America's Role in the Cuban Revolution

1047 Words3 Pages

America's Role in the Cuban Revolution

The revolution in Cuba was not a result of economic deprivation, nor

because of high expectations in the economy, it was the political factors

and expectations which evoked the civilians to revolt. The Cuban economy

was moving forward at the time before the rebellion but the dominant

influence of the sugar industry made the economy "assymetrical" and

encouraged no "dynamic industrial sector". Because of the dependance on

sugar, the unemployment rate ranged between 16 and 20% rising and falling

with sugar prices, ebbing and flowing as the season changed. The rural

wage levels were incredibly unsteady and unpredictable; the standard of

living was low. Dependance on the sugar industry did not retard the economy

of Cuba, just the wages of its workers. It was the leaders of the nation

who reaped profit from this dependance, and it was the leaders of the

nation who insisted on keeping the nation the way it was. By the mid

1950's, however, the middle class had expanded to 33% of the population.

Democracy, as we know it, broke down: the large middle class did not

assert democratic leadership, there was no social militancy in the working

class ranks, and the people found order preferable to disarray. Batista

could no longer legitimize his regime. Failure in the elections of 1954

showed the discontent of the people, and failure in communications with the

United States illustrated its discontent. Finally, opposing forces

confronted Batista's power: there were street protests, confrontations

with the police, assault, sabotage, and urban violence. This began the

revolution in Cuba.

America, with its stubborn ideas and misjudgements of character, forced

Castro to turn to the Soviets for alliance and aid. When Castro visited

the United States in April, 1959, there were different respected

individuals holding different views of him and his future actions. Nixon

believed Castro to be naive, some others thought him a welcome change from

Batista, still others called him an "immature but effective leader, without

a well formed view of how to lead a revolutionary movement and not overly

concerned with abstract of philosophical matters" (p. 55). Why, then, did

the United States impress nit-picky ideals like "there should not be

communists in the Army or in labor", or "Cuba's approach to the Batista

trials is totally unacceptable, too casual, too nonchalant" on this

"forming" leader? Castro was like an inexperienced murderer with a gun in

his hand: any rustle in the background could set off his nervous trigger

Open Document