A “truly exceptional Games” ?
Last night a typically glum looking Jacque Rogge, with one foot already out the stadium door, gave Beijing a subtle reminder that there’s more to the Olympics than great stadiums and gold medals. It was quite a moment: the IOC president discovering that he does, after all, have the testicular fortitude to be something other than a complete Beijing sycophant.
For the last eight years China’s obsession with superlatives has been building momentum and influence towards gaining the coveted accolade of “the best Games ever”. I’m on record in my earlier Olympic predictions post as saying that I felt sure the IOC – and Rogge in particular – would cave in on this point. Ultimately his conscience wouldn’t allow it following too many broken promises and controversies before and during the big show. Good for him. I feel he could have gone further, though…
“These were truly exceptional Games (this is actually where Rogge choked, so I’ll finish) … exceptional hype and propaganda; exceptionally ill-conceived global torch relay; exceptionally nationalistic; exceptional media restrictions; exceptionally limited access to journalists; exceptionally high numbers of people dispossessed of their homes; exceptional harrassment and incarceration levels for anyone with a dissenting voice; exceptionally blatant circumventing of the rules in order to field underage gymnasts; exceptional levels of lies and disregard for joe public in the distribution of Olympic tickets; and exceptional levels of bureaucracy that kept the number of foreign visitors well below expectations and seats empty in the stadia.” – JR in a more honest life.
Beijing did, on a positive note, produce exceptional venues for the Games and significant improvements to the city’s infrastructure. These things came at an exceptionally high cost, in both human and financial terms, neither of which cause leaders obsessed with appearances any lost sleep.
London will be exceptionally different. It would be folly to try and match the cosmetic grandeur born of Beijing’s desire to be taken seriously, not to mention their very deep pockets. 2012 needs to address the more humanistic areas where Beijing fell short. Notably; human rights, journalistic freedom, internet access, freedom to travel within the host country, freedom of expression, fair play, and sportsmanship. In short, London must attempt to bring the reality of one world; one dream to sports’ greatest stage, and not use an empty slogan that serves only as reminder of what the Games should have been all about.
Based on Sunday night’s handover, the early signs for London are a bit worrying…
…God help us!
Updated to bring you another BJ moment:
“Ping-pong was invented on the dining tables of England in the 19th century and it was called whiff-whaff.
“The French might look at a dining table and see an opportunity to eat. We looked at it and saw the opportunity to play whiff-whaff. And I say to the Chinese, and I say to the world, ping-pong is coming home.”
The man’s a star. You tell ‘em, Boris.
August 26th, 2008 at 9:05 pm
You cynics will never change. Your reluctance to give credit where it is due is really pathetic. The Chinese tried very hard to put on a good show and they have succeeded for the most part, that is the bottom line.
London 2012? I am not so optimistic. Sebastian Coe is a joke (I wish they would do the torch relay again. I might just travel to London to throw some eggs at that ugly face. Go ahead and call me a thug). Human rights? You must be kidding: Serving as the ultimate American sidekick the British have invaded two sovereign nations, directly and indirectly causing the deaths of hundreds and thousands of people.
Seriously, it China bothers you this much, why do you stay here? Why don’t you just leave? It seems that all you do is ranting about China. Why don’t you put yourself out of the misery.
“China sucks”? No, Britain does.
August 27th, 2008 at 12:18 am
OK, pffefer, I’ll indulge your rapid reversion to type – just this once:
“You cynics will never change. Your reluctance to give credit where it is due is really pathetic.”
I did – you just choose not to see it, in much the same way as the Chinese government rage with indignation at the slightest hint of criticism. Now that’s pathetic.
“…and they have succeeded for the most part…”
OK, so let’s talk about the other side, if for no other reason than it will be ignored in China.
“London 2012? I am not so optimistic.”
If you read my last paragraph correctly you would see that we agree on this point.
“Human rights? You must be kidding”
No. Definitely not kidding. China has a shocking domestic record that is spreading around the globe at the same pace as its growing economy. Think Africa for starters – and resist the temptation to refer to the colonial past.
Britain’s role in Afghanistan and Iraq comes under fire from the British media and public on a daily basis. You know very well that China is absolutely nowhere near allowing debate or criticism of its appalling record in Sudan, to cite just one example. Most Chinese think Darfur is a French supermarket chain.
“Seriously, it China bothers you this much”
Human suffering and restricted freedoms always bother me. China’s government has a worse (current, not historical) record than most coupled with growing global influence and little inclination to change. Add to that the fact that I’m here and interested in such matters and you should understand why it remains the focus of this blog.
