Casual anti-Americanism (2 Viewers)

[pete]

Being fit doesn't necessarily mean looking like a model.

Oh really? Go tell it to Rick Martel.

 

[Unicron]

It's not the fault fo the GAA that Merrion Square couldn't get it's head out of it's arse long enough to build a stadium.

No, it's Bertie's fault. Eircom park would have been finished by now had he not got the FAI on board for his national stadium.

 

[billygannon]

PErhaps it would be useful to consider a historical angle: that when Association football was developed as a sport, it was part of the public school system, and developed by a dude called Rev Thring who had access to land, and needed an activity that would tire the lads out so they'd be too exhausted to masturbate in their beds.

Is it any wonder why the sports of politically dominant nations -- who had control of the most land -- appear to be more widely taken up than those of the less-internationally powerful ones -- who, outside of their own countries where they might have agricultural land, did not have access to space?

As for the IRish, yes, there would have been a huge number of them in England and in the US as well as Australia around the time that football was becoming organised, but the difference is that many of these Irish who would have played GAA or its precursors would have lived in towns and cities, where there would be little leisure time (people worked insane hours and six days per week) and even then, there was very little in the way of public space on which to play their sport.

So really, the social geography of these sports, the availability of actual physical space was definitely a factor in their uptake. The wealthier folks had land and could have pitches, while the poorer folks did not. It's more complex than this, obviously, but in general, it's something to consider if you're thinking about why and how sports have been adopted or not adopted in other countries. There's also a very strong political angle: sports might be a way of transcending political divisions, but sport has always been really political, as evidenced by the controversy that discussions of Croke Park always stir up.

Blah blah blah, the sport of pedestrianism which eventually converged with long-distance running blah blah blah the sport of the labouring classes blah blah blah because the road itself was the only open space people really had access to, blah blah blah -- go on the runners!

Well, the social geography of GAA is a lot more favourable than you've made out.
London played in four consecutive All-Ireland finals between 1900 and 1903.
Therefore it's safe to assume that the London players at this time had sufficient space and time to train and actually get to a level where they could get to the final.
It's also worth noting that there were a significant number of Irish people doing pretty okay for themselves in foreign countries, such as the US and England, when modern organised sports were being spread across the world. Indeed, a lot of these Irish people would have had plenty of land and time to go and practice and play hurling and Gaelic football.
And the Irish diaspora was not only in Australia, the UK and the US. There were several Irish people in Spain, France, Germany and other countries around the world.
So, essentially, there wasn't that much to stop them from introducing these games to people in other countries.

I'll take your point about dominant countries having the land resources to introduce their games on the subordinate countries. But it's worth noting that the only team to win the football World Cup that is from the British Empire is, well, England .

 

[frona]

Oh, is that all? I hadn't realised I have to accept responsibility for what the government -- whom I do not support -- does, and be 'twice as awesome'. In fact, many of us are already spending enough time and energy trying to keep our government from fucking us and others any more than they already are. I, for one, do not think it's acceptable to expect that I will use ADDITIONAL energy to apologise to everyone else for something I'm already trying to stop.

Yes, never blame the rude fucker who makes generalisations. Let's just assume that the person who is being generalised about should work twice as hard to prove they are an exception to the assumption. That makes it better for everyone. No one has to drop their assumptions because the only acceptable [insert category here] are those who are 'exceptions'.

I don't think he meant that it's right or fair, it's just the way most people are. The amount of people I've met who think it's perfectly accceptable to say that all Moroccans are woman-harrasing theives! And if they ever met one I'm sure they'd be going "wow, you're so sound for a Moroccan!". and that's just one example. There's plenty of other nations who a uncomfortable amount of people think it's ok to stereotype.

As for America, I've been trying to write a serious reply to this without getting ignorant myself. I think Tenrabbits put their finger on it for me - the way patriotism works in America is completely unfathomable to someone who grew up in a politically aware Irish (or should I say European) household. I'd imagine most people in most countries in the world enjoying slagging their politicians (and I don't mean lightheartedly) and not confuse that with somehow slaggin off their country. Of course all Americans aren't like that, but I've seen journalists equate slagging Bush with anit-Americanism and no one shouts them down. Sure we have crackpot journos here too but people see them for what they are (except their crackpot fans). It seems it's a maintstream view to equate questioning the government with hating your country in America. And that doesn't make me "hate all Americans" or anything, but I generally feel confised when I see them interviewed on telly or read the stuff American journalists write. And I'm afraid to take up my American friend's invitation to visit her there. Maybe I should and I'd be pleasantly surprised. But maybe it would be worse.

Anyway Jane, naw it's not right for people to be shitty to you but everyone gets stereotyped to some degree because of their nationality. I hope you're right that things are changing about the old patriotism issue.

 

[#10-7]

my two eurocents:
i don't really understand why people seem to think that because the GAA properly managed the government funding they recieve and built a fantastic stadium (ALONG with the funding it distributes around the local clubs) they should roll over and hand it over to other sports? i'm looking forward to seeing other ireland in there, its a great stadium, but no-one has the right except the gaa.

all this stuff about government funding is fairly shortsighted. there are 210 countries in the world in fifa. 210 countries putting money into soccer. its the largest sporting organization in the world!

"FIFA announced in April 2004 that it is expecting to earn $144 million profit on $1.64 billion in revenue between 2003 and 2006 (the 4 year cycle including the 2006 World Cup)."

why do people begrude when the government of the only country that properly plays GAA gives them funding and grants? who else is going to give them money? how could they compete in ireland without help?

it'd be amazing to have a world cup of gaa. amazing! but really no-one is going to volunteer for that spreading-the-word job. anyone that passionate about gaa is probably currently healping a small local club balance its books.

anyway there are four outside ireland boards for the promotion of GAA:
Europe GAA, US GAA, British GAA and Canada GAA.

have a look at these cool websites too:
http://www.hurling.ch/ - swiss gaa
http://www.hurling.be/welcome.htm - belgian gaa
http://www.cph-gaa.dk/ - denmark gaa
http://www.clubgaa.ie/france/index.htm - french gaa
http://www.clubgaa.ie/netherlands/index.htm - netherlands gaa
http://www.clubgaa.ie/spain/index.htm - spain gaa

anyway dats wha i tink.

 

[billygannon]

i don't really understand why people seem to think that because the GAA properly managed the government funding they recieve and built a fantastic stadium (ALONG with the funding it distributes around the local clubs) they should roll over and hand it over to other sports? i'm looking forward to seeing other ireland in there, its a great stadium, but no-one has the right except the gaa.

Croke Park is the only stadium of it's size in the world, which can play host to other sports, which has a rule that is should be used exclusively for one sport.
It's the only stadium of any significant size in this island and the GAA funding has come about not through being really good with money, but because it's deeply entwined with the Irish political system. The FAI and IRFU will never have the political connections that the GAA have. Therefore they'll never be able to command the grants that the GAA can.

why do people begrude when the government of the only country that properly plays GAA gives them funding and grants? who else is going to give them money? how could they compete in ireland without help?

The Irish Government isn't the only organisation that gives money to the GAA. The British Government and the EU also give money. Indeed, it's because of British money that many of the Ulster teams have better facilities and hence have done really well over the past ten years.

it'd be amazing to have a world cup of gaa. amazing! but really no-one is going to volunteer for that spreading-the-word job. anyone that passionate about gaa is probably currently healping a small local club balance its books.

Thanks for the links to other GAA sites. It seems that the GAA have made some effort in terms of promoting it abroad.
There are plenty of people who are passionate about hurling and gaelic football and are spreading the word in other countries. This is a link to the GAA Europe site: http://www.europe.gaa.ie/index.html

What's clear from this is that there aren't really any stumbling blocks to promoting GAA abroad. There never really has been. The money is there (governments are always willing to put money behind team sports)... the pitches and playing fields are there... and there are people willing and able to organise their own GAA organisations in other countries.
The GAA in Ireland should bring the European cup that they have in GAA to Ireland - it'd give a huge impetus to the clubs and associations in these other countries. But like the opening up of Croke Park to other sports, it's going to take a lot political talking to get it to happen.

 

[billygannon]

The reason why I've been blathering on about the GAA in this thread is because I think it represents an uncomfortable reality about being Irish. And it's something that Jane was originally alluding to.

The GAA, and gaelic games, could easily have been promoted and played in other countries. There is no reason why it shouldn't have been. It could the funding from the government of the country (the Irish are notoriously good at getting funding from governmental organisations), the pitches and space is there and there are people willing to actually do it.

But it seems the policy of the GAA up to now has been that Gaelic games are for the Irish, and only the Irish. You need to be Irish to play them and enjoy them. It's not for people from other countries. Sure, they can come and watch... but they aren't allowed play.
It's the largest sporting or cultural institution in the Republic. Up to now it hasn't been very inclusive. It hasn't invited other countries, other peoples, to play it at any serious level.
Essentially what it says about Ireland is that we've been mono-cultural up to now. Being Irish is only for the Irish. I suppose in ten, or twenty, or thirty years, this will change. But at the moment, Ireland is still in that where it feels that only Irish people can fully appreciate being Irish and living here and engaging in it's culture and history.

But from Jane has said, and from I've seen from friends and relatives who are from other countries, many of the non-Irish people are just as Irish as you're local GAA co-ordinator or Senior Hurling legend.

 

[jane]

I don't think he meant that it's right or fair, it's just the way most people are. The amount of people I've met who think it's perfectly accceptable to say that all Moroccans are woman-harrasing theives! And if they ever met one I'm sure they'd be going "wow, you're so sound for a Moroccan!". and that's just one example. There's plenty of other nations who a uncomfortable amount of people think it's ok to stereotype.

As for America, I've been trying to write a serious reply to this without getting ignorant myself. I think Tenrabbits put their finger on it for me - the way patriotism works in America is completely unfathomable to someone who grew up in a politically aware Irish (or should I say European) household. I'd imagine most people in most countries in the world enjoying slagging their politicians (and I don't mean lightheartedly) and not confuse that with somehow slaggin off their country. Of course all Americans aren't like that, but I've seen journalists equate slagging Bush with anit-Americanism and no one shouts them down. Sure we have crackpot journos here too but people see them for what they are (except their crackpot fans). It seems it's a maintstream view to equate questioning the government with hating your country in America. And that doesn't make me "hate all Americans" or anything, but I generally feel confised when I see them interviewed on telly or read the stuff American journalists write. And I'm afraid to take up my American friend's invitation to visit her there. Maybe I should and I'd be pleasantly surprised. But maybe it would be worse.

Anyway Jane, naw it's not right for people to be shitty to you but everyone gets stereotyped to some degree because of their nationality. I hope you're right that things are changing about the old patriotism issue.

But I see this in a very different way. Rather than say that because it's common it makes it okay, I think it's such a widespread problem that it's everyone's responsibility to think about whether they want to make it worse. I'm not saying it's never okay to use a generalisation to make a point, or that sometimes it can't be a useful comic device, if best done with a sense of irony and with an audience/readership who is aware of it.

To use your example, I would be really fucking concerned to think that anyone actually believed that because harrassment of European women might be fairly widespread in Morocco that it was okay to say that all Moroccans harass women -- just because it might be a commonly-held belief. There is actually a difference between "All Moroccans harass woman and steal shit." And "Harassment of women and theft are common problems for the traveller to Morocco." The former statement actually denigrates someone else's national identity by hanging negative qualifiers on it that they did not put there themselves. The second does not pretend to gloss over the problems, but actually does not use national identity as a target. I don't particularly think we should be holding national identity totally sacred, but I don't think it's okay to just pretend that words don't matter, or that the order we put them in doesn't matter.

How do you know what kind of household I grew up in? Or how 300 million Americans understand demonstrations of patriotism? I mean, it's fucking scary that you can be thrown out of school for refusing to salute the flag (I imagine that's probably changed now), but to be honest, I remember doing it just because it seemed like the thing to do, even though I didn't give a shit, and I quite happily burned flags publicly in my teenage years. I would be very opposed to making kids do shit they don't understand, and removing the Pledge from wherever it is, but it doesn't mean that everyone who does it actually believes they should die for a piece of cloth. In fact, the more people go around saying all Americans are flag-hugging maniacs, the less chance people have of actually discovering that it's okay not to love your flag, or to be able to see that the flag is a symbol of a particular understanding of your country, but is not the only one. Which I think people are actually starting to realise. And maybe people are starting to realise that a country is not necessarily something to be 'proud' of. In my own household, it was considered sacrilege to take the government at their word, or to assume that it's unamerican to criticise them. My dad was called a 'f-ing commie' by his fellow priests for going to anti-war marches. I got my ass kicked in high school for doing a photo project that involved burning a flag. Dissent was part of growing up for me, as it was and continues to be for many Americans.

In fact, I think that while it is more easily accepted in America that to oppose the government is to oppose the nation, it's changing, yes, and people are starting to see that dissent is very pro-American people. But I think the opposite is true in Ireland, and that it is so frowned upon to support the government (and support does not mean 'not criticise'), that look who keeps getting voted in. If in IReland, there were a slightly stronger sense that there was a duty of care for others in the country, and that one's electoral actions were a way of carrying that out, perhaps there would not be a Mary Harney.

As for journos who can't stand people slagging Bush, yes, they exist, but how does that in any way strengthen your point? Rather than take the existence of TV whackos who love to hug flags as evidence that any American who doesn't agree is some kind of exception, I think it's more useful to see it as very worrying that there is a climate in the US that makes it acceptable for these twats to get airtime, but be a little more optimistic that there could be an alternative, and work a little harder to provide one. Which people are actually doing. Which people are actually watching. The fact that millions of people watch Fox News scares the shit out of me. But the largest number of people who are concerned about the popularity of Fox News are OTHER AMERICANS. Which should tell you something.

I think it's important to criticise the president, and to criticise the government, and to absolutely criticise the kinds of things we tolerate in whatever societies we live in. But it is a climate of absolutely refusing to acknowledge that Americans are anything but a bunch of flag-waving morons in golf pants and baseball hats with itchy trigger fingers (and that anyone who isn't is an exception) that makes it really fucking hard for anyone to do that.

After a lot of years away from the US, and living in a society in which people pick and choose when America is a 'special friend' (this 'special friendship' almost never extends to when I've found a hair in my lunch and just want some fucking acknowledgement that this is bad health and safety practice, because that's when I get fucking verbally abused), I think it's actually, to some extent, the rest of us (the 'left' and the people outside the US) that make too big a deal about someone else's politics. If we could stop saying that middle America is just a bunch of stupid Bush-loving losers, then maybe people would start to see that they have allies outside the US and among those who identify with very different politics. Then maybe there would be a lot more talking and a lot less voting for Bush.

And what's so scary about visiting America? Even if you went to the most conservative part of it, you might find that it wasn't the worst place in the world. You're only visiting -- you don't have to buy into any of it, and you're still free to challenge ignorance when you see it (except that you might not see any at all). Hell, if I judged an entire population based on the politics of the majority, I never would have set foot in IReland, a country that only granted women the right to work in my lifetime, and in which it's still acceptable to say that women who have abortions deserve to get cancer, or who would elect such a corrupt fucker as Charlie Haughey, or who would let such a corporate shill as Mary Harney run the health system. I don't act surprised every time an Irish person is not racist. I give people more credit than that. All I'm saying is that maybe Americans deserve the same benefit of the doubt. If you go to America with the assumptions you clearly have, yes, you will probably hate it. If you go assuming that people are people, and some of them suck, some of them don't, and some of them seem not to suck but then have shitty politics that make it confusing, then maybe it won't be 'worse'. It doesn't sound, though, like you want your perceptions challenged, which is strange, because I really thought that was one reason that people travelled in the first place.

And anyway, my point was not that everyone should stop slagging America. It was to point out that no matter what people think of the country I come from, it's really fucking tiresome for ANYONE, no matter where they come from, to have to put up with people telling them they are stupid to their face. If someone does it to you in America, and suggests you are just a drunk, that's wrong too. But it seems that a lot of people have difficulty accepting that just because someone from my country did it to you does not make it 'only fair' to do to me. In fact, it might be nicer to use it as an example of an experience you wouldn't like to inflict on anyone else.

 

[Pedronimus]

it's everyone's responsibility to think

wishful thinking

 

[jane]

wishful thinking

And you think I didn't know that? What's your point?

 

[snakybus]

Moroccans have deadly weddings, apparently

my sister just had one

 

[therealjohnny]

My dad was called a 'f-ing commie' by his fellow priests for going to anti-war marches

wow! your father was a priest? Sure that makes you more Irish than the Irish!

thread closed

 

[jane]

wow! your father was a priest? Sure that makes you more Irish than the Irish!

thread closed

He was in the Vatican and everything. I found a picture of him with a Pope a few weeks ago. And then I found a picture of him wearing a Yankee jersey, and I told him I could never speak to him again.

 

[Osama Van Halen]

Dude, when you're playing a sport, I don't think you should have to look sexy, too. What's the point of that? If it was about looking sexy, you might as well skip the sport entirely, go to an aerobics class, and then put on a slinky evening gown.

PLUS: just because someone is a 'ten ton tessie' doesn't mean she might not be a good sportswoman, or worth watching. Being fit doesn't necessarily mean looking like a model. And anyway, I'd rather have my daughters playing GAA than doing beauty pageants -- the latter might be better for a short-term confidence act, but the former would actually help build self-esteem. Except, like, when she might be denigrated for not being a beauty queen on top of being a sportschick because that's pretty uncalled for.

And I think a lot of people like GAA sports precisely because there's an unsexiness about them that makes them more about the game. In a way, I do think they could be more likely to be taken up elsewhere, as other sports end up succumbing to the pressures to be sexed up.

YOUZE WERE JUST WONDERIN' WHY THE G.A.A. SPORTS AIN'T ANYWHERE ELSE. AND THE 'SELLABILITY' OF A SPORT HAS A LOT TO DO WITH SEXY. DOESN'T MEAN YOU HAVE TO LOOK LIKE A MODEL. THE WHOLE G.A.A. SCENE IS , HOW WILL I SAY.... UNSPECTACULAR. NOT THE GAME ITSELF... THAT RULES.

I'M SURE IT'S DIFFERENT FOR WOMEN, IT ALWAYS IS, BUT I LIKE SPORTS WHICH WOMEN LOOK GOOD PLAYING. AND IN WHICH MEN CAN SHOW OFF TO ANY WOMEN THAT MIGHT BE WATCHIN'.

THE G.A.A. IS FULL OF CRAZY CLUMSY LOOKIN' KICKIN'/PUNCHIN'/SHOVING.. VERY LITTLE ROOM FOR DOIN' SOMETHIN' STYLISH.

SURELY YOU'LL AGREE THAT THE GET-UP ON G.A.A. HEADS IS UNREAL IN IT'S HORRIBLE-LOOKIN-NESS.
I'M A BASKETBALL/AMERICAN FOOTBALL/FRISBEE KIND OF GUY. SINCE I WAS A NIPPER. AND THE G.A.A. HEADZ IN MY AREA WERE ALWAYS BIG HARD DRINKIN' MONGOS. HALF OF THE WOMEN WERE LESS BIEN, MORE STEAMIN' = UNSEXY = YOU CAN KEEP YOUR SHORT SHORTS SPORT. I'M GOIN' TO THE BBQ WHERE WE'LL PLAY B.BALL.

THAT'S ALL I'M SAYIN'.... AND..


ALLAHQUAAANNNDO!!

 

[jane]

YOUZE WERE JUST WONDERIN' WHY THE G.A.A. SPORTS AIN'T ANYWHERE ELSE. AND THE 'SELLABILITY' OF A SPORT HAS A LOT TO DO WITH SEXY. DOESN'T MEAN YOU HAVE TO LOOK LIKE A MODEL. THE WHOLE G.A.A. SCENE IS , HOW WILL I SAY.... UNSPECTACULAR. NOT THE GAME ITSELF... THAT RULES.

I'M SURE IT'S DIFFERENT FOR WOMEN, IT ALWAYS IS, BUT I LIKE SPORTS WHICH WOMEN LOOK GOOD PLAYING. AND IN WHICH MEN CAN SHOW OFF TO ANY WOMEN THAT MIGHT BE WATCHIN'.

THE G.A.A. IS FULL OF CRAZY CLUMSY LOOKIN' KICKIN'/PUNCHIN'/SHOVING.. VERY LITTLE ROOM FOR DOIN' SOMETHIN' STYLISH.

SURELY YOU'LL AGREE THAT THE GET-UP ON G.A.A. HEADS IS UNREAL IN IT'S HORRIBLE-LOOKIN-NESS.
I'M A BASKETBALL/AMERICAN FOOTBALL/FRISBEE KIND OF GUY. SINCE I WAS A NIPPER. AND THE G.A.A. HEADZ IN MY AREA WERE ALWAYS BIG HARD DRINKIN' MONGOS. HALF OF THE WOMEN WERE LESS BIEN, MORE STEAMIN' = UNSEXY = YOU CAN KEEP YOUR SHORT SHORTS SPORT. I'M GOIN' TO THE BBQ WHERE WE'LL PLAY B.BALL.

THAT'S ALL I'M SAYIN'.... AND..


ALLAHQUAAANNNDO!!

Sorry, I didn't know there was something wrong with butch women playing sports. My bad.

Better go put on some makeup before I go for my run, so I can fulfil my double duty of being part of a sport as well as being careful not to undermine my femininity.

 

[Lefty Frizzell]

I've always enjoyed the sight of female slalom skiiers(?)

They have a kind of slinky, dayglo, androgynous alien look.

 

[Pedronimus]

And you think I didn't know that? What's your point?

I was just pointing out that I believe to get people to think critically about anything and not repeat fashionable mantras would be extreeeeeeeeemely difficult.

 

[plug]

YOUZE WERE JUST WONDERIN' WHY THE G.A.A. SPORTS AIN'T ANYWHERE ELSE. AND THE 'SELLABILITY' OF A SPORT HAS A LOT TO DO WITH SEXY. DOESN'T MEAN YOU HAVE TO LOOK LIKE A MODEL. THE WHOLE G.A.A. SCENE IS , HOW WILL I SAY.... UNSPECTACULAR. NOT THE GAME ITSELF... THAT RULES.

I'M SURE IT'S DIFFERENT FOR WOMEN, IT ALWAYS IS, BUT I LIKE SPORTS WHICH WOMEN LOOK GOOD PLAYING. AND IN WHICH MEN CAN SHOW OFF TO ANY WOMEN THAT MIGHT BE WATCHIN'.

THE G.A.A. IS FULL OF CRAZY CLUMSY LOOKIN' KICKIN'/PUNCHIN'/SHOVING.. VERY LITTLE ROOM FOR DOIN' SOMETHIN' STYLISH.

SURELY YOU'LL AGREE THAT THE GET-UP ON G.A.A. HEADS IS UNREAL IN IT'S HORRIBLE-LOOKIN-NESS.
I'M A BASKETBALL/AMERICAN FOOTBALL/FRISBEE KIND OF GUY. SINCE I WAS A NIPPER. AND THE G.A.A. HEADZ IN MY AREA WERE ALWAYS BIG HARD DRINKIN' MONGOS. HALF OF THE WOMEN WERE LESS BIEN, MORE STEAMIN' = UNSEXY = YOU CAN KEEP YOUR SHORT SHORTS SPORT. I'M GOIN' TO THE BBQ WHERE WE'LL PLAY B.BALL.

THAT'S ALL I'M SAYIN'.... AND..


ALLAHQUAAANNNDO!!

what about irish soccer then... could you call that particularly sexy in any way?

 

[egg_]

Billy I really think you're barking up the wrong tree with the promotion of GAA sports abroad thing. GAA is utterly utterly local, and IMHO that's a positive thing, it's one of the only areas in our culture where we don't look for external validation. It's brilliant to see purple and gold flags all over Co. Wexford in the summer, or red and black flags (for the local football team Mattock Rangers) in the village where I live now during the club season. People who play it and follow it don't care about its international appeal, and I don't see any reason why they should.

Also I can't see any reason in the world why a Hungarian kid would be interested in playing one of our games in his own country - they're tough, unglamourous and the local support that encourages kids (and adults) to put up with the training, injuries and hardship that being involved in any sport involves would be absent

 

[therealjohnny]

The same, but different