Should China be able to host the 2008 Olympics given their human rights records in areas such as Tibet?

Whether we should or not - I can't really say - not really my place. However, based on my personal "feelings" on the subject, hell no. I constantly here people bitching about this. It seems kind of hypocritical as a nation to for the U.S. to go along with it. For what? politics/trade? Fuck that-life will go on. Perhaps my friends and family in MI will be able to go back to work, if raltions are lost with China. Is trade really that vidal to us that we have to tip toe around with things like this, or are our "leaders" just somehow capitalizing on such things. Yeah, we all see the financial benifits of being in such a position of power.

It really bites that oppressive socialist governments, such as China get so much attention, causing people relate socialism to tyranny.

Britt's Response for blog #5

Okay, good thing I checked back because I had written this and it didn't post, I hope it works this time.

I do not know if anyone can take away the right to hold the Olympics in China because it is so close to already happening and they have all of the preparations.  It would be a slap directly in China's face if the world told China that they couldn't have the olympics.  I don't think anyone wants to slap China in the face directly because they are a pretty powerful country.

I think that if more countries with the United States, would boycott the Olympics, then it would be like a kick in the shin to China.  At least after that, China could not get as mad.  It is important not to participate and urge others to not participate as well to show that we do not accept what they are doing.  If we did participate in the Olympics then the whole world could turn on us and point out our selfish ways of trying to take oil from the Middle East but not really caring about the people there, but we would allow China to keep doing what they are doing.  If we didn't participate with enough other countries then the China could turn on us and say that we don't want to let anyone else do what we are doing to the Iraqi's.  

It is really sad for the Olympians because they have trained for many many years.  I hope that they can be rewarded in some way.

blog 5 response

well,
it's always a disappointment to realize how much the universal community 'let slide' before they made laws and took action. Now, all this crap is boiling over and there are too many alliances, ties, organizations, laws, and things going on to do much of anything really. How many countries have had questionable things going on while they hosted the Olympics? Alot. but they still hosted, so it might not be fair to stop China from hosting the show, but justice must start somewhere, and if thats on China then let it be. the athletes can keep training, this is a humanity issue... way bigger than the Olympics themselves. theres no point in making all these improvements in writing, when nothing really is done about them. i can't believe the dalai lama's successor hasnt been seen since 1995! thats so sad, that as a boy he's suffered prosecution for his beliefs. which is a violation of the UDHR, article 18. Theyr being bombarded in their homes and country side, which violates article 1, 2, 3, 20, and 22.. so they violate many articles. The world just has to go through a detox, China isnt the only one that needs a wake up call.

The Olympics In Bejing

From its official international inception in 1896, the Olympics have symbolized a coming together of the world's nations and their athletes for competition.  However, also since its official inception, the competitions begun and the medals won have meant much more than how well how well an indivual has done.  Because of their medal totals, there are winners among countries as well, and how well their athletes do is a source of pride for their countries.  It can also serve as a type of battleground, albeit usually blood-free, between nations vying for superiority.  And because of this, the Olympics have been, and likely always will be, more than just athletics.

While the Nazi party was gaining momentum, there was talk in the US about boycotting the 1936 summer games in protest of both the Nazi's anti-semitic stance as well as its belief in Aryan superiority.  Though this boycott did not go through, the message was clear that the olympics could be used to make a political statement by simply non-attendance.  

This strategy was carried out in the 1980 Olympics when President Carter's demands of Soviet withdrawl from Afghanistan.  Because of the Soviet's refusal to do as commanded, the US boycotted the summer games held that year in Moscow.  As a special "middle finger" to the USSR, the US even held "Boycott Games" in Philidelphia that year for its athletes and the few other countries that followed the US lead that year.

And the Soviet Union gave a big red middle finger four years later by boycotting the games held in L.A., USA.

So should the US boycott the Chinese games in 2008?  The Olympics are clearly not just athletic games but a way to make both political statements and ultimatums.  Though the US has already decided that they will not be boycotting the games, it is unlikely that a grass-roots movement will gain enough momentum to affect, or change the US's decision.  Why?  Because the US doesn't have any demands to make, as we had previously, to decide a boycott.  Should the US?  It doesn't seem like it achieves much other than to piss the host country off, which isn't the best idea with a country as big as China.  And with our objectives being dubious, dealing with internal humanitarian issues rather than external invasions, it seems like it would be a fruitless, though symbolic, choice.

