10 ms·

The White Man in That Photo

302 points by choult 11y ago

the_rosentotter 11y ago
Peter Norman's actions (as well as those of John Carlos and Tommie Smith) were even more impressive in light of the racist undercurrents in both white and black culture at the time. The three basically took a stand against both the white majority establishment AND a strong trend in contemporary black counter-culture that opposed race equality and integration. The picture of them carrying him to his grave honestly brought a tear to my eye.
- ap22213 11y ago
  That's the first that I'd heard of this 'strong trend in contemporary black counter-culture that opposed race equality and integration' in the years around 1968. Any references where I can read more on the subject? I looked up the black panther page on Wikipedia, and it referenced black nationalism undertones existing in its earlier phases (until around 1964). Still, I couldn't see that it was a trending force.
  - GauntletWizard 11y ago
    Perhaps the wikipedia article on Black Nationalism [1] or a more recent article on the alliance (!) between the black panthers and the American Nazi Party [2]. You're better off reading early 70s reportage books, though; I'm far too young to remember the 70s, but my parents had old Doonesbury strips around, but as I remember that their resident Black Panther character was wavering between wanting to be included and not wanting to associate with 'whitey'. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_nationalism#Malcolm_X https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_nationalism#Malcolm_X [2] http://www.vice.com/read/when-malcolm-x-met-the-nazis-0000620-v22n4 http://www.vice.com/read/when-malcolm-x-met-the-nazis-000062...
chatman 11y ago
A great hero from Australia.
insertnickname 11y ago
Please do not make your own fancy scrollbars with JavaScript. I already have a scrollbar in my browser, I most certainly do not need yours!
- LoSboccacc 11y ago
  Browser scrollbars sucks tho.
  - monochromatic 11y ago
    Browser scroll bars are perfectly fine. This is a solved problem. It doesn't need to be re-solved in a thousand different ways.
  - Mithaldu 11y ago
    Now, many people downvote you, but i am honestly curious. What are the specific downsides browser scrollbars have? And, if it does, how does the JS implementation on that website improve on them?
    - madeofpalk 11y ago
      It's not just browser scrollbar - its the OS scrollbar.
      - Mithaldu 11y ago
        Yeeees? Go on?
        clort 11y ago
        So by the way, this is the OS that I run on my computer and it provides the scrollbars that I like. If I don't like them I can change the window manager (and I run X11 so yes, I can do that) to something that I do like. The designer of that, or any, website does not know what I like, or what works for me and best suits my abilities. They should certainly not attempt to change it based on what they want and what suits them on their device. actually, I'm a bit flabbergasted when this kind of thing happens, I really am not sure why I would want to allow any application (much less a page on a computer the other side of the world being shown by that application) to change the way my computer interfaces with me.
boriselec 11y ago
> Peter Norman is absent from this statue. http://www.democracynow.org/blog/2011/10/12/part_2_john_carlos_1968_olympic_us_medalist_on_the_response_to_his_iconic_black_power_salute http://www.democracynow.org/blog/2011/10/12/part_2_john_carl... "...Pete, I have a concern, man. What’s this about you don’t want to have your statue there? What, are you backing away from me? Are you ashamed of us?" And he laughed, and he said, "No, John." He said—you know, the deep thing is, he said, "Man, I didn’t do what you guys did." He said, "But I was there in heart and soul to support what you did. I feel it’s only fair that you guys go on and have your statues built there, and I would like to have a blank spot there and have a commemorative plaque stating that I was in that spot. But anyone that comes thereafter from around the world and going to San Jose State that support the movement, what you guys had in ’68, they could stand in my spot and take the picture."
- LoSboccacc 11y ago
  Whoa what a guy!
- eitally 11y ago
  I poked around a bit to learn more and found their ESPY award clip. It's touching, too, and provides a bit more context also. Pt1 of 2 (Part 2 is next in the playlist): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xNe5uxccDj4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xNe5uxccDj4
- asciimo 11y ago
  This might be the first time a HN comment made my jaw drop. Thank you for finding this supportive material!
- braythwayt 11y ago
  That is just one of many amazing things Peter Norman has said. My eyes well up with tears just thinking abut him.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
natmaster 11y ago
Such blatant institutional racism in Australia in 2000! So sad :(
juliangamble 11y ago
Despite qualifying for the subsequent 1972 Olympics 13 times, Peter Norman was denied the ability to represent Australia. Despite an apology in 2012 from the Federal Parliament, the Australian Olympic committee still denies any wrongdoing.
- roghummal 11y ago
  Here's what I read on Wikipedia: >Despite Norman running qualifying times for the 100 m five times and 200 m 13 times during 1971-72, the Australian Olympic track team did not send him, or any other male sprinters, to the 1972 Summer Olympics in Munich, the first modern Olympics since 1896 where no Australian sprinters participated. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Norman https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Norman) Did no one represent Australia in the events he would've participated in?
  - rodgerd 11y ago
    I guess sending no-one was deemed better than sending slower runners.
InclinedPlane 11y ago
It's fascinating how much backlash there can be for supporting big social equality shifts. Almost certainly many of the people that caused so much trouble for Peter Norman for his participation in that protest were not malicious, overt racists. Some of them probably didn't think they were racists at all. So much of the time resistance to advancement comes about because people are afraid to rock the boat, because they are distressed about being called out, because they don't want to be forced to choose a side. They just want everything to be better at no personal cost. As has been said, evil triumphs when good men do nothing. It's amazing how much truth there is in that, and how much depth. If you insist on burying the issue every time it comes up or if you insist on "waiting until the right time" you're not helping. So many people today think that it's fine to just be neutral. And in a way that's alright, it's certainly better than actively participating in hate, but it doesn't make you a good person. A good person takes a stand, a good person makes an effort to make things better, even if it comes at a cost.
- Asbostos 11y ago
  One trouble is that we don't know what's right when we're in the thick of it. Who would have guessed it was OK to be gay? I mean it's not OK to be a pedophile or zoophile, which aren't fundamentally different. The rules keep changing so you can't blame people for sticking to what they're used to.
  - Retra 11y ago
    That's the thing though: they are different, and applying some thought will bring to light the way in which they are different. But most people who are against these things apply their efforts at conflating them due to their similarities, not understanding the importance of the differences. Just look at the way abortion arguments go. You can't just go around saying "abortion is murder" and "a fetus is a person" without completely failing to consider the ways in which you could be wrong. And that's fairly easy to do, because there are plenty of people trying to tell you otherwise.
  - sAuronas 11y ago
    I am trying to appreciate your position on this: the problem is, we ought to know what's right 'in the thick of it' using the two C's - choice and consent. Like discriminate-against minorities (disclosure: I am black), gays do not have a choice to be who they are. Therefore, their position, if you will, is a biological one (as is mine). You mentioned pedophiles and zoophiles, who, could also (possibly and unfortunately) have the disposition of just being who the are without choice. Yet... the difference is consent - no one should get the right to take away the rights of innocent children, or innocent animals for that matter, much less kill, enslave, or otherwise harm them (as was the case with blacks, etc). There is no harm in my being black to anyone who is white, just as there is no harm in being Aboriginal or gay. The rules didn't change. The point is that they (human rights) need to apply equally to everyone.
ck2 11y ago
Desktop browsing should not have momentum scrolling and iphone-line scrollbars, very distracting
- eric_h 11y ago
  I beg to differ, as that's how Mac OS X works. They should certainly not be retrofitted on devices that don't do that natively, though.
  - ars 11y ago
    I couldn't read it, the page would not stop moving. I eventually gave up and closed it.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
vacri 11y ago
It's worth noting that the article is heavily editorialising. That 'one man facing the country alone' with respect to his 1972 troubles? 1972 is a notable year for civil rights in Australia - Whitlam was elected, and he brought in the Racial Discrimination Act, set up the Department of Aboriginal Affairs, and initiated legislation to support indigenous land rights. Abolished the WAP, opened up foreign trade, and recognised China. Did a ton of other stuff around equal rights and welfare[1]. Whitlam was a great statesman, but he didn't do it alone - Australia had a civil rights movement just like everwhere else did in the '60s; equal rights were rising everywhere and colonial empires were crumbling. The idea that Norman was a lone voice is simple myth. It's also weird to see Australia called an apartheid regime. For all the terrible things done to the indigenous here, things weren't arranged as in South Africa. The US treated it's indigenous in a similar manner to Australia (though not quite as bad), and had legal segregation in the South (cue photo of water fountains), but we wouldn't characterise the US as an apartheid regime. Apartheid was a political system limiting people of colour in order to maintain power in the hands of minority whites - both Australia and the US had significant white majorities, with whites in easy control of the political machine. Finally, the article is also wrong to call Norman the biggest hero on the podium. Norman should be lauded for his actions, but he was still doing 'support' - the main act was done by Smith and Carlos. Had they not acted, there would be no notable photo. [1] http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/gough-whitlam-left-a-long-list-of-achievements-20141021-119cpu.html http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/gough-...
- 6d6b73 11y ago
  What they did was for themselves but what he did was selfless. Thats a true mark of a hero and that's why he is the biggest hero on the podium.
  - olavk 11y ago
    What? How did it improve their personal well being? They were ostracized from the sports community.
    - cromulent 11y ago
ejstronge 11y ago
I'm sure you're factually accurate in your statements but I just want to comment on the structure of your argument (and I don't at all mean this in a snarky or negative light). Racism is about more than being race-conscious. I think we all recognize that. I can say 'Obama is black' and 'John Boehner is white' and 'How many Asian senators are there?' None of these questions subjugates anyone. For systemic oppression (and Racism), there has to be a group in power and a set of institutions created by those in power to subjugate others. Back to the point: speakers often speak about Racism (which, as above, requires the power to create oppressive institutions) in the same way they speak about what you described as 'opposition to the majority establishment and a black counter-culture that opposed race equality and integration.' This probably happens because the nuanced description you gave doesn't roll of the tongue. My ultimate point: it's not clear to me that an ethnic group that is not part of the 'majority establishment' can be 'Racist'.
- vidarh 11y ago
  No, there does not need to be any group in power or set of institutions created by those in power to subjugate others for there to be racism. Trying to redefine terms to avoid having to accept that minority/non-establishment groups can also be racist is ludicrous. If you have not experienced minority groups being racists, lucky you. Meanwhile I've fairly regularly had members of minority groups expressing fairly crass racist views to me, presumably under the assumption that I as a white man won't take offence when they express racist views about other minority groups.
- jkot 11y ago
  Racism is very clearly defined. With your logic whites could not be racist in South Africa, because of black majority.
  - ejstronge 11y ago
    I'm not sure I follow your logic - are you equating 'majority establishment' with 'majority'?
    - 11y ago
imgabe 11y ago
> Today I discovered the truth: that white man in the photo is, perhaps, the biggest hero of that night in 1968. Ok, I don't want to downplay what he did. Sure, it took courage for him as well. On the other hand something rankles about taking one of the most iconic moments from the civil rights movement and making it all about the white guy. I mean, come on, the biggest hero of the night? Really?
jimmaswell 11y ago
The scrolling on this page was so broken I had to look at the page source to read it. It kept jumping around to random places whenever I tried to get to where the text of the page started.
- iSnow 11y ago
  Worked for me with scriptblock (ytimg unblocked).
worik 11y ago
"some of which consisted of forced adoptions of native children to white families." They still are doing that, and at a higher rate.
- aclloyd 11y ago
  That is nonsense. You obviously know nothing about Australia.
  - worik 11y ago
    I know a lot about Australia. The raids on families in the Northern territories (and else where) are taking children hundreds (thousands) of miles from their homes. Children are being taken from their mothers in Aboriginal communities at a faster rate since the apology for the "stolen generation" than before. Australian society is unfathomably racist. On my visits there and conversations with Ozzies here (Aotearoa) I am constantly reminded just how thoughtlessly and thoroughly racist to its core is Australian society. The "apartheid" laws are gon. Since 1967 (?) indigenous Australians are counted in the census, are no longer classified as fauna and can vote. But their settlements do not get anywhere near the same services as white settlements and in the guise of "child saftey" children are abducted at a great rate by the state. 2 minutes of searching on the net (aboriginal children Australia abductions racism) gets this article by John Pilger: http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/22659-australia-is-again-stealing-its-indigenous-children http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/22659-australia-is-again-...
wluu 11y ago
Here's an interview with Peter and others who knew him a few years ago on ABC TV news program 7.30: http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2012/s3571974.htm http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2012/s3571974.htm "LEIGH SALES, PRESENTER: Tonight, long overdue recognition is finally being paid to one of the nation's greatest athletes. Peter Norman won a silver athletics medal at the 1968 Olympics in the 200 metres in a time so fast that he still holds the Australian record more than 50 years later. But that Olympics was Peter Norman's last. Many people believe he was overlooked for the next Games and forced into retirement for participating in a black power demonstration at his medal ceremony. Finally, more than 40 years later, Federal Parliament is offering a posthumous apology."

302 points by choult 11y ago

Peter Norman's actions (as well as those of John Carlos and Tommie Smith) were even more impressive in light of the racist undercurrents in both white and black culture at the time. The three basically took a stand against both the white majority establishment AND a strong trend in contemporary black counter-culture that opposed race equality and integration. The picture of them carrying him to his grave honestly brought a tear to my eye.

ap22213 11y ago
That's the first that I'd heard of this 'strong trend in contemporary black counter-culture that opposed race equality and integration' in the years around 1968. Any references where I can read more on the subject? I looked up the black panther page on Wikipedia, and it referenced black nationalism undertones existing in its earlier phases (until around 1964). Still, I couldn't see that it was a trending force.
- GauntletWizard 11y ago
  Perhaps the wikipedia article on Black Nationalism [1] or a more recent article on the alliance (!) between the black panthers and the American Nazi Party [2]. You're better off reading early 70s reportage books, though; I'm far too young to remember the 70s, but my parents had old Doonesbury strips around, but as I remember that their resident Black Panther character was wavering between wanting to be included and not wanting to associate with 'whitey'. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_nationalism#Malcolm_X https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_nationalism#Malcolm_X [2] http://www.vice.com/read/when-malcolm-x-met-the-nazis-0000620-v22n4 http://www.vice.com/read/when-malcolm-x-met-the-nazis-000062...

chatman 11y ago

A great hero from Australia.

insertnickname 11y ago

Please do not make your own fancy scrollbars with JavaScript. I already have a scrollbar in my browser, I most certainly do not need yours!

LoSboccacc 11y ago
Browser scrollbars sucks tho.
- monochromatic 11y ago
  Browser scroll bars are perfectly fine. This is a solved problem. It doesn't need to be re-solved in a thousand different ways.
- Mithaldu 11y ago
  Now, many people downvote you, but i am honestly curious. What are the specific downsides browser scrollbars have? And, if it does, how does the JS implementation on that website improve on them?
  - madeofpalk 11y ago
    It's not just browser scrollbar - its the OS scrollbar.
    - Mithaldu 11y ago
      Yeeees? Go on?
      - clort 11y ago
        So by the way, this is the OS that I run on my computer and it provides the scrollbars that I like. If I don't like them I can change the window manager (and I run X11 so yes, I can do that) to something that I do like. The designer of that, or any, website does not know what I like, or what works for me and best suits my abilities. They should certainly not attempt to change it based on what they want and what suits them on their device. actually, I'm a bit flabbergasted when this kind of thing happens, I really am not sure why I would want to allow any application (much less a page on a computer the other side of the world being shown by that application) to change the way my computer interfaces with me.

boriselec 11y ago

> Peter Norman is absent from this statue. http://www.democracynow.org/blog/2011/10/12/part_2_john_carlos_1968_olympic_us_medalist_on_the_response_to_his_iconic_black_power_salute http://www.democracynow.org/blog/2011/10/12/part_2_john_carl... "...Pete, I have a concern, man. What’s this about you don’t want to have your statue there? What, are you backing away from me? Are you ashamed of us?" And he laughed, and he said, "No, John." He said—you know, the deep thing is, he said, "Man, I didn’t do what you guys did." He said, "But I was there in heart and soul to support what you did. I feel it’s only fair that you guys go on and have your statues built there, and I would like to have a blank spot there and have a commemorative plaque stating that I was in that spot. But anyone that comes thereafter from around the world and going to San Jose State that support the movement, what you guys had in ’68, they could stand in my spot and take the picture."

LoSboccacc 11y ago
Whoa what a guy!
eitally 11y ago
I poked around a bit to learn more and found their ESPY award clip. It's touching, too, and provides a bit more context also. Pt1 of 2 (Part 2 is next in the playlist): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xNe5uxccDj4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xNe5uxccDj4
asciimo 11y ago
This might be the first time a HN comment made my jaw drop. Thank you for finding this supportive material!
braythwayt 11y ago
That is just one of many amazing things Peter Norman has said. My eyes well up with tears just thinking abut him.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

natmaster 11y ago

Such blatant institutional racism in Australia in 2000! So sad :(

juliangamble 11y ago

Despite qualifying for the subsequent 1972 Olympics 13 times, Peter Norman was denied the ability to represent Australia. Despite an apology in 2012 from the Federal Parliament, the Australian Olympic committee still denies any wrongdoing.

roghummal 11y ago
Here's what I read on Wikipedia: >Despite Norman running qualifying times for the 100 m five times and 200 m 13 times during 1971-72, the Australian Olympic track team did not send him, or any other male sprinters, to the 1972 Summer Olympics in Munich, the first modern Olympics since 1896 where no Australian sprinters participated. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Norman https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Norman) Did no one represent Australia in the events he would've participated in?
- rodgerd 11y ago
  I guess sending no-one was deemed better than sending slower runners.

InclinedPlane 11y ago

It's fascinating how much backlash there can be for supporting big social equality shifts. Almost certainly many of the people that caused so much trouble for Peter Norman for his participation in that protest were not malicious, overt racists. Some of them probably didn't think they were racists at all. So much of the time resistance to advancement comes about because people are afraid to rock the boat, because they are distressed about being called out, because they don't want to be forced to choose a side. They just want everything to be better at no personal cost. As has been said, evil triumphs when good men do nothing. It's amazing how much truth there is in that, and how much depth. If you insist on burying the issue every time it comes up or if you insist on "waiting until the right time" you're not helping. So many people today think that it's fine to just be neutral. And in a way that's alright, it's certainly better than actively participating in hate, but it doesn't make you a good person. A good person takes a stand, a good person makes an effort to make things better, even if it comes at a cost.

Asbostos 11y ago
One trouble is that we don't know what's right when we're in the thick of it. Who would have guessed it was OK to be gay? I mean it's not OK to be a pedophile or zoophile, which aren't fundamentally different. The rules keep changing so you can't blame people for sticking to what they're used to.
- Retra 11y ago
  That's the thing though: they are different, and applying some thought will bring to light the way in which they are different. But most people who are against these things apply their efforts at conflating them due to their similarities, not understanding the importance of the differences. Just look at the way abortion arguments go. You can't just go around saying "abortion is murder" and "a fetus is a person" without completely failing to consider the ways in which you could be wrong. And that's fairly easy to do, because there are plenty of people trying to tell you otherwise.
- sAuronas 11y ago
  I am trying to appreciate your position on this: the problem is, we ought to know what's right 'in the thick of it' using the two C's - choice and consent. Like discriminate-against minorities (disclosure: I am black), gays do not have a choice to be who they are. Therefore, their position, if you will, is a biological one (as is mine). You mentioned pedophiles and zoophiles, who, could also (possibly and unfortunately) have the disposition of just being who the are without choice. Yet... the difference is consent - no one should get the right to take away the rights of innocent children, or innocent animals for that matter, much less kill, enslave, or otherwise harm them (as was the case with blacks, etc). There is no harm in my being black to anyone who is white, just as there is no harm in being Aboriginal or gay. The rules didn't change. The point is that they (human rights) need to apply equally to everyone.

ck2 11y ago

Desktop browsing should not have momentum scrolling and iphone-line scrollbars, very distracting

eric_h 11y ago
I beg to differ, as that's how Mac OS X works. They should certainly not be retrofitted on devices that don't do that natively, though.
- ars 11y ago
  I couldn't read it, the page would not stop moving. I eventually gave up and closed it.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

vacri 11y ago

It's worth noting that the article is heavily editorialising. That 'one man facing the country alone' with respect to his 1972 troubles? 1972 is a notable year for civil rights in Australia - Whitlam was elected, and he brought in the Racial Discrimination Act, set up the Department of Aboriginal Affairs, and initiated legislation to support indigenous land rights. Abolished the WAP, opened up foreign trade, and recognised China. Did a ton of other stuff around equal rights and welfare[1]. Whitlam was a great statesman, but he didn't do it alone - Australia had a civil rights movement just like everwhere else did in the '60s; equal rights were rising everywhere and colonial empires were crumbling. The idea that Norman was a lone voice is simple myth. It's also weird to see Australia called an apartheid regime. For all the terrible things done to the indigenous here, things weren't arranged as in South Africa. The US treated it's indigenous in a similar manner to Australia (though not quite as bad), and had legal segregation in the South (cue photo of water fountains), but we wouldn't characterise the US as an apartheid regime. Apartheid was a political system limiting people of colour in order to maintain power in the hands of minority whites - both Australia and the US had significant white majorities, with whites in easy control of the political machine. Finally, the article is also wrong to call Norman the biggest hero on the podium. Norman should be lauded for his actions, but he was still doing 'support' - the main act was done by Smith and Carlos. Had they not acted, there would be no notable photo. [1] http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/gough-whitlam-left-a-long-list-of-achievements-20141021-119cpu.html http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/gough-...

6d6b73 11y ago
What they did was for themselves but what he did was selfless. Thats a true mark of a hero and that's why he is the biggest hero on the podium.
- olavk 11y ago
  What? How did it improve their personal well being? They were ostracized from the sports community.
  - cromulent 11y ago

ejstronge 11y ago

I'm sure you're factually accurate in your statements but I just want to comment on the structure of your argument (and I don't at all mean this in a snarky or negative light). Racism is about more than being race-conscious. I think we all recognize that. I can say 'Obama is black' and 'John Boehner is white' and 'How many Asian senators are there?' None of these questions subjugates anyone. For systemic oppression (and Racism), there has to be a group in power and a set of institutions created by those in power to subjugate others. Back to the point: speakers often speak about Racism (which, as above, requires the power to create oppressive institutions) in the same way they speak about what you described as 'opposition to the majority establishment and a black counter-culture that opposed race equality and integration.' This probably happens because the nuanced description you gave doesn't roll of the tongue. My ultimate point: it's not clear to me that an ethnic group that is not part of the 'majority establishment' can be 'Racist'.

vidarh 11y ago
No, there does not need to be any group in power or set of institutions created by those in power to subjugate others for there to be racism. Trying to redefine terms to avoid having to accept that minority/non-establishment groups can also be racist is ludicrous. If you have not experienced minority groups being racists, lucky you. Meanwhile I've fairly regularly had members of minority groups expressing fairly crass racist views to me, presumably under the assumption that I as a white man won't take offence when they express racist views about other minority groups.
jkot 11y ago
Racism is very clearly defined. With your logic whites could not be racist in South Africa, because of black majority.
- ejstronge 11y ago
  I'm not sure I follow your logic - are you equating 'majority establishment' with 'majority'?
  - 11y ago

imgabe 11y ago

> Today I discovered the truth: that white man in the photo is, perhaps, the biggest hero of that night in 1968. Ok, I don't want to downplay what he did. Sure, it took courage for him as well. On the other hand something rankles about taking one of the most iconic moments from the civil rights movement and making it all about the white guy. I mean, come on, the biggest hero of the night? Really?

jimmaswell 11y ago

The scrolling on this page was so broken I had to look at the page source to read it. It kept jumping around to random places whenever I tried to get to where the text of the page started.

iSnow 11y ago
Worked for me with scriptblock (ytimg unblocked).

worik 11y ago

"some of which consisted of forced adoptions of native children to white families." They still are doing that, and at a higher rate.

aclloyd 11y ago
That is nonsense. You obviously know nothing about Australia.
- worik 11y ago
  I know a lot about Australia. The raids on families in the Northern territories (and else where) are taking children hundreds (thousands) of miles from their homes. Children are being taken from their mothers in Aboriginal communities at a faster rate since the apology for the "stolen generation" than before. Australian society is unfathomably racist. On my visits there and conversations with Ozzies here (Aotearoa) I am constantly reminded just how thoughtlessly and thoroughly racist to its core is Australian society. The "apartheid" laws are gon. Since 1967 (?) indigenous Australians are counted in the census, are no longer classified as fauna and can vote. But their settlements do not get anywhere near the same services as white settlements and in the guise of "child saftey" children are abducted at a great rate by the state. 2 minutes of searching on the net (aboriginal children Australia abductions racism) gets this article by John Pilger: http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/22659-australia-is-again-stealing-its-indigenous-children http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/22659-australia-is-again-...

wluu 11y ago

Here's an interview with Peter and others who knew him a few years ago on ABC TV news program 7.30: http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2012/s3571974.htm http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2012/s3571974.htm "LEIGH SALES, PRESENTER: Tonight, long overdue recognition is finally being paid to one of the nation's greatest athletes. Peter Norman won a silver athletics medal at the 1968 Olympics in the 200 metres in a time so fast that he still holds the Australian record more than 50 years later. But that Olympics was Peter Norman's last. Many people believe he was overlooked for the next Games and forced into retirement for participating in a black power demonstration at his medal ceremony. Finally, more than 40 years later, Federal Parliament is offering a posthumous apology."