Che Guevara. He is loved and he is hated. He is one of the biggest commercial successes and one of the most brutal murderers in recent history. It is no wonder that a man so passionately loved and hated is familiar to most people. This list looks at some of the less familiar aspects of his life. If you have other little known facts about Che Guevara, be sure to tell us in the comments.
The name “Che Guevara” either incites love or hate. The name is synonymous with freedom fighting to some, and butchery to others. What most people don’t know is that Che’s real name was not quite so romantic; he was born Ernesto Lynch. That’s right – Che Guevara was actually plain old Mr Lynch. It doesn’t have quite the same ring to it does it? His surname comes from the fact that his family was half Irish. Ernesto Lynch is pictured above at the age of 22.
Che Guevara as a youth was nicknamed “Chancho” (pig) because of his bathing habits (or lack thereof) and the fact that he proudly wore a “weekly shirt” – ie, a shirt he changed once a week. All through his life people commented on his smelliness (though obviously not to his face once he had the power to execute people on a whim).
Contrary to the image we all have of Guevara, in his youth he was quite the geek. He loved playing Chess and even entered local tournaments. In between hanging out with his chess buddies, Ernesto would read poetry which he loved with a passion. His favorite subjects at school were mathematics and engineering. I think we could safely say that if he were a teenager today, he would be EMO. Pictured above is an artist’s impression of EMO Ernesto Lynch (AKA Che Guevara).
While Guevara is best remembered for his actions in Cuba, he was actually born in Argentina to wealthy parents and he never became a Cuban citizen. When he was born, his father said “the first thing to note is that in my son’s veins flowed the blood of the Irish rebels.”
There seems to be some dispute about this fact around the Internet, but in June 1953, Guevara completed his medical studies and graduated as Doctor Ernesto Guevara. While studying he was particularly interested in the disease Leprosy.
In 1964, Guevara travelled to the United States to give a speech to the United Nations in New York. You can watch a portion of it in the video clip above. Whilst there he condemned the US for their racial segregation policies: “Those who kill their own children and discriminate daily against them because of the color of their skin; those who let the murderers of blacks remain free, protecting them, and furthermore punishing the black population because they demand their legitimate rights as free men — how can those who do this consider themselves guardians of freedom?”
We tend not to see Guevara as a family man, but in fact he had one child with his first wife, Hilda Gadea, a daughter who was born in Mexico City on February 15, 1956, and he had four children with his second wife, the revolutionary Aleida March. Pictured above is Camilo – Che’s son.
After hie execution, a military doctor amputated Che’s hands. Bolivian army officers transferred Guevara’s body to an undisclosed location and refused to reveal whether his remains had been buried or cremated. The hands were preserved in formaldehyde to be sent to Buenos Aires for fingerprint identification. (His fingerprints were on file with the Argentine police.) They were later sent to Cuba.
The high-contrast monochrome graphic of his face has become one of the world’s most universally merchandized and objectified images, found on an endless array of items, including t-shirts, hats, posters, tattoos, and even bikinis, ironically contributing to the consumer culture he despised. The original image was snapped at a memorial service by newspaper photographer Alberto Korda. At the time, only Korda thought highly of the shot, and hung the picture on his wall, where it stayed until an Italian journalist saw it, asked if he could have it, and Korda obliged.
Guevara remains a beloved national hero to many in Cuba, where his image adorns the $3 Cuban Peso and school children begin each morning by pledging “We will be like Che.” In his native homeland of Argentina, where high schools bear his name, numerous Che museums dot the country, and in 2008 a 12 foot bronze statue of him was unveiled in his birth city of Rosario. Additionally, Guevara has been sanctified by some Bolivian farm workers as “Saint Ernesto”, to whom they pray for assistance. Needless to say, the Catholic Church does not consider Guevara to be a saint and strongly opposes the adulation of him.






















May 25th, 2009 at 1:43 am
Picture in #8: Planet of the Apes?
May 25th, 2009 at 2:13 am
Spanish bombs on the list g. Time to brush on my study of fine cigars yo.
May 25th, 2009 at 2:13 am
che guevarra is cool! rock on!!!
May 25th, 2009 at 2:19 am
i dont think those things make him an emo.
May 25th, 2009 at 2:19 am
This is pretty good, I think one fact many dont know is that he was determined to bring about universal communism, and went to Bolivia only after a failed campaign in Congo. He did however start many socialist and communist revolutions all over latin america
May 25th, 2009 at 2:20 am
The iconic image (Point 2) was made by Jim Fitzgerald. It was originally produced without copyright, as the artist wanted people to make reproductions, and their own versions.
Copyright has since been sought, gained and signed over to a Childrens hospital in Cuba, with the aim that all further authorised reproductions will benefit the Childrens hospital
May 25th, 2009 at 2:39 am
jamie, My chrome keeps telling me that this site contain malware… what gives?
May 25th, 2009 at 3:02 am
Max – please send me a screenshot of the warning – jamie at frater dot com
May 25th, 2009 at 3:02 am
Good list…but the emo thing was a bid disrespectfull
May 25th, 2009 at 3:08 am
I know a Cuban that despises Che. Interesting list.
May 25th, 2009 at 3:19 am
I’ll never understand why people make a big fuss about him being ‘a murderer’
He was a soldier. Of course he killed people. Why don’t we make a big fuss about our own soldiers and call them murderers?
Let’s be consistent, people! Che Guevara was a soldier and died as a soldier. He expected no less from his enemies as he did unto them – it was war.
Now, if we’re talking about his ‘purging’ of counterrevolutionaries after the revolution, let’s put that into perspective:
What do we do with war criminals after a war? We trial them for war crimes.
That’s exactly what Fidel Castro and Che Guevara did. The trial and executions of many many ‘counterrevolutionaries’ or ‘Batista supporters’ or however you want to call them, was a decision that was heavily supported by the population, and as Raul Gómez Treto points out, were similar in execution and consistent with the Nuremberg Trials we had after World War 2
Now, I’m not saying Che was perfect. He was a Leninist. The regime he helped create might be better than Batista’s but still holds an oppressive control in the Cuban media.
Nevertheless, with the above said, it kinda takes away the whole ‘mass murderer’ schtick, doesn’t it?
May 25th, 2009 at 3:27 am
11. Alan Jimenez : Che was a guerrilla, if he had to kill a civilian in the name of Marxism, he would. That’s why people call him a murderer.
“…The trial and executions of many many ‘counterrevolutionaries’ or ‘Batista supporters’ or however you want to call them, was a decision that was heavily supported by the population…”
Likewise the German public largely supported or simply ignored the Holocaust, public support doesn’t make something right. And fighting in a war, and losing, isn’t a reason to be executed. It’s a poor and transparent excuse.
“…Now, I’m not saying Che was perfect. He was a Leninist…”
He was Marxist…
May 25th, 2009 at 3:33 am
Alan Jimenez: a more true comparison would be a democrat taking power in the US and murdering the Republican leaders and their children. That is what Che did – he murdered children and political opponents and it was not a war – it was a coup. Murdering your political opponents is a crime.
May 25th, 2009 at 3:43 am
Oh – further to my last comment – what was Batista’s crime? It was being suspected by the communists of being an American puppet. The standard of living in Cuba was excellent under Batista – since then it has become a disaster (regardless of what Michael Moore tries to portray in his propaganda movies) as is the case in basically every Marxist state. There is not a single example of a Marxist state which is better for the people than a democratic one. Marxist principles have led to utter disaster everywhere they ends up.
May 25th, 2009 at 3:58 am
Yeah, I find marxist principles rubbish too. Btw, I read somewhere that Che had asthma. I don’t know whether it’s true.
May 25th, 2009 at 4:01 am
Item #2 Ironic Icon
The high-contrast monochrome graphic of his face has become one of the world’s most universally merchandized and objectified images
Why? And to what market?
I recognize the image, but as a U.S. citizen, I don’t see it marketed heavily here. But I also recognize that my country is but a small part of the world’s population.
So as a question asked in good faith–Where is the icon’s largest market and what does it represent?
As an example: Bob Marley’s iconic image is also worldwide, and has a vast array of meanings, including support of Reggae, Rastafarianism, ganja, martyrdom, brotherhood beyond race, etc.
Is there a diversity of meaning to Che’s visage?
Also I thought the pic for #8 looked like “The Artist Formerly Known as Che”
May 25th, 2009 at 4:01 am
Those things don’t make him an emo.
May 25th, 2009 at 4:02 am
15. sium : “…I find marxist principles rubbish too…”
Really? I think principles are the only thing that Marxism has going for it…
May 25th, 2009 at 4:21 am
I’m not so sure about the rank and file Cubans being better off under Batista. I’m thinking the poor were worse off and that many of the current economic woes are the fault of American policy and embargo. No doubt the rich were way better off – that was the point wasn’t it? I think we should talk to some of the people who used to work/slave for United Fruit.
What deeziner no love for Maddox? Best page in the universe? (or so he claims, we know better don’t we?) Check it out; his take on immigration is spot on.
May 25th, 2009 at 4:24 am
14. jfrater “what was Batista’s crime?”
Do you mean aside from seizing the government in a coup?
May 25th, 2009 at 4:28 am
20. poiu098 : I think it would be rather hypocritical for Fidel to be pointing the finger…
May 25th, 2009 at 4:49 am
The “narrator” character in Andrew Lloyd Webber and Tim Rice’s “Evita” is an Argentinian “everyman” named “Che”. Producer Harold Lloyd wanted him to be sort-of based on Che Geuvara, so most performers in that role modelled their appearance on his. Some lines in the show were tweaked to (possibly) refer to Guevara. Some were later written out, but there are still some lines such as when Eva says “So go if you’re able to somewhere unstable. Whip up your hate in some tottering state but not here, dear. Is that clear, dear?” There is no evidence that Eva and Guevara ever met. Argentina remained under right-wing and/or military dictatorships for some time.
May 25th, 2009 at 4:55 am
Ernesto Lynch??
Wasn’t his real name Ernesto Guevara de La Serna?
I never heard anyone mentioning the surname Lynch.
May 25th, 2009 at 5:04 am
I find it amusing how his image is so adored by the left. Do they realize what a filthy murdering thug he was? His picture hung on the wall of the Houston campaign headquarters of US’s great Marxist leader. Show’s what he’s really made of. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=56293
May 25th, 2009 at 5:06 am
Here’s a nice demotivational picture
“IRONY – You spend your whole life combating the forces of capitalism, only to end up on a t-shirt sold at the Gap”
http://www.motivatedphotos.com/?id=2736
May 25th, 2009 at 5:08 am
Cute facts.. there is a better list called in spanish ‘10 shots to the Che’.
Alan Jimenez, with the same reasoning you used to justify his murders we can justify the ultra-right militar dictatorships supposedly backed by the US..hunting, j ailing, torturing and executing communists was right because it was a war and anyways if they let the commies take power they would be going to hunt, jail, torture and execute their opositors once they succeed.
These maleable morals are common in the left; now that the left is in control in my country they tend to justify every action – specially corruption – because past governments did… this is all predicted by the protocols of zion.
The dude that protested the disrespect to che guevara shows that communism is not far from a form of stupid religion… wake up, its 21 century and no one is sacred, we mock everyone we want… fuck emo che!.
May 25th, 2009 at 5:09 am
24. LordCalvert : You are retarded. I’m not going to put it nicely, I’m fucking sick of people ragging on Obama. How the fuck is what he is doing “Marxist” or even unreasonable?
N.B. Because the Republicans say so won’t cut it.
May 25th, 2009 at 5:27 am
His full name was Ernesto Guevara Lynch de La Serna.
He was a big admirer of the Irish war of Independence and the urban and rural guerrilla tactics developed by the IRA.
Pic 2 was drawn by an Irish artist Jim Fitzpatrick. He never copyrighted the work and missed out on a million’s. Incidental Jim Fitzpatrick also did the art work on the Thin Lizzy albums.
http://www.jimfitzpatrick.ie/gallery/index.html
May 25th, 2009 at 5:28 am
26. Mark: I’m not going to begin my comments with a personal insult. While perhaps obama is not a Marxist in the strictest sense of the word, he is definately an anti-capitalist. That can be plainly seen in his attitude and actions. The fact that he’s using government intervention as a solution to pretty much any problem he’s encountered is pretty telling. That and the fact that Marxist/socialist/communist gruops all over the world had collective orgasms when obama was elected pretty much turns my stomach.
May 25th, 2009 at 5:41 am
27. LordCalvert : Lol. Do you know how the US Economy works? Quick rundown for you :
No government intervention = financial/auto industry mega fucked = no jobs = even bigger downturn = aww fuck, we should’ve just taken some national debt. Oh well, at least we didn’t do anything that could be perceived as slightly Socialist. Yay!
Government intervention is key in lessening this recession, Australia also has a Social Liberal government in power and we are in one of the best economic positions in the world as we speak. Every government in the entire developed world is intervening, stimulus is flying left, right and center. Why am I not suprised that the vast majority of bitching that I hear is coming from Conservative Americans?
May 25th, 2009 at 6:13 am
“There is not a single example of a Marxist state which is better for the people than a democratic one. Marxist principles have led to utter disaster everywhere they ends up.”
If by “better off” you mean “access to pornography” then yes, Cuba has been an unmitigated disaster. On other indices like health, sanitation, literacy rates, infant mortality and crime, it has done rather better than the “democratic” states it is surrounded by:
http://www.hellocuba.ca/compare.php
May 25th, 2009 at 6:18 am
@ 14 “regardless of what Michael Moore tries to portray in his propaganda movies” I don’t think Mike was trying to portray Cuba as an all around Super Stable nation; just trying to show even in a country so impoverished with so many other problems they still manage to have better health care than the U.S.
May 25th, 2009 at 6:25 am
Some of this stuff begs to have sources listed.
@LordCavert, you began comment 24 with an insult.
“I find it amusing how his image is so adored by the left. Do they realize what a filthy murdering thug he was?”
It was just rather subtle. Isn’t it crazy that the supposedly awful and 3rd world nation of Cuba has been able to get along so easily despite its poverty? I mean if its really that bad living there, as certain Americans make it out to be, then they should have had another revolution by now, or at least an attempted coup. Nope, by the sounds of things I’d say they at least have a half-decent life there.
May 25th, 2009 at 6:29 am
What I find astonishing as well is the fact that he loved his rolex (as seen in this image: http://media.photobucket.com/image/rolex%20che/Frank117/Che20Guevara-ministro20dellindustri.jpg)
doesn’t seem to fit his rebel-for-the-poor image…
May 25th, 2009 at 6:53 am
deeeziner comment #16) I’m from the US also, and the marketing of Che is not as huge as say, the current trendy pop star, but I see high school and college students wearing the image from #2 on the list fairly often. Also you’ll occasionally see posters sold for dorm rooms, etc. It has a cool look to it, but I’m not sure they actually get what Guevara was all about.
May 25th, 2009 at 6:59 am
Knew I didn’t like the look of him.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phrenology
“Untrustworthy hedge hog licker.”
Not my words.
May 25th, 2009 at 7:07 am
comment #26 from Mark “You are retarded. I’m not going to put it nicely,…” I think a better argument would not include the insult. I keep hoping for the day when the term “Retard” is thought of as just as offensive as any racist terms. It’s unfortunate that if you must insult, you couldn’t use alternative terms like dumb, ignorant, idiot, stupid, etc. obviously there’s plenty of other options.
I hope you never have a child or relative with developmental disabilities. I’ve worked with them for almost 20 years in different capacities. It’s amazing how much they will change your life. How much you would love them. If you could spend any significant amount of time with them you’d understand why I feel so offended by the language.
By the way, some of the people I care for, were born with normal intelligence and through accidents or illnesses became mentally disabled. It could happen to any of us.
May 25th, 2009 at 7:22 am
“Contrary to the image we all have of Guevara, in his youth he was quite the geek. He loved playing Chess and even entered local tournaments. In between hanging out with his chess buddies, Ernesto would read poetry which he loved with a passion.”
Maybe if you took a similar interest in intellectual pursuits then this list wouldn’t be so badly written. Don’t get me wrong, I’m no fan of Che Guevara, but this is one of the worst lists I’ve seen on here in a while.
May 25th, 2009 at 7:36 am
Cool list…
It always bugs me when I hear people calling el Che a freedom fighter or some such nonsense. He was a guerillero and cold-blooded murderer. It´s like the MRTA here in Peru. They claim to do a lot of things in the name of social justice and equality but in the end, all they do is kill A LOT of innocent people.
And you know what bugs me the most? People who live in countries that have NEVER had this sort of situation, who have never lived in fear of terrorist bombings, who have not had to read daily accounts of massacres, who have not been denied milk as children because there is a shortage… These are the people who support Che, who think he was some sort of hero, who buy t-shirts and bumper stickers with his face because apparently it´s “cool.” Idiots.
May 25th, 2009 at 8:09 am
HIS NAME IS NOT ERNESTO LYNCH.
His name is Ernesto Guevara, born to Celia de la Serna and Ernesto Guevara Lynch. His full name would then be “Ernesto Guevara de la Serna Lynch” and so on, but so what.
Also, he was proud of the fact that he was stinky and wore a weekly shirt, but that was back when he was a kid. Again, so what.
The “Emo” thing is just uncalled for. So by your reasoning, all geeks are also emos? Riiiight.
And I’m sorry, jfrater, but Batista was a dictator. He staged a coup to seize power of Cuba, not once, but TWICE. As with all non-bloodless coups, he too surely ordered the murders of many, including his political opponents, of course. So it’s not like “the democrats taking over the republican government”, AT ALL.
And as with all dictatorships, there were both good things and bad things, supporters and opposition. The people didn’t support him, but the unions, the mafia, and the U.S. did, so it’s not as simple as you picture it.
Che led the cuban revolution, not the communist country that followed. So he is not to blame for how crappy the country became afterwards.
May 25th, 2009 at 8:12 am
Here’s something to think about- why is it that African Americans are the go to group if you want to know about the legacy of slavery, the Jews for the Holocaust, Native Americans for their story, etc, etc, but in the case of the tragedy of Castro’s revolution it is the dictator’s propaganda and not the victims who own the story.
First of all, pre-1959 Cuba was a first world nation, not the backward country it is today. If you take the time to look up the records from then, you would find: Cuba under Battista–Cuba in 1957–was a developed country. Cuba in 1957 had lower infant mortality than France, Belgium, West Germany, Israel, Japan, Austria, Italy, Spain, and Portugal. Cuba in 1957 had doctors and nurses: as many doctors and nurses per capita as the Netherlands, and more than Britain or Finland. Cuba in 1957 had as many vehicles per capita as Uruguay, Italy, or Portugal. Cuba in 1957 had 45 TVs per 1000 people–fifth highest in the world. Cuba today has fewer telephones per capita than it had TVs in 1957.
You take a look at the standard Human Development Indicator variables–GDP per capita, infant mortality, education–and you try to throw together an HDI for Cuba in the late 1950s, and you come out in the range of Japan, Ireland, Italy, Spain, Israel. Today? Today the UN puts Cuba’s HDI in the range of Lithuania, Trinidad, and Mexico. And that’s using current stats that are seriously flawed due to Cuba padding them to make them look better.
Yes, Cuba today has a GDP per capita level roughly that of–is “comparably developed”–Bolivia or Honduras or Zimbabwe, but given where Cuba was in 1957 we ought to be talking about how it is as developed as Italy or Spain. And the only real stat that matters is the fact that Cubans vote with their feet, which is the only free choice they’ve had since 1959, they leave, by any means possible preferring the shark infested waters of the Florida Strait to Castro’s island gulag. More than 111,000 Cubans reached the US and became legal residents in the years 2005-2007 alone. There has never been a Marxist led country that produced anything of value. The communist legacy is one of death and human misery.
May 25th, 2009 at 8:16 am
El Che is a really tough topic to understand. Mostly, because most of the people commenting on this list made little research prior to the writing. I’m from Argentina, and I know pretty well the work of El Che. Also, I understand that to some people, El Che is a despicable character. But much more historical research needed to be done in order to paint the whole picture. I am simpathetic to most of the ideals of El Che, but I disagree on the methods to enforce such ideals.
@37: I was a boy in the ’70s, when the last military government. I almost lost my father for the f**cking milicos. I know terror. Your country, as well as mine, had sufferd too much. It is time to heal the wounds, but not to forget anything.
May 25th, 2009 at 8:19 am
If you don’t think el che, known to Cubans as the butcher of la Cabana wasn’t responsible for communist Cuba, then you need to read your history. 1. Che was responsible for the execution of thousands of political prisoners in Cuba (most of them purely for their opposition to Castro’s communist policies or for no reason at all).
2. Che enjoyed torturing and abusing the prisoners, including children.
3. Che was instrumental in setting up the Castro regime’s massive forced labor camps and secret police apparatus.
4. Che tried to organize campaigns of terrorism against civilians in the US and elsewhere (though he largely failed in these efforts).
5. Far from being merely a Third World nationalist or pragmatic leftist, he was a committed, hard-line Stalinist, even going so far as to call himself “Stalin II” early in his career.
May 25th, 2009 at 8:38 am
What a guy. (sarcasm, here)
Torture, abuse and murder and people are defending him. Interesting list today. I did get a kick out of number 9…stinky che made me laugh.
May 25th, 2009 at 8:46 am
13 and 14 jfrater, mmm very disappointing comments by the only person who is expected to be objective here
May 25th, 2009 at 8:48 am
There is a pretty good movie that depicts the life of Che Guevara prior to becoming an activist
The movie is in Spanish with English subtitles
If you can understand Spanish you will enjoy it more
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0318462/
His name was
Ernesto Guevara de la Serna
His Father was Named Ernesto Guevara Lynch
The origins of his Irish ancestry come from his Grandmother
May 25th, 2009 at 8:55 am
Ziva: What I meant to say was that Che was for the most part a military leader during the 5 years he was in Cuba after the revolution. After this he started touring the world and disappeared for a while. (Then he was murdered, of course).
1. Guevara was assigned to La Cabaña prison, where he ordered the trial and execution of hundreds of political prisoners and suspected traitors. Batista, on the other hand, had executed an estimated 20,000 Cubans during his regime, and this is why the trial processes of La Cabaña were supported by 93% of Cubans.
2. He enjoyed torturing prisoners, and children? Where did you get that from? How could children be political prisoners? If you have sources for these claims, please mention them.
3. Forced labor camps? Again, what are you talking about?
4. Guevara went to the UN in New York to denounce segregation, and started touring the world to talk about revolutionary ideals. He never plotted or executed any campaigns of terrorism against any country during this time.
5. Guevara signed a few letters to his relatives as “Stalin II”, but he didn’t really call himself that, at least not in public.
May 25th, 2009 at 9:19 am
Hi. I great list of things I didn’t know about Che – I didn’t know any of ‘em! In fact I know absolutely nothing about this character at all, but it seems from reading all your thoughtful comments that he was a bit of a rogue; a loose cannon?. From what I can gather, he stood up for what he believed and made a difference – a very BIG difference – and I hope that is what all the iconography is all about.
May 25th, 2009 at 9:23 am
murderer. only people with a passing acquaintance with history would think of him as a hero.
May 25th, 2009 at 9:28 am
On a lighter note – say I wanted to know more about Che… Has anyone see the latest two-part movie about him? I think they were called Che – Parts 1 and 2. What I want to know is… dispite the obvious limitations of movies, are these films worth seeing – and if so how accurate are they?
May 25th, 2009 at 9:38 am
Let’s say, just for fun: everybody who wants to trash talk Che and pre-revolution Cuba, please just mention what country you are from. Just for the fun of it.
Love the amount of disinformation here: there is really a lot of it being thrown around… but hey… internet!
If you want a better criticism of Che, try the fact that he was an extremely bad combat tactician. That’s an established fact.
Most of the -basically slander- you guys are spewing would come word for word, proudly, from a nice cold war propaganda text book. And my previous sentence shows- because being a horrible tactician as a military leader is one of the most damning criticisms you can think of- I’m not facing this with a ‘pro-Che’ agenda.
Hi, please follow with what actual texts you’ve read on the subject. I can, you’ve just shared antecedotes- alot about Cuba as well- that anyone with some critical analysis and a few university studies can refute.
May 25th, 2009 at 9:50 am
He played rugby in his youth, he was a scrum half.
May 25th, 2009 at 9:57 am
After hie execution
his*?
May 25th, 2009 at 10:02 am
Wow. This was a fantastic list just based on the kinds of comments in is inspiring. I’m not really sure what to think of Che. I’m from the US and am a Romance Language major, and my Spanish classes pretty much require me to learn about Che, but the information on him is so disparate in opinion. I know Cubans who love him, and I know Cubans who hate him. Since I can’t figure out how to relate to the subject at all, I’ve chosen to treat Che simply as a historical subject until I can figure out what to think about him.
Anyway, keep up the great comments. It is very interesting.
May 25th, 2009 at 10:22 am
@ Alan Jimenez: Oh dear. I think someone is a little bit confused as to what a soldier is. However, I’m willing to let this one go down to perspective.
May 25th, 2009 at 10:30 am
#8 he looks exactly like Prince! LOL
May 25th, 2009 at 10:52 am
Che was a murderer not because he was a soldier, because in that aspect he was a wimp … never wanting to fight anyone who had a fair shot (often “dissapeared” during many battles) … but because he loved putting thousands of men, women and children to death by firing squad or shooting them himself. Mostly these people posed no threat to the revolution and most of this was done after the revolutionary government had been established and secured. People were executed merely for either being enlisted in the army or police force of the old regime or because they had opposing views. There also were no trials or mock trials like those in the USSR where the verdict was decided long before. Also Che is quoted to say things like, “Crazy with fury I will stain my rifle red while slaughtering any enemy that falls in my hands! My nostrils dilate while savoring the acrid odor of gunpowder and blood.” and “I’d like to confess, Papa, at that moment [after executing a fellow revolutionary], I discovered that I really like killing.” Also lets keep in mind Fidel and Che only succeeded because they promised democracy and freedom for Cuba but betrayed them and deceived them in their moment of crises only to rise to power themselves and establish their own and worse Totalitarian style dictatorship that resulted in the oppression and impoverishment of the Cuban people and deaths of hundreds of thousands….also #5 is an example of his two-face tendencies. He stated that blacks were nothing but dirty little monkeys that needed their tails cut off and to be thrown in the jungle with the rest of the animals. Also over 80% of the Cuban prison population are black and there are practically no blacks in the government agencies….which is a reversal of the previous government especially considering Batista was half-black
May 25th, 2009 at 10:52 am
I seriously don’t know why people call him a murderer, an evil manipulator, blah blah this tha. Can someone give me 1 single reason why is he (to be considered) bad.
May 25th, 2009 at 11:09 am
Good list, but I feel ignorant because I had never heard of him before reading it. I had to check out wiki to get his life story.
May 25th, 2009 at 11:28 am
Xanthius, I´m sorry to difer with your 10 point. His name was Ernesto Guevara Lynch. Lynch was actually his father´s second last name.
May 25th, 2009 at 11:40 am
When it comes down to it, no reason to torture and kill children. War or not.
May 25th, 2009 at 11:44 am
This is very interesting. Maes me want to read up on him.
May 25th, 2009 at 12:15 pm
Well iv’e seen a fair few comments here calling Che a murderer but none saying he was a hero as many of the ‘anti-Che’ comments have claimed people would. You’d have to be very ill informed to think either, he was neither a murderer or a hero, there’s no black or white, just shades of grey.
And it supprises me how many people here simply take what they’ve heard as absolute truth. Does no one think anymore? Its not hard work, honestly.
May 25th, 2009 at 12:15 pm
the best thing i heard about Che Guevara was that when he and Castro would correspond, they would end their letters with “Big hugs”
May 25th, 2009 at 12:16 pm
I don’t post often, but this is truly disappointing. 90% of the comments on this list have no basis for their claims, and the list itself is filled with historical inaccuracies and biased connotations on some of the items. The comments are designed for bias in a sense, but at least keep the lists objective (or at least grammatically and historically correct). Not trying to bash the site, just trying to keep it the intellectual haven it once was and keep ignorance out.
To anyone confused on the subject, I highly recommend Che’s Biography written by John Lee Anderson. His biography shows an impressive amount of research, as well as a genuine interest in finding the truth. It is well-balanced, showing all aspects of Che’s life and character, good and bad.
May 25th, 2009 at 12:17 pm
Thanks, Lemon, you beat me to it, eh?
May 25th, 2009 at 12:23 pm
I never heard of him. Just call it mexican with mexican rebel running through his blood, and kick him back to his gov’t sucking ghetto with his 12 kids 4 wives and preteen girlfriend. WTF is this list anyway? Could have called it the “top ten things unknown about spic” and leave his name right out of it. poor guy. he’s just like everyone else he came from.
May 25th, 2009 at 12:25 pm
I’d just like to make a few points aswell…
Firstly, all this about Che having “men, women and childen killed” is wrong. Men yes, thats the usual as a result of armed conflict (not to say it’s the correct thing to do however) but children? i’d realy like to see the evidence for that one.
Another point, #55 Spencer – ” People were executed merely for either being enlisted in the army or police force of the old regime or because they had opposing views”
Actualy, Che incorporated many soldiers of the old regime into cuba’s new armed forces, and the man who stayed on as his personal secretary served the former regime.
“there are practically no blacks in the government agencies….which is a reversal of the previous government especially considering Batista was half-black” Thats hardly a reversal in itself is it? From a 1/2 to 0? Out of how many? Come on, back up what you’re saying please.
As i said in my previous comment, there is no black or white, only shades of grey.
May 25th, 2009 at 12:29 pm
half-black and grey aren’t the same thing, tho
May 25th, 2009 at 12:29 pm
Oh and i would also like to recomend the biography written by John Lee Anderson that WhatAbout mentioned, A very good read for anyone who wants a balanced view.
May 25th, 2009 at 12:33 pm
Oh and the “shades of grey” comment i made was in no way related to the bit above it about black people in the Batista government and Cuba. Dont want anyone getting the wrong idea, im hoping WhatAbout was only joking and no one will misunderstand my meaning. Peace
May 25th, 2009 at 12:33 pm
@ spencer: “Che was a murderer not because he was a soldier, because in that aspect he was a wimp … never wanting to fight anyone who had a fair shot (often “dissapeared” during many battles)”
Where did you get that from? All first hand accounts of the revolution by his friends keep saying exactly the opposite. Castro has even called him an idiot because he would volunteer to go on every dangerous mission if no one else wanted and Che had to be hold back so he wouldn’t get killed.
@ jfrater: “a more true comparison would be a democrat taking power in the US and murdering the Republican leaders and their children.”
How so? First of all you do have to give us a source that says Guevara has killed children.
And second, why is it closer to a democrat killing a republican?
Capitalism and Marxism are opposite. Democrats and Republicans, on the other hand, have the same premises and trust the same system but fight between each other for slight modification that won’t challenge the system.
So how does this analogy work?
” and it was not a war – it was a coup.”
Kind of like Indonesia, Nicaragua, Grenada, Iraq, Colombia, Bolivia, Guatemala, Cuba (fialed attempt in Bay of Pigs), Korea, Vietnam, Tibet, Chile….
Many of which we call wars?
Why does it make it any different if it is a coup anyway? What’s your point? If there’s a system in place and the people don’t want it, challenging it is despicable because it’s not an elite fighting against another elite (i.e. war) but a popular front against an elite (i.e. coup)?
“Murdering your political opponents is a crime.”
So you do’nt agree with trialing people for war crimes?
“Oh – further to my last comment – what was Batista’s crime?”
Really? If you read about him, you’ll find that everything you find wrong in Castro is in fact better attributed to Batista.
He WAS merrily backed by the Soviet Union just as much as by America. He DID enforce a coup to STAY in power. As opposed to Castro’s coup which only worked because the Cubans wanted it and joined the fight, Batista’s completely ignored democratic elections and stayed in power by using the military to crush his political adversaries – political candidates that had so similar pro-union ideas that in fact it’s here that your Democrat-killing-Republicans analogy works out.
He allowed the Mafia to control the capital of Cuba.
He violently suppressed students and workers protests agaisnt his regime.
He was one to kill dissenters. Something Castro is blamed for doing without evidence of that. But Castro has indeed imprisoned many people for doing nothing but voicing antagonistic opinions of the Communist PArty in the media. It’s not as bad as killing them but it’s still unforgivable.
” The standard of living in Cuba was excellent under Batista – since then it has become a disaster ”
Actually that’s not true. The standard of living is slightly higher today than it was under Batista.
And when you consider that All of Latin American countries depend on America for exports (in my country of Mexico, more than 90% of our exports are bought by America)
and Cuba is barred from doing this, then you are just being short sighted if you blame Cuba’s economy in Cuba alone.
Also, remember this: during hurricane Katrina, both Cuba and Venezuela wanted to send aid to New Orleans. America refused. They would rather take their time helping the victims than receive aid from ’socialist’ countries.
And viceversa – Just the year before, Hurricane Ivan destroyed Cuba, and Cuba asked America to lift the embargo just for a week so they could buy supplies to start rebuilding their infrastructure. America refused. What do they care if people suffer, it’s a socialist country!
“There is not a single example of a Marxist state which is better for the people than a democratic one. Marxist principles have led to utter disaster everywhere they ends up.”
That’s not true. Spain (though that was anarchist), Chile, Russia, Vietnam, Indonesia, Grenada, Nicaragua, Cuba, and El Salvador, have all become much more productive and reached a better standard of living after the collectivization of land and industry.
What screwed them up was American intervention.
When Richard Nixon himself said to “Make the economy scream to prevent Allende from coming to power or to unseat him” and Henry Kissinger said “The issues are much too important for the Chilean voters to be left to decide for themselves.”
How can you blame the country and not the total destruction of the nation’s economy through OUR bullying in the world market?
@ mark: “He was Marxist…”
Leninism is a form of Marxism *claps*
May 25th, 2009 at 12:46 pm
And to Sium: Che fought a terrible war with a crippling asthma throughout his life. Growing up, his parents had to move and make large changes to their lifestyles to accommodate his situation. His condition never completely disappeared, but did ease up as he grew up. Despite his asthma, though, (and his small size) he participated in athletic activities such as swimming and rugby. So I guess calling him a geek may be justified if asthma makes one a geek, but I think it’s best to just keep calling him a fighter, whether that’s good or bad.
May 25th, 2009 at 1:03 pm
@ 31. Aadil
If Cuban life was so great I doubt that so many people would be willing to hop on an rubber tube with little more than a jar of peanut butter and the clothes on their backs and float to Florida to escape it.
Marxism has failed every time it has been tried.
You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.
May 25th, 2009 at 1:04 pm
Here is one eye witness account from Pierre San Martin. If you want more, the stories are easily found. Just ask almost any Cuban exile old enough to remember.
http://www.trenblindado.com/Sanmartin.html
It was during the last days of December 1959; in the dark, cold cell that 16 prisoners slept on the floor while the other 16 were standing so they could lay down, but nobody was thinking about that, our only thought was that we were alive and that was the important thing; we lived hour to hour, minute to minute, second to second without knowing what the next would bring.
It was about an hour before it would be time us to change shifts when the sound of the iron door opening was heard as they threw another person into the already crowded cell. For a moment in the darkness we couldn’t tell that it was a boy some 12 to 14 years old at most who had just become our newest cellmate. And what did you do? We all asked almost in unison. With his bloody and beaten face he stared at us and responded “I defended my father so they wouldn’t kill him, I couldn’t stop it. Those sons of bitches murdered him.”
We all looked at each other as if to find the right words to console the boy but we couldn’t find them. We had enough of our own problems. It had been two or three days since they had executed anyone and each day we had more hope that this would all be over. The executions are unmerciful, they take life when you need it most for you and yours, without listening to your protests or yearnings for life.
Our happiness didn’t last much longer, when the door opened they called out 10, among them the boy who had been the last one in. We had been wrong because those they called, we never again saw.
How could it be possible to take a child’s life in this way? Could it be that we were wrong and that we were to be released? Near the wall where they conducted the executions, with his hands on his waist, paced from side to side the abominable Che Guevera.
He gave the order to bring the boy first and he ordered him to kneel in front of the wall. We all screamed for them not to commit this crime and we offered ourselves in his place. The boy disobeyed the order with a courage that words can’t express and responded to this infamous character: “If you’re going to kill me you’re going to have to do it the way you kill a man, standing, not like a coward, kneeling.
Walking behind the boy, the Che said “whereupon you are a brave lad…” He unholstered his pistol and shot him in the nape of the neck so that he almost decapitated him.
We all shouted “assassins, miserable cowards” and so many other things. He turned around towards us and emptied the pistol’s magazine. I do not know how many of us were killed or injured. From this horrible nightmare, from which never we managed to wake up, we realized that although wounded and in the student clinic of the Calixto Garcia hospital, one thing was clear, the only card we could play was to escape, it was our only hope of survival.
May 25th, 2009 at 1:10 pm
35. Moonbeam -
i’m sorry you are offended by the use of the term “retarded” as an insult. what you don’t seem to realize is that “mental retardation” is a clinical medical term for the state of having an IQ of less than 70 and concurrent problems with daily living skills. many other terms commonly used as insults that imply someone is less than bright had clinical meaning as well:
moron=mild retardation
imbecile=moderate to severe retardation
idiot=profound retardation
-these were also all medical terms which could be found in textbooks describing the “mentally disabled” you work with today. and yet you yourself suggested that “idiot” might be a less offensive substitute for “retarded.” going by your earlier logic it should be the most offensive of the lot, since it implies the deepest degree of mental retardation possible.
i think you need to realize that calling someone retarded simply means accusing them of a sub-normal IQ and skill set, an insult they may deserve.
this doesn’t mean the people you work with are bad people who don’t deserve love and respect, but if they all had normal IQs/daily living skills they wouldn’t need your help and a reference to their mental capacity couldn’t be construed as an insult.
an insult meaning “not intelligent” based on a medical terming literally meaning “not intelligent” is quite a different thing than a racist insult meaning “you are sub-human because of your skin tone” based on no evidence other than hate and fear. don’t you agree?
May 25th, 2009 at 1:16 pm
“Chango” means “Monkey” not “Pig”
May 25th, 2009 at 1:35 pm
I don´t know if the writer of this article will or will not read this, but nevertheles I feel that I must make a discharge.
Im from Argentina, in fact im from Rosario, the city on wich Ernesto Guevara was born.
The reason I write this is that the article you wrote is plagued with mistakes. I’m not fond of Guevaras career, politics or attitudes, but I’m fond of historical accuracy, and this article terribly lacks this.
Every one of your ten topics have mistakes. I don’t feel like turning this into a hate-mail and correct all of them, so I will exemplify with number one.
You say that Che was not born Ernesto Guevara, but in fact he was born Ernesto Lynch. The fact is that he was born Ernesto Guevara Lynch. High society people in argentina are used to have 2 last names, but in practice you only use the first.
You also say: “That’s right – Che Guevara was actually plain old Mr Lynch. It doesn’t have quite the same ring to it does it?”. The fact is that in most of latin american countries Guevara is a very common last name, while Lynch is quite attipical.
It would be more accurate to say that “He was actually plain old Mr Guevara”
Hope you make more research on further articles!
Rodolfo Martínez
May 25th, 2009 at 1:40 pm
Well, from everything I’ve ever read, Cuba was in as bad shape while under the former dictatorship as it now is under the latter, if only in different or even oppoosite ways. After all, isn’t one brutal, totalitarian regime essentially the same as the next? I think it’s ridiculous that someone with as spotty a reputation as Che is hailed by clueless lefties as a hero (and I’m speaking as a liberal myself); regardless of whether he was a murderer, he was integral in establishing Castro’s dictatorship, and that, in my mind, is unforgivable, whatever his intentions.
(And Kreachure, regarding the “Stalin II” thing—even if he only signed it in a few personal letters—what else can we take from that but the negative? I mean, there’s not a lot of room for interpretation or “complexity” regarding the atrocities of Josef Stalin. Why would anyone of a decent character want to emulate him? And further, Kreachure, to say that he is not to blame for how the country turned out as a DIRECT RESULT of the revolution of which he was part and parcel, is–well, the kindest thing I could say about it is that it’s disingenuous at best. Who else’s responsibility would the resulting regime be, anyway? Didn’t Castro and to a lesser degree, Che himself, CHOOSE their leadership, it being a dictatorship and all?)
On another note, I find it particularly egregious when people living comfortable lives in countries with stable governments lend their support to revolutionary groups and the resulting political regimes while having no idea what the average, day-to-day life is like in these places for the rank and file. I tip my hat tip to you, GTT (#37) and Eduardo (#40), as the two of you would truly know. I’ve read of a few American social justice advocates, particularly in the former half of the Twentieth Century, who were foolishly supportive of and sympathetic to the Soviet regime’s leaders and ideals, while knowing nothing of the misery the common folk endured beneath the gloss of all those high-minded political platitudes about worker empowerment and such.
May 25th, 2009 at 1:43 pm
* the last paragraph should note that Eduardo’s comment was actually #42, not #40
May 25th, 2009 at 1:49 pm
Harold Prince, not Harold Lloyd.
May 25th, 2009 at 2:23 pm
37. Moonbeam : I have a mentally impaired uncle and I did have a mentally impaired aunty as well. So maybe you should ask before you start lecturing me on spending more time with disabled people. Mental retardation is still a correct umbrella term for mental disabilities. Incidentally, wasn’t spastic also officially used by a certain council until they decided that it was too “offensive”.
Today retarded is the insult, tomorrow it’ll be impaired. Then who knows?
May 25th, 2009 at 2:39 pm
72. Alan Jimenez : “…@ mark: “He was Marxist…”
Leninism is a form of Marxism *claps*”
Yeah, and butter and margerine are both spreads I put on my sandwiches, that does not make it acceptable for me to say “This sandwich has butter on it!” when in fact, it is margerine. The difference is huge. Incidentally, almost all forms of Communism fall under Marxism, but I wouldn’t call Joseph Stalin a Marxist, would you?
May 25th, 2009 at 3:07 pm
But I don’t get it. Che was openly a Marxist-Leninist.
So what the hell is your point in “correcting me” in saying “no he wasn’t a Leninist, he was a Marxist”
May 25th, 2009 at 3:30 pm
as far as where u retrieve your information you need to pay more attention to the cuban exile community as opposed from any source that is taken from or associated with or in favor with the Cuban government. Because they will portray Che, Fidel and the revolution in a glorious light because they have everything to lose if the truth is known…its a Communist and totalitarian regime … if they have no problem committing mass murder, torture, and ineffable oppression … what is stopping them from lying? What surprises and astounds me is how americans or other people who were never there in cuba or fighting along side fidel and che, who didn’t grow up there pre castro…. have the audacity to believe they know more about cuba, what happened and the truth than those who were and even go so far as to call the cuban exiles an unreliable source and biased…. as if you somehow cant trust people who gave up everything, risked their lives to escape, and started their lives over from nothing…..it makes as much sense to not believe anything a jew says about the Holocaust because they are “obviously biased” about nazis. What people fail to realize is that ALL TOTALITARIAN REGIMES are ESSENTIALLY THE SAME…. whether Nazi/fascist or socialist/communist. They both aim at world domination and the eradication and liquidation of “undesirable elements” With the nazis its inferior races, with communists its inferior classes or perceived enemies (i.e. anyone who differs or disagrees with their ideology). They all enact the same tactics… the same unjust and incomprehensible arrests, persecutions, concentration camps, tortures, interrogations, and executions. The main and most important difference, however, is that Nazism is technically dead … the holocaust is over, communism is not the communist holocaust is still going strong and to put things in perspective the Nazis are responsible for the death of around 17-25 million people not including soldiers and such….Communism is responsible for AT LEAST 150 million (due to the fact there are still communistic countries in power and the difficulty in acquiring up to date and sufficient data on executions and deaths one must keep in mind that there are many more….this data was aquired from The black book of communism by Harvard University Press)…. How anyone can find Che heroic or admirable is beyond me for no matter what you think he helped establish a totalitarian regime and betrayed the cuban people with promises of democracy and freedom only to bring them the exact opposite
May 25th, 2009 at 3:37 pm
and PS alan…he wasnt a marxist…he was a cheist or whathave you…. marx created the ideal form of communism, the ideal…but as we have seen throughout history this has never been established. The current and past communist regimes have been anything but true marxist regimes. They are a perverted form communism but primarily totalitarian and repressive. Communism aims at equality and the absence of repression from classes….however i dont see how a regime where the “executive class” dominates and represses the entire society is in anyway shape or form marxist. Every communist leader has deviated from marx to better suit their road to power and ensure their domination…which is one reason why no two communistic governments are exactly the same and why they have different principles and systems …hence the terms Lenninism, Stalinism, Maoism, Castroism, etc.
May 25th, 2009 at 3:55 pm
Kim Il Sungism?
May 25th, 2009 at 3:57 pm
Are you that guy from mythbusters?
May 25th, 2009 at 3:58 pm
No I don’t quite think he is.
May 25th, 2009 at 4:11 pm
Hey, I’m not the one that said he was a Marxist, that was Mark.
I said he was a Leninist – a deviation from Marxism that heavily emphasizes the ‘need’ of a Vanguard Party. What this means is that a Leninist will believe that he knows what’s best for you more than yourself.
And they always do, because there’s no Leninist that doesn’t believe they’re good enough to be part of that ‘necessary’ vanguard party.
Marxism is not authoritarian. Leninism is.
For that same reason, you can’t be telling me not to call him a Marxist because he ‘wasn’t really a Marxist’ (with which I agree) and then go on to say that Communism has killed hundreds of million of people.
Communism didn’t kill all those people; Stalinism did, which isn’t even remotely close to communism anymore than fascism is.
Regardless of that, without being pro-Che, all I have said above is years of research in Marxism in Latin America (Poli Sci major) and it just can’t be denied that people who call Che a ‘mass murderer’ have a heavy double standard when we make parallels between him and the western world.
