Che Guevara Essays

Che Guevara Essays Che Guevara Essay Che Guevara Essay In this essay, my individual is the infamous Che Guevara. I have chosen Che Guevara because he is someone who many of the younger generations of today can relate to. Che Guevaras actions changed the course of history for many peoples lifes worldwide. However Che Guevara created this opportunity himself, in a way he responded to a situation that meant more to him, than leading an ordinary life, and Che Guevara lived a far from ordinary life. With respect to Che, the Cuban Revolution brought out the characteristics that the radical world came to admire. Che demonstrated his natural ability to take on new tasks and to be an effective leader during battle. During the battle of Sierra Maestra, he organised a workshop of weaponry, tailoring, and shoemaking and the production of bread, beef jerky, cigarettes and cigars as logistical support for the guerrilla campaign. On the battlefield, he led one of the forces that invaded central Cuba, capturing Santa Clara, the decisive victory of the war against the Batista forces of Cuba. Ches keen ability to organise militarily is one characteristic that would lead many people to follow him. The way in which he supported the fighting that was being done in many countries of the world was also a part of his great following. Guerrilla fighters read his books and essays in which he wrote, It is important to recognise that guerrilla warfare is a war of the masses, a war of the people. Guerrilla warfare is used by the side which is supported by the majority but which possesses a much smaller number of arms for use in defence against oppression. Che described the guerrilla fighter as one who shares the longing of the people for liberation and who, once peaceful means are exhausted, initiates the fight and converts himself into the armed vanguard of the fighting people. Che not only spoke of the fighting, but of what a revolutionarys duty was after the war was over. These ideas were very present around the world in nations where guerrilla warfare was being utilised to figh t their oppressors. People all around the world scrutinised his every move, waiting to see what he would do next. Ches plan concerning the future of Cuba was often a topic of many debates. When Che became the Minister of Industry for Cuba shortly after the revolution, he imposed many ideas that were foreign to the countrys prior state that would bring changes to Cubas poor and working people. Che had not envisioned an economy of marketization, material incentives, and enterprise financial self management. Che believed in a socialist rather than a capitalist society where material incentives would be replaced by moral incentives. Ches primary concerns were for the welfare and equality for people, another idea that was prevalent in the minds of people throughout the world in the 1960s. His idealistic views were criticised by many that thought of these ideas as the reason for the unsuccessful creation of a new economic state in Cuba. Others respected Che for his effort and said that Che was totally committed to the difficult task of building socialism in Cuba. Cuba and the Cuban Revolution were a major part of his accomplishments. For Che, Cuba was an enormous platform for his essential and most important message The Revolution is a force that purifies man, that places him beyond egoism; that purity which has been won must be defended, through study, through work, with bullets, as it if it were life itself. Ches decision to leave Cuba also prompted much attention from scholars and other Che followers. After seeing Fidel Castro begin to sell out the revolution to a Soviet-subsidised paternalism, Che decided to step down as Cubas Minister of Industry, leave Cuba, and return to the revolutionary battlefield. To many, his decision to leave Cuba, and the power and privi leges that came with it, to continue in his quest to free the oppressed throughout the world was an image that was retained in many peoples minds. Che declared his rejection of imperialism and the United States. He said, Our every action is a battle cry against imperialism and a call for the unity of the peoples against the great enemy of the human race: the United States of North America. This idea appealed to many people in the 1960s. His solidarity with Vietnam was popular among youth and radicals around the world who wanted to create their own version of the struggle in Vietnam. In 1967, with his apparent disappearance and the possibility that he might be dead, Che began to be looked at through different perspectives. Perhaps even his following increased because he was a martyr who fought in the name of the oppressed peoples of the world. He was being compared to other great leaders who had fought to rid their people of injustices. With respect to his death, scholars were saying such things as, one of these days the newspapers will dedicate their columns to the resurrection of this man who may be the Bolivar of our time. Once there was confirmation of Ches death in Bolivia, people began to speak of his failure as a revolutionary and began to place blame on the different aspects of Che. Comments such as, Ches death after less than six months of guerrilla combat, testifies less to one mans failure than to profound weakness and incompetence of the current wave of Marxist revolutionary struggle in Latin America. Others spoke of him as a man of considerable capabilities but one who chose to employ these talents in pursuit of violence as a means to a political end and as a man who chose to not serve humanity selflessly, but rather to serve communism selflessly. Most of the people who thought of Che in this manner acknowledged, however, that Ches death was a great blow to the movement in Latin America. Contrary to this belief, Ches death inspired greater protests as was displayed by students who marched through the streets around the world displaying Ches image in 1968. Che was killed in Bolivia in October of 1967 at the hands of US-trained Bolivian Rangers who hunted him down and then shot him dead on the orders of a CIA operative. Che was killed because he was a threa t to those who were the oppressors. They feared that a man with considerable capabilities could do as much as changing the course of human history, where the oppressed would not be so anymore. The ideas projected by much of the media during this time like the thought that Communism could spread through the whole world and finally to the United States, was part of the great fear that people had. They could not think of Che in any other way. Communist or Red were attached to his name and therefore, could not get over that initial stigma of Che. He rejected the American government and the system in general, the system that in the end found the means by which to get rid of him. Student protesters in France, West Germany, Czechoslovakia, Mexico, and Brazil carried his flag because Ches accomplishments and great endeavours represented a rejection of this system. They were all fed up with the one system they were living under. Vietnam was a representation of a worldwide struggle against governments that were not serving the people, as they should. Many people wished to emulate their struggle and create more Vietnams as Che had called for. Protestors in search for freedom and justice around the world felt great respect and admiration towards him. A favourite quote I like to use to describe Che Guevara is, he was an inspiration for them to fight for their own rights and the rights of others. By abandoning the opportunity of a career as a doctor and dedicating his life to a global fight against oppression, he became a common man with nothing to else to lose except his life. Che could have stayed in Argentina, had a promising career in medicine, had a traditional family life, and could have lived comfortably without having the need to worry about anything else. Che did choose to do this, however. The idea that consisted of a war of the masses was an inspiration for ordinary people rise up and fight. He lived and died to be a servant of the people. He did not take advantage of the great power that was bestowed upon him when he became Cubas Minister of Industry. He called for basic human rights for people who they were being denied to, an idea that many could not argue against. Like his father once said, it was really hard not to admire his sacrifice, empathy, and determination. He was representative of the time. People were giving up their normal lives to raise arms to fight. Students in Czechoslovakia, West Berlin, and Mexico, whose only chance to be successful was in getting a form of higher education, were risking getting thrown out of their universities to protest about what they thought was wrong. Peasants who had been barely able to survive were now at the forefront of battles in the jungles of Vietnam, Bolivia, and the Congo. Ches image and ideas was something that they could stand by and follow no matter how hard the battle became. It was the search for a leader that prompted them to follow Che. His image and ideas that persisted after his death represented the person Che had been. In his last letter to his children, Che wrote: Grow up as good revolutionaries. Study hard so that you will have command of the techniques that permit the domination of nature. Above all, always remain capable of feeling deeply whatever injustice is committed against anyone in any part of the world. This is the finest quality of a revolutionary. Che was describing himself. His execution in Vallegrande at the age of 39 only enhanced Guevaras mythical stature. That Christ-like figure laid out on a bed of death with his uncanny eyes almost about to open; those fearless last words (Shoot, coward, youre only going to kill a man) that somebody invented or reported. The anonymous burial and the hacked-off hands, as if his killers feared him more after he was dead than when he had been alive: all of it is scalded into the mind and memory of those defiant times. He would resurrect, young people shouted in the late 60s. The lesson of Che is the lesson of hope and dedication. Throughout struggles with adversity, like his lifelong asthma, to the military campaigns in Guatemala, Cuba, the Congo and finally Bolivia, Che always kept his goal in front of him, he was ever optimistic and single-minded in his purpose. As we approach the 35th anniversary of the death of this truly impressive 20th century figure, we are able to gain a new appreciation of his qualities. The figure of Che Guevara is much too large to pigeonhole as a relic of the 1960s. However there are many different views and opinions on Che Guevara throughout the historical world. Most depict highly of Che Guevara, but there are some that criticise his actions, and criticise others who praise of him. Such a person is Luis Carlos Aribe who criticises Alberto Manguel book on Che Guevara: His methods were dubious, his political philosophy superficial, his morality ruthless he is still Manguels hero, because he was doing something about it all, taking action, never mind that the results were disastrous. Manguels attachment to his adolescent yearnings prevents him from thinking or writing clearly. Guevaras methods were not just dubious, they were criminal. His political philosophy was not just superficial, it was totalitarian (a strong-handed but moral government, as Manguel delicately calls it, is a dictatorship described by a