History of the Americas: Question re Che Guevara.

74	http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Flag_of_Greece.svg - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greece - Greece	11,120,000
75	http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Flag_of_Portugal.svg - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portugal - Portugal	10,569,592
76	http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Flag_of_Belgium_%28civil%29.svg - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belgium - Belgium	10,419,000
77	http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Flag_of_the_Czech_Republic_%28bordered%29.svg - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Czech_Republic - Czech Republic	10,268,607
78	http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Flag_of_Tunisia.svg - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunisia - Tunisia	10,102,000
79	http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Flag_of_Hungary.svg - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungary - Hungary	10,098,000
80	http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Flag_of_Serbia_%28state%29_%28bordered%29.svg - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serbia - Serbia	9,778,991
81	http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Flag_of_Belarus.svg - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belarus - Belarus	9,755,000
82	http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Flag_of_Chad.svg - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chad - Chad	9,749,000
83	http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Flag_of_Guinea.svg - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guinea - Guinea	9,402,000
84	http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Flag_of_Bolivia.svg - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bolivia - Bolivia	9,182,000
85	http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Flag_of_Sweden.svg - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweden - Sweden	9,101,600	http://www.scb.se/templates/befolkningsklocka/befklocka_mall____75500.asp -
86	http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Flag_of_Rwanda.svg - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rwanda - Rwanda	9,038,000
87	http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Flag_of_the_Dominican_Republic.svg - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominican_Republic - Dominican Republic	8,895,000
88	http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Flag_of_Haiti.svg - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haiti - Haiti	8,528,000
89	http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Flag_of_Benin.svg - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benin - Benin	8,439,000
90	http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Flag_of_Azerbaijan.svg - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azerbaijan - Azerbaijan	8,411,000
91	http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Flag_of_Somalia.svg - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somalia - Somalia	8,228,000
92	http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Flag_of_Austria.svg - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austria - Austria	8,189,000
93	http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Flag_of_Bulgaria_%28bordered%29.svg - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulgaria - Bulgaria	7,726,000
94	http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Flag_of_Burundi.svg - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burundi - Burundi	7,548,000
95	http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Flag_of_Switzerland.svg - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switzerland - Switzerland	7,252,000
96	http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Flag_of_Honduras.svg - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honduras - Honduras	7,205,000
97	http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Flag_of_El_Salvador.svg - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Salvador - El Salvador	7,203,807
98	http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Flag_of_Hong_Kong.svg - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hong_Kong - Hong Kong ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Republic_of_China - PRC )	7,041,000
99	http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Flag_of_Israel_%28bordered%29.svg - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel - Israel	7,026,000
100	http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Flag_of_Tajikistan.svg - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tajikistan - Tajikistan	6,507,000
101	http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Flag_of_Paraguay.svg - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paraguay - Paraguay	6,158,000
102	http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Flag_of_Togo.svg - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Togo - Togo	6,145,000
103	http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Flag_of_Laos.svg - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laos - Laos	5,924,000
104	http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Flag_of_Papua_New_Guinea.svg - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papua_New_Guinea - Papua New Guinea	5,887,000
105	http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Flag_of_Libya.svg - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libya - Libya	5,853,000
106	http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Flag_of_Jordan.svg - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jordan - Jordan	5,703,000
107	http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Flag_of_Sierra_Leone.svg - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sierra_Leone - Sierra Leone	5,525,000
108	http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Flag_of_Nicaragua.svg - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicaragua - Nicaragua	5,487,000
109	http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Flag_of_Denmark.svg - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denmark - Denmark	5,431,000
110	http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Flag_of_Slovakia_%28bordered%29.svg - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slovakia - Slovakia	5,401,000
111	http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Flag_of_Kyrgyzstan.svg - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyrgyzstan - Kyrgyzstan	5,264,000
112	http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Flag_of_Finland_%28bordered%29.svg - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finland - Finland	5,249,000
113	http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Flag_of_Turkmenistan.svg - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkmenistan - Turkmenistan	4,833,000
114	http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Flag_of_Norway.svg - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norway - Norway	4,673,400
115	http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Flag_of_Croatia.svg - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Croatia - Croatia	4,551,000
116	http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Flag_of_the_United_Arab_Emirates.svg - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Arab_Emirates - United Arab Emirates	4,496,000
117	http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Flag_of_Georgia_%28bordered%29.svg - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_%28country%29 - Georgia	4,474,000	^{http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population#_note-geo -}
118	http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Flag_of_Eritrea.svg - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eritrea - Eritrea	4,401,000
119	http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Flag_of_Costa_Rica.svg - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Costa_Rica - Costa Rica	4,327,000
120	http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Flag_of_Singapore_%28bordered%29.svg - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singapore - Singapore	4,326,000
121	http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Flag_of_Ireland.svg - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Ireland - Republic of Ireland	4,234,925	^{http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population#_note-5 -}
122	http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Flag_of_New_Zealand.svg - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand - New Zealand	4,154,600
123	http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Flag_of_Moldova.svg - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moldova - Moldova	4,148,000
124	http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Flag_of_the_Central_African_Republic.svg - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_African_Republic - Central African Republic	4,038,000
125	http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Flag_of_the_Republic_of_the_Congo.svg - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_the_Congo - Republic of the Congo	3,999,000
126	http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Flag_of_Puerto_Rico.svg - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puerto_Rico - Puerto Rico ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unincorporated_territory - US )	3,955,000
127	http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Flag_of_Bosnia_and_Herzegovina.svg - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosnia_and_Herzegovina - Bosnia and Herzegovina	3,907,000
128	http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Palestinian_flag.svg - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_territories - Palestinian territories	3,702,000
129	http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Flag_of_Lebanon.svg - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebanon - Lebanon	3,577,000
130	http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Flag_of_Somaliland.svg - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somaliland - Somaliland	3,500,000
131	http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Flag_of_Uruguay.svg - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uruguay - Uruguay	3,463,000
132	http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Flag_of_Lithuania.svg - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithuania - Lithuania	3,431,000
133	http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Flag_of_Liberia.svg - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberia - Liberia	3,283,000
134	http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Flag_of_Panama_%28bordered%29.svg - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panama - Panama	3,232,000
135	http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Flag_of_Armenia.svg - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenia - Armenia	3,215,800
136	http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Flag_of_Albania.svg - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albania - Albania	3,130,000
136	http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Flag_of_Mauritania.svg - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mauritania - Mauritania	3,069,000
138	http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Flag_of_Kuwait.svg - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuwait - Kuwait	2,687,000
139	http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Flag_of_Jamaica.svg - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamaica - Jamaica	2,651,000
140	http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Flag_of_Mongolia.svg - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongolia - Mongolia	2,646,000
141	http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Flag_of_Oman_%28bordered%29.svg - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oman - Oman	2,567,000
142	http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Flag_of_Latvia.svg - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latvia - Latvia	2,307,000
143	http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Flag_of_Bhutan.svg - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhutan - Bhutan	2,163,000
144	http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Flag_of_Macedonia.svg - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Macedonia - Republic of Macedonia	2,034,000
145	http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Flag_of_Namibia.svg - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Namibia - Namibia	2,031,000
146	http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Flag_of_Slovenia_%28bordered%29.svg - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slovenia - Slovenia	2,006,908
147	http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Flag_of_Lesotho.svg - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lesotho - Lesotho	1,795,000
148	http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Flag_of_Botswana.svg - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Botswana - Botswana	1,765,000
149	http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Flag_of_Guinea-Bissau.svg - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guinea-Bissau - Guinea-Bissau	1,586,000
150	http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Flag_of_The_Gambia.svg - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gambia - The Gambia	1,517,000
151	http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Flag_of_Gabon.svg - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gabon - Gabon	1,384,000
152	http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Flag_of_Estonia_%28bordered%29.svg - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estonia - Estonia	1,330,000
153	http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Flag_of_Trinidad_and_Tobago.svg - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinidad_and_Tobago - Trinidad and Tobago	1,305,000
154	http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Flag_of_Mauritius.svg - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mauritius - Mauritius	1,245,000
155	http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Flag_of_Swaziland.svg - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swaziland - Swaziland	1,032,000
156	http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Flag_of_East_Timor.svg - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Timor - East Timor	947,000
157	http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Flag_of_Fiji.svg - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiji - Fiji	848,000
158	http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Flag_of_Cyprus_%28bordered%29.svg - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyprus - Cyprus	835,000
159	http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Flag_of_Qatar_%28bordered%29.svg - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qatar - Qatar	813,000
160	http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Flag_of_the_Comoros.svg - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comoros - Comoros	798,000	^{http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population#_note-com -}
161	http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Flag_of_Djibouti.svg - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Djibouti - Djibouti	793,000
162	http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Flag_of_France.svg - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R%C3%A9union - R�union ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_overseas_territory - France )	785,000
163	http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Flag_of_Guyana.svg - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guyana - Guyana	751,000
164	http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Flag_of_Bahrain_%28bordered%29.svg - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bahrain - Bahrain	727,000
165	http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Flag_of_Montenegro.svg - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montenegro - Montenegro	620,145	^{http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population#_note-me -}
166	http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Flag_of_Transnistria.svg - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transnistria - Transnistria	555,347
167	http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Flag_of_Cape_Verde.svg - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cape_Verde - Cape Verde	507,000
168	http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Flag_of_Equatorial_Guinea.svg - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equatorial_Guinea - Equatorial Guinea	504,000
169	http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Flag_of_the_Solomon_Islands.svg - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solomon_Islands - Solomon Islands	478,000
170	http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Flag_of_Luxembourg.svg - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luxembourg - Luxembourg	465,000
171	http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Flag_of_Macau.svg - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macau - Macau ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Republic_of_China - PR China )	460,000
172	http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Flag_of_Suriname.svg - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suriname - Suriname	449,000
173	http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Flag_of_France.svg - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guadeloupe - Guadeloupe ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_overseas_territories - France )	448,000
174	http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Flag_of_Malta_%28bordered%29.svg - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malta - Malta	402,000
175	http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Flag_of_France.svg - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martinique - Martinique ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_overseas_territories - France )	396,000
176	http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Flag_of_Brunei.svg - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brunei - Brunei	374,000
177	http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Flag_of_Western_Sahara.svg - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Sahara - Western Sahara	341,000
178	http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Flag_of_Maldives.svg - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maldives - Maldives	329,000
179	http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Flag_of_the_Bahamas.svg - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bahamas - The Bahamas	323,000
180	http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Flag_of_Iceland.svg - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iceland - Iceland	304,334
181	http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Flag_of_Belize.svg - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belize - Belize	287,730
182	http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Flag_of_Barbados.svg - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbados - Barbados	279,000
183	http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Flag_of_the_Turkish_Republic_of_Northern_Cyprus.svg - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_Republic_of_Northern_Cyprus - Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus	264,172
184	http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Flag_of_French_Polynesia.svg - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Polynesia - French Polynesia ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_overseas_territories - France )	257,000
185	http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Flag_of_France.svg - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Caledonia - New Caledonia ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_overseas_territories - France )	237,000
186	http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Flag_of_Vanuatu.svg - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanuatu - Vanuatu	211,000
187	http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Flag_of_France.svg - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Guiana - French Guiana ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_overseas_territories - France )	187,000
188	http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Flag_of_Samoa.svg - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samoa - Samoa	185,000
189	http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Flag_of_the_Netherlands_Antilles_%28bordered%29.svg - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netherlands_Antilles - Netherlands Antilles ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_the_Netherlands - Netherlands )	183,000
190	http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Flag_of_Guam.svg - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guam - Guam ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unincorporated_territory - US )	170,000
191	http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Flag_of_Saint_Lucia.svg - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Lucia - Saint Lucia	161,000
192	http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Flag_of_Sao_Tome_and_Principe.svg - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C3%A3o_Tom%C3%A9_and_Pr%C3%ADncipe - S�o Tom� and Pr�ncipe	157,000
193	http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Flag_of_Abkhazia.svg - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abkhazia - Abkhazia	150,000
194	http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Channel_Islands - Channel Islands ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_crown_dependency - UK )	149,000	^{http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population#_note-ci -}
195	http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Flag_of_Nagorno-Karabakh.svg - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nagorno-Karabakh - Nagorno-Karabakh	145,000
196	http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Flag_of_Saint_Vincent_and_the_Grenadines.svg - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Vincent_and_the_Grenadines - Saint Vincent and the Grenadines	119,000
197	http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Flag_of_the_United_States_Virgin_Islands.svg - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Virgin_Islands - U.S. Virgin Islands ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unincorporated_territory - US )	112,000
198	http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Flag_of_Micronesia.svg - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federated_States_of_Micronesia - Federated States of Micronesia	110,000
199	http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Flag_of_Grenada.svg - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grenada - Grenada	103,000
200	http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Flag_of_Tonga.svg - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tonga - Tonga	102,000
201	http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Flag_of_Aruba.svg - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aruba - Aruba ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_the_Netherlands - Netherlands )	99,000
202	http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Flag_of_Kiribati.svg - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kiribati - Kiribati	99,000
203	http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Flag_of_Antigua_and_Barbuda.svg - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antigua_and_Barbuda - Antigua and Barbuda	81,000
204	http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Flag_of_the_Northern_Mariana_Islands.svg - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Mariana_Islands - Northern Mariana Islands ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unincorporated_territory - US )	81,000
205	http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Flag_of_the_Seychelles.svg - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seychelles - Seychelles	81,000
206	http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Flag_of_Dominica.svg - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominica - Dominica	79,000
207	http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Flag_of_the_Isle_of_Man.svg - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isle_of_Man - Isle of Man ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_crown_dependency - UK )	77,000
208	http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Flag_of_South_Ossetia.svg - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Ossetia - South Ossetia	70,000
209	http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Flag_of_Andorra.svg - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andorra - Andorra	67,000
210	http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Flag_of_American_Samoa.svg - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Samoa - American Samoa ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unincorporated_territory - US )	65,000
211	http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Flag_of_Bermuda.svg - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bermuda - Bermuda ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_overseas_territory - UK )	64,000
212	http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Flag_of_the_Marshall_Islands.svg - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Islands - Marshall Islands	62,000
213	http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Flag_of_Greenland.svg - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenland - Greenland ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denmark - Denmark )	57,000
214	http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Flag_of_the_Faroe_Islands_%28bordered%29.svg - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faroe_Islands - Faroe Islands ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denmark - Denmark )

