Olympics And Politics Don't Mix - or do they?

CK.1

From http://video.news.sky.com/skynews/video/?&videoSourceID=1311952&flashURL=/feeds/skynews/latest/flash/radcliffe_060408_1500.flv

'Olympics And Politics Don't Mix'

British marathon runner Paula Radcliffe says the pro-Tibet Olympic torch protests would help raise the profile of China?s treatment of the country. However, she said the Olympics was about sport, not politics.

Do you agree with the statement that 'Olympics And Politics Don't Mix'?

I think that the minute you decide to hold the Olympics in a country such as China you automatically give people the right to make political protests. By holding the Olympics in China the world is effectively endorcing China and it is people's right to speak out against this.

Opinions?

Bubs101

I think it is completely possible to have the two as completely seperate entities bar a few occasions (Munich, Berlin and the one with the panthers (LA?)) but the fact that China is using it as a political tool to show the world that they are ready to join the elite nations and that the internal workings of the country are fine means that this years olympics are about politics.

Also, I think that you're wrong about it being people's right to speak out against China winning the Olympics, it's the fact that these people see China as being vulnerable at the moment so they see it as a perfect time to act. China can't use the full force they normally would even when it's probably warranted as the recent riots in Tibet showed. A couple of months after the Olympics are over I'd expect China to punish Tibet.

Quite how China won the Olympics with their terrible air quality is another matter. The Olympic marathon champion has refused to run in Beijing because of the air quality

SeanW

The Beijing Olympics have already become slightly political, with the original torch relay schedule having been objected to by the Republic of China (Taiwan) government, as the PRC wanted to run the torch between PRC and ROC territory as part of the Domestic Route, rather than the International Route.

So the Beijing games are fair game for protests.

RedPlanet

Of course you shouldn't mix sports and politics.
Just like the general consensus view in this very country when England were to play in Crocker during the Six Nations, and there was talk of holding a minutes' silence!

Some of the reasons you don't mix politics and sports include:
- it isolates people, one nation may boycott the games thereby denying their own athletes (whom have been training for a long time) the opportuntity to compete. Or some of the boycotting country's own athletes don't empathise with the reason for the boycott.

- What kind of pandora's box would you be opening? Let's say you boycott Olympics due to allegeded human rights violations this time; next time you may find something else objectionable about the host. For example maybe the host country isn't a "democracy", or maybe it isn't "democratic enough", or maybe because they haven't signed up to "Free Trade agreements", or don't support the "War on Terror".

Neutrality is a hard slog but it's the only way forward.
Once you use sports as a political tool you devalue it.

Thirdfox

Bubs101 wrote: »

Quite how China won the Olympics with their terrible air quality is another matter. The Olympic marathon champion has refused to run in Beijing because of the air quality

Similarly he didn't run in the London marathon due to his asthma concerns - so London 2012 shouldn't happen either?

SeanW wrote: »

The Beijing Olympics have already become slightly political, with the original torch relay schedule having been objected to by the Republic of China (Taiwan) government, as the PRC wanted to run the torch between PRC and ROC territory as part of the Domestic Route, rather than the International Route.

The proposed route by the Chinese government was travelling from Vietnam(?) to Taipei to Hong Kong - I think that's a very neutral and non-political stance - travelling from one sovereign country and departing to a SAR region.

You give the words domestic and international capital letters - is there a special "authorised" route you're talking about or just your own opinions?


And as far as I know - there will be demonstrations this Saturday by members of the Chinese community at O'Connell street supporting the Olympics and perhaps giving their views on the Tibet issue.

bonkey

CK.1 wrote: »

Do you agree with the statement that 'Olympics And Politics Don't Mix'?

No. I agree with the statements that Olympics and Politics shouldn't be mixed.

I think that the minute you decide to hold the Olympics in a country such as China you automatically give people the right to make political protests.

This is where we disagree. If you believe this, then fundamentally you believe that the Olympics are fair game to use as a political tool. You can re-couch it in whatever language you like, saying that there are limits to whats acceptable etc. but you're starting from a posistion that you see it as being perfectly ok in at least some cases to mix the two.

By holding the Olympics in China the world is effectively endorcing China and it is people's right to speak out against this.

Only if you believe sport cannot be removed from politics.

