Don't applaud The Motorcycle Diaries - Slate

[Bombtrack]

http://slate.msn.com/id/2107100/
The Cult of Che
Don't applaud The Motorcycle Diaries.
By Paul Berman

The cult of Ernesto Che Guevara is an episode in the moral callousness of our time. Che was a totalitarian. He achieved nothing but disaster. Many of the early leaders of the Cuban Revolution favored a democratic or democratic-socialist direction for the new Cuba. But Che was a mainstay of the hardline pro-Soviet faction, and his faction won. Che presided over the Cuban Revolution's first firing squads. He founded Cuba's "labor camp" system—the system that was eventually employed to incarcerate gays, dissidents, and AIDS victims. To get himself killed, and to get a lot of other people killed, was central to Che's imagination. In the famous essay in which he issued his ringing call for "two, three, many Vietnams," he also spoke about martyrdom and managed to compose a number of chilling phrases: "Hatred as an element of struggle; unbending hatred for the enemy, which pushes a human being beyond his natural limitations, making him into an effective, violent, selective, and cold-blooded killing machine. This is what our soldiers must become …"— and so on. He was killed in Bolivia in 1967, leading a guerrilla movement that had failed to enlist a single Bolivian peasant. And yet he succeeded in inspiring tens of thousands of middle class Latin-Americans to exit the universities and organize guerrilla insurgencies of their own. And these insurgencies likewise accomplished nothing, except to bring about the death of hundreds of thousands, and to set back the cause of Latin-American democracy—a tragedy on the hugest scale.

The present-day cult of Che—the T-shirts, the bars, the posters—has succeeded in obscuring this dreadful reality. And Walter Salles' movie The Motorcycle Diaries will now take its place at the heart of this cult. It has already received a standing ovation at Robert Redford's Sundance film festival (Redford is the executive producer of The Motorcycle Diaries) and glowing admiration in the press. Che was an enemy of freedom, and yet he has been erected into a symbol of freedom. He helped establish an unjust social system in Cuba and has been erected into a symbol of social justice. He stood for the ancient rigidities of Latin-American thought, in a Marxist-Leninist version, and he has been celebrated as a free-thinker and a rebel. And thus it is in Salles' Motorcycle Diaries.

The film follows the young Che and his friend Alberto Granado on a vagabond tour of South America in 1951-52—which Che described in a book published under the title Motorcycle Diaries, and Granado in a book of his own. Che was a medical student in those days, and Granado a biochemist, and in real life, as in the movie, the two men spent a few weeks toiling as volunteers in a Peruvian leper colony. These weeks at the leper colony constitute the dramatic core of the movie. The colony is tyrannized by nuns, who maintain a cruel social hierarchy between the staff and the patients. The nuns refuse to feed people who fail to attend mass. Young Che, in his insistent honesty, rebels against these strictures, and his rebellion is bracing to witness. You think you are observing a noble protest against the oppressive customs and authoritarian habits of an obscurantist Catholic Church at its most reactionary.

continued...
http://slate.msn.com/id/2107100/#ContinueArticle

[Union Thug]

1. oh please...

Che remains my personal hero to this day. I hate these nasal-toned little free marketers who fear what Che's spirit represents to all of the working people of this world.

Piss of Berman.

Oh, btw, other reviews of this film have been glowing.

[dumpster_baby]

19. the neoliberals always send out their best writers to smash and demonize..

....anything that has a chance to move people to the left. Although from what I hear, the movie has no real leftist core to it. But the neoliberal power structure is taking no chances. The author of this slam piece was no doubt handpicked for his/her own ideology.

[LoZoccolo]

50. People like you /create/ totalitarian leftist governments...

...by being constantly in denial in where these movements are cheating and going against democracy more and more until it turns into the most oppressive whatever.

[Cascadian]

33. Neo-"liberalism"....the thorn in the side of real liberalism.

A thorn that needs to be pulled out and tossed aside. I wished they realized that the free market economy is exploiting the average worker.


John

[LoZoccolo]

49. Thanks for addressing all the totalitarianism and what not.

You could have just attacked the messenger, but instead you lent us your comprehensive analysis of all that Che was, and we thank you.

[JVS]

2. Typical of the running dog fascist lackeys at slate!

[Bombtrack]

5. Yeah that's it. Slate is "fascist"

[makhno]

35. This article certainly espouses anti-democratic ideals

Or do you really believe it is the Cuban revolution and not US interventionism that set Latin America back a good fifty years or more?

[Bombtrack]

42. It's a false choice

One thing is pretty fucking obvious though The communist model is institutionally undemocratic.

[makhno]

44. Institutionally undemocratic?

Not sure I understand what you mean by that.

The communist model is inherently democratic, since economic, and thus political, power is in the hands of the people.

Of course, practical attempts at establishing this ideal have been problematic.

[YankeeFan]

88. "The Power is in the Hands of the People"

When Castro took over Cuba, Eisenhower was President.
Then came Our 1960 Presidential Election and Kennedy
1964 Presidential Election and Johnson
1968 Presidential Election and Nixon
1972 Presidential Election and Nixon
1976 Presidential Election and Carter
1980 Presidential Election and Reagan
1984 Presidential Election and Reagan
1988 Presidential Election and Bush I
1992 Presidential Election and Clinton
1996 Presidential Election and Clinton
2000 Presidential Election and Bush II

And in all this time Fidel was in charge of Cuba. A few months ago I read where Fidel was planning to have his brother succeed him. This smacks of somebody trying to setup a monarchy and not a democracy.

