Benjamin A. Railton's Blog, page 19

March 12, 2025: Spring Breaking at the Movies: From Justin to Kelly

[With oneson in college and another about to be, Spring Break is a lot more than just aconcept or a professional reality for this AmericanStudier. So this week I’llAmericanStudy a handful of cinematic portrayals of Spring Break, leading up to someweekend reflections on being a college Dad!]

On whatwasn’t new about the historic beach bomb, and what was.

Fulldisclosure: I haven’t seen more than a few clips of From Justin to Kelly (2003),the movie Wikipedianotes “is often regarded as one of the worst movies ever made” and thatreceived a 2005Razzie for “Worst ‘Musical’ of Our First 25 Years” (their delightfulscare quotes). Thanks to a Twitter recommendation from AJ Schmitz I didlisten to the HowDid This Get Made? episode on the film, which I’m quite sure wasfar more enjoyable than the movie would have been. You might nonetheless arguethat I shouldn’t be writing a blog post on a movie I haven’t watched, and I’dunderstand that critique (evidence-based analyzer that I try to be)—but life istoo short to spend 81 minutes watching FromJustin to Kelly; and in any case my plan for this post is to analyze notall the nuances of this text (probably should have used scare quotes of my ownfor both of those last couple nouns), but rather to use it to engage a coupleof pop culture contexts.

For onething, the Spring Break-set From Justinto Kelly, featuring the “acting” debuts (couldn’t resist that time) of American Idol’s first season winner andrunner-up Kelly Clarkson and Justin Guarini (I’m sure I could find a YouTubeclip to hyperlink there, but I like you all too much to do that to you), ispart of a long tradition of sub-par beach films starring teen idol-type actors.I’m thinking in particular about the many, many films inspired by SandraDee’s 1959 hit movie Gidget; as Iwrote in that post Gidget isn’tterrible (although I think its popularity was due more to a bunch of beautifulbodies making surfing look good than any cinematic strengths), but it doesn’tseem that we can say the same of the majority of the more than 30 “beachparty films” that were greenlit after Gidget’ssuccess and were released in the five years after 1963’s Beach Party. These films often starred attractive,popular young stars like Frankie Avalon and Annette Funicello, and,like From Justin to Kelly, were moreor less excuses to put those folks on the beach and hope that young audienceswould want to join them there enough to overlook the absence of plots,compelling characters, or the like. That legacy doesn’t make From Justin to Kelly any better, but itdoes make it make a bit more sense.

On theother hand, Avalon and Funicello may not have been Olivier and Hepburn, butthey were established actors, performers who had appeared in multiple filmsbefore their beach partying days. Guarini and Clarkson were cast in a filmimmediately after their time on AmericanIdol, and because of that time—Clarksonin particular has noted that she didn’t want to make the film but wascontractually obligated to do so. I’m not someone who believes that reality TVis an entirely or even consistently negative cultural presence (certain reality TVpresidents notwithstanding), but I think it’s fair to say that the trackrecord of reality TV stars going on to meaningful success in any other arena(or even in their own arena—Clarkson is one of only a few music-showstars to achieve a lasting career in the field) is a mixedone at best. You might say that even the most talented screenperformers couldn’t have saved FromJustin to Kelly, but I believe the more accurate frame is quite distinct:that this thoroughly forgettable film would never have been made at all if itweren’t for the goal of producing a vehicle for these two reality TVcontestants. This is one Spring Break story that should have stayed broken.

NextSpring Break film tomorrow,

Ben

PS. Whatdo you think? Other Spring Break films or texts you’d share?

March 11, 2025: Spring Breaking at the Movies: Spring Breakers

[With oneson in college and another about to be, Spring Break is a lot more than just aconcept or a professional reality for this AmericanStudier. So this week I’llAmericanStudy a handful of cinematic portrayals of Spring Break, leading up to someweekend reflections on being a college Dad!]

On thefine, fraught line between challenging and exploiting the objectification offemale celebrities.

Firstthings first: despite their very similar titles, SpringBreakers (2012) is a much more complex, ambitious, and thoughtful filmthan yesterday’s subject, Spring Break(1983). Yes, indie , who wrote and directed the film, has said ininterviews that he wanted to make it in part to make up for his own missedSpring Break experiences (he was apparently too busy skateboarding to ventureto sunnier climes), so Spring Breakerscould be said to reflect the same hedonistic goals as the earlier film. But ashas been evident since the controversial and groundbreaking film Kids (1995), his first writing credit, Korine isultimately more interested in deconstructing than in celebrating such youthfuldesires and pursuits, and Spring Breakers,an unremittingly bleak and violent film which he’s referredto as a “beach noir,” is no exception.

None ofthat is what led the media coverage of SpringBreakers, however. The consistent focus was the fact that two of its fourfemale leads were SelenaGomez and Vanessa Hudgens, known at the time as squeaky-clean teenicons (Gomez mostly from a pop music career that had begun on Barney & Friends and Hudgens mostly from the HighSchool Musical films) who in the film give far grittier and moresexualized performances than they ever had before. That was also relativelytrue for a third lead, Ashley Benson, although her role on the TV show Pretty Little Liars had beena bit darker than Gomez’s and Hudgens’ prior work; the fourth lead, Rachel Korine, isHarmony Korine’s wife and so had been part of his films for some time already. Betweenspending a good bit of the film in bikinis, taking part in numerous scenesfeaturing sexualsituations and drug use, and eventually killing quite a few characters in a violent climax, thesepreviously and famously Disney-fied actresses thoroughly challenge that image,a reversal that understandably drew a great deal of attention.

While I’msure Harmony Korine would say that he cast these actresses due to their talents(and their performances are excellent across the board, to be clear), it seemsclear to me that he also did so (at least in part) because he knew thecontroversy over their image revisions would draw more attention and coverageto the film. Which is fine up to a point; but since those revisions againrequire the actresses to do things like wear skimpy outfits for nearly all ofthe film, it does feel possible to argue that Korine is both exploiting theircelebrity and objectifying them in the process. In her review ofthe film for The Guardian, critic Heather Long advanced that analysis,arguing that it “reinforces rape culture” and “turns young women into sexobjects.” But Rolling Stone’s JoshEells argued the opposite position, claiming that the film features “akind of girl-power camaraderie that could almost be called feminist," partof Korine’s career-long goal of doing “the most radical work, but putting itout in the most commercial way to infiltrate the mainstream.” A complex dualitywhich, to be honest, is really at the heart of the whole concept of SpringBreak in the 21st century.

NextSpring Break film tomorrow,

Ben

PS. Whatdo you think? Other Spring Break films or texts you’d share?

March 10, 2025: Spring Breaking at the Movies: Spring Break

[With oneson in college and another about to be, Spring Break is a lot more than just aconcept or a professional reality for this AmericanStudier. So this week I’llAmericanStudy a handful of cinematic portrayals of Spring Break, leading up to someweekend reflections on being a college Dad!]

On moreand less destructive pop culture stereotypes.

I’m notgonna pretend that 1983’s Spring Break was anykind of groundbreaking cinematic achievement, or even that I had heard of itprior to researching this week’s series. The sex comedy, produced and directedby Friday the 13th (1980)co-creator and director Sean Cunningham, seems from the clips and reviews I’veseen (and as always feel free to correct me in comments, although I’m notanticipating a lot of Spring Breakdefenders here) to be a pretty formulaic, unimaginative, and uninterestingdepiction of various Spring Break and college stereotypes, from sexy women inwet t-shirt contests to nerdy college guys looking to get drunk and score withthose women to straight-laced parents seeking to prevent their kids from takingpart in the hedonistic festivities. But the thing with stereotypes, even (orperhaps especially) the lazier varieties of them, is that they can tell us agood bit about their cultural and social contexts—and so it is with thestereotypes that seem to drive the plot of SpringBreak.

The film’smore overtly limiting and thus destructive stereotypes seem to be (I know Ikeep using that phrase, but I haven’t seen it and I don’t want to pretendotherwise!) those related to gender and sex. The most blatant are thedepictions of young women, which from what I can tell fall into two and onlytwo categories: the vast majority of them (indeed, all but one), who arenameless and identity-less characters defined only by their sex appeal and theprotagonists’ attempts to score with them; and the one more individualizedyoung woman, Susie (), whom nerdy protagonist Nelson (David Knell) meets at a wett-shirt contest, nearly has sex with during that first encounter, and theneventually (like, a day later) does have sex with. But while male characterslike Nelson seem to be a good bit more fleshed-out (pun very much intended),they are likewise defined in quite thoroughly stereotypical ways, presented asdriven by their basest desires (for women, for booze, for hedonism) in ultimatelyquite unoriginal and unattractive ways.

Whilethose pursuits provide the protagonists’ and film’s initial motivations, thecentral plotline is actually driven by different and more interesting stereotypesaround class, wealth, and power. Nelson’s step-father, Ernest (), is awealthy asshole running for political office, and in the course of the film hepursues Nelson to Florida (worried that his step-son will embarrass hiscampaign) and befriends a local wealthy asshole (Richard Shull’s Eddie) who istrying to strong-arm his way into purchasing the hotel where the kids arestaying. Together the two wealthy assholes conspire to bribe a buildinginspector to shut down the hotel (killing both of those birds with one wealthyasshole stone), but the kids, with the help of an army of fellow partyingcollege students armed only with beer and whipped cream, get the better ofErnest and Eddie; their machinations are revealed, Nelson’s Mom decides todivorce Ernest, and the little guys triumph in the end. Sticking it to the Manisn’t exactly a revolutionary premise for an 80s comedy, but these themes ofpolitical and financial corruption are at least far more compelling andimportant than wet t-shirt contests.

NextSpring Break film tomorrow,

Ben

PS. Whatdo you think? Other Spring Break films or texts you’d share?

March 8-9, 2025: Significant Sports Studiers

[On March 3rd,1875, the first organized ice hockey game was played. So this week forthe sport’s 150th anniversary I’ve AmericanStudied a handful ofhockey histories, leading up to this weekend post on some SportsStudiers we canall learn from!]

Just overtwo years ago (but also like five minutes ago, because time is an accordionhere in the 2020s), I dedicated my SuperBowl series weekend post to highlighting a number of excellentSportsStudiers. All those folks are still well worth reading and supporting, soI mainly wanted to reiterate those recommendations at the end of this sportshistories series.

But nowthat I’ve gotten more fully onto the Bluesky(follow me at that profile if you’re over there and I’ll return the favor!), Ialso wanted to share a couple Starters Packs (which is how Bluesky allows us tocreate lists of folks for easy follows) that feature many more SportsStudiers:

Left-leaning sports commentators

LGBTQ+ sports media

Baseball podcasts and podcasters

Sports history

Critical sports

Check themout and keep the SportsStudying going!

Nextseries starts Monday,

Ben

PS. Whatdo you think? SportsStudiers you’d share?

March 7, 2025: Hockey Histories: Team Trans

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

On two complicatedand equally important ways to contextualize a groundbreaking hockey team.

In early2019, following a game in New York City between the Boston Pride Hockey and NewYork City Gay Hockey Association teams, New York team member Aidan Cleary andBoston team president Greg Sargent began conversations that led to the creationof the Boston-based TeamTrans, the first all-transgender hockey team in the U.S. After recruitingplayers from around the country, including both the first openly transgender athletein any professional U.S. team sport (National Women’s Hockey League player HarrisonBrowne) and the first in Canadian professional sports (Canadian Women’sHockey League player JessicaPlatt), Team Trans began practicing in Cambridge,MA in November 2019. Not long after they began playing games in both theBoston area and as a barnstorming team; the Covid pandemic delayed those effortsfor a time, but in subsequent years the team has both resumed its games andspawned a second chapter, Team Trans TwinCities based out of Minneapolis.

I want tobe clear that nothing I’ll say in these next two paragraphs minimizes theimportance of nor the inspiration from Team Trans. But there are bothhistorical and contemporary contexts for the team, and they each offercomplicated lenses through which to AmericanStudy them. On the historical side,to anyone with a knowledge of American sports histories (and doubly so to anAmericanStudier who just spent awhole podcast thinking about baseball histories) the idea of a barnstormingteam based around a particular identity community has to echo what many of the NegroLeagues teams and playersdid across the first half of the 20th century. I made the casein that podcast for the social and cultural as well as sports significance ofbarnstorming, and Team Trans can likewise both reflect local roots and helpconnect them to communities across the country and beyond. But at the sametime, there’s no doubt that at least a good percentage of those barnstorming NegroLeaguers would have wanted to play in the major leagues if that had beenpossible (and would have infinitely improved those major leagues in the process);and while professional hockey isn’t overtly segregated in the way thatprofessional baseball was, this current barnstorming team does reflect similarexclusions.

Moreover, there’sa very specific form of current sports exclusions that we can’t separate fromTeam Trans (even though it was formed years before this incredibly frustratingtrend truly began): attempts to keeptransgender athletes out of organized sports. That exclusionary effort dominatedthe recent election season to a ridiculous degree, and produced one of thelast year’s mostnonsensical sports stories: the stream of college volleyball teams refusingto play against San Jose State because of the presence of an allegedly trans athlete,despite that athlete having been on the team for multiple prior years with noissues nor forfeits. My number one goal for any athlete and any sport is thatthe individuals have the chance to play in whatever ways work for them, andagain, I’m not trying to dismiss the importance nor the inspiration of TeamTrans. But I do worry a bit that transgender athletes self-segregating in thisway will only further the idea that, especially when there isn’t thepossibility for entire teams, individual trans athletes shouldn’t be part ofoverarching, organized teams and sports.

Specialpost this weekend,

Ben

PS. Whatdo you think? Hockey histories you’d highlight?

March 6, 2025: Hockey Histories: Black Players

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

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

1)     HerbCarnegie (1919-2012): As with baseball in the US, for much of the early 20thcentury hockey in Canada was racially segregated, with organizations like the ColoredHockey League of the Maritimes offering the only consistentopportunities for Black players. That means that, as with the Negro Leagues inbaseball, we have far too many instances of clearly exceptional, Hall of Fameworthy players (as the first hyperlink above reflects) who never had the chanceto play in the full professional leagues. Herb Carnegie is very high on thatlist, winning MVP multiple times in lowerprofessional leagues in Canada and even receiving a tryout with theNew York Rangers in 1948. But the Rangersrefused Carnegie an NHL roster spot and offered him lessmoney to play in their minor league system than he was making in the lowerleagues and he turned them down, one more reflection of what was lost in thissegregated era of hockey.

2)     WillieO’Ree (1935- ): A decade after Carnegie’s tryout, the “Jackie Robinsonof ice hockey” finally broke the NHL’s color barrier. A prodigy from a veryyoung age, playing on teams at the age of 5 and playing in league playoffsbefore he was 16, O’Ree actually met Robinson while still that talentedteenager in New Brunswick (not long after Robinson had broken into the majorleagues). Just a few years later, in January 1958, O’Ree was called up to theBoston Bruins from the minor league Quebec Aces; he would play in only twogames in that year, but would stay in the league and play more than 40 gamesduring the 1960-61 season. He also faced racist taunts from Chicago Blackhawksplayers and fans (among many many other during that year), leading to meleeafter which, he laterreflected, he was “lucky to get out of the arena alive.” Like Jackie inmore ways than one, was Willie O’Ree.

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

Lasthockey history tomorrow,

Ben

PS. Whatdo you think? Hockey histories you’d highlight?

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

[On March3rd, 1875, the first organized ice hockey game was played. So thisweek for the sport’s 150th anniversary I’ll AmericanStudy a handfulof hockey histories, leading up to a weekend post on some SportsStudiers we canall learn from!]

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

For a solidfive-year period in the early 1980s, the sports world and the Cold War feltinextricably linked. Beginning with the February1980 Olympic hockey semifinal between the U.S. and Soviet Union teams (onwhich a lot more momentarily), continuing through the two prominent Olympicboycotts (the US boycott of the 1980Summer Olympics in Moscow, and the retaliatory Soviet boycott of the1984 Summer Olympics in Los Angeles), and culminating, of course, with 1985’s Rocky IVand its climactic, ColdWar-ending boxing match between American underdog Rocky Balboa and Soviet machine (literallyand figuratively) Ivan Drago, the stories and images of internationalsports in the period mirrored quite strikingly the politicaland cultural clashes between the two superpowers.

One of thosefour sports events is not like the others, of course—the fight between Rockyand Drago, compelling as it undoubtedly was, took place only in the realms offilm and fiction, unlike the actual historical events surrounding the 80 and 84Olympics. Yet I don’t believe that the line between those categories of eventsis nearly as clear as it might seem. While the Olympic boycotts of course hadvery tangibleand often desctructive effects, not only for the athletes and teams but forthe respective host cities and countries, they were, first and foremost, aboutthe manipulation of and contests over images and narratives. And while the 1980hockey semifinal was not scripted by a team of Hollywood screenwriters, howevermuch it might have felt that way (and the subsequent TV and Hollywood filmsnotwithstanding), the narrative of the “Miracle on Ice,” which was developed quite literally inthe moment and has become the defining image of that game, representsimage-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 wouldask, instead, whether we collectively remember the event not only through butalso because of the image; because, that is, of how the event was turned into astory that can have cultural and symbolic resonance far beyond even the moststriking individual historical moment. Whether the image and story are accurateto the history is a separate (and important) question, and in this case I wouldsay that they largely are (the US team was a huge underdog to the powerfulSoviet squad, and the victory thus one of the moreunexpected in sports history); but to my mind, the question of accuracy canblur 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 developedin response to it. A great deal of the Cold War was defined by such image- andmyth-making, never more so than duringthe Reagan Administration; to recognize the way in which sports can befolded into such narratives is thus a historical analysis, as well as one with contemporaryand ongoing implications.

Nexthockey history tomorrow,

Ben

PS. Whatdo you think? Hockey histories you’d highlight?

March 4, 2025: Hockey Histories: Fighting

[On March3rd, 1875, the first organized ice hockey game was played. So thisweek for the sport’s 150th anniversary I’ll AmericanStudy a handfulof hockey histories, leading up to a weekend post on some SportsStudiers we canall learn from!]

On the waynot to argue for a sport’s violent tradition, and a possible way to do so.

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

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

I’m prettyserious about CTE (although I haven’t been able to give upfootball yet), so if I were to weigh in more fully on the fighting inhockey debate, I’d likely be in the opposition camp. But I try to be open todifferent perspectives of course, and in a debate like this what I’d beinterested to hear is how pro-fighting perspectives might argue for its role inhow the sport is played. That is, when it comes to fightingin baseball (something I know a lot more about), fights represent an entirelyunsanctioned and illegal element, one that always leads to ejections andsuspensions and fines and so on. Whereas fightingin hockey is more or less entirely sanctioned, with the two fighters surrounded bythe referees and allowed to complete their fight before the regular gameplayresumes. So perhaps there are reasons beyond tradition alone, ways thatfighting contributes to the play of hockey within games, within a season, as asport. After all, all rules in sports are arbitrary and constructed, and don’tnecessarily 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 (includinghere if you’d like!) for how this element of hockey might also feature othersides to this sport, past and present.

Nexthockey history tomorrow,

Ben

PS. Whatdo you think? Hockey histories you’d highlight?

March 3, 2025: Hockey Histories: Origin Points

[On March3rd, 1875, the first organized ice hockey game was played. So thisweek for the sport’s 150th anniversary I’ll AmericanStudy a handfulof hockey histories, leading up to a weekend post on some SportsStudiers we canall learn from!]

On threetelling and compelling layers to that first organized game.

1)     James Creighton: Railwayengineer and lawyer Creighton is known as the father of organized hockey, as hecertainly didn’t invent the sport itself (compared for example to JamesNaismith and basketball); an informal, outdoor version known as both hockeyand “shinny”was already being played on frozen ponds in the 1850s Nova Scotia of Creighton’syouth. But as I discussed with baseball’s 19th century evolution in my recent podcast (the ThirdInning in particular), it took a while for that local, community version of thesport to become organized, and a key step in that process was Creightongathering groups of players (many from nearby McGill University) and providingsticks for workouts at Montreal’s VictoriaSkating Rink in the early 1870s (he knew the rink from his work there as a judgefor figure skating competitions). After years of practicing together, thoseplayers were finally ready to put on a full, organized game, with Creighton captainingthe Montreal Football Club against the Rink’s home team.

2)     The Game: The pre-game announcementin the Montreal Gazette noted a specific change that would significantlyreshape the sport’s future: “Some fears have been expressed on the part ofintending spectators that accidents were likely to occur with the ball flyingabout in too lively a manner, to the imminent danger of lookers on, but weunderstand 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.” Thataddition of the puck would be more than enough to make this 1875 game a trueorigin point for the sport (with shinny/pond hockey, which uses a ball, almosta distinct sport in its own right that likewise endures to this day), but the Gazette’s follow-up report on the game makesclear that its play was also quite representative of how the sport wouldevolve, as exemplified by the phrase “the efforts of the players exciting muchmerriment as they wheeled and dodged each other.”

