Uncomfortable with the war comparisons?

[Grogg]

I have to admit, the "one soldier out, one soldier in" line used in the op is the first time I've ever even heard of it.

 

[PieNSauce]

Or a sentence, apparently. How does this post in any way prove that OP's point is invalid. If anything, I'd say you failed to understand what OP's point was.

As you've clearly failed to understand mine!

 

[I Remember Bluey]

I think it's crap when players use it see Nick Maxwell describe the drawn GF or any Essendon/Collingwood player or club official describe the Anzac day clash. You play a game of football, you did not take part in any war activities you nimrods.

One soldier down, you replace him with another soldier.

Does that ring a bell nimrods.

 

[nameless]

I think most people are smart enough to know that players and commentators are not literally comparing footballers to war veterans.

It's just like any other analogy, and people can choose whether or not they want to be offended by it (or choose to be offended on behalf of other people).

When someone says it was a 'disaster' to lose by 50 points, they are not comparing it to an earthquake that kills 200 people.
Or if it's a 'tragic loss' that a player gets injured, it's not being compared to someone being killed.
Or if a player had a 'shocker' they are not being electrocuted.

 

[Bostonian]

This is a Soldier Beetle.

He can't handle the spotlight from the PC brigade being put upon him. He's not a real soldier, but he and millions like him identify as Solider Beetles.

This turn of PC events now has him questioning his own existence. So much so that in this very picture he's standing on the precipice of a huge drop contemplating jumping.

TISM.

 

[Play by Numbers]

This is directed at no one in particular but more and more in recent years I have been getting uncomfortable with the war comparisons in the AFL, describing AFL players as soldiers or warriors for instance makes me not only cringe but also just generally makes me feel uncomfortable as while I admire AFL players a lot, they are not soldiers, they are not going off to fight in a war, they are not doing anything that will sacrifice their lives for our country.

There is a massive difference between putting your head over the ball and potentially being knocked out and running into a hail of bullets to try and stop the enemy. One will likely end your life, the other will not and there is no comparison with the level of bravery.

When a player is injured players say "one soldier out, one soldier in" and I am thinking, no they aren't. That "soldier" is not dead, he is injured, he is actually fine, and will be back in a few weeks.

I sometimes feel that the commentators and even the players are trying to elevate themselves to something above elite sportsmen, something beyond that. They want to be seen as the bravest in society, or almost like an army, and want their accomplishments elevated beyond just being entertainers for the masses. Now I am definitely apart of that entertainment, I love AFL, but I am always aware that AFL players are entertainers first and foremost. They are there to entertain people, not to fight for the freedom or the lives of people and in no way can an act on the football field ever be compared to an actual war.

Does anyone else agree or are the war analogies less annoying to other people?

Warrior I don't mind, it is a broad term with a greater metaphoric and philosophical meaning.

War and soldier analogies though are crass and at worst exploitative, the AFL treads a thin line with honoring soldiers and exploiting sentiment for ratings.

At least the game hasn't been co-opted for large scale propagandising yet in the way the NFL has and to a lesser extent other comps

 

[Bostonian]

I absolutely LOVE the term "rallying the troops".

Been involved in plenty of games where a Coach or Captain has gotten up and lifted people to a higher level through words alone.

Great term taken from the military to be applied to sport.

 

[PieNSauce]

I think most people are smart enough to know that players and commentators are not literally comparing footballers to war veterans.

It's just like any other analogy, and people can choose whether or not they want to be offended by it (or choose to be offended on behalf of other people).

When someone says it was a 'disaster' to lose by 50 points, they are not comparing it to an earthquake that kills 200 people.
Or if it's a 'tragic loss' that a player gets injured, it's not being compared to someone being killed.
Or if a player had a 'shocker' they are not being electrocuted.

Hooray. The adults have arrived!

 

[Bostonian]

Warrior I don't mind, it is a broad term with a greater metaphoric and philosophical meaning.

War and soldier analogies though are crass and at worst exploitative, the AFL treads a thin line with honoring soldiers and exploiting sentiment for ratings.

At least the game hasn't been co-opted for large scale propagandising yet in the way the NFL has and to a lesser extent other comps

Nothing to do with the AFL.

Most of these terms have been part of the sporting fabric for a hell of a long time. More than likely they were introduced into the sporting vernacular by former military people themselves who were also involved in sporting teams.

I can remember back in junior football days in the 80's the term we're digging in (reference to trench warfare) and if you're in the trenches you'd want nobody else but a certain person beside you (in a sporting way).

 

[Bostonian]

One does get the feeling with these kinds of things that it's the non-sporting, non-competitive football fans who would be even slightly bothered with these analogies. If you've been playing football for any reasonable amount of time you've heard them all used more than once in your playing career and you understand it's used to form an us vs them mentality and about doing what needs to be done for the team to see them win.

 

[Rotayjay]

I find it cringeworthy that we have an entire Anzac round, as opposed to a single Anzac Day clash. (Like when the AFL fixture boss was questioned on why Adelaide was given the 2nd-hardest draw, despite finishing 6th. He said: 'Well it depends on which way you look at it. You'll get Friday night opening Anzac Round against Hawthorn!' like this is the biggest privilege in the AFL. Thanks idiot).

 

[Play by Numbers]

Nothing to do with the AFL.

Most of these terms have been part of the sporting fabric for a hell of a long time. More than likely they were introduced into the sporting vernacular by former military people themselves who were also involved in sporting teams.

I can remember back in junior football days in the 80's the term we're digging in (reference to trench warfare) and if you're in the trenches you'd want nobody else but a certain person beside you (in a sporting way).

That is fine, but my comment should have been clearer.

The language has no relationship to the AFL. Some is common vernacular, what bugs me is the comparisons used in the media, and the obsession with the drawn out metaphors.

Where the AFL treads a fine line, is it's treatment of ANZAC day. They do so fairly well, seeming largely respectful, however on the other hand is the clubs and broadcast media, which alternate between sincere and in the clubs case a feeding frenzy for marquee games, likewise the media which exploits the day for every dollar it can. The AFL benefit big time from this, as they do the war glorification in the media and by pollies. It is nowhere near as cynical as ol mate US, but it is slowly devolving from a day of honor and respect, with some detractors, to all out day of nationalism and entertainment extravaganza.

 

[TheWeapon]

Its threads like these that make me think a lot of SJWs are actually autistic. Don't take everything so literally

 

[Bostonian]

That is fine, but my comment should have been clearer.

The language has no relationship to the AFL. Some is common vernacular, what bugs me is the comparisons used in the media, and the obsession with the drawn out metaphors.

Where the AFL treads a fine line, is it's treatment of ANZAC day. They do so fairly well, seeming largely respectful, however on the other hand is the clubs and broadcast media, which alternate between sincere and in the clubs case a feeding frenzy for marquee games, likewise the media which exploits the day for every dollar it can. The AFL benefit big time from this, as they do the war glorification in the media and by pollies. It is nowhere near as cynical as ol mate US, but it is slowly devolving from a day of honor and respect, with some detractors, to all out day of nationalism and entertainment extravaganza.

Have you not considered they are giving the people what they want?

If the people didn't want it and rejected it then it would be tossed aside as a concept.

War movies and their continuous popularity prove that a bit of war glorification still holds a great appeal to many people.

 

[Play by Numbers]

One does get the feeling with these kinds of things that it's the non-sporting, non-competitive football fans who would be even slightly bothered with these analogies. If you've been playing football for any reasonable amount of time you've heard them all used more than once in your playing career and you understand it's used to form an us vs them mentality and about doing what needs to be done for the team to see them win.

Look, its largely used by mental short people to gee up kids. Its easy emotional manipulation, but to an extent the words to teenagers are fairly meaningless. Most of my coaches and a decent amount of fellow players, were some of the least emotionally intelligent and self aware people you will hope to meet. Part of that is the system you come through, which till not very long ago was fairly closed, especially at high school level amongst the elite schools before TAC and Colts etc. and because competitive sports also attract certain personality types.

Things have gotten a little better, but it is one of the big challenges facing footy in Australia, school level, grade and lower league footy usually attracts shitty people, hyper competitive to the point of violence, with a pretty poor outlook. Parents can be lumped in with that. Fighting and abuse is rife and it is probably turning lots of people away.

