The fairy tale of Zinedine Zidane vanished in an instant of visceral rage at the World Cup final. But what followed has proved strangely more compelling -- more human, more profound, more universal.
His now-legendary head butt -- a reaction to repeated insults -- fascinated viewers around the world, competed with wars for headlines and obsessed philosophers and sports fans alike.
And it elevated "Zizou" into an unlikely hero -- unrepentant and flawed, with an old-fashioned macho morality that has both captivated and appalled millions.
"Above all, I'm human," he said on French television last Wednesday, after three long days of silence following the brutal move that marked the end of his stellar, 18-year career.
The surreal week started on a Sunday night, in the 110th minute of a riveting World Cup final, with France and Italy tied 1-1 in extra time. Italian defender Marco Materazzi grabbed Zidane's jersey as a French attack on goal passed harmlessly by. The two exchanged words. Seconds later, Zidane spun, lowered his head and rammed Materazzi's chest, knocking him to the ground.
The next few days were a frenzy of worldwide condemnation and speculation: What, people asked, made Zidane crack? The head butt overshadowed the result of the Cup -- Italy won 5-3 in a penalty shootout -- and threatened to mar soccer's biggest spectacle.
In France, psychologists appeared on talk shows to ponder his motivations. Fear of success? Fear of failure? Childhood trauma?
Even before Zidane spoke out, the iconic French philosopher Bernard-Henri Levy wrote in the French press of the "suicide" of a "demigod," calling Zidane a "super-Achilles" who was humanized by a head butt instead of a vulnerable heel.
Many intellectuals saw a certain grandeur in Zidane's act -- a gesture of tragic or existential revolt against the huge weight of expectation the world had thrust upon his shoulders.
Others questioned how a player such as Materazzi -- widely known as a ruffian on the field -- could dare interfere with the workings of a genius.
In a New Republic commentary entitled "Zidane's Priceless Headbutt," Luke Dempsey indignantly observed that the Italian "had the temerity to speak words to Zidane -- who dares speak to Debussy as he composes, to Victor Hugo as he writes, to Edith Piaf as she sings, to Monet as he paints?"
And the incident immediately became the stuff of pop-culture legend -- generating Internet jokes, an online game where users mow down a field of Materazzis, and fierce, parodic pop jingles about head-butting.
Last Wednesday, when the fallen icon spoke out at last -- in successive interviews on French television, with an olive-green military-style jacket draped over his shoulders -- many around the world seemed to be looking for any excuse to forgive.
"I apologize, to all the children" who watched the match, he said -- but he didn't repent, saying Materazzi had insulted his mother and sister so deeply he had no choice but to respond.
Zidane shifted the blame to Materazzi and editorialists across Europe followed his lead. On Thursday, prompted by Zidane's TV testimony, soccer's governing body FIFA summoned Materazzi for questioning.
Some commentators have not been so keen to overlook the transgression -- seeing in Zidane's act the morality of the vendetta, an outdated sense of honor and machismo that has oppressed women for millennia.
Mick Hume of the Times of London bridled at the suggestion that the head butt was anything but an act of thuggery.
"It is a sign of the strange times how many big moral debates now seem to be about the antics of footballers. Apologists for Zinedine Zidane have wasted the week trying to read some higher meaning into his assault, claiming it as a righteous blow [against] racism, colonialism and Islamophobia," he wrote.
Soccer coaches in American suburbs -- a world apart from the rough immigrant neighborhood in Marseille where Zidane grew up and learned the sport -- have held talks with kids about dealing with anger on the field.
But for many French people, Zidane -- his skills, character, and life story -- have a significance that transcends soccer.
A son of Algerian immigrants, Zidane had come to symbolize the bright side of a multicultural France struggling with ethnic tensions that exploded in riots in squalid housing projects last year. He led France to its only World Cup victory in 1998 -- then came back from retirement after he saw his beloved "Bleus" struggle in qualifying rounds.
The story of how Zidane and other aging veterans of the 1998 French squad defied all expectations and made it to the final became one of the great stories of the tournament and prompted wild comparisons -- for many, they were "Musketeers" banding together for one last campaign.
In the end, France seems content to hold on to the legend of the tragic hero Zidane -- flawed by the brutal morality of the housing projects where he grew up -- who rose to great heights, fell, then found a measure of redemption in the love his countrymen bear for him.
US President Donald Trump created some consternation in Taiwan last week when he told a news conference that a successful trade deal with China would help with “unification.” Although the People’s Republic of China has never ruled Taiwan, Trump’s language struck a raw nerve in Taiwan given his open siding with Russian President Vladimir Putin’s aggression seeking to “reunify” Ukraine and Russia. On earlier occasions, Trump has criticized Taiwan for “stealing” the US’ chip industry and for relying too much on the US for defense, ominously presaging a weakening of US support for Taiwan. However, further examination of Trump’s remarks in
As the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and its People’s Liberation Army (PLA) reach the point of confidence that they can start and win a war to destroy the democratic culture on Taiwan, any future decision to do so may likely be directly affected by the CCP’s ability to promote wars on the Korean Peninsula, in Europe, or, as most recently, on the Indian subcontinent. It stands to reason that the Trump Administration’s success early on May 10 to convince India and Pakistan to deescalate their four-day conventional military conflict, assessed to be close to a nuclear weapons exchange, also served to
China on May 23, 1951, imposed the so-called “17-Point Agreement” to formally annex Tibet. In March, China in its 18th White Paper misleadingly said it laid “firm foundations for the region’s human rights cause.” The agreement is invalid in international law, because it was signed under threat. Ngapo Ngawang Jigme, head of the Tibetan delegation sent to China for peace negotiations, was not authorized to sign the agreement on behalf of the Tibetan government and the delegation was made to sign it under duress. After seven decades, Tibet remains intact and there is global outpouring of sympathy for Tibetans. This realization
After India’s punitive precision strikes targeting what New Delhi called nine terrorist sites inside Pakistan, reactions poured in from governments around the world. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) issued a statement on May 10, opposing terrorism and expressing concern about the growing tensions between India and Pakistan. The statement noticeably expressed support for the Indian government’s right to maintain its national security and act against terrorists. The ministry said that it “works closely with democratic partners worldwide in staunch opposition to international terrorism” and expressed “firm support for all legitimate and necessary actions taken by the government of India
RSS