A fistful of mafia

There is an Italian journalist has won over the heart of many in his native Italy. He is the author of the controversial and highly publicised book ‘Gomorra.’ His name is Roberto Saviano and last year the Neapolitan mafia announced their intentions to kill him before the end of 2008. They failed.

The mafia in the South of Italy is notorious for the ability to keep promises especially when it involves the torturous murder of someone who has been scribbled onto their ‘list.’ Saviano’s book was a harsh reminder for the mafia that, not matter how hard they try, they lack flawlessness and their hierarchal nature can be penetrated by outsiders.

His book underlined the clandestine make up of the Camorra – the Neapolitan mafia who has, without this notion ever really being exposed, had control over the Campania region and most definitely Naples, for centuries now. The most calamitous of the Camorra’s work suddenly became a real life disaster, in the form of waste disposal. It is widely believed, but unconfirmed, that since the 80s the Camorra have been paying other municipalities in the country to dump their solid waste in landfill sites around the city of Naples. When these landfill sites became too difficult to deal with, the rubbish men refused to deal with the mess and went on strike.

This is when Neapolitans started leaving their rubbish on the streets for days on end, which piled up into sheer chaos. Researchers think that: 1) it was a money-making scheme for the Camorra and 2) chucking all sorts of waste on their land meant it was easier to cover any sort of surreptitious affair they had engaged with.

Either way, the land in the Campania region is now wholly contaminated and so nothing can really grow there or be consumed by locals due to the levels of toxicity in the foods. In fact only recently a group of Japanese scientists did a test of foods grown in the region and resultantly deemed them highly unsafe to eat. It is so ridiculous that a region so famous for its rich cuisine now has to regionally import its buffalo mozzarella from the Lazio region along with its vegetables!

This leads me onto another intriguing Italian figure in the form of Silvio Berlusconi. I am sure many would agree his rise into political fame should be admired. He was born into a middle-class Milanese household, educated in law and then started his own business in his late 20s - early 30s.

It was a developing project in the construction of flats. His first role in media where he would later become astoundingly successful was Telemilano in the 70s. He then bought other channels and invested in a media group, Fininvest in ’78 which was the start of a huge media empire.

His largest assets I would guess now are Mediaset that produces three national Italian TV channels, Panorama, which is an Italian political magazine, and he is also the chairman of AC Milan – one of the most prominent football teams in the world. He is also quite the character and is always the subject of debate, for one of his public actions or another. This includes making seedy sexual gestures at a woman getting into a car and using taxpayer’s money to get a chin lift. Whatever you make of him he is now the Italian prime minister again, for the third time – because the Italian public voted for him – or did they? I am simply baffled that a man that every Italian I seem to know hates, has ended up being voted in for a third term. I, therefore, feel it imperative to add that Signor Berlusconi has never ever been officially trialed for mafia link allegations.

However his senior political advisor Marcello Dell’Ultri, with whom Berlusconi shares a close relationship, is currently on trial for 'concorso in associazione mafiosa' for which he was deemed guilty in 2004 and sentenced to a decade in jail but has since appealed. Vittorio Mangano is also a name that springs up again and again. Mangano was introduced to Berlusconi by our little amico Dell’Ultri in the mid 70s. He was, at the time a member of the Cosa Nostra, which is a synonym for the Sicilian Mafia, and was hired as a stable keeper in one of Berlusconi’s villas. A natural progression obviously – from ‘taking care’ of the enemy to taking care of a horse, literally. Berlusconi has only been accused of helping the Cosa Nostra gain political influence through Forza Italia (Berlusconi’s coalition) in Sicily during the 90s which, along the road, led to the killing of Italian Christian Democrat (opposition party) Salvo Lima. Some associate the murder of Lima as a way of getting rid of an influential character that could have given Forza Italia a run for their money politically in the South. As it stood though, Lima was the face of the Christian Democrats and when he was assassinated, Forza Italia swept up all 61 of Sicily’s Parliament seats in the 2001 elections. Just a coincidence?

There is so much to admire about Italy – it is an incredibly beautiful country and has been so integral to Western culture that it almost seems incomprehensible that an organization like the mafia could still have a strong a hold on a First World country in the West. That is just it though; Italy is a complete rollercoaster of a nation and has never been the country for the light-hearted. Scandalous, sinful, dishonourable are all fairly justified adjectives to describe Italy.

It also happens to be a nation of great music, food and authors, authors like Umberto Eco and Dario Fo who have out rightly spoken in their support for the protection of Roberto Saviano and how it is the Italian man’s duty to preserve the right of basic civil rights. Saviano has had police protection for over two years now as he fends for his life against the mafia and continues to do so.

Berlusconi, on the other hand, recently speaking about a younger generation of politicians, and more precisely Obama (comparing him with Medvedev) said he could get along with anyone because of the following criteria he is young, he is good-looking and he is even tanned and so surely a humble relationship can be formed. The nature of Berlusconi’s character is that he is an entertainer, a bit like Bush Jr. but underneath that cheeky exterior lay a steel shell that is hard to break. As the world economy and politics becomes more globalised, one wonders how much longer the mafia can highly influence Italy. Globalisation is a major issue for Italy, as is migration and the progressive loss of their culture, through the standardizing of their language to the lowering birth rate and higher death rate. The Mafia is emblematic of Italian culture and it makes me curious to think whether there will be a new generation of Berlusconis, business-minded and also immensely nationalistic who see the mafia as a way of preserving their traditions.

Che presentation – 20th Century myth viewed as 21st Century Commodity

To the request of a friend or perhaps two this is a presentation I gave on Che Guevara in my fourth year about how his image has been misconstrued by Western media. When I read back on it, I realise some of my opinions have changed but I still think it could serve as useful for any of you guys who may possess a Che Guevara print t-shirt!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In this presentation I aim to describe the reason as to why Che Guevara is viewed as a 21st century commodity of a 20th century myth and how this came about.

What exactly is a commodity? According to Merriam-Webster it is 'an economic good or one that is subject to ready exchange or exploitation within a market.'

Che Guevara's image has been exploited, turned upside down and adapted to favour its market. This exposure though, has merely been present in foreign countries, especially in the Americas, until very recently. Why is this?

Well, the name Che Guevara conjures up various debates in Argentina and had been enlisted under a sort of taboo some might say.

Ernesto Guevara passed away in 1967 and it was in the 70s that revolutionary groups formed in Argentina, the most famous of which were the Montoneros. They hoped that the returning Peron from exile would turn their fatherland into a more socialist state. The group wasn't successful and was effectively extinct by 1977. The Ezeiza massacre in 1973 was a stepping stone, not only to this, but also to the Dirty War that killed many from 1976 until 1983. These socialist attitudes adopted by the Montoneros, formed by young protesting students, reminded some of Guevarist theories and due to its connection with the Dirty War, isn't really a topic Argentines like to discuss.

Soon after 1983, Argentina experienced two economic crises at the end of the 80s and 90s and only recently has the country been able to enjoy both political and economic stability. In other words this is the first time since Che Guevara died that Argentina has been absent of any profound unrest.

This is important when it becomes apparent The Motorcycle Diaries was first published in 1994 and released a year later in English. This gave the opportunity for foreign insight to rejuvenate and tinker with the image of Che Guevara. The most detailed of Che Guevara biographies was published in 1997 by Jon Lee Anderson. He was portrayed as a young man, learning about himself and wanting to make a difference. The film ‘Diarios de Motocicleta’ attracted so much publicity that the book was re-released aimed directly at those who went to see the film. From this, the iconic and mythical Che Guevara image was formed – subsequent publishing of Che Guevara's works were then released such as his ‘Bolivian Diaries’ (transcribed and revised by his widow, Aleida) and ‘Travelling with Che Guevara’ by Alberto Granado.

This caused a commercial craze that meant we were starting to see Che's face on all sorts of memorabilia and artefacts, like the t-shirt on Prince Harry and the swimsuit on supermodel Gisele. Nonetheless his mythical figure not only created a literary windfall but also a political one.

Evo Morales was the first indigenous president to be elected in Bolivia a year ago. On Che Guevara's 40th anniversary he stated,

"We are humanists and followers of the example of Guevara,”

although he highlights that times have changed and that his idea of social change won't follow the same route of bullets like Che did – example being the operative word. This sentiment was highlighted by Hugo Chavez, the notorious Venezuelan leader. Even the Sandinista government showed allegiance to Guevara once they won the 2006 elections in Nicaragua, donning Che Guevara shirts at their victory parade.

And most recently people are drawing parallels with the effect this political change in Nicaragua and Bolivia has had on the violence-ridden nation, Guatemala. Last month Alvaro Colom was elected the new centre-left president of Guatemala, the first 'left leaning' president they have had since 1954, when Jacobo Arbenz' government was overthrown by a CIA coup which later led to thirty six years of civil war. There is a hint of irony about this because its widely believed Colom’s appointment was catalysed after recent leftist success around Latin America and thus it has been the adapted image of Che and his political dogma that has come to save Guatemala 53 years after since going there initially to learn about Arbenz' own social reforms.

For the entire appraisal Che has received, there have been those that are jumping on the bandwagon to connote anti - Che sentiments. Books such as Cuban migrant Humberto Fontova's, Exposing the Real Che Guevara and the Useful Idiots Who Idolize Him’ and ‘Che Guevara Myth and the Future of Liberty’ by Alvaro Vargas Llosa, son of famous Peruvian author, Mario Vargas Llosa focus in on his racist slurs such as in the Motorcycle Diaries:

Los negros, los mismos magníficos ejemplares de la raza africana que
han mantenido su pureza racial gracias al poco apego que le tienen al
baño, han visto invadidos sus reales por un nuevo ejemplar de esclavo…el
negro indolente y soñador, se gasta sus pesitos en cualquier frivolidad o
en ‘pagar unos palos’, el europeo tiene una tradición de trabajo y de
ahorro … (p.182)

Even though they ridicule the iconic status that Che holds within society, I think people have come to accept the sweet with the sour as he was a revolutionary, like Evo Morales has. Although these books undermine Che Guevara, they do serve to expand the ever increasing mania surrounding him and give two sides to the story consequently acting as another route of Che-orientated commercialism.

When relating all this back to Argentina, I believe the taboo that once surrounded Ernesto Guevara has been lifted. This can be seen in the inauguration in 2001 of the country’s first Che museum, in Alta Gracia, Cordoba where he grew up. His name is also popping up in Argentine media again, especially in sport. Important figures like Diego Maradona who has a tattoo of him on his arm,

"Amo Argentina, que nadie se olvide que yo amo al Che (Guevara), amo a (el presidente de Cuba) Fidel (Castro), pero soy argentino", dijo Maradona. BBC Mundo, De Todo Un Poco, Sábado, 1 de mayo de 2004, Intervista con canal televisivo Telefé 24

It was in effect, because of Argentina’s home turmoil that Che was a silent figure till the 90s and the appropriated image others have created have now have boomeranged back into Argentina via the West. Only time will tell how long this remodelled image of Guevara will last in Argentina. As the second generation develops, maybe the success of this renovated 21st century perception of Che around the world will sway them to focus on the good rather than the bad and use Guevara’s iconic status to their benefit, as others have.

Ernesto Guevara in the eyes of Steven Soderbergh and Benicio Del Toro

A Mr. 'Che' Guevara seems to be the talk of the town at the moment. Che part 1 was just released in the UK although it hasn't risen to the top of the box office charts as may have been expected. Simon Mayo and Mark Kermode's BBC Radio 5 Live show talked about it for about five seconds in their latest podcast which all came as a bit of a surprise. Elsewhere though it has done well, Benicio Del Toro already winner of the best actor award at Cannes.

Bearing in mind this is Che: Part 1 we see elements of his earlier life before the Cuban Revolution and before he matures into a real revolutionary. Soderbergh films it beautifully and at times humourously. Del Toro encapsulates what most who have studied/read/watched Che Guevara imagine to be the essence of the Argentine - physically but also in diction. There was no fairytale script in this film like in 'Motorcycle Diaries' although contrasting the films is useful and probably justified since we would be analysing two disparate chapters in his life. Che: Part 1 was no epic take on Guevara, it served to clarify what many misinterpret about his life and his ideologies. In my opinion, there was no obvious political undertone apart from an overt hatred, on the protagonists’ part, to an imperialistic United States. We were repeatedly reminded of this in cross scenes in black and white, imitating Guevara's speeches in the UN embassy. There isn't much to criticise really, it came across as an honest representation of the early revolutionary.

Nonetheless, it was interesting that the film emulated Fidel's first meeting with Che Guevara in 55' if i remember correctly but failed to explain how Che got there, in Mexico City. From Motorcycle Diaries to Che: Part 1 - 1952 -1955 there is a three-year gap that is ignored. Is your ordinary Joe supposed to think that Guevara went to a leprosy "colony" (as described in the film), visits Peru and sees the damage caused by the Spanish conquistadores on the Incas and then suddenly ends up in Mexico City in the presence of influential progressive Cubans? And whatever happened to Alberto?!

To fill this void, it would make sense to mention Guatemala and the Moncada barrack attacks. In '53 Guevara was in Costa Rica, working as a doctor and while he was there he met survivors of the Moncada attacks. The attacks were led by Fidel Castro and his amigos, revolting against the military coup of the Fulgencio Batista camp. From there he moved onto nearby Guatemala, intrigued by the peaceful transition from military junta to democratic elections, initially led by Juan José Arévalo's government between '45 to 51' and then continued on by socialist Jacobo Arbenz when Guevara entered the country. However it was when Arbenz was in power that this democratic movement came to an extreme halt with a military coup led by Colonel Castillo Armas and backed by the CIA. In short the latter were upset about agrarian reforms and having to pay taxes (American companies like United Fruit Company) owned vast amounts of land in Central America.

As a result they supported a military turn around in Guatemala and Arbenz resigned. The nature of this event, buoyed by Guevara's keen literary interest in the political theories behind Marxism and the nurturing of a friendship with another Moncada survivor (named Nico Lopez), Guevara began to get a feel for politics in Latin America and US common intervention. These events accompanied with his own ideas and those that surrounded him meant when he followed on to Mexico City, the character portrayed in the film - coy more than naive- and politically-astute, begins to make more sense.

I imagine the second film will have tested the producers a lot more than the first, primarily because a lot less has been documented on Guevara's later years. Most of which that has been published stems from Ocean Press Publishing Press - an Australian publishing press that agreed to take on the 'Che Guevara Publishing Project' which is a collaboration with the 'Che Guevara Studies Centre in Havana' headed by widow Aleida Guevara and most probably funded by the Castro regime. Therefore the legitimacy of what is published remains skeptical.

Finally, it comes as little of a shock that Jon Lee Anderson was the chief consultant for the first film: he is the author of the most complete book on Guevara, entitled 'Che Guevara: A Revolutionary Life.' For those of you who are just interested in learning a tad more about Guevara and don't want to indulge in such a detailed book then I personally recommend 'Che Guevara and the Cuban Revolution' written by Mike Gonzalez. It is a wonderfully clear and concise book, less than 200 pages and one of the best biographies I have read on the man we all call Che.

Thoughts on the film?