-
Notes
- University of Illinois Press
- Chapter
- Additional Information
NOTES PROLOGUE 1. Jane B. Baron, “Resistance to Stories,” 67 Southern California Law Review, 255, 261–62 (1994). See also Daniel A. Farber and Suzanna Sherry, “Telling Stories Out of School: An Essay on Legal Narratives,” 45 Stanford Law Review, 807, 822–23 (1993). 2. See Steven D. Jamar, “Aristotle Teaches Persuasion: The Psychic Connection,” 8 Scribes Journal of Legal Writing, 61, 62 (2001–2002). 3. See Stephen Johansen, “This Is Not the Whole Truth: The Ethics of Telling Stories to Clients,” 38 Arizona State Law Journal, 961, 981–82 (2006), for a discussion of the value and impact of fictional stories. 4. See Jamar, “Aristotle Teaches Persuasion,” 61–62. 5. See Johansen, “This Is Not the Whole Truth,” 981–82. 6. See Richard Delgado, “On Telling Stories in School: A Reply to Farber and Sherry,” 46 Vanderbilt Law Review, 665, 666–67 (1993). 7. Ibid. 8. Ibid., 674. 9. Ibid., 666–67, 674. 10. Ibid., 667. (“Unless the storyteller is exceptionally ingenious, the scope for change through remonstrance, argument, and other verbal means is much more limited than we like to think.”) Richard Delgado and Jean Stefancic coined the term “emphatic fallacy” to describe the erroneous belief that we can somehow overcome our desire to screen and interpret new stories— the counter-stories—through the medium of the old, accepted stories. Through this method of interpretation, we naturally reject those counterstories that are radical departures from what we previously believed to be true. See Richard Delgado and Jean Stefancic, “Images of the Outsider in American Law and Culture: Can Free Expression Remedy Systemic Social Ills?” 77 Cornell Law Review, 1258, 1261, 1278–79 (1992). CHAPTER 1. A GAME OF THEIR OWN 1. Jules Tygiel, Past Time: Baseball As History (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000, 2001), 6. 2. Ibid., 3–4. 3. Benjamin G. Rader, Baseball: A History (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 2002), 1. 4. Jason Kaufman and Orlando Patterson, “Cross-National Cultural Diffusion: The Global Spread of Cricket,” American Sociological Review 70 (February 2005): 82, 92. 5. Ibid. 6. Ibid. 7. Ibid., 85. 8. Steven A. Riess, Touching Base: Professional Baseball and American Culture in the Progressive Era (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1999), 7–32. 9. Ibid., 22. 10. Felipe Fernandez-Armesto, Amerigo: The Man Who Gave His Name to America (New York: Random House, 2007, 2008). 11. Ibid., 110. 12. Ibid., 194–95. 13. Harold Seymour, Baseball: The Early Years (New York: Oxford University Press, 1960, 1989), 15. 14. E. Digby Baltzell, The Protestant Establishment: Aristocracy and Caste in America (New York: Vintage Books, 1964, 1966), 112–13. 15. George B. Kirsch, Baseball and Cricket: The Creation of American Team Sports, 1838–72 (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1989, 2007), 97–98. 16. Baltzell, Protestant Establishment,136. The discussion of the distinctions between the American and British clubs discussed herein draws primarily from Baltzell’s study. See also pp. 124, 135–36. 17. Kaufman and Patterson, Global Spread of Cricket, 99. 18. Ibid., 93. 19. Ibid., 98–99, 105. 20. Ibid., 97. 21. This would continue throughout the amateur era of baseball. In fact, the game’s first professional baseball player, Jim Creighton, played cricket as well in 1861 and 1862, as did some of his Brooklyn Excelsior teammates. John Thorn, Baseball in the Garden of Eden: The Secret History of the Early Game (New York: Simon and Schuster, 2011), 124. 22. In his study of nineteenth-century baseball and cricket, Kirsch notes that in New York, where baseball took early root, “most of the first baseball players were skilled craftsmen, clerks, petty proprietors, or managers.” He further notes that “very few unskilled or semi-skilled men played baseball 222 NOTES TO PAGES 1–7 [54.173.43.215] Project MUSE (2024-03-28 20:05 GMT) in New York or Brooklyn before the Civil War . . .” Rather, the game was favored primarily by white-collar workers. Kirsch, Baseball and Cricket,130. 23. Thorn, Baseball in the Garden, 26, 38–39. Indeed, William Rufus Wheaton appears to have taken on this task for the Gotham Club, also of New York, in 1838. As Thorn notes, the Knickerbockers were more likely “consolidators rather than innovators” as, rather than create new rules for baseball, they most likely jotted down the rules as they knew them to be at the time. 24. Seymour, Baseball: The Early Years, 16. 25. Melven L. Adelman, A Sporting Time: New York City and the Rise of Modern Athletics, 1820–70 (Urbana: University of...