Che Guevara

and now trying to desifer his character ahahahah! you cant possible tell us what kind of man he was. whats next his favourite color
 
Studies have shown that collaborative journalism is in fact a (relatively) reliable media outlet, and overall Wikipedia is not significantly less accurate than other supposedly more reputable online encyclopedia's, such as encarta or britannica.
 
^on the contrary, actions that a man takes in life over time can define his character.
 
really?example, if hitler had died in 1938 he would have been recingized as one of the greatest leaders ever. but as we saw in 1939 he wasnt and he went against his alliences, point and case he was covering up his intentions and if he had died in 1938 ppl would be saying what a great man he was restoring germany after ww1 but as we know he wasnt and killed many innocent ppl
 
^bad example. Hitler wrote and published the first installments of "Mein Kampf" in 1925. I do believe that is in the category I set forth.

I seriously doubt Che was a "love your mother" type.
 
I lived in his home country of Argentina for a couple of years. Every 3rd kid you see has a tattoo of el Che on their shoulder. When asked who and what Che did, they would reply with this "El fue rebelde" (he was a rebel). Thats it. No other explanation. Even Diego Maradona said "Yo llevo el tatuaje de Che en mi hombre, porque el fue rebelde... y tambien lo soy..."

Hahahhaha, that is laughable. Most people wouldn;t wear his image on their chest if they knew what he was really about. The fact is, most people in America have a very vague idea who he is because of Rage Against the Machine. Tom Morello has the silohuette of Che Guevara silk screened on his speaker cabinet.
 
u have to remember hitler got germany out of econmoic ruin, and mien kampf says nothing about taking over europe it just states his hatred for the jews, and no body really liked the jews at that time. and also he was Time magazines man of the year, he would have gone down in history as a great ruler if he died in 1938. but instead he took over europe and u know the rest of the sad story
 
Does that speak volumes about his character other than he was tough? He was still a bastard back then, he just hadnt really acted on it.

This thread isnt about Hitler though. Lets get back to Che.
 
and the fact that he fought for establishment of present-day cuba and fidel castros being in office...He is not a hero. He is not a savior. He is just like any other guerilla in South America or Africa
 
omg man thats my point he would have gone down in history for being good instead of bad and where the hell did u get tough from
 
While we're on the topic of great heroes like Che and Pinochet...I'd like to also nominate Pol Pot and Lennon for heroship.
 
yeah, it does piss me off when dumbass american kids walk around with the face of che geuvara on their shirts. im not saying anything good or bad about the man himself, but he referred to america as "the enemy of man kind." doesnt really make much sense to me to wear it unless you completely understand it.
 
Final words were "Diparen cobardes, solo van a matar a un hombre"

"Shoot cowards, you are ONLY going to kill a man". Thats some hot fiyah son.
 
Word. You outlined his character pretty well. One of my disappointments is the fact there are these people out there who say they agree with Che as an ideologue then go out and buy a Che t-shirt. Therefore supporting what Che thought was a plague on the earth; capitalism. It seems blatant hypocrisy to me.
 
ok this might be a dumb ? at this point in the arguement...but is socialism just like communism just wiht like a group of elected officials...ive always wondered what this and marxism are
 
if you are being sarcastic i think you mean Lenin...

but you're Quinny, you probably arent wrong...i guess i just dont understand why you wold group Pol Pot and Lenin. Pol Pot killed a few million of his own people. Lennon made good music and told people he loved them.
 
Actually, you spelled Lenin correctly. I guess I had John instead of Vladimir on my mind when I was typing.

Anyway, I group Lenin (not Lennon) with Pol Pot in the sense that I consider them extreme and misguided in their ideology. I don't think highly of the extreme social left. Even though Pinochet was actually at the opposite of the spectrum. They were all more concerned with their pet causes rather than what people actually needed. They just get wrapped up in all the crap that works gangbusters in theory, but quickly derails itself in realty.
 
i don't think pol pot or lenin can be approriately categorized into contemporary ideologies. "extreme social left"? pol pot deserves nothing more or less than "genocidal cuntism"
 
Lenin molded his own version of Marxism.

Pol Pot wanted to create a utopian communist society.

