I don't have this kind of permanent feeling of shame about segregation in baseball. It's as if sport has come to occupy so much of our consciousness of American history that we have a somewhat imbalanced idea of how far ahead of the rest of American society sport generally was in terms of integration. Sport, in the early 20th century, was a field where whites and blacks increasingly worked together (in some parts of the country and in some sports faster than others) and where it became increasingly apparent that segregation was illogical and unfair. In this respect, the fair-play ethic of sport was not just blather; it was a force for a level playing field figuratively as well as literally.

Pro baseball lagged behind boxing and Olympic sports and (non-southern) college sports in integrating, but pro baseball integrated ahead of the military, city neighborhoods, Southern voting booths, Southern lunch counters ... and it had a modest effect on the integration of those other, much larger fields. Now, that effect is often exaggerated just because we spend so much time thinking about sports. Jackie Robinson was not a greater social force than Adam Clayton Powell Jr. or A. Philip Randolph, though he is now much more celebrated. But a celebration of integration cannot be a bad thing. Sure, the institution was segregated, and racism persisted after integration; but we wouldn't be celebrating integration if segregation and racism had never existed, would we?

I at least somewhat agree with the overall point. But I'm less worried about the lack of recognition about pre-integration horrors -- actually it wouldn't surprise me at all if these were addressed quite a bit -- in part because there are few if any American institutions which have a clean record in this regard.

What bothers me is more that it seems to be portrayed as if Major League Baseball was a major player in Civil Rights and integration. Basically all MLB did to promote Civil Rights and integration is let some great players play (primarily in one league only) allowing the owners to make money off them. Rickey was a gutsy SOB to do it but the heroes weren't the league in any sense rather it was the players of course.

And it wasn't just during the late 40s and 50s. Throughout the 60s and early 70s (at least), outspoken black players were considered troublemakers at best. This is still somewhat true today.

So it's the image that "baseball" jumped on the Civil Rights/integration bandwagon and played some important role in that era that annoys me. Jackie Robinson was a hero and he should be celebrated. But Chandler, Frick, Eckert and Kuhn were not heroes -- they were at best agnostic and, more likely, obstructionist to the goals of the Civil Rights movement. I seriously doubt any owner (except maybe that ornery cuss Veeck, god love 'im) were genuine supporters of Civil Rights -- they were supporters of making money and, some, winning baseball. That's in part fine, that's kinda their job. But let's not pretend that if Robinson had snapped early on and punched out some white player that they wouldn't have run as far away from black players as they could.

...league of former bigots...

oh come on, that is like calling Bill Clinton a former slave-owner because he is from Arkansas.

oh come on, that is like calling Bill Clinton a former slave-owner because he is from Arkansas.

The reference is to the league, not any individual. Collectively, the ability of baseball to allow the Jim Crow laws to exist for a considerable part of its history is what I am referencing.

I got a hold of an internal MLB steering committee document from 1946, and if you can't see that there was a collective attempt to keep players of color out of the game, you've got another thing coming.

Jackie Robinson was not a greater social force than Adam Clayton Powell Jr. or A. Philip Randolph, though he is now much more celebrated.

Or Benjamin O. Davis, Jr...

Jackie Robinson was not a greater social force than Adam Clayton Powell Jr. or A. Philip Randolph...

Really? If you ask 1,000 Americans over the last 20 years who each of those people were, I'd have to say that Jackie Robinson and his social accomplishments and influence comes out ahead by 12 Wille Mays homers. How exactly are we judging greatness of social force here?

if you can't see that there was a collective attempt to keep players of color out of the game

But of course there was, and it was of long standing. There was also a collective attempt to block the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It is good to know about these things, and good to know that history isn't over when a bill is passed or a black first baseman starts for the Dodgers, I will certainly admit that.

I don't like the implication that if Hank Aaron doesn't talk about the obstacles he faced, he's Tomming. Hank Aaron can be the judge of whether it's worth talking about.

