Thursday, August 22, 2013

Italy: Lazio FC further demonstrates Italy's racism problem


File:Lazio Juventus 12092009.jpg
Juventus dominated the Supercoppa with a 4-0 domination over Rome-based club Lazio. With the win, Juventus once again have become favorites for another shot at the top of Serie A[1]. Nonetheless, much of the action occurred in the stands as the Italian federation announced today that Lazio will have part of their stadium closed for the home-opener.

From the 16th-28th minute of the first half to the 20th-43rd minute of the second half, Lazio fans were hurling insults and initiating monkey chants at Juventus’ black players, particularly Paul Pogba, Kwadwo Asamoah and Angelo Ogbonna[2]. Lazio fans and players have been known for their enthusiastic display of far-right allegiances. In 2005, controversy hit the club when then player Paolo Di Canio, a self-proclaimed fascist, gave a fascist salute to Lazio’s fans. A one game ban and fine ensued[3]. In 2007, apart from chanting racist slurs and insults, Lazio fans injured five Romanian fans and put one in the hospital after stabbing him in the side[4].

Racism and violence has been a staple of Italian soccer as of late. But, the trend seems to mimic a long legacy of underlying fascism paired with ethnic homogeny. In response to Di Canio’s overt fascist salute, Sepp Blatter, president of FIFA[5], stated that clubs that uphold racism must face relegation, suspension, and expulsion[6]. Now it seems, however, that even 8 years later any sign of punishment is cosmetic and is only done to appease reformists. Lazio does not even face an outright ban. For one game, Lazio will lose just a part of their stadium and there is no telling that these racist Lazio supporters will not merely shift places. Even Di Canio’s original punishment of a one game ban serves as an insult to the wider social issues in Italy.

File:Tifosi curva nord lazio.jpg
The famous Curva Nord supporter group
Attribution: Andrew
Recently, in response to a changing ethnic fabric, Italians have been getting cozier with Italian dictator leader Benito Mussolini. After a visit to a Holocaust memorial, three-time Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi stated that apart from racial segregation, Mussolini stood as “a leader who in so many other ways did well”[7]. Had Berlusconi’s own club AC Milan not benefited from the talents of African players, such as Prince Boateng, he could have as well omitted that racial segregation part. The same prose exists among soccer elite. Now Sunderland manager, Di Canio expressed his true feelings about a personal idol, Benito Mussolini. Di Canio proclaims, “I am fascinated by Mussolini…I think he was a deeply misunderstood individual…He was basically a very principled individual”[8]. Lazio has responded and the often controversial Curva Nord supporter group expects to end their monkey chants, but not without a claim that the chant is banter, not racism[9]. Nevertheless, before real integration occurs in Italian football, Italians will have to amend their past to correct the present, and then hopefully enlighten their future. 

Posted by at No comments:
Labels:

Monday, July 22, 2013

Jordan: Soccer in the Refugee Camps


With the civil war still raging in Syria, the number of refugees searching for safety has increased in astonishing numbers, particularly in Za’atri, Jordan. Home to over 120,000 refugees, the Za’atri camp reflects some of the bigger refugee problems in Jordan. Although Jordan receives a good portion of the $800 million dollars the United States provides for humanitarian aid in Syria, the high death toll of 93,000 people has left many refugees uneasy. Recently during Secretary Kerry’s visit to the area, many refuges urged the United States to instill a no-fly zone[1]. The concern is of course warranted because the numbers, the need, and the refugees are so staggering. The United Nations projects the total number of refugees at 1,831,024 with 629,569 refugees in Lebanon, 502,296 in Jordan, 428,198 in Turkey, 161,697 in Iraq, and 95,364 in Egypt. More astonishing still is the fact that 2/3 of these refugees are women and children[2]-[3]. Forced with the reality that they have no home in the midst of a seemingly infinite flux between survival and childhood, young refugees face the harsh realities of living in a refugee camp. In a completely foreign environment, soccer, simple and popular, can help forge an identity or at least a past time for many of these misplaced youth. The Office of Weapons Removal and Abatement has sponsored “Spirit of Soccer” in an effort to teach kids of the potential hazards in and around the Za’atri refugee camp, such as those posed by landmines[4]. Nonetheless, I think that the game of soccer fills in a stronger void, the ability to feel free and young. Perhaps it’s the sandy pitch, the ball at their feet, and the joy of scoring the perfect goal that can deflate the impact of the guns, the fear, and the loss from the Syrian border.


For more information on the cool stuff the “Spirit of Soccer” is doing visit their site HERE.

Posted by at No comments:
Labels:

Monday, July 15, 2013

Italian Soccer: Racism Persists On and Off the Pitch

File:Calderoli1.jpg
Roberto Calderoli

Italian politician Roberto Calderoli has incited controversy in Italy for calling Italy’s first black minister Cecile Kyenge an orangutan. Kyenge, a Congolese immigrant, is supporting an initiative to make a path to Italian citizenship more accessible to immigrants[1]. However, Calderoli’s racist remarks allude to similar remarks after Italy’s win against France in the 2006 FIFA World Cup where he remarked that France sacrificed their national identity to field blacks, Muslims, and communists[2]. Italy’s inclusion of Ghanian-Italian forward Mario Balotelli and Egyptian-Italian winger Stephan El Shaarawy into the national side could serve as a step forward to the overwhelmingly homogenous Italian population. Yet, racism on the pitch persists and it seems that intolerance in Italian politics and soccer shows little sign of subsiding.

Despite awesome showings at EURO 2012 and the 2013 Confederations Cup, Mario Balotelli has been galvanized by racist chants and remarks. In early May, visiting Roma fans were caught repeating racist chants to Balotelli at the San Siro. In response, Balotelli faced the supporter group inciting the chants in order to quiet them[3]. Although president of FIFA, Sepp Blatter condemned the remarks in an address the next day, many feel that the Italian Soccer Federation is not approaching the problem in the correct manner[4]. Opting to fine the soccer clubs themselves, the federation misses the root of the problem, the nationalist supporter groups who promulgate racism in the stadiums. Moreover, fines seem to have very little effect on clubs considering that the thousands in fines do not compare to the millions in revenue.  Nonetheless, the problem stems from the nationalist approach that many of the “ultra” supporter groups uphold although they also provide much club support.

File:Ashley Cole and Mario Balotelli England-Italy Euro 2012.JPG
(Right) Mario Balotelli playing for Italy [Attribution: Football.ua]

Should Italy seek to make progressive change, it must combat arcane nationalist sentiments. Although the introduction of diverse soccer players, such as Mario Balotelli, seems to show a step in the right direction, such progress is hampered through racist responses on the pitch. In turn, the racist sentiments mimic the same audacious dialogue upheld in the government system, particularly for reformists that want to break the old nationalist guard. It was in both the 1934 and 1938 that Mussolini attributed the great success of Italian soccer to the resilience of ethnic Italians. It was in 2006 that Roberto Calderoli praised Italy for the same reason. It is in 2013, that politicians, immigrants, and even soccer players of color cannot escape this fallacy, on or off the pitch.
Posted by at No comments:
Labels:

Sunday, December 30, 2012

Kony 2013


2012 saw probably one of the biggest, and the most pervasive campaigns on Facebook. Released in March, produced by the invisible children inc, and directed by Jason Russel, the Kony 2012 video ended with about 95,800,000 views. The year passed without capturing Kony which goes to show the effectiveness of a platform, such as Facebook, and the reality of actually catching a warlord within nine months. 

 Social Media: Like many, I found out about Kony through constant (and I mean constant) reposting of the video link to my newsfeed from friends who probably don't necessarily follow current events. Perhaps, it came down to publicity, and not necessarily advocacy. People will be more familiar with something that is much more publicized; however, the comprehension of the situation in order to donate, or  to act comes at a higher opportunity cost.

 Possibility: Kony is not necessarily high on the list of evil men we want to take down. First comes Al-Assad  with hundreds of people dying in Syria, and then probably Kim Jong-Un. The famine and concentration camps within North Korea have been a strong motivator for Human Rights Groups for decades. Moreover, the more technical difficulties of working within an anarchic system make the possibility of actually taking down a warlord much less realistic. A world government does not exist to enforce laws or initiatives, and world organizations are hardly powerful (i.e. failed collective action in Syria through the UN security council). 

 Kony 2012 was a successful campaign, but the success of its original initiative is questionable (goal: stop Kony by the end of 2012). The follow-up video to Kony 2012, Kony: Beyond Famous, garnered 2,500,000 views. Once the publicity faded, so did the attention. Moreover, the possibility of focusing solely on Kony while disregarding all of the other bad guys out there was just not going to happen. 

 Also, some other things to consider, such as the way the director Jason Russel used his 5 year old son in the video campaign. Being 5 is awesome. It's a time when you still think that you'll get a dollar under you're pillow for losing a tooth, or that when you grow up you can still be a power ranger. Therefore, it's not a good time to explain mass murder and genocide to your kid, even for views. Also, if you are the director of a famous work, then don't do this. Nonetheless, we'll see if The Invisible Children Inc. can follow up with any incoming news and progress considering the popularity of the video and Obama's deployment of military advisors.
Posted by at No comments:
Labels:

Thursday, September 6, 2012

Wait...What is a liberal?


Introduction:
I do most of my contemplation running. It’s my way of meditation. Today’s hour long run paired a two hour long podcast lecture on Tocqueville by noted conservative pundit Michael Barone[1]. I enjoy Tocqueville and his interpretation of American democracy, and Barone did a great job to fill in the gap to reflect a more modern political climate. However, his use of conservatism versus “New Deal” Liberalism made the argument too simple, and frankly, untrue. He follows Marx’s example. Marx pairs the capitalists against the proletariats in the same way Barone pits conservatives against so-called “New Deal” liberals.

Individual Choice:
According to Barone, what separates a conservative and a liberal is that one values individual freedom and that the other assumes that people are too stupid to make a choice, so he depends on the federal government. Not only is this view grossly wrong, but it is far too simplistic. First off, I don’t think that anyone disputes individual freedom. Anyone that thinks otherwise would rather point fingers than actually partake in serious discussion. The real question will always be the type of government we want to preside over a particular issue, and in this sense there is no such thing as “more” or “less” government, just the type of government. In this argument, I am taking voting as a form of government. Any regulation or deregulation is ultimately voted on and thus put under the authority of government known as the voting system.

What is a Liberal or a Conservative?
I don’t know. People spend so much time categorizing others’ opinions and interpretations instead of some solutions. And, in the end who cares? The majority wins. Sometimes the so-called conservative or liberal solution, politician, plan will win and sometimes it won’t. The policy just depends on what the people want.

Taking Sides
I don’t have to pick a side. If mainstream politics means trying to predict the future and picking at history to try to fulfill a robust political ideology, then I’d rather focus on the big picture and remain a pragmatist.  



[1] The podcast is C-SPAN – American History TV – Lectures in American History. If you’re an American History and Politics buff, then this is worth some of your time. 
Posted by at No comments:
Labels:

Thursday, August 2, 2012

French Minority Groups and American Public Diplomacy Implementation


Introduction:

Europe has undergone a massive change in racial make-up. Rapid immigration has changed a predominantly white population with one that is more mixed and based around North African, Middle Eastern or Muslim minority groups. American public diplomacy efforts must change with the new issues and concerns that evolve with a changing population. A more diverse population group harbors assorted opinions, wants, and needs. Nonetheless, a more diverse population may also induce backlash from nationalist groups and movements. A national government’s stance may stand opposed to that of the United States’. Many questions begin to arise: Must American public diplomacy cater to the national government or the general population, including minority groups? Would public diplomacy initiatives to minority groups in foreign countries be seen as a usurpation of power by the domestic government? In the following essay, I will focus on France’s increasing Muslim minority, the French government’s reaction to the growing minority, and the United States’ role in public diplomacy pertaining to France.

France’s Diverse Population:

The conclusion of World War II led to a spike in immigration into France mainly from North African colonies still under French rule, such as Algeria and Morocco. Fueled by the need for laborers to facilitate a growing economy, immigration grew in post- World War II France. Algerians had greatly benefited from free circulation between the two countries; with 1.7 million Algerian immigrants in 1946, the number doubled to 3.4 million Algerian immigrants in 1975. Around this time, mainly in the mid-1960s, immigration to France by Moroccan and Tunisian immigrants developed rapidly as well[1]. In more recent times, Immigration from African nations has overtaken immigration from any other place in the world and it has even doubled the number of immigrants from France’s second biggest immigration source, the European Union. Immigration from African nations peaked in 2003 with 101, 658 immigrants eclipsing the European Union’s peak of 55, 941 immigrants in 2005[2].

