Che Chic: Why Commies Aren’t Cool
There are several posts on The Corner today about the popularity of products featuring the image of Che Guevara. What an interesting irony and sad commentary. The image of this Communist murderer is being exploited by capitalists to make money from people who, we can only pray, know nothing about the man glorified on the t-shirts in which they dress their two-year-old children.
By his own words, which alas do not appear on the t-shirts, Guevara believed that “Revolutionaries must become cold-killing machines motivated by pure hate.”
His is no one to be idolized:
The fog of time and the strength of anti-anti-Communism have obscured the real Che. Who was he? He was an Argentinian revolutionary who served as Castro’s primary thug. He was especially infamous for presiding over summary executions at La Cabaña, the fortress that was his abattoir. He liked to administer the coup de grâce, the bullet to the back of the neck. And he loved to parade people past El Paredón, the reddened wall against which so many innocents were killed.
A precious few in the entertainment world have protested the glorification of this man:
Which brings us back to Carlos Santana and his chic Che gear. In an open letter published in El Nuevo Herald on March 31 of this year, the great jazz musician Paquito D’Rivera castigated Santana for his costume at the Oscars, and added: “One of those Cubans [at La Cabaña] was my cousin Bebo, who was imprisoned there precisely for being a Christian. He recounts to me with infinite bitterness how he could hear from his cell in the early hours of dawn the executions, without trial or process of law, of the many who died shouting, ‘Long live Christ the King!’â€
related articles
- Happy Fourth of July (July 4th, 2007)
- Churchill on Islam (July 2nd, 2007)
- Right Words (April 7th, 2007)
- What a jerk! (April 5th, 2007)
- The Multicultural Lie and the Clash of Civilizations (August 22nd, 2006)
November 16th, 2005 at 10:53 am
I appreciate very much your post here. Those who forget history, etc.
Yet, do you really think that putting Jesus BELOW Reagan is a good idea?
November 16th, 2005 at 6:03 pm
I’ve always liked Santana and Kate Hudson too, but I’ve never thought of them as the brightest political bulbls in the box. When the owner of the fashion business states, “The whole idea behind the company was to put traditional grown-up images on babies,†Mr. Husum said. “This is not at all a political statement, it’s a fashion statement. Che’s image has a rock ’n’ roll edge to it that we’re looking for,†it makes me wonder if he needs to start putting bin Laden and Saddam Hussein’s pictures on t-shirts for the children of Connelly and Hudson too, just for a little variety…
November 16th, 2005 at 9:20 pm
JRB,
I don’t understand your comment. Are you saying that because Jesus is below Reagan in my graphic that His position somehow signifies that He is less great than Reagan?
If that is what you meant, then do you also think that because Reagan is below Che in my graphic that his position signifies that he is less great than Che?
There was no intent in the order, but if there were, it seems the most logical would be worst-to-best, top-to-bottom — starting with Che and ending with Christ, leaving Reagan somewhere in the middle.
The point of the graphic is just to display the image of Guevara being discussed as well as some of the derivatives of that image — all of which can be purchased on T-shirts and various other items because of capitalists (e.g. here, and here).
By the way, I find it fascinating that, according to the Wikipedia article on the original photo, the famous image being sold is itself a misrepresentation of the photo on which it is based. What a delicious double meaning, since the “image” of a romantic rebel is also a misrepresentation of the man on which it is based: