This introduction sets up the special issue on sport history topics in Kenya, Uganda, Cameroon, Zambia, and South Africa. This research raises new questions in sports history in the region, explores and extends topics, opens up issues for further exploration, and productively engages with a rich if scattered body of scholarly work. Trends in the field of sport history across the African continent point to a persistent, critically engaged field of study, unpacking the pasts and meanings of sport, ubiquitous in its presence and contested in its meanings.

The Empire's subaltern peoples and its justification in coloniality are strangely absent from British sport history, despite a key strand of the field being grounded in links between Empire, masculinity and sport: in this the subject reflects gaps and silences in British social history more generally. This paper that is both theoretical and historiographical explores this absence and considers ways that it might be addressed. It first sketches the coloniality of sport history as epistemology and ontology through an exploration of the field's methodological national whiteness as redacting the agency and yoke (past and present) of Indigenous and colonial subaltern peoples and implicating sport history in a continuing Imperial Archive. Although necessarily broad brush the paper concludes by examining aspects of the field that disrupt methodological nationalism and methodological whiteness to suggest ways of rethinking and recasting historians' practice to suggest decolonial methods for British sport history that rupture in analyses of sport the constraints of the nation as anachronism and Whiteness as a fundamental characteristic of British history.

Making space, at least in the Lefebvrian model invoked by Carly Adams in "'Home' to Some," 1 is a site, means, and mode of struggle.Lefebvre's spatial trialectic is built around three concurrent modes of space making: conceived space where regimes of power (in his case, capital) impose abstract meaning, represented space as the manifestation of that control, such as through the construction of built environments, and representational or lived space as the everyday means and modes of meaning making in the struggles for survival by those who live in those spaces. 2Lefebvre notes that each of these modes is a site of duality-at least-or, in the spirit of his worldview, of dialectical contestation.Carly's 3 invocation of this tripartite dialectic in the light of Abenaki scholar Christine O'Bonsawin's powerful and evocative call to "step up" to build a different sport history 4 suggests a need to think carefully about both of the field's components-sport and history-not as a singular (sport history) but as a portmanteau, as interwoven phenomena that supplement each other and become more than themselves.That is to say, this is not just a question of "dismantling the established logics, structures, and axiological assumptions of sport history" 5 as a singularity but through a dialectical engagement with both sport and history while noting the risk of reifying and unifying the complex sites and praxes that are sport and history.It means a cold hard look at the subject of our study-at sport not as a neutral practice, however flawed it may be in practice, but as institutionally oppressive in its colonization of Indigenous peoples, its reification of biological difference, its legitimation of racial science, and more.Confronting this means recognizing the inseparability of theory and practice and crafting hard-nosed, engaged historiographical and methodological, social justice-informed praxis that grapples with the past in the now.In this respect, Carly properly highlights the limitations of neoliberal diversity as an inadequate response, a conclusion reinforced by its similarity to Glen Sean Coulthard's critique of recognition as reproducing "colonialist, racist, patriarchal state power." 6Crucially, this is a critique of modern sport-not of play, games, running around, physicality, and movement but of institutionalized, regulated, corporate, organized,

This chapter unpacks the development of philosophical practice through our involvement as "conference ethnographers" in the fifth Philosophy at Play conference. It is both an ethnographic engagement with the conference, its content and location and also a philosophical exploration of questions raised by both this conference and the wider philosophy at play project. As part of our dialogues, we reflect on the tensions between play as a force for democracy and as a site of democratic practice. As part of this, the chapter considers the antagonisms of academic conferencing, instrumental scholarly praxis (including the production of a set of academic papers) and the place of play(fulness) in creating the space necessary for critical insight and practice.

Despite its notable global presence as one of the most popular sports for women, netball has almost no profile within sports history and only a very limited body of scholarly work exploring its historical and socio-cultural presence. The game, developed in the 1890s as an off-shoot of basketball consistent with prevailing gender ideologies of the era, took hold in British Physical Training Colleges before being taken up as a team sport suitable for girls and women across much of the British world. Yet, as a sport coded suitable for women, developed, organized, led and institutionalized by women, it remains comparatively marginal in both the wider sports world and in sport-related scholarship. This introductory essay sketches the nature of that marginalization, considers the limited body of scholarly work exploring netball's history, and provides a frame for understanding this first collection of scholarly analyses of netball history.

Sport history's academic genealogy makes it no better or worse at this self-awareness than most other sub-disciplines. The endogenous historiographies are both essential to and a product of an enhanced systemic reflexivity and therefore lie at the core of sport history becoming its own object. In becoming its own object, sport history's self-awareness turns on two subjects, both common to other forms of social and cultural history as structured social-cultural practice with a high degree of formalized organization. An assessment of the place of sports history in the wider field of American history prompted further ontological and historiographical consideration, although in a replay of the subject's methodological nationalism this remained largely distinct from a parallel discussion in the UK. The absence of attention to failure with its consequent epistemological certainty may be seen also in sport history's surety about the practices framed as sport in a tendency to treat them as consistent across cultural contexts.

Book Review| April 01 2020 Marxism, Colonialism and Cricket: C. L. R. James’s “Beyond a Boundary” Featherstone, David, Christopher Gair, Christian Høgsberg, and Andrew Smith, eds. Marxism, Colonialism and Cricket: C. L. R. James’s “Beyond a Boundary”. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. 2018. Pp. viii + 295. Notes, index. $99.95, hb. $26.95, pb. Malcolm MacLean Malcolm MacLean The University of Queensland/De Montfort University Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Journal of Sport History (2020) 47 (1): 86–87. https://doi.org/10.5406/jsporthistory.47.1.0086 Cite Icon Cite Share Icon Share Facebook Twitter LinkedIn MailTo Permissions Search Site Citation Malcolm MacLean; Marxism, Colonialism and Cricket: C. L. R. James’s “Beyond a Boundary”. Journal of Sport History 1 January 2020; 47 (1): 86–87. doi: https://doi.org/10.5406/jsporthistory.47.1.0086 Download citation file: Zotero Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search All Scholarly Publishing CollectiveUniversity of Illinois PressJournal of Sport History Search Advanced Search The text of this article is only available as a PDF. Copyright 2020 by the Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois2020 Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.

This chapter focuses on means to link structure to agency, rather than explore an emphasis on agency itself. The anti-tour campaign tapped three strands of political discontent. There was a growing dissatisfaction with the National Party government under the leadership of Robert Muldoon. The second was the impact of feminist politics: like much of the rest of the First World, Aotearoa/New Zealand had witnessed over a decade of active feminist campaigning around a diverse range of issues. The third was an emerging Maori land rights movement, asserting a different history of Aotearoa/New Zealand. The chapter utilizes three different terms to refer to the islands in the south-west Pacific known as ‘New Zealand’: ‘Aotearoa’ is used to mean the Maori cultural and historical space within those islands, ‘New Zealand’ refers to the dominant colonial, gendered and classed political entity, and ‘Aotearoa/New Zealand’ is an inclusive noun.

Reviewed by: Marxism, Colonialism and Cricket: C. L. R. James’s “Beyond a Boundary.” ed. by David Featherstone, Christopher Gair, Christian Høgsberg, and Andrew Smith Malcolm MacLean Featherstone, David, Christopher Gair, Christian Høgsberg, and Andrew Smith, eds. Marxism, Colonialism and Cricket: C. L. R. James’s “Beyond a Boundary.” Durham, NC: Duke University Press. 2018. Pp. viii + 295. Notes, index. $99.95, hb. $26.95, pb. It is hard to think of cricket, that game of the stately home, the aristocracy, the white flannels, played for up to five days for a single game as a revolutionary activity, striking a blow against Empire. Yet C. L. R. James’s 1963 Beyond a Boundary makes it just that, as the lapsed Trotskyist, continuing Marxist historian, political analyst, journalist, teacher, novelist, and revolutionary spends much of his most well-known book celebrating the British intelligentsia and the popular alongside West Indies independence. What is more striking is that fifty-five years after its first publication, here is a sports book still in print, in multiple editions, selling consistently well, and widely held to be not only the finest book about cricket ever written but one of the finest sports books ever and a foundational text of postcolonial cultural criticism. It carries a heavy burden and has been the subject of much analysis and discussion. There is little in that wider body of literature that would challenge this collection. This collection emerges from a fiftieth anniversary conference: the book and James emerge as problematic, celebrated, and inspirational. The collection is theoretically, culturally, and politically demanding, critical and affectionate, full of insight and aware of its limits, and acutely engaged with the Beyond a Boundary’s significance and signification. Many of the essays accentuate James’s Britishness. Selwyn Cudjoe locates him in the nineteenth- and twentieth-century Caribbean intellectual tradition shaped by a British education system, whereas Christian Høgsberg critiques his ambiguous sense of Britishness-through-sport, building his critique to draw a wider set of literature including cricket writing by Neville Cardus and Tony Collins’s grounding of modern sport in capitalism. The tension between these two chapters reflects both the tensions of the collection and of James himself—the Caribbean classical intellectual (Cudjoe) who must be understood in the context of 1950s British New Left (Høgsberg). Elsewhere we see these contradictions of Britishness in Roy McCree’s exploration of the publication process where agency is shaped by the relative metropolitan and colonial economic and political power and in Clare Westall’s reading of the book through an aesthetic of the Victorian bildungsroman alongside the image of key West Indies cricketers as Hegelian, world-historical tragic heroes. The corollary of highlighting James’s Britishness is absences. Minkah Makalani’s decolonial reading and David Austin’s critique of James’s modernity both extend the exploration [End Page 86] of Britishness by drawing out the silences surrounding African and plebeian epistemologies. In both cases, there is a rich rereading of the much cited case of Matthew Bondman. Makalani’s treatment focuses on Bondman as an instance of James’s silence in the book about Indigenous and African perspectives, making an important link to the 1963 appendix to James’s Black Jacobins celebrating African outlooks and published the same year as Beyond a Boundary. Austin’s framing of Bondman allows him to unpack the problematic place of the popular, the subaltern, and the lumpen in James’s cricketing view, accentuating the power of Euro-modernity in James’s outlooks. Paralleling this gap around African-derived worldviews, Anima Adjepong’s rich decolonial feminist analysis unpicks the case of James’s Aunt Judith to get beyond cricket as masculine practice and multiplying the options for the meaning and place of cricket in anticolonial and independence politics: this only one of three contributions by women and the only to focus on gender—there is still much to do. The third profound silence explored is in Neil Washbourne’s exploration of W. G. Grace: James’s focus on his highest profile year, 1895, misses the representations of Grace’s embodiment of a specific form of masculinity in the year that Oscar Wilde faced two trials for...