Ty Cobb Not a Racist

[howard]

Author of a new bio on Olbermann makes this claim. Youtube to follow. Fascinating.

His grandfather and great grandfather were abolitionists; his father a politician who represented Negro constituent causes. Cobb is quoted on race only once, in 1953, speaking in support of Negroes right to play in the major leagues. He regularly appeared at Negro League games.

Earlier bio slandered Cobb in this regard.

Until the Olbermann youtube is posted, settle for this:

[howard]

Here's an article by a dude who was instrumental in establishing a Ty Cobb museum in Georgia.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/4350 ... t-a-racist" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[sancarlos]

I think Buck hit it on the head when he said that Ty Cobb was a mean guy who hated everybody, black and white. Lots of documentation of nastiness by Cobb, in general. He was a Georgia cracker who thought he was superior to blacks, but as Buck noted, that was the common sentiment of whites of his background at that time.

Now, I understand if you don't judge him by today's standards and charitably say he was a man of his time and place. But, I'm pretty unconvinced of any argument that he wasn't racist.

[howard]

Here's the olbermann piece - they didn't put it on youtube, kept it on the wwlis site

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[sancarlos]

Here's the olbermann piece - they didn't put it on youtube, kept it on the wwlis site

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Fascinating. I will read this book.

[howard]

Me too. I love it when stuff that everybody 'knows' is true is proven otherwise. And this is certainly intriguing.

[mister d]

Figured this would be a Simmons and Wahlberg 30 for 30 arguing you can't prove he was without video evidence.

[howard]

Here's the video. DVD too.

[brian]

Jesus, Robert Wuhl had second billing in that movie?

[DC47]

This is fascinating to me. As a Tigers fan since I could walk, I've been a big Cobb fan since I learned to read. The Stump books and the movie based on them were certainly convincing to me, though I subscribed to the view that the bitter, emotionally-scarred Cobb was hateful to all types of human beings.

If Leerhson's comments are grounded in solid research, then I've been wrong about Cobb.

This points me to something I've been trying to figure out my whole life about southern (and northern) racism.

I come from a southern family on my father's side, going back to at least the early 1700s in Virginia. My father grew up in Louisville. I've spent time in the south. Two of my closest friends grew up in Georgia, Alabama and North Carolina.

My take is that there has long been much less of a 'racism gap' between north and south than is commonly believed to the be case. That is, there is more in the north, and less in the south, than most expect.

Part of this has to do with how you define racism. Race relations are more complex in the south than many northerners appear to grasp. I wonder if Cobb is an example of this complexity. It is quite possible for a southerner, especially one born in reconstructionist Georgia, to grow up in close relations with blacks in their neighborhoods and even homes. It's possible in that setting, even when segregation was the law, to behave towards them with just as much civility and compassion as you feel towards whites. And at the same time, you can believe that there are fundamental differences between the races such that blacks are broadly inferior.

As southern whites grew up, often surrounded by real-world black people in many settings (even if segregation was the law) rather than just ideas about race (as is common in much of the north where few black people are living and/or there is considerable de facto segregation), many southerners modified their childhood ideas to include the empirical observation that many blacks are better in many ways than many whites. And that regardless of the distribution of abilities and virtues, blacks deserve the same opportunities and rights as whites.

My observation is that many southern whites are quite comfortable around blacks and respond to them as equals, even if they come from an explicitly racist backgrounds. Many northern whites who espouse liberal racial ideas and disdain the behavior of southern whites, are not all that comfortable and can only try hard to awkwardly fake the interpersonal equality thing.

I wonder if this is the case with Cobb, at least the older Cobb who had a lot of experience out in the world beyond rural Georgia, and time to forge his own character and independent opinions? It's quite possible that he was not a consistently gentle soul. Though almost certainly nicer than in Stump's protrayal. But it's also quite possible that he was as comfortable around blacks as around whites (that is, equally prickly), and that he believed strongly in civil rights before this was the norm in white society. And that he acted on these beliefs, which many liberal northerners of his generation (or any) conveniently did not find the opportunity to do.

This is an awkward way to state complex views on a controversial topic. But I thought I'd give it a try, if for no other reason to clarify my own inchoate views. I invite comment and criticism. I acknowledge in advance that I am a Tom Brady-loving racist. [That first part at least is 100% humor.]

I look forward to reading this book both as a fan of Cobb both as someone who is still trying to figure out the race thing, and in particular the north-south angle.

[sancarlos]

There was an old cliche saying about northern and southern racism. It went, a northerner doesn't care how big a black man gets, he just doesn't want him to get too close. And, a southerner doesn't care how close a black man gets, he just doesn't want him to get too big.

[howard]

There was an old cliche saying about northern and southern racism. It went, a northerner doesn't care how big a black man gets, he just doesn't want him to get too close. And, a southerner doesn't care how close a black man gets, he just doesn't want him to get too big.

I like that.

My take is that there has long been much less of a 'racism gap' between north and south than is commonly believed to the be case. That is, there is more in the north, and less in the south, than most expect.

I share that view, as well as agreement with all of your post. Granted, I've have spent very little time in the south (unless you consider central Pennsylvania and Anne Aruendal County, Maryland as the south extended.) I think this is the case, and I offer some historic quirks to explain the misperception.

First, lynchings. The most notorious and memorable incidents, and I would guess the majority of vigilante lynchings occurred south of the Mason Dixon, especially if you count southern regions of Indiana and Illinois (and north-central California.) However, (and this is just a guess, I've never read any numbers to this effect,) if you count cop killings of negroes in big cities from the 30s through the 60s as the moral equivalent of a middle of the night mob lynching (and the said negro is just as dead), these numbers will even out.

Second, the political dynamics of the enforcement of the 60s civil rights era. For a variety of reasons, (and I would bet mostly more or less innocent reasons) federal forced integration of secondary and higher education institutions was focused on the south. The justice department did not choose in 1962 to integrate Harvard Medical School, but they chose U of Alabama (and again, I am not suggesting particularly nefarious reasons.) And history gives us all kinds of memorable images and incidents. If you forcibly integrate Boston city schools the same year as Little Rock, you get the same reaction (as you did when Boston city schools were forcibly integrated in 1977.)

Again for a variety of reasons, the northern urban riots of 1965-68 did not translate as starkly in the public imagination as manifestations of raw racism as did the largely peaceful (on the part of black people) resistance in the south of the prior decade. Which is kinda weird, when you think about it, (which I have, a lot.)

Also, the 'white fathers' bias of historic narrative, of civil rights something 'granted' by Kennedy, Johnson, Warren and other Washington DC politicians and judges flows as a series of good deeds performed by Northern politicians (LBJ honorary northern n*##er lover.) A gift from the North to the backward South. Hell, goes back to Father Abe.

But most importantly, w/o trying to quantify the racism of one region to that of another, life of whites and blacks was very different north and south (as dc47 describes.) Racism was a different flavor because of the separation/lack thereof north and south. The actual differences in quality led to misestimation of quantity.

Just another example of things that everyone (in the north and west) 'knew to be true', that just wasn't so.

[DC47]

There was an old cliche saying about northern and southern racism. It went, a northerner doesn't care how big a black man gets, he just doesn't want him to get too close. And, a southerner doesn't care how close a black man gets, he just doesn't want him to get too big.

How did I live so long and miss an old cliche? This captures a good bit of what I was grasping at.

Though it doesn't get it all. I think a lot of people, north and south, don't want the black man (or woman) to get too big. And many southerners are actually fine with this. But racism is complex, and while they may be fine with contiguity and recognize black excellence in all fields, they may still have pretty strong feelings about black culture being widely dysfunctional that are rooted in historic racism (that they were raised in) that makes for biased observation (of behavior that is in their everyday world). Northern whites may not comment about dysfunctional culture both because this is now a taboo in liberal northern circles and because they live de facto segregated lives so they are nowhere near any dysfunctional behavior.

Put another way, it's a lot easier not to believe in black dysfunction if your white kids are not being beat up every day by black kids. This doesn't make you less a carrier of racist beliefs.

This can be complex stuff.

[howard]

I wish I could not believe in black dysfunction. But what am I gonna believe, guilty delusional white liberals or my own eyes?

[DC47]

That's an interesting bit of math re: lynchings and cop killings. I hadn't thought of it like this, though the killings are quite a bit like functional lynching, just handled by agents of a government institution rather than by the public (with the institution looking carefully the other way.)

Minor note of interest: what I believe is considered the last lynching was the topic of the famous song Billie Holliday sang, 'Strange Fruit'. The event took place well north of Indianapolis.

And history gives us all kinds of memorable images and incidents. If you forcibly integrate Boston city schools the same year as Little Rock, you get the same reaction (as you did when Boston city schools were forcibly integrated in 1977.)

This is another thing I partly missed. It's obvious that integration in Boston was massively opposed. It was 'Little Rock, North' in many ways. But if it had happened in the first round of school integration it would most likely have been even more vigorously opposed, and it would have made for a much bigger story. Instead, Little Rock became iconic, rather than Boston (or Cleveland or Philly, etc). Another image that damns the south and lets the north off relatively easy on racism.

Non-southerners generally treat the notion that there is prejudice against southern whites regarding racism as nonsense. They just know that the average southerner is quite a bit more racist. Even as the child of a southern man (living in the north) it took me a long time to grasp that as racist as much of the south was, there could also prejudice against southerners that served to protect the northern white sense of superiority.

