31 US Marines Killed

[Guest goodhelmet]

I think it would be necessary to emphasize the points of the repondants as well as the author of the article...

 

…it seems to that while somebody needed to take a good whack at the Cult of Che, Berman is not the right guy to do it. I am disturbed when I see otherwise decent people wearing a T-shirt with the visage of a totalitarian killer. It would help young Lefties immeasurably in the realm of public debate to put those T-shirts away and find a new icon to represent radical democracy rather than communism. Or better yet, to avoid personality cultishness entirely. But Berman doesn't understand the phenomenon at all, and so he fails to make a convincing case.

 

First of all, Berman completely fails to understand the role of iconography in art, particularly in Catholic cultures. Che is a hero to many because he resisted a truly ugly system, remained true to his ideals, and conveniently died before the Revolution's slow, pathetic demise became apparent to nearly everyone. He is therefore associated in the public mind with what was right about the Revolution, rather than what was very, very wrong about it.

 

…Religious art rarely emphasizes the true humanity of its subjects…But none of this ever shows up in iconography, nor does it matter one whit to the faith of a believer. The humans underlying the icons are just stand-ins for the values they emphasize. Che has come to symbolize the values of resisting injustice and rejecting worldly excess. He's St. Francis in the secular host of angels. It mattered a great deal to his victims that he was really no such thing in life. But you aren't going to deflate that myth merely by pointing out that it doesn't match the man. If the film glorified the real Che Guevara, that would be highly offensive. But it's glorifying a person with decent values who never existed. If Che HAD BEEN a thoughtful opponent of injustice, it wouldn't be wrong to make a movie that praised him.

 

…What's wrong with this movie is not that it mythologizes Che Guevara, but that it mythologizes politics. It contributes to the neverending problem in which well-intentioned people substitute a good story for hard reality in our political discourse. The sooner people turn away from political iconography of all ideological flavors, the better.

 

 

Of course Berman's right that the Che hagiography obscured the fact that he supported leftist totalitarianism. But he's guilty of the same sin he accuses the movie of-- telling half the story.

 

It bears remembering, after all, that Latin America was the site of some of capitalism's worst excesses. Land was concentrated in the hands of a few mostly absentee landlords; dark-skinned people toiled as virtual slaves; western corporations exploited the workforce; corrupt dictators lived high on the hog while imprisoning dissidents; and, when revolution was threatened, the United States would intercede to ensure that the fascists stayed in power.

 

This was the land of Batista, Trujillo, and Pinochet, the land of American-sponsored coups and the United Fruit Company.

 

Now does any of this justify Castro's continued repression or Hugo Chavez's caudillo-like rule? Not in the least. But the problem with this tired old debate is that neither side ever admits the excesses of its own men.

[Vern Gagne 0]

Ok. I was wondering where you were coming from, with your links about Che quote. It was more about why Che is so revered by many people.