What I greatly enjoyed about this course was how it taught us to think of revolutions in a more analytical way. Simply saying that a revolution is just an uprise from the civilian population against the government does not encompass the depth and uniqueness of revolutions. The one benefit of studying revolutions through the movies and texts we watched and read, was it broke down revolutions into more abstract and personal ways of thinking. This is something that cannot be accomplished by taking a history course or reading books that teach about them from a more pragmatic and standard approach. However, I would also argue that having this traditional way of learning about revolutions through history books would have benefitted my learning of revolutions in this course. I felt to some extent limited. I think learning about the historical context and the actual events and people specific to each revolution would have made this course more enjoyable. Nevertheless, as I mentioned earlier, studying revolutions through these more personal materials, has been very useful and offers us what I would argue, the true essence of a revolution; and that is that revolutions start from within, they come from a need, something personal. That is something that textbooks and history, I would argue, cannot fully create. We need to look and learn about revolutions first through “primary sources” meaning the people who were directly involved in the revolutions, whether on the revolutionary side, or counter-revolutionary side. This is after all, a fight for survival, and therefore the value and input of both sides is very significant and gives us a true sense of what the revolution was. Then, we can rely on “secondary sources” such as history textbooks that provide us with a more objective lens at revolutions. Having both “primary” and “secondary” sources, we can then find some balance and complete understanding of the uniqueness in each individual revolution.

Revolutions are not just to topple down an oppressive government. We have seen that the term can be applied to other instances. We talked about capitalism, feminism, student marginalization, personal struggles. These are other forces that we need to address with the collective support of our communities, but also with governments, business, NGOs, social movements, and each other. However way we look at revolutions, we use it as a banner, as a voice, as a collective but also individual shield, weapon, and power, to bring positive change. And we must never lose faith in our cause or in the revolution itself, for by that very nature, revolutions cease to exist. The revolution depends on each individual spirit and trust. And lastly, must revolutions be violent? We have learned that past revolutions whether successful or not, have nevertheless ended in the lives of innocent people on both sides. Revolutions as much as they bring together people, they also separate people by causing more antagonism towards each other. This however, might be revolutions’ very nature and something that we cannot change. But as a society that has grown and learned from our past mistakes, I hope that we can make revolutions more peaceful. If revolutions are personal and meant to bring change, there is nothing humane about killing other people. Obviously, I am thinking in a more humanistic and idealistic way. However, if we could theoretically achieve this, I think it would greatly challenge our current understanding of revolutions as being violent and something catastrophic. Nevertheless, if we could find an alternative, we could make revolutions something more meaningful, something not to be afraid of, but rather something that we know can work and bring positive change. We already live in a violent society with people dying of hunger, poverty, wars, governmental conflict, terrorism, natural disasters. Continuing our path of revolutions with more killing only undermines us and our goal for global progress. Therefore, we need to find alternative and better ways.

Overall, an interesting and enjoyable course. And this blog is probably the most important thing that I will take out of this course (along with everything else we learned in this course)

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.

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.

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.

Before I read the book, my eyes see a picture of a grenade, on the top right hand corner of it appears to be a point eye range, and beneath both these images is the title “Guerrilla Warfare, and Introduction”. Already I am questioning myself whether this book is actually going to teach me what it means to be in a war and how to go about it. Like, even the fact that someone could write a book about it makes it seem not only revolutionary in our standards, but also part of the Cuban revolution where the main goal was to recruit people, join masses, and fight against the oppressors. And yet, as I read this book my doubts turn into reality and this book goes into great length, very much in detail, and one could tell, with lots of time, dedication, careful choice of words, and cause. I will say somethings that grabbed my attention while trying to understand and accept how someone could really have gone so far as to write a book on how to do war and win. What first struck me was how he clearly states that war is a science (page 9), that it follows laws and influenced by variables, such that if you do not follow the “scientific method”, in this case “the way of the war”, then you will end up losing (page 9). And we see how this strong affirmation is present in the way he writes his whole book and the language he uses. It is all very detailed, and carefully chosen, and he always gives us different scenarios and that every scenario requires different tactics. But the main idea of war as a science is really interesting. What purpose or effect does treating war like science have on our understanding of revolutions, or our lives in general, I don’t know. Changing the subject, I also like how he describes guerrilla soldiers as social reformers and also agrarian revolutionaries, both of which are true in the context of the Cuban Revolution and he argues, true in all cases of revolutions. Even more interesting, is how he also describes guerrilla warfare as an “embryo” (page 12) in which he describes guerrilla warfare as a prelude to other bigger and significant wars. I can understand this comparison, but I find that it also devalues guerrilla warfare, suggesting that it is ultimately not the one that will lead to victory, the one that will lead to victory is a more advanced stage of guerrilla warfare maybe a civil war. Throughout the book his language is quite metaphorical. For example on page 17 he describes one phase of guerilla warfare as like a queen bee with other bees taking over another beehive. Other things he mentions are ammunitions, food, travel kit, geography, the use of animals, hunting tools, tools to make other tools, a diary to keep notes on, tactical strategies such as destroying enemies’ infrastructure, communication, food supply, etc. Like this is a truly a book intended to teach someone who wants to go to war and learn what it takes. I must though point out what he says about terrorism. On page 21 he clearly distinguishes sabotage which for him is “a revolutionary and highly effective method of warfare” with terrorism which he say is “ineffective and indiscriminate in its results” that it only kills unnecessary people. Although I agree with him on that point, I would also like to see how he views his vision of guerrilla warfare no less different. In the end, innocent people die, regardless of them being the enemy or not, and both are forms of violence created by a group of people who use an ideology or goal as there source of inspiration and justification. Nevertheless, I just found it very interesting how he clearly demarcates guerrilla warfare with terrorism, and on numerous occasions throughout the book. There is also a sense of iconizing guerrilla soldiers, where he describes them as strong, disciplined, teachers, messengers of revolutions, and willing to die without fear. Also interesting to add to these descriptions, is how on page 33 he says that “in Cuban war of liberation, to abandon a weapon is a grave offence”. There is this further sense of cult and macho solider like attitude, that the war encompasses honor and dignity. One other interesting topic to discuss his view of women in guerrilla warfare. On page 92 he starts off by saying that women play a vital role, but then further down contradicts himself saying they play a “minor role”, and furthermore, says their only role in the guerrilla warfare is to cook for men and help with the technical stuff. I just find this interesting as for someone who is fighting for a noble cause which is agrarian reforms, and against an oppressive enemy who is hurting the people, he still has this gender stereotype problem where in his view women should occupy less significant jobs. There are just 5 more things I would very briefly like to say. I like how on page 121 he says “revolutionary indoctrination is the basis of national security”. He is really making it clear that revolutions, and teaching about it, serve in the interest of the people who are oppressed and need to fight back in order to live. Also on page 127 he says “Cuba is the symbol of nationality renewed” and “Fidel Castro is the symbol of liberation”. These quotes are now starting to idealize these concepts of the revolution further. Now on a more important issue, Che at the end of the book leaves us with a very good reflection question, “is guerrilla warfare the only formula for seizing power in Latin America?” I appreciate this quote because it makes us think that there may be other alternatives, not just violence. At least, this is how I interpreted his reasons to be. Then 2 pages later, on page 145 he says that “revolutions are inevitable because of the conditions under which they are made”. This is true, and he further goes on by saying “he who wages war in a country when he can avoid it, is a criminal, just as he who fails to promote war which cannot be avoided is a criminal”. Once again showing that revolutions are necessary and at times inevitable. At the end of reading this novel we obviously see that to him, guerrilla warfare is the only and best means of winning, and which is why he went to great lengths to write this book. He has in this book brought up good points, and one has to admire his determination and cause. But still, after reading this book, I still find it hard to comprehend how someone could have the “audacity” to write a book that promotes and encourages people to take arms and tell them how to successfully do it. Nevertheless, it was an interesting read.