Quick note tonight, put together during commercial breaks of the 2008 Olympic opening ceremony. First off, China's show was pretty amazing. Thousands of people in sync, drumming, dancing tai chi, fireworks, and some crazy video displays. I don't know if I completely buy the message of peace and an environmentally responsible future, but I'll give them the benefit of the doubt. Tonight, it's their party.
As I'm watching the march of athletes, I keep thinking back to questions of identity. I don't care so much about each country's costume, but it does say a lot when you see some countries that have all-male teams. Then there are the "countries" where it is debatable whether they should be separate or not. For example, I thought that it made a lot of sense for China and Taiwan (called "Chines Taipei" in the ceremony) to have separate groups, but Hong Kong also had its own athletes. It came a little closer to home when I saw that Puerto Rico had its own athletes.
There are athletes who are part of American sports teams, but who join their home country for the games. There are naturalized citizens of America who are proud to compete for us. And then the commentators mentioned that there are some athletes who aren't picked for their home country's teams, who quickly shop around to other countries who will take them and put them on their team's roster. And when you think about it, what does it really matter? Most people in the U.S. are descended from people who immigrated within the past 100 years (myself included).
This morning at the Brainstorming Bookclub, we talked about the book Everything is Miscellaneous. Even when it seems like we should have distinct boundaries/categories for people, when we look a little closer, we see how that structure is superficial and somewhat arbitrary. But anarchy isn't the solution either. If everyone could compete in the Olympics, they wouldn't have much meaning. If you made a simple rule stating that anyone who exceeded a certain qualifying time/score could compete, you would see the best athletes in the world, but many countries would have no chance of being seen at all. The commentators mentioned that 80-some of the coutries present have never won any kind of Olympic medal. No system is perfect. But I like that the International Olympic Committee is constantly challenged and adapts to stay current with politics, technology, and evolving sports.
The torch is lit. Long live the Olympic spirit. Let the games begin.
As I'm watching the march of athletes, I keep thinking back to questions of identity. I don't care so much about each country's costume, but it does say a lot when you see some countries that have all-male teams. Then there are the "countries" where it is debatable whether they should be separate or not. For example, I thought that it made a lot of sense for China and Taiwan (called "Chines Taipei" in the ceremony) to have separate groups, but Hong Kong also had its own athletes. It came a little closer to home when I saw that Puerto Rico had its own athletes.
There are athletes who are part of American sports teams, but who join their home country for the games. There are naturalized citizens of America who are proud to compete for us. And then the commentators mentioned that there are some athletes who aren't picked for their home country's teams, who quickly shop around to other countries who will take them and put them on their team's roster. And when you think about it, what does it really matter? Most people in the U.S. are descended from people who immigrated within the past 100 years (myself included).
This morning at the Brainstorming Bookclub, we talked about the book Everything is Miscellaneous. Even when it seems like we should have distinct boundaries/categories for people, when we look a little closer, we see how that structure is superficial and somewhat arbitrary. But anarchy isn't the solution either. If everyone could compete in the Olympics, they wouldn't have much meaning. If you made a simple rule stating that anyone who exceeded a certain qualifying time/score could compete, you would see the best athletes in the world, but many countries would have no chance of being seen at all. The commentators mentioned that 80-some of the coutries present have never won any kind of Olympic medal. No system is perfect. But I like that the International Olympic Committee is constantly challenged and adapts to stay current with politics, technology, and evolving sports.
The torch is lit. Long live the Olympic spirit. Let the games begin.
Great post, Allan!
I think you're right that a balance has to be made somewhere between rigid enforcement of these identity categories and a free-for-all identity anarchy, and that a system that adapts and evolves is probably the best answer.
I recently blogged about the definition of an adult student v. a traditional one and questioned the effects of forcing people into one of two categories. I've known many learners harmed by such rigid definitions and assumptions: people given less flexibility to deal with family emergencies, people who were unable to the secure financial aid they needed, etc.
Demographics help us better understand a group, but a demographic is a definition, and definitions don't work if we try to force the people we are trying to define to fit them.