|
National Geographic
Magazine Hides a Terrible Reality Behind Beautiful Photographs
“As an elementary matter of principle, it is appropriate to take into
account the native population’s input when issuing criteria about other
countries. Particularly, when your articles carry a political agenda so
heavy, that the environmental decoration fades out immediately, as in
your “Cuba’s Wild Side” piece of propaganda.”
Reader’s comments censored by the National Geographic Magazine Forum.
By Carlos Wotzkow
Translation by Alba Herrera Rohdes
Edited by Jaums Sutton and Agustin Blazquez
I was born and raised in Cuba. I lived there for more than three decades
and it is extremely pro-USA. A very good friend, whom I’ve known for
over 20 years, fondly collected National Geographic magazines. His
collection dated back to the 1930’s and it was the most voluminous and
interesting component of his library. Many of the issues were grouped by
the year it was published, all bound in red hard-covers; and he was able
to tell you which issue contained articles related to zoology in the
Caribbean, and which mentioned Cuba.
But my friend (who has logged more than 32,000 nautical miles as a
scientist developing a great reputation) has lost his mind. After
reading National Geographic’s article, “Cuba’s Wild Side”, he started
considering that the evidence and all previous articles relating to Cuba
confirmed his suspicions, i.e., National Geographic had become a
propaganda instrument for Castro and his tourism industry. National
Geographic was acting as the official organ of the liberals in their
pursuit to end the U.S. embargo. The once prestigious magazine was no
longer worthy of occupying space in my friend’s cramped library; and
horror of horrors, he burned them!
In June of 1999, John J. Putnam published an article that at first
described very precisely the economic situation in Cuba. However, half
way through the article, the objective of the article became clear. The
problem with Cuba’s economy was not Castro’s regime, but rather the U.S.
embargo. That same month, National Geographic published his extensive
dossier. In it, Mr. Putnam writes about how well the foreigners who do
business in Cuba are doing; but fails to allow any space to inform the
readers that the brilliant director of the Center for Biotechnology and
Genetic Engineering, whom he interviewed in 1999, was dishonorably
expelled from that obscure institution, after questioning the transfer
of double-use technology to Iran and Iraq.
It’s too bad that the magazine did not investigate the 30,000 Cuban
families that work for Tabacalera, S.A. of Spain who are paid
substandard wages. God forbid that National Geographic would expose this
kind of extraterritorial slavery that exists in Castro’s Cuba!
In the summer of 2000, Peter Benchley published a dreadful article full
of lies and political manipulations as depicted in the accompanying
pictures of David Doubilet. There, National Geographic, through its
famous pages, tries to tell us that Cuba’s coral reefs had not been
altered since the 1950’s, when Benchley first visited the area. Those
species that he thought were extinct in the Caribbean as a result of
poverty, hunger and necessity were thriving in Cuban waters in
exorbitant quantities. The political message was obvious, blatant and
insulting, as well as lacking any professionalism, that it wasn’t worth
continuing to read the article. For the first time in my life, I
accepted the fact that at times National Geographic had to be filed away
in the trash bin.
National Geographic’s investigative reporters, go to great lengths to
distance themselves from the Smithsonian Institution when said
institution is under scrutiny, but waste no time allotting space to the
alleged sightings of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker , (a bird I call the
“Yeti of Cuba”, since I believe it is extinct and exists only in the
fantasies of the most obtrusive scientists of the Smithsonian
Institution). The fact that National Geographic and the Smithsonian
Institution are the American institutions that publish the most about
the existence of this species in Cuba, qualifies them as speculative
press journalists and as scientific institutions of dubious
professionalism. Behind all these false published reports, there is
nothing more than a political agenda: to describe Cuba as a paradise,
seeking to end the embargo, by arousing sympathy and interest from its
readership.
Another myth reported as truth is the one that speaks of a sunken city
at San Antonio Cape. As was expected, National Geographic wasted no time
getting an interview with Manuel Iturralde, Director of Investigations
for the Cuban National Museum of Natural History, who, just like all the
other scientists under the command of Dr. Rosa Elena Simeon, is charged
with playing up to the fantasies of the gullible Americans: “The more
the Gringos believe that beautiful things exist in Cuba, the more money
they will bring. This never fails, and we are finally meeting the budget
that not even Dr Simeon can meet.”
National Geographic should have reported about the situation of the
Black Coral in Cuba, as it did about Mexico’s in 2001. The destruction
of Cuba’s Black Coral is so well known in Cuba that I have to assume
that Cubans will have to wait twenty years for National Geographic to
declassify the results of the expedition. I cannot understand how in
their many travels through Cuban waters, these reporters could have
missed the numerous shark fins found in Cuba’s fishing fleet. In the
9,000 nautical miles I traveled there, I never once saw the
“Ferrocemento”, “Cayo Largo”, or the “Mangle Rojo” (the most widely used
vessels of Cuba’s fishing industry), without dozens of these fins drying
in the sun on the roofs of these ships.
But let’s go back to the article that drove my good friend in Cuba crazy
and who was not the only one to reduce his collection of National
Geographic magazines to ashes. In “Cuba Naturally,” which is nothing
more than the written version of Winter’s “Sight and Sound,” the first
thing that grabs your attention are the antics of a precocious child and
the anxiety as described by the author trying to snap a picture of a
crocodile leaping out of water. Nothing wrong here, except for the fact
that the bait being used for this spectacle is an endemic mammal of
Cuba. That’s right, what you see hanging from the tree is a “Hutia,” an
endemic rodent that is being threatened due the clandestine hunting by a
people who have no legal access to a diet that includes animal protein.
It is truly pitiful to see Tobi (the white-bearded biologist seen in the
photos) dedicate his time to pander to the commercial appetite of all
these restless photographers from the liberal American media. It’s
shameful that National Geographic, which speaks so well of the natural
paradise protected by Castro, had to resort to the sacrifice of an
endemic mammal in order to obtain a picture. But what’s most
embarrassing is that the article borrowed the title of the most absurd
book ever written about Cuba’s environment, and whose author, it’s worth
clarifying here, did not graze the Black Coral in order to sell it in
the black market and thus satisfy his hunger, but rather to give the
pieces of coral as gift to his American friends visiting Cuba.
If we are talking about accurate facts, then I most inform you that
National Geographic and its assigned author lied; for Cuba does not have
263 protected areas. The inaccuracy of this statement is such that it
shows supine ignorance, if one assumes that it was not misrepresented
intentionally. National Geographic and its reporter lie when they say
that 22% of Cuba’s national territory is protected. I can prove to you
that this is not the case. They lie when they say that never before had
two Bare-legged Owls been seen together in the same nest (the photo
shows a juvenile and an adult bird, which is a very common occurrence,
as I can attest to in my capacity as specialist in Cuban birds of prey).
Cuba, could not, under any circumstance, ever be compared to the
Galapagos Islands, as no international organizations are allowed to stay
and monitor, control or criticize the actions of the government there.
It’s true that the Cuban Solenodon are being pillaged by the abandoned
dogs and cats introduced in the protected areas by the local
inhabitants. But it’s also true, and National Geographic omits this,
that this is the result of the lack of environmental education on the
part of the Cuban government, which has allowed this to happen. The
Cuban Solenodon, just as the Hutia (which National Geographic uses as
bait), are also threatened by the deforestation that has taken place in
the last 40 years due to the irrational mining effected by the
government of Castro, and by the mining conducted by Sherrit
International of Canada, one of the companies profiting by doing
business with the government of Cuba, as previously mentioned by John J.
Putnam in his articles (referenced in Notes 1 and 2).
In response to the demands made by Mr. McGeeham in his e-mail, and in
relation to the proven inaccuracies found in National Geographic, I
would like to conclude with a territorial example. National Geographic
states that the Biosphere Reserve of Cienaga de Zapata consists of
15,000 protected hectares (37,064.49 acres). However, the inventory of
the International Union for the Conservation of Nature in the
Neotropical Region puts this number at 340,000 hectares (or 840,128.49
acres). This reduction in protected area seems to be the result of the
“environment license” granted by the government of Cuba to facilitate
the construction of tourist resorts in places once ecologically
protected, something taking place in all of Cuba’s natural areas.
Why is it that National Geographic and its collaborators do not report
on the apartheid imposed by Castro’s government on the Cuban people
which prohibits them to do business with or to have any access to lavish
hotels built only for foreign tourists in the “New Cuba”? How is it
possible that they do not report that Cuba’s government is the biggest
culprit in the extermination and exportation of black coral, dolphins
and sharks? Why didn’t National Geographic ask the renowned
ornithologists Jerome Jackson and Lestter Short for a picture of the
now-mythical Ivory-billed Woodpecker of Cuba? This is the bird believed
by many to be extinct for years that the Cubans suddenly suggested had
been sighted in the forests of eastern Cuba, causing a flurry of
American ornithologists with expense accounts to rush to Cuba. Why
didn’t National Geographic seek out the specialist in rare species, John
McNeely, for the location of this “endangered” species? Incidentally,
these are all colleagues of mine, who have traveled extensively in Cuba.
Why didn’t the scientists and advisors for National Geographic criticize
the assigned photographer, Steve Winter, for his use of an endemic
species as bait to procure a picture? Is this the kind of barbaric act
that National Geographic would encourage once the embargo is lifted? How
is it that such a prestigious magazine is denied the freedom to speak
about the deforestation taking place in the mountains where the all
these wonderful creatures survive? Why does a magazine known for its
rigorous editorial scrutiny of its articles, fail to confirm the numbers
cited by international organizations, instead publishing the hogwash
dictated by Cuba’s regime?
There’s only one plausible answer to all these questions: National
Geographic has no interest in publishing the truth. Is anyone at the
magazine interested in taking a few minutes to seriously confirm what
I’ve stated thus far? National Geographic is correct in justifying its
actions by stating that they are not a detective agency, but it cannot
deny, that when it comes to Cuba, its articles fall seriously short of
their heretofore reputation. The scientific literature is there, in the
best American libraries and available to all. And, if this is any
comfort to you, you can rest assured that the books and journals I have
at home which detail the truth about Cuba will not be burned.
Bienne, Switzerland
November 6, 2003 |
