Actually, he seems to see that the Cuban “revolution” is old and tired and meaningless, in one key paragraph. Otherwise he doesn’t seem to have a clue about what kind of guy Che was—someone who got a kick out of shooting political prisoners in the back of the head.
But that one paragraph is telling, even if he draws all the wrong conclusions from what he sees:
“Look closer, however, and you’ll notice that the triumphant photos of Fidel and Che are faded and mildewed, their corners curled by age and humidity. The photo captions are spelled out in a clunky die-cast typeset that hasn’t been used in a generation, and contain glowing present-tense references to the magnanimity of the Soviet Union—a country that hasn’t existed since 1991. Despite the grungy glamour of the young men who toppled a tyrant all those years ago, the anachronism and decay of the museum’s exhibits reveal just how tired and toothless Cuba’s revolutionary myths have become in Havana. In many ways, the building is a museum of a museum—a yellowing relic of how the communist regime chose to portray itself in the 1970s.”
Unfortunately that seems to be all (or the most important thing) he sees.
He writes
"...grungy glamour of the young men who toppled a tyrant...
C'mon...these were grungy and glamorous men...and hey they toppled a "tyrant" isn't that good? C'mon how could guys that toppled a "tyrant" be bad?
Rolf the douchebag likens Che to the QB that won the high school football championship in 1959.
Really? The takeover of a country by murderous communists is like winning a the big game?
This man is a moral idiot.