"Che Guevara: The Fighting Life of an Argentine..." Topic

… Guerrilla, 1956-1967.

"Che Guevara (b. 1928-1967) is know single handedly for his striking portrait taken in 1960, which has become an image so popular that it is perhaps the most popular photograph ever taken. It's reproduction has appeared on countless millions of t-shirts and other miscellaneous products for years now, and certainly for years to come as his image, persona, and accomplishments remain ever popular and controversial even today. Behind the face and persona of Che, stands Ernesto Guevara, the military and political mastermind, Cuban revolutionary guerilla, and 'freedom fighter'.

Born in Argentina in the year 1928, Ernesto 'Che' Guevara was a well read and thoughtful adolescent who later became a doctor in part because of his strong sense of compassion. His travels throughout South America by motorcycle just added to his early lifestyle as a young idealist adventurer (as depicted in the 2004 film The Motorcycle Diaries), a period which greatly influences his later social causes and social conscience which brought him into the center of not just the Cuban Revolution, but other major world events in the 1950's and 1960's during the Cold War. Che met Fidel Castro and the other conspirators who would start the Cuban Revolution as apart of the exiled group known as the 26 of July Movement in 1956. The movement took its name from Fidel's failed assault on the Moncada Barracks in 1953 which set in play a course of events that would change Cuban history forever. By then Fidel Castro was a well respected man by most of the major rebel factions in Cuba who despised, and rightly so, the authoritarian and corrupt regime of General Fulgencio Batista (b.1901-1973) yet they still all fought frequently amongst themselves. Meanwhile Cuba remained a third world country in the rather prosperous Western Hemisphere while the richest minority, General Batista among them, amassed private fortunes at the expense of the majority of Cubans. The rebels left from Mexico and in November 1956 they landed in Cuba, loosing more than half their original force before retreating into the Sierra Maestra mountains.

Despite discontent amongst populace the Cuban Revolution was not the sweepingly popular affair amongst the poor and working classes as Che and Fidel had hoped for during the planning stages in Mexico. The Cuban Army remained strong and were generally ruthless, patterned after General Battista himself who became a classic example of the Latin American dictator-strongman in the mid 20th century. It was in the mountains were Castro's rebels led by Che and Fidel's brother Raul, managed to successfully evade Batista's forces and consolidate power. They mounted raids and ambushes but most importantly they gathered strength through recruiting armed peasants, both men and women, and incorporating other smaller anti-Batista guerrillas into the greater movement…"

Full article here
link

Amicalement
Armand

Too bad the author fails to mention the Che's ideas of "social reform" included murder, denial of basic human rights, and assorted war crimes.

Those details don't fit on your standard t-shirt ! ;)

Always nice to see how the rules here are applied.

I don't see anything in violation of the rules.

I hate to see that SOB honored.
BTW, "De mortuis nil nisi bonum" only applies to the Obituaries Board.
We can still speak badly of Hitler, Mao, Stalin and … Che.

Reading this thread reminds me that we are only supposed to say good of the dead.

Che is dead. Good.

Woobie nails it!!

I second the "nails it" nomination for Woobie.

link

A complex character for sure, but then again so were a lot of historical figures. King David from the OT, that guy was ruthless

I have to agree with many posts here … We did study some of Che's "doctine" … Know your enemy … We studied Sun Tzu also …

Just too bad he didn't die before he killed so many people.

I agree with Killer Woobie.

It does amuse me when right-on, radical women have the image on their wall/t-shirt of someone who ordered rape as a weapon of war, as well as the imprisonment and 're-education' of journalists and homosexuals.

Killer Woobie, my "associate", currently languishing in the DH, has asked me to give you a +2 and a free round.

Power to the Doghaus!

Anyone here mourning that nice Batista chap then or those lovely folks the Nicaraguan Somozas (as opposed the the chicken or vegetable Somozas)? Che wasn't a saint but the opposition weren't choirboys either.

Sorry but the only samosas worth eating never mind supporting are the originals, that's lamb or possibly goat.

Fatman

Just another gutless murderous communist bastard.

