Final Project (english 2)2.do

7/30/2019 Final Project (english 2)2.do

1/21

The Real Che Guevara and His Politics Today


Gerald A. Azul

University of Central Florida

1


2/21


Abstract

The subject of my research is Che Guevara. My purpose of this essay is to create an

objective analysis of Che Guevara. The majority of writings about Che lean left or right, leaving

no middle ground or an objective view, each article seems to have an objective. For me to create

this middle ground, I gathered multiple articles from an online database provided by the UCF

Library and analyzed each article. I looked at the authors background for possible bias, their

argument, how they support their argument, and the journal the articles purpose. These articles

are a genre for the political science discourse community and a method of communication for

political scientists to participate in the field and receive feedback. I analyze this genre to also

understand the political science community since I am an aspiring political scientist. This

research is to also help me learn to participate in this community.

2


3/21


Political science is a multi disciplinary discipline. It blends all social sciences to analyze

people and situations. Political scientists are sometimes referred to as analysts, and as analysts

they usually break down situations psychologically, sociologically, or historically. Sometimes

analysts are able to use all three and maybe more. Political scientists/analysts share their analyses

with one another through personal writings and publishing them in scholarly journals. Journals

are either very broad or very specific to a subject. Journals and journal articles are the political

science genre. As an aspiring political scientist, I can learn the ropes of this community

through their genre (journals). Analyzing a genre will show you how a community works and

communicates. Through genre I can learn to communicate with others political scientists.

Genres are a reflection of a discourse community, in this the political science major.

Genres are where members of a community socially interact and create meaning. Genres are a

written method of communication within a community. Political scientists participate in the

community by reading and writing articles in journals. Absorb what others have to give, and

contribute what you can. According to Swales, a discourse community requires, participatory

mechanisms primarily to provide information and feedbackpossess one or more genres in the

communicative furtherance of its aim (1990).

I have attempted to analyze the genres of the political science community by accessing

articles from the UCF library databases. That website brought me multiple articles. For this

assignment I chose three. They are written by Gordon H. McCormick; a Department of Defense

analyst, James Petras; sociologist and political activist, and Humberto Fontova; a Cuban Exile

and sociologist.

The subject I am researching is the real Che Guevara and his politics in use today. Che

Guevara was a key figure in the Cuban Revolution and the communist government afterwards.

3


4/21


He is a legendary figure, a folk hero to the proletariat, and a highly controversial individual.

Analyses on this man are highly skewed by ideological standing (right or left wing). In

researching this subject, I will attempt to remove the legendary aspect of Che and the

polarization of his image. My goal is to use the research on Che Guevara to understand how my

discourse community.

Setting

The articles I obtained were from the UCF library databases. The database I used was

Worldwide Political Science Abstracts. Other articles in the same journals I retrieved my specific

articles were all political analyses. They range from specific analysis to certain countries and

events, or broad overviews of regions and events. My topic, which is the real Che Guevara and

politics/views in relation to todays world, has been thoroughly analyzed in this database. The

database also provided broad overviews of Che Guevara. Two of the three articles were in depth

analyses of Che. This shows that political analysts go deeper into subjects/topics more than the

general public. Many who know of Che Guevara merely have an elementary understanding of

this political figure. Political scientists/analysts are a specialist group that breaks down politics

and people into smaller disciplines like psychology and sociology.

Subject

I have obtained three articles. They are written by Gordon H. McCormick, James Petras,

and Humberto Fontova. The article by James Petras, Che Guevara and Contemporary Revolution

put Che Guevara into perspective with contemporary revolutions, especially in Latin America.

Latin America today is pretty much a refuge for far left ideologies, for example Venezuela and

their leader Hugo Chavez; a far left politician. He is a more pro Che Guevara analyst. For

example, most analysts who are not pro Che refer to him as a murderer. Petras (1998) refers to

4


5/21


him as a revolutionary. Petras is the left wing perspective on this subject. The book which my

second article originated from by Humberto Fontova analyzes the true character of Che Guevara.

He attempts to remove the mystique and folk legend perspective of Che Guevara. For example;

Fontova (2007) refers to Che Guevaras travels as a doctor as hoboing. He removes the

romantic image of Che as a roaming doctor/rebel without a pure cause to fight for. Being a

Cuban Exile almost automatically makes his analysis right winged. The image he creates of Che

Guevara is that of a hippy living in Haight- Ashbury. Fontova brings about a conservative view

of che, but I do like how he tries to break down Che Guevara as a person, removing all the

mystique from the man. The third article by Gordon H. McCormick is a broad overview of the

legendary Che Guevara. It mainly contains a brief history as to why he is so revered by the

world today. It would be something you can find on wikipedia or any basic source of knowledge.

For example; McCormick (1997) explains how Ernesto Guevara became known as Che. You can

find this piece of information in almost any article about Che Guevara. His article is quite

elementary, only basic information is provided. The other two articles are more in depth. This

reveals that my discourse community values in depth analysis. Everyone can know about Che,

yet the political science community strives to fully understand the political figure.

Participants

The main audience of these articles is fellow political scientists and analysts. Not only do

they read these articles, many write their own articles with their own analysis. For this topic,

mainly political scientists and analysts with a specialty in revolutions will have much interest in

these articles. It wasnt until after the 1960s academics took up studying revolution, especially in

todays world where terrorism is a problem, and events like the Arab Spring. The authors are all

analysts. Gordon H. McCormick is an analysts that has worked for the Department of Defense

5


6/21


and other agencies with similar objectives. James Petra is a political scientist and sociologist, as

well as an activist. Humberto Fontova is a Cuban Exile and a sociologist. Political science is a

blend of other social sciences, this is why two of the three authors are sociologists. This shows

that the political science/analyst community breaks down politics and people into more

disciplines. Fontova analyzes Che from a sociological perspective. This is so the people can have

a full understanding of certain politics and people.

Feautures

The recurrent feature in these articles is Che Guevaras political ideology (Marxist

Leninist). The difference between the three is the analysis. For example, Fontova (2007) removes

the legend of Che from the individual and analyzes him as a person. Petras (1998) puts Che in

contemporary revolution terms and how his ideology would be today. For example, he mentions

a clich about Che; he wrote along the lines of, Che would shoot the people who wear shirts

and other memorabilia. McCormick actually keeps the legendary aspect of Che. His article is

mainly about what made Che a legend, not necessarily as in depth as the other two analyses. All

the articles are written in sections. Each begin with a quick overview, and then jump into the

analysis. For example, every article addresses Ches time as a revolutionary, and then go into

their personal analysis. The voices are highly monotone, emotion is not a value to these writers.

The information is basically presented to you, this isnt entertainment.

Patterns

The genre of these articles is for the political science crowd. In turn these are written in

the APA format, or at least cited in this manner. The articles are written in sections, and each

section is an elaboration/presentation of evidence for a certain argument or analysis. It shows the

values these authors have. They value their perspective and present them to the reader in an

6


7/21


upfront manner. The best way for the writers to convey their messages is in an upfront logical

manner. These are used normally with research in liberal arts. For example in Comp 1, my class

was assigned to do ethnography. After the research was conducted of a certain discourse

community, the data was written up in the APA format. This format is usual with liberal arts like

history, especially when a specific event or time period is researched and the writer has a specific

analysis. From these articles especially when doing extensive research allow the reader to gain a

certain perspective. In time the reader can create his or her own perspective and analysis, then

write of it. The attitude of the articles is generally biased. Che Guevara was a political figures,

and all politics are biased, they are a simply a theory like genres and genre analysis in writing.

The writers attitude toward the world go from anti-imperialist to American conservative. Each

authors article is usually skewed by the right or left wing in relation to the country and lifestyle

they were raised in.

Conclusion

The political science major is a multi disciplinary disciple. Its purpose is the analyze

people and situations using social sciences. From my articles most political scientists specialize

in psychology, sociology, and history. There could be more, but most analysts fit in these

categories, especially when analyzing a political figure. Much of political science is theory. It is

backed by evidence, but it relies on perception. The framing of evidence is key to proving a

point. Personal prejudices also affect an analysts analyses. For example Humberto Fontova, as a

Cuban exile, it is almost natural for him to have a disliking for the legendary image of Che. The

political science field is so dynamic. Everything is based off of perception, one piece of evidence

can be interpreted in so many different ways. In turn the communities genre is dynamic, for

genres are a reflection of the community. The political science will always have a steady flow of

7


8/21


articles and journals due to the dynamic nature of the field. Every contribution could be

considered almost breakthrough. Each interpretation is highly valued for others to build off of.

