"It is important to emphasize the guerrilla warfare is a war of the masses, a war of the people...why does the guerrilla fighter fight? we must come to the inevitable conclusion that the guerrilla is a social reformer, that he takes up arms responding to the angry protest of the people...he fights in order to change the social system." -Che
For each community and in each generation, certainly there are social changes that must take place for the improvement of the people. I am almost certain- despite the controversy that surrounded Che- that he had a belief in his people, and in those who shared frustrated sentiments against tyrannical rule, or at least, what he and bandits considered so. It makes me wonder; in today's generation- what is it that we hope to change? And will we take the steps to revolt against the expectation to change it? Lofty ideals? Perhaps, but I wonder if the generation of the 1960s wasn't onto something when they made this man an icon (or at the very least his ideas).
I have been reading Guerrilla Warfare by Ernesto "Che" Guevara at a steady pace and I'm intrigued. Granted, this particular work focuses on the tactics of warfare and how a "band" must prepare and conduct themselves in order to win their war. BUT- he seems to tackle the smallest details, even down to how much weight each man should carry, what guns are good or bad, and even discusses that each community must decide what is the age minimum or maximum- as if he cares rather than a generic mandate. His writing is simplistic- and it definitely interests me to look into his other works in the future.
However, in getting back to the initial idea of revolution itself- social change, and warfare: is it really the war of the masses- or in representation of the masses- and what is consider "mass?" There are countries and people groups now that often rally behind protests and posters to shout their demands at their government. Certainly many of those, such as human rights or economic mishaps are worth the protest. But are they worth a fight- with weapons and force? If so- who would do it- you?
Nevertheless, negotiation seems to be on the mind of the U.S. President Obama, but I often wonder if it takes more than a few "proposed" resolutions or amendments to make the necessary changes- political, social, etc. Today's generation wants something more. But the cost, too, is something of consideration. No no, I don't mean we should all run off and join the military to find something worth fighting for or pick up pitchforks and storm the castle or even just sit by or contend with posters and messages. But then again- all these things are worth doing, investigating and change will come when we take action toward it.
The book is an interesting study and certainly has my mind on the revolutionary generation of today....thoughts?
I believe that negotiations are the answer, but they work best when a less pleasant alternative is also present. The man at the table is more effective when there's a man with a gun standing behind him. I don't like this, but history and human nature (which is what history is) supports it. People usually only negotiate to avoid war, not out of the spirit of fair play or the goodness of their hearts.
ReplyDeleteHappy Earth Day!
so are revolutionary wars never relevant? what about the u.s. in the 1700s or perhaps the french revolution 100 years later or the russian one (though we know how that turned out) 100 years after that? i wonder - when is negotiation enough?
ReplyDeletei see that you say it's somewhere in the great, a threat and a negotiation - but is that really a peaceful resolve? somehow, b/c i believe there to be a time and a season for everything that includes- "a time for peace, a time for war." but each generation must decide it's own set of appropriations.