The San Patricios: An Irish Mexican Connection

Review of Mark Day's documentary film 
The San Patricios
The Tragic Story of the St. Patrick's Battalion 

By William H. Mulligan, Jr. *

Produced and directed by Mark R. Day, narrated by James Lancaster,
edited by Joanne Hershfield. Original music by Steven A. Yeaman 49 minutes
Day Productions

When this documentary was first released, the San Patricios were a much-neglected aspect of Irish American history and the history of the Americas generally. During the ensuing decade, they have received a great deal of attention both with the publication of books and with other documentaries, one of which was shown at the national meeting of the American Conference for Irish Studies in St. Louis, Missouri, in April 2006. At least some of the credit for rescuing the San Patricios from neglect must go to Mark Day. The story of the San Patricios is deceptively straightforward. A group of Irish immigrants who were serving in the United States army deserted and formed a unit in the Mexican army that fought against the United States during the war with Mexico. Some had deserted before the war began, - as it turned out, a salient point - and others after the war began. The generally harsh treatment of enlisted men in the US army at the time and discrimination against Irish Catholics were factors in their desertion - all accounts agree on this point. When United States forces captured them, those who had deserted after the war began were hung in an especially cold and calculated way. The leader of the San Patricios, John Riley, was from Galway and had worked on Mackinac Island, Michigan before enlisting in the army. There is not much disagreement on any of these issues. Where things begin to diverge is in how the San Patricios are viewed. The documentary makes the point that they are honoured in Mexico as heroes who fought and died for Mexico. A memorial was unveiled in Ireland honouring them while the documentary was being made. In the United States, they are often seen as traitors - when their existence is acknowledged at all. For many years, the US army apparently denied that the incident had ever happened. Clearly, the incident happened. We can debate why the US army would deny it. The motivations of the individuals in the unit for their decision, especially those of their leader John Riley; the motivation behind their harsh punishment; and what, if anything, the incident tells us about the position of the Irish in the United States, together with a range of other historical questions, are less straight forward and are subject to speculation and debate. Like many immigrants, the individual San Patricios left little behind with which to study their motivations and thoughts. However, the real question in this review is: how effectively does The San Patricios: The Tragic Story of the St. Patrick's Battalion tell its story? The answer is neither simple nor straightforward. The production values generally are first-rate. This is a well-executed, professional piece of work without question or quibble. It is sharp, clear, in focus at all times, unlike another documentary on the same topic that I had seen. There are still too many historical documentaries that do not have these basic qualities. There is a nice mix of period graphics, scholars offering facts and interpretations, and footage of battle and other reenactments that are quite well done. Visually this is a successful production. The documentary also has a clear argument that organises the information presented and structures the presentation. With the exception of Kerby Miller, the 'expert scholars' are not especially impressive. One, Rodolfo Acuña, seems to have a political agenda to champion rather than a historical interpretation to present and journalist Peter Stevens does not appear to know much about scholarship on Irish migration to the US, even allowing for the fact that the programme is ten years old, or much beyond the handed-down, popular history of the Irish in America. This raises questions about the point of the presentation - is it intended to explore a little-known episode in US history or is there a political agenda of accentuating the racism of United States society and past discrimination against Irish Americans, and even of supporting Mexican groups seeking to regain the territory lost in the war between the two countries? Neither Acuña nor Stevens provides much of historical substance nor shows any evidence of a deep knowledge of the incident itself, US military history, or the history of Irish migration to the US. Having an opinion is one thing, having an opinion based on familiarity with the relevant primary source materials and scholarship is another. There are other problems. Riley is an elusive figure and little can be said about him with certainty. The examination of his character is probably handled as well as it might be, although the uncertainties undermine a solid acceptance of the thesis advanced. More troubling is the confused way in which the history of Irish migration to the United States is presented. Many of the graphics used to illustrate life in Ireland date from after the period when Riley and the other San Patricios left. They do not show their Ireland, but a later, post-famine Ireland that was markedly different. The entire discussion of Irish emigration to the United States is confused at best, especially as it relates to the war between Mexico and the United States. Kerby Miller tries to sort it out, but the other experts do not seem to have the chronology clear in their own minds. The discussion of the idea of Manifest Destiny in the United States is weak, especially in relation to the issue of slavery. Since it was a critical factor in the war, it should be more fully and clearly developed. There are other issues, mostly small ones that could be raised. Despite these problems, the programme succeeds, to a considerable extent, in achieving its goals. The San Patricios are portrayed in a sympathetic light and the brutality of their treatment is clear. It sustains interest throughout because of its technical excellence. In raising questions and making the viewer engage with the topic and seriously weigh the material presented, even if in disagreement, it has accomplished a great deal. As a testament to the significance of the documentary, I will be using it in my military history course because its perspective needs to be considered seriously and the issues it raises discussed. William H. Mulligan, Jr. * Ph.D., Professor of History, Murray State University, Murray, Kentucky, USA Author's Reply I would like to thank Dr. Mulligan for his kind remarks about the San Patricios documentary, especially his reference to the film's production values as first rate. I would also like to thank him for his scholarly analysis of the documentary's treatment of Irish immigrants, the unjust US intervention in Mexico of 1847 and the doctrine of Manifest Destiny that to this day influences US foreign policy. This is exactly the kind of discussion that I hoped this documentary would spark. The purpose of all historical texts should be reflection on times past and how they speak to us in the present. In that spirit, I would like to share some of my thoughts regarding the ideas expressed in his review. Mulligan asks: 'Is it intended [my documentary] to explore a little known episode in US history, or is there a political agenda of accentuating the racism of US society and past discrimination against Irish Americans, and even of supporting Mexican groups seeking to regain the territory lost in the war between the two countries?' In other words, does Mark Day have a political agenda, a specific point of view, a bias? Yes, of course. Everyone operates from his/her particular bias. To deny bias becomes an agenda in itself. There is no such thing as 'pure' history. Historical facts are interpreted. And those interpretations are themselves historically contingent. The most commonly recounted history of the US, from the genocidal treatment of Native Americans through slavery and on to the military conquest of Mexico, has been the grand narrative written by the victors, not the losers. One of the chief spoils of conquest and colonisation is the power to tell the stories of history. Traditionally, these storytellers are, for the most part, white, conservative and middle-aged men who believe the lens through which they interpret the world is pure and unbiased. In other words, the normalising gaze of power hides the reality that history is always told through an ideological lens. The question that I believe to be most important is: Who benefits from this interpretation of historical facts? Not to do so belies a cultural blind spot, a blind spot born of the privilege of power. So instead of stories about resistance from Native Americans and the rebellions of slaves, we learn about the exploits of presidents and generals. Instead of life and death struggles of workers and trade unions, we are told about wealthy bankers and the golden ages of industry and commerce. And instead of learning about the humiliation of Mexico with the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1848, we are regaled with stories about the rugged individuals who tamed the West. We learn about History with a capital 'H,' but very little about the histories of the people who shaped and were affected by the onward rush of events. We seldom learn about history told from the bottom up. Historian Howard Zinn points out some examples of this historical amnesia. He writes about the glorification of Christopher Columbus as a man of skill and courage, but the omission of criticisms from contemporaries such as Fray Bartolomé de las Casas. The latter writes of Columbus: 'The admiral was so anxious to please the King that he committed irreparable crimes against the Indians' (Zinn 1990: 57). Zinn also mentions historians' omission of the Ludlow massacre of miners' wives and children by the Colorado National Guard in 1913. He suggests that it might be considered 'bold, radical, or even communist' to talk about these class struggles in a nation that prides itself on the oneness of its people. And where, he wonders, are the stories about the abolitionists, labour leaders, radicals and feminists? Zinn writes that the 'pollution of history' happens not by design, but when scholars are afraid to stick their necks out, and instead play it safe (Zinn 1990: 62; Zinn 2003). This provides strong evidence that the project of history itself is inherently political. This is why the story of the San Patricios always intrigued me. I first learned about this motley band of mostly Irish renegades from César Chávez when I worked as an organiser with the United Farm Workers Union in the late sixties. But it was due to the scholarly work of Robert Ryal Miller and his book, Shamrock and Sword (University of Oklahoma Press, 1989), that I discovered the story behind the battalion, formed by Irish immigrants in the Mexican army. Later, working on the film put me in contact with several Mexican scholars and ordinary citizens who saw the story from a totally different angle, from the viewpoint of the conquered, the vanquished. I also spoke with experts on nativism in mid-nineteenth century America. This leads to another question. Are there parallels in the nativist attacks against the Irish in US history and the resurgence of nativism against Mexican and Latin American immigrants today? I would suggest that parallels are to be found in the tendency to exploit and scapegoat newcomers, the shared colonial experience and Catholic faith, the crude stereotypes applied to both groups, and the perceived threats of immigrants to the job market and American culture, to name a few. The similarities in nativist rhetoric from that period are so closely related to the current situation that you can simply remove the word 'Irish' and replace it with 'Mexican'. Few people today would recognise the difference. But I did not make this documentary to accentuate nativism and racism. These realities come forth because they were endemic to that period, much to the dismay of those who would like to downplay them for ideological reasons. Lastly, was the intent of the San Patricios documentary to support those who wish to regain the territory that Mexico lost with the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo? Hardly. Aside from commentator Lou Dobbs of CNN and his nightly nativism, the only people talking about the so called reconquista or re-conquest of the Southwest are fringe groups like the Minutemen vigilantes and Pat Buchanan, who attract a miniscule following among ordinary US Americans. Most Mexican-Americans and Mexican immigrants, like their nineteenth-century Irish counterparts, simply want what most US Americans seek - to live in peace, to work hard and to be accepted, like everyone else. In short, they are seeking the US American dream. It has been gratifying to witness the lively discussions at the screenings of the San Patricios, to watch the interchanges between disparate groups of people, and to get feedback from students and professors who have benefited from the film. If it advances understanding about Irish immigrants in the nineteenth century and the situation in Mexico, then and today, I am more than satisfied. Mark R. Day Vista, California References - Zinn, Howard. Declarations of Independence (New York: Harper Collins, 1990), 57. - Ibid., 62. See also Howard Zinn's People's History of the United States (New York: Harper Collins, 2003).

