Waterstar

I think that if less black people support Obama this time around, it will not be because of his unfavorable pre-election epiphanies but because of his consistent ignoring of black people. It's like the show The Parkers. That guy would always ignore and sometimes downright diss Monique, but none of that ever seemed to matter.There he is looking as disconnected from her as he possibly can and there she is bout, "Heyyyyyy, Boo!" Obama is Black America's "boo".

Do you attribute any of this to the fact that the Chick-fil-A restaurants were giving out free sandwiches on yesterday? I also tend to doubt that those long lines at various locations were formed only by heterosexual people. Free stuff often transcends class, race, age, sexual orientation and/or even politics.

Forreal~ One of my dear friends used to go by the name of "Teachame" "teach a me"/"me a teach".. Even in his younger teenage years, he was very much aware of these two roles that we always occupy at simultaneously. We are all students and teachers in this life. Some are just more helpful in in these positions and some are more reluctant. The world provides us with all kinds of information indeed. Always wonderful to bump into helpful fellow voyagers along the path. It is my hope that we will continue to build.

Resolution for additional sanctions against Iran. Is this the road to greater security or is this the road to more war(s)? --------------------------------------- Congress approves new Iran sanctions on oil, shipping sectors Aug. 1, 2012 (Reuters) - The Congress overwhelmingly passed a new package of sanctions against Iran on Wednesday that aims to punish banks, insurance companies and shippers that help Tehran sell its oil. The legislation, agreed to by senior lawmakers of both parties, "seeks to tighten the chokehold on the regime beyond anything that has been done before," said Republican Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. The bill now heads to the White House for President Barack Obama's signature. It builds on oil trade sanctions signed into law by Obama in December that have prompted Japan, South Korea, India and others to slash their purchases of Iranian oil. The United States, European Union, and other Western nations are trying to stop Iran's suspected pursuit of nuclear weapons. Iran says its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes. "We are taking another significant step to block the remaining avenues for the Iranians to fund their illicit behavior and evade sanctions," said Democratic Senator Tim Johnson, chairman of the Senate Banking Committee. The Senate passed the sanctions bill unanimously and the House passed it on a vote of 421-6. Lawmakers from both parties said they are prepared to take additional steps. "There is more we can do, more that we will do if Iran doesn't end its nuclear weapons program verifiably and completely," said Representative Howard Berman, the top Democrat on the foreign affairs panel. The bill was endorsed by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, a powerful pro-Israel lobby group, which said the measure when coupled with existing U.S. sanctions "represents the strongest set of sanctions to isolate any country in the world during peacetime." Obama announced U.S. sanctions on Tuesday against foreign banks that help Iran sell its oil, specifically citing China's Bank of Kunlun and an Iraqi bank. The sanctions followed criticism from Republican presidential challenger Mitt Romney that the White House had failed to act strongly enough. China's Foreign Ministry said the sanctions announced by Obama would hurt cooperation between China and the United States. "The U.S. has invoked domestic law to impose sanctions on a Chinese financial institution, and this is a serious violation of international rules that harms Chinese interests," ministry spokesman Qin Gang said in a statement. The United States gave China, Iran's top customer for oil, a six-month reprieve from sanctions in June, saying it had cut its purchases. That decision sparked criticism in Congress. China's imports had fallen early in the year due to a pricing dispute, but have since rebounded.

Indeed. A foolish dog barks at the bird flying in the sky who is going his own way.

