Allow me to be blunt. This argument is complete tripe:
It had been some people's view that the Olympics, both closely related with Western countries in terms of its ancient origins and its modern revival, would possibly carry Western cultural values to China. However, to their surprise, the Western formula was not copied during the Games.
In the ancient city, we saw wonderful collective and individual performances and a harmonious coexistence between peace and the competitive athletic spirit that pursues individual transcendence amid rivalry.
In order to host such an outstanding Games, China paid a high economic price. But most of the Chinese people, whether or not they were participating in the Games, chose to take on a smiling face.
The Eastern philosophy, which stresses that an individual realizes self-value in a collective atmosphere, was shining during the Olympics, instead of being overshadowed. At the opening and closing ceremonies of the Beijing Olympics, athletes, volunteers, the audience and even local residents all sent one clear message that the Chinese people act according to their own mode of conduct and will not succumb to any allegedly superior Western values.
I have had to put up with this silly debate over collectivism vs. individualism in the economic context for many years now. Never liked the debate, thought it was oversimplified, irrelevant and insipid.
Now the story gets revamped in the context of the Olympics, and particularly with the opening/closing ceremonies. I have heard this from local and foreign commentators, who extol the virtues of collectivism when discussing the synchronized actions of performers that we saw in the Bird's Nest.
Gimme a break. Only with a culture of collectivism can you get a couple hundred people to dance around synchronously? Haven't any of these people seen a Broadway musical? A decent marching band? Egad.