I think what's most surprising to me is this notion that Negro League players somehow diminish the order of major league players. Like they're taking something away from somebody by being included. The only players who had anything taken away from them were the Negro League players.

And if your argument is going to be that it's not fair they be called major leaguers, I'd say it's not fair they weren't.

Some people - maybe women - would have a hard time accepting exclusion by gender when there are those who won't except exclusion by race.

Saying this, I fully understand and see a difference myself, but I think some will not.

If you're talking about the players who were good enough to be in the Major Leagues, agreed. If you are talking about the rest of the league, which in above posts was estimated to be AAA level, then no. If we're going to call those guys Major Leaguers, then why not call the Triple-A players of that day Major Leaguers too, since they were of similar caliber.

That argument is easily defeated by pointing out that the players in the major leagues who would have otherwise lost their jobs to superior Negro League players are still counted among major leaguers. It really isn't a position that can be defended.

If you consider the population percentages, there were many more non-black players and therefore much more competition for spots in the Major Leagues. That alone suggests the average player in the ML was better than the average player in the NL.

More than anything else, up until Jackie Robinson, the only real qualification you needed to have to play major league baseball was you had to be white. Talent was never first. And even if you want to go along with your line of thinking, there are a million guys who played a cup of coffee in the major leagues that would fall into your AAA and AA talent pool.

Of course talent was first. Look at how extensive the farm systems were. Rookie League, Single A, Double A, Triple A. Some ML teams having more than one minor league team at the same level. Competition to get to the ML was pretty fierce, and there were many thousands of white players competing for those spots.

Wait...what?

If talent was first why would you have to be white?

And what are you holding so dear, anyway? Victory Faust was in the right place at the right time. Eddie Gaedel was short. But there is nothing to be said about their inclusion over someone like Bruce Petway.

I didn't really expect so much opposition to acknowledging a group of athletes that competed at the highest level available to them while racism prevented them from furthering their careers and reaching their dreams.

Yet here we are.

As an NFL fan this sort of stuff has been grouped into the history of the sport as various leagues were born, went extinct, or merged, etc.

In 1961 Charley Hennigan had one of the most statistically dominating seasons for a WR ever. But we all know the competition in the very first years of the AFL wasn't the greatest and a rational human being can take that into account.

It really is strange to me. This board is full of people who collect Negro League memorabilia and have nothing but good things to say about Jackie Robinson or Jackie Robinson Day but for some reason there is all this animosity toward recognition like this. This is a good thing. Why don't you want it to be?

Charles Victory Faust and Eddie Gaedel were stunts, much like Minnie Minoso playing a few games at age 51, and again at 55.

My concern is the watering down of statistics. If you're Satchell Paige you're a ML caliber player, without doubt. But the stats you accumulate pitching against Triple A level competition are not Major League caliber stats.

Explain how they're watered down when they don't threaten any all time records or even advance Paige's reputation. His reputation is what it is without knowing any of his stats. How does he become watered down?

Again, if you extend your argument from before, the major league records are already watered down by virtue of excluding the best players from playing at all times. Pre-Jackie, everyone's stats are watered down. You cannot say that everything is equal and we are in the same place today if Oscar Charleston and players like him played major league baseball.

Records WILL look different. For example the record for single season batting average, long held by the unquestionably great Hugh Duffy who clearly faced some of the toughest pitching ever, may soon go to Josh Gibson, who many esteemed collectors presume faced mainly AAA level chumps and hobos.

In the 1930's there were many minor leaguers who, by first-hand accounts from Major Leaguers I knew, should rightly have been called up to the show. The issue was of course the lack of room on the rosters of the parent clubs. Therefore, due to space constrictions, many white players were also denied entry into the Major Leagues. Should we examine their records and proclaim those that meet a predetermined set of criteria to be Major Leaguers as well? According to some points being presented, we'd almost have to. Fair is fair.

Just curious, where would they be in line if they allowed black players to get in the same line?

So limited roster spaces for whites is the equivalent of the categorical and systematic racism of the Negro leaguers?

Unfortunately, that is not a question we will ever have a perfect answer to. It's a shame.

My obvious point was that both blacks and whites were denied entry due to circumstances they could not change.

And my obvious point was that whites FAILED to make the majors as a result of open and free competition.

Blacks were completely denied entry due to racism.

I don't see a shred of wiggle room.

