A thoughtful Che Day to all!
Today is the 40th anniversary of the murder of Che Guevara. In Latin American countries especially, but also around the world there are rembrances of this revolutionary.
Democracy Now! did an excellent historical piece on his origins and what his work actually meant to Latin America and the world ( Read more... )
Democracy Now! did an excellent historical piece on his origins and what his work actually meant to Latin America and the world ( Read more... )
First, while I am very slow to accept violence as the best answer to any problem, if I didn't accept it on some level then I couldn't support the existence of the United States of America, also the child of a bloody revolution, which I do.
Second, Che supported the creation of a state where the needs of the people would come before the needs of a few elites, which I do endorse. Working on those principles, he and Castro were able to show that even in an incredibly poor country, services could be offered in the people's interests that would not only be functional, but on the same level as a nation like the US's. I note Cuba's medical programs as proof of concept.
Third, Che addressed the UN in 1964 and said in part:
The bestiality of imperialism, a bestiality that knows no limits, that has no national frontiers. The bestiality of Hitler’s armies is like the North American bestiality, like that of Belgian paratroopers and that of French imperialists in Algeria, for it is the very essence of imperialism to turn men into wild, bloodthirsty animals determined to slaughter, kill, murder and destroy the very last vestige of the image of the revolutionary or the partisan in any regime that they crush under their boots because it fights for freedom.
While this is a bit more colorfully than I would put it, this statement has been borne out in the several decades following it, in particular by his execution at the hands of our CIA.
Reply
Reply
What I agree with from the quote I presented is that imperialism itself is a means that no end justifies. It is by definition directly opposed to liberty, freedom and human rights for all. It destroyes the rule of law and replaces it with the rule of power.
Reply
There is no law with out the power to enforce it. There in lies the rub.
Several years ago I had an interesting experience. I went to Thailand months after the invasion of iraq. Heard all sorts of view points from italians, germans, brits, aussies, japanese and thais. It was very enlightening. I had noticed some odd looks on the faces of thai people as the european tourists were railing against america.
I had alot of conversations with many people over the month I was in chaing mai. I'm sure you've heard the sentiments expressed by the europeans and japanese against american policy. The view expressed by the thais was very different and fairly uniformly articulated.
They generally said "the europeans are different than us thais". "We live in the shadow of China" "China is big and powerful and Evil" and yes that's the word they often used. " America is big and powerful and not evil". Most of the rest was an expansion on the idea of comparing american policy to that of china.
I saw american flags on scooters in front of shops all over. The europeans I was hanging with scoffed and muttered frequently about them. Mind you this was after the iraq invasion.
There was also a civil disturbance in southern thailand while I was there. I saw the footage on thai t.v. a couple of times. There was a "rally" of thai muslims. They had machette's and axes and clubs and were talking about marching to take over a nearby armory. There were thai police all around in pick ups telling the crowd to disperse and no one would be arrested, but under no circumstances would they be allowed in the armory. The crowd began to march the mile to the armory with the thai police ahead of them in trucks repeating their message. When the mob got to the armory and the first one put his hand on the fence the thai police opened up with machine guns. I about jumped outta my skin. My driver who was translating laughed at me. Chi (the driver) said "what did you expect they told them what would happen" That was the view of the thais on the subject. Those at the rally had voiced their violent intentions and been warned and told to stop. When they crossed the line the thai police had no hesitation, in thier view the result was fully the responsiblity of those who wanted to break into the armory.
well it was an interesting experience anyway..
I don't think the event ever made international news...
just something to ponder
Reply
Your interpretation of the events at the armory is rather telling, I think, particularly that you give no explanation of the actions of the Muslims, and give not only an explanation but a full and absolute view of the police involved. Did you talk with these policemen and get a majority of their viewpoints that makes you comfortable making this kind of statement? If so, why didn't you talk with some of the Muslims as well?
Reply
Muslims the actions that appeared in the news cast were waving of sharp objects and shouting anti government slogans.
BTW it wasn't my interpretation I was relaying the interpretation of the thai's I spoke with. Why didn't I speak with any muslims? There are very few muslims in chaing mai mostly on the other side of the city from where I was going to schools and living. I was interested in the views of the people I knew, but it really wasn't important to me at the time.
your responss is also telling...a group of people threatening violence are told to stop with no repercussions mind you. They continue and make an attempt to break in and get more deadly weapons...and they become the victims in your mind...o.k.
What makes me comfortable making what kind of statement?
It seems from our conversations no matter what the actions are of muslims...they are justified and some how some one else's fault.
I hope that's not what you think, but it is what comes across.
Reply
So, we established that you did not in fact know what the police were thinking, or why they acted the way they did. You don't know (or didn't think it was important enough to say) what the protest was about. And you don't know (or didn't think it was important enough to say) what the historical relationship between Thai Muslims and the police there was. You also didn't give the extent of the injuries involved.
So all this says to me is that a group of people with hand weapons marched onto an armory, presumably to arm themselves, and were repelled by police who opened fire after a warning. Those are the only established facts. When I point this out, you attack me and accuse me of making the Muslims "victims" and siding with them.
I try to put some kind of objective viewpoint into the conversation, and you try to paint it as a subjective reversing of your own beliefs. Why not just discuss what I actually say instead of what you decide I mean? Or, actually ask me what I mean directly instead of jumping to conclusions?
Reply
I think the person most capable of "causing" the take over of a plane with box cutters is the one with the box cutter.
The ones most capable of causing a violent clash are the ones pushing for violence not the ones telling them to stop.
again we differ on "those most capable of causing it"
If you decided to attack an armory would it be your decision or would you just be a blameless victim of the government?
as to some back ground here you go
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/thailand2.htm
here is what I said
me- "
It seems from our conversations no matter what the actions are of muslims...they are justified and some how some one else's fault.
I hope that's not what you think, but it is what comes across."
here is your response
"I try to put some kind of objective viewpoint into the conversation, and you try to paint it as a subjective reversing of your own beliefs. Why not just discuss what I actually say instead of what you decide I mean? Or, actually ask me what I mean directly instead of jumping to conclusions?"
notice I said, this is what comes across... I did not say this is what you think... I was again letting you know the way it comes across...
as far as "objective viewpoint" that misses my entire point. I was simply giving the example because i found the thai reaction very surprising at the time. I was going to expand on the explainations I heard from the thai's about their view point. It's a very different way of looking at the world.
To be honest what interested me was that viewpoint and the justification people gave for it. As for the specifics of the internal conflict in thailand... I suppose we could research it and debate it, but that was never my intention or desire...
even if the muslims were oppressed and their attack completly justified and even if I agreed fully with their actions, it would not change my interest in the view of the non-muslim thai's
I did not mean to "attack" simple point out that every time we discuss any horrible act it you never seem to hold those who commit the act responsible...
again notice my use of the word seem... I'm letting you know my impression from our conversations.. I'm more than willing to be wrong in that regard, but it is what comes across to me..
take care
Reply
You didn't present any particular points of this that you wanted to discuss. You didn't state that you found the justification of the people talking about the police interesting or that you were going to expand on the explanations that you heard. What you said was that it was "just something to ponder."
I responded to your description as I would to a news report - that it was biased towards the police. I think that's what makes these conversations difficult; I want regular people to be good journalists instead of just people telling me what they heard, what they've seen.
Now that's definitely something to ponder.
Reply
"imperialism itself is a means that no end justifies. It is by definition directly opposed to liberty, freedom and human rights for all. It destroys the rule of law and replaces it with the rule of power,"
Imperialism is in the eye of the beholder it seems.
The war in korea which led to the establishment of south korea can be viewed as a act of imperialism. I don't think the people in south korea would have been better of with out such interference. I think the if a policy of avoiding conflict with the north korean's had been followed the results would have been horrific.
I am not a big believer in absolute statements especially when the statement originates from a very idealistic view. The world is gritty and dirty and each situation must be examined individually. I'm a pragmatist. Find the best possible solution and go with that.
Idealism has led to many horrible actions, regardless of the source of the idealism. The idealistic answer may cause some awful consequences.
The Thai response seemed to be one of absolute practicality. If any group with in society is "justified" in threatening violence because the majority does not agree there will be no "liberty, freedom and human rights for all".
Different cultures react differently to situations and pressures. Which is why I find the difference between tibet and the middle east so telling. Both are highly religious. In tibet the chinese have instituted policies of horrific violence. You don't see people from tibet hoping on planes and flying them into buildings in bejing. Why not? The reason isn't because china is so much more enlightened in their foreign policy, it's because of the cultural differences between the two groups. This is why I keep coming back to issues of culture. I don't think they are the only aspect, but they are a very important aspect ignored by many people.
The Thai's are 90 some percent Buddhist. It is the responsibility of each famliy to send every male child to a monastery for a year during their early adolescence. Their view on the social acceptability of violence is very different than our own. The same situation happening in the u.s. is unthinkable. There would be mass protests in the streets if american police did what the thai police did. What's the difference? The difference is in our cultural mindset.
The Thai people have had a low level war going on in the north of their country for decades. Burma has a horrific military dictatorship which shelters drug running gangs which operate through out northern thailand. Many of the these gangs are made up of disaffected groups like the hill tribes.
The Thai's I spoke to made reference the view that when a group threatens violence it is the duty of the state to respond with over whelming force. The Thai people have a huge amount of sympathy for the the resistance movement in burma, due in large measure to the fact that burma is not a democracy.
Looking at the "resistance" movements in the middle east, they do not have a goal which includes democracy and tolerance. They want a specific set of religious and social principals enforced on the people of the middle east. The Taliban is the model of government that al qeada strives for. I'm sorry, but I cannot view that as some thing that should be accepted or ignored.
If the people of the middle east used rhetoric and actions like those of the resistance in tibet, or burma my views would be different. A world where hammas, hezbullah, al qeada and the government of Iran all achieve their goals and gain power will not be a safer one.
I do not understand how groups which want to spread a "revolution" by violence are worse than american foreign policy. Killing people because they are gay, imprisoning them because they changed religions, these are not actions which are born of minds that respect liberty, freedom and human rights for all. So when these groups decry american foreign policy their words ring hollow. If people can doubt everything Bush says I just cannot understand why they do not have the same critical ear when hearing from the leaders of these "islamic extremist" groups.
ehhh what a world huh
Reply
thanks for your tolerance
Reply
Reply
I am not a big believer in absolute statements especially when the statement originates from a very idealistic view.
If any group with in society is "justified" in threatening violence because the majority does not agree there will be no "liberty, freedom and human rights for all".
I agree with you more the first time. Making an absolute pronouncement that denies a minority's right to rebel against a majority no matter what the circumstances is not something you should be a big believer in.
On that same note, I see Hamas, Hezbollah and the variety of groups that call themselves Al Qaeda as widely different groups, with very different "rhetoric and actions," so its difficult for me to understand what your view of them is, other than 'those Muslim people.'
I don't believe that I've drawn any comparisons between armed extremists and US foreign policy. I disagree with both and feel both should be brought into accordance with the rule of law.
As far as the extremist groups decrying American foreign policy, I agree with you; I focus on the decrying of American foreign policy by those with the skills, knowledge and experience to have valid opinions in that regard.
I don't see your analogy though: Most people that I know of that "doubt everything Bush says" do so because they have seen him proven to be a liar, not because he is willing to use violence.
Reply
"I agree with you more the first time. Making an absolute pronouncement that denies a minority's right to rebel against a majority no matter what the circumstances is not something you should be a big believer in."
hmmm again not really what I'm saying. I think the scale and actions of rebellion should be aligned with the scale of oppression. Blowing up 3,000 people because there is a military base in your "holy lands" is not exactly what one would call parity.
"I don't believe that I've drawn any comparisons between armed extremists and US foreign policy. I disagree with both and feel both should be brought into accordance with the rule of law."
