# On Your Mark. Get Set. Kill! **URL:** **By** Nicholas Raeder **Published:** January 1, 1973 --- “At present, the Olympic games are world wars of nationalism fought without guns—up until Munich, that is.” When we ponder the massacre at My Lai, the Chicago and Hollywood mass murders and the New Yorkers who watch their neighbors being stabbed to death yet do nothing, a question struggles to the front of our thoughts: “What could we have done to prevent it?” While battalions of social workers, psychologists and police specialists leap forward with a wealth of worthless suggestions such as more welfare, better toilet training and longer prison terms, we are still left pondering. We know from past experience that these bailing wire and chewing gum solutions will not work. Our knowledge was confirmed again last September when the Arab terrorists invaded the Olympic grounds at Munich and initiated a series of events that led to the deaths of the Israeli athletes. But we also know that the Munich atrocity is but the conclusion of a series of events even older than the Palestinian movement, and could have been prevented. The games are supposed to begin again in four years at Montreal, and some say that the games will never be the same. Some planning calls for a pall of security resembling an army installation or a police state. There has even been speculation from some quarters that the games will no longer be held at all, though this doesn’t seem likely. There is little doubt that _some_ sort of games will be held in Montreal. Nevertheless, the so-called Olympic atmosphere—that combination of international sportsmanship, friendship and fellowship—will be ground into nonexistence under the watchful eyes and nervous guns of the proposed security forces. Given that humans can learn from experience, the next Olympics _can_ be a sports forum with all that implies instead of a forum for political grievances; and this can be done without creating a mini police state. It can be done, first, by recognizing the individualistic nature of athletic competition; and second, by rejecting all that which is inconsistent with this individualistic nature. Athletic contests are tests of individual physical and mental capabilities. They are not contests of ideologies. This is why sports, as opposed to war, is considered non-political, and why sportscasters, athletes and admirers of sports around the world became outraged at the petty display of separatism by some American athletes at the summer Olympics in Mexico. This is why the Rhodesian expulsion from the Munich games—at the demand of equally racist nations—drew cynical comments and bitter criticism from newscasters who would have heralded the expulsion as an act of enlightenment had the circumstances been different. This is why the world stood stunned by the terrorist attack in Munich, while thousands of humans die elsewhere in different contexts with little notice. A hundred deaths in Vietnam, a thousand deaths in Biafra, or a hundred thousand deaths in Burundi did not prompt the shock that the deaths of a few athletes caused. The deaths in Vietnam, Biafra and Burundi were wrapped and saturated with politics and ideology and are therefore considered the more-or-less legitimate harvest of man’s political lunacy. Athletics, on the other hand, are not supposed to be wars, elections, revolutions, execution blocks or courts. They are contests of strength, skill and endurance between human and human, devoid of political coloring. Responsibility for the terrorist atrocity at Munich has been assigned to the West German police, the governments of various Arab states, and Israel itself. The terrorists themselves are, of course, the directly responsible individuals. But a large measure of the responsiblity must be shared by the Olympic games as an institution. The games, as they were structured, set the stage for the atrocity and made it possible—perhaps even necessary. When Baron Pierre de Coubertin revived the Olympic games late in the 19th century to “. . . bring together every four years representatives of all nations . . .” it was hoped that “. . . these peaceful and courteous contests would supply the best of internationalism.” This was, however, a lost cause from the outset. Athletics are non-political, but the Olympic games are not. At present, the Olympic games are world wars of nationalism fought without guns—up until Munich, that is. Nation is set against nation in an atmosphere that, sooner or later, had to result in tragedy. As long as nationalism remains an integral part of the Olympic format and the world continues to grow uglier and more brutal, future tragedies can be expected. We need only glance at the style of the Olympics to see the error that rendered de Coubertin’s hopes for the “best of internationalism” black humor in Munich. To begin with, all of the individual athletes from one nation are called a “team,” as in “the American team.” The national team includes weight lifters, swimmers, shooters, pole vaulters and basketball players, among others. No awards are handed out to national teams; only individuals and specific teams are given medals. The total medals won by individuals from a particular nation is a fairly meaningless quantity, considering the population differences, funding methods and events entered by each nation. Total medals won by a nation’s athletes are not officially scored at the Olympics. Yet each individual who participates in the Olympics from the United States is considered a member of “the American team.” “The American team,” like the other “teams,” has a distinctive uniform and lives in separate quarters. When results are announced, it is said that the medals were won “for America” or “for Russia,” and when the winner gets his or her medal, the national anthem of his country is played. It can then be said that the Russians beat the Americans, or that the Americans beat the Russians. The individual that won is of secondary importance. Thus, despite the individualistic nature of the actual contests, the way the games are presented, publicized and reported pits nation against nation. It affords the nationalist the chance to say “My nation beats your nation” without the risk of bloodshed—or so was thought. It affords the terrorist the chance to think that he has stricken a blow against an entire nation by kidnapping a few athletes—and this is the way the government of Israel took it, judging by the retaliatory strikes. There are rules at the Olympics, of course. But there are also rules of war. Both have been broken. The Munich atrocity was a massacre, but so was My Lai. Battles won and lost are grist for the nationalist propaganda mills, but so are Olympic athletic contests. In an atmosphere such as this it is impossible to divorce ideology from athletics. The games in Berlin with Adolph Hitler as host showed us this, as have the uses to which the games have subsequently been put by American and Communist propagandists. Why were we so shocked when all that the terrorists did was to make a few changes in the rules? The Palestinian team beat the Israeli team, and the West German police team beat the Palestinian team. In the excitement, however, the medals and national anthems were forgotten. The Olympics can be a sports forum again, instead of a political battleground, but for this to happen, the national anthems will have to be forgotten permanently. The flags need to be removed and the uniforms burned. The contests need to be conducted consistently on a basis of individual and team competition in order that individuals and not nations will be the winners. Individuals from around the globe should be able to compete for a place in the games on an individual basis, and if all of the entries for one event come from one country or a hundred countries, it should make no difference because individuals are competing, not nations. Under this arrangement, the Olympics would be useless as a propaganda tool and could again become that forum for sportsmanship, friendship and fellowship of de Coubertin’s dream; for it is only on a basis of individual respect for individual accomplishment that the Olympics can ever “supply the best of internationalism.”