First Black player

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens 

For those of you that are interested but not a member of SABR, here an interesting point about W E White being the first Black ball player posted ny Greg Bond:

The last sentence of Professor Tygiel's comment, though, is to me a contradiction. If W.E. White was passing for white when he played his game for Providence then to his contemporaries he was simply
another white short-term substitute. With the benefit of 125 years of hindsight and the luxury of digitized census records, we can be fairly confident of White's mixed racial heritage, but, to me, it seems anachronistic to label him with our contemporary racial designations. If his colleagues and contemporaries understood him to be "white," then I think we, as historians, also need to understand him as another white baseball player. (Admittedly with a more interesting background than many of his contemporaries)

[Archive]

Posted By: Julie Vognar

...but I've read two summaries of the article (where's my stuff, SABR?) and didn't see anything about his "passing for white."--Could you give a quote?

[Archive]

Posted By: runscott

What if SABR discovered that Moses Fleetwood Walker was actually a white man passing himself off as black? Answer - we would strip him of his classification as the first black ML'er.

[Archive]

Posted By: Julie

..unless he was in a NEW movie called "Gentleman's Agreement"?

The thing is--through the years, there were probably a fair number of black men passing themselves off as white to play baseball; we'll never know--barring new SABR research...
Maybe you've got a point...he WAS black, whether his contemporaries knew it or not.

(is there a smiley of as little man scratching his head?)

[Archive]

Posted By: Paul

I have to agree with Jay. In Louisiana, if I remember my history correctly, a person was regarded as legally black if he was 1/8 or more black. Many people who "passed themselves off" as white were 1/8, 1/4, or 1/2 white. A lot of these folks we consider to be "white" today without hesitation. To me, the bottom line is that if someone can't trace all of their ancestry back to Africa, then he can only be called "mixed" or whatever society chooses to call him or he calls himself. There may be dozens of pre-1947 players who were 1/8 or more black. There may even be a few who were half black, if their black parent was deceased or otherwise hidden from the public. I don't think these people would take anything away from Jackie Robinson or the Walker brothers. Breaking the color barrier, in my mind, requires that people know you're breaking the color barrier. Otherwise, the color barrier is fully in place for those who cannot pass as white. (Not that I'd say anything bad about someone who was passing as white. It seems like it was a sensible way to advance in society).

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

The point of Greg Bond's post was that all the 19c players Blacks players that we know of were noted as such in the papers of the day. No mention was made of W E White being Black in any newspaper which is what lead him to make is post. Was he Black? Family history weems to say yes. But did the public know? It would seem not since no note of it was made in any paper.

I tend to lean towards Mr Bond's school of thought.

Jay

[Archive]

Posted By: runscott

I'm relatively sure what I described never actually happened. I also understand Jay's point, and on second thought I probably agree with him...choke...

"Hi, I'm Mr. White, reporting as your catcher".
"Hi Mr. White - you have an exotic look to you. Where are you from?"
"Oh, I'm a 3/4ths white person - I come from "Denmark, England, Morocco and somewhere I can't identify."
"Mr. White! Sorry, but you can't play ball with us - you are 'black'."
"Damn! I knew I should have left out that Morocco part."

It seems kind of silly to even keep stats like that, but from a historical perspective, given the racial situation back then, it is significant and important.

Today it seems silly when someone wants to argue whether or not Tiger Woods or Derek Jeter is technically "black" - who gives a flip? Unfortunately, a lot of people.

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

On a lighter note, maybe they could put an asterick(sp) next to W E White's name as being the first Black player.

Jay

[Archive]

Posted By: Hankron

Perhaps the correct distinction is first 'openly black' Major League baseball player ... I've always considered things like history and art too rich and complex to be translated into bubblegum top 10 lists (Not that these lists aren't fun sometimes. This 'Who's #1?' has started insightful debate). Notice that even with the above 'first openly black player', the people and events haven't changed changed, but the modern definition has so as to preserve the desired "#1." You will find that most history books are as much a reflection of the author as the historial events and people, despite many authors' claims that they can be totally objective. And when you read someone's personal terms, categories and definitions, you are as much reading about the person as about the things he is defining and categorizing.

[Archive]

Posted By: Hankron

Legitimate consideration should concern the definition of a black man? What was the definition in 1880s? what is it now (naturally, applied retroactively to the 1880s)? What will it be in 2050? Is one of these definitions right or are none of them entirely accurate? Who defines what is a black man? Can only black people make this definition? ... As illustrated by the simple fact that definitions of race change constantly yet the biology has been the same for thousands of years-- almost all societal and personal categorizations and definitions of race are not entirely about biology, but about something else.

This would suggest that the 'Who was the first black MLB player?' will never be solved, as no one will be able to definitively define, even with a blood sample, which player was a 'real black man.'

[Archive]

Posted By: Hankron

So my suggestion is, as there is so much gray area (I don't know if that'a pun or not), both (and other) players be given due notice for their notable participation in baseball history. If Walker is given extra credit as he had to endure more, was more obviusly black to the public and was a better player, that seems perfectly reasonable.

Personally, I best enjoy subjects that cannot be distilled into "#1" versus "#2" and ones that even your own take on the subject is suspect and will likely be different in a year. These indicate that the subjects are bigger than you are.