One of the most successful football coaches in the NFL, Vince Lombardi, said “If it doesn't matter who wins or loses, then why do they keep score?” From the early childhood days on the playground to real life politics, society tends to view events, people, outcomes, and games in categories of the “winners” or “losers”. Why was this mentality created and more importantly why does society continue to embrace it? The winning mindset is contagious and addicting- one that desired more and more after each successful accomplishment. When has the Superbowl champion one year sat back the next because “we already won once, let’s have someone else have their chance at winning the title”? Unfortunately for society winning has been a dominant trait in our culture (some societies more than others), and it is how the people and countries react to this tendency which helps define their true character and morality.
Looking outside the field of sports to the question of what does winning mean in actual world politics is a debate that could never be answered in a manner that is simply black and white or with clear winners and losers. Even in our class game of Risk it was impossible to understand who the “best” team actually was. If black, yellow, or red team had won over the blue would the “world” in Risk be better off? Of course not, because as soon as the players on the teams leave the classroom we were taken away from the board game and pieces of plastic that represented armies and put back into the real world of consequences for our actions.
From my experience studying different wars in history,I have observed that it is justifiable to call winning a state of mind that is so powerful that it has the ability to spread to others. To this day one of the most successful victories viewed by the people of the United States has been the American Revolution. In grade school I clearly remember being taught about the victory of the peace seeking and moral colonists over the greedy and money hungry people from Great Britain. To Americans the “victories” achieved by the colonists against Great Britain for separation from the crown were a model example of true leadership and the successes that can come from “winning” a war. The strength and power felt by the colonists spread all across North America. Americans began to “win” in wars against the Native Americans, Spanish, and French for conquest of the North American territory. The concept of “winning” in world politics is thus impossible to define today because there is never a clear cut victory- as it depends upon whose perspective one is viewing any confrontation. The viewpoint from which I remember being taught American history was drastically skewed and left me with a serious misinterpretation. Unlike Risk, there will always be consequences of war either in casualties or monetary loss. However, it is how a country recovers from a “win” or “loss” of a war that shows the true strength they have as a nation.
In the game of Risk, even with outcomes getting increasingly difficult for some teams, they never gave up. In world politics even though “winning” can never be clear, the true victory rests in a country’s ability to unite against outside forces or attacks and to emerge stronger and more unified in the end. With the attacks of September 11th (slightly similar to troubles some of the teams had in our game of Risk), it was difficult for our country to emerge from the heartbreak and destruction the attacks and misfortunes created from that tragedy. However, we were able to recover from the attacks stronger and determined to prevent such misfortunes from occurring again.
In world politics one country can never just “win” the game of territorial conquest or protection of resources because it’s a game that never ends. In response to Vince Lombardi’s quote, the mentality of winning and losing will be forever prominent in society. However, it is important to remember that even if one country thinks they might have won- in world politics the game is never over.
No comments:
Post a Comment