Knowledge Construction Worker’s Weblog

Adriano’s blog about learning, knowledge and the tools to make them happen!

Archive for the ‘Politics’ Category

Bitter price of iconic image

Posted by knowledgeconstructionworker on June 6, 2006

It is 35 years since the Olympic protest of Tommie Smith and John Carlos. Both later paid for it, writes Steve Dilbeck in Los Angeles.

Evening is still coming as Tommie Smith sits on a wooden bench and looks over the Santa Monica College track, his young charges heading off for the day while the football team continues to work out.

He gives them all a long look, smiles a peaceful smile.

“None of these kids know who I am,” Smith said. “They don’t have the slightest idea. To them I’m just ‘coach’.”

In the late afternoon, John Carlos is trying to talk on the phone from Palm Springs High, but he has to keep barking out instructions to students.

Carlos, too, found few knew who he was when he arrived on campus.

“When I came here 17 years ago, they didn’t particularly know,” Carlos said. “A few years later a textbook came out and they happened to see my picture and name in the history book.”

The defining moment that elevated Smith and Carlos beyond American sports figures and into history books happened 35 years ago yesterday in Mexico City.

It was during the 200 metres victory ceremony at the 1968 Olympics. Smith had won in world-record time; Carlos had captured the bronze.

As they stood on the victory platform and the US anthem began, they bowed their heads, and, each wearing a black glove, raised a clenched fist in a black power salute. Australia’s Peter Norman, who won silver, wore an Olympic Project for Human Rights badge in support of the pair.

It remains one of the most vivid Olympic images – a picture once seen, never forgotten. It was a courageous, non-violent protest, benign but impassioned dissent. They meant to bring further attention to civil rights issues, to give pride to African-Americans, and they succeeded.

But the reaction was as swift as it was negative. In the US there was outrage from many white Americans. People saw heads bowed as disrespectful towards the American flag. They mistakenly saw the clenched fists as supportive of the Black Panthers.

The Associated Press report described them “in a Nazi-like salute”. Chicago columnist Brent Musburger called them “black-skinned storm troopers”.

The outspoken Carlos made the kind of comments that only inflamed the establishment. After the ceremony he said: “We’re sort of show horses out there for the white people. They give us peanuts, pat us on the back and say, ‘Boy, you did fine.’ ”

The International Olympic Committee demanded the US Olympic Committee ban them from the Games, but it refused. The next day the IOC said if the sprinters were not banned, the entire US track and field team would be barred from further competition. The USOC caved in.

Smith and Carlos were withdrawn from the relays and expelled from the Olympic Village. When they returned home, Smith and Carlos were ostracised. Jobs became scarce. They received death threats and their homes were attacked.

“One rock came through our front window into our living room, where we had the crib,” Smith said. “It seemed like everybody hated me. I had no food. My baby was hungry. My wife had no dresses.”

Even today, there are those who remain angry and full of hatred.

“There are still threats,” Carlos said. “I was never concerned about those punks. I just let them know it will be remembered, that life doesn’t stop when you leave this planet.”

After graduating, Smith was given an honourable discharge from army service for “un-American activities” That probably did him a huge favour, since the Vietnam war was raging and the body count growing.

“I was going to ‘Nam,” Smith said. “I could see myself in rice paddies. I believe there’s a God. Sixty-eight had its downfall, but it had its protection for me. I might not be alive.”

Carlos had two brothers serving, but after his protest both were immediately discharged.

Smith borrowed money to complete his education and get his teaching qualification. He tried gridiron for a few years with the Cincinnati Bengals, then finally got a job as a track coach in Ohio. In 1978 he moved to Santa Monica College, where he has been a social science and health teacher, and coaches track and field.

Carlos had an even more trying time, working as a security guard and bouncer, among other jobs.

“I’d get minimum wage and then go to Vegas and roll the dice to get it up to something to feed my family,” he said. “We had to chop up furniture, the kids’ beds, to stay warm.”

Looking back, the first thing that comes to him is basic.

“That I survived,” he said. “That I still have any sanity.

“My first wife is deceased as a result. She took her life because she couldn’t deal with the pressure from the results of Mexico.”

Smith, one of 12 children, was born in 1944 in Clarksville, Texas, where his father was a “dirt farmer”.

After the family moved to California, Smith would help in the fields for up to 10 hours a day,

even as he began to excel athletically in high school. His talent won him a scholarship at San Jose State and he was soon a world-class sprinter.

When he returned from Mexico, he went to visit his father, still working the fields. His father could not read but had heard people were angry at his son.

“He kind of looked at me, looked up and down, and said in his southern drawl: ‘You know, I’ve been hearing a lot of things about you. Everybody been telling me you did something wrong. You stuck a hand up or hit somebody or something.’

“I said that’s not truthful. He said: ‘Well, you’re telling me that and I’m going to believe you. You’re my son.’ First time I shook hands with him in my life.” Carlos is from Harlem, where his father was a cobbler and his mother a nurses’ aide.

“My mom and dad never saw me run a single race,” Carlos said. “They were always working every weekend. They were just trying to raise us.”

One of five children, Carlos lived with his family in an apartment behind his father’s shoe store and across from the Savoy Ballroom, where the best big bands and jazz groups of the day played.

Carlos and his friends would help people out of cabs or sing and dance outside the club. “We were out there hustling,” he said.

Then he would retreat to his apartment, where he could hear Duke Ellington lead his band or Frank Sinatra sing.

Like Smith, Carlos was a multisport star, who ultimately wound up at San Jose State.

People often assume the pair were great friends

but, in truth, they were never close. They never competed at the same time at San Jose State. They never forged some great plan should they both make the podium. At best, they are cordial to each other.

“I don’t think John Carlos likes me, even now,” Smith said. “I don’t think Carlos likes very many people. That’s just his demeanour. I’m more of a human person. I will not sit and talk to him. I talk to him on the phone.”

Smith lives near Los Angeles, Carlos in Palm Springs, but they have never been to each other’s home. And to this day, they disagree on exactly what happened in Mexico, whose idea the protest was.

Harry Edwards, another former San Jose State athlete, had formed the Olympic Project for Human Rights and wanted black athletes to boycott the Games. Before the team flew to Mexico, OPHR members decided to compete and protest individually.

In the 200m, Carlos – who had beaten Smith in world-record time at the trials – led early before Smith closed to win in 19.83, still a world-class time.

But a stunned Smith said he heard Carlos claim he allowed him to win because the gold was more important to him. Smith said his wife later confronted Carlos and he said it was true.

Carlos said: “Tommie can say whatever he wants. All I can say is, I respect Tommie Smith as one of the greatest sprinters in Olympic history.”

The two also disagree on whose idea the podium protest was.

After the race, the two and Norman had to wait two hours in a tunnel before the ceremony. Smith said he had the gloves and was trying to determine exactly what to do with them.

“The thought process was of power or strength, and I didn’t know how to do it except just hold my hands up like in church,” Smith said. “I’ve been religious all my life. Praise God with your hands up in church, with your head bowed. I thought this would be a good thing for me to do.

“So I told John: ‘This is what I’m going to do. I have another glove if you want it. You are welcomed to do, and you do what you think is necessary.’ I said if you want to do it, just watch me and follow my lead.”

Carlos tells it differently: “He had the gloves, I had the idea.”

While Smith said his head was bowed in prayer, Carlos said his was in reflection.

“I reflected on my father, who had fought in the the First World War. I reflected on when I was seven or eight and my mother would be working a lot of nights and away from her family. I reflected on the ignorant-ass teachers sent into the urban parts of the city who had no business being there. There was much to reflect upon.”

What both agree on is, despite everything, they have no regrets.

These two supposed radicals, combative outsiders, have spent their lives teaching the young. Both remain very religious.

“They wanted to build us to be arrogant, militant, unruly African-Americans,” Carlos said. “Anything but individuals serious about life, serious about their country, and its responsibilities to its citizens.

“People looked at us like we were subversive. We were like birds busting out of a cage.”

Smith said: “I was always an advocate of equal rights. Not that I wanted to whup the white man, or get whupped by the white man, because I saw that happened to my father. I wanted to be equal to the man doing the whupping. Give me equality.”

Yesterday both were due at San Jose State, where a ceremony was planned to honour their protest. The school hopes to raise funds to erect a statue next year.

“What’s so surprising about it is, on a positive note, it’s the brainchild of a 23-year-old white student,” Smith said.

Thirty-five years have passed since two sprinters made a stand, made a difference, made history.

“We still have a way to go,” Carlos said, “but we can see some distance for where we were.”

Los Angeles Daily News posted with permission

Posted in Politics | Leave a Comment »

Elezioni 2006

Posted by knowledgeconstructionworker on April 7, 2006

Luigi Barzini, scriveva, quarant’anni di fa, per spiegare il fascino dell’Italia nel mondo e la «pacifica invasione» dei turisti:  «L’arte di vivere, quest’arte screditata creata dagli italiani per sconfiggere l’angoscia e la noia, sta diventando una guida inestimabile per la sopravvivenza di molte persone».
E’ ancora così. L’Italia quotidiana – soprattutto se uno non ci deve lavorare – piace e convince. Nel nostro Paese tutti si sentono qualcuno; e, giustamente, reclamano attenzione.

