Next time you see someone sporting a shirt or anything with the visage of Marxist freedom fighter, Ernesto “Che” Guevara, stop and ask them what they know about this romanticized symbol of revolution.
Chances are it’s not too much.
Among our generation, there exists a “cult of Che” completely ignorant in their adoration and glorification. Psychology freshman major Kiana Wall said he’s a symbol with a false or misunderstood value.
“As a symbol, Guevara had meaning in the past,” Wall said, “but it seems like those who wear those shirts now are just trying to exaggerate their political radicalism without knowing much about him at all.”
The problem is that many people, particularly the Millennials, are highly influenced by Hollywood more than ever. Steven Soderbergh directed the 2008 movie “Che” in which Benicio del Toro depicted Guevara as a gentle, contemplative hero. The New York Times writer Manohla Darges gives a good description of Soderbergh’s intended portrayal.
“Throughout the movie Mr. Soderbergh mixes the wild beauty of his landscapes with images of Che heroically engaged in battle, thoughtfully scribbling and reading and tending to ailing peasants and soldiers,” Darges said.
Furthermore, Del Toro said Guevara only executed people after they were tried.
“They did not do it blindly; they had trials,” he said. “They found them guilty, and they executed them — that’s capital punishment.”
A brief look at history shows a darker, more accurate side of Guevara.
In 1928, Guevara was born to a middle class family in Rosario, Argentina. He completed his medical studies in 1953, and after traveling around Latin America, decided that the only way to liberate the poor from their degraded existence was through violent warfare. An expert on guerrilla warfare, he was an important figure in the Cuban Revolution and tried to lead Marxist revolts in the Congo and Bolivia, where he was executed in 1967.
Since his death, Guevara has been touted by some on the left as the pop culture hero of anti-imperialism and rebellion. It was in the 1960s when Guevara truly rose to prominence as a symbol of revolution.
Guevara supporters claim he stands for freedom, justice and free-thinking; however, Guevara acted in the Cuban Revolution’s first firing squads and founded Cuba’s “labor camp” system which acted much like concentration camps.
Ironically, Guevara opposed freedom of speech, he campaigned to have homosexuals jailed in labor camps, he opposed free elections, he was a profligate adulterer and he hoped the Cuban missile crisis would lead to atomic war. Guevara’s political beliefs of mass-slaughter and absolute government fly in the face of freedom, social justice or free thought. For instance, take this quote from this 1966 speech by Guevara:
“Hatred is the central element of our struggle! Hatred that is intransigent … hatred so violent that it propels a human being beyond his natural limitations, making him violent and cold-blooded killing machine … We reject any peaceful approach. Violence is inevitable. To establish Socialism rivers of blood must flow! The imperialist enemy must feel like a hunted animal wherever he moves. Thus we’ll destroy him! These hyenas are fit only for extermination. We must keep our hatred alive and fan it to paroxysm! The victory of Socialism is well worth millions of atomic victims!”
Actions speak louder than words. As a Communist totalitarian murderer, Guevara participated in execution of thousands people, not all of which were former members of former Cuban President Fulgencio Batista’s administration.
What we need is for people to break from the confines of popular culture and think for themselves. Just because some actor likes Guevara and I like that actor doesn’t mean I should then like Guevara. The truth is wearing a Guevara shirt is much like sporting a shirt with Hitler’s or Stalin’s face on it. The only difference is that the Guevara shirt is socially acceptable, thanks to the obtuseness of Hollywood.
Sarah Backer is a business sophomore and may be reached at [email protected].
I do not know the facts, but I value your observation and your (very likely true) presentation of the facts in this case. I applaud your appropriate statement “What we need is for people to break from the confines of popular culture and think for themselves.” Continue to keep you eye on Hollywood and its deceit packaged as entertainment (and too often even outright lies) Ms. Backer. Keep writing. Thank you.
Thank you for setting the record straight. It’s about time the Millennials quit worshiping that murderous thug, and stop being what Karl Marx referred to as “useful idiots”.
So many lies in 1 article. Che was a hero.
Read Jon Lee Anderson’s biography.
I think it’s great that you are letting people know the truth. A while ago I saw similar shirts at the mall and asked the salesperson if she know who this was. She had no clue, but se explained these shirts are really in. The people I was with were embarrassed, and I should not say anything.
From what I understand the same thing happened in 1930’s Germany. People did not want to say anything. If we do not learn our history, we will be doomed to repeat it.
But people don’t want to deal with the truth, and now celebrities (like Jay Z and Beyonce) are getting the red carpet treatment in Cuba. We are suposed to believe that people are free, happy and there is no oppression.
So many assumptions in one article. Then again, we have to take into consideration who is writing this.
Unfortunately this article engages in some sloppy scholarship. Che was no saint and there’s certainly no need to deify him, but in the proper context he was no Hitler or Stalin, and comparing him to such monsters diminishes the criminality of those men.
“founded Cuba’s “labor camp” system which acted much like concentration camps.”
This is factually incorrect. The Unidades Militares de Ayuda a la Producción were founded after Che left Cuba, and were implemented on the suggestion of an officers’ meeting in November 1965. He did oversee the Guanahacabibes camp that operated prior to this period and could have inspired later iterations, but he did not found the system nor was he present when the officers drafted the plan for Fidel. Other sources attribute the camps to Raul.
“he was a profligate adulterer”
This isn’t relevant, unless you want to drag JFK and MLK into the mix too.
“hoped the Cuban missile crisis would lead to atomic war.”
Che was certainly hawkish, but it’s doubtful he wanted actual nuclear war. Cuba also did not control usage of the nuclear weapons.
“As a Communist totalitarian murderer, Guevara participated in execution of thousands people”
Inflammatory and factually unsound. What does “participated” even mean? Carried out personally? Oversaw? Approved? Because those are demonstrably false by every sound account. The Cuban dissident-backed Free Society Project documents 216 executions related to Che’s command (which ended in 1959 in this regard), including 164 during his tenure as commander of La Cabana fortress, for which according to both top Che biographer and the Free Society Project, Che was only present for 55 executions (and thus, according to Anderson, had immediate pardoning powers in only these 55 cases). Perhaps a few thousand people were executed in sum across Cuba in the first half decade of the revolution, but Che was not in charge of these. The blame for these would be more correctly attributed to Fidel.
While the executions lacked the judicial vigor one would hope for, each sentence was handed out for crimes that in the late ’50s warranted capital punishment in much of the world: treason, desertion, rape, torture and murder.
So no, not at all like Hitler or Stalin.
And to follow up (sorry if this appears twice, website errors?), you might also want to check the veracity of your quote, which I’m having trouble with since Che’s last public speech was given in Algiers in February 1965! So, where does that quote come from?
Some sources (Conservapedia) attribute it to a speech delivered to the 1966 Tricontinental meeting in Havana, for which Che was not present and delivered nothing of the sort (and again, no public speeches after 1965). In fact, attendees were uncertain of his whereabouts since he was secretly in Congo.
He did, however, deliver a letter to the 1967 Tricontinental meeting that matches approximately none of that quote.
Other sources, like Cubanet, attribute it to his 1967 Tricontinental letter (wrong again, see above) or also attribute it to an 8 October 1968 article in the state armed forces newspaper called “Táctica y estrategia de la Revolución,” but I can’t seem to find a copy online. Doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist, but there’s just not much out there.
There is, however, a piece published two days prior called “Táctica y estrategia de la revolución latinoamericana” that, again, contains nothing of the sort. In fact, if you search for the former you only find two pages of Google hits, almost all from Cuban dissident groups. Searching for the latter, though, brings up plenty of dissident groups, pro-Che groups and academic citations.
So, what’s your source?
You might also want to check the veracity of your quote, which I’m having trouble with since Che’s last public speech was given in Algiers in February 1965! So, where does that quote come from?
Some sources (Conservapedia, Breitbart, Frontpagemag) attribute it to a speech delivered to the 1966 Tricontinental meeting in Havana, for which Che was not present and delivered nothing of the sort (and again, no public speeches after 1965). In fact, attendees were uncertain of his whereabouts since he was secretly in Congo.
He did, however, deliver a letter to the 1967 Tricontinental meeting that matches approximately none of that quote.
Other sources, like Cubanet, attribute it to his 1967 Tricontinental letter (wrong again, see above) or also attribute it to an 8 October 1968 article in the state armed forces newspaper called “Táctica y estrategia de la Revolución,” but I can’t seem to find a copy online. Doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist, but there’s just not much out there.
There is, however, a piece published two days prior called “Táctica y estrategia de la revolución latinoamericana” that, again, contains nothing of the sort. In fact, if you search for the former you only find two pages of Google hits, almost all from Cuban dissident groups. Searching for the latter, though, brings up plenty of dissident groups, pro-Che groups and academic citations.
So, what’s your source?
One countries activist = One countries terrorist
You didn’t even mention the protagonist, Batista.
He was more like Hitler than Che.
That’s why you see Che shirts and not Batista shirts.
Another typical “millennials beliefs are naive” article. The writer is pretty loose with claiming facts when the sources are more than dubious