I generally avoid the political here, but a recent Times article (what can I say, they're giving me a log of blog fuel lately) about the Olympic protests is too rich with irony and questionable reasoning.
The [Olympic] committee members who gathered at a hotel in central Beijing offered harsh words for demonstrators who used the relay to publicize issues ranging from Tibetan religious freedom to environmental concerns. Gunilla Lindberg, a vice president of the committee, likened some of the more aggressive protesters to terrorists and said they had emboldened committee members to keep the relay going.“We will never give into violence,” Ms. Lindberg said. “These are not the friendly demonstrators for a free Tibet, but professional demonstrators, the ones who show up at G-8 conferences to be seen and fight.”
Gotta love the choice of the word embolden there (on the reporter's part). Secondly, "We will never give into violence"--unless it's happening in China, and they don't even let any journalists into the region where it's happening, in which case we will essentially give in by ignoring it. Thirdly, "professional demonstrators." Who's paying them, the Big Tibet lobby? Fourthly, they "show up...to be seen and fight." How dare they! Okay, I need to stop now.
Denis Oswald, a committee member from Switzerland...added that those who disrupt the relay “do not respect the freedom of people who want to enjoy it.”
Whoa, way to turn it around on them Denis! Except that I think the point is that the protesters see the Olympics and the relay as implicitly condoning China's oppressive regime. The argument is about whether or not that is the case, not whether it's okay to protest anything that some might find enjoyable (the event wouldn't be happening if no one supported it). It is, maybe, a difficult question how exactly to treat undemocratic countries these days, but these people are hardly advancing the discourse.
Comments (3)
i dont see too many demonstrations in DC, but my favorite one - at least this year - was when i passed about 50 Peruvians marching in front of the White House holding signs to the effect of 'Peru loves George W. Bush'
i think one must ask whether some degree of racism underlies these olympic protesters - i mean, any surprise the protests happened in London, Paris, and SanFran with huge asian populations?. i think beijing is shaping up to be enough of a debacle (what with athlete hardly able to breath) that in effect these protests may be pre-empting the blow to china's image and perhaps making it a sympathetic figure. i mean, the people of china have been looking forward to this for so long!
April 16, 2008 6:08 AM
That is an interesting way to look at it. I think you're right that the protests are backfiring to some degree with public opinion, but that seems to me to have a lot to do with the positive image the Olympics have. People don't like to see the athletes getting hassled, at least that was the hardest part for me. But I don't know about the racism theory. It is curious that this cause is suddenly getting so much attention, but I think people can differentiate between the Chinese government and the Chinese people. There are huge protests most of the time when Bush goes abroad, but people are pretty understanding when dealing with individual Americans, even though we elected him at least once. But hey, you could be right, racism remains a powerful force.
April 16, 2008 10:51 PM
one of my colleagues remarked that the weekly friday morning protester will return to our building now that the weathers so nice - a buddhist monk who sits on the front lawn and beats a drum. heh, if *we* cant stir up more agitation than that, people must be especially apathetic these days (or, we're doing such a good job, me thinks the latter.)
April 17, 2008 9:32 PM