Che it Ain't So
There is a character in Jean-Luc Godard's À bout de Souffle who speaks of the path to everlasting fame. "First you become immortal," he instructs, "then you die."
A prime exemplar of the "create a legend/resurrection" method of eternal iconography would be Ernesto (Che) Guevara, the Argentine-born revolutionary who was executed forty years ago today in Bolivia. Death transmogrified him into a symbol of revolution itself. Time has turned him into an empty Warholized emblem that adorns everything from T-shirts to fanny packs to bumper stickers and apparently even a soap with the slogan "Che washes whiter."
In death Guevara has certainly managed to whitewash his image. A cleansing aided by such personality cultisms as the film The Motorcycle Diaries, which portrays Guevara as a young, wide-eyed do-gooder who travels South America looking to right social wrongs. Romanticized and corporate pimped, for most who even know who Guevara was they have no idea what he stood for. They merely accept that he was the South American Martin Luther King.
He was not.
Guevara was a brutal, egotistical killer without the smarts to enact lasting economic reform nor the guile to achieve true insurgent victory. His most significant military achievement -- the taking of Santa Clara during Castro's Cuban revolution -- might have been more a matter of financial bribery than military strategy.
What is in little dispute is the savagery of his tenure as the commander of the La Cabaña Fortress prison. Think of it as Cuba's Abu Ghraib. In a mere five months Guevara oversaw and personally signed off on the execution of as many as 500 people. Men, women, children. Not all merely loyalists to overthrown Cuban dictator Fulgencio Batista. Also executed were political prisoners, dissidents, artist, intellectuals and homosexuals. A representative number of the left the revolution was supposed to be lifting up.
His bloody handiwork should come as no surprise. Before Guvera was a soap pitchman from beyond the grave, he was the "The Butcher of la Cabaña" who preached: "hatred as an element of struggle; unbending hatred for the enemy, which pushes a human being beyond his natural limitations, making him into an effective, violent, selective, and cold-blooded killing machine."
I'm sure Gandhi would have been proud.
As head of the National Institute of Agrarian Reform, and President of the National Bank of Cuba, Guevara would institute popular reforms that would eventually lead to economic disaster. From the middle 1960s until the Soviet collapse Cuba was subsistent on their largess to a tune of $65 billion to $100 billion annually.
As a military leader Guevara was hardly more impressive. In the Congo he hooked up with a couple of bloody rebels, failed to inspire the people and accomplished little more than putting his own men through a shredder. It was a misadventure Guevara himself described as a "history of failure."
An expedition into Bolivia proved disastrous. Guevara completely misread the situation on the ground, could not incite a popular uprising, was completely abandoned by the Bolivian communists, their Soviet backers and even the Cubans.
Bolivian Rangers took him prisoner on the 8th of October, 1967. He whimpered as they came: "Do not shoot! I am Che Guevara and worth more to you alive than dead."
The Bolivian's figured otherwise. The next day Guevara was executed.
And thus began his ascendancy from abject failure to high icon. A populist, a revolutionary. A man who turned his back on material gains to give instead to the people.
And if you believe that, consider this: when Guevara was captured in Bolivia he was wearing a Rolex watch on his wrist.
Long live the revolution.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
While we are kicking around our favorite idols. Gandi was obstinate, stubborn and immature; cruel and indifferant to his wife and children; and drove the British crazy with his implacable and often unreasonable ways.
Martin Luther King had extra marital affairs, and Einstien was a cold and indifferent husband and father. Hell, so was John Lennon.
It is hard to find a biography that can get beyond mere hero worship, but all four did share uncommon dedication and focus to a singular cause, and that is why we appreciate and remember them still. Not for their flaws, but deeds that have become iconic, outstripping the flawed humans underneath.
I agree that the legacy of Che is distorted and romanticised, but we are left with an icon of a revolutionary that tried, perhaps only in appearances, to fight for equality of the poor.
We liberals take our icons way to seriously, when all that matters is the message underneath, few can pass the muster of a real saint.
The handbags and soap are truely ironic though.
Please tell us how many people were killed by Ghandi and Martin Luther King JR, Einstein and John Lennon. And show us the photos of them holding weapons if you don't mind.
PlanetKansas,
I'll consider you a voice of expertise when you can spell "Gandhi," "indifferent," and "Einstein.
All significant revolutionary and "freedom" struggles throughout history are stained with blood... and most also with corruption.
Pick any historic leader or figure, and you'll find all kinds of unflattering and contradictory quotes they made, ruthless and racist policies they pursued, and mistakes..
As the saying goes...'hi
Che in death has transformed by mythical proportions, much as has Ron Reagan, Churchill, Teddy Roosevelt on the other side of the idealogy ledger - its just as it is with organized religion..
As a wise man once said...
You want a hero? Buy a comic book.
For Latinos, El Che, is their voice. Many disagree with his practices (historically documented as clear and unjustifiable violations of human rights) but he is the symbol of a movement that sought/seeks to uplift those that have historically been oppressed. The legacy of El Che is a complicated one, however, it should not be easily dismissed. He had an M.D., he dedicated his life to agrarian reform so that those that have been raped for centuries might find a better life, and he spearheaded a movement that has positive reverberations in 2007.
Should we criticize El Che? Of course, with historical context. How many Cubanos suffered under U.S.-align
I usually enjoy reading Ridley's pieces, however, this was simply-bad scholarship. The opinion is narrow, biased, and many of his arguments consist of logical fallacies (appeal to emotion). If you adopt this style of one-sided commentary you surely appreciate the brilliant opinions of Coulter, Savage, and Medved.
In response to the comment, "If I see one more college kid sporting a che t-shirt, I think I'm going to go nuts," why? Could this educated individual be supporting a contemporary movement that seeks to lift the oppressed? Could this individual be wearing a trendy T-shirt which associates him with something he knows nothing about? Yes to both. Yet, I would ask if you have ever worn a T-shirt embossed with the American flag, or the like? To many individuals abroad- THAT is a symbol of oppression, unjustifiable killing, and a false ideology.
Have perspective!
THANK YOU, MERCI, GRACIAS, euxaristo poli (= Greek); Shnoragal'yem (Armenian). I wish I knew more languages to express my gratitude for what you wrote.
I am so glad SOMEONE finally showed some OBJECTIVITY!
One thing you can always count on. Marxists who clamor about oppression ALWAYS end up exceeding all prior norms of what constitutes oppression.
I think logic flies in the face of your "exceeding all prior norms" argument. Logic indicates that it would be humanly impossible for one individual or his movement to match the centuries of oppression/death at the hands of European powers to Latin countries in ~50 years. Even for Che Guevara, that is an impossible feat.
Furthermore, to claim that "Marxists" exceeded prior norms of oppression would require that "Marxists" annihilate a few hundred million indigenous persons in North/South America. (For evidence look at statistics of Pre-Colonial Americas vs. Post-Colonial Americas in regards to the population of indigenous people)
But if Che was such a Latin American hero, how come none of the peasants in Bolivia didn't fight with him, and instead snitched on him and his location? Just asking.
It could be argued that both Che and Bush(more likely his brain, Karl Rove) tried their own form of 'shock Doctrine'. Just as Bush has ultimately failed in his shock doctrine to get the people of America to buy into his theories, so did Che in Bolivia. More importantly, Che never got a chance to impose his 'shock doctrine' as he was there for only a few months before being killed by CIA trained assassins. Bolivians already had what they perceived as their own revolution one year prior to Che's arrival. Add to this the fact that 40% of the population were indigenous indians who spoke, and still speak, their native tongue of Quechua, and you have a situation that required more time to implement Mao's theories;
"Mao Tse Tung's seven fundamental steps in Yu Chi
Chan (Guerrilla Warfare) reveal both similarities and differences
with Che's theories:
1) Arousing and organizing the people
2) Achieving internal unification politically.
3) Establishing bases.
4) Equipping forces.
5) Recovering national strength.
6) Destroying enemy's national strength.
7) Regaining lost territories"
or even of Che's 'foco theory':
" He claims that
Che's foco theory is the "staggering novelty" of the evolution of
international revolutionary experience:
Under certain conditions, the political and
military are not separate, but form one organic
whole, consisting of the peoples' army. The
vanguard party can exist in the form of the
guerrilla foco itself. The guerrilla force is
the party in embryo.13
Debray supports Che's rejection of traditional Marxist doctrine.
Organizing the masses as a whole can be preempted by a small group
of insurgents who act as a focus for the discontented elements
already present in the country."
Kinda reminds one of Bush's 'Disaster Capitalism' failures, huh?
http://www
Thank you for your post--you said it more eloquently than I could have, for you are able to put aside your disdain for those who would question your intelligence and objectivity far better than I.
Historical context--what a concept! Too bad so many seem to equate historical context with a purely American one.
For Latinos, El Che, is their voice. Many disagree with his practices (historically documented as clear and unjustifiable violations of human rights) but he is the symbol of a movement that sought/seeks to uplift those that have historically been oppressed. The legacy of El Che is a complicated one, however, it should not be easily dismissed. He had an M.D., he dedicated his life to agrarian reform so that those that have been raped for centuries might find a better life, and he spearheaded a movement that has positive reverberations in 2007.
Should we criticize El Che? Of course, with historical context. How many Cubanos suffered under U.S.-align
I usually enjoy reading Ridley's pieces, however, this was simply-bad scholarship. The opinion is narrow, biased, and many of his arguments consist of logical fallacies (appeal to emotion). If you adopt this style of one-sided commentary you surely appreciate the brilliant opinions of Coulter, Savage, and Medved.
In response to the comment, "If I see one more college kid sporting a che t-shirt, I think I'm going to go nuts," why? Could this educated individual be supporting a contemporary movement that seeks to lift the oppressed? Could this individual be wearing a trendy T-shirt which associates him with something he knows nothing about? Yes to both. Yet, I would ask if you have ever worn a T-shirt embossed with the American flag, or the like? To many individuals abroad- THAT is a symbol of oppression, unjustifiable killing, and a false ideology.
Have perspective!
Well said. It made me wonder if Ridley has some axe to grind!
The Che tee shirts where his face is a skull with long hair make more sense now!
I don't believe your account.
I don't think he was Jesus, but I really doubt the accuracy of most of your details you offer up without any links or foot-notes.
You seem to be a willing tool of those within the establishment who push a very specific narrative.
You definitely have an agenda.
THANK YOU!!!!!! There are far too many people who have bought into the "Che as hero" myth, without taking the time to examine the facts and find the truth. Che was a walking piece of murdering shit who deserved worse than he got.
I find your characterization of Che Guevara, a little too simplistic. Your attempt to characterize a man of such complexity with a detail so meaningless and trivial such as the fact that he was wearing a Rolex when he was arrested, only indicates that you give more importance to his external image than to the real essence of his persona. Regardless of his methods and ideology, Dr. Ernesto Guevara Lynch (a.k.a Che) was a man of ideals and great intelligence. As you know, he belonged to a wealthy family. He could have stayed in Argentina, living a comfortable life, playing polo and traveling to Europe in luxury liners like most rich kids did at the time.
Instead, he chose to fight for his ideals and ultimately died for them. He was neither a coward nor a cold blooded murderer. He fought for what he believed in, sadly failing to realize that the oppressed people he was trying to help were not ready to join his armed struggle.
Misguided or not, his life and his struggle are worth examining more deeply and always within the historical context of the situation in Latin America in the 1960's, when most countries were under CIA-sponsored dictatorships.
Can you imagine YOUR president (who also comes from a wealthy family) leaving the safety of his home, to fight for the poor and opressed instead of using Daddy's connections to get in the National Guard and even then, never bothering to report for duty???
I was not "there" with Che. Having said that, neither were you, yet you speak as if you knew the man. Every man has his weaknesses as I'm sure Che did as well. So i offer what other's that personally knew him said:
"He taught me to think - he taught me the most beautiful thing which is to be human"
Urbano - Former Cuban rebel fighter
and from Aleida March:
"Che gave his bride a bottle of Flor de Roca perfume by Caron, "which, of course, I never forgot," she reminisces. But Che wouldn't let her keep the many gifts sent to them, giving them away to the poor.
"On his trips, he would receive gifts from his hosts, some of them very expensive," March writes. "He would get presents for me as well, and he would give them away if he considered them too ostentatio
She was given a color TV only to see Che pass it on to a factory worker. "And back then, it was sort of an unimaginable item," March says, adding: "Once, after a trip to Algeria, he received a barrel of an excellent wine. When he arrived home, he told me to give it to the army barracks near our home. I would not always unconditionally obey his mandates. Knowing that wine was one of the few treats he allowed himself, I kept five liters."
http://www
Now, I don't know many people that are that giving, certainly not to this degree. For that alone, Che is a model of humanity and his face should be on T-shirts of kids, College Students and Adults!
FYI: That Rolex you made mention of was a GIFT to Che, that he cherished and decided to keep.
Jesus!
Killing women and children is not a "weakness".
Che was a killer.
Understand me - I am a progressive liberal and am greatly in favor of popular revolutions that benefit the downtrodden and the underclass.
But murder of innocents is just that. And Che clearly justified his murders in the context of revolutionary language - but that doesn't these murders any less tragic and disgusting.
And addressing this by saying that "Every man has his weaknesses", as if murder is some sort of peccadillo, is the definition of denial.
Sure, I bet Che did say and even believe some beautiful, inspirational things. And he probably did give away TV's and wine and other stuff.
Great. He still killed innocents. TV's and wine don't make up for that.
The issue here is that you have a sense of reason. Be careful using that around here. You can be a good liberal. You can be in favor a single payer health plan. You can be against the war. You can favor higher taxes on the rich and ending capital gains tax cuts.
But on the Huffpo, none of that really matters if you stray on any point of the orthodoxy. Che is an idol and Bush is a nazi and that is all they will accept around here.
Great post as always Mr. Ridley. You are one of the few on this site that challenges the standard far left party line. Normally your posts are met with quite a bit of resentment from those who carry the views you challenge. I am pleased that at least some of the readers here have an open mind to this particular subject. By the way, the comment about the rolex makes for a fantastic anecdote. Again, great work.
Thanks Mom.
Ahh yes, WW, ye olde "fantastic anecdotes"! Gotta love them. It almost reads like you were paying Ridley a compliment. Almost.
John Ridley peddles the most outrageous right-wing lies from the Cuban Revolution-hating industry about Che's role in the trials, convictions, and executions of the worst torturers and murderers of the overthrown Batista regime and then says his falsifications are "in little dispute."
One of the first tasks of the triumphant Cuban revolutionaries in 1959 was to establish justice for the thousands of Cuban families whose sons and daughters, mothers, fathers, and neighbors had been tortured and slaughtered on the streets and in the dungeons of the Batista regime. The martyred dead numbered at least 20,000 in a country then of 6 million (the equivalent of over 650,000 dead in a country the size of the US at the time). A messy people’s justice had already begun with the end of the regime as spontaneous retributions took place against known torturers and murderers whose cover and protection had vanished.
Che was assigned the task of establishing a just and fair but also transparent and certain justice and to bring the process under revolutionary control, ensuring due process, defense lawyers, and fair proceedings. This was done in an exemplary way. Popular, public tribunals were organized. Volumes of public testimony were given, with horrific testimony of the most vile tortures and bestial murder recorded and made public. Some 200 of the worst torturers and murderers of the US-backed Batista tyranny were shot by firing squads. No one has ever offered a shred of evidence that anyone innocent was executed. Whatever one’s opinion of the death sentences that were implemented, backed by the great majority of the population, no one can say, or has ever shown, that the guilt of those executed was not established beyond the shadow of a doubt. Batista’s cops and thugs were, after all, known to all. In their glory days, prior to the revolutionary victory, those brought to justice strutted their power and brutality over what they thought would be forever helpless victims; they never dreamed they would face their victims and their victim’s families in a legal proceeding.
Why did Ridley mention Bush Jr. in the first sentence of the fifth paragraph in his post about Che? I suppose when the predicate of a sentence serves as an identical description for two separate subjects, it doesn't matter what subject you use--the sentence will be true in either case. A genius tongue-and-cheek implication from Ridley indeed.
But forget for a second the notion of a "history of failure"--yet another paragraph where I thought Ridley was talking about Bush Jr.--becau
I was surprised that someone who could quote "Breathless" from the great French Nouvelle Vague cinemasters, Godard and Truffaut, could also say that he [K]nows that Che was wearing a Rolex when he was captured in Bolivia. Hmm. Methinks a more interesting 'French-Cuban' connexion to consider is Sartre's month-long 'hurricane over sugar' stay in Havana in early 1960--when he met with Che personally.
quality use of the polysyllable in a pointless attack on a dead man who fought for freedom, whether you like his methods or not.
che' was certainly not as brutal as negroponte or the school of the americas, or pinochet or bush. he was certainly a product of american foreign policy in South America.
So? Less bad does not equal good.
Che was a brutal killer who is not deserving of hero status. Yes, there are people who've killed more. And yes, the Cuban revolution and South American conditions in general are greatly due to the US own inhumane and imperialist actions in South America - which we've considered our de facto territory for over a hundred years.
Nevertheless, that does not make Che any less of a killer.
so what does that make boosh, a hero? stop deflecting from the guilt of your murderous fearful leader and his co-coward in chief.
how else was he to respond to the killers? Ask to be shot?
cut it out. your opinion is soooo convenient.
Wow, the commenters seem to be really eating up Ridleys smear peice. Apparently, since Mr. Guevara doesn't match up to a personality cult image in which he is am idealized hero, Ridley has to turn him into an idealized bad-guy, which to my non-hero-w
Beyond that, as usual, Ridley can't help painting with as broad a brush as possible. Is it possible that someone could find inspiration with the man, or are they just worshipping an "empty" Warholian image.
To heighten our sense of the absurd, Ridley even compares Mr. Guevara to Ghandi. Why would Ridley compare a man famous for being a militant revolutionary to a pacifist? I have no idea.
"In death Che has somehow managed to whitewash his image", says Ridley. That is a truly amazing feat for a dead man.
Ridley complains about his military record, as if he is famous for winning many battles, rather than being a committed revolutionary. I could go on and on here about the comparisons that, oddly enough, don't really even match the caricature of his life and person.
Hey rolex owners, Ridley has a beef with you. Apparently, Che took a vow of poverty. Who knows where he got the watch or why? What a cheap shot.
The quote encouraging soldiers to "have an unbending hatred" is highly selective, and anyone familiar with his writing, as too few are, can vouch for that.
I find it odd that I am here defending Che, I don't endorse idealization of historical figures and have only a minimal interest in his person. But this post is so cheap, just an empty inversion of the myth of Che.
Che personally executed innocent people in cold blood, and participated in the kangaroo-court executions of others.
It's not an "empty inversion" of the myth of Che, it's just a complete contradiction of a myth by known facts that don't fit.
Ben Dixon wrote:
"The great irony is that this leftist/Ma
Which is almost as good as watching someone misspell "wear" twice in one sentence.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
