The Meaning of Football
by Giulianna LamannaBefore I moved to Pittsburgh, football meant one thing and one thing only: missing new episodes of The Simpsons. Sometimes I’d miss only half an episode; sometimes the entire episode, but almost always something during football season. This made my Sunday nights very unhappy. I’d complain about how “two minutes” in a football game could, in real life, stretch to fifteen. I’d rant about how there were dozens of sports channels, most of them airing sports no one cared about just to fill up time, while Simpsons fans couldn’t even count on seeing new episodes on the one station that aired them. This was the sum of my experience with football.
Needless to say, since moving to Pittsburgh, my viewpoint has changed.
It was funny to see my fellow New Yorkers’ reactions when I told them I was moving to Pennsylvania. “Oh, you’re moving to Philly?” they’d ask. “No,” I’d reply. “Pittsburgh.” Invariably, their faces would fall and their voices would flatten, and they’d say something like: “Oh. Pittsburgh. Well, that’s… um… good for you.”
In the 18 plus years I lived in New York, I don’t once recall thinking of Pittsburgh as a polluted city or a football city or a hick city. Actually, I don’t recall thinking of it very much at all. It wasn’t that Pittsburgh was bad; it was just off our radar, which tended to weaken considerably as it drew westward. And I wasn’t alone: most of America seemed to have forgotten Pittsburgh. Once an industrial capitol, producing more steel than the entire nation of Germany during World War II, Pittsburgh had been left behind with America’s industrial economy. It is the black-and-gold buckle of the rust belt, depressed, bankrupt, and largely inconsequential.
Like Pittsburgh itself, the Steelers’ glory days were long behind them. In the 1970s, they won four Super Bowls: an unthinkable achievement back then, since matched by only a small handful of other teams. For almost 30 years, Pittsburghers chanted, “one for the thumb,” hoping to fill an entire hand with Super Bowl rings even after every last player from the 70’s had long since retired. The city lived and died by Steelers games, cheering their heroes on with the same enthusiasm year after defeated year.
Last night, for the first time in 26 years, the Pittsburgh Steelers won the Super Bowl. And for the first time in my life, I actually got excited about the game. And that’s not just because I’ve stopped watching new episodes of The Simpsons due to undeniable crappiness, either. The enthusiasm was infectious: it was an entire city, kicked into the teeth, pummeled into the ground, discarded and forgotten, rallying around the one thing they had left. Football is probably the most tribal activity civilized people can engage in, and nowhere is it more tribal than here in Pittsburgh.
As Jason and I left our apartment after the game for some celebratory cake at Gullifty’s (a restaurant famous for its desserts, which had baked two Steelers-themed cakes just for the occasion), we found we were not alone. As we approached Murray Avenue, three different people all in Steelers jerseys raced up and down the street, hooting and hollering and twirling their terrible towels as passing cars honked and waved. The intersection of Murray and Forbes was bursting with people carrying black and gold balloons, screaming and waving and even climbing on top of a car or two. Every car was honking (one honking in the rhythm of the popular “Here we go Steelers, here we go!” chant) and every mouth was smiling.
For one night, total strangers gathered together like best friends. For one shining night, Pittsburgh was a tribe, all its people united, its stomped-on spirits lifted. Jason and I enjoyed the benign beginnings of that particular riot before deciding it was becoming too dangerous and heading back home.
As we walked back through the bitter cold, I called my mom to tell her the good news. She responded as I would have responded a few years ago. It took me a few seconds to realize that, while the Super Bowl had not been allowed to leave my consciousness for more than a few moments during the past few weeks, my mother probably hadn’t even known that it was going on. I tried to explain to her what this meant to Pittsburgh. I tried to describe the meaning of “one for the thumb,” the terrible towel, the instant camaraderie between total strangers. She argued that it was meaningless and inconsequential, especially compared to something like an election. I tried to explain to her how happy this made an entire city feel. She said that it was the opiate of the masses.
I told Jason what she said. He argued, “And an election isn’t?” How recently, it seemed, we had just come off the first election in American history in which the president had been re-elected despite having a less than 50 percent approval rating at the time; an election in which more people voted for the president in a given county than actually lived in that county; an election in which sparsely populated Republican towns were given ample voting booths and bustling Democratic cities given too few; an election in which the CEO of the company that made those voting booths promised to bring the president Ohio. In light of all this, how much more of an opiate is an election? It deceives people into thinking they actually have a voice. At least we know for sure that we had no say in Willie Parker’s record-breaking 75-yard touchdown. The Seahawks didn’t lose because we didn’t make enough pamphlets or have enough Uncovered house parties.
I’m not from Pittsburgh. I’m far from a fan of any sport, much less such a violent sport as football. I don’t even know that much about football; I can barely follow a game. But for just one night, if only because of the spirit of tribalism I feel pulsing through my adopted city, I bleed black and gold.
Here we go, Steelers. Now let’s go get one for the other thumb.
I slept through it. Funny how interests change. Before last night, I don’t think I’d missed a super bowl since elementary school.
Comment by Devin — 6 February 2006 @ 4:58 AM
Great narrative. As a rust belt person and a Steeler fan it was an enjoyable experience to watch the drama last night. Society may have many ills, but it still can present some impressive dramas from time to time.
Maybe we should all try rooting eachother on & whipping a yellow towel around from time to time, amidst the struggles in life & with its successes, even if some may be deemed “opiates of the masses”?
Comment by bubba — 6 February 2006 @ 10:26 AM
Blasphemy! It all had to do with our complex magical rites! Do you not understand that the fortunes of our tribe in battle wax and wane with the proper performance of our rites and invocation of various fetishes? The terrible towel curses our enemies; the consumption of given foods, in given arrangements, provides sympathetic magic that empowers our warriors upon the field of honor.
Fast Willie’s touchdown, for example, was all because you weren’t watching the game. (She was grilling meat. Giuli. Grilling meat. For the big game. I’m so proud I could cry….)
See, our powerful magic brought victory to our tribe. Once we discovered your jinx, we were able to win by making you play the Sims soon after halftime.
The early Christians had an exercise whereby they would love a candle flame. It was an exercise in pure love, separate from the object of that love–if you can love a candle flame, you can love anything, or anyone. Football is a similar exercise in tribalism. Two weeks ago, I hated the entire city of Denver, based solely on arbitrary colors. Yesterday, it was Seattle. There are no principles involved here, no beliefs; it’s a simple question of me and mine. Tribalism at its purest.
With bizarre magical rites.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 6 February 2006 @ 10:55 AM
your account of this experience sounds almost *exactly* like mine a while back when Texas won the Rose Bowl. i usually couldn’t give a crap about a football game. but that same spirit of tribalism seemed to wash over the entire city of Austin that night…and i felt emotions from that game that i have never, ever experienced from a sport. not only was there some kind of emotional rush inside me that felt something akin to patriotism or love or *something*, but i also got that acute sense of solidarity with people i would usually, quite frankly, not even consider socializing with.
but it’s kind of an ephemeral tribal feeling, and of course soon thereafter it’s back to business as usual. it seems to me as though such peak experiences are so powerful to us because the people of this culture so often lack real community relationships and cohesive rituals to cement them…which is kind of sad.
Comment by Dale — 6 February 2006 @ 10:55 AM
Very true. Even in an ideal situation, “peak experiences” are the exception, rather than the rule. But they’re still important, as tiny glimpses of what we’re trying to do. For a few hours last night, the whole city of Pittsburgh was one tribe. It hadn’t a thing to do with control, or hierarchy, or any kind of leader–elected or otherwise. Today, already, I can see little evidence that it remains, but for a moment, that feeling was there.
So, how do we make a tribe that lasts more than a single night?
Comment by Jason Godesky — 6 February 2006 @ 11:19 AM
It is funny how interests change. Up into my mid-twenties all Sundays were reserved for watching Green Bay Packer games. Since I’ve read ISHMAEL my Packer awareness has been steadily declining. This season I may have turned on the radio a few times to hear what the score was.
Curt
Comment by Curt — 6 February 2006 @ 11:33 AM
Are you saying that “pure tribalism� is a strong sense of me and mine against all others? Does this explain the fools that waved flags in ecstasy, as Baghdad was experiencing “shock and awe�.
Comment by Bob Harrison — 6 February 2006 @ 12:02 PM
The last superbowl I watched from start to finish was two years ago when *cough* Carolina was playing. So yeah… I can understand, as silly as I might think it.
Comment by WackyMorningDJ — 6 February 2006 @ 1:09 PM
Yup. Part of tribalism is blind loyalty to your group. Most of the time, this is a good thing–like, when you have an actual group, composed of people you actually know, rather than some silly abstraction like “the nation” or “humanity” invented to manipulate your basic, tribal responses. When manipulated by political leaders, it becomes “patriotism,” which is a very bad thing.
Like everything else, it’s a matter of adaptation. What’s well adapted in one context is incredibly destructive in another.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 6 February 2006 @ 1:12 PM
Hmm, Do you think NFL football will be around long enough for another thumb ring for the Steelers? You must be quite the optimist!
I like the logic of this, except for the blind loyalty to the group part. Perhaps partially blinded loyalty would be more appropriate. Many astrocities in function were accomplished by small groups very loyal to the ‘tribe’. Charlie Manson’s crew could have perhaps, filtered some of his commands a bit. Can’t tribes, small groups function without blind loyalty?
Comment by bubba — 6 February 2006 @ 1:46 PM
Enjoy. Looks like you are still in the throws of a good buzz, from the opiate of neoshamanism…
Could just as easily been a bad trip - and then where would this article be?
Please show me, I must be blind.
It was sold, and you bought it.
Comment by JCamasto — 6 February 2006 @ 2:25 PM
Blind, unthinking loyalty to a person is very different from blind, unthinking loyalty to a group. The Manson Family would do anything for Charles, but I can remember this city’s reaction to “Big Ben” when he lost us the playoffs last year with all those turn-overs, and it wasn’t pretty. Loyalty to the group versus loyalty to an individual. They’re worlds apart.
C’mon, even in civilization, something’s got to have some kind of good side to survive. The magical rites, the pure tribal partisanship, the screaming for your side for no other reason than the fact that it’s your side? Those are parts of tribalism, too. Parts we like to put down, but important parts, nonetheless. Without them, none of the good parts we like to review over and over again would exist, either.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 6 February 2006 @ 2:32 PM
Well, let’s see… estimates point to the collapse of civilization around 2012 to 2015ish, right? So if the NFL continues until 2010, then all the Steelers have to do is win the next five Super Bowls in a row.
And if the NFL stays intact all the way up to the collapse itself, well!
Comment by Giulianna Lamanna — 6 February 2006 @ 3:55 PM
LOL,
Thank goodness, I’m glad that I can hang on to my yellow towel through 2010. I think the NFL will collapse perhaps later than many other professional sports, since it has overtaken them as the ‘American’ sport (sorry baseball).
So did the Mayans predict 2012 as the collapse, or just the very steep slope in that direction?
Comment by bubba — 6 February 2006 @ 4:04 PM
The Mayans didn’t really predict anything for 2012. It’s just the calendar stops there, abruptly.
Make of that what you will.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 6 February 2006 @ 4:18 PM
Football is a zero-sum game. VERY tribal.
- Chuck
Comment by Chuck — 6 February 2006 @ 4:54 PM
Was that sarcasm? Because tribal peoples often play zero-sum games. The Hadza do almost nothing but gamble all day long, but there are winners, and there are losers at those games. I know it’s a popular myth that zero-sum games are only played in civilization, but that is a myth. The difference between civilization and tribes on that score is that in tribes, not everything is a zero-sum game.
Nature itself is the same. There are ways to let all parties win–a mature ecosystem has a lot more biodiversity than a field of grasses right after a fire, and permaculture to a certain degree increases space for many different species–but that’s not always the case. More often, nature is about competition. It’s either my tribe, or your tribe–one of us will prosper at the other’s expense. Or, my species and your species.
How does this differ from civilization? In civilization, that’s always the case–in nature, it’s just that way most of the time. Even more importantly, the stakes are rarely absolute. One group will rarely push another into extinction, except by the millennia-long attrition of lower birth rates. That’s a very different thing than a massacre.
So, yes, football is a zero-sum game. And that is very tribal.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 6 February 2006 @ 5:02 PM
Geez, you guys sure seem to like tribes on this site??? That’s cool I getchya, didn’t the romans have tribuses, although they seemed pretty focused on all the civilization stuff.
Comment by bubba — 6 February 2006 @ 5:11 PM
My start with primitivism came from Daniel Quinn’s books, and a lot of our core audience came over from IshCon, a forum dealing with the same.
There are a lot of different definitions of the word “tribe.” The Romans didn’t have tribes in any significant sense, the way, say, the Iraqis do. But this is a very different meaning of the word than what we’re using here.
Nor are we using it in an anthropological sense, as with Elman Service’s taxonomy of social organization.
Rather, Quinn uses the word “tribe” as a synonym for “egalitarian society,” what Service’s taxonomy would classify under the headings of either “band” or “tribe.” Due to the clunkiness of the term “egalitarian society,” and the preponderance of Quinn readers here, the nomenclature has stuck, even though it is, like so much of Quinnian nomenclature, horribly imprecise and very vulnerable to misunderstanding, miscommunication and ambiguity. I agree, it’s a very problematic usage, but that’s the usage that everyone is citing above.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 6 February 2006 @ 5:21 PM
“The Mayans didn’t really predict anything for 2012. It’s just the calendar stops there, abruptly”
The calendar doesn’t really end, just the current cycle of the “long count” calendar. December 22, 2012 will be the beginning of the next cycle. These cycles are related to the 4 (so far) ages of Mayan mythology, all of which ended in catastrophe of some sort. The last one supposedly ended by water, my favorite was the one ended by jaguars. This would seem to imply that some sort of cataclysm would at least not be a big surprise to ancient mayans.
I’m not absolutely sure about this last part, but I seem to remember that the current age was supposed to end by fire, but that may have filtered in from some cheesy new-age source that isn’t too grounded in the actual mythology. Another thing I seem to remember is that, though the long count cycle is about 5,100 years, the ages are actually referring to sets of 5 long count cycles of roughly 26,000 years, and 2012 is supposed to be the end of this longer cycle. I don’t know if that has any relation to actual mayan mythology or if it is just my foggy memory adding things. The first paragraph I’m reasonably sure of though.
Comment by limukala — 6 February 2006 @ 6:09 PM
I assume that it will be the beginning of the next cycle–the Mayans did have a cyclical understanding of time. But their calendar really does cut off in 2012. See Wikipedia.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 6 February 2006 @ 6:27 PM
I have to say, I really enjoy how everyone goes off on tangents here on this site. I mention the mayan 2012 in reference to G.L’s mention of the 2012-2015 time frame & BAM, I get all kinds of cool follow up info on the Mayan calendar cycle.
The Cyclical understanding of time appears to make more sense within the context of living closer to nature, with weather cycles, sun/moon, stars etc. It seems American culture focuses more on starting points–end points. Although I suppose the collapse is somewhat of an end point/starting point (for a few perhaps). Or do some here believe that a cycle may occur where foraging will eventually lead to advanced technology once again given sufficient time?
Note: I am glad that the term tribe is used here, since egalitarian society is a bit clunky & doesn’t really sound as primitive (cool) as Tribe.
Also my knowledge of Shamanism is limited, do practitioners deem it a religious phenomenon, or a natural one without any diety–just energy etc. Someone suggested the Dao of physics to me, anyone happen to have read that?
Comment by bubba — 6 February 2006 @ 6:45 PM
The idea of time as linear was an innovation of the Hebrews that was fundamental to their notion of Mosaic Law and their status as a “chosen people.” Even most civilizations prior to that retained a cyclical notion of time.
On shamanism. See, “The Shaman’s Vision.” Shamanism is about cultivating relationships with the spirit world, and while that’s rooted in an animistic understanding of the world, shamanism itself is very pragmatic, rather than anything we would call “religious.”
Comment by Jason Godesky — 6 February 2006 @ 7:03 PM
Collapse won’t follow the Mayan calendar. It will happen when it happens. Some are even predicting economic armageddon and collapse in America. This is from the Iranian Oil Bourse in MARCH saying all these countries will dump the dollar! I have to say it’s scaring me a lot.
Comment by planetwarming — 7 February 2006 @ 12:06 AM
The Energy Invested to Energy Returned ratio does stop at 2012 according to dieoff.org though.
Comment by planetwarming — 7 February 2006 @ 12:07 AM
Yeah, the reason I said 2012-2015 had nothing to do with the Mayan calendar and everything to do with Peak Oil. The two just happen to eerily coincide.
Comment by Giulianna Lamanna — 7 February 2006 @ 9:37 AM
From what I have read the EPR will starting skewing negatively by 2010 at the latest based on estimates of increased consumption/industrialization by China/India.
Hmm, Dieoff.org is not the most pleasant sounding http://www.
If 2012 is a solid estimate, then action needs to be taken ASAP. My hunting, camping experiences have shown me how tough it can be, even with modern tech. gear to thrive in the wilderness for more than 3 days. Sure you can survive longer, but you get damn hungry.
Its sad that our culture has taken for granted the knowledge of our grandparents/great grandparents. My grandfather’s family were self-sufficient farmers, poor in terms of money, but they supported a large family on 5 acres of land, with almost no support from the ‘economy’ until after WWII.
I may have college degrees, but my grandfather still knows an amazing amount of things>>making natural soap, permaculture farming info etc. But society made it unnaceptable to a large degree to try and continue down that path.
Comment by bubba — 7 February 2006 @ 10:00 AM
EROEI doesn’t “stop” anywhere–there are inflection points, but it never “stops.” No, no one’s suggesting that the timeline of collapse will necessarily follow the Mayan calendar. We came to these dates by very different criteria.
But, once those dates are derived, to notice them seemingly predicted in a Mayan calendar thousands of years old, well, it gives you pause, doesn’t it?
As for the bourse, I would be very surprised if it ends up being as apocalytpic as all that. No doubt a major event in the continued history of the flagging dollar, but “economic armageddon” seems really far-fetched. The dollar’s been going down for some time, and it will continue to do so. But this particular scenario is a zero-sum game between the dollar and the euro, so it can’t really lead to collapse, just a realignment of complexity geographically.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 7 February 2006 @ 10:00 AM
The difference between civilization and tribes on that score is that in tribes, not everything is a zero-sum game.
That’s the dumbest thing I’ve heard today. Every purchase you’ve made has been a non-zero-sum game– the product you purchase is worth more to you than the money you spent to purchase the product, just as the money gained from the sale of the product is worth more to the merchant than the product.
Comment by Justin Case — 7 February 2006 @ 10:53 AM
Hey –
I don’t know what kind of products you are buying that are ‘worth more’ to you than you paid… but when was the last time that you got ‘full value’ for your work? If you are not self employed, it can safely be said that you have NEVER gotten full value for your work (profit has to come from somewhere) and so your purchasing power starts at a loss and only slowly recovers (if at all).
Janene
Comment by Janene — 7 February 2006 @ 11:01 AM
Also, the item is always sold for more than it is worth. Unless there is a price war going on.
Comment by Benjamin Shender — 7 February 2006 @ 11:29 AM
Well, obviously it is more to you than the money, or you wouldn’t buy it. Likewise, the money means more to the seller, or he wouldn’t sell it. But price is supposed to be set by supply and demand, so while your demand of a given good may be higher than someone else’s, so you’re getting a real bargain, unless that’s counter-balanced by enough people doing without, then the price is too low. If we focus our microcosm narrowly enough, “Justin” would be right. But if we look at the aggregate groups, it’s always a zero-sum game.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 7 February 2006 @ 11:33 AM
So, how do we make a tribe that lasts more than a single night?
a few thoughts:
i don’t know exactly what it would take, but i suspect it’ll involve forming a smallish group of the right people, who are willing to live and work closely together, pool resources, help each other out, and be committed to the idea of putting serious effort into the little community.
i guess that much is fairly obvious. to me the greatest challenge is finding people who are on board with the idea of forming a “tribe” more than just a group of friends that term quite often describes…something designed to help transition us from dependence on the Beast to self reliance. most people i know are entirely oblivious to such things.
the other challenge is finding a way for people to put more of their energy into the tribe, into self-sufficiency, and less into the heirarchical machinerey we are so entirely dependent upon. because without that, it’s just a social club. once you have that going, i think then you’ll have the beginings of a real tribe.
i consider myself to be someone who’d be on board for something like this, but i wouldn’t even know where to begin. for all my contempt of “mother culture” and the whole goddam thing, i’m still pretty much as dependent upon it as the next guy. sometimes i feel that in order to form a tribe i’d have to quit my day job; but the fear of survival without one runs deep (where’s Tyler Durden when you need him?). it’s kind of chicken and egg really: personally, if i had a group of like-minded individuals i could trust, who had a compelling plan, i’d be more open to trying something out. until then, i don’t see anything happening. and i suspect a lot of people feel the same way.
perhaps it will take the shit really hitting the proverbial fan to shock people into some kind of action.
Comment by Dale — 7 February 2006 @ 11:51 AM
A social club isn’t a bad start. See Ethan Watters’ Urban Tribes. Forming close bonds is as good a place to start as any. I find too many primitivists set their standards at “has to agree with me about civilization.” Not necessarily. Go camping, go hunting, go fishing … then do it more and more often, for longer periods of time. Before you know it, you’ll be halfway there.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 7 February 2006 @ 12:12 PM
This is most definitely will be the likely scenario, except the “kind” of action for most will be too little to late (or they really won’t know what to do). Also, people hit in the ‘face’ with realities that they were oblivious of, typically don’t have the type of skills/determination to succeed through it.
People need to see “the writing on the wall” and at least take some tentative action, simplifying lifestyle & learning some of the knowledge that has been lost by most.
The difficult part is trying to test the water of self-sufficiency, while keeping one foot in our modern civilization. Keeping with the analogies, IF people don’t learn to swim in advance, once “proverbial fan” hits–most will drown, some will tread water desperately & still drown in a short period of time.
~The glass is neither half full, nor half empty, rather it is twice as big as it needs to be.~
Comment by bubba — 7 February 2006 @ 12:22 PM
Yes, I think this is well put. I’ve hunted, fished, and camped with many people who don’t feel the same as I do about civilization, but after a period of time in the outdoor setting it always amazes me how people start to see how destructive this system is on their own. And, it seems, they’re always much more open to talking about it compared to lets say a couple hours after quittin time.
Has anybody extensively written about this?
Curt
Comment by Curt — 7 February 2006 @ 1:20 PM
The coincidence, or the timeframe? We’ve discussed it here for quite some time, and I’m not sure how much more there is to say about the coincidence.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 7 February 2006 @ 1:34 PM
I was thinking both.
I’ll go back and check the archives.
Thank you
Comment by Curt — 7 February 2006 @ 5:29 PM
The full strength of China will propel the world economy leading up to the Chinese Olympics. Afterwhich, the economy will rely on government subsidies such as unemployment and easy credit. The new Fed Chairman’s nickname is “helicopter Ben” for a speech he gave indicating the Fed could drop Federal Reserve Notes (FRN) to the people via helicopters.
2012-2015 could well end up being the time of total economic collapse caused by food shortages, cause the money will be there (yes, all the information on this site has helped form such an opinion!).
And in my continuing evaluation of primitive living and such, one reason for an egalitarian is each individual of the group being important to the group’s survival.
Something like how this thread’s idea uses football to make the point, as a team has to play together to succeed.
Comment by Rick Larson — 7 February 2006 @ 10:25 PM
For another perspective on the “Meaning of Football” see: http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Feb06/Zingh06.htm
Comment by Bob Harrison — 8 February 2006 @ 7:48 PM
Most humans have to take some time that isn’t doom and gloom, Bob. There’s a reason states use bread and circuses to control people: it works. It works because it’s something people need. Let it control you and you become a tool, but trying to be “pure” is just going to make you a bitter, unhappy person.
Everything has a good part to it–even in civilization. If it were all bad, it wouldn’t have even lasted this long. Understanding what little good there is in civilization is important for those of us who haven’t managed to escape it entirely just yet, but don’t want to be reduced to joyless, empty shells covered in ashes and sackloth who’ve lost sight of the fact that there’s still some good left in this world.
If it takes a football game, then I’m a fan of football. Whatever it takes to light the spark, to give people a glimpse of what a community–a tribe–is like. Whatever it takes to show them there’s still good in the world, and it’s worth striving for.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 11 February 2006 @ 12:49 AM
to whoever is spazzing out about nationalism/organized warfare/systematic carnage:
theres a difference between ritual based/organized warfare and the spirit of play and its ability to be timeless, create bonds with people, have an almost telepathic chemistry and always has different outcomes of change, ability and drama/story… also, there is always a WIDE KNOWN tenet to respect your opponent in sports.. just like in band societies, its scorned to show ego and try to coerce power… the team works together.
people who latch on the idea that all ‘organized sports’ are evil are idiots and probably are uncoordinated at best.
ive met numerous people from all walks of life playing sports… from varsity basketball players at playgrounds who developed mutual respect for eachother to older people in rollerhockey leagues.
also, people are people… when they get together for these football games (here at Lambeau it gets NO BETTER anywhere in the league for tailgating) people are friendly, sharing, cooking together, telling stories and generally just living life. if thats an “opiate of the masses” then im not sure what your ultimate goal as an activist is if you dont want to ultimately share, eat food with friends, have a bond and generally just hangout. last time i checked, the !kung do/did the same thing until being forced from their bioregion.
Comment by doctorOFshit — 14 February 2006 @ 12:55 PM
“Football is a zero-sum game. VERY tribal.
Was that sarcasm?”
Oh, crap! Man, I haven’t revisited this topic in quite some time. What I meant to type was, “Football is a zero-sum game. VERY tribal warfare.”
I was thinking about how tribal warfare is often extremely ritualized to the point of being a zero-sum game instead of a straight fight. I know that tribal pasttimes are often zero-sum. Nothin’ against that!
I meant to remark on how easily football could evolve into a method of conflict resolution that could replace modern warfare with a primitive-civilized hybrid version.
- Chuck
Comment by Chuck — 24 February 2006 @ 1:11 PM