Olympic Apathy

Usually I manage to work up a little enthusiasm over the Olympics, but because I now see the games as a site of contention in so many ways, I find myself less than interested this year. I think it started back when the games were in Atlanta, and Richard Jewel was falsely accused of the bombing. Like most people, I'm happy for the individual participants when they win, but was their win achieved with the aid of performance-enhancing drugs? The stabbings in Beijing--so many Chinese lost their homes so that China could host the games. Was the stabber one of those homeless? Just how far will people go when the goal is to win at all costs? How far will countries go? I saw a few minutes of the women's swimming relay race, where the 41-year-old woman was in her fifth Olympics and performed quite well, helping the U.S. win silver. The women from some of the countries clearly looked like they would fail a gender test. One Chinese woman(?) looked like Arnold Schwarzenegger at his most buff. I've heard stories about how hard the Chinese drive children who show promise as athletes. It's harsh, but I know from reading my own American students' essays that some of their fathers (and mothers) drive them equally as hard to perform well in football, wrestling, basketball, soccer, and other sports, as if somehow sports competitions were the most important aspect of a person's life.

I suppose virtually everyone has an idea of what Utopia would be like. My own idea would include a culture that valued cooperation over competition. Instead of "We're Number One!" the mantra could be "One for All, and All for One"! Children could be encouraged to support each other, rather than to try to beat each other. Bullying would be such a shameful act that it would be wiped out, simply because the bully would become an immediate social outcast. Prejudice and all the -isms (racism, sexism, sizism, agism, etc.) would diminish since the goal would be to enhance everyone's lives, not just one person's. Physical activity would be encouraged as a way to feel good and to be healthy, not to "win one for the Gipper." Anyone who said something like "Winning isn't everything, it's the only thing" would be laughed at for being an idiot.

I know there are reasons for competition. Many would argue that the reason so many medical and scientific advances occur is because of competition. I argue the reverse. I think hundreds of advances have actually been prevented because of competition. People are so determined to win the gold, metaphorically and literally, that they won't share knowledge and advances with others. Think of the Space Race. How much sooner could the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. achieved their goals if they had worked together, rather than competing? How many lives would have been saved if these countries hadn't been trying so hard to be "first"?

Does this make me a socialist? Or a communist? I think I'm a realist. As a teacher, I'd love to see classrooms in which every student felt like a winner because he or she had gotten better at whatever the class was teaching. Bell curves would be trashed. To hell with "The number of A's should roughly equal the number of F's."

On a personal level, I have admittedly had times when I enjoyed winning. But far more often, I simply enjoy the activity and concurrent companionship of others. I love to play Scrabble, but I hate to play with someone who "must" win. Intensely competitive people irritate and frighten me. It's a trait attributed to masculinity, but it shouldn't be. Men--and women--should both be encouraged to "play well with others." Maybe then the divorce rate would fall, there would be fewer cases of spouse abuse, and children could grow up without learning to fear and hate one or more of their parents.

So instead of chanting "USA, USA" as one of our Olympic teams competes with another country's team, I'd rather be chanting to ALL the athletes, "Play fair, and do your best!"