So Who Should Play for the Azzurri? (16 Viewers)
- Thread starter Bjerknes
- Start date
Your argument is null and void because we all have the same sort of blood, barring blood types. Humans, chimps, apes, etc all have blood that falls within the ABO blood group system which consists of different antibodies that formulate whether you're of type A, B, AB or O blood. Those are what constitute different sorts of "blood." In fact, it proves that evolution is most probably a fact.
By your logic, there are only two possible methods to differentiate who should play for whom.
1) Have teams based on blood types
or
2) Just have one national team -> the Monkey National Team
Choose what you'd like, but your blood argument regarding this argument is simply scientifically and inexcusably wrong.
By your logic, there are only two possible methods to differentiate who should play for whom.
1) Have teams based on blood types
or
2) Just have one national team -> the Monkey National Team
Choose what you'd like, but your blood argument regarding this argument is simply scientifically and inexcusably wrong.
Oh and here is another question about the whole Italian blood topic. If someone doesn't have Italian blood let's call this someone Amauri, but then say kills a stray cat in Italy and drinks it/injects it's blood into himself. Or if this Amauri injects himself with blood donated from a "pure blooded" Italian, will he now qualify?
Exactly.
In fact, I wouldn't have a national team unless I'm allowed to support either Poland, Germany, Ireland, Holland, or parts of the Czech Republic. And even if it came down to that, which one should I support? I mean, which nation is more TRUE to my existence?
It's crap like this that makes me angry, and it's seemingly only Azzurri fans who subscribe to this stupid blood logic. And funny thing is, many of these people providing these arguments do not even live in Italy but have Italian heritage. I mean, talk about assimilation... apparently Italians are so caught up with themselves they can't assimilate anywhere and feel like all they have is this "Italian blood."
Where does it end? What does it mean to be Italian? What if I had ancestry prior to 1800 when Italy wasn't a nation? Would that mean I could play for the Azzurri?
This is what I think about that matter :melayyanandmessi:
In fact, I wouldn't have a national team unless I'm allowed to support either Poland, Germany, Ireland, Holland, or parts of the Czech Republic. And even if it came down to that, which one should I support? I mean, which nation is more TRUE to my existence?
It's crap like this that makes me angry, and it's seemingly only Azzurri fans who subscribe to this stupid blood logic. And funny thing is, many of these people providing these arguments do not even live in Italy but have Italian heritage. I mean, talk about assimilation... apparently Italians are so caught up with themselves they can't assimilate anywhere and feel like all they have is this "Italian blood."
Where does it end? What does it mean to be Italian? What if I had ancestry prior to 1800 when Italy wasn't a nation? Would that mean I could play for the Azzurri?
This is what I think about that matter :melayyanandmessi:
I think ancestry should be 1 criterion, coupled with the nation of your birth or where u spent the majority of your life. If some1 was born and raised in France for the last 30 years, but spent the last 5 years in the U.S, he should only be allowed to play for France.
I dont think blood alone for that exact reason. I'm Canadian, which doesn't have a "bloodline". Aboriginals in Canada represent less than 5% of the population, the rest are here because their grandparents or great grandparents immigrated here.
Yes we are 1 species, hence your DNA arguement. However, I was speaking about ancestry which does have genetic variation, hence y people some burn in the sun, have thin fair, different physiques/physical features, etc. And no that doesn't mean we should start selecting ppl based on their tolerance for sun or facial musculature, but that race does exist, and that for player selections, ancestry should play a part.
I dont think blood alone for that exact reason. I'm Canadian, which doesn't have a "bloodline". Aboriginals in Canada represent less than 5% of the population, the rest are here because their grandparents or great grandparents immigrated here.
Yes we are 1 species, hence your DNA arguement. However, I was speaking about ancestry which does have genetic variation, hence y people some burn in the sun, have thin fair, different physiques/physical features, etc. And no that doesn't mean we should start selecting ppl based on their tolerance for sun or facial musculature, but that race does exist, and that for player selections, ancestry should play a part.
So the RH- would be left without a national team?
Ahhh, but now you're beginning to tread murky waters, because in these kind of cases, surely there should be a definitive ruling. When you start talking about "1 criterion, coupled with" and "France for the last 30 years, but spent the last 5 years in the U.S", things become very shady, which you can't really have because of the nature of the matter.
