Wednesday, November 11, 2015

How baseball Explains the World

Will Chandler
November 11th, 2015
Shirk IR

Blog Post 4

On May 4th, 1869, the first professional baseball team, the Cincinnati Red Stockings played the Great Westerns of Cincinnati, and America’s past time became a business. In 1947, Jackie Robinson became the first black baseball player in the MLB. Jump forward about a 65 years, and the Kansas City Royals just defeated the New York Mets for the World Series title in front of an average 14.7 million fans. The two teams featured about 23 international players throughout the season in live game action. Overall, about 41% of all MLB players are of color (2015 Major League Baseball Racial and Gender Report Card). While this may seem like progress, there is still much evidence of racism in baseball, however it is a microcosm of globalization and its double edged abilities because baseball has been affected by globalization’s ability to disseminate information, exposure and mass scrutiny and deal with social issues on a national scale while avoiding actual mass violence.

 

Baseball shows us that racism is still inherent in people, however, under the pressure of masses for equality, it can disappear. The sacred, just mediators of baseball are the umpires. Yet they have fallen into the same bias and racist tendencies common around the world. “SMU found that home-plate umpires call disproportionately more strikes for pitchers in their same ethnic group…  the data suggest that racial bias is probably operating at a subconscious level, where the umpire doesn't even recognize it.” Racism is still common in our culture, as much as we may try to hide it, it exists at a subconscious level. However, there are way to minimize it’s effects. “Researchers found that umpires' racial biases diminished when they knew they were being monitored by the computer. Same thing for high-profile moments. During those important points in games when umpires knew fans were more carefully watching the calls, the racial bias all but vanished. Likewise, the same-race preference was less pronounced at high-attendance games, where umps knew there would be more crowd scrutiny”. When people are being more highly scrutinized, they are able to overcome these subconscious plagues, and behave in the right way. Globalization gives access to these resources we need in order to possess a positive pressure for equality. Just as 14.7 million viewers at home, all with access to instant replay positively influence umpires to make the correct call, regardless of bias, government and corporations around the world are similar effected by the internet and modern communication to clean up their act because due to globalization, they are held accountable for their actions by thousands of viewers around the globe.   

 

 

“You don’t belong here n*****. You hear me, why don’t you look in the mirror? This a white man’s game. Alright? Get that through your think monkey skull!”

-Opposing Coach in 42

 

Jackie Robinson faced extreme odds and violence when he became the first black player in the major leagues. He faced violent opposition and extreme prejudice by both fans, umpires and even teammates. The expansion of the baseball, from a backyard sport for fun, to a small business, quickly became a large scale operation as it popularity grew wildly throughout the 20th century. As more franchises popped up, and the pressure to win championships increased front offices, in the hunt for the best players began looking at new sources. While the sport grew in popularity in America, it also expanded around the world. Other groups quickly picked up baseball, it was especially popular among black youth, and an independent league, “The Negro Leagues” was even formed. However, the demand for the best players, spurred by its growing business and popularity caused the Brooklyn Dodgers to sign and play Jackie Robinson in 1947. This started a rush of incredible racism and brutality as the current race issue in America was put on the national stage. Jackie Robinson’s success lead to alleviated tensions and was a major example of flawed white American ethnocentricism.

 

"We're opening this game to everyone that can play. However, if you're going to come into our country and make our American dollars, you need to respect a game that has been here for over a hundred years..."
-Bud Norris

 

Since inception in 1869, baseball has spread out all over the World. From a young age, kids all over the globe have come to love and play “America’s pastime.” In fact, there is an international tournament held every year in Williamsport, Pa for American and international youth. Despite baseball’s identification as a purely American sport, more international teams have won the Little League World Series title, then American ones, despite an even American to International team ratio. This trend continues, as seen in the World Baseball classic, where the US has never finished in the top 3 places! And since its inception as an Olympic sport, the US has one just 1 gold medal, while Cuba leads the way with 3. Despite all of the evidence to the contrary, professional baseball is still seen as an American sport, and as such, there is a common sentiment that it should be played in an American way. Current MLB player Bud Norris, expresses this sentiment above, this extends off the field as well, “And that, dear Latino player, is a lesson you can apply to every single aspect of your life in American baseball: your music, your dress, your emotions, your playing style. If any of it ever offends one of the locals, the rationale is always, ‘Hey! America! Our country, our music, our money, our way!’" (Racism in Baseball isn’t going Anywhere). Sentiment among active American players, is that despite clear evidence to the contrary, baseball practices around the world are significantly inferior to the American style. In fact a common phrase in baseball when it comes to hot headed, flashy foreigners, is that are a danger to the game. Hot shot Cuban outfielder Yusiel Puig has been a polarizing example of this, as he allows his emotions to clearly enter into his play, this has been met with opposition as “staunch traditionalists argue for preserving the integrity of the game” (sportress of blogitude). The expansion of baseball, has led to racial backlash, othering and violence between white American traditionalists and different races and cultures around the world.

