Blog Post #4 - Soccer and the Growing Tide of European Anti-Semitism

Michael Krasna

GVPT200

11/30/14

Blog Post #4

Soccer and the Growing Tide of European Anti-Semitism

            Anti-Semitism is a cancerous movement that is once again sweeping across Europe, and at an alarming pace. Anti-Semitism originated as religious discrimination towards Jews for their perceived role in the death of Jesus. As a result, Jews were persecuted and attacked, most specifically in the Spanish Expulsion and Inquisition in the 1490’s. Since that time, anti-Semitism has manifested itself in many forms, such as racial anti-Semitism, made popular by the Nazis, economic anti-Semitism, based on the premise that the Jews control banks and media, and political anti-Semitism, based on anti-Zionism and the premise that the Jews do not deserve their own sovereign state. Although many believed that European anti-Semitism had come to an end with the Holocaust, history is repeating itself in much of Europe. Four Jews were murdered outside of a Jewish school in Toulouse, France in March 2012, and according to a rt.com news article on anti-Semitism in the UK, “A total of 302 incidents were reported… the highest monthly total since records began in 1984.” Accordingly, European Jews have been leaving Europe in droves in recent years due to this dangerous uptick in anti-Semitism.

            One of the most prevalent arenas of European anti-Semitism is in fact the football pitch. In Franklin Foer’s book, How Soccer Explains the World, Foer explores the reasons for globalization’s failure to end the enmity among opposing soccer fans in Europe. One example that Foer uses is the English soccer club, Tottenham Hotspur FC, known as the “Yid Army.” Yid is a Yiddish slang term for a Jew, which is often used in a derogatory manner by Tottenham’s opposing fans. I believe that this anti-Semitic rhetoric has been a prevailing force in the dangerous advancement of anti-Semitism into the European mainstream. It is thus imperative for Europe’s leaders to further join together in the fight against racial and religious marginalization in order to avoid another catastrophic ethnic genocide.

Country Roads to Globalization

            Country music is a genre of American music that originated in the South in the 1920s. While the genre is typically believed to only be popular in America (as its name implies), that hasn’t stopped the beloved American music style from transcending state borders. Over the years, country music has globalized and been heard around the world. Evidence of the globalization of the American born-and-bread genre is found in international country music festivals, like C2C (Country to Country) in London, and some of the most popular country artists traveling overseas to Europe, Asia, and Australia for sold-out concerts. Furthermore, country music artist and Australian native Keith Urban commented in an interview about how he loves the globalization of country music because it is making music more accessible to fans world-wide.

            A majority of country songs have themes of U.S. patriotism and life in the South – topics you may not think would resonate with listeners in Europe, Asia, and Australia. If you visit small, rural, Southern towns in America, it’s obvious that country music plays a significant role in shaping Americans’ identities and cultures.

But why has a genre that depicts small-town USA, American flag-waving, dirt roads on the countryside, and pick-up trucks gained popularity with foreign listeners who have no personal connection to the lyrics? On the surface, it appears as if the rhetoric of country music would not resonate with foreign listeners; however, the genre transcends borders and has resounded with fans across the globe.

Songs of the country music genre discuss universal topics like family, love, heartbreak, work ethic, faith, and overcoming struggles. Because the song topics are universal (even though they seem to cater more to American listeners), country music has been globalized.  As Franklin Foer argues in How Soccer Explains the World, people gravitate toward institutions outside of the state to find their identities. For some people, this is found in listening to music popular in other states. In the case of Foer’s book, soccer fans from across the globe identify with teams in states they have never even visited. Many of these fans passionately and whole-heartedly identify with the teams, as Foer explains in the first two chapters. Hooligan gangs of Red Star are merciless to the opposing teams, sometimes killing the rival fans. Furthermore, a Rangers fan can’t make it through a bar full of Celtic fans without getting mugged, and vice versa.

While international fans of country music aren’t as passionate or numerous as international soccer fans, the basic premise is still the same – in a globalized world, people search for identities outside of the state. Although many international country music fans have never visited America, they still strongly identify with the music and the culture depicted in the songs. As the sovereignty of the state disintegrates because of globalization, people are more inclined to identify less with their local cultures and view themselves as a global citizen.

Tension Between Russia and the Rest of the World- Silbert

Within the past week Russia has made some powerful moves in regards to bombs and missiles. Earlier in the week, Russia made a statement that they had come to an agreement with Iran to build two new nuclear reactor plants in their county, as well as the possibilities of many more in the future. As the agreement comes to a settlement, it shows that Russia has bigger plans than maybe expected when it comes to making sure other countries know how potentially powerful they can be. One thing to make clear however; Nuclear reactors and nuclear bombs are not the same thing. Nuclear reactors are a set of chain reactions- reactions that can be controlled. Nuclear bombs are not controlled, therefore they can cause much more harm than nuclear reactors, since once detonated, no one knows the amount of destruction the bombs could cause.

Then in the later week Russia made another announcement. As stated by Fox News reporter Shepard Smith, Russia, who is backed by China, was to deploy long-range missile bombers over the Gulf of Mexico. This shows the ongoing tension and battle between the Ukraine and Russia forces. Fox news reports that Russia did not seek permission with other countries to use their ports to refuel and use of other resources and feel that since the Chinese are backing them they can do whatever they please. Shepard Smith states that according to Gordan Chang , Putin is “flaunting” his relationship with China and telling the rest of the world that he can do as he pleases and that the United States can not stop him.

http://insider.foxnews.com/2014/11/12/backed-china-russia-deploy-bombers-over-gulf-mexico

Juan Sarmiento #3 - Unleashing The Hulk

Nuclear Weapons are as much of a threat as having Marvel’s The Hulk. It is my opinion that nuclear weapons might as well be a fictional character the every country uses to threaten other countries, just like Tony Stark when he said the famous “We have a Hulk” line. Sure there has been nuclear testing and it is been used against people before, but we as humans are in a different world. We have organization to regulate these sorts of things.

            The reason I believe that nuclear weapons are the same as the Hulk, is because I truly believe that nuclear weapons are used as threats in politics but they are really not going to be used in military. Because of this they might as well be green giant indestructible fictional characters. There is always much debate and arguing about nuking this country and nuking that country, but in reality we all know that if a country were to launch nuclear weapons towards a enemy State, said country would receive such heavy sanctions as well as have so much unintended consequences that it could hurt it even more than if it had gone to war with the nuked State. Organization such as the United Nations would demand such reparations that it could send the country back 20-30 years.

            Because of all of this it is my believe that it is in all nations best interest to disarm nuclear weapons, as well as terminating any sort of research for world ending weapons. Because no country will use the nuclear weapons or its technology it is wise to invest the money in something more helpful such a sustainable energy or we might as well be throwing away billions of dollars away for a piece of technology that is not benefiting anyone.

            Author Thomas Schelling, argues that even if countries were to decided to disarm themselves of nuclear weapons, said countries could create such weapon in a weeks time. He also estates that if International organizations were to decided to force all countries to agree to no nuclear weapons, that it would not be very difficult for countries to hide the materials needed for nuclear weapons. And although I agree with his assessment, it is my opinion that if countries choose to voluntarily give up their nuclear weapons, that we would enter into a unspoken agreement to safe millions of innocent lives as well as an agreement to get rid of weapons that have us a click away from a third World War. The United States giving up its nuclear weapons and redirecting the twenty billion dollars per year to helping would set an example for other nations to follow.

            In conclusion it is my opinion that in order for all nations to truly give up on nuclear power, the more powerful ones such as the United States, Russia, China and North Korea need to set the example.

            Having nuclear weapons is as fictional as saying that we have the Hulk. Yes nuclear weapons are real and have killed people, but in a world not looking for its everyday citizens to be worried of war and even more discontent with those ruling their countries, world leaders might as well say they are unleashing the hulk.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MMpCCo8Evnc

Obama's Trip to the Asia-Pacific

Although Obama is facing set back at home due to the loss of the majority in the Senate, he is promoting our world presence and attending the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC). David Nakamura of the Washington Post, published an article discussing how Obama went on a week-long trip to the Asia-Pacific in order to promote America’s growing economy to regional nations.  Obama took this opportunity to discuss with the regional nations that he wants to establish “deeper economic partnerships” and is looking to organize a free-trade pact with the United States. It is clear that Obama is trying to have America have a stronger latent power amongst other nations, specifically in the Asia-Pacific. China is the powerhouse of the Asia-Pacific when it comes to trading and economics, but America is trying to make more of presence and show that it is still a world power.

                Obama’s trip to the Asia-Pacific was to reassure that America is not falling behind and is continuing to move forward. Obama has some serious competition though. With losing the majority in the Senate, nations are raising concerns about the United States’; power, and China’s President, Xi Jinping, presented “a rising China as an alternative power”. This is proof that “politics matter” when it comes to the international political economy.  Although Obama stated, “the United States welcomes the rise of a prosperous peaceful, and stable China,” there is an undertone of discomfort among the American people that China will rise above the United States, and that this is the proof of it starting to happen. Obama is trying to organize a 12-member Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) free trade pact, which is provide a new market access for goods and services made in America. In essence, this trade to try to make sure we do not fall behind our competition in that area, mostly meaning China.

Realists may argue this interdependence makes the United States vulnerable because the US is depending on other countries to support our economy too much. Liberals may argue that cooperating is possible and can be beneficial but is not always easy to organize and facilitate. Regardless of liberal and realists views, it is arguable that America has to “step up its game” in order to keep competing with China, or else America may find itself losing its credibility as a major power.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/in-beijing-obama-renews-push-for-trade-pact-he-says-could-be-historic-agreement/2014/11/10/8939a2e2-68a0-11e4-a31c-77759fc1eacc_story.html

Prisoner's Dilemma Tested in Real-Life, Blog #3, Dignan

What would happen if a prisoner’s dilemma experiment were performed in real-life? Well, a Business Insider article presents the outcomes of an experiment that compared the cooperation of prisoners in Lower Saxony’s primary women’s prison with a group of female college students.

In lecture, Professor Shirk demonstrated prisoner’s dilemma for our class with the payoff of candy and the punishment of no candy.

In this experiment, rather than offering years off of a prison sentence (or candy, like in GVPT200), the group of female students received their payoff in Euros and the prisoners received the equivalent in cigarettes or coffee. When pairs were given the option to defect or cooperate, it was found that the prisoners were significantly more cooperative. The article notes that 37% of students and 56% of inmates cooperated. And 13% of student pairs and 30% of prisoner pairs cooperated with each other.

The Business Insider reporter seems shocked by the results; however, I would argue that the results are not so surprising. Prisoners typically live in tightly-knit communities within their prisons. They often depend on each other for cigarettes, luxury snacks/foods, and other rare commodities that the prison doesn’t provide them. Also, the prisoners generally trust each other. Furthermore, this experiment was more than just a lab game for the prisoners. When they return to the prison, their behavior will have real consequences - they will either be punished or rewarded by their peers. Since the prisoners depend on each other for the coffee and cigarettes they receive in the game, they will probably be expected to share with their friends.

In addition, some people in prison spend their lives practicing game theory and playing prisoner’s dilemma. Also, the criminal culture condemns non-cooperation. Many of the prisoners probably have much more experience with how these games work than the average college student. Their experience with and understanding of the game makes it likely that they will be able to cooperate better than the students who have probably never played a prisoner’s dilemma game.

I also think it is interesting how all of the subjects, both prisoners and students, are all female. I think it would be interesting to see how men would fair in this experiment, since men and women typically behave differently in these games. Women stereotypically cooperate more than men.

One issue I find with this experiment is that the payoffs and consequences are not as serious as risking years of one’s life (as it would be in a true prisoner’s dilemma). To get more accurate results, I would suggest the researchers observe the behavior of people who are actually facing time in prison for a crime. They should also observe the behavior of students who are facing more detrimental consequences, such as academic probation for cheating. I feel that if the payoffs are more significant, the experiment is more likely to yield results that closely mirror the real world.