No thanks, I don’t want the West’s narrative on Fidel Castro’s legacy

The first post I wrote and published, to start what would eventually become iamalaw, was on Cuba. Following a trip to the island (long before the relaxation of US sanctions), I discussed whether the Cuban revolution could outlive Fidel Castro. With the ever-burgeoning private sector, and subtle changes that would have still been unthinkable at the time of my visit, some might argue that the answer is no. Indeed, some would opine that Fidel Castro’s death came at a time when capitalism had ever-so-slightly started to permeate Cuba’s once staunchly communist economy.

When I visited Cuba, it was void of American visitors (and thankfully that included the Kardashians) other than those few who were willing to take the risk to travel there via other neighbouring countries. Other than that minority, special dispensation was required for Americans to make the trip there.

The internet was available but much too expensive for the typical Cuban wage and incredibly slow at that. Therefore it was largely the privilege of foreigners. Nevertheless, Cubans were increasingly aware of the world around them. And many younger Cubans’ views on their then leader (Raul Castro was yet to be become president) was in contrast with the adulation the older generation held for Fidel Castro.

Speaking to many younger Cubans at the time, they were aware of the restrictions that life in Cuba had placed upon them. They maintained an indignation for being unable to travel, make money and access the lives that they glimpsed of the tourists they interacted with and those they saw in their rare access to the internet and western media. They were also aware of the propaganda, censorship, human rights violations and imprisonment of political prisoners that occurred under the regime.

With our awareness of the world, we can acknowledge that the Cuban revolution hasn’t been a bastion of human rights. Nor can we belittle this in a lack of empathy for those that have been subject to it. Nonetheless, when we compare this to that of American imperialism and European colonialism, the Cuban revolution seems like human rights utopia.

Unless I’m mistaken, Cuba hasn’t been responsible for a slave trade of an entire race for which the legacy endures centuries later. Nor has it invaded countries on account of their sovereign governments maintaining a different ideology or in seeking to pillage their natural resources. However, I can think of a few countries that have. In the wake of Fidel Castro’s death, commentators and politicians from said countries really need to take a long, hard look at themselves and their countries’ histories for their audacity in showing their opprobrium towards the former Cuban leader.

Cuban American exiles in Miami’s ‘Little Havana’ celebrated the death of Fidel Castro. They and their families understandably have no love lost for Castro given they were driven out of their country and many persecuted. Although to see some championing Donald Trump at the same time beggars belief. Donald Trump? If you want a conversation about human rights, this is the man who said he’d bring back 'a hell of a lot worse than waterboarding'. Similarly, for the right in America, 2016 was their year. First Trump and now this? It was like a Fox News wet dream.

At least history won't record Fidel Castro bragging about his desire to "grab 'em by the pussy"...

To lament human rights in Cuba and celebrate the death of Fidel Castro, while ignoring American imperialism and European colonialism, and in the same breath championing Donald Trump, then you're an idiot. Alas, there are an awful lot of idiots.

Dialogue around Fidel Castro is always bound to include the violations on human rights and that’s understandable. Yet we don’t discuss the legacy of American and European leaders, who have been responsible for much more heinous crimes against humanity, in the same context. Is it because capitalism provides a convenient distraction from their wrongdoing? Or, more likely, because they’re white?

Fidel Castro refused to continue the narrative of American imperialism and he was a comrade to many leaders who sought to improve the lives of their people in ushering an era of equality. He was a champion of African liberation; effectively seeking to overturn centuries of European colonialism. Castro was a sponsor of Angolan independence and a vociferous opponent of apartheid in South Africa. Cuba supported the ANC’s resistance when America had declined to actively support the resistance movement.

In Jamaica, Prime Minister Michael Manley and Fidel Castro became friends and allies and Cuban doctors and nurses were sent to support the Jamaican health system along with builders and engineers to assist in construction and public works programmes. Jamaica, like the wider region, was subject to European colonialism and latterly American imperialism. Fidel Castro showed there was another way. And he was willing to show solidarity to those who sought to free themselves of the shackles of their colonial and imperialist oppressors.

Michael Manley and Fidel Castro

Along with one of the highest literacy rates in the world and a world class national health service (while America has a health care system based on insurance), Cuba represented an alternative in the Caribbean and beyond. It showed that former colonies didn’t need to run into the arms of America to provide for their people. Castro put education at the forefront of the country and for the West, it’s probably why Cuba was deemed so dangerous. He created a highly intelligent country that, at times perhaps to the revolution’s detriment, has established a society with an insatiable thirst for knowledge and awareness of the wider world.

Further reform in Cuba is likely and the society that the revolution birthed will continue to be eroded as has already begun. Despite the growing momentum for it, the Cuban government has managed to avoid any revolution to effect change. Though with the death of Fidel Castro, and all he represented of the revolution, it’d be difficult to say that his death will not hasten that.

Raul Castro may offer concessions to Cubans to slow down any further economic and social shifts, as he effectively already has with existing economic reforms. But the zeal for change amongst an apathetic youth is too great to hold off indefinitely. Furthermore, with Raul Castro as a man also in the twilight of his life, he too may be running out of time to stall it.

Fidel Castro will continue to be a divisive figure in history and understandably so. Although I shan’t accept the biased and ideologically driven narrative of him from the West. Juxtaposed with their own history, the West really aren’t in a position to criticize Castro and history will judge him much more favourably than they might hope.

The failed project of the West Indies Federation

The end of World War 2 marked a watershed in world politics and international relations. Not only did it signal the end of the global conflict, but it also ushered in the cold war and revised perceptions on geopolitics. On the latter, Britain, significantly weakened by her war efforts and forced to divert attention to the rebuilding of the country, was compelled to reconsider its status vis-a-vis its considerable empire. The war had eroded much of the hubris that accompanied Britain’s status as a colonial power and it quickly became apparent that maintaining the British Empire was no longer tenable in the post war era.

Vast countries such as India (which then comprised modern day India, Bangladesh and Pakistan) could no longer be effectively controlled from the Colonial Office in Whitehall, even via regional and national proxies such as the Viceroy. Financially, especially in the wake of the war that had crippled the country, it wasn't viable either. Internal tensions within some colonies, and burgeoning independence movements or calls for further autonomy, could also no longer be contained by a weakened colonial power that no longer had the resources or the inclination to maintain said position. Consequently, as much as post war independence movements would lead to an inevitable demise of the British Empire, it was undoubtedly expedited by Britain's lack of resistance and encouragement due to her diminished status as a colonial power.

The notion of a country such as India being granted independence was deemed acceptable within post war attitudes. It had a huge population that would lend itself to its sustainability as an independent state. But what of smaller territories? Could they survive? How would they establish viable economies, free of support from the mother country? This was the line of thinking at the time when considering the British West Indies and the consensus was that the islands were too small with economies that were too dependent on Britain to survive as independent states.

Some of the islands in the West Indies had populations of fewer than 10,000. Independence for territories of this size was therefore unthinkable. Furthermore, the islands were in receipt of colonial grant aid which acknowledged their ailing economies. Nonetheless, the colonies had increasing desires for further independence. As a result, Britain, keen to reduce its economic responsibility in the region, sought to provide further autonomy for the British West Indies.

In 1945, the Colonial Secretary, Colonel Oliver Stanley, proposed the idea of a federation in the West Indies, asking West Indian governments what structure they felt it should take. It was the beginning of a brief journey in West Indian federalism that was arguably destined to fail from the outset.

The West Indies Federation was established in 1958 as an federal state (albeit still under British control) comprising Anguilla, Antigua and Barbuda, Barbados, the Cayman Islands, Dominica, Grenada, Jamaica, Montserrat, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Trinidad and Tobago and Turks and Caicos and had a population of just shy of 3.5 million. With the exception of Anguilla, Montserrat, the Cayman Islands and Turks and Caicos, which are currently British overseas territories, the Federation formed part of the respective islands’ subsequent journeys to sovereignty as independent states. The British had intended the Federation to eventually achieve independence as a sovereign state itself but this never came to fruition and the Federation was disestablished by Britain in 1962 with its major players achieving independence shortly after.

The insularity of the West Indies meant a West Indies Federation was always likely to impede the required cohesiveness for the political union. Camaraderie clearly exists in the region, as seen in the shared culture, regional pride and even generations of sporting prowess and support for the West Indies cricket teams (the creation of the West Indies cricket team actually predates the Federation), most recently demonstrated in the U19, women's and men's teams becoming champions at the the 2016 T20 world cup. Although when it comes to politics, such camaraderie is often trumped by self interest and hubris. Compounded by acute insularity in the region and a perception that the Federation was being built upon a basis of disparity between the islands, the Federation faced its first and most enduring obstacle from attitudes within the West Indies. This was applicable to Jamaica more than any other island. Indeed, many would opine that Jamaica was the island that sounded the death knell for the Federation in events that would unfold throughout its brief existence.

Historically, Jamaican attitudes have fostered a sense of superiority over the other so-called “small islands”. Thus for Jamaica to exist in a Federation whose capital site was in Trinidad and with a Barbadian Prime Minister, Grantley Adams, would not sit well with Jamaicans. The perception, as promoted by those against Federation within Jamaica, was that the other “small islands” in the Federation would drain Jamaica’s relative wealth (an ironic notion given Jamaica’s currently ailing economy) compared to the other islands.

Jamaica was also expected to have 17 of the 45 seats in the Federal parliament, 38% compared to its population comprising more than 50% of the new state’s population. These were contentious concerns for many Jamaican observers that merely stoked the opposition to the Federation that was growing within the island and building upon the existing antipathy towards their federal peers.

The Jamaica Labour Party’s (JLP) Alexander Bustamante, the eventual first Prime Minister of independent Jamaica and opponent of the Federation, often referred to the politicians of the other islands disparagingly as small island politicians. At the Montego Bay Conference of 1947, Bustamante addressed this alleged disparity with characteristic rhetoric in referring to their respective development -

‘Jamaica can walk. Trinidad is creeping, Barbados and Demerara are right behind Trinidad or almost the same. St Kitts and St Vincent are attempting to creep and only attempting. Antigua is creeping, and of all the other small islands, some can barely creep on the palm of their hands, and others on hands and feet, and others not at all, yet you say to us, “we want you to federate”… It cannot be done.’

Such attitudes were undoubtedly disparaging but more a product of opposition to what Bustamante et al viewed as a raw deal for Jamaica in joining the Federation. But these beliefs and perceptions had existed long prior to the conception of the Federation and for many islands, the disdain was mutual towards Jamaica. In fact, these were attitudes that were furthered by the British Empire in the West Indies where a sense of unity was never really promoted in their administration. Instead, many of the West Indian islands held largely unwarranted inter-island rivalry and antagonism. This was despite their shared culture and shared history as part of the African diaspora, not to mention their shared dark experiences of slavery and colonialism. It therefore begs the question why the aforementioned was unable to supersede the insularity and political squabbling that characterised the Federation’s short existence and demise.

The flag of the West Indies Federation

Jamaica’s mistrust of the other islands was valid on occasions and it would continue to impose itself as a hindrance to the progress of obtaining a sense of unity in the region. For example, with the exception of Barbados and Trinidad, the remaining islands of the Federation had promised to support Jamaica as the Federal capital site yet failed to do so leaving Jamaica feeling further isolated. Prior to and during its establishment, Jamaica would remain a thorn in the side of West Indian federalism and perhaps understandably so when considered from their perspective. Bustamante was well aware of this and he opportunistically exploited such sentiments as a vehicle to scupper the Federation for Jamaica’s departure from the union.

Bustamante’s political astuteness for opportunism is ultimately what led to the demise of the Federation. In 1960, Robert Lightbourne resigned from his seat in the federal parliament which resulted in the need for a by-election. However, Bustamante announced that the seat would not be contested by the JLP and that they would seek Jamaican secession from the Federation upon coming to power. This shook the British Colonial Office and the Federation as without Jamaica, the Federation would lose half its population along with the lion’s share of federal tax. With such a bold statement, Jamaica’s Premier and esteemed People’s National Party (PNP) leader Norman Manley was presented with the option of either calling a general election or a holding a referendum on Jamaica’s future within the Federation. He opted for the latter and on 1 June 1960 made an official statement in response to Bustamante’s announcement -

‘The official decision of the Jamaica Labour Party to oppose Federation has created a new situation in Jamaica. When both parties [of the JLP and PNP] were acting together, it was right to assume that they represented the voice of the people. Now that one party, the Jamaica Labour Party, has officially resolved to oppose Federation it is right that the issue of Federation should… come before the people for decision.’

In reality, the JLP and the PNP had never acted together within the Federation. Nevertheless, Bustamante’s strategy had made this acutely apparent. Bustamante and the JLP campaigned on the lines of secession being best for Jamaica while the PNP promoted the benefits of remaining within the Federation. Manley was hugely popular and respected in Jamaica but he was fighting the populist, patriotic rhetoric of Bustamante who portrayed himself as the defender of Jamaican interests. Though given the referendum was fought on party lines, the arguments were largely immaterial to the electorate who voted according to their party affiliation. Floating voters were more likely to be swung by Bustamante’s utterances that often played to ignorance rather than Manley’s deliberated rationale for a stronger voice for Jamaica within a stronger union of the Federation.

On 19 September 1961, Jamaicans voted on the question of ‘Should Jamaica remain in the Federation of the West Indies?’ with a result of 45.9% for and 54.1% against. Jamaica would leave the Federation and become an independent state a year later on 6 August 1962. Thereafter, in what was a domino effect, the Federation soon unraveled. Dr Eric Williams, Premier of Trinidad and Tobago, realised the huge burden that would be placed upon Trinidad and Tobago within the Federation following Jamaica’s departure. Williams famously announced “one from ten leaves nought” in reference to Jamaica’s secession from the Federation leaving it untenable and Trinidad left the Federation and became independent in the same year. Subsequently, the Federation was dissolved and the majority of its composite islands eventually gained independence from Britain.

The West Indies Federation may have provided an opportunity for the region to have greater influence and prosperity as a regional bloc than it currently does. Conversely, it may have held the region under the shadow of colonialism as a design and legacy of the British Empire; something that being of the Caribbean diaspora I would greet with opposition. CARICOM (the Caribbean Community) has provided a supranational body for the region and includes states of the wider region that were not members of the West Indies Federation and shares more than just a common history of being subject to British colonialism. The wider Caribbean needs to bolster its position as a regional bloc that isn’t merely subject to the whims of America or Europe. Relinquishing irrational insularity that has held the region back politically, socially and economically would be a fitting legacy for the West Indies Federation and a representation of the regional pride and unity that should exist in the region.

Travel broadens the mind

Recently, I was fortunate to travel throughout Central America and the Caribbean. There was much I learned about the cultures of the respective countries I visited and each experience undoubtedly added to my awareness of the world. While travelling, I met several travellers who sought to do the same; to enlighten themselves with broader experiences and an appreciation of the lives of others. Though this isn’t a viewpoint that is universally shared and for some it can be very much to the contrary.

Travelling is an activity that is met with mixed perceptions. For some, it’s an opportunity to expose themselves to new experiences and cultures in an environment void of everyday stresses. For others, travel offers little benefit. Instead, it’s a pointless and often expensive exercise of inconvenience in being taken out of one's comfort zone; one where familiarity is unnecessarily eroded with no discernible rationale or benefit. Indeed, even for some who do welcome travelling, they seek to avoid as much of that unfamiliarity as possible.

I would place myself very much within the former category. Whenever the opportunity presents itself, I seek to travel. Whether it be domestically or abroad, experiencing different cultures and broadening one’s awareness is something that I would promote. It widens our perspective of the world and our appreciation of just how diverse the world is. For this to be something that one would be averse to is therefore a stance that some would struggle to understand. For many, rather than this being something that is rejected, travel isn’t an opportunity they’re afforded.

Speak to many inner city youth in deprived areas and you’ll be astounded at how insular their world is. They know their immediate community and the surrounding areas but they’ve rarely ventured beyond it. The same goes for travelling outside of their respective city let alone abroad. If their family are originally from another country where some of their extended family still reside, they may have made trips there. Otherwise, their world is incredibly small and consequently one of ignorance when it comes to being remotely worldly but this isn’t their fault. Travel isn’t an inexpensive activity and when your existence and that of your family is concerned with the here and now, going abroad is very much secondary. With airlines increasing the price of airfare during school holidays, for many families exposing their children to new places is therefore impossible (hence the number of parents who consider a fine for taking their children out of school during term time to be more favourable than paying peak fares).

Broadly speaking, I shared the aforementioned perspective in my own youth. Before going to university, some of my friends took a gap year. Yet that was largely to work and save money for the subsequent year when they would attend university themselves. Taking a gap year to travel was deemed a middle class activity that I couldn’t identify with. Not to mention, I felt doing so was something that wasn’t financially viable with other commitments. But the reality is, at the time I didn't possess the worldliness or maturity to appreciate what such a trip might afford me. Thus, it was never really up for consideration.

An opportunity to discover new places and cultures, to meet and interact with locals and fellow travellers alike and to remove myself from familiar surroundings that arguably moulded a somewhat narrow perspective at the time, is one that the more mature me laments at not having seized. Not doing so is something I long regretted and still do. In fairness, I have since attempted to make up for this by travelling whenever possible in a quest to create a gap year experience of sorts that is punctuated by annual leave and subject to the commitments of adult life.

The cost of travel is certainly a valid barrier for many. Taking a gap year to travel before university is often restricted to those from middle class backgrounds where their parents are able to bankroll the trip or at least mitigate the concern of spending what can be a huge amount of money. Alternatively, some decide to take a career break to travel where they've been afforded the opportunity to accumulate the necessary funds once working. In both instances the opportunity to travel is subject to socio-economic circumstances which creates an unfair access to the diverse experiences travel can afford. Furthermore, this merely allows the experiences and worldliness within middle class communities to blossom while within the working classes it remains narrow and stagnant. It's all the more reason why travel is so important, particularly for those whose perspective is already restricted by circumstance. Although even without the focus on the cost of travel, some would still question the validity of travelling.

I recall discussing the popularity of gap years in the UK and Europe with some American family for whom the purpose was completely lost upon. Instead of an opportunity to broaden one's mind, it was perceived as an expensive, prolonged and unnecessary ‘vacation’ that merely added to the debt that most leaving university or college are straddled with. Many would opine this to be an attitude inherent to American society given the aversion of many Americans to travel even beyond their respective state and consequently the insular perspectives of so many Americans. That said, I know worldly Americans who do refute this but it does highlight the varied appreciation of travel and how this can differ between class and culture.

Despite the popularity of travelling, for many it represents escapism from regular life that is nonetheless void of the experiences unique to the location of their respective destination. Essentially, their aim is to replicate familiar circumstances such as food and culture, albeit in different surroundings that perhaps provide a more favourable climate. It's an approach that irks me and I find somewhat offensive.

To travel to another country, with its culture awaiting to be immersed within, is a great opportunity and privilege. Nevertheless, many will reject this and would prefer to stay on a resort while declining the opportunity to interact with locals, eating local food and experiencing a culture other than their own. To go abroad and seek cuisine of your own country, rather than sample that of where you’re visiting, seems absolutely pointless but it’s a common observation. Sadly, this is something many tourist industries have cottoned on to and it’s regrettably something they’re catering for.

During my aforementioned trip, I spent time in Jamaica and opted to stay in an all-inclusive resort. The beach and overall resort was beautiful and every bit as picturesque as has been promised by the images on the website. Similarly, the service was impeccable. However, being of the Jamaican diaspora, it didn’t sit well with me that the experience being offered was one that sought to overly cater to European and North American guests in lieu of providing a quintessentially Jamaican experience. There was also a whiff of colonialism in the attempted relationship between staff and guests such as my partner and other women being referred to as “m’lady”.

It was also noticeable that guests would rarely leave the resort and opportunities to interact with locals were largely advised against by the resort staff. Conversely, a highlight of our trip for my partner, who isn’t of the Jamaican diaspora, was when I took her downtown to see the ‘real’ Jamaica with its rich vibrancy. It begs the question if tourists seek these somewhat sterile holidays. Though based on the popularity of such resorts, sadly the answer is probably yes.

To travel is to broaden one’s mind. Although it’s sadly a privilege that many aren’t able to access. But with the cultural diversity within the world, the more exposure to these experiences, the less homogenous perspectives become and the more our appreciation of the world around us is heightened. Nonetheless, the benefit of this is one that is often and regrettably overlooked by those unable to appreciate its value.

The effrontery of David Cameron's visit to Jamaica

David Cameron’s recent visit to Jamaica was the first for a British Prime Minister in 14 years. Cameron claimed that his visit was with the aim of restoring and renewing the relationship between Jamaica and the UK; a relationship that was born out of the British Empire and latterly the Commonwealth. In both instances, there is still a reciprocated affinity between some sections of the respective nations. Though for many, this is a relationship characterised by slavery, pillaging and a legacy of disdainful colonial attitudes that have permeated the diaspora and beyond.

Slavery and colonial empires will always be considered with contention and contempt by the nations that were subject to it and the subsequent generations of colonial oppressors. On the latter, this has been the basis for much of the reluctance for reparations to be paid for slavery so long after the system was abolished. After all, can generations that are indirectly connected with the ills of several generations ago be expected to atone for their ancestors? And if so, where does the recrimination stop? Looking at contemporary history, how would post-Apartheid black South Africans or the post-war Jewish Diaspora have begun the process of healing and reconciliation had they continued to seek atonement in perpetuity? Arguably, they wouldn’t be able to. However, the difference is the respective groups have received reparations and unreserved apologies from the governments of the day for the plights that have been inflicted upon them.

In 2003 Thabo Mbeki, then President of South Africa, announced that the families of Apartheid victims would receive the equivalent of $3,900. Similarly, in addition to the culturally inherent contrition many Germans hold for their country’s role in the war and the Holocaust, the German government has made reparations towards Israel and Holocaust victims, most recently €772 million for the care of elderly Holocaust survivors.

Reparations and apologies do not erase the pages of history. Nonetheless, with sincerity and acknowledgment of a country’s role in heinous transgressions, they go some way to beginning the healing process and progress for all concerned. It begins to draw a line under such events while attempting to address wrongdoings in the here and now. Alas, this seems to be something lost on David Cameron as evidenced on his visit to Jamaica.

In addressing MPs in Jamaica’s Parliament, Cameron made clear that while slavery was a regrettable event in history, the British government was unwilling to pay reparations nor make a formal apology for the UK’s role in the slave trade. But it was his language that was most telling about how unempathetic he is when it comes to the legacy of slavery –

“That the Caribbean has emerged from the long shadow it cast is testament to the resilience and spirit of its people. I acknowledge that these wounds run very deep indeed. But I do hope that, as friends who have gone through so much together since those darkest of times, we can move on from this painful legacy and continue to build for the future.”

Without context, his utterances read as if he were referring to a playground falling out between two youths. One had got the better of the other in a largely one-sided fight and subsequently their relationship was characterised by undertones of bitterness that needed to be put behind them. Yet this was all without any meaningful restorative conversations or acknowledgment that their fracas left one black and bruised with permanent injuries. While the other went home with the other’s lunch money and unscathed beyond a slight dent to their image based on a perceived lack of ethics. And that is exactly how Cameron sees slavery.

The rhetoric of “move on” was most suggestive and indicative of how removed Cameron and his Conservative government are from the issue of slavery and how it continues to permeate the black diaspora worldwide. ‘Move on’ suggests there’s nothing to dwell on or reason to continue with a respective conversation as it’s run its course. Although would anyone expect the Jewish Diaspora to ‘move on’ from the Holocaust and its legacy? Absolutely not. Were anyone to suggest so, it would be met with anger and vitriol. Therefore why should the nations that were victim to a policy from which the scars are still present ‘move on’?

Perhaps the issue of an apology and reparations for slavery is too close to home for Cameron. Indeed, both his family and that of his wife are known to have been slave owners who were handsomely compensated for their former ‘property’ when slavery was abolished in 1833. And given both come from ‘old money’, one can make of it what they will about how much those payments indirectly contributed to their current status within Britain’s elite and privileged.

One of the legacies of slavery is the negative impact on a nation’s social progress. That can be manifested in education, economic growth and democracy amongst other factors due to the vacuum that slavery and colonialism left. In turn, that leads to crime, debt and societies of restricted growth of which Jamaica is subject to. It’s therefore ironic that Cameron announced £25 million of British aid (that’s right, aid) would be used to build a prison for Jamaican criminals in the UK to be transferred to.

Given the money is coming from the British aid budget, surely a better (and more importantly appropriate) use of aid would be to build a school, a library, a hospital or even cancel debt. But instead, it’s being used to build a prison. Not only does this illustrate how blind Cameron is to the legacy of slavery that the UK has found itself home to Jamaican criminals (just as it’s found itself as home to criminals from non-black nations but the right wing media won’t suggest that), but it’s also lost on him that there was enough imprisonment during slavery. Spending British aid money on something else would have provided an opportunity to move away from a marred feature of the historical relationship between the two countries.

Cameron also announced a £300 million development package for infrastructure in Jamaica. This was probably announced within the same visit to take the sting out the colonial undertones of ‘here’s some aid to build a prison to take your criminals’. Consequently, the Jamaican government has not been as vocal as it could be on the issue of reparations and an official apology. CARICOM has established a reparations commission to push the issue of addressing the legacy of empire – something Cameron has made plainly clear isn’t on his agenda.

Reparations, apologies and resetting of ties don’t undo the legacy and the ills of slavery and empire but it’s a start in addressing them. André Wright, comment editor of the Gleaner, wrote in the Guardian that Jamaica, as is the case for other former colonies, cannot solely place blame for its misfortune at the feet of the British or their respective former colonial powers. He’s right but it’s not as simple as that.

Being of the Jamaican diaspora and the wider black diaspora, I’m acutely aware of the mismanagement of economies, acceptance of polarised wealth, corruption and neglect of education and socio-economic standards since independence in Jamaica and many former colonies. And without the necessary caveats, many would argue that it is a bed we’ve made for ourselves so we must now lie in it. While we must make the necessary efforts to address it ourselves, we cannot forget the foundation of this predicament and it squarely sits with the respective former colonial powers. Can one shoddily raise a child, neglecting and abusing it as it grows while taking what riches it has, only to abandon it when this flawed custody is no longer tenable and expect the child to do much more than survive let alone prosper? The situation is no different for the former colonies that several decades later are still struggling to fully shake off the shackles of their oppression.

David Cameron has shown on countless occasions that he is out of touch with most of the British public and now also his awareness of British history and its legacy. His perception and lack of realisation of how deep the scars of slavery run shows just that. Although his chutzpah in ‘addressing’ them suggests he either doesn’t care or is even more ignorant to the sentiments around the matter than might have previously been assumed.

Why has mainstream success evaded soca?

Along with reggae and dancehall, soca is very much the music of the Caribbean. Indeed, with its roots in Trinidadian calypso, many would argue that outside of Jamaica, soca is actually a more representative soundtrack to the region.

With Caribbean culture being exported around the world, its music has been no different. Reggae and latterly dancehall has found itself a regular and prominent feature in the pop charts of territories far beyond the Caribbean. Bob Marley is arguably one of the most celebrated musicians of all time regardless of genre. While Beenie Man, Shaggy, Sean Paul and others from the dancehall scene have experienced huge international success. Similarly, albeit with its origins in another continent, so has afrobeat as the contemporary soundtrack of the African diaspora. Yet despite the parallels, soca has struggled to achieve sustained mainstream success beyond the Caribbean.

Where Soca has seen commercial success, it’s typically been fleeting. Barbadian (or ‘Bajan’) Rupee and St Vincentian Kevin Lyttle both experienced global hits. There are of course also soca classics such as Arrow’s Hot Hot Hot that are known far beyond the soca fraternity. But despite the precedents for mainstream audiences finding soca palatable, it has otherwise been brought to unwitting audiences via watered down cover versions. Trinidad and Tobago’s Anslem Douglas first released Who Let the Dogs Out before it was covered by the Baha Men. Similarly, Alison Hinds’ Roll it Gal, a hit in the Caribbean and amongst its diaspora communities, was covered by J-Status with Rihanna and Shontelle but with a more American RnB sound. Is unadulterated soca not deemed commercially viable? And despite the examples to the contrary, why don't record labels consider soca to warrant the marketing push they’re willing to give other genres, particularly from the same region?

Where acts from Caribbean genres have found commercial success, often the characteristics of their signature sound aids this. For example, Sean Paul or Shaggy’s delivery is more melodious and less raw than say Bounty Killer’s or Mavado’s. Their cadence is often slightly slower and more significantly they use less patois and instead more standard English. Furthermore, their subjects of choice are usually more radio friendly than the Five Star General or the self-proclaimed ‘Gully God’ whose sound caters more for the core dancehall fraternity. Formulaic or otherwise, it makes for a sound that mainstream audiences are probably more comfortable with and consequently one that record labels are more willing to invest in.

For soca, the similarities are there with other acts from the Caribbean that have broken the mainstream market. Fast paced cadences are instead replaced with slowed down tempos. Not to mention a seemingly deliberate smattering of local dialect with British or American English replacing overwhelming vernacular and heavy accents. However, those who argue local dialects present a barrier to soca thriving beyond the Caribbean and its diaspora would be mistaken. Germany’s Soca Twins prove that isn't the case as they’ve managed to bring the genre to a territory whose first language isn’t even English. Furthermore, having seen them in Berlin, there isn't anything diluted about the brand of soca they play. Soca therefore needn't compromise itself and its Caribbean essence in widening its audience.

Soca doesn’t need to follow a template for commercial success. Though perhaps previously being too insular with its sound, and a reluctance to diversify in tempo and lyrical content, has worked against it in breaking the mainstream. Although this has increasingly changed. The genre has evolved to showcase its ability to produce music that isn’t just suited to carnival and party atmospheres but a variety of moods. For most genres, this diversification is often a sign of its readiness to break new markets. Nonetheless, despite soca’s commercial potential, record labels still lack the courage to push it into the mainstream.

Being born of the Caribbean, soca is accompanied with vibrant visuals and rich culture. Surely this presents a great marketing opportunity with a culture that accompanies the music - and a culture that albeit intermittently, mainstream audiences have been exposed to. As one of the largest street parties in the world (only second to Rio Carnival), Notting Hill Carnival has long held soca as its original and continued soundtrack. Similarly, the West Indian Day Parade in New York and Caribbean-inspired carnivals around the world showcase soca to the wider public. The introduction to soca is already there but the commitment and investment to capitalise on it has not been forthcoming. Record labels and media outlets either don’t see the potential or aren’t willing to take the risk in pushing a sound that they don’t feel has fully proved itself as commercially viable.

With the demise of Choice FM, Martin Jay’s Caribbean Affair has disappeared from the radio (but can still be found on www.socavision.com) and the likelihood of Capital Xtra bringing soca to its schedule is slim to none. BBC 1Xtra long removed its weekly soca show from its schedule and aside from the occasional burgeoning soca hit, soca only gets airtime during Notting Hill Carnival. As a result, soca’s mainstream exposure is lacking and only granted on an ad hoc basis. Bunji Garlin is currently getting exposure beyond the usual platforms for soca. But how long will it be until the mainstream radio stations and music channels decide they’re happy to allow another token soca hit to grace the airwaves?

