/ eature

Tyson Kelsall
Culture Editor

he Olympic Games began in 1896.

Although the Olympics are regularly
attributed to the people of ancient Greece,
there was a 1,500-year hiatus between the
original and current games. The first of
the modern games were held in Athens,
as a tribute to the Grecan roots. In 1926,
the first winter Olympics was held. At that
point, the Olympics started being held
every two years, rather than every four.
The modern day Olympics were meant to
mimic the ancient Greek belief that art,
culture, and sports could be celebrated
harmoniously, and that this would,
according to the Olympic Museum,
strike a healthy balance between
exercising the body and mind.
Theoretically, this does not
sound like a controversy,
in fact it sounds ideal and
balanced.

The Olympic
Games have
arguably
moved

away

from

their
essence.

Corruption,

ecological degradation, cultural
appropriation, and politics have

polarized the games, rather than uniting
different people, as is (or was) their
intention. It must be possible to celebrate
the athletic attainment and culture of the
host cities in a more progressive, inclusive,
and just way.

The Olympic Museum articulates that when
“the Games are used for political ends,
the Olympic idea is placed under threat.”
They list seven well-known examples: the
1936, the Nazis controlled the Games; in
1976 in Montreal, 22 countries boycotted
the games due to New Zealand’s rugby
team touring South Africa which still had
a legal apartheid; lastly in 1984 in LA, the
Soviets boycotted the games due to the
commercialization of sport. These large
political divisions are hardly the tip of
the iceberg in terms of people affected or
divided by the modern Olympics.

In Vancouver in 2010, there were many
local issues. Many of these flew under
the radar to elite and wealthy visitors,
and were well hidden by Olympic
organizers. However, homeless people

iE FOR SON

9)
iE

living in Whistler were forced to relocate
to Squamish where an emergency shelter
had to be set-up, so they had somewhere
to survive. In Vancouver, there was a tent
city of more than 100 people set up. Frank
Harris, one of the community organizers at
tent city, told NY Daily News, "They spent
$8 billion on these Games, for a two-week
party. If they had used one-eighth of that,
they could have housed permanently our
homeless." BC Housing found 35 units of
housing the day after an intrusive

protest was held in
their office, but
before

that could not find any of the tent city
occupants any housing. So, is there no way
to celebrate a city a little less expensively
and help our own? Would this diminish
political actions during the Games?

In post-Olympic Beijing, many of the very
expensive stadiums are abandoned, or close
to. Some are still costing money; according
to the Globe and Mail, as of 2012, four years
after the Olympics, the famed water cube
stadium was still having its’ water changed
each day despite not being used, and the
kayak venue was just sitting vacant, for
example. In China, there is much poverty,
but the environmental impact of building
this infrastructure only to serve a two-week
purpose should also be factored into the
decision to host the Games.

In Russia in preparation for Sochi

2014, corruption has already hit hard.
International Olympic Committee member,
Gian Kasper, believes that one third of

the money going towards infrastructure
for the Olympics has disappeared due to
corruption. Money was going to a sort
of construction mafia with connections
to Vladimir Putin, as was reported by
Graham Dunbar of the Associated Press.
The entirety of the Olympics’ building
costs is estimated to be roughly $51 billion,
with that number continuously rising.
Even though these types of accusations
are astounding, it is not the first time
construction has become incredibly more
expensive than predicted; in the
1976 games in Montreal there
have been long

allegations of
corruption in the construction dealings,
including the $1.6 billion Olympic Stadium
(once again, an expensive, but rarely used
building).

These examples are still barely grazing the
surface of the far-reaching issues of the
massive Olympic games. There are many
other issues resulting from throwing such
a luxurious two-week event, such as: the
100 sled dogs that were slaughtered after
the Vancouver Olympics because they

had nowhere to go after the events were
done. In London, in 2012, 500 low-income
families were moved over 250 kilometers
to the already over-crowded Stoke-on-
Trent to make room for Olympic-based
guests’ accommodations. Some, including
Nick Malkoutzis of Business Week, have
attributed the 2004 Athens games as the
last blow that started the Greek economic
collapse, with a cost of roughly $11 billion.

We can also look at the potential benefits of
the Olympic Games. With so many people
of different cultures coming together,

now by both literally being at the games
and through social media, the power of

IEW APPROACHES

such a huge collaboration should be able

to be harnessed. Although such a large
establishment has many complexities, here
are some simple thoughts that might solve
some Olympic woes:

1. First and foremost, go back to the
original values of rejoicing in athletic
endeavors while celebrating the culture
of a host city. Manufacturing a town
so heavily for a two-week gathering is
resource intensive, both economically
and ecologically. The boom-and-bust of a
neighbourhood can have negative social
effects on the people who live there,
depending on the context. It might be
desirable to dress up the town a bit, but
completely reinventing parts of it is not
consistent with
celebrating
its
culture,

considering the culture
itself is being changed.

2. The IOC currently looks at the
cities’ blueprint for the games. Perhaps

the IOC should also be influenced by which
cities have sustainable (economically and
ecologically speaking) ideas that go beyond
their two-week scope in a city. For example,
more efficient public transportation that is
accessible to the cities’ population.

3. Currently, the city changes each two
years between the two sets of Olympics,
and then does not return to the host city,
with some exceptions. After a city builds
the infrastructure, it would be much more
inexpensive to host twice. It might be
beneficial to consider changing the outlook
on that. For example, perhaps a winning
city hosts the Winter or Summer Olympics
twice within 12 years, and then can plan
accordingly.

It might be partially a case of going back
to the basics for the Olympics, but it is also
a case of progressing towards a structure
that fits into today’s needs. The Olympics
have the ability to bring many people
together; let us make it do so, rather than
dividing people amongst classes and beliefs.
Let us celebrate the achievements of the
people and the populations of the host
cities, rather than elaborate and expensive
posturing.