While Derick L. Hulme Jr. wrote the first scholarly analysis
of the 1980 Olympic boycott in 1990, Nicholas Evan Sarantakes seems to be the
most ardent and outspoken contemporary scholar on the issue. Interestingly
enough, the two take very different positions on the event. Hulme seems to see
the boycott as a whitewash, that is to say that any positive effects from an
American perspective were outweighed by the damage the boycott did monetarily
to private American corporations and ethically to the Olympic spirit itself.
Sarantakes see the event as the final and most major catalyst in the
“re-ignition” process of the Cold War and the end of détente; as well as a
prime example of Carter’s foreign policy ineptitude. As one could guess, the
two authors have highly differing background. Sarantakes is a United States
Naval officer who teaches at the Naval War College postgraduate studies
university. Hulme has a more liberal background, he got his Ph.D. from Tufts
University and now teaches at Alma College. Sarantakes has gained steam since
the publishing of his book “Dropping the Torch: Jimmy Carter, the Cold War, and
the Olympic Boycott” Sarantakes has also written several articles that have
been published in a political sport secondary source reader, Diplomatic
History, and the English Historical Review. Interestingly enough, he also had
an article posted on ESPN.com. The fact of the matter is, Sarantakes hard line
conservative stance holds a lot of sway in the contemporary study of the
boycott, even though Hulme seems to have more of an objective stance. My research
will hopefully be a return to the analytical views of Hulme and a retreat from
the conservative attack that is found in Sarantakes writing.
Trevor,
ReplyDeleteI think it's really good to be aware of the political agenda of the authors, so I applaud you for looking into Sarantakes! At the same time, I'm wondering if you believe there is still something to be gained from biased work. Do you believe that the credibility of Sarantakes' work is impacted by his conservative views? Or is there still something to be gained from his work?
Hey Trevor,
ReplyDeleteIt seems like you've nailed your authors down. Finding a hidden agenda within a work can be difficult, especially for a budding scholar. One thing I realized when investigating some controversial claims in my research, was that the truth could often be stretched to achieve an expected result. Meaning that a maniacal dictator would do terrible things, or that an incompetent president would act "ineptly," even though sometimes this may have not been the case. As Cory pointed out, you could still gain some value from Sarantakes perspective. Most likely, Sarantakes holds a common, or intuitive, view of Carter's role within the Boycott. Perhaps as a scholar, your job now demands that a clarification be made, having discovered these two opposing views.
I'll be excited to see where this takes you in the final paper!
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete