What if the Olympics didn’t have national teams?
As the Winter Games begin, professor and historian Matthew Andrews explores “larger than sports” issues related to the international competition.
In the series “Let Me Explain,” UNC College of Arts and Sciences’ faculty shed light on an intriguing, timely or often misunderstood topic related to their research. This time, Matthew Andrews, a teaching professor in the history department, talks about his class, History 220: The Olympic Games — A Global History, and how understanding the history and global context of the Games can inform viewers today.
What interests you most about the intersection between sports and history?
It is a great way to get students interested in the “larger than sports” issues. In my Global Olympic Games course, we explore the sports and competitive outcomes, sure. But to study the Olympic Games is to study the rise of nationalism and imperialism; Nazi fascism — and the response to it — in the 1930s; Cold War tensions between the United States and the Soviet Union; independence movements in the Global South; South African apartheid and the international anti-racism movement; tensions between mainland China and Taiwan; the question of a divided Germany; the conflict in Palestine; and the evolving definition of “human rights.” All those significant phenomena are part of the story of the Olympic Games.
How have the spirit and purpose of the modern Olympic Games evolved over their history?
Europeans and North Americans gradually broadened their idea of what constitutes a “civilized” nation and who qualifies as a “real athlete.” At the first Modern Olympic Games in Athens in 1896, 311 athletes competed from 12 nations. These athletes were all white Europeans or Americans and Australians of European descent. But decade by decade, the Olympics grew to include athletes from Latin America, Asia, Africa, etc.
When Baron Pierre de Coubertin founded the Modern Games, he decided they would rotate among the great cultural capitals of the world — and by that, he meant cities in Europe and the United States. He most definitely was not thinking of Tokyo, Beijing and Rio, to name a few recent host cities. In addition, all of the athletes at the first Games were male. Coubertin wanted his Games to be a “display of manly virtues,” and women were excluded. The percentage of female competitors has gone up slowly, and now there is a 50-50 gender split.
What are some ways the Olympic Games benefit the global community?
The greatest asset of the Games is the global education they provide. The Parade of Nations educates us about other nations. During the Games, we learn about the host city and country. And every once in a while, an athlete makes a political gesture — like Ethiopia’s Feyisa Lilesa in 2016, when he crossed the marathon finish line and raised his arms in the shape of an X, a protest of how the Ethiopian government was treating the Oromo. These moments, I believe, are what make the Games meaningful.
What are some of your critiques of the Games?
Where do I begin? The paradox of an event that was created to celebrate human commonality but one that requires athletes to compete as representatives of different nations. And how a celebratory gathering intended to enrich competitors and spectators often leaves host cities and nations in staggering debt.
How would you address the most common misconception(s) about the Olympics?
What if athletes competed as individuals untethered to nations? What if the Olympics ignored the idea of nationalism rather than reinforced it? What if, instead of the Parade of Nations, there was the Parade of Athletes, where all the shot-putters of the world entered the stadium together, then all the swimmers together, then all the basketball players together? Might this be a better statement of global togetherness?
My students hate this idea, by the way, but I think it’s worth proposing.
