http://straight.com/article-292384/vancouver/did-antiolympic-movement-miss-mark-focusing-stolen-aboriginal-land
 
Did the anti-Olympic movement miss the mark by focusing on stolen
aboriginal land?
By Charlie Smith
Today, there are seven-hour waits at the Ziptrek Ecotours free zip line
across Robson Square at a 170-metre altitude.
 
Downtown is so full of Olympic celebrants that the Vancouver police shut
down local liquor, beer, and wine retail outlets last night at 7 p.m.
 
The 2010 Winter Games have been marred by some problems, including a
luger`s death, the cancellation of 20,000 standing-room tickets at
Cypress, and a collapsed barricade at the LiveCity Yaletown location,
which injured 19 concertgoers.
 
In addition, Canadian athletes haven`t won as many medals as expected.
 
But these Games are still a hit with a huge segment of the public, and the
lineups for the zip line and the size of the downtown crowds are proof of
this.
 
Clearly, the anti-Olympic movement has failed to generate the level of
outrage that some opponents were hoping for.
 
There are many reasons for this.
 
I was talking with one person yesterday who suggested that the
anti-Olympic activists were misguided by focusing so much attention on
these Games being held on stolen Native land.
 
The message didn`t resonate with the public when the chiefs of the four
host First Nations were so vocally in favour of hosting the Olympics.
 
Perhaps a more effective approach would have been to link the cost of the
Games to an issue that connected with larger numbers of people, such as
housing, education, child poverty or health care.
 
Here are some other factors to consider:
 
* The Vancouver anti-Olympic movement has been fairly humourless, in
contrast to the antics of antiglobalization protesters in other parts of
the world. Local protesters failed to recognize that the Olympics would be
seen as a party by many local people. Perhaps a more effective way to get
a dissident message across would have been through humour rather than by
smashing windows along Georgia Street. At the Quebec City Summit of the
Americas, activists lobbed teddy bears over the police lines to poke fun
at the level of repression.
 
* The Vancouver anti-Olympic movement didn`t personalize its opposition
upon a single individual whom the public dislikes. Antiwar protesters
always had an easy target: George W. Bush. But for some reason, the
anti-Olympic people didn`t link the Games to anyone in the public's mind.
The obvious choice would have been Premier Gordon Campbell.
 
* The Vancouver anti-Olympic movement didn`t make a very strong case on
the financial side. The $6-billion figure was regularly trotted out as the
cost of the Games, but Olympic supporters would claim that this was
unreasonable because infrastructure projects such as the Canada Line and
the new convention space would remain in place for decades. The
billion-dollar security budget was the best target. That could have been
compared to other things that you get for a billion tax dollars on posters
all over town. But it wasn`t done because the activists were more
concerned about spreading a message about the Games taking place on stolen
aboriginal land.
 
I`m interested in hearing from readers of this post about their thoughts
on the effectiveness of the anti-Olympic movement`s approach to the Games.
Just fill in the comment form below.
 
Recommend 21 readers have recommended this21
 E-mail |  Print
 
Post a CommentComments
Derrick OKeefe
Sun, 2010-02-21 16:15Rating: +22
30 votes As I said at yesterday's debate, the 'dualism' of an event like
the Olympics has to be considered. It's a two-week sporting event and mass
spectacle, replete with tons of free activities for the general public --
it's not the same as a three-day meeting of the world's bankers and
politicians.
 
The fact is many if not the vast majority of those critical of the Games
coming here in the first place -- who would have preferred public
resources had gone to housing, health care, education etc -- still enjoy
watching the world's greatest hockey players, or going out to see a free
show, or just walking about and seeing and meeting folks from around the
world.
 
I think this dualism was missed or underestimated by some of us, and as a
result opportunities for creative outreach around a range of social
justice issues have been given less energy than they might have.
 
But there have been some great successes. I think indigenous sovereignty
and rights issues are critical, and a lot of great work has been done in
exposing this reality to the international media, for instance. The Tent
Village and the Red Tents campaign have been brilliant in drawing
attention to the homelessness crisis. But more like that could have been
done, for sure. Agree Disagree
Carmen Mills
Sun, 2010-02-21 18:50Rating: +2
20 votes I agree that the resistance could have focused more effectively
on the real overarching problem, which is global corporate domination of
our planet and its peoples. But as a supporter of the united resistance, I
feel very satisfied by the networking we have done to date, which may be
more powerful than what has been broadcast to the general populace. I am
looking forward to the post-Games hangover when we will pool mailing lists
and start homing in on how to solve our systemic problems from the ground
up.
 
In the meantime, while we keep the message strong, we also reserve the
right to party. And we will...behind the barricades, or in the streets
with our visitors from around the world.
Agree Disagree
Me
Sun, 2010-02-21 21:26Rating: +16
18 votes I'm very much in agreement with those who would rather see
spending on "bread, not circuses" (borrowing a phrase from a friend), so I
ought to be sympathetic with at least some of the anti Olympic protest
points. But not once did I feel like I should join in with the groups that
have been leading this charge, despite having myself a long history of
political activism and leadership.
 
Charlie is heading in the right direction - those who led the charge did
not link the Olympics to issues that resonate with the electorate, or
failed to make their points in a cogent and socially acceptable manner.
 
Networking within your own sects of resistance will lead to no tangible
progress in the future, much like no tangible public progress has resulted
from the resistance to date.
 
If you can't engage the public, where are you? Lost. Agree Disagree
hayden
Sun, 2010-02-21 22:16Rating: +3
41 votes The protesters didn't miss their mark. They failed to draw much
attention because, quite frankly, 95 per cent of people in this city don't
agree with their message. Let's be brutally honest here. No one gives a
shit.
 
I've said it before and I'll say it again. A protest of 2,000 people in a
city of 2 million is insignificant. It's a fraction of a percent.
 
Vancouver's anti-olympic protesters are very opinionated and very
passionate people. They are (generally, at least) also educated people.
They seem to have a difficult time coming to terms with the reality that
the vast majority of their friends, neighbours, and co-workers are happy
that the Games are here.
 
Ironically, I've found that this leads to a knee-jerk reaction for most
protesters. If you're not against the games then you obviously "don't
understand" or you're a "sheep" or a "corporate shill."
 
The protesters seem to have convinced themselves that they are the only
intelligent people on this planet. Apparently the other 99.9% of people
living in this city and enjoying the Olympics are stupid and misguided.
 
Elitist punks, anarchists and hippies. Who would have thought!
Agree Disagree
Agree
Sun, 2010-02-21 22:38Rating: +4
14 votes As an indian I would say yes. This was an opportunity to unite
under the same thumb, at least momentarily.
 
The vast majority of Canadians could give a damn about indians. It's the
biggest Canadian secret. Agree Disagree
Baaah - I'm not a protestor
Sun, 2010-02-21 22:43Rating: -3
23 votes Yep I think hayden is either a sheep or a corporate shill. We are
spending more than the entire years worth (more than 5 years worth) of our
entire education budget on security alone.
 
Anyone that thinks this is a good idea is either out to lunch or in on it.
 
Maybe you'll wake up on March 2nd. Try to remember to vote next time
around. Agree Disagree
Left of Centre
Sun, 2010-02-21 22:44Rating: +13
15 votes Mr. Smith's insight regarding humor must not be ignored. The
Olympic Resistance people and associated groups have all been remarkably
joyless. They transmit a message that is both serious and unpleasant
rather than hopeful and constructive. I don't want to live in a world of
Black Blocks and no hope, but I have little sympathy for banks and
corporations. It's not about spin, it's about hope. Unfortunately masks,
camouflage and unclear/confused messages are not great attractors. Agree
Disagree
Tim
Mon, 2010-02-22 00:08Rating: +9
11 votes The 'No Olympics on Stolen Native Land' slogan that dominated the
anti-Olympics movement was problematic for a number of reasons (even
though the slogan does rightly point out that the games take place on
Stolen Native Land).
 
* 'No Olympics on Stolen Native Land' is in effect a demand to cancel the
Olympics. Once the possibility of building a movement big enough to get
the games cancelled becomes 0%, 'No Olympics on Stolen Native Land'
becomes a dead demand. That the movement continued with 'No Olympics on
Stolen Native Land' as a slogan suggested to ousiders that the movement
did not accept reality, and had descended into ultraleftism (if it was not
ultraleftist to begin with).
 
*The dominance of 'No Olympics on Stolen Native Land' prevented the
anti-Olympics movement from reaching out to most of those who do not
recognize native land as stolen (or who recognize the futility of trying
to stop the Olympics at the 11th hour), but who fully recognize and are
opposed to the rampant real-estate speculation; the broken promises around
housing; the skewed transit priorities; the ridiculous security state
aparatus attached to the games; the hypocrisy of spending billions on a
sporting event while governments cry financial poverty, ect. While the
movement did address these issues to an extent, the average person opposed
to the Olympics sees a movement that does not reflect their concerns.
 
The sad fact is that to a large extent the movement did not reflect the
concerns of the average person opposed to the Olympics. Even when other
issues were addressed within the anti-Olympics movement, they were mostly
dominated by a hyper identity politics common among certain segments of
the activist left in Vancouver. In this brand of identity politics, those
with mulpitle visible systemic barriers to participation in society are
viewed as part of 'opressed communities', in contrast to those without
these same barriers. The 'oppressed communities' are played off against
the rest of the working class, and the broader working class is accused of
'priviledge' that it must check at the door if it wants to get involved in
the movement. Average workers (who mostly find it increasingly difficult
to make ends meet) will not get involved in a social movement if they are
told that the movement is not about them.
 
For these reasons, the anti-Olympics movement did not reach out to the
unions when those organizations started to become dissilusioned with the
games during the last year. Reaching out to the unions is critical if we
are to build a broad based movement that can fight back against the right
in this province. Without the involvement of the unions it doesn't matter
that the anti-Olympics movement managed to get close to 5,000 people out
to the 'Take Back the City' demo on the opening day of the Olympics, and
the activists in the anti-Olympics movement will largely retreat into
their own irrelevance once the Olympics are over. Agree Disagree
hayden
Mon, 2010-02-22 00:24Rating: +4
20 votes @ Baaah
 
That's the thing you don't seem to get. We're all "in on it." We all have
something to gain from this experience.
 
Look around you. This city is booming right now. Businesses are
experiencing profits like they've never seen. Thousands of new jobs
(albeit temporary jobs) were created. People are working. People are
happy.
 
What's more -- Vancouver is now in the global spotlight. People from
across the globe are watching us every day, and seeing how beautiful this
city truly is. Not only are there tens of thousands of tourists visiting
right now from countries all over the planet, but there will be new
visitors (as a direct result of the Games) for years and years to come.
 
These couple of weeks are a chance to make this city a global destination.
Why anyone would want to detract from that is beyond me. Yes, it's costing
a lot. So why not get the best bang for our buck? What exactly is your
alternative, Baah? That we sulk and whine and spoil this golden
opportunity?
 
I'm originally from Ontario. The outskirts of the GTA. The failing,
withering manufacturing core of this country. People in and around Toronto
would love to have an event like the Olympics to pull them out of the rut
they are in.
 
I don't think people here fully understand how devastating the past couple
of years have been to other provinces in this country. People who had
well-paying jobs have lost their pensions. I know men and women in their
50s and even 60s who gave 30 years of their life to companies, only to
have had to come out of retirement to work at Wal Mart. Right about now
Ontario is a cold, harsh, bleak place to be.
 
The contrast between the East and the West in this country never ceases to
amaze me. Vancouver has been fucking fortunate to be spared the true blunt
force of the recession. I can't comprehend how people out here don't
realize just how good they have it (ridiculous rent costs aside).
 
I love this city, and I love what the Olympics have done for it. Guess
that makes me a sheep. Better that than an ass.
 
Agree Disagree
Mike Cantelon
Mon, 2010-02-22 00:56Rating: +3
11 votes More strategic messaging would have been to focus on the cost per
taxpayer for the Olympics. If the cost was $1B, excluding the long-term
infrastructure costs, what was the cost per BC taxpayer (given the fact
that only a portion of the population pays taxes)?
 
Another aspect of the protests that may not have been effectively
communicated was the idea of warning other potential host cities. Many
I've talked to seem to think the protests were about stopping the 2010
Winter Olympics specifically rather than attacking the brand as a whole.
 
That being said, I see the protests as a success and am grateful for those
who put so much energy into organizing. Agree Disagree
Brock
Mon, 2010-02-22 03:24Rating: +1
5 votes Can someone flesh out the details on the whole stolen land claim.
Which Olympic venues and developments are on stolen land?
 
It is true that the entire event is taking place on lands claimed by the
Musquem, the Tliel-Watuth (spelling?), the Squamish and the Lil'Wat tribes
but these land claims overlap each other and cover areas like the Whistler
Valley where there is no evidence of any native settlements. In short,
these land claims are nothing but a joke to the non-native population
(Royal Canadian Air Farce did an excellent skit on it when the claims were
first made in the nineties). If this is what the stolen land is all about
then that is why very few people were sympathetic.
 
As for the natives themselves, I believe their consent is the biggest
reason the stolen land campaign failed. Read up on "the Four Hosts." All
four tribes with claims on these lands signed a deal with Vanoc to provide
native art patterned merchendise in exchange for a cut from the sales of
said merchendise. Agree Disagree
Gabriel
Mon, 2010-02-22 10:22Rating: +1
9 votes Too many critics of the Olympics are doing a cost analysis rather
than a cost-benefit analysis. Agree Disagree
Baaah - I'm not a protestor
Mon, 2010-02-22 11:50Rating: +3
3 votes Hayden, lets touch ground again on March 2nd. Agree Disagree
Mike Cantelon
Mon, 2010-02-22 12:19Rating: +3
3 votes @Gabriel
 
A cost-benefit analysis that takes into account who gets stuck with the
cost and who benefits would certainly be informative. The Price-Waterhouse
report estimates a $1B economic inflow, which is considerable, but what
portion of that inflow will go end up going towards the costs through tax
revenue? Agree Disagree
pcz
Mon, 2010-02-22 12:20Rating: +2
4 votes Anti Olympic opposition would have been more effective in the run
up to the Olympics if they:
- first spoke out forcefully against the hooded vandals;
- personalized the stories about the homeless & the mentally ill;
- provided concrete examples of what $6billion could have provided
combined with the20 year lack of investment by both the Federal Liberals
and Conservatives in social housing. Agree Disagree
Voice of Reason
Mon, 2010-02-22 13:44Rating: +1
3 votes A couple things I thought were missed completely:
 
— Lack of transparency - We will never know how much the Olympics really
have cost because of the shell game around expenses. Where's the security
budget coming from? Who knows! How much was spent by VANOC on buying up
ads on transit, and how much was spent by the government on buying ads
from VANOC? Who knows! There has been a ton of creative bookkeeping with
our tax dollars, but no one seems to be demanding a proper accounting.
Which brings me to the next point...
 
— Lack of accountability - Who's to blame for the boondoggles? Security is
a great example here. A few million over estimated budgets is a drop in
the bucket, but how can security costs increase by 800+ million (500%!)
over the span of 8 years? Who is to blame for the things that were clearly
security needs, like increased border screening and security for
dignitaries, but were not included in the initial budget? Heads should
roll, but they haven't, and no one is even calling for them. Agree
Disagree
 

Charlie Smith Georgia Strait