Reclaiming Tom Longboat: Indigenous Self-Determination in Canadian Sport
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Janice Forsyth's Reclaiming Tom Longboat is an enlightening exploration of Canadian sport told through the lens of a national award, including a critical study of colonization through physical activity, all the while not discounting the self-determination of Indigenous peoples. As others have previously noted, Forsyth is a leader in the study of the Indigenous sport history of Canada, and this work should be the canon when discussing books on Indigenous athletics or any type of sport award.The book begins with a foreword by Willie Littlechild, a recipient of the Tom Longboat award in 1965, providing a meaningful context of what is to come in the comprehensive investigation undertaken by Forsyth. Investigation is the most appropriate term for this volume because of the great extent of research done. Forsyth not only presents the research she has done but uncovers new relationships between stakeholders, from the Canadian government to the Indigenous community.As expected, Forsyth begins with an introduction to Tom Longboat and his notable athletic success. In this introduction, she also briefly explains the establishment of the Tom Longboat awards, a recognition based on race. As she explains, “The awards were given only to athletes defined as ‘Indian’ by the federal government through the Indian Act, a powerful piece of legislation that regulates nearly every aspect of Indigenous life, from property ownership to child welfare” (9). This is just a brief taste of her analysis of the dynamics of race, gender, class, and nationhood, themes that underlie the entire book.After the introduction, Forsyth explains how Canadian authorities used sport to try to assimilate the Canadian Indigenous community before diving into chapters that cover important time periods in the Tom Longboat awards. The fifth and final chapter highlights the voices of seven Canadian athletes and Tom Longboat award recipients.Forsyth masters the ability to present the facts without inflicting blame in the chapters that cover the history and timeline of the award. At the same time, she implies the responsible forces that continually place Indigenous people in positions of despair and deficit. Self-determination is another major theme Forsyth weaves throughout that is often overlooked and misunderstood. She provides the example of paternalism by highlighting a letter by Arthur Laing, the minister in charge of Indian Affairs. Laing expressed his concern about the government relinquishing its control and responsibility of Indigenous people to the Canadian provinces, stating the progress of Indigenous people “must be the development by themselves of a desire for the goals which we think they should want” (86).This book is about much more than an award; it is about education, control, power, and politics. Forsyth is a master at highlighting the hypocrisy and idiosyncrasies within the different players—for instance, reminding the reader that the idea for an individual award is automatically misaligned with the beliefs of Indigenous people, where community is valued above the individual. It is that sense of community that has allowed so many Indigenous people to find their individual success.If there is any critique of the volume, it is that the fifth chapter, which centers on the athlete's voice, is not longer. By highlighting the award winners, not the dominant narrative, the meaning of the awards is completely transformed. While it may be expected to hear about barriers to elite athletics for Indigenous people, it is not as common to understand the intersectional dynamics that impacted so much of these athletes’ lives. Forsyth highlights the deeper meaning of race by award recipients, writing: “Each was well aware of the racial politics of skin color and how it created opportunities and tensions in their lives, privileging them in some situations while marginalizing and stigmatizing them in others” (160). Ultimately, by hearing from these athletes, we see the changing idea of sport success in their lives and the ongoing objectification and otherness they experience.Just as sport is a microcosm of society, sport awards reflect what society values. Forsyth shows that we must critically examine who administers, controls, and awards honorifics such as the Tom Longboat awards. By doing so, we can ensure these awards do more than check a box and actually promote sport for sustained success. As Willie Littlechild stated, “Sport has the power to change and save lives of Indigenous people” (x). Through this book, Forsyth expertly shows how systems of power must allow that power to be fully realized.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".