Che Guevara. Photo retrieved biography.com
By John Aparicio
The idea of El deber revolucionario, or “the duty of the revolutionary,” echoed throughout Latin American youth culture during the 1960s from literature to art and music as young men and women expressed their countercultural political beliefs. For some, the idea represented a sensible moral obligation towards their community and country, while others rejected the notion entirely as they separated themselves from mainstream culture. As the epitome of 1960s Latin American social movements, El deber revolucionario was perhaps the greatest influential force on the youth of the era.
The 1960s were defined by the counterculture movement that swept the globe, and among its epicenters was Latin America. Though these movements were ideologically similar, their origins differed by region. American academic Theodore Roszak “argued that the counterculture in the United States was a product of affluence and overindulgence, not privation and suffering,” the latter of which described the general state of turmoil within Latin America.[1] The youth of Latin America were partially inspired by U.S countercultural movements. However, their urge to “turn on, tune in, drop out,” was greatly influenced by their distinctly hostile environment in the form of civil unrest, financial instability, and political turmoil.[2] Latin American youth rebelled and lashed out against societal norms, not because of contempt for the standards of previous generations, but because they had grown weary of harsher systematic oppression.
Latin American youth embraced the 1960s counterculture in a variety of ways and to different degrees. For Brazilian youth, identification with the counterculture meant commitment to the idea of liberation. Yet, it was far from the national liberation preached by left-wing activists. To the youth of Brazil, el deber revolucionario did not provoke the same passionate feelings of obligation seen in organizations within other countries, like the FARC in Colombia. Most Brazilians at the time were neither revolutionary nor apolitical. They sought out to make do with the cards that they were dealt by trying to make the best of their situation with whatever means available. These youths might have secretly despised their governing regime but still remained productive and otherwise contributive members of society. This political middle ground existed despite the distinct double-sided political arena. Yet, culturally, there was no in-between. Societal standards dictated that if someone didn’t support one side, they supported the other. Countries like dictatorial Brazil and ideologies, like that of revolutionary duty preached by Ernesto ‘Che’ Guevara and Castro, completely refuted the concept of a middle ground.
At its core, a revolutionary is an individual who fearlessly advocates for radical change regardless of consequence because, ultimately, they believe they are living for the greater good of the many. Ernesto ‘Che’ Guevara was one of the most influential proponents of this philosophy. His entire life was dedicated towards spreading revolutionary sentiment. Born in Argentina, Guevara witnessed intense poverty throughout Latin America and interpreted it as the consequence of a flawed capitalist system. He was driven by a deep desire for social equality. After Guevara joined Fidel Castro, he became his right-hand man in the Cuban revolution. To him, being a revolutionary meant to be a part of something greater and to put your country and your people above all else, even if it resulted in death. This attitude towards revolution, driven by moral incentives, was the ethos of the ‘new man’ consciousness he sought to create. Guevara’s idea of a perfect revolutionary is described as, “moved by strong feelings of love. It is impossible to conceive of an authentic revolutionary who lacks this quality.”[3] His role in the Cuban Revolution and, the legacy fueled by the ensuing memoirs, spread like wildfire and undeniably reshaped Latin American consciousness. Guevara married themes such as sacrifice, morality and heroism, which became the essence of revolutionary identity. To this day, murals of his unyielding gaze can be seen in countries all over the world, standing as a testament to his larger-than-life persona and revolutionary ideals.
The Cuban Revolution was a feat that had enormous ramifications for the geo-political order. At the time, Latin America was under heavy political and social influence from the United States. The U.S., driven by the fear of communist expansion, as well as economic interests, employed covert and questionable methods of espionage to influence the regimes of the region. Ultimately, this led to the removal of publicly favored leaders in exchange for dictators who appealed to U.S incentives. Many of these individuals were seen as cruel and ruthless by citizens who experienced heavy restrictions on their individual freedoms. One such example of U.S clandestine operations on foreign soil was the 1954 Guatemalan coup d’etat code-named Operation PBSUCCESS.[4] The covert CIA mission deposed the democratically elected president of Guatemala, Jacobo Árbenz, and installed Carlos Castillo who immediately began purging suspected left-wing sympathizers.[5] This led to mass civil unrest and a gradual development of rebellious sentiments especially amongst Guatemalan youth.[6] Thus, the exploits of ‘Che’ and Fidel Castro appealed to Latin American peoples and, subsequently, ignited flames of defiance within the hearts of millions. Until then, the masses lacked the necessary inspiration to fight for reform. Yet, that all changed when Cuba became the first socialist country in the Americas.
The idea of revolutionary duty resonated most with the youth, especially for those who lacked access to social mobility, which was the case with many of Castro’s recruits in the Sierra Maestra mountain range. The guerilla lifestyle offered an opportunity for greater self-fulfillment not just for the peasantry, but for other classes as well. Members of the guerillas’ ranks were often regarded by civilians as heroes. It wasn’t uncommon for guerillas to provide medical and educational aid to those in need. Colombian revolutionary, and author, Maria Eugenia Vásquez was one such youth who idolized armed rebellious movements. She described her desire to join the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia stating it, “much like a patchwork quilt, was made up of parts of people whom I had admired.”[7] This appeal was largely the result of resentment towards governments and their well-known acts of violence committed against political non-conformists.
