A different kind of national pride

Morry Gash/AP/File
Forged Olympic rings light up the stadium during the opening ceremony at the 2012 Summer Olympics in London.

As I read this week’s cover story, a curious image kept coming to mind: the opening ceremony of the 2012 London Olympic Games. The curious bit is that this week’s cover story is about African art and the ethics of European museums holding on to their colonial haul. What does that have to do with the London Olympics? Let me explain.

When I sat in the media section of the Olympic stadium hours before the beginning of the opening ceremony, the scene before me on the floor of the stadium was almost heartbreakingly endearing. It was a scene of pastoral England – of stone houses and village squares, of courting couples in barley fields and country boys lounging on the grass during a game of cricket on a pleasant summer’s day. It was unlike any opening ceremony I had ever seen. It was alive, inhabited in a way that Disney’s Epcot center could only dream about. Quietly and intimately, the idyll of rural England was unfolding below us.

Then everything changed. As the ceremony began in earnest, the scene was steadily chewed by the gears of industry. This was the Industrial Revolution, and the result was awesome and terrifying: the five Olympic rings forged from a new dystopian vision of grime and grease.

True, the scene suffered from no small amount of romantic revisionism. Rural life in Georgian England was hardly idyllic, and the Industrial Revolution was an essential element of a quantum leap forward for humanity in wealth, innovation, and knowledge.

Yet the message was more effective than a branding iron: Here, in London’s crowning moment, it had chosen to embrace the ambivalent nature of its own glorious history. For once, an opening ceremony had not skated over the sticky parts of the past but instead sought a reforged sense of identity in the acknowledgment and, on some level, the atonement for them. This was, for me, a hint of a new post-colonial order. Perhaps the advancing understanding of power involves making right and being honest, not the pursuit of wealth or conquest. The national maturity required to make that statement at that moment was remarkable.

The former colonial powers that hold troves of African art now face a similar moment of introspection. As with the dystopian vision of the Industrial Revolution, it is easy to caricature this decision too. Having African collections in European museums has not been universally evil. They have spread an understanding and interest in African culture to a more global audience.

But one historian puts it this way: “The question is, do you keep objects which are stolen, or not?” More deeply, he adds: “A colonial context is a context of injustice.”

This era is clearly asking former colonial nations how they will choose to think of that legacy. The question is perhaps an Olympic one: Can countries craft a new sense of pride and purpose by directly addressing the checkered parts of their past? The goal is not revisionism but a better foundation on which to build.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.