Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Che Guevara - The Racist

page: 3
5
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 19 2009 @ 04:27 PM
link   
stateless didn't actually experience any of the atrocities he's accused guevera of. it's second hand material. he learned about it later, by his own account. i'm asking for sources, nothing else.

Oh! and you have first hand experience?
The shots I heard when I was a youth while standing on the malecon was 1st hand experience. More than I can say for you. That I investigated what those shot were later when I became a man, sure it came from other sources. My family mostly. later there were documentaries verifying what I already had seen and heard. It all came together. Unlike you I lived it.

What you know is not even 2nd hand material. Perhaps yours is 5th, 6th or 7th hand experience. Or maybe just a bunch of ideological diatribe. You can minimize all of history that way. You can say that Roman empire didn't exist because all the evidence is handed down from someone else. But there is all the aqueducts and the coliseum. Same for WWII. It didn't happen. So are all the pictures of the holocaust and all those white crosses at Normandy are just a hoax right? So you see the crosses, the pictures, the aqueducts and the coliseum and you investigate the history behind it right? There are numerous accounts that coincide with what you can verify with your senses. Right? Well I heard those shots on the Malecon when I was kid. I investigated and found the story behind what I heard. That together with all I experienced in Cuba at the time comes together to have the version of the truth that is closest to reality. Your version is not real, it is myth.

As for the language, well that's too bad that you don't know Spanish. But the events happened in Spanish, not English. The witnesses speak in Spanish. Perhaps it's incumbent on you to get the translated transcripts of these accounts to refute them. I don't need to prove anything to you. I already know what happened. You need to learn a bit more so you don't argue from ignorance. Perhaps if you take the time to learn who Guevara really was, who was the monster behind the pretty words (some his, some attributed to him by admirers) you would find the need for a new hero.




posted on Nov, 19 2009 @ 06:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Stateless
 


aw well jeez, here was i reading books, historical accounts and biographical assessments like a sucker. i should have just listened to a random person making a claim on a speculative conspiracy site without any supportive material or substantive data except a documentary in a language i don't speak!!

what was i thinking?



posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 08:18 AM
link   
.

[edit on 20-11-2009 by Stateless]



posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 08:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by pieman
reply to post by Stateless
 


aw well jeez, here was i reading books, historical accounts and biographical assessments like a sucker. i should have just listened to a random person making a claim on a speculative conspiracy site without any supportive material or substantive data except a documentary in a language i don't speak!!

what was i thinking?



You have to search deep within yourself for that answer.

Ah! But now we're getting to the root of your misinformation. Selective information that supports preconceived perceptions. Ideologues on the left and the right make this mistake. Was it you that said there are 2 sides to every story? Or are you just picking and choosing to satisfy your ideological agenda? Trying to erase Guevaras crimes with his words? What he did is indefensible. Don't we determine who a person is by their actions and not by their words? It's what you do that makes you who you are, not what you say. Why would you want to make Guevara an exception to this universal truth? You have to look at the bad and the good and Guevara had so much more of the bad that you couldn't possibly justify the good. Because anything good that he may have appeared to promulgate was just a justification to do bad. The good was to justify being bad, the bad did not justify the good. His bad was criminal conduct, the good were only words. Its like you justifying a pedophile's actions just because he gives little kids candy on halloween. And how can you ignore so much credible information that describes who Guevara was? Yes in another language. It's incumbent on you, not me, to find out what those people are saying before you blindly support Guevara if you don't know what the hell they are saying. I know what they are saying so I can make the argument, you can't.

Sure, I may be a random person. You keep trying to minimize this random persons personal experience to justify a homicidal criminal. And I don't care that he had leftist leanings like I do. Many random persons faced firing squads under Guevaras orders. At least this random person has some of personal experience. Something you don't. I heard the shots that day on the Malecon, you didn't. I investigated what was behind the sounds of the shots. First person accounts similar to the ones in the video. When I've been to Cuba I don't stay in the tourist hotels, I stay with family in the countryside and the city. I talk to my people that have lived the Cuban Revolution all their lives. Do you have this experience? Do you have access to ordinary Cubans like I do?

So be a bit more rational in your critique instead of just believing one side of the story that blindly satisfies your ideological leanings. Tell me instead that you are an admirer of Marx and Engels instead of the bloodthirsty criminal the likes of Guevara. I don't ever remember Marx and Engels writing in support of "random" summary executions without trials in front of firing squads. Do you?

"Fusilamos y seguiremos fusilando".
Guevara in front of the UN.



[edit on 20-11-2009 by Stateless]



posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 08:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Cythraul
 


there is nothing even remotely racist about any of those statements.

you need to look up what the word racist means.

if you need help let me know.


[edit on 11/20/2009 by JPhish]



posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 08:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by JPhish
reply to post by Cythraul
 


there is nothing even remotely racist about any of those statements.

you need to look up what the word racist means.

if you need help let me know.


[edit on 11/20/2009 by JPhish]


I agree. To the neo-nazis those words are not racist at all. They are perfectly normal.

"rac-ism–noun 1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others."

from dictionary.com

Boy those words sure fit that definition. Can you elaborate on the contradiction?

[edit on 20-11-2009 by Stateless]



posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 08:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Stateless

I agree. To a skinhead those words are not racist at all. They are perfectly normal.

"rac-ism–noun 1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others."

from dictionary.com

Boy those words sure fit that definition.


you found a very diluted definition, so i'll help you.

Racism is believing that a particular race is inferior to another.

That's it.

The word the OP and yourself are looking for is prejudice.

which is judging an individual based on race, creed, sex, clothing, status, etc.

They are two very different things and one should not confuse the two.

Our language has been diluted enough as it is.

[edit on 11/20/2009 by JPhish]



posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 10:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Stateless
And how can you ignore so much credible information that describes who Guevara was? Yes in another language. It's incumbent on you, not me, to find out what those people are saying before you blindly support Guevara if you don't know what the hell they are saying.


i'm not ignoring it, i just don't understand it.

i don't even know where to start looking to find english transcripts. i've tried looking for evidence of what you are claiming, from reliable sources, on my own and i can't find it.

the information and accounts i have found all say that there were executions, but that's fairly normal after a revolution or a war, and that they were justified in the context of the revolution, which is why i asked you to support your claim.

i have no issue with disagreeing with che guevara and i don't blindly support him, but neither am i willing to blindly accept your rewriting of history.



posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 09:49 AM
link   
?

[edit on 1-12-2009 by Stateless]



posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 10:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by JPhish

Originally posted by Stateless

I agree. To a skinhead those words are not racist at all. They are perfectly normal.

"rac-ism–noun 1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others."

from dictionary.com

Boy those words sure fit that definition.


you found a very diluted definition, so i'll help you.

Racism is believing that a particular race is inferior to another.

That's it.

The word the OP and yourself are looking for is prejudice.

which is judging an individual based on race, creed, sex, clothing, status, etc.

They are two very different things and one should not confuse the two.

Our language has been diluted enough as it is.

[edit on 11/20/2009 by JPhish]


You want to have your cake and eat it too.

Geez, you are a very confused individual. How many time can you contradict yourself in so few words.

First you contradict me, then you contradict yourself. Then you try to redefine racism while agreeing and disagreeing with me on the same principle. Then it seems that you don't know what the word diluted means. Isn't it you that is trying to dilute the definition of racism when in fact the definition of racism is broad and beyond the root word "race"? For your information, and I don't know whether you know this or not, but if you check any dictionary the majority of words have more than one definition. Have you checked a dictionary lately and noticed that? Race can also mean an athletic competition. Is that to you further diluting the word or broadening its definition? Or are they two different words spelled the same way whose definition is determined by the context in which the word is used? So isn't it the context in which the word is used that gives it its meaning? Certainly you can accept that basic underlying principle as to what the purpose of language is.

Certainly racism (in the broad definition I posted) is based on prejudice seeded by stereotypes which are seeded in ignorance. If my prejudice is based on race, cultural, ethnic, religious or national origin then it is defined as racism. If my prejudiced is based for example that I believe that Fords are inferior to Chevys or that all teachers are liberals and all CEO's are conservatives then that prejudiced is not racist. That is very simple to grasp, don't you think?

In conclusion, Mr. Guevara was making the his statements in a racist context which would classify him as a racist, even by your own definition.



posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 12:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by pieman

Originally posted by Stateless
And how can you ignore so much credible information that describes who Guevara was? Yes in another language. It's incumbent on you, not me, to find out what those people are saying before you blindly support Guevara if you don't know what the hell they are saying.


i'm not ignoring it, i just don't understand it.

i don't even know where to start looking to find english transcripts. i've tried looking for evidence of what you are claiming, from reliable sources, on my own and i can't find it.

the information and accounts i have found all say that there were executions, but that's fairly normal after a revolution or a war, and that they were justified in the context of the revolution, which is why i asked you to support your claim.

i have no issue with disagreeing with che guevara and i don't blindly support him, but neither am i willing to blindly accept your rewriting of history.


I really appreciate your honesty. It is hard to find translations. I would try Amazon.com for books. I don't want to recommend any one source in particular because I have found that most of them are biased and expound contradicting ideological mindsets. The trick is to sift through the information and find out what is fact, what is ideology and what is based on hate. For example there is one account by of one of Guevaras ex-comrades that say that the Cubans called him "El Chancho" which means little pig. This is because the Cubans said Guevara emitted an offensive body odor. Well this kind of information or comment is irrelevant because I'm certain that all the guerrillas went days without bathing and in the tropical heat that would probably generate body odors that you probably didn't know existed. In addition doing your natural necessities in the tropic without proper sanitation probably made privates smell pretty putrid. So I feel that this kind of name calling is common among Latin cultures and most everyone obtained nicknames. Guevara being an outsider, not Cuban but Argentine, ultimately obtained the nickname Che. Even though that as a Cuban I know that nickname was not originally intended to be complimentary. Of course Guevara being a proud Argentine probably lost the El Chancho nickname as he gained respect among his comrades. I am also pretty sure that this nickname of El Chancho was not used directly to his face. Even Castro called him Che.

As far as executions being normal I don't see anything normal about these executions. These guys had already won. The people who fought against the Rebels and were executed were defenseless, they had already been defeated. But there were also a lot of people who were executed before the revolutionary firing squads on the flimsiest of suspicions. I say suspicion because there was in a lot of cases with no concrete evidence. If you are going to deprive a person of his life I say you nedd concrete evidence that the extermination of that individual is for the safety of other people. Of course safety could also be accomplished with incarceration and rehabilitation. But in these cases if you were suspected you die. I for example could have been allied with the Rebels and I could accuse you of being a Batistiano because you may have slept with my wife. Many executions were really personal vendettas. There is the story about how one of the guards was handed a list of names of individuals that were to be executed the next day. The guard asked Guevara, "Comandante these people have not had a trial yet? To which Guevara replied, "We will execute them after the trail". There was a decree that anyone in Batistas army above the rank of Sergeant was automatically sentenced to the firing squad. Of course that today is denied by the Castro government, but I remember it.

continued



posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 12:14 PM
link   
I will say that a lot of the myth of Guevara is just that myth. Some of it perpetuated by the elitist Hollywood crowd like Robert Redford and his Motorcycle Diaries which I watched. I recently watched the movie Che with Benicio del Toro. Of course the movie jumped from the victorious trip to Havana to Guevaras adventure in Bolivia where he met his just end. Missing was his tenure at La Cabana were he was executioner-in-chief. Also missing was his failed adventure in the Congo. His failed adventure in Bolivia could not be avoided since it cost him his life. At the end of part one there is a scene as the guerillas are driving to Havana after their victory in Santa Clara and a group of guerillas pass Guevara on the road in a car they had confiscated from one of Batista's snipers. Well when they told Guevara were they got the car Guevara portrayed in his mythological persona of being humane told them to return the car and to walk if they couldn’t get a ride. The message being that they were not going to steal and plunder. This scene reminded me of the lie of the myth. I personally remembered three armed guerillas coming to my aunts’ house in Havana after that triumphant ride from Santa Clara were my uncle had left a late model Chrysler DeSoto at her house. I specifically remember them demanding the keys to the car, my aunt handing them over and the three of them driving off. We never saw that car again, it was never returned. Were was the decree by Guevara prohibiting this? These types of confiscations were not limited to cars but also to houses, property and other personal belongings. It was a common occurrance. It started small and it worked its way up to confiscation of business including that owned by foreign nationals. My aunt eventually was evicted from her house because someone in the Castro regime wanted it. She was assigned a small one bedroom apartment. I could go on.