sympathiser), and I dont know what ruthless morality means, except believing that the end justifies the means. This source is very useful to us, because it gives a contradictory view towards Che Guevara, compared to all the other books and sources I have read. It is a primary source, and one of few that I have found that did not like Che Guevara or the way he went about his actions. This source gives us a different insight into how other people may have felt about Che Guevara. However, this source is slating the book, or perhaps passages in the book, so Alberto Manguel may have over emphasises extracts in his biography, therefore its usefulness could be derogatory. Another criticiser of Che Guevara is Hugh Thomas who wrote The Cuban Revolution, however his views are contrasting: Hugh Thomas, in his The Cuban Revolution, describes Guevara as obstinate, narrow and dogmatic, but also says that he was candid and, on the whole, he deceived neither himself nor others. This source is also very useful, because the author criticises, and praises Che Guevara. Therefore he has a contrasting view, if not somewhat neutral, as he is able to point out the negatives of he Guevara and the positives. The source is not typical of its time thought because most people either love or hate Che Guevara instead Hugh Thomas is neither, which makes this source useful, as he shows both sides to Che Guevara. Apart from the odd criticising view of Che Guevara, there are plenty of historians, and famous people that praise Che Guevara for his actions, and the way he went about it: The following are taken from Viva Che compiled by a range of different historians ranging from John Berger to Fidel Castro to Peter Weiss. This is now out of print. Che Guevaras autobiography. John Adlard comments that, I admire not only Ches courage and skill but his insistence that without a firm moral basis there can be no real revolution. John Berger comments about a picture of Che Guevara, In face of this photograph we must either dismiss it, or complete its meaning for ourselves. It is an image which, as much as any mute image ever can, calls for decision. Fidel Castro, Ches life has had the virtue of impressing even his worst ideological enemies and making them admire him. It is an almost unique example of how a man has been able to gain the recognition and respect of his enemies, of the very troops whom he has faced arms in hand; of his ideological enemies, who have been, surprisingly, almost unanimous in expressing feelings of admiration for Che. Who could deny the significance to the revolutionary movement of the blow of Ches death, the significance of not being able to count upon his experience, his inspiration, upon that strength of his prestige that all reactionaries feared? It is a fierce blow, a very hard one. Graham Greene, The death of Che Guevara brought a sense of grief and disappointment to people who had no Marxist sympathies. He represented the idea of gallantry, chivalry, and adventures in a world more and more given up to business arrangements between the great world powers. They were afraid to bring him to trial, this fear will help perpetuate his legend, and a legend is impervious to bullets. David Mercer, The significance of Che is not a solution but a question. The sources taken from this book are all primary, as they are taken from Che Guevaras autobiography that is now rare because it is out of print. The sources are useful, because they are all opinions, and grievances written in by numerous historians, and extracts by Che Guevara himself. However, all of the sources praise Che Guevara, because it is his own autobiography, therefore they will all praise and say how much they will miss him, and we do not get to hear the other side of the story. However, from all the sources I have read, it appears that there are generally more people who praise Che Guevara, than there is that criticises him. I take a quote written by Andrew Sinclair titled Guevara page 90; For Ches most explosive idea was that the revolution is permanent and that the revolution creates itself. Authority has not sat safe in its seats since that heresy reached the minds of the young. I feel that this is a good way to sum up the impact that Che Guevara had upon the world back then, and even the present day. Che Guevara has inspired many left-wing revolutions, and his ideas and views are still followed today. He can be seen on t-shirts and caps, mugs and jewellery. Che Guevara lives among the younger generations now. Che Guevara believed in something so much, that he decided to live a revolutionary life instead of being a secure middle classed doctor. Che Guevara became an icon for left-wing youths in the 1960s, during this time he was able to write Guerrilla Warfare (1961), and Reminiscences of the Cuban Revolutionary War (1968). Che Guevara was killed because he was a threat, he had views that were different to many other peoples, and he followed them, and because of this small threat, a larger world power, the USA found in necessary to exterminate this threat. The question to begin with, was do individuals respond to opportunities, and make a difference. In Che Guevaras case, I would say this is most definitely so. Che Guevara believed in something, he left everything he had to fight for that cause, he took the opportunity, and created more for himself, and in some respect he may have even changed the social side, and ideological side of history. The way that some people look at history now may change; the views especially of the left-wing youths would have changed slightly. Che Guevara was a man who spoke what was on his mind, and fought for what he believed in, someone who definitely seized the opportunity to make a difference.