I am always amazed when I hear people saying that
sport creates goodwill between the nations, and that if only
the common peoples of the world could meet one another at
football or cricket, they would have no inclination to meet
on the battlefield. Even if one didn't know from concrete
examples (the 1936 Olympic Games, for instance) that
international sporting contests lead to orgies of hatred, one
could deduce it from general principles.
Nearly all the sports practiced nowadays are
competitive. You play to win, and the game has little
meaning unless you do your utmost to win. On the village
green, where you pick up sides and no feeling of local
patriotism is involved, it is possible to play simply for the
fun and exercise: but as soon as the question of prestige
arises, as soon as you feel that you and some larger unit will
be disgraced if you lose, the most savage combative
instincts are aroused. Anyone who has played even in a
school football match knows this. At the international level,
sport is frankly mimic warfare. But the significant thing is
not the behavior of the players but the attitude of the
spectators: and, behind the spectators, of the nations who
work themselves into furies over these absurd contests, and
seriously believe － at any rate for short periods -- that
running, jumping and kicking a ball are tests of national
virtue.
【題組】79. The author thinks that the spectators
(A) are foolish enough to think that winning can save the
day. (B) are mad at the crazy competition. (C) know
what sport is for. (D) are good combatants.
寫作批改
VIP與詳解卡管理
私人筆記( 0 )