My favorite Bob Marley song is “Get Up, Stand Up”. The chorus repeats the lines, “Get up, stand up, stand up for your rights. Get up, stand up, don’t give up the fight.” Bob Marley was, of course, a Jamaican reggae star. One might wonder from where political oppression arises in a small island country known mostly for its music. Why would Bob Marley need to sing about standing up for rights on a tropical island? When most of us picture Jamaica we imagine white sands beaches, palm trees, margaritas, and cannabis use. So, from where does the political oppression of which Marley sings, arise?
The history of South America and the Caribbean is a long, bloody history, of slavery and colonialism. Indeed, 98% of Jamaica’s population are the descendants of black slaves.
Perhaps the story begins in the late 15th century, when European sailors began exploring the globe. The Portuguese explored the western coast of Africa, Christopher Columbus sailed from Spain and discovered the “New World” of the America’s, and Magellan’s expedition circumnavigated the globe entirely. This spirit of exploration was coincidental with economic interests and the pursuit of profit. The expeditions led to domination of indigenous peoples and monopoly of natural resources. The first colonial powers were set up by Portugal and Spain, though certain economic terms led to these nations being guided by English and Dutch interests. Relations with the indigenous peoples became strained, and so among these seafarers there arose a new type of person: a conquistador, or conqueror. These men were inspired by a potent mixture of motives, including a thirst for wealth and power, religious fervor, and adventure. As a result of this capitalist dogma, many high civilizations in the West Indies were severely decimated. The Catholic church enacted laws to protect the natives, which led to the importation of African slaves to South America and the Caribbean, where they were forced to work under brutal conditions on plantations by the white ruling class. Most of the profits obtained in this manner were returned to countries in Europe.
“Get up, stand up, stand up for your rights.” Che Guevara was a young Argentine Marxist, revolutionary, physician, author, intellectual, guerilla leader, diplomat, and military theorist. In 1951, along with his friend Alberto Granado, Che took a motorcycle journey covering most of the South American continent. Che was a medical student at this time and had ambitions to volunteer at a leper colony in Peru. While he traveled he was confronted with extreme cases of poverty and alienation. He came across small farms where the tenants lived meagerly, though they worked extremely hard. He learned that they lived on the land, which was owned by greedy landlords, and performed all the labor while the landlords made the profits. He met a young Communist couple who had been ostracized and banished from their home in Peru, and had no possessions—not even a blanket. His experiences during this trip had profound impact on Che, and led him to conclude that South America’s ingrained economic inequalities were a result of capitalism, neocolonialism, and imperialism, especially U.S. imperialism, and that the solution was a worldwide Communist revolution. Together with Fidel and Raul Castro, Che staged a coup and overthrew Batista’s U.S.-backed regime.
Thereafter, Che became one of the most prominent Communists, and anti-capitalists, in the history of the world. He was extremely vocal and active. Once his situation in Cuba had solidified, and Che was performing many roles in Castro’s government, he traveled to Congo and Bolivia to help them in their revolutions. This man became a huge thorn in the side of imperial powers.
Che’s subsequent story becomes a tale of an empowered revolutionary, fighting the superpowers of the world with minimal resources. He met his untimely death in 1967, being captured and executed by Bolivian special forces, (with help from the CIA.)
They say a picture is worth a thousand words. The photograph of Che Guevara’s body speaks volumes. In studying Che, the photograph grows in profundity. Che was an intellectual, raised in a home of over 3,000 books. He cited many influences in his intellectual development: Marx and Engels, Nietzsche, Sartre, Gide, Kafka, Camus, and many more. Yet, as we can see, all of that has been stripped entirely from his lifeless cadaver. It reminds me, somewhat, of Van’s discussion in class about Holbein’s depiction of Christ in the tomb. That was a striking discussion for me. Van said, “We look at the Christ, one of the holiest symbols in the entire world, and we see him dead. It’s something we have to confront and deal with. He’s DEAD! He’s very dead!”
As I’ve studied him the past few weeks I have become a huge fan of Che Guevara. This was a profound man, with decent morals, and what I believe were good intentions.
At the risk of sounding informal, I’ll now critique this photograph as it pertains to the standing metaphor. Che’s lifeless corpse stretches across a wooden table, while decorated soldiers stand over it and examine it. Indeed, the very process of standing over implies examination. There are many levels to this standing over. It seems reasonable to assume that the person directly over Che’s body is the highest ranking soldier in the room, as he has the most access to make observations. The other soldiers wait, with twisted faces and enigmatic expressions. Indeed, some historical perspective renders this photograph entirely new—not a photo of Che’s corpse, nor of a military tribunal—but of the domination of State over its people. And indeed, in Che’s case, this photograph might represent the domination of one specific State over the rest of the world.
To me, this picture is representative of a larger notion: social Darwinism. The realm of ideas is very much like the biological world: it’s not always the good guy who wins, but whoever has the largest teeth. Ideas compete exactly as biotic phenomena, and sometimes one idea must die in order for the other to thrive and proliferate. Indeed, this photograph of Che’s dead body represents Communism vs. Capitalism, and capitalism has some enormous teeth. Che is dead. He’s actually dead. And with him died the dream of hundreds of millions of people.
