Remembered. It’s a shame that it was only forty-three years ago that he met his well-deserved fate — it should have happened sooner. And it’s appalling that it’s still socially acceptable to wear clothing with his image. It’s a fundamental symptom of the failure of our educational system and academia.
44 thoughts on “Che”
Comments are closed.
Rand,
Speaking of history education and the social acceptability of clothing, I was hoping to see your commentary about the criticism of the Tea Party candidate who was weaing an SS uniform (as part of an historical re-enactment, but I’m still unclear on what sort of re-enactment it was…)
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/10/10/congressional-candidate-nazi-enactment-past/?test=latestnews
It is funny — I know a WWII historical re-enactor who is interested in history and the re-enactments are quite wholesome. But this one seems peculiarly Nazi-focused. Minority Whip Cantor and one of your favorite Representatives, Wasserman Schultz, only seem to disagree about who can repudiate the candidate quicker:
http://www.politico.com/blogs/politicolive/1010/Cantor_repudiates_Republican_involved_in_Nazi_reenactment.html
Anyway, back on topic:
Che t-shirts have a significant silver lining — they save lives!
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/07/03/awesome-colombian-army-duped-farc-by-wearing-che-t-shirts/
Hey guys, let’s talk about how the right-wingers are worse…
Guys? guys?
That’s not what I was saying. How much is there to say about Che t-shirts at this point? They are worn by ignorant kids. Everyone knows this. I was hoping the Nazi uniform might be interesting because one hand, the repudiations might be knee-jerk and unfair – the guy might just be a geek, and on the other hand, Rand has blogged an enormous amount about whether fascism has any presence or appeal in American political culture, and if the Nazi uniform wearing candidate actually finds something appealing about the Nazis, tea party enthusiasts should be just as interested as those who don’t find the tea party to be their cup of tea. Titus, you in particular just recently commented on visceral messages in the 10;10 video. Do you think there are similar messages in Che t-shirts? If so, what do you think of SS uniform wearing candidates? Any messages?
Yes. There exist entities who are incapable of discerning differences between historical reenactments and current endorsements.
Al, cleverly worded! I didn”t catch the ambiguity at first!
“They are worn by ignorant kids.”
Uh nice try, Bob-1. They also seem to find their way into Democratic campaign offices quite often as well.
Ah ha! I wondered if someone disagreed with me about the Che shirts. Josh (or anyone): what do you think depictions of Che in Democratic campaign offices actually means?
Here’s my take: I want to believe in a tea party that is really simply about small government, fiscal responsiblity, and other wholesome sentiments. and of course, I want to believe in a Democratic Party that stands for other various wholesome sentiments (eg preventing parents from learning that their child is going to go untreated for a serious illness because they can’t afford a treatment easily affordable by middle class Americans, or whatever – I don’t want to get hung up on the specifics so long as you grant that, ideally, the Democratic party stands for things much more wholesome than Che’s kind of politics.)
When some of my fellow liberals see a Tea Party candidate in a Nazi uniform, they assume the worst: they assume that this is what the Tea Party really stands for — racism. And when you see a Che t-shirt or flag in a Democratic campaign office, maybe you assume the worst: that the Democratic staffers actually believe what Che believes and actually hopes to do what Che did. I think both assumptions are wrong.
I am convinced that the average Tea Party enthusiast or average Democratic party staffer simply does not truck with Nazis or Communists, that they are fundamentally decent Americans who aren’t particularly racist, and certainly aren’t murderous fascists or communists.
I comment here because I often wonder if I’m talking to basically intelligent people whose enthusiam and interest in politics has caused them to demonize fundamentally decent Americans whose politcs just happen to be ever so slightly left of their own.
“I comment here because I often wonder if I’m talking to basically intelligent people whose enthusiam and interest in politics has caused them to demonize fundamentally decent Americans whose politcs just happen to be ever so slightly left of their own.”
No Bob. Anyone in favor of single payer, huge government intrusion, high taxes and massive regulation is more than slightly left of center and anathema to what America is.
The Democrats and the Republicans are in complete agreement that there should be lower taxes, less regulation, and certainly less government intrusion than there is in in Canada, the UK, Australia and New Zealand and yet life in those countries, despite the differences, is hardly anathema to what America is. The sort of country set up by the likes of Che Guevara, Castro, Hitler, and so forth — those are the anathemas.
Compare and Contrast
I’ve seen more versions of the story than the two Althouse discusses.
But here’s the point: Regardless of whether Iott is a geek, a Nazi, or some third possibility, and regardless of whether Isabel really is a Che supporter or just ignorant or some third possibility, Iott and Maria Isabel aren’t necessarily typical of their political parties, and political partisans shouldn’t presume that they are.
You would not see Tea Parties if ObamaCare had fundamentally been targeted on improving and extending Medicaid. A system that is actually targeted at serving the poor isn’t anathema to most. This would be a system “slightly to the left.”
ObamaCare, however, is about fundamentally changing the way the vast middle receive care.
It’s also hilarious to note that “Nazi” and “Tea Party” are associated mentally to be analogous to relationship between “Che” and “Democrats”. The core driving principle of the Tea Party is smaller government. The few Nazi links are pretty laughable – the publicized posters are dominantly by (proud!) Lyndon LaRouche Democrats, a reenactor or two, and various “anti Nazi” posters misinterpreted by idiots. (A swastika with a giant red ‘buster’ symbol across it, or Pelosi with a Hitler-stache aren’t “pro-Nazi”)
I live near a two story tall statue of Lenin. You may feel the mainstream of Democrats aren’t particularly Left. But this statue is adored and worshiped by Seattlites. There’s a nearby cafe, and I’ve spent a couple lazy Sundays asking people what precisely motivates their desire to have their picture taken with Lenin. It isn’t pretty.
Che believed in spreading communist ideals throughout the world by war. Is this much different from W’s policy to bring his own flavor of democracy to the Middle East by invasion? At least Che had enough panache to actually fight himself instead of sending others to do his bidding.
Hitler was different in that he invaded countries to expand his own empire’s territory and wasn’t shy to employ ethnic cleansing regardless of ideology.
Castro is a pragmatist. He is more interested in sustaining his own regime than any sort of ideological considerations.
PS: I still think Che was a jackass.
PPS: I used to own a t-shirt with a bald eagle and the US flag. Does that make me a right wing nutter? (I am a EU citizen).
“Is this much different from W’s policy to bring his own flavor of democracy to the Middle East by invasion?”
Major difference. Dubya directed his policy against those who promoted violence against us and our allies. Nice try playing moral equivalence, maybe you’ll get lucky next time.
“Che believed in spreading communist ideals throughout the world by war. Is this much different from W’s policy to bring his own flavor of democracy to the Middle East by invasion? At least Che had enough panache to actually fight himself instead of sending others to do his bidding.”
Thank you for being exhibit A in my rebuttal to Bob. If you don’t understand the fundamental difference between turning free people into the oppressed (Che) and giving a once free people their freedom back (Bush) I weep for the future of whatever EU country in which you reside. Che liked murdering people not fighting.
Yes, Bob they are. The current level of government intrusion in those countries is entirely unacceptable to the majority here. Poll after poll points this out.
Bob-1 Says:
October 10th, 2010 at 2:45 pm
How much is there to say about Che t-shirts at this point? They are worn by ignorant kids.
Yet somehow those kids are knowledgeable enough not to wear swastikas and Hitler mustaches in public. Why is that?
Rickl,
On the one hand, that’s why Iott is taking criticism for wearing a swastika(*). On the other hand, Rand’s whole point (as I understand it) is that American kids need to be better educated about Che.
(*) It is worth reading the Atlantic piece, and not just Althouse. It is here:
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/10/why-is-this-gop-house-candidate-dressed-as-a-nazi/64319/
The WWII re-enactor I know is part of a WWII study group that examines the whole war — from the generals strategies to the everyday life of a foot soldier.
In contrast, Iott is part of a group that dresses up like one particular division of the Waffen SS, a division as criminal as any other part of the SS — this division slaughtered Hungarian Jews. I find the focus of the group peculiar at best.