[edit on 1-12-2009 by Stateless]



posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 02:04 PM
link   



posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 04:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Stateless
 


thanks for coming back to this thread and giving me such interesting links. i'm working my way through them.

so far, i have to say, i'm not exactly stunned. he's hardly saintly but neither does it strike me that he's some sort of arch-villain. at the same time i can see why some people might find him unpalatable.

all in all, as far as i can see, he's pretty much middle of the road in terms of revolutionary leaders, sad but true.



posted on Dec, 2 2009 @ 04:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by pieman
reply to post by Stateless
 


thanks for coming back to this thread and giving me such interesting links. i'm working my way through them.

so far, i have to say, i'm not exactly stunned. he's hardly saintly but neither does it strike me that he's some sort of arch-villain. at the same time i can see why some people might find him unpalatable.

all in all, as far as i can see, he's pretty much middle of the road in terms of revolutionary leaders, sad but true.


Hell, the guy failed at pretty much every revolution he undertook. He was appointed head of the central bank in Cuba, and managed to screw up the cuban economy. Havana was the Las Vegas of Latin America and now look at it. After that he ran off to Africa to screw up god knows what then came back to Bolivia to stir up revolution and ended up at the business end of a firing squad. How the hell did that guy ever get a T-shirt?



posted on Dec, 2 2009 @ 05:20 AM
link   
reply to post by ludaChris
 


a guy painted a picture with him looking all iconic. he didn't bother copy righting it and it ended up on posters and t-shirts during the pro-communist fads in the 70's, along with mao and lenin and whomever else. guevara looks better than the others and so his image endured.

has anyone ever gotten their picture on a t-shirt for successfully running a central bank?

[edit on 2/12/09 by pieman]



posted on Dec, 2 2009 @ 04:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by pieman
reply to post by ludaChris
 


a guy painted a picture with him looking all iconic. he didn't bother copy righting it and it ended up on posters and t-shirts during the pro-communist fads in the 70's, along with mao and lenin and whomever else. guevara looks better than the others and so his image endured.

has anyone ever gotten their picture on a t-shirt for successfully running a central bank?

[edit on 2/12/09 by pieman]


Point taken, just saying as romanticized as he was by some people, all he really accomplished is murdering many people and helping turn Cuba from a good place to live or visit into a down right #ty one. The downfall of the paradise that was Cuba was not his fault alone, but he helped play a major role. It was an attempt at ironic humor, maybe I missed. You know, I murdered many people, and helped destroyed an economy and all I got was this lousy T-shirt. I'll lay it on thicker next time.



posted on Dec, 2 2009 @ 05:00 PM
link   
no, i got it, i thought i responded in kind, clearly a great success all round


yeah, the man is totally romantisised. in some ways, the less that is known about a historical figure, the more romantisised they become. it makes you glad that every second program on the history channel is about hitler.

i suppose, in a way, that is what this thread is about, history from different perspectives and what it all means to the outside observer. learning lessons from history is supposed to be the point, but what exactly are the lessons and who has the right to teach them.

on a somewhat related note, i watched a program on BBC earlier, it seems stalin is being somewhat redeemed in the eyes of the russian people for this very reason. although a third of people believe he was a criminal, more (they didn't say how many more) think he wasn't. to me, it seemed that the reason was that so few people in russia seemed to know anything about him.

it also made me wonder if what we know about him is all true.....that could be a whole different thread.


[edit on 2/12/09 by pieman]



posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 11:11 AM
link   



posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 11:44 AM
link   





new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join