View previous topic | View next topic

Is Argentinia's claim to the Falkland Islands colonialism?

Page 8 of 28
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 7, 8, 9 ... 26, 27, 28  Next

Starfish13
909968.  Thu May 17, 2012 2:00 pm Reply with quote

I think what is quite shocking to me is finding out just how openly racist a country Australia was back then, and how two-faced their anti-South Africa stance was at the time.

 
suze
909988.  Thu May 17, 2012 4:19 pm Reply with quote

CB27 wrote:
You have to remember that the idea that politics should not be involved is felt strongly by many people in the IOC, even if they are empathetic to the cause.


While this is true, the IOC of 1968 really wasn't very sympathetic to the black cause.

At that time, the President of the IOC was an American named Avery Brundage. Mr Brundage was a fascist, a notorious anti-Semite, and a notorious womanizer. There are far too many tales of dubious deeds involving Mr Brundage to repeat here, but he has pretty much ensured that never again will the President of the IOC not be a European.

Brundage directed the US Olympic Committee to expel Mr Carlos and Mr Smith from the team; it refused. He then threatened the entire American team with expulsion from the Games, a power he did not have, which led to the USOC sending the two out of Mexico on a Greyhound bus.

This is the same Avery Brundage who, when President of the USOC at the 1936 Olympics in Berlin, did not object to Nazi salutes.


Mr Carlos went on to NFL football, a place on a later US Olympic Committee, and an involvement with the Occupy Wall Street movement. Mr Smith too played NFL football, and then became a school teacher.

As for Mr Norman, he played semipro Aussie Rules for a few years, but then spent most of the rest of his life drinking. When the Olympics came to Sydney in 2000, he was present at the opening ceremony as a guest of the US Olympic Committee; he was the only living Australian Olympic medallist not invited by the Australian organizers.

 
CB27
909993.  Thu May 17, 2012 5:10 pm Reply with quote

I think we should be careful with thinking one person is representative of a whole organization. I am well aware of Avery Brundage because I went on wiki to check before my previous post on the subject, so I recognise where you picked up the above info :)

Anyway, back to the advertising saga, it seems Carlsberg have "angered" the Argentinians for insulting them with this advert: http://youtu.be/TZWGBmB8_jo

At about 1:05 there's a "blink and you'll miss it" moment which is what they're complaining about.

I would say it's cheeky, and maybe that second and a half is a bit OTT, but the advert is not for the team, or Government, it's for a product, and as such is using satire.

Or am I too biased on this?

 
suze
910003.  Thu May 17, 2012 5:54 pm Reply with quote

CB27 wrote:
I am well aware of Avery Brundage because I went on wiki to check before my previous post on the subject, so I recognise where you picked up the above info :)


Partly from there, certainly. But I also read a hatchet job biog of him a few years back; it wasn't quite as damning as Edward Gibbon's account of Pope John XXIII*, but getting that way.

Not, it has to be said, that every other head of a major sports body has been a paragon of virtue. One gets the impression that Sir Stanley Rous was at least as much of an asshole as Brundage, and I can't say a word about Sepp Blatter because he's still alive and has lawyers.


* "He was accused only of piracy, murder, rape, sodomy, and incest, the more serious charges being suppressed."

 
Starfish13
910004.  Thu May 17, 2012 6:04 pm Reply with quote

suze wrote:
As for Mr Norman, he played semipro Aussie Rules for a few years, but then spent most of the rest of his life drinking. When the Olympics came to Sydney in 2000, he was present at the opening ceremony as a guest of the US Olympic Committee; he was the only living Australian Olympic medallist not invited by the Australian organizers.


He gave qualifiying times for the Munich Olympics but was not selected, and the Australian Olympic committee elected not to send a men's athletic team that year. He changed sport to Aussie Rules after the continued snubbing, but after tearing his Achilles tendon he contracted gangerene and had to have his leg amputated, which as I can imagine had a contributary effect to his addiction to painkillers and alcohol. When he died a few years ago Carlos and Smith were pall bearers at his funeral.

 
nitwit02
910009.  Thu May 17, 2012 8:15 pm Reply with quote

Quote:
Edward Gibbon's account of Pope John XXIII*, but getting that way.


I was confused until I realised this was Antipope John XX111.

 
djgordy
910018.  Fri May 18, 2012 4:08 am Reply with quote

PDR wrote:
djgordy wrote:
There was an interview with John Carlos on R4 this morning. Mr. Carlos was one of the American athletes who gave the black power salute at the 1968 Olympics in Mexico. When asked about the charge of of bringing politics into sport he said exactly the same thing that I said above. If they don't want to bring politics into sport, why do they fly national flags and play national anthems? If the Olympics was about sport they woud play the Olympic anthem and fly the Olympic flag at medal ceremonies.


Which just goes to show that others are just as wrong as you are.

PDR


Oh dear, I now see that I am wrong to be seen as being in agreement with Mr. Carlos, an Olympic medallist who stood up for what is right in bringing to the world the truth about racism and oppression in America, a country that falsely prided itself on its mantra of freedom and equality, and who received almost universal condemnation for his principled act. From now on I will try and be more in agreement with PDR, a man who thinks that penguins can fly.

 
Neotenic
910020.  Fri May 18, 2012 4:28 am Reply with quote

Rosa Parks made a political statement by refusing to move from her seat, but that doesn't make riding the bus an inherantly political act.

 
Zebra57
910640.  Mon May 21, 2012 4:58 am Reply with quote

Hypothetically, if an Argentine athlete was to wear or display something linked to the Falkland Islands/Argentina dispute:

1. Could they be asked to remove it?
2. Who would have the authority to ask them?
3. If they refused could they be prevented from taking part or subsequently disqualified?

 
CB27
910696.  Mon May 21, 2012 8:45 am Reply with quote

I don't know what the rules are, but I'd hazard a guess that the British team will lodge a complaint and that the IOC will be forced to take action as it's against the spirit of the Olympics.

 
PDR
910699.  Mon May 21, 2012 8:50 am Reply with quote

There's a precedent in the way that the England footie team were asked to remove poppies from theur apparel last year.

PDR

 
suze
910734.  Mon May 21, 2012 11:09 am Reply with quote

Although they were eventually allowed to wear the poppies after both David Cameron and Prince William made stroppy comments in the direction of FIFA.

Mr Cameron also said that any player who chose to wear a poppy in defiance of FIFA would have his support, so he wouldn't have very much of a leg to stand on if Argentina pitched up wearing something that he didn't like.


In fact, the matter is covered by Rule 51 of the Olympic Charter, which states that "No kind of demonstration or political, religious or racial propaganda is permitted in any Olympic sites, venues or other areas". If past Games are taken as precedent, this rule appears not to apply to the host nation, but absolutely does apply to any form of protest against the host nation.

 
CB27
910769.  Mon May 21, 2012 2:46 pm Reply with quote

It reminds me that there was a bit of a protest from some Jewish groups that, despite Olympic and British members attending 40th memorial events for Munich, there was no official Olympic acknowledgement, and when I emailed to someone I thought that was the right idea because it was a political event, I was accused of disrespecting Jews.

I had to remind them who it was they were talking to :)

 
djgordy
910846.  Tue May 22, 2012 2:57 am Reply with quote

suze wrote:
Although they were eventually allowed to wear the poppies after both David Cameron and Prince William made stroppy comments in the direction of FIFA.

Mr Cameron also said that any player who chose to wear a poppy in defiance of FIFA would have his support, so he wouldn't have very much of a leg to stand on if Argentina pitched up wearing something that he didn't like.


I rather got the impression that what actually happened is that someone looked at the rules and realised that, although players couldn't wear the poppies on their shirts, they could wear them on arm bands so that is what happened. It had nothing to do with Cameron and Prinny getting stroppy nor, indeed, with FIFA backing down. It was just a case of reading the rule book.

 
suze
910966.  Tue May 22, 2012 10:31 am Reply with quote

That is how FIFA tried to spin it - it would have you believe that poppies on armbands would always have been allowed, but that poppies on shirts were not and are not.

Not so, though - it was a concession from FIFA which allowed the poppies to be worn on armbands, after it had initially said that they would not be allowed at all. Whether that concession was made because of or in spite of the letters from Mr Cameron and Prince William, who can say.

 

Page 8 of 28
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 7, 8, 9 ... 26, 27, 28  Next

All times are GMT - 5 Hours


Display posts from previous:   

Search Search Forums

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group