Monday, October 08, 2007
“a people without hatred cannot vanquish a brutal enemy..”
So Mary Lou McDonald, MEP, is launching a week of events organised by Sinn Féin to commemorate the death of Ernesto ‘Che’ Guevara. And the Northern Ireland Executive junior minister, and former bomber, Gerry Kelly, MLA, is to attend the last event - the Deputy First minister is obviously unavailable. But why exactly? We know that Gerry Adams is a fan of the middle-class would-be permanent revolutionary. But is it still chic to worship Che in Sinn Féin in this new ‘indigenous’ deal? [Ógra Shinn Fein I could understand - Ed] Or just a ‘loved the movie’ moment? Or just another example of a party with a Cuba fixation? Or perhaps it’s a nod to Guevara’s call to arms in his last published article in 1967
“Our mission, in the first hour, shall be to survive; later, we shall follow the perennial example of the guerrilla, carrying out armed propaganda (in the Vietnamese sense, that is, the bullets of propaganda, of the battles won or lost — but fought — against the enemy). The great lesson of the invincibility of the guerrillas taking root in the dispossessed masses. The galvanizing of the national spirit, the preparation for harder tasks, for resisting even more violent repressions. Hatred as an element of the struggle; a relentless hatred of the enemy, impelling us over and beyond the natural limitations that man is heir to and transforming him into an effective, violent, selective and cold killing machine. Our soldiers must be thus; a people without hatred cannot vanquish a brutal enemy. “
Adds Frank at the Cedar Lounge wonders whether “it’s time Gerry Adams donned a beret and fatigues again”
Adds again I’ll just add these lines from Guevara’s last published article, which follow on from the quoted paragraph above.
“We must carry the war into every corner the enemy happens to carry it: to his home, to his centers of entertainment; a total war. It is necessary to prevent him from having a moment of peace, a quiet moment outside his barracks or even inside; we must attack him wherever he may be; make him feel like a cornered beast wherever he may move. Then his moral fiber shall begin to decline. He will even become more beastly, but we shall notice how the signs of decadence begin to appear.”
Pete Baker @ 06:22 PM
Find these things hard to understand myself Pete. As I pointed out at Cedar Lounge, I find it very strange that Gerry Kelly is speaking in Dublin. No sign of lessons from the last election being learned. Also of note is the fact that this is designed to attract exactly the type of naive ultra-left young person that has been so effectively dumped in the North while the serious PSF members are told to get their degrees and then come back after getting jobs, preferably in potentially influential areas.
Alternatively, it’s done to give people something to do and a chance to socialise now that the amounts of protests, marches etc seems to be on the wane.
Posted by on Oct 08, 2007 @ 08:10 PMI hadn’t spotted Frank’s piece at the Cedar lounge, Garibaldy.
Perhaps it’s just an attempt at consolidating what’s left in Dublin?
But I’m not a rum fan.. prefer a cabernet myself..
Posted by on Oct 08, 2007 @ 08:20 PMI found Frank’s piece most interesting. You might be right about trying to hold on to what’s there. A good old piss up to restore morale after the last election. Tell old war stories, pretend you had it as tough as Che, that the RUC was just as bad as the Bolivian army etc. I wonder will Kelly - who has been to Cuba, and doubtless will talk about all that - be talking about lowering corporation tax, the need to pay for water and that if people just have it explained to them properly they’ll do it etc.
Posted by on Oct 08, 2007 @ 08:29 PM“I found Frank’s piece most interesting.”
Yep. And I don’t get the chance to link to the [excellent] Cedar Lounge often enough.
Posted by on Oct 08, 2007 @ 08:37 PMHas nobody ever thought to do a Gerry Adams image in the style of Fitzsimmons Che portrait. Might be quite amusing, but his ego would just love it…
Posted by on Oct 08, 2007 @ 08:42 PMyes agreed, “a people without hatred cannot vanquish a brutal enemy”, but only in battle.
Posted by on Oct 08, 2007 @ 09:09 PM“Our soldiers must be thus; a people without hatred cannot vanquish a brutal enemy.”
Interesting stuff but I prefer Tom Barry’s take on that type of thing:
“The British dragged us down into the gutter in an effort to destroy us. And down after them into the gutter we had to go.”
Posted by on Oct 08, 2007 @ 09:20 PM“but only in battle.”
Not only ‘in battle’, parci
“Hatred as an element of the struggle; a relentless hatred of the enemy, impelling us over and beyond the natural limitations that man is heir to and transforming him into an effective, violent, selective and cold killing machine.”
And after 30-odd years of that particular struggle we’re left with the legacy…
And those poisonous foundations we’re asked to ignore..
Posted by on Oct 08, 2007 @ 09:21 PMI dunno if you’re quoting Che with that hatred as an element of struggle quote from post 8 but another of Che’s famous statemens was that a revolutionary’s politics come from a deep love of mankind.
Posted by on Oct 08, 2007 @ 09:25 PMIt’s from his last published article, in 1967, Garibaldy.
Quoted, and linked, in the original post.
Posted by on Oct 08, 2007 @ 09:27 PMGaribaly
I’d suggest it’s the difference between his own description of his claimed motivation.. and his chosen tactics.
Posted by on Oct 08, 2007 @ 09:31 PMCheers Pete. The last line was so memorable I’d expunged the bit before it. We must of course remember the circumstances in which he was operated. He was summarily executed, so is it entirely unsurprising that he believed it was necessary to be ruthless to overcome such people, as it had been to overcome the murderous Batista regime. And let’s not forget the murder of Patrice Lumumba. Whose son I think was also murdered in the 1990s in the Democratic Republic of Congo. The world can be an extremely nasty place, and revolution can be a bloody business. It would have been preferable had Batista et al just left the country, but they resisted the popular will.
The problems I would have with him are that basically he proved unable to settle down to the serious business of effecting the economic and social transformation of Cuban society. He was a bit of an adventurer.
Posted by on Oct 08, 2007 @ 09:37 PMHa. I’d actually moved on to the discussion of violence before I saw post 11. Great minds and all that.
Posted by on Oct 08, 2007 @ 09:38 PM“We must of course remember the circumstances in which he was operat[ing].”
Some of us do, Garibaldy.
The question for others is whether they do now. And whether they did then..
Posted by on Oct 08, 2007 @ 09:44 PMpeteb, you know my view,
The poisonous hatred of sectarianism practiced against catholics, agitated good men to violence, and now that poison is at least being attempted to be dealt with via the democratic wishes of the people.When you’re faced with a snarling attacking dog, you roll over and be forever humiliated or kill it.
Peace.
Posted by on Oct 08, 2007 @ 09:49 PMparci,
“agitated good men to violence”
Oh yes those good men who murdered men, women and children. Those good men who attacked churches, who murdered workmen, who blew up war memorials, who blew up hotels, who blew up fish shops, who tied a man into a human bomb, who shot women and children for supposedly being informers. Yes they were good men weren’t they parci.So we were snarling dogs were we? Marie Wilson she was a snarling dog was she? Douglas Derring what was he?
Posted by on Oct 08, 2007 @ 09:55 PMWell indeed Pete. At the time, of course, those who went on to found the Provos were engaging in regular anti-communist rants. And were probably pleased to see him go.
There is almost certainly a great deal of ignorance about Che’s actions and beliefs among those sporting his image. It’s like the Palestenian and Israeli flag thing. Empty symbols not properly understood.
And thanks for the sub-editing. :)
Posted by on Oct 08, 2007 @ 09:58 PMParci,
You’re sadly deluded.
Posted by on Oct 08, 2007 @ 10:00 PMsnakebrain - thats Fitzpatrick, not Fitzsimons, Jim Fitzpatrick
Posted by on Oct 08, 2007 @ 10:07 PM“And let’s not forget the murder of Patrice Lumumba. Whose son I think was also murdered in the 1990s in the Democratic Republic of Congo.”
The speech that (I think) Lumumba never got to deliver, that was intended for his inauguration is one of the most level, balanced examples of a post-colonial reaction imaginable. (I’ll try to find a link now.) It ought to be compulsory reading for all in NI. Lumumba’s murder was a tragedy for Congo, and led ultimately to the mess that’s prevailed there over the past few decades. Fortunately, things seem to be improving, and Kinshasa is eminently visitable these days.
As heroic revolutionary icons go, Guevara pales beside Lumumba in my esteem. Guevara was a ruthless killer as well as an ideologue; Lumumba a philosopher and inspirational statesman who cared deeply about Congo and Africa.
Posted by on Oct 08, 2007 @ 10:08 PMhttp://www.africawithin.com/lumumba/independence_speech.htm
Posted by on Oct 08, 2007 @ 10:10 PMsnakebrain - thats Fitzpatrick, not Fitzsimons, Jim Fitzpatrick
Posted by circles on Oct 09, 2007 @ 12:07 AMI wondered about that as I typed it. Bangor boy, wasn’t he?
Posted by on Oct 08, 2007 @ 10:11 PMTurgon - they snarled as much as Julie Livingstone and countless other victims of violence and none of the killers were good men after that moment. All soldiers are killers, none of them are heroes. They are there to use extreme violence and kill for their cause.
Garibaldy - yeah revolution CAN be a bloody business, but does it HAVE to be?
Posted by on Oct 08, 2007 @ 10:13 PMNot sure but he did the Thin Lizzy album covers and the Book of Conquest and The Silver Arm. One of his pics was used for a mural up in Ballymurphy I think.
Posted by on Oct 08, 2007 @ 10:15 PMAnd everything copyright free too. That was a brave decision. I wonder whether he still holds the same views.
Posted by on Oct 08, 2007 @ 10:16 PM
