The Fighting Sullivans as Kids
Tue/Jun/12 2007 Filed in: Movie reviews
Is it good for growing boys to fight?
Some modern educational experts say no, and some public schools now
ban competitive sports and expel a student for the slightest
display of aggression. In dramatic contrast, a 1942 movie called
The Fighting Sullivans taught viewers that fighting is
normal and healthy for growing boys and did so in a way that makes
clear that in its day almost no one questioned that belief.
Since it provided an inspiration for the hit movie, Saving Private Ryan, you may have heard the story. After Pearl Harbor was attacked, the five sons of the Sullivans, a devout Catholic family from Iowa, persuade the Navy to allow them to enlist under the condition that they be permitted to fight on the same vessel.
The result was what some in the military had feared. All five were killed when their vessel was sank by a torpedo in November of 1942. Hollywood, then very different from what it is today, rushed out a movie called The Fighting Sullivans and for the first time the U.S. Navy commissioned a ship, The Sullivans, named after more than one person.
Most of the film focuses on the family life of the sons as they grew up. While all aspects of family life in the 1930s are shown, what comes through most clearly is that the five Sullivan boys spent quite a bit of time fighting. They fight with one another so much, their father complains that he has had no peace since his children were born.
They also fight with other boys over slights and insults. When their mother tries to scold them for fighting in front of their church, they react by showing pride that they had won. Winning mattered. When the priest questions them about whether they still bore a grudge against the boys they had fought, their reply was in essence: "Why should we have a grudge? We won fair and square." In short, these boys grew up seeing the necessity for fighting and the adult world limited itself to channeling their aggression into healthy channels and insisting on fair play.
What is the role of fighting in the development of a boy? Is is good and healthy or bad and the harbinger of a life of crime? Recently, I read an article by a teacher who poked fun at the 'conflict resolution' techniques he was taught as part of his professional development as a school teacher. Talking out of sight of their instructor, he discovered that his fellow (male) teachers shared a similar disdain for what they were being taught. The way to deal with a bully, they had discovered as boys, was to attack without warning. All bullies are cowards and quickly learn to leave you alone. And if a bully was too big, you got several buddies and pounced on him. Force was met with force.
That turned my thoughts to my own childhood, and I realized something I had not noticed before. I'm normal sized adult, but in grade school I was one of the smallest boys in my class. I was also rather bookish, and thus fit the profile of a 'picked on' kid almost perfectly. But, strange as it sounds, I wasn't picked on. Even the sort of people that might be expected to bully me didn't. They seemed to respect me. Why was that so?
Then I remembered the one kid that did pick on me. He came for one school year and was gone the next, so he didn't have much chance to get to know me. I still remember one day going back to class after lunch. He was teasing me as we started across a street, and I remember telling myself, "If he is still doing this when we get to the other side, I'm going to punch him." No warning, just wham! That's how you deal with bullies. He must have noticed my growing irritation, because he stopped just before we reached the other side. That saved us both trouble with the principal.
That incident also explains why no bullies bothered me. They knew what that boy almost learned the hard way. When pushed too far, I would fight and fight hard. A couple of years ago, I did just that, winning a copyright dispute against one of the largest literary estates on the planet. In the process I discovered that I could face down a Manhattan intellectual lawyer who thought he was tough. He wasn't.
The willingness to fight and inflict pain is also one reason why this country has had no terrorist attacks in the almost three years since the September 11 attacks. With Clinton, terrorist groups had come to the sensible conclusion that their bullying paid off. At the most, an attack might lead to an empty, voter-pleasing gesture, perhaps a few cruise missiles lobed at their often empty training encampments. With Bush their bullying soon led to the end of their safe haven in Afghanistan and the loss of their Iraqi ally. Unlike Clinton, Bush knew that the way to deal with bullies is to hit hard and inflict as much pain as possible.
Yes, improved police work and the disruption of terrorist circles have planned a role in preventing terrorist attacks. But Europe has done all that and still has attacks. The reason terrorists have steered clear of the U.S. is that they fear what we might do if they strike again. If 9/11 cost them Afghanistan and Iraq, what might another attack do?
Of course every rule has its exception. It is possible that terrorists might risk an attack close to the election in the hope the result (like Spain) would be the election of Kerry. His limp excuse for 'heroism' in Vietnam (now being revealed by those who fought with him) and three Purple Hearts for scratches combined with his lack-luster career afterward, suggest that he knows little about dealing with either bullies or terrorists. To see him as the terrorists see him, you'll need to find out what the Arabic words for "impotent gigolo" are.
Since it provided an inspiration for the hit movie, Saving Private Ryan, you may have heard the story. After Pearl Harbor was attacked, the five sons of the Sullivans, a devout Catholic family from Iowa, persuade the Navy to allow them to enlist under the condition that they be permitted to fight on the same vessel.
The result was what some in the military had feared. All five were killed when their vessel was sank by a torpedo in November of 1942. Hollywood, then very different from what it is today, rushed out a movie called The Fighting Sullivans and for the first time the U.S. Navy commissioned a ship, The Sullivans, named after more than one person.
Most of the film focuses on the family life of the sons as they grew up. While all aspects of family life in the 1930s are shown, what comes through most clearly is that the five Sullivan boys spent quite a bit of time fighting. They fight with one another so much, their father complains that he has had no peace since his children were born.
They also fight with other boys over slights and insults. When their mother tries to scold them for fighting in front of their church, they react by showing pride that they had won. Winning mattered. When the priest questions them about whether they still bore a grudge against the boys they had fought, their reply was in essence: "Why should we have a grudge? We won fair and square." In short, these boys grew up seeing the necessity for fighting and the adult world limited itself to channeling their aggression into healthy channels and insisting on fair play.
What is the role of fighting in the development of a boy? Is is good and healthy or bad and the harbinger of a life of crime? Recently, I read an article by a teacher who poked fun at the 'conflict resolution' techniques he was taught as part of his professional development as a school teacher. Talking out of sight of their instructor, he discovered that his fellow (male) teachers shared a similar disdain for what they were being taught. The way to deal with a bully, they had discovered as boys, was to attack without warning. All bullies are cowards and quickly learn to leave you alone. And if a bully was too big, you got several buddies and pounced on him. Force was met with force.
That turned my thoughts to my own childhood, and I realized something I had not noticed before. I'm normal sized adult, but in grade school I was one of the smallest boys in my class. I was also rather bookish, and thus fit the profile of a 'picked on' kid almost perfectly. But, strange as it sounds, I wasn't picked on. Even the sort of people that might be expected to bully me didn't. They seemed to respect me. Why was that so?
Then I remembered the one kid that did pick on me. He came for one school year and was gone the next, so he didn't have much chance to get to know me. I still remember one day going back to class after lunch. He was teasing me as we started across a street, and I remember telling myself, "If he is still doing this when we get to the other side, I'm going to punch him." No warning, just wham! That's how you deal with bullies. He must have noticed my growing irritation, because he stopped just before we reached the other side. That saved us both trouble with the principal.
That incident also explains why no bullies bothered me. They knew what that boy almost learned the hard way. When pushed too far, I would fight and fight hard. A couple of years ago, I did just that, winning a copyright dispute against one of the largest literary estates on the planet. In the process I discovered that I could face down a Manhattan intellectual lawyer who thought he was tough. He wasn't.
The willingness to fight and inflict pain is also one reason why this country has had no terrorist attacks in the almost three years since the September 11 attacks. With Clinton, terrorist groups had come to the sensible conclusion that their bullying paid off. At the most, an attack might lead to an empty, voter-pleasing gesture, perhaps a few cruise missiles lobed at their often empty training encampments. With Bush their bullying soon led to the end of their safe haven in Afghanistan and the loss of their Iraqi ally. Unlike Clinton, Bush knew that the way to deal with bullies is to hit hard and inflict as much pain as possible.
Yes, improved police work and the disruption of terrorist circles have planned a role in preventing terrorist attacks. But Europe has done all that and still has attacks. The reason terrorists have steered clear of the U.S. is that they fear what we might do if they strike again. If 9/11 cost them Afghanistan and Iraq, what might another attack do?
Of course every rule has its exception. It is possible that terrorists might risk an attack close to the election in the hope the result (like Spain) would be the election of Kerry. His limp excuse for 'heroism' in Vietnam (now being revealed by those who fought with him) and three Purple Hearts for scratches combined with his lack-luster career afterward, suggest that he knows little about dealing with either bullies or terrorists. To see him as the terrorists see him, you'll need to find out what the Arabic words for "impotent gigolo" are.