QUESTION 1.
When we hear the term "human rights," it might trigger thoughts of abuse perpetrated by people in power against people without power, from genocide and torture to repression and exclusionary practices that amount to a denial of simple standards of fairness and decency. In a nutshell, human rights encompass the basic rights and freedoms to which all humans should be entitled. How have human rights been implicated in the sporting context? What are some examples, both from the past and in more recent times?
QUESTION 2.
Does sport serve to protect and enhance human rights, and conversely, can it also serve to undermine human rights? What are some examples?
QUESTION 3.
In the specific case of the 2008 Olympic Games, the torch relay from Ancient Olympia to Beijing has been mired in tremendous controversy (so much so, that the International Paralympic Committee last month cancelled the torch relay for the Paralympic Games, which follow the Olympic Games by two weeks) with numerous demonstrations calling for an outright boycott of the Games itself to a partial boycott of the Opening Ceremonies. What are your thoughts on (a) the use of sport to promote the human rights agenda, and (b) the use of boycotts -- full or partial -- in the sporting context?
http://hrw.org/reports/2008/china0608/HRW_Beijing_Olympics_Reporters_Guide.pdf
http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-elliott15apr15,1,5683207.column
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/07/10/europe/EU-EU-Sarkozy-China-Olympics.php
http://select.nytimes.com/preview/2007/09/23/magazine/1154689927201.html?scp=4&sq=human%20rights,%20sport&st=cse
http://www.unesco.org/education/information/nfsunesco/pdf/SPORT_E.PDF
http://china.hrw.org/press/faq/beijing_olympics_basics
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121027313547578141.html
http://www.newspress.com/Top/Article/article.jsp?Section=NATIONAL&ID=565336104376860762
19 comments:
1. Up until Jackie Robinson came into the baseball world, only white males were allowed to play sports professional. Jackie Robinson changed the whole scene around. He did not have an easy time doing it but was able to allow blacks to play baseball. Many hated him because he was not a powerful white male. But Jackie kept fighting. Since then professional women sports leagues have been made and all races are allowed to participate in professional sports in the US.
2. Yes, because if you allow all different races, genders, and personalities to play sports together it will bring humans closer together. This world could user closer bounds of different types of people. This would allow for less fighting and more friendship. In the perfect world there would be no fighting, but that is not the world we live in. We have to make friendships in whatever way possible and even if that means through sports.
3. I believe that there should be no protesting at the Olympic Games this year. Even though there are human rights problems going on in the world, the Olympics is not the right place to fight against them. I understand that China might be helping the genocide but the Olympic athletes should be punished for it. The Olympics is a time for outstanding athletes to come together and find out who is the best in the world. By protesting all the attention is being taking away from the athletes of this great event. There better times to protest against China and other human rights problems.
Amanda: great example citing Jackie Robinson who broke the color barrier in professsional baseball in 1947 . . . which opened the door for minorities, women, and other disenfranchised peoples in other sport contexts. From a philosophical (and ethical) perspective, Amanda's point of view mirrors the IOCs . . . which is that politics should remain separate and apart from sport. But in the real world, is this realistic?
1. I feel that the biggest and most known implications of human rights in sports today is International Paralympic Committee and the Special Olympics. These organizations make it possible for these special people to participate in sport. They make everyone feel welcomed and like an athlete, and a winner. Since these comitties were formed, hundreds of thousands of mentally challenged people and handicapped persons an oppertunity to compete and feel like a real olypian.
2. Sport does serve and protect human rights. Human rights include civil and political rights, such as the right to life and liberty, freedom of expression, and equality before the law; and social, cultural and economic rights, including the right to participate in culture, the right to food, the right to work, and the right to education. All are encouraged to play and participate. Most professional leauges have players unions to help keep these rights.
3. I feel the Olympics are a momentous event and there should be peace between countries despite there differences. The olympics bring hundreds of the worlds top athletes together in one place to play for there country. There should be no room for boycotting. It costs millions and millions of dollars to bid on bringing the games to your city and builing the facilities that host the worlds top athletes. In 1980 we boycotted the 1980 olympics in Moscow along with 60 other teams and in return four years later the Los Angles olympics were boycotted by Russia's allies and Russia. This leads to loss in revenues and an unrealistic olympics without all the countries participating. It seems to me like a bunch of kids being spiteful, saying "well if you dont play at my house then im not coming to play at your house." Sports is sports and politics are politics, they should not be mixed. They are seperate issuses and they should stay that way.
Robert raises another great example of how sport can bring respect and dignity to certain populations that are sometimes treated as being less than equal in terms of human rights. The "disability-in-sport" movement is significant throughout the world and as Robert said, has presented hundreds of thousands of athletes with disabilities the opportunity -- if not the right -- to participate in sport. I agree with Robert that boycotts of sport is short sighted, mean spirited, and at the end of the day, is not an effective tool of diplomacy. Still, I doubt that we have seen the last of them, and unfortunately, the US is not in an enviable position given its role in the 1980 Olympic boycott. What do you think of President Bush's decision to attend the Beijing Games' opening ceremonies, despite the decision of other world leaders to stay home?
Human Rights been implicated in the sports context by only allowing certain sports to be a certain color. Baseball use to be mostly white and a sport like basketball was mostly colored. due to this there were alot of human rights issues as well as issues with women in sports till this day. Example of women would be palying football there are acouple females who i have heard of being good and playing in high school but no college teams would look at them due to the point of them being women.
2. sports are sometimes able help the humanrights by combinding teams with both races and genders being allowed to play together. while this also brought alot of attention to women who stood out among men and also gave them a chance to be compared. This allows for people to stand out and also allows for comparison that is not need and also makes for situations that could be avoided.
3.I think that the boycott bring attention to games in a negative way and make a big storm about a postive situation that should be a celabration and not a war between political views. I also think that boycott are more for attention then anything else and people dont always stand by them.
Bre, are you saying that the absence of female football players is a human rights issue? Is there a difference between a policy of exclusion (that denies participation opportunities for certain classes of people) versus socio-cultural reasons that explain this absence? Regarding the boycott issue, the consensus thus far seems to be that it should not be the tactic of first (or perhaps even second or third) resort. But is boycotting the Olympic Games ever justifiable? Remember that during World Wars I and II, the Olympics were suspended . . . but what if they were not? Would a boycott have been appropriate under circumstances of a world war?
QUESTION 1.
In the sporting world many human rights were/are based around racism. Like Amanda mentioned that Jackie Robinson changed the sport of baseball becoming the fist African American player and opening up the door for players all over the world. Women’s sports have become more and more popular where girls are now playing “boys” sports like hockey or football. We, as humans all have the right to do as we please, it should be no different in the sporting context. An example that comes to mind, which I heard about while watching the ESPY awards is the Olympic story of John Carlos and Tommie Smith. During the 1968 Olympics the world was facing incredible and upsetting times of racism. The two teammates received the gold medal and the bronze in the 200-meter race, where smith who finish first set a new world record. During the medal ceremony as the national anthem played the two men closed their eyes, bowed their heads and raised a gloved fist to the sky to symbolize their protest for the racism around them and around the world. They symbolized power and unity in America. The USOC found this offensive and told the United States that either both Smith and Carlos be sent home and no longer compete or the US must not participate in any more track and field events. The men were sent home. Carlos and Smith were only demonstrating their human rights and were punished for it.
QUESTION 2.
I do believe that sports have enhanced human rights with women’s sports and title IX as well as people of all races being successful in different sports. Tiger Woods is successful in a considerably “white” game, etc. Sport can bring people of all races and genders together to do something they love. I cant think of how sports could hurt human rights because there are so many opportunities out there for people all across America to become athletes in a variety of different sports.
QUESTION 3.
I think that showing human rights through sport can be taken to a certain extent like in the case of Carlos and Smith but taking it as far as boycotting the Olympic games I think it a little to far. The Olympics are a place where the best athletes from all over the world share the stage and perform and dreams come true. Like Amanda said, protesting and boycotting can and will take away from those who are there to perform and have waiting their whole life for these moments to shine.
1) The two examples of human rights and sports that I could come up with are, the 1936 Berlin Olympics held in Nazi Germany and the 1972 Munich Olympics. The 1936 Berlin Olympics came to mind because they were held in nazi germany and many people wanted to protest the games due to the Nazi rule however the U.S. team went and the african american runner jesse owens won many medals. Although he faced much segregation in the U.S. he could still compete for the United States in Nazi Germany. The 1972 Munich Olympics came to mind because of the Israeli olmypic team being taken hostage by Palestinian terrorists at the games and later executed by them.
2) I think sports in a way do serve to protect and enhance human rights especially at the olympics because altheltes come from all over the world, from all different backgrounds, to compete against each other. However with the current Olympics they could serve to undermine human rights in that Tibet and China's role in Darfur are being ignored for the most part even though they have been somewhat protested. However the games are going on even though China has not done anything to change or improve Tibet and Darfur, two instances of human right abuses.
3) I think sports are a good way to promote human rights in that there is fairness and equality among athletes in sporting events, which could perhaps be applied worldwide. The Olympics is supposed to be a time of truce and peace and that message could perhaps be promoted around the world however by boycotting the olympics countries and governments do send a strong message but I think its hard to boycott something that is suppose to be a sporting event. Although there are many sides to the Olympics, many around the world see it merely as a large sporting event which I think it why boycotts are hard. By boycotting athletes lose out on the opportunity to compete against the best, and show how hard they have trained to be the best.
1) Today the sporting arena brings together people of all backgrounds and every country. In many ways it is more true that we see the best of the best than ever before. However this was not always the case. In the 1936 Germany Olympics games Jesse Owens, a USA track and field athlete, competed. He was arguably the greatest overall athlete on the international scale. He out preformed every athlete in many events but being black was repeatedly called for faults in the long jump. eventually to prove he was in fact not touching the line on his jump he layed a towel behind the jump line and still out leaped every other compitor. Now the Olympic playing are played and scored as fairly as can be and meticulously scrutinized to ensure the playing field is fair.
2) I feel that at times sports prepetuates stereotypes and stereotypes undermine human rights at times. In the NBA the vast majority of the athletes are African Americans which is not a problem because other players are simply not as skilled. However in recent years teams have choosen European players very high in the draft and many of these players do not have the statistics or athletic ability to warrent such a selection. Team GMs are so eager to find the next European star like Dirk Nowitzki and a few others that they overlook many more qualified players. This is their own choice to do but it is stereotyping and pigeonholes players and thus human rights are not upheld.
3) (a) I feel the sports world can be a very powerful place for sending loud messages. Take for instance what was chronicled in the movie Remember the Titans or Glory Road. Stories of racial inequality and perserverence. These teams proved their points on the playing field and proved that all players are equal and should be viewed for their skill and not the color of their skin. I don't feel a sports team can on its own change a nations opinion but in addition to other efforts can be the final straw and unrefutable. Also since sports are so universially watched and payed close attention to, many people will see and have trouble refuting these actions.
(b) I feel that boycotts while sending powerful messages are many times a little immature. The issue of the Olympic torch relay is a prime example. Protestors heckled and at times attacked the torch holder. This was no doubt due to what they felt was supported by the symbol of the torch but the person with the torch is not a representative of China nor necessarily belives the same things. These attacks and protests were heard by many but I don't think it conveyed the proper message. In fighting for Human Rights I don't feel that people should infringe on other innocent parties' rights. The whole issue of boycotts seem to turn into a little 3rd grade game of something like "Jimmy stole my seat at lunch so I'm not ever talking to him again!" which is simply immature. These issues can be resolved in a better way.
Wow . . . great discussions all around! Whitney mentioned one of the iconic events of the Olympic Games (most people have seen the famous photo) that happened 40 years ago this summer in Mexico City. At the time, at the height of the civil rights movement and extreme racial tensions in America, those two San Jose State college students made a silent gesture that was heard around the world. And for what was deemed an affront to the spirit of the Olympic Games, they were immediately shipped home where they faced criticism, ridicule, hostility, and even death threats. A young Chicago reporter named Brent Musburger called them "black-skinned storm troopers" for their black-fisted salute during the playing of the national anthem. Today, with the mellowing of time, Tommie Smith and John Carlos are viewed by many in a different light . . . even revered for their courage in making a statement on a world stage to bring attention to the African American plight in America. Ashley cited two examples where the Olympics were used for political purposes . . . by Hitler in 1936 to glorify the re-emergence of Germany under the Nazi Party and the superiority of the Aryan race; and by Palestinian terrorists in 1972 to demonstrate the vulnerability of the Israeli state. In a way, Chinese leaders are using the Beijing Olympics to showcase a new and emergent China, on the cusp of being the world's undisputed economic super power. The trick for China will be for it to get through the Olympic Games without any major incidents -- especially concerning human rights -- tarnishing its already fragile and delicate image. Jake and Ashley also talked about Jesse Owens, the African American track star who went to the Aryan temple -- Berlin Olympic Stadium -- and came home with four gold medals. Owens' performance on the track spoke volumes to the abilities of black people in general and athletes in particular, to demonstrate extraordinary competence and obtain superior results.
1. I think human rights have been included and addressed in sporting contexts both symbolically and with legislature. Like all the above examples, athletes have been making statements for decades; whether they were the first of their race, or whatnot. Legally, Title IX has made it a written law that women can participate in men's sports if there is no counterpart available for their sex. What is shocking is that there are probably still instances of someone being excluded from a sport because of their sex and it is scary to think that we must still rely on Title IX. To have this title proves that equality needs to be involved in sporting events regardless of opinion.
2. Like Abby Wambach alluded to in the Los Angeles Times, athletes are people first and will still feel and, if informed, will have an opinion on China's actions. But, sports serve to allow an equal oppurtunity at competition. Sports protect human rights by having rules and regulations that are the same for all. Noone is excluded and noone is given special treatment while on the playing field.
3. I agree with Amanda and believe that excessive protesting should halt for the Olympics. I do not believe it is the time nor the place. Although this may not be realistic because The Olympics will be the most publicized global event, the true spirit of the games should also be considered. It is a time for countries all over the world to unite, not a time to cause tension. The issues raised are important and should be addressed, but the location of the games cannot be changed now and to boycott the games would only prove further that the rest of the world does not believe China can change at all. With the spirit of the Olympics it's difficult to restrain any hope.
1.
A perfect example of human rights in sports is when blacks from South Africa were banned from the 1964 Summer Olympics in Tokyo. The reason for the ban was because of the Apartheid. The Apartheid started in 1948-1994, but luckily in 1992, South African athletes were finally allowed to participate under their own flag. I would have hated not being able to participate in the Olympics because of my race. Oscar Pistorious who before was not allowed to try out for the Olympics is one example I believe of someone’s rights being violated. He has managed to overcome the face that he has prosthetics, and how become an athlete to figure out how to use them properly. He works just as hard as everyone else does, so I saw no reason before why he could not participate. I know they did test and said he had an advantage, but now the IOC was overruled and he can try out for the 400m.
2. As far as human rights go, I think sports serve to protect human rights. Robert brought up a great point about professional leagues having player unions to protect their rights. The NFL is predominantly an African American sports, but Tom Brady still managed to do an unbelievable job breaking records. Basically I am implying there is no barrier saying he could not play in the sports because he is white or he would not be good enough player due 2 his race.
3. a.)I understand why athletes, protestors, and ordinarily people would like to vent at the Olympics. Think about how many people are watching them worldwide and what better way to express you true feeling about an issue than at the Olympics. It is the easiest way to reach a wide variety of people in such a short amount of time. I do not agree with people being able to express how they feel sometimes because I think it takes away from the Olympics. You are representing you country and saying something in your opinion could jeopardize what someone might think of that country.
b.) They should not even be allowed because the boycott just puts more fuel into the fire. They should worry about what the Olympics were made for – the athletes.
Jess raises an important point about Title IX, which even 36 years after becoming law, there are still too many instances of gender-based discrimination in educational programs. What does this tell you about the power of laws? Still, Title IX is a marvelous example of how legal remedies can impact human rights . . . in this case, correcting decades of discriminatory practices that denied participation opportunities in educational programs -- including sport -- to countless people, especially girls and women.
Both AJ and Jess have echoed what others have previously expressed . . . that even though people everywhere should have a basic freedom to express themselves, this right should not be absolute; in other words, it should be subject to reasonable restrictions of time, place, and manner. (This, by the way, is precisely what the Supreme Court said applies to the First Amendment.)
Oscar Pistorius, the South African double-amputee sprinter who runs with carbon fiber "cheetahs," actually won his legal battle entitling him to participate in the Olympic Games, provided he met the qualifying standard like everyone else. Last week, unfortunately, he failed in his final bid to qualify for the Beijing Olympics, and thus his victory for human rights -- enabling athletes with disabilities to participate alongside able-bodied athletes in the Olympic Games -- will come to fruition on another day.
When it comes to human rights and fair treatment for everyone is education. I feel that sports and the sports media play the educational role. One example of the sports media educating the public is the when former NFL player Kevin Evert suffered a spinal cord injury and his recovery. this enlighten many people and cleared up many miss conceptions many had about spinal cord injuries that caused many stereotypes and miss conceptions. When people understand they are more likely to respect others.
I feel that sports can protect or undermined human rights. As other have said sports can lead to stereotypes of groups of people because of their race or physical appearance. Such as only Caucasians play hockey, or because one is Caucasians they are not good at sports such as basketball. As i mention above sports tend to enlighten the public on many different situations. This can help and protect human rights.
I feel that use of sport to promote the human right agenda is wrong. I feel that when one adds additional issues with sport it effects the games them self. Any type of boycotts i feel hurt the wrong people and take dreams away from the athletes. When politics get involved it hurts the athletes. I just read an article where the government in Iraq had disbanded their Olympic Committee because of political differences. Because of this there is a possibility that no athletes from Iraq will be able to participate in these games. Boycotts are the same because they are political agendas sent out and they could ruin the dreams of the athletes. I feel they bring more negative publicity to a problem and doesn't lead to a resolution, thus i see them as pointless.
1. I agree with Bre when she says that some sports are predominantly one "color", and I feel that when members of the opposite color join into the leagues and teams, the athletes and spectators are taken back, though it doesn't matter what color someone is to succeed in a certain sport.
2. Sports are very different from any other type of hobby. Sports don't care what race, gender, or age an athlete is, all that matters is that that person is an athlete and can compete with other athletes of different race, gender, and age. Though sports bring together different people, women are still the underdog in the sport world. There is one women's professional team shown on tv and that is the WNBA, which is still rarely shown. Although women are still behind, title IX has helped equal the playing ground.
3. Using sport to promote human rights should work to show people that while competing, everyone is the same, but whoever is strong enough to boycott sports then they will stand their ground. We can try our hardest to change the minds of the boycotters, but in the past, boycotters succeed in their fight. Also, the use of boycotting should not exist, because sport is not a very controversial issue that should stir up the need for a boycott. If people are to boycott the olympics in general, they should not endanger the spectators or competitors.
Mike makes a great point that because sport is universally popular, it attracts a large following, including the media, which serves to raise the public's awareness of issues and problems that might otherwise not come to the fore, thereby being sort of a catalyst for the protection of human rights. The issue regarding the participation (or rather, non participation) of Iraqi athletes at the Beijing Olympics is sad, because as Mike mentioned, political interference of the Iraqi government into Olympic affairs is causing its athletes to suffer.
While the class consensus seems to be that Olympic boycotts are "wrong," and the "B" word is among the most feared by Olympic organizers, why is it that this possibility still lingers? Marti said that since sport itself is mostly noncontroversial, it should not be targeted as such. But then, why is it? What -- if anything -- was accomplished by the boycotts of the 1976, 1980, and 1984 Olympics?
1. In the sports context when I hear the term “human rights” I automatically think about how sports is like an even playing field. All humans, Black, White, Hispanic, Asian, or whatever race can be equals out on the court or the field. In sports it doesn’t matter who you are or where you are from just as long as you know how to play the game. Take the Olympics for example; these games bring together people of all races from all over the world to compete against each other. When you are on the track, the court, the field, or even in the pool you are not thinking about your competitor’s ethnicity, you are thinking about how you can beat them. But the example I just used is about today’s day in age. Back in day, lets take for example baseball (like everyone has said before me), used to only allow white males to play. It took a long time and a very courageous man to break race barriers in this country and make baseball open to all races.
2. I think that sports enhance human rights. It shows that everyone is equal and everyone has the ability to do great things if they have the dedication and the mindset. When you are playing sports you have to prove that you are better than the other team, you cannot just base it on your race or gender. This makes everything equal therefore the better team is the winner, not the race that thinks they are better.
3. I do not think that sports should be used to promote human rights agendas and I also do not think that full or partial boycotts are right. If you are an athlete you work hard your whole life training and getting ready achieve your greatest goal whatever that may be. Let’s take the 2008 Olympics for example. There are people who say that we should boycott the games. I think that is absolutely ridiculous. It is not fair to the athletes who have been preparing for these games their entire lives. It is easy for a person who sits on the side lines to say we should boycott but how about thinking about the people who have dreams they want to accomplish. The Olympics should be a time to forget about everyone’s differences and all the bad in the world and compete against each other as equals.
Question
What -- if anything -- was accomplished by the boycotts of the 1976, 1980, and 1984 Olympics?
I honestly think nothing was accomplished from the boycotts listed above. Yes it did get peoples point across in how they feel about a certain issue such as Russia invading Afghanistan, but in realty it just hurts the athletes in being able to participate in a life time opportunity. Not many athletes are able to participate in another Olympics so boycotting about politics can ruin someones dream.
More great thoughts from Lauren and AJ! While most have commented about the downside of boycotts, is it not a good thing that apartheid -- the target of the 1976 boycott -- is no longer the official policy of South Africa? Could it not be said that international pressure, including the boycott, contributed to this change? Both Lauren and AJ pointed out that the real losers of boycotts are the athletes, because their dreams, hopes, and aspirations -- and in many cases a lifetime of preparation -- get snuffed out by a decision of political leaders. As then IOC president Avery Brundage boldly said in the aftermath of the tragedy at the 1972 Munich Olympics: "The Games must go on." Thanks, everyone, for your insightful commentary!
Post a Comment