QUESTION 1.
Do you think it is pretentious of the IOC to refer to itself as the head of a social movement? Why or why not? What is it about the Olympic Games that qualifies it to be regarded as a movement (if indeed it is)?
QUESTION 2.
Recall that Coubertin famously said: "The most important thing in the Olympic Games is not to win but to take part; just as the most important thing in life is not the victory but the struggle; the essential thing is not to have conquered but to have fought well." Do you think most countries agree with Coubertin's view of the Olympic Games? Explain your response.
QUESTION 3.
The Olympic Games have been called the greatest international peace-time gathering on earth, bringing together the youth of world for friendly competition with the aim of promoting universal peace. Do you think the IOC has been effective in leading this social movement toward the goal of conflict reduction and global harmonization? What evidence can you cite in support of your thesis?
Articles-->
http://www.twq.com/08summer/docs/08summer_cha.pdf
http://www.ioa.org.gr/books/reports/1997/1997_249.pdf
http://www.olympic.org/upload/news/olympic_review/review_2006101915623_UK.pdf
http://www.nassm.com/files/conf_abstracts/2008-327.pdf
http://www.olympic.org.nz/Article.aspx?ID=5627
http://preardon.wordpress.com/2008/03/15/the-ioc-olympic-charter-how-did-china-qualify/
15 comments:
1)I do not think that the IOC should refer to itself as a socail movement, that is bring in politics which is what they have been trying to stay away from for so long.
2) I do not think that most countries believe that point of view, some may. but for the most part countries want to take home medal and want to win the medal count. The larger compaines do anyways. I believe this allows them to claim that they have the best athletes in the world.
3)The IOC tries to bring peace but at somepoints them trying to make peace within causes more problems and pressure then if they were to just let the countries do there own thing. Example would be trying to get the US and Iraq on the same page right now for the games, which would cause more problems then if they were just to let them be.I understand this is a time of celebration but there are certain thing the IOC should stay away from for there own good and that is politics and the bagage attached to it.
Bre . . . I'm not sure how a social movement necessarily intersects with politics; can you explain?
This whole envy over medals is fascinating because the vast majority of participating countries do not win even one medal at the Olympic Games. For example, only 74 out of 201 countries won a medal in Athens 2004, and just three countries -- USA, Russia and China -- accounted for nearly one fourth of all medals.
1. I do not think it's pretentious of the IOC to refer to itself as the head of a social movement. Although the IOC itself may not be behind the actual movements, the organization is behind almost all of how the Olympics occur. The IOC voted and chose to hold the 2008 summer Olympics in Beijing knowing this decision could produce animosity. The Olympic Games is not so much a movement, itself, as it is a cause for movements. Since the games receive so much publicity, they also become opportune times for those who want to voice opinions on a worldly platform.
2. I think the biggest point of the games is to be there, to participate, and to be part of something bigger than your own country. Sure, it shows power and money and everyone goes with hpoes of winning, but this is not everything. If winning were the only important factor, those countries and teams that have not won or have not been winning would either, I think, no longer participate or boycott until they felt they could win medals.
3. The IOC has been somewhat effective in reducing conflict and creating global harmony. As stated in the article on play the game online, the host city is expected to be the focus of the entire world. This creates a passive aggressive attempt at making China acknowledge, to the world, its issues. This is referred to as "The World is Watching Effect." There is however, a case that the host cities will stop fixing problems once the games are over.
1) I do not think it is pretentious due to the fact that the IOC really does try to promote the values of the Olympics. Although they voted in China as the cite of the 2008 Olympics, the IOC has continued to try and choax China into having the standards which they believed an Olympic host country should have, for example human rights and no pollution. The IOC has continued to promote those values although China has tried to resist many of them such as the free press.
2) I think many countries do agree with Coubertin's view of the Olympics. Although many countries, especially the larger ones, appear to be medal hungry sometimes, many of the smaller nations are just happy to have athletes there. For example, countries that have recently undergone wars such as civil wars, are often extremely happy just to be able to partake in the Olympic activities. I think many countries wish to medal however if not, they are just happy to be there.
