Applying today's societal lens against the HOFers of yesterday

[Throttlesteer]

First off, I don't want this to turn political; please don't take it down that path. I wanted to explore how the recent shift in perception of historical figures might eventually impact baseball and, in turn, baseball cards. There's a growing trend to measure or judge these figures against today's societal standards, especially when it comes to issues like racism. Without digging into whether this is right or wrong, do you think there's a potential for this movement to start affecting the baseball world? Could Cobb, Speaker, Cap Anson, etc...become the next focus of this movement? How would it impact the Hall of Fame, baseball cards, or even the historical roots of the game?

[Peter_Spaeth]

I sure hope not. IMO it's gone way too far when they start renaming college dorms, etc.

[oldjudge]

Twelve US presidents, including Washington and Jefferson, owned slaves. How should that be handled?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

Twelve US presidents, including Washington and Jefferson, owned slaves. How should that be handled?

And don't forget Lincoln enjoyed cockfighting!!

I say tear down the memorials, remint the coins, rename the streets and cities.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

And don't forget Lincoln enjoyed cockfighting!!

I say tear down the memorials, remint the coins, rename the streets and cities.

I say we rename the United States because we weren't really united when we gained our independence. Maybe "The United Diversity States?"

[ronniehatesjazz]

Originally Posted by Leon

I say we rename the United States because we weren't really united when we gained our independence. Maybe "The United Diversity States?"

I like it but I think the "Safe Space States of America" has a better ring to it.

[pclpads]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

And don't forget Lincoln enjoyed cockfighting!!

True, but only among consenting male adults.

[GaryPassamonte]

American morality, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. As long as white males drive the card market, recent revelations and societal trends will have little impact on prices.

[gawaintheknight]

Obviously by doing things like retiring Jackie Robinson's number for every team and having the Civil Rights Game every year MLB has done some work to recognize the racism of the early game and try to make amends for it. People can choose who they want to collect and if people choose not to collect cards of racist players then that's their choice, just like it's their choice whether to collect cards of players who used PEDs or who engage in domestic violence. It's entirely legitimate. I can't say whether it will happen, but it's possible. I could say more, but no politics. :-)

[jeffmohler]

Interesting question!!

I could see some pressure to remove Cap Anson from the HOF. Its kind of ironic that he and Jackie Robinson now reside in the HOF together.

I am against this kind of thing in general. For the most part I view it as an attempt to erase or alter history, although I certainly get why some people would say that we shouldn't glorify a guy like Anson who apparently did all he could to keep the color line intact in baseball.

What would throwing Anson out of the HOF do to his card values? - I doubt it would do very much. I suspect most pre-war collectors would overlook his HOF membership and look instead at his career numbers.

I sure hope I haven't given offense to anyone. If I did, I certainly didn't mean too!

[AGuinness]

Originally Posted by jeffmohler

I am against this kind of thing in general. For the most part I view it as an attempt to erase or alter history, although I certainly get why some people would say that we shouldn't glorify a guy like Anson who apparently did all he could to keep the color line intact in baseball.

Or couldn't it be seen as acknowledging the history and that when darker aspects of people were originally ignored, THAT was really erasing or altering what really happened?

People are complex and have their merits and faults, all of which can and should be considered.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Are we also going to reexamine every great historical figure to see if they were sexist, or homophobic, or anti-Semitic, because given the context of their times many likely were. What's the point? We should move forward, not engage in token feel good exercises that really accomplish nothing.

[gawaintheknight]

This is actually a legitimate question and I for one think we as a country should have that conversation. IMO it's more ambiguous for at least some of the presidents than it is for statues of Jefferson Davis, "Silent Sam," etc. The presidents made other contributions to America that have to be weighed against their slaveowning; Davis and others committed treason in defense of slavery and the statues were meant to reinforce segregation and intimidate African-Americans. I'm happy to share sources if you want. (This is history, not politics, right? If not go ahead and delete it with my apologies.)

Originally Posted by oldjudge

Twelve US presidents, including Washington and Jefferson, owned slaves. How should that be handled?

[JustinD]

Going way more modern, I think Mantle would never had been able to avoid a lifetime ban for half of his alcoholism stories. If some of them were more well known (thinking of the story about almost shooting his wife in the head as a joke) there could be a whitewashing movement by some.

[TheNightmanCometh]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

Twelve US presidents, including Washington and Jefferson, owned slaves. How should that be handled?

It's already been handled. Those men, as well as many others, owned slaves. We had a war that helped end that. We all recognize that those Presidents owned slaves and that was abhorrent. We also know that those same Presidents did great things. Nobody denies the former or the latter. If you ask anyone who exalts the latter, when asked about the former, they'll acknowledge that the former was as wrong as the latter was right.

As for how this will effect the baseball card market. I don't think it'll have any effect because most people's outrage won't extend to the card market. The card market just isn't important enough, in the grand scheme of things. Plus, we're talking about a vocal minority who believes in the erasing of historical figures for past transgressions, and another vocal minority that is willing to placate them.

[barrysloate]

I don't find it useful to measure old time ball players by the standards of what is happening in America today. Anson was a racist but he lived in the 1880's, so his life has to be examined in an historical context. America was different then. I would be more concerned with how today's ball players and fans comport themselves.

Baseball's biggest problem today is it's kind of boring. Batting average is at a generational low, and strikeouts are at an all time high. That doesn't keep fans glued to the game. So baseball has to find a way to work out its own kinks and make itself more compelling.

As far as the hobby goes there will always be people interested in collecting baseball cards and memorabilia, particularly vintage. If anything, because our society is so damaged, and will continue to be so for the foreseeable future, collecting is a way to relax and block out all of the bad stuff. So I am not at all worried about it. The history of the game, and the artifacts we love, are alive and well.

[Peter_Spaeth]

If you could only name dorms after famous people who had no serious prejudices that would be considered abhorrent today, you'd have to start naming them the way NYC names its elementary schools. It's a pointless and token exercise IMO.

[Dewey]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

I don't find it useful to measure old time ball players by the standards of what is happening in America today. Anson was a racist but he lived in the 1880's, so his life has to be examined in an historical context. America was different then. I would be more concerned with how today's ball players and fans comport themselves.

I agree. Like I said above, I wouldn't collect Anson, but I can certainly appreciate someone who would based on baseball merits.

[Big Six]

Not to mention that Cobb has been painted in a largely negative light through both his affiliation with his biographer and an absence of understanding his troubled background. I don’t think Cobb is the person we largely think he is...and that is unfair in and of itself...


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[SAllen2556]

Originally Posted by Throttlesteer

First off, I don't want this to turn political; please don't take it down that path. I wanted to explore how the recent shift in perception of historical figures might eventually impact baseball and, in turn, baseball cards. There's a growing trend to measure or judge these figures against today's societal standards, especially when it comes to issues like racism. Without digging into whether this is right or wrong, do you think there's a potential for this movement to start affecting the baseball world? Could Cobb, Speaker, Cap Anson, etc...become the next focus of this movement? How would it impact the Hall of Fame, baseball cards, or even the historical roots of the game?

I'm sure there are people who haven't collected Cobb because they thought he was an awful person, and now that the perception of Cobb is maybe changing a little for the better, has that impacted prices on his cards? Who knows, but, as a Tiger fan, I admit that it's nice to know he wasn't as disgustingly racist as was previously believed.

I think the Cleveland Indians logo is a pretty interesting debate. Didn't Jim Thome refuse to wear the logo on his hall of fame cap? You could certainly argue that the "movement" you're referring to has affected the Indians.

But overall – yes. I think if it were discovered that Babe Ruth gave an interview in which he, by today's standards, made racist remarks, it would impact his collectibility. Everyone today is scared to death of offending someone. And there are people who use this fear, not to try to improve the world, but simply to gain attention for themselves.

