Milton Bradley and the “Race Card”
“In 1987, on deck in Boston, and I was called an Alabama porch monkey… I’d like to be able to say yes [to the question of whether racism has declined], but my mail and my telephone calls suggest otherwise.”
– White Sox GM and former White Sox center fielder Kenny Williams, September 22, 2009
“I was a prisoner in my own home.”
– Milton Bradley, March 9, 2010
Milton Bradley was a complicated man. The usual word was “controversial”; it accompanied stories about him as often as the phrase “race card.” Bradley was rarely happy and always seemed to mention race, appearing time and again in stories in which he criticized people for making racially inappropriate remarks. I think that the frequency of these stories tended to dilute their impact. Many people found it hard to take Bradley seriously — he was frequently awful, and it was easy to believe that he was just blaming other people for his problems. That’s exactly what Chicago GM Jim Hendry believed: “He didn’t get the job done. It’s really unfortunate that you… try to use the other areas for excuses.”
Bradley admitted that much of the negative perceptions surrounding him were related to his lack of success on the field: “If I was hitting .300 every year, and on toward a Hall of Fame career, then maybe a lot of the minor BS along the way wouldn’t be such a big deal.” he told ESPN’s Karl Ravech in 2010. But that doesn’t mean he was wrong about race.
As a baseball player, he was a five-tool talent who saw a promising career derailed by injury. But with Bradley, it was never just about baseball. “Me being an African-American is the most important thing to me — more important than baseball,” he told USA Today in 2005, during an interview in which he said his teammate Jeff Kent “doesn’t know how to deal with African-American people.” Most people viewed this episode as yet another example of Bradley sounding off.
But that may have been unfair to Bradley. Kent was disliked by many of his teammates, and in 2001, Salon’s Joan Walsh asked why Jeff Kent received more favorable media coverage than teammate Barry Bonds, despite the fact that both were rather famous for being jerks. “The two crucial differences between Bonds and Kent: One is that while Kent may not chat up fans and kids or make nice with his teammates, he always talks to the media,” wrote Walsh. “The other key difference is that Kent is white and Bonds is black.”
Later in the interview about Kent, Bradley expressed the belief that many people refuse to see racial tension before their eyes: “White people never want to see race — with anything.” I believe that the public reaction to him has tended to support his argument. While he was in Chicago, Milton Bradley spoke of being taunted with racial epithets from the stands and on the street, and of receiving racist hate mail — and, because former Cubs Jacque Jones and Latroy Hawkins made similar claims, as has White Sox GM Kenny Williams, in the quote I gave at the beginning of this article. Bradley’s mother, Charlena Rector, said that Bradley’s three-year old son had also faced vicious abuse: “Parents, teachers and their kids called him the n-word.”
Yet Bradley’s claims of facing racism have often been taken with a grain of salt. When Bradley made his comments to the Chicago Sun-Times about the racism he had faced, team officials told ESPN’s Bruce Levine that they were “incensed” by the story, and columnist David Haugh of the Chicago Tribune belittled him for his claims: “Poor Milton Bradley whined again to ESPN about how hard Wrigley Field can be for black players,” and compared Bradley unfavorably to Derrek Lee, whom he called “one of the most popular modern Cubs of any race.” Perhaps Haugh didn’t intend it to sound this way, but that sentence implies that African-American players aren’t normally popular, and that it’s therefore out of the ordinary that a player like Derrek Lee could be beloved in the city. Another columnist, Joey Baskerville of the Freeport, Illinois Journal-Standard, suggested that few people took Bradley seriously, writing:
I may be in the minority, but I actually believe Bradley’s accusations that some Cubs fans crossed the line of heckling and shouted racial slurs at him while he played in Chicago.
Still, it’s also true that Bradley has not helped his own case. In 2004, with the Dodgers, he got fed up with answering questions by L.A. Times reporter Jason Reid, and called Reid an “Uncle Tom.” Columnist J.A. Adande, who like Reid is African-American, was shocked: “That’s as bad an insult as one black man can hear, coming from another black man.” Adande noted that Bradley hypocritically appeared to expect that African-American journalists would give him more favorable coverage despite the fact that he could be prickly to them. This was one of the great tragedies of Milton Bradley’s career: he viewed the world through the lens of racism, and correctly perceived that a lot of people viewed him negatively — and then he contributed to that self-fulfilling prophecy.
Milton Bradley has spent his whole life dealing with demons, anger that he struggles to control, the ghosts of a broken childhood and a disappointing career in which he was betrayed by his own body and attacked by fans. In Seattle, he was so lost that he became suicidal. Jonah Keri beautifully summed up his disappointments on the field. Bradley always perceived that he was being treated differently: whether it was his belief that he received more racial vitriol than other players because his numbers weren’t as good, or, when he was stopped for speeding in 2010, his argument with a police officer that the car next to him was traveling the same speed. He was called a “piece of shit” by umpire Mike Winters, and tore his ACL when he had to be restrained from running after him; two years later, he was called a “piece of shit” by his own manager, Lou Piniella. He saw himself as a victim, and often was one.
He was also often in the wrong. Bradley called a reporter an Uncle Tom, threw a bottle of water in the stands, threw dozens of balls on the field, tore his ACL when he lunged at an umpire, publicly accused a teammate of racism, confronted an announcer for comparing him unfavorably to Josh Hamilton, and complained to reporters about the negativity in Chicago by saying “you understand why they haven’t won in 100 years here,” an interview which resulted in his being suspended by the team for the rest of the year.
There is no question that Milton Bradley received racial abuse. There are too many other baseball players, and too many other Chicago Cubs, who have opened up about the abuse that they’ve received, to doubt it. He reacted badly to the abuse, but it is hard to react well to hate mail, and much of the disapprobation heaped on Bradley — chiding him for admitting that he has been the target of racism — amounts to blaming the victim. Milton Bradley is quite right when he says that many people simply don’t want to see racism. That desire not to see is exactly what has fueled the skepticism over Bradley’s claims over the years. W.E.B. Du Bois correctly predicted that the color line would be the problem of the twentieth century. Though Jim Crow is gone, our discomfort with race remains. Flawed as he was, Milton Bradley deserved better than he got.
I remember being at the A’s/Indians game where he blew up and threw a ton of baseballs onto the field, he’s been pulling stunts and getting thrown out of games his entire career. Its not that he’s had to deal with racism, pretty much all African American players have, its that he’s a hot headed jerk. He’s like a caricature of Dick Allen minus the talent (I’m all for putting Allen in the HOF by the way, his numbers are obscene).
Bottom line: If he never had any on-field discretions he wouldn’t have the reputation he has, and he’d absolutely still have a job.
I think that’s absolutely true. But I still think he suffers from a double standard, and has faced more than his fair share of abuse.
Not necessarily, but he’s had a huge target on his back from the media for a long time. During 2009 spring training, the very first televised Cubs game that spring, they had Paul Sullivan(Cubs beat writer) in the booth and he was ALREADY starting the Bradley is a bad guy narrative. The media loves him because they know he’s dumb enough and sensitive enough that they can bait him into doing things to make their job easier and more interesting.
Agreed with that too, but if he had never been thrown out of a game, the abuse would have never been as intense. Eddie Murray was by many accounts, a total jerk too, but he was all class on the field, so he had respect. If drunk/jerk fan knows he gets riled so easily from words, they are going to go there to get a guy who can burn their team.
To quote the great prophet Dave Chappelle, Milton Bradley’s entire career can be summed up: “When keeping it real goes wrong”.
Maybe Alex, but the guy sure doesn’t do himself many favors. He consistently puts himself in a position where even if every word he said were a simple statement of fact, many folks can not summon any sympathy for him. The Royals announcer basically said Hamilton has confronted his demons.
Why did you not mention that Bradley decided in the middle of the season last year that he needed the assistance of mental health professionals? He could have sought that help at any time on one of his many DL stints, or during the offseason, but he decided it was the thing to do in the midst of a season. Others are counting on him and he’s one of the team’s highest paid players.
Hey Mat, let me get this straight. Josh Hamilton’s demons include doing herion, and other partying. Milton Bradley’s are about being black, and not being able to abide racism.
Mat says: Herion addiction = black pride.
I never liked Milton Bradley. As a White Sox fan, I dreaded when the Indians acquired him way back when. Reading this article, I suddenly feel ashamed. Bradley doesn’t have to put up numbers for you to ignore his color.
In the heat of Bradley’s problems, Billy Williams was asked about racism at Wrigley Field. Williams declined to comment.
BILLY WILLIAMS DECLINED TO COMMENT ABOUT RACISM AT WRIGLEY.
Wu-TANG!
Johng,
Your logical reasoning needs some work, and in any event I think Bradley’s demon is his anger problem, which while not as socially stigmatic, can be just as debilitating as a drug addiction. I honestly feel very sorry for Bradley. Sure, racism exists in America, but somehow there are hundreds of MLB players that managed to not let it ruin their careers, even those who brought it up (Gary Sheffield comes to mind).
In the end, when you’re trying to pinpoint what went wrong with Bradley, his tempor is at the top of the list. Racism, alleging racism, and tension with the media do not ruin careers.
To TK:
There is absolutely no excuse for racism. It doesn’t matter if other players have successfully overcome it. Somehow blaming Milton Bradley for not dealing with RACISM as well as others is sickening.
I know I’m beating a dead dog here, but Hamilton loved crack, not heroin.
To Alan,
This is a bit late, but I want to clarify what I meant. I wasn’t blaming Bradley for not dealing with racism, I was saying that racism and his inability to deal with it were not a part of his career being derailed, in my opinion. Gary Sheffield wasn’t very good at dealing with racism, but it never hurt his career.
It is unfortunate that players, like many other minorities, have to deal with racism and in most situations how they deal with it shouldn’t be held against them (racist remarks are not an adequate excuse for violence)
I don’t think you can compare Dick Allen and Milton Bradley. While some of Bradley’s comments are well taken (especially about Jeff Kent), there is no question that Allen was heavily criticized for his outspoken nature specifically because he is black.
I hate when anyone who speaks out against any “ism” is branded oversensitive/exploitive/etc.
Milton Bradley may be a little bit off his rocker, but he does have a valid point about racism
Meant to Vote +1 but voted -1. My bad.
Or “uppity” to refer to black people.
Or — my personal favorite — “militant.”
The term “race-card card” needs to become as widely understood as its predecessor. Where the term “race card” gained acceptance as people recognized incidents of minorities using race as a way of evading blame or receiving undue reward, it has now become widely used by white people as a blanket denial that an instance of racism could ever occur, anywhere, under any circumstances. All one needs to do at this point is say the words “race card,” and for many the issue at hand seems to be resolved. People who reject the notion that racism still exists have turned the term “race card” into precisely the sort of infallible explanation that they had initially invented the term to describe.
AK – very very well stated. We really struggle to have a calm, rational discussion on race – some see the specter of racism in everything (including times when none may exist), others see it in nothing (even at times when it quite obviously exists).
I think there are a LOT of people in the middle who know that racism is a factor at times (usually just one factor of many) and can be overblown at others, but the folks at the polar ends of the debate are the most vocal and inflammatory (as always).
The planet is replete with assholes who make valid points. I likely am one. But the fact that Bradley faced racism doesn’t mean he “deserved better than he got.” He got what he earned.
Nobody deserves to be treated as sub-human simply b/c his skin happens to be a different color from others. Nobody “earns” that.
I believe he is refering to Bradley’s professional career, not his being subjected to racial taunting. I can’t imagine any thinking person believes people deserve to be baited
“Nobody deserves to be treated as sub-human simply b/c his skin happens to be a different color from others. Nobody “earns” that.”
People don’t treat Milton Bradley that way because hes black. They treat him that way because he’s a sub-human asshole.
He is not sub-human. He is a human being and deserves to be treated as such. As do you.
Yes, wOBA, I mneant he’s earned everything he deserves professionally. Neither he, nor anyone else, however, deserves racism.
I have a hard time believing that Remington that would say that, for example, John Rocker shouldn’t be treated as a sub-human even though he’s a gaping racist asshole.
I don’t think any human being deserves to be considered “sub-human.” Not even assholes.
His 2003 produced a very good value on Strat-o-matic, and really, that’s all that I think of when I hear the name Milton Bradley.
so you are saying that when you hear Milton Bradley you think of a game?
Someone looking for me?
You are not the king of black people, Jesse Jackson is!
I’m not kissing anyone’s ass but his.
Nice job! That was a really clever way to introduce some racism to the discussion.
I am going to guess old Nathan Bedford hasn’t watched much SouthPark?
i wonder how long it’ll take for somebody in these here comments to congratulate themselves on not being able to see race.
shit, son! i don’t see anything — i’m blind!
you blindist!
It’s possible Bradley did have racist comments come at him, but i wouldn’t know because the author put no defenative proof in this post. This article wouldn’t hold water in a 9th grade research speech and debate class, let alone a legit news source. Also, I’m gonna go out on a limb here and say, with about as much proof as this article, that at most 5% of Americans are raceist at all. In fact, most racisim in America is towards Hispanics. For anyone to say that race had anything to do with Bradley getting cut in the year 2011 is being irresponsible. The reason he got cut is because he can no longer field or hit. Not because he is black. Finally, why the heck is this not a notgraphs post. I guess notgraphs is beneath Alex.
so if less than 5% of americans are racist towards black people, i suppose the incredibly large gaps between the numbers of black and white people in prisons, the income gaps between black and white people, and the high school achievement gaps between black people and white people are all a result of black people being violent, lazy, and stupid? or maybe it’s just god that doesn’t like them.
but it’s worth pointing out that milton bradley gets treated way worse than most black athletes by the media and fans and it probably mostly has to do with his not liking reporters.
also, this should totes be in notgraphs.
@chandler
Really? Your statistics wouldn’t have anything at all to do with, say, inner city culture, would it? These kids’ role models are thug rappers and drug dealers, and it ain’t cool to be smart. Where the heck do you live? Open your eyes and forget the same old meme.
Pthet, your comment is completely ignorant and false. More whites use drugs, yet blacks are overwhelming more likely to be found in prison for drug offenses.
@ Chandler: If 5% of the population is racist, which seems entirely reasonable, that would indeed be a pretty significant thing in and of itself. I mean… imagine there’s a law firm with 10 partners. There’s now a 50% chance that one of them won’t want you due to your race. And in many decisions, it really does only take one person in the right position of power to shut the door.
But really the bigger issue is not being held down, it’s not being connected. The majority of reasons why minorities tend to have trouble getting to better positions is nepotism. Nepotism supports the status quo. If 90% of people with good jobs (see managers, owners) are white and most of the people THEY know are white, and they’re looking for someone to fill a position… they’re going to ask around their social network. Or maybe a mutual acquaintance will suggest someone (who happens to be of the same color). In that case, it’s really not about race. It’s just about networking. However, given that racial networks don’t always have a very good intersection- the end result is the same.
So… no, you don’t need that many racists. In fact, you don’t really need ANY racists to perpetuate inequalities (which doesn’t mean they aren’t around- but you just don’t NEED them to have disparities).
BN is SOOOOOO right about nepotism. family is everything in America right now. if you go to the jails in this country nearly everyone grew up as an orphan, abused, or without at least one parent caring about them. You have little to no shot in this country if your parents aren’t doing most of the door opening for you.
I don’t really see racism that much (I’m not white), but I can tell you that much more than 5% of the population is racist. In fact, many people are, if not openly, then secretly racist. Now I don’t mean that they would be part of the KKK, but there is definitely racism towards blacks (hispanics as well). It may just be slight favoritism, it may be surprise at their financial success, etc. but it’s definitely there.
It is truly impossible to be “secretly” racist. Racist by definition means actively treating someone differently because of race. Now, it is possible for a person to be “secretly” PREJUDICED, but that’s different.
5% huh?
I suppose the 30+ percent of people who somehow can totally ignore a birth certificate all have totally innocuous motives
If by “totally ignore” you mean, “question the forensic validity of”, then you are correct – they are all racists. The long form submitted fits the definition of a forgery: http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=185343
The Internet is amazing.
Yeah but Nathan here gets into WAY more crazy than just racism.
But to stay on topic about Milton, I remember reading negative stories about him well before he even arrived in the majors. Gammons for sure wrote about it in his notes type stuff. Baseball America too. It becomes a chicken/egg issue. Although the egg did come first.
Seems like this blog is just another one of the many liberal terrariums on the web.
I thought the 5% number being casually thrown around was a tad optimistic as well. We’ll never know that for sure – not many will admit to being blatantly racist (besides Nathan), but the level with different prejudices and biases coloring their perceptions and informing their decisions is well above five percent.
Still trying to figure out how I’m a racist. Oh, for disagreeing with a bunch of liberals? Okay, now it makes sense. Obama’s a terrible president = racist. Obama’s long form birth certificate should be subjected to analysis by a forensic document expert based on physical inconsistencies that point to the document being an edited digital composite, rather than a true copy of the original = racist.
From the liberal world view, I can see how this makes perfect sense. It fits the narrative.
No, thinking someone is a terrible president doesn’t make you a racist. I think he’s terribly ineffectual and often petty and mean-spirited myself, but whatever. Chasing down this well-worn canard about his citizenship or heritage long after that should have been put to bed – I can’t imagine it being it anything *but* racist.
There are so many other substantive grounds on which to go after the Prez if you’re so inclined. None of those involve tin-foil hats, which although quite stylish, discredit someone as being sane rather quickly.
Nathan, why did we not have George W. get naked to see if we could find the number of the beast on his ass?
Jason, you are putting words in my mouth and thoughts in my head that were not and are not there. “…chasing down a well-worn canard…’is racist’…”. How, exactly, do you make that connection? Are you kidding? I pointed to a specific digital version of a document being suspicious. At no point did I state doubts or suspicions about Obama’s place of birth or heritage. I’m just saying there are questions about the empirical validity of said document, especially when compared to the legal standard for document authentication. In this case, I think you would agree that it would serve better to debunk the birther issue to subject the long form document to legal forensic analysis rather than accept the word of political operatives. How is that racist, again?
I’ve always seen NotGraphs as a more humorous forum while FanGraphs tackles the serious stuff.
A reliable source assures me that everyone’s a little bit racist. Sometimes.
Well said – we like to put people in easily labeled boxes and readily identifiable categories – racist/not racist, good guy/bad guy, awesome player/total scrub, etc. It makes for easier narratives (and requires less critical thinking on our part) when things are cut-and-dried, but most situations and most people are so much more complex than that, and these things are really more of a continuum than a binary switch. (I think sexuality is much the same way, but that’s a whole different topic.)
Or, befitting the Milton Bradley story, most things we deal with are subtle shades of grey than black-and-white, if you will.
I’ll bet your girlfriend in Canada is the one who told you this
“Why are you here?”
[heavy accent] “I’m from Canada, so they think I’m slow, eeeeyyy?”
Great scene, Bart.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5FEW5mh7iAI
Couldn’t disagree anymore. Bradley absolutely didn’t deserve anymore than what he’s gotten. It’s never his fault. Even, as you point out, when he got pulled over for speeding, he had to ask why he was pulled over & the guy next to him wasn’t. Like, the cop is automatically racial profiling because Bradley was the one pulled over?
C’mon, so much nonsense from this guy. He had one great year (with the Rangers), and the rest he was a solid, if unspectacular player. He had every chance in the world to prove he could be a great baseball player, and he fell short EVERY time.
He was also terrific in 2003, though he only played 101 games that year. But you’re proving his point. You seem to be arguing that it would all have been okay — all the allegations of racism and controversy that surrounded him — if only he had been a more successful player.
Adam Carolla has always said thank goodness he is white, because if he was black every time someone was effing with him he would assume it was because he was black. Since Carolla is white he knows everytime someone ignores him, confronts him, or writes him a chickenshit traffic ticket it’s because that person is an asshole.
I think Bradley has a point when he says “White peopl never wanna see race.” I think a lot of times, White people like to pretend that racism is ancient history, and any mention of it does indeed provoke responses of ‘race card’
That may be because when most people think racism, they think overt, in your face hatred… groups like the KKK.
I can’t tell you how many comments i’ve heard that are prefaced by “i’m not racist or anything, but… The irony being that a qualifier like that instantly tells me that you know the statement your about to make communicates racist sentiments.
But they arent racists, racists are the guys who wear the pointy hats and burn crosses.
Here we go again.
If a white person brings up race you assume that the statement is racist. This is why we will NEVER move beyond race.
Whites may be fooling themselves into thinking that racism doesn’t exist. Blacks may be fooling themselves into thinking that everything revolves around racism.
“If a white person brings up race you assume that the statement is racist”
No
This is the exact kind of attitude i’m talking about. So much of this crap gets a pass because “oh you guys assume everything is racist, derp derp”
That’s such a garbage cop out.
I’ve met plenty of Whites who feel that racism is not a serious issue anymore.
I’ve never met an African American who feels that everything is about race.
Sometimes race is relevant to discussions. When the topic is broached, it is pathetic to use the pejorative “Race Card” to dismiss the argument.
Racism, prejudice and stereotyping are three subltly different things and they are often wrongly used interchangably. Racism is thinking your race is superior to others or that others are inferior yours. Stereotyping is attributing traits exhibited by a percentage of a group to the entire group. Prejudice is assuming an individual from that group will exhibit the stereotyped traits of that group. Most of us stereotype and have prejudices but a much smaller percentage of people are by definition, racist. I bet it’s more than 5%, though.
“I’ve met plenty of Whites who feel that racism is not a serious issue anymore.
I’ve never met an African American who feels that everything is about race.
”
I would suggest that you haven’t met a whole lot of people.
“Whites may be fooling themselves into thinking that racism doesn’t exist. Blacks may be fooling themselves into thinking that everything revolves around racism.”
Let me fix this for you:
“Some ignorant whites may be fooling themselves into thinking that racism doesn’t exist. Some ignorant blacks may be fooling themselves into thinking that everything revolves around racism. Most informed, rational people of all races know that racism exists at some times, but not as often as some claim, and not as seldom as others wish.”
/fixed/
I think the thing that annoys me about the entire race issue is the way it is used as a conversation ender (oh that guy is a racist) rather than seen as naturally ocurring phenomena that happens whenever you gather together a diverse group of individuals.
Differentiation is as natural to living organisms as burning calories individuals tend to self identify as members of a specific group, and to one degree or another assign stereotypes to all who fall outside of their self defined group. This is true of gender, race, religion, ethnicity, class, education, or even country of origin.
I can promise you that most first generation immigrants from Africa sterotype African-Americans at least as much as white Americans do, just as African Americans often show predjudice towards other races and ethnicities. Having a certain melanin content does not make one immune from identifying someone else as the “Other”
Very big of you to own up to other people’s racism, Remington. You’re truly a morally superior being.
Cry me a river.
Players are mocked for their religious beliefs, political beliefs, how they look, how they play, etc, etc.
Race is a huge issue for certain players and not for others. Why is that? Is Derrek Lee less black than Bradley? It’s pretty clear, Bradley is a complete and utter tool while Derrek Lee is a great guy. The fact that Bradley is a tool brings out anger by a lot of people. Unfortunately, the fans react inappropriately by attacking his race.
If Bradley worked hard, stayed out of trouble and kept his mouth shut then people wouldn’t care what color his skin is. But when you are an idiot (regardless of whether you are white/black/latino) expect to be mocked. Have we forgotten how roundly Rocker was mocked for his moronic statements? How about Luke Scott and his crazy conspiratorial theories? Stupid comes in all packages, Bradley’s just the latest clown in a long line of MLB bozos.
“If Bradley worked hard, stayed out of trouble and kept his mouth shut then people wouldn’t care what color his skin is.”
But why is this him working hard and staying out of trouble a pre-requisite to people “not caring what his skin color is”?
Yea White players get mocked, but about the things they do, things they believe, perhaps.
The fact that the racism comes to the surface when Bradley gets in trouble should be a pretty good indication that the racism has been there all along. It doesn’t come from nowhere.
I’d say a lot of people see racist language as an easy way to bait and insult people who they know will get affected by it. There are people who will call people with southern accents rednecks just to **** them off… People are lazy at insulting, and unfortunately race is an easy thing to notice that people are sensitive about. People who want to insult strongly attack issues a person is sensitive about, people who are sensitive therefore about race get insulted based on race. Overweight people get insulted ALL THE TIME based on weight. I doubt that a ton of people actively “hate” fat people, but they are in the same category as blacks/latinos when it comes to language, they will get insulted based on it when they don’t do what someone else wants/expects them to do.
“If Bradley worked hard, stayed out of trouble and kept his mouth shut then people wouldn’t care what color his skin is.”
This isn’t even a little bit not racist.
I think what he’s trying to say is… you’ll never hear Big Papi complain about anything race related in Boston, yet it’s one of the most racist cities in the US, because he is a fan favorite. (If you don’t believe boston is racist… just trust me.)
Bradley is an idiot, a douchebag, and an underperformer. This causes people to dislike him. Then, because he is black, it is inevitable that he will get some racial slurs thrown at him.
The point is, if people liked him, he would experience less racism.
The point is that it’s fair to be critical of Bradley acting like a jerk. It’s morally wrong to bombard him with racial epithets regardless of his jerkiness.
I think it’s a big stretch to interpret Haugh’s comment about Derrek Lee as you did. It seems pretty obvious that he meant Derrek Lee was beloved by the city for his on-field play and positive character, regardless of his race.
Haugh went out of his way to point out that Derrek Lee was beloved despite his race. I’m not saying that Haugh is racist, but the way he phrased his compliment of Lee was extraordinarily backhanded.
I disagree with your interpretation. I’m really not a fan of Haugh at all, but I think he was spot on with his point. Lee was embraced because he always acted in a classy manner and never was embroiled in negative storylines. I agree with his using Lee as an example, simply because I think he was trying to point out that Bradley was chastised for being a jackass, not being a black player.
I disagree Alex. If Haugh had described Lee as one of the most popular black Cubs players, you might have a point. However, Haugh never specified Lee’s race, and certainly did not express that Lee achieved popularity despite his race. His point is that race is not an obstacle for being a beloved athlete in Chicago, regardless of a small percentage of jackasses in the bleachers screaming slurs and obscenities.
I failed to link to the Haugh story in the article. I have fixed that. It is linked above, and you can also read it here:
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2010-03-10/sports/ct-spt-0311-haugh-milton-bradley-cubs–20100310_1_milton-bradley-wrigley-field-fans
Haugh actually did specify Lee’s race earlier in the paragraph. The full paragraph is as follows:
“If Bradley believed playing on the North Side can be so tough on African-American players who aren’t Hall of Famers, why did Bradley’s agents, Sam and Seth Levinson, allow fellow client Marlon Byrd to sign with the Cubs? Why did Derrek Lee, one of the most popular modern Cubs of any race, recently express a desire to retire here?”
Haugh mentioned Lee in a paragraph about other African-Americans on the team. In that context, the phrase “of any race” takes on a further flavor of implying that Lee succeeded despite his race.
I don’t think the context changes his point. Saying “of any race” simply shows that he doesn’t think race is an issue. I guess we aren’t going to resolve this issue of semantics, I simply just disagree with your interpretation.
agree w/ GBeck, Even in the full paragraph I don’t see a suggestion that Lee was popular despite his race. Nor is there any suggestion that black cubs players are not popular. I suppose you’re entitled to your opinion about the ‘flavor’, but that is a pretty weak claim, I think.
Personally, I have always rooted for MB. I agree with the other comments that his sensitivity/temper made him a target for further abuse, so he probably did get extra.
I also have to disagree with that interpretation. Haugh was directly referring to the issue of race and popularity, so he cited the issue when referring to Lee. That doesn’t imply that it was an “overcoming” thing.
I wouldn’t think it would necessarily be an “overcoming thing” in Chicago anyways. I’d certainly imagine there are some serious racists around there, but no more than most places. Though maybe there are stats that prove me wrong. Do we have an IORP stat for that? Ignorance of Racist People?
Race is such an antiquated and retarded term for categorizing humans.
Bottom line – Milton Bradley is a horrible human being with a severely skewed perception of reality. Throughout his career he reacted to adversity as if it were a personal attack on him and his “race.”
are you going to apologize for using the “retard” word and your racism against retards?
maybe he means retarded in the sense that racism slows down, ie. retards, any legitimate discussion… god forbid someone says something that might offend someone else.
I was actually kidding – but your response was hilarious in it’s own right on a lot of levels…
touche salesman
yeah, I thought “racism against retards” was a dead giveaway.
Never go full retard.
So true. Why couldn’t he just take the racial slurs and hate mail as constructive criticism instead of unreasonably considering them personal attacks as if they were directed at him or addressed to him personally?
(sarcasm)
Totally. I know if I was in Congo and somebody called me an a-hole colonialist whitebread American and threw an empty beer cup at me, that would TOTALLY make me re-evaluate my behavior and how I treat people. It entirely would not cause me to wonder why someone attacked me completely out of the blue and seethe for a while. Because that would be weak and fragile, and all humans should always be infinitely strong at all times.
Antiquated like using the term “retarded?”
FanGraphs is a stat-based website, why the hell should I read a post that doesn’t have anything to do with stats? Alex, you’re a terrible writer.
/sarcasm
Frankly, I think welfare and the destruction of the black family caused most of the disparities you mentioned. This is a pretty common idea. I mean, it’s not like schools give blacks harder tests, it’s that many black kids are told by their peers that they can’t do good in school because kids from the ghetto just don’t do good in school. And if you don’t have a good support group it’s easy to beleive people who say you’re no good. The same thing happens to white kids from broken families. Most of the black kids I know who have a strong family have acheived much more on average than kids who don’t have a good family, white or black. Obviously, i am biased but I do beleive studies prove this. Just look at the diffrence between Jason heyward who had a very active dad and Milton Bradley who didn’t.
You’re entirely ignoring the socioeconomic factor. Jason Heyward’s parents are Dartmouth graduates; he didn’t just grow up in a two-parent home, he grew up in a middle- to upper-middle class home.
Heyward and Bradley do not have a lot in common in terms of their backgrounds, other than the fact that they are both African-American.
welfare and the destruction of the black family = socioeconomic factors
Welfare didn’t cause poverty. Welfare programs were a response — albeit a not always efficacious response — to already extant poverty.
The late Daniel Patrick Moynihan disagrees, Alex. He only studied it for years before you were even born. But believe what want.
Paul: Rarely does one get such a pure example of the fallacious appeal to authority. Bravo.
Paul, please by all means link to Senator Moynihan’s work. I would be very interested to read the section where he argues that there was no poverty until welfare programs were put in place, and that all poverty resulted from the welfare programs. That’s a nonsensical assertion.
“The steady expansion of this welfare program, as of public assistance programs in general, can be taken as a measure of the steady disintegration of the Negro family structure over the past generation in the United States.”
http://www.dol.gov/oasam/programs/history/webid-meynihan.htm
Not surprised you have no idea what this is. You might want to actually read the report before calling any of its conclusions nonsensical (assuming here you’re trying to be credible on this issue).
Paul, thank you for the link. But you have severely misinterpreted Moynihan’s arguments. The sentence that you quoted explains that welfare has been expanded at the same time as family structures have disintegrated. He is arguing correlation, not causation. He does not argue that welfare is responsible for that disintegration. Moynihan believes that a major cause of that disintegration results from the lingering consequences of racism.
Allow me to quote the introduction of the report:
Moynihan frequently asserts that racism is a major cause of these problems. As he says in Section 2 of that report, “The Negro Family”:
Indeed, in the conclusion of the study, Moynihan praises programs that might be described as welfare:
In the report Moynihan absolutely argues that welfare programs exacerbate a problem that is extremely complex. The conclusion section you cite says nothing whatsoever about government welfare programs. If you are unable to see from reading the report that Moynihan did not believe that welfare programs could help restore the black family, which is clearly the main cause of persistent economic inequality, then there is nothing more to say. The man spent the next 40 years of his career arguing this point. You clearly have no problem picking and choosing your evidence and arguments, so there is really nothing more to say.
The question of whether welfare exacerbates existing poverty is, obviously, a very different question than whether welfare causes new poverty. The former is worthy of debate. The latter is temporally impossible.
“If you are unable to see from reading the report that Moynihan did not believe that welfare programs could help restore the black family, which is clearly the main cause of persistent economic inequality, then there is nothing more to say.”
I don’t think you understand what you are arguing. Welfare programs (which are currently not even all that similar to the ones that existed at the time of the report) may not be able to ‘restore the back family,’ but that in no way means that welfare programs cause the disintegration of the black family or persistent economic inequality. You are really confused.
You do realize that not all black kids grow up in the ghetto, right? Or are on welfare? Or have been raised by a single parent?
I’m glad you know some black kids, though, and the ones who have strong families meet your seal of approval. You’re clearly a man/woman of the people. Jesus Christ.
Yeah, welfare caused racism.
Man, if it weren’t for our welfare state, there may never have been slavery in this country!
Welfare caused the Cival War!
Welfare killed Lincoln!
Seems to me the central theme of this article is, despite others’ views of him what Bradley is saying about racism carries weight. Unfortunately his message is discredited because he is seen as a jerk, a hot head, and bitter of his poor play.
