Debate on Ernesto “Che” Guevara

I posted a link to an article about Che as my Facebook status, and the following is the debate that ensued.

Anonymous 1: Che’ had good reason to feel the way he did about American capitalists.

Me: hmm… im not sure if that is sarcasm or complete ignorance. So you’re saying there is justification for unbridled hatred and cold murder? Interesting.

Anonymous 1: Would you justify what our government did to Latin America?

Me: Complete non sequitur. Maybe I don’t condone the methods used by the US in LA. However, it is one thing to try and stop the spread of communism, a method of government which, by example from Cuba, China and other LA countries, infringes on basic human rights. It is another thing to be malicious and murder people in cold blood and enjoy doing it. It is even YET another thing to celebrate this behavior and wear it on your chest.
Would you justify extremist Islam and Nazism? These ideologies, too, have ‘justification’ for their actions. The author of the article makes a great point, maybe you should also purchase a Heinrich Himmler t-shirt while you’re celebrating extremism and intolerance.

Trying to ‘justify’ Che’s actions and saying he had ‘good reason’ to do what he did are also two different arguments, you are already rescinding your stance slightly.

Anonymous 2: User submitted a comment which he later deleted that basically said two things. 1) He did not support Che’s violence and believes it is in fact ignorant that so many people display his icon without knowing the history behind him. 2) However, the author of the article in question had misconstrued communism and was characterizing it as something it is not.

Anonymous 1: Augusto Pinochet, The Mendoza family, Batista these men were emplaced simply because they were capitalists. [Their] methods were far worse than the leftists that predated and fought them. You tell me where all those Chileans went. Che'[s] actions are equal to those of Harry Truman.
That article also tries to glorify McCarthy that worthless fear mongering demagogue was a symbol of all that this country should not be.
Che’ stood there in Guatemala and saw what the Americans were all about. We made him what he is.
I agree that it is ironic that so many mindless teens where Che’ upon there chest without full knowledge of his existence.

Me: “Che'[s] actions are equal to those of Harry Truman.”
“Che had good reason to feel the way he did about American capitalists.” – from Anonymous 1.
You seem to support Che’s actions and his disapproval of America, yet you sit and reap the benefits of capitalism and comfortably breathe its air. Ironic? As far as Che’s motives and Truman’s go, I think you should re-read your American history book, or read it if you have yet to. (p.s. the author does not glorify McCarthy whatsoever, re-read that, too)

Anonymous 2 – thanks for your input. It is absolutely true that the original ideology of communism is never successfully carried out in practice. But if this is the case, like you say, then shouldn’t we redefine the word [for practical reasons]? If all we have is one type of example to go off in defining something, then I think it is logical to consider that type of ‘communism’ as the only ‘communism’ we know. The point is, it is never successfully implemented, and is time and time again transformed into a dictatorship.

Anonymous 1: Che’ was a doctor, a man there to help people until he watched his world burn at the hands of American diplomacy. Truman doctrine is what enabled the actions of CIA operatives and other such maneuvers that damned the fates of Latin American nations.
“Why does an obsessive Nazi-hunter like Simon Wiesenthal get positive press while an obssessive Communist-hunter like Joe McCarthy is vilified?” In this comparison it sounds like the author believes the public views of the two should be reversed.

Me: Not being vilified and being glorified are two completely different views. The author is not glorifying McCarthy. Very straightforward there.
I’m done debating this topic. The man was a murderer and would have launched attacks against our country if he had the means – just like his leader Fidel. They both hate(d) America and spent their lives massacring innocent people and exhibiting the most extreme form of intolerance. I will not take their side no matter what their ‘motive’ or ‘justification’ is(was), and I will never condone such staunch hate and cold brutality.
I find it disturbing that you defend a man, who, given the opportunity, would not have thought twice to wave a destructive hand over the same country which gives you such unparalleled freedom and opportunity to express your beliefs, no matter how skewed they may be.
But that is just me.

Anonymous 1: You are a very reasonable man Oliver and I understand your point of view, but I am too well versed in history to believe that there are good and bad guys. There [are] just two sides. We are no more righteous than Che’ it is all a matter of perspective. With that i close my [argument].

December 22-23, 2008