Boycott the "Genocide Olympics"
As I’ve mentioned on a thread or two, I’m boycotting the “Genocide Olympics.” I will not watch one second of Olympic games hosted – and thus granting a prestige boost to – a regime that supports and defends atrocious regimes in Sudan and Burma, that is still oppressing the people of Tibet (albeit with material advances), and that deprives its own people of democracy and of basic human rights.
Got an email today from the U.S. Campaign for Burma (I signed up with them and participate in their petitions). Quoted below. The email had convenient links that won't work below, but you can get info on the U.S. Campaign for Burma, on demonstrations scheduled for 8/8 in U.S. cities, and tools for getting involved even with a minute or two of your time (e.g., signing petition) at http://uscampaignforburma.org/index.php
Dear Friends,All over the world people who care about human rights are planning events for August 8th (and 7th). These actions will commemorate the millions of people who marched on Burma's streets in 1988, peacefully demanding an end to military rule.
On the 8th, many of us will also call for China to stop supporting Burma's dictators. In 1988, thousands of Burmese were gunned down by Burma's military dictators. Today, the same military continues to dominate the Burmese people, due mainly to the support of China.
Below is a list of the major actions that will take place in the United States on August 8th. To see the full list of world-wide events, check out our 8.8.08 Event Page.
Even if you can't attend any of these events you can still do something for Burma on that day.
Many people have already pledged to not watch the Olympic opening ceremonies -- which have nothing to do with Olympic competition and instead are being used to whitewash China's human rights record. Instead of watching China's display, educate friends and family about what is happening in Burma:
- Blog for Burma: Take the time to write a post on your blog about why you will not watch the Olympics. Make sure that you link back to the USCB website
- Letter to the Editor: Easily send a letter to the editor of your local newspaper and let them know why you think people should not watch the opening ceremonies
- Post a flyer in your window: This idea came from one of our chapter leaders in Philadelphia -- post a flyer in the window of your home, to let your neighbors know that you will not be watching the opening Olympic ceremonies. Download the poster here.
August 8th, 2008 is a good opportunity to let the world know about Burma. Please join us.
A couple of important notes:
I respect the "constructive engagement" argument, though obviously I disagree in this case.
Also, even if I'm right about the right thing to do, I fully admit that I am very far from the point of doing all the things I would consider right to do in pursuit of this same objective -- I consumer plenty of Chinese-made products, as my Chinese-born girlfriend never ceases to remind me in retaliation for my offending her by boycotting the Olympics and speaking very negatively of the Chinese leaders and policies. So I don't wish to appear self-righteous by encouraging others to boycott the Olympics, because I just ain't righteous. I'm just doing one small thing rather than doing nothing, and I humbly encourage you to do the same.
--
- Brooks and B Rational's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Daily reports from Mia Farrow's "Darfur Olympics"
are at http://www.darfurolympics.org/daytwo.php
Here's August 9:
Day 2: Life in the Camps
- Login or register to post comments
)Yesterday I spend a couple of hours attending the rally for Burma, protesting China's support of the brutal Burmese regime. (Turnout was disappointingly low. Only about 100 people, mostly apparently Burmese.)
I struck up a conversation with a man there, who, it turned out, had been a bodyguard for Aung San Suu Kyi http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/1991/kyi-bio.html and then a leader of the student movement in Burma in 1988 that was brutally repressed. He was imprisoned for 15 years, and although I didn't ask him about conditions/treatment in prison, I learned of it from the interview he did with the New York Times (the event organizers had arranged interviews of him with the media; the BBC apparently called him on his cell phone for an interview).
As I was speaking to this heroic man, I thought to myself, what would he think if I told him that there are many people who feel that, even if (arguendo) boycotting the China Olympics could help prevent thousands of others from suffering as he did -- or even worse -- a boycott would be wrong because it would disappoint athletes who had worked hard to compete there. He seemed to be an exceptionally polite person, so he probably wouldn't react, at least openly, as I think I would if I were in his shoes (not that I really have any idea what I'd be like after what he's been through), but I would think a natural reaction would be one of disgust and near disbelief at the utter lack of perspective, the bizarre assignment of weights to each in the moral balancing between the two.
Yes, there is plenty of room for reasonable disagreement on whether or not a boycott would have a positive effect on Burma, Darfur, etc., whether it would even be counterproductive, and whether there would be other adverse consequences (say, other changes in China's foreign policy that are adverse to U.S. interests or to the legitimate interests of other nations), but I if -- IF -- one accepts the premise that the choice, in effect, comes down to, say, genocide in Darfur vs. disappointing some athletes, I just don't see how anyone can reasonably conclude that the former is the moral choice.
- Login or register to post comments
). . .it's good to see that new variations on Pascal's Wager aren't limited to environmentalism.
--- Login or register to post comments
| parent )I don't see how that analogy is valid, unless you are saying it's entirely implausible (and that you don't even think it's reasonable for others to consider it plausible) that boycotting the Olympics (particularly in conjunction with other policies/actions) could contribute toward achieving the objectives of reducing/preventing such human rights abuses. And if you are saying that, I disagree.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent ). . .there have been multiple Olympic boycotts in the past, some of them massive. What did they accomplish aside from hurting athletes (or, as in the case of the Soviet boycott in 1984, highlighting the impotence of the boycotters)?
--- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Darn, too late to edit to add to my prior comment. I was going to add that you are once again failing to appreciate the concept and usefulness of a hypothetical to examine principles.
As I've said, people can reasonably disagree on what impact (positive, negative, none/negligible) a boycott would have, either in isolation or via synergies with other policies/actions, but that (1) that is different from the view re: plausibility that I described above (and to which you didn't really respond), and (2) it is a completely different question from the hypothetical, which assumes a boycott would have a positive impact, and whether one accepts that premise or not, presents a question regarding one's moral calculation if one accepts the premise, just arguendo. But based on past experience, you either don't see the value in such hypotheticals (despite their obvious value) or you just claim not to see their value because you just prefer to avoid responding to them for other reasons.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )- Login or register to post comments
)FYI
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat/342965
http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-updates/report/chinese-authorities-br...
- Login or register to post comments
)While I don't think China should have gotten the Olympics for a number of reasons I can't blame them for putting a bid in for them, everyone does. The IOC grants the Olympics and as such if you were boycotting the Olympics to punish the IOC I'd be much more sympathetic. However, boycotting the Olympics as a form of protest against China strikes me (as most boycotts and sanctions do) as little more than preening. The Olympics and China are not one in the same after all. A more serious protest of the regime would be a boycott of their products, but the Chinese have intertwined themselves so well with our economy this is very difficult. That's why I think the most effective protests against the regime would be to push our leaders toward strengthening our economic ties with India and to remilitarize Japan. This way we work with our natural allies in the region to serve as checks against a regime with which we have issues but also allow an opportunity to reverse those trends if the Chinese make moves in the right direction.
--"That Sam-I-am! That Sam-I-am! I do not like that Sam-I-am!"- Dr. Seuss
- Login or register to post comments
)Unless you plan on taking everything in your house that has a made in China label on it out on your yard and setting fire to it (I would recommend you forgo this with your lady friend..just a suggestion)..a boycott of the US TV (most likely made in China as well) coverage seems kind of weak. No offense.
- Login or register to post comments
)Party at athenas owl's tonite. Music selection:
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Not sure of the response I should give here.
Just saying that to "boycott" the Olympics whilst enjoying the too numerous to count products that we as Americans have because we like the cheap stuff from China..just seems odd to me. It's easy to target China at the Olympics, but still go buy Chinese goods without much thought.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )From my diary. Bolding added here.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )On a lighter note (at least for everyone who isn’t me), as I’ve mentioned, my girlfriend was born in China (came to U.S. when she was 11), and because she resents my intention to boycott the Olympics and my harsh criticism of the Chinese government in general, she often teases me about my inconsistency – my consumption of so many Chinese-made products – and mockingly challenges me to boycott all Chinese-made products. Well, last night I told her I might go to the Burma-related rally on Friday (tomorrow) and I also asked her “What am I gonna do this weekend while you’re watching the ‘Genocide Olympics’?” She replied that she knew one thing I could count on not doing, since SHE was “Made in China”. It’s gonna be a lousy weekend.
- Login or register to post comments
)you're gonna be spending lots of extra time in front of the TV after all.
Ouch..
--Excess on occasion is exhilarating. It prevents moderation from acquiring the deadening effect of a habit. - W. Somerset Maugham
- Login or register to post comments
| parent ). . .I certainly don't doubt your willingness to, um, sacrifice for the cause.
--- Login or register to post comments
| parent )lol. Thanks. That and a dime will get me...hmm, what could it get me from a crack-whore this weekend?
Anyway, my next girlfriend* will definitely be Swiss.
* To my girlfriend, in case for some reason she's reading this: That was just a joke. I'll never be with another woman. No chance at all. You're the one for me, now and always.
[wonder if she bought it...wait a minute, did I type that or just think it? Oh geez]
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Serves you right! :)
--To think is not enough; you must think of something -- Jules Renard
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )She does kind of have a point. Airily dismissing the dreams & ambitions of (googling...please wait...) 1.3 billion people because their government supports some legitimately awful regimes is not as easy a call as you make it seem. Especially when your government supports some legitimately awful regimes.
--Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you criticize them, you're a mile away and you have their shoes. -JH
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Most likely, not even a massive boycott would alter the policies of the Chinese government in any way. It's not as if China has a long and illustrious history of taking constructive criticism gracefully.
The only thing that might alter the government of China is an outright trade boycott, and then only because it might make conditions so bad that the populace would revolt. The Chinese, by and large, like their current government, and tend to see Western criticism as either hypocritical or irrelevant.
It's pretty clear by now that Tiannanmen Square was not the first stirring of a free and democratic China, but a bunch of bourgeois college kids acting out.
--The other day I heard that ignorance and apathy are sweeping the country. I didn't know that, but I don't really care.
- Login or register to post comments
)in Iraq, not to mention a needless invasion and armed occupation that led to -- by even conservative counts -- hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths. The world still remembers the Abu Ghraib photographs.
Our client list of "regimes we support" includes that of Hosni Mubarak, Pervez Musharraf, Vladimir Putin, the House of Saud, Islam Karimov, Teodoro Obiang Nguema, just to pick a few "current" US clients and saying nothing of our history in this regard.
None of which is to excuse China's fairly terrible human rights record, but a) rhetorically stirring happy-talk about spreading the nutter butter of democracy across the world aside, the US hasn't got a leg to stand on in the "supporting bad regimes" category; b) you might apply your human rights concerns much closer to home with much greater effect; c) as others have pointed out, the intense spotlight of Olympic politics is an opportunity to pressure China into cleaning up its act (now that it's too late to deny them the honor of hosting the games).
--Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you criticize them, you're a mile away and you have their shoes. -JH
- Login or register to post comments
)re; the essential a-morality of the Chinese regime.
Is it preferable to have a country willing to sell Mugabe or whomever arms vs. a country w. neo-cons bent on reshaping the mideast into a set of pro-western democracies?
... but I think you are wrong to intimate that we are equally amoral given our support for: Hosni Mubarak, Pervez Musharraf, Vladimir Putin, the House of Saud, Islam Karimov, Teodoro Obiang Nguema
For Mubarek, Musharref, House of Saud, they are better than the domestic alternatives.
For karimov + Nguema, we only warmed up to them after 9/11 b/c we judged that they could help w. a greater international threat. Uzbek. could help w. dethroning the Taliban; Equat. Guineau could help w. loosening up west african oil + reducing mideast oil dependence.
I think our support of Nguema has been a mistake, but I also believe the US would be condemning him but for these broader concerns.
China has and would be seeking a partnership under any circumstances in which it was profitable.
Call it a moral dimension if you like, but the question remains whether our version or China's is preferable.
... personally I think in the long run Africa would do better to be economically tied to the west.
That's partially b/c I assume there will be genuine change at the IMF + World bank and in our own country's governance.
In the west there is hope from the left. There's nothing comparable in China.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )when supporting corrupt autocracies while the Chinese don't bother with empty gestures, because our ends justify our means, whereas China's do not, we're in the right and they are evil? There are extenuating circumstances (GWOT) in our case, but China just does it because they think evil is cool?
Bottom line, I'm sure China believes their ultimate goal (expanding global Chinese power) justifies whatever unpleasantness they feel obliged to support now. We can, and should, compete with them. But let's not blow too much smoke up our own yinyangs about how much more "moral" we are. We seek to replicate our vision of the good life around the world; they do likewise. Our vision is far from perfect; so's theirs.
--Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you criticize them, you're a mile away and you have their shoes. -JH
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )I'm putting forth the prop. that the US, when neo-cons aren't in power, is more moral than China. E.g. we condemned Nguema up until 9/11 (China has always done business w. Equat. Guinea); we condemned Uzbek prior to 9/11 etc.
I'm sure China believes their ultimate goal (expanding global Chinese power) justifies whatever unpleasantness they feel obliged to support now
And ... who cares? The measure is whether their ends are moral. And no, expanding global Chinese power doesn't count. Unlike the US, China is an inherently repressive regime w. no interest in fostering democracy. The US at least ocassionally has a moral dimension.
Look at US foreign policy through the Clinton yrs. Hardly perfect, but China's around to remind us we could do worse.
Again, it's arguable that this moral dimension goes awry and causes more harm overall, as when neo-cons get in power and whip up our populace's superior sentiments that we ought to save a populace from its rulers whether the populace wants us to or not.
But I think an amoral approach is also undesirable. The right answer is to change the west + US in particular to whatever extent possible. As I say I don't see much to work with elsewhere and no equivalent of a moral left in China's power structure whatsoever.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )is whether Beijing considers their ends "moral" or not. They certainly aren't given to high-flown oratory about consent of the governed or human rights, but it's a safe bet people don't generally act *against* the interests of what they consider moral.
--Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you criticize them, you're a mile away and you have their shoes. -JH
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Who cares what they think is moral?
We're asking whether their policies are moral, not what they think about them.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )I agree, and also agree with your general point in your prior comment, albeit not with some particulars.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )and I think I see why Jordan is bringing this up. I was saying the US often thinks it's acting morally and that's a difference in US foreign policy vs. China's.
I don't know what's going on in the heads of Chinese decision-makers. But their policies are identical to an essentially a-moral maximiziation of profit (a few exceptions, but overall that's roughly right).
US policy OTOH, just doesn't look like that at every turn. Sometimes we've got other aims in mind.
Cf. Bosnia. Or the Iraq war which wasn't based solely on amoral financial calculations, but on some amount of getting carried away re; a perceived moral struggle.
Again, the Chinese are more predictable + therefore less likely to create iraq-esque humanitarian disasters. So there's a case to be made for selecting them as Africa's big brother. But again, I'm optimistic that the west could provide a better relationship.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Sure, I can understand someone pointing out that we ain't saints, arguably not by a long shot. But I agree with the point I think you're making that that doesn't imply moral equivalency between our foreign policy and that of China, nor that we should not pass moral judgment on the morality of the foreign policy of other nations, including China. Put simply, China's foreign policy (not to mention its domestic policy) is considerably more immoral.
Having said that, if one thinks that the U.S. waging war in Iraq purely for oil profits or something like that, without any regard for the suffering involved, I can see how that person could think otherwise. I just disagree with that premise. I do see the Chinese, however, adopting and maintaining foreign policy with no apparent concern over human rights abuses of any degree and scale. And yes, the U.S. supports some pretty awful regimes (e.g., the Saudis), but there are degrees of magnitude, and Saudi Arabia is not Sudan, nor does the U.S. regularly fight international efforts to pressure the Saudis to reduce/stop human rights violations, nor does the U.S. have an explicit, consistent, strongly-stated policy that no nation should concern itself with the internal affairs of another vis a vis human rights.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Replicating their vision of the good life around the globe? Because it seems to me like they're pretty unencumbered by any aim of that sort in their foreign policy; it seems to me that they're playing great power politics, (fairly) plain and (relatively) simple.
I think one would have to have a distinctly ... roseate view of our own foreign policy not to at least entertain the notion that, high-minded phrases notwithstanding, we're up to the same thing. But the bad faith that such a notion entails still points to an agitated (collective) conscience; no such thing is on display in the case of China.
Maybe that's a distinction without a difference - one has to entertain that notion, too - but I'd need to be convinced thereof.
--Brevis esse laboro, obscurus fio.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )It has been since the French and Belgium's were cutting
hands, and the Dutch machine gunning the cape natives, and
the Germans driving a quarter of the Namibian population
into the desert to die...up until the IMF was insisting
on slashing health care and pensions and selling state
assets to lovely oh so ethical western companies.
...frankly relationships that just trade with no
questions asked are probably looking very, very,
attractive.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )and the IMF are partially why China looks desirable.
But the western requirements against corruption and refusal to prop up regimes like Mugabe's, Sudan's, etc. are morally superior to China's trade policies.
Good thing the west wasn't permanently paralized by its colonial history and the left in particular has sought for better conditions in Africa.
And again, I say just trade with no questions asked is a naive way of understanding the power imbalance and exploitation of Africa's natural resources by China.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )I don't pick up much hope from the left in the west as long as they look at the problems in Africa in terms of who gets to sell arms, China or the US.
My own hope is that Africans will some day enjoy relations with any nation they see fit, according to their own lights.
For Mubarek, Musharref, House of Saud, they are better than the domestic alternatives.
For a leftish person, you're too quick on the trigger to write off the alternatives as unacceptable. I sense that deep down there strong neo-con tendencies...
--Nothing resembles virtue more than a great crime. Saint-Just
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )I don't pick up much hope from the left in the west as long as they look at the problems in Africa in terms of who gets to sell arms, China or the US.
That ain't the right framing. China is selling arms to Sudan and directly fnancing Mugabe. The US has not been trying compete with China but to stop this for yrs.
As for not particularly left, that may be correct. my response to jordan is somewhat playing devil's advocate since we have so few Luis Alegria's left on this site.
Anyway, wht I sense from you is some sort of semi-permanent anti-McCarthyism. B/c conservatives once overreacted to reds, you can hardly be brought to say a bad word against China or Russia. My advice is to get with the times.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Oust those not "left" enough.
--“I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views.”
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )I do prefer mubarek to the Muslim brotherhood, the House of Saud to the radical wahhabis. Musharref is a longer story and I'm no expert on Pakistan.
But my reasoning is essentially leftist. The supported regimes are less theocratic and more likely to respect human rights, including especially treating women better.
My own hope is that Africans will some day enjoy relations with any nation they see fit, according to their own lights.
And what makes you think China is facillitating some sort of growing autonomy in Africa right now? They are colonizing + extracting natural resources at a great cost to Africans, with benefits to only a corrupt few.
Not to pull a timmy, but read up on Zambia for instance. This is not a mutually beneficial business relationship between states that function in the interest of their people.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Here's a problem. When the Ikhwan, the Muslim Brotherhood began, it was an good thing. It said Arab countries ought to quit aping the West, get back to basics. You know why the Arabic governments are all damning the Ikhwan? For the same reasons the Chinese are damning the Falun Gong.
Want to make a political movement into a terrorist group? Jail and murder its leadership. Lock up and torture their followers. It didn't have to go down this way, Catchy, you're being fed a line of baloney. The people who demonize the Ikhwan are our mortal enemies, and the Ikhwan aren't. If we go on backing dictators like Musharraf, (who's being indicted), what do you expect the Ikhwan to think?
The Saud family murdered their way to power. If a family named Rodriguez murdered its way to power in Mexico, would we call it Rodriguez Mexico? Get real. The Saudis are tied to us, but they are not our friends. Only their enemies call them Wahhabis, they're called Salafi, and they're a tiny minority, even inside KSA. The Saudis are tied to the Salafi by honor debts, but the Saud family has purged them more than once. The Saud family is besieged inside their own country.
