June 20, 2006
India’s only world cup (dis)appearanceSports
India did make it to the world cup, once. Kind of. Well, not really:
No, don’t rub your eyes in disbelief. India did make it to the 1950 World Cup finals. Well sort of. Four countries from Asia were invited to participate in the qualifiers. Burma, Philippines and Indonesia all withdrew, so India qualified automatically.India was placed in Group 3 with Sweden, Italy, and Paraguay. But their request to play barefoot was turned down by FIFA and they withdrew! [Link]
Sadly, this was back in the hey day of Indian Soccer, too. Until some South Asian team makes it to the world cup, we’ve always got Vikas Dhorasoo and his action figures, right?
ennis on June 20, 2006 08:54 AM in Sports · T·r·a·c·k·b·a·c·k address · Direct link · Email post
Poor Desi folks...they are always getting the shaft even by FIFA, but then again, FIFA is the mob.
But their request to play barefoot was turned down by FIFA and they withdrew!
India withdrew from their only World Cup apperance because they didn't want to wear shoes? You can't make up something like that. This officially the best post of the year.
This was a tricky trivia question in almost all the quizzes that I participated in school.
It wasn't indoor soccer, was it?
Another trivia: India was in the Davis Cup finals (Tennis) in 1974 (against South Africa) but later withdrew to protest against the aparthied policies of the South African government.
Nothing can beat barefoot mud-football during the monsoons.
i still don't understand why vikhas from mauritius qualifies as desi but the trini team does not. not that T&T didn't get eliminated today.
I'm waiting for a World Cup post without a mention of Vikash Dhorasoo. Please.
IMO, the World Cup is relevant enough to South Asia or ABDs or anyone else without any 'brown' involvement. Besides, India has had referees/assistants officiate (in the last edition), if we are desperately digging for ANY desi involvement. We're not good at this whole football thing, at this point of time at least. End of story.
Maybe because none of the players in the Trini team are desi.
P.S. I don't watch soccer but I am guessing based on past expericence with desis.
None of the T + T team are/were desi in this World Cup. In fact a fair proportion were British, just like the Reggae Boyz (Jamaica) in the past. Vikash Dhorasoo is ethnically entirely desi saurav. I hope that answers your question.
Nanda I kind of agree, this Vikash-obsession has gone on a bit, but hey it's all tongue-in-cheek. You may get your wish as France are sure to crash out once again. Bunch of jokers. France are the new Holland - some of the world's greatest players but a shoddy team.
Oh yeah (and I meant to make this joke ages ago but forgot) for another tenuous desi World Cup link, look no further than Nuno Maniche from Portugal. 100% not desi, but his name is pronounced the exact same way as a former SM ultrabrown pundit.
And now I take a look at ultrabrown. And now I see the man I was talking about has made the same joke. And now I feel silly. And now I've done three comments in a row which makes me look sillier.
Heh...I didn't know there were British born players on the T&T team, but I did know that all of the players would be identifed as "Black" by an outsider (i.e. me). But I went to watch the Trinidad-England match in a Trini bar nearby and there were "desis" there, which is unsurprising given that something like 40% of the country is put in a desi race category. Would you rather consider a largely White country's team with one diasporic desi who grew up in France as the desi connection to the World Cup or a country from the global South with strong desi cultural influences and a 40+% population of desis who are probably rooting for the team. Personal choice, as I see it.
Anyway, I've made my point a few times already, so i won't drag this on any further.
Saurav, there are plenty of good reasons to root for T&T, but the second-hand desiness of the team seems a bit of a stretch. I mean, the fact that there are no desi athletes in a country that is 40% desi, is a strike against them in my opinion. Why not root for Brazil, on the grounds that it is the favorite amongst Indian fans?
The only reason I was rooting for T&T was becuase of their underdog tag.
I would have loved to see Dhorasso score goals in every match..but at the same time wanted France to lose each and every match :-)
Brazil and Argentina are my long time fav teams and I've been rooting for them since the '86 World Cup.
I'd like to see some Asian teams go deep in the tournament.
Diasporic solidarity? :)
So Indians support Brazil in India...fine. Same reason Mauritians support Man U - when they started taking an interest in football, Man U were on top. Now a whole generation of kids around the world are becoming Chelski fans. Glory supporting is universal...and universally looked down upon.
BUT
You guys are mostly American. So what's with all this talk of who to support? How come you don't just support America and be done with it?
If diasporic solidarity be the reason, then please hold a candle for England too ;)
South Korea? Semis last time. Not this time. But since then I've really developed a soft spot for them. Their fans are the best - so good natured and energetic. I've found South Koreans very friendly people on my travels and I wish them well as an Asian team.
Because, after today, there might not be an America to support. Me, I'm rooting for Ghana (although they're unlikely to go much further even if they do beat America) ... so I guess I'll need another team too.
Support the nation with the biggest desi populace - that will make England your team because we have Steven 'Genius' Gerrard and millions of brown boys and girls who follow Liverpool, Manchester United and ENGLAND!!!!!!!!!!!
(We won't get past the Quarter Finals but hey you have to have someone to shout for!)