This is an evolving field.

Analysis of Arguments

I chose my topic since here at a college campus, you see many Che Guevara shirts and

memorabilia. In my first semester I had an international relations class where he was briefly

mentioned. In the same class the professor assigned a miniature paper that allowed us to research

anything we wanted more closure on in the class, of course I chose Che Guevara. I wanted to

know what the shirts meant. In political science Che Guevara is a controversial political figure

and folk legend. The Che most people have come to love is based upon folk legend and a cult of

personality. My objective is to separate fact from myth and analyze Che as the political figure he

truly is.

To accomplish this I first accumulated multiple sources on Che Guevara. With the

sources I analyzed them by scrutinizing the venue of article, and the author. From my sources I

concluded that the authors political ideology polarizes the legacy of Che Guevara. Writers either

love him or hate him. Writers wrote about Che as a personality (Fontova, 2007; Minogue, 1972;

Harris, 1998,), aspects of Che (Payne, 2011; Yaffe, 2009; McCormick, 1997), being subjective to

Che (Petras,1998; McLaren, 2001), and opposing Che (Fontova 2007).

Fontova, a Cuban exile and political scientist wrote a book called, Exposing the Real

Che Guevara. This book opposes Che Guevara by presenting him as a communist propaganda

campaign, tyrant, and terrorist which is contrary to popular support for Che (Fontova 2007). His

book even though it is mainly an editorial opposing Che, being a Cuban exile is a reflection of

what Cubans think of Che, he doesnt have the hearts of everybody. Minogue is in his essay

8


9/21


Che Guevara written in Prophetic Politics attempts to separate fact from myth that surrounds

Che Guevara (1972). His analysis concludes that Ches passion is the core of his legacy

(Minogue 1972). He comes to this conclusion by presenting Che neutrally, unlike many other

authors. Harris in his article Reflections On Che Guevaras Lgeacy, on the other hand bases

his analysis from other writings of Che. This sounds good, yet his sources are purely subjective

towards the political figure, the writer may not necessarily be biased but his sources are. His

conclusion is similar to that of Minogue, passion is what Ches legacy consists of ( Harris 1998).

Payne in his article, Building the Base: Al-Quaedas Focoist Strategy, asserts that modern

terrorists groups are utilizing Ches guerilla foco theory (2011). Ches theories make modern

insurgents more sophisticated than they seem. He is neither subjective or opposing Che Guevara,

but stating an observation/claim. Yaffe in his article, Che Guevaras Leagacy: Not the Foco but

the Theory of Socialist Construction, analyzes Che from an economic standpoint rather the

clich analysis of guerilla warfare. He asserts that Che Guevaras policies are great, yet he

implemented them at the wrong time (Yaffe 2009). McCormick like Payne in his article, Che

Guevara: the Legacy of a Revolutionary Man analyzed guerilla warfare. He asserted that Che

Guevara is not worth all the hype since he only implemented basic military strategy and brought

upon his own downfall with simple mistakes (1997). Payne and McCormick analyzing Che

Guevara in the specifics of their field took Che Guevara at face value, creating an objective

analysis. Petras in his two articles, Thirty Years After Che and Che Guevara and

Contemporary Revoulutionary Movements is in the attitude of the common slogan El Che

Vive! His articles are completely subjective to Che when referring to his influence on Latin

American politics. McLaren on the same note asserts that Ches legacy was created by capturing

9


10/21


the hearts of young impressionable people, yet does not question this practice as indoctrination

(2001). His passion for Che is blinding.

These sources show how the political science community communicates. The primary

genre for political scientists to participate and receive feed back is academic journal. Political

scientists both read and write articles playing off of one another.

Che As A Personality

Che Guevaras legacy is based upon folk legend and mystique. More specifically, his

legacy is a cult of personality (Fontova 2007). In order to understand any controversially figure,

you must separate fact from myth (Minogue 1972). Minogue, in his essay for Prophetic politics

asserts that Che Guevaras passion is what created his following or cult of personality (1972).

For example, he states in his essay, The passion Che followed was less universal than that of

many another saint (Minogue 1972). Harris in his article asserts a similar argument of Ches

personality. He states, It is impossible to think of a true revolutionary without this quality. . .

.Our vanguard revolutionaries must idealize their love for the people (Harris 1998). Harris in his

article analyzing Ches legacy based off other biographers of Che and he pulls his own analyses

from the gap. This shows how the love for Che is spread beyond the sources I have accumulated.

Many writers have spread the love for Che, yet the cult of personality also stems from the

personality itself, Che Guevara. He has many writings, but the favorite amongst the masses is

The Motorcycle Diaries. Reading articles and books about Che give the writers interpretation of

Che, but his personal diaries show the real Che. The personality of love and passion for the

people every writer addresses can be found in the last passage of his diary. He states, I knew

that when the great guiding spirit cleaves humanity into two antagonistic halves, I will be with

10


11/21


the people (Guevara 2003). This shows there is some truth to every legend, for a legend

reaffirms a groups common values.

With Che being a political figure, much controversy arises around him. Political

polarization skews his image from being a saint, to heartless character. Fontova is his book

asserts that Che Guevara nothing more than a terrorist (2007). He puts him along the lines of

Osama Bin Laden. Fontova presents evidence that is neglected or has never been heard before.

For example few are aware that Che planned an attack on the statue of liberty during his visit to

the United Nations. Ches legacy is polarized left or right, never in between.

Fontova defines Che as a terrorist, while Harris defines him as freedom fighter for the

people (2007; 1998). Both different definitions are two of the same. A guerilla fighter fighting in

the name of peoples rights can be seen as a terrorism. Che ends are peoples rights, but his means

are uprising and killing in the fight, then executing the remaining who oppose his views. Do the

ends justify the means? I find that Che being so consistent in his socio-political views and

actions are the reason he has a cult of personality. Its not the freedom fighter or politician the

people, but the fact he is a straight up guy who stands behind himself. He exemplified the

principles of individual sacrifice, honesty, dedication to cause, and personal conviction in his

beliefs (Harris 1998). My analysis shows that schools should teach proper research. Most of the

sources that are polarized is done so by the writers personal bias. Of course a Cuban Exile will

hate Che, and of course a Latin American would most likely love Che since Latin America is

quite leftist. From the polar opposites I had to establish a middle ground that Che is a pure

character and the people love him for it. In politics I find that polarization only leads to framing

sources into the writers ideology. Writers should always a middle group or objective standpoint

in their writing.

11


12/21


Aspects of Che

The writers who went more specific into Che for example analyzing him as a guerilla

fighter or policy maker; are actually the most objective. Being experts in a more specific field

allowed these writers to take the evidence of that aspect at face value. For example Yaffe, an

economist analyzed Ches socialist construction policies rather his famous guerilla foco theory

(2009). He asserts that Che enacted good economic policies to create socialism, but enacted them

at the wrong time (Yaffe 2009). Marxists believe it or not actually like capitalist, but only as a

prerequisite for communism. Karl Marx himself believed that the most advanced countries

would have a communist revolution; not countries like Russia, China, and Cuba. Especially in

Cuba, with country not modernized yet, Che implemented socialist construction to early (Yaffe

2009). Since socialist construction was implemented before the country modernized, Cuba has a

problem with innovation (Yaffe 2009). The purpose of capitalism is to create competition for the

economy to innovate. The dilemma in communism is how to innovate without the incentive of

capitalism (communists reject consumerism). In turn, Raul Castro in 2008 began enacting

capitalist policies (Yaffe 2009). This shows how Che Guevaras policies are no longer relevant,

they do not work if Cuba wants to be competitive in the international economy.

McCormick, a Department of Defense analyst and instructor at a Naval postgraduate

school analyzes Che from military point of view. He asserts that Che Guevara is not worth all the

hype, as in Che never brought anything new in to strategy and theory, he simply implanted basic

military strategy (McCormick 1997). Che Guevara is known as guerilla fighter and the fame

stems from his part in the Cuban Revolution. Che fanatics disregard his revolutionary attempts in

other countries afterwards. They see his personality as passionate, not his failure. For example in

Bolivia where he was executed he implemented basic strategy and committed the most crucial

12


13/21


basic mistakes. At first Che attempted to implement the Cuban Revolution in Bolivia

(McCormick 1997). Secondly, he ignoring cultural differences between Latin Americans,

Bolivia is not Cuba (McCormick 1997). Finally he didnt have the same support in Bolivia as he

did in Cuba (McCormick). Che could be a great man to some, but he is his own greatest enemy.

He brought his downfall upon himself.

Payne also analyzes Ches guerilla fighting, but emphasizes his foco theory. In his article

Payne asserts that Al-Quaeda is implementing Ches guerilla foco theory. This is where a

guerilla/paramilitary group vanguards discontent and creates popular support for a revolution.

Payne asserts Al-Quaeda is using this for their global jihad, as in Al-Quaeda vanguards Muslims

for global jihad (2011).

When analysts scrutinize a subject specifically related to their field, it enables them to

take evidence at face value. The analyses I have accumulated show only that Che Guevara is still

relevant today, whether you love or hate him. This has influenced leftist politics highly. I find

that if writers researched subjects more in depth into the individual aspects the analyses can be

more objective. When writing writers should take all their sources at face value, not frame it to

their own ideology.

Subjective to Che

Political polarization skews any analysis of a subject, including Che Guevara. From the

sources I have accumulated, two authors are exclusively subjective to Che. Petras, a political

scientist and political activist who leans left, asserts that Che has a lasting influence on Latin

American politics. Latin America is a refuge for leftist politics. Petras states, I would argue that

Ches relevance to contemporary revolutionary politics is found in his general analysis of politics

and his reflections on political action and economic structures rather than the tactical ideas he

13


14/21


applied to specific conjunctural circumstances (1998). Basically Ches politics remain relevant

today. This articles analysis seems similar to Yaffes article, but other articles by Petras provide

more evidence that he is subjective to Che, besides his political standing.

In his article, Thirty Years After Che, he analyzes Che legacy based on his guerilla

warfare rather his politics. He asserts that Ches ideology for guerilla lives on today. He states in

his article, The figure and ideas of Che Guevara have been influential and prescient in shaping

the revolutionary debates and understanding their potentialities (1997). His evidence for this

claim are presented by waves of revolutions after his death. McCormick analyzed Ches

guerilla warfare, but in micro level of analysis. Payne did the same with guerilla theory but on

the macro level. Payne and Petras may have some common ground, yet Petrass attitude is more

subjective to Che Guevara. He states in his article, The CIA may have killed the man, but his

ideas today are more pervasive than ever in ethics, politics, and culture (Petras 1997). This

statement is similar to a common slogan El Che Vive (the Che lives).

McLaren in his article is blatantly subjective to Che. It is visible in the title of the article,

Che Guevara, Paulo Freire, and the Politics of Hope: Reclaiming Political Pedagogy. The

emphasis of the article is Che as a symbol of Hope. The introduction of the article states, I

noticed that he was wearing a Che T-shirt with the inscription iChe Vive!; A fleeting sensation

of plaintive connectedness overcame me, and I managed to give him a quick thumbs-up gesture

of affirmation (McLaren 2001). The subject of the article is Ches pedagogy, which is the

teaching of children. McLaren in his article also states, Che is not sympathetically portrayed in

school extbooks, and because strong social movements against oppression are woefully lacking

in the United States, we therefore should not place too much faithin the relevance of Ches

message for our current condition (2001). In Cuba, kids start their day in school by pledging,

14


15/21


We Will Be Like Che. McLaren is for this practice. Arguably, this practice can be called

indoctrination as well. Che and the Cuban government are creating a communist impression on

impressionable children. There is no mention in the article that the practice within the article

could be indoctrination of any sort.

From these three articles I have come to the conclusion that passion is blinding. Petras

and McLaren have a blatant subjectivity to Che Guevara. They are blinded and disregard

evidence or hold to one interpretation of it. The synopsis of each article is El Che Vive. The

writers only mention Ches successes and how they live on in history, yet briefly mention if not

at all his failures. The writers views Che as a good man, these writers contribute to the cult of

personality that has created Ches legacy. Writers should take the tone of historians, neutral.

When you read these articles you can feel the emotion the writers has for Che. It should be

taught that writers should only present the evidence and their analysis based upon the evidence at

face value. This would remove much of the polarization and skewing of analyses, especially

around controversial figures in general.

