A friend sent me the link to the grimly amusing El Che: The Crass Marketing of a Sadistic Racist by the Heritage Foundation’s Michael Gonzalez. Mercedes Benz, it turns out, just launched a new car in front of a giant picture of Che Guavara with the Mercedes Benz symbol on his beret.
They used the picture in service of announcing a new gadget that would let owners find people to share rides. ”Some colleagues still think that car-sharing borders on communism,” declared their chairman of the board. ”But if that’s the case, viva la revolucion!”
There’s something smarmily over-dramatic about claiming the gadget to be communistic or revolutionary. But okay, smarmily over-dramatic is what the boys in the advertising department do. Rather worse is their choice of icon. Gonzalez writes:
Che Guevara, not to put too fine a point on it, was a psychopath whose sadistic lust for blood was not easily quenched. He killed for pleasure. He had, moreover, little time for youthful rebellion and none at all for individualism. Lastly, Che Guevara was a racist who specifically held blacks in contempt.
Here, with a great deal more evidence, is Alvaro Vargas Llosa on Che, in an article originally published in The New Republic.
As I’ve commented before, the people who would recoil in horror, and rightly so, from a t-shirt bearing a romanticized image of Himmler or Eichmann do not even notice the image of men who were their equal in wickedness. Especially Che Guavara. He’s cool. Maybe it’s the beret.
But there is, as others have undoubtedly said, something very pleasing in the thought that he’s now just consumer symbol and an advertising gimmick. One hopes he knows.
My thanks to Mark Barrett for the link.
January 12th, 2012 | 5:41 pm
So Llosa has sold Che for thirty pieces of silver? Politics is a dirty game.
January 12th, 2012 | 8:16 pm
Che would have gladly murdered most of the ignorant freshman students who wear his visage on their t-shirts.
January 13th, 2012 | 8:36 am
Mercedes might consider using Hitler in their advertisting. He’s one totalitarian who actually USED their product.
January 13th, 2012 | 10:36 am
I think the image of Che Guavara so little represents the actual Che Guavara that no matter whether you think of him as a great revolutionary or a murderous thug, his image is an icon that says very little about who he really was. I think it is perhaps unwise to try to re-connect the iconic image with the real person. The iconic image has been totally co-opted by Mercedes Benz. They should probably be congratulated rather than scorned.
January 13th, 2012 | 10:40 am
David Nickol,
Wow, that is a pretty amoral answer don’t you think?
So image matters more than substance?
January 13th, 2012 | 10:43 am
Alvaro Vargas Llosa’s surname is Vargas Llosa, not Llosa. He is the son of Mario Vargas Llosa.
January 13th, 2012 | 11:19 am
So image matters more than substance?
Steve Billingsley,
What I am saying is that the iconic image of Che Guavara doesn’t stand for Che Guavara. One might make a comparison to John Brown. As kids, we used to sing:
John Brown himself may very well fit the modern-day definition of terrorist, but he is an anti-slavery symbol. As an anti-slavery anthem, I don’t think John Brown’s Body promotes terrorism. So I don’t think Che Guavara’s image promotes what Che Guavara actually did.
It’s not amoral. It’s just reality. The iconic image of Che Guavara is pop culture, it is not a celebration of Guavara himself.
January 13th, 2012 | 12:00 pm
But I don’t get why you think it’s not useful to re-connect the image of either Che or John Brown to the reality. Isn’t substituting romantic myths for intelligent history a BAD thing?
January 13th, 2012 | 12:00 pm
Uh..ok
Except for the college freshman sporting the Che t-shirt (or the moronic moviemakers of The Motorcycle diaries) – they actually think the image does stand for reality. And for a corporation like Mercedes-Benz to try and capitalize on that…well, I don’t think celebration is the word that I would use for an appropriate response. At best it’s cynical and at it worst it’s outright reprehensible.
So I guess it would be OK to market Bull Conner fire hoses to municipal fire departments if market researchers determined that it would improve sales. How about Joseph Stalin brand Vodka?
As I said before….pretty amoral.
January 13th, 2012 | 12:18 pm
The right sees the use of the image of Che as corrupting culture and normalizing psychopathic mass murder. The left sees it as the corporate West taking a symbol of the revolution and emptying it of all political content. The irony is they’re both right. One almost misses the murderous certainty and dedication to something, anything, represented by Che amidst the empty, ennervating postmodern nihilism represented by the Mercedes add (I said “almost.”)
January 13th, 2012 | 12:42 pm
Isn’t substituting romantic myths for intelligent history a BAD thing?
pentamom,
Not in its proper place. Would you like to turn Christmas back into a celebration of the sun god and the winter solstice?
Everyone knows the story of George Washington and the cherry tree. It didn’t happen, but myth has its place. Legend, too.
We have, to a large extent, romanticized the Founding Fathers. Serious historians wouldn’t want to be caught doing that, but there’s nothing wrong with it when celebrating the Fourth of July.
January 13th, 2012 | 12:49 pm
[...] who took offense”) for using Che Guevara as a symbol, which I mentioned in yesterday’s The Benz and the Psychopath. The company’s statement: In his keynote speech at CES, Dr. Zetsche addressed the revolution [...]
January 13th, 2012 | 1:11 pm
So image matters more than substance?
More or less. Might we consider the image of Ceasar who is used to advertise a pizza chain? Note the actual Ceasar was a ruthless dictator who overthrew a roughly Democratic Republic stalling political progress for a few thousand years.
Pentamom
But I don’t get why you think it’s not useful to re-connect the image of either Che or John Brown to the reality. Isn’t substituting romantic myths for intelligent history a BAD thing?
But is it possible? Fact is almost no one knows who Che is but hey that picture is a really great pic of an angry guy who wants a revolution. What type of revolution? Could be anything and nothing. Sounds like its perfectly made for advertising.
Personally I think a communist revolutionary having his image turned into branding for major capitalist corporations to be something like poetic justice of a sort. But I also understand why people still chaff at it happening.
In the long run, though, I think it’s a hopeless cause. Any victims of Che still around? Many on the right tweak Che because they think they are poking at 1960′s style hippies. But Alex Keaton was old 20 years ago, picking on leftism from 30-40 years ago is about as interesting as launching a crusade against the ‘silver coinage’ movement of the late 1800s. The hippies are heading to the nursing home and the grave and the anti-hippies are following close on their heels. When that dust settles, the fact will remain that pic of the angry revolutionary dude will still be a pretty cook pic of an angry revolutionary dude.
BTW, look at Guy Fawkes who is probably a better example of this than John Brown. The Brits love Guy Fawkes masks, yet the real Fawkes wanted to destroy the Church of England and make the country ruled by a Catholic Monarch. Today, thanks to V for Vendetta, he’s a pseudo-libertarian symbol…even though he probably didn’t have a libertarian bone in his body.
January 13th, 2012 | 1:15 pm
“Not in its proper place. Would you like to turn Christmas back into a celebration of the sun god and the winter solstice?”
First, even if it were true that Christmas ever WAS a celebration of the sun god et al, that’s not parallel, because Che and John Brown haven’t actually *become* equal to their romantic images over time — they died, their history is over, and they were what they were. Christmas today *is* the celebration of the Nativity. No one celebrates Christmas *for* its historical origins, they celebrate Christmas for what it stands for *now.* And the Nativity of Christ was never anything other than what it was.
And second, it’s a bad example because Christmas never was the celebration of the sun god. Some poor historians have suggested it was celebrated on the date of a celebration of the sun god, but not only does that appear to be an anachronism, it doesn’t make Christmas into what Christmas never was, just like by my birthday party isn’t “really” a wedding anniversary party for someone who married before I was born.
January 13th, 2012 | 1:20 pm
“In the long run, though, I think it’s a hopeless cause. Any victims of Che still around?”
Yes, everyone still living under the totalitarian Cuban regime.
“Many on the right tweak Che because they think they are poking at 1960′s style hippies.”
What is your evidence for the unstated motives of people who say they tweak Che because he was a destructive and murderous individual and they hate the fact that he’s being held up as a folk hero?
January 13th, 2012 | 1:23 pm
Your Guy Fawkes example only helps if we concede that it’s appropriate. At this point, we’re so far removed from Fawkes that it’s not worth fighting the battle, though I really have to agree (and have always thought) that it’s pretty strange to glorify the guy. But the very fact that people get so irate about the folk heroization of Che is evidence that we’re not yet that far removed, so why dismiss the concern?
January 13th, 2012 | 2:12 pm
I’d agree that to some extent, we need mythological historical images, as the cherry tree/Washington example illustrates: they express collective aspiration or tell us something about ourselves.
A larger point, though, is to move from that to ask whether particular myths tells us anything about ourselves or our aspirations that is actually good. The mythology of Che, does not, as far as I can see, exemplifying as it does a burn-it-all-down-and-start-over sort of revolutionary fervor that Burke, most obviously, destroyed as a desirable state of affairs.
If neither the reality nor the mythology of Che accomplishes that much, why use it? The student set would be far better served by spending solid time learning about what important thinkers have already said, than by being encouraged to express their mostly vapid senses of injustice by purchasing Che T shirts. Like much of modern culture, the Che phenomenon is more about public performance of an aesthetic identity than it is about engagement with and real ideas or discussion of their consequences.
January 13th, 2012 | 2:18 pm
I don’t follow what’s happening in many countries, in fact, just a few. But… if anyone is going to throw around the label “totalitarian,” it should first and foremost be tacked onto a number of Middle Eastern and African regimes, which are much worse, and then there’s a few in Asia that come to mind too.
Funny how people who label Cuba totalitarian never do that…
I wonder why…
January 13th, 2012 | 3:02 pm
Sure…because we know that Cuba is a worker’s paradise. After all they have universal health care.
There are plenty of totalitarian regimes in the world, but I must of missed the Mercedes – House of Saud or Robert Mugabe marketing campaigns. Can you link to those and I will be happy to comment.
January 13th, 2012 | 4:12 pm
Why didn’t Mercedes turn to some home grown killers for their ad campaign? For instance, how about Reinhard Heydrich or members of the Baader-Meinhof gang. Or is it Che’s cool beret and dreamy brown eyes that make him an icon for the ignorant?
January 13th, 2012 | 4:14 pm
Yes, everyone still living under the totalitarian Cuban regime.
I thought they would be victims of Castro. Che was essential to Castro’s rise in Cuba and more importantly his rule after the revolution? Almost all of Cuba’s suffering comes not from the revolution itself but Castro’s rule after it. while Che was 2nd in command to Castro, I don’t think he was pivotal in the revolution’s success…more historically minded here can correct me if I’m mistaken.
Your Guy Fawkes example only helps if we concede that it’s appropriate. At this point, we’re so far removed from Fawkes that it’s not worth fighting the battle, though I really have to agree (and have always thought) that it’s pretty strange to glorify the guy.
Well the fact is we are going to be moving away from Che by the simple fact that time marches forward. By your own hard logic, Che will in about 400 years be too far removed to seriously consider his crimes. Although Fawkes started to get romanticized maybe 200 years after his death.
Of course, Fawkes masks are not really all *that* cool and 400 years ago we didn’t have mass media and rapid churning of cultural symbols. So one would suspect that it wouldn’t be that long for Che and future characters of radical cultural transformation.
So you’re basically saying its a losing battle. Maybe the actual loss will happen after our lifetimes, but I’m not really clear what value it will be to just hold something off a decade or two more.
The British, as if often the case, seem to have the right idea in both lapping on some irony and at the same time not taking things too seriously.
What is your evidence for the unstated motives of people who say they tweak Che because he was a destructive and murderous individual and they hate the fact that he’s being held up as a folk hero?
With almost supernatual erriness, Steve Billingsley appears after my original comment to provide the evidence. More conspiracy minded people here might even suspect he is an alter ego of mine meant to make the right look silly.
January 13th, 2012 | 5:25 pm
I am not much interested in making people look silly as just noting that Mercedes made themselves look pretty silly in this affair.
Oh, and people that want to celebrate what Mercedes did can feel free to share in the silliness.
January 13th, 2012 | 5:32 pm
Boonton, Aaaand Steve Billingsley makes the right look silly precisely how?
January 13th, 2012 | 7:54 pm
Fred,
I don’t know how he came to that conclusion either. The only people who look silly in this whole affair to me are the folks at Mercedes and the folks who want to defend the folks at Mercedes.
This shouldn’t really have much of anything to do with partisan politics unless, of course, you are a Communist. If that is the case, then I guess Che is one of your own and perhaps you would feel the need to defend him.
January 13th, 2012 | 10:10 pm
arty
The mythology of Che, does not, as far as I can see, exemplifying as it does a burn-it-all-down-and-start-over sort of revolutionary fervor that Burke, most obviously, destroyed as a desirable state of affairs.
Well Burke didn’t ‘destroy’ anything. Both seem to stand as symbolic bookends to two extremes; yin and yang. On the one hand you have the Burke perspective which might be summed up as ‘don’t break it by messing around with it’ and on the other you have ‘burn it all down and start all over’.
Of course, that’s not really historically accurate. Che, after the Cuban revolution hardly burned. He ran ministries in Cuba, did diplomacy with the Soviet Union, trained the armed forces and even served as president of the national bank. He was quite the communist technocrat in his own way. But, of course, no one thinks of him as a bank president because….well that angry revolutionary looking picture doesn’t look like someone who ran a national bank.
Which is why I think its a losing battle. Che fills a niche in the culture of being the symbol of the bold revolutionary because of a single picture. If he had a receeding hair line, if he was overweight, if he favored suits to those communist type of jumpsuit things, well it would be different probably. I think the irony is that he fits as a blank revolutionary. He’s leading a revolution against, well fill in the blank……poorly designed cup holders in cars? Boring t-shirts? I think there’s some poetic justice in that his memory is, except for those who care to study Latin American history, essentially an empty pose.
Fred
Boonton, Aaaand Steve Billingsley makes the right look silly precisely how?
Really you guys should pay me by the word. But let’s just keep it to this thread, Pentamom asked what was my evidence that “Many on the right tweak Che because they think they are poking at 1960′s style hippies.”
Well right after here comes Steve with:
Sure…because we know that Cuba is a worker’s paradise. After all they have universal health care.
Really, workers paradise huh? Who exactly is seriously defending Cuba anymore?
January 15th, 2012 | 6:32 am
Steve Billingsley: “Sure…because we know that Cuba is a worker’s paradise. After all they have universal health care. There are plenty of totalitarian regimes in the world, but I must of missed the Mercedes – House of Saud or Robert Mugabe marketing campaigns. Can you link to those and I will be happy to comment.”
If my country were being run by Mafia bosses, I would hope someone would overthrow the corrupt politicians. I don’t see how you can do that without a revolution, given how “Christian” and non-violent the Mafia and their political thugs are, especially when other political powers are all too happy with the situation. Perhaps it makes you terribly upset when the Mafia loses their stronghold on a little country.
Steve Billingsley:
“I must of missed the Mercedes – House of Saud or Robert Mugabe marketing campaigns.”
As it was discussed on another blog, if Mercedes wanted to be historically accurate, the right picture to put their logo on would have been Hitler or another prominent Nazi, since the Nazis actually drove Mercedes and a close association between the car manufacturer and the Nazi system was established from 1933 onwards.
How quickly people forget.
http://yalepress.yale.edu/book.asp?isbn=9780300072433
After Hitler came to power American business leaders with assets in Germany found to their immense satisfaction that his so-called revolution respected the socio-economic status quo… and was extremely useful for capitalists’ purposes. Brought to power by Germany’s leading businessmen and bankers, Hitler served the interests of his “enablers.” His first major initiative was to dissolve the labour unions and to throw the Communists, and many militant Socialists, into prisons and the first concentration camps…
Most, if not all firms in Germany, including American branch plants, eagerly took advantage of this situation and cut labour costs drastically. The Ford-Werke, for example, reduced labour costs from fifteen per cent of business volume in 1933 to only eleven per cent in 1938. (Research Findings, 135–6) Coca-Cola’s bottling plant in Essen increased its profitability considerably because, in Hitler’s state, workers “were little more than serfs forbidden not only to strike, but to change jobs,” driven “to work harder [and] faster” while their wages “were deliberately set quite low.” 7 In Nazi Germany, real wages indeed declined rapidly, while profits increased correspondingly, but there were no labour problems worth mentioning, for any attempt to organize a strike immediately triggered an armed response by the Gestapo, resulting in arrests and dismissals. This was the case in GM’s Opel factory in Rüsselsheim in June 1936. (Billstein et al., 25) As the Thuringian teacher and anti-fascist resistance member Otto Jenssen wrote after the war, Germany’s corporate leaders were happy “that fear for the concentration camp made the German workers as meek as lapdogs.” 8 The owners and managers of American corporations with investments in Germany were no less enchanted, and if they openly expressed their admiration of Hitler — as did the chairman of General Motors, William Knudsen, and ITT-boss Sosthenes Behn — it was undoubtedly because he had resolved Germany’s social problems in a manner that benefited their interests. 9
http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/llt/51/pauwels.html
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact