1898 under the gaze of Cuban historians

After examining in previous works the American interventions in Cuba, I would like to now take a different approach: to give the floor to Cuban historians.

I do not intend to offer a new personal interpretation of those events. I prefer to turn the pages of some of the fundamental works of our historiography and let their authors explain how they understood the complex period that began with the American intervention of 1898 and led to the birth of the Republic in 1902.

Because that is also making history: confronting interpretations and listening to the voices of those who came before us.

One of the first names we must bring to the table is Ramiro Guerra y Sánchez. His monumental "History of the Cuban Nation" and his studies on the relations between Cuba and the United States are indispensable references for approaching this period. Guerra did not reduce Cuban history to the actions of foreign powers; he also studied the political, economic, and social forces that operated within Cuba.

In "The Territorial Expansion of the United States at the Expense of Spain and the Hispanic American Countries," Ramiro Guerra examined the process of American expansion and its consequences for Cuba. His analysis is particularly valuable as it illustrates that the Cuban issue cannot be separated from the strategic and economic interests of the United States.

Emilio Roig de Leuchsenring took a much more defined stance. His well-known "Cuba does not owe its independence to the United States," originally published in 1950, was presented at the Ninth National Congress of History. The very title expresses the central thesis of its author.

Roig dedicated a substantial part of his research to demonstrating, through American documentation, that the United States had historically held interests opposed to Cuban independence. In his conclusions, he asserted that "the American state was always an enemy of Cuba's independence."

But it is precisely here that we must pause. Just because a historian puts forward a thesis does not automatically make that thesis a definitive truth. The researcher's task also involves understanding their sources, their time period, their arguments, and the subsequent interpretations that have confirmed, modified, or debated them.

Another particularly interesting voice emerges there: José Luciano Franco.

In an interview conducted in 1969, Franco recalled an aspect that might prove uncomfortable for certain later interpretations: according to his historical memory, the arrival of American troops was initially well received by a good portion of the Cuban population, because the resentment that had built up over the years was primarily directed against Spain. Franco explained that many Cubans then saw the Americans as liberators.

This appreciation is important because it compels us to distinguish between the immediate perception of 1898 and the subsequent assessment of the intervention.

One thing was what many Cubans expected when the American troops arrived; another was what happened afterward during the military occupation; and yet another was the interpretation that later historians made of that whole process.

We should also listen to Herminio Portell Vilá, whose extensive work on the relations between Cuba and the United States and Spain serves as another fundamental reference. His History of Cuba in its Relations with the United States and Spain, published in several volumes, demonstrates how far back the relations between the two countries went, well before 1898.

And here is perhaps the most important lesson of this exercise. Cuban historians do not form a perfectly uniform chorus. Guerra, Roig, Franco, Portell Vilá, and others have studied the same events from different perspectives, with various concerns, and at different historical moments.

That does not weaken our History. It enriches it.

That is why I consider it necessary to return to the sources. It is not enough to simply repeat what a particular historiography later said about 1898. It is also insufficient to replace one official version with another. We must go back to the books, documents, testimonies, and debates of those historians.

Ask ourselves what they saw. What they defended. What they demonstrated. And also where they might have been wrong. Because History does not need believers. It needs researchers.

After 1898, Cuba entered a decisive stage: military occupation, institutional reorganization, the birth of the Republic, and subsequently, new interventions and deep controversies regarding sovereignty and dependence.

We will return to all of this. But before continuing to judge that past from our present, let us listen to the Cuban historians who dedicated their lives to studying it. Perhaps in doing so, we will discover that the history of Cuba is much more complex than any of the versions we have learned. And that is precisely why it is worth continuing to investigate it.