March 6, 2025: Hockey Histories: Black Players

[On March 3^rd, 1875, the first organized ice hockey game was played. So this week for the sport’s 150^th anniversary I’ll AmericanStudy a handful of hockey histories, leading up to a weekend post on some SportsStudiers we can all learn from!]

On three groundbreaking players who together reflect the sport’s gradual evolution.

1)      Herb Carnegie (1919-2012): As with baseball in the US, for much of the early 20^th century hockey in Canada was racially segregated, with organizations like the Colored Hockey League of the Maritimes offering the only consistent opportunities for Black players. That means that, as with the Negro Leagues in baseball, we have far too many instances of clearly exceptional, Hall of Fame worthy players (as the first hyperlink above reflects) who never had the chance to play in the full professional leagues. Herb Carnegie is very high on that list, winning MVP multiple times in lower professional leagues in Canada and even receiving a tryout with the New York Rangers in 1948. But the Rangers refused Carnegie an NHL roster spot and offered him less money to play in their minor league system than he was making in the lower leagues and he turned them down, one more reflection of what was lost in this segregated era of hockey.

2)      Willie O’Ree (1935- ): A decade after Carnegie’s tryout, the “Jackie Robinson of ice hockey” finally broke the NHL’s color barrier. A prodigy from a very young age, playing on teams at the age of 5 and playing in league playoffs before he was 16, O’Ree actually met Robinson while still that talented teenager in New Brunswick (not long after Robinson had broken into the major leagues). Just a few years later, in January 1958, O’Ree was called up to the Boston Bruins from the minor league Quebec Aces; he would play in only two games in that year, but would stay in the league and play more than 40 games during the 1960-61 season. He also faced racist taunts from Chicago Blackhawks players and fans (among many many other during that year), leading to melee after which, he later reflected, he was “lucky to get out of the arena alive.” Like Jackie in more ways than one, was Willie O’Ree.

3)      Grant Fuhr (1962- ): O’Ree didn’t exactly open the floodgates, but gradually more and more Black players did join the NHL over the next few decades. One of the most groundbreaking and talented was Grant Fuhr, the first Black goalie to play in the league and the first to win a Stanley Cup when his Edmonton Oilers did so five times in the 1980s (and eventually the first to be inducted into the Hockey Hall of Fame as well). Fuhr being the first in those categories a century after the creation of the Colored Hockey League of the Maritimes is as frustrating a fact as any produced by segregated histories—but we can remember the frustrations while still celebrating the iconic and inspiring individuals who helped change them, a list that includes all three of these hockey stars.

Last hockey history tomorrow,

Ben

PS. What do you think? Hockey histories you’d highlight?

March 5, 2025: Hockey Histories: The Miracle on Ice

[On March 3^rd, 1875, the first organized ice hockey game was played. So this week for the sport’s 150^th anniversary I’ll AmericanStudy a handful of hockey histories, leading up to a weekend post on some SportsStudiers we can all learn from!]

On the symbolic role of sports in society, and the line between history and story.

For a solid five-year period in the early 1980s, the sports world and the Cold War felt inextricably linked. Beginning with the February 1980 Olympic hockey semifinal between the U.S. and Soviet Union teams (on which a lot more momentarily), continuing through the two prominent Olympic boycotts (the US boycott of the 1980 Summer Olympics in Moscow, and the retaliatory Soviet boycott of the 1984 Summer Olympics in Los Angeles), and culminating, of course, with 1985’s Rocky IV and its climactic, Cold War-ending boxing match between American underdog Rocky Balboa and Soviet machine (literally and figuratively) Ivan Drago, the stories and images of international sports in the period mirrored quite strikingly the political and cultural clashes between the two superpowers.

One of those four sports events is not like the others, of course—the fight between Rocky and Drago, compelling as it undoubtedly was, took place only in the realms of film and fiction, unlike the actual historical events surrounding the 80 and 84 Olympics. Yet I don’t believe that the line between those categories of events is nearly as clear as it might seem. While the Olympic boycotts of course had very tangible and often desctructive effects, not only for the athletes and teams but for the respective host cities and countries, they were, first and foremost, about the manipulation of and contests over images and narratives. And while the 1980 hockey semifinal was not scripted by a team of Hollywood screenwriters, however much it might have felt that way (and the subsequent TV and Hollywood films notwithstanding), the narrative of the “Miracle on Ice,” which was developed quite literally in the moment and has become the defining image of that game, represents image-making at its most potent and enduring.

The question, though, is even more complicated than whether the phrase “Miracle on Ice” represents an image rather than the event itself (it certainly does). I would ask, instead, whether we collectively remember the event not only through but also because of the image; because, that is, of how the event was turned into a story that can have cultural and symbolic resonance far beyond even the most striking individual historical moment. Whether the image and story are accurate to the history is a separate (and important) question, and in this case I would say that they largely are (the US team was a huge underdog to the powerful Soviet squad, and the victory thus one of the more unexpected in sports history); but to my mind, the question of accuracy can blur the importance of the process of image-making, can make it seem as if “miracle” refers to the game rather than to the narrative that was and has been developed in response to it. A great deal of the Cold War was defined by such image- and myth-making, never more so than during the Reagan Administration; to recognize the way in which sports can be folded into such narratives is thus a historical analysis, as well as one with contemporary and ongoing implications.

Next hockey history tomorrow,

Ben

PS. What do you think? Hockey histories you’d highlight?

March 4, 2025: Hockey Histories: Fighting

[On March 3^rd, 1875, the first organized ice hockey game was played. So this week for the sport’s 150^th anniversary I’ll AmericanStudy a handful of hockey histories, leading up to a weekend post on some SportsStudiers we can all learn from!]

On the way not to argue for a sport’s violent tradition, and a possible way to do so.

First, in the interest of full disclosure: of the four major sports, I know by far the least about hockey. And that’s especially true of hockey history—other than a few big name players and the occasional interesting story (both of those hyperlinked pieces focus on Boston-related topics, which is likely why I know a bit more about them than I do other hockey histories), what I know about the history of hockey can be fit inside a box much smaller than the penalty one. Researching this week’s series has helped with that to be sure, but I know I’ve only scratched the surface still. So as always, and especially when it comes to topics like this one on which I am generally and admittedly ignorant, I’ll very much appreciate any responses and challenges and other ideas in comments (or by email). I don’t think I’m ever gonna get to full octopus-on-the-ice level hockey fandom, but there’s no topic about which I’m not excited to learn more, this one very much included.

So with all of that said, it’s my understanding that one of the most heated debates in the hockey world is over whether fighting is a central and beloved element of the sport that must be preserved or an outdated and dangerous aside that should be discarded to attract more widespread fan support. Obviously I don’t know enough to have a strong opinion (I’m opposed to fighting-based sports, but this is somewhat of a different story of course), but I will say this: from what I can tell, many of the arguments in favor of fighting seem to come from what we could call hockey traditionalists. And having had more than my share of experiences with baseball traditionalists, I’d say that “This is how we have always done things” is an incredibly ineffective way to argue for any aspect of a sport (or most anything else for that matter). For one thing, such an argument would by extension make any change impossible, and anything that is going to endure over time needs to evolve in at least some ways in order to do so. And for another thing, there are many cases where we learn things that require specific changes in the way we do things—and it seems to me that what we now know about head injuries, for example, just might make that the case when it comes to fighting in hockey.

I’m pretty serious about CTE (although I haven’t been able to give up football yet), so if I were to weigh in more fully on the fighting in hockey debate, I’d likely be in the opposition camp. But I try to be open to different perspectives of course, and in a debate like this what I’d be interested to hear is how pro-fighting perspectives might argue for its role in how the sport is played. That is, when it comes to fighting in baseball (something I know a lot more about), fights represent an entirely unsanctioned and illegal element, one that always leads to ejections and suspensions and fines and so on. Whereas fighting in hockey is more or less entirely sanctioned, with the two fighters surrounded by the referees and allowed to complete their fight before the regular gameplay resumes. So perhaps there are reasons beyond tradition alone, ways that fighting contributes to the play of hockey within games, within a season, as a sport. After all, all rules in sports are arbitrary and constructed, and don’t necessarily need changing as a result. This one features violence to be sure, but so for that matter does hockey overall—so I’m open to hearing (including here if you’d like!) for how this element of hockey might also feature other sides to this sport, past and present.

Next hockey history tomorrow,

Ben

PS. What do you think? Hockey histories you’d highlight?

March 3, 2025: Hockey Histories: Origin Points

[On March 3^rd, 1875, the first organized ice hockey game was played. So this week for the sport’s 150^th anniversary I’ll AmericanStudy a handful of hockey histories, leading up to a weekend post on some SportsStudiers we can all learn from!]

On three telling and compelling layers to that first organized game.

1)      James Creighton: Railway engineer and lawyer Creighton is known as the father of organized hockey, as he certainly didn’t invent the sport itself (compared for example to James Naismith and basketball); an informal, outdoor version known as both hockey and “shinny” was already being played on frozen ponds in the 1850s Nova Scotia of Creighton’s youth. But as I discussed with baseball’s 19^th century evolution in my recent podcast (the Third Inning in particular), it took a while for that local, community version of the sport to become organized, and a key step in that process was Creighton gathering groups of players (many from nearby McGill University) and providing sticks for workouts at Montreal’s Victoria Skating Rink in the early 1870s (he knew the rink from his work there as a judge for figure skating competitions). After years of practicing together, those players were finally ready to put on a full, organized game, with Creighton captaining the Montreal Football Club against the Rink’s home team.

2)      The Game: The pre-game announcement in the Montreal Gazette noted a specific change that would significantly reshape the sport’s future: “Some fears have been expressed on the part of intending spectators that accidents were likely to occur with the ball flying about in too lively a manner, to the imminent danger of lookers on, but we understand that the game will be played with a flat circular piece of wood, thus preventing all danger of its leaving the surface of the ice.” That addition of the puck would be more than enough to make this 1875 game a true origin point for the sport (with shinny/pond hockey, which uses a ball, almost a distinct sport in its own right that likewise endures to this day), but the Gazette’s follow-up report on the game makes clear that its play was also quite representative of how the sport would evolve, as exemplified by the phrase “the efforts of the players exciting much merriment as they wheeled and dodged each other.”

3)      The Melee: Of course, hockey players don’t always dodge each other, and their hits aren’t limited to in-play collisions. I’ll write more in tomorrow’s post about the overall history and place of fighting in the sport, but it’s pretty telling that this first organized game likewise concluded with an extended brawl. The fact that this fight wasn’t just between players—instead, players from both teams apparently brawled with Victoria Skating Club members who were angry that the rink had been used for this purpose—only reiterates how much fighting was part of hockey’s collective DNA from the outset. As the Daily British Whig newspaper described this telling postgame scene, “Shins and heads were battered, benches smashed, and the lady spectators fled in confusion.”

Next hockey history tomorrow,

Ben

PS. What do you think? Hockey histories you’d highlight?

March 1-2, 2025: February 2025 Recap

[A Recap of the month that was in AmericanStudying.]

February 3: Inspiring Sports Stories: The Celestials: For this year’s Super Bowl series, I wanted to focus on the very needed topic of inspiring sports stories, starting with my recent podcast on my favorite one!

February 4: Inspiring Sports Stories: Babe Didrikson Zaharias: The series continues with two ways to parallel the pioneering athlete to legendary men, and one key way not to.

February 5: Inspiring Sports Stories: Chubbtown: Two contrasting & equally important ways to contextualize an inspiring family story, as the series cheers on.

February 6: Inspiring Sports Stories: Jaylen Brown: Two inspiring layers to the most recent NBA Finals MVP, way beyond the basketball court.  

February 7: Inspiring Sports Stories: FSU Student-Athletes: The series concludes with a tribute to six of the amazing student-athletes I’ve been able to teach in my 20 years at FSU.

February 8-9: Inspiring Sports Stories: Aidan and Kyle Railton: But I couldn’t write a series on inspiring sports stories without highlighting my two favorite athletes & humans!

February 10: Love Letters to the Big Easy: New Orleans and America: For this year’s Valentine’s Day series, I wanted to share love letters to my favorite American city, starting with how it helps us engage with America’s defining identity.

February 11: Love Letters to the Big Easy: The Battle of New Orleans: The series continues with three striking sides to one of America’s most insignificant victories.

February 12: Love Letters to the Big Easy: Treme: Five characters through which the wonderful HBO show charts New Orleans stories, as the series parades on.

February 13: Love Letters to the Big Easy: Fats Domino: A few iconic moments in the career of the legendary New Orleans rock ‘n roller.

February 14: Love Letters to the Big Easy: Literary New Orleans: The series concludes with five of the many books through which we can read New Orleans.

February 15-16: One More Love Letter to the Big Easy: & a special Valentine for my Valentine, a few magical moments my wife & I experienced during our recent trip to New Orleans!

February 17: Places I Love and Hate: Cville: For this year’s installment of my post-Valentine’s non-favorites series, I focused on formative places that I have a love-hate relationship with, starting with my troubled hometown.

February 18: Places I Love and Hate: CHS: The series continues with prisons, pains, & promises in a public school.

February 19: Places I Love and Hate: Harvard: Individuals who made my undergrad experience great and an institution that did not do so, as the series of mixed emotions rolls on.

February 20: Places I Love and Hate: Philly: Frustrating attitudes, fantastic academics, and a secret third thing.

February 21: Places I Love and Hate: Salem: The series concludes with the Massachusetts city that embodies the worst and best of American collective memories.

February 24: AlaskaStudying: Seward’s Folly: For the 100^th anniversary of Glacier Bay becoming a National Monument, an Alaska series kicks off with the complex reasons behind territorial expansion.

February 25: AlaskaStudying: Mardy Murie: The series continues with three factors that help explain the unique life & legacy of the “Grandmother of the Conservation Movement.”

February 26: AlaskaStudying: Glacier Bay: For its 100^th anniversary, three forces of nature who helped preserve Glacier Bay before it became a National Monument.

February 27: AlaskaStudying: Nenana Ice Classic: What a unique Alaskan tradition tells us about both Alaska & tradition, as the series explores on.

February 28: AlaskaStudying: McKinley or Denali?: The series concludes with revisiting a decade-old column to think about the recent re-renaming of Denali.

Next series starts Monday,

Ben

PS. Topics you’d like to see covered in this space? Guest Posts you’d like to contribute? Lemme know!

February 28, 2025: AlaskaStudying: McKinley or Denali?

[100 years ago this week, Calvin Coolidge designated Alaska’s Glacier Bay a National Monument. So this week I’ll AmericanStudy that beautiful spot and other Alaskan places, people, and stories!]

On two ways to contextualize formal renamings.

Nearly a decade ago, I wrote for my Talking Points Memo column about the controversies over President Obama formally renaming Mount McKinley as Denali. I’d ask you to check out that column if you would, and then come on back for a couple more layers to such debates.

Welcome back! I’m glad that I focused most of that column on Native American histories and perspectives, and would very much still argue that any debate over such renamings which in any way centers white Americans is a non-starter from the jump. There is of course a good deal of irony (as the Sigourney poem I included in that post argues) in using Native American names for places that, in almost every case, have been forcibly taken from those communities, a removal process without which (for example) the National Park system quite literally would not exist. But at the same time, these places remain important (and in many cases sacred) to those indigenous communities, a key reason why they and their allies advocate for returning the names of places like McKinley to their indigenous names instead. It is, to be honest, the least we can do to honor those demands.

When we do, though, it doesn’t mean we should forget the complex and telling histories that led to names like Mount McKinley for a peak thousands of miles away from William McKinley’s Ohio birthplace. I tend to believe (as I argued in this post nearly four years ago) that the phrase “settler colonialism” gets used a bit willy-nilly these days without the necessary contexts and nuances, or at least without a great deal of thought as to what it helps us understand. But whatever we want to call it, there’s something profoundly telling about recent white arrivals to a place like Alaska deciding to rename one of its most striking natural wonders (and indeed the tallest mountain in all of North America) after a white leader with pretty much no connection whatsoever to that place (other than that he was president of the entire United States, of course). Such brazen intellectual ownership over places and communities in a setting with such rich natural and human histories is, I would argue, far more foolish than anything Seward could have ever done.

February Recap this weekend,

Ben

PS. What do you think? Alaska contexts you’d share?

February 27, 2025: AlaskaStudying: Nenana Ice Classic

[100 years ago this week, Calvin Coolidge designated Alaska’s Glacier Bay a National Monument. So this week I’ll AmericanStudy that beautiful spot and other Alaskan places, people, and stories!]

On what a unique Alaskan tradition tells us about both Alaska and tradition.

The annual contest in which participants bet on the exact day and time that ice will break up on the Tanana River near the small community of Nenana, Alaska developed in a few distinct stages. It started very informally in 1906, with six locals forming a betting pool and the winner getting treated to a couple drinks at the local bar. It was revived a decade later in 1916 on a larger but still local scale, with railroad workers and other Nenana residents buying tickets at Jimmy Duke’s Roadhouse. And when the word was spread by railroad workers across the region, the 1917 contest was opened to all residents of both the Alaska and Yukon territories. That 1917 contest is the one that the official website highlights as the contest’s genuine origin point, and it has been run every year since, with the original betting pool of $800 reaching nearly half a million dollars in some recent years (and over $200,000 in the 2023 edition). The technology involved in determining the precise moment when the ice breaks up has also evolved significantly over that century, as this local news story details.

One of the most important but complicated things for any AmericanStudier to try to wrap their head around is just how big and multi-part this nation of ours is, with every state featuring some pretty distinct layers and contexts that have helped shape its identity and community and that it contributes to the whole of the U.S. as a result. I believe that’s genuinely true for every state, but as I discovered during my one visit to Alaska in the summer of 2005, I’d say Alaska is one of the most distinct and unique of all 50 states (perhaps only rivalled by the one territory which gained statehood later, Hawai’i). Part of Alaska’s uniqueness is unquestionably due to its natural landscapes, an environment utterly different from anywhere else in the United States and one primarily defined by ice (although I’m sad to think about how much that has changed in recent years). And part is due to the way in which a great deal of the territory and state have been constituted by migratory communities, both individuals and broader cohorts like railroad workers (all, of course, alongside Alaska’s indigenous communities). We can see all those layers to Alaska’s story and identity in the Nenana Ice Classic, both its existence and how it evolved to become the annual tradition it remains.

This whole blog series focused on such distinctive local traditions, but I hope it also offered windows to consider the overarching concept of tradition and how it is created, how it evolves, and how it works in a society (all topics about which I learned a great deal from one of my favorite scholarly books, Michael Kammen’s Mystic Chords of Memory). In the case of the Nenana Ice Classic in particular, I’d say that we can see how a tradition can be at once quite genuinely connected to key aspects of its local community (as I argued above) and yet thoroughly constructed over time, constructions driven as likely always by a combination of more cynical factors like tourism and capitalism and more sentimental ones like fun and community pride. One thing I try really hard not to be is the kind of scholar who leans so far into the cynicism or even the analysis that I lose sight of those latter factors, and so I’ll end this post with something I’d say for each and every entry in the series: I’d love the chance to be at an event like the Nenana Ice Classic, preferably with my sons and other loved ones, and to enjoy this unique tradition for all that it is.

Last AlaskaStudying tomorrow,

Ben

PS. What do you think? Alaska contexts you’d share?