• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

Was Che a good guy or a bad guy?

Status
Not open for further replies.
History is written by the winners. In this case it seems like there was no winner so the history is in flux.
 
70 % bad, 30 % good. The irony that his face is one of the most sold t-shirts motives in history are hilarious. He had a nice hat.
 
Che is held in high regard in Ireland, due to his Irish ansestory, we have an annual Che festival in Kilkee. The story is that when Che was traveling from Moscow to Cuba, they had to stop a Shannon Airport in Ireland due to bad weather and so Che and the people with him went out on the town in Kilkee. There was a large mural in Kilkee of the famous Che headshot, but it was painted over last summer after American tourists were offended by it and complained to the local council.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-new...ter-upsetting-american-tourists-29549796.html

Thats mad. Ive been to Kilkee loads of times as my family on my mums said is Irish and I never knew about that.
 
Thats mad. Ive been to Kilkee loads of times as my family on my mums said is Irish and I never knew about that.

Yeah. His real name was Lynch. His father's name was Ernesto Guevara Lynch.

The iconic image was done by the Irish artist Jim Fitzpatrick and was used as a symbol for revolutionary groups within Ireland and Europe. That's pretty much how it became a symbol of rebellion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Fitzpatrick_(artist)
 
Not knowing much about Che, I still think the better question would be: was he a necessary evil?

Much of our history was forged by assholes and with them we have made great progress, would the world be better now if all those asses were saints?
 
Historical figures are more complicated than good or bad.
Newton was bad? Leibnitz was bad? Tokugawa was bad? Cao Cao was good? Qin Shi Huang was good?

Not every single historical figure is as complicated as others.

I mean, I know where you're coming from and I understand your statement, I just can't agree that your statement applies to everybody.
 
I don't get the respect leftists have for communists in general. You (usually) don't see even the far right figures in America revering fascists or nazis, but for whatever reason stuff like the great leap forward and the gulags are forgotten when we start talking about people that are kinda sorta not really close to us on the political spectrum. Che wasn't only a murderous asshole, he was a murderous asshole in the service of other murderous assholes who would go about killing a ton of innocent people if he succeed. Whether you believe in socialized medicine or redistribution of wealth doesn't really enter into it.
 
At the end before he was executed he was showing all the signs of becoming detached from reality like Castro and Chavez did. Had he lived to be an old man he would have destroyed his own legacy.

Newton was bad?

Newton took being anti-social to a whole 'nother level and tried to have a fellow scientist erased from history because Newton was jealous of his successes.
 
He was a terrible person, his ideologies were good, but I wouldn't be caught dead representing him.

I don't get the respect leftists have for communists in general. You (usually) don't see even the far right figures in America revering fascists or nazis, but for whatever reason stuff like the great leap forward and the gulags are forgotten when we start talking about people that are kinda sorta not really close to us on the political spectrum. Che wasn't only a murderous asshole, he was a murderous asshole in the service of other murderous assholes who would go about killing a ton of innocent people if he succeed. Whether you believe in socialized medicine or redistribution of wealth doesn't really enter into it.

Problem is they are not communists at all, communism cannot happen in today's world (sadly). They have been labels as communists but are far from actually being one.
 
This guy who did a biography on Che, Jon Lee Snderson stated, "I have yet to find a single credible source pointing to a case where Che executed an innocent. Those persons executed by Guevara or on his orders were condemned for the usual crimes punishable by death at times of war or in its aftermath: desertion, treason or crimes such as rape, torture or murder."

And said "guy" is pretty damn reputable.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon_Lee_Anderson

Unless you have non-hyperbolic or non-anecdontal (researched) evidence to prove otherwise. I'm waiting.

Still waiting for someone to debate this...

I'm not well versed on the subject,
but everyone saying he killed innocents haven't provided sources...
 
He was a terrible person, his ideologies were good, but I wouldn't be caught dead representing him.



Problem is they are not communists at all, communism cannot happen in today's world (sadly). They have been labels as communists but are far from actually being one.

Sadly?
Really?
 
There are no "good" or "bad" guys.

Only guys who serve the interests of X people.
Che didn't serve anyone's interest but socialist fat cats and political party members.
 
He was a terrible person, his ideologies were good, but I wouldn't be caught dead representing him.



Problem is they are not communists at all, communism cannot happen in today's world (sadly). They have been labels as communists but are far from actually being one.

There isn't a single example of self-identified communists seizing power that didn't result in the mass murder of so-called class enemies on a pretty wide scale. It's baked into the ideolog; the remaking of society by murderous means is a central tenet. You can no true scot all you want, but there are a ton of fake scots running around in the history books, enough to make one wonder whether there are any good scots running around at all. Again, lionize the good leftists like Allende all you want; there are plenty of those, too. Just don't whitewash the crimes of those on your side of the aisle because of the romance of revolution.
 
Che seems to be idolized by many people around the world as a symbol of "resistance". I hear he's considered a national hero in Cuba as well. On the other hand though, there are some pretty horrific stories about him being ruthless, bloodthirsty and a pretty shitty person overall. What does Gaf think of him?

People die in wars.

Some how this is news.

Che was a doctor. He helped liberate Cuba.

The Cuban people at the time definitely wanted a much more socially minded government (something like modern Brazil or even Venezuela) but Castro decided to become the Soviet Union's bitch. Che and friends took advantage of the populace's grassroots movement and abused it to turn Cuba into a totalitarian nightmare. Sure you can say the same about other Communist leaders that get praised by some as well, but the difference between Sankara and Tito as oppose to Che and Castro is that they actually improved life for the people.

I will admit however its hard to judge Che because well he didn't get into power, Castro did. What would Guevara's Cuba have been like? Nobody knows for sure.

There was no Cuban grassroots movement that was not Che and Fidel. They literally built the grassroots movement themselves. Che took his experiences building the Cuban Revolution and theorized it into "Focoism". Batista Cuba was a great country.... for the rich Europeans and Americans who were vacationing there. For the Cuban people themselves it was awful.

The major difference between Che and Castro post Revolution is that Che turned towards Mao Zedong Thought where as Castro turned towards Marxism Leninism. Administration between the two probably would not have differed very much.

I don't get the respect leftists have for communists in general. You (usually) don't see even the far right figures in America revering fascists or nazis, but for whatever reason stuff like the great leap forward and the gulags are forgotten when we start talking about people that are kinda sorta not really close to us on the political spectrum. Che wasn't only a murderous asshole, he was a murderous asshole in the service of other murderous assholes who would go about killing a ton of innocent people if he succeed. Whether you believe in socialized medicine or redistribution of wealth doesn't really enter into it.

The Great Leap Forward, the Great Purge, Gulags, etc are not historical anomalies. The Great Leap Forward was a mistaken attempt at industrialization. The Great Purge was an attempt to weed out internal spies and counter revolutionaries, that existed, but the purge itself went too far. Gulags was forced labor. Every industrialized nation has done the exact same thing.

The biggest difference is that where America industrialized off the backs of Native Americans and Africans, the Chinese and Soviets industrialized off the backs of their own people.

It's hilarious when Americans start talking about murder and forced labor when the entire American Middle Class exists specifically due to violence and forced labor in third world countries. So what? Large scale violence and forced labor is bad unless it's in service of building iPads and trendy clothes?

Problem is they are not communists at all, communism cannot happen in today's world (sadly). They have been labels as communists but are far from actually being one.

Cuba is a fairly successful Socialist state. They were able to manage the economic crisis of the 90s without devolving into complete militarism like North Korea or Revisionism like Vietnam and Laos.

Cuba has the highest living conditions in South America and is highly self sustaining. Best of all, it is an entirely Socialist society.




Obama has killed more innocent people that Che.
 
Cuba is a fairly successful Socialist state. They were able to manage the economic crisis of the 90s without devolving into complete militarism like North Korea or Revisionism like Vietnam and Laos.

Cuba has the highest living conditions in South America and is highly self sustaining. Best of all, it is an entirely Socialist society.

Most Americans don't know a lot about Cuba or how it compares on the world stage. It's essentially treated like a black box both culturally and economically unless you have family/friends there... and even then, Cuban-Americans are rather strident against Cuba, particularly if they're over 40.
 
Most Americans don't know a lot about Cuba or how it compares on the world stage. It's essentially treated like a black box both culturally and economically unless you have family/friends there... and even then, Cuban-Americans are rather strident against Cuba, particularly if they're over 40.

I have several friends who conduct civilian/private diplomatic exchanges with both Cuba and North Korea.

It's really great getting to hear more realistic news about both countries.

Anthony Bourdain did an episode of one of his shows in Cuba and had to preface it with a warning that he wasn't going to get political and he knew he was going to upset his Anti Castro friends with the episode. Then he went on to talk about how happy and healthy Cubans are.
 
Pretty gross that people who start wars that kill millions with the goal of keeping them suppressed and obedient are revered as heroes and great statesmen, but those who fight to free people from under the heel of imperialism are monsters.
 
CHEEZMO™;91246144 said:
Pretty gross that people who start wars that kill millions with the goal of keeping them suppressed and obedient are revered as heroes and great statesmen, but those who fight to free people from under the heel of imperialism are monsters.

Everyone's a monster.
To be human is to be a monster.
 
But it's bad unless it's in the goal of iPads and trendy shoes.

Pretty much.

We are sums of equations of countless innocent suffering, facilitated directly by our actions.

As I wrote this pseudo-philosophical post, the energy consumed to power my laptop, my TV (which is showing re-runs of Peep Show), and the lights turned on in my living room would not have been possible without the death of at least one individual.
 
Every time I see a dumb college kid wearing his shirt I do get a bit angry considering what the effect the guy's ideas have had on my family. Easy enough to wear his face on your shirt away from the conflicts he participated in or the groups he has influenced, for the worse, in my opinion. But then again, I'm way too close to it to even attempt to give an unbiased answer.
Your family wouldn't happen to have been upper middle class or rich would it? If so, your family probably prospered off the system of neocolonialism that Che was fighting against. You agree then that your opinion is heavily biased, therefore should be taken with a grain of salt.
 
Your family wouldn't happen to have been upper middle class or rich would it? If so, your family probably prospered off the system of neocolonialism that Che was fighting against. You'd have to agree then that your opinion is heavily biased, therefore should be taken with a grain of salt.

*complains about shirts with pictures of Che*

*uses paper money with pictures of slave owners*
 
CHEEZMO™;91246144 said:
Pretty gross that people who start wars that kill millions with the goal of keeping them suppressed and obedient are revered as heroes and great statesmen, but those who fight to free people from under the heel of imperialism are monsters.

History's always been written by the good guys. All about that cult of personality.

Hell, if Ariel Sharon can be named a "Man of Peace" then anyone can be labelled positively regardless of what they did in their lifetime.
 
CHEEZMO™;91246144 said:
Pretty gross that people who start wars that kill millions with the goal of keeping them suppressed and obedient are revered as heroes and great statesmen, but those who fight to free people from under the heel of imperialism are monsters.
History looks favorably upon white people subjugating native populations and minorities, cuz you know, white people are awesome. Any nonwhite person who fights against them is uppity and should know their place. And god forbid they meet violence with violence, then they'd be just be a murdering psychopath.
 
The Great Leap Forward, the Great Purge, Gulags, etc are not historical anomalies. The Great Leap Forward was a mistaken attempt at industrialization. The Great Purge was an attempt to weed out internal spies and counter revolutionaries, that existed, but the purge itself went too far. Gulags was forced labor. Every industrialized nation has done the exact same thing.

The biggest difference is that where America industrialized off the backs of Native Americans and Africans, the Chinese and Soviets industrialized off the backs of their own people.

What did the Native Americans and slavery have to do with industrialization? The American Indians were treated terribly, certainly, but forced labor was not one of the atrocities we committed upon them. Slaves by definition were victims of forced labor, but they weren't really involved in industrialization. They were largely used to prop up an agrarian society, not turn America into an industrialized one. Industrialization was accomplished in America by free men, which is not to whitewash the immense suffering that accompanied it. It sure beats the way the communist nations did it, though.

Besides which, no one is running around with Calhoun T-shirts. And the ones that do wave the confederate flag are rightly decried as racist assholes.
 
The major difference between Che and Castro post Revolution is that Che turned towards Mao Zedong Thought where as Castro turned towards Marxism Leninism. Administration between the two probably would not have differed very much.

Which is funny considering how much Mao hated the guy.
 
The Great Leap Forward, the Great Purge, Gulags, etc are not historical anomalies. The Great Leap Forward was a mistaken attempt at industrialization. The Great Purge was an attempt to weed out internal spies and counter revolutionaries, that existed, but the purge itself went too far. Gulags was forced labor. Every industrialized nation has done the exact same thing.

I like how this "mistaken attempt at industrialization" left tens of MILLIONS of dead people.

People trying to trivialize the horrors of communism always shock me.

Cuba has the highest living conditions in South America and is highly self sustaining. Best of all, it is an entirely Socialist society.

Not higher than Chile.

Obama has killed more innocent people that Che.

Pointing that the other side is worse does not make Che any better.
 
History looks favorably upon white people subjugating native populations and minorities, cuz you know, white people are awesome. Any nonwhite person who fights against them is uppity and should know their place. And god forbid they meet violence with violence, then they'd be just be a murdering psychopath.
Che was a white guy.
 
What did the Native Americans and slavery have to do with industrialization? The American Indians were treated terribly, certainly, but forced labor was not one of the atrocities we committed upon them. Slaves by definition were victims of forced labor, but they weren't really involved in industrialization. They were largely used to prop up an agrarian society, not turn America into an industrialized one. Industrialization was accomplished in America by free men, which is not to whitewash the immense suffering that accompanied it. It sure beats the way the communist nations did it, though.

I think you're nitpicking. The US committed Genocide against the Native Americans to build up the nation. Same with the slaves. Same with the "free" minorities and immigrants that the US used in the 1900s.

Black inmates in the 1920s being beaten and abused to build rail roads for the US government is different from the Soviet experience because........


Which is funny considering how much Mao hated the guy.

Really?

I'm not familiar. Any more info?

I like how this "mistaken attempt at industrialization" left tens of MILLIONS of dead people.

People trying to trivialize the horrors of communism always shock me.

Placing a Cause behind the ultimate Effect is not trivializing. The Great Leap Forward was an attempt to jump start industrialization off the backs of the agrarian peasants instead of an industrialized proletariat, which China lacked. It's the truth behind it. That doesn't change what the outcome was.

You can hem and haw all you want, but that's the fact of the matter.

Pointing that the other side is worse does not make Che any better.

It's not "pointing to the other side". It's point out that any kind of pissing match of this sort is stupid, because everyone is guilty.
 
I think you're nitpicking. The US committed Genocide against the Native Americans to build up the nation. Same with the slaves. Same with the "free" minorities and immigrants that the US used in the 1900s.

Black inmates in the 1920s being beaten and abused to build rail roads for the US government is different from the Soviet experience because........

I don't think it's nitpicking; I think it's central to your argument. The claim is that the industrialization we enjoy today would not be possible without some degree of atrocity, or at least of people dying. But if the Soviets committed atrocities in the course of industrialization, and the American atrocities were incidental to it, then it's clear that randomly murdering millions of people is not a requirement to have dishwashers. And therefore, the moral excusing of mass murder in order to enjoy the fruits of industrialization falls flat. (though come to think of it, it's not at all clear why the gulags were necessary to their industrialization, either, rather than being a necessary political expedient to ensure that class enemies didn't foment counter-revolution).

And it's different from the Soviet experience in that blacks were not targeted as a class for mass murder and that we did not kill tens of millions of people in order to build our railroads. This is the worst kind of false equivalence.
 
I don't think it's nitpicking; I think it's central to your argument. The claim is that the industrialization we enjoy today would not be possible without some degree of atrocity, or at least of people dying. But if the Soviets committed atrocities in the course of industrialization, and the American atrocities were incidental to it, then it's clear that randomly murdering millions of people is not a requirement to have dishwashers. And therefore, the moral excusing of mass murder in order to enjoy the fruits of industrialization falls flat. (though come to think of it, it's not at all clear why the gulags were necessary to their industrialization, either, rather than being a necessary political expedient to ensure that class enemies didn't foment counter-revolution).

It's nit picking because "Industrialization" is used as a catch all for "Nation Building".

