Love in a time of Swine Flu

I sat in the bus station, waiting. A bus was on its way to take me on yet another journey into the unknown. Away from a comfortable place that I have become intimate with; a place with long winters and even longer summer days. Its the place that was my home for seven years, but that I never recognized as home. It is far away from the fast streets of Paris and the Bavarian Alps of my childhood. It is not a European place, nor a Serbian city on the Danube. As I sat waiting for the bus I thought of Bukowski:

when you think about how often
it all goes wrong
You begin to look at the walls
And stay inside
Because the streets are the
Same old movie.

Behind me Wolf Blitzer was discussing the Swine Flu crisis. People are calling for a closing of the border with Mexico. My throat felt tight. My heart rate, slightly elevated. I must be getting sick. They tell us not to get paranoid, not to buy into the fear, that it will be ok. But the news is built on sensationalism and it needs us to be afraid or we will stop listening. I felt dirty, like my hands were caked in layers of infectious grunge. I rubbed my eyes and wondered if my eyes would also now get diseased. Bukowski made his way back into my mind:

It is no wonder that
A wise man will
Climb a 10,000 foot mountain
And sit there waiting
And living off berry bush leaves

I wanted to be in the mountains. I had seen the ocean again for the first time in almost a year and I had missed it. I had also missed her. As the bus pulled up and we all made our way into the confined space they warned us to avoid, I thought about leaving. I thought about being a European in America, an American in Europe. I thought about how much I miss Munich and Paris. But most of all, I thought about her and coming back. Ten days more and Bukowski will be right.

Mountains are hard to climb.
The walls are your friends.
Learn your walls.

European Council Declaration on sport

The European Council recognises the importance of the values attached to sport, which are essential to European society.

It stresses the need to take account of the specific characteristics of sport, over and above its economic dimension.

It welcomes the establishment of a constructive dialogue at the first European Sport Forum organised by the European Commission.

It calls for the strengthening of that dialogue with the International Olympic Committee and representatives of the world of sport, in particular on the question of combined sports training and education for young people.

Off in the distance, behind me, Edith is singing her heart out.

The political sanctions made Milosevic, he said.

At last, I am finding satisfaction of my intellectual curiosity and want of, what I consider profound conversation. MD is sitting in his office, casually slouched in his chair wearing his usual black jeans and white shirt, going into details over how the western sanctions essentially backfired and enabled Serbia's decline into austere nationalism.

In the 1960s we lived as westerners did. Rock music, I wanted to look like James Dean, I read James Joyce and Faulkner, he continued. But what is important is that MD doesn't want to make the mistake most Serbs make when looking at themselves in the mirror. He doesn't want to export blame onto to someone else.

We are like children in this sense, he suggests. Always blaming others for our misfortune, never recognizing that we are partners in this situation. He calls it self purification, but it seems to me that it is only skin deep, and doesn't lead to any change. Rather the result is in fact a worsening of ones psychological situation. Neither MD or I think that the Serb is totally to blame, that every actor in this theatrical performance we call geo-politics shares the blame. But as long as blame is being externalized, then the Serb remains a victim, and thus a prisoner, of their situation.

Take the paradox of the SRS party (the Radicals) who are fighting hard against EU encroachment in Serbia. Their support for the Pro-Karadzic rallies is case in point - they tell Serbs that Tadic (Tadic Juda!) is going to destroy Serbia by handing it over to those pesky Europeans. What they offer as an alternative is trully the paradox of paradox: A nationalist Serbia in league with its Russian Brothers. Slavic solidarity, though it has never existed historically, is the order of the day. Do they really not see that they are mearly trading one hegemon for another, and that they will still not be in control of their own house?

The conclusion is that this political rhetoric is just another way to justify political movements, and to gain power; it has neigh to do with a desire for Serb freedom or an improvement of life for the ordinary Serb. I ask if maybe this is not the signs of a dying party; a last ditch attempt to regain power? My colleagues at work all think that Serbia is on the European path, from which it will never stray. MD shruggs, and I agree with that sentiment. Who knows?

In the 1980s we all saw Serbia's future as a Western one, part of Europe. No-one could even imagine Milosevic back then, he said. History is never absolute, and always finds ways to shift gears.

The speculation continues...

I have been thinking about this since Skyping with a mentor earlier today.

Really, what could have possessed Saakashvili to think he even had a snowballs chance in hell to re-taking S. Ossetia? I mean, the Georgian military was vastly outnumbered and there was no way that Russia would not respond to a sudden military incursion into a de facto Russian province. So, I see two possibilities, and I am currently leaning towards the second.

