
The White Man in That Photo - choult
http://griotmag.com/en/white-man-in-that-photo/
======
boriselec
> Peter Norman is absent from this statue.

[http://www.democracynow.org/blog/2011/10/12/part_2_john_carl...](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)

"...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."

~~~
eitally
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)

------
the_rosentotter
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
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
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-000062...](http://www.vice.com/read/when-malcolm-x-met-the-
nazis-0000620-v22n4)

------
vacri
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-...](http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/gough-
whitlam-left-a-long-list-of-achievements-20141021-119cpu.html)

~~~
6d6b73
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
What? How did it improve their personal well being? They were ostracized from
the sports community.

~~~
cromulent
Perhaps what was meant was that they were part of a movement to improve the
lot of their ethnic group. That movement seems to have worked. However, Norman
had nothing to gain - he could only lose, unless he valued human rights more
than his personal situation.

~~~
braythwayt
Whether you’re white or black, protesting racial inequality always seems to
come down to valuing the well-being of humanity as a whole over valuing your
own well-being.

It’s in the same category of decision as economic games like the Prisoner’s
Dilemma, Arms Race, Chicken, or Moose Hunt.

~~~
eevilspock
And this, to me, is the root of all of humanity's self-inflicted problems. Too
many "good" people, at the end of the day, wimp out and take the personally
safe route, not just not taking action but also staying silent so as not to
risk their social and economic standing. The Holocaust, slavery, racism, the
shame felt by rape victims, police injustice[1] could not have happened if
those who felt the stirrings of their conscience didn't then snuff those
feelings.

[1] [http://www.vox.com/2015/5/28/8661977/race-police-
officer](http://www.vox.com/2015/5/28/8661977/race-police-officer)

------
InclinedPlane
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
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.

~~~
sAuronas
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.

~~~
Asbostos
Pedophile and child molester aren't the same thing. Looking at pictures of
naked children is something parents and doctors do all the time but pedophiles
go to prison for it. "kill, enslave or otherwise harm" is OK for animals
according to current popular opinion - ask any meat eater or dog owner.
Consent is not required for animals (by our current standards) because we
freely allow them to have sex with each other without checking for consent.

My point is that things really aren't as black and white as they seem to
people when everyone they know agrees with the same ideas.

------
juliangamble
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
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
I guess sending no-one was deemed better than sending slower runners.

------
wluu
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."

------
ck2
Desktop browsing should not have momentum scrolling and iphone-line
scrollbars, very distracting

~~~
eric_h
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
I couldn't read it, the page would not stop moving. I eventually gave up and
closed it.

------
imgabe
> 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?

------
chatman
A great hero from Australia.

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

------
worik
"some of which consisted of forced adoptions of native children to white
families."

They still are doing that, and at a higher rate.

~~~
aclloyd
That is nonsense. You obviously know nothing about Australia.

~~~
worik
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-...](http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/22659-australia-is-again-
stealing-its-indigenous-children)

------
insertnickname
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
Browser scrollbars sucks tho.

~~~
Mithaldu
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
It's not just browser scrollbar - its the OS scrollbar.

~~~
Mithaldu
Yeeees? Go on?

~~~
clort
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.

------
jimmaswell
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
Worked for me with scriptblock (ytimg unblocked).

------
ejstronge
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'.

~~~
Programmatic
> My ultimate point: it's not clear to me that an ethnic group that is not
> part of the 'majority establishment' can be 'Racist'.

I truly loathe this argument because it allows people to engage in hatred
based on race while saying that their hatred is not racism. Hatred breeds
hatred. I don't understand why people would judge me based on my skin and say
that I have a hand in oppression, when I have no power over them. Why am I
judged for actions of people who are not even my ancestors, because the color
of our skin is the same? Is that not the very problem that we're trying to
solve?

I feel conflict and resentment when I am told that I am oppressing people and
that I should be hated for it because I am simply white, and frankly I think
that's the end goal for the media as they are fanning the flames of racial
tension. Don't give in: judge individuals on their merits. Judgment based on
race _is_ racism.

~~~
ejstronge
Your sentiments are totally understandable - but lets take this to a broader,
less emotional level.

We, as Americans, are responsible for poor working conditions in large parts
of the world. People recycling metals from computer parts (a topic HN users
probably think about) develop neurological disorders, based on what we do.

Am I harming someone directly by not thinking about recycling more often? No,
but I'm still part of a system that perpetuates these effects.

Your conflict and resentment stem from what some people before us have done. I
have conflict over the families whose breadwinners die due to my electronic
excess. But the answer isn't to deny the system I live in but to be more
thoughtful.

~~~
Programmatic
None of the issues you outline are racial issues.

Feel free to call a system racist; I'll likely agree depending on the merits
of your argument. But people that hate others due to their race are racist, no
matter how you couch the issue.

The conflict and resentment that people feel when they are accused of being
racist due to only their race works counter to the cause of solving problems,
not towards resolution. It encourages in-group/out-group mentalities on both
sides and is unproductive toward the goal of equality. When you say that one
class of person engaging in the same act as another is different because of
their race, you are saying "we will never be equal."

