Conversations at Sonia Flew
Posted by Martha Lavey on 12/18/2006
We opened Sonia Flew, a new play by Melinda Lopez, last Sunday. I’ve had the pleasure of leading several of the post-show conversations through the preview process and look forward to conducting more of them throughout the run. David New, our Associate Artistic Director, who leads the majority of the post-show conversations, and I have discussed the responses of our audiences to the play. I can’t tell you what a privilege it is to have these conversations about the work with you. The intelligence, the candor, the emotional vigor of the conversations is so confirming–it re-alerts all of us at the theater to the privilege AND the responsibility we have at Steppenwolf to produce work that is thought-provoking and relevant. When we are able to experience, on a nightly basis, a group of people wrestling with a play in very personal terms, it encourages us to continue to seek work that is worthy of that engagement.
Sonia Flew is a really interesting touching-off point for a conversation with our audiences. It is comprised of two acts set 40 years apart and each act set in a different country. Within each act is a generational conflict, animated by the political climate of each period. Watching it, our audiences respond to both the politics of the play and to the family drama that encompasses those politics. Some have shared their own identification–as children, as parents, as citizens–to those conflicts in the play. On a recent Saturday, a woman in the audience and I found ourselves continuing a conversation after the group had left. We were roughly age-peers. We talked about how the very things that had troubled and burdened us about our parents while growing up now register as a measure of our parents’ character and strength. The conversation that we were able to have–us, strangers–was intimate and funny and made me newly appreciative of what plays do–plays locate us in our human-ness in a feeling and shared way.
Sonia Flew, which our associate artist, Jessica Thebus, directed with a brilliant cast–Sandra Marquez, Vilma Silva, Sandra Delgado, Andrew Perez, Jeff Still and Al Wilder–provides a vehicle for that kind of connection. The conflicts in the play are ones to which we can all relate (because we are all, children, and we are, many, parents). We are Americans. And we are, ourselves, immigrants, or descended from immigrants. What is so interesting to me, in the conversations about the play that emerge is that the specifics of nationality that the play contains (a Cuban-American/Jewish-European family) are effaced by the bedrock of FAMILY. Those very real and felt specifics of the play–out of which the playwright was, herself, writing–are what releases it into its universal truth.
I hope you’ll come to Sonia Flew and stay for a post-show conversation. What you bring to the conversation about the play is what makes it THEATER–a shared and collectively-owned meditation on the human experience.
January 17th, 2007 at 6:49 pm
Operation Pedro Pan Overview - Why Sonia Flew
by Oscar B. Pichardo
Operation Pedro Pan has been described as the “exodus of 14,048 Cuban children” and the “largest child refugee movement in the Western Hemisphere.” For us, the children of Pedro Pan it is much more. It’s an integral part of who we are.
Operation Pedro Pan began December 26, 1960, and ended October 23 of 1962, when the Cuban missile crisis put a halt to commercial air service between Cuba/Havana and the U.S./Miami. Between December 1960 when the first two kids arrived and October of 1962, over 14,000 unaccompanied Cuban kids – the official number is 14,048 – arrived in the U.S. under the sponsorship of the Catholic Welfare Bureau. The youths came from all the provinces of the island. While the majority was Catholic, several hundred were Protestant, Jewish or non-believers. Most were of the middle class or lower middle class and included children of all races.
The key individual was Monsignor Bryan O. Walsh the Director of Catholic Welfare Bureau. In January of 1961 the State Department granted Father Walsh the authority to grant a visa waiver to any child between six and 16 who came to the U. S. under the guardianship of the Diocese of Miami. Those between the ages of 16 and 18 had to be approved by the US State Department.
The name Operation Pedro Pan was coined by Gene Miller, a reporter for the Miami Herald, and first appeared in his article of March 9, 1962 “Peter Pan Means Real Life to Some Kids.” Earlier, when Miller had approached Monsignor Walsh to inquire about the large number of kids in the camps, Monsignor asked him to keep the details confidential. Through every phase of Pedro Pan, publicity was avoided as well as any attempt to use it for political propaganda.
At various times, Operation Pedro Pan has been denounced by some as a cold and calculated plot by the CIA to undermine Fidel Castro, and as the result of a CIA misinformation campaign which duped Cuban parents into sending their children to the U. S. It has also been suggested Pedro Pan catered to the wealthy and the well connected. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Operation Pedro Pan evolved from the desire of Cuban parents to safeguard their children from an intrusive regime which everyday increased its control over the lives of the populace. To insinuate Pedro Pan catered to the wealthy and well connected is ludicrous. They had fled the island in late 1958 and early 1959 as Batista’s fate became obvious and Castro took over the country.
