| Abstrakt: |
Much has been claimed with pride about Morocco's advance onto the semi-finals of the World Cup as the so-called first 'Muslim,' 'African,' and 'Arab' state to have achieved such status, as well as from a post-colonial and anti-colonial perspective, given the symbolism of its beating Spain. Even more could have been said if Morocco also beat France, from whom it gained independence. Yet, amid all these claims to firsts, there are errors and oversights. To understand the multiple meanings of Morocco's legitimately earned victories, I take a closer look. Morocco is not the first Muslim team to reach the semi-finals, rather Turkey is. The African state of Senegal came close too, and 20 years prior. Though predicated on Arab identity, much of Morocco is Amazigh, and the World Cup may rather be viewed as a series of victories by Amazigh players. From a post-colonial or anti-colonial perspective, while the Moroccan players chose to commemorate their victory over Spain by displaying a Palestinian flag; stunningly, the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic, whose flag is nearly identical, was entirely ignored by myriad commentators expressing pride in Morocco and its post-colonial and so-called anticolonialist stances. Such expressions of pride in Morocco's victories, along with justified critiques of double-standards by 'Northern' states disregarding their own human rights records to criticize Qatar's; nevertheless, neglected Morocco's own governance over and annexation of Western Sahara. Such disregard called into question why Sahrawi human rights were ignored, and the complexity of how to characterize the meaning of Morocco's victories. Ultimately, if these are truly meant to be a (Men's) World Cup, why do not all peoples play and/or are at least allowed to be represented? [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
