The document summarizes the 1968 Olympics protest by Tommie Smith and John Carlos during the medal ceremony for the 200m race. It provides context for their protest, describing the growing civil rights movement in the US and their desire to bring attention to racial inequality and poverty at home. It then describes how Smith won gold and Carlos won bronze and their coordinated protest of raising black-gloved fists on the podium to represent black power and unity. This sparked international controversy and led to them being banished from the Olympic village. Their actions have since been recognized for drawing global attention to racial injustice in America.

2. CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT IN
THE U.S.A .(1954-1968)
African-American Civil Rights Movement (1955–
1968) refers to the movements in the United States
aimed at outlawing racial discrimination against
African Americans and restoring voting rights in
Southern states. By 1966, the emergence of the Black
Power Movement, which lasted roughly from 1966 to
1975, enlarged the aims of the Civil Rights Movement
to include racial dignity, economic and political self-
sufficiency, and freedom from oppression by white
Americans.

3. Martin Luther king jr

4. Mexico Olympics 1968

5. The Mexico Olympics of 1968 saw African-
American protests reach a world-wide
audience when two black athletes used a
medal ceremony for the 200 meters to
protest about the lack of real civil rights in
America.

7.  One of the greatest sprinters in the world in 1968 was Tommy
Smith. By the end of his athletics career, Smith had equaled or
broken thirteen world records. Close behind him in the
rankings was John Carlos. Both were team mates at San Jose
State College. In the build up to the games, all African-
American athletes were urged to boycott the games by the
Olympic Project for Human Rights (OPHR). A member of
OPHR was Harry Edwards who was a friend of both sprinters
and had influenced Smith and Carlos even before the Mexico
games. Though a boycott never materialised, both Smith and
Carlos agreed on a protest at the medal ceremony for the 200
meters which both were expected to be at.
 "It (a protest) was in my head the whole year. We first
tried to have a boycott (of the games) but not everyone
was down with that plan. A lot of athletes thought that
winning medals would supercede or protect them from
racism. But even if you won the medal, it ain't going to
save your momma. It ain't going to save your sister or
children. It might give you fifteen minutes of fame, but
what about the rest of your life? I'm not saying that they
didn't have the right to follow their dreams, but to me
the medal was nothing but the carrot on a stick." John
Carlos

8. How Tommie Smith won the race . . .

9.  In the 200 meters final, Smith won the gold medal and
Carlos took the bronze medal. Smith's time of 19.8
seconds equaled the world record. As both men climbed
the medals podium, it became clear that they were
wearing one black glove; Smith on his right hand, Carlos
on his left. Smith later stated that his right handed
demonstration was meant to represent Black Power in
America. The left hand demo of Carlos was meant to
represent unity in Black America. The archway that
their raised arms created was meant to represent black
power and unity in America. The black socks that both
wore (and no shoes) represented black poverty in
America. Both men also wore beads at the ceremony.
 "We wanted the world to know that in Mississippi,
Alabama, Tennessee, South Central Los Angeles,
Chicago, that people were still walking back and
forth in poverty without even the necessary clothes
to live. The beads were for those individuals that
were lynched, or killed 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. We were trying to wake the country up and
wake the world up to.“ John Carlos

10.  Their gesture was seen as a Black Power salute - and was
watched by tens of millions of people world-wide. This
resulted in both men being expelled from the Olympic village
and suspended by the American Olympic Committee and
being ordered to leave Mexico City. Their 'official' crime had
been to bring in political issues to an apolitical event.
 "The basic principle of the Olympic Games is that politics
plays no part whatsoever in them. US athletes violated
this universally accepted principle....to advertise
domestic political views." IOC statement after the protest
 Ironically - and missed by many at the time - the man who
won the silver medal (Peter Norman of Australia) wore the
badge of the OPHR on his tracksuit .
 When the two men returned to America, they were greeted as
heroes by the African-American community and as unpatriotic
troublemakers by others. In fact, both men suffered threats
against their lives. However, the stance they took was
publicised throughout the world. Polls have indicated that
their demonstration was the 6th most memorable event of the
C20th - an astonishing achievement for athletes of whatever
description. In 1998 both men were honoured for the stance
they had taken in 1998.
 Thirty years after the event, Steve Holman, an Olympic athlete
at the 1992 Games and America's fastest miler of the 1990-95
era, wrote a tribute to what both men had done in 1968 and
what it meant to him.

11. About John Carlos . . . .

13. Differences ,
similarities ,
diversity

14. Origins of social differences
 By birth
 By choice

15. By birth
 Some of the social differences are
based on accident of birth.
 We do not choose to belong to our
community, we belong to it simply
because we are born to it.
 We all experience social difference
based on accident of birth in our
everyday lives, it can be in the form of
male-female, being tall-short,
different complexions, or have
different physical abilities.

16. By choice
 Some of the differences are based
on our choices. For example, some
people are atheists—they do not
believe in God or any religion,
some choose to follow religion
other than in which they were born
; Some choose what to study and
what occupation to takeup and
which game to play or which
cultural activities to take part in.All
these lead to formation of groups
of our choices.
 Every social difference does not
lead to social division.

17.  Every social difference does not lead to
social division.
 Social differences divide similar people
from one another but, they also unite
people very different people.
 People belonging to different social
groups share differences and similarities
cutting across the boundaries of their
groups. Eg. Carlos & Smith joined hands
because as they both were similar but
Peter supported them as they were
athletes.

18.  It is common for people belonging to the
same religion feel that they donot belong
to the same community because their
caste or sect is different. It is also possible
for the people from different religions to
have same caste and feel close to each
other.
 Rich & poor persons from the same family
often do not have close relations with each
other for they feel they are very different.
 Thus we all have more than one identity
and can belong to more than one group.

19. OVERLAPPING & CROSS-CUTTING
DIFFERENCES.
 OVERLAPPING DIFFERENCES
1. When some social difference overlaps with other
difference.
2. Situations of this kind produce social divisions,
when one kind of social difference becomes more
important than the other and people start feeling
that they belong to different communities.
3. Example—
a)difference between Black & White in the US
becomes a social division because they tend to be
poor & landless, and often face injustice &
discrimination.
b) In our country Dalits tend to be poor & landless
and often face injustice & discrimination.
4. Overlapping differences create possibilities of
deep social divisions and tensions.

20.  CROSS-CUTTING DIFFERENCES
1.If social differences cross-cut one another, it is
difficult to pit group of people against the other.
2. It means that group that share a common
interest on the issue are likely to be on different
sides on a different issue.
3. Example –
Northern Ireland & Netherlands both are
predominantly Christians but divided between
Catholics & Protestants. In Northern Ireland
class & religion overlap each other, if catholic
one tend to be poor & have suffered
discrimination where as in Netherland, class &
religion tend to cross-cut each other and both
are equally likely to be rich or poor. It means
they have conflict in Northern Ireland and it is
not so in Netherlands.
4. Cross-cut social differences are easier to
accommodate.

21. Q. Most countries of the world are multi-
cultural? Why? Give examples.
Countries that were once
highly Homogeneous are
now becoming
Heterogeneous and are
undergoing a rapid change
a) with the influx of people
from other parts of the
world.
b) Migrants bring with
them their own culture and
to form a different social
community.

22. POLITICS OF
SOCIAL
DIVISIONS

23. Q. How do social divisions
affect politics?
The combination of politics & social
divisions is very explosive and dangerous.
a) democracy involves competition
among various political parties. Their
competitions tend to divide society.
b) if they start competing in terms of
some existing social divisions , they can
make social divisions into political
divisions and lead to conflict , violence or
even disintegration of a country.
c)social divisions affect voting in most
countries, people from one community
tend to prefer one party more than others.
d)in many countries there are parties
which focus only on one community.
--yet all this does not always lead to
disintegration.

24.  This has happened in many countries ---
Examples(negative results)
1. As in the case of Northern Ireland, this region of UK
has been for many years a sight of violence& bitter
ethno- political conflict.
--Its population is divided into into two major sects of
christianity: 53%--Protestants & 44%--Catholics.
--Catholics are represented by the Nationalist parties,
who wanted Northern Ireland to be united with the
Republic of Ireland, predominantly catholic.
--Protestants are represented by the Unionist who
wanted to remain with UK.
--hundreds of civilians and militants were killed in
the fight of political parties till 1998, the UK govt. &
the Nationalists reached a peace treaty after which the
latter suspended the armed struggle.
2. In Yugoslavia the political competition along
religious and ethnic lines led to the disintegration of
Yugoslavia into six independent countries.
--such examples lead some people to think that
politics & social divisions should not be allowed to
mix; if social divisions exists in a country they must
never be expressed in politics.

25.  POSITIVE EXAMPLES:
Every expression of social
division in politics does not
lead to disasters. Social
divisions of some or the other
kind do exist in every society of
the world and are reflected in
politics.
--in a democracy it is only
natural that political parties
talk of these divisions, make
different promises to different
communities, look after their
representation and policies to
redress the grievances of
disadvantaged communities.

26. THREE DETERMINANTS:
 There are three factors which are
crucial in deciding the outcome of
politics of social divisions.
1. Outcome depends upon how
people perceive their identities. If
they see their identities in singular
and exclusive terms it becomes very
difficult to accommodate. As in India
we think of ourselves as Indians as
well as belonging to a state or a
language group or a social or
religious community.

27.  2. It depends on how political leaders raise
the demands of any community. It is easier
to accommodate demands that are within
the constitutional framework and are not at
the cost of another community.
Example –the demand for only Sinhala was
at the cost of the interest and identity of
Tamil community in Srilanka; in Yugoslavia
also the ethnic communities presented their
demands in such a way that these could not
be accommodated with in a single country.
3. It depends on how the govt. reacts to the
demands of different groups. Example—In
Belgium and Srilanka if the rulers are willing
to share power & accommodate the
reasonable demands of minority community,
social divisions become less threatening for
the country. But if they suppress such a
demand in the name of national unity, the
end result can be quite opposite & such a
forced integration can sow the seeds of
disintegration.

28. Q. ARE SOCIAL DIVISIONS ARE DANGEROUS OR
NORMAL & HEALTHY?
In a democracy political expression of the social
divisions is very normal and can be healthy as….
--It allows various disadvantaged and marginal
social groups to express their grievances and get
govt. to attend to these.
--The expression of various kinds of social
divisions in politics often result in cancelling one
another out and thus reducing their intensity. This
leads to strengthening of a democracy.
--People who feel marginalized, deprived and
discriminated have to fight against the injustices
and such fights often takes the democratic path,
voicing their demands in a peaceful &
constitutional manner and seeking a fair position
through the elections.
--sometimes these social differences can take a
form of the unacceptable level of social inequality
and injustice. The struggle against such
inequalities sometimes take the path of violence
and defiance of state power.

29. The end
Thank you
By – simran
10th – A
37