Cole PCQ 1/6/2014

The article, Theories of “Race” by Michael Banton, takes a look at the idea that “race” does not have a biological reason or empirical existence. Rather, the idea that there are separate “races” of humans who are in some way cognitively or physiologically different from one another gets turned on its head in the 1920s with the advent of racial sociology. Race became known as a mental reaction that “made [distinctive peoples] conscious of what distinguished them” thus “social life built up frustration which individuals released on to scapegoats in the form of displaced aggression”.

The “distinctive peoples” mentioned in Robert E. Park’s ecological theory were only made separate by European capitalism’s need for cheap un-free labor. Because of the early advent of the idea of separate distinctive races, human society has created an environment of subconscious discrimination for anyone who is perceived as different, much like the thinking of 19th century scientists divided Homo sapiens into three subspecies (or races). Instead of a philosophy of inferiorization and exploitation of the 19th century subspecies, our modern globalized society has instead turned to ethnic, religious, and economical “races” that we still create prejudices and discriminate against.

Another article, entitled Race by Mariel Mikaila and Arthur Lemonik, talks about how the idea of separate races is different for each region on a global scale. They cite how in many Caribbean and Latin American societies, race is not merely based on the subspecies created by anatomist Cuvier in 1817. In these societies, gradations between the traditional black and white are varied “according to class, education, and skin color”; not by a person’s ancestry.

This culture of mixed races (races by the 19th century definition mentioned previously) has created a blend of skin tones and attitudes unique to each of the many regions of the Caribbean and Latin America. In western culture the idea of interracial interactions was severely frowned upon and even outlawed and these boarders are still present even today almost three decades after most discriminatory laws were repealed. One of the most striking examples of this is how “black men still earn only ¾ of what white men earn, while black women earn almost 90% of what white women do.”

Sports were viewed as an even plane where the public could view the athletic and cognitive stereotypes that the white race was superior to all others. The stereotypes supported by the supposedly even plane of sporting events were far from the truth.

These sporting events did not showcase events that were ingrained in each nation’s cultures and peoples. Rather, the actual sports played were the ones forced upon the European colonies in an attempt to “civilize” them to European standards. This gave the white athletes a distinct advantage over their rivals as the white athletes were brought up playing these sports with everyone else they knew playing them.

I am sure that if the native Mexican sport of ulama were still the primary sport of Central America, you would see those same racial lines drawn between the people of Mexico playing these matches against teams from Europe. By being brought up around the culture of a specific sport in everyday life, that society gains a distinct advantage over one who has had less interaction and experience with it.

In the 20th century, racial lines were still prevalent in European and American sports such as American football because of the prior held belief that black athletes are more physical and less capable in positions requiring rapid cognitive decisions. In the 21st century though, this ideology has diminished and a more level playing field has emerged.

The ideas brought up in the articles, “Nation” and “Nationalism” by David Miller and Nation-State and Nationalism by Lloyd Cox, bring to light the common misconception that belonging to a nation and displaying nationalism are one and the same. By belonging to a nation, there are no set ideas or actions that are attributed to this. Being part of a nation is more of a technical attribute to oneself. You can belong to a nation and now have any nationalism towards it.

Having nationalistic tendencies to a country is often linked to popular sovereignty rather than an authoritarian government. When the people are responsible for ruling themselves and the upkeep of their nation, an element of pride becomes involves. This collective pride by the people for the nation they created is nicely summarized by the Romantic belief “that each nation formed an organic unity, with its own soul and its own special destiny”, all of which is controlled by the people of that nation.

While this collective pride and positive outlook in one’s country may appear like a positive attribute, it has led to almost all of the conflicts between two different nationalistic peoples throughout human history. The nationalistic pride of some nations leads to them to believe that they have a right to certain land or resources another nation owns or believe they are superior to and try and take it from them by force. This side effect of nationalism demonstrates how nationalism can be like a two-sided coin with the benefits of a unified people caring for themselves but also fighting for nationalistic dominance over other peoples.

Clashes between two nationalistic peoples can also take a more entertaining and constructive turn in the case of sporting events between national teams. Alan Bairner, in his article Nationalism and Sport, uses the example of how nations compete against each other and show dominance in the sporting arena with their national teams.

In the case of soccer, each nation may have multiple club teams composed of players from both their own country as well as others from around the world. But when it comes time to compete on a global stage, such as in the World Cup, players return to their countries to battle for nationalistic pride often times against players who they may be on club teams with.

Richard Giulianotti and Roland Robertson explain, in their article Mapping the global football field: a sociological model of transnational forces within the world game, how through soccer nationalism is exported around the world through mercantilism and media exchanges corresponding to club teams on the national level and national teams competing against other countries. The traditional borders of nations are quickly forgotten and numerous clubs originating in Europe have sponsors from America and the Middle East.

The integration of the Internet in our everyday lives gives us instant access to almost any information we could possible want at our fingertips and is one of the most consumed media outlets in today’s society. This makes it much easier for people from other countries to connect to and support other countries’ soccer teams on the national and international level. Global media has nullified the old idea that one must remain in their nation of origin to be a part of the nationalistic pride associated with soccer teams. There is now a multitude of TV stations and websites that one can access from anywhere in the world to follow and support teams from anywhere else in the world.

Questions:

• How has the presence of global media affected the traditional ideas of nationalism?
• How has soccer changed the global view of race and sports?