<p>Well, since the people who took over Native American/Mexican land and set up the Japanese internment camps are either dead or no longer in power (or both), it's impossible to use those events to make a prediction one way or the other?</p>
<p>You don't sound like a conspiracy theorist because you didn't propose a conspiracy, but you do sound kind of illogical.</p>
<p>I think it's illogical to think that the United States government is completely clean. In many cases of politicians getting caught, it's clear that these politicians get close to getting away with it. One can easily deduct that a lot of people do get away with their crimes, especially if it's white collar crime.</p>
<p>I don't think I mentioned anything about the US government being clean. I said that citing the actions of long-dead people to make inferences about the actions of unrelated, living people was a logical misstep, and it is.</p>
<p>It is a logical misstep, but old traditions die hard. From the few scandals we do hear about in the news, one can logically deduct that there is much more going on that we don't hear about.</p>
<p>The same probably goes for the governments of other countries, as well as corporations, religious organizations, and any group of people with whom power is consolidated.</p>
<p>
[quote]
What if they drew his face on a T-shirt?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I concede that that is possible, but the kids I know who wear Che Guevara T-shirts bought them at Urban Outfitters or some similar store. Trust me, most people wearing that shirt aren't creative or devoted enough to the anti-capitalist agenda to make the effort.</p>
<p>Lol, I don't actually believe they'd draw the face, but I thought the almost ad absurdum technique had an effect.</p>
<p>I'd put down what else I think, but really I agree with pretty much everything Liist has said here, so one vote to him.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I really don't think it's fair to compare Che Guevara and George W. Bush.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Haha well when you put it out there like that without context it does look funny but I still think it's valid. Why don't you think it's fair? If anyone is going to go out there and say that the ends do not justify the means, then it seems inconsistent to turn around and admire Che.</p>
<p>Well, if you apply virtue ethics to the question, you could argue that although the tactics employed by Guevara were brutal when looked at as individual actions, they were the desperate efforts of a man attempting sincerely to improve the lives of his people, and his resorting to violence reflects more on the hopeless political and economic situation then on his own character. I'm typically skeptical of altruism, but the fact that Che quit the medical profession to be a guerilla fighter suggests that his intentions were relatively clean.</p>
<p>Bush, on the other hand, has lived a sheltered existence since the day he was born. At no point has he put himself in political (let alone physical) danger in the puruit of his "ideals," allowing the blame instead to be shunted on to one of his subordinates when something goes wrong. Rather than combatting a corrupt establishment, he is the embodiment of a corrupt establishment, repeatedly displaying contempt (or at least apathy) for the American democratic political system, his decisions to ignore Supreme Court rulings being a prime example.</p>
<p>So yeah. Short version: one man can conceivably be excused because of his background and intentions, whereas the other is just further condemned.</p>
<p>With that logic, we can excuse Adolf Hitler. His life was definitely not sheltered and he was extremely dissatisfied with the Weimar Republic. He seriously wanted to bring Germany back out of the dust and that's what he did. He took over lands to benefit his people and the Aryan race. He killed Jews because he thought they were a plague to society. They seem to be pretty good intentions to me.</p>
<p>Dude, Godwin's Law.</p>
<p>Oh ****, I never heard of that law. Oh well, I don't think Hitler was such a bad guy anyway; he did a lot for Germany.</p>
<p>Then I suppose Stalin could have been excused because of his intentions for Mother Russia.</p>
<p>Happy?</p>
<p>Well, since each figure you mentioned was essentially the dictator of a powerful nation, I don't think either analogy applies because neither man was "acting out of desperation against a corrupt establishment which effectively rendered other methods of political improvement impossible."</p>
<p>Damn, I got alot of posts.</p>
<p>Anyhow, back to topic. My focus is, aren't you irritated when people rock his image without understand who he was, or why his beliefs went against the very t-shirt these same people wear?</p>
<p>Communism is not the devil. It's just not possible according to the laws of man. Remember, "give to Caesar what is Caesar, and give to the Lord what is the Lord's" not "give to Caesar and have him even things out for those who can't give". Men are greedy, competitive but greedy. However, the forms of communist government seen to the world were screwed up, and took away the reward of hard work from honest people. Capitialism blows, but at least you get a chance in that system when rules are applied.</p>
<p>My respect for him is that he called out Castro from turning away from his promises of free government services like education and quality health care, and because he drove all business away from Cuba.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>With the exception of Stalin, every person listed in the 2nd post on this thread started a revolution to get into a position of power, Hitler included. They all did this under bankrupt/corrupt governments. The problem is, their governments were more corrupt/bankrupt than the previous establishment.</p>
<p>Che himself wasn't a "horrible Communist." He really had strong intentions for his view of government IF you actually read his diaries/journals. You have to realize that he put a lot on the line. Nobody addressed the fact that even though Che and Mao might be called "terrorists" because they supported an ideal of Communism, we never call our founding fathers such as GW terrorists? Why is this? I think only because they worked in our favor. Che was in favor of an ideal which we didn't exactly understand or were misinformed. I wear a T-shirt, read his memoirs, understand his life and can't say that I like him just because he was a rebel, rather because he stood for some things that I feel that I have parallel interest. A lot of people associate Che with Castro and have bad feelings about him but it's interesting to note that in his memoirs that Che notes that their fallout is on issues such as humanitarianism. Communism in itself may not be the most practical system, but it is in theory, the best way to live.</p>
<p>Ditto.</p>
<p>My issue is, why did you buy that T-shirt?</p>
<p>If you want to be Che, you can do so on a small scale without adding the pretentiousness of making a fashion statement.</p>
<p>Oh, and Cameron Diaz rocking the Mao bag is hilarious, considering that her occupation is among the most overpaid in our nation.</p>
<p>I don't think capitalism is evil. I don't think communism is evil. I do think 90% of people that wear the t-shirts are idiots that don't have a flipping clue (though I am not talking about you, stock).</p>
<p>
[quote]
Well, if you apply virtue ethics to the question, you could argue that although the tactics employed by Guevara were brutal when looked at as individual actions, they were the desperate efforts of a man attempting sincerely to improve the lives of his people, and his resorting to violence reflects more on the hopeless political and economic situation then on his own character. I'm typically skeptical of altruism, but the fact that Che quit the medical profession to be a guerilla fighter suggests that his intentions were relatively clean.</p>
<p>Bush, on the other hand, has lived a sheltered existence since the day he was born. At no point has he put himself in political (let alone physical) danger in the puruit of his "ideals," allowing the blame instead to be shunted on to one of his subordinates when something goes wrong. Rather than combatting a corrupt establishment, he is the embodiment of a corrupt establishment, repeatedly displaying contempt (or at least apathy) for the American democratic political system, his decisions to ignore Supreme Court rulings being a prime example.</p>
<p>So yeah. Short version: one man can conceivably be excused because of his background and intentions, whereas the other is just further condemned.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>So basically what you're saying is that the ends do indeed (sometimes) justify the means and that it depends on the sincerity of the perpetrator. Ok that may be you but that still doesn't really prove my argument wrong. You just presented a new premise that allows someone to criticize Bush and still support Che. But anyone criticizing Bush by saying the ends do justify the means while supporting Che would still be inconsistent. Of course he or she can stop using that specific argument and just adopt yours instead. I still disagree with this new premise also however. You say Bush showed contempt for a democratic political system but I don't see how that is worse than Che showing contempt for human life.</p>