Edit: no pun intended. I'm serious. Hank Aaron doesn't need to apologize to anyone for his life in baseball. He's always been pretty classy.

I don't like the implication that if Hank Aaron doesn't talk about the obstacles he faced, he's Tomming.

Is this a pun? Pretty good one if so, since Tommy Aaron doesn't talk about it anymore, either.

So by Maury's standard, virtually no industry should be putting on any sort of symposium as it relates to a racist organization and its role in the civil rights era. Hollywood, nope, Congress, heck no, NFL, no way, SEC, forget it, all racist in their day. Any attempt to talk about any good that members of these groups may have done should be discounted entirely. That standard is absurd.

I think the panel, and the audience is mature enough, or at least intellectually honest enough, to understand the dynamics of the day. Jackie was long gone as a player by the time I was born, but it is quite obvious to me the league didn't want Jackie playing at the time, but I also understand this wasn't a unanimous perspective.

It seems Brown is drawing inferernces from this literature that he received, or at the very least has an expectation that the panel will opine with its head in the sand.

I got a hold of an internal MLB steering committee document from 1946, and if you can't see that there was a collective attempt to keep players of color out of the game, you've got another thing coming.

...by a lot of dead people. So what?

an internal MLB steering committee document from 1946

It could be worse.

I think the panel, and the audience is mature enough, or at least intellectually honest enough, to understand the dynamics of the day.

That is what Obama was hoping for in his speech last week regarding race.

If you ask 1,000 Americans over the last 20 years who each of those people were, I'd have to say that Jackie Robinson and his social accomplishments and influence comes out ahead by 12 Wille Mays homers.

That most Americans are largely ignorant of so much of the nation's history does not negate the importance of someone like A. Phillip Randolph.

"If you ask 1,000 Americans over the last 20 years who each of those people were, I'd have to say that Jackie Robinson and his social accomplishments and influence comes out ahead by 12 Wille Mays homers. How exactly are we judging greatness of social force here?"

Well if you asked 1000 Americans what year Christopher Columbus sailed for America, 250 would say it was after 1750. Whatever your standard for "social forces" is, public opinion in 2008 shouldn't be one of them.

That is what Obama was hoping for in his speech last week regarding race.

Right (at least that was the pre-text for addressing the Wright issue), and as I suspected, I think many members of the media are in the group that needs to grow up a bit.

A lot of us who weren't around for bad old racist days of the civil rights era get tired of being beaten over the head, in a seeming effort to make us feel guilty for these terrible times. Yes, America was racist, didn't handle things properly, or at all, in some cases, but for God sakes, let's move past all this self-hating. The country's history on race was shameful for so long, and you are in denial if you don't think MLB, or any other living industry today realizes that. I don't see what point is served by self-haters to pretend that people of today don't know this. We do, and we are the grown ups who are trying to talk about this honestly. (these comments are not directed towards #13, but Brown and those who browbeat.

I'm not ashamed to admit that before today I couldn't have told you exactly why A. Philip Randolph was an important historical figure (I did recognize his name, but that's it). Once again, BTF adds to my liberal education. Thanks to all who contributed.

So by Maury's standard, virtually no industry should be putting on any sort of symposium as it relates to a racist organization and its role in the civil rights era. Hollywood, nope, Congress, heck no, NFL, no way, SEC, forget it, all racist in their day. Any attempt to talk about any good that members of these groups may have done should be discounted entirely. That standard is absurd.

I think the panel, and the audience is mature enough, or at least intellectually honest enough, to understand the dynamics of the day. Jackie was long gone as a player by the time I was born, but it is quite obvious to me the league didn't want Jackie playing at the time, but I also understand this wasn't a unanimous perspective.

It seems Brown is drawing inferernces from this literature that he received, or at the very least has an expectation that the panel will opine with its head in the sand.

