Misguided Outrage Over a TV Commercial

Most people by now either have seen Coca-Cola’s Super Bowl ad, “It’s Beautiful,” have heard about the outrage the ad has caused, or both.  In short, the television spot features people singing “America the Beautiful” in various languages over scenes of Americana – mostly families and friends enjoying themselves in everyday scenarios – with Coke’s products near at hand.  Apparently, the use of any language other than English to sing this particular song offended some.  In reading this morning’s news coverage of this so-called controversy, I do not know what makes me sadder – that people are upset at all by the commercial or that the people who are upset either are uninformed or confused over what has upset them.

First, it seems those now calling for a boycott of Coca-Cola’s products have misplaced their anger by approximately 40 years.  This year’s Super Bowl ad is just the latest attempt by Coke to use feel-good unity to sell its products.  Those of us of a certain age can recall the 1970’s “Hilltop” spot that featured a multicultural group of people signing about wanting “to teach the world to sing in perfect harmony,” while holding bottles with Coca-Cola with labels written in different languages.  What is more, some who took offense at this year’s ad lack a fundamental understanding of why they are upset, mistaking “America the Beautiful” for the United States’ national anthem.

Ultimately, Coca-Cola’s latest Super Bowl ad continues the tradition of conflating patriotism and professional sports to sell a product.  Beyond sales, however, I honestly do not understand that traditional conflation.  Having jets or helicopters fly over large scale sporting events at the end of the singing of our (actual) national anthem seems to be more of an institutionalization and normalization of the kind of militarism and nationalism that we as a county have criticized other nations - usually totalitarian and oppressive regimes – for displaying in the past (think Red Square on May Day at the height of the Cold War.)

Perhaps it is the institutionalization and normalization of shows of force prior to violent athletic competitions that suggests to some that they are allowed to be hostile to other people.  Ironically, it is ending that kind of hostility that undergirds Coke’s “It’s Beautiful” spot.  Unfortunately, the actions of those individuals who have responded negatively to Coke’s latest effort at promoting harmony suggest more hatred towards Americans than genuine love of America.

Mexico vs. United States Tonight: It Doesn't Matter Whose Side You're On, They Are Almost the Same Team

Tonight is a critical World Cup qualifying match for both the United States and Mexican men’s national teams. They are meeting up in Columbus, Ohio, where the United States team has been undefeated in international play. This is not a guarantee of victory as just a year ago Mexico lost for the first time ever at Estadio Azteca in Mexico City-to the United States. With the possibility of missing out on the 2014 World Cup in Brazil after recent losses by both squads, the stakes will be high and the play should be intense.

While soccer teams typically field 11 players per side, there may actually be as many as 13 or 14 Mexican nationals on the field at some points during the game. This is because there are five players of Mexican-descent on the United States team and several of them have dual citizenship. One of the players, Edgar Castillo (Puebla), even played for the Under 23 national team of Mexico from 2007 to 2008. Due to the fact that he never played at the senior level he was able to switch to the United States team in 2009 according to the rules of the international soccer governing body, FIFA.

Omar Gonzalez (LA Galaxy), Michael Orozco (Puebla), Joe Corona (Club Tijuana), and Jose Torres (Tigres) comprise the other Mexican-descent players on the 23-man U.S. roster. Together they represent 22% of the U.S. team, much higher than the proportion of Mexican-descent individuals in the U.S., which is just over 10%. This is not that surprising given that the U.S. has long struggled to make soccer catch on among the mainstream public and that Mexican immigrants to the U.S. bring with them the passion of their country’s most popular sport.

What is really surprising is that the addition of Latino and specifically Mexican players to the U.S. Men’s National Team is only a fairly recent development. Not too long ago, the great U.S. forward Clint Dempsey, was the closest we could get to Mexican roots on the U.S. team. His claim to fame was that he grew up in Texas and learned his style of attacking soccer playing with his mostly Mexican peers in leagues created and dominated by that ethnic group. While many of these players were never recognized beyond their local leagues, Clint had the good fortune of also playing on an organized traveling team in Dallas, which was how he was recruited to college and eventually recognized by the National Team scouts.

Except for the training in less recognized Mexican leagues, Dempsey’s ascent has been the typical route for United States soccer players. This summer I had a conversation about this with my uncle, who coaches a pretty successful high school soccer team in a largely immigrant and working class Chicago suburb that is predominantly Mexican. He lamented that despite being only a few hundred feet from where a Major League Soccer team plays, a team that sometimes actually used the high school field for practice, the coaches and scouts failed to recognize the immense talent of his players.

My uncle explained that rather than look at the high school level for talent, or even younger, scouts followed the same model of player development that we see in basketball and football: colleges are the de facto minor leagues and recruiting sites for players. The problem with this is that many Latino players who may not be college bound are overlooked. Their careers reach a glass ceiling in Sunday leagues as they work in blue-collar jobs.

In the United States, soccer has long been a game of the elite, played at prep schools and more recently in highly organized and expensive suburban leagues with a mostly white demographic. This gave rise to the idea of the soccer mom, a highly invested parent who has the abundant resources to invest in the recreation of her children. While the financial and time resources of soccer parents are high, what they do not have much of is a deep understanding of soccer and an appreciation for the artistry and creativity in the game.

For these children, soccer may lead to an athletic scholarship at a reputable university, but more than anything it serves as a way to a free education rather than athletic development as it does in NCAA football and basketball. So, these players move into white-collar jobs debt free, seeing this as their path to prosperity rather than through professional sports. Without a powerful domestic professional league to jump into, it is no wonder that they don’t operate as basketball and football players do. Not that they should, as that model is fraught with problems of exploiting the status of “amateur” students to make money for the university. But there are other ways.

A possibility is to emulate the developmental leagues in Europe and Latin America, where children as young as 9 and 10 play on teams sponsored by professional teams with the idea that talent will be recognized early and youth will be trained into future superstars. These youth teams scout each other and offer paths to the most elite leagues in the world. Lionel Messi of Argentina was recognized this way by Barcelona as an eleven year old. In fact, the MLS has begun to take this very approach.

It sometimes takes a more concerted approach and a strong and wise leader to take advantage of this new infrastructure. The United States seems to have this in Jurgen Klinsmann, the former German soccer superstar and current coach of the National Team. He has noted that he would really like to develop a unique homegrown American style of soccer and that a big part of that is looking to some of the greatest American young soccer talent, Latinos.

Some, like former National Team player Alexi Lalas, have suggested that American (white) players would be excluded with such an approach, but he seems to be missing the point about just who is an American. Focusing on bringing up Latinos may be just what the United States needs to truly develop an American style. And for those Mexican-descent children who find that they may have been looked over in their, they can still have a chance for soccer glory south of the border-it may be just the remedy that Mexican soccer needs as well. And they may already be on this path; they have two American-born players on their squad in Carlos Salcido and Isaac Brizuela. It may not matter who you cheer for at all tonight.

A New Latin America Says "No" to Torture

In 1991, during my senior year of college, I partook in an alternative spring break trip to Guatemala. While I had visited parts of Mexico during the late 1980s, this was my first foray further into Latin America.  Prior to this – and I hate to admit it – I was pretty naïve about Latin American history.  Although I have written before about the United States’ involvement in the region, I did not appreciate the full extent and long-lasting effects of that involvement until this sojourn.

It is no accident that Loyola University sponsored the trip.  Loyola is a Jesuit school and Jesuit priests at the time were the leading proponents of liberation theology. Liberation theology offered a revised interpretation of the Bible, specifically the New Testament Gospels, and had significant influence in Latin America.  That interpretation held, in a nutshell, that the poor and powerless were not on this earth to suffer towards a greater reward in heaven, but rather should work with the religious and others to improve their lot in this life.  In short, liberation theology offered an early response to the question “What would Jesus do?”  The answer was that Jesus would uplift the poor.

As one can imagine, liberation theology was an attractive notion to a young college student - just the right mixture of politics, activism, and revisionist Catholicism.  The two weeks I spent with my classmates at the Catholic mission in the Guatemalan countryside, some miles from the capital city, had a profound influence on me that continues up through today.

Carmelo de Nazareth Catholic Mission, Guatemala, 1991
Source: Author's private collection

One reason this experience was so profound is that my visit occurred when Guatemalans were engaged in a civil war, with the United States having supported the repression of indigenous populations conducted by various ruling military dictatorships over the years.  It is no wonder then that a recent New York Times piece grabbed my attention.  Thankfully, a lot has changed in Guatemala over the 22 years since my visit, evidenced by the impending public trial of former military dictator, Efraín Ríos Montt.  Charged officially with genocide, Montt is responsible for numerous cases of murder, torture, rape, and other human rights violations conducted during his rule.  Montt’s trial marks a significant turn for Guatemala and promises to provide some measure of justice and closure for the victims and survivors of Montt's cruel reign.

Some of the locals and I pause from our work - building a new church.
Guatemala, 1991. Source: Author's private collection

But what is as equally significant as Montt’s impending trial is not only the measure of justice it offers the people of Guatemala, but also that Guatemala as a nation has learned from its past.  Other nations in the region also seem to have learned from their own experiences with repressive dictatorships.  As it happens, the announcement of Montt’s trial for human rights violations coincided with a recent Washington Post analysis of those countries that have or continue to cooperate with the United States in its transnational torture program of suspected terrorist suspects - a program consisting of among other things, rendition by way of secret late night flights to undisclosed and officially non-existent black sites.  As discussed at Tom Dispatches.com, seemingly every country on the planet has fallen into the US’ imperial sphere of torture – every country that is except for those in Latin America.

Speaking almost uniformly, Latin American nations have said "No" to their imperial neighbor to the north.  In so doing, they have taken a stand for human rights and against the most violent forms of repression by denying the US the use of air space to spirit away suspects, the use of it territories to establish black sites, and the other types of support needed to conduct rendition and torture.

This is a positive and hopeful development for Latin Americans as they emerge from the darkness of their histories while simultaneously gaining the confidence to refuse US demands rather than capitulate under US economic, military, and political intimidation.  Still, while admit my youthful naiveté about how the world works, I cannot do so now.  I realize that Latin American nations’ stance against US-sponsored torture will not bring about the practice’s immediate end, but it does provide an example other countries – including our own – can and should follow.

The Guatemalan countryside, 1991
Source: Author's private collection