Olympics, Politics- What's the Difference?

With the Sochi Winter Olympics quickly approaching, Germany just released their colorful uniforms 

 Many are viewing these uniforms as a protest of Russia’s new laws against gay rights. In fact, many athletes are showing their support. From Sweedish high jumper Emma Green Tregaro painting a rainbow on her nails to tow Russian athletes Kseniya Ryzhova and Tatyana Firova kissing on the podium, everyone seems to be showing that they don’t support these laws.

As it turns out, this was not the first time the Olympics were used to make a political statement. At the 1968 Olympics in Mexico City, bronze and gold medals were stripped from two African American 200-meter dash sprinters. When Americans Tommie Smith and JohnCarlos stepped onto the podium to accept their medals, they were barefoot. They did this to represent the poverty that so many black Americans were struggling with. They also wore necklaces and scarves for those who were lynched and when the Star Spangled Banner played they raised their fists in a black-power solute. These men wanted to make a stand, so instead of boycotting the Olympics all together, they decided that this would make a more lasting impression. Even thought they had their medals stripped, they did make a statement for the Civil Rights Movement.

Even Jimmy Carter used the Olympics to send a message. After the 1979 Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, he threatened that the United States would boycott the Moscow Olympics if Soviet troops didn’t leave Afghanistan in a month. Sure enough, when this demand wasn’t met, the United States boycotted the 1980 Olympics.

Clearly the Olympics have been grounds for political statements for years, but like many Americans, when I watch the only thing I usually notice is the sports. So should we be more aware of the political statements around us? Should the Olympics be a place of politics?

How They See Me

I’m illiterate. Well, that is according to the 1965 Alabama Literacy Test. Personally, I consider someone literate if they can read and write. However, to be considered literate in the state of Alabama at this time you would need to be able to answer questions like, “A U.S. senator elected at the general election in November takes office the following year on what date?”  To be able to answer questions like these it requires a lot of prior knowledge, not just being literate.

To be able to vote in Alabama, you could only incorrectly answer seven out of sixty-eight questions. Every single person in my American Studies class was considered illiterate by the time we got to question twenty-four. However in Alabama, not everyone had to take this test in order to vote. If your grandfather voted than you were “Grandfathered In” and you could vote without taking this test. This was done to keep African Americans from being able to vote when the laws technically said they could. These people were being judged off of factors they couldn’t control, but doesn’t that still happen today?

I think one example where you are also judged off of appearances is when you apply to college. First of all, they see your grades and the classes you take. From this they can judge whether or not your challenging yourself in the classes you take and how hard you’re working. However, I took a class last year that was considered a lower level than some of my other classes, but I still thought it was my hardest class. So can a college really tell how hard I’m working or how much I’m challenging myself by looking at my grades and classes? They also judge you off of your ethnicity, whether or not you have a family member who attended that school before you, and whether or not you live in the same state as the school you’re applying to. Many of these things a student can’t control either, so is it fair to be judged off of them?

Be Prepared

When my college councilor walked in to my advisory today to meet us, she immediately brought up standardized testing. She told us that she thought there was no point in going to a test like the ACT or SAT unprepared and that most New Trier students participate it some sort of tutoring for these tests.  This didn’t come as some big surprise to me because many parents want to do whatever they can to give their children a leg up in getting into college, including trying to boost their test scores. But does that put the students who can’t afford tutoring for standardized testing at a disadvantage?

For the ACT and SAT, the same test is administered nation wide on the same day so that it is fair and equal for all the students taking the test. However, all students are not going in on an equal playing ground if some students have been given the opportunity to prepare for the test when others have not.

According to both the ACT and SAT websites, they test to see how ready a student is for college. If going in to this test unprepared really is pointless, then wouldn’t these tests actually be testing who is more prepared for the test not college?

Candy or Crystal Meth?

Looking at the picture above, what do you think it is? Candy or crystal meth?

It seems like a ridiculous questions, but some members of the NYPD suspected the latter. In Brooklyn, 25 year old Love Olantunjiojo was detained for 24 hours because cops thought that the six Jolly Ranchers he was carrying were actually crystal meth. An article wrote that his lawyer responded, “I don’t know if these cops have been watching ‘Breaking Bad,’ but my client is not Walter White.”

I don’t watch Breaking Bad, so that line didn’t mean much to me. However, it did cause me to think about the number of crime shows on TV today in America. In these shows there’s usually a cop or a detective who solves a case in a way the viewer would never expect, like figuring out that some candy is actually crystal meth. The reason for this is obvious: ratings. Who wants to watch a show where someone gets pulled over for speeding or the person who committed the crime is exactly you’d expect?  

I think this case shows how TV can cause Americans to have unrealistic expectations. To assume some candy is crystal meth is clearly a stretch, yet things like happen all the time in crime shows. If Americans start to assume that everything that happens on TV could happen in their lives, I think they are expecting their lives to be far more exciting and dramatic than the average American’s.

Is a member of the 10 most wanted list going to turn himself in and then refuse to talk to anyone but you like in The Blacklist? Probably not. Is a mysterious person that goes by “A” going to try to ruin your life after your best friend dies like in Pretty Little Liars? I certainly hope not. Is your candy actually crystal meth? It’s highly unlikely.

Most Americans, including myself, enjoy watching TV. However, it should be seen for what it is: entertainment. Does television play too big of a role in our lives? Does it impact how we view the world around us?

Stay Calm

During my American Studies class last week we talked about how President Obama is notorious for his calm persona. He is even called a robot for his ability to stay so collected while his opponents are riled during debates. Our class discussed how Obama has to stay so level headed all the time because he’s African American and has to prove that he doesn’t have a temper.

While we were talking about Obama, I immediately drew a parallel to Jackie Robinson. Obama was the first African American president and Robinson was the first African American professional baseball player. Beyond that, they both had to disprove the stereotype that they can’t control their emotions. In the movie 42, Jackie Robinson is told that he has to be strong enough not to fight. In my opinion, I think that Obama is also showing that he can be strong enough not to fight by staying calm when those around him aren’t.

In both cases, their race forced them to react differently than their white counterparts. Is this a common theme throughout history? If so, how long will it take for the “first” of a certain race to be treated the same as everyone around them?

Get Loud

I went to a Blackhawks game over the weekend and the crowd screamed and cheered throughout the singing of the national anthem. At first I didn’t think much of it because the fans do this at every game, it’s a Blackhawks tradition. But then I started to think about every other time The Stars Spangled Banner is sung. People either fall silent or sing along, so why is it acceptable to yell during this one time the song is sung?

According to an article in the New York Times, this tradition began during the third game in the 1985 Stanley Cup Championship. The Blackhawks were playing the Oilers in Edmonton, Canada when some Canadian fans started shouting during The Stars Spangled Banner. This was the first game the hawks won in the series and ever since it has been a tradition for Blackhawks fans.

If Americans screamed during another country’s national anthem, it would undoubtedly be considered disrespectful. In this case, Americans embraced it and made it their tradition because the Blackhawks won the game. Would this have been considered disrespectful had the Blackhawks lost? Is it disrespectful to other American teams when Blackhawks fans scream through the national Anthem?

Badwill

Goodwill helps the poor, right? They collect clothing donations to provide affordable clothing to those in need. It sounds pretty good to me. That is until I came across an article in The Week that revealed that a goodwill employee was sent to jail for giving poor people a discount.

19-year-old Andrew Anderson was charged with grand theft. Anderson defended himself in saying that he saw people come in wearing all the clothes they had with only two or three dollars to their names. He figured that since Goodwill is a giving company, he could take upon himself to be giving. I guess he had the wrong impression about just how giving Goodwill actually is.

At other companies, it would be totally inappropriate to give out discounts wherever you see fit. However, I think that at Goodwill it’s a different situation since the clothing comes from donations. If I donated clothing, I would rather see it go to people like the ones Anderson was trying to help instead of people who go to Goodwill to find a costume or go thrift shopping for fun. People donate their clothes to Goodwill so that Goodwill can sell them for an affordable price. If that price isn’t affordable to some people in need, what’s the harm in helping them out?