Tag Archive | “revolution”

Cuba: Fidel Castro Turns 86


Former Cuban president Fidel Castro is celebrating his 86th birthday today. The man who led Cuba through the country’s revolution and for nearly half a century afterwards will be celebrating out of the spotlight, although there are festivities planned around the Caribbean island state.

The capital, Havana, will see an exhibition of 13 images of Castro taken by photographers like Alberto Korda, which have been artistically modified by a group of local painters. Other provinces will see festivities such as fairs and book presentations, as the Sunday edition of many of the country’s newspapers ran with ‘Happy Birthday Fidel’ headlines.

After governing Cuba for nearly half a century, Fidel handed power to his brother, Raúl, in 2006, who formally assumed the presidency in 2007. Questions over the health of the ex-president remain, as Fidel has not been seen in public for months, and in June he stopped writing ‘Reflexiones’, a series of articles he started writing on an almost daily basis six years ago.

Posted in News From Latin America, Round Ups Latin AmericaComments (0)

Why They Fought


An open cabildo discussed the legitimacy of the viceroy and the new local government that replaced him.

On 20th May 1810, the third day of the “Semana de Mayo” in which Argentina began its fight for political independence from Spain, revolutionaries decided to stage a production of Voltaire’s ‘Rome Saved’. The alternate title of the play, and its most dramatic figure, was Catiline—the Roman politician who urged his fellow-conspirators to murder Cicero and Cato, burn the city, break up the corrupt Senate, and take back power for the people.

One might have expected main actor and revolutionary Morante to take the part of insurgent Catiline. In fact, he did just the opposite—playing Cicero, who executed these conspirators without due process. The chief of police, aware of the potentially unpleasant repercussions which might fall out from any treatment of tyranny no matter who wore which tights, requested Morante to feign illness and not appear, so a last-minute production of the German ‘Misanthropy and Repentance’ might be subbed in. (Perhaps a counter-move wanting in subtlety.) Morante took the stage regardless; his compatriots cheered him on; cries rang out for the freedom of Buenos Aires, and a skirmish with authorities began.

But the puzzle persists. Why did the revolutionary choose to play the incumbent and conservative leader? (“We want a chief, a warrior, a dictator,” at one point Morante cried.) And why did so many of the revolutionaries’ writings call for a powerful central government, at times even a monarchy? According to priest and scholar Guillermo Furlong, the solution to these mysteries is that the struggle for independence was never waged by or on behalf of ordinary Argentine individuals at all—instead, the revolutionaries’ objective was to replace ineffective Spanish central power with a native version of the same, sustaining authority in more effective form.

‘The Golden Key’

Furlong wasn’t the first or last person to put forward this notion, but he was one of the most dedicated to tracing precisely the ideas behind events. Born in 1889 in Santa Fe, the son of Irish immigrants, he followed his Jesuit training in Córdoba with studies at the Monastery of Veruela in Aragón, Spain; at Georgetown University, in Washington D.C; and, after a period teaching Argentine history at the Colegio del Salvador in Buenos Aires, at a theological institute in Barcelona. The fruit of years of solitary reading and writing in his spartan room (bare except for high-stacked piles of books), as well as snumerous trips around the world to dig through archives, was an astounding 2000 works—the most famous his 759-page doorstopper ‘Nacimiento y desarrollo de la filosofía en el Río de la Plata 1536-1810′.

Guillermo Furlong at his study

Furlong’s work challenged the traditional account, which claimed that the roots of the Argentine fight for independence lay in the two revolutions in France and the United States championing individual rights and a contract-based society. Rousseau in particular was often cited as an influence on Argentine revolutionaries—an idea still so current that in this weekend’s edition of Clarín’s magazine supplement, the popular historian Felipe Pigna simply puts it forward as an assumption in his column. For Furlong, however, the idea of Rousseau as an influence was absurd. Not only did the revolutionaries never argue for a social contract between sovereign individuals, they may not even have had access to Rousseau’s texts at all. (The first edition of the ‘Contrat Social’ was published in Paris in 1762, but only reached Argentina in 1810, months after the revolution had already occurred.)

