Lots of burbling online over the protest sign -- supposed to have been taken at some anti-China protest related to the Olympic Torch back in April. I've seen a few credit it to San Francisco and a pro-Tibet rally. Les posted about it most recently. And, of course, the obvious retort is, "Um, yes, we did."

Three things:

1. I've not researched it exhaustively, but I can't find an actual solid news source (or any original source) for the picture. There is every possibility, I think that it's Photoshopped, rather than legit.  Note how crisp the letters are vs. the other parts of the image, though that could be a matter of focal depth. Second, how many protest signs would start with the phrase "Would we have ...?" That's a long phrase for signage, which is usually pithy and punchy to the point of incoherence. It just seems ... too obvious a setup. But, I'll confess, I could be wrong.

2. We don't "allow" any given country to host the Olympics. The host is chosen by the IOC, in which "we" (the US) have a voice. Unless the "we" refers to the International Community as a whole.
3. As has been noted elsewhere (see the comments to Les' post), while there were already a lot of troubling signs from Germany in 1936, that country wasn't yet outwardly that much worse than a lot of other nations lurking around at that point -- and certainly the US treatment of Jesse Owens was nothing to brag about. (Plus, the hosting decision was made in 1931, before the Nazi party had come to power.)

As to the merits of China hosting the Olympics, our participation therein, or the whole Olympic Movement itself -- that's another story.

I'm still not convinced it's readl.

Filed under :: Geopolitical Brouhaha :: Media - Sports
Link · Print · Edit · TR/G

In a long telephoto shot like this one, depth of field does tend to be quite narrow. And the contrast of the sign is consistent with the rest of the picture. But I wish the image included the sign holder.

If you want to make protesters look dumb, shoot (a picture of) the dumbest protester. That may be what's going on here.

As for points 2 and 3, logical inconsistencies are irrelevant if this is truly a picture of a dumb protester.