We have weird feelings about soccer...err football. and things our country isn't that good at. and some of us also do about nationalism :) since the world cup is not as high on our radar as elsewhere, what would be the fun of not overtinellectualizing? :)
but i think a fair number of people are supporting the u.s., including me to some extent.
bah.
bb, supporting brazil is not glory supporting. it's not like indians just woke up to football. indians have been playing football since the 19th century! supporting brazil is supporting beauty. it was inculcated to us by our fathers, and our fathers' fathers, and more than a few mothers too. the day brazil is no longer beautiful, it will lose third world support. and pigs shall sprout wings.
let me count the reasons. america is an arrogant power and not associated with beauty. the flag is ugly. that repulsive eagle is ugly. football here is getting better but has a long way to go. i like some of the individual players on the u.s. team (and not just the brown and black ones), but just because i have a u.s. passport doesn't mean i should support the u.s.
and there's no inherent reason you should support ingerlund, though i'm not mad at you for doing so...
I always thought the reason India never participates in the World Cup was due to the football season in the country. The top-notch players would rather play for their football clubs instead of representing their country on the international playing field....
Well, the US is out of the game now. Another reason to blame Bush and Cheney.
M. Nam
"that repulsive eagle is ugly."
ugly? please leave the poor animals out of these football fracases.:)
I support beauty.
And underdogs.
Up GHANA!
How many dives can a team take in the last 15 minutes? Let me count the ways...or just ask the football team from Ghana ;)
but i did root for them besides.
Hail Mogambo Ghana!
Because we are born and raised and live in England, it is our home, it is a multiracial team, we support and follow the beautiful game with its beautiful teams in England through the Premiership every week, and we have flair players like Steven Gerard, Joe Cole and Wayne Rooney!
No, Ghana didn't play beautifully today. I guess they must have watched the USA vs Italy game in practice and seen just how far dissimulation can carry a team. Los Americanos had it coming. Taste of their own medicine.
I stayed home to watch the game this morning. Very disappointing. Landon Donovan had a horrible set play near the end and in general the team played with a lack of energy. This really sucks. Maybe we will have to wait until Indian parents decide that the Spelling Bee and trying to be doctors was yesterday's news and that they should force their children to play soccer in hopes of making the U.S. team. I know I will.
Yeah, I watched it too, but from the treadmill of my gym (hey, if I'm going to take almost 2 hours away from work, I might as well get my workout out of the way). It was not the most exciting or well played game in the cup. I'm hoping for better from Ghana v. Brazil ;)
aannnnnnnnd I'm BACK in the game! :D
The foe of my colonizer is my team, or some such rule from 'Harinder' who would hang with the Germans for the WeltMeisterschaft; see link
http://www.thelmagazine.com/4/12/fareisfare/fareisfare.cfm?ctype=1
The Germans actually field a fairly multicultural bunch with Slavs, and those of Ghanaian descent, and the Californian Bundestrainer, Klinsmann.
Did univision show any of the Croatia-Australia match? I undersatnd that Brazil is more fun to watch, but some of us want to know which teams are going to make it to the next round :)
post-script--i only saw the last 15 mintues of the brazil match, so maybe they showed it before that?
-s
things are so open, if france gets through i think Spain is vulnerable to them in later rounds. and england! can do well if they play to potential. in a multi-cultural world, i don't think you'd be faulted for supporting England as a team of integrationist ala France 1998? Or France for that matter, with Dhorasoo. beyond argentina and brazil no teams are dynamos this year. its so hard to root for argentina though even if you try really hard
i'm ready to support the US now and in the next Cup, hopefully we'll get better. although i think this loss may signal a regression of the national team. do we have players in the pipeline? granted we'll make the next Cup almost assuredly given the region we play in can't support a thrid contender to the US and Mexico, but....this Cup has not beengood for us. If we hadn't lost to the Czechs 3-0, it wouldn't have been such a terrible Cup, i don't think Ghana outclassed us in any respect
So you don't support the US at other team sports? Or is it just because the American football team suck? I'm sure you root for America in the Olympics - an event they are clearly the best in. Same flag, same arrogance (in fact far more). Perhaps I'm assuming wrongly and you don't support America at the Olympics, but to me this just sounds like you want to support a team that has a chance of going somewhere. If everyone thought like that domestically, most of the smaller teams in any sport would be forgotten.
Red snapper, I wasn't born and raised here and my team's division 1! But I can't see any reason I wouldn't support England Sid. On that note, here's what my hand looks like now! What's more interesting is when all the British desis are die-hard England football fans but when it comes to cricket and their 'home' nation has a decent side, suddenly they want England to lose. Ho hum.
Baron Breaker, "patriotism" is one reason to support England. But there are also good reasons for not doing so.
One reason is that large nations like England dominate not just narratives about history but the narratives being written about the present. The Guardian (entertainingly written as it is) and the BBC (with it's air of infallible authority- note the programs in numerous languages) are both tools for advancing the idea that England is "great." They have full-spectrum coverage. Cultural products from England and America inundate the world: books, electronic media, "entertainment," all kinds of things that insist that these particular cultures are unquestionably the world's reference points.
And this is not to even get into the question of whether all the good things about England (of which there are many) outweigh the bad (the arrogance, the colonial misadventures, the wars of aggression, the bad teeth and joylessness and frankly horrible cuisine). Ghana might have a less than robust economy, but it's been a while since they invaded a sovereign nation.
The World Cup is one of the few places where we have a chance (a rather small one, it turns out) to forget the narratives imposed on us by the larger countries and just say, hey, it's eleven guys versus eleven on the pitch, and I'm going to cheer for those who, in so many ways, haven't had their sides of the story presented. For me, it's all about the perceived value of people outside the centers of power. Ecuador is valuable to me precisely because it is marginalised. I'm in solidarity with their players in ways I can't be for the troop of millionaires representing Ingerland. It's precisely the same reason (well, not precisely, but you get my drift) I cheer for Gandhi-ji against that bad man Mountbatten.
A guy at a bar in New York last week said, "Spain versus Tunisia. What is Tunisia?" I didn't understand the question. Turns out the brother had never heard of Tunisia before. "What is that? A club? A country?"
So, regardless of Beckham doing that one thing that he so beautifully does, supporting the weak against the strong is the mutinous thing to do.
peace.
Mr Kobayashi,
With all due respect, I think your idea of the United States of Ingerlaanda is several decades out of date ;)
Culturally and socially, the UK is far closer to the US these days, especially London. Although there is a European twist to things too, to some extent (due to the rise in cheap holidays to places like Spain in recent years etc).
bong breaker, you're my boy and all, but i need to set you straight on this one.
no, i don't.
no, i don't. you clearly haven't understood my point. in any case, i don't even watch the olympics at all -- boring. i'm a football fan first and foremost. i'm with shankly on what he said about life and death.
you're assuming extremely wrongly and on the basis of your assumption, you are insulting me.
i refer you to what kobayashi (who is like me a u.s. citizen) said just now. study it carefully. he speaks wise words. but here are mine:
i don't support the united states in any international venture. not on principle: if the u.s. got involved in international ventures i approved of, i would gladly support them in them. i have no trouble with being a citizen of the u.s. and there are many qualities this society has that i enjoy very much. i don't think there is anything inherently american about these qualities, but i am certainly happy to celebrate them wherever they do occur, including the u.s.
when the u.s. has a government i support, then i support what that government does. when it has a government i despise, as it does now, then i do not support what that government does. pretty straightforward, no?
the flag of the u.s. is not something i feel any "loyalty" or "patriotism" or "duty" towards. more broadly, i don't recognize myself in the concept of nationality in the first place, so how could i feel nationalism?
nationality is a system of symbols and signs that contribute to organizing social life, including through institutions that have been under construction worldwide since the peace of westphalia established the modern concept of nation-state back in the 17th century. since then, in particular through the operation of imperial conquest, and also through the intellectual diffiusion of norms, nation-states have been the primary organizing method of global society. today, nation-states don't really do a good job capturing the way the world works, especially for the hybrid and diasporic kind of people who inhabit SM, but of course we are also subject to these institutions and accustomed to these ways of thinking.
which brings us to the world cup. it is an international football tournament organized by what remains the most effective and globally understood way of organizing the world. it takes these things we have called states, which are part real and part of the imagination, and pits them against each other in an organized, refereed, and good-natured way. it is a celebration of humanity, because it is a "nationalistic" party for every country, held together and all at the same time. ask anyone you know who is in germany right now.
my relationship to each of those bundles of symbols and signs we call states in the world cup is not something to pre-judge. i maintain free will. the bundle called "united states" has certain meanings to me. some of those meanings are affectionate, some less so. the bundle called "france" has certain meanings to me, in part based on nostalgia (as i used to live there). the bundle called "ivory coast" has certain meanings to me, in part based on friendship (as i used to live there too and have lots of friends from there). but the bundle called "brazil" has meanings too, even though i've never set foot in the place. why should setting foot somewhere be a pre-requisite for supporting them in the world cup? i support brazil because they are the world's custodians of a quality and beauty of play that we saw yesterday in their match against japan.
you think i only support winners? that's bullshit, bb, and you should know me well enough after all these months on this board to know that it's bullshit. i'd never accuse you of such a primitive way of thinking.
getting back to the u.s. team, as i mentioned earlier, there are some players on the team that i like, and i certainly agree with the overall project of making football more popular in this country. but that's a long term venture; as the supremes said, you can't hurry love. it'll come, in particular as the ethnic mix in this country continues to morph. we are become more and more latin american, and football is growing as a result. as and when the u.s. team reflects that changing, brown america, i'll be more likely to support it. but so long as the united states is the arrogant imperial power, human right violator, specialist in the double standard, slef-anointed closer-to-god, etc., it's pretty damn unlikely that i'll support any of "our" national teams. fuck that.
peace
and another thing:
and you won't hear any such reason from me. you are free to support whoever you want for whatever reasons you want. it's only a game -- who you support is your esthetic and emotional choice and i wouldn't presume to know anything about it. if you support england, well then, all i can hope for you is that england will reward your support. good luck, sincerely.
peace
Chip on the shoulder alert!
