American Football, Flags and Fun & Friended at the Front, Conclusion

The article “American Football, Flags and ‘Fun’” examines the integration of commercial sport and the culture of militarism in the Armed Forces Bowl. The Armed Forces Bowl produces an entertainment spectacle which draws on branding practices and support the troop rhetoric. The authors argue that the Armed Forces Bowl consequently trivializes war and shapes American identity within a culture of militarism.

The article first introduces the idea that militarism has extended into different aspects of American culture including sports. When this occurs without our recognition or awareness, a culture of militarism more easily perpetuates. A simple, tempting thought is to think sports are free from politics, but the article provides examples of how sport and military have been closely tied throughout American history.

The article then transitions to examining the more recent collaboration between college football and the U.S. Armed Forces which uses the trend of sponsorships and militarism to legitimize war. Bell Helicopter, a military manufacturer, became the official sponsor of the Armed Forces Bowl in 2006. This new dynamic used the” logic of corporate sponsorship to normalize the presence of a military spectacle.” The spectacle emphasized fun and fascination with amusement park style exhibition featuring military equipment and machines and other military performances. Its impact then disguises how such equipment is really used and masks the violent realities of war. Bell Helicopter would profit from a continuation of war which would increase demand for military helicopters. The article highlights that unlike usual sponsors which sell a product for direct consumption, Bell Helicopter “sold” an “identity rooted in the culture of militarism.”

One way a citizens positive identification with the troops is fostered is through support the troops rhetoric. The large presence of military members at the game and the celebration of their service through for example the Great American Patriot award simplify the image of troops as exceptional Americans dedicated to American values. Support the troop commercials also associated consumer products like a yellow ribbon with military members so troops become commodities or tokens. This makes it easy for Americans to “symbolically support” the military without much thought about war policies.

The Armed Forces Bowl also conflates sport and war. Citizens become associated with spectating rather than actively deliberating about war. Sport and war are also discussed for example in the ESPN broadcast of the game without pointing out the consequences and violence of war.

http://www.armedforcesbowl.com/

(The official sponsor of the Armed Forces Bowl is now Lockheed Martin. However, the event still includes similar military exhibitions and demonstrations. Also, Lockheed Martin is a large defense contractor)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KONkvptq5Zk

https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/redskins/time-to-blow-taps-on-football-as-war-metaphors/2012/09/08/6eb00924-f936-11e1-a0778d05495927c_story.html?utm_term=.25cd07a259ad

http://www.si.com/thecauldron/2016/09/09/remembering-september-11-nfl-football-warfare

The conclusion of Friended at the Front points out that the “topic of war is unfitting for discussion on social media” and that the definition of war is changing. While social media allows for connectivity, social media norms also prescribe content that is usually lighthearted and casual. As Marines try to communicate their deployment experiences through the constraints of a social medium, that social medium also affects how they think about those deployments. Marines’ description and understanding of war is influenced by conventional cultural expectations of war held by not only themselves but also their audiences on social media. The distinction between everyday life and war is also blurring with the use of social media to stay in constant contact with home and the changing nature and persistence of modern wars. Social media content posted during deployment also affects the memories of those deployments since they usually omit the negative details. Marines’ use of terms such as “everyday”, “vacation” and “work” to describe war also indicate that the reality of war looks and feels different than before.

http://www.ccw.ox.ac.uk/research/

http://www.pbs.org/pov/warfeelslikewar/excerpt-the-myth-of-war/

31 Responses to "American Football, Flags and Fun & Friended at the Front, Conclusion"

Isaiah Duplessis says:

February 14, 2017 at 5:56 pm

“We view the rhetorical production of the Armed Forces Bowl as antitroop to the extent that it legitimizes the “war on terror,” thus placing more military personnel at risk of injury or death.”
This statement succinctly addresses the paradox of war and the War Rhetoric that is the current societal norm. It is obvious when we drop the pretenses of our society that at this moment the way we treat war is wrong. If we cannot as individuals arise questions for why we fight war we will feel powerless to the way the government attempts to “spin” their growing imperialism.
The military is a brand. That’s my biggest takeaway from our readings thus far.
If we address this event in particular we see that the “military brand” is expansive. The United States military itself does not actually own the sponsorship to this game. I would like to define it as the intersection of interests that promote war. The reason being, there are a number of groups that benefit from the promotion of war. For example, the article discusses the lack of military supplies, while there is an overwhelming amount of supplies being displayed at this even that are terrifying armaments when used appropriately. While the U.S. government would certainly approve of this display there happens a conglomeration of corporations, politicians, and powerful people that depend upon war.
The same way Coca-Cola is branding itself to influence people to purchase it. The military is branding itself to get people to support war, beyond getting people to simply join it. IT is intriguing how when cigarettes were associated with lung cancer and death, the government was able to get ads for cigarettes off television. The military is honestly killing people and in the same way as cigarettes using disillusion to get people to support it. Military footage is blurred so that America looks strong and militaristic in its core values. Militainment in the media at this point would be impossible to suppress. Moreover, even if it were to be suppressed there would certainly exist other ways to influence people and keep them disillusioned (people still smoke).
Side note: Relating back to the rise of Nationalism, in the article it claims during the World War era there was a rise of Nationalism. Remember the Olympics in Germany (1936), and how the world stage would see the display of the German National Anthem as the American team entered.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WKvaE7Euevk
Countries copy other countries and son America plays the national anthem at sporting events in our own country. Thus, nationalism cascades and builds. This can be seen through the security process to enter countries after 9/11.
I want to say that will some of our nationalistic actions taken by the current administration will likely spread to other countries and the effects will be seen.
1. Emily Wu says:
  
  February 24, 2017 at 12:59 pm
  
  I like the first quote you mentioned. Can we “support” current troops without encouraging future troops and war? It also reminds me of how those who use support the troop rhetoric often exploit and commodify military members to promote their own interests. I think it is interesting that while the military can be considered a brand, it is not the only actor involved in its branding and promotion. You say “militainment in the media at this point would be impossible to suppress.” How then do you think we can change or challenge the messages of militainment?
  1. Isaiah Duplessis says:
    
    March 5, 2017 at 2:58 pm
    
    In response to your question while I acknowledge we should, I think it is impossible because of how ingrained it is in society. We can not roll back consumerism, that raises kids to define themselves by the brands they affiliate themselves with. In the same way as long as we encourage the freedom of speech we cannot repeal this.
    
    Cigarettes were concluded dangerous, but isn’t alcohol just as much? The ban on cigarettes could likely be rechallenged in this day and age, and O’m simply contending we as a public make it hard to control media. We are a society that supports few regulations.
Sean Foley says:

February 14, 2017 at 9:32 pm

The Armed Forces Bowl has become a great example of “support for the troops” rhetoric while using deflection. From the military demonstrations to the commercialized use of military equipment the game is a constantly trying to remind us that the military are the good guys and that war is not all blood and the loss of life. However, I see the Armed Forces Bowl as a positive and not a negative. I do not think it is a problem for the bowl game to exist. Yes, it is not ideal for a weapons manufacturer to be sponsoring a sporting event; however, why not support our troops by representing them proudly in a very American way at a football game. I can agree with Butterworth and Moskal that somethings in the events for the game perhaps go too far. Yet, overall I enjoy the game and the events of the Armed Forces Bowl. I do not believe that war is good, but I do believe that the military can be seen as a good entity with many opportunities besides the hardships of war.
The conclusion of Friended At The Front hit on ideas that I have been connecting while reading the text. I agree with Emily that defining the boundaries of war and relationships back home have become frankly undefined. It has caused the deployed soldiers to have a constant reminder of domestic life. Which in some instances is great; however, I believe that in a majority of the cases soldiers felt too great of a responsibility to constantly keep in touch with their family and therefore forced them to pull away from focusing on their mission.
1. Emily Wu says:
  
  February 24, 2017 at 1:00 pm
  
  I would say that the danger in supporting our troops by recognizing them at a football game is that it promotes a superficial or “empty patriotism” that is easy and distracts us from thinking about war policy. You highlighted an important dynamic when you asked ” WHY NOT support our troops..at a football game.” I think this captures the common even unifying appeal of support the troop rhetoric. If someone were to argue against military representation at a football game, I think they would met with hard questions ( including questions about their character/morals) and resistance. I wonder though if there are more productive ways to demonstrate support for troops rather than just at a game or commercial and “consumerized” venues. The game and the events of the Armed Forces Bowl are probably quite enjoyable as you said and it is interesting that war is fit into this fun atmosphere. Can you give some examples of what you mean by “the military can be seen as a good entity with many opportunities besides the hardships of war?
Caroline Zerkle says:

February 14, 2017 at 9:46 pm

I agree that militarism has spread to many aspects of American society, however I find it difficult to fully agree with the notion that military alignment with sports really shifts or endorses war for Americans. In my opinion, those who do not agree with the current war at hand are not likely to be swayed by these gestures of “militainment”. Events such as the Armed Services Bowl likely reaffirm the beliefs of those who do agree with the current war. Emily also said referring to “militainment” that “When this occurs without our recognition or awareness, a culture of militarism more easily perpetuates”. I have to say that I disagree with this because I feel as though most people recognize and are aware of when there is pro military rhetoric or “militainment”, but don’t care much or are indifferent. Meaning that while there is influence, its not large enough to change the opinions of those who oppose military involvement or are apathetic. Personally, I don’t think that “supporting the troops” or aligning events, people, or places with the military is making or causing anyone or everyone to support wars. Everyday, lots of different controversial causes are endorsed, but an endorsement doesn’t correlate or force anyone to believe in that cause.

The article also talks about how the military is branding itself. My question however is, why wouldn’t it brand itself? Of course the military is representative of the country, but every part of the government is a business in itself that requires self-promotion and branding. In order for the military to be its most effective, they need people to support it and follow it. Will it get support from all? No. Should it? No. I guess I just feel that if you are bothered by the alignment of the military with sports, just turn off the TV.
1. Emily Wu says:
  
  February 24, 2017 at 1:00 pm
  
  I guess I should clarify that while people may recognize the presence of “militainment”, they do not always think critically and recognize its consequences. However, I think you make a good point that some may recognize it but are indifferent. I think both ignorance and apathy/complacency on part of the citizenry can contribute to a more militaristic culture. I agree that the pro military endorsement may not cause such drastic changes such as causing people to support war but I think even the subtle ways it acts can gradually make a difference.
Corey Beutel says:

February 14, 2017 at 10:01 pm

While the Armed Forces Bowl falls under militainment, so do most of our non-military football games. There are often jets flying over, troops being supported, anthems sung, and at the very least a flag being flown. Our average football game is part of the military-industrial complex. The military-industrial complex is so large that private companies take advantage of it in order to make profits. Is this acceptable practice? To me it is not, but it still occurs. The military-industrial complex is so large that it cannot be easily stopped. Our military cannot be looked at as “the force we use to fight wars” it is now an integral part of capitalist America.

At the conclusion of Silvestri’s “Friended at the Front” the idea that war and social media are not compatible is exposed. The trends of social media are not beneficial for the lives of soldiers. Instead maybe a private version social media in which soldiers can discuss with other soldiers would be better. However, soldiers will never be stripped of access to social media since the backlash from it would be gigantic. People at home would not stand to lose connection with their beloved soldiers no matter what the evidence says against communication through social media. It seems as though we are stuck with the current system until someone can totally change interactions between soldiers and the families at home.
1. Emily Wu says:
  
  February 24, 2017 at 1:00 pm
  
  I think you make a good point in directing our attention from the big spectacle of the Armed Forces Bowl to more everyday average football games to see the prevalence of the military industrial complex. How do you think the military-industrial complex developed to the point where it is now “so large and cannot be easily stopped”?
  
  As for “Friended at the Front”, do you see any benefit of social media on the lives of soldiers?
Michael Horan says:

February 14, 2017 at 10:13 pm

This article points out several specific details about the Armed Forces Bowl that demonstrate the idea of militarism. The overarching theme is that the conflation of war and sport lessens the seriousness of war while equating the idea of the military as fun, which indirectly equates support our troops to support the policy/war. We know this term as militainment. I think in many ways the military has crossed over this boundary, specifically in the Armed Forces Bowl, as described in the article. One thing that took me by surprise was the young boys televised in various military tanks or pretending to use a machine gun at the bowl game. In addition the commentators repeatedly compared the game and the military spectacle alike to entertainment. I believe commentators should refrain from this direct input of military “fun” in sports, because it is desensitizing the the horrors of war. Nonetheless, I am not opposing the idea of the Armed Forces Bowl or other military acknowledgements in sport. Many people simply like the “tradition” that the military has had in sports for many generations. I believe that when most people gather for sporting events, they aren’t glorifying the war, but are showing honor for troops who’s lives are on the line, so Americans can be free to go to sporting events etc. Overall, I believe that sport is not the place to merge “fun” with military, and it is the role of the government to make sure that the correct message is being sent.
1. Emily Wu says:
  
  February 24, 2017 at 1:01 pm
  
  Yes I think the video clip and the comments you described are surprising and concerning. Moreover that message of military and fun are broadcast to thousands of viewers. The article also mentions how “no once commented on how helicopters and tanks are used”. Why do you think the commentators/ESPN presented war in such a normalized way? Was it purposeful? Did they have something to gain?In response to your last sentence, can the government really send the “correct message” about the military when it has its own self interests tied with the military?
Helen Spiller says:

February 14, 2017 at 10:29 pm

For some reason I really struggled with this article. I think it may be because in my family, football is a big deal. My grandfather, father, and uncle all played college football and Saturdays and Sundays in my household are entirely dedicated to football. Growing up going to Ravens games every Sunday, my family always cheered when the jets flew over the field or when the troops stood up to be recognized. To me growing up, America was football and America was our troops; it all went hand in hand. I guess that is why I never entirely saw the rhetoric and normalcy that this was. This, every sunday, aspect of war was normal and expected to me. It was, as Butterworth and Moskal said, ‘‘defined in a way that makes them appear to represent the natural order of things”. Similar to the slogan, ‘Support the Troops’ it all plays into this culture of militarism that is so common in the United States that we don’t even recognize it.
I think both of these pieces referenced two things that are ultimately inevitable. American troops and football are two things that Americans always think of together and always will; they are both deeply embedded in American culture and inevitably are placed together. The conclusion of ‘Friended at the Front’ touches upon the negatives and positives of our world of social media taking over and reaching our soldiers abroad. Again, I think social media affecting soldiers abroad was another entirely inevitable thing. It is almost a necessary evil for the soldiers. They now have another thing to juggle along with war. They have to respond to family and attempt to keep up with the homefront. All in all, I think that both of these articles referenced things in American culture that are inevitable in a way. Militarism in American culture is an ever-present and accepted thing, along with the good and bad things that come along with this expected constant interaction and expectations for troops abroad.
1. Emily Wu says:
  
  February 24, 2017 at 1:01 pm
  
  It interesting how natural the relationship between sports and war seems to us. Why do you think American football specifically is an effective platform for military presentation and rhetoric? While the events you referenced can seem as you say inevitable, I think the articles try to unpack the different forces involved in the development of these events. By understanding these forces I think we gain insight into shaping the future.
Nicolas Delvalle says:

February 14, 2017 at 10:53 pm

“We do not mean to suggest here that having respect and admiration for
members of the U.S. Armed Forces is inappropriate.” pg. 420

To touch on a subject that was brought up during Monday’s class, the difficulty an author faces when presenting an article even vaguely anti-troop is alarming. There is no group to rally behind them if they state anything of the sort, and so it is of grave importance that they make known that their stance is pro-troop or they stand to lose their audience. The dominance and control that has been afforded to the “Support the Troops” movement is in part due to anti-war protesters acceptance of the slogan, cementing its popularity across nearly the whole of America.

The trivialization of war and serving in the military is something I addressed a few weeks ago in a post, but Butterworth lays the topic out much better than I ever could. I find it fascinating that by adding a single adjective to the mission of the bowl game another layer is added to how the game and the military interact. In the same way, video games trivialize war through their commonplace occurrence in daily life. The violence contained within them in the context of war helps to deaden what it means to serve in the military, both by trivializing killing and making it “like a game.” Video games such as Call of Duty are associated with the military and with fun, just as the Bell Helicopter Armed forces Bowl game is.
1. Emily Wu says:
  
  February 24, 2017 at 1:01 pm
  
  You make a good point about the power of support the troop rhetoric. How do you think different groups can be pro-troop while promoting specific beliefs about the war?
  Even the US Army created an online video game called America’s Army which claims to simulate a military experience. The video game acts a form of entertainment and recruitment strategy by sanitizing violence and encouraging players to identify with the Army. What do you think about how the military tries to portray itself in this context? Do you think the video game is an effective recruitment strategy?
Steven Zhang says:

February 15, 2017 at 1:10 am

I agree with the conclusion in the Friended at The Front. The lighthearted nature of the social media is not the fitting table for topics of war. The troops’ interaction with the social media also affects their understanding and their record of the war. They are more likely to treat their deployment as “every day, work stuff”. Especially, I noticed a part of the interview the author quoted in the conclusion in order to illustrate that the nature of war is remaining undefined. The troop said, “nothing in the war is worthy documentation”, and “it’s the same thing all over again”. His words make me realize that life at the front, in most cases, is not as fantasized as the life that portrayed in the war movies and novels. And the pictures they posted for the public are normally not taken under some extreme situations, but the buildings or the debris field, which are the proof of the war, they encountered in the street. I feel like, under the influence of the social media, the group of troops becomes more common. But I don’t think it’s a bad change. Their normalized life at the front might reflect the trend of the resolving international conflict. It’s the necessary outcome of the military issue that we all expected.

The article “American Football, Flags and ‘Fun’” performs specific analysis of The Armed Forces Bowl. I think the argument corresponds to some point in the Friended at the Front, that the militarism is contained in present social norms. By examining the close relationship between the military and the Armed Forces Bowl, the author shows how the militarism is trivialized and accepted by the public. From this perspective, it is the government which leads people to accept the militarism, but it is also how does a social norm penetrate into daily life.
1. Emily Wu says:
  
  February 24, 2017 at 1:02 pm
  
  Yes it is interesting because although the nature of war is changing, representations and expectations of war largely have not changed. I think this incongruity can make it difficult for troops to understand their own experience and communicate it with others. Do you think the normalize life at the front could also reflect a trend of a perpetual rather than resolving conflict?
Colin O'Donnell says:

February 15, 2017 at 9:30 am

I do think that the Armed Forces Bowl is an example of militainment. However I disagree that this or the parachuting of soldier onto a football field actually promotes war. I think that these acts are meant more as promotional advertisements of the military rather than actually trying to gain support for the war. I do not believe that turning on the Armed Forces Bowl would make you change your opinion on war but rather strengthen your resolve for whatever side you are on. One quote which I found particularly interesting was “Thus, rather than snack foods and insurance, college football audiences are sold an image of national identity that depends on war”. This quote argues that just by promoting the military you are promoting war. I can see how this could be the case for some people but I disagree with this quote as I think it is very easy to support our military or “support our troops” without being actually pro war. I see a clear decision to be made where you can honor those who put their lives at risk in war but also fight to bring them back from war.

However I also can see some of the bad aspects of mixing army with sports. For one it could lead to people taking the army less seriously as they see the kind of mix between play and it is important to know that the army is about actually killing your enemies rather than just tackling them.
1. Emily Wu says:
  
  February 24, 2017 at 1:02 pm
  
  I would agree that if you already have a strong opinion on war you would view the Armed Forces Bowl in a way that reinforces your position. If you don’t really have an opinion, I think the Armed Forces Bowl can distract you from developing an opinion on war policy and make militarism seem like a natural aspect of American society. It may be “easy” to support troops without being pro war but it can be messy especially when events like the Armed Forces Bowl entangle honoring the military (which most people wouldn’t argue against) with providing a fun spectacle of military presentations.I am curious what you think about this quote from the article: “there is considerable risk that when Americans accepts the sponsor’s invitation to “support the troops” they are simultaneously giving tacit support to a corporation the profits from sending those troops to war.
Michael Paul says:

February 15, 2017 at 9:34 am

War has become so prevalent in sport to the point that its viewers are numb to what war actually entails. Citizens become associated with spectating rather than actively considering the effects on war. One thing Butterworth and Moskal’s article could have touched upon more is that sport is not the only issue. The amount citizens are able to witness war in recreation, such as through video games and television, I would say has a more profound effect than during sporting events. This idea of “empty patriotism” is even evident in seemingly unimportant parts of our lives. Camouflage, for example, is a widely used clothing style that has little or no significance towards patriotism of supporting troops because it is viewed as a part of culture. Similarly, militainment in sporting events has the same effects. Me personally, I don’t even consider our nation’s army or troops when the national anthem is sung, nor is it even a thought when airplanes fly overhead. This forced patriotism has been so overused that it has lost its meaning.

I find some parallels between this and Friended at the Front. While social media has many benefits for troops abroad and those back home, it has desensitized the way we view war. With so much communication, messages have lost a lot of meaning and lack the “big picture” that used to carry much more meaning when communication was scarcer. With so much connectivity, the reality of war can become skewed (even more than it is now). This trend in America is worrisome for the future. Will citizens continue to lack care for their troops? Is this a trend that will continue? Many questions remain unanswered, but I am curious to see how it plays out in the coming years.
1. Emily Wu says:
  
  February 24, 2017 at 1:11 pm
  
  I like how you pointed out other ways war has seeped into our everyday lives. It is interesting that you see these military representations without thought about the military and dismiss it simply as part of American culture. Do you think this culture becomes part of our identity? What happens if we begin to identify ourselves within a culture of militarism? You say the military messages have lost meaning but I wonder if we have just become oblivious to the implications of the messages. I think it is dangerous if we think that these messages do not have power if they really do and I think this dynamic is part of the power of these messages. I wonder then what your thoughts are on the claim ” the complex thrives on the very obliviousness of the civilian population to its existence in the world it has made so much its own”.
Madeline Tolsdorf says:

February 15, 2017 at 10:45 am

As we discussed during the first class, war is especially prevalent in sports. Sports have an exciting atmosphere with lots of people who are patriotic and believe in supporting their country. That being said, the fact that sports and the military have been so closely connected in the past decades has desensitized citizens to the true meaning and job the military is a part of – defending our country and fighting for others. This desensitization can be attributed to many causes; predominantly, the way that sports have represented the military often causes the military to be portrayed as just that – a sport. The military has so many ties to the sport world that many citizens occasionally see it as a sport itself. This causes the military to lose its meaning as an important and dangerous job vital to our country’s continued ability to provide for its citizens.

