[UniOfLife]

So we all know that this year is the 40th anniversary of the Munich Massacre. There were calls for the IOC to have a minute's silence for the victims during the opening ceremony but this was rejected. According to this article about a ceremony held in London last night:

Organisers had previously rejected calls for an opening ceremony tribute, saying it was not a "fit" atmosphere.

However, there was a load of fuss about NBC not showing the part of the opening ceremony that was a tribute to the victims of the 7/7 bombings.

So what I don't get is why it was not a "fit atmosphere" for one tribute but was fine for another. I totally get why a minute's silence at the opening ceremony would not be in keeping with the rest, but how about a tribute to the victims similar to the one for the 7/7 victims?

[Meteorshower]

How many things do you want to pay tribute to? I get that it is relevant in so far as that it's the olympics, but they had tributes in the olympic village and in London. In an opening ceremony that was all about Britain and it's evolution a tribute to the Munich Massacre is a bit out of place in my opinion.

[Rhadamanthus]

(Original post by Meteorshower)
How many things do you want to pay tribute to? I get that it is relevant in so far as that it's the olympics, but they had tributes in the olympic village and in London. In an opening ceremony that was all about Britain and it's evolution a tribute to the Munich Massacre is a bit out of place in my opinion.

The victims of the Munich massacre were the only people to have been killed at the Olympics aside from the two dead in 1996. All thirteen people who died during the Olympic games should have been remembered at the opening ceremony. Remembering the dead of 7/7 was a very good thing to do, but why no memorial services for the victims of IRA bombs in London or shootings or so on?

[Meteorshower]

(Original post by Rhadamanthus)
The victims of the Munich massacre were the only people to have been killed at the Olympics aside from the two dead in 1996. All thirteen people who died during the Olympic games should have been remembered at the opening ceremony. Remembering the dead of 7/7 was a very good thing to do, but why no memorial services for the victims of IRA bombs in London or shootings or so on?

This boils down to the same complaint as "why wasn't science/art/colonialism/dancing monkeys included in the opening ceremony?" So many people had complaints about what wasn't included and Danny Boyle was very upfront about the fact some people would be disappointed. You simply can't cater for everyone.

Personally I think a memorial in the athletes village is good enough for the Munich massacre. You disagree. That's fair enough, but ultimately the organizers agreed with me and I don't think there's a way to objectively separate who's right. Personally I think the 7/7 bombings are far more fresh in the history of Britain, especially since they happened right at the time of the decision to give London the Olympics. Including more memorials would have detracted from the positive and forward-going spirit of the ceremony, especially since the war dead were also honoured.

[Rhadamanthus]

(Original post by Meteorshower)
This boils down to the same complaint as "why wasn't science/art/colonialism/dancing monkeys included in the opening ceremony?" So many people had complaints about what wasn't included and Danny Boyle was very upfront about the fact some people would be disappointed. You simply can't cater for everyone.

Personally I think a memorial in the athletes village is good enough for the Munich massacre. You disagree. That's fair enough, but ultimately the organizers agreed with me and I don't think there's a way to objectively separate who's right. Personally I think the 7/7 bombings are far more fresh in the history of Britain, especially since they happened right at the time of the decision to give London the Olympics. Including more memorials would have detracted from the positive and forward-going spirit of the ceremony, especially since the war dead were also honoured.

Dancing monkeys have nothing to do with it. The memorial was not going to be part of the opening ceremony, it was going to be a separate minute of silence held after the festivities. Yet a memorial for the only people ever to have been killed at the Olympics was denied for some reason.

[Hopple]

(Original post by UniOfLife)
So we all know that this year is the 40th anniversary of the Munich Massacre. There were calls for the IOC to have a minute's silence for the victims during the opening ceremony but this was rejected. According to this article about a ceremony held in London last night:



However, there was a load of fuss about NBC not showing the part of the opening ceremony that was a tribute to the victims of the 7/7 bombings.

