violence video

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8221626.stm

A look at how difficult it is to restore the peace when bottles and bricks are being thrown....

first violence in football

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2001/dec/13/theknowledge.sport

Quick article on first sitings of football hooliganism. Interesting. I might start focusing on more England.

Murder in Amsterdam

In Murder in Amsterdam, Ian Buruma asks the question, is multiculturalism dead or is it thriving? While he does not answer this question fully, he leads us further to the point that multiculturalism is a dying practice. To begin, Buruma's discussion of the lives of Van Gogh, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and Mohammed B. point to the fact that multiculturalism is dead. Van Gogh sparked his own death when he released Submission which is an anti-Islamic 11 minute short film. This short film was intended to stir the muslim extremist and did its job. The story of Van Gogh is simple. He released a film which was meant to make confrontation and in turn disrupt multiculturalism. Furthermore, Buruma looks at the life of Ayaan Hirsi Ali who was the co-writer of Submission. Born into a muslim family, she separated herself from the practices of Islam and its culture. Now, she is a female activist who fights female circumcision and the right for women to date whoever they want. To pick such a controversial figure for in depth analysis is done by choice, further establishing his belief that different cultures getting along in this world seems far fetched. Last is Mohammed B. who ended the life of Van Gogh. During his trial he states, regarding the killing of Van Gogh, "I made it clear that if it had been my own father, or my little brother, I would have done the same thing" (Buruma 189). This shows that its not people who can't get along but the cultures in which they have grown so attached to. Mohammed B. had nothing personally against Van Gogh, it was just the ideas that Van Gogh stood for. In the end, Buruma points to the fact that multiculturalism might be ruined by the radical ideas on both sides that hinder our world.

Current Soccer hooliganism

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/14/sports/soccer/14iht-SOCCER.html?_r=1

In the article "An Ugly Return to Fan Violence" Rob Hughes, a NY times correspondent, explains how soccer hooliganism has once again shown its ugly face on the world stage in a game between Italy and Serbia. This 2012 Euro qualifier game, played in Genoa, Italy on October 13, 2010, is a soccer hooliganism at its best. The unrest began when the Italian fans booed the Serbia national anthem and then a few minutes later when a four Italian soldiers' death in Afghanistan were suppose to be honored, the Serbian fans booed back. Then during the first six minutes of the game, flares were thrown onto the field allegeable by a Belgrade gang called the Grobari (Gravediggers in English). From there many people tried to rush onto the field and riot police attempted to stop the crowds of masked men throwing the Nazi salute into the air. This game shows how a political tension stirred with a bitter rivalry can cause mass chaos.

http://forums.canadiancontent.net/sports/96461-serbian-football-hooligans-cause-game.html

http://espn.go.com/sports/soccer/news/_/id/6077451/united-states-egypt-match-scheduled-cairo-canceled

Surprisingly the U.S. is not immune to soccer's antics. As the debate over Hosni Mubarek is a fit president for Egypt continues in the streets of Cairo and Alexandria, the argument over who has the best foot skills will not be settled on the pitch for sometime now. In "U.S.-Egypt match canceled" ESPN lays out that this game, which was suppose to be played in Cairo is cancelled in an attempt to avoid hooliganism and other related violence. Interesting... the U.S. is canceling soccer games. I wonder if this would be cancelled if this was a football game vs. Egypt?

In How Soccer Explains the World by Franklin Foer

In How Soccer Explains the World by Franklin Foer, Foer takes a story telling approach to explaining how soccer has contributed to globalization. So far I have read about how the fans of Serbia's most successful team, Red Star Belgrade, interact and intimidate opposing fans. These Serbs call themselves the Ultra Bad Boys and find themselves completely justified because they have "no use of firearms and no beating of the enemy after he loses consciousness." This, however, is not limited to just Serbia, violence is in integral part of the soccer culture.

America the... vulnerable

So how is it possible that Hollywood is now second to Bollywood? Is it really true that Las Vegas is now surpassed by Macao in gambling revenue (Zakaria)? Yes, I’m afraid so as the U.S. has begun to lose ground to Asia in a “post-Americanism” world (Zakaria). It seems former Asian followers do not seem to care about the United States anymore due to fact they are paving their own way. The world is becoming less about the United States and more about the globalized world community and the U.S. is not content wit the idea.

While it is true that the West is giving ground to the rest of the world, Historian Kishore Mahbubani believes that the West is still putting an unjust strangle hold on the globe. “The West is not welcoming Asia’s progress,” Mahbubani continues “its short-term interests in preserving its privileged position in various global institutions are trumping its long-term interests in creating a more just and stable world order (Mahbubani).” Groups like the UN, IMF, G-8 do not have the entire world working together. There are 6.6 billion people in the world so there should there be a more global decision-making process argues both Zakaria and Mahbubani. The nuclear weapons issue is not being solved by the West driven NPT and since the U.S. holds a large majority of the W.M.D.’s in the world they are really just “breeding global insecurity” (Zakaria). Another problem is trade liberalization. Just as the world economy was about to have a massive increase, the U.S. saw themselves as the possible losers of the boom and decided to decrease trade liberalization in turn hurting East Asia. Overall, many Asian supporters believe the U.S. and the west are being unjust to the Asian countries.

So where does the U.S. draw the line? Should it “learn to share power and responsibility for the management of global issues with the rest of the world” or should it ignore the signs of globalization and keep on moving as the super power it once was Zakaria)? There is no ignoring that the rest of the world has caught up. They have been able to follow the model of the United States and have grown quick (convergence theory). The United States has been pushing for global free markets for generations and now it has gotten its wish. There is no turning back. The United States and the West need to work with the rest of the world so a global middle class can prosper. This would mean a higher standard of living for the west and the rest of the world.