Chess Be Banned?
In today’s politically correct (PC) world, all things are under review for potential offensiveness. While I find such witch hunts of offensiveness offensive, I would like to provide a brief argument of why the overall game of chess will come under the scrutiny from the “PC police” and stay banned.
First, allow me to give the disclaimer that I am myself a keen chess player, and have absolutely been for half a century. It certainly helps develop strategy and mental skill. But upon reflection, with tongue slightly in cheek, I must admit that the experience entails some troubling subliminal messages, that your PC police ought to carefully consider.
The biggest problem is always that chess is inherently racist. Black versus white will not be something we really should be encouraging inside a racially tense culture. And, needless to say, white goes first, that’s something I would think is disturbing to individuals of color. It’s like landing on the back on the bus. It’s another sort of white supremacy.
On one other hand, white going first demonstrates that whites will be more aggressive than blacks. The board is to establish with everyone’s pieces in line, with total peace for the playing field. And then the whites attack. Every time. The message is being white making you the aggressor.
And aggression is a crucial part of chess. I once tried playing chess using a computer and tried not being aggressive. It was impossible. Aggression is created into the action. It’s a game of war and conflict. It trains the participant to look for strategies to defeating the opponent, not means of making peace.
As operating wars, it will have casualties, usually to pawns. Pawns are also the weakest pieces. You would think that your kingdom should protect its most vulnerable and weakest citizens, not send the crooks to war to become sacrificed like, well, like pawns.
And means that to protect the king. You can have your complete pieces, in case your king is taken all is lost. Everyone, such as the queen, is sacrificed as needed to save the king. Of course, this unquestioning subservience to some monarch is quite undemocratic, and in many cases fascistic.
It’s also misogynistic to assume how the queen must die to the king. Shouldn’t the king protect his queen? What happened to chivalry?
Of course, the queen is much more powerful as opposed to king, since she will move in any direction many spaces. The king is just limited to one space each time. He clearly does not have any superiority of form or function. There is no great reason why the queen must be sacrificed for your lesser king. This is pure paternalistic clap-trap, and perpetuates gender discrimination. I suppose the queen need to wear a bra and high-heels as she encircles the board saving her good-for-nothing husband.
And on the subject of gender, what sex are definitely the pawns? When they reach the opposite side in the board they are often exchanged for just about any piece, including a rook, bishop, knight or possibly a queen. But usually they be a queen. Does this mean they may be female pawns? Do they undergo gender reassignment whenever they reach one other end on the board? It seems pawns are gender neutral, or at best gender confused, until they decide what they need to become. Do we’d like children playing chess to wonder about their gender when they move down their board of life? Should we be telling boys that queens are superior to kings? This style of gender-confused message might cause pubescent children to gain access to a lather.
As for male role models, kings are very pathetic. All they understand how to do is fight. They are not able to stop the war in which these are perpetually engaged. Two kings can’t even approach the other person. No negotiated settlements are allowed. Each king is solely dedicated to himself, a royal narcissist who runs to his castle to cover up behind some pawns on the first sight of your threat. He is ruthless, prepared to send everyone with their deaths if you need to. He is really a selfish brute. Is this truly the kind of leader you want boys to emulate whenever they grow up?
Chess also promotes Christianity over other religions. Notice that you can find only bishops over a chess board. What’s up achievable? What about using ayatollahs or rabbis instead? Maybe one for reds should have rabbis and another ayatollahs. Or what about protestant ministers versus Catholic bishops? Of course, all of this is objectionable to agnostics and atheists, who may prefer counselors as an alternative to bishops. Maybe it needs to be astrologers versus scientists? Clearly, more diversity is necessary here, as well as the Christian monopoly around the bishop piece is offensive and hateful to non-Christians. It probably promotes Islamophobia, too.
And why don’t you consider the impact of chess on stupid people? Winning at chess is regarded as by many as being a sign of intelligence, and losing at chess demonstrates that your opponent is smarter than you’re. This win-lose game reinforces insecurities in stupid kids, who get turned-off to chess since they lose continuously and instead elect to play game titles. Many of these video gaming are violent, and teach these dumb kids how to become violent.
Chess is therefore a “gateway game” to violence. This means that stupid kids playing chess may someday be profiled as potential criminals. Stupid chess players are thus a threat to national security, while profiling them as potential criminals is often a threat to the freedom. It’s sort of any stalemate.
Today’s world is unique from the past world that spawned the bingo of chess. We now respect all religions as equal. We don’t think the world really should be run by bloodthirsty, selfish kings, and think queens must be able to rule with no king. We require pawns having more say using what happens, since “Pawn Lives Matter”. We don’t desire to refer to losers as losers, since that could hurt their feelings and reinforce their a feeling of being losers. And if a king decides to be a queen, that’s okay, too.