2012 Olympics

[zahidf]

Spectators have been applauding all the teams from all over the world if they get a medal.

If the papers are banging on about Team GB, it's just a selling point really. People generally want to have an emotional connection to enjoy a sporting event. It's part of the fun. Why not support Team GB, or Bolt, or Phelps? Not harmful really.

[eFestivals]

Spectators have been applauding all the teams from all over the world if they get a medal.

yep, they have. But not at the same level, which gets to show they feel some people's achievements are more worth celebrating than other people's.

[eFestivals]

Lottery funding, Government Funding, Vocal Support, Messages of Support, paying entrance fees to the week in week out events...

The concept of zero contribution is bollocks to be frank... WE do support and contribute to our athletes...

then why don't people feel the same about the taxes they pay for things which bring them an actual personal benefit?

Which only gets to show that people's emotions are being manipulated for the purposes of power and control. Make you happy with an 'opium for the people', and then you'll happily bend over and take one.

[eFestivals]

What would you know... Have you been ?

No one has to go to be able to know that there's different levels of support for an athlete, dependent on where they're from.

[The Nal]

Than again, do you feel the same emotions for a 26 year old from (say) Timbuktu who has worked her entire life to become the best in her particular sport - and probably had a more difficult path to achieving that? Or is the athlete's location that makes you particularly happy?

Edited August 7, 2012 by The Nal

[eFestivals]

Of course but the level different isn't as dramatic as you want to claim it to be...

I suggest you get your ears washed out.

[eFestivals]

Another positive reason to support the athletes. A lot of them proud to complete under the same flag that the BNP use to try to discriminate against a lot of said athletes with.

I can be against nationalism without having to give extra support to the athletes from this country.

Edited August 7, 2012 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

The only place I noticed a big difference was the Olympic stadium... The rest of the venues where pretty much buzzing no matter who was playing.

again, I suggest you get your ears washed out.

I've yet to see any single example where the vocal support for overseas athletes matches that given to GB ones.

[zahidf]

again, I suggest you get your ears washed out.

I've yet to see any single example where the vocal support for overseas athletes matches that given to GB ones.

[The Nal]

again, I suggest you get your ears washed out.

I've yet to see any single example where the vocal support for overseas athletes matches that given to GB ones.

Edited August 7, 2012 by The Nal

[eFestivals]

Bolt in the 100 metres?

oh, I must have missed the Brit in the final. Who was that then?

[The Nal]

Obviously, you end up being more emotionally involved with the athletes that you've read about, which would be the ones from your 'area'. Your country, then your town.... if it was someone you knew.... the more you know them, the more you get out of it

Edited August 7, 2012 by The Nal

[AcademicPistol]

No one has to go to be able to know that there's different levels of support for an athlete, dependent on where they're from.

[The Nal]

maybe it's because I don't know anything about the athletes, their journey to get to the Olympics, etc, why I'm not fussed about who wins.

plus, along with Neil, I think a lot of the competitions are just a bit odd... throwing a hammer, jumping high, jumping long, jumping after you've hopped and skipped, throwing a long stick, lifting heavy weights...?

Edited August 7, 2012 by The Nal

[eFestivals]

Of course people are going to biased but i bet that same biased will be even greater in Rio 2016.

possible.... but I actually doubt it.

Britain's whole identity for 200+ years has been based within nationalism, with us dominating just about all others and so "proving" that Britain is better than all other counties.

The nationalism of Brazil is, I suspect, quite a lot different, and is likely to be based just around a common culture of language and law and the like. It doesn't have much of a history of trying to force itself as a nation over others.

[eFestivals]

plus, along with Neil, I think a lot of the competitions are just a bit odd... throwing a hammer, jumping high, jumping long, jumping after you've hopped and skipped, throwing a long stick, lifting heavy weights...?

actually, I don't find those sorts of ones particularly odd (apart from "jumping after you've hopped and skipped"). They're little more than the extremes of normal human activity.

The 'sports' within the Olympics which I do find odd are the ones that exist within the games on the basis of the class system - such as the horsey stuff. They're a historical anachronism.

[The Nal]

the Butterfly stroke... who invented that?

Edited August 7, 2012 by The Nal

[eFestivals]

What's that about sitting down...

it's still winning by about 5:1.

[AcademicPistol]

possible.... but I actually doubt it.

Britain's whole identity for 200+ years has been based within nationalism, with us dominating just about all others and so "proving" that Britain is better than all other counties.

The nationalism of Brazil is, I suspect, quite a lot different, and is likely to be based just around a common culture of language and law and the like. It doesn't have much of a history of trying to force itself as a nation over others.

[eFestivals]

So you excuse any other countries biases but our own?

Nope, I'm simply saying that for good cultural reasons it might be a little less nationalistic than the UK has been.

We are one the most welcoming countries in the world hence why London is so diverse.

nowadays, perhaps. That we've always been is a modern myth.

I actually wrote that "modern myth" line referring to back a hundred+ years, but after a moment's thought I realise it's far far more recent than that - like perhaps 20 years.

[eFestivals]

there's rumours flying round that Kate Bush will perform 'Running Up That Hill' live at the closing ceremony (in the stadium, not at Hyde Park).

[AcademicPistol]

nowadays, perhaps. That we've always been is a modern myth.

I actually wrote that "modern myth" line referring to back a hundred+ years, but after a moment's thought I realise it's far far more recent than that - like perhaps 20 years.

Edited August 7, 2012 by AcademicPistol

[eFestivals]

I don't think it's a 'myth' as such people that have done their homework know about the past

If they know about the past they'll know it's a myth.

If we go back a hundred+ years, there were pogroms and legal discrimination against some foreigners.

If we go back 50 0r 60 years, the immigrants that were invited to the UK to do the jobs which us Brits thought were below us were not (in the main) welcomed.

If we go back 45 years we had tory politicians campaigning with the slogan "if you want a nigger for a neighbour vote Liberal or Labour".

If we go back just over 30 years the police forces were actively giving support to the NF against their anti-fascist opponents.

If we go back just ten years we had the son of an immigrant leading one of the major political parties while saying people from overseas were not welcome to come here to live (while also slyly saying "unless you want to give my party lots of money, when we'll make an exception").

Etc, etc, etc.

These aren't of course things that were always taken up by the majority, but the very fact that they were things which existed within the mainstream gets to show we're not as progressive as a country as we like to fantasise.

Edited August 7, 2012 by eFestivals

[AcademicPistol]

If they know about the past they'll know it's a myth.

Edited August 7, 2012 by AcademicPistol

[The Nal]

If they know about the past they'll know it's a myth.

snip

Edited August 7, 2012 by The Nal