With reference to these sources and your understanding of the historical context, assess the
value of these two sources to a historian studying relations between Cuba and the USA in
the years 1960/61
Overall, Source A is valuable for a historian studying relations between Cuba and the USA in
the year 1960/61 as Castro is able to clearly explain his reasoning as to why he took
measures to remove US influence/power over Cuba later leading to tense relations between
the two in the years 1960/1. The main value of the source is its content and argument. For
example, in the source, Casto describes US involvement in Cuba as turning it from a
‘Spanish colony to an American colony’ implying there was no improvement in the country's
situation and America continued to exploit them. He points out that ‘the best lands in Cuba’
and its ‘most important industries’ were all under American control making their occupation
‘favourable’ towards them but unfavourable towards Cuba and its people. This shows that
Castro as the leader of Cuba was dissatisfied with the US’s activities in Cuba; he wanted to
change this and break the cycle of exploitation of Cuba and it’s resources by America. It can
be argued that despite Cuba not being fully communist at the time of the speech (1960)
American exploitation led to the rise of socialist ideas in Cuba; An example is Castro
nationalising all the oil industries in Cuba which angered the US and damaged their
relations. Therefore, the content and argument are valuable for a historian studying relations
between Cuba and the USA in the years 1960/61 as it shows the anger felt collectively by
Cubans due to American exploitation of their industries and gives a clear insight into why
Castro removed US influence in Cuba which led to deteriorating relations between the two in
the years 1960/61. Another value of the extract in relation to the question is its provenance.
The source is taken from a speech which took place in the United States at the UN general
assembly in 1960; On this trip to the United States Castro consolidated his strong dislike for
the US due to his experiences there eventually leading to poor relations between Cuba and
the US. Castro’s ideas of America were proved when he was kicked out of the Shelbourne
Hotel due to a racist rumour that he was ‘plucking live chickens’; In response to this, famous
black civil rights activist Malcolm X welcomed Castro to Hotel Theresa where the black
community of Harlem welcomed him graciously. This experience contributed to poor
relations between the two as it consolidated his ideas that the US was a hostile nation which
was unequal towards racial minorities, therefore, pushing him away from any chance of
improved relations. His dislike of America is also shown through the fact that his speech in
America consisted of criticism towards the US; This highlights the purpose of the speech
which perhaps was to embarrass America as retribution and show that there was no chance
for allyship for them. Therefore the provenance is valuable for a historian studying relations
between Cuba and the USA in the years 1960/61 as it shows Castro’s strong condemnation
of what was happening in America regarding the treatment of minorities and the purpose of
his speech which was to criticise America both of which lead to and explains the poor
relations between the two in the years 1960/61. However, the main limitation of this extract
which hinders its value for a historian studying relations between Cuba and the USA in the
years 1960/1 is its tone. Castro carries an aggressive tone and repeatedly criticises America
for the inequality it showed to Cuba, an opinion which was shared by many of the working
class. The sense of resentment and unfairness in ‘‘favourable to the United States and ‘all
belonged to American companies’ depicts the feelings of Castro and the majority of the
people of Cuba however a limitation is that not all felt this way. There were thousands of
Cubans who strongly resisted the revolution and preferred life under the Batista regime
compared to Castro. Therefore, the tone decreases the value for a historian studying
value of these two sources to a historian studying relations between Cuba and the USA in
the years 1960/61
Overall, Source A is valuable for a historian studying relations between Cuba and the USA in
the year 1960/61 as Castro is able to clearly explain his reasoning as to why he took
measures to remove US influence/power over Cuba later leading to tense relations between
the two in the years 1960/1. The main value of the source is its content and argument. For
example, in the source, Casto describes US involvement in Cuba as turning it from a
‘Spanish colony to an American colony’ implying there was no improvement in the country's
situation and America continued to exploit them. He points out that ‘the best lands in Cuba’
and its ‘most important industries’ were all under American control making their occupation
‘favourable’ towards them but unfavourable towards Cuba and its people. This shows that
Castro as the leader of Cuba was dissatisfied with the US’s activities in Cuba; he wanted to
change this and break the cycle of exploitation of Cuba and it’s resources by America. It can
be argued that despite Cuba not being fully communist at the time of the speech (1960)
American exploitation led to the rise of socialist ideas in Cuba; An example is Castro
nationalising all the oil industries in Cuba which angered the US and damaged their
relations. Therefore, the content and argument are valuable for a historian studying relations
between Cuba and the USA in the years 1960/61 as it shows the anger felt collectively by
Cubans due to American exploitation of their industries and gives a clear insight into why
Castro removed US influence in Cuba which led to deteriorating relations between the two in
the years 1960/61. Another value of the extract in relation to the question is its provenance.
The source is taken from a speech which took place in the United States at the UN general
assembly in 1960; On this trip to the United States Castro consolidated his strong dislike for
the US due to his experiences there eventually leading to poor relations between Cuba and
the US. Castro’s ideas of America were proved when he was kicked out of the Shelbourne
Hotel due to a racist rumour that he was ‘plucking live chickens’; In response to this, famous
black civil rights activist Malcolm X welcomed Castro to Hotel Theresa where the black
community of Harlem welcomed him graciously. This experience contributed to poor
relations between the two as it consolidated his ideas that the US was a hostile nation which
was unequal towards racial minorities, therefore, pushing him away from any chance of
improved relations. His dislike of America is also shown through the fact that his speech in
America consisted of criticism towards the US; This highlights the purpose of the speech
which perhaps was to embarrass America as retribution and show that there was no chance
for allyship for them. Therefore the provenance is valuable for a historian studying relations
between Cuba and the USA in the years 1960/61 as it shows Castro’s strong condemnation
of what was happening in America regarding the treatment of minorities and the purpose of
his speech which was to criticise America both of which lead to and explains the poor
relations between the two in the years 1960/61. However, the main limitation of this extract
which hinders its value for a historian studying relations between Cuba and the USA in the
years 1960/1 is its tone. Castro carries an aggressive tone and repeatedly criticises America
for the inequality it showed to Cuba, an opinion which was shared by many of the working
class. The sense of resentment and unfairness in ‘‘favourable to the United States and ‘all
belonged to American companies’ depicts the feelings of Castro and the majority of the
people of Cuba however a limitation is that not all felt this way. There were thousands of
Cubans who strongly resisted the revolution and preferred life under the Batista regime
compared to Castro. Therefore, the tone decreases the value for a historian studying
