April 07, 2008

If this were a FIFA event France, and maybe England, would be banned from the Olympics for not properly managing security. Mind you, I'm with the protesters, I just think the way FIFA plays hardball is amusing.

posted by billsaysthis at 03:06 PM on April 07, 2008

Update: they've been having a ton of protests in San Francisco today, including people climbing the wires of the Golden Gate bridge to protest the torch's only North American stop on Wednesday. Links: 1, 2, video.

posted by Ufez Jones at 04:28 PM on April 07, 2008

I want the Olympics to happen because I really like the Olympics. There are more important things, though. I'm not much for a boycott though. I don't see that improving things. China isn't some po-dunk banana republic that can be coerced by big fancy suit wearing other countries - what with their crisp ties and hair cuts and such.

posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 04:29 PM on April 07, 2008

Free Tibet! Free Katie Holmes! Free Beer! Free Pam's Twins!

posted by irunfromclones at 04:49 PM on April 07, 2008

Whether or not China sees the the Olympics as an entrance onto the international stage, the fact is, the spirit of the Olympics, from the time of the Greeks, has always been that politics should be kept seperate from sports. In Ancient times, wars were actually postponed during the games. For most the of the modern history of the games, the same spirit was kept, save for the 1980 and 1984 Olympics, where the only people who truly suffered from the boycotts were the athletes themselves. The boycott of the Moscow Olympics did not bring down the Soviet Regime. Inept governing did. There are a number of valid complaints to be made about the Chinese government. But attacking torch bearers is absolutely the wrong way to voice those complaints. Similarly a boycott would only serve to create a bad precedent, such as happened in 1984, when the USSR boycotted the Los Angeles games as a response to the 1980 boycott. Do we really want half the world boycotting the 2012 games in London? Because I guarantee that more that a few countries will follow China's lead in a boycott if Western Countries do decide to politicise the event. The Olympics are an act of cultural diplomacy. By inviting a gigantic event to take place on their soil, China's government, and especially for those people in Beijing, will find it very hard to filter out the things they don't like. China has gradually become a more and more open society based on the fact that it has opened itself up to the world. Politicising the Olympics will only anger the Chinese people and lead them to see the West as an adversary, as opposed to a partner.

posted by Chargdres at 04:58 PM on April 07, 2008

I do think that boycotting the Olympics would be a catastrophe, just as it was in 1980. However, there is talk of boycotting the opening ceremony and I think that this could be an effective way of making a point without punishing the olympic athletes. And if the threat of boycotting the opening ceremonies could help change the oppression in Tibet, why wouldn't we want to use that leverage?

posted by cjets at 06:53 PM on April 07, 2008

TheQatarian: I think it would be better to leave politics out of the Olympics and let it just be about the athletes. That will never happen as long as teams represent countries. Weedy: I want the Olympics to happen because I really like the Olympics. There are more important things, though. What you said. It certainly sucks like an electrolux if you're an athlete who's dreamed of the Olympics all your life, who's worked like a donkey to get there (and, let's not forget, also had the tremendous good fortune and resources and support that it takes to get someone to the Olympics), and whose Olympic experience is now in danger of being tarnished at the very least. It also sucks to be a Tibetan Buddhist nun imprisoned and tortured for taking part in a demonstration. The purpose of a boycott is only partly to effect a change -- that's what happens if you're wildly successful. Even if you're not, however, you can still refuse to be a part of it. "Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, answered and said to the king, O Nebuchadnezzar, we [are] not careful to answer thee in this matter. If it be [so], our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace, and he will deliver [us] out of thine hand, O king. But if not, be it known unto thee, O king, that we will not serve thy gods, nor worship the golden image which thou hast set up."

posted by lil_brown_bat at 07:12 PM on April 07, 2008

I'm sad that so many people think it is only about Tibet. Meaning me? Don't make assumptions, tieguy. My personal connection is through Tibet; that doesn't mean I think it is "only about Tibet".

