'Be Like Che': Cuba Observes 50th Anniversary of Revolutionary's Death

[wabashcr]

4 hours ago, SignalJoe said:

There is no appeal to an indiscriminate murderous racist who in the spirit of imperialism attempted to spread his philosophy of "liberation" via more bloodshed in South America.  If that view is shortsighted I am prepared to wear that label.    

Shortsighted was the politest way I could describe people who view the world in black and white, while attempting to remain respectful of our host's decorum.  I'm glad you aren't offended.  I disagree with your assertion that there's nothing redeeming about someone you deem a "murderous racist," a term that describes many of the revered founders of our own country.  

[...]

8 hours ago, PigFish said:

...ahhh yes! Judge not thy brother! Mao, Stalin... you name it, now complex moderates, above the fray of mere labels and judgements!!! What a joke... Enter the age of relativism.

 

I'm not, because only a moron would!

...and from the guy that asks others if they are above the rules! What'a surprise!

Mods... This is intentional trolling used to close the thread. 

Hi Ray,

I guess I should be offended by your baseless accusation here but it seems it might be an unfulfilling and time consuming endeavour to try to explain why you're wrong. Oh well, my bad for trying to induce others to reflect on their prejudices...

[...]

Double post

[OZCUBAN]

Freedom fighter/Terrorist such a fine line 

 

[SignalJoe]

9 hours ago, wabashcr said:

Shortsighted was the politest way I could describe people who view the world in black and white, while attempting to remain respectful of our host's decorum.  I'm glad you aren't offended.  I disagree with your assertion that there's nothing redeeming about someone you deem a "murderous racist," a term that describes many of the revered founders of our own country.  

One of the most enjoyable facets of history is that it is factual or black and white if you will.  While different authors or different sources provide varying accounts there are always the inarguable, intractable facts.  The record of history is quite clear regarding Che’s racist barbarous ways.  That some believe in and agree with his socialist objectives and choose to overlook his crimes against humanity and his fellow countrymen does not in any way negate those facts.   Neither using moral relativism in an attempt to deflect or discredit others nor arguing that his actions contributed anything positive to lives of Cubans past or present alters the facts at hand.  Sadly there seem to be many who will gladly use his image and legacy to advocate for what history has clearly shown to be a failed experiment.  The fact that there was injustice prior to the revolution doesn’t mean that injustice shared equally is morally superior and certainly does not justify the means by which it was achieved.   

 

[wabashcr]

9 hours ago, SignalJoe said:

One of the most enjoyable facets of history is that it is factual or black and white if you will.  While different authors or different sources provide varying accounts there are always the inarguable, intractable facts.  The record of history is quite clear regarding Che’s racist barbarous ways.  That some believe in and agree with his socialist objectives and choose to overlook his crimes against humanity and his fellow countrymen does not in any way negate those facts.   Neither using moral relativism in an attempt to deflect or discredit others nor arguing that his actions contributed anything positive to lives of Cubans past or present alters the facts at hand.  Sadly there seem to be many who will gladly use his image and legacy to advocate for what history has clearly shown to be a failed experiment.  The fact that there was injustice prior to the revolution doesn’t mean that injustice shared equally is morally superior and certainly does not justify the means by which it was achieved.   

 

Anyone who overlooks Che's atrocities because they agree with his anti-imperialism is guilty of the same black/white analysis.  But just to be clear, most people who still celebrate or revere Che aren't doing so because they agree with the form of government he wanted to implement.  They like that he was a revolutionary who led a rebellion against oppressive imperialists.  I think it's pretty clear to see why that might still appeal to people who continue to suffer under similar circumstances today, and those who sympathize.  

Again, I'm not suggesting anyone ignore Che's crimes against humanity.  But to only focus on that aspect of him is willfully ignorant, and I believe incredibly condescending to those who celebrate him as a revolutionary icon.  Thomas Jefferson was a slave owner and rapist, but we're not tearing up the Declaration of Independence.  Andrew Jackson led a genocide against Native Americans, and we put him on our $20 bill.  But thankfully both had the good sense to avoid communism, or else we'd really have some tough choices to make. 

[PigFish]

Ernesto Guevara was born to Ernesto Guevara Lynch and Celia de la Serna y Llosa, on June 14, 1928,^[1] in Rosario, Argentina, the eldest of five children in a middle-class Argentine family of Spanish (including Basque and Cantabrian) descent, as well as Irish by means of his ancestor Patrick Lynch.^[19][20][21]

More inconvenient facts. Che(ese puff) here was born in Argentina. He was not a Cuban. It is clear he went to Cuba to spread a political doctrine.

The question then becomes, when a man leaves his own country to spread the political doctrine of anther country (Anglo/European Communism) is he or is he not imperialist?

Hell yes he was an imperialist. Freedom fighter my ass. He liked acting like a Lord and killing people.

What if one of his 'voluntary' guerrillas did not want to fight? Were they 'free' to do so? Not exactly! They were shot...

-Piggy

[SignalJoe]

19 hours ago, wabashcr said:

Anyone who overlooks Che's atrocities because they agree with his anti-imperialism is guilty of the same black/white analysis.  But just to be clear, most people who still celebrate or revere Che aren't doing so because they agree with the form of government he wanted to implement.  They like that he was a revolutionary who led a rebellion against oppressive imperialists.  I think it's pretty clear to see why that might still appeal to people who continue to suffer under similar circumstances today, and those who sympathize.  

Again, I'm not suggesting anyone ignore Che's crimes against humanity.  But to only focus on that aspect of him is willfully ignorant, and I believe incredibly condescending to those who celebrate him as a revolutionary icon.  Thomas Jefferson was a slave owner and rapist, but we're not tearing up the Declaration of Independence.  Andrew Jackson led a genocide against Native Americans, and we put him on our $20 bill.  But thankfully both had the good sense to avoid communism, or else we'd really have some tough choices to make. 

It is a matter of historical fact that Argentinean born Che was acting in an imperialist manner to implement his desires on a foreign people.  It is historical fact that the regime he ushered in was actually more oppressive and brutal than the one he fought to “free” Cubans from.   So I ask, what is the appeal?  Does this inspire hope to those that continue to suffer under similar circumstances that some freedom fighter from a foreign land will overthrow their oppressive regime and install an even more oppressive and brutal regime? 

Again the attempt at moral relativism falls short here.  By pointing out that others have faults and flaws does nothing to exonerate Che.  It is willfully ignorant to ignore the fact that nothing Che did actually improved the quality of life for the people of Cuba.  Given that the results of all his endeavors were a net negative the only purpose to hold him up as an idol, icon or what have you is for propaganda value.   Having said that perhaps you can enlighten me as to his positive qualities that would allow people to sympathize with or look favorably upon him?

[Leopolis Semper Fidelis]

On 10/25/2017 at 5:35 AM, dgixxer252525 said:

Che was nothing short of a murderer and a hypocrite. Many people in my family suffered and are still suffering today because of him.

Members of my family suffered at the hands of others of Che's ilk.  "Freedom fighters" indeed!  Che was a doctor who took more lives than he saved - the ultimate hypocrite.  The Bolivian peasants (those whom he had come to "liberate") turned him in - quite an irony, and poetic justice.  

[wabashcr]

15 hours ago, SignalJoe said:

It is a matter of historical fact that Argentinean born Che was acting in an imperialist manner to implement his desires on a foreign people.  It is historical fact that the regime he ushered in was actually more oppressive and brutal than the one he fought to “free” Cubans from.   So I ask, what is the appeal?  Does this inspire hope to those that continue to suffer under similar circumstances that some freedom fighter from a foreign land will overthrow their oppressive regime and install an even more oppressive and brutal regime? 

Again the attempt at moral relativism falls short here.  By pointing out that others have faults and flaws does nothing to exonerate Che.  It is willfully ignorant to ignore the fact that nothing Che did actually improved the quality of life for the people of Cuba.  Given that the results of all his endeavors were a net negative the only purpose to hold him up as an idol, icon or what have you is for propaganda value.   Having said that perhaps you can enlighten me as to his positive qualities that would allow people to sympathize with or look favorably upon him?

1. Che was not an imperialist.  Being foreign born and fighting for a political cause is not the definition of imperialism.  That's a complete non sequitur.

2. You keep using the term moral relativism.  Moral relativism would be justifying his actions because of the circumstances, which is decidedly not what I've done in this thread.  If you think my bringing up other flawed historical figures, which was clearly to illustrate a double standard, and not to exonerate anyone, amounts to moral relativism, I would respectfully suggest you don't know what moral relativism means.

3. Saying Che had a negative net impact on the lives of the Cuban peasant class is wildly subjective.  I happen to agree with that, but it's certainly not a fact.  Blaming the entirety of the Castro regime on Che is pretty short sighted, considering he was executed in 1967.  And prior to that he had already expressed major disagreements with Fidel over the type of government they were implementing, and the purpose of said government.  Che was an idealist, and while most of his concepts were impractical, he certainly wouldn't have agreed with the way the Castro regime continued to exploit the working class.  Digressing, if you're going to blame him for all the atrocities that came after he was gone, then you should also credit him for the movement spurred around the world after his execution. Large protests and political activity inspired by his legacy undoubtedly led to more equality and less oppression all around the world.  He had about as much to do with that as he did the Castro government of the 70s and 80s.  But if he gets blame for one, he deserves credit for the other.

4. If you don't know what positive things Che did in his life that might inspire people around the world, but you seem to know about all of the bad things, that leads me to question the sincerity of your argument.  But I'll humor you, as it seems there are people here who genuinely don't know who Che was.  Che eschewed a life of comfort and luxury to champion the peasant class in Cuba, and later across Latin America.  He was a physician by trade from a middle class upbringing.  Yet he went to work in the fields with the peasants, to experience their plight.  He built schools and hospitals/clinics for the poor when the Batista regime refused.  He helped organize a revolution of the oppressed peasant class, overthrowing the oppressive Batista regime.  And instead of living out his days in luxury in charge of Cuba like the Castros did, he took his idealism and revolution to oppressed classes in other countries in the region.  It took the CIA and the Army Counterintelligence Corps (who had turned to hiring former nazis) to capture and kill him. 

And yes, in the pursuit of his ideals, Che was directly responsible for many murders and executions, and famously stated the revolution didn't have time to determine if everyone they killed was actually guilty of anything.  He also attempted to use Castro's alliance with the Soviets to start a nuclear war.  Nobody is denying that.  My only point in this thread is that just like many other revered historical figures, there's a lot of good and bad that can be attributed to Che.  To focus only on the good, or only on the bad, is shortsighted at best, and flat out dishonest at worst.

[...]

I enjoyed wabashcr's post. It often seems to me reading forums and people's statements that open mindedness and prudence of opinion is too often secondary to emotionally attached opinions and confirmation biases.

We often forget that opinions are merely functional hypotheses used in the absence of facts, moral preferences when no clear ethical strategy directly applies to complex social situations, etal.

I operate understanding that it is reasonably impossible for a mere human to be aware of, even less fully understand, all the details, current and future impacts on all associated with one's actions. We oftentimes simply act as if we did (paralysis by analysis is not practical either, mind you) but pretending we know when challenged is ignorant and righteous at best.

Asking questions is the easiest way to learn and improve our understanding of our universe; pretending we know all the answers already is the quickest way to discredit oneself (rightly so) and be excluded from relevant discussions.

It's never too late to open one's mind and learn to ask instead of asserting away...

Obviously, no moral superiority claimed here nor any insult meant.

[SignalJoe]

12 hours ago, wabashcr said:

1. Che was not an imperialist.  Being foreign born and fighting for a political cause is not the definition of imperialism.  That's a complete non sequitur.

2. You keep using the term moral relativism.  Moral relativism would be justifying his actions because of the circumstances, which is decidedly not what I've done in this thread.  If you think my bringing up other flawed historical figures, which was clearly to illustrate a double standard, and not to exonerate anyone, amounts to moral relativism, I would respectfully suggest you don't know what moral relativism means.

3. Saying Che had a negative net impact on the lives of the Cuban peasant class is wildly subjective.  I happen to agree with that, but it's certainly not a fact.  Blaming the entirety of the Castro regime on Che is pretty short sighted, considering he was executed in 1967.  And prior to that he had already expressed major disagreements with Fidel over the type of government they were implementing, and the purpose of said government.  Che was an idealist, and while most of his concepts were impractical, he certainly wouldn't have agreed with the way the Castro regime continued to exploit the working class.  Digressing, if you're going to blame him for all the atrocities that came after he was gone, then you should also credit him for the movement spurred around the world after his execution. Large protests and political activity inspired by his legacy undoubtedly led to more equality and less oppression all around the world.  He had about as much to do with that as he did the Castro government of the 70s and 80s.  But if he gets blame for one, he deserves credit for the other.

4. If you don't know what positive things Che did in his life that might inspire people around the world, but you seem to know about all of the bad things, that leads me to question the sincerity of your argument.  But I'll humor you, as it seems there are people here who genuinely don't know who Che was.  Che eschewed a life of comfort and luxury to champion the peasant class in Cuba, and later across Latin America.  He was a physician by trade from a middle class upbringing.  Yet he went to work in the fields with the peasants, to experience their plight.  He built schools and hospitals/clinics for the poor when the Batista regime refused.  He helped organize a revolution of the oppressed peasant class, overthrowing the oppressive Batista regime.  And instead of living out his days in luxury in charge of Cuba like the Castros did, he took his idealism and revolution to oppressed classes in other countries in the region.  It took the CIA and the Army Counterintelligence Corps (who had turned to hiring former nazis) to capture and kill him. 

And yes, in the pursuit of his ideals, Che was directly responsible for many murders and executions, and famously stated the revolution didn't have time to determine if everyone they killed was actually guilty of anything.  He also attempted to use Castro's alliance with the Soviets to start a nuclear war.  Nobody is denying that.  My only point in this thread is that just like many other revered historical figures, there's a lot of good and bad that can be attributed to Che.  To focus only on the good, or only on the bad, is shortsighted at best, and flat out dishonest at worst.

1  While Che may not have been acting on behalf of a foreign nation in the dejour definition of imperialism he was defacto acting as an imperialist in attempting to subjugate foreign people to his will and philosophy.   

2  I am keenly aware of what moral relativism means.  I am even more keenly aware that in the manner you presented others in your previous arguments was defacto moral relativism in an attempt to further your point. 

3  How does one not lay blame for the Castro regime on the man who helped to usher it in?  Were it not for his actions preceding it none of the subsequent atrocities or suffering would have occurred.  While he may not have agreed with or endorsed the entirety of Castro’s actions he is responsible for installing him.  Declining a life of luxury in Habana and attempting to spread his philosophy via defacto imperialism does not absolve him of any responsibility or culpability for what followed.

4  This same line of reasoning could be used to defend any number of brutal revolutionaries/dictators.  It can be argued that Hitler turned around the German economy, virtually eliminated unemployment,  built a national highway system, made owning an automobile affordable to the masses, etc., etc. ad naseuem.  It took the combined efforts and force the Allied nations to destroy his regime and force him to kill himself.  While history is factually aware of the things he may have done that benefited Germany for a brief period the entirety of his actions and the results of those actions prove him to be an evil man.   

My point in this thread is simple.  There is a difference between having knowledge of the entirety of a historical figures life and the judgement of that same individuals life.  This is how reason and logic works.  One first assembles the facts at hand.  Those facts are then weighed against each other and a conclusion is reached.

In regards toChe Guevara the facts clearly show his life’s work, actions, endeavors and legacy is one of suffering and misery.  To ignore the actual results of his combined efforts and focus on his idealism and his “intent” to present him as an “anti imperialist” icon is to ignore reality at best, and flat out dishonest at worst. 

[Ken Gargett]

12 hours ago, wabashcr said:

1. Che was not an imperialist.  Being foreign born and fighting for a political cause is not the definition of imperialism.  That's a complete non sequitur.

2. You keep using the term moral relativism.  Moral relativism would be justifying his actions because of the circumstances, which is decidedly not what I've done in this thread.  If you think my bringing up other flawed historical figures, which was clearly to illustrate a double standard, and not to exonerate anyone, amounts to moral relativism, I would respectfully suggest you don't know what moral relativism means.

3. Saying Che had a negative net impact on the lives of the Cuban peasant class is wildly subjective.  I happen to agree with that, but it's certainly not a fact.  Blaming the entirety of the Castro regime on Che is pretty short sighted, considering he was executed in 1967.  And prior to that he had already expressed major disagreements with Fidel over the type of government they were implementing, and the purpose of said government.  Che was an idealist, and while most of his concepts were impractical, he certainly wouldn't have agreed with the way the Castro regime continued to exploit the working class.  Digressing, if you're going to blame him for all the atrocities that came after he was gone, then you should also credit him for the movement spurred around the world after his execution. Large protests and political activity inspired by his legacy undoubtedly led to more equality and less oppression all around the world.  He had about as much to do with that as he did the Castro government of the 70s and 80s.  But if he gets blame for one, he deserves credit for the other.

