Trying to explain my fellow Americans to Europeans

I spend a lot of time working in America and working with Americans. They're more nationalist than almost any other nationality I've ever come across. You won't see houses with british flags outside them in London or German flags in Berlin. Well, not as many anyway. But you will if you go round the suburbs of any American city. So, from that point of view you are wrong. Also there tends to be a more insular attitude in the US regarding events in the rest of the world - if it doesn't happen there it doesn't matter. You just don't get that attitude in Europe. Where you are right is that european countries tend to back their boxers more than happens in the states. Over there cities and states will back certain fighters but very rarely the whole country. Edit - don't want that to read like America bashing. It isn't ... I love the country and it's people ... well, a lot of them!

SO you got shit support??? LOL joking i did read your article and it made sense. But i still dont understand why an american wouldnt want the american to win. Surely you must realise other countries judge america by america and not its states??? So this creates nationalistic pride (the fact you want your country to be the best). we don't really care. just look at the olympics. the only reason why we cared about phelps was because he won all those damn medals.

note, this is not my opinion, but IS the opinion carried by most British/Europeans; Americans are not liked as they appear to be rude, LOUD and dare I say it, come across as incredibly stupid. lol... we don't care what brits/euros think, we just wanna shag your women (catherine zeta jones, keira knightly, lucy pinder, etc...)

SO you got shit support??? LOL joking i did read your article and it made sense. But i still dont understand why an american wouldnt want the american to win. Surely you must realise other countries judge america by america and not its states??? So this creates nationalistic pride (the fact you want your country to be the best).

The more I get into soccer/football, the more I begin to understand the divide culturally between our cultures. We do not think in terms of nationalism in the same way. Neither is better, neither is worse, but I've come to a conclusion that I believe to be accurate. This may be long, but if I am right I believe it will be worthwhile for people on both sides to read it. The basic claim is this: Europeans express there loves and biases in terms of nationality, Americans through less consistent channels. Americans rarely ever root for a fighter because he is American. That is the truth. It just doesn't happen. British people however, for example, will root passionately for a fighter for seemingly no other reason. The biases are an extension of passion and exists in all people, but they show differently. Europeans don't seem to find our biases well. Again, it has little to do with being American. America is too big and divided historically for that. We have regional and racial biases out the asshole, but it is rare that you will see a nationally united bias in sports. Inner city blacks will become Floyd nuthuggers, rural blue collared whites will root for Kelly Pavlik. Puerto Ricans will root for Puerto Ricans, Mexican-Americans for Mexican brawlers. Irish-Americans for John Duddy, Polish-Americans for Adamek. Fighters will have strong regional ties as well too. Cory Spinks would receive favorably treatment in St. Louis and St. Louis alone, for example. The reasons for this are both conditioning and history. First let us address the conditioning. Americans are basically NEVER exposed to international competition. Our most popular sports are exclusively (with the exception of teams in Toronto, Canada) American city based organizations with mostly American players. Americans learn growing up to think team versus team, the Bulls versus the Lakers, the Cowboys versus the 49ers. America as a country never factors in. We have no European Premier League and any equivalent. Nationality doesn't come into play at all. The only time it does is when the Olympics roll around every four years, but even then it is treated as an amusing distraction. I've never met someone who really cares (or, look at the ratings, even really watches) the Olympics. We are not conditioned to think in terms of nationality like a European would be growing up. Consequently we commit arguably the worst kind of arrogance: Americans often forget about the rest of the world. If it isn't here, it doesn't exist. It has never been necessary to look outside our borders for our sporting entertainment. If a fighter doesn't come here than he instantly isn't worth our time. That isn't true, obviously, but it is the built in perception. That is why fighters like Carl Froch get dismissed all the time. It is an ingrained cultural flaw that will take time to fade. It isn't an active, "anti-x" bias; it is passive, which you could argue is worse. It isn't that x fighter is German and therefore we don't like him, it is that he is German and doesn't exist by default unless he comes here and proves himself. It took Calzaghe to come here and win a fight before he was acknowledged by everyone. Arthur Abraham comes here once, KOs Miranda (a guy he had already beat anyway), and suddenly is accepted. You can bet Froch will be too now. Hatton is probably the most accepted British fighter in history in the US. Why? Because he has fought here so many times. So we have a passive bias that we don't realize, generally, is even there against people who don't come here. What is our in favor of bias again? Race and region. America is a huge landmass. The same athletes people care about in Los Angeles don't matter half as much in New York City. Also, there has never been one America in terms of population. It has always been a splintered group. There are probably dozens of Americas within these borders, each will have different allegiances. I'm aware that this holds true to some extent everywhere, but there are few places where the history of race relations is so... ingrained. I hope that helped. I hope that explains why when a fighter like Jermain Taylor loses to a fighter like Carl Froch and you come to taunt the fat yanks our deserved medicine for dismissing Froch and supporting Taylor you get such funny looks. No one thinks like that. Americans didn't even realize they were dismissing Froch and I'd venture to guess that most American boxing fans don't support Jermain Taylor specifically. African Americans will, people from the Southeast might, but random white guy from Seattle watched that like it was two fighters from Zimbabwe. He had no attachment. The country is too big, too divided, and no one ever taught him to think like that in terms of sports. It was a good post but I thinky ou went a bit over the top with a few things. First off, Americans do compete internationally... A LOT. The U.S is one of the most invloved countries as far as international competition goes. The probel, which I agree with you on, is that in the U.S we tend to take things for granted a lot and don't support our athletes the way we should because there are so many sports here to root for. The U.S is a vast country and isn't really close to any rival as far as sports are concerned. Mexico and the U.S have developed a nice socer rivalry but in reality not many Americans care too much about soccer. In baseball, the U.S really watches the Major Leagues more than it does the Carribbean Series or the Baseball world series. I agree with most of what you say but I do think Americans unite when the time is right and for the right sport.

Makes sense i spose.... Good post

I did read it. Your argument is that the USA is vast country, and is fractured several times over by ethnic and class lines. I agree with you. My Cousin was in an Irish bar in New York. He spoke to his friend and the barman said:'God, it's terrible what you people did to the Irish?'...making some random sweeping statement. My Cousin has a London accent so explained, that actually both his parents are Irish, consequently turns out the bar man went to Ireland like once in his whole life, but he was an Irish-American. It is somewhat like that over here too to be honest. Every body is 'from' somewhere else. And American is Britain on a far bigger scales, with even more imaginary dividing lines. I was responding to the post before yours, sorry. Your post wasn't there so I didn't bother to quote his. Your feedback and thoughts from England are very appreciated.

Well you should probably continue for the explanation. Americans are extremely biased, but not for Americans as a whole. Our biases are for specific niches of our country. Blacks for Mayweather, Mexican-Americans for Margarito, Puerto Ricans for Tito, whites for Pavlik, people from St. Louis for Cory Spinks. Keep reading and it will make more sense. I spend the rest of the time trying to explain that. I realize having spent time in Europe that it is an alien concept to not think in terms of nationality, but Americans really don't much in terms of sport. Our bias comes out way differently. I did read it. Your argument is that the USA is a vast country, and is fractured several times over on ethnic and class lines. I agree with you. My Cousin was in an Irish bar in New York. He spoke to his friend and the barman said:'God, it's terrible what you people did to the Irish?'...making some random sweeping statement. My Cousin has a London accent so explained, that actually both his parents are Irish, consequently turns out the bar man went to Ireland like once in his whole life, but he was an Irish-American. It is somewhat like that over here too to be honest. Every body is 'from' somewhere else. And America is Britain on a far bigger scale, with even more imaginary dividing lines.

You're asking me what a discussion on how people root for boxers has to do with... boxing? I literally just tilted my head to the side like a confused dog.

what does this have to do with boxing?

Well you should probably continue for the explanation. Americans are extremely biased, but not for Americans as a whole. Our biases are for specific niches of our country. Blacks for Mayweather, Mexican-Americans for Margarito, Puerto Ricans for Tito, whites for Pavlik, people from St. Louis for Cory Spinks. Keep reading and it will make more sense. I spend the rest of the time trying to explain that. I realize having spent time interacting with European culture that it is an alien concept to not think in terms of nationality, but Americans really don't much in terms of sport. Our bias comes out way differently.

