Saturday, July 30, 2005
More on football: I think it has a bad rep among academics for three reasons. 1) It has been written that most NFL coaches are conservatives, as well, I imagine, older (college, pro) participants. But are we measuring the necessary moral lessons of the game or the lessons of the geographies where it is taken most seriously? Hockey is no less a game of contact, though I doubt that the coaches of the Scandinavian leagues would stump for Bush. 2) The advertisements that run during televised games speak for the imbecility of its viewers. But again, so what? On one hand lots of intelligent people watch football. On the other hand, lots of imbeciles watch figure-skating. Should we impugn sports altogether, and be rid of one of the few cultural terms that is worldwide? What next, dancing? Lots of imbeciles and imbecile conservatives dance. 3) It needs contact to be played; that is, it’s a sport not unlike soccer, wrestling, hockey, boxing, baseball at times, basketball, roller-derby and so on. Can anyone prove that the moral lesson taken from these games is one that plays out in social agression? Has anyone studied this? Can it not go the other way? Is not the concern about football in academic circles one that confuses terms, contact and violence? One might as well argue that the sedentary nature of writing makes shut-ins of writers.