As a historian, however, I am deeply aware that Guevara was much more than a grotesque criminal, as it has been suggested. Revolutions are by nature violent events, and those who oppose them are frequently at the end of that violence. By this measure, Washington, Toussaint, and Bolivar could all be considered war criminals if we look at their records – and yet, they all have monuments built to their memory in the United States. Their hands never trembled while giving orders to execute the enemies of the revolutions they led. Do not get me wrong. I am not trying to justify Guevara’s actions, but I do think that they must be examined within the historical context in which they took place.
Nelson Mandela referred to him as “an inspiration for every human being who loves freedom” while Jean-Paul Sartre described him as “not only an intellectual but also the most complete human being of our age.”
But nevertheless, I personally find him as a revolutionary and an inspiring person regardless of his practical result of reinforcing brutal militarism. My beliefs are fishy though, but I tend to agree with him with most stances.
Che is a complex figure for me. Kind of like Lenin. = There’s stuff I like about them, but there’s a lot of things that I absolutely cannot admire them because of.
Che is the only authoritarian socialist icon I like, and I think that’s because I admired his willingness to get his hands dirty with other workers. I remember reading something where he encouraged people to volunteer time to their communities every Sunday instead of going to church by actually getting out and loading trucks. He was problematic, absolutely, but I look at that with context.