“Don’t tell us we’re not Cuban!” How political nostalgia makes Miami and Miami makes nostalgia political
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This chapter explores how cultural memory, projected onto Miami from both sides of the Florida Straits, converges to create the imagined place of Cuban heritage in Miami that to a large degree serves as the foundation for political activism in US state- and national politics. From the Freedom Tower, where arriving Cubans from 1962 to 1974 were given assistance, to the cafés where Cuban-Americans get their “cafecitos,” Miami is awash in Cuban cultural memory. (Levine & Asís, 2000; Grenier & Moebius, 2015) The early history of the Cuban community is, however, all but non-existent in the narratives of the diaspora, which focus on the post-1959 waves of migration in response to the government of Fidel Castro. The chapter will consider the earliest campaigns to promote Miami as a city, in the 1890s, focused on entrepreneurial Cuban cigar factories, giving streets and places Cuban names and even importing building materials from Havanese houses (Sicius, 1998). Similarly, the chapter addresses the Cuban government's framing of Miami as a place outside Cuban history and finally, it highlights the subjective narratives of Cuban migrants in Miami, and their nostalgic effort to frame Miami as a Cuban place, while simultaneously maintaining ownership of the homeland of Cuba. This chapter is based on a methodology that addresses the full range of cultural memory from its canonisation (A. Assmann, 2008), through its mediation (Erll, 2011) to its reception into a subjective imagination. The latter step will be based on the analysis of a series of oral history interviews, conducted in Miami Dade County with Cuban-Americans who arrived between the Mariel Exodus of 1980 and the Balsero Crisis of 1994. These will be analysed through a method based on the work of Gunnar Olsson and his concept of cartographic reasoning (Olsson, 2007).
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".