To people who wear Che Guevara shirts.

[Dresta]

Winston Churchill killed 4 million Indians in Bengal during World War 2. Hes still considered a hero to his own people. Che Guevara is considered a hero to the people he protected. Deal with it mate its how the world works.

I think this thread has more to do with idiot American teenagers wearing these shirts, not Cuban peasants (the only people he can possibly be deemed to have 'protected'). In fact, those peasants probs couldn't afford his shirts

[Freakzilla]

Winston Churchill killed 4 million Indians in Bengal during World War 2. Hes still considered a hero to his own people. Che Guevara is considered a hero to the people he protected. Deal with it mate its how the world works.

Churchill was a scumbag too. Saying someone else sucks doesn't make Guevara any less shitty. Besides, do you see hipsters wearing Churchill shirts?

[Marlo_Stanfield]

LOL Guevera the revolutionary murdered 50,000 of his own people by firing squad. What a noble hero and non-sociopathic revolutionary

shut the fukk up

[Dresta]

Nope but I do see a whole society that protects his image. Its not just a British thing either. The French consider De Gaulle a national hero, even though he killed millions in Indochina and the Meghreb. Every country protects their own heroes image.

Anyway I actually agree with you if the point youre makin is that any murderer shouldnt be considered a hero. Sadly, war is a staple of society and war heroes are always given high regard.

Ps. Dresta. Lincoln was a tyrant who waged war on half of his own country, led the country into a war that cost 60p 000 lives, and left the Deep South struggling to survive for over 50 years. Like it or not he was the President at the time, so along with the praise he gets for ending slavery (either directly or indrectly) he should also get the dondemnation for all the murdered southereners that were killed.

How can you simultaneously praise his ending of slavery and then say he must be condemned for going to war when that was the only thing that had a hope of ending slavery in the Southern states? The South's economy was dependant on slavery; they weren't giving it up without a war. What you are saying makes no sense because the two actions (war and the ending of slavery) were completely inseparable.

Not to mention once the Southern states were allowed secession, others would follow, and the US would have ended up as a bunch of sovereign states, giving rise to disputes and possibly war in the future. And America most certainly would not have become the world power it did without keeping the Union together, and the world really needed a unified US in the 20th century, or it would have been at the mercy of Nazisim or Stalinism. The question is whether a person has had a positive or negative influence on the world, not whether they killed people or not, because any responsible ruler must be willing to kill.

You can be peaceful and kind and generous and courteous as a leader like Pertinax was, but look what happened to him (killed by his own guards after 3 months rule; his successor, Severus, who restored order to the empire with an iron hand, reigned for 18 years before expiring from natural causes).

[ZenMaster]

Don't underestimate that it's considered a cool brand and holds symbolism of being a rebel yourself. Most of the people who wear these shirts or put a flag up in their room are teenagers or still young.

[Freakzilla]

How can you simultaneously praise his ending of slavery and then say he must be condemned for going to war when that was the only thing that had a hope of ending slavery in the Southern states? The South's economy was dependant on slavery; they weren't giving it up without a war. What you are saying makes no sense because the two actions (war and the ending of slavery) were completely inseparable.

Not to mention once the Southern states were allowed secession, others would follow, and the US would have ended up as a bunch of sovereign states, giving rise to disputes and possibly war in the future. And America most certainly would not have become the world power it did without keeping the Union together, and the world really needed a unified US in the 20th century, or it would have been at the mercy of Nazisim or Stalinism. The question is whether a person has had a positive or negative influence on the world, not whether they killed people or not, because any responsible ruler must be willing to kill.

You can be peaceful and kind and generous and courteous as a leader like Pertinax was, but look what happened to him (killed by his own guards after 3 months rule; his successor, Severus, who restored order to the empire with an iron hand, reigned for 18 years before expiring from natural causes).

Except for every other country on earth, who all seemed to end slavery without a civil war and half a million corpses...

[BasedTom]

The Soviet Empire wouldnt have become the Superpower it did if it wasnt for Stalins harsh policies, five year plans, etc. Thats why hes considered a hero by the majority of Russians. He took them from a crumblin Empire to one that controlled half the world and defeated Hitler. Ita no different to Lincoln.

I know you guys in America dont like to admit your own historical genocides and crimes. But they did happen. 400 000 innocent southerners were forced into war by Lincoln, ultimately losing their lives. They didnt care about slavery, they were pawns sent to battle to protect their way of life that they had lived with for over 250 years.

Like it or not, just like Mao, Hitler, Stalin, Castro, Churchill etc.....Lincoln was just as bad

You're placing the entire blame for the civil war on one man? A man who had secessions and the Civil War on his plate practically right after being elected? The Civil War was a result of DECADES of turmoil and struggles between the North and South. Was Abraham Lincoln responsible for John Brown, Bleeding Kansas, or the Confederate attack on Fort Sumter?