No. By my standards you don't throw a "Civil Rights Game". It's an attempt to make baseball seem larger on the issue than it is. You want to have an open an honest panel discussion on how Civil Rights, both positively and negatively? I can give MLB all the credit in the world.

But, throwing some event-ladened ballgame about Civil Rights where the industry blocked some of the most talented players from engaging in play due to the color of their skin during a considerable part of their history, smacks of hypocrisy. Bottom line, they're throwing the game because baseball views itself as a pioneer in Civil Rights. Baseball didn't pioneer the Civil Rights activities, the players that were finally allowed into the Club did that work.

I don't think you're giving the organizers a fair shake on this. A piece like this may be right on the money, if the event plays out the way you seem think it will, but I have a little more faith in the organizers being honest with the topic, particularly since some of the guests mentioned have shown an ability in the past to talk about the history honestly.

I don't think you're giving the organizers a fair shake on this.

Then my apologies to those that are working with good intent. But, it's the fact that MLB is heading this up as a "look at how upstanding we were" event that makes me, as I said, uncomfortable. It's a marketing event.

Maury, you've been very critical lately (not that there's anything wrong with that). You need a hug, bro?

I don't see what point is served by self-haters to pretend that people of today don't know this. We do, and we are the grown ups who are trying to talk about this honestly. (these comments are not directed towards #13, but Brown and those who browbeat.

I'm more than willing to concede that the country should move on. Now, when organizations that wish to trumpet their place in history as some upstanding model at the time, when they have a poor background on the matter, then I won't feel so uncomfortable.

Based on your contention, baseball should have simply not decided to have some annual event touting the matter. When that day arrives, I'll be happy to say, "Hear! Hear!"

Maury, I've gotta go with your take for the most part. Looking at that panel, it seems to be made up in fair part of legacy names rather than the sort of people with backgrounds in both baseball and civil rights work, which would have given it a more in-depth set of perspectives. Of course the problem is that many of the folks best qualified to speak on the subject are long gone, but it still might have been nice to hear from players like Bob Gibson or George Crowe, who would have added to Aaron's early first hand knowledge.

Maury, there is clearly a sentiment in your writing here that promotes the view that historical racism is a large club that those that suffered (and their next of kin) have earned the right to wield this club upon the establishment. It is sad that society has enabled a culture of victim hood where being a victim is actually something to aspire to and a way to gain political power. We have gotten to the point where being a victim is actually a virtue.

The negative point of view you expressed on this "Civil Rights Game" strikes me as insincere. I think you would be better off if you just admitted that you think victims of racism should have the right to leverage white guilt for the entire duration of our nation. I think you actually fear moving on, not because we would forget the truth of our nations/MLBs past, but because these victims would lose the power of this all too easy tool.

The reference is to the league, not any individual. Collectively, the ability of baseball to allow the Jim Crow laws to exist for a considerable part of its history is what I am referencing.

Well, you should have written a formerly bigoted league, which says what you meant, rather than "league of former bigots," which suggests Selig and Henry and others are reformed racists akin to George Wallace and Robert Byrd.

others are reformed racists akin to George Wallace and Robert Byrd.

cite?

cite?

Huh?

Beano, the generic point is simply that people should know their past. Not to beat anyone over the head with it, but just to be a little less ignorant of where they came from than they were before. The more you know, the better the chance that you might learn something useful, or maybe just even something interesting. Honest, they're not out to get you. It's not part of a Big Plot Against America.

Nice comment, Andy.

Beano, the generic point is simply that people should know their past. Not to beat anyone over the head with it, but just to be a little less ignorant of where they came from than they were before. The more you know, the better the chance that you might learn something useful, or maybe just even something interesting. Honest, they're not out to get you. It's not part of a Big Plot Against America.

No kidding. That is precisely the complaint against Maury. Instead of simply saying remember the past, don't forget. He swings a hammer trying to attack MLB for what is obviously, to 99% of people, a good event.

