As co-blogger David Post points out, Jackie Robinson's 90th birthday is an appropriate time to pay tribute to his impressive achievements. Baseball would probably have desegregated even without Robinson. If the Brooklyn Dodgers had not acted brought in Robinson when they did, other teams would likely have signed black players in the late 1940s, most notably the Cleveland Indians (who signed Larry Doby, the first black player to play in the American League a few months after Robinson first played for the Dodgers). What Robinson accomplished was to ensure that the desegregation of baseball went smoothly, with as little violence and turmoil as possible. The incredible self-control he exercised in not responding to the many racist taunts he got in that first year is difficult to imagine. Through the force of his example, Robinson also played a key role in creating a positive public image for black athletes. At a time when African-American baseball players were perhaps the most publicly visible blacks in the country and racial prejudice was far more prevalent than today, that was a very important contribution to racial progress.
With all the understandable hoopla surrounding his status as a racial pioneer, many people forget how great a player Robinson actually was. His offensive numbers show that he was probably one of the five or six best offensive second basemen of all time. He had a career .311 batting average and 883 OPS (32% better than league average, while playing a position then usually occupied by light-hitting defensive specialists). Sabermetrics pioneer Bill James has shown that Robinson was probably one of the the top defensive second basemen of all time as well. These stats understate his true abilities, however. Thanks to the combination of racial segregation and World War II, Robinson didn't reach the major leagues until he was 28. Baseball players tend to peak between the ages of 24 and 28, so Robinson probably lost most of his best seasons to segregation and war. Had he been able to play those extra 4-5 years and avoided serious injury, Robinson might have become the greatest second baseman ever. As it was, he left an even more memorable historical legacy by breaking down racial barriers.
Related Posts (on one page):
- Jackie Robinson's Achievement:
- Happy Birthday, Jackie Robinson!
At the time Robinson signed I was still a preschooler, but I collected baseball cards. By the time the Dodgers fled west I had long lost interest in baseball.
Jackie Robinson cards were prized, so I sought them out despite my collection focus on my favorite team, the Yankees. I think I collected that entire team over a few years. There. I've said it.
All that aside, I recall vividly some of the hoopla over Robinson's signing, which lasted several years -- not so much what I heard from news and sports announcers on the radio, but the attitudes I saw in everyday people, on the the playground, at church, and at the barbershop.
It was a stark introduction to racial prejudice as well as my introduction to whatever one calls the flip side of that, the people who just loved baseball and didn't give a rip about skin color, who just said "Play ball! Murder da bums![1]"
I wondered then, and still do, what the heck is with these people who think that the game is about the color of the player's skin instead of the color of his hat?
[1] No offense to old time Dodgers fans, really!
December 13, 1956: Traded by the Brooklyn Dodgers to the New York Giants for Dick Littlefield and $30,000. Jackie Robinson refused to report to his new team. Trade was voided and players returned on December 13, 1956.
As the story goes, Robinson did not want to play for the hated rivals across the river, so he nobly retired instead.
Don't we wish that Johnny Damon had followed his example....
As I understand it (he retired way before I was even born), he would sometimes deliberately try to get caught in a rundown to help advance another runner or to advance himself and cause chaos.
Don't forget his brilliant college career at UCLA: All-American football, track and tennis star as well. And he played basketball.
It's interesting to note that while he endured the racist attacks as a player, he wasn't so willing while in the military. See "The Court Martial of Jackie Robinson" for details.
No, I wish Tom Yawkey had followed Branch Rickey's. Instead, the Sox's history is as shameful as Robinson's and Rickey's is inspiring.
And he made a good cup of coffee.
Unless I miss the joke, I think that was Joe Dimaggio?
Moses Fleetwood Walker is generally considered to have been the first African-American Major League Baseball Player. The Big Leagues (The NL and the AA) instituted the color line in the 1880s or 1890s.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moses_Fleetwood_Walker
Jackie Robinson is arguably the most important American social figure of the 20th century. No need to insult the man on his birthday.
I learned something new today.
he put Robinson on the field, he subjected him to a battery of the taunts and slurring jeers that would inevitably come his way. Indeed they did come, but Robinson, with great restraint and dignity, gave no indication of even hearing them. Eventually they petered out, as the foulmouths realized what they were up against.
The "taunts" didn't stop when Robinson took off the uniform.
Usint "taunts" metaphorically as well as literally.
Among other major differences.
On the very slight chance that this is a sincere question, let me answer it.
Yes.
Robinson was treated worse than any modern player. Much worse. Orders of magnitude worse. Got it?
I'm a Giants fan and well aware of how other fans treated Bonds. The answer to your question is yes. Emphatically yes.
RSwan
Jackie Robinson was taunted, abused, thrown at, knocked down, spiked.... Read Jules Tygiel's "The Great Experiment" for more details.
Branch Rickey selected Robinson because he was highly talented, but also because he was well-educated, a straight arrow, and younger than the established black stars, who were more talented and experienced; but who also carried considerable baggage that--to Rickey--made them unfit to be trail-blazers.
erp: Jackie Robinson reminded you of Bush??? His deal with Rickey to take whatever was thrown at him was for one year only. After that Robinson quickly became known for being a "red ass," who would not take any guff from anyone.
Roger, there's no shame in not knowing any of this, but what surprises me is that you seem surprised by it. This was 1947. Jim Crowe. Years later, southern governors were leading popular resistance to integrating universities, restaurants, etc. Shouldn't you have been surprised if the first black man to integrate an American institution like baseball wasn't subjected to duress and abuse?
Look at it this way. If ugly resistance wasn't taken for granted, why wouldn't baseball have integrated sooner? It's not as if black players were being kept out because they weren't good enough.
Black players were kept out of MLB, but not baseball. They played in the Negro leagues.
I don't think that anyone has claimed that black players were kept from playing baseball. Surely you're not presenting an implicit "separate but equal" argument?
It's hard for me to gauge if this is a comment made out of honest ignorance, or if you're actually trying to provoke people.
Yes, Barry took some crap. There were even a few death threats. None of it came close in any way to the threats Mr Robinson experienced, not to mention the actual attacks or the fact that Bonds is actually guilty of criminal acts
And just to explain this to Mr. Schafly, in case he honestly doesn't realize this, the statement that he "had to stay at a different hotel" rather mischaracterizes Jim Crow America, which was certainly separate, but not so much equal. The "hotels" for blacks often involved staying at a local black family's home. The "restaurants" for blacks often involved eating on the bus while the white players went into the restaurant.
And needless to say, Jackie Robinson was not comforted by $200,000,000 in earnings at the end of the day, the way Barry Bonds is.
And isn't it much nicer to stay in a family's house and get home-cooked food than a hotel all the time? Yet that's somehow considered a bad thing?
The treatment of Robinson violated the founding principles of the country your mother holds quite dear, if I'm not mistaken. How far did you fall from that tree?
Any other questions?
But then Tek noted how every black man gets a boost from the MSM. And Jackie got like twice the boost Obama did!
What America really needs is one of those put-upon white men who had to pick themselves up by their bootstraps without any Affirmative Action.
He was clearly being sarcastic.
Robinson reminds me of Bush the way he was able to let all the insults and taunts roll off his back while he just put his down and did his job in the best way he knew how. Heroes both of them."
Bush's baseball legacy has been ignored by the MSM. He was responsible for the Rangers' pennant success in early '90's. He single-handled built their new stadium in Fort Worth without taking a dime in taxpayer funds (pre-Kelo of course). But he is best known for bringing the ace Iraqi player "Curveball" into the major leagues. Curveball was a master at "inside the beltway" baseball. Unfortunately, he struck out in his most important appearances and was later found to be been a major user of "Saddam steriods", the mere rumor of which was used to intimidate opposing teams into thinking that a Hillerich &Bradbury was really a missile of mass destruction. He stole home and millions of dollars during his career.
At this point I'm piling on, but other players didn't face as many, nor were they racially motivated (as opposed to personal).
Sorry, I thought this was a right-to-work blog.
I guess the shop foreman wants to have a talk with me?
BTW, I originally thought that the expression "before you can say Jack Robinson" was a reference to the baseball player. There are different stories about the origin of the expression -- here is one:
Another story:
I think the real hostility could be explained on several levels:
1. The economic (we'll call it the Ilya) rationale: many of the players had played exhibition series against the Negro Leagues, and had seen firsthand how amazing some of those players were. Either consciously or subconsciously, this economic fear (loss of jobs) became translated into the usual "fear of the other" scapegoat. See also, immigration.
2. Cultural attitudes. Sports is often an escape valve from lower or lower-middle class. There was a large component of Southern players (go figure). They were brought up to believe in the whole "separate but equal" thing (see also Schafly, Roger).
3. Tribe loyalty. Teams are, well, teams (except the 25 players, 25 cabs Red Sox). Especially back then when you took the train together, roomed together, ate together, played together. You only needed a few marginal players afraid of their jobs (1) or Southern players with their cultural attitudes (2) to be vociferous in their criticism for that to become the "team belief". If you have 5-8 hard-core "racists", the rest of the team is likely to condone it by their silence, or to back up their assertions for team loyalty.
4. The milieus. There were several playing areas that were still very racist. While there were no Southern teams yet (sorry, Atlanta), other places such as St. Louis (see above) were not known for their tolerance. It would be popular for the team to mimic the fanbase, and, conversely, a wise player would not take the endorsement hit by speaking out (most endorsements then were local, and paychecks were small).
Does that help?
As the story goes, Robinson did not want to play for the hated rivals [across the river,] so he nobly retired instead.
Don't we wish that Johnny Damon had followed his example....
</blockquote>
It was the Dodgers who traded Robinson to the supposedly hated Giants. Why are players supposed to sho more loyalty to teams than teams show to them? Baseball is a business, to a large extent. It keeps its fan base by winning. Carrying a player past his useful baseball life is costly to the goal f the team as well as to its bottom line. If loyalty was so important, the Dodgers wouldn't have traded him.
As for the Red Sox, did you know they were the last team to have a Black player?
And if they had signed Damon to the same contract he got with the Yahkees, he would be sitting on the bench. Jacoby Ellsbury would be the center fielder, and Manny/Jason Bey in left. DH would be Ortiz. Damon can't play RF-- no arm. The Sox didn't need Damon long tern, and wouldn't sign him ling term. He signed a long term contract while he still had superb skills. Good for him. The Yankees overpaid.
I don't see that much difference between team sports and individual sports. The public had plenty of time to get used to the idea of black athletes. I just think that all-white major-league baseball teams were sort of a tradition, that's all.
Yeah, like lawn jockeys.
This is an off-topic issue, but you are the one who raised it.
Unless people dress like Jews or have side-curls or something like that, there are no objective and reliable ways of identifying Jews and non-Jews, except perhaps by DNA testing, which might be able to detect whether one has Ashkenazic Jewish ancestry, but the Nazis did not have DNA testing. Judaism is a religion, not a race.
To further the threadjack,
In 20th-century Poland many Jews did dress distinctively. They also were the ones who didn't eat with or marry the others, they spoke distinctive languages/dialects, and in cities lived in separate areas.
While you are correct in your statement, the "unless" swallows the whole thing. Most Jews in mid-20th centruy Poland were highly recognizable.
