Monday, April 21, 2008

Black Panther Salute, 1968 Olympics: An Introduction by Mary C. Palmer

Any discussion about history must also include the manner in which history manifests itself in popular culture. It is only appropriate that this extend to the arena of sports. From local to international events, sports are often shrouded with political controversy. It is not surprising, therefore that the Olympics are often a spectacle of not only international athletic competition, but international politics as well. As Richard Stevenson said in his August 29, 2002 article in the New York Times,

“It has been a long time since anyone believed that the Olympics operated without regard to international politics. Whether it was Jesse Owens showing up Hitler at the 1936 Games in Berlin or Palestinian terrorists killing 11 Israelis in Munich in 1972 or the United States boycotting the Games in Moscow in 1980 after the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan, the Olympics have been inextricably and uncomfortably linked with bigger issues.”

The most notable Olympic protests were those of 1936 in Berlin, 1968 in Mexico City, 1972 in Munich, 1980 in Moscow, and 1984 in Los Angeles.

The 1960s were by no means the beginning of the civil rights movement. Since emancipation a battle has been waged for equal rights. The 1960s did however mark a decidedly different approach to the movement. The spotlight that illuminated this struggle was elevated to new heights in the year 1968. The King assassination, the urban riots, and the Kennedy assassination were all widely televised and representative of the chaos that was America that year. Inevitably, that year’s Olympic competition would not be able to elude the frenzy of American politics. NPR reflected on this event,

“The Black Power demonstration on top of the victory stand in Mexico City in 1968 by several African-American athletes was one of the great political moments in the history of the Olympic movement," Hoberman says. "This was a way of saying, at the end of the 1960s ... that the African-Americans had had enough of domestic racism and that here was an opportunity to express their feelings about that.”

Welcome to our exploration of the events that we now refer to as history: the 1968 Olympics.

Note: Ironically, while this site was being constructed, another Olympic protest story emerged in the news: the potential protest of the 2008 Beijing Olympics. Included on the link page are several articles of relevance about where athletes and companies stand on the issue of the upcoming 2008 Beijing Olympics.

Before the Olympics: A Look at the Civil Rights Movement and the Divergence of its Activists by Mary C. Palmer

The image of Tommie Smith and John Carlos with black-gloved clad fists held high in the Black Power salute caught the world by storm. For some, it was a moment of immense pride, for others, one of great distress and confusion. To understand why this display was so provocative one needs to examine the previous decade of the civil rights movement and the events that led up to the year 1968.

There was a community within the black protest movement between 1945 and 1960. Veterans who returned from WWII demanded rights inspired the workers of the 1950s who led in working within the system to alter and create legislation that would achieve these goals. The NAACP Youth Group in Greensboro that was sparked by Ella Baker in 1943 gave birth to the sit-in movement. The Student Non-Violent Coordination Committee (SNCC) led in bus boycotts and in the struggle for voting rights. Landmark victories such as Brown v. the Board of Education finally deemed segregated schools unconstitutional. Various combinations of community organizing, publicity, and court case victories gave Blacks at the time a reason to be optimistic, however that optimism began to deteriorate.

Eisenhower’s failure to follow through on enforcement of Brown and other civil rights measures stemmed from his conviction that the federal government should remain passive on controversial social issues or local affairs and his desire to leave the southern political system unaltered. His inaction encouraged white resistance. This resistance began more as inaction; the failure to enforce the new legislation. Unfortunately, it grew into aggressive attacks on Blacks who attempted to exercise their rights.

When Kennedy took office he was obsessed with international politics and the image of heroism. Though he founded the peace corps and nasa, he invested little energy or time in domestic policy, especially civil rights. Robert Kennedy’s respect for law enforcement made him more sympathetic to civil rights issues, especially when it concerned legislation that was blatantly ignored. It was not until 1963 that he finally heard the message about civil rights and decided to act. The confrontation in Alabama when peaceful demonstrators were met by violent mobs, police men, dogs, and water hoses was nationally televised. John f Kennedy attempted to contact every business and city official to place pressure on them to resolve the issue in Birmingham. When that was unsuccessful, he initiated a federal response and made a public denouncement of the situation. For the first time of his administration, he aligned himself publicly with civil rights activists. Kennedy’s successor, Lyndon B. Johnson managed to pass the Civil Rights Act in 1964, yet his egomania and quest for dominance made him ineffective in office and aliened the American public. What many Americans regarded as the deception of Vietnam did not aide in creating a sense of faith in America’s leaders.

As though the failure of political leaders were not enough. The unity of the movement began to deteriorate. In the years that led up to the aforementioned events there was a belief in “the essential goodness of American society and (the belief that) change would come quickly once white people acknowledged the error of their ways.” The difference in opinion over leadership (should it be centralized or disbursed amongst student leaders) was there from the beginning, but the contentions regarding the receipt of money and the compromise involved in that created an even larger gap. Funds earmarked for students would, at times, not reach their destination. At times, funds would be contingent on certain conditions. For example, the American Federation of Labor decided to contribute to a SNCC conference, but only if Bayard Rustin, considered to be “too left” was excluded from the event. Martin Luther King’s speech during the March on Washington had to be greatly modified for the same reason. As though differences regarding leadership and money were not enough, the failed promises of political leaders also were a factor; most notably, Robert Kennedy’s failure to provide federal protection of voter registration that he promised in exchange for SNCC’s agreement to pursue voter rights within the means of the “system”. A schism amongst Black activists was inevitable.

The most monumental event that lent itself to this division occurred in 1964. The Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party (MFDP) was formed to represent Blacks in the areas of Mississippi and Alabama where White resistance was most fierce. At the Democratic National Convention LBJ’s supporters would only allow for two seats. Fannie Lou Hamer and others were outraged at this compromise. The following year the Lowndes County Freedom Organization in Alabama began to assert their independence from national civil rights groups. The slogan was born: “Black Power for Black People”. Black power proponents challenged their counterparts to fight for the transformation of living conditions that would apply to the masses rather than general civil rights such as voting. Malcolm X, Stokely Carmichael, Huey Newton, Bobby Seale, and others came to represent the leadership of this group of Black Americans who refused to continue to labor tirelessly for their cause only to met by failed promises and menial progress. They embraced a form of Black militancy that was not opposed to approaches that were outside of the traditional democratic system. After extreme disillusionment, they were willing to claim equal rights “by any means necessary.”

Harry Edwards and the Olympic Project for Human Rights by Mary C. Palmer

Months before the Olympic Games even began many Black athletes had decided not to attend the event. The organized boycott, named the Olympic Project for Human Rights was led by sociologist Harry Edwards. The movement began at his San Jose California home in September of 1967. The students were engaged in protests regarding inadequate housing and exclusion from various fraternities. The member athletes were resolved to protest their representation of the United States and potential victory on behalf of a country that failed to recognize their rights. Tommy Smith, one of the athletes, said “I’m not only willing to give up participating in Mexico City, but I’d give up my life if necessary to open a door or channel to reduce bigotry.”

The OPHR had three demands: Restore Muhammad Ali’s title (it was stripped when he refused the Vietnam draft in 1967), Remove Avery Brundage as head of the United States Olympic Committee (he was a notorious white supremacist), and Disinvite South Africa and Rhodesia (both were apartheid states). Only the third demand was met.

Previous to this game the United States was the center of the international stage. The Tet Offensive occurred in January, Martin Luther King was assassinated in April, and race riots broke out across the country, and Robert Kennedy was assassinated in June. The athletes ultimately decided they would participate in the games, but they did not relent on the struggle entirely.

Tommie Smith and John Carlos both competed in the 200 meter event. Tommie Smith took the gold and Carlos took the bronze. When it came time to play the national anthem both stood with heads bowed, bare feet (in protest of poverty), beads (to protest lynching) and fists donned in black gloves raised in the air representative of Black power. Within hours Carlos and Smith were both expelled and stripped of their medals.

“At a press conference following the event, Tommie Smith said: “If I win I am an American, not a black American. But if I did something bad then they would say 'a Negro'. We are black and we are proud of being black... Black America will understand what we did tonight." He said that he had raised his right fist to represent black power in the US, whilst Carlos had raised his left fist to represent black unity. Together, they intended to form an arch of unity and power. In the September of the previous year, Smith told reporters that black members of the American Olympic team were considering a total boycott of the 1968 games. "It is very discouraging to be in a team with white athletes. On the track you are Tommie Smith, the fastest man in the world, but once you are in the dressing rooms you are nothing more than a dirty Negro."

Olympic Committee Reaction by Nicole Morales

The Black Power Salute of the 1968 Olympics was deemed “unfit” for the international forum the Olympic Games were supposed to be. Rather, the salute done by Smith and Carlos was viewed by the International Olympic Committee Chairman, Avery Brundage, as a domestic political issue not appropriate for the setting. IOC Chairman Brundage suspended Carlos and Smith from the U.S. team and banned them all together from the Olympic Village. The U.S. Olympic committee initially refused to suspend Carlos and Smith, but the IOC chairman then threatened to ban the entire U.S. team. This eventually lead to both runners being expelled from the Games.

The Aftermath by Nicole Morales

After Smith had set a world record in the games, his explanation of why he and Carlos had taken the stand on the Olympic medal stand was, “If I win, I am an American, not a black American… But if I did something bad, then they would say I am a Negro. We are black and we are proud of being black. Black America will understand what we did tonight.”

After the Black Power Salute of the Olympics, Smith’s family also endured issues. They had a rock thrown through their house window. Both Smith and Carlos’ families reportedly received death threats.

Peter Norman, the then 26 year-old Australian Olympic team member was a PE teacher who is said to have been responsible for the lopsided look on the podium during the protest. It was reported that Carlos forgot his pair of black gloves, but Norman suggested that they share Smith’s pair. This led to the U.S. team members holding up one right and one left arm each on the podium. Norman was heavily ostracized in his native country due to his involvement in the protest. While he didn’t physically protest in this silent attempt, he did wear the patch for the Olympic Project for Human Rights (OPHR). In an attempt to show solidarity on the stand during the silent protest, Norman, who hadn’t had on the OPHR patch on initially, ran into the stand to grab a patch off of a supporter to wear on the medal stand.

Later, the Los Angeles Times described the salute by Carlos and Smith as a “Nazi-like support”. Time magazine also ran a picture of the Olympic symbol which has a motto of “Faster, Higher, Stronger” and they replaced the motto on the symbol with the words “Angrier, Nastier, Uglier”. The magazine article even called their protest “petty”. These two reports were evidence that the silent protest was not viewed by the media as appropriate for the event, even if the attention was much needed.

Many U.S. athletes, especially African Americans were very upset by the decision of the Olympic Committee to expel Carlos and Smith from the games. Some expressed support for actions. Mohammed Ali described the event as "the single most courageous act of this century.” And Wyomia Tyus, anchor of the U.S. women's gold-medal winning 4x100 meter relay team, dedicated the team's victory to Smith and Carlos.

On the other end of the scale, what was described as the harshest rebuke came from their fellow Olympian George Foreman, who upon winning the gold medal, waived a miniature American flag and bowed to the Mexico City audience. This act was viewed as opposition and unsupportive of the actions of Smith and Carlos.

Where are They Now? by Nicole Morales

After an initial ostracization of Smith and Carlos by the U.S. sporting establishment, they both made attempts and continued to be involved in athletics in many ways.

Smith played football for the Cincinnati Bengals. Prior to that he became an assistant professor of Physical Education at Oberlin College. He helped coach the U.S. team at the 1995 World Indoor Championships in Barcelona and in 1999 he was awarded a Sportsman of the Millennium award. Today, he is a public speaker.

Carlos continued to be active in sports as well. The year after being expelled from the Mexico City games, he equaled the world record in the 100m race. He also played football, but for the Philadelphia Eagles. A knee injury ended his career earlier than expected. In 1982 the Organizing Committee for the 1984 Summer Olympics in Los Angeles hired Carlos to promote the games and to serve as a liaison with the African American community in Los Angeles. He became a track and field coach at a Palm Springs school in 1985 and still holds that position today.

Australian Olympic team member, Norman was reprimanded by his country’s Olympic authorities and was ostracized by the Australian media. During the trials for the 1972 Olympics, Norman finished third in his trials, but sadly was not picked for the Olympic Games. Despite this, Norman kept running, but in 1985 tore his Achilles tendon and contracted gangrene which almost led to the amputation of his leg. After this, it was reported that he fell into depression and began drinking heavily. Norman died on October 3, 2006. Smith and Carlos were pallbearers at Norman’s funeral.