Rooting for the "home" country ...

[RazabQ]

Some of you may have heard of the Tebbit rule? If not, read fellow member Sham's explanation.

Another fellow poster suggested he thought 2nd generation or 3rd generation immigrants should support the team of their "new" country. At the same time, it is quite natural if you are a recent immigrant (i.e. 1st generation) that you should root for your "old" country.

Question is, if a 1s gen goes to a BD vs. Eng Test match and enthusiastically cheers for BD, what message would that 1st gen pass on to his/her off-springs, who are perhaps accompanying him/her at the match? Many of us tend to have our rooting interest in sporting teams instilled from our parents I know that's why I root for Mohammedan Sporting Club

[Zephaniah]

Lord Tabbit had a point.

[mwrkhan]

The psychosis behind 1st generation immigrant support for the old "home" country is easy to understand. The sporting affiliation of 2nd or 3rd generation immigrants is a much more complicated affair.

It is probably true that the filial bond with the "home" country would weaken in successive generations of immigrants. There may be remote nostalgic or cultural attachments, but when it comes down to rooting for national sports teams, the "new" country is likely to recieve more support. This is evident when one looks at the pattern of support in "immigrant heavy" countries such as the US or Australia. Most white people in Australia are almost exclusively descended from the British Isles but there is little residual affection for the "old country". Similarly, one can be an Irish, German, Polish or Italian American but all root "U-S-A", "U-S-A" when it comes down to it. This phenomenon is, however, reversed when it comes to support of football i.e. soccer matches involving the US and Latin American teams.

The US soccer team is always resentful of the fact that their Latin American opponents receive near universal support in what are otherwise home games. There is a complex socio-economic and socio-cultural dynamic at work here. It is my belief that lack of economic success and weak societal integration promotes a feeling of alienation which inhibits any sense of empathy for the "host" country. This is true regardless of the number of generations who have lived in the host nation.

Something similar may be at work when one looks at the patterns of support for sub-continental (and carribean) cricket teams in the UK. It will be interesting to see how these underlying patterns change over time as newer generations of immigrants are born, ties with the old home country weaken and there is greater socio-economic success and integration.

Philosophicaly speaking, if I were to voluntarily migrate to another country and my children were born there I would try to ensure that they successfully integrate into the society of their new homeland for their own long-term benefit (social misfits always have a hard time surviving). If this results in a weakening of sporting bonds with the "old" country then would it be fair on my part to force a change of affiliation? Would it even be healthy? At least I think not.

Edited on, April 10, 2005, 6:00 AM GMT, by mwrkhan.

Edited on, April 10, 2005, 8:25 PM GMT, by mwrkhan.

[Tehsin]

I feel lucky that USA doesn't play cricket. That's pretty much the only sport bd can compete in. If BD and USA do end up playing cricket, I'll still support BD (my kids will prolly go with the US) as USA team is filled with foreigners (just llike me, hehehehehhe).

[RazabQ]

MWRKhan, if you have ever watched a soccer or basketball match involving Italy and USA then you'd realize that Azurris get the majority of the following. And in Chicago, the success of MLS team Fire was driven predmonantly by the support of the Polish American community.

But on the whole you have, on your own, provided a nice reposte to Lord Tebbit.

Instead of saying immigrants "should" root for England, he should have rather pursued the answer to "why don't they?". Why is it after 3-4 generations, there are such strong affiliations with the "old" country? Blaming the insular nature of immigrant communities is the easy answer. I have never been to UK but those that have been tell me that Silhotis and likes have been more or less seen their opportunities confined to local biz level. And when I see English counties or football clubs not displaying a preponderance of deshi origin players (except very lately), then I have to say Lord Tebbit was barking up the wrong tree.

I say this fully aware that we Bangladeshis are horrible at accepting "foreigners" too - witness the plight of Bihari's in Mohammedpur.

BTW, didn't understand your last statment. So if you were watching BD vs. Eng in Lords and your kid's accompanying you, you'd encourage the child to do what?

[fab]

Not sure about the UK or US, but in Australia I found (amongst ethnic friends and relatives), that children normally blindly support the "host" country but as they get older, especially during the teen and late teen years they start supporting the old country.

As a side note, it is possible for one to integrate into a given society without forgetting one's roots. There really is no need to become coconut prat to enjoy a nice balanced life

[RazabQ]

Originally posted by fab
coconut prat

this is a new term in my pop jargon lexicon. Care to explain?

[mwrkhan]

Originally posted by razabq

BTW, didn't understand your last statment. So if you were watching BD vs. Eng in Lords and your kid's accompanying you, you'd encourage the child to do what?

If I had a British born kid and he/she watched BD vs. England with me and supported either team I am not going to try and encourage or change his/her support one way or the other. If the kid supported England - fine. If not (perhaps because of my own support for BD) so be it. I would not be surprised if the kid supported England - after all that is the land of its birth, where it grew up, went to school in, imbibed the culture, spoke the language and had all the parameters of life set by. Seeing all this it just wouldn't be right to try and influence the child's sporting affiliation simply because his/her daddy happens to hail from the land of the Bangals. But of course should the little brat support BD then it is his/her prerogative and I wouldn't mind one bit (frankly I would be glad).