It is incomprehensible to most people how parents could send their minor children unaccompanied to a foreign land. Incomprehensible that is, until one examines the events and living conditions which led to the fateful decision.
The euphoria of toppling Batista’s regime was short lived. The summary trials and executions by the new government caused many who supported Castro to have misgivings about the new regime. The promised national elections fell by the wayside when Castro became premier of Cuba by his own decree in February of 1959. March saw the beginning of nationalization of foreign industry, and in April the USSR was approached to help with organizing an internal intelligence agency. May brought the Agrarian Reform by which the government appropriated most of the land - both Cuban and foreign owned. Shortly after, nationalization of private industry and business began and it would not end until the government owned it all.
In January of 1960, the government decreed all Cuban children must bear arms and undergo military training. In May under the slogan Students Must be Teachers the first group of young girls were sent to the mountains to teach reading and writing at government controlled camps. September of 1960 saw the debut of the vilest instrument of government control and oppression - The Committee for the Defense of the Revolution. Intentionally located in every block of every city and town, the committee members kept watch on every home, reported all the comings and goings in each house, and literally spied on everyone and everything said or done.
December 1960 brought the Student Index a file compiled on every school child. This was used to track not only the scholastic progress of the child but if the child and family member were good revolutionaries and supported the government unquestioningly. Children were asked to listen to conversations in the home and report any suspicious or “counterrevolutionary” activities in the home. Yes, the government demanded the children spy on their parents!
The first 1000 students were sent to study in the USSR in January 1961, while the Minister of Education declared no divergence from the revolutionary doctrine for education would be tolerated. In February the first two private schools were confiscated by the government and four youths executed for shouting anti government slogans. In April all schools were closed by government decree. Teachers underwent training to implement the revolutionary curriculum and brigades of children partook in literacy training sessions.
April also brought the failed Bay of Pigs invasion. In the aftermath, the Castro regime rounded up and incarcerated over 250,000 Cubans, holding them without due process for varying lengths of times from a few days to many months. After the failure of the invasion Castro declared this was a Socialist Revolution. Soon after, the government ordered children between seven and 12 to join the Union of Rebel Pioneers. Those 13 and older would have to join the Association of Rebel Youths. Refusal branded you and your family as counterrevolutionaries and you became a target for state sanctioned persecution and acts of repudiation.
It was against this stark reality that our parents had to make the hard decisions born out of love and courage to protect their children. When it came time to decide to either submit to the state or send the children to safety, Cuban parents chose freedom for their children– sending them unaccompanied to the United States.
What is today universally called Operation Pedro Pan was made up of two components. One was the clandestine network for getting the kids out of Cuba – Pedro Pan. The second was the Cuban Children’s Program responsible for the care of the children after they arrived in Miami. Arriving in the U.S., the kids would either go with family or friends, or be taken to one of the camps or residences run by the CWB – the Catholic Welfare Bureau.
According to Monsignor Walsh, about half of the arrivals went with family or friends within the first couple of days, while the others went to the camps or residences run by the CWB. The majority was between 12 and 16, but the arrival of much younger children, four or five years old, was not uncommon. The goal was to place the children in foster homes or orphanages as soon as possible to make room for the torrent of new arrivals in the Florida Camps. The names Matecumbe, Kendall and Florida City have become synonymous with Pedro Pan as the principal places where most of the Pedro Pan children resided at one time or another.
The children were housed by age and sex. In August of 1961 when I arrived, Kendall housed all the girls and boys 12 and younger. The teenage boys lived at Camp Matecumbe. Later when the camp at Florida City opened, the girls and young boys lived there while the teenagers were moved to Kendall. Children would sometimes move from camp to camp as the demographics and numbers of children in the camps fluctuated. All the time a steady stream of children would flow to facilities and foster homes throughout the United States.
The Pedro Pan experience is as distinct as each Pedro Pan is a unique individual. Depending on the institution or foster home where you were placed, it was great, bearable, or a very difficult situation. There is no doubt that some suffered as children alone waiting for their parents in a foreign land, and many found it difficult to adapt. Others were fortunate in their placement and have nothing but fond memories of the people who provided care and shelter for them far away from home.
For more information on Operation Pedro Pan, I recommend the following books: Operation Pedro Pan: The Untold Exodus of 14,048 Cuban Children written by Yvonne M. Conde a Pedro Pan child herself; and Fleeing Castro: Operation Pedro Pan and the Cuban Children’s Program by Victor Andres Triay.
Or you can visit these web sites www.cubankids1960.com www.eyelandpub.com/pedropan www.campmatecumbeveterans.com