posted August 05, 2006 08:50 PM              

one of TIME Magazine's 100 most important figures of the century

Che Guevara
By ARIEL DORFMAN
Monday, June 14, 1999

By the time Ernesto Guevara, known to us as Che, was murdered in the jungles of Bolivia in October 1967, he was already a legend to my generation, not only in Latin America but also around the world.

Like so many epics, the story of the obscure Argentine doctor who abandoned his profession and his native land to pursue the emancipation of the poor of the earth began with a voyage. In 1956, along with Fidel Castro and a handful of others, he had crossed the Caribbean in the rickety yacht Granma on the mad mission of invading Cuba and overthrowing the dictator Fulgencio Batista. Landing in a hostile swamp, losing most of their contingent, the survivors fought their way to the Sierra Maestra. A bit over two years later, after a guerrilla campaign in which Guevara displayed such outrageous bravery and skill that he was named comandante, the insurgents entered Havana and launched what was to become the first and only victorious socialist revolution in the Americas. The images were thereafter invariably gigantic. Che the titan standing up to the Yanquis, the world's dominant power. Che the moral guru proclaiming that a New Man, no ego and all ferocious love for the other, had to be forcibly created out of the ruins of the old one. Che the romantic mysteriously leaving the revolution to continue, sick though he might be with asthma, the struggle against oppression and tyranny.

His execution in Vallegrande at the age of 39 only enhanced Guevara's mythical stature. That Christ-like figure laid out on a bed of death with his uncanny eyes almost about to open; those fearless last words ("Shoot, coward, you're only going to kill a man") that somebody invented or reported; the anonymous burial and the hacked-off hands, as if his killers feared him more after he was dead than when he had been alive: all of it is scalded into the mind and memory of those defiant times. He would resurrect, young people shouted in the late '60s; I can remember fervently proclaiming it in the streets of Santiago, Chile, while similar vows exploded across Latin America. !No lo vamos a olvidar! We won't let him be forgotten.

More than 30 years have passed, and the dead hero has indeed persisted in collective memory, but not exactly in the way the majority of us would have anticipated. Che has become ubiquitous: his figure stares out at us from coffee mugs and posters, jingles at the end of key rings and jewelry, pops up in rock songs and operas and art shows. This apotheosis of his image has been accompanied by a parallel disappearance of the real man, swallowed by the myth. Most of those who idolize the incendiary guerrilla with the star on his beret were born long after his demise and have only the sketchiest knowledge of his goals or his life. Gone is the generous Che who tended wounded enemy soldiers, gone is the vulnerable warrior who wanted to curtail his love of life lest it make him less effective in combat and gone also is the darker, more turbulent Che who signed orders to execute prisoners in Cuban jails without a fair trial.

This erasure of complexity is the normal fate of any icon. More paradoxical is that the humanity that worships Che has by and large turned away from just about everything he believed in. The future he predicted has not been kind to his ideals or his ideas. Back in the '60s, we presumed that his self-immolation would be commemorated by social action, the downtrodden rising against the system and creating — to use Che's own words — two, three, many Vietnams. Thousands of luminous young men, particularly in Latin America, followed his example into the hills and were slaughtered there or tortured to death in sad city cellars, never knowing that their dreams of total liberation, like those of Che, would not come true. If Vietnam is being imitated today, it is primarily as a model for how a society forged in insurrection now seeks to be actively integrated into the global market. Nor has Guevara's uncompromising, unrealistic style of struggle, or his ethical absolutism, prevailed. The major revolutions of the past quarter-century (South Africa, Iran, the Philippines, Nicaragua), not to mention the peaceful transitions to democracy in Latin America, East Asia and the communist world, have all entailed negotiations with former adversaries, a give and take that could not be farther from Che's unyielding demand for confrontation to the death. Even someone like Subcomandante Marcos, the spokesman for the Chiapas Maya revolt, whose charisma and moral stance remind us of Che's, does not espouse his hero's economic or military theories.

How to understand, then, Che Guevara's pervasive popularity, especially among the affluent young?

Perhaps in these orphaned times of incessantly shifting identities and alliances, the fantasy of an adventurer who changed countries and crossed borders and broke down limits without once betraying his basic loyalties provides the restless youth of our era with an optimal combination, grounding them in a fierce center of moral gravity while simultaneously appealing to their contemporary nomadic impulse. To those who will never follow in his footsteps, submerged as they are in a world of cynicism, self-interest and frantic consumption, nothing could be more vicariously gratifying than Che's disdain for material comfort and everyday desires. One might suggest that it is Che's distance, the apparent impossibility of duplicating his life anymore, that makes him so attractive. And is not Che, with his hippie hair and wispy revolutionary beard, the perfect postmodern conduit to the nonconformist, seditious '60s, that disruptive past confined to gesture and fashion? Is it conceivable that one of the only two Latin Americans to make it onto TIME's 100 most important figures of the century can be comfortably transmogrified into a symbol of rebellion precisely because he is no longer dangerous?

I wouldn't be too sure. I suspect that the young of the world grasp that the man whose poster beckons from their walls cannot be that irrelevant, this secular saint ready to die because he could not tolerate a world where los pobres de la tierra, the displaced and dislocated of history, would be eternally relegated to its vast margins.

Even though I have come to be wary of dead heroes and the overwhelming burden their martyrdom imposes on the living, I will allow myself a prophecy. Or maybe it is a warning. More than 3 billion human beings on this planet right now live on less than $2 a day. And every day that breaks, 40,000 children — more than one every second! — succumb to diseases linked to chronic hunger. They are there, always there, the terrifying conditions of injustice and inequality that led Che many decades ago to start his journey toward that bullet and that photo awaiting him in Bolivia.

The powerful of the earth should take heed: deep inside that T shirt where we have tried to trap him, the eyes of Che Guevara are still burning with impatience.

Ariel Dorfman holds the Walter Hines Page Chair at Duke University. His latest novel is The Nanny and the Iceberg

posted August 05, 2006 11:31 PM            

"Every piece of marble has a statue in it
waiting to be released by a man of sufficient skill
to chip away the unnecessary parts.
Just as the sculptor is to the marble,
so is education to the soul.
It releases it.
For only educated men are free men.
You cannot create a statue by smashing the marble
with a hammer,
and you cannot, by force of arms,
release the spirit or the soul of man."

~Confucius

posted August 06, 2006 11:31 AM            

quote:

---

It's very nice to sit in the comfort of one's home with all your pretty things and generous opportunities and feel anger at the bad things "out there". It's very easy to admire someone who was a rebel "for the victimized" but it is even easier to forget those who were victimized by that very person

---

posted August 06, 2006 12:15 PM              

Fidel Castro died in 1981, and was replaced by a look-alike CIA plant. The dictator ate tainted shellfish and died. CIA infiltrators wasted no time in covering this up, and installing an agent named Alexis Papagos to impersonate Castro, and run the country. This information comes to THE UNCOVEROR via Cuban national, Igor Davidovich Martinez.

Why, then, does the U.S. government maintain the embargo against Cuba? "The CIA is turning a great profit by selling contraband Cuban goods on the black market," says Martinez, "and they don't want to give that up." The CIA sees to it that the embargo stays.

What tipped Martinez off? Before 1981, the real Fidel Castro nearly always wore a military uniform. After that year, "Castro," really Alexis Papagos, appeared more often in civilian clothing.

This prompted Martinez, and several others to start digging. Of those who discovered this deception, only Martinez remains alive.

The plot almost failed. A few people in 1981 heard of Castro's death, and began a rumor that he had died of syphilis, but the CIA quickly made those people, some of them Americans, Disappear. They needed the world to think that Castro was still alive. They didn't want you to know, but thanks to THE UNCOVEROR, now you do.

posted August 06, 2006 02:35 PM              

What do they say?

posted August 07, 2006 09:29 PM            

You twit- do you HAVE control over YOUR friends wardrobe? LMAO... well maybe since you are all little feeble brained nimrods. Only YOU would think of something so stupid as to equate Bear's friend wearing a Che shirt with Bear himself. GOD, you are one dumb woman aren't you? How did you manage to survive this long? Well, I guess you may have something in common with cockroaches and that you all will be the pests that can survive through time.

Eleanore,

I agree with you about Che. He is NOT someone I would have ever supported nor would I ever wear a T-shirt. Bear's friend is also a fellow Soldier in the Military (Oooops there goes Stainblow's and Mirandees theory that the US Military controls what the Soldiers believe). The picture was taking soon after they were all stationed together in Korea.

The guy is a great guy and is entitled to his own beliefs and supports who he wants (again that is for the intellectual midget Rainblow). He is also significantly younger than Bear by about 10 years. Ironically, when this post came up with his picture (which Salome is VERY bad form to post someones chart or pic without their permission and can be construed as a bit creepy - LOL) his friend with the Che shirt was at his house.

I was on the phone with Bear and when the pic was posted his friend gave a lengthy reason as to why he supported Che the revolutionary. Bear and I don't agree - but unlike some people we will not try to stifle another person's speech while screaming on the top of our lungs that we deserve it as well.

Oh and lets all remember a couple of things regarding the guy in the Che shirt; 1) he is serving our country and may be deployed soon and 2) he would do anything to ensure the safey of our citizens and anything to stop terrorism.

I am sure he will start posting on here in time as he seemed quite interested in a lot of the BS floating around regarding the war in Iraq and the misconception of the leftests.

OH MY... be prepared for another dissenting view.. can the twit club handle it? LMAO

posted August 07, 2006 09:59 PM              

quote:

---

which Salome is VERY bad form to post someones chart or pic without their permission and can be construed as a bit creepy - LOL

---

posted August 07, 2006 10:16 PM              

i did compliment them though.

posted August 08, 2006 12:25 PM            

******

pidaua
Exactly. I've had friends who've worn that same shirt in the past and I never commented on it. I don't tend to use people's political (or religious) beliefs against them, even when they wear them on their sleeves, and imply negative things about them and the way they live their lives.
The Che guy (what a name, should be his username here ) has every right to wear what he wants ... in the US at least. He looks hispanic to me, and if he is, I can imagine what his reasons are for his feelings for Che. I don't really agree, but I don't have to.

posted August 08, 2006 12:56 PM            

There are various standards that we do adhere to, even myself. We've gone through these standards again and again. Have you ever read me calling someone a b1tch, who*re or using racist language to describe another poster? Have you ever seen me use someone's chart or aspects against them? Such as "You stupid *astro sign here*, no wonder everyone hates you, you are known to be such and such" Or "You are being obsessive because you have this aspect and most people with that aspect should just commit suicide".

Have you read about me calling someone a name based on sexual orientation or lumping all of a religion into one group? I point my finger at Muslim extremists and terrorists. At the same time, I also point my finger at any terrorist whether pro-life, an animal activist or environmental weirdo that burns down houses.

I have yet to post a persons picture either in a good or bad way - but I have had people do that here.

I have yet to call someone on the thread and say "God, you are the ugliest person I have met, if I looked like you I would commit suicide, hey everyone look at so and so's picture."

I do call people; twits, idiots, intellectual midgets, stupid, helmet wearers and for my favorite VL - guttersnipe troll, lady that sells herself for soup kitchen coupons...etc.... I have insulted a person intelligence numerous times, called them ugly - not face wise, with the exception of VL, compared them to droooling old hags etc...

But... I draw the line at attacking on a certain level.

As for the picture, it really wasn't ME that was creeped out it was Bear. Even with the compliment he was taken aback because he was under the impression that it was in poor taste to do something along that nature.

posted August 08, 2006 01:03 PM            

LOL... I understand what you mean. Bear and I talked about it last night. The Che guy is not hispanic and is very young. I don't think he totally understands why people in our age bracket and older can't fathom holding Che as a hero. When I was 8 my father took me on a father-daughter event to see the Musical Evita. After, he explained to me what happened, why Che was revered and why it was wrong.

posted August 08, 2006 03:15 PM              

quote:

---

There are various standards that we do adhere to, even myself. We've gone through these standards again and again. (tell it like it is, Ms. Fife)...

Have you ever read me calling someone a b1tch, who*re or using racist language to describe another poster? Have you ever seen me use someone's chart or aspects against them? Such as "You stupid *astro sign here*, no wonder everyone hates you, you are known to be such and such" Or "You are being obsessive because you have this aspect and most people with that aspect should just commit suicide".

Have you read about me calling someone a name based on sexual orientation or lumping all of a religion into one group? I point my finger at Muslim extremists and terrorists. At the same time, I also point my finger at any terrorist whether pro-life, an animal activist or environmental weirdo that burns down houses.

I have yet to post a persons picture either in a good or bad way - but I have had people do that here.

---

Ok Pid.....

......you say...."There are various standards that we do adhere to...."

Are you the architect of those standards, Pid?

Who gave you the "authority" to determine what standards one goes by?

Where the "limits" are?

I don't know who named YOU the "determiner of what standards we go by"

....but it's pretty apparent that you think you are the one who "makes the rules."

by having the gaul to tell us what IS allowable here (according to Pid)

example....

quote:

---

I do call people; twits, idiots, intellectual midgets, stupid, helmet wearers and for my favorite VL - guttersnipe troll, lady that sells herself for soup kitchen coupons...etc.... I have insulted a person intelligence numerous times, called them ugly - not face wise, with the exception of VL, compared them to droooling old hags etc...

But... I draw the line at attacking on a certain level.

---

What LEVEL is that, Pid?

One that's convenient for you?

Not that I'M the rule maker here....but it's MY opinion that insulting people and name calling is not only not a nice thing to do........but shows ones inability to present one's views with any validity - unless one "discredits" the opposition by "belittleing" them (which shows one's weakness with dialogue).

In my view NAME CALLING goes right along with all the other"taboos" you've determined are not allowable.

***********

Here's a funny one from Pid....

quote:

---

Have you ever read me calling someone a b1tch, who*re

---

quote:

---

I do call people; twits, idiots, intellectual midgets, stupid, helmet wearers and for my favorite VL - guttersnipe troll, lady that sells herself for soup kitchen coupons....drooling old hag....

---

What the hell is the difference, woman?

The fact that YOU can call people all those names - so it's automatically allowable?

You'd better rethink your defective ideas about what IS and IS NOT appropriate here.

It would appear to me that you need a moral code barometer that reads correctly.

posted August 08, 2006 03:44 PM            

Truly you have a black hole where a brain should exist, as though you are holier than thou, never once uttering a cross word.

Hey, I DO live by certain standards and while some things may seem offensive, I do NOT degrade myself by using racial or gender biased description in anger or otherwise.

You always seem to get offended over these "standards" and I can only assume because you have resorted to using race and gender against a person. Well, hell, you and your twit friends used my being American Indian against me, indicating that I was an embarrassment to my people- as though YOU know how to judge what MY people would do because I don't conform to your communist beliefs.

You have also resorted to using gender specific, derogatory terms in anger - on several occassions haven't you?

LOL...

Stupid.. Stupid... woman... maybe in your next life you will be born with a clue- then again, maybe you will just be the same bitter, ugly on the inside, insipid jerk that is unable to recognize the truth if it bit her in her tumbleweed a$$.

------------------
The democratic world believes that it is not the terrorists that are to blame, but us. Us, the westerners.
WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! And the sooner you eliminate this misconception from your minds, the better.
We are NOT to blame. It is the freaking terrorists and the freaking terrorists only!!!! They are the bad guys. They do not understand concepts like peace, democracy, and respect for human life. They are, pure and simPle, EVIL!!!!! Behind all their political manipulations, if you carefully look at the actions of these MONSTERS, they are EVIL!!

http://www.mideastweb.org/log/archives/00000489.htm

posted August 08, 2006 06:39 PM            

quote:

---

You agree, through your use of this service, that you will not use this bulletin board to post any material which is knowingly false and/or defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, insulting, invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise violative of any law. You agree not to post any copyrighted material unless the copyright is owned by you or by Linda-Goodman.com.

---

Does anyone else remember agreeing to these terms?
Our individual viewpoints, whatever they may be, are very nice and all ... but by registering here we agreed to the terms on that link. Although, I do agree that attacking a person's race, gender or religion (among other things, of course) is clearly way below the belt and should not need to be specifically outlined ... though sadly it does seem to need to be outlined for many.

posted August 08, 2006 10:27 PM              

quote:

---

Well, hell, you and your twit friends used my being American Indian against me, indicating that I was an embarrassment to my people-

---

I have NEVER used your being American Indian against you....

Why would I do that?

I AM American Indian, myself!

Honest to god, I don't know where you come up with this stuff, but since you've dared to make up such an OUTLANDISH LIE......

GO BACK AND FIND THE POST WHERE YOU CLAIM I DID THIS!!!

Come on!

I need proof!

You can't and you know it!

You're caught in your lies, woman!

Oh and here is another LIE!

quote:

---

You always seem to get offended over these "standards" and I can only assume because you have resorted to using race and gender against a person.

---

Wait a minute!

You were only ASSUMING and not accusing me of this, right?

WELL YOU WERE ASSUMING WRONG!

SO KNOCK IT OFF!

Yes, I'm angry and I have every right to be angry....when you sit there and tell LIE AFTER LIE ABOUT ME!

Apparently, it's your only way to defend yourself, for all the out of line stuff you pull....

+++++++++++++++++++++++++
Now while I've tried very hard (and it's difficult, believe me) to keep from reminding you that you're delusional.......I think I really ought to remind you that you need to expand your vocabulary.....since you are revealing your limitations by such phrases as....

"you are such an idiot Rainbow...."

"....stupid, stupid women...."

"..bitter, ugly on the inside, insipid jerk......."

I imagine it probably WOULD BE very difficult for you to get your point across, if you couldn't resort to the kind of stuff you've used above.......after all, it would take a little skill....

posted August 09, 2006 08:14 AM              

quote:

---

As for the picture, it really wasn't ME that was creeped out it was Bear. Even with the compliment he was taken aback because he was under the impression that it was in poor taste to do something along that nature.

---

what's creepy and in poor taste is an enlisted U.S. military officer entering a public discussion forum and insulting and degrading personally a number of the female members here. i was of the opinion that those in the military, officers esp, behaved in a polite manner befitting their office, treating people, and esp U.S. citizens, with respect. that he disagrees with their political views in no way justifies the derogatory way in which he continually treats the females in this community.

i believe it's possible to state his disagreement with their opinions in a polite and respectful fashion without the personal insults and vitriol. as a U.S. military officer, i would think that would be part of his protocol. isn't part of his service to uphold and protect american freedoms, one of the most cherished, as was highlighted earlier in this discussion, being that of free speech?

the women here whom Bear the Leo insults with such venom and glee are U.S. citizens, and as such, contribute to the system which contracts his services.

U.S. military officers who use their office to justify verbally attacking women who hold differing viewpoints than their own, in a personally derogatory manner, are questionable and not worthy of their office.

when however, the person holding a differing political view is his friend, and displays such views publicly, the justification shifts in a most contradictory way.

posted August 09, 2006 12:17 PM              

quote:

---

Rainbow,
You twit- do you HAVE control over YOUR friends wardrobe? LMAO... well maybe since you are all little feeble brained nimrods. Only YOU would think of something so stupid as to equate Bear's friend wearing a Che shirt with Bear himself. GOD, you are one dumb woman aren't you? How did you manage to survive this long?

---

quote:

---

There are various standards that we do adhere to, even myself. We've gone through these standards again and again.

---

What exactly are the standards here in this quote to Rainbow, Pidaua? Only you would actually draw "standard" lines to personally attacking other people. LMAO

What Rainbow was pointing out is the hypocrisy in Bear saying the things he does regarding liberals being terrorist supporters and at the same time seemingly thinking it okay for a friend to wear a T-Shirt with a picture of historical terrorist. Tell me, did Bear attack his friend for wearing that shirt? If not he is in fact giving it his approval.

posted August 09, 2006 12:28 PM              

quote:

---

what's creepy and in poor taste is an enlisted U.S. military officer entering a public discussion forum and insulting and degrading personally a number of the female members here. i was of the opinion that those in the military, officers esp, behaved in a polite manner befitting their office, treating people, and esp U.S. citizens, with respect. that he disagrees with their political views in no way justifies the derogatory way in which he continually treats the females in this community.

i believe it's possible to state his disagreement with their opinions in a polite and respectful fashion without the personal insults and vitriol. as a U.S. military officer, i would think that would be part of his protocol. isn't part of his service to uphold and protect american freedoms, one of the most cherished, as was highlighted earlier in this discussion, being that of free speech?

---

Agreed, salome. It is hardly befitting of a military officer to do that. But is obvious that he and his wife are of like mind and behavior in many respects. Even to the point of placing childish nicknames to mine and Rainbow's user names, i.e. Pidaua referring to Rainbow as "Stainbow" and Bear referring to me as "Mirandum."

posted August 09, 2006 03:07 PM            

Isn't it funny how when something doesn't go your way or Mirandee's way or even Rainbow's way, you all resort to trying to use something personal about a knowflake to throw them off?

Rainbow bashed on me as not being a good example of my tribe - then states she can say it because she is American Indian. Huh? Okay..

Mirandee gets her a$$ handed to her over her assumptions over the military, insults Bear, insults me, insults the Soldiers and not one is supposed to counter because IF they do... they YOU and the other twits use the "Military" against them.

Huh? Does that make sense? So, when it SUITS you all, others should be held to a specific standard? One that is in the Military is NOT human? One who is in the Military should not retort back because it offends one of our helpless maidens here?

Are you kidding? Both of those defenseless maidens have insulted quite a few people and if you hadn't noticed they don't care who it is but ONCE it gets flipped back to them, they play the Martyr.

Bear is allowed to say what he wants (Again, contrary to what Mirandee would have people believe as she feels the Military is somehow run by Bush and Company and they aren't allowed to voice any contrary opinion).

Yet.... what you people (leftests) don't understand is that the Military is occupied by humans- MEN AND WOMEN. So it is that he is a man and quipping back or is it that he is in the Military? Where was Stainblow and Mirandee when IQ was throwing out the derogatory comments to me? Oh, wait, I know... Stainblow was busy copying them and pasting them to use against me later...

Mirandee never said a word, but Bear speaks against her and now its the do as I say but not as I do routine.

Once again - HYPOCRITICAL

posted August 09, 2006 04:46 PM              

quote:

---

Rainbow bashed on me as not being a good example of my tribe - then states she can say it because she is American Indian. Huh? Okay..

---

....and WHO is playing the poor little cry baby "martyr" now?

Pid...you don't play fair with anyone...except perhaps jwhop....and I'm not really even sure if "parroting" someone and "kissing up" to them, could be equated with playing fair...*sigh*

posted August 09, 2006 04:55 PM              

quote:

---

Isn't it funny how when something doesn't go your way or Mirandee's way or even Rainbow's way, you all resort to trying to use something personal about a knowflake to throw them off?

---

LOL

pidaua ~ you are the MASTER of this tactic...you've been employing this creepy and low life tactic far longer than anyone else here. i've only seen people retaliate in this fashion after your trademark insulting and personal attacks.

posted August 09, 2006 05:00 PM              

(I suppose I'd better run, cuz Barny Fife will be on his way to get me for making two posts in a row....eeeee )

Italics mine!

quote:

---

Both of those defenseless maidens (referring to Mirandee and me) have insulted quite a few people and if you hadn't noticed they don't care who it is but ONCE it gets flipped back to them, they play the Martyr.

---

Mirandee and I DON'T insult people on this board...(as a rule...) but sometimes we retaliate when someone takes a shot at us....

What really upsets Pid...is if we DARE to say unflattering things about those whom she worships such as bush and coulter....

.....and I guess you could say we do insult them...but we'd never do that to anyone on th is board...I'd like to think that it is beneath me....

....and besides...MOST people on this board, are nice!

Why would we want to insult them?