The Effects of the World Cup: similarities to Dodger Stadium
The World Cup has been the biggest and most popular competition in the world since its inaugural campaign in 1930, with the last World Cup having an estimated 3.572 billion viewers from around the world. For some background, this tournament takes place every 4 years and is in a different country each time. With the popularity of the World Cup, it brings the host country millions of tourists each time, usually helping their economy. However as was shown in the 2014 World Cup, this is not always the case. The 2014 World Cup, which was held in Brazil, was an economic failure as it caused Brazil to go into a recession. Along with being an economic failure, Brazil forcibly displaced around 250,000 people for the construction of their stadiums. Sadly, this is not even that much compared to other countries, with China displacing 1.25 million people for the 2008 Olympics.
All of this information made me think about the similarities between the construction of the stadiums in Brazil and the construction of Dodger Stadium in Los Angeles. Before being the home of the Dodgers, the land was called Chavez Ravine. Chavez Ravine was a Mexican-American town with around 1,800 families calling it home. The majority of the inhabitants were poor farmers that depended on the land for income. While seen as a poor Mexican community by the white Americans, Chavez Ravine was a safe haven for latino families seeking asylum from discrimination. With society viewing this community as an impoverished Mexican community, the City of Los Angeles decided to turn this community into a housing project. To accomplish this, the city began pressuring the inhabitants of the Chavez Ravine into moving. Author Mike Davis in his novel City of Quartz stated that most of the homeowners were not willing to sell their property so developers offered immediate cash payments, resulting in underpriced sales of many Chavez Ravine properties. However there were people who refused this and stayed. While the housing complex was never built, the Brooklyn Dodgers decided to buy the land. The people who stayed were eventually forcefully removed, with police taking people out of their homes and having bulldozers destroy their houses as they watched.
- Why is it that the displacement of people in sports is often overlooked and not acknowledged?
- Does knowing about the large amounts of people that were forcibly removed from their homes make you want to stop supporting these sporting events? Why or why not?
- Is there a way that we can stop the displacement of people while still having these massive sporting events?
- Why were the people in Los Angeles ok with the destruction of Chavez Ravine?
- Any other thoughts or questions about this.
I think this displacement is often overlooked because people are only there to watch the World Cup or to see a Dodger game. They don’t care about what happened before the game or how the stadium got there, all that matters to them is that their team wins. I don’t think this makes me want to stop watching these sporting events, but it makes me want to help create change. Something must be done to prevent nations from displacing large groups of people (especially when targeting a certain race, ethnic group, class, etc.). I don’t think not watching these sporting events will cause immediate, drastic change, but raising our voices to speak out against the mass displacement will help bring attention to the inexcusable acts of the nations who partake in the displacement of people. Certain rules, restrictions, or regulations need to be put into place to stop the displacement from happening. Whether it be suspending a nation's ability to host the World Cup for “X” amount of years, or a completely different option, we must send a message that displacing people for the purpose of hosting a massive sporting event (that could probably be held elsewhere) is impermissible. I don’t think people were ok with the destruction of Chavez Ravine. I think people were frustrated that officials were using “eminent domain” to acquire plots of land from those living in Chavez Ravine. Many did not leave without a fight. A great deal of Angelenos looked away in the midst of this battle, but a great deal of Angelenos certainly were not happy about their homes being destroyed.
ReplyDeleteI think that displacement of people for sports or even any other large projects/events is largely due to who is in power. As we know, a common theme is that the underrepresented minorities in the area are the people who are oppressed the most. Tying back to the master/slave narrative that Dr. Stogdill has talked about, the big development companies don't have to think about the people and families they displace with every stadium or arena that they build. The majority of the people attending the sporting events also don't have to think about the families who once lived on the very same land. Because the displaced peoples already have little to no voice, there is little chance that their stories ever get out. Deciding to stop supporting events in areas from where people have been displaced is a tricky question for me. I think of course there are very valid reasons to choose to stop supporting them. However, I almost feel as if it is futile? I mean, we're all living on stolen land anyway. I acknowledge the differences and hypocrisies associated with the decision. It's generally just a tough question that I don't know I have the knowledge to answer right now. I do think there is a way to prevent the displacement of people while still having these massive sporting events. We already have enough stadiums as is — I don't think anymore need to be built. We can acknowledge the mistakes that we've already made and the terrible things we've done to the people in the areas such as Chavez Ravine. But a relatively easy solution is to just stop building more of them.