Why don’t other players who experience racism, and I’m sure there’s many – latin and black players alike – speak up more? Back up claims like those of Bradley? My guess is they are scared to. They don’t want to be labeled as an ungrateful troublemaker by the fans, media, and potentially the front office. Especially players in the minors.
Consciously or not, the current system is set up in a way that speaking out against the marketed image of the MLB or NFL or NBA almost always ends up bad for the athlete. Raising a valid point can get you suspended, fined, “fired”, blackballed. How athletes speak out against racism may not always be the most tactful but c’mon, a) they’re athletes not lawyers and b) it shouldn’t have to be tactful. Complaints of racism should be listened to not just tossed back on the player as a sign they are a trouble maker.
That’s a great point, and one I was thinking about as well. It makes me think of Gary Sheffield. I remember how people around Atlanta absolutely hated him when he was a member of the Marlins and Dodgers. There really wasn’t any basis for it other than that he was a passionate player who was really god for a rival team. Then he was traded to Atlanta, and locally, there was nothing but praise for him for day one, before he was ever in an Atlanta uniform.
He’s an example of someone who’s tried to talk about what it’s like as a black player in baseball-the problem is that he’s sometimes said some very controversial, even uneducated things, and he’s drawn criticism for it. It’s surprising that sometimes things he’s said have been taking greatly out of context and used against him. There’s plenty of players who say things sort of off the cuff and get away with it, but people really resisted Sheffield when he tried to make a serious point about race. Perhaps he wasn’t the right person, but he was a black who was willing to be outspoken, and people ended up disliking him more for talking than for anything else.
He never had any major infractions or off the field troubles aside from an incident he got into as a kid with Dwight Gooden, his uncle. He wasn’t a punk, he certainly wasn’t a bad apple like Milton Bradley, but people still disliked him whenever he wanted to mention race.
That’s exactly it, Dave. There’s no real mystery as to why those players who have spoken openly about racism — Bradley, Sheffield, Barry Bonds, Frank Robinson, Dick Allen, et al — have also been widely described with pejoratives ranging from “taciturn” to “sociopath.” Hank Aaron, who kept relatively silent while facing the worst torrent of racism from fans since Jack Robinson, was conversely the recipient of more descriptions of “grace” than the Virgin Mary. Maybe those other guys were just assholes, and Aaron is the über-mensch, but it seems to me there are very few examples of guys who have been able to speak openly about racism without being portrayed negatively. But I’m sure that’s because the racists are only picking on the uppity ones, right?
The vast majority of both MLB administration and baseball writers are white males, and it makes sense to think they may bristle a little at claims of racism, casual or otherwise. Until recently, those figures also held a total monopoly over perception-shaping of players, but we’re a little more decentralized these days. Here’s to hoping one of the positive effects of the social media revolution is guys like Bradley at least get the opportunity to help foster a slightly more nuanced view of them as people, should they wish for one to exist.
All that said, Bradley deserved to lose a couple of teeth for calling the Times guy a Tom.
Torii Hunter. Supposedly a ‘good guy.’ Has spoken about being called a n….r while playing in Boston.
So complaining about racism = racism is alive and well.
Not complaining about racism = racism is alive and well.
You see the problem here.
Actually, no, there is no problem here. It’s just the state of complaining has no effect on the actual existence of racism and it being alive and well.
If one accepts the rules of logic to be well established laws, yes. If you want to be right and will argue any side of the issue in order to influence some people, no.
2500 years on, there are still sophists collected in the square challenging passersby with nonsense.
You can’t legislate personal morality. You can mandate behavior, but can’t dictate inner attitudes and feelings. Treating others as you would like to be treated is a start but it is left to each individual and their aherence to personal responsibility to make it a reality.
Athletes are actually able to bring up race (or other things their employers would rather they not) much easier than 99% of the population. Do you think I could go on a tirade about how my workplace is blank-ist and just move on with my day?
This is fantastic stuff. Invisible racism is a major barrier to equality everywhere, even in baseball, because, as the name suggests, no one ever talks about it. Instead, people are generally inclined to believe that we live in some kind of post racism world because the inequality and privilege isn’t so obvious as it was a few decades ago. But the more we talk about it, the better things will get. Thanks for writing this, Alex. Rational and honest discourse on race is rare, especially in the sports world.
I’m not going to pretend like there’s no racism in baseball. Having followed the Braves a long time, it was evident in little pervasive ways throughout the run of the Braves’ best years. There were a lot of unfair criticisms of Andruw Jones, for example, which you could make out occasionally in the language used to describe him-he was lazy, he wasn’t realizing his potential, he was underachieving. It’s hard to imagine calling someone lazy who maintains such an extreme regiment of health that he did, where he had seasons which he didn’t only play in every single game, he played in every single INNING at one of the most demanding defensive positions. And to be fair, there was an instance of him failing to leg out a groundball to which Bobby Cox took exception. Andruw was immediately benched for that, and it would be fair to say there was never again a memorable issue with it.
Still, he remained the most criticized Braves player for years, despite being a generally great hitter and arguably the best defensive center fielder ever.
That said, though, I think you can overstate the amount of racism in the game, and that really doesn’t make the problem any better, it just guarantees that people will continue debating the “race” topic when we really should be working hard to put it behind us. Perhaps Milton Bradley experienced racism in his playing time, but I honestly think that compared to even 10 years ago, baseball fans and organizations are much less prejudiced today. With the internet and the statistics revolution, people tend to know players much more by their numbers than by their face. Six or seven years ago, I remember being shocked to learn that Milton Bradley was black. Sharing a name with a famous white entrepreneur, I had mentally pictured him looking something like Mark Kotsay.
I very much agree with you, Bronnt. The constant complaints that Andruw Jones was “lazy” were extraordinarily depressing — not to mention a variation on a classic racist canard. He played a decade in Atlanta at a Hall of Fame level, and he was never embraced as fully as the big three pitchers, or even Chipper Jones.
I meant to expand upon that, yeah-it wasn’t blatant racist anger at Andruw, but there were a lot of racially charged descriptors used about his play. I’m sure nobody who described Andruw as lazy or underachieving thinks they were being racist, but it fits a common narrative about black athletes.
Just think about how he’s described in comparison to Dale Murphy, who baseball reference has as a 920 similarity score. Eerily similar players, including the sudden decline in abilities in their early thirties. Murphy wasn’t the athlete that Andruw was, but they’re very comparable overall. There’s still people who criticize Andruw for what he wasn’t-nobody gets upset at Dale Murphy for falling off a cliff at age 32.
So when a black athlete is called lazy you automatically assume it’s a racist remark. Do you believe the same when a white athlete is called lazy?
Of course I don’t automatically assume it’s a racist remark, as Bronnt said. But there is a very long history of African-Americans being characterized by racists as “lazy,” going back to slavery, when slave owners would say that slaves who didn’t want to work in the fields on a 100-degree day were lazy, and then whipped the hide off their backs until they went back to pick cotton.
The word “lazy” is freighted with a great deal of history, especially when it is applied to a black man. That context is absent for whites.
That is absolutely false, Alex. Please do yourself a favor and go read up on what caucasian immigrants, especially Irish and Italian, went through between 150-100 years ago. Lazy was absolutely one of the common claims.
The longer this debate goes on the more you look like an angst-ridden teenager. Disappointing.
You’re right: European immigrants often faced that adjective, among others. That word has been applied to many different immigrant groups, most recently Hispanics, obviously. But “lazy” isn’t the only thing that these groups are called, and it isn’t necessarily the dominant stereotype, as it has frequently been for African-Americans. Just read some of the sportswriting that surrounded Hank Aaron in the 1950′s.
“He played a decade in Atlanta at a Hall of Fame level, and he was never embraced as fully as the big three pitchers, or even Chipper Jones.”
And it was partly for that reason (admittedly, I was a bit of a contrarian) that Andruw was my favorite player as a teenager growing up in Atlanta. His legendary 2005 season only solidified my love for AJ, but there’s no doubt he was under-loved as a Brave.
Paul, you have to understand that it fits a certain narrative about black athletes that’s very different from what typically describes white athletes.
For example, how often do you hear about a guy who “gets the most out of his talent?” Those tend to be rather short white guys-David Eckstein is the prime example. I have NEVER heard it used to describe a black athlete, though several examples might come to mind-Willie Harris for one. How many white athletes do you hear described as lazily loafing after fly balls? It happens, but it seems like it’s said much often about guys like Coco Crisp than it is about guys like Jim Edmonds. It was certainly said often enough about Andruw Jones, despite his being generally awesome at fielding anything-I’d say also, he absolutely got everything out of his god-gifted abilities on the defensive end of the ball, at the very least.