Opposition to Che

Just as complete subjectivity to Che Guevara skews the analysis, complete opposition to

Che does the same. Fontova, a Cuban exile and political scientist wrote a book that exposes the

real Che Guevara. He asserts that Che Guevara is a propaganda campaign, tyrant, and terrorist.

Che Guevaras diaries were published by the propaganda bureau of a totalitarian regime

Might there be some embellishment or omission (Fontova 2007). Fontovas sole purpose in this

book is to debunk the legend of Che, and show who he truly is, the epitome of a totalitarian

regime. For example he has a chapter titled, Jailers of Rockers, Hipsters, and Gays (Fontova

2007). The Majority people who love Che know him as a guerilla or freedom fighter, those terms

15


16/21


are sometimes two of the same. Yet to others on the opposition to Che would find him as a

terrorist. Much like Al-Quaeda today, to them they are protecting the world Muslim community

or Ummah. To the United States Al-Quaeda is a terrorist organization. Che Guevara is in the

same situation. Fontova states in the first chapter of his book, New York Fetes the Godfather of

Terrorism, he was referring to when Che addressed the United Nations (Fontova 2007).

Out of all the sources that I have accumulated only one purely opposed Che Guevara.

This also emphasizes Ches cult of personality. There is a widespread support of Che Guevara

in some shape or form. It seems books that opposed che are not highly praised. In Fontovas

book he presented evidence that many disregard or was never aware of. The rest of article do not

address Che as a tyrant, terrorist, and propaganda campaign. Fontova looks at Che as if he were a

pure character. There is no middle ground to this analysis, only rebuttals to common perceptions

of Che.

The Gap

My sources analyzed Che Guevara as a politician and guerilla fighter. The writers of

these sources wrote about specific aspects of Che as a politician and guerilla fighter, or were

subjective or opposed to Che. They analyzed his theories, socialist construction and influence to

other socialist constructions, and actions as a guerilla fighter or terrorist to some.

To completely understand Che Guevara, you cannot only look at what his profession was,

but his home life. The love and hate for Che stems from his profession as a revolutionary. But

who was this guy at home? If I were researching this subject professionally I would interview his

eldest daughter Aleida Guevara and colleagues who remain in Cuba and those who are exiled

here in the United States.

16


17/21


The analysts who scrutinized him by profession where skewed politically by polarization.

Polariztion leads to framing of sources, facts, and half truths. So in reality there is no way to

analyze Che Guevara objectively with the current system. Writers have been catering to their

own biases, and the most objective analyses were Yaffe and McCormick who analyzed Che in

their specific field (2011; 1997).

From my sources I have to conclusion that Che Guevara is not worth the hype he

receives. As a guerilla fighter, he brought nothing new to strategy, he only implemented basic

military strategy and theory. His famous guerilla foco theory is based on French Focalism, so its

nothing new. He only did basic strategy so his basic mistakes were crucial and brought upon his

down fall. Che Guevara initiated his own downfall. His freedom fighting can easily be

interpreted as terrorism, as Fontova has written in his book (2007). His legacy is purely based on

his passion for his own interpretation of freedom. Passion is blinding so it led to the

impracticality of his own socialist construction, for he was too impatient wait upon the right time

to implement socialist policies (Yaffe 2009). Che Guevara is nothing more than a cult of

personality, a symbol of rebellion, and a possible propaganda campaign by Cuba.

Continuing the Research

From my research I have found sources that claim Che Guevara is a saint, and other

sources that claim he is sociopath. Political Science is a discipline that is created by other social

sciences like psychology and sociology; hence the claim Che Guevara is a sociopath. To really

go into the mind of Che Guevara, research must go into his home life, or life outside of his

profession. All articles analyzing political figures only analyze the profession. But now in these

days in politics the home life matters for example Bill Clinton and his relations with an intern.

The private life of political figures now is an important aspect.

17


18/21


None of my sources that I have accumulated has done any interviews. Their analyses are

based on other sources like my own research assignment. To enhance the historical perspective

of the political science field I will attempt to accumulate more first hand sources. The most

prominent person who knew Che Guevara personally rather professionally is his daughter Aleida

Guevara. I would conduct an interview with her. From my sources I have found no precedent on

how to specifically conduct the interview, but I can treat this as an oral history. I would basically

ask about the time or era she grew up in, general information. Then I would get more specific.

For example, I would ask how her father has influenced her life, how did his profession as a

revolutionary affect you and the family, and finally what was he like when he home. The article

presenting the evidence I have accumulate from a primary source would only reference the

interview/oral history and my personal analysis. In the political science field, writers base their

analyses from other analyses primarily by a establishing a gap, rebuttal, or agreement. This

article being based off a primary source will be in touch with historical aspect of the political

science field. The evidence would mainly be an objective presentation of history. There is

nothing new in the world except the history you do not know (Truman).

The current analyses of Che Guevara are all based on his profession as a revolutionary.

These sources I have acclimated portray Che Guevara as a legend and saint, or as sociopath

guerilla fighter/terrorist. My own personal assessment of Che is that he is both. He is a pure

character and the people love him for it, and his policies are somewhat irrelevant today. Che

being a pure character you know what to expect with him, he has consistency. This consistency

to his own beliefs puts him in more favor than his colleague Fidel Castro. The consistency to his

own beliefs bring up the question, Do the ends justify the means? Does being a pure character

fighting for what he believes is freedom justifiable? This characteristic of Che Guevara is what

18


19/21


made him the legend he his today. The atrocities he is accused of were in name of freedom and

the people in his mind. His policies today are almost irrelevant. The socialist construction he

implemented in Cuba is slowly being moderated with capitalist policies to modernize the country

(Yaffe 2009). The real Che Guevara is a pure character which legend elates, and whose policies

today are becoming irrelevant. Yet his influence still remains high.

Conclusion

While researching my gap, I did not find anything relating to my gap. All articles relate to

his career. They present information about his legacy, and everything that contributed to his

legacy. Yet there are no scholarly article about his home life, everyone has a personality as a

professional, and as a typical individual. To truly analyze any political figure, it is necessary to

understand there private life. To fill in the gap I designed an interview with Che Guevaras

daughter, Aleida. Yet, most information about Che hailing from Cuba seems to always be put

through their propaganda bureau first. You receive nothing but positive information. What Ive

learned from this is that you must verify an authors claims. Much of the political information

readers receive are usually at most half true, you must verify your source to get the other half.

From this research assignment as a whole I find that all of politics is based upon your

personal perspective. Yet each perspective claims itself to be the universal truth. While analyzing

Che Guevara I practiced how to formulate solid arguments based on fact and other analyses. In

the political science field analyses are typically build off of previous analyses, if not a gap in the

interpretation of evidence. This has helped me in my other classes. I am now taking classes

directly pertaining to my degree. Currently I am writing a critique/analysis of the Iranian

Revolution based on All The Shahs Men by Kinzer, and Shah of Shahs by Kapuscinksi. This

19


20/21


research assignment has helped me practice writing in the manner I will for classes towards my

degree.

20


21/21


References

Fontova, H. (2007).Exposing The Real Che Guevara: And The Useful Idiots Who Idolize Him.

New York, NY: Penguin Group

Guevara, E. (2003). The Motorcycle Diaries. New York, NY: Ocean Press.

Harris, R. (1998). Reflections On Che Guevaras Legacy.Latin American Perspectives, 25(4),

19-32.

McCormick, G.H. (1997). Che Guevara: The Legacy of a Revolutionary Man. World Policy

Journal, 14(4), 63.

McLaren, P. (2001). Che Guevara, Paulo Freire, and the Politics of Hope: Reclaiming Political

Pedagogy. Critical Studies: Cultural Methodologies, 1(1), 108-131.

Minogue, K. (1972). Che Guevara. In Maurice Cranston (Ed.),Prophetic Politics (pp. 17-48).

New York, NY: Touchstone.

Payne, K. (2011), Building the Base : Al Quaedas Focoist Strategy. Studies In Conflicts and

Terrorism, 34(2), 124-143.

Petras, J. (1997). Latin America: Thirty Years After Che.Monthly Review, 49(5), 8-21.

Petras, J. (1998). Che Guevara and Contemporary Revolutionary Movements.Latin American

Perspectives, 25(4), 1-3.

Yaffe, H. (2009). Che Guevaras Legacy: Not the Foco but the Theory of Socialist Construction.

Latin American Perspectives, 36(2), 49-65.

21

Final Project (english 2)2.do

Documents

Transcript of Final Project (english 2)2.do