Jackie and Barry
One of the few stellar black players today is Barry Bonds. Now I'll preface my remarks by saying that I'm a fanatical Giants fan and have a Barry bobble head on my desk! But with that confession out of the way, I found Zev Chafets column in the LA Times to be spot on! The subtitle to the online version runs: "Baseball stands to lose its remaining black fans if it downplays Bonds' stellar achievements." As Baseball sets itself to honor Jackie Robinson it faces the prospect of ignoring a historic moment in baseball history. He points out that by and large the critics of Bonds are white, he also points out that stars of yesteryear aren't without their dark sides. Consider for a moment Babe Ruth -- he was a boozer during prohibition and you could argue that his own efforts need to be set in context, he didn't have to play against any Black players. When you think of Josh Gibson and Satchel Paige, just to name a few, what might have been! And drugs have been part of the game for decades -- so why single out Barry?
Consider what Chafets has to say:
Baseball's few remaining black fans will see the double standard. What's so bad about what Bonds is accused of, they will ask? He used drugs? See Jim Bouton's great baseball diary "Ball Four," on the rampant use of amphetamines in the Golden Age of Mickey Mantle. Bonds broke the law by allegedly taking illegal substances? The Babe himself openly boozed his way through Prohibition. Bonds broke baseball's rules? If that were a major crime, spit-baller Gaylord Perry wouldn't be in the great hall at Cooperstown.
Whether Selig and the writers and the fans like it or not, Bonds is the black Babe Ruth. If they demonize him, put a disqualifying asterisk next to his records and ban him from the Hall of Fame, a thousand Jackie Robinson Days won't bring back the missing millions of African American fans. It's fine to venerate No. 42, but Robinson is a page in the history books. It's what happens to No. 25 that will determine the next chapter in the star-crossed relationship between
blacks and baseball.
Such questions are in view as we stop to celebrate Jackie Robinson's epoch making debut.
Comments
I remember when Hank Aaron hit his 715th home run. That was an exciting time for baseball. I cut out the newspaper headline from the sports section the next day and saved it for many years after that day. On the other hand, I can't get excited in the least over Barry Bonds. And since there is no asterisk next to Aaron's record (and Aaron is an African American), I'm not sure that Chafet's argument about driving African Americans away makes any sense either. It is unfortunate that, sixty years after Jackie Robinson broke the color barrier, there are so few African Americans now in major league baseball. But the solution to that problem is not to look the other way when players cheat.
This isn't third grade. "Other people do it, too" is not a justification, as far as I am concerned.
The fact is when Aaron passed Ruth he received death threats. As for Rose, yes, he should be in the Hall of Fame. The Hall of Fame is full of sinners.
So, I don't think it's third grade, I think it's a sport, which I love, that has lost its way and Bonds is being made the scapegoat!
Still, I think that if Bonds were eclipsing a white man's home run record, Chafet's argument would hold more water, but since it is one black man eclipsing another black man's record, the whole racism argument makes no sense to me in this case. Aaron did suffer a lot for breaking Ruth's record, which is all the more reason why I think he should keep the record until it is broken by a legitimate contender who doesn't cheat his way past Aaron.
I still think that talking about Bonds as a scapegoat serves as an indictment of baseball in general, but it still isn't any defense of Bonds. I have no sympathy for cheaters, even if they are scapegoats.
Now the next question is, should Shoeless Joe Jackson be in the Hall of Fame? :)