The U.S team lost by three points to the Czech soccer team yesterday. Well, we didn't really lose by three, we just plain lost, considering we didn't get one goal.
Even though half of the team is European, they're still experiencing condecension while abroad as an American team.
Even CNN and Sports Illustrated had to agree that the U.S. players are "still strangers in the land of soccer", which is about as close as mainstream media gets to admitting that maybe, just maybe, the United States isn't the greatest nation of all time. And to further quote the article:
"American soccer's battle for respect extends beyond the famous stadiums of Europe. In America, many sports fans remain unconvinced the sport is worth their time. Former congressman Jack Kemp, once an NFL quarterback, proclaimed on the floor of the House of Representatives: "Football is democratic, capitalism, whereas soccer is a European socialist sport.''
hmm... Brazil and Germany (the two countries with the most World Cup titles) - are they socialist? nope, they're federal democratic republics. Who are the best in the world at soccer.
The embarassment of the loss, and maybe the first of more to come, is a good wakeup call for those Americans who are not ready to embrace the fact that compared to the rest of the world, the U.S. is lacking in many areas. And with mainstream media eager to cash in on all the advertising dollars from the World Cup, the whole country can't avoid seeing the giant can of whup ass we're about to receive right on local tv.
Post a Comment
19 comments:
here's a great article on the political history of the World Cup: link
not to mention the racial nazi nonsense that goes on in stands in germany whenever black players (even blacks from european countries) visit.
that cricket reference in the article was interesting. the author of the article takes CLR James' excitement about the west indies beating england in cricket and leaves it at that in that temporal scope, or that time frame.
it's just interesting because Cedric Robinson in his book "Black Marxism" specifically uses CLR James' fan afair with the game of cricket to illustrate his psychological ties to european paradigm. (just a quick side note, Robinson seems to assume Cricket as a bourgeoisie activity in a sense) anyway, I can't recall if he says James moved past it in that specific instance, but one of the large points in the book is the illustration of great black thinkers (Richard Wright, DuBois, CLR James, specifically in this book) and their paths from being radicals within the euro-centric paradigm (i.e. playing cricket but BEATING the brits... or for example, I'm black but still adopt marx's theory to apply to my plight... hence "black marxist" -- thus the comical/oxymoronic name of the book) versus moving completely outside the paradigm and creating or evolving an entirely independent radical tradition from that vantage point (i.e. I'm not even going to play cricket)
hmm... yeah it's kind of complicated - learning the traits of the colonists to beat the colonists at their own game. it seems like a losing battle, because once you learn the skills and traits of the colonizers, aren't you.... colonized? i've seen so many get lost along the way when attempting this.
hence, we hear people say colonized west indians "think they're british" and colonized west africans "think they're french". do we in fact become that which we emulate?
and over time people forget the origins of traditions, and they become assimilated into mainstream culture (hip hop), and isn't this colonization? or is it just inevitable - part of cultural evolution?
if you remember the traditions, one can always keep an identity seperate from that of a colonizing culture.
i hope?
Cultural evolution is inevitable but from tradition comes progress. A culture cannot evolve without being sustained by the past/tradition, otherwise cultures die and groups assimilate.
wow, do people not see Americans as colonizers in terms of the spaces they live themselves?
aanikenz said... "wow, do people not see Americans as colonizers in terms of the spaces they live themselves?"
in a basic sense, yes. but who exactly are you referring to?
i think annikenz means that americans today are colonizing the rest of the world with their/our western views?
Specifically, I mean Americans.
And, I think it is important too to think about colonizing processes as intimately liked to place. Otherwise what can happen is a division between people and the places they live. Diaspora begins to take a more political meaning when we think of a deeper connection between people and place than what is currently thought of in terms of national identity or land/water as one-stop-shop economic resource.
In general I think it is important to shift the conversation to decolonization. Decolonization in this sense means that a given nation has arrived at a post-colonial moment. So, is a discussion around decolonization possible in the Americas? I have some thought I will share later, I am interested to read all comments.
I think I get a sense of what you mean.
PERSONALLY, it brings me to ask of myself: Am I an american even though I am black? Am I complicit in the American colonization... of... well, America?
Is that kinda what you're hinting at?
What would decolonization look like in America? Would everyone have to go "home"?
I remember when I wrote a piece called "We Ain't Ready For Reparations"
http://www.liberatormagazine.com/content/1.2/reparations.htm
...basically in that joint (I was a youngster. lol) I was musing about the interesting dillemma black people have when demanding reparations from white America. Because under certain interpretations, the land don't belong to them in the first place. So who should black people really be asking for land from?
maybe I'm off track. let me know.
I know one interesting thing in the west indies is that so much of the native populations have been decimated or bioogically assimilated (even more so than here in the States) so the native has disappeared even moreso from the consciousness of those who inhabit the islands. To the point where they really consider it their land.
I think we should take this thread to The Boards, dear bloggers. And I think we should do so because this set of comments is really more about the World Cup. If taken to the Boards, and I will volunteer to start the thread by tonight, I think Bob's last comment, might make for a nice subject titleline.
Oh hey, I meant to say we should bring the conversation about the Americas and decolonization to the Boards... to continue there.
And here's one for Bob...
If one drinks beer while playing a round of golf where others people's people are buried, does that make one a golfer or a gulper, or both?
i'm down. but i'm a little too slow to get the golf riddle
:(
as far as the "if you wrap tisue boxes around your feet and go hoop are they basketball shoes... hell yea they are basketball shoes.
just like when my little nephew in kenya wraps a bunch of socks up in a ball until it's big enough to kick around... he'll fight you to the death if you try and convince him that he's not playing FUTBOL.
