While this book may be the driest and less inviting reads we have been faced with this class, it is also fair to say that it is probably the most historically important. As the preface and Fidel Castro’s introduction in particular point out, the events Che describes in his Bolivian Diary and his ensuing execution transformed the revolutionary hero into a martyr, further magnifying his legend. The Diary was a key part of this process, and in spite of the number of descriptions of “uneventful days” spent trekking through the rainforest or worrying about dwindling rations it does help build a certain image of Che and his revolutionary goals.

One of the main things I was hoping the Diary would cover were some of the reasons why Che and his men’s attempted revolution in Bolivia failed, and in this respect it provides some thoughtful insights. The most significant of these lies in the guerrilla’s inability to recruit Bolivian peasants into their forces or as reliable informants. Che argued that the support of local rural inhabitants is vital to a successful revolution in Guerrilla Warfare. While he does seem to have initially counted on this support, it quickly becomes clear that he overestimated their revolutionary potential in Bolivia. As a result, any casualties Che’s column suffers are irreplaceable, and food and supplies remain scarce. Che’s monthly summaries express his growing concern at the absence of recruitments, and his assessment of September is especially bleak: “the peasant masses are not helping us with anything and are becoming informers” (p.248).

Two other points that stand out in Che’s Diary are issues regarding discipline within his troops, and communication with the outside. In spite of Che’s efforts, some of his men (such as Marcos and Camba) show disregard for the orders commandante issues, often resulting in arguments or lost supplies. Food in particular seems to be a major object of desire and contention for the guerrillas. They also have a lot of trouble maintaining contact with their allies both within and outside Bolivia, especially with “Manila”, who nonetheless claim they are receiving news from the guerrilla army, something Che quips is “a miracle of telepathy!”(p.234). The loss of all contact with Joaquín and his column is an even bigger blow for Che, as it eliminates the possibility for the coordinated actions that played a huge role in the Cuban Revolution.

However, in spite of all these difficulties, as well as the terrible conditions and health problems he and his men faced, Che’s writings shows a great deal of composure. His determination in the face of the guerrilla’s dire situation is quite striking, and he seems to retain lucidity and self-control while some of his soldiers appear on the verge of losing their minds. Che’s resilience in pushing forward regardless of circumstances is where The Bolivian Diary comes closest to depicting him as an ideal revolutionary fighter, and does so without a trace of romanticism.

I found myself skimming a lot of the beginning of the book. Once the group settled in their camp the book got more entertaining to read. I was very surprised to read that Che’s guerilla group consisted only of around 25 people. I think there were other guerilla groups fighting alongside Che in other parts of the countryside, but even so If you put this in context against an army of reportedly 1,800 people your odds do not seem very good. Even if you rely on surprise attacks I think the capabilities of an army are too much for a guerilla group with scarce resources. I think at one point the quantity of soldiers matters as opposed to quality, which Che seems to emphasize in Guerilla Warfare. Also The Bolivian Diary reinforced one point I put forward a couple weeks ago that people and soldiers are fallible and that no manual can be a universal manual for successful guerilla warfare. Marcos, for example, seems to be a horrible character and is consistently provoking problems in the group. At some points in the book it seemed to me that people were aimlessly walking around the Bolivian countryside. We hear the numbers of dead soldiers the guerilla inflicted and none seems really like an overarching victory. It looks like Che’s surprise attacks and ambushes didn’t work in Bolivia. It would be interesting to know why. Maybe it was down to the capabilities of the Bolivian army. Also Che’s hiding spots for food and arms are found by the army, maybe Che should have had a section in Guerilla Warfare explaining how to set up perfect hiding spots for materials (although considering what happened in Bolivia it might have been a bad idea to follow his guidelines). Slowly Che’s guerilla group seems to dismantle to pieces. They are wrecked by deaths to important people in the group, some were even accidental deaths, for example in one case one young man is caught by a violent river. Also Che repeatedly states that the group’s morale is very low, and I can’t see how it was any other way. Plagued by deaths and seeing no end to their fighting must have left many soldiers questioning what exactly they were doing in the countryside, and if there was any possibility of being successful. Some soldiers must have felt deep down that they were doomed against such a big army, but there was no backing down now that they were so deeply involved. I’m very interested to know how much of the diary was left out in the publication I read. I find it hard to believe that there was no editing and that they published Che’s diary completely transparently. There must be parts of the original diary that the people who commissioned the publishing of the book did not want the public to view. I think this was done to keep Che as the symbol people think they know him as. One part I enjoyed about the book were the pictures of Che in disguise entering Bolivia, half bald and shaved and looking completely like another person.

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.

I found this book to be quite dry. I know it is written in the form of a diary, but much of what Che says is very dry and repetitive: talking about ambushes, traveling, meeting local people, recruiting, challenges they faced, etc. Nevertheless unlike the other diary we’ve read, this diary had a purpose behind it which was to keep down all important details, maybe because Che believed that they could be of use sometime later on in the revolution or post-revolution. Therefore, Che already writes his diary in a somewhat more formal way than how most diaries are written, and the way he writes (i.e. his language) reflects that and is detailed and concise. Nevertheless, somethings in this diary are worth noting. For example, how he portrays himself in such great ways. Page 2 where it says “but the respect he inspires and the power of his stony gaze deeply affects and confuses them”. Then on page 7 “Che is transformed into a hardened symbol of resistance, a symbol of the fight for what is just, of passion, of the necessity of being fully human, multiplied infinitely in the ideals and weapons of those who struggle”. This quote besides idolizing Che, also represents what the Cuban Revolution meant to Cubans. For them the revolution was a symbol of resistance, and it was a fight for justice; and when it says “of the necessity of being fully human”, it suggests that fighting for a good cause is natural and nothing to be ashamed of, that having these feelings makes us human. On page 6 it is also interesting how Che says, “A phrase comes to mind, one of those that reduces great truths to a few words “in a revolution, if it’s a true revolution, you win or die”. This quote is interesting because Che is suggesting that certain revolutions are true or not. In other words, in a true revolution there is really only one cause, you fight to win, or you die. Maybe Che does not see or believe in some “middle point” as this means that what was fought for has not yet been achieved. Besides, this quote also shows how much a soldier he is, that when on the field it’s either life or death. I also like this quote on page 19 where he mentions that “he did not see the struggle in Bolivia as an isolated occurrence, rather as part of a revolutionary liberation movement that would soon extend to other countries in South America. This quote shows us that Che’s ultimate goals was to spread the revolution, to free all the people who were enslaved or lost their land, he saw this a global problem, one that required everyone to join in. This global problem he refers to as “being converted into economic colonies of Yankee imperialism” (page 27). Despite his maybe seriousness and dedication to the revolution he is also depicted as a caring man. Page 28 describes him in this manner “Che did his utmost to safeguard the withdrawal of these comrades to a safer place”. This quote seems to want to portray Che as this protector. Lastly, page 31 made me realize of another interesting thing. It says that this book was translated into other languages and sent to different countries thereby to help “spread the revolution” which was Che’s goal, going back to what I mentioned previously, that Che did not want this to stop in Bolivia, he wanted this to expand. The end of the book also has 2-3 interesting things. On page 266 he says, “in publicly announcing the first battle of the war, we are establishing what will be our norm: revolutionary truth”. The part “revolutionary truth” really furthers his cause and the revolution, making the revolution seem more honest, without bad intentions, a revolution based on the true conditions that led to its genesis, and once again goes back to what was mentioned earlier when he seemed to suggest that there are “true and fake” revolutions. I especially found interesting what he said further down the page, “today we make an appeal to workers, peasants, intellectuals, to everyone who feels the time has to come to confront violence with violence….”. At the beginning of the semester we had to come up with what ideas we associate with revolutions, one of which was violence. Here Che not only mentions that reality, but he also seems to justify it implying that the only way to win a revolution is by violence and destroying the enemy. I end with page 276 where he says “a worker has the obligation to struggle with all their strength against the common enemy”. Here once again he seems to be justifying revolution and violence and implying that it is a moral duty, because otherwise you are allowing the enemy to win and continue his oppressive ways of ruling. Then I liked how he says “I invite you to join workers of the underground….”. By saying underground it shows that revolutions start from the lower class, those left at the bottom who are forgotten by the government. And finally, he ends with these words “we await you”, once again showing that his goal was to spread the revolution and await more people to join in his cause. The revolution for him was a global project.

