6 ms·

We had games for that for ever. We can't get gladiators anymore so we have football, races and ring fights. "Panem et circenses" is hardly a new concept.

sonnyblarney 8y ago
Gladiators are 2000 years old, moreover, they didn't represent anyone. And 'international sports' don't really go back that far, surprisingly. The 'oldest currently active international sports competition' is actually the annual hockey game between the Royal Military College (Canada), and Westpoint - or so I'm told. There are arguments for America's cup, but that's a different kind of representation. Those are 1870's vs. 1850's respectively. So it's really kind of a new thing, and Olympics, World Cup, Commonwealth Games are definitely created in part to build fraternity and collegiately between nations etc.. I think it's also fair to question the term 'violence' because maybe it's really a matter of 'competition' at a physical, visceral level, i.e. 'dominance'. But it's a good point.
- sametmax 8y ago
  > Gladiators are 2000 years old My point, exactly. > they didn't represent anyone. Of course their did. People had their favorites. Community had champions. Besides, 11 people representing a country is just a ploy to entertain people. There is zero level of relationship between the players and the rest country. Anyway, the point is moot. It doesn't change the basis of the mechanism: entertaining the mass so that they divert they aggressiveness.
  - philwelch 8y ago
    > Besides, 11 people representing a country is just a ploy to entertain people. There is zero level of relationship between the players and the rest country. Aside from the legal requirement that they be citizens of the country they play for, and that once a player represents his country in a competitive match, they are bound to represent that same country for the rest of their lives, barring some extraordinary situation where the country itself breaks up or ceases to exist.
    - sametmax 8y ago
      Artificial requirements to make the illusion of a connection stronger.
      - kami8845 8y ago
        I think your assertion that people who were born and grew up in the same country bear 0 resemblance goes against a lot of modern statistics.
        sametmax 8y ago
        They do but not more or less than footballers, bakers or your neighboor. There is nothing special about football except the idea that it's special.
      - philwelch 8y ago
        I really don’t see what makes the concept of national football teams any more artificial than the concept of nations in the first place.
        moretai 8y ago
        I don't think anyone would disagree with you there.
  - Godel_unicode 8y ago
    > There is zero level of relationship between the players and the rest country. Oh I so dare you to go to Brazil and say Neymar doesn't matter. Actually, don't, I don't want to be (indirectly) responsible for your maiming...
    - sametmax 8y ago
      Yes, it's very efficient mechanism to control the population. People have a strong illusion their connection is real
      - Godel_unicode 8y ago
        To make my point plainer, who are you to say it isn't?
        sametmax 8y ago
        "who are you" implies I should have some special status to give my opinion. But the fact remains that they don't run after the ball themself. They don't make any effort in this competition. They don't even have any personnal relationship with the players. I don't deny it's fun. You should have fun. But it's no more real than a movie.
        moretai 8y ago
        We are all connected.
        sonnyblarney 8y ago
        But we are connected to some much more than others. See: mother + newborn.
        moretai 8y ago
        Do you remember coming out of your mother's vagina?
- icebraining 8y ago
  The gladiators might not, but the chariot racers in the Hippodrome did have teams/factions, with fans loyal to each: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chariot_racing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chariot_racing That said, you're right that it wasn't "international", but then again "nations" themselves aren't that old.
  - sonnyblarney 8y ago
    If the Romans were smart, they would have had Gladiators and Racers actually representative of provinces. Or better yet, invent football and do the same. Nationalism didn't exist at the time, but ethnocentrism certainly did :)
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    > but then again "nations" themselves aren't that old. Nations are, nationalism and nation-states (which are different but related phenomena) aren't.
    - ekianjo 8y ago
      No, the whole concept of national identity is very recent, starting from early 1800s for some parts of Europe. Longer than that you had tribal factions or regional identities and that is it.
      - awinder 8y ago
        How was the unified Greek state different if you don’t mind me asking?
        ekianjo 8y ago
        which era are you refering to? ancient greece was not a unified state. the common denominator what the city. Athenians were clearly not considering themselves like belonging to the same group as Spartans.
      - dragonwriter 8y ago
- ckinnan 8y ago
  Chariot teams were very politicized in ancient Rome and very much represented people and ideas. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/blue-versus-green-rocking-the-byzantine-empire-113325928/ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/blue-versus-green-roc...
- lapnitnelav 8y ago
  You mentioned Olympics but you missed out on the original Olympics which were very much all about that international (sort of as they were city-states) competition with a truce set up to allow for a relatively safe event. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Olympic_Games https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Olympic_Games
- Retric 8y ago
  Travel is something of a prerequisite of international sporting events. So, 1870's is very early in that context as people simply moved around less. That said, medieval jousting for example had what amounted to a multi national sports. It's just the nations where tiny.
- gravelc 8y ago
  >The 'oldest currently active international sports competition' is actually the annual hockey game between the Royal Military College (Canada), and Westpoint - or so I'm told. International cricket pre-dates that. The first official international was between Canada and the United States in 1844, with 10 - 20,000 spectators. The K.A. Auty Cup is still played from time to time. Perhaps a case could be made for cricket helping prevent nuclear war, as India and Pakistan manage to play each other in the various forms of cricket, though there isn't any love lost between the fans.
  - nojvek 8y ago
    There were times when India or Pakistan lost, people would burn cities in madness. I guess we have civilized quite a bit.
    - nafey 8y ago
      >burn cities in madness Yeah that never happened.
- Godel_unicode 8y ago
  > 'international sports' don't really go back that far, surprisingly That's absurd. Google "Olympic games" and then Google "peloponnesian war".
  - sonnyblarney 8y ago
    Yes, there were a few 'games' some time ago, but in the context of history it's nothing. Ongoing international games as we understand them are a new phenom, dating back to the mid 19th century, and then only a few games. The modern Olympics are not that old. There were almost no such games for most of antiquity until late into the Enlightenment.
    - Godel_unicode 8y ago
      Again, that's absurd. The ancient Greek Olympic games lasted for close to 1200 years. Unless your definition of ongoing is longer than that, I think they qualify. The ancient Olympics carried a truce enforced by Zeus, unless your definition of international doesn't include "independent political entities who engaged in war" I think they qualify.
- NeedMoreTea 8y ago
  Medieval jousting and single combat had international tournaments for hundreds of years. From before The Hundred Years War in the 1300's through to the 1600's at which point the events started morphing into what would be recognised as modern equestrian sports.
  - 67_45 8y ago
    You're from the UK so it must have hit close to home for you when he called a British ex-pat a pedo. You guys probably have one of the most backwards cultures when it comes to the mental illness of pedos. You treat them like they aren't even human beings regardless of whether or not they have harmed anyone. Pitiful.

sonnyblarney 8y ago

Gladiators are 2000 years old, moreover, they didn't represent anyone. And 'international sports' don't really go back that far, surprisingly. The 'oldest currently active international sports competition' is actually the annual hockey game between the Royal Military College (Canada), and Westpoint - or so I'm told. There are arguments for America's cup, but that's a different kind of representation. Those are 1870's vs. 1850's respectively. So it's really kind of a new thing, and Olympics, World Cup, Commonwealth Games are definitely created in part to build fraternity and collegiately between nations etc.. I think it's also fair to question the term 'violence' because maybe it's really a matter of 'competition' at a physical, visceral level, i.e. 'dominance'. But it's a good point.

sametmax 8y ago
> Gladiators are 2000 years old My point, exactly. > they didn't represent anyone. Of course their did. People had their favorites. Community had champions. Besides, 11 people representing a country is just a ploy to entertain people. There is zero level of relationship between the players and the rest country. Anyway, the point is moot. It doesn't change the basis of the mechanism: entertaining the mass so that they divert they aggressiveness.
- philwelch 8y ago
  > Besides, 11 people representing a country is just a ploy to entertain people. There is zero level of relationship between the players and the rest country. Aside from the legal requirement that they be citizens of the country they play for, and that once a player represents his country in a competitive match, they are bound to represent that same country for the rest of their lives, barring some extraordinary situation where the country itself breaks up or ceases to exist.
  - sametmax 8y ago
    Artificial requirements to make the illusion of a connection stronger.
    - kami8845 8y ago
      I think your assertion that people who were born and grew up in the same country bear 0 resemblance goes against a lot of modern statistics.
      - sametmax 8y ago
        They do but not more or less than footballers, bakers or your neighboor. There is nothing special about football except the idea that it's special.
    - philwelch 8y ago
      I really don’t see what makes the concept of national football teams any more artificial than the concept of nations in the first place.
      - moretai 8y ago
        I don't think anyone would disagree with you there.
- Godel_unicode 8y ago
  > There is zero level of relationship between the players and the rest country. Oh I so dare you to go to Brazil and say Neymar doesn't matter. Actually, don't, I don't want to be (indirectly) responsible for your maiming...
  - sametmax 8y ago
    Yes, it's very efficient mechanism to control the population. People have a strong illusion their connection is real
    - Godel_unicode 8y ago
      To make my point plainer, who are you to say it isn't?
      - sametmax 8y ago
        "who are you" implies I should have some special status to give my opinion. But the fact remains that they don't run after the ball themself. They don't make any effort in this competition. They don't even have any personnal relationship with the players. I don't deny it's fun. You should have fun. But it's no more real than a movie.
      - moretai 8y ago
        We are all connected.
        sonnyblarney 8y ago
        But we are connected to some much more than others. See: mother + newborn.
        moretai 8y ago
        Do you remember coming out of your mother's vagina?
icebraining 8y ago
The gladiators might not, but the chariot racers in the Hippodrome did have teams/factions, with fans loyal to each: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chariot_racing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chariot_racing That said, you're right that it wasn't "international", but then again "nations" themselves aren't that old.
- sonnyblarney 8y ago
  If the Romans were smart, they would have had Gladiators and Racers actually representative of provinces. Or better yet, invent football and do the same. Nationalism didn't exist at the time, but ethnocentrism certainly did :)
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > but then again "nations" themselves aren't that old. Nations are, nationalism and nation-states (which are different but related phenomena) aren't.
  - ekianjo 8y ago
    No, the whole concept of national identity is very recent, starting from early 1800s for some parts of Europe. Longer than that you had tribal factions or regional identities and that is it.
    - awinder 8y ago
      How was the unified Greek state different if you don’t mind me asking?
      - ekianjo 8y ago
        which era are you refering to? ancient greece was not a unified state. the common denominator what the city. Athenians were clearly not considering themselves like belonging to the same group as Spartans.
    - dragonwriter 8y ago
ckinnan 8y ago
Chariot teams were very politicized in ancient Rome and very much represented people and ideas. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/blue-versus-green-rocking-the-byzantine-empire-113325928/ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/blue-versus-green-roc...
lapnitnelav 8y ago
You mentioned Olympics but you missed out on the original Olympics which were very much all about that international (sort of as they were city-states) competition with a truce set up to allow for a relatively safe event. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Olympic_Games https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Olympic_Games
Retric 8y ago
Travel is something of a prerequisite of international sporting events. So, 1870's is very early in that context as people simply moved around less. That said, medieval jousting for example had what amounted to a multi national sports. It's just the nations where tiny.
gravelc 8y ago
>The 'oldest currently active international sports competition' is actually the annual hockey game between the Royal Military College (Canada), and Westpoint - or so I'm told. International cricket pre-dates that. The first official international was between Canada and the United States in 1844, with 10 - 20,000 spectators. The K.A. Auty Cup is still played from time to time. Perhaps a case could be made for cricket helping prevent nuclear war, as India and Pakistan manage to play each other in the various forms of cricket, though there isn't any love lost between the fans.
- nojvek 8y ago
  There were times when India or Pakistan lost, people would burn cities in madness. I guess we have civilized quite a bit.
  - nafey 8y ago
    >burn cities in madness Yeah that never happened.
Godel_unicode 8y ago
> 'international sports' don't really go back that far, surprisingly That's absurd. Google "Olympic games" and then Google "peloponnesian war".
- sonnyblarney 8y ago
  Yes, there were a few 'games' some time ago, but in the context of history it's nothing. Ongoing international games as we understand them are a new phenom, dating back to the mid 19th century, and then only a few games. The modern Olympics are not that old. There were almost no such games for most of antiquity until late into the Enlightenment.
  - Godel_unicode 8y ago
    Again, that's absurd. The ancient Greek Olympic games lasted for close to 1200 years. Unless your definition of ongoing is longer than that, I think they qualify. The ancient Olympics carried a truce enforced by Zeus, unless your definition of international doesn't include "independent political entities who engaged in war" I think they qualify.
NeedMoreTea 8y ago
Medieval jousting and single combat had international tournaments for hundreds of years. From before The Hundred Years War in the 1300's through to the 1600's at which point the events started morphing into what would be recognised as modern equestrian sports.
- 67_45 8y ago
  You're from the UK so it must have hit close to home for you when he called a British ex-pat a pedo. You guys probably have one of the most backwards cultures when it comes to the mental illness of pedos. You treat them like they aren't even human beings regardless of whether or not they have harmed anyone. Pitiful.