Actually, and I admit this is my sense based upon the historical accounts of others, I find Che far more objectionable than Castro, as Che went far beyond “liberation” to the deliberate destruction of fellow revolutionaries who in any way competed with, not even opposed, his cult of personality. Che appears to have used revolutionary dogma as the excuse for his own quest for egoist power, whereas other revolutionaries genuinely seemed to attempt to create beneficial change, any benefits from Che’s activities seem to have been incidental, almost unintended consequences.
It seems rather likely Castro himself forced Che out of Cuba, probably because Castro was a pragmatist and recognized the destructive force of Che could not be contained. Che then attempted and failed miserably to export revolution elsewhere. In fact, his attempt to overthrow the Bolivian government evidently did not receive the support of any Bolivian citizens whatsoever, in fact, Bolivian peasants aided in his capture and death. Che was opposed by many who had the same apparent political goals, simply because Che didn’t know where to draw the line. I have no general problems with the concept of revolution, but the proposed cure must be better than the prior ailment. There is a line between revolution and terrorism, and Che was far over that line. Perhaps the best way to know Che’s mind is to examine his own words: ”“Hatred as an element of struggle; unbending hatred for the enemy, which pushes a human being beyond his natural limitations, making him into an effective, violent, selective, and cold-blooded killing machine. This is what our soldiers must become …”
Perhaps the best explanations for his continued popularity are: 1) he died young, and like JFK, perhaps the best thing that can happen to the legacy of some dynamic young leaders is they die before everyone gets a chance to get tired of them; and 2) Che seems to have occupied a Messianic place for Latin Americans who reject Catholicism but still feel a cultural need for a Messiah figure.
His friends called him “The Pig” and “The Butcher.” His nickname “Che” itself comes from his notorious bullying habit of interrupting others with the word “Che.” There are revolutionaries who can be admired. Sometimes, armed struggle is necessary. But Che STARTED concentration camps in Cuba. Che personally executed and imprisoned homosexuals, not for their political beliefs, or opposition, but simply because they were gay. Che seems to have been far more about the violence and not tremendously concerned with creating a viable alternative.
And since I’m denouncing Che, to answer Mangus, I’ll go ahead and denounce Columbus (although I’m not sure whether “rapist” is hyperbole or an actual event), the genocide of Native Americans, and U.S. backed or caused deaths throughout history, although I would suggest you be careful about throwing around the word “atrocity,” as it seems to now be used for unintentional collateral damage from combat, which dilutes the value of the word, which should be reserved for intentional acts against noncombatants.
At the same time, it is so convenient to only point the figure at those evil white American capitalists. Native Americans were committing atrocities against each other well before the white man got here. White men found all too many Africans willing to sell each other into slavery. There are plenty of indigenous peoples committing atrocities against each other and the nonindigenous peoples. It is practically impossible to draw a line in history and say, OK, now we start keeping a record of naughty and nice.
And if you are going to accept the premise of armed revolution, then you have to accept the premise of a sovereign nation’s right to protect itself and its citizens from armed revolution and terrorism. I also recognize that we never have the advantage of all the information. We cannot know what may have been prevented by what act. I am glad I am not the one who has to choose the least of multiple evils, or has to follow orders because that is my duty. What we point at and call atrocity may have spared the lives of thousands. Certainly our acts in Iraq do not yet compare to the atrocities of Hussein. Whether our ongoing acts have prevented the deaths of innocent lives we may never know.
Columbus Day? Certainly the man did what any explorer of his time would do, take advantage of the lands he discovered. But I still can give him credit for the significance and difficulty of what he achieved. Let’s not make the mistake of thinking the Aztecs and Inca were benevolent democracies. If Native Americans hadn’t been wiped out by illnesses brought by the white man, they might have taken European slaves and kept control. None are innocent. Markets are not perfect, they aren’t even always reasonable, but they seem to me to be a system that best incorporates what humans are, rather than trying to impose upon society some misguided concept of what humans might be, while still providing the opportunity for humans to be better than what they were.
Composing members:
0
Composing members:
0