As I said earlier, what if you tweaked the numbers a little? What if it was 20 years in France and 15 in the U.S? 18 years in France and 17 in the U.S? Are we measuring as a proportion of someone's lifespan, or a certain number of years they must have lived in a country to be eligible for the NT? If the latter, does that mean a youth player can't represent a country's U-21 side because he hasn't been there long enough, even if he's spent most of his life in that country?
I know my argument is becoming awfully messy, but that just goes to illustrate how ridiculous it is to suppose that you can start mixing and matching numbers and expect to have a logical, fair system by which to judge whether or not a player can represent a country.
But again, there are countries that don't have such defining traits and features. Who's to say what an Australian should look like? One could argue that the only true Australians have dark skin and have thousands of years of ancestry, but the majority of Australia's population has white skin and is of European descent. What does a South African person look like? I could go on forever...
Ahhh, but now you're beginning to tread murky waters, because in these kind of cases, surely there should be a definitive ruling. When you start talking about "1 criterion, coupled with" and "France for the last 30 years, but spent the last 5 years in the U.S", things become very shady, which you can't really have because of the nature of the matter.
As I said earlier, what if you tweaked the numbers a little? What if it was 20 years in France and 15 in the U.S? 18 years in France and 17 in the U.S? Are we measuring as a proportion of someone's lifespan, or a certain number of years they must have lived in a country to be eligible for the NT? If the latter, does that mean a youth player can't represent a country's U-21 side because he hasn't been there long enough, even if he's spent most of his life in that country?
I know my argument is becoming awfully messy, but that just goes to illustrate how ridiculous it is to suppose that you can start mixing and matching numbers and expect to have a logical, fair system by which to judge whether or not a player can represent a country.
But again, there are countries that don't have such defining traits and features. Who's to say what an Australian should look like? One could argue that the only true Australians have dark skin and have thousands of years of ancestry, but the majority of Australia's population has white skin and is of European descent. What does a South African person look like? I could go on forever...
Genetics? Let me get my father out of bed, someone who was a scientist at the National Genomic Diversity Lab, to tell you how fucking difficult it would be to sort through the millions of different genomes we have to decipher who should play for whom.
Honestly, this couldn't get any more laughable.
And for your information, there is genetic variation between the races. It's called natural selection.
I understand your point, and I share some of your sentiment. The fact nations and ethnicity can be 2 different things (the Kurds, Basque, etc, dont have a country, yet they are an ethnic group) really complicates things.
I guess it depends on the country. As I said in my previous post, I think some1's affiliation to a country in terms of national team eligibility should be longer than the 5+/- years it takes to get a passport.
I guess it depends on the country. As I said in my previous post, I think some1's affiliation to a country in terms of national team eligibility should be longer than the 5+/- years it takes to get a passport.
You're lecturing me on genetics?
You just stated this:
"However, I was speaking about ancestry which does have genetic variation, hence y people some burn in the sun, have thin fair, and more prominent facial features."
Genetic variations. What am I supposed to do? Just look over these comments? What you're trying to do above is inject your ancestry argument with biological truths, but what you fail to understand is that while different nations have different sorts of people with similar genetic makeup, you cannot pinpoint the same genomes to a particular group of people. It's just the genomes that make you "look" the way you do that you're trying to use to differentiate who should play for whom. Not all genetic makeup is based on looks. What are you going to do, discriminate against deaf people?
Ancestry is a load of horse shit. Camoranesi has Italian grandparents and doesn't even sing the Italian National Anthem because he considers himself Argentinian. I have German and Polish ancestry, 4th generation, and even my grandmother didn't subscribe to much Polish tradition. What the hell does this even mean?
Fact is, with your logic, you must be against all of the players on the United States national team, something I will not stand for.
What is your heritage?
You just stated this:
"However, I was speaking about ancestry which does have genetic variation, hence y people some burn in the sun, have thin fair, and more prominent facial features."
Genetic variations. What am I supposed to do? Just look over these comments? What you're trying to do above is inject your ancestry argument with biological truths, but what you fail to understand is that while different nations have different sorts of people with similar genetic makeup, you cannot pinpoint the same genomes to a particular group of people. It's just the genomes that make you "look" the way you do that you're trying to use to differentiate who should play for whom. Not all genetic makeup is based on looks. What are you going to do, discriminate against deaf people?
Ancestry is a load of horse shit. Camoranesi has Italian grandparents and doesn't even sing the Italian National Anthem because he considers himself Argentinian. I have German and Polish ancestry, 4th generation, and even my grandmother didn't subscribe to much Polish tradition. What the hell does this even mean?
Fact is, with your logic, you must be against all of the players on the United States national team, something I will not stand for.
What is your heritage?
Again, I was speaking in terms of ancestry and got sidetracked by you lecturing me on the genetic basis of the human species, which u quite clearly used as a counter-arguement to my point. That is y I brought up genetic variation amongst races (natural selection). However, were getting sidetracked, because as I quite clearly stated, I think ancestry makes u more American, Italian, Canadian, etc than spending a few years in a country and being elgible for the NT.
You're confusing my ancestry/bloodline arguement with the more serious ideas used by blue blood monarch's and American presidents (the old rich)
Ancestry is a topic that is culturally sensitive, as shown with the example u just gave of your family. Italians take ancestry very seriously.
I find it funny when some ppl label Italians as close-minded in this topic (not u, but in general), because they are doing the exact same thing by not accepting a value that is very important to Italian people. U cant force ideas on other cultures.
That is y this is a lively debate, because we all share different ideals based on our backgrounds. For Italians, ancestry is highlighted constantly.
That isn't my logic.
As long as they lived in the U.S longer than the meaningless amount of time it takes to be considered a citizen, I wouldn't care. Considering these ppl represent your country on the international stage, I dont think it's fair for some1 who has only spent a minor amount of time in 1 country to be elgible for selection.
I'm Canadian, with an Italian background
You're confusing my ancestry/bloodline arguement with the more serious ideas used by blue blood monarch's and American presidents (the old rich)
Ancestry is a topic that is culturally sensitive, as shown with the example u just gave of your family. Italians take ancestry very seriously.
I find it funny when some ppl label Italians as close-minded in this topic (not u, but in general), because they are doing the exact same thing by not accepting a value that is very important to Italian people. U cant force ideas on other cultures.
That is y this is a lively debate, because we all share different ideals based on our backgrounds. For Italians, ancestry is highlighted constantly.
That isn't my logic.
As long as they lived in the U.S longer than the meaningless amount of time it takes to be considered a citizen, I wouldn't care. Considering these ppl represent your country on the international stage, I dont think it's fair for some1 who has only spent a minor amount of time in 1 country to be elgible for selection.
I'm Canadian, with an Italian background
But places such as the United States inherently has ancestry from every single place BUT here... unless you're a Native American. That's why your argument is wrong. Where does the ancestry stop? Should we consider someone who has ancestry in ancient Rome eligible to play for the Azzurri?
Parent, grandparent, great grandparent, great great grandparent, where does it stop?
You CANNOT put an end to this lineage argument because it defeats the whole purpose of heritage. If you go by your argument, I could play for Germany, Poland, Ireland, Holland, and the Czechs without question because that's my heritage. But I don't have anything to do with those nations apart from that.
But these values of the Italian people turn into blatant superiority arguments and eventual racism. What if Amauri actually does "feel" Italian, speaks the language fluently, loves the culture, pays his taxes and his dues to Italian society, and wants to repay Italy in some fashion for what they've given him? What, he can't play for Italy because he doesn't have any heritage there?
Talk about closed-minded and arrogant...
Parent, grandparent, great grandparent, great great grandparent, where does it stop?
You CANNOT put an end to this lineage argument because it defeats the whole purpose of heritage. If you go by your argument, I could play for Germany, Poland, Ireland, Holland, and the Czechs without question because that's my heritage. But I don't have anything to do with those nations apart from that.
But these values of the Italian people turn into blatant superiority arguments and eventual racism. What if Amauri actually does "feel" Italian, speaks the language fluently, loves the culture, pays his taxes and his dues to Italian society, and wants to repay Italy in some fashion for what they've given him? What, he can't play for Italy because he doesn't have any heritage there?
Talk about closed-minded and arrogant...