The 2010 Olympics logo is an altered version of traditional Arctic Inuit sculptures. This quasi-indigenous logo has been displayed in a barrage of Olympics branding. You can see two examples of this marketing in photos — from the summer of 2009 – shown below.
With this Olympics logo, and other Olympics promotional messages, marketers have been portraying the 2010 Games as ‘indigenous’ Olympics. Indigenous references are foregrounded in mass produced Olympics marketing. The online Olympics store even sells “Authentic Aboriginal Products” (such as t-shirts and silk ties).
Some people who encounter this Olympics branding are bound to come away with the impression that natives (that is, individuals with a significant enough amount of native ancestry or culture) are respected, empowered, and well-integrated here in Canada. In other words, some viewers will view this marketing as a sign of harmonious bonds between natives and mainstream Canadian society.
Chief Stewart Phillip, the president of Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs, conveyed a much different view of Olympics marketing when he asserted that,
We’re deeply concerned about the concerted and aggressive marketing campaign advanced by Vanoc [the 2010 Olympics organization committee] which suggests the indigenous people of [British Columbia] and Canada enjoy a very comfortable and high standard of living. The Disneyesque promotional materials suggests a cosy relationship between aboriginal people of the province with all levels of government and it completely ignores the horrific levels of poverty our people endure on a daily basis.
In British Columbia, and elsewhere in present-day Canada, natives have communicated conflicting views about how the 2010 Olympics relate to their lives, lands, and traditions. Indigenous Environmental Network campaigners have been among the more vocal critics who have opposed the 2010 Games.
Some have found the cartoonish Olympic marketing imagery to be a mockery of native traditions. For example, critics have argued that the 2010 Olympics committee has edited and re-packaged native culture — which also has been ripped out of its traditional contexts. The Committee is highlighting Arctic indigenous imagery — yet Vancouver, the centre of the Games, is a temperate city. Arctic indigenous peoples did not live there — or on the nearby Whistler and Cypress mountains, where some Olympic events will be held. Other indigenous populations who did live in that area of British Columbia also are not represented in the marketing iconography.
The Olympics branding denies noteworthy differences among native groups spread across these areas. Passing theatrical gestures to native peoples during the open ceremonies could be considered to be more respectful, but Olympics marketers otherwise have been mixing up North American native traditions into a soup-like caricature. Natives have been consistently oppressed, but the various peoples who are considered to be native (in some way, or to some degree) certainly are not ‘all the same.’ Tacking Arctic imagery on to Vancouver-area Games implies that there is only one native essence (in North America, if not beyond this continent).
What else is going on here? What does this superficially ‘indigenous’ rhetoric and imagery have to do with the rest of the 2010 Olympics? In other words, are indigenous populations benefiting from the 2010 Olympics in a way that might explain or justify the appropriation of Arctic imagery?
I pose these questions:
– What proportion of the profits from Olympics sales and tourism will natives groups receive?
– To what extent have native groups actively participated in Olympics organizing?
– How many of the athletes representing Canada at the Games have strong ties to native traditions and ancestors?
– Aside from the branding rhetoric and imagery discussed here, how much indigenous culture will be included in Olympic sports events and Olympics broadcasting?
– And how should we interpret the use of traditional imagery for product marketing purposes? What is the relationship between native peoples and chewing gum wrappers, sugary soda pop drink bottles, and other products which display Olympics brand logos? Are indigenous peoples profitting from these product sales? Are natives involved in the boardrooms of the corporations behind these sales? And are there any other noteworthy connections between these products and any natives in present-day Canada?
Answers to those preceding questions are tied to the conditions that native peoples live under in present-day Canada. As I will explain, there are deep problems with the ‘indigenous’ Olympics rhetoric and imagery, which is very much at odds with Canadian realities.
Native issues can be complex — and yet brutally straightforward, at the same time. Here are some figures that convey the highly disproportionate impoverishment, vulnerabilities, marginalization, and disempowerment of natives in present-day Canada. (Here are additional child poverty statistics.) The worst racism in Canada is reserved for indigenous peoples who are trapped between assimilation and ghettoization. Native groups ultimately are disappearing — in a nation that was established on native lands.
No marketing imagery ever could erase these ongoing legacies of a history of colonial genocide in Canada (and elsewhere).
Frankly, the ‘indigenous’ Olympics rhetoric and imagery strikes me as yet another form of liberal tokenism, given how fundamental problems are glossed over with paltry gestures (rather than a more radical redistribution of resources — or other constructive societal change).
In fact, while the Olympics imagery implies some sort of harmony between natives and non-natives in Canada, there actually are various ongoing native land claim conflicts in this country. In Ontario, indigenous activists helped to wage a defensive campaign which was a relatively high-profile land claim conflict here in Ontario, during the summer of 2009.
Native land claims are at the forefront of the issues raised by anti-Olympic protestors in Canada (who occasionally have supported tactics that I do not agree with). The phrase “No Olympics on Stolen Land” has been a common protest slogan, and indigenous imagery has been foregrounded in messages from no2010 campaigners, and other anti-Olympic activists. Although these opponents of the Olympics have not carefully distinguished between imagery from different indigenous cultures, their campaign messages surely could not be considered a tokenist form of whitewashing or conservatism — since these anti-Olympic activists have been siding with native land claims.
Protesters also have been raising concerns about how the Olympics are tied to indigenous land conflicts around the tar sands in Alberta. A recent day of action call-out from the Indigenous Environmental Network is the best example of connections drawn between the tar sands and the 2010 Games. As in some other activist campaign messages, this day of action announcement highlights financial and energy-system ties between the Olympics and tar sands pollution in Alberta — beside native lands. These tar sands operations also are the world’s worst climate threat; and the Arctic indigenous peoples alluded to in Olympics marketing actually are on the front lines of global warming impacts, which are aggravated by Olympic environmental devastation (including deforestation, which releases carbon into the world-wide atmosphere). As in other areas of the world, the most disempowered and resource-poor Canadians tend to be much more vulnerable to climate impacts.
Given all of the aforementioned gaps between pro-indigenous rhetoric and actual indigenous realities, why have so many people tolerated the native branding around the 2010 Games? After all, the Olympic brand logo was selected in 2005, and the Olympics marketing blitz was well-underway by the summer of 2009, in Canada.
Aside from the sheer monetary force behind the Olympics, there also are important cultural factors at work here. The harmonious vision conveyed through ‘indigenous’ packaging around the Olympics is an extension of mainstream Canadian visions of an outright “multicultural” “mosaic” in this country — where some claim that there is a complete lack of systemic racism, as well as equally proportioned room for all ethnic groups. In spite of arguments and evidence from critics (including scholars who are affiliated with John Porter’s The Vertical Mosaic), rhetoric about ethnic equality in Canada persists in marketing, in policy documents, and in other mainstream rhetoric. ‘Native’ Olympics marketing celebrates the Canadian status quo, in the same way.
At the same time, the ‘indigenous’ Olympics imagery provides some ethnic spice to the 2010 Games — as well as associated merchandising, and mass media spectacle. In Canada, remnants of native cultures likewise are re-packaged as decorations and tourist industry products. In much the same way, Olympics marketers have sought to increase profits with shreds of de-contextualized indigenous culture which they have appropriated.
But how are indigenous traditions linked to capitalist consumption, mass advertising, mainstream media systems, or tourism? These systems are entrenched on former native lands, but are there any other noteworthy connections between native traditions and such mainstream systems?
(I don’t mean to imply that people with native ancestors will be or should be forever trapped in a receding past. Vibrant, living traditions are flexible. Yet, I do not see how native heritage could be considered to be largely optional in any conception of indigenous-ness.)
Outside of Canada, it probably is not so apparent that the disputes over the Olympics have been national-scale tensions. Anti-Olympic protests (hyper-marginalized though they may be) actually have been organized in various other areas of Canada — well beyond British Columbia. (Here is one example of anti-Olympic campaigning in a city in Ontario.) I also find it telling that, in the face of an anti-Olympic protest in the city that I live in here in southern Ontario, some people conveyed their support for the Olympics by chanting “Canada… Canada… Canada.”
In sum, mainstream Canada claims and re-packages imagery from natives to sell a vision of a present-day Canada that is a tolerant country, with a rich and interesting history; such visions have been produced for the 2010 Games – as well as other tourism and merchandising, and wider nationalism. Then, ironically, when pro-indigenous groups challenge the use of this appropriated iconography to represent ‘Canada,’ majority groups dismiss their protests by claiming a more authentic Canadian-ness. Of course, the refusal to take indigenous protests seriously is just another manifestation of disinterest in the welfare of living indigenous peoples. Even as gestures are made toward native culture, actual natives generally are ignored.
——————————–
Toban Black is a Sociology PhD student specializing in environmental sociology, theory, inequality, and media. He is also an activist, a blogger, and an amateur photographer. He considers this guest post to be a blend of each of those four forms of communication. Black is a frequent contributor to Sociological Images and the many posts inspired by his material can be viewed here.
If you would like to write a post for Sociological Images, please see our Guidelines for Guest Bloggers.
Comments 79
Sisi — February 15, 2010
If you need to see vibrant, living traditions, check out some of the festivals/ceremonies in Cowichan (where the Cowichan tribe is from, having made their bid to have their knitters make the Vancouver Olympic's Cowichan sweaters authentically, were beat out by The Bay...)
This article is excellent and conveys some of the problems that are within Canada that the government, and a lot of other people, would like to shove under the carpet and not talk about.
Like the fact that the Olympics are held on unceeded territories. Or the fact that if there's an inukshuk in BC it certainly wasn't in Vancouver prior to when they started building them post bid approval.
Undefined — February 15, 2010
See also this saddening piece:
http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/2010/02/sporting-life-4/
Samantha C — February 15, 2010
I found this post a little dense- I'm not a sociologist and I read this blog as a layman - but I was a little curious while watching the opening ceremonies how accurate and respectful the production really was. I found it absolutely beautiful, and from an outsider's point of view it LOOKED like it was trying to be accurate, and I loved seeing representations of folklore and mythicized history. But I did wonder whether it would look as good to someone who was more familiar with the real history.
shale — February 15, 2010
I'm glad you guys posted on this.
One of the issues that I know of, specifically with regards to aboriginal participation in the Olympic program (which as far as I know is quite limited), is that those opportunities that were offered were qutie narrow, and arguably, not really in ``good faith.'' By this I mean that those aboriginals that were happy to go along with the IOC line were welcomed, but those that were not, were not (I mean this figuratively, not literally). So, for example, aboriginal businesses were welcome to participate in the construction of Olympic venues (and maybe even given preference), but groups critical of the very legitimacy of the construction of those venues were stonewalled. In any case, these issues are incredibly complicated, because the aboriginal community in Canada, and the settler population, are far from homogeneous blocks.
Anyone interested in aboriginal grievances, in Canada, should check out this 1972 NFB* film, "The Other Side of the Ledger: An Indian View of the Hudson's Bay Company" : http://www.nfb.ca/film/other_side_of_the_ledger Little has changed since then.
*NFB = National Film Board of Canada
This week in the news by AJ Short « Queer/Race — February 15, 2010
[...] of other articles and images, if you have some extra time I suggest checking them out as well. (sociological images) · On Saturday the 13th, the brilliant poet Lucille Clifton died. She was a Pulitzer Prize [...]
Mike — February 15, 2010
I'm glad you're so dissatisfied with the branding of the Olympics here in BC, because frankly, if you were appeased, we'd still be arguing about what colours to make the logo to best represent the feelings of all Canadian aboriginals and 10 billion dollars further in the hole.
The overall feeling I get from this post is that you wouldn't be happy unless the games were hosted on a baron, dead island on which no human has ever set foot.
If you don't think the indigenous people of Canada received anything in return for all this, you're kidding yourself.
GEM — February 15, 2010
As with any vibrant community, there is disagreement within the First Nations community as to the benefit of the Olympics. Some see it as offensive, others see opportunity. I suggest that the Four Host First Nations have signed on because they see it as an opportunity.
From a news article:
"They (the Host First Nations chiefs) will have the same status as other leaders from around the world, and it's about time," Tewanee Joseph, executive director of the Four Host First Nations, said yesterday. "We want to show that our chiefs are head of their own communities, with their own governance structure. It's very important for them to have discussions with other leaders at the same level, rather than just being talked down to.
...
The status arrangement is part of a long-standing multiparty agreement signed by civic, provincial, federal, aboriginal and local Olympic officials ahead of Vancouver's successful bid to stage the 2010 Winter Games. In return for their support, the Four Host First Nations became equal Olympic partners, an unprecedented standing at the Games for aboriginal representatives.
"They are part of our success in so many areas, so it's more than appropriate to make sure that they are part of our domestic dignitary group," said Taleeb Noormohamed, VANOC vice-president for partnerships.
"They have a huge role in making sure we can create the right conversations and the right relationships with people from around the world."
Mr. Joseph of the Four Host First Nations said it's vital for aboriginal people to move beyond "ceremonial stuff" at events like the Olympics and point to tangible accomplishments, such as their full-fledged partnership at the Games.
"This recognition is starting to resonate around the world," he said, recalling a visit earlier this year to New Zealand and its substantial Maori population. "Maoris and non-Maoris alike told me: ‘We're proud of what we've done in this country, but what you guys are doing far exceeds that.' "
Source:
http://www.ctvolympics.ca/about-vancouver/news/newsid=21095.html
As an aside, can someone please comment on the correct usage of the terms "First Nations, aboriginal, Aboriginal, indigenous and native/Native"? It is my understanding (not necessarily correct), that in Canada, the preferred term is First Nations.
larry c wilson — February 15, 2010
Perhaps Canada would have been better off if Canadians had followed more closely the American pattern in treating the native people.
MissaA — February 15, 2010
While the branding/marketing of the Olympics is problematic in many ways, I think that there is a positive story here as well. Specifically that the olympic organizers made a concerted effort to involve the first nations of the area in every step of the planning - including them in the Organizing Committee and its advisory committees, making efforts to recognize their culture at every opportunity, and treating their leaders as heads of state. Yes, the situation of aboriginal people in Canada sucks, but in this instance, non-aboriginal Canadians took the step to treat aboriginals with the respect they deserve, and forefronted the fact that the lands we now hold belonged to somebody else. I think it signals a positive step in the developing relationship between governments and aboriginal communities.
Modern Girl — February 15, 2010
That was certainly a very thoughtful post. I agree with the commentor above that there is disagreement WIHTIN Aboriginal communities. As a non-Aboriginal, I was surprised when I had a conversation with two Inuk individuals who were thrilled about the inclusion of Inuit culture in the Opening Ceremonies and with the assertion that their culture is a central part of Canadian culture.
ProudMary — February 15, 2010
I want to thank both Tobin for his really fine article & Christina, GEM, et al for their comments here that added to the info of the article as well. I found that taken together, these are a broad & accurate portrayal of the First Nations inclusion/exclusion re the Canadian Olympics. I'd love to see this published in the Main Stream Media, but somehow I doubt that will happen.
E — February 15, 2010
Give it up you grumpy fucks. If you care so much about returning the Native's land then move the fuck back to Europe.
Modern Girl — February 15, 2010
Oh, I think it should be mentioned that the games are being translated and available in 7 different First Nations languages. Supposedly. I don't have cable, so I'm not sure how or where I tune into receive the games in those langauges. But that's pretty cool.
oxymoronica — February 15, 2010
"Given all of the aforementioned gaps between pro-indigenous rhetoric and actual indigenous realities, why have so many people tolerated the native branding around the 2010 Games?"
To address specifically the use of Native imagery in the branding and logos, I think the main reason it is widely tolerated is because the appropriation of this imagery is not new or unique to the 2010 Olympics. Every Canadian who has lived in rural areas knows what an Inukshuk is (the human-like logo paired with the Olympic rings) and that it is a sign of welcome. People build them regularly along remote roads in Ontario; I've built a few myself. I'm not getting into whether that's ok or disrespectful, but the reason it's not objected to is because it's such an ancient appropriation that it was already adapted basically into the mainstream before the VANOC branding came along.
KrisThomas — February 15, 2010
It was my understanding that the reason the inuksuk imagery was being used was threefold: to highlight the iconography of the Nunavut territory flag, because using the image of a Vancouver-based First Nation would mean elevating one of the four hosting Nations above the rest, and finally, because the inuksuk is becoming an international symbol of Canada, due in part to First Nations artists installing them around the world. There are two in Mexico now, and I know there is one in DC as well. I didn't see anything that suggested that the inuksuk was representing Vancouver, but understood it to represent Canada.
The issue of using First Nations iconography is a circular one - Canada uses it, and is accused of exploiting FN peoples for marketing purposes, but if they don't use it, isn't the argument just going to be that Canada is not recognizing the contribution of FN peoples to Canadian culture? And I think that at some point, we have to trust the leaders of the Lil'wat, Musqueam, Squamish and Tsleil-Waututh Nations, who were integral to bringing the games to Vancouver - who are we to tell them what is best for the Nations that they lead?
Just as a side note, the Vancouver Olympic Committee reports suggest that over $45 million dollars in Olympic construction contracts went to First Nations companies. Not bad, when you think of how small some of those Nations are.
Carolyn — February 15, 2010
I agree, Kris. You're damned if you use inuksuk images, and you're damned if you ignore native culture and traditions by NOT using them.
The chiefs of the Four Host First Nations have been onboard with this marketing decision and their cultural involvement in the Games since 2005. Perhaps Toban Blake and others who are upset about this choice of image should take up their objections directly with them, instead of a bunch of white people directing First Nations' reactions to all this.
We're missing a far bigger issue here, since there is SO MUCH ELSE to be seriously concerned about with these obscenely expensive Games than the little colourful logo we see on winter toques and trinkets. Like the whole question of why are we hosting these Games in the first place? The fact that we're expressing concern about McDonald's coffee cups reinforces the reality that these Games are not even about athletic achievement anymore (that's why each Olympic sport has world championships for) but about corporate marketing and sponsorship, without which there would be no Games at all.
We saw this in Vancouver when VANOC, the 2010 Olympic organizing committee, recently tried to force the Australian Olympic team to remove their big flag from their Athletes Village balcony because of the flag's trademarked image of a kangaroo with boxing gloves - an image that was not an authorized trademark of an Olympic Games corporate sponsor. The public outcry from Vancouverites (and of course the Aussies) finally made VANOC soften its bullying stand - but the issue illustrates the real power behind the Games: money.
I and millions of other Canadian taxpayers are on the hook for funding 17 days of excessive spending. Economist Dr. Jeffery Owen of Indiana State University actually says: "To date, there has not been a single study of an Olympics or other large-scale sporting event that has found empirical evidence of significant economic benefits.”
And that's truly frightening! More on this at 'Why the Olympics Are Bad Business at http://www.ethicalnag.org/2010/02/14/olympics/
Ketchup — February 16, 2010
As a person who knows very little about Canada and Native Americans, I think both ways of answering the question of use/exploitation of the Indian references are correct. I agree with all the criticisms about how many problems currently exist for Native Americans, and that progress has been horribly slow and insufficient. At the same time, there has been progress and, my impression at least, is that the trend is in that direction. I also agree it's a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation for the appropriation of symbols and representations. I think, however, that the visibility is good. Whether there could have been a better way to do it, for others to answer the question.
As for the Olympics themselves, it's entertainment, not any different than any other entertainment industry or pornography. Privileged people with putrid ethics and attitudes must get their entertainment. Few people really have ethical principles concerning entertainment, the need for entertainment overrides most other considerations. And all entertainment industries cannot be anything but thrilled about this.
Jayn — February 16, 2010
Honestly, considering this is the winter games, the use of Inuit imagery seems fairly sensible to me. Which isn't to say that native issues aren't a giant mess, but you only get to pick one logo, so why not go with the coldest part of Canada?
