i'm so guilty.

Awwwwe don't even get me started on the mindless Guevarism, but sporting such nonsense is a contradiction when basking in the glow of capitalism. The Che icon was only started after his death, by one dictator fuck mind you, and was used as propaganda for the Revolution.

My perspective is a bit biased since I'm Cuban-American, but I'm thinking of a shirt that says "fuck Che." Now that would be trendy.

i'm such a shameless "hipster" - shame, shame on me. lol!

Jimi Hendrix once said, "Once you're dead, you're made for life."

Guevara's romantic ideas of communism led to his failures and eventual downfall.

Man Che guevara will never die. He will always live on in history I dont care what people think about him it's their oppinion and my oppinion is that Che guevara was the best man that steped on earth!!!!

Hasta La Victoria Siempre!

Yo niggaz is that thw way you like to be called?

I think that this bwoy the self-called cuban american must read something else about this man(ernesto) cuz thats a MAN; not the one you´re tryin to be with a pair a baggie pants and things like that... Boy if you´re thinkin about a T with that message, better start thinkin in other one that says... why am i so stupid, why didn´t i realize that i´m a likkle boy that came to the USA because my granpas were fuckin part of that slow killing people system which consisted in givin the people what they never wanted and what they never needed (i´m meaning turnin dem into junkees and men like i think you´re little cubano americano)

may tell you something... im a mexican living in my mexican country or chile and taco city if you´re so ignorant to say that... And let me tell you that... i do not love Cuba, i ADORE it.

It`s no point of view matter, it´s only education...
and if you dont eat education you´re eating nothing but hedonism...

and this life is not about that... there are plenty things more than those you got on your feet

but your oh-so loved country is turning most young people into brainless things...

SO YOU BETTER THINK MY WORDS TWICE BEFORE YOU TELL ME SOMETHING, CUZ I THINK YOURE NOT REALY SURE OF WHAT ARE YOU WRITING

-by the way do you know this piece of a song: IN THE ABUNDANCE OF WATER THE FOOL IS THIRSTY-

i never meant to hurt any body really, that´s my point of view

and i´m really angry about young people saying: che was a stupid when ím sure you don´t even know his complete name.

but then that is you....

Jah love

"My perspective is a bit biased since I'm Cuban-American, but I'm thinking of a shirt that says "fuck Che." Now that would be trendy."

I would bash your fucking face in with a rock so be careful wearing your 'trendy' shirt.

When you take into account that Che was directly responsible for the deaths of 2,500 cubans. And indirectly many more than that. Well yeah, it's easy to say "Fuck Che". Eric, I'll wear that shirt with you.

"It`s no point of view matter, it´s only education...
and if you dont eat education you´re eating nothing but hedonism..."

This is what the so-called "Dready Pickney" wrote and yet, can not even articulate or write English well enough here. He rather be a ignorant street punk spewing diatribes. Che was a pawn in Castro’s government and he left because he was unhappy with the way the Cuban revolution was moving. Mijo, vete pa’carajo y no jodas mas pendejo!

Yous are all arguing about who and what Che Guevera was.. the man is dead. I dont accept the mystification of Che. I know he wasnt a saint but the fact is he fought for something we have never had, and that is our freedom. No one of us in our 'democratic' nations are free, because none of us can see the iron ball in our head. For the lad that would like to wear his trendy shirt, i say to learn some respect for those you cant even begin to understand, and for Dready Pickney, you let off a vibe that your a bit of a homie? i may be wrong but if thats the case than buddy the iron ball in your head quite heavy. And for the last dude Queteimporta: no seas un bastardo, no todos tenemos las mismas opportunidades para hablar el lenguage de los imperialistas. I accept that even i have been guilty of being a pawn of society but through my denial begins some change

Yeah, and all this talk about che stops if one of ya'll hit the fucking lotto. what would you do with the dough? It damn sure won't be blogging with any of us. Pawns of society and imperialism and this bullshit talk. get over it, money will change your minds quickly. And Che would be another t-shirt to buy. Fresh for 2 square, you suckas!!!!!!

Che may have had guts and good intentions, but what Castro's done to Cuba made it so people are floating away on old Buicks. Elian Gonzales's mom died trying to get out of there, as so many do.
You remember Elian? The only illegal alien Pres. Clinton didn't like.

Che is neato dude!!!!!! I'm a suburban but i got urban in me. I'm a cool white radical plus I eat big macs. Any girls looking for a gnarly freckled pale skin leader, holla back

Che was a murderer, its so "cool" to see all this anti-war kids sporting the face of a murderer on their chests... Its so trendy.

i'm writing a paper for my xicano studies class about che and his pop iconization. I don't agree with what's happened to cuba under castro; but i wouldn't go as far as to blame it on marxist idealism. In context and idealistically marxism is a wonderful philosophy; as close as possible to a completely utopian society. The examples of communism that we see in our world today have been manipulated by their countries leaders, and the greediness and narcissism of human nature. Che was part of a revolution to change the world; he wanted equality and he wanted to end capitalism. What makes me upset is the people out there completely selling che out and using him as a means to capitalize. And as for all the people saying "Fuck Che"; why don't you find an educated and less crude way to voice your opinion, maybe then someone would respect it.

uh...you guys are losers, who cares.

see, i gotta say I'd be one of the "trendy" t-shirt wearers, but I can't say I know enough of what I'm talking about to wear anything. ALl I'm wondering is, how can anyone respect a man who's responsible for 2500 deaths? I just don't see how this man can be called anything but a murderer, weather he fought for freedom or not. To make an omellette, you gotta break some eggs...bullshit. The man was responsible for the deaths of innocents, and those people who wear his face on their shirt are responsible for answering to accusations. I'm sure he'd be ashamed to have someone wear his face on a shirt anyway.

all you fucking stupid communists that think che was great should go to hell--coming from another cuban american-- im going to go to skool wearing a joseph stalin shirt. that makes about just as much sense. those of you that are ignorant spare me the revolutionary talk--che was a killer and i have no respect for any dumbass retarded enough to support such a man

let's face it.... every government is in place because of violence... as hard as it is for everyone to admit, its the means to an end. It's really easy for all of us to pretend that the US is a peaceful country, but it's not. Last time I checked the country wasn't bieng run by a bunch of pacifists. It's the nature of man to create conflict; history shows us that. The amusing thing is that now it's so popular to be PC and deny any use of force, but whether you're marxist or conservative or progressive or not maybe people should admit and understand the nature of the world. Violence will not end. PERIOD. Yeah, Che killed people. But guess what? So did George Washington, so did Abraham LIncoln, so did Richard Nixon and so is George Bush. He wasn't the only killer. Maybe some of you need to brush up on your history.

FREEDOM OF SPEECH BITCHES, stop trying to be all liberal or some shit saying that people shouldn't wear the shirt because its wrong. you have no fucking clue; none of us do.

Hey, mr. fag, i agree with you, people should be able to wear whatever they want if that's something they believe in. The problem with the Che shirts is that stupid college kids think they're wearing a shirt that means less than what it really does. Don't judge a person who says that Che is awesome, or one who says that Che is a murdering bastard...those who make the choice have the right to make it. THe problem is with those who don't know what the choices are, and have no idea why they're wearing that shirt. Hipocrites as well, humanitarians should not wear such a shirt. It just doesn't make sense. People should wear the shirt if they truly believe in it and know why they believe in it, not because it's fucking trendy.

fuck all you..Ernesto was MAN, you could never amount to. I wish he was alive to kill all you hating putos. Fidel and Ernesto are not the same man. Ernesto isnt to blame for what Cuba is today. I wear his fuckin shirt, and ill continue to wear it....

Some moron said:
"would bash your fucking face in with a rock so be careful wearing your 'trendy' shirt"

I say:

Why are leftists so violent? Leftists always claim they're the "champions of peace" and "tolerance". Evil hypocrites.

It's damn hilarious that these commies are making capitalism stronger by buying che guevara shirts. Again Evil hypocrites.

Che is in hell get over it!

Damn communist genocide supporters.

none of you seem 2 no wat che stood for. he stood for peace and equality, people had 2 die fr this 2 happen. yourall shouting about something you no nothing about. none of you are free, because your all AMERICAN. "whoa dude its like the fourth of july, independance day n all that. hey lets wtahc friends." ypour all porns in a game of chess.youdon tno this though because your government manipulates your minds, but that isnt hard seen as you all eat doughnuts. just go and die the lot of you. some people see che as a killer, some see him as a hero. i see him as a hero, he stood against people for his rights, none of you will do this, your to scared, che was a freedom fighter. he fought for good. you american twats dont know what your fighting for!!!!! GO EAT DOUGHNUTS

All I can say if for those of you who dont know anything abut him, go to a library and read a book about Marxism, or mabye a Biography? Be informed. And for our friend "RAGE" wear your little shirt and try to bash mt 6'4'' 230lb face in and there might be 2501 deaths people can bitch about. "It is better to die standing than to live on your knees"-Ernesto 'Che' Guevara

This message is directly for CHE. You are a total moron who can't spell let alone concieve of the right to presume that anyone on this page is, by your definition, "American". Considering I live in Montreal, I think I have the right to say that your dumb ass, whether he lives in the US or Montreal or Instanbul, has no right to presume that any of the people on this page with opinions about Che--their OWN opinions--has anything to do with where they're from. Considering that's besides the initial point, VIVA you rock, at least somebody's a little educated, except your size has ntohing to do with it. Why can't everyone else let the subject lie at people have the right to their own opinions about Che? Whether he was a murderer or a revolutionary? People died at his hands but many lived as well. It's your choice to decide whether or not you thought it was worth it. As for the INITIAL POINT, people should not wear his face on their shirts unless they have a good reason to back it up.

If it is better to die standing than to live on your knees then why did Che die begging for his life? He told those who captured him that he was worth more alive than he was dead! That's right I'm another Cuban-American! People are still litterally dying to get away from the legacy that he left in Cuba. Just talk to a balsero who was lucky enough to make it to the U.S. ...If you can find one!

Dukes: Bush didn't kill anyone to get in office nor to keep his presidency, nor have any American presidents since George Washington. Yes, revolutions cost lives - but a revolution engaged in by willing parties to fight over a cause to bring freedom and a revolution that installs a more brutal regime and that requires brutality in order to keep power are very different.

Azucena: No, Fidel and Che are not the same - Che was Fidel's executioner.

i wouldn't go as far as to blame it on marxist idealism. In context and idealistically marxism is a wonderful philosophy; as close as possible to a completely utopian society. The examples of communism that we see in our world today have been manipulated by their countries leaders, and the greediness and narcissism of human nature.

Yeah, except that every attempt at communism has turned out that way - Cuba perhaps the least, most were more bloody and worse. The problem with Utopian schemes is that they are just that, Utopian, not possible. You can call it greed, the part of human nature that makes it impossible, but giving it some thought one can see that in fact communism is not the best of all worlds and the drive to create for oneself and one's family is not bad after all. Communism is the Utopian idea: "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs". But why should I work very hard because I have ability, so that you can rest and relax because you have none? It is quite easy to see how this is quickly manipulated by those who don't want to work. Revolutionary Marxism is very east to manipulate - that is why it is always "hijacked" by the brutal power loving Stalin's of the world. Communism assumes that the law, the collective, can make choices and all the people will follow - because its a collective of the people. But really that is just a description of a totalitarian government, nothing more.
What we learned in our European past and based this country on is that government should first: do no harm. It is the idea of a limited government, just the opposite of communism- the idea that government does not always know best and should be limited such that it does no evil. It is only there to protect the basic rights of the people, nothing more. Those rights existed before government - they were not granted by government. In a free society prople forget this at times and would build up a government that no longer respects our rights or start a revolution to overthrow the wonderful limited government we have and install a dictatorship (of the proletariat or any other), completely missing what we have. People forget that freedom is our right but not every government allows it, we must be careful to protect it. Just as poverty is not a problem that we have created - it is wealth we have created and in so doing have almost eliminated the poverty that always existed before, and which will exist again if we wipe out capitalism and freedom which have created it.

Che: I will have a donut, thank you.

che guevara is a legend! yeah he killed ppl but so have other legendary ppl that have been respected even though they executed ppl!

leave the poor guy 2 rest in peace!!

r.i.p kurt and guevara

"che_ism has been subsumed by the culture he hated" let us remember, Doc. CHE, declared war on america,his spirit leaves on, in OSAMA!

fuck you gentleman,as long as the suffering continues, the struggle shall not be pampered.

buddha

a few things i'd like to present.....

i believe that the quote about preferring to die standing rather than living on your knees was from Zapata not che.

yes che killed many people. a "murderer" if you will. He was also a GUERILLA who helped fidel topple the batista dictorship through VIOLENT revolution. what? did you think that a coup was a pacifist action which doesn't require bloody battles to achieve a certain goal?

also, the failures of communism isn't necessarily marxism. i think it has more to do with Leninism. considering that most of these so called failures that we model were leninist revolutions. ofcouse the Soviet union. also the people's republic of China: if you ever studied Maoism, you will see that the basic priniciples are pretty much leninist, same with cuba, north korea, etc... ...... LENINIST!!! meaning VANGUARD PARTY!!! aka DICTATORSHIP OF THE PROLETARIET IN ORDER TO ACHIEVE EQUALITY!!!! THESE ARE ALL MILITARISTIC POLICE STATES UNDER THE DICTATORSHIP OF A VANGUARD PARTY/DICTATOR. no, marx and engels never advocated dictorship or orwellian police states while proposing their communist manifesto. in fact, they hated despotism and despised soldiers. leninism has cause communism to fail. more democratic marxist approaches like the ones overthrown by the CIA in latin america may have worked if they weren't overthrown. but nobody will ever know for sure.

to clarify my position, i am not a communist nor am i a capitalist. i see an equal ammount of flaws in both systems (considering capitalism's unequal distribution of wealth, bloody imperialism, poverty, plutocracy etc.....).
nor am i saying that any of you are idiots for having your opinions. you have your right. respect mine in return.

but i thought i'd just present a few viewpoints.

I'm an ausralian living in what you yanks would probably call a small country town but i just want to make the point that you Americans are coming off as a bunch of facist arseholes and i think this web site proves the rest of the worlds view. Fucking check yourself. I'm sure you guys will be a fallen super power in 20 years like russia is now so i'll just wait for that day.

I think the word is exceptionally "righteous".

Isn't it beautiful to find a website that -- far from discouraging a one-sided rhetorical rant-fest -- actually brings those of opposing views together with such splendid results.

FYI, I'm the one who runs tings round here (the custodian). Don't pee on "our" fascist rainbow pride parade! "We" don't tolerate intolerance of intolerance!

Try tolerating intolerance... and see how wonderful it is. If we all tolerate intolerance together, just imagine what a beautiful world this would be!

So far I think that Kurt is the only one on this page who has made any well
thought out arguments. It's very easy to run around and say "Che's a killer" or
"Che's the man" without knowing what you're talking about. Sure the guerrillas
killed their fair share of Cuban soldiers during the revolution, but that's what
they were--soldiers. I doubt that any of the "Che's a murderer" people on this
board would say the same thing about George W. Bush who is responsible for
thousands upon thousands of Iraqi deaths, both civilian and soldiers. And you
might say, "well we got rid of Saddam, an evil dictator," well guess what, Che
and the revolution ousted Batista, an evil dictator. And they had the support of
the campesinos, who knew the guerrillas were fighting for them, which is more
than we can say about the war in Iraq. The point is, the people here that are
villifying Che all have made very illogical or ad hominem arguments against him,
none of which make any real sense or hold any merit. He is regarded as a
revolutionary hero in Cuba the same way Americans regard George Washington
or Thomas Jefferson, both of whom are also responsible for thousands of deaths
(revolutionary war, slavery ring a bell?). So before you make anymore ridiculous
statements, please, either read a book, or at least think a little bit before you
type. I proudly wear my Che shirt because I actually know and agree with what
he and Fidel and the other revolutionaries fought for. I suggest before any of
you make any more statements, either in support or disagreement of Che, you
learn about the man and make an informed response.

P.S. Che didn't leave Cuba because he had a falling out with Fidel, he left
because he had bigger ideas for a continental democratic-socialist revolution
(again, read a book.)

First of all, I wanna say big up to everyone posting on this page.

OK, how about this for an argument...

Che helped replace the violent and repressive US-backed Batista dictatorship, with the repressive Soviet-backed Castro dictatorship.

Any significant change there?

Saying violence is an inevitable part of progressive social change is like saying ignorance is essential to enlightenment.

I would argue that none of these people mentioned -- Lenin, Mao, Marx, Engels, Che, Castro, etc -- have made any significant contribution to improving the quality of life of people around the world.

Back to the issue of violence...

Telling people to commit violence in order to achieve social justice is no different than telling people they will go to heaven for suicide bombing.

In my opinion, refraining from violence is a hell of a lot more brave and effective at bringing about peace. After all, violence is the main thing we should be fighting against here. And by violence, I include a lot of things: poverty, illness, discrimination, eating animals, etc.

Isn't the ultimate goal of all political activism to bring about peace and prosperity? I would argue that you can't have peace without prosperity, nor prosperity without peace.

Ultimately, the goal should be to change how people view the world and live their lives as INDIVIDUALS and not violently forcing others to change their behavior.

It's about lifestyle!!

The real power is not in telling other people how to live, but leading by example. By committing acts of violence, you are only reinforcing the notion that violence is an effective means means to an end... when in fact it is merely a dead end.

When you refrain from violence, you break the cycle.

Oh, and I'm a libertarian.

Badnarik for president.

I respect Che Guevara not as a symbol of Communism... but as a symbol of resistence to oppression. The same way I respect Ghandi, MLK, and Thomas Paine.

To my knowledge, NONE of these people you mentioned ever picked up a gun and shot someone. Only Paine advocated violence.

Both Ghandi and MLK were advocates of non-violence as a means of revolutionary social change.

Please get your facts straight: Che Guevara was a guerrilla soldier. Ghandi and MLK were true revolutionaries. Also, none of these people you mention would EVER support a military dictatorship, let alone MULTIPLE military dictatorships (as Che did).

A major social chamge, like the complete overhaul of a system, is only attainable through violence. Opressive regimes do not respond to words, only bullets. Ghandi had beautiful ideas and he certainly attracted the world's attention to plight of his people, but England would never have left India had there not bee an armed resistance.
Che Guevara died with blood on his hands, no doubt, but he fought for the people who had no voice. He was tired of the masses having nothing while a select few had so much. Its true the Cuban revolution did not come into fruition, but Che can not be faulted for that. Guevara did not join Castro inorder to lead Cuba. His role was soley to overthrow the despotic Batista government, and when that was accomplished he moved on and took part in other revolutions. The current situation in Cuba, which despite its problems is a hell of a lot better than it was pre revolution, is due to both Castro not adapting to the times and the ridiculous embargo.
Ernesto Che Guevara did not seek glory or power, he only wanted the best for the people. For that reason alone El Che should be remembered alongside the Mandelas and MLKs of the world.

Che and MLK are so far at the opposite ends of the political and spiritual spectrum that it begs the question of whether you have really done your history homework, comrade.

Um, last time I checked, Cuba hadn't had a democratic election in like 50 years. I hope that isn't your best example of a country where violence has improved the situation. Cuba simply swapped dictatorships. Don't believe the hype.

If you still think violence is key to ending violence, please give me specific examples of a few countries that have became less violent primarily through the use violence.

The time for generalizations is over. Let's see what you got.

To answer your question:
Mexico:
The Mexican Revolution of 1910
The Zapatista Uprising (things arent perfect yet, but atleast some progress is being made in Chiapas)

The USA:
The American Revolution

Hiati:
the Slave Revolt, 1791 (ended slavery in Hiati)

South Africa:
the Township Revolts

Now for a little rebuttal:
I did not say the Cuban revolution was succesful. As a matter of fact i stated quite the opposite.
"It's true the Cuban revolution did not come into fruition".
I merely stated that Che was not to blame for the failures of the revolution. With that said, I think it is naive to say Cuba is not better off today than it was 50 years ago. Cubans are provided with one of the best health care and educational systems in the world, despite being subjected to an inhuman trade embargo. Cuba may not be a democracy (which makes the revolution a failure)but it a million times better off now than it was under Batista. Pre Castro Cuba was a giant brothel for rich Americans. Its people starved, had no access to school or hospitals. Atleast today no one goes hungry or dies of curable diseases.

OK... thanks Martin.

I think we need to distinguish between simple regime change and the long slow crawl toward representative, bureaucratic democracy. Cuba -- and I'll give you that -- seems to buck the trend by making sure its populace is at least living slightly above subsistence (although we shouldn't overlook the fact that it is still a brutal dictatorship).

Again, Cuba does buck the trend -- a little. As for these other examples, let me get into that.

MEXICO

To this day, Mexico remains a poor and corrupt country which is controlled very heavily by transnational corporate and narco trade. The vast majority of Mexicans have seen only minor improvements in their standard of living, in spite of the fact that the amount of economic activity in Mexico (read: how hard people work) has risen dramatically. In other words, Mexicans work ten times harder and receive only twice as much pay. Also, it really wasn't the revolution that changed things in Mexico, it was primarily its relationship with the U.S. and its relatively stable -- although certainly corrupt -- bureaucratic government.

HAITI

Haiti may be the best example of a country the has suffered the most from its revolution. Haiti's revolution was the purest sort of revolution possible: the bottom became the top. Unfortunately, this created an unstable atmosphere that has made it difficult to maintain the sort of export-based economy that is necessary for a small island nation such as Haiti. The current situation in Haiti shows how hard it is to break the cycle of violence once it devolves into the sort of anarchy and chaos that often accompanies "revolution".

SOUTH AFRICA

South Africa doesn't really fit the model of violent change in my opinion. For years and years there was violence and no regime change and no end of apartheid. Afrikaners resisted all forms of external and internal pressure for decades. But like the Soviet Bloc... some things just don't make sense and eventually people realize that you shouldn't stop people from moving freely around their own country. My understanding is that poverty, violence, and disease is still rampant and barely improved in South Africa, primarily because of the government's violent and oppressive practices.

UNITED STATES

The United States is maybe the finest example of a country that had both a revolution and became a stable democracy, yet still managed to enslave people, colonize other countries, and nearly implode during its most bloody conflict, the Civil War. America is perhaps the best argument that ONLY a pacifist lifestyle can make a country more peaceful. On paper we have all the ingredients for a well-adjusted nation: revolution, prosperity, and national unity in the face of major religious, economic, and ethnic diversity. And yet, yet, yet... we have incarcerate, kill, and maim both our own people and those of other countries with a zeal that suggests something much more than simply economic or political hardship. And its not just the government that's in on it... it's also quite often citizen against citizen. America, quite simply, has a culture of indiscriminate violence. Yes, we a relatively prosperous and "stable" country, yet the violence persists.

My point is simply this: our problem is not revolution, or lack of it. Our problem is not economic prosperity (although that IS a prerequisite). Our problem is simply that we treat each other like slaughterhouse animals.

It may be idealistic and unrealistic. But if you want to end the violence... all you gotta do is stop being violent. It really is that simple.

ps. oh, and thanks for the nice, civil discussion. it's good to see someone stay on point.

I do think the idea that the only way to end violence is to stop being violent is idealistic. An opressive government will become more and more opressive if the populance allows it to. No dictator has ever thought to himself, "Now that they're letting me do whatever I want, I am going to give them more rights." In extreme circumstances the people need to rise up. Che Guevara traveled around the world and helped people who had enough of being treated like animals organize revolutions. He didn't gain anything from this. He was not wealthy as a result, he never held an official position in any government. He could have stayed in Cuba and had as much control as Fidel. He chose to keep fighting for those who had nothing. I think that is an honorable thing.

Che leveled the playing field. Instead of there being an upper class, a middle class, and a lower class; the classes have been dissolved and no man has more than any other.... unless you are mid to high member of the party. ALL MEN ARE EQUAL... equally poor. Oh and if you go to church don't expect to be allowed to work. Oh and your ration card reduced. All the great Cuban doctors with their lack of medical equipment have yet to come up with a cure for starvation. Cuba was not as backwards as it is now. There was a heavy infusion of money from abroad bringing up the economy. Now severely lacking. If you notice the few cars that are still in operation are from the era of Batista. I'm not saying things are hunky-dory but they were a helluva lot better than they are now. Che is a murder: a murder who believed very strongly in harnessing the power of hate and of dehumanizing his enemies. "Hatred is an element of struggle; relentless hatred of the enemy that impels us over and beyond the natural limitations of man and transforms us into effective, violent, selective, and cold killing machines. Our soldiers must be thus; a people without hatred cannot vanquish a brutal enemy."- Che. He was a doctor who healed few but killed many. I am a Cuban-American. I personally have heard accounts of his atrocities against man. I personally know the man who executed him. It is difficult to relate to a man who preached such idealistic values but continually dragged his feet through the mud and relished doing it. A man whose only living legacy is the Cuban revolution where so many risk there lives to escape and more bear the terrible burden that he is partially responsible for having brought it upon them. I am being very sincere and direct. I am attempting to not let my emotions take hold of me. It is very difficult to speak about a man who has killed members of your family because they desired to hold onto what little they had. It is very difficult to speak about a man who has sent your family away with nothing but the clothes on their backs because they were sick of seeing men, women, and children machine-gunned down in the street for participating in a church recessional. If he truly believed in the things the revolution quotes him with saying then he would have not allowed such things to have occurred. This is not a man who should be admired but rather as a notorious hypocrite who engaged in acts of pure savagery to achieve ends which are merely as bad as his means.

What's funny is that a shirt has inspired so much discussion. A t-shirt.

I think that its all good to think of Che in the abstract as we all do. You can learn a lot about the complexities of revolutionary ideology and practice. Furthermore, you can see how history fights to see a person a certain way.

When you get into a debate regarding the intelligence of the people wearing Che shirts, you turn into the stupid person. I have seen people with Mayhem t-shirts, and members of that band have murdered people, and they write songs about soullessness, carnage and the end of the world. Compared to them, Che was at least intellectually rigorous.
Che's "attrocities" were part of an integral politics. It's highlighted by the commentator on this site who says that he'll smash the face of a person wearing the Che shirt. Some people really care about the implications of this man.
Yet, Cuba's social structure and the fight that Che put up is so far from anything one can do in the USA that it's hard to consider the shirt anything more than an icon to the abstract, like a cross hanging from someone's neck. So if you are mad at people for making pointless or poorly considered icons of people, then you would do good to take down exactly how people lionize Che and see if you can see how parallel his treatment is to that of that older prophet: Jesus of Nazareth.
Of course you might also find that people dress to cause a stir. So its really funny how well we all play into this particular stir. Isn't it idiotic how people wear shirts with the playboy bunny emblem on it?

Now you're in the swing of things! It's OK to get up in people's face and harass them for being "American Idiots" as Green Day might call them. At least a Playboy bunny stands for indiscriminate acts of hedonism. Che stands for indiscriminate "enemy" killing.

As they used to say... we all in the same gang my peoples!

The next time you see a person wearing a Che shirt, sticker, or keychain... please approach them. Tell them the reason why they are wearing the t-shirt is not to show allegiance with all the righteous struggling poor people around the world. The t-shirt is a red flag to the true revolutionary who will kindly -- or not so kindly -- inform them that a true revolutionary doesn't pretend to be anything. Unless you got the t-shirt at a thrift store or someone gave it to you for free... you have no business wearing it... unless of course you stand for killing people.

And no, i wouldn't tear the shirt off your grill. I would simply add you to the list of ignorant people massing on the sidewalks of this capitalist dystopia. How ironic that your pretend socialist revolutionary shirt is actually the hallmark of capitalist ignorance.

You know what? I live in America, go to college, and wear my Che shirt with raging pride.

Everyone on this board who bashes the Che supporters have basically two arguments: we shouldn't wear the shirts because Che was evil or a killer or whatever, or we shouldn't wear the shirts because we live in America and the act of living here contradicts what Che supported.

The first argument is really the only one with any validity and I will break them both down.

If you feel that Che was an evil person, I can respect that opinion. I don't agree with it, but I can at least respect it. After all, Che did take part in executions and he did kill people, but he did this all in combat. He was not a bloodthirsty man, he didn't kill for fun, he killed because he was at war. I doubt that many of you would claim that the tens of thousands of INNOCENT lives we have taken from Iraq or Vietnam or Korea or any other war were done out of evilness. They are "casualties" of war. I don't think it's right, or any killing at all is right for that matter, but Che never killed because he was evil. In fact, if you were to read up on Che's actions in Cuba, he turned countless numbers of prisoners over to the Red Cross in order to save their lives. But regardless, if you think that Che is evil for killing people, none of which were innocent civilians by the way, while at war, I'll respect that opinion and your objection to my wearing the shirt.

The second argument against my wearing Che is absolutely ridiculous, and I see that Eric has been saying this over and over again: we live in America which Che despised so we shouldn't wear the shirt because it goes against his philosophy. Absolutely ridiculuos. First of all, not that it should even make a difference, my shirt was given to me so there. Second of all, does my being born in America mean that I am only allowed to agree with American philosophy? I am 19 years old right now, I started reading about Che when I was 15, liked him by the time I was 16, does that mean at age 16 I should have immediately packed up my stuff, left my family and moved to Cuba? Of course not, and anyone who says otherwise isn't being rational. I can still support socialist or Communist views while living in America because no one can control what you think or who you support. And believe me, I do plan on leaving the United States, but when the time is right. Everyone's got to play with the cards they're dealt, and I'm playing mine. I'll go to college, get an education, and I'll make much more of an impact than I could have if I ran to Cuba when I was 16. After all, did anyone condemn blacks in South Africa during apartheid simply because they wanted something other than the government was offering? Of course not, and even though I am not being oppressed as they were, I still want something other than what the government is offering because the oppressed are out there. And no one can call me a hypocrit simply because of where I was born. It doesn't work that way. My staying here for the time being is exactly what Che would have wanted, education was second to none with him. After all, he was a doctor and he trained many of his soldiers and campesinos in the mountains how to read and write, a privelige not offered to them by their government. He loved to learn and to read, so do I, he was a fan of Marxist and socialist literature, so am I, he fought for the rights of the oppressed that couldn't fight for themselves, so will I. Now you tell me how what I am doing here contradicts his ideals.

So I will continue to wear Che, with pride, and someday Eric, when I'm wearing my shirt, I hope you stop me and talk to me about it. Because I'll bet American capitalist dollars to donuts that I'll be making you look ignorant when it comes to Che.

And by the way, I'm a socialist, libertarians suck.

Bam! Direct hit.

I guess I don't even need to stop you on the street. The Che Guevara army is on the attack!

First of all -- and let's get one thing straight -- I am not one of those people who think it is OK to kill people if it is an "official" war (whatever that is) or if the people being killed are enemy combatants. Your statement...

"I doubt that many of you would claim that the tens of thousands of INNOCENT lives we have taken from Iraq or Vietnam or Korea or any other war were done out of evilness."

A loss of life is simply unnecessary and sets a bad example for the kids. It is a culture of violence. People like yourself enjoy the idea of fighting and killing for these righteous notions like peace, justice, and the socialist or islamic way (nearly interchangeable, of course).

If the only way you know how to solve big problems is by getting together with some of your enemies, and having a little killing party that displaces "innocent" bystanders and wrecks an economy... please go ahead and get your death on. On the bright side, I guess it is better than molesting schoolchildren or raping women.

But I do think you have some more thinking to do my 19 year old and soon-to-be-impoverished-expatriate. You will realize how much you love capitalism when you move to Cuba and realize everyone there couldn't give a shit about your beloved Revolution. They just want jobs homie.

Or you go to Uruguay or Paraguay (or wherever Che is from) and you find out that the only people who have read these cherished books of yours are your fellow impotent Marxist nerd boys.

Oh and about this little petty political labels war you want to start... how typical that you and your Socialist Authoritarianism choose to be so aggressive against my little ol' non-violent Libertarianism. Isn't it funny how we Libertarians pose such a grave threat to the supposedly righteous and inevitable Socialist Revolution. By the way, when is that Revolution supposed to happen anyway? Didn't your great comrade heroes predict an "inevitable" revolution almost 150 years ago??

I'm still waiting...

I think you misread what I wrote.

I never condoned violence. I am a complete pacifist much like yourself. In fact I despise violence. What I said was that to condemn Che as a murderer or as evil for the people that he killed in combat, which is all over this board, is absurd. It is equivalent to calling George Washington, who also killed people in combat, evil. I doubt you would do that. Whether you agree with Che and the revolution or not, he was a revolutionary as Washington was. I'm not an extreme fundamentalist. (And by the way, to say socialism and Islam are interchangable is laughable. If you recall, Communism is quite strictly anti-religion, whether or not that is right is another debate.) I don't think violence is the answer to anything, but if anyone gets hit, they're bound to hit back.

And to my "19 year old and soon-to-be-impoverished-expatriate" label, again, read before you write. I never said I was going to Cuba. I said that for you to condemn me for believing a certain thing, and being born into a society that is the opposite of that belief, is ridiculous. However, I do plan on leaving, to help those born less fortunate than I was, and I dare you to condemn that. I think that there should be a more level playing field for everyone in the world, and we have your beloved capitalism for that not being the case.

Lastly, not all socialists are violent, and not all libertarians are non-violent. And libertarians don't pose a great threat to the "revolution" that I never spoke of. However, I am familiar with libertarian ideology, and I don't think that you're a threat, I simply think the libertarian ideology is stupid. "Hands Off!" We'll just see what country will be in trouble if the libertarians ever, god forbid, take power. We'll see what's screwed up when no goverment regulation or intervention leads to corporate scandal that can't be dealt with, massive environmental devestation with no laws to protect it and every polluter to rape it, increasing gaps between the rich and poor, and overall economic anarchy (see NAFTA in Latin America.)

I'm not swayed in the least. And I'm still waiting.

This is fun. With humor as my weapon, I shall strike down those who attempt to poison my brothers. I am the shepherd of the weak.

Yes, George Washington was evil. He ordered the killing of many people. Who knows, maybe if we were still a British colony like Canada... we would be less violent and have more health care. Hmm, I wonder.

My only question now is how can you be a socialist AND a pacifist? Isn't that a contradiction? What will you do to me if I refuse to pay taxes or fight in your army? What will you do to me when I organize a capitalist underground resistance movement?

And again, please... go to the nearest poor country and help them. The U.S.A. could only get more perfect without you.

Alright, this has gone from a once legitimate conversation to you simply acting a fool.

Canada, however, is a great talking point and I am glad that you brought it up. (It, however, is not a British colony, I'm not quite sure what that was supposed to mean.)

Let's look at some differences between the US and Canada. Canada has universal health care for all of its citizens, the US has tens of millions without it. Canada has one of the lowest murder rates per capita of any industrialized nation, the US is far and away the highest without anyone on our heels. And you know what? Canada is a highly socialistic nation! The US is not.

As to socialism being a contradiction to pacifism, these are apples and oranges. One's political views are in no way related to their thoughts on violence. They're about as similar as your connection between socialism and Islamic fundamentalism, a gross stretch that has no merit. As to what would happen to you if you didn't pay taxes or started an underground capitalist revolution? Probably the same thing that would happen to you if you did those same things in America. (One usually doesn't claim the government is violent for punishing criminals, as long as the punishment is within reason.)

So I was hoping for a bit more of a civilized conversation, but you started to do the same thing that everyone else does when their arguments run thin, you just start throwing out garbage. Too bad.

Oh yeah, and you're not really funny at all and you're definitely not a shepherd for the weak, the majority of america thinks the way you do.

Oh, what poor sport you've become!

Alright. Let's see if I can salvage this without completely offending your need to save the world (and remain humorless).

What was your purpose in coming to my website and defending Che? Who cares about Che? I am simply bagging on the people who wear those t-shirts. It has nothing to do with ideology. It has to do with people giving their commie heroes the $20 capitalist t-shirt treatment. Don't tell me this is lost on you.

But about this "acting the fool" business. Wow, you finally figured it out. Ever wonder why this place is called the Stink Zone? Shit... I don't even know myself... and this is my website.

If I wanted to save the world I would be a professor and tell impressionable young people to go to Africa and help people gather firewood and carry water 40 miles every day. But if I were a renegade blogger I would suggest an easier path to redemption and righteousness. I would simply spread the notion that real revolution happens within. Poverty is neither a blessing nor a curse. Creation and destruction exist side by side. Maybe that is why you came here.

Besides, a fool beats a pedant any day.

But if we must get serious... the lasting revolution is not a top-down affair. Socialism is a top-down affair. Even Canada is a top-down affair. You are right that it would be nice if we could be peaceful and have health care like Canada. But ccomparing Canada to the U.S. is your own version of the apples/oranges game. Canada is a much smaller, more affluent, less culturally fractious place. If they had a history of slavery and got flooded with 200 million immigrants... they would act the fool just like us.

The only revolution that will work in the U.S. is vegetarian cooperative libertarian pacifism. Of course, you are more concerned with living out your Socialist fantasies in a 3rd world country. That's fine. One less person for me to convert.

Oh, and about that "shepherd" quote... I was actually speaking in the 3rd person... about you. You are the shepherd. And I am the tyranny of silly men.

I can appreciate your ragging on those who wear the shirts and know nothing about Che. I don't like them either. And I guess we can just agree to disagree on the rest. Your piece about the revolution from within is a nice thought, I agree with that as well, but it's going to to be pretty difficult to tell someone to find their "revolution" from within when they're dying of starvation.

"Poverty is neither a blessing nor a curse", that's very eassy to say when your born in the richest country in the world. So that's fine, as far as Hinduism goes, everyone has their own path to happiness, mine is helping others, yours is helping yourself. There's nothing wrong with that, or with you, but there are those out there who are not even able to help themselves.

That's who I care about.

Ya Basta!

Much respect Matt... thanks for keeping your cool. Give my regards to the world. If you ever come across someone who wants to post some writing on the web... send them my way.

Socialist Matt, your naive view of Canada is hilarious. Try talking to an actual Canadian, instead of listening to M.Moore's propaganda. This is a decaying, bankrupt society run by delusional utopian autocrats who are mentally stuck at age 21 circa 1968, who don't even have the balls to deport convicted terrorists. Come live here for a while, and see where our universally crummy health care system sends you when you need Cancer treatment...BUFFALO, NEW YORK! And there's plenty of murder here, too.

Do you guys get dental care up in Canada? While it is true that Canada has a stagnant economy, I think it is better to keep a person in jail than send them abroad to be executed. I'll assume you are referring to the extradition policy that references likely death penalty verdicts. That's a good policy, not a bad one.

That said, the level of socialism in Canada prevents it from realizing its economic potential and eventually those programs will need to be dismantled. The global economy is simply too competitive to allow for such luxurious policies. And don't fool yourself, Neil, we have great health care down here, but you just might lose everything you own to pay for it... if you're lucky and have assets.

Whatever happens, though, I just hope Canada remains relatively neutral and mostly peaceful, regardless of the economy and health care and all that commie stuff. Cuz down here it is straight capitalist oligopoly and not a pretty sight at all.

someone tell me how che guevara died,i just dont get it and my class is working on him at school

Yes I am a loving peaceful person but if you fucking threaten me (or my cuban hermanos) with physical abuse your the one who will get more than a rock bashed into your head ;D... as for the why such a vulgar shirt? I think it is not vulgar when it is meant for force, and at this point ...being a 22 year old student with the "socialist alternative" (or 40% communist movement) shoving there idiotic utopian papers in my face! and forcing me to see others being brainwashed by there bullshit propaganda you better beleve I am fet up and ready to be as vulgar as I can be! Viva cuba FUCK CASTRO AND CHE!

One might call the capitalist utopian ideas (Fox News) shoved in our faces propaganda as well. Everyone loves propaganda...until it's for something other than what we believe in. Reinforcement of ones ideas is a very comforting thing, but as soon as someone tries to change our ideas we get mad. I think most of America is brainwashed by what I call propaganda, what they call the news. I used to be. I used to be blinded by the red, white and blue. Now I only see red.

And I love it.

The Che was a good man. He really was. he was never actually a true Communist until late into his 20's. And although he came from a some-what wealthy Argentine family he never truely lived the life of a rich person. I suggest that you guys read "Che" By Jon Lee Anderson.. its a really good book and one of the most detailed biographies i have ever read.

Did Che kill people? Answer me that.

Of course Che killed people. He was a soldier in an army fighting against another army. There were deaths on both sides.

I am amazed at this huge debate on who Guevara was - murderer or hero. From what I have read here most of you have no idea who he was, what he stood for or the current state of affairs in Cuba.

Instead of simply repeating what you believe to be true, your time would be better spent reading history. Even if you have a negative opinion of Guevara, read his books to learn of the values he held. I don't mean biographies about him, read his actual words.

If you think Guevara was a terrible person be able to defend that better than writing he was a killer. Many US Presidents fought in wars. Some of them are "killers".

Bringing Gandhi and MLK Jr. into the mix is not a valid comparison. Neither is the socialism and Islam comparison. They are red herrings.

I have been to Cuba twice in the last year. I met countless people who told me stories of how much better their lives are since the Revolution. To counter that, look to the thousands of Cubans who have risked their lives trying to come to the US.

BTW There are brand new cars in Cuba; they are just not American cars. The people are not starving. One difference between the Batista dictatorship and the Castro dictatorship is that all citizens have free health care and free education through college.

There is no absolute truth to this issue. It is like trying to convince a Christian that God is not real. The belief comes from the inside.

Yeah, that's nice and all. But we are dealing with a more serious issue here...

Do you have a Che shirt?
And if so, do you wear it in public?

I have five Che shirts. Two were gifts, three I bought in Cuba.

Yes, I wear them in public. In fact, I wear them to work - to the public high school where I am a teacher.

LOL... You kinda remind me of the teacher from Beavis & Butthead that sang "Fly Lesbian Seagull" or however that song went.

I'm sure your students think you are a very righteous dude. No doubt. But Che was indeed a pro bono mercenary. He chose to solve social and economic problems through military activity, right? And unfortunately his legacy is felt greatest -- ironically -- in the field of graphic design, where military propaganda has remained a huge influence.

Ultimately, the problem with those five Che shirts of yours is that it sends the message to people that its OK to be a soldier -- if you are on the righteous and noble side. It's OK to kill people if you believe you are doing it for a good cause.

When one views the defense of a nation as an act of self-defense, then you are actually giving up your true self-defense. You are agreeing to die for your political affiliations. This is not righteousness, it is shortsighted fatalism. Che was not a labor organizer. Che was not a peace activist. He was a fucking mercenary... a "revolutionary for hire".

And if you are so convinced that Che was this righteous role model for all the kids out there... please Prof. Blanche... tell us what lessons we should draw from Che! If his mystique can be summed up in a single iconic image... then surely a few paragraphs would do justice to his political and philosophical views.

What is Che's legacy, outside the fashion industry?

What is Che's message to the kids?

Should I move to Iraq and fight against the Americans? Should I move to Afghanistan and live in a cave? Does the Paki Islamic underground need my help? Or does it need to be a secular communist movement to qualify?

You see, I too have worked as a high school teacher. Although I must admit... it was in the special education department.

First, most of my students don't have the faintest idea who Guevara was. They usually say something like, "Jay-Z was wearing a shirt with that guy's picture. Who is he?"

Guevara was a highly educated individual who wanted to ease the suffering of the poor. He helped to increase literacy in Cuba during and after the Revolution. He abandoned creature comforts for the idea of raising the oppressed to a higher standard of living. For the six years he lived in Cuba, he did voluntary work during much of his free time.

The reason why I think he was a great man is because he was committed to the notion of improving the lives of the down-trodden and over-looked members of society. He put material gain and his safety aside to help people.

I have read most of his books and several books about him. I know he was not a perfect man but the things he did were for the betterment of society as a whole.

If you want to move to Iraq and fight America or go to Afganistan and live in a cave, have at it. That is your choice. We each need to pursue that which is our correct path. I know that your point is that most soldiers consider themselves in the right but look to the greater good. Not to wax philosophic here and quote Spock on the needs of the many outweighing the needs of the few or the one but that is what I see with Guevara.

Alright. Your points are well taken. Aside from being a freelance murderer, I guess Che was basically an OK dude. It is certainly clear that he meant well.

As far as moving to Iraq or Afghanistan, I just thought that would be the modern equivalent of what Che did. It seems that the current international jihad or whatever you wanna call it is extremely analagous. Che is maybe a lot more relevant than many people realize.

While I agree that we must each choose our own "correct" path... we all have our influences. And some might say we are mostly a product of influences. I simply want people to be honest with themselves about the relationship between their supposed goals and the consequences of their actions.

Again I must say that if one desires to end violence and injustice for all people... it cannot be done by joining in on a fighting party. This only legitimizes and reinforces the use of violence as a means to solving problems. The violence will subside, but as soon as the problem reappears, violence will be the first method used because it appeared to work the first time around. And yet it is the violence itself we should be figuring out how to stop.

If one desires to refrain from acts of violence on an individual level... this is very much possible. And the truth of the matter is that only when people choose to be nonviolent FOR THEMSELVES AND NO OTHER REASON AT ALL will the social disease of violence begin to subside.

It is my belief that progress in the "fight" against violence will be the key to solving all other widespread civic and international issues.

I do appreciate your taking the time to respond and thanks for sharing your views.

Blanche,

"One difference between the Batista dictatorship and the Castro dictatorship is that all citizens have free health care and free education through college."

It's funny how you even admit in trying to defend Castro, you call him a dictator. Is he the most evil dictator that's ever lived? No. That doesn't negate the oppression he's inflicted on his people. Thought that is threatening to the party is not tolerated and, while people have their bare necessities met, that's all.

My use of the word dictatorship was a word choice based on previous authors on this page. And I don't believe I ever "tried to defend Castro". Someone had earlier asked about or commented about the differences in the government. I simply provided two of the differences. My knowledge of Castro is small enough that I would never try to defend his record as the leader of Cuba. What I know of him is largely pre-1960.

The main problem for me is that both the U.S. government and Fidel Castro use each other to legitimize their heavy-handed tactics. In the end, the political leaders win and the people lose.

Here is an article that talks about the fact that Cuba already had strong economy and health care system before Castro...

usembassy.state.gov

And at the UNICEF site, you can compare Cuba with any country you like, based on various statistics...

www.unicef.org

But whatever the statistics, I think we should not fall into the trap of assuming that the Cuban people cannot provide for themselves in a Democratic manner, what Fidel claims only he can provide in his typically patriarchal manner.

Any economist will tell you that the most damaging thing for any modern country is economic isolation. Cuba may only be isolated from the U.S., but that is significant considering the U.S. would likely be its #1 trading partner in the absence of an embargo.

One last thing... what has Fidel done to prepare the political structure for the event of his death? Does he have a plan? Or is the country entirely dependent on Fidel, for better or worse?

I ask these questions rhetorically, but anyone is welcome to answer or share their views.

Thanks everyone. Good discussion.

In every great ideal there are flaws. I agree that the shirts are antirevolutionary, but at least I know someone is at least going in the right direction. At the base of Ernesto Guevara's ideals were compassion and self sacrifice. Violence was the only way to liberate (or try to liberate people). When people are pointing a gun at you and raping you physically, mentally and economically and you've tried talking....what else are you going to do. I personally am a pacifist and i'm lucky enough to be born in a country of agressors so I don't have to make that decision. But I'm not about ready to say that anyone who doesn't fight to our standards is cruel, I think that is ignorant. You could say that the USA's constant bombing and trade manipulation of other countries is a true act of cruelty.

Americans are born and bred into capitalism, finding yourself and linking yourselves with everyone else, but at the same time being an individual. No wonder everyone has confused ideals, because our own are messed up. Americans are much like the people of Brave New World without the sexual "confidence". So if a kid is wearing a Che shirt I hope that it is a step towards learning, opening their mind to alternate views and healthy cynicism. I know I'd rather have a world full of Che shirt wearers rather than a bunch of hazy eyed disallusion overpatriotic assholes.

Just like Monty Python... always look on the bright side. Instead of Che shirts or overpatriotic assholes... i'll take a world full of people like you, Elyse. Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

Eric, I agree with you on the shirt issue, to wear it, without knowing the history or what the man stood for is ignorant. However this said, Che's ideas can be respected, he did not believe in straightout killing, he did not believe in revolution as the first and only way to deal with goverments. One of his famous quotes states that: Where a government has come into power through some form of popular vote, fraudulent or not, and maintains at least an appearance of constitutional legality, the guerrilla outbreak cannot be promoted, since the possibilities of peaceful struggle have not yet been exhausted.

Yes the man had faults, like many human beings, but to say that he was a freelance killer? That would make any solider a freelance killer then. Even those that fight for the oppressed or those that fought in the world wars. To say that Che is responsible for the current state of Cuba is also ignorant, the man died in 1967, he had nothing to do with the current state, Castro and Che had many disagreements over how Cuba should be handled, and is one of the many reasons he left cuba to go back fighting, and I personaly believe that if he were still alive today, that Che and Castro would have had a falling out, many gone to war against each other. For the social justice does not always occur in Cuba. Yes they have health care and education but they are oppressed, something that Che was against.

But last, one can still respect a man's ideas and not respect the man himself. He had many good ideas and thoughts which many of us can learn about, about fighting social injustice, doesn't mean one has to pick up arms and kill. To want to help those who are oppressed, one can still do them in a peaceful way. The amount of poverty and suffering required for the emergence of a Rockefeller, and the amount of depravity that the accumulation of a fortune of such magnitude entails, are left out of the picture, and it is not always possible to make the people in general see this. This is what Che was against, oppression that was made by capitalism. In America we do not see that oppression everyday, we do not see the poverty that we create in other countries, but one can still fight against poverty and oppression witout taking up arms.

Eric,

Are you going to see "The Motorcycle Diaries"?

Funny you should mention that. I just saw a preview of it before Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. It wasn't the most compelling preview, but maybe I'll check it out from the library when it comes out on video. Have you seen it or heard any reviews?

I am going to go see Motorcycle Diaries just to help my poor befuddled Texan mind comprehend how anyone could believe giving all power to the state could help anyone.

Yes, we Americans should stop being so provincial but the rest of the world should realize and be thankful that if just about any other country with the possible exception of Finland had our power it would be so much the worse for everyone. Compare us with for our degree of justice other regimes of our size and scope, like 1800's France, or ancient Rome, or modern China, not Switzerland or imaginary Utopias. It is precisely our retarded ignorance of the rest of the world that makes us more safely less likely to want it.

Maybe all you Che dudes would like it if the Soviets had won the cold war, so you could be forced to work at jobs you hate your whole life and have no hope (I have first hand experience with that). We are definitely the lesser of two evils, so to speak. Not that I think, on balance, we are evil, just that garbage comes with power, someone has to have it, and no one is perfect.

Globalization will replace us with the UN anyway. I hope it has the face of liberty and justice for all, but it will never be Utopia, and if that is what you demand you will be forever disappointed and angry.

"Befuddled" is right.

Globalization will replace the UN?? That doesn't make any sense. That's like saying Protestantism will replace the Baptist church. The UN is part of the globalization process. Globalization happens independent of the UN. The UN simply attempts to have an influence on various aspects of globalization.

The U.S. as lesser of two evils??? I didn't realize the world had to pick between two evils. There are certainly more than two possiblities. And right now it is our corporations, as much as our government, that influences other countries. Many of these corporations are multinationals, which means they should be considered as their own force, somewhat independent of their home nations.

I'll wear that "Fuck Che" shirt! I hate how people idolize him and make him out to be some hero when he was anything but. He murdered people, tortured, etc. Great guy, what ac role model.

So I thought I was going to be done on this page, but I feel the need to go on. And please forgive me, this is a bit of a drunken letter, but I've got some thoughts that I must express.

Eric said it best before when he said 'who gives a fuck about Che and what he did?' This isn't a page about that, and I wish that we could leave it at that, but there are so many Che bashers on this site that I feel like I must respond.

I feel like Father Concha, supporter of the Zapatista movement in Mexico, said it best when he said, and I quote, "We all want peace, but not at any price." I'm neither a Christian nor a militant, (in fact I'm an athiest and a pacifist if that makes a difference) but after studying the Zapatistas for many months I have realized something: pacifism does not always achieve the necessary goals. I can agree with Eric, a fellow pacifist, that violence only breeds violence. It does, and this I wish this was untrue, but I certainly cannot deny it.

However, sometimes, and I emphacize sometimes very strongly, violence, in some sence, is the only answer. I can respect those who disagree, I wish I could disagree because I have neither the balls nor the capacity to raise arms against another human being, but I still have the sense and the common sense (I feel) to realize that those in power in countries other than the United States do not always respond to pacifism.

This is where Che finally comes in (sorry for all of my philosophical ranting and raving.) I firmly believe that Che was one of those of those who think like me; pacifism is an incredible tool, one to be utilized, but in times where it is not useful the only way left to achieve the rights for those who deserve (deserve!) them is through action. Please, pretty please, correct me if I'm wrong, but the only massive movement I can think of for independence, social or literal, achieved through pacifism was the Indain revolution with Gandhi. (And even this was not thoroughly pacifistic in my opinion. I think the Brits saw all the turmoil between the Hindus and Muslims and got the hell out of dodge. I cannot even give total credit to pacifism in the civil rights movement in America, there was sooooo much more to it than Martin Luther King, Jr.)

My point is (after all of this bullshit) that yes, Che killed people, Che won't win the Nobel Peace Prize, Che might not be the best role model, but he fought and died for what he believed in, and what I believe in. So, for that, I cannot call him a bastard, or a murderer or whatever else you've got. I believe that he understood what was necessary to achieve for those who could not achieve for themselves, and for that I have nothing but the utmost respect. If I could be half the man he was, I'll be a better man than I ever thought possible in my opinion. If you've got a problem with that or with me, that's cool, all that boils down to is a philosophical difference that we definitely won't overcome on this board. I just think that, as much a pacifist as I am, he had the right idea: pacisifism is the best tool available, until that tool is no longer available which is when you have to keep looking, and if that means action that fucking means action.

Either way, I can do nothing but love him for doing what I probably am not capable of doing--dying for those who were born less fortunate than himself. He's got more balls than me for sure.

P.S. But I've still got to admit, I fucking hate those people that wear his shirt without knowing who he is.

Well, first of all I'd like to thank you for coming back and sharing more thoughts, Matt.

On the subject of dying for what one believes, could it not be said that people like Timothy McVeigh or Jeffrey Dahmer died for what they believed in, right? I'm not disagreeing with your fundamental premise, I'm just saying that the act itself is maybe somewhat irrelevant.

I think it is helpful to view warfare in the context of disease or starvation. Nobody says "Oh, we can fight our way out of disease or starvation". You either have a good option... or you die. People seem to believe that because war is a social situation, that we should be able to fight our way out of it. But the reality is that war seems to take on a life of its own, especially once it gets going strong. I think we should concern ourselves more with how it starts, how to prevent it. This follows the medical analogy.

Moving further along the medical paradigm, I believe we have an antidote for violence. But this antidote requires a healthy and disciplined mind. The antidote to violence is to have the discipline, strength and bravery to not be violent under any circumstance. And I think we can agree that if everyone took this antidote... there would be much less violence.

If you look at the vast majority of people who are involved in violent activities, probably 95% of those people have knowingly and willingly put themselves in a situation of violence. Maybe I am being unrealistic about this, but I believe most people have the option to avoid violence. The problem arises because a lot of people who are involved with violence either believe they don't have a choice or believe it is inevitable or justified.

The major irony and paradox of violence is that most people want to believe they are acting in self-defense of some sort. Very few people are thinking, "Oh, I am the bad guy who is reponsible for this circle of violence." I believe most violent people believe they are justly defending their own interests or those of their people. Just ask Palestine. Just ask Israel. Just ask Gernmany. Just ask Al Qaeda. Etc. By this view, even if we only allowed for so-called "defensive" violence... overall levels of violence would probably not change much.

Again, I believe we each have the choice to not be violent. And that is the only way to stop violence.

Eric I think you are right in your last post when you say that a lot people in violent situations put themselves there. Not all do, there are completely innocent victims, but I would say the majority are there by choice. The difference, however, is that none of the examples that you mentioned had ever been the victims, nor do they claim to be. They are all aggressors and I think that we can all agree that aggressive violence leads nowhere. Germany in the 40's, Palestine, Israel, Al Qaeda and Timothy McVeigh are all just terrorist organizations really that used violence as a way to secure power or other selfish things.

What I was talking about in my post, and what I will defend, is using force when force has been used against you. Not an eye for an eye, not revenge, not they shot at me so I'll shoot back, that's all ignorant meatheadedness. I can really only fully explain what I mean through, again, the example of the Zapatistas. These are people who were virtually abandoned by their government and had their land and homes stolen by their own government. I find it hard to believe that the very government who stole from them would listen to the cries for help coming from the jungle, and so did they. They took up arms for 12 days and 12 days only, for no other reason than to say: enough is enough. And it got the governments attention. Not subtle or pacifistic but, I feel, just. I know this is a flaw in my argument because how are you going to decide when it is right to use violence and for who, so I guess really all I can say is that I believe that there are some cases where violence may not only acceptable, but necessary as well when really is no other option than death. I would never strike first, but I would also never let myself be struck down until I died. I'm sure you won't agree, but that's just the way I feel.

Hello,
I stumbled onto this website while doing a quick google search regarding the charge that Che was a mass murder. It seems to me that most of what I am finding is not backed by any credible source. The closest thing I did find was that Che carried out excecutions towards war criminals, but even this charge lacked a credible source.
I admit to having a biased view towards Che. I simply love the man and everything he stood for. I find that when I read something about him or by him, I become emotional. The whole debate regarding the Che t-shirts is actually very funny. Not only did Che reject worldly materials, but his family is against the commercialization of Che's image. His daughter says that its hurtful and insulting to everything he believed in. With that said, I decided not to buy the shirt. I figure I can show my solidarity in more practical ways. If Che was alive today he would have apposed the war on Iraq (he probably would be fighting in Fallujah today!).
While reading the posts on this site i notice that while people have total love and respect for Che, very few actually have the same feelings towards Castro. While Castro and Che are not the same person, they both shared the same ideals and I do have a certain respect for the man. The Cuban revolution goes further than just free education and health care. Castro gave abortion rights to women the minute he came into power. Ive heard him describe situations of women under the previuos dictatorship where they would seek out "homemade" abortions, putting the mothers life at risk. Even today, he placed laws in cuba making sure that women are well protected by the government. I also know that Castro also elivated the role of the blacks in Cuba. Blacks in latin America are usually the poorest (along with the indiginous population). Castro made the black man equal to any white man in Cuba and I think that is a very honorable cause. Castro also tried to change the anti-gay sentiment in Cuba. In the carribean countries, gays are basically shunned in society. Im sure everyone has heard of the Jamaican reggae singers who are being boycotted in the US due to their homophobic lyrics. Castro on the other hand allowed gays to live peacefully in Cuba, giving them protection by the government. Oner person also made the false statement about not having elections in Cuba for 50 years. Regular elections do occur in Cuba. They may not be presidential, but they are local. Castro praises this, saying that it is individuals that run for office, rather than people representing a political party. In my opinion this is a more organic form of democracy. People become lost in the dogma of their specific political party. We see this in the US everyday with republicans only backing dubya simply because he's a conservative republican. I think the most important thing Castro has done in regards to his presidency, was in exporting the revolution. I dont think people realise that Castro is always sending doctors and nurses and other aid workers to 3rd world countries. With the current AIDS pandemic in Africa, the Cuban government sends plenty of doctors to treat patients and to train others. Most recently, he sent aid workers to Haiti to help with the devastation caused by the tropical storm. Castro even has a free medical school in Cuba that catters to educating other latin amaricans. This kind of opportunity is very helpful for the doctors that emerge from these schools. Not only can they treat patients with proper care, but they can also train others to do the same.
While i dont agree with the serious limits the Castro government has put on free speech and dissent in Cuba, you must also remember the good it has provided its people. Even if the cuban revolution stretched as far as free education and health care, these are prime factors in building a civilized society. I truly believe that if Cuba had not had its revolution, it would have ended up like Haiti. Some scholars even believe that for Haiti to survive in the years to come, it may require its own cuban revolution.
In his youth my father was a communist. He came from a poor area in the middle east and was of the lower class. His inpiration was not the Soviet Union, it was Che and Fidel. My father has abandoned his socialist beliefs now, but he still admires the legacy of both men. I myself am not a socialist, but I dont see the evil in it either. I do believe that it can work for certain societies (Cuba being one of them). Then again, I am Canadian and I do have that certain bias towards socialism.
Since i have written so much as it is, I will leave with this final note. I live in a canadian city that borders the US, and due to our lower drinking age, we recieve many Americans every weekend at our very vibrant night life. In between all the clubs and cafes in our downtown area are dozens of smoke shops selling cuban cigars. In the store window of one such shop is an enormous poster of Che smoking a fat cuban. This is to attract the American customers...

Hala... great comments. I especially like the image of Che with the cigar. How easily he is turned into a symbol of international capitalism!

I think there are two things you are overlooking. First, Che was a soldier. He killed people. You don't have to look for much evidence because it is assumed. And in some ways it is like Hitler. Nobody ever asks how many people Hitler personally killed. The point it is that both were military leaders.

Second, Castro has done some great things in Cuba. I greatly appreciate your bringing some much needed background information into this discussion. He has many great programs, but he has enacted them at the expense of the two of the three most important things in a country: free speech and a vibrant economy. If Castro is such a genius and he really has the interests of his people in mind, then he wouldn't just stop with what he had 20 years ago (let us not forget the country's total stagnation).

I can't think of a single person who would argue that a monarchy or dictatorship is better under almost any circumstance. Let us also not forget that Cuba could easily be the next Haiti BECAUSE of Castro. If there is a power vacuum after he dies and the country has a civil war and hundreds of thousands of people are killed... then maybe the revolution was no revolution at all... but really just a break in the fighting.

Matt... I would also lump the Zapatistas into the category of aggressive military activity. On January 1 of 1994 (I think it was) they declared war against the Mexican government and proceeded to get their asses kicked and to my knowledge it was largely symbolic and they had almost no chance of any significant military victory from the beginning. It was mostly a publicity campaign. I honestly can't say if I think they would have been better off if they never declared war in the first place.

My point is that true defense means laying low or leaving. Imagine you are on the street and someone attacks you. You have two options: fight or flight. Those who choose to fight are 10x more likely to have their heads bashed in or be killed. Those who run will be a lot more likely to live.

I agree that poverty is violence. But by suffering from poverty, one does not necessarily have to inflict that pain upon someone else and continue the circle of violence. The nature of violence is that almost every violent act continues the circle.

True self-defense is not reciprocating a violent act with another violent act, but choosing the safest response to violence, and one that breaks the circle of violence. Very rarely is a person face with what most people think of as individual self-defense (where you get attacked on the street and will be killed if you don't fight back). Those Zapatistas believed they had only one choice: fight. But can we look back and say that they are any better off because of it? Are those individual soldiers better off? A quick check of the facts reveals that many were killed... and yet the people are no better off.

That's the circle of violence. Those people could still be alive, albeit living in poverty.

Eric, I'm sure you expected this, but I have to disagree with you again.

You are right, the Zapitistas never expected a military victory over the Mexican government and they did take up arms for more a symbolic effect than anything else. However, they did exactly what they set out to do. Who gave a shit about (or even knew about for that matter) the indigenous in Chiapas before January 1, 1994? Nobody. Nobody knew about them and nobody cared. So did they succeed even though they lost militarily? I would argue yes. Yes to the fullest degree. Their intention was never to fully defeat the Mexican army, but to finally, for once in their lives, have their voices heard. And they did succeed in that, there's no denying that. Read any of Subcomandantes Marcos' letters and you'll see that, all they wanted was their voices to finally be heard.

And then you say that those who flee are more likely to live that those who stay and fight. You are right here as well, those who run like cowards are more likely to live. But, (and again this is probably a philosophical difference) I would much rather fight for what is rightfully mine and die than have some bullies with bigger guns than me push me around and kick me off of my own land and die. But again, that's just me. If it comes down to fight and die for what's right (and I emphacize right), or flight and live what's wrong, I'll be one of the dead.

And yes, I can honestly say that now the Zapatistas are better off than they were before. Before they were just a bunch of poor indigenous Mexican farmers with no voice, now they are a group that has been given the respect of the government that fucked them over so badly before.

True self defense is not simply not hitting back, true self defense is making sure you don't get hit in the first place.

(And sorry the topic of conversation has strayed so far from Che's shirt, but I feel like we're having a much more interesting conversation here.)

First of all, let's be real here... if you live in Chiapas and you got two kids and a wife... and you get the chance to leave with your family and start a new life somewhere else... and you stay and die and then you got fatherless kids. You might be brave. But kids can't eat bravery and now your wife has twice the burden. The middle option is to stay in Chiapas and not get killed.

The fact that Zapatistas killed people to "get international recognition" for their cause further bolsters my point. International support didn't have a significant impact. It is yet another case of idealism run amok. It is typical of Marxism in action... big talk, or brutal tyranny. Got some examples that go against that? Cuba???

You claim the Zapatistas "have been given the respect of the government". Is that really true? Has the government given up its plans for exploiting the natural resources without compensating the locals (that was one of the biggest complaints)? Are the people better off in terms of health and economy? And any gains the result of an end to the fighting, or is it because the government is actually doing something to help them.

Again, fighting for an idealistic notion of what might be -- but ultimately won't be -- is a lot less noble than putting your ego on ice and having the humility and inner strength to raise a family in poverty, without having any illusions that fighting will solve your problems. I'm not saying fighting NEVER improves a situation. I'm just saying it very rarely does. And even when it does, it is immoral. And Judaism, Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, and Islam all agree with me.

It is actually the weak and cowardly man who chooses violence. Often violence of this sort is akin to suicide. Is suicide a brave act?