Returning to the topic at hand, Roger Schafly's historical ignorance suggests a larger problem with the debate over discrimination. People who have not encountered discrimination, either as targets, perpetrators, or associates of either, tend to not realize what it's like. While it is legitimate (and IMHO correct) to oppose the currently-suggested remedies for discrimination (badly-written, unclear legislation authorizing punitive lawsuits, affirmative action, etc), the debate often polarizes on the question of "It's not so bad"/"It's worse," rather than "This remedy will make things worse"/"It'll fix things." Since in the latter case the argument against the remedy is stronger, while in the former case the argument is weaker, the cause of stopping the expansion of antidiscrimination law is weakened by people's ignorance. Discrimination really is that bad, and antidiscrimination laws as currently constituted really are that counterproductive. Yet too much energy is spent arguing against the first statement and too little arguing for the second.
The problem, though, is that the long history of discrimination in the U.S. poses an extremely difficult problem for libertarians, at least those of the "government shouldn't regulate the employment relationship" types. After all, it was private economic actors discriminating in an obvious, pervasive, and very harmful way towards blacks and women (and in some cases, other groups). The attempts by some libertarians to argue that somehow the practices of so many private employers over so many decades was somehow mostly or entirely the fault of "government" are perhaps the most unconvincing of all libertarian tropes.
And, even if one disagrees with affirmative action or other particular aspects of current anti-discrimination law (and reasonable minds can), I don't think there's a serious argument that Title VII hasn't generally improved employment prospects for, say, blacks and women.
But to agree to the above two paragraphs -- which the vast majority of Americans would -- is to cast some significant doubt on a central belief of some libertarians: that the market will, at least most of the time, prevent irrational and harmful race and sex discrimination, and therefore government intervention is (as pretty much always in this sort of theory) unnecessary.
Anyway, hooray for Jackie Robinson!!!
1) Discrimination leads to subpar results, as you turn away qualified people and attract less qualified, more bigoted people.
2) Either the discriminator is forced out of business and replaced in the market with nondiscriminators, or it just becomes a lousy entity (bad place to work or live, etc)
3) Eventually it stops discriminating in order to not be so lousy
(1) is pretty much borne out by ths history of Jim Crow. The South lagged behind the rest of the country economically, and even now the more racist parts are the more economically backward.
(2) is partially borne out by the same.
Where libertarian analysis goes wrong is that bigots seem to be willing to accept a larger degree of backwardness in exchange for keeping their bigotry than libertarians (who are unwilling to make that tradeoff) think anyone would. Thus the market punishes oppression, but not enough to cause reform.
Against Joseph Slater's main point, I would argue that under Jim Crow, politics resembled the modern Arab world in that many whites (moderates) were intimidated by the establishment and thugs (extremist 'ulema and terrorists) into tacitly going along with Jim Crow (violent hatred of the West). The Civil Rights legislation, by breaking the power of the enforcers of Jim Crow, allowed private actors to discriminate less. While some legislation and enforcement was necessary--and some antidiscrimination law is--I would argue that what we have now is overkill, created by the unjustified judicial expansion of reasonably-worded legislation (essentially, I accept disparate-intent but reject disparate-impact).
2) Either the discriminator is forced out of business and replaced in the market with nondiscriminators, or it just becomes a lousy entity (bad place to work or live, etc)
3) Eventually it stops discriminating in order to not be so lousy
The trouble is that #1 does not hold in a racist society. In fact, it's just the opposite. In many cases hiring blacks would offend customers and co-workers to the degree that, regardless of the merit of the black employee, the results would be negative for the business.
This is why baseball owners were so slow to integrate their teams. Of course they were aware of the Negro Leagues and its stars. These black stars mostly never reached the major leagues not because of a lack of talent, but because, libertarians notwithstanding, hiring them would have been economically damaging.
It is important not confuse a worker's talent, skill, and diligence with his productivity. A black worker's productivity may be severely limited by surrounding racism, a factor out of his control.
Thoughtful libertarians do not say, in other words, that Jim Crow would have evaporated spontaneously; we say that Jim Crow would have evaporated if the government had actually provided equal protection of the laws. That is, had law enforcement actually investigated and prosecuted racist violence, such that, e.g., merchants could serve all their customers equally without fear of being assaulted or having their businesses burnt down, then merchants would have done so.