Posted By: Hellios
Date Posted: 01-Nov-2006 at 17:25

Originally posted by pinguin

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.

Posted By: hugoestr
Date Posted: 01-Nov-2006 at 17:31

Hi, Hellios,

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

-------------

Posted By: Hellios
Date Posted: 01-Nov-2006 at 17:45

Originally posted by Mixcoatl

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.

Rgds/Bill

Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 01-Nov-2006 at 19:37

Originally posted by Hellios

....

Please explain "didn't believe him".

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.

Pinguin

Posted By: Hellios
Date Posted: 01-Nov-2006 at 20:32

Originally posted by pinguin

The fact is for Bolivians of Amerindian ancestry, Che Guevara was an allien as foreign as an Spanish conquistador!

Pinguin, here's how the "Bolivians of Amerindian ancestry" perceive Che in Bolivia...

We'll start from the top:

Posted By: Hellios
Date Posted: 01-Nov-2006 at 21:40

Originally posted by pinguin

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 Fidel�s 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.

Rgds/Bill

Posted By: Hellios
Date Posted: 02-Nov-2006 at 00:23

Originally posted by hugoestr

Hi, Hellios,

Yo! You make good/valid points.

Originally posted by hugoestr

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

You make a good distinction between the 'fighter' and the 'civilian' supporting him/her, plus I agree that the civilian's role has often been underrated. I consider them both on the same team; both 'rebels'.

Originally posted by hugoestr

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.

Agreed; the Batista overthrow had started before Che came into the picture, and some or most of Batista's predecessors were not too great either lol.

Originally posted by hugoestr

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.

Yep, there were other revolutions that were longer.

Originally posted by hugoestr

Compare with these other examples, Fidel Castro more or less walked into victory.

I don't want to say Fidel "walked to victory" regardless of what I'm comparing the Cuban revolution to, only because I know what they went through, and (unlike many other countries) it was a truly homegrown revolution, for just causes, from the bottom up, and not an overthrow coordinated by a foreign intelligence agency, nor a coup d'etat for unjust cause, nor a top-to-bottom regime change...

Originally posted by hugoestr

El Che was not prepared to fight without civilian support and for a long time.

Si senor.

Originally posted by hugoestr

Several of his biographies describe how he was shocked that the people didn't support his military adventures as they did in Cuba

Yeah, I agree; just look at his last recorded words before being executed in Bolivia by the Bolivian state army & CIA operatives:

"I knew you were going to shoot me; I should never have been taken alive. Tell Fidel that this failure does not mean the end of revolution, that it will triumph elsewhere. Tell Aleida to forget this, remarry and be happy, and keep the children studying. Ask the soldiers to aim well."

Posted By: Hellios
Date Posted: 02-Nov-2006 at 02:42

This is stupid: somebody went through the trouble of making a gallery of photos of international leaders that dealt with Che Guevara but they didn't put the names of the people!!!

I bet one of AE's quiz wizards (like Decebal) could name them in less than a minute...

10:

11:

12:

13:

14:

15:

16:

17:

18:

Posted By: hugoestr
Date Posted: 02-Nov-2006 at 07:26

Oh, Helios,

Originally posted by hugoestr

Compare with these other examples, Fidel Castro more or less walked into victory.

I don't want to say Fidel "walked to victory" regardless of what I'm comparing the Cuban revolution to, only because I know what they went through, and (unlike many other countries) it was a truly homegrown revolution, for just causes, from the bottom up, and not an overthrow coordinated by a foreign intelligence agency, nor a coup d'etat for unjust cause, nor a top-to-bottom regime change...

You are right: I meant to say that el Che walked into victory compared with Fidel's 15 years involvement with the process of removing Batista. Thanks for pointing out the gross blunder. This is what you get when you post when you are half asleep

-------------

Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 02-Nov-2006 at 07:53

Originally posted by Hellios

Originally posted by pinguin

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.

Discrimination goes both ways. He was the one discriminated because he was a white upper class argentinean doctor, playing comunist.

Originally posted by Hellios

You don't know how Amerindians feel about that. I do. I have been called "robber" by them in my own country, just because I am a Chilean and I exist.

Originally posted by Hellios

Pinguin, who was the conflict in

Bolivia

between?

He wanted to export a revolution but no local ask him to come. When he did he found himself alone.

Originally posted by Hellios

His military defeat in

Bolivia

was not due to lack of knowledge of the terrain.

His defeat was his lack of knowledge of people. Besides, many think Fidel send him to Bolivia to get rid of him.

Pinguin

Posted By: Hellios
Date Posted: 02-Nov-2006 at 10:09

Originally posted by pinguin

Discrimination goes both ways.

You have not shown any examples of how (you think) it was happening 1 way, so it might be too early to try to convince me that it was happening 2 ways.

Originally posted by pinguin

He was the one discriminated because he was a white upper class argentinean doctor, playing comunist.

Please show examples of the Bolivian aboriginals seeing Che Guevara in that light, in comparison to my many examples of the opposite, of Bolivian aboriginals liking him & his fight for the repressed.

Originally posted by pinguin

You don't know how Amerindians feel about that. I do. I have been called "robber" by them in my own country, just because I am a Chilean and I exist.

Your country isn't the only one with "Amerindians".

Originally posted by pinguin

Canada has plenty of aboriginals doesn't have aboriginals?

Plenty!

Canadians rarely use the word "Amerindian" anymore (like you do), because the word "Indian" was used in the Americas by mistake; because the early explorers believed they had reached India. Canadian "Amerindians" are called "natives", "aboriginal peoples", "the first nations of Canada", or most preferably by the name of their specific tribe.

Originally posted by pinguin

Hellios said: Pinguin, who was the conflict in Bolivia between?

Pinguin said: He wanted to export a revolution but no local ask him to come. When he did he found himself alone.

1. You didn't answer the question so maybe you don't know who the players in that conflict were.

2. Revolution was already happening in Bolivia before he went there.

3. Many revolutionaries have "found themselves alone" at some point. Wasn't Fidel captured once or twice? He could've easily been executed like Che, but was luckier.

Originally posted by pinguin

His defeat was his lack of knowledge of people.

His defeat in Bolivia was due to the location of his camp being revealed by an informant, and informants were/are a common thing in most armed conflicts. Informants don't always care very much about politics and are often more motivation by money.

Originally posted by pinguin

Besides, many think Fidel send him to Bolivia to get rid of him.

1. Fidel sent him to Bolivia? Is that what you believe?

2. When you feel like it, I can explain to you why & how Che left Cuba.

Wow, I just realized something; is it only natural for a Chilean to knock an Argentine icon?

Rgds/Bill

Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 02-Nov-2006 at 10:32

I will just said shortly that the cause of Communism is not the same that the cause of the Native Americans. Communism is an European invention as allien to Natives like Christianism.

Well, if you ask my oppinion about Cuban Revolution and its exports to mainland Americas (Salvador, Colombia, Cuba, et. al) and its adventures in Africa, I will say the following.

It was a lot of fun they always were against the Americans! That's the only thing worth to remember.

In practical terms Cuba didn't achieve much. Look. This is the chart of the Income Per Capita in Latin America.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_America - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_America

Look where is Cuba (3,000). Down in the botton, the third last, only above Bolivia and Haiti. Heroism is sometimes a wasted time.

So what has been more successful, the cuban revolution or the economics reforms of Argentina, Chile and Costa Rica? Think about it.

Pinguin

Posted By: Hellios
Date Posted: 02-Nov-2006 at 11:09

Ok hermano, let's discuss Cuba, but not here, this thread is about Che Guevara, I'll start a new thread.

Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 02-Nov-2006 at 11:37

Originally posted by Hellios

I bet one of AE's quiz wizards (like Decebal) could name them in less than a minute...

1. Allende
2. Khrushev
3. Tito
4. Nehru?
9. Khrushev again
10. Mao
18. Nasser

Posted By: Ponce de Leon
Date Posted: 02-Nov-2006 at 16:56

Originally posted by

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?

�

Thx.

That particular "member" that you are talking about would be me. Yes I have made that comment against El Che because he was a person inciting "revolution" and only wounded killing people in the process. So much for liberation if you get innocent people killed for your actions. Also he murdered many cubans along with Castro. He is kind of like Stalin in a way and i say that because even though he hurt the people, the people still love him

-------------

Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 02-Nov-2006 at 17:07

I agree with you!

The revolutions of the second half of the 20th century in Latin America were nothing more than a reflection of the Cold War in the region. Without those "heroes" like Guevara I bet we would have a lot better standard of living today, and at least a million people would not be buried six feet under.

There are still "guerrillas" in some places of Colombia, but they don't work for ideals anymore. After the fall of the Soviet Union they don't have free cash anymore, so today they work for money selling cocaine.

I don't know why people of Europe, the U.S. and other far away places has such a "romantic" vision of communist guerillas. I bet Mexican revolution made a lot more sense than the revolutionaries of the times of Guevara.

Pinguin

Posted By: hugoestr
Date Posted: 02-Nov-2006 at 17:42

Pinguin,

Those revolutions had more to do than just being pawns in the Cold War. The reality was that there were cases of extreme poverty that justified them.

I also doubt that the level of living would be any better without them since the problems that inspired many to get to arms in the first place was the wealth gap that our nations have.

I fully agree with your statement about the loss of life.

From what I know, Castro seems to have been a lot less bloody than many other Latin American dictators, especially right wing ones.

Personally, I think that el Che is appealing because he lived the "Great White Hope" plot: foreigner finds his way into a politically suppressed country, and gets the people to fight for their freedom.

-------------

Posted By: Hellios
Date Posted: 02-Nov-2006 at 18:01

Hi Ponce de Leon,

Originally posted by Ponce de Leon

Yes I have made that comment against El Che because he was a person inciting "revolution" and only wounded killing people in the process. So much for liberation if you get innocent people killed for your actions. Also he murdered many cubans along with Castro.

Revolution and/or Liberation can be good things, people do die in armed conflicts, "incitement" is when you create something that doesn't already exist?, and it's also good to consider what Cubans in Cuba have to say about Che and Fidel in addition to considering what Cubans in Miami or elsewhere have to say.

Originally posted by Ponce de Leon

He is kind of like Stalin in a way and i say that because even though he hurt the people, the people still love him.

Stalin, Conquistador, what next? I don't think these are logical comparisons, because Guevara was not known for being a "conqueror" or a "Stalin" but rather a sometimes successful & mostly unsuccessful liberator.

Posted By: Hellios
Date Posted: 02-Nov-2006 at 18:29

Originally posted by Mixcoatl

1. Allende

2. Khrushev
3. Tito
4. Nehru?
9. Khrushev again
10. Mao
18. Nasser

You got a lot of them; good job.

Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 02-Nov-2006 at 20:30

Originally posted by hugoestr

Pinguin,

Those revolutions had more to do than just being pawns in the Cold War. The reality was that there were cases of extreme poverty that justified them.

I also doubt that the level of living would be any better without them since the problems that inspired many to get to arms in the first place was the wealth gap that our nations have.

I fully agree with your statement about the loss of life.

From what I know, Castro seems to have been a lot less bloody than many other Latin American dictators, especially right wing ones.

I don't believe "revolution" was the only choice at all. I believe things just escaped of control. Consider what happened in Peru with the Shinning Path: 200.000 deaths in that conflict alone! Perhaps 1/2 a millioon died in Guatemala. And you keep adding.

Now for right wing dictator to be bloodier than left wing ones, I doubt. I don't know how many has Castro killed in 50 years of regime, but I am pretty certain they add a good 100.000 people at least. In Argentina, the gorillas killed around 20.000 people. But, do you know Pinochet killed around 3.500 only? Is not the number of people killed what matters, I guess, but how much terror you can inject into the population. And the Pinochet regime was terrorific in extreme.

Originally posted by hugoestr

Personally, I think that el Che is appealing because he lived the "Great White Hope" plot: foreigner finds his way into a politically suppressed country, and gets the people to fight for their freedom.

The problem is that communists didn't fight for the freedom of people, but to implant the "dictatorship of the proletarian" that was a dictatorship, anyways.

The collapse of the Soviet Union made almost all people in the planet to wake up from the myth. But there still exist people that believe it could have worked.

If you ask me, I preffer the path followed by Costa Rica. Perhaps the more intelligent country south of the U.S. border.

Pinguin

Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 03-Nov-2006 at 07:05

Originally posted by pinguin

What happened in Guatemala had nothing to do with a revolution. Jacobo �rbenz was democratically elected, and not very radical. The civil war started after he was overthrown by rightwing generals supported by the USA. In fact I think Arbenz was one of the best leaders Latin America ever had.

The shining path rebellion caused 50.000, of which a significant part caused by the government. (Though you're right that indeed the Shining Path was the most brutal guerilla organization of Latin America), while the canonical death toll for Guatemala is 200.000

Death tolls for Castro's regime vary between almost nothing to more than 150.000. Most serious sources give numbers around 10.000. That's of course 10.000 too much, but not extreme, considering that his regime exists for almost half a century. Many rightwing dictators have been much worse, Trujillo for example (15.000), the Argentine Junta (30.000), Maximiliano Hern�ndez (30.000), Papa & Baby Doc (60.000) and Efra�n R�os Montt (75.000 in 14 months!). And all of them ruled shorter than Castro. ( http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstatx.htm - source)

I really don't like Castro, but he's definately not the worst dictator of Latin America.

Posted By: hugoestr
Date Posted: 03-Nov-2006 at 07:31

Pinguin,

Armed rebellions have been a historical theme of Latin America since it became independent. Dressing up local interests and personal ambitions with ideology has also been a constant in the region.

My point is that Latin America has a tendency of trying to solve political problems through violence and civil war. And it is possible to rose people to support you because the wealth gap is so marked that there will be willing recruits to these military adventures. And these don't have to be necessarily poor people, but most likely educated people, poor or not, who will be move to action by the social injustice found in Latin America.

The history of the region seems to show that after an armed revolution, a new dictatorship is created. Yet, if the transition from power happened peacefully, these changes become long-lasting goals. So Costa Rica solved the problem of coups by getting rid of the military. And more dramaticly, Chile got rid of Pinochet through peaceful means and returned to its democratic tradition.

I lean towards non-violent solutions to problems exactly because of the horrible tract record that violent means have in Latin America. I wish that people would adopt it.

At the same time we must confront reality, and the reality of Latin America was that a combination of political suppresion and social injustice produce violent uprisings, guerrillas, coup d'etat, and civil war.

-------------

Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 03-Nov-2006 at 08:17

Originally posted by hugoestr

Pinguin,

Armed rebellions have been a historical theme of Latin America since it became independent. Dressing up local interests and personal ambitions with ideology has also been a constant in the region.

In certain degree you are right, but we can't consider Latin America a more chaotic continent than Europe, Asia or Africa. Actually, the number of problems in Latin America has always been few if you see them from the perpective of a single contry. What happens is that people adds the realities and the problems of the more than 20 Latin countries of the region and then the situation seem chaotic.

You can't compare the 70 million deaths in Europe in wars and conflicts of all kind, and a similar number in Asia, during the twentieth century, with the around 1 million people that have died in all the conflicts in every country of Latin America. The level of violence has been historically minor in Latin America.

Originally posted by hugoestr

My point is that Latin America has a tendency of trying to solve political problems through violence and civil war. And it is possible to rose people to support you because the wealth gap is so marked that there will be willing recruits to these military adventures. And these don't have to be necessarily poor people, but most likely educated people, poor or not, who will be move to action by the social injustice found in Latin America.

No. I don't agree. The problems were increased methodically by foreign ideologies, like fascism and communism that entered in conflict in the region.

But Latinos are not dumb, and are realizing the revolutionary countries are in deep misery, while the capitalist countries do better.

I have several friends of leftist ideas that have visited Cuba, for instance. What a desilution for them!

Originally posted by hugoestr

The history of the region seems to show that after an armed revolution, a new dictatorship is created. Yet, if the transition from power happened peacefully, these changes become long-lasting goals. So Costa Rica solved the problem of coups by getting rid of the military. And more dramaticly, Chile got rid of Pinochet through peaceful means and returned to its democratic tradition.

I couldn't be another way. In Chile the left never have full support of the people. Although poor if compared to developed nations, Chileans always had a "middle class" mentality, and looked down on Cuban like people of a Banana country.

In the same way, Chileans grew free and living in a democratic country, and the Pinochet dictatorship was a historical anomality. Little by little it was destroyed. Today, we are cleaning the mess, and erasing that gorilla from our collective mind.

Originally posted by hugoestr

I lean towards non-violent solutions to problems exactly because of the horrible tract record that violent means have in Latin America. I wish that people would adopt it.

At the same time we must confront reality, and the reality of Latin America was that a combination of political suppresion and social injustice produce violent uprisings, guerrillas, coup d'etat, and civil war.

The reality is that the contries that progress are the ones that work. That's something Chileans, Costa Ricans, and even Argentineans have been learning. Today the standard of living of a handful of these countries are quite different of the past.

Just something for the statistics. In the sixties more that 50% of the people lived in the countryside and where analphabets. Today more than 80% of the people lives in the cities and not only reads and write but send its kids to college.

There are still countries in deep trouble, in Central America, the Caribbean and Northern South America, but believe me conditions for revolutions have changed quite a lot.

Today there is MTV

Pinguin

Posted By: hugoestr
Date Posted: 03-Nov-2006 at 15:42

Pinguin,

It is a common belief that the European countries via ideologies instigated wars in the third world. I frankly don't buy that because you cannot instigate people into violence if they don�t really want to fight.

I think that many of the conflicts in the 3rd World were going to happen in any case, and it was the local war lords that took advantage of the Cold War to fund their ambitions.

Look at Fidel. It seems that he only became a "Communist" when his attempt to get American sponsorship failed. Or Look at Savimbi in Angola, who started as a Maoist when the Chinese supported him, and became a right-winger when his sponsor became the U.S.
Had The U.S. and the U.S.S.R. not supported these people with money, there would have been less bloodshed. But it would have happened in any case.

This is not a putdown on Latin America; it is just stating the facts.

-------------

Posted By: Hellios
Date Posted: 03-Nov-2006 at 16:03

Pinguin,

About before; when you said that Che Guevara "cared about fighting for the interests of only the white poor of Hispanic decent".

Does this poor man look white of Hispanic decent?

Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 03-Nov-2006 at 16:06

First, the very term "Third World" is misleading (invented by the French, of course). I don't see what could have in common Argentina, Ghana and Cambodia.

Second, the Cold War indeed it was a kind of colonization of the countries by means of sphere of influences. In Latin America that started long time ago, and the abusses by the United States have been going around since 1848. However, the Soviet Union also wanted to get a piece in the pie. None of them cared about the body guerrilla wars that followed.

But we believe justice survives at the end. Look at the Soviet Union right now, deep in poverty. Jesus! We have russian immigrants in Latin America too, and they don't realize how poor they are before they arrive here.

And look at the U.S. today. Without they noticing it, we invaded it . In the 60s Could have you imagined national TV networks in Spanish in the very U.S.? Controlled by Latinos? Or that a city like Miami was going to be controlled by Cuban business people?

I believe things happened because of some reason. Karma, I guess.

Pinguin

Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 03-Nov-2006 at 16:08

Originally posted by Hellios

Pinguin,

About before; when you said that Che Guevara "cared about fighting for the interests of only the white poor of Hispanic decent".

Does this poor man look white of Hispanic decent?

I didn't say Che Guevara cared at all.

Pinguin

Posted By: Hellios
Date Posted: 03-Nov-2006 at 17:28

Pinguin,

Originally posted by pinguin

The revolutions of the second half of the 20th century in Latin America were nothing more than a reflection of the Cold War in the region.

You assume that because you see common communist or socialist elements in those revolutions.

Originally posted by pinguin

Without those "heroes" like Guevara I bet we would have a lot better standard of living today, and at least a million people would not be buried six feet under.

What you're saying is that without people who fight for the poor & repressed, the poor & repressed would have a better standard of living.

You're also adding up casualties from separate conflicts as an argument against 1 person!

Originally posted by pinguin

There are still "guerrillas" in some places of Colombia, but they don't work for ideals anymore. After the fall of the Soviet Union they don't have free cash anymore, so today they work for money selling cocaine.

Guerillas will usually accept funding from wherever they can get it.

There's some cause for rebellion in Colombia but not enough (in my opinion) to justify some things the guerillas do there. It's not the same circumstances as (for example) the Cuban revolution.

I agree with you about the USSR (and probably East Block) having given financial support to Central and/or Southern American guerillas.

Originally posted by pinguin

I don't know why people of Europe, the U.S. and other far away places has such a "romantic" vision of communist guerillas.

Basically, what you're saying is that you don't understand why people believe in certain communist & socialist ideals. This is something only a neutral person can understand without believing in at the same time.

Originally posted by pinguin

I bet Mexican revolution made a lot more sense than the revolutionaries of the times of Guevara.

You seem to have a preference for only non-socialist and/or non-communist revolutions. Revolutions are revolutions. How were the poor & repressed of a country like Cuba any different than the poor & repressed of Mexico? and why should their story be any more or less interesting?

Posted By: Hellios
Date Posted: 03-Nov-2006 at 17:57

Originally posted by pinguin

Hellios said: About before; when you said that Che Guevara "cared about fighting for the interests of only the white poor of Hispanic decent". Does this poor man look white of Hispanic decent?

Pinguin said: I didn't say Che Guevara cared at all.

Yes, you claimed he was fighting for the interests of only the poor white of Hispanic decent and not the aboriginals, and we discussed it further.

Anyhow, if now you feel he didn't care at all for anybody he fought for, I suggest you have some talks with families who've lived under the regimes he fought to overthrow. I'm not a political activist, but when I hear someone say that Che Guevara didn't care at all for anybody he fought for, I feel a need to clarify.

Rgds/Bill

Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 03-Nov-2006 at 21:44

Originally posted by Hellios

Pinguin said: I didn't say Che Guevara cared at all.

Yes, you claimed he was fighting for the interests of only the poor white of Hispanic decent and not the aboriginals, and we discussed it further.

Rgds/Bill

No. What I said is Che Guevara was fighting a revolution that has anything to do with the insterest of Bolivians of Amerindian descent!

You should realize that there are still large populations of Amerindians who preserve their culture and customs in all mainland Latin America, but particularly in Mexico, Guatemala, Peru, Ecuador, Bolivia and Paraguay.

In those countries, ethnic Amerindians live in a parallel culture that reject many of the things impossed by westerners.

Now imagine these people seeing a foreigner, white, with high education, that was killing its cattle and some of their people, because of a cause they didn't share? What you would do? Acusse the loonie to the authorities. And that what precisely what happened.

Guerrillas have always killed Native Americans. Just count the victims of the Shinning path and you'll realize why Guzman is so hated in Peru.

Pinguin

Posted By: Hellios
Date Posted: 03-Nov-2006 at 22:47

Pinguin said: I didn't say Che Guevara cared at all.

Hellios said: Yes, you claimed he was fighting for the interests of only the poor white of Hispanic decent and not the aboriginals, and we discussed it further.

Pinguin said: No. What I said is Che Guevara was fighting a revolution that has anything to do with the insterest of Bolivians of Amerindian descent!

Here's the sequence:

- You claimed Guevara's fight in Bolivia was only for the "white poor of Hispanic decent" and not the aboriginals, but you showed no evidence of this.

- I said Bolivian aboriginals don't agree with you and posted about a dozen examples of this.

- Then I gave another example of a black poor man of non-Hispanic decent, and your answer was this: "I didn't say Che Guevara cared at all."

- Now you're back to saying (again) that his fight in Bolivia was only for the "white poor of Hispanic decent" and not the aboriginals, but you continue to show no evidence or examples of this, just an opinion that goes against the beliefs of Bolivian aboriginals.

Can we stop going in circles?

Originally posted by pinguin

You should realize that there are still large populations of Amerindians who preserve their culture and customs in all mainland Latin America, but particularly in Mexico, Guatemala, Peru, Ecuador, Bolivia and Paraguay.

Don't forget Canada too.

Originally posted by pinguin

In those countries, ethnic Amerindians live in a parallel culture that reject many of the things impossed by westerners.

The "westerners" you're talking about are the people Guevara was fighting.

Originally posted by pinguin

Now imagine these people seeing a foreigner, white, with high education, that was killing its cattle and some of their people, because of a cause they didn't share?

The cause of overthrowing a repressive regime??

Originally posted by pinguin

What you would do? Acusse the loonie to the authorities. And that what precisely what happened.

Pinguin, let's try to base ourselves on facts or at least things we can demonstrate through examples. All that is known as fact is that his defeat in Bolivia was due to the location of his camp being revealed by an "informant". There is no evidence, indications, or declarations that is was as you say. As said before, informants were/are a common thing in most armed conflicts, don't always care very much about politics, and are often more motivation by money.

Originally posted by pinguin

Guerrillas have always killed Native Americans.

Guevara killed Bolivian aboriginals??

Originally posted by pinguin

Just count the victims of the Shinning path and you'll realize why Guzman is so hated in Peru.

Yes, but Che is not hated in the Bolivian aboriginal world!

Posted By: hugoestr
Date Posted: 03-Nov-2006 at 23:04

Here I go

Bill, I think that the main point that Pinguin is making is that Che lacked the support in Bolivia that he enjoyed in Cuba. To a certain extent he didn't understand why they didn't rally behind him. I am going to call back my previous theory: Che walked into the late phase of the Cuban revolution, so he missed the long build up that made it successful.

So he goes to Bolivia, and the people don't support him as he expected they would.

Also, Pinguin is right when he talks about the divide between the indigenous people in Latin America and the European or mestizo population. They are regarded as foreigners. I don't know if this played a part into the apathy of Bolivians towards Che or not, but it may have played a role in it.

Now for some levity: let me tell you how I am three degrees separated from el Che.

My mother-in-law was a hot cutie when she was young. During the 1950s, she visited London. She meets a young Bolivian, and goes out on a date. They go to one of their hotel rooms, and he almost raped her.

This man later became the president of Bolivia under whose term el Che Guevara dies

-------------

Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 03-Nov-2006 at 23:38

[QUOTE=Hellios]

Here's the sequence:

- You claimed Guevara's fight in Bolivia was only for the "white poor of Hispanic decent" and not the aboriginals, but you showed no evidence of this.

No please . This is getting complicated. Che Guevara was fighting is revolution that theorical will bring equality for everyone.

In many places of Latin America, Natives believe every non-Indian (White, Mestizos, Natives that don't speak a Native language, Asians, Blacks, Mulatos, included) lies continuosly, is a robber, a potential criminal, and lacks all credibility. The Che included

- I said Bolivian aboriginals don't agree with you and posted about a dozen examples of this.

Who speak for Bolivian Aboriginals? Communist don't. Even Morales have had problems to speak in theirs names.

- Then I gave another example of a black poor man of non-Hispanic decent, and your answer was this: "I didn't say Che Guevara cared at all."

Guevara, like any guerilla, didn't care about people. They could kill anyone that crossed in their path. They cared about REVOLUTION not people. They wanted to get in power at any cost, not to become saints.

Although Guevara was white the problem is not that. The problem is that Guevara was as Western like a British or a French. He belonged to the burguesy. He was a doctor. He spoke a Western language and talked about Western ideas (Christianism and Marxism included!). He has NOTHING in common with Amerindians!

Don't forget Canada too.

Yes. And in Canada Natives are also allienated, at least they assimilate to the mainstream. That happened across the Americas.

The "westerners" you're talking about are the people Guevara was fighting.

No. I am not saying "westerner" to mean the OTAN . I am defining "Westerners" like those people that grew up inside the Western Civilization, like Guevara did. Go to Argentina or Uruguay. Although a little bit poorer, is like to be in Europe. Bolivia, in the other hand, is the poorest country in Latin South America. Half of its population is ethnical Amerindian, to the point many of them don't even speak Spanish but Quechua or Aymara. They really live in a parallel world in there.

The cause of overthrowing a repressive regime??

Why to change a pale face for another pale face? Think about it.

There was not much entusiasm at all in Bolivia because of the arrival of Guevara.

Guevara killed Bolivian aboriginals??

Guevara killed anyone that opposed him.

Yes, but Che is not hated in the Bolivian aboriginal world!

But he was ignored once. And that was it.

Pinguin

Posted By: Hellios
Date Posted: 04-Nov-2006 at 00:17

Originally posted by hugoestr

Bill, I think that the main point that Pinguin is making is that Che lacked the support in Bolivia that he enjoyed in Cuba. To a certain extent he didn't understand why they didn't rally behind him.

Pinguin probably thinks that Che had no support in Cuba either

, but what I've been trying to help him understand is that Bolivian aboriginals today feel it was a mistake to not support him more, and I demonstrated this by showing examples of Bolivian aboriginals from the bottom to the top (president) expressing admiration for Che. These are the people Pinguin loves to promote so I don't think they're stupid.

Originally posted by hugoestr

I am going to call back my previous theory: Che walked into the late phase of the Cuban revolution, so he missed the long build up that made it successful.

I thought we agreed; the build-up phase was no more or less important than the 3 year military campaign with Fidel.

Originally posted by hugoestr

So he goes to Bolivia, and the people don't support him as he expected they would.

Yep.

Originally posted by hugoestr

Also, Pinguin is right when he talks about the divide between the indigenous people in Latin America and the European or mestizo population. They are regarded as foreigners.

It's the same in Canada, I think I said that twice.

Originally posted by hugoestr

I don't know if this played a part into the apathy of Bolivians towards Che or not, but it may have played a role in it.

Yesh, it probably did.

Originally posted by hugoestr

Now for some levity: let me tell you how I am three degrees separated from el Che.

My mother-in-law was a hot cutie when she was young. During the 1950s, she visited London. She meets a young Bolivian, and goes out on a date. They go to one of their hotel rooms, and he almost raped her.

This man later became the president of Bolivia under whose term el Che Guevara dies

OMG!!! This person (who wanted to rape your mother) might've been the same person who ordered Guevara's execution, as most sources refer to the order being phoned in from La Paz.

Tell me, do you believe the news reports about small protests in Bolivia due to the release of previously classified documents pertaining to the presence & actions of the C.I.A. in Bolivia during the period we're talking about?

Posted By: Hellios
Date Posted: 04-Nov-2006 at 01:55

Originally posted by pinguin

Che Guevara was fighting is revolution that theorical will bring equality for everyone.

I'm glad we finally agree on that, because before you said his fight in Bolivia was (your words) "for the poors of Latin America of Hispanic descendency and mentality."

Originally posted by pinguin

In many places of Latin America, Natives believe every non-Indian (White, Mestizos, Natives that don't speak a Native language, Asians, Blacks, Mulatos, included) lies continuosly, is a robber, a potential criminal, and lacks all credibility. The Che included.

What I've been trying help you understand is that Bolivian aboriginals today feel it was a mistake to not support him more, and I demonstrated this by showing examples of Bolivian aboriginals from the bottom to the top (president) expressing admiration for Che. These are the people you love to promote so I don't think they're stupid.

Originally posted by pinguin

Who speak for Bolivian Aboriginals? Communist don't. Even Morales have had problems to speak in theirs names.

To answer your question; not enough people speak for Bolivian aboriginals, but Morales is one of the few that does.

Originally posted by pinguin

Guevara, like any guerilla, didn't care about people.

Your words: "Che Guevara was fighting is revolution that theorical will bring equality for everyone."

Originally posted by pinguin

They could kill anyone that crossed in their path.

So now he was a psychopath...

Originally posted by pinguin

They cared about REVOLUTION not people.

Your words: "Che Guevara was fighting is revolution that theorical will bring equality for everyone."

Originally posted by pinguin

They wanted to get in power at any cost, not to become saints.

It's probably the reverse

Originally posted by pinguin

Although Guevara was white the problem is not that.

You said being white was a problem a few times.

Originally posted by pinguin

The problem is that Guevara was as Western like a British or a French. He belonged to the burguesy. He was a doctor. He spoke a Western language and talked about Western ideas (Christianism and Marxism included!). He has NOTHING in common with Amerindians!

He was certainly different, but a common factor was the fight against a repressive government, as they themselves will tell you today.

Originally posted by pinguin

Yes. And in Canada Natives are also allienated, at least they assimilate to the mainstream. That happened across the Americas.

Doesn't make any sense as an answer.

Originally posted by pinguin

No. I am not saying "westerner" to mean the OTAN. I am defining "Westerners" like those people that grew up inside the Western Civilization, like Guevara did. Go to Argentina or Uruguay. Although a little bit poorer, is like to be in Europe. Bolivia, in the other hand, is the poorest country in Latin South America. Half of its population is ethnical Amerindian, to the point many of them don't even speak Spanish but Quechua or Aymara. They really live in a parallel world in there.

Why are you mentioning NATO and explaining all that when what I said is that it's the same people Guevara was fighting?

Originally posted by pinguin

Why to change a pale face for another pale face? Think about it.

I'm glad you agree that the regime he was fighting was a "pale face" and yes; fear of an unclear future is something that has stopped many people from standing up for themselves throughout history.

Originally posted by pinguin

There was not much entusiasm at all in Bolivia because of the arrival of Guevara.

"Hate" or "outrage" would be enough, but "not much enthusiasm" is not enough to establish - as fact - that the informant was politically motivated.

Originally posted by pinguin

Guevara killed anyone that opposed him.

Ok, please show me about Guevara's killing of Bolivian aboriginals.

Originally posted by pinguin

But he was ignored once. And that was it.

Yep.

Rgds/Bill

Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 04-Nov-2006 at 08:21

Originally posted by Hellios

I'm glad we finally agree on that, because before you said his fight in Bolivia was (your words) "for the poors of Latin America of Hispanic descendency and mentality."

Well, that's what he believed, anyways.

Originally posted by Hellios

Don't confusse Evo Morales with the Che. Evo repressents for Bolivians the return of the ancient rulers. For the first time after the Conquist they have a president of ethnic Amerindian origin. And that shows in the pre-columbian rituals you saw when he become president.

Compare the lifes of Hernan Cortes with the Che Guevara, and you will se a lot of coincidences. Both were allien conquistadors in Indian lands.

Originally posted by Hellios

To answer your question; not enough people speak for Bolivian aboriginals, but Morales is one of the few that does.

Morales is native! That makes the difference.

Originally posted by Hellios

Your words: "Che Guevara was fighting is revolution that theorical will bring equality for everyone."

Have you hear the saying "Cura gatica predica pero no practica" (The prist Gatica preaches but not practise it)? The revolution had a speech, but that does not mean theirs real intention was anything but get in power.

Originally posted by Hellios

Originally posted by pinguin

They could kill anyone that crossed in their path.

So now he was a psychopath...

What guerrilla fighter or military gorilla is not one?

Originally posted by Hellios

Originally posted by pinguin

They cared about REVOLUTION not people.

Your words: "Che Guevara was fighting is revolution that theorical will bring equality for everyone."

Don't you see the double meaning of theirs actions? They said "we are going to to this" but they did what it was convinient to them.

Originally posted by Hellios

Originally posted by pinguin

Although Guevara was white the problem is not that.

The problem IS NOT THE PHENOTYPE but the CULTURE. Nobody cares about colors of skins in South America but ethnic and social backgrounds are extremely important. The obsesion with "whiteness" is a North American hobbie.

Originally posted by Hellios

He was certainly different, but a common factor was the fight against a repressive government, as they themselves will tell you today.

Lord! You still believe Guevara or any other "revolutionary" was a Robin Hood!

Originally posted by Hellios

Originally posted by pinguin

Guevara killed anyone that opposed him.

Ok, please show me about Guevara's killing of Bolivian aboriginals.

Nobody invited him to kill Bolivians, in the first place. What would happens if some foreigner start to kill Canadians to free yourself of your oppresing regime?

Pinguin

Posted By: hugoestr
Date Posted: 04-Nov-2006 at 10:09

Originally posted by Hellios

[

Originally posted by hugoestr

Now for some levity: let me tell you how I am three degrees separated from el Che. My mother-in-law was a hot cutie when she was young. During the 1950s, she visited London. She meets a young Bolivian, and goes out on a date. They go to one of their hotel rooms, and he almost raped her. This man later became the president of Bolivia under whose term el Che Guevara dies [IMG]http://www.allempires.com/forum/smileys/smiley17.gif" align=middle>

OMG!!! This person (who wanted to rape your mother) might've been the same person who ordered Guevara's execution, as most sources refer to the order being phoned in from La Paz.

Yes, he is the same person. About six months ago I showed my mother-in-law the picture of the president as it appeared in a biography of Che. She identified him as the guy who tried to rape her :P

Please send me links to the story about the CIA in Bolivia. Recently there was this interesting revelations about the student movement in 1960s and CIA involvement.

The popular story is that leftist groups were behind the 1968 demonstrations.

Now we know that they weren't, since it was the CIA who infiltrated and directed many of their actions

.

Also, the two presidents of Mexico, the one in power in 1968 and the one who won the election in 1970, they were both paid agents of the CIA. The second one is especially funny since he became a Chavez-like "critic" of the U.S. and imperialism.

Maybe in 50 years we will learn that Chavez was paid by the CIA as well

-------------

Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 04-Nov-2006 at 10:57

Originally posted by hugoestr

Also, the two presidents of Mexico, the one in power in 1968 and the one who won the election in 1970, they were both paid agents of the CIA. The second one is especially funny since he became a Chavez-like "critic" of the U.S. and imperialism.

Mexico's position in the Cold War was very weird anyway. I remember reading about the leader of a Mexican secret service in the 1970s who was a personal friend of Castro, but also responsible for fighting guerrillas who were supported by Castro. IIRC he even got sentenced for human rights abuses some years ago.

Posted By: Hellios
Date Posted: 04-Nov-2006 at 14:46

Originally posted by pinguin

Hellios said: What I've been trying help you understand is that Bolivian aboriginals today feel it was a mistake to not support him more, and I demonstrated this by showing examples of Bolivian aboriginals from the bottom to the top (president) expressing admiration for Che. These are the people you love to promote so I don't think they're stupid.

Pinguin said: Don't confusse Evo Morales with the Che. Evo repressents for Bolivians the return of the ancient rulers. For the first time after the Conquist they have a president of ethnic Amerindian origin. And that shows in the pre-columbian rituals you saw when he become president.

Who's confusing Evo with Che? Look at what I wrote: "What I've been trying help you understand is that Bolivian aboriginals today feel it was a mistake to not support him more, and I demonstrated this by showing examples of Bolivian aboriginals from the bottom to the top (president) expressing admiration for Che. These are the people you love to promote so I don't think they're stupid.

Originally posted by pinguin

Compare the lifes of Hernan Cortes with the Che Guevara, and you will se a lot of coincidences. Both were allien conquistadors in Indian lands.

Che Guevara was/is not known as a conqueror - he was/is known as a sometimes successful but more often unsuccessful revolutionary. Go to Bolivia and/or Cuba and talk with some natives and poor people, or families that were under repression.

Originally posted by pinguin

Morales is native! That makes the difference.

Then why did you say this?: "Who speak for Bolivian Aboriginals? Communist don't. Even Morales have had problems to speak in theirs names."

Originally posted by Hellios

Hellios said: Your words Pinguin: "Che Guevara was fighting is revolution that theorical will bring equality for everyone."

Pinguin said: Have you hear the saying "Cura gatica predica pero no practica" (The prist Gatica preaches but not practise it)? The revolution had a speech, but that does not mean theirs real intention was anything but get in power.

The english equivalent to that expressions is "practice what you preach", and most evidence (not just opinion) indicates Guevara died doing that.

Originally posted by pinguin

Pinguin said: They could kill anyone that crossed in their path.

Hellios said: So now he was a psychopath...

Pinguin said: What guerrilla fighter or military gorilla is not one?

What you're suggesting is that anybody who takes up arms for a cause is a psychopath.

Originally posted by pinguin

Pinguin said: They cared about REVOLUTION not people.

Hellios said: Your words Pinguin: "Che Guevara was fighting is revolution that theorical will bring equality for everyone."

Pinguin said: Don't you see the double meaning of theirs actions? They said "we are going to to this" but they did what it was convinient to them.

Please be more specific, which actions are you talking about done by who? Conflicts have different circumstances; that's why generalizing isn't too good. Historical facts indicate that Che Guevara died practicing what he preached, now please give me historical facts about his "double-standards".

Originally posted by pinguin

The problem IS NOT THE PHENOTYPE but the CULTURE. Nobody cares about colors of skins in South America but ethnic and social backgrounds are extremely important.

You said: "He was the one discriminated because he was a white upper class argentinean doctor, playing comunist."

I said: "Please show examples of the Bolivian aboriginals seeing Che Guevara in that light, in comparison to my many examples of them admiring him & his fight for the repressed."

You never showed any examples.

Originally posted by pinguin

The obsesion with "whiteness" is a North American hobbie.

North Americans are more racist than South Americans?

Originally posted by pinguin

Pinguin said: The problem is that Guevara was as Western like a British or a French. He belonged to the burguesy. He was a doctor. He spoke a Western language and talked about Western ideas (Christianism and Marxism included!). He has NOTHING in common with Amerindians!

Hellios said: He was certainly different, but a common factor was the fight against a repressive government, as they themselves will tell you today.

Pinguin said: Lord! You still believe Guevara or any other "revolutionary" was a Robin Hood!

1. I'll take that as a friendly typical South American exaggeration.

2. Brother, I told you 3 times what I believe he was: a sometimes successful but mostly unsuccessful revolutionary.

3. Why would I like or dislike "every" revolutionary? That would be generalizing, like you've been doing.

Originally posted by pinguin

Hellios said: He killed Bolivian aboriginals?

Pinguin said: Guevara killed anyone that opposed him.

Hellios said: Ok, please show me about Guevara's killing of Bolivian aboriginals.

Pinguin said: Nobody invited him to kill Bolivians, in the first place.

1. Ok, I'll repeat: please show me about Guevara's killing of Bolivian aboriginals.

2. Research exactly who were the Bolivians he killed, and you'll understand why he's so popular among Bolivian aboriginals today.

Originally posted by pinguin

What would happens if some foreigner start to kill Canadians to free yourself of your oppresing regime?

I'll answer the way I've been asking you to answer me (opinion supported by fact):

Personally, I would accept him or her if they wanted to help me defeat an oppressive regime.

Factually, Canadian natives joined forces with foreign revolutionaries like Louis Riel and others. Of course, to the Canadian extreme right he is often perceived as something similar to your perception of Che Guevara.

Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 04-Nov-2006 at 15:22

Originally posted by Hellios

Go to Bolivia and/or Cuba and talk with some natives and poor people, or families that were under repression.

Which Cubans? The ones that have not taken the boat and still remain in Cuba?

(By the way, there are not many Natives in Cuba. Cuba is a country of whites and mulattoes, where Amerindians dissapeared as a distinct ethniticity. There are still some descendents of Tainos in there, but quite a few)

That rethoric of the repression is precisely what I mean. External forces of Communism and Capitalism brought death, torture and poverty to the Americas. The Che is a symbol of that, like any military gorilla of the Americas.

Originally posted by Hellios

The english equivalent to that expressions is "practice what you preach", and most evidence (not just opinion) indicates Guevara died doing that.

El Che didn't died in battle. He was captured and executed.

Originally posted by pinguin

What you're suggesting is that anybody who takes up arms for a cause is a psychopath.

Yes! I am saying that! Precisely. Those "causes" have been the cause of hundred of millions of death worldwide. It is time to forget them and get practical.

Originally posted by pinguin

..Historical facts indicate that Che Guevara died practicing what he preached, now please give me historical facts about his "double-standards".

Originally posted by pinguin

North Americans are more racist than South Americans?

Of course! You separate people by race in different neighbours. We separate people by economical conditions, not race.

Originally posted by pinguin

1. I'll take that as a friendly typical South American exaggeration.

Of course! If you want to argue with a South American, you should be aware they will pull your legs

Originally posted by pinguin

1. Ok, I'll repeat: please show me about Guevara's killing of Bolivian aboriginals.

2. Research exactly who were the Bolivians he killed, and you'll understand why he's so polular among Bolivian aboriginals today.

As far as I know Bolivians are mainly Amerindians. He killed many in his jungle adventurers. Read his diary and count, please.

Originally posted by pinguin

Factually, Canadian natives joined forces with foreign revolutionaries like Louis Riel and others. Of course, to the Canadian extreme right he is often perceived as something similar to your perception of Che Guevara.

Well, you should remember that I saw my own country destroyed because of the coup that put a fascist regime in power. That happened because the communists wanted to spread theirs revolution to Chile, and the fascists didn't agree.

With those antecedents, I preffer those "heroes" are keept well beyond our frontiers.

Pinguin

Posted By: Hellios
Date Posted: 04-Nov-2006 at 18:50

Originally posted by pinguin

Which Cubans? The ones that have not taken the boat and still remain in

Cuba

Even the ones who took the boat will tell you they like Che but hate Fidel.

Anyhow, I wasn't talking about them - I was talking about the people in those countries, natives, poor, and families that were under repression.

Originally posted by pinguin

(By the way, there are not many Natives in Cuba.

Cuba

is a country of whites and mulattoes, where Amerindians dissapeared as a distinct ethniticity. There are still some descendents of Tainos in there, but quite a few)

It's not a country of "whites and mulattoes" but a country of blacks, whites, and everything in between, mostly poor like the other Caribbean states.

The original natives were Taino, Siboney, Atabey, Hatuey, and a couple more that I forget.

Originally posted by pinguin

That rethoric of the repression is precisely what I mean.

Denial of repression is worse than rhetoric of repression.

Originally posted by pinguin

External forces of Communism and Capitalism brought death, torture and poverty to the Americas.

Some revolutions are communist/socialist and some are not. You seem to have a preference, although people die in both.

Originally posted by pinguin

The Che is a symbol of that, like any military gorilla of the Americas.

Please show examples that Che Guevara is "a symbol of death & torture" to the people of

Cuba

Bolivia

, Africa...

Originally posted by pinguin

Hellios said: The english equivalent to that expressions is "practice what you preach", and most evidence (not just opinion) indicates Guevara died doing that.

Pinguin said: El Che didn't died in battle. He was captured and executed.

Correct; he died practicing what he preached.

Originally posted by pinguin

Hellios said: What you're suggesting is that anybody who takes up arms for a cause is a psychopath.

Pinguin said: Yes! I am saying that! Precisely.

Imagine a world like that; where nobody takes up arms for a cause...

Pinguin, I'm the most peaceful person, but if I saw my government pull stunts like the regimes Che fought did, believe me, I would take up arms.

I'm sorry for you if you would not.

Originally posted by pinguin

Those "causes" have been the cause of hundred of millions of death worldwide. It is time to forget them and get practical.

Which cause are you talking about? Some revolutions were legitimate and some were not. Are you generalizing again?

Originally posted by pinguin

Hellios said: North Americans are more racist than South Americans?

Pinguin said: Of course! You separate people by race in different neighbours. We separate people by economical conditions, not race.

In terms of racial harmony

Canada

is one of the world's leading examples.

Originally posted by pinguin

Hellios said: 1. I'll take that as a friendly typical South American exaggeration.

Pinguin said: Of course! If you want to argue with a South American, you should be aware they will pull your legs

Eres un jodedor!

Originally posted by pinguin

Hellios said:

1. Ok, I'll repeat: please show me about Guevara's killing of Bolivian aboriginals.

2. Research exactly who were the Bolivians he killed, and you'll understand why he's so popular among Bolivian aboriginals today.

Pinguin said: As far as I know Bolivians are mainly Amerindians. He killed many in his jungle adventurers. Read his diary and count, please.

I have - it says he killed Bolivians who were fighting for the regime at the time (a regime everybody knows about) and the Bolivian natives today understand this, which is why they like him, as I�ve demonstrated.

Originally posted by pinguin

Hellios said: Factually, Canadian natives joined forces with foreign revolutionaries like Louis Riel and others. Of course, to the Canadian extreme right he is often perceived as something similar to your perception of Che Guevara.

Pinguin said: Well, you should remember that I saw my own country destroyed because of the coup that put a fascist regime in power. That happened because the communists wanted to spread theirs revolution to

Chile

, and the fascists didn't agree. With those antecedents, I preffer those "heroes" are keept well beyond our frontiers.

I understand perfectly. I've been reading about your country.

I'm going to Rosario (

Argentina

) soon and will try to visit

Chile

Rgds/Bill

Posted By: hugoestr
Date Posted: 04-Nov-2006 at 19:22

That rethoric of the repression is precisely what I mean. External forces of Communism and Capitalism brought death, torture and poverty to the Americas.

Uhm, maybe I am more cynical than others, but I think that it was Latin Americans who killed, tortured, and stole in the Americans. They did this before the Cold War; they did it through the Cold War, through the generous sponsorship of the U.S. and the U.S.S.R.

; and they have done it after it.

Claiming that we were tricked into it would be saying that we are stupid and easily controlled. We are not. Latin Americans deserve praise for their achievements, and should bare the responsibility for their faults.

-------------

Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 04-Nov-2006 at 21:32

Well, Hugoestr.

You are right with respect with CERTAIN countries. In others, like my own (Chile), the external influences where a critical factor for both the insurection and the represion that followed. So we tend to keep distance with foreigners and everyone, from left to right, is cautious with them.

At least Chileans don't want anything to do with foreigners, either Americans or Russians. We know now all that matters is money, and we are going to compite with developed nations in any market to make us a space. We don't want to be puppets of those superpowers anymore.

You know we, Latin Americans, don't forget easy and that sooner or later we take revenge. That's the way we are.

Anyways, It is painfull, anyways, for our engineers when they have gone to Russia to help them to mount a facility, or in other engineering task, and verify on field we are more advanced than them in security and many other technologies. And it is also painful to see that the other superpower, the U.S. has so many people living worst than us, like the Katrina disaster showed.

What kind of superpower of paper tried to control us?

Pinguin

Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 04-Nov-2006 at 22:18

Originally posted by Hellios

Even the ones who took the boat will tell you they like Che but hate Fidel.

Anyhow, I wasn't talking about them - I was talking about the people in those countries, natives, poor, and families that were under repression.

Who is not suffering represion? Look the repression Americans suffer, but they don't start bombing the supermarkets! They preffer to work.

Originally posted by Hellios

It's not a country of "whites and mulattoes" but a country of blacks, whites, and everything in between, mostly poor like the other Caribbean states.

The original natives were Taino, Siboney, Atabey, Hatuey, and a couple more that I forget.

Cuba is the second "more African" nation in Hispanic America, after Dominican Republic. It got a strong African heritage, to the point they still preserve theirs African religion, called Santeria. And I heared they even know some Yoruba words they use in theirs rituals! The society is White and Mulatto in general terms, with all the shades in between as you say.

Genetics has show than in Puerto Rico, Cuba and Dominican Republic the Amerindians didn't become extinguished but assimilated. The genetics of those countries show a high percentage of Amerindian markers. Amerindian culture still survives in some things like foods and placenames, but in general the Caribbean is a lot less Amerindian influence that both mainland Latin America and Canada. There is a large numbers of Cubans that are white, and they made perhaps 1/3 of the population.

Originally posted by Hellios

Some revolutions are communist/socialist and some are not. You seem to have a preference, although people die in both.

I preffer Economic Revolutions, rather than killing people on the street, or torture them in the electric bed.

Originally posted by Hellios

Please show examples that Che Guevara is "a symbol of death & torture" to the people of

Cuba

Bolivia

, Africa...

He is a new Robin Hood. People idealize these kind of guys, anyways.

Originally posted by Hellios

Pinguin, I'm the most peaceful person, but if I saw my government pull stunts like the regimes Che fought did, believe me, I would take up arms.

I'm sorry for you if you would not.

If I don't like the country where I live I move somewhere else. I believe in the "free market of countries"

See China! What a more represive country like that. And see how people have reacted. They are not losing theirs time in revolutions, or playing cowboy. They are working and pretty soon they will live better than the west. That's the way to do it. I believe.

Originally posted by Hellios

In terms of racial harmony

Canada

is one of the world's leading examples.

Go to your next American Indian neighbourhood in the Western Provinces. Perhaps you'll realize then, something is going wrong with the multicultural ideology in your country.

As I see it, the Canadian government has made all the efforts possible to stop racism. However, there are many biggots between the common Canadian people.

Originally posted by Hellios

That "admiration" came too late. For the Che, at least. lol.

Originally posted by Hellios

I understand perfectly. I've been reading about your country.

I'm going to Rosario (

Argentina

) soon and will try to visit

Chile

If you do, sent me an e-mail.

Pinguin

Posted By: ulrich von hutten
Date Posted: 05-Nov-2006 at 03:01

Hasta La Victoria Siempre

First, i'm a little bit dissapointed , i read this thread to late.

The Commandante was a symbol, especially for the movement of the students in the western european countries of 1960 and 70s.

The important thing for those european " http://dict.leo.org/ende?lp=ende&p=/gQPU.&search=revolutionaries - revolutionaries " was to liberate from the history of their parents, the wwII trauma and the surpression by the existing societies.

Che Cuevarra was idealised and used as an example of a fearless fighter against capatalismn. Although many of his events were ending as a flop. The cirtumstances of his death were the final reason for the glorification of Che.

Other http://dict.leo.org/ende?lp=ende&p=/gQPU.&search=revolutionaries - revolutionaries preceded or followed, but no one had the carisma of Che. Not to mentioned that he was good looking, a not to underrate point of view, mostly for the few female comrades , which joined the student-movement at that time.

But if you read the biography of Che, you must accept, he did those things, many of the spokesmen of the students wouldn't have done.

To keep it in perspectives, i must say, Che did, what i only dreamed in my daydreams and therefore he will be in my heart for ever.

Let's put this way, a substitute for my own cowardice and inactivity.

-------------

http://imageshack.us">

Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 05-Nov-2006 at 08:53

What has to do the Che with the children games of the Europeans upper-middle class students?

Che Guevara was fighting for socialism, not playing with the daddies. He was not fighting for gay rights or for public marihuana smoking. His methods where not marching with colored ballons but killing!

Those are another realities, indeed.

Pinguin

Posted By: Hellios
Date Posted: 07-Nov-2006 at 21:58

Originally posted by pinguin

Hellios said:

Even the ones who took the boat will tell you they like Che but hate Fidel. Anyhow, I wasn't talking about them - I was talking about the people in those countries, natives, poor, and families that were under repression.

Pinguin said: Who is not suffering represion? Look the repression Americans suffer, but they don't start bombing the supermarkets! They preffer to work.

The type of repression you're talking about "the repression the Americans suffer" is not the same type of repression that led to all revolutions. Some revolutions were justified. Can we agree on that?

Originally posted by pinguin

Hellios said: It's not a country of "whites and mulattoes" but a country of blacks, whites, and everything in between, mostly poor like the other Caribbean states. The original natives were Taino, Siboney, Atabey, Hatuey, and a couple more that I forget.

Pinguin said: Cuba is the second "more African" nation in Hispanic America, after Dominican Republic.

A little secret; the black population percentage in Cuba is actually higher than official figures, for political reasons - hard to explain without getting into a big story, and I believe it's higher than the Dominican Republic but lower than Haiti of course, although the only evidence I have at the moment are articles by Cuban scholars. I'll look for more solid evidence and let you know.

Originally posted by pinguin

It got a strong African heritage, to the point they still preserve theirs African religion, called Santeria. And I heared they even know some Yoruba words they use in theirs rituals!

It's fascinating how they blended the African religions with some Christianity; some of their saints are Ogun, Yemaya, and Chango. The priests are called Babalaos, and when you see them it's a "consulta" where fortunes are told based on throwing shells, etc. There's a sect of radical Santeria believers called the "Abacua", men only, and they're considered dangerous by many white & mulatto Cubans.

Originally posted by pinguin

The society is White and Mulatto in general terms, with all the shades in between as you say.

Black is not a shade between white and mulatto.

The breakdown in Cuba is like this: black, white, mulatto, then the rest...

Originally posted by pinguin

Genetics has show than in Puerto Rico, Cuba and Dominican Republic the Amerindians didn't become extinguished but assimilated. The genetics of those countries show a high percentage of Amerindian markers.

In Puerto Rico & DR you might see people with "Amerindian" features - in Cuba it's quite rare. During the time I lived there I don't recall seeing any. The features are mainly black, Hispanic, and mulatto. The Spaniards really did a great job of exterminating the island of aboriginals, as Cubans will tell you.

Originally posted by pinguin

Amerindian culture still survives in some things like foods and placenames, but in general the Caribbean is a lot less Amerindian influence that both mainland Latin America and Canada.

Si senor.

Originally posted by pinguin

There is a large numbers of Cubans that are white, and they made perhaps 1/3 of the population.

The eastern end of the country is more black because (during the slave trade) the slave ships reached that side first, for transshipment to the rest of the Americas. Cuba was one of (if not the) biggest transshipment point for slaves being shipped from Africa to the Americas. There are great histories of Hispanic Cubans who fought to free slaves, like Carlos Manuel de Cespedes! You know him?

Originally posted by pinguin

Hellios said: Some revolutions are communist/socialist and some are not. You seem to have a preference, although people die in both.

Pinguin said: I preffer Economic Revolutions, rather than killing people on the street, or torture them in the electric bed.

1. I also prefer economic revolutions, but sometimes that's not an option.

2. Torture is terrible, just look at some of the non-communist countries. I'm not sure about Bolivia, but in Cuba, torture is not a problem - not saying there's no torture at all in Cuba as I won't say there's no torture at all by the United States.

Originally posted by pinguin

Hellios said: Please show examples that Che Guevara is "a symbol of death & torture" to the people of

Cuba

Bolivia

, Africa...

Pinguion said: He is a new Robin Hood. People idealize these kind of guys, anyways.

Originally posted by pinguin

Hellios said: Pinguin, I'm the most peaceful person, but if I saw my government pull stunts like the regimes Che fought did, believe me, I would take up arms.

I'm sorry for you if you would not.

Pinguin said: If I don't like the country where I live I move somewhere else. I believe in the "free market of countries"

Some will leave and some will stay and fight to change the country.

Originally posted by pinguin

See China! What a more represive country like that. And see how people have reacted. They are not losing theirs time in revolutions, or playing cowboy. They are working and pretty soon they will live better than the west. That's the way to do it. I believe.

China went through a revolution.

Originally posted by pinguin

Hellios said: In terms of racial harmony

Canada

is one of the world's leading examples.

Pinguin said: Go to your next American Indian neighbourhood in the Western Provinces. Perhaps you'll realize then, something is going wrong with the multicultural ideology in your country.

As I see it, the Canadian government has made all the efforts possible to stop racism. However, there are many biggots between the common Canadian people.

Every country has bigots Pinguin, but you know that generally speaking, Canada is one of the world's leading examples in the fight against racism.

Originally posted by pinguin

Hellios said: I have - it says he killed Bolivians who were fighting for the regime at the time (a regime everybody knows about) and the Bolivian natives today understand this, which is why they like him, as I�ve demonstrated.

Pinguin said: That "admiration" came too late. For the Che, at least. lol.

Originally posted by pinguin

Hellios said: I understand perfectly. I've been reading about your country.

I'm going to Rosario (

Argentina

) soon and will try to visit

Chile

Pinguin said: If you do, sent me an e-mail. Pinguin

I will. Are you very far from Rosario?

Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 07-Nov-2006 at 22:27

Originally posted by Hellios

Well, Americans simply don't react. And Canadians either. You need people with more energy to find out they are repressed in the first place

Originally posted by pinguin

It depends what you mean by "Black". If you apply the U.S. one drop rule they are all Blacks, Fidel included. Well, if you apply it to the U.S. half the White population is Black too

Serious statistics, though, show about half the population is Mulatto, from Black of color Black to people with just traces of Black. The rest is Southern European.

Dominican Republic is a country which is a lot more African, but with an important number of non-Africans as well.

Originally posted by pinguin

Sure. You should go to Brazil or Uruguay to celebrate the New Year and the cult of Yemanja. Or perhaps you preffer a sacrifice of a poor goat or chicken, plenty of blood but with the rhytm of rap

If you ask me, I preffer Native American rituals, though. They are from these lands and not imported. However, without the human sacrifices that they used to have, though

Originally posted by pinguin

Black is not a shade between white and mulatto.

The breakdown in Cuba is like this: black, white, mulatto, then the rest...

Yes. Pretty much like Toronto, isn't?

Originally posted by pinguin

Genetics studies prove you wrong. The population of Puerto Rico... LISTEN CAREFULLY... has a 50% of Amerindian mtDNA. And Cubans also have an important percentage of Amerindian mtDNA which is not null. Actually, I can point out to you MANY Cubans that have Amerindians facial features, including a former dictator.

Originally posted by pinguin

..

The largest was Brazil.

Originally posted by pinguin

..

I will. Are you very far from Rosario?

That's at the other side of the Andes. I am in Santiago, Chile

Pinguin

Posted By: Hellios
Date Posted: 07-Nov-2006 at 23:11

Originally posted by pinguin

Hellios said: The type of repression you're talking about "the repression the Americans suffer" is not the same type of repression that led to all revolutions. Some revolutions were justified. Can we agree on that?

Pinguin said: Well, Americans simply don't react. And Canadians either. You need people with more energy to find out they are repressed in the first place

Zero energy needed for that.

Originally posted by pinguin

It depends what you mean by "Black". If you apply the U.S. one drop rule they are all Blacks, Fidel included. Well, if you apply it to the U.S. half the White population is Black too

Serious statistics, though, show about half the population is Mulatto, from Black of color Black to people with just traces of Black. The rest is Southern European. Dominican Republic is a country which is a lot more African, but with an important number of non-Africans as well.

Black as in black.

Originally posted by pinguin

Hellios said: In Puerto Rico & DR you might see people with "Amerindian" features - in Cuba it's quite rare. During the time I lived there I don't recall seeing any. The features are mainly black, Hispanic, and mulatto. The Spaniards really did a great job of exterminating the island of aboriginals, as Cubans will tell you.

Pinguin said: Genetics studies prove you wrong. The population of Puerto Rico... LISTEN CAREFULLY... has a 50% of Amerindian mtDNA. And Cubans also have an important percentage of Amerindian mtDNA which is not null. Actually, I can point out to you MANY Cubans that have Amerindians facial features, including a former dictator.

Genetic studies also prove there are Russian genes in Cubans, and there are more Cubans with Russian features than "Amerindian" features.

Trust me, I've lived there.

Originally posted by pinguin

Hellios said: The eastern end of the country is more black because (during the slave trade) the slave ships reached that side first, for transshipment to the rest of the Americas. Cuba was one of (if not the) biggest transshipment point for slaves being shipped from Africa to the Americas. There are great histories of Hispanic Cubans who fought to free slaves, like Carlos Manuel de Cespedes! You know him?

Pinguin said: The largest was Brazil.

Yeah, Brazil too. My parents worked there for 10 years & went to some Macumba festivals.

Posted By: Hellios
Date Posted: 08-Nov-2006 at 02:19

Originally posted by ulrich von hutten

Hasta La Victoria Siempre

Originally posted by ulrich von hutten

First, i'm a little bit dissapointed, i read this thread to late.

No, it's still going.

Originally posted by ulrich von hutten

The Commandante was a symbol, especially for the movement of the students in the western european countries of 1960 and 70s.

True.

Originally posted by ulrich von hutten

The important thing for those european " http://dict.leo.org/ende?lp=ende&p=/gQPU.&search=revolutionaries - revolutionaries " was to liberate from the history of their parents, the wwII trauma and the surpression by the existing societies.

Interesting.

Originally posted by ulrich von hutten

Che Cuevarra was idealised and used as an example of a fearless fighter against capatalismn.

I'd switch "capitalism" for "imperialism" in that statement.

Originally posted by ulrich von hutten

Although many of his events were ending as a flop.

Yeah.

Originally posted by ulrich von hutten

The cirtumstances of his death were the final reason for the glorification of Che.

Correct.

Originally posted by ulrich von hutten

Other http://dict.leo.org/ende?lp=ende&p=/gQPU.&search=revolutionaries - revolutionaries preceded or followed, but no one had the carisma of Che.

Some try

Originally posted by ulrich von hutten

Not to mentioned that he was good looking, a not to underrate point of view, mostly for the few female comrades, which joined the student-movement at that time.

Valid.

Originally posted by ulrich von hutten

But if you read the biography of Che, you must accept, he did those things, many of the spokesmen of the students wouldn't have done.

A lot shows this.

Originally posted by ulrich von hutten

To keep it in perspectives, i must say, Che did, what i only dreamed in my daydreams and therefore he will be in my heart for ever. Let's put this way, a substitute for my own cowardice and inactivity.

I respect your dreams of dropping your personal comforts to go around the world wherever there is grave brutality & cruelty being inflicted among helpless people to fight it, and anybody who doesn't respect you for that has some personal (political) issues.

Rgds, Bill

Posted By: Hellios
Date Posted: 08-Nov-2006 at 02:42

Originally posted by hugoestr

Pinguin said: That rethoric of the repression is precisely what I mean. External forces of Communism and Capitalism brought death, torture and poverty to the Americas.

hugoestr said: Uhm, maybe I am more cynical than others, but I think that it was Latin Americans who killed, tortured, and stole in the Americans. They did this before the Cold War; they did it through the Cold War, through the generous sponsorship of the U.S. and the U.S.S.R.; and they have done it after it.

You're not being cynical hugoestr, because it's true; how people practice any chosen ideology (or interpret any religion) is their own action.

Originally posted by hugoestr

Claiming that we were tricked into it would be saying that we are stupid and easily controlled. We are not. Latin Americans deserve praise for their achievements, and should bare the responsibility for their faults.

Yeah, Pinguin, it's not like the East Block, or USSR where they had endless columns of Russian tanks rolling in.

Sds, Bill

Posted By: Hellios
Date Posted: 08-Nov-2006 at 03:10

Originally posted by hugoestr

Pinguin,

Those revolutions had more to do than just being pawns in the Cold War. The reality was that there were cases of extreme poverty that justified them.

That's right, and even poverty (for me) is not enough justification for a bloody revolution - there has to be more, because poverty is not always the fault of the regime.

Originally posted by hugoestr

To Pinguin: I also doubt that the level of living would be any better without them since the problems that inspired many to get to arms in the first place was the wealth gap that our nations have.

Yep; a wealth gap problem is usually the fault of the regime.

Originally posted by hugoestr

From what I know, Castro seems to have been a lot less bloody than many other Latin American dictators, especially right wing ones.

Right.

Exactly.

Hellios

Posted By: Hellios
Date Posted: 08-Nov-2006 at 03:47

Originally posted by hugoestr

Pinguin,

Those revolutions had more to do than just being pawns in the Cold War. The reality was that there were cases of extreme poverty that justified them.

I also doubt that the level of living would be any better without them since the problems that inspired many to get to arms in the first place was the wealth gap that our nations have.

I fully agree with your statement about the loss of life.

From what I know, Castro seems to have been a lot less bloody than many other Latin American dictators, especially right wing ones.

Pinguin said: I don't believe "revolution" was the only choice at all.

Ok, let's fight a regime like the Batista regime by serving it.

Originally posted by Pinguin

I believe things just escaped of control.

Originally posted by Pinguin

Now for right wing dictator to be bloodier than left wing ones, I doubt.

Originally posted by Pinguin

I don't know how many has Castro killed in 50 years of regime, but I am pretty certain they add a good 100.000 people at least.

Originally posted by Pinguin

hugoestr said: Personally, I think that el Che is appealing because he lived the "Great White Hope" plot: foreigner finds his way into a politically suppressed country, and gets the people to fight for their freedom.

Pinguin said: The problem is that communists didn't fight for the freedom of people, but to implant the "dictatorship of the proletarian" that was a dictatorship, anyways.

Che Guevara fought for other reasons, as you've said in your other posts to me.

Originally posted by Pinguin

The collapse of the Soviet Union made almost all people in the planet to wake up from the myth. But there still exist people that believe it could have worked.

The fall of the Soviet Union is quite interesting Pinguin, and has little to do with Che Guevara's wars - Cuba turned communist after the revolution - it was not a communist revolution - after the revolution Cuba tried to ally with the United States but they were rejected and then aggressed economically & militarily, resulting in Cuba allying with the USSR and turning communist.

Originally posted by Pinguin

If you ask me, I preffer the path followed by Costa Rica. Perhaps the more intelligent country south of the U.S. border.

Posted By: Hellios
Date Posted: 08-Nov-2006 at 04:03

Originally posted by Mixcoatl

Pinguin said: I don't believe "revolution" was the only choice at all. I believe things just escaped of control. Consider what happened in Peru with the Shinning Path: 200.000 deaths in that conflict alone! Perhaps 1/2 a millioon died in Guatemala. And you keep adding.

Mixcoatl said: What happened in Guatemala had nothing to do with a revolution. Jacobo �rbenz was democratically elected, and not very radical. The civil war started after he was overthrown by rightwing generals supported by the USA. In fact I think Arbenz was one of the best leaders Latin America ever had.

The shining path rebellion caused 50.000, of which a significant part caused by the government. (Though you're right that indeed the Shining Path was the most brutal guerilla organization of Latin America), while the canonical death toll for Guatemala is 200.000

Pinguin said: Now for right wing dictator to be bloodier than left wing ones, I doubt. I don't know how many has Castro killed in 50 years of regime, but I am pretty certain they add a good 100.000 people at least. In Argentina, the gorillas killed around 20.000 people. But, do you know Pinochet killed around 3.500 only? Is not the number of people killed what matters, I guess, but how much terror you can inject into the population. And the Pinochet regime was terrorific in extreme.

Mixcoatl said: Death tolls for Castro's regime vary between almost nothing to more than 150.000. Most serious sources give numbers around 10.000. That's of course 10.000 too much, but not extreme, considering that his regime exists for almost half a century. Many rightwing dictators have been much worse, Trujillo for example (15.000), the Argentine Junta (30.000), Maximiliano Hern�ndez (30.000), Papa & Baby Doc (60.000) and Efra�n R�os Montt (75.000 in 14 months!). And all of them ruled shorter than Castro. ( http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstatx.htm - source) I really don't like Castro, but he's definately not the worst dictator of Latin America.

Thanks for the info & source Mixcoatl. The clarifications you made are important.

Posted By: Hellios
Date Posted: 08-Nov-2006 at 04:12

I agree.

Posted By: Hellios
Date Posted: 08-Nov-2006 at 04:19

Originally posted by hugoestr

Pinguin,

It is a common belief that the European countries via ideologies instigated wars in the third world. I frankly don't buy that because you cannot instigate people into violence if they don�t really want to fight.

Precisely.

Originally posted by hugoestr

I think that many of the conflicts in the 3rd World were going to happen in any case, and it was the local war lords that took advantage of the Cold War to fund their ambitions.

There are so many examples of this.

Originally posted by hugoestr

Look at Fidel. It seems that he only became a "Communist" when his attempt to get American sponsorship failed. Or Look at Savimbi in Angola, who started as a Maoist when the Chinese supported him, and became a right-winger when his sponsor became the U.S. Had The U.S. and the U.S.S.R. not supported these people with money, there would have been less bloodshed. But it would have happened in any case.

Good examples, and what you said about Castro is true.

Posted By: Hellios
Date Posted: 08-Nov-2006 at 04:56

The Stalinist Conquistador!