There’s a lot of common narratives like that which are racially coded.
Doesn’t the fact that Jones was a chubby guy with a low batting average have as much to do with this stereotype as his skin color, Adam Dunn gets alot of the same critques(albeit with vastly inferior defense)
Jones definitely beefed up in his later years, but it’s hard to understand how you can call the greatest defensive player of his generation “lazy.” Andruw Jones is one of a handful of the best defensive center fielders of all time, and it’s not hard to make an argument that he’s the best since Willie Mays.
When a guy is collecting 400 putouts a year, “lazy” is not the first word that ought to come to mind.
“[Andruw Jones] played a decade in Atlanta at a Hall of Fame level, and he was never embraced as fully as the big three pitchers, or even Chipper Jones.”
I honestly don’t believe that Andruw Jones was as good as Chipper Jones, or the three great starting pitchers on the Braves. Andruw Jones definitely had some terrific years. Andruw Jones’ best couple years likely equal or surpass the contributions of Chipper, Maddux, Glavine, and Smoltz.
In fact, from 1998-2006, Andruw Jones was simply one of the best overall players in the game.
Chipper Jones, however, was one of the best overall players in the game from 1996-2008. Greg Maddux performed at a very high level for the Braves from 1993-2001. Smoltz and Glavine both performed at elite levels from 1991-2000, before Glavine declined and Smoltz had a second career as a closer before giving the Braves another three quality years as a starter.
An important thing you neglect is that Smoltz and Glavine made it to five WS together and won one. (John Smoltz also had a string of terrific postseason performances.) Chipper Jones and Greg Maddux made it to three WS and won one.
Andruw Jones made it to two WS, and the Braves lost to the Yankees both times.
It’s not completely fair, but players on championship teams are remembered more, remembered better, than players that never get to play on a champion.
In no way can I believe this to be true:
Bradley’s mother, Charlena Rector, said that Bradley’s three-year old son had also faced vicious abuse: “Parents, teachers and their kids called him the n-word.”
Am I ignorant? I’m guessing with Bradley’s money its a pretty nice school…parents? teachers? kids I believe, but THREE years old?!?
What kind of 3 year old even knows the n-word anyway?
The kind who has a parent who knows the n-word.
Google “sparkling wiggles” sometime…all it takes is a certain kind of parent to encourage that behavior.
3 year olds shouldn’t even be in school.
Why would she lie about that?
I don’t know if it’s true, but I do know that almost every fan’s first instinct with Milton Bradley was to disbelieve him when he said he faced racism.
Having a parent who knows the n-word does not imply the kid knows it at all. You’re telling me that you believe multiple parents (and teachers) at a school use the n-word on a regular enough basis so that their children either were taught what it means or associated it with a black person correctly?
I’ve taught in MPS full of 6-9 year olds in the lower class areas of Milwaukee. I never heard the n-word mentioned once. I’d be shocked it a 3 year old knew it in a (presumably) upper class school.
It’s certainly an extraordinary claim, and I simply don’t know what kind of school Bradley’s child attended. I know that it seems implausible. But I am very mistrustful of the instinct to disbelieve whatever Milton Bradley or his mother have to say, and I want to keep an open mind to the fact that it could be true — because I believe that Milton Bradley’s negative reputation has caused so many people to simply disbelieve him. I know that’s an unsatisfying answer, but that’s the reason that I give him the benefit of the doubt.
Why are you giving him any of the benefit of the doubt here? I have my doubts for two reasons. I’ll list them here:
1. This just doesn’t make sense with anything I’ve experienced in my life. By your own admission this is an extraordinary claim, and I fail to see how “multiple children” or parents or teachers would tell a 3 year old this when I can provide no examples of similar behavior by older students, teachers or parents in the most segregated city in the country. It just doesn’t add up.
2. Milton Bradley has experienced his fair share of racism, I don’t doubt it. But he’s spoken on racism multiple times too, and me questioning his integrity on this subject certainly shouldn’t be that outrageous to you. This comes especially after his allegations using the phrase “Uncle Tom” to someone who, by all accounts, has been fair and balanced as a columnist.
Further, despite these concerns, which you have acknowledged, you present this quote in the article without the appropriate asterisks. That seems sloppy, as the point of this article should not be to establish that Bradley has faced racism, but rather to attempt to accurately depict what kind of racism, the motivation for the racism, and what we can learn in modern-day MLB and America given these facts.
That’s completely fair, Dan. Why am I giving him (really, his mother, the source of the allegations in the press) any of the benefit of the doubt? It’s because I know that he truly was hated in Chicago. And because I know that there are some people who went out of their way to say horrible things to him.
I probably should have said that, of all the claims in the piece, that one might be the hardest to believe on its face. I’m recounting a lot of hearsay, some of it more plausible than others. Racist invective from the stands and hate mail — completely plausible. Kindergarten abuse is less plausible, but it’s still within the realm of the possible.
Why would she lie is because that’s her son who is always ridiculed and she’s tired of it and sticking up for him.
And with his money, it’s probably (assumption of course) some private school and I just don’t believe TEACHERS are calling a 3 year old boy that word.
No f’n way!
“Why would she lie about that?”
Think about that question for a minute. Can you really not conceive of someone lying about how they were mistreated? If so I’d say that demonstrates a truly stunning level of naivety.
Let me give you an analogy. There’s a mini epidemic of school kids lying about their teachers sexually abusing them, ruining the teacher’s careers, and it then the students fessing up that they made it up completely. And every time there’s someone there to say “Why would she lie about that”?
And don’t get me started on the false rape rabbit hole.
Alex, I really support this article but I think the thing with his mother has a different meaning. She’s his mother. If she’s seeing racism like that everywhere, then we can get a good idea why Milton is seeing it everywhere.
That’s also the irony of it.
ofMontreal, it’s very true: if his mother is predisposed to lie about racist experiences, that certainly makes it more likely that Bradley does the same.
What bothers me is that no one bothered to check; most people just dismissed it out of hand. I’m fully willing to acknowledge that it could be false. Are you willing to acknowledge that it could be true?
For the record, false rape claims are not very common. The estimates range from 2% to 8% of rape claims filed. And many rape victims don’t file charges, so when you compare the number to the total number of rape victims, the numbers drop even more.
Dan- I am of mixed ethnicity who went to a relatively upper class public school in New York. I heard the “n-word” at least once directly to my face in elementary school. I was in fifth grade on the school bus- not exactly the place where a teacher would hear it. And being a kid myself, I didn’t say anything about it to anyone, teachers- parents, anyone. Because at my young age I stupidly thought that would make me a tattle-tale and uncool. I doubt I’m the only one who has been through the situation.
Kids that age may not fully grasp the concept of what it means. (Or maybe they do and I’m giving the jerk you said it to me too much credit) But they DO usually understand they can get in serious trouble saying it, even more so than using a conventional curse word. So you not hearing it isn’t a surprise; most kids won’t be stupid enough to say right in front of an authority figure.
While 3-years old might be young, it’s entirely possible it was said. There are some horrible people in the world and many of them go on to raise horrible children as well.
Ben V: Nobody is disputing that it’s quite possible another child said it. Bradley’s mother claimed that the TEACHERS called him that. 40 years ago, absolutely I’d believe it, today that’s something that would be thoroughly investigated if she reported it.
Part of my skepticism is that based on what I’ve read so far, she just made that claim in the paper and nobody ever filed a formal complaint with the school or some other relevant authority.
Ben V – I never said it was impossible that elementary students know what that word means and associate. But we also have to look at the fact that the 5th grade student is 3 times the age of this age group, and Milton Bradley’s mother is alleging that it not only happened once as an isolated incident, but that a combination of multiple children, teachers and parents said the n-word.
This just doesn’t add up. I’d like to give Milton’s mother the benefit of the doubt, but this seems at best a far-fetched exaggeration and at worst an outright lie.
Alex – Do you not see the justification in dismissing this as highly unlikely? I understand you’re overarching point – what Milton Bradley or his family says should not be disputed because he’s Milton Bradley or related to Milton Bradley. Rather it should be disputed because it just seems so unlikely.
re: false rape
Not all estimates are between 2-8%. Here’s one that isn’t.
“As reported by “False Rape Allegations” by Eugene Kanin, Archives of Sexual Behavior Feb 1994 v23 n1 p81 (12), Professor Kanin’s major study of a mid-size Midwestern U.S. city over the course of nine years found that 41 percent of all rape claims were false. Kanin also studied the police records of two unnamed large state universities, and found that in three years, 50 percent of the 64 rapes reported to campus police were determined to be false, without the use of polygraphs. (Kanin, incidentally, was a feminist icon whose work was cited and relied on without question by feminists, including the infamous Koss Report. “
re: kanin
http://daterapeisrealrape.com/Kanin_Study.html
Perhaps Milton Bradley received, as Alex puts it in the comments “more than his fair share of racism” (whatever in the hell a “fair share of racism” is) because fans of rival teams know he’s easily agitated by it? I’m a Brewers fan and would never yell racist things at a player, but I can tell you I’d be alot more tempted to if the last time someone yelled something at Kosuke Fukudome he threw a water bottle at the guy and got suspended for it.
I also find it hilarious that the article mentioned Barry Bonds, but fails to make the obvious leap that Bonds was persecuted over steroids (and not racism) not because of anything related to popularity, skin color, etc. etc. but because it would agitate him. That’s the goal of heckling – if you get under a players’ skin you can help (or at least think you’ve helped) your team win the game. Milton Bradley sees “racism” all around him, so what better way to royally tick him off than to yell something racist?
This does NOT make the people who heckle him racists, by the way, since simply saying something racist does not make you racist, only believing it does. It simply means they are willing to sacrifice a little dignity in the pursuit of improving their team’s odds.
I did not say that at all. I said that he has faced “more than his fair share of abuse.” I find it very interesting that you substituted my word “abuse” for your word “racism.”
I am amazed that you have no problem with people who heckle racist abuse, because in your words, “saying something racist does not make you racist.” I thoroughly disagree with you. Ballplayers face abuse all the time — if a guy plays poorly, he gets booed. But no one deserves to face racism.
(Also, the article on Bonds and Kent was written in 2001, well before Barry Bonds was universally condemned as a steroidal outcast. BALCO wasn’t raided until 2002; Jose Canseco’s “Juiced” didn’t come out till 2005; “Game of Shadows,” the book about Barry and BALCO, didn’t come out till 2006; the Mitchell Report didn’t come out till 2007.)
I apologize for both the misquote on your first post and the inaccuary on the Bonds-Kent article. However, I think the point still stands. Bonds faced a great deal of heckling about steroids, because it would get under his skin. Bradley faced a great deal of heckling regarding his race because it got under his skin.
And I do have a problem with people who heckle racist abuse, please refer to my last statement where I mention that they sacrifice their dignity.
My major point and problem with this article is that you ignore the motives of the hecklers.
Wow. Dude.
“This does NOT make the people who heckle him racists, by the way, since simply saying something racist does not make you racist, only believing it does.”
No, I think shouting a racial epithet at a player, whether you believe it or not, is a pretty racist thing to do. And I can illustrate it thusly: if you wouldn’t have used that term to heckle an equivalent white player, then yes, your use of the term is racist.
I disagree. Isn’t racism believing in the differences in people based on race? I mean, you’re right to point out that it is despicable and Alex’s correction that I need to say that in my comment is well taken. And I agree that the act is racist, but that doesn’t necessarily make the person racist.
Though, honestly, this is alot of semantics and not really important to the grand message of the article.
Frankly, I think a kid from a low income but solid family will turn out a lot better than one of michael Vicks kids, but I have no proof.
Racism is a two way street. Ignorance is acknowledging only partial truths. Milton Bradley wasn’t held to a double standard. He failed miserably with his social skills because he had a narrow mindset. When his baseball skills failed he was considered useless. John Rocker was forced out of baseball far quicker than Bradley was after first making stupid remarks. Bradley was a victim of his own making who was given many chances for an average baseball player.
That’s simply inaccurate. John Rocker wasn’t forced out of baseball at all. The John Rocker article came out in 1999; the Braves didn’t trade him till 2001. He was in the major leagues until 2003, and the only reason that he didn’t stay longer is that he was a terrible pitcher. In 60 innings after the Braves traded him, he posted a 6.00 ERA with a 1.75 WHIP and 6.2 walks per nine innings. He dropped out of baseball because he got injured, then two years later he tried to come back in the minor leagues, and he still sucked, as he posted a 6.50 ERA with the independent-league Long Island Ducks.
If John Rocker could still pitch like a major leaguer, he’d still be in the major leagues. The public reaction to his stupid remarks had nothing to do with it.
Actually, I think you inadvertently made a great point here, Alex. Didn’t Rocker claim that all the negativity following his ignorant comments affected his performance from a mental standpoint? Why would you give Bradley the benefit of the doubt that essentially all of his problems were the result of racism, but not Rocker when he claims the response to his racism had the same result? If I remember correctly, several writers bravely dismissed Rocker’s claims out of hand while taking on last shot at him.
Paul, do you have a source for that assertion? The most recent interview with him was done by my friend Charles Bethea of Atlanta Magazine, who writes: “He says his left shoulder did him in.”
http://charlesbethea.com/site/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Rocker.pdf
But the larger point is that, quite frankly, Milton Bradley never said anything as vile and hateful as what Rocker said in that Sports Illustrated article. You are conflating the racial abuse that Bradley received with the righteous condemnation that Rocker received for having said hateful things. The two are not comparable.
I don’t have a source and I don’t care enough to look it up, which is why I posed it as a question.
So let’s look at your larger question. Now you’re focusing on the nature of the offense rather than its effect on the victim. Your argument to this point has generally been that the effects on the victims is similar, but that Milton was one of the few who really reacted to it.
Which forces us to adopt Milton’s worldview, that “blackness is the most important thing in his life.” To him, clearly there can be no greater offense than challenging that belief. The logical consequence of this thinking is that there no such thing as black racism, which is why Milton had no problem whatsoever calling a man an “Uncle Tom.”
Can’t tell you how many times I’ve seen fairly well intentioned people try to make this point by arguing simultaneously that black racism rises to a level of offense greater than all other, but that victims’ attitude toward same is neutral, while every bit of the impact lies with the offenders.
It’s a neat rhetorical trick, but if your aim is to bridge the divide, you have to pick one emphasis or the other, because the logical conclusions are different.
The Rocker article was 2000, but he was ostracized for telling partial truths, some of the things he said were correct but only partially so because of his narrow mindedness. Bradley started his troubles in 2004 and these issues lasted 7 seasons and he was never ostracized until after 2008.
Milton Bradley got a lot more rope than Rocker ever did. Manny, Kent, and Bonds all received a ton of rope, but where given far less time when they became average players because age and injuries.
The Jeff Pearlman article was published on December 23, 1999: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/features/cover/news/1999/12/22/rocker/
John Rocker wasn’t telling “partial truths” so much as he was directing a great deal of invective towards a great number of different subjects.
I do not think there is any way to intelligently respond to this issue (or even this article) within the confines of a few thousand key strokes. However, from where I sit, Milton Bradley probably caught more than his fair share of “abuse” due to the fact that, among other things, he struggled to control his anger in a very public way. As a result of his myriad of issues, he appeared to be an easy target for those who wished to exploit his primary vulnerability, his complete inability to contain himself when he felt he was the subject of racial discrimination, and when they did exploit that vulnerability, he was too emotionally fragile or socially unintelligent to handle it like many of us do when somebody attacks us for something we cannot control (race, disability, national origin, etc.).
At the end of the day, the majority of criticism of Milton Bradley is probably well-deserved, but there is certainly the possibility that a good portion of it is stirred by either covert or overt racism.
…and as a side note, if you are dumb enough to call someone like Milton Bradley a piece of shit, you better be prepared to back it up. I would have had no problem with it if he punched that umpire, just like I believe that if you throw out fighting words (“n-word, etc.), you better be prepared for somebody to try to break your jaw. Doesn’t make throwing the punch the right thing to do, but everything has a price, including free speech. Use it wisely.
Alex, quick question that I would like an answer to. In one of the recent podcasts the fangraphs crew was making fun of hafner for being ugly. Is this uglyism? Are they uglyists? Certainly you cannot deny that ugly people are treated differently than pretty people and that uglyism exists, right? So is this an example? Same thing with fatism.
