Can we just lock this thread now, before the flame war?

Seems like a lot of the article is plagiarized from here.

Odd, I was interested in the article because... well, I've always assumed Cobb was a bigot because of what I'd been told. I'd never seen any real evidence to prove or disprove this argument. Of course, I still haven't, as that was about the least persuasive piece I've ever read.

Black people have benefited from Cobb's scholarship programs? Well, there are a lot of black people in Georgia. Next.

Cobb couldn't have been a racist because he let black people live on his property, and had black servants? Hm, I think there's an old Southern tradition of having black servants who live on your property. That's hardly proof of "celebrating diversity."

There was very little in the way of verifiable primary sources, this guy was pretty much just telling a story. If you can give me real evidence, fine. I don't wanna see Cobb unfairly tarred if that's what has happened. But there's just not a damn thing in that article which would lead me to believe anything other than what I've been told.

And it's a shame. We all have these assumptions about people, even people long dead and gone, without much in the way of evidence. Evidence is worth seeking; because although his racial attitudes have nothing to do with his greatness as a ballplayer, they certainly have a large bearing on Cobb as a man. And isn't that what makes history interesting, the human beings involved?

Maybe everything we've been told over the last 50 years is bunk. Maybe Cobb wasn't a bigot. But this article certainly didn't demonstrate anything of the sort.

#2

Hilarious. Full sentences plagiarized word-for-word from a much better piece; one that presents a much more complex and nuanced picture of Cobb, one much more likely to be accurate. And, of course, it quoted more sources.

Someone should tell this Mr. Fricks that he is never, ever going to win this battle. Especially if his strategy is to use Cobb quotes like that one.

To be fair, #3, "let black people live on his property" is not really a fair characterization of what he says. He says that Cobb bought land, built houses, and financed them for a "minimal amount" to a predominantly minority group. That said, in this day and age, you're never going to convince any public group to dedicate something to Cobb.

i tend to automatically discount any story that's not about babe ruth that starts like this: XXXXX was by far the greatest player in Major League Baseball's history ...

otherwise, this seemed like a hell of a parody.

I've read other Bleacher Report articles that also have plagiarized from better written works and put forth unsupported and unsourced assertions as fact.

I think this will be the last BR article I read.

That's the advantage of acting like a prick to everyone; it's really hard to prove you hate any particular group.

Maybe I'm completely in the wrong here, but I think even if a was somewhat racist he probably deserves some baseball field in Georgia to be named after him.

That's the advantage of acting like a prick to everyone; it's really hard to prove you hate any particular group.

It's the Jeff Kent rule.

But Cobb didn't act like a prick to everybody. See for instance his financial support for Eddie Cochrane (and other players who fell on tough times)

It's more like he could be a prick to anybody. And things could go downhill really quickly.

Maybe I'm completely in the wrong here, but I think even if a was somewhat racist he probably deserves some baseball field in Georgia to be named after him.

I certainly don't disagree. But you're never going to convince people obsessed with image (such as, without a doubt, the Augusta Commissioners) to do so in this day and age. If it were there already, you wouldn't see his name removed, but nobody's sticking their neck out and risking the PR.

After graduating from and now working for UT, I've spent 10 years listening to arguments to remove the statues of Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee (among others) on campus, while the University has added MLK, Cesar Chavez, and soon Barbara Jordan to the statue roster. In these situations, it seems that inertia is the most powerful force.

The bleacher reports MMA coverage is absolutely BRUTAL. ####### the worst, I'm convinced the donkey's they have writting never saw a fight prior to Griffin/Bonner.

They do get amazing search engine coverage for whatever reason. My google alerts are always featuring their posts.

Well, there's also the public statements about integration and so on.

I really don't why it's an issue whether Cobb was racist. Of course he was, but so is everyone, to a certain extent. Cobb was really no more (and arguably rather less) racist than you would expect him to be given the time, place, social class, etc that he was born into. He was born into a pretty racist environment, and he was pretty racist. So what? Beating up Cobb over racism is silly - God, I hate to think what future generations will make of us. The only reason this sticks to Cobb and not anyone else is because Cobb was far more famous than the rest of them, and because Cobb was a jerk and a hothead. Cobb didn't segregate baseball, he didn't exclude black players and he didn't hinder integration. Who cares about his personal conduct? The reason they're talking about naming a baseball field after him is because he was a very good baseball player. Sounds appropriate. Similarly the Albert Einstein Award is so named because Einstein was a very good scientist - no-one thinks this is an endorsement of his personal life, political or religious views, taste in art, or whatever other issue some fool wants to complain about.

Why does everything have to be an orgy of political correctness these days?

Why does everything have to be an orgy of political correctness these days?

Because orgies are fun.

"financial support for Eddie Cochrane"

Indeed, he solved the old catcher's Summertime Blues, I'm told - shocking the contingent that insisted that there ain't no cure for such an ailment.

I'm told - shocking the contingent that insisted that there ain't no cure for such an ailment.

Quality.

I really don't why it's an issue whether Cobb was racist.

You know why. It's the same old story. If they floated the idea of naming the field, there would basically be two camps: people who were vocally against it because they think he was a racist and this supports his views on race, and others who would say "I don't see the big deal, he was a great player." The former group will be much louder than the latter, because the latter isn't really invested at all. For the Augusta Commissioners, why take on that kind of grief?

Well yes Jeff I get that the Augusta Commissioners don't want to take on grief, and I quite understand their position. What I don't get is why it matters to that vocal camp. Does any sane person believe that naming a baseball field after a great baseball player is an endorsement of everything he ever did, said or thought?

If they floated the idea of naming the field, there would basically be two camps: people who were vocally against it because they think he was a racist and this supports his views on race, and others who would say "I don't see the big deal, he was a great player."

It doesn't help you get nutters like this guy who deny the truth. Ty Cobb was a virulent racist, in addition to being one of the five best baseball players ever. Just because there's a picture of Ty Cobb shaking Don Newcombe's hand doesn't mean Cobb was an enlightened man. It's true Cobb softened somewhat as he got older and realized he was going to die alone without many friends, but his attitude to blacks his whole life was at best a paternal one, at worst a scornful one.

What I don't get is why it matters to that vocal camp. Does any sane person believe that naming a baseball field after a great baseball player is an endorsement of everything he ever did, said or thought?

Everything? I doubt it. But yes, there are many sane people, people I strongly disagree with, that would believe that honoring Cobb in such a public way would be wrong because he was a racist, and at best this simply handwaves that away.

There certainly has been more dirt thrown on Cobb than just about any of his contemporaries.

Still, I've seen scant little in the way of proof he was as bad as his reputation says he was. I'm sure he held views similar to his time. He certainly wasn't as bad as the longest serving US Senator in history.

Cobb in his prime.

Senator Byrd in his prime.

I guess the difference is, we compromised by allowing Byrd to put his name on public landmarks if he just said he was sorry for 14hrs and 13 minutes.

Cobb is dead, so he can't possibly put on such a show.

Charles Alexander's biography of Cobb calls Cobb frankly a racist. Alexander isn't really a crusader on such issues; his bios of Texans Rogers Hornsby and Tris Speaker (sometimes rumored to have been a Klansman himself) are not very investigative, shall we say. But in Cobb's case it's really hard to avoid. Alexander cites an incident in 1907 when Cobb slapped and chased a black groundskeeper and then began to choke the groundskeeper's wife (till restrained by catcher Charley Schmidt, who won Cobb's enmity from that point forward). Cobb was convicted in 1908 of assault-and-battery against a black construction worker who yelled at him for crossing a patch of fresh asphalt. In 1910 he climbed into the stands to attack a black heckler; in 1914 he was convicted of beating up a black butcher (Alexander, Ty Cobb, 1984; NY:Oxford, 1985, pp. 50, 68, 94, 119).

Most people know these incidents; I'm just copying them out because I have the book handy ...

BDR -- on the other hand, to play devil's advocate, Cobb also beat up a crippled guy in the stands; as far as I know, the crippled guy was white. I do think Cobb was a racist, at least in his playing days; I'm just saying that the incidents you cite are insufficient to convict him of racism, because, well, Cobb assaulted lots of people.

I'm glad that Beano Cook brought out the obligatory, "Robart Byrd was a racist too" line. I mean, I've never heard that one before.

"The question is not whether I've treated you rudely but whether you've ever heard me treat anyone else better."

He could have been, if he wanted to be.

Or is this the wrong place for that?

How can we still harp on execrable senator Robert Byrd's klansman past when he's made every effort to pave the state of West Virginia blacker than any man's skin.

"C,mon Everybody" Let's give Ty Cobb a break. He helped me financially and "Hallelujah I Love him So". Can't we talk about "Something Else."

I do look forward to "Sittin' In The Balcony" at Cobb Memorial Stadium.

i'm a big fan of citing Robert Byrds mistakes as a younger man and ignoring everything he's done since then. i guess God might forgive us our trespasses, but people certainly won't.

It seems to me that racism was far more prevalent back in that era, and was far more socially acceptable than it is today.

Funny that Lassus and the crew haven't stopped by to tell us that Byrd is worse than Stalin. Hmm, what could the difference be between he and Helms? Party affiliation is one difference, but that can't be it. Nope.

Cobb also beat up a crippled guy in the stands; as far as I know, the crippled guy was white.

Yeah, but the thing that allegedly enraged Cobb enough to go after him was the comment that Cobb was a "half-[Negro]."

Funny that Lassus and the crew haven't stopped by to tell us that Byrd is worse than Stalin. Hmm, what could the difference be between he and Helms? Party affiliation is one difference, but that can't be it. Nope.

That is funny that you can't work the search function and then assume that this point has already been address 100 times.

I think that if Ty Cobb were still alive, and had retracted all racist sentiments forty years ago, I would view him as a non-racist, just as I do with Robert Byrd.

Agreed that racism has to be viewed in context. I mean, look at who the US president was for much of Ty Cobb's career. Ty Cobb is singled out as a known racist by future generations because unlike many of his contemporaries he was not just a racist but also a violent #######. This is unfair, since being a violent ####### doesn't disqualify people from having things named after them.

Wow -- thank you #2! I'll just read the Guru article and skip out on this one.

No worries, I enjoyed it and wanted to pass it on.

Reading the Baseball Guru article, I felt like it deepened my understanding of multiple perspectives on the issue. It was excellent, but it didn't make me want to copy it, make it worse and try to pass it off as my own.

Party affiliation is one difference, but that can't be it. Nope.

I would post more about politics, but all the conservatives are so mean, and I feel so outnumbered, that I just can't.

It was excellent, but it didn't make me want to copy it, make it worse and try to pass it off as my own.

But that's the American way.

Of course he was, but so is everyone, to a certain extent.

Wonder how this would go over if E-X posted it.

You're right, of course. There is no doubt that Coob was a racist; there is also no doubt that Cobb, like everybody else on the planet, was in some ways just a product of his time and his environment and we should cut him some slack about some of his many issues. My guess is that his views softened on the subject of race as he aged.

Does any sane person believe that naming a baseball field after a great baseball player is an endorsement of everything he ever did, said or thought?

Kind of like flag and patriotism disputes, don't you think?

As to whether they should name stuff after Cobb, well, I have no stake in it, but it would be OK with me.

I think we should give all dead people the benefit of the doubt when it comes to their socio-pathological behaviors. Had they all the good fortune to live in more enlightened times, they'd really be nice people. Attila the Hun, Genghis Khan, Carl Panzram...well, maybe not him.

Yeah, but the thing that allegedly enraged Cobb enough to go after him was the comment that Cobb was a "half-[Negro]."

Well yes but that's saying he's illegitimate. Obviously Cobb shouldn't have waded into the stands and attacked the guy but if from that day to this, calling someone a bastard is liable to start a fight.

I think we should give all dead people the benefit of the doubt when it comes to their socio-pathological behaviors. Had they all the good fortune to live in more enlightened times, they'd really be nice people. Attila the Hun, Genghis Khan, Carl Panzram...

All is forgiven, Harry Frazee.

But Cobb didn't act like a prick to everybody. See for instance his financial support for Eddie Cochrane (and other players who fell on tough times)

The story of Cobb providing financial support for an aged, drunken, Mickey Cochrane was debunked pretty thoroughly by Rob Neyer in his most recent book.

Right, Alou. If they guy had said that his mother married a black guy, Cobb would have been cool with it.

The lesson to be learned is that if you are a public figure no point in adjusting your views on the world or life because if you were/are wrong you are stuck with them like a tattoo.

And Fred Garvin you are right about society's acceptance of racism 100 years ago. Another comparison is society's viewpoint towards drinking. 50 years ago it was more acceptable to get drunk or to have a few before one gets behind the wheel. Fortunately societal mores have improved in these two areas since then.

i'm a big fan of citing Robert Byrds mistakes as a younger man and ignoring everything he's done since then. i guess God might forgive us our trespasses, but people certainly won't.

Other than stealing an awful lot of other people's money, what has he done since then?

The lesson to be learned is that if you are a public figure no point in adjusting your views on the world or life because if you were/are wrong you are stuck with them like a tattoo.

More like spots on a leopard.

Right, Alou. If they guy had said that his mother married a black guy, Cobb would have been cool with it.

Well actually Cobb was pretty cool with it anyway. But Sam Crawford taunted Cobb that how can you let this guy talk about your mother like that. So amour propre being offended it's hey-ho into the stands. To me it's fascinating because he let the fan talk bad about his mother, but he wasn't going to let Sam Crawford say that he fell short of the honour code. Complicated guy.

I think we should give all dead people the benefit of the doubt when it comes to their socio-pathological behaviors. Had they all the good fortune to live in more enlightened times, they'd really be nice people. Attila the Hun, Genghis Khan, Carl Panzram...well, maybe not him.

I'm not giving Cobb the benefit of the doubt - if you want to get on Cobb for being a violent hothead, go right ahead, but that wouldn't stop anyone naming a baseball field after him, although perhaps it should. The issue here is the whole TY COBB WAS A RACIST!!!1! business. But that's just hating him for being born in the South in 1886. Just about everyone was pretty racist, and not in a mild "I feel some anxiety when I encounter a black person late at night" kinda way. I mean in a "Hooray for Jim Crow, eugenics and denying black people the vote" kinda way. And this wasn't even limited to the South, the civil service was segregated too. So why hate on Cobb as opposed to any of the other, oh, 60 million Americans around at the time?

Oh, and as for Genghis Khan and the like - I really don't think you can judge historical rulers too much by modern-day standards. Do you really think it's legitimate to criticise Genghis Khan because he didn't believe in women's suffrage? OMG TEH SEXISM! No, but he has a bad name because he appalled even his contemporaries with his actions.

Kind of like flag and patriotism disputes, don't you think?