When was the last time there was an election in Cuba? When was the last time somebody challenged Fidel for leadership of Cuba?

America has gone through nine different Presidents while Fidel has remained in power. Come November there should be a tenth.

Don’t give me that cockamamie elephant shit that Cuba is a Democracy. When Cuba has a multiple party election that has Fidel or his brother challenged for power, and the opposition doesn’t have to worry about being shot or imprisoned, I’ll believe it. As it is I believe that there is a greater chance that Iraq to become a democracy before Cuba ever will.

[K-W]

89. Who are you arguing with?

The quote you responded to did not claim that Cuba was a democracy. So what are you talking about?

Or are you arguing that Cuba is a perfect example of the communist model... if you are, know that you are horribly wrong.

[YankeeFan]

92. Who’s Arguing? I’m agreeing!

Cuba is not a Democracy. Not since Castro came to power.

And as for Batista, if I'm spelling his name correctly, I don't know how much of a Democracy there was under him. Most probable not more lip service.

Several Years ago there was a book out titled "Banana Wars". It was about every conflict America got into in South and Central America in the 19th and 20th Century's. The reasons and the whys of every skirmish was given a once over. Some for obvious reasons had more detail than others.

If memory serves, Cuba was talked about at least twice, Haiti two or three times.

Now if somebody says that statues of Che should be targets of flowers and not rotten tomato's, I've got to dig that book up and give it a re-read.

[K-W]

93. You replied to a post that didnt mention Cuba,

I didnt see anyone make any claims involving or referring to the state of democracy in Cuba, or how that relates to the post you replied to.

[K-W]

55. No that is only true of SOME communist models.

And in fact the entire point of communism is to do to economy what democracy does for politics.

The dream of communism is a society with political, social, and economic democracy.

Some people believe that the only way to create this is through a totalitarian reformist government.

[rumguy]

3. Is any of what he says true?

Soviet communism was nothing but a form of fascism.

[w4rma]

14. Yes. (nt)

[bicentennial_baby]

15. Communism and Fascism are distinct forms of authoritarian gov't

While some of their totalitarian aspects may overlap, communism and fascism are distinct forms of authoritarian government, as are monarchism and theocratic gov't.

[Union Thug]

37. What part of the vast majority of economic power..

..being in the hands of a tiny minority is NOT authoritarian or totalitarian? So long as we live in a society where we do not separate speech and property, we live in a society where democracy is only as democratic as the messages backed by the power structure paying for the air time and agreed to by the owners of the media as 'acceptable' messaging, our society, much like the faux communism of the Soviet Union, is a no less an empty promise and no less authoritarian.

[bicentennial_baby]

40. Oh I agree with you

I was just speaking in the purely technical sense in terms of Political Science.

[K-W]

56. Not true.

Communism is an economic system, not a political system.

It is not a form of an authoritarian government. Many communist thinkers have supported authoritarian governments as a means to create the economic conditions neccessary for communism, they are not one in the same.

[bicentennial_baby]

62. OK, I'll write the authors of my Int'l Politics textbook

They both have PhDs in PoliSci, but I guess you know more than they do. :eyes:

Quote: "Communism as it originated in the works of Friedrich Engels and Karl Marx is essentially an economic theory,. As applied, however, by Vladimir Lenin and Josef Stalin in the USSR, by Mao Zedong in China, and other Communist leaders in those countries and elsewhere, communism falls squarely within the spectrum of authoritarian governance."

[K-W]

63. Yah, no Phd in Poli Sci has ever been wrong about communism before.

This is political science, not math. There is no 1+1=2 your book is 2 authors' take on things.

Rather than saying, "My poli sci class textbook says so and so, so that must be true" why dont you present a rational argument that supports the assertation that communism is an authoritarian form of government.

Communism is one of the most contentious topics in the field of poli-sci, it is stupid to argue that one books take on it is fact. And I come to this forum to discuss things, not to be told I should stop thinking and believe a textbook.

[dumpster_baby]

26. How do you know what you think is right, is actually right?

You get all your information from the mainstream American press. Did they tell you the truth about the justification from the Iraq war? Did they try to manipulate you using WTC911?

[UdoKier]

4. I'm neither a fan or a detractor of Ché, but...

...a standing ovation for the film at sundance does NOT imply an endorsement for everything Guevara ever did in his life. I personally believe it to have been a mixed bag. It simply means the audience thought that this film, about his youth, was a good film!

I'm looking forward to seeing it!

This seems like the kind of knee-jerk nonsense that came out when Oliver Stone released "Heaven and Earth". Everybody started sliming the author of the book and the communists, totally mising the point that it was an EXCELLENT film that painted both sides as bad (pretty generous to the US, considering we slaughtered 2 million of them over something as stupid as IDEOLOGY).

I hope everybody sees it. And if you haven't seen "Heaven & Earth", you should see that too.

[oscar111]

7. what's heaven and earth about?

where were two million killed?

when did it come out?

thanks,
oscar 111

[UdoKier]

10. Heaven and Earth is about a young woman who escapes Vietnam

It's from the autobiographical books "When Heaven and Earth Changed Places" and "Child of War, Woman of Peace" by Le Ly Hayslip.

It has some of the most beautiful imagery I've ever seen in a film, a beautiful soundtrack, and a slightly hammy performance by Tommy Lee Jones.

We lost 50 thousand men in that mess, but they lost 2 million. You didn't know that?

That's what happens when you burn and carpet-bomb and napalm a country for 14 years...

Critics at the time were critical that several men in Le Ly's life were condensed into one character, and that Hayslip supposedly had sympathies with the communists (she does not, but is is cooperative with them so that she can continue to run her chain of charity hospitals in Vietnam.) She is a fascinating person with a fascinating story to tell.

Not quite as good as" JFK", but better than "Nixon", IMO

[dumpster_baby]

20. Exactly! The media whores NEVER mention the body count on the OTHER side

And why not? And you see the same thing in this presidential campaign with respect to the Iraq war: The American press is all too glad to mention the 1000 we have lost, but what about all the many thousands of defenders of Iraq and all the innocent civilians who have died in this nonsense?

That RIGHT THERE, and the way the media behaved before the war started, tells me that the basic thesis of Chomsky et al, the Hard Left, is correct. And that implies....

[Union Thug]

39. That's because Americans are more important than...

...anybody else in this world, or did you not get that memo?

</sarcasm>

[Character Assassin]

6. What the Hell? Slate actually gets one right for a change?

Cool.

Next up, Mao.

[dumpster_baby]

22. How do you know that they got it right?

How do you know that anything the corporate media told you about Che, Castro, Mao etc is true?

DID THEY TELL YOU THE TRUTH ABOUT THE IRAQ WAR AND THE RATIONALE FOR IT? WERE THEY CONCERNED ABOUT TELLING YOU THE TRUTH?

If they did not tell you the truth about the Iraq war, and if they deliberately avoided the truth, then you better believe that EVERYTHING we have been told about the Left, socialism, communism, etc. is tainted.

Here is my thesis: THey lie. And they always have. They have been lying to us for a long time. You dig back into your past to come up with horror stories about Cuba and China. I have them, too. But I do not trust them.

[geek tragedy]

24. So we should believe nothing but the press of the far left?

Or should we just not form an opinion on important historical figures such as Mao?

[Character Assassin]

45. I'm quite comfortable that they got it right

How do we know you're not some alien broadcasting from space and not a human at all?

If they did not tell you the truth about the Iraq war, and if they deliberately avoided the truth, then you better believe that EVERYTHING we have been told about the Left, socialism, communism, etc. is tainted.

Yawn. That tired, old line of reasoning is better left to college kids and conspiracy theorists.

[dumpster_baby]

46. oh., call me a conspiracy theorist, that is real good

What, you didn't notice that the media and the govt colluded together to draw us into this war? Or are you just lying?

You didn't see the cheerleading?

[Character Assassin]

48. Lying? I didn't bring it up, Einstein

What, you didn't notice that the media and the govt colluded together to draw us into this war? Or are you just lying?

I didn't say that did or didn't happen. Sorry if I refuse to play you game, but I don't go for such transparent bait.

[dumpster_baby]

52. you clever dickens!

I wrote:

How do you know that anything the corporate media told you about Che, Castro, Mao etc is true?

DID THEY TELL YOU THE TRUTH ABOUT THE IRAQ WAR AND THE RATIONALE FOR IT? WERE THEY CONCERNED ABOUT TELLING YOU THE TRUTH?

If they did not tell you the truth about the Iraq war, and if they deliberately avoided the truth, then you better believe that EVERYTHING we have been told about the Left, socialism, communism, etc. is tainted.

Here is my thesis: THey lie. And they always have. They have been lying to us for a long time. You dig back into your past to come up with horror stories about Cuba and China. I have them, too. But I do not trust them.




you wrote:


Character Assassin (1000+ posts) Thu Sep-30-04 01:34 PM
Response to Reply #22
45. I'm quite comfortable that they got it right

How do we know you're not some alien broadcasting from space and not a human at all?

If they did not tell you the truth about the Iraq war, and if they deliberately avoided the truth, then you better believe that EVERYTHING we have been told about the Left, socialism, communism, etc. is tainted.

Yawn. That tired, old line of reasoning is better left to college kids and conspiracy theorists.



I wrote:


dumpster_baby (1000+ posts) Thu Sep-30-04 02:38 PM
Response to Reply #45
46. oh., call me a conspiracy theorist, that is real good


What, you didn't notice that the media and the govt colluded together to draw us into this war? Or are you just lying?

You didn't see the cheerleading?



you wrote:


Character Assassin (1000+ posts) Thu Sep-30-04 02:48 PM
Response to Reply #46
48. Lying? I didn't bring it up, Einstein
What, you didn't notice that the media and the govt colluded together to draw us into this war? Or are you just lying?

I didn't say that did or didn't happen. Sorry if I refuse to play you game, but I don't go for such transparent bait.




Well, aren't you the clever one!

[Name removed]

64. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[dumpster_baby]

23. Furthermore....

....of, so now you are waiting for them to tell us all the bad things about Mao and chinese communism. Like, umm, the corporate media has been trying to tell us for so many years that mao and the chinese communists really had a great thing going. Uh huh.

I don't know what happened in china with mao. I know now that I cannot trust what I have read from American sources. The Iraq war and the 9-11 manipulatins taught me that. THat is what changed me from Right to Left.

EVERYTHING you think is right may well be wrong.

[DoNotRefill]

31. Mao made Stalin look cuddly.

And the Chinese lost more people in WWII and the aftermath than both the Germans and Soviet Union lost COMBINED.

You never hear about it, but it's true.

[dumpster_baby]

43. Oh, I heard about it....MANY TIMES

everyone knows this. It aint no secret. But is it the truth? You may think you gleaned that bit of precious knowledge from some hidden dumpster of political truth, and so did I when I found that out. But it was fed to me by the neoliberal press and other mainstream western sources.

Did those same sources of types of sources lie to you about Iraq? Have you read what Chomsky has to say about the media?

I don't think we can trust anything that comes out of any sort of mainstream American media or journalism....

[DoNotRefill]

51. I've toured several CBI battlefields from WWII and afterwards...

I've seen the memorials. Have you?

I've seen what the western media said about the camps in Eastern Europe. I've been there. Have you? I've physically stood in one of the cattle cars used to transport people to the camps. Have you?

Saying "the media lies" is all well and good. But I've actually been to a great many of these places. I've seen what's left. I've walked Eastern battlefields out in the middle of nowhere, where the battles had no real names and seen the human remains that littered the sites to this day. So no, I'm not taking the media at face value....I'VE BEEN THERE AND SEEN IT FIRST-HAND.

[dumpster_baby]

53. strawman

Gee, I thought we were talking about Mao....

[DoNotRefill]

54. CBI=China, Burma, India....

which was where Mao was.

I've travelled extensively through the region. I've seen the places it happened. Have you?

[dumpster_baby]

57. still strawman

When you say aftermath, I took it to mean you were alluding to the Great Leap Forward starvation, and that is what has been thrown up to Americans as one of the great failures of communism. You shifted to WW2 casualties, which is what you toured, and that was the Japanese anyway, and had nothing with communism/leftism and the demonization of such by the western media.

[DoNotRefill]

58. When you tour the places littered with human remains....

in the middle of nowhere, they don't have signs which read "and this femur belonged to a Japanese guy, while this clavicle belonged to a Buddist monk." You go by what happened when, the general "5 miles from here the Nationalists and Communists fought in such and such a time-frame, and 200,000 died in 5 days" signs. Of course, the descriptions are more colorful, but you get the idea.

Throughout WWII, the Japanese, the Nationalists, and the Communists pretty much had a three-way war going. The REALLY horrendous battles (the ones with the truly outrageous casualty levels, that made Nanjing look like a minor sideshow) involved the Nationalists and Communists after the Japanese were gone. Of course, when you see where they happened, you only get the Communist side, but you can still tell how horrific it was.

All of this doesn't address the basic issue. I've been there, and you obviously haven't. Consequently, I value what I've seen with my own eyes as being more credible than your rantings. Thank you for playing.

[K-W]

61. But you didnt see the battle with your own eyes, that is the point.

There was obviously a huge loss of life, but you have no more firsthand information on how responsible Mao was for it than anyone else. The point is that we cant know first hand what has happened, we have to use records which are always biased to some extent to another.

[Cats Against Frist]

59. Actually, Stalin was the more brutal

His count was almost all due to democide -- about 35m, I think, whereas Mao's total -- 60m, is boosted by 50 percent by the famines of "The Great Leap Forward," a well-meaning, but totally fucking screwed up plan to re-organize society.

[Name removed]

65. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[K-W]

66. lol, you misread his post, then called him an idiot.

He was being sarcastic, his point was that the corporate media has always painted the worst possible picture of Mao and China, because communism was the enemy, therefore it is hard to trust the information available to us about it, and thus we should assume a certain amount of ignorance on all our parts as even those of us with some education on the situation are bound to be influenced by the biased thinking surrounding the cold war and anti-communism.

Im sorry you think it is wrong for someone to accept thier ignorance of a certain situation. I think that is by far the more acceptable stance to drawing conclusions off information that may not neccessarily be true.

[Character Assassin]

67. LAY , You missed the whole bit

He was being sarcastic, his point was that the corporate media has always painted the worst possible picture of Mao and China, because communism was the enemy, therefore it is hard to trust the information available to us about it, and thus we should assume a certain amount of ignorance on all our parts as even those of us with some education on the situation are bound to be influenced by the biased thinking surrounding the cold war and anti-communism.

Golly. That sure is an interesting point you make there.

It remains, regardless, that corporate media or not, Mao was as evil and depraved as they came, or ever will come.

Education or no education, those who attempt to opine differently are walking with feet of shit. I trust what I already know, and what has, as far as I can see, little or no bias.

But then, you've never bothered to ask what sources and/or media I take into account.

Good day, little one.

[Name removed]

68. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Character Assassin]

74. Ah, the sweet, untainted smell of pure bullshit

He didnt say Mao was a saint, he was making an extremely valid point that the information surrounding Mao is highly tainted given the obvious political stakes involved. So people shouldnt be quick to judge him from the information publically available in the US.

Let me be the first to give you some schoolin', son.

There was very, very, precious little about Mao that was misrepresented in the major media here in the US.

The man was evil, through and through, no questions asked, all bets off. Irredeemable. Inexusable. The man was bad.

Those who maintain otherwise are, quite simply, idiots.

You go ahead and think whatever suits your current mindset. I hesitate to think you'd ever be uncomfortable, and I'd never contribute to upsetting your applecart.

Dream on.

[K-W]

76. Let me try to spell this out very simply for you.

I am not arguing with you about Mao. At no point on this thread have I done so. So why do you keep acting as if I am, and using that as a means to be stupidly condescending to me?

If you are honestly arguing that the US media did not deliver a biased message about Mao, I have a bridge to sell you.

And then amazingly in the same post where you defend the objectivity of the US media in portraying events that happened in China, you imply that you dont want to overturn my applecart... amazing.

I wasnt aware that being skeptical of biased information was an applecart that you could overturn.

Should I be scared and afraid that you will reveal the truth to me, that the media and US perspective is always right. Oh no, my world will crumble when I learn just how perfect the US is.

[Character Assassin]

77. No one is stating what you're stating, professor.

No one said the US media or media perspecitve is 'always right'.

Glad I could clear that up for you.

If you are honestly arguing that the US media did not deliver a biased message about Mao, I have a bridge to sell you.

Who is arguing that? If you think anyone is, you're far beyond even my help.

[K-W]

78. Do you read your own posts?

"There was very, very, precious little about Mao that was misrepresented in the major media here in the US."

You argued that the US media delivered a factual, ie non-biased, picture of Mao.

I thought you were arguing it because you did argue it.

I guess I should be proud that I have been promoted from little one to son and all the way up to professor. Can I be CEO next?

Perhaps if you want to keep discussing this you will stop the juvinille teasing and actually bother to dicuss it.

[Character Assassin]

79. Do you read any posts?

What I stated stands. What you stated about my posts remains inaccurate.

I argued that in the case of Mao, the US media was accurate.

You implied that I thought the US media was 'always right'.

Those are two totally alien worlds.

[K-W]

80. If the US media was accurate on Mao, why wouldnt they be accurate always?

There are few events in the history of foriegn policy that have had a greater impact on US and world politics than what happened in china in this period. There was a domestic battle on communism and an international battle on communism, and the media had already taken sides strongly.

You are trying to argue that a massively biased media, with a clear bias in all things surrounding this world event, gave an almost totally unbiased presentation.

And you tell me that this doesnt relate at all to viewing the overall objectivity of the media? If you believe the media was able to remain objective in one of the most politically charged world events of all time, I dont see how you cant believe the media is objective almost all the time.

And you are ignoring the fact that you claimed the media was not biased about Mao, then claimed you had never said that, and now have said it again.

[Character Assassin]

81. Good lord. Nothing and no one is always accurate.

If the US media was accurate on Mao, why wouldnt they be accurate always

Are you kidding? Why don't pigs fly? They don't, but there still must be a reason, right?

[K-W]

83. I think you just made my point.

That is exactly what I am saying, of course the media isnt always accurate. It is, in fact, horribly biased. But saying the media is always accurate is no less silly than saying the media was accurate on Mao.

Of course the media wasnt accurate on Mao. The media at the time was just like the media now. Media conglomerates controlled most of the media outlets in the country. These conglomerates used thier papers as propaganda tools and railed constantly against anything even remotedly related to communism. Of course the media was biased, and of course the government was biased, and of course the picture of Mao presented to the US people was remarkably tainted with government and media bias.

So in arguing that the media was not biased about Mao, you are making an argument just as outrageous as arguing that the media is never biased, they both defy any semblence of legitimacy.

[Character Assassin]

86. Jesus christ. Go to school.

Or don't, but get a real education about how the world really works.

Mao was evil, through and through. Don't believe me? Ok. That's fine. I live with the consequences of his actions.

The US media reported him as being such, bias or no bias, and indeed, that's how he was.

[K-W]

87. I am not arguing with you about Mao's goodness, why cant you get that?

I have not stated an opinion on the subject yet you continue to pretend I have.

If you reduce the issue of Mao to being one of good or bad, and thus simply by presenting him as bad the media was accurate... I suppose I can see where you are coming from.

Even if you agree with the overall conclusion of the media that he was bad doesnt mean that the media was accurate in thier portrayal.

Now congratulations to you, you have come to a conclusion on the issue that you feel strongly about. Thats great, I have no problem with that.

Whether or not you agree with the media that Mao was bad does not change the fact that the media was grossly biased at that time and was largely owned by conglomerates that did little but spin the news to enforce a certain political agenda. Thus, when myself, or someone else is going through this information to make our own opinions, we should be extremely skeptical of the US media portrayal.

This is a perfectly rational and true point and I still dont understand why you feel the need to attack it. It doesnt contradict your opinion, it simply says that when analyzing the issue, the US media is not a reliable source.

And if you think the US media of that period is a reliable source, you are horridly niave and ignorant of history.

[Must_B_Free]

8. Every coin has two sides

and a rim. I have little knowledge and no opinion of Che. I will absorb and see what happens. I am looking forward to this film.

[Melodybe]

9. I am looking forward to it as well, I read part of his auto biography

and he had a very interesting life.

[YankeeFan]

90. This Guy Doesn't Like Che

"The Real Che"

http://www.newsmax.com/scripts/printer_friendly.pl?page=http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/6/24/212049.shtml

While the article has some bias in it, I've been able to verify much of its accusations many, many times over independently.

Che was a murderous thug who got his just deserts.