ReplyDeleteI think the displacement of people in sports is often overlooked and not acknowledged because people come to the new stadium to see the game, but that’s just what they see. They don’t see the impoverished Mexican community that has been paid to leave. Knowing about the large amounts of people that were forcibly removed from their homes does not make me want to stop supporting these sporting events. Attending events in Dodger Stadium will not undo the history of the area, and the Dodgers do not deserve any less support. I don’t know a lot about building laws and such, but I think that if there was a way to choose a location that would not negatively displace people from their homes, that would be the way to go. If there isn’t already, there should be laws put in place restricting construction that diplaces people from their homes because of a massive sporting event. To answer question number four, the people in Los Angeles were not okay with the destruction of Chavez Ravine. Sheriff’s deputies had to forcibly evict the last few families that remained in the location. Reading about the removal of families from Chavez Ravine, the day was referred to as Black Friday. To evict one particular family, sheriff deputies kicked down the door to the family’s home and movers entered carrying out their furniture. A woman in the family had to be carried out of her home. Therefore, people were definitely not okay with the destruction of Chavez Ravine, and they were deeply opposed to it.
ReplyDeleteI think that the displacement of people is often overlooked because of the thing replacing the houses of those removed. In 1959, for example, the citizens of Los Angeles were so excited about the huge new stadium and the Brooklyn Dodgers coming to town that they probably didn’t even think about what was in Chavez Ravine before it. Secondly, the people removed from Chavez Ravine were the only people negatively affected by Dodger Stadium and the mass public didn’t really care to listen to the minorities that got kicked out of their neighborhood. The mass public would rather listen to the voice of Vin Scully than the tragic stories of those evicted from Chavez Ravine even though that isn’t right. I am not sure if there is anyway to stop future displacement of people for sporting events. The only way I could think of is to convince people to stop supporting the events which is almost impossible. I don’t think it would be possible to convince 3.572 billion people that the displacement of people was more important than their soccer matches. I don’t believe the people of LA were consulted on the displacement of people and destruction of houses in Chavez Ravine. That being said, I believe that even if the public was informed about the situation that many people would have been so excited about the possibility of a major sports team on the west coast that they wouldn’t have cared.
ReplyDelete1. I think in many ways the perceived “benefits” of the construction of a stadium outweigh the direct negative impact that the construction of a stadium where people are displaced is ignored. These benefits are things like "oh it'll bring more people to our city" or the idea that somehow monetarily the economy of the area will be helped.
ReplyDelete2. Since I am someone who doesn’t really care that much about sports I don’t think my support matters. By not attending, viewing, or helping finance the system that does this sort of stuff I think its an easy win for me since I don’t agree with what they’re doing and have done in the past to construct stadiums.
3 . Is there a way that we can stop the displacement of people while still having these massive sporting events?
- build them somewhere else, plan better, be smarter with how the infrastructure of a city is going to be laid out rather than just stack things on top of each other.
4. Why were the people in Los Angeles ok with the destruction of Chavez Ravine?
to be honest I dont think a lot of them were ok with the destruction, also they were ok with the idea they could make more money.
this episode of 99 percent invisible tackles this subject directly and
highly recommend it for you. Ihttps://99percentinvisible.org/episode/beneath-the-ballpark/
I believe that displacement of communities in favor of sports stadiums is often overlooked because of the perceived value of each of these things. People tend to view sports stadiums and mass sporting events and positive tourism and economy boosters. Many people either don’t know about the communities that are being displaced or choose to look past them. I think that people tend to undervalue the displaced communities and overvalue the sports stadiums. In addition to not wanting to support large sporting events in light of community displacement, I also wonder about other solutions. I hope that there are other ways to build these stadiums without destroying entire communities. I would love to do more research into proposed solutions. I’m not sure I have enough historical background to determine why Angelenos accepted the destruction of Chavez Ravine, but from what I can tell, it is largely in part of ignorance, and strategic information withholding. Many people I have talked with don't know about this part of LA history at all. That might be a product of time passed but it also seems to me, like a result of general ignorance on the subject. Additionally, I believe some people viewed Dodger stadium and more important than the Chavez Ravine community and were willing to inflict destruction in the name of profits. It is also worth noting that there were many Angelenos that were not “ok” with the construction project but in the end their voices were not heard.
ReplyDeleteI feel that many people overlook the displacement of people in sports because they enjoy those specific sports a lot. In other words, they follow the saying “ignorance is bliss.” I think that many sports lovers, whose teams have historically been involved in displacing people, prefer to ignore this past in order to feel less guilty. Also, the specific sports teams or events probably tend to overlook and conceal their unethical behavior by not openly acknowledging it, in order to help prevent media attention. If there was more media attention regarding these displacements, I’m sure more people would know about this and less people would be willing to support these teams or events.