posted by lil_brown_bat at 08:13 PM on April 07, 2008

I agree about not buying stuff made in China. I was extremely pissed off when I ordered my iPod from Apple and it shipped direct from the factory... in China. I believe they're moving production to Taiwan for the next generation of iPod's, but I was extremely disappointed to discover where mine came from:(

posted by Drood at 08:49 PM on April 07, 2008

That will never happen as long as teams represent countries. Exactly! If the Olympics (or sport in general) was "just about the athletes", then it would look a hell of a lot different than it does. Fact is, sport is always-already political. Nothing ideological about singing anthems before games? How about military representation and "honour the troops" campaigns strategically coinciding with major sporting events? And we're not even scratching the surface of the historical legacy of using the Olympics as an ideological/political battlefield. Reality is (unfortunate as it may be for some), we can't just simply ignore global politics, can't erase the history of contestation that has surrounded the Games, can't just start with a clean slate and embrace some pure Olympic ideal. This monster was created long ago ... and it's gonna stick around and be a force to be reckoned with.

posted by Spitztengle at 10:11 PM on April 07, 2008

I opposes a boycott because it punishes the athletes, but I support peaceful protests by individuals, not countries. A concerted boycott would only harden attitudes in China. My wife is from there and she, like 95% of Chinese citizens, believes Tibet is and always was a part of China, and that the Reds' occupation was a liberation from feudalism. IMO Chinese citizens would view a boycott by countries as just politics, like everything else in China. But non-violent protests by private citizens might make a few of them think.

posted by drumdance at 11:30 PM on April 07, 2008

Theres alot of people in China that think evrything that borders them is part of China. See "Taiwan" "Tibet" etc... But that doesnt make it so. Having said that, I love the Olympics, hate boycotts and firmly believe that if The world want to "send a message" to China they need only to stop buying the amount of products they do from it. People make that more complicated than it really is but just scale down imports or revise trade agreements. Done and done.

posted by firecop at 08:50 AM on April 08, 2008

How does it not punish the athletes? They're the only ones who are going to hurt from a boycott. I live in the country. I have a neighbor who is a farmer and produces maple syrup -- he's my supplier. If he decides for whatever reason to stop producing maple syrup, is he punishing me? Yes, the athletes would be hurt by a boycott (although, no, they would certainly not be the only ones hurt). That doesn't mean they're being punished.

posted by lil_brown_bat at 09:13 AM on April 08, 2008

The idea that all we need to do is stop bying products from China is certainly one way of sending a message, however not a viable one as long as the free market is allowed to reign. If goverments were to legislate consumers away from Chinese manufacturing things might change. For now though, China has the bulk of cheap manufacturing and Adam Smith's "invisible hand" will keep handing money to China. If western consumers were to shun the cheap manufacturing, our standard of living would drop. Is western society as a whole willing for that? I doubt it. In fact, China potentially has more leverage here than the western world. Today's edition of Tank McNamara says it much better than I ever could.

posted by Miles1996 at 09:24 AM on April 08, 2008

It would be interesting to see how the torch run would go down if the olympics were in the USA this year ... John 8:7

posted by smithnyiu at 09:43 AM on April 08, 2008

If he stops selling maple syrup to the store where you buy it because he doesn't like their practice of hiring illegal immigrants to stock the shelves, but in turn you can no longer get maple syrup because your store doesn't sell it anymore, then yes, he is punishing you by punishing the sto Well, I think that you (and several others) are humpty-dumptying the definition of "punishing" past the point where it's a useful descriptor of anything, but I'll not belabor the point further. You may not consider that intent matters, only consequences; here again, we disagree.

posted by lil_brown_bat at 10:23 AM on April 08, 2008

These protests have been more successful at getting the Tibetans' plight on the front page and in the A-block of every news show on the planet than a thousand press releases and bake sales. If the price of that coverage is the embarrassment of an openly corrupt and fascist-sympathetic organization like the IOC, who chose to have the Olympics in China despite their horrific human rights record because they saw bilions of dollar signs, then so be it. The only people I feel bad for in this whole fiasco are the people actually running with the torch. In a perfect world, that should be a great honor, and this happens to be a deeply imperfect world. Aside from that, I'm thrilled at the actions and how widely they're being covered. May they run every leg of the relay, in every corner of the planet, from now until the closing ceremonies. With the Chinese government and their sympathizers trying to sweep this crap under the rug, there can't be enough light shed on this stuff.

posted by chicobangs at 10:40 AM on April 08, 2008

Question: why do you care? Does everyone have to establish credibility before they comment?

posted by yerfatma at 11:18 AM on April 08, 2008

Miles1996: Today's edition of Tank McNamara says it much better than I ever could. Your explanation was fine but that link was classic. Nicely done, Miles, nicely done.

posted by worldcup2002 at 11:38 AM on April 08, 2008

btw, the torch has arrived in SF. "One scheduled San Francisco torchbearer, Jaclyn Kimball, a 14-year-old cross-country runner, has bowed out because of concern about the run." Continuing coverage by the SF Chronicle.

posted by worldcup2002 at 11:44 AM on April 08, 2008

In regards to the maple syrup farmer analogy, would it be more accurate to compare the protests to knocking about the delivery truck guy trying to get the stuff to the store? I completely agree that the Chinese government is reprehensible when it comes to human rights, but why take it out on torch bearers? That's where my sympathy gets lost, not on the protest, but on the protesters. Sure this gets attention. Couldn't they come with something better that doesn't screw with innocent folks who I could assume aren't guilty of any human rights violations? This sort of thing smells mildly of a form of terrorism and not protest. And no, I'm not talking Al Quaida or bombings terrorism, but of the needless harrassment of individuals who are unrelated to the situation the protesters are opposed. And not to pick nits, cjets, but fascists and communists aren't the same thing. I hope I don't get ripped to shreds for this, but that was my gut reaction to this story.

posted by THX-1138 at 12:27 PM on April 08, 2008

And not to pick nits, cjets, but fascists and communists aren't the same thing. THX, I would suggest that the perversion of communism that we see in China (and that we saw in the former Soviet Union) is closer to fascism than real communism.

posted by cjets at 12:36 PM on April 08, 2008

Here's a question - how would our American friends feel if the next US Olympics was subject to a boycott based on "facist human rights abuses" overseas? I mean it's not exactly the same situation as Tibet, but I don't think I'm splitting hairs, here. Frankly, I don't think that many nations can afford to suggest that they occupy some moral high ground.

posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 12:52 PM on April 08, 2008

The whole point of the maple syrup farmer analogy was to point out that it's inappropriate to speak of a hypothetical boycott "punishing" Olympic athletes -- it had nothing to do with the current protests, which do not in any way affect the Olympic events. Understood. I was using your statement to lead into the point I was trying to make. And sometimes I just like whipped cream and huckleberry jam on my griddlecakes. I feel the need to start off by saying I am in no way to be regarded as a "Chinese government apologist" or siding with their policies, as that would be untrue. But I think that if I'm the only person who thinks that the protesters are taking the wrong tack here, I'll quietly fade into the background. The only thing that this protest has changed for me is that I am less sympathetic to the protesters now. Not their cause.

posted by THX-1138 at 01:17 PM on April 08, 2008

I just like whipped cream and huckleberry jam on my griddlecakes. Real maple syrup is the only thing that should ever go on pancakes. Fascist. I would assume that many Chinese citizens oppose their government's actions as well. My wife is living proof. She was born and raised in China and is now an american citizen ... and you won't find many people that hate China and what they do more than she does. So she left, because there aren't many successful demonstrations in China.

posted by smithnyiu at 01:38 PM on April 08, 2008

THX: I feel the need to start off by saying I am in no way to be regarded as a "Chinese government apologist" or siding with their policies, as that would be untrue. But I think that if I'm the only person who thinks that the protesters are taking the wrong tack here, I'll quietly fade into the background. The only thing that this protest has changed for me is that I am less sympathetic to the protesters now. Not their cause. I didn't for a sec think that you were a Chinese government apologist -- and clearly you're not the only person who disagrees with the protesters. I sympathize with what I see as people who have probably come to realize the hard way that the Chinese government would be happy to see them "go through channels" for the rest of their lives in pursuit of justice that will never come. I don't like the stench, but I can't blame it on the protesters. (and I'd love huckleberries on my flapjacks, but they're hard to find around here -- too many woods, not enough fires)

posted by lil_brown_bat at 02:15 PM on April 08, 2008

Is geekyguy around? I'd love to hear his perspective on this.

posted by Ying Yang Mafia at 02:36 PM on April 08, 2008

Question: why do you care? Does everyone have to establish credibility before they comment? Answer: You should mind your own business since I wasn't even talking to you.

