Dupa meciul de hochei

Iata ce ne spune Gandul:

Imaginea ANARHIEI. Mulţimea furioasă îi distruge BMW-ul unei femei care încearcă să se lupte cu huliganii- VIDEO

Sincer, nu mi-am imaginat ca asa ceva se poate intampla la Vancouver. Nu stiu de ce, dar aveam impresia ca la Vancouver nu se pot intampla astfel de evenimente. Niciodata. Nu pot sa explic de ce am avut aceasta impresie si de ce tocmai Vancouver. Poate ca nici nu s-au auzit pe aici pe la noi de astfel de lucruri petrecute tocmai in acel colt de lume. Dar, dupa cum usor se poate constata, astfel de evenimente se pot petrece oriunde in lumea asta. Si foarte interesant este ca omul reactioneaza cam la fel peste tot. La noi in Romania fotbalul este sportul care ii atrage pe cei mai multi. Huliganisme de genul asta - dar legate de meciuri de fotbal - s-au intamplat si la noi. Reactia suporterilor este identica si aici si acolo, indiferent daca e vorba, iata, de fotbal sau de hochei. Aici, intr-adevar, le avem mai putin cu hocheiul. Aceasta reactie poate sa difere in intensitate, de la caz la caz. Adevarul e ca in Bucuresti (dar nu numai), cand are loc un meci de fotbal, Politia si Jandarmeria sunt la post. Mai ales daca e un meci important.Calari, vegheaza sa nu se intample violente stradale. Dar violente se mai intampla. Insa un astfel de tip de reactii, cum s-a intamplat dupa meciul de hochei de la Vancouver, ne arata ce inseamna cand omul nu mai vrea deloc sa isi foloseasca ratiunea. E ca si cum omul ar refuza ratiunea in favoarea patimilor puternice de care e cuprins cand joaca rolul de suporter al echipei favorite. Si in felul asta, pentru ca echipa sa favorita a pierdut partida, omul, suporter infocat, incepe sa se razbune pe BMW-ul din colt, pe vitrinele din oras, pe eventuali trecatori absolut nevinovati si care n-au nicio legatura cu meciul in cauza. Devasteaza bulevardul, incep sa sparga tot ce intalnesc in cale. Si, dupa cum se vede din articol, Politia incepe sa faca cu greu fata unei astfel de dezlantuiri. E foarte ciudat, pentru ca intre vitrina de pe bulevard si faptul ca echipa favorita a pierdut partida nu exista nicio legatura. Nu vitrina e de vina pentru ca echipa a pierdut. Este clar ca cel mai rational lucru, cand echipa ta pierde, este ca, in final, desi dezamagit, sa admiti ca adversarul a fost mai bun. La noi, spre exemplu, se mai intampla si fenomenul ca se da vina pe arbitru, ca ar fi avantajat echipa adversa. Fara dovezi foarte concrete in acest sens. Nu ca as exclude o astfel de posibilitate. Din cate stiu arbitrul face parte din joc; a gresi e omenesc - si un arbitru poate sa greseasca la o faza, fara ca asta sa insemne ca ar fi avantajat in mod deliberat si premeditat echipa adversa sau ca ar fi primit bani de la echipa adversa sa o avantajeze. Nu e o atitudine ca sa dai vina pe arbitru, pentru ca asta, chipurile, ar justifica pierderea partidei - ca arbitrul e de vina. Intotdeauna altcineva e de vina. Daca nu e arbitrul, atunci e BMW-ul din colt sau vitrina magazinului de pe bulevard. Cand e atat de simplu sa-ti dai seama si sa recunosti ca echipa nu a jucat tocmai bine, din care pricina a si pierdut meciul. Observati ca pe echipa care a pierdut nu se da vina. Pe arbitru, da; pe biata vitrina, da. Nu cred ca asta trebuie sa fie atitudinea unui suporter si nu in felul asta un suporter ar trebui sa-si iubeasca echipa.

