Wikipedia talk:School and university projects/Englishness and Cricket

Let the games begin!

Game on LuigiM227 (talk) 22:29, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Can I take this course?!

) --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 23:57, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Hey, Jon! (Simon) Simon1252 is the instructor of the course. He already inspired me to watch Fire in Babylon. --Oline73 (talk) 15:21, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

FIrst, Hofstra students -- then, THE WORLD!! :) Simon1252 (talk) 15:32, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Cricket As a Civilizing Force in England

In Chapter One of Globalizing Cricket, Malcom uses the word "sportization" to describe the process by which older games evolve into modern sports. These modern sports developed new rules that required less violence in the game. This sportization of cricket happened around the same time as the "parliamentarization" of Britain. Parliamentarization marked the end of a "cycle of violence" in England after the English Civil War. Non-violent and peaceful means of discussing political issues began to emerge, as a result. Malcom explicitly noted that parliamentization did not cause sportization, and vice versa. Instead, they corresponded with each other and affected the same, overlapping groups of people. According to Malcom, it is important to emphasize the construction of written rules, on the social classes of the people who made these rules, and how affective those rules were in the decrease of violence in games. It is for these reasons that I ultimately believe that cricket did contribute to the civilization of England. MeghanV201 (talk) 14:31, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Following the English Civil War , some of the English had grown tired of violence and instability surrounding them. Cricket became the perfect escape for this, as it was considered to be a dignified sport that a gentleman could play without concern of his reputation. The 'Warrior Nobility' had lost popularity and power, and so cricket, a sport that had been played in small towns for centuries, began to go through 'sportization', a process through which is began to gain official rules and regulations. This change coincided with the process of parliamentarization. Although these two movements were not caused by one another, they tended to appeal to the same group of people, and so they often attracted the same audience. The shared audience explains why cricket has 'clubs' instead of 'teams', and 'laws' instead of 'rules'.

I agree with what Meghan has said. I would definitely say that the the formalization of cricket, adding 'laws' and 'clubs', was a sign of a maturing England. One that was growing tired of constantly being at war with others. They wanted to have a dignified sport that could be respected, one where the rules and consequences were clear. Malcolm makes it clear in chapter one that the English were attempting to find a way to peacefully settle conflicts in the eighteenth century using discourse and discussion rather than attempting to force their views down other peoples throats by using violence to 'prove their point'. Obviously cricket wasn't perfect right away, and players got hurt, but as time went on and safety rules were developed, the rate of injury went down. It seemed (for that time at least), that people were less interested with bloody sports than ever before. KLudwin16 (talk) 01:53, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Cricket and the Parliamentary System

The landed class of England seemed to dominate the culture of cricket during its inception. Due to their unity an involvement together, the Aristocracy became increasingly involved in competitions. The articles also discuss how, as the parliamentary system of government developed, cricket developed alongside it. Having a parliament meant that internal disputes could be resolved in a nonviolent fashion through debate and discourse. This aspect of political life, according to the articles, was transferred to the aristocratic social life, where they competed for higher social status through nonviolent means. The article seems to contradict itself at first as it mentions that violence was very prevalent in early cricket matches, which is not consistent with a nonviolent form of social competition. However, it begins to make sense as the article lets time pass and mentions all the rules and restrictions put in place to lessen violent episodes. As the parliamentary system became more established and better understood, violence became less common during cricket matches.

It seems as though neither truly had an affect on the other, but they are rather similar results of the same aristocratic trend manifesting themselves in different areas of English life.

JFrye61 (talk) 17:07, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Englishness and National Identity

Over the duration of this course, we are trying to establish what elements come together to define Englishness. In chapter two of Globalizing Cricket – Englishness, Empire and Identity, author Dominic Malcolm opens up his discussion of Cricket as quintessentially English with a more general discussion of what creates national identity itself. He states that these elements that form the basis of national identity “may be biological (leading to ethnic nationalism) or cultural (civic nationalism) but they are always somewhat arbitrary, identifying certain commonalties as significant” (p31). In specific relationship to Englishness, Malcolm sites the use of ‘British’ and ‘English’ as synonyms and therefore “conflated entities.” Additionally, he believes that because England has been so allied to British imperialism it has since been “defined by inclusion and expansion rather then by exclusion and inwardness.”

The emergence of Englishness can then be broken down between two perspectives: that of the ‘modernists’ and that of the ‘ethicists’. Modernists hold that “nationalism is a cultural and political ideology produced by modernity.” In turn, ethicists believe that “nationalism require a sense of common history, unifying myths and symbols, and cultural practices characteristic of ethno-cultural communities” (p32). Personally, I believe that in today’s global society it is impossible to limit a sense of national identity to one specific ethnicity. But that does not mean that there is not a shared culture amongst those who consider themselves English. It seems that the simple answer may be to consider the Anglo-Saxon version of English ethnicity to be the most accurate. But as explained in the legend of King Arthur, even the Anglo-Saxon’s were immigrants to the British Isles. Instead, I tend to agree with the modernist perspective that English individuals share a culture in the legends of how the nation developed before it was a part of Great Britain, and in its diverse ethnic make-up from the time of imperialism and into the modern-age.

Jbenes4 (talk) 00:26, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Is cricket a reflection of a former Englishness or a modern Englishness?

In chapter I, Malcolm explains that cricket was once an intensely violent game. Players would often engage in acts of violence, and even spectators would become hostile under certain circumstances. Most instances of violence were the result of matches that did finish the way one side had expected. The shame of both the players and the spectators who lost was only exasperated by losses they suffered from their bets. Malcolm retails of a match in the Chelsea Common in 1731 that was ended prematurely because of a fight that had broken out “over a disputed wager”. With quick implementation of rules or laws these violent outbreaks were slowly reduced; however, the laws of cricket still permitted gambling until 1884. Interestingly, by the beginning of the nineteenth century, some fervent supporters of cricket actively repressed this aspect of cricket as well as English history. Not surprisingly, these supporters were also opposed to the advent of industrialization in England, which is similar to sentiments shared by other advocates of English national identity such as H.V. Morton. These gentlemen, Nyren and Pycroft for example, felt that this new world that was emerging was in direct opposition to what they perceived to be English, and could even be a threat to tits existence. Therefore, they sought to redefine cricket in order to preserve its “English” characteristics. What affects this redefinition of cricket has produced not only on English culture, but also on the cultures most closely associated with it, e.g. former colonies, would be an interesting choice of study. I suppose that by doing so modern cricket exists as it does because of such efforts. Can it be said that the forerunners of cricket were ultimately successful in preserving their England within cricket, or did they unwittingly irreversibly alter the definition of cricket, and therefore Englishness contrary to what they had planned? JHCRosero (talk) 00:26, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Violence in Cricket

Hi everyone! I've added a section on the History of cricket (1726-1763) page about violence in cricket. This was very interesting to me since Malcom began chapter 1 (I believe it was also in some of the introduction) by discussing how cricket was a sport that really built "civilization" in England and Englishness. Clearly, and as he also states, cricket is seen as a "genteel" sport, and still is viewed today as a gentleman's sport with many rules that make it seem prim and proper. However, the history of cricket's first emergence seemed to suggest the opposite--there was quite a bit of violence, injury, and even death that occurred! I look forward to discussing this with you tomorrow! Aependleton29 (talk) 03:37, 11 March 2013 (UTC)