Gordon Hodgson

Gordon Hodgson


We are searching data for your request:

Forums and discussions:
Manuals and reference books:
Data from registers:
Wait the end of the search in all databases.
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.

Gordon Hodgson was born in Johannesburg, South Africa on 16th April 1904. He played football for Benoni, Rustenberg, Pretoria and Transvaal. In 1924 he played against a touring Liverpool side. The centre-forward had a good game and soon afterwards he was persuaded to join the Football League side.

Hodgson made his debut against Manchester City in October 1928. He scored his first goal a fortnight later in a 3-3 draw against Manchester United at Old Trafford.

In his first season he scored 18 goals. He continued this fine form over the next few seasons: 1930-31 (36), 1931-32 (27), 1932-33 (24), 1934-35 (25) and 1934-35 (29).

Hodgson was also a talented cricketer and played in 56 games for Lancashire. He had a bowling average of 27.75 and his best wicket taking performance was 6-77.

Hodgson won his first international cap for England against Northern Ireland on 20th October 1930. Although he had been born in South Africa he qualified for this country because both his parents had been born in England). England won the game 5-1. Hodgson scored one of the goals in the 4-0 victory over Wales. He won his third and last cap against Scotland on 28th March, 1934.

Hodgson's international opportunities were restricted because he had the misfortune to be playing at the same time as centre-forwards of the quality of Dixie Dean, Jimmy Hampson, George Camsell, Tom Waring and Fred Tilson.

Hodgson scored 240 goals in 378 games for Liverpool before joining Aston Villa for a fee of £3,000 in January 1936. He only spent one season with the club (11 goals in 28 games) before moving to Leeds United in March 1937. After scoring 51 goals in 82 games for his new club he was appointed to the coaching staff.

In October 1946 Hodgson became manager of Port Vale in the Third Division. He held the post until his early death on 14th June, 1951.


House or Clan?

House of Gordon or Clan Gordon? The origin on the Gordon family in Scotland was not Gaelic. This is best described by H. Potter in his book, "Blood Feud". Although the Gordon family in Scotland rose to become the predominant power in the northeast of Scotland they were not natives to that part or indeed to Scotland, and had a feudal rather than a Gaelic origin. Of Norman descent, they were one of many families welcomed into his kingdom by David I. By the early twelfth century they had settled in the village and estates of Gordon, near Kelso in the Scottish Borders under the protection of their kinsman, the Earl of Dunbar." Because the Gordon family did not start as a "clan", it is often referred to as the House of Gordon, a name more tied to its Norman descent. While the family organization in Scotland calls itself the "House of Gordon", most publications use the more common "Clan Gordon" as does the book "Scottish Clan and Family Encyclopedia" considered the authority. Some Gordons claim to be Clan Gordon while others House of Gordon out of personal preference or bias. While Clan Gordon is certainly the most common term used, both Clan and House are truly synonymous and either term is proper. Hence our use of both House of Gordon and Clan Gordon.


Assembly Required: A Brief History of 20th-Century Kit House Designs

Courtesy BTHL

This post is part of a monthly series that explores the historical applications of building materials and systems through resources from the Building Technology Heritage Library (BTHL), an online collection of AEC catalogs, brochures, trade publications, and more. The BTHL is a project of the Association for Preservation Technology, an international building preservation organization. Read more about the archive here.

The concept of the kit house likely originated in the U.K., but after these mail-order residences were introduced to the U.S. market in the late 19th century, they became synonymous with the American dream.

Advertised in manufacturing catalogs, the typical kit house offered buyers pre-cut materials to assemble into permanent residences and could be shipped around the country. Though early versions were primarily simple wooden structures, by the early 20th century, Sears, Roebuck & Co. and other manufacturers also provided all heating, electrical, and plumbing components. (Concrete, brick, and masonry was not included and usually acquired locally.) Eventually, manufacturers began to market these kit houses as “vacation cottages” and “bungalows” to expand their use and applications.

Today, the BTHL houses a comprehensive catalog of architectural house plan publications dating back to the 1800s. See a curated timeline of these structures below.

Sectional Portable Houses, D.N. Skillings and D.B. Flint, Boston, 1861
Boston-based D.N. Skillings and D.B. Flint marketed its buildings' ease and speed of construction. “The construction of these building is so simple that two or three men without mechanical knowledge, or experience in building, can set up one of them IN LESS THAN THREE HOURS,” the catalog proclaims. The company offered specific configurations for plantation houses, officer quarters, schoolhouses, chapels, carriage houses, and specialty designs for warm climates.

Forrest's Portable Houses, L. Forest & Co., Minneapolis, 1883
L. Forest & Co. claimed to offer the “cheapest, strongest, and warmest portable houses on the market.” Since some of the company’s customers were immigrant settlers of the upper Midwest, the structures needed to provide “sufficient warmth and strength to meet the severity of the climate.”

Boulton & Paul, Norwich, England, 1888
This extensive catalog offers wood and iron “portable buildings” to serve as houses, conservatories, greenhouses, and farm buildings. Many of the wrought iron options feature stylistic treatments typical of the Victorian era with extensive use of galvanized corrugated iron.

Illustrated Catalogue of Goods Manufactured and Supplied by W.C. Sper Ltd., London, 1903
As “horticultural providers,” William Cooper Sper also offered designs for iron houses, cottages, and bungalows, as well as churches, chapels, and missions. The portable buildings were marketed for export and promoted as “suitable for all climates—the Colonies, South Africa, and India.”

Aladdin Houses, North American Construction Co., Bay City, Mich., 1915
The Aladdin Co. was a pioneer in pre-cut kit homes of the 20th century. It survived until 1982 and was relaunched as GreenTerraHomes in 2018. During its peak years in the 1920s, the manufacturer offered a variety of styles, including Craftsman, bungalow, American Foursquare, Colonial Revival, and eventually ranch houses.

Hodgson Portable Houses, E.F. Hodgson Co., Boston, 1916
Operating from 1892 until 1944, E. F. Hodgson Co. was an prolific retailer of vacation cottages in the Northeastern U.S. While vacation cottages were its primary product, the comapny also offered small agricultural buildings such as chicken coops.

‘Presto Up’ Patented Bolt-Together Cottages, Harris Brothers Co., Chicago, 1923
After an early start as the demolition contractor for the 1893 Chicago World Fair, Harris Brothers Co. became a major building material supplier with a line of kit residences in the early 20th century. This catalog features “vacation cottages” with a patented “bolt together” construction system.

Book of Homes, Gordon-Van Tine Co., Davenport, Iowa, 1941
The Gordon-Van Tine Co. offered many designs using “top grade lumber” for customers of its kit houses, but also had a special residential planning department for customizable options.

Liberty Ready-Cut Homes, Lewis Manufacturing Co., Bay City, Mich., c. 1940
The Lewis Manufacturing Co. was one of three kit house manufacturers in Bay City, Mich., and was the first producer of Aladdin Homes. The company survived the Great Depression and continued operation through World War II (WWII) with military contracts, producing more than 70,000 houses before closing production in 1975. This post-WWII catalog features small, one-story houses to meet the increased demand for affordable housing following the war.

Your General Panel Home, General Panel Corp. of California, Burbank, Calif., c. 1950
This catalog features a single model designed with “step saving efficiency” that came “complete, ready for you to move.” In addition to the residential design, the publication offers detailed illustrations of the panel construction and installation methods.

Albee Pre-cut Homes, Albee Homes, Middleburgh Heights, Ohio, 1960
This catalog features various “architect designed” ranch-style kit houses, with one option inspired by Frank Lloyd Wright.

About the Author

Mike Jackson, FAIA, is a Springfield, Ill.–based architect and a visiting professor of architecture at the University of Illinois Urbana–Champaign. He led the architectural division of the Illinois Historic Preservation Agency for more than 30 years and now champions the development of the Association for Preservation Technology's Building Technology Heritage Library, an online archive of pre-1964 AEC documents.


William Gordon Welchman

Gordon Welchman's parents were William Welchman (1866 - 1954) and Elizabeth Marshall Griffith. William was a priest who, after undertaking missionary work abroad, returned to England and became a country vicar. He eventually became archdeacon of Bristol. His wife Elizabeth was the daughter of a priest, the Revd Edward Moule Griffith. Gordon was the youngest of his parents three children. In 1920 he won a scholarship to Marlborough College, an independent boys' school founded in 1843 in Marlborough, Wiltshire, He entered Marlborough College in 1920 where his teachers soon recognised his outstanding talent for mathematics. In 1925 he won a scholarship to Trinity College, Cambridge, to read mathematics.

Welchman matriculated at Cambridge in 1925 where he studied the mathematical tripos. He was ranked first class in part one of the tripos in 1926 and again first class in part two in 1928 . He left Cambridge for a year spending 1928 - 29 as a mathematics teacher in Cheltenham. He then returned to Cambridge in 1929 when offered a fellowship by Sidney Sussex College. He published Foci of Systems of Spaces in the Journal of the London Mathematical Society in 1932 and, two years later, in September 1934 , submitted a 45 -page paper Special Scrolls and Involutions on Canonical Curves to the Proceedings of the London Mathematical Society. This major paper was published in 1936 . Welchman begins the Introduction as follows:-

In 1937 Welchman married Katharine Hodgson, the daughter of Francis Faith Hodgson who was a captain in the Indian army. Katharine was a professional musician and Gordon and Katharine Welchman had a son and two daughters. Welchman's career was progressing well. He was dean of Sidney Sussex College and he was writing a book entitled Introduction to Algebraic Geometry. However, his career took a very different path due to the countries of Europe moving towards war.

Adolf Hitler had become Chancellor of Germany in 1933 and quickly begun to build up the German armed forces. In March 1938 German troops had marched into Austria and later that year Germany was given the Sudetenland in the Munich Agreement. Although some, like Neville Chamberlain the British Prime Minister, were still trying to avoid a war, others believed that war was inevitable. One who was convinced that war was imminent was Alastair Denniston who was the head of the British Government Code and Cypher School. Denniston had been involved with codebreaking during World War I but he realised that times had changed and different skills would be needed of his codebreakers. In World War I codebreakers were recruited from expert linguists but now he believed that mathematicians were needed [ 5 ] :-

Alan Turing worked in Hut 8 which dealt with breaking the German Navy codes. He designed the Bombe, an early form of computer, to look at all possible settings of the Enigma machine sending the message. Welchman made a very significant contribution to reducing the number of possibilities that had to be considered by the Bombe and greatly enhanced its usefulness. In October 1941 he was one of four who wrote to the British Prime Minister, Winston Churchill, requesting more resources for the codebreaking work at Bletchley Park. The other three who signed the letter were Alan Turing, Hugh Alexander and Stuart Milner-Barry. Churchill's response to the letter was the now famous comment "Action this Day".

After the war ended Welchman did not return to academic life but instead was appointed as director of research for the John Lewis Partnership. In 1946 he was honoured for his contributions during the war when he was given an OBE ( Order of the British Empire ) . However, he decided to move to the United States where he felt he could use the computing skills that he had developed during his time at Bletchley Park. He moved to the United States in 1948 and he taught the first computing course at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He then took jobs at Remington Rand and Ferranti.

We noted above that Welchman had been writing the book Introduction to Algebraic Geometry when he was recruited to the codebreaking operations at Bletchley Park. Welchman aimed to write a book which would:-

The book was not banned but Welchman lost his US security clearance and was forbidden to discuss his book or his wartime work with the media. Three years after publication of the book, GCHQ Director Sir Peter Marychurch sent Welchman a letter in which he accused him of damaging security. His last years were difficult ones - he had FBI agents parked outside his house and believed his phone was tapped.


The Coleman Report and Its Critics: The Contested Meanings of Educational Equality in the 1960s and 1970s

Sociologist James S. Coleman’s 1966 report Equality of Educational Opportunity exposed the symbiotic relationship between a Great Society liberalism centrally occupied with racial inequality and newly authoritative, large-scale quantitative social science. Commissioned under the 1964 Civil Rights Act by the Office of Education of the U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, the report counts among the most authoritative social scientific surveys of educational inequality of the twentieth century. It was published the year after the passage of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (1965), which itself represented an unprecedented expansion of federal involvement in the education of the nation’s poor children and allowed further federal oversight of school desegregation. Both Coleman’s scholarly stature (he was one of the nation’s leading mathematical sociologists and scholars of social organization) and the giant data set he used enhanced the document’s authority. Surveying about 600,000 children, 60,000 teachers, and roughly 4,000 schools using “regression analysis and all the other refinements of statistical science,” the report drew America’s gaze to what would later be termed the achievement gap.[i] In so doing, Coleman and his colleagues helped to launch a set of research agendas, and associated movements for testing and accountability, that continue to flourish.

Coleman’s work represented a substantive shift in American egalitarian thought about education by turning egalitarians’ attention from educational inputs (funding, facilities, teacher or curricular quality, extra-curricular offerings) to educational outputs (measured largely in terms of student test scores). A focus on outputs, he believed, allowed the measurement of educational effectiveness, that is how well schools produced certain levels of achievement in racially, socio-economically, and geographically diverse students.[ii]

And yet Coleman’s data, much to the author’s surprise, could not answer the central question he set out to address—What kinds of educational inputs would improve the academic performance of poor, minority students?—at least not in the way Coleman and most liberals hoped it would. In fact, his conclusions were downright depressing for those who wanted to believe schools could be the “great equalizers” Horace Mann had celebrated. Coleman wrote soberly in the report’s introduction of the persistence of racial gaps in academic achievement irrespective of levels of funding or other inputs:

For most minority groups, then, and most particularly the Negro, schools provide little opportunity for them to overcome this initial deficiency in fact they fall farther behind the white majority in the development of several skills which are critical to making a living and participating fully in modern society. Whatever may be the combination of nonschool factors poverty, community attitudes, low educational level of parents-which put minority children at a disadvantage in verbal and nonverbal skills when they enter the first grade, the fact is the schools have not over-come it.[iii]

While the Coleman Report exposed disturbing patterns of racial and socio-economic inequality in academic performance, what sent “seismic shocks through the academic and bureaucratic worlds of education” was that the factors Coleman presumed to cause achievement gaps—inequality in educational inputs like facilities, extra-curricular and curricular offerings, teacher quality, per pupil spending—did not correlate with test score disparities in the ways he assumed they would. The government’s summary report downplayed the issue, but the implications were clear to most observers.[iv] As Henry Dyer, a participant in the Harvard seminar that Daniel Patrick Moynihan organized to consider the report in 1968, argued, “the Coleman results have the unfortunate, though perhaps inadvertent, effect of giving school systems the false impression that there is not much they can do to improve the achievement of their pupils.”[v]