Joylessness? Huh? England is very jolly and we have lots of fun - the world that gives you Goodness Gracious Me, Fawlty Towers and The Office is noy joyless! ;-)
Sid writes: >>when the u.s. has a government i support, then i support what that government does... so long as the united states is the arrogant imperial power, human right violator, specialist in the double standard, slef-anointed closer-to-god, etc
Could it be that the players of the US soccer team have the same views as you, but yet do their level best for the team/game? Considering that, don't they deserve your support?
M. Nam
That chip has a proud history. I am not worthy to bear it, but by the same token, I'm not free to refrain from bearing it.
by that argument, all the players on all the teams deserve my support. in a way they do. my primary interest here is seeing great football.
"Patriotism is the virtue of the vicious" - Oscar Wilde
Siddhartha,
Whoah, time out. This is exactly the sort of thing which certain Islamic extremist groups here in the UK openly say -- fellow Brits on SM who have heard Anjem Choudhary being interviewed (along with fellow members of HuT/Al-Gharaaba/Al-Muhajiroun) will know exactly what I mean.
I'm not saying you necessarily have the same kind of mindset by any means, of course, but one does need to take great care in going down this path. Not having blind, unquestioning allegiance to one's country of citizenship is one thing, but having no loyalty or feelings of duty towards it whatsoever is something quite different and, on occasion, a very dangerous stance to take indeed.
I can understand the patriotism etc being conditional if the nation is supposed to stand for (and have been founded on) certain high-minded ideals and the current government is regarded as straying from these ideals; however, refusing to have any allegiance towards the country whatsoever isn't the right way to go, in my opinion anyway. You can regard yourself as a human being first and foremost and have loyalty towards the whole of humanity as your primary "allegiance", and still be loyal, patriotic towards your country of citizenship (and your fellow citizens) on a secondary level. Unless you disagree with some/all of the fundamentals of the country full-stop, in which case you should reconsider whether continuing to live in said country is the appropriate course of action at all.
Correspondingly.....
.....this is only appropriate if these actions are fundamentally a part of what the United States is all about, which they are not. One needs to decouple the actions of the government from what the nation itself essentially stands for.
Also:
I agree completely with MoorNam on this point. One is making negative assumptions about the views of individual members of the soccer team, which may not be accurate. Let's be careful of not veering into the concept of "collective guilt"/"group responsibility". Sportsmen do not necessarily represent (or agree with) the political stances and military actions of their country.
However, supporting the righteous, regardless of whether they are weak or strong, is the correct thing to do. It's not about being "mutinous" just for the sake of it.
Jai
Heh heh. Essactly. You have grasped the essential.
Of course, whether that "very dangerous stance" is to be avoided or embraced is something we probably disagree on.
In all seriousness, I agree. But, again, how "righteous" is defined might not be something we find easy agreement on.
Whoah, time out. This is exactly the sort of thing which certain Islamic extremist groups here in the UK openly say -- fellow Brits on SM who have heard Anjem Choudhary being interviewed (along with fellow members of HuT/Al-Gharaaba/Al-Muhajiroun) will know exactly what I mean.
Thats guilt by association, a logical fallacy. I kind of like Sid's view of the global citizen. When a rabble of Brits chant "Where's your army?" in England-Agentina-matches, soccer becomes sanctioned nationalism. And thats pretty darn ugly.
jai,
don't patronize me. also, don't tar me by association.
well then. but you sure as hell made the association.
i didn't say that. i'm a u.s. citizen and i do what is required by it: i obey u.s. laws, i pay my u.s. taxes to the u.s. government, and i do my civic duty and vote in u.s. elections. supporting the u.s. team in some game is not on the same level. it's an esthetic choice.
citizenship is a transaction. the government of the country in questions extends to you certain rights and obligations; you in return do what its laws and constitution require of you. i do exactly what u.s. laws and constitution require of me: in that respect i am a perfect citizen, as are most other people.
that's it, that's all.
"patriotism" is an atavism, as well as an ideological concept that people deploy to demand that other people behave in ways that they dont feel threatened or challenged by.
i am a citizen, not a patriot.
peace
What a game by Brazil yesterday AND Ronaldo finally woke up!
I was blown away by Brazil's performance in the second half. There are few parallels in sports today of something as beautiful, free flowing, effortlessly coordinated as the Brazilian offense. They truly are the master practitioners of the beautiful game and I dont regret watching all 90 minutes of the game on the pirated Chinese website at work ;)
Some athletes have the ability of elevating their game to a different level altogether and in contemporary sports we have Federer in Tennis, Terrel Owens in Football, Tiger Woods in golf and probably Kobe in Basketball who have similar abilities. But to do this at a team level, is truly remarkable and its always a joy watching the Brazilian masters.
I wish more Americans would appreciate soccer. The jingoistic attitude of some Americans towards soccer is getting old. I actually got into an argument with a friend yesterday who was mocking soccer because that is supposed to be funny in some circles. The 'we dont care' attitude is annoying and if we truly didnt care we would not not spend so much time talking about the fact that 'we dont care'.
Anyway, I supported the US team and I am disappointed that we lost. My favorite teams now are Brazil, Spain and Argentina.
Desitude,
Agreed, but nothing to do with me or my own stance on these things. I also very much doubt BongBreaker takes that point of view either, or agrees with the thuggery (and occasional racism) driving it.
You're also preaching to the converted, considering the hell the (South) Asian community here in the UK went through for a very ong time at the hands of right-wing "British nationalists" (and indeed ordinary white British people who shared those sentiments), although things had improved significantly during the past 10-15 years or so. It still occasionally happens. Not all "indigenous" Brits regard desis as being British, regardless of our citizenship and not even if we were born here.
A bit off-topic from the current discussion that you guys are having here.
I'm an Indian citizien...came to US 5 years ago for my graduate studies. Each time I watch a match in which US is playing some other team, I always tend to favour the "other team". A few of my friends take objection to this ..saying that I should support US (if its not playing against India) instead. This happend quite a few times in this World Cup, Baseball World Championship and Olympics basketball.
Siddhartha,
>>my primary interest here is seeing great football.
>>you think i only support winners? that's bullshit, bb
I find these two statements to be contradictory in a way. If you want to see great football, you want to cheer for the best team. In a competition, the term "best team" is the one that plays the best. The one that plays the best is also the winner.
So you should be supporting winners (that's what I do) as long as no nefarious methods(steroids etc) have been used to win.
Sid, I have no problem if you support Brazil because you think that team does justice to the game that you love. But then don't bring politics in. I could easily quote a few Brazilian political shenanigans that will make the US look good (their callous attitude to the Amazonian forests, decimation of tribes, excessive corruption, out-of-control mafia, HUGE gap between rich and poor, etc etc).
M. Nam
why the hell not? i don't tell you how to forge your esthetic sensibilities. kindly don't instruct me how to forge mine.
they are not. the winner emerges at the end of the 90 minutes. what bong breaker is talking about is who one comes into the game supporting.
There's a neat feature in Vanity Fair this mth on a book called Faces of Football, involves a collection of headshots of well-known footballers taken after matches. The only grinning face is Ronaldinho's and Becks has that Eau de Beckham stare on his face, does that man EVER take a bad picture?
Siddhartha,
I don't know what's going on with you today but you seem to be determined to pick a fight with someone, first with BongBreaker and now with me. You are misreading and misinterpreting what both of us have said, along with our intentions for doing so. In fact, you are now also being unnecessarily (and, dare I say, uncharacteristically) abrasive towards MoorNam.
I am a relatively easy-going guy but have a hell of a lot more backbone than you may be assuming and am a very tough opponent indeed if someone starts crossing the line with me without having a genuine reason to do so, regardless of my usual good-humour and occasional jokes on this blog. Whatever opinions you have on this topic (and it's obviously an emotionally-loaded subject for you) are causing you to unnecessarily -- and inappropriately -- provoke other people. It may be a good idea to get some fresh air or perhaps take a short break from SM in order to clear your head, before you start becoming even more aggressive towards myself and/or BongBreaker and things really start getting ugly. There is no need for any belligerent machismo here.
You made the associate yourself without any need for assistance from me. We have very high-profile, and openly treasonous "khilafat" types here in the UK who openly declare that they have no loyalty towards the United Kingdom at all and that "having a British passport means nothing, it's just a means to facilitate travel overseas", and indeed that their aim is to verthrow the current political system and Western culture in this country. They forcefully oppose the very fundamentals of what this country is based on, culturally and politically, and have frankly wreaked havoc on the profile and public perception of pretty much everyone of South Asian origin here because "we all look the same" and unfortunately a disproportionate number of these fanatics are of subcontinental ethnic background. So you will understand if hearing someone voice the same sentiments, practically verbatim, is going to trigger a negative reaction from people such as myself.
Stating that I am aware you did not intend to come across as someone like one of those jihadist groups is not being "patronising", it is stating a fact and an attempt towards courtesy towards you so that you (and other people reading SM) do not misinterpret the rest of the associated paragraph. It's called civilised behaviour, Siddhartha.
You are of course at liberty to support -- or not support -- whoever you wish, as we all are. However, it's important to attempt to understand what the other party is actually saying (and why they are saying it), along with not inflaming the situation further by hypersensitively intepreting their actions as "insulting" or "patronising".
Also, my own views on matters such as citizenship, "human first", human rights, ethical warfare etc should already be abundantly clear considering the number of times I have previously discussed these issues on SM. In that sense, you and I may be on more common ground than you realise, to some extent anyway.
I have a co-worker (I should say "had a co-worker" I got laid off :-( ... )who is Moraccan, but a die-hard fan of Brazil. He had a Brazil flag on his cube, even. And yes !!! no more comments from me commending the great capitalism, I got canned due to it :-) (I kid, I kid)
Jai:
Now come on Jai.."ocassional". All your posts are hilarious :) ..well except the last one...which seems to be written on a more serious topic.
Keep the comments coming!
You compare the brother to violent Jihadis, and when he rejects the comparison, you accuse him of belligerent machismo?
That's strange, dude. Your comment on 52 makes it obvious that you and Siddhartha are basically on the same (the "righteous") side of the issue.
