Copied from: http://toddchristian.prblogs.org/
I guess I'll respond point by point:
The Olympics have been in a constant state of evolution, so criticizing the Olympics because they can't be "linked to Ancient Greeks" is ludicrous. The athletes also don't compete in the nude, or to the death, anymore. How preposterous! They didn't have gymnastics back then? Throw that sport out!
A "paucity of Blacks" means that these aren't some of the world's greatest athletes? The lack of black athletes is startling, and probably does mean that some of the best competitors aren't at these games. Then again, how did the predominantly Black U.S. Olympic basketball team fare last year? How many Blacks have medalled in swimming?
He's right that the Winter Olympics are underinclusive, but different regions simply attract people to different sports unequally. This is true for just about any athletic endeavor. His attitude irritates me because baseball was thrown out of the summer games for essentially the exact same attitude (but reversed) among the Olympic committee: baseball did not appeal to enough European white nations, as though that had any bearing as to whether or not a sport was "worthy" of being in the Olympics. If Gumbel feels it appropriate to dismiss a sport because it does not sufficiently appeal to black athletes, is it fair for Europeans to dismiss a sport because it does not sufficiently appeal to white athletes? Is he crossing a line here and relying on a racist stereotype? And, if so, would it be acceptable if he was discussing mathematical ability, spatial reasoning, I.Q., etc?
His critiques of the panel of subjective judges and the hypocrisy of caring about minor sports such as the skeleton is fairly accurate, but are pretty cynical. I must assume that he dismisses boxing as a sport, since it so often relies upon the opinions of "subjective judges".
I find it ironic that he then praises March Madness, in which a predominantly black college athletic base earns overwhelmingly white industries and colleges billions of dollars while receiving little to no compensation (and face horrendous graduation rates).
Quote:
| “Because [the Winter Olympics] are so trying, maybe over the next three weeks we should all try too. Like try not to be incredulous when someone tries to link these games to those of the ancient Greeks who never heard of skating or skiing. So try not to laugh when someone says these are the world’s greatest athletes, despite a paucity of Blacks that makes the Winter Games look like a GOP convention. Try not to point out that something’s not really a sport if a pseudo-athlete waits in what’s called a “kiss and cry area” while some panel of subjective judges decides who won. And try to blot out all logic when announcers and sports writers pretend to care about the luge, the skeleton, the biathlon, and all those other events they don’t understand and totally ignore for all but three weeks every four years. Face it, these Olympics are little more than a marketing plan to fill space and sell time during the dreary days of February. So, if only to hasten the arrival of the day they’re done, and we can move on to March Madness, for God’s sake, let the Games begin.” |
The Olympics have been in a constant state of evolution, so criticizing the Olympics because they can't be "linked to Ancient Greeks" is ludicrous. The athletes also don't compete in the nude, or to the death, anymore. How preposterous! They didn't have gymnastics back then? Throw that sport out!
A "paucity of Blacks" means that these aren't some of the world's greatest athletes? The lack of black athletes is startling, and probably does mean that some of the best competitors aren't at these games. Then again, how did the predominantly Black U.S. Olympic basketball team fare last year? How many Blacks have medalled in swimming?
He's right that the Winter Olympics are underinclusive, but different regions simply attract people to different sports unequally. This is true for just about any athletic endeavor. His attitude irritates me because baseball was thrown out of the summer games for essentially the exact same attitude (but reversed) among the Olympic committee: baseball did not appeal to enough European white nations, as though that had any bearing as to whether or not a sport was "worthy" of being in the Olympics. If Gumbel feels it appropriate to dismiss a sport because it does not sufficiently appeal to black athletes, is it fair for Europeans to dismiss a sport because it does not sufficiently appeal to white athletes? Is he crossing a line here and relying on a racist stereotype? And, if so, would it be acceptable if he was discussing mathematical ability, spatial reasoning, I.Q., etc?
His critiques of the panel of subjective judges and the hypocrisy of caring about minor sports such as the skeleton is fairly accurate, but are pretty cynical. I must assume that he dismisses boxing as a sport, since it so often relies upon the opinions of "subjective judges".
I find it ironic that he then praises March Madness, in which a predominantly black college athletic base earns overwhelmingly white industries and colleges billions of dollars while receiving little to no compensation (and face horrendous graduation rates).