4. If you don't know what positive things Che did in his life that might inspire people around the world, but you seem to know about all of the bad things, that leads me to question the sincerity of your argument.  But I'll humor you, as it seems there are people here who genuinely don't know who Che was.  Che eschewed a life of comfort and luxury to champion the peasant class in Cuba, and later across Latin America.  He was a physician by trade from a middle class upbringing.  Yet he went to work in the fields with the peasants, to experience their plight.  He built schools and hospitals/clinics for the poor when the Batista regime refused.  He helped organize a revolution of the oppressed peasant class, overthrowing the oppressive Batista regime.  And instead of living out his days in luxury in charge of Cuba like the Castros did, he took his idealism and revolution to oppressed classes in other countries in the region.  It took the CIA and the Army Counterintelligence Corps (who had turned to hiring former nazis) to capture and kill him. 

And yes, in the pursuit of his ideals, Che was directly responsible for many murders and executions, and famously stated the revolution didn't have time to determine if everyone they killed was actually guilty of anything.  He also attempted to use Castro's alliance with the Soviets to start a nuclear war.  Nobody is denying that.  My only point in this thread is that just like many other revered historical figures, there's a lot of good and bad that can be attributed to Che.  To focus only on the good, or only on the bad, is shortsighted at best, and flat out dishonest at worst.

agree that there are usually shades of grey and that everything is not always black and white. so much does depend on who writes the history. i think that when it comes to che, a great deal more black than white, to put it in an unfortunate way. to be honest, all i've read from both sides suggest very little good in any respect when it comes to him, but i accept what you say. apparently hitler was very kind to his dog. i don't believe in the idea of someone sitting at the pearly gates weighing up his pros and cons but if it were true, i suspect che might be in strife as a few had more cons.

the one thing in your post with which i would take some issue is the concept of acting in some altruistic concept by not living in luxury and by taking his, forgive me but i can't call it idealism, form of terrorism to other countries - wanting to start a nuclear war takes him out of the realm of idealism, no matter what else he did. every authority i have ever read seems united on the idea that when che realised he would not be able to supercede fidel, he realised he had to go. and castro and the others helped force him out. he was not given the choice.

[Leopolis Semper Fidelis]

20 hours ago, wabashcr said:

Che was directly responsible for many murders and executions, and famously stated the revolution didn't have time to determine if everyone they killed was actually guilty of anything.  He also attempted to use Castro's alliance with the Soviets to start a nuclear war.  Nobody is denying that.

Thank you for confirming, in a nutshell, the case against Ernesto "Che" Guevara.  Such was his "idealism".  All that mattered, in the end, was Che. He had no true love for humanity - it was all really about him.  If your ideals did not match his, you were in his sights.  If you did not want to avail yourself of his "liberation", you were fair game.  Brutal as his end was, he had only reaped what he had sown. 

[wabashcr]

10 hours ago, SignalJoe said:

1  While Che may not have been acting on behalf of a foreign nation in the dejour definition of imperialism he was defacto acting as an imperialist in attempting to subjugate foreign people to his will and philosophy.   

Words have meanings.  There was literally nothing imperialist about Che leading revolutions in foreign countries.  That's simply not what imperialism is.  It's not even close.  The fact that you insist on saying he was acting in some kind of imperialist manner causes me to question why I'm even bothering.

Quote

2  I am keenly aware of what moral relativism means. 

Your continued use of it in this thread clearly indicates you do not.  I'm happy to have an honest discussion, but I find your insistence on misusing terms you don't seem to understand anything but honest.

Quote

3  How does one not lay blame for the Castro regime on the man who helped to usher it in?  Were it not for his actions preceding it none of the subsequent atrocities or suffering would have occurred.  While he may not have agreed with or endorsed the entirety of Castro’s actions he is responsible for installing him.  Declining a life of luxury in Habana and attempting to spread his philosophy via defacto imperialism does not absolve him of any responsibility or culpability for what followed.

Che would say what the Castro regime became is not what he fought for.  That was pretty clear even before he was killed.  So, I don't know, maybe blame the Castros?

Quote

4  This same line of reasoning could be used to defend any number of brutal revolutionaries/dictators.  It can be argued that Hitler turned around the German economy, virtually eliminated unemployment,  built a national highway system, made owning an automobile affordable to the masses, etc., etc. ad naseuem.  It took the combined efforts and force the Allied nations to destroy his regime and force him to kill himself.  While history is factually aware of the things he may have done that benefited Germany for a brief period the entirety of his actions and the results of those actions prove him to be an evil man.   

Godwin's Law is undefeated.  I'm surprised it took so long.

Quote

There is a difference between having knowledge of the entirety of a historical figures life and the judgement of that same individuals life. 

Yet in your last post, you were asking me to enlighten you on the good things Che did.  So much for having knowledge "of the entirety of a historical figure's life."  The truth is you have been willing to overlook any facts that don't suit your political position.  The subtext in this thread has been clear from the start.  If you were being honest, you'd admit that your real problem with Che wasn't that he killed people, rather that he was a communist.  Which is a perfectly fine and valid opinion!  Lord knows I'm not here to talk you or anyone else out of your McCarthy-like aversion to communism.  My initial point in this thread was that it was short-sighted to view Che in black and white terms, as only good or only bad.  In my view the discussion has only served to further that point.  

I'll gladly concede the last word in this to you.  Enjoy your weekend.

[wabashcr]

10 hours ago, Ken Gargett said:

the one thing in your post with which i would take some issue is the concept of acting in some altruistic concept by not living in luxury and by taking his, forgive me but i can't call it idealism, form of terrorism to other countries - wanting to start a nuclear war takes him out of the realm of idealism, no matter what else he did. every authority i have ever read seems united on the idea that when che realised he would not be able to supercede fidel, he realised he had to go. and castro and the others helped force him out. he was not given the choice.

I think you're probably right about the circumstances around his exit from Cuba.  From what I understand, there was quite a bit of tension between Che and Fidel.  From what I've read, it wasn't necessarily that Che wanted to be the top dog, rather he had more philosophical differences with how the regime was governing.  He had been assigned numerous different posts in the government, and none of them really worked out.  While I'm not sure he was necessarily given the boot, I imagine press release would have said they parted by mutual consent.  And we know what that means.  

I disagree about Che being an idealist.  I think he was too much of an idealist.  He wanted nuclear war because he'd rather the entire world be wiped out than for his people to have to live under the continued oppression of American imperialism.  He was clearly irrational, but idealism often is.  I believe that's where he split from Fidel when it came time to govern.  Che's idealism was never practical, and Fidel figured it out pretty quickly.  

BTW, isn't most terrorism rooted in some sort of idealism, perverted as it may be?  Che was blinded by his idealism, arguably to the point of insanity.  

[SignalJoe]

2 hours ago, wabashcr said:

Words have meanings.  There was literally nothing imperialist about Che leading revolutions in foreign countries.  That's simply not what imperialism is.  

Extending power and influence through military force done in the name of an ideology is defacto imperialism.  Whether it is done for glory of the crown or glory of an ideology it is still invading, overthrowing an established government and installing that of a foreign entity via military force.  

2 hours ago, wabashcr said:

Che would say what the Castro regime became is not what he fought for.  That was pretty clear even before he was killed.  So, I don't know, maybe blame the Castros?

So ignore the fact that he indiscriminately killed to install the Castro regime?  That the Castros did not implement his exact and idealized version of communism changes nothing.

2 hours ago, wabashcr said:

Godwin's Law is undefeated.  I'm surprised it took so long.

It exists for a reason.  Though I suppose I could have drawn a parallel to Stalin or Mao.   

2 hours ago, wabashcr said:

Yet in your last post, you were asking me to enlighten you on the good things Che did.  So much for having knowledge "of the entirety of a historical figure's life."  The truth is you have been willing to overlook any facts that don't suit your political position.  The subtext in this thread has been clear from the start.  If you were being honest, you'd admit that your real problem with Che wasn't that he killed people, rather that he was a communist.  Which is a perfectly fine and valid opinion!  Lord knows I'm not here to talk you or anyone else out of your McCarthy-like aversion to communism.  My initial point in this thread was that it was short-sighted to view Che in black and white terms, as only good or only bad.  In my view the discussion has only served to further that point.  