ReplyDeleteI feel very angry that the Brooklyn Dodgers displaced my family from Chavez Ravine. However, just as I think we should give people, who truly understand the gravity of their errors, another chance to change, to be better, and do good for the communities they’ve hurt, I think we should do the same for sports. I think that since we cannot change the past, we should instead try to find permanent solutions that forbid sports from displacing people ever again. Instead of appeasing large sports corporations, the city should focus on taking care of their constituents, especially those who have historically been oppressed by greedy people.
I think that massive sporting events should be held in pre-existing sports arenas and open space. This would stop the displacement of people, while simultaneously providing a space for large sporting events.
I think many people in Los Angeles were ok with the destruction of of Chavez Ravine because it didn’t impact them in any way. The whole reason the destruction of Chavez Ravine, a Mexican-American neighborhood, was permitted goes back to racism and inequality. The destruction of a white neighborhood would have never been permitted by Los Angeles’s government.
Whenever large sums of financial resources are at play in any type of social discussion, those who stand to benefit economically attempt to downplay or cover up any negative connotations associated with their endeavor. Indeed, they typically succeed (at least to some extent) since they are able to afford better lawyers, news coverage, and bribes. So when the Brooklyn Dodgers decided to move to Los Angeles, their confederates saw to it that any sins committed against common folk was minimized in the public eye as much as possible. Honestly, I do think about the tragic situation that allowed for the construction of Dodger Stadium whenever I go to see a game. However, I know that I personally had nothing to do with the evictions, and the company I am giving my money to is not the same one that bulldozed the ravine. Therefore, the guilt quickly subsides, with the help of a dodger dog of course. One of the easiest ways to ensure that people are not displaced for the purpose of athletic venues would be to update residents rights legislation to allow only a small number of reasons for eminent domain, such as a needed trauma center or fire station. The people of Los Angeles in the late 1950's clearly had more bias against Mexican immigrants than they do today. Poor brown farmers were seen as exactly the type of people who could be forcibly removed from their homes, without the rest of the city shedding a tear.
ReplyDeleteI agree with what others have said, if an issue doesn't apply to one directly or has a lack in media coverage, then that issue continues to get overlooked.
ReplyDeleteAt the time of the Dodger's move, people in Los Angeles were not okay with the destruction of Chavez Ravine. When the Dodgers moved from Brooklyn, there was a lot of discussion to determine where the team would play. Many community organizations sprung up directly opposing the decision to use Chavez Ravine and suggested other solutions, the El Sereno Star wrote in 1958: "This newspaper has opposed giving this valuable acreage in the heart of Los Angeles to the Dodgers from the very minute that all facts were made known." That sentiment was shared by many Angelenos, but despite the pushback, the plans were pushed forward.
As an avid Dodger fan, I grew up watching games and visiting the stadium. That being said, I had no idea of the story of Chavez Ravine. I never acknowledged it because I never knew about it. I think the question about whether or not to support the teams (or events) that use the stadium is complicated. I think that sports have the ability to bring people (and the city) together, so that shouldn't be sacrificed, but I think that the displacement of residents must be acknowledged in order to avoid more displacements in the future.
I think the phenomenon of residents being displaced due to sports isn’t necessarily overlooked and not acknowledged, but rather isn’t covered enough in the media and in the education system (so I guess it is overlooked and not acknowledged). Perhaps I just haven’t been alive long enough to see more than one occurrence of the displacement of people due to sports, but the only time I’ve heard news of it was during the 2016 Rio Olympic games. Perhaps people don’t want to cause a confrontation with the host country of these sporting events.
ReplyDeleteThis question is difficult to answer because my morals tell me I shouldn’t support these events, but I can’t get enough of seeing athletes perform on the highest level of sports.
We could stop the displacement of people while having these sporting events by simply acknowledging that poverty is a worldwide problem that needs solving. While it’s so easy for me to say I can’t help but think there will be tremendous amounts of displacement and inequality for when Los Angeles hosts the Olympics in 2028.
I think people were okay with the destruction of the Chavez Ravine because at this period of time minority neighborhoods were prone to be “seized” by the majority for almost any reason.
The forcible eviction of Chavez Ravine was perpetrated on the grounds that the Arechiga family had been living on the grounds rent-free for two year and owned no property rights (undoubtedly the product of a racist, classist system) but was justified in the name of entertainment, culture, and personality for Los Angeles.