O echipa de fotbal sau de hochei, in general vorbind, o echipa sportiva, e un lucru mult mai complex decat isi imagineaza cineva. Iar antrenorul cred ca are un rol decisiv in formarea unei echipe si ducerea acesteia catre victorie. Faptul ca o echipa pierde nu trebuie sa insemne, pentru suporterii acesteia, neaparat o tragedie. Ci mai degraba o evolutie slaba in mod constant si in timp indelungat ar trebui sa-i puna serios pe ganduri. In sport mai si pierzi. Si marii campioni au mai pierdut cate o partida (uneori una importanta). Se mai intampla - lucrul e inevitabil. Un antrenor are nevoie de timp indelungat si de resurse inclusiv financiare pentru ca sa poata forma o echipa castigatoare. Si, bineinteles, trebuie lasat in pace sa-si faca treaba. Munca asidua si seriozitatea e cheia succesului, facuta cu loialitate si dragoste fata de club. Insa ca suporter nu cred ca trebuie sa-ti pierzi ratiunea si spiritul critic, oricat de dezamagit ai fi de pe urma unui esec al echipei tale favorite. Si eu am fost un suporter infocat al unei echipe de fotbal. Insa cred ca m-am lecuit de "microbul" care atinge pana la urma pe orice suporter. Adevarul e ca atunci cand echipa ta favorita pierde o partida, mai ales una importanta sau decisiva, simti, ca suporter infocat, o suferinta sufleteasca reala. Stiu asta pe pielea mea, cum se zice. Pur si simplu simiti o durere sufleteasca mare de tot. Pana mi-am dat seama ca lucrul asta nu e justificat in niciun fel. Pana la urma, un meci de fotbal sau hochei trebuie sa fie o distractie, o relaxare. Doar vizionezi un spectacol sportiv si nimic mai mult. De aceea, desi esti suporter, e mai bine sa-ti pastrezi o neutralitate, ca sa zic asa, interioara. As dori sa remarc faptul ca suferinta de care vorbeam mai sus are si nu are legatura cu "spiritul de turma", pentru un suporter adevarat si infocat. In sensul ca, dupa parerea mea, nu din cauza ca si altii sunt suporteri si striga pe stadion, scandand numele echipei, faci si tu la fel. Poate ca e o legatura, nu zic nu. Dar, mai degraba, cred ca e din cauza faptului ca tu iubesti echipa si ai vrea sa castige cu orice pret. Iar reactia celorlalti suporteri este similara cu a ta si atunci strigam, si cantam, si scandam numele echipei cu totii, ca un singur om. Insa este adevarat ca lucrul asta ii apropie foarte mult pe oameni, dintre cei care sustin echipa favorita. Dar ii si desparte de cei care sustin echipa adversa. Antagonismul se creaza repede si, furati de frenezia atmosferei, oamenii pot ajunge si la o incaierare, deseori periculoasa. Este in mod clar ceva nejustificat si ar trebui un minim de ratiune folosit pentru a nu se ajunge la asa ceva. Interesant de reamarcat este ca, iata, in cazul de fata, lipsa ratiunii poate conduce la evenimente absolut regretabile si, dupa ce acestea sunt consumate, la grele pareri de rau (dar asta inseamna ca ratiunea a revenit). 

Pe de alta parte, o echipa are nevoie de caldura suporterilor ei si de incurajari atunci cand joaca. Sa nu uitam ca echipa joaca pentru public, dar mai ales pentru suporterii ei. Si prin acesti suporteri echipa, daca pot sa spun asa, traieste. Incurajarea in timpul partidei e foarte importanta pentru echipa. Este un suport moral extraordinar! Insa nu e de ajuns ca sa si castige meciul. Strict sportiv vorbind, cred ca pregatirea sportiva este cel mai important lucru. Carentele in pregatirea tehnico-tactica a meciului, in pregatirea fizica a sportivilor, incep sa se faca simtite imediat. Si in asemenea conditii e foarte greu sa castigi in fata unei echipe mai bine pregatite, nu mai vorbesc daca ai in fata o echipa mare si celebra, care si-a dovedit forta in atatea si atatea confruntari si este castigatoarea unor cupe de mare prestigiu. Parerea mea este ca daca esti suporter atunci ar trebui sa te gandesti si la aceste lucruri...

