Target Pulls Che Off the Shelves

[Ther]

There's a small controversy brewing over the department store Target pulling a CD-carrying case bearing the image of the Cuban communist revolutionary Che Guevara. A snippet from the full story (found at http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061222/people_nm/target_guevara_dc):

---------------------

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Target Corp said on Friday it had pulled a CD carrying case bearing Ernesto "Che" Guevara's image after an outcry by critics who label the Marxist revolutionary a murderer and totalitarian symbol.

Target had touted a music disc carrying case for Che admirers emblazoned with the Argentine-born guerrilla's iconic 1960 portrait by Alberto Diaz, or "Korda." A set of small earphones was superimposed on the image, suggesting he was tuned in to an iPod or other music player.

"It is never our intent to offend any of our guests through the merchandise we carry," Target said in a statement. "We have made the decision to remove this item from our shelves and we sincerely apologize for any discomfort this situation may have caused our guests."

Some business columnists had decried the product, sold under Target's brand, saying the trendy discount chain was giving in to a misguided fashion craze while ignoring Guevara's role in bringing Fidel Castro's Communist rule to Cuba.

------------------------------

So was Target right in pulling the carrying case, or is the removal unwarranted and perhaps a little bit paranoid? What do you think?

[Cyrus the virus]

It wouldn't surprise me if it was a publicity stunt. I mean, Target's been very obviously paying for product placement on NBC's SNL and The Office. This could be another attempt at snatching up some attention.

I mostly support this idea because I see no genuine reason to remove the merchandise. Getting offended at Che's visage is a bit too sensative, I think, and if Target's that concerned about offending people, I can list a few other items they can pull off the shelves.

[Reiko]

It wouldn't surprise me if it was a publicity stunt. I mean, Target's been very obviously paying for product placement on NBC's SNL and The Office. This could be another attempt at snatching up some attention.


What big business doesn't have product placement?

I think it's fine that Target stop carrying the merchandise. If you learn something is offensive and will make you lose customers then it's best you rectify the problem. Target's a business and has to make good decisions, especially if the competition is Walmart. And since it's not a freedom of speech issue, just a company not carrying something they decided they no longer want to carry because it is possibly offensive.

[Cyrus the virus]

I mean, like, characters in the show endorsing the product. SNL did a sketch in Target where they mentioned several products. On the Office, a character babbled a few times about a shredder he got at Target, then they'd air commercials on the same damn thing. It was beyond product placement. I don't even watch The Office anymore despite how much I love the show, it pissed me off so much.

[Serilliant]

I keep forgetting how we're forced to buy every product that a store we patronize carries.

Oh wait, we're not.

I personally don't think that Target should carry Oh Come All Ye Faithful to the Stoning of the Homosexual Heathens the Musical either, but I display my disagreement by choosing not to buy it. Just because a store carries a certain product, does not mean they agree with its message; it means they think they'll sell enough to make money. What is the deal with people who insist on not letting anyone else have something that they personally don't want?

[AdventWings]

If you don't like it, don't use it.

How hard can that be?

Well, then again, that's me being callous to "Patriotic Democrats" who can't stand to bear that someone like Che Guevara, a person who stood up for what he believed in and died for, was featured on a merchandise.

Well, I wouldn't know about you guys, but I'm more irked by the fact Target had a merchandise made under its brand that is misleading to Che's purpose. Heck, I'd blow my own head off if I saw myself on the cover of a modeling magazine. Because I'm a writer, not a supermodel. Che is a revolutionary, not a sales promoter.

...OK, I got off track.

Anyways, I mean to say that Target should really try something that would actually create good publicity more than just publicity in general.

[Stevo]

Its better to pull some merchandise of the shelves than to have people wear someones face on their shirts and hats without having any clue on who guy is and what he did, just because its "fashionable".

[Lucien]

Not really. Symbols and icons are just lame if they don't look cool. To chastise people for wearing them without knowledge of the history behind it is extreme. You might as well not look at art if you don't know pain the artist went through to produce it. Aesthetics are life.

No one forces you to even acknowledge the existence of something that offends you. Protesting just seems like boring jackassery to me in this case.

Target will be losing out on money because of this. Every teenaged anarchist/would-be socialist/Spooky Kid and their mother has Che's picture somewhere on their person in Cambridge.

[Lou]

If Target will be losing money from this decision, I'm not sure if they would have even made it. I don't know much about Che; he seems to be a hero for many leftists and a devil for rightists. Given that socialism has been heavily stigmatized in much of American society, I'd wager that Target will be saving face and money by removing this item from their shelves. The managers of the business seem to have made the same bet.

Really, it is up to the business to carry what products it believes will sell and improve the image of the company. This was apparently not such a product for Target. That said, the whole fiasco is kind of a joke. One has to be pretty sensitive to be offended by a mere picture of Che. I have to wonder if there would be such an outcry if Pinochet or Musharraf had his own CD carrying case.

[Reiko]

WEll I'm going to have to say that Freedom of Speech is a two way street. You have a right to express yourself and someone else has a right to complain about that expression. To tell the truth, the people that complain and criticize the Che merchandise have as much right to complain as target has a right to carry it. And it's true that Target only did that because Che's look is like a cool rebel and not what he stood for. Che probably would turn in his grave to know that his face is being used to put wealth in capitalists' pockets. I think sometimes you have to do more than ignore something, though the Che thing isn't a big deal. But sometimes it's best to not remain silent.

[Djakara]

I kind of think it's ironic that many of the same people who complain that society is too "PC" get bent out of shape about pictures on CD cases.

Personally, target is free to carry what they want. If they feel having the carrying case is going to cause them to lose buisness, its hard to fault them. However, I will fault people who get a bugger up their ass about something like this. The whole "Che is a murderer" shtick is old. By that criteria, the United states shouldn't have a "murderer" like George Washington on the money. Should we also prohibit the Scarlet Pimpernel because the book supports the monarchy?

I guess ultimately I'd rather the American right was picketing walmart and target than stoning gays, so I'll consider it a push.

[Lou]

I'm not sure if comparing Che to George Washington or a fictional character is merited. I've only recently started reading about Che, and he's a fascinating individual, but I'm not sure if his legacy is to be admired as much as it is. I honestly don't know: has Washington been accused of political purges?

[http://www.chss.montclair.edu/witness/LaCabana.html].

Here is an unflattering, though undocumented, biography: [http://libcom.org/history/guevara-ernesto-che-1928-1967.

Wikipedia has these any many other sources of information on the man.

[Sighter Tnailog]

Just for the record, being "anti-political correctness" is the politically correct way of acting in many demographic areas. A politician or business simply can't be anti-PC and survive. Sometimes the correct political decision is to look like you oppose making decisions for political reasons, but ultimately only those who are PC will survive in politics.

[Djakara]

I'm not sure if comparing Che to George Washington or a fictional character is merited. I've only recently started reading about Che, and he's a fascinating individual, but I'm not sure if his legacy is to be admired as much as it is. I honestly don't know: has Washington been accused of political purges?

[http://www.chss.montclair.edu/witness/LaCabana.html].

Here is an unflattering, though undocumented, biography: [http://libcom.org/history/guevara-ernesto-che-1928-1967.

Wikipedia has these any many other sources of information on the man.

When I was comparing Che to George Washington, I was doing so not in the sense of they are moral equivalents, but merely trying to point out that pretty much any political figure who is admired, is responsible for deaths. Was everything Che did in Cuba "justified." I guess that depends on who you ask, and what you figure the ends and the means were. The same could be said for any revolutionary though.

It is worth noting if you compare Castro to Batista (the previous ruler of Cuba) the human rights situation is more favorable. The Communist government was the first to actually acknowledge human rights in the constitution, though both Castro and Batista were about the same when it came to protecting people's physical integrity. Factor in Batista did jack shit for the Cubans while the Communist regime at least brought medical care and education, and I think you'd be hard pressed to tell me that you would have really prefered to live under Batista than Castro. Of course, you could make a very reasonable argument you would rather live under a whole bunch of world leaders than either of them, but to me, any revolutionaries that great a government that takes a step that empowers the people more than the previous government did something right.

I'm not attempting to justify the Castro regime by this, or say that they should remain in power. However, I feel it is a bit much to paint Che with a certain brush without looking at Cuban history.

[Sighter Tnailog]

I honestly don't know: has Washington been accused of political purges?

That depends on your view of the Whiskey Rebellion.

[Lou]

When I was comparing Che to George Washington, I was doing so not in the sense of they are moral equivalents, but merely trying to point out that pretty much any political figure who is admired, is responsible for deaths. Was everything Che did in Cuba "justified." I guess that depends on who you ask, and what you figure the ends and the means were. The same could be said for any revolutionary though.

It is worth noting if you compare Castro to Batista (the previous ruler of Cuba) the human rights situation is more favorable. The Communist government was the first to actually acknowledge human rights in the constitution, though both Castro and Batista were about the same when it came to protecting people's physical integrity. Factor in Batista did jack shit for the Cubans while the Communist regime at least brought medical care and education, and I think you'd be hard pressed to tell me that you would have really prefered to live under Batista than Castro. Of course, you could make a very reasonable argument you would rather live under a whole bunch of world leaders than either of them, but to me, any revolutionaries that great a government that takes a step that empowers the people more than the previous government did something right.

I'm not attempting to justify the Castro regime by this, or say that they should remain in power. However, I feel it is a bit much to paint Che with a certain brush without looking at Cuban history.

Agreed; I had the wrong impression before about your comparison.


That depends on your view of the Whiskey Rebellion.

I wasn’t aware of the Whiskey Rebellion, though it seems to have been a turning point in our nation’s history. I don’t know enough about it or its history to give a balanced opinion of the event, but I appreciate the insight. In case it sounded as though I asked the question to paint Washington as flawless, I was really asking out of curiosity.

It makes me wonder what situation we’d be in if America had remained a confederation.

[Cyrus the virus]

Some of us don't use the dark forum skin.

[Lou]

Oops. I had written the reply in word and pasted it over, but I'm using the response format that carries over everything from word. I'll fix it up.