If you believe they can be seperate, then China is a valid location because it has the capability to host the Olympics, and has - particularly in recent years - had more and more of a presence in a wide variety of international sports.

It is only when you look beyond sport, and particularly when you come to politics, that you come to reasons why China should not be a host.

I have a suspicion that a goodly part of the reason that China was selected was exactly so that the international community would gain another avenue to put reform pressure on the Chinese....that it was a significantly political decision in the first place.

I also have a feeling that it could all backfire, and that the Chinese will not back down, and it will either end in a string of boycotts, or inded with the Chiense cancelling the event in protest to the politicisation of it by others.

r3nu4l

I can't help but feel that Britain are being very careful about the whole "Politics and Sport" debate solely for the fact that they themselves are hosting the Olympics in 2012!

Global sports events such as the Olympics and the Soccer World Cup are something that helps "unite" the world in a party atmosphere. They celebrate professional achievement and give pride to a country. They are showcases for the hosting country.

However, I don't recall much debate when many countries chose to boycott South Africa during the Apartheid era! That was seen as perfectly acceptable and rightly so. The world was sending out a message to the leaders of SA, "if you want to be accepted, change your policies". Unfortunately, China already has so much more to offer the word than SA ever did in terms of market size, new opportunities for global corporations and cheap labour, therefore political isolation and objection to China through boycotting is not a viable option.

So, yes, Olympics and politics do mix but in this case politics is choosing not to.

/the above is my opinion only...

RedPlanet

r3nu4l wrote: »

However, I don't recall much debate when many countries chose to boycott South Africa during the Apartheid era! That was seen as perfectly acceptable and rightly so.

I'd like to hear you elaborate this point.
Are you suggesting that countries boycotted the Olympics due to South Africa's apartheid system?
I am not aware of any such event.

It looks like South Africa was barred from the 1964 Summer games due to its refusal to racially desegregate its sports.

Which means the International Olympic Committe maintained a set of rules that SA did not meet for their participating.
Politics in sports?
Maybe, but i think in reality is SA's system that was attempting to interject polictics into the Olympics.

jmayo

Bubs101 wrote: »

I think it is completely possible to have the two as completely seperate entities bar a few occasions (Munich, Berlin and the one with the panthers (LA?)) but the fact that China is using it as a political tool to show the world that they are ready to join the elite nations and that the internal workings of the country are fine means that this years olympics are about politics.

Also, I think that you're wrong about it being people's right to speak out against China winning the Olympics, it's the fact that these people see China as being vulnerable at the moment so they see it as a perfect time to act. China can't use the full force they normally would even when it's probably warranted as the recent riots in Tibet showed. A couple of months after the Olympics are over I'd expect China to punish Tibet.

Quite how China won the Olympics with their terrible air quality is another matter. The Olympic marathon champion has refused to run in Beijing because of the air quality

I think the one you mentioned regarding the Panthers was in fact the black power salute in Mexico 1968.
The glove wearing black clenched fist of the winners on the podium was a brilliant statement.

The Olympics have been used for political purposes from way back.
Berlin 1936, Moscow 1980 were twoprime examples where the hosts tried to display both to the world and to their own people how great they were and hide all the bad stuff away.

China are doing the exact same.
So if the government use the Olympics for political purposes why shouldn't the opposition to the government do the exact same thing.

Anyway the Olympics is now a total sham, where most of the competitors in the high profile sports are drug cheats and the whole event is dominated by big business and their advertising.

RedPlanet

How is China using the Olympics as a political tool?

r3nu4l

RedPlanet wrote: »

Are you suggesting that countries boycotted the Olympics due to South Africa's apartheid system?

No, I'm not but that does seem to be what you are inferring :rolleyes:
I'm simply broadening the discussion. The question raised byt he OP relates purely to the Olympics but the Olympics is not the only major sporting event in the world and really, the questions should discuss the place of politics in sports. It just so happens that the Olympics is the 'topic of the day'.

For a history of anti-apartheid political involvement in sport see the ANC website here and a copy of the UN Convention on Apartheid in Sports here.

The fact is that politics and sports do mix and anyone who doesn't think they do really needs to do some reading!

As I stated before, my own opinion is that the only reason we aren't hearing about certain Western countries boycotting or protesting against the Chinese Olympics is because of the fact that China is the new arena for 'big-buisness' and they are afraid of China beginning a trade war given the current global economy.

RedPlanet

I think that when you put the current discussion about China hosting the Olympics and boycotts directed agaist the Aparthied regime in SA in the same paragraph you are not comparing like with like.

Your links to the ANC website and the UN Convention on Apartheid in Sports are mostly irrelevant to the topic.

I think the reasons that other countries are not interested in boycotting the Olympics is because they are mature enough to realise the folly of allowing politics into sports and are not interested in allowing small numbers of agitators and street protests dictate international events.

r3nu4l

RedPlanet wrote: »

I think that when you put the current discussion about China hosting the Olympics and boycotts directed agaist the Aparthied regime in SA in the same paragraph you are not comparing like with like.

Your links to the ANC website and the UN Convention on Apartheid in Sports are mostly irrelevant to the topic.

I think the reasons that other countries are not interested in boycotting the Olympics is because they are mature enough to realise the folly of allowing politics into sports and are not interested in allowing small numbers of agitators and street protests dictate international events.

Just because you say it doesn't mean it's true and vice-versa We'll have to agree to disagree

Bubs101

Thirdfox wrote: »

Similarly he didn't run in the London marathon due to his asthma concerns - so London 2012 shouldn't happen either?

Well the difference being that there is no shortage of Marathons that he can compete in but there is only one Olympics. Also, as you said, he pulled out due to asthma concerns in London. Beijing has fully fledged smog which is a danger to certain athletes. There is even talk of the marathons being held in western China where the air quality is better

Thirdfox

Bubs101 wrote: »

Well the difference being that there is no shortage of Marathons that he can compete in but there is only one Olympics. Also, as you said, he pulled out due to asthma concerns in London. Beijing has fully fledged smog which is a danger to certain athletes. There is even talk of the marathons being held in western China where the air quality is better

Can you provide the reports that state there are talks to shift the marathon venue away from Beijing? That seems completely out of the blue (especially in relation to what the Chinese government is putting in place in trying and clean up Beijing for the Olympics).

I'm not trying to downplay the pollution problem in Beijing - I've lived there for a year last year and it was pretty bad when compared to Dublin. Dublin in comparison is pretty bad compared to parts of Austria... But I am making an issue of trying to use these problems to hurt the Chinese government politically (when these problems exist in other Olympic cities - London for example).

So if he doesn't compete in London 2012 due to the London smog will the British be making a political statement out of it? Is it not just possible that he has asthma and can't compete in certain environments where the minimum threshold is pretty low?

I read a NY Times article where the US contingent talked about bringing their own food over because they implicitly said that the Chinese might drug them (with steroids) using local food - good for them, I don't believe the authorities would do anything of the sort and I think it's sad that they really believe.

Look at the torch relay - what's the point? It was supposed to be bringing the spirit of peace and goodwill around the world but obviously the protesters will not allow this to happen and a minority will resort to violence. If pro-Olympics/Chinese people turn up it's largely ignored by the media who continue talking about one side of the issue.

I encourage people who want to get both sides of the story to go to the demonstration this weekend and talk to the people present - you may end up learning something at it (and hey you might be able to convince the people there that you are completely right too.)

bonkey

RedPlanet wrote: »

I think the reasons that other countries are not interested in boycotting the Olympics is because they are mature enough to realise the folly of allowing politics into sports and are not interested in allowing small numbers of agitators and street protests dictate international events.

"other countries" meaning "other countries except France", right?

If you're not sure of the reference, google "Sarkozy Olympics"

Thirdfox

Just an addendum - the Chinese people that I've met in China are very proud of their country - boycotting even the opening ceremony would be a slap to their face (not just to the government's). The feeling of being bullied by western powers for the last 100 years is still present and this would mostly be seen as an attempt to stifle China's "peaceful rising".

This would just lead to solidarity between people and government and things (which I genuinely believe have improved over the last 30 years) may go backwards. The same can be seen in Japan where its citizens have become more and more nationalistic over the years. It's certainly a worrying trend and that's why I believe that rash actions that will not achieve anything positive should not be undertaken unless there are underlying alternative interests at stake here.

Thirdfox

bonkey wrote: »

"other countries" meaning "other countries except France", right?

If you're not sure of the reference, google "Sarkozy Olympics"

Did Sarkozy say he's going to boycott? This must be breaking news... I had read that he just said that "all options are open". Unless we understand English translations differently I do not think he has said that he will boycott the opening ceremony.

RedPlanet

It's not even up to Sarkozy is it?
Surely it's The French National Olympic Committee that decides.
They and the IOC.

jmayo

Thirdfox wrote: »

Just an addendum - the Chinese people that I've met in China are very proud of their country - boycotting even the opening ceremony would be a slap to their face (not just to the government's). The feeling of being bullied by western powers for the last 100 years is still present and this would mostly be seen as an attempt to stifle China's "peaceful rising".

This would just lead to solidarity between people and government and things (which I genuinely believe have improved over the last 30 years) may go backwards. The same can be seen in Japan where its citizens have become more and more nationalistic over the years. It's certainly a worrying trend and that's why I believe that rash actions that will not achieve anything positive should not be undertaken unless there are underlying alternative interests at stake here.

May be you should have tried to meet a few Tibetan people. It would be interesting to know if they were of the same opinions as your Chinese friends.
Perish the thought anyone would offend the Chinese government.
After all they might stop helping the international community chastise rogue regimes that are killing their own people :rolleyes:

bonkey

Thirdfox wrote: »

Did Sarkozy say he's going to boycott? This must be breaking news... I had read that he just said that "all options are open". Unless we understand English translations differently I do not think he has said that he will boycott the opening ceremony.

Well, I don't limit myself to english translations, but if you take some of the links on the front page of the google search I suggested that are newer then the CNN one where he says "all options", then you'll see plenty dated from April 5th, to the effect that the Frnech are claiming that ground-conditions have been set for his attendence.

If you do a more general search on "opening ceremony boycott", you'll also see that Sarko isn't the only one talking up such an idea.

Thirdfox

From what I heard on the BBC (lol) A French minister had said there were conditions, later she retracted that statement and said there were no conditions...
here's a link:
http://www.news24.com/News24/World/News/0,,2-10-1462_2300735,00.html
Minister denies Sarkozy boycott
unless your news is "newer"?

I heard from the BBC the Polish pres/prime minister said he's not attending (this was a week ago now) but frankly I don't care too much about the potential snub - if you really want to act then have the courage to act politically. You might end up provoking a trade war anyway with this snub (the government has overwhelming Chinese support both inside and outside of China - there must be a reason for that - people who are raised in Ireland and who have never seen a Chinese news broadcast couldn't possibly be all brainwashed by propoganda could they?)

Manic Moran

I seem to recall that the point of the original Olympics, all those millenia ago, was that all sides would put aside their differences, stop fighting their wars, and the Olympics was a month of truce, focusing purely on sports and ignoring the various political differences of opinion that were causing the wars in the first place.

NTM

Jim_Are_Great

Manic Moran wrote: »

I seem to recall that the point of the original Olympics, all those millenia ago, was that all sides would put aside their differences, stop fighting their wars, and the Olympics was a month of truce, focusing purely on sports and ignoring the various political differences of opinion that were causing the wars in the first place.

NTM

Very true, but at that time slavery was used as a punishment for crimes, and women were considered inherently inferior to men, so I suggest we've made some progress.

I don't think anyone has a problem with The Olympics, they have problems with China. So it's not sport being political; it's politics being political. I'm just afraid that China's PR coup at hosting the games mey lead to a normalisation of the state, drawing attention away from shadier areas.

jmayo

IMO some people posting on here seem to see the Olympics as some great show that brings the world together and it should not be hijacked by politics.

Countries and dodgy regimes (e.g Nazis, Soviets) have long been using the games to further their image both to the outside world and to their often subservent population.

To anyone that looks at the history of the Olympics over the last 30 odd years, it is far from its idealised original form or indeed the one that Baron de Coubertin resurrected in modern times.

Most of the blue ribbon events are won by drug cheats, sometimes these are even overlooked by the organisers in case they would sully the "good name" of the Olympics. Hell they are even doping the horses these days :rolleyes:

The whole process in deciding who stages the Olympics has even been shown up to involve bags of cash, call girls and lots of expensive pressies for the decision makers.
Then the actual games are run by big business (e,g Coca Cola) who have now gotten such a hold of the games that they do not tolerate the viewing audience displaying anything other than their logos.

Yeah some idealised institution the Olympic games are these days :rolleyes:

RedPlanet

jmayo wrote: »

IMO some people posting on here seem to see the Olympics as some great show that brings the world together and it should not be hijacked by politics.

Countries and dodgy regimes (e.g Nazis, Soviets) have long been using the games to further their image both to the outside world and to their often subservent population.

Something wrong with putting on a pretty face while playing host to your guests? Any self-respecting country would do those things so i don't understand your criticism here.

To anyone that looks at the history of the Olympics over the last 30 odd years, it is far from its idealised original form or indeed the one that Baron de Coubertin resurrected in modern times.

Most of the blue ribbon events are won by drug cheats, sometimes these are even overlooked by the organisers in case they would sully the "good name" of the Olympics. Hell they are even doping the horses these days :rolleyes:

The whole process in deciding who stages the Olympics has even been shown up to involve bags of cash, call girls and lots of expensive pressies for the decision makers.
Then the actual games are run by big business (e,g Coca Cola) who have now gotten such a hold of the games that they do not tolerate the viewing audience displaying anything other than their logos.

Yeah some idealised institution the Olympic games are these days :rolleyes:

So what are you saying? We should just chuck it in and not bother with the Olympics?
Or are you trying to articulate something here that means, YES Olympics can and should be used as a political tool?

Tim Robbins

Politicians and sport should not mix. A politician should not try to use sport for his political aims. Perfect example, Charlie Haughey using Stephen Roche's Tour De France victory for the benefit of his political career.

Now, politics as in human rights should not just mix with sport they should supercede it. Why? Because human rights are more important than sport.

The sporting boycott of South Africa was very influential in bringing an end to the apartheid regime. The olympics should be used to send a message to China that their human rights record is just unacceptable.

I would favour an outright boycott of these games. No politician will benefit, human rights. So let's remember it's not about politics and political parties, it's human rights folks.

SkepticOne

jmayo wrote: »

Countries and dodgy regimes (e.g Nazis, Soviets) have long been using the games to further their image both to the outside world and to their often subservent population.

In fact this whole torch relay business that is causing so much controversy was an invention of the Nazis in the 1936 Olympics. The Modern Olympics has always been political.

jmayo

RedPlanet wrote: »

Something wrong with putting on a pretty face while playing host to your guests? Any self-respecting country would do those things so i don't understand your criticism here.
[/i]
So what are you saying? We should just chuck it in and not bother with the Olympics?
Or are you trying to articulate something here that means, YES Olympics can and should be used as a political tool?

Redplanet,
why sure there is nothing wrong with putting on your best face, particularly if your country's government believes in invading your neighbours, persecuting desidents, or exterminating religous or ethnic groups.
So let us see we had the Nazis, then the Soviet Communists and now we have the Chinese.

My first point would be that the Olympic ideal and system is now so politicised that so what if another group jumps on the bandwagon and tries to use it for their own goals.
The Chinese government are using for their ends so why shouldn't the Tibetans etc.

Secondly, I no longer view the Olympic Games as some great celebration of man's endeavours to be better and peace loving, so doubly don't see what all the fuss is about.
Call me a cynic, but I actually now view the games as a big sordid affair that illustrates how far mankind will go to achieve power, fame and wealth.
It is bit like the Tour de Farce, sorry Tour de France, which was once a fine sporting spectacle, but it has sadly degererated into a cheaters event.

Watch the Special Olympics or the Para Olympics where real people endeavour to beat the handicaps that life has thrown at them.
That is where the real Olympic spirit now resides.

ateam

SkepticOne wrote: »

In fact this whole torch relay business that is causing so much controversy was an invention of the Nazis in the 1936 Olympics. The Modern Olympics has always been political.

It's only made political by opportunists.

To ask an athlete who's trained for their whole lives for the Olympics to boycott it is ridiculous and unfair. People should concentrate on the sport and nothing else.

So what if some political leader boycotts the opening night, political leaders shouldn't be invited.

A Dub in Glasgo

Sport and politics do mix and should mix. The Olympics has probably been the one event where this has been true for a long time

Sport is politics: that’s a hurdle that can’t be jumped

is_that_so

They may mix but in my view should not. While one could take the cynical approach and see druggies everywhere and the loss of Olympic ideal etc, but there are always elements of it that stand out. I see opportunism in the
protests and good luck to them. The flame is an easy target.

Their purpose is to highlight their grievances. But China is not going to dance to anyone's tune. They don't need to economically or politically. Attempts to bully them may make people feel good but imo will be to no avail.

Engagement as we have learnt here ourselves is what works in the long run.

SA has been mentioned by a few. That sports boycott went on for all of 20 years and was regularly subverted, because on a sporting level they represented something people wanted to measure themselves against.
In the end it DeKlerk's pragmatic politics and willingness to change, that pointed the way.

The last Olympic boycotts, from 1976 and the embarrassment that was 1980 were followed the Eastern block sulk in 1984. But they went on and the world went on. Whatever way these games are boycotted, they will produce lots of noise, hot air and inevitably some degree of violence, but the issues will still remain once the Games are over.

ateam

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Sport and politics do mix and should mix. The Olympics has probably been the one event where this has been true for a long time

Sport is politics: that’s a hurdle that can’t be jumped

Anyone who is involved in sport is not thinking about politics. They are hoping to win at whatever sport they compete in. I don't see how you can justify that sport and politics should mix. No one who says that thinks about the athletes.

estebancambias

I don't have any strong opinions, but sport and politics do mix, and as a previous poster said should mix.

estebancambias

ateam wrote: »

Anyone who is involved in sport is not thinking about politics. They are hoping to win at whatever sport they compete in. I don't see how you can justify that sport and politics should mix. No one who says that thinks about the athletes.

1986, England against Argentina? Have you heard the reports about the Argentinian players that day?

Manic Moran

ateam wrote: »

To ask an athlete who's trained for their whole lives for the Olympics to boycott it is ridiculous and unfair.

Quoted as it's a rather important point. Really, if the Olympics are boycotted, the only people who really get affected are the athletes, who don't have much say in foreign policy.

NTM

Kev_ps3

They only mix when the west want them to mix! I bet in 2012 when the Olympics are in London and the Brits have troops across half the middle east then politics wont mix!

ateam

estebancambias wrote: »

1986, England against Argentina? Have you heard the reports about the Argentinian players that day?

Nope and I don't care.

So should politics interfere with music, films, science, poetry...I mean where do we draw the line! I can't understand why people think sport and politics should mix.

leninbenjamin

ateam wrote: »

So should politics interfere with music, films, science, poetry...

uhhh... what? that's one of the most ridiculous things i've ever heard. you've never listened to any Bob Dylan then have you?

ateam

leninbenjamin wrote: »

uhhh... what? that's one of the most ridiculous things i've ever heard. you've never listened to any Bob Dylan then have you?

But that's Bob Dylan interfering with politics or getting involved in politics and not the other way around. Politicians shouldn't get involved in sport like they shouldn't get involved in music, films etc.

Sport is just an easy target, I hope the athletes in particular the Irish athletes just ignore these people who think that politics and sport should mix.

yawtin

So what was the purpose of the Special Olympics in Ireland?

Yes China want a bit of show-case but does any country that applied for hosting Olympics not want to show case themsleves?


I wonder did China get to host for that some people want to make a show of China?

SkepticOne

So far it seems to be Tibet that is getting the most of attention. An interesting thing to look out for in the run up and the games themselves will be Team Darfur. These are a group of 200 athletes that are going to speak out on the issue of Darfur including the government of the PRC's involvment in Darfur from within China.

Black hole sun

ateam wrote: »

So should politics interfere with music, films, science, poetry...I mean where do we draw the line!.

Lol wut? You mean have never heard any music or poetry or seen any films with a political theme?



As far as politicising the Beijing Olympics goes, seeing that China in the past boycotted both the 1956 Melbourne Olympics (because Tawain was allowed to compete) and also the 1980 Moscow Olympics (in response to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan) they can hardly complain about the same treatment being directed towards them.

http://www.cbc.ca/sports/indepth/feature-boycotts-countries.html


http://www.china.org.cn/english/null/116819.htm

ateam

Black hole sun wrote: »

Lol wut? You mean have never heard any music or poetry or seen any films with a political theme?


The question is should sport and politics mix. Of course there are music and films etc that are political, but that's not because politicians force it. Like with sport, no one should force sport and politics together. If an athlete wishes to speak about politics that's their business.

BUT politics and sports shouldn't mix.