3)     TheMelee: Of course, hockey players don’t always dodge each other, and theirhits aren’t limited to in-play collisions. I’ll write more in tomorrow’s postabout the overall history and place of fighting in the sport, but it’s prettytelling that this first organized game likewise concluded with an extendedbrawl. The fact that this fight wasn’t just between players—instead, playersfrom both teams apparently brawled with Victoria Skating Club members who were angrythat the rink had been used for this purpose—only reiterates how much fighting waspart of hockey’s collective DNA from the outset. As the Daily British Whig newspaper described this telling postgamescene, “Shins and heads were battered, benches smashed, and the lady spectatorsfled in confusion.”

Nexthockey history tomorrow,

Ben

PS. Whatdo you think? Hockey histories you’d highlight?

March 1-2, 2025: February 2025 Recap

[A Recapof the month that was in AmericanStudying.]

February3: Inspiring Sports Stories: The Celestials: For this year’s Super Bowlseries, I wanted to focus on the very needed topic of inspiring sports stories,starting with my recent podcast on my favorite one!

February4: Inspiring Sports Stories: Babe Didrikson Zaharias: The series continueswith two ways to parallel the pioneering athlete to legendary men, and one keyway not to.

February5: Inspiring Sports Stories: Chubbtown: Two contrasting & equallyimportant ways to contextualize an inspiring family story, as the series cheerson.

February6: Inspiring Sports Stories: Jaylen Brown: Two inspiring layers to the mostrecent NBA Finals MVP, way beyond the basketball court.  

February7: Inspiring Sports Stories: FSU Student-Athletes: The series concludeswith a tribute to six of the amazing student-athletes I’ve been able to teachin my 20 years at FSU.

February8-9: Inspiring Sports Stories: Aidan and Kyle Railton: But I couldn’t writea series on inspiring sports stories without highlighting my two favorite athletes& humans!

February10: Love Letters to the Big Easy: New Orleans and America: For this year’sValentine’s Day series, I wanted to share love letters to my favorite Americancity, starting with how it helps us engage with America’s defining identity.

February11: Love Letters to the Big Easy: The Battle of New Orleans: The seriescontinues with three striking sides to one of America’s most insignificantvictories.

February12: Love Letters to the Big Easy: Treme: Five characters through which thewonderful HBO show charts New Orleans stories, as the series parades on.

February13: Love Letters to the Big Easy: Fats Domino: A few iconic moments in thecareer of the legendary New Orleans rock ‘n roller.

February14: Love Letters to the Big Easy: Literary New Orleans: The seriesconcludes with five of the many books through which we can read New Orleans.

February15-16: One More Love Letter to the Big Easy: & a special Valentine formy Valentine, a few magical moments my wife & I experienced during ourrecent trip to New Orleans!

February17: Places I Love and Hate: Cville: For this year’s installment of mypost-Valentine’s non-favorites series, I focused on formative places that I havea love-hate relationship with, starting with my troubled hometown.

February18: Places I Love and Hate: CHS: The series continues with prisons, pains,& promises in a public school.

February19: Places I Love and Hate: Harvard: Individuals who made my undergradexperience great and an institution that did not do so, as the series of mixedemotions rolls on.

February20: Places I Love and Hate: Philly: Frustrating attitudes, fantasticacademics, and a secret third thing.

February21: Places I Love and Hate: Salem: The series concludes with theMassachusetts city that embodies the worst and best of American collective memories.

February24: AlaskaStudying: Seward’s Folly: For the 100th anniversary ofGlacier Bay becoming a National Monument, an Alaska series kicks off with thecomplex reasons behind territorial expansion.

February25: AlaskaStudying: Mardy Murie: The series continues with three factorsthat help explain the unique life & legacy of the “Grandmother of the ConservationMovement.”

February26: AlaskaStudying: Glacier Bay: For its 100th anniversary,three forces of nature who helped preserve Glacier Bay before it became aNational Monument.

February27: AlaskaStudying: Nenana Ice Classic: What a unique Alaskan tradition tellsus about both Alaska & tradition, as the series explores on.

February28: AlaskaStudying: McKinley or Denali?: The series concludes withrevisiting a decade-old column to think about the recent re-renaming of Denali.

Nextseries starts Monday,

Ben

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