Traditional Memory –or a military strategy

Exploring the Link between Memory and the way of Writing about Colonial History in Cristina Garcia’s Dreaming in Cuban.

In Cristina Garcia’s 1992 Dreaming in Cuban, the memories of Colonization are recounted through unconventional points of view. To put it differently, Pilar and Herminia’s views of colonial history do not correspond to the traditional view of colonial history. The ‘traditional history’ of Colonization, as pointed out in the chapter ‘Memory’ of Justin D. Edwards’ in Post Colonial Literature, symbolizes “the imperial power” (Edwards 2008: 131). This metaphor expresses the fact that the traditional way of writing about colonial history is first and foremost through the colonizer’s point of view, that is to say European countries such as Spain. This traditional way of writing history consequently implies that there are traditional memories as well. In other words, these memories are Eurocentric. Throughout the use of a rhetorical question and a metaphor, Pilar and Herminia, who remember what their fathers told them about historical events, both expose the idea that these traditional memories of colonization are in fact selective memories. Choosing what should be recount and what must be occluded in term of historical events in fact reveals a military strategy of the “imperial power” (131).

Throughout the use of a rhetorical question, Pilar implies that memory interferes in the way of writing history. Traditional history then appears as a partial memory. Pilar’s father recounts her how, after “Columbus came” (García 1992: 28) in Cuba, “Spaniards wiped out more Indians with smallpox than with muskets” (28). Specifying that the infectious diseases brought by Spaniards killed more Indians than enslavement shows that Pilar’s father knowledge about the arrival of the Columbus in the unknown territory does not rely on the traditional accounts. After hearing this different account about the ‘1942 Discovery of the New World’, Pilar wonders “why [we don’t] read about this in history book” (28). By using the verb “read” (28) in her rhetorical question, Pilar challenges in fact the way to write history. Then, the term ‘history book’ referring to traditional history also questions who has the legitimacy to write about historical records. This rhetorical question thus denounces that the persons who represent traditional history, are persons who have the power. To put it differently, the legitimacy of writing history belongs to the “imperial power” (Edwards 2008: 131). By taking into account Rufino’s version, the ‘Columbus’ Arrival’ consequently appears as a ‘partial’ memory because those who have the power select what they want to remember of the world history and delete what is preferable to be forgotten. This process of erasure, as pointed out by Edward in Kincaid’s My brother, “is a way of controlling and manipulating stories about the past –stories that might challenge the legitimacy of the [imperial power]” (131). Indeed, the use of verbs such as ‘controlling and manipulating’ exposes the idea that memory influences the way to write about history. Traditional memory consequently appears as a medium which allows the colonizers to maintain power over the colonized. By asking “why [we don’t] read about this in history books” (Cristina 1992: 28), Pilar in fact dismantles this hierarchical order. In this sense, her question puts forward the idea that the term ‘1942 Discovery of the New World’ depends on which point of view is taken. Pilar’s view then refers to this date as a symbol of Colonization. Thus, traditional memory does not only appears as being subjective; it rather appears as a medium which guarantees hierarchical power.

In addition to Pilar’s rhetorical question which is against the idea that the legitimacy of writing history belongs to the colonizers, Pilar’s metaphor also emphasizes the oppressive function of traditional memory over the colonized. While Pilar denounces about the dictatorial system in Cuba, she asserts that “the politicians and the generals […] force events on [Cubans] that structure [their] lives, [and] that dictate the memories” (Cristina 1992: 138). By saying so, Pilar reveals how much Cubans’ lives were controlled by the political system. On the one hand, the metaphor “dictate the memories” (138) highlights the authoritarian power of dictatorships. On the other hand, this metaphor depicts how this political system maintained its power; by controlling the way Cuban perceived history. However, this metaphor implies that “the politicians and the generals” (138) not only controlled people’s perception of history throughout “history books” (28), but they also imposed the Eurocentric view of colonial history in Cubans’ minds. In other words, they force people to remember certain events and forget others. Even if the following example does not correspond to the same political event, the oppressive function of traditional memory is still illustrated throughout Herminia’s opinion about the way politicians dealt with “the Little War of 1912” (185). Herminia, who is Afrocuban, claims claims that “for many years in Cuba, nobody spoke of the problem between blacks and whites[, because] it was considered too disagreeable to discuss” (184-185). The exaggeration “too disagreeable” (138) intensifies the fact that it was probably forbidden to talk publicly of this racial war after it happened. This exaggeration also echoes Herminia’s anger and dissatisfaction because this war “is only a footnote in our history books” (138). Thus, as in Pilar’s case, Herminia “condemns” (Edwards 2008: 131) those who have the “imperial power” (131) because they occlude parts of history. Herminia’s opinion parallels the one of Kincaid, as both argue “that this act of forgetting has a purpose, for it erases abuse and illegitimate power and negates responsibility” (131). As Edwards puts it, the reasons why the imperial country silences past events are essentially political and moral. On the one hand, by silencing its own act of atrocity, the imperial country guarantees the legitimacy of “imperial power” (131) as already suggested. On the other hand, they do not need to take responsibility, so that “there can be no apology, reparation or forgiveness” (131). In other words, selecting memories allows the imperial country to expand its conquest. Traditional memory in Dreaming in Cuban then denounces more than its political power; it is also reveals that this imperial uses memory as a military strategy. By speaking for the marginalized, Pilar and Herminia expose the imperial country’s inhumanity and savageness and refuse to conform to the “imperial power” (131).

By taking into account the different choice of verbs and the figures of speech, Pilar and Herminia on the one hand question the Eurocentric vision of the world regarding to the way of writing and understanding history. On the one hand, they denounce that this traditional way of writing history is in fact biased by political, moral and military strategies. As emphasised throughout Edwards’ analysis of Kincaid’s My Brother, traditional memory is consequently not a reliable source of information, because of its a selection of memories. Thus, the significance of collective memory in Dreaming in Cuban is revolutionary because remembering unconventional memories decentralizes the “imperial power” (131) and consequently calls for political equality.