Thursday, October 10, 2019

Gladiators, media ; Chariot racing




Sorry the video is entirely in French
Here is an English summary:
1. The mosaic shows almost a full race, from start to full speed
2. A member of the elite or an official drops a white scarf to signal the start of the race 
3. An employee moves a crank to open the doors to the horses
4. It is a a four horses chariots race
5. There are 4 teams: Blue, Green, Red, White
6. There were avid spectators and fans, and bets were very important
7. Many employees are working around the track
8. One person spreads water on the ground to avoid causing too much dust
9. Two people wait for the end of the race to give the winner his prices: a palm and a laurel wreath
10. Another one is carrying a pair of scissors to rescue drivers if they fall, by untangling them for their chariot
11. Two chariots missed turning the curve and their drivers are in danger
12. Skill and strategy were essential to get a victory

See Wikipedia contributors, 'Circus Games Mosaic', Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 15 February 2018, 01:20 UTC, <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Circus_Games_Mosaic&oldid=825724118> [accessed 6 May 2018]


Saturday, October 5, 2019

Book review of the day: The Ideals of Global Sport: From Peace to Human Rights

John Soares. Review of Keys, Barbara J., ed., The Ideals of Global Sport: From Peace to Human Rights. H-Diplo, H-Net Reviews. October, 2019.
URL: http://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=54282


 Quote from the review's conclusion:

In their conclusion, Keys and Burke argue that “as commercialism, doping, corruption, and gigantism spread an ever larger pall over sport mega-events, the need for a countervailing set of moral claims that can justify and excuse the excesses grows in tandem” (p. 223). Significantly, they point out, “the paucity of evidence” that these moral “claims are grounded in fact have almost never acted as a brake on the impetus to make such claims.” They write, convincingly, that “our craving for meaning and moral value guarantees that we will continue to invest our most grandiose events with a capacity to do good that they have yet to earn.” And yet, despite many disappointments, that moral veneer “has also, fitfully and sometimes unwittingly, helped reduce some of those wrongs” (p. 224). This clear and judicious conclusion is a fitting cap to a collection of essays that so commendably describes and explains the fraught connections between “mega” sport, moral improvement, and human rights. It deserves a wide readership among historians of international relations, sport, and the impact of nongovernmental agencies.