[K-W]

91. Citing a newsmax article isnt a good way to support your assertations.

You shouldnt try to varify accusations in newsmax articles in order to get a truth based picture of something. Even if all the accusations aren't true, that doesnt mean the spin is, and it also doesnt mean that there arent other true things that paint a different picture.

"murderous thug who got his just deserts" doesnt sound like a terribly informed opinion about anyone

[Judi Lynn]

96. I first heard of Newsmax when posters at CNN (now defunct boards)

were laughing themselves silly over a "scoop" they got from a Newsmax fan who took photos over the fence of the people who gave a dinner for Elián Gonzalez, his parents, and half-brother, as well as cousin and schoolmates, teacher, and doctor who came from Cuba to visit him during the wait for the legal matters to be resolved.

This neighbor sent the photos to Newsmax along with hysterical "scoop" descriptions of the goings on there. Here's a photo they ran, showing what they termed a "Santería" figure which proved they were practicing "voodoo" at the bachanalia.



The description:

"In another photo it can be appreciated to the left of the Central AC unit, what appears to be a Gargoyle like figurine. It is a Santeria Deity, plain and simple. It used to be located by the main entrance of the house on the steps leading to the front door. Some have said that it is an effigy representing Eleggua, the opener of the roads in the Santeria pantheon of deities.

http://www.newsmax.com/articles/?a=2000/6/19/95231

That Santería "deity," possibly "Eleggua," looks exactly like a leprechaun, for chrissakes! Something like this, you might say!

http://www.lawnornamentsandfountains.com/index.asp?PageAction=VIEWPROD&ProdID=3101

This baby can be yours at the affordable price of $68.00! Order today!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

From another blockbusting scoop blazing across our screens from Newsmax was the supercharged excitement of the terrifying raid to rescue Elián Gonzalez from his drunken great-uncle's house in Little Havana:

A NewsMax story, dramatically titled "Child Abuse, Clinton Style," quotes Dalrymple as saying he believed Elian had been physically injured in the abduction:

"It's as if they were taking a terrorist, a hostage. And they grabbed the boy, and I said, 'Please, don't hurt the child, don't hurt the child.' They grabbed this boy physically. They hurt him physically and emotionally. They ripped him from my arms."

And the photo shows what? Dalrymple handing Elian over to the agent who was shown later carrying him out of the house. Not even at gunpoint, either. No "ripping" that we can see.

In the same article, Marisleysis Gonzalez, the boy's de facto mother in America, said she pleaded with Clinton's agents:

"Please, we'll give you the boy, don't let him see this. He's seen enough, seeing his mother's death. We don't want this. We're not going to do anything. We're not armed. They ran in my room, they broke the closet door. They broke Elian's bed. They went in my mom's room. They broke the door down."

And the photo shows what? The bedroom door on its hinges. Which begs the question: Who knocked the door that the Gonzalez family displayed on TV as evidence of the agents' destruction off its hinges? It appears NewsMax has taught the Gonzalez family a thing or two about distortion.
(snip/...)

http://conwebwatch.tripod.com/stories/2000/nmelian.html

The door on its hinges:

Later, Marisleysis conducted a tour of the room, and pointed out the broken door, ripped up and torn down!



Photos from:
http://www.americanpolitics.com/20000423PunditPap.html

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Yup, it's really easy to see how people could become sooo addicted to Newsmax.... Well, maybe not!

[Judi Lynn]

11. Interesting remarks on the author of the review, Paul Berman

Paul Berman is David Horowitz’s kind of leftist. How do I know this? For a laugh, I try to read Horowitz’s Front Page Magazine as often as possible. And today, Berman’s piece about Che Guevara and The Motorcycle Diaries is front and centre. Like Christopher Hitchens, Berman is a regular contributor to the website, which has advocated the transfer of Palestinians from their homeland, and even the assassination of Ariel Sharon (if he goes through with his “Gaza Withdrawal.") Hitchens, former friend of Palestine, may not notice or care, but Berman is Horowitz’s tender comrade in a sort of neoconservative Maoism, a politics of purity derived from Jabotinksy and Nietzsche.

Now critiques of Che are to be expected and if made fairly, they are perfectly acceptable. If specifically coming from a left wing position, the critique may be tactical. If coming from the right it may be simply truth about bourgeois fear of democracy, which is what the Latin American guerillas, beneath ideological veneer, were fighting for, and in some places have gained. Coming from Berman, it is lies that serve to justify not only the failure of the Latin American revolutionary movements that he has always derided for profit, but of the military regimes that replaced them ... this is Berman on Latin American politics, at his heart, a Miami reactionary:

"And yet he succeeded in inspiring tens of thousands of middle class Latin-Americans to exit the universities and organize guerrilla insurgencies of their own. And these insurgencies likewise accomplished nothing, except to bring about the death of hundreds of thousands, and to set back the cause of Latin-American democracy—a tragedy on the hugest scale."

In other words—to Berman—it was not the military regimes staffed by the likes of Klaus Barbie and a whole host of neo-Nazis and Latifundias that were responsible for the death of hundreds of thousands. It was the guerillas. Just like it is not the occupation that deprives Palestinians, it is the terrorism. It is not John Ashcroft that is bad for civil liberties, it is the ACLU. Welcome to Paul Berman’s soCIAlism.
(snip)

Human Rights is not necessarily a sword of empire. At its heart, it is the concept upon which future human relations and planetary survival depend. Paul Berman doesn’t give a shit about human rights. He is an insult even to those who share his (overt, exoteric) peculiar ideology. Like Kissinger or Sharon, he blames victims for their problems. Even Slate magazine, which while centrist is usually fair, should think twice about him in the future. He is a hustler, nothing more.
(snip/...)

http://www.pressaction.com/news/weblog/full_article/cummings09242004/

[Michael Harrington]

13. Aw, dude...

Dontcha know that according to Radoshism, any non-Communist regime (Franco, Salazar, Pinochet, Stroessner...you pick a scummy rogue) is really just a sweet natured caretaker for incipient democracy?

[dumpster_baby]

25. Exactly, Berman is a Token Leftist, here to shill for neoliberalism

And Slate may be centrist, but only with respect to AMerica mainstream media, which with respect to the rest of the world, puts Slate right in the middle of the Right.

[makhno]

34. Like blaming the victim for the rape

And these insurgencies likewise accomplished nothing, except to bring about the death of hundreds of thousands, and to set back the cause of Latin-American democracy—a tragedy on the hugest scale.

Hey, you know, if the damn commies didn't try to get the people involved in this democracy thing, our friends in Guatemala, Salvador, Chile and elsewhere would've only had to kill a few dozen leftist leaders, not thousands of their supporters.

These fascist pigs are rewriting history in broad daylight. And then you wonder why people keep voting against their interests.

[Artemis Bunyon]

72. VIVA CHE!

VIVA LA REVOLUTION!!!

[Bridget Burke]

12. I read the Motorcycle Diaries when it came out in English...

Also the biographies that came out more or less simultaneously, by Jon Lee Anderson, Jorge Castañeda & Paco Ignacio Taibo II.

I'll definitely see the movie. And I won't need Paul Berman to tell me what to think about it.

[BlueCollar]

16. I saw the movie last week here in FW

Anyone who has ever ridden/owned a Norton will appreciate the movie...Also, I grew up in Peru so I wanted to see how it filmed...I enjoyed the film...as for Che...I'm not sure that I have the time to get into an extended discussion on the relative merits of communism/socialism vs. capitalism/fascism....

[jonnyblitz]

17. fuck slate, I am have been waiting for this movie.

I am more concerned about current enemies to the right of me, not dead revolutionaries.

[OutInTheBack40]

18. Che was a hired killer with charm

nothing more.

[Bridget Burke]

27. Nobody ever successfully "hired" Che.

He could have stayed in Cuba as the Governor of the National Bank & grown old as a bureaucrat. But he died young & will not be forgotten, whatever his virtues or failings.

[Character Assassin]

70. Especially because of his failings.

Men and myths are both dealt with honestly, and all will be hired, one way or another, honestly or dishonestly.

And, despite what stupid German editors might think, he wasn't the last of anything.

Other than 'dumbshits who were shot to death in Bolivia because they were too dumbshit not to get caught, like a dumbshit."

[Minstrel Boy]

21. Don't applaud Paul Berman

[0007]

28. Fuck Paul Berman, and the goddman horse he rode in on!

I'll definitely see the film.

[H2O Man]

29. I think Che was a great man.

And anyone familiar with his writings knows that he was aware of his own shortcomings. All great men and women have faults.

But we need to look beyond that. It's not just that Che was brave enough to put his life on the line for what he believed in. It's not a matter of his military genius, or his economic policies.

Che believed in feeding the hungry. He believed in providing medical care for the poor, who are more prone to preventable diseases. He worked to provide aide for the weakest in our societies. And he gave hope to the hopeless.

[Englander]

30. Great film,great man...

http://www.newint.org/issue301/che.htm

[Cascadian]

32. Viva Che!

eom



John

[Mr.Green93]

36. we could use a few Ches today

[Union Thug]

38. absulutely!

We need people with strong convictions and courage to stand up to power, regardless of the consequences.

[Zomby Woof]

41. as usual

And yet he succeeded in inspiring tens of thousands of middle class Latin-Americans to exit the universities...

The most obnoxious self-professed "leftists" are middle-class white people from the universities. Just as the Naderites are here. Or the PETA crowd.

Although the idea of Naderites leading troops into armed guerilla conflict makes me snarf up my Cheerios. But I digress.

I appreciate the article. Idolators of historical figures always hate when their heroes are fitted with clay shoes to match their feet.

[T Town Jake]

98. Well-said...

...and exactly right.

[Redleg]

47. I don't know shit about Che Guevara but the movie looks interesting.

Perhaps the young man Che was not the same as the older man.

Kind of like George Bush- some people loathe him, others love him.

[smitty]

60. che

Che's been dead for thrity-six years and his fame rests mainly on that famous photograph used on posters, T-shirts and coffee mugs. He was unsuccessful as a revolutionary, first in Africa then in Bolivia.
Politcally, he was a Stalinist.

[Minstrel Boy]

82. "At the risk of seeming ridiculous, let me say that the true revolutionary

is guided by a great feeling of love."

Doesn't sound like Uncle Joe to me.

[K-W]

84. It isnt rediculous.

Trying to smear Che by associating him with Stalin, the anti-communist rhetorical legend is rediculous.

Whether Che had an overall positive or negative effect on peoples lives, the man thought he was fighting for what was right.

[H2O Man]

85. You forgot Cuba.

And would have a very hard time backing up your claim he was a "Stalinist." That's not even close to accurate.

[Judi Lynn]

95. Good to see someone who knows a lot about Cuba's involvement in Africa

I would assume you've already read these declassified papers made available in the last coupla years, but if you haven't, you might find them interesting, to be sure!

SECRET CUBAN DOCUMENTS ON HISTORY OF AFRICA INVOLVEMENT

National Security Archive Electronic Briefing Book No. 67
Edited by Peter Kornbluh

NEW BOOK based on Unprecedented Access to Cuban Records;
True Story of U.S.-Cuba Cold fear Clash in Angola presented in Conflicting Missions

Washington D.C.: The National Security Archive today posted a selection of secret Cuban government documents detailing Cuba's policy and involvement in Africa in the 1960s and 1970s. The records are a sample of dozens of internal reports, memorandum and communications obtained by Piero Gleijeses, a historian at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, for his new book, Conflicting Missions: Havana, Washington, and Africa, 1959-1976 (The University of North Carolina Press).

Peter Kornbluh, director of the Archive’s Cuba Documentation Project, called the publication of the documents “a significant step toward a fuller understanding Cuba’s place in the history of Africa and the Cold War,” and commended the Castro government’s decision to makes its long-secret archives accessible to scholars like Professor Gleijeses. “Cuba has been an important actor on the stage of foreign affairs,” he said. “Cuban documents are a missing link in fostering an understanding of numerous international episodes of the past.”

Conflicting Missions provides the first comprehensive history of the Cuba's role in Africa and settles a longstanding controversy over why and when Fidel Castro decided to intervene in Angola in 1975. The book definitively resolves two central questions regarding Cuba's policy motivations and its relationship to the Soviet Union when Castro astounded and outraged Washington by sending thousands of soldiers into the Angolan civil conflict. Based on Cuban, U.S. and South African documents and interviews, the book concludes that:

• Castro decided to send troops to Angola on November 4, 1975, in response to the South African invasion of that country, rather than vice versa as the Ford administration persistently claimed;
  
  
• The United States knew about South Africa's covert invasion plans, and collaborated militarily with its troops, contrary to what Secretary of State Henry Kissinger testified before Congress and wrote in his memoirs.
  
  
• Cuba made the decision to send troops without informing the Soviet Union and deployed them, contrary to what has been widely alleged, without any Soviet assistance for the first two months.
  (snip/...)

Conflicting Missions is above all the story of a contest, staged in Africa, between Cuba and the United States," according to its author, which started in Zaire in 1964-65 and culminated in a major Cold War confrontation in Angola in 1975-76. Using Cuban and US documents, as well as the semi-official history of South Africa's 1975 covert operation in Angola (available only in Afrikaans), this book is the first to present the internationalized Angolan conflict from three sides—Cuba and the MPLA, the United States and the covert CIA operation codenamed IAFEATURE and South Africa, whose secret incursion prompted Castro's decision to commit Cuban troops.

Conflicting Missions also argues that Secretary Kissinger's account of the US role in Angola, most recently repeated in the third volume of his memoirs, is misleading. Testifying before Congress in 1976, Kissinger stated "We had no foreknowledge of South Africa's intentions, and in no way cooperated militarily." In Years of Renewal Dr. Kissinger also denied that the United States and South Africa had collaborated in the Angolan conflict; Gleijeses' research strongly suggests that they did. The book quotes Kissinger aide Joseph Sisco conceding that the Ford administration "certainly did not discourage" South Africa's intervention, and presents evidence that the CIA helped the South Africans ferry arms to key battlefronts. The book also reproduces portions of a declassified memorandum of conversation between Kissinger and Chinese leader Teng Hsiao-p'ing which shows that Chinese officials raised concerns about South Africa's involvement in Angola in response to Ford and Kissinger's entreaties for Beijing's continuing support. The memcon quotes President Ford as telling the Chinese "we had nothing to do with the South African involvement." Drawing on the Cuban documents, the book challenges Kissinger's account in his memoirs about the arrival of Cubans in Angola. The first Cuban military advisers did not arrive in Angola until late August 1975, and the Cubans did not participate in the fighting until late October, after South Africa had invaded.
(snip)
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB67/

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I hope this will be useful!

[Bridget Burke]

94. There have been several recent biographies of Che....

He was a complicated fellow. If you're interested, I'd recommend you study his life a bit; this movie might be a good place to start.

Don't believe everything you hear.

[PROGRESSIVE1]

69. .

[Comicstripper]

71. Guevarra was a murderer

He personally tortured and executed a number of people, and ordered the execution of many others. Just enemies of the Orwellian "party."I agree with some of his views, but he was NOT a good person. Good ideas, maybe. But he was a killer, and a tyrant, and YES the embargo hurts Cuba more than Castro does, but Che and Fidel were not good people.

[0007]

75. The dictator Fulgencio Batista was ten time worse than both put

together. They did a goddamn good job of getting rid of that asshole, Batista.

Fidel and Che are true countrymen in the strictest sense of the word.

[Artemis Bunyon]

73. VIVA CHE! VIVA FIDEL!

VIVA LA REVOLUCION!

[T Town Jake]

97. Yes, I read it...an excellent article...

...and spot-on.