March 28, 2024, 06:53:22 AM

Author Topic: An interesting perspective on die-hard "home team" supporters  (Read 901 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline dwn

  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 883
  • "Hands that help are holier than lips that pray"
    • View Profile
    • Arsenal Now!
An interesting perspective on die-hard "home team" supporters
« on: December 19, 2008, 09:09:58 PM »
It's about Americans and the Olympics but the idea is transferable to football and for some reason made me think about die hard Trinidad football fans and their dislike for waggonists.

Is the home team really worth rooting for?

By Chuck Klosterman

"How can you hate the Olympics?" they ask me. "Are you some sort of antipatriotic subversive? Don't you appreciate the genius of Bob Costas? Can't you understand the majesty of world-class Ping-Pong?" These are the questions I face every other year. Every other year, I am accused of hating the Olympics. Now, this accusation is inaccurate. I do not hate the Olympics; I just don't like them at all. For as long as I can remember, the Olympics have been completely and utterly unmoving. This is ironic, inasmuch as we're all about to spend the next VII weeks being reminded of how emotive and heart-wrenching and dramatic these games are going to be. This is not something I need to hear, particularly since the only thing the Olympics ever do is reinforce my dislike for a particular kind of American: people who like the home team simply because the home team is, in fact, the home team.

Before I get into this, it's helpful to take a retrospective, egocentric look at the modern Summer Olympics. The Olympics that I remember most vividly are the Munich Games of September 1972. This is somewhat surprising, because I was born in June 1972. However, I still feel hyperinformed about this Olympiad. I've watched One Day in September, a documentary about Palestinian terrorists taking Israeli athletes hostage; :03 from Gold, an HBO retelling of the rigged U.S.A.--Soviet Union basketball final; and two movies about charismatic (but otherwise unremarkable) runner Steve Prefontaine. I can remember all four of those films more accurately than any Summer Olympics I ever watched for real. All I can remember about the 1976 games is that Bruce Jenner briefly made me want to eat unsugared, wheat-based cereal. There was a boycott in 1980, which made no sense to me at the time and still doesn't today; I'll never understand why stopping Edwin Moses from dominating the four-hundred-meter hurdles was supposed to make Russia pull out of Afghanistan.

The Soviets responded by boycotting the 1984 Summer Games in Los Angeles, but that didn't bother me as much. At the time, I was positive no white guy from the Ukraine was going to be faster than Carl Lewis anyway. It was during these games, however, that I began to realize just how ridiculous casual sports fans can be. On August 10, 1984, Zola Budd collided with Mary Decker during the three thousand meters. This, as you may remember, was a huge controversy. And while I was following said controversy on my beanbag chair in front of our twenty-one-inch Zenith, something occurred to me: Why the f**k is everyone suddenly concerned with women's distance running? Had this race happened in the summer of '83, little barefoot Zola could have pistol-whipped Mary on the backstretch and it probably wouldn't have been mentioned in USA Today.

This is when I realized that the Olympics are designed for people who want to care about something without considering why.

In order to enjoy the Olympics, you can't think critically about anything. You just have to root for America (or whatever country you're from) and assume that your feelings are inherently correct. It's the same kind of antilogic you need to employ whenever you attend a political convention or a church service or movies directed by Steven Spielberg. When Savannah power lifter Cheryl Ann Haworth tries to clean and jerk the equivalent of a white rhino, we (as Americans) will be obligated to pray for her success, despite the fact that we know nothing about her or any of her foes. We're all supposed to take inspiration from Sada Jacobson, who (I'm told) is the world's number-one female saber fencer, which is kind of like being the world's number-one Real World/ Road Rules Challenge participant. In a matter of weeks, everyone is going to be ecstatic about the prospect of Michael Phelps winning as many as eight gold medals in swimming, even though I have yet to find a single person who knows who Michael Phelps is.

This is what I can't stand about the Olympics, and it's also what I can't stand about certain sports enthusiasts: the idea that rooting for a team without any justification somehow proves that you are a "true fan." All it proves is that you're ridiculous, and that you don't really consider the factors that drive your emotions, and that you probably care more about geography and the color of a uniform than you do about the sport you're ostensibly watching. I have a sportswriter friend who constantly attempts to paint me as a soulless hypocrite because I adored the Boston Celtics in 1984 but am wholly ambivalent toward them today. His argument makes no sense to me. I have no idea why my feelings about an organization twenty years ago should have any effect on how I think now. The modern Celtics have different players, a different coach, a different offense, different management, different ownership, and play in a different arena; the only similarities between these two squads are that they both wear green and they both use the same parquet floor.

I'm not rooting for flooring.

Yet this is what the Olympics ask us to do, more or less. We could toss a bunch of serial killers into the pool in Athens, and we'd still be told to support their run for water-polo gold. And isn't this mind-set the core of every major (and minor) problem we have in this country? The war in Iraq is the most obvious example, but that's just the snout of the proverbial iceberg. Every wrongheaded sentiment in society derives from our ever-growing culture of unconditional rightness. We've become a nation of reflexively loyal fans. As I grow older, I find myself less prone to have an opinion about anything, and I'm starting to distrust just about everyone who does. Whenever I meet someone who proudly identifies herself as a Republican or a Democrat, I think, Well, this person might be interesting, but she'll never say anything about politics that's remotely useful to me. I refuse to discuss abortion with anyone who is pro-life or pro-choice. I refuse to discuss affirmative action with any unemployed white guy or any unemployed black guy. All the world's stupidest people are either zealots, atheists, or ideologues. People used to slag Bill Clinton for waffling on everything and relying solely on situational pragmatism. As far as I'm concerned, that was the single greatest aspect of his presidency. Life is f**king confusing. I don't know anything, and neither do you.

But this is not what the Olympics want you to believe. The Olympics--or, more accurately, NBC--want you to feel like you're always on the right side, even if you don't know why. NBC will subject you to hours of maudlin human-interest stories about athletes you've never heard of, and it'll insist that these people have overcome adversity and should automatically be perceived as heroes (although I'm sure Ahmad Rashad will remind us that they're not "the real heroes," since "the real heroes" are generally identified as military personnel not being court-martialed for torture). Now, maybe these athletes deserve your respect, and maybe they don't. It's always 50-50. But don't care about them just because they're televised Americans.

That said, I'm sure I'll still end up sitting through all this melodramatic shit, and I'm sure I'll unconsciously find myself not-so-secretly hoping that America wins every event (except for speed walking; for some reason, I always hope Canada dominates speed walking). I'm not sure how much I love my country, but I'm pretty sure I don't prefer any of the alternatives. My main fear is that the Saudi Arabians will steal gold in the four-hundred-meter relay and--moments before the event is rebroadcast in prime time--Costas will be unable to resist telling us that the terrorists have already won.
« Last Edit: December 19, 2008, 09:16:01 PM by dwn »

Offline Jah Gol

  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 8493
  • Ronaldinho is the best player of our era
    • View Profile
    • The Ministry of Noise
Re: An interesting perspective on die-hard "home team" supporters
« Reply #1 on: December 19, 2008, 10:33:24 PM »
He sounds like he is a bigger fan of the beauty of sports than teams. He is correct on a few items. Most people do not employ critical thinking when supporting any team. He is right in that it isn't logical to support one team regardless of the circumstances. But isn't that what a fan is, a fanatic. Somebody who is so passionate about their team or player irrespective of the result their support doesn't diminish.

I get what he's implying about the manufactured drama, it annoys me too. But does the writer really expect the world to employ critical thinking  when their respective countrymen compete in sport at the global stage. What's wrong with back your team , even if you are American. The writer also fails to acknowledge that it is possible for one to support one's team yet demonstrate sportmanship graciousness to the opposition even in defeat.

He appears to trying to build a fair weather fandom.

 

1]; } ?>