American singer and songwriter Lionel Richie reminds us in his song “Easy” about a universal truth that, unfortunately, too many talented people ignore to their detriment. Lionel croons “Why in the world would anybody put chains on me? I’ve paid my dues to make it. Everybody wants me to be, what they want me to be. I’m not happy when I try to fake it!”

From the time that we are toddlers, our parents start making grandiose plans for us. They try to project their unfulfilled dreams onto us. According to them, we have to pursue careers that remunerate us handsomely if we want to be successful in this world. Careers as physicians, doctors, or engineers are paramount on their lists.

But missing from their well-intentioned recommendations is the lack of consideration given for what we truly want, what we are good at, what move us to be passionate and feel alive in this world. Whereas money is important to some individuals, different drives motivate others. For example, some individuals are happy pursuing degrees in the humanities and music because these are the areas that they are gifted at. Others are interested in making a difference with the less fortunate. And some have leadership talents that lead them to fight injustices and organize the less talented into a fighting force.

One must exercise extreme caution by not telling those who seek our advice what they should or should not become professionally. Those giving advice are usually wrong in assessing the talents or lack of them in others. And if followed, their wrongful advice usually turns these individuals into failures, or unfulfilled and very unhappy individuals.

For example, how often have you seen parents who are physicians force their kids into careers in the medical profession? They assume that their children must have inherited an aptitude for science. But, this assumption flies in the face of the laws of inheritance of Gregor Mendel. One of the key precepts of Mendel’s theories is “that a trait may not show up in an individual but can still be passed on to the next generation.” Therefore, an aptitude in science may be inherited by a grandson. To steer a son or a daughter into a career in the sciences in which he/she has zero aptitude would be a disaster. It would also be unfair to the individual.

And, yet, there are others who want us to be what they want us to be for their own selfish reasons.

During my high-school years, I worked innumerable jobs to pay for my college education – from paperboy, to dishwasher, to office cleaner of federal buildings. One of the jobs that I least liked was that of short-order cook at a fast-food joint. My reason for not liking this job was that cooking has never been one of my assets. And, yet, when I approached my supervisor to tell her that I would not be coming back because I would be starting college in the fall, I was surprised by her response. In a very serious tone, she indicated that not everyone was suited to go to college; that there were many individuals who had very successful careers without having a college degree. In other words, she was telling me that I should have remained a short-order cook for the rest of my life.

But, to be fair, what the manager at the fast-food joint told me was partially true. Bill Gates, of Microsoft fame, dropped out from Harvard University and did not graduate from college. Michael Dell, the founder and CEO of Dell, Inc., dropped out of college at 19. Andrew Jackson, is most-known for being the 6th president of the United States, but was also a military governor, Army commander, an attorney, and a congressman – all without ever going to college. Steven Spielberg, the famous movie director and producer, was denied acceptance to film school and dropped out of California State University in Long Beach. But, I am not as talented as any of these individuals, and I never wavered from going to college and graduate school. This manager was willing to ruin my dreams and aspirations simply because there was a labor shortage that year, and I was the solution to her dilemma. Thank, God, that I ignored her advice!

And, then, there are the stories of Hispanic luminaries. Upon receiving a postcard from Princeton University with an X in a square indicating that admission was likely, Sonia Sotomayor shared the great news with others whom she thought would share her excitement. And she found out an important lesson in life that not everyone has your best interest at heart. Her high school guidance counselor had suggested previously some Catholic colleges that she thought suited Sonia best, but she had replied “I want(ed) to apply to Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Columbia and Stanford.” Shortly after, the school nurse approached her about the notice from Princeton, with this question: “Well, can you explain to me how you got a ‘likely’ and the two top-ranking girls in the school only got a ‘possible’?” Sonia responded to the insolent question by citing her accomplishments on the school’s forensic team and her working part-time during the school year and full-time during the summer. “I may be ranked below them, but I’m still in the top ten, and I do more than the others.” Obviously, the high school and guidance counselor did not think that this “wise Latina” would succeed in an Ivy League university, or worse, that minority students were unworthy of these educational institutions. And, yet, Sonia proved that she was ready to attend the best universities in the Nation. She graduated summa cum laude from Princeton, was selected to Phi Beta Kappa, earned the University’s Pyne Honor Prize — a singular honor awarded to a senior who has most clearly manifested excellent scholarship, strength of character and effective leadership — graduated from Yale Law School, and became the first Hispanic to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court.

