"Think Again: The Olympics" Reaction Board, Write your own…
"Think Again: The Olympics" Reaction Board
"The Olympics aren't political."
I agree with the author's argument on this statement, which is that the Olympics are political. As the article states, the Olympics has been at the center of political controversy from the 1936 Berlin Olympics to the 1968 Mexico City Olympics to the 1980 Moscow Olympics to the 1988 Seoul Olympics. The authoritarians have used the Games as political means to reinforce their authority. (KS - G11)
The International Olympic Committee awarded Seoul the 1988 Olympics in 1987, a year after the Kwangju Uprising Movement, showing that the IOC has not totally excluded politics from the Olympics (IC).
The Olympics are political and has always been political. The IOC, whenever a nation struggled with human rights, rewarded it the Olympics. In addition, the Olympics itself was made to promote world peace, which is impossible without political involvement. - RY
The award of 1988 Olympics to Seoul after the Kwangju Uprising Movement indicates that the olympics aren't political (Charles)
No, the Olympics are political. Traditionally, the Olympic games are a part of the games because the main goal of the IOC is to build a peaceful and better world through the Olympic games, which means that many athletes from other countries are participating in the games for world peace that can be related to political areas. In addition, a lot of athletes or authorities use the Olympic games as a way to express their opinions or protests against the government of their or another country like Beijing 2022 Olympics. - JH
No, they are. Although the games may not have purported to become like this at first, the games have evolved to become political as it is a regular opportunity where officials from many powerful countries meet. As a result, it's only natural that those individuals engage in political activity in relation to the games. - Sean
The Olympics aims to protect the spirit of the Olympics and to gather and enjoy sports, and is not involved in politics. But I can't believe it. IOC is bent on holding bigger competitions, so it is often politically acceptable to the host countries. (Anah)
The Olympics are political. The Olympics seemes to be sports competition, however it is also a chance for governments to meet each other and discuss about current issues that happens. In Beijing Olympics, due to diplomatic boycott there were many issues as well.
No, the Olympics are political. They have a hidden purpose of showing off their power to the world through the Olympics.
No, these days, the Olympics are used in a political manner. Many countries represent their political status through the Olympics, like those ones in 2022 Bejing Olympic.
"The Olympics promote human rights."
Rather, the International Olympic Committee hoped that awarding the games to China in 2001 would draw attention to the games because of the country's human rights violations (IC).
The Olympics do indeed promote human rights by bringing awareness to protests in the hosting nation. - RY
Although Olympics are not for politic organization, they tend to advance the human rights and help countries out(Charles)
The Olympics doesn't necessarily promote Human Rights. Although it is its fundamental principle, the IOC has shown indifferent reactions towards the human rights issues with the hosting countries. Even with the contemporary issue of the Uyghurs genocide in China, the IOC has responded critically to the countries' diplomatic boycott in protest of this issue. (KS - G11)
No. The Olympic games are a commercial event that focuses not on protecting human rights, but in successfully hosting sports matches. The history of the games show this; even when the hosting countries were blatantly violating human rights, they encouraged countries to participate. - Sean
No, the Olympics do not promote human rights. Instead they worsen the human rights issues that is going in the world. For instance, the IOC ignored asks from groups of the Uyghurs to stop the Beijing 2022 Olympic games, insisting on their meaning less goal to "maintain peace in the world", which deeply enraged the groups of Uyghurs and other countries. - JH
No, the Olympics do not promote human rights. Rather, the IOC is taking a complacent attitude of ignoring the human rights issues of the host country and accepting them. (Anah)
The Olympics doesn’t promote human rights. I believe the Olympics are more focusing on the events not on athletes’ rights and human. (CY)
The Olympics are more interested in finishing the Olympics safely, let alone promoting human rights.
I think the Olympics do not promote human rights because they are currently hosting and have a history of hosting the games in countries that violate human rights. - Lucas
"The Olympics are a catalyst for change."
The Olympics catalyze aesthetic change, shown by the forced relocation of traditional dog soup restaurants into back alleyways during the 1988 Seoul Olympics (IC).
The Olympics do bring change, but they bring positive changes, such as human rights. - RY
Yes, Olympics are a catalyst for change. The Olympic, for example, relocated the traditional dog soup to the back alley when the1988 Soouel Olympics was hold. (Charles)
I agree with the author's argument on this statement. The IOC has shown to have not enough power to influence the authoritarian government, but rather be manipulative by the government of the hosting countries. (KS - G11)
The Olympics appear to be as a catalyst for change. However, the article puts it right when it says that the IOC equates ideals with "Pomps and circumstance." The changes that occur are only the surface ones, the aesthetic kind, which does not lead to real changes. In other words, these efforts are simply masks to hide deplorable practices, not real changes. - Sean
The Olympics are not a catalyst for change because when the games were opening in Berlin 1936, the Nazis regime promsied to repeal the anti-Semitic laws due to the demands from the IOC. However, their inhumane treatment toward the Jewish people did not stop, which shows us that the Olympic games cannot catalyze any changes. - JH
Olympics are a catalyst for change. Due to Olympics it may bring positive or negative influence to the hosting country. Moreover, it may cause relocation. (CY)
The Olympics are catalyst for change. This is because some countries have made a big difference in the national economy due to the hosting of the Olympics.
The Olympics seem to be catalyst for change on the outside, but if you look deeper, I don't think so. The Nazis, for example, seemed to obey the IOC's demands on the surface, but in reality, they did not stop persecuting Jews.
The Olympics have the potential to create change, but they don't really use that potential. They are more focused on generating a broad audience and thereby making money. I say they have potential because their reach and popularity is second to none. - Lucas
"The Olympics are a moneymaker."
Major sponsors, which are popular brands, make a profit; they invest a large sum of money in return for access to a a large audience of television viewers and hundreds of millions of Chinese consumers (IC).
The IOC is not a "moneymaker", for it necessitates money to run the business. - RY
Yes, Olympics are definitely a money makes considering all the factors like the TV commercials, sports brand, and etc. (Charles)
It may be true that the citizens don't immediately get returns for their expenditure in establishing the Olympics. However, when you look at the long-term effects, the Olympics leads to the economic and political advancement of your country, which in turn would improve your life. (KS - G11)
Companies do make a lot of money through the Olympics, but I head the government uses a lot of money for its preparation. (EP - G11)
The Olympics are indeed a moneymaker, but not for the hosting countries. Instead, the IOC earns masses of revenue by selling sponsorships and rights to broadcast the games while the actual "investments" to host the games are made by the countries. - Sean
Yes, the Olympics are a moneymaker. At first, the games were mainly to play sports competition with countries; however, today, many athletes and players are participating in the Olympic games mainly for their countries' economic profits. - JH
IOC earns a lot of money through sponsoring and the authority to broadcast the contents of the Olympics through the Olympics. DY
I agree with the statement. Even though the purpose of this event was to compete with different athletes from different nation, soon it turned out to be event that bring money to the countries.
In the past, the Olympics used to be a festival where countries gathered together, but now I think it has become a marketing strategy for the host countries. Perhaps, I think that many foreigners will be able to gather in the host country and generate sales accordingly, and this is true in reality. Now, many companies are investing to make a connection between the Olympics and their companies. (Anah)
Yes, I think the Olympics are a money maker. The IOC get sponsorships and donations that aren't even used for the games. A lot of that money intended to support the games are instead exploited for personal benefit. - Lucas
"The IOC (International Olympic Committee) is corrupt."
The Olympics promote a type of morally corrupt universalism in which all countries are required to participate in the games regardless of how cruel their leaders are (IC).
The IOC is corrupt and clearly has been corrupt since its foundation. However, there are always "cheaters" in a system; it is inevitable. The IOC's effort to minimize corruption must not be overlooked. - RY
The IOC is corrupted, however, as time went on, the IOC has lessoned the amount of bribes(Charles)
This statement could be further proved by the contemporary issue with the ongoing Beijing Games, in which referees make bad calls intentionally for the benefit of Chinese players. (KS - G11)
Undeniably. The IOC has a history for being corrupt, including its endless bribery scandals and the "authoritarian style" of Juan Antonio Samaranch. - Sean
The IOC is corrupt and this statement can be supported by historical period when Juan Antonio Samaranch brought about bribery scandals with the IOC and kept hiring unsavory people to work. - JH
Evidently. They have a rather unclean history, and I don't like how they're currently letting a communist state like China that also violates human rights host the Olympics. I have my suspicions that something is up. (Lucas)
The IOC is corrupted due to many issues and scandals related to Olympics. Issues related to bribery is the most common. I believe IOC should be justice. (CY)
Yes. The history of the games is littered with corruption and bribery by host countries. DY
I think The IOC is more corrupt than we think. Corrupt members were selected, eliminate the opportunity to curb bribery and doping. Among them, bribery is considered a serious problem. (Anah)
"The Olympics are a glorious tradition."
It is not a glorious tradition, but a mere hoax that rewards the IOC's governing class with temporary luxury and notoriety. (IC)
The Olympics are a "glorious activity", which still brings many benefits to society and therefore is not only a "glorious tradition". - RY
The Olympics are not a glorious tradition, but it is more of a play to the IOC governing class (Charles)
It may be true that the IOC is not actively promoting human rights and peace; however, just by the fact that the athletes from all over the globe who speak different languages and have different cultures could compete and laugh and cry together is enough for the Olympics to be a glorious tradition. (KS - G11)
At least the original intention of the Olympics was. (EP - G11)
No. Its persisting history of corruption and focus on moneymaking instead of promoting human rights, as it portrays itself, shows that the games cannot be a glorious tradition. - Sean
No, the Olympic games cannot be a glorious tradition when we go over their infamous events, such as moral corruption, moneymaking, and their meaningless focus on building peace among countries. - JH
The Olympics have a long history and tradition, and it should be an honor for athletes representing each country to show off their skills in front of people around the world, but many corruption and biased judgments have now lost a lot of their prestige. DY
Olympics are not glorious tradition. It can be seen to have long history and looks like glorious tradition, but the reality is that behind the Olympics, it is just an event that brings benefit to the governments and IOC.
No matter how corrupt the IOC is and how generous they are to the host country, I admit that the Olympics are a festival that entertains billions of people. However, I think it is highly likely to be a festival for IOC's ruling elites. (Anah)
Yes, I do think that the Olympics are a glorious tradition. They have been around for so long, and until recently their fundamental rules and the values they promote haven't changed much. Also, the Olympics were always a symbol for unity through unadulterated friendly sports. - Lucas
Write your own opinions and reactions. Don't just paraphrase the article.