1. thedapperproject:

    Photographer Mattias Klum from National Geographic

    (Source: hopeful-melancholy, via crookedinspiration)

     
  2. descentintotyranny:

Murtaza Hussain — Malala and Nabila: worlds apart
Unlike Malala Yousafzai, Nabila Rehman did not receive a welcoming greeting in Washington DC.
Nov. 1 2013
On October 24, 2012 a Predator drone flying over North Waziristan came upon eight-year old Nabila Rehman, her siblings, and their grandmother as they worked in a field beside their village home. Her grandmother, Momina Bibi, was teaching the children how to pick okra as the family prepared for the coming Eid holiday. However on this day the terrible event would occur that would forever alter the course of this family’s life. In the sky the children suddenly heard the distinctive buzzing sound emitted by the CIA-operated drones - a familiar sound to those in the rural Pakistani villages which are stalked by them 24 hours a day - followed by two loud clicks. The unmanned aircraft released its deadly payload onto the Rehman family, and in an instant the lives of these children were transformed into a nightmare of pain, confusion and terror. Seven children were wounded, and Nabila’s grandmother was killed before her eyes, an act for which no apology, explanation or justification has ever been given.
This past week Nabila, her schoolteacher father, and her 12-year-old brother travelled to Washington DC to tell their story and to seek answers about the events of that day. However, despite overcoming incredible obstacles in order to travel from their remote village to the United States, Nabila and her family were roundly ignored. At the Congressional hearing where they gave testimony, only five out of 430 representatives showed up. In the words of Nabila’s father to those few who did attend: "My daughter does not have the face of a terrorist and neither did my mother. It just doesn’t make sense to me, why this happened… as a teacher, I wanted to educate Americans and let them know my children have been injured."
The translator broke down in tears while recounting their story, but the government made it a point to snub this family and ignore the tragedy it had caused to them. Nabila, a slight girl of nine with striking hazel eyes, asked a simple question in her testimony: “What did my grandmother do wrong?” There was no one to answer this question, and few who cared to even listen. Symbolic of the utter contempt in which the government holds the people it claims to be liberating, while the Rehmans recounted their plight, Barack Obama was spending the same time meeting with the CEO of weapons manufacturer Lockheed Martin.
Selective Memory
It is useful to contrast the American response to Nabila Rehman with that of Malala Yousafzai, a young girl who was nearly assassinated by the Pakistani Taliban. While Malala was feted by Western media figures, politicians and civic leaders for her heroism, Nabila has become simply another one of the millions of nameless, faceless people who have had their lives destroyed over the past decade of American wars. The reason for this glaring discrepancy is obvious. Since Malala was a victim of the Taliban, she, despite her protestations, was seen as a potential tool of political propaganda to be utilized by war advocates. She could be used as the human face of their effort, a symbol of the purported decency of their cause, the type of little girl on behalf of whom the United States and its allies can say they have been unleashing such incredible bloodshed. Tellingly, many of those who took up her name and image as a symbol of the justness of American military action in the Muslim world did not even care enough to listen to her own words or feelings about the subject.
As described by the Washington Post's Max Fisher:

Western fawning over Malala has become less about her efforts to improve conditions for girls in Pakistan, or certainly about the struggles of millions of girls in Pakistan, and more about our own desire to make ourselves feel warm and fuzzy with a celebrity and an easy message. It’s a way of letting ourselves off the hook, convincing ourselves that it’s simple matter of good guys vs bad guys, that we’re on the right side and that everything is okay.

But where does Nabila fit into this picture? If extrajudicial killings, drone strikes and torture are in fact all part of a just-cause associated with the liberation of the people of Pakistan, Afghanistan and elsewhere, where is the sympathy or even simple recognition for the devastation this war has caused to countless little girls such as her? The answer is clear: The only people to be recognized for their suffering in this conflict are those who fall victim to the enemy. Malala for her struggles was to be made the face of the American war effort -  against her own will if necessary - while innumerable little girls such as Nabila will continue to be terrorized and murdered as part of this war without end. There will be no celebrity appearances or awards ceremonies for Nabila. At her testimony almost no one even bothered to attend.
But if they had attended, they would’ve heard a nine year old girl asking the questions which millions of other innocent people who have had their lives thrown into chaos over the past decade have been asking: "When I hear that they are going after people who have done wrong to America, then what have I done wrong to them? What did my grandmother do wrong to them? I didn’t do anything wrong."
Murtaza Hussain is a Toronto-based writer and analyst focused on issues related to Middle Eastern politics.
Follow him on Twitter: @MazMHussain

    descentintotyranny:

    Murtaza Hussain — Malala and Nabila: worlds apart

    Unlike Malala Yousafzai, Nabila Rehman did not receive a welcoming greeting in Washington DC.

    Nov. 1 2013

    On October 24, 2012 a Predator drone flying over North Waziristan came upon eight-year old Nabila Rehman, her siblings, and their grandmother as they worked in a field beside their village home. Her grandmother, Momina Bibi, was teaching the children how to pick okra as the family prepared for the coming Eid holiday. However on this day the terrible event would occur that would forever alter the course of this family’s life. In the sky the children suddenly heard the distinctive buzzing sound emitted by the CIA-operated drones - a familiar sound to those in the rural Pakistani villages which are stalked by them 24 hours a day - followed by two loud clicks. The unmanned aircraft released its deadly payload onto the Rehman family, and in an instant the lives of these children were transformed into a nightmare of pain, confusion and terror. Seven children were wounded, and Nabila’s grandmother was killed before her eyes, an act for which no apology, explanation or justification has ever been given.

    This past week Nabila, her schoolteacher father, and her 12-year-old brother travelled to Washington DC to tell their story and to seek answers about the events of that day. However, despite overcoming incredible obstacles in order to travel from their remote village to the United States, Nabila and her family were roundly ignored. At the Congressional hearing where they gave testimony, only five out of 430 representatives showed up. In the words of Nabila’s father to those few who did attend"My daughter does not have the face of a terrorist and neither did my mother. It just doesn’t make sense to me, why this happened… as a teacher, I wanted to educate Americans and let them know my children have been injured."

    The translator broke down in tears while recounting their story, but the government made it a point to snub this family and ignore the tragedy it had caused to them. Nabila, a slight girl of nine with striking hazel eyes, asked a simple question in her testimony: “What did my grandmother do wrong?” There was no one to answer this question, and few who cared to even listen. Symbolic of the utter contempt in which the government holds the people it claims to be liberating, while the Rehmans recounted their plight, Barack Obama was spending the same time meeting with the CEO of weapons manufacturer Lockheed Martin.

    Selective Memory

    It is useful to contrast the American response to Nabila Rehman with that of Malala Yousafzai, a young girl who was nearly assassinated by the Pakistani Taliban. While Malala was feted by Western media figures, politicians and civic leaders for her heroism, Nabila has become simply another one of the millions of nameless, faceless people who have had their lives destroyed over the past decade of American wars. The reason for this glaring discrepancy is obvious. Since Malala was a victim of the Taliban, she, despite her protestations, was seen as a potential tool of political propaganda to be utilized by war advocates. She could be used as the human face of their effort, a symbol of the purported decency of their cause, the type of little girl on behalf of whom the United States and its allies can say they have been unleashing such incredible bloodshed. Tellingly, many of those who took up her name and image as a symbol of the justness of American military action in the Muslim world did not even care enough to listen to her own words or feelings about the subject.

    As described by the Washington Post's Max Fisher:

    Western fawning over Malala has become less about her efforts to improve conditions for girls in Pakistan, or certainly about the struggles of millions of girls in Pakistan, and more about our own desire to make ourselves feel warm and fuzzy with a celebrity and an easy message. It’s a way of letting ourselves off the hook, convincing ourselves that it’s simple matter of good guys vs bad guys, that we’re on the right side and that everything is okay.

    But where does Nabila fit into this picture? If extrajudicial killings, drone strikes and torture are in fact all part of a just-cause associated with the liberation of the people of Pakistan, Afghanistan and elsewhere, where is the sympathy or even simple recognition for the devastation this war has caused to countless little girls such as her? The answer is clear: The only people to be recognized for their suffering in this conflict are those who fall victim to the enemy. Malala for her struggles was to be made the face of the American war effort -  against her own will if necessary - while innumerable little girls such as Nabila will continue to be terrorized and murdered as part of this war without end. There will be no celebrity appearances or awards ceremonies for Nabila. At her testimony almost no one even bothered to attend.

    But if they had attended, they would’ve heard a nine year old girl asking the questions which millions of other innocent people who have had their lives thrown into chaos over the past decade have been asking: "When I hear that they are going after people who have done wrong to America, then what have I done wrong to them? What did my grandmother do wrong to them? I didn’t do anything wrong."

    Murtaza Hussain is a Toronto-based writer and analyst focused on issues related to Middle Eastern politics.

    Follow him on Twitter: @MazMHussain

    (via ravingsofabitch)

     
  3. lastuli:

    Following the horrific news of the israeli settler running over and killing 5 year old Palestinian girl Enas Khalil and critically injuring Nilin Asfour near Sinjil, Ramallah, israeli blogger John Brown posted the following (translated by Sol Salbewhich I think is worth sharing

    On 26 July this year, Raed al Jabari, a 35-year-old a Palestinian father of five, was driving on Route 60. It appears as if he fell asleep at the wheel (having earlier taken painkillers). Near the Gush Etzion Junction he hit a woman standing on the road. The woman was slightly injured. Immediately afterwards he veered sharply back onto the road, and at the next junction turned himself to an IDF unit. There he explained what is outlined above.

    Al Jabri was immediately arrested and taken to the Ofer military detention centre. He was brought to the military court within the complex, where in light of these facts, the military judge released him on a NIS 8000 bail, having decided that he was not dangerous and his action wasn’t a deliberate terrorist act. But those were the days of Operation Protective Edge, and under the cover of the fighting in Gaza, the IDF greatly intensified repression on the West Bank. Without any additional evidence the Military Advocate-General decided not to release him and Al Jabari became a “security prisoner”.

    On September 9, he was transferred to the Eshel Prison in Beersheba, in flagrant violation of international law prohibiting the imprisonment of residents of a militarily occupied area outside the occupation zone. According to witness accounts, he refused to get out of the vehicle, but was beaten and eventually got out. A few hours later the Israeli Prison Service (IPS) claimed that he has been found hanged in his cell. His family wasn’t informed of anything, and only after the case was reported in the media and rumours began to reach them, they contacted the IPS which at first claimed that they knew nothing of the matter, and then confirmed the details. The popular News portal Walla! reported: “the prisoner who committed suicide, a 37-year-old Palestinian from Hebron, was arrested two months ago during Operation Brother’s Keeper on suspicion of security offences.”

    The finding of the Israeli Pathology’s autopsy report have not been published to this date. The Palestinian doctor who was present has been prevented by the court from publishing the results. He did, nevertheless, recommend an additional Palestinian autopsy. But I have been unable to get hold of even those results. However, following the autopsy, the Palestinian Minister for Prisoners was able to announce that there were no signs hanging on the body but on the other hand there were signs of violence.

    I don’t know which of the accounts is the accurate one, and for our purpose it does not matter. Either way this is a stuff-up by the IPS which followed a criminal abuse by the military regime of a person about whom it reasonable to assume that his crime was of a minor traffic accident, and that his death would be whitewashed using the usual means.

    This afternoon [Sunday 19 October] on the same road near the village of Sinjil, a settler from Yitzhar settlement ran over and killed 5-year-old Inas Shawkat Dar Khalil and fatally wounding 4-year-old Omar Asfour. He ran away and didn’t summon help. When he arrived iat the major settlement of Ofra he called the police.
    .
    The settler responsible for killing of a child and fatally wounding another, wasn’t arrested, he wasn’t not taken to a military detention centre, he wasn’t tried without evidence, he wasn’t beaten up, he wasn’t taken away from his family, and didn’t become a security prisoner. A Palestinian who slightly hit a woman had to endure all of these, and was killed because of them. If this is not Apartheid, I don’t know what is.

    (via tnali)

     
  4. fotojournalismus:

Palestinian Najah Abed al-Dayem, 50, holds a picture of her husband, who was killed during the most recent seven-week Israeli offensive, in Beit Lahiya town in the northern Gaza Strip on October 15, 2014. The woman lost her right eye when Israeli shelling hit the UN school where they took refuge. Her son Abed al-Dayem lost both of his legs in the same incident. (Mohammed Salem/Reuters)

    fotojournalismus:

    Palestinian Najah Abed al-Dayem, 50, holds a picture of her husband, who was killed during the most recent seven-week Israeli offensive, in Beit Lahiya town in the northern Gaza Strip on October 15, 2014. The woman lost her right eye when Israeli shelling hit the UN school where they took refuge. Her son Abed al-Dayem lost both of his legs in the same incident. (Mohammed Salem/Reuters)

    (via randomactsofchaos)

     
  5. If you asked any progressive voter “Would you like John Tory as Mayor?” they would scream no, but then you enter the Ford boogeyman and they turn themselves inside out. This narrative has happened no doubt because of Olivia Chow’s failure to attack Tory effectively for the past few months - but it mainly boils down to Doug Ford’s polling numbers. When Tory started out near the top of the polls back in June, he stayed there and now an important chunk of his support comes from downtowners who fear if they don’t vote Tory - they may just Nader themselves into another “Ford More Years”. Except there are some Ford sized holes in that logic. Somebody could win from a vote split, but that person was never Doug.
     
  6. Today is Racist Fuckery (10.20.14): At yesterday’s protest outside the St Louis Rams game, racist fans got rowdy and physical. Who got arrested? Two of the protesters, of course. Mike Brown means we have to fight back. #staywoke

    (Source: socialjusticekoolaid, via traumachu)

     
  7. allthecanadianpolitics:

Canadian military threatened soldier’s grieving parents with legal action

The Canadian military threatened the grieving parents of a soldier who committed suicide with legal sanctions if they did not turn over documents they had collected in their attempts to get to the bottom of their daughter’s death.
Both Rick and Ellen Rogers received a summons in July 2013 to testify at the military board of inquiry into the death of their daughter, Lt. Shawna Rogers, who had been stationed at CFB Edmonton.
The summons came after Rogers’ parents told the Canadian Forces they did not want to participate and requested that board of inquiry officials stop phoning them at their home in Sharon, Ont.
The summons required the couple to turn over all documents regarding their 27-year-old daughter’s medical health, as well as any electronic records documenting her correspondence and communication, particularly her cellphone records. The military board of inquiry (BOI) also demanded the couple turn over all documents outlining the formal complaints or grievances made by Lt. Rogers against the military.
The punishment for not complying is “less than two years” in jail, according to the National Defence Act.
The military only backed off when the couple’s Ottawa lawyer, Michel Drapeau, filed a court challenge arguing against the summons.
“The board of inquiry is a kangaroo court and we didn’t want any part of it,” Rick Rogers, a retired plumber, told the Citizen. “There’s no bigger hell than losing your daughter. We were grieving and they were kicking us while we were down.”

Continue Reading.

    allthecanadianpolitics:

    Canadian military threatened soldier’s grieving parents with legal action

    The Canadian military threatened the grieving parents of a soldier who committed suicide with legal sanctions if they did not turn over documents they had collected in their attempts to get to the bottom of their daughter’s death.

    Both Rick and Ellen Rogers received a summons in July 2013 to testify at the military board of inquiry into the death of their daughter, Lt. Shawna Rogers, who had been stationed at CFB Edmonton.

    The summons came after Rogers’ parents told the Canadian Forces they did not want to participate and requested that board of inquiry officials stop phoning them at their home in Sharon, Ont.

    The summons required the couple to turn over all documents regarding their 27-year-old daughter’s medical health, as well as any electronic records documenting her correspondence and communication, particularly her cellphone records. The military board of inquiry (BOI) also demanded the couple turn over all documents outlining the formal complaints or grievances made by Lt. Rogers against the military.

    The punishment for not complying is “less than two years” in jail, according to the National Defence Act.

    The military only backed off when the couple’s Ottawa lawyer, Michel Drapeau, filed a court challenge arguing against the summons.

    “The board of inquiry is a kangaroo court and we didn’t want any part of it,” Rick Rogers, a retired plumber, told the Citizen. “There’s no bigger hell than losing your daughter. We were grieving and they were kicking us while we were down.”

    Continue Reading.

     
  8. Oct. 20 5:03 pm

     
  9. postracialcomments:

    State Senator Jamilah Nasheed arrested by Ferguson PD

    10/20/14

    (via ghostsofrobespierre)

     
  10. (Source: jessehimself, via randomactsofchaos)

     
  11. allthecanadianpolitics:

Cyberbullying bill draws fire from diverse mix of critics

Justice Minister Peter MacKay probably expected to take some shots from the opposition over Bill C-13, colloquially known as the cyberbullying bill.
But he may not have been expecting to take so much friendly fire from his own base.
After all, it’s a rare piece of legislation that can unite groups as disparate as the Council of Canadians and the National Firearms Association. And yet the bill, which went to third reading 10 days ago, after the Conservative government voted to shorten time for debate, has done just that.
Sheldon Clare is president of the National Firearms Association, the country’s biggest gun owners’ organization and the same group that persuaded MacKay topose in a sweatshirt with its rifle logoa few weeks ago.
But if the minister thought his gesture would win the group over on Bill C-13, he was mistaken, says Clare.
"We think that this is probably the most draconian step towards police interference in people’s lives since George Orwell revealed the potential for it when he wrote 1984."
Clare says his organization’s members care about more than just gun rights. “We value privacy highly,” he said.
"I think this really enables a lot of fishing trips into people’s private lives, into their financial records and their personal situations, and this is not the thing that we want to have in a free and democratic society, and I hope the government will go back again, and re-evaluate what they’re doing, and completely rejig it to something that’s more appropriate for a free society."

Continue Reading.

    allthecanadianpolitics:

    Cyberbullying bill draws fire from diverse mix of critics

    Justice Minister Peter MacKay probably expected to take some shots from the opposition over Bill C-13, colloquially known as the cyberbullying bill.

    But he may not have been expecting to take so much friendly fire from his own base.

    After all, it’s a rare piece of legislation that can unite groups as disparate as the Council of Canadians and the National Firearms Association. And yet the bill, which went to third reading 10 days ago, after the Conservative government voted to shorten time for debate, has done just that.

    Sheldon Clare is president of the National Firearms Association, the country’s biggest gun owners’ organization and the same group that persuaded MacKay topose in a sweatshirt with its rifle logoa few weeks ago.

    But if the minister thought his gesture would win the group over on Bill C-13, he was mistaken, says Clare.

    "We think that this is probably the most draconian step towards police interference in people’s lives since George Orwell revealed the potential for it when he wrote 1984."

    Clare says his organization’s members care about more than just gun rights. “We value privacy highly,” he said.

    "I think this really enables a lot of fishing trips into people’s private lives, into their financial records and their personal situations, and this is not the thing that we want to have in a free and democratic society, and I hope the government will go back again, and re-evaluate what they’re doing, and completely rejig it to something that’s more appropriate for a free society."

    Continue Reading.

    (via shychemist)

     
  12. tommypickles:

scootco19:

We all await the day that we see this on our sheet music

soft moan through instrument if possible

    tommypickles:

    scootco19:

    We all await the day that we see this on our sheet music

    soft moan through instrument if possible

    (via savanna)

     
  13. Oct. 20 3:15 pm

     
  14. hannanimal:

    land-of-propaganda:

    SHAUN KING’S SECOND BY SECOND ACCOUNT OF THE MURDER OF MIKE BROWN

    — (Read his full article here) —

    (10/15)

    HOLY SHIT

    (via face-down-asgard-up)

     
  15. thepeoplesrecord:

John Carlos & Tommie Smith give Black Power salute at 1968 Mexico City Olympics medal ceremony
When the medals were awarded for the men’s 200-meter sprint at the 1968 Olympic Games, Life magazine photographer John Dominis was only about 20 feet away from the podium. “I didn’t think it was a big news event,” Dominis says. “I was expecting a normal ceremony. I hardly noticed what was happening when I was shooting.”
Indeed, the ceremony that October 16 “actually passed without much general notice in the packed Olympic Stadium,” New York Times correspondent Joseph M. Sheehan reported from Mexico City. But by the time Sheehan’s observation appeared in print three days later, the event had become front-page news: for politicizing the Games, U.S. Olympic officials, under pressure from the International Olympic Committee, had suspended medalists Tommie Smith and John Carlos and sent them packing.
Smith and Carlos, winners of the gold and bronze medals, respectively, in the event, had come to the ceremony dressed to protest: wearing black socks and no shoes to symbolize African-American poverty, a black glove to express African-American strength and unity. (Smith also wore a scarf, and Carlos beads, in memory of lynching victims.) As the national anthem played and an international TV audience watched, each man bowed his head and raised a fist. After the two were banished, images of their gesture entered the iconography of athletic protest.
"It was a polarizing moment because it was seen as an example of black power radicalism," says Doug Hartmann, a University of Minnesota sociologist and the author of Race, Culture, and the Revolt of the Black Athlete: The 1968 Olympic Protests and Their Aftermath. “Mainstream America hated what they did.”
The United States was already deeply divided over the Vietnam War and the civil rights movement, and the serial traumas of 1968—mounting antiwar protests, the assassinations of Martin Luther King Jr. and Robert F. Kennedy, the beating of protesters during the Democratic National Convention by Chicago police—put those rifts into high relief. Before the Olympics, many African-American athletes had talked of joining a boycott of the Games to protest racial inequities in the United States. But the boycott, organized by sociologist Harry Edwards, never came off.
As students at San Jose State University, where Edwards was teaching, Smith and Carlos took part in that conversation. Carlos, born and raised in Harlem, was “an extreme extrovert with a challenging personality,” says Edwards, now emeritus professor of sociology at the University of California at Berkeley. Smith, the son of sharecroppers who grew up in rural Texas and California, was “a much softer, private person.” When they raised their fists on the medals stand, they were acting on their own.
Among the Games athletes, opinions were divided. Australia’s Peter Norman, the winner of the silver medal in the 200-meter sprint, mounted the podium wearing a badge supporting Edwards’ organization. Heavyweight boxer George Foreman—who would win a gold medal and wave an American flag in the ring—dismissed the protest, saying, “That’s for college kids.” The four women runners on the U.S. 400-meter relay team dedicated their victory to the exiled sprinters. A representative of the USSR was quoted as saying, perhaps inevitably, “The Soviet Union never has used the Olympic Games for propaganda purposes.”
Smith and Carlos returned home to a wave of opprobrium—they were “black-skinned storm troopers,” in the words of Brent Musburger, who would gain fame as a TV sportscaster but was then a columnist for the Chicago American newspaper—and anonymous death threats. The pressure, Carlos says, was a factor in his then-wife’s suicide in 1977. “One minute everything was sunny and happy, the next minute was chaos and crazy,” he says. Smith recalls, “I had no job and no education, and I was married with a 7-month-old son.”
Full article

    thepeoplesrecord:

    John Carlos & Tommie Smith give Black Power salute at 1968 Mexico City Olympics medal ceremony

    When the medals were awarded for the men’s 200-meter sprint at the 1968 Olympic Games, Life magazine photographer John Dominis was only about 20 feet away from the podium. “I didn’t think it was a big news event,” Dominis says. “I was expecting a normal ceremony. I hardly noticed what was happening when I was shooting.”

    Indeed, the ceremony that October 16 “actually passed without much general notice in the packed Olympic Stadium,” New York Times correspondent Joseph M. Sheehan reported from Mexico City. But by the time Sheehan’s observation appeared in print three days later, the event had become front-page news: for politicizing the Games, U.S. Olympic officials, under pressure from the International Olympic Committee, had suspended medalists Tommie Smith and John Carlos and sent them packing.

    Smith and Carlos, winners of the gold and bronze medals, respectively, in the event, had come to the ceremony dressed to protest: wearing black socks and no shoes to symbolize African-American poverty, a black glove to express African-American strength and unity. (Smith also wore a scarf, and Carlos beads, in memory of lynching victims.) As the national anthem played and an international TV audience watched, each man bowed his head and raised a fist. After the two were banished, images of their gesture entered the iconography of athletic protest.

    "It was a polarizing moment because it was seen as an example of black power radicalism," says Doug Hartmann, a University of Minnesota sociologist and the author of Race, Culture, and the Revolt of the Black Athlete: The 1968 Olympic Protests and Their Aftermath. “Mainstream America hated what they did.”

    The United States was already deeply divided over the Vietnam War and the civil rights movement, and the serial traumas of 1968—mounting antiwar protests, the assassinations of Martin Luther King Jr. and Robert F. Kennedy, the beating of protesters during the Democratic National Convention by Chicago police—put those rifts into high relief. Before the Olympics, many African-American athletes had talked of joining a boycott of the Games to protest racial inequities in the United States. But the boycott, organized by sociologist Harry Edwards, never came off.

    As students at San Jose State University, where Edwards was teaching, Smith and Carlos took part in that conversation. Carlos, born and raised in Harlem, was “an extreme extrovert with a challenging personality,” says Edwards, now emeritus professor of sociology at the University of California at Berkeley. Smith, the son of sharecroppers who grew up in rural Texas and California, was “a much softer, private person.” When they raised their fists on the medals stand, they were acting on their own.

    Among the Games athletes, opinions were divided. Australia’s Peter Norman, the winner of the silver medal in the 200-meter sprint, mounted the podium wearing a badge supporting Edwards’ organization. Heavyweight boxer George Foreman—who would win a gold medal and wave an American flag in the ring—dismissed the protest, saying, “That’s for college kids.” The four women runners on the U.S. 400-meter relay team dedicated their victory to the exiled sprinters. A representative of the USSR was quoted as saying, perhaps inevitably, “The Soviet Union never has used the Olympic Games for propaganda purposes.”

    Smith and Carlos returned home to a wave of opprobrium—they were “black-skinned storm troopers,” in the words of Brent Musburger, who would gain fame as a TV sportscaster but was then a columnist for the Chicago American newspaper—and anonymous death threats. The pressure, Carlos says, was a factor in his then-wife’s suicide in 1977. “One minute everything was sunny and happy, the next minute was chaos and crazy,” he says. Smith recalls, “I had no job and no education, and I was married with a 7-month-old son.”

    Full article

    (via ghostsofrobespierre)