Analysis by WorldTribune Staff / 247 Real News December 18, 2022
To millions worldwide, Sunday’s FIFA World Cup final, won by Argentina over France in penalty kicks, was undoubtedly one of the most exciting sporting events in recent history.
To the narrow minds at The Washington Post, it was a victory for white supremacy.
In a Dec. 8 WaPo article, Erika Denise Edwards berated the Argentina team for not having “more black players.”
Conservative commentator Jack Posobiec wrote in a Telegram post on Sunday: “Sorry, Washington Post, it turns out Argentina’s sinister plot of hiring the best players instead of the most diverse players has won them the World Cup!”
Edwards, an associate professor of Latin American history at the University of Texas at El Paso, wrote that the lack of black players on Argentina’s World Cup roster stood in “stark contrast” to other South American soccer powers such as Brazil.
She wrote that the “idea of Argentina as a white nation” was “inaccurate” and that attempts to portray it as such were part of a “longer history of black erasure at the heart of the country’s self-definition.”
Edwards then gave false information on the number of blacks in Argentina, saying they made up 1% of the population. The actual number is 0.37%.
However ridiculous it was, the intent of the article was obvious: With the world watching, use the tournament to push the woke and tired “white supremacist” narrative.
“Although a supreme ignorance about Argentine society and history may contribute to this confusion, the accusation of racism can only be explained by the malice and divisive spirit of the woke ideology,” Ignacio M. García Medina wrote for El American.
American journalist Robert Bridge noted: “If the racial makeup of Argentina’s national team has not provoked any questions from the people of Argentina, why must a professor from a woke university department in the U.S. make it her business? Perhaps the most galling thing about social justice warriors is that they automatically assume that what appears to be a problem for them must also be a problem for the people they are examining from the safety and isolation of their ivory towers. All this does in the end is sow divisions between people where there are none.”