I don't see how arguing that daft people exist and in large numbers, so we should embrace the daft things they do, is really a powerful pov.

 

[Stewart2Austin Reborn]

This is directed at no one in particular but more and more in recent years I have been getting uncomfortable with the war comparisons in the AFL, describing AFL players as soldiers or warriors for instance makes me not only cringe but also just generally makes me feel uncomfortable as while I admire AFL players a lot, they are not soldiers, they are not going off to fight in a war, they are not doing anything that will sacrifice their lives for our country.

There is a massive difference between putting your head over the ball and potentially being knocked out and running into a hail of bullets to try and stop the enemy. One will likely end your life, the other will not and there is no comparison with the level of bravery.

When a player is injured players say "one soldier out, one soldier in" and I am thinking, no they aren't. That "soldier" is not dead, he is injured, he is actually fine, and will be back in a few weeks.

I sometimes feel that the commentators and even the players are trying to elevate themselves to something above elite sportsmen, something beyond that. They want to be seen as the bravest in society, or almost like an army, and want their accomplishments elevated beyond just being entertainers for the masses. Now I am definitely apart of that entertainment, I love AFL, but I am always aware that AFL players are entertainers first and foremost. They are there to entertain people, not to fight for the freedom or the lives of people and in no way can an act on the football field ever be compared to an actual war.

Does anyone else agree or are the war analogies less annoying to other people?

Engaging post, well thought out.

I agree with you that the metaphors are perhaps inappropriate and should escort themselves out of footy vernacular, and I'd like to expand on that a bit.

Another angle to consider in this debate is the indirect desensitisation of how people may view the war. I want to firmly state that I in no way intend to belittle the bravery of our war heroes, but rather discuss that using the words so casually, particularly in a sports context, could be harmful.

As evidenced by lack of a score-sheet in some age levels, children are raised to view football primarily as a way to have fun, rather than a win-at-all-costs competition. If children see the sport as nothing but fun, and then hear the soldier analogies used on their idols and heroes, it wouldn't be unreasonable for one to hold similar views of war.

Perhaps I'm worrying over nothing.

Moreover, it's important to recognise that people who use the war-related lingo aren't always intending to do so in a deliberately belittling or negative fashion. It might be as innocent as simply imitating the words their mates use, rather than actually trying to draw any tangible link between soldiers and footballers.

In any case, we should aim to educate rather than persecute; this is about eradicating the analogies, not punishing the users. Fortunately, you've kick-started the education process by generating discussion on the topic. With any luck it will reach the media.

 

[Stewart2Austin Reborn]

It is a metaphor. Most language is metaphor.

The n-word is a noun. Most language is noun.

That means it's okay, right?

 

[Play by Numbers]

Have you not considered they are giving the people what they want?

If the people didn't want it and rejected it then it would be tossed aside as a concept.

War movies and their continuous popularity prove that a bit of war glorification still holds a great appeal to many people.

There is a difference between pandering to an existing market and making one.

Likewise, between honoring and exploitation.

Just because it makes a lot of money, or is popular doesn't mean it is ethical. Trump is a great example of someone, giving a certain demographic what they want by preying on a sense of nationalism, however just because he is popular, doesn't mean he shouldn't be criticised.

 

[Bostonian]

Look, its largely used by mental short people to gee up kids. Its easy emotional manipulation, but to an extent the words to teenagers are fairly meaningless. Most of my coaches and a decent amount of fellow players, were some of the least emotionally intelligent and self aware people you will hope to meet. Part of that is the system you come through, which till not very long ago was fairly closed, especially at high school level amongst the elite schools before TAC and Colts etc. and because competitive sports also attract certain personality types.

Things have gotten a little better, but it is one of the big challenges facing footy in Australia, school level, grade and lower league footy usually attracts shitty people, hyper competitive to the point of violence, with a pretty poor outlook. Parents can be lumped in with that. Fighting and abuse is rife and it is probably turning lots of people away.

It's used to build a team mentality. Military units are all about working together no matter what the enemy throws at you.

That is exactly the same kind of mentality a coach will try to build with the group of people he has. So all the military terminology works perfectly.

Do you know how many people have read and reference the Art of War by Sun Tzu and apply it to other fields? 99% don't read it to learn how to actually fight wars.

