Week 10 Post –
Government
BY NOW YOU HAVE ALL FINISHED YOUR SUMMER READING ASSIGNMENTS, ARE
WELL INTO YOUR WRITTEN ASSIGNMENTS AND ARE EAGERLY AWAITING THE START OF YOUR SENIOR
YEAR! Here is the last blog post for the
summer. Your work this summer of these
blogs has been both impressive and insightful.
Thank you and we look forward to a GREAT year together!
While watching the Olympics over the
past week, I've been impressed by the number of foreign heads of state I've
spotted during coverage of the games. That led me to think about the
intersection of sport and politics. While doing some research, I stumbled upon
the Olympic Truce. Every two years, during the Olympic Games, the United
Nations adopts a resolution calling for a cease fire around the world during the
Olympic Games. Leading up to the Athens Games, UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan
had this to say about the Truce, "It gives parties in violent conflict a
reason to pause, to provide relief to suffering populations, to reflect on the
misery of war, and to open dialogue."
What do you think is the appropriate relationship between sport and politics? Why does that relationship exist? What is different about Olympic sports that change this relationship? As always, there is no right or wrong answer. I'm looking for your thoughts and unique insights! See you on Monday!
What do you think is the appropriate relationship between sport and politics? Why does that relationship exist? What is different about Olympic sports that change this relationship? As always, there is no right or wrong answer. I'm looking for your thoughts and unique insights! See you on Monday!
Basically, sports is just a replication of war, though the spoils gained are not land or resources, but are instead pride and gloating rights. Soldiers and guns are replaced with athletes and balls. The objective: be the person who can collect the most medals, so that you have something to be giddy about. The truce of the Olympic Games is basically a shifting of the battlefields, from the militarized zones to the pitch and field. The Olympics, though, change it from a competition between super powers (though it still may seem that way, the playing field is a little more open) to a competition between all the nations, on an equal playing field, dominated by the individual.
ReplyDeleteThese games, which attract political leaders who are fans, also create opportunities for light-hearted talks amongst the politico elite. This can result in either positive or negative consequences. As the article at the end of this paragraph dictates, Mitt Romney basically started off on the wrong foot with the foreign governments, especially Britain. He insulted Britain's capabilities to handle the security of the Olympic games, and now Britain despises him, asking who invited him to their games. http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/topoftheticket/la-na-tt-romneys-straight-talk-20120731,0,6092373.story
Upon reflection, it might be an idea to replace war altogether with these games, as they are a much safer, and much more respectable way of achieving a victory over another nation. Instead of it being a competition to see who has the biggest, most technologically advanced, and best trained army, it would be a competition of individual skill and gifted talent without the loss of life.
It could also become a competition of superior minds to see who could create the best performance enhancers therefor the richest and smartest countries would still survive via survival of the fittest... Think about it.
DeleteWar is fought with guns and strategy. This makes it a much more even ground. Small nations with big weapons can blow up much larger forces, but asking them to compete in sporting events is naive.
DeleteFirst of all, war isn't about "who has the biggest, most technologically advanced, and best trained army," it is about one country or group's hatred for another and wanting to literally wipe them from the face of the planet. It could also be about taking over land and capturing new resources. To say that two nations at war could play a sports game to resolve their differences is not even possible. I don't thinik Al Qaeda would agree to play some football with us to settle our differences. They want to exterminate us because they hate us and everything we stand for. I understand that sure, its a nice thought to think maybe there doesn't have to be war but there always will be war.
DeleteWell, of course, rules and regulations always exist, similar to Geneva conventions. Regulated by the UN or something like that.
DeleteOf course, this is all speculation upon a utopian ideal. It's a fun thought to entertain. Small nations can't always afford big weapons. I'm talking about adding the capabilities for Cameroonians to compete. BUuuuuuuuuut, again, utopian ideals and stuff.
And James, I believe I may have miscommunicated. I was talking specifically on the battlefield. In the competition itself. Not for the reasons.
The truce during the Olympics really provides a respect for warring nations. Warring Nations see that the people that they are fighting really are similar to them. They are people too, and enjoy sports and competition. It is a time that promotes friendly competition for people in all parts of the world.
ReplyDeleteThe Olympics however have never truly bought a solution to these problems. At numerous Games, most notably the Munich games in '72, there has still been some form of conflict. The ideals being fought over are not forgotten by either party. They offer a time for the public to focus on a more positive activity rather than death and destruction but the politics are not changed. Politicians will be politicians and athletes will be athletes. The public just shifts their focus from one to the other.
Public actually goes crossed, watching both at the same time. Athletes may provide entertainment as a distraction, but politics and dealing with foreign nations never truly leaves the lime light.
DeleteAllowing the athletes to compete without foreign motives and distractions is really just a display of respect to the athletes. We show respect to our own athletes by not boycotting Olympics like we did in 1980. That boycott was purely political (although it may have been masked for other motives). Distancing politics from the Olympics shows athletes that we are allowing them to compete for themselves and their own reasons as opposed to competing for a cause that is not their own.
DeleteIn my opinion, sports is just a healthy way to resolve a conflict. It involves no bloodshed and it does not destroy countries. In the case of the Olympic Games, athletes from just about every country come to compete against the best in the world. The relationship is also that sports can help to bring anything from small communities to large cultures of people together to compete in an athletic event. This relationship exists because sports is a way that conflicting people can just sit down and have fun together. That is what the purpose of the Olympics is: to bring the world together and have a great time. Yes, winning a medal for your country bring glory and fame, but really these athletes are here as ambassadors for their countries playing sports and associating with people all around the world. As a result of the Olympics, continents are brought together and friendships are made. Without the Olympics, I believe that the world would not be able to communicate as well.
ReplyDeleteTo the political standpoint, the Olympics are great. In time of struggle or recession, countries can look to the Olympics as a possible stress relief. Since the Olympics are a worldwide event, it is a good thing that the UN established the Olympic Truce so that all the countries can put down their weapons and possibly connect with their enemies through sports. Overall, the Olympics bring the world together and without them, the world would suffer. I say this because the games are a time of peace for all countries of all sizes. Whether you are from the United States or Uzbekistan, everyone connects through the Olympic Games both politically and through athletics
I agree that sports are the ultimate way to build better relationships among people of different backgrounds. It's definitely cool to see American athletes giving high fives to athletes from across the world. I just feel that it is important to remember that the Olympics are for the competitors, and no one else. We didn't train to get to London, they did. I feel that adding motives to these games is disrespectful. Unfortunately, that has been done in the past. I'm just happy that recently that hasn't been the case!
DeleteI do agree with you statement. The Olympics are solely for competition, but because of recent world problems, they have become a peacetime event to try to bring the world together to play sports.
DeleteThe Olympic Games provide a two week break. But, I believe that warring parties only accept this truce as a military tool. A chance for rearmament without worrying about hostile forces. An opportunity to resupply men and supplies. A chance to prep for two weeks straight without fear of an attack.
ReplyDeleteHowever, terrorist organizations such as al-Qaeda do not feel bound by such UN truces. They are not sovereign nations are war, but groups fighting for a belief. This break may be wonderful in theory, but I doubt its as wonderful as it seems.
I like your thinking. If two nations were at war and one had a major upper hand, do you think they would abide by the truce? What would stop them? I mean, they are already at war.
DeleteI also agree because a large sporting competition can't really end a war. Usually countries on bad terms may not be able to put aside their differences to compete together in the Olympics.
DeleteThat's been proven with countries boycotting Olympics and even the tensions between nations at the Games. The Games have never truly given any peace. And just as Alex stated terrorists do not abide by these laws, to them the Olympic Games are a possible target and I am largely surprised and impressed by the security provided and the actions of the UN and UN forces to keep these Games publicly uneventful in this category.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteSports and Politics really have nothing to do with each other. In my opinion, the Olympics do not change anything between countries. Country's relationships are not bolstered or lowered. After the Olympics are over, I guarantee Obama is still going to hate England and vice versa. Look at it as if the Olympics was the Super Bowl. Are the two states really going to become closer or hate each other more? No, nothing changes between them.
ReplyDeleteSports really does nothing to help war, but I think it's cool that nations stop fighting for The Olympics just like the Christmas Truce during WWI. Like Brett said, there is a psychological similarity between sports and war, but I think the big reason why something like The Olympics is cherished enough to cause a total truce is because sports and the like are so deeply ingrained in the lives of the people. I don't think the big question is about whether sport and war should go together like that: if science was as big as sports, the Mars landing would have the same truce effect. I think it's a big reminder that war is something terrible and people are eager to stop it, and will use the Olympics or something as an excuse to do it.
ReplyDeleteWar is a terrible thiing however it did bring the U.S. out of the great depression. i completely agree that war is bad but the cease fire does give a window of opportunity for political leaders of opposing forces to come together in a chance to communicate and perhaps come to an understanding looking at it optimistically of course. the cease fire really is just a chance to let the suffering people who are at war a break and a chance to enjoy life worry free to watch their favorite sport and watch their country with a sense of pride.
DeleteI looked at the schedule for blog dates, this was supposed to be an Economics post.
ReplyDeleteI do not understand why there should be any relationship between sports and politics. Sports are for athletes and competitors. Politics are for politicians. I can understand, however, why sporting events would be an effective political tool. They attract spectators and promote a sense of competitiveness. The Olympic games are no exception, as they are the most highly esteemed series of athletic competitions on earth. They include nearly every sport, and host athletic representatives from nearly every nation. This is what sets the Olympics apart from any other sporting event; as gold medals are not only earned for the athletes, but for the countries as well.
ReplyDeleteIn the past, the Olympics have been used as political tools. The 1936 Olympics games were used by Nazi Germany to promote German superiority during the dawn of war. Russia boycotted the 1984 Los Angeles Olympic Games in response to the American boycott of the 1980 Moscow Games. In recent years, however, I have noticed a distancing of politics from the games, and for good reason too. There is a certain degree of respect that must be given to our athletes. Setting aside political motives allows the athletes to showcase their own individual accomplishments. Athletes should be allowed to compete for themselves, rather than focusing on competing for a cause other than their own. I feel that recently, this has been displayed by the competing nations for the most part.
I like how you pointed out that medals arent just won for the athletes, but their entire country. It's truly a great thing to bring a country together in a time of war, something wonderful to celebrate.
DeleteI like how you used historical references to support your argument, and I too would like to add to your argument with the Munich massacre. Since the games are widely publicized, they had provided the perfect stage for a global terrorist attack, and that means politics. All these spectators would be watching to see the next move, and the terrorists get the publicity they want.
DeleteI don't see why there is a relationship between sports and politics. I do believe that the cease fire during the Olympics is a very effective tool in more way than one. I think we own our athletes a certain respect, especially in games that involve so many nations. Allowing them to compete without distraction and devastation of war is a great thing. The truce allows relief within nations and time of rest. It also can boost morale, bringing nations together to cheer on and celebrate athletes from there countries. It even allows interaction between nations leaders that may provide help to warring countries. I don't necessarily see the Olympics changing the act of war though, it may provide relief, but nations will still have conflict outside of the games and those conflicts will still be there no matter how many medals you bring home.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree and sdly enough there has been a terrorst attck during the olympics. But for the most part the cease fire is a great way to aid countires in need of helpthat are at war to give a time of peace
DeleteI agree Jessica, I think the athletes deserve a certain respect from all nations, however the conflisct can not be resolved over the course of two weeks.
DeleteEverybody should agree that there should be an Olympic truce because nations need to focus on supporting their athletes. The athletes only get to compete every four years on a giant scale and they need all of the support and protection they can get.
DeleteI think one intent of the Olympic Games is to create a more peaceful world by bringing nations together in a celebration of sports. The Olympics therefore really should be free of any political interventions. However, as evidenced by the past, the Olympics have always reflected the international turmoil of their times. This link below outlines some of "the most political Olympic Games of the past 100 years":
ReplyDeletehttp://politics.guardian.co.uk/politicspast/page/0,9067,892902,00.html
Of course, it would be ideal for sport and politics to be completely separated from one another. Sport is something we all enjoy and cherish despite our differences; politics, on the other hand, is much more complicated. But in reality, when so many countries are gathered in a single highly-publicized event, it just seems inevitable for the two to merge.
Yes, this is a good idea is theory and an even better idea if it were to be actually implemented. Nevertheless, a cease fire for the Olympic games would do wonders in helping other nations bond over what they love: sports. Many athletes gather at these games to compete and have fun doing it. There should be no need for conflicts to distract or bring them down when representing their country.
DeleteThat is actually one of the greatest ideas i've heard come out of politics. it is so simple yet so powerfeul. think about, how many countries are the exat same, politically, religiously, or culturaly. Sure some are similar but there is no common ground. However with the idea of a world wide ceasefire, the countries are able to connect on a peaceful common ground that is exciting for all to watch and brings pride to their country. It also does give a time to reflect and the world around. Tousounds of athletes come from all over the Earth to compete in a FRIENDLY environment. athketets will always argue and fight but most always it brings joy and morale to their country to have athletes in the olympics and be able to compete without the worry of attacks or war.
ReplyDeleteSports are the commonground that is the best way to state it. No country has the exact same political views. It will never happen. however the olympics withhold a sense of pride and within that peace. the cease fireis truly a great idea. not only becuase it gives a period of peace and rest but also gives the opportunity for the people who are in despair a light of hope.
To the richer countries it may just be games played y the best of the world on an LED 40'' flat scren but for others like third world contries people are able have a taste of peace and not need to woryy if they will survive the night. the cease fire even in a time of war is a great idea to give countries a chance to come together and reflect.
I do agree with you that its one of the creates ideas that've ever come out of politics. its true that since every country has different views in politics, religion, and culture, the Olympic Games would be a great place for a middle ground where everybody can enjoy the Games without any conflicts going on at the moment. Everyone can relate to sports, it brings joy not only to the players but also to the viewers.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe olympic games are where people from all across the globe can come together and peacefully compete for the love of swimming, gymnastics, etc. There shouldn't be worry over wars and such when they compete especially since all of us want our countries to be well represented in the Games. I don't think politics should be involved in something that the whole world is into. It would only cause more turmoil and conflict. Sports are very cherished in many hearts and has gathered the interests of many-- its inevitable that the powerful leaders would want in on the action. Therefore, politics and sports should be kept separate for the best interests of the people.
ReplyDeleteThe Olympics should be a time of peace and friendly competition between every nation. A cease-fire during the Olympic games is a relief for everybody. It allows countries to focus on their athletes and let them compete in tradition dating back centuries. Politics role in sports should be small but effective. Political leaders need to only focus on keeping athletes safe and out of harms way. That policy should be the limit on what political leaders can do during the Olympics.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your idea of limiting the influence of politicians during the Olympics, in order to keep the focus on the althletes competing, which is the tradition. If the focus can remain on the games and the athletes participating, then it will reduce the focus on politics and hopefully reduce ill feelings between countries at war.
DeleteI agree with you on how you said political leaders should focus on keeping athletes safe. The Olympics is a time for all these countries to come together and compete in a safe, friendly manner.
DeleteI don't think it really matters because as soon as the games are over the countries are just going to go back at eachother's throats, but it is nice for a little peace. It is kind of a repeat of the WWI example of the Christmas Day Truce in which the French and Germans played a game of soccer.
ReplyDeletePlus with the new technologies and special operations I can promise that not all espionage and fighting has stopped between countries. Especially when our enemy doesn't have any laws or regulations.
DeleteI completely agree with you that the truce is only temporary and after the Olympics are over the fighting continues with the treaty having little to no impact on the eventual end of the war. Also, i think that these days it is more of an idealistic idea that the fighting is stopped and it is more realistic that there are people still trying to fight; those who aren't physically fighting are probably using the time to regroup, rethink their strategy, and steel themselves for a longer period of fighting.
DeleteI don’t think there is a significant relationship between sports and politics. I think that the Olympic truce is a good idea, but I don’t think it’s just a battle shift. If wars were going on during the Olympics it would be distracting; and I think the truce is put in place so that people can focus on the Olympics and the athletes competing in them.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you and countries need to watch and support their nation's athletes. They only get to show off their talents every four years and the athletes need all of the support they can get. If politics are involved in sports, then it should be just about keeping the athletes safe and letting them compete to the best of their abilities.
DeleteAlthough the United Nations appears to be creating something sacred through a temporary peace, the consequence of this conditional pause is that it creates a resuming war to be inevitable. There is a sense of relief during the games, but sports (especially in a tournament of country vs. country) usually provoke a strong feeling of nationalism in the population. Generally, the individual is rooting for their country to succeed which coincides with wanting to defeat the opposing countries. Seemingly, sports are a way for everyone to “come together” but that is only with the condition that they will be against something else. This desire to acquire victory over others may consciously lead to more feuding on the battlefields. Competition and frustration from sports can translate over to current discrepancies between nations. The truce within the Olympic Games is a commendable attempt to start peace but only if countries work toward sustaining it.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with your idea that the nationalism provoked by sporting events such as the Olympic Games can very likely lead to increased tension and warfare between the competing nations after the truce has ended, the loss of one nation in the games will just add on to the reasons for warfare and will not solve anything. Like you said, the opposing nations must come together after the games and work out a truce once the United Nations' truce has ended, or the bitter relationship between the nations will not change.
DeleteI agree completely with your paradox of how the Olympic is supposed to bring everyone together but the countries are actually competing against each others in it.Competition has a similar concept as war. Although there is no bleedeshed or destruction of any kind, athletes are motivated to win medals for their own countries just like soldiers are fighting for their countries. This led me to think of the Cold War.The political tension between the U.S. and the Soviet Union was partly fueled by the space and nuclear race. It is likely for the bitterness of winning/losing in the Olympic Games to worsen the relationship between nations.
DeleteI agree with your views of the treaty- that it is a good temporary start but doesn't really help solve the issues in the long run. Also that the competition only adds on to the animosity that the warring countries harbor towards each other. I believe that while the theory is commendable- that they think it will help and make a safe place for the athletes to compete against each other- it is also naive to think that the countries have actually completely stopped fighting, that they aren't trying to gain intel or any advantage they can while they can't actually fire any weapons and once the cease fire has ended, they will hit the ground running with new strategies and refreshed forces.
DeleteI believe that sports and politics don’t really have any relationship and that they exist for different purposes, however sports can be a useful tool to lessen the violence and warfare that arises from political differences between countries, just as the Olympic Truce does. The period during the Olympic games is a time when the countries of the world come together to compete athletically, which diverts some of the political pressure and warfare by providing the countries with a way to compete for the best Olympic team, instead of competing on the battlefield. Regular sporting events are not the same, because they do not usual involve the participation of different countries, making the Olympic Games a great event that lessens warfare for the duration of the games. Even though the warfare will most likely not cease permanently after the games conclude, it still is a great opportunity for a short break in the warfare, which allows the countries involved, and for that matter the world to open their eyes and see the impact and destruction that warfare causes on the parties and innocent citizens of the nations involved. Although it is only a small duration, the Olympic Truce can possibly cause global changes in the future for the vision of peace amongst humanity, or at least that is the goal of the truce.
ReplyDeleteI do not believe that sports and politics have anything to do with each other. I do believe that the Olympic Truce is a great way for countries to reflect on warfare and lessen the rate of violence during this time. Everyone is relieved and I feel it creates an overall sense of peace (even if it is temporary) and shows true respect for the athletes representing their countries. The Olympics are a time for countries to put aside their political arguments and thoughts of war and come together for friendly competition. Hopefully this Olympic Truce is a building block for a peaceful relations amongst everyone.
