School Sports Day

keano_afc wrote: »

All classes have the same protocol, right up to 6th. Everyone gets the same prize.

I wouldn't worry about that, the kids know it's a crock of sh1t.

If you're interested in getting your daughter involved in proper competitive athletics think about joining her up to a local Athletics Club. I was only 5 when my Dad first got me into one and I stayed in it for the next 15 years. I absolutely loved it.

Lt Dan wrote: »

Agree , there must be competition. People must know their place , there must be hierarchy. If they do not like it, toughen up and try to do better next time damn it.

Actually there's a bit of debate over whether hierarchies are really needed any more. Businesses are experimenting with flat organisational structures (Valve is probably the most famous case for gamers.) There's also debate that we may be moving into a Neo-Tribal or Neo-Medieval society based less on hierarchies and more on networks of interdependencies. The EU is often looked at in this case, and if neo-medievalism continues to develop and becomes accepted the idea of nation states could become irrelevant.

It's pretty cool stuff.

Lt Dan wrote: »

But but but that then gives some people silly notions that they are the equal of others. Can't be having that , like

Or worse still, immune from a good bullying!

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

Are we not biologically programmed to have pecking orders though, just like any other animal. The strong usually rise to the top in any given human environment.

In a way we have tended to have pecking orders, but in the first examples of human society it wasn't a hierarchy. Usually it was a case of deferring to expertise or excellence/superiority in specific instances where that was relevant. But just because someone excelled in one area, didn't mean they dominated in all other areas. Unlike now, where a leader of a country may be an expert in economics, but directing legislation and policy on medical issues. There is a presumption that because they got to the top, they have what's necessary to decide on areas they may not be informed in, or excel at. However in tribal society what happened everyone co-operated and worked together for a common goal (survival, basically, until agriculture and animal domestication began) while taking charge in their area of expertise.

I think what you then said explains it.

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

The type of Equality you're referring to is a social construct. The stark reality is that human beings are not equal, we don't all have the exact same attributes, some people are more intelligent, some are more athletic etc etc.

If someone was good at something, that's what they did. Typically it meant men hunted and women gathered (and looked after young babies.) The elderly imparted knowledge, and wisdom. However there's archaeological evidence of the different sexes crossing over into the different roles depending on circumstances. One of the most revealing cases was when they found a man who had been given a female burial. And it was an honoured burial with all the trappings of a woman who was well considered in the society. One theory is that the tribe went through a difficult period, maybe they lacked in food for a prolonged period, or they went through many seasons of inclement weather. This resulting in people dying, and to continue the tribe it was necessary to look after children who may not have had a mother. Another case this could have happened in is where a mother died during childbirth. So the man with the most "female" knowledge crossed over from the hunter role, to the gatherer and carer role. Another theory is that the man displayed the female characteristic for a gatherer from childhood and therefore went straight into the female role.

Tribal society also had diplomats, these were people who interacted with other tribes, to secure help and sometimes ease burdens on each other's tribe. And it's thought that these people were selected for specific traits that would lead to good interactions with other tribes. So the tribes recognised that everyone wasn't equal, but that had traits that lead them to areas where they were beneficial. (Much like the modern idea that some people take to sport, some to business, some to art, etc.) I will point out that the idea that women were natural carers isn't an absolute. There's some theories that say because children couldn't be taken on a hunt with men who were strong and fast, and women were suited to gathering (the ability to see more distinct colours is considered a female trait, and it's thought that women developed it because it was useful in spotting poisonous versus non poisonous food/berries. Although that could be absolute pseudoscience.) And because gathering was more amenable to childcare, the childcare role defaulted to women.

Neo-Tribal and Neo-Medieval theories say that this idea of tribalism will arise again, especially due to technology like the internet allowing for global communication, and technology making a lot of jobs redundant because they will be done by robotics, free up people's time. This tribalism will again be based on co-operation. A lot of Tribal understanding comes from Dunbar's number, which says that any one person can maintain a "tribe" of 150 people. And close relationships with a much smaller number. With neo-tribalism these tribes will not only be based on survival but also on interest and expertise.

The idea is there might be a local tribe, based on theories of localism where the local tribes secures shelter for their 150 members, along with food, electricity etc. However within that local tribe there might only be 10 or so people dedicated to providing these essentials. One of those ten might reach out to a tribe of farmers, or fishers to secure food. Another might reach out to engineers and construction workers to secure shelter. This leaves the other 140 members of the tribe to engage with other tribes. So some of the 140 might be engaged with science, say pharmaceuticals. Maybe ten of them have a small lab, where they do chemical research for medication, while communicating with a bigger pharmaceutical tribe of 150 members all working towards the same goal in pharmaceuticals. Another 10 or so of the 150 local tribe might be engaged in art, or writing, and would reach out to their other tribe of 150 people engaged in similar artistic practice. And this goes on for the whole local tribe, with their members engaging in various activites and as members of other tribes of 150 people. And all those varying tribes are connected via the various networks their tribe members have established, propagating information, knowledge, art, survival needs, farming advances, etc.

The Neo-Medievalism comes into it when there's a bureaucracy involved. This says that not only will there be tribes, but there will be large organisations bureaucrats for managing and conducting the higher level activites of these tribes. Ever specific tribe will have a connection to a larger bureaucracy that connects, supervises and sets goals for their area of expertise.

A lot of this came out of how people operate on the internet. And how information spreads between various seemingly unrelated communities, with entirely different interests, because one member of one community might be involved with another community with a different interest, and that person brings information and ideas to and fro between those communities.

These ideas are in their infancy, but there's some people quite dedicated to them, because the premise of their theories is showing up in the behavior of a lot of different groups.

ScumLord wrote: »

The sports day in our school was basically a doss day. The events were all a bit of craic, I don't think anyone really cared if they won or not, they were just happy to not be doing normal school stuff.

There were no parents there though.

Mine was exactly this too. When did parents start going to sports days?

Noo wrote: »

Mine was exactly this too. When did parents start going to sports days?

In my experience parents showed up a bit early to collect their children on sports day and their was some kind of race for them to take part in if they wanted. I know it happened and still does in towns and villages!

deex wrote: »

I'm a teacher and I have to say, Sports Day in our school isn't geared solely at the sporty kids at all. It's really well-rounded and I think it's excellent.

We have a bunch of stations and the kids are put into groups and spend around 15 - 20 minutes at each station.

Some of them are your standard sports like football and basketball, but we also have obstacle courses, a bouncy castle, a Quidditch match, a tug-of-war with students vs. teachers, ping-pong, Twister...

And there's music and ice-cream. From what I've seen, even the non-sporty kids enjoy it.

I would hazard a guess that a lot of the people with strong views on it haven't been to a school sports days for decades.

They just spotted the topic and thought it was another half-decent platform into which to shoehorn a snowflake POV.

Noo wrote: »

Mine was exactly this too. When did parents start going to sports days?

This +1 when did parents start going to sports days?
Only found this out when one of my colleagues took an afternoon off to go to his kids sports day.