5000 Years of Olympics Civilization?

     This really doesn't have anything to do with my project of considering ancient Chinese thought in modern American life, but it is too funny not to mention.

    I've been following the struggle over the Olympic torch relay as closely as everyone else.  And I had to laugh out loud when I found this statement in a Reuters report today on events in San Francisco:

"In 5,000 years of Olympic history the Chinese can finally have one time hosting the Olympics. It means that China is becoming a world power," said Don Zheng, 41, a Chinese-American computer engineer who emigrated in 1988.

     In his excitement, Mr Zheng has confused his ancient histories.  The Olympics is not 5000 years old.  The first ancient games were said to have occurred in 776 BCE, not even 3000 years ago. Of course what he is thinking of are the claims that "Chinese civilization" dates back 5000 years, which is a problematic assertion, to say the least.  For those interested in how problematic, I blogged on the issue last year, here (the comments are especially helpful, too). 

     Ultimately, it's all about nationalism - the nationalism of the Olympic games themselves, and the nationalism the distorts complex historical questions.  Personally, I think the Games should be de-nationalized.  To start, I would suggest that no national anthems be played when medals are awarded and that no flags should be used during opening and closing ceremonies.  Let China have its games, but from now on, a permanent location should be established, perhaps in Greece, so that the quadrennial sporting competition can be removed from nationalist aspirations altogether.

Comments

[Alexus McLeod]

I agree--the competition should be held at a permanent location. Unfortunately, it's probably not likely to happen, because the interest and thus money generated by the nationalism stirred up when this event takes place makes the IOC happy. There probably wouldn't be very many people with the enthusiasm Zheng xiansheng seems to have for the games without this element.

[Justsomeguy]

Growing up, I was always taught that the Olymics was a time when nations put aside their differences and competed in a sports arena. Even nations that were at war! I think this is a fine ideal to aspire to. I don't see anything wrong with having a non-violent nationalist outlet. The problem is that there are too few of these sorts of things which, IMHO, leads to more wanton sabre-ratting.

[Sam]

Guy,
Yeah, but the 20th century has witnessed a powerful politicization of the Olympics - the struggle for the prestige and status of hosting the games, the whole Nazi thing, the Munich tragedy, the boycotts, etc. During the Cold War it was all about nationalism. I will even go so far as to criticize that most glorious moment of US Olympic victory: the 1980 hockey gold medal. It was a great game (I watched it on TV as it happened), but it is always embedded in a "we beat the Russians (i.e. Communists)" narrative. The sports of the Olympics are invariably used for nationalist purposes, and that, I believe, tends to drive people further a part than it brings them together. I am, as is likely obvious, a fairly settled anti-nationalist.

[Shane]

Personally, I think the Planet should be de-nationalized.

[Justsomeguy]

Oh, I agree it has been powerfully politicized. Heck, I imagine there has always been a political element to it (though in Greece, the medal went to the athlete, not his nation-state and I recognize the distinction). I just don't think that offering a ritualized outlet for nationalism is a bad thing. Humans are very good at dividing people into "us" and "them". No reason to not offer a safe outlet for that sort of thing.

[Bill]

Even China itself has only 3000 years of history, starting with Huangdi, and it is exaggerated to 5000. This is math with Chinese characteristics.

[Bill]

Olympic Games was used by Greeks to settle war. There is no less political event than the original Games. The modern games has always been political. Just see what China did in 1980, and their promise of improving human rights and the environment when bidding for the games, and the involvement by Chinese Foreign Ministry in all Olympic events. The head of the Beijing Games is a politician, and is getting that job because he is a politician.

Let the political game begin!!!

[Billsupporter]

"Even China itself has only 3000 years of history, starting with Huangdi, and it is exaggerated to 5000. This is math with Chinese characteristics."

"John Chinaman--What Shall We do with Him?"( if we cann't teach them how to count!)

[Sam]

Just to be clear, the above comment comes from an ip address that Isha has used to comment here. Is that you, Isha? I ask because I am uncomfortable with the use of the term "Chinaman," which has never, I believe, been used in this manner on this blog before - certainly not by me and, I think, not by any of my commenters.

[isha]

Sam:

Sorry for using another name, since I didn't have time to write a long enough post to clarify my position this morning. Anyway, I don't feel Chinaman has any racial slur connotations, actually, the "Chinese" does, because all the "eses" has a connotations that they’re "small", "oriental", "foreign", "far-eastern"( if not, subhuman), etc. ( For example, explaining Chinese resistance to Japan’s conquest to China to the West, Prof and humorist Lin Yutang said “ They ( mean Japanese) don’t have a Chinaman’s chance.) Actually, this phrase is quoted as an ironic reference for the eternal question, a dilemma for the Anglo-Saxon elites, and it is still relevant now just as it is 139 ( did I do my math right, Bill, I used my Texas Instrument calculator) years ago. Just read all the frustrations and hurt feelings the reports from CNN, BBC on Tibet and Olympic relays.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9D06E2DC103AEF34BC4151DFB0668382679FDE
John Chinaman--What Shall We do with Him?
June 29, 1869, Wednesday

“Each day the Chinese question comes upon us with fuller prominence and grander proportions. And by "the Chinese question" we mean, of course, that special one which dwarfs all other Chinese questions into insignificance, namely, the relations of China to America...”

Sounds like it is a reporting from SF early this week…

Is any respectful communications still feasible? Too often, the bloggers on CNN and BBC expressed the same logic, same justifications, same self-righteousness, same superiority complex as their ancestors did exactly 139 years ago. There is a different these gentlemen forgot: they are dealing with a nation that has waken up and organized and a lot of sweats, tears and blood have been shred for them to the get there and they wouldn’t be pushed around on the block any more.

Sam, like you, I've been following the struggle over the Olympic torch relay closely. Several years ago, I have been blaming CCP for organizing this Olympic thing in the first place, if nothing else, CCP should have used the billions they spent on Olympic on education, on improving Chinese students’ math skills so they could build some airplanes like Airbus so the French wouldn’t be so arrogant and silly. But the worldwide anger, insult, jealousy, distrust and general hard feelings these torch bearers received as the hands of their hosting countries is working as a waking up call, well worth the dollar bills they spend (the IOUs are depreciating anyway). After, China, just like the United States, could only be defeated by itself. So, 2008 might well be historically significant …Bill, you are right, it is nothing but a political game , and it was well planned by both sides, but it might take generations before the significance would be fully appreciated… by future historians? (Hope they could dip up some of our posts here)

By the way, Bill, do you read Chinese, here is a link from oversea Chinese forum on the Olympic relay, I guess most of them don’t believe the Olympic’s 5000 years history and not as stupid as you think
http://www.webjb.org/webjb/sanxian/

Sam, just from curiosity, I would like to know your standing on this since I am reading a book on the glorious epic of Texas…

1. From the historical and legal point of view, do China have more title to Tibet or do U.S. have more title to Texas?
2. From a human right point of view, do Tibetan Chinese have more rights and dignity in China or do “illegal aliens” (most of them are decedents from Native Americans…such as Hispanics) have more rights and dignity in U.S.?

What do you think?

Respectfully,

Isha

[chriswaugh_bj]

Isha, the only issue I'm going to take with your rather long-winded and confusing comment is with this rather absurd statement:

"Anyway, I don't feel Chinaman has any racial slur connotations, actually, the "Chinese" does, because all the "eses" has a connotations that they’re "small", "oriental", "foreign", "far-eastern"( if not, subhuman), etc."

"Chinaman" has always been used in a derogatory since, but the "-ese" suffix never has. Try these on for size: "Singaporean", "Malaysian", "Indonesian", "Indian"- all "Oriental", all traditionally looked down upon by the West and yet all taking the same suffix as "Italian", "Russian" or "German". "Small" is not a part of this at all, and "foreign" is only relevant so far as it is a statement of fact.

[Isha]

Sam: These questions, which are related to your original post, hopefully are not too confusing or challenging for you:

1. From the historical and legal point of view, do China have more title to Tibet or do U.S. have more title to Texas?
2. From a human right point of view, do Tibetan Chinese have more rights and dignity in China or do “illegal aliens” (most of them are decedents from Native Americans…such as Hispanics) have more rights and dignity in U.S.?

Respectfully,

Isha