It really is a 'damned if you do damned if you don't' situation, not only with use of imagery but also when dealing with legal issues. I still remember when Nova Scotia was trying to start a native fishery, and many commercial fishermen felt it was being done in a manner that was unfair to them. I grew up in an area without any reservations nearby, so the reality of native life is far from apparent. Those outside the communities pick up on ways that they feel natives are receiving special privilege (without having exposure to how things are worse for them), and it breeds resentment. Those trying to improve the lots of natives are going to have to tread carefully, as pissing off other Canadians isn't really going to help native inclusion much.
GEM — February 16, 2010
With the comment "perception is everything" ringing in my ears, I think it's interesting to note that Jack Poole, one of the key people who brought the Olympics to Vancouver and who unfortunately passed away, was Metis.
Source:
http://www.vancouversun.com/sports/2010wintergames/Rare+artifacts+help+Louis+come+alive+Aboriginal/2569672/story.html
re: Christina @1:45 am "There were never the so-called “Indian wars” in Canada, and there were always treaties, whether they were fair is arguable.."
I'd like to note that in BC at least, treaties were the exception rather than the rule which is why BC has ongoing treaty negotiations. From the BC Treaty Commission:
"When BC joined Confederation in 1871, only 14 treaties on Vancouver Island had been signed, and aboriginal title to the rest of the province was left unresolved. It wasn't until 1970 that Canada's aboriginal peoples were able to pursue aboriginal rights in the Supreme Court of Canada. With the exception of Treaty 8 and negotiations with the Nisga'a Nation, most First Nations had to wait until 1993 to pursue their aboriginal rights through the BC treaty process."
Source: http://www.bctreaty.net/files/faqs.php
Eve — February 16, 2010
I completely agree with what you are saying, sadly many of my fellow Canadians cannot see the issues here... Also, just as a side note, in Canada 'Native' is a politically incorrect word, and has several negative images connected with it, like 'going native' for instance, we normally either use aboriginal or indigenous population.
Also, using the inukshuk for marketing and for a symbol of the games is not necessarily derrogatory to Inuit culture, it has become a (somewhat) symbol of Canada as many people recognize it, or have the symbol themselves in their homes or backyard. It is a symbol of welcoming, and of guidance.
t. — February 16, 2010
What I see missing from this argument is the acknowledgment that our BC government spent SIX BILLION DOLLARS on the games, and we are now having major cuts to our social programs. We will be in debt for years for a two week party. This connects to the issue of the "indigenous-ness" of the games because many of the services cut are used by marginalized indigenous peoples. As someone who lives in the province, I am full of rage at our politicians who are more than happy to give up services they would never have to personally use, so they can highlight how "great" we are.
RAGE.
(From someone who works/worked in a number of support services on Vancouver Island with many recent cuts to services in the wake of Olympic spending)
Feministing.com manages to piss me off, rants about aboriginal culture and Vancouver 2010 » Allison McNeely — February 16, 2010
[...] to repackage Canada as a tolerant country. This is the opinion of guest blogger Toban Black at Sociological Images, presumably Samhita [...]
“An Indigenous Olympics?” | Toban Black — February 17, 2010
[...] A post that I put together for the Sociological Images web site [...]
T. B. — February 17, 2010
If any of you are interested -
Here's a report offers details about what some of us organized for the day of action mentioned in the above Sociological Images post -
"Canadian action against Olympics sponsors and greenwashing"
http://www.actforclimatejustice.org/2010/02/canadian-action-against-olympics-sponsors-and-greenwashing/
I co-wrote that report; and half of the photos attached to it are from me. I also was a major organizer behind the protest here in Ontario.
Toban
(in London, Ontario, Canada)
Allison McNeely — February 18, 2010
Hi Toban,
I was not aware of your report and direct involvement in the day of action - I stand absolutely corrected on my assertion that you are morally outraged for the sake of it.
However, what continues to really jump out at me from your blog post is the misuse of aboriginal images, or mashing them all together into an unfair representation of the various cultures. Maybe I am missing the finer points, that is entirely possible.
While I agree that it is very important to represent aboriginal cultures appropriately, I think that your post does ignore the consultations that VANOC had with aboriginal groups and the attempts that they did make. The way you describe it, it almost sounds like the Vancouver organizers are malicious capitalists instead of perhaps misguided in their otherwise honest attempts to recognize aboriginal culture.
As you noted, aboriginal issues are extremely complex, and in my view, it always seems like a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation. Is worse to have tried to represent aboriginals and fallen short or to not have tried at all?
In short, while I absolutely respect your viewpoints and think that you made a lot of interesting points (I wouldn't have taken the time to be engaged and blogged about it if I didn't,) I do think that you only presented one side of the story.
Either way, thanks for the interesting discussion and the blog traffic!
Vancouver 2010 pretends indigenous people have institutional power over Canada. « Restructure! — February 18, 2010
[...] Guest Post: An Indigenous Olympics? by Toban Black at Sociological Images [...]
Restructure! — February 18, 2010
The figure on the Vancouver 2010 logo is an inunguak/inunnguaq, not inukshuk/inuksuk.
Audrey — February 18, 2010
Substitute Australia for Canada in the entire post above, and you are transported back ten years to the Sydney Olympics.
As much as I felt a great sense of pride seeing our Indigenous cultures represented in the Sydney opening ceremony, it was tinged with the skepticism of the knowledge of so much cultural appropriation. I am aware that Indigenous Australians contributed to the Sydney Olympic festival in some meaningful ways (for example, creating and managing the Festival of the Dreaming at the same time as the Olympics which included Indigenous people from around the world) however I still get the feeling that Australia was so publicly interested in it simply because we were being globally scrutinised.
An interesting snippet of history of the Indigenous contribution to the Sydney Olympics is found on this page http://www.migrationheritage.nsw.gov.au/exhibition/objectsthroughtime/olympics/ - it mentions political protest and rallies at the same time and acknowledges "The friendship stick interprets the survival and celebration stories of the Aboriginal people and their role in the 2000 Sydney Olympics. The issue of dispossession, settlement, genocide and survival are issues that still inhabit the indigenous debate in Australian society and politics. These tensions are still evident in Australian culture today."
Derangierte Einsichten - Ohne Journalismus? Ohne diesen Journalismus! — February 19, 2010
[...] auch abseits dieser Frage: Was ist mit den Inuit, die gegen die Vereinnahmung ihrer Kultur bei den olympischen Spielen protestieren und ein falsches Bild kritisieren – denn [...]
An Indigenous Olympics? | Racialicious - the intersection of race and pop culture — February 24, 2010
[...] By Guest Contribtutor Toban Black, originally published at Contexts.org [...]
Culture Shock - Going for the Gold: Should the Olympics Change its Logo? — February 25, 2010
[...] Sociological Images explains that the logo is from Nunavut tribes that live in the Arctic, but because it is supposed to symbolize all native tribes it lumps all native tribes as the same and not unique groups. Further, national geographic argues that inukshuks are not actually from British Columbia where the games are being played. It suggests totem poles, which were used by native tribes in British Columbia as an alternative. An original Inukshuk. http://s.ngeo.com/wpf/media-live/photologue/photos/2010/02/12/cache/025865_600x450.jpg [...]
Culturally Appropriating Native Americans: A “Hands-on Approach to History” » Sociological Images — April 21, 2010
[...] posts: racist mascots, Canada’s “indigenous Olympics“, ice skaters dress up like aborigines, indigenous cultures in Avatar (spoiler alert), [...]
Discovery or Colonization? » Sociological Images — May 15, 2010
[...] the recent Vancouver Olympics reminded us relentlessly, Canada was home to many peoples when the Europeans arrived. The ad sanitizes this history, [...]
Discovery or Colonization? » Sociological Images « Firesaw — May 16, 2010
[...] the recent Vancouver Olympics reminded us relentlessly, Canada was home to many peoples when the Europeans arrived. The ad sanitizes this history, [...]
steve abbott — February 24, 2011
wow this is a great article
steve abbott