data.3news-bydate.train.rec.sport.baseball.105160 Maven / Gradle / Ivy
From: [email protected] (Roger Lustig)
Subject: Re: Bonilla
Originator: news@nimaster
Nntp-Posting-Host: crux.princeton.edu
Reply-To: [email protected] (Roger Lustig)
Organization: Princeton University
Lines: 37
In article <[email protected]> [email protected] (Mike Fester) writes:
>In article <[email protected]> [email protected] (Roger Lustig) writes:
>>When I say "black," I mean US-born black people for the purposes of this
>>discussion. Hispanic players were in baseball before 1947, and one
>>team in the 50's signed lots of hispanics because they went over better
>>with the local audience than blacks did.
>What about black hispanics?
Good question. It's my impression, not backed by evidence, that general
south-of-the-borderness seems to exempt one from the hiring-firing effect
I was talking about.
Back in the 20's there were some attempts to hire black Cuban ballplayers;
they were rejected by the commissioner and others.
>>>And why would more hispanics stick around than blacks?
>>Don't know. But remember: this is the country that had special racial
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>laws for one group and one group only: blacks. Our national history
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Man, you had better do some SERIOUS reading. I really, really doubt that you
>meant to say this.
Well, what *did* I mean to say? Aside from some short-lived exceptions
such as Japanese internment in WW II, only blacks were affected by laws
regarding: slavery, Jim Crow, miscegenation, military service, etc. If
my claim of exclusivity is not 100% airtight, that is, if you can come
up with this or that exception, fine -- have a cookie. But compared to
this list, no other racial group put up with a legal onslaught worth
discussing at length.
Roger