tastelessness at unicon

General
21

tastelessness at unicon

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-iuf-discuss@unicycling.org
[mailto:owner-iuf-discuss@unicycling.org]On Behalf Of John Foss
Sent: Tuesday, September 03, 2002 1:02 PM
To: ‘Sarah Miller’; ‘IUF’
Subject: RE: Politics and unicon 11

Sarah Miller wrote:
> I thought there was an understanding that Unicon was NOT an
> areana for policital comment. After Unicon 10 in China the
> Puerto Rician team were crititsed for having a peace banner,
> it inflamed the sensibilities of some of the US team
> apparently.

This is not the exact situation, but let me cover Jamey and then come back
to this.

> So how come at Unicon 11, Jamie Mossengren got away with
> his freestyle routine without cries of “keep politics out
> of Unicon”?

Jamie’s political message was limited to what he did in his Freestyle
performance. The IUF has no written policy on political messages (more about
this below), and there is nothing in the competition rules about it.

Essentially, he is “free” to express himself however he wishes, as long as
it doesn’t violate any of the other competition rules. Similarly, if someone
wanted to carry a banner with a political message on it, or stand on a
soapbox and make a speech, or even fight a miniature war in front of the
audience, it would be within the allowable parameters of the Freestyle
rules.

This does not of course require that any such performance would be in good
taste. We have all seen bad taste performances. Americans watching Jamie’s
performance were likely to have had their heartstrings tugged, pretty hard,
but Someone from Iraq, for example, might feel an urge to vomit. And someone
from a more neutral and objective country might just think it was overdone
and distasteful.

As a Freestyle performance, it was fairly weak in relation to its
competitors, in that it was low in difficulty and variety. But I believe
Jamey willingly made that sacrifice in order to tell his story and present
his message in the manner he desired. That he placed fifth, I (personally)
think was a little high, but I can’t speak for the other judges. I only hope
they were objective in their following of the Freestyle rules.

> It was entitled something along the line of “Tribute
> to Americas Heros”

> At an international event this was at best a tasteless
> attempt to profit from other peoples suffering OR worse
> an offensive swipe at all those the American war
> machine has chosen to label “Against US”.

My personal take on Jamey’s performance was that the main message was as you
entitled it above, a tribute to America’s heroes, and a memorial to those
that died. But it did also have the war messages in there. All in all, it
was easily the most emotionally charged performance I saw this year. In this
respect, it was a very “strong” performance, whether or not you agreed with
it.

On to the IUF’s policies. Back in the early days of IUF, I personally
remember discussion about a policy on outside politics. Our belief is that
we should have nothing to do with it. We never want to have a situation like
the boycotts of the 1980 and 1984 Olympics. I still personally believe in
and live by this policy, but the fact is we have nothing on paper. No
official policy. My attempts to establish one after UNICON X, and through
the IUF Rules Committee, both created firestorms of debate and free speech
discussion. I won’t go into the details at this time, but I think a lot of
it can be found in the newsgroup archives from August and September 2000.

So, based on our current rules and lack of policy, it boils down to the fact
that, in a Freestyle performance, you have freedom of speech and expression.
However, at a sporting event’s official presentations such as an opening
ceremony, the show should effectively be “owned” by the organizations and
hosts that made it possible. It should be they and only they who should be
determining what the message is at those events. Just as American TV and
radio broadcasters are generally free to broadcast whatever they want, they
are limited by their agreements and understandings with advertisers, the
station owners, producers, etc.

I was probably the main guy who made noise at UNICON X in response to the
banners carried by the Puerto Rico team. It was not because I was an
American but because of my personal belief that outside political messages
don’t belong at a UNICON opening or closing ceremony. I have no stand or
opinion on the specific issue depicted in the banners.

My nationality was not a factor, nor is it with Jamey’s performance. However
I have added a few of my personal observations above, and labeled them as
such so you can tell them from the rest of my statements.

In a Freestyle performance, it would not be against the rules to carry
political banners. An entire performance on the subject, even by an entire
national team in Group Freestyle, should be protected as the performers’
right to artistic expression. I would not attempt to change this, even with
the addition of a no-politics policy to the IUF.

If someone were to go way overboard in the area of taste, or political
offensiveness (which are always going to be matters of opinion of course),
it gets to be more of a gray area. Can a performance be stopped? If the host
absolutely refuses to allow a performance to go on, what should be the
policy there? Do the host and Chief Judge have to be in agreement? Perhaps
we need a policy for this, but if we couldn’t stomach one on “offensive
content,” I don’t think we can work this one either.

CONTEXT:
Using Jamey’s performance as an example, one must consider not only what he
is performing, but where he is performing it. The same performance, if
UNICON were in Afghanistan for instance, would be in extremely bad taste,
and I (as an American and IUF citizen) would do everything in my power to
talk him out of it beforehand. Performed in America, it is likely seen by
the Americans in the audience as a heartfelt tribute to those who died, and
a rather blunt waving of the flag. Performed in New York City, it would
probably reduce the locals to tears, and generate a standing ovation.
Meanwhile, Non-American members of the audience would likely be struck by
the performance in a variety of ways, including yours. I (personally) think
the act was fine for NAUCC, but a little iffy for UNICON. The message was
too strong.

As a judge, I judged his performance on its merits as an Individual
Freestyle presentation. A strong story and strong message, though maybe a
little too strong, coupled with a relatively limited range of difficulty and
variety of skills.

So. If this starts back up the discussion of politics vs. sport, I’m all for
it. I would like the IUF to have some sort of policy on outside politics.

Stay on top,
John Foss
President, Unicycling Society of America
Director, International Unicycling Federation
jfoss@unicycling.com

22

I replied to this on Tuesday, but only to iuf-discuss as I’ve finally broken down and disconnected my email from the unicycling mailing list. This is my first forum post written via my browser.

I’d like to remind everyone that there are two issues here. One is the use of potentially politically charged material at UNICON. The other is about the specific event or events being depected in the performance. I don’t think Sarah’s issue is with September 11 so much as it is her concern that we don’t bring politics into our sports competition.

Here is what I wrote yesterday, before reading all the current replies on this topic:

Sarah Miller wrote:
> I thought there was an understanding that Unicon was NOT an
> areana for policital comment. After Unicon 10 in China the
> Puerto Rician team were crititsed for having a peace banner,
> it inflamed the sensibilities of some of the US team
> apparently.

This is not the exact situation, but let me cover Jamey and then come back to this.

> So how come at Unicon 11, Jamie Mossengren got away with
> his freestyle routine without cries of “keep politics out
> of Unicon”?

Jamie’s political message was limited to what he did in his Freestyle performance. The IUF has no written policy on political messages (more about this below), and there is nothing in the competition rules about it.

Essentially, he is “free” to express himself however he wishes, as long as it doesn’t violate any of the other competition rules. Similarly, if someone wanted to carry a banner with a political message on it, or stand on a soapbox and make a speech, or even fight a miniature war in front of the audience, it would be within the allowable parameters of the Freestyle rules.

This does not of course require that any such performance would be in good taste. We have all seen bad taste performances. Americans watching Jamie’s performance were likely to have had their heartstrings tugged, pretty hard, but Someone from Iraq, for example, might feel an urge to vomit. And someone from a more neutral and objective country might just think it was overdone and distasteful.

As a Freestyle performance, it was fairly weak in relation to its
competitors, in that it was low in difficulty and variety. But I believe Jamey willingly made that sacrifice in order to tell his story and present his message in the manner he desired. That he placed fifth, I (personally) think was a little high, but I can’t speak for the other judges. I only hope they were objective in their following of the Freestyle rules.

> It was entitled something along the line of “Tribute
> to Americas Heros”

> At an international event this was at best a tasteless
> attempt to profit from other peoples suffering OR worse
> an offensive swipe at all those the American war
> machine has chosen to label “Against US”.

My personal take on Jamey’s performance was that the main message was as you entitled it above, a tribute to America’s heroes, and a memorial to those that died. But it did also have the war messages in there. All in all, it was easily the most emotionally charged performance I saw this year. In this
respect, it was a very “strong” performance, whether or not you agreed with the message.

On to the IUF’s policies. Back in the early days of IUF, I personally
remember discussion about a policy on outside politics. Our belief is that we should have nothing to do with it. We never want to have a situation like the boycotts of the 1980 and 1984 Olympics. I still personally believe in and live by this policy, but the fact is we have nothing on paper. No official policy. My attempts to establish one after UNICON X, and through the IUF Rules Committee, both created firestorms of debate and free speech
discussion. I won’t go into the details at this time, but I think a lot of it can be found in the newsgroup archives from August and September 2000.

So, based on our current rules and lack of policy, it boils down to the fact that, in a Freestyle performance, you have freedom of speech and expression. However, at a sporting event’s official presentations such as an opening ceremony, the show should effectively be “owned” by the organizations and hosts that made it possible. It should be they and only they who should be
determining what the message is at those events. Just as American TV and radio broadcasters are generally free to broadcast whatever they want, they are limited by their agreements and understandings with advertisers, the station owners, producers, etc.

I was probably the main guy who made noise at UNICON X in response to the banners carried by the Puerto Rico team. It was not because I was an American but because of my personal belief that outside political messages don’t belong at a UNICON opening or closing ceremony. As an IUF officer I have to “step out of my country” from time to time and make sure I’m putting the IUF first. My being an American can be an influence, but should not be on subjects like this. If I have a stand or opinion on the cause, this should not be relevant. Certainly I was not intending to drive an opinion on the cause when I was complaining about the banner thing.

So, my nationality was not a factor, nor is it with Jamey’s performance. However I have added a few of my personal observations above, and labeled them as such so you can tell them from the rest of my statements.

In a Freestyle performance, it would not be against the rules to carry political banners. An entire performance on the subject, even by an entire national team in Group Freestyle, should be protected as the performers’ right to artistic expression. I would not attempt to change this, even with the addition of a no-politics policy to the IUF.

If someone were to go way overboard in the area of taste, or political offensiveness (which are always going to be matters of opinion of course), it gets to be more of a gray area. Can a performance be stopped? If the host absolutely refuses to allow a performance to go on, what should be the policy there? Do the host and Chief Judge have to be in agreement? Perhaps we need a policy for this, but if we couldn’t stomach one on “offensive
content,” I don’t think we can work this one either.

CONTEXT:
Using Jamey’s performance as an example, one must consider not only what he is performing, but where he is performing it. The same performance, if UNICON were in Afghanistan for instance, would be in extremely bad taste, and I (as an American and IUF citizen) would do everything in my power to talk him out of it beforehand (and if I couldn’t, I would probably run from the building). Performed in America, it is seen by most Americans in the audience as a heartfelt tribute to those who died, and a rather blunt waving of the flag. Performed in New York City, it would probably reduce the locals to tears, and generate a standing ovation. Meanwhile, Non-American members of the audience would likely be struck by the performance in a wide range of ways, including yours. I (personally) think the act was fine for NAUCC, but a little iffy for UNICON. The message was too strong. Talking about war when you have the nations of the world assembled together is likely to offend someone.

As a judge, I judged his performance on its merits as an Individual
Freestyle presentation. A strong story and strong message, though maybe a little too strong, coupled with a relatively limited range of difficulty and variety of skills.

So. If this starts back up the discussion of politics vs. sport, I’m all for it. I would like the IUF to have some sort of policy on outside politics.

Stay on top,
John Foss
President, Unicycling Society of America
Director, International Unicycling Federation
jfoss@unicycling.com

23

Re: Re: tastelessness at unicon

> I think Sarah’s position is too extreme, and that such
> acts that may have some political overtones (this is
> sucject to subjective interpretation) should be viewed
> more lightheartedly. Where do you draw the line,
> anyway?

You can’t. Therefore you can’t do much along the lines of telling someone what they can or cannot do in a Freestyle performance.

Outside of performing, however, you can. And it’s not that hard. You can start by being aware of topics such as war, national opinions, religion, and controversies from outside the unicycling world. Notice I said being aware, not cutting off. From there you use some judgement. Consider the context (where you are), and the audience (people from other countries.

I am surprised at people saying they could barely detect the political overtones in the Jamey M. performance. “We’re going to kick 'em in the ass” or whatever the exact lyric was, is pretty clear. If this part of the performance had not been included, it would have been more of a mere memorial. But this addition made it more than that.

> I was considering a routine dressed as an ultraorthodox
> rabbi dancing to Hassidic music. Would that be
> interpreted as evangelism?

With Jack Halpern doing it? You don’t strike me as particularly orthodox. Again, it goes to context. If you’re trying to do something humorous and the audience doesn’t get it, poor execution can drift over into poor taste or otherwise something that offends people.

Of course, even a blatantly humorous performance may be seen as offensive by some. Some people just don’t have a sense of humor.

But you and Sarah did another example of a performance that left some people very offended. I’m sure this was not your intention, but the damage was done anyway. I won’t go into the details.

> Unicycling is meant to be fun – let’s not be so serious
> unless the situation really justifies it, as it did in Beijing
> with the Puerto Rico team.

Who decides when things are serious? That’s the problem with drafting legislation (rules, policies). Especially on topics such as these, they are going to be very subjective and location-sensitive.

The banners in Beijing went unnoticed by most, and were not such a big deal. I probably reacted too strongly at the time, and my attempts to set up a formal policy on the subject did not work, in part because people got too wrapped up in the specific political issues rather than the generic policy we were trying to establish.

Stay on top,
John Foss

24

Re: Re: tastelessness at unicon

> I cannot imagine any unicycling routine involving the
> events of 9/11 that wouldn’t come off as being tacky
> and stupid. I wouldn’t be offended by the political
> nature of the routine but would feel embarassment that
> a US citizen would try to ‘memorialize’ the tragedy
> while on a unicycle. If you can’t properly pay your
> respects, then don’t do it at all.

I think “Proud Yankee” was not at the conventions and did not see the performance in question. Not being familiar with unicycle freestyle performing, I can understand questioning what can be done with it, but not criticizing, especially if you haven’t seen it, or have never seen unicycle freestyle at all.

Apparently you have a recommended way of paying respects, or assume we know the parameters of what method would please you. We do not.

That’s sort of what this is all about. Where there is freedom of expression, there must also be freedom to be offended or not, or to like it or not. Or to see it or not. Along with that, there is the issue of some people thinking it’s great, while others think it embarrassing, while even others are sickened. Surely a powerful performance!

I thought Jamey’s performance was a wonderful and heartfelt tribute to the heroes and the victims of September 11. Ever fallen off a 12’ unicycle? Jamey is real tall, and even taller when up there. If anything, he was a little like Steven Spielberg, in that he may have laid it on a little too thick. But his message was loud and clear.

Watching his performance, I wondered if he’d lost a friend or relative in the disaster. Or if his family members are police, fire, or rescue workers. He seemed very connected to the event, and obviously was very affected by it. His freestyle performance was his way of saying how he felt.

(as observers of his “art” we can say we liked it, or hated it, or that it made us both sad, determined, and annoyed at the same time)

That he chose to include the part on the end with the “ass kicking” and all, that to me detracted from the part I liked, but I believe it was the message he wanted to present. I personally could have done without that.

Stay on top,
John Foss
speaking for himself

25

Re: tastelessness at unicon

In article <johnfoss.ah0xa@timelimit.unicyclist.com>,
johnfoss <johnfoss.ah0xa@timelimit.unicyclist.com> wrote:
)
)But you and Sarah did another example of a performance that left some
)people very offended. I’m sure this was not your intention, but the
)damage was done anyway. I won’t go into the details.

Did it involve level 11? Photos please!
-Tom

26

there should be a right to freedom of expression,
but whenever we have rights we also have responsibilities

in this case someone excercised the right to freedom of speech without thinking about about wether or not it was responsible to do so.

i don’t realy see how anyone with the slightest awareness of global politics can see anything conected to that day in september without realising its political implications.

it’s just plain silly to display such a performance in a forum that is non political,
its even sillier to excuse it on the grounds of the sentiment.

there are two sides to every story and at an international event theres bound to be people on both sides of any divide.

i’d like it if we could have this thread moved into “just conversation” (gilby, is that possible?) because its getting a little off topic.

27

Re: tastelessness at unicon

> there should be a right to freedom of expression,
> but whenever we have rights we also have responsibilities
>
> in this case someone exercised the right to freedom of speech without
> thinking about whether or not it was responsible to do so.

Prove it.
>
> i don’t really see how anyone with the slightest awareness of global
> politics can see anything connected to that day in September without
> realizing its political implications.
>
> it’s just plain silly to display such a performance in a forum that is
> non political, its even sillier to excuse it on the grounds of the
sentiment.

No it isn’t.
>
> there are two sides to every story and at an international event there’s
> bound to be people on both sides of any divide.

False dilemma, and why wouldn’t they express themselves?

28

Politics is everywhere. It effects what people do and how they act every day. You have to deal with it the rest of your life, so just suck it up and deal with it now. No need to bitch about what you thought was tastefull or not. No harm was done to anyone and you were not forced to watch it. So just deal with it.

At least he didnt have small explosives go off 3/4 the way up the girraffe and have it collapse on its self and the fire figheters. Now that would have been Tasteless.

29

Firstly I wasn’t going to post to this thread, not having seen the performance in question, but my personal view point on politics and sport is quite simple, don’t mix them it never works.

Whether or not I would of perceived this routine as political or not I can’t say for sure but there is a little naivety is some responses. I agree with the right to freedom of speech but one should also know when and when not to exercise this.

A rule saying no politics, hmm, maybe a set of guidelines for competitors would be better, regularly amended internationally on sensitive issues so unicyclists can try and avoid the ones that might cause offence. It can be easy to unintentionally offend someone from another country and I have found the international unicycling community to be a friendly one, lets keep it that way.

Gary

30

can we just cut thru the sanctimonious BS ?

if i pitched up at the freestyle competition of unicon with a routine depicting the hell of the starvation deaths of hundreds of thousands of iraqi kids whose young lives got snuffed out way before they got a grip on the concept of ‘punitive sanctions’, i would’ve been hounded out of there by the audience, fellow competitors, judges and black-suited goons before i got half way thru

keep politics out of sport
if u have to legislate to achieve this, then so be it

thanx for this thread sarah
i dont think it’s in danger of achieving much
except showing some true colours

free tibet!

31

Actually Jamie did set off a small incendiary device about 3/4 of the way up on the unicycle, followed by a “collapsing” or toppling of the unicycle onto (into the hands of) the three costumed men.

Tasteless? No. Political? No. Instead, a very graphic description of the events that took place on that day which led to the main focus of Jamie’s tribute, the courageous acts of heros.

Bruce

32

…which brings to mind another thought. Instead of all of us surmising the purpose of Jamie’s routine and what message, if any, he intended to convey, it would be nice to hear directly from him. I’m not sure if he reads this newsgroup but others associated with him do. Perhaps someone would pass on a message to him to see if he would like to comment.

Just a thought.
Bruce

33

You are obviously passionate about the USA which is fine by me but let me run this by you.

Just recently it was the 5th anniversary of the untimely death of Princess Diana. If I had choreographed a routine that depicted Princess Diana’s car being chased by reporters culminating in the tragic crash this would have been tasteless. On the other hand I could have just depicted all the good things she did in her life, which would not be tasteless. The people who dead on September 11th need to be remembered but the way it happened turns my stomach.

Nice thought. I doubt Jamie’s intension was to cause any offence and it would be good if he could speak for himself.

Gary

34

tastelessness at unicon

I think this discussion is a very good thing,…
and since the topic is concerned with past and future Unicycling conventions, it definitely is On Topic.

I’m sure we could all come up with numerous analogies with which to argue whether the display in question was/was not appropriate…

However, I propose some slightly different questions:

Do we need political demonstrations at Unicycling events?

If “yes”; Why do we need political demonstrations at Unicycling events?

For me, Unicycling is a recreation, a sport, a distraction from the day-to-day grind of the sordid realities of life. If I go to an international Unicycling gathering, I sure as hell don’t want to have to think about “that other stuff” while I’m there… I want to have FUN.

Don’t bother to tell me how important it is… I see/hear/read it everyday.
Why do you want to shove it down my throat when I’m trying to have FUN?

When you go to a movie, do you want to be reminded of every or any terrible thing that’s plaguing the world today?
It’s bad enough if you can’t go to a rock concert without it having a “message”… Sometimes, people just need to relax.

The events of September 11th last year were very, very horrific and terrible. The events that have followed in the aftermath have been and continue to be very, very horrific and terrible.
One of The Buddha’s basic concepts is that Life is Suffering. Does that mean I want/need somebody to tell me about it while I eat an icecream cone or make love or ride my Unicycle?

… uh, … no.

Staging political messages is important. Redundant political messages/“tributes” have no business at ORGANIZED FUN EVENTS.

No, this is NOT being shallow. This is insisting on our right to have a little FUN once in a while without someone crapping in the punchbowl. There is absolutely nothing wrong or (god and bush forbid!) unpatriotic about that.

35

Lets just ban the artistic preformances. Next year lets have no Music, No costumes, no Shoes, No service?

Anyway if we get rid of the silly stuff like coreography then incidents like this will never happen again. And isnt that what we all want?

36

tastelessness at unicon

Chex,

Some of us are trying to have a serious, or at least, rational discussion about this.
Try to get with the spirit of the conversation. OK? It’s a little important to some people.
Nobody made sarcastic comments about your idea to start a non-profit custom Unicycle supply, now did they?

37

Re: tastelessness at unicon

> I agree with the right to freedom of speech but one should also know when
> and when not to exercise this.

You might as well shout at the sky. A great many people (mostly, it
seems to me, Americans) are too immature to understand that
freedom has a price called responsibility.

> A rule saying no politics, hmm, maybe a set of guidelines for
> competitors would be better, regularly amended internationally on

I would like the sport itself to clearly state that it is apoliltical - no
boycotts, no banning entrants from <pick country not on US A-list>.
On the other hand, artistic performances can only successfully be subject
to guidelines regarding taste, morality, politics and so on. Recall that
some
of the greatest art in the world comprises political statements.

Basically: a performer should try not to offend; the audience should try not
to be offended. And when things do get more interesting… well… Phil has
a
plentiful supply of cattle prods to use as reminders. :slight_smile:

I’m sorry I missed JM’s performance. It sounds by all accounts to have
been a truly memorable exercise in poor judgement. Mind you, no other
act has been so talked about. In that sense the peformance is an unqualified
success - art which has stimulated minds. What more could you want?

Arnold the Aardvark

38

Re: tastelessness at unicon

> on the concept of ‘punitive sanctions’, i would’ve been hounded out of
> there by the audience, fellow competitors, judges and black-suited goons
> before i got half way thru

Not all of us.

39

Gary, thanks for the insight. With full respect to Princess Diana and all that she was to the British people, I can understand from whence you come on the comparison, but I submit that your comparison is not comparing apples to apples. If your supposed routine focused on the reporters chasing the car that allegedly contributed to the end of Diana’s life, an analogous 9/11 routine would only make statements about the terrorists who perpetrated the terrible event.

But instead, I continue to insist that from my perspective, the focus of the entire routine was a tribute to heros and those who died in the line of duty, not on war, a call to war, or nation against nation. An analogous routine on the crash of Diana’s vehicle would need to pay tribute to those who attempted to rescue or provide comfort to those involved.

Respectively,
Bruce

40

tastelessness at unicon

Bruce,
I’d say that the analogy of Princess Di’s tragic death is less the point than the appropriateness of developing a UNICON freestyle routine around it.

Aside from the absurd logisitics involved in re-enacting the fatal crash with paparazzi on chase-Unicycles, just how is such a re-enactment of a tragedy a “tribute”?

One can imagine an apolitical tribute to the “heroes” (interestingly enough, they don’t call themselves “heroes”) as follows:

A Unicyclist clad in firefighter gear (including 65-pound backpack and firefighting tools) rides into a burning structure as other Unicyclists with smoke-blackened faces ride out… but the firefighter never emerges from the burning structure…

A tribute to heroics? Yes. Universally understandable and laudatory? Yes.
Political or nationalistic or inflammatory or embarrassing or cause for votes about political statements at UNICON events? No.

It is possible to create performances with meaning that invoke a Universal sense of humanity without jingoistic slanderings or calls for war. Such performances rise above politics and bickering and national borders, and embrace a total human experience.

THAT is what makes the difference between ART and PROPAGANDA.

ART is something that is UNIVERSAL.

Art can and has been abused for propaganda, of course, but it has rarely been accepted as true or important.

Just because somebody “created” something doesn’t make it art. We all “create” a bowel movement daily…

Art?

[disclaimer]I didn’t see the performance in question. I’m not comparing it with or calling it a “bowel movement”.[/disclaimer]