Glory of Their Times

[Hot Springs Bathers]

I have a degree is history and have been researching baseball history for over 40 years. The first rule I have found that most historians agree on is that when you have a large sample of first hand accounts they out weigh revised history.

We all have our favorites in baseball. I personally have read every possible source on Ruth and had the chance to visit with Bill Dickey many years ago to ask him about the Babe. I find Ruth to be very confusing, how intelligent was he, how out of control was he? I still have no firm opinion.

With that said, no player has had more "current revisionist history" printed about him than Cobb. There seems to be a "he couldn't have been as bad as they said about him" attitude. I lean on the first hand accounts which seem to say that yes he might not have been a great human being. A great player yes and as collectors we all see his cards rising. But?

[btcarfagno]

Originally Posted by Hot Springs Bathers

I have a degree is history and have been researching baseball history for over 40 years. The first rule I have found that most historians agree on is that when you have a large sample of first hand accounts they out weigh revised history.

We all have our favorites in baseball. I personally have read every possible source on Ruth and had the chance to visit with Bill Dickey many years ago to ask him about the Babe. I find Ruth to be very confusing, how intelligent was he, how out of control was he? I still have no firm opinion.

With that said, no player has had more "current revisionist history" printed about him than Cobb. There seems to be a "he couldn't have been as bad as they said about him" attitude. I lean on the first hand accounts which seem to say that yes he might not have been a great human being. A great player yes and as collectors we all see his cards rising. But?

True with regard to personal opinions and firsthand accounts of actual events. Not true of second or third hand accounts. At all.

Also, when what has been written about a person over the years has been demonstrably and provably false and misleading, what are we to think? We obviously cannot throw it all away and say that Cobb was a saint and just misunderstood, but it is equally vapid to simply not pay attention when new information comes to light.

[Hot Springs Bathers]

Totally agree Tom but we have to be careful as to defining "what new has come to life."

[btcarfagno]

Originally Posted by Hot Springs Bathers

Totally agree Tom but we have to be careful as to defining "what new has come to life."

Absolutely. In a Terrible Beauty Leerhsen does have a good amount of research to back up his statements regarding what is fact, what is fiction, and what is a 50/50 he said/he said type of situation. You also must be able to separate some leaps of faith that he does make with regard to opinions on certain matters. As with much in the field of history, there is a lot of "if "this" is true and "that" is true, it is reasonable to assume that "this" is also true". It may be and it may not be the case. There are definitely a fair amount of reasonable assumptions going on in this work. However, the research he does regarding what was always assumed to be 100% fact that turns out to either be complete myth or at best a he said/he said 50/50 is enough to make the findings of this book shed some new light on the situation.

[Hot Springs Bathers]

Well said

[todeen]

Originally Posted by Hot Springs Bathers

I have a degree is history and have been researching baseball history for over 40 years. The first rule I have found that most historians agree on is that when you have a large sample of first hand accounts they out weigh revised history....

...With that said, no player has had more "current revisionist history" printed about him than Cobb. There seems to be a "he couldn't have been as bad as they said about him" attitude. I lean on the first hand accounts which seem to say that yes he might not have been a great human being. A great player yes and as collectors we all see his cards rising. But?

I have a MA in US History. My theory on life is everything is gray. There is no black and white. And that upsets many people. But people act out of necessity, and many times, necessity is controlled by uncontrollable forces (lessons learned very early in life from parents, experiences that affected outcomes, nature vs nurture ideas). That's also why we have the term hypocrite. As I said in another thread, a person can respect certain aspects of a different culture, and still treat people of that culture with disdain in other areas on life. As was said in an earlier post here, everyone in that generation was a racist. It is what it is.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by todeen

I have a MA in US History. My theory on life is everything is gray. There is no black and white. And that upsets many people. But people act out of necessity, and many times, necessity is controlled by uncontrollable forces (lessons learned very early in life from parents, experiences that affected outcomes, nature vs nurture ideas). That's also why we have the term hypocrite. As I said in another thread, a person can respect certain aspects of a different culture, and still treat people of that culture with disdain in other areas on life. As was said in an earlier post here, everyone in that generation was a racist. It is what it is.

So all the members of the Underground Railroad were racists? It doesn't matter that whites were risking their lives, and sometimes dying, helping blacks. Branch Rickey must have been a racist too. How about Pee Wee Reese?

[todeen]

Originally Posted by rats60

So all the members of the Underground Railroad were racists? It doesn't matter that whites were risking their lives, and sometimes dying, helping blacks. Branch Rickey must have been a racist too. How about Pee Wee Reese?

I'm a Christian man. The seed of hatred and discrimination lies within us all.

There has been and always will be the ability to accept one minority without accepting them all. There were many a white abolitionist who thought that removing Native Americans from their families and reservations and forcing them into schools far away so that they could assimilate into white culture was best for them and their kind.