Opposing Cultural Identities:

In Religion and Incorporation: Islam in France and Germany, Riva Kastoryano explains that religion is closely tied to national history. The national identity of many European countries is based on a long term influence of religious wars and religious communities. Currently, Muslim populations that have been “outside the history of the relationship between church and state that shaped Western national character” demand greater recognition in national society. [3]Islam as a growing social and political force in Europe challenges already accepted notions of national identity. France runs on an idea of secularism called “Laïcité.” Article 1 of the French Constitution of 1958 provides a definition for this idea: “France shall be an indivisible, secular, democratic and social Republic. It shall ensure the equality of all citizens before the law, without distinction of origin, race or religion. It shall respect all beliefs. It shall be organized on a decentralized basis”[4]. Yet, recent political events in France seem directly opposed to this idea of multicultural pluralism under the pre-supposed notion of social equality. For example, in the French Presidential election of 2012, far-right nationalist party candidate Marine LePen won 18% of the vote during the first round beating the more liberal candidate Melanchon for third place[5]. Despite the perceived rise in nationalist sentiments, tensions against minority groups had been rising within the last decade. President Chirac’s proposal to ban the use of headscarves in public schools emphasized France’s dedication to secularism. The ban won popular support from the French people, and the law even joined secularists with feminists who were dismayed by the percentage of girls who wore the headscarves[6]. The more controversial law, however, came in 2011. The law banning the wearing of the full-veil niqab, brought into question the place of Islam in a secular society. Moreover, the law brought into light questions of its origin considering Interior Ministry’s estimate that a mere 2000 women in France wear the niqab[7]. More generally, in a study by the National Academy of Sciences in 2010 where the incomes and job opportunities of Senegalese Muslims and Senegalese Christians were compared, Muslim families were found to make 400 Euros less a month than Christian families. According to the study, there seems to be a negative Muslim effect on household income[8].

America’s Place in French Public Sentiment

The United States has always harbored a complicated relationship with France. Though there has been perceived political hostility towards the United States in the past, such as when Charles De Gaulle withdrew France from NATO’s military command in 1966, it hasn’t stopped the “Titanic” from being France’s all-time top box office film, or McDonald’s from selling “McBaguettes” on French street corners. The truth is: French people love America, or at least its products. Though French politicians often discredit one another by calling each other “L’Americaine,” Former French president Jacques Chirac still invited Steven Spielberg to the Elysee Palace and awarded him the “Legion D’Honneur.” It’s important to note that consumption does not equal affinity, but it is even more important to emphasize that a diverse social population calls for a more dynamic approach to public policy[9]. The French may like our popular culture, but that is not enough to ensure future cooperation or improved bilateral relations. More importantly, the term the “French People” can be taken as a fallacy because the diverse social composition and recent controversial laws have changed public sentiment. According to a poll by the German Marshall Fund in 2011, 59% of France’s population is concerned about illegal immigration, 33% of the population believes that there are too many immigrants, and 66% of the population sees France’s management of immigration as “poor” or “very poor”[10]. Recent events in France, such as the shootings in Toulouse, or more lasting events, such as the September 11 attacks, can often lead to misconceptions about Islam and its ability to integrate into a Western society. Such misconceptions can not only cause turmoil for the national government, but it complicates the mission and the practice of public diplomacy.

Current American Public Diplomacy in France

It’s important to make clear that these are France’s problems, not those of the United States. Whatever the French national government decides to do to alter the integration of immigrants resides in their own capacity. The importance of this information to American public diplomacy lies in its ability to make diplomacy more efficient and impactful in order to secure American interests in France and facilitate Franco-American cooperation in the future. The United States already has a strong and active presence in France through its embassy, and its efforts should not be overlooked. In January, the U.S. Embassy in Paris invited an NGO named Cahier Vert, a mentoring association, to take high school students on a tour of the embassy[11]. In April, influential Jazz musician Herbie Hancock visited French high school students[12]. Finally, U.S. Embassy Paris invited Monica Dodi, Senior Executive of the Women’s Venture Capital, to lead discussions on a three day speaker program focusing on women’s entrepreneurship[13]. Nonetheless, public diplomacy in France should work through a stronger grass roots initiative and a more profuse approach, decentralized from a strong emphasis in Paris. If Muslim immigrants feel harassed by their laws, then sponsor talks with Muslim-American journalists and activists. According to the Modern Language Association, French is the second most studied language in institutions of higher learning, just behind Spanish[14]. Then, support scholarships or grants that place college graduates in classrooms as English teachers or assistants in areas where public diplomacy initiatives (i.e. discussions, visits, etc) are not possible.   

Conclusion; Questions of Public Diplomacy Implementation:

Socially, France has been changing. Since the end of World War II and the independence of former colonies, immigration has increased rapidly. The more diverse social make-up has caused questions of national identity, namely “what makes a French person French?” The case for France is different because its constitution is based on the idea of secularism. Nonetheless, recent success of far-right nationalist groups and laws that affect hyper-minorities bring into question the difference between secular and predatory policy. The United States’ place in this capacity is not to change or influence French policy, but to understand the changing French social composition to better fulfill public diplomacy goals. Consumption does not equal affinity. Just because the French eat McDonalds and listen to Kanye West does not mean that the French public will necessarily agree with American foreign policy, commercial interest, and political views. It is clear that France, and the rest of Europe, is quickly becoming more heterogeneous. Diversity is something we share with France. Thus, public diplomacy needs to take a stronger grasp of our diversity to link our citizens to their citizens. But, public diplomacy is not an easy task. The money available for public diplomacy initiatives is fickle, variable, and more often than not, inaccessible. Recent economic cuts have affected posts across the board. Also, it cannot be sure that public diplomacy initiatives directly with French minority groups will not seem like a usurpation of power from the national government. Often what sounds good in theory falls short in practice which can discourage change in public diplomacy implementation.  Though France is the U.S.’s oldest mission, the diplomatic relationship with the new French social composition will be one more complicated than before.

-          Walter Quintanilla

Posted by at No comments:
Labels:

Tuesday, June 5, 2012

Capitalism and Competition: The Conclusion


My conclusion must start off with the notion that the state is made up of people, not numbers. The idea of the state derives from an idea of protection and overall benefit that ameliorates the individual away from the lack of justice in the state of nature. This idea of some benefit permeates all forms of government from monarchy to democracy. People willingly (in theory of course) are part of the state because they derive greater benefits being socially tied than to be individually detached from others. Democracy, in turn, made the government the people. Thus, the government, elected by the people, represents the wants and ideals of the people that voted for it. For this reason, I never really understood such animosity towards the faculty or the idea of government. Are we supposed to give up on government (our own faculties) for the results of economic liberation, which are not elected? Of course, some will argue that choice dictates economic liberation. I make the choice where I want to buy something, and thus in the end, the capital accumulation of a certain entity ultimately relies on my choice. But, I deduce this thought to two questions: 1. Since when did political freedom ever have to do with money? 2. At what point was I making a decision on the social and political structure of the state when I chose to buy a cheeseburger at McDonalds or a notebook at Wal-Mart? On the first question, I would argue that money would have to be the antithesis of political freedom. Repressive monarchies, nobility, and religious institutions used their faculties and ideas to gain more wealth and prestige. Monarchies waged war, nobility claimed their role as warriors as a good excuse to tax people, and religious institutions (Christianity) discouraged usury as a way to collect inheritances (along with tithes and indulgences) to accumulate more wealth. The beauty of voting for a government is that ideally the people that are voted in represent the ideals of the majority and the general will. In history, the great accumulation of wealth never benefited the political well-being of the majority. Karl Marx wrote in a time when factories and the bourgeoisie (those with the capital to mass produce) were more favored than the workers. For this reason, Marx is very pessimistic and negative towards the socialists. He believes that they are completely unrealistic to believe that the government would ever help the worker because the government would only help the capitalist. But, we can even go farther back in history to the French Revolution. Turgot’s enlightened idea to tax the nobility in order to alleviate growing economic deficits in 18th century France came under intense scrutiny from the nobility showing that the political order of the day still favored the 1% of the population that was part of the nobility while completely ignoring the 97% of the population that belonged to the third estate. As we slowly progress to the contemporary, democracy and government have slowly become more for the people, from the direct election of senators to the granting of collective bargaining rights. In the end, the government is the people by proxy of vote, and the government makes decisions made by the majority will. So, the decision of the government is sovereign because it is legitimized by the will of the majority. Capitalism is an economic theory that is based on competition, but because capital seems to accumulate it becomes the responsibility of the government to regulate it. Competition must be regulated because if it is to work in the state it must work for the benefit of the majority, not the few, which is the political legitimacy of our political state. But, moreover, we must concede that competition is what makes the term “capitalism.”Monopolization by the lack of competition and government regulation renders the loose usage of the term “capitalism” more of an ideal than a practice. People and politicians argue that government intervention hinders capitalism, but if the government and the majority choose to regulate competition to favor the majority, then how does that hinder capitalism? Capitalism is based solely on the preservation of competition between everyone and government regulation just keeps political influence more focused on voting than on consumption.  
Posted by at No comments:
Labels:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)