CaptainPanic Posted March 27, 2008 Posted March 27, 2008 The ancient Greeks are said to have stopped their wars ("The Olympic Truce") when it was time to have the Olympic Games... this ensured that the athletes could travel safely. Why would we boycot the Olympics, when ancient tradition calls for a Truce while the Olympics are held? If you want to make a statement to China, stop buying their products. (You can recognise them by the little sentence "Made in China"). It's downright hypocrite to call for a boycot of the games and at the same time spend tens or hundreds of euros to buy Chinese products every month.
gcol Posted March 27, 2008 Posted March 27, 2008 I have not read all the posts so forgive me if the 1980 and 1984 boycotts have already been mentioned, but they set a prescedent. The first was in retrospective protest at Soviet military action which had already taken place and the boycott was therefore ineffectual and the second was tit-for-tat. Cold war politics. Any protests or boycotts this year would be proactive and preventive, the only peaceful actions that are available. It is a polite way for the ordinary world citizen who has no political, financial or military axes to grind to turn his back on a rather distasteful command and control economy of the old unreconstructed communist era type. I am all for it. Perhaps I was a Tibetan in a previous life. The ethos of the olympics has changed. It is now a moneymaking media circus. I would not be sad to see its demise, especially as an Englishman who is planning to batten down the hatches to survive the upheaval and disruption when the circus comes to London.
CaptainPanic Posted March 27, 2008 Posted March 27, 2008 Could I be correct when I say that the Olympics are still the only event in the World where all nations are invited? Blocking the Olympics is not the only action available to the ordinary world citizen. In fact, I think most people have no say in it. Each individual however can choose to stop buying Chinese products. (But the majority chooses not to, because their products are so cheap). Btw, I agree that the Olympics are a commercial circus, but at least in the Netherlands it is still possible to watch most matches and competitions without breaks for commercials. The only ads you see are the ones on the boards at the side of the field/track/course.
CDarwin Posted March 27, 2008 Posted March 27, 2008 While we all want China to change for the better, pissing all over them in a moment of pride like the Olypics is not likely the best way to accomplish that. Every person I've spoken to from China these past several months asks me excitely if I'll get the chance to "go to China this summer to see the Olympics!" It's not "China" we have a problem with, as there are about a billion peole there who are pretty cool. It's the tiny handful in control of the nation who need to "be handled." There's a real swelling of nationalist sentiment in China right now. Boycotting the Olympics wouldn't just piss off the bureaucracy that runs the country, it would anger a lot of individual Chinese too. What would China's incentive to "clean-up" be if there was an Olympic boycott? Example after example has shown that isolating a regime rarely brings change. In most every circumstance, it just feeds into the paranoia of the propaganda and drives the people even more into the nurturing bosom of the state. If you want to see China turn into a giant North Korea, do things like boycott the Olympics. 1
Pangloss Posted March 27, 2008 Posted March 27, 2008 An interesting alternative that's getting some buzz around the Web is the idea of boycotting Olympic sponsors instead. Coca-Cola, Budweiser, McDonalds, etc. I think that might be a lot more productive than a general boycott.
CaptainPanic Posted March 28, 2008 Posted March 28, 2008 I think boycotting the sponsors would have an interesting effect. The American economy would be suffering from a Chinese invasion of Tibet. Regardless whether boycotting American companies is a good idea or not, I am afraid I really like a Coca cola every now and then
Norman Albers Posted April 10, 2008 Author Posted April 10, 2008 Today in San Francisco they ran the flame out of town.
iNow Posted April 10, 2008 Posted April 10, 2008 Norman! 你好! 你现在学不学习中国fire. The french put the fire out. What does that even mean? Are we afraid the Olympics won't have fire this year? The San Franciscan's ran it out of town? Does that mean that the sprinters were carrying it, or that the people thought they could change Chinese politics with a simple expression against an Olympic symbol which started with Hitler? Hopefully, not the second, as besmurching Hitler's name is not exactly the most intelligent statement to make on an issue as important as this. 欢迎这儿. 我祝你好.
