Armstronglivs wrote:
The protests in American cities throughout the year - the biggest since 1968 - were about what?
Things can get better without still being where we would like them to be.
Armstronglivs wrote:
The protests in American cities throughout the year - the biggest since 1968 - were about what?
Things can get better without still being where we would like them to be.
The Shaler Flash wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
The protests in American cities throughout the year - the biggest since 1968 - were about what?
You know exactly what the protests were about. And no matter how much you exaggerate and spin it, it still won't even come close to equating societal conditions in 1968 to societal conditions in 2020.
What we DO know is that your posts are always uninformed and obsessive, no matter what calendar year it is.
And thousands of Americans are still protesting about racism in 2020, just as they did in 1968. Because of the way people like you think.
POW wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
The protests in American cities throughout the year - the biggest since 1968 - were about what?
Things can get better without still being where we would like them to be.
Thousands of Americans don't appear to agree with you - or they wouldn't have taken to the streets.
It's an interesting point and Abrahamson (who I often disagree with) is right to point out that the US position is incredibly self-centered and "moment of time" specific to the US.
Let's separate protests into two kinds:-
1. Protests about your own country.
2. Protests about another country.
The US is entirely focused on athlete's potentially protesting about inequality in the US. It's therefore not a particularly magnanimous gesture to allow your own athletes to protest against you. Although obviously there are incidents in certain regimes where the government would strongly object to that criticism - Feyisa Lilesa's protest being the most obvious recent example.
By doing so, they're opening up the ability for their athletes to protest about inequalities in other countries. You could argue that the need to highlight these atrocities is far more important than just sport.
Except that's counter to one of the most fundamental principles of the modern games - that *despite* the fact that nations disagree and war with each other - they are able to put those differences to bed and come together for a sporting festival.
This has led to what can be viewed as atrocities, such as the Nazis hosting the games and seeking to glorify their regime.
If the Olympics are used as a stick to beat regimes (and the US are encouraging their athletes to do so), they may decide not to turn up.
It'll be interesting to see the US view if athletes from other countries start criticizing the US...
Hobbling wrote:
It's an interesting point and Abrahamson (who I often disagree with) is right to point out that the US position is incredibly self-centered and "moment of time" specific to the US.
Let's separate protests into two kinds:-
1. Protests about your own country.
2. Protests about another country.
The US is entirely focused on athlete's potentially protesting about inequality in the US. It's therefore not a particularly magnanimous gesture to allow your own athletes to protest against you. Although obviously there are incidents in certain regimes where the government would strongly object to that criticism - Feyisa Lilesa's protest being the most obvious recent example.
By doing so, they're opening up the ability for their athletes to protest about inequalities in other countries. You could argue that the need to highlight these atrocities is far more important than just sport.
Except that's counter to one of the most fundamental principles of the modern games - that *despite* the fact that nations disagree and war with each other - they are able to put those differences to bed and come together for a sporting festival.
This has led to what can be viewed as atrocities, such as the Nazis hosting the games and seeking to glorify their regime.
If the Olympics are used as a stick to beat regimes (and the US are encouraging their athletes to do so), they may decide not to turn up.
It'll be interesting to see the US view if athletes from other countries start criticizing the US...
Sports aren't separate from politics - and I don't simply mean that in the sense that they can be used to advance a particular agenda - but in the way they are used to represent higher values of community, international goodwill and fair play.
We have seen that when nations have attempted to exploit the sporting arena to promote their image (as the Nazis did) there have been consequences when they have acted in ways which are seen as an affront to principles of international community. The 1980 Moscow Games boycott arising from the Soviet invasion of Adghanistan in 1979 was an example. So was the African boycott of Montreal in 1976 because of the presence of nations that had continued to maintain sporting contact with the apartheid regime in Sputh Africa.
The protests by athletes at the 1968 Olympiad was hugely controversial in that the international sporting arena was used by US athletes (Smith and Carlos) to protest against their own country. It was seen by many Americans as traitorous. Yet today we see that protests originating in the US against racial injustices have been adopted by sports competitors of every kind of code all around the world. The protests are themselves showing that we are a global community, and that sports are an inextricable part of that community.
Countries may share similar problems, and thus relate to protests in other countries, but with the nature of the modern media the experiences of individuals in any country can evoke a global response. We have all become neighbours electronically. The glue that draws us together is our common humanity. Protests remind us of this.
Protest in 2020 are about looking for a dopamine rush from likes and retweets.
In track, one can stage an isolated protest without really imperiling the earnings of others (if they all start protesting and people start tuning out, that changes the game). In team sports, it is a completely different ballgame. Protesting in a team sport causes damage to much more than just the one individual. If people start tuning out on a team because of the actions of a few individuals, it affects the earnings of all the athletes, owners and employees. The reason a guy like Kaepernick or Reid is not in the NFL is because they had a negative impact on revenue. Words and actions that have consequences, not just for the individuals, but for entire organizations really do not belong in the work place. Daryl Morey's tweet cost the NBA $250 million. Words and actions are powerful and can cause great harm when used carelessly in the workplace.