<!--QuoteBegin--Ryo-Ohki+Apr 9 2003, 08:18 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Ryo-Ohki @ Apr 9 2003, 08:18 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Cricket, as you rightly pointed out, was adopted by "locals" in emulation of the occupying British officer class, which cuts both ways. In Britain its seen as eliteist (generalisation) in post-empire coutries, its origins in those attempting to emulate the British still seem (to me) as cultural imperialism. I'm sure you know about aggressor identification, MonsE. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Perhaps you made a typo, but I'll go by what you said. Cricket in Britain WAS seen as eliteist, but this ended far before the imperial period. By the first world war cricket was a popular urban sport in both Britian and Australia, although it was only just starting to catch on in other imperial colonies. Today it is by far not seen as elitest nor is it seen as an attempt to emulate the British: South Africa, India, Pakistan, the West Indies and Zimbabwe are all very proud to be independant of Britian. Try saying to an Indian that he's trying to emulate the British. You'll be lucky if you escape with only your pride wounded <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--> I guess the central issue here would have to be if sports can actually be seen as cultural imperialism. I note that America plays Ice hockey, does this mean the US is being culturally dominated by Canada? Sports tend to transend these things, depite their origins. You could claim, for example, that Japan taking up baseball in a big way is culutral imperialism, but the Japanese love baseball and it wasn't forced on them (occupation forces were but baseball wasn't). I think that something like sports can't be cultural imperialism simply because of their nature as games. If anything, they provide a completly legal and legitimate way to fight back at the "oppressors"; India today loves beating the English at cricket <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Yes, missing a full stop and capitalisation; should read: In Britain its seen as eliteist (generalisation). In post-empire coutries, its origins in those attempting to emulate the British still seem (to me) as cultural imperialism.
I'm probably the only Brit that has a guilt complex about the Empire.
I think I would argue that baseball is cultural imperialism, but not overtly aggressive, just a sport that's been adopted by a nation that sees lot of gaijin culture as "cool". My Footie team of choice, Arsenal (wonder if that'll get censored) nicknamed a Japanese player t-shirt. He had a massive following in Japan, despite rarely being in the first team line up. (I thought he was a quality player actually, as was borne out in the World Cup) he was called T-shirt because of the revenue he brought in...
As for Canada culturally dominating the USA, I thought that was common knowlegde? Eh?
Oh, and everyone loves beating the English, but the very fact that you've said that its a legitimate way to strike back at "oppressors" seems to indicate that maybe, subconsciously you think it was based in cultural imperialsm, or possibly, imperial culturism (is that even a phrase? If not, I claim it for her maj. Oh dear,guilt attack again.....)
I've no doubt that many people love and adore cricket the world over. I find it dull, eliteist and unwatchable. Perhaps it needs an organist!
<b><span style='font-size:21pt;line-height:100%'> News Flash: MONSE AGREES WITH RYO-OHKI!</span></b>
It was bound to happen eventually. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
On to Beast:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->the majority of planet Earth dislike or are disinterested in American sports.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The same can be said for all sports by all countries. I can assure you that the great majority of British citizens do not follow British soccer. The same way the great majority of US citizen do not follow american football. The great majority of the human race is mostly concerned with day to day affairs of life. There may be a lot of people filling a soccer stadium or watching it on TV, but check the numbers against a country's population to see just what a small fraction it is in reality.
You are certainly not the only Brit with a guilt complex over empire. Jeeesh, get over yourself. There are dozens just in the discussion forums and IRC, that I've met. Talk to Merkaba sometime, he'll bend your ear for hours. Although you are right in that there aren't nearly enough.
I do find it very amusing that the British taught all their colonies how to play cricket, and now are constantly pounded in cricket by said colonies centuries later. Most countries never got to rise up and throw the Brits out by force, so this is their catharsis, I reckon. Good on ya. <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
And the only thing Canada has ever culturally dominated were the Inuit. Otherwise, they are pretty harmless. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
<span style='font-size:21pt;line-height:100%'> </span>RUN! RUN! FOR THE LOVE OF GOD RUN FOR YOUR LIVES!