 

               The globalization of baseball has been full of positives and negatives. This is because globalization is inherently a double edged sword. While it puts pressure on countries because it holds them responsible for their actions, and allows social issues to be tackled without direct violence, it also can lead to racism and othering.         


“Maybe next time we will all wear 42, that way that won’t tell us apart.”

-Pee Wee “42”

The Risks of Globalization

The apartheid regime in South Africa during the mid to late 1900s led to the collapse of the South African economy and international trust abroad. The white minority oppressed the African majority, by denying them their rights and forcing them to relocate. While this regime lasted for several decades, its collapse was inevitable. The South African government became alienated from the international sphere and was sanctioned by other nations. This led the unequal nation to lose economic power and trade capabilities. Nations with inequality are destined for failure. These nations become unglobalized and are isolated from the outside world. South Africa had to become globalized in order for it to succeed. In the world today, globalization can work for struggling nations, but there are many risks and downfalls to globalization. The economic gap between the rich and the poor can increase. That being said, a country that is globalized has a much greater chance of succeeding than a country that isn’t globalized. Even though this is true, we cannot let globalization take over the world today if we are not ready for it.
Perhaps the most significant reason why globalization can be considered good is because of aid to poor or developing countries. Poor or developing nations, if controlled on a global system, rather than a national system, have potential to achieve and be successful. If a country rejects globalization, then that country will lose aid from other nations and as a result will fall. Because of globalization, it will be easier to monitor struggling nations and as a result the richer nations can aid these poorer nations. But can these poorer nations actually benefit from this?
While globalization gives poor countries an alleyway to success, undeveloped and poor nations may not even have the capacity to be globalized. This is evident in chapter 5 of the Foer reading, where the corrupt Brazilian system leads to rejection of globalization. Globalization couldn’t work in Brazil because the system was so corrupt. The West, which is much more developed than Brazil, decided to invest in Brazilian soccer but had to realize that Brazil wasn’t as economically developed and sound as the West. The West can also be selfish and act on selfish desires. Helping other nations may appear to be a goal of theirs, but they primarily want to “help” other nations to bolster their economic power. We see this with outsourcing. While outsourcing gives the unemployed employment and can increase wealth per capita, the richer nations are simply using poorer nations to their advantage and the richer nations are gaining more profit. Also, nations that are given the outsourced jobs may not have the economic means to pay their workers at a respectable rate and may not give their workers a sanitary workplace. Child workers work in awful conditions, and risk sickness or disease (The Pros and Cons of Globalization). The immorality of this should certainly not be understated, too. That being said, outsourcing can help the international economy by spreading wealthy, but it is mostly negative.
Globalization contains its many pros and cons, but the world can only be globalized if countries are ready for it. Governments must cooperate together and must give their citizens the rights they should have. Look at South Africa. The government became so obsessed with the apartheid regime that it lost its place in the international community. Giving citizens rights, which South Africa eventually did (because of the ANC’s takeover), help individual prosperity which in turn leads to economic success. This leads to a greater level of respect from outside countries; as a result, the international community can work together. Countries that give their citizens rights have the ability to succeed because they will have the ability to be globalized. There are many countries today that are unequal but need to fix their system in order for globalization to work. That being said, it is often very difficult to trust all nations in the international community. This presents a risk to globalization; some nations may abuse their power and not have respect for lower-income nations. Free trade can also lead to financial instability because some countries have to pay taxes while other countries do not (The Pros and Cons of Globalization). This is risky.
The world is becoming more globalized, and that most likely isn’t going to change. Therefore, in order for globalization to work for the international community, we must cooperate with our citizens in order to gain respect from other nations. Globalization has the potential to work but there are many issues with it, too.


http://www.investopedia.com/terms/o/outsourcing.asp



Key Features of Successful Globalization: Institutions and Time



In reading the six assigned chapters of Foer’s text, there seemed to be two underlying themes: all of the countries mentioned have failed in their attempts in globalization and that time plays an important role in a country’s instillation of policies or ideas to successfully globalize. All of Foer’s examples of failed globalization have one distinct commonality: none of them had successful institutions set up. Instead, their government often consisted of dictators and or blatant forms of corruption within the government. In addition, in all of Foer’s examples, globalization policies and practices were instilled quickly and shortly thereafter, failed rapidly. One possible reason for these rapid failures of policies and ideas could be pointed at those who instilled them; generally these people had little experience in doing so. A second possible reason is that they were simply not given enough time to evolve and possibly flourish in the long run.


One argument for the reason why the United States is so successful in its globalization efforts is due to the institutions we have set up. Our democratic system of government, while flawed, is set up so that there are constant checks and balances of government power to ensure that one branch of government does not gain more power than the others. In addition to our checks and balance system, the U.S. has a constitution and accompanying amendments that grant rights and freedoms for citizens. One such right is the freedom to express any feelings (good or bad) openly. For example, you can openly yell out your negative feelings regarding the (lack of) efficiency of our government, or you can initiate peaceful protests, argue over controversial policies via twitter, etc. If you have an opinion, you have the freedom to voice it, and not only do you have the freedom, you are encouraged to exercise these freedoms. None of the countries that Foer talks about in the reading have democratic institutions or democratic societies. Thus making a connection that globalization is successful in democratic societies where there is a balance of power and extensive rights for citizens.


 Something that I noticed while reading the examples of failed globalization attempts in Foer’s book is how time is a key factor with regards to a country’s success or failure in globalization. For example, Foer talks about Brazil’s (less than) ten-year period of economic growth and industrial boom (“Brazilian Miracle”) that hit a bump after the 1972 oil shocks. Instead of adjusting Brazil’s economic growth plans due to the oil shocks, the military dictatorship maintained its initial intent and kept the economy aimed at its stellar growth rate; which meant more state spending and more borrowing from foreign banks. This high rate of borrowing and spending put the government into a $40 billion debt, which thus lead to inflation and unemployment. Brazil’s attempt to globalize and become an international power by enacting new policies and creating new public works projects was all done extremely quickly. Just as quickly as the “Brazilian Miracle” began, it crashed and burned.  The lesson I took away from this example is that globalization takes time. For a country to implement an entirely new structure in order to create economic growth, like Brazil did, it may have successful outcomes in the short run, however the Brazilian government had no previous experience or knowledge on how to deal with a bump in the road (the oil shocks) and maintain a steady growth rate. Had Brazil took more time in developing its economic plan or had experts monitoring the plans for economic growth, they may have been more successful. If you look at the U.S. in contrast, which is a country that is known to be a globalized country, it’s important to note that our success did not just come over night. Again, taking a look at our political structure, it took a lot of time, trial and error, patience and innovation to come up with our strong democratic system; and even today, this system that we pride our self on as “the voice of the people” is far from perfect. As the saying goes: slow and steady wins the race and from my observations reading Foer’s book, this applies to globalization as well.

The Legitimacy and Power of the United Nations

The United Nations offers a platform for international discussion and cooperation. But its effectiveness is often highly debated. No matter how effective one believes this institution to be there is always room for improvement. The United Nations will only be as effective and powerful as the states involved perceive it to be. What we should take away from this is the fact that we as actors in a state have the power to give this institution as much or as little legitimacy as we see fit. This means that regardless of ones belief as to whether it serves as an effective forum for change, it can always be changed to reflect the consensus of the given population of people at the time. This means that this institution has the ability to adapt to the needs of the international community. The soft power that open discussion generates is the most powerful tool that the United Nations offers the global community. In this way the sharing of ideas and information allows rational decisions to be made about when to deploy hard power. In order to access the United Nation’s full potential it would be logical to include as many different voices/ viewpoints as possible. This is where I see the most impactful change could be made.
The way in which the United Nation’s permanent members only consist of the United States, Russia, China, France, and England is what I see to be the biggest component of the institution that could be changed. With the council needing no vetoes to pass anything, the conflicting views of these contrasting states often end in no action being taken. To amend this stagnating system of the UN, either more semi permanent members should be added, or a logical system for choosing more permanent members should be enacted. The voting structure is a bit less clear on how one should go about adjusting it. Saying that one country could veto a proposal, and it could still pass could lead to all the other countries in the UN ganging up against one country. Although for this to happen I imagine the country vetoing the action would be either in very clear violation of some fundamental rights issue, or protecting an ally that was. This is not to dismiss the power of discussion, but history tends to remember action better than words.

There are so many more valuable countries, cultures, and people who aren’t being included in this institution’s practices. In the ever more integrated and globalized world community it is essential that we continue to discuss important matters with the majority of the world in order to continue to strive towards peace and cooperation. The most powerful tool that the United Nations uses is the legitimacy it brings to the issues that countries bring forth. Their soft power can often prevent the need for hard power. By diversifying this institution we could grow the potential for soft power to dominate world conflict resolution and help the global community effectively communicate.

Institutions: Reflections of – Not Solutions to - Societal Power Structures


 

From our class discussion of the U.N. as a political institution and from the feminist-psychology perspective of marriage as a social institution, I came to see that institutions inevitably act to produce individual power rather than to produce mutual cooperation.  This is due to the power gradient that exists between the actors who participate in the institution.  Institutions are meant to level the playing field, in the sense that they are meant to bring everyone together under one collection of rules, but in practice, the dominant members of institutions end up writing the rules and thus exerting their power over the weaker members. 

            In class, we discussed the U.N. at some length.  This institution is a prime example of my point; it contains 193 member states but five of these members hold the majority of the power as permanent members of the Security Council (UN.org).  That each of these states has veto power over security issues means that they are each capable of singlehandedly determining the course of action for the Council –even one veto limits the Council’s options.  Thus, the desires of all the other states are subjugated to the desires of at least one of the “Big Five” states.  In this way, the institution intended to be a platform for solving dozens of countries’ problems turned into an institution that serves the interests of a few. My point is that this skewed power is inevitable because no institutional structure can remove from itself a power hierarchy that exists outside the structure; the hierarchy will carry over into the institution.  The Big Five – the U.S., England, France, China, and Russia – all came into the U.N. on the first day with the most economic, political, military, and/or reputational power of all the countries. With this greater power, they were able to be influential in the creation of the institution’s structure; given that it was created by them, from their perspective, it only logically follows that the design of the structure makes room for them and keeps them in power. 

Another example that comes to mind is marriage; I thought of this parallel in class when Professor Shirk mentioned marriage as an example of institutions that are not fully codified but are still fully binding. In my Psychology of Women and Gender class, we discussed how our society is patriarchal and androcentric, meaning that it has been historically focused on men and that its structure has lent the most power to men.  Marriage is nominally an institution of partnership between equals but when it is practiced within the preexisting patriarchal power structure, it (that is, marriage) takes on the same patriarchal power structure.  As a result, marriages often favor the husband in some way.  The evidence for this can be observed in the fact that men are often not required to pay spousal support and if they are, that requirement is not enforced; my psychology textbook reports that “only 15% of all divorced women in the United States are awarded spousal support. Most awards are for a period of about 2 years; and in the past, less than half of the men ordered to provide such support have actually complied” (Crawford 255).  Also, that the man is often put first in marriage is evident in the practice of sex therapists prescribing testosterone to wives who have less sex drive than their husbands; this is done so that his sexual needs can be met (Crawford 230). 

            It is readily observable, then, that institutions – whether marriage or the U.N. or any other – reflect and internalize the power structures that exist outside the institutions.  Therefore, the idea that institutions will bring about mutual cooperation must be tempered with the acknowledgement that the mutuality of such cooperation will be uneven, weighed in the favor of the most powerful member of the institution.

 

Works Cited

Crawford, Mary.  Transformations: Women, Gender, and Psychology. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, 2012.

 

Prisoner's Dilemma Applied to Economics


After the exercises we did in class I became very interested in Prisoner’s Dilemma and how it applies to different types of real world situations. This Article by Elvis Picardo, explains how the prisoner’s dilemma translates to businesses and the economy in the United States. He uses the example of Coke and Pepsi battling in the market to be the most competitive. If Coke were to lower their prices and Pepsi remains at their price, than coke will sell more coke and vice versa. In the end though if neither drops their price it is not the best case scenario but is the second best. Therefore the Prisoner’s Dilemma in economics is very similar to the Prisoner’s Dilemma of International Relations. Picardo then goes on to give a few examples of how to use it in our lives. He uses a salary negotiation as his example. He suggests that one should not take the first offer given by an employer because you may able to get more money out of it, but the employer might say that a higher salary cannot be given. If that same person takes the job immediately the employer may be satisfied but the person could have made more money.

What I have learned from Prisoner’s Dilemma is that without communication between both parties there is no correct answer. If the parties communicate they can find a ground in which both are satisfied. In these cases both parties cannot be completely satisfied but the middle ground would be better than receiving nothing at all. Communication can apply to both economics and international relations. Companies are able to talk to other companies of the same good about pricing, just as a country to talk to another country. Although in the game The Prisoner’s Dilemma no communication is allowed, if this came up in my life I would try first to communicate with the other party. If no communication was allowed then I decided that I would defect (or in our game give up the other person) because the results are either win or get a reduced sentence, which is better than taking the gamble of not defecting and the other person defecting. Therefore, if possible communication is the best case scenario, but if there is miscommunication or an untrustworthy partner, than defecting would be the second best decision. To use the salary example. Communication would most likely not work because the employer may not be willing to have an open conversation about what your salary should be and therefore defecting and saying a high price may cause the employer to raise the salary at least slightly.