Noam Chomsky thinks similarly.

I don't think it's sport per se but spectating. Think about it, watching a group of men who are strangers to you, run around after some ball... weird. Participation has some sound benefits.

I despair of money spent on spectating (eg stadiums) v actively encouraging participation.

Well said, Peter.
A reason to play sport is to be presented with a series of physical and mental challenges during a game, and to enjoy overcoming them.
It is really a battle of wits, but unfortunately, wits seem to elude many of its participants.
People are conditioned societally to believe that winning, competition, and ego are important, without being aware that having fun is the main aim.

This is an arrogant piece of writing. The author makes no secret of the camp in which he belongs and sees himself as emotionally and intellectually superior to those whom he denigrates. If he truly believed this to be the case then he would not need to denigrate anyone. If he were truly secure in his superior status then he would not need to tell us about it.

Whatever he says of sport can be said of religion. Religion may not be the opiate of the masses anymore but it is the opiate of many people including this author. Nothing can cripple the emotional and intellectual development of a child more than religion. Dressing little children as Mary and Joseph and telling them they have a baby who has saved the world from all its evil ways. Forcing them to behave in totally unnatural ways out of fear of a God that no one can prove even exists. Making them join the tribe at church every week. Punishing them for not knowing the bible parrot fashion. Choosing who their friends can be based on their allegiance to the tribe. Drowning out any reasonable debate because religious people are people of faith and not reason. Crushing any display of fear or anger and telling them God will look after you. Preventing any display of joy or delight because life is what it was for Jesus who suffered interminably.

You could write a whole book on how religion stifles everything in us that makes us human beings. To suggest that he is above all the shortcomings of sports lovers is the height of conceit and utterly sinful according to his own criteria. Why should we listen to a man who preaches one thing and lives another?

He spends every word he writes trying to convince himself that he is somehow gifted in relation to other men. Such insecurity could not be more obvious.

Right on, Phanto.

What we see in Peter Sellick's article is the usual contradiction of the educated elites, who mix social climbing superiority with socialist egalitarianism. Peter sneers at how sport promotes "tribalism" while promoting tribalism himself. Peter's peer group are the arty farty types who think that they are so superior to everybody else. His peer group does not worship sport, so his peer group is therefore intrinsically superior to the lowly "intellectually bankrupt" peasants who love sport.

Sneering at "tribalism" is a defining characteristic of the educated elites. The presumption is, that people who define their identities as being of a particular nation are beyond the pale. Nationalism is a dirty word. A true educated elite world saver considers himself a "citizen of the world." They are from a different tribe to "tribalists."

Peter also sneers at the concept of competition. This seems to be another defining characteristic of the educated elite. The idea that children should compete against each other is anathema to socialist social theory which teaches children must learn that they are equal in every way, and therefore need not compete in anything. Thus we get the total non co operation of the teaching profession in examinations to the hostility of "intellectually bankrupt" parents who demand to know how their children are faring in their studies.

All in all, Peter's rant is just a confirmation of his card carrying membership of a supposedly morally and intellectually superior Brahmin caste. It should get him into a few parties where the Chardonnay flows like water. Sneering at the tribal peasants means that Peter is "one of us" and not "one of them."

I agree with Valley Guy:

God bless those who play sports, but the problem is all that passivity around them. Watching is NOT a sport and life is too precious to be wasted on watching a few others living it.

Further, I suspect that government is using sport to lull the masses, as giving them games turns them away from rebellion.

There is another context which is affected by the dominance of sporting culture in Australia, narratives not just in social relations but media and politics.

Everything needs to be a binary position, if not win lose, good-bad, black-white etc., and very little grey.

This dumbs down narratives and issues, and precludes Australians from engaging in informed debate.

A benign example recently was the Asian Cup Football Final between Oz and Sth Korea, 700 million viewers internationally (Telstra Exchange*), but the attitude in Oz from NRL/AFL types and media was a smug 'I don't pay any interest to that' helped by no mention in media.... so religion as sport with a touch of xenophobia and ignorance.

It's hardly surprising when our modern media political complex seems to be driven by religion or religious types of attitudes from the GOP of ageing white men...., i.e. kooky neo con conservative christians in the USA who avoid evidence, facts, analysis, rational thought, reflection and weighted discussion, it's all about 'their' beliefs.

What do we get? Speeded up yelling or shouting of one's opinions, smearing of opponents, muddying the waters, repetition, avoiding nuance, restricted boundaries whether time or subject etc., and retaining the national status quo while the world moves on..... Oz retains puerile primary school yard behaviour for our public discourse.

* For other examples of paradoxes of phenomena occurring inside or out of Oz deemed to be negative in Australia, try climate change action, fast/cheap or free internet, diverse society and culture, proximity to Asian century, football (not ARL/AFL), potential of solar power, investment in public transport, not treating real estate as religion......

.

Happy Resurrection Day to all !

.

Time to have a little talk with Jesus :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WxLA1NX9gxY&list=RDWxLA1NX9gxY#t=3

.

You can't talk to Jesus, Banjo. He's been dead for 2000 years.

.

I can talk to him, Lego, but he can't hear me 'cause he just ain't there !

.

This cosy little fest between you does not give you credit.

.

Dear Peter/Sells,

.

You wrote :

« This cosy little fest between you does not give you credit. »
.

That’s an interesting comment, Sells. It takes my mind back three months to the dramatic attack on the French satirical magazine, “Charlie Hebdo, during which Saïd and Chérif Kouachi slaughtered some of France’s most renowned satirical cartoonists and journalists for mocking the prophet Mohammad.

The Al Qaida militants in Yemen who claimed responsibility for the killings were convinced it was the will of Allah to revenge the prophet.

The God of those Al Qaida militants is not only the God of the Muslims, it is also the God of the Jews and the Christians. It is the same monotheistic Abrahamic God.

Who, then, is this egocentric God who expects everyone to bow and scrape, to praise and worship him, who has no sense of humour and can’t bear anyone gently making fun of him? If he is so superior and so powerful why is he so sensitive and so vulnerable?

What’s so wrong with “taking the Mickey” out of someone, a member of the family, a friend, a person of authority, the Prime Minister, the Queen, God, anybody?

Satirical cartoonists are the modern court jesters. They entertained the pharaohs in Ancient Egypt. They were popular with the Aztecs. In Europe as everywhere else on earth, they could give bad news to the king that no one else would dare deliver.

Court jesters, including those of the omniscient, the omnipotent and the omnipresent, Peter, are neither to be slaughtered nor even admonished. They are to be encouraged, appreciated and heeded.

It is the courtesans, the adulators, the flatterers, the worshipers, the grovelers, the yes-men, the backscratchers, the hypocrites you shouldn’t trust.

You also wrote :

« My innate snobbishness, earned from being a sporting reject myself and many hours reading in the playground, I am biased. »

No comment.

Allow me simply to add that those who practise sport are called sportsmen/women and those who talk about it are called sports fans. They are either one or the other.

.

I always thought that BAs were the opiate of the poseur class. Get a worthless bit of credential, assume a superior attitude and do as one is told by Lefty high-priests.