The more I get into soccer/football, the more I begin to understand the divide culturally between our cultures. We do not think in terms of nationalism in the same way. Neither is better, neither is worse, but I've come to a conclusion that I believe to be accurate. This may be long, but if I am right I believe it will be worthwhile for people on both sides to read it. The basic claim is this: Europeans express there loves and biases in terms of nationality, Americans through less consistent channels. Americans rarely ever root for a fighter because he is American. That is the truth. It just doesn't happen. British people however, for example, will root passionately for a fighter for seemingly no other reason. The biases are an extension of passion and exists in all people, but they show differently. Europeans don't seem to find our biases well. Again, it has little to do with being American. America is too big and divided historically for that. We have regional and racial biases out the asshole, but it is rare that you will see a nationally united bias in sports. Inner city blacks will become Floyd nuthuggers, rural blue collared whites will root for Kelly Pavlik. Puerto Ricans will root for Puerto Ricans, Mexican-Americans for Mexican brawlers. Irish-Americans for John Duddy, Polish-Americans for Adamek. Fighters will have strong regional ties as well too. Cory Spinks would receive favorably treatment in St. Louis and St. Louis alone, for example. The reasons for this are both conditioning and history. First let us address the conditioning. Americans are basically NEVER exposed to international competition. Our most popular sports are exclusively (with the exception of teams in Toronto, Canada) American city based organizations with mostly American players. Americans learn growing up to think team versus team, the Bulls versus the Lakers, the Cowboys versus the 49ers. America as a country never factors in. We have no European Premier League and any equivalent. Nationality doesn't come into play at all. The only time it does is when the Olympics roll around every four years, but even then it is treated as an amusing distraction. I've never met someone who really cares (or, look at the ratings, even really watches) the Olympics. We are not conditioned to think in terms of nationality like a European would be growing up. Consequently we commit arguably the worst kind of arrogance: Americans often forget about the rest of the world. If it isn't here, it doesn't exist. It has never been necessary to look outside our borders for our sporting entertainment. If a fighter doesn't come here than he instantly isn't worth our time. That isn't true, obviously, but it is the built in perception. That is why fighters like Carl Froch get dismissed all the time. It is an ingrained cultural flaw that will take time to fade. It isn't an active, "anti-x" bias; it is passive, which you could argue is worse. It isn't that x fighter is German and therefore we don't like him, it is that he is German and doesn't exist by default unless he comes here and proves himself. It took Calzaghe to come here and win a fight before he was acknowledged by everyone. Arthur Abraham comes here once, KOs Miranda (a guy he had already beat anyway), and suddenly is accepted. You can bet Froch will be too now. Hatton is probably the most accepted British fighter in history in the US. Why? Because he has fought here so many times. So we have a passive bias that we don't realize, generally, is even there against people who don't come here. What is our in favor of bias again? Race and region. America is a huge landmass. The same athletes people care about in Los Angeles don't matter half as much in New York City. Also, there has never been one America in terms of population. It has always been a splintered group. There are probably dozens of Americas within these borders, each will have different allegiances. I'm aware that this holds true to some extent everywhere, but there are few places where the history of race relations is so... ingrained. I hope that helped. I hope that explains why when a fighter like Jermain Taylor loses to a fighter like Carl Froch and you come to taunt the fat yanks our deserved medicine for dismissing Froch and supporting Taylor you get such funny looks. No one thinks like that. Americans didn't even realize they were dismissing Froch and I'd venture to guess that most American boxing fans don't support Jermain Taylor specifically. African Americans will, people from the Southeast might, but random white guy from Seattle watched that like it was two fighters from Zimbabwe. He had no attachment. The country is too big, too divided, and no one ever taught him to think like that in terms of sports. Great post. I think that is a key point (bolded part). That passiveness only perpetuates Brits and other European's desire to beat American's. If they lose, they can written-off as a never was. The Soccer thing is a key point too. If Football (I'll call it football) was the No1 sport in America, I think your average American's sports fan psyche would be completely different. Completely.