I was debating Che Guevara with a friend of mine the other day, I was talking to him about how it’s fucked up that Guevara has become a cultural icon for freedom and righteous dissent when he often replaced the despotic governments against which he fought with some equally repressive left-leaning substitute.
My friend answered with an extremely profound response which made me stop and think; “he has come to represent something in death which despite not being an accurate reflection of his own life is conducive to positive political action.” Now, your opinion on the veracity of this statement will likely depend on your political affiliation, though even if you are right-leaning and disagree that Che’s iconography is now used in the name of positive political action, we can all admit that the intentions behind the constant exhibition of his iconic face by the left atleast has postitve connotations, as it is intended to champion liberty and rebellion against a repression in general.
It is utterly ludicrous that an image of a man who is responsible for the death of thousands (not hyperbole or subject to historical reinterpretation) should be used to champion such noble causes, and it is quite clear to me that had he not embodied the sexy roguish Latin hipster (luckily for him considering it was only later that this aesthetic was conceived as a culturally relevant trend) he would not have had his crimes absolved by history.
Tldr; having a handsome, iconic face will lead future generations to rewrite history in order to portray you as ‘one of the good guys’ and obfuscate or absolve any horrific crimes you may have perpetrated during your life.
My friend answered with an extremely profound response which made me stop and think; “he has come to represent something in death which despite not being an accurate reflection of his own life is conducive to positive political action.” Now, your opinion on the veracity of this statement will likely depend on your political affiliation, though even if you are right-leaning and disagree that Che’s iconography is now used in the name of positive political action, we can all admit that the intentions behind the constant exhibition of his iconic face by the left atleast has postitve connotations, as it is intended to champion liberty and rebellion against a repression in general.
It is utterly ludicrous that an image of a man who is responsible for the death of thousands (not hyperbole or subject to historical reinterpretation) should be used to champion such noble causes, and it is quite clear to me that had he not embodied the sexy roguish Latin hipster (luckily for him considering it was only later that this aesthetic was conceived as a culturally relevant trend) he would not have had his crimes absolved by history.
Tldr; having a handsome, iconic face will lead future generations to rewrite history in order to portray you as ‘one of the good guys’ and obfuscate or absolve any horrific crimes you may have perpetrated during your life.
Last edited:
