisions and the present: «turned the country into an experimental field for decades, and the results are still being felt by us Cubans».
The Ten Million Harvest stands as one of the most well-known historical examples. The government of Fidel Castro mobilized enormous human and economic resources with the aim of achieving a production of ten million tons of sugar in 1970. The goal was not met, and the campaign left significant consequences for other sectors of the economy.
The Cordón de La Habana also repeatedly appeared among the responses as a symbol of the economic projects promoted by the authorities and later abandoned.
"Hunger and misery" as a result
Other readers brought the debate directly into daily life.
One asserted that «the hunger and misery of this country» could also be seen as part of that «object of study», questioning how, after decades of failed economic policies, the Cuban regime continues to attribute its problems primarily to external factors.
Another comment contrasted the life of the Castro family with the material conditions of a significant part of the population and argued that while their descendants have enjoyed privileges both inside and outside Cuba, the people have suffered a gradual impoverishment.
References to mass emigration also emerged. Some readers interpreted the departure of millions of Cubans over decades as another consequence of that political and economic model.
The reactions were particularly harsh because many users interpreted Castro Smirnov's words not as a scientific defense of his grandfather, but as an unwittingly revealing description of how Fidel Castro ruled the country.
Cuba as a "laboratory"
Castro Smirnov also used another expression that reinforced that interpretation.
When referring to Fidel Castro's childhood in Birán and his interactions with poor workers and Haitians, he stated that place had been his "first observation laboratory."
In this way, the grandson's own narrative creates a unique sequence: Birán appears as the first "laboratory"; Fidel Castro as a "researcher"; Cuba as his "object of study"; and the decisions made from power as "experiments" capable of causing "often irreversible" consequences.
Readers took ownership of that terminology, but completely inverted the laudatory meaning that Castro Smirnov intended to convey.
«It was a social experiment», one of them stated, immediately questioning its methodology and results. «Human laboratory», another declared.
And perhaps the reaction that best summed up the debate was also one of the briefest: "With so many experiments, the subject of study was completely destroyed."
A phrase that transforms the defense of Fidel Castro's scientific legacy made by his grandson into a critique of the consequences of over half a century of Castroism on Cuba and its people.
Filed under: