I've never seen anything like it. All the media coverage of the Sochi games, both leading up to them, and then the actual beginning, seems to be almost exclusively negative.
Frankly, you don't know what to believe.
Here is one paragraph from a recent article from the "Are Sochi Games a PR disaster for the Kremlin? Think again" by Mark Nuckols of SF Gate, February 6, 2014:
"The news coverage for the last year has been dominated by the alleged corruption surrounding the development of the Olympic site, Russia's new antigay legislation, and the threat of terrorist attacks originating from a volatile Caucasus. And now that athletes and journalists have begun to arrive at Sochi, the headlines are shabby hotel rooms, bad plumbing, stray dogs and serious questions about Russia's ability to manage such a large-scale sporting event."
Wow! Pretty damning, right?
But do you think that the headlines would be anywhere near as consistently negative as these ones for the Sochi Games if the Olympics were held in, say, the United States?
Well, the games were held in the States, as recently as 2002. Remember some of the news stories back then? There were pretty much confirmed reports of corruption that allowed the games to be in Salt Lake City to begin with. And why? It was not like the US had been deprived of the Olympic Games in recent years, or anything. The games had been in the United States four times in a span of just over two decades (Lake Placid in 1980, Los Angeles in 1984, Atlanta in 1996, and Salt Lake City in 2002). Yet, the United States won again in 2002.
The headlines here in the States were all about American athletes and how they were doing. There was a controversy over the use of the 9/11 flag, because that was deemed to be a political statement, and the Olympics are supposed to be free of outright politics like that.
"The head of the organising committee for the 2002 Winter Games in Salt Lake City quits after admitting payments were made to International Olympic Committee during the bidding process. Committee president Frank Joklik will step down when a replacement is found."
("Timeline: Olympics corruption scandal" published on BBC website, March 15, 1999: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/297030.stm "Salt Lake City bribery scandal: the buying of the Olympic games" by Martin McLaughlin, January 13, 1999: http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/1999/01/olym-j13.html)
It seems that, more than any other games, the coverage from the western media has been nearly exclusively negative, even though similar stories of corruption and problems tended to escape similar media scrutiny when western nations were the hosts. It's hard not to wonder why that should be the case.
Yes, I know that homosexuality remains illegal in Russia, and that it has received a tremendous amount of criticism, and justifiably, from that as well. Some people were even suggesting that Russia does not deserve the Olympic games as a result of that alone.
But would Russia get half as much publicity, particularly negative publicity, if it was not hosting the Olympics this year? Would the widespread condemnation of Russia's anti-homosexual stance have gained much traction at all? Would there be only a handful of people who would even have paid attention?
I know that Americans do not seem to like Putin. Maybe that's with good reason, too. He shows signs of being a dictator, on some levels. He seems to abuse his power. But he also seems to be a politician. No more, no less. As such, he is an opportunist, no more, no less. He really seems neither better, nor worse, than any other politician that I have seen. He takes what he can get, as much as he can get. He benefits from a wave of popularity (and to my understanding, he is popular) in Russia. Didn't Obama do pretty much the same thing here in America? Has he lived up to the hype? Or are you perhaps disappointed in his own record, and his unapologetic reliance on unparalleled surveillance? Does he strike you as truly a symbol of "hope" and "change", or does he remind you that we are still enduring more of the same? To me, he seems to resemble his predecessor far too much. But maybe that's just me.
The blitz of negative media attention with regards to the Sochi games reminds me quite a bit of the 2008 Beijing Games. A story that anyone who reads the "Charbor Chronicles' with any degree of regularity surely must be familiar with by now - when American athletes arrived in Beijing wearing masks to advertise their skepticism and fear of the quality of air in the city of Beijing, and perhaps in the country of China, which had then just overtaken the United States as the most polluting nation on Earth. But where were these protests shortly before, when the US still had the dubious distinction of being the most polluting nation on earth. For that matter, China's population is more than four times as great as the American population (at least it was then), which meant that, on average, Americans still polluted more than the Chinese - punching heavier than their weight in an area that you don't want to stand out like that with. It's this kind of blind hypocrisy that, far from endearing other people around the world to the US, has in fact allowed them to grow understandable leery of American political behaviors and beliefs. The only people who did not seem to grasp the blatant hypocrisy of this story were Americans themselves. The rest of the world saw it all too clearly for what it was.
Russia has it's problems. Nobody is arguing or denying that. But personally, I find more than just a small amount of hypocrisy and, yes, I'll say it, propaganda in all of these criticisms of the Sochi Games. People are making jokes about "Soviet Russia". Suddenly, we're right back to the Cold War, and Stalin's crimes have been suggestively hinted as relevant again. Maybe Putin is the new Stalin, according to the official line? It troubles me when that kind of thinking takes on a life of it's own, because it feels suspicious Particularly when it comes from self-righteous Americans, frankly. It hardly matters whether they domestically link themselves to the left or to the right.
One thing that disturbs me a bit about Americans is just how quickly and easily they get self-righteous about "others" outside of their borders, and how backwards or corrupt or sinister they can be. As an American, it brings me shame to see Americans, many of whom have hardly ever bothered to leave their own country to see other parts of the world, so brashly and decisively criticize many others in the rest of the world. My other nationality is French, and I remember well when bashing France was the flavor of the moment. Most of the rest of the world was opposed to the Iraq invasion, including Russia and China, and many other countries in Europe and the world. But Americans singled out the French, rather conveniently, as a symbol of everything that was wrong with the "sophisticated" and "snobby" Europeans, sitting self-righteously in the sidewalk cafes and conversing with their liberal educations about the evils of Americans. That was the perception, and so France became the target. Never mind that the validity of the reasons behind the invasion itself escaped such scrutiny.
But before France, it was other nationalities. During the Cold War, Russians were the big, bad evil figures in many movies and comic books and stories. Germans had their turn, as well. On occasion, Germans still make appearances as the bad guys, and not just in elation to either of the two world wars, either. So did the Japanese.
What is problematic with that is that the world is not merely to be viewed as a source of entertainment for Americans. Nationalities do not exist for people to stereotype them, and problems do not arise so that big-time movie producers can exploit them as nationalistic propaganda. Yet, far too many Americans subscribe to this, without even realizing it. The French are stereotyped as arrogant and obnoxious, rude and snobbish, and so this is branded as truth. Russians are stereotype as backwards and barbaric, and it is so. Germans are portrayed as militaristic and aggressive, and it must be so.
These are not the only stereotypes, either. The Polish are the target of jokes about their intelligence. My girlfriend is Polish, and I went to that country. It is a beautiful land, with some incredible history and culture. Copernicus came from there. So did John Paul II. And most Poles that I met were far from stupid. But there is a lingering sense here in America by professionals of the subject (most of whom have never set foot in Poland, of course), that these old stereotypes must have some truth to them, and so it becomes the truth. Same with the Irish and their anger and their weakness to the bottle. Same with Italians and their link to organized crime, and their general lack of class. Never mind that Italy has produced some of the most brilliant cultures, artists, food, and architecture in the world. Nope, what matters is what the stereotypes of them are. Mexicans are clearly stereotyped, and it is assumed that every Mexican would smuggle themselves into our sacred borders if they could, polluting our land and the purity of our English language and Anglo-Saxon values. The fact that we historically stole their territory is conveniently ignored. So is the fact that Texans wanted their independence from Mexico mostly because they had abolished slavery, while the United States still had it at the time of the Mexican-American War.
Of course, these days, the big stereotypes are of Muslims, who are seen automatically as extremists, and suspected as terrorists. When you see the press coverage that any terrorist attacks from Islamic extremists receives, and you compare that with the complete absence of coverage when a Muslim family is torn apart by American bombing in the region (over 100,000 Iraqis died during that last American invasion and subsequent occupation), you can better understand why this kind of convenient thinking persists.
So, now it is back to Russia. There is almost a throwback feel to these criticisms, as if many Americans are collectively suggesting, "See! We always knew not to trust them. They were never our allies."
And maybe that's true. After all, when we officially were allied with the Soviets/Russians, during World War II, they begged us to open up a western front for years. Vice-President (and soon to be President) Truman was quotes as saying that we should let the Germans and Russians "bleed each other white". They lost 20 million of their people in that war. They slowed, then stopped the seemingly unbeatable German military machine cold, then pushed them backwards, slowly, to their own borders. The Eastern Front was the most brutal war the world has ever seen. When it was clear that the Soviets were winning, and might get in position to overtake all of Europe, the western Allies finally opened up that western front. And Americans congratulate themselves for winning the war, and beating the Nazis. Years later, from a Soviet perspective, Americans placed their missiles in Turkey and Greece, just outside of Soviet borders. When they tried to respond in Cuba, a nuclear war almost ensued. Americans overwhelmingly elected one leader who constantly referred to the Soviet Union as the "evil empire". But the truth is, we might just have been as responsible, if not more so, for many of the tensions that existed.
The thing is this - Putin has never allied himself with the United States. He was never afraid to stand up against the US, or western Europe, for that matter. He makes no apologies for that, either. Whenever anyone does not bend over backwards to accommodate
Why are Americans so pissed off at him, particularly? Well, I think that last paragraph is part of the answer. The other is that he did something that usually, American leaders have done to others: he took some space in a prominent American newspaper to lecture Americans on their way of thinking. And, he made some very valid points, taking particular offense at the firmly held belief among far too many Americans (probably a majority, even a wide majority, I would assume) of American exceptionalism.
I certainly do not agree with much of what Putin says or does. But on this, he was absolutely right.
And I don't need to remind anyone just how angry that made many Americans - particularly the most vocal among them - conservative radio and television commentators. They absolutely blasted Obama for "allowing" Putin to upstage him like this. It marginalized America's prominent status in the world, and was a direct shot at "American exceptionalism", the doctrine by which their political philosophy lives or dies.
Fact of the matter is, Putin was well within his rights to write the essay, and reach out to the American people. Agree with him or not, or even hate him or not, perhaps it takes a foreign leader -a powerful and highly influential one at that - to tell Americans a harsh truth that they don't want to hear, and almost never get to hear, in fact: that belief in exceptionalism is dangerous, and we should not feel so entitled to it.
Again, Russia has problems. No doubt. But it is a country, like any other country. It might not be the paradise or utopia that some historical figures tried to make it, but nor is it particularly worse than any other nation, either. It is a nation trying to improve itself. Putin, as it's leader, is trying to do that. We in the west may disagree with the way that he goes about this, such as imprisoning members of a punk band for performing in what was deemed to be an offensive manner at a church. Yes, homosexuality is not legal in Russia, either. There are human rights concerns in the nation, and the American media, and the American people, are using Sochi to expose these, often with self-righteous indignation.
When Putin turns that around on America, however, it is a huge problem. When he used the whole Edward Snowden thing, and had Snowden in his country while refusing to simply hand him over to the United States, as many Americans simply expected him to, it was a hue problem, and riled up many people, and nationalist sentiments. But Putin was using that to underscore the imperfections of America's own human rights record, with Snowden's case, in particular, being about the revelations of unprecedented levels of surveillance. He was criticized, with some justification, for his record. But he can also criticize, with some justification, the human rights record of those pointing fingers at him. That is what he did then, and that is what he did when he opposed the American invasion of Iraq. Speaking of which, how can we remove Bush's attempts at trying to redefine torture, Abu Ghraib, or the opening of concentration camps, or the deaths of 100,000 Iraqis in a war that was fought under false pretenses and claims that were, at the very least, ridiculously exaggerated from the conversation? Enter the PATRIOT Act (and the proposed, but never passed, PATRIOT Act II, which went even further), and the reasons for criticism become quite apparent. Enter the American prison system into the equation, with the United States having more people imprisoned than any other nation in the world, and under horrible conditions both during their imprisonment, and once they leave, with a total lack of opportunity often left available for them) and you couple that with the surveillance that seems to have exploded in recent years, and there are very fertile grounds for criticism.
Take those things into consideration, and the hypocrisy behind the criticisms seems to be just part of a routine in American political behavior and, again, just one more piece of evidence in a considerable body that would show why so many people around the world do not fully trust Americans politically. Again, would there be such widespread denouncing of Russia's anti-gay laws if they were not hosting the Sochi games, even if the actions and policies were exactly the same? Come to your own conclusions, but for my part, I will guess not.
In the case of corruption, America (and other western nations, for that matter) seems to have plenty of it to deal with. Enough that they probably do not have to worry as much about Russian corruption to the extent that they seem to. When covering the Sochi games, it seems that western (and particularly American) journalists were completely preoccupied by this subject).
As for security concerns, well, we shall see. The Olympic games are hardly over, and maybe their will be attacks or incidents. But if so, they will not be the first. They happened in West Germany decades ago. More recently, there was the bombing at the Atlanta games, although many Americans seem to have either forgotten this, or conveniently chalk it up as some isolated incident. When it happens in other countries, there are huge security concerns. When it happens here, well, it was just some isolated incident. We see the forest, so to speak, when it happens in other countries, like Russia, recently. When it happens in the United States, we find out every detail about it, and know the unique circumstances that led to it, and so the assumption is that it will not, perhaps even cannot, be repeated.
Now, I am not one of those people that "hate America", as some might suggest. But I love it enough to criticize it when it deserves criticizing, much like trying to make a family member face up to something that is hurting the family. You do it out of love, not out of hate. And it pains me to see Americans so automatically comfortable with taking liberties at taking the rest of the world for granted. It is this behavior that has earned the name "the ugly American(s)", whenever there is loud, hypocritical, and ill-advised behavior towards people of other nations. And personally, I see more than a hint of that in the criticism of these Sochi games from the coverage of the press here.
The spirit of the Olympics is supposed to be something beautiful. Yet, it too often fails in that regard. Corruption (an again, I am certainly not denying that there was a lot of corruption in regards to Sochi, or that criticism are unwarranted) is a major issue. So is the avalanche of commercialism everywhere. And so, unfortunately, is what passes for patriotism that sometimes bears an uncanny resemblance to nationalistic xenophobia. We will be bombarded with the results of Americans, and overall, how the United States is faring in comparison to other nations. Some of this could be good-natured competitiveness. But when it becomes virtually the only voice, the only coverage of the Olympics, it feels to me to be part of the greater problem: that the lessons of togetherness that the Olympic spirit is supposed to remind us of is being lost.
Does Putin, and Russia overall, deserve criticism for these Olympic games, or for their situation domestically overall? Surely it does. Everyone can use constructive criticism, so long as it is, in fact, constructive criticism.
But I just don't get that sense with the coverage of the Sochi games. What it sounds like to me is similar to the Cold War days, when the Soviet Union was officially labeled the :"Evil Empire", and when America did everything to undermine it, and make it fall. It all reminds me of the joyous celebration of Americans when they "won the Cold War" after seeing the former Soviet Union on it's knees, an empire crumbling fast, and instability from this collapse spreading everywhere, from the former Soviet republics, to Afghanistan. While we were celebrating, nuclear weapons went unaccounted for, and the Taliban took over in Afghanistan, and set up terrorist training camps.
The American press, and the American people overall, seemed to want the Soviet Union to fall, come what may. It became a classic case of "careful what you wish for, because you just might get it."
Personally, I sense the same ugly spirit with the unselfconscious criticism of the games at Sochi, as well. Not constructive criticism of a nation or of it's people, but a jeering, unnecessary finger-pointing, and shots at how "backwards" that nation is. Perhaps, truth be told, it is a desire by Americans to want to see these games fail. To want to see others fail, especially if they dare to stand up to America.
And that is not at all in the Olympic spirit.
There were not nearly as many stories about what Russia, and particularly Sochi and that whole region, is like. The opportunity to learn a bit more about their culture and history was not capitalized nearly as quickly as were headlines grabbing stories of corruption, or dogs roaming the streets, or now, hotels that are not quite completed. Maybe those stories deserve some airtime, but they should not be the only stories that westerners, and particularly Americans, fixate upon.
So, yes, criticize the corruption involved with the Sochi games, and criticize the harsh anti-gay measures of Putin's Russia. Criticize his excessively strong hand, if you want. Just don't forget to do it at home, either. Don't be like those Olympic athletes who ignored excessive and outrageous pollution at home, but then publicly put on masks in Beijing. Don't simply resort to suggesting that these games are just one more indicator proving what many, if not most, Americans have long believed about Russians, and labeling Russians as backwards, or Russia as some kind of hopeless basket case undeserving of the Olympic games.
Let's try to take this opportunity to learn more about Russia, a country that, I think it's safe to say, most Americans, and westerners in general, do not know much about or understand. Sure, let's root for American athletes, but not wish the others well, or be entirely indifferent to the fact that other nations are represented there. Let's take these games and try to strive towards that higher Olympic spirit: the spirit that unites us, rather than those that divide us.
"Ridiculous Conditions in Sochi Olympic Village (45 pictures)" from memolition.com:
http://memolition.com/2014/02/06/ridiculous-conditions-in-sochi-olympic-village-32-pictures/
"Russians say authorities rounding up, poisoning stray dogs before Olympics" by Ivan Watson, CNN, February 5, 2014:
http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/05/world/europe/russia-sochi-stray-dogs/index.html
"A Shadow Over Sochi: Corruption and terrorism have tarnished Russia's moment" by Anya Schmemann of US News, February 7, 2014:
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2014/02/07/corruption-and-terrorism-overshadow-the-sochi-Olympics
"Like All Olympics, the Sochi Games Will Be Corrupt, Troubling … and Fabulous" by Amy Bass, February 6, 2014:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2014/02/06/the_sochi_olympic_games_will_be_corrupt_creepy_and_fabulous.html
"Winter Olympics 2014: Sochi Problems Now Have a Home on Twitter" By MICAH GRIMES, February 6, 2014:
http://abcnews.go.com/Sports/winter-olympics-2014-sochis-99-problems-twitter-handles/story?id=22394751
Here is an article that asks if these games could be the "Worst Olympics Ever?", and that still two days before the games actually start. Huh. "5 Reasons the Sochi Winter Olympics Could Be a Disaster" by Talal Al-Khatib of Discovery.com, February 5, 2014:
http://news.discovery.com/human/5-reasons-the-sochi-winter-olympics-could-be-a-disaster-140205.htm
No comments:
Post a Comment