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.