A Sequel to the 1968 Olympics 'Salute' Story (by Duane Shank)
Jarrod McKenna's post on the 1968 Olympics witness/protest brought back memories of that event, and the impression it made on me. And there is a sequel to the story.
On October 3, 2006, Peter Norman died from a heart attack. John Carlos had this reaction: "Peter was a piece of my life. When I got the call, it knocked the wind out of me. I was his brother. He was my brother. That's all you have to know." Tommie Smith added, "It took inner power to do what he did, inner soul power. ... He was a man of solid beliefs, that's how I will remember Peter -- he was a humanitarian and a man of his word."
Over the years, the three men had stayed in touch with each other. Though stripped of their medals and criticized by the U.S. media, Carlos and Smith had returned home as heroes to the black community, while Peter Norman faced ostracism and hostility in Australia for his role in the protest.
Smith and Carlos traveled to Melbourne and were pallbearers at Norman's funeral. They also spoke about their friend there:
Smith described Norman as "a man who believed right could never be wrong" and told Norman's family: "Peter Norman's legacy is a rock. Stand on that rock." Smith concluded: "Peter shall always be my friend. The spirit shall prevail."
Carlos spoke of the hatred they knew would be directed at them. "Not every young white individual would have the gumption, the nerve, the backbone, to stand there. ... Go and tell your kids the story of Peter Norman."
The film McKenna notes, Salute, was directed by Norman's nephew Matt. This spring, Australia's Qantas airlines announced that the film will be shown on all flights to Beijing beginning in late July. The same news story also reported that:
Australian Olympic Committee spokesman Mike Tancred said despite an International Olympic Committee rule prohibiting any form of protest at the Games, Australian team guidelines had been redrafted to permit freedom of expression.
"The team will be able to express a point of view on human rights, Tibet and any other issue in media interviews and, for the first time ever, in blogs,'' he said.
A stand for human rights in the spirit of Peter Norman, John Carlos, and Tommie Smith will be needed in this year's Olympics. The Washington Post reported on Saturday:
The Olympic Games have become the occasion for a broad crackdown against dissidents, gadflies and malcontents this summer. Although human rights activists say they have no accurate estimate of how many people have been imprisoned, they believe the figure to be in the thousands. ... The repressive atmosphere has intensified in part because senior Communist Party officials seem to be just as determined to prevent embarrassing protests -- which could be televised -- as they are to avert terrorist attacks during the Olympics.
As you watch the Olympics this August, remember and tell your kids the story of Peter Norman, John Carlos, and Tommie Smith.
Duane Shank is issues and policy advisor at Sojourners.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Comments
I predict this story will get a lot of responses similar to those of the singer who sang "Lift Ev'ry Voice" to the tune of "The Star-Spangled Banner": the three athletes should not have spoiled the occasion, should have not mixed politics with sports, should have done only what they were told, etc. Well, here's the deal: for all the reticence shown by much of the athletic community and the white church while Southern Blacks were being disenfanchised and discriminated against, and while inner city ghettos were slipping further into disarray, these three gentlemen were right to push the issue into America's face. Thank you for saluting them forty years later.
Posted by: I and I | August 4, 2008 2:20 PM
I might not be as concerned with the Black Power symbol used, if all three athletes had raised their fists. Since they were all in agreement on the civil justice issue, I would think if the raised fists had not been symbolic of Black Power, all three would have used the same stance.
And I don't think the Olympics was a good platform for demonstrating Black Power. They lost me on their message when they brought a symbol in it that didn't portray love and forgiveness and grace, but just the opposite.
Posted by: Anonymous | August 4, 2008 2:38 PM
The medals should be restored and it would send a powerful message to China if it were done in the closing ceremonies of this year's Olympics.
Even today, while in church, I will raise my right fist to Heaven as a sign of my commitment to serve as a soldier of Our LORD. And I am a White American Male.
Posted by: Paul, seeking wisdom | August 4, 2008 3:38 PM
I and I,
Actually, I think the two situation you mentioned are very different. I have no problem with Olympians using their moment in the sun to promote a particular political cause, whether I agree with their cause or not. They gained that moment because of their actions on the field/track/pool, etc. They can do with it what they want.
