Comments on: Sportplomacy, as stupid as it sounds

By: Samuel Stauffer

Samuel Stauffer — Tue, 09 Nov 2010 23:05:24 +0000

this is here to stay so those that don’t like it – tough.

By: Chip

Chip — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 14:11:56 +0000

@Jimu, Ryan made a pretty spot-on comment there.

Yes, I am self righteous. Why not? It’s better to be right than nice. And to answer your question, Taiwan would be a great pick, although I suppose the pollution wouldn’t be much better than Beijing.:)

By: Ryan

Ryan — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 10:45:08 +0000

I’m not sure what “deserves” means, as again, it’s just a glorified sports meet that will be forgotten by the first week of September by all but those de-homed to make way for Olympic building projects.

However, I think what is meant is that Beijing is not living up to the standards the Olympics generally put on cities that host the event – pollution, traffic control, hr issues, etc…

By: Jimu

Jimu — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 05:30:19 +0000

“beijing didn’t deserve it (the Olympics),” someone above opined. Which country would, according to your self-righteous western standards, pray tell. Which big power does not have in its hands its share of blood, particularly western ones (case in pt. US Iraq), need I add. Such hypocrisy.

By: Chip

Chip — Wed, 20 Feb 2008 06:59:14 +0000

Ryan,

I think the boycott movement is formed by people who want SOMETHING to bash China for, and the Sudan situation just happens to be modern enough to be put into play. If Sudan weren’t happening, there would probably be protests about phaLG, or tibet, or whatever. And obviously China is not causing what’s happening in Sudan, but they ARE supplying the weapons and the cash, and do have significant influence in Sudan. And despite China’s persistant stance of staying out of other countries affairs, they have been seen occasionally to disregard that (they eventually used their leverage on North Korea to get some negotiations). China is sitting idly on the sideline of a huge disaster, and as a profiteer of, has part responsibility for what’s happening there.

I agree that the olympics should probably not be political, but as somebody who is biased (ie I could care less about sports), I don’t get offended when it does turn political.

As a clarification, I’m personally of the view that the IOC should be getting some flack, since they chose beijing in the first place, despite the fact that beijing didn’t deserve it. The city has already been chosen, the people of China have been granted the olympics, and they shouldn’t be punished at this point in the process. And thus the olympics can’t be taken away from them, but I sure as heck hope the IOC has a bit more of a backbone when choosing cities in the future.

By: Ryan

Ryan — Wed, 20 Feb 2008 05:55:21 +0000

@Chip, I don't disagree regarding letting the effects of a movement determine whether that movement is attempted in the first place. Lord knows I've been at enough protests to hold anything but that view. My point, point of the post, is not the lack of effect it will have, but rather the misplacement. China is NOT causing genocide in the Sudan. The tribal warfare is. Blaming China is a can of worms that any American should hesitate to open. There's some excellent commentary going on at Imagethief's blog about this.

The olympics ARE political, they ARE a soapbox.

See your first point. They may be, but that doesn't mean they should be.

By: Chip

Chip — Wed, 20 Feb 2008 05:45:54 +0000

When I read articles criticizing Spielburg or the boycott movement, it’s always written in the view that boycotting the olympics won’t affect the Sudan situation. In all likelyhood, that’s absolutely right, it’s a futile effort. But what is never addressed is the morality of the boycott, the reasoning behind it. If every protest, movement, statement, boycott, etc. were to be judged and carried out only by evaluating its effects, then a WHOLE lot of them would simply not have taken place. If Keating’s wife was raped by the chef of the restaurant, he definitely wouldn’t dine there. Would his boycotting of the restaurant have any effect on its profits/business? Not likely. But that’s not the point.

Also, I disagree with the whole “neutrality” of the olympics, the olympic spirit, and all that. The olympics ARE political, they ARE a soapbox. And here’s hoping for a whole bunch of egg on the CCP’s face in 2008. Screw political neutrality, people are dying.

By: Keating

Keating — Mon, 18 Feb 2008 20:16:00 +0000

Believing in personal freedom, I think it fine if some people choose not to participate in the games out of protest. I sure wouldn’t go to a restaurant if the chef had slept with my wife, regardless of the quality of the food.

But if I had the opportunity to be in the 2008 Olympics (instead of being a stocky slow Irishman) I’d participate. As you suggest, I don’t feel strongly that my lack of participation would enact any change in China’s policies.

By: Paul

Paul — Fri, 15 Feb 2008 09:43:43 +0000

Well put. Reading through this got me thinking about the athletes in all of this. They train their whole lives to get this one shot. And if the politicizing of these games continues like this, these athletes are going to have to face the Jesse Owens’ syndrom. No one remembers the fact that the black American sprinter absolutely demolished the competition in Germany. All people remember of this guy is the fact that he didn’t get props from Hitler. Probably not the way the athletes competeing here in Beijing want to be remembered. So after these games this summer, is gold metal winner X going to go back to his or her home country and have to hear ‘So, you won that metal at the blood Olympics, huh.’ I really hope not, for their sake.

By: The sport vs politics conundrum - Countdown to Beijing

The sport vs politics conundrum - Countdown to Beijing — Fri, 15 Feb 2008 01:24:09 +0000

[...] can we separate the two as Ryan eloquently argues in “sportplomacy, as stupid as it sounds” following the latest hullabaloo brought about by Spielberg. Is sport just a game, as Ryan says? Or [...]