Don't kid yourself, Saddam Hussein had the most progressive regime in the Middle East. Want him back?
Oh, and the Chinese are busily cutting down the forests of Brazil. It's not just Africa they're after.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )I'm not going to beat behind the bush here. This calls for harsh words. I hate this kind of spinelessness. When you see thousands on the streets demonstrating for the rule of law, or striking for decent work, and make your stand alongside the dictators, it's preposterous to paint yourself as the man's great hope. It is fear, not hope that motivates. In America, the Left hasn't even the courage to nominate a candidate who offers universal health care and education. But by all means, boycott those opening events. You could do worse.
As for China and Africa, the Chinese are investing lots of money, more than any other nation in the world, in Africa, including construction of infrastructure. Certainly some good will come of this, as the Belgians built in the Congo etc. The question of who is better, the West or China is irrelevant because, it's the Chinese at the moment who are investing. I contend that only the Africans can truly set their own course on the road to freedom, independence and all those good things. This should be self-evident. It would be nice if it could be achieved by asking Westerners to refrain from watching a sporting event on TV, but Africa faces a long and difficult struggle.
--Nothing resembles virtue more than a great crime. Saint-Just
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )In America, the Left hasn't even the courage to nominate a candidate who offers universal health care and education.
There is reason to despair that the left has any real hope in these United States. We would probably do well currently to join forces with moderates and have a centrist in power.
Still don't you rate the left's chances in the US + western Europe better than in China? I do.
.
I wasn't defending the boycott, but rather responding to Jordan's post, so you should save those particular harsh words.
.
I contend that only the Africans can truly set their own course on the road to freedom, independence and all those good things. This should be self-evident. That doesn't mean that China is helping that process overall even if it is doing some good.
But even given investments in infrastructure etc., my sense is that China's role is a net negative. Perhaps we can discuss the particulars sometime.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )I won't be supporting this effort. Their mission:
1) To strengthen the position of the rightful leaders of Burma, 1991 Nobel Peace Prize recipient Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and the democratically elected National League for Democracy, by cutting the political and economic lifelines of the ruling military junta;
2) To organize and advocate for international intervention in Burma; and
3) To inform grassroots citizens, international media and policymakers about Burma’s political, social and economic crisis.
1) Backing the wrong horse. This strategy of backing Aung San Suu Kyi has not sufficiently mobilized the people of Myanmar. Economic sanctions do not work and isolation do not affect change, if anything they strengthen and harden the status quo. Cuba, Iran and Iraq has taught these people nothing, it seems.
2) This is nightmarish.
3) Nothing wrong with this, but the international focus is beside the point. Overthrowing the regime is the job of those who suffer under it. It's a difficult task and much sacrifice will be required of those who undertake it. They certainly deserve our support, but they will have to assume a leading role and bear the main burden. Making Myanmar an arena for a struggle between Western/Chinese influence and domination is not going to help the popolo piccolo. (little people)
--Nothing resembles virtue more than a great crime. Saint-Just
- Login or register to post comments
)sanctions don't work, boycotts don't work, international interventions don't work ... in fact all 'international focus is beside the point.'
There is nothing anyone can ever do for a country and its peoples.
What lead you to this bleak conclusion?
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )is that the circle meeting itself on the back side?
--I blame it all on the Internet
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )You're still prompting me w. comments containing back side?
I have not earned that trust and you should know it by now.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )being a few thousand miles away. I suppose there's always the threat of heat seeking teledildonics device, but I'll keep a lookout for any tubular plastic objects mumbling about the ontology of emergent properties.
--I blame it all on the Internet
- Login or register to post comments
| parent ). . .accomplishing nothing but screwing a lot of the world's finest athletes out of their time in the spotlight, I'm going to have to pass on the invitation. Much like walking and chewing gum at the same time, I'm confident we can enjoy the Olympics and criticize the Chinese government to our heart's content at the same time.
If the US had boycotted the 1936 Berlin Games (Nazi Germany was even worse than the Chinese nowadays, right?), we never would have seen this:
God bless Jesse Owens, Joe Louis, and all of the other great black American athletes who so thoroughly punctured Hitler's fantasies of Aryan supremacy--and none of it would have happened if we had turned up our noses at competing with German athletes out of some misguided sense of moral superiority.
--- Login or register to post comments
)Are you saying that if Nazi Germany existed today and behaved the same as it did throughout Hitler's rule, and if it were the host of the Olympics, you would oppose boycotting the Olympics? And if so, would you oppose simply on practical grounds (that it would not have any benefits of any sort, but would hurt our athletes) or moral grounds (that even if it would have some benefit, we shouldn't hurt the athletes)?
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )would an olympic boycott stop it ?.