The issue with the singer, was that she was invited to sing a particular song at this particular venue. She chose not to do so and sang something else. As I said then, “When singers are invited to sing the national anthem that's what they should do out of respect for the inviter. They can add their own touches and flourishes (and many do), but changing the words isn't just adding a different touch, it's singing a different song.”
And as Rick said, “what she did represented an abuse of a public/cultural trust in order to make a political statement, which is generally inappropriate. It's the same thing if someone were told to read a certain Scripture in church that corresponds to the message the preacher is delivering but decides to substitute something that may have had nothing to do with it.”
Posted by: Eric | August 4, 2008 3:38 PM
This Olympics, it seems fashionable to voice some type of protest, which is a very different thing than what these brave men did.
As I recall, the 1968 Olympics were held in Mexico City, and these men were not protesting the host country at all -- but more like their home country.
It is equally fair to ask the question, how will the Chinese view such a protest? Politically, they aren't allowed to speak out -- culturally, they're way into saving face -- which means you do not embarass anyone, let alone your hosts. Will they think we, from a Christian nation, are just rude and ungrateful?
Frankly, I'd be twice as thrilled if everyone reading this blog would pray for those entire two weeks, for true and lasting reform in China.
Posted by: frankie | August 4, 2008 4:50 PM
frankie: "Frankly, I'd be twice as thrilled if everyone reading this blog would pray for those entire two weeks, for true and lasting reform in China."
frankie, why not all the above instead of either/or?
Posted by: carl copas | August 4, 2008 5:08 PM
Eric, I appreciate your distinction and after thinking on it, I concur.
I think Frankie brings up a good point as well, about cultural differences. The Chinese will see foreigners protesting in their country much differently than we would, if the Olympics were held here. Chinese see themselves as a family, and they are very proud to be hosting the games. We tend to see the U.S. as a collection of individuals, and for many of us, foreigners' criticisms of the United States policies are not necessarily personally insulting.
My spouse reads Chinese-language newspapers and tells me that Nancy Pelosi has become extremely unpopular among Chinese-Americans--including those who came from Taiwan--because of her saying that Bush should boycott the Olympics. If China's foreign guests protest the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq, most likely many Chinese would not like it because it "spoils their party," but they would not feel personally insulted. Protesting the Tibet issues on China's soil won't change the minds of average Chinese, but will feed into the perception that foreigners just want to control China.
This is not to say that I oppose protesting in China, just that I personally have very mixed feelings about it and don't think it will accomplish anything other that resentment from the Chinese, making it less likely that they will consider the issue.
Posted by: I and I | August 4, 2008 5:28 PM
Carl --
I just think it a braver thing to do something that will cost you the medal you just won. If we're fighting for freedom of speech for the athletes -- will it still cost them their medals to make such statements?
Most of us on this blog will not be at the Olympics -- so we won't get to voice any such protests anyway. I have a heart for China and just see these Olympics as a unique time in China's history. We grant them "most favored nation status" and then when its their time to shine, we spit in their face.
I firmly believe in confronting offenses, but have learned that prayer is much more powerful than anything I can say. The average Chinese athlete has nothing to do with how Tibetans are being treated in his country. But he will probably meet a Christian athlete over those two weeks. It may be the only time he meets another Christian in his life. And yes, I want God to make the most of that encounter. And I want China to invite those athletes (and the rest of the Christian world) back as often as possible.
Posted by: frankie | August 4, 2008 6:21 PM
How well I remember the 1968 Olympics. Jim Ryun was a year ahead of me in school, and we both ran the 800m (then 880 yard) race, although never at the same meet, as I was nowhere near world-class.
On my campus, there was more than average political awareness and activism. The overwhelming majority of us were white and middle- or upper middle-class. However, all but the most hard-boiled were looking at the world for the first time with our own eyes, and had listening ears for anyone or group that had a complaint.
Most of us were opposed to our nation's war in Asia, the draft, racial oppression.... We were shocked by the assassinations of Bobbie Kennedy and Dr. King that very spring. I confess that I saw Kennedy as a problem, which caused me some feeling of guilt when he was killed. But I saw Dr. King as a hero, a brave man, who was telling us things we needed to pay attention to.
That summer, I was stunned when the athletes raised their black-gloved fists at the Olympics. The neutrality of the Games had been violated.
I'm certain that those men had butterflies in their stomachs and lost some sleep in anticipation...not just for the events they won, but for the established protocol they had determined to abandon. Yes, that act took courage; it was brave; but it was also wrong, and rightly judged by the IOC, when it took back their medals.
If they wanted to use their fame to speak out against injustice, there would have been plenty of opportunity after the medal ceremony. And they would have had an audience unscarred by the memory of their foolish public display.
I truly hope that the athletes at this summer's Olympic Games will hold themselves true to the spirit of the Games, and will behave themselves at the medal ceremonies.
Peace to all.
Posted by: david of fox lake | August 4, 2008 8:11 PM
I predict this story will get a lot of responses
"deleted for sarcasm'
similar to those the three athletes should not have spoiled the occasion, should have not mixed politics with sports, should have done only what they were told, etc
Posted by: I and I
Well yeah basically . These guys were obvious some good and dedicated atheletes . They also seem to have a heart for those who are treated unfairly . Especially shows from their lives . My opinion changed about these guys because of what I read about their LIVEs , not a few seconds on a podium . Bless their hearts . Unfortuntely they took a format that allowed their message to appear shallow because of the way it was reported . Plus people see sport as a diffent avenue then some of us here obviously have stated . Its not a right or wrong aspect of viewing sports its just the way it is .
Posted by: politicsmakeusthisway | August 5, 2008 2:12 AM
Nice guy and especially Politcs... made excellent points: it's the lives they lived, not what they did during the medal ceremony that reveals their character.
Nothing I said about their behavior at the Games should be construed as detracting from their character. I am delighted to hear that their lives have been worthy of note.
Heaven knows I don't want to be judged on the basis of the mistakes I made in my youth, and I won't do that to them--or anyone else--either.
Peace to all.
Posted by: david of fox lake | August 5, 2008 11:04 AM
nice guy/Mod'lad: "Let's just all moch the Olympics and make a sham of it - I mean - any pulpit will do - correct?"
This is something you do a lot. Someone takes the time and trouble to frame a response because they're interested in dialoguing with you. You get huffy and ridicule them by caricaturing what they're saying in the most ridiculous terms possible. I don't know if you think it's funny, or if you think that means you've trumped them, or if it's just a childish tantrum because you can't stand disagreement.
Suppose I responded to your points with "o.k. nice guy. Let's just all go to Beijing and have all the athletes from around the world kiss the president of China's feet and beg to be made citizens of China. No athlete can take her Bible or her copy of the Koran or whatever holy scripture to the Olympics because that might make the Chinese mad. And no crosses on necklaces can be worn by athletes at all, even when they're not competing. In fact, every athlete should just say that he or she is an atheist so the Chinese government and people won't be upset."
Would you take me seriously? Would you regard me as someone truly interested in your point of view? Make good choices indeed.
Posted by: carl copas | August 5, 2008 11:42 AM
"What do you want me to say -
Goose and Gander, Level Ground?
I will just say..."
I don't even know what you're talking about. In 2 short paragraphs you move from the Olympics to charity marches to No-Nukes to "the Camden people" (whoever they are) to abortion clinic bombings. The connections are clearly obvious to you but they aren't to me.
"It is silly and stupid and some get it."
And I don't.
Posted by: carl copas | August 5, 2008 12:05 PM
Nice guy, that explanation helps. And good luck to your 8th grader.
One thought: I hope that we all understand the Chinese government is not hosting the Olympics because of an unsullied and pure love of sport. This is intended to be a showcase for the successful Communist leadership of a new, prosperous, 21st century China.
And surely we all have been reading and hearing about how the government has been using the Olympics as an excuse to crack down on its "enemies," including Chinese Christians.
That doesn't automatically mean that the critics of protest actions, like Nice Guy and Frankie, are wrong. But it's not hard to see that, for the regime in power, the Olympics are very very political indeed.