May 25th, 2009 at 4:13 pm
EDIT: The ‘poli sci major’ parenthetical isn’t an appeal to authority. I’m just trying to explain that I know what I’m talking about so that my analysis of facts is judged on its merits rather than on the idea that ‘I don’t know what I’m talking about’
May 25th, 2009 at 4:13 pm
Wow there are so many different opinions here, and only a few people who actually use links for their evidence, I don’t know what to think now.
While there are people who state that no communist country has ever been better off, I would agree that (unwelcomed) American intervention has often led to that. This makes it hard to draw a conclusion either way.
Most of my information on ‘Che’ Guevara has come from the movie “Motorcycle Diaries” which I thought was an excellent movie, but showed no insight on his life after he came into power.
This made him seem as the nicest guy ever, and the movie ended with the statement that the U.S. government had him killed (or something along those lines). This made me feel really bad for him.
But after hearing all this talk about him being a mass-murderer, I don’t know what to think.
*A tip to those who write long posts: Use paragraphs. If I see a massive 1-paragraph post, I never even bother to read it.
May 25th, 2009 at 4:17 pm
Just a follow up note,
I’m not anti-democratic (far from it), but people like to advertise how many people have been killed by communism.
I’m not using any calculations here, but if you have a brief look at history, so many millions if not billions of people have been killed by capitalist countries (the U.S being one of those) that you can’t possibly blame communist countries for mass murder without looking at capitalist countries with equal blame.
May 25th, 2009 at 4:52 pm
um alan hate to break it to you but stalinism only killed around 23 million people
May 25th, 2009 at 5:06 pm
#8: He looks like Prince.
May 25th, 2009 at 5:11 pm
Lo from comment #76. Yes, I understand that the term “mental retardation” was a clinical term. But language is much like a living thing in that it changes, grows, and evolves over time. Many words have nuanced meanings. The term “idiot” is no longer used to denote a person with mental disabilities, and has lost the connotation associated with people who have developmental delays. Also, where it was once thought that people with, downs syndrome, for example, had a “retarded” (as in stunted or not developing) mental capacity, it is now thought that the individuals still continue to grow in intelligence, just at a much slower pace. Learning continues, which I witness every day. When you ask “Don’t you agree?” No I don’t agree. When I was a child adults would, for example, mention the “mentally retarded boy” and it was socially and clinically considered correct. But over time people would taunt each other by using the term “retard” It has evolved to being an extremely ugly term. Just ask some of those I work for how they feel about the word. If they tell me it hurts, I believe it hurts.
Mark from comment #82. In the USA “Retard” is hurtful. I don’t know you or your Aunt or Uncle, but I would never call either of them a “retard.” I don’t imagine you would appreciate anyone saying anything hurtful to them either. As far as lecturing you. That was not my intention. Often the people I help can’t talk, or read, or write. In bringing this up, I am attempting to be an advocate for people who can’t speak for themselves. When you suggest that today’s acceptable term will be tomorrows slam, you may be exactly right. As I mentioned to Lo, language transforms over time. What today is acceptable may tomorrow be offensive. Also, I never suggested you spend more time with people with mental disabilities.
Last, let me say it surprises and saddens me that this conversation even has to occur. Is it really true that I’m having to justify standing up for disabled people? I wonder if I have hit on a truth that may be hard for people to face up to. I’m quite certain that I have offended others on occasion in my life. When it is called to my attention, I only hope that I have the humility to recognize my error, and alter my behavior.
May 25th, 2009 at 5:30 pm
@ spencer:
By your own words, you said
“Communism is responsible for AT LEAST 150 million”
Tell me who are the non-stalinist communists that killed the other 127 million, then.
May 25th, 2009 at 5:33 pm
Not 23 million, 3 million…not that it makes it any better.
May 25th, 2009 at 5:37 pm
but moonbeam-
you say “The term “idiot” is no longer used to denote a person with mental disabilities, and has lost the connotation associated with people who have developmental delays.”
and you are yourself also saying that “retard” is already no longer widely used to insult people who actually suffer from mental retardation, and most people recognize that to do so would be cruel. in our ever evolving language it’s now taken to mean “someone of limited mental capacity” BUT is used upon people who medically speaking have a fully normal degree of mental capacity when their words and behaviors sure don’t show it.
because of this “retard” as an insult has already passed your “idiot” test. and please don’t tell me that “idiot” is somehow different here than “retard,” because if the term “idiot” had retained none of it’s connotations of limited mental capacity it clearly would have ceased to function as an insult. and guess what -insults only work if they’re insulting!
i’m not advocating for people who’d call a person with down syndrome or autism “retarded,” i think that would be cruel. but i have no problem applying it to someone who’s just done or said something stupid -when they had the mental ability not to!
if anyone in this thread had actually called a “mentally disabled” person “a retard” your argument might have some merit here, but that didn’t happen. and no one is advocating for it to happen.
so when you ask ” Is it really true that I’m having to justify standing up for disabled people?” the answer is no. no one here has attempted to insult anyone who’s actually disabled. i think you may be over-reacting, as you seem to be hypersensitive to the subject at hand.
May 25th, 2009 at 5:47 pm
p.s. what i was asking if you agreed with was this:
“an insult meaning “not intelligent” based on a medical terming literally meaning “not intelligent” is quite a different thing than a racist insult meaning “you are sub-human because of your skin tone” based on no evidence other than hate and fear.”
how odd that you can’t see a difference between using a word that denotes limited mental capacity to accuse someone of behaving in a way which signifies limited mental capacity, and a group of insults that signify nothing other than a hatred of a group of people based on what they look like.
May 25th, 2009 at 5:59 pm
Communism sucks
May 25th, 2009 at 6:07 pm
alan… Well just combine those killed by Pol Pot, Kim Il Sung, Kim Jong Il, Ho-Chi-Minh, Mao, Xioping, Kruschev, Castro All the communist leaders from the european/ussr bloc contries, and the communist african countries and those killed during the invasion of afghanistan….and also keep in mind communism has been in power since like 1917 or so and its still around and still killing and whoever wrote “to spencer” you might want to re check your research…especially since there were 100s of millions of people who went through the GULAGs of the USSR and to seriously think only 3 million of them died is extremely foolish….they were like nazi style concentration camps except minus gas chambers in climates where the temperature averaged around -30 to -50 degrees Fahrenheit and also Pol Pot managed, in the 3 1/2 years he was in power in cambodia, to wipe out 1/4 of the entire population around 2.5 to 3 mill …and just so u people understand where im coming from I am cuban, my grandfather was in a Cuban GULAG, I have plenty of first hand accounts of what happened during the revolution and in the prisons/gulags…one of my best friends is russian and his grandfather was in GULAG…i have read numerous memoirs of GULAG surviors and communist regime survivors and they all bear the same horrific tales of murder and torture and the facts remain that communism has killed more people than the majority of people credit it with it may be hard to swallow but its true
May 25th, 2009 at 6:08 pm
96. Moonbeam : Language takes the meaning that we as its speakers impart on it. If you tell this people that they shouldn’t be called retarded because it’s hurtful, you have just started a vicious cycle. Soon people are going to be calling them “impaired” with malice, you’re not going to stop hurtful words by stamping them out of formal vocabulary. You can however just say “Hold it, why do I care if someone says retard? What is inherently wrong with that?” Your answer, nothing.
It’s people like you – not the mentally impaired people themselves – that take offence to the word “retard” on its own. I know full well that I wouldn’t want anything hurtful said to my uncle or about my aunt, but I’m not going to stop that hate by stopping the use of a single word. It won’t even lessen it, so why are you bothering? I can understand that you don’t like the word and its connotations, but what gives you the right to tell others not to use it?
May 25th, 2009 at 6:14 pm
The number of people officially ordered to death by STALIN was indeed 3 million. Also no need for defense, this is a conversation and if I am proved wrong then I will admit I was. And another thing, my name is Spencer, it was meant to be a two.
May 25th, 2009 at 6:36 pm
@ spencer:
Exactly. We have already talked about Castro, but I’ll list the others:
Pol Pot – Leader of the Khmer Rouge, whose Central Committee is akin to Leninist Democratic Centralism
Kim Il Sung – Leader of the WPK which follow the ideas of Communism and Songun (“Military First”) effectively making them Maoist.
Kim Jong Il – Same as Kim Il Sung
Ho-Chi-Minh – Leader of the Communist Party of Vietnam, a Marxist-Leninist organization. Though I wonder why you mention him as America’s destruction of Vietnam is literally hundreds of times worse than Minh’s party who never targeted civilians and legitimately won in Vietnam’s democratic elections which we ‘chose’ to ignore.
Mao – Mao. MAOIST. Maoism is an extention of Leninism and Stalinism, keeping in track with the Stalinist ideas of the permanence of a central military authority that would lead further revolutions, and the cult of personality, but separating itself from Stalin as a new focal point of global communist revolution. Again, nowhere near real communism.
Xioping – Leader of the People’s Republic of China, same as Mao’s except he opened the state to market economics, which makes him more similar to Stalin than Mao was.
Kruschev – Leader of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, THE Stalinist party by exellence.
“All the communist leaders from the european/ussr bloc contries”
How do you not know those are stalinist? The USSR led by Stalin and its satellite communist parties aren’t stalinist?
“and the communist african countries”
which responded directly to the Soviet Union when they were created?
May 25th, 2009 at 7:03 pm
@ Tragik
>If Cuban life was so great I doubt
>that so many people would be willing
>to hop on an rubber tube with little
>more than a jar of peanut butter and
>the clothes on their backs and float >to Florida to escape it.
Cubans are the only Latin Americans who become legal residents automatically upon arrival to the US.
The rest of us in Latin America don’t have that priviledge, but still try to get to the US by any possible means.
So it is not so much about being communists or democrats; it is about beeing poor. And that, my friend, it is an entirely diferent matter.
May 25th, 2009 at 7:15 pm
Take a look at this site. Anyone who says democracy or capitalism has killed more people than communism, come up with facts to support that.
http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/
May 25th, 2009 at 7:20 pm
I would like to point out that Che did more than slaughter political opponents. He was in charge of a prison in Cuba after the coup and slaughtered anyone who even disagreed with the regime, politician or not. Truly, if Batista was as bad as the Marxists made him out to be then he would have killed Castro when was captured. Castro has so far never taken a chance on people his goons have arrested. Batista’s only true crime was not doing enough about corruption which infected his army and police to such an extend that they were practically worthless against Castro and his ragtag force.
May 25th, 2009 at 7:27 pm
Tragik, first the Cubans have to get here. If they are caught by Cuban authorities they are sent to prison, and their family members are stripped of rights; no job, inferior education for the children, in other words, denied the meager rations the regime provides for their slaves. If caught by the US coast guard before they reach land, they are sent back and again are punished for breaking Cuban law. In case you don’t know, it it illegal for Cubans to travel without permission, and those wishing to immigrate to the US are especially treated harshly. That why you hear about sports figures “defecting.” I don’t think the Mexican government puts people in jail for leaving, and last I checked Mexico is a democracy with elected leaders. Not so Cuba; there hasn’t been an election in 50 years and Castro never ran in an election. Cuba is a police state where there are zero human rights.
May 25th, 2009 at 7:51 pm
#11 – He is considered a murderer because of the many death camps he set up. You didn’t have to stand against him, you just had to disagree with him and you were sent to these death camps and tortured to death. Or if you denied him the food you had farmed for your family to live on or didn’t share you wife or daughter with him if he wanted them. He was sociopathic monster who deserved to die. I got my information from those who had to live under his under his regime not from propoganda or ficticious movies.
May 25th, 2009 at 8:43 pm
@ iamcanjim:
“Take a look at this site. Anyone who says democracy or capitalism has killed more people than communism, come up with facts to support that.
http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/”
I’ll take you up for that challenge. But first let me see if I understand your link.
You’re talking about the deaths by Maoism in action, right? Once more, nothing to do with communism, but let’s proceed.
The number the link gives us is 262,000,000
262 million people! That’s almost as big of a number as the total population of America right now. And this was half a century ago! Before continuing, I have to say that that’s the biggest number I’ve ever seen attributed to the famines. Most statisticians will put the number above 100 million but not above 200 million.
The following is not to be read as an apology to Maoism. I fucking hate Mao. But let’s hold the same standards to western capitalism:
http://www.spectrezine.org/global/chomsky.htm
Few people will accuse Noam Chomsky of being anything but unbiased. His whole life he has delved deep into politics and never forgave neither the Western world nor the Soviet bloc.
But if you don’t want to read all of that, here’s the point that article makes:
If you blame Maoism for the millions and millions of deaths caused by starvation due to bad management, then we must necessarily blame capitalism for the millions of millions of deaths caused by starvation and poverty due to inequality in a time of abundance which is something that is desired under capitalism.
Let’s consider Nobel prize winner Amartya Sen’s works, which have found that the rate of mortality due to poverty and starvation in India surpass that of China by four million people a year since 1958.
India is considered in the field of political science a jewel of democracy, because of the stability of its economy despite terrible inequality (which shows that the standard they are using is economic, not political, but oh well, such is the world of political science)
An average of four million people MORE than China per year, for more than fifty years, means that in the Asian country that most resembles the Western world, twenty million more people have died than in China, putting the grand total anywhere from 150 million to 250 million if the hawaii link is to be trusted.
And that is only in one country, while most of the world plays under the game of western capitalism. How many lives would it be in a global scale? Especially if we consider that the deaths in China were due to famines by poor management, while in capitalism poverty is intrinsic to the system even if there’s no scarcity.
May 25th, 2009 at 8:56 pm
110- I know people who lived with him too and I have never heard any of this. That sounds like propaganda. And given his profile I really doubt any of those.
I do have to give it up to western propaganda, they were able to make two of the most heroic and selfless people in humanity, fidel and che, and make them out to seem like monsters.
You hear about people defecting because its hard for any man to turn down millions of dollars for national pride. But many do it. One famous case was the boxer Teofilo Stevenson who refused to betray Cuba and join the US professional scene.
After Castro Cubas literacy rate is 100% (better than the US) its medicine is the best in the world. They have more international doctors than the WHO. They place top 10 in the olympics. Hunger is unheard of.
THe western view of cuba is so ridiculous its sickening.
May 25th, 2009 at 9:26 pm
Actually, maximuz04, Che and Castro did put up internment camps in which they rounded not only counterrevolutionaries (as opposed to people that just said they don’t like the government like many people keep saying)
but also homosexuals and AIDS victims.
THAT’S fucked up. But it’s still true. No one is perfect, but I see less fault with Cuba’s government than American imperialism.
May 25th, 2009 at 9:42 pm
Doesn’t say much about fingerprinting technology back then. They had to cut off his hands and send them for fingerprint analysis!! Whatever happened to using an inkpad and paper. Or in case there was such a dire need for proof positive, could they have cut off one finger?
That’s some brutal mutilation of the dead.
May 25th, 2009 at 10:36 pm
It is a bit generous to call the person who did the EMO Che an artist. While i don’t have leet paint skillz, I could certainly mock up something better than that!!
May 25th, 2009 at 10:49 pm
lol…something tells me this list is a little biased…. soundslike you hate him! and it’s missing somemore info lol…and about his birth place…even if most people didn’t know it for sure, it was kinda obvious… I mean “che” reminds you a lot of Argentina lol…but I guess only latin people would understand that anyways…and hey he was right about U.S. he might not be a saint or whatever but he was damn right about the USA …However no one is perfect but I don’t see why to judge what he said since it’s true or at least it was during those times… It doesn’t surprise me that he talked like that about the USA considering most poor and developing countries, especially latin countries, have been suffering because of the USA hypocresy and crazyness for power…I know because I have lived it and NO ONE would never understand it unless thay have lived it, so there, if you haven’t suffered hunger and poverty thanks to a more powerful country you have to right to comment on toher people’s reasons to fight…I bet he was tired of all of the injustice and that feeling of impotence can drive you crazy, especially if the ones dying are members of your family, your town, your country… too bad he chose the violent path, but like I said …seeing so much suffering drives you nuts …
May 25th, 2009 at 10:53 pm
hey alan, how much is the cuban communist party paying you to write this bullshit?
May 25th, 2009 at 11:22 pm
They’re paying me nothing.
Does that validate my opinion then if you thought that would have been a reason to discard it?
May 25th, 2009 at 11:49 pm
I read that he got the nickname “Che” from Fidel Castro because Che almost always ended his sentences with “che?” ( I guess something like saying “right?”).
May 26th, 2009 at 12:03 am
Che is a common word in Argentina. ‘Che’ is a word that addresses the person. Like if I say ‘this is the reason he had that nickname, che’
May 26th, 2009 at 12:52 am
Thanks for posting this. I come to LU every day as a part of my daily routine.
Ive always felt a special connection to him because I was born on the exact day he was executed. October 9, 1967.
However I was born about 3:45 that am and I believe he was executed about 2pm later that day.
Thanks again.
S
May 26th, 2009 at 1:33 am
All commies should die!!
100 bucks to who guesses where this is from:
“al esfuerzo y al heroísmo de una revolución… ¡No los queremos! ¡No los necesitamos!”
May 26th, 2009 at 3:44 am
good list but most of this facts are from wikipedia, i know that because i’ve write che guevara before, and i’m proud my name is joe lynch
May 26th, 2009 at 5:23 am
“Hay Que Endurecer, Pero Sin Perder La Ternura Jamás!”
May 26th, 2009 at 5:50 am
alan i wasnt listen those dictators as practicians of stalinism i was saying that Communism in general is responsible for the deaths of at least 150mill… all those other leaders basically created their own style of communism only stalin was a true stalinist….and again as i said before no established communist government is or was in any way a true communist regime….all so-called communist leaders and governments have perverted the communist system to better adhere to there own ideologies and desires so that they could assume total domination in their own way. All so-called communist regimes are really just totalitarian regimes with socialistic/communistic tendencies and leanings
May 26th, 2009 at 6:05 am
“Hay Que Endurecer, Pero Sin Perder La Ternura Jamás!” or “We must harden without ever loosing tenderness!” – Che Guevara.
May 26th, 2009 at 6:35 am
Comment #100, Lo, there is a flaw in your logic when you say “i have no problem applying it [the "R" word] to someone who’s just done or said something stupid -when they had the mental ability not to!” How do you know that the anonymous person that is being insulted, and who is posting to this page, is not mentally disabled? You may be actually calling a person with Autism a “retard.”
You may choose to use this word if you wish. All I’m saying, is that I find it offensive.
Look, I know that I can’t stop anyone from expressing themselves in any way they want, hurtful or kind. I also know that I can’t prevent the people that I care for from being harmed. They hear hurtful language in movies, TV, radio, and in person. It’s a fact of life. It’s so easy on line when we don’t have to actually see each other. It’s the nature of the on line forum. Look at the comments on this site. I don’t know if the commenter is a child, adult, male, female, elderly, mentally ill, highly educated, poorly educated, or using English as a second language.
But what is beautiful to me is look at this debate about Che Guevara, the majority of the discussion is very passionate, and also polite. A more intelligent argument leaves out the name calling, and just expresses a differing view, possibly backed up with fact.
You also say, “how odd that you can’t see a difference between using a word that denotes limited mental capacity to accuse someone of behaving in a way which signifies limited mental capacity, and a group of insults that signify nothing other than a hatred of a group of people based on what they look like.” When this is what I said, “I keep hoping for the day when the term “Retard” is thought of as just as offensive as any racist terms.”
May 26th, 2009 at 6:43 am
What is funny about Che is if you ask 99 % of the people abotu who he was, they will not know. It is jsut a “cool” thing to do. That is people who like to fit in will do.
May 26th, 2009 at 7:02 am
maximuz and alan jimenez: you’re both idiots. What are you, 23 year old poli-sci majors that think that because you have some bullsh*t degree you know and understand the world?
Look, I’ve BEEN to Cuba (fairly recently), and I know (I live just north of Miami) DOZENS of Cubans that have floated over here – CUBA SUCKS.
Hunger is unheard of? The conditions are great? BULLSH*T. I’ve met whole families who have lower weekly food rations than a normal person in the U.S. eats in a day. Yeah – the conditions are so great! That’s why foreigners can get a 13 y/o hooker in Cuba for for about $5 U.S. A lot of Cubans have grow vegetables on their back patios for christ-sakes.
And don’t get me started on your whiney little arguments about “well it’s the U.S.’s fault.” That’s BULLSH*T too. I don’t like my country’s political stance toward Cuba, but Cuba can trade with pretty much every other country on the planet. They could improve the standard of living for all Cuban citizens, but they don’t. They prefer to keep the normal Cubans living in squalid, falling apart slums, with 1950’s cars being pulled by donkeys, than letting Cuba catch up to the rest of the world. But the policital elite – different story. They live in apartments and homes that be considered high-style even here in the U.S.
You snot-nosed know-it-all punks honestly make me sick. Bitch non-stop about horrible capitalism is, while everything you know, see, do, have ever done – hell, your LIFE, is what it is because of freedom, the right to personal property, and capitalism.
You think the U.S. is so bad? Go live in Cuba. I can promise you Castro would love to have you. Hell, you’d live better than the vast majority of other Cubans, because Castro would use you non-stop as a propaganda tool. But you’d still live a lot worse than you would in the U.S., you ungrateful pieces of sh*t.
Forget propaganda tools – you two are just tools, period.
May 26th, 2009 at 9:47 am
Wow…… really funny. You people call him “murderer” becuase he was part of a revolution that kicked a bloody dictator out of power BUT he DID NOT have the same ideas as the USA’s policy makers.
If you send 150.000 souls to level a whole country just to get rid of another dictator (an then hang the bastard) it’s called “FREEDOM” (Because, Obviously, they’r “OUR GUYS”). Grow Up. There are Shitons of stuff about Che to learn beyond this list… He died as a real men. He traveled the continent witnessing the chronic dispair of the economically opressed and the poor. He killed people fighting, not just for fun….
May 26th, 2009 at 9:49 am
I like when people don’t know the difference between capitalism and freedom. Like they can only be completely dependant on each other.
Also, it really creeps me out that the guy above me just got back from Cuba actually knows the cost of a Cuban 13 child prostitute. I mean, I know there are prostitutes in Thailand, but I couldn’t even guess about money and stuff involved because I wouldn’t go near that.
And, I DO think the U.S. is that bad, but I don’t ‘have to go live in Cuba’ because Im from a country that is consistently ranked higher on the yearly HDI than the US, which means I come from a place that is more free, has better health care and education, still has capitalism but I don’t have to perpetually listen to people patting themselvs on the back and telling themselves how great they are and attacking anyone who might even dissent a little. Like it or leave it? I wouldn’t lower my standard of living by setting foot in it, thanks. And I wouldn’t even criticise if there wasn’t a constant stream of cheerleading being done by people.
Real freedom is challenging your society, constantly, on the places it improves. Real fascism is blindly hating anything that is different and never questioning the party lines your television feeds you because you can’t think for yourself.
This whole list has really made me lose a bit of respect for the objectivity of the site. Think about how people would react to an equally controversial figure on the other side being done like this: ‘George W Bush: Child molester or just a baby rapist? 10 facts you didn’t know!’
I mean, c’mon.
May 26th, 2009 at 9:49 am
(By guy above me I mean 129)
May 26th, 2009 at 11:46 am
Mr Graves:
Ordinarily I don’t have much quarrel with you (at least not that I can recall) but this sickening love-fest that you and several others here are indulging in over Cuba, and over someone like Che Guavara just got my ire up too much.
I’m deathly sick of people – I don’t care WHO they are – excusing the actions of dictators, murderers, and atrocity-committers of ANY political bent, implying that because the US has made blunders or been responsible for crimes of its own, then it somehow makes it okay that men like Che did the things that they did.
And Mr. Graves, for all your condemnation of those who “pat themselves on the back” about capitalism, you’re speaking not a whit better with your blather about living in a country that’s “more free” than the US.
As you may know, my own political leanings drift leftwards—but I do NOT accept this idea that it’s somehow okay for LEFTISTS to murder and torture (BOTH of which Che WAS guilty of) while it’s of course wrong when the right does it. Uh uh, Graves… it’s WRONG no matter WHO is doing it, and it was wrong when Che did it.
Che Guavara, like all of those who issued forth from BOTH extreme ends of political dogma in the 20th century–was an arrogantly criminal son of a bitch who made the decision to kill people that HE and he alone felt ought to be killed, on the basis that they disagreed with him and his political/economic vision.
We have had ENOUGH OF THAT SHIT in this world, and let’s STOP the goddamn excusing (let alone praising!) of monsters who commit that kind of horror no matter WHO they are or WHAT side of the political fence they belong on.
And really, enough of your snide mockeries towards Americans and capitalism in general. I dislike my fellow countrymen myself, and I’m cautious around capitalism the way anyone should be around a dangerous tool—but let’s also stop this lying pretense that America is this fount of evil and that capitalism is a thing to just be plainly despised. EXTREMISM on either end of the spectrum–be it political or the spectrum of socialism vs. capitalism–is WRONG and has historically led only to murder, violence, torture and injustice.
And there stands a figure like Che Guavara, one of many (far too many) from the last century who brought us that monstrous shit.
Enough.
May 26th, 2009 at 11:57 am
I guess no one cares that I don’t like Che because he was a Leninist.
Guess no one cares I know he’s not perfect.
I guess the fact that I admit his rounding up of homosexuals and AIDS victims is absolutely unforgiveable.
I’m still going to be seen as an ‘idiot that loves Che’ because I compare him to our own system and see just how small he was in comparison to our own brutality.
I guess if I’m not strictly against him, I must be blindly in love with him.
The world IS that black and white, huh?
May 26th, 2009 at 1:22 pm
Alan Jimenez:
WHY bother being in ANY WAY “for” a man who did the things Che did? You’re asking this question like it ought to somehow be okay—that you should be able to be “for” some of the man, while being against other parts of him. And as though it’s unfair of others to expect you to just go one way or the other.
But you miss the whole goddamn point, as do several other people in this thread.
In an extreme example, it’s like saying you want to be “for” in Hitler in some ways, because he DID want to bring power and prosperity back to Germany. Now sure, Che was no Hitler—but he was no innocent freedom fighter either. He was a violent and murderous ideologue, who like ALL ideologues of his day (on the Left AND the Right) committed atrocities because he felt HE was right in his thinking and that this gave him LICENSE to do as he wished, because he was fighting for a “larger cause.”
So NO. You can’t be “not strictly against” such a man. You have to CHOOSE, Alan. Do you want to be for what’s morally right REGARDLESS of cause or purpose or ultimate goal? Or do you want to fudge now and then and claim that there’s such things as “justifiable atrocities” and “excusable crimes”?
It’s easier to be the latter, Alan. Infinitely easier. To say, “as long as that guy is fighting for me, or for a cause I believe in, then it’s okay if he gets a little out of hand and a few people get tortured and executed” (or what have you).
It’s much harder to take a stand for what’s RIGHT regardless of the cause though. To say “NO. Murder and torture and injustice are NEVER right no matter WHAT the cause or justification.”
May 26th, 2009 at 1:37 pm
What do you find to be morally right?
Most people who will call Che a ‘mass murderer’ have no problem with modern capitalism, which as I have said has killed and oppressed substantially more people than those like Che.
Do you find any system unforgivable? If so, we have the same opinion.
Or do you find this system to be justified? If so, you have a double standard.
May 26th, 2009 at 1:39 pm
WOW – I didn’t know Che had come back from the dead to persecute AIDS victims
Go figure
May 26th, 2009 at 1:59 pm
Che’s and Castro’s internment camps go beyond Che’s life. Of course they remained in Cuba way after Che died, and they were still run by the same system they created.
It’s funny that people criticize me for justifying some of Che’s actions just as much as for being critical of others.
May 26th, 2009 at 2:29 pm
Didn’t have time to read all the comments before mine, but anyone who wants to know more about Che and his philosophy can read his book, Guerilla Warfare, which also includes a mini-biography.
Deeziner – I don’t know if you got a response to your comment, but I see his image all the time, generally displayed by people of Latin descent. Most of them only knew that he was some kind of revolutionary and nothing else about him. It amazes me how people will rant and rave and support something by
May 26th, 2009 at 2:56 pm
Whoops. I wrote that before I went to eat, came back and clicked Submit before realizing I wasn’t done, and now have forgotten exactly what I was going to say. Anyways, whoever the turds are that are saying this list is biased against ‘Che’ can blow it out their asses. Only 3 of the 10 items on this list could even be considered negative, and those that could be perceived as such are pretty trivial considering the subject matter. One points to his name, one to his extra-curricular activities as a kid, and one stating that he stunk as a lad. You’ve obviously missed the point of the list; those aren’t attacks against his political views and actions, they are facts that are completely unrelated. ‘Tards.
May 26th, 2009 at 3:29 pm
Randall (133):
Thank you. I gave up when I came across this little gem in 112:
“I do have to give it up to western propaganda, they were able to make two of the most heroic and selfless people in humanity, fidel and che, and make them out to seem like monsters.”
Yup, apparently, they are considered heroes and selfless humanitarians… It makes me want to throw up in my mouth a little.
*****
Alan Jimenez (138):
“…justifying some of Che’s actions ”
I could vaguely understand your point about capitalism being an oppressive system… However, now you´re saying that you JUSTIFY some of his actions? There is a difference between saying there are worse people and systems and saying that some of what he did was right… He was a murderer. Even if he “only” tortured killed 150 political dissenters. He´s still a murderer and those actions are still unacceptable.
May 26th, 2009 at 6:06 pm
I guess we might tend to judge the guy by today standards. We all know today that the Cuban revolution is globally a failure. We can argue about the extend of its successes (essentially in the health and education fields) but those came with a huge price tag. But in that time, well, my guess is that a lot of people thought that Revolution was the single option to obtain social changes. During the Cold World, in Latin America, all social issues were immediately assimilated to communism. Union leaders, journalists, leftists politicians, etc. were routinely arrested, tortured and/or murdered. And when a democratically elected government tried to make social changes legally, they were overthrown either by a US backed military coup, or by direct action of the USMC. Revolution back then seemed to be the only choice. And a Revolution after all, is just a civil war, a very messy affair. The Che did a lot of criminal things, and by today standards there is no excuse for that. But in his times, he was just a ballsy guy who stood up and fought for what he thought was right.
May 27th, 2009 at 4:50 am
Alan. I wonder what you are thinking, comparing deaths due to famine in India and China.
There are two types of acts, sins of ommission and sins of comission.
If I knew my neighbor was suicidal, and didn’t do anything about it, that would be a bad thing.
If I knew my neighbor was suicidal, so went and killed him, that would be a substantially more evil act.
You are saying they are morally equivalent. I have to disagree.
Deaths due to famine in India are do the the government not doing enough for the poorest members of society. That is an evil act.
Deaths due to famine in Mao’s China were a result of a deliberate government policy. That is in a whole other category of evil.
You could say Roosevelt was as culpable as Hitler for extermination of the Jews because he was aware of it but did nothing concrete. You would be wrong.
The famines in India were neutral. They happened. The government of India failed to feed the starving. That is evil.
The famines in China and Soviet Russia were deliberately created by man to serve a political point (collectivisation for Russia, Steel production for China). This is far more evil.
Communism has been a disaster of major proportions for the world in teh 20th century not because it’s intrinsically bad, but because it brings with it two major failings: authoritarian government and a sense of that any atrocity can be justified due to the historic inevitability.
May 27th, 2009 at 5:59 am
read his biography by john lee anderson if you want an unbiased and historically accurate account of his life and work. and in no place ever have i seen such ignorance than on this list
May 27th, 2009 at 6:03 am
I love Che Guevara, actually just bought a sweater, Tshirt and hat from http://www.theCHEstore.com last week.
Say what you want about him, there are so many opinions we could discuss him forever.
Hasta Victoria Siempre !
May 27th, 2009 at 6:44 am
Smitty.
Do you know the definition of the word ‘irony?’
May 27th, 2009 at 11:16 am
“The famines in India were neutral. They happened. The government of India failed to feed the starving. That is evil. ”
The system in place in India requires for a big majority to suffer for the sake of the economy. It’s nowhere near to being neutral.
You say Mao’s deaths are another whole category of evil because it was deliberate government policy. But this deliberate government policy was created to HELP these people. Government policy was stupid, not deliberately exploitative, as opposed to India’s.
May 27th, 2009 at 11:40 am
why would he have been emo? I LOVE poetry and writing and math and all the junk you talked about but im certainly not emo! are you perhaps implying that anyone who llikes poetry is emo because they aren’t. other than that good list.
May 27th, 2009 at 2:31 pm
some of this was obviously inclined to make him look like an ass, i mean, EMO? come on where is the open-minded listverse that I love?
In this comment I´m not supporting neither attacking Mr. Guevara but I think some words and some points were just a bit toooooooo much.
May 27th, 2009 at 4:13 pm
i agree teki
May 27th, 2009 at 4:43 pm
Re #148 and 149 – why emo? Often Listverse incorporates humor into the lists. Just look at the photos accompanying the 10 Cases of Liberal Hypocrisy list, or the entire idea behind the 8 Tips for Becoming a Sought After Sugardaddy list.
May 28th, 2009 at 6:12 am
#129 Bravo! Couldn’t of said it better myself. Che was a murdering thug and that’s really all anyone needs to know about the guy. I presume he is currently getting his just rewards in Hell…………
May 30th, 2009 at 5:09 pm
moonbeam: I get labeled too often as an emo because i write poetry. im quite frankly really sick of it. poetry does imply depression or mental illness. i think that joke was in very poor taste. if it were funny i would have laughed. i didnt. did you? i realize that we have joke lists or humor in our lists but that wasnt funny, and offended me. Not to mention put a blanket sweep over every poet, math wiz, and chess club member. seeing as i do many of those things cant you see why im offended?
May 30th, 2009 at 5:10 pm
correction for above DOES NOT IMPLY MENTALL ILLNESS OR DEPRESSION.
May 31st, 2009 at 11:29 am
Looser, sure I can see now why you’d be offended. I took teki’s comment at #149 and your follow up as though you were offended that Che was being mocked, and not as you saw it, as mocking everyone who happens to like poetry and chess, etc.
You ask if I laughed, and truthfully, no I didn’t. My reaction to the EMO Che was more like, ‘meh’.
Although I may be splitting hairs here, but not all humor makes me laugh, yet I may in some cases consider it humorous.
May 31st, 2009 at 5:05 pm
A murderer? Sure, as was George Washington. Now I can already hear the “How dare you(s)!?!” but I’d point out that Ernesto never owned another human. I have been a soldier so I can tell you as a matter of fact, the only difference between a soldier and a terrorist is matching outfits.
I’m not really one way or another on this guy, though the speech at the U.N. is one of the greats! People never seem to get past the labels with some figures from history; at least not until well after they and all who knew them are gone.
June 1st, 2009 at 2:43 am
Usually, Listverse is fair and objective. The list is anti-Che from start to the end. It’s an Ironic list. You are trying to misdirect people. But most ironic is that while you;re fighting him or his ideas, the fact is that Che never fought US. He never gave a s#1t about.
He fought fascist regimes (heavily assisted by USA) and died for a fair cause.
One more thing. JFK mostly appreciated for his democratic values, ordered the death of numerous civilians, much more than Che allegedly ever killed.
Today Che is appreciated by most of the countries in the world, while US common civilians are not welcomed in more than 100 countries all over the globe.
Do you give a rat’s a#$$ about that, or you consider us,and I mean the rest of the world, as apes?
You;re not alone in the world USies!!!
June 1st, 2009 at 9:50 am
docflamingo:
There’s a fine line sometimes between distinctions of evil and “good” in the misty mess of history, but recognizing such a fact does give one license to say incredibly retarded things.
The simple fact is that Che Guavara ordered the executions of thousands of civilians, and perhaps ordered torture as well. There’s a huge difference between an action of that nature, and Che’s constant support for such actions throughout his life (in short, he remained to the end an unapologetic ideologue who gladly killed–and called for the killing of—political/economic opponents. That is, quite simply, a kind of barbarism, and no amount of moral relativism is going to change that.
Washington, on the other hand, was an actual military officer who did NOT sanction executions for revenge or ideological reasons, and once his revolution was successful, it was NOT followed up with a bloodbath, as ideological revolutions (be they communist or ultra-right wing) ALWAYS are.
Yes, if we get very simplistic about it, both men have blood on their hands, and both fought for a cause. But there their resemblances end.
June 1st, 2009 at 9:54 am
Malcom:
I frankly demand that you back up this moronic statement of yours that JFK ordered the killing of more civilians than “Che ever did.”
I don’t care if Che fought the US or not. I’m interested only in historical fact and truth. And the truth is that Che Guavara was a rigidly doctrinaire leftist ideologue who, in keeping with others of his type, thoughtlessly ordered the executions of thousands of people and was probably also complicit in torture.
This “cause” that he fought for is NEGATED by actions of that nature—which are simply criminal in nature. Excusing such behavior and actions simply because they serve a particular end is saying that the end always justifies the means and that two wrongs make a right–and we all know very well that these two axioms are entirely untrue and invalid.
June 1st, 2009 at 10:55 am
Malcolm (157):
I´m completely baffled by your post.
“But most ironic is that while you;re fighting him or his ideas, the fact is that Che never fought US”
Who is US? The USA? What does that have to do with anything? He was not a cold blooded killer in the United States but that does not automatically mean that he was not a murderer.
“Today Che is appreciated by most of the countries in the world”
I´d like a list of those countries who have openly endorsed the actions of el Che. And I´m not talking about individuals who think it´s cool becasue he was a “rebel”. Most of those people have absolutely NO idea who el Che really was, what his actions were. It´s a romanticized view.
And no, I am not an American (or a USie…?) I am from Latin America though I dont see how that would make a difference. A murderous ideologue should be shunned no matter where he (or we) comes from.
June 1st, 2009 at 10:59 am
To Randall:
Washington also ordered executions, likely more than Che did. He killed his own soldiers who put in the time they agreed to than wanted to go home as agreed. Wanting to curb potential desertion and loss of men during critical moments, he went the hang them route. You can argue one way or another about his justification for that but so can we about Che.
Your entire argument, Randall, is your assumption that if a country with a flag does something, if a smaller group does the same it’s quite another. This is an utterly arbitrary distinction. A year or so ago there was a full page ad in the NY Times calling on people to sign a petition going to the UN. Its purpose was to denounce “suicide bombing” and to have it classified as a war crime. I was enraged.
My with this? Surely I’m not advocating suicide bombing? No, I’m not, but I am no more against it than aerial bombing or shelling civilians with artillery. The assumption behind this petition was that rich people (in this care Israel) had the right to attack the Palestinians because they were “a country” but the poor Palestinians (with no proper military or any way to form one) should just take it and smile.
We could end the suicide bombings in Israel tomorrow: Sell the Palestinians stinger missiles. They aren’t crazy, just poor. They’re making-due with what they have: pissed-off teenagers (who doesn’t?)
Again, I’ve been a soldier and I can assure you: Matching outfits, the only difference. Poor people have a right to defend themselves, period. Acting like they are animals for doing so, while ignoring their very real grievances, is an act of oppression. Period.
June 1st, 2009 at 11:03 am
Also, Che cannot be held responsible for anything that happened in Cuba after the revolution. He, in fact, left soon after over arguments with Castro about his handling of these very issues. And why no acknowledgement of the far, far worse brutality of Batista?
Again, you excuse the rich for killing the poor and rail against the poor for retaliating. Hypocrisy, plain and simple.
June 1st, 2009 at 11:10 am
docflamingo:
“Washington also ordered executions, likely more than Che did.”
I seriously demand scholarly evidence from you to back up this bullshit statement.
Washington ordered the execution of a few deserters, etc. and spies that were caught—the number of which, in total, probably adds up to no more than a DOZEN (that I am aware of) and perhaps fewer.
AND NO, my argument is NOT “flagged country” vs. “smaller group”—though I will say that YES, in international tradition and law, it IS recognized that there is a difference between a country at war vs. the situations with which Che Guavara is associated with.
There is no “arbitrary distinction” here, but one of simply morality in the face of a choice; the wholesale murder of political opponents is NOT right, nor excusable, nor justified. Such killings were NOT carried out by Washington or anyone else once the American Revolution had been completed.
Your status as a former soldier is irrelevant here; this is a matter of truth, historical fact, and a clear delineation of morality.
War is, yes, a crime in and of itself—but it can also be the PUNISHMENT of a crime, one needs to point out.
However, the distinction, again, is not relevant here. What matters is the difference between choosing to murder those who are in your power, because you don’t agree with what they think or MAY think or MAY stand for–which is an act of barbarism—or choosing to NOT do this and acting like a civilized human being.
Che made the former choice, as have many others in history. The easier choice… and the WRONG choice.
June 1st, 2009 at 11:12 am
docflamingo:
Stop making blithe assumptions about what I excuse and don’t excuse. Batista’s brutal regime is NOT what we’re talking about here. AGAIN, as I said earlier—TWO WRONGS do NOT make a right… but you, in fact, are hinting at JUST THAT when you bring up Batista.
YES, Batista was ALSO a despot who murdered his political opponents. It was WRONG then and it was WRONG when Castro took over, and Che Guavara was WRONG to support and act in complicity with such killings.
June 1st, 2009 at 11:36 am
Those who have no recourse to the law, receive none of its protection (the poor) cannot rationally or ethically be held subject to it.
Your kind wants things the way they are: The betters on top, the lessers on the bottom, and no grumbling about it. If you weren’t inferior you’d be born with money, right?
As to nothing else bad happening after the American Revolution was over, I think a few Tories would disagree with that.
Also there is the matter of the Whiskey rebellion. Washington attacked farmers to protect HIS status as preeminent distiller on the continent. And, at the risk of sounding like a broken record, there was the owning other people thing which you clearly don’t consider to be wrong or in any way violent. Whatever.
Two wrongs may not make a right but will get you even. I fully support killing rich people for their crimes, they are above the law and so I have no use for that law. And I’d do more than just killing them. I’d make them beg to die knowing that when they broke they would first have to watch their children given the needle like unwanted house pets first. Since you mention it…
Ta!
June 1st, 2009 at 12:10 pm
docflamingo:
You want to fight a class war, but you’re barking up the wrong tree about that, with me.
Also, I find your little opening statement to be wanting in the extreme; since when DID this become a question about “the poor” per se? Che Guavara was an ostensible member of a revolutionary government, not some poor, oppressed citizen fighting for his rights. (He in fact, as we know, came somewhat from privilege).
Moreover, I need to point out once again that this is NOT simply about “the law” per se; it is, rather, about morality and ethics. Murder is murder whether it’s done by an oppressive regime or by the underclasses trying to reverse their lot. We can ALWAYS knit together circumstance and situations where such murder is “understandable,” and perhaps to be expected—but that STILL does not make it “right.” And you are expressing a morally repugnant point of view in thinking otherwise… which quite frankly sickens me.
Don’t lecture me on “my kind” and what I want. You know nothing of me, and you’re simply trying to deflect attention away from the disgusting philosophy which you’re touting, which you clearly recognize is indefensible (or else you’d actually defend it, and not try to simply mischaracterize me repeatedly). Your little ad hominem “arguments” are all too revealing. You ascribe a set of values to me which in fact are NOT applicable to who I am or what I stand for—and this absurdity of yours is plainly visible, and shows how hollow and shallow your own belief system actually is.
And try again, with your off-handed remark about Tories at the end of the American Revolution. I had ancestors on both sides of the fence, in fact—and the Tories in my family suffered the worst than almost all Tories suffered—they were divested of their lands and sent into exile in Nova Scotia. Not nice, but they retained their lives and to some extent part of their fortunes. Hardly the same as dragging your political opponents out to be shot, some after being tortured.
And AGAIN—your dragging in of the slavery issue is IRRELEVANT TO THIS DISCUSSION. We are NOT debating whether Washington was wrong for owning slaves–he was. But rather, we were debating whether what Che did was wantonly criminal, vs. the actions of Washington IN WARTIME, which were not. So again, your attempt at deflecting attention away from the true argument at hand is pathetic and, quite simply, fails.
As to your final statements about the revenge you’d take on “rich people”—rich or poor hardly matters—that statement reveals you for the disgusting, unbalanced and barbaric monster that you are.
When you excuse crimes, docflamingo, there is NEVER a “right”… only wrongs. Thank god the world never fully descends to YOUR kind of thinking. It gets close sometimes, but it’s never fully gotten there yet.
June 1st, 2009 at 1:12 pm
docflamingo (165):
“Two wrongs may not make a right but will get you even. I fully support killing rich people for their crimes, they are above the law and so I have no use for that law. And I’d do more than just killing them. I’d make them beg to die knowing that when they broke they would first have to watch their children given the needle like unwanted house pets first.”
Well, it makes sense now that you would support the actions of el Che. I imagine that if you ever came close to power you would act the exact same way. And let me just be clear that this in no way excuses or validates your POV, it makes you an unethical, cruel and murderous thug… exactly the same as el Che.
I only hope your comments serve to enlighten people who hold romanticized ideas of this historical figure. This is what he stood for: wholesale slaughter of anyone who did not agree with him.
Disgusting.
June 1st, 2009 at 1:17 pm
Randall:
YOU: “You want to fight a class war, but you’re barking up the wrong tree about that, with me.”
ME: Don’t care as such.
You: “Also, I find your little opening statement to be wanting in the extreme; since when DID this become a question about “the poor” per se? Che Guavara was an ostensible member of a revolutionary government, not some poor, oppressed citizen fighting for his rights. (He in fact, as we know, came somewhat from privilege).”
ME: Yes he did, and he gave it up. He took up the defense of the poor which is exactly what I’m talking about.
YOU: “Moreover, I need to point out once again that this is NOT simply about “the law” per se; it is, rather, about morality and ethics. Murder is murder whether it’s done by an oppressive regime or by the underclasses trying to reverse their lot.” “We can ALWAYS knit together circumstance and situations where such murder is “understandable,” and perhaps to be expected—but that STILL does not make it “right.” And you are expressing a morally repugnant point of view in thinking otherwise… which quite frankly sickens me.”
ME: That argument would apply to Washington as well, and any anyone who have ever taken up arms for any reason. Meaningless unless you are endorsing absolute pacifism, are you? That has not been my impression from your arguments.
