Society & Culture0 min ago
Olympic Torch
15 Answers
What's all the fuss about? Given it was an invention of the nazis to promote their 1936 olympics, why is there such a fuss over the torch?
Answers
1 to 15 of 15
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Whickerman. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
bazwillrun (in the Marathon next week?), I assume they were trying to show the faces of multi-cultural Britain yet again with Bangladeshi Konnie and West Indian Trevor. Pathetic. Why can't we be true Brits??? If protestors really wanted to extinguish the flame, why didn't they use one of those long-range water-pistols?
fagidill
I consider myself British, well that is what it says on my passport. Bloodline or lineage is
1. Direct descent from a particular ancestor; ancestry.
2. The descendants of a common ancestor considered to be the founder of the line.
What is the name of our British ancestor that we can all trace our roots to? I would like to know so that I can start excluding anyone who isn't able to prove they have this antecedent/progenitor in their pedigree.
I consider myself British, well that is what it says on my passport. Bloodline or lineage is
1. Direct descent from a particular ancestor; ancestry.
2. The descendants of a common ancestor considered to be the founder of the line.
What is the name of our British ancestor that we can all trace our roots to? I would like to know so that I can start excluding anyone who isn't able to prove they have this antecedent/progenitor in their pedigree.
Sorry Whickerman
My last post wasn't an answer to the question but was rather a digression that I just couldn't resist.
To the matter in hand I assume it is the symbolism and focal point to demonstrate against China.
I think the torch was around before Hitler, he brought in the idea of the relay. Didn't he also commission the autobahn without which we wouldn't have motorways - not sure whether that is in his mitigation or more reason to vilify him.
My last post wasn't an answer to the question but was rather a digression that I just couldn't resist.
To the matter in hand I assume it is the symbolism and focal point to demonstrate against China.
I think the torch was around before Hitler, he brought in the idea of the relay. Didn't he also commission the autobahn without which we wouldn't have motorways - not sure whether that is in his mitigation or more reason to vilify him.
The VW Beetle was an awful car (I've hated them for as long as I can remember) and I think you'll find it was designed by Hans Lubwinka for (if memory serves) Tatra and he was a Czech. Coincidentally perhaps the Romans could lay claim to the idea of a high speed highway. But I digress, I just want to express that Hitler had few (if any) original ideas.
I agree with anyone's right to protest peacefully, they say they were attacking the flame. I disagree they were attacking someone who happened to be carrying it, I've only seen bits and pieces on the news but I feel our Police overall did well (removal of shirts aside).
You can't cross a barracade into a lawful organised peaceful procession attack the participants spray them powder and not expect to get lifted.
Liverpool paraded the European cup a few years ago, I could've blocked the route in protest of a hundred Koppite sins, but the plod would've removed me, one way or tother.
Booldawg has a point.
I agree with anyone's right to protest peacefully, they say they were attacking the flame. I disagree they were attacking someone who happened to be carrying it, I've only seen bits and pieces on the news but I feel our Police overall did well (removal of shirts aside).
You can't cross a barracade into a lawful organised peaceful procession attack the participants spray them powder and not expect to get lifted.
Liverpool paraded the European cup a few years ago, I could've blocked the route in protest of a hundred Koppite sins, but the plod would've removed me, one way or tother.
Booldawg has a point.
AOG I beg to differ, I think you'll find if you look into it that the Tatra (603?) was the real Beetle. I read it in the magazine "Classic and Sportscar" in the mid 90s James May also mentioned it in the last (or maybe second to last) series of "Top Gear".
It is a long time since I read the article but if memory serves VW made an out of court settlement to Tatra in 1969 in relation to the claim.
Porsche and Lubwinwinka (it may have been Ledwinka, like I say I read it a long time ago) were very good friends right upto the point he unveiled the Beetle.
It was a fascinating article, perhaps someone from the publication could offer an insight.
Jolly good riposte though! ;-)
It is a long time since I read the article but if memory serves VW made an out of court settlement to Tatra in 1969 in relation to the claim.
Porsche and Lubwinwinka (it may have been Ledwinka, like I say I read it a long time ago) were very good friends right upto the point he unveiled the Beetle.
It was a fascinating article, perhaps someone from the publication could offer an insight.
Jolly good riposte though! ;-)
Yes you are quite correct 123everton, but this was the Tatra not the VW Beetle.
Although it was interesting to discover that most of the design for the Beetle was copied by Porsche.
http://www.answers.com/topic/tatra-t97
Although it was interesting to discover that most of the design for the Beetle was copied by Porsche.
http://www.answers.com/topic/tatra-t97
-- answer removed --
If memory serves Tibetan independence from China stretches from 1913-1949 which I think signified the end of the first republic (under Sun Yaet Sen, the Father of China) and the assumption of power of Yuen Shih Kai. Tibetan independence never gained popular support in the west or even locally politically, even in the period of independence, and with China wrought by civil wars and Japanese invasion Tibet never sought to assert itself politically as an indepent state, or court recognition.
For some 4000 or so years Tibet has been an integral part of China most of the emperors from the Han, Hui, Mongols and so on offered patronage to it. So in the context of time Tibet as a separate country would appear about as valid an idea as Cornish indepence from the U.K.
I feel Tibet's claim for indepence is as shaky as China's claims over it's Formosan (Taiwan) provinces.
The riots seemed to me to be local Tibetans attacking immigrant Chinese, these are ethnic tensions brought about by the "One China" policy. The protestors killed many innocent people, fact! Fact several shops were burnt down and a family of eight were killed including a baby fact 2 brothers were burnt to death in their shop, fact 3 teenaged girls (shop assistants) were killed in a shp fire, many more lives were blighted by the violence by the demonstators.
Tibetans were traditionally a nomadic farming people, this life is dying out, the Chinese are merchants richer Chinese people are moving in and causing locals alarm by pricing them out of the markets (sound familiar?) before people get dewy eyed over Tibetan nomads and their lifestyle look at the work ROCPA (an NGO) does for them.
I would'nt be so quick to venerate either side just yet. It's a bit more complicated than it seems.
A bit of controversy to liven it up...
For some 4000 or so years Tibet has been an integral part of China most of the emperors from the Han, Hui, Mongols and so on offered patronage to it. So in the context of time Tibet as a separate country would appear about as valid an idea as Cornish indepence from the U.K.
I feel Tibet's claim for indepence is as shaky as China's claims over it's Formosan (Taiwan) provinces.
The riots seemed to me to be local Tibetans attacking immigrant Chinese, these are ethnic tensions brought about by the "One China" policy. The protestors killed many innocent people, fact! Fact several shops were burnt down and a family of eight were killed including a baby fact 2 brothers were burnt to death in their shop, fact 3 teenaged girls (shop assistants) were killed in a shp fire, many more lives were blighted by the violence by the demonstators.
Tibetans were traditionally a nomadic farming people, this life is dying out, the Chinese are merchants richer Chinese people are moving in and causing locals alarm by pricing them out of the markets (sound familiar?) before people get dewy eyed over Tibetan nomads and their lifestyle look at the work ROCPA (an NGO) does for them.
I would'nt be so quick to venerate either side just yet. It's a bit more complicated than it seems.
A bit of controversy to liven it up...
1 to 15 of 15
