>> The only difference is, it is the parents, not the government pushing these children
That is a huge difference in my book. I do not want the government telling me how to raise my children even if it means other parents might raise theirs in ways I do not like.
Also the OP was asking specifically if communist countries really did this of was it propaganda. The answer is, yes, they did this. We are comparing governments here, not parents.
But I do agree what some parents do borders on child abuse. The price we pay for freedm is that some people may use it in ways we do not like. I’d still rather live in a free country though. As we have seen, having the government tell people how to run their lives is not the answer.
Not to mention the coaches. Anyone watch the “women’s” gymnastics last night? Bela Karoli disturbs me. All of the competitors had had multiple stress fractures, surgeries, titanium rods inserted in their bodies, recent injuries, shoulders popping out, yet they were competing anyway.
But let’s not discount the fact that often it is the athlete pushing him or herself, with the parents as willing enablers.
During the Cold War, Olympic supremacy was a big deal for both the U.S. and the major socialist countries: U.S.S.R. and China. Americans felt good when they watched American athletes kick Communist a-- and vice versa. We didn’t have quite so much national pride riding on the whole thing, but we missed no chance to talk about the brutal training regimes, steroids, full-time subsidized training & coaching - if we won it was the triumph of American spirit and individualism over their “machine”, if we lost we could say “what did you expect?”
It’s not just a Cold War or Communist thing - there are other national rivalries afoot. Former colonies LOVE to see their colonizers get beaten. All of the former Soviet republics and the countries of Eastern Europe LOVE to beat Russia, the country that dominated them for so long.
In answer to the original post - the brutal, full-time training regimes beginning in childhood you’ve heard described are real. My friend Olya started in the Russian gymnastics system when she was 5 years old, but had to leave when she grew too tall at 5’5" - wasting YEARS of training. But before you feel too sorry for the children & their families, think about what a huge opportunity this was in a place largely desolate of opportunities - these kids and their families were envied by others. The mix of opportunity with exploitation, tragedy, and personal sacrifice is not unique to athletes in communist countries - it pretty much applies to everyone.
To get back to the OP, yes. Not only did it happen in the former USSR, but it is still happening in communist countries today - most notably China. Chinese children who show an aptitude for gymnastics are identified at 3 years of age. They government does not, AKAIK, take the children from their parents but rather the parents present the chidren to the training program. From that point forward parents and child are allowed to visit twice a year for one day at a time. The rest of the time the child’s life revolves around gymnastics. Patriotism certainly is a big factor but so is a shot, albiet slim, at a better life. Olympic trainees have access to foods and privileges unavailable to most citizens. Olympic champions are assured of a comfortable life.
The “one child” only policy in China makes this an even bigger sacrifice for the parents. To give up your only child at age three for what could be 20 years, knowing that you can have no more children, is a huge gift to the state. It’s also very hard on the child, as evidenced by NBC’s bios this year of several Chinese gymnasts.
I don’t know whether the coaches are “despotic”, but I do know they are single minded. Each of those 3 year olds are pushed to their limits to determine which may have what it takes to bring home the gold. To be accepted into the program is a huge honor for child and family. One mother of a Chinese gymnast recalled the day her son was accepted as the happiest and saddest day of her life.
One cultural difference that allows this system to flourish in communist countries is the citizens’ view of government. Communist governments position themselves as the provider and protector - a parental figure to all citizens. The prospect of a child being raised by the “all benevolent” government does not generally strike a communist citizen as odd or unusual. Instead the government is often seen as the ultimate parent. Quite a different view than is held by most citizens of a democracy.
The opinions of the parents are somewhat different over there. They find it to be an honor for the goverment to deem their child trainable to be a national hero. These children will be well fed and taken care of in the ahnd of the government, wheras the parents cannot guarentee that life. They become elevated in status because their child is gifted with a olympic level talent.
Wheras you carry the maternal instinct to have your child with you, in your home. You must also realize the difference in society, that honor and superiority are key. That patriotism is a feeling that precedes maternal feelings. Due to their projection of society on the rest of the world.
OK, Collounsbury, if you can provide one example of a democracy where the government positions itself as the all benevolent parental figure to the citizens I’ll make my last remark specific to the USA.
Of course, if you want to get really picky, I could ask you what you meant by “America” not being the only game in town. Would that be South America, Central America, or North America? Let’s not be USA centric while subtly accusing another of being USA centric.
Excuse me. Did you ever read Pravda? I used it as a Russian language primer when I decided to learn more about my sworn enemy (I was in the US Army at the time, and Ronald Reagan was President). Show me a comparable Western publication. There was never, in the year and a half I regularly read it, a disparaging word about the Soviet government. Soviet communism was entirely dependent upon propaganda and naked force to keep the people from revolting.
Now what propaganda system do you refer to in the US, Canada, UK, Australia, Germany, France, or any other free democracy? The BBS, CBC, etc may be state-owned, but when did they ever “softball” the government like Pravda and TASS. Hell, Pravda and TASS didn’t even play softball, they didn’t even pitch; The Soviet government just tossed em up and hit away.
The club cannot be used by itself to keep the people in line. Oppressive regimes have to speak loudly and carry a big stick (apologies to Theodore Roosevelt).
Quite right on the last part, but your restatement above is more restrictive. I invite you to compare the role of the French state with that of the USA… Benevolent parental figure for the citizens, yes. I’d say the same for many Western European social democracies which don’t have the USA’s (perhaps well-founded but often exagerated) paranoia regarding government.
That’s my point. In a country where you can use force propaganda is unnecessary. Of course, in the real world no countries use only force or propanganda, but propagnada is MORE necessary in a country where the use of force is restricted.
Sailor,
The computer chip comment was unnecessary. We have had many discussions on this board about the use of propaganda in the USA. The most well known example being the WW1 propaganda machine.
I disagree that the French government or other social democracies are seen by their citizens as a parental figure. France is certainly more “benevolent” than the US from a redistribution of wealth point of view (as are Sweden, Denmark, Britain, Canada, and others for that matter). But I still do not perceive the citizens of those countries as looking to the government as the ‘ultimate parent’, as is fairly common in communist coutries. There is no stigma, and indeed a good deal of honor, in China when one’s child is seen as good enough to be raised by the government. The same applied in the former USSR and still applies in communist dictatorships like Cuba. The whole premise of communism is that the good of the state outweighs the good of the individual. Even social democracies have not gone that far, yet.
In the summer of '87 I was fortunate enough to attend gymnastics camp. Three of the coaches there were former Chinese Olympians. Li Xiao Ping, Xiao Xiun, and Li Xiao Ping’s wife who often laughed at my clumsy oafishness. They were worked very hard from their childhood, but generally they felt honored. They were under tramendous pressure to beat the USSR at gymanastics. However, after their glory days passed Li Xiao Ping and his wife settled down to raise a family. When their child learned to walk, Chinese gymnastic coaches stopped by to watch, and measure his potential. That’s when the decided to get the hell out of China. Xiao Xiun had simple overuse injury that could have been fixed with a little rest. Instead he was pushed and pushed until his injuries ended his career. After a lengthy rehabilitation, he was assigned a job in a factory.
Another couple coaches at that camp were Boris and Svetlana Verhofsky. They were former Soviet Olympians, but they were much less forthcoming about their past so I don’t know all that much about the Soviet program.
Poster’s Note: There is a large probability that all the athlete’s names mentioned in this post are misspelled. Sorry.
As you like, it all depends on one’s definition I suppose. Subjective.
snip
I think you exagerate. I lived in East Germany when it was still East Germany. Can’t say from my limited experience I had the impression many loved the extreme kinds of intervention which the Stalinit state engaged in. The degree to which the populace felt honored by the government raising children seems to me to depend on the underlying culture and the circumstances. China – I would attribute their attitudes to culture far older than the Communist state. I very much doubt that Cuba society justifies any such programs through genuine appeal to Communism. Nationalism is another matter, and in fact far more motivating. I always found that to be the case in the good old East Bloc.
(By the way, the premise of Communism is that the good of the majority outweigh the good of the individual, the Statist orienttion is more properly a Leninist and especialy Stalinist addition. Nationalism with some Communist frills and good old fashioned social security feature added always worked better in terms of getting people on board.)
This is a fact that may be pertinent to the discussion. I think I heard on NPR today that the entire Bulgarian weight team has been disqualified for drug use (one presumes steroids or something similar). Did anybody else hear this report?
Slight hijack: Whatever happened to the the requirement that Olympians be purely ametuer athletes? We all know the story of how Jim Thourpe was stripped of his medals when it was discovered he had made a paltry sum playing baseball years earlier. But then a few Olympics back, the US put together the obscene basketball “dream team” of the best players from the NBA and of course they kicked ass.
