Dear Editor,
Trevor Noah, along with many other people around the world, recently have commented that “Africa won the World Cup” because of the large number of players that have African roots on the French team. The French Ambassador Gérard Araud rebuked this statement, resulting in Noah responding to him and furthering his initial statements. His arguments are incredibly insensitive and dangerous.
In 1995, South Africa (where Noah is from) won the World Cup for rugby with only one black player. Nelson Mandela spent the entire year attempting to unify the country around this team, even though they did not look, sound, or act like most of the nation. Instead, he said that they represented the ideals of the nation. This is exactly what Noah doesn’t understand.
If I said today, “Congratulations on Europe for winning the 1995 World Cup,” I would be justifiably called racist. These players did have roots in Europe, but they chose to represent South Africa in the World Cup for a reason. Noah is essentially reiterating the words that justified apartheid and white supremacy, except now it is on his side.
Noah explains that because he is of African descent, he can comment on these matters while white people can’t. He is simply trying to insert himself into a conversation that he should not be part of. Once again, he is echoing the sentiment of apartheid, just reversed.
Noah also likens the reason why there is such a large immigrant population of Africa to French colonialism. Technically, this is true, but he completely exaggerates the situation. Yes, many of the countries that players had roots too were colonized by France. However, these families moved to France willingly, unlike many of the slaves that came to America. Then, they chose to adopt the ideals of France, so they became French. Colonialism has nothing to do with the adoption of French ideals.
In addition, Noah argues that he is supporting the dual identity of French players. First, his initial comment had nothing to do with this. He even clarified this by saying, “You don’t get that tan by hanging out in the south of France.” Next, it is not his place to determine the identity of French players.
Most importantly, though, France fundamentally differs in the way they analyze race. France’s census does not even consider race as a label for its people. The reason? France defines being French as adopting the ideals of France, rather than looking a certain way. Noah, instead, defines them as African because that is what they look like and where their families came from. Noah simply does not understand the way French politics and French society work.
Noah often condemns groups that attempt to divide the basis of race and ethnicity. However, he has done the exact same with these comments, and should retract them immediately. The uproar that he has received from French citizens and celebrities is completely justified.
Soccer is more than a game in France. It is a symbol for the nation, and among other things, represents a diverse nation coming together. It is true that this is an ideal, not a truth in France today, and people throughout the country define nationality based on origins and skin color. These people are racist, and their views should not be tolerated. Noah’s comments have furthered these ideas and are despicable.
President Obama recently made an excellent comment on his trip to South Africa for the late Nelson Mandela’s birthday. When explaining the benefits of diversity, he said “Just ask the French football team that just won the World Cup because not all these folks look like Gauls to me, they are French, they are French.”
And they represented their country well.
Allez Les Bleus.
Gregory Marchal
Green River
Reader Comments(0)