Among the Thugs

Among the Thugs by Bill Buford is an account of something that is very visible in soccer stadiums and venues every time there is a match. As I read the title I thought it was going to be about just simple thugs from the street but I had no Idea that the book and Buford himself were going to immerse me in the life and actions of soccer Hooligans.

 As I’m not a fanatic of the sport I don’t understand how it creates so much passion and emotion to the point of mayhem but as the book recounts this “thugs” take soccer and specially their city team as a thing of live and death. I have heard of this violence happening in stadiums in Colombia, even in Bogota where the matches between Santa Fe and Millonarios have already taken multiple lives.

  The reality is that these sporting events mean much more than just an entertainment to some people. They say that their soccer team is something they carry in their bloods, but I don’t understand how someone can be so addicted to a team.   Yet in the first few pages I get the feeling that to the guys Buford deals with the outcome of the game is not nearly as important as keeping their masculinity higher than the fans of the rival team. The real competition is not scoring goals but who beats up more fans than the other group.

  As I read the first few pages and understand what Buford is trying to do I feel a little uncomfortable with the savagery of these soccer fans that I feel don’t even care about the game more than what they care of getting the rival team’s fans a beating. Just by looking at the guy in the cover of the book pone can get a sense of the type of guys Buford deals with in his study.

  I am curious about if this book is just going to be the story of the Hooligans or is he trying to do something else more profound. How does soccer games create so much violence and how can people get so aggressive in a sporting event they aren’t event being part of? Is being part of a Hooligan firm similar to what people try to get from gangs? Acceptance and a sense of being backed up? These are some of the questions I get from reading the First few pages of the book.

Truman and Clutter

First of all, before I start writing about what I read, I want a point out a few things. The first thing I do when I get a book is look at the back part of it. I did. At first it looked like some boring old book, but then as I continued reading it got interesting by the second. It was only a matter of time I started flipping the pages to get to the “good stuff”.

Okay, so first book we read in class: a boy attempts to murder himself, second book I read: young girl tries to kill herself, third book: five people actually get murdered.

It starts off so well.

I was eager to read.

Second, I’d like to point out how Truman Capote dedicates his book to Harper Lee, she wrote one of the classics of all times, and one of my all time favorite books to read. To Kill a Mockingbird.

Now, let’s go to the book. Of course, the author starts describing Kansas like a place we should never go to.

It is just “out there”(3).

A building with the sign DANCE on it, “but the dancing has ceased”(4).

It makes us wonder what happened in this town to make it the way it is. No American could tell you where Holcomb is, until “one morning in 1959, had ever heard of Holcomb”(5).

“But”(5). Something disturbed that nights peacefulness. It was the sound of “four shotgun blasts that, all told, ended six human lives”(5).

It was the Clutter family. The head of the family, was the “most widley known citizen”(6).

In class we had already analyzed in a timed writing the first few pages of the book, and we were left in suspense, not knowing what in fact had happened in the book. We find out shortly after. But even if we know what it is that happened we have no apparent details of the situation.  We know something but in reality we know nothing.

Got until page 10 of the book. I can’t wait to continue reading. I like these types of books. I shall continue reading.

Let's GO, George Orwell!

Shooting an Elephant is an essay by George Orwell published on 1936. It is a story that is seen as a metaphor for British imperialism.

Every day I learn more and more about rhetoric, Heinrichs has taught me well. There are fallacies when you talk, in TV commercials, in speeches, and now I can say that there are fallacies in essays too. They weren’t easy too find, but that’s what is so interesting!

We never really find out who the protagonist of the story is, but it is said that it probably is George Orwell himself. Orwell is looking for us to sympathize with his story, what he did (woops, or the protagonist, the police officer).

I found two. 

Hasty generalization

“No one had the guts to raise a riot”

or

“As a police officer I was an obvious target and was baited whenever it seemed safe to do so.”

Here he generalizes and uses “no one” he is not sure that in fact no one will, he generalizes assuming he knows no one will, then he says that since he was a police officer he was an obvious target, but not all police officers were targets, that’s for sure.

 “I was only an absurd puppet pushed to and fro by the will of those yellow faces behind.”

Above, another example of a generalization because here they explain how they were making him shoot, he had an audience, and that there were a lot of eyes on him. He says everyone wants him to shoot, but not everyone does.

Tautology

“It seemed to me that it would be murder to shoot him.”

He repeats the premise. Of course if he shoots him, he will murder him. It is obvious that it doesn’t just seem to him it’s common sense. 

Winston Wins Fallacies

Sir Winston Churchill once said, “Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.” This is not in the speech above, but is a clear example of fallacy of antecedent. Anyways, let’s get to the speech.

On march 18^th 1931 Winston Churchill gives his famous speech in Albert Hall, he talks about what exactly is British rule in India and to what extent is the duty of them in India.

Right now, I’ve read two very famous speeches and both seem to have the many questions fallacy, it seems to be a very popular technique in terms of rhetoric.

