Lois & Clark Forums Forums General Discussion Off Topic The Olympics - Let the Games Begin!

Yeah, I keep hearing people surprised at it. I can't help thinking that if Japan did some military thing in a similar function geared internationally (they've gotten the smack down for less) the reaction would be surprised and...something else altogether.

The first part of your statement appears to imply that having the military end is was somehow undiplomatic ("*We* do this..."). My take is...how much is one expected to change to please others? The relative positions (Canada and China) are not the same historically, so I don't know to what extent your analogy holds. Clearly Vancouver throwing the Olympics is not like Beijing throwing the Olympics. The statement ignores a whole lot of history--the kind you reference in your second paragraph. My own approach is to read things with an eye for context and positioning as much as I can.

I assume the decision made to include military was done so because there was an intrinsic value attached to that part (so here's another option that isn't someone not being on top of everything, which also carries unsettling implications). Given how big a deal was made about this, I would be surprised if this was just a random decision without an eye to some significance. And maybe it's not that they didn't know how the West would take it--maybe it was too important a to sacrifice for outsiders for reasons that we don't know.

And maybe moments like this locate where the line for inside and outside is. Again the issue of interpretation and how its always embedded in power relations. In that aspect, it's very interesting indeed.

alcyone

interesting, Alcyone. I'm always concerned that relativism can lead us down a reductio ad absurbum path that leaves everything without meaning. And so we react to evereything with a shrug and say, "whatever". Is it any of "our" business to be concerned about Tibet? Or what actually did happen during the Great Leap Forward or the Cultural Revolution or the Long March or...? (and how can we, as outsiders, ever begin to know?)

Of course, Canada's history is not that of China's. And god (or whatever) knows we have nowhere near the power. Perhaps that's why we would take care with the use of such symbols - because as a small nation we must do so?

c.

I don't espouse relativism on those terms, far from it, that would be too easy. I look at it as we make our own meaning within certain parameters. But that's another argument.

What concerns me in responding to your post on activism are that the issues brought out are issues of others (China). If you posted on say a situation in New York where a patient was left to die in the emergency room . Then my response would be different. But I don't see those issues raised. That's interesting to interrogate.

Most of the time, it's the issues of others that are brought up. In those cases, my approach is not that we should shrug--that reduces what I argue for to a binary I'd like to avoid. On one side we have the apathy and on the other we have that old universalizing, "one-size fits all" rhetoric. It's that latter one, so seemingly harmless that catches my eye, because it's a clear example of the "paved with good intentions" model.

Part of the reason I push context is because it straddles the middle ground between the apathy and the universalism. Through an attempt at understanding how complicated an issue is we can then make a more nuanced decision on how to proceed (even if we mess up, it's not a bad faith approach at least). That's pretty obvious, what might not be as obvious is that accounting for our position and context allows us to approach the people who are immediately affected in a respectful way which does not belittle their own agency.

So I would wish that if the issue of Tibet moves someone (though there's a lot of issues at home to work on, *clearly*), that they will educate themselves and support an organization working to effect change from within. I see that change much more lasting and much more ethical than when change is imposed on the outside under the old colonial model.

For example this:

That's one reading. Here's my reading: I see this logic freezing China and Canada in a historical vacuum. It rewrites the power Canada has historically wielded over its territorial sovereignty (at the cost of indigenous populations) as vulnerability.

In bringing the emphasis to that vulnerability, China's colonial struggle (where militarization of that particular flavor comes from) is taken out of focus. And with that out of focus, you lose any ambivalence that might underlie militarization and a bunch of other stuff helpful to understanding where China is today.

Without all that mess, you end up simply isolating Canada with the specter of its fears (because in pushing China's history aside you're even further away from understanding it). I'm not too sure this a great place to be. YMMV.

alcyone

Alcyone, I'm embarrassed that you quoted me before I edited the error in r.a.a.

moving on...
As a historian, I'll never counter the exhortation that we interpret events in context, nor that it's hugely challenging to decide on the parameters of that context in the first place. As well, how do we decide which issues become those of "others"? If we are always to regard the issues of "others (China)" [in this case] as outside our area of interest then we risk detaching ourselves from broader human concerns. (this is definitely not to argue that simplistic views of celebrities like R. Gere are to be indulged however )

I agree with your aside about 'one-size' fits all rhetoric - I don't think you'll find anything in my posts that would contradict that position. But I will add that in such a brief post it's not possible to do justice to the nuances of historical experience or to the complexities of diverse cultures.

btw, I don't believe I've stated what *my* perception of the Tibet issue is in my post. To quote the immortal Shrek (or was that Donkey?), "it's got layers."

Rats! Now I have to write a book comparing Chinese and Canadian history.

But I do think we must be careful not to exaggerate the degree of actual sovereignty that Canada's central government has had over the legal territory that is called Canada. We have been , and still continue to be very much dominated by imperial powers - France, then Britain (until 1931)
and of course, informally, the United States. (eg Teddy Roosevelt's threat to invade Canada over disputed territory on the Pacific coast - it worked btw: and there are Alaskans today who are American citizens because of it. )

As well, remember that Canada is a federalist (a confederalist really) political arrangement. Quebec is almost completely independent - it carries out its own foreign policy for example. (except for military matters - but given that out military is proportionately smaller than that of most western European countries, and certainly that of the US) , this doesn't matter all that much.

Canada is a small nation - for example, our GDP is only 10% that of the US - we have neither the economic or military power to cause ripples.

When I wrote:
what I meant was that the histories of the two countries are *different*, that each has different complexities woven into its tapestry. China has an amazing past of material, intellectual, and spiritual accomplishment. What happened there after the "arrival" of the Europeans in the late 18th century, and then the Americans and the Japanese was tragic. (my value judgement I know) It was prior to that perhaps the most powerful state on earth (I know - define power) ... "The Central Kingdom"

c.

As for myself, I was upset that a young Chinese girl with a brilliant voice was not shown to the world as she sang, but instead a "flawless" girl appeared on stage and mimed to the music. How sexist! Isn't it depressing to think that girls always have to be so beautiful?

Think of a man like Paul Potts. You can't describe him as very dashingly handsome, but he has become a star because he is a man with a brilliant voice. Then it doesn't matter much that is his looks aren't impressive.

Paul Potts sings Nessum Dorma and wins song contest

Anyway, what would have happened if a city in Europe or North America had hosted the Olympic Games? Is it likely that any of our cities would have picked a girl like Yang Peiji to sing and appear on TV screens everywhere? Maybe, if one of our cities had hosted the games, a girl like Yang Peiji wouldn't even have been allowed to sing. We might never have heard her voice. Instead, those in charge of the opening ceremony might have searched only among girls with "perfect" looks and chosen the "child beauty" with the best singing voice.



Ann

I don't think we're understanding each other, since I keep seeing that apathy banner waved in the horizon. I never argued to view these issues as outside of our area of interest. Quite the opposite.

The use of "human concerns" is a great example. Even those terms signal to universalism. Nowadays, a lot of scholarship has found that a lot of "human" assumptions are actually coded as "Western" and "male."

The (my) point is not to throw out that frame, but to question it. To decenter it so that we can attempt a more comprehensive view of a situation not taking the above assumptions for granted.

I don't think you've explicitly contradicted it, no. But I think your reasoning implicitly leads us there (see example above). Most of my arguments are more concerned with questioning the frameworks that people use and how they function than with "facts" (the employment of "facts" one could say is what I find interesting). I work on language, which is why most historians hate people like me with a passion (see how White's Metahistory got slammed in the field).

Anyway, that's why the specifics of your take on Tibet really weren't central to me (I don't see why you've mentioned it in your last post, other than you might have misread me), what mattered to me was a defense from the charge that contextuality and an eye for our position lead to apathy. I see context and positionality as prompting more engagement with others and ourselves, because it impels us to question.

I agree 100%, one post (or several) doesn't do justice to the complexities of any situation. I'm aware of that, but I still feel that even gesturing to possible nuances is better than an unquestioning acceptance of a "normal" (Western) view. For example, the military thing in the Olympics as *not* a mistake and *not* functioning under a Western reading, but perhaps something else we could discern after a more detailed look at China and its internal complexity. A complete picture would never emerge, I wouldn't argue that as a possibily, but this approach decenters the central assumptions, which I think is important especially when looking at a non-Western context. The Western lens has been and continues to be "normal" when its no more inherently privileged than any other for good and ill.

Given that, I try to have an eye out for another read of the situation outside the standard one.

I appreciate the background on Canada. I'm going to try really, really hard not to read it as a dismissal of colonialism. Or placing Canada as somehow comparable with the non-West. As someone who studies the cultural production of the non-West, my bells are ringing, which tells me that my critical framework is in the way.

But see that's the thing. In my reading of your argument, the positing of differences is centered on Canada and present-focused. That's why I said that your logic, though ostensibly acknowledging difference, does so at the cost of history. Particularly colonial history, which is more relevant for our context, in my opinion, than premodern China. It will come to no surprise that I see history deeply affected and complicit with Western imperialist logic. One of its trademarks, is how it insiduously hides itself in ways that seem harmless at first glance.

Uhhh...I think our discussion has run its course. We're at that disjunct. I've already explained twice how the bolded remarks (snark?) misreads my position (I'm partial to Foucauldian takes on power myself btw) and I'm sure in just doing that I'm reacting to a misreading of your point...and so on. And most importantly, since there's nothing at stake in reconciling the two (in this context! ), perhaps it's best to acknowledge the noise and move away. Just to make it extra clear: I'm saying let's agree to disagree.

Not that I don't love talking about this stuff, clearly, but perhaps people want to gush about Michael Phelps.

alcyone

Good god (or whoever whatever) Alcyone, I now believe you willfully misunderstand everything I write.
There is no hope for discussion in the face of your resolute determination to dismiss everything I write.
For example my reference to Tibet was no more than a phrase in my first post, and a glib pop culture ref in another - why on earth you've miscontruied that into an ethnocentric interpretation of global history on my part is beyond me.
I have never encountered such rigidity and intolerance on these mbs.

I found the answer !

Tradition. Before electronic scoring (introduced at the Olympic level to épée in 1936, to foil in 1956, and to saber in 1988), two judges were positioned behind each fencer and would watch the opposite contender to see whether he'd been hit. A fencer would often shout something after executing a hit or "touch" to convince the judges that he'd been successful and also to energize himself. Now the shout is purely triumphant.

Many fencers just shriek or roar after a touch, but some prefer "et là," which means "and there" in French—the official language for international fencing competitions.

The article goes on to explain the mystery that had me scratching my head - why the heck the divers go shower as soon as they leave the pool. Seriously, is the pool water caustic?

Oh my gosh...you are my hero! My husband and I have been asking that question all week! Our guesses: Toxic cholorine? Flesh eating bacteria?

Susan (who's really just watching diving for the Speedos! )

Those are the skimpiest Speedos I've ever seen (and I was on the swim team for four years). It's the first time I've ever worried that a guy is going to sneeze and expose himself on international television. Every time they get out of the pool and go shower, I feel a little dirty for watching. And yet, I watch...

Nice, Sue! Thanks. That fencing thing was a little intimidating, lol.

I'll admit that it's a little odd watching them take a shower after getting out of the pool, but I've always loved watching the diving and the gymnastics. I really enjoyed watching the gymnastics competition so far. Particularly the battle for the team gold medal in the Women's Team Final between the US and China.

I'm glad you guys are enjoying the Olympics. I was a little worried that, like the Sydney Olympics in 2000, America might feel 'ripped off' by the time differences and telecasts... nice to see it isn't an issue this time around.

Since I'm actually living the games at the moment in the co-host city Hong Kong, I thought I would share a little insight into the Chinese and how it relates to having the military involvement and significance in the Opening Ceremony. China is very patriotic. As such, not just with war, but also major disasters, of which China has it's fair share, the military become heavily involved. The people are proud of this, to the point where it is something they want to show the world... but perhaps the message isn't being understood in the way China would want. I don't think they are trying to intimidate anyone with their military might... just show everything that China is proud of... Their art, their culture, their army.
As an ex-pat, I find the way the army are portrayed on chinese tv 'amusing'. During catastrophes, you will see 'songs' on chinese tv sung by the army while showing inspiring rescue scenes with the army at the forefront out and about... every hour... at least! It's quite motivational for the people I imagine.

Having been at the Sydney Games, and now seeing the Hong Kong part of the Beijing Games, the atmosphere is very similar on the streets. People are enjoying it, people are motivated, and proud (of course!), and it has a really multi-cultural feel.

One other thing.. you guys didn't see the end of the Opening Ceremony. Because it ran over time, it was cut. We were sitting watching the english channel coverage here (in HK), and it ended, so my husband turned to one of the Hong Kong chinese channels (he was translating for me), and the opening was still going. Jackie Chan and a couple of other singers did a concert for the athletes. This wasn't telecast to the rest of the world. It was a real shame.
Wasn't anyone else wondering if Jackie Chan would be in the opening ceremony given his high profile in all THOSE ads?