The 2015 Junto March
Madness Tournament
This marks
the third year that the junior Americanists over at The Junto have run their
version of March Madness. I look forward to this annual event and am
disappointed every time when my favorites get knocked off by obviously lesser
quality opponents. You see, instead of sports teams playing a game where physical
talent dictates the winner, the Junto selects elements of academia to battle it
out for the title. This is a contest where sheer mental acuity, a passion for
research, the ability to spin a phrase, and an impressive reputation count for
more than physical ability; unless one considers the need to lift all those
books.
Sixty-four
of the best nominations from the Juntoists and their audience are selected for
the brackets. The Juntoists seed the fields and the audience then votes. Each
year a surprise upset occurs which shows the volatility of the contest. The
first year, 2013, featured nominations for the best monograph in the field of
history covering early American History. This is usually defined as colonial,
Revolutionary, Early Republic, and Jacksonian eras. Usually anything after the
Jacksonian era is not classed as eligible. The winner that year was Edmund
Morgan’s American Slavery, American
Freedom. The book was a runaway winner according to the judges as the
voting for that book dominated the contest in every matchup.
The second
year saw the field narrowed to monographs in the same eras, but published after
2000. This contest was very interesting and had a great deal of interaction.
Michael Jarvis’ In the Eye of all Trade
was a surprise winner. This year the field will not feature modern monographs,
but instead is limited to primary sources, again in the same eras as before.
This has resulted in some interesting choices and will be illuminating as
historians nominated the ones they use often. The brackets have been filled and
can be found here: http://earlyamericanists.com/2015/03/06/junto-march-madness-2015-the-unveiling-of-the-bracket/
As the Juntoists say, “As a reminder
that we give out every year: this exercise is meant to be
fun. There is no way to truly determine what is the “best”
document to use in the classroom. If any document doesn’t do as well as you
expect, or if any subfields or subtopics seem underrepresented, it is based on
readership nomination and voting. Most especially, the purpose of this year’s
tournament is to use a fun venue (March Madness) to introduce teachers to a
broad array of documents that they may want to consider using in the classroom.”
I applaud
their work and enjoy it greatly even if my choices did not make the brackets.
Obviously, there are not that many fans of John Adams reading the blog! Still,
the sources on this list are pretty impressive ones. I strongly encourage
everyone to visit the Junto, participate in the contest, and do a little
exploring. The Juntoists fill a very good role with this blog in the
exploration of early American history. This is an area that has a small
footprint on the Internet when one considers academic websites versus
historically inaccurate and polemic sites that are usually not operated by a
historian. Therefore, I hope to see the Junto have a nice long run. May the
best source win!
The voting is over for the first round of the tournament. Results were published today and there were some major upsets. My favorite upset was Frederick Douglass' "What to the Slave is the Fourth of July?" which I show in class. It is extremely powerful. Here is a link to the version I show which has James Earl Jones delivering Douglass' speech. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8tTkHJWxfP0
ReplyDeleteThis was not the biggest upset though. Over in Bracket Four: Not Rush Limbaugh's American History the #1 seed, The Papers of Sir William Johnson lost to #16, Roger Williams, "Key Into the Languages of America."
Also watch out for Graham Crackers which was another upset in that bracket.
For more on this Tournament and to see the rest of the results for Round One, go to http://earlyamericanists.com/2015/03/13/junto-march-madness-round-1-results/#more-10707