Advertisements
Home

One of the Most American Acts by a US President in History Emerges from the Visit of a College Football Team

Leave a comment

Clemson University’s football team won the college football championship and were invited to the White House to celebrate with U.S. President Donald Trump. Interestingly, their visit to the White house was—for me at least, as a sport sociologist—more interesting than the victory itself. Indeed, it was the reaction to Clemson’s visit which said so much about the current state of society in the United States of America.

If we as Americans cannot recognize the good in an American President being—for once—real, then what kind of a society (and, indeed, country) are we living in? Predictably, the (lame)stream media chose to criticize the visit (just search on Google, I cannot—with good conscience—do them justice by citing them here; the picture below can suffice). The Washington Post’s passive-aggressive approach was proof enough that the media in our country has become more interested in negativity than objective reporting. The question one then asks is why all the negativity?

 

Screen Shot 2019-01-15 at 1.42.26 AM.png

A Simple Google Search Reveals Articles Calling the visit “Bizarre” or criticizing Mr. Trump for being “Too Eager to Serve” fast food. Image Courtesy of Google Search.

 

After all, Donald Trump’s hosting of the Clemson team was—indeed—quite American. As he said, “If it’s American, I like it. It’s all American stuff. 300 hamburgers, many, many french [sic] fries — all of our favorite foods”. Indeed, here Mr. Trump is correct. Fast food is American.  It is what America is. As someone who has traveled to 36 of the 50 states (and lived for extended periods of time in four of them), I know that one of the things that binds America together is the ubiquity of fast food restaurants. From San Diego to Portland, Maine one can find the familiar golden arches of McDonald’s. Beyond the banal discussions of health or wealth, we must look at the sociological results of this “social fact” in the Durkheimian sense. In keeping with Durkheim, we should recognize that while this homogenization can be problematic (for many reasons, not least of which is corporate hegemony over our culture), it is also a very real form of social cohesion which connects Americans to one another whether they live in Denver CO, Austin TX, Gainesville FL, or Providence RI. Ironically, in the American context, fast food has come to be a tie which binds us as Americans; it is something which works against the divisions created by the rootlessness of postmodern society and its bizarre reliance on identity politics.

There are other reasons that Mr. Trump’s hosting of the Clemson Tigers was distinctly American. While critics of Mr. Trump viewed fast food as crude, this sentiment was not altogether novel since Alexis De Tocqueville long ago recognized that the United States was less concerned with strict social rules than Europe. Again, this was an “American” act, so to speak. Secondly, the reason fast food was on the menu was the fact that government employees (including the White House Chefs) have been furloughed during the government shutdown; this is why the U.S. President paid out of pocket (you read it right) for a meal for an American sports team. This shouldn’t be too surprising, given that—as I have taught my own students (in order to wean them off the rampant anti-Americanism present on college campuses)—the U.S. is actually one of the most generous countries in the world. According to the BBC citing a 2016 Report by the Charities Aid Foundation (CAF), the United States is the world’s second most generous country. The statistics might have shocked my students, but they didn’t shock me. Having traveled so extensively in the US, I have seen the open hearts of many ordinary Americans who are more than willing to help rural communities devastated by tornados in the Midwest or hurricanes in the South.

 

190115094930-trump-clemson-white-house-burgers-2-exlarge-169.jpg

What is all the Fuss About? Image Courtesy Of: https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/14/politics/donald-trump-clemson-food/index.html

 

Given the truly American nature of President Trump’s treatment of the Clemson University football team, it is refreshing to see sport become a way to bring Americans together following the increased politicization of sport in the country. Still, it is surprising that so many people on the internet have taken issue with the event. It is in actuality a glimmer of reality within the Baudrillardian hyper-reality that we are living in—where the symbols have become more important than what they represent—and for that we should, at least, be grateful as Americans.

 

1280px-Flag_of_the_United_States.svg

Advertisements

The Case of the 2018 Copa Libertadores Final: A Great Example of the Colonialism of Globalism

Leave a comment

Boca_Juniors_River_Plate_philips_getty_ringer.0.jpg

All Those Who Call Themselves “Fans” Should Be Worried About the Decision to Move the Copa Libertadores Final to Spain As it is Proof that Globalism Just Represents a New Form of Colonialism. Image Courtesy Of: https://www.theringer.com/soccer/2018/11/28/18115215/boca-juniors-river-plate-copa-libertadores-postponement-violence

 

The 9 December 2018 Copa Libertadores final should never have been played outside of Argentina. It was, as Argentina’s 1978 World Cup winning coach Luis Cesar Menotti said, “an aberration”. Even though almost a month has passed since the Copa Libertadores final was moved from South America to Europe, the ridiculous nature of this odd event endures, especially as it comes in the midst of the current struggle between nationalism and globalism which is slowly developing all over the world.

 

Screen Shot 2018-12-10 at 3.40.54 AM.png

The Caption Shows Just How Much the LameStream Media Distorts the Reporting About Football Fans. The Picture Hardly Shows “Chaos”. Image Courtesy of: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-6426427/Boca-Juniors-v-River-Plate-rivalry-explained-Copa-Libertadores-final-ruined-violence.html

 

Indeed, the idea of moving the cup final was a typical globalist ploy: It aimed to earn more money for a small minority at the expense of the enjoyment of a large majority. The Sydney Morning Herald reported that although Spanish police had to organize the biggest security operation for a football match in the nation’s history, “the security costs were countered by a considerable windfall for the city, which local government officials put at an estimated minimum 55 million euros”. And yet, while Spain was busy making money off of the event, it was justified by Western media in the terms of the proverbial “White Man’s Burden” since the Argentinians were—according to the lamestream media—too “emotional”, “violent”, and—ultimately—“uncivilized” to host the cup final themselves.

 

One of the biggest culprits perpetuating this kind of orientalist discourse was the progressive news outlet The Washington Post, who boldly wrote that “The Madrid final capped one of the most embarrassing chapters in South American soccer, which saw its leaders unable to stage the historic match on the continent. The second leg had to be played in the Spanish capital after it was marred by fan violence in Buenos Aires two weeks ago . . . “. In a similar vein, The Guardian’s David Rieff extended the criticism of Argentine football to a wholesale criticism of Argentine society by writing that “The problem is that for all the greatness of its individual players, Argentinian football has increasingly become a metaphor for everything that is dysfunctional about Argentina”.

 

Going even further, Jonathan Wilson (also, unsurprisingly, of The Guardian) wrote a piece with the odd headline “How Argentinian football had the chance to prove it had changed – and blew it”. Wilson’s piece seems to suggest that violence is “in the DNA” of Argentina’s football, and the president of CONMEBOL [the governing body of South American football] Alejandro Dominguez is quoted as rhetorically asking “how do we not lose our DNA?” when faced with the question of how to reduce stadium violence. Of course, Mr. Wilson already indirectly claims that violence is inextricably linked to Argentinian football by saying—in the preceding paragraph—“It is easy to be seduced by the colour, the passion. The problem is that in Argentina, that tends to come with violence. The reasons are manifold and extend far beyond football”. In short, the reasons that are “manifold” and which “extend far beyond football” are those which, for Mr. Wilson, are primordial elements of Argentinian football. In a sociology classroom Mr. Wilson would be laughed at for being an essentialist—the racist and orientalist thinking which underpin Mr. Wilson’s writing are all too apparent, yet—unfortunately—the globalist media seem to turn a blind eye to the kind of journalism which cheaply feeds on outdated stereotypes when it serves their narrative; in this case, the narrative is one which supports Europe (and the wider global north) profiting from a South American club competition (set in the global south).

 

It is clear that the globalist media do not appreciate the irrationality of true fandom. Byron Stuardo Alquijay, a River Plate fan from Guatemala, told the Daily Mail that  “River Plate for me is my life, my passion. I had to sell my car to come here. I might buy another car in the future but this match will never be repeated”. Unfortunately for Mr. Alquijay, he sold his car for nothing because the match did not actually take place in Argentina. And the fact that the globalist media support the relocation of a match of this magnitude goes very far in showing just how little they actually care about the “average” football fan: the irrational, passionate, and emotional football fan.

 

97e0b55786220bc24a0b0e4d24dc61c25dde8e10.jpeg

The Irrational, Passionate, and Emotional Football Fan. Image Courtesy Of: https://www.smh.com.au/sport/soccer/pain-for-boca-and-gain-for-river-plate-in-spain-20181210-p50l8k.html

 

Brian Phillips of theringer.com did a good job of summing up the absurdity. Just before the new venue (in Madrid) was announced, Mr. Phillips wrote “If Boca’s and River’s most hardcore fans can’t attend the game, it will probably go by without a replay of Saturday’s mayhem. That will keep the players safe, at least. But taking humans out of the equation is not really a lasting substitute for trying to understand human nature”. Indeed, eliminating human beings is a very poor response to the “problem” at hand.

 

It is clear that globalization and the commodification of football has gone too far; not only is it seeking to take football away from those who make it what it is (the fans), it is also seeking to justify this theft through racist discourse which feeds on orientalist discourses of the “emotional” and “irrational” non-Westerner. Perhaps the ultimate irony of it all—even more ironic seeing as how it comes from the “tolerant” lamestream media in the West (Reuters pointed it out)—is that “a competition named in honour of the liberators of south America was […] played in the home of their former rulers”. Football fans everywhere should be ashamed at the kind of wrangling that led to Argentina’s premier football fixture being moved from Buenos Aires to Madrid. If you wouldn’t be ok with the Manchester derby being played in Japan, the Istanbul derby being played in Sao Paulo, or–**gasp**–the Spanish El Clasico being played in Doha, then I would think you shouldn’t be ok with what happened to the Copa Libertadores Final. In the new year, be sure to stand up for your country and, of course, your local team. It is, after all, one small way to resist the neo-colonialism of globalism.

The Dangerous Attack on Free Speech in American Society

Leave a comment

One of America’s greatest Sociologists, C. Wright Mills, said that it was a sociologist’s job to point out the absurdities within their societies. Currently, it seems like PETA’s equating “anti-animal language” with hate speech is a good example of absurdity in modern American society which needs to be pointed out. The animal rights activist group has recently taken to Twitter to propose a change in the way idioms are used in the Englush language. For instance, they propose that the saying “beat a dead horse” should be replaced by “feed a fed horse”, or that the saying “bring home the bacon” should be replaced by “bring home the bagels”. Normally, this kind of absurdity could be easily dismissed as far-left wing activism which has gone off the deep end; after all, one would think that the very absurdity of this would make it irrelevant.

 

Screen Shot 2018-12-06 at 11.49.14 PM.png

Image (Unfortunately) Courtesy Of: https://www.usnews.com/news/national-news/articles/2018-12-05/peta-compares-anti-animal-language-to-hate-speech

 

Unfortunately, there is something far more insidious at work in this attack on language. As the literary theorist Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak points out in her book “Nationalism and the Imagination”, language is intimately tied into conceptions of what the “nation” is. Spivak writes:

Language has a history; it is public before our births and will continue so after our deaths. (Spivak, 32).

The history of language is the history of the nation. It is something that roots the individual in the context of the nation and, at the same time, places the individual within a community beyond the “self”. As someone who is bilingual—as well as bi-cultural and a dual-national—I know better than many just how important language is. And it is idioms that are the most important; they say in only a few words things about cultures and nations that thousands of words cannot. And this is why any attack on words—in the name of resisting some sort of “cism” (racism, sexism, speciesism, and the like)—cannot be accepted.

 

Can any society truly accept this kind of censorship without contesting it? In the past, totalitarian regimes—like that of Nazi Germany—chose to burn books so as to destroy the old culture in hopes of creating a new one. Now, in the postmodern age—where, as Foucault and Elias point out, we have become repulsed by exhibitions of outright violence—we accept outright censorship in the form of political correctness in the name of “progressivism”. While books are not being physically burned, thoughts are still being silenced. And one cannot say certain terms lest they be slandered by the label of “racist”, “sexist”, or—even—“speciesist”.  Of course, this is absurd. Unfortunately, however, few are resisting this censorship of language.

 

In the workplace, this type of linguistic control has extended to the forceful use of “gender neutral pronouns” . Indeed, in the universities, “inclusive teaching” seeks to control educators’ language, and the University of Kansas has gone so far as to rationally—and technocratically—dictate what kind of pronouns educators should use. Any educator who is a true educator—that is one who stands for free speech and independent thought—should stand against this form of censorship and thought control. Unfortunately, I see few educators who are willing to take this risk. After all, in the postmodern era, the threat of symbolic violence—in the Bourdieuian sense—is all too real for many educators. Rather than risk tenure, educators are choosing to remain silent to the fundamental assault on free speech that political correctness is engaging in.

 

For those of us who still respect freedom of thought in the modern world, at least we have the football fans. Whether it is in the form of banners or choreographies, fans tend to make their voices heard. Even in the form of stickers—which some Besiktas fans affixed to a pole in Istanbul—fans are able to express their nationalism (in the form of an Ataturk sticker), their opposition to the E-Ticket scheme pushed by the state, as well as their own identity as “the peoples’ team”. Freedom of speech is something worth standing up for, and, in this regard, educators may have something to learn from football fans. After all, it is our language which plays a role in defining our cultures and—by extension—our lives. To ignore it would, in effect, mean ignoring our very lives.

 

20180720_131338.jpg

At least the Football Fans are Still Free. Image Courtesy of the Author.

Football Vs. The Hyperreality: FC Basel and FC Young Boys Bern in Switzerland

Leave a comment

On 2 December 2018 FC Basel faced FC Young Boys Bern in the Swiss Super League, and both sets of fans put on a good display. It was a great example of why football is good in the stadium; sport offers a space for human expression in the real world.

 

Screen Shot 2018-12-03 at 2.39.07 AM.png

Emotion in Reality. Image Courtesy Of: http://www.ultras-tifo.net/photo-news/5501-basel-young-boys-02-12-2018.html

 

Indeed, the tifo put on by FC Basel’s fans shows just how much importance they put on the match day experience in the space of the stadium. The fact that this needs to be emphasized is, sadly, a sign of the times. This is because the first time these two teams met, on 28 September 2018, the focus was on protest. In the September match, the ultras of Young Boys Bern protested the growth of “eSports” by raining tennis balls and Playstation controllers onto the pitch while unfurling a giant banner of a “pause” button in the stands. While some commentators, like Jack Kenmare of Sportbible.com, could not understand why the Young Boys Ultras were protesting the growth of eSports, other commentators did a little more homework.

 

Screen Shot 2018-12-03 at 3.01.19 AM.png

Tennis Balls and Playstation Controllers are Emblematic of Protest in the Postmodern Age. Image Courtesy Of: https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2018-09-24-swiss-football-fans-throw-controllers-on-the-pitch-in-esports-protest

 

Indeed, Forbes.com’s Steve McCaskill’s piece focused on the difficulty of “mixing eSports and sports”. Mr. McCaskill points out that, in this instance, the Young Boys’ Ultras were protesting the increased commercialization of football—a classic case, indeed, of industrial football. Mr. McCaskill goes on to point out that

 

FC Basel supporters have been especially vocal in their opposition to the plans, making their discontent about the club’s eSports operations well known. They believe the club’s resources should be devoted to football rather than the ‘brand’ […]

‘Many clubs in Switzerland’s first division now have an eSports player, but their fans are not protesting as often as Basel fans,’ adds [Oliver] Zesiger [a Swiss football scout]. ‘I think there’s a certain dissatisfaction among Basel-fans with their club being marketed as a product, rather than a football club. This doesn’t necessarily include only the “against modern football” crowd. Basel fans don’t want to be called clients for example’ […]

 

Here we clearly see that the FC Basel fans are making a very real point. Why divert resources from the reality of football—as seen and experienced on the pitch and in the stadium—in favor of the hyperreality of football—neither experienced or, truly, even seen—on a screen? Indeed, this is a valid question (and not to mention one that would have sounded absurd just a decade ago). The entire notion of trading football as it has been traditionally experienced for over a century for a digitized simulacrum of the game itself is, of course, a losing proposition. After all, eSports are—ostensibly—only as good as the players on the pitch, since the ratings of FIFA’s players are based on real-life performance….thus the two are intimately connected….right?

Unfortunately, it seems as if the modern world has become all-too accustomed to finding digital “solutions” to the real world. After all, Google seems to believe that if something is offensive, the solution is censorship (It is also something I have written about). I even know from my own experience with this very blog that—sometimes—traffic is actively diverted when the topics discussed diverge from the dominant narrative of progressive thought. This in and of itself is something worth thinking about. Regardless of if we are talking about sports, interpersonal relationships (online dating and Tinder, for instance), or even basic communication (social media), at what point does our reliance on technology start to mean trading reality for a hyperreality? While the social engineers might think that the hyperreality is preferable—since it eliminates the chances for irrational and emotional human behavior deviating from the expected “norms” generated by algorithms—the truth is that this will, inevitably, lead to an “iron cage of rationality” far more pervasive than any that Sociologist Max Weber could have conceived of.

Football and Social Media: An Intriguing Relationship Reflective of Wider Societal Trends

Leave a comment

Social media offers an interesting form of postmodern communication between groups of people, yet—due to its banality (indeed, it has become the main form of communication for many people) the interesting aspects are often overlooked. Particularly, the Tweets of football fans are particularly fascinating since they tend to eschew the the rules of decorum and instead tend to say what they “really feel”.

Most recently’ the Italian side AS Roma’s English language Twitter account responded to Juventus’ announcement of a new store in Rome with a Tweet reading “Finally, something in Rome you really DON’T need to see”. While this may seem, on the surface, to be insignificant—just another off the cuff comment produced by the hyperreality that is the internet—a deeper look tells us that, in fact, the AS Roma fans might be getting at something deeper.

 

 

As Roma Tweet 11 29 2018.png

Rome Has Many Famous Sites…the Juventus Store is Not One of Them. Image Courtesy of: @ASRomaEN Twitter Account.

 

AS Roma’s Tweet is first and foremost a rebuke at Juventus’ greed (itself born out of extreme capitalism). As the fiasco surrounding Juventus’ new badge showed, the team shows no shame in pursuing re-branding opportunities in a bid to increase their financial gains. Indeed, their eagerness to change their badge showed that the team has no respect for tradition or even their fan base (but, in typical fashion, the main (lame)stream media celebrated this abandonment of tradition). Opening a shop in Rome, a seven hour drive from Juventus’ home city of Turin, is just another manifestation of this greed. In this sense, AS Roma’s Tweet was also criticizing the rootlessness of postmodern society. This is an age when the football club—long a symbol of local pride—has become a globalized commodity. No longer content with the opportunities for financial gain in one city (or even one country), the team has become a global product to be consumed—making it indistinguishable from McDonald’s and Starbucks.

 

It is interesting to note that this is not the first time a football club’s humorous Tweet has become an internet sensation. Back in 2016 (I wrote about it here), the Russian club Zenit St. Petersburg hit back at the British newspaper Daily Mail for ridiculing their badge by naming it one of the “10 worst”. Like AS Roma’s Tweet, Zenit’s Tweet was also a form of social commentary. After all, what business of the Daily Mail’s was it to criticize the badges of football teams? It was a form of “journalism” (the quotes well deserved) that could only be produced in the postmodern hyperreality, where empty reporting is encouraged so as to generate more traffic (and, thus, more profit). It was also a news story which kept with the dominant technocratic trends of modern society with an obsession for rankings and categorizations. Most interestingly, the Twitter exchange between the Daily Mail and FC Zenit was also related to tradition. The Daily Mail—in a bid to save face—appealed to tradition by telling FC Zenit that they preferred the team’s old logo. FC Zenit responded in kind; indeed the Daily Mail’s old logo was much more “traditional” (adorned, as it was, with two British lions). Unfortunately for the Daily Mail, however, tradition does not sell in the modern world, and that may be one reason that the paper had to “modernize” their logo by making it a bland (and inoffensive) stylized letter “m”.

 

Screen Shot 2018-11-29 at 5.40.25 PM.pngScreen Shot 2018-11-29 at 5.40.38 PM.png

Note the Number of Likes on Each Post, as Zenit Seem to have Outdone @Mailsport. Images Courtesy Of: @zenit_spb Twitter Account

 

By using the Sociological Imagination (to borrow C. Wright Mills’ term), we can see that these two humorous Twitter exchanges represent much more than mere online banter. They show us that online social interactions in the football world are also reflective of debates in wider society, and in this case it is specifically the debate between notions of “progress” and “tradition” which takes center stage.

Black Friday: A True Representation of Jean Baudrillard’s “Hyperreality”

Leave a comment

The French sociologist/philosopher Jean Baudrillard’s concept of the hyperreality is—ironically—quite real in 2018. We have, indeed, accepted the symbol as more real than that which it symbolizes. Surrounding the holiday of Thanksgiving—what was once the most wholesome and anti-consumption of American holidays—three news stories caught my eye. All three show quite clearly that Baudrillard was right: We are living in a hyperreality.

On 21 November, USA today chose to report to the American public with the headline “Why women and girls bear the brunt of the romaine lettuce E. coli outbreak”. The absurdity of this headline manifests itself on multiple levels. The most dangerous consequence of irresponsible reporting like this is that it infuses identity politics into a situation which—quite clearly—affects all reaches of American society. Yet, in the hyperreality of modernity, the main (lame) stream media is telling the public that they should see a nationwide problem in terms identity politics; rather than questioning why our lettuce is infected with bacteria we are told to question the sexism of…the lettuce itself. Quite clearly, this is an absurd attempt to reframe the issue at hand and avoid asking the difficult questions.

Yet even this poor reporting might not be as absurd as the consumerist phenomenon that is “Black Friday”. The United States, over the course of the past thirty years (which correspond with the rise of globalism), has become a country where the holiday of Thanksgiving has transformed from one celebrating family and friends to a sideshow consisting of the kind of consumerism that Christmas has devolved into. While, in my childhood at least, Thanksgiving was seen as a holiday just like Christmas, it has now become a glorified pre-game show (to use sports terminology) to the consumerist “show” that Christmas has become. In what other country would we see people celebrating “thankfulness” and “family” before, a few hours later, fighting over television sets at a Wal-Mart? Indeed, this is an absurdity of the hyperreality we live in, and—sadly—it is being exported to other countries. This example alone should show us that Baudrillard was right when he pointed out that globalization does not bring us together in any “real” sense; rather it connects us in the superficial ways which befit the post-modern hyperreality.

 

BlackFriday.jpg

Black Friday Comes to…Brazil? If This is the Face of Globalization, Then Who Could Want It? Image Courtesy Of: https://www.standard.co.uk/news/world/black-friday-2018-chaotic-scenes-at-stores-worldwide-as-shoppers-dash-to-snap-up-deals-a3997806.html

 

The most interesting thing to think about is that—amid the hyper consumerism of black Friday—there are a few companies that are not doing so well. One of those is the U.S. lingerie label Victoria’s Secret, whose sales have been declining since 2016. While these figures may just seem like the bottom line of a corporate giant, to me they suggest something deeper. One clue might lie in the fact that the millennial generation is having less sex than any generation in 60 years. As one quote from Melissa Batchelor Warnke’s 2016 article points out:

 

many young people speak disparagingly of the messy emotional state love and lust can engender, referring to it as “catching feelings”.  […] Noah Patterson, 18, has never had sex. “I’d rather be watching YouTube videos and making money.” Sex, he said, is “not going to be something people ask you for on your résumé.”

 

 Both of these quote point to a closing off of emotion in favor of rational concerns like “making money” and having a good “resume”. Of course, if these are the most important concerns for modern society, then spending money on expensive lingerie would not be a priority; this would explain the drop in sales for Victoria’s Secret. But there is a larger consequence of this eschewing the emotional in favor of the rational: It denies all that which makes humans “human”. As human beings, what distinguishes us from animals is our ability to appreciate aesthetic beauty, whether that be another human being, a piece of art, or a beautiful sunrise. When we start to ignore these things—or seek to commodify them (by turning them into a vehicle for making money)—we start to rationalize the emotional. It is a very good example of what German sociologist Jurgen Habermas called the colonization of the “life world” by the “system”. Sadly, this process can also begin to slowly chip away at our own emotional sense of what it means to be “human”.

Taken together, all three of these news stories show that postmodern life has become a hyperreality, one where the rational supercedes the emotional. It is something which is ultimately very dangerous, since it threatens the very ties which bind us to on another on this earth. When we begin to see the contamination of lettuce in terms of identity politics, and not as something that threatens all of humanity equally, we are falling into a hyperreality. When we celebrate the virtues of “thankfulness” and “family” yet, a few hours later, engage in fistfights with strangers over electronics we are falling into a hyperreality. And when we begin to preference rational concerns over human concerns—and stop appreciating beauty (in all its forms)—we fall into the hyperreality. At least the football fans—as those pictured below at Partizan Belgrade—can provide us with a more real intrpretation of Black Friday.

 

BlackFridayScreenshotBalkanskinavijaci.png

I’ll Take This Black Friday Over the Commercial One Any Day. Image Courtesy of @Balkanskinavijaci on Instagram.

Jair Bolsonaro Wins Elections in Brazil: While Globalism is Rolled Back, What Does this Mean for Football and What Does it say About the State of Media and Education?

Leave a comment

On the night of 28 October 2018 Jair Bolsonaro won the Brazilian Presidential election, defeating Fernando Haddad with a vote of 55% to 45%. Interestingly, the mainstream press from the BBC to CNN characterized Mr. Bolsonaro as “far-right,” with The Economist–long regarded by this author as a rare example of objective opinion—even calling him “a threat to democracy”. Given this reporting, just what is Mr. Bolsonaro? Is he “far-right”, as the mainstream media seems to think? Or is he just not far-left—a position that, unfortunately—mainstream media in the United States (and indeed all over the world) seem to support, making all others “far” right?

 

It is important to note that the political spectrum is not a linear one, with far-left on one side and far-right on the other. Rather, it is a circular one; being far to either end of the spectrum—right or left—ends with similar anti-democratic and, indeed, fascistic pitfalls. The historical examples of Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia would seem to confirm this perspective. And indeed this is why Brazil is such an interesting case in this regard. As I learned in one of my classes just a few weeks ago, there are words written on the Brazilian flag. Those of us who are knowledgeable about the world—and indeed football—likely know that the Brazilian flag is green and yellow with a blue circle. What most of us may not know, however, is that there is a phrase written across that blue circle: Ordem e Progresso.  It is a quote from Auguste Comte, one of the founders of the modern discipline of sociology, which translates to “Order and Progress”. This quote was inspired by Comte’s motto for positivism, which aimed to create a secular basis for morality in the face of the declining significance of religion in the post-enlightenment period. At this time, so it seemed, means-end rationality would replace religion as the “order” of the day; people would not look for guidance from the theocratic, rather they would create their own morality rooted in rational action. For Comte, this positivist philosophy would allow for the development of a discipline called “social physics,” where human actions could be studied and, ultimately, predicted.

 

720px-Flag_of_Brazil.svg.png

Ordem E Progresso. Image Courtesy Of: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_of_Brazil

 

Of course, the fascistic undertones of such an idea are not hard to miss, and indeed may be one of the reasons that many—including the late (and great) scholar Hannah Arendt—abhor the discipline of sociology. After all, who are humans to tell other humans what they must—and must not—do? In effect, it replaces blind faith in religion with blind faith in science. While many assume the two perspectives to be diametrically opposed, the reality is that they are both similar perspectives insofar as they seemingly leave no room for independent human thought and interpretation (indeed, the German Sociologist Jurgen Habermas and French Sociologist Michel Foucault have pointed this out before).

 

176550-004-C706BDF8.jpg

Arendt had No Love For Sociologists. Image Courtesy Of: https://www.britannica.com/biography/Hannah-Arendt

 

In this context, the reaction to the election of Jair Bolsonaro is made even more interesting. The mainstream (Western) media is up in arms, characterizing Mr. Bolsonaro as “far-right”. Unfortunately, it seems as if much of this rhetoric is rooted in the same kind of social engineering that Auguste Comte may have—unwittingly—encouraged with his own emphasis on “Order and Progress” way back in the 19th Century. These days, it seems that “far-right” is anything that does not conform to dominant ideological trends which view globalization—and its ideological counterpart “globalism”—as an inherently positive development for the world. In fact, anyone who dares question the logic of globalism risks being called intolerant, a bigot, or much worse. The totalitarian undertones of this line of thought are not hard to miss, but it is important to note that this has been a long time in the making. Indeed, as an undergraduate studying International Relations in the United States my Comparative Politics class forced me to read a book on Lula, the former left-wing leader of Brazil who is currently in jail on corruption charges. Like other students of my generation who studied international relations, I was taught to not question the logic of globalization (Indeed, a friend who studied the same topic in Turkey also told me that during his time in the university there was no tolerance for any objection to globalization).

 

While resisting globalization is still a borderline taboo subject—indeed, the fact that traffic to this very blog has fallen since I began to actively question the logic of globalization and globalism is testament to this—there are still those who choose to resist this quasi-totalitarian logic. In fact, many famous Brazilian footballers including Kaka, Rivaldo, and Ronaldinho have openly voiced their support for Mr. Bolsonaro. Of course, their actions did not go un-noticed and inews reminds us that “Reports suggest FC Barcelona have distanced themselves from the two former stars [Rivaldo and Ronaldinho], both of whom had been playing in the ‘Barça Legends’ tour.” And here the question must be, what was their crime? Why did they have to be “distanced” from?

 

Screen Shot 2018-10-29 at 2.46.07 AM.png

Former Barcelona Star Rivaldo Voices His Support on Social Media. Image Courtesy Of: https://inews.co.uk/sport/football/brazil-footballers-jair-bolsonaro-ronaldinho-rivaldo-kaka-lucas-moura/

 

While Mr. Bolsonaro is not the most politically correct of individuals—indeed he has made comments critical of homosexuals—and has been compared to Donald Trump (perhaps the biggest political insult in this day and age), the fact remains that globalism under Lula did not work for Brazil. Like other globalist leaders, Lula privatized many of Brazil’s state owned businesses (like Petrobras, the previously state-owned oil company) in order to gain favor with international business at the expense of his own country’s independence. Ironically, he vowed from prison to undo the sales of state assets if re-eelected. Indeed, the very fact that he is now in prison on corruption charges goes to show just how broken—and corrupt—the system of globalization and globalism really is.

 

3543.jpg

Comparisons with Donald Trump Defined the Latest Election in Brazil. Image Courtesy Of: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/oct/29/bolsonarianos-take-to-the-streets-in-awe-of-new-law-and-order

 

Closer to the topic of this blog—football—Lula’s track record isn’t much better. Indeed, he was the one who cleaned out Brazil’s shanty-towns (favelas) ahead of the World Cup and Olympics, displacing many of his country’s poorest citizens by using military force. Indeed, the corruption endemic in Lula’s administration was closely tied to sport, and it is even claimed  that one of the stadiums built for the 2014 World Cup was actually a “gift” for himself. Lula even had a good relationship with the former President of the United States—and fellow globalist—Barack Obama, whom he gifted a jersey (!) from the Brazilian national team.

 

_73910953_73910951.jpg

If This is How the “Left” Deals With Social Problems, Perhaps a Change is in Order? Image Courtesy Of: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-26809732

 

Given this history of corruption and cruelty towards the poorest of Brazil’s citizens, it is not surprising that Lula is now in jail. But what is surprising is that the mainstream media still persists in ignoring these facts while actively trying to de-legitimize his successor Mr. Bolsonaro. While, as I have said, Mr. Bolsonaro is not perfect by any means, the disastrous track record of the Brazilian left—which has sold the country out in the name of a type of imperialism couched in the rhetoric of globalism—should be enough to suggest that a change in leadership was well in order. (Indeed, many Brazilians were quite pleased with the result). Hopefully, Brazilians—like others around the world—can soon begin to take back their country and finally reject the disastrous ideology of corrupt and exploitative globalism for good.

Older Entries