Olympic Protests

As everybody knows by now, this summer's Olympic Games are going to be held in The People's Republic of China. Many people seem to be having a major problem with this. As the Olympic Torch makes is biennial trek across the world, it is being met with animosity and protest. In fact, it seems that the torch is spending the vast majority of its time on a plane or on a bus rather then being out in the open where any self-respecting flame would prefer to be.

So, knowing that many people throughout the world have problems with China, was it wise for the IOC to award Beijing these games?

Well, I'm thinking probably not.

Before all this uproar over the torch passing through Paris and San Francisco, I knew very little about these "human rights abuses" that were happening in China. This is probably because I'm of the general opinion that I can't do anything about those sorts of things, so why bother putting forth the effort to become familiar with facts that will only further dampen my view of mankind. But now I see that people actually care about what is happening in and around China. And not just a couple people; a lot of people! Did you see the San Francisco protests? Marching across the Golden Gate Bridge, lining the route that wasn't, etc.

So why all the uproar?

Many point to Darfur and Tibet. From what I understand, the Chinese government has supplied weapons to the Sudanese government for use in the genocide of the tribal peoples of Darfur. They have also apparently tried to use their UN Security Council vote to benefit the Sudanese. China is accussed of doing all this primariy for oil. The Chinese government has also been involved in squashing Tibetan protests (violently), leading to the calls for China to leave Tibet alone.

I have more of a problem with China in Darfur than I do with the Tibet issue. I think that these two things are just being used as examples of what China's policies towards human rights and free expresion really are, and people have a problem with these stances. I don't claim to be an expert by any stretch of the imagination, but I encourage you to read up on what you can to see what all the passionate protesting is about.

Should the games themselves be protested? I don't think so. Let the world's best athletes go out and compete without distractions. They have worked their whole lives to get to this Olympic stage; let them enjoy it. Now, can the athletes protest? I sure as heck don't see why not.

These guys (athletes Tommie Smith and John Carlos) did, and we've all heard about that. And the IOC is in agreement: "If athletes genuinely want to express their opinion, that's fine," said the IOC president today. They just don't want protests by people surrounding or at the venues. I agree. Protest all you want before and after the games.

Let the games be games. They are supposed to bring everybody together to cheer the best athletes that the world has to offer. Let's just watch the sport and enjoy

13 comments:

big.bald.dave said...

The athletes who compete in the Olympics have worked way too hard for way too long to be subject to a full boycott of the games, and for that reason alone I don't support one. However, it is nice to see China's feet being held to the fire a little bit. It's about time their rough human rights record got a little press and attention. Of course, our country doesn't have the most perfect record either - just ask any Native American or those "terrorists" we keep holed up in Gitmo.

Anonymous said...

There's a difference between protesting and boycotting. I'm against a boycott (don't punish the athletes for sins that are not theirs) but I favor nonviolent protests. Let people speak out!

People forget that the Olympics are inherently political. Teams are sponsored by nations (which are political entities) and they represent nations. That's why we've always had the infamous "medal counts." The Olympics were designed in part to legitimate nations and nationalism (political constructs that have often been and in some quarters still are hotly disputed).

To me it seems that, if the Olympics themselves can be an expression of a particular political vision and world order, it's fundamentally unfair to prevent the expression of competing visions. This is particularly true of the athletes: it's unfair to make their pursuit of ultimate athletic achievement conditional upon their endorsement of nationalism. Tommie Smith and John Carlos were perfectly right to refuse to be made vehicles for the expression of thoughtless nationalism. I wish more athletes would do the same, and thus force the IOC to either accept the notion of free speech or crack down on it and reveal themselves as the authoritarians the are.

FWIW, I think the Olympics would be fairer to the athletes and more honest if the "national team" structure were dropped and teams were sponsored instead by wealthy individuals and corporations. Nationalism is being replaced by global corporatism anyway.

--David

Anonymous said...

Uggh, David, I get your point, but I can't think of anything worse than corporate sponsored olympics. I mean, regardless, the Olympics already are corporate sponsored, but sponsored teams is just horrible. The power that corperations have in this world is overwhelming. Do you know, I read that if Walmart were to have a GNP, it would be sandwitched nicely between Australia's and Taiwan's No corporation should have the earning power of large countries. Soon the corperations will want to Join the UN and raise a standing military too. USWM. No thank you.

Regarding the Olympics, though - protest away, guys. Don't boycott, but protest - China's human rights issues are out of control - no matter how much they want to capotolize, it won't change that fact that, fundamentally, they treat people like cattle in many instances.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
The Wizzle said...

Nice to meet you, Ammon!

I'd love to respond to your comment, but sadly it makes no sense and has no basis in reality that I can determine, so actually I think I'll just go to bed. :)

Anonymous said...

wow, that may be the most asinine, presumptuous and laughable comment that has ever been posted on here. Whatever, man.

Anonymous said...

Ammon, I didn't really get you comment either.
My problem with liberalism is that carries the attitude of "you can be too successful". Since when do we say to companies "you are doing too well, you have achieved too much of the American dream, Were going to have to take your money."

I say "way to go!", if a corporation does as well as an entire country. Were do we get the right to say to others "You are too intelligent and successful, it's got to stop!"

As far as the protests, do what ever makes you feel good. EXERCISE YOUR FREEDOM OF SPEECH, YOU WON'T HAVE IT MUCH LONGER!

Unknown said...

I am glad you raised the issue of Darfur which is important.

Bid Bald Dave...you are so right. I didnt want to say it but I am glad you did. We in the West are so hypocritical. We need to clean up our act..we are the ones supporting the current opresive Chinese regime...once we do this we can legitimately ask for change in China...but it is good to protest it.

big.bald.dave said...

Oh, and how could I leave out the Mormons in my list - there were some terrible human rights violations perpetrated by the United States government in driving them (our ancestors) out of the country, only to begrudgingly award them statehood some 50 years later.

Stephen, you're very right as well - we can't claim moral superiority on human rights until we get our act together. The interdependence of our economies, and our government's lack of willingness to threaten trade restrictions, are tacit endorsements of their human rights record.

Anonymous said...

Matt writes, "I say 'way to go!' if a corporation does as well as an entire country. Were do we get the right to say to others 'You are too intelligent and successful, it's got to stop!'"

Oddly enough, "It's got to stop" is exactly what we say to NATIONS who are "too intelligent and successful," at least when their objectives run counter to our own national interest. It's exactly what we said for several decades to the Soviet Union. Why shouldn't we say the same to corporations when they pose a similar threat?

The whole point is that global corporations do not always share America's national interest. They have absolutely zero intrinsic commitment to human rights, nor to any sort of morality whatsoever. Nor do they always obey the law. (There's a long history of really, really nasty corporate misbehavior. Matt might want to start by reading up on the United Fruit Company.) Neither of these is that big a problem--until the multinationals attain too much power to be held legally accountable by anybody.

When corporations become wealthier than nations and have their own militaries, global corporatocracy replaces nationalism. Why would any sane person look approvingly on the replacement of democratic nations by an amoral entity like the corporation, which is not accountable to any group of people other than its shareholders?

--David

Joel said...

Sorry, everybody. Ammon's comment clearly violated our (admittedly sparse) rules for the website, so I removed it. Let's play nice, okay?

Amy said...

Protests don't bother me as long as they themselves aren't violent (then it would trigger protests against violent protests someday) but at the same time I do think that everyone ought to remember what the Olympics stand for; namely, a time to put aside our differences and focus on our common human experiences, self respect and respect for others, and truly make it a time of peace WORLDWIDE.

I'd just like to see a balance of positive coverage instead of just protest coverage by itself. China could really use this as a way to show everyone how much positive growth they are capable of.

Anonymous said...

Maybe right now, pretty much the only Olympics-related news items are the protest. But I imagine that once the games start there will be positive coverage galore--so much we might get sick of it. I distinctly remember thinking that coverage of previous Olympics seemed to involve about two hours of schmaltzy stories about the "small-town athlete who makes the big time" or the "dirt-poor runner who learned his craft while herding his uncle's sheep" for every ten minutes of actual sports....

--David