I suspect that some of the people who wear Che shirts today are doing so precisely to annoy people like Rand, who would seek to tell them what they should and shouldn’t wear.
History has a great many monsters who are nonetheless treated by some people as heroes, and you can spend all your time getting upset at people for being insufficiently upset about that. In Florida and Tennessee they even named public high schools after one such monster, and the enrolled descendants of his victims get a daily reminder of their place in the world. They probably put the name on t-shirts, too.
Clearly more than you suspected!
If you don’t understand the fundamental difference between turning free people into the oppressed (Che) and giving a once free people their freedom back (Bush) I weep for the future of whatever EU country in which you reside. Che liked murdering people not fighting.
Che died in Bolivia. Bolivia was controlled at the time by a military junta which came to power by a coup d’etat. Which ‘free’ people in Bolivia was he oppressing?
Che liked meddling with the internal affairs of other states by engaging in war with them. To me this is not substantially different from the US invasion of Iraq or other US ‘peacekeeping’ efforts.
I still think both Che and W were among the most dangerous kind of populist warmongers the history of the world has seen.
Godzilla, Bob-1, and Jim — it’s like a Stupidfest. So now I know what happens if you say “Che Guevara” seven times in a mirror: someone comes out and starts complaining about a high school in Tennessee.
“Che died in Bolivia. Bolivia was controlled at the time by a military junta which came to power by a coup d’etat.”
You would be wrong
“Che liked meddling with the internal affairs of other states by engaging in war with them. To me this is not substantially different from the US invasion of Iraq or other US ‘peacekeeping’ efforts.”
So one form of government is like any other? Communism or Totalitarianism are as good as Democracy? Come back when you grow up.
“I suspect that some of the people who wear Che shirts today are doing so precisely to annoy people like Rand, who would seek to tell them what they should and shouldn’t wear.”
There’s a big difference between telling someone what to wear and telling them they’re an idiot for doing it.
There’s a big difference between telling someone what to wear and telling them they’re an idiot for doing it.
It’s typical leftist projection. Jim assumes that because he likes running other peoples’ lives, everyone does.
I suspect that some of the people who wear Che shirts today are doing so precisely to annoy people like Rand, who would seek to tell them what they should and shouldn’t wear.
It’s a statement against evil dress codes. Got it.
@Bill Maron: did you even bother reading the Wikipedia page you linked to? Quote:
In 1964, a military junta overthrew President Estenssoro at the outset of his third term. The 1969 death of President René Barrientos Ortuño, a former member of the junta elected president in 1966, led to a succession of weak governments.
The revolutionary leader Che Guevara was executed by a team of CIA officers and Bolivian Army on 9 October 1967 in Bolivia.
I do not consider junta members as democratically elected leaders any more than I would count Saddam as the democratically elected leader of Iraq.
I still think both Che and W were among the most dangerous kind of populist warmongers the history of the world has seen.
Yes, we all remember how much personal pleasure George Bush took from viewing mass executions, and blowing out peoples’ brains himself.
There’s a big difference between telling someone what to wear and telling them they’re an idiot for doing it./i>
Rand is saying it shouldn’t be “socially acceptable” to wear Che shirts. That’s using social disapproval to tell someone what not to wear.
“I do not consider junta members as democratically elected leaders any more than I would count Saddam as the democratically elected leader of Iraq.”
You should warn people before writing things like that. I blew Diet Dr. Pepper for 20 feet. You said the junta was in power and it obviously wasn’t. NOW you’re going to qualify what you wrote after the fact. Given the country’s political troubles, any election is a victory.
Here’s a little more: “General Barrientos was quite charismatic, and was throughout his presidency popular with ordinary Bolivians, aided by the fluency with which he spoke Quechua, the most important native language among the Bolivian peasantry.”
Are you sure you’re not a Democrat?
Jim,
You don’t even parse well. He is appalled it is still acceptable. Given his libertarian bent and your statist one, I think he is less likely to dictate to anyone.
Look everyone, Jim is right — charging twenty bucks to dad’s credit card down at Hot Topic is the ultimate way to stick it to The Man and prove what a rebel you are! Hooking-up with the baristas at Starbuck’s has nothing to do with it…
He is appalled it is still acceptable
No, he is appalled it is still socially acceptable — i.e. that people don’t let the people around them know that they shouldn’t wear Che shirts.
I think he is less likely to dictate to anyone.
It isn’t about what you think, it’s about what he wrote, which was a call for social disapproval.
Submitted for your consideration: two students in an Ivy League college. One wears a Che t-shirt, the other wears a t-shirt with the image of Ayn Rand. Guess which student is the pariah on campus?
“It isn’t about what you think, it’s about what he wrote, which was a call for social disapproval.”
Where’s Goldstein when you need him. You’re attaching a meaning to his words. You’re interpreting what he wrote to mean something he didn’t write because you WANT to.
OUTLAW!!
I believe wearing a Che T shirt or owning a poster featuring his likeness demonstrates the state of your morality and intelligence. That combined with the fact that people who do own such things enjoy torturing small furry animals.
Gee Jim, I would wear a Hitler shirt to prove your point but I wouldn’t want to risk getting mistaken for some lefty-toady fascist idiot.
“Godzilla” writes:
I still think both Che and W were among the most dangerous kind of populist warmongers the history of the world has seen.
Drawing a phony moral equivalence between former U.S. President George W. Bush and a totalitarian mass murderer. Aside from being an absurd cheap shot, this is a gross insult to Che’s many victims, as it implies that what happened to them really wasn’t so bad.
And “Jim” writes:
Rand is saying it shouldn’t be “socially acceptable” to wear Che shirts. That’s using social disapproval to tell someone what not to wear.
Conflating social disapproval with coercion. Either “Jim” is being intellectually dishonest, or as a state humper he truly doesn’t understand freedom of association and thinks that everything is only brought about by coercion.
Really, are these posters for real? Are they really willing to sink this low into moral idiocy to defend the indefensible?
Bob sez: “I am convinced that the average Tea Party enthusiast or average Democratic party staffer simply does not truck with Nazis or Communists,”
Well you are right about the Tea Party, and wrong about the average Democratic Party member. The average democratic party member refuses to admit that their policies are socialist and communist (depending on the policy) but they are, in fact, such. There is no other way to describe nationalising and mandating the purchase of health care, the seizure and nationalization of the largest banks and car manufacturers by the government, and the desire to throttle free speech that they don’t agree with or that challenges them. If Obama had a hispanic name, like, say, Hugo Chavez, and if this were a latin american country, the media would be all over him as a socialist thug and tyrant, and would have no trouble calling him what he is.
““Godzilla” writes:
I still think both Che and W were among the most dangerous kind of populist warmongers the history of the world has seen.”
Godzillia is just showing himself to be the same assclown and light-weight thinker he has always been.
average Democratic party staffer simply does not truck with Nazis or Communists
Right, Democratic party staffers just call Republicans Nazis and the go back to the office.
I wonder if Bob supported the One Nation rally?
Did you bother to read the thing you linked, Bob?
Lemme quote for you: Iott released several other photos on his campaign website that showed him in uniform as part of a World War I re-enactment and Civil War re-enactment in which he and his son donned Union uniforms.
So, uh, he’s not just “a Nazi/SS reenactor”, is he?
For that matter, if you follow their link to his website, you’ll see what Fox left out – that he also did American WWII reenactment.
So, Union Civil War. WWI US. WWII US. And German WWII.
Plainly he must be a Nazi sympathizer – it follows logically, because a politician repudiated it.
Or maybe politicians are grandstanding hacks?
(Full disclosure: I’d never even heard of Mr. Iott before this pointless kerfuffle.)
(Full disclosure: I’d never even heard of Mr. Iott before this pointless kerfuffle.)
Me neither. Guy is clever like a fox to get the supporters of his opponent to get his name out their for recognition and convince people that his opponents has deranged supporters. I’m impressed.