Insa mai am si o alta impresie. Poate gresesc, dar cred ca unii oameni merg pe stadioane doar ca sa caute cearta, scandalul si, mai apoi, lupta fizica sau sa sparga vitrine, masini, cum s-a intamplat la Vancouver. Cum si gasesc pe stadion un climat propice, lucrurile, pe urma, merg de la sine. Pentru ca astfel de manifestari violente din partea suporterilor sau al asa zisilor suporteri nu au nicio legatura cu sportul, cu spectacolul sportiv si nici macar cu partida care se joaca, cu echipele din teren. Acesti "supoteri" gasesc stadionul drept debuseul perfect pentru pulsiunile lor violente. De fapt astfel de oameni n-au nicio legatura, dupa parerea mea, cu calitatea de a fi suporter. Ci, mai degraba, isi defuleaza in mod violent frustrarile acumulate sau dau frau liber unui caracter violent, fara a se gandi la consecinte. Pentru ca exista si astfel de oameni. Aici e vorba de caracter, nu neaparat de prostie, cum, poate, ar crede unii. Probabil ca lipsa de educatie isi spune cuvantul. Insa si acestia ar trebui sa se gandeasca mai bine la lipsa de sens al unei asemenea comportari. Care, in final, nu ajuta la nimic. Mai ales ca s-ar putea intampla ca sa aiba si ei probleme sau sa fie raniti destul de grav intr-o confruntare violenta cu "suporterii" echipei adverse sau cu fortele de ordine. Lucruri din astea s-au mai intamplat si uneori au luat aspecte foarte tragice. As cita o intamplare de care poate ca putini isi mai amintesc: Peru, Lima - 24 mai 1964. Meci de fotbal Peru - Argentina. Tulburari grave: 315 morti si peste 800 de raniti! (aceste cifre sunt din Istoria lumii in date). Violenta in sport este un fenomen, din pacate, real. Si este evident ca nu are niciun sens. Din acest punct de vedere putem sa spunem ca e vorba de o imensa prostie din partea acestor fani, multi dintre ei pierzandu-si si viata. Dar, dupa cum vedem din articolul prezentat de Gandul, huliganismul nu se manifesta numai atunci cand e vorba de fotbal. Insa acest huliganism este un fenomen care se manifesta destul de des si cu mare intensitate atunci cand are loc meciul. Tensiunile rasiale care pot sa-si faca simtita prezenta in astfel de conflicte reprezinta un factor agravant. Inclusiv grupari neo-naziste si de extrema dreapta. Observam amestecul politicului in fotbal, spre exemplu in Spania. Iata ce ne spune Wikipedia:

"Football hooliganism in Spain arises from three main sources. The first is racism, as some black players have been victims of ethnic slurs. Samuel Eto'o, a former FC Barcelona player from Cameroon, has denounced the problem. The second source is the strong rivalry between Real Madrid and Barcelona. After transferring from Barcelona to Real Madrid, Luís Figo's appearance in Barcelona's Nou Camp Stadium triggered a strong reaction. The crowd threw bottles, mobile phones and other things (including a pig's head). Although nobody was injured the match was followed by a large discussion on fan violence in the Spanish Primera División. Hooliganism is also rooted in deep political divisions arising from the General Franco fascist regime days (some Real Madrid, Atlético Madrid, Espanyol, Real Betis Balompie or Valencia CF ultras are linked to franquista groups), the communist ones, (such as Deportivo La Coruña, Sevilla FC or Rayo Vallecano) and the independentist movements in Catalonia (like FC Barcelona) and the Basque region. In Spain, organized hooligan groups are popularly called grupos ultra.

In 1998, Aitor Zabaleta, a supporter of Real Sociedad was killed by an Atlético Madrid hooligan^[69] who was linked to a neo-Nazi group (Bastión), just before a match between these two teams. In 2003, a supporter of Deportivo La Coruña was killed in riots by Deportivo hooligans, when he tried to protect a supporter of the opposing team, SD Compostela. Since then, authorities have made attempts to bring hooliganism more under control. In 2007, there were acts of hooliganism before a match between Atlético Madrid and Real Madrid, with several cars being destroyed and policemen injured by flares and bottles which were thrown at them.^[70] Many black foreign players have been racially abused, such as at a recent friendly match between Spain and England, in which black England players such as Shaun Wright-Phillips and Ashley Cole endured monkey chants from Spain supporters.^[71] There also have been local disputes between rival teams, for example between Cádiz Club de Fútbol and Xerez CD or Real Betis Balompie and Sevilla FC. In 2008, after a hooligan incident versus Espanyol, FC Barcelona very publicly took a stand on violence, saying it hoped to stamp out violence for good.^[72] In 2007 Atlético Madrid hooligans clashed with Aberdeen FC hooligans prior to a UEFA Cup match."

De observat ca deja, in Spania, incepe sa se vorbeasca de echipe franchiste (cu suporteri franchisti) si echipe considerate comuniste (cu suporteri considerati drept comunisti)! De observat ca spune foarte clar: "Hooliganism is also rooted in deep political divisions arising from the General Franco fascist regime days". Deci Istoria, cu aspectul sau politic, isi spune, iata, cuvantul si in fotbal! Chiar si in linistita Elvetie intalnim un astfel de fenomen, relativ recent in aceasta tara. In anii '70, in Anglia, erau deja huligani organizati! Daca citim articolul de pe Wikipedia, vom vedea ca fenomenul violentei se manifesta si in China!! Lucru ce poate parea incredibil, dar... adevarat! Fenomenul e la scara mondiala si ar trebui cercetate foarte atent cauzele, caci nu prea mi se par deloc clare. Se remarca fenomenul grupurilor organizate de huligani si in Danemrca si faptul ca acestea sunt de extrema dreapta, ca ideologie politica, de esenta nationalista/rasista.Deci sunt grupari care au si un caracter politic. Lucru ce se vede si in Japonia:

"Japan
Japanese extreme right-wing groups, known for their financial and political connection with Japanese corporations and Japanese organized crime syndicates, are also associated with supporters of various sports events including international football matches. Japanese hooligans often use the country's military flag called kyokujitsu-ki (旭日旗 or 旭日昇天旗) at international football games, especially in which the Japanese national team plays against East Asian national teams. This is highly offensive to the countries of the opposing teams because the flag signifies Japan's military aggression before and during World War II, which resulted in deaths and sufferings of millions of Asian people under Japan's brutal regime.^[195] In most East Asian countries, including China, Chinese Taipei, the Philippines and South Korea, public sentiment toward kyokujitsu-ki is analogous to public sentiment in Europe and North America toward Swastika, and displaying the flag in public places is strictly prohibited by law in these countries. Most recent incident in which the Japanese hooligans used the flag was during the FIFA-sanctioned 2011 Qatar AFC Asian Cup, in a match between South Korea and Japan. Many supporters of the Japanese national team, calling themselves as Ultra-Nippon, were seen waving kyokujitsu-ki during the match, and this caused a huge public condemnation in South Korea.^[196]"

De observat cum violenta isi gaseste justifcarea prin apartenenta la o ideologie politica de extrema dreapta, militarista, trecand dincolo de cadrul stadioanelor si ne mai avand nicio legatura cu sportul sau cu partida care se disputa acolo pe stadion. Iar violenta gasindu-si astfel propria sa ratiune, se organizeaza. Dar la baza stau tot instinctele si caracterele violente ale acestor oameni. Pentru ca, in realitate, aceasta violenta nu are nicio ratiune, intrucat omul care o practica refuza ratiunea sanatoasa. De observat lucrul asta in Turcia:

"According to the Turkish Daily News, hooligan groups are well organised, have their own "leaders", and often consist of organised street fighters. These groups have a "racon" (code of conduct), which states that the intention must be to injure rather than kill and that a stab must be made below the waist.^[74] Other hooligans have fired firearms into the air to celebrate their team's victory, which has been known to accidentally kill innocent people watching the celebrations on their balconies.^[75][76]

Trouble has arisen during matches between Istanbul rivals Galatasaray and Fenerbahçe.^[75] However, the Turkish Football Federation has tightened security to try and contain the hooliganism. During the 2005 Turkish cup final between Galatasaray and Fenerbahçe, 8,000 police, stewards and officials were employed to prevent violence.^[77] In 2006, the Turkish Football Federation introduced new measures to combat the threat of hooliganism and have made new regulations that allow the Professional Football Disciplinary Board to fine clubs up to YTL 250,000 for their fans behavior. Repeat offenders could be fined up to YTL 500,000.^[78] Despite reports from the Turkish Football Federation, the Turkish police believe that football hooliganism is not a major threat and are "isolated incidents".^[79]"

