BF2S Forums Should ‘68 Olympic black-power salute be cheered or jeered?

lowing wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

My real problem is using the forum of the Olympics.. something I know that has been going on for an extremely long time. I equate it to the media excitement around celebrities weighing in on politics. Wrong venue, no business ..

I gotta disagree. The Olympics belong to no one if not the athletes. It is their moment to do with as they see fit. If they have a meesage during their 15 minutes of fame the floor is theirs, if we do not like the message we do not have to agree or watch.

I really hope there's some in your face "Allah ooh Akbar" displays if any of the Islamic states get medals!

Thorax wrote:

That was their NATIONAL salute.  Hitler was sitting in the audience.  They didn't have much of a choice did they?

Yes, we know Hitler was bad.  Thank you.

Sorry, you walked right into that one...couldn't resist.

I've just read up on the Black Panthers and I don't really see what the problem is. Black people were being fucked over by the state, something had to be done about it. Some chose violence, some chose negotiations. At least they weren't engaged in targeting civilians - they targeted the apparatus of the state that was oppressing them. That's what the right to bear arms in the US constitution is about: banding into militias to fight corrupt government or invader foe.

FTR I prefer the Luther King approach.

CameronPoe wrote:

I've just read up on the Black Panthers and I don't really see what the problem is. Black people were being fucked over by the state, something had to be done about it. Some chose violence, some chose negotiations. At least they weren't engaged in targeting civilians - they targeted the apparatus of the state that was oppressing them. That's what the right to bear arms in the US constitution is about: banding into militias to fight corrupt government or invader foe.

FTR I prefer the Luther King approach.

Kinda odd stooping to the morally inferior level when asking for a moral ideal.

Kmarion, the OP is a perfect illustration of what this event has become.  There are many athletes who associate it with racial progress and perservance because they are ignorant of what the event really meant.

I'm sure if it the Black Panther organization was fully explained they'd change their tune.  In this case, ignorance has helped IMO.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

I've just read up on the Black Panthers and I don't really see what the problem is. Black people were being fucked over by the state, something had to be done about it. Some chose violence, some chose negotiations. At least they weren't engaged in targeting civilians - they targeted the apparatus of the state that was oppressing them. That's what the right to bear arms in the US constitution is about: banding into militias to fight corrupt government or invader foe.

FTR I prefer the Luther King approach.

Kinda odd stooping to the morally inferior level when asking for a moral ideal.

It's not morally inferior to fight the entity that is keeping you down - it really depends on the situation though. For instance, no amount of protesting or civil rights marches in China will change a thing, but widespread insurgency might force the Chinese government to the negotiating table (a la the IRA's campaign against the Brits). In America, civil rights marches sufficed after much difficulty but at the outset who was to know that would be the case? Had the Black Panthers resorted to killing random white civilians then they would have been morally inferior.

Were Washington, Adams, Jefferson et al morally inferior for raising arms against the Brits who were oppressing them? I think not.

Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-07-29 14:52:52)

Violence solves nothing

Kmarion wrote:

lowing wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

My real problem is using the forum of the Olympics.. something I know that has been going on for an extremely long time. I equate it to the media excitement around celebrities weighing in on politics. Wrong venue, no business ..

I gotta disagree. The Olympics belong to no one if not the athletes. It is their moment to do with as they see fit. If they have a meesage during their 15 minutes of fame the floor is theirs, if we do not like the message we do not have to agree or watch.

The Olympics belongs to the fans as well. It is also a representation of an entire nation... well maybe not the special Olympics. I feel that using the Olympic podium to push a personal political message is not right. Look at it from this approach, .. Just because someone is not capable of record breaking speed it doesn't mean that they aren't equally worthy of 15 minutes of political talk.

Everyone is worth their 15 minutes of fame, that is not the problem. The problem is, who are you going to get to listen to you and how? These athletes have the worlds attention for their few moments on the podium. It is theirs, just like an acadomy award winner has their time to thank everyone from mom and dad to Santa Claus. They have earned their moment, and people will be watching.

lowing wrote:

Everyone is worth their 15 minutes of fame, that is not the problem.

So said Charlie Manson. I could earn fame by bombing an abortion clinic as well.

The problem is, who are you going to get to listen to you and how?

Obviously the answer is educated intellectuals with respect to the varying subjects @ the proper venue.

lowing wrote:

These athletes have the worlds attention for their few moments on the podium. It is theirs, just like an acadomy award winner has their time to thank everyone from mom and dad to Santa Claus. They have earned their moment, and people will be watching.

