On the eve of the French Revolution, the aristocrats inhabiting the palace of Versailles enjoyed “sporting the clothing of the working classes as an ironic lark,” according to writer Charles Stenson. These pampered elites were undisturbed by the fact that their peasant getups were a bold insult to the real peasants, many of whom were dying as a result of the elites’ self-serving policies.
The clueless aristocrats have descendents in spoiled college kids who think it’s trendy to idolize Communist revolutionary Ernesto “Che” Guevara. Che’s face is emblazoned on T-shirts; he was glamorized by the movie The Motorcycle Diaries; and Time magazine described him as “a potent symbol of rebellion.” But few of the college hipsters who admire Che know what he actually stood for.
According to Cuban-American writer Humberto Fontova, during the first few years of Fidel Castro’s takeover of Cuba, Che was “second in command [and] chief executioner for a regime that jailed and tortured more political prisoners as a percentage of population than Stalin’s and executed more people as a percentage of population in its first three years in power than Hitler’s.”
Che wrote that “the solution to the world’s problems lie behind the Iron Curtain”— and he was willing to torture and kill anyone who disagreed.
Che’s stock trade, according to Fontova, “was the mass murder of defenseless men and boys.” In a typical incident (one you won’t see in The Motorcycle Diaries, which portrays Che as a sexually potent idealist who just wants to save the poor), he ordered the execution of a 17-year-old boy suspected of political subversion. When the boy’s mother, Rosa Hernandez, tearfully begged the Communists to release him, Che invited her into his office.
“Come on in, Señora,” Hernandez recalls him saying. Then he picked up his phone and, as she listened, demanded that the Communists “execute the Hernandez boy tonight.”
A former prisoner named Pierre San Martin described his experience to a Miami newspaper. “One morning Che’s guards shoved a new prisoner into our cell. His face was bruised and smeared with blood. He was a boy, couldn’t have been much older than 12.”
The boy had fought back against Communists who arrested his father. Later, San Martin watched Che personally execute him: “Che raised his pistol, put the barrel to the back of the boy’s neck, and blasted. The shot almost decapitated the young boy.”
Of course, Che’s cruel bravado wasn’t on display when he was finally captured in Bolivia in 1967. Instead, like plenty of Communist thugs before him, he went out like a coward. “Don’t shoot!” he whimpered. “I’m Che!”
In his book, Exposing the Real Che Guevara, Fontova visits Miami’s Cuban Memorial, which honors victims of the Castro regime. Elderly Cubans often go there to mourn relatives who died in prisons or in mass executions.
Fontova describes a common scene: “Still escorted by her grandson, the grandmother crosses the street slowly and silently. They run into a dreadlocked youth coming out of a music store. His T-shirt sports the face of her husband’s murderer. They turn their heads in rage to the store window. They see the mass-murder’s face again — this time on a huge poster … . The poster reads, ‘Fight Oppression!’”
For anyone who rejects the real political oppression still brutally enforced by the Castro regime, I encourage you to join Young America’s Foundation in observing “No More Che Day” tomorrow. At the very least, you’ll stand apart from the conformists who think the perfect complement to their iPods and fashionably disheveled hair is a T-shirt glorifying a mass murderer.
Ashley Herzog is a senior studying journalism. She writes from Washington, D.C. this quarter and is an employee of the National Journalism Center, an affiliate of the Young America’s Foundation, which promotes “No More Che Day.” Send her an e-mail at ah103304@ohiou.edu.
Reader Comments
As a Leftist, I completely agree with everything you have said here. What I take issue with is YAF's approach to the "No More Che Day." While it's understandable that a conservative organization would frame opposition to Che as anti-left in general, this is missing the point. I've been an SDS'er for more than a year now, I've been to Leftist protests in Washington and elsewhere, and I have rarely if ever seen a member of the mobilized, political counterculture sporting Che gear, for the very reasons you've listed here. The ones who do so are by and large the apolitical counterculture. These people are disillusioned with mainstream society, and broadcast their anger with the bombastic display of a known terrorist. This should not be taken as a representation of communist ideology, old or new. I think therefor, that the critique of Che needs to come from the Left. YAF is preaching to the choir.
This is exactly the same as kids wearing USSR shirts. You know they're the ones who have neither lived under Communism nor have they seriously thought about what such a system does when put into practice.
Seconding Eric that most people wearing Che (and USSR) shirts are ignorantly 'alternative'.
While this Glenn Beck-parroted article brings up some valid points (it's always nice to see another conservative columnist jump on the Che t-shirt bashing bandwagon), I am always left wondering where these spoiled hipsters are. I can't recall ever seeing a Che t-shirt on campus and I've seen _very_ few in my life. Even in coffeeshops (the reputed haven for Che t-shirt wearing commies) where I spend lots of time, I usually see little more than button downs, sweaters, and my own frumpled (non-Che) t-shirt. One would think these shirts were everywhere.
I won't contest much of Guevara's brutality, but there are a few minor problems with the columnist's argument about "The Motorcycle Diaries." No, a viewer won't see an execution in the movie because Guevara hadn't formed such violent, revolutionary ideals at that point in his life. Yes, Guevara was a brutal guerrilla fighter (or terrorist, if you prefer), but it's not valid to apply that characterization to his entire life when he was not a murderer, or even held such thoughts, during the movie's timeframe. Secondly, his travels were than simply helping the poor (which he did do, although this issue is often trivialized by critics). He was more concerned with how he, a man of European descent, fit into an indigenous America, and how he could affect positive change. Perhaps it was those existential and ideological questions that eventually led to his more communist leanings. While the movie does glamorize Guevara, it is meant to focus on his pre-revolution days and I think present a non-violent, non-Castro (call it unblemished) side to Guevara.
Finally, Fontova's books should hardly be taken as canon (look up his writings for yourselves), although the sentence about Che whimpering is nicely lifted (nigh verbatim) from Fontova's pages. I don't think the declassified CIA documents mention anything about whimpering...
I think the t-shirts are too uncommon to be much more than a target for a (mostly) conservative talking point. And I think that if a writer seeks to condemn Guevara, (s)he should do it correctly.
BUT, if you want to appropriately express your anti-Che t-shirtism:
http://www.che-mart.com/store.php
http://images.redstate.com/files/obama-che.jpg
Never see "Che" on display? Follow the link; it is one of two "Che" flags that were hung in Barrak Hussein Obama's Houston Campaign office by his campaign staff. This was a screen shot of the video by one of the local news casts.
Oh, I've seen the image in plenty of places, but very rarely on t-shirts. That was my specific criticism, especially since this article only mentions t-shirts and nothing about the flags in the Houston campaign office. Given all the flak Obama recently received over his association with Bill Ayers, the columnist would have done well to include the Houston flag as another point in a terrorism smear against Obama. I think the choice of flag was a poor and thoughtless decision on the campaign office's part. Since Obama has nothing in common with Guevara, what was their purpose in hanging such a flag? It certainly didn't convey any positive message.
Also, I'm curious why people some include Obama's middle name when talking about him. Is it an attempt to make him seen un-American, or link him to Anti-Zionism or terrorism, by preying on people's prejudices about the Arab world? I hope people are smart enough to realize that a name--which in this case means 'good' or 'handsome' in Arabic--is not enough to besmirch him, or whatever their agenda may be.
No way, RunForGold, that's just how we refer to politicians these days. It's why you hear so much about John Sidney McCain, Joe Robinette Biden and Sarah Louise Palin.
On a more (or less?) serious note, Joe Biden's middle name is Robinette? Forget Hussein, why aren't you guys ribbing on him for that one? That's hilarious.
to Caliente-
I'll repeat myself: I have rarely seen Che on display by real leftists. That certainly excludes Barack Obama. Obama is a slightly left-of-center state-capitalist. If that's too far left for America to handle, then its only because our political spectrum is skewed so far right. I find the image perplexing to say the least, but it doesn't invalidate what I said.
Another point worth noting, unrelated to Obama-
I have never once seen any image of Che in popular culture other than that particular photograph (converted to monochrome or otherwise). That's important. It means the image of Che has more cultural significance than Che himself. Its easy to idolize the picture; it looks like a revolutionary ought to look. But I think it's evidence that Che's portrayal is largely superficial and apolitical. If people were idolizing the man, you'd see more of him.
The opposing argument is "I never see it on tshirts, so you are wrong to criticize"
Or "the counterculture leftist don't wear it"..WTF? Counterculture? Oh, you mean the people who think they are cool because they look different?..this is so incredibly funny,
Or "it isn't Che they worship, it is the picture" ....LOL, you gotta be joking, right? You don't honestly think this stuff?
Or "Che did a lot of good things after he murdered people, so let's slide that under the rug." These comments are classic.
While all this anecdotal evidence has completely denied Ashley's point (/sarcasm), this guy is a hero to many ignorant people no matter what their political affiliation is and the real truth should be told.
Nope, I didn't say she was wrong to criticize because I rarely see people wearing Che t-shirts. I said there's little point to criticizing because I rarely see people wearing Che t-shirts. Che shirts had their zenith some years back and the "You're glamorizing a Commie" argument has been beaten into the ground. What's the point of bringing it up again? She would have been better off attacking Obama's Houston campaign office (a (misguided) meaty political statement) than attacking these supposed Communist-glamorizing, spoiled college hipsters with fashionably disheveled hair, iPods, and Che tshirts (a foolish fashion statement).
Besides, my beef with the article was that she wrongly characterizes pre-Revolution Guevara with post-Revolution Guevara's thoughts and actions. Any good Commie-hating Castro basher will not see a difference, but it's not sound arguing to conflate two drastically different periods in Guevara's life. Also, no one on this board said anything about ignoring Guevara's brutality during the Revolution; in fact, there seems to be an overall condemnation of what Guevara did (one would hope so) and no one is refuting Ms. Herzog's point in that regard. So I think it's safe to say that we're all for the 'real truth' too.
Anyway, anyone remember a few months back when Colombian agents rescued 15 hostages from the FARC? I got a kick out of the Che t-shirts in that story. CNN was the first to write about the shirts:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/americas/07/02/farc.rescue/index.html
What's not funny about the operation (and isn't mentioned in the above story), is that at least one of the undercover agents was dressed as a Red Cross worker, which is a violation of the Geneva convention.
Argue what you will, but don't mislead what his last words were, and I think much more interesting than those you said:
"I know you've come to kill me. Shoot, you are only going to kill a man"
Basically this argument is about bad taste, and it's not even timely. Remember, the author's base is one of which 77% believe in a literal Biblical reading (according to Rasmussen); don't take it (or her) too seriously.
CandtheC,
According to Opinion Dynamics, 92% of Americans believe in God, 85% in heaven, and 82% in miracles.
Your condescending take on the religious positions you safely in the minority. Your intolerance is disgusting.
Barack is a Christian...who goes to church...and believes in Jesus Christ...I suppose you don't take him too seriously either.
I don't know your base, so I won't comment on it. Judging by your level of intolerance, it is safely out of touch with mainstream America.
I didn't realize that having a minority, dissenting opinion about someone else's opinion was intolerant. Thanks for clearing that up.
I wasn't referring to merely being a Christian. Your statistics are a bit misleading, as well. In 2004, a third of people in the United States claimed being Christian was either "Not Very [Important]" or "Not [At All] Important". Additionally, between 15% and 18% (depending on whether or not they told they were anonymous in the survey) identify as Non-Christian and No Religion (that number jumps to over 20% in universities). Non-believers are one of the smallest yet the fastest growing minority in the country. Interestingly, after 9/11 atheists and other non-believers were still less trusted by the American public than Muslims. Most Americans list atheists and non-believers as the least-likely group to welcome into their family through marriage.
So yes, the majority of Americans are Christians, and they, for lack of a better word, really hate non-believers. And I'm the intolerant one.
I still stand by my assertion that this opinion piece is filler that, as has been said before, would have made a good point in the late 60s when the photo became popular and Warhol did his take on it, or twenty years ago when disillusioned college students caught on to a fashion trend from Europe and started wearing the tshirts and drinking from coffee mugs sporting the picture of Che.
Or maybe I'm just slightly annoyed by Herzog channeling Michelle Malkin, since she did a number of articles about this very thing, in March and December of 2006, November of 2007, and twice in May of 2008.
Tolerance, jpmo13, I hate to break it to you, is not a value of "mainstream America". Quite the opposite.
Submit a comment to The Post