 

[Bostonian]

There is a difference between pandering to an existing market and making one.

Likewise, between honoring and exploitation.

Just because it makes a lot of money, or is popular doesn't mean it is ethical. Trump is a great example of someone, giving a certain demographic what they want by preying on a sense of nationalism, however just because he is popular, doesn't mean he shouldn't be criticised.

The market was always there, it was just never offered the right product. Now it has, it's proving quite popular.

As soon as you get into ethics it's all subjective.

I see nothing unethical about what anyone is saying or doing.

 

[Play by Numbers]

It's used to build a team mentality. Military units are all about working together no matter what the enemy throws at you.

That is exactly the same kind of mentality a coach will try to build with the group of people he has. So all the military terminology works perfectly.

Do you know how many people have read and reference the Art of War by Sun Tzu and apply it to other fields? 99% don't read it to learn how to actually fight wars.

You have picked just about the worst analogy. Almost nothing in the Art of War, except for a few vague platitudes is relevant to Australian rules as a sport.

And is it used to build team mentality? I think you are vastly overstating the "millitarisation", in terms of language of lower league sports. I never heard it playing basketball, rarely, and only in the most incomprehensible way during footy.

It's only really the media and a few drongos I remember as a kid, because I can honestly say I never once had a coach, even former vets (with one exception), who used millitary parlance or those analogies during training and certainly players never thought of themselves as warriors or going to war. Really, if you played as much sport as you insinuate, you would be honest in that half of what coaches say doesn't make sense, or is just loud words used to fire teams up and more than 50% of the time there is as much eye rolling as players getting fired up.

It's daft, and the only time it seems to be used a lot, from the outside looking in, is in American sports, particularly the NFL, where gridiron is about perfect organisation more than anything.

 

[Play by Numbers]

The market was always there, it was just never offered the right product. Now it has, it's proving quite popular.

As soon as you get into ethics it's all subjective.

I see nothing unethical about what anyone is saying or doing.

Well you wouldn't, if your overriding position is that popularity or financial success equals good.

It is fairly easy to make an ethical argument against glorifying war, or exploiting tragedy to cash in.

Likewise, the statement that it is all subjective, so bleh, is the most accidentally pomo thing I have read in a while.

 

[Trav 20]

It is a metaphor. Most language is metaphor.

Exactly.

I'm sick of people getting up in arms over a metaphor that isn't designed to be taken literally.

We live in the age of people being professionally offended.

 

[Subutai]

I have to admit, the "one soldier out, one soldier in" line used in the op is the first time I've ever even heard of it.

you have to try and listen to the drivel that comes out of hardwicks mouth more often

 

[Subutai]

Revered so much by the US military they shot him to death, reported he was killed by Afghan insurgents, burned his body armour and personal effects to prevent any investigation into the shooting and never identified the parties responsible for his death.


A report described in The Washington Post on May 4, 2005, prepared at the request of Tillman's family by Brigadier General Gary M. Jones, revealed that in the days immediately following Tillman's death, Army investigators were aware that Tillman had been killed by friendly fire, shot three times in the head.

On July 26, 2007, Chris Matthews reported on Hardball that Tillman's death may have been a case of deliberate murder by Tillman's fellow soldiers – specifically that the bullet holes were tight and neat, suggesting a shot at close range. Matthews based his speculation on a report from the doctors who examined Tillman's body. The following day the Associated Press reported that a doctor who examined Tillman's body after his death wrote, "The medical evidence did not match up with the scenario as described", also noting that the wound entrances appeared as though he had been shot with an M16 rifle from fewer than 10 yards (9.1 m) away.

Jones reported that members of Tillman's unit burned his body armor and uniform in an apparent attempt to hide the fact that he was killed by friendly fire. His notebook, in which – according to author Jon Krakauer – Tillman had recorded some of his thoughts on Afghanistan, was also burned; "a blatant violation of protocol"

Despite his fame, Tillman did not want to be used for propaganda purposes. He spoke to friends about his opposition to President Bush and the Iraq war, and he had made an appointment with notable government critic Noam Chomsky for after his return from the military. The destruction of evidence linked to Tillman's death, including his personal journal, led his mother to speculate that he was murdered.

well said