Che Was a Meanie
Every leftist loves Che Guevara. Was there ever a purer revolutionary? As immortalized in the (very good) movie Motorcycle Diaries, Che was a young idealistic doctor on a road trip through South America. After seeing the inequities of wealth he was so moved, that he eventually led a revolution to overthrow Cuba's American supported dictator, Batista. Talk about putting your money where your mouth is...
But our beloved Che is not so loved by Alvaro Vargas Llosa, the author of an interesting article I read in The New Republic. Llosa's article, titled The Killing Machine, attempts to derail the icon that is brandished on so many T-shirts. He begins by describing the brutality of the self proclaimed "cold-blooded killing machine," during the Cuban Revolution. Of course war is bloody by definition, but Che was particularly harsh. Any of his men who were suspected of treachery, were executed. He describes in his diary how he treated a man accused of passing on information. "I ended the problem with a .32 caliber pistol, in the right side of his brain... His belongings were now mine."
After the revolution Che continued to be brutal. Castro put him in charge of La Cabana prison, where accused "counter revolutionaries" were incarcerated. Anyone against the regime could be sent there, and the author mentions a man who went for the sole sin of being Christian. Che held daily executions under his watch, with no trial of course. The total amount killed was estimated at 500, earning Che the nickname, "The Butcher."
Similarly, Che was also involved with forced work camps. There "unfit" Cubans were sent to build schools and other state projects while living in concentration camps. The definition of "unfit"? Oh just dissidents, homosexuals, Aids victims, Catholics, Jehovah's Witnesses, Afro-Cuban priests, etc.. It was a traumatizing experience in where they were often raped, beaten and many never returned.
Che also may have changed the world even more had Cuba gotten to keep Russia's nukes during the Cuban Missile Crisis. He was quoted in a British communities paper saying, "If the rockets had remained, we would have used them all and directed them against the very heart of the United States, including New York, in our defense against aggression."
Che's actions after the revolution made me think about the eternal Cuban contradiction. Many leftists support the concept of the revolution, but deplore the undemocratic tyrannical regime that replaced it. To deal with this dichotomy, we've placed Che as the figure head of the former, Castro the latter. In reality, Che had much to do with what the regime quickly became than people want to admit.
At the end of the article, Llosa goes a little too far by detailing Che's failures as an Economic Minister and even questioning Che's guerrilla skills. It's as if to say, Che is bad at everything. It feels off the point and a little vindictive. I mean, people aren't wearing Che shirts because they are under the impression that he was a wonderful economist. And guerrilla skillz, don't go there Llosa!
But I do appreciate that he ends by giving a brief bio of a man he thinks should be immortalized. Juan Bautista Alberdi was highly influential in writing the Argentinian Constitution that limited government, opened trade, and encouraged immigration. Argentina subsequently rose to being the 12 richest nation in the world by 1928. Bautista did this without killing anyone.
Still, in giving us this example, Llosa almost hurts his overall point. Who is more inspirational? A man who led Cuba's revolution, and subsequent campaigns in Nicaragua, the Dominican Republic, Panama, Haiti, the Congo, and, where he lost his life, Bolivia. Or the man who detailed the specifics of how government should work? I think I already forgot the other guy's name. And even though I guess the point of Llosa's article is to shame Che-shirt wearing leftists into realizing their man may be more Pol Pot than a purist, I think people wear the shirt for a different reason. Che has become an icon and his image represents, "fighting the power." Even if he was a "cold-blooded killing machine" it is hard to begrudge him that his life truly was one of being a constant revolutionary.
But our beloved Che is not so loved by Alvaro Vargas Llosa, the author of an interesting article I read in The New Republic. Llosa's article, titled The Killing Machine, attempts to derail the icon that is brandished on so many T-shirts. He begins by describing the brutality of the self proclaimed "cold-blooded killing machine," during the Cuban Revolution. Of course war is bloody by definition, but Che was particularly harsh. Any of his men who were suspected of treachery, were executed. He describes in his diary how he treated a man accused of passing on information. "I ended the problem with a .32 caliber pistol, in the right side of his brain... His belongings were now mine."
After the revolution Che continued to be brutal. Castro put him in charge of La Cabana prison, where accused "counter revolutionaries" were incarcerated. Anyone against the regime could be sent there, and the author mentions a man who went for the sole sin of being Christian. Che held daily executions under his watch, with no trial of course. The total amount killed was estimated at 500, earning Che the nickname, "The Butcher."
Similarly, Che was also involved with forced work camps. There "unfit" Cubans were sent to build schools and other state projects while living in concentration camps. The definition of "unfit"? Oh just dissidents, homosexuals, Aids victims, Catholics, Jehovah's Witnesses, Afro-Cuban priests, etc.. It was a traumatizing experience in where they were often raped, beaten and many never returned.
Che also may have changed the world even more had Cuba gotten to keep Russia's nukes during the Cuban Missile Crisis. He was quoted in a British communities paper saying, "If the rockets had remained, we would have used them all and directed them against the very heart of the United States, including New York, in our defense against aggression."
Che's actions after the revolution made me think about the eternal Cuban contradiction. Many leftists support the concept of the revolution, but deplore the undemocratic tyrannical regime that replaced it. To deal with this dichotomy, we've placed Che as the figure head of the former, Castro the latter. In reality, Che had much to do with what the regime quickly became than people want to admit.
At the end of the article, Llosa goes a little too far by detailing Che's failures as an Economic Minister and even questioning Che's guerrilla skills. It's as if to say, Che is bad at everything. It feels off the point and a little vindictive. I mean, people aren't wearing Che shirts because they are under the impression that he was a wonderful economist. And guerrilla skillz, don't go there Llosa!
But I do appreciate that he ends by giving a brief bio of a man he thinks should be immortalized. Juan Bautista Alberdi was highly influential in writing the Argentinian Constitution that limited government, opened trade, and encouraged immigration. Argentina subsequently rose to being the 12 richest nation in the world by 1928. Bautista did this without killing anyone.
Still, in giving us this example, Llosa almost hurts his overall point. Who is more inspirational? A man who led Cuba's revolution, and subsequent campaigns in Nicaragua, the Dominican Republic, Panama, Haiti, the Congo, and, where he lost his life, Bolivia. Or the man who detailed the specifics of how government should work? I think I already forgot the other guy's name. And even though I guess the point of Llosa's article is to shame Che-shirt wearing leftists into realizing their man may be more Pol Pot than a purist, I think people wear the shirt for a different reason. Che has become an icon and his image represents, "fighting the power." Even if he was a "cold-blooded killing machine" it is hard to begrudge him that his life truly was one of being a constant revolutionary.
posted by chuckdaddy2000 at 9:59 am
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home