If the boycott is a substitute for more substantial
action then its a mistake, take the substantial action,
not the posturing cop-out.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent ). . .the ideal way to deal with a nation we don't like getting the Olympics is taking all of our best athletes to that country and kicking @$$. Of course, that's not inconsistent with lobbying like crazy to make sure that nation doesn't get the Olympics in the first place, but if that battle is lost the best way to go is to win on the field rather than taking one's ball and going home. Of course, if there's a world war going on, the Olympics aren't going to be held in any event (as was the case in 1916, 1940, and 1944)--but we're not in a shooting war with the Chinese (nor were we with the Soviets in 1980).
--- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Let's assume same Nazi Germany in terms of Holocaust. No world war going on. They are hosting. Do you oppose a boycott for the reasons you've given?
- Login or register to post comments
| parent ). . .I'll save my child and let the billion homes burn down.
--- Login or register to post comments
| parent )You don't want to answer my question?
- Login or register to post comments
| parent ). . .that I find the hypothetical unrealistic.
--- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Actually, it's your way of saying that you don't want to venture to a place at which you might have to either modify your position or contradict yourself (the latter being the definition of being illogical). That's generally why people resist hypotheticals like the one I raised.
You need not find my hypothetical "realistic" to answer it for the purpose of exploring the principle you've stated and testing its limits. But I think you know that, which is why you don't want to answer it.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )If I believed that a nation was too far gone into evil to justify being willing to send my country's athletes there to kick their @$$e$, I'd be advocating nuking their seat of government down to bedrock to produce regime change--and it goes without saying that fallout is bad for jocks and growing things.
How's *that* for a hypothetical? ]:-)
--- Login or register to post comments
| parent )http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-gb0mxcpPOU
--Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you criticize them, you're a mile away and you have their shoes. -JH
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )and learn to love the bomb.
--GW Bush, leading contender for worst President ever.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )If that was serious -- big IF -- then your answer is that you not only would boycott, but you'd wage war (nuclear war at that).
But since it's unclear if that was serious, how about just answering my question?
- Login or register to post comments
| parent ). . .if they're evil enough to make boycotting their Olympics a moral imperative, they're evil enough to nuke to remove them as a problem. Don't bother me with half-measures.
You mean there's no government so evil that nuking them is clearly the right thing to do from your POV? Maybe I should construct a hypothetical. . .]:-)
--- Login or register to post comments
| parent )if they're evil enough to make boycotting their Olympics a moral imperative, they're evil enough to nuke to remove them as a problem. Don't bother me with half-measures.
Oh, you WERE serious. That's um, really something. So (1) any nation evil enough to warrant us boycotting their hosting of the Olympics is a nation against which we necessarily should go to full scale war, or put differently, (2) any nation against which we are not willing to go to full scale war is, by virtue of that fact, not a nation whose hosting of the Olympics we should boycott. Yeeesh.
So, getting back to my still unanswered question. Are you saying that you would both support a boycott of those Olympics and support waging full-scale war against that Nazi regime (that was committing genocide) or are you saying you'd oppose both? How about just giving a straight answer?
You mean there's no government so evil that nuking them is clearly the right thing to do from your POV? Maybe I should construct a hypothetical. . .]:-)
Where relevant to the discussion, that would be a good issue about which to construct a hypothetical, particularly if I had stated or implied that "there's no government so evil that nuking them is clearly the right thing to do". A hypothetical would be an excellent way to test that principle. As for your question, I don't see how you would think that that's what I meant or how you'd think I had even indicated that I have such a view, but no, that is not what I meant or indicated, nor was it a premise I stated or implied, nor is it my view. There could be governments so evil that nuking them is clearly the right thing to do. Had we been able to drop a nuke on Berlin in September, 1939, and if doing so would have a good chance of preventing all that followed, that would be such a case.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )If faced with der Fuhrer busily exterminating Jews and planning an Olympics, you could--if you chose--decide to muck around with boycotting his festivities. Me--I'd send a few of Edward Teller's favorite children to Berlin and bring the genocidal activities to a close. . .after which I would attend the opening ceremonies of the Olympics at their, ahem, alternate location.
Fortunately, he hadn't gotten quite that far along yet in 1936, so we got to see Jesse Owens and Joe Louis--among others--thoroughly humiliate the one-balled wonder before the wages of appeasement took full bloom. Do you view that as a bad thing?
--- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Thank you for that answer.
As for your question, obviously Jesse Owens' victories were, in themselves, wonderful in every way.
But, even putting aside hindsight, if a regime like the 1936 Nazi regime under a dictator like 1936 Hitler were about to host the Olympics, I'd probably favor boycotting those games rather than grant that regime the opportunity for a huge prestige boost -- both at home and abroad -- as well as stimulating nationalist sentiment. And that's not even a situation in which the regime is supporting and defending genocidal regimes elsewhere, as is the case with China today.
How about you -- based not on hindsight, but on the domestic and foreign policies, overt philosophy and general character of the Nazi regime and its dictator in 1936, are you saying you would not favor a boycott of an Olympics hosted by a similar regime/dictator, or are you saying you'd both boycott and launch a full-scale war and not stop until you deposed that regime or perhaps achieved unconditional surrender?
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )If I had been in a position to do anything about it at the time--and had read Mein Kampf--I would have invaded Germany the day after Hitler violated the treaty of Versailles, slaughtered his still-weak armies, and strung Hitler and Company up from the nearest flagpole. Since all of this would have been completed by the end of 1935, the successor government could have hosted the Olympics with my blessing. All much more productive than any sissy boycott would have been.
--- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Germany. We (that is to say the nascent Allies, without the USSR) could have approached the Reich in its infancy and infected it with German-Americans. The Reich needed an enemy, it had a perfectly good one in the USSR, a regime already waist deep in murder, as Solzynetsin showed us. Leninism was the cancer which first needed destroying.
You see, in the early days of the Reich, Germany was in a terrible way. Hitler was merely a strutting ranter, and such as he are easily swayed. Hitler was a great admirer of Henry Ford, and we must remember Mussolini was once a greater man than Hitler in the larger scheme of things. Mussolini had brought Italy out of the Depression first. He "made the trains run on time", the genesis of that meme begins with Mussolini.
The much-maligned Chamberlain was already making wholesale reforms in Great Britain. Germany was still in gridlock, the Nazis had broken that gridlock and was engaged in many of the same industrial reforms Chamberlain, Roosevelt and Mussolini were forcing on their nations. Spain had shown the Fascists were not to be trifled with: we had no friend in Franco, but we might have turned Germany away from its deep hatred of France toward Stalin, who had meddled in Spain in a large way.
The Spanish Civil War was the warm-up exercise for WW2. Had it been seen as such, the USA could have capitalized on the newly-minted fascist regimes and made of them something quite different than what they would later become. True, they were racist, but so were we at the time. But Communism would prove the enduring threat: we chose the Fascists as enemies, only to fight the Communists thereafter.
In the early days, the fascists were pliable and still in awe of the United States. The French were undermining all reasonable attempts to undo the vicious terms of the Versailles Treaty. Every locomotive and train car in Germany had been rolled into France under the terms of the Versailles Treaty. It was no accident Hitler forced the French to surrender in a train car.
I am convinced Hitler did not harden his heart willingly: it was hardened for him. He was motivated by revenge, and his anger could have been assuaged, had the Americans approached the Nazis early, with quiet words, reminding him of Wilson's attempts to bring a just and decent end to the First World War.
My opinion is a bit unique, and I'm sure to be the butt of much scoffing and nay-saying. But Wilson was right and the French were wrong, and Europe was destroyed. Much also could have been done to mollify the Japanese imperialists, in many of the same ways, had we infected them with Japanese-Americans. We were once a beacon of liberty, long ago, the enemy of kings and tyrants everywhere. The world was changing, and we did not capitalize on what had always made us great from our beginnings: the deathless cry of E Pluribus Unum, from the many comes the one.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )symptom of the worldwide Jewish conspiracy against Aryan purity, and WWII would take place 20 years later, long after your retirement. Germans would have been furious, aggrieved....and rightly so, in a deeply twisted way only historical hindsight can provide. Because they wouldn't have yet done much wrong on a large scale but make speeches and write angry books.
--Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you criticize them, you're a mile away and you have their shoes. -JH
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )So, an Enemy of the People is Der Feind des Volkes.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent ).
--Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you criticize them, you're a mile away and you have their shoes. -JH
- Login or register to post comments
| parent ). . .putting a guy in power who wrote a book saying to the world "I'm coming to kill you," then promptly violated the treaty of Versailles.
As for twenty years later, I'd just as soon take my chances with the non-Hitler who was in charge then--and repeated curb-stompings as needed might eventually get the message across.
--- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Unfortunately while we have the hindsight to wish Hitler had just done the honorable (pistol, poison, or dagger) thing first, saving us all the trouble,
our hindsight doesn't tell us what would happen next.
But I agree, put one between the eyes of the evil you know is not a bad rule of thumb.
--Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you criticize them, you're a mile away and you have their shoes. -JH
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )IMO that's just unnecessary mindreading.
I'm a philosophy instructor. Far out hypos often get objected to even where they would support a person's position.
There's no reason to accuse those who draw different boundaries for the set of useful thought experiments of being close-minded or avoiding revising their beliefs.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )I will acknowledge that it's not a nice thing to say, and that there may be an approach more likely to get the question answered (although usually all efforts are futile because the person is simply too afraid to go there), but I've seen wayyyyy more than enough stubborn avoidance of hypothetical questions to know what is extremely likely to be goin' on with a refusal to answer.
Good example (frustrating at the time, now both funny and sad) starting at http://archive.redstate.com/blogs/a_texan/2007/sep/20/a_social_conservat... Note: Up until that point I had been on a very friendly basis with Gamecock (sometimes emailing about baseball as well as politics), and the nicknames I call him are friendly, based on inside jokes. Not that an example proves a rule. I'm just offering it as an illustration of pathetic avoidance of a hypothetical by a guy who is just insecure about his ability to defend his position and who would never concede anything if he went down that road and it became evident that he should concede a point.
[edit: Oh, I'm "BrooksRob" on that RedState thread]
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )You might want to re-read the sub-thread, rather than declare 'bad faith' quite so easily.
Just a suggestion before you go too far out that limb.
--“I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views.”
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )I see enough of it to be fairly confident in that educated guess.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )If you've got catchy and the evil Macallan calling you on the same thing, it's time to rethink your assumptions.
--“I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views.”
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )is probably much worse than Nazi Germany in 1936 (pre WW2) given the millions that communism has killed in that country. But the HUGE difference is that China is getting better, much, much better and the quality of life of the Chinese is improving faster than for almost any other group in human history.
--This place is my vacation.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )I don't see much benefit to boycotting the Olympics.
More importantly, although China is by no means a liberal democracy, it is no longer the totalitarian hellhole it was just a few decades ago. The Chinese, slowly but surely, are gaining some rights, and the economic change of the last 20 years is probably the single biggest 2-decade improvement to human welfare in all of history. If we manage this well there's no reason why China won't continue it's path to becoming a normal nation.
--This place is my vacation.
- Login or register to post comments
)China revoked a Gold medalist's visa b/c he was an outspoken Darfur activist:
http://sports.yahoo.com/olympics/beijing/blog/fourth_place_medal/post/Ch...
- Login or register to post comments
)A moment that wouldn't be happening if there was a boycott.
On the merits, Michael Phelps should probably be the flag bearer--but somehow I can't bring myself to object to this choice.
--- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Cheek was one (of many) speakers at a "Save Darfur" rally I attended in D.C. a couple of years ago. My recollection is that he was excellent.
Is it too much to ask that the IOC only consider nations that meet some minimal human rights criteria as potential hosts? Yeah, I realize there's the problem of what the exact standards should be and the problem of subjectivity, and that the impartiality and judgment of the IOC can be questioned, but I'll all take that bathwater if it comes with that baby. How about starting with: If you can be imprisoned for simply saying "I oppose my government's policy X", that country can't host. And from that point other criteria and levels can be discussed.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )They should go forward, and the finger waggers kept at bay. The spirit of the ancient games was to unite around the principle of sports instead of wars.
I am not much of a sports fan, and I've always considered it a deficiency in my personality. Well I do follow soccer and cricket, and I enjoy American football the way other people enjoy chess games, I don't take sides, I admire the strategy and fortitude of the men on the field. My middle daughter went to school on a sports scholarship, full ride. I was immensely proud of her.
But there's something deeply admirable about young people who have the ambition and dedication to their sport. They're not alone: four years ago a woman's was pulling her car out of her driveway with her daughter still sleepy and rubbing her eyes, heading to a swimming pool. In a few days, she will be crouched on a platform at the Olympics, and the starting gun will fire.
And you won't be watching. Because China oppresses its Tibetans. Well, I'll be watching. I don't know one name of one girl on the US swim team, but I'll be thinking about that mother who drove that girl to the pool for all those years. That's who I'm rooting for.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )I saw a video today of the Chinese police arresting a protester who had hung a sign saying "Free Tibet" along the road where the Olympic torch was being carried. What do you think would happen to an American who hung a sign saying "Free Iraq" along the path of the Olympic torch in LA or Chicago or New York?
I'm not excusing China, I think they have an absolutely horrible government, but there are authoritarians everywhere. Any standards you could come up with could exclude or include virtually any country.
--I blame it all on the Internet
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Are you implying that "an American who hung a sign saying "Free Iraq" along the path of the Olympic torch in LA or Chicago or New York" could be imprisoned for doing so based on the content of that sign? (I don't mean if he blocked or assaulted the runner)
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )but certainly held in detention for at least the duration of the event. If said American had an Arabic last name, though, all bets are off.
--I blame it all on the Internet
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )First, held in detention due to concern that a person is going to become violent or illegally disruptive is not the same as what I'm talking about, whether the former is appropriate or not.
Second, I rather doubt someone who held a sign saying "U.S. out of Iraq" could be lawfully detained on the basis of having expressed that political preference, and while cops obviously sometimes err, I think even an unlawful detention would be rare.
Do you disagree with any of the above?
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )LINK
LINK
LINK
LINK
LINK
LINK
LINK
LINK
LINK
LINK
Plenty of content based intimidation and arrests. Just google it, I got tired of cutting and pasting after awhile.
--I blame it all on the Internet
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Hank, sorry for the delay in responding.
First a quick recap:
The standard I had stated was: "If you can be imprisoned for simply saying 'I oppose my government's policy X', that country can't host."
You responded: "What do you think would happen to an American who hung a sign saying 'Free Iraq' along the path of the Olympic torch in LA or Chicago or New York?"
Me: "Are you implying that "an American who hung a sign saying "Free Iraq" along the path of the Olympic torch in LA or Chicago or New York" could be imprisoned for doing so based on the content of that sign?"
You: "Probably not convicted but certainly held in detention for at least the duration of the event."
Me: "I rather doubt someone who held a sign saying "U.S. out of Iraq" could be lawfully detained on the basis of having expressed that political preference." (italics in original)
Catchy the