3)I believe for the most part the IOC has been effective in leading the social movement for conflict reduction and global harmonization in that it has always pushed for it however I do not think the IOC has been extremely successful in actually being listened to or being taken seriously. Although it has been persistant in it's push for the end of conflicts worldwide, many countries do not listen to the IOC. I cited the example of China basically ignoring the IOC's calls for human rights in terms of Tibet, its role in Darfur and free press. I believe that the IOC has been effective in promoting these beliefs to China as a host country however China has basically ignored much of it, despite the fact that it is hosting the Olympics. China has not regarded the IOC's promotion and has continued to handle Tibet and free press how they always do despite the fact that it is hosting the games. Therefore I believe the IOC is effective and persistant in its promotion however I do not think it holds much weight among countries around the world.
More insightful commentary . . . from Jess and Ashley! Since the IOC determines where the Olympics will be held, it could be said that in a way, it "invites" discussion about certain social issues. As Jess said, the games itself is not per se a social movement, but given its global platform, it is a powerful vehicle for great social causes to hitch on to.
Do you think the obsession on the part of some countries -- including the US -- with winning medals is unhealthy? As Ashley alluded, the vast majority of athletes are just happy to be able to participate in the Olympic Games. But can Olympic victory have an impact on a country's national psyche? Take, for example, a country's first-ever gold medal, or in a team sport, a small country's victory over a proverbial Goliath?
1. I do think that it is a little pretentious for the IOC to say they are leading or possibly a cause of a social movement. Although many great things have come from social movements, as well as bad, I do not think that the olympics is a place to attempt to start a social movement. It is a place where athletes showcase their skills and hardwork. I just do not think it is the place for this to happen.
2. I think that some countries do believe in what Coubertins said, or at least I think they should. I do not believe that China has this philosophy because we have talked before about how China is pushing their athletes to the limits with the games this year regardless of how straining it is on them, the Chinese are looking for medals with disregard for the struggles that got the athletes to where they were. In my opinion in relation to the olympic games a lot of this philosophy has been lost, and it has become about gaining those medals.
3. The IOC is effective in putting the standards out there but like Ashley said they are not quite as successful at enforcing these standards. One of the articles states "Already the 2008 games will be an event for the record books. A record in which the ‘Mission of the Olympic Charter’ appears to have been, if not violated, then grubbily tarnished." There are many things that China should have/should be doing to follow the rules set by the IOC and it is not being done or strictly enforced.
QUESTION 1.
Jacques Rougge said, “On a more individual basis, de Coubertin, the founder of the modern Olympic Games, was also rightly insisting that sport is combining in a balanced way the qualities of body, will and mind. The Olympic Movement is therefore much more than the Olympic Games and competitions. It is an educational and social Movement based on strong values and ethical norms...Sport, Olympism and the Olympic Games are a full part of today‘s societies. For this reason it is important for us that we are able to rely on our fundamental principles such as tolerance, mutual interest, universality, solidarity between rich and poor, and impartiality meaning that any form of discrimination on grounds of race, religion, politics, gender or otherwise is incompatible with belonging to the Olympic Movement. All these values are laid down in the Olympic Charter, which is the reference for the Olympic Movement, not only for its overall behaviour and action but for its ethical behaviour.” It is regarded and a movement and rightfully so. This is a storied event and should be somewhat of a global peacemaking time. The games brings fans, athletes, trainers from all parts of the world to unite and compete for the gold. It is amazing how one event and sports in general can bring a planet together.
QUESTION 2.
I think a lot of counties would agree with that becasue they are not all well rounded sport countries. Some countries may just go for gold in there one particualr sport and lose in the rest and thats ok for them. I doesnt matter who wins or loses but just to be there and the years of training, and the experience is all the worthwhile as long as your mind and heart are dedicated to that Olympic dream.
QUESTION 3.
The IOC brings it all together, but it is the Olympics that brings billions and billions together on one stage of the Earth. Rogges says, “We are no utopians. Sport will not bring and enforce permanent peace but it is our movement‘s responsibility to regularly and symbolically call for peace.” It is peace on Earth for two weeks. It is like the “eye of the storm”. It would be nice to keep that ongoing feeling of peace, but unfourtanately you cant keep everyone happy with each other. Other than the boycotts in the Olympics the IOC runs everything else smoothly.
Jenn's observation is that some of the "participation" philosophy espoused by Coubertin has been lost . . . but just as they say about beauty, perhaps "the most important thing" (about the Olympics) is in the eyes of the beholder. One important development just today is that the Chinese government announced in a stunning reversal that it would lift restrictions on Internet access for accredited journalists at the media village. So maybe there is something to this "movement" after all! Rob's comment about the power of the Olympics to unite the world for two weeks every four years is interesting because coincidentally, BOCOG's slogan is "One World, One Dream!" An estimated 4 billion people will tune in to watch at least a part of the Olympic Games!
1. I believe that it is not pretentious for the IOC to refer to itself as the head of a social movement. The IOC is bringing over a hundred countries together at one point in time. This is allows all the countries to interact and learn about new cultures. Countries even come to the Olympics knowing that they may not win a medal to bring home to their country. It would become even a better social movement if every country could be involved in the Olympics. It would really be a worldwide event at this point.
2. I believe that countries do not agree with Coubertin’s theory. Many countries are there to win medals and have the title of generating good athletes. For example China has one goal for there athletes and that is glory and you win glory by bringing a gold medal home. This is the opposite of what the theory states. I think that Coubertin’s theory is a great theory and should be followed by all countries. This would make the Olympics a lot fun and less stressful. But That will never because is in it to win it.
3.I do not believe that the IOC has brought global peace. There is still a war going on in the world and the Olympics are not going to stop it. The Olympics may bring a lot countries together, but the countries that are really having the problems do not have representatives at the Olympics. For example there probably will not be anyone from Iraq. The IOC can not say they are peace makers until they get every country at the Olympic Games and see how everyone reacts together.
Amanda . . . does every country not participate in the Olympics (because I thought they did)? Actually, the IOC and the Iraqi government came to an understanding a couple days ago that will permit a few Iraqi athletes to participate in the Beijing Olympics. Also, there will be Palestinians alongside Israelis, and Indians competing with Pakistanis, North and South Koreans . . . even Iranians. There's even a "truce" resolution passed unanimously by the UN General Assembly, in connection with the Beijing Games. But you are right to question whether the Olympics is being true to Coubertin's philosophy of what this whole enterprise should be about.
QUESTION 1.
Absolutely, because if no one was in charge of the social movement, then what direction do you think it would go into. As it was mentioned before, the IOC decides where each Olympic game will be held, so why wouldn’t they be the leader. Since China is promoting the slogging One world One Dream, I believe the IOC to help enforce this over the next couple weeks of the games. Without the help of the IOC leading the pack, the many different countries coming over to China expressing different views could have a damper on the games if it was not controlled properly.
QUESTION 2.
I think some countries participate in the aspect of being able to participate in the Olympics, but the Olympics seem to become a way to brag about wining a medal and bringing home the gold to their country. It looks better when a smaller country comes into the Olympics and brings home a gold showing that they are able to compete with powerhouses such as the United States. China on the other hand is strictly going for glory and has been working hard at the smaller events to get an edge on the US to try and beat them in receiving the most gold medals. I really do not know what is going to happen to Liu Xiang, who is a 110m hurdle runner for China if he loses and does not bring home the gold. Nike has advertised him to an extent that they have made life size models in the store of Liu Xiang jumping over the hurdle.
QUESTION 3.
The IOC has done a wonderful job in taming people from breaking out into arguments because if any type of action is occurred, serious punishments will be given. I know boycotts have happened in the past and have caused serious uproars with countries not participating in the Olympics, but they do not need to chase countries down to have them participate into the Olympics. It is not their responsibility to make sure everyone participates in the games. Yes they will provide peace and harmony for the events, but they don’t need to go out of their way to make sure everyone participates. If they did out of their way to promote this peaceful gathering, I think it would cause negative effective causing countries never wanting to participate in the games again.
I feel that the IOC is correct to refer to itself as a social movement because the olympics is a gathering of many cultures from around the world and the IOC selects the location and governs the event.
I feel that the majority of countries agree with quote. Coubertin. I feel that many in the United States would disagree because our country glorify victory and in most popular events a silver medal is a failure (i.e. Basketball). I do how ever many countries agree with the quote and getting the the Olympics are what is important and taking in the games.
I feel that the IOC tries to bring peace to through the Olympics. I feel that their selections of cities are a great example is the selection of cities to host. Also it is a place that countries at war end up on the same field and sportsmanship prevails.
AJ and others basically make the point that the IOC cannot be all things to all people . . . and especially given that China is and has been a Communist Party-controlled state, permitting too much freedom and openness too quickly would likely devolve the country into chaos. I agree that while the IOC cannot force countries to participate in the Olympics, in the interest of promoting universality (one of its own goals), it should work for 100% representation of the National Olympic Committees. As Mike noted, probably nowhere else on earth can an institution bring together at the same place and time, citizens of countries that are at war or in conflict with one another, for friendly (and sometimes not so friendly) sport competition. While the Olympics have been staged throughout the world, they have not yet gone to Africa and Latin America . . . so the IOC still has work to do in terms of ensuring that the Olympics touch all corners of the world.
1) I don't think the IOC should refer to itself as a social movement. First off as Webster has it defined a movement seeks an end and I don't feel that the Olympic games should end. I can see why they may try to make the Olympics into a movement because they do promote the Olympic values but I don't see the aters of a social movement as something the IOC should test in the volitile international political scene that we are seeing today.
2) I don't think many countries share the same view of the games. However I feel many former olympic athletes do. Surely anyone as competitive as the bunch in the Olympics wants to win and isn't satisfied until they have put their best foot forward but I can't imagine any athlete regreting competing or having ill feelings about the games or the effort put into getting there.
3) I agree for the most part. Obviously there have been less than peacful times in the history of the olympics and there are times when certain country have refused to compete but overall the Olympics are remarkably peaceful. The IOC on by themself can't bring peace to the nations but they have created a culture among the athletes of respect during competition. All competitors are at their best and want to beat the best at their best and not have a victory picked apart and be disputed. The IOC does a great job of keep athletes and spectators as safe and happy as possible and that is as much as we can as for at this time in history.
1. I feel as though the IOC is not pretentious when they refer to themselves as the head of a social movement. They are a very important organization that control the Olympics and because of that they are basically making a social movement. They are in charge of what games stay and go, they pick the site the Olympic will be held, and they choose the vales that the Olympics support; because of this I think that they intern do head a social movement. Because the Olympic Games are so important to most countries around the world the IOC is promoting not only sports but also vales and therefore heading a social movement.
2. I think that most countries do agree with this statement but as for China I think that they disagree with the statement 100%. Like in the other class discussion topic and the articles given to us to read, we have already discussed China’s desire for gold. In one of the articles I read there was a coach who told one of his athletes if you do not get a gold it is like you got nothing at all and everything you trained for was for nothing. I think that China has a very different way of looking at things not only because they are communist but also because they are not sure of the rest of the world. They do not know what western civilization is like and because of this they feel as though they need to prove themselves and the way to do this is with gold and only gold.
3. I feel as though in most games they have done a good job in promoting peace but in the time leading up to the 2008 Olympics there has been a lot of turmoil. This turmoil has been to do with Tibet and human rights. I feel as though its not necessarily the games that create the turmoil it is the country that the games are being held in. I also feel that the IOC is in a tough position trying to keep the peace because it is not about the games. The games just bring light to the countries troubles.
Post a Comment