• Was Che Guevara good or bad
    70 replies, posted
SOME SENSE CAN HOPEFULLY BE FOUND IN THE TEXT BELOW My English is so-so in the late evening hours, excuse me. All of this 'good vs. bad' stems from bias. Alot of historical figures can be seen as bad if we're going to judge them based on lives on their hands. Same goes for "terrorism", which seems highly subjective. Judging actions taken based on political views (whether personal or the ones of the people judged) is fundamentally wrong, since the same historical figure turns up good or bad based on the current doctrine and the modern situation. The list of examples is long, so lets just try to put things into perspective. Alexander the Great, the Macedonian prince who conquered Persia (d. 323 B.C.) : how does he look from a Persian perspective? How does Jesus look from a Roman perspective? (Whether he existed = another discussion) How does George Washington look from a imperial British standpoint? My point is this: perspective is important. Saying Che Guevara is 'bad' since his political standpoint [arguably] is different than yours leads nowhere, since the American or French revolutionaries in all probability has alot of blood on their hands as well, while not seen as as bad as Che and the [communist] revolutionaries of Cuba. As for myself I believe Cuba at the time was better off after the revolution than before, and that events which followed can't be blamed enteirly on the Cuban regime. Furthermore, being a part of a Junta is hardly a bad thing. Many [today generally seen as] important historical changes came about through violence and uprisings.
It is a known fact that Che Guevara didn't like to bathe, some go as far as say that he had that FUCKING smell coming outta him. Also, he was a murderer.
To understand Che Guevara you must first understand the historical backdrop he lived in. He did most of his actions during the Post-WWII period, during the high point of the Cold War, explicitly at this time the United States was the richest country in the world, second only to the Soviet Union. The Korean War happened around this time, one of the clearest examples of American interventionism and its forceful external policies. As the enemy was at the time the communists, McCarthyism was rampant, and ruthless capitalism was not only encouraged but hailed as the true American way of life. It was the time where the United States had to beat the Soviet Union in every front except for an actual battlefield, and therefore the complete erradication of the communist and therefore rival ideology was necessary for success. The United States would be the victors of this war against communism, years later in 1992 after 40 years of interventionism, proxy wars and ruthless competition. But let's go back to the panorama in America, specifically, South America. The Good Neighbor policy was enacted in 1933 by FDR as a way for America to reach out to it's much neglected neighbors on the south end of the continent, which were experiencing an economic boom partially due to the discovery of oil reserves in several of these countries (Most explicitely Venezuela which was to become the strongest economy in South America in the 60's, but at the time Brazil, Argentina and Chile were experiencing a resurgence as well). This wasn't the only reason though, American companies and even the American government itself has repeatedly threatened the sovereignty of South American countries for their economic interests, the most predominant historical precedent being the Banana Massacre of 1928 by the United Fruit Company on Colombian soil. Che wasn't wrong at all when he spoke of American interventionism and imperialism and how it had degraded the quality of life of many South Americans, this is after all very well documented and even narrated by his personal account. He surged as a champion of the people, a well versed, charismatic man with the sole goal of attaining social equality through the region. Obviously he struck some chords with the Cuban Revolution (1958) and Fidel Castro, which he's often more associated with, but this wasn't the only action of his life, as his war against American imperialism would go on until his death. His ideology wasn't necessarily bad, and it was certainly popular with the people that came to know him. By the time he was trying to do the same move in Bolivia than he did in Cuba, it was that America came to find him as a public enemy. And then he was murdered through help of the CIA in La Higuera, Bolivia in 1967. It definitely make you realize that this guy was at the wrong side on the Cold War and that he got simply too big too quick and had to be quickly dispatched of. It's safe to say that America has lead a smear campaign against him after his death to keep him unpopular among the public. I don't think that's no lie, at all. Yes, he was warlike, bellicose, and thought that armed conflict was the only way to get South America forward, all of which are wrong ideas, but he wasn't necessarily evil. He wasn't a murderer, he just stood on the opposite side of where we are currently standing.
[QUOTE=Big Bang;36613858]To understand Che Guevara you must first understand the historical backdrop he lived in. He did most of his actions during the Post-WWII period, during the high point of the Cold War, explicitly at this time the United States was the richest country in the world, second only to the Soviet Union. The Korean War happened around this time, one of the clearest examples of American interventionism and its forceful external policies. As the enemy was at the time the communists, McCarthyism was rampant, and ruthless capitalism was not only encouraged but hailed as the true American way of life. It was the time where the United States had to beat the Soviet Union in every front except for an actual battlefield, and therefore the complete erradication of the communist and therefore rival ideology was necessary for success. The United States would be the victors of this war against communism, years later in 1992 after 40 years of interventionism, proxy wars and ruthless competition. But let's go back to the panorama in America, specifically, South America. The Good Neighbor policy was enacted in 1933 by FDR as a way for America to reach out to it's much neglected neighbors on the south end of the continent, which were experiencing an economic boom partially due to the discovery of oil reserves in several of these countries (Most explicitely Venezuela which was to become the strongest economy in South America in the 60's, but at the time Brazil, Argentina and Chile were experiencing a resurgence as well). This wasn't the only reason though, American companies and even the American government itself has repeatedly threatened the sovereignty of South American countries for their economic interests, the most predominant historical precedent being the Banana Massacre of 1928 by the United Fruit Company on Colombian soil. Che wasn't wrong at all when he spoke of American interventionism and imperialism and how it had degraded the quality of life of many South Americans, this is after all very well documented and even narrated by his personal account. He surged as a champion of the people, a well versed, charismatic man with the sole goal of attaining social equality through the region. Obviously he struck some chords with the Cuban Revolution (1958) and Fidel Castro, which he's often more associated with, but this wasn't the only action of his life, as his war against American imperialism would go on until his death. His ideology wasn't necessarily bad, and it was certainly popular with the people that came to know him. By the time he was trying to do the same move in Bolivia than he did in Cuba, it was that America came to find him as a public enemy. And then he was murdered through help of the CIA in La Higuera, Bolivia in 1967. It definitely make you realize that this guy was at the wrong side on the Cold War and that he got simply too big too quick and had to be quickly dispatched of. It's safe to say that America has lead a smear campaign against him after his death to keep him unpopular among the public. I don't think that's no lie, at all. Yes, he was warlike, bellicose, and thought that armed conflict was the only way to get South America forward, all of which are wrong ideas, but he wasn't necessarily evil. He wasn't a murderer, he just stood on the opposite side of where we are currently standing.[/QUOTE] 1x winner Also here's part of his speech if anyone is interested [video=youtube;Pe85wZVzzt4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pe85wZVzzt4[/video] His last quote before being killed was: "I know you are here to kill me. Shoot, coward, you are only going to kill a man." What a badass.
He helped get rid of a corrupt government that by no coincidence was hated by many so it doesn't surprise me as to why so many people like him. Whether he is actually a good or bad person is a lot more subjective, has he even written a book? Not from what I've heard though maybe he has. These things are also really black and white. Some people say that Napoleon had good ideals and that what he did was justified in the context of the times. This isn't something I really can have a say on cause I don't know much about Napoleon or that time in history. EDIT: Keep in mind too the time in which Che lived in and keep in mind that revolutions aren't very pretty. How many of us have read Animal Farm?
[QUOTE=Marbalo;36366564]I wish people would stop judging historical figures only based on polar concepts like 'good' or 'bad'. Even Stalin and Hitler, two of the most terrifying dictators have done good deeds. It is absolutely never as black and white as some people put it. And to promote a notion of political polarity is to promote ignorance.[/QUOTE] I'd like to disagree. Yes, morality is abstract and in theory "good" and "evil" does not exist. Yet we are humans and have the amazing ability to comprehend and analyze the world around us. We have the ever fruitful beauty of consciousness. Love, by the same token, can be seen as an abstract concept as well, something that could easily be labeled as simple animal reproduction with hormones being the only deciding factor. That's not the case, however, and we find ourselves able to grasp a heavier understanding of that marvelous interaction among people. We are able to expand on the concept, allowing the idea of love to prosper and grow into something more meaningful, more human. This is the sole power of the human consciousness. It is up to us to decide what love is, exactly how it is up to us to decide what is good and what is evil.
[QUOTE=Hysteric;36600942]Of course not. Planet of the Apes was a fine movie.[/QUOTE] Winner, Winner, Chicken Dinner.
he and castro introduced an oppressive regime in Cuba, causing poverty everywhere, killed many people because they didn't believe in communism, and caused many people to flee their country. Yeah, I think he was bad.
[QUOTE=PathwayPac;36662456]he and castro introduced an oppressive regime in Cuba, causing poverty everywhere, killed many people because they didn't believe in communism, and caused many people to flee their country. Yeah, I think he was bad.[/QUOTE] Agreed. It doesn't matter how admirable your cause is, if you commit mass murder, you don't deserve the respect of anyone.
each moment Che-Guevara fights for its ideals conversely of Castro. One people that move in Bolivia and Congo only to bring a revolution has my respect. He must be the real figure of socialism... not stalin,lenin ecc. "Hasta la victoria siempre... Patria o muerte"
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.