I found Suzanne's comments regarding the different Olympic organisations
very succinct and pertinent. It hadn't even occured to me until to latest
round of e-mails concerning the Olympic rings being taken down from the
Sydney Harbour Bridge that this was the case. Of course, as Suzanne has
asked,why is this the case. Naturally I understand the company structure
and trademark arguments but I must admit to being confounded by the
perception in the 'big business Olympic company that rules all' that these
activities cannot co-exist.
Surely an elite athlete is an elite athlete whether they're undertaking
those feats of magic in a wheelchair or in running shoes. I remember Louise
Sauvage racing in Atlanta as vividly as Kieren Perkin's swim because both
represented the pinacle of achievement in their sport at that time. I also
recall her getting media attention because of her athleticism not because
she was in a wheelchair. In reflecting on this I have also been listening
to interviews with the Olympians on Triplej (Australian 'Youth' radio.) The
interviews haven't been about disability and overcoming hardship etc etc.
They've been about training, life as an athlete, who are the competitors to
watch out for and so on. These might be really simplistic perceptions of
something deeper that I don't understand, but I wonder if the need to keep
the events separate exists only in the minds of the olympic business machine
when most people outside the closed doors of the money makers are more
interested in seeing people 'do their thing'.
I guess, like Suzanne, the question becomes WHY?. Given that a contract for
the paralympics in 2004 hasn't been signed, is this the time to ask the IOC
why as well?
Peter
-----Original Message-----
From: [log in to unmask]
[mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Susanne
Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2000 9:58 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: paralympic as a "medical model"
Strange how we seem to find the explanations about the different
organisations etc. so "reassuring". Why not ask ourselves why it is two
separate organisations? Who wants it? Who decides it? And on what grounds?
As to the definition of wheelchair racing as a "demonstration" sport (or
what the term was) in the Olympics because of the restricted group of
participants: How does this go together with other sports in the Olympic
games that are "restricted" into different weight cathegories.
As to the Olympic symbol: I thought that the paralympics' had its own symbol
just because the games weren't allowed to use the Olympic symbol. However I
read that some years back and do not remember the source so I might be
wrong.
As I see it there is no reason what so ever to accept the social exclusion
of certain athletes or sports because they happen to belong to the cathegory
of "disability". Would we accept this in other areas of society? In Sweden
we have a very good drama company called "silent theater" - does the fact
that they use sign language mean that they should not be welcome to
participate in "able-bodied" cultural festivals? We also have a very good
movie director with a mobility impairment - would it be acceptable if his
disability was concidered as placing him in a "restricted group" and
therefore prevent his movies to be nominated for an Oscar?
Recommended questions:
WHY? WHO? WHAT?
Susanne Berg
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|