QuoteReplyTopic: Question re Che Guevara. Posted: 31-Oct-2006 at 18:44
I recently saw a member try to strike down another member's mention of Che Guevara as their "favorite warrior".
The words were: "...he took control of Cuba with Castro he just killed, killed, and killed some many innocent people. He is a terrorist and a murderer."
My question is whether or not that was an accurate general description of Che Guevara.
I just spent 30 minutes researching him, and noticed a pattern...
Right to Center-Right sources portray him as some kind of small-time rebel.
Center-Right to Center sources describe him as a rather semi-misguided freedom fighter.
Center to Center-Left sources depict him as an anti-imperialist freedom fighter.
Leftists see him as a god.
It seems only the far Right doesn't like him and even there I didn't see accusations of terrorism or mass murder.
So, the question again; was the member's statement an accurate general description of Che Guevara?
I haven't read very much about him, but I know he helped the Cuban revolutionaries overthrow Batista, a good thing at the time, but then he started having differences with Castro's pro-Russian movements, leading to him (Che) having to flee Cuba in disguise.
I would disagree with the statement that Che is considered a God in the left. He is a very popular icon, I do admit, but God is stretching it a bit.
That said, el Che was a warrior, and any moral judgement that you bring to warriors will fall on him as well. An American soldier can be considered a terrorist and a murderer under the right perspective.
Che Guevara is an important figure for the left in Latin America, but I don't agree he could be considered the "favorite" warrior of the region, because in Latin America most people won't consider commuinism to be the most important cause.
There are other figures that a lot closer to be the most important heroe.
Some of them are:
(1) Simon Bolivar, the most important of the indepence fighters.
(2) Lautaro, the main Native heroe of southern South America. In his honour were name the lodges that comploted for independence from Spain. His name is still used in ships, batallions of the arm forces and by guerrilla fighters as well.
(3) Sandino, fought against the American imperialism.
(4) Pancho Villa, invaded the U.S.! He is considered a very "romantic" heroe, although everyone agrees he was a vulgar bandit, anyways
And thousand of people more, but most of the others are figures of particular countries rather than regions.
I see some parallels between Guevara and Mao. Both started off being an idealist with their eyes on the plight of the poor and the disenfranchized; both were intellectual and charismatic; but both were ruthlessly brutal; and of course both were iconized by certain elements of the left.
I am of the left but I certainly do not either iconize or idealize these two people.
Che Guevara is an important figure for the left in Latin America, but I don't agree he could be considered the "favorite" warrior of the region, because in Latin America most people won't consider commuinism to be the most important cause.
There are other figures that a lot closer to be the most important heroe.
Some of them are:
(1) Simon Bolivar, the most important of the indepence fighters.
(2) Lautaro, the main Native heroe of southern South America. In his honour were name the lodges that comploted for independence from Spain. His name is still used in ships, batallions of the arm forces and by guerrilla fighters as well.
(3) Sandino, fought against the American imperialism.
(4) Pancho Villa, invaded the U.S.! He is considered a very "romantic" heroe, although everyone agrees he was a vulgar bandit, anyways.
And thousand of people more, but most of the others are figures of particular countries rather than regions.
I visited Cuba recently. The coast + interior. Some Cubans complained about Fidel but none of them expressed anything other than love for Che. They said he helped them oust the Batista regime and continued to stay true to the common people after the revolution when Fidel started turning pro-Russian...
I think that in Mexico Zapata has more influence now than Villa, although Villa is adored in the North.
YES! Zapata is a more important figure than Villa, indeed, if we get serious. Also Benito Juarez has a higher stature!
However, although Villa was not more than a bandit with charism, he has been the first guy that has invaded the U.S. ever! and he lived to tell the tail!
So, it is just one of the few revenges Latin America has taken from the land (like Chavez said) where "evil" lives .
It is curious than from the times that Mexican dictator Porfirio Diaz said "Poor Mexico: so far from God but so close to the United States"
I see some parallels between Guevara and Mao. Both started off being an idealist with their eyes on the plight of the poor and the disenfranchized; both were intellectual and charismatic; but both were ruthlessly brutal; and of course both were iconized by certain elements of the left.
I am of the left but I certainly do not either iconize or idealize these two people.
I don't know that much about Mao, but I think that Mao accomplished a lot more than Che.
Che was some kind of an adrenaline junkie. He hopped from thrill to thrill until he found his way to Fidel's training camp in Mexico.
Cuba made him el Che, but it also wacked his sense of what he could accomplish. Che arrived into the scene at the culmination of a very long and complicated struggle against Batista. A complex network of supporters in Miami, Mexico, and Cuba made the victory for Fidel possible. There was an extensive civil resistence movement that cleared the way and supported the rebels. And Cuba is a relatively speaking, small country.
So el Che walks into this, hangs out for a couple of years, and shares the victory.
It seems that he was unable to understand that quick victories like that aren't possible in bigger countries, so he kept engaging into these wacky projects in Africa and Bolivia.
His death was inevitable when considering that he kept trying to start revolutions all over the place. When he died, Fidel worked very, very hard into turning him into an icon.
Damn it, Fidel! Not only you are a crafty statesman, you are also a brilliant markerter, turning el Che into the Mickey Mouse of the Latin American left...
Curiosly enough, Che Guevara was killed in Bolivia because the farmers he tries to "liberate from oppresion" didn't believe him, and called the authorities.
The fact is for Bolivians of Amerindian ancestry, Che Guevara was an allien as foreign as an Spanish conquistador!
I don't know that much about Mao, but I think that Mao accomplished a lot more than Che.
hugoestr is right.
Originally posted by hugoestr
Che was some kind of an adrenaline junkie.
Well put, hehe.
Originally posted by hugoestr
He hopped from thrill to thrill until he found his way to Fidel's training camp in Mexico.
His "thrill to thrill hopping" before Cuba was also a series of documented trips & residings throughout South/Central America.
His process of joining the Cuban revolutionary movement was a bit more than "finding Fidel's training camp in Mexico".
When he went to Mexico in '54 his first job there was a photographer, and his first impressions of Mexico were far from pleasant:
"Mexico is entirely given over to the Yankees. The press says nothing at all. The economic situation is terrible, prices are going up at an alarming rate, and the disintegrations is such that all the labour leaders have been bought off and sign unfair contracts with the Yankee companies, in return for suppressing strikes. There is no independent industry."
Later that year he got a job as a doctor in Mexico City at the allergy ward of the city's General Hospital which also gave him a grant in exchange for writing scientific research papers on allergies attended congresses on its behalf. He began making contacts with politicians and international political activists such as Raul Castro (studying in Mexico at the time) and his brother...
Originally posted by hugoestr
Cuba made him el Che, but it also wacked his sense of what he could accomplish.
Correct; it makes sense that the successes of the country's revolution compounded with the 'heroism factor' would make him overconfident.
Originally posted by hugoestr
Che arrived into the scene at the culmination of a very long and complicated struggle against Batista.
Correct again.
Originally posted by hugoestr
A complex network of supporters in Miami, Mexico, and Cuba made the victory for Fidel possible.
The supporters from outside Cuba certainly helped but aren't you making it look like you're giving them more credit than the Cuban civilians & peasants who fought in the jungles & cities?
Originally posted by hugoestr
There was an extensive civil resistence movement that cleared the way and supported the rebels.
I believe the "extensive civil resistance movement" and the "rebels" were basically the same people.
Originally posted by hugoestr
And Cuba is a relatively speaking, small country.
For me (a Canadian) their surface area isn't that great; 110,860 sq km.
Population is just over 11.3 million; more than some countries like Greece, Portugal, Belgium, Sweden, Austria, Bulgaria, Switzerland, Israel, Libya, Jordan, Denmark, Finland, Norway, New Zealand, Congo, etc.
Full list of countries of smaller population size than Cuba:
Curiosly enough, Che Guevara was killed in Bolivia because the farmers he tries to "liberate from oppresion" didn't believe him, and called the authorities.
His location was revealed by an informant and informants were/are a common thing in most armed conflicts. Informants don't always care very much about what the target says and are often more motivation by money.
Please explain "didn't believe him".
Originally posted by pinguin
The fact is for Bolivians of Amerindian ancestry, Che Guevara was an allien as foreign as an Spanish conquistador!
Of course they didn't see him as a Bolivian - he was not! - but they didn't see him as a "Spanish Conquistador" either.
The civil resistence was a key component for the success of the guerrilla, and frankly, I think that their role has not been appreciated enough in the past. Thanks to the support from civilians, Fidel was able to get more ammunition, food, hiding, and intelligence thanks to a complex system of support. Fidel would have run out of resources within the first few months had he not enjoyed the support of an organized population
Yes, I exagerated a bit when I said Che just hopped into the fray for a little bit. Yes, three years is a long time. But at the same time, his role was brief when seen in the context of how long it took to get rid of Batista.
And really, three years of guerrilla fighting is a very, very brief time compared with other guerrilla movements. Ho Chi Minh fought since 1945 until his death, and the FMLN fought for 12 years with no positive results. This is not counting the many other Latin America guerrilla groups.
Compare with these other examples, Fidel Castro more or less walked into victory.
El Che was not prepared to fight without civilian support and for a long time. Several of his biographies describe how he was shocked that the people didn't support his military adventures as they did in Cuba
I don't like the guy. Latin America has definately brought forth greater and more interesting revolutionaries.
Mixcoatl, I like your name - it sounds neat, what does it mean if I may...?
I agree; Latin America has brought forth so many really great & interesting revolutionaries; greater & more interesting than Che indeed, but I don't let that make me personally dislike any of them.
Very simple. His message was addressed to the poors of Latin America of Hispanic descendency and mentality. In the Hispanic mentality, the social fight is for EQUALITY between poor and rich who belongs to the same ethnic group.
When he went to Bolivia, he found itself between people who were not of Hispanic backgroud, but of mainly Amerindian ethnicity and traditions. For them "Che" was another allien more. An Hispanic (He was Argentinean) who got NO BUSINESS between Amerindians.
It is quite clear Bolivians peasants couldn't care less about an Argentinean doctor who worked for a Caribbean dictator who pretended to export "revolution" like the ancient conquestors exported "christianity". That what I mean.
Originally posted by Hellios
Originally posted by pinguin
The fact is for Bolivians of Amerindian ancestry, Che Guevara was an allien as foreign as an Spanish conquistador!
Of course they didn't see him as a Bolivian - he was not! - but they didn't see him as a "Spanish Conquistador" either.
They saw him as an allien that has nothing to do with the reality of Bolivia. That kind of characters are pretty common in the history of Latin America. Foreigners that don't know the soil where they are standing, and therefore fail.
His message was addressed to the poors of Latin America of Hispanic descendency and mentality.
Is that why he learned to speak Quechua? I don't think he discriminated against the Bolivian aboriginals.
Originally posted by pinguin
In the Hispanic mentality, the social fight is for EQUALITY between poor and rich who belongs to the same ethnic group.
Are you saying the Bolivian aboriginals resentfully saw him as a colonialist, aristocrat, leading the life of a rich man who oppresses the poor?I don't think so.I think they knew he wasn't like that.
Originally posted by pinguin
When he went to Bolivia, he found itself between people who were not of Hispanic backgroud, but of mainly Amerindian ethnicity and traditions. For them "Che" was another allien more. An Hispanic (He was Argentinean) who got NO BUSINESS between Amerindians.
Pinguin, who was the conflict in Bolivia between?
Originally posted by pinguin
It is quite clear Bolivians peasants couldn't care less about an Argentinean doctor who worked for a Caribbean dictator who pretended to export "revolution" like the ancient conquestors exported "christianity". That what I mean.
- They did care; look at my other post (in this thread) with visual proof of how Bolivian aboriginals perceive him.
- He wasn't "working for Fidel".Bolivia was a fight he picked himself & for himself.He was not Fidels employee.
- Again, saying they saw him as a "Spanish Conquistador" is incorrect.
Originally posted by pinguin
They saw him as an allien that has nothing to do with the reality of Bolivia. That kind of characters are pretty common in the history of Latin America.
Please see my other post with visual proof of how Bolivian aboriginals perceive him.
Originally posted by pinguin
Foreigners that don't know the soil where they are standing, and therefore fail.
His military defeat in Bolivia was not due to lack of knowledge of the terrain.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Share Topic
Printable Version
Google
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Windows Live
Yahoo Bookmarks
reddit
Facebook
MySpace
Newsvine
Furl
Topic Search 
Topic Options
Quote 
Topic: Question re Che Guevara.