Hehehehe, I guess it was going to happen sooner or later <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Most countries never got to rise up and throw the Brits out by force, so this is their catharsis, I reckon.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I reckon you yanks must still be laughing yourselves silly that we had a referrendum about 5 years ago that, if succeeded, would have made us a free republic with no remaining ties to Britian. The Queen herself said that she would be happy for us to go on our own. We voted it down. Do you know the reason? The opposition party to the movement based their arguement around one part of the proposed Republic model. It was the the House of Reps and Senate chose the President. Powers of the President were as follows: he signed bills handed to him by the senate. He couldn't veto them. He couldn't not sign them. He couldn't even voice opposition. And the monarchists argued that letting parliment choose this person would give the government too much power. I'd hate to think what they would have thought of Andrew Jackson <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
I read about that (although I think you give most of America (or the world) too much credit for knowing what goes on Australia - it's just hard as hell to get any sort of news coverage about it). Why wouldn't you just adopt a fully realized parliamentarian model for Australia? Just cut the ties and be done with it, and use the same government you have hundreds of years of experience with - except no longer having to kiss the queen's foot? And wasn't there some issue a few years back where the British government stepped in and REMOVED a PM or someone really high like that, invoking some ancient colonial law? Trying to dig it up...
Darnit, this is so off-topic, but I already won the baseball argument and need fresh conversation. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
I'm glad I spread a little love and unity, unintentionally.
"The same can be said for all sports by all countries. I can assure you that the great majority of British citizens do not follow British soccer. The same way the great majority of US citizen do not follow american football. The great majority of the human race is mostly concerned with day to day affairs of life. There may be a lot of people filling a soccer stadium or watching it on TV, but check the numbers against a country's population to see just what a small fraction it is in reality."
Ok, insert the words "generally interested in sports". I should have thouth it obvious that most people would be concerned with getting to work on time etc rather than the state of a sport on another continent, or even their local team. Those people that do take an interest in world sporting events are less interested in American football. I think you'd be surprised at the number of people that follow Argentinian, Spanish and Italian football over here, and have no link to it, other than the game itself. More often than not these people say that the strain they follow is "more interesting" or "better" than the domestic game - qualitative and subjective statements. Football has, for the majority of armchair commentators more appeal than American football. It's not that we don't get the coverage of Superbowl XXXxXxxXxIXIIVII here, we do (if you want to stay up until 4am). By sheer dint of numbers, American football must be less interesting to the world.
I'm off home now, but it would be interesting to see comparative viewing figures on the Superbowl vs the World Cup......
I'm not denying Americans aren't passionate about their sport. I'm not denying that some people outside the US follow American football. Unfortunately in terms of a global sporting community, they're a minority. Maybe you need more organs.
God I'm starting to love the idea of organs. Maybe it could spice up political, or news coverage, to maintain people's attention? Oooh! what about adult films? DA DA DA DA DA DAAAAAH!
For a developed nation of 56 million people we are, tbh quite poor at competitive sports. I'm justifiably proud of my nation otherwise. There's no shame in playing the game and losing though, surely you must subscribe to the "Its how you played the game" ethos :shocked:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Why wouldn't you just adopt a fully realized parliamentarian model for Australia? Just cut the ties and be done with it, and use the same government you have hundreds of years of experience with - except no longer having to kiss the queen's foot? And wasn't there some issue a few years back where the British government stepped in and REMOVED a PM or someone really high like that, invoking some ancient colonial law? Trying to dig it up... <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The entire system would have remained exactly the same; the only change was 67 word changes in the Constitution (Queen to President) and the replacement of the Governer General with the President.
Ah, you've stumbled onto one of the most contraversial issues in Australian politics ever. Let me spin you a tale that will probably have American readers stunned.
In 1972 Australia elected it's first Labour government in 23 years. At it's head was Prime Minister Edward Gough Whitlam, and he would stay in office until 1975. The Australian system is very similar to the US system: there is a house of Representatives (Congress) and a Senate (Senate <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--> ). The Prime Minister is simply the head of the party or coalition which controls a majority of the seats in the House of Reps.
At the head of the Australian government is the Governer General. He/She is the Queen's representive in Australia: he controls all the powers the Queen legally has and is placed in office by the Prime Minister (he basically names a person and they can choose to accept). Now most of the time all he does is sign bills into law; once a bill has been passed by the House of Reps and the Senate, he signs it. He can't veto a bill or refuse to sign it. But what he does have is extraordinary powers. Most of these powers arn't actually listed anywhere; he has virtual dictatorial powers should he chose to use them. The system relies on placing a man there who won't use them. Of course, sometimes things fail.
The Liberal governments of the previous 23 years were highly bitter about the election of Labour to office. Now the Liberals controlled the Senate, whilst Labour controlled the House of Reps. You might see this sometimes in US politics. When Whitlam's government tried to pass the Federal budget in 1975, the Senate rejected it. The government changed some things, and sent it back. Again, it was rejected.
Now this right here was what's known as a "double dissolution" trigger. If a bill can't be passed in the regular manner, the PM can call for the double dissolution election. This causes an election to be called on the spot which sees all seats in the House of Reps and Senate up for election. The idea is to get a new government in that can pass laws again.
Now Whitlam wasn't going to call for a double-dissolution because his government was rather shaky and had gotten in primarily on Australia's growing distaste for Vietnam. However, he never expected the Governer General to step in.
On November 11, 1975, the Governer General of Australia invoked his emergancy powers and dismissed Whitlam as Prime Minister. The Governer General then made the opposition Liberal party head PM, and the new "caretaker" Prime Minister immediatly called for a double dissolution election, which the Liberals promptly won. The entire government was dissolved and both houses forced to go to the polls.
This has never occured again since. It was and still remains a matter of intense controversy and Labour has never forgiven the Liberals for their role in the affair. Today the possibility of a double-dissolution election is quite high: the current PM has had several bills rejected by the senate over the war issue, but now with his popularity riding stupidly high he may use the rejections to call an election and "prove" the war was the right thing to do by being reelected.
The entire affair was known as the Whitlam Dismissal. Find some more info about it here: <a href='http://whitlamdismissal.com/' target='_blank'>http://whitlamdismissal.com/</a>
The only thing I know similar to this in US politics is when Andrew Jackson defied a ruling of the Supreme Court and sent an army into Georgia (?) to drive the Cherokee indians out.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Darnit, this is so off-topic, but I already won the baseball argument and need fresh conversation. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yea but you cheated, you like hockey <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
Ahhh, fascinating stuff, Ryo. The book I had read it in (<a href='http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0767903862/qid=1049909929/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_1/104-1883182-5152723?v=glance&s=books&n=507846' target='_blank'>A Sunburned Country</a>)was very passing in its commentary, but it really sparked my interest. I can only imagine such a thing happening here once, and it did; only, we ended up with a revolution over the whole matter - not being represented properly and having our local governments overridden by the King's governer was a big reason for our secession.
Thanks a ton for filling all that in (and providing more source). I am reading more on my lunch. Such an odd country, Australia. On my list of places I must visit someday...
I concede to the Beast on one point. There's no way for any sport to compete with the world popularity of soccer for one simple reason over all others: it is cheap. You don't need gloves, sticks, bats, helmets, special balls, weird arenas, or anything else. Just a small open field and something round. Pele used an old sock stuffed with newspapers, playing with his barefeet. It's the most pluralistic sport ever devised execept for perhaps 'hide and seek' (which is soon to be an Olympic event, if letting Ballroom Dancers compete is any indication >_<). So no, American sports, and all other sports, will always be very marginalized compared to soccer.
And Toraz... pwned! <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
Golf. Golf has to be the most boring game ever. Or cricket. As the old saying goes, "Let those other guys play with their balls. Real men play ultimate" (frisbee).
I like Footy myself ( the one with the spherical ball ), partly I supppose because it's pretty much the national sport ( although we do suck at it unfortunately ) .
I grew up with it, it's impossible to avoid it.
Partly though, I admire the skill required to do it well, and the near infinite tactical decisions to be made. Unlike most sports, it's actually acceptable for a match to end in a draw, and it's a lot more likely to than a sport where "points/goals/runs/whatevers" are running into high numbers..it seems fair to me that two well matched teams share the points. ( In a standard league obviously, not knockout competitions..)
Also, it's possible to focus on defensive tactics more than a lot of sports..by that I mean a team can "sit on" a lead, or take the opposite approach and push forward in an attempt to kill the game off completely, running the risk of counter attacks..
Mainly I think I like the idea that even though you have to play as a team to have any chance, a brief moment of brilliant individual skill or even blind luck can turn the entire game completely on it's head, something only really possible due to the typically low scoring frequency in games.
It's <i>hard</i> to score, so it's so much more important when you do.
All merely opinions, natch.
Oh, and if we are nominating "Dullest Sport", my vote goes to Bowls or Curling...
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Partly though, I admire the skill required to do it well, and the near infinite tactical decisions to be made. Unlike most sports, it's actually acceptable for a match to end in a draw, and it's a lot more likely to than a sport where "points/goals/runs/whatevers" are running into high numbers..it seems fair to me that two well matched teams share the points. ( In a standard league obviously, not knockout competitions..)
Also, it's possible to focus on defensive tactics more than a lot of sports..by that I mean a team can "sit on" a lead, or take the opposite approach and push forward in an attempt to kill the game off completely, running the risk of counter attacks..
Mainly I think I like the idea that even though you have to play as a team to have any chance, a brief moment of brilliant individual skill or even blind luck can turn the entire game completely on it's head, something only really possible due to the typically low scoring frequency in games.
