Is the World Cup a "circus" which helps sustain world peace?

[Jo/Joe]

Football never started a war and never will. The connection is not there in any form. Far more interesting is how the world cup exposes up to a billion people around the world to each other and offers them a common interest and passion.

 

[goldenecitrone]

Football never started a war and never will. The connection is not there in any form. Far more interesting is how the world cup exposes up to a billion people around the world to each other and offers them a common interest and passion.

That's true. And there isn't such a big gap between the old dominant teams and the emerging footballing nations. The Germans seem to have organised a very friendly event so far. Lovely to see.

 

[nopassaran]

Football never started a war and never will. The connection is not there in any form. Far more interesting is how the world cup exposes up to a billion people around the world to each other and offers them a common interest and passion.

No-one's saying that, and if you'd taken the time to read my previous posts in this thread you'd see that.... it's not about football it's about what drives people to support national teams - NATIONALISM!!!!!! and that does start wars.

And I think it's a sad state of affairs that people get more fired up about football than the environmental crisis we all face, not to mention a whole host of other global issues. Or are you suggesting that football is the root to solving these problems? I think not - the World Cup has been going since 1930 and how many wars and ethnic conflicts have occurred since then - eh?

 

[Jo/Joe]

No-one's saying that, and if you'd taken the time to read my previous posts in this thread you'd see that.... it's not about football it's about what drives people to support national teams - NATIONALISM!!!!!! and that does start wars.

And I think it's a sad state of affairs that people get more fired up about football than the environmental crisis we all face, not to mention a whole host of other global issues. Or are you suggesting that football is the root to solving these problems? I think not - the World Cup has been going since 1930 and how many wars and ethnic conflicts have occurred since then - eh?

Football has nothing to do with war, so why should it solve them? War is one of humanity's constants. What I said was interesting is the commonality it brings to people from all around the world. Only music can achieve anything similar. It bridges gaps.

I wish people would take more interest in politics and the environment too, but, again, football is not at fault. The WC lasts one month. Everything that people need to know is out there. It's on the front pages of our newspapers, it's on the TV. The only thing stopping people noticing and acting on our more serious concerns are themselves.

 

[nopassaran]

Football has nothing to do with war, so why should it solve them? War is one of humanity's constants. What I said was interesting is the commonality it brings to people from all around the world. Only music can achieve anything similar. It bridges gaps.

I wish people would take more interest in politics and the environment too, but, again, football is not at fault. The WC lasts one month. Everything that people need to know is out there. It's on the front pages of our newspapers, it's on the TV. The only thing stopping people noticing and acting on our more serious concerns are themselves.

The whole of my argument relates to the relationship between nationalism and support for national teams NOT about football per se....the way I see it you can enjoy playing and watching football, or any other sport for that matter, without necessarily supporting a national team.

The thing is you seem to imply something positive coming from the WC as you compare it to music in the way it brings people together and 'bridges gaps' - so I'm confused as to why having said this you also say that war is a constant??????????? Cos your reasoning suggests that tournaments like the WC have the potential to bridge national and ethnic differences and by definition reduce the possibility of war.

And of course football isn't to blame for people's apathy and lack of concern - as i said before the problem isn't with football!

 

[goldenecitrone]

No-one's saying that, and if you'd taken the time to read my previous posts in this thread you'd see that.... it's not about football it's about what drives people to support national teams - NATIONALISM!!!!!! and that does start wars.

The root cause of what you're talking about is tribalism. Can we escape from the fact that essentially we're just rapacious chimpanzees? I don't hold out much hope, to be honest.

 

[nopassaran]

The root cause of what you're talking about is tribalism. Can we escape from the fact that essentially we're just rapacious chimpanzees? I don't hold out much hope, to be honest.

If a few people can question and resist their 'tribal' urges then others can follow suit....each long journey starts with a few steps.....

 

[Fruitloop]

In any case, we're as much like peaceful if over-sexed bonobos as rapacious chimpanzees. And unlike either of them in that we can decide to be different.

 

[Jo/Joe]

The thing is you seem to imply something positive coming from the WC as you compare it to music in the way it brings people together and 'bridges gaps' - so I'm confused as to why having said this you also say that war is a constant??????????? Cos your reasoning suggests that tournaments like the WC have the potential to bridge national and ethnic differences and by definition reduce the possibility of war.

I said war is a constant because you mentioned their frequency in the 20C.

But yes, I say something positive comes from the WC.

 

[Yuwipi Woman]

I would think the World Cup is a four year excuse to party and miss work, especially when your country is involved. It doesn't seem to do much for world peace. We have a one year excuse in the states called the superbowl to get wasted but not miss work as it falls on a sunday. Seems we never have an excuse in the states to miss work.

Further proof of the barbarous state of the nation when you can't even get wasted on a weekday.

 

[TAE]

The whole of my argument relates to the relationship between nationalism and support for national teams NOT about football per se....the way I see it you can enjoy playing and watching football, or any other sport for that matter, without necessarily supporting a national team.

In the case of the UK, it's not a national team though. We don't have a United Kingdom squad. We have England, Scotland, Wales, etc. Would it make a difference if we fielded counties, like Hampshire and Yorkshire?

Personally I don't take the country's team's games too seriously anyway as I'm far more interested in individual football clubs.

 

[Jo/Joe]

Further proof of the barbarous state of the nation when you can't even get wasted on a weekday.

Further reason for the US to get into football, and drop it's own sports that hardly enyone else cares about.

 

[ZAMB]

Further reason for the US to get into football, and drop it's own sports that hardly enyone else cares about.

So it can learn to play well with others, or so that it can continue to bring politics into the game trying to get every country it doesn't like banned from playing??

 

[nopassaran]

In the case of the UK, it's not a national team though. We don't have a United Kingdom squad. We have England, Scotland, Wales, etc. Would it make a difference if we fielded counties, like Hampshire and Yorkshire?

Eh?.....England, Scotland, etc are national teams in the sense that they represent a particular group of people with an identifiable identity, relating to history, culture, language etc, situated in a geographically defined area. Although I admit in the case of Northern Ireland this is contested.

As for using counties erm....dunno and to be quite honest I'm not really suggesting an aletrnative cos at the end of the day allegiance to any sense of 'community' is essentially divisive, whether it be based around a sense of nationhood or neighbourhood!

 

[nopassaran]

But yes, I say something positive comes from the WC.

Can't see anything positive about a carnival of flag waving, jingoistic, "our country's better than your cos we beat you" BS....and the whole WW2 analogy when 'we're' up against Germany kinda' proves my point about how unprogressive it all is.

 

[goldenecitrone]

I think Timothy Garton Ash argues my point far more eloquently than I could. Better tribalism expressed on the field and in the terraces than on the battlefield.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,,1802904,00.html

Cheers Tim.

 

[Barking_Mad]

But WHY? You see the 'strange reason' you talk about is that ingrained attachment that the vast majority of people have for their country or ethnic group, and whilst I'm pretty sure you wouldn't embark on a spree of ethnic cleansing, it is nevertheless a sentiment, that given the right conditions can cause people to commit such atrocities or at the very least cause the vast majority of people to adopt a deferential attitude to such actions. I think what happened in the former Yugoslavia provides valuable evidence of this ie. catholic and muslim living peaceably together for decades and then literally overnight they start slaughtering each other.

I know you don't read the Sun but like so many people you do need to question that 'strange feeling' you have which basically amounts to a primordial attachment to '(bor)ingland'....I can just hear the tirade now - "well if you hate this country so much don't fucking live here" - to which I would reply - I love this country as much as any other country, cos I love the planet maaaaaan!

This has been a really useful conversation.

yours unpatriotically
NP

I know where you're coming from, well said. Do you read Erich Fromm btw?

 

[nopassaran]

I know where you're coming from, well said. Do you read Erich Fromm btw?

No, but will make a point of seeking him out - thanks

 

[Jo/Joe]

Can't see anything positive about a carnival of flag waving, jingoistic, "our country's better than your cos we beat you" BS....and the whole WW2 analogy when 'we're' up against Germany kinda' proves my point about how unprogressive it all is.

'"our country's better than your cos we beat you" BS.' - Where the hell do you get this from? You're making up your own argument. You're talking about a minority of people and unfairly generalising.



Politicians start wars, not tribalism.

 

[nopassaran]

'"our country's better than your cos we beat you" BS.' - Where the hell do you get this from? You're making up your own argument. You're talking about a minority of people and unfairly generalising.



Politicians start wars, not tribalism.

I get it from the fact that the WC is a competitive event based around national teams - the purpose being for one national to beat another and in so doing give 'their people' a sense of pride, which would not be possible if there wasn't a different country to beat

Course I'm making up my own argument cos I think for myself thankyou very much and don't trot out some crap that I read somewhere. So is your argument not your own?

And if it weren't for tribal instincts then politicians wouldn't be able to start wars cos they'd have nothing to mobilise around. Quite simply people wouldn't want to participate in wars or engage in ethnic conflict.

 

[goldenecitrone]

I get it from the fact that the WC is a competitive event based around national teams - the purpose being for one national to beat another and in so doing give 'their people' a sense of pride, which would not be possible if there wasn't a different country to beat

What's wrong in taking national pride from the fact that eleven overpaid strangers that you'll never meet are better at kicking a modified pig's bladder around a patch of land over 90 minutes than another group of blokes. They might do food and dancing better but we're top of the pig bladder stakes. At least for a day.

 

[nopassaran]

What's wrong in taking national pride from the fact that eleven overpaid strangers that you'll never meet are better at kicking a modified pig's bladder around a patch of land over 90 minutes than another group of blokes. They might do food and dancing better but we're top of the pig bladder stakes. At least for a day.

are you sure? you seem to be forgetting morris dancing and fish and chips? - i'm sorry but i'm afraid your argument disintegrates yet again

 

[kyser_soze]

nopassaran - I think it's great that you have the mental capacity to see yourself as a 'citizen of earth' rather than having any kind of localised cultural or social identity based on the geographic territory. I really do applaud that.

However, your process of denigrating anyone who doesn't share your wonderful, homogenised and globally idenitikit version of the future is unfair and quite frankly is the kind of morally suprerior bullshit that really makes me dislike internationalists who decry Starbucks because it rolls all over local cultures, but who propgates ideas that would ultimately lead to the world becoming an increasingly homogenous place - where there would still in all likelihood be large tribes of people but instead of nationality they'd be based around ideas, skills or some other affiliation.

It's like a discussion I was having on education on the bullfighting thread and how when people say 'education brings freedom and enlightenment' they usually assume that once people have been 'educated' they'll instantly agree with the idealists - when you talk about a world free of nationalism and national identities based around the idea of 'we're all human' your assumption is that if everyone agreed with your good idea (and there is much to reccomend it) the world would be better without once considering things like unintended consequences.

What's really interesting is that this kind of internationalism should be what the 'worker's movement' is all about...but it isn't. At the end of the day identifying with someone on the other side of the world is either too much or too much effort for most people - and that's no surprise really.

Anyway, WRT to the thread...sport is entertainment and distraction, but isn't that what leisure is about anyway? Cos of course ALL the people currently watching the World Cup and/or BB would be glued to their screens begging for deep analysis of the siutaiton in East Timor or Darfur wouldn't they? Does it sustain world peace? No, in a word.

 

[Fruitloop]

Kyser:

The affiliation that is hidden by statist nationalism is their class affiliation, and that is substantially the point of it. No-one's arguing (so far as I'm aware) that people shouldn't have an attachment to where they're from - what Maoris would call their turangawaiwai - as this is a completely natural human thing.

 

[goldenecitrone]

- what Maoris would call their turangawaiwai

You say turangawaiwai, I say turangawayway.

 

[kyser_soze]

Fruitloop:

WORLD CUP = a carnival characterised by overt displays of nationalist sentiment.

As far as I'm concerned the basic sentiments that cause someone to support their national football team is what enables wars - I know it sounds a trifle extreme but by perceiving ourselves in terms of an 'us' based around a national identity, requires the creation of a 'them'. Far better if we had no conception of identity based around a sense of nationhood.

Hmm, nopassaran doesn't seem to be arguing that at all - he/she seems to be saying that nationalism of any kind is a bad thing full stop.

 

[Barking_Mad]

Guy who sits next to me at work went to the world cup, didnt get to any games but went along for the beer and atmosphere and whatever. He came back yesterday, I asked him what it was like and he said,

"Oh it was great there were about 30,000 England fans there and we completely took over this town."

Now, you might argue that it's a throw away remark, but I've heard the same phraseology on the tv during interviews from more England fans than there to be more to it than just a loose use of language. It sums up the English (perhaps male) mindset and the way they relate to other countries and it's people. I dislike Nationalism for many reasons, although I won't deny it performs a base positive function in that it allows that most humans need, some sort of attachment to a group. As Fromm said,

It seems that nothing is more difficult for the average man to bear than the feeling of not being identified with a larger group.

Question is to whom or what do you identify yourself with?

 

[kyser_soze]

So BM - you've compared these comments with those made by other fan groups with large numbers in Germany? The interviewer then went on to ask a representative number of say Ukranian fans the same question?

It sums up the English (perhaps male) mindset and the way they relate to other countries and it's people.

On what grounds and evidence do you make this assertion? One interview, and suddenly it's either the common thought process of about 50% of the planet's population, or maybe even about 28 million of them? Please.

Question is to whom or what do you identify yourself with?

With whom or what you choose to - be that religion, country or political philosophy - I would imagine that for most people it's a combination of all three plus family, gender and peer group.

 

[nopassaran]

nopassaran - I think it's great that you have the mental capacity to see yourself as a 'citizen of earth' rather than having any kind of localised cultural or social identity based on the geographic territory. I really do applaud that..

The calm before the storm........buckle up!

However, your process of denigrating anyone who doesn't share your wonderful, homogenised and globally idenitikit version of the future is unfair and quite frankly is the kind of morally suprerior bullshit that really makes me dislike internationalists who decry Starbucks because it rolls all over local cultures, but who propgates ideas that would ultimately lead to the world becoming an increasingly homogenous place - where there would still in all likelihood be large tribes of people but instead of nationality they'd be based around ideas, skills or some other affiliation...

OUCH!.....I see your point about homogeneity and it's one I struggle with, however, I know of people of mixed parentage backgrounds who take from both cultures as well as the one they were born into, but hold no allegiance nor preference to one over the other. I think if we evolve becoming more fully aware of what other cultures have to offer, and take this on board, this will ultimately lead to an even greater diversity to people's identity, which by definition is the antithesis of homogeneity.

You have also read me wrong - I don't provide or have ever professed to providing a 'global identikit' for the future, what I am doing is being justifiably critical of nationalism and how deeply entrenched it is in people's psyche. I don't take this argument lightly and sincerely believe that nationalism and an unquestioning need to belong to any manifestation of 'community', is ultimately exclusionary and requires conformity.

What if anything I'm suggesting is that nurturing reflexive social and political identities is possibly the only way forward to achieving world peace and becoming more in tune with the environment.

Oh btw I don't set out to denigrate people merely to put my point across and yes disagree with people - and if someone gives me attitude they'll get it back - surely you can't blame me for that?

And morally superior....well I kinda' get the impression that anyone who cares passionately about injustice and isn't afraid to shout about it could well be labelled as such - BUT then again as morality is such a fluid concept I couldn't really confess to being superior....all the time

It's like a discussion I was having on education on the bullfighting thread and how when people say 'education brings freedom and enlightenment' they usually assume that once people have been 'educated' they'll instantly agree with the idealists - when you talk about a world free of nationalism and national identities based around the idea of 'we're all human' your assumption is that if everyone agreed with your good idea (and there is much to reccomend it) the world would be better without once considering things like unintended consequences.
...

Of course there are unintended consequences and I am by no means a utopian idealist - people and human societies are way too complex for that, but surely encouraging people to be more self critical and reflexive about how their actions impact on others and the world at large is no bad thing.

Anyway, WRT to the thread...sport is entertainment and distraction, but isn't that what leisure is about anyway? Cos of course ALL the people currently watching the World Cup and/or BB would be glued to their screens begging for deep analysis of the siutaiton in East Timor or Darfur wouldn't they? Does it sustain world peace? No, in a word.

I'm fascinated with BB and yeah gotta admit glued to it every night - and I think viewed in the right way it provides extremely valuable insights into mainstream social relations and networks - and how potentially dysfunctional they are.

Sorry I digress - I quite agree with your last point I don't have a problem with sport as I said before - we need distractions from all the crap that goes in the world and the hassles of daily life - but that doesn't necessarily need to involve supporting a national team! But regrettably it doesn't take the WC to distract people from global injustices as they do this all the time!

 

[nopassaran]

Question is to whom or what do you identify yourself with?

I think we should always strive to make our identities as pluralistic as possible.