Peter Norman- 'The hero too many of us still dont know' by Stephanie- Tuesday, 21 August 2012, 10:56 AM

Last week Alberto posted a link http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/the-hero-too-many-of-us-still-dont-know-20120813-244vg.html (in the Gandhi and social change forum) about Peter Norman, the Australian sprinter who won a silver medal in 1968. Peter was famous for his stand with the other sprinters on the medal podium in a salute in support of the civil rights campaign (he was also wearing a human rights badge to show his support). The Australian Olympic committee did not agree with this and he was not selected for the next Olympics many believing it was due to his behaviour.

In an update to this story, yesterday, Andrew Leigh an MP pushed a motion in parliament for an official apology to Peter Norman’s family as well as to have him be recognised for the bravery he showed. The Australian Olympic Committee does not support this motion.

These are the relevant articles

http://news.brisbanetimes.com.au/breaking-news-national/mps-praise-life-of-controversial-sprinter-20120820-24ixk.html.

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/aoc--wont-support-motion-for-controversial-sprinter-20120820-24hh6.html

This issue was also on Tens late news (I came across it when flicking through the channels). An interesting point that was raised was that if an athlete did this at the London Olympics, there would not be the controversy there was back in 1968 or the consequences. What do you think the reasons are for this?

What Peter Norman did was an extraordinary thing at a time where politics, race and discrimination was at an all-time high. Life magazine declared the moment one of the most influential images of the 20th century. I personally found this picture inspiring and this shows how moving and powerful a message or image can be. The below quote shows how important making a stand is in creating change and the power that one individual has: ‘He showed us that the action of one person can make a difference. It’s a message that echoes down to us today’.

Thanks Stephanie for this post. What I think is heroic about what Peter Norman did was not just his explicit support of the civil rights movement in the US but also his implicit protest against racism. Here we have a white man standing up for black rights. Remember that Australia still subscribed to the 'White Australia' policy then. He has made an important counter-hegemonic statement just as Pussy Riot did against the autocratic Putin. One can punish people for speaking out-- beat them up, incarcerate them, even kill them-- but you can never ever 'kill off' the reasons as to why people protest, resist, or revolt. Counter-hegemony will persist, prevail, and eventually succeed. Gandhi did that, Macolm X succeeded, so did Mandela. These are the well known people who have dreamed and helped realise change in this world. What about the hundreds and hundreds of lesser known women and men who stood against the might of oppressors: the women of the Chipko movement in India, the women of the Pots and Pans movement in Argentina (Giovanna---care to comment), Indigenous peoples around the world?

The cacerolazos (“the pots” demonstrations and protest) erupted in Argentina in 2001, when middle class people who had seen their savings trapped in the so-called corralito (‘a set of restrictive economic measures that effectively froze all bank accounts, initially as a short-term fix for the massive draining of bank deposits’). The corralito meant that many people who needed a large amount of cash immediately, or who simply lived off the interests from their deposits, suddenly found their savings unavailable. As court appeals were slow and ineffective, people resorted to protest in the streets.

Mexico is an interesting example. In 2006, after the police responded to a strike involving the local teachers' trade union by opening fire on non-violent protests in Oaxaca, 5000 women marchers banged pots and pans with spoons and meat tenderizers.

I just did a quick search to see if there were any updates to this story. So far nothing.. But I did find a good article that talks about the other two atheletes' feelings towards Norman and the way he is highly undervalued in Australia.

http://www.watoday.com.au/sport/athletics/australians-role-in-human-rights-act-undervalued-20120824-24rs3.html

Like the author, I have to admit I was not aware of Peter Norman's bravery until recently. I had seen the famous picture before but was not familiar with the story behind it. Its a real shame that Australians don't value people like Peter Norman and that efforts to issue him a formal apology weren't made sooner, before his death in 2006. The stubbornness of the AOC to admit that banning him from the following Olympics (despite him qualifying repeatedly) was wrong is also disgraceful!

I saw a documentary about a year ago about Peter Norman and the famous podium stand protest that he and the other two athletes participated in called 'Salute: for the record'. I was very impressed with his show of courage and solidarity. It seems that the Olympics are contradictorily the forum in which we celebrate some forms of unity and the global community, while silencing and denying the existence of systemic inequality and marginalization.

More recently at the London Olympics there was controversy and condemnation from the Australian Olympic Committee when Damien Hooper choose to wear an aboriginal flag on his t-shirt before his bout. This constituted a breach of Rule 50 of the Olympic charter which prohibits any kind of demonstration or political, religious or racial propaganda or advertising. Damien was later forced to promise not to wear the t-shirt again, but also said "I'm Aboriginal, I'm representing my culture not only my country, but all my people as well. I'm very proud and that's what I wanted to do. I'm happy I did it". It seems that when you represent Australia at the Olympics there is no sense of true multi-culturalism, as you must only represent and identify with a singular dominant cultural version of what it means to be Australian.

I had a discussion with a friend recently who was really annoyed with the fact that the television coverage of the games zipped from sport to sport and only showed events in which Australians were competing. If the Olympics are really about celebrating friendly competition between different countries and the worlds best athletes, shouldn't the coverage also have a degree of impartiality and celebrate athletes and events no matter which countries are participating? Borrowing George Orwell's definitions, I sometimes I wonder if the Olympics are really driven by patriotism (being proud of your country and having admiration for your own way of life) or nationalism (fostering the belief that your nation is superior by denigrating other nations and cultures).

James, I think that the Olympics are driven by both patriotism and nationalism. And neither are good. It creates the sense of “other” and being superior and better than that “other.” Patriotism has been used as a tool to gear men up for war and gain a sense of pride in their country, and thus do as the government wishes.

You pinpointed it exactly when you say there is no true sense of multi-culturalism; only the dominant Australian idea of “white bread” culture (Is 'white bread' a racist thing to say? A black Aussie mate used that term to describe his neighbourhood).

"They should integrate or get lost!" A 75 year-old Australian business man made this comment to me last week about migrants wanting Muslim religion incorporated into their schools.

Damien’s simple act being condemned by rules and policies makes the prejudice even more solidified. If we can’t accept cultural differences and beauty within our own nations, how will we even begin to accept them from the outside?

How brainwashed we are (or were) to have bought the hype. I'm thinking of the intensity and lengths in which weve been manipulated by institutions to beleive a way of thinking that alienates and creates the 'other' as Rebecca mentioned. Think back to school days when some of you may've played sports against another school, the doctrine of your school may have been patriotic; school songs, uniforms chants, being taught to have devotion to your school etc and then doing the best to advance your cause against other schools in the region - nationalistic behaviour albeit on a smaller scale. Only after leaving and meeting your former opponents (enemies) you realise the shared commonalities and that they were taught to 'hate' you the same as you were them. We are all the same.

On a national level the doctrine is advanced further with created tunes, hideous anthems and flags, marching bands and huge armies justified by a culture of fear. The idea of a common enemy/ struggle or shared history further propogates the idea of the 'other' which solidifies nationalist sentiment. Think of the reverence many countries have given to glorious and not so glorious military defeats in creating a nation's identity. It's all a farce! Benedict Anderson's book, 'Imagined Communities' addresses these and other ideas. I've tried remaining seated at events when the national anthem is played and despite the whispers and stern looks, in a small way it's my rebellion against the created doctrines. Try it some time!