free forum make a forum for free message boards free forum hosting free phpbb forum phpbb create free forum

Mfischhoff · Joined: 14 Sep 2009 Posts: 51

Many of you probably watched the Opening Ceremonies of the 2010 Winter Olympics. If you didn't, you can check out the video at NBC's website (http://www.nbcolympics.com/video/assetid=9b2178b4-0dce-4a98-b83f-01d2acff0698.html#encore+opening+ceremony+part)

Canada's indigenous people, who call themselves the "First People" or the "First Nations" were prominently figured in the ceremony. This inclusion was highly contentious -- not everyone felt honored by the representation.

For extra credit, please read the following articles about differing viewpoints on the representation of Canada's First Nations at the Olympics and respond with at least 200 words of your own thoughts.

Articles:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=123603649
http://www.straight.com/article-116454/first-nations-divided-over-2010-olympic-games

CelinaFernandezAyala · Joined: 17 Nov 2009 Posts: 37

Something about the opening ceremonies absolutely felt "Disneyesque." [NPR article] Combined with the information about the "increasing police roughness with native panhandlers" [NPR article], it felt as if Canada was trying to mask its problems by having their native people perform at the opening ceremony. I can't quite put my finger on it, but something about the ceremony felt patronizing, or condescending; As if the dances were just a performance instead of something with cultural significance. Perhaps it was at the very end, when the announcers described what was going to follow while the ceremony was still happening. Could that have waited until later? Did it have to happen while the Native Canadians were still onstage?

In the end, it's great that the opening ceremony included Canada's indigenous people. This probably wouldn't have happened 40, 50, 60 years ago, so some progress has definitely been made. Unfortunately, justice comes in baby steps. Just because Canadian Indians opened the Olympics doesn't mean that everything is fine now. As I mentioned before, it felt condescending, and there is a land dispute going on right now. However, this was a step in the right direction. By having this, hopefully it will set a precent for more positive things to come for all Native persons, not just Native Canadians.

reginabell · Joined: 10 Feb 2010 Posts: 13

I find all the mix up about the development and progress of the native land that hasn’t officially been “surrendered” to the US (slash Canada) really unclear and controversial. It feels like that’s something that we haven’t really gotten a good grasp on in the US, nor in Canada, and I think that causes a lot of disagreement. I can’t help but think about some of the stuff we talked about in Environmental History first mod, which seems like forever ago… The way the environment is suffering from what is being done to have the Olympics there, etc. I wonder about the land itself and what it was like before. I can’t help but ask myself some “environmental historian-esque” questions. I think it’s really important to think about the damage as well as the benefits, both physically and emotionally (specifically for the “Indians” as the first article called them).

pgui · Joined: 17 Nov 2009 Posts: 36

The first thing that stuck out to me in the NPR reading was that there is land that was not signed away in a treaty. I think that that is great. I wish we had that here instead of Indian reservations that are owned by our government. I believe that the land that was not signed away should not even be a part of Canada. It feels like Canada is doing what people did to indigenous people a hundred years ago and just slowly push them off the land. Now however since we cannot kill people without someone causing a stink they are just keeping the line unclear. So I really don't like the idea of holding the Canadian Olympics on this land. Taking the one part of a huge wide open country with hundreds of mountains for skiing and holding a huge resource intensive sporting event on the land seems wrong to me. I suppose it is a good thing that indigenous people preformed but even that seems weird because it's like saying "there because you preformed and did your song it is now your venue." I don't know anything about this disputed land other than what i just read but it sounds like it could be pretty cool if i understand it right.

Free Forum