And there are other stories of unfulfilled dreams that could have had a happier ending. Malcolm X graduated at the top of his junior high school class. When he confided to one of his favorite teachers that his dream was to become a lawyer, she advised him against it. She indicated that pursuing a legal career was “no realistic goal for a  n…..” Malcolm lost interest in school and dropped out. And the world lost a potential brilliant mind and a legal scholar. And Malcolm may still be alive today if he had ignored his teacher’s suggestion. We should all listen to the advice given by American poet Robert Frost, “Somewhere ages and ages hence: Two roads diverged in a wood, and I – I took the one less traveled by, And that has made all the difference.” We should all listen to our inner selves when pursuing careers that make us feel alive in a world surrounded by mediocrity! The road less traveled is the one that will enable us to make a positive difference in others.

Oh, the millennials (those born from the early 1980s to the early 2000s), the “me” generation, those who think that the planet earth revolves around them, those who demand an on-the-spot award for brushing their hair are coming of age.  Do they have what it takes to solve today’s challenges?  There are many managers who do not think so. 

Here is a wonderful saying by 19th century English novelist Mary Ann Evans (known by her pen name George Eliot) that describes wonderfully these millennials: “When we are young we think our troubles a mighty business – that the world is spread out expressly as a stage for the particular drama of our lives and that we have a right to rant and foam at the mouth if we are crossed.  I have done enough of that in my time.  But we begin at last to understand that these things are important only to one’s own consciousness, which is but a globule of dew on a rose-leaf that at midday there will be no trace of.”  Indeed, these 19th century millennials do not look much different than our 21st century types. 

As the baby boomers (those born between 1946 and 1964) retire from federal service in record numbers lately, millennials are and will remain overrepresented in the federal workforce.  And with them in charge, it is nearly impossible to tackle the big challenges of the day. 

Take for example the Hispanic underrepresentation.  While this has been a challenge since 1970, the anemic progress made since that time has been the result of the self-sacrifice of baby boomers and their doing the right thing for the benefit of all Hispanics.  Boomers know that when Hispanics are better represented in all pay grades in the Federal Government, they will be able to mentor more Hispanic applicants to rise through the ranks.  Moreover, boomers realize that a greater Hispanic representation will allow the Federal Government to better address the challenges faced by Hispanic communities throughout the Nation.  They are very much aware that to achieve these goals, they have to embrace the wisdom of the famous saying that “in unity, there is strength.” In other words, to succeed, they have to support each other, they have to submit affidavits in civil rights complaints to expose discriminatory practices when they have personal knowledge of them, and they have to make financial contributions to the legal-defense funds to litigate discrimination complaints in the administrative process and in federal courts.  This is how progress is attained.

But this is not the credo that millennials live by. They believe that the “I” comes before the “we.”  They judge their fellow employees by how useful they can be to propel them to the next promotion.  They treat work assignments as mere tools to enhance their résumés and/or get awards.  They are ignorant of the key tenet by management and leadership expert John Maxwell that “one is too small a number to achieve greatness.” With their narcissistic mindset, they will not succeed in getting the federal bureaucracy to extend a helping hand to Hispanic applicants.  With them in charge, Hispanics will remain underrepresented for the next fifty years. 

And, let me pause for a moment to clarify that when I argue in favor of a better Hispanic representation in the federal workforce, I am not arguing for the hiring of unqualified Hispanics.  To do so would do more harm than good – both for the federal workforce and for the Hispanic agenda.  This is nothing more that the wrong type of affirmative action. 

What I am talking about is the right type of affirmative action – the one that takes into consideration the qualifications of applicants.  I worked for the Federal Government for thirty-nine and a half years, and I saw with my own eyes how Hispanic applicants with top job experience and educational credentials got passed over because they were Hispanics, because they spoke with an accent, because of a false perception that they could not be trusted or that they could not become good team players.

These are all false stereotypes, but they are lethal to Hispanics who don’t get selected or promoted for these vacancies.  I saw selecting officials from other minority groups not select Hispanic applicants because they preferred to help members of their own minority groups.  This is simply unbelievable that members of other minority groups who have seen and suffered discrimination up-close would choose to discriminate against Hispanics.  They obviously had not learned that you cannot fight racism with more racism.   But this happens too often for comfort.  And, as long as millennials keep thinking only about themselves, these horrific practices will persist. And the paradigm of anemic gains for Hispanics will soon be reversed to significant losses as a result of shrinking budgets.  And no one will care and no one will notice because they think that Hispanics are not united enough to challenge these inequities. When they think of Hispanics, they think of toothless tigers.

And the majority group in the federal workforce, the white males, usually – not always — want to hire applicants who look like them, who went to the same schools, who travelled to the same places, and who practice the same past-times that they do – like playing golf.  (Like in everything else, there are exceptional white males who do the right thing by hiring qualified Hispanics).  And when outside pressures force them to change their behavior, they only hire a few token Hispanics to silence their detractors.  Rest assured that these Hispanics will never be the Marco Rubio or Ted Cruz (both, U.S. Senators) of the world!  And they expect Hispanics to be grateful for the crumbs that they offer them.  And millennials, with their “me “mentality, are powerless to fight against these unfair practices.

And, I wonder whether the same maladies that afflict millennials are not the same ones that afflict Cubans from Communist Cuba.  What Fidel and Raul Castro, the Communist dictators who have ruled Cuba with an iron fist over the last sixty years, fear the most is the group-think.  They reluctantly tolerate human-rights dissidents as long as they are small in number, but they are well aware that group-think by the Cuban population would lead to mass revolt and the toppling of the old order. 

And, yet, the majority of the Cuban population – especially the Cuban millennials – only think of solving their own problems, instead of acting in unison to bring about a Cuban spring that would abrogate all the suffering that they’ve endured under the Castro brothers. 

When they meet another Cuban at work or in social functions, what goes through their minds is what they can get out of them, how useful they can be to them.  The mere thought of helping other Cubans is foreign to them.  The example of self-sacrifice set by Cuban Founding Father José Martí of fighting against oppression to bring about a democratic government “con todos y para el bien de todos” (an all-inclusive type) does not register in the minds and hearts of these Cubans. 

In fact, they rather make the harrowing journey on homemade rafts across the shark-infested waters of the Florida Straits than joining hands with like-minded Cubans to topple the totalitarian regime.  As long as they keep looking up to Miami and not to La Habana to secure freedom and a better tomorrow, Cuba will never be free. 

In order for millennials and Cubans to succeed in achieving the lofty goals that would culminate in long-lasting change for the good of their communities, to be better represented in the federal workforce, to live in a Cuba Libre, they will have to suppress parts of themselves to fight for a larger cause.  They’ll have to evolve from a culture of self-indulgent decadence to one of noble restraint.  They’ll have to put “character” and “authenticity” on a pedestal. They’ll have to put the “we” before the “I.”

On March 8, 2017, Tucker Carlson of Fox News interviewed Senior News Anchor for Univision Jorge Ramos on the topic of immigration.   It was not a pleasant sight to see. Ramos’ bogus claim to be a subject-matter expert on matters dealing with Hispanics came back to haunt him, while Tucker’s attempt to give the impression that he had all the answers pertaining to race and ethnicity did not help him at all. Rather than being better informed at the end of the interview, the TV viewers were left more confused and angry. 

My purpose for picking up my pen and writing this op-ed is to clarify the matters that this interview should have elucidated.

Tucker started the interview by referencing comments that Ramos made back in February of 2017: “I am a proud Latino immigrant in the United States.” “There are many people who do not want us to be here, and they want to create a wall in order to separate us. But you know what, this is also our country. Let me repeat this, our country, not theirs. It’s our country.”

Ramos was obviously disingenuous by claiming that he was still a Latino immigrant, as he became a U.S. citizen in 2008. The wall that Ramos invoked was the one that President Trump wants to build along the U.S.-Mexican border to keep “illegal” immigrants from entering our country.  The President has never indicated a willingness to interfere with legal immigrants who can be fully vetted before they are allowed to resettle in the United States. By failing to distinguish between legal v. illegal immigrants, Ramos lost the same credibility that some national Hispanic organizations and liberal media outlets have lost when arguing this issue. 

Ramos continued the attack by saying “… the interesting thing is that with the Trump administration and many people who support Donald Trump, they think it is their country, that it is a white country, and they are absolutely wrong. This is not a white country, it is not their country.” As of July of 2015, the U.S. Census Bureau showed that whites made up 77.1% of the U.S. population. It is misguided, as Ramos claimed, to think that the United States is not a white country. It still is. 

Ramos would not give up. He cited a U.S. Census Bureau projection that showed that the white population will become less than 50% of the U.S. population and become a majority-minority nation in 2044. While the Hispanic population is projected to increase from 55 million in 2014 to 119 million in 2060 (an increase of 115%), the white population will still remain the largest single population group and its needs cannot be ignored – as Ramos implied. Moreover, as with all projections, there are a lot of variables that could drastically change the 2044 prediction – like a change in the 1965 immigration policy favoring family reunification to one that favors sought-after skill sets.

By mixing up the term Hispanic with race, Ramos opened himself up to a frontal attack by Tucker who pointed out that Ramos was whiter than he was and had blue eyes [while Tucker had brown eyes]. 

Tucker continued by pointing out that “Latino” seems to include Afro-Cubans, German Guatemalans, people who speak Portuguese, and non-Spanish-speaking Peruvians. The best that Ramos could do to defend himself was to define the term Hispanic/Latino as one pertaining to people who come from a region in the world (Latin America) who speak more Spanish at home than others, and who listen to Spanish-language TV networks.  This, of course, was Ramos’ own definition – not the one accepted by federal agencies or by the majority of Hispanics living in the U.S. 

Ramos ignores the fact that the longer that Hispanics live in this country, the less Spanish that is spoken at home and the less Spanish-speaking TV programs that they watch. Hispanics quickly learn that the best and quickest way to move up the opportunity ladder is to obtain fluency in the English language. And they realize that listening to Spanish-speaking TV programs hinders, rather than helps them to achieve that American dream. Perhaps, as a senior news anchor of a Spanish-speaking TV network like Univision, Ramos hopes that there will be more Spanish-speaking Hispanics in the U.S. population than non-Spanish-speaking ones. After all, this represent a matter of job security to him. 

Both Ramos and Tucker were out of their league when discussing the term Hispanic/Latino. The ethnic and racial categories included in the census questionnaire generally reflect a social definition of ethnicity and race, and not an attempt to define these categories biologically, anthropologically, or genetically. 

According to the U.S. Census Bureau and the 2010 census, Hispanic origin can be viewed as the heritage, nationality group, lineage, or country of birth of the person or the person’s parents or ancestors before their arrival in the United States. According to this definition which is derived from the one developed by the U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Hispanic/Latino refers to a person of Cuban, Mexican, Puerto Rican, South or Central American, or other Spanish culture or origin regardless of race. 

This is the way that Ramos should have answered Tucker’s questions regarding the definition of the term Hispanic/Latino. Afro-Cubans would be considered to be Hispanics/Latinos who could check any of the six racial categories listed on the 2010 census form (white; black or African American; American Indian or Alaska native; Asian; Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander; or, Some Other Race). Going on to German-Guatemalans, if the persons were born in Guatemala, they would be considered Hispanics. People who speak Portuguese would not be considered to be Hispanic/Latino, as you do not speak Portuguese in countries who trace their history and heritage to the Spanish culture. White and blue-eyed individuals are not traits that are pertinent to whether one is Hispanic/Latino. 

And, finally, non-Spanish-speaking Peruvians would be considered to be Hispanics/Latinos who most likely would indicate their racial preference to be American Indian/Alaska Native or Some Other Race. As defined by OMB, the term American Indian/Alaska Native “refers to a person having origins in any of the original peoples of North and South America (including Central America) and who maintains tribal affiliation or community attachment.”

Having made the previous analysis, let me say that the U.S. Census Bureau collects ethnic and race data that is based on self-identification. It has been conducting decennial censuses since 1790 as required by Article 1, Section 2, of the U.S. Constitution. Besides apportioning state representation, the 2010 census data is used to make decisions regarding legislation and spending on housing, highways, hospitals, schools, assistance programs, and multiple projects and programs that are key to the health and welfare of the U.S. population and economy. Therefore, any group misreporting information to the U.S. Census Bureau ends up harming the well-being of its own group, and it is for this very reason that there is such high compliance. 

Ramos moved on with a different argument by claiming that 97% of “undocumented” immigrants were good people. No one is denying that to be a fact. But as Tucker indicated, their mere presence in the U.S. illegally is a crime and ours is a nation of laws. 

Then, Tucker invoked a set of statistics that the U.S. Bureau of Prisons (BOP) – an agency of the U.S. Department of Justice – compiled as of January 28, 2017, and that showed that 14.2% of all federal inmates in the U.S. were Mexican citizens. [This figure has been updated in 2021, to 9.3%]. Ramos, in an unbelievable fashion, rebutted the BOP statistics by arguing that since 3% of illegal immigrants – compared to 6% of American citizens – committed felonies, the more immigrants that you allowed, the less crime that you would have. Ramos ignored the fact that the BOP statistics are generated by career federal employees who cannot have any political bias. By failing to address the BOP statistics, Ramos not only lost this argument, but he lost any credibility that he had left.

Tucker ended the interview by moving beyond arguments that were based on race to one that was centered on just simple fairness to American citizens. He indicated that it didn’t help an American citizen making $40,000 annually to have a bunch of illegal immigrants willing to work for $20,000 annually.  At the end of the day, it was the American citizen who was left without a job. 

It’s not surprising that civil rights champion Barbara Jordan, a Democrat from Texas and the first Southern African American woman to be elected to the U.S. House of Representatives, made the argument that “illegal immigrants” hurt the employment chances of unemployed or under-employed African Americans.

When it comes to doing an interview that will serve to illuminate a contentious issue for TV viewers, it helps to have the facts on your side. Ramos and Tucker did not do a thorough job in researching the facts, and, as a results, the TV viewers were left begging for answers to their questions. Jorge Ramos has not stopped making outrageous pronouncements on illegal immigration to the U.S.  In 2021, he stated that Americans cannot stop migration and must instead open their homeland’s borders to a huge and endless inflow of migrants. It is illogical and ungrateful individuals like Ramos that Americans must protect themselves against. See: 2021.

Dr. Armando Fleites passed away in Miami in April of 2017. He was an officer of the Second Front of Escambray, an organization that fought valiantly to topple the Batista regime and restore the 1940 constitution, and, subsequently, opened guerrilla activities in the Escambray mountains against the totalitarian regime of Fidel Castro.  

A Cuban-American friend reacted to Dr. Fleites’ obituary by saying that here was a Cuban-American who did more for the restoration of freedom to Communist Cuba by taking up arms instead of by talking a good game and failing to deliver. 

Another Cuban-American friend from the film industry opined that it is a waste of time to write articles and editorials that call for a democratic transition after over sixty years of dictatorship by the Castro brothers. 

They both subscribe to the philosophy that power is never given, rather it is taken. 

I do agree that the most effecitve and quickest avenue to bring democratic change to Cuba is through a popular uprising. When there are massive demonstrations and a general strike that paralyzes the Cuban economy, the Castro-led bureaucracy will crumble. When enough Cubans chant that they are unwilling to go along, to get along (their idea of “resolver), a brand new day of liberty and hope for a better tomorrow will rise up in the horizon. When Cubans wake up from the inertia of their long nightmare and invoke the dream extolled by President Lincoln of having a “government of the people, by the people, for the people,” the Mambises (Cuban independence soldiers who fought against Spain) in heaven will gather up to sing the Cuban national anthem.

