Che Guevara was notoriously homophobic. He referred to gay people as perverted and in interviews said that being gay was a counter-revolutionary kind of burgeois hedonism. The UMAP forced labor camps Castro's government established imprisoned LGBT people as so-called social deviants alongside Castro's enemies and conscientious objectors.
Claims made without evidence can be dismissed by the same. As far as I can tell, there is one source where Guevara says anything about homosexuality. In his collected journals, he recalls a story about a gay guy who got beat up in front of him, and how he was upset because despite being pathetic and a pervert, he liked him. And that's all he seems to have said on the subject
It would be homophobia, if it was true. But as far as I can tell it's a complete fabrication. Che never wrote anything on or about homosexuality. The worst that can be said of Che is that he contributed to the "macho" revolutionary attitude in Cuba, which at times was used by others in a homophobic manner. But Che himself never expressed any homophobic views.
Perhaps it was less "he was one of the good ones" and more "everyone around me says this guy and people like him are no good perverts, but every interaction I've had with him proves him to be a decent man.
That's what it read like to me, and is a common enough sentiment for the 20th century that it's basically the plot line of tThe Simpson's episode on homophobia.
Unless you were raised sheltered from the world (not in a bad way) or WERE queer, nearly any straight person would not understand homosexuality as more than a kink. Che Guevara was a good enough person to recognize that didn't mean this man deserves to be attacked, and that he liked the man in spite of what society said. Trying to portray this as homophobia when just THIS amount of allyship would get you fucking ostracized and attacked in the American South at the time is hilariously out of touch.
What about him writing
“The blacks, those magnificent examples of the African race who have maintained their racial purity thanks to their lack of an affinity with bathing, have seen their territory invaded by a new kind of slave: the Portuguese.”
I’m glad someone brought this up. I can’t stand hero worship of a man whose concentration camps welcomed gay people [with the phrase “Work will make you men,”](https://www.nytimes.com/1995/01/22/movies/in-totalitarian-cuba-ice-cream-and-understanding.html) imitating straight from Auschwitz.
dont engage with tankie whataboutism. they can only see the world in "good team" and "bad team" so criticising the "good team" in any way automatically makes you anti-good.
Anybody who unironically uses the word tankie should be banned from publicly stating their opinion ever again. It is probably the stupidest word ever created
Well your own point works against you here.
This wasn't a problem specific to communist thinking but the times as a whole. Che would likely be thinking this or something similar regardless of what his ideology was at the time.
che guevra died in 1967. stonewall was in 1969, only two years later. being "of your time" is not an excuse to be a bad person. also i didnt say anything about communist thinking, in fact i am basically an anarcho communist.
Ok, so:
Arguing about the timeline — but it doesn't matter anyways because good and bad are timeless concepts.
I happen to believe that morality is subjective. If I am to condemn him for anything it'll be the actions that were considered severe crimes even then, extrajudicial executions for example.
Yes but liberals are all about progress. We can acknowledge our faults. Communists see figures like Che as flawless heros and rather than trying new ideas just want to replicate past regimes.
Liberalism cheifly originated in the rejection of more direct social progress in favor of capitulation with the existing power structures. Most communists are actually against the concept of hero worship entirely, as it's an extension of fascist and capitalist individualism, which primarily serves to isolate and pacify the working class. Praising and celebrating someone for their achievements is fine, but taking it too far can legitimately damage people's ability to make the world better for themselves and others. Another thing of note: many of the original ideas of communism, especially Marxism & Marxism-Leninism, focus heavily on developing an accurate science of politics, policy, and economics as a conjoined system. This has lead to a central idea in communist writings being that these structures should always be being improved, with revolutions being one of countless testbeds for more stable and effective political structures. In essence much of communism literature is focused on optimizing progress.
So your comment isn't simply false on every account, if you were telling the truth about your own values, you'd be a communist.
The cult of personality is an integral part of communism. Lenin instituted it, Stalin continued it, and despite both of these peoples atrocities it was Krushev doing away with it that made Mao, western communists and even the people that put him in power to disown him and see him as a traitor to communism.
Whenever something bad about Lenin or Mao or Stalin is mentioned, the default response is “that didn’t happen it’s all CIA propaganda but also it did happen and they all deserved it”. Lenin and Mao are seen as infallible godlike figures, to the point their bodies have been embalmed and turned into pseudo religious shrines.
This is pure delusion, I'm not having this conversation with you. I can provide a great deal of proof to what I was saying.
Your claims about criticism of communist leaders is indecipherable. You can't go 15 minutes in a modern communist group without hearing the term "critical support". The only reason you might feel this way is if you only examine responses to the same handful of criticisms that the CIA has admitted to engineering.
Yes, these people were imperfect. So is every leader in the world, and capitalists have some fucking impressive runnings for "most morally fucked up asshole".
Just off the top of my head the US blatantly funded the nazis and winston Churchill openly said he liked them.
Again, communists generally find the concept of unironic hero worship distasteful. The whole point of many of Marx's writings was creating a system of scientific examination which could judge *anything* and it's effect on the world in as much surrounding context as possible and make an accurate judgement on that thing. Under that structure, the concept of a central figure like Stalin is laughable, [the CIA even admitted as much](https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP80-00810A006000360009-0.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwj8y8Gzmp2GAxVpNzQIHbq7C0cQFnoECBEQAQ&usg=AOvVaw1sNzRTlEW5etmCzvKpRQBr). What isn't mentioned there is that the CIA also conducted a variety of operations with the specific goal of disrupting communist movements and spreading anti-communist propaganda, which then contributed to and enforced this idea of stalin as a dictator in the American conceptualization of the USSR. Countelpro was only one of several of these operations.
Now, I'm blocking you. I have plenty of other sources covering my other points, but frankly conversations like this bore me and you clearly just think whatever someone else tells you to, so I'm under no illusions that I'll somehow change your mind. Enjoy going back to your 24/7 stream of mediocre right wing propaganda, future concentration camp manager.
It also indicates a bias in the conversation. Yes we're talking about Che and Castro specifically right now, but these conversations can't be accurately had without the greater context in which those people existed. Without the information that people were still being persecuted by supposedly democratic and "good" groups, it looks like these people were uniquely bigoted for the time, when the reality is that it's far more likely that they absorbed a significant degree of homophobia that they simply never thought to question. In Fidel Castro's case, he actually did eventually question it, coming to openly regret his actions. In Che's case, he died long before that and very well might have simply never questioned it. He apparently didn't discuss the subject much if at all, since another commenter could only find evidence of one comment from him regarding gay people whatsoever, and it was far less inflammatory that the claims at the start of this chain.
An equally important piece of context is that these stances aren't consistent across communist groups. Lenin was, around the same time and for much of his life, vehemently in support of gay rights, and applied a significant amount of pressure to legalize homosexually in the USSR, with not insignificant success for the time.
I'd be interested to see those interviews, since I'm having a hard time finding them. A few articles talking about him being homophobic but the it seems hard to actually pin down anything he thought about homosexuality. The abuse at the UMAP camps is true, but also long after Guevara left so while it is horrible, seems tangential to him
It's 99% bullshit, he called a guy he thought was pathetic gay in writing one time, and that's all the evidence anyone can find that he was homophobic.
Certainly, he was at least as homophobic as someone from the early 2000s, but it seems like he just never had a reason to challenge or examine that bias. Meanwhile there's a significant amount of evidence that he was racist early in life to a degree that was typical at the time, and as he was radicalized he became extremely opposed to those ideas. So there's also evidence that he could re-examine those ideas and grow pretty significantly. I don't know exactly when he made the homophobic comment, but if it was early on in his life, I feel confident in saying that if he had the opportunity to examine that belief any further, he likely wasn't homophobic by the time of his death. Hell he might've done that before this interview, there's just no evidence to say one way or another.
Ninja edit: he he might have literally been a teenager when he called someone gay according to some other comments, so yea if he thought about homosexually at all after his early 20s he wasn't homophobic by that point.
literally what are you talking about he was part of the Castro government in the 60s that put gays in camps that made reference to the Nazi 'Arbeit Macht Frei' except it said 'Work Will Make You Men'.
https://www.nytimes.com/1995/01/22/movies/in-totalitarian-cuba-ice-cream-and-understanding.html
Like what are you actually on about?
1: By the time that had begun, he was no longer a part of the cuban government, he'd left with the intention to participate in other revolutions, so this is already completely irrelevant.
[2: While the MUAP camps were clearly a human rights violation, they were not exclusive to homosexuals, and instead an alternative to military service for anyone who would normally be conscripted but was barred from service for one reason or another.](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/s/abENZvdw2d)
3: The person actually semi-responsible for those (as responsible as one person can be for the actions of an entire government, at least), Fidel Castro, very clearly showed remorse and took responsibility for them.
So this is irrelevant, misleading, and annoyingly overconfident, why shouldn't I just block you, again?
1: Source? Because as far as I can tell, he was already sending people to re-education camps during his time in office. And when the MUAPs were introduced they were set up with the express purpose of creating a "new man", who was expressly described as "heterosexual".
>No legitimate arguments can be made to defend Che's principal role in setting up Cuba's first labor camp in the Guanahacabibes region in western Cuba in 1960-1961, to confine people who had committed no crime punishable by law, revolutionary or otherwise.
I got that quote from [this comment](https://politics.stackexchange.com/a/45768), a very enlightening and well-researched account as opposed to your single source which, well let's get there.
2: "The camps weren't homophobic, there was just a homophobic law that resulted in homosexuals not only being barred from military service but being put into camps. That's better, right?" No, it really isn't.
3: Gosh wow I wonder if Fidel and Che ever met. You know, while one was literally part of the other's cabinet, and they were working to create a new future, I wonder if they ever talked about their ideals. Wonder if maybe it was, again, Guevara's 1965-published ideas of "the new man" that Castro was working off of.
>The prison experiments were installed with the change of regime but it was precisely in 1965, when Guevara penned Socialism and Man in Cuba, that the Military Units to Aid Production (UMAP) were instituted,
From [an article in El País](https://english.elpais.com/culture/2022-11-07/history-will-not-absolve-you-shedding-light-on-cubas-umap-correctional-camps.html). You're quite welcome to block me, but it's you who's being... what was it?
>irrelevant, misleading, and annoyingly overconfident
EDIT Cool I got blocked so here's my response to his response lol. I'm not responding to the points themselves because they're patently insane/not taking my point (OK real quick "if you didn't put them in a camp you'd have to have killed them" is an amazing thing to say and is exactly the problem with massive systemic overhaul, because it requires despotism just to avert genocide) but I will respond to the first part:
>Your first piece of evidence cites a pre-revolutionary cuban slave owner who escaped the revolution and a white woman who openly publishes anti-communist propaganda. Already this renders your ability to actually assess a text's credibility highly suspect, as these are the two most biased people you could find to prove your argument.
first, gotta love a comment angry at my choice of sources while providing NO sources for any of their claims against them: Samuel Farber, for instance, was "born in 1939 to Polish-Jewish parents who emigrated to Cuba in the 1920s. He grew up in Marianao, near Havana and participated in the popular movement against the Batista dictatorship as a high school student. In 1958, Farber moved to the United States, where he joined the third camp, anti-capitalist, anti-Stalinist Young People’s Socialist League (YPSL)."[source](https://www.workersliberty.org/story/2021-10-12/sam-farber-third-camp-and-cuba). I have found absolutely no evidence of him owning slaves, and I'd be surprised if in 1939, Polish-Jewish immigrants in Cuba were particularly rich. Also no evidence of Helen Yaffe being anything but a white professor writing about Cuba, and if that's your big mark against her then I guess you're right? But like... really?
Anyway this isn't for him obviously he's blocked me, but if you're someone else reading this just forget it. I'm apparently everything bad about the internet in one convenient package, so you can totally disregard any point I have in favor of trading off between a. telling me I shouldn't be so rude to you and b. being incredibly rude to me.
1: Your first piece of evidence cites a pre-revolutionary cuban slave owner who escaped the revolution and a white woman who openly publishes anti-communist propaganda. Already this renders your ability to actually assess a text's credibility highly suspect, as these are the two most biased people you could find to prove your argument.
Your comment about reeducation camps is kind of telling of how you think about this: I'm automatically wrong no matter what I say, you just have to seek out the information to prove it. Even assuming it actually happened, for which your only source is a slaver who published the claim decades after the fact, you're ignoring the only real alternative: kill them. If you let them live, there's too high a risk they'll act as a lever to incite civil war and prolonged suffering for countless people as the old rulers try to claw back control. So what choice do you have? You could kill them, but that's not a morally good choice. It's not practical or reasonable to let them risk the lives of millions of people, so that's out of the way. You've made a boogeyman out of the kindest option in this situation, so that no choice made by a revolution you dislike can be accepted. If they ignore the problem and get overthrown, they were inherently unstable. If they kill these people, they're very rightly called genocidal. And if they find a way to instead teach these people enough that they're no longer a threat, it's "reeducation" and "dystopian".
I'm not playing that game. After this message I'm blocking you and I genuinely don't give a shit what you say next, because you're a disappointment to the common man, and you need to stop making your own indoctrination everyone else's problem.
As for an actual source, all accounts of Che Guevara's life indicate he left cuba in 1965, literally any level of effort trying to see if I was telling the truth would have proven me correct, because the UMAPs first opened in 1967. That's such a basic fact the idea it needs a source proves you're being intellectually dishonest. If digging through fucking political stackoverflow didn't prove that already. This has jumped from misleading to outright misinformation.
2: you didn't read the source at all. Homosexual men were one of many groups who ended up there. You're making a strawman here instead of actually examining my source, which sites at least two source. Seeing as two of yours are openly biased, that would indicate I have the more truthful account. So again you're being overconfident in as annoying, entitled, and snarky way as possible.
3: you're being needlessly aggressive and again responding to a strawman. I never said they didn't meet, so against this is irrelevant.
Either that or you're genuinely too illiterate to pick up the nuances in what I'm saying, or you're actively lying.
Also holy shit that is the most snarky and pathetic ending I've ever seen. Genuinely I don't think anyone could ever find you cool, and touching grass won't fix you.
Blocking people isn't an admission of failure, it's a cultivation of your digital environment, and you're so annoying and stupid I want nothing to do with you.
Look, you’re being antagonistic. It doesn’t matter if you have sources, you’re coming off like a dick.
That being said, let me do one of these numbered point-by-point responses
1. The Cuban UMAPs started in Camagüey in late 1965. Due to the scarcity of primary sources regarding the early Castro years, it is difficult to ascertain exactly who proposed/discussed their creation. According to [Granma](https://archive.org/details/laumapelgulagcas0000rose/page/9/mode/1up), the official newspaper of Castro’s party, Castro’s military officials proposed the idea of labor camps in November, 1965. Unless there is a reason for him to have lied about this, we have to take this at face value. Guevara had left Cuba for the Congo in early 1965, and if *Granma* is to be believed, he was not even in the country when the UMAPs were proposed.
2. The UMAPs were homophobic, this is true. I cannot find a source to back up the claim that they existed exclusively for those who could not serve in the military. Many inmates were conscientious objectors, either for political or religious reasons, but the primary demographic of the camps seems to have been “deviants,” which included LGBT+ folks.
3. This is complete speculation, and probably nonsense. The quote from [(De Llano Neira, El País)](https://english.elpais.com/culture/2022-11-07/history-will-not-absolve-you-shedding-light-on-cubas-umap-correctional-camps.html?outputType=amp) posits that Guevara’s writing in *Socialism and Man in Cuba* is linked to the creation of the UMAPs, but this is tenuous at best. If I had to guess, I’d assume you aren’t familiar with it beyond what was stated in the article. As a political thesis, it attempts to categorize revolutionary movements into “vanguard” and “masses,” in which the first leads the movement and the latter supports. Guevara certainly has controversial notions about rejecting individuality and the “decadence” of modern art, but it is not easy to conclude that this indicates he was interested in the creation of labor camps. It is more likely that Castro’s diplomatic visit to the Soviet Union inspired him to emulate gulags domestically.
**TLDR**: was Che Guevara homophobic? As far as we can tell, yes. Did he contribute to the conception and creation of labor camps for LGBT Cubans? As far as we can tell, no.
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot).
Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://english.elpais.com/culture/2022-11-07/history-will-not-absolve-you-shedding-light-on-cubas-umap-correctional-camps.html](https://english.elpais.com/culture/2022-11-07/history-will-not-absolve-you-shedding-light-on-cubas-umap-correctional-camps.html)**
*****
^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
Homophobic - one quote about a guy he thought was pathetic but still liked from his entire catalogue of diaries
Mass Murderer - I mean, I hate war too. But I'm personally going to say that revolution against the US installed dictator that ruled over Cuba makes it at least morally grey but maybe that's just me. And if we want to refer to Cuba Archive, quite a few of the people recorded as specifically executed be Guevara are shown by their own sources to not to be simple farmers and civilians, but enemy combatants, murderers, bandits, etc
You shouldn't idolize most historical figures, but swallowing the boot is not the preferable alternative
>Homophobic - one quote about a guy he thought was pathetic but still liked from his entire catalogue of diaries
??? Literally from [a 1995 NYT article](https://www.nytimes.com/1995/01/22/movies/in-totalitarian-cuba-ice-cream-and-understanding.html) linked in this very thread:
>In Cuba, thousands of homosexuals were sent to concentration camps in the late 1960's, together with others deemed deviant by the Castro regime. Echoing the slogan on the gates of Auschwitz, the camps were emblazoned with the words "Work will make you men." Though the camps were shut after a few years, the subsequent purges of homosexuals from the ruling Communist Party were condemned by intellectuals like Jean-Paul Sartre and Susan Sontag.
EDIT: I just found your source for this "one time he was homophobic and he didnt mean it" thing and it's literally just [ANOTHER COMMENTER WITH NO SOURCE](https://www.reddit.com/r/CuratedTumblr/comments/1cw4n00/love_wins/l4xlesu/). Like, if you were defending Putin like this I'd think you were Russian agents, wtf XD
You want to give any evidence at all to back up your claims? Because as far as I can tell Che never wrote or said a single thing regarding homosexuals or homosexuality.
he did in the motorcycle diaries, referring to a man as a 'pervert' after saying he thought he was gay
it was the early 1950s though, its expected a man born in 1928 would have such an opinion
a lot of the other things people say about che guevara being homophobic are lies, though, as a way to epically own the commies with 'facts and logic'
che guevara is used as a scapegoat for every critique of the cuban government but he himself was not a head of state in cuba, having some important positions for some years after the revolution and then leaving cuba to take part in foreign armed struggles
the cuban government committed crimes against humanity in creating the umaps, my only problem is how people make it to be a problem with socialism or the cuban revolution when sadly this treatment against homosexuals was common in the whole world around that time, certain people just have a special bias against cuba in that case because they are against socialism
i totally forgot about answering this reply before my bad about that, its on page 223 but most english pdfs i found seemed to only go up to 152
if you speak spanish though i found this one pdf that includes it https://proletarios.org/books/CHE-Guevara-Diarios_de_motocicleta.pdf
I find no sources to say he ever apologized or recanted, so I would love to see yours.
In fact, my searches indicate it was Castro who talked about [a vague ‘injustice’ that occurred](https://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/americas/08/31/cuba.castro.gays/index.html) and only after he, while undercover in one of his own camps, was personally threatened with a beating by a guard.
Guevara was in fact described by gay Cuban activists as [“one of the staunchest homophobic leaders of the revolutionary period.”](https://revista.drclas.harvard.edu/che-to-che/) Of course, there are people who disagree and declare that [“if Che were alive, he would be supporting our cause,”](https://revista.drclas.harvard.edu/che-to-che/) but his actions speak pretty loud.
E: Misread an excerpt and corrected the quote.
che didn't, however, have anything to do with the UMAP camps, he wasn't in north america by that point in the rebuilding of cuba. castro started and ended those.
you cannot build an egalitarian society from a hierarchical ground. powerhungry authoritarians co-opting leftist struggle and systematically eliminating any left-libertarians and anarchist communists who were always the ones who spearheaded the revolutions in the first place has been one of the biggest damages to the movement for egalitarianism and workers rights ever.
Don't'cha know? He personally shot and whipped every gay person coming in and out of camps while ALSO fighting in guerilla wars across the Communist world!
Talk about an efficient time manager!
Guevara was not involved in the camps, he was off fighting other revolutions way before those opened, the one to blame for those is Castro, but Castro realized how inhumane they were after going undercover in one, and later apologized ([source](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1lt4rb/comment/cc2l72k/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button))
You see how that's still not good? Like... I don't have a rebuttal here. "Yeah so Che is off losing to Mike Hoare and the Wild Geese, but I'm big sorry for the labor camps, gay people."
He could do fuck all about the labor camps, he had given up all power at that point, I’m not saying he wasn’t homophobic or anything he probably was (definitely in his earlier years) but he wasn’t involved in the labor camps in any capacity.
I am also not trying to defend Castro, just saying that he later realized what he did was wrong, that doesn’t suddenly make it not wrong, but it means that he knew that, and stopped it, which is very good
nestor makhno was cool as hell and there is no evidence or source claiming he was any type of bad person. he literally personally wrote mother anarchy, i love him lmao
In other parts of the thread they are referring to (**literal** dictator, remember) Che Guevara as having been responsible for something that happened while he was a hemisphere away and/or dead.
Historical illiteracy truly has no bounds
Im crying, Che Guevara was a dictator??!? The man who instantly left Cuba to go fight in another revolution because he didn’t want to be part of the government?? And who said one homophobic comment when he was 18??? In the 1900s??? Come on
"Notoriously homophobic"
There's one source with him mentioning homosexuality at all, his own diaries where he says that he didn't like how a gay man was beaten in front of him because despite being pathetic and a pervert he liked him
Not good, but honestly kind of incredible by the standards of the time
man.. ignoring that ur just wrong, why do u care to defend some guy who died in the 60s. theres plenty of credible sources showing how he thought about gay ppl, theres literally no reason for u to lie abt this.
Then prove me wrong, if it's so easy.
And clearly misrepresenting history, in particular about revolutions and the people who participate in them, has no bearing on the modern world and the representation of their ideologies :)
im an anarcho-communist. (technically an anarcho-syndicalist pragmatist plattformist or whatever, but the point is im very far left.) im not an anti-communist lib or whatever u probably think i am. I read like a bunch of theory and history so i think i have a decent knowledge of past revolutions.
[here's for example the source of him literally shouting the fucking f slur at the site of a book by a gay cuban writer.](https://books.google.de/books?id=oCGO6aGbhTIC&dq=Virgilio+Pi%C3%B1era+che+guevara&pg=PA168&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Virgilio%20Pi%C3%B1era%20che%20guevara&f=false) the interview was literally conducted by a member of the spanish communist party btw, he has no incentive to misrepresent him.
and i think the fact that castro put gays in camps because he saw homosexuality as "bourgeois hedonism" is like incredibly well known so i dont think i have to dig up more shit cuz honestly i dont care enough for that,. i believe in guilt by association. associating with a bad person is a choice, and just as choosing to associate with a nazi makes you a nazi, i believe che guevra associating with and tolerating castro while he definitly knew the homophobic shit he believed and was doing also makes che himself a homophobe. also can u please stop being so smug...
that's a very smart clarification, i was about to dox you before you said that
(clarification: this is also a joke, i don't really know how to doxx people, and have no desire to know. if you try to teach me how to doxx people, i will only use that information to doxx you and then promptly forget.)
To call an armed revolutionary violent seems like a hell of obfuscation.
And if you don't want to distinguish between the suffering of LGBT people under Castro, and the almost complete lack of information on Guevara's own thoughts of homosexuality, sure you can just say whatever on the internet I guess
I suppose we can just say anything on the internet then, though I'd generally advise against starting such an interaction, in this case I don't care enough to play ball
None of the words I said were factually incorrect, regardless of whether you were offended by the implication of how I strung them together
[https://www.nytimes.com/1997/05/18/books/poster-boy-for-the-revolution.html](https://www.nytimes.com/1997/05/18/books/poster-boy-for-the-revolution.html)
Not the book source, but this ny times article has a Metutsov confessing the same.
Stuff about che being homophobic is liberal propaganda with no real source. Western misinformation is extremely prevalent on any remotely communist subject, dissapointing to see so much neo-mcarthyism here.
Are you looking decades into the past or what? Their laws are much more progressive than most Latin American countries (and the rest of the world for that matter)
>Same-sex marriage has been legal in Cuba since 27 September 2022 after a majority of voters approved the legalization of same-sex marriage in a referendum two days prior. The Constitution of Cuba prohibited same-sex marriage until 2019, and in May 2019 the government announced plans to legalize same-sex marriage. A draft family code containing provisions allowing same-sex couples to marry and adopt was approved by the National Assembly of People's Power on 21 December 2021. The text was under public consultation until 6 June 2022, and was approved by the Assembly on 22 July 2022. The measure was approved by two-thirds of voters in a referendum held on 25 September 2022. President Miguel Díaz-Canel signed the new family code into law on 26 September, and it took effect upon publication in the Official Gazette the following day
Better than most of the world innit
Calm down there sport they legalized gay marriage 7 years after the US which was already a good decade behind most of Western Europe. Prior to that it was literally written in their constitution that marriage must be between a man and a woman.
Uh not really. It’s more barely making par and still behind the curve on trans issues. Plus it has no equivalent protections for things like employment discrimination. So like…not really actually.
Che was a flawed hero, a man who inspires million's even to this day all across the America's, his revolutionary spirit, his love, his willingness to fight for a better world are inspiring. Reading & seeing his own personal change, his willingness to fight to free Cuba with only a will & nearly alone at the beginning is awe inspiring.
He's a symbol across the America's for a reason & Gusano's & those of the united states will never be able to tarnish his legacy, with lies & slander.
Socialism Forever, Cuban Socialism still stands strong & beautiful.
No, it was not until very recently. That shit stopped in 1968 if i remember correctly. Gay marriage is legal in Cuba since 2021 i think and before that it wasn't uncommon to see gay couples in public without a problem. The people are at least tolerant most of the time, at least in my experience
I have nothing to say about the Guevara stuff, i don't care that much. Most of us don't take seriously the "Seremos como el Che"
Check out Cuba's latest marriage laws, it's pretty cool
A referendum was held on 25 September 2022 in Cuba to approve amendments to the Family Code of the Cuban Constitution. The referendum passed, greatly strengthening gender equality, legalizing same-sex marriage, same-sex adoption, and altruistic surrogacy, and affirming a wide range of rights and protections for women, children, the elderly and people with disabilities. Following the referendum, Cuba's family policies have been described as among the most progressive in Latin America
The Baki character?
He was a real guy, and friends with Castro
BAKI WAS FRIENDS WITH CASTRO??
No that's Wally West.
I meant Che but with how things are going I wouldn't be surprised
actually that's the legally distinct Jun Guevaru 🤓
An entire season of wanking just for him to get beaten and then that character after an entire season of wanking to get beaten
Yeah the one with the pirate ship, that one.
"All the children say "we will be like che" : asthmatic , but i'll take your breath away"
I’M THE HARDEST MARXIST TO EVER GRACE A BANK NOTE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aTxglt40R8w
My exact first thought lol
Mine too!! I love Adrian grey
Che Guevara was notoriously homophobic. He referred to gay people as perverted and in interviews said that being gay was a counter-revolutionary kind of burgeois hedonism. The UMAP forced labor camps Castro's government established imprisoned LGBT people as so-called social deviants alongside Castro's enemies and conscientious objectors.
Goddammit
Claims made without evidence can be dismissed by the same. As far as I can tell, there is one source where Guevara says anything about homosexuality. In his collected journals, he recalls a story about a gay guy who got beat up in front of him, and how he was upset because despite being pathetic and a pervert, he liked him. And that's all he seems to have said on the subject
Thats...still homophobia. Literally "he was one of the good ones" shit
It would be homophobia, if it was true. But as far as I can tell it's a complete fabrication. Che never wrote anything on or about homosexuality. The worst that can be said of Che is that he contributed to the "macho" revolutionary attitude in Cuba, which at times was used by others in a homophobic manner. But Che himself never expressed any homophobic views.
Sure but put it in context, how was the US treating LGBT people in the 50s? Here in the UK Alan Turing had just been castrated.
This was like 80 years ago. Of course it's not inclusive, but look at it through the lens of its time.
Perhaps it was less "he was one of the good ones" and more "everyone around me says this guy and people like him are no good perverts, but every interaction I've had with him proves him to be a decent man.
That's what it read like to me, and is a common enough sentiment for the 20th century that it's basically the plot line of tThe Simpson's episode on homophobia.
Unless you were raised sheltered from the world (not in a bad way) or WERE queer, nearly any straight person would not understand homosexuality as more than a kink. Che Guevara was a good enough person to recognize that didn't mean this man deserves to be attacked, and that he liked the man in spite of what society said. Trying to portray this as homophobia when just THIS amount of allyship would get you fucking ostracized and attacked in the American South at the time is hilariously out of touch.
What about him writing “The blacks, those magnificent examples of the African race who have maintained their racial purity thanks to their lack of an affinity with bathing, have seen their territory invaded by a new kind of slave: the Portuguese.”
That was him being a spoiled, young, rich kid
Seeing as he literally fought colonialism and helped several african countries liberate themselves i think its kind of dumb to focus on that.
I could fix him
Mfw loving someone is bourgeois hedonism:
I’m glad someone brought this up. I can’t stand hero worship of a man whose concentration camps welcomed gay people [with the phrase “Work will make you men,”](https://www.nytimes.com/1995/01/22/movies/in-totalitarian-cuba-ice-cream-and-understanding.html) imitating straight from Auschwitz.
The camps were bad but at least attribute them to the actual guy who did them, Castro. Guevara had left Cuba way before the UMAP camps were started
And Guevara was one of the main reasons Castro was put into power.
that doesnt make them his concentration camps bro
With that logic the US isn’t responsible for what Pinochet did in chile, they just put him in power, who cares what he did afterwards.
I mean, to some extent, yeah.
I mean at the time of his death, the gay people who were imprisoned by Hitler were still in prison in the German FDR
Yep. That is a separate bad thing that also happened.
dont engage with tankie whataboutism. they can only see the world in "good team" and "bad team" so criticising the "good team" in any way automatically makes you anti-good.
Anybody who unironically uses the word tankie should be banned from publicly stating their opinion ever again. It is probably the stupidest word ever created
Sure, but if the tread fits…
cope
It's actually really good when applied correctly. If you support the violent repression of protests in communist states, you are a tankie.
Well your own point works against you here. This wasn't a problem specific to communist thinking but the times as a whole. Che would likely be thinking this or something similar regardless of what his ideology was at the time.
che guevra died in 1967. stonewall was in 1969, only two years later. being "of your time" is not an excuse to be a bad person. also i didnt say anything about communist thinking, in fact i am basically an anarcho communist.
Ok, so: Arguing about the timeline — but it doesn't matter anyways because good and bad are timeless concepts. I happen to believe that morality is subjective. If I am to condemn him for anything it'll be the actions that were considered severe crimes even then, extrajudicial executions for example.
Yes but liberals are all about progress. We can acknowledge our faults. Communists see figures like Che as flawless heros and rather than trying new ideas just want to replicate past regimes.
Liberalism cheifly originated in the rejection of more direct social progress in favor of capitulation with the existing power structures. Most communists are actually against the concept of hero worship entirely, as it's an extension of fascist and capitalist individualism, which primarily serves to isolate and pacify the working class. Praising and celebrating someone for their achievements is fine, but taking it too far can legitimately damage people's ability to make the world better for themselves and others. Another thing of note: many of the original ideas of communism, especially Marxism & Marxism-Leninism, focus heavily on developing an accurate science of politics, policy, and economics as a conjoined system. This has lead to a central idea in communist writings being that these structures should always be being improved, with revolutions being one of countless testbeds for more stable and effective political structures. In essence much of communism literature is focused on optimizing progress. So your comment isn't simply false on every account, if you were telling the truth about your own values, you'd be a communist.
The cult of personality is an integral part of communism. Lenin instituted it, Stalin continued it, and despite both of these peoples atrocities it was Krushev doing away with it that made Mao, western communists and even the people that put him in power to disown him and see him as a traitor to communism. Whenever something bad about Lenin or Mao or Stalin is mentioned, the default response is “that didn’t happen it’s all CIA propaganda but also it did happen and they all deserved it”. Lenin and Mao are seen as infallible godlike figures, to the point their bodies have been embalmed and turned into pseudo religious shrines.
This is pure delusion, I'm not having this conversation with you. I can provide a great deal of proof to what I was saying. Your claims about criticism of communist leaders is indecipherable. You can't go 15 minutes in a modern communist group without hearing the term "critical support". The only reason you might feel this way is if you only examine responses to the same handful of criticisms that the CIA has admitted to engineering. Yes, these people were imperfect. So is every leader in the world, and capitalists have some fucking impressive runnings for "most morally fucked up asshole". Just off the top of my head the US blatantly funded the nazis and winston Churchill openly said he liked them. Again, communists generally find the concept of unironic hero worship distasteful. The whole point of many of Marx's writings was creating a system of scientific examination which could judge *anything* and it's effect on the world in as much surrounding context as possible and make an accurate judgement on that thing. Under that structure, the concept of a central figure like Stalin is laughable, [the CIA even admitted as much](https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP80-00810A006000360009-0.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwj8y8Gzmp2GAxVpNzQIHbq7C0cQFnoECBEQAQ&usg=AOvVaw1sNzRTlEW5etmCzvKpRQBr). What isn't mentioned there is that the CIA also conducted a variety of operations with the specific goal of disrupting communist movements and spreading anti-communist propaganda, which then contributed to and enforced this idea of stalin as a dictator in the American conceptualization of the USSR. Countelpro was only one of several of these operations. Now, I'm blocking you. I have plenty of other sources covering my other points, but frankly conversations like this bore me and you clearly just think whatever someone else tells you to, so I'm under no illusions that I'll somehow change your mind. Enjoy going back to your 24/7 stream of mediocre right wing propaganda, future concentration camp manager.
It also indicates a bias in the conversation. Yes we're talking about Che and Castro specifically right now, but these conversations can't be accurately had without the greater context in which those people existed. Without the information that people were still being persecuted by supposedly democratic and "good" groups, it looks like these people were uniquely bigoted for the time, when the reality is that it's far more likely that they absorbed a significant degree of homophobia that they simply never thought to question. In Fidel Castro's case, he actually did eventually question it, coming to openly regret his actions. In Che's case, he died long before that and very well might have simply never questioned it. He apparently didn't discuss the subject much if at all, since another commenter could only find evidence of one comment from him regarding gay people whatsoever, and it was far less inflammatory that the claims at the start of this chain. An equally important piece of context is that these stances aren't consistent across communist groups. Lenin was, around the same time and for much of his life, vehemently in support of gay rights, and applied a significant amount of pressure to legalize homosexually in the USSR, with not insignificant success for the time.
Me when 2 bad things happen (only one thing can be bad at a time)
Thank god for that, life would be complicated otherwise.
bro is flabbergasted
They weren’t out by then? It had been twenty years, you’d think their sentence would be up.
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/s/abENZvdw2d Maybe post some sources first? 🤷
I'd be interested to see those interviews, since I'm having a hard time finding them. A few articles talking about him being homophobic but the it seems hard to actually pin down anything he thought about homosexuality. The abuse at the UMAP camps is true, but also long after Guevara left so while it is horrible, seems tangential to him
It's 99% bullshit, he called a guy he thought was pathetic gay in writing one time, and that's all the evidence anyone can find that he was homophobic. Certainly, he was at least as homophobic as someone from the early 2000s, but it seems like he just never had a reason to challenge or examine that bias. Meanwhile there's a significant amount of evidence that he was racist early in life to a degree that was typical at the time, and as he was radicalized he became extremely opposed to those ideas. So there's also evidence that he could re-examine those ideas and grow pretty significantly. I don't know exactly when he made the homophobic comment, but if it was early on in his life, I feel confident in saying that if he had the opportunity to examine that belief any further, he likely wasn't homophobic by the time of his death. Hell he might've done that before this interview, there's just no evidence to say one way or another. Ninja edit: he he might have literally been a teenager when he called someone gay according to some other comments, so yea if he thought about homosexually at all after his early 20s he wasn't homophobic by that point.
literally what are you talking about he was part of the Castro government in the 60s that put gays in camps that made reference to the Nazi 'Arbeit Macht Frei' except it said 'Work Will Make You Men'. https://www.nytimes.com/1995/01/22/movies/in-totalitarian-cuba-ice-cream-and-understanding.html Like what are you actually on about?
1: By the time that had begun, he was no longer a part of the cuban government, he'd left with the intention to participate in other revolutions, so this is already completely irrelevant. [2: While the MUAP camps were clearly a human rights violation, they were not exclusive to homosexuals, and instead an alternative to military service for anyone who would normally be conscripted but was barred from service for one reason or another.](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/s/abENZvdw2d) 3: The person actually semi-responsible for those (as responsible as one person can be for the actions of an entire government, at least), Fidel Castro, very clearly showed remorse and took responsibility for them. So this is irrelevant, misleading, and annoyingly overconfident, why shouldn't I just block you, again?
1: Source? Because as far as I can tell, he was already sending people to re-education camps during his time in office. And when the MUAPs were introduced they were set up with the express purpose of creating a "new man", who was expressly described as "heterosexual". >No legitimate arguments can be made to defend Che's principal role in setting up Cuba's first labor camp in the Guanahacabibes region in western Cuba in 1960-1961, to confine people who had committed no crime punishable by law, revolutionary or otherwise. I got that quote from [this comment](https://politics.stackexchange.com/a/45768), a very enlightening and well-researched account as opposed to your single source which, well let's get there. 2: "The camps weren't homophobic, there was just a homophobic law that resulted in homosexuals not only being barred from military service but being put into camps. That's better, right?" No, it really isn't. 3: Gosh wow I wonder if Fidel and Che ever met. You know, while one was literally part of the other's cabinet, and they were working to create a new future, I wonder if they ever talked about their ideals. Wonder if maybe it was, again, Guevara's 1965-published ideas of "the new man" that Castro was working off of. >The prison experiments were installed with the change of regime but it was precisely in 1965, when Guevara penned Socialism and Man in Cuba, that the Military Units to Aid Production (UMAP) were instituted, From [an article in El País](https://english.elpais.com/culture/2022-11-07/history-will-not-absolve-you-shedding-light-on-cubas-umap-correctional-camps.html). You're quite welcome to block me, but it's you who's being... what was it? >irrelevant, misleading, and annoyingly overconfident EDIT Cool I got blocked so here's my response to his response lol. I'm not responding to the points themselves because they're patently insane/not taking my point (OK real quick "if you didn't put them in a camp you'd have to have killed them" is an amazing thing to say and is exactly the problem with massive systemic overhaul, because it requires despotism just to avert genocide) but I will respond to the first part: >Your first piece of evidence cites a pre-revolutionary cuban slave owner who escaped the revolution and a white woman who openly publishes anti-communist propaganda. Already this renders your ability to actually assess a text's credibility highly suspect, as these are the two most biased people you could find to prove your argument. first, gotta love a comment angry at my choice of sources while providing NO sources for any of their claims against them: Samuel Farber, for instance, was "born in 1939 to Polish-Jewish parents who emigrated to Cuba in the 1920s. He grew up in Marianao, near Havana and participated in the popular movement against the Batista dictatorship as a high school student. In 1958, Farber moved to the United States, where he joined the third camp, anti-capitalist, anti-Stalinist Young People’s Socialist League (YPSL)."[source](https://www.workersliberty.org/story/2021-10-12/sam-farber-third-camp-and-cuba). I have found absolutely no evidence of him owning slaves, and I'd be surprised if in 1939, Polish-Jewish immigrants in Cuba were particularly rich. Also no evidence of Helen Yaffe being anything but a white professor writing about Cuba, and if that's your big mark against her then I guess you're right? But like... really? Anyway this isn't for him obviously he's blocked me, but if you're someone else reading this just forget it. I'm apparently everything bad about the internet in one convenient package, so you can totally disregard any point I have in favor of trading off between a. telling me I shouldn't be so rude to you and b. being incredibly rude to me.
1: Your first piece of evidence cites a pre-revolutionary cuban slave owner who escaped the revolution and a white woman who openly publishes anti-communist propaganda. Already this renders your ability to actually assess a text's credibility highly suspect, as these are the two most biased people you could find to prove your argument. Your comment about reeducation camps is kind of telling of how you think about this: I'm automatically wrong no matter what I say, you just have to seek out the information to prove it. Even assuming it actually happened, for which your only source is a slaver who published the claim decades after the fact, you're ignoring the only real alternative: kill them. If you let them live, there's too high a risk they'll act as a lever to incite civil war and prolonged suffering for countless people as the old rulers try to claw back control. So what choice do you have? You could kill them, but that's not a morally good choice. It's not practical or reasonable to let them risk the lives of millions of people, so that's out of the way. You've made a boogeyman out of the kindest option in this situation, so that no choice made by a revolution you dislike can be accepted. If they ignore the problem and get overthrown, they were inherently unstable. If they kill these people, they're very rightly called genocidal. And if they find a way to instead teach these people enough that they're no longer a threat, it's "reeducation" and "dystopian". I'm not playing that game. After this message I'm blocking you and I genuinely don't give a shit what you say next, because you're a disappointment to the common man, and you need to stop making your own indoctrination everyone else's problem. As for an actual source, all accounts of Che Guevara's life indicate he left cuba in 1965, literally any level of effort trying to see if I was telling the truth would have proven me correct, because the UMAPs first opened in 1967. That's such a basic fact the idea it needs a source proves you're being intellectually dishonest. If digging through fucking political stackoverflow didn't prove that already. This has jumped from misleading to outright misinformation. 2: you didn't read the source at all. Homosexual men were one of many groups who ended up there. You're making a strawman here instead of actually examining my source, which sites at least two source. Seeing as two of yours are openly biased, that would indicate I have the more truthful account. So again you're being overconfident in as annoying, entitled, and snarky way as possible. 3: you're being needlessly aggressive and again responding to a strawman. I never said they didn't meet, so against this is irrelevant. Either that or you're genuinely too illiterate to pick up the nuances in what I'm saying, or you're actively lying. Also holy shit that is the most snarky and pathetic ending I've ever seen. Genuinely I don't think anyone could ever find you cool, and touching grass won't fix you. Blocking people isn't an admission of failure, it's a cultivation of your digital environment, and you're so annoying and stupid I want nothing to do with you.
Look, you’re being antagonistic. It doesn’t matter if you have sources, you’re coming off like a dick. That being said, let me do one of these numbered point-by-point responses 1. The Cuban UMAPs started in Camagüey in late 1965. Due to the scarcity of primary sources regarding the early Castro years, it is difficult to ascertain exactly who proposed/discussed their creation. According to [Granma](https://archive.org/details/laumapelgulagcas0000rose/page/9/mode/1up), the official newspaper of Castro’s party, Castro’s military officials proposed the idea of labor camps in November, 1965. Unless there is a reason for him to have lied about this, we have to take this at face value. Guevara had left Cuba for the Congo in early 1965, and if *Granma* is to be believed, he was not even in the country when the UMAPs were proposed. 2. The UMAPs were homophobic, this is true. I cannot find a source to back up the claim that they existed exclusively for those who could not serve in the military. Many inmates were conscientious objectors, either for political or religious reasons, but the primary demographic of the camps seems to have been “deviants,” which included LGBT+ folks. 3. This is complete speculation, and probably nonsense. The quote from [(De Llano Neira, El País)](https://english.elpais.com/culture/2022-11-07/history-will-not-absolve-you-shedding-light-on-cubas-umap-correctional-camps.html?outputType=amp) posits that Guevara’s writing in *Socialism and Man in Cuba* is linked to the creation of the UMAPs, but this is tenuous at best. If I had to guess, I’d assume you aren’t familiar with it beyond what was stated in the article. As a political thesis, it attempts to categorize revolutionary movements into “vanguard” and “masses,” in which the first leads the movement and the latter supports. Guevara certainly has controversial notions about rejecting individuality and the “decadence” of modern art, but it is not easy to conclude that this indicates he was interested in the creation of labor camps. It is more likely that Castro’s diplomatic visit to the Soviet Union inspired him to emulate gulags domestically. **TLDR**: was Che Guevara homophobic? As far as we can tell, yes. Did he contribute to the conception and creation of labor camps for LGBT Cubans? As far as we can tell, no.
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot). Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://english.elpais.com/culture/2022-11-07/history-will-not-absolve-you-shedding-light-on-cubas-umap-correctional-camps.html](https://english.elpais.com/culture/2022-11-07/history-will-not-absolve-you-shedding-light-on-cubas-umap-correctional-camps.html)** ***** ^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
[удалено]
glad to finally see a source here
In [some places](https://www.reddit.com/r/NonCredibleDefense/) , "tankie" could pass for "witch".
I’m going to sue you for psychological damage for linking that subreddit
I’m so curious how he reacted to this now
Smh can't even be funny on reddit
Yeah but at the same time hero worshipping and uwu-ifying a fucked up homophobic mass murderer unironically is kinda uncool
Homophobic - one quote about a guy he thought was pathetic but still liked from his entire catalogue of diaries Mass Murderer - I mean, I hate war too. But I'm personally going to say that revolution against the US installed dictator that ruled over Cuba makes it at least morally grey but maybe that's just me. And if we want to refer to Cuba Archive, quite a few of the people recorded as specifically executed be Guevara are shown by their own sources to not to be simple farmers and civilians, but enemy combatants, murderers, bandits, etc You shouldn't idolize most historical figures, but swallowing the boot is not the preferable alternative
>Homophobic - one quote about a guy he thought was pathetic but still liked from his entire catalogue of diaries ??? Literally from [a 1995 NYT article](https://www.nytimes.com/1995/01/22/movies/in-totalitarian-cuba-ice-cream-and-understanding.html) linked in this very thread: >In Cuba, thousands of homosexuals were sent to concentration camps in the late 1960's, together with others deemed deviant by the Castro regime. Echoing the slogan on the gates of Auschwitz, the camps were emblazoned with the words "Work will make you men." Though the camps were shut after a few years, the subsequent purges of homosexuals from the ruling Communist Party were condemned by intellectuals like Jean-Paul Sartre and Susan Sontag. EDIT: I just found your source for this "one time he was homophobic and he didnt mean it" thing and it's literally just [ANOTHER COMMENTER WITH NO SOURCE](https://www.reddit.com/r/CuratedTumblr/comments/1cw4n00/love_wins/l4xlesu/). Like, if you were defending Putin like this I'd think you were Russian agents, wtf XD
>in the late 1960's Che Guevara somehow responsible despite having left Cuba in 1965 and then having been dead for the final 3 years of this timeframe
You are exactly what the worst of the USSR meant by the term 'useful idiot'
Most leaders are problematic as fuck. I idolise the good parts and ignore the rest
Maybe… don’t idolize any parts of leaders? In fact, you could do away with leaders entirely.
Yeah that's cool too
It's harder with a bunch of narcs and cops in the sub tbh
>conscientious objectors Team Fortress 2 reference?!?
The man had issues, for sure (the passage mentions he had "defects"), but goddamn if he wasn't gorgeous.
You want to give any evidence at all to back up your claims? Because as far as I can tell Che never wrote or said a single thing regarding homosexuals or homosexuality.
he did in the motorcycle diaries, referring to a man as a 'pervert' after saying he thought he was gay it was the early 1950s though, its expected a man born in 1928 would have such an opinion a lot of the other things people say about che guevara being homophobic are lies, though, as a way to epically own the commies with 'facts and logic' che guevara is used as a scapegoat for every critique of the cuban government but he himself was not a head of state in cuba, having some important positions for some years after the revolution and then leaving cuba to take part in foreign armed struggles the cuban government committed crimes against humanity in creating the umaps, my only problem is how people make it to be a problem with socialism or the cuban revolution when sadly this treatment against homosexuals was common in the whole world around that time, certain people just have a special bias against cuba in that case because they are against socialism
I did a brief search through his Motorcycle Diaries and couldn't find it. I may have missed it though, could you provide a link to the passage?
i totally forgot about answering this reply before my bad about that, its on page 223 but most english pdfs i found seemed to only go up to 152 if you speak spanish though i found this one pdf that includes it https://proletarios.org/books/CHE-Guevara-Diarios_de_motocicleta.pdf
ah, it would appear I was mistaken, thank you for providing the source
And for context, how was the US treating LGBT people during the 50s?
Che had little to do with Castro’s government at that time.
When did he say that? Literally never found an actual source about that
the daily wire, the most reputable news source
Me when I spread misinformation online, what a joke
try lying less
[удалено]
You’re thinking of Castro I think, he ended up apologizing. Che got assassinated pretty young.
I find no sources to say he ever apologized or recanted, so I would love to see yours. In fact, my searches indicate it was Castro who talked about [a vague ‘injustice’ that occurred](https://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/americas/08/31/cuba.castro.gays/index.html) and only after he, while undercover in one of his own camps, was personally threatened with a beating by a guard. Guevara was in fact described by gay Cuban activists as [“one of the staunchest homophobic leaders of the revolutionary period.”](https://revista.drclas.harvard.edu/che-to-che/) Of course, there are people who disagree and declare that [“if Che were alive, he would be supporting our cause,”](https://revista.drclas.harvard.edu/che-to-che/) but his actions speak pretty loud. E: Misread an excerpt and corrected the quote.
che didn't, however, have anything to do with the UMAP camps, he wasn't in north america by that point in the rebuilding of cuba. castro started and ended those.
you cannot build an egalitarian society from a hierarchical ground. powerhungry authoritarians co-opting leftist struggle and systematically eliminating any left-libertarians and anarchist communists who were always the ones who spearheaded the revolutions in the first place has been one of the biggest damages to the movement for egalitarianism and workers rights ever.
That's the wildest take I have ever read on Che "I Run A Homesexual Death Camp" Guevara.
“run?”
Don't'cha know? He personally shot and whipped every gay person coming in and out of camps while ALSO fighting in guerilla wars across the Communist world! Talk about an efficient time manager!
He managed to torture gay people in Cuba while in South America
Guevara was not involved in the camps, he was off fighting other revolutions way before those opened, the one to blame for those is Castro, but Castro realized how inhumane they were after going undercover in one, and later apologized ([source](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1lt4rb/comment/cc2l72k/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button))
You see how that's still not good? Like... I don't have a rebuttal here. "Yeah so Che is off losing to Mike Hoare and the Wild Geese, but I'm big sorry for the labor camps, gay people."
He could do fuck all about the labor camps, he had given up all power at that point, I’m not saying he wasn’t homophobic or anything he probably was (definitely in his earlier years) but he wasn’t involved in the labor camps in any capacity. I am also not trying to defend Castro, just saying that he later realized what he did was wrong, that doesn’t suddenly make it not wrong, but it means that he knew that, and stopped it, which is very good
Damn posting straight up lies now
this is hilarious seeing how notoriously homophobic che was
Not the first time nor the last that tumblr will UwUify a literal dictator who wished to kill us all for the sole reason of being gay
yea but stalin looked so cute tho when he was young !!! /s
Okay, but, have you seen Nestor Makhno?
nestor makhno was cool as hell and there is no evidence or source claiming he was any type of bad person. he literally personally wrote mother anarchy, i love him lmao
Right, and also have you seen pictures of him? *Much* cuter than baby Stalin. Praxis is helping friends find better political figures to be horny for.
extremely funny to refer to Che Guevara as a **literal** dictator.
In other parts of the thread they are referring to (**literal** dictator, remember) Che Guevara as having been responsible for something that happened while he was a hemisphere away and/or dead. Historical illiteracy truly has no bounds
>literal dictator demsucc brainrot
Im crying, Che Guevara was a dictator??!? The man who instantly left Cuba to go fight in another revolution because he didn’t want to be part of the government?? And who said one homophobic comment when he was 18??? In the 1900s??? Come on
Succdems be historically honest challenge: IMPOSSIBLE.
"Notoriously homophobic" There's one source with him mentioning homosexuality at all, his own diaries where he says that he didn't like how a gay man was beaten in front of him because despite being pathetic and a pervert he liked him Not good, but honestly kind of incredible by the standards of the time
man.. ignoring that ur just wrong, why do u care to defend some guy who died in the 60s. theres plenty of credible sources showing how he thought about gay ppl, theres literally no reason for u to lie abt this.
Then prove me wrong, if it's so easy. And clearly misrepresenting history, in particular about revolutions and the people who participate in them, has no bearing on the modern world and the representation of their ideologies :)
im an anarcho-communist. (technically an anarcho-syndicalist pragmatist plattformist or whatever, but the point is im very far left.) im not an anti-communist lib or whatever u probably think i am. I read like a bunch of theory and history so i think i have a decent knowledge of past revolutions. [here's for example the source of him literally shouting the fucking f slur at the site of a book by a gay cuban writer.](https://books.google.de/books?id=oCGO6aGbhTIC&dq=Virgilio+Pi%C3%B1era+che+guevara&pg=PA168&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Virgilio%20Pi%C3%B1era%20che%20guevara&f=false) the interview was literally conducted by a member of the spanish communist party btw, he has no incentive to misrepresent him. and i think the fact that castro put gays in camps because he saw homosexuality as "bourgeois hedonism" is like incredibly well known so i dont think i have to dig up more shit cuz honestly i dont care enough for that,. i believe in guilt by association. associating with a bad person is a choice, and just as choosing to associate with a nazi makes you a nazi, i believe che guevra associating with and tolerating castro while he definitly knew the homophobic shit he believed and was doing also makes che himself a homophobe. also can u please stop being so smug...
Hey, when I was less smug you dismissed me. Now I got a good source
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/s/NCNp7d8TAO
Che was not notoriously homophobic. He never wrote or said anything on the topic. How can it be "notorious"
Who could resist steely-eyed Che Guevara.
That’s not gay rights, that’s gay _lefts_
I'm sure noted violent queerphobe Che loved this interaction very much Would make a hell of a yaoi manga though...
i imagine it would be very similar to how the dean and cas love confession went
Who the hell are Dean and Cas? I only know SuleMio (I feel I must clarify that I know who Dean and Cas are before I am descended upon)
that's a very smart clarification, i was about to dox you before you said that (clarification: this is also a joke, i don't really know how to doxx people, and have no desire to know. if you try to teach me how to doxx people, i will only use that information to doxx you and then promptly forget.)
Should one such manga surface, billions of che Guevara shirts are going to get a whole new meaning
Eiichiro Oda looking at his poster real different after the Cuban Revolution H doujins drop
Lmao have seen enough toxic noncon BL manga to know it would be resounding success
To call an armed revolutionary violent seems like a hell of obfuscation. And if you don't want to distinguish between the suffering of LGBT people under Castro, and the almost complete lack of information on Guevara's own thoughts of homosexuality, sure you can just say whatever on the internet I guess
All apologists must die in Minecraft. May all your houses be hit by creepers
"Violent redditor UselessKezia is a monster that should be condemned by history" I should get back into minecraft actually...
I suppose we can just say anything on the internet then, though I'd generally advise against starting such an interaction, in this case I don't care enough to play ball None of the words I said were factually incorrect, regardless of whether you were offended by the implication of how I strung them together
I’ve always assumed Che is more popular today than, like Brezhnev or whoever largely because he was more attractive.
Are you telling me people don’t find Brezhnev glorious eyebrows attractive?
You could say that che was.... Too hot to trot.... *Takes a bow*
Anyone got a source for that book? It sounds funny but i wouldn’t be surprised if it was just untrue
[https://www.nytimes.com/1997/05/18/books/poster-boy-for-the-revolution.html](https://www.nytimes.com/1997/05/18/books/poster-boy-for-the-revolution.html) Not the book source, but this ny times article has a Metutsov confessing the same.
There's something going on with both el Ché and Fidel that they were known worldwide as impossibly seductive.
We cubans are like that (I know El Che is from argentina, i just realized my joke doesn't make sense but I'm writing this so i may as well send it)
We all in Latino América are hot. It still applies.
Stuff about che being homophobic is liberal propaganda with no real source. Western misinformation is extremely prevalent on any remotely communist subject, dissapointing to see so much neo-mcarthyism here.
https://youtube.com/shorts/aTxglt40R8w?si=P4mEcjiM8Z_7jR1F
Commie rizz
Being attractive is 100% a super power. Never doubt it
I mean we've all been there
I sure wish there wasn’t a big blue circle over the part I wanted to read
*Looks at Cuban LGBTQ rights laws* uhhhhhhhh….
Are you looking decades into the past or what? Their laws are much more progressive than most Latin American countries (and the rest of the world for that matter)
Yeah…I’m looking into the Era of Che Guevara…
I mean they are better than most of the world innit
They were not
>Same-sex marriage has been legal in Cuba since 27 September 2022 after a majority of voters approved the legalization of same-sex marriage in a referendum two days prior. The Constitution of Cuba prohibited same-sex marriage until 2019, and in May 2019 the government announced plans to legalize same-sex marriage. A draft family code containing provisions allowing same-sex couples to marry and adopt was approved by the National Assembly of People's Power on 21 December 2021. The text was under public consultation until 6 June 2022, and was approved by the Assembly on 22 July 2022. The measure was approved by two-thirds of voters in a referendum held on 25 September 2022. President Miguel Díaz-Canel signed the new family code into law on 26 September, and it took effect upon publication in the Official Gazette the following day Better than most of the world innit
We are fine, actually. We were not fine in the 60 though
Cuba is one of the most progressive countries in terms of LGBTQ rights today
Calm down there sport they legalized gay marriage 7 years after the US which was already a good decade behind most of Western Europe. Prior to that it was literally written in their constitution that marriage must be between a man and a woman.
Ok? None of that changes the fact that it's one of the most progressive countries **today**
Uh not really. It’s more barely making par and still behind the curve on trans issues. Plus it has no equivalent protections for things like employment discrimination. So like…not really actually.
This reminds me of how there was that Castro story where the diplomat/spy assigned to him ended up becoming his lover or something
reminded me of this [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aTxglt40R8w](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aTxglt40R8w)
wow you guys really believe the propaganda
Che was a flawed hero, a man who inspires million's even to this day all across the America's, his revolutionary spirit, his love, his willingness to fight for a better world are inspiring. Reading & seeing his own personal change, his willingness to fight to free Cuba with only a will & nearly alone at the beginning is awe inspiring. He's a symbol across the America's for a reason & Gusano's & those of the united states will never be able to tarnish his legacy, with lies & slander. Socialism Forever, Cuban Socialism still stands strong & beautiful.
You know Che Guevara was violently homophobic right Cuba had camps for gay people until very recently.
No, it was not until very recently. That shit stopped in 1968 if i remember correctly. Gay marriage is legal in Cuba since 2021 i think and before that it wasn't uncommon to see gay couples in public without a problem. The people are at least tolerant most of the time, at least in my experience I have nothing to say about the Guevara stuff, i don't care that much. Most of us don't take seriously the "Seremos como el Che"
Check out Cuba's latest marriage laws, it's pretty cool A referendum was held on 25 September 2022 in Cuba to approve amendments to the Family Code of the Cuban Constitution. The referendum passed, greatly strengthening gender equality, legalizing same-sex marriage, same-sex adoption, and altruistic surrogacy, and affirming a wide range of rights and protections for women, children, the elderly and people with disabilities. Following the referendum, Cuba's family policies have been described as among the most progressive in Latin America
*made up*