In an age of physical music, soca was at a disadvantage in record sales due to the relatively small populations of the Caribbean islands it originated from. Even songs that remained popular throughout the region would not result in big record sales as the population in the region just isn’t big enough. In turn, marketing budgets would have to reflect the anticipated sales and wouldn’t support a significant push overseas. Although, in a digital era where the internet removes all boundaries from promoting music globally, hopefully soca can now get the exposure it deserves.

Soca has long been denied the opportunity to be presented to a mainstream market and showcase the soundtrack to the Caribbean. Nonetheless, as its popularity grows and the Caribbean diaspora continues to champion it, soca will continue to move toward mainstream success.

Jamaica "to di world" – the global cultural influence of Jamaica

With a population of fewer than 3 million, the extent of Jamaican influence worldwide is no small feat. Jamaican cultural influences and presence are visible in music, cooking, western vernacular, sport and beyond. Yet how has a relatively small island managed to be so far reaching in its cultural impact around the world?

Jamaican cultural icons have transcended their respective fields to become household names. Bob Marley, Jimmy Cliff and many Jamaican musicians are internationally known and have achieved iconic status within the mainstream. Similarly, the Jamaican track team has become internationally recognised beyond just athletics aficionados and sports fans. In the UK, Levi Roots’ Reggae Reggae Sauce has become a product that can be found in many households and even BBC children’s programme Rastamouse has brought a Jamaican influence, albeit stereotypically, to a preschool audience. Jamaican influences have clearly touched diverse aspects of society.

Jamaica has always commanded a presence beyond that expected for its size. Jamaica was the first country in the British West Indies to gain independence in 1962. This was following Jamaicans voting to leave the short-lived West Indies Federation in a 1961 referendum. With the British empire no longer being sustainable, largely due to World War Two having taken its toll, the Federation was considered a solution by the British to achieve eventual decolonisation in the Caribbean. At the time, it was inconceivable that a nation the size of Jamaica, and the other smaller islands in the British West Indies, could be viable independent states. However, a year after the referendum, Jamaica gained independence with most of the other islands following suit in subsequent years. Throughout contemporary history, it’s apparent that Jamaica has never perceived itself as a so-called “small island”, as it often (somewhat disparagingly) refers to the other Caribbean islands as. That posturing too underlines the explanation for the extent of how far afield Jamaican culture has managed to be exported.

The Jamaican diaspora is key to understanding the wide reaching influence of Jamaican culture. Post-war emigration from the Caribbean largely found West Indians travelling to Britain, America and Canada. With Jamaica as the largest and most populous island of the former British colonies in the region, Jamaicans made up the majority of West Indian immigrants in their respective new homes and their culture was duly exported with them. In Britain, the sizeable Jamaican diaspora has meant its influence can be found even in commonly used British vernacular. Furthermore, Jamaican culture has often influenced those within the nations the diaspora finds itself in.

Jamaican influences in Black British music are well documented and have been throughout contemporary history. Reggae was not exclusive to Jamaicans or even blacks with acts such as UB40 experiencing success within the genre. Meanwhile, ‘undiluted’ reggae from Jamaica continued to thrive while reggae infused genres such as lovers rock provided an accessibility for audiences that had no connection with the Caribbean let alone Jamaica. Similarly, Snow, a white Canadian artist, was clearly influenced by Jamaican culture as reflected in his music.

The accessibility of the culture has underpinned the success of Jamaican cultural exports that have been embraced in unlikely places. I’ve seen reggae enjoyed by natives in Thailand and witnessed the authentic dancehall (and Soca I might add) scene in Germany where there wasn’t anything contrived in seeing daggering and the nuh linga along with hearing the German DJs speaking in patois. There’s also a vibrancy and welcoming nature that is intrinsic to Jamaican culture that makes non-Jamaicans compelled to experience it even without any connection to Jamaica themselves.

This infectiousness is extended to subsequent generations of the Jamaican diaspora and there’s a pride in the culture and heritage within those of the diaspora that were born outside of Jamaica. As a second generation Jamaican and Bajan, I don’t embrace the culture of one side of my parentage more than the other. However, Jamaican culture is probably what I am more associated with by others who know my heritage.

Within my generation of second generation Jamaicans, the culture is certainly championed as strongly and proudly as it would be by those born in Jamaica. And with the size of the Jamaican diaspora, the longevity and impact of the culture is almost a given. While there are larger diasporas with similar traits, said cultures struggle to transcend to the extent of Jamaica’s, despite the island’s relatively small size and population.

China, the South Asian subcontinent and many African nations to name a few, have sprawling diasporas with subsequent generations retaining the same pride in their heritage as those from Jamaica. Yet while their respective cultures are visible, their influence has not managed to permeate mainstream society in the same way. Perhaps their size affords them a degree of insularity that prevents this. But comparatively, it indicates just how much of an unparalleled impact Jamaican culture has worldwide. Only Latin America comes close with the influence it has largely on American society. Yet to compare a continent with an island the size of Jamaica merely compounds the argument.

Jamaica’s global influence will continue to thrive with its diaspora and the vibrancy and accessibility of the culture. The influence of Jamaican culture has meant it has now positioned itself to be championed by even non-Jamaicans that have no connection or heritage with Jamaica. With the extent to which that influence has already permeated mainstream societies, it’s likely to remain a feature of cultural globalisation for some time.

Cuba is ripe for change but not quite ready for its own ‘Carib’ spring

The Arab spring was motivated by a number of factors. Rising unemployment, a disaffected population (especially amongst the educated youth), poverty, the respective governments’ poor record on human rights and government corruption all contributed to the Arab spring. An age of social networking also advanced the protests, enabling the protesters to organise and inspire others.

Across the Atlantic Ocean, another country shares the attributes that led to the Arab spring – Cuba. Cuba ticks all the boxes that lead to a disaffected population but has not experienced a revolution since that led by Fidel Castro. Reforms in early 2011 have removed many government subsidies and brought unemployment for many; hardly ingratiating the government with those Cubans already disaffected and those that expect the government to continue its paternalistic role.

An educated youth that cannot relate to what some older Cubans may consider as the halcyon days of the regime (largely contributed by the government being bankrolled by the Soviet Union), are also increasingly frustrated. Younger Cubans are disillusioned with modern day Cuba and while Cubans are restricted in using the internet, they are becoming increasingly worldly with the limited access they have. Add poor human rights and a ‘them and us’ perception of party officials into the mix and there’s little difference between Cuba and the Arab states that experienced protests and were forced into regime changes. So why is Cuba not ready for its own ‘Carib’ spring?