One guy who I'd like to see get a little more attention is Bob Moses of the SNCC. Taylor Branch writes well about him. His three volumes on the civil rights movement and MLK are exceptional, but when people recite the names of Civil Rights leaders I don't often hear his - or for that matter, Diane Nash's - names.

He swings a hammer trying to attack MLB for what is obviously, to 99% of people, a good event.

It appears I need to expand my social group. My goodness... "99%"... "obviously".

Well if you asked 1000 Americans what year Christopher Columbus sailed for America, 250 would say it was after 1750. Whatever your standard for "social forces" is, public opinion in 2008 shouldn't be one of them.

This is not even close to a proper analogy. Social influence is based on public opinion of and reaction to events, not public recollection of dates.

Beano, the generic point is simply that people should know their past. Not to beat anyone over the head with it, but just to be a little less ignorant of where they came from than they were before. The more you know, the better the chance that you might learn something useful, or maybe just even something interesting. Honest, they're not out to get you. It's not part of a Big Plot Against America.

No kidding. That is precisely the complaint against Maury. Instead of simply saying remember the past, don't forget. He swings a hammer trying to attack MLB for what is obviously, to 99% of people, a good event.

I can't answer for Maury directly, but I don't see much that's blameworthy in what he wrote here:

Here’s a suggestion… See if any family members of “Cool Papa” Bell or Rube Foster, or Josh Gibson want to speak about Major League Baseball and Civil Rights.

The point I'd make is that if you want to have an event that walks the fine line between a lovefest and a blamefest, you want to include as many witnesses as you can, and from as many perspectives as you can. And the more living witnesses you can find, the better. History that can be described firsthand often has advantages over history that is recreated out of books. I don't see Maury as being opposed to that.

----------------

One guy who I'd like to see get a little more attention is Bob Moses of the SNCC. Taylor Branch writes well about him. His three volumes on the civil rights movement and MLK are exceptional, but when people recite the names of Civil Rights leaders I don't often hear his - or for that matter, Diane Nash's - names.

That's in great part because Bob Moses's ratio of concrete achievement to self-aggrandizement may have been one of the highest of any person in the 20th century. Just as the media was beginning to pump up many of the more charismatic figures in the civil rights movement, Moses (who even changed his name to Parris to avoid the obvious headlines) beat a retreat into anonymity. And when Stokely Carmichael staged his little putsch in SNCC and ran it quickly into the ground, he left in disgust and eventually wound up teaching math to inner city students with a celebrated program called (IIRC) The Math Project.

One of the cable TV channels produced a terrific film based on his early voter registration work in a small Mississippi town, not on the epic level of the documentary Eyes on the Prize, but maybe the most honest micro-look at the reality of early 60's Mississippi that you're ever likely to see. I rented it from Netflix a few months ago and could give you its name, but Netflix is down right now and I don't have access to my account.

Diane Nash (later Diane Nash Bevel) was a great figure of the Nashville sit-in movement that also produced John Lewis and (don't laugh) Marion Barry, before he took up other interests. She's but one of hundreds of lesser known members of the movement who helped to (finally) bring America into the 20th century.

Huh?

Apparently either Beano thinks that Byrd and Wallace were not actually racists back in the day, or he thinks that you were calling Selig and Henry and others racists.

We have gotten to the point where being a victim is actually a virtue.

I would say we got to this point about 2000 years ago...right around this time of year, actually.

One of the cable TV channels produced a terrific film based on his early voter registration work in a small Mississippi town, not on the epic level of the documentary Eyes on the Prize, but maybe the most honest micro-look at the reality of early 60's Mississippi that you're ever likely to see. I rented it from Netflix a few months ago and could give you its name, but Netflix is down right now and I don't have access to my account.

Found it. It's called Freedom Song, and it stars Danny Glover in the "Moses" part. Ignore the idiotic comment on the netflix page that compares it unfavorably to that piece of Hollywood fluff called Mississippi Burning. This film is light years above that.

Social influence is based on public opinion of and reaction to events, not public recollection of dates.

In what way can you judge the objective social influence of various actors in the 40s, 50s, and 60s based on what people think today?

If you want to argue that Robinson's example at the time influenced people that's fine, but you made reference to contemporary public opinion, which is meaningless in determining who actually was important.

Maybe a better (but possibly more contentious) example would be the public's belief that Iraq was behind the 9/11 attacks. If for some reason that belief continues to be held in 50 years, it will be no more true than it is today, regardless of what 1000 people tell you.

Thanks Andy, and I agree about Moses being a modest figure. As Branch paints him, he was thoughtful, modest, and put the movement ahead of his ego. He apparently still continues to do so, even if he is a MacArthur genius grant recipient.

I'll check out Freedom Song. Thanks for the tip. Moses is one of my personal heroes, although I never met him. Damu Smith, as well. RIP.

Edited to add: I met Damu.

Apparently either Beano thinks that Byrd and Wallace were not actually racists back in the day, or he thinks that you were calling Selig and Henry and others racists.

Are you kidding? Sen. R Byrd, Democrat, West Virgina, the longest serving Senator in US History, a treasure of the Democratic Party, where is the evidence he is "reformed"? Who uses the N word like this? It was not like he was quoting someone. Defending this is sad and weak. Throw this trash out of the Senate.

He is the only Senator to vote against both T Marshall and C Thomas. He was not just a member of the KKK, but a Grand Kleagle Master. He also holds the congressional record of longest filibuster in US History when he attempted to prevent a vote on the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

Byrd wrote the following, three years after he claims to have ended his ties with the KKK: "The Klan is needed today as never before and I am anxious to see its rebirth here in West Virginia" and "in every state in the Union."

What exactly did he do to "refrom" himself? How about redeem himself?

Andy, I hope that when you find people interested in the civil rights movement, you push them to Branch's books. I've said this many times before, but reading Caro's LBJ series and Branch's MLK series are unbelievably instructive about how things played out. It is two brilliant and exhaustive historians approaching the same endpoint from two different perspectives.

You were involved, correct?

Apparently either Beano thinks that Byrd and Wallace were not actually racists back in the day, or he thinks that you were calling Selig and Henry and others racists.

Are you kidding? Sen. R Byrd, Democrat, West Virgina, the longest serving Senator in US History, a treasure of the Democratic Party, where is the evidence he is "reformed"? Who uses the N word like this? It was not like he was quoting someone. Defending this is sad and weak.

Beano, no argument about Robert Byrd of West Virginia, but long before he came along there was another Byrd, Harry Byrd of Virginia, the founder of the infamous theory of "massive resistance" to the Brown decision. In practical terms, he did far more harm to the world than Robert Byrd could ever have dreamed of in his worst moments.

--------------------

Andy, I hope that when you find people interested in the civil rights movement, you push them to Branch's books. I've said this many times before, but reading Caro's LBJ series and Branch's MLK series are unbelievably instructive about how things played out. It is two brilliant and exhaustive historians approaching the same endpoint from two different perspectives.

You were involved, correct?

In SNCC (Cambridge, Md) and CORE (Durham / Chapel Hill), yes; in Branch's books, no. But I completely agree with you about Branch. Not only is he an excellent narrative historian who tells a good "story," but even more to the point, he not only gets his facts "right," but he knows how to separate the sensational from the more lastingly significant. He knows that there was much more to the movement than what appeared on the nightly news and on the front page of the papers.

BTW if you want to see a terrific YouTube documentary on the 1963 March on Washington,
check this out. It was produced by the USIA for largely foreign consumption, but it's as good a collection of contemporary film footage as I've seen this side of Eyes on the Prize, which is only available in scattered chapters on YouTube unless you have a few hundred bucks to spare.

EDIT: That last link should work now.

I'm still mad about segregation in baseball. It's not that I blame current people for that segregation. It's that the hurt of that segregation will never ever never go away in a sport in which we gain so much joy out of the historical record--a record which has been permanently destroyed by ugly racism.

This is not steroids where some folks were hurt and others and their records were altered. This is giant irreplaceable holes ripped into the history of our great game by small minded ethnic prejudice.

I think that's partly why people get defensive on these kinds of issues. I think deep down we are all aware of what we've lost and don't even want to think about it. I think that's why we get people too who say, "Well, there's no records so the Negro Leaguers probably just weren't that good!" because the alternative is so horrible.

And no amount of feeling bad or blaming is going to fix that. But open dialogs and the inclusion of those who have been excluded from telling their stories can at least help us avoid the same mistakes.

Promotional events and opportunistic back-slapping however, will do little.

Finally, I want to say that beyond all the other great things about it, this is the very reason that I see the Hall of Merit as a great triumph of the human spirit.

As I said, what we've lost can never be replaced, but the HoM at least does its best...

That's an interesting point. While the societal tragedy of segregation is amongst our greatest sins as a nation, the byproducts, the denial of contribution to arts, sciences, economic and athletic are quite troubling. They are impossible to measure as you stated. I guess I'd like to know, seriously, what is/has been the best treatment (writing) regarding baseball as it relates to civil rights. Perhaps, I own the wrong volumes.

Beano,

In 2005, the last thing I could find on the subject from Byrd, he said: "I know now I was wrong. Intolerance had no place in America."

Now, I would share your skepticism about the truthfulness of that statement, considering the rather impressive resume of bigotry he's compiled. Of course, my point wasn't whether Byrd or Wallace were genuinely reformed racists, but that Maury's phrasing indicates that MLB is a "league of former racists", and Wallace and Byrd were the first two high-profile racists who later publicly renounced those positions who came to mind.

Two excellent points made in this thread that sum up my feelings on the Civil Rights Game, and the history that before it.

The point I'd make is that if you want to have an event that walks the fine line between a lovefest and a blamefest, you want to include as many witnesses as you can, and from as many perspectives as you can. And the more living witnesses you can find, the better. History that can be described firsthand often has advantages over history that is recreated out of books. I don't see Maury as being opposed to that.

and

I'm still mad about segregation in baseball. It's not that I blame current people for that segregation. It's that the hurt of that segregation will never ever never go away in a sport in which we gain so much joy out of the historical record--a record which has been permanently destroyed by ugly racism.

Well said, gentlemen.

#45. understood. I just was curious if anyone sees Byrd as some model for the reformed. I seem to think most people just ignore him and that's too bad. I think he has done little to redeem himself.

If he were in baseball, he would be going around the country ala D Strawberry telling kids to treat colored people the same they treat white people.

And when Stokely Carmichael staged his little putsch in SNCC and ran it quickly into the ground, he left in disgust and eventually wound up teaching math to inner city students with a celebrated program called (IIRC) The Math Project.

I'm pretty sure Moses left SNCC in early '65, a year before Stokely showed up.

He also holds the congressional record of longest filibuster in US History when he attempted to prevent a vote on the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

Naw. Strom Thurmond holds the record with a 23 hour speech in response to the 1957 Civil Rights Act. Byrd gave the longest speech of the 1964 Act filibuster, & that Act had the longest sustained fillibuster in senate history.

Robert Byrd has had some good moments lately.

And wouldn't voting against Clarence Thomas be a pro-civil-rights gesture?

And when Stokely Carmichael staged his little putsch in SNCC and ran it quickly into the ground, he left in disgust and eventually wound up teaching math to inner city students with a celebrated program called (IIRC) The Math Project.

I'm pretty sure Moses left SNCC in early '65, a year before Stokely showed up.

Yes and no. IIRC it was in 1965 that he changed his name to Robert Parris, and more or less went underground within the underground (so to speak) as a way of escaping the cult of personality that had been created around him, but I don't think he made a formal break with SNCC until after Carmichael replaced John Lewis and Stanley Wise (a very curious character I knew in Cambridge) replaced James Forman. That was in the Spring of 1966.