But your words in 59 make it look like you're the one picking a fight. Jai, try to understand that an emotional attachment to the nation state (to any nation state) is not normative for everyone.
jai, leave out the lectures about what is civilised and what is not. it's clear to me that you and i have plenty in common, i've been reading your comments here as long as you've been reading mine, and we'd not even be having this conversation if we didn't have intellectual respect for each other.
my response was to bong breaker's assumption that i -- and by extension others here of u.s. citizenship -- somehow automatically support the u.s., and therefore that our failure to support the u.s. in the world cup suggests that we only like to support winners. it was a view that called for a response, on numerous levels. one is emotional: those of us here who have considered and complex critiques of the united states government are sensitive, justifiably so i trust you will agree, about people assuming that we support the u.s. in symbolic areas. as you know symbols are very important in political and social life.
as the conversation progressed, you made comments about patriotism that i disagreed with. so i answered. in addition, you jarringly opened your comment with a classic put-down, that of guilt by association with something that we all agree is abhorrent. then you stepped back and said that of course, of course, you don't really think that is what i meant, etc. it's a classic disingenuous tactic and one that can only pollute the conversation.
now you offer finally some context for your point (as opposed to the cryptic and all-knowning "SM reader in Britain will know" allusion) and that is helpful. but your whole point was diversionary.
it is rich to read:
from someone who in the previous sentence wrote:
and just before that:
jai, i haven't made any assumption about your backbone. as i mentioned earlier, i respect you. now you need to end your sabre rattling, my friend. or don't. your choice.
peace
Whoa! It's soccer hooliganism, SM style!
I agree with Sid. I would watch and support a team playing good, attractive football, nationality is important, but i totally can understand if it's not first on someone's list on why to support a team ,plus i tend to side the underdogs. So,in the US -Ghana matchup i was hoping for the US to do well, because Ghana was a superior side in my book.
It's complicated people. Sometimes's i'm not sure and really don't care which team i'm supporting as long as the game is a real kicker.
Sid writes: >>why the hell not? (bring politics)
Because it dilutes your own stand. Your support of Brazil due to your love for the game stands on its own merit. By bringing politics in, you give the impression that you hate the US soccer team more than you love the Brazilian team.
M. Nam
?? The US was ranked 5th coming in to the world cup. Nobody expected, at the beginning, that Ghana would advance. Some people predicted that the US would advance. Now things are upside down, but that's largely b/c the US played horribly, not because it was a weak team.
Normally I am bemused at the turns a thread takes in the comments. This time I catch myself wishing I had written a post on precisely the issue that Saurav raised and that people are responding to - how do we pick our sporting loyalties? Do we have any obligations to our home teams? etc.
We have very high-profile, and openly treasonous "khilafat" types here in the UK who openly declare that they have no loyalty towards the United Kingdom at all and that "having a British passport means nothing, it's just a means to facilitate travel overseas", and indeed that their aim is to verthrow the current political system and Western culture in this country
Jai, we have enough alarmists in the West. So put the banner of the West down and relax. There is no serious threat to the 'Western culture'.
I think Sid makes a very vaild and perfectly reasonable point. Also suggesting that Sid is making the same argument that is made by HuT/Al-Gharaaba/Al-Muhajiroun is slanderous and pretty ridiculous.
Hi Ennis, i know the US was ranked 5th, but that does not mean that it has a better team. Ghana advancing wasn't that much of a surprise to many people. They have won a few African cup titles, a couple of under 17 FIFA world championships and their players play in leagues across Europe.
I was hoping for a good showing by the US team this year. But who honestly believes that the US football team is the 5th best team right now in the world cup. There a few good players in the team, but the team as a whole appeared to be totally disconnected.
So yes, i saw the US as a weaker team in the US-Ghana matchup.
and openly treasonous "khilafat" types here in the UK who openly declare that they have no loyalty towards the United Kingdom at all and that "having a British passport means nothing,
There is nothing wrong in advocating for a change in the political system of U.K.
If you have a problem with their viewpoint, then fight their vision of a UK with a better vision. Calling them treasonous is not an argument. They should be allowed to advocate for replacing the Common Law with the Sharia. As long as they are not using violence or suicide bombings, there is nothing wrong in advocating for a different system as long as they want to achieve it through a democratic process. There is nothing treasonous about advocating for the Sharia.
Siddhartha,
No. You see, this is the whole point, because you are projecting erroneous assumptions about the context of my statements. My comment was not a "put-down", it was a comment on the need for caution regarding how one phrases such thoughts, as they can indeed be misinterpreted because of various other parties who indulge in the same kind of rhetoric but with more nefarious agendas.
And before anyone here accuses me of "backtracking", let me emphasise that I do not engage in that kind of behaviour and, indeed, I have called out certain other SM commenters in the past who attempted the same tactic with me.
Please refer to my previous paragraph. I do not engage in such "disingenous tactics".
It's not crypic at all, because Anjem Choudhary is a very well-known figure indeed here in the UK. SM readers in Britain will therefore know exactly the kind of behaviour and mindset I am referrnig to. The link I've supplied even includes a video of a debate on the BBC here a few months ago where he basically hangs himself with his own rope. It's quite a performance.
Sheath your own sword and I'll sheath mine. I have no problem with politely agreeing to disagree. However, if I think you (or anyone else) is being unnecessarily abrasive towards BongBreaker, MoorNam, or anyone else, I will intervene if I think the situation warrants it. I would act in exactly the same way if it was apparent that someone else was behaving in a similarly unjust and counterproductive manner towards you.
AlMfD,
I didn't. See my previous comments.
Abusing the democratic process and its associated freedoms in order to replace it with an undemocractic system with severely curtailed freedoms is both treasonous and hypocritical. Anyway, this is not the right thread to have that argument.
I was under this impression too, Ennis (though I thought it was something like 11th, not 5th, but anyway...). Sid usefully corrected me by telling me that how you do in your own region inflates your ranking, so that the U.S. and Mexico have higher world rankings than is probably justified by how good their teams are. I think by the time the Ghana-U.S. match rolled around, it wasn't surprising that Ghana won b/c they had dismantled the Czech team that took apart the U.S. and the other reasons that Derrick stated.
Of course, if, as media reports allege, they didn't show up for the czech match and they actually had, well, we might be having a different conversation now.
Or not :)
PS:
For the record, at the end of the day my "banner" is that of the Khalsa. In this instance it is entirely compatible with Western ideals and defending the associated freedoms.
Anyway, off-topic.
I watched both US matches and also the Ghana - Czech Rep match. I think the US team did a much better job against Ghana than the Czech team.
I mean in the last 20 some minutes Ghana controlled the ball at will against Czech Rep. US team did a much better job against them. I mean the Brian McBride header that hit the pole???
I commend US team for a good effort. Reyna just might be getting too old. But then next time around US will have the Ghana born Abu Something (cant remember last name). He is some sort of a phenom.
RC:
Ghanaian born Freddy Adu. We'll see, he's still young and quite small. Who knows if he will mature into world cup material?
Saurav - I'm quoting the ESPN commentators here. They said that the US was 5th coming in, that some people had expected the US to break out of the bracket, but that nobody had expected that of Ghana. While Ghana's victory was not a surprise, this hardly made the US the "underdog" as some have alleged. In any case, the odds of Ghana's victory were just 6:5, so nearly even odds, again, hardly the dominant favorites even going into the game.
When terms like "the righteous" start getting thrown around I get nervous :)...after all, 'righteousness' is precisely what both Sharia and its detractors would invoke.
some silly fun: if you played for brazil, what would your name be? http://www.minimalsworld.net/BrazilName/brazilian.shtml.
i think this is something that has changed the Cup itself, since players from smaller countries are much less intimidated by the big nations now days.
i think the point about the narrative being driven by the big nations in soccer is a good one. Its one of the reasons Beckham is so big even though, he's world class in just one thing, which he does well. Its the reason I root for Liverpool if I root at all for a Premiership team, if I root at all for a soccer club team. I just don't know enough about the rest of the world in terms of soccer. I also instinctively feel soccer and the World Cup is a beautiful game because its a mingling of the aspirations of people in groups. People in groups can be glorious or they can be profane. The Cup is a chance for us to all be glorious for a time, if possible. Its why racism in soccer wounds more deeply. Its why the motto of this Cup is something like "a time to make friends". I frankly am distressed only that its wink wink nod nod at all the prostitution coming into Germany for the Cup.
supporting a club or nation is a joy, its one of the joys of the time.....we all feel a little more in the driver's seat of our lives. I may be passionate for the cause of justice, but will I see that passion through with a cheer on a day to day level? Only if Senegal comes from an underdog seat to play like champions and proclaim their dignity. And so when we cheer for a nation in the Cup, we are cheering often for a dream. And at that point I think the most well-taken sentiment is to respect the dream that other men and women hold dear if possible
I support the US because i dream of a place of soaring humanism breaking past wounds, a place where contradictions give way to the possibility of rough hewn humanity. A place of Walt Whitman, even though Whitman himself can not be taken whole
Anyway, a thread on the beautiful game and maybe a try at saying something with beauty in it
Personally I'm still looking for my Senegal
Sahej, that's beautifully expressed.
Do your thing man.
alright alright man, appreciate the love
All this sturm und drang for who most deserves the privilege of getting demolished by Brazil :) Anyway, your points are fair, though I would add though that ESPN continues to prove that its commentary could have used some work :)
This needs to be explored by Mutineer bloggers:
The head of the US Soccer Federation (essentially, the American FA) is a chap named Sunil Gulati. Whoa.
Whoa. Comes as a surprise to me. Further investigation is needed (by somebody else) as I am too lazy.
So this is the lineup with my predictions. Any surprises would be great
Round of 16
Ger vs Swe, Arg vs Mex, Eng vs Ecu, Por vs Ned,
Swi vs Ukr, Ita vs Aus, Bra vs Gha, Spn vs Fra
Quarters (prediction/hope :) )
Ger vs Arg, Eng vs Ned, Swi vs Ita, Bra vs Spn
Semis:
Ger vs Eng, Bra vs Ita
Finale: Ger vs Bra
Predicted winner: Ger
Covered here
Ooops: http://www.sepiamutiny.com/sepia/archives/003118.html
Hey, sorry I missed all this and apologies if I was the one that started it! Sid, dude I really hope I didn't cause offence. I was just trying to be a bit inflammatory and provoke a reaction - sorry man. Thank you for replying at length, it's given me a lot to think about. I hope you get where I was coming from. Peace bro.
But I find it amusing the World Cup does bring out these sorts of issues. In fact last night at a pub next to the High Court in London I got in a debate about this very thing with some high-powered barristers and the barmaid. The white barmaid and one of the white lawyers said anyone can support any team they like and my British Pakistani friend and another white lawyer said that if you're living in England you must support England.
Where do I stand? I don't know anymore! My support remains unchanged, but I understand others' views more succinctly now. I also wonder...if the country that played the most beautiful footie was North Korea or an equivalent, how would the world view them?
Here's something you might like Sid, something I was going to blog about myself, was Gary Younge's column in the Guardian everyday. The 'ethical world cup'. It's quite an amusing read. Here's his entry about England vs. Ecuador:
Saurav's point of loyalty is an interesting study in diasporic culture and identity. I am surprised no one brought up Norman Tebbit's "cricket test" of national loyalty up yet. The premise of the test is simply that those that are not ethnically English must be asked who they would support in an English cricket match -- and those that would support the English team are indeed British irrespective of their genetic makeup, and vice versa.
The Guardian has an interesting article about the possibility of patriotism that is different from 'football patriotism' where the author claims that Tebbit's cricket test is the outcome of a primitive 'tribal' interpretation of partiotism.
For the record, this Indian loves the Brazilian team. And that's simply because they are gonna win. And they'll do it beautifully.
beautiful brazilians...
yeah i second that. as someone who lives in a rugby-loving country which produces cauliflower-eared men with permanently concussed expressions on their faces, I LOVE that soccer has the ability to make even the sports-haters/ambivalent so v interested.
no wonder it's called the beautiful game. *sigh*...wish it was world cup year every year! and maybe one day in 10000 years when we're an important enough country we'll get to host it...
I didn't really want to mention the Tebbit Test DDiG cos I get a bit sick of it, as you can imagine it crops up frequently in discussion here. Tashie if the Cup was every year...it wouldn't be so special :)
I came across this site while doing a search on...you guessed it, Vikash Dhorasoo! As a "desi" (we don't usually use that term) of Trini nationality, I will say there are no desis on the national team, although there are guys of Indian background in the country who certainly play the game. I guess they are not good enough to qualify for the national team. And yes, desi Trinis were definitely rooting for our national team, despite zero representation from individuals of our ethnic background. It was a very unifying period for citizens of Trinidad and Tobago.
I didn't read the whole comment list, but I'd like to point out that supporting England would be the opposite of diasporic unity. Instead, you should do what I do, and cheer for every other country to beat the highly overrated English team.
Francia 1 - Brazil 0 !!!! Great match. I think France played better than Brazil all-around.
My prediction France the winners of "Copa Mundial De La FIFA, Alemania" (or just "World Cup, Germany") !!!
RC - who is your pick for Tuesday's game?
Ennis,
I am picking Germany to pull thru' on Tuesday against Italy. Although the game that Germany beat Argentina, I thought Argentina would win. Argentina were quicker and I think had possesion of the ball longer but Germany scored and then beat them in penalties (los penales :-) ) thats why I feel that Germany will go to the finals.
RC - who is your pick for Tuesday's game?
Italy
Ennis,
Give us your pick. So we have so far myself for Germany and KT for Italy. Lets see what happens on Tuesday
I am going a step further that France will be the World Cup Champs in Italy-France finals.
If people like Zidane and Henry click. But then Italy might have a new "Paulo Rossi" round the corner.
Don't get me wrong, I have always been admirer of Brazil and their fans.
My pick? Germany. Probably in ET but not in PK (if it gets to PK, Italy is toast). And then ... France, but Germany will make it hard and might pull it out.
Although common sense gives the edge to Germany on the basis of home team advantage, I am going to use a more dependable rule of thumb to predict the eventual winner in a World Cup. And that is whoever beats Brazil, wins. So it will be France.
I'm just glad "Empire" got tossed. I think most of the world's glad actually. What a day!
Right. Cos Italy, Portugal, France and Germany have never had an Empire. Only England has.
If we're irrationally holding history against 22 young men, let's be fair about things and boo Portugal for the slave trade, wiping out native South Americans and the longest of all European empires, France for looting Africa, Germany for the two reichs and the Nazis and Italy for Mussolini and slaying Abyssinians. Makes sense, doesn't it?
I was talking about Brazil mate. Five World Cups maketh an Empire no? Mix it up a little? :-)
Oh. Completely misunderstood you in that case, I thought you meant England when you said 'Empire', in light of all the anti-England banter on here.
Nah, nobody really noticed England's defeat ;)
ALLEZ LES BLEUS!
I wish the World Cup wasn't in Europe :(
but ribery is great! I'm glad I discovered this little frenchman! He's like a midget among giants.
-s