Yes, Pol Pot directly committed mass genocide. Though results of Lenin's actions created more death, poverty, and suffering then he could even imagine (Marx too for that matter). They both invested their ideals in a fatally flawed ideology. They are indeed not directly comparable. Lenin was significantly smarter than Pol Pot. Unfortunately, Lenin's social system was far to easy to exploit, and practically rolled out the red carpet for wackjobs like Stalin.
 
By having Che's face on a shirt is really an oxymoron...

Its goes against everything he stood for.

and skogenjake is right about him not being a legend. No one here looks upto him like that. No one he would give up their skis and their laptops to follow his cause.
 
^Not true....he was for industry... something I find a bit ironic. Also, Lagwagon it is not compassionate to murder thousands without trial because they are not speedy enough.
 
RHCP, there were trials. The people that were executed with a speedy trial, were people that had been testified against by the public (an extreme majority) as torturers and murderers. But in truly know where your coming from, when i read about this and watched some videos, i cringed. I'm not all for capital punishment, in fact i'm totally against it. There were atleast 5000 executions, and i beleive that these should be looked into much more carefully.
 
does anyone besides me think hes like osama bin laden?? like ches whole revolt was to drive americans from latin america, n osamas is to drive the americans from the middle east, n yes i know osama killed americans on american soil but alot more middle easterns die than south americans did to my knowlege, so r ppl gunna be wearing his picture on a t-shirt?
 
Che wasn't compassionate or broad minded. He was a narrow minded man who was willing to kill those who disagreed with him. He executed some of his own men who he suspected of plotting against him. 
 
everytime i see a kid with a che shirt/hat/keychain i just want to curb stomp them for their ignorance.
 
cliche guevara anyone? exactly what he stood against... so sad he's probably rolling in his grave
 
I want to revisit this gem from 2006...

"On January 2, 1939, Time Magazine published its annual Man of the Year issue. For the year 1938, Time had chosen Adolf Hitler as the man who "for better or worse" (as Time founder Henry Luce expressed it) had most influenced events of the preceding year. The cover picture featured Hitler playing "his hymn of hate in a desecrated cathedral while victims dangle on a St. Catherine's wheel and the Nazi hierarchy looks on." This picture was drawn by Baron Rudolph Charles von Ripper, a German Catholic who had fled Hitler's Germany."

-http://www.scrapbookpages.com/DachauMemorial/TimeCover.html

Read the link, there is the exact text of the article from the article published on January 2nd, 1939. Hitler was already known as a threat and dangerous man at that time. He wasn't selected as "Man of the Year" for good reasons. he was chosen because his existence altered the global landscape incredibly during the year of 1938.
 
guess what asshole, the reason people would give up the capitalist pleasures is create a society of equality. Your statement here shows you are a perfect example of a selfish capitalist. Point? You fail to recongnize the number of poor people living in such country. Sure, you would no longer live in your little middle/upper class bubble, and not get to be a consumer, but the greatly bigger majority(Poor) could have a chance at a fair life. Utilitarianism. Think before you speak. 
 
ok so basically you're stating that people who work hard to get where they are don't deserve to reap the benefits? you're stating that a doctor, who spends and extra 4 years in college, and then suffers for the next 3 - 6 years through residencies and fellowships should earn the same wage as someone who fucked up in high school and flips burgers for a living? i fail to see what the incentive to better one's self would be which is the problem with Utilitarianism, everyone is equal in that society, where clearly, not everyone is equal. we live in a consumer based society, people crave to get to the next level of society, so that they can make more money, and have nicer things, in a utilitarian state that drive to get to the next level is effectively destroyed. not everyone is born equal, and you know what, that sucks that some white kid from the suburbs clearly has a better shot of getting rich than a poor black kid from the ghetto, but that's life, that's how things work. The only person who can hold you back from doing well in life is yourself.
 
guess what asshole, the reason people are forced out of a free society with an incentive to work hard and the ability to not be burdened by bureaucracy is through selfish communists. Unfortunately, it seems you have been fooled into thinking that the poor will be better off if communism is brought in. It is likely that if the poor were given a chance at a fair life they would fuck it up anyway-THATS WHY THEYRE POOR, DIPSHIT! Think before you speak.
 
Ok, I do not think communism will ever be fully achieved, and I think past practices have been disgraceful to its brilliancy, but heres my response. It ultimately comes down to the mind set. One doctor may say, I worked my ass off so I can have trophy wife and a nice car, all with the comfortable lifestyle. That is how our society is. Competition. I am better than you, therefor should be rewarded. Every action thus has a motive about it, in most cases a personal desire. Now the other doctor says, I am a doctor to help my people and my society. I must work hard for humanity and my country. I care about the whole and that is what holds most importance to my actions. Now if everyone had this mindset, the standard of living would do nothing but rise, and the society would prosper. In our country, everyones actions are selfish. Look at any corporate decision today, purely profit driven. This leads to total neglect for what is humane. You also say how hard work alone can make anyone anything. While this is true is a sense, that ability just keeps dwindling. Its so easy for you to claim that ability, because you are not in that situation. Its just not that simple sometimes. But anyways, I was originally just trying to prove a point to that kid regarding his ignorance. I reallly believe one who studies philosophy comes to the conclusion that capitalism is pretty courruptive and that communism is the best system we have...whether any government is responsible enough to use it is another question. Well anyways just my 2 cents.
 
while i may agree that communism/socialism in pure form is a novel

idea, it is pretty much against human nature. greed is part of human

nature, it is something we are all guilty of, i'm sure you've heard of

"keeping up with the Joneses" and that is the way it is, yes there are

doctors who join the practice in order to help other and better

society, but because of it's monetary rewards it pulls the best and the

brightest into the field. because of the great incentives, people who

have the greatest skill in regards to that particular field are

generally the one's who make it. now if there was not such a great

monetary reward, would as many of these "best of the best" even make an

attempt to pursue that career field? simple answer is no. the problem

is that utilitarianism is based on ideal principles which are good

thoughts, but just do not play out in real life, thus leaving the

capitalist format as the best remaining option. However, look at

current countries who are practicing or were practicing some form of

socialism, now why is it that people were leaving those countries in

flocks? why do so many cubans defect to the united states? simple

reason, people want more for themselves, they want that house in the

suburbs with a mercedes in the garage and a massive plasma screen tv in

the living room. it is the middle class that usually pushes for more,

not the lower or upper class, but the middle class, why? because they

potentially have the greatest work ethic, and see making it to the

upper class as tangible. yes capitalism is corrupt, but every single

communist government has been as well, thus proving the point of human

greed. which defeats socialism and communism at it's core. however, i

will never agree, and i'm sure you will not either that a man flipping

burgers at mcdonalds deserves the same wage and benefits as a man who

saves people's lives
 
i hate that shit, i had to do a report on him awhile ago and i dunno if id call him a legend, he did work with fidel he stood for a good purpose but i think that hes idolized more than he should be by americans, if i lived in south america then itd be fine but people see his face as more tahn it is
 
<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/mQZmCJUSC6g?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/mQZmCJUSC6g?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>
 
sure, someone who lets Soviet Russia use their soil to set up nuclear missiles during a cold war is just the most intelligent amazing revolutionary to have lived.

people can be fucking retarded, the guy was a martyr for some of the worst reasons.

there's a reason why he was wanted dead by so many. he armed militia groups to kill their own people in countries he had no business being in or meddling with the politics of.

But no, I'm wrong; the world needs a knight in green knit armour to go around inciting revolutions that (if turned out properly) would force a communist state on many countries. Isn't it obvious that communism works out so amazingly well? I mean fuck, look at such leaders as Mao or Stalin. Weren't they just the friendliest, nicest people who only improved the standards of living in their states?

He did do a few good things, but it just doesn't come close to the atrocities he was trying to commit. Communism does not work, it's been proven time and time again.

and to the anti-wikipedia lads: wikipedia is one of the most unbiased sources you can get. As it is able to be edited by anyone, this means that an article which can have more then one side or opinion will have to take the most neutral unbiased out take. Articles will form the equilibrium between opinions and become significantly more well-rounded than almost any other source. and no, you can't just make an article about "how aliens impregnated bigfoot to create humans". try it, it won't last 15 minutes. there are quite the strict guidelines to keep the content relevant.

yea I'm bored
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top