johnfabian
1d ago
Because they weren't slow to develop, and had already established themselves as superstars by the time they exited their teens.
johnfabian
1d ago
Compared with European players with 'potential' like CR7, Messi or Rooney that had 'potential' as teens and then hit their stride in their mid 20's.
I think these are all bad examples; they were all teenage wunderkinds who made their pro debuts at 15
johnfabian
1d ago
You mean from the perspective of the French, or the Algerians?
It's water under the bridge except for the most bitter nationalists at this point. It's definitely sore for the pieds-noirs but they're dying off. For most French people their issues with Algerians living in France would be much more pointedly about crime or Islam or terrorism, not a conflict barely anyone can remember anymore.
Likewise Algerians are quite happy to come to a more prosperous, stable country; nevermind that once they conquered and tried to colonize you. It's not like contemporary Vietnamese have much gripes with the French either; in fact quite the opposite.
johnfabian
2d ago
I guess I'd be interested in hearing a real French perspective on this, if someone is willing to volunteer one.
I'm not French but I lived in France for four years. Speak the language, regularly read French news/social media, so I would probably have as good an insight here as anyone.
Historically France had a much more "expansionist" sense of nationalism. France at the time of the revolution was not a deeply cohesive nation-state, with probably just some 20-25% of the population speaking what we would register as French with a variety of minority languages and cultures proliferating. French nationalists saw the French project as one defined by culture that inferior peoples could (and would) integrate into. You can see that by 1812 France had directly annexed Catalonia, the Low Countries, a strip of northern Germany, the left bank of the Rhine, much of Italy, as well as modern Croatia and Slovenia; these were all deemed to be peoples who, if not French now, could be French in the future. As late as 1919 French nationalists were still arguing that all the people on the left side of the Rhine were more French than German. France, unlike most other European countries, have integrated some colonies directly into the structure of the metropole: French Guiana, Guadeloupe, Martinique, Mayotte, and Réunion are not separate overseas territories or dependencies but rather integral regions of France.
The big changes to this mentality came after the 1960s. France lost the war in Algeria, and with it the Algerian provinces that had been annexed into France. Over a million pied-noirs (white settlers) and Algerian Jews left Algeria for France. Around the same time, France turned to the Maghreb and sub-Saharan Africa for low-income labour. The state also increased offers of education in France for those areas of Africa in the French cultural/colonial sphere (where France still wields considerable influence). Over time the non-European population of France has increased significantly.
So people are basically of three minds. Many right-wingers (and perhaps less openly, people aligned in the center and left) think French identity is primarily racial. You have to have a majority, if not pure (for the more extreme), ethnic connection to the French nation. There's a certain hypocrisy here as people would not say this of the various other waves of European immigrants to France (particularly there has always been a historical connection with Poland), and a not-insignificant number of the most hardline of these are somewhat lacking on this count (like Éric Zemmour, who is a Sephardic Jew). Also from my experience this rhetoric is oriented rather squarely at sub-Saharan Africans, somewhat lesser at Maghrebis, and almost not at all against southeast Asians.
There are other people, probably still the plurality, that consider Frenchness a matter of culture and that anyone can become French. This still involves a lot of snootiness about what that means (French culture of course being manifestly superior in all ways), despite proclamations of laïcité an intense (and not undeserved) skepticism of Islam, and again some extent of double standards with respect to who is "French enough." (No one ever questions whether someone named Nowak or Kowalski is French).
The third group of people are the smallest and mostly left-aligned, particularly with the political party La France Insoumise (communists, basically) who believe the French identity to be completely flexible and not worth all that much to begin with.
johnfabian
2d ago
The situation is different, but my point was that people who would've otherwise claimed to see nothing at all strange or odd about France's team being 90% African were quick to point out how "Italian" the Italy team was.
johnfabian
3d ago
It's stupid good. Extremely active reddit community on /r/genewolfe
johnfabian
3d ago
Fighting the same battle every four years: the racial makeup of national football teams
This is one of my favourite/least favourite culture war topics. It’s such an equal parts fun and frustrating topic because being the World Cup, it draws commentary from absolutely everywhere and everyone: for people normally stuck inside their social media bubbles, you get exposed to all kinds of rare and exotic retardation. Intense mestizo racism, pan-African nationalism, Maghrebi anxiety, intentionally obtuse western progressives, bitter blood-and-soil Europeans; you get a little bit of everything!
The basic thing at issue is something that everybody will see if they tune in to the semifinal starting in 30 minutes: uh, these European teams aren’t very European, are they?
It is funny, isn’t it?
There’s this sort-of intentionally obtuse reaction that seems to be the Anglo progressive default. Oh, wow, sure, I guess there’s a few ethnic minorities on the French team. I actually hadn’t noticed. Kind of weird you did. Not that it’s a bad thing, of course; actually it’s a good thing. Which is obviously so silly. Come on guys, don’t pretend we haven’t all got eyes. If this is your defence it’s a fucking terrible one because it makes you look like an idiot and worse, makes it look you like you think the rest of us are idiots too.
And come on, this is funny! Of course it’s funny, both in the ha-ha sense and the sort of amusingly-interesting sense. There’s a reason everyone wants to get their two cents of opinion on it because it’s natural fodder for jokes that the French team be so visibly un-French in background. Even among the handful of Europeans on the team half of them are the obviously-not-French Hernandez brothers, and the only French French players might be the two worst players on the squad (Digne and Rabiot). If it was the reverse scenario where a bunch of white guys were dominating the roster of some foreign team, the same people professing to be colour-blind would obviously be the first to point this out.
And we know this because there are instances of this happening! This year we had the World Baseball Classic where the majority of the “British” and “Italian” and “Israeli” teams were guys from Iowa and Kansas. For Canadians, it’s an endless source of amusement whenever a non-hockey nation hosts the Olympics to see how many Canucks end up on the host hockey team.
It’s an uncomfortable situation for people
The hesitation to acknowledge the reality of the situation and the inherent humour of it by progressives is some cocktail of unwillingness to cede rhetorical ground to bigots, and a certain unease or doubt about the nature of demographic change in the West and whether it is really bringing us closer towards utopia. And obviously the salience of the issue for others is equally political in nature. I don’t need to explain why some people in western countries would want to make a big deal of this; that is self-evident, especially here of all places. But there are many more people across the world who want to make hay of it. If you go to /r/soccer over the course of the World Cup you will see an endless series of different permutations of “Team France is really Team Africa” from different perspectives.
Some pan-African or Afrocentrists interpret it as another form of neo-colonialism: they see predatory European powers literally stealing the best athletes from their pseudo-colonies, and draping them in the flag of some foreign country. There is an inverse race-focused gripe to “Team France is really Team Africa” that sees it as a sort of neo-slavery where Africans have been taken from their ancestral homelands and brainwashed into supporting their masters. This is an awkward thing for some European ethnic minorities who would really prefer if their “woke” (less in the contemporary social justice sense, more in the original Afrocentric sense) compatriots would not insist that they are fundamentally not their adopted European nationality.
In Algeria and Tunisia meanwhile, there is endless handwringing that their teams are too French, with their squads almost exclusively being made up of players born and bred in metropolitan France. These players may pretend to be citizens by descent but are culturally alien, barely Muslim, and don’t even speak Arabic! Say what you will about the makeup of the England or French or German squads, but at least they speak the national language together. The level of identity crisis that blood-and-soil European nationalists have over football pales in comparison to the Algerian right-wing.
There is also the reality that many of the more outspoken nationalist critics of European teams are obviously motivated in part by crude bigotry. When people talk about too much “diversity” in the German team they’re not talking about the Slavs in the squad. No Spaniard is drawing the line over having Frenchman Aymeric Laporte in the squad. The criticism falls much more squarely on sub-Saharan Africans.
But what would you do differently?
However fiercely the ethnic nationalists would protest, something you do not see in any large number are claims that this is all some harebrained DEI scheme. People by and large acknowledge that the makeup of these teams is not decided by politics, but for the most part trying to field the best squad possible. Take the blood-and-soil types and ask them to pick a starting XI for their national football team and they’d probably return something not much different than what it is already. People still want their country to win, and the reality is there is no ethnically pure replacement for Mbappé or Lamal or Bellingham.
The representation isn’t naturally indicative of the demographic swings, either. Yes, France is genuinely becoming more African, but not nearly so much as the national football team would suggest; not for the next generation, or probably not even the next generation after that. While the shift in the ethnic makeup of the squads is in part due to immigration, it has much more to do with the economic and social dynamics at play in these countries.
Football is a sport where there is effectively no barrier to those without money. Many of the game’s biggest stars come from dizzying, grinding poverty that has no genuine parallel in western countries. The academy system incentivizes teams to find and nurture potential stars from a young age. If you are good enough, there are no obstacles in your way. This tilts the balance decisively to those areas where kids play lots and lots of unorganized and semi-organized football without a large focus on academics or other distractions. In most western countries, that is generally the children of economically worse-off ethnic minority groups. The Paris suburbs produced more players than any other single country for this World Cup.
The alternative, seen in capable teams like Norway or Croatia that manage to field teams that punch above their weight while maintaining a more accurate demographic makeup, is to create a society that values and funds participation in youth sports as part of a healthy outlet for children. Treating athletics as meaningless, or worse, primarily an opportunity for profit, is a way to handicap your national sports teams for decades into the future.
As a Canadian, it’s been very strange to experience the reverse of this trend: as hockey has become more and more exclusive and expensive, the diverse and dominant national teams of my childhood have instead become whiter, richer, and weaker. In the most recent Olympics the single token minority on the team was a guy who is quarter-Japanese (I think?). Again, you might expect this would draw a chorus of think pieces about white supremacy or something, but the reality is that no one could plausibly come up with better alternatives.
Pope John Paul famously said that “Of all the unimportant things, football is the most important.” There are things to be learned even from this culture war issue, despite most of the conversation about it being worthless. A national team is a reflection of the nation that produced it. Take that as you will.
johnfabian
10d ago
Happiness comes from within, not without. There is no amount of success or achievement or material wealth that will satisfy someone who is not able to accept himself.
johnfabian
16d ago
It would certainly be an unconventional way to word it today, but it was 1866. I think ultimately you have to say that is the proper interpretation though, because everything outside this one specific quote with slightly ambiguous wording suggests Howard only meant to exclude children of foreign diplomats, and that's how it was interpreted then.
johnfabian
17d ago
Because it's not a list of three categories. It's a description of one category, of which all three are needed to qualify. I.e. that citizenship is not withheld from aliens AND foreigners AND children of foreign diplomats, but rather children of foreign diplomats who are also aliens and foreigners. (Otherwise, for example, someone who had say, a foreign diplomat father and an American mother, born in America, would not receive birthright citizenship.)
I think semantically it is meant to be understand this way for a number of reasons: the alternative explanation is not consistent with Howard's purposes otherwise OR the final wording of the amendment, it doesn't make sense to describe newborn children being born as foreigners or aliens within the context of the rest of the amendment, and if it was a list it would certainly be more clear if there were ors/ands in between the items.
If I were to say to say, for example, to a car dealer that I only liked cars that were "red, fast, fuel-efficient"; I would expect him to understand that I want a car that is all three, rather than one car of each.
johnfabian
17d ago
Certainly. No disagreements here. I have been very vocal about this in Canadian politics, which is all the worse given that we (ostensibly) have parliamentary supremacy and the means to enforce it.
johnfabian
17d ago
Children of foreigners, aliens, and diplomats were not intended to be covered by the 14th by the very author of the amendment.
Is that how you parse that quote? It seems to me he is referring exclusively to the children of foreign diplomats. Not three different categories of people (i.e., foreigners AND aliens AND those who belong to families of ambassadors...).
Howard in other instances seemed to very clearly anticipate that the 14th would apply to the children of people from other countries who were not (yet) American citizens. In any case, the amendment as written very obviously does not make the distinction you are purporting Howard to have made.
johnfabian
17d ago
Yes. I think that legalizing gay marriage is/was a good thing, but I am skeptical of doing it via tenuous legal mechanisms rather than via the elected representatives of the people or referendum. I don't think that ruling was as tortuously reasoned as Roe v Wade (or the dissenters in this judgment), but it took an issue that should've been decided by legislatures and instead hinged it on a 5-4 decision on shaky grounds. At this point it does not look like gay marriage is particularly at risk of being undone but we've been through this before and it's no guarantee of it surviving forever.
It is clear that in the aftermath of Obergefell both the left and right wings of American politics have decided to use the courts as their primary means of advancing their "big issues" rather than Congress, or god forbid, actually persuading the public.
johnfabian
17d ago
This being anything other than 9-0 is an ominous level of partisan hackery. Like it or not, the Constitution is unambiguous with respect to birthright citizenship.
Expect future decades of the big issues of our time being decided by judges because legislatures have abandoned their responsibilities, and declining civic participation and partisanship frustrates any attempts to amend constitutions.
johnfabian
18d ago
Fairly easy. You do naval blockade on Somalia until they accept them. Their welfare is none of our concern. You arrest Somali politicians. If needed military strikes. You change the constitution that only Swedes have human rights in Sweden. You go with the least amount of cruelty to achieve your goal, but you shouldn't let the cruelty itself distract you.
Sweden is going to have to rather decidedly alter its armed forces if this is the plan. Time to start building nuclear-powered supercarriers.
johnfabian
20d ago
It wasn't uncommon for elective monarchies in Europe, for example, to pick foreign nobles as their King - better to have someone from outside the existing system who is not party to any of the various internecine squabbles come in and rule you, rather than risk somebody from the other camp gets in.
johnfabian
23d ago
I had previously wrote a comment about how there are certain events that are "culture war nexuses" that somehow seem to bring a million things together into one incident
johnfabian
25d ago
The UK will soon be awash with quiet batpeople.
I suppose it depends how narrow the "short term" is, but to my mind jumps the example of Pearl Harbor. The American fleet loses a bunch of obsolete (even if they didn't know it) battleships and learns the power of naval aviation in the process. Instead of trying to fight the new war with the old one's tactics, the US Navy significantly re-orients its procurement and campaign strategies and their doctrine. This builds the force that reverses the war in '42 and wins it in '43 and '44
This isn't just my opinion either. I've read several historians say that Pearl Harbor was a net gain for the Americans even in the immediate term
johnfabian
1mo ago
So far, if you've approached everything Trump has said with respect to his dealings with Iran with the expectation that the opposite will happen (deal = expect more attacks, threats of destroying Iran = deal), you would be 100% correct.
So I'm not expecting things to be resolved just yet.
johnfabian
1mo ago
This is a pretty low form of contrarianism. You can't possibly apply this level of skepticism to everything.
johnfabian
1mo ago
This is what you say when you’ve failed to model someone’s views correctly.
The irony in this is palpable, because I remembered you saying something that embodied the sentiment so perfectly.
"I guess I trust whatever Trump wants to do. He knows better than I do."
After all, you are his most loyal soldier.
johnfabian
2mo ago
If the Israelis really wanted to disprove allegations of abuse at their facilities it would be absolutely trivial to organize some sort of impartial third party investigation. Even the Nazis had the sense to bring in the Red Cross and get out of the way when they were falsely accused of committing the Katyn Massacre.
The Nazis even had a "model ghetto" that they invited the Red Cross to inspect.
johnfabian
2mo ago
Mostly I’m curious because many gender critical people seem very invested in this issue, certainly more than I am, and it’s hard for me to understand why if you don’t have a personal link to it.
Sometimes I pose to people a hypothetical: how willing would you be to vote for a political party, if in general they align with you quite well, and endorse all your niche little political positions, and seem to be competent and reasonable... but also, they want to redefine pi to be equal to 3.
That's the only problem. They think pi being 3.141 whatever is a bunch of stupid bullshit for nerds who've never had sex, and life would be much easier if it was 3.
It's an interesting hypothetical to pose, because a lot of people (especially left-liberals, in my experience) do see this as a deal-breaker. I don't know if it would be in actual practice, but they realize that they are supposed to say they believe in science and experts and whatever, and vocalizing that they would support a party committed to something so unambiguously, objectively wrong tugs at them the wrong way. Especially because it is a sort of nonsense idea that would never happen in reality (see a lot of the wailing and gnashing of teeth over the red vs blue button debate).
Now, sometimes this is a preamble to me explaining that progressive dogma on trans people sometimes feels like declaring pi to be 3 to me. Or maybe I'm talking to someone more conservative about global warming or vaccines instead. But the point is that it feels very difficult to endorse someone for a leadership position when they are so nakedly willing to stare truth in the eyes and declare it a lie. They are so obviously choosing to preserve the structure of their worldview than admit an uncomfortable truth. That's the kind of thing that can breed the worst kinds of radicalism.
Maybe it irks me to an unreasonable degree, but it seems to me a particularly salient example of this kind of thinking.
Ah, I see your point. I think there's a bit of cherry picking: you can point to lots of white players who peaked at 18 or 19 and lots of African players who rounded into form later. I think I'd be inclined to agree that there might be a general trend where sub-Saharan African players might generally trend that way, but there's also issues in a lot of those countries with players faking their birth years (such that players that look to be excellent 16 or 17 year olds are really OK 20 year olds).
More options
Context Copy link