Nationalism and sports

Remove all ads!

Well, I've been wondering about this lately. If you look at the european wars these last two centuries, one of the major reasons for these is nationalism. Especially WWI started because of this. However, since WWII there haven't been any great tension between the nations in western europe. (Atleast not sabre rattling kind!) This might of course be because of the threat from the east but....

My point is that I think international sports serves as some sort of vent for all our nationalistic emotions and prejudices against each other, so that we are able to live together in relative peace. Anyone have some other point of view?

 

Perhaps it's the destructive nature of war itself. I mean France got leveled in both WW's. England, Russia, France, Italy and Germany all had serious internal damage in WWII. I think it's just common sense (and the American policy). Wars are fine - as long as you don't have to fight them where you live...

 

I remember Hitler presiding over the Olympics shortly before he decided that he liked the German language so much everyone in Europe should speak it - and Russia too just for good measure. Not sure that sports have much anything to do with whether there will or won't be a war. Your mileage may vary.

 

I think one part of the mentality change that happened in the 20th century is quite well summed up in Black Adder:

And nationalist tensions haven't risen in Western Europe again maybe, because most issues were, for good or worse, settled after the great war with a break in between, anyway ? The ethnic-language patchwork which wasn't too compatible with nationalism in central Europe ereased, the British Empire gone (de facto, formally a little bit later) and the Germans had a taste of war in their homeland, which maybe made them less easily fall for the storms of steel.

As for sport. They always it brings people together. That maybe true for some sports, mabye individual sports. But then again, it also was a excuse for some English to randomly attack everything which vaguely reminded them of Turkey and they even demolized own of my favourite kebab-stands. So, sport seems to me sometimes to be one of the fields, where old-time-chauvinism raises its ugly head again.

 

I think Grovflab's point was that the ugly chauvinistic head you talk about Yago can blow off its steam by rooting for its country during sport events. I am not sure about that but I do think there is a small point to the thought.

My take is simply that the countries of Europe collectively saw where nationalism and patriotism lead them and decided to do their best to cease with such follies. It has only been about 50 years and it is still not completely rooted out. Just look at all the neo-nazi underground organisations and the occasional nationalistic party that manages to get into various parlaments. I think that strong nationalism is a sign of the "immaturity" of a country or nation, look at all the new states that has been created in the last decades, almost all of them are ruled by various nationalistic parties whose main idealogy is the freedom and brilliance of their nation. I do not intend this as an US bashing but if you look at America their stance on nationalism and patriotism seems in many ways to remind me of what Europe was during the first half of the 20th century and to some extent how it is in many newly created countries. Newer states and nations just seems to have a need to revel in their own independence and sovereignty while they truly seek out what the identity of their nation truly is. Even Russia is like that nowadays, Putin's party is called something like "united Russia". Most countries in Africa and the whole of India also fits into this theory.

One place where this theory dont seem to hold is China, they have been a nation and independent for as long as history has been written down, or atleast as much as any other country and they still seem to be fiercly nationalistic and view themselves as apart.

This is pure speculation from my part here, but a quick empirical look shows that it isnt completely impossible.

 

Ah, a let-of-steam-oportunity, then. Dam, I thought they invented carneval for that. Well, I think that aggressive nationalism mixed with a collectiv-gathering event has more downsides then a potential katharsis-effect has upsides, I think. As letting out steam should be possible without nationalist-mixture imo. And for the nationalistic-groups, which won't disappear anyway, it's just an oppurtinity to spread their viewpoint and gather new disciples, if they manage to hijack a fan-club. And anyway, a lot of those "fans" usually focus on regional frictions, not frictions on a national level.

 

Good point Grovflab. But with every victory there is a looser who can hold a grundge. So I think sports balance itself out. When someone lets out some steam another absorbs it. But yeah sports diminish the isolation of contries.

@Grovflab.
Is this because Denmark was just beaten?

 

To my mind, spectator sports, any sport that is competed in for money or prestiege on such a large scale, increases this violent nationalism (let alone encourages blind patriotism) rather than discourages it.

I am not someone who has nothing to do with physical training, I myself am part of a school (and there are only about twenty of us as members) which annually competes internationally, and should be a part of the next Olympics. But we do not have fans, the idea seems rediculous.

The majority of these events are corrupted in my opinion by patriotism, commercialism, and fanatacism. Let alone the beuracracy which pervades our lives, and the pettiness of the mob.

I'm not calling the players or fans petty, I'm just saying it has an undesireable effect upon people. We can all lose our tempers (or should that be loose )

 

If you'd gone through two devastating wars back to back, you'd want to take a break from it, too. I doubt sports has anything to do with it.

 

I agree, thats what the 1972 Summit Series between Canada and the then USSR was all about.

 

The US has a far weaker "Nationalistic" view in sports than most of our European friends. The one exception would be Olympic Games, where American amateur atheletes compete against the equivalent of profesional athletes from other nations (probably best to not even go there). We regularly compete, with little success in World Cup Soccer, but beyond that, our major team sports are more provincial. We have great inter-city rivalries in Baseball, Basketball, Football and Hockey. In fact, you want to see an example of crazy patisan crowds, check out NCAA Football.

That being said, I would have to believe that the few incidents of ugly, grudge induced violence (whether players or fans), are tremendously outweighed by the many acts of camraderie and good-sportmanship. I think it takes a pretty shallow person to view some kind of sport loss as a personal affront against hearth and home...and I would say that the same truth would translates into multi-national competition. The easiest way to make an enemy is to deny them a face and a name. Sports puts you too close to your enemy to ignore the fact that they are a person, too.

All told, I feel that sports help to relieve tensions, rather than create them. Some events in particular serve a true public service...one example being every Oakland Raiders home game...it gives the State Prison a place to put all the inmates for 3 hours while they hose down the cell block.

 

American Amateur Atheletes my ass. Do the words "Dream Team" ring a bell?? Michael Jordan in the olympics? Not to mention that the money spent training, feeding, clothing and housing these "amateur" atheletes far exceeds the annual salary of the average pro athelete in Europe or Asia. Aside from all of that, if you think that these men and women aren't being PAID, in cash money (under the table of course) then you're kidding yourself.

Anyway, my theory is that sooner or later, Nations will be a thing of the past; and if we do it right, it will be a good thing. Sports rivalries serve only to perpetuate inter-national rivalries, and keep them at the simmering point until the next war is ready to break out.

PS If you do not think that Americans get into inter-national sports rivalries, Just try to recall that weepy schoolboy look on Brett Hull's face when CANADA SMASHED THE USA in Olympic hockey! YEAH! And who won the War of 1812, eh?!?! Oh, damn, I've proven my own point by perpetuating it again. I hate when I do that.

 

This is my point- the way which countries seem to approach inter-national events is akin to the way they are used to dealing with national or local sports. As Ishmael and Hacken Slash have made clear, the US and Canada's strenghth lies more in the more commercial sports (like Basketball) than the traditional Olympic sports, or more solely athletically orientated events (I'm not saying any has more worth than the other). Thus while countries similar to this do have strong competitors in those fields, like Hacken Slash has said their emphasis is not upon them, and like Ishmael has said, they are treated like they were the same as someone who plays for money 'back home'. I think that it is the countries which place a large emphasis on sport within their own countries which seem to use the Olympics as a competition between countries, rather than between individual participants.

It is sure that some countries which are allready hostile with one another might focus this hostility through the Olympics, but this is not a problem with sport itself. The problem lies within the general attitudes within the home country of the participants and the fans (since the majority of people involved will share the predominant attitude, which is why it is pre-dominant).

Perhaps I am tainted by the country which I live in's mockery of sportsmanship, and the incredible value so many people put upon competing. I like to win, but I like to win becasue I have proven my worth to myself, not because I beat the other player. It is very true however, that once this aggressive rationale is removed, and sport returns to its ideal state, then it can have an overwhelmingly positive and unifying effect.

Thus I wish to revise my statement. Sport is a focal point, nothing more, and depends entirely upon the indivduals involved- like anything, it can lead upwards or downwards, depending on the character of those involved.

 

Hey Ish, the "Dream Team" is one exception to the rule, that is why it is so easy to raise as an example. And what was the average margin of victory by USA basketball that year?...28 points?

I think the War of 1812 would be considered a "draw". Surely you aren't insinuating that Canada somehow was the victor? The British quit so they could focus their rancor on the French...the US quit so we could rest our bench for the Mexican war.

You may gloat over "Team Canada" over "Team USA" all you want...without doubt the single greatest hockey victory came when a bunch of college kids from the US beat the Soviets in "The Miracle on Ice" in 1980. Yeah, I was just a nipper, but you probably weren't even born yet. If you would like to check out true greatness you can go here.

Oh, wait, am I getting a bit Nationalistic?

 

I suppose it depend on the sport. ; but there are really only two schools of sport.

Many sports are modelled after war; soccer, football, hockey, basketball, all of these sports are centered around outwitting and overpowering your foes in order to conquer their territory.

The other school of sports are based on hunting. Archery, shotput, javelin, are examples of the many sports that derive their skill directly from those used in hunting.

I would say that all sports fall under those two categories; two of man's most basic instincts, hunting and war. I would argue that the sports that don't, the "traditional" or "athletically oriented" olympic sports such as weightlifting, or running are simply micro-studies of War & hunting. In other words, the strongest and fastest will perform best in war and hunting. (Of course many sports contain elements from both)

So, I would say that war-based sports perpetuate war mongering, while hunting based sports don't - generally.

 

Being a football hooligan during my teenage years, I can assure you that it doesn't work this way. You don't see a face, you see someone who wears a shirt with a different color than your shirt and this aumaticaly classifies him as an enemy, who must be crushed with all the possible ways. It's the psycology of the mob, maybe your best friend is among the crowd of the oposite fans but you can't think of this these moments because the only think you see is the enemy and you start to swear, to throw stones, to do everything that can show that you are superior from them.

IIRC, the event that started the war in former Yugoslavia was a football game between Croatia Zagreb and Belgrade Red Star.

[ December 13, 2003, 10:49: Message edited by: BOC ]

 

The pro ban on the olympics have been banned for many years. There isnt a competetitor in the Olympics who isnt a proffessional, unless you count people like the woman who ran for Afganistan in the last olympics but even she gets some kind of pay, if only in the tickets to the Olympics.

 

...And that guy who came from some tiny African country and had never seen a pool in his life, (and you don't swim elsewhere in Africa, at least, not more than once ) yet somehow every other competitor in his division was banned, disqualified, or dropped out and he ended up swimmming a whole bunch of 8 or 20 minute laps, and won of course.

Man I loved that guy.

 

OK Hack, first of all, the "Miracle on Ice" was good hockey, bout couldn't touch the drama of the 1972 Summit Series. Certainly neither of us were born then, but I beleive that we're the same age, if you were a 'nipper' in 1980.

As for the war of 1812, (which I brought up as a joke, touchy) I would be more likely to concede that the US didn't lose, if I thought that you would concede that the US has EVER lost a war. Unfortunately, it's in the (Canadian) history books, that Canada won. And, as the old Zimbabwean Proverb goes: "Unitl the Lions get their own historians, the tale of the hunt will always favour the hunter"