An update on the gun control debate and its politics: Despite mass shootings, Democrats still find tackling gun control too risky By David Perlmutt Even in the wake of last month’s Colorado shooting rampage and a gunman’s spree last year that nearly killed former U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, don’t expect Democrats to arrive in Charlotte armed with renewed calls for tougher gun laws. The issue is too risky. Yet with the party’s platform committee set to hammer out its positions on everything from homeland security to Social Security and Medicare next week in Detroit , some N.C. Democrats say they’ll push the party to at least take a tougher stand on controlling access to assault weapons. “Democrats haven’t been altogether forceful on the (gun control) issue,” said state Rep. Pricey Harrison of Greensboro, an N.C. delegate and member of the party’s platform committee. “But given the recent shootings in Arizona and Colorado – and a ton of shootings around the country that don’t get all the attention – we need to be, and can be, more thoughtful on the guns issue.” She will urge the party to support reinstituting a 1994 ban on assault weapons. The ban expired in 2004, and attempts to renew it have grabbed little traction. Gun rights groups are too powerful, Harrison said. They argue that any form of gun control makes it hard for crime victims to defend themselves and that criminals would get guns illegally. “The anti-control people aren’t willing to cede any ground and compromise,” said Harrison, who owns guns for shooting sporting clays or skeet. “Assault weapons are nearly impossible to justify. I plan to go to Detroit and advocate for a stronger position.” The July 20 shooting that killed 12 and wounded 58 in an Aurora, Colo., movie theater gave gun control supporters new ammunition to push for renewal of the assault weapon ban. It banned 19 models of semiautomatic guns. Colorado authorities say doctoral student James Holmes, the alleged gunman, legally bought a semiautomatic AR-15 with a 100-round magazine. The gun would have been banned under the 1994 law. Harrison also wants federal lawmakers to require states to share “gun data” to help prevent people from legally amassing a 6,000-round arsenal – as police say Holmes did. “There is no justification for allowing an individual to shoot off that many rounds,” Harrison said. She’ll find some support from fellow North Carolinians. N.C. Sen. Dan Blue of Raleigh, a former N.C. House speaker, is all for Democrats addressing access to assault and other military-style weapons. “I certainly support the Second Amendment (right to bear arms), but I don’t think that everybody ought to be able to have a tank in their back yard,” said Blue, a party rules committee member. “Assault weapons are hard to control and they’re designed to mow down a lot of people. “Most people agree there needs to be some restrictions on the availability of these military-style weapons.” subhead Days after the Colorado shooting, gun control advocates took heart when President Barack Obama told the National Urban League his administration would “leave no stone unturned” to reduce gun violence – including restricting gun ownership. Even gun owners, Obama said, would agree that AK-47 assault rifles belonged in the hands of military troops, “not children.” Yet a day later, his office said that Obama wouldn’t push for stricter gun laws, only better enforcement of existing laws. Next to abortion, gun control is perhaps America’s most polarizing issue. Few Democrats are willing to run afoul of powerful gun rights lobbies such as the National Rifle Association. Tackling the issue has always required a delicate balance between respecting the Second Amendment and curbing gun violence by limiting access. Now with a tight presidential race and a fragile hold by Democrats on the Senate, few expect Democrats in close contests to say much about the issue. Brad Thompson, a DNC platform committee member from Raleigh, is new to the platform process, but hopes the party speaks out on the easy accessibility of assault weapons – and ammunition. “It represents a problem,” Thompson said. “The access needs to be managed.” On Monday, Sen. Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey and Rep. Carolyn McCarthy of New York, both Democrats and longtime gun control advocates, introduced legislation they say would prevent people from buying unlimited amounts of ammunition on the internet. But congressional leaders said there wouldn’t be enough time in the current session to get into a gun control debate. “It’s political dynamite,” said UNC Charlotte political scientist Eric Heberlig. “When the president talked about gun control to the Urban League, he talked about restricting assault weapons, an element of gun control that is more popular. “I don’t believe he would have talked about it at all had Aurora not occurred.” subhead The 1994 mid-term elections taught Democrats how risky promoting gun control can be. During President Bill Clinton’s first term, the Democrat-controlled Senate and House passed the Brady Bill – instituting background checks for firearm buyers. The next year – in 1993 – they passed the assault weapons ban. Clinton signed the law in September. Two months later, Democrats lost control of both chambers. Many Democrats blamed the gun control votes for the dramatic losses. Since then, the Democrats seem to have given up on the debate, Heberlig said. “The silence you’ve heard from President Obama and other leading Democrats is the continuation of the political understanding in the Democratic Party that it doesn’t do them any good to talk about gun control,” Heberlig said. “They learned in 1994 there’s no point in risking it ... They’ve decided there’s no point in losing more seats in Congress or taking a chance in the presidential race.” Still, the 1996 Democratic platform remained tough on gun control. It forcefully stated that Clinton in a second term would veto any attempt to repeal the Brady Bill and assault weapons ban. Subhead Twelve years later at the 2008 Democrat convention, Democrats had retreated from tough language, despite outrage over the 2007 shooting at Virginia Tech that killed 32 people. The party’s platform said the right to bear arms is “an important part of the American tradition.” But that right was “subject to reasonable regulation.” As they had before, Democrats called for closing gun show loopholes and renewing the assault weapon ban. Now, as Democrats head to their convention in Charlotte, they face more outrage from the Aurora shootings – and another balancing act. “Certainly there will be factions in the Democratic Party who will be pushing for tighter controls,” UNCC’s Heberlig said. “The party will want to find a way to accommodate them: ‘Yes we’re with you; we understand. But we don’t want to say anything about it.’” Read more here: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2012/08/01/3423147/despite-mass-shootings-democrats.html#storylink=cpy Read more here: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2012/08/01/3423147/despite-mass-shootings-democrats.html#storylink=cpy Read more here: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2012/08/01/3423147/despite-mass-shootings-democrats.html#storylink=cpy

From Ezili Danto's Live one-woman Vodun Jazzoetry show:

Landmark documentary about residents' reaction to first black middle class family in (all white middle class area) Levittown (PA)

Actually, I don't really worry that you are mis-perceiving me. Out of humor, I have told you that your misperceiving me has made me suicidal, but let me clarify that it has not. Cynique said: You probably have your reasons for that. On the other hand, my interest in our people is not waning,and I have my reasons for that. As for the promotion of 'my agenda', I don't think that my objectives are out of line when I reflect on the forum's description: Culture, Race, and Economy Forum (Cynique's Corner) -Description:

"Truth does not change, only our awareness of it." -Attallah Shabazz

* In 1980, one of every ten African American male was involved in the penal system. In 2007, one every three African American males was involved in the penal system. It is projected that in 2020, two of every three African American males will be involved in the penal system. "Take the case of Malcolm Little. I didn't say Detroit Red or Malcolm X. I said Malcolm Little. He was a brilliant eighth grade honor-roll student. One day in school, his teacher asked him what he wanted to be when he grew up. Malcolm said he wanted to be a lawyer. I believe Malcolm would have been one of our best. Unfortunately, his teacher told Malcolm he couldn't be a lawyer and cruelly advised him to be a carpenter. This brilliant eighth-grade honor-roll student was initially destroyed by the words of his teacher. Words turned an honor roll student into a drug dealer and criminal."- Jawanza Kunjufu

There's a rumor that in Asian and Jewish homes, any grade less than an A means that changes will have to be made. In White homes, anything less than a B means that changes will be made. Unfortunately, in Black homes, as long as you pass, everything is okay. The future of te Black race lies in the hands of White female teachers and single-parent mothers. Why does parent involvement in school decline as the child grows older? Every boy needs a male role model. You can't be what you have not seen. Boys will be what they see. The teacher has your son for 180 days. You have your son for a minimum of 18 years. Many fatherless boys are aggressive and possess a derogatory attitude toward females. Is your son suffering from ADD (Attention Deficit Disorder) or DD (Dad Deficiency Disorder)? This may be the first generation of Black boys to never leave home. What slavery did not do to the Black family has been done by crack cocaine. It is easier to raise boys than to fix men. When a boy is born, he needs female nurturing. In studying great people, I found that somebody in their family was crazy about them. Are you teaching your son to get a good education in order to land a good job or to develop a good business? Are parents today more self-centered than they were in the past? Do not let anyone break your son's spirit. Some points from "Framework" Jawanza Kunjufu

People look at things everyday and never even develop the curiosity to wonder the history behind them, so large up to you same way. I respect that. On the other hand, many are quick to dismiss that which they never even examine. Throw mi corn, mi no call no fowl, but who de cap fit, mek dem wear it, yes. I think that this whole thing of our dismissing and often even criticizing that which has never been examined is one of our biggest pitfalls. At any rate, a good site for info for our history is blackpast.org. I think you'll find it to be very informative.

Have you watched the show?

That is true. Another area that is taking severe cuts is physical education. Are people really noticing how much bigger and how fatigued these kids are these days? Guess people don't have to notice though, because as it goes with many of those legislating such nonsense, their children are either grown or are attending private schools at which their children are receiving all the stuff they gut for public ed budgets plus much, much more. Politicians are only part of the problem, though. We don't stand up for our children. Perhaps it is because we don't feel that they are ours anymore. Bigup elders who stand in the gap for our children like Dick Gregory. Much respect to educators/consultants who really give a darn about our children like Jawanza Kunjufu and Jonathan Kozol, Sister Fulani, and others selflessly standing for much more than drive-by advocacy.

Actually Sister Souljah has long been involved in grassroots efforts with our people here and globally, especially the youth. As for her books, she has written at least 3 books, to my knowledge, since The Coldest Winter Ever. From your descriptions, it definitely does not seem as though you have read the book. Sister Souljah is definitely a woman of many dimensions, but for many, sound bites and headlines are enough to make up their minds about people and/or situations. Even with your brilliance and unique presence, you don't exactly seem to be an exception. I digress. For anyone who might be wondering why I posted the Sister Souljah speech, it is because it has much to do with what we are discussing in this thread, Cynique's and Troy's last posts in particular.

Did you even watch the show? Many of the viewpoints held by the panelists actually are viewpoints that are expressed here. Not all of course and not identically so yet one can easily see the similarities and it goes beyond the discussions that "we" who frequent this board and participate in such discussions have but to the dialogue (and often lack thereof) in general. The issues and the the discussions about them or the discussion about the avoidance ret the discussions (& collective action in response to them) behind them remain. As Jonathan Kozol remarked re: his experiences and participation in such discussions, not much has changed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=obHn3GLck0A&feature=relmfu http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vkjzr6cw0MA&feature=relmfu (The last video:)

PBS Special Forum "The Issue is Race" Panelists include: Alan Keyes (then black republican candidate for Senate), Richard Nathan (then director of Rockefeller Institute/researcher), Sister Souljah (then raptivist/PoliSci major), Jonathan Kozol (educator and author) Anna Deavere Smith (playwright), Mayor Sharon Pratt Kelly (then mayor of Washington) , Dhoruba bin Wasad (former political prisoner/wrongly imprisoned Black Panther, activist) Tony Brown (then journalist/author), Cornel West (then director of African American Studies at Princeton), and Sylvester Monroe (then of Time Magazine). This was in 1992. One of the main questions then was "What have we overcome?" It is now 2012. What have we "overcome" since then? Really, this show sums up so much of what we discuss here. It reflects the different positions that we see here from different sides. Trust me, Troy, I've seen this one and you're going to want to que this one up. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qZKM-6wg2Z8 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YJIw1LFzjc&feature=relmfu http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dGpJ-yQKZss&feature=relmfu

Wonder if "Cuz an' dem" would've embraced Obama so had he been an employee at Walmart vs the president. In this video, Obama goes to Ireland to visit his people and receives "hero" welcome: He's sure doing a lot of "reaching out to his roots" before election. Hey, can't knock da hustle.

Greetings, Authorctl. That is so good. Each one teach one, that's wasup. That plaque is very vague next to the story behind the stand that these men took and how much courage and dedication it took to make it, especially in such a time, so I can see how that can easily be the case, Authorctl. Even one can see the picture with the raised fists yet not really get a sense of the significance behind it.

What? No having something to say just for the sake of having something to say? Oh wait... Happy Monday just the same.

The man who raised a black power salute at the 1968 Olympic Games Source: UK Guardian Gary Younge When John Carlos raised his fist in a black power salute at the 1968 Olympics, it changed 20th-century history – and his own life – for ever. How does he feel about it now? John Carlos (on right), Tommie Smith (centre) and Peter Norman, who wore an Olympic Project for Human Rights badge in support of their gesture. When Norman died in 2006, Carlos and Smith were pallbearers at his funeral. Photograph: AP' You're probably not familiar with the name John Carlos. But you almost certainly know his image. It's 1968 at the Mexico City Olympics and the medals are being hung round the necks of Tommie Smith (USA, gold), Peter Norman (Australia, silver) and Carlos (USA, bronze). As the Star-Spangled Banner begins to play, Smith and Carlos, two black Americans wearing black gloves, raise their fists in the black power salute. It is a symbol of resistance and defiance, seared into 20th-century history, that Carlos feels he was put on Earth to perform. "In life, there's the beginning and the end," he says. "The beginning don't matter. The end don't matter. All that matters is what you do in between – whether you're prepared to do what it takes to make change. There has to be physical and material sacrifice. When all the dust settles and we're getting ready to play down for the ninth inning, the greatest reward is to know that you did your job when you were here on the planet." Carlos's beginning was, to say the least, eventful. Raised by two involved, working parents, he learned to hustle with his friends in Harlem and fight his way out of and into trouble. As a teenager, he used to chase Malcolm X down the street after his speeches and fire questions at him. Carlos always knew he was good at sports and originally wanted to be an Olympic swimmer, until his father broke it to him that the training facilities he needed were in private clubs for whites and the wealthy. He used to steal food from freight trains with his friends and then run with it into Harlem and hand it out to the poor. When the police gave chase, he was often the only one who never got caught. Running came so naturally, he never thought of it as a skill. That single moment on the podium cost Carlos dear. More than four decades later, you'll find him at his desk in a spacious portable building behind the basketball courts at Palm Springs High School in California, where he works as a counsellor. Among the family photographs on the wall are the vaguest allusions to his moment in history. Pictures of Malcolm X and African-American writer Zora Neale Hurston, the pledge of allegiance, which American schoolkids must say to the flag every day, and a small poster saying Go For Gold Olympics. For all its challenges, Carlos loves his job. "Being a counsellor, you have to talk to the children as though you're talking to a thousand people," he says. "Sometimes you say, 'I love you' and they say, 'I don't want your love' and you say, 'Well, it's out there, so you're going to have to deal with it.' And I learn a lot from them, too." John Carlos: 'It's what I was born to do,' he says of his salute. Photograph: Michael Steele/Getty Images Bald, tall, with a grey goatee, Carlos has glided into old age with a distinguished air and convivial manner, and more than a passing resemblance to the late activist and intellectual WEB DuBois. "The first thing I thought was the shackles have been broken," Carlos says, casting his mind back to how he felt in that moment. "And they won't ever be able to put shackles on John Carlos again. Because what had been done couldn't be taken back. Materially, some of us in the incarceration system are still literally in shackles. The greatest problem is we are afraid to offend our oppressors. "I had a moral obligation to step up. Morality was a far greater force than the rules and regulations they had. God told the angels that day, 'Take a step back – I'm gonna have to do this myself.'" The image certainly captures that sense of momentary rebellion. But what it cannot do is evoke the human sense of emotional turmoil and individual resolve that made it possible, or the collective, global gasp in response to its audacity. In his book, The John Carlos Story, in the seconds between mounting the podium and the anthem playing, Carlos writes that his mind raced from the personal to the political and back again. Among other things, he reflected on his father's pained explanation for why he couldn't become an Olympic swimmer, the segregation and consequent impoverishment of Harlem, the exhortations of Martin Luther King and Malcolm X to "be true to yourself even when it hurts", and his family. The final thought before the band started playing was, "Damn, when this thing is done, it can't be taken back. "I know that sounds like a lot of thoughts for just a few moments standing on a podium," he writes. "But honestly this was all zigzagging through my brain like lightning bolts." Anticipating some kind of protest was afoot, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) had sent Jesse Owens to talk them out of it. (Owens's four gold medals at the 1936 Olympics in Berlin themselves held great symbolic significance, given Hitler's belief in Aryan supremacy.) Carlos's mind was made up. When he and Smith struck their pose, Carlos feared the worst. Look at the picture and you'll see that while Smith's arm is raised long and erect, Carlos has his slightly bent at the elbow. "I wanted to make sure, in case someone rushed us, I could throw down a hammer punch," he writes. "We had just received so many threats leading up to that point, I refused to be defenceless at that moment of truth." It was also a moment of silence. "You could have heard a frog piss on cotton. There's something awful about hearing 50,000 people go silent, like being in the eye of a hurricane." And then came the storm. First boos. Then insults and worse. People throwing things and screaming racist abuse. "Niggers need to go back to Africa!" and, "I can't believe this is how you niggers treat us after we let you run in our games." "The fire was all around me," Carlos recalls. The IOC president ordered Smith and Carlos to be suspended from the US team and the Olympic village. Time magazine showed the Olympic logo with the words Angrier, Nastier, Uglier, instead of Faster, Higher, Stronger. The LA Times accused them of engaging in a "Nazi-like salute". Beyond the establishment, the resonance of the image could not be overstated. It was 1968; the black power movement had provided a post-civil rights rallying cry and the anti-Vietnam protests were gaining pace. That year, students throughout Europe, east and west, had been in revolt against war, tyranny and capitalism. Martin Luther King had been assassinated and the US had been plunged into yet another year of race riots in its urban centres. Just a few months earlier, the Democratic party convention had been disrupted by a huge police riot against Vietnam protesters. A few weeks before the Games, scores of students and activists had been gunned down by authorities in Mexico City itself. The sight of two black athletes in open rebellion on the international stage sent a message to both America and the world. At home, this brazen disdain for the tropes of American patriotism – flag and anthem – shifted dissidence from the periphery of American life to primetime television in a single gesture, while revealing what DuBois once termed the "essential two-ness" of the black American condition. "An American, a Negro; two souls, two thoughts, two unreconciled strivings; two warring ideals in one dark body, whose dogged strength alone keeps it from being torn asunder." Globally, it was understood as an act of solidarity with all those fighting for greater equality, justice and human rights. Margaret Lambert, a Jewish high jumper who was forced, for show, to try out for the 1936 German Olympic team, even though she knew she would never be allowed to compete, said how delighted it made her feel. "When I saw those two guys with their fists up on the victory stand, it made my heart jump. It was beautiful." As Carlos explains in his book, their gesture was supposed, among other things, to say: "Hey, world, the United States is not like you might think it is for blacks and other people of colour. Just because we have USA on our chest does not mean everything is peachy keen and we are living large." Carlos understood, before he raised his fist that day, that once done, his act could not be taken back. What he could not have anticipated, at the age of 23, was what it would mean for his future. "I had no idea the moment on the medal stand would be frozen for all time. I had no idea what we'd face. I didn't know or appreciate, at that precise moment, that the entire trajectory of our young lives had just irrevocably changed." During the Jim Crow era, life for even the most famous black sportsmen past their prime was tough. After his celebrated Olympic victory, Owens ran a dry-cleaning business, was a gas pump attendant, raced horses for money and eventually went bankrupt. "People say it was degrading for an Olympic champion to run against a horse," he said. "But what was I supposed to do? I had four gold medals, but you can't eat four gold medals." Joe Louis, a world champion boxer on whose shoulders rested national pride when he fought German Max Schmeling shortly before the second world war, greeted visitors at Caesars Palace in Las Vegas and went on quiz shows. And these were sporting figures who tried to keep in with the establishment. Carlos was still in his prime, but that single act of defiance ensured his marginalisation. Paradoxically, the next year was the best of his career. In 1969, he equalled the 100 yard world record, won the American Athletics Union 220-yard dash and led San Jose State to its first National Collegiate Athletic Association championship. The trouble was, in the years before lucrative sponsorship deals, running didn't pay and few would employ him. In the years immediately following his protest, he worked security at a nightclub and as a janitor. At one point he had to chop up his furniture so he could heat his house. The pressure started to bear down on his family. "When there's a lack of money, it brings contempt into the family," he says. Moreover, his wife was facing constant harassment from the press and his children were being told at school that their father was a traitor. The marriage collapsed. He tried American football for a few seasons, starting in Philadelphia, then moving north to Toronto and Montreal. He is keen to emphasise that the one thing that never happened, despite claims to the contrary, is that he had his medal confiscated. It's at his mother's house. And while he does not cherish it as you'd expect an Olympian might, he's adamant that this part of the story is set straight. "The medal didn't mean shit to me. It doesn't mean anything now… The medal had no relevance. The one way it had relevance was that I earned it. So they never took my medal away from me. I'd earned it. They can't take it." As time passed and the backlash subsided, Carlos was gradually invited back into the fold. He became involved as an outreach co-ordinator in the organising committee for the group bringing the Olympics to Los Angeles in 1984 and worked for the US Olympic Committee. Did he worry, as the picture for which he was famous started to adorn T-shirts and posters, that his readmission into the Olympic world meant his radicalism was being co-opted and sanitised? "The image is still there," he says proudly. "It keeps getting wider. If you look at the images of the last century, there's nothing much like it out there. And 'the man' wasn't the one that kept this thing afloat for 43 years. The man was the same man whupping my arse. And the Olympics are part of my history. I'm not going to run away from that." Carlos remains politically engaged. Late last year he addressed Occupy Wall Street protesters in New York. "It's the same fight as it was 43 years ago. We fought unemployment; for housing, education. It's the same thing as people are fighting for today." But, unlike during the 1960s, today Carlos sees little hope of resistance emerging through sport, which is awash with too much money and drugs. "There wasn't a whole bunch of money out there back then," he says, "so just a few people were ever going to be shakers and bakers. But today, if an athlete doesn't have a view of their history before them, then they have a view of just that big cheque in front of them. It's not the responsibility of the oppressor to educate us. We have to educate ourselves and our own. That's the difference between Muhammad Ali and Michael Jordan. Muhammad Ali will never die. He used his skill to say something about the social ills of society. Of course, he was an excellent boxer, but he got up and spoke on the issues. And because he spoke on the issues, he will never die. There will be someone else at some time who can do what Jordan could do. And then his name will just be pushed down in the mud. But they'll still be talking about Ali." Eight years earlier, during a different phase of anti-racist activism in the US, a 17-year-old student, Franklin McCain, had gained his place in the history books when he sat at a Woolworth's lunch counter in Greensboro, North Carolina, with three friends and refused to move until they were served. Many years later, McCain was philosophical about how that experience had affected him. "On the day that I sat at that counter, I had the most tremendous feeling of elation and celebration," he told me. "Nothing has ever come close. Not the birth of my first son, nor my marriage. And it was a cruel hoax, because people go through their whole lives and they don't get that to happen to them. And here it was being visited upon me as a 17-year-old. It was wonderful, and it was sad also, because I know that I will never have that again. I'm just sorry it was when I was 17." Carlos has no such regrets. He's just glad he could be where he was to do what he felt he had to do. "I don't have any misgivings about it being frozen in time. It's a beacon for a lot of people around the world. So many people find inspiration in that portrait. That's what I was born for."