http://www.irlandeses.org/0703dayreview1.htm

Day’s documentary on youtube

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xbIVV81c_s8



***************************************************************************

"One Man's Hero"

Verbal volleys fly over San Patricio movie

 February 16, 2011

By Ray O’Hanlon

A row has erupted over a movie depicting the exploits of Irish immigrants who fought for Mexico in the Mexican-American War of 1846-48.

The MGM-distributed "One Man’s Hero" has all but vanished from screens only a short time after it was released in selected markets in California and the southwestern U.S.

The film had its world premiere in Belfast a couple of months ago. Sinn Féin Leader Gerry Adams was one well-known figure who attended what was a highly publicized opening night.

The movie stars Tom Berenger as a leader of the Irish San Patricio (St. Patrick) Battalion of the Mexican army. Irish actor Patrick Bergin stars as a U.S. general.

But despite the presence of two well-known Hollywood actors and favorable reviews in publications, including the Los Angeles Times and L.A. Weekly, the movie is in apparent full retreat.

"It bombed. It did horribly in theaters," MGM spokeswoman Amanda Marashinski told the Echo Tuesday.

However, another account of the movie’s demise has been circulating on the internet. It suggests that the film came a cropper as a result of national sensitivities.

The internet tale alleges that MGM pulled the plug on the production because a top official in the company believed the film to be "anti-American."

"California became part of the United States as the result of the Mexican American War. Even hard-bitten old soldiers like Ulysses S. Grant thought the war a blatant land grab and a national disgrace," the web account, put out by a group of San Francisco-based Irish American activists, suggests.

The internet account continued: "An MGM executive, when asked why the company was giving the film the silent treatment, replied he considered it ‘anti-American.’"

"I find that offensive," said MGM’s Marashinski. "We advertised "One Man’s Hero" in newspapers and we had a campaign aimed at Hispanics that cost a lot of money. The audience dropped by 87 percent last weekend because the word of mouth is bad," she said.

Marashinki said that the favorable reviews had not mattered for the film which was actually made by Orion pictures. While she believed that it was still "holding on" in one or two theaters she reiterated her initial assessment. "It bombed," she said.

One veteran Hollywood observer who has seen "One Man’s Hero" told the Echo that, overall, the reviews of the picture were accurate.

While he found some scenes, one of them depicting Irish dancing, a bit wide of the mark, the filmgoer, who preferred not to be named, described "One Man’s Hero" as "a very serious effort, faithfully true, a wonderful account."

"The film started off quite slowly but the drama increased to the point that battle scenes were reminiscent of what Kenneth Branagh achieved with limited resources in Henry V," the observer said.

The film climaxes with a gut-wrenching scene in which captured San Patricio soldiers are branded and hanged as the American flag is raised before their eyes.

The film closely reflects the story of the San Patricios as documented in a recent book, "The Irish Soldiers of Mexico," written by Michael Hogan of the American School of the University of Guadalajara.

The book debunks a popular image of the San Patricios as being little more than a bunch of drunken deserters from the U.S. Army. It points out that known deserters represented only about a third of the total membership, while the majority were in fact European or Mexican citizens, and not citizens of the United States. Many of them were reacting to anti-Catholicism in the U.S. military.

One reviewer of the book, James Fogarty, wrote that Hogan’s book revealed that labeling the group as American deserters was a tactic that had been manipulated by biased historians who "ignore the fact that at least 46 known members were not deserters and that many were Irish residents of Mexico prior to the invasion of Mexico by U.S. forces."

The review added: "Hogan also indicates that declaring oneself to be Irish and Catholic in the U.S. army at that time was akin to declaring oneself Jewish in Nazi Germany, a point graphically made by the Mexican-Jewish artist, Luis Camnitzer."

https://www.irishecho.com/2011/02/verbal-volleys-fly-over-san-patricio-movie/

Film can be seen on youtube at 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EhsUrHK9t78

FIU Poll of Cuban Americans (Executive Summary)

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY of FIU SURVEY
OF CUBAN AMERICAN OPINION


The Cuban-American residents of Miami-Dade County
are evenly split on their views about the U.S. embargo
of Cuba. Half of the population favors the continuation
of the embargo and half favors cessation. Opposition
to the embargo rises to 65% among Cuban Americans
ages 18 to 39. Similarly, 60% of those arriving since
1995 oppose continuing the embargo. Among
registered voters, the same 50-50 split is evident.
(Figure Cluster 3). The rise in support for the embargo
is largely due to the apparent shifting of views of the
pre-1979 cohort. The 1959-1979 migrants increased
their antagonism to lifting the embargo by over 10%
points between the 2016 and 2018 polls.

A majority of respondents favors increasing economic
relations with the island. The expansion or maintenance
of the existing business relations receives support from
68% of the sample. As in most engagement initiatives
measured in the poll, there is a significant split between
the views of earlier arrivals (before 1980) and those who
left Cuba after 1995. The post-1995 migrants, along with
second and third generations not born on the island, are
much more likely to support the expansion of business
ties (55% and 60% respectively—Figure Cluster 4).
Figure Clusters 5 and 6 present the support for allowing
U.S. companies to sell food and medicine to Cuba.

Half of the respondents would allow investment by
American residents and citizens in the private business
enterprises emerging in Cuba. The post-1995 migrants
and those born outside of Cuba are more supportive of
increasing investment opportunities than the population at
large (59% and 69% respectively) while pre-1995 cohorts
are dead set against the idea (Figure Cluster 13).

A large majority (63%) supported the decision to open
diplomatic relations with Cuba, with post-1995 arrivals
and second and third generation Cuban Americans
strongly backing the Obama era policy shift (75% and
77% respectively). Support for the reestablishment of
diplomatic ties maintains a solid majority among all age
groups up to age 76 and above, after which it drops to
a 31% support. A majority (61%) of registered voters
express support while this figure balloons to 77% among
non-registered voters (Figure Cluster 7).

A strong majority of respondents (57%) favors the
lifting of travel restrictions impeding all Americans
from traveling to Cuba. Unsurprisingly, the newer
arrivals and those not born on the island lead the
charge in supporting unrestricted travel (68% and
69% respectively) while the pre-1980 migrants oppose
free travel by almost the same proportion (63%).
Approximately 55% of registered voters also favor
unrestricted travel by all Americans (Figure Cluster 9).
n Similarly, 65% of the respondents support the
continuation of “people-to-people” travel opportunities
currently endorsed by U.S. policy, with all age cohorts,
except for the 76 and above cohort, expressing majority
support. Sixty two percent of registered voters favor the
policy as well (Figure Cluster 11).

A majority of respondents agree with the termination
of the “wet foot/dry foot” immigration policy—52% to
41%, with 8% unsure of their views. Those coming after
1980 are lukewarm to the change of policy (only about
40% support its termination) while those leaving Cuba
before 1980 and those born outside of Cuba maintain
a sturdy base of support for its abolition (64% and 55%
respectively—Figure Cluster 8).

While the population remains Republican in its voter
registration (54%), the new arrivals and younger
voters are fueling the growth of the Independent, or
what the State of Florida officially labels “no party
affiliation” registrants (26%). The Republican turnout
was a significant factor in the midterm elections.
Approximately 70% of Cuban Americans voted for
Governor Ron DeSantis, 69% for Senator Rick Scott,
and 72% percent of the general vote for Congressional
House Representatives was in support of the Republican
candidate, even when two of three most significant races
(Shalala/Salazar and Curbelo/Murcasel-Powell) were
decided for Democrats.

When asked to list the issues that influence them to vote
for a specific candidate, the economy and jobs, health
care, gun control and taxes topped the list. A candidate’s
position on Cuba ranked dead last in motivating the
Cuban-American vote.


Full survey report here
https://sipa.fiu.edu/academics/research/2018-fiu-cuba-poll.pdf

Trump/Rubio Spin Devastates Private Sector

Trump's Cuba policy hurts private sector, new figures say

By ANDREA RODRIGUEZ Associated Press

 

JANUARY 15, 2019 — 7:45AM

TEXT SIZE

EMAIL

PRINT

MORE

HAVANA — President Donald Trump's Cuba policy is driving millions of dollars from the island's private entrepreneurs to its state-run tourism sector, the opposite of its supposed goal, according to new government figures.

Trump announced in June 2017 that he was tightening limits on U.S. travel to Cuba in order to starve military-linked travel businesses and funnel money directly to the Cuban people.

He restricted Americans' ability to travel to Cuba on their own, rather than with a tour group.* At the same time, he allowed U.S. cruise lines to continue to take passengers to Cuba, where they pay millions to disembark at military-run docks and make quick trips onshore that are generally coordinated by government tour agencies that stejrer travelers to state-run destinations.

Cuban government figures from the first full year under Trump's policy show occupancy of private bed-and-breakfasts in Havana plunged to 44 percent in 2018 after years at near capacity in the wake of President Barack Obama's start of normalization with Cuba, said Michael Bernal, commercial director for the Ministry of Tourism.

Even as the private sector suffered, U.S. travel to Cuba was growing, from 618,000 in 2017 to 630,000 last year, Tourism Ministry figures say. Most of those travelers came by ship, avoiding the confusing rules on travel to the island with package tours that are guaranteed to comply with the law.

The shift to cruises meant the average U.S. stay on the island dropped from six days to three, said Jose Luis Perello, a former University of Havana professor who studies Cuba's tourism industry.

That has had a devastating effect on owners and employees of Cuba's 24,185 private bed-and-breakfasts and 2,170 private restaurants known as paladares. They cherished U.S. travelers as heavy tippers who crammed days full of activities like classic car rides and cooking classes that put money into private hands.

David Pajon, a university professor who bought an apartment to rent in Old Havana, said he has had to drop his rates and his income has fallen 40 percent since Trump's new policy went into effect in 2017. He still was a third empty last month, the first time in three years that he wasn't fully booked in December.

"U.S.-Cuba normalization inspired a lot of people who thought this was a good business to invest their savings in," Pajon said. "And all of a sudden you have the U.S. government creating a situation that has an impact on the number of people who came, or changes the way they're coming — on cruise ships!"

The Trump measures, which were backed by Cuban-American Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, ban U.S. travelers from doing business with tourism businesses under the military-linked conglomerate known as GAESA, which runs dozens of hotels and a major tour-bus line, among others.

Instead, Americans are going to businesses run by the Tourism Ministry, but there is no reason to believe that Cuba has any difficulty transferring money within its highly centralized single-party government, said Richard Feinberg, a Brookings Institution fellow and University of California, San Diego, professor of international political economy who studies Cuba.

"Trump's policies have reduced on-island, versus cruise ship, tourism and thus harmed B&Bs as well as other private tourism-related firms including paladares and taxistas," Feinberg said. Beyond that, he said, "the only traceable impact of the Rubio sanction is to inconvenience US tourists."

The number of U.S. travelers to Cuba grew from 162,000 in 2015, the year after Obama and then Cuban President Raul Castro announced detente, to 284,000 in 2016 and 618,000 in 2017.

The overall number of travelers grew, too, from 3.5 million in 2015 to 3.7 million in 2016, 4.3 million in 2017 and 4.7 million last year.

Nonetheless, the private sector suffered.

Enrique Nunez, owner of La Guarida, perhaps Havana's best-known restaurant, said he had to cut his employees' hours last year because his revenue fell 40 percent.

"We don't understand the U.S. rules," said Bernal, the tourism official. "We heard the president's speech saying that the U.S. government supports entrepreneurs. However, that's the sector that's suffering most in Cuba."

http://www.startribune.com/trump-s-cuba-policy-hurts-private-sector-new-figures-say/504358322/

*  Wrong.  All that happened is that independent travel was transferred to the category Support for the Cuban People.  The only "restriction" is the expectation that people stay in private bed and breakfasts rather than state hotels.

Unfortunately, some people in the Administration tried to hide that and too much of the media was misled and helped to create the problem. 

Summary of instructions for independent travelers  https://tinyurl.com/FITCuba

Current legal situation  https://tinyurl.com/regsnov2017      

Tourism Increases in 2018

December 28, 2018 8:00 AM

This will be a record year for international visitors to Cuba, but barely

Duration 1:02

American travelers dismiss safety concerns while traveling through Cuba

Despite mysterious health incidents involving U.S. diplomats in Havana, American travelers say they still feel safe visiting Cuba. Matias J. Ocner

BY MIMI WHITEFIELD

mwhitefield@miamiherald.com

• • LINKEDIN
  • GOOGLE+
  • PINTEREST
  • REDDIT
  • PRINT
  • ORDER REPRINT OF THIS STORY

HAVANA 

Despite worries about the island’s recovery from Hurricane Irma, stricter U.S. travel regulations, and a mysterious ailment that affected American and Canadian diplomats, Cuba is still expected to eke out a record travel year in 2018.

When all the numbers are tallied, Cuban officials expect that the island will have received a record 4.75 million international visitors with Canada and the United States the two leading markets. Although that falls short of an ambitious target of 5 million foreign visitors, it’s still 1.3 percent ahead of the 2017 record.

But the Cuban travel industry began the year inauspiciously. During the first half of 2018, the number of international visitors was down by 5.67 percent and the number of travelers from the United States, excluding Cuban Americans who are counted in a separate category, plummeted by 23.6 percent compared to the first six months of 2017.

Bookings began to increase during the usually slow summer season and by year’s end U.S. arrivals had recovered, according to Cuban tourism officials. Visits by Americans are expected to be up by around 1 percent in 2018. Still, that’s far from the booming growth in U.S. travelers to the island by Americans after former President Barack Obama and Cuban leader Raúl Castro announced a rapprochement between the two countries in December 2014.

Cuba, however, wouldn’t have achieved any growth in international visitors if it weren’t for a 48 percent spurt in cruise ship arrivals. Cruise lines, most of which depart from the United States, have added dozens of itineraries that include stops in Cuba and by the end of 2018, cruise passenger arrivals are expected to reach 850,000.

Currently, 25 cruise ships from 17 international companies call in Cuba, Tourism Minister Manuel Marrero said Wednesday evening on the Mesa Redonda television program.

Another category that showed brisk growth in 2018 was visits by Cubans residing abroad. More than 585,600 members of the Cuban diaspora visited in 2018, a 17 percent increase over the previous year.

But while both cruise ship and diaspora arrivals pushed the number of international visitors into positive territory, both categories tend to represent lower revenue for government coffers because such visitors don’t stay in hotels or eat as many of their meals in restaurants.

But that trend was partially offset by a 35 percent increase in hotel stays by Cuban nationals, who once were barred from hotels and resorts frequented by international visitors. Just over 1 million Cubans stayed at least one night in a hotel in 2018, said Marrero. At least some of them, however, were Cuban hotel workers.

Travel analysts and Cuban officials chalked the low initial 2018 numbers up to fears that Cuba hadn’t recovered from the ravages of Hurricane Irma that raked the island’s north coast in September 2017, and confusing U.S. travel regulations under the Trump administration.

Even though Cuba made hurricane recovery in tourism areas a priority and had completed most repairs by November 2017, the blow from Irma came at a time when many travelers were booking winter vacations and it scared them away.

“Although the destination was ready in November for the beginning of the high season, the perception of the damage caused by the meteorological phenomenon continued for many travelers,” said Marrero.

Then confusing U.S. travel restrictions and advisories made American travelers think twice about visiting the island last winter season.

New regulations designed to keep U.S. dollars out of the hands of the Cuban military went into effect in November 2017. They barred Americans from carrying out direct financial transactions with 180 companies, including 83 hotels, that are controlled by Cuba’s military.

Last month, the U.S. State Department updated the restricted list, adding 30 more entities controlled by the Cuban military. Nineteen hotels — including the recently opened Iberostar Grand Packard Hotel, Havana’s second five-star hotel, and the Havana Paseo del Prado, a hotel that is still under construction — were added to the list.

Many of the hotels on the list are on the resort keys off Cuba’s north coast, which don’t attract many American travelers because the United States prohibits trips by Americans whose sole purpose is tourism, but a number of Old Havana hotels that were popular with Americans are on the list.

Perhaps taking a bigger toll was a Level 3 travel advisory issued by the Trump administration after diplomats posted to the U.S. Embassy began suffering from a mysterious ailment whose symptoms included ringing in the ears, balance problems, fatigue, nausea and cognitive difficulties. To date 26 American diplomatic personnel have been confirmed to be suffering from the syndrome, most after hearing strange sounds or pressure on the skin in their residences and three Havana hotel rooms.

It’s still unclear what caused the incidents or who might be responsible, but it was enough for the State Department to tell American travelers to reconsider trips to Cuba. On Aug. 23, however, the State Department softened the travel advisory on Cuba from a Level 3 to a Level 2 (exercise caution), a move that some travel operators say gave Americans more confidence to travel to the island.

“I was well aware and read a good deal about what happened at the embassy and the speculation as to the ailments,” said Ralph Williams, a Californian who arrived in Cuba on a recent cruise. But he said the incidents were isolated to diplomatic personnel. “I didn’t give it a second thought” when making travel plans, Williams said.

A dozen Canadian diplomats and family members also suffered similar symptoms but it wasn’t until this past April that the Canadian government declared its Havana embassy an unaccompanied post, meaning family members could no longer accompany diplomats. That was months after the U.S. had declared its embassy an unaccompanied post.

Worries about hurricane damage at the resorts frequented by Canadian tourists, as well as the health incidents, also took a toll on Canadian travel to Cuba. Canada was still Cuba’s top international market in 2018, but the number of Canadian visitors fell to 1.1 million, a 2 percent decline.

At a recent press conference, Michel Bernal, the Tourism Ministry’s commercial director, said the Canadian market was expected to rebound in 2019. The target is 1.3 million Canadian visitors, which would equal a record set in 2015.

In general, he said, recent trends have been “quite encouraging.” The target for international arrivals in 2019 is 5.1 million, which would represent 7.4 percent growth over 2018.

https://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/world/americas/cuba/article223567790.html