posted by BornIcon at 02:45 PM on April 08, 2008

The torch is the symbol of the Olympic games, not Chinese repression. It's inappropriate for anyone at any level to politicize the games. The protesters are shamelessly exploiting the torch for their political agenda. They should be following established protocol by making large campaign contributions to influential members of congress who would demand that Condoleeza Rice schedule another futlile human rights summit and photo opportunity with pandas.

posted by irunfromclones at 03:13 PM on April 08, 2008

Communist. Everyone knows that panda is best smoked like a brisket. You only brush on the Texas-style sauce at the end of the cook.

posted by THX-1138 at 03:56 PM on April 08, 2008

I've always felt that it was the exposure to Western Culture that led to the fall of the Berlin Wall and the Soviet Union as much as any massive military buildup. Actually they just simply ran out of money. Communism in the form it took simply did not work financially. The piece of pie they cut for defense was almost double that of the West. China, on the other hand, have figured out how to make their form of Communism work. So it will take what was discussed many times in this thread: a loss of revenue stream for China to listen to anyone else. Hard to do in a free world market. Miles1996 had a great point with Adam Smith's "invisible hand" earlier in this thread. I believe that is exactly what would happen.

posted by smithnyiu at 04:25 PM on April 08, 2008

Weedy: the difference is that in China you could be arrested for posting a criticism like that on sportsfilter.cn- that is, if you could get to a politically sensitive page like this at all. I fully agree that the US has lost a fair amount of moral high ground in the past seven years, and as someone with Latin American roots, I'm pretty strongly aware of how weak that high ground was well before that- most of Latin American could swap notes pretty handily with Tibet. If people wanted to protest an American Olympics right now, they'd have every right. But even with all that damage China's government, and the lack of rights people have to protest it, is still in a different, even lower, class. Relatedly, that's why I don't even feel that badly for the torch runners. They chose to participate in an event that was explicitly- from day one of the bidding process- planned as a propaganda coup for the Chinese government, through which they would announce to the world that they had ascended into the realm of modern, respectable, 'first class' nations. (They didn't build those fancy stadiums to show off how effective forced labor is.) Unfortunately, China has been called out on what a lie that is, and so those who were being used as part of the propaganda (torch runners, athletes, etc.) are being caught up in it. Certainly it wasn't their intent to propagandize China, so I feel a little badly of them, but they should point the blame at the IOC- which damn well knew it was a propaganda exercise when they accepted the Beijing bid- rather than the protesters who are trying to expose the Chinese government for the authoritarian police state that it is. (And don't get me started on the 'if we expose them to our culture, they'll realize how bad their government is' stuff. It is basically true- but in letting the Chinese government set up all the ground rules for the Olympics, you really think the average Chinese citizen is going to get any exposure to Western democratic values? No, they're going to get hours and hours of propaganda about how the Olympics proves the greatness of China and the Chinese government. By participating- by showing our flag there- we're only complicit in that masquerade.)

posted by tieguy at 05:04 PM on April 08, 2008

Actually they just simply ran out of money. Communism in the form it took simply did not work financially. The piece of pie they cut for defense was almost double that of the West. China, on the other hand, have figured out how to make their form of Communism work. The Soviet Union did go broke spending billions on defense (sound familiar? It will, when our kids and grandkids have to pay the debt for this war). And a boycott of Chinese goods would be a powerful motivator. But I was in East Berlin and the Soviet Union in 1989 and 1990, and I would still maintain that the exposure of Soviet citizenry to the standard of living in the west and the freedom in the west created huge unrest in the Soviet Union and East Germany. It was a combination of the Government going broke and the desire of the people for something better that led to the fall of the Soviet Union. Running out of money alone did not do it. (It's actually a lot more complicated than that, but I think that's a decent overview.) I think the same analogy applies here. There is certainly an economic component, but there is also a cultural component. The Chinese people need exposure to other cultures and other ways of life to know that there other ways of creating and maintaining a society. Economic sanctions alone won't do that if the majority of Chinese people are united behind their goverment. On preview: Tieguy, if the exposure does work, you need to start somewhere. The Chinese may try to keep it all under wraps but that's not a reason not to try. An example is the 1936 Olympics. It was supposed to be all propaganda supporting Aryan Supremacy. And then Jesse Owens won 4 gold medals.

posted by cjets at 05:12 PM on April 08, 2008

The Olympics have, for as long as I can remember, been totally politically charged. The greatest American Olympic victory of the last 30 years was arguably the 1980 "Miracle on Ice." So important was American's win over the USSR that most people totally forget that the US team had to play Finland to win the gold. The great victory was not the victory that won the medal, but the victory over those nasty Soviets. Indeed, for anyone who grew up during the cold war, the Olympics were largely an exercise in "let's beat those cheating, steroid using Iron Curtain countries." It was totally political - every victory over the Eastern European and Soviet teams proof of our superiority, every victory by the Soviet teams further proof that they were cheaters and that the judges were biased in their favor. It wasn't enough for one of our allies to beat them either. That wasn't worth TV time. We had to be the ones doing the beating or receiving the heartbreaking (and totally unfair since they were all obviously cheating and their women looked like men and they would all defect before the next Olympics anyways) loss. Anyhow, selecting the site is a political choice; selecting the judges is a political choice; selecting who competes is a political choice. This isn't some sort of academic 'everything is political' position - this is just reality. At some point, the IOC had the choice to not choose China as a location, but they did. When they did this, they made a political choice. They had other options. I feel for the torch runners - many of whom probably believe naively that the games are about a celebration of amateur athletics. Of course, they're not. Whether they are held in China, or Russia, or the USA, they are chest thumping, nationalistic events. And, honestly, that is what makes them interesting and why we watch them instead of all the other International track and field events. Anyhow, to some extent, the only way to avoid this kind of political jackassery is to only choose locations for the game that are devoid of controversy. I think that leaves Switzerland and Canada.

posted by Joey Michaels at 05:31 PM on April 08, 2008

djets: But I was in East Berlin and the Soviet Union in 1989 and 1990, and I would still maintain that the exposure of Soviet citizenry to the standard of living in the west and the freedom in the west created huge unrest in the Soviet Union and East Germany. (emphasis mine) Interesting you should say that. At that same time, watching the change from the other side, I asked an older and wiser friend, "So, what happens now? Do the Soviets start living like us?" "Don't be ridiculous," he said, "There isn't enough oil in the world for them to live like us." I wasn't a stupid young person, but that was the first time that anyone handed me the clue that our "standard of living" wasn't infinite. I can certainly believe that in 1990, a lot of Soviets and East Germans were getting a look at the western "standard of living" and saying, "Hot puppies, I'm gonna get me some of that!" But it was never extensible on that scale, and we've seen the global repercussions of China trying to do so with even a small fraction of its huge population. Howard_T: We sit here as potential victims of our own greed just beating the doors down to get the low-priced stuff from China. Just so. Cheap consumer goods have caused us to redefine our "standard of living" in ways that cripple us. Nobody needs a DVD player, or a large-screen plasma TV, or a Roomba, or any number of consumer toys that didn't even exist ten years ago -- but suggest to people that we would be better off, individually and collectively, if we cured ourself of this addiction, and you'd think you had threatened the water supply. The western "standard of living" used to be defined in truly meaningful terms: having enough to eat, adequate shelter, access to services such as education and health care, and work that would allow you to pay for all of it without having to work 70 hours a week. Now, ironically, we are drowning in cheap luxuries, while the necessities that used to define our standard of living are creeping out of reach. We have indeed done it to ourselves. It's just such a goddamn shame that if we're going to sell out our principles, we're not even demanding more in return than a pile of cheap trash.

posted by lil_brown_bat at 05:50 PM on April 08, 2008

cjets, the exposure didn't work in 1936. The German citizenry enthusasticly embraced WW2, at least at the beginning. Good point, Howard. I think that the point I really wanted to make is about the possible unintended consequences when you host an Olympic Games. Germany expected to use the games to promote the myth of Aryan Supremacy. What they got was Jesse Owens winning the four golds.

posted by cjets at 06:23 PM on April 08, 2008

My main point was if the protesters wanted to make a larger impact on the Chinese government, stop buying stuff from Walmart. Of course I realize that nobody, including most of the protesters, are willing to give up their cheap electronics, clothes, or other items made in China and that such a boycott may hurt some of the citizens of China as well. If there were an easy solution to the problems in China we would have done it by now. If the purpose of the protests were to raise awareness of the internal problems of China, I wish they had chosen a different method. I also wish my mom and grandma were still around to make me some of their absolutely without paralell huckleberry pie. But that is as likely to happen as my comments changing anything in the world.

posted by THX-1138 at 06:49 PM on April 08, 2008

drumdance, where do you get your information? 1. The US has a base in S. Korea The US has several, because if they didn't South Koreans would go by way of passenger pigeon. 2. The US has a base in the Phillipines No they don't. Mount Pinatubo saw to that, and the Philippino Government saw to that ... they held out for more money for the land-lease agreement and it backfired. (/pun) 3. The US has a base in Japan The US has several, because it is part of the cease-fire terms at the end of WWII. They were the ones that tried to exterminate the US, remember? 4. The US has bases in Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan (all of which are on or near the Chinese border) No they don't. The US has a presence wherever they are needed, and are (contrary to world opinion) generally asked to be there. 5. The US has supplied Taiwan with advanced weaponry So? 6. In 2001 a US spy plane was shot down off the coast of Hainan Island. No it wasn't. It was patrolling in international waters (62 miles off the coast) like a good little P-3 Orion, and a Chinese fighter got too close, and they collided. And it landed on Hainan Island, it never went down. As my cousin pointed out to me, there are no Chinese spy planes patrolling the Florida Keys. Only because they don't have any, and probably wouldn't know what to do with them right now. Spy planes won't help them get into a 21st century arms race, but selling intelligence to China like Bill Clinton did will.

posted by smithnyiu at 07:12 PM on April 08, 2008

U.S. doesn't need all the bases around the world to keep an eye on China. Just destroy their crops. Ever try to feed 1 billion people. See if they can eat their missles and armed soldiers- unless Soylent Green becomes a reality.

posted by giveuptheghost at 07:44 PM on April 08, 2008

Back to the subject at hand...Citzens of the world are following this country's lead in reframing life in some wide open, artificial, there-are-no-absolutes, sanitized, made-to-order-so-it doesn't- threaten-my-personal-preferences sort of "reality." But right is still right and wrong is still wrong. The courts say that if a policy seems to have a moral context, it must be religious and shouldn't be foisted on the general populous. So, like the foolishness of "separation of church and state," the separation of sports and state is also impossible and inadvisable. Now China is using the olympics for politcal purposes. I THINK CHINA SHOULD BE ANSWERED IN THEIR OWN TERMS. Any country or athlete who disagrees with China's crimes against humanity (you can call it "human rights" policy if you want to sanitize it a bit) should boycott the olympics. China now has the world stage. So let them continue to be exposed and answered in terms of their own reality. Today we say, "it is what it is." Grandma used to say "they'll get their comeupances."

posted by JayLBird at 06:34 AM on April 09, 2008

OK, l_b_b, I was generalizing. I'll admit to making a blanket statement. But the fact of the matter is most of the parts of the very computers that many of us are posting our opinions on were made in China. Maybe even the computers themselves. The world in which we live is driven by economics. That is the new religion. It's temples are the banks. Perhaps one method of protest that I might suggest would be to hit a nation where it may actually make a difference. Financially. Many a historical protest that's now regarded as noble, was condemned as disruptive at the time While this is a nice statement, can you give examples of situations similar to this one? You can get into a real grey area when it comes to making a comparison to unrelated events, although it is possible. I guess the bottom line is that I don't have to like or approve of a protesters methods, while other people are free, at least in this country, to throw their full support behind the protesters and their methods. To me, a less polarizing protest would get more support. But I'm no expert, I could be dead wrong.

posted by THX-1138 at 10:43 AM on April 09, 2008

While this is a nice statement, can you give examples of situations similar to this one? I'm sure I can give examples, but before I go there, what would make it "similar" to this one? Would it have to involve China? Would it have to involve the Olympics? Would it have to involve the b-word? I guess the bottom line is that I don't have to like or approve of a protesters methods, while other people are free, at least in this country, to throw their full support behind the protesters and their methods. You don't have to like anything. The point that I'm trying to make is that effective protests make people uncomfortable. Nobody likes to smell the stench or hear the sound of a whistle blowing. So what's the alternative? Can you name an example of an effective protest that everyone liked -- that, in fact, didn't make most people feel at the least very uncomfortable? I don't think such a thing has ever existed.

posted by lil_brown_bat at 02:13 PM on April 09, 2008

The point that I'm trying to make is that effective protests make people uncomfortable. And my point is that this protest won't change anything. That, in my opinion, would make it ineffective. My definition of effective being, in regards to this situation, "making a substantial change". I think my idea of not supporting China financially on a personal and national scale would be more effective. My point about comparing situations is that no two are alike.

