Homeland or Death or Homeland and Life. We return to the repeated controversy of recent weeks, the one that generated a new Vindication of Cuba because for Cubansthe question has always been one of Homeland or Death, and yet we still have a Living Cuba.

There is no better date than this March 5 to remember that 61 years ago the voice of Patria o Muerte of the Cuban people spontaneously and unanimously seconded Fidel's phrase, coincidentally also to vindicate the Cubans after the explosion of the French ship La Coubre.

We return to it because there will not be a better day to prove, beyond the feelings of Cubans and leftists that flood us, that Patria y Vida, the failed attempt at an alternative, of non-existent contradiction, was also a failure as a communication product.

Let's start with the evaluations of AdriánSoca Cardoso, graduate in Spanish-Literature Education and teacher of Language and Speech Studies at the Philology department of the Eastern University:

“When we look critically at the lyrics of the song, we understand that its essence lies in implanting new meanings to the symbols of the nation's struggle, decontextualizing them and replacing them with others opposed to the current country's project. All the resources of language and composition delve into the ideological position.

“The text develops from two great poles presented as opposites. On the one hand, an “I”, which is sustained by the use of the first person and aims to collectively by constantly mixing possessive pronouns such as my and mine with highly symbolic elements such as plot and town, with the clear intention of presenting itself as a genuine voice of the Cuban people.

“At the other end of the dichotomy there is a “you”that refers to the Cuban State, the historical and current leaders of the revolutionary process, who carry all the explicit and implicit negative references, with the purpose of provoking in the listener a position of rejection of the Government, of making it assume it as an enemy and responsible for a fictitious context, but presented in the mainstream media and on social networks as real”. 

The manipulation is then presented in such a crude and obvious way that anyone can notice it and reject it, instead of changing the symbolic slogan for the new mention of Homeland and Life, an option that Soca refers to:

“The opposition highlights the antithesis of the death-life pair, since the meanings alone provoke affiliation with the term “life”. Therefore, from the semiotic point of view, both sentences do not contradict each other, but the decontextualization of Homeland or Death and the semantic load of the term "death", compared to the term "life", make them oppose ".

However, even that purpose does not seem to be completelyachieved, since the use of different conjunctions makes us think of the Homeland as a synonym of life, in a dilemma with death, a union that could even give rise to a new phrase that exposes the idea of Homeland and Life or Death.

At the end of the day, for Cubans, that's what it has always been about, our life is only sustainable together with the Homeland, because without it, the first thing that would be left over would be us.

The intention is more than clear; however, if we talk about art, it gives the impression that the creators did not really know what they were doing. This is illustrated by the Camagüey intellectual and film critic Armando Pérez Padrón:

“In art there is a maxim that says that the rules are meant to break, but when you are aware that are getting something out of this, and to me this is not the case.

“Here is a mixture of video clip trends in which for the moment they use symbols, for the moment they try to fit what the song says, but they try to do it with the image of the singers, who also come out with an unclear background that does not show them. It favors, since all are Afro-descendants and this does not produce an effect that can positively impact the viewer.

“There is an excessive abuse of close-ups and close-ups that show an express narcissism, especially if we take into account that Yotuel, a singer who appears showing his body, has an image already known in Cuba and here the nude is used, with the first and very repeated shots that add to the subversion of the text the subversion of the image, with the aim of capturing the female audience above all, not because of what it says, but because of hisbody”.

In addition to the flaws in audiovisual production, the aggressiveness that the planes and colors fail to disguise, there is the lack of images that support the reality they want to believe, and when one is used, it does not have the necessary quality to be understood:

“Furthermore, the initial degradation of Martí's image, even in a way that looks like fire, is above all annoying for any Cuban. I am burning the image of Martí to incorporate into my imagination the figure of Washington, a symbol with a marked ideological intention.

“You don't have to be a specialist to know that if you make this change you are openly betting on ideological annexationism. At the end of the story they try to put it back together, but they are saying that to get to Martí they first had to burn the image and change it. And it turns out that Martí knew the United States, admired that nation and warned about its imperial interests; he was able to stay there, "living well" and he didn't.

“Using the figure of Martí is a total ignorance of history by young people, who are also unaware of what has happened in recent months with dead and mutilated Afro-descendants in the United States; while in Cuba we have all had the same possibilities. They themselves studied music in our academies and became famous in our cultural institutions, applauded by this people”.

Precisely, this people is the one that returns to vindications after the failed attempt to change slogans, symbols and even paradigms. Armando Pérez reaffirms it:

“You have the right to think as you want, but you do not have the right to transgress the symbols of a nation, and this Island has many symbols, but the major paradigm is Martí, for all Cubans, wherever they are.

“It is also the case with the flag, which is also an untouchable symbol in any society, everyone loves and respects it. The heroes of the United States themselves immolate themselves clinging to their flag, and they break their discourse of patriotism by incorporating into that discourse those who harassed the flag and the image of Martí.

“The video in a general sense is an act of extreme violence. They are calling for Cubans to be confronted, while what Martí dreamed and what many of us dream about is that we Cubans get along and respect each other, whatever we think.

"It is not a break with the government or the Revolution, because everyone can think as they want, but they attack the viewer." 

Both Descemer and Yotuel had proven capable of doing better things, of course, as long as they were born from them even for the market, but this does not seem to be the case. What is done under pressure to be profitable is not born or convinced.

However, the phrase itself, the biggest of the fiascos, comes to be little more than a version of Patria o Muerte. It is essentially the same, Fidel and even Martí had said it, although many did not know it.

Perhaps that is part of why that audiovisual product called Patria y Vida lacks quality and fails to disguise the grossest and most ineffective of manipulations, beyond ideologies.

Actually, the slogans have no contradiction, the contradiction here is another: each one chooses whether to give his life for the Homeland until he dies for it, or to give up the Homeland in exchange for a more comfortable life.

But let no one choose, please, to fail the country on which it intends to rise, because then it is not a question of the right or the left, but, as Marti said, of human dignity. (Image: Cubahora)