Full Version: Che Guevara- bad or good or in between?
I am somewhat in between on my views on Che'- he was aggressive and was nearly as brutal, on occasion, as the oppressors he was fighting.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Che_Guevara
Has pretty good timeline, with both the good and the bad, of what this guy was about.
However- he only executed a few hundred, and, in the scheme of things regarding the Batiste regime- I don't know if he killed anyone that wasn't deserving to be killed.
My questions-
Che- does he deserve the popularity he now commands?
Was he a brutal dicatator in the making, or was he the product of the outrages he viewed on his travels, and the ideal that brutal dictators neccesitate brutal revolutionaries in order to overthrow them?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Che_Guevara
Has pretty good timeline, with both the good and the bad, of what this guy was about.
However- he only executed a few hundred, and, in the scheme of things regarding the Batiste regime- I don't know if he killed anyone that wasn't deserving to be killed.
My questions-
Che- does he deserve the popularity he now commands?
Was he a brutal dicatator in the making, or was he the product of the outrages he viewed on his travels, and the ideal that brutal dictators neccesitate brutal revolutionaries in order to overthrow them?
Che- does he deserve the popularity he now commands?
I'm not sure if "deserve" is a word which can even apply here. To quote from your link:
That sounds about right. The myth has gone far beyond the man, and anything he might "deserve." I suspect that many people walking around with a Che T-shirt don't really have a clue who he was. If anything, they may think he was a cool, good-looking guy who fought the Establishment.
The fact that he was killed only added to his mythical stature. If he were still alive today, I think that he would be viewed by most of us in the "free world" as just about the same as Castro.
Was he a brutal dicatator in the making
Yes. The strongest evidence for this is his behavior during the "trials" conducted against members of the Batista regime.
The very fact that the estimated number of people executed varies so widely is evidence that these were secretive kangaroo courts. If the trials had been held openly, with the eyes of the world watching and proper legal procedures followed, Che might be more "deserving" of the mythos that surrounds him. As it is, one can only see him as yet another person who revolted against a brutal regime, only to become brutal himself.
or was he the product of the outrages he viewed on his travels, and the ideal that brutal dictators neccesitate brutal revolutionaries in order to overthrow them?
Also yes. The fact that he was understandably radicalized by his experiences does not excuse his behavior when his enemies were in his power. Nor should our understanding of the forces that made he what he was excuse the fact that he was a hard-core, anti-libertarian Stalinist, who threw away the chance for a truly liberating revolution against horribly repressive governments.
Che is seen as a saint by some because he died while fighting the Bad Guys. Too bad he was another kind of Bad Guy himself. It's probably expecting too much of human beings to hope that, after they have been oppressed, they will not become oppressors themselves. When that does happen, then we have people we can genuinely admire.
I'm not sure if "deserve" is a word which can even apply here. To quote from your link:
QUOTE
. . . the obsession with Guevara has been dismissed by some as merely "adolescent revolutionary romanticism".
That sounds about right. The myth has gone far beyond the man, and anything he might "deserve." I suspect that many people walking around with a Che T-shirt don't really have a clue who he was. If anything, they may think he was a cool, good-looking guy who fought the Establishment.
The fact that he was killed only added to his mythical stature. If he were still alive today, I think that he would be viewed by most of us in the "free world" as just about the same as Castro.
Was he a brutal dicatator in the making
Yes. The strongest evidence for this is his behavior during the "trials" conducted against members of the Batista regime.
QUOTE
He was appointed commander of the La Cabaña Fortress prison, and during his five-month tenure in that post (January 2 through June 12, 1959), he oversaw the trial and execution of many people, among whom were former Batista regime officials and members of the "Bureau for the Repression of Communist Activities" (a unit of the secret police known by its Spanish acronym BRAC). José Vilasuso, an attorney who worked under Guevara at La Cabaña preparing indictments, said that these were lawless proceedings where "the facts were judged without any consideration to general juridical principles" and the findings were pre-determined by Guevara. It is estimated that between 156 and 550 people were executed on Guevara's extra-judicial orders during this time.
The very fact that the estimated number of people executed varies so widely is evidence that these were secretive kangaroo courts. If the trials had been held openly, with the eyes of the world watching and proper legal procedures followed, Che might be more "deserving" of the mythos that surrounds him. As it is, one can only see him as yet another person who revolted against a brutal regime, only to become brutal himself.
or was he the product of the outrages he viewed on his travels, and the ideal that brutal dictators neccesitate brutal revolutionaries in order to overthrow them?
Also yes. The fact that he was understandably radicalized by his experiences does not excuse his behavior when his enemies were in his power. Nor should our understanding of the forces that made he what he was excuse the fact that he was a hard-core, anti-libertarian Stalinist, who threw away the chance for a truly liberating revolution against horribly repressive governments.
Che is seen as a saint by some because he died while fighting the Bad Guys. Too bad he was another kind of Bad Guy himself. It's probably expecting too much of human beings to hope that, after they have been oppressed, they will not become oppressors themselves. When that does happen, then we have people we can genuinely admire.
My questions-
Che- does he deserve the popularity he now commands?
Probably not but he was a purist revolutionary and those folks generally attract the most devoted followings, particularly after they are dead. I have to give him credit for being willing to go toe to toe with the collossus of the north. He was one of the two essential figures that made the Cuban revolution happen and yes although it is a dictatorship it's a dictatorship that has remained independent of the USA and provided a materially decent life by Latin American standards, despite a US embargo and having to divert a lot of resources to their military because of American threats.
Was he a brutal dicatator in the making, or was he the product of the outrages he viewed on his travels, and the ideal that brutal dictators neccesitate brutal revolutionaries in order to overthrow them?
I think Che was something of a religious Marxist who saw himself in an apocalyptic* struggle with the King of Beasts of Capitalism over the future of Latin America. In that regard he was going to give no quarter. Folks like that are probably better revolutionaries in the field than government leaders. But then his revolutionary success was strictly in Cuba. Perhaps without a Castro to be a guiding light he wasn't all that great shakes
I read much of his Bolivian diary a while back and do recall a curious passage in the book. His troops were quite down at one point and to inspire them he exhorted them with substantively this reflection, "Always remember, the guerrilla warrior is the highest evolved species of man." Seems a curious blend of evolutionary science and revolutionary fervor; but hey, whatever works.
*Just did an edit change. I can't believe I originally wrote 'apocryphal'.
Che- does he deserve the popularity he now commands?
Probably not but he was a purist revolutionary and those folks generally attract the most devoted followings, particularly after they are dead. I have to give him credit for being willing to go toe to toe with the collossus of the north. He was one of the two essential figures that made the Cuban revolution happen and yes although it is a dictatorship it's a dictatorship that has remained independent of the USA and provided a materially decent life by Latin American standards, despite a US embargo and having to divert a lot of resources to their military because of American threats.
Was he a brutal dicatator in the making, or was he the product of the outrages he viewed on his travels, and the ideal that brutal dictators neccesitate brutal revolutionaries in order to overthrow them?
I think Che was something of a religious Marxist who saw himself in an apocalyptic* struggle with the King of Beasts of Capitalism over the future of Latin America. In that regard he was going to give no quarter. Folks like that are probably better revolutionaries in the field than government leaders. But then his revolutionary success was strictly in Cuba. Perhaps without a Castro to be a guiding light he wasn't all that great shakes
I read much of his Bolivian diary a while back and do recall a curious passage in the book. His troops were quite down at one point and to inspire them he exhorted them with substantively this reflection, "Always remember, the guerrilla warrior is the highest evolved species of man." Seems a curious blend of evolutionary science and revolutionary fervor; but hey, whatever works.
*Just did an edit change. I can't believe I originally wrote 'apocryphal'.
QUOTE(Dingo @ Nov 2 2007, 04:36 AM) 
I think Che was something of a religious Marxist who saw himself in an apocryphal struggle with the King of Beasts of Capitalism over the future of Latin America. In that regard he was going to give no quarter. Folks like that are probably better revolutionaries in the field than government leaders. But then his revolutionary success was strictly in Cuba. Perhaps without a Castro to be a guiding light he wasn't all that great shakes
I read much of his Bolivian diary a while back and do recall a curious passage in the book. His troops were quite down at one point and to inspire them he exhorted them with substantively this reflection, "Always remember, the guerrilla warrior is the highest evolved species of man." Seems a curious blend of evolutionary science and revolutionary fervor; but hey, whatever works.
I read much of his Bolivian diary a while back and do recall a curious passage in the book. His troops were quite down at one point and to inspire them he exhorted them with substantively this reflection, "Always remember, the guerrilla warrior is the highest evolved species of man." Seems a curious blend of evolutionary science and revolutionary fervor; but hey, whatever works.
Che was a loser who couldn't ever get the job done at anything, excepting killing people.
http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/lynn-davi...lity-oppression
QUOTE
Sure, Cuban schoolchildren admire Che. They don't have a choice. The state-run schools and media determine what is said about him and do not mention the Cubans he killed or the families that were marched in front of the brain-splattered execution wall. It's easy to admire someone when there is no negative information, just ask North Korean schoolchildren.
Che executed people brutally in his own nation. THEN- he failed at basically everything he touched. He attempted to lead armed resistance in S America, where he was spanked by the Panamanian national guard and then Trujillo in the Dominican. So what then? Castro tried to make him an admin in the gov't (leader of the national bank, etc) where he failed too. So Castro sent him on a tour of communist countries to spur commerce. Look at how rich Cuba is today! HA! Finally, after Castro realized what a turd burgler this dude was, he sent him to Africa... because everyone cares about Africa, and GUESS WHAT? That didn't work either.
He killed people mercilessly. Comparing him to a revolutionary is absurd. Consider how our founding fathers accomplished revolution. Were they going through the villages and towns murdering British soldiers with wanton abandonment?
Che is in the vain of most communist fruit cakes. A murder. Stalin, Lenin, Kim Jong Il, etc. Nut jobs. None of them can make a country work without brutality, and Che in the early days was part of Castro's enforcement arm. Keeping the people down trodden enough and scared enough to comply.
Don't romanticise this nut. I hate that stupid long haired hippy kids wear the shirts. We're old enough to know better. Those kids care about video games, girls, and pot. Good. Just get the dang t shirts off of them.
QUOTE(CruisingRam @ Nov 1 2007, 09:31 PM)
I am somewhat in between on my views on Che'- he was aggressive and was nearly as brutal, on occasion, as the oppressors he was fighting.
NEARLY as brutal, eh? Macabre curiosity just begs what exactly would lead you to believe anyone on a side opposite the US could be deemed AS BRUTAL. I would hazard a guess that I know exactly what you would think of any US backed regime that bound, gagged, and executed hundreds of assorted "counter-revolutionaries" with suspension of habeas corpus rights - for criminy's sake, you must know he's got issues when Fidel himself labeled Che to be “excessively aggressive".
Testimony from a lawyer who worked with Che.
QUOTE
I was part of the team assembling the details of the cases against those accused of committing crimes during the previous government, such as murder, embezzlement, torture, betrayal, etc. Through my desk passed the files of accused men such as Commander Alberto Boix Coma and the journalist Otto Meruelo. Most of the indicted were military of low ranks, or politicians of no renown or charisma. On their side, the witnesses were ardent youth, vengeful, utopian, or simply malicious, anxious to earn revolutionary honors. I remember a Lieutenant Llivre, with an eastern-Cuba accent who would instigate us with “We must set up the show, we must bring real revolutionary witnesses who can shout ‘justice!, justice!, firing squad!, esbirros*!. This is what moves people.” The commissioner of the Marianao section once exhorted us: “We have to get all of these heads. All of them”
At the beginning, the Tribunals were composed of civilian and military lawyers, under the direction of Captain Mike Duque de Estrada and Lieutenants Sotolongo and Rivero (who later went crazy), and the prosecutors Tony Suarez de la Fuente (Pelayito) also known as “Pool o’blood” (Charco de Sangre) among others. Then, most of us quit given the excesses. Later, others without any legal training occupied our positions.
At the beginning, the Tribunals were composed of civilian and military lawyers, under the direction of Captain Mike Duque de Estrada and Lieutenants Sotolongo and Rivero (who later went crazy), and the prosecutors Tony Suarez de la Fuente (Pelayito) also known as “Pool o’blood” (Charco de Sangre) among others. Then, most of us quit given the excesses. Later, others without any legal training occupied our positions.
QUOTE
However- he only executed a few hundred, and, in the scheme of things regarding the Batiste regime- I don't know if he killed anyone that wasn't deserving to be killed.
CR, do you remember the debate between the two of us a while back...I can't remember the thread, but the issue of Castro came up and you suggested that my husband's family basically deserved what it got because they were Battista supporters (when they weren't...igoring the fact that Castro executed and imprisoned many of the very people who worked with him to rid the country of Batista, because they were anti-Communist. Grandpa Hernandez learned English in Cuba by placing a book on his plow and reading while he farmed the soil. Such affluence and 'corporate interest'!). And then, you suggested that my friends who came over from Vietnam on a raft, the first raft rescued by Amnesty international in the middle of the Pacific, also could not be trusted because they didn't approve of the Communist regime over there (I guess they should have done the right thing and died in the mass glob of human beach goo like the other tens of thousands razed by the Viet Cong). What exactly could anyone say here when your response is obviously going to be..."yeah, but since they hated the US government they couldn't be all bad. The dead must have deserved it." ? Honestly? Che- does he deserve the popularity he now commands?
Hell no. But he is gorgeous and looks good on a tee shirt. Good looks, combined with a rebellious image (and the man was very intelligent as well) can cover a multitude of sins.
Was he a brutal dicatator in the making, or was he the product of the outrages he viewed on his travels, and the ideal that brutal dictators neccesitate brutal revolutionaries in order to overthrow them?
See above. Castro, himself a dictator with a brutal history, thought that Che was a bit over-the-top. Says a lot.
Che- does he deserve the popularity he now commands?
No more than Jack the Ripper does.
Was he a brutal dictator in the making, or was he the product of the outrages he viewed on his travels, and the ideal that brutal dictators neccesitate brutal revolutionaries in order to overthrow them?
I do not believe so. Everything I've ever read about this character indicates he was a bood thirsty murderer who had the opportunity to indulge his craving.
The fact that he became such a left wng poster child just fits right in with the left wing love for extremism, revolution and when ever possible, killing people who disagree with them. The truth should not surprise when today left wing politicians openly support the murderers in Hamas and Hizb'Allah.
No more than Jack the Ripper does.
Was he a brutal dictator in the making, or was he the product of the outrages he viewed on his travels, and the ideal that brutal dictators neccesitate brutal revolutionaries in order to overthrow them?
I do not believe so. Everything I've ever read about this character indicates he was a bood thirsty murderer who had the opportunity to indulge his craving.
The fact that he became such a left wng poster child just fits right in with the left wing love for extremism, revolution and when ever possible, killing people who disagree with them. The truth should not surprise when today left wing politicians openly support the murderers in Hamas and Hizb'Allah.
This is all poppy-cock. Che is a TShirt. Che was a loser. He was so bad at everything he touched Castro probably had him offed, or tipped the people who offed him. I hear he's very good looking, well he's no Brad Pitt... heck he's not even a Treat Williams! However, the only good thing the man did was give us was this.
Reagan's t-shirt is as bad as Che's. Just as creepy for conservatives who idolize his memory.
Yes, he was a True Believer. That's what made Che such an awful, irrational human being. There were several patriotic Cubans who died trying to depose Batista and reinstate elections without U.S. assistance. Castro wasn't an anomaly. Some of them were socialists. Some of them even helped Castro and regretted it. They got rid of Batista only to suffer under Castro.
Che is especially hated among hard-line Cubans not so much because of his extrajudicial executions (although that didn't help) as the fact that he was a de facto outsider; a non-Cuban holding judgment over Cubans. He was the judge, jury and executioner of their thoughts, their dreams and their actions.
In Pedro Calderón de la Barca's play "Life is a Dream" soldiers free Poland's prince, Segismund, from his tower prison because they'd rather suffer under the heel of their tyrant than prosper under the guidance of a Russian hoping to gain Poland's throne through marriage. Most people hate outside interference into their affairs. They suspect no matter how well-meaning a foreign benefactor is. This is as true for Cubans as it is Iraqis. If Castro had died instead of Che the Revolution would have died with Castro years ago.
Yes, he was a True Believer. That's what made Che such an awful, irrational human being. There were several patriotic Cubans who died trying to depose Batista and reinstate elections without U.S. assistance. Castro wasn't an anomaly. Some of them were socialists. Some of them even helped Castro and regretted it. They got rid of Batista only to suffer under Castro.
Che is especially hated among hard-line Cubans not so much because of his extrajudicial executions (although that didn't help) as the fact that he was a de facto outsider; a non-Cuban holding judgment over Cubans. He was the judge, jury and executioner of their thoughts, their dreams and their actions.
In Pedro Calderón de la Barca's play "Life is a Dream" soldiers free Poland's prince, Segismund, from his tower prison because they'd rather suffer under the heel of their tyrant than prosper under the guidance of a Russian hoping to gain Poland's throne through marriage. Most people hate outside interference into their affairs. They suspect no matter how well-meaning a foreign benefactor is. This is as true for Cubans as it is Iraqis. If Castro had died instead of Che the Revolution would have died with Castro years ago.
It seems a little oddly over the top ideological that folks here will only attest to Che being bad. Was overthrowing the Batista regime bad? Was training to be a doctor and using his skills to help poor lepers and malaria victims etc. bad? Apparently, he didn't always simply kill the opposition. In his Bolivian guerrilla operation he would medically treat wounded Bolivian soldiers and then let them go. One can question his arrogance, his ideological rigidity and how he went about his revolutionary activities but his intention to help the poor and the oppressed and free Latin America from American hegemony appears to have been sincere. And he didn't formulate his ideas in a vacuum. Did anybody read about the coup in Guatemala, largely engineered by the CIA, and the effect that had on him? There's more to him than the blood lusting killer, totalitarian.
QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ Nov 2 2007, 05:08 AM)
QUOTE(CruisingRam @ Nov 1 2007, 09:31 PM)
I am somewhat in between on my views on Che'- he was aggressive and was nearly as brutal, on occasion, as the oppressors he was fighting.
NEARLY as brutal, eh? Macabre curiosity just begs what exactly would lead you to believe anyone on a side opposite the US could be deemed AS BRUTAL. I would hazard a guess that I know exactly what you would think of any US backed regime that bound, gagged, and executed hundreds of assorted "counter-revolutionaries" with suspension of habeas corpus rights - for criminy's sake, you must know he's got issues when Fidel himself labeled Che to be “excessively aggressive".
Testimony from a lawyer who worked with Che.