The first fallacies I spotted in his speech were the many questions. In about the fourth paragraph of his speech he starts asking a lot of questions which he doesn’t really give the answer to. He concludes something with a question to prove his previous conclusion. In this case he presents several questions in one single sentence.

He starts of with something more simple, in which the editors note says is an allusion to the great amount of people that filled the building that day.

“Is it not wonderful in these circumstances, with all this against us, that a few of us should manage to get together here in this hall to-night?”

Then he continues with many questions, “What spectacle could be more sorrowful than that of this powerful country casting away with both hands, and up till now almost by general acquiescence, the great inheritance which centuries have gathered? What spectacle could be more strange, more monstrous in its perversity, than to see the Viceroy and the high officials and agents of the Crown in India labouring with all their influence and authority to unite and weave together into a confederacy all the forces adverse and hostile to our rule in India?”

Notice how he starts both of his questions with “What spectacle could be more ‘sorrowful’ and the next one ‘strange’” was that alliteration?

“If you took the antagonisms of France and Germany, and the antagonisms of Catholics and Protestants, and compounded them and multiplied them ten-fold, you would not equal the division which separates these two races intermingled by scores of millions in the cities and plains of India.”

Why did he suddenly start talking about France and Germany and Catholics and Protestants, maybe to make a comparison which the audience could relate to, but also to use the Chewbacca defense, he did exactly that, he brought up and irrelevant issue to compare it to his.

He then heads towards the straw man technique very sneakily to avoid a very controversial topic, he starts a new topic instead of going further into the one he was in. He was able to dig out of that hole. “we cannot recognize their claim to the title-deeds of democracy.”

Gandhi Too Does Fallacies

Mahatma Gandhi lived years ago but he was certainly more advanced than any of the leaders that exist now a days. His way out was peace, and if a country like Colombia would have had a leader like him maybe all the wars and all the controversy would have never existed.

Anyways, just pointing that out.

Even if fallacies can make the referee whistle, there is still many cases in which you can use them wisely. Even Gandhi uses them in his most famous speech in Kingsley Hall 1931. 

He uses one, which is recurrent throughout, the whole speech. He appeals to popularity. God. God is the maximum authority and he legitimizes our beliefs by talking about how important God is in life.

He includes in a very sincere manner that he is able to also manipulate the audience but in a very smooth way. They are even so smooth that there are very hard to find, it was like a puzzle really. He is very true to what he says this is why you aren’t able to find so many, his purpose wasn’t to manipulate the audience, he wanted the audience to trust and believe in what he was saying.

He said things like: “That law then which governs all life is God.” Also, “God to be God must rule the heart and transform it.”

He starts of with many questions in where he gives a conclusion to prove his conclusion. “We know that people do not know who rules or why and how He rules and yet they know that there is a power that certainly rules.”

People in fact don’t know who is ruling, but they know that someone is. He gives a statement in which he also conclude later.

He uses the many questions and the tautology in a way, he repeates the premise but he is also making a conclusion and then he gives his reason for the conclusion “acceptance of divine authority makes life's journey easier even as the acceptance of earthly rule makes life under it easier.”

It is incredible but even Gandhi did use fallacies, we don’t realize but they are an important part of our life because we use and hear a lot of them constantly. 

Galaxy: Out Of This World

I couldn’t even try to tell you how many times my father has gotten home with something new to show me. The “latest” technology or the best.

Last night he came in and he had the new Samsung Galaxy III, I didn’t understand, he had had the same iPhone for the past two years and he just suddenly decided to change it.

I was really wondering what had made him do it.

He said he had seen an advertisement in YouTube The Next Big Thing is Already Here. It is a commercial in which Samsung says all the good things this phone has but that the iPhone doesn’t.

He also said that when he went to Movistar to change for the iPhone 5 the salesmen had totally convinced him that the Samsung was better. (it was more expensive of course = more commission for him)

A few weeks ago he had seen me reading Thank You For Arguing, and I said if he remembered, he said yes.

I told him that this is a classic salesman technique “lying in a Mean”(176).

It doesn’t necessarily mean that the Samsung is better, it is just better for the salesman in a way.  You are always going to have many choices when you go inside any store, but it takes a really good salesman to sell you the most expensive thing there is and make you feel great about doing it“choices the persuader makes, or those he tries to sell you on”(176).

Phronesis, wow, big word right there.  It’s just practical wisdom so don’t get so tensed up! Disinterest and virtue are not the only techniques for salesmen in persuasion, if you want your point to stick you should use some other kinds of methods. Like the “that depends”(183). My personal favorite is the comparable experience you always have an easy way for this one, even if it’s not true or even if you alter a little what in fact happened.

Something that might have happened when my dad was buying his new phone:

Dad: Yes but how do I know this is better than the iPhone?

Salesman: Well, personally (key point there) I used to have the iPhone and now I have the Galaxy and I like it so much better because… (bla bla bla).