I Guess It Didn't Fit Across The Shirt
That would be the message "I have never read a book or the newspaper or looked at anything on the Internet but porn, sports, or shoes, and I have all the intellect of a ficus tree."
I came to that conclusion as Gregg and I were leaving the book fest and going to where he parked his car, and I passed a 30ish Hispanic-looking guy wearing a Che shirt. "Che was a mass murderer of innocent people!" I snarled.
And no, I don't consider it rude to respond to a stranger who speaks to me -- whether by moving his lips or by wearing a t-shirt with a message (the meaning of which he's clearly clueless about).
The ignorance gets worse.
Well then its good he's wearing a "Che" shirt then isn't it?
Che was a devout communist who HATED capitalism. Now he's being used as a cog in the capitalist money making machine, and 99 out of 100 who wear his image have no idea who he is. The remaining one is just to stupid to know he's insulting his "hero", by buying the shirt.
Spitting on the beliefs of a mass murderer and using his image to do so, sounds just fine to me.
Robert at May 3, 2011 2:25 AM
Regarding the BoingBoing article, Commenter #4 says "I thought to myself: 'you know, some kids are going to totally F this question up in their Civics class, at some point in them future days'" But as Commenter #5 points out, today's teenagers were pretty young on 9-11. The connection between Osama and 9-11 might not be as clear or obvious to them.
That said, most of the other comments (minus the expected idiot detritus) suggested that a quick Google or Wikipedia search might have been better than public displays of ignorance via Twitter. The trouble is, that idea might never occur to people who most need to embrace it.
Old RPM Daddy at May 3, 2011 5:05 AM
RPM, I do have to cut the teenagers some slack on this one... they are unlikely to have been taught about bin Laden in school. As far as they know, 9/11 was some kind of freak natural disaster. Either that or the CIA and Moussad did it.
Cousin Dave at May 3, 2011 5:27 AM
Cousin Dave, yeah, I get that; my fifteen-year-old wasn't terribly well versed on the subject herself. She was six when the towers came down. Her older sister was just shy of fifteen -- her classmates with parents working at the Pentagon were beside themselves that day.
I think the point of many of the commenters was that the teens involved could have looked the information up before tweeting. But that could be how those Krazy Kids do things nowadays. Who knows? Maybe another kid tweeted back with the appropriate Wikipedia article, plus other supporting documentation.
Old RPM Daddy at May 3, 2011 6:04 AM
Acting like Che's Mass Murders weren't in response to US Government approved dictators in Cuba, Chile and Bolivia is a little bit small minded to say the least...
Apart from that, I'm in agreement with Robert. If there are any actual appreciators of Che's cause, they're not wearing his face on T-Shirts.
BlinkingZeroes at May 3, 2011 6:28 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/05/03/i_guess_i_have.html#comment-2099003">comment from BlinkingZeroesExcuse me, Blinking Zeroes, you blame the U.S. government for Che's murder of YOUNG BOYS?
Here:
http://www.fortliberty.org/che-guevara-revolutionary-jerk.html
Let us know if you can cling to what you wrote above after seeing this.
Blinking Zeroes, Indeed.
Amy Alkon at May 3, 2011 6:41 AM
In all honesty, I don't think most of our school teach much modern history. They tend to drift off where Vietnam begins.
Cat at May 3, 2011 6:42 AM
Well you see it is cool to love mass murdering psychopaths... you just do not understand this generation. (do I need to put a sarcasm tag here)
Dh at May 3, 2011 6:54 AM
And no, I don't consider it rude to respond to a stranger who speaks to me -- whether by moving his lips or by wearing a t-shirt with a message (the meaning of which he's clearly clueless about).
Why isn't it rude to snarl at someone for what he's wearing? Strikes me as rude – Do you condone vegans yelling at people for wearing leather pants?
It also strikes me as counterproductive. Is this guy more likely to hear you and think, "I should learn about this Che guy I've got on my chest," or "who is this crazy person shouting at me?" Living in a city, we disregard random inputs from other people all the time. I don't know about this guy, but I'd be inclined to disregard anything snarled at me by a strange person.
Christopher at May 3, 2011 8:22 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/05/03/i_guess_i_have.html#comment-2099181">comment from ChristopherA t-shirt is a message. Send a message, expect a response.
Amy Alkon at May 3, 2011 8:24 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/05/03/i_guess_i_have.html#comment-2099231">comment from Amy AlkonMorons: http://twitpic.com/4rnp52
Via @ChoochNation
Amy Alkon at May 3, 2011 8:43 AM
Love this post, Amy.
Feebie at May 3, 2011 8:46 AM
Indeed, Castro was doing the bare minimum to consolidate his power. There are far worse dictators in history and in the present than he. Che however, was a monster in a much more emotive sadistic sense. If he were a private citizen in the U.S. he probably would have become a serial killer.
Castro...he just might have ended up as the CFO of Enron or something. Neither great people, but worlds apart nonetheless.
Robert at May 3, 2011 9:01 AM
Christopher is uncomfortable with the idea of people outing his ideology.
Let's say that Pol Pot were still as popular with the left as he was in the 70's, when Chomsky embraced him. Would it be rude to criticize people who promoted his ideas? How about James Earl Ray?
The left expects a dispensation from it's own history. Because if the public were generally aware of what they have done, and what they actually believe, there would be blood in the streets. Christopher and BZ would be swinging from a lamp post.
zapper at May 3, 2011 9:20 AM
Send a message, expect a response.
So it's OK to harass others over the messages in their attire; and snarling at strangers who havent done anything to you isn't rude. This seems incongruous with your emphasis on politeness. And as I mentioned previously, entirely unlikely to persuade someone to learn more about what that face on his shirt represents.
Christopher at May 3, 2011 9:20 AM
Christopher is uncomfortable with the idea of people outing his ideology.
I've been struggling for years to hide that I'm Che supporter and radical leftist. It feels so good to finally be out! You clearly are a longtime and astute observer of my comments here.
My point was in no way a defense of Che. I made two: that snarling at strangers is rude when they haven't done anything to you; and that such behavior isn't likely to effect the desired response.
Christopher at May 3, 2011 9:28 AM
In a way I don't mind people wearing these shirts. I'd rather people be self labling themselves as stupid, so I can avoid them.
When i can't avoid them, I just watch their heads spin, which is so easy to do. Just say Che, sure I heard of him he's the one who promoted executing homosexuals. So you must support executing homosexuals too since you are wearing his shirt.
Their ultra liberal economic policies crash with their ultra liberal social policies.
Joe at May 3, 2011 9:41 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/05/03/i_guess_i_have.html#comment-2099359">comment from ChristopherTelling somebody the hero on their shirt is a mass murderer may actually cause them to investigate. Maybe not, but maybe get on Uncle Google.
Amy Alkon at May 3, 2011 9:46 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/05/03/i_guess_i_have.html#comment-2099361">comment from JoeI don't mind people wearing these shirts. I'd rather people be self labling themselves as stupid,
You're right - it's like "I'M A MORON" emblazoned across their chest.
Amy Alkon at May 3, 2011 9:47 AM
This reminds me of when I was working in a local soup kitchen with a church group and two of the women including the director of our *ministry of Social Justice* had just seen the Motorcycle Diaries.
They were clearly impressed, because Che was portrayed as so gentle (their word). I wanted to retch! Gentle! Gentle like Trotsky! Nothing worse than a former "gentle" reformer who suddenly discovers his inner demon.
All in the service of revolution, of course.
carol at May 3, 2011 9:47 AM
I saw an old coot wearing a "9/11 was an inside job" shirt, and it was all I could do to suppress my urge to beat him to a bloody pulp.
There are far too many malignant leftists (like the above) in the world to allow those who are merely ignorant of history to wear Che shirts without comment.
brian at May 3, 2011 9:54 AM
Have you considered Sanka brand? Staying indoors on your monthlies?
Many people wear the Che image (which is a global icon, btw) to express not support for mass murder, but an undefined resistance to overbearing capitalism.
I happen to support free enterprise, free markets.
But others do not. There are serious questions as to whether free markets in Third World nations leads to incredible environmental destruction, and wild income distribution.
Certainly capitalism coupled with corrupt governments (the norm, btw) can have destructive effects on Third World citizens, along with higher living standards.
The Wikipedia entry on Che does not make him out to be a mass murderer. There is this sidebar in the entry:
"I have yet to find a single credible source pointing to a case where Che executed 'an innocent'. Those persons executed by Guevara or on his orders were condemned for the usual crimes punishable by death at times of war or in its aftermath: desertion, treason or crimes such as rape, torture or murder. I should add that my research spanned five years, and included anti-Castro Cubans among the Cuban-American exile community in Miami and elsewhere."
— Jon Lee Anderson, author of Che Guevara: A Revolutionary Life, PBS forum [101]
Not everyone wants to hear Amy Alkon's point of view, expressed in a rage in public settings. We can turn to your blog for that.
In all, you probably stepped out of line, and were rude.
Imagine if everyone was a self-appointed public accoster--I could not wear a "Clinton" button without someone screaming at me that he left people to die in Somalia etc. Or a Nixon button, without someone raging that Nixon dropped tons of bombs on SE Asia women and children etc (and he did).
BOTU at May 3, 2011 10:03 AM
Gotta say: Snarling at a guy for his T-shirt is over the top.
All clothing sends a message of some sort. And I'd estimate a good three-quarters of all T-shirts identify their wears as morons in one way or another.
Personally I think anyone who has Juicy Couture on the ass of their sweatpants deserves death. Don't get me going on Hello Kitty. And folks who wear the names of bands I don't like, or companies whose policies I don't approve, or political candidates I personally did not vote for. . .
But according to you, it's ok to get in strangers' faces as long as we don't like the message we perceive they're sending. I can't wait to read that chapter in what you've blogged is going to be the ultimate book on manners.
elementary at May 3, 2011 10:22 AM
Telling somebody the hero on their shirt is a mass murderer may actually cause them to investigate.
One would hope, but tone usually has a lot to do with how people respond. "Snarled," isn't the same as "telling," and strikes me as less likely to provoke someone to investigate the statement.
Christopher at May 3, 2011 10:35 AM
"Snarled," isn't the same as "telling,"
When you tell, you do so in a sincere, friendly way of encouraging inquiry and further research. Be prepared to give them your phone number, so after they do the required reading they can call you. Also be prepared to read their required reading. If you really don't care what that person thinks, don't say anything.
Pirate Jo at May 3, 2011 10:46 AM
— Jon Lee Anderson, author of Che Guevara: A Revolutionary Life, PBS forum [101]
Anderson is lying. Guevara oversaw the Cuban 'war crimes' tribunals, which were used to punish political crimes. That's why they were called Revolutionary Tribunals. They were not standard criminal courts. Che has apologists, like the Nazi's and southern restorationists do. Also Anderson fails to address the documented claims by Congolese that Che's forces engaged in systematic rape and gross human rights abused. These have never been disputed, only 'explained away'.
kata at May 3, 2011 10:54 AM
Hey Asshole (of the universe)
It's very simple - Che Guevara killed people in furtherance of the deadliest ideology ever crafted by the mind of man. Anyone wearing his likeness on a shirt knowing what he was about is one of his ideological brethren, and deserves public humiliation.
Let me make this as clear as I can: I want to live in a world where nobody who supports communism, socialism, fascism, progressivism, statism -- whatever you want to call it -- feels intelligent when they speak of them.
The ideas of Karl Marx have killed so many that if we are to continue to advance socially they must be completely discredited and taught only as a warning of what NOT to do.
brian at May 3, 2011 11:02 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/05/03/i_guess_i_have.html#comment-2099523">comment from Pirate JoWhen I'm with Gregg, Gregg Rules Are In Effect, meaning I'm not supposed to engage with strangers, so I just did it in passing. And I probably hissed more than snarled. But, I did say something.
Amy Alkon at May 3, 2011 11:04 AM
*dons flameproof suit and dunks hair in water*
I blame the parents. As a parent, it is my job to see that my girls understand the history, ideology and makeup of this and other countries so that they can make an informed decision come VOTING AGE. If they are not well informed, capable human beings, barring chemical imbalance and or head injuries, it is MY FAULT. They may not enjoy the chats we have, and so I tend to space them out, make them funny, throw in some finger puppets, but I still have to do my job as a parent and teach my kids.
*runs for the foxhole*
BTW, Amy, I would have thrown in a scathing glare with the growl ^.^
Kat at May 3, 2011 11:39 AM
Brian-
Okay, you have your point of view. Another person may believe that LBJ-Nixon, for no real good cause, killed 1.5 million people in SE Asia.
In fact, 1.5 million Vietnamese were killed in SE Asia by Americans under LBJ-Nixon. Many by bombing, no doubt many were women and children. Of course, US soldiers did a lot of killing of women and children at My Lai too. At long last, the perps have owned up to that atrocity.
So, if I venture forth with my Nixon button (I collect buttons btw) I can expect spittle-strewn screaming commentary by passing left-wing bra-less bitchies that I have a mass murderers' button on?
Greg's rules make a lot of sense.
PS I am a butthole, not an asshole.
BOTU at May 3, 2011 11:54 AM
Seriously Che shirts? People wear them as a fashion statement not as a political one. I've seen Mao shirts as well.
What about the Christian cross and the mass murders it sanctioned? Is it any different? I wear crosses all the time as a fashion statement.
Hey what about a Thomas Jefferson shirt? I do find his sanctioning of slavery a tad bid immoral dont you? Hey he even fucked his slave and let his children remain in slavery because they were black. Golly!
Ppen at May 3, 2011 12:36 PM
"Strikes me as rude – Do you condone vegans yelling at people for wearing leather "
Exactly Christopher!
Ppen at May 3, 2011 12:39 PM
It's really better that they label themselves. You can find plenty of bumper stickers that will tell you there are no adults on board as well.
MarkD at May 3, 2011 12:42 PM
Mass murderers = "fashion statement"? I'm not getting the message, I don't think. It's "fashionable" to commit murder? Help me out here!
The Christian cross had nothing to do with "sanctioning" murders. The priests who wore them did, perhaps, long ago, but not the crosses themselves. And nowadays, far more decent people wear crosses than commit murders, wouldn't you say?
Just askin'.
o.O
Flynne at May 3, 2011 1:02 PM
Wearing a "Che" shirt to oppose overbearing capitalism is stupid because:
A: That shirt was mass produced, transported, and sold by a company that is making a profit by exploiting someone's distaste for capitalism.
B: Using a mass murderer to oppose overbearing capitalism is like supporting Charlie Manson's release in the name of religious freedom.
-------------------------
If you're uttering the words, "The Wikipedia entry on..." in any context, its like citing rumor and claiming it is news.
Robert at May 3, 2011 1:46 PM
At the time in his life when The Motorcycle Diaries was set, Che was probably a pretty ordinary guy (like Hitler painting in Vienna) and was most likely genuinely moved by the poverty he encountered. But, by the end of his life, he'd become an unrepentent monster.
====================
Corrupt governments handing out monopolies and controlling the economy is not capitalism, no matter what liberation theologists and socialist revolutionaries say. The cure for the ills of the Third World is not less capitalism, it's more capitalism (or, in some cases, any at all).
====================
You mean ... there might be an inaccuracy on Wikipedia. Nooooo!
There is a reason that Wikipedia is not allowed as a source reference on most college papers.
====================
While I'll be among the first to condemn Curtis Lemay's use of carpet bombing to indiscriminately kill and demoralize civilians (Douhet was throrougly discredited by World War II and his theories should have been completely abandoned by the time of the US involvement in Vietnam), US actions there were hardly for "no good cause."
Letting the French regain their former colony after World War II was a huge mistake. They handled the partition and subsequent reconciliation elections horribly. Then, Kennedy aquiesced in the assassination of Diem and the South Vietnamese government lost all pretense of legitimacy.
But the alternative proposed by the North Vietnamese was far worse.
More than 3 million people fled the fighting in Southeast Asia (almost all of it instigated by or involving the communist North Vietnamese government) after the US pulled out.
Up to 2 million perished at the hands of the Khmer Rouge, who seized power in Cambodia with the aid of the North Vietnamese. More died when the now-Vietnamese government sent its armed forces to depose the Khmer Rouge it had helped install.
====================
Up to around 500 were killed there. And, BOTU, only one guy was ever convicted and he served fewer than three years for it. While he has "owned up" to the atrocity, no one was ever really punished for it.
Conan the Grammarian at May 3, 2011 2:03 PM
Robert-
It may be stupid to wear a Che shirt. Or a Nixon button. Or a "Bush Is Great" shirt.
But is it not rude to accost people who do wear political messages? Sure, context and degree is all. At a political rally, maybe yes.
In a coffee shop, or book fair, I would say not. It is ironic that a woman who authored a book about rudeness acted, well, so rudely.
The Wikipedia quote was from a recognized scholar-journalist. It was to show there are many opinions about Che. As an iconic figure, I am sure the left and right have fabricated heated visions of the "true" Che. No doubt, you think you know the true Che.
My sense is that Che did not kill anywhere near as many people as a Hitler, Stalin, or even an LBJ or Nixon. How many people have we killed in Afghanistan and what is the mission. Is establishing an opium empire not dealing in death?
Should I foam at the mouth at anyone wearing an Obama shirt, for Obama backs an Islamic, narco-state in Afghanie. They have guys in prison for being Christian in Afghanie.
Alkon's behavior reminds of the lady who headed up MADD, then got arrested for drunk driving.
BOTU at May 3, 2011 2:05 PM
"Mass murderers = "fashion statement"? I'm not getting the message, I don't think. It's "fashionable" to commit murder? Help me out here!"
Eh please. I never said it’s FASHIONABLE to commit murder. People who wear Che shirts don’t even think about his political ideology or even phantom that he’s a mass murderer. The fucking image is what’s fashionable. You know that one iconic picture of him, people like wearing it as shirts.
Look I hate the hijab. To me the hijab is the worst representation of oppression to women. Every time I see a woman with it I want and tell her what a pedophile, misogynistic murderer Mohammed was. BUT I DON’T. Same thing with Che shirts, it’s ridiculous to let a random stranger know what you think about Che. Most likely he’s wearing the shirt because it’s a cool thing to do. I’ve seen Mao shirts around too. Hey what about when I go to China and see Mao everywhere. Should I be telling strangers my opinion?
“The priests who wore them did, perhaps, long ago, but not the crosses themselves.”
Right because you’ve ascribed your OWN meaning to the cross regardless of the historical atrocities it’s associated with RIGHT? Jeez it’s like those kids wearing Che shirts, ascribing their own meaning to a historical figure…. It's not like people NEVER do this with violent historical figures: *cough coug* moses..mohammed…
Oh and let’s not forget the MODERN association of the CHURCH and the CROSS with pedophilia and homophobia.
"And nowadays, far more decent people wear crosses than commit murders, wouldn't you say"
And nowadays, far more decent people wear Che shirts than are communists/murders, wouldn’t you say?
Ppen at May 3, 2011 2:23 PM
Keep in mind, most of the inside documentation on Che is controlled by the Cuban government. The Castros release only heavily redacted versions of Che's papers.
Even The Motorcycle Diaries was first published by a Cuban publishing company in 1993 and marketed by a left-wing publishing house (Verso). The original papers are sealed away.
Also keep in mind, most of the people with direct knowledge of Che's activities in La Cabana have been executed.
Umberto Fontova has written a fairly interesting anti-Che book, Exposing the Real Che Guevara: And the Useful Idiots Who Idolize Him which effectively refutes Anderson's contention that it is nearly impossible to find anyone in the Miami exile community who will support the allegations that Che executed innocents. Fontova found plenty of "innocents" who testified to Che's barbarity.
Conan the Grammarian at May 3, 2011 2:26 PM
"But the alternative proposed by the North Vietnamese was far worse."
I think you forgot to list one crucial item proposed by the North Vietnamese.
Independence.
After the American Revolutionary war, King George III could have written something like what you just wrote above.
"But the alternative proposed by the George Washington was far worse.
50,000 American died. 20,000 British died. Many homes were burnt to the ground. What for? Was it worth it to you, Americans?"
If you are nodding your head, I have a T shirt to sell to you with Ho Chi Minh face on it.
chang at May 3, 2011 2:30 PM
Babalu Blog
http://babalublog.com/?s=che+guevera&submit.x=0&submit.y=0&submit=Search
Feebie at May 3, 2011 2:34 PM
So, people wearing a Hitler t-shirt should be left unaccosted as well? And Harry is owed an apology for the explosion of anger at his wearing a Nazi uniform to a costume party.
The lack of education about Che's barbarity does not excuse the ignorati's use of him as a fashion icon.
Bit of a difference there.
The cross is a symbol of Christianity, practised by many churches with many different dogmas.
Even if you're referring to the Catholic Church alone, you have to make accommodations for the truly pious and charitable members who wore the cross and did not commit atrocities; some even argued against atrocities being committed in the Church's name and tried to reform the Church.
Catholic Charities and Catholic schools have been boons to their communities.
Che was a practitioner and inplementer of Communism, not Communism itself (although Communism itself is plenty evil). The proper analogy here would be if someone were to wear a Torquemada t-shirt.
Conan the Grammarian at May 3, 2011 2:40 PM
@BOTU
You compare the sadistic and brutal atrocities committed by Che Guevara to the actions of presidents during war, quote Wikipedia as if it were the Encyclopedia Britannica, and assert that it is rude (in reference to our host) to point out the stupidity of others to display icons of death and torture as fashion accessories. Brian's description of you is spot on.
"If you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao, you ain't gonna make it with anyone anyhow"
Words to live by.
Savant-Idiot at May 3, 2011 2:52 PM
I believe I wrote "letting the French regain their former colony was a huge mistake."
Ho Chi Minh visited the 1919 Paris Peace Conference after World War I to argue for independence for Vietnam. He was ignored. The French, facing a numerically superior German population refused to give up any colonies (from which, according the to final treaty, they could draft troops to defend France).
After that slight, Ho turned to fringe revolutionary movements and communism.
The Allies (non-French) promised an independent Vietnam after World War II in exchange for his help against the Japanese. Ho's forces fought the Japanese and aided downed Allied airmen. After the war, the French reoccupied their former colony with little to no opposition from the Allies.
By 1954, Ho had ousted the French, but was forced to accept a "temporarily" divided Vietnam. With the failure of the International Control Commission to hold the promised reunification elections in 1956, hostility between the two sides blew over into the Second Indochine War (our "Vietnam War").
Conan the Grammarian at May 3, 2011 2:52 PM
"So, people wearing a Hitler t-shirt should be left unaccosted as well? And Harry is owed an apology for the explosion of anger at his wearing a Nazi uniform to a costume party."
In Japan it’s pretty common to have Hitler/Nazi shit all over. Yeah and I leave them unaccented. What’s your point anyways? Hitler and Mao were just as bad, every time I go to China should I do what Amy did?
The lack of education about Che's barbarity does not excuse the ignorati's use of him as a fashion icon.
So the lack of education about the hijabs barbarity does not excuse me from acting as Amy did ? Ridiculous
The cross is a symbol of Christianity, practised by many churches with many different dogmas.
Yeah and every single dogma/ church has it’s own blood on its hand doesn’t it? I mean they all basically hate the gays.
Catholic Charities and Catholic schools have been boons to their communities.
Let’s not forget that the Catholic Church does not pay taxes so any boons to their communities can be argued. What about all those kids fucked in Catholic schools? Imagine if the public system acted in such a manner. And Che BTW did so many good things in Latin America.
ppen at May 3, 2011 2:53 PM
Hardly.
Washington did not propose state control over the means of production, seizure of private property, and "reeducation" for recalcitrant citizens of the new order.
And, unlike Ho Chi Minh's organization, the Continental Congress was not a cult of personality. Many opinions were espoused (granted, all of them anti-British) and many popular figures arose. Some of them would later be elected president.
Washington was not even in overall control of the Revolution - only the Continental Army - and he served at the pleasure of Congress, which almost replaced him a few times.
Washington did not summarily execute, torture, or imprison his political enemies.
Washington twice gave up power. Once when he resigned his command at the end of the fighting and retired to Mount Vernon. And again when he refused to run or a third term as president.
Ho, on the other hand, began a land reform (seizing private property) and ordering "landlords" to be summarily executed, tortured, or imprisoned. And Ho never gave up power. He was forcibly replaced as party boss in 1959, but retained as a figurehead until his death.
While there were civilian atrocities during the American Revolution, they were fairly evenly split between Tories, the British Army, and Patriots.
Conan the Grammarian at May 3, 2011 3:12 PM
Savant-Idiot--
What you and others seem to miss is that you have a point of view.
If I had family in the My Lai massacre, I might feel differently about the American flag. If I was a Christian in Afghanistan, I might have strong feelings about Obama propping up a narco-Islamic dictatorship there.
As pointed out, some people think it is horrible to eat meat--should they storm into restaurants and scream at everybody for eating meat? Or yell at people in line at a sidewalk hot-dog vendor?
Accosting passerby about their political stances, outside of accepted forums, strikes me as rude.
The Che-shirt man was described as headed for a book fair (probably). Some people regard Che as a colorful revolutionary, who probably committed the usual sorts of killings that happen in revolutions, but did good from their left-wing point of view. Others might regard him as a dangerous leftie.
No one argues Che killed 1.5 million, as US presidents did in Vietnam.
It was rude to accost a man ambling along, minding his own business.
BOTU at May 3, 2011 3:15 PM
Psssssssst. Conan. That's Prince Harry!
Ppen, the point I was trying to make is that trying to excuse someone's ignorance about a mass-murderer and their wearing a t-shirt with a picture of said mass nurderer on it is totally ridiculous. As a "fashion statement" it reeks of idiocy. I think Amy didn't have to snarl at the guy, truthfully, but I understand why she did it. My mom wears a cross because she believes that it is a symbol of God and her faith, and certainly not something that represents "sanctioning" of murder in the name of Christianity. Nor does she think it "represents" peodophile priests and gay-bashers. And she doesn't hate anybody. And there weren't "all those kids fucked in Catholic schools". I knew a lot of kids who went to parochial schools and were totally unmolested. The ones who were "fucked" were the exception rather than the rule.
Flynne at May 3, 2011 3:16 PM
@ppen
The fact that Adolph Hitler was also known to have done "many good things" for Germany has yet to sway public opinion as to what he truly was; a fucking sadistic monster.
Therefore, you are a loon to excuse the atrocities of Che Guevara based on reports that he was really a nice guy fighting for the "people".
My opinion is not one born of Wikipedia research or of our piss poor public educational system. During the revolution, my grandfather worked for the world renowned Cuban ballet company, my father, the second of five children, was educated in American Catholic schools and was attending the University of Havana. The brutality of Castro's regime, and Guevara in particular, were well known. Detractors were tortured, imprisoned and murdered with regularity often by Guevara's own hand. All history of actual events that show the regime or its proponents in an unfavorable light have been purged from public record by Castro. But rest assured, there are many that still remember who and what Guevara was.
Unfortunately, you are one of the uneducated fools who would choose a mass murderer as a fashion accessory and not expect anyone to be offended...
Savant-Idiot at May 3, 2011 3:24 PM
Mind you, I'm not supporting the public accosting of someone for wearing an offensive t-shirt. I think she overstepped the bounds of decorum. But, if she only stated an opinion in passing, she probably only nudged the bounds.
Even the ones with gay clergy?
I wouldn't do that in China. That guy wearing a Mao t-shirt may not have a choice. The government still utilizes the cult of personality there and Mao is one of its personalities.