It's hard to score, so it's so much more important when you do. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
All this could be said for Hockey. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
Yeah, I s'pose so. Although I'd suggest the average hockey game ( we <i>are</i> talking about what we call "Ice Hockey" over here yes? pucks, skates and whatnot? ) is a bit higher scoring than the average footy game..
I saw a few hockey games years ago..quite cool, very cold.
<!--QuoteBegin--MonsieurEvil+Apr 9 2003, 12:53 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MonsieurEvil @ Apr 9 2003, 12:53 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I concede to the Beast on one point. There's no way for any sport to compete with the world popularity of soccer for one simple reason over all others: it is cheap. You don't need gloves, sticks, bats, helmets, special balls, weird arenas, or anything else. Just a small open field and something round. Pele used an old sock stuffed with newspapers, playing with his barefeet. It's the most pluralistic sport ever devised execept for perhaps 'hide and seek' (which is soon to be an Olympic event, if letting Ballroom Dancers compete is any indication >_<). So no, American sports, and all other sports, will always be very marginalized compared to soccer.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Ok, but if you add a stick to the stuffed sock, and open play area, you have baseball, so I'm not sure if that one flies for me.
As for ballroom dancing, I'm incensed that you don't feel this is a sport of Olympic standards, and post a link/copy a webpage showing how it is.... :poke:
Ok, cheap shot, but hey, if the olympic committee thinks it is, then if you disagree I suggest you complain to your local olympic planning organisation and get them to protest its inclusion. I'd guarantee that there are people as passionate about ballroom dancing as you are about baseball, or I am about footie, or Ryo is about cricket. Horses for courses innit?
Ok, so the whole thread boils down to:
Different people have different preferences when it comes to sport, they will therefore find some sports more boring than others. More people find some sports boring than others. There can be a geographical commonality to this. Baseball falls within one of these commonalities. Baseball is therefore teh l0se.
Right I'm off for some extreme tiddlywinks, who's with me???
No tiddly winks for me, I'm practicing for my Olympic Stair Climbing Team <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
Gah... the joke that is the winter olympics could be a whole separate topic unto itself. Let's have games which specifically exclude all nations south of a certain lattitude or any nation that is not filthy rich! Wooohooo, go human race!
How dare you ignore the valiant efforts of the Jamaican bobsleigh team.
/serious
John Candy is sorely missed.
Are you suggesting that the (summer) Olympics aren't biased to those with a more clement climate? Isn't the flipside that those less temperate nations will suffer?
Not at all. I think the summer games are for the most part a joke too. The whole concept of the Olympics being some sort of international hug is crap - it's just a way for country's to measure their schwanz's against the rest, or for some 3rd world country to beat their former european owners at something. A bunch of garbage, and 99% of the sports are ridiculously dumb and played or followed by hardly anyone.
When I started reading this... so ready to flame Monse's "Hockey is boring" post... had it cut and pasted and ready to burn... then I read he was an old hockey fan... and wanted to rile people up. GJ! <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
Btw, it should be noted, CBC is the only channel to watch hockey on. The reason many Americans don't watch hockey is because IMO of American announcers. Even networks like Sportsnet and TSN in Canada are still pwnd by CBC. (Any Canadian hockey fan could tell you that though) I don't know why it is, but unlike baseketball or foozball, hockey just can't have any fool doing the announcing! Lack of "colour commentary" and stupid remarks are probably part of it. (I remember watching Fox and the announcer guy couldn't follow the plays at all unless there was a red stripe behind the puck. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->)
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And the only thing Canada has ever culturally dominated were the Inuit. Otherwise, they are pretty harmless. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Okay Monse, not to go offtopic, but that is also wrong. We just finished dividing up the northwest territories and giving them their own territory "Nunavut" so they could have their own government/culture. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->John Candy is sorely missed.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> rgr that. One of my all time favorite actors. (Great Outdoors = best movie evar!!)
And since I can't find the post saying the baseball "World Series" was a one nation sport (srry), I'll say you forget that Canada took back to back wins of that sucker! GO BJ'S! err... BLUE JAYS! ;D (I was a major Baseball fan back in the day... but with Toronto sucking I can't watch it anymore lol) I'd like to see some of the North American teams play against some Japanese teams. They really like their baseball as well. (Had several teams if I recall)
Thats why I mentioned the Japanese teams, IIRC they gave some of the larger American teams a sound thrashing. I didn't know that Canadian teams had played, so thanks for that.