ReplyDelete*for peaceful relations
DeleteI agree with everything you said! Especially that its a time to put disagreements aside and come together for something so much better,
DeleteI agree that sports and politics aren't related. The truce isn't implemented simply to be nice and give countries a break. It's there so that countries can focus on supporting their athletes and winning the gold, which is what every country wants. It's a friendly competition, but it's still a competition.
DeleteI believe sports and politics don’t have a significant relationship for changed circumstances or positive outcomes. Yes, the Olympics provide a moment of celebration and friendly competition but at the end of the day, if countries have chosen to go to war, a two week truce isn’t likely to reverse anyone’s opinion. In any extreme circumstance, such as those of war, opinions and relations cannot be changed in such a small time period. However, the Olympics provide a moment for officials to talk amongst themselves and see each other in an apolitical atmosphere which may lead to some changed opinions in neutral countries. Using sports as a political tool is a clever move, but it can only go so far. On a different note, the two week truce is a relief period for those in combat, but also provides warring nations to return with a bang. Sports and politics I believe are not able to merge enough for there to be very significant outcomes of that partnership.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that if countries have decided to go to war, they're unlikely to change their minds. It is important to understand that the Olympic truce wasn't created in hope of two warring countries to suddenly stop fighting after their two weeks in the Olympics together. It was meant to be a temporary break from war so people get to shift their focus to sports and relieve a bit.
DeleteEvery 2 years, the Olympics bring differing nationalities and cultures together in the spirit of honoring a tradition started in ancient times. For those 2 weeks, every athlete shares the same goal: to win the gold. The two week truce during the Olympic games is a great way for athletes and spectators to put aside their differences. However, that's not always the case. The games always bring extreme senses of nationalism to the most dedicated spectators and can make feelings of spite and discontent towards rival nations even stronger. The relationship between sports and politics isn't really a significant or useful because the Olympics most likely won't solve a problem that started a war. But one but the two week truce could potentially open the eyes of some warring countries to see that perhaps their destruction will far out way any benefits that could come from triumph.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with you Carlyn, the two week truce during the Olympics is not enough to stop a war, but is a great idea in itself.
DeleteI agree that although the two week truce is a good way to put aside differences, nationalism causes other problems. The Olympics are very patriotic, and even though it's considered a friendly competition, people still harbor bitterness over their losses. I still think the truce is a good idea and should continue, but it doesn't really have much of an impact on the way warring countries feel about each other.
DeleteI think that sports give the people of a country a way of coming together and being proud of their country in the Olympic games mostly without the violence that always accompanies when countries fight with each other. It gives nations a healthier way of fighting one another however I don't think there is a very large connection between sports and politics because while they may offer a common ground for people of different nations to come to, there is still some type of conflict. The Olympics also may offer a sort of peace where the members of warring nations can coexist for a while, but there is no real solution in it. They have a moment of temporary resolve, but that is over once the Olympics are over and they go back to war with each other. The cease fire is temporary, and because it is temporary, doesn't solve anything.
ReplyDeleteSport and politics have become inseparably entwined. From the volatile nationalism of international soccer to human rights controversies surrounding the Beijing Olympics, sport is both an important factor in political discourse and shaped by the wider political environment. This idea of the Olympic Truce is a brilliant idea. Anytime you can stop war is good. There is a sense of relief during the games, but sports usually, or always provoke a strong feeling of nationalism in the population. Competition is at a very high level, so things can get out of hand. But it's always nice athletes from other countries come together exchange gestures of gratitude with one another.
ReplyDeleteI must agree with you, as you've pointed out a few things that I see others are failing to mention (myself included). With international sports competitions, you always hear the commentators discussing the opposing countries of the homeland, which breeds intense feelings of nationalism, which leads to bristling at any other challenge from an opposing nation. It can boil down to a large ego-stroking contest, and the one who wins can gloat at all the others, which never really ends well.
Delete