A Question About Che Guevara (Please, no rants) ?

[HelenaKurailOrihme]

Right. I'm a sixteen year old (female) student from England. I'm not a Communist, and believe that enforced, widespread Communism would fail due to the massive influence of the Capitalist State. Unfortunate, perhaps, but true. A classless world is not a world that will ever work, at least for the moment.

I do, however, wear the image and signature of Che Guevara on my college bag and (in winter) my beret badge. Unlike the American Liberal state who romanticise the story of Che and his message - or even wear it without knowledge, it's common for people to wear his face without knowing his identity in an attempt to appear "trendy" and forward-thinking - I know the histories of the Cuban Revolution and have done my political research on the messages behind the leaders of the Communist Movement.

Enter Che.

More knowledgable people (or so it seems) often dislike the fact that I as a student wear his ensignia, as they know that he was violent in his means. He was not a peaceful protestor. He killed many. Not in the numbers of Stalin and Hitler, or Gaddafi in the modern world, but he was a murderer.

However, was this killing (often of corrupt agent provocateurs, protestors to his movement who would have gladly killed him given the chance) a futile attempt to be heard in the chaos of Revolutionary Cuba? We know little of Che. We have his books, and biographies. But he is dead. And propaganda for both sides of his debate is widespread. The military kill indiscriminately for their cause. Not always, certainly. But it has happened. But the military do so in the justified belief that it will bring peace, and a better future for the country they fight to liberate, so the bloodshed and ethics must be put aside for a cause.

Surely those who rant about Che being a murderer are missing the message behind the mistakes? The politics behind the violent front? I'm proud to wear his badge. It reminds me that sometimes, I need to only depend on myself in order to acheive something I stand for, and that the fight for what I believe in any part of my life is going to be difficult, and people will always stand against me because they're so afraid of difference. Viva Che.

What do you think?
Oddly enough, Resistant Materials class for a few years allowed me to make the badges.

And I'm merely asking opinions. A debate, if you will.

I'm hardly confused. If anything, I'm extremely sure in my viewpoint.
He wasn't free to kill people at will. If he had been here in England rather than the madness of 1950s Cuba, he would have been under the influence of solid Law. Killing is wrong. But the message he used violence to enforce had meaning. A school shooting or a wronged husband do not fight for others, or for freedom. They can hardly be compared.
Earl, good point! But by rant I do mean people making horrific slurs, Communists ranting at every other answerer. Say your piece, but keep it smart and civilised. It's a debate, not a pub fight.

 

[Olbaalma]

Look into his murders, specifically the slaughter of innocent people, all in the name of communism.
I disagree with you, but I must say I appreciate your honesty in the discussion and respect your willingness to listen and debate.
You appear to be a college student (right?). I think rebellion is much more glorious then. I think as you mature, you may end up seeing the revolution in a different manner.
Best of luck, and kudos again for an honest discussion.

 

[Evas1]

Why not become an iconoclast? Here is a biography, like all humans there is good and bad, unfortunately when we connect ourselves to an icon we must embrace both. Best wishes.

 

[Anya]

Che was a great man, he helped many people and gave them hope, and lot of people in Latin America look up to him to this day. Yes, he killed people. So did George Washington. What do you think a revolution is? So, wear your badge. But, think about the part about communism again, will you?

 

[chase]

Yes! Dr.Ernesto "CHE" Guevara de la Serna Lynch was a fighter for the protection of the poor from the ruthless imperialist ( Gasanos) getting rich from the poor. he was appauled by the poverty he saw in the counrtyside and wanted to help them.

 

[sienna]

You write very well.

"If you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything."

We have to be clear about the ethics and the use of violence or threats. The question is, when are they justified, and when not?

The fact that there have been plenty of killers, and that armies have killed lots of people, is of course no justification at all. You have to decide for yourself.

I can see how it is a justification of violence that someone else is attacking or intending to attack you or anyone.

But is it justified to attack or threaten to attack other people:
a) because you think it would be a good idea?
b) because you think it would make for a better society?
c) because you would like to take the fruits of their labour without their consent?
d) just to get what you want?

What about the rights of other people to be free of your threats and violence?

The state is, by definition, the group in society who claim a legal monopoly on the use of unprovoked aggressive violence. But they don't call it that. They call it "policy". Same thing. Any time you advocate the use of the state for any purpose other than to repel the aggression of someone else, you are advocating aggression.

Whether a majority vote for it does not make it *ethically* justified. Nor does it mean the practical outcome is better.

*If* the message behind Che's violence was itself a peaceful message, that might be different. But it wasn't. Advocating *any* use of government, other than to stop aggressive violence against the person or property of others, makes the same mistake.

The question is whether you believe in using violence or threats to force people to sacrifice their peaceful values, to make them obey their political overlords; or believe in freedom. At present you believe in the former.

I hope your wisdom will grow to match your intelligence.

 

[JerryPerry]

Was that a question or a journal article?

 

[Ari]

If you bought your Che badges at a big corporate store, then what you just said is invalid. :/

 

[JoHan1]

Well if you understand what he stood for, and still support the cause, that is your right. I feel the same for Adolph Hitler. Without a doubt, he was one of the greatest leaders in the history of the world. He brought Germany out of ruins and created a superpower (without spending trillions of dollars, I might add). He was a man who loved his people. It was his dream to reunite Austria with Germany. Everything he did, he did for the benefit of Germans. This cannot be denied. Alas, wearing a Hitler shirt would no go over so well as wearing a Che shirt.

 

[TheReturnoftheGhost]

As long as you think you have a point you are free to kill people at will.

Do you think Tim McVeigh because he had some legitimate grievances?

 

[Faithful]

It is interesting you use the word RANT! I have never heard a male use that word against freedom to speak! Think about it, girl. If truth is not allowed, gender or race, we have no freedom! I heard that word when serving as a veteran.. later I found it was a feminist rant.. I mean real and not to support facts! What gives all of us freedom is being honorable and telling the truth. That word, rant is used to restrict facts, girl, and not to make us or keep us free! Earl

 

[Derek]

I think you're young and confused. I'm not taking one side or the other, just being honest. You sound very confused.

 

[Benny]

In spite of all you say, some people were alive when Che was murdering folks, and these people are quite offended to see a person who is enjoying life unmolested by radical, violent murderers, (for whatever reason) seeming to glorify such an evil man.

But hey, you're young and living in that fantasy-land called college where young people get to try on new life roles and explore ideas new to them.

As we mature we discover how far empathy takes us. It's a good thing.

I'm older and not offended by your ill choice of wardrobe. Still I would suggest that you'll get better results in all your attempts to persuade by using honey rather than vinegar.

 

[RandyF]

Surely you would believe that when he removed old men and young children illegally held in prison and executed them by shooting them down like a mad dog that he was indeed free to kill and he did.