International sporting competitions will always be political, so why can’t people stop fantasizing about them as a way to unify nations and just pick a side? Wanting to win is part of human nature, and nationalism seems normal too. If some people get upset about the tension among rival countries that comes out during international competitions, or worry that the competition is not bringing the opposing countries closer, then they are wasting their time. Expressing nationalism through sports is hardly new, but just because it can be negative (for example, Hitler’s attempt to showcase the “master race” at the 1936 Olympics in Berlin), doesn’t mean that it’s necessarily a bad thing. For example, what about America’s pride over its success in recent women’s World Cup events? America’s pride in conquering China in such a competition may have also related to the countries’ competition in other areas, such as in world trade and economics, but it wasn’t personal. It was just nationalism feeding our natural competitive drive and reflecting what was happening in the world. Trying to change that would be like trying to get a leopard to change its spots.
As mentioned in the bloggingheads video, the details and outcomes of athletic contests are scrutinized and blown way out of proportion by the media. Just because a soccer team is representing a country while participating in a fun competition, it doesn’t mean that every move they make symbolizes the entire country’s attitude as a whole. It doesn’t. Ideally, should nationalism be a part of such competitions? Maybe it has no role in pure sports, but when nations are concerned, it’s not possible to separate it from the event itself. The point is that we should not be concerned about their overlap.
An article by Matthew Weiner, for CNN, illustrates how an international sport, such as soccer, can be influenced by politics and even cause conflict or war. As stated before, politics is intertwined with sports; in international soccer, disagreements, wars, and political disputes between nations have been transferred to the soccer field. Many examples from history show that competition is affected by nationalism, and vice-versa. Maybe in a perfect world everyone could love each other and just root for the game itself, but that’s not going to happen. Therefore, it’s irrelevant whether nationalism should affect international sports, because history tells us that it can’t be avoided. For example, in 1980, the United States boycotted the Olympics because Russia had just invaded Afghanistan, and the U.S. wanted to protest that action. Nationalism could not be taken out of the situation.
In the words of the once-great coach of the Liverpool football club in England, Bill Shankly, “Some people believe football is a matter of life and death… I assure you it is much, much more important than that.” This is a perfect example of how important sports are to the fans, to politicians, and to the country itself. It’s not just a game for them, it is their passion, and when a nation of people put their hearts into something, nationalism will be part of the deal.
Logic tells us that nobody can force nations to “unite” for the sake of sport, despite the politics of the time; it makes more sense to let emotions rule and enjoy the competition. After all, the passion of devoted sports lovers can be unifying in its own way. The love of sport is also a universal thing, and having that love in common can unite fans despite their national differences. That way, people who are willing to be unified can find common ground with similar people from other nations, in a way that is natural and real.
The appearance of nationalism in sports is inevitable and will never go away. So instead of criticizing this reality, everyone should embrace it, because there is nothing wrong with some healthy competition.
I like your perspective in the first line, but give us a line of context first by linking to bloggingheads.
ReplyDeleteOverall, first paragraph is saying we shouldn't worry about the connection between nationalism and sports, but the real question is how far we can make political interpretations based on sports events. You're kind of bypassing the real question to say "so what?"
Okay, so 2nd Paragraph agrees with bloggingheads. Good point that it's impossible to separate.
"Therefore, it’s irrelevant whether nationalism should affect international sports, because history tells us that it can’t be avoided." Good.
In Bill Shankly, importance doesn't necessarily connect fans to esteeming their country. It could be incredibly important but they don't look at it as a patriotic event.
The last paragraph weakly sums up. Cut and end on a high note.