Che Guevara for major work (1 Viewer)

[Sphyx]

Is this a good idea? or foolish?
it seems very a very cliche, and kinda "lazy" topic to do, but i really want to do it.
opinions anyone?

at the moment im sticking with the russian revolution and lenin's role in it, but im not happy with it.

 

[gemita]

Definitely go for Che over Russia - the more original, the better. Remember the markers want to see that you have come to your own conclusions, not simply regurgitated a long-running argument. It would be very hard to come up with new ideas for Russia. What exactly were you planning on looking at with Che? If you were thinking of iconography and his evolution into a pop culture symbol from a historical figure, I don't think it's "lazy" at all.

 

[Sphyx]

ok. here goes my spill.

from the very beginning ive wanted to do something with a revolution - french, russian, cuban, etc because i think that regardless of the fact that they are well studies, analysed, researched,etc. they are the real turning points in our society and history, and subsequently historiography. Therefore it would seem logical that the 'revolutionists' (if thats a word), and the way history is written about them would be a fascinating topic with plenty of potential.

so... i was thinking of evaluating the way history is constructed about revolutionists (a much more specific aspect of this, one i will hopefully devise after some more reading) and relating this back to either Che or Trotsky. I was going to do Trotsky (mainly because im russian so can read russian sources, and my teachers think this is an advantage i should use) until i found out this morning he is extensively covered in the Modern topic (which i dont do btw), so is that going to be a problem? is he a major topic so i have to stay away from him?
Che was my second option, i would also really like to do him, probably even more so than Trotsky, and im also fluent in spanish, so the aditional reading of original sources also applies here, but my only worry was that the fact that he is so damn commercial and popular would lead my teacher to think i chose an easy topic. that just means i have to make it more complex, right? lol....any advice would be muchly appreciated guys.

 

[gemita]

I think the fact that Che is so commercial is what makes the topic complex - historiography is about the construction of history so the fact that Che has become such a symbol is just an added advantage which will give your historiography greater depth. You would have to look at the way he has been addressed in history as both the epitaph for revolution and as a pop icon, separating the man from the myth - I think it could be a great way to look at history's manipulation of the cult figure and perfect for historiography. If I were you I wouldn't base too much on language of your sources.

Speaking Russian and Spanish would be an advantage, but I can tell you from experience that there are so many sources out there that you might actually end up with too much to draw on. I did my project on the Chilean coup in 1973 and even though I could have trawled my way through the spanish stuff if I wanted to, there are so many more english texts here (unless you know of a russian or hispanic historical library) and the internet just isn't that reliable for historical sources.

As for the modern syllabus, I know there is a big topic on trosky, which definitely goes against you. That said, your teacher is the one marking it and as long as they know you haven't studied trotsky in class you should be ok. Check out the syllabus just in case though, there is definitely a rule in there about overlapping with the 2U courses.

 

[Sphyx]

thanks for the advice, gemita, muchly appreciated.
che seems like the way to go, huh? i think ill stick to him for the moment, hand in my proposal on monday and see what she thinks. after all i can change during the hols.
thanks again :grinshak:

 

[LaraCroft_87]

Hey, I'm doing Che Guevara too!

 

[Sphyx]

can i ask what aspect of him you are doing?

 

[LaraCroft_87]

I have absolutely NO idea.

 

[loquasagacious]

If you want to do revolutionaries which are more original than Che then I suggest either The Paris Commune or Fidel Castro. Castro would seem less original however he hardly has the status in pop-culture of Che.

If you do Che then I recommend the recently released movie as a good starting point. I think yiu may have trouble finding enough sources on him that fit whatever angle you decide to take.

Perhaps a good angle too take for Che is too analyse how he has been dealt with by history especially via pop-culture and the power of photographs. Maybe elaborate/make the point that had he ever won a revolution he would have been vilified like Castro.

For Castro I think a fairly simple man and the myth comparison would be good.

 

[Sphyx]

ive handed my proposal already, and i realise it was awefully broad, but i couldnt narrow it down any further without having read some actual sources on him.
what i basically said was that i want to analyse whether people in the events become a function of the events themselves, and whether history about them can be written mutually exclusive. i also put in there a statement by Vincent, who said that "history is about the winners". probably going to focus on the way that che's personal memoirs have been used by historians to potray him as that rebellious icon.
i know ive said a lot of unrelated stuff in that post, but it all ties in really well in my head, and im finally happy with it. so *fingers crossed*

2 hours later: YAY!!! 10/10!!!

 

[loquasagacious]

In which case there is alot in the Carr vs Berlin debate which you could use.

 

[MissMomo]

Major Works - Che Guevara

i have decided to do my major works on che guevara looking at how historical revisiniosm has helped create his legacy as a hero/villian kinda thing does ne1 know where i could find info on revisionism

 

[pungemo]

Re: Major Works

Terrorist vs freedom fighter seems to be a matter of perspective, especially in light of recent events.

 

[Caratacus]

Re: Major Works

You could look at how military historians have evaluated his contributions to the theory and practice of warfare. I remember using this book in the old General Studies course:

The War of the Flea by Robert Taber

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1574885553/103-2046035-6763004?v=glance&n=283155

It had a bit to say on Guevara's contributions to the art of warfare and I'm sure a little research would throw up other evaluations from a military rather than ideological perspective. You'd want to look at Guevara's book Guerrilla Warfare, and also Reminiscences of the Cuban Revolutionary War. The Motorcycle Diaries film for an interpretation in another medium?