Like I said, same goes for all celebrities imo. The podium is designed to give thanks and recognize the relative achievements.

Kmarion wrote:

lowing wrote:

Everyone is worth their 15 minutes of fame, that is not the problem.

So said Charlie Manson. I could earn fame by bombing an abortion clinic as well.

The problem is, who are you going to get to listen to you and how?

Obviously the answer is educated intellectuals with respect to the varying subjects @ the proper venue.

lowing wrote:

These athletes have the worlds attention for their few moments on the podium. It is theirs, just like an acadomy award winner has their time to thank everyone from mom and dad to Santa Claus. They have earned their moment, and people will be watching.

Like I said, same goes for all celebrities imo. The podium is designed to give thanks and recognize the relative achievements.

Please do not disect my post and take every section out of context.

You said everyone deserves the right to be heard, I agreed but added getting your time is notr the problem, getting people to listen is the problem.

The athletes have earned the attention they are given and should be able to speak as they see fit.

Kmarion wrote:

lowing wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

lowing wrote:

Everyone is worth their 15 minutes of fame, that is not the problem.

So said Charlie Manson. I could earn fame by bombing an abortion clinic as well.

The problem is, who are you going to get to listen to you and how?

Obviously the answer is educated intellectuals with respect to the varying subjects @ the proper venue.

Like I said, same goes for all celebrities imo. The podium is designed to give thanks and recognize the relative achievements.

Please do not disect my post and take every section out of context.

You said everyone deserves the right to be heard, I agreed but added getting your time is notr the problem, getting people to listen is the problem.

The athletes have earned the attention they are given and should be able to speak as they see fit.

lol.. I did it for clarity. Rather than stringing a bunch of sentences together that might not have otherwise made sense.

We disagree on exactly what the athletes have earned. I say it's recognition for their athletic performance, you seem to think it's a blank check to exploit their spotlight. That is all.

Ok now that is a good point, maybe it shouldn't be a blank check, but I gotta fall back on, if I am offended by it, that is my problem not theirs.

If it is black pride that was their motivation for their struggle to achieve a place on that podium then so be it.

Kmarion wrote:

I should also add that this is really more of a personal annoyance. I said before I acknowledge that this has been happening at the Olympics for centuries. To suggest that it should be stopped is not really practical.

Edit:Good opportunity to add my popular youtube video:

278k views

I usually fall back on that also lowing .

Ok so I win?

CameronPoe wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

I've just read up on the Black Panthers and I don't really see what the problem is. Black people were being fucked over by the state, something had to be done about it. Some chose violence, some chose negotiations. At least they weren't engaged in targeting civilians - they targeted the apparatus of the state that was oppressing them. That's what the right to bear arms in the US constitution is about: banding into militias to fight corrupt government or invader foe.

FTR I prefer the Luther King approach.

Kinda odd stooping to the morally inferior level when asking for a moral ideal.

It's not morally inferior to fight the entity that is keeping you down - it really depends on the situation though. For instance, no amount of protesting or civil rights marches in China will change a thing, but widespread insurgency might force the Chinese government to the negotiating table (a la the IRA's campaign against the Brits). In America, civil rights marches sufficed after much difficulty but at the outset who was to know that would be the case? Had the Black Panthers resorted to killing random white civilians then they would have been morally inferior.

Were Washington, Adams, Jefferson et al morally inferior for raising arms against the Brits who were oppressing them? I think not.

*disclaimer: this is an extremely rough metaphor. No offense is meant. PC people screw off.

Imagine you are the owner of a dog. You are a real, real asshole to this dog. What do you think that dog is going to do to you first chance he gets? Probably bite your hand. It's expected, but it doesn't do much but give the dog some anger relief and give you some pain. It doesn't fundamentally change the dynamic between you two. What if on the other hand the dog got up and started talking to you?

You can't expect a violent conflict to end with both sides being too happy with each other, no matter how exceptional the originating circumstances. Not to belittle the situation blacks were in before the movement, but had a truly violent war taken place and succeeded, the outcome may have been worse than the original circumstances. Violence can certainly solve problems, but the new problems left in the wake are especially exceptional in domestic cases.

America was damn lucky England had other problems in Europe at the time. They might not have been in the wrong, but sometimes you have to be the bigger person to avoid even worse circumstances after bloody conflict.