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)

I also mentioned how cricket is a civilizing force in England. While sports and politics did not influence each other, they developed side by side. I agree with Meghan completely. I wrote about a similar topic on the Cricket in England page under a new subheading "Cricket in Society." Julesaj11 (talk) 20:35, 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)

Allen Guttmann, author of From Ritual to Record: The Nature of Modern Sports, put forth several characteristics that distinguish pre-1750s sports to modern sports. Among those criteria are:

1) Secularism: modern sports are not related to "formal" aspects of religious worship

2) Equality: modern sports stress equal opportunity, not only in participation, but in the idea of a "level playing field"

3) Specialization: modern sports expect elite participants to specialize in certain positions (i.e. linebacker)

4) Bureaucratization: modern sports not spontaneously organized

5) Rationalization: modern sports structured in "purpose-built venues" with increased environmental control, regulated instrumentation and participants prepared using "latent scientific techniques and knowledge" (stadiums, rather than on the street)

6) Quantification: actions are translated into numeral data (i.e. quarterback rating)

7) Quest for Record: modern sport participants expected to "increasingly advance performance by which the progression of humanity can be seen."

According to those characteristics, cricket is only "modern" in the sense that it follows the first four criteria. However, cricket does not follow the "rationalization" aspect of the game since cricket has multiple game forms (i.e. Twenty20, 50 overs) and many of the teams represent either rural towns or "sub- or supra-nation-states." Furthermore cricket games are not standardized or regulated to a large extent. Not only do they have differing game lengths, some games occur at night, under artificial lights, as opposed to day matches. Or some shorter games utilize a white ball instead of a red, which has been speculated to behave differently. Even the wicket (playing field) has not been entirely standardized, with maximum and minimum measurements set forth, but not regulated. Also specialization is not necessarily stressed in cricket, with some players playing only Twenty20 matches, but the great majority playing all forms of the game, and players are expected fill a variety of roles on the field. All of these factors, lead to the presence of inequality in the playing of cricket, therefore violating the second criteria to some degree.

Therefore according to Guttmann cricket is modern in some sense of the word, but also unmodern in other ways. But categorizing cricket as either former or modern English does not take into account the evolution of the game in context of a changing England and idea of Englishness. So-Van51 (talk) 17:26, 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)

After reading just the introduction and chapter 1, I was surprised to see how many contradictions there are in cricket in regards to the violence and the image cricket portrays, at least in its early years. It is supposed to be a "civilizing" and "genteel" game, as Anna says, but the behavior of players and spectators seemed to be brutish. I also found it interesting that for a game that is the origin of phrases about fairness (such as playing with a straight bat), it was very unfair. On page 6 of the introduction, Malcom describes all of the ways cricket is not fair and how it is un-modern. Nicolex711 (talk) 14:20, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I expanded the section called "Cricket in Society", which is part of the "Cricket in England" page because I thought this subject was really interesting. Also, that section talked a little bit about the beginnings of Cricket, but had no mention of the period in which it was really violent and I really thought this needed to be included in there. Annabel392 (talk) 17:49, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Origins of Cricket

I added a paragraph to the History of cricket to 1725 page to the "Theories of origin" section. The section really only discussed one theory of origin, but in the introduction to the book I found it interesting that it is not very clear where cricket truly originated. The various sports with different similarities to cricket suggest that it may have had more of a worldwide origin, collecting pieces here and there and putting them together to form what we now know as modern cricket. --Mollykluba (talk) 05:06, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Citing Sources

Everything you post in Wikipedia should be verifiable, so in the event of a dispute, people can examine your source and support one side of the debate or the other. "A good rule of thumb is that one footnote after a sentence is almost always sufficient," via Citation overkill. Recruiting other people (like classmates in this project) to join the discussion and help verify your edits is the way to ensure that your edits stay. --Oline73 (talk) 13:57, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Cricket and English Identity Through Literature

I added to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_national_identity#Englishness_as_described_by_Dominic_Malcolm_in_Globalizing_Cricket_.E2.80.93_Englishness.2C_Empire_and_Identity writing about how cricket becoming a part of English identity was due in part to its presence in literature linking it to national identity. Nicolex711 (talk) 16:09, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Women in Cricket

I find it interesting that Malcolm briefly mentions women in cricket in the introduction, and even while referring to cricket players used he/she sometimes. However, looking at the table of content of the book there does not seem to be a chapter about women, and from our readings so far they are not mentioned again. Malcolm talks about cricket being used as a way to "other" certain cultures and people in chapter 2, I wonder how women were integrated into the sport and the attitude towards that, since women are a group that are usually seen as "others." Nicolex711 (talk) 16:08, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I thought this was a very interesting topic as well. On page 17 (Chapter 1) Malcolm says that, "Notices also indicate that the participation of women was not uncommon". I'm wondering how they participated, if their versions of the game were considerably different or not, and whether they played with men on the same field or had separate women's games (although I'm assuming they did). Annabel392 (talk) 17:59, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

The Laws of Cricket

I, too, have edited on the article History of cricket (1726–1763). I added onto the section on "The Laws of Cricket". I talked about violence and gambling by saying how it influenced in creating the laws. I also commented on how the creation, by aristocrats, of these laws made it evident of the status competition in cricket which Malcolm discusses on pages 20-21.Mvictoria93 (talk) 16:15, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Individualism of Cricket

In the Introduction, Malcolm addresses how cricket is a strange sort of team sport because so much of the game is players performing as individuals. He addresses how important the captain is to the team in terms of decision making, claiming that there is no other sport where the captain is as important as he is in cricket. This individualistic nature of the game reminded me of the conversations we had while watching the film Chariots of Fire and makes me wonder whether individual players are seeking fame nationally as a team or individually as players. I would like to edit the main cricket page to further address the individual play aspect of cricket, but was not allowed to edit the page. Did anyone else have a similar problem? BrittanyW1220 (talk) 17:27, 11 March 2013 (UTC) BrittanyW1220

The article is semi-protected; it is likely that if you make a few more edits on other pages over the next few days that you would be able to edit that page before the end of the week. Harrias ^talk 17:32, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

The Duckworth-Lewis Method

I contributed a bit to this page about the band and some of their individual songs. However, it would be extremely helpful if I knew how to add a new page/link because I wanted to make a new page for every song. Each song has a lot of symbolism and meaning in them and I would like to research them and explain them. Taylormcallister17 (talk) 19:44, 11 March 2013 (UTC)