QUOTE
I was part of the team assembling the details of the cases against those accused of committing crimes during the previous government, such as murder, embezzlement, torture, betrayal, etc. Through my desk passed the files of accused men such as Commander Alberto Boix Coma and the journalist Otto Meruelo. Most of the indicted were military of low ranks, or politicians of no renown or charisma. On their side, the witnesses were ardent youth, vengeful, utopian, or simply malicious, anxious to earn revolutionary honors. I remember a Lieutenant Llivre, with an eastern-Cuba accent who would instigate us with “We must set up the show, we must bring real revolutionary witnesses who can shout ‘justice!, justice!, firing squad!, esbirros*!. This is what moves people.” The commissioner of the Marianao section once exhorted us: “We have to get all of these heads. All of them”
At the beginning, the Tribunals were composed of civilian and military lawyers, under the direction of Captain Mike Duque de Estrada and Lieutenants Sotolongo and Rivero (who later went crazy), and the prosecutors Tony Suarez de la Fuente (Pelayito) also known as “Pool o’blood” (Charco de Sangre) among others. Then, most of us quit given the excesses. Later, others without any legal training occupied our positions.
At the beginning, the Tribunals were composed of civilian and military lawyers, under the direction of Captain Mike Duque de Estrada and Lieutenants Sotolongo and Rivero (who later went crazy), and the prosecutors Tony Suarez de la Fuente (Pelayito) also known as “Pool o’blood” (Charco de Sangre) among others. Then, most of us quit given the excesses. Later, others without any legal training occupied our positions.
QUOTE
However- he only executed a few hundred, and, in the scheme of things regarding the Batiste regime- I don't know if he killed anyone that wasn't deserving to be killed.
CR, do you remember the debate between the two of us a while back...I can't remember the thread, but the issue of Castro came up and you suggested that my husband's family basically deserved what it got because they were Battista supporters (when they weren't...igoring the fact that Castro executed and imprisoned many of the very people who worked with him to rid the country of Batista, because they were anti-Communist. Grandpa Hernandez learned English in Cuba by placing a book on his plow and reading while he farmed the soil. Such affluence and 'corporate interest'!). And then, you suggested that my friends who came over from Vietnam on a raft, the first raft rescued by Amnesty international in the middle of the Pacific, also could not be trusted because they didn't approve of the Communist regime over there (I guess they should have done the right thing and died in the mass glob of human beach goo like the other tens of thousands razed by the Viet Cong). What exactly could anyone say here when your response is obviously going to be..."yeah, but since they hated the US government they couldn't be all bad. The dead must have deserved it." ? Honestly? Che- does he deserve the popularity he now commands?
Hell no. But he is gorgeous and looks good on a tee shirt. Good looks, combined with a rebellious image (and the man was very intelligent as well) can cover a multitude of sins.
Was he a brutal dicatator in the making, or was he the product of the outrages he viewed on his travels, and the ideal that brutal dictators neccesitate brutal revolutionaries in order to overthrow them?
See above. Castro, himself a dictator with a brutal history, thought that Che was a bit over-the-top. Says a lot.
My point in the "grand scheme of things" regarding Che's "extrajudicial killings" is that ONLY 500 - which is the highest number atributed to him, isn't a whole lot different than what we have done in a number of countries- hell, we have that much in a month of "collateral damage" to innocent poeple.
Good on your grandpa for being a righteous man- but, corruption in Cuba is the reason for revolution in the first place.
Why do you think there was a revolution in Cuba in the first place Mrs P? Because the population was so upset at the sweetness and light of the Batiste regime? All those poeple that ran to Florida in the first wave (including, of course, that upright US citizen named Myers Lansky that had only the best wishes of the Cuban poeple in his heart, right?)
You bet, all those folks that left cuba in a real big hurry as soon as Castro was going to come into power, well, all those upright citizens got out in a hurry- because they were all just innocent land owners with nothing to do with the military, Batiste or his policies?
Kinda like claims of attending woodstock- if everyperson that claimed to be there, were there, the state would have sunk under the wieght of all that humanity. Same with all those that CLAIMED to be innocent that hit US shores were just fine, upstanding citizens that had nothing to do with any wrongdoing- well, there wouldn't have been so many upset cubans wanting to revolt against Batiste in the first place?
Heck, how do you even know for sure that what you say really happened the way you have been told? You have first hand evidence of this- or are you relying on the word of your in-laws?
That question is NOT meant to offend- but illustrate that the eye witness of an event even has thier biased views and suppositions of fact, when they may not be true.
No person is a villian in thier own personal history- do you agree?
ALL THAT being said
I actually agree with Aeven's assessment of the guy personally- he was arrogant, brutal, elitist and above all- a failure.
My one caveat is, what does it take to overthrow a brutal dictator? Can an enlightened group of revolutionaries, with strong morals against killing innocent civilians, win a revolution at all- or is it the most brutal and totalitarian type the only type of succesful revolutionary?
QUOTE(Lesly @ Nov 2 2007, 12:32 PM)
Reagan's t-shirt is as bad as Che's. Just as creepy for conservatives who idolize his memory.
Yes, he was a True Believer. That's what made Che such an awful, irrational human being. There were several patriotic Cubans who died trying to depose Batista and reinstate elections without U.S. assistance. Castro wasn't an anomaly. Some of them were socialists. Some of them even helped Castro and regretted it. They got rid of Batista only to suffer under Castro.
Yes, he was a True Believer. That's what made Che such an awful, irrational human being. There were several patriotic Cubans who died trying to depose Batista and reinstate elections without U.S. assistance. Castro wasn't an anomaly. Some of them were socialists. Some of them even helped Castro and regretted it. They got rid of Batista only to suffer under Castro.
Reagan was just as bad? HUH? Wow. That's a stretch. Let's go ahead and make this about Che please, no absurd comments from the leftist peanut gallery. I'm not sure what the paragraph is saying... are you trying to defend Che under the radar?
He was a true believer???? In what? Murder being the answer? Pol Pot was a believer too, but that didn't make him less of a fruit cake. In fact, Pol Pot was probably a GREAT analogy. The Killing Fields should be on t shirts too under some liberal ideology I'd suppose.
QUOTE
There's more to him than the blood lusting killer, totalitarian.
Seriously- did you know that nice things could be said about Hitler too? Seriously. There were a ton of philanthropic things that Hitler did, particularly before the war. We don't want to mask a murder with a teddy bear facade. It's unrealistic.
If I rob from the rich to give to the homeless, it still makes me a theif.
I find it entertaining that anyone will stand up for a dude like this. This person isn't just remembered by history as a blood-thirsty murderer, but rather by a large portion of people who lived in Cuba and/or S America who can attest to his brutality.
Sigh.
Hardly. I think people who idolize political leaders outside of mythological founders are creeps. I'm comparing the adoration among leftists and rightists, not the objects of their adoration.
Certainly. Believe what you want, Aevans. You don't have a problem skipping context. I really shouldn't participate in this thread anyway.
QUOTE(aevans176 @ Nov 2 2007, 03:24 PM)
Reagan was just as bad? HUH? Wow. That's a stretch.
Hardly. I think people who idolize political leaders outside of mythological founders are creeps. I'm comparing the adoration among leftists and rightists, not the objects of their adoration.
QUOTE(aevans176 @ Nov 2 2007, 03:24 PM)
Let's go ahead and make this about Che please, no absurd comments from the leftist peanut gallery. I'm not sure what the paragraph is saying... are you trying to defend Che under the radar?
Certainly. Believe what you want, Aevans. You don't have a problem skipping context. I really shouldn't participate in this thread anyway.
QUOTE(Lesly @ Nov 2 2007, 02:31 PM)
Sigh.
Hardly. I think people who idolize political leaders outside of mythological founders are creeps. I'm comparing the adoration among leftists and rightists, not the objects of their adoration.
Certainly. Believe what you want, Aevans. You don't have a problem skipping context. I really shouldn't participate in this thread anyway.
QUOTE(aevans176 @ Nov 2 2007, 03:24 PM)
Reagan was just as bad? HUH? Wow. That's a stretch.
Hardly. I think people who idolize political leaders outside of mythological founders are creeps. I'm comparing the adoration among leftists and rightists, not the objects of their adoration.
QUOTE(aevans176 @ Nov 2 2007, 03:24 PM)
Let's go ahead and make this about Che please, no absurd comments from the leftist peanut gallery. I'm not sure what the paragraph is saying... are you trying to defend Che under the radar?
Certainly. Believe what you want, Aevans. You don't have a problem skipping context. I really shouldn't participate in this thread anyway.
I don't think there are any "Alex Keaton" wannabes wearing Reagan t shirts. I think he was a great leader, but don't own the ball cap, get it?
People idolize Che in a manner that some people idolize JFK. Consider that a man who almost got us nuked, was a drug abuser, and a philanderer has been made in to more movies and is more of an icon than the man that brought down the Berlin wall (or even the man that orchestrated D Day). Get it?
Che is an icon to even people on this board who have defended him, while liberals demonize a man who historians even place as one of the greatest leaders in US history.
QUOTE(aevans176 @ Nov 2 2007, 12:24 PM)
Reagan was just as bad?
Worse in some ways, better in others. Kind of apples and oranges wouldn't you say?
QUOTE
He was a true believer???? In what? Murder being the answer? Pol Pot was a believer too, but that didn't make him less of a fruit cake. In fact, Pol Pot was probably a GREAT analogy. The Killing Fields should be on t shirts too under some liberal ideology I'd suppose.
Nixon's invasion of Cambodia greased the way in for the Khmer Rouge. The Vietnamese commies threw them out. True believer commies can believe different things just like capitalist 1 is not a carbon copy of capitalist 2. Your murder reference is curious. Do you believe revolutions should only be conducted in a pacifist manner or do you believe that only standing governments should be allowed to kill?
QUOTE
QUOTE
Dingo. There's more to him than the blood lusting killer, totalitarian.
Seriously- did you know that nice things could be said about Hitler too? Seriously. There were a ton of philanthropic things that Hitler did, particularly before the war. We don't want to mask a murder with a teddy bear facade. It's unrealistic.
Well saying that everybody has done some good some time is a truism, however I would be curious about the ton of philanthropic things that Hitler did before the war. He certainly was the recipient of help from Jewish homeless services I understand. In any case I'm pointing out the relationship between Che's earlier commitment and experiences which would seem to put him on the decent, just side of the ledger and how they directed him into his future revolutionary activities. I'm inclined to think as a revolutionary the decency and justice of his objectives continued but his tactics were not up to par and his ideology was poorly formed. Hitler's early activities and thinking appeared, besides a certain limited artistic bent, wrapped up in extreme nationalistic, racist and anti-Semitic thinking and ravings. I don't find the close comparison that you do.
QUOTE
If I rob from the rich to give to the homeless, it still makes me a theif.
If you have a perspective that the rich first robbed from the homeless and that you are engaging in a restoration, then from your perspective it isn't robbery. It's justice. It's a matter of where you are with respect to the issue.
QUOTE
I find it entertaining that anyone will stand up for a dude like this. This person isn't just remembered by history as a blood-thirsty murderer, but rather by a large portion of people who lived in Cuba and/or S America who can attest to his brutality.
Given your comments I think you would be surprised what a lot of people in South America think about him. In fact there is a very catchy song in Latin America titled 'Commandante Che Quevara' that appears to be quite popular and played in all sorts of venues. Folks who sincerely stand up for the underdog and lay it on the line often get remembered more for their commitment than their warts. That seems to be the case with Che. Folks also know from experience that those who criticize the Che's and Castros of the world seldom criticize the Batistas and Bush's of the world, no matter how bad their behavior. So they consider the source shall we say.
QUOTE(aevans176 @ Nov 2 2007, 03:24 PM)
Seriously- did you know that nice things could be said about Hitler too? Seriously. There were a ton of philanthropic things that Hitler did, particularly before the war. We don't want to mask a murder with a teddy bear facade. It's unrealistic.
If I rob from the rich to give to the homeless, it still makes me a theif.
I find it entertaining that anyone will stand up for a dude like this. This person isn't just remembered by history as a blood-thirsty murderer, but rather by a large portion of people who lived in Cuba and/or S America who can attest to his brutality.
If I rob from the rich to give to the homeless, it still makes me a theif.
I find it entertaining that anyone will stand up for a dude like this. This person isn't just remembered by history as a blood-thirsty murderer, but rather by a large portion of people who lived in Cuba and/or S America who can attest to his brutality.
Bringing Hitler into a debate? Nice .
It is commendable that you are standing up for your principles aevans. Just remember them next time we are discussing General Augusto Pinochet and Chile.
QUOTE(English Horn @ Nov 2 2007, 03:28 PM)
QUOTE(aevans176 @ Nov 2 2007, 03:24 PM)
Seriously- did you know that nice things could be said about Hitler too? Seriously. There were a ton of philanthropic things that Hitler did, particularly before the war. We don't want to mask a murder with a teddy bear facade. It's unrealistic.
If I rob from the rich to give to the homeless, it still makes me a theif.
I find it entertaining that anyone will stand up for a dude like this. This person isn't just remembered by history as a blood-thirsty murderer, but rather by a large portion of people who lived in Cuba and/or S America who can attest to his brutality.
If I rob from the rich to give to the homeless, it still makes me a theif.
I find it entertaining that anyone will stand up for a dude like this. This person isn't just remembered by history as a blood-thirsty murderer, but rather by a large portion of people who lived in Cuba and/or S America who can attest to his brutality.
Bringing Hitler into a debate? Nice .
It is commendable that you are standing up for your principles aevans. Just remember them next time we are discussing General Augusto Pinochet and Chile.
What exactly does this have to do with the debate?
It's a logical statement. There are/were people who have said that Hitler did good things. Pol Pot did too. Che? Same story brother.
Argue that notion please.
(And when did I ever stand up for Pinochet?- please quote me... but at least he accomplished SOMETHING, Che was a brutal murder and a loser to boot... poster child for hippies I say!)
QUOTE(aevans176 @ Nov 2 2007, 04:38 PM)
What exactly does this have to do with the debate?
It's a logical statement. There are/were people who have said that Hitler did good things. Pol Pot did too. Che? Same story brother.
Argue that notion please.
(And when did I ever stand up for Pinochet?- please quote me... but at least he accomplished SOMETHING, Che was a brutal murder and a loser to boot... poster child for hippies I say!)
It's a logical statement. There are/were people who have said that Hitler did good things. Pol Pot did too. Che? Same story brother.
Argue that notion please.
(And when did I ever stand up for Pinochet?- please quote me... but at least he accomplished SOMETHING, Che was a brutal murder and a loser to boot... poster child for hippies I say!)
Goodwin's Law states that every precation should be taken to avoid comparisons to Hitler and nazis in a course of a debate... I don't think comparasings to Hitler are necessary.
You JUST said that Pinochet accomplished something... as if it somehow clears the blood off his hands. Would it be the same for Che as well if he was more successful in his attempts to "export the revolution"? A successful murderer like Pinochet is better than a murderer and a loser, like Che?
You are rght about one thing Aveans in comparing Che to Reagan- Reagan was far more succesful at recruiting terrorists and thugs and baby rapers and killers than Che even dreamed of doing. Che is accredited for 500 "extra-judicial killings"- whereas Reagan helped poeple that killed and tortured and raped far more poeple- his so called "freedom fighters" in Latin America.
You have to give credit to Reagan's only good thing he did for Latin America in his horrible reign of terror in that region- we were the "good guys" in Grenada. Otherwise- you can pretty much sum up Reagans policy in Central America as "we hire worse terrorists than the other guys have".
He backed the contras- that were everything you claim Che was and worse.
So where is your consistancy? Also- Reagan failed in those countries, except, of course, if you measure success by making sure more innocent poeple were harmed than the other guy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contras
Human Rights groups routinely catalogued yearly allegations of war crimes. The Catholic Institute for International Relations summarized contra operating procedures in their 1987 human rights report: "The record of the contras in the field, as opposed to their official professions of democratic faith, is one of consistent and bloody abuse of human rights, of murder, torture, mutilation, rape, arson, destruction and kidnapping."[3]
In 1984 a CIA manual for training the Contras in psychological operations was leaked to the media, entitled "Psychological Operations in Guerrilla War".[4][5]
The manual recommended “selective use of violence for propagandistic effects” and to “neutralize” government officials.
The contras MAIN AND ONLY method of waging war was against innocent civilians, and there are over 30,000 dead poeple as a result of Reagan's interference in that region.
So, are you mad at Che because he didn't kill enough of his enemies , rape enough women or kill enough babies to equal your hero Ronald Reagan?
Though I see Che as a failure, and kind of a miserable one at that- he just doesn't compare in human rights abuses in Central America to the US and Reagan.
I think this is the thing I find so repulsive about those that moralize about how great a nation we have, how we have these ideals, and we are doing good by exporting them. I don't deny we are a great nation, founded on the ideals of liberty and justice for all- but the reality is, if given the choice- we act as horribly as anybody we demonize today.
To call Che a bad guy, we must also label Reagan as an even worse guy, if we are talking about human rights abuses.
If we are talking just plain old failure- Che was certainly a failure, and was WAY over hero-ized as far as his string of failures and stalinist beliefs.
But then again, so is reagan.
You have to give credit to Reagan's only good thing he did for Latin America in his horrible reign of terror in that region- we were the "good guys" in Grenada. Otherwise- you can pretty much sum up Reagans policy in Central America as "we hire worse terrorists than the other guys have".
He backed the contras- that were everything you claim Che was and worse.
So where is your consistancy? Also- Reagan failed in those countries, except, of course, if you measure success by making sure more innocent poeple were harmed than the other guy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contras
Human Rights groups routinely catalogued yearly allegations of war crimes. The Catholic Institute for International Relations summarized contra operating procedures in their 1987 human rights report: "The record of the contras in the field, as opposed to their official professions of democratic faith, is one of consistent and bloody abuse of human rights, of murder, torture, mutilation, rape, arson, destruction and kidnapping."[3]
In 1984 a CIA manual for training the Contras in psychological operations was leaked to the media, entitled "Psychological Operations in Guerrilla War".[4][5]
The manual recommended “selective use of violence for propagandistic effects” and to “neutralize” government officials.
The contras MAIN AND ONLY method of waging war was against innocent civilians, and there are over 30,000 dead poeple as a result of Reagan's interference in that region.
So, are you mad at Che because he didn't kill enough of his enemies , rape enough women or kill enough babies to equal your hero Ronald Reagan?
Though I see Che as a failure, and kind of a miserable one at that- he just doesn't compare in human rights abuses in Central America to the US and Reagan.
I think this is the thing I find so repulsive about those that moralize about how great a nation we have, how we have these ideals, and we are doing good by exporting them. I don't deny we are a great nation, founded on the ideals of liberty and justice for all- but the reality is, if given the choice- we act as horribly as anybody we demonize today.
To call Che a bad guy, we must also label Reagan as an even worse guy, if we are talking about human rights abuses.
If we are talking just plain old failure- Che was certainly a failure, and was WAY over hero-ized as far as his string of failures and stalinist beliefs.
But then again, so is reagan.
QUOTE
My one caveat is, what does it take to overthrow a brutal dictator? Can an enlightened group of revolutionaries, with strong morals against killing innocent civilians, win a revolution at all- or is it the most brutal and totalitarian type the only type of succesful revolutionary?
This is a far more important question than whose image one might wear on a T-shirt.
It does seem to be a tragic fact of history that revolutions against brutal regimes tend to result in brutal revolutionaries. One only has to think of the French Revolution and the Reign of Terror, or of the murder of the children of the Tsar. The fact that humanity has a very hard time turning away from the seductions of revenge -- that desiring only true justice for one's oppressors requires almost a superhuman effort -- does not excuse these crimes.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.