Talk:Baseball color line

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Comment[edit]

This article says:

The separation's beginnings occurred in 1868, when the National Association of Baseball Players decided to bar "any club including one or more colored persons."

Who are what is being quoted here? The article says the rule was unwritten. Since it was 1868, this cannot be a videotaped statement, and if it was not written, it can't be a written source. If it's a newspaper article or the like, which is not a spokes-organ of the League, it should say so. Michael Hardy 23:18, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

baseball color line[edit]

I was afraid you missed this, so I copied this from my talk page to here. -- ❝Sverdrup❞ 19:22, 12 November 2006 (UTC) [reply]

In this edit, you wrote

"any club including one or more colored persons."

Whom were you quoting? Please see talk:baseball color line. Apparently your information contradicts information added later, and the article has been that way for a long time. Michael Hardy 02:12, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's a hard question! I can't remember, but I have searched around now; I can find something like that quoted at [1], where it says "any club which may be composed of one or more colored persons." I can't say for sure if this was my original source and/or if I modified the quote. I don't think the truth of the statement is at risk, but finding sources is always good (as we think now two years later. Sourcing statements wasn't practice at all in 2004). ❝Sverdrup❞ 15:36, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Color like moar like a black line, amirite?[edit]

Was the color line used to actively discriminate against all groups who weren't considered "white" at the time, or was it more or less devised as an instrument to discriminate against African-Americans? I've heard of Amerindians, Hispanics and "ethnic" Caucasians being allowed to play on the "white" teams, although I have no background or knowledge of baseball history.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.24.229.14 (talk) 05:51, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The line was drawn against African-American specifically, and was generalized to anyone of a very dark skin color, I would say. Fleet Walker, the initial victim of the color line, was considered to be of mixed race, as I recall, but "black enough" that Cap Anson effectively had him banned from the game. American Indians were not turned away, and one of them at least, Chief Bender, was an ace of the Philadelphia A's staff in the early 1900s. There were light-skinned Hispanic-Americans in the game also. But the dark-skinned ones would likely not have been allowed. As far as "ethnic Caucasians", I don't think ballplayers were subjected to quite the scrutiny that, say, Warren G. Harding was. There were some who thought Babe Ruth had some African blood, although he was actually just one of those Germans who have coincidentally some "Negroid" features, i.e. thick lips and broad nose. Although if it were proven that he had some black ethnicity, especially after he reached stardom, that would have made things interesting. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 06:28, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A Semi-Permeable Line[edit]

I've been reading All Those Mornings . . .At the Post which is a compilation of some of Shirley Povich's best columns that he wrote while he worked at the Washington Post. In a series of articles about the integration of baseball that he wrote in 1953, Povich mentions some strange things. The first is that in 1901 John McGraw, of the old Baltimore Orioles (now New York Yankees), signed "a light-skinned Negro from Cincinnati named Charley Grant." McGraw attempted to pass off Grant as a Cherokee but was eventually discovered when many of Grant's black friends came to Chicago to greet him and became a small celebrity in the black press, which inadvertently exposed him. McGraw was forced to release Grant when Charles Comiskey refused to allow the Chicago White Sox to play against the team (152-153).

The second strange incident, which I think needs context, is an odd claim made by Branch Rickey, that Clark Griffith "initiated the practice of bringing negroes into baseball under the guise of Cubans." (155). Does anybody know anything about this and who these players were? Jsonitsac 21:21, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article states that John McGraw refused to take the field against teams with black players. Not only is this statement unsubstantiated in the article, it is completely libelous. McGraw was well ahead of his time when it came to his views on black ballplayers. In addition to the Charley Grant incident discussed above, Ken Burns' acclaimed history of baseball relates a story where McGraw's widow, upon his death, discovered lists of black ballplayers that McGraw had scouted over the years with notes on how they could fit in with his Oriole and Giant teams. Please remove this erroneous staement ASAP and stop sullying the reputation of a noble man.152.131.10.72 18:28, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, the statement in the article refers to his playing years, presumably the early 1890s; it's entirely possible that his views changed afterward. I'm not defending the wording (it needs to be sourced), just pointing out a possible alternative explanation. MisfitToys 22:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I hear what you're saying. It needs to be sourced or removed. 152.131.10.72 19:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the McGraw reference. It was baseless and unsubstantiated. I also removed the Cobb reference. Sure, Cobb was a racist, but by the time he played the color line had been firmly established.DavidRF 01:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bud[edit]

Where is Bud Fowler, he was the first African American to play on a pro white teams, and hes not even mentioned. 4.254.223.89 17:17, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Racial Epithet Deleted"[edit]

In a quotation in this article in which someone spoke a racial epithet, the word(s) itself has been replaced with "[racial epithet deleted]." I am certainly not in favor of bandying about racial epithets, but I have noticed on Wikipedia that other kinds of profanity, or other language that is debasing, offensive, crass, or crude, such as abuses of God's or Jesus's name, is maintained based on several ideas: (1) Wikipedia should not be censored, (2) it violates NPOV to edit words that may be offensive to some, (3) it is more important to have the information available than to worry about offending, (4) it is unenlightened to be concerned with mere words, or variations of these and other reasons. When one edits the profanity (I haven't tried personally, but I've seen it discussed on many talk pages and in edit comments), invariably, it seems, the editor is shouted down with reasons like these. So how did "racial epithets" get their special status, a higher level of supposed offense and taboo than other language that many, many people would understand to be offensive or debasing, and not necessary for the encyclopedia's purposes?Holy 20:42, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Censoring a racial epithet is against the rules. If some bozo verifiably used the N-word, then it can be quoted as-is. Someone trying to suppress it with something generic is going too far... unless the quoted source stated it that way. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 22:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Holy, just because Hitler died doesn't mean someone needs to take his place. Feel free to censor yourself all you'd like, you honky/kike/nigger/savage/chink.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.24.229.14 (talk) 05:51, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If somebody said "nigger", then "nigger" should be in the article. Wikipedia doesn't censor.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.240.61.2 (talk) 04:25, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary Sanctimoniousness[edit]

I removed the statement, "Veeck was seldom known for being politically correct, and that kind of comment would now be considered an outdated stereotype." after Veeck's statement about black athletes compared to white athletes. This has no encyclopedic value, and serves no real purpose in the article aside from making someone feel better about there being "less racism" today. Logan (talk) 02:58, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Veeck was a guy who helped integrate baseball, and he saw things in practical terms rather than being hung up on being PC. He would be raked over the coals today for a statement like that. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 03:06, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, it was part of the discussion of the fact that he and Rickey were businessmen, not necessarily crusaders. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 09:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Veeck also pointed out that he actually paid the Negro League teams for the players that he acquired, something that Rickey didn't bother to do: obviously, the team in question couldn't very well stand in the way of Jackie Robinson's historic promotion and thus had to let him go. WHPratt (talk) 13:12, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First Black Manager[edit]

Quote: "A case has been made for Ernie Banks being the de facto first black manager in the major leagues. On May 8, 1973, Chicago Cubs manager Whitey Lockman was ejected from the game. Coach Ernie Banks filled in as manager for the two innings of the 12-inning 3-2 win over the San Diego Padres"

I remember a situation when Buck O'Neil was a Cubs coach, 1962-64, and the team's manager was ejected from the game. WGN TV broadcaster Jack Brickhouse noted that O'Neil appeared to be in charge, and pointed out that this was indeed a "first." Perhaps someone can confirm. WHPratt (talk) 18:33, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible. Maybe his autobiography has something about it. Unfortunately, I do not have that book. I do know this: P.K. Wrigley kept O'Neil out of his "college of coaches", either due to race prejudice or fear of being "too" innovative. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 20:44, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I find that, as the Cubs had 10-12 coaches on the roster in those years, there would have been no pressing need to turn the reins over to Buck, as it's unlikely he'd have been the only authority in the dugout. I'm just going on Brickhouse's statement. In those days, the Cub skipper was designated "Head Coach," so that's the actual title in question. WHPratt (talk) 13:17, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Somewhere I have read that Roy Campanella (major leagues 1948–1957) led the Brooklyn Dodgers in an emergency. Whatever the truth, such a "de facto first black manager" is almost beside the point, good footnote material before the feet were dedicated to the sources.
Riley on Chappie Johnson says that Chappie Johnson led the white St Paul, Minnesota team during 1907 or 1908 spring training in Little Rock, Arkansas. --P64 (talk) 14:07, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rickey's worldviews[edit]

"Rickey was not known to have made any similar remarks, nor was he known to have had an especially liberal world view"

I've removed the second half of this statement, and adjusted the sentence after it to match it. Rampersad in his autobiography of Jackie Robinson relates a tale in which Rickey watched, in his earlier years, a young black male try to scrub the "blackness" off his skin, and how this horrified and enraged him to the point of making black integration a personal crusade of his.

If you need me to quote the line from the book for verification I can do so, but I clearly remember reading it. That being the case, I can't be confident regarding the objective truth value of this statement regarding Rickey's beliefs. It is perhaps more possible that he wasn't known for this crusade, since speaking too loudly about it in such times was not safe; but I'm also not sure that that is terribly relevant. In either case, I've gone ahead with this edit, but as this is a important change in the point of this section, am letting everybody know so that can look it over. Thanks, Fractalchez (talk) 17:05, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rickey was innovative, but was not what I would call "liberal". He was a very straight-laced character. Believe it or not, some old-fashioned, "conservative" folks didn't and don't believe in racial discrimination. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:33, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hispanics[edit]

how do we know the policy on Hispanics (or Latinos)? The first paragraph of the article currently reads:

The color line applied specifically to players with African descent. Native Americans, native Hawaiians, and Hispanic players of European, indigenous or mixed European-native origin were not excluded by it.

However, we have no cite for that, and I don't see more information in the article. Later, the article says the ban applied to, "any club including one or more colored persons." However, that quote is from 1868, it is from a source that probably wouldn't pass as reliable if challenged (I'm not challenging it), and who knows what colored meant, especially back in 1868. It does not necessarily say anything about Hispanics or represent the official definition of the policy for the following 80 years.

Skimming leaderboards at Baseball Reference from before 1947, I don't see Hispanic surnames, while I know there were Hispanics playing in the Negro Leagues (e.g., Cristóbal Torriente) and there were leagues in Latin America where some major leaguers spent the off-season, so there were plenty of Hispanic players. That seems to suggest there was some discrimination going on.
guanxi (talk) 23:35, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dolph Luque, Hiram Bithorn, Chico Hernández come to mind for Hispanics. And American Indians included Chief Bender (Hall of Famer), Louis Sockalexis, Chief Meyers, etc. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:53, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Bugs; then there are certainly some examples. However if Bithorn (2-3 seasons) and Hernández (2 part-time seasons) are among the best examples (and I don't know that they are), that would support the case that discrimination existed. Luque did have a full career. Interestingly, per his article: As a blue-eyed, fair-skinned, white Cuban, he was one of several white Cubans to make it in Major League Baseball at a time when non-whites were excluded. Between 1911 and 1929 alone, seventeen Cuban-born Caucasian players played in the Major Leagues. That statement, along with the fact that exceptionally talented players like Torriente were not invited to MLB, suggests that dark-skinned Hispanics were discriminated against, and the Color Line article statement in question (the original blockquote above) is not true. Is there some citation to support it? If we don't have one now; I'll tag it and maybe someone can find one. guanxi (talk) 04:33, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Bugs - I see you reached the same conclusion above, that it seems at least some light-skinned Hispanics were allowed and dark-skinned Hispanics were not. That still seems to contradict the statement in question, and even our theory lacks support; it's really Original Research on our part, so I'm going to avoid saying anything definitive beyond what we know -- that some Hispanics, Native Americans, etc. were allowed. I'll leave in the Native Hawaiians, though I don't know of any specifically. guanxi (talk) 04:43, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I know that several books have discussed the color line as applied to Hispanics. I'll try to dig up some references we can cite. BRMo (talk) 05:00, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, when did the so-called Negro Leagues first hire white Anglo players?— Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎P64 (talk • contribs) 21:44, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Roles[edit]

What about umpires, on-field coaches, other coaches, stadium personnel? At least for the heyday of "Negro Leagues" (revised section title), this article should explain the scope of the color line in this sense. --P64 (talk) 21:44, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Boston Red Sox[edit]

Now about 30% of the article, this section is long enough to be 10% of a fairly good article on the color line, but most of it belongs in the history of the Boston Red Sox. --P64 (talk) 15:08, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Race and sports[edit]

Race and sports could use a brief summary of this article if someone is willing to lend a hand there. Thanks! -Location (talk) 17:43, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A disproportionate amount of this article at present is about the Red Sox. The Red Sox section is longer than the Jackie Robinson/Branch Rickey section, which seems preposterous to me. Perhaps creating a new article titled "Boston Red Sox and Race" or something like that would be advisable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.233.48.128 (talk) 03:39, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Baseball assessment comment[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Baseball color line/Comments (baseball), and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Comment(s)Press [show] to view →
There are a few errors and myths being perpetuated by the Boston section of this article.

1)The article implies that the Red Sox failed to get to the WS until they 'fully integrated' in 1967. What exactly does 'fully integrated' mean? The article implies that the Sox got to the WS by employing the full-time uses of African-Americans George Scott and Reggie Smith. The fact of the matter is George Scott was a full-time player in 1966 also and Reggie Smith only saw a hand-full of AB's in 1966 not because he was Black, but because he was a poor hitter. Reggie batted about .158 in 1966 in the big leagues. However the Sox did use African-American Joe Foy as a full-time 3rd baseman, and African-Latino Jose Tartabull saw significant playing time in 1966 as well.

It's not correct to say the Sox wern't 'fully integrated until 1967', as they were just as 'fully integrated' in 1966.

2)It's also incorrect to assume the Sox failed to get to the WS between 1946 and 1967 for failure to integrate. The Yankees were the 15th team to integrate and they won several World Series between 1947 (When Jackie Robinson broke the color barrier) and 1955 (when the Yankees integrated...four years before the Red Sox)

In fact the entire Boston section is full of unverifiable hyperbole and smacks of a hatchet job. It should be removed until it can be re-edited.

Last edited at 03:10, 28 May 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 14:16, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Baseball color line. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:35, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Baseball color line. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:47, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"The late ..."[edit]

I noticed this in another article as well as here, but we have a reference to "the late baseball racism historian Jules Tygiel." It seems very odd to refer to one particular person as being deceased in an article wherein virtually everybody mentioned has since died, unless a posthumous pronouncement of his was particularly important. My guess is that Dr. Tygiel passed away just as these articles were being prepared. WHPratt (talk) 12:53, 22 April 2019 (UTC) Looking back at this, I now realize that "the late" appears in quoted material, and thus has to be retained for accuracy. WHPratt (talk) 12:43, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Detroit Tigers[edit]

"(12 years after his 1947 debut, Doby would become the first American player of African descent to appear for the Detroit Tigers, on March 21, 1959.)"

It would appear that some articles differ on this point. I see both Larry Doby and Ozzie Virgil, Sr. listed the first player of African descent to play for the Tigers, depending on which article I look at. My guess is that because Virgil was Hispanic, there is some point which distinguishes who was first, depending on the wording, but each article should be worded correctly so as to be accurate.

List of first black Major League Baseball players#by team

Larry Doby#Major League Baseball career#Later years (1956-1960)

Ozzie Virgil Sr. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.28.85.119 (talk) 17:18, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the text. It was not sourced or backed up by anything else in the text. Also, it's parenthetical insertion indicates it is unimportant to the context of the entirety of the article, which it was. The List of first black Major League Baseball players is sourced to a SABR study that indicates Virgil is correct; the Larry Doby page used a source I could access on Google Books, and it stated Virgil integrated the Tigers, too [2], so I removed that statement, too. Thanks for pointing it out. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 18:35, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Baseball_color_line&oldid=1195377181"