In Ever Faithful: Race, Loyalty, and the Ends of Empire in Spanish Cuba, David Sartorius argues that free and enslaved Cubans of African descent were able to work within Cuba’s racial system to define loyalty on their own terms in order to participate in imperial politics. In his introduction, Sartorius writes, "I try not to understand the historical actors I encounter to be theorists of loyalty in their own right: when slave-soldiers explained why they enlisted in the Spanish army; when a colonial official reinstated the militias of color after their abolition; when the editor of a black newspaper explained how racial affiliations could complement, rather than compete with, ties to Spanish rule; or the myriad instances in which Cubans themselves defined loyalty in counterpoint to the disloyalty they believed was always around the corner." Sartorius bases his argument on a series of similar case studies and I believe that he successfully demonstrates that many Cubans of color used concepts of loyalty to their advantage. That being said, I would hesitate to suggest that this was a widespread discourse or that people who used it committed to it beyond their immediate needs.
Discussing politics in the public sphere, Sartorius writes, “Activists of African descent emphasized adherence to the decorum expected in public discourse and spaces – even as they pushed their limits by advancing political projects that variously affirmed and challenged colonialism.” This recalls other instances when Afro-Cubans used colonial institutions to secure rights, such as cabildos de nacións functioning “as representative bodies for African ‘nations’ by providing political and administrative services.” Similarly, libres de color offered community spaces in which free people of color could work toward self-improvement, albeit in a limited fashion.
Sartorius writes, “The suppression and fragmentation of the history of loyalty was not exclusively the product of North American intervention…the fabric of Cuban nationalism itself worked to conceal that narrative.” Alongside this, journalists “relegated those [racial] distinctions to the private sphere, hidden from respectable public discussion.” In a way, this explains the omissions in Perez’s narrative since these elements of Cuba’s history did not serve the “the master narrative of the nation, loaded as it was with aspirations as anticipation.” Sartorius complicates this narrative in much the same way as Matt Childs or Manuel Barcia by showing that Cuban history was not a streamlined narrative toward revolution, but, like the others, his argument can exist alongside Perez’s since they each examine how people understood their history and place in society rather than attempting to present a truly objective list of events. ( )