Gu Ailing won the championship, and there were still many voices of criticism in the comment area. Some people questioned her "purity", as if she must be an authentic Chinese person to deserve the honor; some people questioned that she was born in the United States but was not "grateful" and instead devoted herself to the other side of the ocean. Many groups with different opinions and opposing camps seem to have found common ground in criticizing Gu Ailing.
I dare to say a few words for Gu Ailing.
First of all, let me state that I am not a fan of Gu Ailing. I think she is very beautiful and sassy, but I am not enthusiastic about the sports she engages in, and I have no particular preference for her as a person.
As a passerby, I think the criticism Gu Ailing has received is somewhat unreasonable. There is no evidence to question her nationality. Since she meets the qualifications of the Olympic Committee, it is not suitable for conspiracy theories. I am opposed to giving ideological color to sports competitions and athletes' choices, and let the sports be pure. Some people think that Gu Ailing was born in the United States and "the United States trained her". Her switching to the Chinese team is ungrateful and self-interested. I think it is biased.
"America raised her" is a way of thinking that has fallen into a rut. Gu Ailing was born in the United States. Her mother is a worker and taxpayer. It is her mother who pays for her education and training. So it was her mother who raised her, not the United States. The place of birth is not inherently benevolent to the people, but the country should thank its citizens for their contributions because of taxes and provide corresponding public services. According to this logic, the public services Gu Ailing enjoyed in her childhood were what her mother deserved after paying taxes. The United States did not use taxpayers' money to give Gu Ailing special care, so it cannot be said to have "cultivated her."
Here I take the United States as an example. What I really want to get rid of is the way of thinking that "a certain country trained you", and emphasize again that the place of birth does not naturally have kindness to the people, regardless of the market system or the national system. The former is a free choice based on the market, while the latter is a system selection based on its own needs. In both cases, athletes are contributors to the country. They owe nothing and do not need to try to impose moral criticism. Whether an athlete chooses to naturalize or go overseas is a personal choice, which should be respected and not burdened with any moral shackles.
I think there are only two factors in the choice of nationality: emotion and opportunity. Emotional factors include feelings for a certain culture and system. As long as one does not embrace a recognized evil subject like the Nazis, individual choices are understandable. Opportunities include family, work opportunities, etc. This type of decision-making is even more personal. Some people are willing to enter a certain country through marriage, while others think that there is more room for development and material benefits in other countries. These influencing factors have nothing to do with morality. The reason why I summed it up like this is simply to get rid of the idea of a country's kindness. We love a country, culture, and system not out of gratitude, but out of choice and love after independent thinking. Respecting people's legitimate rights and using less moral hijacking is a lesson I must always practice. Of course, we also have the right to question the program, so bravely question the programmer, not the girl who made the choice.
