che as a personality2.doc
TRANSCRIPT
-
7/30/2019 Che As A Personality2.doc
1/8
Introduction
I chose my topic since here at a college campus, you see many Che Guevara shirts and
memorabilia. In my first semester I had an international relations class where he was briefly
mentioned. In the same class the professor assigned a miniature paper that allowed us to research
anything we wanted more closure on in the class, of course I chose Che Guevara. I wanted to
know what was with the shirts. Yet, with the paper being so brief it left many questions I had
unanswered. Currently as a sophomore I am taking political violence and revolutions, and Che
Guevara is on the front cover of the text book. Now any research of Che Guevara is relevant to
my current studies and is way more in depth than the introductory I class I took freshman year.
In political science Che Guevara is a controversial figure and folk legend. The Che most people
have come to love is based upon folk and a cult of personality. My objective is to separate fact
from myth and analyze Che as the political figure he truly is.
For this essay I first accumulated multiple sources on Che Guevara. With the sources I
analyzed them by scrutinizing the venue of article, and the author. From my sources I concluded
that the authors political ideology polarizes the legacy of Che Guevara. Writers either love him
or hate him. Writers wrote about Che as a personality (Fontova, 2007; Minogue, 1972; Harris,
1998,), aspects of Che (Payne, 2011; Yaffe, 2009; McCormick, 1997), being subjective to Che
(Petras,1998; McLaren, 2001), and opposing Che (Fontova 2007). These sources show how the
political science community communicates. The primary genre for political scientists to
participate and receive feed back is academic journal. Political scientists both read and write
articles playing off of one another.
Che As A Personality
-
7/30/2019 Che As A Personality2.doc
2/8
Che Guevaras legacy is based upon folk legend and mystique. More specifically, his
legacy is a cult of personality (Fontova 2007). In order to understand any controversially figure,
you must separate fact from myth (Minogue 1972). Minogue, in his essay for Prophetic politics
asserts that Che Guevaras passion is what created his following or cult of personality (1972).
For example, he states in his essay, The passion Che followed was less universal than that of
many another saint (Minogue 1972). Harris in his article asserts a similar argument of Ches
personality. He states, It is impossible to think of a true revolutionary without this quality. . .
.Our vanguard revolutionaries must idealize their love for the people (Harris 1998). Harris in his
article analyzing Ches legacy based off other biographers of Che and he pulls his own analysesfrom the gap. This shows how the love for Che is spread beyond the sources I have accumulated.
Many writers have spread the love for Che, yet the cult of personality also stems from the
personality itself, Che Guevara. He has many writings, but the favorite amongst the masses is
The Motorcycle Diaries. Reading articles and books about Che give the writers interpretation of
Che, but his personal diaries show the real Che. The personality of love and passion for the
people every writer addresses can be found in the last passage of his diary. He states, I knew
that when the great guiding spirit cleaves humanity into two antagonistic halves, I will be with
the people (Guevara 2003). This shows there is some truth to every legend, for a legend
reaffirms a groups common values.
With Che being a political figure, much controversy arises around him. Political
polarization skews his image from being a saint, to heartless monster. Fontova is his book asserts
that Che Guevara nothing more than a terrorist (2007). He puts him along the lines of Osama Bin
Laden. Fontova presents evidence that is neglected or has never been heard before. For example
-
7/30/2019 Che As A Personality2.doc
3/8
few are aware that Che planned an attack on the statue of liberty during his visit to the United
Nations. Ches legacy is polarized left or right, never in between.
With the controversy of Che Guevara being so skewed from passionate freedom fighter
to monster, I say Che Guevara is a pure monster and the people love him for it. In the world of
politics almost nothing is certain, but Che Guevara is. No one truly knows where a politician
stands. For example Fidel Castro and Mitt Romney are quite obscure. Mitt Romney has changed
his political platform more than four times in 24 hours. Fidel Castro on the same note was not
even communist. He just used the communist revolution as a way to remove Fulgencio Batista
and make a Cuba for Cubans, in a way that makes him right winged and opportunist. CheGuevara is consistent throughout. He was more popular than Castro himself in Cuba. The
question for Che Guevara is not who he truly is, but do his ends justify his means.
Fontova defines Che as a terrorist, while Harris defines him as freedom fighter for the
people (2007; 1998). Both different definitions are two of the same. A guerilla fighter fighting in
the name of peoples rights can be seen as a terrorism. Che ends are peoples rights, but his means
are uprising and killing in the fight, then executing the remaining who oppose his views. Do the
ends justify the means? I find that Che being so consistent in his socio-political views and
actions are the reason he has a cult of personality. Its not the freedom fighter or politician the
people, but the fact he is a straight up guy who stands behind himself. He exemplified the
principles of individual sacrifice, honesty, dedication to cause, and personal conviction in his
beliefs (Harris 1998). My analysis shows that schools should teach proper research. Most of the
sources that are polarized is done so by the writers personal bias. Of course a Cuban Exile will
hate Che, and of course a Latin American would most likely love Che since Latin America is
quite leftist. From the polar opposites I had to establish a middle ground that Che is a pure
-
7/30/2019 Che As A Personality2.doc
4/8
monster and the people love him for it. In politics I find that polarization only leads to framing
sources into the writers ideology. Writers should always a middle group or objective standpoint
in their writing.
Aspects of Che
The writers who went more specific into Che for example analyzing him as a guerilla
fighter or policy maker; are actually the most objective. Being experts in a more specific field
allowed these writers to take the evidence of that aspect at face value. For example Yaffe, an
economist analyzed Ches socialist construction policies rather his famous guerilla foco theory
(2009). He asserts that Che enacted good economic policies to create socialism, but enacted themat the wrong time (Yaffe 2009). Marxists believe it or not actually like capitalist, but only as a
prerequisite for communism. Karl Marx himself believed that the most advanced countries
would have a communist revolution; not countries like Russia, China, and Cuba. Especially in
Cuba, with country not modernized yet, Che implemented socialist construction to early (Yaffe
2009). Since socialist construction was implemented before the country modernized, Cuba has a
problem with innovation (Yaffe 2009). The purpose of capitalism is to create competition for the
economy to innovate. The dilemma in communism is how to innovate without the incentive of
capitalism (communists reject consumerism). In turn, Raul Castro in 2008 began enacting
capitalist policies (Yaffe 2009). This shows how Che Guevaras policies are no longer relevant,
they do not work if Cuba wants to be competitive in the international economy.
McCormick, a Department of Defense analyst and instructor at a Naval postgraduate
school analyzes Che from military point of view. He asserts that Che Guevara is not worth all the
hype, as in Che never brought anything new in to strategy and theory, he simply implanted basic
military strategy (McCormick 1997). Che Guevara is known as guerilla fighter and the fame
-
7/30/2019 Che As A Personality2.doc
5/8
stems from his part in the Cuban Revolution. Che fanatics disregard his revolutionary attempts in
other countries afterwards. They see his personality as passionate, not his failure. For example in
Bolivia where he was executed he implemented basic strategy and committed the most crucial
basic mistakes. At first Che attempted to implement the Cuban Revolution in Bolivia
(McCormick 1997). Secondly, he ignoring cultural differences between Latin Americans,
Bolivia is not Cuba (McCormick 1997). Finally he didnt have the same support in Bolivia as he
did in Cuba (McCormick). Che could be a great man to some, but he is his own greatest enemy.
He brought his downfall upon himself.
Payne also analyzes Ches guerilla fighting, but emphasizes his foco theory. In his articlePayne asserts that Al-Quaeda is implementing Ches guerilla foco theory. This is where a
guerilla/paramilitary group vanguards discontent and creates popular support for a revolution.
Payne asserts Al-Quaeda is using this for their global jihad, as in Al-Quaeda vanguards Muslims
for global jihad (2011).
When analysts scrutinize a subject specifically related to their field, it enables them to
take evidence at face value. The analyses I have accumulated show only that Che Guevara is still
relevant today, whether you love or hate him. This has influenced leftist politics highly. I find
that if writers researched subjects more in depth into the individual aspects the analyses can be
more objective. When writing writers should take all their sources at face value, not frame it to
their own ideology.
Subjective to Che
Political polarization skews any analysis of a subject, including Che Guevara. From the
sources I have accumulated, two authors are exclusively subjective to Che. Petras, a political
scientist and political activist who leans left, asserts that Che has a lasting influence on Latin
-
7/30/2019 Che As A Personality2.doc
6/8
American politics. Latin America is a refuge for leftist politics. Petras states, I would argue that
Ches relevance to contemporary revolutionary politics is found in his general analysis of politics
and his reflections on political action and economic structures rather than the tactical ideas he
applied to specific conjunctural circumstances (1998). Basically Ches politics remain relevant
today. This articles analysis seems similar to Yaffes article, but other articles by Petras provide
more evidence that he is subjective to Che, besides his political standing.
In his article, Thirty Years After Che, he analyzes Che legacy based on his guerilla
warfare rather his politics. He asserts that Ches ideology for guerilla lives on today. He states in
his article,
The figure and ideas of Che Guevara have been influential and prescient in shapingthe revolutionary debates and understanding their potentialities (1997). His evidence for this
claim are presented by waves of revolutions after his death. McCormick analyzed Ches
guerilla warfare, but in micro level of analysis. Payne did the same with guerilla theory but on
the macro level. Payne and Petras may have some common ground, yet Petrass attitude is more
subjective to Che Guevara. He states in his article, The CIA may have killed the man, but his
ideas today are more pervasive than ever in ethics, politics, and culture (Petras 1997). This
statement is similar to a common slogan El Che Vive (the Che lives).
McLaren in his article is blatantly subjective to Che. It is visible in the title of the article,
Che Guevara, Paulo Freire, and the Politics of Hope: Reclaiming Political Pedagogy. The
emphasis of the article is Che as a symbol of Hope. The introduction of the article states, I
noticed that he was wearing a Che T-shirt with the inscription iChe Vive!; A fleeting sensation
of plaintive connectedness overcame me, and I managed to give him a quick thumbs-up gesture
of affirmation (McLaren 2001). The subject of the article is Ches pedagogy, which is the
teaching of children. McLaren in his article also states, Che is not sympathetically portrayed in
-
7/30/2019 Che As A Personality2.doc
7/8
school extbooks, and because strong social movements against oppression are woefully lacking
in the United States, we therefore should not place too much faithin the relevance of Ches
message for our current condition (2001). In Cuba, kids start their day in school by pledging,
We Will Be Like Che. McLaren is for this practice. Arguably, this practice can be called
indoctrination as well. Che and the Cuban government are creating a communist impression on
impressionable children. There is no mention in the article that the practice within the article
could be indoctrination of any sort.
From these three article I have come to the conclusion that passion is blinding. Petras and
McLaren have a blatant subjectivity to Che Guevara. They are blinded and disregard anyevidence or hold to one interpretation of it. The synopsis of each article is El Che Vive. The
writers only mention Ches successes and how they live on in history, yet briefly mention if not
at all his failures. The writers views Che as a good man, these writers contribute to the cult of
personality that has created Ches legacy.
Opposition to Che
Just as complete subjectivity to Che Guevara skews the analysis, complete opposition to
Che does the same. Fontova, a Cuban exile and political scientist wrote a book that exposes the
real Che Guevara. He asserts that Che Guevara is a propaganda campaign, tyrant, and terrorist.
Che Guevaras diaries were published by the propaganda bureau of a totalitarian regime
Might there be some embellishment or omission (Fontova 2007). Fontovas sole purpose in this
book is to debunk the legend of Che, and show who he truly is, the epitome of a totalitarian
regime. For example he has a chapter titled, Jailers of Rockers, Hipsters, and Gays (Fontova
2007). The Majority people who love Che know him as a guerilla or freedom fighter, those terms
are sometimes two of the same. Yet to others on the opposition to Che would find him as a
-
7/30/2019 Che As A Personality2.doc
8/8
terrorist. Much like Al-Quaeda today, to them they are protecting the world Muslim community
or Ummah. To the United States Al-Quaeda is a terrorist organization. Che Guevara is in the
same situation. Fontova states in the first chapter of his book, New York Fetes the Godfather of
Terrorism, he was referring to when Che addressed the United Nations (Fontova 2007).
Out of all the sources that I have accumulated only one purely opposed Che Guevara.
This also emphasizes Ches cult of personality. There is a widespread support of Che Guevara
in some shape or form. It seems books that opposed che are not highly praised. In Fontovas
book he presented evidence that many disregard or was never aware of. The rest of article do not
address Che as a tyrant, terrorist, and propaganda campaign. Fontova looks at Che as if he were a pure monster. There is no middle ground to this analysis, only rebuttals to common perceptions
of Che.