Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The New Yorker)   If you are in the mood for a real-life adventure story, read about William Morgan, an American who joined the Cuban Revolution and became a military commander. This makes Kerouac's adventures look juvenile   (newyorker.com ) divider line
    More: Interesting, Cuban Revolution, Americans, Holden Caulfield, Cuban Government, tommy-gun, Fulgencio Batista, Kerouac, Graham Greene  
•       •       •

3941 clicks; posted to Main » on 24 May 2012 at 3:17 AM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



54 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-05-24 03:24:37 AM  
Amateur. This guy took over Nicaragua:

William Walker

t0.gstatic.com
 
2012-05-24 03:24:57 AM  
What about compared to Hemingway's For Whom The Bell Tolls? That's kinda similar.
 
2012-05-24 03:31:02 AM  
In the words of one observer, Morgan was "like Holden Caulfield with a machine gun."

So, he was a whining cockbite?
 
2012-05-24 03:36:20 AM  

AverageAmericanGuy: What about compared to Hemingway's For Whom The Bell Tolls? That's kinda similar.


Yup.
 
2012-05-24 03:48:03 AM  
Compared to anything, Kerouac's adventures were juvenile.

that'sthejoke.jpg.
 
2012-05-24 03:56:52 AM  
Wait - I thought we were supposed to be on the side of the land owners, who barely had time to fill their duffel bags with bullion before fleeing to Miami?

So now we're supposed to support the filthy Cuban 99%ers?
 
2012-05-24 04:17:43 AM  
Are there any revolutions besides the American one where they don't destroy each other afterwards? I'm really curious because I can't come up with any.
 
2012-05-24 04:18:21 AM  

sweatybronson: Compared to anything, Kerouac's adventures were juvenile.

that'sthejoke.jpg.


If I were better read, I'd have an opinion on your comment.
 
2012-05-24 04:18:42 AM  
Having read all 23 pages of the article, I would like to state that Mr. Morgan was absolutely nothing like Holden Caulfield. He had balls. He wasn't a phony.
 
2012-05-24 04:24:28 AM  
Having read all 4 pages of pertinent information, great. So a guy goes on a cause to an island. Hey buddy, guess how many of them live in Florida and show up on fark threads now? So much for Revolucion!
 
2012-05-24 04:47:28 AM  
after reading to the bottom of the first page, realizing the damn thing was 23 pages of overly embellished masterbatory new yorker writing and going to wikipedia article and getting informed on events, allow me to put forth the following statement:

this guy reminds me of john walker lindh, just more successful. and who ended up working for the CIA.
 
2012-05-24 05:10:07 AM  

DarkLancelot: Are there any revolutions besides the American one where they don't destroy each other afterwards? I'm really curious because I can't come up with any.


Look at the ex-iron curtain countries, especially the story of Vaclev Havel, Lech Walesa, etc. The German Revolution of 1848 (date from memory), Indian Independence, ... there are many more.
 
2012-05-24 05:55:28 AM  

DarkLancelot: Are there any revolutions besides the American one where they don't destroy each other afterwards? I'm really curious because I can't come up with any.


China 1949. Meiji Japan. Poland. Arguably France, minus the Reign of Terror, because they got their shiat together pretty quickly and went on to threaten the rest of Europe with Republicanism. The Italian Risorgimento is another good one, although that was less of a revolution and more of a popular movement to unite the country that also happened to overthrow existing rulers. Mexico overthrowing the Hapsburgs and French.
 
2012-05-24 06:07:31 AM  

Kuroutesshin: DarkLancelot: Are there any revolutions besides the American one where they don't destroy each other afterwards? I'm really curious because I can't come up with any.

China 1949. Meiji Japan. Poland. Arguably France, minus the Reign of Terror, because they got their shiat together pretty quickly and went on to threaten the rest of Europe with Republicanism. The Italian Risorgimento is another good one, although that was less of a revolution and more of a popular movement to unite the country that also happened to overthrow existing rulers. Mexico overthrowing the Hapsburgs and French.


Yeah, this is what I get for posting while working. The only one I'd disagree with is France because the original revolutionaries did turn on each other in that one. The state recovered but it fits with the pattern I was asking about.
 
2012-05-24 06:24:47 AM  

DarkLancelot:

Yeah, this is what I get for posting while working. The only one I'd disagree with is France because the original revolutionaries did turn on each other in that one. The state recovered but it fits with the pattern I was asking about.


I think most revolutions go through that. In America, the patriots forced the royalists out, they all fled to Canada. The US almost collapsed after the articles of confederation didn't work out, and if you think about it the deferred question of slavery did tear the country apart, it just took nigh-on seventy years. American history books tend to gloss over the fact there were colonists who did like Britain, and did support the King, and did fight for him- it wasn't Britain vs. America, it was Britain and the loyalists Americans against France and revolutionary Americans.

Revolutions are bloody things. Lots of people will usually die, and even then unity isn't guaranteed- from 1911 in China until 1974, millions lost their lives in the name of national unity and stability. There's a reason, too, the French went through successive revolutions throughout the 19th century- it's not called the Fourth Republic for nothing.

Interestingly, the Glorious Revolution in Britain was relatively bloodless despite James II's half-hearted attempted at reconquest. It was pretty benign considering the people hated him, and voted to invite a pair of Dutch royals to take over. I guess hatred of Catholics was more important than hatred of foreigners back then.
 
2012-05-24 06:41:13 AM  

Kuroutesshin: DarkLancelot: Are there any revolutions besides the American one where they don't destroy each other afterwards? I'm really curious because I can't come up with any.

China 1949. Meiji Japan. Poland. Arguably France, minus the Reign of Terror, because they got their shiat together pretty quickly and went on to threaten the rest of Europe with Republicanism. The Italian Risorgimento is another good one, although that was less of a revolution and more of a popular movement to unite the country that also happened to overthrow existing rulers. Mexico overthrowing the Hapsburgs and French.


That was the tail end of a violent revolution and resulted in the great chinese famine, so I don't know if it fits the bill.
 
2012-05-24 06:54:15 AM  
After the revolution, Morgan's role in Cuba aroused even greater fascination, as the island became enmeshed in the larger battle of the Cold War. An American who knew Morgan said that he had served as Castro's "chief cloak-and-dagger man," and Time called him Castro's "crafty, U.S.-born double agent."

So after helping Castro murder people who didn't love "the horse" enough he got killed? Boo-farking-hoo.
 
2012-05-24 06:58:53 AM  

DarkLancelot: Are there any revolutions besides the American one where they don't destroy each other afterwards? I'm really curious because I can't come up with any.


No, not really. But that's more because the American Revolution wasn't technically a revolution at all, it was more of a rebellion.
 
2012-05-24 07:35:44 AM  

Seth'n'Spectrum: No, not really. But that's more because the American Revolution wasn't technically a revolution at all, it was more of a rebellion.


sucessful rebellion = revolution
unsucessful rebellion = rebellion

The winners get to write the history.
 
2012-05-24 07:48:19 AM  

liam76: Kuroutesshin: DarkLancelot: Are there any revolutions besides the American one where they don't destroy each other afterwards? I'm really curious because I can't come up with any.

China 1949. Meiji Japan. Poland. Arguably France, minus the Reign of Terror, because they got their shiat together pretty quickly and went on to threaten the rest of Europe with Republicanism. The Italian Risorgimento is another good one, although that was less of a revolution and more of a popular movement to unite the country that also happened to overthrow existing rulers. Mexico overthrowing the Hapsburgs and French.

That was the tail end of a violent revolution and resulted in the great chinese famine, so I don't know if it fits the bill.


You're right, but the famine wasn't caused by the civil war or the revolution, it was caused by the subsequent economic mismanagement. Admittedly the Xinhai revolution is a better example, although at that point the whole pooch was pretty well screwed for the next century. Chinese history after 1911 is not my specialty, either, so I'm probably missing a hell of a lot.
 
2012-05-24 07:54:11 AM  
I'm pretty farking liberal, and I never understood the hero-worship of Che and people like this guy. But then, I live in Miami. Things associated with Castro are pretty frowned upon here. Communism might sound cool in theory, but typically, in practice, not so much. It's mostly seems to be just a lot of poverty and assassinations.
 
2012-05-24 07:54:43 AM  

sweatybronson: Compared to anything, Kerouac's adventures were juvenile.

that'sthejoke.jpg.


I was going to say about the same thing...

Compared to anything Kerouac's "Adventures" were also exciting... I got through a majority of the book waiting for something to happen... when I realized it was a book without a plot I got mad at Kerouac and every post-Beat hipster who recommended that piece of crap. I've done more exciting yardwork.
 
2012-05-24 08:08:44 AM  

Allornone: I'm pretty farking liberal, and I never understood the hero-worship of Che and people like this guy. But then, I live in Miami. Things associated with Castro are pretty frowned upon here. Communism might sound cool in theory, but typically, in practice, not so much. It's mostly seems to be just a lot of poverty and assassinations.


I prefer to go full retard and wear shirts with Stalin or Pol Pot.
 
2012-05-24 08:09:32 AM  

DarkLancelot: Are there any revolutions besides the American one where they don't destroy each other afterwards? I'm really curious because I can't come up with any.


i18.photobucket.com

I'm not sure I understand the premise.
 
2012-05-24 08:12:52 AM  

Allornone: I'm pretty farking liberal, and I never understood the hero-worship of Che and people like this guy. But then, I live in Miami. Things associated with Castro are pretty frowned upon here. Communism might sound cool in theory, but typically, in practice, not so much. It's mostly seems to be just a lot of poverty and assassinations.


He took on AMerican back capatalists, so to many no matter what else he did he was a Hero. A lot fo kids who get into his shiat never really read about the bad shiat he did.
 
2012-05-24 08:22:10 AM  

Kuroutesshin: liam76: Kuroutesshin: DarkLancelot: Are there any revolutions besides the American one where they don't destroy each other afterwards? I'm really curious because I can't come up with any.

China 1949. Meiji Japan. Poland. Arguably France, minus the Reign of Terror, because they got their shiat together pretty quickly and went on to threaten the rest of Europe with Republicanism. The Italian Risorgimento is another good one, although that was less of a revolution and more of a popular movement to unite the country that also happened to overthrow existing rulers. Mexico overthrowing the Hapsburgs and French.

That was the tail end of a violent revolution and resulted in the great chinese famine, so I don't know if it fits the bill.

You're right, but the famine wasn't caused by the civil war or the revolution, it was caused by the subsequent economic mismanagement. Admittedly the Xinhai revolution is a better example, although at that point the whole pooch was pretty well screwed for the next century. Chinese history after 1911 is not my specialty, either, so I'm probably missing a hell of a lot.


Good point, I was just thinking of a catastrophe, vice political infighting.
 
rpl
2012-05-24 08:42:09 AM  
www.theodoresworld.net

Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
 
2012-05-24 08:48:28 AM  
So "adventure stories" are now ones about killers and rapists? who knew?
 
2012-05-24 08:57:33 AM  

DarkLancelot: Are there any revolutions besides the American one where they don't destroy each other afterwards? I'm really curious because I can't come up with any.


It's a good thing that the unresolved issues of the American Revolution didn't cause a civil war or something.

That would be a real trail of tears. You could fill a tub, man.
 
2012-05-24 09:04:15 AM  

MusicMakeMyHeadPound: DarkLancelot: Are there any revolutions besides the American one where they don't destroy each other afterwards? I'm really curious because I can't come up with any.

It's a good thing that the unresolved issues of the American Revolution didn't cause a civil war or something.

That would be a real trail of tears. You could fill a tub, man.


True, there were seams that could erupt that were there from the beginning. But I was thinking more in contrast to this, the Bolsheviks, the French Revolution; how the founders / leaders of at least those fell on each other before long. Maybe the fact that Washington went the Cincinnatus route while these ended as dictatorships is the main difference.
 
2012-05-24 09:33:17 AM  

DarkLancelot: Are there any revolutions besides the American one where they don't destroy each other afterwards?


Aaron Burr tried his best to wreck shiat.
 
2012-05-24 09:36:21 AM  
At least he wasn't carrying a chip of ICE-9.

/see the cat? see the cradle?
 
2012-05-24 09:39:28 AM  

Joe Blowme: So "adventure stories" are now ones about killers and rapists? who knew?


Father_Jack: this guy reminds me of john walker lindh, just more successful. and who ended up working for the CIA.


"It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by the dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error or shortcoming; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions and spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best, knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who, at worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly; so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory or defeat scorn adventurers on the internet."

-- another highly-regarded Cuban military adventurer
 
2012-05-24 09:56:11 AM  

DarkLancelot: MusicMakeMyHeadPound: DarkLancelot: Are there any revolutions besides the American one where they don't destroy each other afterwards? I'm really curious because I can't come up with any.

It's a good thing that the unresolved issues of the American Revolution didn't cause a civil war or something.

That would be a real trail of tears. You could fill a tub, man.

True, there were seams that could erupt that were there from the beginning. But I was thinking more in contrast to this, the Bolsheviks, the French Revolution; how the founders / leaders of at least those fell on each other before long. Maybe the fact that Washington went the Cincinnatus route while these ended as dictatorships is the main difference.


Maybe it's because I'm pre-coffee but I still don't know if I can get behind that.

Lachlan McIntosh killed Button Gwinnett after Gwinnett began doing political purges (by which I mean he was setting his opponents up to be executed).

I don't think that was even a full year after Gwinnett signed the Declaration of Independence.

And the government the founders set up collapsed completely. They had to reboot the thing in 1789.


On the other hand, I had a professor who argued that the American Revolution was not really a revolution since nothing changed in society. The colonists simply disconnected from a distant government.

Contrast the French and Bolshevik Revolutions, which were about resetting the pecking order within a country from those with pretend power to the people who actually got stuff done.
 
2012-05-24 10:26:07 AM  
Thatg's because Kerouac was juvenile. And boring.

/Have you ever tried to actually READ his farking pablum?
 
2012-05-24 10:30:14 AM  

Kuroutesshin: DarkLancelot: Are there any revolutions besides the American one where they don't destroy each other afterwards? I'm really curious because I can't come up with any.

China 1949. Meiji Japan. Poland. Arguably France, minus the Reign of Terror, because they got their shiat together pretty quickly and went on to threaten the rest of Europe with Republicanism. The Italian Risorgimento is another good one, although that was less of a revolution and more of a popular movement to unite the country that also happened to overthrow existing rulers. Mexico overthrowing the Hapsburgs and French.


"Arguably," NO revolutions ever ended with the revolutionaries destroying themselves afterward, as long as by "afterward" you mean "any time besides afterward" and by "destroying themselves" you mean "FARK YOU, HISTORY IS WRITTEN BY THE WINNERS BUT I ALONE KNOW THE TRUTHY TRUTH."
 
2012-05-24 10:39:15 AM  

ansius: Indian Independence


Does the partitioning of India and Pakistan ring any bells?
 
2012-05-24 10:54:36 AM  

Tatterdemalian:

"Arguably," NO revolutions ever ended with the revolutionaries destroying themselves afterward, as long as by "afterward" you mean "any time besides afterward" and by "destroying themselves" you mean "FARK YOU, HISTORY IS WRITTEN BY THE WINNERS BUT I ALONE KNOW THE TRUTHY TRUTH."


Jesus man, switch to decaf or something. Dude said he couldn't think of any examples and I gave some.
 
2012-05-24 10:58:02 AM  
MusicMakeMyHeadPound:


On the other hand, I had a professor who argued that the American Revolution was not really a revolution since nothing changed in society. The colonists simply disconnected from a distant government.

Contrast the French and Bolshevik Revolutions, which were about resetting the pecking order within a country from those with pretend power to the people who actually got stuff done.

I think that's a very good point. Those other revolutions involves massive changes while the American Revolution the colonial society pretty much continued as it was.
 
2012-05-24 11:03:13 AM  

fusillade762: Amateur. This guy took over Nicaragua:

William Walker

[t0.gstatic.com image 184x274]


I love this guy, I pass his historic marker walking to lunch.
 
2012-05-24 11:22:09 AM  

Kuroutesshin: DarkLancelot:

Yeah, this is what I get for posting while working. The only one I'd disagree with is France because the original revolutionaries did turn on each other in that one. The state recovered but it fits with the pattern I was asking about.

I think most revolutions go through that. In America, the patriots forced the royalists out, they all fled to Canada. The US almost collapsed after the articles of confederation didn't work out, and if you think about it the deferred question of slavery did tear the country apart, it just took nigh-on seventy years. American history books tend to gloss over the fact there were colonists who did like Britain, and did support the King, and did fight for him- it wasn't Britain vs. America, it was Britain and the loyalists Americans against France and revolutionary Americans.

Revolutions are bloody things. Lots of people will usually die, and even then unity isn't guaranteed- from 1911 in China until 1974, millions lost their lives in the name of national unity and stability. There's a reason, too, the French went through successive revolutions throughout the 19th century- it's not called the Fourth Republic for nothing.

Interestingly, the Glorious Revolution in Britain was relatively bloodless despite James II's half-hearted attempted at reconquest. It was pretty benign considering the people hated him, and voted to invite a pair of Dutch royals to take over. I guess hatred of Catholics was more important than hatred of foreigners back then.


I had a pretty shiatty high school history book, but it didn't ignore the fact that there were royalist supporters in america. I think you might mean american psuedo documentaries built for cable tv tend to ignore facts that run counter tot he narrative.

and revolutions that aren't really revolutionary tend to not be quite so bloody. in america we were essentially substituting one ruling class for another, not completely reinventing the wheel.

france was significantly more bloody because they were ripping down the superstructure of aristocratic and clerical control for a while. same with 1917. same with the anti intellectual Maoist events around the world.
 
2012-05-24 11:27:30 AM  

DarkLancelot: MusicMakeMyHeadPound:


On the other hand, I had a professor who argued that the American Revolution was not really a revolution since nothing changed in society. The colonists simply disconnected from a distant government.

Contrast the French and Bolshevik Revolutions, which were about resetting the pecking order within a country from those with pretend power to the people who actually got stuff done.

I think that's a very good point. Those other revolutions involves massive changes while the American Revolution the colonial society pretty much continued as it was.


heh. exactly.
 
2012-05-24 11:29:08 AM  
What a piece of shiat.
 
2012-05-24 11:43:06 AM  
So Castro hid his socialist side and love of all things commie until he had finally consolidated power. I did not know that Fidel was born in Kenya with a Hawaiian birth certificate
 
2012-05-24 12:57:32 PM  
Compared to anything Kerouac's "Adventures" were also exciting... I got through a majority of the book waiting for something to happen... when I realized it was a book without a plot I got mad at Kerouac and every post-Beat hipster who recommended that piece of crap. I've done more exciting yardwork.

I think you meant 'boring,' not exciting, in the first use here?

Yeah, if anything, Kerouac was notable for his style, for that jazz-rhythm, that wild-eyed impressionism, that way of making things that are silly and/or shallowly pretentious seem really cool/deep to 20-year-olds.

The beats were interesting as a reaction to mainstream American culture in the 50s, and Howl was aight in spots, and Corso had a few good riffs, but it's all largely overrated hogwash (that people really haven't read, they just think is cool to read).

They were interesting as a social movement, I guess, but artistically, left a lot to be desired.

That being said, I always find it hilarious when people try to use them as exemplars of how to live life -

Ginsberg was a pedophile, Burroughs a pedophile and a drug addict, Neal Cassady, their patron saint of holy goofdom, was a douchey jackass who hit women and died of exposure after drinking too much, and Kerouac, the most level-headed of the bunch, spent most of his life living with his mother and drinking himself to death.

That's what ill-conceived ideas about trying to 'live in the moment' and 'first thought best thought' do to ya.

I guess they sort of pre-dated the rock-star attitude, without being supremely talented, and I don't Think people go around saying 'yeah, we should live like Hendrix!' the way they do w/Kerouac after reading On the Road.
 
2012-05-24 01:25:40 PM  

sweatybronson: I think you meant 'boring,' not exciting, in the first use here?


Thanx for the correction. You're right... I need to drink my coffee earlier in the day.

The thing I also noticed in that stupid book was that he always had access to money. Even when he was totally broke, he called his aunt or somebody and they sent him money. He wasn't some vagabond with no visible means of support (like a few of the people he met); he was essentially slumming to skirt actual responsibility.

And he was boring as f***
 
2012-05-24 01:34:54 PM  

Kuroutesshin: liam76: Kuroutesshin: DarkLancelot: Are there any revolutions besides the American one where they don't destroy each other afterwards? I'm really curious because I can't come up with any.

China 1949. Meiji Japan. Poland. Arguably France, minus the Reign of Terror, because they got their shiat together pretty quickly and went on to threaten the rest of Europe with Republicanism. The Italian Risorgimento is another good one, although that was less of a revolution and more of a popular movement to unite the country that also happened to overthrow existing rulers. Mexico overthrowing the Hapsburgs and French.

That was the tail end of a violent revolution and resulted in the great chinese famine, so I don't know if it fits the bill.

You're right, but the famine wasn't caused by the civil war or the revolution, it was caused by the subsequent economic mismanagement. Admittedly the Xinhai revolution is a better example, although at that point the whole pooch was pretty well screwed for the next century. Chinese history after 1911 is not my specialty, either, so I'm probably missing a hell of a lot.


However, within 10 years China was imprisoning and executing loyal party members as "counter-revolutionaries" which is not at all different than what Cuba did.
 
2012-05-24 02:26:20 PM  

DarkLancelot: On the other hand, I had a professor who argued that the American Revolution was not really a revolution since nothing changed in society. The colonists simply disconnected from a distant government.


Going to a model of an elected head of state was fairly new.
 
2012-05-24 02:36:33 PM  
You'd never guess from posts here Farkers would find getting drunk, laid & stoned all over the country boring, Kerouac was a better writer than Tucker Max & WAS supposed to be onboard the S.S. Dorchester...
img69.imageshack.us
RatMaster999 In the words of one observer, Morgan was "like Holden Caulfield with a machine gun."
So, he was a whining cockbite IN A MENTAL INSTITUTION? *stfy

*Spoilered That Crappiest Book This Side Of A Seperate Peace For You, Tyler Durden

sweatybronson I guess they sort of pre-dated the rock-star attitude,

The sad part in "Children of the Beats", a great NY Times piece by Daniel Pinchbeck(son of "Minor Characters" author Joyce Johnson) black, white, Asian-almost ALL the Beats' kids despise them
 
2012-05-24 02:54:49 PM  

FlyingJ: The sad part in "Children of the Beats", a great NY Times piece by Daniel Pinchbeck(son of "Minor Characters" author Joyce Johnson) black, white, Asian-almost ALL the Beats' kids despise them


Of course - when your personal principles are centered on the 'IT,' which is really just another way of saying 'selfishly going after a short term high of some sort,' your kids are going to hate you - Because you don't care about them, and everything in your world is just an obstacle toward getting to that 'It.'

The Beats lionized the euphoria that happens when you're a young-20-something experiencing things for the first time.

To base your entire life around recapturing that feeling will inevitably make you an irresponsible, selfish fark.
 
Displayed 50 of 54 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report