People who think that everything written is factual are useless. I am extremely suspicious of white print. EXTRMLY.

And the white media is and was far from pro black. As a matter of fact they were quite the opposite and still are. They may show a little left bias, but, they make up for that with the negative coverage of black people. All of these stories that are written about black people by white people either leave out the discrimination they went through, and or leave out all positive aspects of our great grand parents and grandparents. It is a shame. Then you have white people constantly coming onto these blogs cowering and desperate to try to challenge anything that makes their forefathers look like the evil people they were. Yes things have changed, but the past can never change. And since most of it has been distorted, we are not going to stop talking about it, until everything comes out.

If things had been told the right way, maybe black people would have moved on. But you have to remember, if anybody knows what happened to and with black people, it’s “BLACK PEOPLE” Duh, they know, it happened to them. And they past it down through generation after generation. THANK GOD ALMIGHTY.

Because you people know you can distort things to make your race look good. Just like you all distorted the story of Nat Turner. In the text books, they have it that he murdered all these white people including babies. When in all actuality, he only killed “ONE WHITE LADY” and that was only because she was screaming loudly, trying to warn the white men that Nat had returned to the plantation. He tried to shut her up, but she was determined to give him up, so he strangled her. He never killed another person. He was also very religious and in tuned with God. Even white people came to hear him preach in the fields.

White people also distorted the bible, changing the appearance of Jesus Christ. In every Anglo Saxon bible you pick up, there is a picture of Jesus Christ with long straight blond hair and blue eyes. Now why would a race want to distort what the Lord actually looks like, if they claim they are true Christians.

Save your long winded researching credits for Right Winged Republicans who feed off of denial of the hateful ways of white people, because the smart people on this site aren’t interested in your distorted books.

And I Thank You!

As for your characterization of the “white media,” you do realize that you are talking about the same white media that fawns over Barack Obama, and for the most part, has a very left-wing agenda, even back in 1968? So if that white media doesn’t play along, it means that Smith and Carlos had to be way out of bounds to get negative press.

I know that Smith and Carlos claimed that their desire for “equality” was their motivation for their protest. However, the form of their protest raised valid skepticism, with many believing that the two clowns were really calling for a race war. The raised fists were symbolic of the Black Panthers and the Black Power movement. The Black Panthers of 1968 were very militaristic, calling for black nationalism (understood by many as a black takeover of the US by force) and championing the causes of communism and especially the “ideals” of Chairman Mao. All of those things were decidedly alarming in 1968, and frankly, I would be alarmed today if someone were proposing militaristic takeovers or communism and the teachings of Chairman Mao.

Smith and Carlos’ attack on Avery Brundage was an absolute indication that their motives were purely anti-white, and not merely seeking equal rights. Brundage was himself an Olympic Athlete in the early 1900′s, and actually competed against Jim Thorpe. In the early 1930′s, Brundage worked to assure that there would be no discrimination because of race or religion in the Olympics. Most of you probably know the story of Jesse Owens (and other black athletes) and the 1936 Olympics in Hitler’s Germany. If not for Brundage’s (and the IOC’s) work in 1933 and 1934, most of us would have never heard of Jesse Owens, as Germany would have never let him participate in the 1936 Olympics.

What is lost to most people who won’t take the time to study is that when you are the president of the International Olympic Committee (as Brundage was for 20 years), you have to deal with the geo-politics of the entire world, and it ain’t always pretty. In some cases, no matter what decision or position you take, someone will complain. The goal of the Olympics is to avoid politics and bring people together, but we all know that there are “issues” when you try to make 100+ countries happy, all at the same time. Brundage had to deal with two, big-time situations during his tenure as president of the IOC (1952 to 1972). The first was Communist China vs. “free” China (we think of it as Taiwan, today). The China mess is still an issue today. The other was Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe) and South Africa, and their apartheid style of government (sort of like Jim Crow on steroids); for those two nations, the IOC had to decide whether to let them compete or not, and at issue from the IOC’s perspective was whether or not black citizens of those nations were given fair opportunities to participate on Olympic teams (the IOC tries to avoid issues involving the form of government, only in whether all citizens have a chance to be on the team). Obviously, it is difficult to know what the truth is regarding some other country’s claim of equal opportunity, and obviously, there is a desire to include all nations if possible. In 1960, Brundage supported South Africa’s invitation to the games, in 1964, he did not. In 1968, Brundage invited South Africa to come, but later withdrew that invite when it became clear that South Africa lied about allowing blacks to compete for positions on the team. Rhodesia was a bit more convoluted; and Brundage took the position that since 2 of the nation’s 16 athletes were black, he would invite Rhodesia to Mexico City, but he was overruled by the IOC. Yes, there was controversy, and when you are the President, sometimes you just have to pick one of two not-so-good choices, realizing that regardless of what you do, someone is going to be unhappy. Brundage took the position that as long as the Olympic team was selected based on equal-opportunity principles, that was all that mattered; he did not wish to get into the issues related to a nation’s internal politics. Obviously, other people take the position that if a nation has a bad system in place, then it ought to be boycotted in all things, including the Olympics. I don’t fault Brundage for the position he took; just imagine if one person, or even a committee, had to decide who to invite to the Olympics based on the each nation’s internal politics? It would be chaos. Do you invite Greece, a nation that can’t pay its bills? Do you invite Saudi Arabia, a nation that doesn’t give women many rights? Do you invite Sudan or Egypt or Iraq, nations that sit by as the majority muslims slaughter minority Christians in the streets and burn down churches? Do you invite the USA, a nation that sends its troops to fight in unpopular wars all over the world? Do you invite Israel, a nation that is hated by one-third of the rest of the nations? Do you invite mainland China, a nation that massacres its own people for nothing more than peacefully protesting their own government? I list these nations simply to illustrate the problem one encounters when trying to insert political ideology into the process of determining whether to invite a nation to the Olympics.