I previously wrote an article questioning the longevity of the Cuban revolution. Based on my experience in Cuba and the experiences of Cubans themselves, it was questionable how long the regime could survive without Fidel Castro at the helm. At the time, Fidel Castro’s ill health had not long become public knowledge. He had become notably absent from public life but was still President, even if not fully discharging his presidential duties. Now Castro has officially stepped down as President, only to be replaced by his brother Raul, the regime has seen some changes such as the reforms announced in early 2011. But fundamentally, little has changed to suggest a departure from life in Cuba under Fidel. Indeed, Fidel Castro in many ways personifies the revolution and despite any disdain for him from some Cubans, the regime is arguably more cohesive while he is still alive.

Modern day Cuba has China and Venezuela to replace the benefactor it once had in the Soviet Union. However, China is said to desire a similar approach for Cuba to that taken by its own government in moving towards a mixed economy. This might be reflected in the recent economic reforms but China will be keen to see more. The economic reform in Cuba under Raul Castro might be considered significant for Cuba but it’s not exactly a mixed economy.

Chinese and Venezuelan assistance in the Cuban economy prevents a bad situation from becoming worse. Take their assistance out of the equation and the consequent increased poverty and intolerable austerity measures would surely compel Cubans to revolt out of desperation more than anything else. So far, Cubans have not reached that level and Raul Castro will be conscious that financial support from the Chinese especially cannot be taken lightly. To assume subjecting Cubans to further poverty would not threaten the cohesiveness of the regime would be folly and naïve. Raul Castro will therefore be aware that the government cannot permit the economy worsening beyond current levels.

Further economic reform in Cuba is likely. Yet in the first instance it is likely to be out of obligation to further reduce the untenable role of the state within the Cuban economy or to satisfy Chinese desires.

As Cubans experience the impact of the economic reforms, they may develop an appetite for free market principles that the modest offerings of private enterprise are unable to satisfy. This will depend on the success of the economic reforms and the consequent standard of living for Cubans that embrace them.

Coupled with China advocating a mixed economy for Cuba, the economic reforms may unintentionally pave the way for concessions to be made. Should the government be unwilling to make such concessions as fast as Cubans desire, the reforms could even be a catalyst for vocal opposition towards the regime.

Unofficially, the Cuban economy already possessed many of the offerings that the economic reforms will bring. The black market in Cuba has long existed alongside the ‘official’ economy. Many Cubans have covertly embraced private enterprise and circumvented the state in their activities. The relaxation on buying and selling property and further sanctioning of small businesses now means the government can tax transactions in these areas which many Cubans are unlikely to appreciate. If the economic reforms put a squeeze on the black market, it will be met with indignation that could also lead to opposition towards the government.

Such scenes are nonetheless unlikely to be imminent and it is too early to assess the effect the economic reforms will have on Cubans.

Considering the similarities with the Arab spring, Cubans do have a disadvantage in their restricted use of the internet. The internet in Cuba is slow, expensive and inaccessible for most Cubans. The use of social networking sites to organise protests as seen in the Arab spring is therefore currently beyond Cubans. This limits their ability to mobilise meaningful and coordinated protests. Particularly given the stance of the Cuban authorities towards those that oppose the government, and in the context of Cuba’s record on human rights, safety in numbers is crucial for any uprising in Cuba.

The restrictions in using the internet also limit the global awareness of Cubans. Cubans largely rely on state run media and interaction with foreigners for an insight into the wider world and this has perhaps meant their ambitions are bridled by relative ignorance. That said, being able to make more money as a waiter than a doctor or other highly skilled profession, largely due to tips, makes it apparent to educated young Cubans especially that the status quo is unsatisfactory. Many young Cubans are also increasingly able to critique the regime with the increasing awareness they possess.

A significant distinction between the circumstances that led to the Arab spring and those in Cuba is the impact of the US embargo. While the traditional Cuban economic model has been proved to be unviable without foreign financial assistance, blame for Cuba’s economic woes cannot wholly be attributed to the regime.

The US embargo has had a tangible effect on Cuban society and the Cuban economy, most notably with the lack of food and medicine available in the country. The Cuban government needs little propaganda to illustrate the United States’ contribution to Cuba’s economic ills and commentators beyond the island condemn the embargo for the unjust impact it has on ordinary Cubans.

The embargo provides a convenient and somewhat justified opportunity to shift some blame for the social and economic problems in Cuba from Havana to Washington. In contrast to the Arab spring, the regime in Cuba is not wholly culpable and the Cuban government will be able to argue this as long as the embargo remains. Ironically, ending the embargo could therefore be more effective in threatening the cohesiveness of the regime than the embargo itself.

Cubans that speak candidly of their disdain for the regime express much of the frustration shown by protesters before the Arab spring. The hallmarks of dissatisfaction with the government are already apparent and have long been burgeoning amongst the Cuban population.

Speaking to younger Cubans especially, this disaffection and frustration is very evident. Like the Arab spring, any forced change in Cuba is likely to come from the educated Cuban youth. Unlike the older generation, they are too removed from the revolution led by Fidel Castro for nostalgia and blind support for the regime to compromise their outlook on the reality of life in Cuba.

Cuba appears an ideal candidate for anti-government protests on a widespread scale. But despite the parallels, Cuba faces further challenges in uprising than the Arab countries where the Arab spring took place. Nonetheless, frustration for the regime is growing within Cuba and while reform may be able to postpone further change, it cannot hold if off forever. And if the government decides against facilitating this, Cubans may eventually be compelled to demand it for themselves.

Viva la revolución? - Does the Cuban revolution have the cohesion to outlive Fidel Castro?

Regardless of who you choose to believe about the status of Fidel Castro’s health; either the US Government and anti-Castro émigrés or the Cuban Government and the Fidel Castro supporters within and beyond Cuba, it’s undeniable that Castro is in the twilight of his life at 80. Castro’s tenure as one of the longest serving heads of state in the world is likely to end sooner rather than later. With Fidel Castro having ceded power to his brother Raul Castro on 31 July 2006, it’s arguable that the elder of the two siblings may not return to power in the same capacity that he previously performed his presidential duties. Indeed, Fidel Castro may not return to power at all.

With the US Government, the Latin American bloc, commentators of the region and of course Cubans, all eagerly speculating on life after Castro, it begs the question if the Cuban revolution can continue without Castro at the helm. Will the revolution end with Castro or as Castro et al would have you believe, will the revolution live forever?

In 2006, a US envoy to Cuba held talks with Cuban officials. The US envoy, and many commentators, optimistically believed the talks could be the embryonic start of a new era in the two states’ frosty relationship. Yet upon their return to the US, the envoy conveyed that such optimism was somewhat premature given their talks with Cuban officials. According to the envoy, the Cuban officials were very reticent when it came to discussing any possible economic or political changes in Cuba. Old habits die hard and it would appear that change is not on any agenda for the Cuban Government.

Ultimately, the hegemony and longevity of the current political regime in Cuba prefigures life after Castro. Herein lies the answer to the question of the extent of cohesion to the revolution. Moreoever, is there any cohesion to the revolution in Castro’s 21st century Cuba? On a recent trip to Cuba, I found myself questioning this.

The cult of the personality is apparent in Cuba. Billboards displaying Castro’s image and banners celebrating his 80th birthday are still present from the planned celebrations last year. Castro himself was unable to attend these celebrations due to poor health.

Castro clearly personifies the revolution but a widespread adulation for him is far from perceptible. One could conjecture that the present day Cuban society, particularly the younger generation, don’t relate to Castro nor the revolution. To them, the regime of Batista is a distant history lesson. They therefore lack any reference upon which to perceive the current regime as an improvement, and a desired one at that. Instead, many Cubans yearn for a change that Castro’s Cuba cannot and will not offer them.

Prior to visiting Cuba, I was unsure what to expect with regard to support for Castro. Of course, he has his supporters and they are visible. The older generation, who may remember a time of vast social and economic inequalities and a lack of basic provisions that in today’s Cuba are readily available, are content with the current regime to say the least. They value the country’s literacy rate, the free healthcare and the provision of homes. And in many instances they attribute this to Castro and close their tales of laud for the regime with an exclamation of ‘Viva la revolucíon!’ Yet this support is not widespread.

Many of the younger generation are not as compelled to share the appreciation for Castro that is shown by many of their elders. This is largely attributed to their increasing awareness of the wider world. Furthermore, they possess an intelligence that is uncharacteristic for many developing countries where the provision of basic education is not present. However, most Cubans do not realise how fortunate they are to possess the minds upon which to opine their circumstances as below par by western standards. It is this intelligence and awareness that provides them with the ability to critique life in Cuba and to subsequently criticize it. And along with the criticism is a covert yet noticeable disdain for Castro. It appears that for both Castro and many Cubans, education has been a gift and a curse.

Interaction with tourists and the internet, access to which is limited due to the high costs, ensures Cuba is not entirely closed off from the west. CNN and other US channels are shown in hotels and, albeit limitedly, Cubans are aware of a world beyond their own shores; a world which many of them are keen to embrace. Those who glimpsed my iPod were fascinated at this small device and upon asking how much it cost, were further intrigued as to how this was an affordable item.

Consumerism and communism cannot co-exist if the two retain their core principles. In this instance, some might argue this creates a dichotomy of the iPod era vs Castro’s Cuba. The iPod era might not have won over everyone but it certainly has its supporters. In 2006, the Bush Administration approved an $80 million fund to support Cuba’s ‘transition to democracy’. Beyond orthodox political efforts, the US is likely to employ consumerism as a tactic in showing what the west has to offer under a democratic regime. Whilst this is an unfounded and idealist notion in itself, there are those in Cuba that yearn for consumerism over communism.

Conversely, there are those that don’t succumb to the allure of the trappings of capitalism. Those that are content with life in Cuba have no reason to oppose the regime. These are the individuals that will toe the line, and for now, will safeguard the revolution.

Taking the locals I spoke to as a microcosm of Cuban society, it would suggest that any cohesion to the revolution is rapidly being eroded. The reality of Cuba is that whilst everyone may have a home, it is often overcrowded with many generations including married couples. There is the provision of healthcare but the US embargo has an inevitable impact on the availability of pharmaceuticals. And whilst the revolution ensured the aforementioned would be available as free for all, Cubans must still find the money to purchase food. A low wage, particularly for those outside the tourism industry where tips can be assured to healthily supplement low pay, won’t go far. Not surprisingly, for many Cubans it’s hard to support a regime where their ability to make money for basic needs, not to mention basic luxuries, is constrained.

Free market ideas clearly go against the principles of communism. Yet in recent years, the Cuban Government have loosened state control and free market ideas have crept into Cuba’s economy with one proviso – the Government want a piece of the pie and a large slice at that. Being that Cuba is a communist state, this is hardly surprising.

Casa particulares are a popular alternative to hotels around the island and an example of Cuba’s changing economy. The scheme of casa particulares enables Cubans to rent rooms in their homes to tourists for a price that suits the pocket of the budget conscious traveller. In exchange, the casa owners pay a monthly fee to the Government to grant them this privilege. Similarly, paladares, non-state operated restaurants or eateries, have become popular for their Cuban owners and tourists alike. Again, operation of a paladare is in exchange for a tax to the Government. This tax may seem fair when compared to the tax that most individuals and businesses in the capitalist west are subject to. But this is where the problem lies – Cuba isn’t a capitalist state and many Cubans I spoke to considered these taxes to be unjust. One local bluntly told me it was unfair. Perhaps the revolution is 'muy caro'?

Illegal practice of free market ideas is punishable. Nonetheless, I encountered many Cubans willing to take this chance. For many it was because operating legally wasn’t deemed financially viable. However, I suspect that some I spoke to merely sought to circumvent the state’s ‘unfair’ taxation.

Cuba has a thriving black market. I met one local who made a living for himself this way and visiting his well-furnished home, he clearly did well from it. He told me how he had previously lost his home for illegally operating a casa and he clearly resented the Government. He spoke of his disdain for the regime and albeit not with hostility, for Castro. From others I spoke to, his tale was not unique either.

Based on my encounters with local Cubans, it’s hard to see the cohesion to the revolution having much more longevity; that is if it exists in modern day Cuba at all. Many Cubans essentially aren’t buying into communism and Castro’s regime. The romanticism that can be opined as intrinsic to Castro’s regime is becoming increasingly apparent to Cubans and from this realisation stems a frustration for the regime and Castro himself.

Indubitably, cult of the personality does play a role in Cuba, as it has done for the duration of Castro’s leadership to date. Without Castro at the helm, there are no guarantees that this will signal the end of the revolution. However, without the man himself, the revolution may never be the same again.