Pangloss Posted April 10, 2008 Posted April 10, 2008 I got a kick out of Jon Stewarts monologue last night as well. The dig about the French putting the flame out themselves was a riot. This is one of those rare occassions when I find myself in agreement (or at least empathy) with San Francisco protestors. Hard to believe though that may be. (hehe) The Dalai Lama said today that China has a right to host the games, and that protestors have a right to protest. Seems like a valid position to me, but obviously he doesn't favor a boycott. http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/04/10/asia/dalai.php
iNow Posted April 11, 2008 Posted April 11, 2008 I agree that it's not necessarily obvious what the Dalai Lama's take is on a boycott, but I am certain he wants less suffering in all of it's forms. One thing I like about China hosting the Olympics is that they ARE improving their actions as a result of both international pressures and awareness. They ARE improving their human rights approach, and they ARE improving environmental policies. It's not necessarily at the rate some would like, maybe not even the scope, but improvement is improvement, and is far better than nothing. If the Olympics were not to happen, it's quite possible that neither would all of the improvements they are implementing. The Chinese are an honorable people, and they do not want to be seen as dishonorable in the eyes of the world. We all need leverage of some sort. Letting the Olympics happen may be the best thing possible for the Chinese people and the rest of the planet.
Norman Albers Posted April 11, 2008 Author Posted April 11, 2008 The Chinese government media are playing up the nationalist sentiment and I find it disgusting. You may not talk out of both sides of your mouth, saying 'the government is not us people', trying to disavow repression in Tibet, and then, 'the Olympics are so important to our national ego'. I will not support your childish ego.
iNow Posted April 11, 2008 Posted April 11, 2008 The Chinese government media are playing up the nationalist sentiment and I find it disgusting. You may not talk out of both sides of your mouth, saying 'the government is not us people', trying to disavow repression in Tibet, and then, 'the Olympics are so important to our national ego'. I will not support your childish ego. What are you talking about? I live in Texas...
Pangloss Posted April 11, 2008 Posted April 11, 2008 I agree that it's not necessarily obvious what the Dalai Lama's take is on a boycott, but I am certain he wants less suffering in all of it's forms. Unless of course it's suffering that takes place under his rule. Or maybe he just wants to kick back with J-Lo in Hollywood. Who knows. But yes, it's obvious he doesn't favor a boycott. He says so. "We are not anti-Chinese. Right from the beginning, we supported the Olympic Games," http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/358636_dalai11.html He certainly supports the right of protestors, though. Why not? Protest is good -- actually winning and having to go back to Tibet? Hmm, swami thinks not. I do find it amusing the amount of support he gets from the left. Religious autocrats do find it so difficult to get help from that quarter when they're actually in power. (smirk) I love it when Richard Gere screams "Free Tibet for religious dictatorship and release from the commie bastards!!!! Er wait, hey guys, I thought we were the other way 'round?!" Also amusing to watch Europe's uncertainty. They seem just about ready to start announcing boycotts, but it's almost like they're afraid the US will climb on board and make them look bad. They want the US to say one way or the other so they can do the opposite and scream about it. (hehe) Ah man, I been doin this too long! You may not talk out of both sides of your mouth Wanna bet?
iNow Posted April 11, 2008 Posted April 11, 2008 The Chinese government media are playing up the nationalist sentiment and I find it disgusting. You may not talk out of both sides of your mouth, saying 'the government is not us people', trying to disavow repression in Tibet, and then, 'the Olympics are so important to our national ego'. I will not support your childish ego. I still don't know why this was in response to my post. It seems like little more than racism.
ParanoiA Posted April 11, 2008 Posted April 11, 2008 Yeah I don't know either. He's quite passionate about this. Too bad he's not passionate enough to convince the rest of us, but rather just sulk about it and continue to push us further and further out the door. I've never seen anyone successfully change the hearts and minds of others by insulting them over and over again. Never.
CDarwin Posted April 11, 2008 Posted April 11, 2008 I do find it amusing the amount of support he gets from the left. Religious autocrats do find it so difficult to get help from that quarter when they're actually in power. (smirk) I love it when Richard Gere screams "Free Tibet for religious dictatorship and release from the commie bastards!!!! Er wait, hey guys, I thought we were the other way 'round?!" I think the left was pretty fond of John Paul II, too.
Norman Albers Posted April 13, 2008 Author Posted April 13, 2008 The Olympic torch parade was invented in 1936.
iNow Posted April 13, 2008 Posted April 13, 2008 Ermmm... Yeah. That was sort of my point. It turns out that both Jimmy Carter AND current President Bush are against a boycott. Considering their vast differences on all manners of issues, this is rather striking to me. Comments from President Jimmy Carter on This Week with George Stephenopoulis today: http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/Story?id=4641150&page=1 Carter also chimed in on the growing debate over the upcoming Olypmics and confirmed his belief that the U.S. should not boycott the Beijing games. "I hope that all the countries will go ahead and participate in the Olympics," he said. The man who led the 1980 boycott of the Moscow Olympics might have been support a boycott of the games in China, with its often-criticized human rights record, but he said the two cases are not analagous. "That was a totally different experience in 1980, when the Soviet Union had brutally invaded and killed thousands and thousands of people, who -- in Afghanistan then," he said. "They were threatening to go further south and take over other countries. Fifty-four nations in the world decided to boycott the Olympics. Two-thirds of the U.S. Olympic Committee, a relatively independent group, decided not to go. The Congress voted overwhelmingly not to go." This particular case doesn't seem to warrant a boycott, as evidenced by the relative lack of support across ideological spectrums, as well as the fact that China IS adjusting and changing their behaviors on these issues.
Pangloss Posted April 13, 2008 Posted April 13, 2008 I haven't watched that yet (it's in my Tivo) but on the surface that's a pretty stunning bit of hair-splitting by Carter. Boy, it really takes an expert politician to spin something that hard. (grin) But as with all good spin, it does have a factual basis, and his point would seem to be valid. It's also an interesting example of how far we've come from the Cold War.
iNow Posted April 13, 2008 Posted April 13, 2008 Okay, I wasn't so much looking at the "partisanship" angle, but more of the "look how many different kinds of people are openly against a ban..." I could say this another way. China holds a lot of US dollars. Best not to instigate if we don't have to. Either way, I agree with the entire thrust of trying to improve humanitarian and environmental issues, but sincerely disagree that an Olympic boycott is the strategy to achieve that end. I might even go so far as to suggest that it would only make things worse, but I remain open to rational counters on that point.
Pangloss Posted April 13, 2008 Posted April 13, 2008 Oh yes I thought you made a good point there, and I agree with it -- one can hardly accuse Carter of being in bed with the Chinese, as they sometimes do with Bush. It's a good point. But watch -- the Bush h8ers are already finding plenty to criticize here, such as his attendance at the opening ceremony. By the time the games are over I'm guessing the whole situation will be his fault. Why oh why didn't he personally stop the Olympic Committee from awarding the games to China in the first place?! That way the ABB crowd can sit back and enjoy the spirit of peaceful international endeavor without a guilty conscience. Well, after they buy enough carbon credits to offset the cost of watching the games on TV, that is.
iNow Posted April 13, 2008 Posted April 13, 2008 But watch -- the Bush h8ers are already finding plenty to criticize here, such as his attendance at the opening ceremony. By the time the games are over I'm guessing the whole situation will be his fault. Bush haters? I'd be willing to place a bet that it will be the Republicans themselves pressuring him not to attend, and speaking openly of his "error" when he does anyway.
Recommended Posts