Michael Phelps vs. Milorad Cavic; or, the Slimmest Victory in History

Patriotism runs rampant at Olympic time, and though I am generally not outwardly (nor inwardly, for that matter) patriotic, I am addicted to watching the Olympics on tv. As much as I am enjoying it, I feel compelled to discuss my thoughts about the current Games here on my blog.

First, I'm amazed by how NBC is blatantly glossing over the smog problem in Beijing. My mother told me that a few weeks before the Olympics aired, she heard/saw a story on tv that explained how the Olympic committee was forcing the Chinese farmers to give up their rice crops so that there would be enough water for the Games. Understandably, she was outraged, and I share this view. It still amazes me that first world countries -- or, in this case, the West -- colonializes the East so directly and without mercy. Related to this, NBC is promoting Chinese-American unity; many ads for Coke, Budweiser, and Visa depict images of Chinese and American athletes sharing Coke, winning gold in events, or partying at one of Beijing's many clubs with Bud beer. Now, I probably don't have to say how problematic this is, because even though China has embraced Coke, and probably Budweiser as well, this treatment does nothing more than continue to promote the West's takeover of the East.

In addition, the Olympics bring many discussions of unity and world-wide harmony. By watching the games, we're seeing the world through rose-colored glasses, because our minds are taken off of the War in Iraq, conflicts in Georgia/Russia, and even the gas price fiasco. Instead, we're watching as Michael Phelps beats Serb swimmer Milorad Cavic by one one-hundredth of a second to win his 7th gold medal, which then led to his 8th. We're watching the Chinese gymastics and diving teams slaughter the competition, and the women's beach volleyball team remain undefeated. For me, all this is a welcome break from the tragedy and annoying political ads, but at the same time I have to wonder: How much harm is this doing?

I ask this question because I am about to begin a new semester of teaching English 101, and one of the major goals of the course will be engagement in social and political issues. That is, I want my students to be able to think critically about everything, not just texts. I want them to be able to understand how discourses and ideologies work, so that when the next election comes up, or when a problem arises, they can ultimately make the right decision. So this coverage of the Olympics is making me a tad uneasy, because most viewers out there probably haven't read Said, Bhabha, or Hardt and Negri. Nor are they my mom, who, despite not having read any theory, is one of the toughest and smartest critics I know.

To promote unity among the countries is problematic at best; while an admirable goal, and a pillar of these Olympic games, how much unity is there really? And why not just cover the games without the extraneous "packaging"? (I can hear people say, but, Sarah, that's what happens in capitalism"). Have we become so obsessed with materialism and consumer culture that we need to package the Olympic games, too?

Another thought about "unity" NBC's unerring coverage of rivalries and displays of "good sportsmanship." On the one hand, discussing rivalries does little if anything to promote unity; rather, it creates rifts and forces the American viewers to take sides. Furthermore, discussing rivalries continues the trend of simplification: glossing over the "real" issues in favor of ones that "sell" more stories. That is, we all expect there to be rivalries among sports teams or players, and reinforcing our expectations only solidifies the problematic obsession of team sports. Sure, rivalries do exist, but why can't we focus on the "game" or event? And presenting moments of "good sportsmanship" does mend these broken ties somewhat; one could say that it is an attempt to bring teams and athletes together. But in so doing, they gloss over the real meaning --- assuming reality exists -- and significance of the Olympic games: the best athletes in the world showing off their amazing prowess.

Example: Lolo Jones' "disappointment" in the 100m hurdles, or the other American women's runner who came in third in the 400m. Instead of playing up these women's feats and accomplishments, even the runners themselves had been sold on the importance of winning this race! The opening ceremonies of the Olympic games promotes pride and honor for the athletes' countries, and openly declares that they're all "winners" by making it this far. So what happened?!? Where did that go? I mean, I know these athletes have worked so hard to get where they are going, so it makes sense to want to be the best. But, at the same time, why subject them all to the guilt of reliving a two-second interval where they fell off the balance beam, took a step on the landing, or smacked a hurdle? What good does that do anyone?

Perhaps my qualms are related to my fear that visual media is getting all the more manipulative, since we're getting all the more inoculated against it. Perhaps all this is just because I'm an academic, and spend countless hours noticing crap like this, when I'm supposed to be enjoying it like everybody else. Although, I wonder, are they? And how will these games affect China in the future?

Too many big questions.