J.J. Clarke's Nickname

[Joshchisox08]

How would he be racist if he accepted his nickname ? He didn't call himself that. I don't get it apparently. I don't see the issue.

[packs]

The issue is it's superfluous and totally unnecessary to put his nickname on the flip of his cards. The card says J.J. Clarke. You have to go an extra step to put Nig on there. Accepting a nickname is not the same as dismissing it. I highly doubt Dummy Hoy enjoyed being called a dummy. But what can you do when everyone's calling you Dummy?

[clydepepper]

In a way it is sad that this thread has gotten this long, but, conversely, it may be a blessing as civil discussions of such subjects is the best way to handle them.

This forum, where there is a common interest already, can help plant the seeds of enlightenment. While I am a proud conservative, I'm not close-minded on most* subjects. (*- I still like girls exclusively)

Babe Ruth had to endure a similarly insensitive 'moniker', though, thankfully, his did not gain much popularity.

What a difference it would have made if 'Babe' was replaced by 'N*****-lips'.

As crude as life was back then, it would have been very interesting to see if Ruth would have been as popular if he was 'saddled' with that name.

IMHO - While it is better to live in a time when less slurs are used with impunity, it's good to know that many folks have somehow survived and even thrived in spite of them.

Well, those are my thoughts on the subject. I will not apologize for any of it and though it was not my purpose to offend anyone, I do realize that there are some who could be.

To anyone who was offended by my words, I'd say, "You're Missing a Good Ballgame."

[rhettyeakley]

This is simple revisionist history, which seems to be all the rage these days.

Why do people call him that? Because that was how he was known during his lifetime (whether you agree with it or not).

This may come as a shock to some but some really crappy things happened in history! Racism, genocide, rape, murder, etc all happened then and some continue to happen to this day. I have no problem with historical events being reinterpreted base upon the framework of our current knowledge and understanding BUT I have major issues with people coming in a century or two later and changing names and places because it "sounds bad" or "that shouldn't have happened that way". The problem with that logic is that IT DID HAPPEN and historical fact should be left alone.

We tend to look at history through the lens of how things are viewed today, which can be very enlightening as it brings to the surface some seemingly strange ways of looking at things but also very unfair to those that lived during that time as well because they didn't have the luxury of living when we are with modern understanding of things like science, race relations, progressive thinking, etc, etc.

My not so humble opinion, leave the historical facts as they are, it will foster dialog in the future as to why things were what they were and can help all to avoid mistakes made in the past. Don't revise history to the point that we repeat past offenses.

[packs]

No one is disputing facts. We're talking about whether or not it's necessary to put his nickname on a flip. Card says J.J. Clarke.

[Joshchisox08]

Does anyone have a J.J Clarke PSA for sale ?

[nolemmings]

Well said, Rhett.

[arc2q]

Originally Posted by rhettyeakley

My not so humble opinion, leave the historical facts as they are, it will foster dialog in the future as to why things were what they were and can help all to avoid mistakes made in the past. Don't revise history to the point that we repeat past offenses.

Sure, we should leave the historical facts as they are. But you don't need to list his name on the card label, or list his cards on eBay by an ugly nickname when he has a real name.

Someone pointed out earlier that ATC needed to designate him on his card as J.J. Clarke to differentiate him from Josh Clarke who played on the same team. Makes sense. But does that not suggest that even in 1909 ATC knew better than to take the easier road of labeling his card by his racially-insensitive nickname?

The card doesn't even use the nickname...so by what absurd logic do we think that it is right to list his card by the nickname when selling or when displaying it in our living room? The man's name was Jack. Call him Jack or J.J.

Originally Posted by rhettyeakley

This is simple revisionist history, which seems to be all the rage these days.

You obviously believe revisionist history is always a negative, and that there are no benefits to reevaluation of the historical record. For instance, in 1930 Seattle newspapers discussed the "Seattle Royal Colored Giants", but when writing about the team in 2015, I typically refer to them as the "Seattle Royal Giants". Is that revisionist? Yes, but a way to discuss the topic without referencing and thereby emphasizing negative terminology of the day. It in no way diminishes understanding of the subject. Just my opinion, Ty

[clydepepper]

Well, it looks like it depends on the grader. So, the solution would be to have any PSA & BVG-graded N's re-slabbed by SGC:

NIG PSA.jpg
NIG.jpg
JJ CLARKE SGC.jpg

[rhettyeakley]

Originally Posted by pariah1107

You obviously believe revisionist history is always a negative, and that there are no benefits to reevaluation of the historical record. For instance, in 1930 Seattle newspapers discussed the "Seattle Royal Colored Giants", but when writing about the team in 2015, I typically refer to them as the "Seattle Royal Giants". Is that revisionist? Yes, but a way to discuss the topic without referencing and thereby emphasizing negative terminology of the day. It in no way diminishes understanding of the subject. Just my opinion, Ty

I guess I am strange because I don't really see the need to edit the name of a sports team from days gone by either. If the team you are referencing wasn't actually known as the Seattle Royal Giants but were in fact they were the Seattle Royal Colored Giants at the time then I don't think you are being very clear nor historically accurate to go and change their name in 2015. You could simply put the name in quotes to indicate that it was an entity known as that and then subsequently refer to them as simply the "Giants" when referencing the team in the article (or whatever you are writing).

[Leon]

Originally Posted by rhettyeakley

I guess I am strange because I don't really see the need to edit the name of a sports team from days gone by either. If the team you are referencing wasn't actually known as the Seattle Royal Giants but were in fact they were the Seattle Royal Colored Giants at the time then I don't think you are being very clear nor historically accurate to go and change their name in 2015. You could simply put the name in quotes to indicate that it was an entity known as that and then subsequently refer to them as simply the "Giants" when referencing the team in the article (or whatever you are writing).

I agree. I think we are so overly-politically correct nowadays that, many times, it has the reverse effect. The more we talk about racism the more there is, so it seems. And I am not saying to push it under the rug, by any means. But at some point it's time remember, address, and move on. Just my half cent....

[Michael B]

Originally Posted by rhettyeakley

I guess I am strange because I don't really see the need to edit the name of a sports team from days gone by either. If the team you are referencing wasn't actually known as the Seattle Royal Giants but were in fact they were the Seattle Royal Colored Giants at the time then I don't think you are being very clear nor historically accurate to go and change their name in 2015. You could simply put the name in quotes to indicate that it was an entity known as that and then subsequently refer to them as simply the "Giants" when referencing the team in the article (or whatever you are writing).

Rhett, excellent point. Using the politically correct logic would we alter the names of these teams so as not to offend the tender sensibilities of those who would find offense where none is intended?

Atlanta Black Crackers, Austin Black Senators
Baltimore Black Sox, Birmingham Black Barons
New York Black Yankees, New York Cubans

[rhettyeakley]

Originally Posted by rhettyeakley

This is simple revisionist history, which seems to be all the rage these days.

I have no problem with historical events being reinterpreted base upon the framework of our current knowledge and understanding...

Ty, you missed this part of my post apparently. No, revisionist history is not always bad, within limits. I see no reason to revise An individual's name that was how he was known throughout the sports world at the time he played the game.