Social media is another way we as citizens have been desensitized to the brutal aspects of war. Friended at the Front has discussed this throughout, but it is again touched upon and discussed in the conclusion. Social media is too much of a casual form of communication and should not always be used to discuss the dark topics that come with war. It is understandable that soldiers use the platforms in order to keep in touch with their friends and family on the other side, but a constant stream of use for social media on the fronts can lead to misunderstanding and desensitization for citizens and increased frustration within soldiers.
1. Emily Wu says:
  
  February 24, 2017 at 1:12 pm
  
  I like how you highlighted a theme of desensitization across the readings. You mentioned how war is sometimes seen as a sport and the consequences of this. On the flip side of this conflation, what do you think are the consequences of seeing sport as war? You said “social media is too much of a casual form of communication and should not always be used to discuss the dark topics that come with war.” What other platforms do you think are suitable to discuss war? Are there any?
Sophia Bruce says:

February 15, 2017 at 10:49 am

My experience with war and sports is very different than I believe is normal. Having gone to a small private school with no football team and coming from a family that doesn’t watch a lot of football, the integration of sports and war/supporting the troops rhetoric is new to me. That being said, I understand where it comes from and can see why it is used as a form of rhetoric. Football can be seen as a very American thing and attributing war to it makes it a patriotic event. Having Americans come together for a collective event that they all believe in and then infuse war into that makes it into a rhetorical event. The Armed Forces Bowl also falls under militainment, with the color guard, flying gets, and the flag being flown. Sports are often used for entertaining, and by adding militar to this experience, viewers and subconsciously creating the connection between patriotism, fun, and supporting war. This inherently makes football, and all militarized sports, into a military-industrial complex.
For the conclusion of Friended at The Front, I agree with the idea that the intense war rhetoric is not appropriate for the lighthearted nature of social media. This may create an idea that war is not as serious as it should be, or at least we’ll see it that way. In this way, the way we see war is desensitized and takes away from our understanding of a soldier’s experience. Although soldiers are better able to communicate with friends and family, the information that soldiers share lose some of their meaning.
1. Emily Wu says:
  
  February 24, 2017 at 1:12 pm
  
  I am curious because you said the sport/ war rhetoric is new to you what your initial reaction to learning about it was like. For example were you surprised concerned etc? Were there other aspects of militainment or culture of militarism that you are more familiar with from your own experience?
Claire Brown says:

February 15, 2017 at 11:02 am

While the connections between war and sports have certainly become stronger over time and military involvement has certainly grown, I do not know if I can agree with the statement that this intertwinement must foster a pro-war sentiment. While there certainly are many instances where this is the case for a portion of the audience, this is not always the takeaway from a military flyover, for example. In my opinion, the entanglement of war and sports does a great deal to normalize war and “smooth over” any qualms people might have about it through pro-soldier rhetoric as opposed to pro-war rhetoric, referencing Roger Stahl’s article “Why We “Support the Troops” – Rhetorical Evolutions.” This however, does not guarantee what take away the audience gets as some audience might view the military fly overs, soldiers parachuting from the sky, and other sport/military blends and become “excited” in a way, by nationalism or some other ideology, and take a pro-war message away from the event, while others might simply see this as pro-soldier or simply part of a militarized culture.

Take, for example, the San Diego Padres’ addition of a military affairs department in 2011 (http://mlb.mlb.com/sd/military/index.jsp). They could pride themselves on being the first professional sports team to add such a department, and in being able to claim this title, brought new recognition to their team. This move does not scream “pro-war,” however, through adding an entire department, solidifies war’s place in American society. To me, one would not add a department for something temporary, so in this case, the addition of a military affairs department denotes war as something more permanent. Viewers can take away whatever message they wish, however, moves like this do guide the audience towards an embracing of war through pro-soldier and/or pro-war rhetoric.
1. Emily Wu says:
  
  February 24, 2017 at 1:12 pm
  
  I like how you pointed out that the intentions behind the military rhetoric and endorsements do not necessarily determine how viewers interpret it. I think you brought up an important idea that while we are often subject to these presentations, we also have the ability to think and respond critically toward such rhetoric. Do you think its possible to separate pro military with pro war ideas? Does allowing the military a more permanent role in American society more easily lend itself to pro- war sentiment?
George Clayson says:

February 15, 2017 at 12:06 pm

I found it interesting to learn how connected sports, football in particular, are connected to the military. I knew that there was overlapping history between the two, like singing the national anthem before games. Only after reading Butterworth and Moskal’s article did I realize how football is used in American culture as a way to support war and promote military spending and how the military advertises football as an American tradition and a display of patriotism. While writing about the marketing of the Armed Forces Bowl the helicopter company sponsors mention the notion that the purpose of the football game is to have fun and is time for soldiers to relax. It baffles me how militarism can be connected to fun and relaxation, when the exact opposite should be true. Peacetime should be fun and relaxing, not the idea of jets doing a fly over. These aircraft are able to carry enough firepower to destroy the whole football stadium! The integration of militarism into every day life seems way too strong for me.
I agree with the belief that the topic of war is unfit for social media. This is parallel to my conversation of militarism in football, because the over integration and normalization of war as part everyday life is not a good thing. However, social media seems to be an effective tool, whether intentional or not, for the military in terms of recruitment and soldier happiness. Social media is used in lighthearted ways even by marines. Although this is positive at times the overall result of marines sharing their stories through social media is negative, due to the way they have to express their emotions and falsify information to make it fit for the public eye.
1. Emily Wu says:
  
  February 24, 2017 at 1:12 pm
  
  Yes it is also interesting how not only the military is involved in these “advertisements” but also other companies and actors that benefit from pro military or pro- war messages. I like your point about how there seems to be an obscuring or confusion about what war and peace are like. How do you think we can challenge the idea of “jets doing a flyover” as “fun and relaxing”?
  I agree that soldiers do have to adapt the way they communicate to fit their audience but it is also interesting that their understanding and interpretations of their own experiences are also shaped by certain social norms.
Achter says:

February 15, 2017 at 4:51 pm

class, I’d like to draw attention to one key insight about American identity from the article about the Armed Forces Bowl. The authors show that identity is articulated as consumer identity, not a citizen identity. They argue, that “historical articulations of consumers as citizens have been pushed aside in favor of a ‘con- sumerized’ citizenry, ‘where self-interested citizens increasingly view government policies like other market transactions, judging them by how well served they feel personally’ (p. 9). In this way, attending or viewing the Armed Forces Bowl affords Americans the opportunity to play the role of supportive citizen regardless of their level of engagement with matters of politics or war.”

We are invited, interpellated, hailed through discourse to a consumerist ideology, which tends to preclude the question citizens ask: “what’s good for everyone”?
Virginia Thornton says:

April 22, 2017 at 5:36 am

The town I grew up in is right next to Redstone Arsenal, an army post. This post supports 35,000+ jobs in the area. Many of these jobs (about 15,000 of them) are contractors the arsenal hires. Because of the high demand, there are several large defense contractors in the area. One of these is Lockheed Martin, the new sponsor of the Armed Forces Bowl. Growing up signs of the military surrounded me and my peers. There were constant noisy aircrafts buzzing around, they tested out all sorts of loud artillery on the base, and we all knew someone who worked on the arsenal. This constant exposure made enlisting in the armed services very popular in my town, and this meant the high school in my home town had a lot of active duty alumni. For that reason, before every home football game there was a little ceremonious announcement calling for support and asking any active duty or veterans to stand for applause. For me this was second nature. This article made me realize that this correlation that I had in my head between football and the military was not a natural one but put there. I think I would feel weird if I went to a football game and there wasn’t some sort of support the troops rhetoric, even if it is innocent as my high school football games. I never thought about how all of us giving soldiers rounds of applause throughout the years was “simplifying the image of troops as exceptional Americans dedicated to American values,” as Emily said.

Comments are closed.