So, the Olympics are going on, complete with the over-commercialized hypocrisy attendant on athletic events and international gatherings. I did enjoy seeing the results of the womens' saber event, and I am paying attention to the other martial arts events going on. It is a disappointment, though, that the major news media do not show them, especially given the general public taste for such endeavors--at least in the US, where "ultimate fighting" is the fastest-growing televised sports event, and "football," with its often-martialized violence, has long held dominance.
Ahem.
I have the idea that a great many of the sports that are taught in schools in the US ought to be taught, whether the school system in the US exists to prepare students for active, informed citizenship or for life as corporate automata. Football, baseball, volleyball, soccer, tennis, golf (if it can really be called a "sport"), cheerleading (similarly): what do these things do to further either purpose? What do they do that is not replicated and even excelled by, say, marching band?
No, what need to be taught are the combat arts. Boxing, wrestling, track and field, shooting, fencing, judo, taekwondo: these things teach discipline and instill physical prowess (which are the usualy justifications for other sports in the schools), and, more importantly, they actually do serve a purpose in the lives of citizens.
Here, I am about to voice my major departure from solid liberalism. I honestly and truly, in my heart of hearts, believe that part of the responsibility attendant upon citizenship is the ability to, at need, act in defense of the nation. Sometimes that defense is, in fact, against those elected to govern said nation, but in many other cases it is against crime and assault. In those cases, being able to hit a ball with a stick or put one through a net will do little good, but being able to throw a heavy object or run fast or restrain someone will.
Even in a more local situation, leaving aside questions on nationalism (and the many problems associated with it; just because I happen to hold a view does not necessarily mean that I think said view is perfect), the potential necessity of self-defense makes instruction in some form of combat art a desirable thing.
Hic est.
Ahem.
I have the idea that a great many of the sports that are taught in schools in the US ought to be taught, whether the school system in the US exists to prepare students for active, informed citizenship or for life as corporate automata. Football, baseball, volleyball, soccer, tennis, golf (if it can really be called a "sport"), cheerleading (similarly): what do these things do to further either purpose? What do they do that is not replicated and even excelled by, say, marching band?
No, what need to be taught are the combat arts. Boxing, wrestling, track and field, shooting, fencing, judo, taekwondo: these things teach discipline and instill physical prowess (which are the usualy justifications for other sports in the schools), and, more importantly, they actually do serve a purpose in the lives of citizens.
Here, I am about to voice my major departure from solid liberalism. I honestly and truly, in my heart of hearts, believe that part of the responsibility attendant upon citizenship is the ability to, at need, act in defense of the nation. Sometimes that defense is, in fact, against those elected to govern said nation, but in many other cases it is against crime and assault. In those cases, being able to hit a ball with a stick or put one through a net will do little good, but being able to throw a heavy object or run fast or restrain someone will.
Even in a more local situation, leaving aside questions on nationalism (and the many problems associated with it; just because I happen to hold a view does not necessarily mean that I think said view is perfect), the potential necessity of self-defense makes instruction in some form of combat art a desirable thing.
Hic est.