My Last Post

Throughout this semester, I have really enjoyed keeping a blog to share my thoughts on various readings and topics. I think it has been a very effective way to ensure that we all stay caught up on our assignments while discussing them with one another in a forum where we are all able to speak freely at length about the course subject matter. I think it has really helped me to think analytically about all of the topics that we covered in class, while expressing my opinion in a clear and concise way. Additionally, I feel that blogging was a great way for all of us to learn about one another and gather different opinions about various topics. In this, blogging has been a very positive experience.

Still, there obviously have been certain subjects that have interested me more than others. Based on my background in history and political science, I loved writing and reading about globalization and differences between cultures (e.g., Whither the NBA, The Whole World Isn’t Watching, etc.). Still, it was great to read my classmates’ blogs throughout the semester, and see just what really appealed to them. It was through this sharing of ideas that I feel that these blogs were an extremely positive learning tool, as we all expanded our horizons while learning about each other.

While I don’t feel that keeping a blog has necessarily changed how I view anything in the world, it has helped me to think more critically about what I see in the world around me. Additionally, blogging has helped me to not be afraid to say exactly what I think, along with not being afraid to give or receive criticism. Through constant interaction with my classmates, I have learned to effectively use my voice to gain a broader world perspective.

In conclusion, this semester has been a great learning experience, which I truly appreciate. Thank you to everybody who has read or commented on my blog. Your feedback has meant a lot to me, and I take it to heart.

Fin.

IOC Environmental Policy

As presented by Cantelon & Letters (2000) in their article “The Making of IOC Environmental Policy as the Third Dimension of the Olympic Movement,” environmentalism has become an increasingly important part of international culture, and something that international organizations such as the IOC must be able to adapt to. Cantelon & Letters (2000) use the example of the 1992 Albertville Winter Olympics in France as a turning point of environmental policy. As the construction of the Olympic facilities had an increasingly negative impact upon the natural environment of Albertville, international criticism was turned towards the IOC, forcing them to adapt to become more environmentally conscious. Luckily, the organizing committee of the Lillehammer games was able to adapt very quickly to a more “green” mentality, and as a result, in many ways, the IOC also adopted those same values.

While there is certainly much to be said about the local influence on a global organization in this case, that is not what caught my attention in regards to this article. Instead, it is the failure of the Albertville games and the subsequent need to adopt a “green” mentality. It seems to me that, without the negative backlash against the Albertville games, the IOC would have continued to act environmentally irresponsibly. This is evidenced by the fact that, although the Albertville games stressed that they were striving to maintain the area’s beauty, however, it is unclear that anything was actually being done to preserve the local ecosystems. One could certainly assume from that press release that the IOC was simply trying to save face. Therefore, my question becomes, if the Albertville games did not receive such negative coverage, would environmentalism have become the third dimension of the Olympic movement? I have say no, however, the silver lining of this scenario remains that out of disaster came a learning experience and a chance to make things better for the future, and it certainly appears that the IOC has embraced this opportunity.

The Gender Trap

I have often found that in our society, people tend to see things as “either/or,” submitting to one of two options. Black or white. Democrat or Republican. Pepsi or Coke. Boy or girl. However, this way of seeing things does not tell the whole story. As Saner (2008) describes in her article “The Gender Trap,” there is a huge world population of “intersex” or transgender individuals living in the world today (roughly .1% of the world’s total population), blurring the lines of the traditional “male-female” idea of gender. Clearly, these people are part of an often forgotten and ignored population, and, in a sport environment, they represent an issue that must be properly addressed and dealt with.

As Saner (2008) states, women whose gender is in question are put through a series of tests to determine if they are in fact female. This process is extremely humiliating for the athletes themselves and has been the subject of much criticism in recent years. Still, one has to ask- if athletes are able to slip between gender lines, does that create an unfair advantage? Conversely, if an athlete is found to have an intersex condition, such testing can publicly “out” them, creating another questionable ethical situation.

Of course, simply looking at it from an administrator’s perspective ignores the very human element of such controversy. Intersex individuals often naturally feel confused and alienated from much of society because they fall outside of the “male-female” gender dichotomy. This pressure and feeling of alienation can lead to tragic results, as was the case of Santhi Soundarajan, an Indian athlete whose public humiliation from being stripped of her medal helped lead her to attempt suicide. Such attempts are not uncommon for people with intersex conditions; however, the publicity that came from Soundarajan’s attempt may help shed light on the stigmas that accompany such conditions, causing people to take a closer look at an often silenced minority.

Masculine Hegemonic Hoops

Kian, Vincent, & Mondello’s (2008) article, “Masculine Hegemonic Hoops: An Analysis of Media Coverage of March Madness” raises some very interesting points about gender in the media presentation of the Men’s and Women’s NCAA Basketball Tournament. Essentially, their argument boils down to the fact that our society seems to value masculinity over femininity, and, as a result, men receive far more favorable and visible coverage during March. Despite the rise of popularity of women’s basketball (e.g., the Women’s Tournament and the WNBA), women are still placed in a gender order behind men, as reflected by the media’s portrayal of the sport.

As a college basketball fan, I know this rings true for me, as it probably does with many of you. For example, when somebody asks if you filled out your bracket, how often do you ask if they mean for the Men’s or Women’s Tournament? I can say that I have never asked this question- it has always been assumed that they were talking about the Men’s Tournament. In this, it is very clear that society still has a long way to go in terms of pulling women’s sport into the spotlight, and the media has a responsibility to facilitate that process. Personally, I think that spending significant air time on ESPN talking about women’s basketball during a time when something extraordinary (e.g., UConn’s win streak) isn’t occurring will be a major step forward.

Additionally, I feel that Kian, Vincent, & Mondello (2008) made some very interesting points about gender portrayal in the media. Perhaps the most striking was that female athletes tend to be compared to their male counterparts in media coverage. The fact that male athletes are the guideposts for athleticism illustrates an inherent bias within the presentation of NCAA basketball and sport in general. I even saw this occur recently in an ESPN article about Baylor star Brittney Griner, whose size was compared to various NBA players, including LeBron James. Of course, NBA players are household names, so it makes sense to compare her to them, however, by continuing to do so, we are continuing to place women’s sports in a secondary position in sport culture.

Packaging the Games for Viewer Consumption

Billings & Angelini’s (2007) article “Packaging the Games for Viewer Consumption: Gender, Ethnicity, and Nationality in NBC’s Coverage of the 2004 Summer Olympics” discusses inherent biases within the broadcasting of the Olympic Games. They argue that, during the Olympics, white American male athletes receive the majority of media attention in the US. Certainly this should be unsurprising to anybody who has ever watched the Olympics. While Billings & Angelini (2007) do illustrate that progress is being made (non-white athletes are being praised more often for intelligence and determination, and women are being complemented more for their talent), the focus remains on white American males.

I will not argue against the point that women and minority athletes should receive more positive attention during the Olympic Games- it is clear that, despite progress in recent Games, they are still underrepresented in the media. However, I am unmoved that there is something wrong with placing the focus on American athletes. After all, NBC is an American broadcasting company focusing on an American audience. Is this practice a bit ethnocentric? Of course, however, it is no different than most sporting events. After all, when watching an Indians-Yankees game on SportsTime Ohio (the Indians’ cable channel), one would expect the focus of commentary to be on, say, Shin-Soo Choo’s approach at the plate. Likewise, when watching the same game on the YES Network (the Yankees’ cable channel), one would expect the focus of commentary to be on, say, Alex Rodriguez’s defense. Sure, the YES commentators will talk about Choo to some extent (and vice versa), but it is perfectly normal to focus on the home team, and that is exactly what NBC is doing.

