Che's take on gays

[EL Revolucionario]

What was Che's take on gays? WHat did he feel towards them?

[YKTMX]

I wouldn't be able to comment directly on Che's views but the Cuban guerillas were generally rather chauvinistic and had a kind of "machismo" attitude.

The treatment of homosexuals and AIDS sufferers in the years subsequent to the revolution has been appaling.

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

In one of the biographies I read, it reported about someone in the Bolivia mission being "disowned" by the guerillas because of his less thanmasculine ways. I suppose Che's attitude was similar. Latin American men at the time tended to play the old "machismo" game as YouKnowTheyMurderedX says.

But you must remember that Che's time was the late 1950's. You'll find few people who had such an acceptance of homosexuals like many people today have.

[Subversive Pessimist]

I suppose Che's attitude was similar.

If that is so, I am no longer an admire of Che. All true revolutionary should respect another revolutionary for what he do, not on how he looks like, or who he likes.

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

Ancient Greek, Roman and Egyptian leaders, the great ones, all frowned upon homosexuality.

Any of your "favourite" revolutionaries from the period prior to the second World War and shortly following it would not have approved of homosexuality.

Malcolm X did not approve of homosexuality. Whether you favour Trotsky, Lenin... they woul not have had a favourable view of homosexuality.

Acceptance of homosexuality has only come along majorly in our generation and it's unfair to have a bad opinion of people in the passed who did not approve of it. Your grandparents and certainly their parents would've also frowned upon it.

You have to look at generational differences of attitudes when you judge men and women.

[CubanFox]

Originally posted by Socialsmo o [email protected] 31 2004, 06:51 AM
Ancient Greek, Roman and Egyptian leaders, the great ones, all frowned upon homosexuality.

Any of your "favourite" revolutionaries from the period prior to the second World War and shortly following it would not have approved of homosexuality.

Malcolm X did not approve of homosexuality. Whether you favour Trotsky, Lenin... they woul not have had a favourable view of homosexuality.

Acceptance of homosexuality has only come along majorly in our generation and it's unfair to have a bad opinion of people in the passed who did not approve of it. Your grandparents and certainly their parents would've also frowned upon it.

You have to look at generational differences of attitudes when you judge men and women.
And on top of the view of gays of the time, Che had the "machismo culture" of Latin America heaping chauvinism and homophobia on him.

It's a bit like someone in 100 years hating us for thinking paedophilia is disgusting. Opinions change.

And besides, nobody is perfect. You shouldn't heap hatred on Che for one small facet of his personality.

[YKTMX]

Whether you favour Trotsky, Lenin... they woul not have had a favourable view of homosexuality.

Actually, Bolshevik Russia was one of the first countries ever to legalise homosexuality.

[Subversive Pessimist]

Is that so? A Russian I talked to today said if you were a homosexual, you were to be punished 7 years in jail. Note that this person is a communist, pro-Soviet.


It's a bit like someone in 100 years hating us for thinking paedophilia is disgusting. Opinions change.


That's true.

[Karo de Perro]

Che was married twice ... each time it was to a woman ... ... ... go figure.

[Subversive Pessimist]

What is your point? Even though he was most likely attracted to woman, doesn't mean he hated, or had negative feelings towards homosexuals.

[Karo de Perro]

Love and the tendency of attraction is much like a religious experience ... by this equation tell me ... ... ... do you really think Muslim fanatics or any religious fanatic for that matter condones the religion of others?

I m not about to pacify anyones ass by tellin them the shit they want to hear ... if youre a homosexual then so be it but know and understand that you can never rightly use Che as a means to validate the choice you made in this matter.

Chances are,though I cannot nor will not attempt to speak for a man nearly four decades dead ... but,based on a logical examination and analysis of Che the man and his personal views I would gamble to say that he wouldve loathed and despised homosexuals ... for instance it seems that Che,as I,preferred the teachings of Alfred Adler to that of Freud and thus by this fact coupled with many other aspects of Ches mental construct one could touch upon or else explore indepth the findings would most likely indicate someone that modern liberals would label as being 'homophobic'.

Not exactly what the libertines want to hear no doubt ... tuff shit no ... deal with it.

[Subversive Pessimist]

I'm not a homosexual. I don't 'like' seeing homosexuals making out, but that doesn't mean I accept it. I think we should wait and see if there is any documentation brought up, before we jump to conclusions.

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

I don't think it matters.

It's more than likely that Che didn't approve of homosexuality, but it was a generational and a cultural thing then. Use of the word "nigger" wasn't even frowned at years ago.

I think, ComradeStrawberry, as you've agreed with what CubanFox and myself were getting at, that you agree that you shouldn't penalise Che for not approving of homosexuality.

[imperator]

lets see... all of history man has frowned upon homosexuals. Today, they are accepted as normal. So, does that mean we are right , and we've been wrong for so many millenia? sounds pretty conceited to me, sounds like a bunch of kids saying "we know best"

Many unique traits can be attributed to this generation. Wisdom is not among them. This is obvious, and for those who cannot see it, they are merely verifying my point.

[Fidel Castro]

Of course, even today Latin America as a whole is still steeped in the "Macho" culture, and homosexuality, whilst tolerated in most areas, is still frowned upon.

Whilst I was in Cuba, I brought up the subject of homosexual repression with one of my Cuban comrades. He explained to me that the government view right until recent times was a typical one for the region, that homosexuality is something dirty and perverse. However he also explained that the government has appeared to have "caught up" with modern thought and legalised homosexuality and brought in measures giving homosexuals legal rights. The problem is though, even though the government has become more acceptant of homosexuality, the general population has been harder to convince.

I am pretty sure that Che, and Fidel, Raul, Camilo etc would have been anti-homosexual, but I believe that this is normal and to be expected when we consider Che's cultural background and the era in which he lived.

As it has been suggested already, oppinions change. I mean today we find paedophilia disgusting, however in ancient Rome, it was considered pretty normal for a grown man to have a young boy for pleasure.

[YKTMX]

As it has been suggested already, oppinions change. I mean today we find paedophilia disgusting, however in ancient Rome, it was considered pretty normal for a grown man to have a young boy for pleasure.

That is called progress.

As I said, I don't know Che's personal views on homosexuality. If it was however, as some people are suggesting "against it, this would be a flaw. Just because homophobia is the "norm" for a culture and place doesn't excuse submitting to it. In the western world private property, sexism, racism, war, capitalism are the "norms". That doesn't mean people should blindly sumbit to them.

Homphobia is inexcusable.

[Knowledge 6 6 6]

well put YouknowtheymurderedX.

If Che was homophobic, it should not be excused by his time period. Revolutionaries are called so, because they 'revolutionize' 'common' thought...

If Che did not like homosexuals, then that is his personal viewpoint which he was entitled to...if he murdered them, then it is a different matter altogether.

It's one thing to dislike a group, it's another to murder that particular group.

[che's long lost daughter]

Originally posted by Socialsmo o [email protected] 30 2004, 08:51 PM
Ancient Greek, Roman and Egyptian leaders, the great ones, all frowned upon homosexuality.


Wasn't Plato thought of to be gay?

[che's long lost daughter]

Isn't it that Che said that anyone who tremble indignation to any unjustice done to anyone anywhere in the world is a comrade of his. Discriminating against gay people is unjustice so the point is, Che does not want any unjustice done to anybody so why would he do such a thing himself?

[Subversive Pessimist]

Personally, I don't think he was a homophobic. I think that he would have dropped bourgeoisie thought. However, it would most likely have been a scandal if he said openly that he accepted homosexuals, and people would refuse to join his revolution. I try to be open minded and not listen to bourgeoisie propaganda. That's at least how I see it.


Isn't it that Che said that anyone who tremble indignation to any unjustice done to anyone anywhere in the world is a comrade of his. Discriminating against gay people is unjustice so the point is, Che does not want any unjustice done to anybody so why would he do such a thing himself?

Exactly.

[Red Skyscraper]

Ancient Greek, Roman and Egyptian leaders, the great ones, all frowned upon homosexuality.

That's incorrect. Julius Caesar was bisexual, homosexuality was as normal in ancient Greece and Rome as promiscuity. And ancient Egypt also allowed it, just take a look at some of the unedited versions of their myths. Homosexuality was a normal part of cultures of the ancient world. It wasn't until the Christian church came along that homosexuality was frowned upon.

