Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

The Martyring of Che Guevara

By Robert Scheer, Truthdig. Posted October 10, 2007.


Let's dispel some common myths and misconceptions about Che.
Robert Scheer

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

Also by Robert Scheer

The Tortured Law on Torture
How has our government managed to justify one of the most egregious assaults on the rule of law?
May 14, 2008

Battle of the Hawks
Both McCain and Clinton have shown a dangerously cavalier attitude towards the option of a nuclear strike against Iran.
May 7, 2008

No Country for Old Men
McCain's age matters; especially if he picks his running mate from the crazy wing of the Republican Party.
Apr 30, 2008

More stories by Robert Scheer

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

The 40th anniversary of the death of Che Guevara elicited considerable media attention, mostly about his iconic image captured on T-shirts throughout the world. There were the standard snarky asides that many young people wearing those T-shirts have scant notion of who Che was, but the journalists reporting the story seemed equally ignorant. Little was reported about Che's life and what led him to shun the comforts of a physician's lifestyle in Argentina to fight as a revolutionary in the rugged terrains of Cuba, the Congo and, finally, Bolivia -- or why someone who claimed to be obsessed with helping the world's poor was executed, gangland style, on the order of a CIA agent.

One exception was the BBC, which bothered to send a reporter to Florida to interview Felix Rodriguez, the Cuban-born CIA agent who was part of a team of CIA operatives and Bolivian soldiers who captured Che. "Mr. Rodriguez ordered the soldier who pulled the trigger to aim carefully, to remain consistent with the Bolivian government's story that Che had been killed in action in a clash with the Bolivian army," said the BBC report. Che's hands were then cut off and put in formaldehyde to preserve his fingerprints.

In his interview with the BBC, Rodriguez claimed that the order to kill Che came from the Bolivian government, and that he went along: "I could have tried to falsify the command to the troops, and got Che to Panama as the U.S. government said they wanted," he recalled, but he didn't. Clearly, the U.S. government was not unhappy with Rodriguez's role in the bloody affair, for he went on, as he boasts, to train the Nicaraguan Contras and advise the repressive Argentine military government in the 1980s. He showed the BBC reporter his CIA medal for exceptional service along with a picture of him with the first President Bush in the White House. George H.W. Bush, it should be remembered, had been the head of the CIA during some of the years that Rodriguez worked there and was not put off by the man's past deeds, including his part in Che's assassination.

So, what's the big deal? Che was a Cuban Communist, and it's a good thing that folks like Bush and Rodriguez were able to defeat him before he spread his evil message further -- right? False, on every count.

First off, he was either an Argentine Trotskyite or an anarchist, but Che was not a Communist in what we think of as the heavily entrenched, bureaucratized Cuban mold. Che was restless in post-revolutionary Cuba because his anarchist temperament caused him to bristle at the emerging bureaucracy. He was, like Trotsky in his dispute with Stalin, skeptical that the kind of socialism that truly served the poor could survive in just one country; hence, he died attempting to internationalize the struggle.

It also turned out that killing Che was a big mistake, as his message was spread more effectively by his execution than by his guerrilla activities, which were, after he left Cuba, quite pathetic. This is the case in Latin America, where political leaders he helped inspire are faring better than those coddled by the CIA. Daniel Ortega, whom the CIA worked so doggedly to overthrow, is the elected president of Nicaragua.

Almost all of Latin America's leaders are leftists, some more moderate than Che (as in Brazil), and others as fiery as the guerrilla (in Venezuela), but all determinedly independent of yanqui control. Fortunately, they differ from Che in preferring the ballot to the gun. But all recognize that poverty remains the region's No. 1 problem and that the free-market model imposed by the United States hardly contains all the answers. Recall that the U.S. break with the Cuban revolution came before Castro's turn toward the Soviets, and that it was over his nationalization of American-owned business assets in Cuba ranging from Mafia-run casinos to the electric power grid.

These days, few politicians in the United States even seem to care about the subversive Cuban influences in our own backyard that once haunted them. The embargo on Cuba remains to mollify Florida's aging Cuban community, but what's important to Washington today is Mideast oil, not protecting the peasants of Bolivia from the likes of Che Guevara.

On Monday, Che's death was marked, in the Bolivian village where he was killed, by Bolivian President Evo Morales, who proclaimed his movement "100 percent Guevarist and socialist," which hardly registers as a propaganda success story for those favoring CIA assassinations. They turned a failed -- and flawed -- guerrilla fighter into an enduring symbol of resistance to oppression.

Digg!

See more stories tagged with: che

Robert Scheer is the co-author of The Five Biggest Lies Bush Told Us About Iraq. See more of Robert Scheer at TruthDig.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Why do "progressives" like Che?
Posted by: Aleister on Oct 10, 2007 8:49 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I do not understand why so many people in this country who are otherwise concerned with issues of human rights would support a cold-blooded murderer like Che Geuvera.
We know that leftist and right-wing dictatorships in Latin-America were brutally oppressive. Is it ok if the oppressors have the same high and lofty political worldview that you do?
It is widely reported that Che would often enjoy executing prisoners himself, on breaks from his busy day. This "hero" to you all would go outside with his personal pistol and coldly put bullets into the heads of people that he did not know. He only identified them as "against" himself.
What an asshole! Is this behavior acceptable because he was a good-looking, charismatic, leftist? Is that as deep as your ethical analysis goes?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Why do "progressives" like Che? Posted by: redstarwraith
» Because he killed people! Posted by: BigGuy5000
Che is a mixed bag of symbolism and killing
Posted by: lamar on Oct 10, 2007 9:00 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I can understand the power of Che's symbolism...the brand, the anti-establishment man. He was a good looking doctor who gave it up to live on the edge.

But once you start to delve into the man, you see a murderous totalitarian who created forced labor camps, firing squads and a lust for glory at any expense.

(1) He encouraged thousands of Latin Americans to ditch their university studies and join guerilla movements. The guerilla movements failed, a lot of people got killed, and huge parts of the population were left uneducated. So many people dropped out or were killed that a whole segment of a stable middle class never materialized, which in turn, contributed to more poverty. A lack of educated middle class folks means fewer small businesses and a dependence on international corporations.

(2) Che's idea of justice? Here is a diary entry from 1957, in which Che explains how he dealt with someone suspected of being a spy in the rebel's Sierra Maestra camp: "I ended the problem with a .32 caliber pistol, in the right side of his brain.... His belongings were now mine."

(3) Even Castro called Che excessively aggressive. Khruschev despised him for his focus on Maoist violence.

I don't get offended by the Che t-shirts. It's almost a brilliant irony that the communist icon is such a capitalist hit. I also understand that the Che brand is about standing up to the man, not putting .32 caliber slugs into people's brains. Still, it'd be nice if people knew who Che really was.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Sources? Posted by: peacelf
» Sources are aplenty Posted by: lamar
» RE: Sources are aplenty Posted by: hot karlrove
» RE: It's called political bias Posted by: hot karlrove
» RE: It's called political bias Posted by: hot karlrove
» RE: It has been said... Posted by: go-go-easymoney
» RE: Sources are aplenty Posted by: Leman
Why Progressives like Che...or Chavez...or whoever
Posted by: ianfan on Oct 10, 2007 11:09 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think if you are wondering why progressives are so wacky as to like Che (or why say Ollie North is appreciated by the right), the problem is viewing the world (including the views of other people) in absolutes.

There are many facets to any issue or person. Many progressives see things that guys like Che and Chavez and Morales seem to get right and understand that are completely missing from what our leaders represent.

Yes, they also have things about their actions and political stances that are negative, but because some of the populist sentiments are so lacking in American political leaders, the positives stand out greatly from that POV.

The negatives aren't ignored by anyone with half a brain. This is where I'll come back to talking about absolutes. We have this probelms where we only see extremes in how we veiw other peoples opinions. When you see someone wearing a Che shirt, you jump to, "why would that person support a murderer?". Well, they don't. What they do identify with is what Che understood that our politicians don't. Even if that is only a fraction of the whole, it becomes important because our leaders lack whatever that particular element is.

One example is Chavez and Morales. These guys are a bit corrupt and Chavez can be rather anti-democratic at times. These are not good things. However, for some reason, they also understand that "we the people" of a nation should come first in terms of economic policy. The oil and the profit from pumping it out of the ground does not belong to Exxon/Mobile, it belongs to the people of the country it's coming from, and those people should reap the benefits instead of mega corps in foreign lands. The fact that they understand that and our leaders don't stands out to progressives.

So, do you condemn then for the bad or make them saints for the good? Well, if you're smart, you don't do either. You understand both and appreciate and draw inspiration from the good and respect and learn caution against the bad. If you're even smarter, you start to learn that condemnation and endorsement are not the only two options there are for understanding complex situations (and you maybe even start applying that fact to how you view the views of others).

It's very similar to Columbus. Was he a great man of his time whose exploration ultimately leads to a great democratic experiment in liberal democracy and the founding of our nation (somewhere down the line from his time of course)? Well, yes, clearly so. Was he a ruthless greedy murderer whose exploration opened 200 years of genocidal oppression in the new world? Well, yes, that too.

Okay, so where is the truth? Both the good and the evil make up these historical figures. People identify with what they see in each as positive, and if they have half a brain in their heads they do so knowing the negative also. That doesn't mean they see that person as a hero without exception or bounds.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Strong feelings of love...
Posted by: peacelf on Oct 10, 2007 11:26 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Like Malcolm X, The Che was not allowed to live his peaceful side when all around him the C.I.A. was starting fires. But, his democratic and socialist ic politics were governed by love for humanity, as revealed in this statement about his revolutionary "style":

"Let me say, with the risk of appearing ridiculous, that the true revolutionary is guided by strong feelings of love...Our vanguards must idealize their love for the people, for the most sacred causes, and make it one and indivisible."
Unlike the U.S. corporate policy, for Che it was "We" instead of "me." To Che, the individual did not exist.

A love of humanity and community first are the most democratic aspirations a person could have. Free market fundamentalist (North) americans have much to learn in that regard.

viva la revolucion!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Strong feelings of love... Posted by: wisegalah
Movie Reviews are not a legitimate source to cite!
Posted by: hot karlrove on Oct 10, 2007 3:46 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
OK FOX news BS back at you.

You cited a MOVIE REVIEW in SLATE as a a source.
You cited OPINION pieces in a propaganda rag (Reason).
Most of your citations are utter BS, WSJ opinion page are you serious? That may work on a freep site.
You made the accusations now time to back em up, I'll bet you can't because your ability to research is limited to simple string searches via GOOGLE ( if even that).
When I mentioned the babbling schizo I meant YOU. Cite soome real sources and I'll gladly consider your point otherwise you will remain the babbling schizo spouting off about black helicopters.
Also you may want to include CONTEXT as well.
Did you know the bible states "there is no god"? Of course in context you can see that the bible is not saying that but that will require exercising intellect.
Your type of comment epitomizes what wrong with the dittoheadwingnuts and why our country is in such terrible shape.

Opinions over Facts
Emotion over Reason
Inability to articulate.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

CHE; A murdering thug
Posted by: Nugeman on Oct 11, 2007 6:14 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
No other declaration is needed.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: A bold statement Posted by: pammers
He was murdered by US lackeys
Posted by: downwithpatriotism on Oct 11, 2007 8:47 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
US intellegence agencies murdered Che but they didn't murder his idea. People of South America realize their enemy is the US and are working fevereshly for their independence. Che was the first to help them in that goal. It seems that Venezuela, Columbia and other countries are telling the US Goodby! Will the US say "So Long? I don't think so. Still, the US murdered him because he wouldn't welcome us with Buenos Aires mountain laurel flowers.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: He was murdered by US lackeys Posted by: outsideagitator
Psst. CIA papers have been de-classified
Posted by: katinmn on Oct 11, 2007 11:17 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's on the Internet. In the National Archives. Easily accessible.

When I read this by Scheer I thought: Ho hum. Another commentator making this season's fashionable attack on Che Guevara.

Guevara was (and his memory is still) a threat to American imperialism. He continues to instill passion and make revolution seem possible.

And yes, the CIA was "involved" in his death. It wasn't a "CIA-like" killing. Yes, President Johnson was "involved." He dispatched goons to track Che, train the Bolivian military goons, and to have Che killed. The daily memos and cables to Johnson are all de-classified.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

You can have Contras, Iraq, Afghanastan, Yugoslavia, or...
Posted by: mdruss42 on Oct 11, 2007 2:22 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Nearly forty years to the day later, Teran underwent eye surgery in a Santa Cruz hospital that was donated by the Cuban government and recently inaugurated by Bolivian President Evo Morales.

"Now an old man, he (Teran) can once again appreciate the colours of the sky and the forest, to enjoy the smiles of his grandchildren, and to watch football games," the article said.

"But surely he will never be capable of seeing the difference between the ideas that drove him to murder a man in cold blood, and the ideas of that very man.".........

BY THEIR FRUITS YE SHALL KNOW THEM.

Forget the history of who did what to whom. Look at the years since. Compare what the USA has accomplished, how it’s citizens have fared, with Cuba.

The USA, with systematically looting the rest of the world, cannot manage to teach it’s citizens to read, much less think. The USA cannot manage to make basic health care available to it’s children, much less their moms and dads. Many go to bed at night....hungry. In the richest country the world has ever seen.....people live on the street and are not fed.

Cuba, on the other hand, having been systematically starved by the control the USA has over the world economy to deny trade rights to Cuba, has managed to educate it’s citizenry, and the citizens of other countries, to the point that they have more doctors per capita than any country on earth. They have research facilities and have developed medicines treatments that they then make available to the people, not only of their country, but export to the rest of South and Central America.

So, whatever your opinion of Che or Fidel, the seeds of intent had to be different than even the formation of the USA, because the results are different.

And, notice, I did not even mention body counts.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Not exactly the most peaceful and democratic guy
Posted by: Pinorrow on Oct 11, 2007 6:15 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Here is what I do not understand. The very same people who are (rightfully) appalled by Bush trying to force "regime change" violently and coercively in Iraq will happily throw on a Che t-shirt and worship him. Even if you believe he had more altruistic motives (which I do) what he was doing was essentially the same. He was more than willing to violently impose his ideals, even if the so-called beneficiaries did not support him. And they sometimes did not. He had very little support in Bolivia, as he himself admits in his diary from Bolivia (which is basically a diary of a movement going badly). He knew so little about the area he was in, he and his group spent weeks (possibly longer) learning the wrong indigenous language. He was violent and undemocratic, even if he was often on the side of the most oppressed. The problem is that he was on their side on his terms, not on theirs. Anyone who truly believes in democracy, respect, and peace should be honest about Che's shortcomings in those areas. For those looking for sources, just read Che's own writings.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

che
Posted by: antonjsf on Oct 13, 2007 3:55 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
che guevara, the argentinian doctor never graduated from any university and was no doctor at all.
one of the big lies about this myhical icon we adore blindly. there are so many more but we - reporters and other public - are still infant like busy when using our brains is concerned. in many, many parts of bolivia and in equally scoially different classes he is despised as he spread death and terror at random. in the end the adoration says more about us than about che himself.
anton foek
amsterdam, oct. 13th 2007

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The cult of personality reigns supreme in the United States
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Oct 13, 2007 10:13 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's a symptom of serious psychological sickness. It's the effort to make 'heros' - something that Goebbels understood and used to great effect (Hitler was also "The People's Hero").

It's beyond me why the so-called 'left', represented by shows like Democracy Now, continues to attempt to hold Che up as some kind of motivational figure. In fact, their recent coverage was fairly atrocious - the time could have been better spent covering the push for 'free-trade' proposals with Colombia by the U.S. government.

This may seem like harsh criticism, but I no longer trust either the 'left' or the 'right'. To me, it's nothing but a puppet show designed to keep people from focusing on the really important issues.

The so-called "Left" was loaded up with FBI and CIA Cointelpro agents, and this was partially revealed during the 60's and 70's - but do you really think anything has changed?

Cointelpro is still in full operation, and as ever, they're trying to portray anti-war, pro-labor, anti-globalization, pro-environment and pro-human rights groups as violent lunatics - and they're using every trick in the book they can think of to do this, from the 911truthiness movement to the FBI's "green scare" program to trying to use the worn-out "Commie" label.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]