Part of what this site has set out to do is explore the often muddied relationship between baseball and politics. It sets at its core a critical mindset that is very aware of how sports fit into our society. Although it may not be inherently political, the study of SABRmetrics is in itself critical of traditional baseball truisms and therefore it is my view that they fit perfectly into a blog that seeks to challenge what we think we know about the game and about ourselves.
This critical mindset means that much of what is written here can be deemed controversial. In part, it is meant to incite debate, whether it’s about the sustainability of Bryan LaHair’s lightning-hot start, what makes a true ace pitcher, or what role racism and homophobia play in the game.
After all, as Dave Zirin remarks in his excellent documentary “Not Just A Game,” sports should be taken seriously…
“…as a cultural force, a shared social space, and a political force that reflects and in turn shapes our often conflicting ideas and beliefs about who we are, how we view others and how we see ourselves as a country.”
Of course, Zirin is coming from an American perspective, but this applies just as aptly to Canada or anywhere else. And of course, the dominant political discourses of the U.S. permeate nations all around the world, so his quote is apposite on a few levels.
The topic of this particular post will no doubt bring out a lot of controversy as it surrounds one of the most beloved players in the game’s history, Jackie Robinson. Over the last few decades, Major League Baseball has made an admirable and concerted effort to educate subsequent generations of baseball fans on the contributions of Jackie Robinson; this cannot be denied. It is my contention, however, that they have done so in a way that not only whitewashes the importance of Robinson—and other Negro League players, such as Larry Doby and Dan Bankhead—who broke MLB’s colour barrier back in 1947, but also minimizes the very real problems that still exist in mainstream sports regarding race, gender, class and sexual orientation.
The image we have of Robinson is one of bravery, self-assuredness, courage, and self-sacrifice. All of this is undoubtedly warranted, but Major League Baseball also ignores a far more important element of Robinson: His affect on the wider culture as a political activist during and after his baseball career.
As Zirin put it in his film:
“The harder edges of what Robinson was all about were softened into sentiment from the beginning.
[…]
In history’s telling, Jackie Robinson just smiled, worked hard, never complained, and eventually broke the colour barrier.”
This version of Robinson’s story fits neatly into American ideals of perseverance and bravery; an individual act of working hard in the face of struggle to achieve one’s goals.
Indeed, the achievements of Robinson, Doby, Bankhead and others were a major catalyst in the Civil Rights movement. Acceptance of black players in Major League Baseball and other sports certainly helped the wider public accept black people as equals in society and the wider culture. Of course, this telling of Robinson’s history ignores the real struggles faced by black people before, during and even after the Civil Rights Movement.
Again, from Zirin:
“…despite his singular achievements, the grossest forms of institutional racism, segregation and inequality were still legal, acceptable and practiced across a broad cross-section of the country.”
This treatment of Robinson also conveniently forgets his contributions to and involvement in the Civil Rights Movement. Robinson’s support for the liberation of black people in the U.S. on a broader scale is entirely ignored when Major League Baseball pays tribute to him each year and throughout the year. It’s almost as if this version of Robinson as a contrarian fighting against established state power is unacceptable and somehow not worthy of mention.
You could argue, of course, that it’s this part of Robinson’s story that is the most important and integral to the progression of social justice in the U.S. and elsewhere. In the 1960s Robinson often spoke out against racism and inequality in the U.S. and did so with as influential a voice as anyone at the time, including Martin Luther King Jr.
The following are two quotes that you will simply never hear repeated on any MLB broadcast during Jackie Robinson Day or any other day for that matter:
“As a black man, I find it quite discouraging to look around and find how little has been done to lift minorities from the depths of poverty and despair.”
“All these guys who are saying we’ve got it made through athletics; it’s just not so. You, as an individual can make it, but I think we’ve got to concern ourselves with the masses of the people, not by what happens as an individual. So I really tell these youngsters…certainly I had opportunities that they haven’t had, but because I’ve had these opportunities doesn’t mean that I’ve forgotten.”
These quotes make it explicitly clear that Robinson was concerned with structural barriers that exist in our society, that serve to keep certain people from making individual achievements such as his own. Not exactly the narrative you hear on Jackie Robinson Day, is it?
Of course, the reason we don’t hear these narratives on Jackie Robinson Day has much more to do with the fact that many structural barriers still exist in the sporting world. If MLB acknowledged this portion of Robinson’s history, they’d also have to acknowledge that racism is still very present in today’s baseball landscape. It would also have to acknowledge the lack of progress in terms of the integration of women into the sport, either as front office personnel, commentators and writers, and even as players and coaches.
Perhaps most importantly, MLB and the media covering it would have to acknowledge the blatant culture of homophobia in sports that is so pervasive, not a single active professional baseball player is openly gay.
This whitewashing of Robinson’s contributions to the game and the wider culture has a direct effect on how we view these issues. Might it be easier for a gay athlete to come out while active if MLB did a better job of promoting Robinson’s counter-hegemonic history? Of course it’s impossible to know for sure; but it certainly wouldn’t hurt.
I should make it clear that what MLB currently does in commemoration of Robinson’s achievements should be applauded. No other major American sport does anything like it (which is a shame). But, without mentioning the wider implications of Robinson as a man and an activist, we’re being robbed of a central portion of the narrative.
This whitewashing serves as but one example of how dominant ideologies continue to maintain power over those who do not fit into the hyper-masculinised ideal of “the athlete.” Worse yet, this retelling of history serves to discredit the battle for equal rights of groups of people still struggling today.
How are you supposed to integrate women into the game when they can’t play it? Front offices are all men because only men can play in the majors. Women are not phycailly able to play in the same leagues as men. it just wont happen.
Quit being a white knght and get off your high horse.
Ugh. Two things:
1) Progress, or get the fuck out of the way, caveman
2) I’m not necessarily talking about women playing in the same league, although if a woman showed the ability to do such a thing than she should be afforded every opportunity that a man would have. But MLB makes no effort to include women and girls in baseball. Period. They set up youth camps that are tailored almost entirely for boys and do not promote young women playing the game. Professional leagues for women once had nearly the same prominence as the men’s leagues and that has changed dramatically. MLB should try and support/promote women’s professional leagues and try much harder to promote the game to women.
“No women in front offices because women can’t play well” is hilarious. Playing the game at a very high level never should have been and currently is not a pre-requisite for being hired in a major-league front office. The crew of stat-heads that’ve been hired as analysts and in various other positions did not play in the major or minor leagues. Brian Cashman topped out as a good second baseman at Catholic University. And yet the list of women who are or recently were in major-league front offices goes Stephanie Wilka, Kim Ng, and that’s the end of that. (There may be others I don’t know about, but there aren’t many.)
“Of course, the reason we don’t hear these narratives on Jackie Robinson Day has much more to do with the fact that many structural barriers still exist in the sporting world.”
A solid article, but I take issue with this assertion. MLB, in celebrating Jackie Robinson Day, examines his association with the game. There are numerous other baseball icons who’ve made positive contributions outside the baseball world, who will always be discussed first in terms of stats and championships rather than charity and civil rights. Baseball as sport is entertainment. As such, those associations will always be recognized first and foremost.
That said, the assertion voiced by ‘That guy’ is utter buffoonery. The suggestion that no women are amongst the couple-hundred best-qualified persons to operate in the higher reaches of baseball’s front offices is moronic, and I’d love to see how AA, Theo, Friedman et. al. would fare against major league pitching. Really, hiring men is the new inefficiency.
I don’t get what it is that you’re accusing MLB of “whitewashing”. That they don’t highlight that JR was involved in the civil rights movement in the 60s? If you’re accusing them of some kind of propoganda of the type “Robinson broke the colour barrier in the 40s and American race issues were solved!” I’ve never seen any such thing from them.
That JR quote from the 60s is not especially controversial, particularly for that time. Pretty par for the course for any African American of renown at the time.
Whitewashing in the sense that his image has been domesticated, he broke baseball’s colour barrier. Something to do with being in the civil rights movement would seem like baseball was supporting and praising some sort of rebel shit disturber. Instead, MLB panders to “traditional values” and is not really much better then “one million moms” in some ways.
I’d like to state for the record I enjoyed this piece and agree with it’s central argument. Mainly, I’d like to point out that the first commenter here (‘That Guy’ with a space between the words, a douchebag) is not the same person as myself (‘ThatGuy’ sans space) who posts infrequently at DJF and GB. Keep ‘em coming Travis, we’re reading.
I was wondering. It didn’t seem characteristic of you.