A New Militancy in the USA

Not since the days of the 1968 Olympic Games have we seen the bursting onto the public stage in the USA of a major political controversy involving a minority group.

Back then it was a highly emotionally charged event making a substantial political statement on the Olympic medal podium, under the unwavering gaze of the world's media.

According to Wikipedia, from where the picture is taken:

On the morning of 16 October1968, U.S. athlete Tommie Smith won the 200 meter race in a then-world-record time of 19.83 seconds, with Australia's Peter Norman second with a time of 20.07 seconds, and the U.S.'s John Carlos in third place with a time of 20.10 seconds. After the race was completed, the three went to collect their medals at the podium. The two U.S athletes received their medals shoeless, but wearing black socks, to represent black poverty. Smith wore a black scarf around his neck to represent black pride, Carlos had his tracksuit top unzipped to show solidarity with all blue collar workers in the U.S. and wore a necklace of beads which he described "were for those individuals that were lynched, or killed and that no-one said a prayer for, that were hung and tarred. It was for those thrown off the side of the boats in the middle passage." All three athletes wore Olympic Project for Human Rights (OPHR) badges, after Norman expressed sympathy with their ideals. Sociologist Harry Edwards, the founder of the OPHR, had urged black athletes to boycott the games; reportedly, the actions of Smith and Carlos on 16 October 1968 were inspired by Edwards' arguments.

Both U.S. athletes intended on bringing black gloves to the event, but Carlos forgot his, leaving them in the Olympic Village. It was the Australian, Peter Norman, who suggested Carlos wear Smith's left-handed glove, this being the reason behind him raising his left hand, as opposed to his right, differing from the traditional Black Power salute. When "The Star-Spangled Banner" played, Smith and Carlos delivered the salute with heads bowed, a gesture which became front page news around the world. As they left the podium they were booed by the crowd. Smith later said "If I win, I am 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."

Today I saw something that started me thinking. And that thought process took me back to 1968, an Olympics I remember because I was old enough to appreciate the athletes, yet not to understand their gesture.

I had no idea who David Mixner was. I had to look him up. His biography makes interesting reading. But what makes even more interesting reading is an article written by him that I saw today.

I read it, every word of it. And what I took from it is that he sees Human Rights in the USA as being something that those with the rights are deciding in the ballot box to give to or withhold from those who do not have the rights.

I'm struck by two things:

1. The haves in society have always withheld rights from the have nots. This is as true over votes for women as it was for black emancipation. The have nots have always had to struggle for those rights and have only won them, finally won them, at the ballot box.
2. He's right. That's wrong.

If we look at the USA, the nation that prides itself on its human rights record, the world's self appointed moral guardian, we see that it has always been appallingly late to the party where human rights have been concerned. We, in the rest of the western world, are often horrified that black emancipation in the USA is such a recent phenomenon.

We know that black people (I will not demean them with the mealy mouthed 'African American' title) are as intelligent and stupid, as hard working and lazy, as lawless and law abiding, as violent and peaceful, as any other group in the world. Black people are individuals with hopes, fears, frailties, skills, loves, hates, and rights just like any other people.

And yet it took huge demonstrations like that medal ceremony to let the rest of the world start to understand. And then they won their emancipation.

And I read Mixner's article and start to wonder if the USA ever learns lessons from the past.

At present in the USA another part of society is under attack. Like black folk the part of society is diverse, with all the good and all the not so good elements that any humans have. Some individuals are glorious in their achievements and their social integration, others are shining examples of how not to behave. These people are individuals with hopes, fears, frailties, skills, loves, hates, and rights just like any other people.

The interesting thing is that they are captains of industry, accredited media stars, police officers, factory workers, sportsmen, builders, school teachers, service personnel fighting for their country's objectives, criminals, murderers, the whole gamut of society.

When you see them they look like you and me. When you see their work you respect them. And, in more civilised nations than the loose federation of states that is the USA, your attitude to them changes not one jot when they explain to you the segment of society to which they belong.

But, in the USA, they are reviled, vilified, fired from their jobs, excluded from housing for one simple reason. These people are homosexual. And their rights are under attack. Even the new leader has not yet lived up to their hopes.  Mixner says:

President Obama standing on the sidelines in Maine and Washington was appalling. The failure of our national organizations and leaders to demand his involvement was equally appalling. The outrageous act of the Democratic National Committee sending an email into Maine asking Maine Democrats to call into "NEW JERSEY" instead of to support the fight against bigotry was unbelievable. No one gets to sit on the sidelines in an epic battle against apartheid and no one gets a free pass. If you want our support, you have to earn it. We are way beyond where we will accept a little bit in 2009, some in 2010 and maybe more in the second term. Does anyone think after yesterday election results and the upcoming 2010 election, Obama has the ability to repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and "DOMA" next year? Does anyone really believe we haven't already missed a historic opportunity in the first 10 months of this year? Only a courageous fighting President and Congress can now help turn us this around and that we have not seen so far. Enough.

He makes a persuasive point. The paradox is that Mixner needs the ballot box, yet, quite rightly, he objects to the ballot box as well.

Human Rights are too important to be voted away.

Why do homosexual people in the USA have fewer Human Rights than heterosexual people?