I'm sick of people who go to the movie theater and sit dumbfounded watching a movie and walk out and state the following phrase:
"What a cute movie," now let us get back into our mini van, and go back to our house where we made sure our grass was greener than the Jones' next-door.
Has our society forgotten to question the world around us? I finished watching 'The Motorcycle Diaries' and noticed how the movie portrayed Ernesto Guevara otherwise know as 'El Che' as a kind-hearted, compassionate young man. My heartstrings were being pulled one by one while I sat in my chair, eating my mouthwatering popcorn. But was Che really as good as the movie made him out to be? What the movie forgot to mention was his dislike for blacks, Jews, and homosexuals. Che was a cold-blooded killer. As much as Che wanted to help the impoverished Latin Americans he just couldn't resist having that six million dollar home up in Havana with his buddy Fidel.
"Revolution without firing a shot? You're crazy." - Che Guevara
That quote says it all. 'Let us try guerilla tactics first; if that doesn't work maybe we'll try the whole "peaceful" method.' Before you go around talking about a movie and the person portrayed in the movie, do your research! Question the true meaning behind the usually ultra-rich, liberal directors’ film.
3 comments:
Although I do agree with you that Che Guevara wasn't quite the hero that people make him out to be today, is it so wrong to remember him as a better person than he was? Yes, he was racist, he was an anti-Semist, he hated homosexuals, and he was a murderer. But what people respected about him - in my opinion, at least - was how he defied authority, how he refused to accept the status quo, how he was willing to die for what he believed in. So what if he wasn't the kind of person you'd want to be friends with, or even if most of the qualities that we respect about him are most probably false? The Che Guevara that the people so love is not Ernesto Guevara. He has become an icon, much like Washington and even Hitler. It's not doing any harm, so I see no reason to complain; do you?
Ackowledging all your points, I have to question: Is that what the youth looks up to today? Do we really want icons who are prejudice, greedy, and power hungry? Someone who loses sight of their goal? Che started out with a great cause however he lost track of what he was combatting for and at the end he wasnt dying for what he had started fighting for; he lost that passion.
Combatting becomes a way of life - not to a means to and end of change in society.
Does greed and corruption always surface when a man has power - besides Jesus and Buddha? And they both desperately said they didn't want to be worshipped. What kind of a God has an ego? Not my God.
Didn't Jesus say he wanted to be worshipped? I'm not a huge fan of the Bible, so I never really bothered to study it in-depth at any point in my life, but I do recall that he wanted people to believe and worship him, and only him. I can't remember the exact quote, but I'm pretty sure he said something about him being the only way to God and that all other ways were false. I was just curious about this point.
Getting back to the matter at hand, I think you missed my point by a mile and a half. As a man, Che may have been greedy, power-hungry and prejudiced. But in the eyes of today's youth, Che Guevara has become the symbol of rebellion, an icon of the counter-culture. As I said, the Che Guevara that lives and breathes in the minds of people these days is NOT Ernesto Guevara, the greedy, power-hungry, and racist man.
Do we have to remember history as it actually was? Let's face it; the founding fathers, Abraham Lincoln, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Einstein, Mozart, Beethoven, and all the "great" men of history were most likely no where near as great as we believe them to be. They have become icons, symbols of what they were most famous for. I think that the same thing happened to Che Guevara; the people saw his life, chose to interpret it in a way that was convenient to them, and this interpretation is the Che Guevara we so admire today.
Yes, maybe this is a lie, and goes against academic integrity and all that. But is it doing any harm? On the contrary, I'd say that through his example (however false it may be), Che Guevara is inspiring teenagers all around the world to stand up for what they believe in and to challenge the status quo. And to be frank, not many people know about Ernesto Guevara as a man. They know his face and they know what it stands for, but few realize what kind of man he was. And they don't want to know. When I first saw Che's face on a shirt in the market, I asked my friends who it was. They told me the name, and they told me why he was a great man; they never told me what a b--tard he was, and I only found that out through some independent research. In such a case like this, I think that it's not such a bad thing to let the end (inspiring teenagers all around the world) justify the means (lying).
And having a huge ego myself, I don't think I would mind having a God with an ego, although I would prefer it if he didn't.
PS. Strictly speaking, Buddha didn't have that much power; he just had wisdom, and people respected him for it. Power corrupts, yes, but wisdom keeps the corruption back; or so I believe.
(Is it just me, or is this comment longer than your post? -_-; I'll make sure to control myself a little more next time.)
Post a Comment