Blood Sports
Daniel Rubin November 18, 2012
Were blood sports an essential part of the early modern era?
Do they have a place in today’s society?
Blood sports of Great Britain and its American colonies in the early modern era encouraged violent tendencies among men. These tendencies were necessary for use in contemporary warfare. Blood sports also helped to solidify class divisions by providing an avenue for the nobility and the rich to demonstrate their superiority over one another and the rest of society. In the modern world, however, violence that leads to bloodshed has no place in spectator sports.
Violence in sports encourages aggression in, and violence among its spectators. The popularity of blood sports in the early modern era reflects that men of the age were genuinely violent creatures who could derive a vicarious excitement through watching the subjects of blood sports fight. A contemporary study of violence and its role in sports found that: “Despite the fact that few males truly enjoy hitting and being hit, and that one has to be socialized into participating in much of the violence commonplace in sport, males often view aggression, within the rule-bound structure of sport, as legitimate and “natural” . This finding sheds light on the reason that blood sports of the early modern era were mainly popular among men. Something in a man’s genetics gears him towards violent and aggressive tendencies.
Research done on crowd violence as studied in the context of contemporary “soccer hooliganism” in Great Britain found also that: displays of intimidation and aggression at soccer matches involve ritual violence, consisting of fantasy-driven status posturing by young males who want to be defined as tough and manly” . This finding exemplifies how spectators who are just watching sports can be just as stimulated as the actual subjects of the sport. For young men watching soccer, the game is the opposite of an outlet for their violent tendencies. In fact,
Were blood sports an essential part of the early modern era?
Do they have a place in today’s society?
Blood sports of Great Britain and its American colonies in the early modern era encouraged violent tendencies among men. These tendencies were necessary for use in contemporary warfare. Blood sports also helped to solidify class divisions by providing an avenue for the nobility and the rich to demonstrate their superiority over one another and the rest of society. In the modern world, however, violence that leads to bloodshed has no place in spectator sports.
Violence in sports encourages aggression in, and violence among its spectators. The popularity of blood sports in the early modern era reflects that men of the age were genuinely violent creatures who could derive a vicarious excitement through watching the subjects of blood sports fight. A contemporary study of violence and its role in sports found that: “Despite the fact that few males truly enjoy hitting and being hit, and that one has to be socialized into participating in much of the violence commonplace in sport, males often view aggression, within the rule-bound structure of sport, as legitimate and “natural” . This finding sheds light on the reason that blood sports of the early modern era were mainly popular among men. Something in a man’s genetics gears him towards violent and aggressive tendencies.
Research done on crowd violence as studied in the context of contemporary “soccer hooliganism” in Great Britain found also that: displays of intimidation and aggression at soccer matches involve ritual violence, consisting of fantasy-driven status posturing by young males who want to be defined as tough and manly” . This finding exemplifies how spectators who are just watching sports can be just as stimulated as the actual subjects of the sport. For young men watching soccer, the game is the opposite of an outlet for their violent tendencies. In fact,