Could you explain? Not being snarky.

I'm glad that Beano Cook brought out the obligatory, "Robart Byrd was a racist too" line. I mean, I've never heard that one before.

Cobb's been out of baseball for 80 years and dead for over 45. So let's continue to debate if Cobb is deserving or not to have a park named for him. Good one. When Byrd dies, I will have a long cigar and enjoy that our long national nightmare is over.

And this wasn't even limited to the South, the civil service was segregated too. So why hate on Cobb as opposed to any of the other, oh, 60 million Americans around at the time?

Why,indeed. I oppose the naming of any ballparks after any of them, too.

Other than stealing an awful lot of other people's money, what has he done since then?

Byrd is a master of the folksy anecdote. Without him, who would give the token sentimental Congressional address on every greeting card holiday?

Could you explain? Not being snarky.

Not to speak for rr, but I took this to mean (and find it apt) that debating what importance people should place on possible racism 100 years ago (and their reaction to it) is much the same as debating what importance people should place on patriotism. Neither side is going to convince the other because it's a non-rational reaction/decision.

I think we should give all dead people the benefit of the doubt when it comes to their socio-pathological behaviors. Had they all the good fortune to live in more enlightened times, they'd really be nice people. Attila the Hun, Genghis Khan, Carl Panzram...well, maybe not him.

I wonder what future generations will say about Steve Garvey.

I wonder what future generations will say about Steve Garvey.

And Chris Truby.

And Mike Crudale!

And Hitler! There, I've done it!

Bur seriously, folks...while we're forgiving American racists of 100 years ago for being "victims of the times", why not forgive the Germans who abetted the Nazis in the 30's and 40's? Since you're in a forgiving mood.

Other than stealing an awful lot of other people's money, what has he done since then?

Byrd voted against Marshall and Thomas for US Sup Court. He has that.

Why is William Fulbright Clinton's political hero again? Shouldn't Clinton be called on that? Gore's dad? We should clean up history.

Right, Beano. Amnesty for everyone. We'll have a Julius and Ethel Rosenberg Armory right next to Ty Cobb Field.

if you read the comments after the article, Fricks claims the article linked in #2 was plagiarized from HIM

Anyone who thinks that Ty Cobb wasn't an uncommonly violent racist has his head in the sand. Or at least hasn't bothered to read the Alexander biography that Bob cites in #23 above.

But geez, Cobb's life wasn't exactly centered on racism, like many a politician's. And it didn't define his baseball career, the way it defined Ben Chapman's. It had much more to do with the time and place of his upbringing than anything else.

And naming a ballpark in Augusta after him isn't the end of the world. If they can name a Justice Department building after J. Edgar Hoover, or for that matter my high school alma mater after Woodrow Wilson....

“I like them, personally. When I was little, I had a colored Mammy. I played with colored children.”

That's not what racism is. You don't have to hate to be a racist, just think that someone is inferior based on their race.

That's not what racism is. You don't have to hate to be a racist, just think that someone is inferior based on their race.

And here comes Larry to throw gasoline on the thread. Are you really missing Farnsworth that much, that you need to reenact his career?

OK, I have been invited to come here a take the bullets.

I am the author of the TY COBB article and would like to thank everyone for their input.

I have read most of the comments posted and respect everyone's opinion.

I would like to discuss this further with you for the next hour.

Wesley Fricks
TY COBB Historian

Just to be clear, rr et al: 2Alous statement is as stupid and false as it was when Eraser said it. Not everyone is a racist.

Welcome, Wesley.

I'll copy what I posted above: "“I like them, personally. When I was little, I had a colored Mammy. I played with colored children.”" is not a quote that shows that Cobb was not racist. It's awfully close to "I'm not racist, I have a black friend!" And for good or bad, that's pretty universally seen as a bad argument. I would suggest that if you're going to take on this very uphill battle, not using that quote.

And here comes Larry to throw gasoline on the thread. Are you really missing Farnsworth that much, that you need to reenact his career?

Seriously, what if the Yankees get a huge lead tomorrow? Who is going to pitch then? And if Rodriguez hits a couple of home runs to help them get that lead, that just makes it all the worse!

Thanks Jeff,

Let me try to explain. Lynchings were committed in every state - not just Georgia. I say this meaning that, generally, a good many people think that Georgia was the only state that looked to the race as inferior. Not true!

Race relations in Royston Georgia has, for the most part, been soothed by the understaning that most of the population, black and white, have had to struggle together. It was even the same assessment explained by the late ambassador, Buck O'Neil.

I believe that this statement by Cobb has helped us out because Ty was trying to convey to the reader that he understood the black population and could relate to their struggles. He also wanted the reader to know that blacks have been a part of his life since his childhood.

There is significant value to this because there was more to the story than was published. Some of the supporting material could have been monumental for us.

I'll copy what I posted above: "“I like them, personally. When I was little, I had a colored Mammy. I played with colored children.”" is not a quote that shows that Cobb was not racist. It's awfully close to "I'm not racist, I have a black friend!" And for good or bad, that's pretty universally seen as a bad argument. I would suggest that if you're going to take on this very uphill battle, not using that quote.

I'd second that suggestion. Lots of us already know that Cobb shouldn't be defined by his racism, but it's kind of pointless to deny something that's been cited by so many sources. And face it, Cobb would have been a rare bird, born when and where he was, to NOT have been a racist. It was in the air back then, and Cobb breathed that air.

The real question is whether that should be enough to offset the many good things you cite about his life. I'd agree that it shouldn't, but that quote from 1952 when the Texas League was about to integrate is far more compelling than the one about having a colored Mammy.

Professor Herschel Cobb, Ty beloved father, was a Georgia State Senator from 1900-1902.

He voted against a bill that was introduced to the Senate that wanted the property taxes deriving from the black property owners to finance the black schools. This would have been significantly less.

Cobb opposed the bill because he said that he would "oppose any bill that would engender frictions between the races. The negroes have done and were doing a great deal in the upbuilding of the state of Georgia." He went on to say how he wanted to allow them enough money for education.

I tell this story because I believe that this was the sentiment of the whole Cobb family.

They wanted equality for the negroes.

Wesley Fricks

It's one thing to have been born into a racist society and thus be racist to the extent that that norm prescribes. It's another to have engaged in violent acts on multiple occasions that had a racist element to them.

I spent several years not too far from Royston, which is a very typical city in northeast Georgia. Like most towns of it size, it consists of two towns, a black town and a white town. The white town looks pretty good. The black town is generally squalid (I have never seen the black part of Royston, and assume it was/is pretty bad). I am not surprised that Cobb, despite his reputation, saw himself as a benefactor for the black community, as anyone living there saw the effects of poverty in the black community on a daily basis. This behavior is commendable, and reflects an overall charitable character, but it doesn't excuse other behavior. Maybe it was exaggerated, and maybe it was more a reflection of Cobb's generally violent tendencies than a hatred of blacks, but he did what he did and he said what he said. In northeast Georgia, blacks and whites generally got along, but it was dependent on blacks knowing their place. I would guess that Cobb's generosity and kindness have to be interpreted in this power dynamic.

I have no problem coming to the conclusion that Cobb, like most of his white northeast Georgia brethren, was by today's standards pretty racist. I also don't find it to be a very useful label. What we know about Cobb is that he had a tendency to be violent, and that on several occasions there were racial overtones to it. This reflects badly on him. Was he a racist? Probably, but it's not a particularly helpful description of him if you're trying to understand who he was.

Charles Alexander's biography of Cobb calls Cobb frankly a racist. Alexander isn't really a crusader on such issues; his bios of Texans Rogers Hornsby and Tris Speaker (sometimes rumored to have been a Klansman himself) are not very investigative, shall we say.

Bob, OTOH, Alexander did write about the KKK in Texas and the rest of the Southwest way back in the 60's. Can't say that I've read it, but it was something he researched as a younger man.

Lynchings were committed in every state - not just Georgia. I say this meaning that, generally, a good many people think that Georgia was the only state that looked to the race as inferior. Not true!

Anyone who actually thinks that Georgia was the only place where lynchings took place or the only place where whites felt superior to blacks is dazzlingly ignorant and not worthy of being addressed as an adult. I exaggerate a lot (being from Texas and all), but I truly mean that.

Race relations in Royston Georgia has, for the most part, been soothed by the understaning that most of the population, black and white, have had to struggle together. It was even the same assessment explained by the late ambassador, Buck O'Neil.

I believe that this statement by Cobb has helped us out because Ty was trying to convey to the reader that he understood the black population and could relate to their struggles. He also wanted the reader to know that blacks have been a part of his life since his childhood.

And I apologize for acting like I knew this particular situation better than you. I can certainly see a case, though I would think it fairly rare, where people would not take the Mammy quote in the way that most do, and you would certainly know better than I whether this group would be likely to be those people. That said, I agree with Andy (and as I've said, even outside of whether or not he was racist, I don't think that should prevent a field being named for him), in that you have other stuff that, to me, is more compelling. Particularly if this is a poor area where everyone had to fight the same battles to get ahead.

That situation both offers an explanation for local whites acting superior to local blacks (in downtrodden societies, class stratification can be more likely to occur than in more upwardly-mobile ones, as humans tend to take their victories where they can get them) and is a perfect tie for the fact that he chose to help black families make it alongside him by providing cheap housing.

Just to be clear, rr et al: 2Alous statement is as stupid and false as it was when Eraser said it. Not everyone is a racist.

Well, Alou said "to a certain extent." "Racism" is not a binary thing, although it is too often discussed as such. I have met very few, if any, people of any race, who do not have some attitudes, preconceptions, anxieties, complaints, etc about other races and about their own. If you mean "not everyone" is Louis Farrakhan, or (worse) Don Black, then sure.

Could you explain? Not being snarky.