Hmm...I think that we'd be falling into a trap if we keep insisting on separating ourselves from America. I am not saying that its the best thing since...well, you know. The comment about whether or not ur American merits a simple answer...Negro you are American. We've been having this same discussion forever and a half. Double Consciousness, anyone? I think that the first step to any type of progressive movement amongst our people is the acceptance. Acceptance of this salient fact--the evidence of African rape lives in your veins. Denying that fact isn't going to erasing what is. Now what? Sit and bemoan about the identity issue for another century? (double-consciousness circa 1903/10). We have tangible issue that can and should be dealt by some of the people reading this blog. The identity is constructed and I believe that if you grab the reigns it can be whatever you want it to be. We ain't gotta prove ish to noone but ourselves. Now what? Get in the trenches to work and dwell on what we're wearing(identity labels) when we got time
basically that's a never-to-be-answered question, because it depends on one's definition of a futbol just like it depends on one's definition of basketball shoes.
paradigms. worldviews.
...a people's basic assumptions offa which their civilizations (or individually, their ACTIONS) are based.
But part of my "trench work" is having to decide if it's moral for me to claim or try and own what it means to be an American. Biologically, I own humanity, true.
But this is long term "direction determination" and I have to make sure that my visions are moral and just... at least as much as possible.
I'm convicted about that. I don't claim immoral characteristics in my long term vision. I recognize their perhaps eternal existence and plot on how to battle them. That's Brian. That's who I am.
So the question of "am I American" is similarly a long term question for me. Is it moral and just to be an American? If this land was stolen than do I want a part in the plunder?
NO!!! I don't care how great it is or was. If the original humans of this place want it back am I doing to call myself American? and thus stand in solidarity with those who refuse to give it back?
So what trench work is there until these questions are answered?
For me there is none really, in a long term sense.
Once I determine who I am (whether that is me going on my vision quest or participating in my right of passage) then I realize what my work is. I cannot begin working until I know who I am.
Hmm, actually you can get to work without knowing who you are. Sounds callous, hunh? But, I think that's a frivolous question we literally don't have the time to consider. Doing right by another person, particularly your own people is something I believe is innate. The question that is ravaging the mass of black folk who aim to be progressive is whether or not they should see themselve aligned with a fictitious nation-state. That argument is so faulty, just talkin 'bout it reveals the messed up nature of the US and other worldviews that put the invisible nationalities (something that didn't come to be until the late 16th century) up on some pedastal, like it means ish. I don't think it's necessary to answer that question because the answer changes daily, with every action that nation-state takes against another, your position in relation to the state changes. It's too abstract, the trench work is real, it's in your hood, classroom, workplace, wherever a black person sees a reflection of himself the "trench work" is there. The whole conflicting issue as to whether or the not the American black is American is typically American--it reeks of self-determinism, as if the temporal space your occupying in this moment is everlasting...it's not. In other parts of the world does it seem necessary to make that sort of distinction?, especially in a spot like the US where you (blk) are made distinct as you check white/black/pacific islander/or other for the funding necessary to survive? We have approximately 80-100yrs on this planet and productivity isn't all that high during the nascent and withering years, so why spend precious time debating on something that is a social fabrication when you can put your hands in the muck and pull someone up, on, or shyeet down if need be? The whole ideological warfare thing to me, is very Western, it's very cliche and I think we should avoid that all together and " do you". Imma leave this space with this quote my Catholic Momz loved to impress into my head when I acted all bran' nu "Start by doing what's necessary, then what's possible, and suddenly you are doing the impossible"
this right here sounds like it's heading to the whole Booker T. Washington/DuBois dillemma.
Harold Cruse suggested that if we solve the problem of what divided Garvey, DuBois and Washington, we'd benefit greatly.
I agree.
Cause there's no way that I'm agreeing with that.
It's unnatural for me to just work and not envision. And it's unnatural for me to envision and not envision infinity and ponder what it looks like.
That's what gives us direction. Hope. The ability to have faith. READ faith. Not on some "everything gon be alright baby" but on some I have SEEN the PROMISED LAND and by faith we will get "THERE." To be that suggests vision. Someone seeing a place far away yet not seeing it. And walking towards it only once they've seen it. (even though they haven't seen it)
And it's not necessarily a social fabrication. If I come and kill your parents I have created SIDES. I have created an identity for you. It is you who has had your family killed versus me that killed your family. You don't just tell your children "well you don't worry about who you are in relation to the man who killed your grandparents"
no... you tell them "this is who you are. this is your history. and this is the direction in which you must go.
I do consider the possibility that perhaps it's not that DuBois, Garvey, and Washington needed to have their viewpoints fused perse to create on great viewpoint, perhaps they could have utilized eachother's viewpoints.
So I realize that someone might see the promised land and someone might not be all to concerned with it... and I realize that those two people have the potential to work together despite this if they play their part.
But something in me wishes that everyone was a visionary first and a "worker" second. I just know I operate better that way.
i have to agree that dwelling on identity issues can be a never ending cycle, but it's a first step for those who haven't yet read fanon and dubois (shame shame! :), and may never do so. and the self-awareness journey isn't just for people of color. this is why the dynamics of the world cup soccer are so amazing (to me, anyway) because it's an outlet for cultural and social competition. maybe not always a positive one, but at least it's a dialogue.
just going back to this post for a sec... the forum on the messageboards that aanikenz said she was going to create has been created:
http://cybermessageboard.fatcow.com/mplsli/viewtopic.php?t=351
Post a Comment