... Che Guevera, Fidel Castro and the Cuban Revolution? For it? Against it? Don't know anything about it? The main reason I am asking is because it seems like Che Guevera especially has become a symbolic figure for those of a counter-culture, and the fact that the revolution was a violent one is curious to me as most hippies seem bent on the peace and love idealism. Let those thoughts flow, Riley
a little young to be pure hippie but the counter culture was violent too--------Weather Underground---SDS--students for democratic society---bombings riots----definatly not all about the Peace--there was a percentage who wanted violent overthrow of Govt.---blow it up and start over----and Viet vets coming from war at 18 then turning on to acid--if your doing Che your not pure hippie cas it was violent as fuck--i can do it cas i did my share of violence and wear him with pride---------blow shit up------then start over
You have to remember that peaceful protest in those type of countries rarely changes anything. It's a completely different culture to ours. Che wasn't a hippy really, the whole black flag thing proved that. I'd say if you have to apply a stereotype he was more of a punk.
He was neither, he was a communist. Communism is dead. I find it ironic how capitalist's make money off of Guevera.
I was applying our social terms to their culture. Foolish, but no more than the question at hand. It fit. Communism will never work, unfortunatley. It's perfect on paper but that's where it stops. Yeah, .£20 each che t shirts are a bit backwards. It's like people wearing ramones t shirts because they were "in fashion"
Peaceful protest was not allowed in pre-1950's Cuba. The revolution was incredibly violent, this is a fact, but power had to be taken with force. It was a militant rebellion against an organised goverement. Che and Fidel were not hippys, but they did fight against the suffering that the goverment at the time were instilling on the people. Infant moratality was through the roof, unemployment was high, income per capita was one of the lowest in any of the Americas. They were fueled by an idea of a working and functioning goverement, who's primary goal was the living standards of it's people. This is debatable as to wheather you think they came anywhere near this goal. The revolution was brutal, and bloody, but the reasons were pure.
Yea, everythings soooo much better now huh ?? Guevera and Castro both sucked, one repressive government replacing another one makes no sense.. Peace
I also find it ironic, however you could still call Cuba Capitalist society as it still uses money, which is widely considered the god (or devil) of Capitalism. Also, I was more talking about the revelution, not the political aftermath. The revolution was a Socialist one, as Cuba did not become Communist the moment Batista fled the country. It was more gradual as Fidel started to fill in positions in the government with members of the Cuban Communist Party, and their idealism seemed to quickly take over his views. My personal view on the matter is that I dig what Che and Fidel stood for, and how they both came from the wealthier side of life but turned it all away to try and hep the poor obtain better lives through eductaion and healthcare. I also think it's good that they wanted the people of Cuba to have a Cuban Government, not one that was a mariannette acting for the States. But like someone said above, it was impossible to avoid an extremely violent revolution, but I guess it's a testament to extreme times calling for extreme measures.
To clarify I wasn't referring to Che as a hippy, I meant i found it strange that people who support peace and love would identify Che as a hero or icon, as he was a leader of an extrememly violent revolution.
Hippies have good things to say about Che and the Cuban revolution... Just another proof that hippies are idiots.
Yes, looking after the residents, who let you out again ?? And your grammar is slipping "Just another proof* ??? Peace
Im sure like me, the majority of them like what Che and the revolution stood for, but not necessarirly the means in which it was attained. Thats like saying someone wearing a Nirvana t-shirt also supports heroin use and suicide, which in most cases is probably not true, they just like their music.
I find it funny that you go and make a blatent statement such as that, with nothing to back it up with. So please tell me how it's stupid?