While down in Chile, I read a biography of Che Guevara by Jon Lee Anderson, the New Yorker magazine writer. I recommend this book highly not only because it is so well-researched and written but also because Che was so far ahead of his time, which is possibly why he remains a hero for so many millions of people today.
Ernesto “Che” Guevara was born in 1928 to a socially prominent Argentine family. He was good-looking, averse to bathing, and suffered badly from asthma. Anderson recounts dozens if not hundreds of sexual liaisons in the first 200 pages. Che and his dreams of social justice were irresistible to rich girls: “One night, she and a friend, Blanca Mendez, the daughter of Guatemala’s director of petroleum reserves, tossed a coin to see which of them would ‘get’ Ernesto.” (pg 131) Sadly for the U.S., Che was rejected by his one great love, a 15-year-old old rich Argentine girl who might have forced him to go straight.
Although Che graduated from medical school he never completed a medical internship and almost never had anything that looked like standard employment. Until he become an official in Castro’s dictatorship of Cuba, Che lived off women with jobs: “A nurse named Julia Mejia had arranged a house at Lake Amatitlan where Ernesto could go and spend the weekends” (pg 138); “In March, … Hilda paid off part of his pension bill” (pg 139); “With some jewelry Hilda gave him for the purpose, he paid off part of his pension bill” (pg 141); “Ernesto now needed Hilda again for the occasional loan” and, as he had written in his diary, to satisfy his ‘urgent need for a woman who will fuck’.” (pg 166).
Che was afflicted by wanderlust from an early age though generally his travels involved some suffering for others. From his cousin Mario he stole three new silk shirts and sold them for travel expenses. Che was a difficult house guest: “Staying for a night in the barn of an Austrian family, Ernesto awoke to hear scratching… he aimed the Smith & Wesson … and fired a single shot. The noises stopped, and he went back to sleep. But in the morning he and Alberto awoke to discover that Ernesto had bagged not a puma, but their hosts’ beloved Alsatian dog, Bobby.” [This was the first lethal gunshot fired by Che Guevara.] Some of his travel diaries and experiences show how little South America has changed: “The bloodshed [in Colombia] was called simply ‘La Violencia,’ the euphemism for what had become a national plague, and in 1952 there was no still no end in sight” (pg 91).
Che did a bit of glider flying with his uncle and the book includes a photo of him, the “oddball uncle”, and a sailplane with a tail number of “LV-DAY”. Che appreciated fine optics: “he tried out a new toy he had bought himself with half of his remaining funds–a 35mm Zeiss camera” (pg 162). At his death, “several Rolex watches [were] found in Che’s possession” (pg 741). Che kept programmer hours: “Stories abounded in Havana of foreign dignitaries who, after being granted interviews with Che at three o’clock, showed up at his offices at that hour of the afternoon, only to be informed by Manresa that their appointment was for 3:00 am.” (pg 446)
Africa defied Che’s efforts. “Che was stunned by the number of cases of venereal disease among the rebels… ‘Almost nobody had the least idea of what a firearm was,’ Che recalled. ‘They shot themselves by playing with them, or by carelessness.’ The rebels also drank a local corn- and yucca-based brew called pombe, and the spectacle of reeling men having fights or disobeying orders was distressingly commonplace.” (pg 642). “In a ludicrous sideshow, the boat captain had also brought over forty new Congolese rebel ‘graduates,’ fresh from a training course in the Soviet Union. LIke their Bulgarian- and Chinese-trained predecessors, they immediately requested two weeks of vacation, while also complaining that they had nowhere to put their luggage.” (pg 666)
Richard Nixon, Vice President at the time, comes off as perhaps the only intelligent American in the book. His own CIA was supporting Castro because they thought that he was anti-Communist. Nixon met with Castro, however, and reported to Eisenhower that Castro was in fact a Communist (pg 416).