No white player was denied entry to organized professional baseball. The two things you are comparing are not at all alike and share no similarities.

Definitely open and free competition, but also lack of space. That's all I'm trying to convey.

OK, I'll spin it a slightly different way:

Let's say expansion started not in the 1960's but 30 years prior. It's clear that many of the players who weren't able to make it beyond the minors up to this hypothetical point would be called up due to more job openings. All of a sudden, they're in the bigs where they should have been in the first place. Like many of their NL counterparts, we're not talking about incredible talents here, but rather enough talent to spend some time at the Major League level.

(I am not arguing anything to do with racism, but rather expanding on my
"can of worms" theory--as in, where does it end if history needs to be revised?)

What percentage of Negro League players would have had that chance based solely on their talent, in your estimation? I'm guessing I won't get an answer to that question. If African-Americans had been anywhere close to half the population during this time, this move would make a lot more sense to me, but the fact is they comprised less than 10% of the population, whereas the Major Leagues were drawing from 90%. Unless you want to impute a tremendous superiority of baseball talent among this dramatically smaller group, I don't see how you can include ALL of them in the big league category. Now, if you want to do it as a method of redress of a grave injustice done to these players, I would have to give that some serious thought, but I would want you to be honest that that's what you're doing. Otherwise, you will never get around the sad truth that the leagues operated within drastically different circumstances and should be recognized and honored for what they were, separately, without trying to pretend that there was much more than a passing equivalence between them.

My point is that Major League stats should be earned against Major League level competition, not Triple A level competition.

When you bring race into the discussion like that, it sounds more like affirmative action rather than holding every Major League player to the same standard - the standard of earning their stats against ML level competition.

But that is a patently flawed view. The reason you include everyone is because you can't exclude the players they would have replaced. Your position takes no issue with the inclusion of all the white players who didn't lose their jobs to superior Negro League players but you want to knit pick individual Negro League players who may have replaced them.

Why do we continue to rewrite history to feel better about ourselves. The Negro Leagues have already been recognized. as a league. HOF'rs have been voted in. I've met some of the greats and they were awesome and proud of their accomplishments. We were all happy that recognition was in place. I am very proud of the Negro Leagues and they deserve all the fame and attention deserved. Many of us would give up their firstborn for a Josh Gibson signed baseball. Then 2020 rolls around, and all history needs to be changed to be woke. Personally, this feels like a stunt that is fraught with error, confuses everyone and just causes trouble. Btw, Double Duty Radcliffe is one of my baseball heros. In the 90's he showed my little daughter his hands...as big as a catchers mitt! Signed a ball for her that is precious to us.

That makes no sense at all. You will never know which white players would have been "replaced," but you can try to distinguish between those NL players who appeared to have the talent to make the major leagues and those who didn't. HOF voters have been making those kinds of distinctions for many years. I'm happy to add those who qualify, but including the vast majority who would not just diminishes the whole, IMO. As I said, if you want to do that in the name of justice and be honest about that, I'd be more amenable.

Hank's point is valid and excellent.

Making some assumptions: During the period 1920-1948, the average black player and average white player were basically equal in ability. Also assume interest in playing baseball was basically equal between blacks and non-blacks. And finally, assume the number of teams in the NL and ML is the same.

If the population is comprised of 10% blacks and 90% non-blacks. It means, for every spot on a ML roster, there are 9 times as many non-black guys competing for it, compared to blacks trying to make it in the NL.

If there were only half as many teams in the NL as there were in the ML, then the non-blacks had 4.5 guys competing for a roster spot compared to blacks in their league.

I once met Double Duty and had a long chat with him, one of the great thrills of my life. He told me about seeing Walter Johnson pitch in an exhibition game in Florida, and how fast he was. A few years later, I just happened to be at a game at RFK when the Nationals played there, and there was Double Duty "throwing out" the first pitch on his 100th birthday. What a guy!

But none of those things are relevant. This isn't mass induction into the HOF. It's mass recognition of playing at the highest level available to these players. You cannot simultaneously argue that every Negro League player shouldn't be recognized because not all of them would have played in the majors and say that everyone who did play in the majors belonged there.

Recognize them for what they did, but don't water down the statistical integrity of those who actually competed at the ML level.

Speaking of level of play at the highest level available at the time, why is the National Association of 1871-1875 not considered major league by MLB? The NA was the first professional league. The problem is that no one is pounding the drum for the NA. It seems all policy decisions today are dictated by political correctness and the loudest voices. See the Cleveland Indians for example. It's not the changes that are wrong. It's the underlying reasons why they are being made that is wrong.

This is going to be a long post. This is a topic I am passionate about and have studies for over two decades. I am going to cover a number of topics and I hope that you bear with me

1. Quality of the League

When we are talking about the quality of the league we have to separate the quality of the players from the overall quality of the league. I agree that if we look at the 1940 MLB and the 1940 NL the two leagues are not equal. A top NL team would have not been able to keep up in the MLB and probably would have had trouble in AAA. This however is not because of the talent of the players. Instead NL teams were disadvantaged by a number of economic and organizational factors. NL teams had very small rosters. It was not uncommon for an NL teams to travel with only 13 guys. There was not enough money to carry a 25 man roster. As a result it was common for position players to pitch, pitcher to play in the field and for players to play hurt. There was no platooning and their was no relief pitching. NL teams were also hurt by the fact that there was not a clear minor league feeder structure. There were lessor black teams but those were independant teams with no obligation to send a player up. This meant that even top teams would often play short handed or sign some local kid play a couple of games. As a result of these issues it would have been impossible for a 1940 NL team to play in the national league. They would have won some games but they would have been worn down over the course of the year.

If we think more broadly however what do the 1940 NL teams sound like. They sound like major league teams of the 00's and teens. Small rosters, no minors, first basemen pitching. I do believe that the 1940 Homestead Grays could have played in the 1910 National League. The 1940 Grays had 4 hall of famers on that teams and a number of other good players. How many national league teams in 1910 had four hall of famers on it.


2. Quality of the players

I will argue that, for many of the reasons listed above, all of the players who had real NL careers were MLB calibre players. I am not talking about some guy who got 20 at bats with the New York Cubans in 1933. I am talking about players that were full time on a roster for at least a couple of years. The same constraints discussed above meant that there was very little dead weight on a Negro League team. If you could not play you didn't ride the bench you road the train out of town. If you look at the players that played right around the years of integration you can see the quality of the players. For example in 1946 there were about 10 NL teams. Lets say that is 120 real players. Look at all of the black players who played in the early 1950's. I know that not all of these guys played in the Negro leagues but if there was not integration this is the group of talent that would have made up the negro league. Jackie, Campy, Montie Irvin, Larry Doby, Satchel Paige, Don Newcomb, Dan Bankhead, Hank Thompson, Sam Jones, Minnie Minoso, George Crowe, Jim Pendleton, Billy Burton, Hank Aaron, Willie Mays, Ernie Banks, Roberto Clemente, Luke Easter, Sam Jethro. In addition a couple of older black players like Ray Dandrige pretty much crushed the high minors but never got to the majors.

It is also important to consider that not everyone who has a MLB stat line is really a MLB player. As a Milwaukee Brewer fan in the 1990 I saw a long string of players who are in the encyclopedia that were not really MLB players. I don't think we need to take them out, but at the same time we certainly are lowering the quality by letting a few marginal Negro league players in

3.Quality of the Stats

The Negro league are long on lore and I think sometimes that clouds the reality. We all heard stories about home runs that Gibson hit that didn't come down until the next day in a different story or Cool Papa Bell bunting for a triple. I fear that often these type of stories blind us to the fact that these were real leagues that kept real stats. Especially as we get into the later 30's and 40's the stats were actually very good for league games. I have a copy of the 1945 Negro league year book and it has a stats section that is just as good as an MLB year book from the same era. I have a run of newspaper articles from the Newark Eagles with full league stats just like in any other newpaper. Negro league stats are not all retrospective compilation done years later. many of the years have high quality contemporaneous stats


4. Comparison of the Stats

Lets all be honest. As much as we love to talk about history and the consistency of baseball we all know its really not possible to compare different leagues and different eras without adjustments. In the 1969 Yaz won the batting title by hitting 301. He didn't hit 301 because he wasn't great or because all of the pitchers were so good. He his 301 because the rules allowed the mound to be 10 feet high and the stroke zone was between the tops of your shoes and an inch over the top of your helmet. That was the game, those were the rules and you really cannot compare them to any other era without making adjustments. You cannot look at Babe Herman and go my god his hit 350 he must have been amazing, you have to look at him and say "oh he hit 350 when there were 20 outfielder who it higher then him. We have all learned to make these adjustments and it doesn't effect who we consider major league.