YOU: “Don’t lecture me on “my kind” and what I want. You know nothing of me,…”
ME: Likewaise but it didn’t stop YOU did it?
YOU: “…and you’re simply trying to deflect attention away from the disgusting philosophy which you’re touting, which you clearly recognize is indefensible (or else you’d actually defend it, and not try to simply mischaracterize me repeatedly). “
ME: Why would I try to deflect attention from my “disgusting philosophy”? Obviously I CAN’T think it’s disgusting or I wouldn’t think that. Put words in peoples mouths much?
YOU: “Your little ad hominem “arguments” are all too revealing. You ascribe a set of values to me which in fact are NOT applicable to who I am or what I stand for—and this absurdity of yours is plainly visible, and shows how hollow and shallow your own belief system actually is.”
ME: See above.
YOU: “And try again, with your off-handed remark about Tories at the end of the American Revolution. I had ancestors on both sides of the fence, in fact—and the Tories in my family suffered the worst than almost all Tories suffered—they were divested of their lands and sent into exile in Nova Scotia. Not nice, but they retained their lives and to some extent part of their fortunes. Hardly the same as dragging your political opponents out to be shot, some after being tortured. “
ME: That’s exactly what happened to many. And I wasn’t moralizing on the subject one way or another; I was simply stating that it’s the same thing in essence. You need to control your anger if it prevents you from making a coherent point. Some can pull it off, you obviously can’t.
YOU: “And AGAIN—your dragging in of the slavery issue is IRRELEVANT TO THIS DISCUSSION. We are NOT debating whether Washington was wrong for owning slaves–he was.”
ME: Actually, I was debating just that. Who are you to set the agenda?
YOU: “But rather, we were debating whether what Che did was wantonly criminal, vs. the actions of Washington IN WARTIME, which were not. So again, your attempt at deflecting attention away from the true argument at hand is pathetic and, quite simply, fails.”
ME: Sigh… Che did what he did in war time as well. Who are you to decide when “war” is happening? People were being killed and oppressed so he reacted as a warrior does; again, trying to reframe the debate to close off points of debate from an opponent. Weak.
YOU: “As to your final statements about the revenge you’d take on “rich people”—rich or poor hardly matters—that statement reveals you for the disgusting, unbalanced and barbaric monster that you are.”
ME: Why? Because I would treat them as they have treated my people? I must act within THEIR system or I’m not legitimate? In all honesty I will admit I was baiting you on that one. I’d just kill them.
YOU: “When you excuse crimes, docflamingo, there is NEVER a “right”… only wrongs. Thank god the world never fully descends to YOUR kind of thinking. It gets close sometimes, but it’s never fully gotten there yet.”
ME: This gives me the impression you’ve seen very little of the world. But enough of this, it is extremely rude to turn this guy’s site into a personal flame-war. Tell you what: Tomorrow I’ll broach this very topic on my own page: http://docflamingo.wordpress.com/ and we can go at it till lights out in the heavens. Today I’m busy pissing off Ayn Rand fans. Drop by if you want to defend HER in the meantime. You seem like the type and that side’s fairing poorly just now.
Jason
June 1st, 2009 at 1:18 pm
peruviangtt,
Same for you.
June 1st, 2009 at 2:18 pm
I recall reading an interview of Castro saying that all the executions were needed to avoid the fate suffered by Madero during Mexican Revolution who was murdered by the people he spared.
Of course, this doesn’t excuse all the torture and murders. Or at least, we have to try to think that. Good and evil, right and wrong, don’t exist per se. They are constructs of the human mind, for self preservation purposes. If murder is “BAD” then it is less likely to get killed.
But the Che is a very important figure in Latin America. As “sacred” to some people as Washington in the US, but with a lot less time to do a more weighed analysis of its actions. For some people, it is not just a romantic revolutionary figure, that you exhibit to show with the stuff you buy that the system sucks. He is regarded with respect, as a man with a huge pair in its pants, who stood up and did what was necessary to change the world. And he did it in the only way it was thought possible at that time. I think we can easily find Latin American figures more morally acceptable that fought “democratically” but all of those share something, they were all “stopped” very quickly and quite brutally. Che and the rest of the Cuban revolutionaries won. And Che choose martyrdom instead of getting discredited with the rest of the Cuban regime. He is for quite a lot of people, a symbol of the Latin-American struggle for freedom.
June 1st, 2009 at 3:53 pm
Actually, Che Guevara’s parent weren’t so wealthy. The Guevara family had some relatives in Buenos Aires, which were the ones that were wealthy.
June 1st, 2009 at 11:50 pm
To Randall
The fact that you start your phrase with the words
‘I demand’ shows the “democratic” values you supposedly believe. Stop writing with your nickname and state your true ID, Mr. George W. Bush.
To peruviangtt
Of course you’re right. We’re not all the same. There are a few “good” examples of South Americans that had your ideas Like Pinochet, Batista, Fujimori, Videla etc.
And guess what,… all these fellows were supported by your friends ths USAmericans.
June 2nd, 2009 at 3:45 am
Randall vs Jason
June 2nd, 2009 at 6:58 am
Malcom AND “docflamingo”:
The amusing (and absurd) mistake you’ve both made is in attempting to peg ME as a right-winger; you clearly know nothing of this site or of me, (both of which are excusable, if you’re newbies) and have based this ridiculous assumption on ZERO evidence (what the hell could such evidence possibly be?) from my postings here (which IS inexcusable).
No, Malcom… the fact that I prefaced my statements with “I demand” merely means that I expect you (and anyone else, including myself) to offer support for the claims you make, and that you should be allowed to get away with saying whatever freaking shit you feel like spitting out, no matter how non-sensical, untrue, and asinine it is. There is nothing dictatorial or “undemocratic” in this—rather, it’s simply about being truthful, accurate, intelligent, and emotionally/intellecually STABLE… a quality which your ravings and those of “docflamingo” are sorely lacking in.
I note, of course, that you completely failed to answer my insistence that you support your absurd accusation… as did docflamingo.
June 2nd, 2009 at 7:00 am
EXCUSE ME… in the first sentence of the second paragraph of my previous comment, it should read:
“…and that you should NOT be allowed to get away with saying whatever freaking shit you feel like spitting out…”
June 2nd, 2009 at 7:48 am
docflamingo:
“Don’t care as such.”
I see… so you don’t “care” that you’re willfully mischaracterizing another human being’s thoughts and stances on politics, economics, and ethics? You have, quite simply, been attempting to characterize me as some bullying force for a plutocratic status quo—which is patently absurd and based on absolutely NO EVIDENCE whatsoever—rather, you are simply indulging in this practice (it seems) as a discrediting tactic because I don’t agree with your adolescent, sophomoric revenge fantasies about killing people who don’t agree with you or who do things you don’t like.
And if you’re going to take the absurd stance, in turn, that *I* am thusly mischaracterizing YOU, then I strongly suggest you go back and read your own postings.
“You: “Also, I find your little opening statement to be wanting in the extreme; since when DID this become a question about “the poor” per se? Che Guavara was an ostensible member of a revolutionary government, not some poor, oppressed citizen fighting for his rights. (He in fact, as we know, came somewhat from privilege).”
ME: Yes he did, and he gave it up. He took up the defense of the poor which is exactly what I’m talking about.”
We are talking about murdering political and cultural opponents and “undesirables,” which is NOT necessary in “the defense of the poor.” Or in the defense of ANYBODY.
“That argument would apply to Washington as well,”
How SO, exactly? Care to enlighten us? Amongst other things, “doc,” I was trained in History. Care to educate me on how this applies, then, to George Washington?
You failed utterly to answer my points about him, or to offer ANY support for your absurd statements. That’s telling.
The fact is that Washington, acting as a military commander, ordered the execution of a scant few deserters and equally scant spies during his tenure as general of the continental/US army. And after his success in the field and the end of the Revolution, there were NO reprisals involving people being dragged out to be shot, or hanged, or tortured—and certainly NOT in the THOUSANDS, as they were by Che Guavara’s orders. Without trial, without any process of law or justice.
“and any anyone who have ever taken up arms for any reason.”
Hardly. Spare me your weak attempts at this kind of absurd relativism… it went out with the ideologies of another time. The only truth here, such as it is, is that violence and death are common quantities in war AND in injust oppression. NEITHER are “right” in the larger sense—but there are recognized degrees to which things can be and by necessity ARE taken, and degrees to which they should not be, and are unnecessary, injust, and criminal.
YOU want to say they are all the same… good for you; the world you’ll get, then, will step back a few thousand years into a nice barbarity in which violence justifies all, and all it takes to be “right” is to be able to kill and oppress the most people. The winner stands on the largest pile of corpses.
“Hardly the same as dragging your political opponents out to be shot, some after being tortured. “
“That’s exactly what happened to many”
EXCUSE ME? Again, back this up with historical FACT. There were individual, unsanctioned reprisals against Tories during and after the revolution (AND vice versa) but they were NOT and NEVER were official policy of ANY government, militia, or any member of Washington’s army at ANY time. And CERTAINLY people were NOT, by policy, dragged out and shot or otherwise executed wholesale.
“And I wasn’t moralizing on the subject one way or another;”
Then excuse me… what ARE you doing? Are you claiming, then, that you’re not INTERESTED in the morality of this question?
“I was simply stating that it’s the same thing in essence.”
On which I beg to differ.
“You need to control your anger if it prevents you from making a coherent point. Some can pull it off, you obviously can’t.”
Nice try, “doc,” but my rhetorical flourishes aren’t the issue here–what it comes down to is factual evidence and truth, neither of which you have on your side.
“YOU: “And AGAIN—your dragging in of the slavery issue is IRRELEVANT TO THIS DISCUSSION. We are NOT debating whether Washington was wrong for owning slaves–he was.”
ME: Actually, I was debating just that. Who are you to set the agenda?”
Again, nice try… so, when a discussion arises about the murderous policies of Che Guavara, your argument then is that said policies are excused because George Washington kept slaves?
Uh huh. Agendas aside, the failure of LOGIC on your part is the larger issue. And as far as agendas go, it’s entirely disingenuous to introduce irrelevant tangents—it merely shows that you can’t *make* an argument for what you stand for, and can only play games of misdirection to keep things going.
“Sigh… Che did what he did in war time as well.”
In point of fact, NO, it was not. The revolution was successful and victorious when Che committed his atrocities; they were carried out against people who were entirely in his and Castro’s power and they were murdered without justice and actual trial.
Who are you, “doc,” that you seriously want to defend this kind of action? The usual murderous actions of leftwing AND rightwing “revolutionaries” AND oppressors time and time again… you seriously want to defend that and call it just and right?
You honestly want to sit here and call violent, brutal murder, torture… REVENGE… preferable to a rule of law and justice? Do you seriously only think of the rule of law as being the purview of the “rich and privileged?”
THAT is a sophomoric, childish way of looking at reality.
“Who are you to decide when “war” is happening?”
Who do I HAVE to be? Isn’t this something we DO insist upon deciding, time and time again, in our history?
“People were being killed and oppressed so he reacted as a warrior does;”
NO. He acted as vengeful OPPRESSOR does, a despot does, a MURDERER does. The only difference is that Che stood for a political/economic philosophy at odds with those he opposed and fought.
HAD he truly reacted as a warrior, then he would have fought his battles, then, with victory, would have STOPPED acting the warrior and acted the civilized statesman. THIS he did NOT do. He, like many others of his ilk, continued to act out of an inhuman ideology which demanded that those who did not agree with him should be summarily KILLED. Which IS oppression and injustice JUST AS BAD as that which he supposedly fought against.
“ME: Why? Because I would treat them as they have treated my people?”
And just WHO are “your people,” “doc”? Where are you from? What injustice have you suffered? Enlighten us.
But YES—it IS wrong to “treat others” as YOU or “your people” have been treated!! THAT IS THE DEFINITION of the difference between right and wrong, you moron! Are you honestly going to sit here and attempt to get by with this? SO—you condemn those who have mistreated “your people”—evidently the rich and powerful—condemn them for what they have done… correct? But why did they mistreat your people (whomever they may be)? Because they had the POWER to do so, and when they had “your people” in their power, they mistreated them and inflicted injustice and cruelty upon them… correct? And you say that isn’t right… with which I would wholely agree! BUT… you are then calling for “your people” to take revenge on them—to rise up and take that SAME power for themselves—and THEN turn around and do THE EXACT SAME THING… mistreat OTHERS in their power simply because they CAN, because they have the power to do so.
You do NOT see the wrong in this? You do not see that misuse of power is the main point here? That THAT is the center of injustice?
Good lord. I called you sophomoric and childish before–it was more than justified.
“This gives me the impression you’ve seen very little of the world.”
Try again.
Again, you know nothing of me, of who I am, what I know of the world. YOU, however, speak plainly for yourself. And it isn’t a wise, worldly, or just picture that you paint of yourself for others to see.
“But enough of this, it is extremely rude to turn this guy’s site into a personal flame-war.”
I have news for you… it happens all the time and “this guy” expects it and many of us have been here for over two years carrying on these kinds of debates.
“Today I’m busy pissing off Ayn Rand fans. Drop by if you want to defend HER in the meantime. You seem like the type and that side’s fairing poorly just now.”
Again…. “*I*” seem like the type… which shows how utterly clueless you actually are, that you think I would defend Ayn Rand—I have, in fact, carried out many an indictment against her philosophies on this site on many occasions.
The simple fact is, “doc”, that you clearly have no interest in properly gauging or even listening to those whom you address.
June 2nd, 2009 at 7:56 am
Malcolm (172)
I´m confused as to what you think my “ideas” are that would put me in league with Pinochet or Batista…
Just because I dont idolize el Che means I must automatically support military governments? One murderous rampage is not any better than the other.
Ever heard of democracy? A fair and balanced justice system? Why should Latin America be condemned to thugs for leaders?
June 2nd, 2009 at 1:41 pm
Randall, are you an anarchist?
You are claiming to be unforgiving of both the Batista regime and the Castro regime.
The only conclusion I can derive from that that I can respect is that you believe any centralized system will care more about its self preservation than the people it claims to defend, and therefore any system – claiming to be either right or left – is inexcusable.
If this is not what you believe, then how do you account to the double standard in which Cuba looks like a bad guy for doing actions in a proportionally smaller scale than the actions the US always sanctions?
And if this is what you do believe, then can’t you see that objectively at least Che has less blood in his hands than most other mainstream heroes and yet is looked upon as a ‘mass murderer’ of the caliber of Stalin?
June 2nd, 2009 at 2:07 pm
Alan Jimenez:
A) I never said Che was a mass murderer of the caliber of Stalin. Of course he wasn’t. I doubt he ever would have been. But a mass murderer he was, yes.
B) How in god’s name do you equate my unforgiving attitude towards BOTH the Batista regime and the Castro regime as being “anarchist” in nature? I fail to grasp your logic in that regard in the slightest.
I suppose in a way I ought to be flattered–sure, if I had to choose between an ideologically communist authoritarian/totalitarian state, and a rightwing authoritarian/totalitarian state, I’d prefer Anarchy. So at least you’re not trying to characterize me as some kind of crypto-fascist because I call Che for how I see him.
But in point of fact, Alan, anarchy doesn’t impress me either… it’s another refuge of childish minds.
The only conclusion you can respect eh? Well I’m not here to garner your respect, and no one else is either. Maybe that’s your problem—perhaps your standards for what you “respect” are set ridiculously high, and you need to come down to earth a little.
Yes, in fact, as we know any centralized system IS going to pay heed to self preservation–sometimes to the detriment of the people it’s meant to serve. That happens. This is human nature, and the nature of collective human conciousness. But no, it doesn’t ALWAYS happen, and what we have to do is strike a balance between what we will and will not tolerate in that regard.
But let’s get down to actual business here…
To what “double standard” do you refer? To what actions, sanctioned by the US, which you claim Cuba does only on a “smaller” scale, do you refer?
The US government has, yes, done many a bad thing in the course of its history–in particular to its neighbors to the south. It’s actively fomented coups, and more often looked the other way when American-related business interests meddled with Central and South American politics. It’s probably supported death squads both directly and indirectly. The “Good Neighbor Policy” was from the start a hollow reed.
I find all this reprehensible and deplorable. It angers me that my country has done these things.
BUT AGAIN, Alan… two wrongs do NOT make a right. Cuba has, in fact, acted in fomenting violence in other countries–and its oppressed, tortured, and murdered its own. That is WRONG, just as the US has been WRONG at times for the actions it has taken or supported in Latin America.
But no, I do not “objectively” see that Che has less blood on his hands than “most other mainstream heroes”… I’d have to first hear who you mean by this—which “mainstream heroes?” And what does it matter who has more or less blood on their hands? Is it a contest, a sort of murderous golf game where the one with the least blood staining him wins?
You no doubt will give me an argument that because people have died due to American policy in Latin America, that this is worse than what Che did.
I cannot nor will I argue that it is somehow excusable to bring about the death of people by distant policy, as the US has done. But the US has never sanctioned nor supported nor caused wholesale atrocities in Latin America AS policy. Does this make a difference? I suppose to someone in Latin America it does not. But this isn’t REALLY the point. America’s actions are not and were not some LICENSE for Che to do what HE did. No American president ever ordered citizens, of this nation or of any nation anywhere else, including Latin America, to be dragged out and shot summarily. And up until the recent Bush administration, I could say that no American president had ever ordered anyone to be tortured, either.
Well, be that as it may, there is only so much relevancy to this argument, in what one did or the other. The point is that Che DID what he did and it WAS murder—and it WAS wrong because it was a criminal act, a barbaric act—putting people (who are in your power utterly) to death, because they do not agree with you, is an act of unforgivable barbarism. Period.
June 2nd, 2009 at 2:17 pm
Peruviangtt (177)
I think Malcolm might have heard of democracy and a fair justice system, it’s progressing almost everywhere in Latin America, but we had to wait until the end of the Cold War for that to be a choice. Prior to that it was either revolution or right wing government. It seems to me that Malcolm and docflamingo consider Che from a certain historic perspective, i.e., a revolutionary hero who did what he had to do and if you are against it, well then you are for the power in place (democracy was not an option). You, from the other hand, might see him as an historic figure from a sad past, who covered his hands in blood in the shinning path towards revolution (sorry, I couldn’t avoid it).
Randall
I have followed this webpage for quite some time now, and I almost always tend to agree with you (I had some issues with your position about the English language and why it’s the actual lingua franca, but that was a long time ago). But your discussion with Malcolm and docflamingo is not going to be very productive if you continue to call the Che “Guavara” when that’s not really his name or if you tell that he murdered thousands of people, because even if your arguments make sense, those two things can make you seem as an anti Che histeric. The number of people deaths attributed to him vary greatly. He stated prior to his executions that he had killed 2,000 CIA operatives (the biggest estimation), but that really sounds like bravado to me. Other figures are 1000, 400… But the higher documented number I have found is 216 people executed by him or under his authority in Cuba (http://cubaarchive.org/home/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&lang=sp&id=38). The source seems believable, not contaminated either by Che apologists nor anti Che hysteria. Of those, 164 were during the time he was in charge of the La Cabaña prison, and were for the most, people condemned to death by revolutionary tribunals (which didn’t offer a fair trial, but at least share the responsibility for the deaths). The Che, of course is responsible of far more deaths than the documented ones, but we are still far away from the thousands you claim.
I think precision is important, because you took the task to demystify a “sacred” figure for a lot of Latin-American leftists. I certainly agree with you that the guy killed too many innocents. In military operations, his orders were: “If in doubt, kill”. He was an important part of the purges that followed victory. The purges were inevitable, the Batista regime was far away of being a benign one, and the victors justice is never really fair (think about Nuremberg trials, the nazys were condemned for crimes against humanity, a crime “invented” for the trials, and applied retroactively, which isn’t very legal, even if deserved). The victors in Cuba choose the Ley de la Sierra, an expeditious justice system from the 19 century resurrected for the occasion. And Che not only didn’t objected, but he enjoyed it. More that the number of people killed (war is essentially killing people, and as the poet said: 1 death is a tragedy, a million statistics), the biggest objection to Che Guevara as an heroic figure is the fact that he liked to kill, that revenge was as big a motive of his actions as the quest for social justice.
June 2nd, 2009 at 5:57 pm
Anyone who thinks that Cuba during Batista’s rule was a first world nation is a complete idiot. Having Casino’s and fancy hotels run by the Mafia and enjoyed by rich Miami business men is not an indication of a first world country. the vast majority of Cuba was a complete and utter shi*hole with no real housing, education, healthcare, or property ownership for the vast majority of people. Only after the revolution did those areas improve. Don’t get me wrong, it’s not a perfect society, far from it, but it’s a hell of a lot better for MOST Cubans than it was pre ‘59. Alot of the economic trouble has to do with the blockade in any event
June 2nd, 2009 at 6:57 pm
Randall,
I’m sorry, I forgot about you. It seems we’re scarcely even discussing the same things here so let’s give this a fresh start. I was toying around with some idea and realized I already had an old post that never went anyplace which I think will illustrate our differences in a splendidly hostile way:
http://docflamingo.wordpress.com/2009/05/30/kill-the-rich-really-kill-them/
I think you’ll find all the stuff you hated most and then some. Do come by, looking forward.
XOXO, Jason
June 2nd, 2009 at 8:19 pm
Wow, Randall!
Sure, US policies in Latin America are not an excuse for any of the “bad guys” revolutionaries actions, but saying:
But the US has never sanctioned nor supported nor caused wholesale atrocities in Latin America AS policy. Does this make a difference? I suppose to someone in Latin America it does not. But this isn’t REALLY the point. America’s actions are not and were not some LICENSE for Che to do what HE did. No American president ever ordered citizens, of this nation or of any nation anywhere else, including Latin America, to be dragged out and shot summarily. And up until the recent Bush administration, I could say that no American president had ever ordered anyone to be tortured, either.
Well, it seems quite naive to me. And that’s certainly not something I would thought of ever accusing you of. “Containment” was an US policy. It dictated its actions, its support of oppressive regimes, a lot of atrocities. US government supplied military, intelligence and counterinsurgency aid, whether with advisors, direct troop involvement, weapons, training… We know now, because of declassified documents, that the training part included interrogation techniques. And we know that those interrogation techniques consisted in part of torture. The training in the School of Americas consisted also in psyops operations, which are not only throwing leaflets in insurgent zones (which, by the way, in a war zone tend to be used for a more urgent and necessary need: toilet paper), but consist of scaring the hell out of the enemy and its possible supporters, objective obtained by murder and torture…
I know that you don’t deny US intervention, but this intervention was a US policy. And I’m sorry, but the US government sanctioned, supported and caused a lot of atrocities. I know that the US, the people, didn’t, but the government did.
And a US president never ordering the death of individuals? Well, the prez is the guy that decides those policies. Nixon ordered to smash a certain SOB (Allende), well, that guy didn’t survived long this decision. When the CIA took the task of murdering Fidel Castro, it wasn’t its decision, it was the president. Sure, the president doesn’t have the right to order to drag out and shot summarily people… anymore, but that is quite recent (well, he still can, but he has to ask Congress). And about torture… whenever a guy was wanted for “interrogation” in the context of counterinsurgency, that meant torture.
