Critics of global polarization argue that the world is actually more politicized.
If true, this is politicization through meaningless radicalization.
Transforming Rodri’s choice as a demonstration of racism is exemplary.
If Vinicius Junior is the best striker in the world and if Rodri is the best midfielder in the world, how should the one who prefers the bow to the arrow vote?
Doctor Sócrates liked Paulo Henrique Ganso more than Neymar Júnior as soon as they both emerged at Santos. I preferred Silas to Müller too, when they appeared in the so-called Menudos of São Paulo.
There are those who prefer Magic Paula to Rainha Hortência and Marcel to Oscar, just as examples in another sport, basketball, but with the same concept.
It has already been said about the limits of choosing the best individually in team sports, but human beings love comparisons and nothing will change the habit of choosing the best and the worst.
King Pelé is above everyone, but go say that in Argentina.
Mané Garrincha, at his peak, surpassed Diego Maradona and Lionel Messi, but only in Brazil can he say so without being treated as a heretic, although he will be as a patriot.
Citizen Vinicius Junior is much more useful to society in its courageous fight against racial prejudice than Rodri, who is close to the Spanish far right.
The choice of the Ballon d’Or, however, is sporting, not political.
Of course, sport and politics mix. And then it is worth saying that the choice was also political?
In theory, yes. But with a hundred voters around the world? And with voters already showing their faces indignant at being accused of racism for not choosing Vini as the winner?
It is inevitable here to use the first person: I would have voted for Rodri and I will take legal action against someone who commits the infamy of accusing my preference as racist.
Just as I consider Roberto Rivellino the best player in Corinthians history and would like to consider Sócrates as such, the choice here is strictly football.
As among white people, it comes down to the question of each person’s taste. Paula x Hortência and Marcel x Oscar too.
But nowadays the essential anti-racist fight exaggerates when it sees prejudice against Brazilians in the choice of the Spaniard.
Was Neymar at Barcelona better than Vini at Real Madrid?
Yes, it was, and that’s okay, they’re both black.
Is it okay to prefer Stephen Curry over LeBron James?
Everything, because they are both black.
But, if I prefer, as I do, Tostāo to Jairzinho, will it be because of structural racism?
Believe me, the rare reader, that there were ruptures in progressive groups on WhatsApp because of the Ballon d’Or. There were even those who wrote not to discuss the issue with white people.
Now, minimizing the pain of those who suffer racism, or imagining being able to put themselves in their shoes and have the same authority to deal with the issue, is equivalent to talking about the pain of childbirth without ever having felt it.
Turning the election of the best player of the season into a racial battle does not help in the fight against prejudice and the proof of this is in how racists are celebrating Rodri’s victory.
Are there racists among the 99 foreign voters? Certainly.
As there would be only one hundred Brazilians.
I rooted for Vini and wouldn’t vote for him. Can you understand?
LINK PRESENT: Did you like this text? Subscribers can access seven free accesses from any link per day. Just click the blue F below.
