Here are my responses to the discussion questions: 1. Some reasons provided in the book for football violence included tribalism/territorialism over clubs, building reputation/status within supporter groups, and outlet for aggression/masculinity. We see some tribalism in US over college/pro teams but violence is less common. Most violent US sport is probably ice hockey with some violent fans. 2. It was wrong and hypocritical to refer to the two men as "animals" worthy of death for supposed crimes while accepting similar violence from supporters. There appears to have been a double standard based on racism. 3. I disagree that we are all inherently violent. While humans have capacity for violence, most people are not

1. I was shocked by the
violence in this book and
completely horrified by the
behavior of these soccer
fans.
Among the Thugs
The violence in the book was
entertaining, football is an
important part of our lives
therefore violence is sometimes
necessary.
What were your overall reactions to the book? Which statement do you agree with?

2. Discussion Questions 1-4
1. What were some of the reasons that Buford provided in the book, about as to
why the football violence occurred? Do you see those same reasons here in the
U.S? In comparison how is the football violence here VS in England? What is
the most violent sport in the U.S? Which sport has the most violent fans?
2. While in Turin two black men were stabbed on the train, a few weeks later in
the local newspaper the men were referred to as animals, and that they should
be killed because they were supposedly: torturing women, threatening them,
and physically harming them. Why is it not acceptable for this source of
violence, but the same violence done by supporters is? Is there a double
standard?
3. Do you agree/disagree with the following statement: “We all have violence in
us, it just needs an acceptable way of coming out. We all are violent people,”
(Steve). Why or why not? What do you think makes people violent? (You can
refer to the different theories).
4. Do you think the police were a primary cause to the escalation of violence?
Explain. Why do you think the military was more successful at reducing the
amount of violence rather than the police?

3. DISCUSSION QUESTIONS 5-11
5. In Dusseidorf supporters on a bus molested a young woman who had escaped from a
mental institution. Why didn’t the bus driver or the narrators friend interfere? How big of
a role does fear play in people interfering when they see something wrong? Think back to
a time when you witnessed some sort of violence, did you interfere? Why or why not?
6. According to Buford what is crowd theory? How does it relate to what we learned
about crowds and riots in class? Is the bond stronger when there is less people or more?
7. How does the men's triad relate to the violence in the book? (Men vs. Men)
8.How does the thought of “us” and “them”/ “the other” displayed throughout the
book? How did that effect the amount of violence? (In groups-Out groups)
9. Was the collective behavior in the book rational or irrational explain?
10. What were some precipitating factors that lead to the violence?
11. If the supporters became an organized form of violence how would that change the
events that happened?