posted by THX-1138 at 03:56 PM on April 09, 2008

What I'm really looking forward to is the first time a gold medalist lifts up their shirt to show a Tibetan flag or some kind of slogan on it. You know that's going to happen. Based on previous incidents, I expect that person will be banned by the IOC for life. However, I doubt they'll be as heavily criticized by the press and have their lives (and families) threatened.

posted by grum@work at 04:12 PM on April 09, 2008

Echoing grum's comments, I think last week's On the Media has an Olympics segment worth a listen:

"And then in 1968, you saw the first real Third World country, at least at that time, hosting the Games, which was Mexico City. This led to a very disturbing incident ten days before the opening ceremonies. The Mexican military killed approximately 250 people, nonviolent protesters, on the streets of Mexico City. The International Olympic Committee took the position that this was a domestic issue and that they shouldn't say anything about it, and it shouldn't have any effect on the Olympics going ahead. Yet a couple weeks later, two American athletes, Tommie Smith and John Carlos, staged a silent nonviolent demonstration on the medal platform after winning the Gold and Bronze Medals in the 200 meters. This was known as the "Black Power Salute" protest. And the International Olympic Committee was so outraged at this ruining of their ritual that they ordered Smith and Carlos out of the country or else American athletes would not be allowed to take part in the rest of the Games."

posted by yerfatma at 06:23 PM on April 09, 2008

Jeez, l_b_b, what would you do without me? It seems I post here to give you something to disagree with. Well, at least we get to play "Let's italicize each other's comments and contradict them". Which I don't think I'll play. If you read what I wrote and then read what your response was, it's pretty clear that you didn't get my definition of effective. I never said that effectiveness was measured in instantaneous change. I think it's also possible that you and I see the world through completely different eyes. I am a results-oriented person, believe it or not. I am pro-active when it comes to achieving a goal. If one is engaged in an activity in which they hope to effect change, any change, then there should be a point to it. This protest has no point. It will change nothing. If, by some bizarre turn of fate, the easing of human rights violations in China can be traced to the Olympic torch bearer protests of 2008, I will gladly issue a statement admitting my mistake. But I suspect that you will have to remind me because I don't think that in a year anyone will remember this. It won't even register as a blip. Once again, you and I clearly do not see eye to eye on this issue. I have re-read my posts and yours and have come to the conclusion that we have been pretty consistent in our statements. In other words, we aren't going to change each other's minds. So while being a good conversation and fascinating (at least to me) exchange of ideas, it has been, nonetheless, ineffective. (see what I did there?)

posted by THX-1138 at 01:14 AM on April 10, 2008

FWIW there are thousands (really) of public protests in China every year, usually around property rights and pollution. They rarely make the media because the government suppresses the news, but they happen and they do sometimes change outcomes. That kind of thing was unthinkable in the Mao era. Tianenmen Square, as awful as it ended, would never even have started.

posted by drumdance at 08:18 AM on April 10, 2008

Does not having an Ipod mean that one "suffers mightily"?

posted by lil_brown_bat at 10:29 AM on April 10, 2008

Chargdres, this is way off-topic, so if you want to continue this, let's do it via email, okay? As I stated above, I think we've veered far from any meaningful definition of "standard of living". Clothing in the USA is "made in China" not because we can't make it in the USA, but because people would rather have five $2 t-shirts than one $10 t-shirt. That doesn't mean that you can't survive with one $10 t-shirt. Some of us are trying to make that kind of choice instead of pretending that we can no more refrain from buying cheap junk than we can choose to ignore the laws of physics. It is a minority view, certainly not a popular one, and it's hardly a big ol' movement (at least as yet), but it does exist.

posted by lil_brown_bat at 11:21 AM on April 10, 2008

grum, that Wikipedia article nowhere states that Smith and / or Carlos was "banned by the IOC for life." You exaggerate. However, your central point is correct -- an athlete making such a political statement today would almost certainly suffer the same fate as far as the IOC is concerned -- have their accreditation revoked and therefore be out of the Games. But this honestly seems reasonable to me. Would you treat it differently?

posted by Amateur at 11:24 PM on April 10, 2008