IOC should pay tribute to the Munich Massacre

[ecoli]

Background on the munich massacre.

 

40 years later, IOC president, Jacque Rogge says this:

“We feel that the opening ceremony is an atmosphere that is not fit to remember such a tragic incident”

 

Um.. what better time or place could there be to remember the murder of olympic athletes. I know anything to do with Israel is going to be politically controversial, and the IOC doesn't want to appear to be taking a stand. But to me the politics couldn't be more blatant...

 

On the other hand, it could just be the IOC playing it safe and trying to avoid a similar situation during this year's olympic games.

[rigney]

Background on the munich massacre.

 

40 years later, IOC president, Jacque Rogge says this:

 

 

Um.. what better time or place could there be to remember the murder of olympic athletes. I know anything to do with Israel is going to be politically controversial, and the IOC doesn't want to appear to be taking a stand. But to me the politics couldn't be more blatant...

 

On the other hand, it could just be the IOC playing it safe and trying to avoid a similar situation during this year's olympic games.

No Olympic venue has ever come and gone that most of us alive as adults on that terrible day, doesn't remember. Horrific!

Personally, I have mixed feelings concerning the games. Pardon me. But no! A memorial that even raises the vision of such an atrosity and visceral hatred of a people should not be held? We could start building memorials tomorrow stretching out forever and still not epitomize those lost in such tragedies.

Edited July 25, 2012 by rigney

[ecoli]

Strong words rigney, but even some small gesture would go a long way, I believe.

[DJBruce]

I understand the idea that the opening ceremony, and in fact the Olympics as a whole are meant to transcend conflict, politics, and violence and unify the world through sport. As such I agree with the sentiment that normally the opening ceremony should not be used to commemorate tragic events, and if for nothing else because there are so many that could be rememberer. However, that being said I completely disagree with the IOC's decision not to commemorate those who died in Munich. That is because this tragic massacre occurred at the Olympics, and so is part of the history of games. Those who perpetrated the act of terrorism were trying to shock the world by destroying the unifying vision of the olympics. So at very least the IOC should take a moment to remember that those who died in '72 in part did so for this vision.

 

That being said IOC President Jaques Rouge did hold a moment of silence in an impromptu ceremony earlier this week, but in my mind that is to little. I find it somewhat disgusting that the Olympics, which preaches begin above political strife is playing politics instead of what in my mind is right. Honoring the 11 olympians who were murdered during the '72 games.

 

Two final points: Bob Costas will hold his own moment of silence in honor of those murdered in '72 during the US broadcast of the opening ceremony. Here is a quite powerful video about the massacre.

[rigney]

Strong words rigney, but even some small gesture would go a long way, I believe.

. Nothing disrespectful Ecoli. As much as I love to watch the rivalry of these games, winter or summer and to know that many of these kids and even some adults athletes have put their lives on hold to compete; they are mere pawns in the hands of commercial mayhem. Ouch! I can feel the slings and arrows already. It could be questioned and researched further, but I believe commercialism hit high gear at the 1936 games in Germany when Hitler had that beautiful Olympic stadium constructed to show off what he thought was to become the master race. Then a young black kid born in Alabama and raised in Cleveland, Oh., changed that dream forever. But commercialism was now cooking on the front burner.

http://www.biography.com/people/jesse-owens-9431142

Edited July 26, 2012 by rigney

[CaptainPanic]

Meh, I disagree with the strong words of rigney and the proposal of ecoli. It was a bad day for the Olympics and for the world, but:

 

(1) To give it so much attention also gives attention to the terrorists, and makes their attack even more successful 40 years afterwards. They want to disrupt life, so the best weapon against them is to totally ignore them.

(2) It's just 11 dead athletes. Since that day, approximately 2,500,000,000 people have died worldwide. To give it so much attention degrades other atrocities in the world to being less important than these 11 athletes... to remember them at the opening ceremony (which gets billions of viewers) is really far too much. If you wanna remember something, remember the thousands of dead in the Japan earthquake/tsunami of last year, or something that is actually significant and not just emotional.

(3) Come on, it's 40 years ago. Give it a rest and let's get on with life.

 

So, in short: we already get plenty of stories about terrorism here, terrorism there... but in the end, terrorism is just a very insignificant part of life. Also, the "we shall never forget" kinda attitude is stupid and childish, and will just end in more tears when sorrow is manipulated to become anger.

[ecoli]

Meh, I disagree with the strong words of rigney and the proposal of ecoli. It was a bad day for the Olympics and for the world, but:

 

(1) To give it so much attention also gives attention to the terrorists, and makes their attack even more successful 40 years afterwards. They want to disrupt life, so the best weapon against them is to totally ignore them.

This is your strongest point, IMO. But I don't think a minute of silence is all that disruptive of life. Remembrance and tribute is not the same thing as the "terrorist winning" the attention game. Or are yearly 9/11 memorials also a waste of time?

 

Keep in mind, of course, that one of those terrorists is still alive today. Probably in hiding in Libya, but accepted by his gov't (& people ?) as a hero, and not a murderer.

 

And, the most important point: If the IOC decides not to have this moment of silence to keep from agitating those nations which are hostile to Israel... then haven't the terrorist "won"?

 

(2) It's just 11 dead athletes. Since that day, approximately 2,500,000,000 people have died worldwide. To give it so much attention degrades other atrocities in the world to being less important than these 11 athletes... to remember them at the opening ceremony (which gets billions of viewers) is really far too much. If you wanna remember something, remember the thousands of dead in the Japan earthquake/tsunami of last year, or something that is actually significant and not just emotional.

Those dead should be honored. We should fund research into aging-related diseases (which is the world's worst killer!). But honoring 11 dead people does not decrease the importance of those other dead. Especially considering that 1) these murders happened during the olympic games 2) 11 people was a significant chunk of the Israeli team and of olympic athletes in general. The Olympics are a symbol of peace and cooperation... which was shown to be an utter farce in 1972 due to the failures of the olympic committee and Germany host.

 

(3) Come on, it's 40 years ago. Give it a rest and let's get on with life.

Remembering the past doesn't preclude getting on with life, but forgetting the past does leave you prone to repeating it. A rather poor strategy, wouldn't you say?

 

So, in short: we already get plenty of stories about terrorism here, terrorism there... but in the end, terrorism is just a very insignificant part of life. Also, the "we shall never forget" kinda attitude is stupid and childish, and will just end in more tears when sorrow is manipulated to become anger.

But people do remember... especially events that are within living memory (its not like we have big public displays of Pearl Harbor memorials every year anymore). And don't forget, ignoring what, for some, represents a highly emotional moment does contribute to anger - due to feelings of marginalization, politicization of their grief. Just look how pissed people are getting about this perceived snub. If they were given their moment, that emotion is expressed and no other ill-will need arise.

[ecoli]

File this one under jumping to conclusions: http://deadspin.com/5929778/heres-the-opening-ceremony-tribute-to-terrorism-victims-nbc-doesnt-want-you-to-see

 

So forget about the NBC 'censoring' angle. An olympics ceremony tribute to civilian victims of British terror from 2005 is ok, but tribute to Olympic athlete Israeli victims of terror from 1972 isn't? hm...

[dimreepr]

I am actually very disappointed that England tried so hard to gain the Olympics, given the inherent corruption within the IOC. I think if the Netherlands rejection of the bid process was more universal, things like the Munich massacre would have had much more prominence, simply because money is less of a factor. Captain panic has a very good point in that terrorism depends on publicity and of course is the reason for the targeting of said athletes. If corruption/money wasn’t so integral with the IOC then, maybe, we’d have games to truly admire.

 

 

[imatfaal]

File this one under jumping to conclusions: http://deadspin.com/...want-you-to-see

 

So forget about the NBC 'censoring' angle. An olympics ceremony tribute to civilian victims of British terror from 2005 is ok, but tribute to Olympic athlete Israeli victims of terror from 1972 isn't? hm...

 

Not justifying the choice but possibly explaining a little - most Londoners (well at least me and people I was in the pub with discussing this a few days ago) link the Olympic Game intimately with the 7th July bombings; the announcement of the choice of the IOC was late-ish on 6th July and I was one of hundreds of thousands who were part of an impromptu party around Trafalgar Square where the results were shown on an enormous screen. London kind of went to be bed pinching itself and unsure whether to be happy or petrified or both - there was only one thing on everybody's lips the next morning "I thought it would be Paris ... can we do it... will we screw up...gonna be fun though" etc. An hour later London was completely paralysed with bombs going off on the tube, and on buses - the emotional crash was terrific.