Emerging the year after the Moynihan Report, as the “long hot summers” of urban unrest of the mid 1960s began, and as movements for community control and Black Power gained ground, the Coleman Report added fuel to already heated debates, especially over compensatory education, community control, and school desegregation. In addition, arguments emerged around three especially contentious issues: the utility and limits of school desegregation who was to blame for achievement gaps and the relationship between opportunity in school and opportunity in life.

One set of debates involved the ways the report’s strongly integrationist implications raised implicit questions about the academic potential of African American educational spaces. Integrationists celebrated the report as providing social scientific justification for integration by race and class, since Coleman found that one of the only factors that reliably correlated with improved test scores was the racial and socio-economic composition of a student’s classmates.[vi] This aspect of Coleman’s research initiated arguments about “peer effects” whose influence in educational research and popular social thought persist. In fact, from the 1960s through the mid 1970s, when Coleman issued another controversial report suggesting busing had caused white flight, Equality of Educational Opportunity served for many as a mandate for large-scale school desegregation plans, through busing if necessary.

And yet, advocates of community control, Pan-African or African American nationalist liberation schooling, and compensatory education worried that the Coleman Report implied that black children needed white children to learn and dismissed the academic, psychological, and political benefits of African American controlled educational spaces. Many advocates of community control and early versions of culturally sensitive pedagogy took offense at Coleman’s criticism of minority teachers who hailed from a students’ community.[vii] In addition, two other participants in the 1968 Harvard seminar, Charles Hamilton (who co-authored Black Power with Stokely Carmichael in 1967) as well as Noel Day (a sociologist, advocate of community control, and senior researcher at the Organization for Social and Technological Innovation in Cambridge), argued that Coleman relied on overly narrow definitions of educational success and failed to acknowledge how white-led institutions could damage African American self-esteem. Instead these authors called for an end to “one-way busing,” more African American educational leadership, culturally relevant pedagogy, better attention to the demands of African American parents, expanded offerings in Black history, and “experimental” all Black educational initiatives where educators could assess “how to better provide quality education in segregated schools.”[viii] In fact, as sociologist Robert Newby argued, even when Coleman’s work was used to support integration, it often did so “for the wrong reasons.” Bringing Americans “to the possible dilemma of ‘integration’ being racist,” Newby and colleagues worried that the social science used in Brown v. Board, and by implication in the Coleman Report, suggested that “demanding a place for black children in a white school is an admission of inherent black inferiority.”[ix]

Whether integration was the best—or the only—way to improve the academic performance of poor and minority students was of course related to a second, equally controversial question: who was ultimately to blame for achievement gaps. To many antiracist social scientists worried about the Moynihan Report, Coleman’s approach was troubling. While Coleman treated the broad context of housing and employment segregation shaping the nation’s increasingly segregated urban cores as an unfortunate but unavoidable part of the urban landscape, the most salient background factors shaping achievement gaps, the Coleman Report held, were those typically appealed to in deficiency paradigms: “poverty, community attitudes, and low educational level of parents.”[x]

Even social scientists who applauded Coleman’s integrationist emphasis questioned the ways the Coleman Report leaned towards blaming the victim.[xi] In an era when Arthur Jensen was providing hereditarian arguments renewed scholarly attention, Coleman’s reluctance to make clear causal arguments (since his correlational data could not sustain them) troubled many.

Part of the problem was that Coleman had a difficult time quantifying institutionalized racism in schools—an issue that African American communities across the North and West had protested throughout the twentieth century.[xii] This issue was featured centrally, however, in another leading social scientific analysis of racial inequality in the nation’s urban schools, which was published the year before the Coleman Report. Part social science, part reflection on a policy experiment, and part an “anguished cry” of a “involved observer,” Kenneth Clark’s Dark Ghetto (1965) aimed “to describe and interpret what happens to human beings who are confined to depressed areas and whose access to the normal channels of economic mobility and opportunity is blocked.”[xiii] While the Coleman Report remained ambiguous about how institutionalized racism contributed to achievement gaps, in part due to methodological constraints, Clark chronicled how systemic discrimination harmed Harlem’s youth, relying on research that moved “…beyond…facts that are quantifiable and are computable, and that distort the actual lives of individual human beings into rigid statistics.”[xiv]

Describing segregated, urban African American communities as “social, political, educational, and—above all—economic colonies” whose “inhabitants are subject peoples, victims of the greed, cruelty, insensitivity, guilt, and fear of their masters” Kenneth Clark’s Dark Ghetto was anything but causally ambiguous.[xv] It was the proliferation of racist assumptions about African American educational capacity, and the institutionalization of those ideas in educational policy and practice in Harlem’s white-run schools, Clark argued, that were the root of the problems Coleman measured. For Clark, widespread discrimination in tracking, guidance counseling, and school discipline, racially insensitive curricula and pedagogy, and teachers’ systematically low expectations for minority students created a situation in which “…the horror is that the results seem to justify the assumptions.”[xvi]

A third set of critiques of the Coleman Report emerged from a different corner of the academic world. Social scientists, many with socialist leanings and very loose associations with New Left movements, argued educational reform was the wrong tool if one’s goal was reducing inequality in wealth, income, or economic status.[xvii] The future co-author of Schooling in Capitalist America (1977), Samuel Bowles argued in a 1968 response to the Coleman Report that “the burden of achieving equality of educational opportunity should not, and cannot, be borne by the educational system alone.”[xviii] Christopher Jencks and colleagues’ Inequality (1972) elaborated and provided and empirical foundation for this line of analysis. Emerging from a Harvard seminar that reassessed Coleman’s data, Jencks’ work questioned whether increasing educational opportunity would have any effect on inequality in employment, income, social status, or job satisfaction among adults.[xix]

The debates the Coleman Report engendered, then, illuminate emerging fault lines, as well as points of overlap, among the interracial social scientific left of the 1960s and 1970s. Reflecting the well-known emphasis on learning for liberation—a central theme in African American educational history—Clark, Thompson, the Urban League’s Whitney Young, and other prominent voices on the social scientific African American left remained more optimistic about schooling’s liberatory potential than Coleman, Bowles, or Jencks.[xx] Russell Rickford’s history of Pan-African liberation schools in the 1970s shows how diverse and extensive African American commitments to schooling as tool in liberation struggles were in the Black Power Era.[xxi] And yet, on one point, many across the interracial left of the 1960s and 1970s seemed to agree: schools were limited in their egalitarian capacities if educators worked in isolation from activists in other reform sectors, especially those pursuing racial justice in housing, employment, health care, and social welfare organizations.[xxii] At the same time, some in the civil rights and Black Power communities drew a straight line between Coleman, Jenkins, and Jencks. In fact, some worried that both the Coleman Report and Jencks’s Inequality—regardless of their authors’ intentions—would rationalize reduced investments in the education of poor and minority students, essentially letting “schools off the hook.”[xxiii]

For scholars and educators hoping to promote educational equality today, the controversies surrounding the Coleman Report provide warnings: about the political dangers of theoretical ambiguity the ways narrow visions of scientific authority can limit scholarly agendas and the persistent American tendency to ask education to solve social problems—poverty, inequality, and racial hierarchy chief among them—that schooling has a difficult time alleviating alone.

Advocates of educational justice and equality might take from the Coleman Report’s history lessons about clarity and specificity. When calling for educational equality, regardless of whether one has opportunity-based or more substantive egalitarian notions in mind, being precise with notoriously capacious concepts can protect against misinterpretation. Of course, this is never foolproof. Even the clearest concepts can be used for purposes their authors don’t intend, as Alice O’Connor’s masterful history of the ways liberal poverty knowledge was misused in the twentieth century shows so well.[xxiv] And yet, as Jencks argued clearly in 1988, the enduring—especially bi-partisan—appeal of opportunity-based egalitarianism has been closely related to the concept’s ambiguity.[xxv] As conservative appropriations of Brown v. Board of Education to legitimize attacks on affirmative action and race-based school desegregation reveal, the same theoretical imprecision that allows for agreement across the aisle can enable ideas to be appropriated in ways their authors don’t intend.[xxvi] For leftists pursuing equal educational opportunity today, the ways the Coleman Report functioned like a Rorschach test—that its meaning and policy implications often lay in the eye of the beholder—should provide a cautionary tale.

Coleman’s history also points to the potential danger of popular new research methods driving rather than following pressing research questions. Historians of social science frequently point to the way new research capacities simultaneously expand and foreclose research agendas. Advances in polling techniques or survey research methods in the mid twentieth century reshaped American conceptions of self, society, and the nature of the social problems in their midst.[xxvii] As he introduced Dark Ghetto a year before the Coleman Report’s publication, Clark worried about this very problem, that traditional research methods ran the risk of simplifying “complex realities” and “subordinating the difficult and multifaceted realities to the constraints of the methods.”[xxviii] The lure, and the limits, of the hot new research method that enabled the Coleman Report should generate both hope and caution as we consider new quantitative research capacities in the current era of “big data.” Advances in data analysis techniques provide exciting new tools for measuring educational inequality across huge populations, large geographic expanses, across the life course, and between generations.[xxix] And yet, Clark’s warning, that we should not let the methods set the questions or the facts obscure a more nuanced truth, remain relevant as well.

And finally, the debate the Coleman Report generated is one of many in the long history of American tendencies to turn to education to solve large scale social problems, in the process encouraging us to ask too much of our schools. Why educational approaches to fighting poverty and inequality have persistently generated so much enthusiasm, even in moments—and the Coleman Report certainly generated one of one of them—when schooling’s limits as an egalitarian lever were as squarely in view as its potential, remains a pressing question for historians and advocates of social justice alike.

Leah Gordon is Assistant Professor of Education and (by courtesy) of History at Stanford University. She is the author of From Power to Prejudice: The Rise of Racial Individualism in Midcentury America (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2015). Professor Gordon is currently writing Imagining Opportunity: Education and Equality in Modern America, a history of American debates over schooling’s egalitarian capacities.

[i] Peter V. Marsden, “The Sociology of James S. Coleman.” Annual Review of Sociology 31 (2005): 1-24, 2-3 Godfrey Hodgson, “Do Schools Make a Difference?” in Donald M. Levine and Mary Jo Bane, eds., The ‘Inequality’ Controversy: Schooling and Distributive Justice, (New York, Basic Books, 1975) 22-44, 26 Joseph F. Kett, Merit: The History of a Founding Ideal from the American Revolution to the 21st Century (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2013), 240.

[ii] James S. Coleman, “”The Concept of Equality of Educational Opportunity”,” Harvard Educational Review 38, no. 1 (1968)., 14-16.

[iii] James S. Coleman et al., Equality of Educational Opportunity (New York: Arno Press, 1979, c1966), 21.

[iv] Hodgson, “Do Schools Make a Difference?” 27.

[v] Henry S. Dyer, “School Factors and Equal Educational Opportunity.” In Harvard Educational Review, ed. Equal Educational Opportunity (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1969) 41-59, 49.

[vi] Coleman et al., Equality of Educational Opportunity, 22 Daniel P. Moynihan, “Sources of Resistance to the Coleman Report,” Harvard Educational Review, v38, no. 1: 1968, 23-36, 24.

[vii] Coleman was especially worried about situations in which “a school-child may be taught by a teacher who is not only without a college degree, but who has grown up and received his schooling in the local community, who has never been out of the State, who has a10th-grade vocabulary, and who shares the local community’s attitudes.” Coleman et al., Equality of Educational Opportunity, 37.

[viii] Charles V. Hamilton, “Race and Education: A Search for Legitimacy” in Harvard Educational Review eds.,

Equal Educational Opportunity (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1969) 187-202 Noel Day, “The Case for All-Black Schools,” in Harvard Educational Review, eds., Equal Educational Opportunity (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press,1969) 205-212, 210.

[ix] Robert G. Newby, “Desegregation—Its Inequities and Paradoxes,” The Black Scholar 11, no. 1 (1979): 17-28, 67-68, 17.

[x] Coleman et al., Equality of Educational Opportunity, 21.

[xi] Walter R. Allen, Susan A. Suh, Gloria Gonzalez, and Joshua Yang, “Qui Bono? Explaining—or Defending—Winners and Losers in the Competition for Educational Achievement,” in Tukufu Zuberi and Eduardo Bonilla-Silva eds., White Logic, White Methods: Racism and Methodology (Latham: Rowman and Littlefield, 2008), 217-237, 222-223. On the complexities of racial causality see Paul W. Holland, “Causation and Race” in ibid, 93-109 and Tukufu Zuberi, Thicker Than Blood: How Racial Statistics Lie (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2001).

[xii] Davidson Douglas, Jim Crow Moves North: The Battle Over Northern School Segregation, 1865-1954 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005) Thomas J. Sugrue, Sweet Land of Liberty: The Forgotten Struggle for Civil Rights in the North (New York: Random House, 2008).

[xiii] Kenneth Clark, Dark Ghetto: Dilemmas of Social Power (New York: Harper and Row, 1965), xxii.

[xiv] Clark, Dark Ghetto, xxiii, xix, xxiv.

[xv] Clark, Dark Ghetto, 11. On theories of internal colonialism, see Katz, The Undeserving Poor, chap. 2 and Singh, Black is a Country, chap. 5.

[xviii] Samuel Bowles, “Toward Equality?” Harvard Educational Review 38, no. 1 (1968): 94-98, 95.

[xix] Peter Michael Blau and Otis Dudley Duncan, The American Occupational Structure (New York: Wiley, 1967)

[xx] For a few examples of the voluminous historiography on “learning for liberation” in African American education, see James Anderson, The Education of Blacks in the South, 1860-1935 (Chapel Hill: UNC Press,1988) Hilary J. Moss, Schooling Citizens: The Struggle for African American Education in Antebellum America (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2009) Russell John Rickford, We Are an African People: Independent Education, Black Power, and the Radical Imagination (New York: Oxford University Press, 2016) Christopher M. Span, From Cotton Field to Schoolhouse: African American Education in Mississippi, 1862-1875 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press 2009) Vanessa Siddle Walker, Their Highest Potential: An African American School Community in the Segregated South (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1996).

