Month: February 2016

While reading Che Guevara’s Bolivian Diary I kept coming back to something, but it wasn’t something Che wrote, it was something Fidel Castro wrote in the introduction. He wrote, “some may interpret our decision to publish [The Bolivian Diary] as an act of provocation that will give the enemies of the revolution–the Yankee imperialists and their allies, the Latin American oligarchs–arguments for redoubling their efforts to blockade, isolate and attack Cuba.” (pg. 11) I was intrigued by this admission because it seemed startlingly obvious once I read it but had not occurred to me until then. Not only could the publication of this text potentially support action like that, it also potentially allows enemies at the time and in the future a glimpse into the day-to-day mechanisms and strategies of this guerrilla group. One might wonder what could be gleaned from this text as it is often slow and mundane and any helpful information would surely have been obvious to their enemies anyways. It is a text that is preoccupied with many of the small aspects of guerrilla warfare that are often invisibilized within a larger, theatrical depiction of events (such as the Soderberg’s Che.) Che meticulously recounts events such as surveying land, patiently awaiting additional recruits, the weather and the precarious nature of communication amongst guerrilla soldiers. His entries do not hide or emphasize the sometimes disorganized state of his troops. What could their enemies learn from this text that they would not already know by virtue of being soldiers themselves? A lot, actually (I think.)

I think we often overestimate the intelligence of military apparatuses, especially large ones. I sometimes forget that funding/resources does not (actually almost never) equals competence. Hitler tried to invade Russia during the middle of winter, twice. Not only could their enemies, imperialist and oligarchs alike, stand to learn about them, they could also improve their own strategies against Che and his fighters. Che is often cited as inspirational by guerilla groups operating presently which suggests that this text has not lost its relevance of applicability today. Since it is still being used by guerrilla group it stands to reason that it could still be being used by their opponents as well. The people who published this text must have realized and assumed responsibility for that risk. Perhaps they assumed that the potential good that might arise from its circulation would outweigh the potentially negative ways it might be taken up and studied by some.

This was a long movie. I watched a lot of fighting for this class. That is not my favourite thing to do and I didn’t feel this movie needed to have so much of it, but that’s just me. What was really accentuated for me while watching this was the idea of Che as a symbol that he could not, after a point, control himself. I feel like this was done in a few ways. Black and white scenes were interspersed in the colourful combat narrative. In them, Che was sitting waiting to be interviewed, being interviewed, and attending what looks like a gala of some kind. During the scenes Che talks with a women, who is probably one of many American journalists to interview him. These conversations eventually bleed, as voice-overs, into the combat scenes. We see Che and his comrades risking their lives as we listen to a conversation in which he discusses the Cuban revolution. From this juxtaposition it becomes obvious that nothing fatal will happen to him. (Obviously, we also already knew this if we knew nearly anything about Che before watching the movie,) but it also effectively blends images of Che’s day-to-day life in combat with his voice (and his ideology) that eventually make him an international symbol for revolution. We get to see how this happens. He becomes part of the public imaginary whether he wants to or not. (We see him acting rude while at an event with American politicians, which suggests he doesn’t care for his new reputation, but who knows.)

I think this is encapsulated in the scene where Che talks with one of the soldiers. (Sorry, can’t remember his name.) The soldier says something like: “after the revolution I’ll put you in a cage and tour the country and I’ll get rich.” They both laugh and in this way it’s a joke but it also isn’t. Like we saw in class, eventually Che’s image, (not necessarily his ideologies) is commodified.

We are effectively shown what types of mechanisms can go into the creation and maintenance of a symbol but I was never exactly sure why, or what exactly I was supposed to glean from this. In other words: the director shows us these phenomenon but I am not sure what he (or his film) tell us apart from the fact that they are happening. Perhaps that is all he wanted to make clear, and I appreciate that but I wanted more. I wanted more information generally, but it occurs to me that perhaps it would have been difficult to provide the kind of information I was looking for from such a removed point of view.

I would very much have liked to know what Che thought of his own symbolism (he is asked something along these lines at the end of the film but says very little on the subject.) What he thought of being in New York, at the UN, etc. Perhaps he was a very private person and that is why those things were omitted.

Teaching class was okay. I liked it but I was unsure whether it was that enjoyable for the other people involved. Saw a few cellphones out (If you think I’m talking about you I almost definitely am) but who am I to judge. For Cartucho we found that the text was so dynamic we didn’t really feel the need to look elsewhere for class material. So it felt more like a book club than a class. But I liked  that.

We divided our questions into three main categories: trauma, violence and the role of women.

For trauma I was mostly interested in whether or not the protagonist was traumatized. I still don’t think I’ve decided. I thought that was an interesting discussion.

For violence we looked at a few segments specifically and tried to deduce what purpose the violence was serving in the narrative, if any.

The role of women brought up a lot of questions around motherhood, inter generational knowledge and implicit work/strength. I think that any of the sections we chose as discussion topics for each subject were likely interchangeable as there was so much going on in each vignette. I enjoyed hearing about other people’s experiences with the book, especially around the scene where the soldiers become obsessed with the baby.

I also like the semi-circle formation (maybe that’s just because I was in front) and going around in a circle because I think it encouraged everyone to speak up without being forceful about it.