Posted by: carl copas | August 5, 2008 3:24 PM
Wow! Now it's here, now it's gone.
I'm glad I got to read the explanation by Nice Guy. Now I wish I'd copied it, too.
What gives? I found nothing offensive in the post, and what good is a forum, if there's no difference of opinion expressed?
Peace to all
Posted by: david of fox lake | August 5, 2008 6:25 PM
Ironic, eh? We're all blogging about people should be allowed to protest in a country that doesn't offer freedom of speech -- yet here where we're free to speak -- there is still censorship.
If you're going to bat for the oppressed, try to love the Chinese people over the next couple of weeks -- you'll get a better look at them then we've been able to see in a long, long time.
Posted by: frankie | August 6, 2008 10:47 AM
Posted by: I and I | August 6, 2008 10:30 AM
No "martyrdom"
Just seems to be selective in who is allowed to speak out and on what topic.
I will try again under another - handle -
blessings and make good choices -
.
Posted by: Anonymous | August 6, 2008 1:21 PM
'big guy' mentioned "human rights record", and I immediately thought of Chicago's bid to host the 2016 Olympics. That's the same city that was named the most repressive of civil rights among all cities in the US. Those of us who live nearby also recognize it--and the county and state it's in--as being a showcase for just about every real and imaginable form of government corruption. What a place to hold the Olympics!!
Let the US show its BEST side to the world, eh?
Peace to all.
Posted by: david of fox lake | August 7, 2008 11:38 AM
David, it's not 1960 any more. Chicago is not the most repressive nor the most corrupt. I live in Michigan and Detroit beats most cities hands down on both counts. In fact, the mayor just went to jail today.
Posted by: I and I | August 7, 2008 5:45 PM
I and I: I NOTICED that about Detroit's 'Mayor under indictment'. The Feds haven't caught up with Daley, and probably won't, since everybody up to and including those who report directly to him will take the fall. However, the report was just out this week about Chicago...let's see...who said it, and what did they say? Oh, it's about 'nanny-state' cities, and Chicago topped the list.
This was a bit hard to find, but here it is: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-chicago-sin-perspective,0,1437711.story
The op-ed was in the Trib, but the article it's based on is in the Sep/Oct issue of Reason, the Libertarian magazine.
As for the corruption*, there does seem to be a bit of competition out there, but Chicago, Cook County, and Springfield is a tough set of acts to beat.
*More than simply taking money for favors. It is properly understood as the difference between government doing what it does, and government doing what it should.
Peace to all.
Posted by: david of fox lake | August 7, 2008 9:53 PM
I assumed by "repressive of civil rights" you meant police brutality, obstruction of justice, housing discrimination, etc. Instead, you were apparently referring to the city's ban on fois gras and its restrictions on smoking in public places. I'm not going to indulge in your libertarian "whine list," especially in light of the very real repression going on in China and (now relevant to the Olympics) Darfur. Shame on you for equating these. (Don't bother responding--this thread is now under the radar and I won't be checking it further.)
Posted by: I and I | August 8, 2008 5:30 PM
Come now, I and I: You can do as you choose, and I appreciate the warning, I guess, but to practice hit-n-run in a forum hardly demonstrates good sportsmanship.
No sane person would equate the petty pranks of Chicago's city council with the atrocities of Darfur and the brutal tactics of China--and I'm pretty sane. I am also given to using a bit of dry humor, now and then.
In this case, I had previously only seen the headline regarding Chicago. It called to mind Daley's goon-squad tactics and, yes, police brutality, housing discrimination, and obstruction of justice, Chicago-style. (The Feds probably have more active investigations of corruption in Chicago city government, than they have anywhere else.) And I probably should have mentioned my embarrassment at discovering that the underlying story was a "Libertarian whine list", as you correctly called it.
Shame on me? Hardly.
Within the context of our Constitution and the laws of the nation, Chicago is a pretty corrupt place: "The City that works" you over.
Peace to all.
Posted by: david of fox lake | August 9, 2008 6:59 AM
Post a Comment
Are you aware of our Rules of Conduct?