'Team GB', 'Team England' or 'Team Scotland'? Media Representations of 'Britishness', 'Englishness' and 'Scottishness' in London 2012 and Glasgow 2014

Given the timing of the Scottish independence referendum in September 2014, the hosting of both the London 2012 Olympic Games and the Glasgow 2014 Commonwealth Games coincided with a period of considerable political turmoil and reflection within the United Kingdom. The extensive levels of public, political and media scrutiny of both of these major sporting events can therefore be framed within a wider consideration of the contemporary dynamics of the political union between the constituent nations of the UK, as well as the multifarious forms of national identities expressed within the various regions of the ‘nation-state’. Despite the growing influence of social media forms within contemporary society, politics and sport within the UK, the ‘traditional’ print media retain a central (although arguably diminishing) role in the dissemination of information relating to major societal, political and sporting issues to the British public. This paper will therefore critically reflect upon the nature of print media representations of ‘Britishness’, ‘Englishness’ and ‘Scottishness’ at London 2012 and Glasgow 2014 from both London-based and Scotland-based publications, drawing upon empirical data from completed and ongoing doctoral theses from the respective authors. In particular, the implications of the contrasting competitive structures of each event will be considered, given the symbolic differences between the unitary ‘Team GB’ at the London 2012 Olympics and the separated representative teams for Scotland and England at the Glasgow 2014 Commonwealth Games.

(Dis)located Olympic Patriots: Sporting Connections, Administrative Communications and Imperial Ether in Interwar New Zealand

During the interwar period (1919–1939), protagonists of the early New Zealand Olympic Committee (NZOC) worked to renegotiate and improve the country's international sporting participation and involvement in the International Olympic Committee. To this end, NZOC effectively used its locally based administrators and well-placed expatriates in Britain to variously assert the organization's nascent autonomy, independence and political power, progress Antipodean athlete's causes and counter any potential doubt about the nation's peripheral position in imperial sporting dialogues. Adding to the corpus of scholarship on New Zealand's ties and tribulations with imperial Britain, both in and beyond sport (e.g. Beilharz and Cox, 2007, “Settler Capitalism Revisited,” Thesis Eleven 88: 112–124; Belich, 2001, Paradise Reforged: A History of the New Zealanders from the 1880s to the Year 2000, Auckland: Allen Lane; Belich, 2007, Making Peoples: A History of the New Zealanders from Polynesian Settlement to the End of the Nineteenth Century, Auckland: The Penguin Group; Coombes, 2006, Rethinking Settler Colonialism: History and Memory in Australia, Canada, Aotearoa New Zealand and South Africa, Manchester: Manchester University Press; MacLean, 2010, “New Zealand (Aotearoa),” In Routledge Companion to Sports History, edited by Steve W. Pope and John Nauright, 510–525, London: Routledge; Phillips, 1984, “Rugby, War and the Mythology of the New Zealand Male,” The New Zealand Journal of History 18 (1): 83–103; Phillips, 1987, A Man's Country: The Image of the Pakeha Male, Auckland: Penguin Books; Ryan, 2004, The Making of New Zealand Cricket, 1832–1914, London: Frank Cass; Ryan, 2005, Tackling Rugby Myths: Rugby and New Zealand Society 1854–2004, Dunedin: University of Otago Press; Ryan, 2007, “Sport in 19th-Century Aotearoa/New Zealand: Opportunities and Constraints,” In Sport in Aotearoa/New Zealand Society, edited by Chris Collins and Steve Jackson, 96–111, Auckland: Thomson), I will examine how the political actions and strategic location of three key NZOC agents (specifically, administrator Harry Amos and expatriates Arthur Porritt and Jack Lovelock) worked in their own particular ways to assert the position of the organization within the global Olympic fraternity. I argue that the efforts of Amos, Porritt and Lovelock also concomitantly served to remind Commonwealth sporting colleagues (namely Britain and Australia) that New Zealand could not be characterized as, or relegated to being, a distal, subdued or subservient colonial sporting partner. Subsequently, I contend that NZOC's development during the interwar period, and particularly the utility of expatriate agents, can be contextualized against historiographical shifts that encourage us to rethink, reimagine and rework narratives of empire, colonization, national identity, commonwealth and belonging.