Che Guevara Statue In Galway

RichieC

Seachmall wrote: »

Hence "typically"...

Relevance?

America holds power in the media. What they want people to think will usually be what they think.

If Cuba held that much power in the media it wouldn't be controversial to like Che, or Castro.

Don't pretend not to get this.

Seachmall

RichieC wrote: »

America holds power in the media. What they want people to think will usually be what they think.

If Cuba held that much power in the media it wouldn't be controversial to like Che, or Castro.

Don't pretend not to get this.

Oh, I get it. But it's not relevant to my point.

RichieC

Seachmall wrote: »

Oh, I get it. But it's not relevant to my point.

Your point was that JFK is typically held in higher regard than Che. It is very relevant.

Seachmall

RichieC wrote: »

Your point was that JFK is typically held in higher regard than Che. It is very relevant.

My point had nothing to do with "why" he is, simply that he is.

Arguing why that may be so is a red herring.

old hippy

Che has his shortcomings, he wasn't as sexy as the Jim Fitzpatrick iconic print - he was naive and yes, he did unpleasant things in the pursuit of freedom. Not to mention establishing a communist dynasty in Cuba.

But. He was fighting for freedom. Against a dreadful regime who were in cahoots with the mafia and corrupt business.

There's always going to be casualties in the pursuit for freedom. Which is why I wear my Che t shirt without too much angst and soul searching.

prinz

RichieC wrote: »

Funny thing about the right hating Che, he was a lot of things they normally idealise. An amazing military tactician, A brave soldier nearly to the point of stupidity. Even Batistas men held major respect for him during the fighting. A hard worker to the point of obsession, extremely well educated (well the old right used to respect this)..

It's not a right versus left issue. At least it shouldn't be, and it's sad that so many on the right hate their opposites for no other reason than they are left, and it's sad that so many on the left will idolise someone like Che just because he was also left.

The issue is we have a man who could have done great things. There is a lot to be said for his aspirations and goals, on education, social justice, health care etc etc. You can't argue with that. What you can argue with is that while he was arguing for the common man on the one hand, he apparently had no problems with the common man being crushed under the heel of oppression when it suited. That's your problem. Hypocritical bollix being held up as some sort of example to us all. I have no more time for him than I'd have for a right wing revolutionary doing the very same (i.e. throwing off the shackles of one regime to replace them with another). But hey, a million student t-shirts and posters have reformed him into the man who did no wrong. Let's pretend to forget that he was part of two-sides to the same coin.

So this right versus left thing is nonsense. Both sides need to recognise the strengths and the weaknesses of the man. Weighing them up, I say no, he's not some exemplary human rights advocate. I'd go on to say there are plenty more people who are worthy of recognition for standing up to the repressive regimes in Central America at the time. Some of whom also paid for their stance with their lives.

RichieC wrote: »

seems it breaks down for them when he stood up for the brown faces on Cuba instead of the white upper classes.

Seems that's where it broke down for Che too. The white faces of the Soviet Union could suffer away under tyranny.

RichieC

prinz wrote: »

It's not a right versus left issue. At least it shouldn't be, and it's sad that so many on the right hate their opposites for no other reason than they are left, and it's sad that so many on the left will idolise someone like Che just because he was also left.

The issue is we have a man who could have done great things. There is a lot to be said for his aspirations and goals, on education, social justice, health care etc etc. You can't argue with that. What you can argue with is that while he was arguing for the common man on the one hand, he apparently had no problems with the common man being crushed under the heel of oppression when it suited. That's your problem. Hypocritical bollix being held up as some sort of example to us all. I have no more time for him than I'd have for a right wing revolutionary doing the very same (i.e. throwing off the shackles of one regime to replace them with another).

So this right versus left thing is nonsense. Both sides need to recognise the strengths and the weaknesses of the man. Weighing them up, I say no, he's not some exemplary human rights advocate. I'd go on to say there are plenty more people who are worthy of recognition for standing up to the repressive regimes in Central America at the time. Some of whom also paid for their stance with their lives.



Seems that's where it broke down for Che too. The white faces of the Soviet Union could suffer away under tyranny.

Cuba was forced into trade with the eastern block nations because it was either that or face economic ruination. Che paid for what he did with his life too. In Che's day there was racial segregation in the states, he loudly opposed it. He was 30 years ahead of countries even like Ireland in calling for an end to South African Apartheid. A man of his day, indeed.

There's no angels in war. Never will be.

fishy fishy

Seachmall wrote: »

JFK was just an example, and regardless of your personal opinion of either men you surely agree he's typically held in higher esteem than Guevara?

only by the americans and those who think they are american by watching too many episodes of glee.

those people who actually know their history think otherwise.

old hippy

fishy fishy wrote: »

only by the americans and those who think they are american by watching too many episodes of glee.

those people who actually know their history think otherwise.

I hate to say this but I'm pretty darn sure more people in Ireland hold JFK in higher esteem than Ernesto...

c_man

wendell borton wrote: »

Plans to erect a Che statue in Galway has caused outrage in florida.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/01/che-guevara-statue-galway_n_1313568.html


I say that they should mind their own business and **** off, Che is one of the most influential figures of the 20th century and galway should be proud of it's connection to him.

Has anyone pointed out that the planned monument is an absolute eyesore?

http://www.galwaynews.ie/sites/www.galwaynews.ie/files/images/che_guevara_monument.jpg

“It has three plate glass panels of varying heights which represent man, image and ideal,” Mr McGuinness explained.

The monument will feature a number of interactivity features and people visiting it will be able to use their phones to have a photograph taken at the statue and uploaded onto Facebook.

A planned WiFi feature at the monument will allow visitors to access videos and surf the Che Guevara website. They will also be able to post messages on the website.

They can fu(k off if they want to ruin one of the nicest places in Galway with such a horrible piece of crap.

prinz

RichieC wrote: »

There's no angels in war. Never will be.

Yeah pretty much. So let Che be Che. What he did/said/didn't do is there for all to see. We don't need a statute to make pretend like he was a great hero. Again there are plenty ahead of him deserving of recognition... people who spoke out for human rights, brown, white, yellow, right wing, left wing whatever. Not those who only spoke out when it suited their own ideological agenda.

fishy fishy

old hippy wrote: »

I hate to say this but I'm pretty darn sure more people in Ireland hold JFK in higher esteem than Ernesto...

i refer to my last post.

seems to me that for every american that puts his head up above the pulpit, you have eejits over here digging around to find some connection, any connection to this country - thats how obsessed we are with the mighty dollar.

Hande hoche!

c_man wrote: »

Has anyone pointed out that the planned monument is an absolute eyesore?

http://www.galwaynews.ie/sites/www.galwaynews.ie/files/images/che_guevara_monument.jpg



They can fu(k off if they want to ruin one of the nicest places in Galway with such a horrible piece of crap.

Hmm thought it would be a more conventional statue. That is quite unseemly.

c_man

Hande hoche! wrote: »

Hmm thought it would be a more conventional statue. That is quite unseemly.

Indeed. I don't know how anyone could support it tbh

ejmaztec

old hippy wrote: »

I hate to say this but I'm pretty darn sure more people in Ireland hold JFK in higher esteem than Ernesto...

Had it not been for JKF's Irish connections, I don't think that would be the case. Take the Irish connection away and I think people would more likely put him in the category of war-mongering womaniser.

Nothingbetter2d

lol only in ireland would we invest tax payers money on a statue during harsh austerity cuts

RichieC

prinz wrote: »

Yeah pretty much. So let Che be Che. What he did/said/didn't do is there for all to see. We don't need a statute to make pretend like he was a great hero. Again there are plenty ahead of him deserving of recognition... people who spoke out for human rights, brown, white, yellow, right wing, left wing whatever. Not those who only spoke out when it suited their own ideological agenda.

Every politician ever to live fought for their own Agenda. Are you seriously saying Che is alone? US presidents highly respected bombed the **** out of nations for material wealth and geopolitical power.... To this day they still do and are. Rights for all men of all colours, don't make me laugh.

old hippy

fishy fishy wrote: »

i refer to my last post.

seems to me that for every american that puts his head up above the pulpit, you have eejits over here digging around to find some connection, any connection to this country - thats how obsessed we are with the mighty dollar.

I don't doubt it. We are in thrall to the buck, which doesn't really stop here (bar Shannon). But just think of the faux outrage which will snowball over the statue... lend your ear to the shrill voices that whimper about losing American patronage/investment/tourists all because of some goshdarn half century dead bearded commie

Sometimes (just sometimes) I'm embarrassed by my US heritage

Hande hoche!

Can we not just take the Richard Harris statue, replace the sword with a rifle and crown with a cap. Call it a day.

old hippy

ejmaztec wrote: »

Had it not been for JKF's Irish connections, I don't think that would be the case. Take the Irish connection away and I think people would more likely put him in the category of war-mongering womaniser.

There was a time when every household had 3 pictures on the wall; Jesus, Mary and Joseph sorry, JFK

Luckily for me I grew up in a house of heathens

Freddie59

Seachmall wrote: »

Statues are typically erected of people who have represented where the statue is being erected or, at the very least, represent ideologies that those who erect the statue feel are important.

This statue does neither.

This whole thing makes Galway look like that poser who wears a Guevara t-shirt because it's cool without actually knowing who Guevara was, what he did or what he believed in.

And listens to bob Dylan.......:D

ejmaztec

old hippy wrote: »

There was a time when every household had 3 pictures on the wall; Jesus, Mary and Joseph sorry, JFK

Luckily for me I grew up in a house of heathens

They've now added Barack O'Bama and Bill O'Clinton:(.

czx

RichieC wrote: »

Interesting question. No easy answer. The fact of the matter is those executed were members of the Batista regime. They killed over 20k cubans during his run. Castro thought if they didn't hold these tribunals the land of Cuba would have descended into anarchy with lynch mobs running a muck taking justice into their own hands. So arguably he prevented further slaughter.

Is that not usually what you argue against? Killing a few to prevent the possible murder of others? Did Che intervene? Did he have the right to intervene?

Cameron Poe

KeithAFC wrote: »

Amazing. A statue of a racist.

Che Guevara wasn't a racist.

Stop reading Stormfront.

FLOOPER

Crooked Jack wrote: »

On a separate note, something has to be done about this smiley :rolleyes: It just makes you look like the most self-satisfied, smug, patronising prick.
Also, the comparison with Hitler and Stalin is preposterous.

I was replying to the poster's assertion that Che had "at least the conviction to fight for what he belived was right."

Can you see the comparison now??? :rolleyes:
There, using smiley correctly to denote obiviousness and ignorance of poster.

Why don't posters actually read posts before responding.

swimming in a sea

fishy fishy wrote: »

i refer to my last post.

seems to me that for every american that puts his head up above the pulpit, you have eejits over here digging around to find some connection, any connection to this country - thats how obsessed we are with the mighty dollar.

agree with that, cringe moment of 2011 was some ass with a chain around his neck in that moneygall place saying "welcome home mr president"

Hande hoche!

Whenever I am travelling through Moneygall it seems like the place is under US occupation.

RiseToTheTop

Anyone else here read Che Guevara: A Revolutionary Life?

old hippy

swimming in a sea wrote: »

agree with that, cringe moment of 2011 was some ass with a chain around his neck in that moneygall place saying "welcome home mr president"

Yeah, I didn't get a garland of flowers round my neck & a "welcome home" when I visited Hawaii :mad:

who the fug

old hippy wrote: »

Yeah, I didn't get a garland of flowers round my neck & a "welcome home" when I visited Hawaii :mad:

Kenya surely