Perhaps in nothing do the Chinese differ from their Western friends in
the matter of amusements more than in regard to sports. The Chinese
would never think of assembling in thousands just to see a game played.
We are not modernized enough to care to spend half a day watching
others play. When we are tired of work we like to do our own playing.
Our national game is the shuttlecock, which we toss from one to another
over our shoulders, hitting the shuttlecock with the flat soles of the
shoes we are wearing. Sometimes we hit with one part of the foot,
sometimes with another, according to the rules of the game. This, like
kite-flying, is a great amusement among men and boys.
We have nothing corresponding to tennis and other Western ball games,
nor, indeed, any game in which the opposite sexes join. Archery was a
health-giving exercise of which modern ideas of war robbed us. The
same baneful influence has caused the old-fashioned healthful gymnastic
exercises with heavy weights to be discarded. I have seen young men on
board ocean-going steamers throwing heavy bags of sand to one another
as a pastime. This, though excellent practice, hardly equals our
ancient athletic feats with the bow or the heavy weight. Western
sports have been introduced into some mission and other schools in
China, but I much doubt if they will ever be really popular among my
people. They are too violent, and, from the oriental standpoint,
lacking in dignity. Yet, when Chinese residing abroad do take up
Western athletic sports they prove themselves the equals of all
competitors, as witness their success in the Manila Olympiad, and the
name the baseball players from the Hawaiian Islands Chinese University
made for themselves when they visited America. Nevertheless, were the
average Chinese told that many people buy the daily paper in the West
simply to see the result of some game, and that a sporting journalism
flourishes there, i.e., papers devoted entirely to sport, they would
regard the statement as itself a pleasant sport. Personally, I think
we might learn much from the West in regard to sports. They certainly
increase the physical and mental faculties, and for this reason, if for
no other, deserve to be warmly supported. China suffers because her
youths have never been trained to team-work. We should be a more
united people if as boys and young men we learned to take part in games
which took the form of a contest, in which, while each contestant does
his best for his own side, the winning or losing of the game is not
considered so important as the pleasure of the exercise. I think a
great deal of the manliness which I have admired in the West must be
attributed to the natural love of healthy sport for sport's sake.
Games honestly and fairly played inculcate the virtues of honor,
candidness, and chivalry, of which America has produced many worthy
specimens. When one side is defeated the winner does not exult over
his defeated opponents but attributes his victory to an accident; I
have seen the defeated crew in a boat race applauding their winning
opponents. It is a noble example for the defeated contestants to give
credit to and to applaud the winner, an example which I hope will be
followed by my countrymen.
As an ardent believer in the natural, healthy and compassionate life I
was interested to find in the Encyclopaedia Britannica how frequently
vegetarians have been winners in athletic sports.[1] They won the
Berlin to Dresden walking match, a distance of 125 miles, the
Carwardine Cup (100 miles) and Dibble Shield (6 hours) cycling races
(1901-02), the amateur championship of England in tennis (four
successive years up to 1902) and racquets (1902), the cycling
championship of India (three years), half-mile running championship of
Scotland (1896), world's amateur cycle records for all times from four
hours to thirteen hours (1902), 100 miles championship Yorkshire Road
Club (1899, 1901), tennis gold medal (five times). I have not access
to later statistics on this subject but I know that it is the reverse
of truth to say, as Professor Gautier, of the Sarbonne, a Catholic
foundation in Paris, recently said, that vegetarians "suffer from lack
of energy and weakened will power." The above facts disprove it, and
as against Prof. Gautier, I quote Dr. J. H. Kellogg, the eminent
physician and Superintendent of Battle Creek Sanitarium in Michigan,
U.S.A., who has been a strict vegetarian for many years and who, though
over sixty years of age, is as strong and vigorous as a man of forty;
he told me that he worked sixteen hours daily without the least
fatigue. Mrs. Annie Besant, President of the Theosophical Society, is
another example. I am credibly informed that she has been a vegetarian
for at least thirty-five years and that it is doubtful if any
flesh-eater who is sixty-five can equal her in energy. Whatever else
vegetarians may lack they are not lacking in powers of endurance.
It is needless for me to say that hunting, or, as it is called,
"sport", is entirely opposed to my idea of the fitness of things. I do
not see why it should not be as interesting to shoot at "clay pigeons"
as to kill living birds; and why moving targets are not as suitable a
recreation as running animals. "The pleasures of the chase" are no
doubt fascinating, but when one remembers that these so-called
pleasures are memories we have brought with us from the time when we
were savages and hunted for the sake of food, no one can be proud of
still possessing such tastes. To say that hunters to-day only kill to
eat would be denied indignantly by every true sportsman. That the
quarry is sometimes eaten afterward is but an incident in the game; the
splendid outdoor exercise which the hunt provides can easily be found
in other ways without inflicting the fear, distress, and pain which the
hunted animals endure. It is a sad commentary on the stage at which
humanity still is that even royalty, to whom we look for virtuous
examples, seldom misses an opportunity to hunt. When a man has a
strong hobby he is unable to see its evil side even though in other
respects he may be humane and kind-hearted. Thus the sorry spectacle
is presented of highly civilized and humane people displaying their
courage by hunting and attacking wild animals, not only in their own
native country but in foreign lands as well. Such personages are, I
regret to have to add, not unknown in the United States.
The fact that hunting has been followed from time immemorial, that the
ancient Egyptians, Assyrians, and Babylonians indulged in this pastime,
does not make it any more suitable an occupation for us to-day. The
good qualities of temper and patience which hunting demands are equally
well developed by athletic sports. I understand that a good hunting
establishment will cost as much as $10,000 (2000 Pounds) a year.
Surely those who can afford so much on luxuries could find a more
refined amusement in yachting and similar recreations. To sail a yacht
successfully in half a gale of wind, is, I should imagine, more
venturesome, more exciting, and a pastime requiring a manifestation of
more of the qualities of daring, than shooting a frightened animal from
the safe retreat of the saddle of a trusty horse; and not even the hunt
of the wild beast can equal in true sportsmanship a contest with the
wind and the waves, for it is only occasionally that a beast shows
fight because he is wounded, and even then man is well protected by his
gun; but whether yachting or swimming the sportsman's attitude of
watchfulness is uninterrupted. I fancy it is convention and custom,
rather than conviction of the superiority of the sport, that has given
hunting its pre-eminence. It is on record that four thousand years ago
the ancient emperors of China started periodically on hunting
expeditions. They thus sought relief from the monotony of life in
those days; in the days of the Stuarts, in England, royalty found
pleasure in shows which were childish and even immoral. Of course in
barbarous countries all savages used to hunt for food. For them
hunting was an economic necessity, and it is no slander to say that the
modern hunt is a relic of barbarism. It is, indeed, a matter of
surprise to me that this cruel practice has not ceased, but still
exists in this twentieth century. It goes without saying that hunting
means killing the defenseless, inflicting misery and death on the
helpless; even if it be admitted that there is some justification for
killing a ferocious and dangerous animal, why should we take pleasure
in hunting and killing the fox, the deer, the hare, the otter, and
similar creatures? People who hunt boast of their bravery and
fearlessness, and to show their intrepidity and excellent shooting they
go to the wilderness and other countries to carry on their "sport". I
admire their fearless courage but I am compelled to express my opinion
that such actions are not consistent with those of a good-hearted
humane gentleman.
Still less excuse is there for the practice of shooting. What right
have we to wantonly kill these harmless and defenseless birds flying in
the air? I once watched pigeon shooting at a famous watering place,
the poor birds were allowed to fly from the trap-holes simply that they
might be ruthlessly killed or maimed. That was wanton cruelty; to
reprobate too strongly such revolting barbarity is almost impossible.
I am glad to say that such cruel practices did not come under my
observation during my residence in the States, and I hope that they are
not American vices but are prohibited by law. No country, with the
least claim to civilization, should allow such things, and our
descendants will be astonished that people calling themselves civilized
should have indulged in such wholesale and gratuitous atrocities. When
people allow animals to be murdered--for it is nothing but murder--for
the sake of sport, they ought not to be surprised that men are murdered
by criminals for reasons which seem to them good and sufficient. An
animal has as much right to its life as man has to his. Both may be
called upon to sacrifice life for the sake of some greater good to a
greater number, but by what manner of reasoning can killing for
killing's sake be justified? Does the superior cunning and intellect
of man warrant his taking life for fun? Then, should a race superior
to humanity ever appear on the earth, man would have no just cause of
complaint if he were killed off for its amusement. There formerly
existed in India a "well-organized confederacy of professional
assassins" called Thugs, who worshipped the goddess Kali with human
lives. They murdered according to "rigidly prescribed forms" and for
religious reasons. The English, when they came into power in India,
naturally took vigorous measures to stamp out Thuggeeism; but from a
higher point of view than our own little selves, is there after all so
much difference between the ordinary sportsman and the fanatic Thuggee?
If there be, the balance is rather in favor of the latter, for the Thug
at least had the sanction of religion, while the hunter has nothing to
excuse his cruelty beyond the lust of killing. I do not understand why
the humane societies, such as "The Society for the Prevention of
Cruelty to Animals", are so supine in regard to these practices. The
Chinese are frequently accused of being cruel to animals, but I think
that those who are living in glass houses should not throw stones.
In this connection I would remark that birds are shot not only for
pleasure and for their flesh, but in some cases for their plumage, and
women who wear hats adorned with birds' feathers, do, though
indirectly, encourage the slaughter of the innocent. Once a Chinese
was arrested by the police in Hongkong for cruelty to a rat. It
appeared that the rat had committed great havoc in his household,
stealing and damaging various articles of food; when at last it was
caught the man nailed its feet to a board, as a warning to other rats.
For this he was brought before the English Magistrate, who imposed a
penalty of ten dollars. He was astonished, and pleaded that the rat
deserved death, on account of the serious havoc committed in his house.
The Magistrate told him that he ought to have instantly killed the rat,
and not to have tortured it. The amazed offender paid his fine, but
murmured that he did not see the justice of the British Court in not
allowing him to punish the rat as he chose, while foreigners in China
were allowed the privilege of shooting innocent birds without
molestation. I must confess, people are not always consistent.
The Peace Societies should take up this matter, for hunting is an
imitation of war and an apprenticeship to it. It certainly can find no
justification in any of the great world religions, and not even the
British, or the Germans, who idolize soldiers, would immortalize a man
simply because he was a hunter. From whatever point the subject be
viewed it seems undeniable that hunting is only a survival of savagery.
[1] E. B., 9th ed., vol. 33, p. 649.