Does Che deserve his iconic T-shirt?


Although born in Argentina, he leaves behind his essence in Cuba. Every turn taken reveals yet another familiar face beautifully graffitied on the walls; these graffiti do not only carry a charming face, they carry ideas. Born on June 14, 1928, in Rosario, Argentina, Ernesto Rafael Guevara de la Serna, goes on to become a paradoxical symbol: adored as an anti-imperialist, revolutionary by some and criticized as an extremist by some.

Che was born in a middle class, politically progressive household, his curiosity of exploring more than what he was exposed to leads him on a journey that would alter his life motives forever. For eight months Che and Alberto Granado travelled across south America which gave him insights to many different lifestyles. He witnessed social inequalities, poverty, the struggles of working class families and the exploitation of indigenous communities. These observations later shaped his opinions on capitalism and foreign economic influence on the suffering of laboring classes. 1954, a democratically elected president, Jacobo Árbenz Guzmán was overthrown in a CIA-backed coup, which only strengthened Che’s growing hatred towards U.S. interventions, leading him to flee Guatemala to Mexico and crossing paths with Fidel Castro. Fidel Castro provided Che with leadership roles in guerrilla warfare campaigns, then began his path as a revolutionary. 82 revolutionaries sailed from Mexico to Cuba under the leadership of Castro who eventually overthrew the dictator of Cuba, Fulgencio Batista. The success of the revolution added with the young and ruggedly handsome face, Che gained international popularity.

But if all he did was rebel against a corrupt government why is Che Guevara such a complex and debatable historical figure till today? If his ideas only advocated for economic equality and anti-imperialism, why is he shamed as a dangerous influence on youths? His views seemed to roam around equal rights, affordable lifestyles for everyone and reducing class inequalities. His belief appeared widely conventional, until they were tied to an ideology, people and countries feared because of its historical association with authoritarian regimes and political repression. Communism. 

Yet an idealistic label like communism is not the sole reason for critics to condemn him. His past racist and homophobic outlook, combined with his role of overseeing executions in Cuba reportedly earned him a title of a ‘mass murderer’ among his detractors. So, he was seen as freedom fighter and a violent ideologue simultaneously. This contradiction being the reason for his controversially popular t-shirt.

Discussing the fragmented opinions surrounding Che is important, not to choose a side but to understand the division caused by it. To understand whether Che ever really intended for his t-shirt to gain fame, whether the very t-shirt of rebellion has become submissive to the capitalistic system it once opposed and whether choosing a side is intelligent or a breeding field for frenzy.

In 1960, Alberto Korda, a Cuban photographer took the iconic picture of Che, the photograph that later, after his death became the most widely produced revolutionary symbols in the world. Any person who intends to wear one of his t-shirts surly wears it to express admiration for his ideals of resistance and equality, rather than to endorse the violent aspects of his revolutionary history. Therefore, the question here isn’t if Che deserves his fame, the question here rather is if we, the consumers recognize the irony in turning an anti-capitalistic symbol into a mass-produced commercial product. Tens of millions of t-shirts sold yet not a single penny of that earning was for the poor.

Now is it really rebellious for a teen to wear a T-shirt with Che’s face on it, is it really hypocritical for a critic to shame Che and is it really a coincidence when hysteria rises because of the political polarization? Or do left and right always lead to the same destination.

Debating a figure like Che can be heated especially when the question presupposes something. On what basis does one deserve something and how can a person deserve a t-shirt. If the intension of the question was to ask if Che deserved his fame and following, that framing is still flawed because fame is an effect of a person’s actions. Whether those effects were positive or negative remain another debate in itself but it does not answer whether someone deserves a material he didn’t intend to produce.

If the question intended to ask whether the Che’s ideas deserved to carry on or whether his often violent methods deserve to be continued into further generations, then the question would be more meaningful. As I have already mentioned fame is an effect, Che gaining popularity was inevitable and there were far more dangerous figures, but then again there are only a handful who got as talked and symbolized as Che. Talking about if his beliefs deserve to be preserved, I think trying to remove history, especially controversial figures like Che is a far more dangerous idea. It would bear a resemblance to watching a dystopian novel come to life. In this case, Che would appear more as a heroic figure than a violent ideologue, doing the exact opposite of what the suppression intended to do. History can be erased but it’s impact remains. People may forget a written script but stories will be engraved across generations.

               “you’re only going to kill a man” (Che Guevara: A Revolutionary Life, p.735)

Lastly, Ernesto Che Guevara is still a highly debated persona but no matter how much fragmented or true information we have on him, how can we decide if someone deserves something at all. Are their good or bad actions only the medium through which one can decide if he deserves a t-shirt. More importantly how does one ‘deserve’ a t-shirt. A t-shirt is not a reward nor a punishment for a dead man. The piece of clothing doesn’t directly connect to Che himself. In this sense, the question itself is fragmented.