[vintagebaseballcardguy]

This thread needs a card.



Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

[Dewey]

Originally Posted by vintagebaseballcardguy

This thread needs a card.

Agreed. And a photo.

[drcy]

The problem with judging people 100 or 150 years ago by today's standards is that people today are also pretty stupid and myopic and will be similarly judged by standards 100 and 150 years in the future. Or, as I.F. Stone said, "Each generation sets its own blinkers then claims its vision is unimpeded." Just one error of a know-it-all is that that he claims to know it all.

Expecting, or even wanting, others to be perfect in all ways is a sign of intellectual and emotional immaturity-- and almost assuredly hypocrisy. The vocally morally sanctimonious are nearly always applying standards to others that they aren't applying to themselves. In fact, being sanctimonious and expecting others (but not oneself) to be perfect are psychological conditions if not fronts. Forget others' faults and go see a therapist.

Duly note that many historical figures retain their interest, and collectibility, because they are complex, dichotomous figures: Ty Cobb, Patton, Nixon, Johnny Cash, William T. Sherman, Billy Holiday. Joe Jackson material wouldn't be as valuable as it is today if he weren't associated with the World Series scandal. Al Capone, Jesse James and Bonnie & Clyde are collected and hold interest entirely because they were outlaws.

I've long found it interesting that qualities that make living people social lepers make them appealing as long dead historical figures. I mean, when you read about them, you realize that some of the Western outlaws and Prohibition-era gangsters were essentially serial killers.

[Orioles1954]

Originally Posted by drcy

The problem with judging people 100 or 150 years ago by today's standards is that people today are also pretty stupid and myopic and will be similarly judged by standards 100 and 150 years in the future. Or, as I.F. Stone said, "Each generation sets its own blinkers then claims its vision is unimpeded." Just one error of a know-it-all is that that he claims to know it all.

Expecting, or even wanting, others to be perfect in all ways is a sign of intellectual and emotional immaturity-- and almost assuredly hypocrisy. The vocally morally sanctimonious are nearly always applying standards to others that they aren't applying to themselves. In fact, being sanctimonious and expecting others (but not oneself) to be perfect are psychological conditions if not fronts. Forget others' faults and go see a therapist.

Duly note that many historical figures retain their interest, and collectibility, because they are complex, dichotomous figures: Ty Cobb, Patton, Nixon, Johnny Cash, William T. Sherman, Billy Holiday. Joe Jackson material wouldn't be as valuable as it is today if he weren't associated with the World Series scandal. Al Capone, Jesse James and Bonnie & Clyde are collected and hold interest entirely because they were outlaws.

I've long found it interesting that qualities that make living people social lepers make them appealing as long dead historical figures. I mean, when you read about them, you realize that some of the Western outlaws and Prohibition-era were essentially serial killers.

+1,000,000. We always fancy ourselves as advanced and on the "right side of history." Then generations pass! We really are an arrogant people!

[GaryPassamonte]

+ 1,000,001

[Jim65]

All these people that want statues torn down and street names changed apparently do not have a problem with having streets named after Elijah Muhammad and Malcolm X, they should at least be consistent even if they are wrong.

[topcat61]

In my humble opinion -A fair argument cannot be made to judge a person (or ball player) from another era based on the standards we've set for today.

[mr2686]

Originally Posted by topcat61

In my humble opinion -A fair argument cannot be made to judge a person (or ball player) from another era based on the standards we've set for today.

+1

[drcy]

Even if someone today tried their hardest to abide by the stand the standards of 100 years from now, he can only guess (and likely wrongly) what they will be.

[KMayUSA6060]

Anson once tweeted some racist garbage.

Mantle had less-than-respectful tweets about women.

I'm sure one of the other old-timers had homophobic tweets.


Wait, am I mixing too many eras?


History is not to be erased, but to be learned from.