Che’s 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 Cuba’s Minister of Industry, leave Cuba, and return to the revolutionary battlefield. To many, his decision to leave Cuba, and the power and privileges that came with it, to continue in his quest to free the oppressed throughout the world was an image that was retained in many people’s 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 Che’s 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, Che’s death “after less than six months of guerrilla combat, testifies less to one man’s 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 Che’s death was a great “blow” to the movement in Latin America. Contrary to this belief, Che’s death inspired greater protests as was displayed by students who marched through the streets around the world displaying Che’s 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 threat 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 Che’s 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 Cuba’s 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. Che’s 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 Guevara's 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, you're 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 60’s.
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 Manguel's hero, because he was "doing something about it all, taking action", never mind that the results were disastrous.
Manguel's attachment to his adolescent yearnings prevents him from thinking or writing clearly. Guevara's 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 don't 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 Guevara’s autobiography.
John Adlard comments that, “ I admire not only Che’s 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, “ Che’s 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 Che’s 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 Guevara’s 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 Che’s 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 1960’s, 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 Guevara’s 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.
By Ben Eustice