Fidel Castro earns his status as modern hero in this book. On page 295, Castro, out in the sierra with a small army, responds to a call for compromise with U.S. and bourgeois interests: “These are our conditions… If they are rejected, then we will continue the struggle on our own… To die with dignity does not require company.”. One of the first things that Castro’s regime did was introduce affirmative action to the university: “Che told the gathered faculty and students [at University of Las Villas] that the days when education was a privilege of the white middle class had ended. ‘The University,’ he said, ‘must paint itself black, mulatto, worker, and peasant.’ If it didn’t, he warned, the people would break down its doors ‘and paint the University the colors they like.'” (pg 449) Castro ended up being somewhat at odds with Che. At the beginning of the struggle Castro doesn’t care what form of government Cuba ends up with as long as he and his brother are in charge. After Castro has secured power he realizes that retaining lifetime ownership of Cuba will require Soviet support. This leads to a rift between Castro and Che. Che wants to foment violent revolution in other Latin American countries. The Soviets want to avoid military confrontation with the U.S. and Castro is willing to do anything the Soviets say as long as he can keep his job.
American military adventures abroad and foreigners’ response to them have changed little. “In 1951, both [Fidel Castro] and his brother Raul (echoing Ernesto Guevara’s own stance in distant Argentina) had vocally opposed the Prio government’s intention of sending Cuban troops to find in the ‘American war’ in Korea.” In the summer of 1956 Che picks up his infant daughter and says “My dear little daughter, my little Mao, you don’t know what a difficult world you’re going to have to live in. When you grow up this whole continent, and maybe the whole world, will be fighting against the great enemy, Yankee imperialism. You too will have to fight. I may not be here anymore, but the struggle will inflame the continent.” (pg 202)
When Che left Cuba for Africa he left behind a “Message to the Tricontinental” that demonstrates his faith in any kind of violence against the U.S., an anticipation of Osama bin-Laden:
In it he appealed to revolutionaries everywhere to create “two, three, many Vietnams” as part of an international war against imperialism. Che … demanded a “long and cruel” global confrontation to bring about the “destruction” of imperialism in order to bring about a “Socialist revolution” as the new world order.”
And in a litany of the qualities that would be required for this battle, he cited: “Hatred as an element of the struggle; a relentless hatred of the enemy, impelling us above and beyond the natural limitations that man is heir to… a people without hatred cannot vanquish a brutal enemy.”
It would be a “total war,” to be carried out against the Yankees first in their imperial outposts and eventually in their own territory. The war had to be waged in “his home,” his “centers of entertainment”; he should be made to feel like a “cornered beast,” until his “moral fiber begins to decline,” … He urged men everywhere to take up their brothers’ just causes, as part of a global war against the U.S.
“Our every action is a battle cry against imperialism, and a battle hymn for the peoples’ unity against the great enemy of mankind: the United States of America. Wherever death may surprise us, let it be welcome, provided that this, our battle car, may have reached some receptive ears and another hand may be extended to wield our weapon and other men may be ready to intone the funeral dirge with the staccato singing of the machine guns.” (pg 719)
The “fight first, decide on what to do once power has been attained” strategy had worked well in Cuba and Fidel Castro’s continued ownership of that country is testament to Che’s success. But it didn’t work in Bolivia where Che spent his last couple of years trying to convince bewildered peasants to take up arms against the U.S. Che was taken prison by the Bolivian army in October 1967 and the U.S. government tried to drag him back to Panama for interrogation. But the Bolivians were angry and President Barrientos ordered Guevara executed in the field where he was being held.
Reading this book in Chile inspired some reflection. No Latin American country has rejected Che Guevara’s philosophy more definitively than Chile. While their neighbors put energy into bemoaning and trying to escape American commercial domination, the Chileans quietly go to university, accept American investments, build farms, mines, and factories, and load goods onto ships for export. Chile, along with Costa Rica, probably best represents the opposite of Castro’s Cuba. Have any of our readers been to both Chile and Cuba? How do they compare? The Chileans are certainly richer but I wonder if the Cubans are happier (their music is certainly happier).
Another reflection that occurred to me is how much less hope there is in today’s world. Quite a few Latin Americans in the 1950s felt that if they could only overthrow their governments they would enter some sort of paradise of freedom and prosperity. Women would yield their bodies if a man only hinted at dreams of a brave new world with a different government. It seems as though these hopes have been dashed by the failure of the Soviet Union and the Starbuckification of China. Now it seems that there is only one form of government from which to choose. It will be more or less corrupt. It will be more or less efficient. It will be more or less tolerant of opposition. But basically the path to prosperity involves investment and hard boring work rather than a moment of glorious political change. How depressing is that?
A long time ago, I remember reading an anecdote about Che Guevara that explained his life-long hatred for the U.S. He supposedly secretly boarded the cargo compartment of a plane (not sure whether commercial or military) heading for the States, where he was discovered, beaten senseless, and left in an empty locked plane for a couple of days without water or food (the bastard should have died.) Does the book recount this incident (which may well be fictitious?)
Che was instrumental in setting up labor camps for the forced re-education of “counter-revolutionaries” and homosexuals. His hands are bloody, and everything he touched turned into a disaster. There is no standard by which Cuba can be considered a “success.” Like the North Koreans, they have simply shown themselves to be better at tyranny than their compeers.
We need to stop romanticizing totalitarians, even when they are handsome and seem to oppose things that we, too, oppose. What they supported was worse.
I thought Che was great in Evita.
Hopefully I misunderstand you, Phil. Are you actually suggesting that it’s depressing that the path to prosperity no longer entails bloodshed? The violent overthrowing of a government? Romantic, perhaps, and great for movies, but it sucks for the people who get between you and your vision of what’s “right.” This is a reduction in “hope” in the world?
WIth all due respect, these exotic locations you’ve visited that used to have exotic governments in place are also populated with real people who have to live under that government. A government should be evaluated as a system, not as an endangered species.
Finally, I suspect that the people of Cuba make such happy music because that’s their way of creating joy in such a tightly controlled country. Go watch Buena Vista Social Club (the documentary) and tell me that those musicians were happy to visit Manhattan (where they could actually perform), but really they’d be much happier to live out their lives under Castro.
I read a Che’ biography 5 years ago that emphasized his loyalty to Castro, and I came away with the impression that he was at war with his own pretty boy tendencies– I recall that he continually volunteered to shoot ‘traitors’, including those guilty of trivial lapses. Each time that someone had to shoot a traitor, Che’ was willing to do it as a proof of his own machismo.
What I want to know is why it was alright for North Americans to have a revolution in order to get out from under control of the british monarchy, but it’s somehow risible (or worse) if South Americans have similar aspirations want to get out from the overbearing influence that the US government has on their lives?
Why the double standard?
Is it only because the US won their revolution but the South Americans keep losing theirs?
More pertinantly, in October 2003 thousands of those Bolivians you somewhat dismissively describe as “bewildered peasants” were on the streets of La Paz protesting (some of them having taken up arms) that their government was selling off gas reserves too cheaply to US corporations. Many of these people were killed by the Bolivian army, but in the end they managed to chuck out the president who had to flee the country.
Not sure they’re much better off, because the influence of US corporations runs pretty deep in corrupt latin governments. On the other hand, they’re not as badly off as the poor bastards in Saudi Arabia, who’ve had their natural resources plundered and sold cheap by a Western imposed fundamentalist dictatorship for decades.
More pertinantly, in October 2003 thousands of those Bolivians you somewhat dismissively describe as “bewildered peasants” were on the streets of La Paz protesting (some of them having taken up arms) that their government was selling off gas reserves too cheaply to US corporations
Not only US corporations. Repsol, the spanish oil company, also had its share of the pie in Bolivia (not to mention the recent scandal of french telecom Alcatel bribing officials of the OEA). Let’s stop pretending that the europeans are blameless in all this, okay?
“Let’s stop pretending that the europeans are blameless in all this, okay?”
Absolutely! European countries are largely responsible for the bloody mess in the first place. The only reason to pick on the US is that it’s bigger and more succesful at screwing up other people and so it’s an obvious shorthand. But I have no doubt even the Bolivians would be shafting other people if they had the chance.
But that’s an important point. A lot of people in the US take criticism very personally, in a kind of “them and us” kind of way. It’s not about “them and us”. It’s just about calling out and opposing cynical and exploitative behaviour wherever it occurs. We absolutely need to be aware when it’s our country too.
“Che was so far ahead of his time, which is possibly why he remains a hero for so many millions of people today.”
I gotta tell you Phil that I have no understanding of what this means- even as sarcasm it baffles me. Ahead of his time? Like he was an angry slacker before they were so prevalent??- Here we have a person trying to prove his machismo by doing everything but acting like a grown-up – Poor follow- through (the unfinished degree, the unfinished “revolution”), low autonomy (parasitic relations with women) and an adolescent approach to problem solving (quick, dramatic action -like a violent “revolution” is actually going to restructure complex economic situations driven by multiple variables…) I remain confused understanding his prominence among “so many millions of people today”.
While reading this book, I became interested in Fidel Castro. Jon Lee Anderson mentions a biography written by Tad Szulc named “Fidel: A Critical Portrait”. This book is excellent but is not in the same style of Che by Anderson. Anderson’s account sometimes has a storytelling feel to it. Szulc’s book, not much so.
Che was in Guatemala in 1954 when Jacobo Arbenz was overthrown by the CIA organized invasion forces. The motivation behind this was tied to the threat to the United Fruit company’s investments in Guatemala. This coup is covered in another book called “Bitter Fruit” by Stephen Schlesinger and Stephen Kinzer.
Those two books are excellent paths to follow after reading the Che biography. After you tackle Bitter Fruit, “All the Shah’s Men” about the 1953 CIA coup in Iran is another good account.
Eduardo Cavazos
(of Brownsville Texas)
Can anyone point to a Communist leader who had the discipline and moral character exemplified by say, George Washington? Or are they all psychos and girlie-men?
Supposedly Ho Chi Minh lived a very disciplined life. Might be bullshit though…
Sorry, last post wasn’t supposed to be all one paragraph. Maybe tags are called for. Let’s see if this works better:
Here’s an interesting article on Guevara that came out soon after the Motorcycle Diaries movie:
The author quotes some from Guevara’s diaries of the trip:
“The main task at hand was getting to Iquitos… The first person we hit on was the mayor, someone called Cohen; we had heard a lot about him, that he was Jewish as far as money was concerned but a good sort. There was no doubt he was tightfisted; the problem was whether he was a good sort. He palmed us off to the shipping agents, who in turn sent us to speak with the captain, who was kindly enough, promising the huge concession of charging us third-class fares and letting us travel in first. We weren’t happy with this. … [T]hen the second-in-command … promised to help… [Later] we came across him, [and] he said he’s secured a great deal for us: as a special favor to him, the captain had agreed to charge us third-class fares and let us travel in first. Big deal.”
And later says “The film clearly intends to suggest that Guevara was a youthful idealist, and that his idealism—so generous, so disarming—was the source of his later opinions and activities, such as his liberal and open-handed signing of death sentences after perfunctory trials, his support of regimes that had killed millions and scores of millions, and his wish that much of the population of the world should be immolated in a nuclear war for the sake of an alleged point of principle. The film is thus the cinematic equivalent of the Che Guevara T-shirt; it is morally monstrous and emotionally trivial.”
Do any of you know if Che Guevara had a lover called Vania? If so, could you please suggest where I can find out more about her?
Thank you
I visited Chile in 2006, and was stunned at the time by how poor the country is, considering it is supposedly such a “free-market” success story. And in the process, Chile has destroyed much of its natural wealth. The vast coastal forests of the Lake District I visited are no more, replaced by Pine & Eucalypt plantations. I hiked in a tiny national park, Nahuelbuta, which is probably less than 10 miles wide. This tiny pinprick of a park is almost all that is left of the native coastal forests. Forests which, at least judging from Nahuelbuta, must have been absolutely spectacular. The once-rich oceans are severely overfished, with pretty much everything you could possibly catch being hauled up, ground into fishmeal and fed to farm animals or to farmed salmon, which pollute Chile’s fjords. Given Chile’s vast natural resources and tiny population (16 million), there is no reason why the country should not be as prosperous as say, Canada or New Zealand. And a key reason why it’s not I believe is that its resources have been systematically looted by a kleptocracy – largely aided by Pinochet during his reign.
I’ve never been to Cuba, but from what I have read much of Cuba’s nature is intact – perhaps one of the advantages of central planning and state control of the economy. Much is made in the American press of how poor the Cuban people are. But one thing that has struck me is that when you compare Cuba to its Caribbean neighbors – most of them small, resource-poor island states – they are probably just as poor as Cuba. In other words, it’s not clear to me that the average Cuban would have been better off in a democratic, “free” Cuba. Likely the country’s resources would have been looted by corrupt officials and a thieving upper class, as the story so often is in developing countries.
I would conclude that while Chileans may be “richer” financially than Cubans, this is 1) probably due to the larger size and richer abundance of natural resources in Chile, 2) this “wealth” has come at a great cost to its natural environment.