Now, by looking at the mangers employed currently (and recently) by various MLB organizations, we can assume that MLB no longer practices racism as a policy. Despite your potrayal of my posts as arguing that "baseball is racist," I never made any such claim. 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. (BTW, McClendon worked in the Pirate's farm system for only two years, but was subsequently the major league batting coach for four. Batting coach to manager is not an unusual transition. The reverse is also true, of course, as the guy he replaced, Gene Lamont, was our third base coach last year!)
To stress again, I never stated that MLB is a racist organization. It's beyond argument that it was racist; and that as recently as two years ago, there were still racists in MLB (Marge Schott, arguably John Rocker). There were no black managers until 1975 - I'm sure you wouldn't argue that there were no qualified blacks before then. What other explanation could there be? But I'm not arguing for that being the case today.
On to recent times. 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. I am more familiar with NFL head coaches, and can cite several examples - Sherman Lewis, an assistant on five victorious Super Bowl teams, Marvin Lewis, architect of last year's Ravens defense, considered by some as one of the greatest of all time, Art Shell, a proven winner. All three of those men are more qualified for a head coaching position than at least twice as many head coaches hired in recent years. In fact, the 49ers chose to hire Stever Mariucci, who worked under Sherman Lewis in that organization, and did not even interview Lewis. 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. 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. Can I prove this? Not anymore than you can prove that there is equity in the hiring practices of MLB and the NFL. This is a somewhat subjective debate - there are numbers that seem to support my argument, but I consider them suspect and would rather not use them. If you have numbers, or arguments, to suggest the opposite, I'd be glad to consider them. Contrary to your implication, I have researched this matter, and my research is the basis for my belief. 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.
To conclude: I am not suggesting that MLB or the NFL are racist organizations, or even that black candidates not interviewed or hired are victims of racism and discrimination. Evidence clearly shows that blacks can and do advance to the highest levels in both sports, and I see no evidence that there is any conspiracy or policy that is preventing others from doing so. 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. I am not behind the NAACP, whose views on these matters are extreme and inflammatory. I would just like to see them discussed.
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.