 

That said, I see no reason why both issues could not have been addressed

[CaptainPanic]

I totally fail to understand everybody's fascination with terror. Terror is insignificant. The only reason it is significant is that people like those replying here give it significance. Yes, I actually accuse you of making terror successful (but you're not alone - a majority of the people do this, helped by the media).

 

Did you guys know that annually in the UK alone more than 4,000 kids die before the age of 5? I mean, if you wanna worry about something, there's your much bigger issue. Luckily, the organizers of the Olympics actually DID include a scene about children's healthcare (and children's literature) in the opening ceremony, and they made it lively. It was not a memorial for the dead, but a celebration for achievements of the modern age. I agree with that choice. Also they took a few seconds (no more) for the world wars. A poppy was visible for a very short time.

 

It's not like the organizers of the olympics are an insensitive bunch of bastards. They just chose to not remember each and every dead person ever... and a couple of dead athletes in Munich just isn't the #1 priority anymore. They chose their priorities (and got it right), and there was no room for more memorials, or they'd risk to turn the celebration into a funeral.

[ecoli]

That said, I see no reason why both issues could not have been addressed

Yes exactly. My point wasn't to diminish the horror or significance of the London attacks.. certainly there was room for both without risk getting excessive about it.

 

I totally fail to understand everybody's fascination with terror. Terror is insignificant. The only reason it is significant is that people like those replying here give it significance. Yes, I actually accuse you of making terror successful (but you're not alone - a majority of the people do this, helped by the media).

 

Did you guys know that annually in the UK alone more than 4,000 kids die before the age of 5?

How much effort does it take to complain on an online forum? Its not like recognizing victims of terror make any more (or less) likely that children will keep dying.

 

I mean, if you wanna worry about something, there's your much bigger issue. Luckily, the organizers of the Olympics actually DID include a scene about children's healthcare (and children's literature) in the opening ceremony, and they made it lively. It was not a memorial for the dead, but a celebration for achievements of the modern age. I agree with that choice. Also they took a few seconds (no more) for the world wars. A poppy was visible for a very short time.

 

My own skepticism of universal healthcare aside, I did think they did a good job addressing these themes. In addition to alluding to the effects of 200 years of British imperialism without beating it to death or living too much in the past.

 

However, during the segment which NBC cut out, they did have a wall of remembrance with pictures of specific individuals. Sometimes putting a few, small number of faces (including 2 US servicemen) to a tragedy makes it that much more poignant. As much as you complain about this, humans ARE, through fault of our own psychological processes, insensitive to scales. 50 pictures of dead people feels much more weighty that a statistic about 4,000 or even 4 million dead. If you want people to recognize tragedy, put a few faces on it.

 

Now I agree terrorism isn't the most important problem in the world, but it still is a problem.

It's not like the organizers of the olympics are an insensitive bunch of bastards. They just chose to not remember each and every dead person ever... and a couple of dead athletes in Munich just isn't the #1 priority anymore. They chose their priorities (and got it right), and there was no room for more memorials, or they'd risk to turn the celebration into a funeral.

 

My concern is that this decision was merely an excuse because of the controversial politics of it being Israel. How hard would it have been to put in the press release that the dance was also a tribute to the Munich massacre. No extra effort involved.

[imatfaal]

Captain - do you not see the difference between the death of one child deliberately killed to make a political point and almost any other worrying statistic. Its not the transitive verb 'to die' that is the attention grabber everyone will eventually (sometimes tragically soon) be part of that sentence "he died yesterday" "she died last week" etc - its the fact that "they were killed". Their death becomes merely a part of someone else action. I do not worry that N people die of terrorist acts every year - I worry that N people are killed every year by terrorists. And it's not an obsession with terrorism - old people die, it happens; but when a Doctor starts to kill old and sometimes terminally ill old people then something must be done. Motivation matters. To claim that terrorism has no significance is perhaps the wisest course of action - and we should deny them the oxygen of publicity; but we do not work on purely rational and mechanistic protocols.

 

My concern is that this decision was merely an excuse because of the controversial politics of it being Israel. How hard would it have been to put in the press release that the dance was also a tribute to the Munich massacre. No extra effort involved.

 

I hope you are wrong on this point - but I fear you may be correct

[zapatos]

(2) It's just 11 dead athletes. Since that day, approximately 2,500,000,000 people have died worldwide. To give it so much attention degrades other atrocities in the world to being less important than these 11 athletes... to remember them at the opening ceremony (which gets billions of viewers) is really far too much. If you wanna remember something, remember the thousands of dead in the Japan earthquake/tsunami of last year, or something that is actually significant and not just emotional.

 

Did you guys know that annually in the UK alone more than 4,000 kids die before the age of 5? I mean, if you wanna worry about something, there's your much bigger issue.

 

I honestly cannot follow your logic. You have on many occassions spoken out against people's empathy for others simply because there is something bigger to have empathy for. You say we degrade the atrocities of bigger events by taking notice of smaller events. 'Why remember the 11 athletes when we can remember the thousands dead in Japan?'. Why stop there? Don't remember the thousands dead in Japan, if you wanna remember something, remember the hundreds of thousands dead from the 2004 tsunami that killed so many in Indonesia! No, wait. Don't remember that, remember the China floods of 1931 when millions died. Then again, that is puny compared to AIDS. Or the Spanish Flu. Or Black Death.

 

Can we only show empathy and have remembrance for the biggest death toll of all?

 

And sorry for harping on this, but should we not spend time caring for animals when there are people to care for? Should we not work on making a better shovel when we could be making a better surgical tool? Should we not be experimenting on the LHC when people are starving?

 

There is room for empathy, effort, remembrace, etc. for all things, great and small. I think you do a disservice to others by minimizing their feelings and efforts.

[CaptainPanic]

I honestly cannot follow your logic. You have on many occassions spoken out against people's empathy for others simply because there is something bigger to have empathy for. You say we degrade the atrocities of bigger events by taking notice of smaller events. 'Why remember the 11 athletes when we can remember the thousands dead in Japan?'. Why stop there? Don't remember the thousands dead in Japan, if you wanna remember something, remember the hundreds of thousands dead from the 2004 tsunami that killed so many in Indonesia! No, wait. Don't remember that, remember the China floods of 1931 when millions died. Then again, that is puny compared to AIDS. Or the Spanish Flu. Or Black Death.

 

The underlying reason is that I've just about had enough with this poor excuse to invade countries, limit my freedom, censor information and the internet and invade my privacy.

 

Terrorism is not significant enough to change the whole bloody world, but it does. And you guys aren't helping by demanding it be remembered forever.

[zapatos]

The underlying reason is that I've just about had enough with this poor excuse to invade countries, limit my freedom, censor information and the internet and invade my privacy.

 

Terrorism is not significant enough to change the whole bloody world, but it does. And you guys aren't helping by demanding it be remembered forever.

I think you would win more converts to your position if you argued like you did in this post instead of presenting yourself as uncaring and unsympathethic to the suffering of others.

 

I somehow don't think we'd hear you talking about how insignificant the death was, and how honoring the dead person minimized the death of others, if that person was your murdered child, who died so someone else could make a political statement. Whether the person dies by the hand of a terrorist or in a flood, whether alone or in a large group, it is still significant to someone. To dismiss their pain and suffering because they are only one (or a few) and weren't lucky enough to die in a manner you find worthy of honoring, seems heartless.

 

Please don't translate my empathy for others to a lack of concern about invasion of countries, limits to freedom, censorship, and invasion of privacy.

 

I made no demands that this terrorist event be "remembered forever", but I feel confident that 60 seconds of silence during a 17 day event will have zero impact on my freedoms and privacy.

[Ophiolite]

 

I made no demands that this terrorist event be "remembered forever", but I feel confident that 60 seconds of silence during a 17 day event will have zero impact on my freedoms and privacy.

Fair enough, but not during the opening (or closing) ceremony. Perhaps each Olynpics could contain a memorial garden that honoured all past Olympians who are now dead. Or, in Athens, the home of the games a permanent memorial with names in the manner of the 911 memorial, or the Vietnam memorial in Arlington(?). In short remembrance, but in balanced context.

[CaptainPanic]

I think you would win more converts to your position if you argued like you did in this post instead of presenting yourself as uncaring and unsympathethic to the suffering of others.

Thanks for telling me which is the best choice of words to convey my point. Very helpful.

 

I somehow don't think we'd hear you talking about how insignificant the death was, and how honoring the dead person minimized the death of others, if that person was your murdered child, who died so someone else could make a political statement. Whether the person dies by the hand of a terrorist or in a flood, whether alone or in a large group, it is still significant to someone. To dismiss their pain and suffering because they are only one (or a few) and weren't lucky enough to die in a manner you find worthy of honoring, seems heartless.

The what-if-that-was-your-child-argument is a great way to counter statistics. If someone disargees spending fifty trillion on asteroid defense, you can destroy that person's argument by saying "what if your child was hit by an asteroid"? I think it is a fallacy.

 

I have thus far argued that the Olympics is a large event, followed by billions. Therefore, it should deal with big significant events, that are significant to a relevant part of the viewers. The event in Munich is not. Not anymore.

 

Please don't translate my empathy for others to a lack of concern about invasion of countries, limits to freedom, censorship, and invasion of privacy.

 

I made no demands that this terrorist event be "remembered forever", but I feel confident that 60 seconds of silence during a 17 day event will have zero impact on my freedoms and privacy.

60 seconds are enough to set the political agenda. 12 dead in a cinema are enough to possibly change the gun laws in the USA, even though there are gun-related incidents every day. Emotional stuff and media coverage matter a LOT. Because there is possibly no event covered as much as the Olympic opening ceremony, 60 seconds matter a lot.

 

And that's why I am against 60 seconds of remembering terror victims at the Olympics.

[zapatos]

Fair enough, but not during the opening (or closing) ceremony. Perhaps each Olynpics could contain a memorial garden that honoured all past Olympians who are now dead. Or, in Athens, the home of the games a permanent memorial with names in the manner of the 911 memorial, or the Vietnam memorial in Arlington(?). In short remembrance, but in balanced context.

Sure, that sounds like a great way to address this. I have no strong feelings about any kind of memorial at all. I only objected to the callous attitude toward those who do have strong feelings.

 

Thanks for telling me which is the best choice of words to convey my point. Very helpful.

No need to get in a snit about it. Your latest post better conveyed the core of your concerns that your earlier posts. I was simply pointing that out.

 

The what-if-that-was-your-child-argument is a great way to counter statistics. If someone disargees spending fifty trillion on asteroid defense, you can destroy that person's argument by saying "what if your child was hit by an asteroid"? I think it is a fallacy.

It wasn't meant to counter anything. It was an attempt to get you to see things from the point of view of those affected.

 

I have thus far argued that the Olympics is a large event, followed by billions. Therefore, it should deal with big significant events, that are significant to a relevant part of the viewers. The event in Munich is not. Not anymore.

You mean big significant events such as ping pong?

 

60 seconds are enough to set the political agenda. 12 dead in a cinema are enough to possibly change the gun laws in the USA, even though there are gun-related incidents every day. Emotional stuff and media coverage matter a LOT. Because there is possibly no event covered as much as the Olympic opening ceremony, 60 seconds matter a lot.

 

And that's why I am against 60 seconds of remembering terror victims at the Olympics.

At the risk of annoying you again, had you presented your argument this way the first time I would have had less reason to object to your statements.

 

You lose credibility in an argument when you fail to acknowledge what is important to the other side. "It's just 11 dead athletes", and "To give it so much attention degrades other atrocities ...", and "something that is actually significant", and " if you wanna worry about something, there's your much bigger issue", and "...a couple of dead athletes in Munich...", shows you do not hear or do not care what they think.

[ecoli]

 

60 seconds are enough to set the political agenda. 12 dead in a cinema are enough to possibly change the gun laws in the USA, even though there are gun-related incidents every day. Emotional stuff and media coverage matter a LOT. Because there is possibly no event covered as much as the Olympic opening ceremony, 60 seconds matter a lot.

 

And that's why I am against 60 seconds of remembering terror victims at the Olympics.

So is there some threshold where enough people die to attract your attention or deserve notice?

[CaptainPanic]

So is there some threshold where enough people die to attract your attention or deserve notice?

There's no distinct number, it's a gradient.

 

I think we're focussing far too much on small incidents, and far too little on the big picture.