Students Want "Black Power" Statue

[n567]

Sure Crazy. I want the facts, not the liberal bleeding heart, socialist, hate-america revisonist history that you and your lover n567 tend to puke out. Give me the REAL facts, not the made up ones.

Whatever. Why don't you present some real facts, rather than slandering our character, Watchman! Don't be a hypocrite now!

The good portion of Americans were proud for them because they won medals. It was only when they gave the "black power" salute on national tv made popular by the Black Panthers that people started treating them for the racists that they were. FWIW,they did that of their own free will, nobody forced them to do it and to tell you the truth, it was pretty selfish of them to do it,although I dont expect either of you to understand that.

Well, maybe if they had been treated like real human beings, they wouldn't have felt a need to be "selfish."

[CinaC]

quote:

---

Why don't you present some real facts, rather than slandering our character, Watchman!

---

You should know better, n567. Especially in this case. What I love is how he calls us anti-American, when he's the one bragging about how many US troops he could've killed if he'd gone all guerilla. Hah.

Retired,

And why should international attention not be brought onto the policies of segregation which for so long divided this nation?

quote:

---

Their country thought enough of the two to have them represent America at the Olympics.

---

But it didn't think highly of them to allow them to drink at white water fountains.

Or eat in white restaraunts.

Or be treated as anything but second-rate citizens.

Wasn't it Thomas Jefferson who said that the tree of liberty must be refreshed with the blood of patriots?

[ 05-17-2003, 02:13 AM: Message edited by: CrazyinaJeep ]

[Mike Tx]

What is not true, that you apparently can't understand is the part where he said non - whites started the civil rights movement. Technically it's true but it was started by black people, not other non white groups.

As far as to the "don't drink here" and the "don't eat here" stuff, theres lots's of people I'd be happy to oblige on that.

[ 05-17-2003, 06:08 AM: Message edited by: Mike Tx ]

[retired]

CIAJ,

quote:

---

Originally posted by CrazyinaJeep:

quote:

---

Why don't you present some real facts, rather than slandering our character, Watchman!

---

You should know better, n567. Especially in this case. What I love is how he calls us anti-American, when he's the one bragging about how many US troops he could've killed if he'd gone all guerilla. Hah.

Retired,

And why should international attention not be brought onto the policies of segregation which for so long divided this nation?

quote:

---

Their country thought enough of the two to have them represent America at the Olympics.

---

But it didn't think highly of them to allow them to drink at white water fountains.

Or eat in white restaraunts.

Or be treated as anything but second-rate citizens.

Wasn't it Thomas Jefferson who said that the tree of liberty must be refreshed with the blood of patriots?

---

Why bring the international community into a domestic disagreement, or injustice? it wasn't their problem, it was ours.

The two who raised their fists did not grow up or live in the era when they cooudn't drink or eat at white fountains or white restaurants.

Why didn't they raise their fists for "Black equality" rather than "Black Power"? It certainly makes one question their motives, doesn't it? And why didn't they express this feeling before the U.S. sent them to the Olympics? Why would they represent a country they were disatisfied with?

No CIAJ, I can't agree with their actions in this case. I am all for equality and fair treatment, but their actions didn't do anything for the country.

[n567]

Why bring the international community into a domestic disagreement, or injustice? it wasn't their problem, it was ours.

And allowing the international community to witness the problems might just spur domestic action.

By your logic, Retired, we should have stayed out of WW2 in regards to the holocaust because it was something Germany had to deal with on their own...

[retired]

n567

quote:

---

Originally posted by n567:
Why bring the international community into a domestic disagreement, or injustice? it wasn't their problem, it was ours.

And allowing the international community to witness the problems might just spur domestic action.

By your logic, Retired, we should have stayed out of WW2 in regards to the holocaust because it was something Germany had to deal with on their own...

---

The invasion and crimes by Hitler isn't a valid comparison to two athletes demonstrating against the policies their own country at the Olympic games. oranges and apples.

However, if you remember, we did let France fall to the Nazi's. We only got involved in WWII because Japan attacked us, not because there was a Holocaust.

[n567]

The invasion and crimes by Hitler isn't a valid comparison to two athletes demonstrating against the policies their own country at the Olympic games. oranges and apples.

I was only referring to the holocaust...

But I really don't understand why taking protest abroad is wrong, anything that sheds light upon your plight is good...

[retired]

n567,

quote:

---

Originally posted by n567:
The invasion and crimes by Hitler isn't a valid comparison to two athletes demonstrating against the policies their own country at the Olympic games. oranges and apples.

I was only referring to the holocaust...

But I really don't understand why taking protest abroad is wrong, anything that sheds light upon your plight is good...

---

I indicated that I thought it was inappropriate, just my opinion. It is my opinion that Mexico wasn't the venue for them to advocate "black power", which is what they did. And again, I have a problem with the power part of it. If it had been two white guys protesting in support of "white power" the fecal matter would hit the fan.

[n567]

quote:

---

Originally posted by retired:
n567,

quote:

---

Originally posted by n567:
The invasion and crimes by Hitler isn't a valid comparison to two athletes demonstrating against the policies their own country at the Olympic games. oranges and apples.

I was only referring to the holocaust...

But I really don't understand why taking protest abroad is wrong, anything that sheds light upon your plight is good...

---

I indicated that I thought it was inappropriate, just my opinion. It is my opinion that Mexico wasn't the venue for them to advocate "black power", which is what they did. And again, I have a problem with the power part of it. If it had been two white guys protesting in support of "white power" the fecal matter would hit the fan.

---

Well, these days I don't think race should be an issue in the least, but in 1965, I think I'd find it acceptable for blacks to be protesting...

[retired]

n567,

Protesting is different than advocating "Black power".

[Sparky]

The "black power" movement, and the civil rights movement were two related, but very different things.

[Duke]

Now we're arguing about the Holocaust. It appears the discussion has derailed.

In regards to the original posting, I don't have a problem with SJSU placing a student/donor -funded statue at their institution. The people in question are alumni, and the act was a significant moment in the Civil RIghts Movemement.

I don't agree with Tommie Smith and John Carlos, but I see their significance of their actions. In my opinion, SJSU is one of the more mediocre of California's publicly funded universities. Let them do what they want, as long as they don't waste taxpayer money doing so.

I'm disappointed that CIAJ would say things like:

quote:

---

Washington and Jefferson knew that their freedom couldn't be taken from the British without violence, and not everyone thinks the non-violent protest as advocated by Ghandi and King is the answer. I can't say I don't sympathize with oppressed peoples who use violence to attempt to right the wrongs of society.

---

or:

quote:

---

Wasn't it Thomas Jefferson who said that the tree of liberty must be refreshed with the blood of patriots?

---

I'm not known for getting into the fray, but oh well.

Firstly, I wouldn't be so bold as to compare two fist-waving athletes to George Washington or Thomas Jefferson (I'll shorten them to J/W, for brevity). Historically, I would say the latter two were incredibly more powerful in shaping and impacting our country.

Secondly, the battles (both figurative and literal) that J/W fought dwarfed those of the Civil Rights Movement. The American Revolution was fought to liberate a group of people from a tyrannical monarchy. This was at a time when no other mechanisms to redress these injustices existed (or were even marginally effective.) Any peaceful efforts at mitigating the colonies' plight were quashed outright.

Certainly, J/W both fought with moral compromise (one more so than the other.) Among other things, slavery was allowed to flourish, and women were not given even a modicum of human rights. That these injustices continued was a terrible wrong placed upon millions of people, and no excuse is sufficient.

Thirdly, Gandhi and MLK were proof that, in most instances, non-violent actions were much more effective than violent ones at defeating the actions of a repressive government. I base this statement on the premise that both of the governments in question had a prevailing democracy, and a certain freedom of the press. Certainly, anyone with a scant knowledge of history would acknowledge that the actions of MLK were more effective in securing equality for minorities, than those of all the militant civil rights groups combined.

To my knowledge, Smith and Carlos did not participate in any violence against the US government to achieve social change. In effect, they emulated a salute used by the Black Power movement, and (more specifically) the Black Panthers. The Panthers were active in the use of violence in an attempt to bring about socio-economic change. Consequently, Smith and Carlos were advocating the use of violence to bring about socio-economic change. If you want links to find out what a bunch of great people the Black Panthers were, I'm sure I could link some sites. In fact, go to the "Boycott Ben and Jerry's" link that's always on top find out more on one of their illustrious members. This association with the Panthers is what got people so ****ed at Smith and Carlos, not their half-assed imitation of "Black-Panther-Michael-Jackson." ( I always try to throw humour in with my tirades!)

Which brings me full-scale to my main point. I reject outright, the statement made by anyone in here who says he can sympathize with oppressed people who resort to violence. You have to be kidding me, right? You mean to say that you advocate persons using violence as a means of social change, in the United States, against our government?

If someone lives in Iran, North Korea, Cuba, etc. they would have some ground to stand on with that statement. They would have no means to grieve their government. If they did, it would be at great risk to more than their gold medals.

But the Civil Rights movement in the US (both then, and today) has ample means to address socio-economic change. For instance, freedom to peaceably assemble, freedom of the press, freedom of speech, etc. (I think I remember those phrases from somewhere ) Hell, sue the government, the cops, the president, everyone does now, anyway!

To endorse violence against a government such as ours is not only stupid, it's traiterous. And to use the statements of the founding fathers (yes I said fathers, deal with it!) in an attempt to solidify your belief is foolish. More to the point, it dillutes the actual meaning conveyed by the original statements.

[ 05-19-2003, 04:40 AM: Message edited by: Duke ]