Permettimi di citare un passaggio dal mio «La testa degli italiani» (negli Usa, «La Bella Figura. A Field-Guide to the Italian Mind», out Aug 15). Scrivo, verso la fine:
«Un negoziante amichevole sotto casa compensa una notizia spiacevole in televisione. Ecco perché nelle classifiche sulla qualità della vita precediamo Paesi come gli Stati Uniti, la Francia o la Germania: perché le consolazioni artigianali valgono quanto le organizzazioni industriali. Certo, nel prodotto interno lordo non risultano: ma nella contabilità personale si vedono eccome. (…) In Italia conosciamo il piacere della conversazione, e il gusto dell’osservazione personale: l’apprezzamento su un abito è gradito, altrove sarebbe sospetto. In Italia le famiglie difendono il rito dei pasti; e i ragazzi stanno riscoprendo quello, non altrettanto fondamentale, dell’aperitivo. In Italia chi lavora è riuscito a trasformare in una cerimonia anche l’abitudine più breve: il caffè espresso bevuto in piedi in un bar».

Secondo te, queste cose non sono importanti? Secondo me, sì. Certo, se fossero abbinate ad affidabilità, onestà e organizzazione sarebbe meglio: in questo caso, diventeremmo una sorta di paradiso in terra. Invece siamo un purgatorio colorato, pieno di interessanti anime in pena.

di Luigi Severgnini

Posted in Politics | Leave a Comment »

CONSENSO e PARTECIPAZIONE: conversazione con un amico

Posted by knowledgeconstructionworker on May 19, 2005

Carissimi,

Per quanto riguarda il moderatore esterno io lascerei perdere, soprattutto se gli altri non si sono ancora dichiarati favorevoli.
Credo che l’intrusione di un esterno possa inibire o rendere ancora meno partecipata la discussione, che secondo me deve restare a livello di una chiacchierata fra amici. Le opinioni sul che fare(?) devono fluire spontanee e appassionate, devono dare la misura della differenza e divergenza, nonche’ delle possibili convergenze.

Solo cosi’ infatti si potrebbe riuscire a costruire qualcosa di valido e partecipativo, ma non deve essere un dramma se tutte queste chiacchiere si dovessero concludere con un nulla di fatto: amici come prima, anzi piu’ di prima.

E’ per questo che penso che il moderatore deve essere uno di noi e xxxxxx resta il mio candidato. Gli suggerisco di organizzare gia’ le domande in maniera evolutiva concedendo un tempo preciso e limitato per le risposte (compresa la sua).
Dovra’ inoltre proibire ed evitare le interruzioni, evitare o tenere a freno gli eccessi verbali dei piu’ agitati e tenere conto dell’evoluzione del dibattito per 60 minuti.

Le valutazioni circa le possibilita’ di giungere ad una conclusione unitaria, come sulla possibilita’ di giungere alla costruzione di un gruppo omogeneo che lavora insieme su un progetto comune non possono essere delegate o lasciate ad un moderatore esterno, come non possono essere lasciate solo a xxxxxxx.

Buona notte a tutti.

LA MIA REPLICA

Spontanee e appassionate? Come l’altra volta? Ma si, una bella chiacchierata tra amici. Porto io i tarallucci e il vino…

“L’intrusione di un esterno possa inibire” ? In che senso? I piu’ agitati? Il facilitatore non e’ un maestro di scuola che fa la lista dei buoni e dei cattivi ma un professionista che crea le condizioni migliori per aumentare la partecipazione. Ti posso consigliare di leggere qualche articolo da questo sito? http://www.iaf-world.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=1

Il gruppo non sta preparando una chiacchierata fra amici. Guarda che per la maggior parte dei partecipanti – me incluso – gli altri membri sono qualsi estranei, visti una volta o due. Forse parli per te. E gli altri?

“XXXXXX resta il mio candidato”: quando non siamo d’accordo – perche e’ evidente che non lo siamo – scatta subito il meccanismo del voto invece di quello della ricerca del consenso. Perche? Non so se ho ragione e credo che ognuno abbia un pezzo di verita’. Io non sono interessato ad avere ragione, solo ad esplorare insieme quale sia la cosa piu’ giusta.

Ho fiducia. Ma devo dirti che trovo ridicolo – a 3000 km di distanza – continuare questo modello “conflittuale” a colpi di mozioni e di “votazioni – muro contro muro” con lo spettro dello scioglimento, visto che metti sempre in dubbio “la possibilita’ di giungere ad una conclusione unitaria”.

Io sono per il dialogo. Un gruppo di 10 persone che condividono la stesse idee politiche che vivono a Washington, che hanno un minimo di buon senso e di buona educazione, possono mettersi d’accordo.

XXXXXX e’ il mio candidato? Credevo fosse una conversazione… tra amici. Ma non c’e bisogno del voto: visto che XXXXXX si e’ offeso, il facilitatore non l’ho piu’ chiamato.

Adriano Pianesi

CONTRO REPLICA

Caro Adriano,

voglio rispondere alla tua “provocazione” non solo per la piccola divergenza d’opinione sul moderatore/facilitatore, ma soprattuto per informarti che ho recepito il tuo messaggio, nonche’ per darti il segnale piu’ chiaro possibile che ho capito benissimo la tua decisione e volonta’ di fare del tutto per far funzionare il nostro gruppo.

Tuttavia, credo che il facilitatore non possa fare molto per favorire l’amicizia e per far maturare il consenso, soprattutto se qualcuno ritenesse che non e’ il caso di accettare mediazioni e compromessi.

Al nostro livello il consenso deve arrivare spontaneo. Inoltre, ognuno e’ libero pensare e decidere su cosa vuole fare. E, noi, soprattutto in questo caso, dovremmo rispettare chi non vuole o non se la sente di aderire ad un’iniziativa di cui non e’ convinto.

Un abbraccio.

RISPOSTA ALLA CONTRO REPLICA

Carissimo;
Grazie della tua mail. Si, la pensiamo diversamente. Hai visitato il sito che ti ho mandato?
Il facilitatore non ha il compito di “favorire l’amicizia” (ma a mio avviso l’amicizia in un meeting non c’entra. E’ come fare un business con un amico: o finisce l’amicizia o il business!).

A mio pare il consenso non e’ dato una volta per tutte. Io credo che chiarendo le ipotesi e i fatti, le esperienze di ognuno sia possibile arrivare – se non a cambiare opinione – a capire le prospettive di chi non la pensa come me. Credo che questo crea le condizioni per trovare un accordo.

“Al nostro livello il consenso deve arrivare spontaneo.” Questo io non l’ho mai sperimentato nella mia vita. Mi piacerebbe saperne di piu’ della tua esperienza di CONSENSO SPONTANEO.
Nel nostro gruppo ho notato che tutti hanno un’opinione su tutto – prima di cominciare a parlare – che ritengono la piu’ giusta. Un’altro modo di chiamarlo e’ PREGIUDIZIO. Ho notato pure molta diffidenza.

Il rispetto di chi vuole uscire o la liberta’ di farlo non e’ mai stato in dubbio. Lo e’ il “come” creare le condizioni perche’ questo non succeda:
A tuo parere non abbiamo modo di influire ed il risultato puo’ essere l’uscita di alcuni.
A mio parere invece si puo’ evitare l’uscita attraverso lavoro di gruppo produttivo e strutturato che mantenga il paradosso della maggiore struttura possibile per creare …spontaneita’.

Scusami per la lunga mail.
In spirito di collaborazione

Adriano Pianesi

Posted in Politics | Leave a Comment »

Friends, Mafia and Values a.k.a. You are wrong!

Posted by knowledgeconstructionworker on May 18, 2005

What is the utimate test of character? When things are fine and when they are not? What is really worth sacrifice? Are we alone or we belong? Are we to search meaning or happiness, or what? Here is a story for you, my friend! Hope it helps you figure it out.

Will is the marshall of a small western town in 1870. He’s just retired and he is waiting for the new marshall to get into town. He has been waiting for a week now but no news has come from the district office of Abilene about when Dan, the new marshall, will get in town.

Will is getting married to Amy. They are planning to move to another town, open a small store and have a family.

In the middle of their wedding party, word comes that Mitch - a killer Will sent to jail – has been pardoned by Judge Roy and is due to arrive in town on the train at noon.

Amy is a quaker and hates violence. She wants her husband to leave town with her before the killer arrives. “You should think about what is at stake here, Will” she said to Will in her wedding gown. “I can not help you: it is against my religion to use violence”

Bob, the city mayor is advicing against the decision to create a posse to defend the town: “They are only after Will. If he leaves town no blood will be shed and we will be safe. Will, this is the new marshall problem’s not yours”.

“I believe I will be leaving town as a precautionary measure” said Judge Roy hearing that the killer was to be in town.

Will asked Frank, his closest friend to help him. “There will be no shame in leaving” said Frank, “You have already turned your badge last week. This is the best advice I can give and the best I can do. I have a family.”

It’s 10:40 a.m. The train platform is deserted except for some of the killer’s cohorts, who are waiting for him to arrive. Together they plan to kill the marshall. Will has no chance, and there is no one left in town to help.

In case he gets killed, how would you rank the responsibility of all the characters in this story?

Posted in Politics | 4 Comments »