I support the protest of the olympic torch processions

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

To me, this is like holding the superbowl in Sudan while they massacre people in Darfur. Sure Sudan wouldn't "own" the Super Bowl, but it sure would benefit from it, and is a tacit endorsement of Sudan.

But if Beijing hadn't been awarded the Olympic bid in the first place, you wouldn't see nearly the current amount of public pressure on their human rights record, would you?

[creekster]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

To me, this is like holding the superbowl in Sudan while they massacre people in Darfur. Sure Sudan wouldn't "own" the Super Bowl, but it sure would benefit from it, and is a tacit endorsement of Sudan.

Look, this is a nice tactic which I take as a concession you were wrong about a boycott of China (or at least that you can't effectively assert it anymore). The Olympics are not in Iran and they wil nto be for my lifetime. As you may have noticed, the Olympic movement tends to shy away from active war zones.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

To me, this is like holding the superbowl in Sudan while they massacre people in Darfur. Sure Sudan wouldn't "own" the Super Bowl, but it sure would benefit from it, and is a tacit endorsement of Sudan.

Imagine how the public eye would have been cast upon Germany's treatment of Jews, had the USA boycotted the 1936 Olympics.

But they chose not to, despite many being for the boycott because of the way the Jews were being treated.

http://proxy.espn.go.com/oly/news/story?id=3337964

Instead, we would all feign surprise when we found out about the holocaust.

As they say, "the games must go on." No matter who is trampled, whether Jew or Tibetan.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

My whole objection is the justification you and Mike seem to give those who have accosted the torchbearers as legitimate forms of demonstration. I disagree and have given my rationale why. Is there some reason why legitimate and effective demonstration is so utterly impotent that only seizing the Olympic torch will produce results? If that's really the case, it is a poor reflection on the collective intelligence, or lack thereof, of the protesters.

Outside of that specific point, I haven't sided with the Chinese government or the US government and how it has responded to the wrongs of the Chinese government.

Your above response is a classic case in point why it is completely futile to ever discuss anything on this board with you. You ignore what I say and/or deliberately extrapolate it well outside the bounds of what I have said.

Because IT WORKS and nobody gets hurt. The form of protest isn't "accosting the torchbearer," it is putting out the flame. I am not advocating beating the torchbearer. Taking away the torch hurts nobody and it gets a huge amount of publicity, which is exactly what the issue needs. I keep asking you to compare the attention it has received to any previous form of peaceful demonstration for Tibet and tell me if something else has received more. I am still waiting.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Because IT WORKS and nobody gets hurt. The form of protest isn't "accosting the torchbearer," it is putting out the flame. I am not advocating beating the torchbearer. Taking away the torch hurts nobody and it gets a huge amount of publicity, which is exactly what the issue needs. I keep asking you to compare the attention it has received to any previous form of peaceful demonstration for Tibet and tell me if something else has received more. I am still waiting.

Hmmm. I think the protests of the torch run, and even the effrots to put the torch out with a fire extingusiher have been very effective. I don't think the efforts to steal the torch add anything even at the margin.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Imagine how the public eye would have been cast upon Germany's treatment of Jews, had the USA boycotted the 1936 Olympics.

But they chose not to, despite many being for the boycott because of the way the Jews were being treated.

http://proxy.espn.go.com/oly/news/story?id=3337964

Instead, we would all feign surprise when we found out about the holocaust.

As they say, "the games must go on." No matter who is trampled, whether Jew or Tibetan.

Instead, we got Jesse Owens who spit in Hitler's racial purity eye AND was a great beacon of triumph and hope to minorities in our own country. A boycott of Berlin would have highlighted Nazi treatment of jews, but it would not have stopped the holocaust, if that is what you are suggesting, and it would have punished the athletes.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by creekster

Hmmm. I think the protests of the torch run, and even the effrots to put the torch out with a fire extingusiher have been very effective. I don't think the efforts to steal the torch add anything even at the margin.

I'm not sure what you are referring to. I am talking about the efforts to take the torch from the runner to extinguish the flame. One used a fire extinguisher to put the flame out, one used water, several tried grabbing it to then put out the flame. I see all those as the same thing. Why would grabbing it be less effective for publicity than using water or a fire extinguisher?

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by creekster

Instead, we got Jesse Owens who spit in Hitler's racial purity eye AND was a great beacon of triumph and hope to minorities in our own country. A boycott of Berlin would have highlighted Nazi treatment of jews, but it would not have stopped the holocaust, if that is what you are suggesting, and it would have punished the athletes.

Precisely.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

I'm not sure what you are referring to. I am talking about the efforts to take the torch from the runner to extinguish the flame. One used a fire extinguisher to put the flame out, one used water, several tried grabbing it to then put out the flame. I see all those as the same thing. Why would grabbing it be less effective for publicity than using water or a fire extinguisher?

This is a fine point, and we are really on the same page, but are you suiggesting that anything short of grabbing the torch would not have generated the publicity that we saw this week? Or, put otherwise, was it only the fact that some one tried to grab the torch (as oppsoe to dousing it with water, or blockign the route, etc.) that led to the publicity we saw?

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by creekster

Instead, we got Jesse Owens who spit in Hitler's racial purity eye AND was a great beacon of triumph and hope to minorities in our own country. A boycott of Berlin would have highlighted Nazi treatment of jews, but it would not have stopped the holocaust, if that is what you are suggesting, and it would have punished the athletes.

How do you know that further awareness and scrutiny would not have prevented aspects of the holocaust?

Thanks in advance,
a mere mortal