1. Early on (p.94). there is but a passing reference to native resistance leader, Hatuey, much less the Taino people as a whole. Does Perez's work suffer from the lost voice of the Cuban natives?
2. Perez explains that (p.17) it was easier for Cuba to foster such a close relationship with the United States for economic reasons. Thinking back to Haiti, why then, would the United States seek to partner, aid and innovate with with one nation, and brutally attack and hinder another? Could it explained away simply as American interests exploiting the cycle of Cuban rebellion and Spanish oppression, or more of a question of race?
3. Are there parallels, vis-a-vis the colonial context, to be drawn between the Cuban situation and our own, insofar as a nation that has left behind its former colonial master and primarily sought refuge with the United States?
4. Was the cultural uptake of American film and "Hollywood" culture really a prolific and one-sided as Perez described?
5. Striking is when Perez mentions that the Cuban revolution was the result of well-educated, middle class Cubans who turned to the American institutions of democracy and liberty for guidance. Considering this, is it odd that the United States would recognize Fulgencio Batista's military coup and subsequent dictatorship, especially considering how "Westernized" and cordial Cuba was to America as an institution, people and nation?
1. Perez frequently stresses the instrumentality of the English language in building connections between Cuba and the United States across many cultural forms. How does this relate to Fanon's arguments about the relationship between imperialism and language, and the power of language to shape political consciousness?
2. What do we make of the balance struck between coercion and acquiescence in the relationship between Cuba and the United States? Given Perez's focus on cultural ties, which are fostered more often through assent and acquiescence than coercion and domination, just how "imperial" does the relationship seem in the period under review? In light of the relative absence of guns used to impose U.S. American structures/will/cultural forms in Cuba, can we even classify Perez's account of the U.S.-Cuba relationship in the same category of empire-building as the U.S.-Haiti relationship?
1. Is most of this unique to Cuba? Can we think of other national contexts with a similar story, minus the revolution at the end? What are the parallels with the Canada-US relations, and what are the differences?
2. What do we make of Pérez's emphasis on Cuban participation in American cultural influence? How can we think of this in relation to Fanon, or to the White article last week? What does 'participation' mean in the context of constantly unequal power relations?
3. Do we trust that this book is about all of Cuban society, or about all Cubans equally? Could an account so purely 'cultural' ever be? Or do questions like this miss the point entirely? (b) If we do think that the book can be representative, does this speak to a relative cohesion of the Cuban nation, especially compared to Canada or even the United States?
1.) Perez often speaks of a “North American” culture rather than U.S. Culture. Does he develop this distinction and what are the contributions of modern day Mexico and Canada in this culture?
2.) As the book concludes it seems that Perez avoids casting this cultural interaction between the U.S. and Cuba as imperialism. The American consumerism was a powerful tool for contesting colonial rule in Cuba, but its imposition on Cuba's economy and culture, especially after the 1930s, led to the decline post-colonial Cuban nationalism. Throughout this process Cubans do not passively receive consumerism, they seem rejoice in its opportunities. To we have to turn to something like to “false consciousness” to gain further insight into this situation?
1. Does Perez neglect an aspect of Cuban national identity when he doesn't seem to note any particular kind of uniquely Cuban ideology as a force of change. Particularly with reference to the Cuban defeat of Spanish colonialism, was this process only understood 'on the ground' only in American terms, that is, only through consumerism?
2. Throughout the book, Perez refers to both American and North American cultural influences. Does he distinguish between the two, and what role did Canada and Mexico play in the cultural exchange with Cuba?
Often, the North was presented to Cuba as somehow valuing independence or freedom. In which ways did state control in the US parallel control in Cuba? In which ways was it made invisible?
With globalization as a material driving force for identity formation, is all identity nothing more than the collision of two (or more) existing cultures? Is every emerging expression of nationhood the place where multiple cultures meet?