In the first part of the movie, we see the man who is Che in both his wartime persona and as the post-revolutionary idol. The beginning scene of the movie where Che is being interviewed by what seems like an American journalist, her question in regards to American policy towards Latin America and its ramifications to the image of the Cuban revolution. Che’s response of just taking a drag of his cigar and just stares at the camera. This nonchalant attitude towards the what other think of his revolution and his ideas is at times what makes him the image that he is. The movie continues to show us the parallels of the man who Che was during the war, a tough man who much like other fighters he digs himself into the trenches fighting for what he believes. But we also see the intellectual mind which gains him respect from his revolutionary comrades. Although gains his respect from his comrades from both his guerrilla bravery and his intelligence, the guerrilla persona is somewhat lost once the revolution is over and Che becomes a spokesman. Most notably at the point where Che is seen at an American party where he is socializing with Senators and other socialites and such. Once he steps into that world we no longer see the guerrilla fighter but a man transformed by a revolution who now relies on his intelligence rather than his guerrilla prowess. Even though he no longer a true guerrilla he is still fighting a much larger war versus western ideals trying to hinder Cuba’s progress. The climax of this war can be seen as Che steps up in front of the United Nations and calls out different Latin American nations as siding with the United states instead of a fellow Latin country, this war between them and the United States is evident when the United States representative isn’t even there.

This dual reality of what Che was and Che became becomes evident as the movie progresses. Even though he moves away from his guerrilla ways the guerrilla doesn’t die. Although Che no longer fights in the trenches for the moment he continues to fight in the political sphere. Che’s new fight no longer relies on his wartime abilities but you can sense that although he is an intellectual to some he still harbors a guerrilla fighter behind his calm demeanor.

Initially, I was surprised that the first part of Steven Soderbergh’s Che showed so little of Guevara`s life before the Cuban Revolution, with only a couple of brief scenes showing him meeting the Castro brothers and looking pensive on the deck of the Granma. However, the point of the film is clearly to depict Che the revolutionary, rather than to show how he got to that point in the first place, so it`s actually quite a smart move on Soderbergh’s part. His film certainly compares well to Kazan`s Viva Zapata!, at least in terms of its portrayal of its central revolutionary protagonist.

Aside from Benicio del Toro’s excellent performance and the choice to shoot almost all of the film in Spanish – something Viva Zapata could really have benefitted from – I was impressed by how Che stayed relatively nuanced in its depiction of Guevara. We get to see Che as the romantic figure of the revolutionary, fraternising with the local peasants and willing to give his life in combat to defend the revolution. On the other hand, we are also shown a darker side to him, as he defends the executions of members of Batista`s old military in front of the United Nations; and comes across as a strict, sexist and homophobic disciplinarian with the troops in his guerrilla column. The scenes in New York also bring attention to how polarising Che was – and still is – as a public figure, supporting the questionable idea that “One man’s terrorist in another man’s freedom fighter”. However one feels about Che, it is difficult to deny that Soderbergh’s film aims for neutrality on the subject. Che also doesn’t shy away from portraying guerrilla warfare as brutal, physically exhausting, and for the most part fairly tedious. The film follows Che’s Guerrilla Warfare quite closely in emphasising the importance of preparation, although this in turn does mean the film feels quite sluggish during a lot of the sequences in Cuba.

Another aspect of the film that really struck me was the stark visual and stylistic contrast between the scenes set during the Cuban Revolution and those where Che is in New York in 1964. The way the latter were shot really conveyed the idea that Che was completely outside of his element, finding himself in what he must have perceived as the capital of capitalism and Western imperialism, and speaking in front of career politicians at the United Nations. In fact, he seems much more comfortable fighting Batista’s forces and living with the rest of his army in the Cuban Sierra Maestra. All of this was probably intended to show why Che abandoned international diplomacy as a means of spreading revolution throughout the Third World, and instead returned to fighting guerrillas. It also reinforces the idea that Che, even when appearing on American national television, was a revolutionary first and foremost.

This week’s assigned work was the film Che, by Steven Soderbergh. The film itself is based off Reminiscences of the Cuban Revolutionary War written by Che Guevara and details his exploits during the Cuban Revolution. What I enjoy most about the movie is that it gives the viewer an inside look into the stories of the revolution told through Che’s eyes. We see a more human face to Guevara as opposed to the more tactical view that is portrayed of him in Guerilla Warfare.

One of the key elements of the film that I enjoyed was the juxtaposition of Che in the United States with flashbacks to the war and Che’s time as commander of a column. I enjoyed this mostly because it shows the evolution of Che as a soldier to who we now consider as the embodiment of the revolution. We also see how Che progresses with his confidence. For example, during the start of the film we learn that after regrouping with soldiers of Jorge Soltus group, it was Che who was supposed to lead the men to Fidel. Che however fails to take leadership and is then scolded by Fidel for lack of assuming command. Che’s complacent attitude then is completely changed as shown through the conversation with the U.S. senator where he basically insults the senator by giving thanks to the Bay of Pigs invasion as a means to solidify the Cuban revolution. This transition from follower to leader I think is something that is essential to note and what the film tries to highlight.

The film emulates Che’s ideals and methods of leadership. Che is portrayed as a fiercely loyal soldier who values discipline and order above all. Yet despite his hardline stances the movie shows a softer side of Che that is not so often seen when discussing the figure. We see how Che cares for his soldiers as well as the peasants that he is fighting for. I particularly enjoyed the section of the film where Che unites all the forces rebelling against the Batista. I feel this part of the movie also helps show the charismatic nature that Che emulates. He was able to unite multiple factions who previously aligned against each other through his superior tactics in pushing back the Cuban army.

One of my favorite parts of the film comes when Che addresses the United Nations and gives a fiery speech regarding the right for Cuba to exist as well as bear arms. Che explains that executions have occurred, and will continue to occur, as it is the right of Cuba as a sovereign state. It is through this speech that Che defends the Cuban revolution by proving with absolute certainty that the Cuban people have the right to rebel against dictatorship. Che evens finishes his inspiring speech with a phrase that can still be heard echoed throughout Latin America: Patria O Muerte! (Homeland or Death!).

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.

While watching this movie, I noticed a lot of similarities between the movie and the novel we read Guerrilla Warfare. What I particularly liked however, was this narrative shift within the movie from the perspective of Che to the perspective of Fidel while in New York during a UN conference. What this narrative shift accomplishes is it looks at the Cuban Revolution in two, but related, fields. Through the voice of Che we see what the Revolution was like through a local lens, that of the soldiers, recruiting, training, traveling, and fighting. However, the perspective of Fidel in New York offers, or better yet, reminds us of the political implications of the Cuban Revolution. That was something that was not really mentioned in the novel Guerrilla Warfare. The political aspect of the Revolution, I think, is also very important as it addresses other important problems Cuba as a country faced at the time, such as the trade embargo, and the presence of US imperialism. These issues play an important role in the Cuban Revolution as they perpetuated the current problems associated with the Batista regime: mainly hunger, poverty, and agrarian reform.

Now I would like to go deeper and talk about some parts of the movie that I found quite interesting. For example at around the 23:00 minute Che says that he doesn’t plan to retire being a revolutionary, that one can never stop being a revolutionary.  This is quite captivating as I thought that revolutionaries fight a war to bring change, and once the war is over and a new order in in place, the revolution stops. But by affirming that one can never stop being a revolutionary it defies our modern understanding of what a revolution is. Is a revolution simply a war to bring change? This interpretation now seems to be inaccurate since Che believes once a revolutionary, always a revolutionary, there is this sense that a revolution goes on. But what is this “revolution” then? Just before the 23:00 minute Che underlines the importance of the “spirit of the men” in making a revolution successful. And this spirit he claims, is the will to fight and defend one’s values which can never go away. So maybe to Che, a revolution is not about war, or as much about bringing change, but more importantly about the “spirit of the men”; this sense of honor and patriotism, and fighting to protect one’s country and its ideals. Then around the 48:00 minute Che also states that the most fundamental part of a revolutionary is love. And he operationalizes love as love for justice and humanity. Without this quality, a revolutionary cannot exist. In general, I like these quotes about Che because he challenges our notion of revolutions. But I also believe that interpreting revolutions the way Che does, acts as a sort of binding agent. By binding agent I mean he seems to connect people together, creating this sense of fraternity and solidarity. He uses people’s emotions, struggles, to put everyone, no matter social conditions, as equal people undergoing the same problems, and for that reason, this is a collective fight. This collective fight means therefore, that the soldiers are not fighting for themselves, but rather for everyone.

Although there is much more to say I would like to address one more part of the movie I quite liked. Around the 57:00 minute Che finds himself more possible recruits. In front of him is a group, with two young brothers 14, and 16 years of age, 1 women, and the rest men. He says, that a joining a war is not just about shooting and winning but that a nation that cannot read or write is easy to deceive. Here Che brings up another very important topic: education. What is interesting is how only the young boys and the lady knew how to read and write. Many people have already said this, but I repeat, education is a powerful tool. With education one can have the possibility to challenge ideas but also to form new ones. Ideas are also powerful as they can bring change. So by having an education, one can bring change.

This movie has a lot of important themes. But more than anything, it is trying, or better yet, Che is trying to help us look at what a revolution truly is; one about ideals. So in this regard, this movies can also be seen as quite different from the novel Guerrilla Warfare as in that book, there is more of an emphasis on actual tactics, and a guide on how to create a revolution. Maybe this week we can talk more about similarities and differences between the two (movie and novel) to help us better understand more about this term “revolution”, which is ultimately what this course is about.