Incidentally, note that you describe the standard libertarian case thusly:But don't forget, blacks really were less qualified, again because of the government. By educating white citizens but not black ones (or at least the former much more than the latter), the government made it rational for private individual employers to discriminate based on race. So the libertarian analysis doesn't "go wrong" so much as it is doesn't fully apply because it is thwarted by governmental discrimination.
Best,
Ben
What does it do for yours? It took the owners a half-century to sign one black player, and another couple of decades to really integrate. I'd say that's an awfully slow process to rely on.
My argument is that there was sufficient change in society that it no longer was economically necessary to maintain all-white teams. It helped that there no teams in the south until 1965. (I'm not claiming northerners were angels, just that there was some difference in racial attitudes). My argument is not that the libertarian claim can never hold, just that there are many factors to consider, and that there will often be situations where social attitudes make hiring minorities unprofitable.
we say that Jim Crow would have evaporated if the government had actually provided equal protection of the laws. That is, had law enforcement actually investigated and prosecuted racist violence, such that, e.g., merchants could serve all their customers equally without fear of being assaulted or having their businesses burnt down, then merchants would have done so.
I think you overestimate the impact of violence and underestimate the impact of social attitudes. A restaurant owner who served black customers in the Jim Crow south would have lost his white business very quickly. No need for the Klan to get involved.
Also, I think the claim about the laws has the causation backwards. The state segregation laws existed because that's what the voters wanted. They were not imposed on an unwilling white populace. They were the enormously popular result of white racism. Just look at the southern political campaigns of the era. They mostly consisted of candidates competing to see who was the stauncher segregationist. Again, it was the racist society that was at the root of the problem.
It doesn't hold on a small scale, you're right. In a racist society, the way to achieve a local maximum is to discriminate. But that local maximum is smaller than the global maximum you get by being in a non-racist society.
But don't forget, blacks really were less qualified, again because of the government. By educating white citizens but not black ones (or at least the former much more than the latter), the government made it rational for private individual employers to discriminate based on race.
My point with that was that white citizens were less qualified than whites elsewhere. Why improve yourself when you can tear down your competition instead? Why make yourself superior through achievements when you can declare yourself superior through blood? And a society like that will push away smart people who don't like racism, and fail to attract smart people from elsewhere.
You don't have to be the dominant social class to screw things up by discrimination.
I think MLB is a particularly bad example for libertarians. It took roughly 65 years to get from Moses Fleetwood Walker to Jackie Robinson (and, as byomtov notes, 25 years after that for full integration). During that time no law whatsoever barred blacks from MLB, and unenforced laws against violence don't seem to have been an issue. That's a long time for libertarians to explain.
I do mostly agree with David that "Thoughtful libertarians do not say, in other words, that Jim Crow would have evaporated spontaneously; we say that Jim Crow would have evaporated if the government had actually provided equal protection of the laws." While I think "evaporated" is too strong a word, there's no doubt that enforcement of the law -- that is, government action -- would have done a great deal to mitigate the worst aspects of segregation. If libertarians would limit themselves to this argument, instead of going as far as Prof. Somin does or David did earlier in the thread, their arguments would be more persuasive.
But you are treating "government" as somehow exogeneous to the broader society. A state government that provided this kind of protection would not exist in a heavily racist society.
Yes it is smaller, but you can't get to the global maximum in a racist society.
I don't think you can put Robinson in the discussion for best second basemen of all time. He only played 4.5 seasons at second base, and while he was great during this brief span, it's not nearly enough.
Who knows where he would rank if he had a full career under normal conditions, but the position is not nearly as weak as some like to think: Napoleon Lajoie, Rogers Hornsby, Eddie Collins, Charlie Gehringer, Rod Carew and Joe Morgan set the bar pretty high. Of course, that will all be forgotten when Jeff Kent appears on the ballot, as it was when Ryne Sandberg retired.