But make no mistake about it, Cubans must end their lethargic demeanor and be their own change agents. They cannot expect a foreign government like the United States to engage in regime change for them. 

As President Donald J. Trump recently said, he was elected to be president of the United States; not president of the world. While President Trump understands well that the United States cannot afford to take an isolationist foreign policy — given its role as the bastion of the free world — he embraces a fiscally conservative posture of prioritizing the trouble spots that he is willing to focus on. This is not to say that if the Cubans took the initiative, they would not find support in the many elected officials in the Federal Government. For one, the Cuban-American congressmen/(women) would support the cause of freedom in their own homeland.

Not taking charge of the situation will bring about the continuation of the dynastic transfer of power. We saw this up close when Fidel turned over the reins of power temporarily in 2006 and permanently in 2008 to his brother Raul. In 2013, Raul, after announcing his intentions to step down from the presidency in 2018, designated former engineering professor Miguel Díaz-Canel – who bears a striking resemblance to former Major League Baseball player José Canseco — as his potential successor.  And recent remarks in 2017 by Mariela Castro Espín, Raul’s daughter, suggest that there is more than one candidate to replace her father – possibly with Col.  Alejandro Castro Espín (brother of Mariela and head of the National Defense and Security Commission) after playing a key role in the negotiations with President Obama’s team to restore diplomatic relations. As you can plainly see, there is no mention of having free elections monitored by international organizations to ensure the will of the Cuban people is safeguarded.

Nevertheless, I do strongly disagree with my friends’ assertion that the only way to help topple the Communist dictatorship in Cuba is by taking up arms.  There are men and women who are best suited for this undertaking – both genetically and by training. 

Others can be just as useful in their contributions to the freedom cause by writing articles and letters to the editor that expose the civil rights violations taking place in the Caribbean Gulag. Still others can lobby their elected leaders to impose sanctions on the Communist regime. Others, like film director Leon Ichaso, can produce films like “Bitter Sugar” that explains the helplessness of daily living by average Cubans through the saga of two lovers. Others like musician Willy Chirino can keep the hope of a Cuba Libre alive by composing songs like “Our Day is Just Around the Corner.” Still others like saxophonist, clarinetist, and composer Paquito D’Rivera continues to pen letters to the editor denouncing the atrocities that are a common occurrence in Cuba. And, let’s not forget the example set by the late Queen of Salsa Celia Cruz of never losing hope that better days were yet to come for her Cuba.

Even Cuban national hero José Martí was criticized for being a man of letters and not of action. His detractors portrayed him as a cowardly opportunist sending others off to die for his own personal aims, as one who “did not discharge his duty as a Cuban when Cuba appealed for the efforts of her children,” and who chose to “live on the savings of Tampa’s cigar workers.” His harshest critics lamented that they could not “shake [Martí’s] hand in the field” because he would “continue giving lessons on patriotism from abroad, in the shadow of the U.S. flag^1″

And, yet, there was no other Cuban who did more to free Cuba from Spanish domination – by his extensive writings, speeches, organizational skills, lobbying efforts, and mediation skills – than Martí. A testament to Martí’s efforts is the fact that he is considered the Apostle of the Cuban Revolution to this day by Cubans of all political affiliations. 

He sacrificed his health, his career, his marriage, his family for the wellbeing of his homeland. When his detractors questioned his manhood, he joined the rank of the rebels in the Cuban battlefield and died soon after – a terrible tragedy that never should have happened.  

Many Cubans have opined that the history of Cuba after it gained its independence in 1902 would have turned out differently, for the better, if Martí had not died in the battlefield. It’s hard to speculate on this hypothetical — as governing has a way of changing people’s disposition. 

But I am willing to go out on a limb and agree with the assertion that Cuban history would have seen better days if Martí had been the first president of the Cuban Republic. 

As the late U.S. President John F. Kennedy said “the problem of the world cannot possibly be solved by skeptics or cynics, whose horizons are limited by the obvious realities. We need men who can dream of things that never were, and ask why not.” Martí was such a beacon of light for the Cuban cause of freedom and liberty. His dream was cut short by the skeptics who thought that a man of action, a military man, was better suited for the role of governing. 

How sad! My hope is that we have learned the lesson that the contributions of every man and woman who dreams of a better tomorrow for Cuba are welcomed!

Footnote 1: Citation taken Professor Alfred J. López’ book: José Martí, A Revolutionary, Life, 2014, p. 259. 

Gabriel García Márquez, known to millions as simply “Gabo,” passed away on April 17, 2014, at age 87. Many praised him. Others, especially in the Cuban-American community, criticized him.

Who is right? Who is wrong? As it turns out, both of them are right – in their own way. Judging a person’s worth is never an easy undertaking because of a tendency to analyze a person from one’s own perspective. Not only is this unfair, but it is also inaccurate.

In my opinion, to do a person justice, one has to use a three-prong methodology. The analysis has to be based in a measurement of the person’s political, ethical, and contribution-to-humanity perspectives. So, let’s apply this formulaic approach to Gabo and see how he comes out.

POLITICS

Gabo leaned to the left when it came to his political views. One can argue that the genesis of his leftist ideology comes from the Banana Massacre of 1928. Gabo was only 1-year old when this incident took place, but Hispanics as a whole tend to be very nationalistic when it comes to their birthplace and don’t forget easily an affront to their country or their home town. The majority of Hispanics live in a world where the contributions of Latin America have been belittled for so long that their natural posture always tends to be a defensive one.

Gabo was born in Aracataca, a town near Colombia’s Caribbean coast. Its economy flourished until the workers of the banana plantations in nearby Cienaga went on strike in December 1928. The workers were fighting for written contracts, eight-hour work days, six-day work-weeks, and the elimination of food coupons. Rather than negotiate or mediate in good-faith with the workers, the government sent the Colombian army to end the strike. While the exact number of casualties remains in dispute, the estimates range from 47 to as high as 2,000 killed – too many to overlook quietly. The United States Government had threatened to dispatch the U.S. Marines if the Colombian authorities did not act to protect the United Fruit’s interests. Gabo never forgot this slight to his people at the hands of the Colossus of the North.

Jorge Eliecer Gaitan, a prominent liberal politician in Colombia, used his lawyerly skills to fight for workers’ rights, and demanded accountability of those involved in the Banana Massacre of 1928. While a presidential candidate, Gaitan was assassinated on April 9, 1948. This incident triggered a 10-hour riot, popularly known as the “Bogotazo,” that resulted in 3,000 to 5,000 deaths and thousands injured. While many conspiracy theories emerged for Gaitan’s assassination, one points the finger at the CIA. It is not farfetched to conclude that this turn of events caused Gabo to become more anti-American.

The next step in his political development came as no surprise. Anyone who stood up and spoke truth to the powerful North Americans became a natural ally of Gabo. Thus, he befriended Fidel Castro, who returned the favor by making Gabo a member of his inner-circle. Fidel ensured that Gabo led a VIP life in Cuba by gifting him a mansion and a Mercedes, while Gabo authored articles that portrayed Fidel’s exploits in the best light and criticized Washington’s interventions in Vietnam and Chile.

Both men used hyperbole to compliment each other. Fidel once referred to Gabo as a man with “the goodness of a child and a cosmic talent.” Gabo praised Fidel for “his love of verbs, his power of seduction.”

Gabo was also not impressed during his many stays in Europe. His writings reflected his belief that Europeans looked down on Latin Americans despite the fact that European societies were in decline. To make his point, he indicated in one of his speeches that Europeans “insist on measuring us with the yardstick that they use for themselves, forgetting that the ravages of life are not the same for all, and that the quest for our own identity is just as arduous and bloody for us as it was for them.”

In essence, Gabo’s close friendship with Fidel emanated from his strong commitment with the poor and the weak against national oppression in the 1970’s — together with the foreign exploitation in the region that re-ignited his anti-Yankee feelings that he had acquired during his youth.

