OT: Jackie Robinson anniversary

[JPostSam]

allow me to vent for a minute...

i think it's very nice that the league is marking (milking?) the anniversary of jackie robinson breaking the color barrier. it was a very important moment, not just for sports, but for america. yet something doesn't feel right.

i saw a pti segment on espn a few nights ago where they discussed whether only some (black) players should be allowed to wear jackie's universally retired number 42, or if all (even white) players should wear it. and on that count, i think the league made a mistake in not just putting a 42 patch on every player's uniform, like it or not...

but what i really don't understand is how the league could have blown the opportunity to put branch rickey, the man who had the guts to hire robinson, in the spotlight as well. apart from noting the fact of the hiring in passing, i neither saw nor heard much more on him than that.

i blame the media for this too, as someone should have done a feature or a column on him. (i'm a journalist myself, by the way.)

now, i'm writing this from overseas, so if i've missed something, let me know. but i have access to the ap wire, and i found nothing there. i have access to the la times/washington post wire, and i found nothing there. i checked the ny times -- nothing. cnn/si -- nothing.

listen, i'm not saying robinson's accomplishment should be toned down, i'm saying rickey's should be pumped up -- WAY up. why? because if this is about actually CHANGING something in society, then rickey was at least as big a hero. he was one of the people who had the power to change the situation, or keep the game as segregated as it had been for 60 years. by competing with white men, jackie robinson was cheered by other blacks. but by hiring a black man, branch rickey was booed and cursed by other whites. at the same time, he put the onus on others who, like him, were in a position to do the right thing.

yes, jackie robinson went through hell to earn the right to play the game as an equal. but without branch rickey, he might never have had that chance.

maybe i'm naive, but i thought that creating an equal society is not just about minorities sticking it out, but about majorities learning to open up so that no one has to overcome any artificial hurdles. if baseball wanted to encourage the majority to behave as honorably as rickey did, then it should have put a decent white executive on a pedastal, too.

 

[masomenos]

allow me to vent for a minute...

i think it's very nice that the league is marking (milking?) the anniversary of jackie robinson breaking the color barrier. it was a very important moment, not just for sports, but for america. yet something doesn't feel right.

i saw a pti segment on espn a few nights ago where they discussed whether only some (black) players should be allowed to wear jackie's universally retired number 42, or if all (even white) players should wear it. and on that count, i think the league made a mistake in not just putting a 42 patch on every player's uniform, like it or not...

but what i really don't understand is how the league could have blown the opportunity to put branch rickey, the man who had the guts to hire robinson, in the spotlight as well. apart from noting the fact of the hiring in passing, i neither saw nor heard much more on him than that.

i blame the media for this too, as someone should have done a feature or a column on him. (i'm a journalist myself, by the way.)

now, i'm writing this from overseas, so if i've missed something, let me know. but i have access to the ap wire, and i found nothing there. i have access to the la times/washington post wire, and i found nothing there. i checked the ny times -- nothing. cnn/si -- nothing.

listen, i'm not saying robinson's accomplishment should be toned down, i'm saying rickey's should be pumped up -- WAY up. why? because if this is about actually CHANGING something in society, then rickey was at least as big a hero. he was one of the people who had the power to change the situation, or keep the game as segregated as it had been for 60 years. by competing with white men, jackie robinson was cheered by other blacks. but by hiring a black man, branch rickey was booed and cursed by other whites. at the same time, he put the onus on others who, like him, were in a position to do the right thing.

yes, jackie robinson went through hell to earn the right to play the game as an equal. but without branch rickey, he might never have had that chance.

maybe i'm naive, but i thought that creating an equal society is not just about minorities sticking it out, but about majorities learning to open up so that no one has to overcome any artificial hurdles. if baseball wanted to encourage the majority to behave as honorably as rickey did, then it should have put a decent white executive on a pedastal, too.

Very good post.

 

[jay cee]

There is nothing wrong with celebrating Rickey, giving Robinson the opportunity was a great thing.

But he did not face anywhere near the types of pressure that Robinson faced.

If Robinson did anything but accept all of the abuse hurled at him, Rickey would just release him and say, well we tried.

I'm not trying to say that he should not be celebrated for his contributions because I too feel that he should, but I can't say that those contributions are equal to Robinson's.

 

[phillycard]

You have some validity to your post J. But what should they do? Branch Rickey day? I think those aware of Jackie's accomplishment, know how much Branch meant to it all.