Oh, and don't play the innocent with me, I know that the Canadians control everything, pulling the strings of the world with their cold little fingers! Beware the Canadians!
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The reason many Americans don't watch hockey is because IMO of American announcers.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I will agree 100% with that. At least the Rangers are blessed with John Davidson.
Who are these 'good' sports announcers of which you speak...? I am very confused, as being a lifelong cubs fan, I've had to deal with Harry Carry, Thom Brenneman, Chip Carry, Ron Santo, and a host of other knobs.
Although Steve Stone (Cy Young winner 1980 with the Orioles, for those keeping score) is perhaps the best announcer in baseball... makes up for all those shytebirds.
And as for playing against the Japanese (or South Korea, Taiwan, Thailand, Phillipines, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Puerto Rico, or pretty much all of central america) - I'm all for it. One nice side-effect of Major League ball though, is that (unlike all other American sports) it gets a huge number of under-priviliged foreign athletes out of some horrible shack and into the American dream. You should see pictures of where Sammy Sosa grew up, and what his town looks like now after he sent home millions of dollars. Not even world cup soccer is as advantageous to foreign athletes, and certainly not as pluralistic on a team by team basis...
'sokker? I dun know! but Beizeboll haz been berry berry goowd to me'
I was recently visiting my in-laws in Puerto Rico and asked my father in-law about his opinion about the Expos moving to PR. It was his opinion that it would Never make it. The economy in PR is horrible and could never support a major league team, despite the popularity. The one time trial things might work but extremel few people could afford season tickets. The same probably holds true for the rest of the Carribean Islands and Central America. So don't hold your breath for extending baseballs borders southerly.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Oh, and don't play the innocent with me, I know that the Canadians control everything, pulling the strings of the world with their cold little fingers! Beware the Canadians!<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
*twiddles thumbs* (Hey Jacque, I think they're onto us, eh!)
Monsi, by sports announcers I'm strictly speaking in terms of television. If yer in the stadium, it don't matter so much! <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo--> You do have a point about baseball being "affordable" to get into. My little bro did the minor hockey thing for years, and the cost of some of the equipment (which really hurt if the bugger had a growth spurt in the winter) was just plain bad.
Comments
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Perhaps you made a typo, but I'll go by what you said. Cricket in Britain WAS seen as eliteist, but this ended far before the imperial period. By the first world war cricket was a popular urban sport in both Britian and Australia, although it was only just starting to catch on in other imperial colonies. Today it is by far not seen as elitest nor is it seen as an attempt to emulate the British: South Africa, India, Pakistan, the West Indies and Zimbabwe are all very proud to be independant of Britian. Try saying to an Indian that he's trying to emulate the British. You'll be lucky if you escape with only your pride wounded <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
I guess the central issue here would have to be if sports can actually be seen as cultural imperialism. I note that America plays Ice hockey, does this mean the US is being culturally dominated by Canada? Sports tend to transend these things, depite their origins. You could claim, for example, that Japan taking up baseball in a big way is culutral imperialism, but the Japanese love baseball and it wasn't forced on them (occupation forces were but baseball wasn't). I think that something like sports can't be cultural imperialism simply because of their nature as games. If anything, they provide a completly legal and legitimate way to fight back at the "oppressors"; India today loves beating the English at cricket <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, missing a full stop and capitalisation; should read:
In Britain its seen as eliteist (generalisation). In post-empire coutries, its origins in those attempting to emulate the British still seem (to me) as cultural imperialism.
I'm probably the only Brit that has a guilt complex about the Empire.
I think I would argue that baseball is cultural imperialism, but not overtly aggressive, just a sport that's been adopted by a nation that sees lot of gaijin culture as "cool". My Footie team of choice, Arsenal (wonder if that'll get censored) nicknamed a Japanese player t-shirt. He had a massive following in Japan, despite rarely being in the first team line up. (I thought he was a quality player actually, as was borne out in the World Cup) he was called T-shirt because of the revenue he brought in...
As for Canada culturally dominating the USA, I thought that was common knowlegde? Eh?
Oh, and everyone loves beating the English, but the very fact that you've said that its a legitimate way to strike back at "oppressors" seems to indicate that maybe, subconsciously you think it was based in cultural imperialsm, or possibly, imperial culturism (is that even a phrase? If not, I claim it for her maj. Oh dear,guilt attack again.....)
I've no doubt that many people love and adore cricket the world over. I find it dull, eliteist and unwatchable. Perhaps it needs an organist!
It was bound to happen eventually. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
On to Beast:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->the majority of planet Earth dislike or are disinterested in American sports.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The same can be said for all sports by all countries. I can assure you that the great majority of British citizens do not follow British soccer. The same way the great majority of US citizen do not follow american football. The great majority of the human race is mostly concerned with day to day affairs of life. There may be a lot of people filling a soccer stadium or watching it on TV, but check the numbers against a country's population to see just what a small fraction it is in reality.
You are certainly not the only Brit with a guilt complex over empire. Jeeesh, get over yourself. There are dozens just in the discussion forums and IRC, that I've met. Talk to Merkaba sometime, he'll bend your ear for hours. Although you are right in that there aren't nearly enough.
I do find it very amusing that the British taught all their colonies how to play cricket, and now are constantly pounded in cricket by said colonies centuries later. Most countries never got to rise up and throw the Brits out by force, so this is their catharsis, I reckon. Good on ya. <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
And the only thing Canada has ever culturally dominated were the Inuit. Otherwise, they are pretty harmless. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
Hehehehe, I guess it was going to happen sooner or later <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Most countries never got to rise up and throw the Brits out by force, so this is their catharsis, I reckon.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I reckon you yanks must still be laughing yourselves silly that we had a referrendum about 5 years ago that, if succeeded, would have made us a free republic with no remaining ties to Britian. The Queen herself said that she would be happy for us to go on our own.
We voted it down.
Do you know the reason? The opposition party to the movement based their arguement around one part of the proposed Republic model. It was the the House of Reps and Senate chose the President. Powers of the President were as follows: he signed bills handed to him by the senate. He couldn't veto them. He couldn't not sign them. He couldn't even voice opposition. And the monarchists argued that letting parliment choose this person would give the government too much power.
I'd hate to think what they would have thought of Andrew Jackson <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
Darnit, this is so off-topic, but I already won the baseball argument and need fresh conversation. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
"The same can be said for all sports by all countries. I can assure you that the great majority of British citizens do not follow British soccer. The same way the great majority of US citizen do not follow american football. The great majority of the human race is mostly concerned with day to day affairs of life. There may be a lot of people filling a soccer stadium or watching it on TV, but check the numbers against a country's population to see just what a small fraction it is in reality."
Ok, insert the words "generally interested in sports". I should have thouth it obvious that most people would be concerned with getting to work on time etc rather than the state of a sport on another continent, or even their local team. Those people that do take an interest in world sporting events are less interested in American football. I think you'd be surprised at the number of people that follow Argentinian, Spanish and Italian football over here, and have no link to it, other than the game itself. More often than not these people say that the strain they follow is "more interesting" or "better" than the domestic game - qualitative and subjective statements. Football has, for the majority of armchair commentators more appeal than American football. It's not that we don't get the coverage of Superbowl XXXxXxxXxIXIIVII here, we do (if you want to stay up until 4am). By sheer dint of numbers, American football must be less interesting to the world.
I'm off home now, but it would be interesting to see comparative viewing figures on the Superbowl vs the World Cup......
I'm not denying Americans aren't passionate about their sport. I'm not denying that some people outside the
US follow American football. Unfortunately in terms of a global sporting community, they're a minority.
Maybe you need more organs.
God I'm starting to love the idea of organs. Maybe it could spice up political, or news coverage, to maintain people's attention? Oooh! what about adult films? DA DA DA DA DA DAAAAAH!
For a developed nation of 56 million people we are, tbh quite poor at competitive sports. I'm justifiably proud of my nation otherwise. There's no shame in playing the game and losing though, surely you must subscribe to the "Its how you played the game" ethos :shocked:
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The entire system would have remained exactly the same; the only change was 67 word changes in the Constitution (Queen to President) and the replacement of the Governer General with the President.
Ah, you've stumbled onto one of the most contraversial issues in Australian politics ever. Let me spin you a tale that will probably have American readers stunned.
In 1972 Australia elected it's first Labour government in 23 years. At it's head was Prime Minister Edward Gough Whitlam, and he would stay in office until 1975.
The Australian system is very similar to the US system: there is a house of Representatives (Congress) and a Senate (Senate <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--> ). The Prime Minister is simply the head of the party or coalition which controls a majority of the seats in the House of Reps.
At the head of the Australian government is the Governer General. He/She is the Queen's representive in Australia: he controls all the powers the Queen legally has and is placed in office by the Prime Minister (he basically names a person and they can choose to accept). Now most of the time all he does is sign bills into law; once a bill has been passed by the House of Reps and the Senate, he signs it. He can't veto a bill or refuse to sign it. But what he does have is extraordinary powers. Most of these powers arn't actually listed anywhere; he has virtual dictatorial powers should he chose to use them. The system relies on placing a man there who won't use them. Of course, sometimes things fail.
The Liberal governments of the previous 23 years were highly bitter about the election of Labour to office. Now the Liberals controlled the Senate, whilst Labour controlled the House of Reps. You might see this sometimes in US politics. When Whitlam's government tried to pass the Federal budget in 1975, the Senate rejected it. The government changed some things, and sent it back. Again, it was rejected.
Now this right here was what's known as a "double dissolution" trigger. If a bill can't be passed in the regular manner, the PM can call for the double dissolution election. This causes an election to be called on the spot which sees all seats in the House of Reps and Senate up for election. The idea is to get a new government in that can pass laws again.
Now Whitlam wasn't going to call for a double-dissolution because his government was rather shaky and had gotten in primarily on Australia's growing distaste for Vietnam. However, he never expected the Governer General to step in.
On November 11, 1975, the Governer General of Australia invoked his emergancy powers and dismissed Whitlam as Prime Minister. The Governer General then made the opposition Liberal party head PM, and the new "caretaker" Prime Minister immediatly called for a double dissolution election, which the Liberals promptly won. The entire government was dissolved and both houses forced to go to the polls.
This has never occured again since. It was and still remains a matter of intense controversy and Labour has never forgiven the Liberals for their role in the affair. Today the possibility of a double-dissolution election is quite high: the current PM has had several bills rejected by the senate over the war issue, but now with his popularity riding stupidly high he may use the rejections to call an election and "prove" the war was the right thing to do by being reelected.
The entire affair was known as the Whitlam Dismissal. Find some more info about it here: <a href='http://whitlamdismissal.com/' target='_blank'>http://whitlamdismissal.com/</a>
The only thing I know similar to this in US politics is when Andrew Jackson defied a ruling of the Supreme Court and sent an army into Georgia (?) to drive the Cherokee indians out.
Yea but you cheated, you like hockey <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
Thanks a ton for filling all that in (and providing more source). I am reading more on my lunch. Such an odd country, Australia. On my list of places I must visit someday...
I concede to the Beast on one point. There's no way for any sport to compete with the world popularity of soccer for one simple reason over all others: it is cheap. You don't need gloves, sticks, bats, helmets, special balls, weird arenas, or anything else. Just a small open field and something round. Pele used an old sock stuffed with newspapers, playing with his barefeet. It's the most pluralistic sport ever devised execept for perhaps 'hide and seek' (which is soon to be an Olympic event, if letting Ballroom Dancers compete is any indication >_<). So no, American sports, and all other sports, will always be very marginalized compared to soccer.
And Toraz... pwned! <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
I like Footy myself ( the one with the spherical ball ), partly I supppose because it's pretty much the national sport ( although we do suck at it unfortunately ) .
I grew up with it, it's impossible to avoid it.
Partly though, I admire the skill required to do it well, and the near infinite tactical decisions to be made. Unlike most sports, it's actually acceptable for a match to end in a draw, and it's a lot more likely to than a sport where "points/goals/runs/whatevers" are running into high numbers..it seems fair to me that two well matched teams share the points. ( In a standard league obviously, not knockout competitions..)
Also, it's possible to focus on defensive tactics more than a lot of sports..by that I mean a team can "sit on" a lead, or take the opposite approach and push forward in an attempt to kill the game off completely, running the risk of counter attacks..
Mainly I think I like the idea that even though you have to play as a team to have any chance, a brief moment of brilliant individual skill or even blind luck can turn the entire game completely on it's head, something only really possible due to the typically low scoring frequency in games.
It's <i>hard</i> to score, so it's so much more important when you do.
All merely opinions, natch.
Oh, and if we are nominating "Dullest Sport", my vote goes to Bowls or Curling...
Also, it's possible to focus on defensive tactics more than a lot of sports..by that I mean a team can "sit on" a lead, or take the opposite approach and push forward in an attempt to kill the game off completely, running the risk of counter attacks..
Mainly I think I like the idea that even though you have to play as a team to have any chance, a brief moment of brilliant individual skill or even blind luck can turn the entire game completely on it's head, something only really possible due to the typically low scoring frequency in games.
It's hard to score, so it's so much more important when you do. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
All this could be said for Hockey. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
I saw a few hockey games years ago..quite cool, very cold.
I concede to the Beast on one point. There's no way for any sport to compete with the world popularity of soccer for one simple reason over all others: it is cheap. You don't need gloves, sticks, bats, helmets, special balls, weird arenas, or anything else. Just a small open field and something round. Pele used an old sock stuffed with newspapers, playing with his barefeet. It's the most pluralistic sport ever devised execept for perhaps 'hide and seek' (which is soon to be an Olympic event, if letting Ballroom Dancers compete is any indication >_<). So no, American sports, and all other sports, will always be very marginalized compared to soccer.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ok, but if you add a stick to the stuffed sock, and open play area, you have baseball, so I'm not sure if that one flies for me.
As for ballroom dancing, I'm incensed that you don't feel this is a sport of Olympic standards, and post a link/copy a webpage showing how it is.... :poke:
Ok, cheap shot, but hey, if the olympic committee thinks it is, then if you disagree I suggest you complain to your local olympic planning organisation and get them to protest its inclusion. I'd guarantee that there are people as passionate about ballroom dancing as you are about baseball, or I am about footie, or Ryo is about cricket. Horses for courses innit?
Ok, so the whole thread boils down to:
Different people have different preferences when it comes to sport, they will therefore find some sports more boring than others. More people find some sports boring than others. There can be a geographical commonality to this. Baseball falls within one of these commonalities. Baseball is therefore teh l0se.
Right I'm off for some extreme tiddlywinks, who's with me???
It's the 45th Parallel/Disposable Income Games!
How dare you ignore the valiant efforts of the Jamaican bobsleigh team.
/serious
John Candy is sorely missed.
Are you suggesting that the (summer) Olympics aren't biased to those with a more clement climate? Isn't the flipside that those less temperate nations will suffer?
ooh I love being the devils advocate.
Btw, it should be noted, CBC is the only channel to watch hockey on. The reason many Americans don't watch hockey is because IMO of American announcers. Even networks like Sportsnet and TSN in Canada are still pwnd by CBC. (Any Canadian hockey fan could tell you that though) I don't know why it is, but unlike baseketball or foozball, hockey just can't have any fool doing the announcing! Lack of "colour commentary" and stupid remarks are probably part of it. (I remember watching Fox and the announcer guy couldn't follow the plays at all unless there was a red stripe behind the puck. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->)
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And the only thing Canada has ever culturally dominated were the Inuit. Otherwise, they are pretty harmless. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Okay Monse, not to go offtopic, but that is also wrong. We just finished dividing up the northwest territories and giving them their own territory "Nunavut" so they could have their own government/culture. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->John Candy is sorely missed.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
rgr that. One of my all time favorite actors. (Great Outdoors = best movie evar!!)
And since I can't find the post saying the baseball "World Series" was a one nation sport (srry), I'll say you forget that Canada took back to back wins of that sucker! GO BJ'S! err... BLUE JAYS! ;D (I was a major Baseball fan back in the day... but with Toronto sucking I can't watch it anymore lol) I'd like to see some of the North American teams play against some Japanese teams. They really like their baseball as well. (Had several teams if I recall)
Oh, and don't play the innocent with me, I know that the Canadians control everything, pulling the strings of the world with their cold little fingers! Beware the Canadians!
I for one welcome our Alces overlords.
I will agree 100% with that. At least the Rangers are blessed with John Davidson.
Although Steve Stone (Cy Young winner 1980 with the Orioles, for those keeping score) is perhaps the best announcer in baseball... makes up for all those shytebirds.
And as for playing against the Japanese (or South Korea, Taiwan, Thailand, Phillipines, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Puerto Rico, or pretty much all of central america) - I'm all for it. One nice side-effect of Major League ball though, is that (unlike all other American sports) it gets a huge number of under-priviliged foreign athletes out of some horrible shack and into the American dream. You should see pictures of where Sammy Sosa grew up, and what his town looks like now after he sent home millions of dollars. Not even world cup soccer is as advantageous to foreign athletes, and certainly not as pluralistic on a team by team basis...
'Beizeboll haz been berry berry goowd to me...'
I was recently visiting my in-laws in Puerto Rico and asked my father in-law about his opinion about the Expos moving to PR. It was his opinion that it would Never make it. The economy in PR is horrible and could never support a major league team, despite the popularity. The one time trial things might work but extremel few people could afford season tickets. The same probably holds true for the rest of the Carribean Islands and Central America. So don't hold your breath for extending baseballs borders southerly.
*twiddles thumbs*
(Hey Jacque, I think they're onto us, eh!)
Monsi, by sports announcers I'm strictly speaking in terms of television. If yer in the stadium, it don't matter so much! <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo--> You do have a point about baseball being "affordable" to get into. My little bro did the minor hockey thing for years, and the cost of some of the equipment (which really hurt if the bugger had a growth spurt in the winter) was just plain bad.