Most who would wear a Che' T-shirt probably have little idea what he was all about …

I don't see anyone saying they were wholesome folks Goon.

Your statement has the same amount of relevance as saying "Hitler was Bad" or "Franco was evil".

Yes they were. So?

By any rational measure Che was a sadistic, evil, power hungry sadist who killed a LOT of innocent people.

Anyone who thinks he is a hero is stupid, evil, or both.

Good point there Fatman, it's lamb Somoza, chicken Somoza is just plain wrong. My mistake and I apologise unreservedly…..

I presume there haven't been any gutless murderous fascist bastards then?

Just doing a BBC impersonation and looking for balance, Warlock. I'm a fairly mild mannered chap with a latent dislike of tyranny and corrupt grasping self serving – and let's keep using the word – bastards of all political shades. To take the step of opposing a regime like Batista's deserves has my respect – regardless of what followed (which is a nasty charge sheet and no mistake).

Also, someone has to make even a vague and waffling counter argument or we are in George Orwell's territory of a chorus of "Four legs good, two legs bad."

Almost as infamous as Stalin, Hitler, Castro, or Mao, just not as successful.

unfortunatley i don't think there is a copy of his manual del guerrillero in english… after reading that you get a full picture of this guy…

as an Argentine myself I feel pretty ashamed of the recognition he gets worldwide and even more when people at home idolize him…

but what can you do…

oh well…

Poor Tango should have posted about a famous Nazi instead.

Then we'd have had people lining up to declare that you "have to admire their martial prowess", "separate the politics" and "respect fellow fighting men even if they fight for a bad cause" and all these ill feelings would have been avoided.

How about we take this thread and the entire ultramodern forum to the Fez where they belong? I'm sure they'd be happy to chew them to death. The politics of all of these issues are far more multifaceted than the postings here allow without dawghowsing( or is that the whole purpose?)

I can only say that the replies above are embarrassingly doctrinaire and fail to explain a great deal of South American history and the not too difficult to find antagonism toward the US and US corporate actions in that area. (Not to mention the free license given the mafia in Cuba).

Damn few Saints, but a few leaders that caught the imaginations of the people. It really matters little if the ditto-heads disapprove.

King David from the OT, that guy was ruthless

Spared King Saul several times, let his sole surviving heir eat at his table, and desired to spare his son who wanted to overthrow him, to name just a few. Blew it with Bathsheba and had her husband murdered He made many mistakes but always repented of his transgressions against the Lord.

Well actually, Repiqueone's answer is more along the lines of Weasel's prediction about a response regarding some famous Nazi.. Few people would deny Hitler's abilities as a public speaker yet also few could deny the terrible consequences of his acts, right ?
If someone opened up the discussion regarding Che's military abilities independently of his politics that might be fair too, right ? ( the discussion could turn around the success in Cuba vs the failures in Africa and Bolivia, etc… )

No doctrine for me, I've studied the life of Che enough to form my own views.

Hitler, Stalin, Che ( even if they all captured the imaginations of the people, as they certainly did) all in the same bag for me… but to each their own, and I don't think any of the answers reflect on Tango at all, who is just posting an article. I don't think anything less of Tango for posting this article, indeed I tend to find his usual postings interesting, nor do I think less about anyone that might disagree with me on this subject ( particularly if they are the author of a fun set of rules like five core ;) )

I assume we can comment on historical characters such as this, I thought that was allowed within the rules.

cheers,
Francisco

Francisco, ever hear of Godwin's Law? Finding equivalencies between the men you list above severely underrates Hitler's actions, and greatly minimizes Stalin's.

Che played for keeps with people who also played for keeps. Batista, the Somozas, the Juntas or Peron in Argentina, Stroessner in Paraguay, and Pinochet in Chile never shied away from murder, prisons, summary executions and "disappearing" people. They and their supporters created a world where violent revolution was often the only possible outcome.

We can debate the numbers of killed and the lack of due process at great length, but I hardly think that any of these countries leaders were anything but worse than the revolutions and governments that replaced them.

As for Che he met his end by summary execution, by a Bolivian Government led by a string of Juntas and would be dictators often financed by CIA money. It, too, is now, many years later, is a slightly better place., and has its first indigenous President.

Of course, such men can be discussed, but the clap-trap and jingoistic posing above hardly forms much of a basis for thoughtful exchange. Not all bad guys are equally bad, and often the definition of hero and villain depends on which side shot your relatives, and which side offered your loved ones the best chance at more than survival. A distinction made on the basis of bloodshed and legalities is a tough one in South America.

Soderburgh's 2 part film "Che" and "The Motorcycle Diaries" are interesting looks at a very complex person. Jon Lee Anderson's biography is worth a read as well.

I'm afraid that part of addressing present American interests in South America requires a better understanding of just why Che seems to still have a hold on many imaginations on that continent.

No surprises to read that I think Repiqueone has summed the matter up very well. I certainly don't think that the history of the area is at all simplistic and leaves us open to awkward questions as to the true nature of our erstwhile anticommunist allies.

What Repiquetone said.

"How about we take this thread and the entire ultramodern forum to the Fez where they belong?"

Because they don't belong in blue fez. More than ten years old. So if it's not to your taste, there's no need for you to get involved. Shutting down something that you don't agree with is hardly a legitimate debating point.

"As for Che he met his end by summary execution, by a Bolivian Government led by a string of Juntas and would be dictators often financed by CIA money. It, too, is now, many years later, is a slightly better place., and has its first indigenous President."

True enough, but if looked at in the context of the time, a global war to stop the spread of communism, which Che was an acolyte of, it had to be done. I'll also note that in every country where the US and it's allies supported the government, free elections eventually came about. In countries the communists supported, some finally broke free,(Eastern Europe), but many are still ruled by brutal thugs like Che.

Mmm, not convinced by your logic. "Those guys were bad, hence Che was justified". If your argument is Che was bad and so was Batista, fine, I didn't see any statement here defending Batista. ( Funny you should mention Peron, given his alignment with Che and that he is considered a hero of equal statue in Argentina. I think Che is closer to Hitler than to Peron though. You also forgot Castro, maybe because he is a current figure and you wanted to observe the posting rules ).

I reject the reference to Goodwin's law due to the fact that the context of the figures under analysis merits the connection, it is not the standard Nazi reference aimed at normal debate. In fact your mention of Goodwin's Law could be similar to recursive application of Goodwin's law, it is clear that you think that comparing Che to Hitler is unfair to Che, I don't at all. (If I had mentioned only Mao or Stalin I could be accused of forgetting Hitler, right ?)

Often when one cites specific complains about a historical character the issue of "simplification" is brought up. Just like if someone would argue that pointing out Hitler or Stalin's acts is simplifying the matter and that the context needs to be understood. Yet in many instances, as in this case, when the context is understood the actions are still not justified.

A definition of a hero certainly changes for different people, we can agree on that,
Stalin might be a hero to some, but not to me, just like Che isn't, do you consider either one a hero ?
I have read extensively on the subject ( the movies you mention aren't but a fantastic portrayal for the big screen, but lack fundamental insights ).

At the end of the day some things do tend to be simple. My initial statements were simple. To me Che was a murderer and a psychopath and I certainly draw comparison to the other characters I mentioned even if the extent of his crimes are not equal due to his eventual lack of success in hi endeavors. He was just a less successful psychopath.

If you consider him to be a hero then you might as well say it, we will certainly agree to disagree, however everything else you post, to me it constitutes a severe rationalization often engaged to defend similar questionable figures.

You will have to accept though that my opinion on the subject is not that of an uninformed wikipedia user and as such the argument that my view is based on simplified doctrine is unfounded.

I do however certainly respect your assertion that it is good to actually get educated in further depths on historical subjects to form an opinion, I certainly have. In the case of the Cuban revolution, many people fought along the Castros and Che, they did not later engage in the atrocities and were even persecuted by the new regime and indeed the fight against the Batista regime was a fight for freedom.

To summ up:

the opposing view: his enemies were also bad, you have to understand the context, and to some he was a hero

my position, Che was a murderer and psychopath and I dislike observing teens wearing t-shirt with his face ( just as I would be upset if someone would wear a Hitler or Stalin t-shirt) and consider the opposing view a rationalization the likes often encountered through history and even modern times to defend questionable acts ( citing recent examples would probably break the rules).

respectfully ,
Francisco

Would he have been so iconic if he'd had a face like a bag of spanners?

Well, Francisco, you can hold any beliefs you like, and believe them fervently, but that does not answer my argument, which, by the way, is NOT that the oposition was bad too and Che was justified in all his actions.

Nor is my argument that it is unfair to Che, but that it lessens the horrors of the Holocaust and the Gulag. There is simply no comparison that is valid to Che, or any number of his opponents, for that matter.

I'm simply saying that, given a long litany of horrible dictators, juntas, and oppressive governments throughout South America, and extensive meddling by not only the US government, but US corporations such as United Fruit, a long list of mining and oil interests, and, of course, the Mafia in supporting these governments, often increasing the suffering of indigenous peoples, it is not surprising that violent revolutions would occur and that the murders would be reciprocated. The true judgement would be that after the typical reprisals, what sort of governments were created and are the people better or worse off?

Major General Smedley Butler, the most decorated Marine in US history at the time of his death, late in life, said this,

"I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.."

This doesn't include nearly 90 more years of our actions in Chile (Allende) and Nicaragua or Honduras of supporting the very worst sort of killers and exploiters. Suffice it to say our motives have often been less than altruistic, and communism served more as a pretext than anything else.

So I ask again, if Che is nothing more than a murderer and psychopath, why has his message and image maintained such power in South America? Do many in these SA countries see something more or another aspect of his tale? I suspect the legend will outlive any of the facts, for very strong historical reasons.

I also know that until Americans understand why these T shirts and posters continue to be seen, some 50 years after Che's death, in SA, and, for that matter, world-wide, and not simply pass it off as a bunch of crazy, know nothing, youths, then we are not going to be very successful in our ultimate policy goals.

I also suspect that some wearing the T-Shirt just like a dramatic picture that upsets grandpa, and have little Idea of its subject or the history involved.

What Repiqueone has said.

"…Funny you should mention Peron, given his alignment with Che and that he is considered a hero of equal statue in Argentina…"

Peron is NOT the same as the Che for us in Argentina.
Peron was a nazi popular President and Che was a communist guerrillero in other countries.

Both strong men from the Era they live.

Amicalement
Armand

I appreciate that you authorize me to hold my beliefs though I never asked for your permission. For sure that was not your intention, I understand.

I did answer your argument, the reasons you give that apparently justify Che's conduct in your view do not justify them in my view, because many people, even in the Cuban revolution fought against the same evils and did not engage in the atrocities.

It does not lessen the gulags et al, simply because the extension of the crimes might have involved less victims in the sense that they were founded in the same lack of humanity if you will.

So I have indeed answered both your arguments, you may complain all you want about your American interventions, I shall not pass judgment myself; but I will pass judgement on Che for the reasons that I have presented.
I am Argentine, and I am indeed familiar with South American history, and as you can imagine given my views I've had this debate repeatedly with other people and I am indeed knowledgeable in the subject so I'm not sure how decrying alleged north american ignorance on these matters is relevant to the discussion.

On the other hand the reason you present to counter the argument against my definition of Che as a murderer seems to reside on the power of his image and message!
I think the argument falls apart by itself and I doubt that I have to present relevant examples, we can all think of them.

In fact I would contend that most of the people that celebrate the image are probably less informed about the facts. In fact when I've engaged on these debates people appear to be very surprised when confronted with the nature of Che's thoughts as expressed by himself, and I think many that wear the t-shirts would not if they were familiar with it.

Of course I have no way to prove , you appear to claim that you know the real reason why the t-shirts are so popular, which would contradict my assertion but of course you also cannot prove it, hence rendering that line of argument irrelevant.

I can only insist that you should not see my opinions on Che as a celebration of Batista, if that is your main concern. It is simply a rejection of the embellished image of whom I consider to be a despicable individual.

regards,
Francisco

Tango,
I'm surprised by your comment. I didn't say they are the same, I mentioned they are heralded in similar manners.

You know well how many Peronists see Che in alignment, of course the peronist party holding both national socialists and marxist you have them disagreeing in the matter, but I doubt that you would find a majority of Argentines agreeing with Repiqueone's statment that Peron was a dictator.
That is why I was finding the reference to Peron as one of the ruthless dictators motivating Che as at least ironic.

I doubt that you would get a lot of Argentines to agree with your definition of Peron while in fact I agree with both your definitions of Che and Peron, so you might have misinterpreted my message.
"Peron was a nazi popular President and Che was a communist guerrillero in other countries"

regards,
Francisco

It strikes me that Tango and Seldon have between them illustrated very effectively just how views on S American history diverge depending on where you are sat. I think that most Brits would see Peron as a Dictator but it seems that he wouldn't be viewed that way in Argentina. Well, that means that a policy based on the presumption that a figure similar to Peron is a dictator and therefore unpopular at home, could lead at best to a faux pas and at worse to a Bay of Pigs.

There is a need to understand what motivates people and what colours their opinion. Given the track record of US intervention in S America before WW2 alone, is it any wonder that US (and probably western in general) policy and intentions could be viewed with suspicion by the man in the street? Add to that the nature of many of the US backed regimes and you reach a point where someone like Che, seen to be treating the US and their clients on their own, violent, terms could be seen as a hero. To take another example, my view is that Jesse James was a murdering criminal thug, but I don't think that argument will make me many friends in the parts of the USA where he has heroic status.

So, Che is a hero to some and a villain to others. Whether either status is justified is irrelevant – both sides are capable of justifying it to themselves but incapable of converting the other side – what does matter (from the US perspective) is whether the factors behind the mood to see him as a hero are understood, because those factors also inform the underlying attitude to the US and if those are not understood then policies based on that lack of understanding are heading for the rocks.

Francisco, we seem to be divided by the use of the same language. I absolutely do not acknowledge any of the things you claim I've stated or the meanings you ascribe to my statements, or anything you claim I've accused you of. I suggest you read it over again.

I can see your feelings are strong on this subject.

Why DO you think his image and writings are still powerful? Because people are ignorant of his actions? That seems very unlikely. My question about the apparent symbolism of his life to many in SA, including those outside of Cuba, was not answered at all by your reply.

My commentary on the US history in that Continent, and the general ignorance of it by many US citizens, is pertinent to the rather "Football Fan" response of many early in this thread. It is also true that Che spoke extensively on the impact of the US on SA history, and its role in Cuba's, and much of Central America's politics.

BTW trying to find ANY "good" guys in the Cuban Revolution is pretty problematic, and few escaped without being involved in some sort of terrible act. War does that to people-on both sides. The winners generally get to define the heroes, and brand the bad guys, not the losers. See topics like the IRA, The Stern gang and Irgun, your own Junta in 1976-1983 and the "disappeared ones", The Contras, Algeria, the Jacobins, etc., offer many examples of good/bad men in revolutions. Even our own American revolution has the stories of the Loyalists, who were "encouraged" to leave for England and Canada. And of course our own insurgency and lawlessness during and after the civil war where the nightriders gave a whole new meaning to atrocities.

Revolution is a nasty business. Good men do bad things and some bad men do good things! People die. Atriocities are committed.

Good men should try to avoid revolutions, but sometimes revolutions come looking for you, whether you want them to or not.

As for Che he met his end by summary execution

Well he did get a trial…

Trial by bullet

I don't think he was all that great as a leader and certain groups did grow to love him.

Mi amigazo, not my intention to critized your comments.
Only to said imho what I think about both.
And I'm sure many people here (in our country) share my opinion.
Peronism has the two extreme politic hands (extreme left and right) and Peron used them in time.
Remember when he return to our country.
Don't know how you are doing now here, but in my family/friends/etc things with the Peronism went always bad.
But you know, our country is divided by two because of that. (smile).
Che is one of the most famous Argentines and he was brave no doubt about that. But I do not compart his ideas.

Glad to talk with a fellow compatriot here.

Amicalement
Armand

PS:By the way, where are you living?. I'm from CABA Belgrano neighborhood.

Tango,
I agree with everything you just wrote.

You might have forgotten that we recently exchanged emails when you found my collection of war of independence miniatures and we found out that you were friends with my father and my uncle.

regards,
Francisco

Repiqueone,
If I misunderstood your positions I apologize, it can certainly happen during online debates.

Let me then reiterate my position and answer what I believe were the challenges to those positions. If those challenges do not represent what you meant then do not take this as a judgment of what you have said but simply as a clarification of my view in the subject regarding "El Carnicero de la Cabaña"

I contend that the criminal acts on which Che engaged qualify him as a murderer and do not consider them acts of war but rather crimes of war.

I contend that other members of the Cuban revolution were indeed commendable individuals that valiantly defended their ideals and while during war horrible things happen after war they dramatically opposed the establishment of a new regime to replace the previous one. They were persecuted imprisoned or executed by the Castros and Che.

I argue that because I consider him a murderer I do not think that he should be celebrated as a fashion icon. I do believe that most of the people that wear Che t-shirts are ignorant of his life and actions beyond a superficial embellished image. I do not deny that there are people that have studied his life in detail and still admire him, and indeed those people usually have the same complain about ignorance for Che t-shirt wearing fans.

I do not believe that the existence of admirers of Che nor his ability to inspire people are a valid rejection to my assertion that he is a murderer in the same manner that for example Stalin ( and others ) also have fans and had the ability to inspire people yet I also still consider him ( and the others ) murderers.

I do not agree that the context and history of South America justify Che's actions. I agree that brutal regimes usually breed brutal reactions but I still condemn brutality on both sides. By no means I necessarily agree with your views regarding the US influence in South America but I believe such debate would require a different forum to be debated and not this one. I certainly harbor no hatred for the US.

My rejection of Che in no way should be taken as a celebration of Batista's regime, who many of the fighters in the Cuban revolution aimed to replace with a new democratic republic and not another brutal regime.

And finally, my answer was indeed one of the earlier ones and under no circumstances was it a 'futbol' :) fan claim by an uninformed poster but an opinion formed through years of education in the subject.

With all that, please be aware that in no way do I consider your posts offensive, and I respect your dissenting opinions and appreciate your answers.

"Good men should try to avoid revolutions, but sometimes revolutions come looking for you, whether you want them to or not."

I like this statement of yours, but I don't believe it applies to Che, I think he was a bad individual trying to inject himself in a noble cause.

regards,
Francisco

You are right mi amigo!. (smile)
Sorry, I'm getting old!. (smile)

Amicalement
Armand

I once asked someone who was wearing a Che T-shirt if she knew who he was. The answer was "No". I asked her: "Then why are you wearing his photograph on your shirt"? The answer was: "Because he looks cool".

"I do believe that most of the people that wear Che t-shirts are ignorant of his life and actions beyond a superficial embellished image."

I believe this statement to be true. Never underestimate superficiality – at least in the US…

Cloudy – isn't that the same as the confederate flag though?

People put it on their cars to show defiance, rather than because they endorse the ideals of the organization.

Weasel – Exactly. The few people that I've known that have stuck a reb battle flag on their bumper/windows have been southerners. I think that it is more a declaration of collective identity e.g. "proud to be a southerner" now than a statement of rebellion against "The Man". So yes, I guess the complete meaning of the symbol and it's associated baggage is fading. But one would think that the average US citizen would at least have some idea as to what the flag is as opposed to having no idea who Che is…

On the other side of the coin, one could say that since you display the image then you must espouse all the ideas that the image represents – which would be the likely conclusion if one wore a nazi flag or a photo of Hitler on their shirt…

I'm sorry,Cloudy, but that flag has an identity that goes far beyond "proud to be a Southerner ", and none of that is good. Many US citizens have a far stronger personal reason to despise the Confederate Battle Flag than they do the swastika.

This is unfortunate, but that flag was co opted by generations of racists, klansmen, segregationists, Jim Crow, and other sad characters. It cannot be redeemed. It belongs in museums, not on cars, trucks, or public flag poles.