And further, being an abolitionist didn't mean one stood for equality in all segments of society. Being an abolitionist meant that you didn't believe one man could subjugate and enslave another. Abolitionists weren't advocating interracial marriage. Many didn't even advocate women's right to vote.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

[rats60]

Originally Posted by todeen

I'm a Christian man. The seed of hatred and discrimination lies within us all.

There has been and always will be the ability to accept one minority without accepting them all. There were many a white abolitionist who thought that removing Native Americans from their families and reservations and forcing them into schools far away so that they could assimilate into white culture was best for them and their kind.

And further, being an abolitionist didn't mean one stood for equality in all segments of society. Being an abolitionist meant that you didn't believe one man could subjugate and enslave another. Abolitionists weren't advocating interracial marriage. Many didn't even advocate women's right to vote.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

Some maybe, but ALL? All who were risking their lives were still racists? Isn't that diminishing what real racism is? People today like to throw around that term to make themselves superior to others they disagree with. Racism injured and killed real humans. It is a word that shouldn't be used lightly.

[todeen]

Originally Posted by rats60

People today like to throw around that term to make themselves superior to others they disagree with. Racism injured and killed real humans. It is a word that shouldn't be used lightly.

Racism is not treating a group of people equally because of race or heritage. One does not need to burn a cross or lynch a man to be racist. When Hank Aaron couldn't sleep in the same hotel as his teammates was that not racism? When he had to wash his uniform at the black laundry on the other side of town, was that not racism? So then his teammates who said, "gosh Hank, I'm sorry, but that's just the way things are," don't they bare some burden for the problem continuing? They aren't just innocent bystanders. They could sleep elsewhere, they could eat elsewhere, but they didn't.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

[rhettyeakley]

Why are hijacking this thread and making it about whether or not long dead men that were raised and lived during times many of us were not born in either were or were not racist to some degree or another?

There will be no consensus reached here people! We don’t know the answer, nor will we ever know. It is like watching Don Quixote attacking a windmill!

[tschock]

Originally Posted by rats60

Some maybe, but ALL? All who were risking their lives were still racists? Isn't that diminishing what real racism is? People today like to throw around that term to make themselves superior to others they disagree with. Racism injured and killed real humans. It is a word that shouldn't be used lightly.

Of course it is. The statement akin to 'everyone is a racist' diminishes racism to the extent of saying every person alive is breathing. If indeed, everyone is a racist, what is the point of even being concerned with racism at all? Beyond being a bludgeon for preferential usage of the term.

[carlsonjok]

Originally Posted by todeen

I'm a Christian man. The seed of hatred and discrimination lies within us all.

There has been and always will be the ability to accept one minority without accepting them all. There were many a white abolitionist who thought that removing Native Americans from their families and reservations and forcing them into schools far away so that they could assimilate into white culture was best for them and their kind.

And further, being an abolitionist didn't mean one stood for equality in all segments of society. Being an abolitionist meant that you didn't believe one man could subjugate and enslave another. Abolitionists weren't advocating interracial marriage. Many didn't even advocate women's right to vote.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

I think this is the salient point. I'm not a particularly active member here, nor am I anything approaching a competent baseball historian, but I have been blessed/cursed to have to walk this earth observing and evaluating my every move (ISTJ, represent!) Stereotyping is a common heuristic for dealing with unfamiliar situations. So, the question isn't whether a person is prejudiced or not, because everyone carries around some level of prejudice. The question is whether we can recognize that prejudice within ourselves and compartmentalize it away from our interactions with the world in general, and individuals specifically.

So, think of Cobb as Schrödinger's racist.

[Case12]

Originally Posted by carlsonjok

I think this is the salient point. I'm not a particularly active member here, nor am I anything approaching a competent baseball historian, but I have been blessed/cursed to have to walk this earth observing and evaluating my every move (ISTJ, represent!) Stereotyping is a common heuristic for dealing with unfamiliar situations. So, the question isn't whether a person is prejudiced or not, because everyone carries around some level of prejudice. The question is whether we can recognize that prejudice within ourselves and compartmentalize it away from our interactions with the world in general, and individuals specifically.

So, think of Cobb as Schrödinger's racist.

Well said....

[todeen]

Originally Posted by carlsonjok

So, the question isn't whether a person is prejudiced or not, because everyone carries around some level of prejudice. The question is whether we can recognize that prejudice within ourselves and compartmentalize it away from our interactions with the world in general, and individuals specifically.

Tschock, your answer was given by carlsonjok, who said it very well.

Or, if you're a bible believer, it's to realize your imperfection, to begin to follow the Lord's commands and to change your habits (to love thy neighbor as thy self, or to follow the golden rule), and to accept the redeeming power of Christ.

I'm sorry to hijack this thread like someone said earlier. I really like theory, theology, and philosophy and the attempts to turn theory into real life application.... and the difficulties this presents in trying to accomplish it.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk