And that also explains why people still love Castro and Che; it is the same reason people still love the Confederate generals and make excuses for their actions. Why? It isn’t so much that many Southerners are so racist that they can’t recognize how evil the Confederacy was (although some are), it is just the simple fact that the Confederates were fighting for their side versus a different group. It is Tribalism 101: cheer for those like you, and hope that they change or maintain the status quo so your group can move up or stay at the top of the pecking order - simple as that. And that is the same with Castro and Che for so many people in Latin America. They see Castro and Che as the champions of the indigenous people of Latin America and as defenders against Yankee hegemony, never mind the fact they created a government just as oppressive or as repressive as created by European colonialist or even Batista. All that mattered was the illusion that somehow our side is in charge.

Comparisons between Cuba and the US are pointless...comparisons of Cuba and Haiti or Guatemala are what leaves Batista's apologists spluttering.

Having said that, I will state that I have never criticized the movie per say, just pointed out how I view Che & Castro and how I think those who are fans of him are misguided. Has the United States down bad things? Yes. Was Batista a bad leader? Yes. But just because we say yes to these questions doesn’t mean we can’t raise any more questions or criticize.

The US has long interfered with other countries and nations, trying to shape the world in what would be our best interest. But you what? Every country does it or tries to do it, just very few countries have as much power or influence as us that they can do it so effectively. I am not trying to make excuses for the U.S., just stating a fact. I mean Cuba supported Marxist and Communist forces throughout Latin America, as well as sending Cuban troops to Angola and Ethiopia. He denounced the Czech rebellion to gain support from the Soviet Union, and to have them help bail out the Cuban economy. He did that to help his countries interest and spread his influence at the expense of letting another country determine their own destiny, just like how we here in the US sometimes ally with a dictator or support a rebel side for our own self-interest. I might disagree with whom my country supports, but at least we can criticize our government’s involvement. You can’t in Cuba. Secondly, while Batista was an asshole and a dick, it still doesn’t make Fidel and Che any better. The Polish people suffered under Nazi rule, doesn’t mean they liked the Soviet’s rule that much better. Same with the Communist after Batista: sure the islands profits and resources were no longer going to fatten the pockets of foreigners and colonialist, now they were going to enlarge the bank accounts of a small group of party loyalist. Fidel wasn’t liberating the Cuba people; he was just exchanging one dictator for another. Only this time this one would present himself as a man of the people and a defender of the little guy. But if Fidel were really interested in creating a free society, he would have stepped down from office years ago, like George Washington and Nelson Mandela did after they served their terms as leaders. No, Fidel was always out not to help his fellow Cubans but to put him at the top of the totem pole.

Same with Che, whose entire goal was just to start revolution after revolution, for the sake of revolution, often ending with failure. In fact, Che-inspired revolutions often have the practical result of reinforcing brutal militarism. I look at Che as the Latin American version of General George Custer: once a symbol of bravery and looked upon as the epitome of what an American (or Latin American for Che) should be, but now that the years have put some distance between us and the birth of his legend we can see the incompetent, narcissistic jerk he really was.