It is a classic lesson that to understand a person, one must first learn to walk in their shoes. From literary masterpieces such as “To Kill a Mockingbird” to real life examples that people face everyday, it is known that one cannot justify a prejudice until they fully know the story behind it. To understand Ernesto “Che” Guevara and the political thinking he carries, one must have a deep analysis of the history of Latin America. Guevara’s thinking goes beyond Cuba’s borders, were today his figure is one to follow, with values and ideals thought of as impeccable.
The Che Guevara of Latin America is currently more present than ever. The ideals he pursued will forever affect some people. Guevara’s fight was for the oppressed, the exploited; he was the voice of the people with no voice. His image quiets any person who tires to continue oppression or the unmeasured gain of wealth.
A student of Che’s legacy says that talking about Guevara “obligates one to argue with neutrality and a cold head that he has been invested into more than one current of leftist belief. Wether it is those who look up to him folkloric-ally as an inoffensive figure who calms consciences through a series of compensating fantasies or those who question him for his “focus of extreme-leftism” (Kohan 11). It is like this that Che can be seen as a polemic character, who allows one to dig deeper into his very own theoretical postures. Though what he started seems to have ended violently, there is no intention of that in Che’s initial plans. It is clear that he intended to contribute to a socialism stemming from Latin American roots, a socialism that can take care of the multiple stages of human development in society (Cabero). Wether or not one likes Che, it i...
... middle of paper ...
...tizen who has lived through ideological socialist movements that have done more wrong than good, I do not like the left side of politics. Be that as it may, I accept Che's ideals, knowing what the experiences were that formed them. To understand Guevara, one must be aware of his travels, experiences, and philosophy.
Works Cited
Anderson Lee, Jon. Che Guevara: a revolutionary life. Grove Pr, 1997. Print.
Cabero, Elizabeth. "Repercusiones Del Pensamiento De Ernesto Che Guevara." Cochabamba, Bolivia. 4/25/2010. Lecture.
Guevara, Ernesto Che. La Guerra de Guerrillas. 1960. Print.
Guevara, Ernesto. Young Che: Memories of Che Guevara by His Father. Vintage, 2008. Print.
Kohan, Néstor. Ernesto Che Guevara: el sujeto y el poder. 2001. Print.
Massari, Roberto. Che Guevara. Pensamiento y política de la utopía. Italy: editorial Txalaparta, 2004. Print.
On July 26, 1953, the war for Cuba’s independence began, and for 6 years many Cubans fought for their freedom. The most famous of these revolutionary icons being Fidel Castro, who led the main resistance against the Cuban government. On January 1, 1959, Fidel Castro and the rest of the Cuban's succeeded. This revolutionary war went on to affect the entire world and Eric Selbin believes it is still affecting it. Throughout Eric Selbin's article, Conjugating the Cuban Revolution, he firmly states that the Cuban revolution is important in the past, present, and future. Selbin, however, is wrong.
Miguel Melendez’s book, “We Took the Streets” provides the reader with an insightful account into the activities of the Young Lords movement established in the latter years of the 1960s and remained active up until the early seventies. The book’s, which is essentially Melendez’s memoir, a recollection of the events, activities, and achievements of the Young Lords. The author effectively presents to the reader a fascinating account of the formation of the Young Lords which was a group of college students from Puerto Rico who came together in a bid to fight for some of the basic rights. As Melendez sums it up, “You either claim your history or lose authority over your future” (Melendez 23). The quote is in itself indicative of the book’s overall
During his lifetime Bolivar has achieved many great accomplishments. One of these is the sole liberation of the South American Continent, giving him the revered nickname “El Libertador” or “The Liberator”.
During these times, the Latino community grew stronger and more diverse when different ethnic backgrounds migrated to the United States (predominantly New York City and Florida) such as Dominicans, Colombians, Cubans, and others who followed in those footsteps. The reader learns not only of the radical groups in the United States but the ones outside of it such as the groups in Cuba; Omega 7, Acción Cubana, and the Bloque Revolucionario. These groups were created to override the dictatorship that Castro implemented among the island. Throughout the 1970’s, the vast majority of the population in the United States was made u by the Latino community and soon their numbers made their votes principal towards the Anglo politicians. At the beginning of the Voting Rights Period, the United States saw that the Latino communities were no longer as involved in politics as it saw a decline of organizations. As time has repeated itself, the movements themselves reverted back to their primary goals which was political equality except this time around, it would be mixed together with both cultural pride and ethnic
Ernesto "Che" Guevara, a doctor and revolutionary in Bolivia, was assassinated by the American CIA for many political reasons, thus becoming a legend and idol after the Latin American Revolution. In the United States Che is remembered only as a relic of the 1960 revolution. In Europe he became a pop icon among the youth with little or no historical reference. Only in Cuba does his legacy stand for the hope and faith of the Latin American people.
Everyone knows the name Fidel Castro, the revolutionary of Cuba. At the University of Havana in 1945 is where Fidel Castro began his long and treacherous journey as a radical nationalist. (Fidel: The Untold Story). He fought the infamous Flugencio Batista in the name of social justice until victory was won. He claimed to have fought for a democratic Cuba and a restoration of constitutional government and Cuban sovereignty, but he also stood for socialism and communist ideals. As Tim Padgett from Times Magazine on page 42 stated “Fidel imported old-world Marxism and its perverse notion that social justice is best delivered via the injustice of autocracy.” He supported everything the US and pro-democracy states despised and stood as a revolutionary
Fidel Castro was a man who had a target on his head. Lots of people from all over the world wanted him dead. Fidel Castro wasn’t a capitalist person, he was a Communist.
When we think about society, there is often a stark contrast between the controversy projected in the media that our society faces, and the mellow, safe view we have of our own smaller, more tangible, ‘local’ society. This leads us to believe that our way of life is protected, and our rights secured by that concept of society that has been fabricated and built upon. However, what if society were not what we perceive it to be, and the government chose to exercise its power in an oppressive manner? As a society we would like to think that we are above such cruelty, yet as The Lonely Crossing of Juan Cabrera by J. Joaquin Fraxedas recounts the state of Cuba in the 1990’s, we must also remember that all societies and governments view the individual differently as opposed to the whole. Each group has unique expectations that are enforced upon the individual which extend beyond those expectations that are written. What this book brings to light is the extraordinary repercussions of refusing to meet the demands and expectations of those that lead our governments. When we veer from the path well-trodden and into the ‘wild’ as Juan did, we may not face death quite as often, but the possibility of those we once called our own, persecuting us for our choices is a true and often an incredibly frightening danger.
On this day 191 years ago John Quincy Adams expressed his prediction for the future of Cuban-American contact. The Cuban wars of independence were only 15 years away from his prediction when he estimated. These independence wars continue to influence Cuba’s cultural and political attitude toward Europe and the United States; This in part due to the externalities involved in the remodeling of social structure in the aftermath of the revolution. The intentions and motives of each faction: rebels, United States government, Spanish government, United States public, and the Cuban public, varied widely to an extend that caused even more concern in the future. Depending on the point of view of an outsider the situation in Cuba seemed to be a continuation of revolution...
“The secret of happiness is freedom, and the secret of freedom is courage.” In America, Americans are blessed to have the right to freedom. Unlike other unfortunate countries, their freedom is limited. In many Latin American countries, the government’s leader has all power of the Country. Citizens have no rights to freedom, they are trapped in a cruel country where innocent people are killed each day. Civilians fear to speak out to the regime of leader; However, there were a few courageous citizens enough to speak out against the government. For example, “The Censors” by Luisa Valenzuela and the historical fictionalized account, “In The Time Of The Butterflies” by Julia Alvarez reveal individual 's role in overcoming oppression.
Che Guevara attempted to have a revolution in Bolivia and Guatemala. In Mexico, he trained for his return to Cuba in 1956. The textbook also mentions how Fidel Castro formed local camps as a new revolutionary power (510). They continued to fight in urban areas. It was not until 1959 where they defeated Batista and his government. Many people were happy because Fidel Castro became the president of Cuba. The Cuban people had faith in Fidel Castro to improve the state of Cuba and benefit the people unlike Batista. The Caribbean: A History of the Region and Its People state that, “In 1958 almost all Cubans agreed that a renewed Cuban nationalism would approve their future,”
Filmmaker Oliver Stone embarked on a journey across the Latin American continent pursuant to the filling of gaps left by mainstream media about the social and political movements in the southern continent. Through a series of interviews he conducted with Presidents Hugo Chávez of Venezuela, Cristina Kirchner and former president Nėstor Kirchner of Argentina, Evo Morales of Bolivia, Fernando Lugo of Paraguay, Lula da Silva of Brazil, Rafael Correa of Ecuador and Raúl Castro of Cuba, Stone was able to compare firsthand information from the leaders themselves with that reported and published by the media (“Synopsis,” n.d.). It gives light to the measures these leaders had to take in order to initiate change in their respective countries, even if their public identities were at stake. Several instances in the film showed the mismatch between these two sources, pointing at the US government’s interests for greatly influencing the media for presenting biased, groundless views.
The works of Karl Marx have had a great effect on the world. They influenced many people including Vladimir Lenin. The works of Vladimir Lenin have also been influential. Together they influenced the African Che Guevara who is named Thomas Sankara. Thomas Sankara was a revolutionary hero that enacted sweeping social and economic changes throughout Burkina Faso and inspired many people to believe that Africa could be autonomous and self reliant.
Chavez uses the plural “we” along with his phrase like “we are convinced”, creating appeal in that it is very inclusive. Avoiding the alienation of his audience, he includes himself which makes the issue of violence versus nonviolence his problem as well. He continues his ideas on nonviolence not only by alluding to Gandhi, but also by using rhetorical questions. His allusions to the teachings of Dr. King and Gandhi's work accomplish historical proof that nonviolence is powerful and effective. Likewise, he pairs this with a logical appeal by using, again, direct sentences that are short yet powerful in meaning. Chavez says “people suffer from violence. Examine history.” He again calls on history to make a logical argument on why nonviolent resistance is most successful. By using these short and abrupt sentences he catches attention, showing his passion toward the idea of nonviolence. Chavez ends with a rhetorical question: “who gets killed in the case of violent revolution?” In an hypophora, he answers “the poor, the worker, the people do,” calling out the loss of violence. He says the everyday people and sometimes bystanders get affected, pointing out that no one wins is violent actions, there is only loss. Chavez successfully argues a very effective argument for nonviolent resistance through multiple uses of rhetorical devices. Through his powerful use of short,
Now his work has also to a great extent the political forces of today all of which his work inspired. In my point of view it is no exaggeration to say that of all theorists of society Karl Marx is a revolutionary. and has deeply touched and affected all our lives. Our modern political field reflects his ideologies and is under much of his influence. The snare of the snare.