ReplyDeleteSimilarly, displacement of the poor, criminalization of the homeless, expropriation of private property, and rising house costs are all justified on account of the fun, revenue, employment, and attention to be had. Often, when operating under an international committee in partnership with multi-national sponsors, large sporting events offer a lack of transparency to involved populations and a lack of inclusion in decision making processes. Local governments are then at the mercy of globalization and gentrification disguised as a soccer game. States may use the impending mega-event to carry out ethnic, racial, and socioeconomic discrimination, violent evictions, demolition of public housing, further segregation, and displacement far away from work environments for nearly a decade beforehand and frame it as "cleaning up the city." This is actually sounding like a conspiracy.
I understand how facts like these never come to light. It's so easy to go to a baseball game (or any sporting event for that matter) and not think about the dark side of the seemingly happy scene that exists in that same place. This is the case for so many things now, its honestly hard to keep up. People definitely have a duty to be aware of the products they consume and the sources they support, but on the other hand, culture and habits are complicated and difficult to give up. Although I’m not much of a baseball fan myself, I’d imagine that the culture of going to baseball games and cheering on a favorite team would be hard to give up, especially if it was some kind of tradition. Of course, I think people have a responsibility to act on the causes they care about, but I do think it can be more complicated than just giving up a random, mundane aspect of life. Although what was done to Chavez Ravine can’t necessarily be un-done, I think there are ways the Dodger franchise can help support those whom they forcibly removed years earlier. Whether they help through reparations, creating jobs, or buying new land for the descendents of the communities they affected, I’m sure there are ways to try and right the wrongs they committed.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteMaybe this is due to a general lack of knowledge about the World Cup and the facilities required for its existence, but I’m just stunned by how much money, time, resources, materials, and overall exhaustion (both literal and metaphorical) goes into a single sporting event. There seems to be a ridiculously large degree of physical wastefulness associated with the World Cup, and even if the buildings are used in whatever city the World Cup is held in following the event, it feels like these buildings are generally pretty single-use. I guess what I’m wondering is whether or not it’s all worth it, as well as whether or not we, as a global community, could reduce the economic, environmental, and social footprints made by these massive construction projects by reusing preexisting facilities. Why does everything need to be brand new and shiny, expensive and impressive? What does this say about us as a global community?
ReplyDeleteIt’s hard because even though I am neither huge fan of soccer nor an active, engaged viewer of the World Cup, my brothers and my dad are. They get really excited every four years about the World Cup, so putting myself in their shoes, it would be really difficult to accept the fact that this beloved event of yours has quite a dark side. I think there’s definitely a solution out there that allows for both the perpetuation of the World Cup (an event that focuses on an inherently positive message: global unity) and the protection of vulnerable, possibly targeted communities.
I have been made aware of the displacement of people from their homes due to Dodger Stadium by my dad who is very against it, but haven't heard much about the problems the stadium has caused elsewhere. While one may argue that this baseball team, and sports culture in general, is very important to Los Angeles and brings joy to so many, we can't forget what so many innocent people have been unwilling been put through at the expense of this.
ReplyDeleteThe fact is that these sports stadiums need to and will continue to be built. I think that if these developers would put their own interests aside a bit and think about all the people who's lives are being completely shifted, it could help so many. A possible "solution" (or at least something that would help) would to be to properly compensate those who are being kicked out of their houses. They are given such short notice that their homes are taken over, and given hardly any money to find a new home.
I also think that there needs to be more awareness and discussion about issues such as these. Many Dodgers (and other teams at other stadiums) fans and visitors seem to be completely unaware of what they are supporting by purchasing their tickets. Possibly if there was more awareness about what has been done for these stadiums to be built, the community would not support it, and stadium developers would realize they have to go about this another way without harming the lives of so many.
I think it is especially difficult to make the general public aware of all the bad things that need to be done for these huge sporting events to take place is because once they're in action, everyone is flooded with positive images and videos from the event. If there was simply a void in the news once the World Cup Stadium or Dodger Stadium was created, it would provide more of a space for those displaced to speak up and gain awareness; there would be an open platform to let the people know of the wrongdoings of the big businessmen. However, the power of sports saturates us with positive memories. All most of us can think of when asked about Dodger Stadium are likely nice personal memories and epic highlights, making us forget about how the team got there in the first place. Regarding the huge events that move locations periodically (the Olympics, the World Cup), the only way for us to keep having them without continuously displacing people is to host them in rural areas. Unfortunately, the brands and companies behind the events look at everything through a financial lens, and hosting the Olympics in North Dakota wouldn't make them as much money as any other urban city.
ReplyDelete