Last PLP field study ever. This time, it is to a place where I did not expect a field study to go. Cuba, a land of revolution, culture, cigars and rum is where we went. Let me be clear in the fact that we did not go to study rum and cigars. We went to study the revolution through a series of questions come up by groups. We were then in charge of writing a sort of “coffee table” book answering our questions.

Before we delve into the assignment at hand, I would like to talk a little about Cuba itself. On our trip, we visited the renown cities of Havana, Cienfuegos, Trinidad, Santa Clara, Vinalles, and Varadero. The culture of Cuba flows through each of these cities very much (except Varadero).

Cuba in Reflection:

Cuba is one of very few countries to be communist and be only 90 miles off the coast of America, the juxtaposition of Communism. Throughout the years since its solidarity from Spain, it has gone through a couple of governments including united states control, a dictatorship, and now communist. All these changes seem to have had an adverse affect on all parts of Cuba including how 1950’s cars still roaming the streets of Cuba alongside Soviet Ladas to almost causing world war 3.

Chiefly among these quirks of Cuba is their unwillingness to work. Infrastructure is slow to change, government run concession stands refuse to sell, Cubans generally being always late, are among somethings that do not really work well in Cuba. I suppose this is mainly centered around government operated services where they do not make more money by serving people anyways, hence their lackluster attitude to provide service.

While talking to a local on the Malacon of Havana and a tour guide later on, I found out that there were many people with relatives outside of Cuba. During the exodus of Cubans leaving Cuba in the hopes of a brighter future elsewhere through the Mariel boatlift or US dry foot policy, many people where separated from their families. While some send money back after they achieve financial success, it is very difficult for their relatives in Cuba to visit because of the high cost and time to get a visa. This leaves many people away from the rest of the families for decades.

Something I found very interesting is the existence of a China town nestled deep in Cuba. Not seeing any sort of evidence that there are Chinese people with Cuban nationalities around, it is extremely strange that a Chinatown has a reason to exist there. I later found out that there was a small population of Chinese people here used for slave labor a long time ago. Their descendants in Cuba are virtually nonexistent anymore because of the years of mixing with Cubans.

We participated in the May day parade which was very cool. We paraded past Revolution Square where we got to see Raul Castro himself and his successor to president of Cuba Miguel Díaz-Canel. While there seemed to be a lot of people at the parade, we saw numerous government organizations parading rather than normal citizens which we expected would make up the majority of this parade. Even our home stay people did not come which must mean that the hype of what May Day represents is gone. Some do not really cares about the celebration of the workers anymore and want to just get by.

I have always known that Varadero is the little safe bubble for tourists that come to Cuba to relax rather than to for the culture. I did not know it was really sheltered and sectioned off from the rest of Cuba. Being 2 hours from Havana probably already discouraged Cubans anywhere near the place. The added toll to get into the vicinity of Varadero probably gave a reason for everyday Cubans not to go. The area of Varadero is really only for resorts and foreigners. There are no residential districts that regular Cubans could reside in there. It is probably like this because the whole point of Varadero is to attract tourists to feed the 2nd most profitable business in Cuba.

Back to the Project:

The question that my group (Chloe T and I) Answered was how what were the cause and consequences of the Bay of Pigs invasion in Cuba.

Below will be attatched the book that we have written on the subject.

Another day, another stab at leading my own learning. Facilitation Friday is where someone presents on a topic that they have researched. They are to teach a bit of this topic to the classmates and then throw some though provoking questions which should spark some huge debate or deep thoughts.

Me, presenting an event in the 1990’s decided to choose something close to my 2nd home town. Hong Kong caught my eye again as the prevailing topic that I want to discuss with my classmates. I decided to pick the Hong Kong handover to China event with an emphasis on the rise of Chinese power. Little did I know that this topic would draw blanks from all my classmates

I presented the topic with a summary of the events leading up to it and some significant points on how other countries viewed China after. I felt my presentation ok with some fumbling of words. As I asked my questions like “Was the handover a signal of rising Chinese power, or fading British strength”. Everyone drew a blank. I suppose it is hard for them to think deeply when we have not even learned about the topic in class yet. Then the class and I realized I was supposed to present the next week after the 1990s have been taught. I am a buffoon. Luckily some of my classmates were able to deduce some things about the event and form an answer to my questions. At the end, Mr Hughes offered a significant point, no one wanted to fight each other for the sake of the possession of Hong Kong.

Looking back on Facilitation Friday, I realized that this was more of a debate exercise devised by the teachers. I assume they wanted us to adopt different views and challenge each other with words until anyone gave up. The teachers let us know about this too but we are way too nice to question each others beliefs.

What would have changed if Nixon was in charge of the Bay of Pigs invasion? The Bay of Pigs invasion is widely known to have failed because of the lack of US support during the invasion. Kennedy, seeking a way to limit his administration’s ties to the invasion in case it failed, called off all air support which caused the loss. However, I believe if Nixon was in charge when the invasion happened, the invasion would have succeeded. Nixon’s aggression in the Vietnam war facing similar circumstances showed that he is more willing to invest force like to bombing of Hanoi to get results. This event promotes his willingness because it happened during Nixon’s Vietnamization phase which pulled out US support of the South Vietnamese. Kennedy, being a new kind of president with a different agenda than his predecessors like seeking out peace with the USSR bolstered his anti invasion decision.

Some sources:

Matthews, Christopher. “A Bay of Pigs Connection to Watergate.” SFGate, San Francisco Chronicle, 7 Feb. 2012, www.sfgate.com/news/article/A-Bay-of-Pigs-connection-to-Watergate-3112357.php.

Voss, Michael. “Bay of Pigs: The ‘Perfect Failure’ of Cuba Invasion.” BBC News, BBC, 14 Apr. 2011, www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-13066561.

In the History 12 course of PLP, it is about that time of year to blitz through nearly 100 years on history in around 2 months. In true PLP fashion of promoting learning through interest, the teachers have used a song. Its contents spell out nearly every major event that has happened in the 1900’s. This is quite incredible when the song makes sense just by spouting out headlines. From this song, we were to choose one of the headlines and answer a question that we would come up with. I decided to pick the line “China’s under martial law” from the song.

First of all, I believe this to be in direct reference to the Tienanmen Square protests of 1989. I protest for more democracy in the Chinese government by students from university. In a nutshell, the Tienanmen Square protests was caused by a myriad of reasons but the biggest of them all was students of China being exposed to the good side of democracy after suffering through economic and social hardships. Matched with the death of a prominent proponent of democracy Hu Yaobang which many students believed in a more democratic China admired to protest. Over a million people gathered into Tienanmen Square to protest. After two weeks and insistent calls for dispersal by the Chinese government, martial law was declared. Soon after, the military rolled in and pacified anyone who got in their way of dispersing the protest. People who stood in the way of the army were gunned down or rolled over by tanks.

What I really want to explore about this topic is how both the west and the Chinese turned this event into a political tool to deface each other. And finally, the unfortunate side effect it has.

The Chinese interpretation:

Immediatly after the attacks, the Chinese government gave its own perception of the events that transpired. They spoke of men armed with molotov cocktails destroying chinese vehicles and the eventual killing of these individuals out of self defense of the Chinese army. Key words are used like “Counter revolutionary” to describe the students. This was probably done to label the people who were killed as an outsider to the revolution that is communist china. Also used to describe the west, the word was also used to shove some of the blame of the riot over to the west. Another way the Chinese perceived the event was how they turned the west’s interpretation on its head. In the infamous tank man video featuring a lone student  standing infront of a column of chinese tanks. While the West declared this as a stand against the iron fist that is the chinese government, the chinese government had a different idea. Using the rest of the video which showed the column of tanks trying to drive around the man, it showed the restraint that the chinese army supposedly used and instead puts the student in the role of the one getting in the way of the right which is the government.

The above video show the Chinese tanks trying to maneuver around the man to avoid his death.

The West’s interpretation:

The west seemed to want to do at that time was see how the riot ended in a negative way. Deaths were either inflated or truthfully reported as in the thousands while the Chinese state reported a couple hundred. The west interpreted this as what seemed to be another Woodstock, a band of people gathering for a common goal of promoting their vision of life. I believe this is why the west usually condemns this event and goes to varying lengths like portraying the tank man video their way in order to promote their way of life.

A quote from the US State Department sums up the views of the event very well.

How the GPRC [government of the People’s Republic of China] decides to deal with those of its citizens involved in recent events in China is, of course, an internal affair. How the USG [United States of America government] and the American people view that activity is, equally, an internal affair. Both will be governed by the traditions, culture, and values peculiar to each.

-Declassified USA State Department document entitled “Themes” dated June 29, 1989.

In terms of the side affect that the two parties have caused, it is how the truth seems to be ever changing. I have determined this after speaking with many people from both parties. Even Chinese nationals have different interpretations of what conspired during the event, some take the hardliner Chinese government view. Others mix and match from both sides to form an answer which is acceptable because the facts it contains are from both sides. All in all, because of these sides agendas, the truth will probably be hidden and completely forgotten before long.

In conclusion, both sides did their best to skew the event their way to push a political agenda. The Chinese did it to keep the severity of the event down, the West used it to step on communism and further promote democracy in the east. The truth will never be told because at this point,  no one really knows anymore what is right or wrong in the stories people give each other. This is all due to the West and the Chinese validating their contradicting stories.