SNCC had been pretty much going downhill since the end of Mississippi Summer, anyway. I was at the Waveland (Mississippi) Conference in the Fall of 64 and the frustration with the glacial pace of progress in the Deep South (where SNCC was most active) was eating away at nearly everyone. There were long discussions and position papers on the role of whites, the role of women, etc. Caucuses were caucusing and positions were being staked out for the coming fight about the entire nature and purpose of both SNCC and the civil rights movement itself. It really was a new world being born, but it sure as hell was one messy birth. They usually are.

And FWIW before he became known for his black power rhetoric, Stokely Carmichael may have been the smartest, gutsiest, funniest and most charismatic organizer the South ever saw---and pretty much the Audie Murphy of Mississippi in terms of battle scars. And funny thing, but AFTER Malcolm X was killed, he said in an interview with Robert Penn Warren that (here I paraphrase) Malcolm X has "nothing to say to me," and that "we don't need [him]." I've always considered Carmichael's descent into stale rhetoric one of the great tragedies of the CR movement, but like most everyone, he was a product of his time and his place.

A lot of us who weren't around for bad old racist days of the civil rights era get tired of being beaten over the head, in a seeming effort to make us feel guilty for these terrible times. Yes, America was racist, didn't handle things properly, or at all, in some cases, but for God sakes, let's move past all this self-hating. The country's history on race was shameful for so long, and you are in denial if you don't think MLB, or any other living industry today realizes that. I don't see what point is served by self-haters to pretend that people of today don't know this. We do, and we are the grown ups who are trying to talk about this honestly.

Amen. I don't see why the people that run MLB today, many of which were young children, or not even born when baseball was a "league full of bigots", should be bound by the sins of their forefathers. They're trying to do something positive, not just celebrate baseball's role in civil rights, but last year IIRC they also talked about civil rights today, what baseball can do to get more minorities in management and the problem of dwindling numbers of African-Americans in the game.

I have a hard time seeing how this is a bad thing, and I think the arguments against this really seem to have a chip on their shoulder against MLB in general. Look, I'm no Bud Selig fan, but I can admit when he does something good.

And wouldn't voting against Clarence Thomas be a pro-civil-rights gesture?

Well, no.

I'm confused; Clarence Thomas has done what, exactly, for civil rights? Applauding Thomas to shore up one's civil-rights creds is kind of like noting that you're a feminist because you admire Ann Coulter :)

I have a hard time seeing how this is a bad thing, and I think the arguments against this really seem to have a chip on their shoulder against MLB in general. Look, I'm no Bud Selig fan, but I can admit when he does something good.

Yeah, and inviting additional perspectives to the event would be such a downer.

Seriously, I don't see how this addresses Brown's suggestions at all.

#31

I always felt that Fred Shuttlesworth gets little attention as well. He (from what I read, now obviously others might know more than me) he had a huge impact on the Birmingham movement and how it was to be done. He is still alive, but unless you are reading up on in depth books about the Civil Rights era, his name is never mentioned.

A lot of us who weren't around for bad old racist days of the civil rights era get tired of being beaten over the head, in a seeming effort to make us feel guilty for these terrible times.

That is your interpretation, and it is a reasonable one, but be aware that you're projecting intent on to it. I am about as bleeding-heart liberal on race as one can get, and I don't feel "guilty" about the country's racial past. I just try to be aware of it and see it as something that is in many respects still with us--not just part of the "past." I think others (like me) get equally tired of people saying more or less what you did: "I wasn't there! Stop blaming me!"

It is a fine line that we need to walk in discussing race, from whatever angle: acknowledging it without obsessing over it, being aware of the past and how it affects the present with letting the the sins of the past undermine the gains of the present, etc.

Brown's language in the piece is pretty loaded, although I think his view is nuanced. Loaded language in this areas triggers reactions.

Yeah, and inviting additional perspectives to the event would be such a downer.

Seriously, I don't see how this addresses Brown's suggestions at all.

I think I addressed it when I said "Amen" to mrams post. I guess I just grow tired of the guilt of the past that some insist must accompany celebrations of history. Sometimes we should celebrate our successes and move on. That doesn't mean we should forget the past, but I think most baseball fans are aware of the racial injustices of the past. I think a good, brief discussion of it is a good idea, but I don't think MLB needs to harp on it and make it the predominant theme. I think it would be a better idea for MLB to talk about more relevant racial issues today. Why are there declining numbers of African-American players? Why are there not more African-American GMs? Owners? Why is MLB not as appealing to African-American fans as it used to be? Can baseball be used to heal racial divisions in society today?

Sometimes I think focusing too much on racism in the past does us a disservice today. I think a lot of white people think to themselves "I would never refuse restaurant service to an African-American, so I must not be racist" while they clutch their bag when a black man walks by or enact dress code policies against "baggy pants" and "backwards ballcaps". Talking about racial issues today I think would be a bit more constructive then yet another rehash of how bad things were in the old days.

I also think its a bit premature for Maury to criticize the panel for not discussing the stonewalling of black ballplayers when they haven't even had the panel discussion yet. For all he knows that could be exactly what Hank Aaron talks about.

Brown's language in the piece is pretty loaded, although I think his view is nuanced. Loaded language in this areas triggers reactions.

The more I think about it, the more I think this is right. I'm not even sure I disagree with Maury's point. Perhaps MLB should have some more discussion on its past injustices. I guess I don't like the tone. Its like he's admonishing MLB for even trying, when I think they should be applauded for even having a civil rights game, and having this discussion, with some criticism for not talking more about stonewalling black players. If they even do fail to have that conversation, which, like I said, none of us know if they will or not.

I guess I don't like slamming an organization which is trying to do something good simply because they didn't meet someone's standards of appropriately reliving the past.

I guess I don't think research backs up what you are saying--people are not justifying aversive racism as a reaction to too many people thinking and talking about race, they are doing so because they are not consciously aware of their racial preferences and when they surface rather than dealing with them, they tend to go on the defensive.

I had a talk with the "rookie-of-the-year" at my school--a white female teacher from rural Michigan whose entrance to Chicago (similar to mine) was going door-to-door on the West Side (I did my internship in Cabrini and Robert Taylor), and we agreed that it's probably a bad sign in itself if you are afraid of being called "racist"--not because you might be racist (that's true, but not really important)--but because it's not really good to be fearful of our flaws. Instead we should courageously acknowledge and address them so we grow stronger and better.

Alex, you make an excellent point. Can't we let the panel take place before condemning it? Also, I wonder how many of Bell, Foster, or Gibson's immediate family members are even alive; sadly, very few relatives of Negro Leagues players come to Cooperstown for the induction ceremonies. (I know that Gibson's son, Josh, Jr., died a few years back.)

I know this won't be popular, but here goes anyway. It's fine to be angry about baseball's past segregation, but at what point do we stop wallowing in bitterness? One of the joys of Buck O'Neill was listening to him speak without bitterness about his experiences in baseball. He acknowledged the wrong that baseball did, but didn't allow it to make him miserable. He had every right to be angry and resentful, but chose not to be. If O'Neill wasn't bitter (at least not publicly), then why are some young white guys who never experienced Jim Crow first-hand so bitter?

I think it's far healthier to acknowledge the past sins, note the improvement, and then try to move forward.

#51 I have a hard time seeing how this is a bad thing, and I think the arguments against this really seem to have a chip on their shoulder against MLB in general. Look, I'm no Bud Selig fan, but I can admit when he does something good.

There a distinction to be made between the organization or institution and the individuals. MLB did some bad stuff. It matters little what the people now running it are, it matters about the actions of the institution.

#55 Concur about Shuttlesworth, and many others.