So, this book I would argue is probably the most interesting of all that we have read. To some degree it is sort of on par with Che’s Guerrilla Warfare in the sense that there is this sense to rise up. However, the tone of it is slightly different and maybe because in Guerrilla Warfare the context was rising up as guerrilla soldiers and fighting to topple down the government. In this book, there is a sense of an insurrection, but one of younger students who won’t necessarily topple down the government, but rather use their words and ideas to fight back. In this regard, both texts do give us this revolutionary sense but just slightly different. To begin, the book gives us a very negative perspective of the system. They have no faith or trust in the system anymore, and the tone of the author is rather mocking I find. What I found interesting reading this book was yes it’s a very critical piece of work, but to the point that I felt as if there was this sense of duty being evoked by the author and asked upon us. Nevertheless, at the same time it is all very anonymous. I don’t really know who is speaking. These are just the general literary aspects of the book I got and found interesting. However, I would now like to move onto some quotes which merit further discussion.

The first chapter is titled, “I am what I am”. The author dislikes this quote because it is simplistic, unproductive and selfish. It’s all about the me. It also does not really tell much. I like the quote however, because yes everything the author suggests is true, but also because it is a very unique question that inherently  makes people want to ask, “well who I am then?” to which the response would be, “well you are you”. Well what does that mean exactly? What I mean is, the question makes you think critically about yourself and the situation around you which I think is very important for revolution. Further along, the author also mentions this system of power dynamics. He illustrates this by referring to the idea that many of us are being pressured and asked to be someone, and that instead we should be the ones to make that choice, and as he says, we should “liberate ourselves”. All this power dynamics creates a space where war can happen.

Another chapter I found very interesting was that in regards to the environment. It struck me, and I liked very much how the author said, “maybe it doesn’t concern us because it doesn’t touch us…. and that is the catastrophe itself” (28). This quote is very true. We don’t care about the environment because we are not directly affected. We also cannot see the first impact it makes because climate change is a gradual process. If we cannot see it, or if we’re not affected, we don’t care. This is why this quote is great, and yes is the catastrophe itself. However, even talking about solutions to environmental degradation is something that the author looks at in a negative way. This quote really does a great job at expressing his stance and reasoning, “The present paradox of ecology is that on the pretext of saving the Earth, it is merely saving the foundations of what desolated it” (31). He is referring to the fact that the problems we’ve created;  business, corporations, capitalists in a sense are now becoming aware and trying to fix this. Yet, the author is being very critical and arguably cynical as he finds it ironic that we are as he says, “and stupid as we are, we’re ready to leap into the arms of the very same people that presided over causing the devastation, expecting them to get us out of it”. Basically, the author thinks it’s a farce and is very against it.

Finally, I would like to address two powerful quotes that to a certain extent are common. The first quote is, “We have to critique in order to save this civilization” (38). What this suggests therefore is that knowledge, thinking, being critical, reasoning, this is man’s greatest weapon. Would I agree? I could say yes, but I would need more time to reflect. Though the idea makes sense. And lastly, there is this quote, “the circulation of knowledge annuls hierarchy” (55). This is somewhat similar to the first, in that knowledge is not just (the most) powerful tool, but it can “annul this hierarchy”. Basically, what these quotes are therefore saying, is that the greatest weapons are ourselves. Not guns, or tear gas, or tanks. But ourselves. We have the power to think and challenge the system. We have this “cognitive” capacity that is unique to humans. Let us use it therefore.

Overall, a very interesting read.  Unfortunately I don’t have time to say more, for example this quote where the author says, “there is no such thing as peaceful insurrection”. But looking forward to this week’s discussion.

Two of this week’s assigned readings/videos that I really enjoyed were “What is Canada?” and the Paris demonstrations of 1968. On the one hand you have a very strong anti-capitalist perspective offered by “What is Canada?” and on the other hand you have more of a student led movement that is challenging the educational system and the issue of unemployment. However, in a sense both are critiques against the government, and more in the text than the video, they are both anti-capitalist. I would first like to begin with this particular case in Paris and then lead it to the more general discussion of capitalism found in “What is Canada?” The student led movement began after major strikes happened throughout Paris in subways, factories, newspaper delivery, etc. After coming out of university students became disenchanted with the fact that it was difficult to find a job. They felt that it was the governments and universities’ responsibility to help them. This is an important issue, and something which I think we see today. Actually, I’ve heard some of my professors also say that in front of class, that “we students have it harder”. But if you think about it, this issue is so important. Students have been taught by their families, friends, and teachers that going to school is important as it helps them get a job. This is the case everywhere. Education = work. So when students nowadays graduate from university and they cannot find a job they are left helpless. This becomes a greater issue considering the fact that the cost of living in most places throughout the world is increasing. Therefore, students need to get a job in order to maintain themselves. Understanding this, it is therefore reasonable and justifiable that students back in 1968 revolted and advocated for a revolution. To see so many get injured and hospitalized was therefore really tragic. However, we’ve also been talking about revolutions as more of a nation problem, and more from an adult perspective. These new types of revolts created by students, are becoming more popular and intense, and show how times are changing. But even thinking about students, who represent this youthfulness, energy, strength, and freshness in ideas, it helps these revolts even more.

I wish I could say more but I’ll leave it for class. Lastly, I would like to briefly end with a discussion on the reading “What is Canada?” First thing to mention is the title of the article is great. It challenges us by making us think as if we don’t know Canada, “our home and native land, true patriot love..” Also, a lot of times we take pride (because we think) that Canada is a very peaceful and accepting country. Yet this article shows just how oppressive Canada is, but we just don’t know it. The article addresses this oppressiveness by stating that Canada is a very capitalist, bourgeoisie country where money is all that matters. There is income inequality, unemployment, discrimination, and a highly centralized government that does not listen to its people. And they blame it all on Canada’s capitalist stance, that because of capitalism all these problems existed. I do believe we need to take these issues into account, but as I argued it the beginning of the term, and still remain the same, capitalism is not bad. Okay, let’s be clear. It is that people have made it bad. If we can change that (which I know is very difficult) then maybe things can work out. But if you think about it carefully, what capitalism is really all about or intended to do, is bring growth and development to countries through this system of trade both in resources, but also in innovation and ideas. Was this not the same back in ancient civilizations? I argue so. And it worked (better) than the system we have today. That however is not to say it wasn’t oppressive. But at least it was better because the notion of wealth and selfishness (which is product of today’s generation) did not exist back then. Therefore one has to be very critical when saying that capitalism is bad. As a student studying Latin American studies for example, I know the many problems associated with capitalism or as it is now more commonly referred to as globalization. However, I think it is just too easy to say “capitalism is bad”.

In class we’ve so far been reading novels that tell of different revolutions through the lens of one or a group of people. This has had limitations, and several times I got lost or could not really see how the revolution was portrayed. We just read people’s thoughts that are so random and all over the place. Despite this being the longest of all, Country Under My Skin, was a novel that I quite enjoyed reading. I could actually see in chronological order how the Nicaraguan revolution unfolded. Although this novel was told by one person and hence subjective, the language was less poetic or ambiguous, and there was less dialogue, making it easier for me to follow through and understand. But enough about the practical and structural part of the book. My appreciation of the book also came from some of the quotes and events of the story. To begin, the book starts off with something that I found quite interesting. It describes Nicaragua with words such as “brisk wind, clear sky, perfect day for going to the beach, lounging on the grass beneath a tree, gazing out at the Caribbean”. Then immediately after this there is a contrast where it says “instead I found myself at a shooting range with a group of Latin American guerrillas with my AK-47, and behind me was Fidel Castro”. I found this introduction to the novel quite interesting as we are presented with two realities of Latin America; one imaginary and the other more realistic. Often we have these tropes that describe Latin America as lush, peaceful, sunny, very exotic. And yet, the author, or Gioconda, quickly corrects that and tells us a more realistic and upsetting aspect of Latin America, that of combat. She is practicing for the day when the revolution is to come, a revolution where Nicaraguans, like other Latin American people, are trying to fight for change. What Gioconda is telling us immediately is that Latin America is not as romanticized as we make of it, there are people who suffer dictatorships and poverty and who trying very hard to the best that they can to stop this. Instead, we are shown a Latin America that is in a state of impoverishment, hardship and struggle. And this is something that we must always remember, even up to this day. Now steering more towards the topic of revolution, page 5 I found quite interesting. It talked about patriotism and this iconic figure of Fidel Castro. “We are the soliders who will free the Motherland….It was listening to that song that I first experienced the call of patriotism”. I liked this quote because it gives us a different look at revolutions. We’ve so far been predominantly looking at revolutions as an instrument of bringing change. Here we are also told how it is related to patriotism, that this is also about unification, protecting the country, being proud about one’s country and the love for it. I think a revolution has to have a love for one’s country in order for it to start, or even in order for people to see that change is needed, otherwise people wouldn’t care. What I found more interesting was then the iconization of Castro. “To me Fidel was a romantic hero”. But what I found more interesting was then how she admits that people say so many different things about him that she doesn’t know what to think. Just like in the introduction about imaginaries of Latin America, here Gioconda is also being critical and honest. One last quote worth mentioning is on page 24 when she defines the Sandinismo movement saying that “it is a particular ideology that was a mélange of New Left socialism, cooperativism, and popular democracy, that it claimed to be the successor to General Sandino’s nationalist legacy”. Then she goes on to say “But, they didn’t seem like a real alternative for us. They were guerrillas. They advocated armed struggle, violence, socialism”. Here is another time she gives us this contrast, this “two sides for every one thing”. What I liked then afterwards was how she openly and strongly said how it was different from communism. Page 276 “we aren’t communists, fighting the label the United States had pinned on us. And it was the truth: for all Marxism and Leninism we had studied, we had different dreams for Nicaragua, we wanted a new kind of socialism, Nicaraguan, libertarian”. Further down she says “we wanted a new kind of revolution that would be original and open, the product of a tropical, irreverent left-wing movement”. And yet, even this example once again shows how Gioconda is challenging people’s ideas of Nicaragua, that Nicaragua is unique, different and has its own problems and patriotism worth fighting. These were some of the quotes I found interesting. But there were a lot more. One last thing I really enjoyed about this novel was it appeared to be framed from a feminist stand, and yet despite this, Gioconda maintained a level of objectivity. She told throughout the novel, problems that she faced such as men, love, family, divorce, job, being a soldier, and her emotions. In the end we find out that life for a woman in Latin America, is not that easy, once again challenging our notions of how things are in life. It is this challenge that she presents to us, that I found quite “refreshing” and I learned a lot more about what life was like in a Latin American revolution, from this book, than any other book we’ve read. Truly a book that I would recommend to others.

