Posted on 11/06/2001 6:28:36 AM PST by NativeNewYorker
Edited on 04/29/2004 1:59:31 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
I looked back to your original post (which prompted my response) and it found you saying, "in the sports world, qualified blacks seem to have trouble even getting interviews for open positions." Am I to understand this as a "historical" statement?
Subsequently I responded to you with the simple question, "Is this even true, or just an assertion?" Your response contained several statements about your beliefs, coupled with a promise to give me "examples" if necessary.
Certainly there have been crossed signals somewhere along the way, but it is clear that your original statement (the only one to which I objected) was not "historical" in nature at all. (Probably your "out" here is that this original statement didn't contain the word "racism". Touche. Nevertheless, the implication was clear, was it not?)
Indeed, the historical statements you have made in what ensued (Jackie Robinson and such) are obviously unobjectionable and objectively true, which is why I felt I had nothing to add to them, and still don't.
Despite your potrayal of my posts as arguing that "baseball is racist," I never made any such claim.
Right, you claimed that it seems like qualified black people have a hard time even getting interviews, for whatever reason. But the veracity of this statement hasn't even been verified. After all, it simply may not be true.
Even if I did, your citation of the hiring of one black manager doesn't make your case, any more than a citation of one white manger being hired without interviewing a black candidate proves racism.
The situation is not symmetric as you imply. If you were calling baseball "racist" (which, I realize, you were not, per se), then you would be the one making a positive claim about baseball (or pro sports in general, or whatever). The onus would be upon you, then, to substantiate such a claim; not upon me, or baseball, or anyone else, to disprove it.
It's beyond argument that [...] as recently as two years ago, there were still racists in MLB (Marge Schott, arguably John Rocker).
Well certainly, but this is a very weak claim. If all you had been implying was the statement "there are racists in MLB", I would not have objected in the first place. I have no doubt that there are racists in MLB. And in accounting. And in fast food service. And in, for that matter, every reasonably-sized organization of humans under the sun.
Such an observation proves nothing whatsoever except that MLB is populated by human beings.
The complaint against MLB, and the NFL, is that with an equal wealth of black and white talent in assistant coach roles, blacks are rarely considered for open head coach/manager slots.
That's an even weaker complaint than you were making ("it's hard for qualified blacks to even get interviews"), but it is easily disproved. Black people comprise roughly 12% of the population. By my count there are at least five black managers: Don Baylor, Jerry Manuel, Lloyd McClendon, Dusty Baker, Hal McRae. Five out of 30 makes 17%. That is more than one would expect - perhaps the case can be made for favoritism?
The charge is simply baseless on the face of it, and that's why it's not worth discussing. From this empirical data there is no reason whatsoever to suspect something racial about the hiring in management, in the first place. (Unless, again, you have more detailed data to put forth?)
I am not claiming that the reason for this is racist decision making by those doing the hiring. I would not argue that for baseball either.
Okay, good, then there is no issue in the first place.
Rather, I am suggesting that the historical exclusion of blacks from managerial, not to mention athletic, roles is still hindering their ability to advance at the same pace as similarly qualified whites.
I realize that this is your belief and that this is how things seem to you. It's just that I can find no evidence whatsoever for this claim of yours that blacks' ability to advance is "still" hindered. So, I see no reason to take the claim seriously in the first place. (If you can show me a reason, I'd like to see it; that's kinda what my first response to you was about, you know! :)
Can I prove this? Not anymore than you can prove that there is equity in the hiring practices of MLB and the NFL.
Ah, but again, the situation is not symmetric. You're the one making a charge ("blacks' ability to advance is still hindered..."), not me. I couldn't even possibly prove the negative in the first place, but as things stand, you haven't put forth sufficient reason to even believe your claim to begin with, so why should it be taken seriously?
Contrary to your implication, I have researched this matter, and my research is the basis for my belief.
I never implied that you hadn't. I do find it somewhat odd, however, that you keep making veiled reference to this "research" and "examples" that you have, without actually spitting them out.
I wonder if you have done similar research, and would like to offer more substantial evidence than the hiring of one (apparently qualified) black manager.
For the third time, the situation is not symmetric. I am not the one making a charge against MLB, you are (sort of). If you wish to get me to take seriously the claim "the legacy of racism still hinders blacks in MLB", it's up to you to document things and convince me that blacks have it bad right now (otherwise, just what the heck are we talking about?) Because from where I sit, blacks don't have it bad to begin with.
And yes, one such example as McClendon is (well, almost) enough of a reason to conclude this. If you are arguing that in some sense Blacks Have It Tough And Are Hindered, and yet I can point to one black who clearly wasn't, then that comes pretty close to a disproof of your claim.
Whether McClendon was "qualified" in the first place is truly debatable, I suppose. I certainly have nothing against him and have fond memories of watching that '89 Cubs team around the time he first came up. I also have no reason to believe he's done anything other than a wonderful job with what he's been given on that club. Further, I don't think it was a bad choice at all, for the Pirates to dig into their own staff and pick a guy who is (apparently) well liked and respected. My only point in using the example of McClendon is that he is an obvious example of a guy who, if baseball was still haunted by the legacy of racism, one would expect wouldn't have gotten that opportunity. Yet he did. I'm glad you reminded me of his stint as their hitting coach, in fact; one would expect he wouldn't have gotten that gig either, if things were as you suggest (after all, what exactly made Lloyd McClendon of all people a qualified hitting coach in the first place?).
In short, although I agree you haven't come out and said Baseball Is Racist, you do seem to be trying to say that in some respect blacks are hindered. But based on what do you say this? If blacks are so hindered, then how did guys like McClendon, Baker, McRae, Baylor get their jobs? I do realize that their existence doesn't "disprove" the claim "blacks are hindered"; of course nothing can prove a negative. But more than that, the burden of proof is on you, not me, to substantiate your claim.
You are claiming that something might be wrong with hiring in baseball. I am claiming nothing. If you want me or anyone else to take your claim seriously, then substantiate it. Or remain silent.
I am suggesting that it does no harm, and could in fact do good, if those organization, and by extension the fans, discussed what (if anything) is going on here.
But from what you've written and documented (rather, not documented), there is nothing "going on here", except vague implications and innuendo. That's the problem, and that's what bugs the heck out of me.
I would just like to see them discussed.
And there is nothing to discuss in the first place. You certainly haven't put forth any objective reasons to think otherwise.
The fact remains however that neither you nor anyone else has given any reason whatsoever to believe or even pay attention to the statement "qualified blacks are currently hindered in baseball", except of course for vague feelings and baldfaced assertions and hunches and innuendo. The evidence just isn't there. That being the case, it's a non-starter to begin with, and I just resented attempts to base a discussion on what is a wholly unsubstantiated claim as if it merits being dignified with a response.
It's kind of like going up to someone and saying to them, without any evidence, "I think you might be a wife-beater. I would like to discuss this." Then when they object, and even show you that they're not beating their wife right now, and look-- they didn't yesterday when a home movie was taken, etc., you say "these few examples alone are not enough to prove you are not a wife-beater". They object to the slander and innuendo and you say "hey relax, I didn't say you are a wife-beater, I qualified my claim, I said I think you might be a wife-beater". And any and all attempts to elicit actual proof of the alleged wife-beating in question are met with utter and complete silence, the responses instead quickly shifting to superficial aspects of the accused wife-beater's argumentation style (such as the fact that it is pedantic or haughty or employed a hackneyed annoying internet convention....).
Can you see why behaving in such a manner can tend to tick a person off? ;)
If you can give me an objective, empirical reason to believe that there is a systematic racial problem with baseball hiring (not rooted in your own hunches), then go ahead and do so. Otherwise, ask yourself just what the heck were you talking about, and attempting to base a discussion on? Your personal feelings and beliefs on the subject?
But those are elements of your autobiography, not statements about professional sports.
To me, it would seem that living in a free society, team ownership has a right to pick and choose who they would want to interview for the position of team manager. In my opinion, what you are advocating is widespread socialism of sports. Isn't that wonderful.
Furthermore, I would like to make it apparent that at least 85% of retired baseball players are white, thus there are more to choose from. Today, roughly 55-60% of the players are also white.
I can't believe that we have people on this website who spew garbage that they are in favor of affirmative action for sports. What a ridiculous idea. Furthermore, there are several black managers. I don't know what all the fuss is about.
In all seriousness, I see the point you're making. In the future, I will endeavor to be more articulate with my arguments, and offer more solid examples when necessary. Thanks again for the exchange.
Care to cite one post from this thread where someone stated that they're in favor of affirmative action for sports? Personally, I can't believe we have people on this website who misrepresent other people's arguments.
Willie Randolph has been a coach with the Yankees for all of this recent dynasty run, (and a player during their 70s' dynasty.) He was a very good player, a co-captain of the Yankees, and by all accounts has been an excellent coach. Why one of these struggling teams doesn't pick up somebody like him up, who wants to manage, and knows a lot about winning, instead of recycling the same unsuccessful managers over and over is beyond me.
Don't you be dissing Zim -- what are you, Bill (Spaceman) Lee in disguise?
I was commenting to a friend about that brawl just the other day (I think Nettles slammed his foot on Lee's shoulder, if I remember correctly). We had this discussion because my friend said one of the reasons he hates Derek Jeter is when Jeter was seen giggling with A-Rod during the same game that their teams had a brawl. I was saying that back in the 70s, the Red Sox and the Yankees really hated each other, and mentioned that fight as an example.
Yep, I think it was Nettles that made sure Lee would "pay" for all his insolence and venom he inflicted upon the Yanks. AND the non-stop taunting. Payback reeeeally was a bitch for him -- he was never the same after that shoulder injury, was he? LOL!
Hmmm, is your friend a Yankee fan? I also recall the sight of A-Rod and Jeter joking around during that brawl with Seattle. I must admit to having the same gut reaction at the time as Chad Curtis -- "We're at war man -- what are ya doin'?" But Jeter is a different type of warrior -- the guy gives us 101% out on the field, hits .300 with 100 runs every year and is a great human being. Bottom line.
BTW -- the last inning of the Series was sooooo wrong wasn't it? Especially after pulling off all those great wins and with but ONE MORE INNING TO GO AND MARIANO ON THE MOUND....(sniffle)
BTW -- the last inning of the Series was sooooo wrong wasn't it? Especially after pulling off all those great wins and with but ONE MORE INNING TO GO AND MARIANO ON THE MOUND....(sniffle)
Oy, I'm still trying to get over it. I really thought that mystique and aura were on our side, and that we'd win that game. All the stuff that happened that inning is supposed to happen to the Yankees' opponents, not the Yankees!
And damn -- turns out "Mystique and Aura" had adam's apples and very large hands ;-D But let's face it -- we got to the seventh game and 9th inning with nothing but smoke and mirrors, and we made the D-Backs win six games if the truth be known.
It's funny, though -- I swear these Mets fans are happier that the Yankees lost the series than they would be if their team actually won!
Curious ain't it? The Yankees losing the Series is the closest a Met Fan gets to glory. What a sad bunch-- LOL!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.