And yet Furlong was firmly committed to the idea of intellectual—not simply economic—influences. For him there was most definitely a “philosopher of the revolution,” the identity of whom the title of one of his articles leaves little room for doubt: ‘Francisco Suárez Fue el Filósofo de la Revolución’. “It was the Spanish philosopher and not the French philosopher,” he writes, “who gave men in 1810 the golden key to open the gates of liberty.” If, today, Suárez’ name doesn’t ring familiar in Western ears the same way that (say) Locke or Hobbes does, it is true that for a vast stretch of the 16th to 18th century he was a theologian and jurist of considerable importance, widely taught in Europe. (Leibniz inveighed bitterly against his influence in German universities.) Suárez was referred to as the Doctor Eximio, and was a scholastic—but unlike many scholastics, wrote in elegant prose and concerned himself with the practicalities of politics.

What attracted Argentine revolutionaries to Suárez’ work—and the reason why his ‘Defensio Fidei’ was burned in London on the order of James I—was its injunction against divine right and absolute monarchy. This didn’t imply democracy. Instead, Suárez based his argument on the idea of a pre-existing pact between a government and a (naturally social, family-based) people, eternal and arranged by God. Any temporal ruler could fill the place, and no particular leader had a divine blessing; the ruler was less important than the existence of the pact itself. Following Suárez’s theory, then, the Argentine people had a pact with Spain, and would have remained happy with any Spanish governor so long as he served as an efficient coordinating force. It was only when Spain couldn’t uphold its end of the bargain that Argentines were forced to fill the void.

Far from being an effective authority, in 1810 Spain was putting on a poor show as colonizer, dealing distractedly with its overseas holdings. There were problems enough to deal with at home, as French invasions during the Napoleonic Wars threw the country into chaos. England seized the advantage to attempt naval claims on the Rio de la Plata, an ideal market for the flush of goods produced by the industrial revolution. When Spain failed to come to Argentina’s defense, the latter was forced to fend for itself; the sacred pact was broken. In a way, then, the assertion of Argentine identity was a matter of convenience—with Spain weak, Argentine élites needed to replace the country’s authority, as it indeed did with its first government (the “primera junta”).

To put it another way, Argentina became Spain, became its own imperializer, and even used the Spanish philosophy of Suárez to justify itself. As Furlong writes, the Argentine revolutionaries were “more Spanish than the Spanish”; the Semana de Mayo was “less a fight between slaves and owners, than a transfer of power between gentlemen.”

Francisco Suárez is considered the most brilliant and influential early-modern philosophers. He wrote on metaphysics, theology and epistemology.

Appraisals

Does Furlong’s theory make sense? Suárez never visited the country in person, but he did have a strong influence in Latin America through the activities of Spanish missionary priest José Aprieta. His books were well represented in libraries in Argentina’s major cities during the revolutionary period, even when Cartesianism rather than scholasticism began to dominate, and even after the expulsion of the Jesuits from Argentina (which Furlong also attributes to the philosophy of Suárez). In the claustros of Córdoba, revolutionaries “read avidly and commented arduously” on the ‘Opera Omnia, Disputationes Metaphysicae, De Legibus’, and other texts. The currency of these ideas on the continent was of course even stronger—when Belgrano traveled with Rivadavia through Europe, he absorbed them fully, and grew convinced that a Suárez-esque monarchy with a single, replaceable leader was the country’s best option. Somewhat romantically, he envisioned this scenario in Argentina as a recreation of the Incan empire.

Others are not so convinced of the importance of Suárez. Perhaps Furlong worked too hard to justify Jesuit ideas in arguing for scholasticism as a revolutionary movement; perhaps he attached too much weight to Spanish intellectual influences. His ‘Nacimiento y desarrollo’ was published in 1952 by the Fundación Vitoria y Suárez, formed in Buenos Aires under the sponsorship of the Institución Cultural Española; the edition was published “with the generous help” of the Instituto de Cultura Hispánica in Madrid.

