... kick the racists out of the Hall of Fame. The article is in Baseball Prospectus. It’s requires paid access. Here’s a comment from another article ...
Steven Goldman at Baseball Prospectus argues the Hall of Fame should kick out ten members for racism. Specifically, he argues in favor of “a calculated insult to these player’s and executive’s memories” for their roles in resisting the integration of the game.
Replies sorted oldest to newest
Isn't the point of the HOF to recognize and honor the baseball careers of these guys? Or do they have to be model citizens as well to get the recognition they earned thru playing?
What about the anti gay crowd? Or the toxic masculinity crowd? I'm not excusing anybody from anything, I'm not educated enough on the specific situation, but some of these guys grew up in times where it's all they knew. They caught a belt and black eye for questioning anything in their upbringing. Plenty of noted racists also grew up in a time where women didn't have the right to vote let alone run for president. It's a different ballgame. Maybe their thoughts are a product of their environment. Maybe they're not.I didn't grow up in 1912, unfortunately I'm not in a position to say.
Does OJ belong in the Hall? Lawrence Taylor? Do we believe women or celebrate the life and career of Kobe Bryant. Tyson is still a celebrity and he was found guilty in court. I have been on the side of sports and politics/beliefs being separate and I still think they should be. Report on it, let the public have their opinion, but don't enforce it.
It is insanity to impose today’s standards on historical events. You might as well just re-write it the way you want it to be. Of course you lose the accuracy but who seems to care about that anymore.
The generation bred on participation trophies is having its say
@K9 posted:The generation bred on participation trophies is having its say
Hopefully not for long. It’s up to the silent majority to make themselves heard in November.
If we're going to tear down statues it's time to...
….really think hard about what those statues represent to you. Context and historical accuracy are important to me especially for a sport like baseball. I've always loved history (thank you Mrs Kane my 7th grade history teacher) especially baseball history. I watch Ken Burns series every year right before Spring training. If there is one group of people that are a hundred years behind the times, it is the Baseball Writers of America (HOF people). So, I wouldn't expect any changes in my life time. I think we are safe.
In terms of non-baseball statues, well that is another matter entirely for me. I've changed my mind about this after living in the capitol of the Confederacy for 30+ years. I grew up in the North, and never really thought that much about what the monuments that line my hometown avenue (literally...Monument Avenue) represent...I looked at them as magnificent symbols of history but I never looked deeper. That has changed, and that's on me. My hometown is looking at all of these monuments very differently now and there is an effort by the Governor and State Gov't to take them down not because of historical significance but what they represent.
As always, JMO.
I dislike the analogy. I've also always disliked the idea of including moral inclusion to decision making for the Hall of Fame. When we put up a bust of a player like Ty Cobb, we aren't celebrating his life achievements as a person. His inclusion is a recognition of his accomplishments to baseball. The Hall is a tribute to the best BASEBALL PLAYERS of all time - it's a glorification of baseball and their contributions to the sport - it's a glorification of baseball.
When we put up statues of George Washington, it's to recognize his contributions to the founding of our country and to glorify a great cause. His position as a slave-holder is not the REASON it's there.
When we Southerners put up a statue of Nathaniel Bedford Forrest, it's because we wanted to glorify his significance to a cause - the cause of preserving a slave-based society. The statue isn't there to recognize his contributions to the country or to recognize his contributions as a human being. It's there to glorify his contribution to a cause - an evil and traitorous cause.
It's the reason Pete Rose and Shoeless Joe SHOULD be in the Hall of Fame, despite their questionable morality. It's the reason a statue of George Washington remains. The REASON matters. It's also the reason statues of traitorous Confederate figures, most of who were immortalized during the 20's and 30's as a message to those who would question segregation and Jim Crow laws, need to go, and need to go NOW.
Roothog66,
Well said, actually very well said!
JMO
Very well said, Fenway & Roothog. I don’t know if the original article is serious or a strawman, but unless a person made it into the HoF based partially or entirely on racist (or antisemitic, or misogynistic) actions, which I don’t think is the case, there is no need to remove them. As much as I vehemently disagree with Schilling’s opinions, for example, his career absolutely warrants his inclusion in the HoF, IMO.
Thanks Root, context does matter and your concise examples are spot on.
@roothog66 posted:I dislike the analogy. I've also always disliked the idea of including moral inclusion to decision making for the Hall of Fame. When we put up a bust of a player like Ty Cobb, we aren't celebrating his life achievements as a person. His inclusion is a recognition of his accomplishments to baseball. The Hall is a tribute to the best BASEBALL PLAYERS of all time - it's a glorification of baseball and their contributions to the sport - it's a glorification of baseball.
When we put up statues of George Washington, it's to recognize his contributions to the founding of our country and to glorify a great cause. His position as a slave-holder is not the REASON it's there.
When we Southerners put up a statue of Nathaniel Bedford Forrest, it's because we wanted to glorify his significance to a cause - the cause of preserving a slave-based society. The statue isn't there to recognize his contributions to the country or to recognize his contributions as a human being. It's there to glorify his contribution to a cause - an evil and traitorous cause.
It's the reason Pete Rose and Shoeless Joe SHOULD be in the Hall of Fame, despite their questionable morality. It's the reason a statue of George Washington remains. The REASON matters. It's also the reason statues of traitorous Confederate figures, most of who were immortalized during the 20's and 30's as a message to those who would question segregation and Jim Crow laws, need to go, and need to go NOW.
The preverbal use of reason ship has sailed and sank...facts don't matter!! Regardless if you are spot on or not. We can't agree that burning down a city in protest of terrible act is dumb...we think we are gonna send social workers on 911 calls, we can't agree that illegal border crossings by definition are illegal….reason is DEAD
little slow today RJM? LOL good times.
@old_school posted:The preverbal use of reason ship has sailed and sank...facts don't matter!! Regardless if you are spot on or not. We can't agree that burning down a city in protest of terrible act is dumb...we think we are gonna send social workers on 911 calls, we can't agree that illegal border crossings by definition are illegal….reason is DEAD
little slow today RJM? LOL good times.
Edit: Forget it. Sometimes I get HS Baseball Web and Twitter confused.
"We can't agree that burning down a city in protest of terrible act is dumb...we think we are gonna send social workers on 911 calls, we can't agree that illegal border crossings by definition are illegal"
I wonder why you so often give opinions and try and call them facts, when they are not "facts!"
As to your statements above which are referenced with "we," I think you can only express a singular opinion of 'i" not we. As to the balance of your opinions, my view is they are false, false, and false but are used politically to further enhance polarization of perspectives.
Seems to me the differences between the HOF selected by sportswriters and the social perspectives on statues and flags of those who created a civil war to protect their right to continue slavery is not one even worthy of much discussion.
@roothog66 posted:Edit: Forget it. Sometimes I get HS Baseball Web and Twitter confused.
Yeah, but what about her emails??
Just kidding. Very well done indeed.
Re HOF ...There is a character clause in determining admittance to the Hall of Fame. There shouldn’t be. Behavior and politics shouldn’t have a bearing on who gets in.
Re statues of the Confederacy ... There are two sets of statues from two eras. The statues erected after the Civil War were about reconciliation and acceptance of the South to bring a divided country back together. The statues erected in the 20’s and 30’s were erected by the Klan to remind blacks “know your place.” Those should go.
I can understand someone thinking all Confederate statues should go. But to tear down the statues erected in the 19th century is dishonoring an agreement.
Re naming military bases after Confederates ... I never once considered who they’re named for. I think of all the brave military men who have been trained at these facilities since. Anyone who wants to change the names should have to jump out of a plane into enemy fire first (82nd and 101st Airborne).
One of my college teammates/roommates did four tours in the Middle East and Africa with the 82nd.. As an officer he never faced fire unless the base was under attack. He once commented, “If you think winning run on second and two outs gets your adrenaline up trying running across a base under gunfire.”
@RJM posted:Re HOF ...There is a character clause in determining admittance to the Hall of Fame. There shouldn’t be. Behavior and politics shouldn’t have a bearing on who gets in.
Re statues of the Confederacy ... There are two sets of statues from two eras. The statues erected after the Civil War were about reconciliation and acceptance of the South to bring a divided country back together. The statues erected in the 20’s and 30’s were erected by the Klan to remind blacks “know your place.” Those should go.
I can understand someone thinking all Confederate statues should go. But to tear down the statues erected in the 19th century is dishonoring an agreement.
Re naming military bases after Confederates ... I never once considered who they’re named for. I think of all the brave military men who have been trained at these facilities since. Anyone who wants to change the names should have to jump out of a plane into enemy fire first (82nd and 101st Airborne).
One of my college teammates/roommates did four tours in the Middle East and Africa with the 82nd.. As an officer he never faced fire unless the base was under attack. He once commented, “If you think winning run on second and two outs gets your adrenaline up trying running across a base under gunfire.”
