Those good old fight days

January 16, 2002
By Bukka Rennie

So what, schoolboys can no longer fight without fatality! Why suddenly in this society there is this great urge and apparent necessity to terminate the existence of an antagonist? Why such little value is placed on human life today? Schoolboys always fought each other. That was so from time immemorial.

The relationships of school in the '40s, '50s and '60s, proved always to be a testing ground of masculine mettle. It was almost like a societal rites of passage.

Every new male presence in the classroom brought a fresh round of testing that might prove to be extensive depending on the toughness of the new person.

The new face had to be assessed, evaluated and placed in rank according to the established pecking order.

Nothing here was ever written. There was never any official presidium. Things simply happened.

The new person had to be tested and numerous creative ways were discovered to prompt the actual confrontation between the new individual and one representing the established "old", "old" meaning not "age", but essentially indicative of accepted rank in the preferred social standing.

The latter was usually chosen because, from glancing routine measure, his physical stature was closest in approximation to that of the new person.

Once that was settled, either a twig was placed on the shoulder of one of the two protagonists and the other challenged to knock it off, or a sharp line was drawn between them and one was challenged to cross it.

Either way, contact was made and the battle was on.

"Heave! Heave! Heave!" would be the cry of the onlookers and "promoters" until someone yielded.

A smart, perceptive new boy could easily after a while feign defeat and be accepted immediately as one of that particular group.

If the new boy was a hard knuckle-head, he may win that first fight and then, very likely, would have to fight every day for a while until he was defeated or he crushed everybody and became tacitly the new "cock of the rock".

There was never any sense of malice in these fights, gruelling though they were, and there was never the intention to maim or kill anyone.

Weapons were prohibited for what was tested was one's artistic ability to defend and attack with various parts of the human body: fists, feet and head, and to execute "high-falls".

Some smart teachers got involved and at times introduced boxing gloves to a much more controlled engagement.

In the end, however, all and sundry were welcomed into the fold and the process of male bonding deepened.

It was a testing that enhanced a young boy's sense of manliness, very much like the passage to manhood that was a part of ancient tradition, wherein young boys were removed from their mothers.

These physical engagements did not only happen at a class level or intra-school level, but went beyond when competing schools from the same county or region engaged each other via "chosen" representatives.

In Tunapuna for instance, there were many instances of this with the CM, Anglican, RC, Government and Maha Saba, all said schools within easy reach, engaging each other, testing each other's strengths and capabilities usually after some football, cricket or athletic event.

In Port-of-Spain too, the contests between the likes of Western Boys (RC) and Richmond Street (AC) did likewise assume epic proportions around the same period.

The idea is not to rationalise away or glorify "male-violence". We are simply stating the case that males from time immemorial always contested each other as part of the growing-up process.

It was there in all cultures.

The question is why today there is suddenly this propensity to liquidate rather than "contest and then bond" as was the case yesterday?

Interestingly, girls were not involved in such school testing in the '40s, '50s and '60s, even though they may have been underlying causes in some instances.

But today they are very much involved, themselves stabbing and even killing.

The rites of passage for women have not been know to be violent-prone.

Is that changing? Schoolgirls are being heard to say "we not taking anybody lash!"

The days of females suffering silently are gone forever. They too are now very much a part of the mix.

The hate is demonstrated everywhere. Teacher, priest, pundit, parent all seems to have lost their powers of influence, their sources of calming rationality.

As much as we may wish to knock religion today, at least it provided a framework of ethical and moral values that socialised us, that made us more humanistic in our approach to problems.

The sub-cultures are now the sources that seem to have taken over in these crucial times of total social breakdown. Positive role models are nowhere to be found.

Long ago there was no end to role-modelling. Role models were everywhere to advise, admonish, correct and impart wisdom. Not so anymore.

We do not therefore bond in acceptance anymore, and all conflict is equivalent to open war and liquidation, much like the video games of today that overwhelm our children's psyche.