Why aren't there sectarian type rivalries in the USA?
Posted by Rich-Bread7049@reddit | AskAnAmerican | View on Reddit | 169 comments
I am not from the UK or Ireland so I might not be phrasing this correctly but thre are several rivalries (most prominently the Old Firm) that have distinctly sectarian themes. Though stuff like anti-Catholicism are a thing in the past in the US it was definitely a thing especially during times like the 1920s where Notre Dame was one of the most prominent college football teams. So why did no sectarian style rivalry develop from this period with Notre Dame or other teams associated with a particular identity (BYU, Celtics, etc.)?
Or am I wrong and sectarianism is a thing in US sports rivalries that I'm just unaware of.
Wyndeward@reddit
It isn't that they don't exist, but certain choices on the part of the Framers helped diminish the potential for those problems to come to the fore.
LicketLicketyZooZoo@reddit
Most Americans don’t learn the word sectarian until after college.
fickystingers@reddit
...huh?
well-informedcitizen@reddit
There's plenty of interstate rivalries, especially in sports. I don't follow all that much sportsball but like. The Mets vs the Phillies I think? Um... The Patriots vs, everyone? And if you're talking about college ball forget it, there's 1000 teams and they all pair off in hating a team that beat them in like 1897.
Impressive-Cod-7103@reddit
Not having a national religion probably has something to do with it.
Medical_Gift4298@reddit
We have enough other things to do, people came here because they didn't like that shit, Catholics faced general discrimination, by the time Notre Dame became a legit worthwhile athletic rival, we were past that point... etc.
New-Process-52@reddit
Havent seen it
President-Lonestar@reddit
Sectarian divides are nowhere near as big in America as in the UK for mainly two reasons.
Much of America’s fault lines were mainly in other areas, mainly geographic and racial lines.
Much of America’s anti-Catholic edge slowly died out over the course of the 19th and 20th Centuries. There’s still a tiny amount of beef, but anyone making a big fuss about it is seen as an idiot.
renegadecoaster@reddit
The UK also has some things going for it that intensify the Catholic-Protestant rivalry:
Their national church explicitly broke away from the Catholic church so anti-Catholicisim is part of their national identity, to some extent that has varied a lot throughout history
The at-times violent conflict with Ireland, which was obviously partly caused by the sectarian differences but also fueled them in turn
LifeApprehensive2818@reddit
To expand on 1., for a much larger chunk of history than most people understand, being Catholic had political implications as well as religious.
The authority of the pope could and did directly conflict with the authority of a sovereign. For strongly Catholic nations, this was taken in stride. For non-affiliated nations, this was a major national security risk. If you're not following the state religion, then you're accepting an authority other than the sovereign, which isn't a recipe for happiness in an absolutist regime.
To see a modern example, look into Catholicism in China. There are a few officially sanctioned churches who acknowledge the authority of the CCP before the Vatican. Worship of mainstream Catholicism is still heavily persecuted.
Tired_CollegeStudent@reddit
It’s very easy to give Henry VIII shit for how he acted RE: his wives, but the case of his annulment from at least Catherine does warrant some further consideration in light of the political power of the Roman Catholic Church and the political pressures exerted on the Pope himself by other political actors.
Nowadays it’s hard to imagine the Pope doing something under pressure from any outside leader, but in those days it was fairly common.
LifeApprehensive2818@reddit
I personally love learning about that time
You've got England barely a generation out from a catastrophic succession crisis, a track record of one failed queen regnant whose mere presence triggered a time labeled "the anarchy", a king with a single daughter and a menopausal wife, and a politically active pope telling him he's had his shot.
It doesn't excuse Henry's more cruel actions, but it makes sense that he would have felt a teensy bit desperate.
Antique_Pineapple504@reddit
Can I ask you to clarify what you mean by “one failed queen regnant whose mere presence triggered a time labeled “the anarchy”? Is your first sentence also alluding to the wars of the roses?
LifeApprehensive2818@reddit
First sentence refers to war of the roses, admittedly in a very overly simplistic way.
"Failed queen regnant" refers to Empress Matilda in the 1100s. Let me know if I get any of the following wrong.
She was the legitimate successor of Henry I, but Steven of Blois got himself crowned while she was out of the country. This led to a rather long civil war as her supporters fought Steven's supporters, and a few powerful earls tried to carve out their own territories independent of the crown. This period of war and unrest is known as "the anarchy".
Matilda was never crowned in her own right, hence my use of "failed", although she did control much of the country for a very long time. Her son did go on to become Henry II, so she founded a very successful dynasty, even if she was never completely monarch of England herself.
I've heard it argued that, despite the nearly 400 year gap, Henry VIII would have known about Matilda, and her story would have made him especially afraid to leave the throne to Mary or Elizabeth.
Antique_Pineapple504@reddit
(Not saying you’re wrong) but I’ve never really heard the argument that the anarchy would’ve made Henry VIII hesitant to name a female successor. Further, the wars of the roses weren’t a succession crisis but they absolutely did have an effect on Henry VIII’s desperation to have a son in that a son meant stability and they were only a few generations removed from the relative chaos of the wars. It’s far more likely he was considering that rather than one civil war thousands of years ago
PrimaryHighlight5617@reddit
I think it still has pretty big political implications here in the United States. As I was just saying in another comment the fact that we have a Pope Is often viewed as a political threat to non Catholics. Who will this political leader be loyal to? The people he represents or the Monarch of the holy roman empire?
JFK and Joe Biden both had to explicitly state that their loyalties were with the American people first, ahead of their religions. This is not a common statement that most presidents have had to make. Mitt Romney also had to make this statement as well considering there is a prophet of the Mormon Church
Tired_CollegeStudent@reddit
The Pope isn’t the monarch of the Holy Roman Empire. For starters, the HRE doesn’t exist anymore and also, the Holy Roman Emperor existed independent of the Pope.
The Pope is the Sovereign of Vatican City, though that’s a minor detail in the grand scheme of things. And I doubt that itself is a motivating factor for anti-Catholicism.
Concerns about ‘Papal loyalty’ were often a way to advance xenophobia. Waves of immigrants from heavily-Catholic countries like Ireland and Italy meant that Catholicism was strongly associated with new immigrants. Nativists did and do grab on to literally anything they can to demonize immigrants. Saying that a Catholic would take orders from the Pope is just one way of ‘othering’ a certain demographic. That has also been a recurring theme of antisemitism. I’m sure there were some people who believed in it, but it really just served as a convenient excuse as to why we shouldn’t accept “those” people.
It has little bearing on politics today, at least in the mainstream. Sure, there are some sects of society that still care, especially among very conservative evangelical Protestants. But given that a majority of Supreme Court justices, the current VP, the previous President, and there are Senators snd Representatives from both parties who are all Catholic, it’s not an important issue. I don’t remember anyone in mainstream politics or media talking about Biden being Catholic, and it certainly wasn’t anything like when JFK was running for office.
PrimaryHighlight5617@reddit
May I counter this? The United States was and is explicitly anti monarchy. "No Kings" rallies here get renamed in other countries for perspective on how uniquely anti king we are as a country.
As a Catholic, our religion is a monarchy. Our Pope is the king of the Holy Roman Empire. Jesus is the king of the universe. We believe in a personal relationship with god, but out religion is VERY top down.
A barrier to Catholics becoming political leaders in the US historically is the fact that we are loyal to the Pope, or at least we SHOULD be as good Catholics. Every single Catholic who has gained a high level of power including President Joe Biden and President Donald Trump have had to explicitly state that their identity as Americans is above their identity as Catholics.
I would argue that the American identity is inherently anti-Catholic.
You're right though. It is not explicitly anti Catholic. Just my two cents as an American who considers herself a Catholic first, and an American second (especially right now).
Anonymus828@reddit
Also the catholics tried to blow up parliament that one time, I imagine if the Italians tried to take down the empire state building we wouldn't think to kindly of them either
charcoal_kestrel@reddit
2 is an important part of the answer. We did have very strong Catholic vs Protestant tension in this country. It was a major issue in Prohibition, the immigration act of 1924, Pierce v Society of Sisters, and the 2nd Ku Klux Klan. Historians and sociologists distinguish between the old culture war, which was about Protestant v Catholic and lasted through about 1950, from the new culture war, which is what we have now and tends to center on sexuality, first abortion and then LGBT issues. The two issues blur together if you know where to look. For instance, the NGO Americans United used to be called Americans United for Separation of Church and State and before that Protestants United for Separation of Church and State, with its original mission being to prevent state funding for Catholic schools (as is the case in Canada and Australia).
charcoal_kestrel@reddit
2 is an important part of the answer. We did have very strong Catholic vs Protestant tension in this country. It was a major issue in Prohibition, the immigration act of 1924, Pierce v Society of Sisters, and the 2nd Ku Klux Klan. Historians and sociologists distinguish between the old culture war, which was about Protestant v Catholic and lasted through about 1950, from the new culture war, which is what we have now and tends to center on sexuality, first abortion and then LGBT issues. The two issues blur together if you know where to look. For instance, the NGO Americans United used to be called Americans United for Separation of Church and State and before that Protestants United for Separation of Church and State, with its original mission being to prevent state funding for Catholic schools (as is the case in Canada and Australia).
Frito_Goodgulf@reddit
There is a trivially easy explanation for why no sectarianism in US professional sports.
The teams are not clubs. They're not associations of like-minded members who share a belief or identity or such. So not like the major Glaswegian clubs, with Celtic for the Catholics and Rangers for Protestants. Or soccer clubs around the world (and it's not always religion. Check out Boca Juniors vs River Plate, AC Milan vs Inter, Real Madrid vs Barcelona. None of these rivalry splits focused on religion.)
US professional teams are franchises. Like McDonald's fast food restaurants. They're businesses.
From the beginning of major US professional sports, so baseball's National League, founded on February 2, 1876, every US professional league has operated on a franchise model. Even the modern MLS operates as a franchise model, not organic clubs.
A bunch of rich dudes drew up a business plan for each US professional league. They put out offers that:
Thus, a team owner sinks a big investment before they even buy players and set up the team so they very much want everyone in the team's catchment area to be a supporter of the team. There is absolutely nothing to gain by alienating groups based on religion, or whatever.
GaryJM@reddit
Well said. London is home to sixteen professional football clubs - about one for every 500,000 residents. If American cities had clubs instead of franchises then we might expect, say, a similar number of sports clubs in NYC or Los Angeles County. And those clubs would be organised along neighbourhood lines, which in turn would mean they would often be divided by ethnicity. I'm not saying there would necessarily be serious disorder or anything but it's not hard to imagine that some local rivalries might be rather tense.
Frito_Goodgulf@reddit
Australia's A League is also a franchise model. And like MLS in the US, there's no promotion and relegation.
The lower US professional soccer league, the USL, has three levels, but again, franchises and for now, no promotion nor relegation, although it's an active ongoing discussion. MLS will never join a pyramid.
And promotion/relegation is a key to London's 16 pro clubs. Like Hashtag United, get a bunch of friends together to play charity matches, and boom, less than 10 years later, you're in the Isthmian Premier league.
That can't happen in the US nor Australia.
In both the US and Australia, non-professional soccer is organised on a club basis. And these are often based around ethnic groups. But these are all metropolitan or regional leagues, not national leagues.
But yes, both the US and Australia have seen strife at these amateur and semi-pro levels. I was in a couple of, uh, field and bleacher clearing brawls in my younger playing days. Not fun. Various leagues imposed rules forcing clubs to change names away from ethnic identities to try to dampen passions.
In the 1990s, Sydney saw riots among supporters of various different clubs that represented the disparate Yugoslavian ethnicities. Which didn't help soccer's image in Australian minds. Like the US, soccer is the poor relation among professional sports.
Bullwine85@reddit
They've set a start date for pro/rel in the USL for 2028
https://www.uslsoccer.com/news_article/show/1354227
Master_Spinach_2294@reddit
Some of this exists within the US in terms of the ethnography of, say, Mets fans and Rangers fans in the NYC metro area. But it isn't as deep for the reasons pointed out before in that these are franchises often that have geographic exclusivity for that specific sport in that specific market trying to appeal to the widest band of people possible.
College sports remains the closest thing to this as there are religious schools and there are some seriously heated regional rivalries with all manner of social ties binding the rivalry together. But nothing like association football.
NVJAC@reddit
And the reason for the franchise model is because the National Association (the professional league that preceded the National League) was such a clusterfuck (Keokuk, Iowa even had a team) that the owners who would create the NL wanted better enforcement of the rules with greater stability.
It was pretty common for NA teams to blow off scheduled road trips late in the season to play exhibition games against local opponents to save money. The NL actually kicked out the New York and Philadelphia teams after the first season for doing likewise.
FlamingBagOfPoop@reddit
And it’s a closed system too. Just because someone has the cash available doesn’t mean they can just buy a new franchise. And also when an existing team is up for sale, if enough of the other owners don’t like the person trying to purchase they can shut them out.
PrimaryHighlight5617@reddit
I feel like so many of the questions asked on this sub require people to actually understand the cultures of those asking the question. I never would have known that the teams in England are actual clubs...
Furthermore, I feel like clubs are an artifact of a bygone era. I would not assume a "club" Implied like-minded peers. I would assume that it implied people that just like football!
GaryJM@reddit
I would guess that the vast majority of association football leagues in the world are organised as clubs rather than franchises. The USA, Canada and India are the only franchise-based ones I can think of off the top of my head.
PrimaryHighlight5617@reddit
I don't think that there are any clubs in the United States that are widely recognized either. I suppose the Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts? Maybe the Freemasons? Biker gangs????
GaryJM@reddit
It would certainly liven up Major League Soccer a bit if they started admitting teams of biker gangs.
KoedKevin@reddit
The biggest religious sports rivalry that I can think of is the "Holy War" Mormon V Mormon with University of Utah vs Brigham Young University.
OmegaVizion@reddit
The real answer is that there are, they're just quieter.
Look at the fact there have only been 2 Catholic presidents ever (JFK, Joe Biden) despite the fact that for most of the last 150 years Catholics have made up a plurality of all Christians in the country.
UpbeatPhilosophySJ@reddit
That’s why the 1st amendment religious clause was put in. The government didn’t care so the people didn’t care.
ParadoxicalFrog@reddit
The Christians here tend to be united by their common hatred of Muslims and LGBT+ people.
LifeConsideration981@reddit
We did—it was called the Nativist or No-Nothings movement. Bill the Butcher in Gangs of New York is a great media depiction of it.
The USA has always had religious tolerance, so sectarianism usually only flared up when large amounts of Catholic immigration came at once. It mostly ended with the election of JFK. The concern was a historic Protestant and liberal one—how can you have citizens of a state who also swear allegiance to a church that has its own country? JFK was the proof most people needed that being Catholic did not mean divided loyalties.
American Protestants still have a theological distrust of Rome, but not a social distrust of Roman Catholics. The social distrust is where the sectarianism happens.
jackofspades49@reddit
We have plenty of reasons to hate each other. I'm sure that's one of them to someone.
Rich-Bread7049@reddit (OP)
I am just surprised that rivalries as historic as Notre Dame and Michigan never had a large sectarian edge to it given the history of both schools.
KopitarFan@reddit
Because football IS religion to those fans.
huazzy@reddit
But not enough to routinely resort to violence.
eat_the_rich_2@reddit
I dunno about that, when ohio state went 5 years without beating Michigan in football Ryan Day had to get private security because fans of his own team made death threats against him and his family.
huazzy@reddit
"threats" don't compare.
In these European matches the fanbases are separated physically with walls of police officers surrounding them, there is a strict no alcohol policy in the stadiums, and visiting fans get police escorts and dedicated trains to the city.
RollinThundaga@reddit
(Except for the Eagles)
JustAnotherRandomFan@reddit
Go Birds
Sooner70@reddit
Part of the issue is going to be that the US is so large that something that concerns such a small area (Notre Dame and Michigan) doesn’t necessarily transfer to the larger consciousness.
Case in point: Until a few seconds ago I had no idea that there was a rivalry between ND and M. They’re both a couple thousand miles away and not on my radar in any way, shape, or form… Unless I’m watching the movie “Rudy” but even then it’s only ND.
flp_ndrox@reddit
Michigan football's father, Fielding Yost hated Catholics, greatly disliked Rockne even before he converted, and organized the blackballing that forced the Irish to travel nationwide.
The reason it never seemed to be sectarian was because Michigan was and is a state school. Even a 100years ago they admitted Jewish students in ways the Ivyies wouldn't and had an integrated football team.
leeloocal@reddit
The fact that Rockne was a Lutheran for most of his life makes that even funnier.
dcgrey@reddit
I like to think he converted out of spite. Which, having grown up with Irish Catholics, would have been very on-brand.
leeloocal@reddit
I grew up around Norwegians, and it seems on brand.
c0-pilot@reddit
Ohio state and Michigan is a big rivalry.
PhilRubdiez@reddit
There also was a war between the two states before. The hate runs deep.
admiralkit@reddit
Yeah, but the big loser of the war between Michigan and Ohio was Wisconsin.
PhilRubdiez@reddit
And Michigan. They lost.
admiralkit@reddit
They lost Toledo but they were awarded the Upper Peninsula as a consolation prize, much to Wisconsin's detriment. That's why Wisconsin was the big loser.
PhilRubdiez@reddit
I know. But they also lost.
DirtzMaGertz@reddit
Of course. There's not really a religious element to it though which is what OP is asking about.
lotusbloom74@reddit
Liberty University rightly gets shit on regularly by college sports fans in my experience. BYU also receives a lot of negativity due to its religious ties, at least it seems like a pretty good school though compared to Liberty
DirtzMaGertz@reddit
That's still not really what OP is asking about with the sectarianism though. Yes people shit on those schools, but it's not really part of a rivalry where the rival school has opposing political and religious views and it's an integral part of the rivalry.
Celtic and Rangers is a rivalry that is a Catholic vs Protestant, Loyalist vs Republican. It's extremely religiously and politically charged, and is a huge part of the supporter's cultural identities. There's no real equivalent rivalries in the US, and while Celtic Rangers is probably the most extreme example, these types are rivalries are actually somewhat common in European soccer.
Pretty much all the rivalries in the US are geographical, or related to a history of games between two teams. There's not really the political, cultural, class, religious element to it like you see in European soccer where many of the clubs are tied so heavily to specific communities.
ogorangeduck@reddit
There often is a bit of an incidental class/cultural difference between rival schools (urban nerd school vs more blue-collar agricultural school like UT Austin vs Texas A&M or Michigan vs Michigan State, or private vs public school in the same metro area like USC vs UCLA) but the primary reason is geography
domestic_omnom@reddit
When I was visiting my gfs family in Dayton I noticed that a lot of capital "M"s were crossed out over signs.
Apparently, that was tradition whenever Ohio played Michigan. I admire that pettiness.
Demiurge_Ferikad@reddit
On Ohio State’s end, at least.
GhostOfJamesStrang@reddit
On both ends....
diligentnickel@reddit
most people don’t care. your Palestinian, Ok, Jewish, cool, You attend holy roller churches. it really doesn’t matter. your worship is yours. worship. as long as you catch the pass, make the goal etc. It’s only important to rabble rousers. they are the horrible Karens in the stands that no one likes
anneofgraygardens@reddit
I went to grad school at Michigan and just tried to imagine people having a religious conflict with Notre Dame and it's totally ludicrous. Religion is not really a concern for most Michigan students, and the student body isn't historically all members of a single religion. The US isn't like Northern Ireland where there are two major religions that everyone is connected to, even if they aren't religious. There are hundreds of religious groups and they generally don't influence where you go to college. (Obviously with some exceptions, like I can't imagine what the draw for a non-Mormon would be to go to BYU, but plenty of non-Catholics go to Catholic-run universities like Notre Dame.)
