Quote:
Originally Posted by pariah1107
Perhaps I should add some context to my comments before..... I was watching the Oakland A's v. Seattle Mariners game last night and one of the Mariners announcers, Dave Sims (who I usually enjoy), was falling all over himself heaping praise on Robinson (which is deserved). He mentioned Jackie three times, always claiming, "He was the first to...."
The teams are in Oakland, and while Robinson's contributions to the game are probably immeasurable, what in the world did he have to do with either Seattle or Oakland? Historically, it would have been more accurate to talk about Bill Pettus (1904) or Jimmy Claxton (1916), who actually integrated white ball clubs IN OAKLAND before Robinson was born. My choice of words were poor, perhaps the beers, but my point was/is why is Robinson mentioned almost at the expense of others whose contributions are also noteworthy?
That is all. Ty
|
Would it be more accepting if Jackie Robinson was refereed to as the man who broke the color barrier as opposed to being the first black ballplayer
Did not Jimmy Claxton only play a few games with the Oakland Oaks, under the context of being an Indian? He was found out, booted from the team, and to my knowledge no African American played in organized professional until Jackie. Its certainly an interesting piece of trivia, but does not have the cultural implications of what Jackie did. It really did not advance the cause of racial equality.
Without Jackie Robinson doing what he did (and others Larry Doby etc.) there would be no Reggie Jackson in Oakland (or anywhere else in the MLB).