Irish journalist Mary Kenny has never been slow to propagate reactionary drivel but she excelled herself in Monday's edition of the Irish Independent where she attempted to paint Che Guevara as a racist bigot when she wrote:
Che had some of the social attitudes of his caste,* some would now be regarded as racist. He considered blacks as indolent and had a low opinion of Africa. He thought of Mexicans as little better than backward native Indians.
Harry Villegas with Che in Bolivia.
That she failed to offer her readers a shred of evidence to back up her slurs is hardly surprising, as none exists. Not only did Guevara regard black people as equals, he trusted his life to them on many occasions. Two of his most trusted friends and comrades were black. Harry Villegas, who became a protégé of Che in the early days of the Cuban revolution, becoming his body guard and later he accompanied and fought alongside him in both Africa and Bolivia.
Victor Dreke Cruz, was held in such high regard by Che, he asked him to serve as his second in command in his African campaigns. In a report on his mission to Fidel Castro, Guevara wrote about Dreke "He was...one of the pillars on which I relied. The only reason I am notrecommending that he be promoted is that he already holds the highest rank."
These are hardly the words of a man who consider ‘Black people’ indolent. If a man was indolent, and undoubtedly Che was a hard task master, especially on himself, it had nothing to do with his race, as far as he was concerned if a man or woman committed themselves to the revolution then they were duty bound to give it their all.
Comandante Victor Dreke
After a long and distinguished revolutionary and military career, Comandante Victor Dreke describes Che as a "great leader" who led by example:
He was always looking for the most dangerous places, he was very demanding of himself. He suffered from asthma and had very bad attacks, but still he would go on walking, doing everything that we did – in fact, he did more. Good leaders can't be separate from their men and he was always with us.
Not content with denigrating a great man, in a single paragraph Kenny attempts to whitewash out of existence one of the most important achievements of Che and his Cuban comrades, free health care for all Cubans at the point of need. In truth the following from Kenny is the ramblings of someone who needs medical help:
Che Guevara might have contributed more to the alleviation of human suffering if he had focused on the one thing he really new about-health care. He was appalled that children were not treated for illness because of a lack of money: had he devised a universal system of medical, not dependent on income, he would have been truly revolutionary.
Of course as the saintly Mary knows only to well that is exactly what Che and the Cuban people did and it is one of the main reason why US capital despised and hated the man so much and sent their hit squads to pursue him across three continents.
Even today after 50 years of US sanctions and the fall of the USSR, the Cuban Government operates a national health system free at the point of need, having taken fiscal and administrative responsibility for the health care of all its citizens. Unlike in the USA and UK, there are no private hospitals or clinics as all health services are government-run.
Since the revolution massive improvement of disease and infant mortality rates have been achieved, unlike in the USA where health care for millions of uninsured people is still in the dark ages. Cuba has one of the highest life expectancy rates in the Americas, with the average citizen living to 77.7 years old, in comparison to the United States, the riches nation economically, which is only 77.4 years.
Does it matter that Mary Kenny writes provocative tosh about Che, why bother to challenge the reactionary old witch? True I have better things to do, but if there is one lesson to learn from how Neoliberalism became the white noise of the age, it's we failed to challenge it at every turn in its ‘end of history’ days.
* (Kenny actually means class, but unlike Che she cannot bring herself to say the word as it would expose her own class prejudice.)
She’s a silly, pathetic little fascist, without an original thought in her head. Don’t pay too much attention to her, except when you want to have a laugh. A bit like notorious cave dweller, Nelson McCausland.
ReplyDeleteJon Lee Anderson's "Ché Guevara" quotes diary entries and letters home in which for example Ché spoke of visiting mining communities where Ché went purposely to view for himself the terrible living conditions of the poor people of different races. He spoke eloquently of their plight and of the discrimination and racism elsewhere.
ReplyDeleteThis is explicit in all his letters home when he mentions different races. He always empathises with the downtrodden and victimized, particularly when due to poverty or race. Not only that but he spoke of fighting for their rights and helping them fight for themselves which is what in fact he did.
"The blacks, those magnificent examples of the African race who have conserved their racial purity by a lack of affinity with washing, have seen their patch invaded by a different kind of slave: The Portuguese. These two races now share a common experience, fraught with bickering and squabbling. Discrimination, and poverty unite them in a daily battle for survival but their different attitudes to life separate them completely: the black is indolent and fanciful, he spends his money on frivolity and drink; the European comes from a tradition of working and saving which follows him to this corner of America and drives him to get ahead, even independently, of his own individual aspirations."
ReplyDeleteJon Lee Anderson, "Che Guevara: A Revolutionary Life.", pg 92
He didn't like the Jews or the Homos much either:
ReplyDelete“The first person we hit on was the mayor, someone called Cohen; we had heard a lot about him, that he was Jewish as far as money was concerned but a good sort.”
“The episode upset us a little because the poor man, apart from being homosexual and a first-rate bore, had been very nice to us, giving us 10 soles each, bringing our total to 479 for me and 163 1/2 to Alberto.”
But, to be fair, these quotes were made when he was only 24. He may well have changed many of his views.
Jon Lee Anderson explains that Ché was ambivalent during this time, straying from one political point of view to another as a young man getting drawn to revolutionary politics and that the uncertainty of his views was symptomatic of that. In fact he made several capitalist statements in his youth as he was finding his feet. Would you say he was a capitalist?
ReplyDeleteIn the mines before he wrote this in Carraccas he complains about the obvious racial differences between the bosses and the workers and in Miami a month later he spoke negatively on the discrimination against the black population there.
He struggled to find himself and although this does not excuse his diary entry it does help explain it.
Excellent article and a much welcome diversion from all the endless 'norn-iron' depression. Che was likely evolvng his attitudes and politics in 'the field'throughout his life. Sadly there are no shortage of racists today among republicans in Ireland and in Irish society in general, somewhat depressing and disgusting when encountered. It exists even among some who would consider themselves savy, politically correct and 'troubles veterans'. Just the reality of the world. None of us is perfect, except John McGirr, but then John has Jesus onside.
ReplyDeleteJohn
'the black is indolent and fanciful, he spends his money on frivolity and drink'
Think that could be the Unionists talking about Irish RCs. I agree with you, peoples attitudes evolve throughout life. But the Irish remain the same, unfortunately.
Stimulating piece Mick. Some good points about Cuba. There is much about it that is commendable but I am not a fan due to its censorship and repression of writers. A SF friend once told me Cuba was the most democratic society in the world which I am still trying to work out.
ReplyDeleteAt war or politics Che Guevara was one of the best- At war he beat his
ReplyDeletecuban enemys- At politics he settled for the Foreign armed american army and the c.i.a to be allowed to base themselves on cuban soil- such is war and politics- so God knows what Che would have settled for in Bolivia if he had of survived that war-
Mick Hall sums it up well that Che
was no racist or bigot, something
which most of those part timers who write for the independent can-not say-
The people of galway are being bullied by American politicans and will be prevented from erecting a staue of Che in the town.What do irish yanks have to say about that ? The silence is deafening. A sport blog would be welcome relief, Liverpool guaranteed to finish top 4 !
ReplyDeleteMichaelhenry- I think you will find Ché didn't "allow" Guantanamo the Cubans were forced to accept it. The Americans held it since the 1903 Cuban-American Treaty and the US weren't going to give it up lightly.
ReplyDeleteSimon-
ReplyDelete" the cubans were forced to accept it " Pétain and his vichy goverment made that same argument-
" the US weren't going to give it up lightly." no occupying force gives your own territory back lightly- thats why there are wars you know- it sounds like you support armed american soldiers in cuba- you are making plenty of excuse's for the yank land-takers- and for those cubans who did not want all there land back-
MH,
ReplyDelete" the cubans were forced to accept it" 'Pétain and his vichy goverment made that same argument-'
As Adams and McGuinness have done in our own time here.
Michaelhenry- they were forced to accept it. The US wouldn't have hesitated wiping them out, that's why keeping Guantanamo is seen as act of aggression. The Cubans wanted their land but they realised they couldn't get it back. Why fight an un-winnable war?
ReplyDeleteI am not making excuses for the US. I do however support the Cubans for not having perhaps millions of their own people killed in a war with a superpower.
The Vichy analogy you make is false. They are two totally different, incomparable scenarios. Like saying a park warden is equivalent to a Nazi for just following orders. Two qualitatively and quantitatively different scenarios.