Marathon Protectionism?

I think it's alright to make it an Americans' only race. There are plenty of global races right?

Someone's got to say it:
If Americans cannot compete in distance running, they should do something else that they can be competitive in... or train harder and at high altitudes. I'm sick and tired of whiney Americans who have no concept of what it's like to be poor or even "middle class" in somewhere like Kenya or Ethiopia or China (I'm not claiming that I do) complaining about evil foriegn "workers" taking their jobs in their job of choice. Wah. Running is a religion in Kenya because people view it to be the best, surest way out of desperate poverty. For Americans (AMERICANS!!!) to say, "No Mr. Third World Person, you cannot escape poverty, famine, and death because I'd rather not work a desk job." is outrageous.

There will come a day when Americans no longer have to compete for jobs with foriegners willing to work harder for 1/10th the wages. That will be in about 500 years when every country has a developed economy and a large middle class. Idiot protectionism will only delay it even further.

I knew I could count on you for a fierce indictment of protectionism, Andy.

Does the prize aspect change things, though? Also, we're talking about an individual organization creating a volunteer event. Don't the organizers have the right to invite and award anyone they want? The Twin Cities is a large but decidedly second-tier event. Perhaps the best way for them to improve the attendance and their own prestige is by taking this step.

While someone hoping to "make a living" by running is required to attend and win events, or receive sponsorship either from a company (through advertising) or from the government in an Olympic role, they are still free to pick from among any of the events they wish. While their is a governing body (US Track and Field, I think) that determines which events are sanctioned and qualifiers, it is still a collection of individual events.

Now that I think about it, in some ways the debate reminds me of the one over the PGA and the Masters tournament, but substituting discrimination against foreigners in place of discrimination against women.

That's an excellent point. We, in this country, all too often confuse the statement "people really shouldn't do X" with the statement "people shouldn't be allowed to do X". Furthermore, they assume that, because something is bad, society has a right to tell people they cannot do it- and then back that up with force if necessary. Society does has a right to force people not to harm each other and it uses the criminal justice system to do so, but when it comes to some morons who are using their own resources to sponsor a race and they want to use it for something as backward as economic protectionism, by all means, they should be allowed.

There are many, many things that I think are really bad, stupid, harmful things that people do, but the majority do not warrant using the common resources of this country to force people to stop. Smoking pot, ciggerettes, joining a fundamentalist religion or other cult, abortion, prostitution, gambling at casinos or in state lotteries, buying American even when foriegn is better and cheaper, voting for a Republican, voting for a Democrat, and the Atkins diet are all things that are, in my opinion, bad, dumb decisions. But passing laws to stop people from doing these things, and sending cops to beat people who break those laws, and putting those people in prison to be raped is not moral, nor does it significantly curtail the activity. It's not clear that putting people in prison has much of a deterrent effect on crimes that have actual victims: murder, rape, assault, theft, etc. (I could still go either way on this), but we do owe it to the victims of these crimes, and their families, to say that the person who did this will not be able to do it again... at least for a few years.

But as far as increasing the prestige of the Twin Cities marathon, in my mind they have only managed to recast themselves as the most openly biggoted marathon in America. But, do they care what I think? I seriously doubt it.

I must have missed the part in the article where Minnesota said that they were going to throw the foreigners in jail if they participate in the race.

I guess I'm thinking of the marathon in a different way. I flip through Writer's Market books every once in a while. And I research writing competitions online. I've even looked into the scholarships at my university. The thing is this: the magazines, journals, contests and scholarships lately that I've been encountering are strictly interested in either foreigners or minorities as candidates.

Now, this makes me think that if scholarship boards, writing competitions and creative literature journals can be snobby about what kinds of writers/applicants/candidates that they're willing to accept--then why should a marathon be any different?

"I must have missed the part in the article where Minnesota said that they were going to throw the foreigners in jail if they participate in the race."

I should clarify: When Ish said, "Don't the organizers have the right to invite and award anyone they want?" he referred to what the organizers do and do not have the right to do. That got me thinking of, if we decided that they did not have the right to exclude certain groups of people, how would we, as a society, stop them. The first step would be that a foriegn runner (or group of foriegn runners) would sue the organization (provided they can establish the right to sue). If they win their court case (and all appeals) an injunction would be issued against the organizers demanding that all people be allowed to enter. If the organizers than refused to allow the foriegn runners to participate, they could be held in contempt of court, jailed, and fined. So yes, the organizers of the race, just as the sponsors of a scholarship, have the right to offer their contest to whatever selective group they choose, until the courts say otherwise.

All I was trying to point out is that what people should do and what they are allowed to to are not always the same thing. And that as often as not is a good thing (not like Martha Stewart "good things"... shudder).

They reason that we are discussing the marathon thing differently than, say the scholarship things is that the organizers have framed this as a protectism issue rather than an affirmative action issue (which is the issue that the foriegn and minority student scholarships fall into). I think that you may be right in thinking that the issues involved in this marathon more closely mirror the issues in the affirmative action debate, as both involve an attempt to make the earnings playing field more level (for the underpriviledged) between groups which are viewed to have disparate abilities to succeed in a given activity based on historical and geographical factors. To me protectionism has always meant nearly the same thing, except in this case the attempt is made to make the playing field more "level" in favor of the priviledged... or to use a similie: To me, protectionism is like an anti-affirmitive action that's been designed to benefit white males and maintain their historical economic and political advantages (granted, as it is practiced in America, is benefits people of multiple genders and races, but in the end, it's designed to benefit citizens of the most affluent country in the history of the world).

So then, why doesn't the marathon try to frame the debate as an affirmative action debate? Well, I think you probably see the answer to that right away. It's impossible not to notice that the primary people who lose out from the ban on foriegn runners come from countries where the majority people belong to a race that is a minority in this country. Trying to convience people that an action that discriminates agains a minorities in this country is in any way "affirmitive" is more than a little futile and probably political suicide to boot.

So, in summary, my opinions:
Banning foriegners in the race is bad (in principle, probably not harmful in fact).
Their right to do it should probably be preserved and defended... until someone convinces me otherwise.

Okie dokie. So I just want to make sure I'm understanding: Banning the foreigners is bad. But the right to ban need to be protected? (That's what you think?)

I hope that doesn't come off as snotty or something. I'm genuinely curious.