It is not difficult to see in the eyes of the soldiers surrounding the corpse, that killing is a necessary aspect of life on earth. The two men whose faces we can see at the far left, hold guns and ponder over what they’ve done. Whether they pulled the trigger or not, these automatons are complicit, guilty by association. It’s impossible to get too psychoanalytical on a portrait from so long ago, but I like to imagine that these two men have never seen a dead body before, and are only now beginning to realize the true implications of their military service. What they do is not simply firing into crowds. They kill people. They create corpses, entirely stripped of life. And now they know it.
The two men just above Che, and to his right, both seem repulsed by the corpse. They keep rough company, and they know it. Ask the General, though. He’ll tell you that when agitators arise, they must be dispensed with, or we run the risk of systemic change, (and God only knows we can’t have that.) The States stands tall and points out the agitators, and if you hope to remain standing alongside your fearless leaders, you must stand with the State, or soon you’ll be lying beside Che.
In a 1964 address to the U.N., Che invoked the standing metaphor: “Although we reject any accusations against us of interference in the internal affairs of other countries, we cannot deny that we sympathize with those people who strive for their freedom. We must fulfill the obligation of our government and people to state clearly and categorically to the world that we morally support and stand in solidarity with peoples who struggle anywhere in the world to make a reality of the rights of full sovereignty proclaimed in the UN Charter.” Looking at the picture of Che’s corpse, though, sounds a clarion call that it was the “standing in solidarity” of State power, that ultimately won. The U.N. address is worth reading in its entirety, because he states very clearly his reasons for resistance to State power.
Which call can be heard, resounding throughout paintings of political figures throughout history. Take, for example, this painting of Napoleon:
Since Napoleon Bonaparte’s death in 1821, he has been the subject of over two hundred thousand books. According to one historian, “Probably more has been written about him than any other historical personage except Jesus of Nazareth.” It’s especially interesting to me, because the veracity with which Jesus sought spiritual enlightenment, is mirrored in Napoleon by the amount of material enlightenment he sought. “And while Jesus persuaded with words and ideas, Napoleon conquered with muskets and cannons.”
When he was 10, Napoleon was awarded a scholarship to the military school of Brienne. His stay there was painful, because he was extremely short and spoke very poor French. He proved to be a very mediocre student, but had a passion for history and geography, and most especially, the life of Julius Caesar. From an early age he considered Julius Caesar as an ideal statesman, warrior, and writer. To Napoleon set to work cultivating these virtues in himself, though we must now decide whether or not they were virtues or vices in his hands.
Napoleon graduated and went to University in Paris. He became a much better student at this level, and excelled in mathematics. He graduated and received a military promotion immediately, (which usually took at least two years of service.) He performed well in combat situations, received a promotion to First Consul, and before long, staged a coup d’état. Within 5 years, Napoleon was declared Emperor of France.
After the first decade of the 19th century, the French Empire, under Napoleon engaged in a series of conflicts—the Napoleonic Wars—involving every major European power. After a streak of victories, France secured a dominant position in Europe, and Napoleon furthered the influence of French culture by establishing extensive alliances, and appointing family and friends to rule other European countries as client states. Even today, Napoleon’s campaigns are studied at military academies throughout much of the world.
The painting “The Emperor Napoleon in His Study at the Tuileries” by Jacques-Louis David, is a painting designed to promote State power, indeed, the same State power that killed Che Guevara. It wasn’t the same country, of course, but the killing of Che arose from the same philosophy of imperialism and subjugation that Napoleon espoused.
I usually try and avoid injecting my own political philosophies into essays, but paintings are interpretive, and in order to state my interpretation, I must state my bias. I’m sure it’s already entirely transparent, but I’m not a very devout capitalist. So when I look at a painting like this one, filled with symbols of wealth, extravagance, decadence, and all the trappings of high living, I don’t see nobility, but insecurity. The truly confident man must stand naked before God, as it were. (I’m also an atheist, but you know what I mean.) The need to be surrounded in adornments indicates a flawed philosophy. And this is ultimately the dehumanizing thrust of capitalism: that a human is only as important as what they possess.
Here Napoleon stands, the emperor, the man of power, the warlord, and the general. See the teeth on the beastly table? See the phallic height of the golden grandfather clock? See the eagle inscription that may just as well have been yanked from a Nazi flag? The golden table, the golden hilt on the sword, and the luxurious green carpet—so many symbols of power, but what kind of power really exists here? Is true power based on the exteriorized world? If I were typing this a plush green rug right now, would I somehow be more powerful?
Whereas, Che Guevara, was a young doctor when rode a motorcycle across the South American continent in search of lepers to serve, and developed his ideology. Guevara sharpened his teeth on the stone of severe economic inequality and how to correct it. Napoleon Bonaparte, with all his power and gold, on the other hand, earned his living by learning how to murder better.
Which state do you prefer? Which state should we prefer?
No comments:
Post a Comment