(Analyzing the Images of May 1, 2006: The First in a Series)
One symbol that gets many people up in arms (no pun intended) is the portrait of Ché Guevara. On the one hand, I fully understand that Guevara was a guerrilla and a communist revolutionary who believed that violence was a legitimate political tool—a tool he himself used. Further, he is directly associated with the dictatorship of Fidel Castro in Cuba. However, before we get too apoplectic over the image it is worthwhile to think about what it may mean to those who display it and to think about what it may mean in the context of this past Monday.
Here’s an example from Monday via Michelle Malkin:
Revolutionary or dude who thinks the shirt looks cool? Who can say?
Generically, there is something romantic to be associated with fighting for what one believes to be right, and being willing to die in the process. Further, the basic story of a doctor who gave up a life of comfort to fight for the poor is pretty appealing. It is especially appealing if one is poor.
It is worth noting that Fulgencio Batista, whose regime Castro, Ché and company overthrew, wasn’t a paragon of virtue whose overthrow should be lamented in any way (although I do lament the Castro regime itself). Further, when Ché went to Bolivia to try and foment revolution in the late 1960s, Bolivia was ruled by a military dictatorship which had come to power via a coup in 1964.
Without getting into any more discussion of the cases than that, set aside one’s aversion to Marxism and look at why Ché might be considered a heroic figure to poor Latin Americans: he helped successfully overthrow one dictator in Cuba and died working against a military dictatorship in a country were the vast majority was treated as second-class citizens (the 75% of the population of indigenous descent).
Really, this isn’t hard to understand, and a Ché t-shirt therefore does not mean that someone wants a Soviet-style regime in Washington, DC. It certainly doesn’t necessarily mean much of anything about a reconquista.
Take all of that and mix in the fact that the young often are drawn to rebellious symbolism and it isn’t too hard to understand Ché’s generic appeal.
No, I am not arguing for armed Marxist revolution, but then again I am hardly convinced that everyone who wears a Ché t-shirt is either (indeed, I am certain they most aren’t).
Certainly the presence of those shirts and images at the marches on Monday hardly prove that the marches were really a front for international communism.
I have more to say on the generic topic of the images from Monday, but will pick up the thread later.
Sphere: Related Content
May 4th, 2006 at 12:57 pm
Dude, this is so freakishly commonsensical and _correct_ that it shouldn’t be allowed in the blogosphere.
May 4th, 2006 at 3:21 pm
Romanticizing Ché Guevara
Steven Taylor has an excellent post explaining why the image of Ché Guevara is so appealing. The gist: “he helped successfully overthrow one dictator in Cuba and died working against a military dictatorship in a country were the vast majority w…
May 4th, 2006 at 9:29 pm
So it’s thug chic? How about radical chic? By why is a thug from the Left romanticized while facist thugs are vilified? It’s somewhat fashionable to wear clothes with the Soviet star and sickle but wearing a swastika would bring derision.
May 4th, 2006 at 9:49 pm
Where, precisely, is the romance associated with the Swastika or national socialism in general?
I suspect that a Stalin t-shirt isn’t going to get much play, either.
Nor, for that matter, does a Fidel Castro shirt.
I understand that you don’t like Guevara. But liking Guevara isn’t the point–understanding why his image has garnered the status it has is.
And as I said, the whole idealist fighting to the downtrodden image is pretty powerful. (The whole dying young thing helped as well).
And more to the point: the notion that everyone who dons a Che t-shirt is some sort of Stalinist is simply silly.
May 4th, 2006 at 9:56 pm
True, assuming a Che fan is a revolutionary is simple-minded. I just wonder why the two great totalitarianism of the 20th century aren’t treated with the same scorn. But that’s a discussion for another post.
May 5th, 2006 at 6:35 am
The fact that we allied with the Soviets in WWII probably has more than a little something to do with it–amongst a number of other issues to complicated to get into in a comment box at this time of the morning.
May 5th, 2006 at 8:25 am
[...]
(Analyzing the Images of May 1, 2006: The Second in a Series–Installment One is here) Note: A post by Steve Verdon at OTB on sloppy logic and the May Day marhces was the main inspiration [...]