Whatever the case, I am sure of one thing: World Cup Soccer is absolutely ridiculous.
Now please don't misunderstand me. I don't intend to only degrade the World Cup, because all soccer is ridiculous. At very least, it is ridiculous on the surface, and it has rather palpable and distinct undercurrents of populism.
My first introduction to the game - if one can seriously call it that - came in primary school. Finley Elementary was a tiny block building containing six classrooms and a cafeteria room. Tucked away in the rolling countryside of rural Scott County, IN, Finley served some of the poorer students of the local area. I recall one student who lived with a family of eight in an old two-room trailer; he shared a bunkbed with his brother that was in the corner of the kitchen. Hunting for these folks was more than mere sport, but rather it was part of their critical need to provide necessary protein and calories to their diet. Needless to say, this was not the environment that would foster a greatly expanded world view. My family was more fortunate than many of my classmates, but even with educated parents I wasn't exposed to many things outside of the norm at that time.
Still, a kid's gotta play. One doesn't need to be Howard Cosell to know that in amongst the cornfields of Indiana, basketball is the game to play. And play we did, basketball mostly. Thrown in was the occasional dodgeball, or softball or the like. Recess was the same all over, sans soccer.
My first inkling of soccer came in the seemingly innocuous textbooks we had. Not only did they have the required information for our age group, but they were sly primers on multiculturalism, as well. I seem to recall so many of these texts showing kids happily kicking around an odd black-and-white ball. These children, as I later learned, were representative of other schools, schools with other kids and other problems. The textbook pictures always depicted school kids as an ethnic stew, happily bubbling away as they simmered with cultural harmony. It also seemed that this soup contained a rather healthy dose of that equalizing ingredient, soccer.
It was only later in life, when my life experience and understanding expanded that I truly learned to despise soccer and what it represents.
This isn't to say that other sports, and their fans, can't be equally as meaningless. Take baseball, for example. America's Game is about a five hour affair where the greatest strategic plan is whether to hit the ball left or right. Duh. And baseball's fans are meticulous followers of the games stats. Of course they are, since they records of a game are really more interesting than the game itself. And who knew that some baseball fans can actually read?
Baseball fans aren't alone. Legions of knuckleheaded college basketball fans blather on endlessly about the latest freshman phenom recruited by 'us', as if they were part of the team. Worse still, they always mention 'Coach' with an icky familiarity that borders on homoeroticism. Then we come to the pinnacle of college ball stupidity: the school tattoo. This misguided attempt at team loyalty is made funnier by the fan who tattoos himself without having actually attended said school. How funny.
Regardless of how idiotic sports people can be, they are at least trying to find merit in what they do. Baseball, boring as it is, still has elements that demonstrate purpose. Basketball, even a lame college game, is three dimensional whereas soccer exists in a paltry two. American football has a variety of skill sets, and has been described by commentator Micharel Medved as 'ritualized' combat. Tennis is an expert blend of power and precision.
Soccer, on the other hand, seems merely to be a dramatic representation of a couple of natives kicking a bundle of rags between some coconut trees.
This is precisely why progressive liberals love the game. Soccer to them represents the great equalizer. Anyone with a ball can run and kick it. Absent are the huge powerful defensive line of the NFL, or the multimillion motorcars of Laguna Seca. One doesn't need money or natural ability or finely tuned equipment to play soccer, you see, one only needs a ball and the ability to run.
To a liberal, soccer meets with their approval in a number of ways. Soccer is un-American, for starters. What that means, really, is that there is nothing quintessentially American about soccer. Soccer is a dish with a distinct flavor of some far flung land, and it doesn't evoke memories of Mom and apple pie.
Liberals also like a sport where any overt display of power or strength is downplayed. Again, there is nothing warlike about simply running away, unless of course you're French. Soccer is also a sport where one team rarely is able to dominate another team. There is nothing resembling combat, or the raw strength of will...only guys running endlessly around a field with an afterthought of scoring. Taking the battle out of a contest is part of what Laura Ingraham refers to as the 'wussification' of America, and it is but the most modern example rooted in the days of folks protesting football and boxing as being to brutal.
Finally, progressives love soccer as the great equalizer. Even with it's allowable jingoism, soccer is to them a game that defies the supposed imperalism they see lurking under every rock. Soccer is way for backward banana republics to stand up to world powers on an equal field and feel...well, equal. NY Times sportswriter William Rhoden demonstrated this sentiment when he wrote of the US-Ghana match, saying that even as an American his heart was with Africa. Not Ghana, Africa. Rhoden likened a Ghana win to 'a psychological boost' for this 'important giant'.
Gimme a break.
Nevermind that Rhoden's best known writings are based upon black athletes being treated unfairly in sports. More likely is that at the heart, Rhoden reveled in seeing America knocked down a notch. This type of attitude is woven into the fabric of progressive's cloak and it pervades their thinking to the point where their moral compasses are always taking them off course. This journalist was black, and he saw this contest as a racial and cultural equalizer.
Not only is soccer infinitely boring and lacking in any redeeming qualities, but for many it is a tool for social engineering. I saw it start some 30 years ago in the textbook for elementary children, and everyone who supports it is passively giving aid and comfort to those who would change our way of life 'by any means necessary'.
Writing this almost makes me long for that simpler time, a time when a picture of kids kicking a ball between coconut trees looked like genuine fun. Too bad.
No comments:
Post a Comment