Remove this ad

#101 [url]

Feb 4 13 12:38 PM

On the contrary, Africans are very proud on their national teams, just like most people....
It is a positive  way to out nationalist feelings and ethnic homogenity is not the case in most European countries: they also have minorities, so I do not see the difference with Europe...

Quote    Reply   
Remove this ad
avatar

TheRoonBa

Posts: 5,423 Site Admin

#102 [url]

Feb 4 13 7:46 PM

The difference is clear. In Europe there are non-native ethnic MINORITIES. In Africa, there are native ethnic groups that are not necessarily minorities. There are 250 ethnic groups in Nigeria, for example, all of which are native. There is no such thing as 'Nigerian' ethnicity. There are over 60 ethnic groups in Ivory Coast as well. As I said - the present countries were carved out of the map by Europeans. There is a huge difference.

Quote    Reply   

#103 [url]

Feb 5 13 10:31 AM

Ehh.. it's like saying there are no Belgians, Swiss or Canadians. Why is it that people tend to think national states based on one dominant ethnic group is the ideal?
And yes, in Europe there are plenty of native ethnic minorities as well.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

TheRoonBa

Posts: 5,423 Site Admin

#104 [url]

Feb 5 13 12:10 PM

"Ehh.. it's like saying there are no Belgians, Swiss or Canadians. Why is it that people tend to think national states based on one dominant ethnic group is the ideal?
And yes, in Europe there are plenty of native ethnic minorities as well. "


I don't believe that's what I said.  Please try to read what I say instead of inferring.

What I said is that in Africa, there are MORE native ethnic minorities and they are not all minorities - some countries have 4 or 5 equally populous ethnic groups.  Most European states are based on one dominant ethnic group and that is why it is easier for them to feel pride.  I did not say there are no Belgians, Swiss or Canadians.  But I can guarantee that not all Belgians feel Belgian.  I can guarantee that I, as a Scot, do not feel even 1% British.

National states based on one dominant ethnic group may not be the ideal, but it's generally how states are formed.  People with similar cultures and languages join together and form a state.  Most independence movements in the world today are based on ethnicity or language.  What I am saying is that Africans didn't get the chance to do this naturally, so it's unfair to compare their 'national pride' with that of Europeans.  It's a completely different situation.

Quote    Reply   

#105 [url]

Feb 5 13 1:14 PM

what is a native ethnic group? Let me as Belgian talk about Belgium; the borders of our countries are also result of historic coincidences....
There are Flemish people living in France, Limburg is divided betwee Holand and Belgium and the German speaking part was given to Belgium after WW I..... But there are Belgians, just like Congolese or Malinese people have developped a national identity.....

Quote    Reply   

#106 [url]

Feb 5 13 2:22 PM

Pieter, last year I saw a documentary about Belgium and the reporter went to the Eupen-Malmédy region which became part of Belgium in 1920 and used to be German before. Even though the locals speak German they told they regard themselves as Belgians. But it is not always that way. Many locals from Southern Tyrol, which became Italian in 1919 still regard themselves as Austrians. So in some regions they have developped a new national identity, in others they don't.

Not only the borders of Belgium, also of Holland and many other countries are also result of historic coincidences. Why Bavaria became a part of Germany and not of Austria? Bavaria has culturally more resemblances with Austria than Germany.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

TheRoonBa

Posts: 5,423 Site Admin

#107 [url]

Feb 5 13 5:27 PM

Yes - my point is not that people cannot feel Belgian, Swiss, etc. Of course they can. But Belgium only has 2 major groups, Switzerland has 3. Many African countries have 20, 30 or 100s. Of course everything is historical coincidence - but regardless, ethnic groups tend to group together and a national state is the result. My point is that the MORE ethnic groups a country has, the harder it is to feel national unity. I think it's a fairly clear and valid point.  Notable exceptions are the 'Anglophone' settler countries (USA, Canada, Australia, etc.), but these are different circumstances again.

Quote    Reply   
Remove this ad

#108 [url]

Feb 5 13 6:53 PM

Africa is more complicated of course. One country consist of several tribes. A tribe live in several states. When I visited Gambia and Senegal in 2002 it was told to me both countries have the same tribes. If one hase a family name Ceesay he is a Gambian citizen. If his name is Cisée (pronounced exactly the same as Ceesay) he is a Senegalese citizen. It was also told me some tribes lived not only in Gambia and Senegal but also in Mali. I noticed (but that's my personal perception) people feel themselves more related with their tribe than their nation. When I visited South Africa some years earlier I noticed the same.

Quote    Reply   

#109 [url]

Feb 6 13 7:09 PM

All your points of view are right and mostly sharable.
But I think the main reason for the Ivorian failures last year and this year is much more simple and it's called arrogance.
I mean, if you have the best team, much stronger than the other competitors, and you don't win, it means you have probably underrated your opponents or you haven't expressed the 100% of your skills.
Ok, the ethnic divisions within the squad might represent an obstacle, but I think the rich and famous Ivorian "superstars" sinned in arrogance and presumption, and they didn't show a great attachment for their National colours.

Quote    Reply   

#110 [url]

Feb 10 13 8:36 PM




Congratulations to Nigeria, their 3rd African title, and commiserations to Burkina Faso, a great run to 2nd place but maybe their luck was left in Nelspruit (not that they were particularly lucky in any of their matches, particularly that Semi-Final).

Quote    Reply   

#111 [url]

Feb 11 13 8:47 AM

I was pleased to see Nigeria win yesterday. It was nice to see a big African nation return to the top at a time nobody expected it, after years of expectation, as well as with a side that featured a number of domestically based players.


The Burkinabé were lucky to qualify, should have been removed from last years finals for fielding an ineligible player in qualification and have a manager who was banned from Belgian football for 3 years for match-fixing. I think a Ghana vs. Nigeria final would have been a better spectacle.

A whole new burden of pressure and expectation will now fall on the shoulders of the young Nigeria team which is probably not a good thing for them.


Quote    Reply   

#112 [url]

Feb 11 13 12:05 PM

Burkina fully deserved their place in the final , they were almost eliminated by poor refereeing in the semi final....

And the coach (Paul Put )is banned for life, but only in Belgium...

One thing I agree: in the final Nigeria deserved to win...but Burkina Faso were the agreable surprise

Quote    Reply   

#113 [url]

Feb 11 13 8:01 PM

And congratulations also to Stephen Keshi: he's the second man to win the Cup both as a player and as a coach, after the Egyptian Mahmoud El-Gohary.

The best African team I've ever admired was indeed Nigeria, in the 1994 World Cup, even more than Cameroon in 1990 and Ghana in 2010. They would have easily liquidated Italy, but they sinned in inexperience, especially in the last minutes of that unforgettable match. Also against Argentina, they played brilliantly and they humiliated Bulgaria, that is to say the bronze medal of that World Cup. Respect for Nigeria  image

Quote    Reply   

#114 [url]

Feb 11 13 9:43 PM

I agree Nigeria was the best team but with a 10X smaller population, Burkina is a real minnow, an underdog and they deserve at least much sympathy...

Nigeria will be a tough team at the Confederations cup

Quote    Reply   
Remove this ad
Add Reply

Quick Reply

bbcode help