I have seen some outrageous behaviour from human beings in and around football grounds. Watching Preston it has been on a small scale compared to what I've heard from fans of top flight clubs. I have read some of the hooligan books that came out in the late '90s.
What strikes me is the self-appointment of these men as the representatives of their tribe/town/club. And then their chosen behaviour that they feel best represents their tribe.
The question that some on here seem to want to ask, is; would Heysel and Hillsborough have happened if you had replaced the team involved?
In my opinion, any set of English fans (see previous World Cups e.g. Italia '90 where England played their first matches on the island of Sardinia, for reasons including control of England's fans. Not, note, the fans of a specific club, but all England fans) would have responded to provocation from people throwing missiles at them, the same way as did the Liverpool fans at Heysel.
You only have to listen to a seasoned England fan who will tell you that provocation is expected when following England abroad, not only from their counterparts but also from the armed forces and police.
The only balanced conclusion available is that Liverpool Football Club was a common participant in Europe in those days, and hence the higher likelihood that any incident, whenever it happened, would involve their fans. Not, therefore that Liverpool people were especially likely to cause a wall to collapse.
In that sense, if you follow the Heysel chain of events, those who threw missiles at the Liverpool fans were agent provocateur and cannot therefore be exonerated from the blame for what then followed.
You have to ask yourself the following questions before casting judgement on others.
Have you ever been provoked and responded with aggression? If you have never done that, then you probably took a serious beating, or you have never been provoked significantly. And, in reality, if you were next to me in a threatening situation, I would rather have someone next to me who would fight back against provocation, as it would be in my best interests, all things being equal.
I am quite curious that the topic of conversation has not diverted towards police corruption and police in general, on this board. Instead, it has migrated towards quasi-racist slurring of Liverpudlians.
I would go back as far as 1914, and beyond, to explain the genesis of this football tribalism. The propoganda that washed over this country for half a century has left its mark on 6 generations of men and women. We have been conditioned to fight back against all provocation, and we feel completely justified in doing so, thanks to the war rhetoric that flooded ALL aspects of life throughout the 20th century. It is "in our blood". This is complete bollocks, of course. When THEY were asked, the men and women of our heritage sacrificed themselves so that oppression didn't take hold of them and their future generations. I don't think they fought and died so that modern men shouldn't have to. Only, the generation after the war had nothing to fight for, and in its place, for a generation of young people with lots of pride and energy, came football tribalism, and the beginnings of hooliganism at football.
Why did it manifested in football and no other? I would look further than the built in tribalism of the sport, plus the sheer weight of popularity and inclusiveness of the sport for all social sectors. In short, the terraces were the new battlefields on which the finely-propagated war children could express that mentality.
No comments:
Post a Comment