ETHICS

A dictator is someone who reaches power by force, by ignoring the will of the people. To quote Malcolm X, they believe in attaining power “by all means necessary,” and staying in power for as long as it is feasible “by all means necessary.” To meet their objectives, they resort to force and torture to subjugate their detractors. History has seen its share of dictators from the right and from the left. Both have oppressed the people whom they were supposed to look after.

Gabo, like many Latin-American intellectuals, suffered the bad habit of criticizing right-wing dictators, while ignoring the human-rights abuses of left-wing dictators. While bitterly opposing General Augusto Pinochet of Chile, he befriended Fidel Castro of Cuba.

It is morally unethical to choose sides when deciding which dictator to embrace. One who is honest to his/her ideals must oppose both types of dictators, as both have robbed their people of the right to choose their own destinies. Therefore, Gabo’s critics are justified in their criticism of him for his double-standard.

Those Cuban-Americans who have harshly criticized Gabo for his immense lack of judgment in befriending Fidel Castro cannot be ignored. Fidel came to power by force in 1959 and ruled Cuba with an iron fist until turning over the reins of power, without holding elections,  to his brother Raul in 2008. Food shortages, low wages, absence of labor unions, high prostitution rate, and constant harassment and mysterious deaths or long prison sentences of dissidents have been the law of the land during the reign of the Castro brothers. The long-suffering Cubans have not seen a “Cuba Libre” in over sixty years!

It is difficult to ignore the fact that the same abuses that molded Gabo’s political views during the Banana Massacre in 1928 are the same ones that the Castro brothers are guilty of.

When Jorge Ramos, the controversial news anchor for Univision, asked Gabo to explain his friendship with Fidel Castro, it was Gabo’s wife Mercedes who responded for both. She indicated that “We have known him [Fidel] for a long time.” “He’s our friend; it’s too late to change now.”

It is never too late to change in the pursuit of justice.

CONSTRIBUTIONS TO HUMANITY

Gabo became the first Colombian to win the Nobel Prize for Literature in 1982, and the first South American to do so since Pablo Neruda in 1971.

“One Hundred Years of Solitude,” his most famous novel, has been translated into more than 25 languages, and sold more than 50 million copies. Pablo Neruda described the novel as “the greatest revelation in the Spanish language since Don Quijote of Cervantes.” The Spanish Royal Academy, the final authority of the Spanish language, issued a special edition of the novel during its 40th anniversary – a feat done for just one other book, Cervantes’ “Don Quijote.”

Heads of states and famous writers mourned Gabo’s death. Colombian President Juan Manuel Santos said “A thousand years of loneliness and sadness for the death of the greatest Colombian of all time!” President Barack Obama stated “With the passing of Gabriel Garcia Marquez, the world has lost one of its greatest visionary writers.” Peruvian author Mario Vargas Llosa, who feuded with Gabo in the past, admitted that “A great man has died, one whose works gave the literature of our language great reach and prestige.” And British novelist Ian McEwan explained that “one would really have to go back to Dickens to find a writer of the highest literary quality who commanded such extraordinary power over whole populations.”

CONCLUSION

One can understand Gabo’s political views by studying how he acquired them. Some may agree with them, while others may object to them. Everyone has the right to his/her opinions in the “free” world of ideas. But, understanding and agreeing are two different things. Those who praise him and those who criticize Gabo may understand how he acquired his left-wing views, while disagreeing on how to judge him.

On the other hand, it is impossible to justify Gabo’s criticism of right-wing dictators and his solidarity with left-wing totalitarian dictators like Fidel Castro. Often, loyalty and friendship are incompatible with ethically-consistent demeanor. When the two do not intersect, one must choose the right path, the road less traveled. Gabo chose the wrong path, the easier path.

In conclusion, if we are to assess Gabo on the three aspects of his life – his political views, ethical behavior, and contributions to humanity – there is little doubt that his literary contributions were enormous and long lasting. They surpassed his political views and moral compass. He was a giant in the literary world, and he brought long-denied recognition to the men and women of letters of Latin America.