People Please!

Please read my previous post ( #72 - the highlighted one)...that's all that needs to be said.

.

I'm in agreement with what Hank has been saying and am glad he's been here to voice a few points that nobody else has touched upon.

We have to employ as much logic and as little emotion as possible to this discussion in an effort to be fair to all. Unfortunately, there is no precise solution and there never will be. Yes, this is due to the unfortunate ways of the past, but let's not start taking pencils and erasers to the book of time. After all, it was written in indelible ink; erasers are powerless. Recognize mistakes and leave them be in order for future generations to more easily see what went wrong. It's not a bad idea to leave those scars showing loud and clear.

I repeat, then why is the National Association not considered a major league?
The reason is that MLB and, for that matter, the HOF don't care about righting any wrongs. They only care about doing what they believe will perpetuate their existence and pad their pockets.

Boy, you got me there. I can't answer an unanswerable question. The answer is no one knows because they didn't get that chance. What I can say is that in head to head competitions with MLB all-star exhibition teams, not the slouches, the Negro Leaguers won over 60% of the time. After integration, which was far too slow IMO, the black ballplayers dominated the sport, despite (or maybe because of), having to overcome tremendous obstacles. I guess you can argue that they were the cream of the crop, but weren't the people they were playing against supposedly also the cream of the crop?

The Union League is recognized as a major league. So too is the AA. No one I know believes that they were equivalent to the National League of that same period. And yet, they both drew from that wonderful 90% talent pool. For that matter, baseball in the 1880s to the early 1900s was a different game than it is now. Calling for a high or low pitch, throwing underhanded from a mound 45" away, 4 strikes, etc. But the numbers compiled during those time still count, are still venerated, and are still used as a basis of comparison to modern players.

Baseball has always compared apples to oranges in terms of statistics. At least in my estimation, this is no different, no better, and no worse than using numbers from a time when the game was substantially different than it is now to compare against current players. People can make their own judgments as to what the numbers mean, but having those numbers available to compare is, I believe, a good thing.

All this talk of population and percentages counts for nothing when you examine reality.

15 of the top 24 on the all time home run list are non-white players of color. I know a fact like that doesn't fit the narrative of 4.5 players to whatever, but it is the most obvious reflection of what the major leagues missed while it excluded them from play.

When you review the all time hit list 10 of the 24 players are non-white players of color.

Now do that comparison for pitchers.

Why? The point has been made. The level of play you assume is incorrect and it is reflected in where players ended up once they were allowed to play, despite being denied accumulation of any stats until 1947.

Except that open and free competition wasn't, even for white players.
With the reserve clause, a team that had a good player didn't need to look for or sign another for that position unless they thought they'd be much better.

One telling point to me was made years ago by an old time player who spoke to the club I was in.
He said that at the time there were about 17,000 people playing in organized leagues.
When he played, the estimated number of people in organized leagues was closer to 175,000
What this did was lead to good but not great players sticking around due to being agreeable. The holdouts, the surly, were simply replaced, unless they were spectacular like Ted Williams or Joe DiMaggio. (Not saying either was, those were the two examples he used)

There were players who were probably major league caliber playing in industrial leagues, and a piece of why they never made it big could be that given the choice of playing a few years in the minors making very little, or staying on a career path that initially paid less, but had more long term stability and potential many wouldn't sign.

I suspect that given the available careers, the competition for spots on a top ML team was more than it was for a then major league team.

We are talking past each other I think. Let's just agree to disagree.

But what about my point about the Japanese Major League? Since we have the World Series, shouldn't we also include Japan's Major League too?

If not, why?

Probably because the Japanese league wasn't created or played in America or started in response to systematic racial exclusion from Major League Baseball.

I'm glad they are getting the recognition.

The integration of their stats seems so far to be sensible. As the articles have said, the simplest are very easy, hits HR that sort of thing.

Stuff like batting average is much tougher. The couple seasons I looked at were only about half as long as the National or American league season.
How many times have we seen players have great batting averages before the All-Star break, but fade in the last half of the season?

That to me is a bigger difference than a perceived difference in pitchers abilities.
It will be interesting to see how they handle including them.

Maybe not. The same article that said that Gibson hit .441 in 1943 also said that he played in fewer than 80 games. Which means he probably had about 300 at bats, maybe less if pitchers walked him a lot. Would 300 at bats qualify? It's going to be up to MLB to set qualifying levels.

In terms of competing at a minor league level, if no Negro League, then no Federal League either. How did Benny Kauff do when he played in the National League? Yet, he was the "Ty Cobb of the Federal League." And those stats count.

Well, it used to be common knowledge the last .400 hitter was Teddy Ballgame. Not any more. Now, it's Josh Gibson's .441 in 1943, aided no doubt by the Triple A level pitchers he was facing, plus attrition due to WW2.

Nobody could top Ted's achievement with the bat, but the PC crowd did, by re-writing history.

Sounds like a whole lot of opportunity to me compared to what the alternative was up against.

To qualify for a batting title, a player needs 3.1 plate appearances for every game on his team's schedule.

Unless they are now going to change that, too.

From the LA Times: "Josh Gibson, a power-hitting catcher for Negro League teams, will likely be awarded baseball' single season record for batting average. Gibson hit .441 for multiple Negro League teams in 1943, surpassing the mark of .440 set in 1894".

Gibson had 342 plate appearances, 124 hits in 281 at bats in 1943. How can a comparison be made for a season with only 281 at bats to a season (Hugh Duffy's 1894 season) that ended up with a .440 average based on 616 plate appearances, 237 hits in 539 at bats?

How many times have we seen a player over .400 at the All-Star break only to have that average plunge after the break?

This is going to be really stupid.

Somewhat related to this was when the NFL went from 12 game seasons to 14.

Records fell.

Then they went form 14 game seasons to 16 game seasons.

Records fell.

They are likely going to 17 game seasons in 2021 or 2022.

Records will fall.

Hugh Duffy set his record in a year when the first 5 batters on the leaderboard hit over 400.

Since detractors have made such an issue over the level of play, it seems disingenuous to bring up Hugh Duffy.

For single season records I don't think we can exclude a reasonable season like Gibson's--if we do, are we going to see 61* again??? Ugh.

Look on the bright side: if the NL stats range can be expanded to 1953 and Hank Aaron becomes the all-time HR king again, we get rid of Cheatin' Barry!

More than likely we will see the standard criteria of 3.1 PA per league game. Similar to the recently concluded pandemic season of 60 games.

It's one thing when records fall because a player breaks it. It's quite a bit different when records fall because history is re-written.

Ted died knowing he was the last .400 hitter. Little did he know, the politics of MLB would decree he only held that distinction for 2 short years.

Perhaps you will be happy to know it will not be Josh Gibson. More than likely it will be Artie Wilson in 1948 when there was no war at all.

I suspect we didn't hurt his feelings.

Based on what Ted said about the NL and its players, I wouldn't be surprised if he was proud to be bested by Gibson.

Speaking of Ted Williams and his NL counterparts, and because every thread needs a card, here's what Satchel Paige had to say about Francisco Coimbre:

Satchel Paige stated “Coimbre could not be pitched to. No one gave me more trouble than anyone I ever faced, including Josh Gibson and Ted Williams.”

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...78f0c308_w.jpg

I couldn't imagine if someone hit .450 in the 2020 shortened season that it would be the new bench mark for batting average in a season (based on the 3.1 PA per league game).

In 1982 the NFL experienced a strike season and had a 9 game season instead of 16 games.

During the abbreviated season Wes Chandler averaged an amazing 129 yards receiving per game. That record still stands.

No one cares about this because humans have the ability to understand context and put things in perspective.

Some guy hitting a few points higher in batting average over half as many games is obviously not as impressive as someone that did it on a much larger scale. That doesn't mean he didn't beat the record. And it doesn't mean it is more impressive.

The equivalence of Negro League talent with AAA talent was simply someone's opinion, way back on the first page of this thread. Quit quoting it, folks! Geez, I don't understand any of the push-back with this. I for one, think this is wonderful news, and WAY overdue! More awesome baseball players and statistics to pour over - AS WE COLLECT THEIR CARDS??? This is gonna be great fun!!

Thanks for the various replies I got to this question. I am thinking perhaps that I am thinking of a player who played in MLB and in another "major" league but in another country.

I always visit football reference and only occasionally baseball reference, but it looks like they made it extremely easy.

Buttons that toggle between majors, negros, foreign, minors. Absolutely fantastic. If there is similar functionality across various leader boards what's not to love?

3.1 plate appearances per league game. Works for me as a way of equalizing things. Of course, I am deeply biased because the Dodgers won the 2020 Series and I don't want any damned * on that! Not when I waited 32 friggin' years for it.

Count me in
 

I've changed my mind, or I should say this forum has changed my mind. Bottom line for me now: it's the least we can do for those guys! Wonderful, civil, discussion, by the way, never got nasty or personal. Gives me great hope for the country, maybe things are about to get better in that respect.

Ken,

I don't think anybody disagrees with that. It's the apples to oranges comparison of stats that is being scrutinized.

I like that the top level Negro Leagues is being elevated to the states. Yes, the stats will be problematic, often comparing apples to oranges. However, it's the same comparing stats and records from the 1920s and 2010s. I don't know how you put Cy Young's or Hoss Radbourne's pitching stats in the same spreadsheet with Mariano Rivera and Justin Verlander. Especially, as baseball was THE sport many years ago, that makes the "talent pool" from eras sometimes like apples and oranges. Of course, there are many more international players in MLB today.

+1

Understood. And I agree that this has been a useful and civil discussion, that will undoubtedly continue. Again, fun!

Let's defrost Ted's frozen head and ask him how he feels.

Brian

That's cold.

This is exactly how I feel

Can you expand on how adding these stats confuses and causes you trouble?

Maybe you can explain why this needed to be done and all the anguish it has caused you for all these years. Maybe be happy today that it is done instead of insinuating things about a person you literally know zero about?

I wasn't being condescending or confrontational.

You directly quoted someone that talked about being confused and this process causing trouble.

You then stated that was how you felt. I have trouble imagining how a person could have those feelings so I was inquiring for clarification.

Ted Williams says hello.

There are always big fish and small fish in every league. Even today, due to budgets, there are always multiple replacement level players on every team. If we look at MLB superstars, I'm sure many of them will tell you they consider the small fish of MLB to be no different than a AAA replacement. The argument that stats are padded in the Negro Leagues is absurd when MLB's brightest stars are able to rip apart opposition. Barry Bonds and Mike Trout did and are doing absolutely phenomenal things, yet they weren't/aren't lucky enough to only face only other superstars like Maddux, Glavine, Smoltz so that their stats might be more Hall worthy.

Some current Hall level players have to humble themselves to play against players like Homer Bailey who carried a 6.00+ ERA for three straight seasons. I'm sure they hate this thinking that it taints their true hall of fame aspirations.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

So who is now the first black player to play in the majors ? Edited: I forgot about : Moses Fleetwood "Fleet" Walker (October 7, 1856 – May 11, 1924) was an American professional baseball catcher who is credited with being the first black man to play in Major League Baseball (MLB). May 1, 1884.
...

It blows my mind that no one can take this as what it is: a token gesture to try to give a little bit of right back to something that was wrong with the sport for more than 75 years. No one is taking away any record held by anyone. God willing if someone ever chases .400 again it will be classic images of Ted Williams across every screen and every channel. Will they mention Gibson in 43? Probably, but stats and records are religious canon in the sport. No one is going to be forgotten or buried. It’s a gesture meant to elevate the accomplishments of one group of players to the same level as another group that they were not allowed to join because bigotry. Nothing more. They’re numbers on paper and computer screens. Some just became more meaningful in the eyes of a organized league, the rest mean just the same as they ever did.

Fair enough and sorry for the oversensitivity.
I believe it confuses and causes trouble because of the stats mainly. I also believe that it is a PC move so representative of 2020 and that it was not necessary. The HOF has recognized the Negro Leagues and inducted many into the HOF. Honestly some who have been inducted I had never heard of which may be my bad. I follow them on twitter and they have gone way above and beyond to tweet about minority players this year (which is fine) but it does not seem authentic to me.

IMO this was totally unnecessary. I have met Buck O and a few others and they are proud of the league and the recognition it received. I actually think keeping it separate shows the prejudice and is a lesson from history. I know when I took my son to the hall it was powerful to see the separate exhibit.

I have also read several articles today where people are insulted by this and view it as a "token" move and some who say it is 50+ years late. So overall I just believe it was a bad move but I don't get vote haha.

Touche! :) You got me there, Chris.

(Although Ted's roots were definitely covered more than once and way back when, it still was not something most people were privy to. I think this would still be news to the majority of the population. The case of Teddy completely slipped my mind, as I was thinking of those who actually came from Latin American countries when I wrote what I did. It's a shame he wished to hide an entire half of his genes and to an extent, his family.)