Interestingly, British born sub-continentals are rather passionate supporters of the English football team. Will this change if the football teams from our part of the world became more competitive?

[Arnab]

Well, the root issue in all these over-generalizations and interesting socio-cultural speculations is pretty simple: Is the idea of nation-states protected by physical boundaries and the institutions and collective beliefs that rise from this order still a valid framework?

[mwrkhan]

Originally posted by Arnab
Well, the root issue in all these over-generalizations and interesting socio-cultural speculations is pretty simple: Is the idea of nation-states protected by physical boundaries and the institutions and collective beliefs that rise from this order still a valid framework?

Certainly seems to be valid as far as the rooters are concerned.

[Arnab]

And as long as that is valid and the inherent contradiction between a growing sense of borderless internationalism and the archaic nation-state system exists, this kind of speculative discussions will probably go on ad infinitum.

I am more interested in predicting how the parameters of this kind of discussion will evolve as the contradiction deepens with the passage of time. I can write novels, reports, socio-economic theses, venture prospects and make tons of money over my lifetime by providing fodder for those who like this kind of speculations.

[mwrkhan]

If the idea of borderless internationalism is taken to it's extreme then the very notion of games being played between nation states becomes meaningless. This is at best an unlikely prospect in my view.

Internationalism insofar as people are concerned is still far off. Goods and capital may flow freely, not so human beings (as an economist I still have to make the assumption of "complete mobility of capital, complete immobility of labour" in all trans-national models). The notion of a world without borders is only sustained because of the existence of several "polyglot" nations which cast long global shadows - need not mention the usual suspects. Most countries in this world are still closed, mono-cultural and mono-ethnic.

BTW Arnab, with all your talk of internationalism you are not a closet anarchist are you?

[Arnab]

Unlikely? Well, take Europe for example. A vast swath of land has become essentially borderless.

As far as your trans-national model's assumption of "complete mobility of capital, complete immobility of labour", how old is this assumption? Have the parameters of constraint in this model evolved over the years? Especially since the emergence of the Internet? As the Internet penetrates vast numbers of population, wouldn't virtually most of the service sector be run on transnational commuters over the information superhighway?

Edited on, April 11, 2005, 3:42 PM GMT, by Arnab.

[mwrkhan]

Most models assume mobility of services nowadays.

[Arnab]

Originally posted by mwrkhan
Most models assume mobility of services nowadays.

And in general, doesn't the service sector in any country rise to prominence in terms of overall economic activities as the country gets more and more developed?

[mwrkhan]

Originally posted by Arnab

And in general, doesn't the service sector in any country rise to prominence in terms of overall economic activities as the country gets more and more developed?

As an economic fact it does, but we are not talking economics here but visceral sporting affiliations. Who is more likely to root for a US team? An Indian transplant in Silicon Valley or an Indian doing Silicon Valley's work in Bangalore?

[Arnab]

But economics is intrinsically tied to anyone's life. And even mundane decisions like rooting for some national team in a sports competition is probably influenced by a lot factors, including economic ones. One's sense of belonging to a certain country is likely to be influenced by the sum total of his own life experience, and the very nature of how one experiences life is changing. Do you agree?

[mwrkhan]

Originally posted by Arnab
But economics is intrinsically tied to anyone's life. And even mundane decisions like rooting for some national team in a sports competition is probably influenced by a lot factors, including economic ones. One's sense of belonging to a certain country is likely to be influenced by the sum total of his own life experience, and the very nature of how one experiences life is changing. Do you agree?

Please see my first post in this thread.

[Arnab]

I have read it; it talks about a different issue than what I am trying to get at.

[mwrkhan]

Originally posted by Arnab
I have read it; it talks about a different issue than what I am trying to get at.

Which is?

[nihi]

An interesting topic.

Firstly, it goes to show that patriotism, in contrast with nationality, is still such an eyewash for us, that we don't lose the perspective even when it comes for our offsprings' question of "allegience". Kudos!

Then there are subtle and not-so-subtle differences between european american and asian-spanish americans. Europeans (well, mostly) were here at the inception of this country, which was literally born out of severance of bond with their country of origin. As for ones with Asian and Spanish origins, in most cases, it was, and still is, a matter of attaining the right to acquire all the amenities of a "better life", and not so much as to severing bond with the country of origin.

On top of it, before the inception this country, as a nation, it was in no way in a state as to be compared to their countries of origin, so as to elicit some inter-national complexity (xenophobia et. al.). An asian or latin american origin looks towards this country simultaneously as a "land of opportunity" and a bully to his country. On the other hand, at the inception of this country, this country was looked at as a land of opportunity and their country of origin a bully to this country. Much less emotional clash was present there for their mental unrest.

But of course time has its own way of gradually diluting the intensity of "back home"-emotions that a migrant happens to bequeath to his descendants. Africans-americans might be a better example.

[Arnab]

...how the growing sense of internationalism creates a contradiction within the nation-state system and one of the many manifestations of this growing contradiction is the confusion among "nationals" about what national team they would root for. And that this confusion and the speculative discussions arising from such confusions will grow as the contradiction deepens.

[fab]

Originally posted by razabq
Care to explain?

Well, a coconut is brown on the outside and white in the inside :bald:

[RazabQ]

ah ... I can think of a few right now