![]() |
| rene depestre |
forgive me, poetry, for helping you understand that you're not made of words alone.--roque dalton
Tuesday, August 28, 2012
Friday, August 17, 2012
Aztecaso: What the U.S. win over Mexico means
This week I’ve been
thinking fĂștbol.
As I write this I wait to board a flight back to Notre Dame and remember how playing
that sport got me through a tough first semester there. I remember nights over
at Stephan field playing that game with Brazilians, Nigerians, Arabs, Peruvians…
.The closest I’ll get to playing in a World Cup.
Before I became a poet
playing soccer was and still is the only thing I want to do, playing that sport
is the closest I’ll ever get to writing poetry. How many poems have I written on
a soccer pitch?
Last Wednesday Mexico lost
to the U.S. and my heart became the ball, juggled, kicked from post to post. U.S.A. 1-Mexico 0 read the score over
the Azteca stadium, that Mexican fortress never before breached by a U.S. team.
In fact in almost a
century of play by the two nations the U.S. had never beaten Mexico in Mexico
and with more than 110 games played at the Azteca, Mexico had lost no less than
ten. The U.S. was facing a Mexico like no other: finishing 3rd in
the U20 World Cup, having won two U17 World Cups, beaten the U.S. 5-0 and 4-2
in consecutive Gold Cup finals, and of course beaten Brazil for the Olympic
gold medal made Mexico not only undisputed favorites to win the game but the
undisputed king of CONCACAF (one of six confederations competing for three of
thirty-two places in the World Cup).
Orozco Fiscal’s goal
against Mexico symbolizes U.S. soccer’s breaching of the gap that once existed
between these two countries. But what does this historic win mean for Mexico,
for the U.S and most importantly for CONCACAF (perhaps one of the weakest of
the six confederations)?
Mexico, do you too find it
cruel that at the Azteca the grass on the pitch keeps growing without any one
to cheer it on?
Mexico, watching you beat
Brazil for the Olympic gold was like reading Neruda for the first time. And it
reminded me that there is hope for you and your 60,000 civilian deaths in a
senseless war on drugs, a war fueled by your savage inequalities and the U.S.’s
insatiable thirst for drugs.
There is not denying
Mexican soccer is ahead of the U.S. But the U.S. has something Mexico might
never have: diversity and the success that might come with it: Jozzy Altidore
is of Haitian heritage, Oguchi Onyewu of Nigerian parents, Benny Feilhaber is
Brazilian-born, Joe Corona of Salvadoran heritage and not to mention the many
Mexican-Americans in the team. Orozco Fiscal—the man who executed Mexico at the
Azteca is one of them. In due time the U.S. could very well emulate nations
like France and Germany and be considered real contenders for the World Cup,
Mexico with this new generation of talent might very well be a contender at
Brazil 2014. This not only makes for an interesting rivalry but it is one of
the few points of friction within CONCACAF that have kept Mexico and the U.S.
as the only real competitors on the international stage.
And yet to reduce this
match to a simple rivalry would fail to capture the socioeconomic complexities
that exist not only between these two nations but more importantly between the West
and the global south. I remember once
making comment that for nations like Mexico to win a WC would represent a tangible
sign of progress. Obviously my comment was met with disdain as someone quickly
remarked that real progress is a measurement of economic growth. That person
was right.
The world of international
soccer is not unlike that of the global economy. An event like the WC requires an
incredible—and often unjust— allocation of public and natural resources under
the assumption that such models of development can be sustained despite the
planet’s finite resources. If at the current rate of development the world, the
developed and rapidly developing nations, are already using an extravagant and
unsustainable amount of natural resources, how many more earths would it
require to “bring people out of poverty,” and to stimulate “economic growth” in
the underdeveloped world?
Despite the fact that the growth
model that emerged since the start of the Industrial Revolution is unsustainable,
Western industrial economies hold fast to this model and push the global south to
adopt such forms of development. Despite the fact that such system is not designed
for the very poor of this planet and in fact thrives because of their economic
and social woes. The global south bleeds so that the West can grow fat, simple
as that.
. And yet an important win
in that competition would bring the people of the global south one of the only
few sustainable resources on this planet: happiness and a real sense of
dignity.
Monday, August 13, 2012
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)

