France Go Home - 3/3

That's it, they madeit: the French football team definitively humbled herself in front of the team of South Africa. Back home, you do not pass by the start point, you do not get the 5 millions.
You know I'm writing about it because it returns to my favorite theme of studies: the territorial identity!

Illichville, the city without car - Avidor Studios

This football World Cup will have allowed to ask the question repeatedly, more effective than a national debate!
In fact no but that's no matter: speak! speak!


What shall we remeber from South Africa?
The revolt of billionaires of the French team, maybe the name of the final winner (especially if it is Argentina), and obviously:



Quid of the poverty, the corruption, the still latent apartheid in certain regions?




Another scandal was the viral advertising orchestrated by the brand of beert Bavaria:

Is there a really subject to debate? A firm is advertising (a national campaign as the launch did not exceed the Dutch borders) by offering "official supportersclothes" clothes. On the intern market the clothing line is represented by two players' wifes (Sylvie van der Vaart, wife of Rafael van der Vaart and Yolanthe Cabau van Kasbergen, partner of Wesley Sneijder) :

Well… and so? Where is the evil? A company which supports officially a national team without being the official sponsor… Opel/Vauxhall did the same thing in proposing a Corsa range in the colors of European countries in competition while Hyundai is the official partner of the event:

Ho, scuse me, it's not about sport, it's about money: you want to support? You pay!




We keep hearing about european union but have you already seen european flag in an official competition? No and each one stays in his country.


So each one defends his flag (sometimes by tiping the one who defends the opposite flag… and we have already seen partisans of the same flag fighting themselves) and if the circus game are good to forget the everyday life problems (a crisis?) the current media racing will have managed to throw a smoke screen on the rise of extreme nationalists almost everywhere in the world including Europe.

La séduction puis la milice : affiche du Jobbik Magyarországért Mazgalom (16,71% aux législatives de 2009) / défilé de son groupe paramiitaire Magyar Garda en 2007 (dissous en 2009) - photo : Associated Press

Berlusconi quotes Mussolini, Israël kills civilian innocents and international humanitarians, Hungary offers passport to its citizens in neighbouring, CIA kills civilian Pakistanese with drones, etc.


The list of the ultra-nationalist drift is still long. Just after a financial crisis (who will have allowed to review the attentions of the governments: to feed the destructive finance and to abandon the touched populations) as in 1929 (without it seems that this crisis is destroying more jobs an half-year than there were existed jobs in the all 1929 world) which drived the world on the way up of extreme nationalisms then to the world war.

Are we sure to be protected from a new conflict?

Do the governments try to avoid it?
Or maybe they prefer to bet on a conflict to boost the economy arms manufacturers (and thus their stock-opions)?


I am not a political analyst so I have no answer for these questions, but you guess of what I think.
A new conflict, avoidable, but so bankable, at first far, somewhere else, then to us, at home.

statue du général De Gaulle face aux 50 otages à Nantes.

The identity of territories and communities interests me in it that they enrich a common life.

But when it is got back in politicking purposes, the memory is deceived.

I close this post with a nicer light (a simple ball contest have took us so far in a few days): the city of Nantes have installed at the start of the main artery of the city a statue in honour of Charles de Gaulle (which represented the revolt in front of the political and military collapse in 1940, see, another losting France).
The irony made them place this statue so that it looks at the monument of 50 hostages on the other side of the place. A monument in the memory of the communist resistants shot by the Nazi.
No doubt that it have to be the symbol of the agreement between " the general " and the oppressed France.
But it's a false line on the mutual loathing between De Gaulle and the communists (which did not refrain them from working together around the resistance, around the liberation and around the reconstruction).


One more shortcut history…



....