Selective Morality and the Validation We Cannot Let Go Of

 

A few days ago, a Somali referee was denied entry into the United States ahead of a FIFA assignment. The reaction was immediate.

Social media erupted. Commentators condemned America. Many portrayed the decision as evidence of racism, discrimination, or another example of Western institutions treating Africans unfairly. For some, the incident became another opportunity to attack Donald Trump and everything associated with him. Then something interesting happened.

UEFA appointed the same referee to officiate the Super Cup.

The same people who were outraged days earlier were suddenly celebrating. The appointment was presented as a victory. A statement. A recognition of talent. Is it? 

Recently, news has emerged that Thomas Partey has reportedly been barred from entering Canada for the upcoming World Cup. The reaction?

Silence.

The outrage that flowed so freely toward the United States appears to have dried up. The demands for accountability are nowhere near as loud. The moral certainty has vanished.

The contrast raises an uncomfortable question. If denying entry to a football official is wrong when America does it, why is it not equally wrong when Canada does it? If the issue is fairness, then fairness should not depend on which flag is flying over the government building. Perhaps the bigger story is not the decisions themselves. Perhaps the bigger story is us.

We often claim to stand for principles, but in reality many of us stand for teams/sides. We judge actions not by what happened but by who did it. We become prosecutors when our opponents act and defence lawyers when our allies do the same thing. That is not principle. That is tribalism disguised as morality.

There is another contradiction buried within this story.

Many of the same people who condemned America celebrated UEFA's appointment of the Somali referee. On the surface, there is nothing wrong with celebrating achievement. Excellence deserves recognition. The question is why the recognition mattered so much.

If we truly believe Africans are talented, capable, and deserving, why do we treat recognition from European institutions as the ultimate stamp of approval? Why did UEFA's appointment become such a powerful symbol? Why wasn't the referee already considered excellent before Europe acknowledged him? This is where the conversation becomes uncomfortable, at least for me. 

Many people spend their days criticizing white supremacy, colonial thinking, and Western dominance. Yet when a European institution elevates an African, they celebrate as though a higher authority has finally spoken. Without realizing it, they reinforce the very hierarchy they claim to oppose.

Think about it.

If an African's value increases because UEFA recognizes him, then UEFA still occupies the position of ultimate judge. If recognition from Europe is what transforms achievement into significance, then Europe remains the centre of validation. The hierarchy has not been dismantled.

It has simply been accepted.

This is not an argument against celebrating the referee's appointment. It is an argument against the mindset that external validation is what makes excellence real. True confidence would mean recognizing excellence before powerful institutions do.

True equality would mean believing in someone's abilities whether UEFA, FIFA, Canada, America, or any other institution approves of them or not.

Instead, we often find ourselves trapped in a cycle of contradiction. We criticize Western institutions when they reject Africans. We celebrate Western institutions when they embrace Africans.

In both cases, we allow those institutions to determine whose excellence matters. At the same time, we condemn politicians for hypocrisy while practising it ourselves. We demand consistency from leaders while applying double standards to events that align with our personal biases.

Politicians do not emerge from another planet. They emerge from the same society we do. If we reward selective outrage, they will practice selective outrage. If we tolerate double standards, they will master double standards.

The real issue is not America. It is not Canada. It is not UEFA.

The real issue is whether our principles remain principles when they become inconvenient. Can we apply the same moral standard regardless of who is involved? Can we celebrate excellence without requiring validation from powerful institutions? Can we condemn unfairness even when it comes from people, governments, or countries we generally support? Those are difficult questions.

Until we answer them honestly, we will continue living in a culture where outrage is selective, silence is strategic, and our loudest criticisms of society often reveal contradictions within ourselves.

Uncle Pizza