Applying today's societal lens against the HOFers of yesterday
 

First off, I don't want this to turn political; please don't take it down that path. I wanted to explore how the recent shift in perception of historical figures might eventually impact baseball and, in turn, baseball cards. There's a growing trend to measure or judge these figures against today's societal standards, especially when it comes to issues like racism. Without digging into whether this is right or wrong, do you think there's a potential for this movement to start affecting the baseball world? Could Cobb, Speaker, Cap Anson, etc...become the next focus of this movement? How would it impact the Hall of Fame, baseball cards, or even the historical roots of the game?

I sure hope not. IMO it's gone way too far when they start renaming college dorms, etc.

Twelve US presidents, including Washington and Jefferson, owned slaves. How should that be handled?

And don't forget Lincoln enjoyed cockfighting!!

I say tear down the memorials, remint the coins, rename the streets and cities.

Obviously by doing things like retiring Jackie Robinson's number for every team and having the Civil Rights Game every year MLB has done some work to recognize the racism of the early game and try to make amends for it. People can choose who they want to collect and if people choose not to collect cards of racist players then that's their choice, just like it's their choice whether to collect cards of players who used PEDs or who engage in domestic violence. It's entirely legitimate. I can't say whether it will happen, but it's possible. I could say more, but no politics. :-)

Interesting question!!

I could see some pressure to remove Cap Anson from the HOF. Its kind of ironic that he and Jackie Robinson now reside in the HOF together.

I am against this kind of thing in general. For the most part I view it as an attempt to erase or alter history, although I certainly get why some people would say that we shouldn't glorify a guy like Anson who apparently did all he could to keep the color line intact in baseball.

What would throwing Anson out of the HOF do to his card values? - I doubt it would do very much. I suspect most pre-war collectors would overlook his HOF membership and look instead at his career numbers.

I sure hope I haven't given offense to anyone. If I did, I certainly didn't mean too!

I say we rename the United States because we weren't really united when we gained our independence. Maybe "The United Diversity States?"

This is actually a legitimate question and I for one think we as a country should have that conversation. IMO it's more ambiguous for at least some of the presidents than it is for statues of Jefferson Davis, "Silent Sam," etc. The presidents made other contributions to America that have to be weighed against their slaveowning; Davis and others committed treason in defense of slavery and the statues were meant to reinforce segregation and intimidate African-Americans. I'm happy to share sources if you want. (This is history, not politics, right? If not go ahead and delete it with my apologies.)

Going way more modern, I think Mantle would never had been able to avoid a lifetime ban for half of his alcoholism stories. If some of them were more well known (thinking of the story about almost shooting his wife in the head as a joke) there could be a whitewashing movement by some.

Or couldn't it be seen as acknowledging the history and that when darker aspects of people were originally ignored, THAT was really erasing or altering what really happened?

People are complex and have their merits and faults, all of which can and should be considered.

Are we also going to reexamine every great historical figure to see if they were sexist, or homophobic, or anti-Semitic, because given the context of their times many likely were. What's the point? We should move forward, not engage in token feel good exercises that really accomplish nothing.

It was my impression that Anson's behavior had already tarnished his image at least a little among collectors.

In the larger sense of reexamining great historical figures in general, I guess I see the examination of our history, both successes and failures, as a valuable exercise in learning and growing beyond where we are now. As the famous saying goes, those who fail to learn history are doomed to repeat it. And just a hunch, but I think that people who fit into the categories who were impacted probably don't consider a closer examination as a token exercise.

More to the question of how it might impact HOF ball players - I wouldn't think it would at all. That part of baseball's history has already been a topic for years and I think that there's probably already an expectation that players from certain eras would reflect the societal norms of that time.

I just read yesterday that a 26-year old race car driver lost a sponsor because they found out his Dad said a bad word in an interview from the early 1980s. The father didn’t even know it was bad because he just came over from Ireland where it was used differently.

It's already been handled. Those men, as well as many others, owned slaves. We had a war that helped end that. We all recognize that those Presidents owned slaves and that was abhorrent. We also know that those same Presidents did great things. Nobody denies the former or the latter. If you ask anyone who exalts the latter, when asked about the former, they'll acknowledge that the former was as wrong as the latter was right.

As for how this will effect the baseball card market. I don't think it'll have any effect because most people's outrage won't extend to the card market. The card market just isn't important enough, in the grand scheme of things. Plus, we're talking about a vocal minority who believes in the erasing of historical figures for past transgressions, and another vocal minority that is willing to placate them.

I don't find it useful to measure old time ball players by the standards of what is happening in America today. Anson was a racist but he lived in the 1880's, so his life has to be examined in an historical context. America was different then. I would be more concerned with how today's ball players and fans comport themselves.

Baseball's biggest problem today is it's kind of boring. Batting average is at a generational low, and strikeouts are at an all time high. That doesn't keep fans glued to the game. So baseball has to find a way to work out its own kinks and make itself more compelling.

As far as the hobby goes there will always be people interested in collecting baseball cards and memorabilia, particularly vintage. If anything, because our society is so damaged, and will continue to be so for the foreseeable future, collecting is a way to relax and block out all of the bad stuff. So I am not at all worried about it. The history of the game, and the artifacts we love, are alive and well.

If you could only name dorms after famous people who had no serious prejudices that would be considered abhorrent today, you'd have to start naming them the way NYC names its elementary schools. It's a pointless and token exercise IMO.

When the very first sentence of a post is ‘I hope this doesn’t get political,’ the thread will surely become political in a hurry.

So far it's calm and nobody is fighting...hopefully.

I like it but I think the "Safe Space States of America" has a better ring to it.

Would you prefer the "Attila the Hun School of Arts and Sciences?"

I also believe we should not compare times. Things were very different. The legal marriage age for a girl was very young( I think twelve).you were allowed to own another human and all of there children. Women had little to no rights and often not believed in matters of rape and other crimes.Children could drink alcohol.We could go on and on with the differences.




I always believe Cobb’s image was hurt by racism. I think people that actually have heard of Ty Cobb know two things about him . He played along time ago and he racist.

As for Cap Anson I know people that know baseball pretty well and don’t have a clue how he was.

No, but I wouldn't want to rename every school and building and street and city and memorial named after Washington and Jefferson either because they held slaves, or do some other 1984ish thing in the name of political correctness.

Well political correctness is one of the hot button issues today, but we won't debate it here.

I don't think there are many people proposing renaming all the Washington and Jefferson stuff. However, some people feel it accomplishes a great deal to remove e.g. "Silent Sam" from a university campus - particularly the African-American students on that campus. Why should they listen to someone telling them that they're wrong and they shouldn't have a problem with walking every day past a statue that celebrates their subjugation and was designed to reinforce it?

If earlier generations had the right to put up the monuments, why doesn't the current generation have the right to take them down? If earlier generations had the right to name things, why can't the current generation rename them?

Ted Clayton

Without getting political but paraphrasing something that recently I have told my son... As we judge the past and try to erase and / or change it for good or bad how will future generations view us and our actions in 25-50 -100 years ?
It is impossible to totally understand the past especially the complex personalities of ball players in relation to society for example when we didn't live it. Especially the era from 1880s - 1950s.

So I should just go out and topple whatever statue offends me without going through the proper process? I'm Jewish, will you support me in eradicating Mercedes Benzes from the country? Daimler-Benz made a fortune producing armaments for the Third Reich, after all.

Sure, why not.

The question is if it will impact collecting. It impacts my collecting.

I collect Jackie Robinson and wouldn't collect Cap Anson. That doesn't make me soft or overly-sensitive or "pc" or in need of a safe space. Though I appreciate gentleness, sensitivity, political right-mindedness, and safety for those under threat. It just means I know my convictions and I know what I want to spend money on to reflect those convictions on display in my home. If the majority collect like me in the future, so be it; if not, so be it. But with a younger (than me) generation raised with social entrepreneurship as a norm, don't be surprised if we see social collecting as well.

Japan attacked us on December 7, 1941, and tried to conquer the world...but now the country is a strong ally of ours. Huh...that's weird...we are friends. We love them. We protect them. But, wait, Ted Williams was enlisted in World War II, right? I'm pretty damn sure he hated the Japanese and referred to them as "J_ps" or "N_ps" and wanted to slaughter every last one of them. But in 2018 those thoughts are simply unacceptable to all the coddled snowflakes, aren't they? Maybe it's time for those idiots to start trying to have that 'anti-Asian racist' Teddy Ballgame booted from The Hall next??

That took me less than two minutes to compose. See how easy it is to revise history to fit a dumb narrative??

We are naming stuff after a child molester and rapist today. What's the difference? No one is perfect, where do we draw the line? It is becoming common to attack people who are dead and can't defend themselves. Al Stump wrote things about Ty Cobb that we now believe were untrue, but you can't put the genie back in the bottle. What ever happened to decency and letting the dead rest in peace?

As far as kicking people out of the HOF, not going to happen. Just look at O.J. Simpson. These guys were elected for their on field performance. If we start putting moral judgements on players, the HOF is going to have a lot of empty wall space and empty showcases.

I agree. Like I said above, I wouldn't collect Anson, but I can certainly appreciate someone who would based on baseball merits.

Guys, I know this is a sensitive subject and should have known that it would take a bit of a turn. I appreciate that it's stayed civil, but am still interested in your thoughts about the original question. I realize humans are flawed and many historical figures on all sides of the aisle have dark history.

I do agree, it's hard to judge Cobb or Cap Anson using today's standards. Although some were more outspoken than others, racism was still a widely-accepted behavior well past the turn of the century. Keep in mind, Birth of a Nation was the most prominent movie of the time Cobb, WaJo, Collins, etc...were playing. It was a socially-accepted behavior, even though we can look back on it and judge it otherwise. I completely agree with Klrdds; People 50-100 years from now will probably apply similar judgement to the socially-accepted norms of today and think we're a bunch of idiots or Neanderthals.

I will continue to collect guys like Cobb, Anson, and Speaker. I strongly disagree with their points of view and certainly would not celebrate their behavior. But, I also appreciate their contributions to the history of baseball on the field. If they were current players exhibiting the same behavior in the context of today's societal standards, it would be a very different story.

Keeping politics and personal views out of it, I think that this won’t have much of an impact on baseball cards. There are certainly some individual exceptions, but on the whole, the groups of people who are part of this social movement and trend and the group of people who collect pre-war vintage baseball cards do not intersect.

To the O P I guess your original question could be interpreted 2 ways .
Would it influence my collecting ? Definitely not if I were collecting complete sets involving said player or trying to complete a full set of autographs or pictures with a theme and the said player was part of that theme.
As a player collector , of which I am not except maybe Nolan Ryan , it might influence me a little but I look at the contributions to baseball and their place in baseball history before I do outside factors . I just want the baseball importance and the outside the lines stuff doesn't bother me .
As far as ripping out plaques at the HOF based on character based outside baseball issues and society at the time based issues maybe based upon what I've read only Christy Mathewson would remain in the HOF ...and maybe we should be thankful that social media and the press weren't back then like they are today or he could be out too !!!

There's a story where Grantland Rice is sitting with fellow reporters on the Yankees train and Ruth comes running by in a state of undress chasing a woman. Rice turns to his colleagues and says, it's a good thing we didn't see that or we might have to write about it. Different times.

From everything I've read, Attila was a well read individual brought up as a hostage in the eastern roman empire, and probably had a wealthy romans appreciation for the arts. As a formidable military leader, he also probably had a decent appreciation for science.


So that's a YES!

Personally, I think assigning Anson responsibility for baseball’s color barrier is ridiculous. He was field manager of the Chicago Nationals, but the team, and really the National League, was run by Albert Spalding. Spalding was the consummate businessman. If the public at that time wanted integrated baseball, then there would have been integrated baseball. Sad to say, but the color barrier reflected widespread ignorance and intolerance which took decades to be reduced to the point where the color barrier could finally come down.

As far as the original question goes, it has already begun to affect baseball. depending on your take on it, in ways both good and bad.

Jackie Robinsons number has been retired league wide. And that I think is a wonderful gesture as far as it goes. Does it neglect the other pioneers? I think so. Does it neglect his teammates and the few other players in the league who supported him in what was surely a very difficult time? Yes. The question is how and how much to honor those pioneers and the people who supported them. That's not an easy thing. Maybe just having Jackies number retired leads people to look at the story a bit more? And maybe that's enough.


The Red Sox and the city of Boston have decided to change Yawkey way back to Jersey Street. At the request of team ownership. And the T is looking at changing the name of the Yawkey commuter rail station.

http://www.wbur.org/news/2018/04/26/...-jersey-street


I can sort of understand the feeling behind it, but I'm not sure erasing history is the way to handle that. But then, it's only been Yawkey way since 77, so it erased the history of Jersey street. Which was named after the Earl of Jersey.

https://www.wgbh.org/news/2018/04/24...-jersey-street


More named after the office to make the place seem more upper crusty then the actual person. Hmmm..... Named after a statesman from the place we fought the revolution against.... Sounds familiar in some way.

On the other hand, swamp we threw trash into number 7 street doesn't have much of a ring to it, and could antagonize environmentalists....

It must have infuriated Ted Williams that the Red Sox did not sign a black ballplayer until 1959 or so.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/...tvL/story.html

To put a couple little things in perspective:
Cap Anson was born in 1852
Slavery was abolished in 1865...obviously abolishment doesn’t equate to equality.
Ty Cobb was born 1866
Toilet paper wasn’t invented until 1878, 2 years after the telephone 1876.
It is dangerous to pass historical judgement on individuals who lived in a time and society in which most people today can’t even imagine.

The Quakers promoted abolition as early as the 1680s in the colony of Pennsylvania. "Society" is not monolithic. Reasonably assessing the past is an important part of being a discerning person in the present. The only thing dangerous about it is somehow thinking we will be free from future scorn.

Not to mention that Cobb has been painted in a largely negative light through both his affiliation with his biographer and an absence of understanding his troubled background. I don’t think Cobb is the person we largely think he is...and that is unfair in and of itself...


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

True, but only among consenting male adults. :D

American morality, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. As long as white males drive the card market, recent revelations and societal trends will have little impact on prices.

Ty Cobb was actually born in 1886.

I'm sure there are people who haven't collected Cobb because they thought he was an awful person, and now that the perception of Cobb is maybe changing a little for the better, has that impacted prices on his cards? Who knows, but, as a Tiger fan, I admit that it's nice to know he wasn't as disgustingly racist as was previously believed.

I think the Cleveland Indians logo is a pretty interesting debate. Didn't Jim Thome refuse to wear the logo on his hall of fame cap? You could certainly argue that the "movement" you're referring to has affected the Indians.

But overall – yes. I think if it were discovered that Babe Ruth gave an interview in which he, by today's standards, made racist remarks, it would impact his collectibility. Everyone today is scared to death of offending someone. And there are people who use this fear, not to try to improve the world, but simply to gain attention for themselves.

Older white males. +1 to you.

Ted

Mercedes cars, unlike Confederate statues, are not built with the purpose of reinforcing and celebrating racism.

Also, Daimler-Benz has in fact taken responsibility, admitted guilt and paid restitution for some of their wartime actions:
https://www.jta.org/1988/06/16/archi...say-recipients

So if you want to have a conversation about reparations regarding the use of slave labor in this country there's precedent for that.

Ted Clayton

+1. Lots of white people understood that slavery was wrong and, of course, so did all of the slaves. Thank you for making this point.

Ted