If you don't really understand how slave labor, Jim Crow, and debt bondage aids in nation building or how the Soviet implementation of Gulags as "a necessary political expedient to ensure that class enemies didn't foment counter-revolution" has it's analog to the US treatment of minorities and the working poor then there's really not much for us to discuss. I'm really not interested in hearing an apologist for the US' own terrible past.

And it's different from the Soviet experience in that blacks were not targeted as a class for mass murder and that we did not kill tens of millions of people in order to build our railroads. This is the worst kind of false equivalence.

Blacks were targeted for their skin color.

False equivalency my ass. The US enslaved and killed people because of their skin color and cultural background, but at a percentage that may or may not be less than another country. Are you seriously going to argue that the US experience is some how better? Give me a fucking break.
 
Really?

I'm not familiar. Any more info?

Para-phrasing here but Mao was impressed with Che when he first visited China back in 1960 but began disliking Che's popularity and the fact that he was cosying up to the Russians. So much so that he didn't even bother meeting him the second time Che visited China around the mid 60s. Additionally, Guevara wanted to build a worldwide broadcast radio station in Bolivia and asked for Chinese support; he got denied. When Che passed away the Chinese were quietly happy about it stating that after the defeat of Guevara the revolution in Latin America was doing really well.

Source: Mao: The Unknown Story by Jung Chang
 
Para-phrasing here but Mao was impressed with Che when he first visited China back in 1960 but began disliking Che's popularity and the fact that he was cosying up to the Russians. So much so that he didn't even bother meeting him the second time Che visited China around the mid 60s. Additionally, Guevara wanted to build a worldwide broadcast radio station in Bolivia and asked for Chinese support; he got denied. When Che passed away the Chinese were quietly happy about it stating that after the defeat of Guevara the revolution in Latin America was doing really well.

Source: Mao: The Unknown Story by Jung Chang

TY.

I had always assumed the opposite, considering Focoism is a rudimentary interpretation of Maoism. Or maybe that is one of the reasons for the dislike.


ed

Though I question this book's accuracy.

After Mao conquered China in 1949, his secret goal was to dominate the world.

Both Mao and Modern China's take on foreign policy is to not export Chinese soldiers and put them on foreign soil. China's conflict with the US was, very specifically, to engage in Protracted People's War, meaning, the US would invade and the Chinese would retreat to the countryside and eventually encircle and overtake the US. He was fairly explicit with these plans, to the point where it scared off any US invasion. However, I can't think of anything under Mao that implied he was interested in expanding Chinese influence past it's historical borders. Korea was really the last time China put troops on foreign soil, not counting the brief "punitive" incursions into Vietnam and the border with India.
 
Che was a hopeless idealist...nothing good came from him other than being an outlet for rebellious attitude(s)
 
I

False equivalency my ass. The US enslaved and killed people because of their skin color and cultural background, but at a percentage that may or may not be less than another country. Are you seriously going to argue that the US experience is some how better? Give me a fucking break.

So weird to see him argue it as well, I mean wasn't most of the railway network built by Asians and slave labour?
Also the US had "Japanese American internment camps"
This power was used to declare that all people of Japanese ancestry were excluded from the entire Pacific coast, including all of California and much of Oregon, Washington and Arizona, except for those in internment camps

So I mean not exactly a glowing history either.
 
Not higher than Chile.

Not higher than any other country in America, apologists like to cite a couple of statistics but the truth is people still risk their lives to get out of the country, why would that be?

edit: ok I am exaggerating, Haiti is probably the worst country to live specially after the earthquake.
 
The left is very good at explaining away his barbarity.

I'm glad he became a commercial icon. It rendered him into a meaningless fashion symbol, a fitting legacy.
 
Cuba has the highest living conditions in South America and is highly self sustaining. Best of all, it is an entirely Socialist society.

Slaves by definition were victims of forced labor, but they weren't really involved in industrialization.

This...this thread.

Not higher than any other country in America, apologists like to cite a couple of statistics but the truth is people still risk their lives to get out of the country, why would that be?

edit: ok I am exaggerating, Haiti is probably the worst country to live specially after the earthquake.

To be fair this has calmed down a lot in recent years. But yeah if Cuba is so great why would people take a raft across the fucking ocean of a distance of Chicago to Milwaukee.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom