Almost all of our national heroes are connected to violent events.

We celebrate Paul Bogle’s stance in 1865 not because he built a courthouse, but because he burnt it.

We take pride in our Maroons not because they were good farmers, but because they were good warriors.

Slave revolts such as the one that made Sam Sharpe a hero were violent events where persons were killed and property destroyed.

Nanny of the Maroons did not defeat the British by her negotiating skills in debate, but rather her effectiveness in battle, battles that led to English soldiers being killed.

Our history is in essence, one of continuous violence against us and committed by us. Hence, we celebrate the persons who led us in battle against our enemies.

We celebrate the violence conduct they exhibited when required. There is nothing wrong with that.

However, embracing violence as a country when used when necessary in our history, also assists and makes it acceptable as being considered a tool to be used in the future.

It is reasonable then that violence and war are part of our culture.

Again, nothing is wrong with that. A country which has such a horrible history of various groups fleeing oppression and enduring cruelty would likely embrace violence as a necessary tool to be employed.

The international heroes we embrace such as Nelson Mandela, Malcolm X, and Fidel Castro are persons who have been affiliated with armed struggle, or at least encouraging it.

It is again, reasonable. So when our modern-day young men embrace violence as part of their culture why are we surprised?

They have been taught to celebrate events where people were killed and the persons directly involved with the killing.

We were encouraged by our leaders as recent as the seventies to engage in violent conduct against each other.

Those adults raised us and we have raised the bunch of hooliganism that we are here now criticising.

We are culturally violent! This is a fact.

What caused it? Our history, our leadership, our music? Who knows? But we are.

So when students at a track meet exhibit aspects of their culture by pointing the gun finger, that is somewhat expected.

What is expected, but cannot be condoned, is thuggery.

It’s one thing when you’re expressing yourself in a way that denotes symbols of violence.

It’s a totally different subject when you start assaulting persons because you’re angry.

That played out at Champs last week when a Kingston College student attacked a Calabar High School student who had impeded him in a race.

That is unacceptable, but again likely and expected in a country that is culturally violent and one that has embraced thuggery.

What is not acceptable is that the governing body did nothing.

That, in fact, is a disgrace.

In 1981, a Calabar High athlete, who was provoked, kicked down a KC athlete in a race and the crowd erupted. Many were hurt. The meet was aborted. Calabar and KC were banned from competing the following year.

Did we learn anything from that bloodshed?

This could have happened if the assault had occurred on a Saturday.

Well, at least the KC Principal Mr Dave Myrie had a standard of conduct that the Inter-secondary Schools Sports Association (ISSA) apparently did not.

He apologised on behalf of the school. Well, Mr Myrie always had high standards.

Now back to the incident. Why is this assault unacceptable?

Well, apart from what it could cause in respect of crowd response, there is the fact that it was done in anger.

Was his anger justifiable? Possibly. He trained hard, and it ended badly. It was the Calabar athlete’s fault.

Was the KC athlete’s actions acceptable? Absolutely not.

Using violence motivated by anger is never acceptable. Why? Because it becomes an across the board reaction to provocation, once it becomes a tool used to respond.

So when your wife provokes you, and trust me she will, you will hit her. When your kids annoy you, corporal punishment is adopted not for parental correction, but to satiate anger.

This cycle builds and builds till one day you seriously hurt someone, or they hurt you.

As a young man, when persons used to beat their women and I would interview them after an arrest, they would often say, “Mi did vex, mi lose mi temper”.

They would vent the various ills they had experienced at the hand of their obviously mismatched partner.

I would respond: “I am about to put you in a cage like an animal. This is worse than anything she has ever done. Why not hit me?”

They never did!

I understand. I am a figure of authority, I’m the lawman, I am armed and if the weights programme is current and working, I weigh a quarter ton.

So hitting me has consequences. So they never did. So it’s a convenient tool when it has no consequences.

Thuggery is an evident characteristic of our young men. It is sickening and it is a failing of our society.

An opportunity was missed to teach two things when ISSA made the athlete’s actions OK.

They missed the opportunity to teach him and all looking on that violence is not a suitable response to provocation.

They missed the opportunity to teach him and all others who could be influenced that there are consequences for your actions.

They rather made violence OK, and made it something that has no punishment if you have the right persons supporting you.

Would it have been treated like this if it were a Penwood High School athlete who had reacted similarly?

Hmmm. I’m not so sure.

I always say that it is a relatively small number of inner-city youth, representing an even smaller percentage of inner-city youth, who become gang members and killers.

However, the thugs and thuggery are common.

This wider group feeds into domestic violence, stabbings, and yes, gang activity. Because although not every thug is a gang member, every gang member is a thug.

In closing, we have to be practical and not hypocritical. Young men are going to act out, in keeping with their culture. It’s what is expected. Until you create a rule against it!

But violence, public displays of violence, and violence with dangerous consequences due to crowd issues, can never be considered OK, or handled without some sanction or punishment.

I am pleased with GraceKennedy’s response that they will not accept this behaviour on their nickel.

At least someone, somewhere has a standard that goes beyond the results of a high school track meet.

Feedback: drjasonamckay@gmail.com