What do you think?
Rate this book
A People's History of Baseball
Baseball is much more than the national pastime. It has become an emblem of America itself. From its initial popularity in the mid-nineteenth century, the game has reflected national values and beliefs and promoted what it means to be an American. Stories abound that illustrate baseball's significance in eradicating racial barriers, bringing neighborhoods together, building civic pride, and creating on the field of play an instructive civics lesson for immigrants on the national character.
In A People's History of Baseball, Mitchell Nathanson probes the less well-known but no less meaningful other side of episodes not involving equality, patriotism, heroism, and virtuous capitalism, but power--how it is obtained, and how it perpetuates itself. Through the growth and development of baseball Nathanson shows that, if only we choose to look for it, we can see the petty power struggles as well as the large and consequential ones that have likewise defined our nation.
By offering a fresh perspective on the firmly embedded tales of baseball as America, a new and unexpected story emerges of both the game and what it represents. Exploring the founding of the National League, Nathanson focuses on the newer Americans who sought club ownership to promote their own social status in the increasingly closed caste of nineteenth-century America. His perspective on the rise and public rebuke of the Players Association shows that these baseball events reflect both the collective spirit of working and middle-class America in the mid-twentieth century as well as the countervailing forces that sought to beat back this emerging movement that threatened the status quo. And his take on baseball’s racial integration that began with Branch Rickey’s “Great Experiment” reveals the debilitating effects of the harsh double standard that resulted, requiring a black player to have unimpeachable character merely to take the field in a Major League game, a standard no white player was required to meet.
Told with passion and occasional outrage, A People's History of Baseball challenges the perspective of the well-known, deeply entrenched, hyper-patriotic stories of baseball and offers an incisive alternative history of America's much-loved national pastime.
In A People's History of Baseball, Mitchell Nathanson probes the less well-known but no less meaningful other side of episodes not involving equality, patriotism, heroism, and virtuous capitalism, but power--how it is obtained, and how it perpetuates itself. Through the growth and development of baseball Nathanson shows that, if only we choose to look for it, we can see the petty power struggles as well as the large and consequential ones that have likewise defined our nation.
By offering a fresh perspective on the firmly embedded tales of baseball as America, a new and unexpected story emerges of both the game and what it represents. Exploring the founding of the National League, Nathanson focuses on the newer Americans who sought club ownership to promote their own social status in the increasingly closed caste of nineteenth-century America. His perspective on the rise and public rebuke of the Players Association shows that these baseball events reflect both the collective spirit of working and middle-class America in the mid-twentieth century as well as the countervailing forces that sought to beat back this emerging movement that threatened the status quo. And his take on baseball’s racial integration that began with Branch Rickey’s “Great Experiment” reveals the debilitating effects of the harsh double standard that resulted, requiring a black player to have unimpeachable character merely to take the field in a Major League game, a standard no white player was required to meet.
Told with passion and occasional outrage, A People's History of Baseball challenges the perspective of the well-known, deeply entrenched, hyper-patriotic stories of baseball and offers an incisive alternative history of America's much-loved national pastime.
272 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 2012
4 people are currently reading
83 people want to read
About the author
Mitchell Nathanson
8 books8 followersMitch Nathanson is a Professor of Law at Villanova University and the author of numerous books and articles on baseball, the law and society. He is a two-time winner of the McFarland-SABR Award, which is presented in recognition of the best historical or biographical baseball articles of the year. His biography of the mercurial slugger Dick Allen: "God Almighty Hisself: The Life and Legacy of Dick Allen," was a finalist for the 2017 Seymour Medal. His current book, BOUTON: The Life of a Baseball Original," explores the life of a man who won all of 62 games but who changed professional sports in ways 300-game winners never could. To which Jim Bouton's Seattle Pilot teammate, Jim Gosger, would most likely say, "Yeah surrre."
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews
May 4, 2012
No one who has heard of Howard Zinn's A People's History of the United States should be surprised to discover that Mitchell Nathanson, a Villanova law professor, isn't crazy about baseball owners. But he has good reasons for his dislike. In this thoughtful if occasionally strident book, he shatters myths about the game and shows us the methods owners have used to protect their power and, at least until 1975, maintain absolute control over players. We learn that Branch Rickey, the man who signed Jackie Robinson, wasn't the civil rights pioneer history would have you believe. Nathanson details baseball's attempts to cover up steroid use. He cites legal precedent to demonstrate how the Supreme Court has exempted Major League Baseball from antitrust laws. He shows us owners who not only lied to Spanish-speaking players about the information in their English-language contracts but also bragged about tricking them into signing for a pittance. And he gives numerous examples of the poor treatment shown to African-American players even after Jackie Robinson's 1947 début.