So what I don't get is why it was not a "fit atmosphere" for one tribute but was fine for another. I totally get why a minute's silence at the opening ceremony would not be in keeping with the rest, but how about a tribute to the victims similar to the one for the 7/7 victims?

Maybe not fit, but the fact that 7/7 was in London swung it. Would you rather they had tributed to both events, or neither?

[UniOfLife]

(Original post by Hopple)
Maybe not fit, but the fact that 7/7 was in London swung it. Would you rather they had tributed to both events, or neither?

I think both should have been marked in some way. The whole world watched the Israeli athletes being murdered, I think its proper that the whole world watch a tribute to them. That doesn't have to be at the opening ceremony but that seems a logical place.

My point was that it does seem a little hard to understand why the opening ceremony is a fitting occasion for one memorial and not another. OK, I kinda see the London angle being important there but I really think that they could have found a moment for solemnity to remember the murder of those athletes.

[Leon Trotsky]

(Original post by UniOfLife)
So we all know that this year is the 40th anniversary of the Munich Massacre. There were calls for the IOC to have a minute's silence for the victims during the opening ceremony but this was rejected. According to this article about a ceremony held in London last night:



However, there was a load of fuss about NBC not showing the part of the opening ceremony that was a tribute to the victims of the 7/7 bombings.

So what I don't get is why it was not a "fit atmosphere" for one tribute but was fine for another. I totally get why a minute's silence at the opening ceremony would not be in keeping with the rest, but how about a tribute to the victims similar to the one for the 7/7 victims?

Nowhere did it say that the Abide With Me part of the Opening Ceremony was a tribute to the victims of 7/7; that was just the media ascribing their own meaning to it. If such a vague tribute can me construed as being in memory of the victims of 7/7, then why not also the victims of Munich?

[UniOfLife]

(Original post by Addzter)
Nowhere did it say that the Abide With Me part of the Opening Ceremony was a tribute to the victims of 7/7; that was just the media ascribing their own meaning to it. If such a vague tribute can me construed as being in memory of the victims of 7/7, then why not also the victims of Munich?

I don't think that is correct. The choreographer of the dance stated publicly that it was a tribute to the 7/7 victims. Pictures of the victims were displayed during the sequence which strongly implies that it was a tribute to them. Pictures of the Israeli athletes were not shown so it cannot be taken as a tribute to them.

[Leon Trotsky]

(Original post by UniOfLife)
I don't think that is correct. The choreographer of the dance stated publicly that it was a tribute to the 7/7 victims. Pictures of the victims were displayed during the sequence which strongly implies that it was a tribute to them. Pictures of the Israeli athletes were not shown so it cannot be taken as a tribute to them.

I was under the impression that the segment was about mortality rather than a tribute to the victims of 7/7, and that the pictures shown were deceased friends and relatives of those in the stadium. I'm sure the choreographer had 7/7 in mind when he produced it, but it seemed too non-specific to be just about that one event.

[UniOfLife]

(Original post by Addzter)
I was under the impression that the segment was about mortality rather than a tribute to the victims of 7/7, and that the pictures shown were deceased friends and relatives of those in the stadium. I'm sure the choreographer had 7/7 in mind when he produced it, but it seemed too non-specific to be just about that one event.

Given the reaction to NBC not showing it and their "explanation" that 7/7 wasn't relevant to a US audience, it would seem that everyone else is under the impression that the segment was a 7/7 tribute.

[Leon Trotsky]

(Original post by UniOfLife)
Given the reaction to NBC not showing it and their "explanation" that 7/7 wasn't relevant to a US audience, it would seem that everyone else is under the impression that the segment was a 7/7 tribute.

Sure, but that doesn't mean they're right.

[Jack93o]

(Original post by Meteorshower)
How many things do you want to pay tribute to? I get that it is relevant in so far as that it's the olympics, but they had tributes in the olympic village and in London. In an opening ceremony that was all about Britain and it's evolution a tribute to the Munich Massacre is a bit out of place in my opinion.

Same here man, the massacre happened 40 years ago whereas the london bombings were more recent and very much relevant to the host city not only because was it a personal tradegy for us but also because it came straight after the day we were chosen to host the olympics.

[UniOfLife]

(Original post by Addzter)
Sure, but that doesn't mean they're right.

Of course. But who has suggested they're wrong, before you did just now.

[Fusion]

The OC was all about 'representing' Britain so I don't see why you think Munich is on a par with 7/7 given the purpose of the ceremony.

[Catherine0405]

Personally, I was under the impression that the silence was to remember those that could not be at the opening ceremony, so this could apply to a number of things, not just victims of 7/7, but then the COMMENTRY mentioned it being about 7/7, so maybe I missed something. Either way, i think people took their own things from the moment of reflection, well I know I did anyway, so, without wanting to speak for other people, i imagine those that were impacted on by the Munich massacre reflected upon it at that time, even if it didn't have an outright tribute

^^ what absolute waffle, i can only apologise :P

[g_star_raw_1989]

They could have incorporated into the ceremony and had Daniel Craig play the Mossad agent instead of James Bond. That is a great film.

Jokes aside, I think they could have their respects somehow. Like in football you often get every match on a particular weekend with a minutes silence or players wearing black armbands,

[Leon Trotsky]

(Original post by UniOfLife)
Of course. But who has suggested they're wrong, before you did just now.

Certainly not many in the media, but why would they? 'American broadcaster cuts out 7/7 tribute from Opening Ceremony' is a really good headline, whether it's accurate or not.

I don't know why a 7/7 tribute would feature pictures of people who didn't even die in the attacks.

[UniOfLife]

(Original post by Fusion)
The OC was all about 'representing' Britain so I don't see why you think Munich is on a par with 7/7 given the purpose of the ceremony.

It was that the IOC said that the OC was not an appropriate occasion for a tribute or memorial but there was a tribute in it. I don't think a tribute should have been included as part of the dancing singing stuff but I think they could easily have found an opportunity to remember the victims of Munich in a very public way at some point during the ceremony, even if that was just having the athletes parade round wearing black armbands as g_star suggests. It just seems contradictory to say that OC is not a time to tributes and then there is one in it.

(Original post by Addzter)
Certainly not many in the media, but why would they? 'American broadcaster cuts out 7/7 tribute from Opening Ceremony' is a really good headline, whether it's accurate or not.

I don't know why a 7/7 tribute would feature pictures of people who didn't even die in the attacks.

I don't know why either. Perhaps it was a mixture of things. But if the section was not at all about 7/7 then NBC would have defended themselves by saying that it wasn't about 7/7 or at least that no one had told them it was about 7/7. That they didn't implies that they couldn't. And again, has anyone (either in the media or outside it) suggested it wasn't about 7/7?

[Hopple]

(Original post by UniOfLife)
I think both should have been marked in some way. The whole world watched the Israeli athletes being murdered, I think its proper that the whole world watch a tribute to them. That doesn't have to be at the opening ceremony but that seems a logical place.

My point was that it does seem a little hard to understand why the opening ceremony is a fitting occasion for one memorial and not another. OK, I kinda see the London angle being important there but I really think that they could have found a moment for solemnity to remember the murder of those athletes.

I've had to do some research on it, but it does seem like it's the IOC who have taken the official position to not have any specific reference to the Munich massacre due to (or at least with the given reason of) not wanting to involve politics in the Olympics (and from your link, it does seem it's specifically the IOC that Ankie Spitzer is attacking). Given that, I don't see what Danny Boyle could have done, if for 40 years the IOC hasn't allowed a tribute. In regards to the 7/7 tribute, he did want to honour those who died and could easily argue that both it wasn't political and was particularly relevant to the host country (which the opening ceremony was pretty much entirely about) and indeed the host city too.

That's how I'd interpret the opening ceremony's stance anyway, and I think there's too much politics behind the scenes at the IOC to allow anything that could be perceived as politics in plain sight. I think that's the difference between the Munich massacre and the 7/7 attacks that the IOC will see.