“…why do you stay here? Why don’t you just leave?”
If I had a fiver for every time I’ve heard … you know the rest.
I’m in China. I enjoy my life here. My residence is fully justified, legal, and appreciated. If those conditions change I’ll give your question some serious thought.
” “China sucks”? No, Britain does.”
Sure, sometimes. And you’re fully entitled to express your opinion and present evidence of the ways in which you feel they could be doing better.
August 27th, 2008 at 8:50 am
Yes, Britain’s human right’s record is atrocious and with a similar (but not anywhere near the same scale) censoring as the Chinese, a lot of British people simply don’t know about some of it and we have an edited version of our history. Yes, a lot of British atrocities were largely undocumented and swept under the carpet. However, the difference is that isn’t the case now.
PS. Boris is really sexy.
August 27th, 2008 at 9:21 am
Hi ‘runner’ – always nice when a friend pays a visit
August 27th, 2008 at 9:44 pm
“I did – you just choose not to see it, in much the same way as the Chinese government rage with indignation at the slightest hint of criticism. Now that’s pathetic.”
You did? How? With this mere mentioning of the venues? “Beijing did, on a positive note, produce exceptional venues for the Games and significant improvements to the city’s infrastructure”? “Exceptional venues” and “significant improvement to the infrastructure” somehow describe the Games have been quite successful? You can have exceptional venues and great infrastructure but very lousy games. Yup, that can happen (watch out London!)
“China has a shocking domestic record that is spreading around the globe at the same pace as its growing economy.”
Exactly how is China spreading its “domestic record” around the globe? Was Sudan or any of those “rogue states” defined by the west in a better position, in your opinion, before they started dealing with the Chinese? Once again, the Chinese don’t care if you are a democracy or autocracy, whatever you choose is up to you, they just want to do business and develop relations with you.
“Britain’s role in Afghanistan and Iraq comes under fire from the British media and public on a daily basis. You know very well that China is absolutely nowhere near allowing debate or criticism of its appalling record in Sudan, to cite just one example. Most Chinese think Darfur is a French supermarket chain.”
We talked about this already. How does the fact that in Britain people freely debate and criticize the government policies make ANY difference? Just because you are free to criticize your government that somehow exonerate whatever your government does? I am talking foreign policy here. Britain followed America’s lead to invade Iraq and Afghanistan, and you bet if the US decides to invade Iran or any other countries Britain will be the first following suit, despite what British public yaks about. So what difference does it make?
“Human suffering and restricted freedoms always bother me. China’s government has a worse (current, not historical) record than most coupled with growing global influence and little inclination to change. Add to that the fact that I’m here and interested in such matters and you should understand why it remains the focus of this blog.”
Then maybe you should be a human rights lawyer filing lawsuits to sue the Chinese government? I am not saying that you should leave China, I am just trying to understand the mentality of yours and many people like you here: It seems that nothing pleases you and all you do is ranting and ranting, then my natural reaction would be, why would you want to put yourself in this misery? It is certainly natural for someone like you from a first world developed country to not like certain (or many) things in a drastically different third world developing country like China. But to rant all day and all that negativity? It does not drain you or drive you nuts? It doesn’t bother you? If I were you I would probably be suffocating.
I do apologize for saying “Britain sucks”, that was the heat of the moment, I didn’t mean it. Britain does not suck, for the most part.
August 28th, 2008 at 2:41 am
“…the Chinese don’t care if you are a democracy or autocracy, whatever you choose is up to you, they just want to do business …”
Very true; business first. Unfortunately this pragmatic global strategy ensures unimaginable suffering for millions of people who are consequently denied any possibility of the right to choose.
“How does the fact that in Britain people freely debate and criticize the government policies make ANY difference?”
Wow!
There’s no perfect system, that’s for sure. But when a government becomes accountable for its policies through free expression they’re more likely to act responsibly, both domestically and overseas.
The Olympic Charter champions such freedoms, albeit in a pretty toothless way. Beijing consistently and deliberately blocked efforts to allow people their basic human rights despite numerous promises.
The kid that does what it wants at home becomes the petulant bully in the playground. Perfect analogy.
“It is certainly natural for someone like you from a first world developed country to not like certain (or many) things in a drastically different third world developing country like China.”
I thought China just got done telling us it wasn’t a developing country. More to the point, it is the differences that make life in China so enjoyable, even if some of those differences occasionally cause great confusion and exasperation.
“But to rant all day and all that negativity?”
No negativity here. I just call it like I see it and do my best to improve those parts of Chinese society that are clearly lacking. It’s a very rewarding process.
“Britain does not suck, for the most part”
Neither does China, but it’s the parts of Britain and China that do suck that require attention – that’s why they deserve some coverage.
August 28th, 2008 at 9:45 am
But when a government becomes accountable for its policies through free expression they’re more likely to act responsibly, both domestically and overseas.
Hogwash. WMDs – that was a stunt pulled by the British and Americans.
How many British troops are stationed on other people’s land? How many Chinese troops?
Ask people all over the world who presents a greater danger to world peace. Britain and the US or China. Of course the overwhelming majority will rightly say the former.
The British Olympics budget is far more outlandish than the Beijing one when compared to the respective GDPs of the two countries. China did not overspend. The only sports arena before the Bird’s nest was the poxy 55,000 Workers Stadium. The Bird’s nest befiting of a municiapal population of 15million, a country of 1.3billion people.
A lot of the 40billion went on infrastructure upgrades that would eventually have to be done anyway. London is already a thoroughly modern city with an excellent stadium – Wembley – this makes British spending even more extravagant than just crude comparisons involving GDP.
Furthermore all the evidence shows that these were the most popularly supported games of all times. I would wager that a far greater percentage of Chinese supported the Beijing games than will British support the London games.
August 28th, 2008 at 9:57 am
Interesting:
http://www.citizensugar.com/1805531
The most optimistic people in the world, the most satisified with the direction their country is headed are the…. Chinese.
As for human rights – really China’s human rights are about as best you can get for a huge coutnr of 1.3billion with about 1/6th the arable land of the US, with a recent history of massive civil strife, foreign invasion, warlordism, and a population with a still underdeveloped sense of civic responsibility.
Westerners think their version of ‘freedom’ overrides everything. They can afford to. They have the wealth, a large educated middle class, and especially in a country like the US, the physical space.
But what happens when war or a civil emergency arises. They cancel elections, control the press. What happened to the blackshirts in England during WWII? What did Lincoln say when he a clamped down on the press, personal freedoms – he said “Necessity Knows no Law”
If Americans and British suddenly found themselves faced with the same problems as face the Chinese, they would probably be a hell of a lot worse than the current Chinese government.
August 28th, 2008 at 10:08 am
“I would wager that a far greater percentage of Chinese supported the Beijing games than will British support the London games.”
Itself a reflection of whipped-up nationalistic sentiment. Not a good thing.
August 28th, 2008 at 10:12 am
“The most optimistic people in the world, the most satisified with the direction their country is headed are the…. Chinese.”
If you’d asked the Germans or Japanese in the late 1930’s you’d have got the same answer. How did that work out?
A country’s feelgood factor is not synonymous with a ‘peaceful rise.’
August 28th, 2008 at 10:21 am
Stuart you can’t have it both ways. If the Chinese people want something, by a large majority, how can you oppose that? Is that not what democracy is all about?
Germany at the time was already pulling stunts with the Czechs, the Poles. The Japanese already had troops in Manchuria. They were dangers to world peace.
China has no troops on foreign soil. It may support some questionable regimes. But so does the West to an even greater extent.
The danger to world peace comes from the West who pushes its filthy degraded culture onto an unwilling world and displays a missionizing zeal far more intolerant than the most radical of Islamists.
August 28th, 2008 at 10:23 am
Stuart. there is absolutely no significance whatsoever that Rogge did not say best Olympics ever. In fact well before the closing ceremony he said he would avoid ‘Best Olympics ever” was overused and meaningless. He called the Athens the ‘dream games’ and that certainly did not create even a ripple. Rogge has a completely different style from Samaranch. A boring subdued bureacrat not given to superlatives.
Only Samaranch has said ‘best Olympics ever.’
And it is significant that he said that Beijing was the best ever.
The only thing that I found disconcerting about these games – what the s#$#$ is BMX doing there? Absolutely ridiculous. Isn’t that a sport for kiddies before they get old enough to get their motorcycle license?
Otherwise, the best facilities ever, a flawless scheduling and organization, most enthusiastic volunteers, most popularly supported, and most of all the great athleticism on display. The moment of the games? Surely the revealing of the insane talent of Usain Bolt, not just an athlete of freakish ability but a real character to boot.
August 28th, 2008 at 9:56 pm
“Very true; business first. Unfortunately this pragmatic global strategy ensures unimaginable suffering for millions of people who are consequently denied any possibility of the right to choose.”
There is nothing wrong with business first. The British Empire was based on the urge to extend its business, was it not?
How? Just how? Are you saying these “rogue nations” who do business with China somehow were reinforced and propped up by their relationships with China? How? Why? Trading with China is not a one-way street, it benefits both. Just like what happened in China, not just the “regimes” benefited from it, it did trickle down to the people. If people in these various countries decide that their government is not good they are free to topple it.
“There’s no perfect system, that’s for sure. But when a government becomes accountable for its policies through free expression they’re more likely to act responsibly, both domestically and overseas. ”
Exactly how is the British government answer to the British public? My understanding is the British public was largely against invading Iraq, the British government went ahead with it regardless. That’s why I asked “What difference does it make?”
“The Olympic Charter champions such freedoms, albeit in a pretty toothless way. Beijing consistently and deliberately blocked efforts to allow people their basic human rights despite numerous promises.”
What “numerous promises”? Can you quote what the Chinese officials actually promised?
“The kid that does what it wants at home becomes the petulant bully in the playground. Perfect analogy.”
Not so fast. The US can’t do whatever it wants at home, yet it is a bully in the playground. How did China bully anybody? “You are either with us or against us”?
“I thought China just got done telling us it wasn’t a developing country. More to the point, it is the differences that make life in China so enjoyable, even if some of those differences occasionally cause great confusion and exasperation.”
Says who? Trying to put on a great show and present their best face does not mean they are what they are not: a developed country. According to the Chinese government China will become a “moderately developed” country by 2080.
“No negativity here. I just call it like I see it and do my best to improve those parts of Chinese society that are clearly lacking. ”
Looking at what you have written so far, you are telling me there is no negativity here? All I see is you ridiculing the Chinese.
August 28th, 2008 at 10:05 pm
“Itself a reflection of whipped-up nationalistic sentiment. Not a good thing.”
And you have a problem with me calling you a cynic? That’s it! The Chinese just can’t win no matter what they do: If they overwhelmingly support something you call it “a reflection of whipped-up nationalistic sentiment”, if they don’t support something you probably will use it to showcase your argument that China is this totalitarian shit hole where the public opinions do not matter.
Stuart, you do have a problem with China and the Chinese, admit it or not.
“If you’d asked the Germans or Japanese in the late 1930’s you’d have got the same answer. How did that work out?”
What the hell is wrong with being optimistic and satisfied with the direction in which their country is heading?? That alone does not justify your analogy. This is another example that shows how pathetic your reasoning is: The Chinese just can’t win. If they are overwhemingly happy, you tell them they are going to be the next Nazi Germany, if they are not, you are going to say: I told you so, this is why China … blah blah blah!
August 29th, 2008 at 1:49 am
@ MW – “China has no troops on foreign soil.”
I wouldn’t be so sure about that. For example:
http://en.afrik.com/article13230.html
“In fact well before the closing ceremony he said he would avoid ‘Best Olympics ever” was overused and meaningless.”
Yes, you’re right about that. I heard so much about Beijing being ‘the best ever’ before the Games even began, it sounded like a not very subtle message to Rogge that that was what he was expected to declare. He was very much in Beijing’s pocket from the outset.
“Otherwise, the best facilities ever…”
They were. But that was inevitable, and is the smaller part of the Olympic ideal. This post was intended to highlight some of the ways in which the IOC (as well as Beijing) undermined Olympic values by failing to criticise a blatant disregard for many of those ideals.
Agreed, Usain Bolt was ‘truly exceptional’.
For my moment of the Games, however, I’d choose the dignified and sporting manner in which Nastia Liukin of the USA accepted her silver medal with the underage He Kexin standing beside her on the podium.
August 29th, 2008 at 2:09 am
I need a coffee (more western poison), pffefer, so I’m keeping this morning’s response short.
“The British Empire was based on the urge to extend its business, was it not?”
Forget the days of Empire; I’m talking about the here and now.
“How? Just how?”
China supports regimes financially and militarily (not alone in this, but we’re talking China) thereby interfering with the processes of democratisation and change.
“Stuart, you do have a problem with China and the Chinese…”
I have no problem with the Chinese, but I have a big problem with unaccountable, irresponsible governments.
“What the hell is wrong with being optimistic and satisfied with the direction in which their country is heading?”
Nothing, so long as that judgment is based on free expression and full access to information, including opposing viewpoints. Much of China’s satisfaction has a nationalistic foundation, which history has proved many times over to be a bad thing.
“All I see is you ridiculing the Chinese.”
Then you need to look more closely and more objectively. Most Chinese people regard any deviation from outright praise as representing ‘anti-China’ sentiment. This may be in part cultural but it doesn’t make it right.
If you want to see real ridicule and hate, pop into some of the China Daily forums and see what the moderators of the State newspaper find acceptable when the fenqing are dissing the west. I would never allow, let alone produce, comments like those concerning China.
August 29th, 2008 at 2:16 am
How did Beijing fail to meet those ideals Stuart?
Apart from yourself don’t see too many people complaining. And Americans have been caught cheating in a massive way before. And the relevant American sports bodies have covered up this cheating.
Issues of bias towards the home country for these types of events are not unusual. In Seoul 88, Roy Jones lost to Park Si-Hun in Seoul after pummeling the s:#$ out of the Korean.
And what about Argentina beating Peru by 6-0 (a huge score even in those days, they needed to win by four clear goals) to get to the 78 WC final?
If the girl is underage, then that is bad. But it does not tarnish the overall success of these games.
The ideal is that nations with different world views, ideologies can come together and compete on a basis of mutual respect and even friendship. If you only bring together peoples or nations which are similar anyway -then the ideal is obviously irrelevant. It is when you can bring people together of vastly different world views – that is what is difficult and that is what the Olympic ideal strives for.
In ancient Greece, warring states would put aside their differences for the period of the games.
So by bringing the games to China, the first non-developed country to hold the games (save Mexico 68 – but the games were much smaller scope then), a country which many in the West have hostile feelings towards, was perhaps a genuine realization of the Olympic ideal.
August 29th, 2008 at 2:25 am
Stuart -if you read the ‘optimism’ report, much of the optimism has to do with the economic direction of the country – which is related to nationalism in a positive sense. Chinese sense their country is improving materially and their freedoms are increasing.
China is lifting millions out of poverty at a rate that is unprecedented in history.
Chinese don’t cheer the invasion and subjugation of foreign peoples -British are much more likely to do this. That is ‘bad’ nationalism.
Every time Uncle Sam goes off on another foreign adventure, the Brits say ‘me too!’
Obviously they has not lost their tast for invasion and plunder.
Again, ask Asians, Africans, South Americans, in fact even Europeans which country epitomises nationalism at its most dangerous – they won’t say China.
August 29th, 2008 at 2:31 am
The most hilarious thing of all is the admission by the Australians that their symphony orchestra mimed their performance at the 2000 opening.
Whats worse is this only came to light this week – eight years on. And whats even worse is the performers were gagged – made to sign a confidentiality agreement. So the Australians deliberately fooled the world audience, and tried to maintain this deception indefinitely.
Contrast this to the upfront way the Chinese reported the lip-synching thing.
August 29th, 2008 at 2:34 am
further to my last post…yet people like Stuart were using the lip synching as evidence of China’s obsessive need for ‘face,’ the desire to present a perfect, (unrealistic) image to the world of their country…all very sinister.
Well what was the reason for the Australian fakery – “”There are millions of people watching and if something goes wrong you’d be snookered.”
August 29th, 2008 at 4:23 am
“I wouldn’t be so sure about that. For example:
http://en.afrik.com/article13230.html”
What were they doing there? Do you know?
“China supports regimes financially and militarily (not alone in this, but we’re talking China) thereby interfering with the processes of democratisation and change. ”
Once again, how? I already said it trickles down. Do you think western countries doing business with China “interferes with the processes of democratisation and change.”? Do you think the Americans supporting South Korean and Taiwanese authoritarian regimes financially and militarily interefered with their respective democratization process?
“I have no problem with the Chinese, but I have a big problem with unaccountable, irresponsible governments.”
Who are you kidding? How can anyone who doesn’t have a problem with the Chinese ridicule them the way you did? When the poll says they are happy and you took a swipe at them saying “not so fast, they are just like Nazi Germany”?
Tell me, Stuart, what do you want for the Chinese? Them being satisfied is not good enough for you? You have to impose your values and your beliefs on them, no matter whether they will be happy or not?
“Nothing, so long as that judgment is based on free expression and full access to information, including opposing viewpoints. Much of China’s satisfaction has a nationalistic foundation, which history has proved many times over to be a bad thing.”
Sure the surge of China made a lot of people happy, but at the end of the day it is what has happened to each individuals that matters, in terms of making one satisfied or not. Even though China is plagued with problems and there are a lot of people being left out, one can’t deny that for a lot of Chinese, if not the overwhelming majority, things have improved so much.
“Then you need to look more closely and more objectively. Most Chinese people regard any deviation from outright praise as representing ‘anti-China’ sentiment. This may be in part cultural but it doesn’t make it right. If you want to see real ridicule and hate, pop into some of the China Daily forums and see what the moderators of the State newspaper find acceptable when the fenqing are dissing the west. I would never allow, let alone produce, comments like those concerning China.”
Your problem is that you only see and focus on the negative things (maybe renaming your blog “China sucks” is more appropriate) and your judgment is clouded by these negative things. You magnify the “dark side” and refuse to acknowledge that there is a positive side too.
That’s why I said, why bother staying in China if all you see is the “dark side”?
August 29th, 2008 at 4:30 am
The thing about Chinese nationalism is that it is inward looking and defensive therefore chances are the Chinese won’t be caught invading foreign countries. Western nationalism and its self-perceived moral authority often lead to them charging into foreign countries, toppling foreign governments in the noble but shallow and pathetic name of “freedom” and “democracy”.
The other thing is, we can go on and on ranting about China’s “dark side” all day but if the Chinese themselves are more or less content, who are you to tell them that “you don’t know what you are missing” and “you need to do this and that for your own benefit”?
August 29th, 2008 at 5:25 am
“How did Beijing fail to meet those ideals Stuart?”
Like it or not, the Olympics are about more than sport and fancy stadia.
Leaving aside all the broken promises and a sprinkling of State endorsed cheating (yes, other countries do that too), I believe the greatest failings were connected with the false notion that the Games ‘belonged’ to China and a media-induced sense of China against the world.
Beijing spoke of ‘one world, one dream’ , very much the embodiment of the Olympic code – the spirit of togetherness. In this endeavour, BOCOG failed spectacularly.
August 29th, 2008 at 5:35 am
“Chinese sense their country is improving materially and their freedoms are increasing.”
The people polled, yes.
How would a poll of exclusively Tibetan people feel about their increasing freedom? Would migrant workers feel optimistic about their material prospects?
August 29th, 2008 at 5:38 am
“And whats even worse is the performers were gagged – made to sign a confidentiality agreement.”
What sort of gag-rules have been imposed on the Chinese female gymnasts along with their families and coaches?
August 29th, 2008 at 5:42 am
“…yet people like Stuart were using the lip synching as evidence of China’s obsessive need for ‘face,’ the desire to present a perfect, (unrealistic) image to the world… ”
I never made such a big deal out of it, but the point you overlook is that it was a big deal for some not because of the lipsynching, but because they replaced the girl with the talent for not having a cute enough appearance.
August 29th, 2008 at 5:46 am
“How can anyone who doesn’t have a problem with the Chinese ridicule them the way you did?”
I’ve never ridiculed the Chinese. That’s either your perception or, more likely, an attempt on your part to make me a fenqing target.
August 29th, 2008 at 5:53 am
“..one can’t deny that for a lot of Chinese, if not the overwhelming majority, things have improved so much.”
No denials here. Perhaps that’s why you’re angry.
“maybe renaming your blog “China sucks” is more appropriate”
Such a sweeping statement would in no way reflect my opinion. I do seem to remember you using that very phrase recently, though.
“…therefore chances are the Chinese won’t be caught invading foreign countries.”
Write down the exact time and place you were when you said that. It will be an interesting point of reflection for you in a decade or so.
August 29th, 2008 at 6:59 am
Stuart: maybe you will be in prison for murder in a decade. Maybe that little old granny that lives next door will be tried for assault and battery next week. The likelihood of China invading foreign countries over the next century, let alone next decade, are about the same order of magnitude as the aforementioned.
August 29th, 2008 at 7:10 am
I believe the greatest failings were connected with the false notion that the Games ‘belonged’ to China and a media-induced sense of China against the world.
Now your clutching at straws Stuart. Chinese cheered on competitors of different countries as lustily as Greeks, Australians, Americans or Spaniards. There was a huge deal about Phelps in the media, and the American and Chinese Taipei teams were given a warm reception at the opening ceremony.
And what does the ‘games belonged to China’ mean for heavens sake? In a sense they did. That’s why so many cities vie for the right to host the games. In a very general sense the Sydney Olympics undoubtedly meant more to Australians than Cubans, the Athens games meant more to Greeks than Nigerians and the Beijing games meant more to China than Nepal.
Media-induced sense of China against the world. You are right there. Just qualify ‘media’ with ‘western.’
August 29th, 2008 at 7:12 am
Beijing spoke of ‘one world, one dream’ , very much the embodiment of the Olympic code – the spirit of togetherness.
Just look at the joy on those athletes faces when they came out at the closing ceremony. That is what provides the final fitting verdict for these games.
August 29th, 2008 at 8:55 am
“The likelihood of China invading foreign countries over the next century, let alone next decade, are about the same order of magnitude as the aforementioned.”
I really want you to be right about this, but I have my doubts. History has shown us that powerful nations abuse their strength. If China can prove the exception then she truly deserves to lead the world.
“Now your clutching at straws Stuart. ”
Not really. Think about broken promises, foreign media restrictions, petulant responses from officials at press conferences, reporters being harrassed, ticketing fiasco that ensured empty seats, petty bureaucracy that kept foreign visitors to an absolute minimum.
“American and Chinese Taipei teams were given a warm reception at the opening ceremony.”
I saw it too. Japan, Britain, and South Korea were not received with the same cordiality. And the crowds behaviour towards the British girl who beat Chen in the Taikwondo was disgraceful.
“Just look at the joy on those athletes faces…”
Of course – facilities and organisation for the delegations was of the highest standard. Unless they were just happy to be going home
August 29th, 2008 at 8:11 pm
“Leaving aside all the broken promises and a sprinkling of State endorsed cheating (yes, other countries do that too), I believe the greatest failings were connected with the false notion that the Games ‘belonged’ to China and a media-induced sense of China against the world. ”
What broken promises? What promises did BOCOG make?
State-sponsored cheating? Proof?
Media-induced sense of China against the world? I got that feeling just by reading your blogs.
August 29th, 2008 at 8:13 pm
“The people polled, yes.
How would a poll of exclusively Tibetan people feel about their increasing freedom? Would migrant workers feel optimistic about their material prospects?”
If you have ever studied statistics you would know about “sampling” and when the sample is considered “scientifically accurate” and representative enough to be legitimate.
August 29th, 2008 at 8:18 pm
“No denials here. Perhaps that’s why you’re angry.”
Why would I be angry if things have imporved a lot for a lot of Chinese? You think I am crazy?
“Such a sweeping statement would in no way reflect my opinion. I do seem to remember you using that very phrase recently, though.”
I did that to honor my wager (which I lost) that China wouldn’t grab most of the gold medals. Of course they did.
“Write down the exact time and place you were when you said that. It will be an interesting point of reflection for you in a decade or so.”
OK, Beijing, August 29th, 2008. We will see come August 29th, 2018. Is this a bet, Stuart? Which country do you see China invading? Britain?
August 29th, 2008 at 8:23 pm
“Not really. Think about broken promises, foreign media restrictions, petulant responses from officials at press conferences, reporters being harrassed, ticketing fiasco that ensured empty seats, petty bureaucracy that kept foreign visitors to an absolute minimum. ”
Once again, exactly what “promises” did BOCOG make?
What ticketing fiasco? Some people got roughed up? So? Empty seats? So? Greece had that too, so will London (who many Brits will watch ping pong, and you guys say you invented it?)
And again, if these are the only things coming into your mind if you think about the Beijing Games, you do have a problem with the Chinese and China.
August 29th, 2008 at 8:27 pm
” Japan, Britain, and South Korea were not received with the same cordiality. And the crowds behaviour towards the British girl who beat Chen in the Taikwondo was disgraceful. ”
Do tell Stuart, how were Japan and Britain not “received with the same cordiality”?
Disgraceful? I don’t think so. The crowds were clearly upset and protesting the fact that Chen Zhong was robbed of the chance of competing in the final with a reversed ruling, something that was unprecedented.
August 30th, 2008 at 1:11 am
“If you have ever studied statistics you would know about “sampling””
I have; and I do.
“Is this a bet, Stuart? Which country do you see China invading? Britain?”
One man’s invasion is another man’s liberation (Iraq, Tibet), so I suggest we redefine our terms a s follows:
Chinese soldiers will see armed conflict/intervention on foreign soil in the next decade. Yes, we have a bet.
What’s the wager? This is one I want to lose – and fortunately for my peace of mind, it’s not as certain as the gold medals.
“who many Brits will watch ping pong, and you guys say you invented it?”
Britain DID invent it and gave it as gift to the people of China. The ping pong seats will be filled to capacity because, even without tourists, there are close to a million sons and daughters of the Motherland in the UK.
“Do tell Stuart, how were Japan and Britain not “received with the same cordiality”? ”
Seriously, pffefer, did you watch with the volume down? The reception was distinctly cool by comparison to that of other nations.
“The crowds were clearly upset and protesting the fact that Chen Zhong was robbed of the chance of competing in the final with a reversed ruling, something that was unprecedented.”
It was unprecedented, and I applaud the Chinese judges for having the courage to reverse a popular, but incorrect, verdict.
How they missed the two-point head shot delivered to Chen in the first place is more of a mystery. And without the appeal, a great injustice would have been done.
These things happen whenever there’s a degree of subjectivity and raucous home support. I wouldn’t call it cheating unless it could be proved the judges were bribed, and I’m not suggesting that.
The truly unsporting part of this saga came when the crowd were informed of the reversal (they must have seen the head shot as well), and more especially in the dreadful reception and intimidation dished out to Stevenson (?) during both the repechage and her bronze medal match.
August 30th, 2008 at 10:48 am
Stuart: get real. You are picking up on one or two things. Overall the crowds had a great attitude. Nothing came close to Los Angles 84 when Evander Holyfiedl was rightly disqaulified in a gold medal fight -the Americans were picking up and chucking chairs around.
And crowds do get boisterous. Its called ‘passion.’ Coming from England, – you should be all too familiar with that. In fact the deservedly bad reputation of British football fans has everything to do with nationalism (as well as too much beer) – ‘two world wars and one world cup do da do da….” ….’no surrendur to the IRA….” …”if it wasn’t for the English you’d be Krauts…” Come on Stuart you know the chants …many a heck of a lot worse than that. Just loved the way your countrymen got a bit of a slap around by the Belgian cops in Euro2000.
Don’t be a nitpicker. China’s crowds were as well behaved, as gracioius as any other nation’s that has ever held the games.
And why waste time discussing some highly unlikely hypothetical invasion that you believe China will carry out in the future.
Your motherland is right at this moment occupying other peoples land, having carried out an illegal invasion of a sovereign power and causing the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people.
August 30th, 2008 at 11:27 am
“In fact the deservedly bad reputation of British football fans has everything to do with nationalism (as well as too much beer) – ‘two world wars and one world cup do da do da….””
Yes, MW, there is bad sportsmanship and hostile crowds outside China as well.
How would you say that silly British taunt compares with the often voiced ‘little Japan’ jibe here in China?
September 1st, 2008 at 3:50 am
“Chinese soldiers will see armed conflict/intervention on foreign soil in the next decade. Yes, we have a bet. ”
They have already seen armed conflicts/interventions, as part of the UN peacekeeping force in several places (Haiti, East Timor, Lebanon etc.).
“Britain DID invent it and gave it as gift to the people of China. The ping pong seats will be filled to capacity because, even without tourists, there are close to a million sons and daughters of the Motherland in the UK.”
So you are saying, without those Chinese spectators chances are you will have a lot of empty seats?
“Seriously, pffefer, did you watch with the volume down? The reception was distinctly cool by comparison to that of other nations.”
As far as I can remember, only a handful of countries other than China received very loud applause (Iraq, the US, Pakistan, North Korea etc.). Britain was not treated any differently than the majority of the rest of the 200+ countries were. So? Why are you even complaining?
“It was unprecedented, and I applaud the Chinese judges for having the courage to reverse a popular, but incorrect, verdict. How they missed the two-point head shot delivered to Chen in the first place is more of a mystery. And without the appeal, a great injustice would have been done.”
So? These things happen and happen all the time (think about all that could happen in a soccer game) and after all this was the FIRST time a decision (which is supposed to be final) was reversed. The Chinese did the right thing and conceded after the protest was filed, what more do you want?
“These things happen whenever there’s a degree of subjectivity and raucous home support. I wouldn’t call it cheating unless it could be proved the judges were bribed, and I’m not suggesting that.”
If you are not suggesting that, then why bringing it up? You are not suggesting but implying, perhaps?
“The truly unsporting part of this saga came when the crowd were informed of the reversal (they must have seen the head shot as well), and more especially in the dreadful reception and intimidation dished out to Stevenson (?) during both the repechage and her bronze medal match.”
I don’t know how knowledgable the average spectator is regarding Taekwondo rules. Clearly the crowds were not happy that Chen Zhong got shafted, thanks to the British girl’s protest. Naturally they blamed her. Nothing personal though.
September 1st, 2008 at 3:54 am
“How would you say that silly British taunt compares with the often voiced ‘little Japan’ jibe here in China?”
??????How many times have we witnesses the little Japan jibe and how many times have seen seen the English fans beating the crap out of some German fans? Certainly not during the 2008 Euro tournament because England did not qualify.
September 1st, 2008 at 6:22 am
“Certainly not during the 2008 Euro tournament because England did not qualify.”
A state of affairs that Chinese soccer fans are all too familiar with.