The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
Olympic/Sport and Politics
Anarchy Rules!
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
With scenes like this today in London, I began to think should politics and sport be kept seperate?
Gordon Brown and Tessa Jowell met and welcomed the torch, and the Chinese ambassador ran with the torch yet they all argue that sports and politics shouldn't mix. I get the feeling politicians use this excuse so that they don't have to standup to China.
Should the olympics be used as a means to protest against China? I feel as if it should as the rights of humans that are more important than the 'olympic spirit'. Why is sport elevated to a higher position than that of sport and art when it comes to diplomacy?
Another thought, sport is big business - and business is almost certainly part of politics
Gordon Brown and Tessa Jowell met and welcomed the torch, and the Chinese ambassador ran with the torch yet they all argue that sports and politics shouldn't mix. I get the feeling politicians use this excuse so that they don't have to standup to China.
Should the olympics be used as a means to protest against China? I feel as if it should as the rights of humans that are more important than the 'olympic spirit'. Why is sport elevated to a higher position than that of sport and art when it comes to diplomacy?
Another thought, sport is big business - and business is almost certainly part of politics
Anarchy Rules! on
0
Posts
Which is another thing. Nobody ever asks the athletes what THEY think of all of it. Man, they just want to go and win a damn medal. They'll deal with hating the Russkies later, but for now they would like to perform a gymnastics routine in front of the entire world. They don't see what's so inflammatory about that.
I think the most effective protest in Olympic history was in Berlin 1936. We didn't boycott. We went straight into the lion's den, in front of Hitler, who was using the Games basically to promote the Aryan race, and then here's this black guy, Jesse Owens, that beats him and takes all his medals. It didn't stop him by any means, but it helped get the message across, with irrefutable proof, that this 'master race' thing was a total crock of shit. On an equal playing field, the Master Race lost repeatedly to a Black Guy who's just a second-class citizen in his own country. That's how you do it. If the US, or anyone else, has a beef with China, here's a venue to prove, in one way or another, that you are demonstrably better than they are. Take advantage of it.
Yeah, their government is repressive but I can't help but feel that a good number of those attacking China are not doing out of any concern for human rights, but are the usual racists and Lou Dobbs-types.
The developing world has been really excluded when it comes to the Olympics (Mexico in 1968 and South Korea in 1988 are pretty much the only inroads that have been made before now) . . . but I'm still conflicted of course - it's no excuse to say it's OK for a poorer country to be undemocratic and abuse human rights. China is just too big though - you could justifiably ignore Cuba or Burma . . . but not a culture and people with the influence China has.
I think its a great moment to illuminate China's dodgy history.
But while I'd support protests happening at olympic locations, I think that direct action towards the games is inappropriate (i.e. Trying to extinguish the flame etc).
Also, boycott the opening ceremony while letting the athletes compete gets the message across and lets people get shiny medals that they otherwise would have no chance.
If that someone's actions results in hundreds of millions of orphans being put in orphanages with a 99% mortality rate, then I think it's just fine to go to their party and tell them they're a dick.
priorities, ya know?
Just because something is important doesn't mean that it's fair game in any situation. If it wasn't the Olympics and instead a debate in the U.N., then such a discussion would be appropriate. I guess the basic point of difference is that I don't see the Olympics as an endorsement of the host country's politics. And, taking a practical point of view as a few other posters have, what could possibly be accomplished by souring the Olympics up for everyone?
Considering the olympics are a point where a ton of media and attention is brough on the host country and the host city, this is the PERFECT opportunity to raise international awareness among the population of developed countries. Governments of the developed countries usually only move when the people really care/express what they want -- this is about as good a chance as anyone will ever get to bring light to China's lack of social aid, poor environmental initiatives, and human rights record.
and if a few athletes have their shallow dream of a medal spoiled a bit, that really isn't a big deal in comparison to the social justice issues going on here and the prime opportunity this affords.
edit: Espescially consider that most people don't give two craps about what is being debated in the UN, that treaties in the UN are often fairly weak and unchanging, and that the various governments of various developed nations really aren't going to have their approval ratings moving much by small debates in the UN.
I think you highly overestimate the general knowledge level of 'most people'.
This is bringing waaaaaaay more attention to what is/has been going on in Tibet than I've ever seen before.
Really? Chasing the guy running the Olympic torch with a bucket of water is bringin more attention to Tibet than the recent unrest by the monks and general populace of the plateau? If only he had a garden hose, we'd be halfway to ending the genocide in Darfur.
The IOC doesn't give a shit about the host country's policies or popularity. However I am glad that Toronto got beat out because now Chicago has a good chance to win the 2016 games.
B, the absence of the United States from China's Games is extremely unlikely to make China go "Hey, maybe we should improve our human rights record and maybe this won't happen anymore." They are more likely to go "Oh, you want to ruin our moment in the spotlight? Okay, great. Hey, you know that huge debt you owe us? We're calling it in." Or, alternatively, they may go "This is YOUR fault, Tibet! You ruined our Games! BANZAI!" Neither of which would exactly be the desired effect.
C, "if a few athletes have their shallow dream of a medal spoiled a bit, that really isn't a big deal" is completely, utterly wrong on every concievable level of that statement. For those athletes- and there are thousands upon thousands that try out, with about a thousand actually making it- this is their entire life's work. Their American Dream, if you will. And for the vast majority, they're only going to get the one shot. If they get boycotted out here, that's America stomping out the American Dreams of a thousand Americans in the name of a pissing match with China that ultimately is more likely than not to backfire. For those athletes, this IS a big deal. It's the BIGGEST of deals. They'd be basically told "Hey, we know you've spent your entire life devoting your blood, sweat and tears to this one moment, but we don't like the location you'd be going to that you had absolutely no control over, so we're going to take away your dreams four months before you can realize them. You're okay with that, right?" How would you feel if that happened to you?
Unless you put the latter on Yackety Sax.
When that area is a prick, I support anything that hinders them obtaining money and prestige so long as nobody is physically hurt.
I really don't care about the athletes, because being able to run in a circle really fast doesn't strike me as a terribly important profession.
Also: Lol bread and circuses lol.
I've seen more news reports about that dousing of the torch then I ever saw of the unrest in tibet. Anecdotal evidence for the win?
Politicians could choose to boycott by not going, if they feel like escalating, although that might be too much.
Olympic athletes give their all and everything to get to the Olympics and have a lousy job on the side so they can support their families/self, not the other way around.
A -- people are aware that China has a human rights record, but their awareness is often pretty damn impersonal without much detail of the events. For example, Everybody knows children the world over are dieing, but I bet most don't care until they go and do some work in the developing world. On that level, how many people know of the 99% mortality rate of chinese orphanages? How many know that kids are often died up chairs for 14 hours a day in these orphanges, and then tied to their beds for sleep? How many know that orphanges have a 'dieing room', where sick children are sent and then locked up to die... among the bodies of already dead children?
I'm talking about orphanges here because I happen to know a bit more about them than Tibet, but my point is that the details of China's human rights record on MANY levels is unknown, and the increased exposure brought about by these protests is like to make maybe just a few people do a google or a wikipedia or whatnot and look up some of this stuff and talk about it and maybe even make it an election issue.
B -- The absence of the USA at the games is unlikely to make a big difference, but all the small things help. What I see as the bigger issue here is that the increased public awareness of China's atrocities is more likely to make China's conduct an election issue in the developed world, such that politicians will be more likely to take an active approach regarding this issue instead of just 'toeing the line'.
C -- a few athletes having their dream spoiled really ISN'T a big deal if you have any idea of what is going on in Tibet. Hey, guess what, some people don't get to have their dreams of running around a circle really fast, and if spoiling that dream means some people don't die, I think that's a pretty good trade off.
I weigh on one hand -- guy gets medal going around a circle -- and on the other hand, people not dieing. seems pretty easy to me.
Calling this type of thing the BIGGEST of deals just shows to me that the priorities of the 'american dream' are ridiculously out of wack.
That's great, and I think human development, human rights, and orphange dieing rooms are worth waaaaaaay more than somebodies athletic dream.
edit: Weren't there a bunch of athletes who came out in support of the protests and boycotts and whatnot? Those guys seem to have a certain set of priorities that differs from what you are suggesting. I'm not sure if these are mythical athletes i'm inventing in my head though. I was able to find an article about German athletes 'considering' it.
I couldn't not hear about Tibet at the onset of it for awhile. I only saw one tagline on google news about the assholes in Paris (but I repeat myself) and this thread. So our data is at a draw.
Curses! rematch at high noon tomorrow.
Except that boycotting the games isn't going to save a single life. (Assuming there isn't a terrorist attack on the stadiums or a soccer team doesn't crash into the Andes on the way there) So your choices are 'spoil a dream with a pissing contest while the poor suffer and die in the slums of South Asia' or 'don't spoil a dream with a pissing contest while the poor suffer and die in the slums of South Asia.' So...yeah.
I mean, the London rioters were front page news here.
I suppose you're right. We should never try to raise awareness about China in the developed world when it comes at the expense of anyone ever, because it will never do anything.
Every little bit helps, and I see the Olympic Games as the biggest and most publicised opportunity to raise awareness about this, and make it a political issue, pretty much well ever.
So they're like those people in Hollywood who wait tables while waiting to star in the next Scary Movie.
Yes. That makes me care more. :P
Perhaps, but I'd also have seen some articles on Sarcozy and Merkel deciding to boycott the opening ceremony and floating the idea of having their respective athletes do the same. Possibly an interview with Condi over the issue on one of the big 3. And with the added benefit of not having 'hippies!' as an invisible byline.
One thing I think about is the thousands and thousands and hundreds of thousands and millions of people in East Asia and South Asia which don't have the opportunity to even attempt to fulfill a dream like mtvcdm is describing here.
*You seem to contend that a boycott is low risk/high reward- it's a little thing that eventually might get China to come around.
*I contend that a boycott is high risk/low reward- what WE percieve the Games as is irrelevant. CHINA percieves the Games as really fucking huge, and for us to boycott them, I believe, is more likely to cause them to retaliate in a negative fashion than it is to cause them to change their ways in a positive fashion. And even if they did, history has shown that the ultimate effect of an Olympic protest, even if successful, is negligible, with the boycotter often ending up hurting themselves as much as if not more than the people they're protesting. You know that 'black power' salute on the medal stand in Mexico City 1968? That got those two athletes banned from the Olympics while at the same time doing jack shit to help the black cause.
Nice strawman.
Because that is precisely my argument to a T. Bravo, good sir for divining it so succinctly.
One of the worst travesties in sloganeering has been the line that there is no such thing as bad press. Let me assure you, there is. And people running around with fire extinguishers does not make bad press for China. Same with the 'code pink' idiots, greenpeace, PETA, ....fuck, should I get the list.
Whether or not this is an effective form of protest, it is certainly a kick in China's nads.
And it's all because the IOC decided to give the 29th olympiad to Beijing. Those maniacs! They finally went and did it! Damn them! Damn them all to hell!!!!!!
Isolation does not improve a single thing for the denizens of the country in question. Shunning the country will not bring about political change or make them open and free, otherwise Cuba would be rife with mobster owned casinos again by now. You want to make a political statement, you make a political statement to that effect. You don't take your ball and go home pretending that that is the strongest move to make.