Football, Tribalism, and Racist Bananas

[Karl Baxter]

Interesting article about the Brazilian "racist banana" incident, and debate developing over at Taki's Magazine:

http://takimag.com/article/football_tribalism_and_racist_bananas

 

[jaxvid]

Didn't like the article, and as always, hate the DWF comments. He says that Brazils the best because their population is so large in comparison to England, German, Italy, Spain, etc and that's why they're better. Only they're not. Just because they win an exhibition game in London doesn't invalidate the last few world cups won by white Europeans. But the writer is another one of those guys who can't get past Pele' and the 1960's model of sports success, black heavyweights, sprinters, etc. It's like these guys haven't picked up a sports page in 30 years.

 

[Colonel_Reb]

That's a great point, jaxvid. So many DWFs have been media-conditioned to live in the past as far as determining non-white athletic prowess is concerned. It is much easier for the media to push the idea that some diversity who competed long ago was the best that there ever has been, or the best during their time. It is (at least somewhat) more difficult for them to make such claims while dealing with the present, because the people can look for themselves and see how good/bad they are. Staying stuck in the past, and arguing from that perspective are a couple of ways in which the media tries to brainwash people into buying into the Big Lie, although intellectual dishonesty is almost always thrown in there for good measure.

 

[Karl Baxter]

He says that Brazils the best because their population is so large in comparison to England, German, Italy, Spain, etc and that's why they're better. Only they're not.

I don't get the feeling he really rates Brazil. His point seems to be to explain away the myth that Brazilians are intrinsically superior individuals. Mentioning demographics will highlight this. Yes, Brazil have won more World Cups than anyone else, but set their 5 WCs and 200 million population against say Uruguay with their 2 WCs and their 3 million people and our side is already winning this argument, so I think the guy's on our side. His main point seems to be that a lot of the so-called "racism" in the sport worldwide is nothing of the sort.

By bringing in demographics, he predictably he runs into some dumbass comments about China and India.

 

[Europe]

Why do we even have to talk about Brazil? The only time they should be playing in Europe or against Europeans is in the WC.

 

[Rebajlo]

I don't get the feeling he really rates Brazil. His point seems to be to explain away the myth that Brazilians are intrinsically superior individuals. Mentioning demographics will highlight this. Yes, Brazil have won more World Cups than anyone else, but set their 5 WCs and 200 million population against say Uruguay with their 2 WCs and their 3 million people and our side is already winning this argument, so I think the guy's on our side. His main point seems to be that a lot of the so-called "racism" in the sport worldwide is nothing of the sort.

By bringing in demographics, he predictably he runs into some dumbass comments about China and India.

I always raise Brazil's enormous population when people mention that nation's "successes" and the "production line" of playerswhich floods the leagues of the world, for it helps to put things into perspective.

Brazil's population is roughly equal to that of Germany, Italy and Spain combined. In addition, football is elevated to a quasi-religous status in that country that is unseen anywhere else in the world, which translates into a phenomenal participation rate. Now, let's compare these four nations' World Cup wins (in descending order of population):

Brazil: 5

Germany: 3

Italy: 4

Spain: 1

It is well worth remembering that Brazil "won" the 1994 final against Italy on penalties. If that particular penalty shootout had gone the other way, then Italy would now hold the record for most World Cup tournament wins...

Jaxvid - The "Pele" factor can be rather illusory and misleading when it comes to analyses of the black role in Brazil's triumphs of the "classic era", for Brazilian teams were not always as "black" as they are today (sounds familiar?

).

Whenever anyone uses the 1958, 1962 and 1970 World Cups coupled with the figure of Pele to "prove" that blacks were always the superior footballers, I begin by informing them that Pele was injured in the second of Brazil's first round matches in 1962 (vs Czechoslovakia) and consequently missed the remainder of the tournament. This useful little fact underlines just how "indispensible" the "great" Pele actually was, given that Brazil went on to win the competition without his services.

Below are the breakdownsof the Brazilian starting lineups in the finals which they won. Mind You, most people don't believe me when I unload these figures, which is a frightening testament to the strength of propaganda.

1958: 7 Whites, 4 blacks

1962: 6 Whites, 5 blacks

1970: 6 Whites, 5 blacks

1994: 5 Whites, 6 blacks

2002: 3 Whites, 8 blacks

These numbers reveal that although they always fielded heavily black sides, the much-hyped Brazilian teams of the "golden era" were always over 50% White(Pele's replacement in 1962 - Amarildo - was also black, so one cannot argue that the team would have been "blacker" if it wasn't for the injury). Blacks only became the majority from the beginning of the 1990s. "Coincidentally" enough, this is also when blacks began to appear in Europe in increasing numbers...

Why do we even have to talk about Brazil? The only time they should be playing in Europe or against Europeans is in the WC.

I share Your sentiments, mate.In an ideal world, the only timeBrazilian playerswould set foot in Europewould be on international duty...

 

[jaxvid]

Thanks for that background Rabajlo, very informative.

And Karl Baxter, yes the first thing I thought about when he mentioned population was China and India, clearly that makes it a cultural/genetic issue.