When Cuba takes on certain parts of American culture such as baseball, and gives them Cuban meaning, they seem to become Cuban expressions of anti-Spanish Colonialism. Arguably, they become ‘authentically’ Cuban. Going back a few weeks to look at tourism in Jamaica, how do the two situations compare? If in Jamaica, there are imported palm trees in resorts. Are those not authentic representations of Jamaican capitalism?
sorry, just saw my second question is the same as Sean's...here's another:
3. Perez argued that interaction with the US was formative for Cuban identity. He paints a very convincing picture of why that is true, but the book begs the question: is there only one Cuban identity? Historians are usually hesitant to characterize a country as having a fixed national identity, why does Perez do this?
In the section on baseball, Perez discusses how notions of race and colour prevented African Americans and certain Cubans from being able to gain a roster spot on professional American teams. Perez also makes note of the fact that many African American players attempted to pass themselves off as Cuban in order to be admitted to the big leagues. Though Cubans still faced significant racial prejudices in professional sports what allowed for them to hold a seemingly ambiguous racial identity when it came to athletics?
What parallels can be drawn between the wave of Americanization in postcolonial Cuba at the turn of the 20th century and Americanization at the turn of the 21st century?
Perez talks about how businesses, products, comforts, mannerisms and preferences all began to portray or label themselves as ‘American’. But what does this term itself really mean? What inherently changes about an object when it is preceded by the term ‘American’?
In a few sections of the book, Perez examines the development of baseball as a part of Cuban culture, and more specifically of North American cultural exchange. What does using "baseball" as a symbol offer us in understanding the changing nature of this cultural exchange? What are the implications of using sports as a symbol for such a topic?
Throughout the text Perez considers the physical changes that took place in reaction or in conjunction to shifts in the North American and Cuban relationship. What do these physical changes (and the ideas associated with them) imply within the Cuban context? How does the physicality of these changes influence the potency of their reception?
Perez explicitly discusses the changing roles of women throughout the book but never touches so explicitly on masculinity. Judging from the study as a whole, what can we identify as shifting notions of masculinity and men's roles in Cuban society? Where these changes as emblematic as the shifting women's roles?
1. Perez, like Casey mentioned, emphasizes the importance of Cubans adapting English to suit their needs. He often does not provide English translations for the Spanish he uses. Does this help or hinder his analysis of the relationship between English and Cuban Spanish?
2. On the subject of language, one of Perez's main case studies is that Cubans substituted brand names for Spanish words. ("el Kleenex," etc.) Do we not do the same thing in English? What does that tell us about commercial culture RATHER THAN specifically 'American' culture?
1. To build on some discussion of Fanon that other people have put forward, does the Cuban agency in the process of 'Americanization' point to this as an example of assertion of one's own identity (even if it isn't what we would deem as authentic) without the use of violence provide the foundation for a critique of Fanon? Or does the 'superficiality' of it all just reinforce his arguments?
2. Juxtaposing the ways that Cubans saw themselves (as increasingly American) and the American obsession with all things "Cuban", how do we work concepts of authenticity in? Can an identity that has nothing to do with tradition or heritage that is broadly accepted and acknowledged be considered authentic?
3. Perez talks a lot about Cubans who travel to the US but never mentions any discontent or disillusionment with America at all until after the US support for Batista during the revolution. Considering the fact that America was far from perfect during this period, and these Cubans were bound to have seen things that didn't jive with their previous conceptions of what America was, how do we account for this omission within the book?
1) How do the relations with Cuba mimic or differ from American relations with Mexico? Or even with Canada, (in terms of trade, US cultural influence or 'othering')?
2) The cultural currency that is examined in the chapter 'Sources of Possession' clearly sets up the binaries of US, films and modernity versus Cuba, theatre and passivity. Is it only a one way cultural trade, even today? What does the replacement of one culture's art community by a foreign one mean in a postmodern time?
1. Early on (p.94). there is but a passing reference to native resistance leader, Hatuey, much less the Taino people as a whole. Does Perez's work suffer from the lost voice of the Cuban natives?
ReplyDelete2. Perez explains that (p.17) it was easier for Cuba to foster such a close relationship with the United States for economic reasons. Thinking back to Haiti, why then, would the United States seek to partner, aid and innovate with with one nation, and brutally attack and hinder another? Could it explained away simply as American interests exploiting the cycle of Cuban rebellion and Spanish oppression, or more of a question of race?
3. Are there parallels, vis-a-vis the colonial context, to be drawn between the Cuban situation and our own, insofar as a nation that has left behind its former colonial master and primarily sought refuge with the United States?
4. Was the cultural uptake of American film and "Hollywood" culture really a prolific and one-sided as Perez described?
5. Striking is when Perez mentions that the Cuban revolution was the result of well-educated, middle class Cubans who turned to the American institutions of democracy and liberty for guidance. Considering this, is it odd that the United States would recognize Fulgencio Batista's military coup and subsequent dictatorship, especially considering how
"Westernized" and cordial Cuba was to America as an institution, people and nation?
1. Perez frequently stresses the instrumentality of the English language in building connections between Cuba and the United States across many cultural forms. How does this relate to Fanon's arguments about the relationship between imperialism and language, and the power of language to shape political consciousness?
ReplyDelete2. What do we make of the balance struck between coercion and acquiescence in the relationship between Cuba and the United States? Given Perez's focus on cultural ties, which are fostered more often through assent and acquiescence than coercion and domination, just how "imperial" does the relationship seem in the period under review? In light of the relative absence of guns used to impose U.S. American structures/will/cultural forms in Cuba, can we even classify Perez's account of the U.S.-Cuba relationship in the same category of empire-building as the U.S.-Haiti relationship?
1. Is most of this unique to Cuba? Can we think of other national contexts with a similar story, minus the revolution at the end? What are the parallels with the Canada-US relations, and what are the differences?
ReplyDelete2. What do we make of Pérez's emphasis on Cuban participation in American cultural influence? How can we think of this in relation to Fanon, or to the White article last week? What does 'participation' mean in the context of constantly unequal power relations?
3. Do we trust that this book is about all of Cuban society, or about all Cubans equally? Could an account so purely 'cultural' ever be? Or do questions like this miss the point entirely?
(b) If we do think that the book can be representative, does this speak to a relative cohesion of the Cuban nation, especially compared to Canada or even the United States?
1.) Perez often speaks of a “North American” culture rather than U.S. Culture. Does he develop this distinction and what are the contributions of modern day Mexico and Canada in this culture?
ReplyDelete2.) As the book concludes it seems that Perez avoids casting this cultural interaction between the U.S. and Cuba as imperialism. The American consumerism was a powerful tool for contesting colonial rule in Cuba, but its imposition on Cuba's economy and culture, especially after the 1930s, led to the decline post-colonial Cuban nationalism. Throughout this process Cubans do not passively receive consumerism, they seem rejoice in its opportunities. To we have to turn to something like to “false consciousness” to gain further insight into this situation?
1. Does Perez neglect an aspect of Cuban national identity when he doesn't seem to note any particular kind of uniquely Cuban ideology as a force of change. Particularly with reference to the Cuban defeat of Spanish colonialism, was this process only understood 'on the ground' only in American terms, that is, only through consumerism?
ReplyDelete2. Throughout the book, Perez refers to both American and North American cultural influences. Does he distinguish between the two, and what role did Canada and Mexico play in the cultural exchange with Cuba?
Often, the North was presented to Cuba as somehow valuing independence or freedom. In which ways did state control in the US parallel control in Cuba? In which ways was it made invisible?
ReplyDeleteWith globalization as a material driving force for identity formation, is all identity nothing more than the collision of two (or more) existing cultures? Is every emerging expression of nationhood the place where multiple cultures meet?
When Cuba takes on certain parts of American culture such as baseball, and gives them Cuban meaning, they seem to become Cuban expressions of anti-Spanish Colonialism. Arguably, they become ‘authentically’ Cuban. Going back a few weeks to look at tourism in Jamaica, how do the two situations compare? If in Jamaica, there are imported palm trees in resorts. Are those not authentic representations of Jamaican capitalism?
sorry, just saw my second question is the same as Sean's...here's another:
ReplyDelete3. Perez argued that interaction with the US was formative for Cuban identity. He paints a very convincing picture of why that is true, but the book begs the question: is there only one Cuban identity? Historians are usually hesitant to characterize a country as having a fixed national identity, why does Perez do this?
In the section on baseball, Perez discusses how notions of race and colour prevented African Americans and certain Cubans from being able to gain a roster spot on professional American teams. Perez also makes note of the fact that many African American players attempted to pass themselves off as Cuban in order to be admitted to the big leagues. Though Cubans still faced significant racial prejudices in professional sports what allowed for them to hold a seemingly ambiguous racial identity when it came to athletics?
ReplyDeleteWhat parallels can be drawn between the wave of Americanization in postcolonial Cuba at the turn of the 20th century and Americanization at the turn of the 21st century?
Perez talks about how businesses, products, comforts, mannerisms and preferences all began to portray or label themselves as ‘American’. But what does this term itself really mean? What inherently changes about an object when it is preceded by the term ‘American’?
In a few sections of the book, Perez examines the development of baseball as a part of Cuban culture, and more specifically of North American cultural exchange. What does using "baseball" as a symbol offer us in understanding the changing nature of this cultural exchange? What are the implications of using sports as a symbol for such a topic?
ReplyDeleteThroughout the text Perez considers the physical changes that took place in reaction or in conjunction to shifts in the North American and Cuban relationship. What do these physical changes (and the ideas associated with them) imply within the Cuban context? How does the physicality of these changes influence the potency of their reception?
Perez explicitly discusses the changing roles of women throughout the book but never touches so explicitly on masculinity. Judging from the study as a whole, what can we identify as shifting notions of masculinity and men's roles in Cuban society? Where these changes as emblematic as the shifting women's roles?
1. Perez, like Casey mentioned, emphasizes the importance of Cubans adapting English to suit their needs. He often does not provide English translations for the Spanish he uses. Does this help or hinder his analysis of the relationship between English and Cuban Spanish?
ReplyDelete2. On the subject of language, one of Perez's main case studies is that Cubans substituted brand names for Spanish words. ("el Kleenex," etc.) Do we not do the same thing in English? What does that tell us about commercial culture RATHER THAN specifically 'American' culture?
1. To build on some discussion of Fanon that other people have put forward, does the Cuban agency in the process of 'Americanization' point to this as an example of assertion of one's own identity (even if it isn't what we would deem as authentic) without the use of violence provide the foundation for a critique of Fanon? Or does the 'superficiality' of it all just reinforce his arguments?
ReplyDelete2. Juxtaposing the ways that Cubans saw themselves (as increasingly American) and the American obsession with all things "Cuban", how do we work concepts of authenticity in? Can an identity that has nothing to do with tradition or heritage that is broadly accepted and acknowledged be considered authentic?
3. Perez talks a lot about Cubans who travel to the US but never mentions any discontent or disillusionment with America at all until after the US support for Batista during the revolution. Considering the fact that America was far from perfect during this period, and these Cubans were bound to have seen things that didn't jive with their previous conceptions of what America was, how do we account for this omission within the book?
1) How do the relations with Cuba mimic or differ from American relations with Mexico? Or even with Canada, (in terms of trade, US cultural influence or 'othering')?
ReplyDelete2) The cultural currency that is examined in the chapter 'Sources of Possession' clearly sets up the binaries of US, films and modernity versus Cuba, theatre and passivity. Is it only a one way cultural trade, even today? What does the replacement of one culture's art community by a foreign one mean in a postmodern time?