Date: Wed, 7 Aug 1996 00:23:56 -0400
Subject: Centennial Olympics
From: Prendergast, Eloise C. (IMCEN) <PrendEC@hqda.army.mil>
44 GOLD Medals; 101 Total for United States. At the top of the list.
The women athletes were incredible!!
Yet another growing frontier.
The United States military brings people together from around the country to
work as a team together.
The Olympics brings people together from around the world to work together
as athletes and make history.
Interesting how the two bring people together.
Eloise Prendergast
From: Dorothy H. Mackey <dmackey1@cscuuxch.dayton.csc.com>
Not to be disrespectful or unpatriotic, I just don't give the military that much credit, not in leadership. Grant it, the Olympics and the military are important in their respective circles, but let's call it as it is. The Olympics over the years has scrutinized its athletes, nations in various ways to ensure integrity is maintained in the ultimate athletic arena. To name a few: banning South Africa during apartheid, checking steroid use and blood doping. While the Olympics is a cooperative of cultures, the senior membership slow at times does make up for it's past errors, as exampled by the Olympic President's tribute to victims of terrorism.
It is unfortunate the military leadership can not learn from the thousands of years of combined cultural knowledge of these nations, but alas the leadership in the military sees it's members as expendable in all facets or the opposite themselves above the law. Here we are a nation comprising of 50 States plus, and our leadership can not hold to the same level of integrity as the Olympic federation. If you think about it, sad as it is, both organizations in a very basic way have the same goals, deterrence. The Olympics attempt to find mutual understanding on a level playing field. Both use international sanctions, but the integrity issues of the Olympics challenge all its membership to provide the best. Failure to do so results in individual sanctions and reprisals. Hard to believe that nations can and do respond to individual sanctions in an Olympic arena and military international venue when issues of denial of human indignities surface. But in my own nation, I can and have gone to the top of my military, government and legal systems and have been denied my human dignity and my rights. I have been blatantly ignored, denied and dismissed. The previous author, E. Prendergast gives far to much credit to the US military leadership, as an institution. I can not give credit to any establishment that allows General Officers to retire receiving all of their benefits after egregious and gross violations of US and military laws, while the military system cites a long career as justification for no punishment.
In recent years of all the violations of laws by senior Air Force, Army, Navy or Marine officers why is it only 1 officer has been punished? General Donald Kaufman a previous Wing Commander of mine, lost two stars and was forced to retire at Colonel only after he directed his staff members to bring back to the States 2 AK-47 Soviet made guns from the Gulf War. This action came only after international pressure forced the Sec of AF to do something. Even after the incident the article in the NY Times was buried deep inside the pages, and very small at that. As history has already shown us when gross violations of law happened between US military members, there is no international pressure to force resolution. And often things just get covered up. As for Kaufman, even as a Wing Commander he took great latitude in his abilities and responsibilities, it's unfortunate that no one took the time to scrutinize him before this incident, as the saying goes "where there is smoke there is fire."
I am not here to burn my flag, but I also won't wrap myself in it and proclaim or infer, how perfect this nation and my military is as so many others do when they say...."its better then anything else." Let's be honest, what is the difference between systems we as Americans dislike.....we believe we have all these freedoms and rights until we assert them, then we really learn how few rights if any we really have. Other nations we dislike tell their people straight up front what they don't have. What's the difference? I am sure people like Rodney King, Paula Coughlin, Annetta Hill have other opinions about the rights they believed they had. Lord knows I have seen what it is like to believe in the establishment of the military. There is but 1 person who I believe will speak for me in asserting my rights, and that is me.
Our country, especially the military has allowed outrageous incidents and acts against fellow Americans to be down played, hidden, ignored under the auspices of the military "complex" system or national security. BS factor is way up here! Tell me how is it national security or an immunity issue when an Army woman by the name of Stubbs is sexually harassed severely to the point of breaking, being backed into a bathroom stall and demanded sexual acts from her drill Sgt. Tell me how is it that these acts which led to Ms Stubbs taking her own life could be covered under the Ferris Doctrine and immunity for the Army and her perpetrator(s). You can not justify what is irrational, the military at its best is the epitome of dysfunction. My feeling is save the praise for the survivors of these sick systems, they deserve and warrant your praise far more then the leadership or coconspirators who allow the military one of the last bastions of deceit.
The nations of the Olympics have moved forward, and have shown us our own short comings. It is a time for reflection and resolutions, not of self enamored praise. This is very well documented in the number of US government officials who continue to tell the US public, we don't need to worry about terrorism, after flight 800, after the Olympic bombing.
From: Prendergast, Eloise C. (IMCEN) <PrendEC@hqda.army.mil>
44 GOLD Medals; 101 Total for United States. At the top of the list.
The women athletes were incredible!!
Yet another growing frontier.
The United States military brings people together from around the country to
work as a team together.
The Olympics brings people together from around the world to work together
as athletes and make history.
Interesting how the two bring people together.
Eloise Prendergast
> The women athletes were incredible!!
> Yet another growing frontier.
> The United States military brings people together from around the
country to
> work as a team together.
> The Olympics brings people together from around the world to work
together
> as athletes and make history.
> Interesting how the two bring people together.
Our local paper had an article during the Olympics that said sports such as archery, shooting and fencing that came from a military origin should be banned from the olympics. Further in the article it said that these sports should really be banned because they were so boring for the television audience.
Sharon Wildwind
Calgary, Alberta
<wildwind@nucleus.com>
From: Marsha J. Valance <valance@omnifest.uwm.edu>
And here I thought we saw so little of archery, shooting, fencing and equestrian because the athletes wore clothes!
Marsha in Milwaukee (who's waiting for videotapes)
Sharon Wildwind reported
>>>>Our local paper had an article during the Olympics that said sports such
as archery, shooting and fencing that came from a military origin should
be banned from the olympics.
Then about about all running events, discus, javelin, the hammer, the
Penthalon (I think), steeplechase?
>>>>these
sports should really be banned because they were so boring for the
television audience.
At least the paper got to watch them - I have yet to see fencing on TV!! But
the real question is who is the dog and who the tail?? I thought that the
Olympics were to determine the best the world has to offer in various sports.
Having once been a competitive marksman, I can agree that watching somebody shoot is not exciting. But to the one doing the work, it is intense.
Some editors make me ashamed that I give myself airs as a writer!! Thanks, Sharon, for letting us know about the idiots in the world. (How about women's gymnastics as child abuse?? And those poor waterlogged child swimmers???)
Gene Moser
Fencing, boring?! !*$$?!+|##**&??!! Anorectic munchkins waving ribbons is boring; shooting at stationary targets with 45 assorted sighting and balancing gadgets is boring; listening to Tim Daggett (didn't anyone audition that guy before they put him on? Good grief.) was worse than boring, it was outright annoying. Thanks be to whomever didn't inflict sunchronized swimming on us. And a big kick in the duff for whomever didn't bother to note the addition at long last of women's epee and where the hell is sabre? And while we're at it, the sport is worse than military-descended, it has aristocratic antecedents yet. Do those of you who are/were officers and gentlewomen by act of congress get to pack a sword? And they could ban the marathon on the same grounds, right?
Just ranting, Val Eads
From: Cronin, Clare C. <ccronin@INETMAIL.ushmm.org>
*************************In reply to:*********************
From:aschl024@student2.uwsp.edu
I write and edit a newsletter for the Affirmative Action Office at the University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point. An article I put in last month's newsletter seemed applicable to this list.
>>let's call it as it is. The Olympics
>>over the years has scrutinized its athletes, nations in various ways to
>>ensure
>>integrity is maintained in the ultimate athletic arena. To name a few:
>>banning
>>South Africa during apartheid, checking steroid use and blood doping.
There is yet another thing that the Olympics do which does not lend to bringing people together:
Before the Olympics began this year and every two years before the Olympics begin, female athletes must go through genetic testing to verify their gender. Fifty to sixty years ago, men disguised themselves as women and competed for the gold. When this practice first began, athletes had to disrobe before gynecologists to prove their gender. After the humiliation of this practice was recognized, the International Olympic Committee decided on genetic testing. The latest test is 99 percent accurate, which means that some women may be penalized and disqualified from the Games.
I'll quibble, here. The alternative is...? No
genetic testing, allowing men to participate
disguised as women thereby denying women places
which are intended for them to begin with? Should
we revert to the Olympic tradition and have all
the athletes compete nude? It would certainly
make fencing a lot more interesting, but might
reduce participation! ;-)
It lasted up to the 1970s. When the test was
introduced in 1972, a lot of top women athletes
"mysteriously" developed injuries and illnesses
and dropped out of the Games, particularly from
the former Soviet Union and East Germany. The
first documented case I know of was from the 1936
Games, and the man in question wasn't officially
discovered until after the war, although a member
of the German team claims to have a report made
to the Gestapo by two women on a streetcar
complaining that another woman, the athlete in
question, had 5 o'clock shadow! Another
anecdote: the exception to these tests was
Princess Anne, a member of the British Equestrian
team, who was excused from having to take them.
Clare Cronin
Academy grads get a sabre (even in the Air Force where I understand it comes in handy while cutting wedding cake). Those of us from ROTC or OTS had to find our blades other ways (mine was a foil, but I always wanted to fence sabre). I agree--lose the "rhythmic gymnastics" (this is sport?).
Alison Weir
From: Dorothy H. Mackey <dmackey1@cscuuxch.dayton.csc.com>
Point taken, sorry too, some times even unknown to me I get fired up.
It sounded as if your Army experience was pretty good, I envy you. In
the AF, most of mine was great until the last year. It is sad, that
one year of hell, followed by years of being ignored by those in power
can profoundly change not only my 8 years of previous service but all
aspects of my life.
Stick to it, your opinion, in retrospect, I am trying to find my
balance again. I have gotten better since 1991 - 1992 but it is a long
hard struggle. It is nice to hear others input, even if it triggers a
fired up response from me. As I learned along this journey, "things
happen for a reason" for whatever reason your statement hit a nerve.
But that is something for me to deal with.
Ok, let me ask what event was your favorite and why? Your least? I
would have loved to have seen more of the women's sports, softball.
Have a good day.
Whoa. Glad this started some run of conversation but my ONLY point was
how great it was to me that these athletes from all over the world came
together as fellow athletes and I'm sure developed friendships.
In my small little world and scope of things in this comment is we did
the same in the Army among states. We became a team, not state against
state.
Sorry - there was nothing deep intended on this one from my part, but
have at it. I just enjoyed the Olympics.
Eloise Prendergast
Add to this authors response, some years ago Brian Gumble was
reviewing the Olympics, he was obviously agree at the taking of the
gold metals from the African Americans who did the "black power" sign
during the national anthem. Brian went on to state that a women
recently murdered in Cleveland should also have her medal take. The
rest of the story: An elderly woman who remained single and a teacher
had moved from Poland to Cleveland. She was well thought of, she was
killed in the parking lot of a grocery store during a robbery attempt.
The woman turned out to be the gold medalist in the 32 or 36 Olympics.
At the autopsy it turned out that the woman was a hermaphrodite, (sex
organs of both male and female). Gumble protested her medal on the
grounds she cheated.
I will refrain unlike most times from saying what I feel about Gumble.
Dorothy H. Mackey
From:aschl024@student2.uwsp.edu
I write and edit a newsletter for the Affirmative Action Office at the University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point. An article I put in last month's newsletter seemed applicable to this list.
>>let's call it as it is. The Olympics
>>over the years has scrutinized its athletes, nations in various ways to
>>ensure
>>integrity is maintained in the ultimate athletic arena. To name a few:
>>banning
>>South Africa during apartheid, checking steroid use and blood doping.
There is yet another thing that the Olympics do which does not lend to bringing people together:
Before the Olympics began this year and every two years before the Olympics begin, female athletes must go through genetic testing to verify their gender. Fifty to sixty years ago, men disguised themselves as women and competed for the gold. When this practice first began, athletes had to disrobe before gynecologists to prove their gender. After the humiliation of this practice was recognized, the International Olympic Committee decided on genetic testing. The latest test is 99 percent accurate, which means that some women may be penalized and disqualified from the Games.
No slight against the royal family, but sounds like another royal
scandal in the making. Hummmm, Could it have been Princees Andy!
Sorry, couldn't help it. But I am one who believes if she/he had to
compete under one national flag, and be an athlete no matter what
their station was in life--do the test or give up yor place on the
team. Historically, those who have been less then honest have set the
stage for what we now see. The upper crust of society has not set
themselves above those who have engaged in less then honorable
behavior, so they need to buck up, too!
Dorothy H. Mackey
From: Cronin, Clare C. <ccronin@INETMAIL.ushmm.org>
*************************In reply to:*********************
From:aschl024@student2.uwsp.edu
I write and edit a newsletter for the Affirmative Action Office at the University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point. An article I put in last month's newsletter seemed applicable to this list.
>>let's call it as it is. The Olympics
>>over the years has scrutinized its athletes, nations in various ways to
>>ensure
>>integrity is maintained in the ultimate athletic arena. To name a few:
>>banning
>>South Africa during apartheid, checking steroid use and blood doping.
There is yet another thing that the Olympics do which does not lend to bringing people together:
Before the Olympics began this year and every two years before the Olympics begin, female athletes must go through genetic testing to verify their gender. Fifty to sixty years ago, men disguised themselves as women and competed for the gold. When this practice first began, athletes had to disrobe before gynecologists to prove their gender. After the humiliation of this practice was recognized, the International Olympic Committee decided on genetic testing. The latest test is 99 percent accurate, which means that some women may be penalized and disqualified from the Games.
I'll quibble, here. The alternative is...? No
genetic testing, allowing men to participate
disguised as women thereby denying women places
which are intended for them to begin with? Should
we revert to the Olympic tradition and have all the
athletes compete nude? It would certainly make
fencing a lot more interesting, but might reduce
participation! ;-)
It lasted up to the 1970s. When the test was
introduced in 1972, a lot of top women athletes
"mysteriously" developed injuries and illnesses
and dropped out of the Games, particularly from
the former Soviet Union and East Germany. The
first documented case I know of was from the 1936
Games, and the man in question wasn't officially
discovered until after the war, although a member
of the German team claims to have a report made
to the Gestapo by two women on a streetcar
complaining that another woman, the athlete in
question, had 5 o'clock shadow! Another
anecdote: the exception to these tests was
Princess Anne, a member of the British Equestrian
team, who was excused from having to take them.
Clare Cronin
My quibble with the Barr body test, I assume they're still using it, is that only women are required to prove that they are 100% grade A certifiable members of their sex. If men are competing as men and women as women both ought to prove their sex. Or are we women a sort of shadow paralympics? [A gynecological exam or a barr body test proves the sex of the examinee, not the gender.] Val Eads
Val Eads wrote:
> Or are we women a sort of shadow paralympics? > [A gynecological exam or a barr body test proves the sex of > the examinee, not the gender.] Val Eads
Here's where that gender word gets in the way. As in a delivery room, sex is damned important in sports, if for no other reason because of the hormonal effect on bones and muscles.
Sports prowess has very little to do with the ERA. It is a test of bodily functions not social acceptance.
The type of sports set up in the Olympics tests the kind of bodily functions that MEN are best at. Yes, it is rather important that women be allowed to compete with women because a lower standard necessary. (I personally think a basketball hoop should be set HIGHER for the NBA genetic wonders).
As a fair to middling baseball player I held my own until the hormones changed them and me. Then I was a good *woman* baseball player ... I was a good bowler but could never beat the *top* men bowlers on a regular basis. There is a difference.
Another example, look at the gymnastics - the men move just about the same whether they be 16 or 26. Yet you can spot a 16 year old girl out there from a 26-year-old without a program. The way they use their bodies are completely different.
Remember, in the Olympics we are not dealing with ordinary people. We are looking at men and women who have developed their bodies to the extreme. We are dealing with bodies, not gender ... and like it or not, women are not as tall nor do they have the body mass.
Remember Riggs was almost completely over the hill when Billy Jo beat him and he wasn't THAT good when he was on top of the hill.
Irene Stuber
> No slight against the royal family, but sounds like another royal > scandal in the making. Hummmm, Could it have been Princees Andy!
But for equestrian events, men & women compete against each other as equals. So why have any of the competitors in those events tested for their sex? Perhaps it would have been different if Princess Anne was competing in weightlifting or track & field events.
-Carol Kocian
In the recent contribution by Irene Stuber I was disappointed by her reaction to genetic gender testing in the Olympics. I agree that it is important that women are competing against women due to the difference in average size and strength of the two genders. However, as a collegiate athlete and a supporter of women's sports, I did not appreciate the language she used in her argument. Women are not "allowed" to compete as some side show to the real contests between men. They have fought battles for recognition on and off the playing field.
Ms Stuber, I, too, fell victim to the strength and speed of the boys growing up but not until I tried out and made boys teams over other boys hoping for a spot. Your memories of baseball and your conclusion that you were good for a woman only helps to limit the possibilities of women in sports. As a collegiate coach, I hope you make time for women's sports and understand that it is not a lower standard in our eyes...just different. The best gift I received from sports was to be challenged physically to the extreme and perform at the peak of my game. If I were a young woman wanting to follow in the footsteps of Cheryl Swoopes (B-BAll) or Mia Hamm (soccer) and I was confronted with the attitude that I will always be second no matter what, the discouragment would be another obstacle to overcome.
I suppose to bring this discussion of the Centennial Olympics full circle it is possible to compare the fight with that of women in the military. The patriarchy of the military argues that women cannot perform to the same standards set for men. So they set a different standard for women. "in concept I would like to think that they don't "allow" women into the military just to ride along but rather they understand the differences and appreciate the dynamic that both can contribute to the defense of this country.
Molly Myers
Irene- my message said nothing about inter-sex competition. I did a bit of competitive kendo myself, Japanese fencing, so I know what you mean. BUT, I see no reason why only women should have to prove their sex. Period. To compete in men's whatever one must be a man. Period.
You raise two other interesting issues, age and female dis/advantage. First, the 16 year olds in women's gymnastics are not typical of young women as you well know. Their hard training and rigorous dieting plus selection for specific body types produces a real skewing of characteristics. They look preadolescent and I would wager many are amenorrheic until they retire. Plainly spoken, you are comparing adults to children, even children with a chronological age of 16 or more. Males are not subjected to this kind of maturity retarding training; I doubt many parents or the public would tolerate their little men being held back from adulthood. Take another hard-working group. Professional dancers, have similar problems with delayed menarche but to a different degree as no one wants to watch child ballerinas. Yes, there are some young wonders. Yes, as Agnes DeMille so wisely said, "26 doesn't seem old until you stand in tights next to a 16 year old." No, the degree of difference between a post adolescent and a young but full grown adult is not more pronounced in women than in men. Ten years is ten years for either sex until you start artificially delaying maturity. Offhand, at least for dancers, I think the age difference is more marked females simply because boys of 16 can be quite immature physically, still growing, while girls that age are, or should be, young women. In ten years it evens out.
I bet that if there was a way they could get away with it a lot of men would llike a bit of help with their flexibility component if they could get it from some kind of "feminizing" drug that would loosen up the musculature without making them sopranos. So yeh all those guys with face to the floor 180s should have to prove they are as estrogen deprived as they're supposed to be. A little bit of femaleness also wouldn't hurt those guys who need quick recovery times, an area where I believe women have some advantage even among the highly trained. Then there's the concentration or what I call the centering factor. Whatever it was that kept the women on anti-aircraft crews in WWII from freaking out as much as the men did would be worth a fortune bottled for jocks in some sports. What I'm maundering on about is that the female sex is not a total disadvantage in spite of the fact that we tend to make sports of things that show off male characteristics. At one time this served some kind of purpose I think :-)
Finally, will someone explain to me carefully, in words of few syllables and in short sentences please, why events such as target shooting have separate men's and women's events? (Chess. Pool, fer Xsakes?) Why men don't use music for floor exercise? I don't get it.
Since the King-Riggs match was mentioned, I am reminded of a speech BJK gave at a women's sports conference in DC some years ago. The remark was not in her printed speech so I got a tape of it to be sure I'd have it. She was speaking in favor of men and women competing against each other to the horror of many present. "If I had competed against men I don't know if I'd have won as much, but I'd have played better tennis."