1) Saakashvili was going for broke, thinking he would override forces (separatists and Russian peacekeepers) in S. Ossetia. His swollen military budget (and ego) and friendship with the West gave him a false sense of power. He thought he could get the Russian border ahead of Russian re-enforcements and consolidate. Maybe he also underestimated Russian resolve to control the province. Finally, he may also have counted on a strong NATO/US/EU response to Russian retaliation, forcing the Russian forces back.

or...

2) Saakashvili made this move to enhance his own power, and consolidate his position within the Western hierarchy. I came to this thought because what the end effect of his actions are, at this point, is an exposure of the West's inability to exert any control over Russia in this region. It is plain for everyone to see that Russia can regain its old Soviet sphere of influence if it felt the need. The speed at which Russian forces over ran the Georgians was rather shocking, particularly to the EU, which has some painful historical memories to a similar effect.

Ok, so what? how does this consolidate Saakashvili? Well, first off, it will play well to Georgians outside of S. Ossetia, because their leader fearlessly stood up and tried to reclaim what would be theirs. Second, it will likely re-invigorate the debate over admission to NATO. If Russia is able to so easily crush Georgia, it is clear that this territory is really their sphere of influence, and not the West's. Admitting Georgia into NATO would allow the West to beef up the forces there, and remove the State from under Russia's thumb.

So, was war the folly of one power hungry leader, or a shrewd Machiavellian move? Who knows... I'll never know all the details to really say. Plus, how would Russia react to Georgian NATO membership? Not well. The reaction would probably also manifest, in part, with a sudden drying up of energy flow into the EU.

Democracy and the Serb

My body is still adjusting to this new life: 65% humidity, 28-35 degrees C, smog, creative driving solutions, strong coffee and cigarets, Yugos, weak beer and heavy food, bureaucracy, 45 hrs+ work week, Serbian language, diplomacy, and deeply rooted fear of the outsider.

What do I mean by fear of the outsider? While I think that Serbia is moving towards Europe (see below entries), there are plenty here who would disagree. The picture to the left is the name of a hooligan firm in BG, associated with Partizan Football Klub. Their name, Anti-Romi (anti Roma people) suggests their politics is Serbia for Serbs. This part of society is not interested in having anyone from the outside (Roma, Croatians, Bosnians, Muslims, Albanians, and Westeners fall into that category) tell them how to live, which laws to adapt and which of their heros to arrest.

Well, this is nothing new, any country that has been occupied and re-occupied for huge swaths of its existence would feel the same. But for Serbia (and possibly for the rest of the Balkans), the other factor contributing to its split personality is fear of change. This is a fascinating time to be here for that very reason. The country, thanks to the forcefulness of its political system, is currently inching towards EU integration, towards Westernism, towards Ipods, Nescafe and BMWs.  It is moving away from socialism, Kafa Domacha and Yugos. Cost of living in places like BG is already very high for such a low income country, tourists are coming with higher frequency, and Kosovo is slowly slipping away.

What isn't changing is the fact that change is being produced by totalitarian means. What's new right? Well, it's an interesting picture here though. I get the sense that if the country were to hold a popular referendum on whether to join the EU, the vote would be split 50-50, or the 'no' vote would just barely win out. In the the face of this indecision, the government is able to maneuver fairly easily. The voting population is uninformed and confused: 8 years ago NATO was destroying buildings in BG, today they are being labeled as friends. 20 years ago Serbs were once again standing up for their own unique identity, but today they are being told to exchange it for a European one (which comes standard with an ipod...).

The government is also fortunate to have a fairly significant concentration of power at its command (despite my current efforts at decentralization) and a disregard for transparency. As a result, legislation, when necessary, passes quietly and without public scrutiny (not unlike the UK in many regards). The saving grace at the moment is, ironically, the radical opposition in Parliament. Only they have the power to stop the current government from doing what ever it wants. This opposition has been able to shut parliament down for all of the last 4 weeks, and it will remain so until early September.

Anyway, whatever the mechanism, Serbians are recognizing they lack control in there own affairs. They (or at least part of 'they') are directing that fear at the most obvious target (Europe, the West, etc) without realizing they have never really controlled their fate (who has?). The result is polarization and anxiety, taken out on foreigners. The most obvious foreigners are the Roma.

I went to a Roma school the other day and celebrated the last day of class with young Roma kids, who wanted to do what all young kids want to do on the last day of class: sing, dance and have fun. But the Church, which occupies the neighboring lot, is so xenophobic towards this Roma school (god forbid they get an education...) that it is building an extension of the already existing wall, so they never have to look upon these kids. Its amazing, and perfectly illustrates how Serbian society is reacting to change. On the one hand you have the Serbs who work with me to help such marginalized groups find a voice, while other Serbs to to great lengths to pretend these margins don't exist.