Again for a variety of reasons, the northern urban riots of 1965-68 did not translate as starkly in the public imagination as manifestations of raw racism as did the largely peaceful (on the part of black people) resistance in the south of the prior decade. Which is kinda weird, when you think about it, (which I have, a lot.)

Please say more about this. I'm not sure I follow all the implications.

But most importantly, w/o trying to quantify the racism of one region to that of another, life of whites and blacks was very different north and south (as dc47 describes.) Racism was a different flavor because of the separation/lack thereof north and south. The actual differences in quality led to misestimation of quantity.

Exactly. That is an elegant way to capture this. Different racism doesn't mean less/more racism.

Further, if you put large numbers of white people in situations where they don't interact often with blacks, their behavior might contain little or no visible racism. Which is not the same as these people having the ability to live closely with blacks as genuine equals. Yet it might appear to be the case -- and they may well believe it is the case. Having no explicit negative thoughts about blacks is a convincing experience of being non-prejudiced. It may just not be true.

I don't think I've seen the phrase 'possible latent racist,' but it is one that I've thought to myself since the '70s when in conversation with white people who experience blackness only in the sports and entertainment figures they enjoy, or the politicians (elsewhere) that they support.

There is nothing wrong with such a life. It's not a sign of racism, per se, to live where only whites live. But having no racist sentiment when this is your environment does not constitute proof that you would not behave as a racist if you were dealing with blacks in something other than a very well-controlled situation (e.g., your M.D. colleague at the hospital is black, as are some nurses.) This setting is not the same as living in a mixed-race, lower-middle class neighborhood in Louisville, where everyday behavior is likely to strain your avowed non-racist views a bit more.

[howard]

Again for a variety of reasons, the northern urban riots of 1965-68 did not translate as starkly in the public imagination as manifestations of raw racism as did the largely peaceful (on the part of black people) resistance in the south of the prior decade. Which is kinda weird, when you think about it, (which I have, a lot.)

Please say more about this. I'm not sure I follow all the implications.

When you ask 'why did LA, Newark, Detroit and other cities burn in the summers of 65-67' (lets set aside the riots following King's murder), and you look beneath the facile superficial answer of 'poverty', it is obvious the #1 reason is racism. Northern racism created the poverty, failed schools, lack of fair access to jobs.

Yet, somehow there is a disconnect between the racism of, I suppose power structures and institutions that created these conditions that lead to riots, and the actual people of the north. Which, of course, defies logic, yet is understandable.

The individual member of southern society somehow was assigned more personal responsibility for southern racism, than the individual member of northern society, who was somehow not responsible for the racism that exerted itself through institutional structures, only being brought to mass consciousness when LA got torched in August '65.

The southerner is much more closely identified with the actions of the sheriff (or the Klan) than the white resident of LA with the actions of the LAPD. Negating/ignoring the fact that you voted for Mayor Yorty and the City Council, which cheered those actions of the cops. Negating/ignoring the fact that you who live in the Valley or on the West Side benefit from the restriction to the ghetto of all black homeowners (until the early 60s) and later all poor black people.

That is what I am getting at.

[howard]

Minor note of interest: what I believe is considered the last lynching was the topic of the famous song Billie Holliday sang, 'Strange Fruit'. The event took place well north of Indianapolis.

I did mention southern areas of Indiana. South of South Bend, maybe?

(for all I know, there were several lynchings in Gary. I'm just sketching broad strokes, based on general stuff I've read and heard, not writing an academic paper. But it is a good point, and consistent with my comments generally, that there were notorious lynchings in the north. Like Omaha, where they even tried to lynch a white dude who was the mayor, as well as that Billie Holliday tune.)

ETA: Numbers! Chart of lynchings by race and state (doesn't break down into Latino and Chinese; I have no idea how valid but Numbers!)

http://www.chesnuttarchive.org/classroo ... state.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.nathanielturner.com/lynching ... ndrace.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[DC47]

There's a whole lot of lynching going on in those tables. The map showing lynching from 1900 to 1930 is especially chilling. So much more than I thought, and I thought I got lynching.

I wonder if we'll ever have equivalent data on killing by cops?

[DC47]

When you ask 'why did LA, Newark, Detroit and other cities burn in the summers of 65-67' (lets set aside the riots following King's murder), and you look beneath the facile superficial answer of 'poverty', it is obvious the #1 reason is racism. Northern racism created the poverty, failed schools, lack of fair access to jobs.

Yet, somehow there is a disconnect between the racism of, I suppose power structures and institutions that created these conditions that lead to riots, and the actual people of the north. Which, of course, defies logic, yet is understandable.

The individual member of southern society somehow was assigned more personal responsibility for southern racism, than the individual member of northern society, who was somehow not responsible for the racism that exerted itself through institutional structures, only being brought to mass consciousness when LA got torched in August '65.

The southerner is much more closely identified with the actions of the sheriff (or the Klan) than the white resident of LA with the actions of the LAPD. Negating/ignoring the fact that you voted for Mayor Yorty and the City Council, which cheered those actions of the cops. Negating/ignoring the fact that you who live in the Valley or on the West Side benefit from the restriction to the ghetto of all black homeowners (until the early 60s) and later all poor black people.

This is great stuff. It really highlights an important part of America's racial history that I tend to forget.

When I look back, I see my own views at the time (and the decade or so afterwards) perfectly reflected. I remember driving through Detroit with my dad, with smoke on the horizon, to get to a Tigers game in '67. Even long afterwards I attributed the Detroit riots to some kind of magical civil rights protest stuff that was in the air around the country in the late 60s. Certainly not due to local conditions of race-based oppression and poverty in Detroit. When a black mayor with a big personality (Coleman Young) took over the city, it further obscured the possibility that white people could have had anything to do with blacks burning 'their' (actually only several years later) city.

Later, even unto today, there is much talk about 'white flight' wrecking Detroit. The counter-argument is that white flight was a response to Coleman Young wrecking the town. Back and forth it goes.

But there is precious little discussion of white oppression (e.g., via policing) that was happening in the 60s leading up to the events of '67. In the north, the white man got off with 'white flight,' which though potentially racist can also be seen as a response to the corrupt (black) Young regime and a natural desire to protect families from crime. In the south, the white man was just a flat out racist who was blasting non-violent black marchers with high-pressure hoses and setting dogs on them, when they were not violently attacking young black girls who just wanted to go to school. Somehow I get the feeling that there were equally cruel acts of racism in the north that just didn't get the kind of press that the southern versions did. The way racism was framed in American largely determined the media coverage, which then reinforced the frame.

Take 'segregation.' That immediately connotes the south to someone of my generation. But segregation was everywhere north of the Mason-Dixon line as far as I can tell.

In my liberal Michigan college town, it is well known among townies that blacks could only buy real estate in a very specific (by precise street) area, which -- surprise!-- coincided with a school boundary. Our house lies right on that line, and our daughters go to those (formerly) black, segregated schools.

We bought our place in the late 90s. When we were house-hunting, we specified this neighborhood for a variety of reasons. One was racial diversity. Our realtor was an old guy, who had been in the business when the real estate segregation policy was a routine matter. When we told him what we were looking for, he chuckled and said that the laws now prevented him from mentioning race. And that no one (that is, no white person) had ever asked him to find them a house in a "mixed" area.

So to avoid breaking the law, he used code. The school in the area had a name similar to "Rack School." The realtor would say, "This house I want to show you is on a street that is the kind of place that rhymes with the name of the school." It took me a few seconds to get this the first time; he found this pretty amusing.

Segregated real estate policies are illegal. But they lasted a hundred years after the civil war. Even in this liberal enclave. That's racism. Segregation was quite real to the older black homeowners in our neighborhood; that's why they were living here. This shaped their life more than most forms of more visible segregation could ever do.

Segregation quietly existed up north, but without the more photogenic 'colored' water fountain signs of the south that would end up in Life Magazine. Even in a town where people proudly talked about local spots where the Underground Railroad had operated. Thank goodness we weren't like those crude southern racists.

[Ryan]

All great points, but let's ask for his fucking texts.

[DC47]

Quarterback was a segregated whites-only position in Ann Arbor until after Tom Brady left. It's easy to see that he is to blame. But I don't think they had texts back then. He might have just told people to do this.

[Nonlinear FC]

I don't know how I missed this thread the first time around, but I am absolutely blown away by this story. I listen to some podcasts that tackle the subject of, for the most part, setting the record straight on various commonly held beliefs.

This just rose to the top of my list, in terms of things I'd totally bought into that appear to really not be close to the truth.

http://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/who-was-t ... ats-wrong/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I just lost a lot of respect for Ken Burns. I mean, you can argue that the "sharpened the spikes" aspect of him being a dirty player was fairly well-documented.* But the racism stuff... For that to have been pretty much single-sourced by a disreputable tabloid reporter, and for there to be numerous stories in print discrediting this notion? That really bothers me.

Like DC, I grew up loving the Tigers, but Cobb was always a dark mark on the franchise history. It really sucks that his legacy was so thoroughly fucked over.


ETA: * - I forgot to address the asterisk (I do that a lot)... The linked article states that Cobb may have been mean, but he did not sharpen his spikes and in fact had a repertoire of slides that typically avoided contact with the fielder, particularly if he stayed out of the area in front of the bag/plate. There are numerous quotes in that linked article from opposing players to that affect. Another reason to question Burns on his research, or lack thereof.

[Gunpowder]

I missed this one too. Speaking of Northern lynchings, there was a famous one in fuckin' DULUTH of all places.