Personally, I am only a casual Olympic fan- I’ll watch some events, but, in general, I could care less about track & field, swimming, and gymnastics. However, when I think of major Olympic stories, two events come to mind- Jesse Owens winning Gold in Hitler’s Berlin in 1936 and the US Men’s Hockey Team winning Gold at Lake Placid in 1980 (The Miracle on Ice). However, I recognize these as great events because I am American. For example, Russians probably don’t remember Lake Placid as fondly as Americans, but still cherish the memory of winning Gold in basketball in 1972 over the US. The reason I bring these examples up is to illustrate that we, as a country, relish the opportunity to unite behind our Olympic teams once every two years (or four, if you really hate either the Summer or Winter Games), and NBC is probably right to cash in on that nationalism. Sure, we take notice when a foreign athlete accomplishes something truly great (Usain Bolt comes to mind), but, when broadcasting to an American audience, there is nothing wrong with focusing on American athletes.

With that said, I am curious what a similar study would show in relation to another country’s telecasts of the Olympic Games in relation to focusing on themselves.

Madrid Posts 1 & 2

The following entries are on behalf of the Madrid Group: Steve, Chellsie, Megan, Barbara, and Scott.

Salt Lake City Olympic Ceremonies:

1. Parade of Athletes:
   Each country paraded in proceeding their countries flag. 77 nations were represented with 2,399 athletes participating in the 2002 winter Olympic games.
2. Speeches by local and Olympic officials:
   In keeping with the theme of American patriotism following 9/11, the speeches delivered by Salt Lake Organizing Committee Chairman (and future presidential candidate) Mitt Romney and IOC President Jacques Rogge both contained explicit references to the attacks in New York City and Washington DC. More importantly, both speeches presented a firm and united front in the face of terrorism, advocating a world that can live in peace and in which all individuals can pursue their dreams. Additionally, then-President George W. Bush sat, as Hogan (2003) said, “among US athletes, seemingly without bodyguards (pg. 118),” as he opened the games from the stands. These speeches reinforce the United States’ War on Terror as a virtuous endeavor, and present a strong national and international front against enemies of the US.
3. Raising of the Olympic Flag and Playing of the Olympic Anthem:
   The Olympic flag was carried in by 5 flag barriers, representing the 5 continents of the Olympic rings and 3 pillars of Olympic movement: sport, culture, and environment. The flag bearers were: John Glenn, the former President of Poland, and a Nobel Peace Prize winner from Africa, 1998 Japanese gold medalist, 2000 Australian gold medalist Kathy Freeman, 1968 French Olympic gold medalist, Steven Spielberg, and the son of Jacque Cousteau. The choir sang the Olympic anthem as the flag was raised. Then, Sting and Yo-Yo Ma performed together to remind people of the peace and beauty of the Olympic Games.
4. Host nation’s national anthem:
   The national anthem displayed the flag that was flown over the World Trade Center on September 11th during the terrorist attacks. The flag was carried by U.S. Olympians and members of the New York City police and fire departments and the Port Authority. The Star Spangled Banner was sung by the Mormon Tabernacle Choir. The overall vision of the spectacle that was the national anthem was very moving and quite patriotic. It displayed the state that our country was in and also showed unity by bringing together the law enforcement officers who are protecting our country as well as the Olympic athletes to carry the flag. The Mormon Tabernacle Choir singing was amazing and allowed representation of the uniqueness of the local culture in Salt Lake City.
5. Torch relay and lighting of Olympic cauldron:
   The torch was ran across the nation by many former Olympians and finally passed to Mike Eruzione, who was the captain of the 1980 U.S. Olympic Ice Hockey team. Along with the rest of his teammates, Eruzione lit the Olympic cauldron which was extremely tall with the final flame at the very top. We agree with the Hogan in the fact that this action was very symbolic for the Olympics. In 1980 when the Ice Hockey team won the gold medal, they defeated the U.S.S.R. who were also our cold war enemies at the time. Now, at the height of the war on terror, these same champions are representing our nation by uniting together, as the United States came together to fight the war on terror.
6. Oaths on Behalf of Participants and Judges:
   Jim Shea, member of the US Skeleton Team, took the oath on behalf of all the athletes. He said they will respect the rules, commit themselves without drugs, use sportsmanship, and show honor for their teams. American judge, Allen Church, took an oath of fairness and impartiality in the name of all the judges. Both men raised their right hands while taking the oath.

Crisis of Canadian Identity- Question 2:

The crises of Wayne Gretzky’s trade and Ben Johnson’s steroid scandal related to the crisis of Canadian identity because both resulted in the loss of Canadian points of pride. Both situations occurred at the same time as the Free Trade Agreement, which many Canadians believed represented the encroachment of the US on Canadian markets and culture. This was exacerbated by the loss of Gretzky to Los Angeles, as Americans now “owned” a Canadian hero. Because of these circumstances, many Canadians felt as though they were losing their independent identity to the US, and distrusted the FTA, as they felt it would lead to Americans stealing Canadian resources. For many Canadians, the trade of Gretzky exemplified this, as a large American market “stole” the greatest Canadian “resource.”

These crises illustrate the undeniable link between sport and nationalism or local pride. This is something we have seen repeatedly throughout the 20th and 21st centuries. Recently, we have seen it in Cleveland with the loss of LeBron James. When James decided to "take his talents to South Beach," he left behind a city in mourning over the loss of a sports star, struggling to find their identity without him. His departure from Ohio left many Clevelanders feeling that they had lost a part of themselves, causing them to feel angry and betrayed.

This feeling of betrayal and loss of identity is similar to what many Canadians felt after Gretzky's departure as well as Johnson's steroid scandal. They felt as if integral pieces of what made them Canadian were stripped away, leaving them angry and confused. However, it is important to note that, while Gretzky would eventually be forgiven and re-accepted as a Canadian hero, Johnson was almost immediately "stripped" of his Canadian identity, and instead relegated to back being a Jamaican immigrant, less than fully Canadian. This disparity illustrates not only how Canadians coped with the scandals, but also issues of race and immigration within Canada, as a white native Canadian was forgiven while a black immigrant was not.

Staging the Nation

The focus of Hogan’s (2003) article, “Staging the Nation: Gendered and Ethnicized Discourses of National Identity in Olympic Opening Ceremonies” was placed upon the misrepresentation of a nation’s culture during the Opening Ceremonies of the Olympic Games, specifically the Nagano, Sydney, and Salt Lake City Games. Hogan (2003) does an excellent job of describing how diversity and gender issues are glossed over in the Opening Ceremonies, often celebrating a mythological idea of the host country’s past and society. For example, the article cites Sydney’s celebration of white history in Australia while marginalizing Aboriginal societies that have long been a main influence on that country’s culture. Likewise, the Ceremonies in Salt Lake City glossed over the many conflicts and wars between Native Americans and white settlers over the course of American history. These historical inaccuracies promote the construction of a “desired history” that sets aside the real history and issues of those societies. In this, the question must be asked- is this acceptable, especially on such a grand stage?

As a former history teacher, I can assure you that many people in the US do not have a thorough understanding of American or world history, especially when it comes to the uglier issues of racial and gender discrimination. For example, I have met many kids who think that overt racial discrimination was designated to the south following the Civil War. Likewise, many people don’t really understand the scope of the women’s suffrage movement, often thinking it was limited to very early 20^th century. Clearly, it is important that we do a better job of presenting the whole story of American history to ourselves and our children.

However, it is also to remember that the Olympic Opening Ceremonies are a commercial event- an opportunity to advertise a country to the rest of the world. They give the host nations a chance to present themselves in a positive light, celebrating their rich heritage as well as their place in the international world. While it may be factually accurate, stating that one’s country was founded on the exploitation and slaughter of others is bad PR. Obviously, these ceremonies must present racial and gender diversity, celebrating accomplishments of all members of a nation, without stereotyping or casting any group aside. Still, I feel that, considering the fact that these events are designed to portray a location in a positive light, it is acceptable to tell only a select portion of the story, provided that as a society, we do a better job of understanding the entire history of our world.