Then why do you answer every conversation about the action of extremists with a rationalization based on U.S. policy, rather than just condemning the action?
"I don't see your analogy though: Most people that I know of that "doubt everything Bush says" do so because they have seen him proven to be a liar, not because he is willing to use violence."
ummm do you really check your sources? Would you like a list of cases where hammas and hezbullah said one thing then acted differently? You sure you want to go down that road? Willing to play if you like, but maybe you'd like to double check yourself first.
Reply
As to my responses, I do see that I tend to put questions and statements into a historical context that you see as some kind of rationalizing. Perhaps you can help me find a better way of doing this that you find more approachable.
As to Bush and other leaders who promote violence, what I described was the reason that most people, in my experience, "doubt everything Bush says," namely because he has been shown to be untrustworthy. I did not make a case that other leaders were more trustworthy, only that you were incorrect in your assumption that it was based on the amount of violence a leader suggests using. It may be more useful to continue with your original point though and to note that I also consider leaders of Hamas and Hezbollah with a critical ear based on their historical trustworthiness; more important perhaps, is the fact that I do not rely on any of them for my information, but on sources that have proven trustworthy over time.
Reply
After the surrender of Japan in 1945, American occupying forces moved into the Southern half of the penninsula, while Russian forces occupied the Northern half. It was agreed that Korea would be divided at the 38th Parallel, and unification would follow popular elections. While the US formed an interm government in the South, Russia set up a communist government in the North. During the Japanese occupation few Koreans had been allowed to hold positions of responsibility within the government or industry. Those that had were collaboraters, and were despised by the majority of koreans. In 1948 the Democractic Peoples' Republic of Korea was formed in the North, and the Republic of Korea was formed in the South. After the formation of the government, US forces pulled out of Korea, as it ramped down overall military commitments. In January of 1950, Secretary of State Acheson made made a series rather careless statements to the Washington National Press Club declaring Korea as unimportant to US stragetic goals in Asia. This lackm of interest by the u.s. caused Russia and the north koreans to assume they could attack south korea with out any interference from the u.s. One wonders if the whole war could have been avoided if the u.s. maintained a troop presence after the elections in the south.
The active support and encouragement of south korea labor parties use of civil violence to destablize and prevent the formation of a democratic government was a very important causitive factor. North korea and the soviets felt they could sweep into the south easily with out opposition because of the limited response of democratic countries and institutions.
http://www.kimsoft.com/2002/millet.htm
here is a link to a very good paper on the subject
What caused north korea to become a "great communist anti-imperialist hell hole" Well the fact that totalitarian socialist governments tend to lean that way is one big factor. If the u.s. and u.n would have been willing to actually win the war rather than choosing to stop half way is the biggest factor in my mind.
If the u.s. chose not to get involved in korea the south would be in the same horrible situation north korea is in currently.
http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2006/01/18/nkorea12255.htm
As far as your responses putting questions and statements into a historical context, I would respectfully disagree. A selective historical context perhaps. Historical context means evaluating a situation with all of the factors which influenced the event being discussed. If you would like a suggestion about a way of altering the appearence of "Then why do you answer every conversation about the action of extremists with a rationalization based on U.S. policy,.." I would suggest you think about "what other factors were causitive along with u.s. foreign policy" Perhaps including one or to other factors may create a more complete historical context to discuss.
Mistrust of bush vrs hamas and hezbullah etc. I believe you think you look at hamas and hezbullah with the same critical eye you use for the american administration, but I don't see that in any of your statements. You seem to take them at their word that all they want is u.s. interference to end then then they will suddenly have no reason to commit acts or terrorism or use violence. The interfactional fighting occuring in palestine now should be enough for you to look at these statements critically.
As I have said I gather information from many many sources, and am critical of all of them to one degree or another. I do not ignore everything presented on Fox or al arabia I listen to both. I try not to rely on a few news sources like democracy now etc. On an issue important to me I seek out news sources which may have very different bias to get a more complete picture.
hope it's not to cold up in Mi
chat at you later
Reply
Leave a comment