Should Paralympics and Olympics be incorporated into a single event?

The Paralympic Movement

Paralympics Games haven’t always been a separated event from the Olympics.

The first organised athletic event for disabled athletes took place on the day of the opening of the 1948 Olympics in London. It was called 1948 International Wheelchair Games organised by neurologist Sir Ludwig Guttmann. All the World War II veterans with spinal cord injuries at the Stoke Mandeville Hospital were involved in the sport competition. Sir Guttman’s competion aims to be equivalent to the Olympic Games, with the only difference they were for people with disabilities.

From that day the Paralympic movement has grown dramatically, and it was always hold in the same event until The Seoul Games, where the Paralympics were held directly after the Olympic Summer Games in the same host city, and using the same facilities. This was the first time the term Paralympic has been used. One year later the International Paralympic Committee (IPC) was established and started to act as an independent body with its own identity.

From there and today many things have been changed.

The interest and involvement in the Paralympics Games is growing up, and more people with disabilities are getting involved in sport at a competitive level. The number of athletes speeds up from 400 in 1960 Rome Games to over 3,900 athletes from 146 countries in 2008 Beijing and at 2012 London Paralympics they will be 7,000, which is impressive.

Looking at the future of the Paralympic games

One of the issues of debate around the event coming up in London in less than 2 weeks is if the Paralympics should be kept separated from the Olympics or combined in one single event?

Tying to answer to this question was the focus of the panel discussion organised by UCL (University College London)  at Senate House, London, on 13 August.

The “inclusive Games”

The conference kicked off with David Howe, a former Paralympian and Senior Lecturer in Anthropology of Sport at Loughborough University. He stressed on the social value of legacy for people with impairments for an “inclusive sport”.  Reaching that  means that people need to think with a different paradigm in their mind.  The term “inclusion” is not the result of the media focus on “inspirational athletes” (ex the exposure to the media of Oscar Pistorius during the London 2012 Olympics) neither a comparison to the Olympic movement. Being properly inclusive means having a different attitude and perception of disable sport, understanding the social justice with differences. “If the Paralympic Games follow in the shadow the Olympics the dream of “inclusion” will be harder to achieve”.

Money value

Mark Dyer, the Accessible Transport Manager at the London 2012 Olympic Delivery Authority, spoke from the work prospective and tell about the logistic problems implied in having just one event. 

The integration between the two Games raises a debate on independence and identity as well as the money issue. 

One of the crucial point the International Paralympics Committee faces is about funding and sponsorship.  

The Paralympics movement is growing very fast in term of athletes involved, from different countries and also the number of sports. London is one of the most advanced City for accessibility in sport. Having Olympics and Paralympics  combined in one event suggest a better organisation and improvement in accommodations and venues.

Legacy has not just a social value but also a money value.

The question is how it will be possible to level the differences between the Games, and if today is already the right time for a fusion or if it still is too early.

Paralympics tickets are more accessible and affordable. For this reason the interest in the Paralympics is picking up particularly among the young generation with the consequent effect of most people involved in sport and a big request of accessible sport venue. 

Obviously money can help to solve the problems, and here is where the political authority steps in.

The debate was re-launched by Prof Nora Groce, the Director of the Leonard Cheshire Disability and Inclusive Development Centre.

What is the decision to combine the Game?

The Media Challenge: Channel 4

Dan Brooke spoke for Channel 4, pointing out the mission for the channel’s coverage of the Paralympics. The Director of Communications and Marketing at Channel 4 stressed on the identity of Channel 4 as a state owned public service broadcaster looking at innovation, reflecting the culture’s diversity and discovering talents. 

Based on that, the decision to bid for the rights to cover 2012 London Paralympics was directed to change the perception of people with disabilities. 

Channel 4 reframes what the Paralympics are, discovering a new audience for disable sports.

They launch a bold marketing promotional campaign on Superhumans, and the public response to it was huge.

The changes in broadcasting the Paralympics involve the amount of hours of transmissions, which are 4 times much more as in the past, and the fact that half of their presenters and reporters have impairments. The channel spent half a million pounds to train that people and hopes that they will carry on with a career in the media.

Dan Brook’s answer to the controversial question if the Games should be combined is clear. Obviously this will a good decision to make based on the principle of equality. However the complexity in how combining the two events is still there.  

There is also the fear that unique identity of Paralympics, which is the strength of the Paralympics, will be lost.

The single event is the travel route, and the integration started in the individuals sports (ex.GB cycling), where athletes train together and use the same facilities, is very interesting indeed.

It is not more about special events happening every 4 years, it is about every day sport. One of the Channel 4’s future goals is to have weekly sport programmes, and it needs to be shown that there is an audience for disable sport. 

So we just have to wait to see which it will be the response to the 2012 Paralympics' coverage.

Suggestions and conclusions

The debated was very animated, also for the feedback and interest showed from public at the UCL debate.

People stressed on the involvement of children in disable sport to guarantee equality as a right issue. Children are influenced and inspired by the Games and  the media coverage. They like having idols and models. Seeing children signing up to the gym because they what to run as Mo Farah is just amazing and so positive for our next generation. 

About the Closing Ceremony someone suggest it will be better if it was the end of the Paralympic Games no at the end of the Olympics Games as they are same events separated by 2 weeks time.

Paralympic movement are growing fast and soon they will be part of a more "Inclusive Games".

One of the person from the public made a interesting state “ Olympics are there to show the perfect and ideal body; Paralympics accept the reality that all the people are not the same. 

Ai Weiwei: the cat who opens the door.

The difference between cats and humans is that cats can be taught themselves how to open a door, but they do not close it after. Humans do.

Ai Weiwei, the chinese dissident artist who design the Birds’ Nest stadium for the Beijijn Olympics four years ago, is that cat. He became widely known in the UK with the Sunflower Seeds installation at Tate Modern in 2010.

The documentary by Alison Klayman “ Ai Weiwei: Never Sorry” tells us the greatness of the China’s most famous artist, focussing on the lasting legacy he had left and how his creative thinking challenges the Chinese Communist State.

The education and experience in America taught him the freedom of speech and ideas he brought in China and put into his art.

His chutzpah, his international fame and the very fact he was an artist make him immune to the state harassment for long time.

However his art was making changes in people’s mind, as art always does. The stress on creativity and freedom expressed in art is just a reflection of what people think.  During the Sichuan earthquake, Ai Weiwei made a Citizen's Investigation quite controversial against political statements, and from this the State starts to be more concerned about him.

Humans can close the door behind them.

Chinese Government jailed Ai Weiwei for 3 months last year as detainee No 1,135 ostensibly on tax charges. It also decided on the demolition of his Shanghai studio.

They would like shutting up his voice and stopping his movement with the "excuse" of tax evasion. A motivation to justify an action has always to be found.

Unfortunately, keeping Ai Weiwei in a cell for 81 days was not enough to stop his ideas growing in the society. He used twitter and blogs as the main channel to communicate his art and democracy’s campaign.

Web leaves the door open

The documentary ends with the words "Never Retreat, Re-tweet".

Particularly in the modern era, where Social Networks and Internet break all the limits and barriers, doors remains perpetually opened. Ai Weiwei acts as a cat taught itself how to open door and live it opened forever.

Communist State's future 

The question comes naturally. Which is the future of Communist States, as China, where the main party rules the county restricting freedom and creativity?

We know there is limited access in China on Internet and Social Network, as Facebook and YouTube.The Party wants to controls people thoughts in order to preserve stability and order. People are mainly citizens: part of the State and all together have to row in the same line. Dissidents are kept quite, because they can be dangerous and harm the system. But for how long you can detain the power and the control on people's mind in a world based on global connections?

Ai Weiwei Never sorry documents that it is not possible anymore. The power of the Web based on a global community moves across states, nations and communities. You just have to re-tweet.

Malik Bendjelloul films the music anti-hero. Greatness art of camera movement searching for "Sugar man".

A man walks in the street. Strong wind and heavy snow don’t stop him. He continues to go ahead, steps by steps.  The camera watches him, panning his walk without interfering. With his black coat, skinny jeans and stylish sunglasses the unknown man become a stylized cartoon character.

Who is the unknown man?

His name is shrouded in mystery and silence.

Some people call him “Sugar man” from his lyric, but Sixto Rodriguez is more than a common folk-rock singer.

The Mexican-American singer, who wrote songs about drugs and love in the 1970s, ends up working in constructions in a gloomy and cold Detroit. Unfortunately his music career finished quite soon after the flop of his two albums, and he was quickly forgotten. The American didn’t understand the blues tunes of his poetic and social engaged lyrics. They build up rumours on his premature suicide related to drugs. 

In another part of the world, in South Africa his album Cold Fact sold more than half a million copies and his music inspired the white liberal movement protesting against Apartheid. He was a celebrity there as Elvis, as big as the Stones were in USA.

He was the “Sugar Man” for the protesters: the idol in their mind. Never seen or touched, just heart.

However no one knew that, and Rodriguez had never received any royalties for his success in Africa.

“Sugar man” went off the stage and disappeared. He left the spots lights in silent and carried on with his life.

The documentary starts with the investigations of two Rodriguez’s huge fans in South Africa, trying to find out what happened to him. Cape Town record store owner Steve Segerman and music journalist Craig Bartholomew contacted people, friends, anyone connected with Rodriguez; they analyzed his songs searching for any traces or details of the singer's death.

Arts of filming

The camera is panning Cape Town from the bottom to the top. Following the two fans on the cars, in the bar, in the streets and suburbs  searching for "Sugar Man".  The director uses the camera to investigate, across the cities, across the countries. And finally it found him, in Detroit.

The first person showed his her daughter, who commented on the blog set up in order to find his father. “Sugar Man” is alive and has a family. 

He made the anti-conformist choice to live his own life. Rodriguez didn’t care about public recognitions and the superficial and excited sense of fame and popularity. He lives in a modest house in the suburb and walks every day to go to work. The camera pans his steps, following him in the street. He doesn’t care about the camera and keep straight.

The anti-hero who chose a normal.

His behaviours is quite different from the mass. Maybe he is shy, maybe he is just a realistic man who knows dreams and popularity can’t make you happy.

People try all the ways through to be in front of the camera, to be on the stage and have a bit of popularity.

"Sugar man" is the antithesis of a star. He wrote songs from his thoughts, dreams, sensations and emotions. And then he disappeared to live his private life.

People look for a public life and this is more important than other decisions as having a families and children. People though he died for suicide because of drugs and alcohol. A wrong thought. He was rising up his three daughters and working in renovation of buildings.

This is what people today do not understand: living your own life. Nowadays a public image and appearance counts more. All is around the desire to be famous, have recognised your talent not because you have it but because you can show it to other people, all over the world. People have lost the sense and value of good principles. Things that really matter have been completely forgotten. Our life is a reality show where everyone wants to be on the screen to show his/her private. 

There is no more difference between public and private, even worse people want their private on the top of the programming. Personal life makes gossips and VIP scandals make more money than a respectable job.

Where is the limit of your private, your personal space, your individuality, your identity?

Where are you? You do not think anymore but it is the mass, the audience, the public of the reality show that thinks for you and you do what they want, what make them excited about.

"Sugar man" is the antihero. He is the anti-model of our corrupted society.

When dreams come true.

The Rodriguez’s revenge starts when Steve Segerman and Craig Bartholomew discovered him in Detroit. Finally “Sugar man” can have his moment of glory. He flew to Africa where he was recognised as a music master. During his concert, the stadium full of people of any ages screaming and crying just because they were able to see their idol.

Rodriguez came to the modern world build on superficial appearance. Like a dream never expected. Publicity, advertising, photos in a newspaper, press interview. All for him. All like a present never received. 

After that day in Africa he is back to Detroit and the dream stops.

The camera could film him. The media have got their icon. And they use him and his images to make money. They do not need him any more. He hasn't made money from that day.  Someone else makes money, someone that use people and sell dreams in order to make money, delivering dreams and emotions to the public.

One of the daughters tells it clearly. Someone else is rich, not my father. We live a modest life.

Searching for a real person, searching for the man that as sugar sweets the heart of the Africans and then disappears leaving the nice taste in your mouth. 
Sugar is sweet, but it melts very quickly.
Your 90 sec of popularity are like sugar. You will remember forever the amazing experience, but after that nothing left. Just a desire to have more of it.