Dodgeball isn’t just problematic, it’s an unethical tool of ‘oppression’: researchers

The moral problem is that dodgeball encourages students to aggressively single others out for dominance, and to enjoy that dominance as a victory

Arwen~ As opposed to every other game or sport which sets out to submit and lose to their opponent..right 😉

Sounds like it is satire doesn’t it? Nope, it is the brilliance of academia and so called deep thinkers analyzing everything to death, and I do mean “to death”. There is nothing but offense seen in the most innocent of things..heaven forbid, someone, somewhere..gets their feelings hurt because that truly would be the end of the world in these researcher’s opinion. Bubble wrap everything..just in case. 
Do we see how mad, how crazy this world has become? It is the ideology behind and that drives our own federal government, it has been in our educational system for decades…this must be fully rejected and pushed back.

I loved a good game of dodgeball, aka ” oppression ball” when I was growing up ..probably still would, especially right now against team progressive 😉  

Ben Stiller takes flight during the ultimate dodgeball competition in the movie DodgeBall: A True Underdog Story. The film parodies a common childhood experience.Twentieth Century Fox

Joseph Brean

June 3, 2019

Thousands of academics are gathering in Vancouver for the annual Congress of the Humanities and Social Sciences from June 1-7. They will present papers on everything from child marriage in Canada to why dodgeball is problematic. In its Oh, The Humanities! series, the National Post showcases some of the most interesting research.

The games children play in schoolyards are famously horrible, if you stop and think about them.

Tag, for example, singles out one poor participant, often the slowest child, as the dehumanized “It,” who runs vainly in pursuit of the quicker ones. Capture the Flag is nakedly militaristic. British Bulldog has obvious jingoistic colonial themes. Red Ass, known in America as Butts Up, involves deliberate imposition of corporal punishment on losers.

But none rouse the passions of reform-minded educational progressives quite like dodgeball, the team sport in which players throw balls at each other, trying to hit their competitors and banish them to the sidelines of shame.

When the Canadian Society for the Study of Education meets in Vancouver at the Congress of the Humanities and Social Sciences, a trio of education theorists will argue that dodgeball is not only problematic, in the modern sense of displaying hierarchies of privilege based on athletic skill, but that it is outright “miseducative.”

A player on the University of Alberta dodgeball team is targeted during practice. David Bloom/Postmedia/File

Dodgeball is not just unhelpful to the development of kind and gentle children who will become decent citizens of a liberal democracy. It is actively harmful to this process, they say.

Dodgeball is a tool of “oppression.”

It is not saved because some kids like it, according to an abstract for the presentation, led by Joy Butler, professor of curriculum and pedagogy at the University of British Columbia.

“As we consider the potential of physical education to empower students by engaging them in critical and democratic practices, we conclude that the hidden curriculum offered by dodgeball is antithetical to this project, even when it reflects the choices of the strongest and most agile students,” it reads.

This “hidden curriculum” in dodgeball is far more nefarious than your average gym class runaround. Dodgeball is “miseducative” because it “reinforces the five faces of oppression,” as defined by the late Iris Marion Young, a social and political theorist at the University of Chicago.

Games become more like cruel initiation ceremonies into a brutal world 

As Butler’s abstract describes it, those “faces” are “marginalization, powerlessness, and helplessness of those perceived as weaker individuals through the exercise of violence and dominance by those who are considered more powerful.” Young’s list of these fundamental types of oppression also includes exploitation and cultural domination.

The audience for this argument is primarily teachers, including gym teachers, who are identified as part of the problem, for not acting on values they otherwise understand and claim to hold.

“Despite the fact that many physical educators understand their vital role in helping students develop robust, equal, productive relationships and critical awareness, their practices on the ground do not always reflect this agenda,” the presenters write. “We suggest that this tension becomes sharply visible in the common practice of allowing students to play dodgeball.”

It is a familiar criticism, though not one typically phrased in the dry, footnoted academic prose of education theory, let alone with reference to ancient Greek philosophy of ethics.

The goal of teaching ethical behaviour through sport is impeded when cruelty, oppression and violence are built into the rules. Getty Images

For example, when Ben Stiller and Vince Vaughan teamed up for the 2004 slapstick comedy Dodgeball: A True Underdog Story, they included a scene with Hank Azaria as Patches O’Houlihan, billed as the Wayne Gretzky or Michael Jordan of dodgeball.

“Remember,” O’Houlihan tells a boy keen to learn the game. “Dodgeball is a sport of violence, exclusion and degradation. So, when you’re picking players in gym class, remember to pick the bigger, stronger kids for your team. That way, you can all gang up on the weaker ones, like Winston here.”

Winston, a stereotypical nerd, gets a laugh here when he gets hit in the head and his glasses fall off. For many students, this is the miserable experience of schoolyard dodgeball.

For teachers trying to foster the virtues of caring and inclusion, on this view, dodgeball is counterproductive. Sport can teach ethical behaviour and give students the chance to practise it and, in this sense, it is important training for citizens in a democracy.

This goal is impeded when cruelty, oppression and violence are built into the rules. Games become more like cruel initiation ceremonies into a brutal world in which might makes right. As O’Houlihan puts it, before he starts throwing wrenches at his players as a form of training: “If you can dodge a wrench, you can dodge a ball.”

The problem with such a sink-or-swim view of physical education is that, at school, games are not just for fun. They are often deliberately chosen as part of a broader education strategy that is meant to align with other aspects of a student’s moral and physical development.

By offering models of good and caring behaviour, confirmation of their value, and practice for incorporating them into one’s own life, games can be training for the virtuous life, said David Burns, professor of educational studies at Kwantlen Polytechnic University, who contributed the parts of the presentation that refer to Aristotle’s philosophy of ethics.

Aristotle was an ancient Greek philosopher whose work reflects a concern with how games, songs, poetry and art say something about who we are and the way we ought to be.

Fun for fun’s sake is good, Burns said, but when a teacher is formally telling students rules for a game, fun can also reinforce behavioural patterns, for good or ill. The moral problem with dodgeball, he said, is that it encourages students to aggressively single others out for dominance, and to enjoy that exclusion and dominance as a victory.

“Within a game,that’s largely harmless, but within an educational experience over time, you might be nurturing the wrong thing,” Burns said.

A bird whose wings touched history

The Canadian Warplane Heritage Museum’s C-47 flew paratroopers into Normandy on D-Day; 75 years later, it’s ready to fly again

Arwen~ Love this! Amazing history.

LIVING May 31, 2019 by Alex Day Special to The Hamilton Spectator


Canadian Warplane Heritage Museum CEO Dave Rohrer in the cockpit, of the newly-painted C47 that is the centrepiece of the museum’s D-Day Gala. – Gary Yokoyama,The Hamilton Spectator


Peter Porter back in the cockpit the plane he flew over the beaches of Normandy on D-Day, before it was transformed back into its 1944 colours.


Peter Porter, third from the right, with his crew from 75 years ago. – Hamilton Spectator file photo


Canadian Warplane Heritage Museum CEO Dave Rohrer in the cockpit of the newly-painted C47 that is the centrepiece of the museum’s D-Day gala. – Gary Yokoyama , The Hamilton Spectator1 / 4

David Rohrer loves his birds.

The CEO of the Canadian Warplane Heritage Museum, who has flown dozens of different types of aircraft over 45 years, gets a sparkle in his eyes every time he talks about the flying treasures at the Mount Hope museum.

They are his “birds.”

While he has spent hundreds of hours in the pilot’s seat of Hamilton’s famous Avro Lancaster, including a flight across the Atlantic Ocean to Great Britain in 2014, it’s the CWH’s Dakota FZ692, with its unrivaled history, that has him enthralled all over again.

Especially this year.

Because, this Dakota, is a living, flying monument to a moment in world history.

There are two Dakotas at the Hamilton museum and its C-47 — distinguishable from the regular DC-3s by a second door, a reinforced floor and a glider towing hook on the tail — bears serial number FZ692 and the say-it-out-loud nickname, “Kwicherbichen.”

This Dakota is a D-Day veteran. Seventy-five years ago, it flew over the beaches of Normandy on its way to drop the first Allied paratroopers on June 6, 1944.

Today, it is ready again to play a key role in the museum’s, and Hamilton’s, commemoration of the 75th anniversary of one of Canada’s and the world’s most important days.

Built by Douglas as a military version of the civilian transport DC-3, the C-47 went on to fly into history as the most impactful transport aircraft of the Second World War.

“The Dak has a tremendous history. When you think about the service they provided in both military and civilian operations, I don’t think there’s another airplane in the history of aviation that has that same record over that length of time,” Rohrer said. “The Dakota is a very good handling airplane, she’s very well mannered. And when you come from the Lancaster to the Dak, the Lanc can make you work for everything whereas the Dakota is much more gentile. She’s a great airplane to fly and she’ll make you look good.”

The CWHM’s C-47 is a very decorated veteran of the Second World War having flown a total of 224 operational missions. Sixteen of those were with No. 233 Squadron RAF, where she was named “Kwicherbichen” — an apparent response from the ground crew to the many complaints raised by its primary pilot — and 208 more with No. 437 Squadron RCAF.

It participated in Operation Tonga during the early hours of June 6, 1944, in conjunction with Operation Overlord on D-Day. Then, on the night of June 6 the early morning of June 7, it flew another mission.

“This time, they dropped ammunition to British paratroopers in the area of the Orne River,” Rohrer said. “So, one night she dropped the troops, the next night she dropped more ammunition for them. By the end of the war, it carried 298 casualties, medical aid, repatriated 456 prisoners of war, carried more than 5,100 passengers to destinations in Europe as well as almost 500,000 pounds of freight.”

Postwar, FZ692 continued to fly with 437 Squadron — even making an appearance at the Toronto Air Show with jet assist takeoff rockets on it — until she was retired, ending up with the Department of Environment. There she was rerolled into several sensing programs, configured to conduct surveys and assessments and had cameras built-in to look down through the floor.

“She did several things. Remote sensing, environmental sensing, pollution control, a lot of northern work,” Rohrer said.

When that program was defunded in 2009, the people that possessed and maintained the airplane knew of its history and were very concerned about where it might go. They alerted the Canadian Warplane Heritage Museum that the airplane was no longer going to be funded by the government and was likely to be disposed of.

The government offered it to The Canadian Aviation and Space Museum in Rockcliffe, Ont. The executive director there was a good friend of Rohrer’s and let him know that they were unable to take it due to space issues, that they had to decline it, and that they would be instrumental in providing an opinion on where it should go instead.

“One of the things that ended discussions behind the scenes was that we said that if we get the airplane, we will keep it in the air, and we will return it back to its 1944 wartime livery in honour of its service,” he said.

That was in 2014, so it has taken almost five years to get it ready to fly again. During that time, a lot of work was done inside to reconfigure it back to its Second World War best, including a $200,000 custom paint job.

There was plenty of discussion about how the plane should be painted, with the D-Day black-and-white invasion stripes on the wings or in its 437 Sqn. RCAF colours.

“What carried the day was that its D-Day history is absolutely significant, there’s no doubt about it, but when you look at its total service time history; 16 missions with 233 RAF Sqn. and 208 with the RCAF, there was no way we couldn’t mark it as a 437 aircraft,” Rohrer said.

Rohrer smiled, and sat back in his chair: “But with all that being said — here we are — and we got it done in time for the 75th anniversary of D-Day.”

Unfortunately, someone who was closer than most to FZ692 was not able to see her returned to her wartime livery before his death in 2018.

During the crossing of the Rhine, Flight Officer Pete Porter was in the co-pilot seat of Kwicherbichen, and only a few years ago, he was at the Canadian Warplane Heritage Museum being reunited with the aircraft he flew more than 70 years earlier.

He was certainly happy that the Canadian Warplane Heritage Museum had the airplane and that it was going to be returned to the 1944 paint-scheme. He was even more pleased that the museum was going to keep the aircraft flying and its tremendous history alive.

he biggest regrets that I have. Peter was a great guy — was an Honorary Colonel of 437 Squadron, which this airplane was assigned to. When he came and reacquainted himself with the aircraft and it was in the Environmental Urgencies paint scheme, he kept saying, ‘How’s my airplane coming?’ So, one of my biggest regrets is that we didn’t get it done in time for him to see if before he passed on. But I am sure his spirit is surrounding it.

“He told me that what he remembered of the airplane was that it was slower than many of the others so maybe that’s why the name ‘Kwicherbichen’ was originally on it when it was with 233 Sqn. RAF,” Rohrer said. “And Operation Varsity — he talked a bit about that with me — towing Horsa gliders. It was fascinating.”

So, what does it feel like to fly an aircraft with such an iconic history?

“I haven’t flown her enough, especially now that she’s in this livery, to get the sensation of her history but certainly with the Lancaster — when we took it to England again and back — there was that real sense of all those Canadians that made that same journey, but to fight. We went to remember, and boy what a difference. There was certainly a bond, but when we start flying this airplane this year, particularly given the 75th anniversary of D-Day and the invasion, there will be chills down everyone’s spine.”

Alex Day is a member of the D-Day Commemorative Gala Committee, and an employee of the Canadian Warplane Heritage Museum.

Martel speaks

“We hear all too often about the supposed dangers of populism, from those who in positions of power or commentary who are afraid of political discourse outside their virtue signalling salons and tv studios.

Populism simply means political positions that are popular: thus it may be wise for the pious and the pained to examine why people are taking up political positions contrary to the received political ‘wisdom’ that has infected the western world like a canker for 40 years.

That is not likely to happen as the aforementioned pious of the holy order of progressivism are incapable of addressing fundamental issues, preferring to point to the finger at the secondary problems, not daring to considering that the former would not have come into play but for the latter. “



The failure of Soviet communism was beginning to become obvious in the 1960s, as the slaughter and repression of the preceding decades slowly became more widely known in the West. This led Socialists and Communists in the West into a crisis of confidence which steadily deepened during the 1970s and 1980s. By 1989, the atrocities of the Soviet era were exposed to all as the Berlin Wall came down and the velvet revolution spread across the former Soviet empire. It became obvious that the Left would either have to admit that Liberal Capitalism had won the argument, or they would have to reinvent themselves and Socialism. They chose to do the latter [1].

This reinvention began in the 1960s. From thence, the Left launched a continuous and growing assault upon all the values which the majority of us hold dear. These are things like family, community, traditions, culture, Christianity, the rule of law and so on. All the things which glue the country together and allows us to call ourselves Brits or Scots or Welsh or Irish, male or female, have come under a growing assault.

The source of this attack lies in the Left’s espousal of the philosophies of a number of third-rate French philosophers, all of whom are now dead, but whose ideas have spread beyond France, crossed the Atlantic to North America and then swum back again across the ocean to land upon the shores of our sceptre’d isle.

The name given to this strand of thought is Postmodernism. It has evolved and taken differing forms over time as different ideologies have dovetailed themselves into it. Neo-Marxism is one such. Cultural Marxism is another. More recently, it has taken the form of identity politics which is responsible for the insanity of political correctness and multiculturalism (these two things are closely related and work together). Except for those who believe in this set of ideologies (and will argue to the death about the finer distinctions of each) the rest of us can assume that they are all one and the same thing.

Any layman who bothers to read Foucault, Derrida, Jean-Paul Sartre, Lyotard and others will usually be left mystified by the dense prose and opaque language used. Everything is deconstructed. Hardly a single word in a single sentence goes unquestioned. Meaning and certainty are lost in a welter of argument and counter-argument. This explains why these philosophers themselves are rarely read, but books about them are a little more popular.

At the source of Postmodernism are two basic ideas: The first is that nothing is absolute or certain, that everything is relative to another thing. The second is that all the world’s ills are rooted in the phallogocentrism of the white male patriarchy, and that this needs to be vanquished. In very round numbers, this means that the whole basis for the Enlightenment values of logic and rationality are to be destroyed. The methods of thinking that have brought us huge technological advances, prosperity, better and more abundant food, clothing, housing and all the things that are essential for modern living are ignored, diminished or reviled by the Postmodernists. But the ire of these philosophers and their acolytes goes much deeper than the material benefits of modern life. They attack the very principles of democracy which are founded upon the agency and conscience of the individual – a way of thinking that stems from the Early Christian Church and its departure from the hierarchical structure of Rome and ancient Greece [2].

It is not just the Enlightenment rationality and logic which are under attack from Postmodernism. Everywhere it has sought moves to break up the nuclear family – the very thing which gives us shape as individuals and places us into a society from which we derive our own identity. The sense that we have of belonging to a family, a community, a team, a nationality or race – any group which gives us identity and the positive will to contribute as individuals to the purpose of the group – is diminished, ridiculed and hated under the onslaught of Postmodernism.

However, Postmodernism is also a technique of gradualism; of latter-day Fabianism. The institution of marriage, of rearing and educating children, is weakened by stages – by such things as the encouragement of easy divorce and abortion on demand. Under Postmodern thinking, the subdivision of gender into a seemingly infinite array of possibilities is a consequence of the loss of basic certainties. This in turn leads to the increasingly earlier teaching of children about sex – and the accompanying idea that a child should consider itself a boy, or a girl, or something in between. The rare decision, which should only be made in adulthood, about changing gender is now used to confuse and distress young minds which are scarcely formed. As a result, transgenderism is on the increase. This doubt – of shifting gender and sexuality at a very early age – is a precursor to the normalisation of paedophilia. Children, whose minds are only partly formed, are left confused and stressed – and so become vulnerable to being abused by predatory adults. The objective is to weaken and then destroy masculinity – particularly amongst white men.

Everything is viewed through the distorting prism of dividing the world into victims and oppressors. And so, if you are a white male this is all your fault. You are to be marginalised, diminished and victimised at every available opportunity, because you and your kind are responsible for oppressing the rest of the world. For example, this is the thought process behind Yasmin Alibhai-Brown’s attitudes to white people and particularly white men, which are overtly racist. When asked in a TV interview what she thought of white people, she responded: “I don’t like them. I want them to be a lost species in a hundred years.”  Her racism is considered legitimate because Alibhai-Brown is a Ugandan Asian in origin, and therefore a member of a victim group. By contrast, white men are the oppressors and so it it is perfectly OK to hate them simply because they are white and male. Thus certain forms of racism are deemed acceptable; and Alibhai-Brown’s blatant hypocrisy is not just ignored, it is applauded by some.

Thus it is that objective meaning is turned on its head. The rule of law which once applied to everyone regardless of race, colour, creed or sex is now corrupted into an exercise of subjective judgement about identity – and which now allows different treatments for different groups. Language is corrupted. Hypocrisy is exalted. Truth is inverted into lies.

If you are puzzled as to why, for example, modern feminism is not just about raising the status of women, but has become antagonistic towards men; then here is your reason. If you wish to know why the Left (and modern feminists) who are predominantly atheist, should ally themselves with Islamists (who regard women as second class citizens, and as slaves, are property to be bought and sold) then Postmodernism provides the justification. If you cannot understand why it is that a group of people – predominantly but not exclusively Muslims of Pakistani origin – have got away for so long with the industrial scale grooming and rape of young white working class girls, with the apparent acquiescence of the authorities; then here is the cause. If you are at all curious about the reasons why ancient universities (which have for centuries championed logic and rationality) are now in the process of removing statues of great thinkers and searching for any evidence at all of associations with slavery, then you need look no further than Postmodernism for the stimulae.

The humanities in the education establishments embraced the ideas behind postmodernism enthusiastically and so the long march of shape-shifting Leftist ideology continued in our universities with renewed vigour. Whole generations have been trained in the principle ideas of postmodernism. This continues today, resulting in most of our political and administrative establishments being inculcated with truth as a relative concept, white males as the oppressors, western civilisation as a source of destruction, everyone else as the victim, and that education is a device for social revolution.

That these ideas should enter the establishment milieu may be thought to be trivial by some. But they have lasting and very damaging effects upon real people. Whilst racism is accepted by most people as being repugnant, the postmodern idea is that racism flows only in one direction. That is, if a white man expresses dislike of another because that other person is black, that is racism. But under postmodern thinking, if a black man expresses dislike for another because he is white, then that is not racism. The charge of racism being levelled at any white person is an extremely toxic one. A white person expressing racist views in an official capacity is normally deemed to be a career ending move. However, no-one is surprised if Yasmin Alihbai-Brown makes a racist comment against white men. This has certainly not done her career any harm at all. Indeed, she seems to thrive on it.

For those who wish to understand how modern identity politics works and achieves its aims, then Ben Cobley’s The Tribe [3] is an excellent and detailed read.

(This examination of Postmodernism and its effects shall continue tomorrow in Part II.)

Arwen~ A very important read, discerning the times we are living in. Read and share.

References/Further Reading
[1] Hicks SRC, (2018) – Explaining Postmodernism: Skepticism and socialism from Rousseau to Foucault. Ockham’s Razor Publishing. United States.
[2] Siedentop L, (2015) – Inventing the Individual. Penguin Books, London.
[3] Cobley B, (2018) – The Tribe – The Liberal Left and the System of Diversity.Imprint Academic, Exeter, UK.

David Eyles spent the first twenty years of his career as a quantity surveyor in civil engineering. He started work on the Thames Barrier Project in the mid 1970s and from there moved on to building hardened aircraft shelters in East Anglia – those being the days of a rather warm Cold War. On RAF Lakenheath, he was once observed nearly slithering his mini under the wheels of a taxiing F111 loaded up with tactical nuclear weapons. If nothing else, it would have been one helluva motor insurance claim and a sense of humour loss by the US Air Force. Later, he went to Nigeria for two years to build roads and see first hand what corruption can do to bring down an intrinsically prosperous country. There he had his first experience of seeing British overseas aid being wasted. He returned to the UK and attempted to write a novel, but was instead diverted into bird ringing and spent far too many nights chasing radio tagged Nightjars around Wareham Forest at dangerously high speed. By a mysterious route, then fell into farming via six worn out commercial hens; and wound up with a flock of 350 Dorset Down ewes and forty Traditional Hereford cattle. He then divorced, changed his life and arrived in Cornwall to find solace in the pedantry of hard data, wonderful pubs, good people and writing. His other interest include walking; some very poor quality photography; the philosophy of consciousness as it pertains to animals and humans; and a certain amount of politics. David’s writing can be found here