Nationality and the round ball ~ 1/23/2008

After the meeting I wrote about below and a subsequent email response from Dr. V, the issue of nationality and soccer has been on my mind. While this will not be the focus of the project, I think it is a question worthy of some discussion in the text. Europe in general is going through some serious redefinition of its idea of nationality and the meaning of national borders, and this effects the game equally.

As Dr. V put it, the "foreign" player may suddenly lose this identity when the EU expands its borders to include the "foreigners" home land. Essentially, his or her identity has become politically meaningless and is only a personal experience. The questions to ask are, how does this change a persons relationship to their home, to their new home, to the people in their new home? I could only speculate on this without actually gong out there, but worth noting no-the-less.

On a national level, more and more players with immigrant histories and parents are playing for the adopted home nation. With names like Castro and Gonzales in the German team this becomes apparent. Also the case of Ashkan Dejagah is case and point. He is Iranian by birth, but was raised in Germany and currently plays for VFB Wolfsburg. He caused controversy this past year when he refused to play against Israel. He was quickly accused of anti-semitism, to which he responded the decision was ment to protect his Iranian family in Tehran. But he also displays nationalist tendencies towards Iran, and has "Tehran" tattooed on his wrist.

So what does "nationalism" mean in this context? In Dejagah's case, he is playing for the German national team, and yet appears to be sympathetic towards Iran, identifying himself as such. Perhaps on this level of sports, nationalism is rather meaningless in the face of fame, success on the field, and a chance at winning a World Cup. It becomes a business decision for players. The young immigrant from a nation without much soccer power choses to play for the rich European state because they will potentially go farther (as a player).

On the other side, the European countries soccer associations (like the DFB, FA, etc) are simply taking the best players they can within the legal restrictions. Clearly they are not concerned with national identity as such; perhaps the assumption is that once a player puts on the national kit, they could be nothing but loyal. It is true that legally they will never be allowed to play for another country after their first national cap.

If soccer is really nothing more than a business, then there is nothing wrong with such arrangements. To suggest otherwise can also border on racism. How can you say England or Germany, Italy or Spain should have only ethnically "pure" nationals playing on the national side? Not only is that a very questionable statement, but also totally unrealistic in a multicultural society. The popularity of soccer, and the national teams place in the national psyche does however mean its evolution effects the popular view of national identity. When this is challenged (by having "foreigners" as part of a national symbol for example) there is often a negative backlash.

Meeting with Big D (part II) ~ 1/21/08

As Serbia goes to a run off election between the hardline Nationalists and the pro-EU party, on the day when America celebrates the legacy of MLK, and after an interesting debate with E about the Racino issue and racism towards Native Americans, I finally got a sit down with Dr. D to take a look at the thesis.

As it stands the thesis is something of a compromise between the initial idea/inspiration for the thesis, and Dr. B's interest in doing a field study, a personalized experience with soccer culture in a community/region where marginalized peoples engage in the game. This second part was an idea that we banded around a few months ago, but that I never really was able to develop fully in my head, at least as part of the thesis.

So today, we looked at what I was hoping to get out of this project. This is not a one off for me, but really just a first chapter/trip into this subject. Considering my basic time frame (the thesis technically being due in May), the praxis is becoming something of an issue. As it stands, I was going to look at a very general cross section of soccer players in the US, players from USM, from an indoor league, and from the pickup games at Back Bay. But this doesn't really look at the "at risk" demographic meant to be the subject of this thesis.

If I think back to Oggi's speech (almost a year ago now) what had me so crazy was the possibility that soccer was available for use as a means of conflict resolution, or as empowerment of minority/repressed/illegal/other/'immigrant' communities. Since then the paradoxical nature of this has become clear to me. That the nation state can also tap this source for its own designs, perpetuating racism, inequality, and power structures. In light of the current complaints coming from the larger EU clubs complaining that the African Nations Cup is taking away the African stars for the next few weeks; considering the debate over immigration currently in the EU, this might rather be the focus of the project.

So, the suggestion was to look at the paradox of a sport that on one side empowers these communities, and on the other, allow the Nation State to further its ambition of control and power. Instead of trying, at this juncture, to do some field study, focusing on the theory supported by examples to support either side of the argument. The question will be to see if this debate is sustainable, if the co-existence of these two antithetical ideas means soccer is inherently dangerous, or if the risk is acceptable?