I asked you to enlighten me about any good Che may have done in the hopes you might bring to light something that wasn’t general knowledge.  I haven’t willingly overlooked anything relevant to the comprehensive picture of the man.  Rather I made a judgment based on that comprehensive picture. My real problem with Che is both that he killed people and that he was communist.  That he killed to further a failed ideology only compounds my distaste for him.  I don’t believe it is in anyway shortsighted to make a judgment once the entirety has been considered.  I guess that falls back to my initial point, that the harm his actions and ideology caused far outweighs anything positive he may have been responsible for. 

For the sake of knowledge alone I could see why one would feel the need to list Che’s comprehensive lifetime achievements.  However when one is aware of them, the fact the killed indiscriminately and that no one that he fought to free benefited from his actions it begs the question why “Be Like Che?”  What qualities or achievements of his are the Cuban government asking people to emulate?  I guess the question I have for wabashcr is what benefit is there to a more “nuanced view” of the man?  Knowledge aside it doesn't change anything, make his actions more acceptable or make him someone to emulate.         

[Nino]

No dog in this race, just happened to find this article from yesterday in Havana Times :

http://www.havanatimes.org/?p=128049

Che’s Time in Miami and his “Hate for Imperialism”

October 26, 2017 |

Guevara would tell his friends that this first stay in a US city served to confirm his negative vision about the United States.

By Alejandro Armengol  (Cubaencuentro)

Ernesto Che Guevara

HAVANA TIMES — Very little is known about the time Che spent in Miami. There’s not very much to know anyway. An accidental and forced stop, while he was traveling back to Argentina to get his medicine degree. The delay extended further than expected and Ernesto went around and around in a foreign city, where a language was spoken that the young student hadn’t mastered and who was still waiting for his destiny.

The writer Enrique Krauze mentions this in a magazine article, saying that this was a “bitter and tough” period, where he had premonitions. “I will attack barricades and trenches, I will cover my arms in blood,” Ernesto Guevara himself said, according to Krauze.

However, during this short-lived trip, nothing happened to Guevera other than normal jobs and mishaps that any visitor experiences, who without money suddenly find themselves in a strange place. For a brief time, Che lived like an illegal immigrant in Miami.

It was after the trip that the future guerrilla leader embarked on through some Latin American countries with Alberto Granados, in 1952, which he would write a diary about. Once arriving in Venezuela, Granados accepted a job at a leper’s colony near Caracas and Guevara managed to get a seat on the next plane that transferred race horses from Buenos Aires to Miami, when this landed in the Venezuelan capital to fill up with fuel. The travel itinerary included a stop-over in Miami to leave the cargo and then to return to the starting point.

Coincidentally, it was July 26th when Che boarded the Douglas aircraft, with its equine load, and flew to Miami. However, when he landed in this city, the pilot discovered a fault with the engine, which forced him to stay what was thought initially to be a few days, for the necessary repairs to be made before returning.

In his biography about Che, Jon Lee Anderson tells us that Guevara went to Jaime “Jimmy” Roca, who was in this city finishing off his architecture studies. Roca is the cousin of Maria del Carmen Ferreyra, the daughter of one of Argentina’s richest families who Guevara had just ended a relationship with.

The architecture student was in just as tight a spot economically as the medical student, but that didn’t stop Roca from taking Che to eat out every day at a Spanish restaurant where he had a tab, on the promise that he would pay the bill when he managed to sell his car. Both youngsters spent time on the beach and walking through the city, and they even enjoyed a waiter’s generosity at a bar, who would give them free beers and fries.

When the days of waiting became weeks, Roca managed to get Che a cleaning job at a Cuban air hostess’ apartment, who after a trial run fired the Argentinian when she found that he had left the place “dirtier than it was before.” However, the woman managed to get Che a job as a dishwasher at a restaurant.

When he returned to Buenos Aires, Guevara would tell his friends that this first stay in a US city served to confirm his negative vision about the United States, as he saw prevailing racism in a place where black people were still discriminated against and where he had been interrogated about his political affiliations by the US police. However, Anderson points out that later Roca would remember that Che only spoke to him about the need for homes for the Latin American poor, that they never talked about politics and they tried to have the best time possible, in spite of not having any money.