From: ngrjn@milton.u.washington.edu (V Nagarajan)
Subject: Re: Olympics Opening Ceremony
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 20:22:06 GMT

In article <l7dsclINNm8k@roundup.crhc.uiuc.edu> sunder@altair.crhc.uiuc.edu (Srinivas Sunder) writes:
>
>Bob Costas made a LOT of comments about every single country
>that came by. There was some mention of Tiananmen square when the
>Chinese team came by, and there is always at least a subliminal
>reference to the fact that China is NOT a country where the people
>are free, especially when they talk about Chinese athletes being
>conditioned by the state almost from birth, seeing their parents
>only twice a year, etc. 
>
>Besides, he said that we are a poor country. It might be derogatory
>(not as far as I can see), but it is true. In fact, every Indian
>politician on the world scene, whether at Rio or at an IMF meeting
>says the same thing. Does it become offensive because the person who
>says it is not Indian? 

	Yes, we are a poor country. I think quite a few people have reacted
	out of a sense of pseudopatriotism in coming to the defence of the
	old country. But I think your reaction is kneejerk on the other
	extreme. Isn't there a question of appropriateness? How would you
	like it if your advisor were to introduce you to someone at a 
	conference with a `This is Mr. so'n'so and he comes from a very
	poor country'? What does Tian-an-men have to do with the Olympics?
	If the commentator's introduction of the Indian team was in line
	with his overall holier-than-thou attitude, then attacks on him
	are even more justified. The American media being unable to believe 
	that the (erstwhile) Soviet and East German atheletes could honestly
	be superior to the Americans used to blame it on exactly the same
	sort of stuff that they are accusing the Chinese of now. They should
	learn to look in their own backyards to see the kids who are under
	tremendous pressure to excel in gymnastics and tennis and have to
	sacrifice their childhoods for the sake of their parents who seem to
	see only big dollar signs wherever they look. Of course this is not
	a sin because it is a social attitude under a market economy and
	this is how competition works in God's Chosen System.
	(I am curious to know: did he introduce the east african contingents
	as nations who cannot afford to buy decent running shoes for their
	marathon runners?)

	
>He also said that we don't have astro-turf surfaces. From what I've 
>heard on the net, we DO have some astro-turf surfaces, but hardly any 
>per capita to qualify as enough. And I am yet to see a good reason for 
>WHY we don't have that many astro-turf surfaces. Could it be that we 
>really are too poor to afford too many of them? The truth may be bitter, 
>but nevertheless it is the truth. No amount of moaning is going to change
>that. National pride is no substitute for a fat GDP.

	Granted the compulsions of the game are such that only those that
	train on astroturf surfaces can hope to do well at the competition.
	But why should a country where it is possible to play outdoors
	year-round, bother spending the money on it otherwise? Aren't the
	scales tipped against hot & poor countries?


							- Nagarajan
Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian