Is the analysis done well?

The Cult of Che:


The Ignorant Worship of a Brutal Slaughterer





Many people today, especially students and Hollywood celebrities, have been wearing shirts with the likeness of Ernesto “Che” Guevara. Most of the shirts have a vintage look, which is fashionable these days and may play a key in their popularity. The majority of these consumers, however, have no idea who Guevara really was or what he stood for; they wear the clothing in order to follow the crowd. On the other hand, a substantial number of individuals do identify with him. And of course they too, perhaps to a greater degree, exalt Che to deity status. Certainly, Guevara fought hard for his beliefs. But, he was also the infamous Fidel Castro’s chief executioner. Consequently, in spite of the facts, Guevara is painted as a freedom fighter; nevertheless, he was a brutal and ruthless murderer who is worshipped by the popular culture.


All through his adult life, Guevara believed socialism was the ideal form of government. Specifically, under Castro’s leadership, he was instrumental in the Cuban Revolution which brought about the downfall of the freely elected Cuban government to bring the despotic Castro being as dictator. After Cuba, he sought socialist revolutions in other countries. He maintained close ties with the Soviet Union, over time he and the Soviets had a falling out, upon which he sought and attained Chinese support for the Cuban regime.


We can concur with his defenders that Che often fought hard and had a clear vision of his goal for socialism throughout the world. When he first started out, he believed the only way to help the poor and to achieve true equality in the world was through socialism. His Marxists beliefs made his vision of the world, and for the poor, idealistic. Andrew Sinclair, in his book Che Guevara, quotes Che, from Bolivian Diary, on the anguish over the death of a friend: “With Tuma I lost an inseparable comrade in all the preceding years; he was loyal to the last, and I shall feel his absence from now onwards, almost as if I had lost a son. When he fell, he asked them to give me his watch…I will wear it throughout the war. We put the body on an animal and took it away to bury far from there.”


Accordingly, the pain of losing a close friend is not lost on just the noble. Che also felt the sting of death through his comrade- in-arms, whether he was a killer or not, we can all sympathize with him through a close friend’s death. Even a brutal murderer’s feeling come in to play there.


John Lee Anderson’s biography Che: A Revolutionary Life, illustrates that Che was a loving father. “For Borrego, Che’s final visit with his three-year –old daughter, Celia…was one of the most wrenching experiences he had ever witnessed…” (700). through this small passage, we can see even the faintest degree of Che’s humanity. While Che’s blood thirsty ways go unrecognized or unnoticed by popular culture, we can see that he had a soft side also. It’s this soft side that is focused on and embellished to an extreme degree, helped along by Cuban propaganda and Hollywood ignorance. Through this ignorance has come the adoration of a man that would have taken delight in the death of those who adorn his face upon their bodies or walls.


Ian Michael James notes that Castro said the Che had taken the ideas of Marxist-Leninism to their freshest, purest expression. And Che’s blood, he said, “was spilled for all of the exploited, for all of the oppressed” (44). Guevara, in reality, lived his life according to pure Marxism as much as China currently does. Moreover, we can be sure he would approve of China’s well-known human-rights infringements. In Exposing the Real Che Guevara, Humberto Fontova quotes Roberto Martin-Perez, a prisoner in a Cuban gulag as saying,


There was something seriously wrong with Guevara… Castro killed and ordered killing-for sure he killed. But he killed, it seemed to us, motivated by his power lust, to maintain his hold on power, to eliminate rivals and enemies. For Castro it was a utilitarian slaughter, that’s all. Guevara, on the other hand, seemed to relish it. He appeared to revel in the bloodletting for its own sake. You could somehow see it in his face as he watched the men dragged out of their cells. (74)


Any human that kills for power is surely depraved, but one who kills for pleasure, is depraved to an even greater degree. We can observe that Guevara was no more a hero than Stalin, Pol Pot, or Mao. Humberto Fontova, a man who fled Castro’s regime in his youth, declared, “The intent and motives of the Cuban revolutionaries were not noble; they were Stalinists from the get-go. Che Guevara would sign his correspondence, before he even went to Cuba, as ‘Stalin II’” (Chapman). A person, who declares himself as the next Stalin, surely cannot be one to admire. Stalin may have been the world’s supreme mass murderer, having killed more people than Hitler had. For Guevara to hope gain such a level as Stalin had, he would have had to exterminate the all of Cuba. To look upon a man as Stalin and hope to become his predecessor, in word and deed, is similar to a person of today’s world branding himself as ‘Kim Jong IL II’.


Fontova points out Che’s thoughts on terrorism and the use of weapons of mass destruction in an article for FrontPageMag.com. After the Cuban Missile Crisis, he told the London Daily Worker in November of 1962, “If the missiles had remained we would have used them against the very heart of the United States, including New York. We must never establish peaceful coexistence. We must walk the path of victory even if it costs millions of atomic victims!”


If the above quote weren’t ascribed to Che, we can be sure that most people would attribute it to bin-Laden or Ahmadinejad. We can certainly speculate if he made such a remark today, then it would be published around the world and the United States government would surely label Guevara a terrorist and impose further sanctions upon Cuba. Moreover, we can be shocked that such a statement isn’t made more known today by supporters of the true Che Guevara. However, Fontova says one "Could take Che Guevara's writing and put it alongside that of Seung-hui Cho, the Virginia Tech student killer, and you can't tell the difference. Cho comes across as healthy compared to Che, though you don't see Cho T-shirts around, while Che T-shirts are everywhere"(Fund 68-69). This statement is very powerful and compelling. The content of Cho’s writings was made well-known after the shootings, in contrast to Che’s vicious writings, the bulk of which is swept under the rug. Interestingly enough, in time, we may see Cho merchandise for sale at Hot Topic and Kohl’s. College dorm rooms or Obama’s office may someday be trimmed with pictures of Cho. A lock of his hair could go on auction as Guevara’s has (for the bargain price of $119,500(Stoddard).


Che Guevara’s image has become exceedingly popular these days. Truly, it should not come as much a surprise since we live in a culture that idolizes murderers and psychopaths, among other miscreants of society. Figures such as Al Capone and Charles Manson have captured the heart of pop culture‘s youth, but none as much as the memory of Che Guevara, El-Carnifero-the Butcher. His life has become romanticized by his admirers and Cuban propaganda. Through his death, he has become divine. Furthermore, while he was, indeed, popular in life, through his death, he has become a martyr for anti-Americanism and, to a greater extent, pop culture. As the Notorious B.I.G. once observed, “You’re nobody, till somebody kills you.” Perhaps these lyrics fit Guevara’s relatively short life well, since death has brought Guevara greater prominence due to nostalgia and romanticization. Society has a tenancy to make figures no matter who they are, into heroes and to cover up any misdeeds of these heroes who have gained popular favor.


It can be agreed upon, by any side either Che supporters or detractors, as to the impact Che’s life, death, and personality have made upon the earth and for future generations. Both sides should be reasonable and look at all angles of Che’s life. When looked at critically, Che would, almost doubtless, lose his popular standing in culture; on the other hand, he may only attain undeserved loftier status as humble and gentle man of the people, since western society has a tenancy to esteem the degenerate.


Ultimately, the contents of Che’s life are not a matter of option, since history has happened and the facts remain. We would do well to look at his life and ideas critically with no bias.

Is the analysis done well?
No, it isn't, read up on your facts, from somewhere other than McCarthy or where ever you conjured up this anti-communists drivel.
Reply:Next time you ask a question - get yourself a publisher. Please.

cavities