Conan the Grammarian at May 3, 2011 3:28 PM
Whoops, didn't finish....
Yeah, you'd better watch out for those blood-thirsty Quakers.
Conan the Grammarian at May 3, 2011 3:30 PM
"Ho, on the other hand, began a land reform (seizing private property) and ordering "landlords" to be summarily executed, tortured, or imprisoned. And Ho never gave up power. He was forcibly replaced as party boss in 1959, but retained as a figurehead until his death."
I think what you are describing is called "growing pains".
What you just wrote above is very true but still far better than the alternative. The alternative was to live a very peaceful life as a slave of French or Americans.
If you think that is a good life to live, I have a T shirt to sell it to you with a Prince Harry's face.
chang at May 3, 2011 3:37 PM
Wrong. The liberation of Vietnam did not require the enslavement of its people ... to anyone.
Ho didn't "liberate" his people. He merely forced them to trade one slavemaster for another.
And living as a slave to the Viet Minh is hardly preferable to living as a slave to an imperial power. Just because the tyrant speaks your language doesn't make living under him any easier.
Conan the Grammarian at May 3, 2011 3:56 PM
"And living as a slave to the Viet Minh is hardly preferable to living as a slave to an imperial power. Just because the tyrant speaks your language doesn't make living under him any easier."
I don't think that is your call to make it.
If I were a Vietnamese, I rather live in a society where my master speaks Vietnamese instead of English I don't understand. Besides, I can aspire to be the master myself someday by enslaving others.
However, if I had a French or Americans as my master, my chance of being master myself is zero.
If you think that is better life, I have a T shirt to sell it to you with a General Lee face
chang at May 3, 2011 4:12 PM
I see our resident Stalinist, Chang, is back. Gotta break a few million eggs, eh, Chang? What about that 20% of the American population that Bill Ayers wants to murder? I'm sure you'll volunteer to be one of his executioners.
Cousin Dave at May 3, 2011 4:17 PM
That's the kind of thnking that breeds Communist revolutions.
Rather than freeing a people, let's enslave them to me instead. I'll call my new country a workers' paradise and reeducate anyone who disagrees or doesn't sing my praises loudly enough.
You assume that when the revolution comes, you will be in the firing squad and not lined up against the wall. Just ask Robespierre or Trotsky (or even the "intellectual" members of various Southeast Asian Communists parties) how that worked out for them.
Conan the Grammarian at May 3, 2011 4:41 PM
No, I'm describing mass murder.
Conan the Grammarian at May 3, 2011 4:44 PM
A collection of links about Che Guevara.
Che Guevara's Message
Andrew_M_Garland at May 3, 2011 4:52 PM
"Just ask Robespierre or Trotsky (or even the "intellectual" members of various Southeast Asian Communists parties) how that worked out for them.
Why don't ask the same questions to Mao or Lenin to find out how that worked out for them?
chang at May 3, 2011 4:57 PM
Is your head up your ass for the warmth?
Conan the Grammarian at May 3, 2011 5:07 PM
"I think the point of many of the commenters was that the teens involved could have looked the information up before tweeting."
That would require actually thinking for a second and, god forbid, lifting a finger.
My own experience with my sister's kids and their friends shows that even with the massive amounts of data at their fingertips today (I would've killed for google when I was that age) they're still far too lazy to look much of anything up. Unless they're actually motivated by their own desire or will gain monetarily by it.
Miguelitosd at May 3, 2011 5:30 PM
Ok here's the thing people. People will wear things YOU don't like. I happen to find the hijab quite offensive but I don't go up to people and let them know.
"The fact that Adolph Hitler was also known to have done "many good things" for Germany...."
Hey Savant Idiot why don't we ask the whole country to stop taking that damn Bayer Aspirin, and driving that damn Audi and Volkswagen Beetle.
Ppen at May 3, 2011 5:54 PM
Hey you know what the old bug is a direct result of Hitler! Damn those kids buying things without thinking about the historical implications!.
Ppen at May 3, 2011 6:02 PM
I think the answer is The Onion's "Che wearing a Che tee shirt" tee shirt. I posted the URL, but the blog software flagged it as SPAM :) Sorry about that.
Les Cargill at May 3, 2011 6:13 PM
They don't call it TWITter for nothing!
Robert W. (Vancouver) at May 3, 2011 6:49 PM
@Ppen
What a ridiculous argument you present. Should have expected as much.
It's not that the shirt is offensive, it's the glorification and use of an image of a mass murdering scum like Guevara for vanity that is offensive. The fact that these people are blissfully unaware is in itself offensive and if they were not properly educated by their parents, their schools or their piers, society will do it.
Your specious argument about Bayer aspirin and German made cars fails the stupid test. I would not drive an Audi emblazoned with Hitlers image or choose a Volkswagen in pious deference to Hitler; I would drive it because the vehicle suited my needs. Not as a statement but as a conveyance. I take Bayer aspirin because it cures my pain, not out of some misplaced loyalty to the Third Reich.
Those that choose to wear the image of Guevara do so for one of two reasons; either they are unaware of the political and societal implications of the subject matter they have chosen to display, or they know what he was and choose to support and spread the radical agenda he propagated. Either of these cases deserve a snide look, a request to research the subject, or a punch in the fucking face for being an imbecile, depending on the circumstances.
Savant-Idiot at May 3, 2011 7:19 PM
"head up your ass for warmth" classic, love it. Anybody who compares Mao to Washington has a very clear agenda, dont let those gacts get in the way. Every day I come in here and see these comments I am amazed the world has survived this long with so many dolts
ronc at May 3, 2011 8:00 PM
and if the communist victory in vietnam was so great for the vietnamese, why in the hell are there so many vietnamese now in the west?
ronc at May 3, 2011 8:02 PM
Che de butts . . .
http://www.jaypix.com/pix16/chebutts.jpg
Jay J. Hector at May 3, 2011 8:56 PM
"My sense is that Che did not kill anywhere near as many people as..."
They weep, the little devils, that they are to weak to sin to the height of their desire.~Rudyard Kipling
As far as "the true che" He's pretty well documented at this point, I mean how many accounts of his behavior do you really need from how many different sources before you come to the conclusion that people who write positively of him are apologists in the same way that the people who wrote positively of Pol Pot, Mao, and Stalin, were apologists?
I have a better opinion of Fidel than I have of Che.
---------------------
And Chang, there was a movie, Gibson's best work, but still worth seeing, called "The Patriot". The main character is in a town hall meeting and the question of independence is being discussed, and Gibson's character asks, "Why should I trade 1 tyrant 3000 miles away for 3000 tyrants 1 mile away?"
If all you're doing is trading a distant ruler for a present one, and the present one is brutal and violent beyond rational measure, how can one claim improvement at all?
The American Revolution had its growing pains after the war, we went through a series of internal conflicts culminating with the Civil War and arguably essentiall ending with the settlement of the west. Those are growing pains. Ho's actions go beyond "growing pains", they were "Power grabs."
---------------
And if anything, living under a tyrant who speaks your language is worse, he understands you well enough to oppress you more easily.
---------------
And for every Mao or Lenin there are millions of victims on their own side.
Robert at May 4, 2011 2:54 AM
"Ok here's the thing people. People will wear things YOU don't like. "
True enough, but... if I put on a T-shirt bearing a photo of James Earl Ray, and take a stroll around Compton, what should I expect to happen?
Cousin Dave at May 4, 2011 8:17 AM
Ferdinand Porsche was already working on a "car for everybody" when Hitler commissioned the design of a "people's car" (Volkswagen in German). The eventual design of the Volkswagen was heavily influenced by a Czechoslovakian car built in the '30s.
Production of war vehicles cancelled production of the Type 1 Volkswagen. It wasn't until after the war that the Volkswagen Type 1 (the Beetle) was begun.
Hitler had been impressed with how Henry Ford's Model T revolutionized transportation the United States. He wanted Germany to be the most modern and mechanized nation in the world. And that required a car everyone could afford (a wagen for the volk).
In a book on World War II's "Red Ball Express," I read an interview with a German general who said the US Army was able to defeat the Wermacht because of superior logistics. The US Army could get what it needed to where it needed it faster than any army on earth. And that, the general said, was due to the fact that almost everyone in the US Army could drive.
In contrast, in the German army, driving was a specialty and only trained specialists could be assigned to motor pools. But in the American army, any soldier could be assigned to drive something and could easily be shifted from a less essential job to driving supplies or troops to the front.
So, the Volkswagen was actually an indirect result of Henry Ford. Damn those kids posting things without thinking about the historical implications!
====================
Reportedly, one of the few American movies Stalin allowed to be shown in the USSR was 1940's The Grapes of Wrath because it showed poverty in a capitalist country.
But what the Soviet citizens got out of the movie was not what Stalin intended. They saw that, in America, even the poorest of the poor had automobiles.
Conan the Grammarian at May 4, 2011 9:32 AM
"So, the Volkswagen was actually an indirect result of Henry Ford. Damn those kids posting things without thinking about the historical implications!"
Funny little thing you forget Conan, Henry Ford also hated the Jews and was quite sympathetic towards Hitlers cause. There is contradictory evidence as to whether he funded the Nazi party. I probably think he did not but I certainly know he quite admired Hitler as admiration between parties is usually mutual.
Thanks for the historical information about cars, but I'm quite well versed.
Ppen at May 4, 2011 11:44 AM
"True enough, but... if I put on a T-shirt bearing a photo of James Earl Ray, and take a stroll around Compton, what should I expect to happen?"
Doubt anyone would know who James Earl Ray is by his picture. I certainly wouldn't recognize it.
Che is considered a hero, not to my liking, but people don't think about all the murders he committed. Hell it's not something taught in school or is even in his wikipedia page. And you expect people to do the research why? Because they bought a trendy t shirt and they should know who is on it? In Japan I would see punks wearing Nazi memorabilia all the time, they just think it looks cool, doubt they are much aware of the holocaust over there. Skaters here also have some SS symbols. Should I stop them and explain things to them?
But telling them in an unpolite manner who Che is really will make them look him up and change their perspective wont it? Right....don't get the purpose of accosting people for what they wear. I hate the hijab but I don't let all the women I see wearing it know. What's the difference between the hijab and a Che shirt?
Ppen at May 4, 2011 11:55 AM
Also should we stop taking Bayer Aspirin? Everytime I see someone buying Bayer Aspirin should I accost them?
Ppen at May 4, 2011 11:56 AM
Oh and one more thing about the Beetle that Hitler DREW the pototype for:
"Sitting at a restaurant table in Munich in the summer of 1932, Hitler designed the prototype for what would become the immensely successful Beetle design for Volkswagen (literally, the "car of the people")."
Ppen at May 4, 2011 12:02 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/05/03/i_guess_i_have.html#comment-2103267">comment from PpenAlso should we stop taking Bayer Aspirin? Everytime I see someone buying Bayer Aspirin should I accost them?
Is the company currently sponsoring Jew-hate-a-thons? I hadn't heard.
Amy Alkon at May 4, 2011 12:12 PM
Actually I take it back, looks like those sketches are false. Shouldn't trust the History Channel.
Ppen at May 4, 2011 12:12 PM
"Is the company currently sponsoring Jew-hate-a-thons? I hadn't heard."
Not now but they did. So what's the difference? Maybe Che reformed his ways too before he died.
And I repeat myself what's the difference between accosting someone wearing a hijab and a Che shirt?
Ppen at May 4, 2011 12:14 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/05/03/i_guess_i_have.html#comment-2103293">comment from PpenAnd I repeat myself what's the difference between accosting someone wearing a hijab and a Che shirt?
None. I have no problem speaking out to anybody who advertises that they support a belief system that advocates mass murder. You can consider that rude. I consider it an important exercise of free speech. I don't think we should make it comfortable for people who endorse such views. If, on the other hand, you're wearing a t-shirt that says, "I'm a Capricorn!" I'll think you're an idiot, but I have no business mentioning that to you.
And maybe people who worked at Bayer and Volkswagon and a host of other companies collaborated with the Nazis, but just as I don't currently chastise my Christian friend Lawyer Tom for the Inquisition, I don't blame people who work at these companies today for what others did there in the past. I don't believe in "the sins of the father." Each person is new and responsible for their own crimes and/or failings. Period.
Amy Alkon at May 4, 2011 12:23 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/05/03/i_guess_i_have.html#comment-2103299">comment from Amy AlkonOh, and once you've mass-murdered, you don't get to "repent" and have things be all-clear. It's really not like apologizing because you ate two cookies and somebody else got none.
Amy Alkon at May 4, 2011 12:29 PM
"murder. You can consider that rude. I consider it an important exercise of free speech"
I consider it without purpose nobody is going to change their mind because of a random stranger bothering them. They will only feel more persecuted and in the right.
Ppen at May 4, 2011 12:38 PM
Ford, the company, sponsored Jew hate-a-thons? Or Henry Ford, the individual, sponsored anti-Semitic writings?
=========================
Henry Ford was cantankerous, opinionated, and difficult to get along with. And his political views are a little more complex than you made them out to be.
He did sponsor a newspaper which published anti-Semitic editorials under his name. The editor, however, testified that Ford never saw the editorials prior to their publication. A later investigation cast doubt on this testimony.
Ford's paper published The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Ford defended the Protocols saying it was the truth.
His paper's editorials were collected in a book entitled, The International Jew: The World's Foremost Problem. An edition was published in Weimar Germany and influenced many soon-to-be Nazis. Hitler even had a copy.
Hitler revered Ford, mentioning him by name in Mein Kampf, the only American mentioned.
In fact, Weimar Germans in general admired Ford for his industrial success and progressive views on social policy.
At odds with his anti-Semitism, Ford was one of the few major US industrial concerns hiring African-Americans in large numbers at the time.
Henry Ford hated violence and believed international trade was the key to world peace. He saw economic development as a means to overcome racism and benefit all mankind. [My Life and Work by Henry Ford]
Prior to the US entry into World War II, Ford supported arming Britain in the war against the Nazis. He made lots of money arming the British. But ... he also made boatloads of money from his Ford Werke plants in Germany which built military equipment for the Nazi war machine.
=========================
Theodor Geisel was another famous American whose views were complicated and seemingly contradictory.
He drew political cartoons during World War II mocking the isolationsist and denouncing Hitler and Mussolini. His cartoons deplored racism against African-Americans and Jews as harmful to the war effort. But he also drew cartoons that depicted Japanese-Americans as traitors and fifth columnists - and were racist toward Asians in general.
He supported the internment of Japanese-Americans during the war.
By the time he wrote The Sneeches, Dr. Seuss had changed his views a bit.
====================
Conan the Grammarian at May 4, 2011 2:39 PM
Shouldn't trust the History Channel.
Sad isnt it, used to be such a good channel, now I filter it out of my favorites lists
So what's the difference? Maybe Che reformed his ways too before he died
Well, you got any evidence he did? Should be easy enough to find if its out there
lujlp at May 4, 2011 3:03 PM
Me: "Hey moron! Why are you wearing a Che shirt? Is your Hitler shirt in the wash? Did you misplace your Jeffrey Dahmer shirt?
pst314 at May 4, 2011 6:32 PM
But if you actually wanted to educate the imbecile or at least in some way encourage him to research and/or re-examine his inflammatory and ignorant fashion choices, how did this prompt that? I'm a proponent of free speech and concur that you had every right to express your views right back at him, as he apparently expressed his on his t-shirt. I don't think you were "wrong" by hissing at him, and I understand that's all you could do under "Greg rules". But it's the equivalent of venting, that's all. Nothing accomplished - unless it made you feel better - and in which case, certainly worth it.
I'm all for calling people on their idiotic choices but if it's desirable for them to change those choices they have to be made to understand the "why". I think this tactic was more likely to provoke ignorant, self-righteous defense, further clinging to idiocy.
Jessica F. at May 5, 2011 6:21 AM
Jessica and Christopher et al: What's wrong with a little shaming? Make these people understand that they haven't simply made a mistake, they've done something reprehensible, contemptible.
pst314 at May 5, 2011 4:16 PM
Nothing wrong with a little shaming, but if the idiot has no idea what he's being shamed for (in detail) then he's not likely to actually feel any shame. So, again, I just don't think anything was accomplished beyond a little venting.
Jessica F. at May 6, 2011 8:49 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/05/03/i_guess_i_have.html#comment-2108855">comment from Jessica F.Disagree. Maybe, just maybe, he'll be compelled to look up Che.
Amy Alkon at May 6, 2011 8:50 AM
Leave a comment