If you really want to criticize Lincoln, criticize him for how he handled the rights of those who he himself declared were his citizens once the war had started. He suspended Habeas Corpus and other rights. These actions can certainly be viewed as tyrannical. But he wasn't responsible for the Civil War, nor for the destruction that obviously happens as a result of a civil war.

Lincoln as bad as Stalin or Hitler? Give me a ****ing break.

[Freakzilla]

You're placing the entire blame for the civil war on one man? A man who had secessions and the Civil War on his plate practically right after being elected? The Civil War was a result of DECADES of turmoil and struggles between the North and South. Was Abraham Lincoln responsible for John Brown, Bleeding Kansas, or the Confederate attack on Fort Sumter?

If you really want to criticize Lincoln, criticize him for how he handled the rights of those who he himself declared were his citizens once the war had started. He suspended Habeas Corpus and other rights. These actions can certainly be viewed as tyrannical. But he wasn't responsible for the Civil War, nor for the destruction that obviously happens as a result of a civil war.

Lincoln as bad as Stalin or Hitler? Give me a ****ing break.

Yes.

[tomSR.]

Despite this polarized status, a high-contrast monochrome graphic of Che's face, created in 1968 by Irish artist Jim Fitzpatrick, became a universally merchandized and objectified image,[257][258] found on an endless array of items, including T-shirts, hats, posters, tattoos, and bikinis,[259] ironically contributing to the consumer culture Guevara despised

[BasedTom]

Wtf....have you been reading the topic? Were talking about historical individuals who are praised, yet were reaponsible for countless deaths and murders. Like it or not, Abraham Lincoln declared war on the South....wether he had a moral right to do so or not is irrelevant to the topic. Were talkin about individuals who were responsible for deaths due to their political viewpoints and decisions.

Stalin never killed anyone himself. But everyone knows he was a tyrant. And he had to be. He took Russia from the embaressment of the Japanese War in 1905 and WW1 to the height of global power. He killed many jn the process, but thats how it works. Lincoln had to sacrifice the lives of hundreds of thousands of Americans to turn America into a global power. And it worked. Napolean killed millions, Caeser killed man, Atilla, Genghis, etc

Its how the world works. Like it or not Lincoln like most great historical leaders has blood on his hands

The difference between Lincoln and Stalin, Atilla, Genghis, and the names you are listing is that upon inheriting the position, the War had already begun. Are you suddenly evil for fighting back when you are attacked?

No doubt he has blood on his hands, but he's nowhere on the same level as the people you've listed.

[Dresta]

Except for every other country on earth, who all seemed to end slavery without a civil war and half a million corpses...

Hi, Mr. i'm going to state fallacies as if they were historical fact, sorry to interrupt your delusions, but you need to be corrected on a few things:

1. Plenty of countries still ignore slavery even today despite considerable international pressure to outlaw the practice.

2. Countries did not 'end slavery' on their own, nor did they do so before the US: they did so under extreme international pressure and the extension of European power (which was industrialised, and anti-slavery), and the places that benefitted most from slavery were most reluctant to give it up. It took two wars to end the practice of the Barbary States abducting European and American seafarers and selling them into slavery (over a million of them in total), and for these states to be conquered by France to end their slave trade. Basically, European power dominated the world by force, through war and bloodshed, and THAT is what got most countries to give up slavery, so yeah, you couldn't be more wrong really.

3. Industrialised nations had no need for slavery, and turned away from it for that very reason, not for reasons of moral scruple (all the dominant religions of the time endorsed slavery). And no other country had such a divide between an industrialised North that was anti-slavery and a slave-dependant agrarian community in the South, with populations in many states comprising of even 50% slaves (if you can not see why Southerners would be opposed to such a seismic shift as would be caused by the abandonment of slavery you are a fool).

4. There are many other examples and incidences that show your comment to be utter drivel, but I don't have time to go through them with you, so i suggest you go do some reading to correct your gross historical ignorance, as it makes you look a fool.

The Soviet Empire wouldnt have become the Superpower it did if it wasnt for Stalins harsh policies, five year plans, etc. Thats why hes considered a hero by the majority of Russians. He took them from a crumblin Empire to one that controlled half the world and defeated Hitler. Ita no different to Lincoln.

I know you guys in America dont like to admit your own historical genocides and crimes. But they did happen. 400 000 innocent southerners were forced into war by Lincoln, ultimately losing their lives. They didnt care about slavery, they were pawns sent to battle to protect their way of life that they had lived with for over 250 years.

Like it or not, just like Mao, Hitler, Stalin, Castro, Churchill etc.....Lincoln was just as bad

Utter moron, truly. Get a sense of perspective, seriously. Learn the meaning of the word genocide before you use it, it'll do you good.

Most Russians abhor Stalin and most Germans abhor Hitler, i suggest you get to know some of them because right now you strike me as a basement-dweller, completely detached from any kind of reality, and a social circle that doesn't extend outside the family.

[Oly BC]

Why? Do you think he was a hero or some kind of role model? It's inexplicable to me. It would be like wearing an Osama Bin Laden shirt or a Heinrich Himmler poster.

They usually are just as clueless as you for comparing him to Osama Bin Laden.

[Oly BC]

And you sound like a typical American detached from reality and the crimes your nation has commited on itself and other countries over the centuries.

Stalin was voted the third greatest Russian in history in 2010 by the Russian public. And he wasnt even Russian . Hitler is hated by Germans because he lost the war, Stalin won the war, the majority of Russians love him. Mao Ze Dong and Ho Chi Minh are also hated by many Chinese and Viets, but the majority love them for making their respecitve countries free and strong (never mind the lives lost). Americans truly are the dumbest people in the world: and youre living proof.



Lincoln declared war on his own countryman, and 600 000 people died as a result of it. Thats no different to the blood on any great leaders hands. He was a tyrant. A great historical figure. But also a mass murderer. Deal with it sonny.

One of things that strike me as plain odd is how the 1st of May is celebrated everywhere in the world except the US when it commemorates an event that took place there.


People from the US who are extremely unfamiliar with history (a stereotype they like to prove correct) think that every other leader is nothing but the sum of his ruthless murders whereas each and everyone of the presidents they probably memorize at some point in their school was nothing but a freedom hero.

There have been many massacres in the US for many reasons and many more outside of it with its meddling. One of the events that turned Guevara to communism was the coup in Guatemala. To this day failing countries are called "banana republics" as a result of that coup initiated by the United Fruit Company.

Historical reductionism is just boring. It always seems to me that some people who can't handle info, will just choose the simplest explanation for everything.

[Dresta]

And you sound like a typical American detached from reality and the crimes your nation has commited on itself and other countries over the centuries.Stalin was voted the third greatest Russian in history in 2008 by the Russian public. And he wasnt even Russian . I know you would like to think that Russians would have voted for Gorbachov, Baryshnikov, ***** Riot or Kasparov......but actually, the Russians are more likely to vote for strong political figures that made them proud to be called Russian and not Western Puppets like the aforementioned.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7802485.stm


Hitler is hated by Germans because he lost the war, Stalin won the war, the majority of Russians love him. Mao Ze Dong and Ho Chi Minh are also hated by many Chinese and Viets, but the majority love them for making their respecitve countries free and strong (never mind the lives lost). Americans truly are the dumbest people in the world: and youre living proof. Lincoln declared war on his own countryman, and 600 000 people died as a result of it. Thats no different to the blood on any great leaders hands. He was a tyrant. A great historical figure. But also a mass murderer. Deal with it sonny.

I'm not American thanks: i'm half English and half Polish, so you are wrong again. I really don't see how a BBC article on an online poll can either be accurate or relevant, but there you go. My father grew up in Soviet controlled Warsaw, and his parents lived through the war there, so i am no stranger to the knowledge of how badly the actions of powerful countries can affect the lives of people in small ones. In fact, the Polish fought with the British and Americans against the Germans, and were betrayed to Stalin and forced into decades of backwardness simply to avoid the possibility of further bloodshed or 'murder' as you put it . You are ignorant of the fact that sometimes a choice must be made between two options that will both result in misery and suffering for some people, and that attempting to choose the least bad option in these cases is not the same as wanton mass-murder, enslavement, and barbarism.

Your first sentence is a typical fallacy committed by literal-minded dullards like yourself: a 'nation' is not an acting being, it cannot 'commit' crimes against either itself or other countries - that is a simple anthropomorphism, and it really demonstrates your quite marked lack of intelligence. Individuals or groups of individuals can commit crimes, a 'nation' can do no such thing. You also need to look up the definition of the word 'murder' as you seem not to know what it means (again you show yourself incapable of understanding the words you use). You also call Americans 'the dumbest people in the world' (nice bigotry there), and then follow it up with a load of grammatical chaos that doesn't make any sense . You iz dumb az bricks, SEE-RIOUSLY.

[Nick Young]

I think this thread has more to do with idiot American teenagers wearing these shirts, not Cuban peasants (the only people he can possibly be deemed to have 'protected'). In fact, those peasants probs couldn't afford his shirts

People in Cuba hate Fidel and Che