Would the world be different if JFK, Che Guevara, MLK and Malcolm X had survived?

HovaBaby

4 important leaders during the 60's. We have all seen them come to be revered since their passings, with them having an impact today in public consciousness.

But would the world have been much different if they lived on until today, or if they died of natural causes only a couple of years ago?

Alopex

Malcolm X- perhaps. I believe he inspired confidence in black people which still appears to be lacking in the US. He had a logical way of thinking and viewing the world. He also had the strength to admit his past mistakes. I often think he had a similar way of thinking and expressing himself as Gerry Adams but his cause had merit. Also he wasn't hypocritical to Adam's extent

Che Guevara - I doubt it. He likely would have continued failing to spread "revolution" in pretty irrelevant nations.

JFK - Impossible to say. When you're the most powerful man on earth god only knows what may have happened.

I don't really know anything about MLK

What do you think yourself?

Capt'n Midnight

Alopex wrote: »

Che Guevara - I doubt it. He likely would have continued failing to spread "revolution" in pretty irrelevant nations.

Until a few years ago almost all of the worlds know Lithium reserves were in South America.

goose2005

I don't know if Johnson was all that different to JFK, but I know Tubridy would wet his pants at the thought of interviewing a geriatric Jack today.

Malcolm X- perhaps. I believe he inspired confidence in black people which still appears to be lacking in the US. He had a logical way of thinking and viewing the world. He also had the strength to admit his past mistakes. I often think he had a similar way of thinking and expressing himself as Gerry Adams but his cause had merit. Also he wasn't hypocritical to Adam's extent

However, he had Adams's own skewed view of history - "Christianity is a religion of slaveowners, so I'll convert to Islam"

Capt'n Midnight

goose2005 wrote: »

"a religion of slaveowners, so I'll convert to Islam"

Hang on..

I think I see a flaw in that logic :eek:

HovaBaby

Alopex wrote: »

What do you think yourself?

I say if Malcolm X survived his new movement would have been powerful. It could have grown as big as the Nation of Islam, if not bigger. That could have had a profound affect on the American culture.

With Che Guevara I think if he was spreading real communism, ie where the people would have owned the market and not an elite group of people, that would have been good. The USA was only in the Latin America countries for their own interests.

With JFK, if he survived, his policies would have been totally different to Richard Nixon's. I say the Vietnam situation could have been very different.

With MLK, I felt he would have had a profound impact on American thought and peace. The movement would have been a lot more powerful with him there.

There are the factors there for the world to have been different. With Malcolm X, JFK and MLK, they would have influenced the American school of thoughts, and policies. That would have had knock on effects for other nations seeing as the USA has a big presence worldwide and is involved in huge matters. With Che Guevara, looking at the Martyr he has become today, and how at every revolution his image is always brought up, he could have had been played a big part. Similar to Mandela.

Valmont

One thing I know for certain is that if Ché Guevara lived any longer than he did there would definitely be less people on the planet.

HovaBaby

Valmont wrote: »

One thing I know for certain is that if Ché Guevara lived any longer than he did there would definitely be less people on the planet.

Why do you say that? The image of him being a mass murderer is wrong IMO.

Valmont

HovaBaby wrote: »

Why do you say that? The image of him being a mass murderer is wrong IMO.

Well opinions aside, Guevara killed people and that is a fact. He even wrote about some of the executions in his diary. I can't see a cold-blooded killer changing history that much for the better.

mithril

HovaBaby wrote: »

I say if Malcolm X survived his new movement would have been powerful. It could have grown as big as the Nation of Islam, if not bigger. That could have had a profound affect on the American culture.

With Che Guevara I think if he was spreading real communism, ie where the people would have owned the market and not an elite group of people, that would have been good. The USA was only in the Latin America countries for their own interests.

With JFK, if he survived, his policies would have been totally different to Richard Nixon's. I say the Vietnam situation could have been very different.

With MLK, I felt he would have had a profound impact on American thought and peace. The movement would have been a lot more powerful with him there.

There are the factors there for the world to have been different. With Malcolm X, JFK and MLK, they would have influenced the American school of thoughts, and policies. That would have had knock on effects for other nations seeing as the USA has a big presence worldwide and is involved in huge matters. With Che Guevara, looking at the Martyr he has become today, and how at every revolution his image is always brought up, he could have had been played a big part. Similar to Mandela.

Although JFK started the involvement by sending military advisors to prop the South Vietnam regime, the real escalation happened under Lyndon Johnson, a Democratic president between 1963-1968 i.e. long before Nixon came to power.
The Nixon administration was actually quite moderate by comparison with today's Republican party, which is dominated by the evangelical right. America was much more secular in the late sixties/early seventies. Some historians claim JFK would pulled troups out much earlier. I don't know whether the world would have been that much different if South Vietnam became communist in 1965 rather than 1975.

MLK's influence was well on the wane by 1968, but I think it might have revived as he got older, to be regarded eventually as an elder figure with great moral authority, something similiar to Mandela is today.

Malcolm X was a more peripheral figure than any of the others mentioned. He had just started his journey from an extreme position to the center when he was assassinated. Difficult to know where he would have ended up. Most likely, either a Christian preacher or totally forgotten.

Agree with the other unfavourable comments about Che Guevara. His only "achievement" was to inspire naive young men and women to attempt to overthrow the capitalist regimes of South America during the early seventies by violence,which ended with the overthrow of democracy in the affected countries, and facilitated mass murder by the right wing military regimes who filled the vacuum. My guess is he would have been eventually purged by Castro in a power struggle in Cuba.

cc4life

Valmont wrote: »

Well opinions aside, Guevara killed people and that is a fact. He even wrote about some of the executions in his diary. I can't see a cold-blooded killer changing history that much for the better.

You could say that about JFK too. Had he not been shot the U.S would have probably destroyed places like Cuba and other nations not aligned with the US. Operation Northwoods is fair proof of that. You could argue that had Che survived him and others might have overthrown more corrupt dictatorships and thus saved more lives. Depends what way you wish to look at it

Valmont

cc4life wrote: »

You could argue that had Che survived him and others might have overthrown more corrupt dictatorships and thus saved more lives. Depends what way you wish to look at it

Any way you look at it Ché Guevara was a cold-blooded murderer and had he lived, would have carried on murdering towards his various revolutionary ends; or saving lives as you euphemistically put it. Call me short-sighted if you will, but I tend to hold back from endorsing killers, no matter how lofty their goals.

paddyandy

Even a chambermaid can change the course of world history... no certainties and too many variables . The Big wheel is there all the time...somewhere .

cc4life

Valmont wrote: »

Any way you look at it Ché Guevara was a cold-blooded murderer and had he lived, would have carried on murdering towards his various revolutionary ends; or saving lives as you euphemistically put it. Call me short-sighted if you will, but I tend to hold back from endorsing killers, no matter how lofty their goals.

but had he not been successful with Castro in the Cuban Revolution far more would have died due to the repressive U.S backed dictatorship of Batista. You could argue that more would have died if it was not for the revolution. Saying he killed millions is also just simply an outrageous lie. He killed but nowhere near the million mark remotely. Also, calling it murder would be wrong considering he was hitting legitimate targets as part of a popular peoples revolt

Valmont

cc4life wrote: »

Saying he killed millions is also just simply an outrageous lie. He killed but nowhere near the million mark remotely.

Nobody here has said that he did.

cc4life wrote: »

but had he not been successful with Castro in the Cuban Revolution far more would have died due to the repressive U.S backed dictatorship of Batista. You could argue that more would have died if it was not for the revolution.

What about the thousands of individuals imprisoned and executed by the Cuban government? Do their lives matter?

cc4life wrote: »

Also, calling it murder would be wrong considering he was hitting legitimate targets as part of a popular peoples revolt

This is the most abhorrent thing I've read on boards in a good while. You're arguing that we shouldn't consider Guevara a murderer because he claimed to act in the name of a popular people's revolt?

I stand by my original assertion that Ché Guevara was a cold-blooded murderer and had he lived any longer, would have kept on murdering; whether it was in the name of a popular people's revolt or not.

Duffy the Vampire Slayer

Valmont wrote: »

but I tend to hold back from endorsing killers, no matter how lofty their goals.

Is there any revolution throughout history which you would have supported the use of lethal force in? Just out of curiosity.

cc4life

Valmont wrote: »

Nobody here has said that he did.

What about the thousands of individuals imprisoned and executed by the Cuban government? Do their lives matter?

This is the most abhorrent thing I've read on boards in a good while. You're arguing that we shouldn't consider Guevara a murderer because he claimed to act in the name of a popular people's revolt?

I stand by my original assertion that Ché Guevara was a cold-blooded murderer and had he lived any longer, would have kept on murdering; whether it was in the name of a popular people's revolt or not.

The thousands imprisoned and executed comes nowhere near the millions imprisoned and thousands executed in the U.S each year.
He not only claimed to act on behalf of a popular revolt but actually was acting on behalf of a popular peoples revolt ie Cuba
Finally, it is often stated that Guevara killed millions. Just because it wasn't said in this thread doesn't mean it has never been said.
How is he a 'cold-blooded' murderer?

mithril

cc4life wrote: »

The thousands imprisoned and executed comes nowhere near the millions imprisoned and thousands executed in the U.S each year.

What is your source?
Wikipedia lists 46 executions last year in the whole of the U.S. (all for murder)?

Valmont

cc4life wrote: »

The thousands imprisoned and executed comes nowhere near the millions imprisoned and thousands executed in the U.S each year.

I don't see what this has to do with Ché Guevara murdering people?

cc4life wrote: »

He not only claimed to act on behalf of a popular revolt but actually was acting on behalf of a popular peoples revolt ie Cuba

So it's only murder if it isn't a popular murder movement?

cc4life wrote: »

How is he a 'cold-blooded' murderer?

From the man himself:

Ch&#233 wrote: »

Hatred as the central element of our struggle… Hatred that is intransigent… Hatred so violent that it propels a human being beyond his natural limitations, making him violent and cold- blooded killing machine… We reject any peaceful approach. Violence is inevitable. To establish Socialism rivers of blood must flow. The victory of Socialism is well worth millions of atomic victims!

Valmont

Duffy the Vampire Slayer wrote: »

Is there any revolution throughout history which you would have supported the use of lethal force in? Just out of curiosity.

I stop supporting anything as soon as "lethal force" (murder) becomes involved. Unless it is self-defence*, I won't and can't condone acts of extreme violence such as those perpetrated by Ché Guevara.

* I define this as the right to protect one's person and property from injury.

cc4life

Valmont wrote: »

Nobody here has said that he did.

What about the thousands of individuals imprisoned and executed by the Cuban government? Do their lives matter?

This is the most abhorrent thing I've read on boards in a good while. You're arguing that we shouldn't consider Guevara a murderer because he claimed to act in the name of a popular people's revolt?

I stand by my original assertion that Ché Guevara was a cold-blooded murderer and had he lived any longer, would have kept on murdering; whether it was in the name of a popular people's revolt or not.

mithril wrote: »

What is your source?
Wikipedia lists 46 executions last year in the whole of the U.S. (all for murder)?

I want to know what your source is for the amount executed in Cuba? It was an error on my part. I should have said the millions imprisoned and thousands executed under America's watchful eye. My mistake there.

cc4life

Valmont wrote: »

I stop supporting anything as soon as "lethal force" (murder) becomes involved. Unless it is self-defence*, I won't and can't condone acts of extreme violence such as those perpetrated by Ché Guevara.

* I define this as the right to protect one's person and property from injury.

Was the American Revolution justified? Or were they all murderers?

cc4life

Valmont wrote: »

I don't see what this has to do with Ché Guevara murdering people?

So it's only murder if it isn't a popular murder movement?

From the man himself:

What is a 'popular murder movement'? I'm terribly sorry if I am behind in the times but I have never heard those terms together before. Also, where did you source this quote? I have searched on the internet and all I really found was conservopedia which I, personally, wouldn't consider a reputable source. I am genuinely interested in the quote though to try and understand it and the background of it

mithril

cc4life wrote: »

I want to know what your source is for the amount executed in Cuba? It was an error on my part. I should have said the millions imprisoned and thousands executed under America's watchful eye. My mistake there.

Thanks for admitting that you got your facts wrong and then trying to obscure this with a bit of meaningless rhetoric.

I did not make any comment on the number of political executions in Cuba since the regime came to power. Since you have asked, and again using Wikipedia as the source "The dividing line between those who have an axe to grind and those who don't falls in the 5,000-12,000 range"

cc4life

mithril wrote: »

Thanks for admitting that you got your facts wrong and then trying to obscure this with a bit of meaningless rhetoric.

I did not make any comment on the number of political executions in Cuba since the regime came to power. Since you have asked, and again using Wikipedia as the source "The dividing line between those who have an axe to grind and those who don't falls in the 5,000-12,000 range"

In fairness, you made a right hames of what I said to you there. I don't even know where you got the conclusion that what I said was rhetoric. Hvae you a better source than wikipedia?

MrTsSnickers

Yes, of course the world would have been different if all of those people would have survived, there would just be other martyrs that some people in the world would herald as "gone too soon" (whether it would have been significantly different id a different matter).

Then again, the world would be different a different place if my grandmother was still alive [she was a feisty devil, and I'm almost certain that there was at least one revolution that she could have been leader of].

mithril

cc4life wrote: »

In fairness, you made a right hames of what I said to you there. I don't even know where you got the conclusion that what I said was rhetoric. Hvae you a better source than wikipedia?

My comment was based on your inability to support your argument with reference to facts and numbers. Empty statements of opinion are rhetoric.

Try Hugh Thomas's book "Cuba, or the Pursuit of Freedom" as an alternative source for the number of political murders in Cuba. He list 5,000 executions by 1970.

Its actually not relevant for the purpose of the thread. The topic is whether the world would be different if Che Guevara lived longer. My contention is no. He was an entirely ineffectual figure after coming to power in Cuba. He subsequently attempted to launch revolutions in Argentina, Africa and Bolivia with a complete lack of success and never remotely came near overthrowing the respective regimes. His legacy is based on his good looks and dying young which made him an icon for young people of his generation similiar to John Dean.

mithril

MrTsSnickers wrote: »

Yes, of course the world would have been different if all of those people would have survived, there would just be other martyrs that some people in the world would herald as "gone too soon" (whether it would have been significantly different id a different matter).

Then again, the world would be different a different place if my grandmother was still alive [she was a feisty devil, and I'm almost certain that there was at least one revolution that she could have been leader of].

You are right. Every single person who has ever lived has had some influence on the course of future events and the world we live in today. It's just that certain people are more influential, either for good or bad e.g. suppose Hitler had been shot dead in the trenches during world war 1. Its hard to see Germany going in the direction it did during the thirties without his presence.

mikemac1

Martin Luther King would not have a day named after him if he lived on or be held up for a hero

He had more women on the side then Bill Clinton. And him a man of God.
Hypocrite.

Duffy the Vampire Slayer

Valmont wrote: »

I stop supporting anything as soon as "lethal force" (murder) becomes involved. Unless it is self-defence*, I won't and can't condone acts of extreme violence such as those perpetrated by Ché Guevara.

* I define this as the right to protect one's person and property from injury.

Would you have supported the French Revolution or the American War of Independence while they took place?

Valmont

cc4life wrote: »

Was the American Revolution justified? Or were they all murderers?

The American War of Independence was a fight for self-determination and freedom from a foreign power. This freedom and self-determination is exactly what Ché Guevara sought to shoot out of anyone who wouldn't step into line and follow the tyrannical marxist grand plan.

That I have to point out the difference between the two futher convinces me of the ethical vacuum at the centre of far-left philosophy.

cc4life

Valmont wrote: »

The American War of Independence was a fight for self-determination and freedom from a foreign power. This freedom and self-determination is exactly what Ché Guevara sought to shoot out of anyone who wouldn't step into line and follow the tyrannical marxist grand plan.

That I have to point out the difference between the two futher convinces me of the ethical vacuum at the centre of far-left philosophy.

Originally Posted by Valmont
I stop supporting anything as soon as "lethal force" (murder) becomes involved. Unless it is self-defence*, I won't and can't condone acts of extreme violence such as those perpetrated by Ché Guevara.

* I define this as the right to protect one's person and property from injury.

But was the American Revolution not done through 'lethal force'? Also the Cuban Revolution was done in a effort of protecting people from the propped up US backed regime. You are showing double standards if you back one and not the other on that reasoning

Valmont

cc4life wrote: »

But was the American Revolution not done through 'lethal force'?

But I would argue that it fell under the guise of self-defense as the American colonies were fighting for freedom from a foreign power - they wanted to be left alone to organise their own affairs. After the Cuban revolutionaries overthrew Batista they simply instituted a new totalitarian state that censored, imprisoned, and executed civilians for crimes such as thinking differently - I can't condone violence toward the end forcing people to follow a dictatorial party line. In this respect, the American Revolution could not have been more different from what happened in Cuba.

Valmont wrote:

* I define this as the right to protect one's person and property from injury.

mithril

mikemac1 wrote: »

Martin Luther King would not have a day named after him if he lived on or be held up for a hero

He had more women on the side then Bill Clinton. And him a man of God.
Hypocrite.

Well we now know about the women and he is still generally a revered figure.
He had a flawed private life, but never claimed to be perfect. I don't think the fact he had a lot of affairs invalidates his message of non violent change or makes him a hypocrite.