Sports and Nationalism
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
English 1130 Sports and Nationalism Organizing question: Should sport be kept ‘pure,’ separate or protected from jingoistic patriotism/militarism? Or should nationalism and sports be merged, and if so, how and in what ways? To answer this question in a precise way, define the different kinds of nationalism (patriotic, civic, ethnic, etc.) Be specific in your terminology and logical development of your ideas. You can choose a specific sport and/or a specific country (such as Canada), to help focus your paper. A few definitions to aid precision in the discussion: Civic Nationalism (also called ‘liberal nationalism’): Civic nationalists define the nation as an association of people with equal and shared political rights, and an allegiance to similar political procedures. The nation is a political entity, inclusive and liberal. Anyone can, so to speak, join through becoming a citizen. http://www.journalpioneer.com/Opinion/Columns/2011-12- 28/article-2849291/Civic-and-ethnic-nationalism/1 Example: In Canada, civic nationalism is associated with a shared Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and shared participation in the life of national civic institutions (shared rights such as voting in elections, or access to public health care, and ascribing to a shared national identity via traditional national institutions such as the CBC, NFB, etc.) Ethnic nationalism: a form of nationalism wherein the "nation" is defined in terms of ethnicity. Whatever specific ethnicity is involved, ethnic nationalism always includes some element of descent from previous generations and the implied claim of ethnic essentialism, i.e. the understanding of ethnicity as an essence that remains unchanged over time. The central theme of ethnic nationalists is that "...nations are defined by a shared heritage, which usually includes a common language, a common faith, and a common ethnic ancestry."[1] It also includes ideas of a culture shared between members of the group, and with their ancestors, and usually a shared language; however it is different from purely cultural definitions of "the nation" (which allow people to become members of a nation by cultural assimilation) and a purely linguistic definitions (which see "the nation" as all speakers of a specific language). In scholarly literature, ethnic nationalism is usually contrasted with civic nationalism. Ethnic nationalism bases membership of the nation on descent or heredity—often articulated in terms of common blood or kinship—rather than on political membership. Hence, nation-states with strong traditions of ethnic nationalism tend to define nationality or citizenship by jus sanguinis (the law of blood, descent from a person of that nationality) while countries with strong traditions of civic nationalism tend to define nationality or citizenship by jus soli (the law of soil, birth within the nation-state). Ethnic nationalism is therefore seen as exclusive, while civic nationalism tends to be inclusive. Rather than allegiance to common civic ideals and cultural traditions, then, ethnic nationalism tends to emphasize narratives of common descent. http://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Ethnic_nationalism.html Patriotism: vigorous support for one’s country. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/patriotism Jingoism (noun): extreme patriotism, especially in the form of aggressive or warlike foreign policy. the popular jingoism that swept the lower-middle classes. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/jingoism?q=jingoism Reading Log: Compare the ways Michael Ignatieff and Stephen Harper described the meaning of sports during their election campaigns. Both are supportive of the Olympics, but they define the significance of sports in very different ways. Both of these discourses about the meaning of sports can be described as seeking hegemony (i.e. seeking to define what is real), in that they attach meaning to the game beyond simply the game itself. How do each of these ideas attempt to define “the Canadian character”? Find a specific quote in which Ignatieff defines the meaning of sport for Canadian character. What does he say the Olympics means about who we are? Find a specific quote in which Harper defines the meaning of sport for Canadian character. What does he say hockey means about who we are? How do these definitions of Canadian character differ? Are these definitions of Canadian character inherent to the sport? Just as a thought experiment, is it possible to think of hockey – the game itself – separately from these discourses about national identity? What links these discourses to the game? Lawrence Martin and Dave Zirin argue that the love of sports should not be tainted or ruined by militarism; in other words, they are sports fans who want to love the game without supporting the military. Stephen Harper and Gerald Pash argue that sports and militarism go hand in hand. What kind of arguments does each side use to make their case (logos, pathos, etc.)? In any of the pieces from the case, cite two rhetorical moves that you find effective and say why you think they work well: In any of the pieces from the case, cite a logical fallacy or problem in logic: Which of these pieces nuance or ‘complicate’ the discussion, letting us think about it in more complexity, and which pieces simplify it or make it harder to think about in a complex way? Read “Living With War: Sport, Citizenship, and the Cultural Politics of Post-9/11 Canadian Identity” as a challenging text. Use the handout on reading challenging texts. Identify vocabulary (include definitions): Summarize the main argument in your own words: What do you think? What are the benefits and the risks of merging sports and nationalism? Should sports be protected from jingoism and kept ‘pure,’ preserving love of the sport for sport’s sake? If so, why? Or should sports be merged with nationalism, and if so, what kinds of nationalism do you think should be linked with sports (civic, ethnic, jingoistic)? English 1130 Sports and Nationalism The Way We Live Now Winter Wonder Brand By MICHAEL IGNATIEFF February 4, 2010 After the Super Bowl, the next sports spectacular to take over television screens will be the 2010 Winter Olympics in Vancouver. Super Bowl Sunday is imperial Rome, all armor and battle formations, while the Olympics are still classical Greece: all torches, wreaths and moral uplift. The Super Bowl is a unique display of American exuberance. The Olympics have a more solemn function: to channel the lethal energies of modern nationalism into a peaceful competition for gold medals. The Olympics have done their part in replacing war with sport as the way nations earn respect. Modern nations compete by branding their identities, and hosting the Olympic Games is the biggest branding opportunity a nation ever gets. The Beijing Games unveiled China as a global power. The Rio Games in 2016 will do the same for Brazil. The Sochi Winter Games in 2014 will showcase the raw power of Vladimir Putin’s Russia. Data source: EKOS Politics, January 2010 If you’re not trying to demonstrate raw power or announce your arrival on the global stage, however, hosting the Games presents a challenge. We Canadians are immensely proud of our country, but we try to be soft-spoken about it, so we aren’t looking for the Vancouver Games to be a grandiose exercise in self-promotion. Instead, we want to demonstrate that we’re a people the world can count on. We’re proud that we brought in the Games on time and on budget. The venues are ready. Apart from some nail-biting about whether there will be enough real snow for the low-altitude venues, there have been no last-minute panics. The Olympics let us tell the world: Ask us to do a job, and we get it done right. Instead of giving rein to Olympic grandiosity, the Vancouver organizers have tried to rein it in. Many of the venues are deliberately modest in scale and have been grouped together to minimize their environmental footprint. Visitors will take the Canada Line, Vancouver’s spiffy new light rail system, instead of taxis. Buses will replace cars as the way up to Whistler, site of the big downhill events. Offsets have been purchased to pay for the Games’ carbon emissions. We hope visitors will come away thinking Canada ran the greenest Games. The Games will also mark Vancouver’s emergence as a global city. Canadians hope that visitors arriving in Vancouver for the first time will be awed by the city’s sublime mountain and ocean setting, its diverse yet integrated population and its status as a multicultural metropolis facing out to Asia. The Olympics are branding Canada to the world, but they are also branding Canada to Canadians. At first we grumbled about the cost and did not take ownership of the whole expensive spectacle. But as soon as the Olympic torch relays began this fall, Canadians started lining the route by the thousands to see Olympians and other local heroes carrying the torch aloft through their communities. From Alert, the northernmost community on earth, to the American border and from Newfoundland to Vancouver Island, the torch relay has brought the country alive and brought it together. The Games have also changed Canadian attitudes toward competition itself. We’ve always had talented athletes, but we let other countries give theirs more support. A while back, the government initiated a multimillion-dollar program to invest in Olympic gold. Now Canadian athletes have world-class sports psychologists, coaches and training facilities. The snowboarders have aerodynamic experts to work on their boards. The curling team can model their shots in a wind tunnel. Canada has hosted the Winter Games before — in Calgary in 1988 — but has never won gold at home. Nothing less than a top-three finish in gold medals will satisfy the Canadian Olympic team this time.