I must admit I was quite impressed by the way the book started. In the first couple of pages you see how much the author is trying to convey this idea of it being hot and that there is no escape. He even states, “I want to convince whoever is reading this book, that León is hot. I’m not making this up, it’s really hot”. But even just with this phrase, what stands out is the tone of the author. It is very casual and local to say the least. By local I mean a type of language that would be spoken only in local towns as opposed to maybe in the city. He even in the first couple of pages mentions that there is the upper, middle, and lower class. What we get in the first couple of pages is therefore what a “true” local town is like in Nicaragua. He even characterizes the town by describing this bar or local space where people go to and play pool and drink beer. What impressed me the most from reading the first few pages is his choice of “bad” words with particular reference to religion. He first of all refers some people as whores, and secondly says that they don’t f**k around on Holy Week, “where else could you go but to Lezama’s?” If his language is not casual, it seems to be mocking something all the time. This casualness however is quickly eliminated when he then starts talking about his experience as a Sandinista fighter (interesting how he is serious when it comes to war and soldier related matters, but then everything else he can talk as casually as he pleases). He begins describing his experience as a Sandinista when he was a young boy. One of the first thing he mentions is that as a young boy he did not like seeing blood. Not only does this show innocence but it also shows the reality of a revolution.

I liked how halfway through the book the author mentioned how the soldiers ate with such a voracious appetite trying to imagine their food as something decadent, them drooling over the scent of food. And then, sadness over the fact that these soldiers were not going to spend Christmas the way they used to with family back home, and how whenever Christmas came, there was also this particular atmosphere, people were happy, there were lights and decorations. But, in the mountains the soldiers did not get any of that, they were even trying to find (if possible) whether and how the rural people in the mountains celebrated Christmas. I liked this part because it addresses what I mentioned in The Underdogs; that revolutions are not just about fighting and trying to win, but that at a personal level, it affects families as they are separated and risk losing each other. There is a lot of parallel between this book and that of the Bolivian Diary where both mention in detail the journey in the mountains and how difficult it was for these soldiers, how much planning and optimism they needed, and the possible dangers.

Finally, the end of the book talks about the legacies of a Sandinista. I liked how he emphasized the word history, in particular, he calls it Sandinista history, one of honor, dignity, and of the people fighting against Yankee imperialism (again). But if anything, by emphasizing so much on history and its relation to people and its legacies, the authors successfully seems to make it as part of Nicaraguan identity, that the people who live nowadays, this is where they (or their parents, grandparents, family relatives) came from, this is what it means to be Nicaraguan, and this is the unifying spirit of the country. Even on the last page he says, “I felt I was the son of history. I understood my own past. I knew where I stood. I had a country. I had a historical identity”. So the legacy of Sandinismo is that it goes on even after the revolution, and how it has shaped people’s identity, history, and national significance. It was in the end, a fight for liberty, truth, and peace for all Nicaraguans!

On the course website it says we could watch the movie, so that is what I did. It was very short. Around 40 minutes. Nevertheless, even with the 40 minutes there is quite a lot to say. I must say, this is up to now the only work that really gives us a sense of what it was like in a revolution. In the texts and movies we’ve seen regarding the Mexican and Cuban Revolution, they show what it is like from the perspective of soldiers in battle. However, in Fire from the Mountains we get a little bit of that, but also however, short interviews with the local people, and their thoughts about the revolution and its impact on the country.

To begin, the movie starts off with this background music and us looking at the mountains (the movie also ends in the exact same manner). And when we get both of these scenes of the mountains there is a person in the background describing the mountains using words such as majestic, spirits, undefeatable. He even says that the mountains are being romanticized. I find this quite interesting. Unlike in the works concerning the Mexican and Cuban Revolution, this movie seems to treat the mountains as a living and very important actor. At the end of the movie when it shows the music and the mountains, the man also says that the mountains “are the genesis of history”. He goes on explaining that it is up there where Sandinismo began, where the revolutionaries lived and forged their plans. He concludes the movie by saying, “as long as the mountains exist, there will be hope”. So it seems clear that the movie, but also the revolutionaries, view the mountain very highly. It is an identity of the revolution and is being heavily romanticized.

But even the term romanticized is brought into question in the movie. In one incidence in the movie one of the local people pointed out that Nicaraguans have for a long time been romanticizing things such as in the economy. They think they know everything and he admits that by romanticizing things the people have made a lot of mistakes and should therefore be very careful about using and practicing the term.

One thing different about this revolution as opposed to the other two we’ve studied is, in the Nicaraguan Revolution the people involved are a bit more diverse. Here we see more local people taking action and even student uprisings. This is important such as in the case of Mexico where there was a student uprising because of Mexico holding the Olympics. I believe it actually led to student massacre at the plaza of Tlatelolco where the Mexican army sent it its tanks and started killing students. But the point is student uprisings are starting to characterize modern times and revolutions, and this I think is important. It shows that the YOUTH are starting to act as a force of opposition.

There is more I would like to say but I leave with one more thing and that is what the revolution meant to most of Nicaraguans. After the revolution the situation, one could argue, was worse than before as now there was a lot of buildings destroyed due to the war, and one key factor was the scarcity of food. So for many Nicaraguans the revolution was a time of hunger and uncertainty. But even when the revolutionaries won in 1979, defeating Somoza, then there were the Contra-revolutionaries, those who went against the revolutionaries who took down the government. So even though the revolution ended, there was still shooting on the streets between both sides. Therefore, if we were to ask what one of the consequences of the revolution was, it’s that it did not do much, just put one person in power but still the people were hungry and there was civil unrest. Several local people in the interviews said that Nicaraguans simply want peace. They don’t want all this fighting. I think this is something that we need to ask ourselves and try and see if we can apply it to the case of the Mexican and Cuban Revolutions. The revolutions in those two cases, was it a unanimous decision. Did everyone agree to it? Or was it just the interest of a small group? Revolutions, although they may be seen as a way to bring change, they do leave behind many casualties. Does this make revolutions an effective means to change? Is it justified? These are important questions to ask.

This movie however has done the best job of talking about revolutions and its impact on the people in a more objective way, rather than just on the perspective of a soldier fighting. And for that, I really liked it.

Lesson Plan:

Possible Standalone Questions:

• Why do you think René Barrientos decided to have Che executed (rather than imprisoned, put on trial, or extradited)? Was this a mistake?
• Does the failure of his Bolivian campaign hurt the validity of Che’s ideals, tactics and/or his validity as a revolutionary figure?

Quotes on Che after he died:

“The death of Che Guevara places a responsibility on all revolutionaries of the World to redouble their decision to fight on to the final defeat of Imperialism. That is why in essence Che Guevara is not dead, his ideas are with us.” – Stokely Carmicheal

• How potent are the image of Che and his ideals in instigating Revolution?

“I believe that the man was not only an intellectual but also the most complete human being of our age: as a fighter and as a man, as a theoretician who was able to further the cause of revolution by drawing his theories from his personal experience in battle.” – Jean-Paul Sartre

• How is this completeness reflected in what we’ve seen about Che? Also, is it something one can/should expect from revolutionaries?

“Che’s iconic status was assured because he failed. His story was one of defeat and isolation, and that’s why it is so seductive. Had he lived, the myth of Che would have long since died.”

“He belongs more to the romantic tradition than the revolutionary one. To endure as a romantic icon, one must not just die young, but die hopelessly. Che fulfils both criteria. When one thinks of Che as a hero, it is more in terms of Byron than Marx.” – Christopher Hitchens, the first quote seems good to have a debate on. The second one is kind of similar, and could also be used as a second part or something.

Pictures:

Che’s dead body in a Vallegrande hospital as compared to The Lamentation over the Body of Christ by Andrea Mantega (late 15^th century)

• Che’s martyrdom, shown as an almost Christ-like figure by the Bolivian army (ironically enough).
• How important is this religious / cult like aspect to Che’s public image? How does this affect his revolutionary potential, as a symbol or as an example to emulate?

Other questions:

• How does Fidel Castro portray Che in his “a necessary introduction”? Why do you think he used the word “necessary”?
• Fidel claims that Che’s writing of this diary was necessary by saying, “there was no alternative but to publish Che’s diary”. To what extent do you agree with this statement? If you disagree, what other alternatives do you think are possible?
• On page 15 there is a quote from Che’s “Message to the Tricontinental” that says, “wherever death may surprise us, let it be welcome if our battle cry has reached even one receptive ear, if another hand reaches out to take up our arms”. Thinking in terms of death as “natural and probable” (15), what problems (or maybe outcomes) could this have in leading a successful revolution?
• Many people in class have said that this diary has no purpose in that it was mainly written for Che himself. However, at the end of Castro’s “a necessary introduction”, he mentions how Che’s diary was meticulously tested for its veracity, and then sent to different countries such as Italy, Germany, US, Chile for publication. Based on this information, in what ways can we see this diary as something actually useful? Or maybe, why do you think Che wrote this diary?
• In Camilo’s preface he compares Che’s last page of his diary not as an epilogue but rather as a prologue (1). What do you think this epilogue that Camilo talks about, is referring to?
• How important is machismo and honor to these guerrilla soldiers’ identity and the legacy they wish to leave behind?

Reflections:

For three weeks we’ve been talking about Che, and in doing so have even added more “imaginaries” of him that are already out there. One thing that interests me, however, is whether Che wanted people to think of him as this heroic, protector of the oppressed, symbol of resistance sort of figure. One could argue that by thinking of him in so many ways it either helps us understand the Cuban Revolution more (as we often associate the two hand in hand), or conversely, it gears us away from the Revolution and distorts it because much of what we are doing is creating these myths, speculations, and subjective biases. In a sense, we are focusing the shift from the Cuban Revolution, which is what matters the most, to now one foreign young Argentinian individual who some have argued lacked the local knowledge to be enlisted in the Revolutionary and fighter for Cuba. It is interesting because I don’t know of many other “big figures” that received so much attention. This then begs the question, why Che? What made him different from others? Yes he was a guerrilla soldier, yes he was willing to die (and in the end did die), yes he tried to make himself and the Revolution more internationalized. But still, why have people chosen him over others? Shirts, books, songs, movies, politics, they all say something about him. One thing that we haven’t looked at in this class, and I argue is very important, is addressing the (potential) problems with fetishizing him. Even when I went to see the professor about planning this Thursday’s class, I told him saying, “all we’re doing is talking about Che Che Che” – to which he replied, “well that’s the goal, that’s what we’re here to do”. We need to remember that before anything, what we are really talking about is the Cuban Revolution. That Cuba was cut off from the world and its people were facing the consequences. This is why Che fought back. I think he would want us to put that on priority rather than make more passing judgements about “oh how great a revolutionary he was”. I am obviously not saying that talking about Che is bad, but what I am saying is that there is a limit. We must not get carried away because in doing so we lose touch of reality and what is really important in our lives. Also, when people start praising a figure to the point that he becomes more than a legend, it can become dangerous. And if I may add as a closing remark, the Mexican Revolutions and its great figures did not get as much fame and popularization as Che and the Cuban Revolution did. What happened to both countries and their respective revolutions afterwards? I would like to conjecture that nowadays the Mexican Revolution plays a huge role in people’s identity and history. It is about land. However, in the case of Cuba I don’t (correct me if I’m wrong) get that feeling. For US it’s about Che. But for CUBA, they are worried about the harsh social and economic conditions that they’ve been having to confront most if not all of their lives. So for them I don’t think they care too much about Che (which is more a FOREIGN made up thing). What they are mainly concerned is what the Cuban Revolution can do to bring changes to their lives. This illustrates once again the problems of us been asked to think too much about Che. I hope we could have also talked just a little about the Cuban Revolution itself.