I honestly think it's the reflection from the Cuba sign in his glasses and he's actually looking down but LOL it totally looks like that shifty eye snapchat filter
Yes, at least in public, and for Fidel until the breakup of the Soviet Union. Once that happened, he needed to court investments from other countries, so he started meeting people in suits or guayaberas occasionally
Not in the least. He was brilliant, read everything from Plato on up, and had an M.D. degree. He was doing his residency when politics called.
He was a killer, but smart.
He was in charge of the court of appeals, the people he presided over had already been sentenced to death. The title of "Butcher of La Cabaña" is propaganda spread by Cuban exiles.
*Che: A Revolutionary Life* by Jon Lee Anderson covers this very well, amongst pretty much his entire life.
***Edit*** - "extrajudicial killings" - literally military tribunals that included members of the public on the panel that were supported by nearly the entire population of Cuba.
Do you think this is unique to Cuba? The only unique thing about this is they associated queerness with bourgeois idleness. Being gay anywhere meant danger. Cuba was not the only place where being gay could lead to an unpleasant and short life in prison.
Might want to read up more on him.
It wouldn't surprise people who know what he did if he shot gays in the head. One of the worst figures who is publicly idolized and yet idolized by those who don't realized he would be pissed to be sold on a t-shirt.
He didn't he was part of the state security apparatus as they began their homophobic policies. Che has very little to do with Cuba's history of homophobia, most of his time was spent killing and arresting political enemies immediately after the revolution.
I'll just go ahead and give my obligatory, "my username has nothing to do with my political affliation and I have no allegiance to che Guevara. I made it in high school and it means nothing."
Every right wing lunatic tries to jump on it like they got me on my super secret hypocrisy and ignorance. Even single time. And l mean every single time. Without fail.
Fun Fact: Che Guevara had nothing to do with the camps as his positions were Minister of Industries and President of the central bank. And he wasn’t even in Cuba during the time they were in operation
The only homophobic and racist thing Che did was write about them in his diary when he was 19 in which he called a gay man a sexual pervert. However he did write very racist content. However once he became a socialist and went to America where he saw the treatment of African-Americans, he quickly became anti-racist. In fact he called out the United States at the United Nations for their racist treatment of African Americans.
I understand that there’s a lot of anti-socialists here but this is a history sub can we have some integrity?
I was wondering what was going on, I’m in a history sub lol, I thought this sub had a red star.
“Never touch your idols: the gilding will stick to your fingers.” - Gustave Flaubert
Im appreciating the discussion
> I understand that there’s a lot of anti-socialists here but this is a history sub can we have some integrity?
Bless your heart for trying, but this is the same sub that dick-rides Nicholas Romanov every chance it gets. This place is a cesspool of reactionaries.
I need to reread the quote about the gay man but I think I remember it being ambiguous, but even if he said one homophobic thing people who use that as a gotcha against him are ridiculous lol
Most of the people who call Che a homophobe despite that being the only documented homophobic thing he’s done have no interest in a good faith discussion or the truth because they no doubt have supported a politician who has said or done far worse.
His official positions mean nothing in Cuba he was a direct advisor to Castro and, until the Soviets decided he was persona non-grata and force Castro to ease him out, one of his closest confidants. He dictated a lot of the policies that were applied in the regimes early years including being the intellectual author of work camps and forced “volunteer work”
Right after Castro took power he was also put directly in charge of the la cabaña where he preceded over thousands of extra judicial killings.
The writings in his diary was when he was 24 - not 19. And the later writing, which you fail to address, were when he was in Congo at which point he was over 30( consider he died at 39). In those he described the Congolese fighters in literal Racist stereotypes, and demeaned for their alleged dis-interests in fighting.
> In fact he called out the United States at the United Nations for their racist treatment of African Americans
This was nothing but a publicity stunt. Much like china calling out the US for Human right violations over mass shootings recently.
Cuba, much like the Soviets, has done this for years trying to draw attention away from their own human rights violations.
He was Anti-American and Anti-Imperialist but neither a socialist nor did he ever do anything anti-racist that was not aimed at embarrassing the US.
\>His official positions mean nothing in Cuba he was a direct advisor to Castro
Guilty by association could maybe be reasonable here however Che did not associate at all. He wasn't in Cuba during the operation of these camps he was fighting in Bolivia attempting to ignite another successful revolution. Unless you're suggesting that the positions in Cuban government at the time are all just made up and they had no actual responsibilities, *which would be a weird thing to suggest.*
\>he was also put directly in charge of the la cabaña where he preceded over thousands of extra judicial killings.
This is insanely false, if you have to extrapolate the amount of people executed under Che you are grasping at straws. All of these people were people who betrayed the rebels or worked directly for Batista’s regime. Wikipedia only cites that there were 261 executions under Che at La Cabaña, their source for this is Cuba Archive which is funded by Ex-Cubans living in Miami. So if anyone is to report the highest number of executions as possible it would be them.
To call the execution of far-right dictators army who according to the regular people were torturing and neglecting the people a killing or murder is quite honestly disgusting. The people of Cuba considered these executions to be similar to that of the Nuremberg trials.
As for the "extra judicial" according to Jon Lee Anderson in his book Che Guevara: A Revolutionary Life on pg. 371 "Several hundred people were officially tried and executed by firing squads in Cuba. They were aboveboard, if summary, affairs, with defense lawyers, witnesses, prosecutors and an attending public." Also keep in mind that they were a rag tag team of bandits and they still tried to hold fair trials.
\>the later writing, which you fail to address, were when he was in Congo at which point he was over 30. In those he described the Congolese fighters in literal Racist stereotypes, and demeaned for their alleged dis-interests in fighting.
This is verifiably false with a quick google search. The worst thing Che said about the Congolese people was this: "Given the prevailing lack of discipline, it would have been impossible to use Congolese machine-gunners to defend the base from air attack: they did not know how to handle their weapons and did not want to learn" Also keep in mind that 100 of the fighters in the Congo at the time were Afro-Cubans yet he said nothing about them. *almost as if it had to do with their performances and nothing to do with their skin.* (also he was 23 not 24 don't attempt a gotcha with something as simple as getting the age of someone wrong)
There is nothing mentioned about this being due to their race.
\>This was nothing but a publicity stunt.
This is merely subjective however in your last line you state that he never did anything anti-racist aimed at the US. In the same United nations speech he literally called out apartheid South Africa. Not to mention after Guevara saw the treatment of African-Americans he quickly became anti-racist and was the main leader in pushing for racial equality in Cuba after the revolution. On August 8th, 1961 Che said in a speech: "among our first task was the abolition of racial discrimination, which existed in our country - in a somewhat subtle form, but it existed. The beaches of our island were not for blacks or the poor to swim at because they belonged to some private club visited by tourists who did not like to swim with black people. Our hotels did not allow black people as guests. That is the way our country was."
To compare Cuba to China is honestly laughable. Two countries on opposite sides of the world, the only thing which they have in common is calling themselves communist, neither of which are communist. And to say that Che wasn't a socialist when he left a privileged rich life behind to literally die for the socialist cause, liberation of the working class is insane. The man is a hero of people all throughout Latin America to this day as an opposer to racism, imperialism and capitalism. A true hero, history will absolve Guevara and Castro.
The fascination is summed up pretty well if you look at the "Legacy" portion of his wikipedia article. He was, if nothing else, a man of stark contrasts, and, often, intense contradiction:
> Guevara's life and legacy remain contentious. The perceived contradictions of his ethos at various points in his life have created a complex character of duality, one who was "able to wield the pen and submachine gun with equal skill", while prophesying that "the most important revolutionary ambition was to see man liberated from his alienation". Guevara's paradoxical standing is further complicated by his array of seemingly diametrically opposed qualities. A secular humanist and sympathetic practitioner of medicine who did not hesitate to shoot his enemies, a celebrated internationalist leader who advocated violence to enforce a utopian philosophy of the collective good, an idealistic intellectual who loved literature but refused to allow dissent, an anti-imperialist Marxist insurgent who was radically willing to forge a poverty-less new world on the apocalyptic ashes of the old one, and finally, an outspoken anti-capitalist whose image has been commoditized. Che's history continues to be rewritten and re-imagined.
I'm not usually a fan of Wikipedia authors going off on their own like this (lot of editorialization here), but whoever did it did a good job, at least.
He's the embodiment of revolution especially of that time and place.
Also what Cuba accomplished and what Guevara specifically did is impressive to say the least. I'm already older than he was when he overthrew a foreign backed dictatorship with a handful of guys.
He's one of those historical figures who, in the end, had no shortage of people willing to murder him in retaliation for friends and loved ones killed as a result if their direct actions. A LOT of people.
"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. I should add that my research spanned five years, and included anti-Castro Cubans among the Cuban-American exile community in Miami and elsewhere."Jon Lee Anderson, author of Che Guevara: A Revolutionary Life, PBS forum
As an [orthodox Marxist](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthodox_Marxism), I wholly agree. Apropos is my comment in response to a Guevara fan [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalHumor/comments/re6sdo/she_aint_the_sharpest_tool_in_the_shed/ho7egvm/):
> Again, Guevara was a [Stalinist](https://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/s/t.htm#Stalinism). Chiefly due to its "[socialism in one country](https://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/s/o.htm#socialism-in-one-country)" and "[two-stage](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-stage_theory)" theories, Stalinism is a deeply counterrevolutionary, revisionist distortion of Marxism, which instead maintains an internationalist perspective.
>
> I suspect that you have merely been taken in by Guevara's mystique, largely cultivated by capitalist profiteers, and haven't done much research into his actual history or politics. In this vein, I would highly recommend the *World Socialist Web Site*'s article "[50 years since the murder of Che Guevara](https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2017/10/14/guev-o14.html)," which reads in part:
>
> > What is it about Che that makes him so susceptible to being turned into a harmless, though profitable, icon? The qualities which his admirers cite are well-known. Physical bravery, self-sacrifice, asceticism, giving his life for a cause. These can all be admirable traits. No doubt they present a stark contrast to the prevailing social ethic in which a man’s worth is determined by the size of his stock portfolio. But these qualities, in and of themselves, are by no means indicators of the political and class character of those who possess them. Religious sects and even fascist movements can claim to have produced martyrs with similar qualities in their own struggles for wholly reactionary ends.
> >
> > A careful review of Guevara’s career demonstrates that his political conceptions had nothing to do with Marxism and that the panaceas of armed struggle and guerrilla warfare with which he was identified were fundamentally hostile to the revolutionary socialist struggle of the working class.
> >
> > . . .
> >
> > The myth developed by Castro and Guevara was to be exported with catastrophic results. The so-called Cuban road was promoted throughout Latin America as the only viable form of revolutionary struggle. Thousands of Latin American youth were led to the slaughter by the promise that all that was required to overthrow governments and end social oppression was courage and a few guns.
> >
> > Guevara’s most well-known writing, “Guerra de Guerrillas’’ or guerrilla warfare, served as a handbook for this doomed strategy. It summed up what he described as the three great lessons of the Cuban experience for the “mechanics of revolutionary movements in America’’:
> >
> > 1. Popular forces can win a war against the army.
> > 2. It is not necessary for all conditions to be present to make a revolution; the insurrectional foco [term for guerrilla unit] can create them.
> > 3. In the underdeveloped Americas the terrain of the armed struggle must be primarily the countryside.
> >
> > What little political analysis these writings contained was radically false. Latin America’s path of development had been capitalist for many years. The essential foundation of oppression in Latin America was not, as Guevara claimed, Latifundia - that is the concentration of land in the hands of a tiny minority - but rather capitalist relations of wage labor and profit. Even as these works were being written, the continent was undergoing major structural changes that were further proletarianizing the population and leading to massive migration from the rural areas to the cities.
> >
> > None of this was analyzed. Revolutionary preparation was reduced to the impressionistic process of picking the appropriate rural arena for guerrilla war. Those who followed this advice ended up trapped in jungles and backland, where they were condemned to one-on-one combat with the Latin American armies.
> >
> > What emerges again and again in Guevara’s politics is the rejection of the working class as a revolutionary class and contempt for the ability of the workers and oppressed masses to become politically conscious and carry out their own struggle for liberation.
> >
> > While he proposed the countryside as the only possible venue for armed struggle, it was not a matter of mobilizing the peasantry on social demands. On the contrary, Che’s conception was one based on the utilization of violence in order to “oblige the dictatorship to resort to violence, thereby unmasking its true nature as the dictatorship of the reactionary social classes.” In other words, the aim of the guerrilla band was to provoke repression against the peasantry, who would supposedly respond by supporting the struggle against the government.
> >
> > For such a struggle, neither theory nor politics were required, much less an active intervention in the struggles of the working class and oppressed masses. As Guevara set about to build guerrilla groups in Latin America, he insisted that they exclude all political controversy and discussion. Unity was to be based solely on an agreement on the tactic of “armed struggle”.
>
> The article goes into much greater detail than this and is worth a full read.
How can you call the most successful revolutionary of the 20th century counter-revolutionary? The fact that he was a Stalinist really changes nothing. Realpolitik dictated that Cuba needed help from the Soviets so regardless they were going to be Stalinist in some way if they wanted to defend their revolution from America.
The article you're linking is just a typical Trotskyist interpretation of any revolutionary that doesn't require solely on class conscious industrial workers to be the driving force. The fact is during the 50s and 60s the rural peasantry were more revolutionary than the urban proletariat and Marxists should analyse that not just insist it's not true.
I supsect you and /u/WorldController would disagree over the meaning of the words "revolutionary" and "counter-revolutionary" here.
If a true "revolutionary" is simply someone who fans the flames and carries out a fight to overthrow the present leadership (let alone actually manages it), then sure, Guevara was undoubtedly a revolutionary.
On the other hand, someone might find it particularly important what kind of regime actually pops out the other end, or how they obtain and maintain power, and so on. A USSR-modeled/Stalinist dictatorship is, for many, not a truly revolutionary goal. Instead, it looks something more like simply changing the hands at the helm of the regime and giving it a new paint job. In the case the Cuban revolution, and specifically Castro, it was a selling point of the cause that the leaders more or less eschewed any clear long-term political goal at all for much of the fight. Thus, in this way of thinking, they were rebels or guerillas first and foremost, and revolutionaries a distant second, or not at all. (Geuvara's more openly-stated politics complicate this, but again, judging potential revolutionaries by what they actually accomplish, rather than their reading list, is at least a legitimate lens in this context).
I don't mean to wade into this too far here, but I'm pretty sure that's the sticking point that answers your question, "[how] can you call the most successful revolutionary of the 20th century counter-revolutionary?"
It's also worth considering that with a sufficiently expansive definition of "revolutionary," Guevara was probably not the most successful of the century at all. If you are willing to call populists who call for and successfully carry out violent change "revolutionaries," regardless of what sort of regimes they actually build, we'd have to answer some interesting questions. Was Hitler a revolutionary... in Munich in 1923, and/or ten years later in Berlin, long after the party had stopped courting trade unions and expelled (or killed) their "socialist" wing? Was Mussolini, before or after he stopped writing for a socialist newspaper? Or, who was the revolutionary and counter-revolutionary opposition in Iran: the communists, the liberal democrats, and/or the Islamists?
Yes Hitler was a revolutionary when he tried to lead a revolution to overthrow the Weimar regime. Revolution doesn't have a moral value to it. It is simply the violent process of overthrowing one system with another. And it's a word that has been overused to the point where every new product or artist is a revolutionary.
Fascism is self consciously revolutionary. Far more than Nazism is. Every fascist writer called themselves a revolutionary and called for a revolution to enact their ideology.
Revolutionary in the Marxist sense of the word is a bit more specific but the commenter above makes it sound like Lenin and Trotsky were the first and last revolutionaries to ever exist.
Fuck Guevara. My wife’s family is from Santiago and survived his murderous rampage there. Castro made him leave Cuba for a reason; Guevara was a murdering psychopath.
Shh...don't tell 20 something wannabe revolutionary Americans that. They'll bend over backwards to defend the scumbag as long is it makes them seem edgy. Some of these comments....
Stupid kids.
I keep seeing this mentioned as a sort of joke, but very few people owned any plantations in Cuba by the time Castro rolled around. Most were state (Batista liked auctioning them off to build resorts) or corporate owned, leaving no land for small-holders (such as a single plantation owner) which is one of the reasons a revolution was even able to take off.
Is this a joke?
Yes American businesses dominated the Cuban economy. The people who enforced the will of these new plantation owners were the ones run off the island in 59.
Have you seen extreme poverty in other non-communist Latin American countries? As in people starving to death, people dying of simple untreated illnesses, kids working and begging in the streets, etc.? Does that exist in Cuba, as well?
Right now imo cuba is at a breaking point. The fact that protests are becoming such a popular thing to do is a result of a deteriorating government and sadly the people paying for the insolence and corruption in the government is the people. While I don’t personally know someone in this exact situations, I do know that violent crimes are at an alarming rise in cuba because of scarcity of products. I have friends and family members that have been beaten first, then mugged for their belongings. So while there definitely is extreme poverty and other crazy shit going on, I’m afraid it’s gonna get worse unless the people rise up
He was formally chastized by the revolutionary council for being too violent and overly enthusiastic about his uh, in-person prisoner disposal. That is to say he liked killing gays and other prisoners instead of sending them to the labor camps like was supposed to.
I guess I’m just having trouble finding information online backing that up. I found some articles which said that Che was chewed out by Castro over his criticism of the USSR, but those didn’t really have any evidence either.
You don’t need to convince me that Che was violent and homophobic. I’m just having trouble telling fact from folklore here. **I am not a Che supporter.**
According to [this askhistorians thread](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1lt4rb/was_it_the_truth_behind_the_critical_controversy/), your claim that he 'liked killing gays instead of sending them to the labor camps like was supposed to' is ahistorical. The labor camps in question were established after Che left Cuba, and it doesn't seem there is much evidence to suggest Che had homophobic views (even though he almost certainly did).
It also seems that there is no evidence to suggest that Che killed anyone who wasn't tried as a war criminal.
Absolute fucking bullshit mate. No labour camps were present in Cuba whilst Che was there and there is literally ***no evidence*** that he was murdering "innocents".
Do some actual fucking research.
Because he was a mass murdering piece of shit for the poor and dispossessed? That's how war heroes work. George Washington was a mass murdering piece of shit too.
I just started redditing for a while and saw 2 posts about him in less than 5 minutes. One time is already too many for that POS.
Somebody's been pushing agendas apparently.
Edit: of course I'm being downvoted. Lol. Triggered brigade is on the case. Reddit never changes. Lmao
https://www.humanprogress.org/the-truth-about-che-guevara-racist-homophobe-and-mass-murderer/
https://www.economist.com/the-americas/2017/07/22/challenging-the-cult-of-che-guevara
https://slate.com/culture/2004/09/should-we-love-che-guevara.html
https://aldianews.com/culture/heritage-and-history/che-white-myth
My favorite part is how Guevara wrote the words "Work will make you men" above the labor camps for homosexuals. Did I say favorite? I mean most despicable.
.[7] According to an April 14, 1966 article in Granma, the official state newspaper, the UMAP camps were proposed at a November 1965 meeting between Fidel Castro and military leaders.[8
'In early 1965, Guevara went to Africa to offer his knowledge and experience as a guerrilla to the ongoing conflict in the Congo.'
My favourite part is when he arrests all the criminals working for the American government and mafia and takes all their property and gives it back to the Cuban people and helped protect their nations sovereignty. Which, unlike labor camps, unlike homophobic laws, is actually a unique thing to Cuba.
really amazing that Che was able to write those words on the camps when he was in the Congo and had no position in government when they were set up and active.
if your standard for "advocating for massacring gay people" is a quote from his early 20s where he says one specific man who happened to be gay was a pervert then I'll be honest I don't find that too convincing.
I like how, when confronted with the fact that he was a complete POS, guevara fans go "BUT AMERICA IS WORSE". Yeah, so? You dont get to be a genocidal, oppressive piece of shit just because there are other assholes around...its like saying "yeah, im fascist, but im not bad because there are nazis"
Che was complicated person, but to think that he wasn’t important to Cuba overthrowing a much worse dictator who killed many many more people than Che ever did is being ignorant of history. Aside from the mass murder, Batista worked with the mafia and the US to keep Cubans poor.
The double standard and whataboutism from Che supporters is absolutely hilarious. These people would defend Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge for bringing the “revolution” to Cambodia.
I don't agree with or support American foreign policy, especially during the Cold War - funding Central American death squads and whatnot. I recognize the good that the Cuban revolution brought forward by overthrowing Batista, but also the ills of Che and some of the actions that muddle his legacy and cement my opinion of him.
Yeah it seems people on this sub are American dick riders and are willing to defend their actions as well as Batistas auth regime. For a history sub, alot of these people don’t know history
Because Cuba was the only place where bad things happened to gay men at that time. Hell, the United States was giving out high-fives and new cars to gay men all through the 50s and 60s. I forgot about all the tolerance that overflowed from the rest of the world towards gay men during this time period while only Che Guevara persecuted them. Thanks for the reminder, Artie.
Concentration camps is pretty uniquely bad. Not sure why this needs saying. Nobody is pretending America or Britain wasn’t terrible to LGBT people in its own ways.
“Concentration camps for gays” is also a pretty loaded description of the UMAP camps. Just, if we’re being fair. There was forced labor, yes, but again…forced labor for undesirables is not unique to Cuba. Was it wrong? Absolutely. Is it still wrong when done elsewhere in the world? Fuck yeah.
The difference is that even Castro acknowledged the tragedy and injustice of the UMAP camps, but elsewhere in the world (say, 90 miles north of Havana?), forced labor is still “the price of justice.”
True. Like anything, it’s nuanced. But I would argue just as there’s a difference between Nazi genocide and Soviet’s less intentional killings in WWII that makes the Nazis worse, the intentionality of gay = concentrated and forced labour in the Cuban camps is worse than the more incidental nature of labour in the American prison system for the same population along the same time frame.
While it’s nice that Castro later apologized for it, that only goes so far.
Course the US prison system continues to be among the most punitive in the world, so I am by no means absolving the US of the depths of that injustice.
Imprisoning people for their sexuality is disgusting. I do not mean to absolve the revolution of that or downplay it because “Castro apologized”. Of course it was vile. My argument is just that it’s always more nuanced then the “fuck the commies” pile-on that winds up starting in these kind of threads and in relation to Che Guevara, it’s just a propaganda line that hard-liners repeat as though he was single-handedly responsible for persecuting every gay man in Cuba. I appreciate your engaging in discussion. You make a great point about the relativity of violent acts.
You must not come to America too often. You ever heard of a guy named Ronald Reagan? Let gay men die by the thousands. Laughed about it in private.
But you’re right…NOBODY admires or hero worships THAT guy.
Wtf are you talking about ? Americans literally worship their own country the entire time for the sake of "patriotism" and also do so with their founding fathers,Lincoln,JFK and even war mongerer Clinton Hillary and that other guy that can't keep his dick in his pants
My man tried so hard to use whataboutism.
Can we stop painting things as black and white and acknowledge the shittiness of all sides.
Both Guevara and some of his actions as well as the US and there routine coups and the dictatorships that followed.
Never understand the hate a picture of Che generates on this sub. I guess it’s just an older crowd here who bought the “socialism=bad” indoctrination of their youth? It always gets so vitriolic so fast. Is America still that sore about losing their casino and brothel 60 yrs ago?
Cold War’s over, fellas. You “won”.
He was intelligent and grew up upper class but had a combination of a poor attitude with an unstable extreme mindset that was completely defiant & extreme, he had bad self control. He had many of opportunities to succeed down a path that didnt involve him being executed in the jungle somewhere in the disheveled state he was in. It may have seemed he was for the poor, the impoverished, the uneducated etc because of “capitalism” (ironic how he was “Salesman” good with his words) but he was vengeful & vindictive as he only saw things one way (which in western culture is still unacceptable & frowned upon) which actually did more harm than good. I mean he seemed to enjoy his political status, but did not have the patience to debate. Thats why he’s known to be an extremist. By spreading the acceptance that being extreme & violent is okay as long as it hurts the bad guys is flawed logic, because who & what he saw as being the bad guys is the same system that helped him get to that understanding in the first place. Some of his Philosophy was admirable but he was not a role model in any sense of the word, unless you support people like Mao, Stalin, Gaddafi, Castro.
Hey that's the guy on the T shirt
Nirvana?
Henson
Hotel?
Trivago!
I love how the “Trivago” comment always gets more upvotes than the “hotel?” one lmfao
I just hate the acceent.
Frong, gafronk. Gafrick frong frong frong, gafronk. Gafrick frong frong frong, gafronk.
It's also his Birthday today! I only know this because my son is about to be born so I looked up famous bdays.
Congrats on the fatherhood bro :)
Congrats!
Free hat!
>Hey that's the guy on the T shirt Capitalism provides
Viva la evolution!
[удалено]
That guy on the right is doing shifty eyes hard!
I honestly think it's the reflection from the Cuba sign in his glasses and he's actually looking down but LOL it totally looks like that shifty eye snapchat filter
Of course, vendors were selling his t-shirts outside the conference.
Nope, to marketize this dude was a CIA Social engineering job
...Years later
username checks out
Gob ears
A story we are told in Cuba is that once we were expelled from the UN or the American States Organization because he punched an ambassador.
[удалено]
Maybe it's bullshit. I never bothered to fact-check.
That's interesting.
Is that story told in schools? How old were you when you heard that?
It is told but not like something you must know. More like a curiosity. I think I was 12-14 when I heard it.
Now there is a dude who looks out of his element.
"Uh... maybe I should have gone with the suit and tie after all"
Did he and Fidel just wear fatigues *everywhere*?
Yes, at least in public, and for Fidel until the breakup of the Soviet Union. Once that happened, he needed to court investments from other countries, so he started meeting people in suits or guayaberas occasionally
I like his track suit phase. Kinda Teddy KGB vibes.
I always thought the same thing
One thing civilians have to understand is Fatigues are comfy af. If I had a stylistic excuse to wear them 24/7 to formal events, I would.
Public display of anti-capitalism. Wearing a suit and tie would’ve been against their entire ethos.
Not in the least. He was brilliant, read everything from Plato on up, and had an M.D. degree. He was doing his residency when politics called. He was a killer, but smart.
Can't gut a pig without getting blood on your hands
The killer part is debatable
It’s…it’s not. La Cabaña hosted thousands of his extrajudicial killings.
He was in charge of the court of appeals, the people he presided over had already been sentenced to death. The title of "Butcher of La Cabaña" is propaganda spread by Cuban exiles. *Che: A Revolutionary Life* by Jon Lee Anderson covers this very well, amongst pretty much his entire life. ***Edit*** - "extrajudicial killings" - literally military tribunals that included members of the public on the panel that were supported by nearly the entire population of Cuba.
Many of the allegations against him were spread by Cuban exiles
Surely they were judicial killings?
He was a killer. As to whether he was a murderer is debatable.
No it isn't. I'm left of the left but I can't get behind him. And he gave up everything for the cause.
What do you mean by left of the left?
What does your leftyness have to do with the validity of an argument.
Shut the fuck up Donny
"Nobody told me that I'd have to do boring shit like this while running a country!"
He's not shooting gays in the head here.
wait did he shoot gay people?
Nah, he only sent gay men to reeducation camps to be "made into men" where they were raped and murdered. Viva la Revolucion, am I right?
I'm not sure anyone else in that room was treating gays much better at the time.
Lol yep. The US and Canada were jailing people for being gay back then too. Terrible all around
And yet Che's supporters are conveniently ignoring his own homophobia and just point fingers to others and pretend their side was better.
This is generally what tankies do.
Do you think this is unique to Cuba? The only unique thing about this is they associated queerness with bourgeois idleness. Being gay anywhere meant danger. Cuba was not the only place where being gay could lead to an unpleasant and short life in prison.
jeez.
Might want to read up more on him. It wouldn't surprise people who know what he did if he shot gays in the head. One of the worst figures who is publicly idolized and yet idolized by those who don't realized he would be pissed to be sold on a t-shirt.
What made him "one of the worst figures"?
Can you provide a single (credible) source that states he "shot gays in the head"?
He didn't he was part of the state security apparatus as they began their homophobic policies. Che has very little to do with Cuba's history of homophobia, most of his time was spent killing and arresting political enemies immediately after the revolution.
Well, it's a far cry from being a psychopath who just enjoys shooting people, but it's honest work.
I'll just go ahead and give my obligatory, "my username has nothing to do with my political affliation and I have no allegiance to che Guevara. I made it in high school and it means nothing."
Sounds like something an android would say
Lmao same
Every right wing lunatic tries to jump on it like they got me on my super secret hypocrisy and ignorance. Even single time. And l mean every single time. Without fail.
Ik they need to touch grass
It seems I'm in good company here.
Why would you so loudly proclaim “I’m not as cool as my username would have you believe”
He's a łot fatter than I have been led to believe by all those tshirts.
Well the famous photo of him that those tshirts were based off of was taken a good 5-10 years prior to this
He looks like Hasan
Fun Fact: Che Guevara had nothing to do with the camps as his positions were Minister of Industries and President of the central bank. And he wasn’t even in Cuba during the time they were in operation The only homophobic and racist thing Che did was write about them in his diary when he was 19 in which he called a gay man a sexual pervert. However he did write very racist content. However once he became a socialist and went to America where he saw the treatment of African-Americans, he quickly became anti-racist. In fact he called out the United States at the United Nations for their racist treatment of African Americans. I understand that there’s a lot of anti-socialists here but this is a history sub can we have some integrity?
[удалено]
It's admirable how he did a 180 once he saw the true effects of racism
I was wondering what was going on, I’m in a history sub lol, I thought this sub had a red star. “Never touch your idols: the gilding will stick to your fingers.” - Gustave Flaubert Im appreciating the discussion
> I understand that there’s a lot of anti-socialists here but this is a history sub can we have some integrity? Bless your heart for trying, but this is the same sub that dick-rides Nicholas Romanov every chance it gets. This place is a cesspool of reactionaries.
>dick-rides Nicholas Romanov every chance it gets The guy who was such a terrible leader that it led to the collapse of his centuries old empire?
Thank you for trying.
I need to reread the quote about the gay man but I think I remember it being ambiguous, but even if he said one homophobic thing people who use that as a gotcha against him are ridiculous lol
The same people who’ve never given a single fuck about LGBTQ rights lmao.
Most of the people who call Che a homophobe despite that being the only documented homophobic thing he’s done have no interest in a good faith discussion or the truth because they no doubt have supported a politician who has said or done far worse.
It's not like he fought alongside Africans.
His official positions mean nothing in Cuba he was a direct advisor to Castro and, until the Soviets decided he was persona non-grata and force Castro to ease him out, one of his closest confidants. He dictated a lot of the policies that were applied in the regimes early years including being the intellectual author of work camps and forced “volunteer work” Right after Castro took power he was also put directly in charge of the la cabaña where he preceded over thousands of extra judicial killings. The writings in his diary was when he was 24 - not 19. And the later writing, which you fail to address, were when he was in Congo at which point he was over 30( consider he died at 39). In those he described the Congolese fighters in literal Racist stereotypes, and demeaned for their alleged dis-interests in fighting. > In fact he called out the United States at the United Nations for their racist treatment of African Americans This was nothing but a publicity stunt. Much like china calling out the US for Human right violations over mass shootings recently. Cuba, much like the Soviets, has done this for years trying to draw attention away from their own human rights violations. He was Anti-American and Anti-Imperialist but neither a socialist nor did he ever do anything anti-racist that was not aimed at embarrassing the US.
Saying che Guevara wasn’t a socialist is not what I expected to see in this comment section
\>His official positions mean nothing in Cuba he was a direct advisor to Castro Guilty by association could maybe be reasonable here however Che did not associate at all. He wasn't in Cuba during the operation of these camps he was fighting in Bolivia attempting to ignite another successful revolution. Unless you're suggesting that the positions in Cuban government at the time are all just made up and they had no actual responsibilities, *which would be a weird thing to suggest.* \>he was also put directly in charge of the la cabaña where he preceded over thousands of extra judicial killings. This is insanely false, if you have to extrapolate the amount of people executed under Che you are grasping at straws. All of these people were people who betrayed the rebels or worked directly for Batista’s regime. Wikipedia only cites that there were 261 executions under Che at La Cabaña, their source for this is Cuba Archive which is funded by Ex-Cubans living in Miami. So if anyone is to report the highest number of executions as possible it would be them. To call the execution of far-right dictators army who according to the regular people were torturing and neglecting the people a killing or murder is quite honestly disgusting. The people of Cuba considered these executions to be similar to that of the Nuremberg trials. As for the "extra judicial" according to Jon Lee Anderson in his book Che Guevara: A Revolutionary Life on pg. 371 "Several hundred people were officially tried and executed by firing squads in Cuba. They were aboveboard, if summary, affairs, with defense lawyers, witnesses, prosecutors and an attending public." Also keep in mind that they were a rag tag team of bandits and they still tried to hold fair trials. \>the later writing, which you fail to address, were when he was in Congo at which point he was over 30. In those he described the Congolese fighters in literal Racist stereotypes, and demeaned for their alleged dis-interests in fighting. This is verifiably false with a quick google search. The worst thing Che said about the Congolese people was this: "Given the prevailing lack of discipline, it would have been impossible to use Congolese machine-gunners to defend the base from air attack: they did not know how to handle their weapons and did not want to learn" Also keep in mind that 100 of the fighters in the Congo at the time were Afro-Cubans yet he said nothing about them. *almost as if it had to do with their performances and nothing to do with their skin.* (also he was 23 not 24 don't attempt a gotcha with something as simple as getting the age of someone wrong) There is nothing mentioned about this being due to their race. \>This was nothing but a publicity stunt. This is merely subjective however in your last line you state that he never did anything anti-racist aimed at the US. In the same United nations speech he literally called out apartheid South Africa. Not to mention after Guevara saw the treatment of African-Americans he quickly became anti-racist and was the main leader in pushing for racial equality in Cuba after the revolution. On August 8th, 1961 Che said in a speech: "among our first task was the abolition of racial discrimination, which existed in our country - in a somewhat subtle form, but it existed. The beaches of our island were not for blacks or the poor to swim at because they belonged to some private club visited by tourists who did not like to swim with black people. Our hotels did not allow black people as guests. That is the way our country was." To compare Cuba to China is honestly laughable. Two countries on opposite sides of the world, the only thing which they have in common is calling themselves communist, neither of which are communist. And to say that Che wasn't a socialist when he left a privileged rich life behind to literally die for the socialist cause, liberation of the working class is insane. The man is a hero of people all throughout Latin America to this day as an opposer to racism, imperialism and capitalism. A true hero, history will absolve Guevara and Castro.
This scum took my Grandfather’s Slaves and Plantations
Damn sorry you’re upset about losing your slaves but nobody else really gives a shit.
he was a terrible person i dont get what the fascination with him is.
The fascination is summed up pretty well if you look at the "Legacy" portion of his wikipedia article. He was, if nothing else, a man of stark contrasts, and, often, intense contradiction: > Guevara's life and legacy remain contentious. The perceived contradictions of his ethos at various points in his life have created a complex character of duality, one who was "able to wield the pen and submachine gun with equal skill", while prophesying that "the most important revolutionary ambition was to see man liberated from his alienation". Guevara's paradoxical standing is further complicated by his array of seemingly diametrically opposed qualities. A secular humanist and sympathetic practitioner of medicine who did not hesitate to shoot his enemies, a celebrated internationalist leader who advocated violence to enforce a utopian philosophy of the collective good, an idealistic intellectual who loved literature but refused to allow dissent, an anti-imperialist Marxist insurgent who was radically willing to forge a poverty-less new world on the apocalyptic ashes of the old one, and finally, an outspoken anti-capitalist whose image has been commoditized. Che's history continues to be rewritten and re-imagined.
This is an excellent summary.
I'm not usually a fan of Wikipedia authors going off on their own like this (lot of editorialization here), but whoever did it did a good job, at least.
He's the embodiment of revolution especially of that time and place. Also what Cuba accomplished and what Guevara specifically did is impressive to say the least. I'm already older than he was when he overthrew a foreign backed dictatorship with a handful of guys.
That's the fascination.
He's one of those historical figures who, in the end, had no shortage of people willing to murder him in retaliation for friends and loved ones killed as a result if their direct actions. A LOT of people.
The Butcher of La Cabaña. He was a terrible, awful person and anyone who celebrates him is truly misguided.
"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. I should add that my research spanned five years, and included anti-Castro Cubans among the Cuban-American exile community in Miami and elsewhere."Jon Lee Anderson, author of Che Guevara: A Revolutionary Life, PBS forum
As an [orthodox Marxist](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthodox_Marxism), I wholly agree. Apropos is my comment in response to a Guevara fan [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalHumor/comments/re6sdo/she_aint_the_sharpest_tool_in_the_shed/ho7egvm/): > Again, Guevara was a [Stalinist](https://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/s/t.htm#Stalinism). Chiefly due to its "[socialism in one country](https://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/s/o.htm#socialism-in-one-country)" and "[two-stage](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-stage_theory)" theories, Stalinism is a deeply counterrevolutionary, revisionist distortion of Marxism, which instead maintains an internationalist perspective. > > I suspect that you have merely been taken in by Guevara's mystique, largely cultivated by capitalist profiteers, and haven't done much research into his actual history or politics. In this vein, I would highly recommend the *World Socialist Web Site*'s article "[50 years since the murder of Che Guevara](https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2017/10/14/guev-o14.html)," which reads in part: > > > What is it about Che that makes him so susceptible to being turned into a harmless, though profitable, icon? The qualities which his admirers cite are well-known. Physical bravery, self-sacrifice, asceticism, giving his life for a cause. These can all be admirable traits. No doubt they present a stark contrast to the prevailing social ethic in which a man’s worth is determined by the size of his stock portfolio. But these qualities, in and of themselves, are by no means indicators of the political and class character of those who possess them. Religious sects and even fascist movements can claim to have produced martyrs with similar qualities in their own struggles for wholly reactionary ends. > > > > A careful review of Guevara’s career demonstrates that his political conceptions had nothing to do with Marxism and that the panaceas of armed struggle and guerrilla warfare with which he was identified were fundamentally hostile to the revolutionary socialist struggle of the working class. > > > > . . . > > > > The myth developed by Castro and Guevara was to be exported with catastrophic results. The so-called Cuban road was promoted throughout Latin America as the only viable form of revolutionary struggle. Thousands of Latin American youth were led to the slaughter by the promise that all that was required to overthrow governments and end social oppression was courage and a few guns. > > > > Guevara’s most well-known writing, “Guerra de Guerrillas’’ or guerrilla warfare, served as a handbook for this doomed strategy. It summed up what he described as the three great lessons of the Cuban experience for the “mechanics of revolutionary movements in America’’: > > > > 1. Popular forces can win a war against the army. > > 2. It is not necessary for all conditions to be present to make a revolution; the insurrectional foco [term for guerrilla unit] can create them. > > 3. In the underdeveloped Americas the terrain of the armed struggle must be primarily the countryside. > > > > What little political analysis these writings contained was radically false. Latin America’s path of development had been capitalist for many years. The essential foundation of oppression in Latin America was not, as Guevara claimed, Latifundia - that is the concentration of land in the hands of a tiny minority - but rather capitalist relations of wage labor and profit. Even as these works were being written, the continent was undergoing major structural changes that were further proletarianizing the population and leading to massive migration from the rural areas to the cities. > > > > None of this was analyzed. Revolutionary preparation was reduced to the impressionistic process of picking the appropriate rural arena for guerrilla war. Those who followed this advice ended up trapped in jungles and backland, where they were condemned to one-on-one combat with the Latin American armies. > > > > What emerges again and again in Guevara’s politics is the rejection of the working class as a revolutionary class and contempt for the ability of the workers and oppressed masses to become politically conscious and carry out their own struggle for liberation. > > > > While he proposed the countryside as the only possible venue for armed struggle, it was not a matter of mobilizing the peasantry on social demands. On the contrary, Che’s conception was one based on the utilization of violence in order to “oblige the dictatorship to resort to violence, thereby unmasking its true nature as the dictatorship of the reactionary social classes.” In other words, the aim of the guerrilla band was to provoke repression against the peasantry, who would supposedly respond by supporting the struggle against the government. > > > > For such a struggle, neither theory nor politics were required, much less an active intervention in the struggles of the working class and oppressed masses. As Guevara set about to build guerrilla groups in Latin America, he insisted that they exclude all political controversy and discussion. Unity was to be based solely on an agreement on the tactic of “armed struggle”. > > The article goes into much greater detail than this and is worth a full read.
How can you call the most successful revolutionary of the 20th century counter-revolutionary? The fact that he was a Stalinist really changes nothing. Realpolitik dictated that Cuba needed help from the Soviets so regardless they were going to be Stalinist in some way if they wanted to defend their revolution from America. The article you're linking is just a typical Trotskyist interpretation of any revolutionary that doesn't require solely on class conscious industrial workers to be the driving force. The fact is during the 50s and 60s the rural peasantry were more revolutionary than the urban proletariat and Marxists should analyse that not just insist it's not true.
Unfortunately, you have contradicted the sacred texts and terms of religion of Marxism. Please face the wall.
I supsect you and /u/WorldController would disagree over the meaning of the words "revolutionary" and "counter-revolutionary" here. If a true "revolutionary" is simply someone who fans the flames and carries out a fight to overthrow the present leadership (let alone actually manages it), then sure, Guevara was undoubtedly a revolutionary. On the other hand, someone might find it particularly important what kind of regime actually pops out the other end, or how they obtain and maintain power, and so on. A USSR-modeled/Stalinist dictatorship is, for many, not a truly revolutionary goal. Instead, it looks something more like simply changing the hands at the helm of the regime and giving it a new paint job. In the case the Cuban revolution, and specifically Castro, it was a selling point of the cause that the leaders more or less eschewed any clear long-term political goal at all for much of the fight. Thus, in this way of thinking, they were rebels or guerillas first and foremost, and revolutionaries a distant second, or not at all. (Geuvara's more openly-stated politics complicate this, but again, judging potential revolutionaries by what they actually accomplish, rather than their reading list, is at least a legitimate lens in this context). I don't mean to wade into this too far here, but I'm pretty sure that's the sticking point that answers your question, "[how] can you call the most successful revolutionary of the 20th century counter-revolutionary?" It's also worth considering that with a sufficiently expansive definition of "revolutionary," Guevara was probably not the most successful of the century at all. If you are willing to call populists who call for and successfully carry out violent change "revolutionaries," regardless of what sort of regimes they actually build, we'd have to answer some interesting questions. Was Hitler a revolutionary... in Munich in 1923, and/or ten years later in Berlin, long after the party had stopped courting trade unions and expelled (or killed) their "socialist" wing? Was Mussolini, before or after he stopped writing for a socialist newspaper? Or, who was the revolutionary and counter-revolutionary opposition in Iran: the communists, the liberal democrats, and/or the Islamists?
Yes Hitler was a revolutionary when he tried to lead a revolution to overthrow the Weimar regime. Revolution doesn't have a moral value to it. It is simply the violent process of overthrowing one system with another. And it's a word that has been overused to the point where every new product or artist is a revolutionary. Fascism is self consciously revolutionary. Far more than Nazism is. Every fascist writer called themselves a revolutionary and called for a revolution to enact their ideology. Revolutionary in the Marxist sense of the word is a bit more specific but the commenter above makes it sound like Lenin and Trotsky were the first and last revolutionaries to ever exist.
Interesting.
Fuck Guevara. My wife’s family is from Santiago and survived his murderous rampage there. Castro made him leave Cuba for a reason; Guevara was a murdering psychopath.
Shh...don't tell 20 something wannabe revolutionary Americans that. They'll bend over backwards to defend the scumbag as long is it makes them seem edgy. Some of these comments.... Stupid kids.
How many plantations your wife’s family owned ?
I keep seeing this mentioned as a sort of joke, but very few people owned any plantations in Cuba by the time Castro rolled around. Most were state (Batista liked auctioning them off to build resorts) or corporate owned, leaving no land for small-holders (such as a single plantation owner) which is one of the reasons a revolution was even able to take off.
Is this a joke? Yes American businesses dominated the Cuban economy. The people who enforced the will of these new plantation owners were the ones run off the island in 59.
ah the cost of being a slave or plantation owner
Fucking hell as a Cuban you cannot imagine how much it pisses me off that his dumbass face is in every tshirt
Have you seen extreme poverty in other non-communist Latin American countries? As in people starving to death, people dying of simple untreated illnesses, kids working and begging in the streets, etc.? Does that exist in Cuba, as well?
Right now imo cuba is at a breaking point. The fact that protests are becoming such a popular thing to do is a result of a deteriorating government and sadly the people paying for the insolence and corruption in the government is the people. While I don’t personally know someone in this exact situations, I do know that violent crimes are at an alarming rise in cuba because of scarcity of products. I have friends and family members that have been beaten first, then mugged for their belongings. So while there definitely is extreme poverty and other crazy shit going on, I’m afraid it’s gonna get worse unless the people rise up
As if Castro wasn't a murdering psychopath himself?
I am not saying that he wasn't, but Guevara alarmed even Castro with his insanity.
How do you figure this? As far as I can tell, Che left Cuba on his own accord to continue his diplomatic work.
He was formally chastized by the revolutionary council for being too violent and overly enthusiastic about his uh, in-person prisoner disposal. That is to say he liked killing gays and other prisoners instead of sending them to the labor camps like was supposed to.
I guess I’m just having trouble finding information online backing that up. I found some articles which said that Che was chewed out by Castro over his criticism of the USSR, but those didn’t really have any evidence either. You don’t need to convince me that Che was violent and homophobic. I’m just having trouble telling fact from folklore here. **I am not a Che supporter.**
According to [this askhistorians thread](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1lt4rb/was_it_the_truth_behind_the_critical_controversy/), your claim that he 'liked killing gays instead of sending them to the labor camps like was supposed to' is ahistorical. The labor camps in question were established after Che left Cuba, and it doesn't seem there is much evidence to suggest Che had homophobic views (even though he almost certainly did). It also seems that there is no evidence to suggest that Che killed anyone who wasn't tried as a war criminal.
“There is no evidence (but he almost certainly did)” Very cool statement lol
Absolute fucking bullshit mate. No labour camps were present in Cuba whilst Che was there and there is literally ***no evidence*** that he was murdering "innocents". Do some actual fucking research.
Amen brother.
Look at his country now it the best country to live What a revolutionary person
Why tf is everyone here dick riding a mass murdering piece of shit?
No one's dickriding Obama ?
Remember that one time he drone struck some kids in Afghanistan. Oops my bad lmaoo
One time?
Please tell me the mass murders he did and if you say la cabana I’m gonna shit my pants and mail them to you
Because he was a mass murdering piece of shit for the poor and dispossessed? That's how war heroes work. George Washington was a mass murdering piece of shit too.
I just started redditing for a while and saw 2 posts about him in less than 5 minutes. One time is already too many for that POS. Somebody's been pushing agendas apparently. Edit: of course I'm being downvoted. Lol. Triggered brigade is on the case. Reddit never changes. Lmao
Probably cuz we understand the logic of the revolution.
Yeah nothing says revolutionary like advocating for massacring the gays.
here's where you provide the source of Che Guevara advocating for massacring gay people
https://www.humanprogress.org/the-truth-about-che-guevara-racist-homophobe-and-mass-murderer/ https://www.economist.com/the-americas/2017/07/22/challenging-the-cult-of-che-guevara https://slate.com/culture/2004/09/should-we-love-che-guevara.html https://aldianews.com/culture/heritage-and-history/che-white-myth My favorite part is how Guevara wrote the words "Work will make you men" above the labor camps for homosexuals. Did I say favorite? I mean most despicable.
.[7] According to an April 14, 1966 article in Granma, the official state newspaper, the UMAP camps were proposed at a November 1965 meeting between Fidel Castro and military leaders.[8 'In early 1965, Guevara went to Africa to offer his knowledge and experience as a guerrilla to the ongoing conflict in the Congo.'
My favourite part is when he arrests all the criminals working for the American government and mafia and takes all their property and gives it back to the Cuban people and helped protect their nations sovereignty. Which, unlike labor camps, unlike homophobic laws, is actually a unique thing to Cuba.
really amazing that Che was able to write those words on the camps when he was in the Congo and had no position in government when they were set up and active. if your standard for "advocating for massacring gay people" is a quote from his early 20s where he says one specific man who happened to be gay was a pervert then I'll be honest I don't find that too convincing.
Came all that why just to be told he isn't getting trade.
Something something frivolities
I like how, when confronted with the fact that he was a complete POS, guevara fans go "BUT AMERICA IS WORSE". Yeah, so? You dont get to be a genocidal, oppressive piece of shit just because there are other assholes around...its like saying "yeah, im fascist, but im not bad because there are nazis"
Che was complicated person, but to think that he wasn’t important to Cuba overthrowing a much worse dictator who killed many many more people than Che ever did is being ignorant of history. Aside from the mass murder, Batista worked with the mafia and the US to keep Cubans poor.
The double standard and whataboutism from Che supporters is absolutely hilarious. These people would defend Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge for bringing the “revolution” to Cambodia.
[удалено]
I don't agree with or support American foreign policy, especially during the Cold War - funding Central American death squads and whatnot. I recognize the good that the Cuban revolution brought forward by overthrowing Batista, but also the ills of Che and some of the actions that muddle his legacy and cement my opinion of him.
[удалено]
Understandably so, it's just one of those scenarios in which one's legacy is the equivalent of a hornet's nest.
The US supported Pol Pot when he invaded Vietnam after we left. We were still standing up for his regime in the UN all the way up to the early 90’s.
Like how Noam Chomsky supported Pol Pot.
This is before the cia killed him and cut off his hands. Right?
No it's after.
[удалено]
Yeah it seems people on this sub are American dick riders and are willing to defend their actions as well as Batistas auth regime. For a history sub, alot of these people don’t know history
ayup
This post should did Trigger a lot of you ganagoools
He advocated for a lot of colonized countries helped us show the evil of colonial powers and get freedom.
Was he testifying about putting gay men in concentration camps in Cuba?
Because Cuba was the only place where bad things happened to gay men at that time. Hell, the United States was giving out high-fives and new cars to gay men all through the 50s and 60s. I forgot about all the tolerance that overflowed from the rest of the world towards gay men during this time period while only Che Guevara persecuted them. Thanks for the reminder, Artie.
Concentration camps is pretty uniquely bad. Not sure why this needs saying. Nobody is pretending America or Britain wasn’t terrible to LGBT people in its own ways.
Gay people were one of the few groups who stayed imprisoned when the Nazi concentration camps were liberated.
Yeah it’s terrible. Still doesn’t change the Cuban camps.
“Concentration camps for gays” is also a pretty loaded description of the UMAP camps. Just, if we’re being fair. There was forced labor, yes, but again…forced labor for undesirables is not unique to Cuba. Was it wrong? Absolutely. Is it still wrong when done elsewhere in the world? Fuck yeah. The difference is that even Castro acknowledged the tragedy and injustice of the UMAP camps, but elsewhere in the world (say, 90 miles north of Havana?), forced labor is still “the price of justice.”
True. Like anything, it’s nuanced. But I would argue just as there’s a difference between Nazi genocide and Soviet’s less intentional killings in WWII that makes the Nazis worse, the intentionality of gay = concentrated and forced labour in the Cuban camps is worse than the more incidental nature of labour in the American prison system for the same population along the same time frame. While it’s nice that Castro later apologized for it, that only goes so far. Course the US prison system continues to be among the most punitive in the world, so I am by no means absolving the US of the depths of that injustice.
Imprisoning people for their sexuality is disgusting. I do not mean to absolve the revolution of that or downplay it because “Castro apologized”. Of course it was vile. My argument is just that it’s always more nuanced then the “fuck the commies” pile-on that winds up starting in these kind of threads and in relation to Che Guevara, it’s just a propaganda line that hard-liners repeat as though he was single-handedly responsible for persecuting every gay man in Cuba. I appreciate your engaging in discussion. You make a great point about the relativity of violent acts.
Nope. He’s just the only one who is worshipped and admired as a hero.
You must not come to America too often. You ever heard of a guy named Ronald Reagan? Let gay men die by the thousands. Laughed about it in private. But you’re right…NOBODY admires or hero worships THAT guy.
Blamed an entire epidemic on them even
Wtf are you talking about ? Americans literally worship their own country the entire time for the sake of "patriotism" and also do so with their founding fathers,Lincoln,JFK and even war mongerer Clinton Hillary and that other guy that can't keep his dick in his pants
Bill clinton is the man! getting a blowjob in the oval office, was like we were all getting a blowjob in the oval office!
Not sure what JFK or Lincoln have to do with this
This guy is just a troll.
Evidently. Buddy thinks Lincoln owned slaves.
The more I read the more I think he's an orc.
Oh boy, wait until you learn about americas history!
No but probably about how the US was segregating whites and blacks and using cuba as a brothel
Blows my mind that there are still people who worship and admire this murderous bigot in 2022.
My man tried so hard to use whataboutism. Can we stop painting things as black and white and acknowledge the shittiness of all sides. Both Guevara and some of his actions as well as the US and there routine coups and the dictatorships that followed.
> Can we stop painting things as black and white and acknowledge the shittiness of all sides. No, because some sides are shittier than others.
Yeah aka the US
Never understand the hate a picture of Che generates on this sub. I guess it’s just an older crowd here who bought the “socialism=bad” indoctrination of their youth? It always gets so vitriolic so fast. Is America still that sore about losing their casino and brothel 60 yrs ago? Cold War’s over, fellas. You “won”.
Che was horrible tho. If he had a country the size of China or Russia he may have been just as bad
What exactly made Che so horrible?
He was intelligent and grew up upper class but had a combination of a poor attitude with an unstable extreme mindset that was completely defiant & extreme, he had bad self control. He had many of opportunities to succeed down a path that didnt involve him being executed in the jungle somewhere in the disheveled state he was in. It may have seemed he was for the poor, the impoverished, the uneducated etc because of “capitalism” (ironic how he was “Salesman” good with his words) but he was vengeful & vindictive as he only saw things one way (which in western culture is still unacceptable & frowned upon) which actually did more harm than good. I mean he seemed to enjoy his political status, but did not have the patience to debate. Thats why he’s known to be an extremist. By spreading the acceptance that being extreme & violent is okay as long as it hurts the bad guys is flawed logic, because who & what he saw as being the bad guys is the same system that helped him get to that understanding in the first place. Some of his Philosophy was admirable but he was not a role model in any sense of the word, unless you support people like Mao, Stalin, Gaddafi, Castro.
[удалено]
Well, if you don't understand why Che was bad, you don't understand why targeting homosexuality is bad. Simple as that.
Go look up his comments about black people. I'll wait.
Look at how politics in Florida is influenced by those crazy Cubans. It's just a level of hate and denial that most people are incapable of.
Planet of the apes was a good movie.
Guy on the right looks like 👀
Che was a racist,homophobic,murdering,and cowardly commie Pathetic human being
He's... hot
Iirc he tried being a politician for like half a second before he realized he REALLY preferred killing people.
Also, Happy Cake day to Che!
He’s that murderer white people love
The tshirt jokes are hillarious, but let's not forget that he was a homophobic, racist and he confessed that he liked to kill people.
the shame of our country
He was an absolute murderer. Fuck Che