Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 7

Che As A Personality 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 analyses from 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

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. Che Guevara 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

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 them at 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

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 article Payne 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

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 shaping the 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

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 any evidence 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

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.