A world of symbolism
Ok, I’m scanning through various sites and I find this article by the BBC entitled: Che: The icon and the ad.
Here is the first portion of the article:
Che Guevara, his eyes framed by heavy brows, a single-starred beret pulled over his unruly hair, stares out of the shot with glowering intensity.It’s now 40 years since the Argentine-born rebel was shot dead, so any young radicals who cheered on his revolutionary struggles in Cuba and Bolivia are well into middle age.
But the image has been infinitely repeated - emblazoned on T-shirts and sprayed on to walls, transformed into pop art and used to wrap ice-creams and sell cigarettes - and its appeal has not faded.
“There is no other image like it. What other image has been sustained in this way?” asks Trisha Ziff, the curator of a touring exhibition on the iconography of Che.
“Che Guevara has become a brand. And the brand’s logo is the image, which represents change. It has becomes the icon of the outside thinker, at whatever level - whether it is anti-war, pro-green or anti-globalisation,” she says.
Read the rest of the article here if you wish.
Now after I finished laughing at another example of liberals never ending search for symbolic images to inspire themselves and to present a “cool” image to others, I could not help but to be inspired by the gospel according to Chris, now I’m not picking on him, but frankly his words inspire me. I wish I had more participants on this site that would be more participatory and express more heart felt opinions. As Mrs. Snoop can attest nothing motivates me more that to be challenged on my principles.
What few people know outside those who frequent this blog is my views on the world have changed very little since I was very young. I got to my way of thinking by observing and paying attention to the world around me, by being a realist about how to interpret what I see, what people say, how they say it, what I read and WHY was it written.
Ah I miss the days on Lawrence.com and the heated political and societal exchanges that took place for a time.
More constant rants were followed up by my dear daughter-in-law suggesting that I start my own blog and more than two years later here I am ranting, news aggregating but most of all learning.
Back to Mr. Che; the link to the Che article was accompanied by a picture of Jay-Z on stage performing proudly wearing “Che fashion” designs. Frankly any black person wearing Che garb is exceedingly clueless, but who am I to judge.
I am reminded back in the day when clueless black folks would wear Malcolm X fashions, t-shirts, necklaces, ball caps, ect and when I first noticed the trend I use to think to myself are some of these fools wearing this stuff particularly when it was highly unlikely that many of the people wearing the garb even know who the hell Malcolm X was or what he stood for.
Black folks also were fond of African fashions as well, the fact that Africa comprises 46 countries is of course irrelevant, not to mention that most black “Africans” have little respect and show contempt for black folks here in America.
Yes I know, “Snoop we is just connecting with our homeland!”
Funny thing tho, you rarely saw folks sporting Martin Luther King merchandise, but he was a peaceful soul, refused to blame whitey, saw a future where we will be judge not by the color of our skin but the content of our character.
However according to Chris; “anyone who denies their own ethnic identity is denying themselves.”
Not to go into why I found that line of thinking irrelevant years ago, but way too many of us need some sort of symbolism to define ourselves. Whether it’s our particular faith, our political leanings or something as superficial as what sports team we cheer for or what body part we need to tattoo or pierce. Others use the flag (U.S.) , or a flag (confederate) other use their ethnicity.
The problem with black folks is we deny the other parts of who we are and ONLY promote the pigment portion of who we are.
Never mind that, again, back to Che; I find is an exceedingly ridiculous symbol, nevertheless his image is prominently displayed at virtually every liberal protest or anti-American rally.
As I am hammering this post out I’m thinking do the people who wear the Che icon even know who the fuck he was?
Now I know the people who can tolerate my grammatically flawed rants here are exceedingly educated, however in case someone read this who is not familiar with our friend Che…
“Crazy with fury I will stain my rifle red while slaughtering any enemy that falls in my hands! My nostrils dilate while savoring the acrid odor of gunpowder and blood. With the deaths of my enemies I prepare my being for the sacred fight and join the triumphant proletariat with a bestial howl!”
“Hatred as an element of struggle; unbending hatred for the enemy, which pushes a human being beyond his natural limitations, making him into an effective, violent, selective, and cold-blooded killing machine. This is what our soldiers must become … “Che Guevara
I find it fascinating that liberals believe that “Man” is innately good. The good just has to be encouraged by unrestrained personal license and therapy. So, evils like (Che), crime and terrorism cannot be simply condemned as evil. Liberals have to look for a “politically-correct” root cause for wrongdoing.
Popular scapegoats for Liberals are: “Poverty” (even when that poverty is the fruit of a dysfunctional society unwilling to adapt to new realities), “Racism”(which might limit one’s opportunities but doesn’t lead directly to criminal behavior), “Zionism” (the Jews always make a convenient scapegoat), “Colonialism” (even though most of the colonial empires educated their subjects and built enough infrastructure for said former subjects to make a better go at modern statehood than they otherwise could have), or “Alienation” ( a convenient dodge for those who lack ambition, a work ethic, or any sense of personal responsibility).
Therefore, the United States, being relatively rich, powerful, and the world’s policeman must be the cause of all the world’s ills. The solution is to hand our American sovereignty and military over to the Che’s of the world.
Supporting Che was just about making a statement - of sticking it to companies, America and the West.
Making Che Guevara into someone worthy of admiration is the most successful thing the ‘Left’ has managed to do in the past fifty years. Forget the fact that this is the man, who had no shame in murdering innocent civilians, was a major human rights violator, and put gays (who were ‘deviants’), religious minorities and other undesirables into concentration camps.
I can hear some of you ranting “Oh but Snoop you clearly don’t understand”; ok I’m trying to write this piece with a straight face.
How can Liberals make such a morally ignorant symbol? It’s really quite simple. First off, to a liberal, history is mutable. History to be valid has to be reinterpreted by each generation and by each “oppressed minority”. You end up with no history at all, unless it is in the Orwellian sense of constant reinvention to suit the causes of the immediate present.
Facts don’t matter much either. Facts are hard and cold, results don’t matter, only intentions. How else can a bloody-handed murderer like Che Guevara still remain a cool lefty icon? So what if Castro runs real gulags and Guevara was his hangman? Castro brought free health care and education to Cuba.
It’s all about emotions. Liberals have to be constantly outraged, they feel the need to express their outrage by outraging others. Why else would a picture of a crucifix and a beaker of piss be considered great art and a murderous human being is considered a fashion statement.
However I am scolded once again because I foolishly believe that my political ideals and values are manufactured and I engage in “conservative negro hysterics.” I just don’t have a suitable symbol for my hysterics.
Well then I guess I need a “symbol” that I can wear to proudly show the world my conservative Negro hysterics, maybe a Booker T. Washington t-shirt!
Sphere: Related Content
![[Valid RSS]](http://politicalpartypoop.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/valid-rss.png "Validate my RSS feed")
October 8th, 2007 at 3:33 pm
Do not discount the power of a good symbol. Church and political leaders well know that people need and want symbols. Something that is short-hand for what they cannot adequately express on their own. A picture. An ideal. An idea embodied in a face. Some colors are even enough to trigger strong feelings. And feelings lead a lot of people to do (or not do) a lot of things. That’s why churches and politicians often use emotion to get their messages across. A person who is afraid or who is angry is much more likely to get involved then someone who is not affected by the message or goal. The danger (and there are dangers in everything) is that the message gets lost in the images. People start worshiping the image or symbol, and lose sight of the goal.
It is rare to find someone who is 100% free of bias or personal prejudices. We all use different things to keep from having to learn everything the hard way (that is to say painfully and personally). We come to rely upon certain short-hand methods so we aren’t required to re-think every single thing every single day. The insecure among us change their minds depending upon whom they last spoke with, while the arrogant are sure that everyone else is a fool. And the truth of the matter usually lies in places where neither the insecure or arrogant are able to reach or see.
You speak of facts. I am often appalled at how many versions of the “facts” are believed by people. Evidence professors sometimes give a lesson in this by staging some shocking event in a class, and then getting each student to recount what they saw; it’s always shocking how unreliable the human witness can be. People cannot agree on simple facts, such as what constitutes a table (truly - I have seen that argued) versus some other type of furniture. So the chances of humans reaching some kind of peaceful agreement on any universal “truth” is probably nil. Only the Lord knows all…and most of the time we aren’t capable (let alone willing) to know that kind of Truth.
Young Chris is inspiring. He feels deeply and he thinks deep thoughts. Now none of the thoughts are probably nearly as unique or special as he may think. But heck, I remember the days when I was sure that I saw things no one else saw, in ways that had never before been seen. I truly believed I was so unique no one could ever fully understand or appreciate all of me. And I truly believed that I would do great things and be remembered by more then just my immediate family…. But the more you know, the more you know you don’t know. So now I am content (not a dirty word) in knowing less every day. It makes me more humble and more aware. I am glad people like Chris exist and that they care. If you don’t care when you are young and have energy, you are probably really selfish and not paying close attention to what is going on around you. But in time, if he is lucky and smart, he will start realizing how little he really knows. And he may just come to realize that being Black is no more then one tiny part of what makes him unique.
October 8th, 2007 at 6:14 pm
I think you and Terry make excellent points, and I don’t have much to add, but in case you didn’t see this article:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/fontova/fontova67.html
I think it gives an excellent overview of a) who Che was as a person, and b) how even supposed trusted sources for history are trying to rewrite his legacy.
October 8th, 2007 at 8:25 pm
I think I’m supposed to be flattered by all the attention I’m getting on this blog. I find it intriguing. I guess I’m just doing well to have my thoughts–no matter how unoriginal–entertained by Snoop’s conservative constituency.
All I know about Che is that he was a communist, a guerrilla, fought all over South, Central, and Caribbean America to establish communist states (to free them?), and he supported Malcolm X and the (general) Civil Rights Movement. I guess that’s why people get away with the tees.
But then again, it’s not any worse than Columbus Day, Veterans Day (you gotta admit, we’re praising our “freedom fighters” who’s job it is to mercilessly kill people in other countries), President’s Day (George Washington owned slaves), Ben Franklin (he was a womanizer and hated Germans), Thomas Jefferson…well, I’ll just assume that everyone reading this is at least vaguely familiar with his “Notes on the State of Virginia,” hell, we could have an entire blog simply to discuss the immorality of the founding fathers at the creation of the very constitution that we praise today as the beacon of freedom in a world gone mad.
But obviously these thoughts have been said long before now, and everyone must be aware of it.
Yet, here we are discussing the praising of Che Guevarra–in our all-American righteous indignation–as if he represents his actions rather than his ideals (when our patriots and liberators do the opposite). If Che must be held accountable, so should all of the people that contributed to the founding of America. Kennedy should be damned for negotiating with the Dixiecrats. Eisenhower should be damned for having MLK investigated (and for all you conspiracy buffs, killed). Lincoln should be damned for being more interested in the Union than equality, not to mention his countless anti-black statements. America should be damned for letting Trent Lott ever sit in Congress. George Bush should be damned for doing cocaine and being an alcoholic. His daughters should be damned for drinking underage. Kenyatta and the Mau Mau should be damned for ending colonization in Kenya through violence. The early feminists for trying to silence black women and ignoring their rights.
All I’m saying is, can the piety. We all honor people who really weren’t that great in reality. Don’t pick and choose who’s a bad guy simply because he’s a symbol for liberals. I’m aware that Che killed A LOT of people. But WWII did also. But we still honor the sacrifice of OUR soldiers on Veteran’s Day–as opposed to having a day of mourning for the war overall. Admittedly, I get all uppity on occasion on some issues. I think Columbus day is whack–he missed the mark and proved to a backwards Europe that the world wasn’t flat by wiping out the Arawak population of the Caribbean (which is obviously a cruel indictment that doesn’t do that history justice, but it’s just my “liberal Negro hysterics”).
~Now, as far as the chunk of “Popular Scapegoats for Liberals”–All I can say is Oh My God, did you just say that! Wow, they’re better off thanks to colonialism? Um, no. I don’t think so. But we can do that discussion in person–I could max out this comment box on that one.
And I think of Booker T. as a foundational figure in black political thought. I personally think he got a bad rap. In a recent class discussion, I portrayed him as the original proponent of black power (I didn’t capitalize that on purpose). If you read some of what he had to say, then look at DuBois, then start looking at later black thinkers…he’s not much different. His only major difference is in his views on assimilation. It all depends on the way you approach his words and who you think his audience was.
Either way, for further notice, I’m well aware that many of my thoughts and opinions are not wholly original. Just as those of everyone whose comments I’ve read are not. I’ve said before I was born about 30 years too late. Even then, I still wouldn’t be original. The society we live in is a product of information transference and mutation–not creation. It’s what you do with the information you’ve got. But I am getting a lot of hearty laughs from my references, so critique away. I really do enjoy it. I’ll only get better as we go along.
October 8th, 2007 at 8:38 pm
And here I offer a list of quotes from Martin Luther King, Jr. that no one ever talks about:
“I am sorry to have to say to you that the vast majority of white Americans are racist, either consciously or unconsciously.”
“We live in a confused…,sick, neurotic nation.”
“But this white failure to comprehend the depth and dimension of the Negro problem is far from being peculiar to Government officials..It seems to be a malady even among those whites who like to regard themselves as ‘enlightened’…I have been gravely disappointed with such white ‘moderates.’ I am inclined to think that they are more of a stumbling block to the Negro’s progress than the White Citizen’s Council or the Ku Klux Klanner.”
“they [white America] took a stand for decency but it was never really a stand for genuine equality for the black man.”
“There is confusion in the land…if you don’t straighten up, and that if you do not begin to use your vast resources of wealth to lift God’s children from the dungeons of despair and poverty, then you are writing your own obituary.”
“The thing wrong with America is white racism. White folks are not right.”
And everybody by now has heard his comments that rioting is the “voice of the unheard.”
Yeah…maybe I should get a MLK tee? I should wear it with a Malcolm X cap (obviously from the 80’s) and my Che Guevarra belt buckle (yeah, I found one of those too).
October 9th, 2007 at 8:09 am
Chris: I’m just fucking with you, I’m using you to energize other thoughts tis all.
I love the comments keep em comming, invite others.
You and I are not that different overall.
On the MLK quotes;
“The thing wrong with America is white racism. White folks are not right.”
“We live in a confused…,sick, neurotic nation.”
“I am sorry to have to say to you that the vast majority of white Americans are racist, either consciously or unconsciously.”
I said them all here, quite often.
Don’t let the “conservative” nature in me fool you.
Go here: http://www.lawrence.com/users/Snoop/
and you can check out my old rants prior to having my first blog The Snoop Zone and then this blog.
It will at least make you laugh!
Again we are not that different in out thinking I simply have had more time to refine my rants.
October 9th, 2007 at 9:40 am
Chris - If you have the time, would you be interested in playing Booker T or Dubois in a play that was written by a local (good) play -write and will be performed on January 19 as part of Lawrence’s MLK week? Come to our house tonight - and I will intro you to the show’s author and you can see if you have any interest/time in helping out!! It’s a show all about education.
October 9th, 2007 at 2:14 pm
Chris, I think the main point that you are missing in your argument comparing some of the founding fathers to Che is that Che was a man who actively fought against America and the idea of Democracy. A more apt comparison would probably be to someone like Jefferson Davis, in that he was a “rebel” that fought against the powers that be for ideals that he believed were correct. He was fighting for the “freedom” of his people from an overbearing government, damning all others. And how did he do this, through war and death, just the same as Che. Yet, for some reason, you don’t see Jefferson Davis tees being worn by the supposedly rebellious in our society.
The reason for this is (other than that no one would get the reference) that he promoted slavery of one race and Che promoted the slavery of all races, i.e. communism, thus promoting equality.Of course, as history proved via the USSR, Communism does not promote equality, it just makes fewer people better off and makes the masses live in equal squaller.
As to your point of saying that if we hold Che accountable we should hold everyone else accountable…..well of course we should. But you also must to recognize that some crimes are worse than others. Did you really mean to compare mass murder with drug use, or the liberal use of the FBI, or (and I’m not sure this was a bad thing) maintaining the Union during the Civil War? To me, all of these are invalid comparisons because of the severity of the actions. If you wanted to impugn a supposed American hero, go after Custer or the folks at the Alamo or Bill Cody or even the internment of the Japanese during WWII and maybe you would have a solid argument based on the severity of the crimes committed.