The American Way (re upload)

Americans have a very big distaste for soccer. This stems from the threat of ruining the "American way". In America we have adapted football as a completely different sport. This one with different  rules and ways of playing. This type of football is said to be tougher and harder to play. I believe that this is a big way of foreshadowing how the world is today. 

Americans have grown accustomed to what they call the "American way". This is in a brief way being able to move to American and adapt to what is already here. Opposed to bringing other customs here. Implying that it will only lead to problems. This shows our problems with other countries.

Unable to adapt to another countries way of living or customs leads to problems for the United States. Being able to understand and adapt to these different ways of living avoids Conflict seeing is how we would not be looking at our way of living to be the best way of living. 

I believe that that is one thing that this book is trying to tell us. In order for the United States to avoid conflict we must FULLY adapt to different customs and ways of living. This is the key to achieving a more peaceful world. 

An Argument To Not Intervene (Re-upload)

Humanitarian intervention has become a popular topic for debate as of resent with discussion of intervention in the different aspects of the Arab Spring.  Most of the debate is centered on when it is appropriate for the United States to engage in humanitarian interventions. Here I want to take a step backward and make a general argument that humanitarian interventions are not to be done at all, by focusing on the relationship of the citizens and their state and the relationship between states.

First, it can be argued that it is not the place of the federal government to insure the protection of another country’s citizens because it should be using its resource to protect and provide for its own citizens. While this point can appear cold hearted it is necessary to get a clear and unbiased view of the situation. The citizens have a social contract with their government if that contract is not being fulfilled by a government it is not the responsibility for another government to fix it because it has no social contract the people under that government.  While individuals can act to the benefit of the people in need of intervention it is not the responsibility of the federal government so therefor it should not take place.

Second, the citizens in the government have a responsibility to themselves to be their own facilitators. If the government not fulfilling the social contract mention above it is up to the citizen of that state. If you look at the current situation in Iraq it is clear no matter how strong the nation building effort, if it the citizens are not invested in creating the new government, all the effort put in by the intervening party is meaningless. This is why it is important for the citizens be directly responsible for the change themselves that way they are invested no matter what and that results in long lasting and meaning full change in the government.

Third, bad things happen and it is not the job of one group or individual organization to fix them all. If everyone does there part to fight for the world that we as the human race want to see, instead one nation applying its ideals to every other, it will result in a better more meaning full future for everyone. 

Soccer and Immigration

The game of soccer, though played sporadically throughout the country, never truly caught on in the United States. The football industry, equipped with jerseys, season tickets, bobble heads, partnerships, and advertisements, has a much larger stake in American pop culture. This is not unique though, other nations such as Australia and India have not adopted the soccer mentality. What is unique, however, is the strong American distaste for soccer, which borders on hatred. Americans are not simply indifferent to soccer; they consider it a threat to the American way of life.

As discussed in the Foer book, How Soccer Explains the World, the feelings of many Americans towards soccer span beyond harmless dislike, and many individuals consider it a threat to the fundamentals of American culture. Though we have all witnessed this, it is hard to solidify a root cause. It could stem from a need for superiority; soccer is relatively cheap and thus can be played in low-income areas. Football, however, requires more gear, a field, a uniquely shaped ball, and is tougher in nature. The negative sentiments of soccer may come from a place of fear, and a need to defend the ‘American way’.

This mentality is not unique to just the sports world, as a comparison can easily be drawn between soccer and football and Americans and immigrants. With the exception of the initial influx of immigrants (i.e. the creation of the colonies), immigration in America is primarily met with hesitation, distaste, and in extreme cases, aggression. Feelings of uncertainty towards immigrants also stem from a place of fear of compromising the ‘American way’, as many Spanish-speaking immigrants have provided a cultural rift in the South.

The comparisons continue, as instances in the south of abhorrence for Mexican immigrants continue to appear in the news. On one occasion on July 1^st 2014, 3 busses full of Hispanic children and families were met with “Go Back Home” chants as they neared California. Comparably, the possibility of hosting the World Cup in the United States was met with a similar reaction, and soccer was dubbed a “socialist sport”.  It is important to note that these feelings do not stem from a place of factually accurate and rationally conceived opinions, but rather a place of fear and ignorance.

There are many circulated statistics that combat the anti-immigration sentiment so prevalent in the United States, specifically in regard to Hispanics. Compared to other foreign minority groups, Hispanics have the highest rate of cultural assimilation. Typically, within two generations, Hispanic families are almost entirely assimilated into American culture. This fear of compromising American culture does not stand on legitimate ground, as illegal immigrants tend to pay more into the system than they take out. Illegal immigrants boost the tax system through income and sales taxes, but typically do not claim benefits for fear of being deported. These facts are provided by the Census bureau, and could help change public opinion on immigration reform.     

Much like negative feelings towards soccer, legitimate fear of immigration is largely unfounded. Soccer does help explain the world in this situation, as hatred towards soccer can be discounted as well as hatred towards Hispanic immigration. Though soccer may never hold legitimate cultural ground in America, hopefully abhorrence for a harmless sport will dissolve, and take anti-immigration sentiments with it.

Soccer and Globalization

How Soccer Explains the American Culture Wars

                Franklin Foer quotes a study done by the Sporting Goods Manufacturers Association that stated by 2002, 1.3 million more kids played soccer than Little League baseball. Baseball is considered an American sport, while soccer has always been prevalent in Europe. Foer uses soccer as an example of one way Americans are trying to get with the rest of the world’s program by abandoning their own traditions. He says, “Americans are such suckers when it comes to something with a European label,” but is this really a fair judgment?

                We have discussed that globalization is not a new concept. States began communicating in the 1500’s when there was a rise of European trade and exploration. International trade volumes were also very high leading up to World War II. States are constantly changing but that does not necessarily mean they are “suckers” for adopting new culture habits such as soccer. Foer says some groups are concerned with the amount of relativism seeping into the American way of life. They believe the country has lost the self-confidence to make basic moral judgments to condemn evil. In other words, the growing popularity of soccer among upper class Americans is a symbol of America becoming weaker and not being able to make strong political choices.

                Although their points may be valid, globalization is also a way to keep friendly relations with other states. For example, the McDonald’s theory of war was mentioned in lecture which means that no two countries with a McDonald’s in them will ever go to war. That seems a little extreme but the concept is states that act alike will be less likely to go to war because their economies and cultures are intertwined. It is easier to go to war with a state when they have nothing in common with your state’s values.

This idea can relate to soccer because the growing popularity of soccer in the United States is another way we can relate to Europe or other states and keep stable relations. For example, Foer mentioned in spring of 2001, the U.S. national team played Honduras in Washington’s Robert Francis Kennedy stadium in a vital World Cup match. He says the world often views American’s as “hyper nationalistic” meaning extremely patriotic, but when Honduras fans traveled to this game, they realized they were cheering louder than any American fan. Soccer became a way for states to communicate with each other and prove stereotypes to be inaccurate.

The United States is not immune to globalization and that is not a bad thing! By accepting other states cultures, we become more connected to them which can also positively impact international political relations. Soccer should not be seen as only a European sport just like baseball should not be seen as only an American sport. Increased communication does not make America weaker but instead keeps us on the same page as everyone else. 

Urban Tribes

In Chapter two of How soccer Explains the World, Franklin Foer explains how Glasgow’s Soccer derby illustrates an example of tribalism in the modern era. He suggests that the derby’s ferocity is a way to channel frustrations, due to existing social tensions, into a twisted, yet entertaining sports rivalry. This model of modern tribalism can also be applied to the violence that was pervasive in the Boston Hardcore Rock scene.

                The structure of the conflict in the Boston hardcore scene is disturbingly similar to that of the conflict in the Glasgow soccer derby. The members of the Boston Hardcore scene claim that the scene has always had a violent culture, similar to how the fans of the Glasgow soccer teams regard the violence toward and hatred of the opposing clubs as common place. While the soccer fans had their two teams, the members of the Boston Hardcore scene had the individual bands that they supported. Beneath this there were the individual supporter’s clubs that would carry out the acts of violence and intimidation, such as the ‘Billy Boys’ (Rangers) and ‘McGory Boys’(Celtic). In hardcore there were different subculture groups that warred with each other over control of the scene. The two major groups were neo-nazi skinheads and a gang called Friends Stand United (FSU) which were pervasive in the Hardcore Rock scene. Both groups were essentially street gangs and extremely dangerous. While both side of the soccer conflict had their secular motivations, the Hardcore music scene’s conflict clearly had its political motivations with the left leaning FSU and right leaning Neo-Nazi skinheads. In How Soccer Explains the World, Foer recalls several occasions that the rivalry has turned fatal, and there are countless instances where violence taking place at Hardcore shows resulted in fatalities.

                The members of the hardcore scene share a sentiment of belonging due to their involvement in their respective groups. They found a community with common ideologies to gather behind. This is similar to how the fans of the Glasgow soccer clubs rally behind the banners of secularism, whether or not they truly hold the ideals of standing up to the knee in ‘the blood of Fenians’ themselves. Having a ‘crew’ that you belong to is the modern ‘tribe’; the fact that anyone that opposes your group’s ideals and goals will be met with violence, is modern tribalism.

Thankfully over the years the violence is starting to be rooted out of the music scene as the political tensions have settled and are being replaced with a growing distaste for the senseless violence. While we as a society haven’t truly erased tribalism yet, hopefully in the future we might. 

Mediating Mutually Assured Destruction and Nuclear Weapons in Iran

               Thankfully, the world has never known nuclear war, though eight sovereign states have successfully detonated nuclear weapons. These nations reside outside of the Middle East, but should Iran gain nuclear capabilities, the dynamic could shift dramatically. There are many potential problems with the Iran becoming nuclearized, especially regarding Iran’s oil stakes and vehement hatred of Israel and the United States. However, there is hope that the widely known theory of mutually assured destruction could help mitigate this threat. International relations scholar postulate that reciprocated nuclear weapons prevent any drastic action, as even ‘mad men’ in history have failed to detonate truly world ending weapons. Sadly, the threat of weapons in Iran oversteps the supposed benefits of mutually assured destruction, and any kind of nuclear weapons in this region will have negative repercussions for the United States.

                Iran, one of the strongest powers in the Middle East, is already a considerable source of conflict for the United States. In Henry Sokolski’s article Getting Ready for a Nuclear Iran, he argues that should Iran develop nuclear weapons, they will encourage nuclear programs in neighboring countries, raise oil prices, and increase terrorism in the region. These results pose a variety of risks to the United States for obvious reasons, and Iran’s overt and passionate hatred of Israel is yet another cause for concern. Nuclear weapons in the Middle East, not just Iran, would severely upset the balance of power and influence of the United States, as well as escalate the numerous terrorist threats in the region. There are obvious concerns regarding nuclear weapons in Iran, and it is definitely an issue requiring delicacy and attentiveness.

                The theory of mutually assured destruction maintains that two nations with similar nuclear capabilities will be frozen in a state of inactivity, as any acts of aggression will be matched and the world may never be the same. Integrating this theory with nuclear weapons in Iran is interesting, as Iran currently does not have any nuclear weapons, let alone an arsenal similar in nature to the United States. Part of the MAD theory is having second strike capabilities, or the capacity for a nation to launch an offensive attack after being attacked itself. Iran is nowhere near close to having automatic second strike capabilities, which threatens the delicate balance of MAD. This puts the United States in an advantageous position, as our arsenal is incredibly impressive and definitely superior to any Iran could develop in the near future.

                Sadly, the negative repercussions of Iran’s potential nuclear arsenal greatly span beyond the physical damage of nuclear weapons. Iran has massive political influence in the Middle East, and acquiring nuclear weapons could be the catalyst for many Middle Eastern countries nuclearizing. Continually, Iran surpassing Saudi Arabia in weapons could upset the balance of OPEC and drive oil prices up, which would severely upset the US economy. Finally, terrorism, the perpetual threat to the west, would inevitably strengthen through nuclear weapons in this region. Overall, MAD may ensure that Iran will not physically attack the United States with nuclear weapons, but the economic and political repercussions of WMDs in Iran will have vast effects on international relations in the region.            

Importance of the structure of the UN General Assembly

       The United Nations General Assembly in my opinion has a very efficient structure. Each member gets one vote. Matters of importance need to have 2/3 vote to determine a solution and all other less important matters just need majority vote. The problem I see with this is that what actually determines weather a matter is important or non important?

        They meet once a year for two weeks, in that time each member of the committee has a chance to address something. I personally think that once a year for two weeks is not enough to be 100% efficient. I believe that twice a year for two weeks at a time would be a lot more efficient. In my opinion the positives from extra time outweighs the factor of the increasing cost of doing so. 

Also I believe there should be another committee that decides whither topics are important or not. This could greatly impact the decisions of things due to the different vote criteria. 

       I believe that the current structure of the United Nations general assembly is very efficient and needs minimal changes in order to make it more efficient. I believe that the frequency of the times they meet would be the absolute best change that could be made. This change would increase efficiency drastically.