Okay, I have to say that I am a bit sick of this.
I was not rooting for France in the recent World Cup Final. As a matter of fact, I was screaming at the top of my lungs every time my boy Modrić touched the ball. Griezmann’s diving-ass free kick to start the whole thing off was bullshit.
In short, my view on this is not tainted by any deep or abiding love for Les Bleus. Far from it.
But seriously, this whole “France didn’t win the World Cup, Africa did” thing needs to stop.
I think that a lot of it is well-intentioned. France was indeed a colonial power that did some pretty fucked up shit in West Africa, and many African nations are still reaping the whirlwind of that influence, so I get why the current trend of holding people accountable for the actions of their historical ancestors is reluctant to grant them full credit. I also understand why Africans are proud of their continent’s representation in the heritage of the winning team. On the other hand, if you want to see the damage that this line of thought is causing, look no further than this question.
So let me address your point. Why do Africans go play for European nations instead of playing for their home nations? Isn’t that effectively a show of gratitude for having been colonized? That is the gist of your question, right?
Let’s take a look at those non-French totally-African players who were all too happy to play for their oppressors.
I’m only going to focus on players who got some real game time in this World Cup, and whom I see as the foundation of this “Africa not France” claim.
Samuel Umtiti: Born in Yaoundé, Cameroon. Moved to Villeurbanne, France at age two.
Paul Pogba: Born in Lagny-sur-Marne, France
N’Golo Kante: Born in Paris, France
Blaise Matuidi: Born in Toulouse, France
Kylian Mbappé: Born in Paris, France
Ousmane Dembélé: Born in Vernon, France
Do I really need to keep going? So far the only player not literally born on French soil moved there before he was fully potty-trained.
Here is my problem with the whole “Africa won, not France” thing:
It is a wholehearted confirmation of the fucked up idea that the native-born children of immigrants are somehow less legitimate than their fellow citizens who look more like the national majority and have more “normal” sounding names. Just because someone has dark skin and an African name, that doesn’t mean that they can’t be fully French.
Calling these players “African, not French” isn’t much different than when people said the same about Obama not being American. He didn’t look how we think of Americans as looking and he had a foreign-sounding name, and that was all it took for some people to declare him less-than-fully American.
So to answer your question, these people didn’t choose to play for France because they were so very grateful for having been colonized by them, they chose to play for France because France had been home for their entire lives.
And can everyone stop talking about how Africa won instead of France? While I was certainly disappointed not to have seen Croatia prevail, this particular claim is really quite messed up, and questions like this testify to the identitarian absurdism that such nonsensical claims can cause.
Edit: Just to clarify, I in no way feel that we should deny the African heritage of any of the players mentioned. Africans who are proud of how well-represented their continent was amongst European powerhouses are right to feel so. Les Bleus were, in many ways, a testament to the wealth that immigration brings to a nation.
What I am not cool with is my white friends talking about how France didn’t really win at all because all of their good players were from Africa, then patting themselves on the back for being so racially inclusive.
No comments:
Post a Comment