my family often wondered why American blacks had not revolted against their white masters, and why revenge crime by blacks against whites was not rampant. Although Cubans were by no means free of racism, it was felt that "we" didn't treat "our" blacks as shabbily as "los Americanos" treated "theirs".

Only the ferocious oppression of the black community by the police, and the ever-present threat of the KKK (which was admittedly, already fading as a social force in the South by the 1950s) kept a lid on the situation. We felt only the promise of horrible reprisals (like lynchings) were the only thing that kept the blacks peaceful in their ghettoes.

We were, of course, mistaken. When Civil rights came along, it was not because of violence, or revolution, and there was remarkably little violent backlash by the whites (in Florida, at any rate). I can see now the one individual most responsible for the peaceful transition of the Civil Rights struggle in America was MLK.

He was a great man, not just for his eloquence and activism, but for his successful implementation of a policy of non-violence and peaceful protest. Even after his assassination, the violence and rioting that followed throughout the country (Tampa had its own riot) was much less than we expected. I was expecting a bloodbath, widespread martial law, troops and tanks in the streets, camps for the prisoners, bloody reprisals, perhaps tens or hundreds of thousands dead. The riots were bad, but could have been much worse. I know if I had been black I would have been ready for all-out war. I would have wanted it. I knew it back then, too.

As bad as it was, it never came to that. And MLK's philosophy was what made the difference. He was a great man, and the resistance to marking his life with a national holiday was petty and churlish.

He should be the fifth face on Mt Rushmore.