[Eastside Revolt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2004, 06:24 AM
lets see... all of history man has frowned upon homosexuals. Today, they are accepted as normal. So, does that mean we are right , and we've been wrong for so many millenia? sounds pretty conceited to me, sounds like a bunch of kids saying "we know best"

Many unique traits can be attributed to this generation. Wisdom is not among them. This is obvious, and for those who cannot see it, they are merely verifying my point.
No offense man, but what are you trying to say?

That we should stick to a tradition that not only pry's into the bussiness of others, but represses some of the most simple things in life?

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

I agree with imperator's point. Our generation is one filled with too many know-it-all's and brown noses. Why are we so right? Who says we are right? Nobody. Yet we demand that we are.

Anyway, back to the topic. Why are you all trying to be such libertines? Understand that gay people WERE NOT ACCEPTED. And Che's revolution of thought lay in politics. Homosexuality was not a part of politics then.

You cannot criticise a man from the 50's and 60's for not accepting homosexuality.

[RedAnarchist]

In fact, i'm sure the Ancient Greek Spartans encouraged homosexuality in their army so that the soldiers would be bonded more.


If Che was around now, he would have similar views to us on homosexuality/bisexuality, but maybe if he was around now Cuba wouldnt be liberated from American influence and capitalism.

[Subversive Pessimist]

but maybe if he was around now Cuba wouldnt be liberated from American influence and capitalism.

What do you mean?

[RedAnarchist]

I'm saying that Che was around at a time when homosexuality was socially unacceptable, but was around at the right time for a Cuban Revolution. So would you rather have a non-homophobic Che failing to fight a successful Cuban Revolution or a homophobic Che succcessfully doing just that?

[Subversive Pessimist]

So would you rather have a non-homophobic Che failing to fight a successful Cuban Revolution or a homophobic Che succcessfully doing just that?


Maybe I'm just tired and can't get things straight, but I still don't understand. Are you saying that if Che was non-homophobic, he wouldn't be able to fighta succesful revolution? :unsure:

[RedAnarchist]

I'm saying that the circumstances at the time Che was alive were right for a Revolution in Cuba. Nowadays, he would be just as good a guerilla and revolutionary, but the circumstances may not be right for revolution in cuba - meaning that if he was around today, regardless of opinion on homosexuality, he may not be able to overthrow a Batista-like tyrant.

[Guest1]

Originally posted by Socialsmo o [email protected] 31 2004, 05:48 PM
You cannot criticise a man from the 50's and 60's for not accepting homosexuality.
You can, but no man is perfect. The idea is that because he lived in that time period it is reasonable to forgive him for a single flaw. Had he held these views today, it would be a different story all together. That doesn't mean we shouldn't criticize that flaw however.

As for imperator, he and Karo de Perro have each been given a warning point for spouting homophobic rhetoric. The reality is we can say we are right, and we are. Why are we right? Because we are more rational and don't attack people for something that doesn't harm us.

Unlike bible-thumping assholes like imperator. Go back to StormFront imperator, there&#39;s no place for Nazis here <_<

[Fidel Castro]

Just because homophobia is the "norm" for a culture and place doesn&#39;t excuse submitting to it.

You really underestimate the power and importance that the role of culture has to play here. Being a revolutionary does not imply becomming some sort of superhuman who like some sort of machine abandons all that they have inherited, been taught and taken for granted, at least not without years of education.

I am not condoning homophobea, but I am nor am I going to assume that Che, as a revolutionary, was immune to the cultural influence of his era, and would as a revolutionary all of a sudden change his view on the matter.

[Karo de Perro]

Warning, Jul 31 2004, 04:00 PM

Che y Marijuana

God Abolisher


Group: Admin
Posts: 2667
Joined: 19-November 01

Homosexuality is not a choice, homophobia is.

--------------------



Warn? ... look here you fuckin fascist cocksucker I have freedom of speech and nobody and I mean NOBODY - not even my own mother tells me what to or not to say ... so fuckin delete my account and bar me from this site if you like but dont ever think you or any fuckin one else is gonna keep me from speakin my mind&#33;

Homosexuals are fags by choice not by some genetic predisposition and for you to blame nature for some perverted sonofa***** wanting to suck dicks is NO better than religious idiots who blame the devil for the evil they bring on themselves ... you must be one dumb sonofa*****&#33;

So go ahead and delete me ... hell if this site is nothing more than a YMCA for queer liberals pretending to be socialists then I fuckin dont belong here to start with ... either delete me or else dont fuckin attempt to warn me for speakin the truth ... you biased sonofa*****&#33;

I couldnt care less what fags do in the privacy of their own perverted quarters but when they try to take it to the streets and want to push their agenda in everyones face thats when they step over the line ... I dont go around talkin of all the ****s Ive poked and I damn sure dont want to hear some fag braggin about sucking dicks&#33;

Most likely this post will be deleted by the homo-squad but at least I got to fling it at the board ... were my membership to be deleted then to those who,as I,wish to stay true to themselves and preserve their own integrity ... to such ones that are truly loyal to the socialist cause - be well and continue the fight ...


hasta luego mi compadres

[Kookoman]

The thing about issues such as this that piss me off so much is that these are issues.... Some people are gay... *shrug*.

[redstar2000]

...if you&#39;re a homosexual then so be it, but know and understand that you can never rightly use Che as a means to validate the choice you made in this matter.

A small clarification; I believe the general scientific consensus is that gays do not "choose" to be gay...it&#39;s "hard-wired" from birth, most likely from environmental influences in the womb.


Not exactly what the libertines want to hear, no doubt...

Therefore, we "libertines" will ignore it. :lol:


let&#39;s see...all of history man has frowned upon homosexuals. Today, they are accepted as normal. So, does that mean we are right, and we&#39;ve been wrong for so many millennia? Sounds pretty conceited to me, sounds like a bunch of kids saying "we know best".

For all of recorded history? That&#39;s not true.

But even if it were true, so what? At some point, a new understanding of some phenomenon is developed and an old and incorrect understanding is discarded.

How do you feel about that age-old human custom of cannibalism? Think we should resume eating one another?


Many unique traits can be attributed to this generation. Wisdom is not among them. This is obvious, and for those who cannot see it, they are merely verifying my point.

A neat way of formulating an "argument": I am "right" and if you disagree, that just shows how "right" I really am.

There are message boards where people actually get away with that. This board is not one of them.


I agree with imperator&#39;s point. Our generation is one filled with too many know-it-all&#39;s and brown noses. Why are we so right? Who says we are right? Nobody. Yet we demand that we are.

Actually, I have rather the opposite impression...that is, I think the young generation of radicals is not yet self-confident enough to say "we are right" and really mean it.

I notice in many threads that people will advance a strong position on a question and, when they meet opposition, start retreating and back-pedaling. Sometimes, sure, it&#39;s because they&#39;ve actually changed their minds when faced with stronger arguments...but a lot of times I get the feeling that they "don&#39;t want to offend".

If you really think you&#39;re right about a controversial question, then get up on your hind legs and fight for your idea&#33;

"Meek and mild" is for wimps&#33;


Why are you all trying to be such libertines?

Because it&#39;s the only way to live&#33; :D

:redstar2000:

PS: I was getting ready to post this response when I ran head-on against the unacceptably vile post by Karo de Perro above. He is accordingly restricted to Opposing Ideologies and I would not be surprised if he is banned very shortly.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[Guest1]

I&#39;m probably the one of the laxest Admin here, I should have restricted you right away, and after this post I think I should ban you.

First though, I wanna find out your reason for the bible-thumping.

What exactly do you find wrong with homosexuality? Even if it was a choice?

Let&#39;s just say you&#39;re right, and these people chose to be physically attracted to their own sex (yes, I know it sounds stupid, but let&#39;s entertain him), what is wrong with that? Have they adversely affected you? Other than making you realize you yourself have questions about your sexuality of course.

Oh you didn&#39;t know? About 60% of homophobes, especially the most vehement ones, are simply in self-denial about sexuality questions of their own. Yes, that means deep down, they&#39;re not sure if they&#39;re actually straight, which is why homosexuality makes them uncomfortable.

