What is it about?

Newspaper accounts of the deaths, trials, and subsequent acquittals offer valuable insight into the cultural narratives surrounding hockey violence and notions of masculinity in early twentieth‐century Canada. These cases generated considerable debate around the issue of what constituted “clean” and “rough” hockey.

Featured Image

Why is it important?

The historical examination of such cases is important because the justifications for violence that were articulated in the context of the deaths continue to be voiced in contemporary discussions of hockey violence. As long as fighting and aggression remain markers of masculinity – and hockey continues to be seen as a training ground for manhood – it will be difficult to remove such forms of violence from the sport.

Perspectives

We hope this article helps people recognize the importance of studying debates about hockey violence in the past in order to better appreciate the complexities of addressing hockey violence and concussions in the present.

Geraint B Osborne
University of Alberta

Read the Original

This page is a summary of: “Nothing More Than the Usual Injury”: Debating Hockey Violence During the Manslaughter Trials of Allan Loney (1905) and Charles Masson (1907), Journal of Historical Sociology, November 2015, Wiley,
DOI: 10.1111/johs.12111.
You can read the full text:

Read

Contributors

The following have contributed to this page