First, as a middle aged white guy, it's not my place to decide if an entire subgroup of American citizens have a right or not to be offended by something, but if the vast majority of that group IS offended then it's a little condescending for the rest of society to say, "You shouldn't be offended. I didn't mean it that way."
As to the dates of monuments, I've heard this argument before, but it has a huge weakness. Give me the name of one of those monuments that was erected in the 19th century. You'll be extremely hard pressed to find one. Here is a list of Confederate monuments, a list of bases named after Confederates, and a list of ships named after Confederates. You'll notice the earliest date is 1909:
There are a very small handful from the late 1890's and an even smaller handful from the 1860's.
I’ll clarify I little more precisely. The Confederate statues financed by the Klan should be torn down. They were erected to intimidate and show blacks their place. Other statues erected decades after the Civil War should be up for debate on their intent. Statues erected out of reconciliation and acceptance should remain. It’s honoring an agreement.
Nowhere in my post did I state what offends me. Nor did I express what shouldn’t offend other people. I expressed my opinion.
@RJM posted:I’ll clarify I little more precisely. The Confederate statues financed by the Klan should be torn down. They were erected to intimidate and show blacks their place. Other statues erected decades after the Civil War should be up for debate on their intent. Statues erected out of reconciliation and acceptance should remain. It’s honoring an agreement.
Nowhere in my post did I state what offends me. Nor did I express what shouldn’t offend other people. I expressed my opinion.
No. No. No. I wasn't trying to infer that. Sorry if it seemed as if I did. A good example would be the Peace Monument in D.C. erected in 1877 to commemorate lost sailors from both sides.
@K9 posted:The generation bred on participation trophies is having its say
After reading Root's excellent post, and the back and forth with RJM, it occurs to me:
Aren't the monuments for Confederate generals and the President of the Confederacy really just the biggest participation trophies in history?
@K9 posted:The generation bred on participation trophies is having its say
What does that even mean? Little kids got participation trophies 40 years ago too. So those kids are 45 or 50 now. How old do you have to be before your opinion is valid? Is it only Boomers 70 and up? It's just such an empty cliché. State some facts or do better.
@RJM posted:
Re naming military bases after Confederates ... I never once considered who they’re named for. I think of all the brave military men who have been trained at these facilities since. Anyone who wants to change the names should have to jump out of a plane into enemy fire first (82nd and 101st Airborne).
Not considering who they are named for is a privilege. And if you never considered it, why give a sh!t if they get renamed?
As for what you deem to be the qualifications necessary to request a change, my father (82nd and 101st) and uncle (USMC, KIA 1966) both would qualify, I believe, and would approve of said change.
And JCG, I do love the thought of Stonewall Jackson getting a participation trophy for being an own goal by his soldiers. It would be laughable if it wasn't for the fact that his visage, along with Lee and Davis, overlooks well over a half million black Americans whose freedom they sought to deny.
/my participation in this thread.
My favorite is the background for Arlington National Cemetery. It sits on Lee's antebellum home and land. While they list it as a memorial to Lee for his efforts of promoting peace in the wake of the war, it was really to ensure he lost his land and could never return home.
@JCG posted:After reading Root's excellent post, and the back and forth with RJM, it occurs to me:
Aren't the monuments for Confederate generals and the President of the Confederacy really just the biggest participation trophies in history?
That is funny even though I'm from a two time world war runner-up country
.
Anyone that thinks that any confederate statute was erected as a "gesture of healing" is out of his/her freaking mind or just flat out lying to promote an agenda.
@Senna posted:Not considering who they are named for is a privilege. And if you never considered it, why give a sh!t if they get renamed?
As for what you deem to be the qualifications necessary to request a change, my father (82nd and 101st) and uncle (USMC, KIA 1966) both would qualify, I believe, and would approve of said change.
And JCG, I do love the thought of Stonewall Jackson getting a participation trophy for being an own goal by his soldiers. It would be laughable if it wasn't for the fact that his visage, along with Lee and Davis, overlooks well over a half million black Americans whose freedom they sought to deny.
/my participation in this thread.
I don’t consider renaming military installations a debate to die over. If they do get changed my response will be, “Whatever.” It’s important to pick your battles, not fight all of them. It’s what drive me nuts about Trump.
But to say when I think of Fort Bragg or Fort Campbell I think of friends who were military who trained there and served in active war zones is privilege is condescending. I call it respect for the sacrifice they made for their country and their families.
@JCG posted:After reading Root's excellent post, and the back and forth with RJM, it occurs to me:
Aren't the monuments for Confederate generals and the President of the Confederacy really just the biggest participation trophies in history?
It’s more a compromise for torching and leveling the south. Other than Gettysburg the war was fought in the south.
Mostly true about the location of battles, though my home state of MD did have a handful of smaller battles. As for your first point, I refer you to Roothog's posts.
-- edit to say that it's not accurate to say that MD was the site of only smaller battles. Antietam was a very important battle with significant casualties.
Maryland was a slave state that didn’t secede.
Allowing MD to secede would have been disastrous. Lincoln made sure it did not happen.
I worked with a Canadian who once asked me what the Civil War was all about. We met in VA and he said he had heard about "States Rights".
I replied - that's true if you considered slavery a States Rights issue but make no mistake the one and only issue was slavery no matter how it was dressed up.
His next question was - why are there so many Confederate monuments, flags etc. To him it was incongruous.
My answer was: unlike WWII we lost the peace. It would have been the same had we allowed Nazism and Hitler to be glorified. We did not. We pulled it out at the root and our Army still occupies Germay 75 years latter with no end in sight.
Instead in 1876 the Presidential election was bought for the price of 75 years of Jim Crow with the end of Reconsruction. If you think Rutherford B Hayes was worth that stain on US history - I disagree.
I always find it humorous that people think the Civil war was about slavery. We are now 160 years later still fighting battles over perceived racism. It is popular to think that, if feels good to think that, people like to teach it in schools so we all feel better about our history but it is not accurate. Facts a bitch sometimes.
@old_school posted:I always find it humorous that people think the Civil war was about slavery. We are now 160 years later still fighting battles over perceived racism. It is popular to think that, if feels good to think that, people like to teach it in schools so we all feel better about our history but it is not accurate. Facts a bitch sometimes.
If you think it's humorous you need to read Alexander Stephens' Cornerstone Speech. Unless you think the Vice President of the confederacy was lying?
Thanks for the History discussion guys, seriously. It makes me realize how much I miss the days when the History channel used to have History. Here's also hoping that ESPN will have sports again some day.
@old_school posted:I always find it humorous that people think the Civil war was about slavery. We are now 160 years later still fighting battles over perceived racism. It is popular to think that, if feels good to think that, people like to teach it in schools so we all feel better about our history but it is not accurate. Facts a bitch sometimes.
old school, I find it humorous - no maddening - that you want to bring up "facts" and yet deny openly an disputable FACT - the PRIMARY and SINGULAR grounds for secession by the Southern states was their need and desire to keep slavery and to ensure that they lived under a federal government that enforced that evil institution.
I tell you what, let's go ahead and debate this here in a civil matter and let's use facts. I'll start.
South Carolina made it quite clear in their Ordinance of Secession that their single justification for leaving the Union was slavery - specifically that the federal government wouldn't enforce the Fugitive Slave Act requiring the return of the personal property of Southerners - SLAVES. IN it they spelled out their reasoning:
"...an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution." They further added:
"a geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery."
I'll break this into smaller sections to be easier to read. 1/
Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner-stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition - Alexander Stephens
The Republican party was founded as an abolition party in the 1850's and Lincoln was 2nd nominee and 1st winner of the Presidency from the party. The south then succeeded and as noted Stephens among others documented the justification for it. It is true...facts are a bitch.
It was much latter that the "Lost Cause" concept emerged. The south wanted/needed to cleanse itself of the odor of slavery and to try to reset the morality of the war and allow itself to feel it fought the good fight. After all - even as early as 1865 it was pretty obvious that history was going to look poorly upon the Confederacy. Who wants to think that fathers, brothers etc. fought and died for a terrible cause? It is only natural that the effort to recast the war would happen. The fact that the old power structure was reinstituted in 1876 permitted the history to be rewritten as time went on.
IMO it is impossible to have slavery without dehumanizing the slave. The basis for that can be any number of reasons such as race, religion, enemy in war. All have been used at one time or another. In the South there is simply no escaping that racism was used as justification for the social order until the 1950's.
Georgia Ordinance of Secession:
"For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery. They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property, and by the use of their power in the Federal Government have striven to deprive us of an equal enjoyment of the common Territories of the Republic." and added:
"While the subordination and the political and social inequality of the African race was fully conceded by all, it was plainly apparent that slavery would soon disappear from what are now the non-slave-holding States of the original thirteen."
The Georgia Ordinance continues to denounce the "party of Lincoln" as on with "anti-slavery is its mission and its purpose."
I was going to go through all of the Ordinances and Declarations of Reason pertaining to the grounds on which Southern states individually seceded, but they almost all read like this, so I'll spare everyone unless it becomes necessary.
old school...your turn.