You get this on all bands of the ideological spectrum. Folks who join the military and/or support the war, and who love the flag are sometimes accused of being intolerant, xenophobic and ignorant. Folks who don't love the flag and don't support the war are sometimes accused of "hating America." Loving this country doesn't mean that you agree with everything it has ever done and everything it stands for; criticizing it and being ambivalent about it in many ways doesn't mean you hate it.

Same way with Cobb. Based on what I know, he was a pretty f'd up guy. But supporting him in some respects, or endorsing some of the things he did in his life, doesn't mean you are supporting racism and violence.

Andy,

That is a great point!

The sources cannot be credible. They wrote what they wanted to. Who was there to stop them? Alexander's book came out in 1975. Stump's in 1994.

Let me share something with you. I contacted Alexander a good while back and questioned him, respectfully. In short, I said, "How do you have proof Cobb was a racist? How could you have proved that when I have some documents demonstrating otherwise.

His conclusion was that "I didn't have access to the information and data that is made easily available today."

These authors had the freedom to write as they wished because no one could call them out. With the advancement of technology of today, we have the sources at our fingertip.

Well, Alou said "to a certain extent." "Racism" is not a binary thing, although it is too often discussed as such. I have met very few, if any, people of any race, who do not have some attitudes, preconceptions, anxieties, complaints, etc about other races and about their own. If you mean "not everyone" is Louis Farrakhan, or (worse) Don Black, then sure.

I honestly don't know what people mean when they say something's not a "binary" thing, and I don't really want to rehash an old argument, but I don't think sociological studies, history, or language support the notion that everyone is "racist," either in the sense of being Don Black or Al Sharpton or whoever, or in the more diluted sense to which you allude.

I'll add, as I've done in the past, it's unfortunate (for me) to encounter educators who believe this, as I think it's a false belief and distorts history. There were, and are, racists, racism is a bad thing, and to use the term in that sloppy way ("everyone's a racist in a sense") is not only wrong factually, but dangerous. "Binary thing" or not.

Cobb had a short fuse when he thought that there was no way out of a situation - I will never retreat from this.

But just because he gets involved in some ridiculous altercation, and the person happens to have a different color skin does not make Cobb guilty of being a racist.

Cobb admitted after his career took off that he had a better grip on his temper. He knew that early on it got the best of him. But to say he was screwed up all of his career or that he was a SOB is a downright grave injustice.

Wesley Fricks

I honestly don't know what people mean when they say something's not a "binary" thing

They mean that there are two possible states. For a simple example, a lightbulb is a binary thing. It is on, or it is off. They're saying that racism is not like that. You cannot point to a bunch of people and say "Racist, not, not, racist, racist, not, racist, racist", etc. Which I'm sure you do not disagree with, even if you do (seem to) disagree with other parts of his statement.

Mr. Fricks,

First, it's nice to see someone show up here in the hinterlands who's willing to answer questions about his writing. That alone merits respect.

I guess what I'm trying to get at is that I think it's a far better strategy to place Ty Cobb's beliefs and actions within the framework of their time and place than to try to take it any further than that. The specific racial context of the incidents mentioned in the Alexander book may not be nearly as clear as it was supposed, but no matter how you slice it, Ty Cobb will never be seen as anything but a racist by most people today. If he'd made those 1952 remarks in 1912 or 1932, or even in 1947, that would have put things in an entirely different light, but I've yet to see any evidence that he spoke up in favor of integrating the Majors at a time when his support would have been a major event.

But even so, what Cobb said in the case of the Texas League does go against the grain of the reductionist view of him. And the more you can get out, the better.

BTW one other fact about Cobb that often gets repeated is that after a Tigers' barnstorming tour in Cuba early in his career, he refused to play exhibition games against black or integrated teams after that. If this isn't so, do you have any evidence to the contrary?

EDIT: In other words, do you have any evidence that he DID compete against black or integrated teams after that early trip to Cuba, as did many other Major League players?

But just because he gets involved in some ridiculous altercation, and the person happens to have a different color skin does not make Cobb guilty of being a racist.

Very true. Though I'm sure you know you're going to have to answer that question definitively and over and over if you take up this cause. I'd be very interested to see the documents about the incidents, as these are stories you grow up reading and hearing and everyone "knows", so you never stop to think about it too much.

I honestly don't know what people mean when they say something's not a "binary" thing

They mean that there are two possible states. For a simple example, a lightbulb is a binary thing. It is on, or it is off. They're saying that racism is not like that. You cannot point to a bunch of people and say "Racist, not, not, racist, racist, not, racist, racist", etc. Which I'm sure you do not disagree with, even if you do (seem to) disagree with other parts of his statement.

Well, then I guess I do disagree. I believe a person either is, or is not, a racist. Much as I believe a person is, or is not, an anti-semite.

First, it's nice to see someone show up here in the hinterlands who's willing to answer questions about his writing. That alone merits respect.

Concur. As I posted in the Lounge, you're one of the better authors we’ve had stop by, that I’ve seen. You have an agenda (as does everyone), but you're honest about it, not defensive, not dismissive of others, and I believe that what you say is honest and your actual thoughts. That puts you way above the vast majority of writers who join threads here about their work.

Andy,

Thanks again.

I have supported this story for quiet sometimes.

The Cubans were very nice to Cobb in 1910. Cobb was accompanied by his wealthy father-in-law at the time and that had a certain level of affect on Cobb as they were on a mission to get back to Georgia.

I have several article where Cobb thought the story was not accurate. I wish I had a way to post them here in their original form.

That will certainly be a good discussion on my next visit here.

Wesley Fricks

I'll add, as I've done in the past, it's unfortunate (for me) to encounter educators who believe this, as I think it's a false belief and distorts history

.

I believe the exact opposite, in almost all respects. I didn't "teach" about racism per se when I was in the high school classroom, and I sure as hell don't now, in adult ed, unless it comes up via students. But I see it as a spectrum or continuum and tell students that.

There were, and are, racists, racism is a bad thing, and to use the term in that sloppy way ("everyone's a racist in a sense") is not only wrong factually, but dangerous.

Of course it's a "bad thing" and of course "there are racists." Seeing it as a contiuum to which everybody is connected in no way precludes acknowledging the moral urgency needed to reject certain types of statements and behaviors. But I think it is "dangerous" to pretend it is entirely an individual character trait that some people have and others don't. As with politics, we have a binary vocabulary to describe a complex, multifaceted reality, and it retards useful dialogue. With politics, I am as guilty as anyone, labelling everybody from Rifkin to Nieporent as "right-wing." With race, I try to be smarter about it.

Well, then I guess I do disagree. I believe a person either is, or is not, a racist. Much as I believe a person is, or is not, an anti-semite.

You don't think there's any shading possible? Do you think that one person can be more racist than another person?

I believe a person either is, or is not, a racist. Much as I believe a person is, or is not, an anti-semite.

The only problem with that is that in many, many cases you're making either/or judgments of people based on incomplete information. Not to mention that there are many competing definitions of the term.

Not to mention that a person's time and place and standing within his own community is important as well. Some of the great anti-Dixiecrat southern editors of the 1950's favored school segregation in the aftermath of Brown, but they were also instrumental in many of the battles against the Citizens' Councils, the Klan, and the Dixiecrats. Would you call people like Ralph McGill "racists?"

That said, I don't agree with the idea that "everyone's a racist," either. Much as I like and will defend E-X, he kind of loses me on that one, too.

Byrd supports Obama, so he must have gotten over any qualms about race-mixing. As for Cobb, it's pretty silly to hold racism against him when naming a stadium.

Agree with JC on racism. "Everybody's a racist" kind of excuses the real ones, doesn't it?

Jeff,

You are correct. The Internet is a media that is open to everyone.

Here, to be successful, you have to approached things different. If you go on the attack, you immediately began to lose your own credibility. You have to respect peoples thought, ideas and opinions.

I have no underlying objectives but to tell the truth according to the supporting documents that I have spent the last fifteen years working to collect.

I respect everyone's opinions here and I understand that for the last fifty years people have written and repeated nothing about Ty Cobb except what a terrible person he was.

If we want to begin to slowly change the thought process, then we are going to have to provide the necessary evidence to change people's beliefs.

Wesley Fricks

That said, I don't agree with the idea that "everyone's a racist," either. Much as I like and will defend E-X, he kind of loses me on that one, too

Well, this is a rehash, as JC says, but if you define "racist" as "believing that some races are inferior to others" or even "some races have members who all share the same traits without any meaningful exceptions" then, no. E-X, as you may recall, didn't really mean it either way.

Mr. Fricks, do you plan to expand your findings into a book?

Thanks again for all your comments. I promise to stop by again.

This has been a great experience for me and I hope that I have helped someone, somewhere have a better understanding of the big question, "Racist or Not."

Best wishes to all!

Wesley Fricks
TY COBB Historian

"Everybody's a racist" kind of excuses the real ones, doesn't it?

I generally avoid these discussions, but:

I don't think it does. I think acknowledging (should you think it is true) that everyone has some sort of prejudice or what-have-you and that no one is truly "color blind", in no way mitigates your ability to censure "real" racism.

Seeing it as a contiuum to which everbody is connected

What on earth does that mean? Racism is a continuum to which everybody is connected means that everyone is a racist in a sense? Does "racism" not mean something like the belief that (a) there are races, and (b) that race determines certain characteristics and (c) that one of these races is superior to others? Is not a racist therefore someone who subscribes to these beliefs?

If by "continuum to which everybody is connected" means that [virtually] everybody in the US is affected in some manner by the legacy of race, then I would subscribe to that theory but by no means accept that that means we're all racist to some extent.

But I think it is "dangerous" to pretend it is entirely an individual character trait that some people have and others don't.

Why? In history, some people seem genuinely to subscribe to the three notions I posted above and some people seem not to. I'm fairly certain you must know people who have no truck (b) and (c) above and who maybe even deny (a). What does it mean to say about these people that, nonetheless, they're "racist in a sense?"

That said, I don't agree with the idea that "everyone's a racist," either. Much as I like and will defend E-X, he kind of loses me on that one, too

Well, this is a rehash, as JC says, but if you define "racist" as "believing that some races are inferior to others" or even "some races' have members who all share the same traits without any meaningful exceptions" then, no. E-X, as you may recall, didn't really mean it either way.

But in practice what this means is that E-X has to spend an inordinate amount of time explaining that he has a far different definition of "racist" than most everyone else. I find his actual thoughts on the subject of race quite reasonable and nuanced, but in many cases it takes about a dozen back-and-forths before it's all that clear what he really does think. This is often a particular problem if you're reading his posts for the first time.

Let's just pump the OED definition out there:

racism, n. The belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races. Hence: prejudice and antagonism towards people of other races, esp. those felt to be a threat to one's cultural or racial integrity or economic well-being; the expression of such prejudice in words or actions. Also occas. in extended use, with reference to people of other nationalities. Cf. RACIALISM n.

Now, I hadn't personally before now thought the superiority/inferiority part to be necessary to the definition, but I'll cede to the OED. Given that definition, then I will agree with you, JC, that everyone is not "racist" in one way or another. I will still disagree with you on whether it is binary or not.

"Everybody's a racist" kind of excuses the real ones, doesn't it?

I generally avoid these discussions, but:

I don't think it does. I think acknowledging (should you think it is true) that everyone has some sort of prejudice or what-have-you and that no one is truly "color blind", in no way mitigates your ability to censure "real" racism.

Think of The Boy Who Cried Wolf, and you'll understand the problem with throwing around phrases like "everyone's a racist," especially on forums like this where not everyone is up to speed on (or in agreement with) the sort of advanced path that E-X is often trying to lead us. It's a verbal strategy that's far better suited for a setting where one person (such as a teacher) controls the discussion and can quickly lead it to the underlying point. On BTF it often just leads to a lot of name calling where most people just drop out of the discussion.

I don't think it does. I think acknowledging (should you think it is true) that everyone has some sort of prejudice or what-have-you and that no one is truly "color blind", in no way mitigates your ability to censure "real" racism.

Yeah, I pretty much said that above. So, I agree, obviously. I do not see myself as "color blind", or "free of prejudice" but I also know if someone says "####### Spics are all lazy as hell" or whatever, I am comfortable censuring that morally and rejecting it factually.

If by "continuum to which everybody is connected" means that [virtually] everybody in the US is affected in some manner by the legacy of race, then I would subscribe to that theory but by no means accept that that means we're all racist to some extent.

It's very tricky, but as Jeff K says, I don't think anybody is 100% race/color-blind. If you want to deny that is "racist in a sense" then, OK, but then I think we are having a semantic argument.

What does it mean to say about these people that, nonetheless, they're "racist in a sense?"

That they are part of that legacy, are not color-blind and may have some subterannanean attitudes about race that they are not aware of. I have seen it again and again.

Hmm....since I'm logged into OED online already, I pulled "racist" as well. This is much closer to my personal definition before I went there:

racist, n. n. An advocate or supporter of racism; a person whose words or actions display racial prejudice or discrimination. Also in extended use: a person who is prejudiced against people of other nationalities.

Note "prejudice" twice in there.

prejudice, n. (Definition 1a) Preconceived opinion not based on reason or actual experience; bias, partiality; (now) spec. unreasoned dislike, hostility, or antagonism towards, or discrimination against, a race, sex, or other class of people. {dag}In early use (see quot. c1300): contempt (obs.)

discrimination, n. (Definition 1a) The action of discriminating; the perceiving, noting, or making a distinction or difference between things; a distinction (made with the mind, or in action). Also with against.

I have no interest in a semantics debate, but if you follow that tree, you basically get my definition. And I *do* think that everyone, whether consciously or not, whether it affects their actions or not, does meet those definitions of prejudice and discrimination (without reductio ad absurdum to "Black people have different hair") in some small way, at least. That's where I'm coming from.

The only problem with that is that in many, many cases you're making either/or judgments of people based on incomplete information. Not to mention that there are many competing definitions of the term.

I don't think there are many definitions of the term so much as, and maybe this is what you mean, there are many different interpretations of the behaviors that count one as a racist. I think the term is fairly clear and settled, and I agree (absolutely) w/your point. A person, iow, must be shown to be a racist, and I think this is one of the significant differences in looking at it the way the definition requires and looking at it in the "continuum everyone's a racist sorta" way. Then you really are forcing people to say things like, "Wait, this makes no sense, I'm married to a black woman." Or, "But I've got Irish friends drinking buddies!" and so on.

Jeff: I accept that there are "worse" racists than others, but to me that's more like saying there are worse rabid dogs than others than saying "all dogs are kinda rabid, it's on a continuum." Some people are racist, for sure, and some people (and again, I ask people to defer to their experiences of people) are not. If you think, for instance, Obama's mom is racist b/c she crossed the street upon seeing a large black man, I submit you are misusing the term. She may be racist, but that example doesn't establish that.