Or perhaps the theory might be taken as another representative in the genre of clever, involuting metaphysical accounts. In “La Revolución,” the first volume of his series ‘La Evolución de las Ideas Argentinas’,” José Ingenieros alludes to the claims of Argentine paleontologist Florentino Ameghino for human origins in South America—in a sense, European conquistadores were actually the genetic descendants of the Indians, and in the New World simply “discovered” themselves. Similarly, for Suárez (popularized through Furlong), revolutionaries may have appeared to be overthrowing Spanish leadership—but in reality were simply acting the colonizer, replicating the structure.

Posted in Society, TOP STORYComments (1)

Iconic Communist Leader Dies at the Age of 100


An iconic leader of the Argentine Communist Party, Fanny Edelman, died this Tuesday at the age of 100. She held honorary presidency of the Communist Party and is renowned for her work in fighting for women’s rights and human rights. In March this year, Edelman was awarded with the Orden José Marti, the highest honour given by the State Council of Cuba.

Edelman was born in Córdoba on 27 February 1911 in a family of Russian immigrants. She started her political career soon after the 6 September 1930 coup that overthrew HipólitoYrigoyen. After joining the communist party in 1934 at the age of 23, she focused on helping political prisoners and working with the international Red Cross.

Two years later, Edelman married social activist Bernardo Edelman. In 1937 she was relocated with her husband to Spain to participate in the Republican defense during the Spanish Civil War. By the time she returned to Argentina in 1938, she was a recognised public figure. In later years she became internationally known for supporting the Soviet Union, China, Cuba, the Chilean socialist government of Salvador Allende and the Sandinista revolution in Nicaragua.

In 1972 she represented the Women’s Union of Argentina, assumed the leadership of the International Women’s Democratic Federation, and organised activities in Latin America, Asia and Africa to protect women’s rights. She also promoted the international women’s year and a UN meeting in Nairobi.

Edelman led the Human Rights Commission in the UN meeting in Geneva in 1978 and brought testimonies of hundreds of victims and their families of state terrorism in Argentina.

 

 

Posted in News From Argentina, Round Ups ArgentinaComments (0)

Weekly News Roundup, May 27th.


It’s Friday again!

And I’ll be damned, we’re all still here.

No, seriously, there I was, sitting at home waiting for 6 PM last Saturday and BAM! Nothing happened. Fortunately, the lunatic who predicted the world would end last week now said he got his facts wrong and it’s actually going to happen on October 21st. And guess what: it’s a Friday! So I guess I will keep milking this crap for at least five more months.

So without any further ado, this is what you need to know:

Spanish Viceroy Baltasar Hidalgo de Cisneros, who even by 1810 standards, looked totally gay. (Photo/Wikipedia)

  • Happy birthday Argentina! Believe it or not, the reason why you were all able to celebrate last Tuesday night until sunrise was not because Sugar Bar was reopening, but because last Wednesday the country celebrated Veinticinco de Mayo. No, you idiots, Veinticinco de Mayo has nothing to do with Cinco de Mayo, although people use both holidays to drink their lives away. The Veinticinco de Mayo, AKA the May Revolution, commemorates the revolution of May 25th, 1810, when the local population managed to oust the Spanish Viceroy and set up an Argentine government instead. The saddest part of this story? That I’m talking to myself because you couldn’t care less about Argentine history. I bet you didn’t even click on that “May Revolution” link to Wikipedia, you bastard! Agh, sometimes I don’t know why I even bother with you.
  • In order to follow tradition of drinking hot cocoa and getting stuffed on churros, the government set up several outposts throughout the city in which they would offer people some free hot chocolate to fight the cold, rainy Wednesday morning. Thousands of people stood in line, only to find some guys pouring chocolate milk in your cup directly from some industrial sized furnace on wheels that looked like something the UNHCR would use in order to feed displaced refugees in some far away Somali town. The fact that they were soldiers didn’t help, either. Oh well, at least the celebrations at the Plaza de Mayo on Wednesday evening were actually pretty cool.
  • President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, however, was having a shitty day on Wednesday since besides being a national holiday, her late husband, former President Néstor Kirchner had also been born on a May 25th and this was the first time since he passed away that she was commemorating it alone. On a televised speech, she once again avoided mentioning whether she would be running for reelection or not and asked God “to make her strong enough to build a different country.” Which I guess means they’re talking to each other again! Because, you know… according to the Catholic Church, ever since that whole “gay marriage thing,” God was pretty pissed.
  • And speaking of anniversaries that no one cares about, did you know that the Monumental Tower (popularly known as the “Tower of the English”) turned 95 this week? Come on, you know what I’m talking about. That huge-ass tower you see every time you return to Buenos Aires and enter the Retiro Station after some bus trip to Rosario because you were too cheap to get a plane ticket. Right, that one! Well, that tower was a gift by the English back in 1910 in order to commemorate Argentina’s first century. Of course, it took them six years to finish it, since back then you couldn’t just email people telling them what you needed. So the tower was inaugurated as the Tower of the English and everybody loved it, but then the Malvinas/Falklands War took place in 1982 and Argentines decided to change its name to “Monumental Tower.” Please don’t judge, the US decided to go from French Fries to Freedom Fries in 2003, and they weren’t even at war. So shut up.
  • The Mothers of the Plaza de Mayo Association, a human rights organization led by the mothers of the disappeared during the cruel military dictatorship in the 70′s, suffered a serious PR nightmare this week, when its representative Sergio Schocklender was accused of embezzlement and misuse of public funds. It turns out that this guy has been using our money to build himself a nice 19-room mansion with the taxpayers money.Naughty, naughty! Oh, did I mention that this guy killed his parents back in the 80′s? Because he did.
  • You may not have noticed because I know you don’t give a shit, but last Sunday night the Martín Fierro Awards were on. “What are those?” you say? Well, think of the Emmys, only cheaper (although equally boring). I would go into who won what, but a) you don’t know who they are, and b) like I said you don’t give a shit. So here’s a compilation of the embarrassing job that the host, actor Mike Amigorena, did and let’s leave it at that. Don’t worry, you don’t need to understand Spanish to cringe at the awkward pauses.
  • This week, in your obligatory Dancing With the Stars section: Brace yourselves! Pamela Anderson has landed in Buenos Aires. And just like Mike Tyson, she lands, she dances, she gets paid, and she flies back to LA where she gets to stay away from all the horrible latinos drooling over her, until she returns back next week. Oh, and also, I don’t really think she knows what the hell is going on around her. But shhhh, let’s just watch her dance, shall we?
  • Argentine film “Las Acacias” won the Golden Camera award in the Cannes Film Festival last week. Congrats! Too bad no one is going to see it because no one gives a shit about Argentine films here. You don’t believe me? Well, smart ass, as you can see there’s not even a link to it on Wikipedia, proving the lack of interest. Here’s a link to it’s IMDB profile in case you really want to know the plot, but I’m sure you don’t.
  • Not to alarm you or anything, but England just announced that the

    It will be ironic to see the Monumental Tower blown to pieces by the HMS Edinburgh. Quasi poetic. (Photo/Wikipedia)

    destroyer HMS Edinburgh has set sail towards the Malvinas/Falkland Islands to do some unexpected “protection work” in the area. Oh-oh. We’re fucked.

  • Scandal! Diego Maradona (of course) made some shocking statements to the press this week when he accused current AFA President and FIFA Senior Vicepresident Julio Grondona of being part of a plot to give drugs to Argentine players in a match against Australia in 1993. Grondona, outraged replied that…- I’m sorry, time out. Could you please explain to me how this is a scandal? Does somebody really give a shit about a football game that took place 20 years ago? And Maradona taking drugs. Seriously? You’re surprised about that? *sigh* Whatever. Anyway, you know how it is, Grondona said he’s outraged and Maradona mentioned a “speedy coffee” that the players were given in order to perform better in the field. There, case closed.
  • Hey, football fans (whoever you are)! Excited about that Copa America thing? I’m not! But I’m sure you are, so here’s the boring, poorly performed catchy tune that is going to be playing non-stop for as long that fucking tournament is invading our everyday lives. Seriously man, I thought that Waka-Waka shit was terrible, but this makes me want to stab my ears with a screwdriver.
  • Like something that sounds like the beginning of some bad horror movie, customs security agents discovered today that a package sent via mail from La Paz, Bolivia to an apartment in Recoleta contained the remains of a 3000-year old Peruvian mummy and three skulls. The recipient of the package is now detained, since investigators believe he was looking to sell the remains to a private collector. Oh, and if you were wondering if the mummy came back to life after midnight and killed the entire Customs staff because they didn’t have the appropriate talisman needed in order to vanquish the demon inside it, it didn’t.

Have a great weekend, everyone!

Send Adrian your comments, thoughts or tips at adrianbono@hotmail.com  or follow him on Twitter at @AdrianBono

Posted in Thoughts of a ForeignerComments (1)

El Che Vive! The Guerrilla We Won’t Let Die


Photo by Michael Casey

Almost half a century since the image’s creation, the iconic portrait of Argentine revolutionary Ernesto ‘Che’ Guevara has become the inspiration to global groups as diverse as East Timorese freedom fighters, fashion designers, South American presidents and even neo Nazis. Here in Argentina the mythical face, dubbed “the most enduring political brand of our age”, populates workers protests, homages to the disappeared and souvenir shops alike.

It was from here that Australian-born writer Michael Casey embarked on a journey to track the famous portrait through Che’s Latin American homeland and beyond for his new book ‘Che’s Afterlife: The Legacy of an Image’. In Cuba, Bolivia, Venezuela, Argentina and Miami, Casey found that the icon still ignites strong feelings from religious adoration to angry hatred.

Che Wars

The strength of feeling surrounding Che couldn’t have been better demonstrated than by angry reactions to the low-key presentation of Casey’s book at the Buenos Aires’ book fair in April. Republican senator Ileana Ros-Lehtinen – representing conservative Cuban neighbourhoods in Miami – formally complained to secretary of state Hilary Clinton when she heard that the event had been hosted by Argentina’s US Embassy. She referred to what she saw as the “deplorable” use of taxpayers’ money to “venerate” a “ruthless murderer and enthusiastic enemy of the US”.

Che Impersonator in Havana, Cuba (Photo by Michael Casey)

The Miami Herald also published an article that interpreted the reading as an uncritical celebration of the guerrilla, which they believed to be part of the new US government’s attempts to “rebrand” themselves in Latin America. “Obama stoops to even a lower low,” said one online comment on the article, while another described the event as, “US Kissing Latin America’s A$$$”.

Casey, rejecting this extreme interpretation of what he terms his “non ideological” book, was nevertheless not surprised by it. This reaction, after all, only served to highlight what the icon was all about: “Che is about filtering out the complex reality and choosing what you want to take out of it,” he explains.

“That’s an icon. These people don’t want to hear about how this book was also critical of Cuba or how this was just a one dollar reading. They want to use it as a vehicle to write their political thoughts on. It’s at that level of selective reading of facts and history that the Che myth works.”

Casey also points out that there are many in the left who would maintain that Che never killed a single person, or that what he did was not violence since it was undertaken for social justice. “The two sides are locked in a closed argument,” he says, “an endless cycle for which there’s no mediation.”

The war of words between Che idolisers and conservative Miami Cubans is just one of the discourses attached to the icon that Casey examines. The idea for the book was initially sparked by the image’s recent use by the new Latin American left.

“I had been writing about the rise of Evo Morales, Hugo Chávez and Lula,” he says. “It struck me that the resurgence of the left in Latin America, unlike the cold war, was a battle of symbols and brands. It was a war between the image of Uncle Sam and Che.”

The Birth of an Icon

Casey began his examination of the contemporary use of the image by tracing its historical roots. The original photo was taken in 1960 by photographer Alberto Korda, at the state funeral following a lethal explosion on a munitions ship bound for Havana harbour, thought to be caused by US forces. Originally overlooked by the daily press in favour of pictures of Fidel Castro, Simone de Beauvoir and Jean-Paul Sartre, it did not garner much public exposure for several years.

Casey emphasises Castro’s later use of the striking portrait to market a sexy, romantic idea of the Cuban revolution to the world at a time when the European left had become tired of conservative Russia. For this reason the image had already began to enjoy an amplified profile in the lead up to Che’s death in 1967.

When Che died in an ill-fated Bolivian guerrilla campaign that October, his image took on the martyr-like aura of a saint. With the title ‘Guerrillero Heroico’, Casey describes how the photo enjoyed a global relaunch, hitting an international chord when a generation of young people was “rising up in rebellion across the industrialised West”, and “those in the third world were taking up arms in the hope of replicating Cuba’s revolution”.

Contemporary Che

These days the commoditisation of the rebel’s image in the West, branded on a skimpy bikini modelled by Gisele Bündchen, and on Magnum ice cream and Smirnoff vodka packaging, might suggest that global capitalism has diluted its political meaning. But nevertheless the icon seems unwilling to disappear. Casey quotes ‘No Logo’ author Naomi Klein who says he is “among a small group of counterculture symbols that can survive the appropriation by corporate marketers”.

Souvenirs in Alta Gracia, Argentina, where Guevara lived as a child. (Photo by Michael Casey)

Its enduring use as an emblem of political resistance is evidence of the image’s capacity for rebirth. “Whenever young people rise up, Korda’s Che is there, crossing religious, ethnic and even political divides,” states Casey. He cites Nepalese Maoists, East Timorese independence fighters, liberation theologians of Central America, the IRA and the Palestinian Intifada as resistance movements using Che as their inspiration. A 2007 documentary, ‘Personal Che’, even found a group of German neo-Nazis who used the portrait as their emblem.

Che in Latin America

Although he could have written about the image’s usage almost anywhere in the world, Casey mainly concentrates his investigation on Latin America. Here the political symbol of Che is alive and well, and is also used in many contradictory ways. As Casey travelled through each country, he uses the image as a lens through which to view its political struggles and collective psychology.

In Bolivia, the country of Che’s death, president Evo Morales puts forward a vision of justice for the poor against the backdrop of a Che portrait made of coca leaves in his presidential palace. In contrast, businessman Fernando Porras from Bolivia’s rich autonomy seeking province, Santa Cruz, exploits the Che image to promote his brand of rum and cola, alongside ads featuring bikini-clad girls.

Casey describes Venezuelan president Hugo Chávez as: “The man who has done more than any other to associate the Che image with the revival of the Latin American left at the beginning of the twenty first century.” Although he does not actively promote the image like Morales or Castro, its popularity among Chavistas has meant it has become strongly associated with the state. As such it acts as a divisive symbol, and Casey cites cases where government backed Che sculptures have been destroyed by anti-government protestors just hours after they were erected.

In contrast, here in Argentina, which Casey describes as “an anarchic country where people don’t pay taxes and don’t trust politicians”, he suggests that the image almost always constitutes something against the state, which is considered the people’s biggest enemy.

Pro-Chavez Rally, Caracas (Photo by Michael Casey)

Brand Che vs. Brand USA

Particularly notable throughout the book is the use of the terminology ‘branding’ with regard to the image’s use. In particular, descriptions of Castro as a kind of ‘brand manager’ of the communist revolution strike an ironic note in light of the term’s associations with global marketing and capitalism.

Casey, while emphasising this paradox, suggests that we have always used branding since the beginning of humanity. “From the use of tribal markings to Christian symbols and flags, images and ideas, whether religious or commercial, compete in a marketplace with each other,” he explains. “People invest their beliefs, hopes and ideas in such images.”

Casey explains that the Che brand always works against something else, from its use as a symbol of the revolution to its manifestation as an emblem of the left in contemporary Latin America. “Even when associating with the powers that be in Venezuela and Cuba, it needs an ugly other, i.e. the imperialist US monster,” he explains. “Without that you don’t get Che functioning properly.”

“Bush acted as the perfect foil to strengthen the Che brand, being almost like a gift for the icon, since he was so easily caricatured,” Casey explains. But the reality, he maintains, is not so black and white, and while the US does have a terrible history with Latin America, he also believes it has a good part. “Just as the Miami Cubans see everything Che did as bad,” he continues, “it’s easy to see everything the US does within some preconceived idea that it was all driven by some masterful capitalist at the top. When you get a president that seems to confirm all of that, the narrative gets strong and so does the brand that’s attached to it.”

With Barack Obama, however, there is no longer such a simplified dichotomy, especially in the light of his administration’s (albeit modest) lifting of sanctions on Cuba. “It’s a lot harder with Obama,” says Casey. “He just doesn’t fit the mould visually. He’s doing different things, so we’ll see what happens.”

The End of Che?

Does Casey consider that the lack of a strong iconic ‘enemy’ will mean the myth’s demise? “The icon is part of an almost religious dialogue between left and right in which each side believes they’re the holder of the absolute truth,” he explains.

Che Guevara / Marilyn Monroe stencil in Buenos Aires (Photo by Kate Stanworth)

He believes, however, that there could be an end to this pendulum swing in Latin America, taking Brazil’s President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva as one example of a leader who is pursuing a middle way and a practical solution. If more were to follow this model, Casey considers that the power of the image would be diluted. “I’m fascinated by Che but if that ends up having to kill the icon then so be it,” he states.

That said, Casey admits that his study of Che has given him an increased appreciation for the revolutionary. “I’m the last person who would advocate Che’s path to utopia. I think it was disastrous,” he says. “But it’s rare in this world to find someone who does try their utmost for the sake of a cause.”

Ultimately, while Casey himself advocates a moderate political stance, he still believes that society needs ideologues and passionate people. “We need our Nelson Mandelas, our Ghandis, our Che Guevaras,” he reflects. “Being willing to give up everything for something important, that’s something to be admired.” 

Michael Casey is a regular contributor to ‘The Wall Street Journal’ and until recently was bureau chief for Dow Jones Newswires in Buenos Aires. He now works in their New York office. For more information about his book, including how to order a copy, visit www.chesafterlife.com


The photographer behind the image

The man who snapped Che Guevara’s iconic portrait, ‘Guerrillero Heroico’, in 1960 was revolution photographer, Alberto Korda, who was born Alberto Díaz Gutiérrez in Havana in 1928. Korda was originally a fashion photographer, but in 1959 he turned his lens to the social transformation brought on by the arrival of Fidel Castro’s rebels in Cuba. He later accompanied Castro on overseas trips including tours of Russia and the US.

Casey’s research revealed him to be a charismatic, charming personality with a weakness for booze, nice cars and women, despite his commitment to social justice and the message of the revolution. The book describes him as “the yang to Che’s yin”, the opposite to the self-sacrificing guerrilla.

Korda, who never received royalties for the famous image, died in 2001 while presenting his work in Paris. Casey admits he is one of the key figures he would have most liked to have interviewed for his book. “He might not have liked some of the things I wrote,” Casey explains. “But I would have loved to have hung out with him. Who could possibly be like Che? No one. Korda was a human being.”

 

Posted in SocietyComments Off


Follow us on Twitter
Visit us on Facebook
View us on YouTube

This week we revisit Sanra Ritten's piece from 2008 which is the ultimate guide to 'naughty' Argentine slang and expressions.

    Directory Pick of the Week

Magdalena's Party in Palermo

Magdalena’s Party has daily 2 x 1 Happy Hour specials til midnight, and the "best onda".
Sign up to The Indy newsletter