Merciless totalitarian regimes throughout Latin America energized sympathy for developing revolutionary movements. Colombia’s civil war, which spanned from 1948 to 1958, was fought mainly in the countryside with a complete disregard for human rights.[8] Fidel Castro’s predecessor, Fulgencio Batista, turned Cuba into a police state and kept the population in-line through open displays of brutality.[9] Brazil’s military regime in the 1960s tortured and murdered political dissidents, established complete media censorship, and constantly violated human rights. The more people heard about these atrocities, the more infuriated and obligated they felt to take up arms. Mexican novelist Carlos Fuentes argued that events like this were the result of a feudalesque system of injustice that had been long established in Latin America by foreign influences. He asserted that the only solution to this problem was through violent revolution since, “Mexico and Cuba have demonstrated only revolution … can destroy feudalism.”[10]
Revolutionary culture and its core ideals were widely propagated in many forms. Besides literature, which was often targeted towards intellectuals, popular forms of media promoting armed rebellion included music, poetry, art, and even fashion. Collectively, these were used as vessels for the spread of leftist propaganda and were incredibly efficient. People living in post-revolution Cuba were constantly bombarded by the sight of political posters, government sanctioned newspapers, magazines, and radio broadcasts. These urged the individual to continue their revolutionary efforts through labor, community service, and self-sacrifice. Many of Cuba’s international sympathizers agreed with the rhetoric of the revolution, which asserted the prioritization of duty above all. Fidel Castro himself infamously stated that art that encourages the revolutionary doctrine of his regime is the only type worth making. In his “Words to Intellectuals” speech, he addressed artists who do not possess a revolutionary attitude towards life and stated that, “It is precisely this group … for whom the revolution constitutes a problem.”[11]
Although many organizations were successful at spreading awareness of revolutionary duty, its moral and ethical principles were not always well received. While the perpetual exposure to the revolutionary mindset sought to create a wholeheartedly devoted individual, this was far from the norm. Cuban youth quickly grew weary of constant political coercion and artistic restriction. This culminated into their total rejection of the revolutionary attitudes and, ultimately, a desire to flee the country. In her article for the International Migration Review, scholar Silvia Pedraza-Bailey describes mass Cuban migration through phases. Each phase took place during different periods and consisted of different social groups with their own set of economic or political motives.[12] Outside of Cuba, the doctrine received a variety of responses and provoked passionate reactions. To a great extent, this divergence in support amongst the youth led to two main factions of political thought, or lack thereof: supporters of the cause, and those who were indifferent. Survivor of Brazilian torture and author, Alex Polari, summarized this polarization by stating, “our option was precisely this: either pirar [flip out], trip out on drugs, or join the armed struggle.”[13]
For those who sympathized with leftist movements, songs of protest became a popular means of demonstrating support. These songs were rich in political and philosophical subjects and had unique qualities based on their country of origin. They often spoke out about social disparities, imperialism, and, overall, encouraged the notion of pan-Latin-American solidarity. In 1967, Cuba held the “International Protest Song” meeting in Havana, which gathered participants from various countries, such as Chile, Argentina, and Uruguay in an effort to mobilize songs as a revolutionary asset. The meeting concluded that, “song must be a weapon at the service of the peoples, not a consumer product used by capitalism to alienate us.”[14] A great example of this concept of pan-Latin-American solidarity, amongst the many that exist, is “Hermanos” sung by Argentine singer, Mercedes Sosa. The opening lyrics read, “I’ve got so many brothers that I can’t count them all. They’re in the valleys and mountains, on the pampas and the ocean.”[15] The song expresses support for guerilla movements and opposition to dictatorial regimes. Songs like these were exceptionally popular amongst the disgruntled youth.
Adversaries of leftist ideals greatly feared the possible ramifications for this dissemination of musical expression. Therefore, “right-wing governments terrorized, exiled and killed musicians … associated with the popular song repertoire.”[16] They feared these songs could stir rebellion against the regime by promoting major political change. Instances of enhanced government censorship were meant to instill fear in the public but counterintuitively generated greater resentment towards the status-quo. These campaigns certainly made aspects of the guerilla lifestyle more attractive for the youth. Afterall, its purpose was to unite people through their shared discontent and, by doing so, gain widespread popularity. It was abundantly clear even to the most dedicated conservative supporters of right-wing governments, that they were not without fault and could benefit from some level of reform. For those who leaned more towards the right-wing political spectrum and had little interest in socialist agendas, it may be difficult to imagine how they held the actions of their government in high regard.