Also note that Robinson played in NY with a road schedule that included Boston, Chicago, Philly and Pitt. I mention this for people who like to think that racism, segregation and abuse were confined to the South.
Exactly my point. The fact that you can't get to the global maximum in a racist society is the manifestation of the market punishing suboptimal decisions (the decision to be racist). The problem is that societies choose to remain racist (sexist, superstitious, whatever) rather than change so they can get to the global maximum.
I agree, though I think it's at least possible that a government would prevent violence against blacks while doing little to make them equal citizens. I'd call that "the North".
The argument in Robinson's favor gives him credit for wartime service and time lost to segregation. IOW, it gives him hypothetical credit for the missing 6-7 years he would have had through no fault of his own. That's a pretty common thing to do in such discussions (the same is true for Joe DiMaggio and Ted Williams). If you do that, Robinson probably comes out about 4th or 5th all time (clearly behind Morgan, Collins and Hornsby), and probably about equal with Gehringer.
There have been a number of studies on this over the last 25 years or so. Bill James first pointed it out in the early 80s.
You don't happen to be Jack Balkin by any chance? If so, what are you doing commenting here? I thought that you were opposed to the idea of visitors' comments on blogs -- you turned off commenting on your own blog, Balkinization.
Supposedly many Jewish victims of the Nazis were completely assimilated Jews who did not even think of themselves as Jews. Also, I have seen pictures of some of the Nazis' "Jewish" victims who did not look like Jews. Also, people would have been foolish to look like Jews in Nazi-occupied Europe.
A legend about Denmark says that the Nazis told Danish Jews to identify themselves by wearing stars of David and the king wore a star of David and asked other non-Jewish Danes to do the same and the Nazis were completely non-plussed.
The book "IBM and the Holocaust" by Edwin Black claims that the Nazis identified all of the Jews of Europe by using primitive IBM Hollerith machines to process data stored on billions of Hollerith cards. How ridiculous -- even if all the necessary data had been available, the machines could read, sort, and merge just a few cards at a time.
I could go on and on -- more discussion is in two "Holocaust revisionism" post-label groups listed in the sidebar of the homepage of my blog I'm from Missouri.
This hijacking of this comment thread is all David Nieporent's fault -- he couldn't resist the temptation to attack my views about the holocaust. His attack was completely uncalled-for -- he was responding to my statement that I don't see a big difference between team sports and individual sports so far as racial discrimination is concerned.
Larry Doby was also the second African-American to manage a major league team, hired by the same man who brought him in as a player, Bill Veeck.
As for laws causing racism, keep in mind that government services, including schools, were segregated. If people had actually been going to integrated schools all those years, do you think their attitudes would have been the same?
MLB did not segregate instantaneously via the market, but it did so faster than the government desegregated society via fiat. (And this isn't a federalism/states rights issue, where a local majority is a national minority, because as you yourself note (though slightly overstated*), MLB was a Northern institution.) One can't base an argument about the need for government/ineffectiveness of the market in combating segregation on a situation where the market did a better job.
* No, there weren't Deep South teams until '66. But St. Louis and Baltimore (1954) were Southern; D.C. wasn't exactly north of the Mason-Dixon line either. And Houston entered the league in 1962.
I am not Jack Balkin. I don't even have a blog, unless you count a friends-only livejournal I rarely post in.
Supposedly many Jewish victims of the Nazis were completely assimilated Jews who did not even think of themselves as Jews. Also, I have seen pictures of some of the Nazis' "Jewish" victims who did not look like Jews. Also, people would have been foolish to look like Jews in Nazi-occupied Europe.
A legend about Denmark says that the Nazis told Danish Jews to identify themselves by wearing stars of David and the king wore a star of David and asked other non-Jewish Danes to do the same and the Nazis were completely non-plussed.
The German Jews were completely assimilated, or so they thought. In urbanized industrial/modern Europe, Jews generally were very assimilated. That does not hold for rural, agricultural Eastern Europe. In all those places, Jews were very different from their cobelievers to the west. Not coincidentally, the survival rate in the more assimilable countries was significantly higher--for some reason, Danes, Dutch, Italians, and Frenchmen who knew Jews personally proved more willing to save them than Poles, Ukrainians, and Russians who...did not.
I agree, however, that this is a total threadjack. It is an interesting topic, nevertheless.
I'm going to switch sides here, or play the devil's advocate, or something.
The willingness of people in general, and localist authoritarians in particular, to try to enshrine their preferences in law, even absent any threat, is pretty well established. That's how we get everything from the drug war to penalties for sexual offenses escalating far beyond the underlying crime level. I would have no problem believing that, rather than fearing legalization of integration, Southern racists were so sure and so proud of their racism that they wanted to pass the laws just to make what was legal coincide with what they thought was right.
It's the "that's bad, m'kay, let's ban it" school of legal thought, which is alive and well on all parts of the political spectrum.
If no places were trying to serve blacks, what prompted the laws?
I don't think you can support the contention that the laws were motivated by this sort of economic analysis. Irrational ideas like racism can surely produce irrational laws. There is no reason the segregation laws have to have reflected any calculation beyond a general dislike of blacks.
The problem here is that your argument doesn't prove what you want it to. Yes, it's true that it takes "sufficient change in society" before the market will defeat segregation, but it also takes "sufficient change in society" before the government will defeat segregation.
MLB did not segregate instantaneously via the market, but it did so faster than the government desegregated society via fiat.
What MLB proves to me is that the market can be glacially slow to act, and therefore government intervention is often desirable.
Further, that MLB desegregated via the market does not prove that the market will always produce desegregation, even if given plenty of time. Nor does it prove that the government shouldn't be active in fighting segregation. Your criticism seems to be that the government should have acted earlier. I agree. But that's a far cry from saying the government shouldn't act, or that its actions are unnecessary.
Now, you may be arguing that government intervention is seldom needed, because for the government to get around to it social conditions must have changed so much that economic forces will do the job anyway. But that's untrue.
For example, discrimination in employment was widespread in the Jim Crow era, yet it was not usually mandated by state law. How long would it have lasted? Who knows? The MLB time frame is not encouraging. So I think the anti-employment discrimination provisions of the 1964 Civil Rights Act were valuable and needed and surely accelerated the process.
It's not clear to me, David, what you think the appropriate role of government in these matters is. Are things like equal employment laws a bad idea, or just, in your opinion, unneeded?
I don't think the passage of 65 years is much of an argument in favor of the "market". Even so, MLB was not "the market", it was one single industry. At the rate of 65 years per industry, "the market" would have integrated ... well, to a first order approximation, never.
I don't have the citation here at work, but Bill James argued years ago that the statistics showed that the _average_ player peaks around 27. Players like Clemens who maintain a high level of excellence into and beyond their late 30's stick in our mind because of their stardom and long-term success, but the average player flames out well before then. Pull up a major league roster online from 20-30 years ago and see how many of those players made it past 30 at all, let alone where they had their best years.
Of course, James made that argument 20 years ago. It is possible that he has revised it in light of better therapeutic and training methods available today.
Yes, the standard libertarian move is to fault "the government" for not protecting private businesses from "violence" if they integrated (and a few other things that haven't been mentioned yet, like licensing requirements). Except, as Bymotov notes, fear of violence has never been the main reason businesses don't integrate. There are all sorts of other reasons -- including the economically "rational" one that if my customers are bigots and therefore won't patronize my restaurant if I have a black cook, it doesn't matter how good of a cook that black guy is.
Also, employment discrimination was (and is) not at all limited to the Jim Crow south, where there were more formal institutes of discrimination. It existed (and in some ways still does exist) widely in the north as well.
Futher, there was massive, explicit employment discrimination against women (and in some cases other groups), which persisted in times and places that had no analogy to Jim Crow for women.
Employment discrimination was caused first and foremost by private actors acting for some reasons that are economically irrational and some reasons that are actually economically rational in the short-term/small picture, but very socially harmful in the big picture. Government involvement, imperfect as it may have been, was needed to improve that situation, and did in fact improve that situation.
This status structure was further enshrined in the Constitution.
The strong anti-slave trade movements and the power of the English navy also came to play in the early 19th century. The English efforts could only be successful if they were willing to ban the slave trade in toto - not take it over from the French or the Spanish.
One particular threat was the Haitian revolt against the French which fed into white fears of insurrection by black slaves in the South that further encouraged repression. That Haitian Revolt also prompted the Louisiana Purchase (Louisiana Sale for Napoleon).
These are some of the legacies that came forward through the civil war. The post-Reconstruction resurgence of the landed gentry in the South and hostility to black competition in the South and the North were a further overlay on the economics side. Since blacks were essentially disenfranchised post-Reconstruction from the vote the process of wielding any power at the ballot box meant that government was also controlled by interests intent on preserving white privilege and supremacy in the south and the north.
One of the big factors in changing the manner in which all this was looked at was the work of Thurgood Marshall (directly or indirectly) in the 40's and pre-Brown in the 50's to bring challenges to the discrimination in transportation, housing, voting (the white primary), criminal law, and education.
I would encourage you to read some of the opinions in those cases from the 40's and 50's and the palpable aversion of whites in that period recognized by the courts (particularly the state courts) to any equal contact between whites and blacks. That aversion has a very long pedigree of which Jim Crow was only the latest manifestation.
You have to also look at the pressure on Truman to desegregate the military at that time. Also, the Cold War battles for hearts in mind created a complication on the international plane for those who were trying to maintain white privilege in the South that was detrimental to other interests in the world of the United States (this period also included the decolonization of significant parts of Africa).
Jackie Robinson entering MLB comes in a context of all these things and the context has economic, social, political and other elements that played out then. Those currents also play out today - in a different manner and joined by others for which I do not have the long view to be able to tease out the data yet. But, you could see the playing to that long history in some of the comments made about whites not being willing to vote for a black in the Pennsylvania and Ohio primaries by Hillary Clinton for example.
Best,
Ben
Bacon's Rebellion.
Repeating myself but, for example, the Red Sox.
You're probably right. I was thinking of a lot of the additional sex offender laws, where in order to look tough on crime politicians expand the no-go zone from 500 to 1000 to 2500 yards or something, with no real understanding of how far that is, just that the number looks nicely round and big, and no particular famous molestation case in recent memory. But the memory of the original famous one probably lasts longer than I thought, so ultimately I don't think I have any counterexamples.
Blacks suffered discrimination even beyond that ordered by law, for example, not being allowed to try on or return clothing from department stores, which AFAIK was enforced only by custom.
Conservatives and libertarians can try engaging with history as it actually occurred, or they can snark about the components that don't agree with their pre-existent philosophy.
If you have a comment about spelling, typos, or format errors, please e-mail the poster directly rather than posting a comment.
Comment Policy: We reserve the right to edit or delete comments, and in extreme cases to ban commenters, at our discretion. Comments must be relevant and civil (and, especially, free of name-calling). We think of comment threads like dinner parties at our homes. If you make the party unpleasant for us or for others, we'd rather you went elsewhere. We're happy to see a wide range of viewpoints, but we want all of them to be expressed as politely as possible.
We realize that such a comment policy can never be evenly enforced, because we can't possibly monitor every comment equally well. Hundreds of comments are posted every day here, and we don't read them all. Those we read, we read with different degrees of attention, and in different moods. We try to be fair, but we make no promises.
And remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.