Thursday, October 11, 2007
Hearts and Minds on the legacy of Che…
Oliver Kamm is sparing tonight with Eammon McCann on the topic of Che Guevara, (thoroughly discussed earlier on this thread). According to Oliver (not renowned for pulling punches):
McCann had the bright idea to claim simultaneously that Guevara’s taste for revolutionary violence was (a) taken out of context, and (b) comparable anyway to the activities of the ANC under apartheid. In case you want to check the second assertion, you should note that Nelson Mandela has never shot without trial teenage members of his own organisation for petty pilfering, or authorised the execution of his party comrades on grounds of their ideological deviation.
Mick Fealty @ 03:38 PM
Nelson never shot without trial but his wife did.
Posted by on Oct 11, 2007 @ 04:59 PMI always did wonder about the living saint that is Nelson Mandela and whether he always always played fair.
Heresy to doubt the man, I know, but there you have it…
Posted by on Oct 11, 2007 @ 05:04 PMAny word if FF organising up here will be discussed?
Posted by on Oct 11, 2007 @ 05:05 PMNelson never shot without trial but his wife did.
So? Is that intended to reflect badly on Nelson?
Posted by on Oct 11, 2007 @ 05:11 PMAnother difference between these two iconic figures is that it is impossible to contemplate that Guevara would ever have ended up as Mandela has, a puppet of the corporate powers that are bleeding his country dry. Which of course is the very reason we are now all invited to view the former hate figure and African “terrorist” as a cute adnd cuddly exemplar of great leadership, while the ANC leaders who actually carried on the struggle to victory like the great Communist Party leader, Joe Slovo, are airbrushed out of history.
Posted by on Oct 11, 2007 @ 05:18 PM‘‘so is that supposed to reflect badly on Nelson?’‘
Yes.
Posted by on Oct 11, 2007 @ 06:12 PMIts fairly well established that Che was personally responsible for the summary executions of government soldiers who had surrendered.
And this was the gentleman who said:
“To send men to the firing squad, judicial proof is unnecessary…These procedures are an archaic bourgeois detail. This is a revolution! And a revolutionary must become a cold killing machine motivated by pure hate. We must create the pedagogy of the The Wall! (El Paredón)”—Ernesto ‘Che’ GuevaraPosted by on Oct 11, 2007 @ 06:21 PMMick,
Nice of you to give us some time over the day-blog ;)
Do you think the north’s top political blogger (so you keeping telling us) concentrating on English politics is another demonstration of the ‘normalisation’ (I’d say sidelining) since SF fully complied with the current British/Irish treaty.
Posted by on Oct 11, 2007 @ 06:25 PMAnother certain dictator comes into mind after reading Phantom’s post.
Posted by on Oct 11, 2007 @ 06:26 PMStompie Moeketsi, poor little fellah.
Nelson Mandela is the best reformer of a rotten state since Ataturk, and his capacity to put the past behind him is inspirational.
However his response to the AIDS pandemic which has sorely afflicted SA was very poor and history may judge him harshly on that. He left the door open for a leader like Mbeki, who doubts the link between HIV and AIDS, and leader in waiting Jacob Zuma, who notoriously thinks HIV can be avoided by showering after sex.
Posted by on Oct 11, 2007 @ 06:30 PMRory is right. Mandela has sold the people in the townships down the river. The ANC has disgraced itself. BTW, does anyone bother taking context into consideration any more when thinking about a war against a brutal dictatorship, and surrounded by a hostile superpower?
Posted by on Oct 11, 2007 @ 07:10 PMOliver would do better to get up to speed on his subject, with his comments about Mandela he has dug a hole that McCann should be able to bury him in, as the man seems to be oblivious of the history of the organization Nelson led for decades and even though in jail took responsibility for.
The trouble with the likes of Oliver and indeed you Mick, is you have no problems with the heros of empire having feet of clay, as you always view them through rose tinted spectacles. Yet when it comes to freedom fighters you demand a different criteria of behavior.
Also you view the likes of Che from the perspective of todays world but again when it comes to some thief like Clive of India or Mountbatten etc you look at them from a perspective of the age they lived in.
Hypocrisy and double standards me thinks as what you are really doing is justifying todays political structures.
Read “Salud Comandante Guevara” at http://organizedrage.blogspot.com/
Posted by on Oct 11, 2007 @ 07:18 PMGaribaldy: “Rory is right. Mandela has sold the people in the townships down the river.”
And this is different from most the rest of African nations, once the white man is removed from power *HOW?*
Garibaldy: “BTW, does anyone bother taking context into consideration any more when thinking about a war against a brutal dictatorship, and surrounded by a hostile superpower? “
I dunno, Garibaldy… what “context” can you come up with to explain away the summary executions, a disdain for legal processes, etc.? They have surrendered. They’re in prison. Rather than make the slightest effort at even the seeming of a trial, they’re marched out to the courtyard, without even the rudiments of a trial. What “context” do you have to ameliorate that unvarnished description?
And people wonder why I laugh at those ill-informed enough to wear “Che-wear” to anti-death penalty demonstrations…
Posted by on Oct 11, 2007 @ 07:20 PM“Garibaldy: “Rory is right. Mandela has sold the people in the townships down the river.”
And this is different from most the rest of African nations, once the white man is removed from power *HOW?*”
In that Mandela is popularly perceived as being the man of principle who would never abandon the people whose freedom he fought for? Or even that he’s not commonly classed with the rest of the Swiss bank account brigade?
Posted by on Oct 11, 2007 @ 07:31 PM“And people wonder why I laugh at those ill-informed enough to wear “Che-wear” to anti-death penalty demonstrations…”
Is that a thing you regularly encounter. I thought the usual venue for Che-wear was a 2nd year Tuesday afternoon politics lecture.
Posted by on Oct 11, 2007 @ 07:33 PMDC,
I’m disappointed with the ANC largely because it was in a much better position to help its people out than most. And because houses, water and electricity was not the most outrageous or hard
programme to follow.As for the summary executions etc, we’re talking about the late 1950s and early 1960s - not that long before Americans and Europeans, as well as the Japanese, were doing exactly that. Not to mention revenge against the officials of the Batista dictatorship that had done similar and worse things to the July 26th movement, and to civlians.
Posted by on Oct 11, 2007 @ 07:37 PMGaribaldy
The Europeans who did the summary executions were largely wearing Nazi and Red Army uniforms. Should you wish to compare Che and his actions with these organizations, I have no objection.
Posted by on Oct 11, 2007 @ 07:45 PMFrank,
Not even close to being a day job. But I am glad you noticed my absence. Man’s got to eat. Sidelined from the bigger picture, or no. ;-)
Posted by on Oct 11, 2007 @ 07:51 PMSo was the Ballyseedy Massacre ok given the context of the time in which it happened?
Posted by on Oct 11, 2007 @ 08:05 PMMy point was that we are judging people by the standards of early C21st liberal democracy - or, to be more accurate the supposed standards of early C21st liberal democracy. Don’t mention the war in Iraq, Afghanistan, rendition, starving and homeless people at home, etc etc. If we are to judge Che’s actions - or Cromwell’s, or Zhukov’s or Mohammed’s - then we should judge them by the standards of the times, not of our own.
Or to put that another way, what would have happened Che had the regime got his hands on him in the late 1950s as opposed to Fidel’s first attempt?
Posted by on Oct 11, 2007 @ 08:13 PMWhataboutery survives all else.
Posted by on Oct 11, 2007 @ 08:24 PMJoe,
Not sure if that’s aimed at me or not. I’m seeking to understand why people did why they did, rather than simply condemn them. Consequence of the education I got.
Posted by on Oct 11, 2007 @ 08:31 PMWhataboutery survives all else.
Posted by joeCanuck on Oct 11, 2007 @ 10:24 PMI think it would probably survive Che lining it up against a wall and letting the firing squad loose on it.
Posted by on Oct 11, 2007 @ 08:47 PMThe point I was trying to make is that murder is wrong.
It’s no use saying that the other guy would murder me if he got the chance.
There’s a unbridgeable gulf between self defence and cold blooded murder.Posted by on Oct 11, 2007 @ 09:04 PMJoe,
I think that’s true for individuals, but not necessarily for movements or wars.
Posted by on Oct 11, 2007 @ 09:11 PM
