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.
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
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!”
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
“Hay Que Endurecer, Pero Sin Perder La Ternura Jamás!”
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
“Hay Que Endurecer, Pero Sin Perder La Ternura Jamás!” or “We must harden without ever loosing tenderness!” – Che Guevara.
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.”
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.
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. ***** 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.
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 *****ons 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….
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.
(By guy above me I mean 129)
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 ***** 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 ***** 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 *****.
Enough.
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 homo*****uals 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?
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.”
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.
WOW – I didn’t know Che had come back from the dead to persecute AIDS victims
Go figure
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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 !
Smitty.
Do you know the definition of the word ‘irony?’
“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.
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.
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.
i agree teki
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.
#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…………
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?
correction for above DOES NOT IMPLY MENTALL ILLNESS OR DEPRESSION.
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.
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.
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!!!
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.
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.
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.
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: *****ed-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.
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.
docflamingo:
“Washington also ordered executions, likely more than Che did.”
I seriously demand scholarly evidence from you to back up this bull***** 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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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 *****ing 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
peruviangtt,
Same for you.
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 *****ysis 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.
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.
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.
Randall vs Jason
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 ***** 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.
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 ***** you feel like spitting out…”
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 *****ing 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.
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?
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?
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.
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.