I was raised in Vancouver, Canada…where the riots happened on June 15th, 2011 after the Vancouver Canucks lost the Stanley Cup final. I want to follow up with: “…but my city isn’t really like that.” And it isn’t.

So what happened?

They’re calling it the “Vancouver effect”: out of 200 sports riots, we’re the only city that riots after losing a game rather than winning it.

The result was this:

Over this past month, we’ve seen similar violent disturbances erupt in Huancayo between students from the local university and the police. The students from the Universidad Nacional del Centro del Perú (UNCP; The National University of Central Peru) organized marches and locked down the university to expose the corruption within different faculties and particularly of the Head Dean, Carlos Adauto Justo.

Just like in Vancouver, there were police officers with shields and masks, and over one hundred citizens were wounded from physical aggression or from tear gas while a similar number of people were arrested.

Unlike in Vancouver, the students in Huancayo didn’t loot any stores or take celebratory pictures in front of the destruction.

The major difference between the two scenarios is in the purpose behind the violence. The students have made the purpose of their strike clear. Violence is a byproduct, a reaction to police aggression upon the Dean’s command to “bring order” (link in Spanish).

On the other hand, pundits are having a hard time explaining the violence behind the “Vancouver effect.” Did Vancouverites so strongly identify with their hockey team that the loss felt like a personal attack on their self-worth and identity? Were the aggressors just hooligans looking to start trouble? Were they even from Vancouver? Did people follow along because of a herd mentality?

In your opinion, what’s worth physically fighting for or becoming violent for? What would justify violence for you?