[xxi] Rickford, We Are an African People.

[xxii] On this point, see Whitney Young, To Be Equal (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1964), especially p. 18.

[xxiii] Ron Etial Edmons, “A Black Response to Christopher Jencks,” Harvard Educational Review, 1975, cited in Newby, “Desegregation—Its Inequities and Paradoxes,” 27, 68.

[xxiv] Alice O’Connor, Poverty Knowledge: Social Science, Social Policy, and the Poor in Twentieth-Century U.S. History (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2001).

[xxv] Christopher Jencks, “Whom Must We Treat Equally for Educational Opportunity to Be Equal?” Ethics 98, no. 3 (1988): 518-33, 533.

[xxvi] Lani Guinier, “From Racial Liberalism to Racial Literacy: Brown v. Board of Education and the Interest-Divergence Dilemma,” The Journal of American History, 91, no. 1 (2004): 92-118 Eduardo Bonilla-Silva, Racism Without Racists: Color-Blind Racism and Racial Inequality in Contemporary America (Lantham: Rowman and Littlefield, 2010) Kimberle Williams Crenshaw, “Color Blindness, History, and the Law” in Wahneema H. Lubiano, The House That Race Built: Black Americans, U.S. Terrain (New York: Pantheon Books, 1997) 280-288.

[xxvii] Sarah E. Igo, The Averaged America: Surveys, Citizens, and the Making of a Mass Public (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2007) Leah N. Gordon, From Power to Prejudice: The Rise of Racial Individualism in Midcentury America (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2015)


Performing Arts Historical Society Townsville (PAHST) Inc


Theatre Royal interior 1905

Townsville Civic Theatre interior

The Society was formed on Thursday 2nd December 2004 by a small group of volunteers who have an interest in collecting and preserving the history of the performing arts in the Townsville region. The official launch was on 11th March 2005 with the Society’s website and official notices to the performing arts groups of the region. It is hoped that these groups will support the Society by providing copies of their Posters, programmes, flyers etc from past and future shows etc.

The Gordon Hodgson Collection

The Collection was started in 2001 as a hobby by Gordon Hodgson after he was inspired by his daughter-in-law who performed in local theatre. Because of his interest in history he had noticed a lack of material on the theatre while working as a volunteer at the Townsville Museum, and decided to fill this gap. He has collected pictures, thousands of newspaper cutting, and programmes from all facets of the performing arts in the area and it is all filed away meticulously. After hearing of Gordon’s collection other people began to donate memorabilia from theatre that they had participated in or had attended and so the collection grew. He saw it as the nucleus of a Performing Arts Museum in Townsville. In Gordon’s own words “I would hate to see the collection end up at the dump after I’m gone…” so this is why the Society was formed in December 2004.
The foundation members had seen or had known about the Collection and wished to help preserve it for all who have an interest in the performing arts and wish to view it or use it for their own research. The Gordon Hodgson Collection is now housed at the Society’s Townsville Performing Arts Museum at the P1 Hut Precinct at Jezzine Barracks. We will place pictures and some of the interesting events in the history of the performing arts on this website. This information will be added to as the Society builds its Database of Gordon’s collection and we hope eventually to be able to provide on line search facilities of the database so that it will be seen by anyone with an interest in the performing arts.
Gordon, now with the Society’s help, is continuing to add to his collection, so if you, or any of your friends, have any memorabilia from any of the performing arts in the Townsville area we would like to hear from you. We do not want to take away your memories, but we would scan the items of interest that you have and return them to you, or arrange for you to bring them to the Society and we scan them while you wait.
If you have a collection of your own built up over the years then please think about donating or, after speaking to your family, having it bequeathed to the Society.

Townsville Performing Arts Museum

The Museum is now open on specific days – for more information click here


How the rumor started

George Hodgson is the best-known exporter from that era. He’s often lazily credited as “inventing” the IPA. He began to brew beer in east London in 1752. His Bow brewery was positioned close to East India’s dock, where trade ships would load up with goods.

Hodgson started to export his beer, and he was one of the few English brewers that would extend credit on beer that might not be sold for 18 months.

“Hodgson was taking the exact same beer he sold in London, and for transport to India, he would dry-hop the barrels,” says Rupp, who says Hodgson even crafted a special spring-loaded, flapped device that he could insert and stamp down whole-cone hops in hogshead.

Burton-on-Trent in the early 1900s / Alamy

Like many historians, Rupp believes Hodgson’s and other ur-IPAs of the time would have derived from what was known as October beer, or “malt wine.” These were essentially imperial bitter ales produced in the fall from freshly harvested hops and then aged for two to three years. But they were “super, super expensive” to brew, says Rupp. There’s a reason that it was mostly officers who would drink them in India. The cheap porter was left for the hoi polloi.

“[There’s] absolutely zero evidence to support the idea that Hodgson’s beer was formulated or invented specifically for exportation to India,” writes acclaimed American brewer Mitch Steele in his 2013 book, IPA: Brewing Techniques, Recipes and the Evolution of India Pale Ale.

This type of highly hopped pale ale would exist for many decades before it would be labeled an “India pale ale.” The first written appearance of “India pale ale” was found in an Australian newspaper from 1829.

By then, Burton-on-Trent, a market town 135 miles north of London, had become the epicenter of this style of exported beer, now produced by brewers like Bass and Allsopp.

William Molyneux’s 1869 book, Burton-on-Trent: Its History, Its Waters and Its Breweries, was the first to credit Hodgson with inventing “India ale,” which may have burnished a legacy that perhaps he didn’t merit.


Gordon Hodgson - History

Benoni FC |
Rustenburg FC |
Pretoria |
Transvaal FC |
1925-36 Liverpool |

1936 Aston Villa, £3k, 28 (11) |

Johannesburg, South Africa

Jimmy McMullan |
Jimmy Hogan |

Saturday, 15 February 1936

Player #369 for Aston Villa, Gordon Hodgson, played as a forward for the club.

Gordon played for Villa in 1935-36 and 1936-37 making 28 appearances and scoring 11 goals.

Gordon was born in Johannesburg, South Africa, 7,588 miles from Villa Park, on 16 April 1904 and made his debut appearance for Villa on the 18 January 1936 aged 31.

Desperate to boost the side’s performances, Villa turned to another veteran - 31 year old Hodgson - and signed him from Liverpool for a fee of £3,000 in January 1936 as Villa splashed the cash in an attempt to stave off relegation.

The gamble didn’t work however and despite Gordon hitting 4 goals in 15 appearances, Villa were relegated for the first time in their history.

Gordon stayed with Villa for their first season in the second tier and score 7 goals in 13 appearances before playing his final game on 5 December 1936 aged 32 after which he was sold to Leeds United in March 19377 for a fee of £1,500.

Gordon had played under managers Jimmy McMullan and Jimmy Hogan.

Gordon passed away from cancer in Stoke on Trent on 14th June 1951 aged just 47.

mv2.jpg/v1/fill/w_173,h_170,al_c,q_80,usm_0.66_1.00_0.01,blur_2/Ashley%20Young%202021.jpg" />


Gordon Hodgson wurde 1904 als Sohn englischer Eltern in Johannesburg geboren, das damals Teil des Britischen Empires war. Fu�ll spielte er zun์hst beim FC Transvaal. 1924 bestritt er ein Spiel für die s󼶯rikanische Nationalmannschaft.

Im Jahr 1924 tourte Hodgson auch mit seiner Nationalmannschaft durch England und schlug dabei den FC Liverpool mit 5:2, wodurch der Verein auf ihn aufmerksam wurden. Gemeinsam mit Arthur Riley und Jimmy Gray unterschrieb er im Dezember 1925 einen Vertrag bei den Reds.

Mit seinen Toren brach Hodgson in den folgenden Jahren die Vereinsrekorde. Allein in der Spielzeit 1930/31 erzielte er 36 Saisontore, ein Rekord, der erst von Roger Hunt in den 1970ern gebrochen werden sollte. Sein Bestleistung von 17 Hattricks im Liverpool-Trikot besteht noch immer. Von 1927 bis 1935 war er sieben Mal interner Torschützenkönig des Vereins und wurde nur 1930 von Jimmy Smith ﲾrtroffen [1] . Insgesamt erzielte er in 358 First Division-Spielen 233 Tore, was wiederum nur von Roger Hunt ﲾrtroffen wird.

In seiner Zeit an der Anfield Road spielte Hodgson au෾rdem First-Class Cricket für die Grafschaft Lancashire und war im Baseball erfolgreich. Im Cricket brachte er es auf 50 First-Class-Spiele und hätte vermutlich erfolgreicher sein können, doch widmete er sich in erster Linie dem Fu�ll.

Für die englische Nationalmannschaft war Hodgson aufgrund seiner aus England stammenden Eltern spielberechtigt. Er brachte es im Nationaltrikot auf drei Partien, in denen ihm ein Tor gelang.

Im Januar 1936 wurde der 31-jährige für � an Aston Villa verkauft. Seine professionelle Laufbahn beendete er bei Leeds United, für das er in 82 First-Division-Spielen 51 Tore erzielte, alleine fünf davon in einem Spiel gegen Leicester City. In der Zeit des Zweiten Weltkriegs spielte er auch für Hartlepools United.

In der Nachkriegszeit arbeitete Hodgson als Trainer des Drittligisten FC Port Vale, eine Position, die er bis zu seinem Tod innehatte. Er starb 1951 im Alter von 47 Jahren.


Watch the video: Gordon Hodgson Man u0026 Machine as one.