Im_Not_Nick_Fisher@reddit
Large rivalries are often between teams that play each other often. Often enough to keep the rivalry going. There’s also distance. Large European rivalries are often city rivals. BYU and Notre Dame are about 1500 miles apart. They have rarely even played each other in college football. It’s a bit like asking why there’s not a big rivalry between Juve and Newcastle because they both wear black and white stripes. Although them playing against each other would be a big European match, it’s not exactly a rivalry. They’ve played so infrequently and the distance between them is roughly the same.
xRVAx@reddit
Michigan thinks they're the best and it has nothing to do with religion.
They might have had a loosely congregationalist (social gospel) Christianity back at the turn of the 20th century, but they rode the progressive era into being more intellectual than just religious. Think Dewey versus Hodge.
In any case, by the time they were a football powerhouse in the 70s they were solidly secular and religiously diverse.
Also, Michigan's rivalry with Notre Dame was a great early season matchup, but ND chickened out and stopped playing annual games with Michigan starting in the 2010s. GO BLUE!
Outrageous_Garden586@reddit
The Utah vs BYU rivalry is nicknamed the holy war. There are plenty of religious people at U of Utah but it absolutely has a secular vs religious element too it.
kevinlc1971@reddit
There were the Catholics vs Criminoles games back in the day.
WatchThatTime@reddit
Because we accept one another.
pack_merrr@reddit
Nothing of that character really comes to my mind. In my area college (American) football rivalries do get pretty intense, but it's more limited to spirited banter and the rivalries are more based on vague geographics or maybe what school your parents went to rather than any kind of identitarian division.
I think if you think about the differences between American and Soctland or the UK it makes a lot of sense. First of all, half of the people that started the country were (or were descendents of) basically religious weirdos that left or got kicked out of England. Of course religious sectarianism exists to some degree, but the idea of religious tolerance was something a lot of those guys took really seriously and as a result I would argue that idea is baked into our civic DNA a lot more than other places.
Also, we're a lot more spread out. So much of American history only makes sense once you understand that the idea of a western frontier throughout basically our entire history has acted as a pressure valve for American society. Anytime tensions got too high between groups, one of them could always go "West". It's not quite the same, but even today I can still go to rural Montana or Alaska if I want to at least seclude myself from other people. That same kind of release mechanism didn't exist in that way in the UK, except like I mentioned above when the release mechanism is places like America (or Australia, Canada, NZ...). Either way, I think the result of people having the degree of freedom to self segregate and start their own states or their own towns if they wanted in the past is a big reason why regionalism looks the way it does today in America.
Altruistic_Rent_4048@reddit
the US was settled by alot of people getting away from religious persecution, so alot of us here have a live and let live mentality regarding religion.
AM_Bokke@reddit
Heard of the civil war?
4Q69freak@reddit
In HS sports there is an animosity towards private schools (mainly Catholic) because they can recruit where public school can’t. One year in IL, when there were still only 6 classes of football, 7 of the 12 teams in the championship games were Catholic schools. There was one in each class except for one class both teams were Catholic schools.
Ok_Bandicoot_814@reddit
American Sports work very differently from European sports. European sports are largely either religion-based or just team rivalry-based. American sports is much more simpler, you win more than we do I hate you for it. That was basically the entire founding of the Pittsburgh Philadelphia rivalryBecause historicallyPittsburgh is a much more successful city than Philadelphia, but Philadelphia is currently winning that.
17Girl4Life@reddit
Oh heck. The US is deeply sectarian. From the very foundation of our government, there has been a schism between people who prioritize liberty, meaning total personal freedom from government interference and those who prioritize equality, meaning everyone in the nation has equal rights and access to opportunities, which necessitates moderation of personal liberty.
We have never, ever, been a United States of America. The constitutional convention wallpapered over this essential division. It simmered until it exploded in the civil war. It festered until the civil rights movement. And it dominates politics today. Times of economic prosperity lets us ignore it temporarily, and times of economic decline brings it back to the fore. The United States of America is a total fiction.
pmonichols@reddit
Before the US was even a country, the colonial leaders had to get over their religious differences very quickly in order to unite to fight England (Pennsylvania was Quaker, Massachusetts was Puritan/Congregational, Maryland was Catholic, etc).
It is generally considered "out of bounds" to target someone for their religion in anyway. It's not even open for friendly rivalry because there has never been an established national church, unlike most of Europe honestly.
Cowboywizard12@reddit
Because I don't hate New York because of Religion, I hate New York because we New Englanders are simply better than them
IMakeOkVideosOk@reddit
The main thing about the Old Firm is that the sectarian rivalries are carryovers from actual politics and social division. The north of Ireland is still a part of the UK. There was actual tension and violence separate from the field that was happening. The rivalry of Celtic and Rangers is just an extension of that already existing tension.
As for why it isn’t the case in the US is mainly that the US doesn’t really have divisions in society that come close to the Troubles…
To go Notre Dame specifically, as they are the team I have supported my whole life. In Notre Dame’s history it was sort of ND vs all of the older more established institutions but it never coalesced against any specific team. Even our biggest rival we began playing because of the coaches wives.
Not to say there wasn’t rampant anti catholic sentiment. Fielding Yost blocking ND from the Big 10… or the KKK coming to South Bend and getting the shit beat out of them by ND’s student body. It’s more that it wasn’t a specific team that represented the oppression
https://undpress.nd.edu/9780268104344/notre-dame-vs-the-klan/
schoolydee@reddit
its not a thing. other than nd is constantly overrated due to sectarian sports media. but the domers do have touchdown jesus on the library behind the goalpost so they got that going for them.
MidgarZanarkand@reddit
There are some on a smaller scale. I used to live in Valdosta, Georgia, and the high school football rivalry is absolutely low-key a stand-in for race rivalries, Valdosta High is vast-majority black, and Lowndes High is small-majority white. I’m sure a lot of small to midsize southern cities have this as the case as well.
VinceP312@reddit
Separation of Church and State went a long way to remove the power-abuses of one sect interferring with another (and with State sanction), so they were all more or less , live and let live... even if there is/was bias/contempt towards the "other".. it was on such low-level of scale that it never rose to a crisis. I'm sure there's ton of local-area exceptions to this.. especially Anti-Catholic sentiment, but the fact is, discrimination or no discrimination it never rose to the extent of "sectarian violence"
tesseractjane@reddit
Not all sectarianism becomes violence.
gard3nwitch@reddit
Oh, you mean between Catholics and Protestants?
While there absolutely has been anti-Catholic sentiment at times in US history, that's not really much of a thing anymore. And even when it was, IIRC, it was mostly conservative white Protestants hating on everybody else, so groups like the KKK would harass black people and Catholics and Jews and socialists. And, like, that's still a divide we have in our politics to this day. But it's not a specifically Catholic vs Protestant thing.
Also, professional sports teams are for a whole city or region, usually. There aren't really Protestant vs Catholic teams.
ChickyBaby@reddit
I remember my mother telling me that people doubted JFK's ability to gain enough votes because he was Catholic. As someone who is neither Catholic nor Protestant or anything else, I find that particular schism to be incomprehensible. But it has been going on for 500 years.
GudsIdiot@reddit
I feel it is a fairly recent thing to not be discriminatory towards, say, Catholics if you aren’t one yourself. Speaking as a Catholic who converted from a very conservative Lutheran Church (Missouri Synod), back in the 1980s it wasn’t uncommon and I probably participated in it unconsciously as a kid. We’d jokingly call the Catholic High school team “Fish Eaters” or something. But you heard people use the phrase “Catholic or Christian” when inquiring about your background. I’ve seen it to a lesser degree today.
What I think happened is that the whole Evangelical and Conservative Republican movement needed to bring Catholics into their fold and made an effort to tone down the Anti-Catholic rhetoric starting back in 1980.
Prior to then, abortion was seen as a right by the Southern Baptist Convention. They changed their stance on it (it is pretty clear) when they saw they could unite Catholics with their religious block.
Now, unfortunately, Islamic worshipers seem to be fair game for the sectarian hatred many Catholics used to experience. I hate it and will defend Muslims against the accusation that they aren’t “real Americans” because of their faith. We can’t do that in America as Americans or as Christians.
tesseractjane@reddit
Anti-Catholic sentiments are still common in places dominated by Protestant faiths- Evangelical Baptists will tell you the Pope is satanic.
VinceP312@reddit
For a time I went to an Assembly of God Pentecostal Church in an Italian neighborhood in Chicago. While dogmatically, the key protestant objections to Catholic doctrine are firmly alive, there was never once a sentiment that such opposition to the RCC or the Pope was something to bring into interpersonal relations with our Catholic family members or friends. It was strictly a conceptual disagreement.
It's rather interesting how people take institutional disagreement and act like it's a mandate for interpersonal disagreement.
tesseractjane@reddit
Robert Jeffries called the Catholic Church the "genius of Satan," and a "Babylonian cult of paganism," in 2016 and 2018. In 2022 Majorie Taylor Green said she believed Catholicism was "satanic" and that Catholic Bishops were "controlled by Satan." James White, through his Alpha and Omega ministries teaches that Catholicism is a demonic lie. These represent modern incarnations of anti-Catholic sentiments that have been an undercurrent in Protestant America for a long time, Jack Chick tracts included similar "demonic cult" accusations against the Roman Catholic Church and 30 years ago in Topeka Kansas I can tell you the Westboro Baptists often carried signs that proclaimed Catholics or "Papists" would certainly burn in hell.
In my experience, in places where Catholics are a 50% demographic or higher in America there is very little intolerance or fear of Catholics or by Catholics towards other Christian denominations. But in places were Catholics are a demographic minority by a significant margin the anti Catholic sentiment is not a secret, it is loudly and proudly preached from the pulpit to the super market.
VinceP312@reddit
You're just expanding what I said regarding the doctrinal opposition of some Christians towards the RCC institution. No examples of that opposition being used to promote individual animosity. Though , like in all aspects of human affairs everywhere, I'm sure you can find some cases of it.
Plus the "scale" of your examples really pale to indicate a substantial problem. A brochure publisher 50 years ago? A Congresswoman? A very strident family-owned church in Kansas?
And that compares to what? European State-ordered conversion of the population from one denomination to another? lol.
Guess what... I was raised Catholic, and they believe that salvation is earned, in part, through the participation of sacraments. So please tell me how Catholic-immigrant dominated cities like Boston, NYC, Chicago , etc.. were evidence of major societal rifts.
tesseractjane@reddit
The problem doesn't rise to the level of state sponsored conversions, so it isn't a problem, and in your experience in a Protestant congregation in a Catholic neighborhood of a Catholic city you didn't notice strong anti Catholic sentiments so it must not exist? Okay.
It's beyond bizarre to imagine that influential Evangelical preachers teaching that Catholicism is an institution of Satanists wouldn't influence individual animosity, but I am glad it isn't something you have personally experienced.
VinceP312@reddit
Rage on! Assume the worst.
tesseractjane@reddit
I'm not raging. I'm not even Catholic. I just don't think it's accurate to say that all division between Catholics and Protestanism is confined to the theological debate of the Trinity or Transubstantiation.
CarolinCLH@reddit
Sports rivalries have nothing to do with religion here. They are also pretty limited to fans of the various teams and almost no one takes them very seriously. People might get a bit hot during a game, but no one keeps track of what teams our neighbors or co-workers support. It's more of a fun thing.
There has been anti-Catholic sentiment historically. Even as recently as the 1960s some people questioned voting for a Catholic for president.
OmightyOmo@reddit
The US government is busy trying to take away minority rights and make Christian Nationalism the state religion.
Accomplished_Cell768@reddit
I feel like this is multi-factorial. The US is a melting pot where people of different religions are used to mixing with those with beliefs that differ from their own. While it has been changing more recently, religion affiliation has been more of a personal thing than an in group/out group determinant. Religious universities (especially those that are sports powerhouses) have significant student populations from other faiths. The two student athletes I know who went to schools you mentioned (Notre Dame, BYU) were not Catholic or Mormon.
choglin@reddit
Just for the record, I went to grad school at BYU and I’m not Mormon. I was literally the only person I had even heard of being there that wasn’t Mormon. Foolishly, I thought to myself when applying there, “Notre Dame is Catholic and tons of non-Catholics go there.” I was very wrong and naive. It’s wild that you actually know someone else that went to BYU that isn’t Mormon.
deltagma@reddit
I know like 4 or 5 people who went to BYU as a non-Mormon. I say “or 5” cause one joined the Church while going there, so only half counts.
choglin@reddit
Interesting, I wonder what they studied. Like was there a program that was consistently attracting non-members?
benkatejackwin@reddit
I would guess athletics.
deltagma@reddit
Honestly I’m not sure. I never went to college, my wife is who went to BYU. I know one of them did something related to photography or something like that. No idea.
Accomplished_Cell768@reddit
It isn’t unheard of for student athletes that aren’t Mormon to attend BYU. If they get a full ride and they get to play for a high ranking school in their sport for some it is worth putting up with the religious requirements. I know one that went and stayed for all 4 years, but I also know multiple others that very nearly went. As others have mentioned, they also had a quarterback recently that was Jewish.
OceanPoet87@reddit
Famously, the quarterback of BYU a year or two ago was Jewish.
choglin@reddit
Hmm. I guess I should watch more football with my in-laws
ElephantContent@reddit
Many of our states were also set up as religious enclaves. No need to intermingle. Just go to the state with people who believe the same thing as you. Problem solved.
seaburno@reddit
Because in the post WWII US there is very little widespread geographical religious sectarianism. Yes, there are enclaves of religious groups that predominate in various areas, and may be isolates in a more diverse community. Because a majority of the population will leave where they grew up for education, they will mix with people of different religious backgrounds which reduces sectarianism. They will likely move to a third location for employment post education. When they purchase a home/decide where to live/where to raise a family, (outside of certain specific religious enclaves), its going to be a religiously diverse community, where you're more likely to have someone with a different religious backgrounds than a similar religious background.
When it comes to Universities, outside of a few Catholic Universities (Notre Dame/Boston College/Gonzaga) and BYU, there are very few religious schools that have strong sports programs that people take as "their team."
Even Salt Lake City - the home of the LDS Church - is less than 50% Mormon.
But regional sports rivalries are certainly a thing. I moved to "enemy territory" for my NFL and MLB teams. But outside of a few absolute douche bags who make teams they do not play for - and never have played for- their entire identity, its a good fun rivalry. I've gone to games at the other teams stadiums, and worn "my" teams jerseys and hats. 99% of the interactions were fun and pleasant. Even the few guys who tried to start something were stopped by the other fans of the home team.
choglin@reddit
BYU and the University of Utah have a very sectarian rivalry. Whenever they play football it’s referred to as “The Utah Holy War.” It gets pretty intense. In my observation it’s especially intense among older people for some reason (like people 60s +)
LongtimeLurker916@reddit
But I would guess that Utah students are also majority Mormon. Albeit I guess a medium-sized Catholic/Protestant/other group at Utah would still be larger than any presence at BYU.
CommonwealthCommando@reddit
Institutions in America are more flexible. There are Catholics at Harvard and Congregationalists at Notre Dame. There are Mormons in Cambridge and Catholics in Salt Lake City. These lead to people investing less of their identity in the institution, unlike say the historical Maynooth/Trinity divide.
There was also a big push in the 1950s-1960s to patch up the Catholic-Protestant divide, which contributed to less sectarianism overall.
xnatlywouldx@reddit
I am not sure I understand what your actual question is. Are you asking why the U.S. doesn't have football hooliganism or some version of that?
GaryJM@reddit
There are rivalries between some sports clubs where the rivalry goes beyond just sport and has a religious, ethnic or political aspect to it. For example, the one OP mentioned between Celtic and Rangers in Glasgow - Celtic are associated with Catholicism and Irish Republicanism and Rangers are associated with Protestantism and British Nationalism. This leads to a very heated - sometimes even violent - rivalry, as sporting support is intertwined with personal identity.
OP notes that the US has certainly had its share of division between people and yet it doesn't show up in sport, and wonders why that is. As u/Frito_Goodgulf points out, it's presumably because American sports teams aren't organised as clubs that represent a particular community, they are franchises that are intended to appeal to a wide audience.
xnatlywouldx@reddit
Well, I think there are a few points worth considering here -
The most popular team sports are associated with either colleges/universities (i.e. the aforementioned Notre Dame) or with cities/larger regions. The overwhelming majority of Catholics in the United States are not going to root for Notre Dame just because Notre Dame is a Catholic university; But if you get a scholarship to study business there and you're a Methodist or something, yeah, you might also decide you like cheering for a winning football team. A lot of people in the United States who root for college/university teams also don't attend that college or have never attended college at all, but they root for them for the simply reason of proximity. The games are within an hour's drive away, they have a large social component, they're things you can do with your family - so they go, they become fans, even if they never attended the school. Sometimes alumni stay fans of their college team even if they move somewhere else.
As for why there are no intense rivalries between religious schools - well, because not all religious schools have teams worthy of rivalries. BYU is not known for its consistent athletic excellence in football or basketball. It has good streaks and bad streaks. Notre Dame is a bonafide franchise of excellence. You may as well ask why there's no rivalry between Schwinn and Ferrari.
The Celtics are not a "Catholic" team because they are from Boston. Celtics fans are people from Boston. It doesn't matter what kind of Bostonian they are. They live in Boston, so they root for Boston teams. Their name alludes to a lot of Irish people in Boston, but that doesn't make it a team for Irish Americans. People of Irish descent who live in New York aren't going to care about a Boston team.
Pro sports franchises - NBA, NFL, MLB - establish teams based on locality. If you live in Atlanta, you're probably a Braves fan. It cuts across class and race, because who else are you going to root for? There are some cities that are so big they have multiple sports franchises in pro organizations - think of the New York Yankees vs the New York Mets. And in these fandoms, there is sometimes a fine distinction of class/locality - Yankees fans tend to live in Manhattan and the Bronx (where Yankee stadium is), and Mets fans tend to be from the other outer boroughs, which are more working class. But even then you'll find wealthy Mets fans from the tonier parts of Queens and working class Yankees fans from the Bronx. And its not about other ethnic tensions, because its about locality and class.
jvc1011@reddit
listenyall@reddit
College spots has only become as culturally important as it is now relatively recently, like since the 1950s
Catholic/Protestant violence was a big deal before that (like, the KKK was primarily an anti-immigrant, anti-Catholic organization for a few decades) but sectarian rivalry like that hasn't been a major thing since at least JFK being president
moose098@reddit
Sectionalism was basically our form of sectarianism. Doesn’t really matter much anymore, but historically it was a major feature of American politics.
sean8877@reddit
Most people don't care that much what religious affiliation a school has (ok maybe the exception is BYU which would be backed by most Mormons). It's more a regional thing, people usually root for the team that is located in the same state or region they live and less so based on religious affiliation.
Smorgas-board@reddit
Sport rivalries in the US rarely, if ever, take any sort of political angle to them let alone sectarian. Americans see sports as an escape from that, not something to be a tool of. So rivalries in the US are either based on geography or familiarity(like playing each other in high stakes several times)
frisky_husky@reddit
The piece that's missing here is that the sectarian themes in UK sports rivalries didn't COME from sports rivalries. The sports rivalries just happened to map onto existing sectarian divides that were also (and even MORE saliently) political divides. This was not the case in the US. Whatever anti-Catholicism was in the US at this time, it wasn't matched by any kind of organized anti-Protestantism on the part of the Catholic minority. There was no equivalent of the Troubles, which was fundamentally a political conflict, not a religious one, to keep the religious divide salient. The political goal for American Catholics was not separation from the rule of a Protestant administration, but integration into a majority Protestant society.
I live in Canada now, where there was an entrenched sectarian division between Catholics and Protestants, which also mapped substantially onto a political, geographic, and linguistic divide between French-speaking Catholics and English-speaking Protestants, which often left English (or Gaelic) speaking Irish Catholics somewhere in the middle. The US had no such divide, because there wasn't much of anything for the religious division to map onto, particularly on the part of American Catholics.
Danibear285@reddit
There is . There’s called Mormons
Danibear285@reddit
We aren’t like you
FreeStateOfPortland@reddit
Since baseball is basically a religion in the United States, I think the Yankees vs Red Sox rivalry would qualify. I still can’t recall a better feeling than seeing A-Rod cry after losing in game 7 of the 2004 ALCS.
cats-n-cafe@reddit
When it comes to sports, they really don’t care if you follow the religion the school or team may be associated with. They are building a sports team than they think can win and they don’t care what religion they are.
GSilky@reddit
Freedom of religion removed the need for competition between religions. The British Isles have a long history of punishing people for being the wrong religion, which makes that religion more dear to the persecuted. Turns out, if government leaves it alone, everyone stops being religious or using their religion to make a point.
PrimaryHighlight5617@reddit
You are misunderstanding what it means to be a Catholic school. A Catholic school is a educational institution run by Catholics. There is no particular focus on religious education at Notre Dame and you certainly do not need to be Catholic to go there.
Regarding religious rivalry in college sports, it is career ending to discriminate based on religion and illegal as an employer or someone with hiring authority to do so. You will not be able to get a job out of college if you are seen as a business risk.
Capable-Pressure1047@reddit
It’s still a thing in the area I was born and raised, but it’s a little more subtle now. The rivalry is between the Catholic HS and the public HS, then Notre Dame and the state university. People will frequent the bars that are aligned with their allegiance.
SavannahInChicago@reddit
You are missing a lot of Irish history. Sectarianism in Northern Ireland has very little to do with sports. So little that I have no idea where you got this thought that college teams would breed sectarianism.
Hundred of years ago England invaded Ireland, forbidding them from practicing Catholicism and making them second class citizens. They passed laws against the Irish to keep them poor and unable to fight back. The Irish Potato Feminine was a genocide. There was other food, but the Irish were not allowed to the it, the were only allowed potatoes. So when blight happened there was other food the Irish could have eaten, but the English did not want them to have it so so many Irish people starved that they still have not gotten their population to pre-famine levels.
In the 20th century the Irish would fight back and become their own country, the Republic of Ireland. Only Northern Ireland did not support this new country and stayed in the UK with England. This has its only really complicate history I am not getting into here. We don't have time. However, in Northern Ireland the protestants stayed in power with support for the UK.
By the time we get to The Troubles in the mid-century, things have become very dangerous. "Peace walls" or massive walls separating catholic and protestant neighborhoods had to be erected to stop bombs from being thrown into opposing neighborhoods. Catholics were arrested and started hunger strikes. There were a lot of bombing from paramilitary groups on both sides for decades. A lot of innocent people who lived there died.
Even today, the country is very separated even though the violence has died down. Under sectarianism, Catholicism and Protestantism are not simply religions, but cultures. You can be an atheist there and still identify as Catholic or Protestant. My Irish Studies teacher told a story about Northern Irish students being confused that American students do not always identify with one or the other. The two groups rarely have much contact, hate parades are still common, and tensions are still high between the groups.
Hope you learned something. Sectarians is not about sports rivalries, they are about hundreds of years of oppression in the name of religion and empire.
rawbface@reddit
Freedom of religion was always a huge part of our founding beliefs.
Those beliefs are and always have been under attack, but even in the narrowist, most conservative interpretation of that belief, the freedom to be any denomination of Christianity you want has always been well protected.
Anthrodiva@reddit
There are, but they don't erupt in violence. I think because any Tom, Dick, or Harry that wants to can call themselves a pastor and start a store front church. So no reason, just splinter and off you go!
jreid1985@reddit
Jehovah’s Witnesses were lynched during WW2. Quakers and Mormons were targeted for violence. People feared a Catholic president. You just don’t know our country’s history.
Rich-Bread7049@reddit (OP)
Ok but that has nothing to do with sports maybe read the actual post
Trinx_@reddit
The question wasn't as clear as you think, my man.
rrsafety@reddit
Dude, that wasn’t the question.
Adamon24@reddit
Anti-Catholicism was a massive deal in 19th and early 20th Century America and spawned massive policy fights, the Know Nothings, and the 2nd wave of the KKK. Even by 1960, JFK had to go out of his way to mollify anti-Catholic fears among Protestant voters.
That being said, the primary social division in American society has almost always been race. And even most “devoted” bigots still have limited bandwidth. So as Catholic-majority groups became more integrated, sectarianism really fell off as a major topic.
Trinx_@reddit
Notre Dame actuality fought off the KKK in the 1920s, although a sect still persists outside of town. I went to a protest against them as a kid in the early 2000s.
AliMcGraw@reddit
The short answer to your very complex question is that Catholics massively overdelivered in WWII, proving their patriotism and dispelling fears they were loyal to the Pope above the country. Irish and Italian Catholics "earned" whiteness in the war.
There's pockets of sectarian craziness and bumps along the road, but WWII really put to bed suspicions that Catholics would secretly fight for the Pope. Big reason we got a Catholic WWII veteran as president within 15 years.
AliMcGraw@reddit
(Specific to the Notre Dame bit of your question, Notre Dame was -- as I think still is -- the largest supplier of Navy Officers of any school in the country except the Naval Academy.)
Trinx_@reddit
Notre Dame and Navy have very respectful games. It's always a big deal when Navy is coming to play.
yinzerthrowaway412@reddit
JFK was still heavily targeted for being a Catholic though. The protestant south did not like him.
It’s died down but there are still differences. I’ve had friends from rural areas feel surprised with how “Catholic” my city feels lol
Trinx_@reddit
I went to Notre Dame and grew up around there. I always thought of Catholicism as a powerful entity. By rivalry, do you mean in sports or just bigotry? In sports, we don't tend to associate the religion with the sport too much (although Touchdown Jesus still faces the stadium on the side of the library at ND). We're the "Fighting Irish" not the "Fighting Catholics." I guess I just really don't understand your question.
No_Entertainment_748@reddit
Most of our rivalries are cultural and geographically based. Also the first ammendment kinda made religious rivalries a moot point in everyday society.
SteampunkExplorer@reddit
Maybe sectarianism just isn't enough of a thing in every day life? I know we've got a history of prejudice, but we never had a succession of crazy monarchs pushing each other off the throne and going "okay, now THIS denomination dies", never had Oliver Cromwell, never had Henry VIII, et cetera. We definitely had those wacky Puritans, but they only had power in a small region, a while before the actual USA was founded, and if anything they ended up making it irreligious. ;w;
Anyway, I remember one time when I was a teenager, a Catholic priest was a guest speaker in my tiny hillbilly Evangelical church, and we all thought it was so cool.
New_Entertainer_4895@reddit
Race is a far far bigger dividing line in the US than religion.
We actually did have Black baseball teams and white baseball teams (there was actually a white world series of baseball and a black one).
When segregation ended most of the black baseball players went and joined the white teams (better pay) and the black baseball teams pretty much all collapsed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negro_league_baseball
Bot_No_5@reddit
The USA was founded on religious freedom. Trying to tell someone which religion to follow or how to practice their religion (if any) is discouraged.
ZaphodG@reddit
The US Civil War had between 620,000 and 850,000 deaths. 2% of the population. The slave-dependent agricultural south vs the industrialized north. 150 years ago, there was a massive sectarian divide.
rrsafety@reddit
But not in sports, which is what the question is asking.
qrysdonnell@reddit
There’s a not a lot of association on teams with sects or ideologies around here. There are a few rivalries where there are some minor undercurrents that sometimes surface. For instance I’m a Red Bull New York fan and back in the early days of the Metrostars the supporters groups put a lot of effort to keeping fascist fans out of the groups, so the teams support has an anti-fascist stance. When NYCFC started a lot of the fans wanting a fascist supporters group found a home.
So in addition to the rivalry that would naturally happen due to being two teams in the same region we have an under current of fascist/anti-fascist. Not enough that random fans know it, but it’s there.
I don’t know of any other MLS team having a similar dynamic, but I wouldn’t be surprised if Galaxy/LAFC fans have some political undercurrents in their rivalries.
AnybodySeeMyKeys@reddit
Because there's the doctrine of separation of church and state, despite the best efforts of fundamentalists to blur that line. Anybody who actually wants otherwise doesn't know their American or Christian history.
Crayshack@reddit
In a lot of countries, different religious groups are heavily associated with different ethnic, regional, and political identities. Things are much more mixed together in the US.
loweexclamationpoint@reddit
We have race to hate each other about. Race is fairly new to the UK and Ireland.
dan_blather@reddit
Yeah, but was there ever a heated rivalry between an HBCU and a non-HBCU?
Durham1988@reddit
So maybe there's a difference between "rivalries" and just plain prejudice. If a rivalry is more of a god natured fun sort of thing those exist mainly between geographic area like states or neighborhoods or between universities. From the mid 20th century on at least there has been a sort of understanding among most educated people that if you had a religion you shut up about it in the public space. That may have changed a little since the rise of evangelical nuts but I still couldn't tell you the religion of most of my casual friends or coworkers.
Ok_Gas5386@reddit
I think most of us (notable exception being Philly) are committed to the notion that sports should be fun. Sectarian conflicts aren’t fun.
EagleCatchingFish@reddit
I think part of it is because your sectarian rivalries also often reflect ethnic rivalries with a long history.
I went to BYU. TCU (Texas Christian University) was in our conference, but our rival is University of Utah. It used to be a pretty fierce rivalry. Its name is "The Holy War," because one school is Mormon and the other is secular, even though most students at both are Mormon. The BYU-Utah rivalry has diminished a lot since I was there, which is probably good.
dangleicious13@reddit
Our sectarian issues have always centered around race.
mckenzie_keith@reddit
Non sectarianism was a core value of the founders. Getting away from sectarian strife was one of the key motivations of many of the early settlers in the US colonies.
Ill-Butterscotch1337@reddit
There are, they just don't get to that level typically.
Effective_Coach7334@reddit
We learned from your mistakes
caiaphas8@reddit
Just to clarify, there is no sectarianism in England and wales.
There is some in Scotland connected to two football clubs, but in reality that is more to do with Irish immigrants and political questions around the Scottish and Irish constitutions.
There is some sectarianism in Ireland and Northern Ireland, but to describe the troubles as a sectarian conflict is overly simplistic.
But in short sectarianism isn’t really a problem in the U.K. or Ireland
MoronLaoShi@reddit
College football is the closest to this. Rivalry games called the Border War, the Holy War, etc.
ubiquitous-joe@reddit
Bitter religious sectarianism is less our legacy than Europe’s, so its legacy doesn’t quite exist as sports rivalry. There was outright exclusion at times, eg country club excluding Jews (among others) from golf courses. But less so proxy rivalry.
Now, race has historically been our bigger division than religion, and many times there were sports proxies for that. In boxing, the first “Great White Hope” James Jeffries vs Jack Johnson set off several “race riots.” Of course we had segregated teams entirely hence the Negro Leagues in baseball. Hank Aaron received death threats en route to breaking Babe Ruth’s record. Before the NBA integrated, you had barnstorming groups like the Harlem Globe Trotters, and then into the 70s and 80s in a subtler way, the Larry Bird Boston Celtics as the “white” team vs the “black” Magic Johnson Lakers. But by the time you get it the 90s, it’s less that, and stars like Michael Jordan and Tiger Woods just become phenomena unto themselves.
seinfeld4eva@reddit
In the US, you usually root for the teams in your city or region. People don't cheer for the Boston Celtics because they're Irish or Catholic -- they cheer for them because they live in Boston. American cities don't really have intense, ancient tensions between proud religious sects competing with one another through sport. There are just too many options for sports (hockey, soccer, football, baseball, basketball), and fantasy sports and online betting bring interest to the general public on a national level.
spiritualspatula@reddit
Sorta depends upon the era. There were definitely some controversies with BYU and how the LDS regarded African Americans. Wyoming boycotted playing them and it was a bit of a shitshow. Catholics have all been a controversial concept at times, just not really in modern history so far as I know.
Endy0816@reddit
More room for groups to spread out in rural areas and simultaneously you can only be so choosey in urban areas.
Prize_Consequence568@reddit
Because.
ATLien_3000@reddit
We're mobile.
gumdrop83@reddit
I wrote a paper about the human geography of Glasgow sectarian football a long time ago, so you’re asking a very interesting question.
There’s a lot of differences related to the school-based nature of a lot of sports in the US, economic class, physical proximity of teams, and perceptions of sport as a gendered activity (do men bring wives & kids to games, and how does that influence behavior)
How this all comes together is the elite students of 1925, let’s say, are at university. The students join marching band and play school songs. In that era, cheerleaders were generally male, and it’s competitive to become one (4 future US presidents did college cheerleading). Men and women go on dates to games. As university alumni, they bring the entire family. University game schedules are often organized around campus-wide events like Homecoming and parent visit weekends. Thousands of people organize cookouts in stadium parking lots. There is a huge amount of social, community, and institutional pressure to keep the environment at games a positive representation of the well-scrubbed American ideal
Mt8045@reddit
Religion has never been institutionalized in the US unlike in Britain and Ireland, where Catholic vs protestant grudges run deep. Class and geographical rivalries tend to matter more. Particularly in college sports, many instate rivalries have one school with a snootier, higher class reputation than the other that helps drive animosity.
TheRealFinale-@reddit
I cannot imagine how much more infuriating the worst parts of football culture would be if sectarianism was a thing.
mittenciel@reddit
These places are so, so, so, so, far apart that geography is a bigger difference than anything else.