As for Socialism, can I ask you wha makes homophobia a Socialist value? How is it that an idea about equality of races, sexes and classes would promote inequality of sexual orientation? So long as they harm no one, why should you be attacking them?

I&#39;m sorry if this will hurt, but I believe you&#39;ve got it mixed up. Real Socialists accept and embrace humans of all sexes, races and sexual orientations, so long as they fight the class war.

[pedro san pedro]

let&#39;s see...all of history man has frowned upon homosexuals. Today, they are accepted as normal. So, does that mean we are right, and we&#39;ve been wrong for so many millennia? Sounds pretty conceited to me, sounds like a bunch of kids saying "we know best".

what an intensley stupid argument - particually from someone who calls themselves a socalist. do you mean to suggest that we should accept every injustice within society, simply because "it has always been that way"?

why even bother getting out of bed in the morning?

remember how women were treated in the past - do you suggest that we return to this standard? simply because they had been treated this way for millienium?

[Trissy]

Homosexuals are fags by choice not by some genetic predisposition
Homosexuals are not &#39;fags&#39; as you so kindly put it because faggot is a term of abuse used by homophobes to remind the gay community that they used to be burnt at the stake.

Plus as many people have pointed out, the idea that it is purely choice or purely genetic is still hotly debated. I personally think that it is a combination of &#39;nature and nurture&#39;, and so as such is a mixture of genes, upbringing and experiences, and choice.


...and for you to blame nature for some perverted sonofa***** wanting to suck dicks is NO better than religious idiots who blame the devil for the evil they bring on themselves
Erm...I don&#39;t exactly see what your argument is here. Are you trying to say that all oral sex is perverted (in which case then you&#39;ll gladly turn down any offers you are presented with), or that just oral sex between men is perverted (in which case please explain why it is perverted). I can&#39;t see any rational argument for the latter to be honest unless you take the Catholic stance of saying that anything outside of sex for procreation is a sin.


I couldnt care less what fags do in the privacy of their own perverted quarters
Why thank you&#33; <_< On behalf of all &#39;fags&#39; everywhere I&#39;d like to thank you for the right to do as we please in our own homes...hey maybe one day you&#39;ll let us vote or something&#33;

I still fail to understand on what ground homosexuals are perverted. The argument from nature is extreme and so flawed it&#39;s laughable. The only thing you can say is that all sex outside of vaginal intercourse without protection is perverse...and if it is perverse then how come so many people (heterosexual, bisexual, or homosexual) enjoy a wide range of sexual acts?


...but when they try to take it to the streets and want to push their agenda in everyones face thats when they step over the line
&#39;Their agenda&#39;? What agenda exactly? I&#39;m sorry but the only thing the gay community has ever asked for it equal rights, and to be fair this is no different from the requests of women, the disabled and racial minorities over the years. I think you&#39;ll find that the far right has had a more sinister agenda in the fact they still desire to remove homosexuality from the gene pool along with anything else they deem to be &#39;inferior&#39; to them. It would be clearly counter-productive for homosexuals to desire to repress or destroy all hetrosexuals.


I dont go around talkin of all the ****s Ive poked and I damn sure dont want to hear some fag braggin about sucking dicks&#33;

Wow...you make sex sound so romantic and pleasant&#33; <_< Have you not heard of a thing called &#39;love&#39; or &#39;affection&#39;? Are you someone who says &#39;fancy a shag/f**k?&#39;? I also wasn&#39;t aware that the gay rights movement made advances through bragging about sexual activities....I think it&#39;s more of a case that you get arrogant men who are gay just like you find that arrogant straight men. I don&#39;t think it&#39;s fair to tarnish everyone with one brush.


Most likely this post will be deleted by the homo-squad
:angry: You&#39;ll regret saying that my friend&#33; Dispatch the homo-squad at the double&#33; Their orders are to corrupt this individual into commiting perverted acts and if he resists then have him shot&#33; We cannot allow our secret plan of global domination to be threatened by this clearly clever and outstanding person&#33;&#33;&#33;

:ph34r:

[Guest1]

Please post this reply in his OI thread, as he can&#39;t reply here.

We&#39;ll try as hard as we can to make him question what he is saying until the CC decides what to do with him.

Meanwhile, I&#39;m closing this thread.