On less exhaulted levels there's no reason why men and women can't compete against each other, at least no rational reason. Reminds me of picking mutual funds. You never see a fund advertised that isn't "No. 1!" in some category, but before you send money you want to know how it performs in the overall market, right? Yes, I admire all those women who compete in women's events on such a high level as the Olympics, but when Jackie Joyner Kersee added that she jumped further that all but 128 men in the world, I loved it! I would like stats like that more often.
Val Eads
Carol Kocian wrote:
>>>> But for equestrian events, men & women compete against each other
as equals. So why have any of the competitors in those events tested
for their sex?
Val Eads wrote:
>>>>why events such as target
shooting have separate men's and women's events?
& Why men don't use music for floor exercise?
The answer to Val's question is probably the "upper body strength" idea. It may appear easy, but competitive shooting is hard work! It takes a great deal of carefully controlled, relaxed muscle to hold a target grade pistol at arm's length or support a match rifle, both of which are much heavier than a sporting version.
Being the father of a female former competive gymnast, I am forced to say
that the female uses music on the floor because she has a much "sexier"
routine than does the male. This was one of the things I disliked most about
gymnasitcs - seeing nine and ten year old girls twitching their behinds,
mincing, and making other gestures which said "$5 and I'm all yours for the
next two minutes". And yes, serious female gymnasts tend to achieve menarche
later than the non athletic girl - but the same can be said of other female
atheletes who start serious physical training prior to puberty. By the way,
puberty is a very hazardous period for a female gymnast - all of a sudden her
center of gravity is not where it used to be and she must learn to
compensate.
Gene Moser
good comments on there being no obvious reason for gender stratification [ word is intended to convey no implications about betterness, just trying to describe differentness ] in certain competitions. it's not immediately obvious why competitions which do not inherently favor a certain body type should ever be stratified.
in practice, there may be inherent gender differences which are not apparent from body type. Frex, historically women have (overall) not done as well at the highest levels of Contract Bridge as have men. One possible explanation is that women as a group place less importance on competition [ qua competition ] as a life value and so are less willing to work obsessively at perfecting one skill (although the young female gymnasts, swimmers, and ice-skaters who have no life but the practice facility may be counter-examples to this possible explanation). Another possible explanation is that there may be certain adaptation factors (some times called "intelligence" factors) which conduce to skill at Bridge and which are generally of higher potential in men for genetic reasons -- for instance, spatial visualization, although the jury is still out on that.
in competitions in which body type makes an obvious difference, individuals are often stratified by body type, frex weight classes in weight-lifting.
these are usually individual events. one interesting alternative might be possible in team events. in basketball, for example, height is, ceteris paribus, an advantage: suppose that a team were limited to a certain total height on the court at any one time? then it is quite possible that a Dawn Staley would have the same opportunities as a Muggsy Bogues, because she would be valued for the proportion of her basketball skills to her height, rather than being disadvantaged (as MB equally is) by falling short of the population mean in height.
do women of a certain height have a mean reflex speed faster or slower than that of men of the same height? is there some competition which depends almost solely on reflex speed? i'm just tossing out some questions here.
W. L. Salvatore
Interesting thing about the sex divisions in the Olympics. I recall hearing that bobsled used to be a mixed event, and then the women's bobsled teams started winning more than the men. Suddenly, women were no longer allowed to compete in bobsled. Finally, a separate bobsled event for women was brought in, so that women could compete again. I thought it was *very* interesting when I heard it, since it implied that the men just couldn't take the idea of being beaten by women.
Jane Beckman
The people were my favorite part of the military too. I still
remember
names, faces and specific incidents with people. As a young wet behind the
ears
2Lt I was amased at how different people were, but how very much the same. I
enjoyed being there as a young commander when it was hard. No matter the
event
war games, a death notice and discipline action human dynmaics would kick in.
Sometimes the hardest core people were the most emotionally touched during
hard
times. I saw my job as helping people to help themselves. I was pro-active,
since all of us have problems some times in our life, I was just
fortunate to have as my job a position that allowed others to be themselves,
to
be honest and some times very vulnerable. That is what I loved about the men
and
women I worked with is that through it all, many of them are what makes the
US
military the best. The strength to be vulnerable often determines the true
strength of an individual.
I am sorry I often can not say the same for the officer corps, even though I was an officer. Many of the officers I served with traded their compassion, integrity and souls for promotions. This was not 100%, and some enlisted also did this, but this has been my disappointment in the service, too.
Dorothy H. Mackey
Eloise Prendergast wrote
--------------snip-------------------
>That's what I enjoyed seeing. How another competitor in a sport would
be seen going over to another fellow athelete and hug them or just reach
out and touch their shoulder. Of course there were some that are so
driven in the competition they never get a taste of that.
I enjoyed the miltary for the people. Not all my assignments were
"fun". Personalities, egos, knowledge, gendre, physical condition,
"politics", could be a conflict. But overall? It was fun meeting all
the people I did, learning about the different cultures and lifestyles
within our OWN country. Southerners, Mid-Westerners, Northeasterners,
Mountain regions, etc. It used to amaze me that when people heard I was
from New York - most non-Yorkers immediately assume - Manhattan. A lot
of us 'introduced' them to Long Island, Western New York, Upstate New
York...... sometimes you just have to look at it simply.
Hell of a National Anthem we have, too, isn't it? It still makes me cry
when I hear the lyrics in my head.
>Ok, let me ask what event was your favorite and why? Your least? I >would have loved to have seen more of the women's sports, softball. >Dorothy H. Mackey
Favorite - gymnastics - for the strength, flexibility, and power. swimming - the strength and competition by lanes (I yelled at the TV a lot on this one - especially the women's competition)
Least - none. Not sure why some events are in the Olympics, but those particular atheletes worked hard to be good at what they're doing whether rythmic gymnastics, synchronized swimming (water aerobics:-), equestrian (sp?) and air rifle? Oh well. They were voted in for some reason. Have at it.
What's a good conversation though if you don't get fired up over anything?! Thanks, appreciate the acknowlegment. I'm sure there's a lot of things the Olympics still isn't doing right; I've seen the comments of military structure and conflict; the difficulties the female atheletes are still dealing with - so what else is new. But sometimes I just allow myself the simple pleasure of admiring these people who train up for this, the basketball team that was made up of women from all over (not like they've been playing in their local neighborhood and decided to try out for the Olympics), the new people they each meet, the different ethnic groups they crossed paths with (I know I enjoyed the different countries I've been to and those that reached out and befriended me - funny how you never forget those people), the pride in your own country as you walk into a stadium behind your flag, the way the second and third place winners - on different occasions - would equally share in the joy of the competition with the first place winner (like the weight lifting; all three winners stood on the gold medal platform with their arms around each other - three different countries).
That's what I enjoyed seeing. How another competitor in a sport would be seen going over to another fellow athelete and hug them or just reach out and touch their shoulder. Of course there were some that are so driven in the competition they never get a taste of that. I enjoyed the miltary for the people. Not all my assignments were "fun". Personalities, egos, knowledge, gendre, physical condition, "politics", could be a conflict. But overall? It was fun meeting all the people I did, learning about the different cultures and lifestyles within our OWN country. Southerners, Mid-Westerners, Northeasterners, Mountain regions, etc. It used to amaze me that when people heard I was from New York - most non-Yorkers immediately assume - Manhattan. A lot of us 'introduced' them to Long Island, Western New York, Upstate New York...... sometimes you just have to look at it simply. Hell of a National Anthem we have, too, isn't it? It still makes me cry when I hear the lyrics in my head.
Have a good weekend!!
Eloise
Whoa. Glad this started some run of conversation but my ONLY point was
how great it was to me that these athletes from all over the world came
together as fellow athletes and I'm sure developed friendships.
In my small little world and scope of things in this comment is we did
the same in the Army among states. We became a team, not state against
state.
Sorry - there was nothing deep intended on this one from my part, but
have at it. I just enjoyed the Olympics.
Eloise Prendergast
Return to H-MINERVA Home Page.