I've long thought that the Olympic games differ from other professional sports events mostly in that they exploit the athletes with a quasi-religious fervor, rather than paying them. The idea of "amateur" competition, as I see it, was a pretense used to keep working class people out of games meant for Edwardian gentlemen of leisure and inclination toward neo-classical, cthonic re-enactments. Of course today's contestants are scarcely that and hardly amateur, and they're there mostly to demonstrate the athletic prowess and by some atavistic extension the political status of their countries.
Despite the puzzling, faux-pagan Hellenic torch-running ceremonies, it's about politics and not about re-enacting ancient religious ceremonies of body worship and warrior training. So it's no surprise that Jonathan Alter writing in the current Newsweek would presume to use the opening ceremonies as a platform for chastising China. It's too bad for him however, that we're not sitting on Olympus but in the laughing stocks and pillories of the world.
Yes, China could do something about Darfur, but criticism should come from a source not so well associated with supporting monsters and tyrants for our own causes as we are; a source not preening over "shock and awe" terrorism, the slaughter and displacement of millions, the toppling of democracies and a source second only to China in number of incarcerated and executed citizens.
It's all too easy for someone like Alter to pretend that Tibet was a free and independent nation after the 13th century or that the quasi-Buddhist religion that stifled, enslaved and impoverished Tibet and kept it in a state of stupendous ignorance and isolation for centuries was benign, but a country with a history like ours can only succeed in looking arrogant and hypocritical in justifying torture of terrorists while condemning it abroad. Imagine our reaction to China's bellowing at us for occupying and suppressing Puerto Rico and Iraq; our interference in Central and South America, Asia and even Iran. Imagine the giggles at China's biggest client state preaching about its "Global Irresponsibility."
Maybe it's time we just shut up for once and let someone else use the pulpit. Maybe if we want to influence that country we should end the buying and outsourcing spree. Maybe if we want to continue blowing hard about morality we should try practicing it.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Wow, though I agree in spirit with what you're saying, you do sound a lot like the Bush administration's approach to the whole thing -- which has to make me think...hard.
I think Bush's approach is much like the Chinese approach to everything - business first. I just think we will do more harm than good by trying to appear like moral leaders when we are provoking moral outrage throughout the world. Trying to understand the Tibet situation as a simple conquest or demanding full independence when we are a current and serial occupier of foreign countries and when we will not allow independence to our dependencies will only provoke even more disgust at our hypocrisy.
I know some Tibetans and I studied with a historian specializing in Tibet and I do not believe the Hollywood depiction of Tibetan Buddhism as a benevolent religion of love. I see it as one of the most egregious theocracies - ever.
Post a Comment