So, of course, the prez never dragged himself a guy by the hair, put it against the wall, and blew his brains out. The US president was never a warden in a prison where people condemned to death penalty were executed. But orders were sometime given, it is naive to think otherwise. You are battling, like I said before, against one of the Latin American symbols of resistance to US oppression. A lot of people might know than the USSR was bloodier, but that does not mean that the USA weren’t ruthless. And when talking about morality, you are going to loose a hell lot of points if it appears that you are defending US actions.
June 3rd, 2009 at 4:23 am
In all honesty, the whole thing of “two wrongs don’t make a right” always sounds like bullshit to me.
Not because I believe two wrongs indeed make a right, but it’s because of this:
The claim that “two wrongs don’t make a right” claims that to accept the lesser of two evils is shortsighted.
But the claim itself is short sighted too!
We have one evil, let’s say it’s as evil as a 5
And we have another evil, let’s say it’s a 3
These two evils combined make an 8
That’s how evil it is!!
Now, with this example of Cuba, we keep talking about how “Castro’s and Che’s actions are not justified” and shit like that.
They sure as hell weren’t as bad as Batista, but they were still bad, so let’s say they’re evil 2.
FIRST SCENARIO: 5 + 3 = 8
SECOND SCENARIO:5 + 2 = 7
But no, replacing an evil with a lesser evil is somehow more evil. How does that work out?
Some might claim I’m apologetic about Che, but by saying that how are they not apologetic about Batista?
They ARE saying, after all, that the Cuban revolution wasn’t justifiable because it was bad, which cannot be divorced from excusing the even worse regime and all the atrocities they would have committed in the future, unless someone would be stupid enough as to believe Batista would say “know what? I’ll be a good guy now”
June 3rd, 2009 at 9:38 am
Alan:
I’m sorry, but I find your logic completely flawed. And rather hard to fathom, to be frank.
“The claim that “two wrongs don’t make a right” claims that to accept the lesser of two evils is shortsighted.”
Could you explain that? How is it “shortsighted?” And how does “two wrongs not make a right” have anything to do with accepting or not accepting “the lesser of two evils?”
“Now, with this example of Cuba, we keep talking about how “Castro’s and Che’s actions are not justified” and shit like that.”
It’s hardly “shit,” Alan. The murder, torture, and oppression of people isn’t to be dismissed. I suspect that’s a big part of your problem. You’re all too willing to dismiss it if one philosophy does it, and one set of people who cleave to that philosophy do it, but you condemn it when a different philosophy, and others do it.
“They sure as hell weren’t as bad as Batista,”
EXCUSE ME. How were they “not as bad as Batista?” How do you quantify this? On the basis of what? The number of people murdered? Or do we talk about how many people have been imprisoned, tortured, etc.?
And even if it were so, where do we get off with this? The implication you make is that because Batista was worse, that makes the actions and policies of Fidel (and Che, since he supported those actions and policies and participated in them) excusable, even commendable. This is absurd.
“But no, replacing an evil with a lesser evil is somehow more evil. How does that work out?”
Again, your logic here is quite simply non-sensical. It seems based on a premise that Castro was not as bad as Batista—which is arguable and subjective, and not a “fact”… and moreover, it seems to suggest that you excuse one for doing similarly bad things, as long as, in your eyes, the quantity is somehow less.
“Some might claim I’m apologetic about Che, but by saying that how are they not apologetic about Batista?”
And again—that question is UTTERLY lacking in logic. One does not impact upon the other. It is not an “either-or” proposition. By labeling you an apologist for Che, that does not make me or anyone else an apologist for Batista—the one has nothing to do with the other. Why and how do you think it does? Logically you simply haven’t a leg to stand on with that.
“They ARE saying, after all, that the Cuban revolution wasn’t justifiable because it was bad,”
NO, Alan… that is where you DO NOT LISTEN. You seem stuck in this mode of thought where it can only be ONE OR THE OTHER and “if you’re not with me then you’re against me.” That is an absurdity and not logical in the slightest.
It was, in fact, entirely understandable that people rose up in revolt against the corrupt regime of Batista, and the people had a right to do so, and that was commendable.
But it NEEDN’T have been carried out the way it was—by replacing ONE oppressive, murderous regime with ANOTHER. Why do you limit your thinking to ONLY that choice?
June 3rd, 2009 at 10:06 am
ULMFLB:
“your discussion with Malcolm and docflamingo is not going to be very productive if you continue to call the Che “Guavara” when that’s not really his name”
Excuse me? How is that NOT his name?
“or if you tell that he murdered thousands of people, because even if your arguments make sense, those two things can make you seem as an anti Che histeric.”
Okay, let me see if I can follow your logic here, as twisted as it is. If I refer to Ernesto Guevara as “Che Guevara,” that somehow makes me an anti-Che hysteric. And if I present a sensible argument that he was responsible for the murder of thousands of people… that too makes me an anti-Che hysteric.
I see.
Can you explain that to me again, so that it makes some semblance of sense?
“The number of deaths attributed to him vary greatly.”
Yes it does. You elect to go with the smaller number. Your choice in doing so is based on no greater or more valid evidence than my choice in saddling him with the larger number.
But leave that aside. I would ask you instead WHAT YOUR POINT IS in this. Is it your contention then that acknowledging that he murdered HUNDREDS instead of THOUSANDS would make me seem LESS of an anti-Che hysteric? And is it your contention–which you appear to imply, that murdering hundreds is somehow better or more excusable than murdering thousands? Is it not simply a WRONG action regardless of HOW MANY victims suffered the consequence?
“I think precision is important,”
It is, yes. But to what end do you wish to carry this precision? Again—are you telling me that there is some kind of intrinsic difference between murdering hundreds on the one hand, and thousands on the other?
There is precision, and there is splitting hairs. You’d be happier perhaps if I phrased it as Che having killed “hundreds” instead of “thousands.” But even if you’re correct in this—which is by no means firmly established—then what DOES that accomplish, other than serve the truth—which I agree is a good thing, of course… but where do YOU then go with that? What’s the next step? It seems to me, from the context, that you mean to continue to set up an apologist frame for Che, by advancing from the premise that he only killed “a few” people and that this was in a cause supported by others and joined in by others, and so on. And it’s THAT that I refuse to stand for.
“because you took the task to demystify a “sacred” figure for a lot of Latin-American leftists.”
I am not interested in a who is “sacred” to Latin American leftists. NO figure should be “sacred,” that’s the very problem we’re dealing with here. And least of all a figure who murdered people callously and deliberately, with apparent joy over it, should not be held “sacred” at all.
“the victors justice is never really fair (think about Nuremberg trials, the nazys were condemned for crimes against humanity, a crime “invented” for the trials, and applied retroactively, which isn’t very legal, even if deserved).”
And how was that NOT “fair”? Elaborate on that.
In point of fact, yes, the legal concept of a “crime against humanity” was more or less “invented” for the Nuremburg trials—but this was because no such crimes had previously been so egregiously carried out on the basis of clear policy and determination by the government. Atrocities were part and parcel of mankind, of course—but previously they’d been isolated, incidental, or, if they WERE policy-based, they were not reachable by any form of justice, for correction. The Nuremburg trials were the first time in history that we faced BOTH a clear, delineated POLICY of horrific crimes carried out at the DIRECTION of the state AND the opportunity to apply justice to those responsible.
The charge then was not “unfair” in its “invention,” it was in fact QUITE fair—it was an application of justice instead of simply taking men out to be shot summarily, and it was made necessary AS a legal concept by the actions and policies of these men, where prior to that time it had not been forced as a legal issue when it was possible to do so.
“the biggest objection to Che Guevara as an heroic figure is the fact that he liked to kill, that revenge was as big a motive of his actions as the quest for social justice.”
That is much more than an “objection.” That alone ought to NEGATE him AS a heroic figure. Do you not see this?
June 3rd, 2009 at 1:06 pm
ULMFLB:
“Well, it seems quite naive to me. And that’s certainly not something I would thought of ever accusing you of.”
Then don’t do it, because I’m not.
I know full well that the CIA was responsible for many a nasty act during the Cold War, and probably still to this day. I don’t excuse it or okay it, it’s reprehensible.
““Containment” was an US policy.”
Yes it was, regrettably. Though not every aspect of “containment” was regrettable. Some of it was good and just and served a good cause. But certainly by no means did all of it do so.
“It dictated its actions, its support of oppressive regimes, a lot of atrocities. US government supplied military, intelligence and counterinsurgency aid, whether with advisors, direct troop involvement, weapons, training…”
Correct.
“We know now, because of declassified documents, that the training part included interrogation techniques. And we know that those interrogation techniques consisted in part of torture. The training in the School of Americas consisted also in psyops operations, which are not only throwing leaflets in insurgent zones (which, by the way, in a war zone tend to be used for a more urgent and necessary need: toilet paper), but consist of scaring the hell out of the enemy and its possible supporters, objective obtained by murder and torture…”
Yes, I will give you this point. Perfectly true.
So let’s back up then. We have a question remaining. We would agree that certain kinds of actions are reprehensible, immoral, unethical, even criminal.
How then, does this excuse for a moment or even slightly the actions of men like Che?
“And a US president never ordering the death of individuals?”
I didn’t refer to individuals. I referred to the president not simply ordering groups of people to be taken out and shot. It was a loose point, not a specific one.
“You are battling, like I said before, against one of the Latin American symbols of resistance to US oppression.”
And I’m telling you that THAT ISN’T THE POINT.
The point is that a man like that SHOULDN’T be a symbol of anything except what is wrong with murderous, arrogant types being allowed the power to determine the life and death of others.
It was WRONG when the US employed proxies to go out and terrorize and kill, and it was WRONG when Che did it, and it was wrong when Fidel did it. As it is wrong WHENEVER it is done. Period.
WHY should a man like that become a hero to ANYONE? That is my point.
Why is that kind of *ideology* even still kicked around in this world when it’s been discredited TIME AND TIME AGAIN and shown for the evil it creates? Why does anyone idealize someone who served such an ideology regardless of is ostensible reasons for doing so—particularly when by your own admission he literally ENJOYED killing?
This is just pure nonsense.
“A lot of people might know than the USSR was bloodier, but that does not mean that the USA weren’t ruthless. And when talking about morality, you are going to loose a hell lot of points if it appears that you are defending US actions.”
I don’t see where I DID defend US actions. Rather, I’ve been harped on repeatedly because I refuse to concede that Che Guevara was anything but a monster.
June 3rd, 2009 at 2:49 pm
180 ULMFLB
I´m guessing you guessed from my name that I am from Peru (and actually lived in Venezuela for the first 18 years of my life) so I am quite well versed in LA history and politics, thanks.
I do understand your point about historical perspective. I revolution to topple an authoritarian/totalitarian state (whether it be right or left wing) I can understand. What I cannot understand or excuse in any way, shape or form, is the random and willful MURDER of political dissenters. If they were fighting against an establishment that oppressed the people, how can you condone the oppression of people who do not agree with your views? It´s hypocritical, and that new government should be equally condemned for its atrocities.
El Che tortured and murdered political dissenters. His revolution was victorious, they were no longer at war. He became the new oppressor and that is what I cannot accept.
And I´m crossing my fingers that your “shining path to revolution” reference was not meant as some sort compliment of a terrorist group. Unless you lived here and lived through it, you have absolutely no right to advocate in their favor. They are a group of terrorists: rapists, murderers and, as a recent addition to their activities, drug lords.
June 3rd, 2009 at 3:00 pm
Randall (186):
I think he´s saying that you may have misspelled GUEVARA somewhere (hence his “Guavara” in quotes)though I fail to see where.
In any case, I applaud your posts. It brings tears to my eyes whenever I hear someone from one of my countries (either Peru or Venezuela) hold el Che up as some kind of hero. Do they not understand that cold-blooded murder is wrong? How can you excuse killing innocent people?
Why do they not see the damage he and his ilk have done? They have bred guerrilla and terrorist groups who have done nothing more than plant bombs to kill innocent people (my heart breaks every time I think of Tarata), rape, kill, extort and blackmail all in the name of some “revolution”?
And dont even get me started on what Chavez (a Castro and Che worshipper) is doing to Venezuela… Damn asshole. (Sorry for the word everyone, I just couldnt in all good conscious call him a simple asshat).
June 3rd, 2009 at 4:46 pm
Randall, it’s so simple, I can’t believe you’re trying to challenge it:
There was Batista. Then there was Castro.
You complain about Castro.
Despite the numerous times I have said much of his rule is absolutely unforgivable, you believe that ALL OF IT IS UNFORGIVABLE.
First of all, that’s very black and white, and in fact deserving of the word bullshit.
Second of all, if you don’t feel Castro’s regime is excusable at all, even for the fact that at least Cuba didn’t suffer as much now as it had under Batista, then what the hell are you wanting out of this?
Suppose Castro had failed. Suppose Batista had stayed in power. Would you actually enjoy this?
Would you find no problem in even bigger human rights violations and even more authoritarianism simply because it managed to avoid another violent coup?
June 3rd, 2009 at 8:12 pm
Alan Jimenez (190):
Here goes again… The point is not that the ENTIRE Castro government is a disaster and unforgivable (though that too is debatable) the point is that el Che should not be IDOLIZED in any way, shape or form.
A revolution would have been OK, random torture and excecutions of political dissenters IS NOT OK. An oppressive, totalitarian government IS NOT OK. It is NEVER OK.
No one is advocating that Batista should have stayed in power. That’s not the point. The point is this:
ONCE A GOVERNMENT TURNS OPPRESIVE, AUTHORITATIVE AND TOTALITARIAN IT IS NOT GOOD.
June 4th, 2009 at 1:24 am
GTT:
The “shining path to revolution” reference was of course a joke. I was going for irony but I guess my post was too serious for it to be evident. I think that no one better than a Peruvian can understand how bloody that “shinning path” can get.
Randall:
I guess I wasn’t very clear. I apologize for this, I’m not a native speaker and my English is quite rusty.
What I understood of your position is that the actions of the Che, even if maybe “justified” by his particular historical context, are simply immoral. A murderer is not a nice guy, even if he likes puppies and helps olds ladies cross the street. And he’s certainly not a hero.
And contrary to what I may have shown, I don’t disagree with you on that. If I decided to comment on your comments (besides that it’s quite boring to write and don’t get any answer…), it is because I think you have a valid point, and I prefer far more a debate about morality vs. duty, legality vs. legitimacy, well that kind of stuff to continue the black or white debate. I’m more of a “everything is gray” kind of person.
But, even if I don’t agree with the idealization of the Che, even if I think that he is really not a good example of what a hero could be, he still is considered that way. And I understood than that was the reason that made you comment this list: the idealization of a butcher. But, let’s for example consider a guy I know. His parents used to live in South America. His father was a journalist, whose articles weren’t very liked by the military regime. So he fled with his pregnant wife. He managed to arrive to Central America when some goons from Operation Condor caught him. He disappeared. His wife managed to escape and delivered her baby on the run, in the jungle. The doctor she managed to find used forceps, and if the brain of my buddy works just fine, the rest of his body not as much…
So now, how do I tell this guy that he should take the poster of Che out of his wall? Certainly not by calling him “Guavara” (which might be just an honest mistake, damned phonetics!, or the result of an overzealous stupid spellchecker). He is just going to reply that I don’t know a thing about what I’m talking about.
Neither by telling him that the Che killed thousands of people. He is just going to think that I have to check my sources (he is also a journalist, like his dad) and that my poli sci teacher was McCarthy. If he’s in a good mood, he might ask me if I also think that Che Guevara used to eat babies for lunch…
And, I will definitely loose him if I ever seem to imply any kind of moral superiority of the US or its presidents.
So, when I was clumsily and boringly arguing about the number of victims, I wasn’t trying to say that murdering hundreds is somehow better or more excusable than murdering thousands, I was just trying to reach an undisputed number. Because when you try to unnail a Christ-like figure from a cross, you better come prepared.
With those “preparations” in mind, I managed to somehow talk about Nuremberg trials (I promise you that if we ever talk again I’ll give a better structure to my comment). My point with that, besides proving once again Godwin’s Law right, was to illustrate the unfairness of the victors’ law, Vae Victis! What happened was to be expected in Cuba. As it happened in what was considered the trial of the century untill O.J. went for a ride (I remember the headlines: End of the Trial of the Century: OJ is innocent! Sometimes an idiot finds a pen…). Now I realize that this was a very bad example. Because of my cultural background (part surrendering French weasel, part Mexican wetback beaner), I always considered the irretroactivity of the law a basic human right, an indispensable condition to assure a fair trial. It has been present in all French Constitutions since 1789 (and French love to write Constitutions!) and in Mexico it can only exist if it benefit the defense. It’s, I think, Article 11 or 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948. But, after reading a little, it appears that this is not the case in countries governed by natural law…
Anyway, by all that I’m not pretending that Nuremberg trials were not necessary. They were indispensable. Like I said in an earlier post, good and evil, right and wrong, don’t exist per se. They exist only if we struggle to make them exist. History has showed us time after time that almost anyone of us can became a monster if given the chance. We have to convince ourselves that morals standards are supremely important, at least for self preservation.
So, I think that our positions are not really very different. I guess I just had issues with your approach. Which I stated quite clumsily.
And let’s be honest, even if I don’t idolize the man, anymore, and I know the many issues he had, I still feel respect for what it once represented, the symbol, not the man: the possibility of a change, the resistance to oppression, justice… I sometimes miss the black or white view of my youth. I used to have a hero, or at least a cool poster, now, like a lot of children of Latin America, I just have a gray reminder of a bloody past in which our destiny was never in our hands…
June 4th, 2009 at 9:00 am
ULMFLB (192):
It´s all good… I was hoping that was a joke of some sort so I´m relieved to know that I was right in reserving opinion. The Shining Path is indeed a terrorist group and that is exactly what scares me about leftist, “revolutionary” guerrilla groups. For most EQUALITY and JUSTICE are only a front and their true intentions are to seize and hold power by any means necessary. Scary, scary folks.
As for your friend, I completely agree that military, rightist governments are certainly not the solution. In most cases in LatAm they were to be feared. I will even concede that in some cases, a revolution or coup might even be called for. However:
“So now, how do I tell this guy that he should take the poster of Che out of his wall? ”
How about telling him that the oppression he clearly is against was in any way ameliorated? Do people in Cuba now have freedom? Are they allowed to write and circulate a dissenting opinion? Are they even allowed to leave their own country?!
Or reminding him that stories like that of his father, a political dissenter, were just as rampant in the days of el Che? How many fathers were tortured and murdered because they did not agree with the “new revolutionary government”? Even if not thousands then certainly hundreds… How many fathers were in those hundreds and does that make it acceptable?
El Che might not have eaten babies for lunch (and that silly argument makes my hairs stand up on end), but he certainly had no compunction about sending people to be summarily shot.
So now all this begs the question… Why does he have an oppressive murderer on his wall? Should we protest against the military government that murdered his father but idolize the new, revolutionary government that murdered hundreds of other fathers? Does it matter on what side of the political spectrum these monsters are? It shouldnt.
June 4th, 2009 at 9:07 am
Alan Jimenez:
Alan, I had you pegged right as it turns out. YOU DON’T LISTEN. You don’t pay attention to what I’ve said, you just latch on to something you THINK you’ve heard and run with it.
I would guess that all this is the case PROBABLY because you are polarized and won’t allow yourself to deviate from whatever dogma it is that rules you.
“There was Batista. Then there was Castro.
You complain about Castro.”
I’ve condemned Batista REPEATEDLY as well, Alan—how is it you didn’t notice this?
“Despite the numerous times I have said much of his rule is absolutely unforgivable, you believe that ALL OF IT IS UNFORGIVABLE.”
AND WHERE DID I EVER ONCE SAY THAT?
And what IS this Alan? You’re getting THIS worked up over a difference between “much” of his rule and “all” of his rule?
What EXACTLY is your point?
If a ruler does terrible things, commits crimes, murders, tortures, etc.—then yes, his rule is wrong. Where and why are you splitting hairs on this?
“Second of all, if you don’t feel Castro’s regime is excusable at all, even for the fact that at least Cuba didn’t suffer as much now as it had under Batista,”
WHICH AGAIN IS STRICTLY *YOUR* OPINION AND IS *NOT* ESTABLISHED FACT.
“Suppose Castro had failed. Suppose Batista had stayed in power. Would you actually enjoy this?”
AGAIN ALAN—WHY does it have to be EITHER OR with you? WHY? Why does it have to be a choice between one brutal, despotic dictator and another? Why do you seem satisfied with that? Measure up which one of them brutalizes the people just a tad less, and THAT one is your preference? You honestly can’t see how unbelievably ABSURD that is?
NO, I wouldn’t have “enjoyed” seeing Batista remain in power—but that is IRRELEVANT to the question of whether CASTRO then should have taken power. CASTRO shouldn’t have either! Rather, a revolution truly based in democracy and a respect for individual rights and the plight of the poor WOULD have been the real preference.
YOU seem to be laboring under the belief that violent, bloody purges, executions, tortures, etc. are just to be expected and excused in this instance, and perhaps in others, because that’s just what happens in revolutions. BULLSHIT. Violence will of course happen; revolutions rarely occur bloodlessly. It’s a goddamn pity. But it’s more of a pity that many people have HAD to resort to revolution to obtain justice, freedom, and dignity—and even more of a pity that all to many of those revolutions have failed and ended up saddling those people with dictators who are just as bad, or worse.
YOU want this to be about some difference between Batista and Castro that you believe decides everything—that Batista was “worse” than Castro, and thus Castro (and by extension, Che) is excused from the things he did, because at least he was toppling a worse dictator and his regime has not been as “bad” as Batista’s.
But all this is a fallacy; to begin with, the notion that Castro is “better” than Batista is subjective and is NOT a matter of established fact. Secondly, it isn’t relevant anyway—Batista was bad, and Castro is bad. It is not an “either-or” proposition. BOTH should be condemned.
June 4th, 2009 at 9:28 am
GTT:
“I think he´s saying that you may have misspelled GUEVARA somewhere (hence his “Guavara” in quotes)though I fail to see where.”
So…. that would make me an anti-Che hysteric? Because I forgot how to spell the guy’s name?
“In any case, I applaud your posts. It brings tears to my eyes whenever I hear someone from one of my countries (either Peru or Venezuela) hold el Che up as some kind of hero. Do they not understand that cold-blooded murder is wrong? How can you excuse killing innocent people?”
I consistently wonder this about Latin Americans… why do their political heroes often seem to be murderous thugs? Not always, but often. What happened between Bolivar and the 20th century, to cause this? (Though even Bolivar made himself a dictator in the end, sadly).
No doubt the US hasn’t been much help. Or, rather… helpful with one hand while it beats down with the other.
“And dont even get me started on what Chavez (a Castro and Che worshipper) is doing to Venezuela… Damn asshole. (Sorry for the word everyone, I just couldnt in all good conscious call him a simple asshat).”
Yes… I think Chavez IS an asshole, and no doubt more sinister than we yet know… but he *is* a funny bastard, I always give him that.
June 4th, 2009 at 10:17 am
Randall:
No, misspelling his name does not make you an anti-Che histeric… I think ULMFLB was just splitting hairs. Absolutely meaningless to the argument but I responded based on the whole:
“your discussion with Malcolm and docflamingo is not going to be very productive if you continue to call the Che “Guavara” when that’s not really his name”
Excuse me? How is that NOT his name?”