Blog #5

So many parties are to blame here:

China, of course. Despite their claims of sovereignty, Tibeten people did not used to be a part of China and, more importantly, are of a different ethnic and cultural background. To oppress/suppress a people for whatever stated reasons is inappropriate and seldom excusable.

The U.N. and all nations that are complicit in their inaction. It's more than absurd to publically and internationally condemn a nation for its actions and then a) refuse to take action to provide an incentive for the "offending" nation to stop and perhaps related b) continue to do major business deals with the offending nation. That's hypocritical, contradictory, and ultimately undermining to any authority structure that is attempting to exercise moral law over the "offending" nation. This includes the IOC and its refusal to withdraw the Chinese right to hold the Olympics. It would be ludicrous to deny China its ability to hold the Olympics now--Chinese human rights abuses against Tibetan and Tainwanese people have been publically and internationally acknowledged for decades. Nothing has changed.

The only party that's not too blame is the Tibetan people. They're trying to live their lives without violent or cultural interference from any source. That's not too much to ask.

Blog 5

In light of the recent events in Tibet, I feel like China doesn't deserve to host the 2008 Olympics, but that is just a personal opinion. In reality, taking the games away from China would punish the athletes and fans more than it would punish China. I only hope that having the spotlight on this country will raise awareness of the situation and all of the human rights violations there, and through that education something can be done to end the occupation or at least the conflicts. China considers this year's Olympics to be their chance for acceptance and recognition by other nations of the world. Chinese leaders are using this opportunity to shape the world's view of their country, make it more familiar and positive. The slogan for the games "One World, One Dream" even calls for everyone to unite because of these games.
The Olympics are being represented as something entirely different by human rights and pro-Tibetan independence groups. Some are calling it "the Genocide Olympics," making connections between China and Sudan and the deaths in Darfur. Whichever way it's spun, all eyes are on China, and hopefully this awareness will bring about some change for the better.

DRP's work for blog post 5

taking in to account the situation with Tibet and China, i still feel that china should be able host the Olympics. i say this only because i would feel bad for the people how have been training so hard over the years to compete in the games, to all of a sudden have there goal taken away. what i think needs to be done, is give individual athletes or countries the ability to drop out of the Olympics as a show of respect for Tibet. 

i would also like to comment about the use of non violence. i am a huge advocator of the use for non violence. And i have a great respect of the Dalai Lama for encouraging the protesters to use non violence. i think that it is the better way to work on resolving a conflict for a couple of reasons. first if the Tibetan protesters use violence the situation will continue to escalate and more and more people will get hurt, and nothing will be accomplished. secondly the use of non violence would put the protesters in a good light. it would show the world how important their cause is , if they acted a peacefully when faced with violence. 

Blog #5

There are a number of human rights issues being abused throughout Tibet. Since last week the Chinese government has sent its police to raid the homes of the residents of Lhasa in search of people who were involved in recent protests that happened throughout the city. Citizens of that region have reported that the police are pulling people out of their homes. Not to mention that the Chinese government is reporting that 13 of its citizen have bee killed because of the protesters. We than have Tibetan exiles stating that over 90 Tibetans have been killed by the police. This is only one of the situations going on between the people of Tibet and China. And since the beginning of China’s ruling, many of the Tibetans have gone through much worse. Tibetans have been locked up for no reason by the Chinese government throughout the years and many of them have been tortured while detained. In 1995 a report came out talking about how children risk their lives trying to cross the Himalayas just to get away from the Chinese government. Imagine the place where you were born and the only way you could live a decent life was by risking your own life just to get a glimpse of this freedom. Just after reading that report we see that the Chinese government has already gone against Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR).

According to Amnesty International, every week people are thrown into jails from protesting the government. The human rights group also states that the Chinese government will go into people’s homes and take away their pictures of the Dahlia Lama. Tibetans have been going through this treatment since the 1950’s and it’s shocking that the Chinese government is still getting away with this. If the UDHR was created to protect the universal rights of all individuals, why is it that people (Tibetans) are still suffering? How come nothing has been done to stop this chaotic treatment?

Beijing --Blog 5

The question of whether Beijing should be able to host the Olympic Games is a tough one, especially considering the cities that have historically hosted the games. Take for instance the 1936 Olympic Games, hosted by Berlin. At that time, Hitler and the Nazi’s had already been forcing human rights violations on the Jewish population for over three years, including stripping Jewish immigrants from Poland of their citizenship and prohibiting Jews from owning land. And Hitler was officially named Fuhrer in 1934, two full years before the games were hosted in Berlin. The fact that German Jews were consistently falling victim to human rights violations didn’t seem to affect the decision to hold the most important global sporting event in Berlin. Take any city that has hosted the games, and you could find some human rights violation that had taken place in that country. The difference between most of those countries, however, and the decision to host the games in Beijing, is that those problems were not occurring literally at the same time as the games. I think, however, that if we’re going to prevent one country from hosting the games based on their global policy, the decision of where to host the games would become a far more difficult one. For instance, the debate over holding the games in Chicago in 2016—whether you are in support of our position in the middle east, it would absolutely have to be taken into consideration that we did, in fact, occupy a country. America waged a very unpopular war, and that information would have to be taken into account. The war in Iraq is not the same thing as China’s violations toward Tibetans, but the difficulty with establishing any standard of this type is that it is all or nothing. There would have to be some kind of agreed-upon standard for what violations are bad enough to warrant stripping a country of the privilege of hosting the games.

Blog Assignment #5

This week, Tibetans began protesting the Chinese government’s occupation of their country. As we briefly discussed in previous class when we defined the term “ethnocide”, the Chinese government has occupied Tibet since the 1950s. Since this is an important human rights related topic in the news, this is an issue that our class should gain a general understanding of the situation in this region.

For next week, you can answer one or more of the following questions. The BBC has a great page about the history of Tibet that you could possibly use in your responses.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/guides/456900/456954/html/nn0page1.stm

What human rights abuses exist in Tibet?

How does the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights relate to the Tibetan issue?

How has the United Nations reacted to and addressed the situation in Tibet?

Can Tibetans freely leave Tibet?

Can exiles return to or visit Tibet?

How are human rights organizations spinning the Beijing Olympics in 2008? What does such an event symbolize?

Should China be able to host the 2008 Olympics given their human rights records in areas such as Tibet?

What has been international reaction and response (political, economic, human rights) to the Tibetan situation? Why have so few Heads of State and official governments supported an independent Tibet?

How has the Chinese Government reacted to foreign intervention or diplomacy on behalf of the Tibetan situation?

What has been the Tibetan reaction and response to Chinese occupation (non-violence vs. guerrilla warfare)?

Is adopting a non-violent approach a better way to work toward conflict resolution?

What organized efforts in India and the West exist to continue the struggle for a free Tibet? What can American citizens do to get involved ?

What is the function of non-governmental organizations like the International Campaign for Tibet?

Missing

Has anyone seen Blog #5 lying around?

Blog #4

The film is in some respects both a propaganda film, and also a documentary. And it is not to say, that a movie cannot be both. The film was clearly designed to make the Nazi's look powerful,prosperous, and intelligent. The music in the film was intended to be captivating, and powerful. The film is designed to make germany look like a utopian society. Yet the film did show actuyal Germany, and actual events in Germany, but it only showed one side of Germany.

--From Alex Blanco

Blog Post #4

Much like the passage by Walter Benjamin, Triumph of the Will seeks to fetishize ideology through aesthetics. This is where Triumph of the Will differs from Night and Fog, because regardless of the content, Triumph dictates to the audience a consistently optimistic message. While Night and Fog on the other hand brings together various elements and leaves those open to interpretation, even if the agenda behind the combination of those elements (music and footage juxtaposition, subtle humor, etc.) may appear obvious. This freedom to interpret, no matter how limited it may be, suggests a sense of truth seeking to the audience, providing a deeper understanding of the subject matter than merely a gallery display of fantastic achievements.

It is true however that propaganda can also implement these techniques to gather greater depth, but Triumph of the Will had no intention of going any deeper than the surface. Ultimately it underestimated the human mind's potential to have a more developed frame of reference (although probably nobody involved had accounted for the possibility of the end of the Nazi party).

Rosco's 4

TRIUMPH OF THE WILL is a propaganda film. The reason I believe this, is that a documentary is supposed to be completely unbiased. This film is basically a debate where only one participant is permitted to speak. Leni Riefenstahl does all the talking and the viewer can only sit and be influenced.
As far as the arguement of the footage being from real life. That's film magic. My last film was made using footage that I found in trash cans. My film had a message, but I can assure you that it wasn't the same message that was intended when it was shot.
Through editing, you can send a pro war message using shots of daisies.

Real like Reality TV

"Triumph of the Will" is as much of a documentary as "Flavor of Love" is. They're both made up of "actual footage" of actual events, but they're both scripted, staged, and skillfully edited for a certain purpose. While "Flavor of Love" is trying to be outrageous, hilarious TV, "Triumph of the Will" strives to be pro-National Socialist propaganda.
With "Triumph of the Will" very specific images of Hitler and the people were chosen to portray a very positive image of his leadership and it's country. I would not be surprised to find out that every single instance in the film was staged ahead of time and everyone was instructed on how exactly to behave. That is how we end up with plump German women hailing Hitler like he's a rock star and close-ups of young, strapping Arian boys laughing and having fun.
Plus I wonder, where's the other side? Where are the dissenters? I have a hard time believing everyone went and welcomed Hitler with open arms. There may not have been protesters, but people may have chosen to stay home--well if this was reality.
If "Triumph of the Will" is a documentary, it is in the loosest sense of the word. It is first, and foremost, a propaganda film meant to ally all of it's viewers with Hitler.

Blog #4

Some people argue that “Triumph of the Will” is a propaganda film while others argue that is a documentary because it was made up of “actual” footage of the Nazi Nuremburg rallies. How would you categorize it and why?

This is really a fallacy in thinking--that a film must be one or the other--that propaganda films or documentaries are mutually exclusive. The reason the argument exists is simply becuase "Triumph of the Will" is both a propaganda film AND a documentary. A further fallacy is that documentaries are true/factual/unabirdged representations of real life/events/movements. The very fact that human beings are subjective, and therefore a filmed event is even more subjective (based on the limited perspective of the camera), documentaries, especially any that employee editing (read: all), are influenced by subjectivity and therefore attempting to communicate some message--and therefore propaganda.

There is no problem with propaganda; there is a problem with people accepting it carte blanche. The point is to understand that any purveyor of any view has an interest in you believing or disbelieving something. Propanganda is nothing more than a poorly-constructed, one-sided argument that does not atttempt to represent a complete perspective. That encompasses most arguments in life.

Triumph of the Night and Fog

Did anyone feel ready to join the Nazi Party after watching Triumph of the Will?  The director's careful syncronization between music and scene was powerfully done.  It was interesting to note that, from what I can remember, there was no mention of anti-semitism.  Hitler looked surprisingly benign, even when he spoke to the battalion of manual laborers, executing perfect close order drill with . . . shovels.

Quite obviously, Triumph was intended to be a chest-swelling patriotic film, and it did so by carefully showing Hitler, beloved of small children with flowers, out-of-luck young men, and hordes of admires as he stood on his balcony like being cast into a Shakespeare play.  

The height perspective was an interesting choice by the director.  While making Hitler look friendly and accessible, he was constantly above his audience with an almost divine seperation.  He enters the film flying high above Nuremburg.  He exits from his plane above a crowd of admirers.  He stands in a car above the spectators of a parade.  He stands above the legion of shovel-wielding young men.  And of course, his balcony, lit with Heil Hitler in Hollywood bulbs.  

This dual nature, both truly and fully God and truly and fully man, is perfectly understood by one of the propaganda posters we were shown equating Hitler to Jesus, which was a strong theme of the movie.  The similarities are striking: Jesus and Hitler letting the children come unto them.  Jesus and Hitler feeding thousands, though Hitler's seemed to be much more blonde.  Jesus and Hitler giving the sermon on the mount, though markedly different in subject matter.

They both, however, gave their followers something to believe in, even to death, which was shown in Triumph of the Will.

 

Triumph of the Will

I’d have to agree that Triumph of the Will was designed to make the Nazi party look more attractive to the German people, even if that beautification was only capitalizing on the way Hitler and the Nazis were perceived by many Germans at that time. Take, for example, the representation of the young workers as being carefree and playful: I think it’s safe to assume that the general frivolity pictured in the film was not necessarily the way those people lived all of the time. There was no real reference to actual work throughout that entire scene; just various shots of blond-haired boys wrestling and laughing. The music and previous images even made the mass-produced meals look enticing.

Though Triumph of the Will is arguably designed to beautify the Nazi party, I don’t know if Night and Fog was necessarily designed to do the opposite. The film didn’t deal as much with the politics behind the imprisonment and extermination of the Jewish people throughout Europe; it just revealed how those people actually lived. It obviously did portray the horrors of the camps, but it did not seem specifically designed to combat the glamorized image the Nazi’s were given in films like Triumph. Night and Fog did, through real portrayals of the camps, serve to combat some of the glamorized and sterilized versions that many people have been exposed to through movies about the Holocaust, which, by extension, changed the way the party politics—and in some ways, war—are viewed. Whether Triumph of the Will is a documentary or not, I do believe that Night and Fog at least achieved the purpose of more correctly portraying the whole of the situation; all of the images in Triumph were real, and the people involved in those images did support Hitler that fanatically, but it is not necessarily a correct representation of the Nazis. Night and Fog more accurately got to root of the Holocaust than Triumph did for the party.

Techniques of film

The films we saw in class have some similarities, but they also have many differences. Triumph of the Will was a very strong film compared to Night and Fog. They reasons include music, editing and overall camera use. The music is Triumph of the Will was powerful and leadership like, whereas the music is Night and Fog was in a way peaceful at most parts. Triumph of the Will includes many shots of just Hitler and the people that back him up. Seeing this gives off a powerful message, stating that this guy is a big deal for this country. Many of the shots of him are low angles, insinuating power. Then we have the film Night and Fog that shows horrible pictures and describes to us the events that took place during the Holocaust. The opening shot puts us in the open land where we then see barbed wire appear from the bottom of the screen. In both films we are given long scenes. This may be for us in take in what we are seeing and also to take a moment to think about what we are seeing. These films deal about different tragedies during World War Two and they show these tragedies with different techniques.

DRP's Work for blog post 4

Considering what we saw of the film Triumph Of The Will I believe that it is a propaganda film. Throughout the film they show very positive images, images of happy people, well fed soldiers, people having fun, even hitler descending from the heavens. All things might make it seem appealing for a person to join the nazi party. 

Looking at both films I can understand why people might say that Triumph Of The Will aestheticized the nazi party; for, it clearly was made to try and present the nazi party in a good way. But looking at Night and Fog i think it only showed the harsh reality of the Holocaust, and there is nothing beautiful about that.    

oh and...

forgot to say that the art direction in both was quite fascinating. in night and fog the music didnt connect at all, and maybe that was in effort to completely make the viewer not influenced by the music so that their reaction to the sights in the documentary are honest. Triumph of the will's music was jolly and celebratory, which contradicts their reputation and only makes them seem only the more evil by todays viewer, but if i assume the position of the first target market of the time, i would think the music and art direction might bring feelings of patriotism.
okay thats it

response to blog 4

From my perspective of the video, I think Truimph of the will is a more of a documentary than propaganda, my argument is that those things happening were actual events, the actual recording of Hitler and his movements 'encouraging' the masses. On the other hand, its propaganda-ness comes from the fact that it was made to brainwash. Its sole purpose was to hypnotize the German mind thats watching into falling in love with Hitler and everything he stands for.
Night and Fog though, was a collection of old pictures and videos vs. the 'now' of the holocaust sight. The difference between Triumph of the Will and Night and Fog is that Triumph was set entirely then and there in Germany... there was nothing else to view but Hitler and his subjects. in Night and Fog, this is a seemingly objective point if view of the happenings/ horrors of the holocaust camp sight. the video is set in todays day but focuses on the flashbacks

The Good Thing about Living in 3D is the Ability to See Both Sides of a Coin

First of all, that passage was disturbing. Yes destruction can be its own creation; it is beautiful in a horrifying way. If any of you have seen I <3 huckabees, you know what I mean when I say, "Creation, destruction. Creation, destruction." The Fifth Element deals with the same issue (awesome sci-fi movie). It is the natural path of things, regeneration and degeneration, life and death. However, life is better. Life is a gift. Sometimes it may seem as if death is a gift, and it may be for some, regardless of the unknown afterlife. War does not go around asking people if it can kill them and humiliate them first. It may be beautiful in a horrifying way, but it sure isn't fair.
I don't think Triumph of the Will should be considered a documentary. Although it had the aim to showcase some of the events of the nationalist-socialist uprising and of the holocaust, it did not fairly represent everything that happened. It was a promotional film, one-sided and noticibly silent on the part of the Jews. Though there was live footage, we hardly ever heard Hitler speak. This film was mainly visual/inspirational rather than informational.
Although I would like to say Night and Fog is more of a documentary than Triumph of the Will, I can't necessarily say it is true. Night and Fog, like Triumph, shows visual facts and some live footage. However, it lacks the traditional informational format of a documentary. I can say both represent part of the history of the holocaust. Triumph is clearly slanted towards the Nationalist-Socialist ideology, while Night and Fog seems to give a dry pan of the horrors which took place in the camps. Therefore, it may be somewhat ok to say that Night is a fairer representation.

Britt's Response for Blog #4

"Triumph of the Will" should be considered a documentary, based on what we saw anyway.  It shows the truth and it is factual.  There was no acting or reenactments only footage of events that occurred. The film is a representation of what happened at the rallies.  Documentaries are made to have a point or an argument.  In "Triumph of the Will" the argument is - Hitler is doing good things, he is a good leader.  That is the argument of the documentary.

People might not want to call "Triumph of the Will" a documentary because most people do not agree with Hitler's concepts so they would not want to agree with the film.  Just because film people might not like the idea behind "Triumph of the Will" does not mean it should be dismissed as a documentary film.  It is an like art piece.  Art is art even if it is Hitler's art.

Blog Assignment #4

Your blog posts for this week could touch on one or more of the following questions:

How do the film techniques in “Triumph of the Will” differ from the techniques used in the making of “Night and Fog?” “Night and Fog” was the film that we watched during the second class.

Specifically, how do these films employ the use of music, camera angels, edits?

How do the objectives of the films differ?

Some people argue that “Triumph of the Will” is a propaganda film while others argue that is a documentary because it was made up of “actual” footage of the Nazi Nuremburg rallies. How would you categorize it and why?

Many people argue that “Triumph of the Will” aesteticized politics: it made the Nazi movement look beautiful. Does “Night and Fog” ce-aesteticize politics and, therefore, war?

Feel free to draw on this passage of “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction” by Walter Benjamin.

“All efforts to render politics aesthetic culminate in one thing: war. War and war only can set a goal for mass movements on the largest scale while respecting the traditional property system. This is the political formula for the situation. The technological formula may be stated as follows: Only war makes it possible to mobilize all of today's technical resources while maintaining the property system. It goes without saying that the Fascist apotheosis of war does not employ such arguments. Still, Marinetti says in his manifesto on the Ethiopian colonial war: "For twenty- seven years we Futurists have rebelled against the branding of war as antiaesthetic.... Accordingly we state: ... War is beautiful because it establishes man's dominion over the subjugated machinery by means of gas masks, terrifying megaphones, flame throwers, and small tanks. War is beautiful because it initiates the dreamt-of metalization of the human body. War is beautiful because it enriches a flowering meadow with the fiery orchids of machine guns. War is beautiful because it combines the gunfire, the cannonades, the cease-fire, the scents, and the stench of putrefaction into a symphony. War is beautiful because it creates new architecture, like that of the big tanks, the geometrical formation flights, the smoke spirals from burning villages, and many others.... Poets and artists of Futurism! ... remember these principles of an aesthetics of war so that your struggle for a new literature and a new graphic art . . . may be illumined by them!"”

--Walter Benjamin, 1937

For you own edification, I highly recommend you reading this entire article. It’s a difficult read, but very influential. The article can be found here:

http://web.bentley.edu/empl/c/rcrooks/toolbox/common_knowledge/general_communication/benjamin.html