This passionate book is well worth reading, but it would have been better if it hadn't been so one-sided. There's no question that owners throughout history have abused their power. But surely an astute observer such as Nathanson knows that unions have often done the same.
This passionate book is well worth reading, but it would have been better if it hadn't been so one-sided. There's no question that owners throughout history have abused their power. But surely an astute observer such as Nathanson knows that unions have often done the same.
September 20, 2014
Good book, bad title. A "People's History" would have chapters on how the game got created, exclusion of various minority groups, WWII era women's leagues, Negro leagues, discuss Clemente and Ichiro and global neo-colonialism and nativism, and have an epilogue about the state of the "working class" in baseball (hot dog vendors, ticket takers, etc.), women in the stands and (someday) on the field, LGBT issues sport, corporate technocrats and SABRmetrics, the decline of African American athletes, and why I can barely afford to go to Red Sox games now that I'm a professor when in 1999 I was easily paying for games to see Pedro strikeout anyone who thought they were a batter.
If you want to know about Marvin Miller, unionization in the MLBPA, and current legal issues in the game, this is your book. It's a "bosses vs. everyone else" narrative, lots of neat new information on corporate & business law, but not what I expected.
If you want to know about Marvin Miller, unionization in the MLBPA, and current legal issues in the game, this is your book. It's a "bosses vs. everyone else" narrative, lots of neat new information on corporate & business law, but not what I expected.
February 18, 2016
A People’s History of Baseball by Mitchell Nathanson is a much different history book then you’ve ever read before, this book is not your run of the mill Baseball book. This book lacks the inherit greatness that comes to mind when you think of the sport of baseball, in fact Nathanson constantly is talking about how in the last few decades baseball has become about the owners and money more so than the patriotism,race, and just about all the nice things you think of when you think of baseball. Upon reading this book I will say that it was by no means what I thought it was going to be, not necessary saying that it was bad by any means but it was definitely not what i was expecting. When I picked up this book I was a little blown away after the first hundred pages because I had learned so many things i was not expecting to learn. What i really liked about this book was that it wasn't what i was expecting but what I really disliked about this book was that it lacked to mention the positive sides of baseball, I mean it is Americas past time and all Nathanson ever seems to touch on is how it’s become more of a business than a sport which seemed to be the theme of the entire book. If i were to recommend this book to somebody I would make sure to tell them that this is not at all what they are expecting but it is still a great read if your just looking to expand your historical knowledge of the sport. Overall I would have to give this book a 7/10 or about 3.5/5 stars, solely for the reason that while it had quality information and presented it well it wouldn't be what I personally would call useful information. If you are looking for another book that might present you with more useful historical information I would look for any of the books labeled only “A history of Baseball” which there are a few of and all seem to have more relevant information than this book.
January 19, 2013
This was a book with a lot of content, but the title is very misleading. It's more legal history than people's history, and I found that very limiting and frustrating. The chapter on the reserve clause would not end, and the connections between legal cases and labor relations became tedious.
One thing that should be understood is that this is a history of Baseball, not baseball. It's about the MLB and only the MLB. Baseball as a sport engaged in at many levels and by kids gets no ink in this thing, which was another disappointment. Of course, an actual people's history of baseball would probably have to be about six times longer than this was.
I gave it three stars because the material it does cover deserves four, but as far as living up to the expectations generated by its title and its opening claims to be following in the footsteps of Howard Zinn, it deserves one. It's like getting Rick-rolled by a conventional look at the MLB.
One thing that should be understood is that this is a history of Baseball, not baseball. It's about the MLB and only the MLB. Baseball as a sport engaged in at many levels and by kids gets no ink in this thing, which was another disappointment. Of course, an actual people's history of baseball would probably have to be about six times longer than this was.
I gave it three stars because the material it does cover deserves four, but as far as living up to the expectations generated by its title and its opening claims to be following in the footsteps of Howard Zinn, it deserves one. It's like getting Rick-rolled by a conventional look at the MLB.
April 3, 2013
Really enjoyed this look at baseball in America. Nathanson is a legal history professor and does a great job of telling the story you won't hear on Sunday Night Baseball about monopolies, MLB complicity in steroid usage, and the story of Jackie Robinson that probably won't be hitting the screens in three weeks. Why read this? Because it broadens our understanding of baseball and complicates the myth of baseball, America, and purity that has been spun since the sport's inception. Am assigning chapters of it next fall in my American Studies capstone course.
February 4, 2016
I'm sympathetic to Nathanson's approach and desire to offer a new perspective to the history of baseball. At the same time, I feel like his unwavering dedication to his thesis and agenda prevents him from approaching certain topics and events with a more nuanced perspective.
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews