Knowledge 6 6 6
27th January 2004, 19:18
Ok, now I've said alot of good and bad about Guevara so let me sum up what I think of him.
Che was a great man in terms of standing up for Cuba (I would say his native country, but he was born in Argentina), and practically everywhere who were dominated by American impirealism. I'm totally for that, in the sense that I'm totally against anyone trying to colonialise the world. America's doing that today with Iraq and Afghanistan and its really disgusting...
Guevara was a rebel yes, however committed murder as well. He murdered a lot of people during his lifetime, now of course this can be justified and viewed in many different ways. He did it because he needed to prove his point, and sometimes the only form of doing so is by execution. Is it right? Well...you have to look at the circumstances around it, and what state of mind he was in as well. I dont know about you, but if I saw my own people being killed by impirealists...I wouldn't be exactly 'passive'...
Guevara moreso was an intellect. Just read his speeches that he had written to various different organisations, most notably the UN in 1964. His letters to Castro as well exemlpify his knowledge. He knew not only what was going on in Latin America, but worldwide. Constantly, he would talk about what America is doing in Africa, etc. Che knew the international spectrum very well, and his book, 'Guerilla Warfare' continues the notion of his intelligence.
Overall, he was a great man, committed in my opinion, error in terms of killing people to prove a point. I'm not saying every revolutionary should be passive and non-violent, what I am saying is that violence displays weakness, and that is probably Che's downfall. Like I said, being passive when your own ppl are being beaten to a bloody pulp isnt exactly the first thing on anyone's agenda, however, what would have elevated che to an even higher status of rebellion would be his tolerance to injustice. He didn't tolerate injustice well as was shown through the killings...
I've always stated to follow any one person blindly is slavery, which was coined by a man I look up to, in Bhagat Singh of India. He was muchlike Che, a rebellious violent man who would use force to prove a point. I look up to Che as well, but one cannot ignore the bad that he did.
I honestly believe if you dont pay attention to the bad about a person, it will only bias your viewpoint of them. You need to know the good and the bad. In the history forum, I even demonstrated evil that Gandhi did, because everyone seemed to rever him as an 'all-good' person. Even Gandhi wasn't all good...
If you dont understand the bad a person does, you'll never understand the good, because your view will always be biased. To those that keep trying to justify Che's killings, what if he had killed a loved one of yours? Put all political views aside, would you still think of him so highly? I don't think (for the most part) you would...
Don't be biased. period.
Che was a great man in terms of standing up for Cuba (I would say his native country, but he was born in Argentina), and practically everywhere who were dominated by American impirealism. I'm totally for that, in the sense that I'm totally against anyone trying to colonialise the world. America's doing that today with Iraq and Afghanistan and its really disgusting...
Guevara was a rebel yes, however committed murder as well. He murdered a lot of people during his lifetime, now of course this can be justified and viewed in many different ways. He did it because he needed to prove his point, and sometimes the only form of doing so is by execution. Is it right? Well...you have to look at the circumstances around it, and what state of mind he was in as well. I dont know about you, but if I saw my own people being killed by impirealists...I wouldn't be exactly 'passive'...
Guevara moreso was an intellect. Just read his speeches that he had written to various different organisations, most notably the UN in 1964. His letters to Castro as well exemlpify his knowledge. He knew not only what was going on in Latin America, but worldwide. Constantly, he would talk about what America is doing in Africa, etc. Che knew the international spectrum very well, and his book, 'Guerilla Warfare' continues the notion of his intelligence.
Overall, he was a great man, committed in my opinion, error in terms of killing people to prove a point. I'm not saying every revolutionary should be passive and non-violent, what I am saying is that violence displays weakness, and that is probably Che's downfall. Like I said, being passive when your own ppl are being beaten to a bloody pulp isnt exactly the first thing on anyone's agenda, however, what would have elevated che to an even higher status of rebellion would be his tolerance to injustice. He didn't tolerate injustice well as was shown through the killings...
I've always stated to follow any one person blindly is slavery, which was coined by a man I look up to, in Bhagat Singh of India. He was muchlike Che, a rebellious violent man who would use force to prove a point. I look up to Che as well, but one cannot ignore the bad that he did.
I honestly believe if you dont pay attention to the bad about a person, it will only bias your viewpoint of them. You need to know the good and the bad. In the history forum, I even demonstrated evil that Gandhi did, because everyone seemed to rever him as an 'all-good' person. Even Gandhi wasn't all good...
If you dont understand the bad a person does, you'll never understand the good, because your view will always be biased. To those that keep trying to justify Che's killings, what if he had killed a loved one of yours? Put all political views aside, would you still think of him so highly? I don't think (for the most part) you would...
Don't be biased. period.