You make it sound as though South Africa didn't lobby to host more than 30 other countries. It's a bit disingenuous to frame the guests as imposing. It also doesn't seem like that much of a stretch that some people aren't crazy about a constant monotonous drone.
So, I'm calling BS on this logic. There are genuine knocks on globalization. This is not one of them.
this was not my intention. What IS imposing is the guests deciding what the south african hosted world cup's atmosphere/culture should be like. We've had many european-flavoured world cups, but now we have an african one - this is something you may not like or enjoy, but it is what it is.
'There are genuine knocks on globalization. This is not one of them'
You might frame this case as inconsequential, but on the contrary this is a case of 'global cultural dissent'. Ask any southern african (where african is defined as having grown up on the continent) for his/her opinion and it'll unequivocally be in favour of the vuvuzela - for the rationale I cited (It's always been present / it's distinctly african etc.) I could flesh this argument out, but this would take us severely out of context.
To give context, I'm also of the opinion that the vuvuzela's should be filtered for live broadcast - having been to a game highlights the dramatic difference between their effects on-the-ground and recorded. What I find amusing is the attitude towards the instrument and its use live - especially from those who've never been to a game and witnessed it for themselves.
'So, I'm calling BS on this logic'
which logic would you be referring to? The argument that this is a case of globalization?
So, I'm calling BS on this logic. There are genuine knocks on globalization. This is not one of them.