I just read a quote from Glenn Beck. Let's just get straight past the obvious question, here, which is why a person apparently has to be of little to no discernable talent or accomplishments to be a right-wing icon. I don't have an answer for that... or at least not one that's inoffensive to conservatives.
The quote was this: "When we refuse to allow our children to receive a trophy for participation, we are on the road to restoring the meaning of merit in our Republic."
This is what I'll call the "Let's all kill for our meals" school of conservative thought. Now, not to be unkind to Beck, but in a world where only the fittest survive, I don't think there'd be much future for a pasty, chubby kid with a severe case of ADHD. (No, I'm not referring to myself, I'm referring to Beck... though I could just as easily be referring to myself.)
My son is now 8 and all indications are that he's more athletic than most. Fortunately, he got a liberal dose of his mother's genetics, which is why, when he runs, he's the fastest kid on the field, and looks like a gazelle. Versus looking like a charging penguin stumping around with arms flapping and stubby legs pounding the ground into submission, which is what he'd look like if he had taken after me.
These days, he's at a point where he has opportunities to play at both the recreational level, but also the competitive level. For instance, he plays on a city-wide travel baseball team that drew 12 of the best players out of a rec league of about 150 players.
Yet, he also plays rec. league football and basketball. The difference is this: rec. leagues are supposed to encourage participation and they emphasize equal playing time for all kids, regardless of skill.
That's not all bad. Parents bring their kids to play sports for various reasons. Some of the kids, frankly, you can tell won't be playing very long. Their parents want them to grow up to be well-rounded, well-adjusted people. They know full well that their kid is not the next Pele or Shaq. They just want the kid to have fun, to gain social skills, and to get a little bit of exercise.
Yes, these kids get little trophies at the end of the year, usually. Does it water down the meaning of an award? I honestly don't think so. The kids on the team all know who the better players are. The kids who play less well are aware of it, too.
None of the kids is so delusional that they think that the trophy means they're the best player on the team. However, it's a nice little pat on the back for everybody. The seasons can be long. Practices take a measure of devotion and effort. All the kids deserve a token of their accomplishment.
Every year, the rec leagues get a little smaller. A lot of the first graders who played soccer won't play in 2nd grade because they're already realizing that they aren't at the level of many of their peers. By the time you reach middle school, there really aren't many people playing sports just for the fun of it.
Baseball is something every 6 year old can experience. However, it's something that only very skilled 12 year olds tend to do. By the time High School rolls around, not every football player is an elite caliber athlete, but there aren't any of them who are weak or uncoordinated.
So, I say, any encouragement for kids to play sports is a good thing. You also don't know which kids will bloom at which point in their lives. A child who is clumsy at age 6 may grow into his or her body and be very coordinated at age 9. No need to cull them out early on.
I'm also reminded of the military. For instance, the Army has participation awards. Lots of 'em. You get a badge simply for being able to fire a rifle with any proficiency at all. You get the National Defense Ribbon simply for enlisting. You get a good conduct medal for serving for 3 years without a major screw-up.
The point being that not every pat on the back needs to be for extraordinary effort. People aren't stupid. They know the difference between a good conduct medal and the Medal of Honor. But that doesn't mean there isn't a place for the good conduct medal.
We're dealing with kids, here, not Wall Street bankers. You don't treat a child the same way you treat an adult. I think one of the greatest mistakes in child-rearing was the short-lived movement that you treat small children like responsible adults in order to get them to grow up to be responsible adults.
They're little kids. They should have lives full of fun and laughter. They should have a lot of activities where they can run around and expend some of their youthful energy. They SHOULD have times where they receive a small reward for things that seem trivial by adult standards.
They're not adults after all.
No comments:
Post a Comment