Those who completely sought to alienate themselves from societal and political affairs were true hippies. Merriam-Webster dictionary defines them as, “a person who rejects the mores of established society.”[17] These groups represented the other half of the double-edged ideological sword popular amongst the youth. Often branded by their place of origin, like the jipitecas of Mexico and los desbundados of Brazil, these young adults wanted to be left alone. Concerned with seeking fulfillment through self-pleasure above all else, they spent their days doing drugs and listening to rock music. Much like how left leaning youth identified with songs of protest, rock and roll most accurately represented the hippies’ inherent lack of concern for societal expectations. This is because rock at its very essence refused to conform to any of the values in place at the time of its conception. Songs became more aggressive in tone as themes like drug use and sexuality became more overt. Parents feared that “young black and white kids would get together over this music.”[18] The genre as a whole was wild, unapologetic, and suited to the inherent youthful drive for independence. Mexican society viewed the propagation of rock & roll as a direct attack on buenas costumbres or, “good values”, and a vulgar influence on the youth. The hippies were unconcerned with matters of obligatory duty and likely found greater satisfaction elsewhere, as they wanted to be left to their own vices.
The youth of 1960s Latin America found themselves involved in a violent ideological struggle of enormous proportions that went far beyond the fate of their country. The hostile conditions of their upbringing forced upon them a raw and distressing understanding of the world at a very young age. They chose to seek a better life either through armed insurrection or through alienation from the harsh reality of their existence as much as they could. Regardless of what they chose to do, they could not be labeled as naive in the context of situational awareness. Their attitudes and outlook on life were directly linked to an overall state of discontent and distress.
El deber revolucionario as a moral and ethical force seeped into all aspects of 1960s Latin American society and, therefore, played an essential role in molding its youth. Its influence as a concept was far reaching and became deeply ingrained into Latin American cultures. Regardless of personal background and beliefs, the youth of the 1960s, and later periods, could not avoid revolutionary duty as a topic of discussion. Without the subject of revolution and duty, the 1960s would be a completely different and unrecognizable era from its current legacy. Regardless of its reception, the duty of the revolutionary as a concept was an inescapable and undoubtedly popular dogma that permeated deeply into the lives of Latin American youth.
Endnotes
[1] Christopher Dunn, “Desbunde and its Discontents: Counterculture and Authoritarian Modernization in Brazil, 1968-1974,” The Americas 70:3 (January 2014), 429.
[2] Timothy Leary, “Tune in, Turn on & Drop Out 1967” (YouTube video), Posted March 26, 2016, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQWyC9Z5X-8&t=3s.
[3] Ernesto “Che” Guevara, “Socialism and Man in Cuba” (1965) in David Deutschmann and Maria del Carmen Ariet, eds, Che Guevara Reader: Writings on Politics & Revolution (Melbourne: Ocean Press, 2003), 227.
[4] Nicholas Cullather, “(Estimated Pub Date) Operation PBSUCCESS; the United … – Cia,” May 23, 1993, https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/DOC_0000134974.pdf.
[5] Cullather, “(Estimated Pub Date) Operation PBSUCCESS; the United … – Cia,” May 23, 1993, https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/DOC_0000134974.pdf.
[6] Cullather. “(Estimated Pub Date) Operation PBSUCCESS; the United … – Cia,” May 23, 1993, https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/DOC_0000134974.pdf.
[7] Vásquez Perdomo, My Life as a Colombian Revolutionary, chaps. 3, 41.
[8] Booth, John A. “Rural Violence in Colombia: 1948-1963.” The Western Political Quarterly 27, no. 4 (1974): 657–79. https://doi.org/10.2307/447686.
[9] “Fulgencio Batista (1901-1973),” PBS. Public Broadcasting Service, December 13, 2017, https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/castro-fulgencio-batista-1901-1973/.
[10] Carlos Fuentes, “The Argument of Latin America; Words for North Americans,” Monthly Review 14:9 (January 1963); 487.
[11] Fidel Castro, “Words to Intellectuals” (1961) in David Deutschmann and Deborah Shnookal, eds., Fidel Castro Reader (Melbourne: Ocean Press, 2007), 214.
[12] Pedraza-Bailey, Silvia., “Cuba’s Exiles: Portrait of a Refugee Migration,” International Migration Review 19, no. 1 (1985): 4. https://doi.org/10.2307/2545654.
[13] Dunn, “Desbunde and its Discontents,” 429.
[14] “Songs of Protest from Latin America” (1967) in Latin America and the United States: A Documentary Reader, edited by Robert Holden and Eric Zolov (NY: Oxford University Press, 2011), 262.
[15] Sosa, Mercedes. “Hermanos”, 1972, Accessed December 10, 2021
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJAOZ4bPGMA.
[16] “Songs of Protest from Latin America” (1967) in Latin America and the United States: A Documentary Reader, edited by Robert Holden and Eric Zolov (NY: Oxford University Press, 2011), 261.
[17]Britannica, s.v. “hippie,” accessed March 26, 2022, https://www.britannica.com/topic/hippie.
[18] Steve Williams, “Main Navigation,” University of Southern Indiana, February 20, 2017, https://www.usi.edu/news/releases/2017/02/rock-n-roll-and-moral-panics-part-one-1950s-and-1960s/#:~:text=One%20of%20the%20moral%20panics,rhythmic%2C%20primitive%2C%20sensuous%20beat.