Show All Image
Learn in Brief{Click on Me}
WAR MINUS SHOOTING
The Sporting Spirit by George Orwell
War Minus Shooting- The Sporting Spirit
George Orwell (1903-1950), who was born in Bengal and educated in England, is well known for his greatest novel, Animal Farm, a masterly written political satire on the Russian revolution. His last work, Nineteen Eighty-four, is a grim forecast of the future of totalitarianism, written in the form of a readable novel. The Sporting Spirit first appeared in the Tribune, in December 1945 and is a refreshingly frank expression of Orwell’s views on competitive games.
George Orwell expresses his views on competitive sports in the lesson War Minus Shooting, which also appeared as an article in Tribune in December 1945. He says that, in good golden days that are during Roman Times and in 19th century sports were not taken seriously. Some games like fishing, cockfighting and ferrying of rats did exist long ago, but they were unorganized and were meant only for the rustic communities. The posh and the elite never gave any importance to games Dr. Arnold, the founder of the Modern Public School, viewed games as a mere waste of time. It was later felt that some type of group activity is essential for the outlet of physical strengthen and sadistic impulses. It is this opinion which brought the existence of a more decent word “Sports”.
Then chiefly in England and in United States games were built up into a heavily financial activity and attracted the crowds by rousing savage passions and this infection spread from country to country. Games are taken seriously in London and New York. In the middle ages they were played with much physical brutality and were not mixed up with politics or a cause of group hatreds.
Organized sports then started gaining momentum and flourished in the Urban Communities also. The English public schools in the later part of the last century became centres of several important sports. In Countries like Rome, Byzantium, London, New York, games were taken seriously. New sports namely walking, swimming, snowballing, climbing and finding houses made inroads in different parts of the world. England and United States witnessed costly games and savage passions were aroused.
Sports then began to be linked with nationalism. At the same time they were also said to be the cause of politics, brutality and group hatred. Rivalry began to develop especially when the games were played between Jews and Arabs, Germans and Czechs, Indians and British, Italians and Yugoslavs, Russians and Porki. Sports have become one of the main reasons of international rivalry. The author suggests that instead of making things worse by sending forth a team of eleven men, labelled as national champions to do battle against some rival team and allowing it to be felt on all sides that whichever nation defeated “will loose face”.
The huge crowds in Boxing, Football and Cricket matches started rattling the opposite players with boos and insults. Harsh and fiercer passions began to be aroused in England and also several other countries. Even a gentleman’s game like cricket, which is also called a leisurely game, was under question.
The controversy was witnessed over bodyline bowling and over the rough tactics of Australian team that visited England in 1921. A boxing match between white and coloured boxers gave a horrible sight. In countries like India or Burma, it is necessary at football matches to have strong cordons of police to keep the crowd from invading the field. The first big football match that was played in Spain about some time ago led to an uncontrollable riot.
George Orwell says that with the passage of time International sports became a mimic warfare. Sports began to be equated with war minus shooting. Instead of promoting good will, they were resulted in much hatred and further fostering the rivalry among the nations. Sports have become competitive when they are played to win and the game has little meaning unless it is won. As soon as the question of prestige arises players do every technique to win the game as I think that their countries dignity would be lost if that are lost. The attitude of the spectators is also important in creating much rivalry they forget that victory gained through cheating is meaningless. Spectators definitely try to influence the game by cheering their own side by insulting opposite players with boos and insults. The author feels that modern games have abundant hatred, jealousy, boastfulness and ignoring of all the rules and witnessed of all the violence.
Nearly all the sports practised nowadays are competitive. You play to win, and the game has little meaning unless you do your utmost to win. On the village green, where you pick up sides and no feeling of local patriotism is involved, it is possible to play simply for the fun and exercise: but as soon as the question of prestige arises, as soon as you feel that you and some larger unit will be disgraced if you lose, the most savage combative instincts are aroused. Anyone who has played even in a school football match knows this. At the international level sport is frankly mimic warfare. But the significant thing is not the behaviour of the players but the attitude of the spectators: and, behind the spectators, of the nations who work themselves into furies over these absurd contests, and seriously believe — at any rate for short periods — that running, jumping and kicking a ball are tests of national virtue.
Even a leisurely game like cricket, demanding grace rather than strength, can cause much ill-will, as we saw in the controversy over body-line bowling and over the rough tactics of the Australian team that visited England in 1921. Football, a game in which everyone gets hurt and every nation has its own style of play which seems unfair to foreigners, is far worse. Worst of all is boxing. One of the most horrible sights in the world is a fight between white and coloured boxers before a mixed audience. But a boxing audience is always disgusting, and the behaviour of the women, in particular, is such that the army, I believe, does not allow them to attend its contests. At any rate, two or three years ago, when Home Guards and regular troops were holding a boxing tournament, I was placed on guard at the door of the hall, with orders to keep the women out.
In England, the obsession with sport is bad enough, but even fiercer passions are aroused in young countries where games playing and nationalism are both recent developments. In countries like India or Burma, it is necessary at football matches to have strong cordons of police to keep the crowd from invading the field. In Burma, I have seen the supporters of one side break through the police and disable the goalkeeper of the opposing side at a critical moment. The first big football match that was played in Spain about fifteen years ago led to an uncontrollable riot. As soon as strong feelings of rivalry are aroused, the notion of playing the game according to the rules always vanishes. People want to see one side on top and the other side humiliated, and they forget that victory gained through cheating or through the intervention of the crowd is meaningless. Even when the spectators don't intervene physically they try to influence the game by cheering their own side and “rattling” opposing players with boos and insults. Serious sport has nothing to do with fair play. It is bound up with hatred, jealousy, boastfulness, disregard of all rules and sadistic pleasure in witnessing violence: in other words it is war minus the shooting.
Instead of blah-blah about the clean, healthy rivalry of the football field and the great part played by the Olympic Games in bringing the nations together, it is more useful to inquire how and why this modern cult of sport arose. Most of the games we now play are of ancient origin, but sport does not seem to have been taken very seriously between Roman times and the nineteenth century. Even in the English public schools the games cult did not start till the later part of the last century. Dr Arnold, generally regarded as the founder of the modern public school, looked on games as simply a waste of time. Then, chiefly in England and the United States, games were built up into a heavily-financed activity, capable of attracting vast crowds and rousing savage passions, and the infection spread from country to country. It is the most violently combative sports, football and boxing, that have spread the widest. There cannot be much doubt that the whole thing is bound up with the rise of nationalism — that is, with the lunatic modern habit of identifying oneself with large power units and seeing everything in terms of competitive prestige. Also, organised games are more likely to flourish in urban communities where the average human being lives a sedentary or at least a confined life, and do not get much opportunity for creative labour. In a rustic community a boy or young man works off a good deal of his surplus energy by walking, swimming, snowballing, climbing trees, riding horses, and by various sports involving cruelty to animals, such as fishing, cock-fighting and ferreting for rats. In a big town one must indulge in group activities if one wants an outlet for one's physical strength or for one's sadistic impulses. Games are taken seriously in London and New York, and they were taken seriously in Rome and Byzantium: in the Middle Ages they were played, and probably played with much physical brutality, but they were not mixed up with politics nor a cause of group hatreds.
If you wanted to add to the vast fund of ill-will existing in the world at this moment, you could hardly do it better than by a series of football matches between Jews and Arabs, Germans and Czechs, Indians and British, Russians and Poles, and Italians and Jugoslavs, each match to be watched by a mixed audience of 100,000 spectators. I do not, of course, suggest that sport is one of the main causes of international rivalry; big-scale sport is itself, I think, merely another effect of the causes that have produced nationalism. Still, you do make things worse by sending forth a team of eleven men, labelled as national champions, to do battle against some rival team, and allowing it to be felt on all sides that whichever nation is defeated will “lose face”.
I hope, therefore, that we shan't follow up the visit of the Dynamos by sending a British team to the USSR. If we must do so, then let us send a second-rate team which is sure to be beaten and cannot be claimed to represent Britain as a whole. There are quite enough real causes of trouble already, and we need not add to them by encouraging young men to kick each other on the shins amid the roars of infuriated spectators. The author strongly feels that it is a pressing need to inculcate sportsman spirit among all of us to promote peace and goodwill through sports