Quantcast

Dave Zirin | The Nation

  •  
Dave Zirin

Dave Zirin

Where sports and politics collide.

Is the US Olympic System as Abusive as China's?

The spectacle of the 2012 London Olympics should be subtitled “The Bashing of the Chinese Athlete.” Yesterday, Andrew Jacobs of the New York Times published a much-discussed piece called “Heavy Burden on Athletes Takes Joy Away From China’s Olympic Success.” In it, all kinds of “concerns” are raised about the toll “the nation’s draconian sports system” is taking on the country’s athletes. It tells tales of poverty, loneliness and despair amongst China’s sports stars once the cheering has stopped. Their athletes are described as being exploited by an unfeeling government monolith that acted as a surrogate family until they were no longer of any use. Parents of China’s Olympians are quoted saying, “We accepted a long time ago that she doesn’t belong to us. I don’t even dare think about things like enjoying family happiness.” Other parents tell of not being able to recognize their own children after years apart.

The other dominant story about China are the continuing unfounded allegations that 16-year-old Chinese swimmer Ye Shiwen took performance-enhancing drugs to win gold. Executive Director of the American Swim Coaches Association John Leonard called Shiwen’s world-record 400-meter individual medley swim “disturbing.” He is also continuing to describe her closing freestyle leg of 58.68 seconds as “impossible.”

There have been a series of ugly articles about Shiwen, none uglier perhaps than a piece by UK’s Daily Mail’s David Jones titled “Forging of the Mandarin Mermaid: How Chinese children are taken away from their home and brutalized into future Olympians.” Not “trained” but “brutalized.”

John Carlos’s Advice to Olympic Boxer Damien Hooper

Dr. John Carlos is best known as the man who, along with Tommie Smith, raised his fist from the medal stand at the 1968 Olympics. The bronze medalist is also someone who had a decades-long friendship with the Australian silver medalist on that 1968 platform, Peter Norman. I wanted to get his feedback on this year’s Australian athlete who has courted controversy, boxer Damien Hooper. He as always, delivered his views straight, with no chaser.

DZ: Damien Hooper, an Australian boxer of aboriginal descent, wore a flag on his shirt that celebrated his indigenous Australian heritage and was threatened with expulsion from the games. What are your thoughts about Mr. Hooper?

JC: Here’s a young man who puts a shirt on to acknowledge his ethnicity, the forgotten people of Australia, and it appears the Olympic Committee might want to continue for them to be forgotten. He chose to stand up and say, “Not only do I represent the people of Australia but I represent the aboriginal people specifically.” I feel that he feels that his people never really got the respect that they deserve, and never really been given credit as the founding fathers of their nation.

Oscar Pistorius and 'the Dignity of Risk'


South Africa’s Oscar Pistorius competes in the 400-meter semifinals heat, Sunday, August 5, 2012. (AP Photo/Matt Slocum)

Call these Olympics “a tale of two Blade Runners.” Blade Runner was of course the classic 1982 Ridley Scott film about a dystopic future in the Los Angeles of 2019. Twenty twelve Olympic London is giving Mr. Scott’s vision a run for it’s money. Away from the high-def cameras and soft panning shots of Big Ben at dusk is a city that’s making Blade Runner look quaint. Not even the fevered minds of Scott and author Philip K. Dick imagined surveillance drones, gunships and surface-to-air missiles in residential neighborhoods.

The Power of Gabby Douglas


 (AP Photo/Jae C. Hong)

There are two kinds of political athletes. The first, and most memorable, are athletes who engage in the explicit politics of protest. This tradition is marked by Muhammad Ali saying, “I ain’t got no quarrel with them Vietcong.” It’s Billie Jean King marching for Title IX. It’s Curt Flood saying he refused to be a “well paid slave.” It’s John Carlos and Tommie Smith raising their fists in the name of civil and human rights. But then there is a different kind of athletic politics: the politics of representation. That’s Jackie Robinson the moment he took the field to break baseball’s color line. That’s Martina Navratilova, all ropey muscles, forcing the world to confront a more powerful kind of woman athlete. That’s Compton’s Serena and Venus Williams dominating their country club sport.

Damien Hooper: The Sanctioning of an Anti-Racist Olympic Rebel

At every event where the fist-raising, 1968 Olympic protester John Carlos speaks, he always remembers with respect the silver medalist on that platform, the great Australian sprinter Peter Norman. On that fateful day, Norman wore a patch in solidarity with gold medal winner Tommie Smith and Carlos, and he paid a terrible price upon returning home. Even though Norman was white, or maybe because Norman was white, he became a pariah for daring to stand up for human rights. As Carlos says, “Never forget that there was a time that Australia was as bad as South Africa in terms of its racial policies.” He’s right. At the time there were laws explicitly aimed to dehumanize the indigenous Australian—often referred to as the aboriginal—population.

Today, it’s still the third rail of Australian politics to claim pride and solidarity with the nation’s indigenous people. Damien Hooper is finding this out the hard way. Hooper is an Olympic boxer making major waves both in and out of the ring. The light heavyweight is now a threat to win gold after dispatching highly touted US boxer Marcus Browne. He’s also a threat to be sent home by the Australian Olympic Committee. Before fighting Browne, the 20-year-old’s ring attire included a black T-shirt emblazoned with the Aboriginal Flag. Hooper, who is of indigenous ancestry, knew that he was breaking the Olympics “no politics” rule, which states that you can represent only your country or approved corporate sponsors. (Worth noting that these corporate sponsors include politically neutral entities like Dow Chemical, British Petroleum and McDonalds.)

After the bout, Hooper had no regrets saying, “What do you reckon? I’m Aboriginal. I’m representing my culture, not only my country but all my people as well. That’s what I wanted to do and I’m happy I did it. I was just thinking about my family and that’s what really matters to me. Look what it just did—it just made my whole performance a lot better with that whole support behind me. I’m not saying that at all that I don’t care (about a possible sanction), I’m just saying that I’m very proud of what I did.”

Danny Boyle's Olympic Minstrel Show


Image courtesy Flickr user shimelle

In the category of “debates I never thought I’d be having” comes a rager about whether or not the Danny Boyle–directed opening ceremonies of the 2012 London Olympics constituted some sort of left-wing creative masterpiece: Fantasia as directed by Ken Loach.

The 'Wazzock' Mitt Romney Is Wrong About the London Olympics, and This Is Unfortunate

So much for that shared “Anglo Saxon heritage.” Mitt Romney is getting roasted across the British press and political establishment for arriving on the shores of the United Kingdom armed with a critique of London’s capacity to host the 2012 Olympic Games. In a moment displaying a political ear made of the finest tin, Romney told NBC’s Brian Williams, “It’s hard to know just how well it will turn out. There are a few things that were disconcerting: the stories about the private security firm not having enough people, supposed strike of the immigration and customs officials, that obviously is not something which is encouraging.”

Now newspapers and politicians from across the political spectrum are making Mitt Romney look less presidential and more like a well-coiffed punching bag. The last time an American has been beaten so badly by Brits, Bob Fitzsimmons was knocking the stuffing out of Jack Dempsey.

Of all the insults he endured in the press, none is quite as memorable as the Daily Mail headline, “’Devoid of charm, offensive and a ‘wazzock’: Romney’s disastrous day in London after saying he didn’t know if Olympics would be a success.” (A “wazzock” is “an idiot” or a “daft person” in Brit-speak.)

Fists of Freedom: An Olympic Story Not Taught in School

Nation readers —Over the next several weeks, I’ll be writing about the 2012 London Olympics. I’m going to try to write about the stories not just on the field but off: the Counter Olympics demonstrators, the workers behind the scenes, the athletes with personal stories that speak less to their desire for athletic success than a desire for human rights. It seemed fitting to start by looking back at perhaps the most political, controversial, inspiring moment in Olympics, if not sports, history: the medal stand black gloved salute of 200 meter runners Tommie Smith and John Carlos. I origincally wrote this article for GOOD magazine online (July 23, 2012) as part of the Zinn Education Project series called “If We Knew Our History.”

* * *

It has been almost 44 years since Tommie Smith and John Carlos took the medal stand following the 200-meter dash at the 1968 Olympics in Mexico City and created what must be considered the most enduring, riveting image in the history of either sports or protest. But while the image has stood the test of time, the struggle that led to that moment has been cast aside. When mentioned at all in U.S. history textbooks, the famous photo appears with almost no context. For example, Pearson/Prentice Hall’s United States History places the photo opposite a short three-paragraph section, “Young Leaders Call for Black Power.” The photo’s caption says simply that “…U.S. athletes Tommie Smith and John Carlos raised gloved fists in protest against discrimination.”

Why the NCAA's Sanctions on Penn State Are Just Dead Wrong

At 9 this morning, a crime took place masquerading as a farce. NCAA President Mark Emmert, a man who in 2010 called Joe Paterno “the definitive role model of what it means to be a college coach,” levied a series of unprecedented sanctions against the football program Paterno built, the Penn State Nittany Lions. Emmert determined that the entire program had to suffer because of the role the late Coach Paterno, along with other leading school officials, played in covering the tracks of serial pedophile Jerry Sandusky. That collective suffering will mean a $60 million fine, a four-year post-season ban and the vacating of all wins from 1998–2011. He said piously, “Programs and individuals must not overwhelm the values of higher education.” It’s not “the death penalty,” also known as the end of the football program, but it’s life without the possibility of parole.

Emmert sounds righteous. He’s also dead wrong. His decision will of course gut Penn State athletics. It will also create a siege mentality among PSU alumni causing a rush of donations that, I bet, will make up the difference in a week. It’s a farcical public relations move that distracts the public from actually holding to account those responsible for protecting Sandusky. Former FBI director Louis Freeh had said that the root of the problem was the “culture of reverence” for football. Penn State did more to confront this culture of reverence by taking down their statue of Joe Paterno on Sunday than Mark Emmert did today. If anything, Emmert strengthened that culture of reverence by choosing to grab the spotlight and bathe the NCAA in its saintly glow. But that’s not the only reason Mark Emmert’s decision should be opposed. That’s just the farce. We also have the crime.

Today marked a stomach-turning, precedent-setting and lawless turning point in the history of the NCAA. The punishment levied by Emmert was nothing less than an extra-legal, extrajudicial imposition into the affairs of a publicly funded campus. If allowed to stand, the repercussions will be felt far beyond Happy Valley.

Against Abolishing Football at Penn State

Spare me. Spare me the calls to abolish Penn State’s football program in the wake of findings by former FBI Chief Louis Freeh that Coach Joe Paterno and other men in power hid the crimes of child rapist/assistant football coach Jerry Sandusky. Spare me the NCAA’s ominous warning that they “will determine whether any additional action is necessary on its part at the appropriate time.” Spare me the self-righteous rage of sports writers who spent decades burnishing the Paterno legend and now rush to tear it all down.

The two most acute examples of this “Paterno revisionism” are ESPN’s Rick Reilly and the Washington Post’s Sally Jenkins. Reilly readily admits to being “an idiot”, “a stooge”, “a sap”, and “a fool” for praising Paterno over the course of decades. Jenkins, who is normally nobody’s fool, has set a land-speed record for media revisionism. After recording Paterno’s last interview, in an article widely criticized for being overly generous to the disgraced coach, Jenkins now says that she realizes she was conned and has seen the light. Jenkins writes that Paterno “wasn’t some aging granddad who was deceived, but a canny and unfeeling power broker who put protecting his reputation ahead of protecting children.”

I am all for exposing what was fraudulent about Joe Paterno. I am all for calling him out as someone who cared more about his football program than the welfare of endangered children, and have written these very words. I am also in full agreement with Louis Freeh that one of the greatest problems the Sandusky scandal has exposed is “the culture of reverence for the football program that is ingrained at all levels of the campus community.” Children were raped in the name of this monstrous “culture of reverence.”

Syndicate content