In any case, regardng the rest of your post… I´m Latin American and I seem to ask myself that very question quite often. Not only murderous thugs, but criminals of all sorts. In Peru we currently have a democratically elected President who was once a fugitive from corruption charges living in exile. It was only after the statute of limitations was up that he came back, ran for president again, and won. Granted in the end he was the “lesser of two evils” when it came down to him or Humala (and trust me, voting for Alan made me feel almost disgusted with myself for a long time afterwards). The question is this: why do we have to come down to that choice? Why are our options reduced to either a leftist thug who spouted hate speech at every turn (not to mention ties to Chavez) OR an ex-President who not only bankrupted the country the last time he was in power, he was on the run from corruption charges?
You want my honest opinion? LatAm has a VERY short memory. For some reason our people do not remember the past and are thus condemned to repeat it (to use a very trite phrise). We swing from one end of the extreme political spectrum to the other. We complain ad nauseum about our current government and then when the new government begins we start to complain about it and only fondly recall the good times of the last one. Which then means that by the time new elections come around, we vote in the previous government, and so on…
Now, one of the reasons for this (according to me at least) is that we´ve been given very little freedom to govern ourselves and choose our own leaders in the past which has evolved into this “take it till you have to revolt” attitude causing us to swing like madmen from one ideology to the next. We have yet to find that elusive stable middle ground. Just some thoughts…
And as for Chavez… Yes, he does almost seem funny (in a ha-ha, that guy is freaking INSANE kind of way) when you seem him from outside. He is, however, not so funny when you have family still living in that country. Where my brothers cant get ID papers because they are on the list of people who voted NO against his proposals… or where my nephews cant get passports because the damn freak has decided that children now BELONG to the government and you are basically kidnapping them if you try to take them out of the country…or when you notice the increase in violence and crime because you get news almost every week that someone you know has been either robbed or shot dead…
Believe me, it´s not so funny then.
June 4th, 2009 at 10:25 am
Crap… Sorry about the many spelling and grammar mistakes! I have to finish a presentation for my boss in about 1 hour so I posted in haste without bothering to proof-read!
June 4th, 2009 at 11:00 am
Randall, your last post directed at me is just proving what I’ve been saying all along: you can’t look at it in a more objective way.
It has already been said (by people other than me) that the only documentation of ‘murders of dissenters’ can’t be factually placed any higher than the couple hundreds. And it has been said (by me, but I can and have given the sources) that these ‘murders’ were in fact trials that ‘were similar in execution and consistent with the Nuremberg Trials’
At any small war, even such as that of the Falklands, you saw worse war crime trials.
So much for the idea that Che was a despot after the civil war. Yet you have not addressed this directly.
And no, I’m not all about EITHER/OR. But there’s Batista, who blew, and Castro, who blew a little less to say the least. If you like neither, then what the hell would you have wanted? A bad decision is still a bad decision, but even more than that it is still a decision. Criticism is only good for its own sake, but reaches nowhere without anything creative as an alternative.
From an OBJECTIVE POINT OF VIEW I can see that Castro was a big step up from Batista.
From an OBJECTIVE POINT OF VIEW I can see that Che is less of a mass murderer than most other heroes ranging from Churchill to Grant.
But what about you? I keep asking you what’s your alternative if you don’t like either historical choice (a third option – exactly the opposite from an EITHER/OR situation which you’re accusing me of having demanded)
You can’t objectively see how Cuba at least was better with Castro? (because no, the progress from Batista to Castro is not subjective just because you say it is. There are enough variables we can introduce to prove that Castro’s government has been consistently better)
Or are you not happy unless everything is already perfect? Progress means nothing because it implies there are still things that you find wrong and haven’t been addressed yet?
June 4th, 2009 at 11:06 am
GTT – I hear you – hang in there
June 4th, 2009 at 12:57 pm
Alan Jimenez:
Alan, calling yourself “objective” doesn’t make it so. And every “objective” point you offer up here is in fact nothing of the kind, but is rather entirely SUBJECTIVE.
“your last post directed at me is just proving what I’ve been saying all along: you can’t look at it in a more objective way.”
How so? I’m beginning to think you don’t know what “objective” means.
But at any rate, what is the use of trying to “objectively” judge the actions of any historical figure, if that “objectivity” is of a brand that completely negates context and circumstance? If I’m understanding you correctly, you are saying Che was better because fewer people died at his hands than the number of people who died because of the actions and decisions of certain “heroes” like Winston Churchill. I’d be curious just how you ARE framing this and what you’re basing it on–but at any rate, this is simply absurd. You WANT Che’s actions to MERELY be those of a soldier and no different from the actions of any victor in any war… and in that you are guilty of complete and utter BULLSHIT and you ought to know it.
“It has already been said (by people other than me) that the only documentation of ‘murders of dissenters’ can’t be factually placed any higher than the couple hundreds.”
That is NOT “fact,” that is a CLAIM. The documented evidence only goes so far, and there are strong suggestions that it is far too low.
But AGAIN Alan, what ARE you saying? Are you saying that it’s okay to murder dissenters, etc., so long as you only kill a few hundred, and not a thousand or more? YOU’VE never answered THAT question.
“And it has been said (by me, but I can and have given the sources) that these ‘murders’ were in fact trials that ‘were similar in execution and consistent with the Nuremberg Trials’”
RUBBISH.
EVERY TIME some petty minded atrocity apologist wants to disguise their own disengenuousness, they pull this bullshit about the Nuremburg trials out of their ass and wave it around to startle the uninitiated and dull-witted. IN FACT, Alan, there are NO parallels with the Nuremberg trials and NO CONSISTENCY with them WHATSOEVER. The only consistency is that there were “trials,” if you can call what happened in Cuba that (which I don’t) and that people ended up dead. There the similarities END.
That the Nuremburg trials had some questionable legal aspects is something that has been debated by legal scholars ever since the trials occurred. There is nevertheless a scholarly consensus on the issue, and the debate has almost exclusively centered around minor points, except where a few have questioned the efficacy of the trials in the first place. But most of THAT is based on the idea that sovereignty does NOT extend past national borders, and that there is no such thing as a “collective sovereignty” which would allow for such a thing as the Nuremberg trials to take place. A technical sticking point, but one that most scholars have placed in the nebulous zone of difference between “nationhood” and what is NOT nationhood, and the determination has remained that a collective group of nations has the right to try those who have committed crimes against humanity as a whole, as long as justice is served properly and procedurely by common law that respects the rights of the accused. Hence the World Court in the Hague. The interesting thing is that most of those who have tried to challenge the consensus on this issue have been those who were brought to trial for crimes against humanity or who were accused of such crimes. There has been far less challenges from any other circles, and nothing of any substantial nature.
There has NEVER been, however, ANY such tacitly-approving consensus on the kinds of show trials and summary trials conducted under the circumstances that we are talking about here, though, and certainly not for what Che was responsible for. MANY legal scholars have condemned it as illegal and unethical and criminal, and recognized the “trials” for what they were—simple and brutal purges carried out against dissenters and “enemies of the state” by a despotic group of ideologicall dogmatic revolutionaries.
“At any small war, even such as that of the Falklands, you saw worse war crime trials.”
That, again, is YOUR opinion, and is entirely subjective, and NOT fact.
“So much for the idea that Che was a despot after the civil war. Yet you have not addressed this directly.”
I HAVE, REPEATEDLY. The fact that you refuse to listen to it or acknowledge it does not remove the truth nor can you ignore it into going away.
“And no, I’m not all about EITHER/OR.”
Bullshit you’re not. You’ve as much as admitted it here and elsewhere.
“But there’s Batista, who blew, and Castro, who blew a little less to say the least.”
AND AGAIN—THAT is YOUR opinion. It is not BY ANY MEANS established as a FACT. You WANT to believe it, and so it must be so. Period. THAT is not “objectivity,” that is in fact as subjective as one can possibly be.
Moreover, you just got through saying you are NOT “either-or,” but you then launch right into the statement that “Batista blew,” but “Castro blew less.” You are, therefore, clearly asking for a choice to be made between the two. THAT is “either-or.” And I’m telling you, how about just ONCE, for a change in Latin America, you NOT choose between ONE murderous ideology or the other?
“If you like neither, then what the hell would you have wanted?”
I’ve SAID what I would have wanted and would have been better, by FAR. TRUE democracy. The rule of law. Freedom. A respect for the rights of individuals. Fairness and justice and a society that had MUCH less of a vast gulf between an EXTREMELY tiny minority of the rich and a VAST majority of the poor.
“A bad decision is still a bad decision, but even more than that it is still a decision.”
THERE, RIGHT THERE, is your problem, Alan. You can conceive ONLY of a “decision,” and to hell with it if it’s a bad one, and in fact you can ONLY accept a bad one–or a choice between one bad and one seemingly a bit less bad. You don’t seem to be capable of conceiving of a GOOD solution.
YES, Alan, good solutions are TOUGH. They hurt. They require hard work. They require brains and respect and civility and for a communal agreement to live by the law, and a law AGREED upon by everyone. They require an informed and vigorous citizenry who participate in their solution and do not merely have it “handed” to them or forced upon them.
“Criticism is only good for its own sake, but reaches nowhere without anything creative as an alternative.”
The alternative is there for all to see and accept. It requires courage and perseverence to accept it, that’s all. The Cuban people could have demanded Democracy. Castro could have been a democrat. He could have defeated a despotic, corrupt dictatorship and brought freedom to his country. Che Guevara could have joined him in that. Instead they chose to be despots and murderers and ideologically totalitarian.
“From an OBJECTIVE POINT OF VIEW I can see that Castro was a big step up from Batista.”
NO, that is NOT “objective.” THAT is an OPINION, and NOTHING ELSE.
“From an OBJECTIVE POINT OF VIEW I can see that Che is less of a mass murderer than most other heroes ranging from Churchill to Grant.”
And THAT is the same–an opinion… and a piss-poorly informed one at that. Tell ME just how Churchill and Grant were “mass murderers.” Illustrate this. Prove it.
“But what about you? I keep asking you what’s your alternative if you don’t like either historical choice (a third option – exactly the opposite from an EITHER/OR situation which you’re accusing me of having demanded)”
AGAIN, I’ve given you MY alternative REPEATEDLY. I’ve made it OBVIOUS. Freedom and Democracy and fairness and justice.
“You can’t objectively see how Cuba at least was better with Castro?”
Objectively? No. There is some evidence that Cuba was improved in some respects, and a great deal of evidence that it remained at least as bad in others, if not worse. Is it your contention that a communist dictatorship IS some kind of natural improvement over a rightwing authoritarian one?
AND AGAIN, it keeps going around and around in circles on this point. YOU keep making it into a choice—that I MUST choose Castro or else I’m not “objective” in your eyes, and must perhaps even prefer Batista. That is RIDICULOUS. It is not logical nor is it even RATIONAL.
“(because no, the progress from Batista to Castro is not subjective just because you say it is.”
It certainly isn’t “objective” just because YOU say it is. IN FACT there is a HUGE amount of scholarly work on Cuba which illustrates what misery the country has been in since Castro took power. Whether this misery has lessened since Batista, is slightly better, or is roughly on a par with it–or is even slightly worse—there is NO general agreement on.
“There are enough variables we can introduce to prove that Castro’s government has been consistently better)”
Introduce them, Alan, because you’ll find just as many items and “variables” which would say it is NOT “consistently” better. I would NOT automatically say “consistently worse”… but not all that much “better,” no.
“Or are you not happy unless everything is already perfect?”
And there it is—the other excuse of dictator apologists the world over–used by right wing dictators and ideologues just as often as those on the left. What do you expect, they always say… “perfection”? Perfection right off the bat? No, we have to BUILD towards a better situation, they always claim.
BULLSHIT Alan. No one expects “perfection,” but a willingness to settle for injustice and dictatorship is NOT a good, viable choice as an alternative. THAT is what you’re arguing for—to accept injustice and dictatorship as long as things are just a “little better.”
“Progress means nothing because it implies there are still things that you find wrong and haven’t been addressed yet?”
Do you honestly call 50 years of despotic, ideologically dogmatic Castro rule in Cuba “progress?” Do you honestly think trading ONE miserable dictator for another was “progress” for Cuba? Are your standards set so low that THAT qualifies as “progress” to you? You can envision no better, more efficacious level of “progress” to aspire to, than dictatorship, as long as that dictatorship is a little better at this or that level or is a little less murderous on this or that level?
Unbelievable.
Perhaps if the peoples of Latin America HAD a slightly higher standard for their politics and government, they wouldn’t have suffered under quite as many despots and dictators as they have.
June 4th, 2009 at 1:02 pm
Randall,
The entire basis behind your arguments is obvious: What’s CONVIENANT for the U.S. is what must be defended. Anyone who defies it is evil and must be destroyed; anyone who supports it is good and must be supported.
This is exactly the sort of thinking that led the United States to train hit-squads and run torture schools in El Salvador, to help violently overthrow the democratically elected government of Chile, to let the CIA run drugs into our own country to fund the Contras in Nicaragua, (worse than Castro’s bunch by far) and to play footsy with Manuel Noriega for years then arbitrarily invade his country and remove him by force as soon as he became an embarrassment.
YOU are the reason so many people hate us. Not a right-winger, Randall? I’d never guess that looking at the tripe your spewing here.
June 4th, 2009 at 1:19 pm
docflamingo:
I have met a lot of people on this site who were full of shit, doc, but you take the prize.
“The entire basis behind your arguments is obvious: What’s CONVIENANT for the U.S. is what must be defended.”
Are you f**king kidding me? How in GOD’S NAME do you read that into what I’ve been saying about Che Guevara and Castro?
That you keep trying to paint me as some kind of lumpen American right wing ideologue is almost laughable beyond words. It doesn’t even matter that you don’t me in the slightest and that in fact I am nothing of the kind, but almost the complete opposite–but what’s truly worse is, there is NOT ONE THING I have said anywhere in this thread that could even remotely support this nonsensical view of yours that you keep trying to create out of thin air or pull out of your ass.
“Anyone who defies it is evil and must be destroyed; anyone who supports it is good and must be supported.”
Are you a child? This is how a child argues and speaks–a sophomoric teenager. How old ARE you?
You come back and give evidence for this ridiculous accusation that you’re trying to level on me–that I believe that anyone who “defies the US is evil and must be destroyed,” and “anyone who supports it is good.” I am literally LAUGHING as I read that… it’s so ridiculously and stupidly absurd that it’s really beneath me to even respond to it.
“This is exactly the sort of thinking that led the United States to train hit-squads and run torture schools in El Salvador, to help violently overthrow the democratically elected government of Chile…”
Uh, none of which I’ve denied, doc, and all of which I condemn and call reprehensible. Are you that out of touch with reality that you don’t grasp this?
“YOU are the reason so many people hate us. Not a right-winger, Randall? I’d never guess that looking at the tripe your spewing here.”
I’m fairly certain by now that I’m a good deal older than you and have seen a LOT more of the world and life than you have, “doc.” I am certainly a great deal more mature. It is IMPOSSIBLE for you to find ANYTHING I have said in this thread—or elsewhere—to support this downright CRAZY accusation that I am “right wing” or some kind of typical “Ugly American.” I’d love for you to try. The amusement it would offer would probably be the best laugh I’ve had in weeks.
I wish some of the regulars on the site could be reading your statements and could come in and tell you how off-base and completely whacko you are about this.
Good lord.
June 4th, 2009 at 1:51 pm
202 Randall: Ok…I’ll jump in. You are right, by the way.
docflamingo,
Not sure where you were going with that post other than to flame Randall for no reason. It wasn’t a proper come-back in the slightest.
Randall has been quite clear on where he stands, but you chose to bypass that and post some ridiculous comment.
Please refute with evidence that Randall’s post is wrong or even “right-wing”.
I myself don’t need to add anything since Randall has done a great job.
(Even when he is being a smarty pants to me
)
June 4th, 2009 at 1:52 pm
Randall (202):
Ignore him… He´s proved himself to be nothing more than a troll. All he does is attack anyone and everyone who does not support his ideas and, I dont know if you remember or not but his “ideas” would be laughably asinine if they weren´t tinged with just that bit of crazy that makes them scary…
Remember the whole killing rich people and toruting their children thing? I´m tempted to tell jfrater to just block the lunatic and be done with it.
June 4th, 2009 at 2:24 pm
I’ve been keeping up with your conversation Randall. Even had a read of Doc’s blog.
It is really rather funny; other than me (a confirmed socialist according to the more conservative/republican members of our Lv family), Randall is the most liberal member who regularly posts. He finds most of the West’s (read USA) monetary and social policies from the last 25 years to be abhorrent. He is embarrassed by the New Orleans/Katrina fiasco and the failure of the United States to look after “all” its citizens.
Randall does not engage in hypocrisy (well maybe a bit when it comes to ancient Greeks); his criticism of his own country and his obvious hate for all the horrid things done to further his country’s interests (Nicaragua, El Salvador, Batista and United Fruit, Iraq)should illustrate this.
Although I disagree with Randall – I believe that the rank and file Cubans are in fact better off under Castro than they were with Batista and I also believe that much of Cuba’s poverty has more to do with the US embargo than with Fidel’s monetary policies. I have friends that travel to Cuba on holiday; civilians are educated, they have health care (maybe not great by Canada’s standards, but again they are poor, see above). Does that mean that I think Castro is a good guy? a savior? Of course not. He’s a murdering thug who tortures and imprisons and murders his detractors. It’s just that Batista was worse. The years of embargo have strengthened his hold on Cuba – He has a ready scapegoat for his failures and his successes are seen as much greater than they really are by the populace – because of the Behemoth that he continues to successfully defy.
Che Guevara would be the same as Castro had he not died a martyr. He’d just be some thug dictator who took advantage of political unrest.
June 4th, 2009 at 3:00 pm
ULMFLB:
I’m sorry, with all this other stuff, I hadn’t noticed that you’d responded to me.
“I’m more of a “everything is gray” kind of person.”
I believe in the grey too, of course. I am by no means black and white.
But sometimes things ARE closer to dark grey or very light grey than you might want to allow, ULM, and sometimes things DO resolve down to black or white. It’s never just a sea of grey just as it’s never monochromatic.
“But, even if I don’t agree with the idealization of the Che, even if I think that he is really not a good example of what a hero could be, he still is considered that way. And I understood than that was the reason that made you comment this list: the idealization of a butcher.”
Perhaps, yes. I didn’t write the list, so I can’t speak to that—but I’d bet that’s a fair assessment.
“So now, how do I tell this guy that he should take the poster of Che out of his wall?”
Good question. And I know the answer isn’t easy.
But how about this?
How about that just as a terrible injustice was done to your friend and his family, that injustice committed by Che doesn’t make it any better, nor does it make Che’s injustice “right”?
I understand the thirst for revenge, for justice of ANY kind when proper justice is not available. I can’t, as a human being, condemn that wholly.
But we have to… we HAVE to… be willing to TRY to stick to higher standards. Even if we lose, it’s the only difference between “us” and “them.” We have to try to live by standards and concepts that are right, even when it’s VERY hard–and in fact it’s when it’s HARD that those concepts and standards matter the most.
But I realize that this kind of speechmaking doesn’t always touch the personal. There’s only so much you can do about that.
“Certainly not by calling him “Guavara” (which might be just an honest mistake, damned phonetics!, or the result of an overzealous stupid spellchecker).”
Does that mean something in Spanish that I’m not aware of? It was an honest spelling mistake. I don’t speak Spanish nor do I have anything past the slightest knowledge of the language. My heritage is English, German, Italian and Greek.
“He is just going to reply that I don’t know a thing about what I’m talking about.”
Well yes, people will say that kind of thing. There’s only so much you can do. As an individual. But change has to start somewhere. Trying is what matters.
“Neither by telling him that the Che killed thousands of people. He is just going to think that I have to check my sources (he is also a journalist, like his dad) and that my poli sci teacher was McCarthy.”
Which is ideological and dogmatic. Ideology and dogma are tough to fight; they create closed minds that polarize onto a set of beliefs and refuse to move off of them.
Look… the best way, I would think, is to say that the past is the past. Che is a relic from another era—an era when ideologies of right and left were strangling the world. Both should be buried now. And to some extent they have been. The worst we can do is to try to resurrect them. It’s time to move on. Democracy is what matters now. People being free. Just leave people alone. Life is too fucking short. Let people just be and let them live the way they want. They should help each other too, of course… but that’s the other side of it—people shouldn’t be robbed and oppressed economically, either. Not anymore. Don’t stand for it no matter who’s doing it–the US included.
I’ll tell you as an aside… you know I’m ashamed of a lot of what my government has done over the years. I’m an American, and I don’t like knowing that my government has supported and even encouraged crimes and atrocities ANYWHERE. It is NOT what we’re supposed to be about. That is NOT what our Constitution and Bill of Rights and Declaration are supposed to stand for. All of those crimes and misdeeds are the result of two things—one, economic empire—and the other, a battle over ideology. The former is what all nations do, sadly, when they get power. The latter was an overzealous misconception that we had to “save the world from communism,” when probably after the mid 1950s was a danger that was pretty damn negligible. It was a kind of insanity that got hold of us, and if you want my opinion, it’s because we as a people aren’t geared well to world power and weren’t ready for it. We’re a big, lumbering, stupidly-happy society that has a VERY provincial way of looking at the world, and reality… and then fate handed us the keys to the whole earth, and we went partly mad for a time, thinking we had this terrible enemy to fight when really the enemy was pretty hollow. Not the USSR itself—but the idea of a worldwide wave of communism that could swallow us all. That was never going to happen after Stalin was gone and was hugely unlikely even when he was alive.
I’m almost more ashamed of the thirst for empire that we exhibit–economic empire. It’s almost more shameful because greed is such a despicable vice, but we still seem to revel in it. I wish, sometimes, that it could crumble, so that we could return to just being a small, egalitarian society that once, way, way back in hour history, we were. But that’s not likely to happen.
“And, I will definitely loose him if I ever seem to imply any kind of moral superiority of the US or its presidents.”
well f**k that. I don’t expect anyone to bow to our “moral superiority.” That isn’t necessary or productive.
The fact is that some of these men HAVE been great, moral figures who were decent and honest and tried to do what was right. But all men of power dabble in evil to some degree—it comes with the territory.
“So, when I was clumsily and boringly arguing about the number of victims, I wasn’t trying to say that murdering hundreds is somehow better or more excusable than murdering thousands, I was just trying to reach an undisputed number.”
But from what I understand, that just isn’t possible. Despotic regimes don’t always like to keep records of the people they “liquidate.” And so guesses are guesses.
If the number matters that much to someone, however, then something is wrong with the premise they’re arguing about. If they’re offended that you say “thousands” instead of “hundreds,” when we all know that there’s no CLEAR agreement about the number—then they have some bee in their bonnet other than just historicity. They probably do, on some level, feel it’s okay to murder as long as it’s not outrageously and egregiously done… i.e., in numbers so vast it begins to bother even THEIR dogmatic minds. In that respect, no, Che was not that KIND of a monster—he was no Stalin. Who knows, he might have been if someone had handed him power—we have no reason to believe for CERTAIN that he wouldn’t have been. But we don’t KNOW that he WOULD have been, either. But murder is murder. If it’s one injustice or a few hundred or a thousand.
“Because when you try to unnail a Christ-like figure from a cross, you better come prepared.”
I suppose, yes. But how does someone who is so morally… questionable… become “Christ-like?” Even if one doesn’t condemn Che, accepts him… surely the notion that he willfully executed a few hundred people AT LEAST… should not make him “Christ-like” to that person’s eye.
“besides proving once again Godwin’s Law right, was to illustrate the unfairness of the victors’ law, Vae Victis!”
But I don’t buy this.
Would you say that the Nuremburg trials should NOT have happened? How would you have then sought justice for the men who planned and executed the policies of the Nazis? How would you have responded?
You have in your hands a group of men who, it is apparent by the evidence, planned and ordered torture, murder, and a variety of other crimes on a GRAND scale. (or any scale). They were civilian leaders of government and business. What do you do with them?
“What happened was to be expected in Cuba.”
I refuse to buy into this. We should not blithely “accept” murderous retribution for brutal and criminal deeds. Moreover, many who were killed BY the revolution were not necessarily guilty of any crimes under Batista’s rule, or associated with it—they were simply those who did not agree with Castro and Che.
The premise is that had the Nazis won WWII, surely they too would have meted out a kind of “justice” of their own definition to the leaders, intellectuals, and businessmen of the defeated nations. This is why a MERE “justice of the victor” IS a problem. Victory alone, in and of itself, does not define what justice is or ought to be.
Justice, rather, should be based on the rule of just law, of basic rights and fairness and a respect for humanity. The accused at Nuremburg received fair and just trials. Evidence was weighed, judges were impartial and impartially chosen. (at least so far as is possible under the circumstances). Remember that some of the accused were given lesser sentences—some even set free. They were not all simply found summarily guilty and taken out to be shot the same day.
I suppose someone truly cynical would argue that all this is just hairsplitting and lip service to an false ideal. If you or anyone else really believes that… well, there’s little common ground on which to even argue. Then the justice of the victor truly does reign, and OUGHT to reign, no matter WHO the victor is.
“Like I said in an earlier post, good and evil, right and wrong, don’t exist per se.”
I’m not so sure about that. I recognize your meaning… but I’m troubled by that, and not so ready to go there.
“They exist only if we struggle to make them exist. History has showed us time after time that almost anyone of us can became a monster if given the chance.”
This is largely true. That’s why the crimes of the Nazis were not limited to a smallness of “they were just monsters.” They were, in fact, a free reign to the worst impulses of human beings—murder, slaughter, torture, injustice…
“We have to convince ourselves that morals standards are supremely important, at least for self preservation.”
Well, this is a philosophical question–must we convince ourselves—or do those standards exist whether we acknowledge them or not?
“So, I think that our positions are not really very different. I guess I just had issues with your approach. Which I stated quite clumsily.”
No, I’ve spoken clumsily myself in this thread as well.
And no, our positions are not so different. I only want people to be free and happy, and free from fear.
“And let’s be honest, even if I don’t idolize the man, anymore, and I know the many issues he had, I still feel respect for what it once represented, the symbol, not the man: the possibility of a change, the resistance to oppression, justice… I sometimes miss the black or white view of my youth.”
Me too. I was a committed Leftist in my youth. Then for a time, in college, I actually dabbled with the right because I became disillusioned and was temporarily blinded by Reaganism. Then I QUICKLY became DEEPLY disillusioned with that, and returned to left of center. Which is where I am now and have been for some 20 years or more.
But I never idolized men like Che. I don’t think change should come with murder attached to it. Violence sometimes is unfortunately necessary. But if we don’t keep rules EVEN in violence, then we might as well not have rules, period, about anything.
“I used to have a hero, or at least a cool poster, now, like a lot of children of Latin America, I just have a gray reminder of a bloody past in which our destiny was never in our hands…”
I understand.
Look… the US no longer has a big scary fake enemy to fight (or well, it has a new one now… terrorism.. but that’s different… it’s not like a monolithic tide that we imagine is sweeping the world) and our economy has become wrapped up with the world’s economy. Our thumb, then, has lifted from Latin America a bit. I hope it never comes back down and I don’t think it ever will. I think democracy WILL win out in the end, for all of us. But then I’m sometimes too optimistic, even a trifle naive.
June 4th, 2009 at 3:11 pm
Mom:
Please understand… I don’t make the claim that Cubans ARE definitely worse under Castro. Let’s put it this way–when Castro’s government finally falls, the truth will truly out. And my guess is we’ll hear a lot of bad, some good, and that’ll be that.
I have friends who’ve been to Cuba more than once, as well. They spend a lot of time in the Caribbean and Central America—academics whose specialties are in the region. They’re the first to acknowledge that Cuba does have its positives… health care often comes up, for instance. Certainly Cuba is no North Korea, nothing of the kind.
And yes, the American embargo has surely hurt.
I don’t argue with any of this.
And thank you for the support.
June 4th, 2009 at 5:55 pm
Randall, that you have spent so much time and brain power on docflamingo is a shame. He/she/it hasn’t the intelligence to make a decent argument, only a lot of misplaced anger (or made up anger…it’s so over the top that it occurred to me that he/she/it was play-acting like a pouting child screaming “look at me! look at me!”). Calling you a “right-wing ideologue” made me laugh! You! Right-wing!
Perhaps he/she/it only had the “wing” reference to use, being a flamingo with a brain smaller than it’s eye. Of course, I know docflamingo is human, but he/she/it is, nonetheless, obviously as dumb as the bird for whom he/she/it is named.
Having read docflamingo’s posts I have not found a train of logic or a sense of personality anywhere. This is where I began to suspect he/she/it was an actor, playing a very illogical and petty role.
el Che was many things, and most of them have been covered already, but the one thing that cannot be said too many times is that he was a murderer, a torturer (who would know better than a doctor how to inflict the most pain?), and a man totally without conscious.
docflamingo, if you happen to be reading this, you should only hope to someday be half the scholar and half the honorable human that is Randall.
June 4th, 2009 at 8:36 pm
enigma, again with the other list site! Go already! You’ve trolled us enough, new blood awaits. We’re bored.
June 4th, 2009 at 10:52 pm
Randall, your post is too long for me to address all of it piece by piece, but I noticed something consistent throughout it:
You keep saying that my claims of objectivity are bullshit.
How so?
We’re dealing with numbers here. Numbers are as objective as you get.
If you count the number of people that died directly due to Che, he is nothing but another soldier.
If you count the number of people that died indirectly due to Che, then he was responsible for many murders. These, however, do not even closely amount to the numbers of murders by more respectable people such as the previously mentioned Churchill and Ulysses Grant.
How you could say that these numbers are subjective if beyond me.
The standard of living is indeed harder to measure, but it is not hard to quantify in a manner that makes sense, and anyone that has had a basic knowledge of international statistics knows that.
Most variables that could possibly account for an accurate measure of standard of living (health, education, political freedom believe it or not, equality, access to basic resources, urban infrastructure) are FACTUALLY BETTER under Castro than they were under Batista.
We’re dealing with quantifiable evidence here. The fact that you call it bullshit and claim that it is still ’subjective’ ad nauseum just shows the hollowness of your own arguments which amounts to nothing more than repeating “no, you’re still wrong” over and over.
June 5th, 2009 at 6:10 am
dr. flamingo – take it from a confirmed right winger – Randall isn’t one of us.
I tried to read your blog, but I was too busy counting my money that George W. Bush stole from poor people and sent me to keep me in power. And I had to schedule the day’s activities for the immigrant help around my apartment. I gave them each an extra quarter yesterday and they still came to work late. I thought it would motivate them to do better work, but you just can’t find good help these days. I tried to smile and gave them a friendly pat on the back as I handed out their rakes and weed wackers, but I didn’t have much time to dilly dally as my Bently needed to get in for servicing.
Anyway, I had to chuckle with your assertion that Randall is a right winger, you might as well say the sky is pink and mountains are made of delicious chocolate pudding with sprinkles. Your thoughts on this page reminded me of another substance that resembles chocolate pudding because it’s brown and semi liquid and that you are overflowingly filled with it.
June 5th, 2009 at 11:37 am
Alan Jimenez:
“You keep saying that my claims of objectivity are bullshit.”
Because, in fact, they are.
“How so?”
You repeatedly make statements of an entirely subjective nature which you then assert are without question totally OBjective. That’s how so. I would have thought that was obvious.
“We’re dealing with numbers here. Numbers are as objective as you get.”
When they are agreed up on as factual and complete, yes. These are NOT.
“If you count the number of people that died directly due to Che, he is nothing but another soldier.”
THAT is an OPINION, Alan. YOURS. For god’s sake, do we have to keep going round and round like this?
“If you count the number of people that died indirectly due to Che, then he was responsible for many murders. These, however, do not even closely amount to the numbers of murders by more respectable people such as the previously mentioned Churchill and Ulysses Grant.”
ALL YOU HAVE DONE is say EXACTLY THE SAME THING and simply reworded it. You have not provided ONE SHRED of evidence or support for this asinine statement that Churchill and Grant “murdered” more people than Che Guevara. SUPPORT it. Don’t just RESTATE IT.
“How you could say that these numbers are subjective if beyond me.”
HOW you could say they are OBjective is beyond ME! For the love of god, you argue like a child! You provide no evidence, no support for ANYTHING you say, except occasionally, and then it MUST be accepted as absolute HOLY WRIT, without question.
THERE IS NO SUCH SCHOLARLY CONSENSUS ON CHE GUEVARA that allows you to make these statements and call them “objective.” The number of people he ordered executed is still HIGHLY debated.
AND AGAIN–you are OBSESSED with this notion of HOW MANY he murdered and/or tortured, as though it proves something. If he only ordered ONE human being to be unjustly murdered/executed—if he only ordered ONE human being to be tortured—then he was WRONG, pure and simple. But we know there were a LOT more than one. But WHAT OF IT? Why do you keep returning to this?
The man participated in a “process” (it dignifies it too much to call it that) wherein, AFTER his side had CLEARLY WON, a large number of people–many of them INNOCENT people–were SUMMARILY executed and/or tortured. ON HIS ORDERS.
You want to make a numbers game out of it. That’s NOT as relevant as the mere FACT that he did it.
“The standard of living is indeed harder to measure, but it is not hard to quantify in a manner that makes sense, and anyone that has had a basic knowledge of international statistics knows that.”
You are pussyfooting around this, when in fact the truth of the matter is that “standard of living” in these circumstances CANNOT be quantified to make a CLEAR and UNQUESTIONABLE conclusion.
“Most variables that could possibly account for an accurate measure of standard of living (health, education, political freedom believe it or not, equality, access to basic resources, urban infrastructure) are FACTUALLY BETTER under Castro than they were under Batista.”
You say MOST variables–which I would dispute and at best say SOME.
“We’re dealing with quantifiable evidence here.”
NOT irrefutably quantifiable evidence, no we’re not. THE BEST that can be said is that while in SOME areas the lives of Cubans may have improved, in other areas they remained only slightly changed if changed at all… and OVERALL it’s hard to say which dictator has REALLY been MARKEDLY worse, since the factors are SO subjective.
June 5th, 2009 at 12:15 pm
Doctorate of flamingos:
I’ve kept mostly out of this list simply because it definitely is not one of my strong points. But even I, as obtuse as I am about Latin American history outside of their artwork, can see the crazy talk you’ve been promoting is quite…vile and most definitely warped. seek help. and soon.
Hopefully, no one will take you serious, especially given that upon entering your website, one reads: “An evil curse has been laid upon you for opening this page. You have until the next full moon to read: “Iceni Queen: A Pirate Yarn” before damnation.” Seriously? That’s as juvenile as the “Anyone who opens my 7th grade diary will be cursed with diarrhea.”
There are a few interesting statements in your site that speak volumes about your character. Namely: “it is only right that we indulge in that oldest of human passions: Bitching & Complaining.” and “Despite my lack of formal experience however, I know what makes for a great story: Murder, rape, incest…”
Everyone, what we have here is a troll in the highest order. Feeding it can cause it to latch on to your leg and never stop humping, as evident from his attachment to Randall. However, I won’t lie… part of me has enjoyed watching Randall’s exasperation.
June 5th, 2009 at 5:14 pm
I have not seen ANYONE on this site out argue Randall yet !
He is just practicing on you doc & alan.
June 5th, 2009 at 5:54 pm
bigski – you obviously haven’t read the multiple occasions where I made Randall cry like a little girl with a skinned knee.
June 5th, 2009 at 7:55 pm
Making him cry and out argueing him is two different things dude.
June 7th, 2009 at 7:17 pm
Lynch was his second lastname, check the facts first.
June 8th, 2009 at 7:23 am
Javier (217):
Actually, it was his THIRD last name…
Ernesto Guevara de la Serna Lynch y Llosa
In LatAm (I´m guessing you might know this from your name but I think others might not) you get your first last name from your father, then one from your mother, then one from your father, etc.
His father´s last names were Guevara Lynch.
His mother´s last names were de la Serna y Llosa.
June 11th, 2009 at 11:10 am
Now there’s a lesson to be learned here. Never pick on geeks because you never know…they may become a cold sadistic killer in the future and you will regret ever picking on him when he has you staring straight into death’s eyes!!! haha
June 14th, 2009 at 2:42 pm
Let’s be real, people. Cuba is a sea of joy! People are fighting to get into Fidel’s Cuba. The island’s illegal immigration problem makes the US’s immigration woes look like a First Communion party crashing incident! Fidel and Raul have legions of loyal militiamen ringing the island to fight off the boatloads of prosperity seekers who arrive to get free education, medical care, housing, and those meaninful jobs that Jimmy Carter somehow never delivered! Within weeks of arrival, they have a home, a car in the garage, a great job, and a byline in the free press! What did Che think by leavin that all behind to cook over llama dung fires in Bolivia?
June 14th, 2009 at 2:48 pm
And on another subject, Che was personally responsible for the coup de grace (actually a 45 shot to the head) of at lease thre hundred people marched to El Paredon in La Habana, and he boasted of it! On his orders, another 1879 people of all walks of life, a few of them henchmen of Batista, most of them just everyday people who rubbed him and his cadre the wrong way, well, this 1879 were shot, too. The former head of Cuba’s Correction System, who was El Che’s adjutant during 1959-1960 testified to that on video…you can hear it on YouTube (if you know Spanish, i.e.). He lives in exile in Paris…and Che’s grandson, Canek Sanchez Guevara, has a lot to say about his grandad and his good buddy Fidel, too.
June 17th, 2009 at 3:28 am
his dad\’s Ernesto Guevara Lynch
Che was born Ernesto Guevara dela Serna. In Latin America, what appears to be your middle name is actually your surname.
June 20th, 2009 at 12:23 pm
Of course Che was a “murderer”, and that’s why people admire him. He was willing to take up a struggle that lit the sky and seized the stage, and wasn’t afraid to inspire people to fight back when faced with decades of repression and class exploitation.
He oversaw the trial (notice – they were given due process) of army, police, and paramilitary personnel that were accused of committing atrocities against those suspected of working with the rebels. Most were allowed to walk away, but up to two hundred prisoners were executed. I don’t see a problem with that. If you do, then how do you think war criminals should be treated? with kindness?
June 22nd, 2009 at 4:29 pm
@Tom (223):
Are you serious or just trying to start a little flame war?
“…lit the sky and seized the stage…”
“He oversaw the trial (notice – they were given due process…”
Must stop laughing at the ridiculous statements…
*sigh*
You sound like you have NEVER been a part of any system even remotely similar to this. These were, for the most part, MOCK trials and people were summarily executed. If you´re OK with that, then you deserve to be on the losing side of a regime who adheres to your line of reasoning.
June 26th, 2009 at 1:32 am
alright alright, freed cuba of american economic control, fought bravely in the cuban mountains for years, ..wait! He played chess and was a nerd? OMG what a loser, hes so EMO!!
July 4th, 2009 at 10:44 am
Ernesto, rot in peace!
July 5th, 2009 at 11:17 am
Ill say one thing, the subject of el Che is very complex.Not everyone loves him, and not everyone hates him, and I believe that’s the way its supposed to be.
July 8th, 2009 at 2:52 pm
it is well know che was in charge or repression and crushing opposition within cuba aswell as killing his own men. he was a ruthless communist and should not be the icon he is today as he was a total failure. he joined a revolution under castro which castro won and led and that is his only success. he then failed at everything else and basically disowned cuba and the people who loved him most. he then blaimed everything apart from his own poor leadership for his failured before being captured and killed. at least mao, stalin,hitler and other infamous figures actually achieved something.
July 19th, 2009 at 10:58 pm
“Che was not only a heroic fighter, but a revolutionary thinker, with a political and moral project and a system of ideas and values for which he fought and gave his life. The philosophy which gave his political and ideological choices their coherence, color, and taste was a deep revolutionary humanism. For Che, the true Communist, the true revolutionary was one who felt that the great problems of all humanity were his or her personal problems, one who was capable of “feeling anguish whenever someone was assassinated, no matter where it was in the world, and of feeling exultation whenever a new banner of liberty was raised somewhere else.”
— Michael Löwy
July 20th, 2009 at 12:48 am
what to say he is a true heroic figure always standing for freedom.although he is not a god but he is a complet man of our age from whom we should learn.we live for ourselves but he is the one who live for others.moreover, he could enjoy his life in cuba but he didn’t do that.so he is a real freedom fighter always against capatilism
July 20th, 2009 at 3:28 pm
“The death of Che Guevara places a responsibility on all revolutionaries of the World to redouble their decision to fight on to the final defeat of Imperialism. That is why in essence Che Guevara is not dead his ideas are with us.” ~ Stokely Carmichael
July 20th, 2009 at 3:32 pm
Randall ….
now that’s one Giant DOUCHEBAG
)
July 20th, 2009 at 8:34 pm
CUBA UNDER THE U.$.-BACKED DICTATOR BATISTA:
- American companies owned 70 % of the arable land.
- 1% of the population controlled 46 % of the wealth.
- Batista’s goons and secret police killed 20,000 Cubans (tortured even more).
- 67 % of the population were illiterate.
- 50 % of the population lived in Bohio shacks.
- Dissidents were hung and left to dangle in the streets as a warning sign.
- The Mafia (Meyer Lansky & Co) ran Havana and used Cuba as a whorehouse for rich gringos from the U.S.
July 20th, 2009 at 11:34 pm
Che was a worldwide Hero.
All the exile Gusano trash up above can lick on these nuts.
Viva CHE !
July 23rd, 2009 at 10:51 am
His actual name was Ernesto Guevara Lynch… and he did the last 6 subjects from Med School without attending to classes. He was a genius…
July 24th, 2009 at 2:44 am
Che-haters aren’t even worthy to speak on his greatness.
Che had more heroism in his pinky finger, than these reich-wing chickenhawk fascist ass clowns.
Che today, Che tomorrow, Che always.
August 2nd, 2009 at 5:50 am
This is a farce. This crap should be removed.
Che was a great man. He only wanted to FREE people and he wanted better lives for people. It was that simple. …and he was murdered for those simple reasons. I refuse to believe he was the dark murdering scum that so many want us to believe. He is the fire and those of us who truly want better things for PEOPLE are the fuel. We will not stop. We will not shut up. We will never stop believing in PEOPLE. if you have never experienced hard times or REAL life struggles you have NO idea how we feel. We will never forget these things and we will never forget the Commandante.
September 25th, 2009 at 7:02 pm
Poorly researched!! Che was born Ernesto Guevara de la Serna. His father was born Ernesto Guevara Lynch. His paternal grandmother was Ana Lynch and her father was from Galway, Ireland hence the Irish surname.
October 7th, 2009 at 7:55 pm
I just want to point out/correct three things in your list.
1. He was not “just” born Ernesto Lynch, but rather Ernesto Guevara De la Serna Lynch, and Guevara was the name he usually used.
2. He played a lot of Chess and read a lot, because he suffered from Asthma since he was 3. When his treatment got better he became a good rugby and footballplayer.
3. He did in fact have a Cuban citizenship, as did every other officer during the Cuban revolution ranked COmmander or higher, but he renounced it, before heading to the Congo in 1965.
October 30th, 2009 at 3:32 am
Che will always be one of the most heroic men to walk the earth.
He inspires me in everything I do.
There can be no humanity without Che’s spirit.
Hasta la Victoria Siempre !
January 5th, 2010 at 1:02 pm
My english is pretty bad but I will try to make myself clear. Guevera was an idealist, no more and no less than that. We can discuss about his methods but no one can deny that he did what he said and he said what he thought. I would be great that just one of all the people that nowadays we call “leaders” can have as little convincement in the things they do as El Che had.
“Nobel Price” Obama, which country is he planning to invade? Americans are starting to make excuses like the one of the last week “terrorist atack failed in an American plane” Come on!! We don´t believe you any more, You have already colapsed the World Trade Center to get the Iraq´s Oil. What´s now? More Oil?, Water, Gold? Who will be your next victim? This is the way to get out of an economical crisis is it?
Don´t talk me about El Che! Look yourself in the mirror!!!
January 5th, 2010 at 1:11 pm
@poiu098 (20): The complete name was Fulgencio Batista Zaldiva, known as “El Hombre” (The man)
January 14th, 2010 at 8:04 pm
interesting…?
January 20th, 2010 at 9:11 pm
I feel firstly to point out that I am un-ashamedly a fan of Guevara, yet I am a person that accepts all sides of the argument, and whether or not Che killed/tortured hundreds including children, I am unaware. Yet we must look and question objectively the whole situation.
For instance, the attempted trials and executions after the successful Cuban revolution. Can it not be accepted that had the revolution/coup have failed the revolutionaries and all who denounced Batista would have been treated with the same manner as the Revolutionaries did them? I believe this does not automatically make it right, but war crimes and such have happened throughout history and within many countries past, to know apparent uproar.
I personally am Irish, and come from a land where oppression was present for 100s of year. I understand, the struggle for freedom, at least to an extent, as the rebels of the 1916 Easter Rising where treated in the same manner as Batista’s followers, minus the trials. Internment, imprisionment without trial was apart of policing and oppression for many years. And all this from an apparent non-Communist, not Totalitarian state etc,ie, Britian.
With this breeds a level of respect and admiriation for Ernesto Guevara. I understand that what followed the revolution has not been what was promised (but parts have been fullfilled, ie better education and healthcare) yet Cuba’s (particularly Guevara’s) revolutianry spirit is one I respect, as it is the overthrowal of a oppressionist apparent Capitalist goverment by a group backed by the population, albeit possibly naively.
Yet I believe Guevaras aims where simple, freedom for the people. If the people where Cuban, Cuba was the peoples and he worked for that, and certainly not Cuba alone. I pity he did not bring his ’skills’ to the Ireland..
January 22nd, 2010 at 5:08 pm
ON picture 8, I guess we now know where prince got his 80’s look from….
February 6th, 2010 at 8:26 pm
Hear “You don’t know Che!” at
http://www.myspace.com/stevepichan