In Turcia se vorbeste de luptatori de strada, organizati, grupari care au fiecare propriul lor lider. Nu mai este evident cel putin aspectul politic. S-ar putea sa nu fie un astfel de aspect. Fenomenul exista, chiar daca incidentele sunt izolate. Mai e de observat ca acesti huligani, organizati in grupuri, au un cod de conduita:"These groups have a "racon" (code of conduct), which states that the intention must be to injure rather than kill and that a stab must be made below the waist.Other hooligans have fired firearms into the air to celebrate their team's victory, which has been known to accidentally kill innocent people watching the celebrations on their balconies.". 

Voi incheia cu ceea ce spune si Wikipedia:

"A football firm (also known as a hooligan firm) is a gang formed to oppose and physically attack supporters of other clubs. Some firms exist to promote fringe political causes, both on the far Left and Right, with the football aspect of the club of minimal importance behind the promotion of their political ideals through violence. The firms' political views are not representative of all supporters of the teams. In the 1970s and early 1980s, the casual subculture transformed the British football hooliganism scene. Instead of wearing working class skinhead-style clothes, which readily identified hooligans to the police, firm members began wearing designer clothes and expensive offhand sportswear.
Football hooliganism has been depicted in films such as I.D., The Firm, Cass, The Football Factory, Green Street, Rise of the Footsoldier and Awaydays. There are also many books about hooliganism, such as The Football Factory and Among the Thugs. Some critics argue that these media representations glamorise violence and the hooligan lifestyle."

Dar as sublinia faptul ca si mie mi se pare ca asistam la formarea unei subculturi, care are un stil al sau aparte, cu o tenta politica evidenta de extrema, dar fara a fi reprezentativa pentru toti suporterii echipelor.    

Despre violenta

Un editorial deosebit de interesant pe care l-am descoperit in Ziua de Cluj, scris de Mihai Hurezeanu, cred ca ar trebui sa ne puna pe ganduri la modul serios...

Retorică şi crimă

Editorialistul observa un fenomen ingrijorator:

"În grila unui sociologism mai vulgar ecuaţia este destul de simplă: accentuarea disperării cauzate de pauperizare crescândă duce la exacerbarea violenţei. Este o explicaţie justă pentru variaţia statistică. Calitativ vorbind însă, impulsul distructiv în societatea românească poate lua forme bizare, abjecte şi auto-devoratoare datorită secetei de soluţii civice, morale, spirituale care să canalizeze rezistenţa societăţii civile în faţa tăvălugului maladiilor sistemului politic şi economic. Pe fondul mioritic desacralizat, spiritul pacifist, inocent şi smerit al românilor este canibalizat de absenţa solidarităţii şi eroziunea empatiei. Această discordie este întreţinută de gâlceava sterilă şi nesfârşită a politicienilor fără viziune şi fără darul serviciului public. Într-o naţiune orfană erupţia ici şi colo a psihozei criminale este reversul malefic al revoltei şi al nesupunerii civile faţă de un sistem profund corupt."

 Recomand citirea in intregime a acestui editorial, foarte tare. Indica o stare de spirit a societatii si un fenomen care nu este prezent numai la noi, pe plaiurile mioritice. Iata, el se manifesta pe plan mondial si nu cred ca e de glumit si de neluat in seama asa un lucru ingrijorator.

Dezbatere pe tema asasinatelor din motive politice in SUA si discurs pentru toleranta

Un articol foarte interesant pe care l-am citit pe site-ul Slate.com:

Are Assassins More Likely To Target Liberals?

It's complicated.
By Brian Palmer

Iata ce arata printre altele:

"Historically, have American politicians on the left side of the spectrum suffered more attacks than their right-leaning colleagues?


Yes, but don't jump to any conclusions. Eleven U.S. presidents have been targeted for assassination, and eight of them—a clear majority—could be described as left-of-center. But that statistic is meaningless, because only Abraham Lincoln was killed by a right-winger with political motives. (Neither Lincoln nor his assassin, John Wilkes Booth, would likely have used the term right or left to describe their politics, but the labels seem fair in retrospect.) Some would-be assassins were motivated by personal revenge, like the delusional men who tried to kill James A. Garfield and Andrew Jackson (who's claimed by both the left and the right)."

Iata si un alt articol:

From Texas to Arizona


How Obama can talk about tolerance without trivializing a tragedy.

By John Dickerson

"But Obama will also have to talk about tolerance. And he will have to find a way to talk about the need to civilize our debate when he is aligned with only one side in that debate.


Even addressing the idea of tolerance is going to close some ears. Conservatives will hear an accusation even if he says there is no connection between the shooter and Tea Party rhetoric. If there's no connection, why are you bringing it up—at a memorial service, of all places? Liberals who hear the president call out his own side will be irritated by the false equivalence. How can you compare us in any way to those people who say you hold office illegally?

The solution may be to focus not on the political conversation that existed before the shooting but on the one that's come out of it. This allows the president to avoid the question of what motivated the shooter but does not limit his ability to talk about the problems with our political culture. He has fresh evidence, minted by the hour, of the problems of our political conversation."

Interesant ce spune si in final:

"All the president has to do to restore a little balance to this debate is talk about the people whose lives it did not define. In doing so, he will make the case for tolerance far better than any words directly aimed at the topic."

In acest caz interesanta este si pozitia Gruparii Tea Party:

Tea Party Group Blames 'Leftist' for Giffords Shooting

Iata ce se arata, printre altele:

"Showing no sign of tamping down on divisive political rhetoric in the wake of the shooting of 20 people that left six dead in Tuscon Saturday, the Tea Party Nation group e-mailed its members Sunday warning them they would be called upon to fight leftists in the days ahead and defend their movement.


TPN founder Judson Phillips, in an article linked off the e-mail "The shooting of Gabrielle Giffords and the left's attack on the Tea Party movement," described the shooter as "a leftist lunatic" and Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik as a "leftist sheriff" who "was one of the first to start in on the liberal attack." Phillips urged tea party supporters to blame liberals for the attack on centrist Democratic Rep. Gabrielle Giffords of Arizona, who was shot through the head and is now fighting for her life, as a means of defending the tea party movement's recent electoral gains."

dar si:

"Other tea party groups took a less combative tone. Tea Party Express Chairwoman Amy Kremer said Saturday her group was "shocked and saddened" by the "terrible tragedy."


"These heinous crimes have no place in America, and they are especially grievous when committed against our elected officials. Spirited debate is desirable in our country, but it only should be the clash of ideas," Kremer said in a statement published by the New York Times. "An attack on anyone for political purposes, if that was a factor in this shooting, is an attack on the democratic process. We join with everyone in vociferously condemning it.""

Un articol interesant si in The Washington Post:

In Wednesday speech in Arizona, Obama is seeking right tone

by Anne E. Kornblut and Scott Wilson

In final se arata:

"But there are also reasons for a president to pause before weighing in at such a moment. Investigators are still gathering evidence about the shooter's motives. Before discussing the attack in the context of inciting political rhetoric, the proliferation of guns, or a lack of care for the mentally ill, Jamieson said, Obama should collect as much information as possible about what happened and why.

Reagan delivered his moving remarks about the Challenger explosion only hours after it occurred, largely because what happened was clear.


Clinton, by contrast, waited four days before traveling to Oklahoma City to deliver remarks at a prayer service for the victims. Until then, he participated in other commemorative events."

 Iata ce spune Slate Magazine despre declaratiile facute de Sarah Palin:

Palin Fails the Test

Sarah Palin's response to the Tucson shooting is defensive, illogical, distracting—and late.
By John Dickerson

Si aici declaratia facuta de Sarah Palin pe Facebook.

Iar despre vizita lui Obama la Tucson aflam din The Washington Post:

Obama visits surviving victims in Tucson, plans to speak at memorial service
by Anne E. Kornblut, Philip Rucker and Dana Hedgpeth

Articole demne de toata atentia. Le recomand a fi citite!