WSJ piece praises India's lacking Olympics medals
Regarding "India's Olympic Achievement: Indifference - WSJ.com".
Mr. Dalrymple states that India should be praised for winning few medals due to lack of Indian government support for Indian Olympians:
"...there is one shining beacon in the world: India. Its low tally of medals in the Olympic Games puts practically all other countries to shame...It is not that India tried and failed. It did not try, and therein lies its peculiar wisdom and glory...it is India, whose government does nothing to encourage (or deter) its athletes, that is right, not the rest of the world...".
Dalrymple's doctrine is clear and emphatic: India failed at the olympics because of a lack of government support. Basically, Dalrymple's doctrine is that a nation is a fool, simply because it wins medals at the olympics; and, the more medals a nation wins, the more of a fool it is.
Returning to reality, where is the evidence to prove, that India failed at the Olympics, because of a lack of govt support for Indian Olympian types? Where is the graph plotting govt support $ for Olympians per capita vs medals achievement per capita?
Sometimes nations where the govt supports Olympians, win medals at the Olympics. Sometimes nations fail to achieve medals despite govt support for their Olympians. Sometimes nations win medals, despite a lack of govt support for the Olympians. Sometimes nations fail to win medals, and this coincides with a lack of government support for the Olympians.
India's low-medals-tally at the Olympics could have been due to causes other than, lack of official govt support. It could well have been, that even if India's govt had funded the Indian Olympians, the medals tally would still have been low.
When Dalrymple says, the Indians scored low at the Olympics because of a lack of government support, he implies that there is no such thing as Olympic achievement in the absence of govt support.
Returning to reality, there are plenty of examples of Olympian achievement despite a lack of government support. It is precisely these dramatic stories (that Dalrymple inexplicably ignores) featuring those who succeeded without govt support or despite hardships, that it would be reasonable to focus the mind on, if the object were to be, appreciating that which is relatively less-appalling on the Olympian scene.
There are many causes of a lack of Olympian performance: genetic, environmental, choices of the free-will. The environment featuring govt support is only one of the possible causes. To equate Olympian achievement with govt support, is to irrationally & unjustifiably, denigrate the importance of environmental factors other than govt support for Olympians, in terms of effect upon winning Olympic medals. Such environmental factors could provide clues to nations that do not perform well, regarding how to improve health and performance amongst their citizens.
Mr. Dalrymple, by emphasizing the govt-support-for-Olympians environmental impact, de-emphasizes the importance of genetics in terms of impact upon medals achieved. If genetics plays an important role in some sport in terms of medals achievement, the recognition of such can help us to not be fooled into thinking that the achievement was caused by an especially skillfully constructed & healthy environment, when actually the root cause was genetic. On the other side of the coin, the recognition of such can help us to overcome errors such as, the error that some race is genetically inferior in some way when actually it is not inferior.
Mr. Dalrymple's obsession with the role of govt support in terms of producing medal-winnings, conceptually eclipses (total eclipse) the possibility that the Olympian medal-winner's own free-will, & mental qualities flowing from that free-will such as genius and inspiration, play a role when an Olympian wins a medal. Whereas the reality is, that sometimes an Olympian wins a medal as a result of his spiritual or tactical genius. We can learn from such genius when we can spot it. When we spot such genius we can love it & appreciate it. But how can we even spot such genius, when recognition of such genius is obscured by the attitude that Olympic medals are produced by governments spending money on their Olympians and nothing else?
Even when national Olympics performance is due to government support of Olympians, such at least can constitute an example of government working effectively to produce results.
Note: I was impressed by the quality of the comments made online at the WSJ in response to this article. I wanted to post this with the comments I saw but apparently I have to be paying WSJ about $25 per month for print or online WSJ access, in order to be able to post with them.
@2012 David Virgil Hobbs
Mr. Dalrymple states that India should be praised for winning few medals due to lack of Indian government support for Indian Olympians:
"...there is one shining beacon in the world: India. Its low tally of medals in the Olympic Games puts practically all other countries to shame...It is not that India tried and failed. It did not try, and therein lies its peculiar wisdom and glory...it is India, whose government does nothing to encourage (or deter) its athletes, that is right, not the rest of the world...".
Dalrymple's doctrine is clear and emphatic: India failed at the olympics because of a lack of government support. Basically, Dalrymple's doctrine is that a nation is a fool, simply because it wins medals at the olympics; and, the more medals a nation wins, the more of a fool it is.
Returning to reality, where is the evidence to prove, that India failed at the Olympics, because of a lack of govt support for Indian Olympian types? Where is the graph plotting govt support $ for Olympians per capita vs medals achievement per capita?
Sometimes nations where the govt supports Olympians, win medals at the Olympics. Sometimes nations fail to achieve medals despite govt support for their Olympians. Sometimes nations win medals, despite a lack of govt support for the Olympians. Sometimes nations fail to win medals, and this coincides with a lack of government support for the Olympians.
India's low-medals-tally at the Olympics could have been due to causes other than, lack of official govt support. It could well have been, that even if India's govt had funded the Indian Olympians, the medals tally would still have been low.
When Dalrymple says, the Indians scored low at the Olympics because of a lack of government support, he implies that there is no such thing as Olympic achievement in the absence of govt support.
Returning to reality, there are plenty of examples of Olympian achievement despite a lack of government support. It is precisely these dramatic stories (that Dalrymple inexplicably ignores) featuring those who succeeded without govt support or despite hardships, that it would be reasonable to focus the mind on, if the object were to be, appreciating that which is relatively less-appalling on the Olympian scene.
There are many causes of a lack of Olympian performance: genetic, environmental, choices of the free-will. The environment featuring govt support is only one of the possible causes. To equate Olympian achievement with govt support, is to irrationally & unjustifiably, denigrate the importance of environmental factors other than govt support for Olympians, in terms of effect upon winning Olympic medals. Such environmental factors could provide clues to nations that do not perform well, regarding how to improve health and performance amongst their citizens.
Mr. Dalrymple, by emphasizing the govt-support-for-Olympians environmental impact, de-emphasizes the importance of genetics in terms of impact upon medals achieved. If genetics plays an important role in some sport in terms of medals achievement, the recognition of such can help us to not be fooled into thinking that the achievement was caused by an especially skillfully constructed & healthy environment, when actually the root cause was genetic. On the other side of the coin, the recognition of such can help us to overcome errors such as, the error that some race is genetically inferior in some way when actually it is not inferior.
Mr. Dalrymple's obsession with the role of govt support in terms of producing medal-winnings, conceptually eclipses (total eclipse) the possibility that the Olympian medal-winner's own free-will, & mental qualities flowing from that free-will such as genius and inspiration, play a role when an Olympian wins a medal. Whereas the reality is, that sometimes an Olympian wins a medal as a result of his spiritual or tactical genius. We can learn from such genius when we can spot it. When we spot such genius we can love it & appreciate it. But how can we even spot such genius, when recognition of such genius is obscured by the attitude that Olympic medals are produced by governments spending money on their Olympians and nothing else?
Even when national Olympics performance is due to government support of Olympians, such at least can constitute an example of government working effectively to produce results.
Note: I was impressed by the quality of the comments made online at the WSJ in response to this article. I wanted to post this with the comments I saw but apparently I have to be paying WSJ about $25 per month for print or online WSJ access, in order to be able to post with them.
@2012 David Virgil Hobbs
Labels: elite athletics financing, India, olympics, Wall street journal
posted by David Virgil at 5:54 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home