The Montgomery advertiser., 1907-11-30
SAVAGE AND CrvrLtsrD eAxns.

SAVAW1 AND CeS1DADSW 0AmnDs
 The old Indian ball sAmss, especially as played by the Creeks and Choctawr, was interesting in some respects. It is not necessary to describe the game but it's main feature was its strenuous ness. The paramount desire of each side was to win, and to accomplish this end they forgot pretty much all else. It was no unusual thing for players to be badly injured or crippled during the game. and sometimes one was killed. but 1t was all part of the national sport and usually no after unpleasantness followed.
 When we read of the brutality that
 not infrequently marked these ball games we account for 1t by saying that these Indians were savases ana could not be expected to be gentle or humane
 in their rude aports. That may be an excuse for them. but can we use the same argument to account for the roughness and danger of our modern game of foot-ball? Can we speak of those who play it as savages who know little of humanity? That way of deal ing with the game and its results would not be acceptable to those who admire the game. we suspect. The boys and young men of the high schools and col ieges would hardly relish being called savages.
 And yet, when we read the published accounts of the football games we feel inclined to say that the Indians played more humane game than the whites do. From our reading of it we must decide that our game is more danger- ous and really more brutal than was the Indian ball game. we are con tinuaily seeing reports from foot ball games in which serious injuries are common, and death not an infrequent occurrence. Limbs are dislocated or broken, ribs fractured, heads cracked and various other casualties recorded, while the death of . player is not so unusual as to attract serious atten- tion.
 Is this roughtness--ff we may not call 1t brutality--due to the fact that we in this day of civilization and en- still have in us strain of the savagery of our faraway ancestors? That seems to be the explanation, to which may be added the ambition to win which characterizes us. When two properly trained teams of players face each other on the grounds it is not to be presumed that they have any feel ing of personal animosity or iIl-feeI- ing towards each other, Not one of the players, we may assume. has any desire to do bodily harm to one of the other side. and we may feel sure that not one of them desires to maim or kill an opponent, merely for the sake of winning a game.
 And yet. when two teams are lined up for the game the main thought that fills the, mind of each player, and the main desire of his heart is to win the game. That is what they are there for. and however gentle. humane and con- siderate they may be ordinarily the excitement of the play. the determina- tion to win sets their blood to boiling and causes every nerve and muscle in their bodies to respond to the demand for victory. we must win this game. at whatever cost" is about the way they feel, and if some are bruised. crip- pied or killed it is looked on as part of the game and the victors enjoy their jured.
 In ore respect the Indians are less are. In our games of football. unless 1t is in the case of professional teams
 
 players are not in the game for profit. and so have no sordid motives in trying to win. but it was different with the Indians in the old days. They played to win, in fact HNswell as in theory. and would bet all they had on one of their big games. as played between rival towns. Their guns and ammuni- tion, bows, arrows and tomahawks. skins and belts, were all stacked up as the prize of the winners. Many of them even bet their ponies when the game was an important one. The savages played and struggled for actual profit. but we do it for the mere desire to win. Ought we to censure the Indians very severely?