A recent Asia Times article had a rather interesting take on the Olympic Games. Besides ranking countries by gold medals per capita (with China and the United States ranking 33rd and 47th respectively, and Jamaica a stunning 1st), it points out that while China is now the new Olympic powerhouse, China has an extremely inactive population. I’d like to expand on that.
There has been a lot of conjecture as to the fate of China’s most beloved star, and his result in one of the most anticipated medal races. You’ve heard the two most popular hypotheses: that Liu Xiang will repeat his gold-medal performance in Athens, or he will choke under the pressure of 1.3 billion people demanding that his lightning strike twice. But in an astonishing twist worthy of an O. Henry award, China’s prized hurdler has withdrawn from competition without crossing a single hurdle.
This article is in response to the pro-Tibet banner hung near Olympic Park before the Olympics began.
Even before the Olympics began, the protests had begun. However, the perpetrators should be congratulated for defeating their own cause.
The merits of their Tibet argument aside, such tactics as shown the other day are highly ineffectual. China is currently at a high point for nationalism and patriotism. A high percentage of Chinese are reported to feel comfortable with their government, perhaps despite the low level of political freedom or perhaps because of their increasing prosperity. Since the Olympics is viewed by many as a way to show China’s development to an international player, events that would cause the Chinese to lose face will be magnified.
I am an Olympics junkie.
Normally I am utterly apathetic towards sports; I don’t seriously follow or watch any major professional or college sports. But every four years (and to a lesser extent, every two years in between) you’ll find me glued to the television screen. And not just for the big ticket events, like China [...]
Just as the Olympics strives to display the forefront of the world’s athletic development, it’s also quite illuminating to take a look at the Games in terms of strides made in media and communications. The Olympics is one of the most-watched sporting events in the world, second only to the FIFA World Cup (and that record will certainly be challenged, if not utterly demolished, by the Beijing Games).
The coverage of sporting events tends to have different priorities than other entertainment media; aesthetic concerns often take a backseat to clarity (Leni Reifenstahl and NFL Films notwithstanding). So like a genre television show, the emphasis is on form, not content. And what can we say about the form of Olympic coverage?
Much time has been spent bemoaning the International Olympic Committee’s decision to award the Olympic Games to Beijing because the city is too polluted, or the government is too authoritarian or the Tibetans are too oppressed. While all of these are valid concerns, the fact of the matter is that IOC awarded Beijing the Olympics and the 29th Olympiad is going to start in less than two hours here in Beijing.
The Bird’s Nest was opened this week for full rehearsals of the Olympic opening ceremonies. My cousin and I were lucky enough to score a pair of tickets. I won’t give anything away; if you want details about the ceremony before the big day, you can read any number of reports based on a video leaked by a Korean television channel.
I respectfully request that the Olympics leave China. Please take the Olympic flame back to Athens. Instead of bringing the joy, prosperity, and openness that was promised, the Games have brought us nothing but headache. Our lives have been made more complicated and wearying, so I make this appeal of behalf of foreigners in China, and not a few Chinese as well: Olympics go home.
Let’s see… right now we’ve got a global food crisis; two wars and a primary race that might never end, not to mention dropping home prices in the U.S.; a farcical election in Zimbabwe; continuing plight in the Congo; and, the media staple: drama surrounding the Beijing Olympics.
Let’s say, hypothetically, we run all these stories in a serious international magazine, what should our lead be? The editors at The Economist, faced with that question, chose a story about Chinese nationalism. But what to put on the cover? I know! What says “Chinese nationalism” better than an angry cartoon dragon? But don’t make him too angry, that would be demeaning.
Too much blood—and ink—has been spilled since protests erupted in Lhasa less than a month ago. The Tibet issue has been used as a proxy by the Left and the Right in both China and the West to serve the aims of each disparate faction. Now it seems as though no group is willing to brook a narrative that deviates from its oft-repeated truisms.