Progressives, nationalism and international sporting events

by: Adam Bink

Thu Jun 24, 2010 at 19:00


Over at The Nation, Dave Zirin opens a can of worms when expressing concern over American jingoism after some nasty comments on a DC sports talk radio show about Algeria after the recent World Cup match.

Yet after the show, I was reminded about why when the United States wins in international tournaments, it can bring a nasty undercurrent in its wake. I was listening to a DC sports radio show called the Sports Fix with Kevin Sheehan and Thom Loverro (Loverro writes a sports column for the Washington Times). Loverro was dismissive about the quality of the victory, saying, "When I think of Algeria, all I think about are terrorists and Abbott and Costello movies." (Given what Algeria suffered at the hands of French occupiers, they probably have a different definition of terrorism.) The two then debated whether United States vs. Algeria was "a Grenada game" or "a Vietnam game," comparing the soccer game to the two wars-Grenada of course being the easy win and Vietnam the tragic loss.

It reminded why these kinds of international competitions can leave me with such a sour taste. Why can't we just recognize that Algeria played gallantly against a better US team, which won by the skin of its teeth? Why must an insanely miraculous athletic victory also be a reinforcer of cultural supremacy? It's yet another reminder why it is so important for progressives to not just thrill to the joys of sport but be conversant in the politics of sports. The right will forever try to pump the worst kind of racist, nationalist garbage through our play, even at moments that by all rights should be above and beyond politics and just about the electric thrill of the moment. Especially given the right's (and Loverro's) contempt for "the beautiful game", soccer of all things shouldn't suffer the curse of being a cheap, political football.

I'm not a soccer fan, and still haven't become one, but am fascinated how many of my friends are suddenly glued to World Cup coverage after being unable to name a single soccer match they've watched since, you guessed it, summer of 2006. Nationalism, for better or worse, brings out a rise in people. I do find it interesting that the same progressive friends of mine who roll their eyes at mindless "America, fuck yeah!" people around policy become manic "USA, USA!" cheerleaders at international sporting events and make a number of dumb comments about other nations' people, customs, values, etc. On the merits, there's a big difference between the two, but it's hard to say you can't stand nationalism and then become a big nationalist in a different space.

Or maybe it's just because I'm still irritated at my fairweather compatriots, e.g. those who watched goaltender Ryan Miller from my beloved Buffalo Sabres (who won the Vezina trophy for goalie of the year last night) take Team USA all the way to the finals against Canada in this year's Winter Olympics, win tournament MVP, then turn to me and said "this sport you call hockey is great, they should do this all year round!" Harrumph.

This is an open thread on the World Cup and other international sporting competitions.

Adam Bink :: Progressives, nationalism and international sporting events

Tags: , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
It isn't nationalism (0.00 / 0)
Having just gone through the Lakers/Celtics finals, I can safely say this isn't nationalism, with those evil, unworthy Celtics being technically from the same nation and all.

It is probably the same tribal thinking that leads to nationalism (and a bunch of other isms), though.  I'm torn between whether this is a safer outlet for that kind of thinking or bad because it encourages the thinking in the first place.


Agreed (0.00 / 0)
Sports are supposed to be fun, and most of the ribs sports fans make against opponents are not to be taken seriously.  There's always a line that can be crossed, but people who respect each other should be able to light-heartedly rib on their differences without offense being taken.

Is it jingoistic when a Red Sox fan trashes New Yorkers, or a Wisconsinite drunkenly slurs an epithet at a culturally almost identical Minnesotan because of the local sports team?


[ Parent ]
Sports as a substitute for war (4.00 / 1)
I look on sports as a substitute for war, a way of getting out all your tribal loyalties with a minimum of violence.

Of course it does not always work that way, sometimes there are riots at sports events, but even they are minor compared with real war.

Of course sports can occasionally lead to a real war, such as the Football/Soccer War between El Salvador and Hondorus in 1969.


With soccer (4.00 / 6)
at least the US is a underdog, sort of. With most sports, rooting for the US is like rooting for the Yankees -- if the Yankees, you know, occupied countries, gobbled up the world's resources, and basically killed people with impunity.

Actually, the Yankees might well do all those things.  


Steinbrenner was convicted of giving illegal contributions (0.00 / 0)
to Nixon. Thank goodness he put most of his money into sports instead of politics.

[ Parent ]
You were shocked? .. (0.00 / 0)
I was listening to a DC sports radio show called the Sports Fix with Kevin Sheehan and Thom Loverro (Loverro writes a sports column for the Washington Times).

Look where Loverro has a day job.  Sounds like he really wants to cover politics.  Or else the Moonie Times hires cranks, racists and idiots for all their openings.  Or both.


I'm not sure you can judge on this. After all, the NY Post (0.00 / 0)
has pretty good sports writing, and some pretty evil political commentary. But I don't know Loverro at all, so you could be right about him.

[ Parent ]
the problem isn't the world cup (0.00 / 0)
it's the glorifiation of nationalism and jingoism.  jingoism is the word that progressives use when 'ordinary' nationalism turns into racism / imperialism.  but it is always present - even in nice ideas like imposing labor standards on other countries' societies without actually asking the people in those countries whether that would be helpful (if they were asked, in an equal way, aware of differences in power between american progressives/orgs and the same in the other countries, then it would be reasonable, but that's rare).

On the flip side, the reasons why people are prone to racism/jingoism are equally important, and have to do with the fact that no one speaks to them.  When working people are encouraged to align themselves with ideas of upward mobility (i.e. 'the American dream') or believe that their 'leadership' serves their best interests, then you get cross class coalitions in which entire countries oppress the societies of other countries.  this is what has happened and is happening wrt to the united states and other countries.  and not just the united states (which is why i am really enjoying the western european losses in the world cup, most of the time, my friends' loyalties excepted).

The international sporting events just bring out the worst of these qualities.  The only times I usually have felt really uncomfortable rooting for the U.S., as an American in another country that is also atrocious in many ways on an international level though not nearly to the same extent, is when I see the american fans who are currently colonizing south african stadiums.  but i suppose even they might have their reasons.

Of course, this next match is a bit hard to stomach, and if I could get over my tribal loyalties - or choose different ones even...I would probably not be able to support the U.S. in good conscience against Ghana (let alone the only subsaharan african team left in this world cup).

On the flipside, it's just a sporting event to me.


Different planes (4.00 / 2)
We all want to believe we can be on a higher philosophical plane when it comes to thought areas we hold in higher esteem (politics, economics, etc.) even while we can still remain on the visceral, reptile plane while we watch sports and spelling bee's. It's in our DNA. But conservatives see it all on one plane.

Teams illustrate countries (0.00 / 0)
The cool thing about World Cups is that the national teams seem to often illustrate national traits.  The Japanese may be small and thin but they are well organized, play well as a team, work hard and are precise.  Bingo.  German teams over the years tend to be well organized and often depend on size, strength and work ethic.  Bingo.  The Italians, at least in past years, were often brilliant counter punchers who blended creativity with a well planned strategy.  They lost me when they won the last cup by targeting a Moslem French player (then the best player in the Tournament) for racial/ethnic slurs.

I always liked the Brazilians and the French for being flashy, creative, and entertaining.

American teams have not been illustrative.  Too small.  Too conservative/boring.  Lacking in the entertainment value of the Brazilians.

I watch the Worls Cups and no longer much else when it comes to soccer.


US developing a style (0.00 / 0)
Which is why this world cup is different, I think, for US fans, because the US team is finally beginning to emerge with an identity as players, and more importantly as a team - the scrappy, motivated and tireless team of incredible diversity, greater than the sum of their parts, who manage to come through in the end.

PS - the French are far from flashy or entertaining this time around - more like slovenly and pathetic - the antithesis of teamwork in a side that has more talent by far than the US.


[ Parent ]
French (0.00 / 0)
After 20 years of style and 4 semifinals in 5 tries, the French just collapsed.  So did Italy.  Italy waited till 10 minutes left in regulation to start playing.  Last time's finalists were very poor this time.

The US propensity to give up an early goal is maddening and one feels it will catch up to them later in the Tournament.
Btw, the US has by far the highest population in the tournament at 310 million.  That's about double Brazil and I guess Nigeria.  More than four times Germany.  Five times or more for France, Italy, and England.  


[ Parent ]
Location, location (0.00 / 0)
This is amazing but European teams have won nine Cups and South American teams have won nine World Cups.  Europeans have won 9 of 10 held in Europe (the exception being Brazil winning in Sweden during Pele's world debut).  South Americans have won the other eight (4 in South America, 2 in Mexico, 1 in the US and 1 in Korea/Japan).  So far, this has been South America's show place.  After 13 games they have yet to lose.

Play it in Europe and one of their teams would win.


progressive soccer humor? (4.00 / 1)


"I think the economic logic behind dumping a load of toxic waste in the lowest wage country is impeccable and we should face up to that."
-Lawrence Summers






USER MENU


blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you

Donate to Open Left

All Polls


Without Rasmussen




QUICK HITS
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search