My favorite comedian, Stewart Lee, has a routine addressing this, the question of whether racist epithets are entirely comparable to something like uglyism. His answer, which I predictably agree with, is that they aren’t. Lee’s routine is in response to a 2004 incident in which a British soccer commentator named Jimmy Hill argued that use of the n-word was no more offensive than people who used to call him “chinny” because he had a big chin.
Lee’s routine is here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CqbgMX5AmMY
The routine is in response to this column by Jimmy Hill in The Independent:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/profiles/jimmy-hill-you-ask-the-questions-563136.html
love me some stewart lee.
that whole show is magnificent.
Oh my god, you’re a Stewart Lee fan. I KNEW I liked you.
Stewart pretty well nailed it there. Not that there isn’t some overt and a LOT of covert discrimination against the ugmos and the big ‘uns among us (which shouldn’t be any more tolerable, or tolerated, than racism), but it certainly doesn’t carry the same historical baggage that racism does.
I’m not a racist, but I’ve always hated the game Monopoly. And Yahtzee.
If my parents named me ColecoVision, I might think everyone was out to get me too.
I think the fact that he’s hated leads to racism against him. It’s not hard to imagine drunken belligerent fans going for the low blow, or him becoming a lightening rod for racist hate mail due to his infamous behavior.
I think comments about ‘only 5% of white are racist’ prove that white people try not to see racism. IT’s higher than 5%, but even if it’s 5%, that’s too much. That means you get 1,000 racists at every ballgame and many of those are going to let their feelings known. And those feeling, and those comments are more than anyone should have to hear, I don’t care how much you are getting paid, it’s hurtful and hateful and hearing that night after night has got to get to you. My guess is that all black baseball players get plenty of racist comments and hate mail etc. thrown their way. Bradley may have gotten more than most, but imo, most black players just suck it up and deal and they should not have to. Bradley’s problem was he couldn’t suck it up and deal, and you know what, he shouldn’t have had to either. If more black baseball players spoke up about this and complained, maybe Bradley wouldn’t have been seen as such a complainer and then maybe he wouldn’t have been given such a hard time by the press and others throughout baseball.
You’re probably right that “most black players suck it up and deal with it” but even players who do speak out (Torii Hunter, Jermaine Dye, Orlando Hudson, Gary Sheffield, etc. etc.) fail to back Milton Bradley.
Indeed, 2 of these guys spouted off because of “early retirement” (though Dye’s contract demands were supposedly absurd and Sheffield might be the most unlikeable guy ever according to his trade history), 1 spouted off because he was mad he didn’t sign the Diamondbacks’ extension offer, and Torii Hunter just said something completely idiotic. However, if these guys were willing to publicly put their futures on the line, why not stick up for Milton Bradley?
I wasn’t trying to make the case that things would have been better for Bradley if others had stuck up for them, but that if this was a more widely expressed complaint that his complaints may have stood out less and he would have received less push back.
I didn’t say 5% of white people are racist. I said 5% of Americans. Racism is evil. People are evil. No matter what we do some people will be racist. Some people will be addicted to drugs. Some people will get a DUI. Some people will be murders. Their are racists of every race. But to claim that a large percentage of people are racist enough to actively harm Bradley’s career is just wrong, or at least i think it is. Right now society ridicules racists, in fact most people would probably say racism of any kind is worse than a DUI. Yeah, people might have said mean things to Milton Bradley, but people say mean things to people all the time. It’s human instinct to be afraid of people different than you, unfortunately, but for every teacher who calls a 3 year old an evil name, somebody makes fun of byu players for being Mormon, Pujols or Mariano Rivera for being a Christian, or Tim Lincecum for being a hipster pothead. I don’t really know that Bradley taking such offence to idiot racists will actually change things. Life just sucks sometimes.
Actually, the only reason I’m positive the 5% statement is not true is that it’s assumed in this discussion that we are only talking about either Americans or white people. I have met some very proper Brits who were the most vile racists you’ll ever encounter when you get a few pints in them. You can’t imaging how African immigrants in Germany and Italy are treated. Makes the phrase “living in the shadows,” which is how we describe illegal hispanic immigrants, seem almost quaint. Brazil has a not-so-subtle racialism at work between the darker north and the more European south. It’s a lot greater than 5%, because almost every country has the same issues.
That a grown many was given millions of dollars and expected to be a professional and tune out something that people face in every society on earth is an unfortunate request, but it’s reality.
Maybe it has come up in previous comments and I didn’t see it, but can I suggest that when we lionize Milton Bradley for acting like a complete shit in the face of racism, it really cheapens the contribution of Jackie Robinson. If we correct all societal woes, there becomes no opportunities for certain magnificent individuals to display the class and dignity that the rest of us try to emulate in the face of far lesser challenges.
My goodness, who is lionizing Milton Bradley? Few people have ever had anything nice to say about him at all, and even those who have, like Jonah Keri, or like me in this article, have had to caveat those compliments with the acknowledgement that he has frequently acted in destructive ways.
I disagree that Brazil views race in the same way that the US conceptualizes race. Brazil has something like 100 words to describe skin color (many codeified and used on things like birth certificates) whereas in America it’s often seen as an “all or none” proposition. Also, for what it’s worth, it’s been my experience that being “really white” can be just as non-preferrable as being called “feijoada” (a dark black bean dish) in Brazilian culture.
joshcohen: So the Brazilian conception of racism, including as you note towards white people, is better than the US version? I actually wasn’t trying to make the point that one country’s racism is worse than another’s, just that it’s extremely common in every society on earth.
But I think your mis-interpretation is instructive. For those who make the argument that Alex is making, to such a degree that you actually credit somebody who is not worthy of any, you must start from a deep bias which is aided by inaccurately describing American racism as unique, or so much different or worse than anywhere else.
This argument of course undermines the argument against racism, not reinforces it.
@paul
I wasn’t making any value judgement about whether racism in Brazil was better or worse that that found in the US. Merely different. I was reacting to this part of your statement:
“It’s a lot greater than 5%, because almost every country has the same issues.”
While many (most even?) countries face issues of race, they are not necessarily the same issues. To put another way, American racism is uniquely American though the concept of racism is not… A key difference to your point.
Josh: Actually, the Brazilian race issue I was referring to, which is much more dominant than Italians in Sao Paulo ribbing Germans in Santa Catarina about their propensity to sunburn, has the same origins as in the U.S. Difference being that it took 20 more years after the US for Brazil to abolish slavery. The persistent “indigenous issues” in Brazil are extremely similar to our experience with Native Americans. And both of these issues are extremely similar and relevant in many countries around the world, but especially in the Western Hemisphere.
I know Brazilians who laugh that Americans think that both our achievements and faults are so incredibly unique.
@paul
While I think you raise good points about the applicability of lessons from racial tensions in different parts of the world, I must disagree that the concept of race and the problems associated with racism in Brazil and the US hasn’t presented unique differences for those two countries.
Agree to disagree.
Instead of posting a long, interesting, and truthful take on the situation that would go miles over the head of most of the people reading it, let me save you the trouble and just say “I am a racist”. I mean all of you are, because you’re genetically hardwired to be so, but I know it and am willing to say it.
So go ahead and get your “I’m a good person” dopamine release from downvoting me.
You’re hardwired to be a racist? Are you a robot? If not, people can change. You’re not hardwired for anything. Don’t choose to be ignorant. Choose intelligence. Choose class. Choose acceptance. But don’t blame irrational fear and thought on genetics or “hardwiring”.
You ignant! You ignant!
But seriously, the statement “You’re not hardwired for anything” is quite clearly false.
I doubt people’s brains all have the same level of natural racism or whatever.
Why would it make sense for people to have evolved racism as we understand it since, where the heck is the average person in the way olden days going to find someone of another race?
And what possible evolutionary benefit is there to disliking/hating another group anyway? Why wouldn’t it be the other way around?
Would it be possible for a person to be genetically predominantly a member of one group, grow up in a second group, but have racist feelings toward the first group – the one they more closely resemble? If such a person existed, what would that mean for the idea of hardwiring?
When you think of any of the great crimes against humanity, how many involved people of (what modern Americans might consider) the same race? Some people seem to have their greatest problem with their neighbors, whoever they may be. In other cases, neighboring groups get along so great, they merge.
@bg
Stalin.
@bg
Mao.
This is extraordinarily muddled pseudosociology. Evolutionarily, humans — and pretty much all social animals — have always been predisposed to trust members of their own group more than outsiders. Racism is a result of rationalizing that instinct to mistrust the other.
The thing is, the group you are predisposed to trust or distrust doesn’t have to be a racial group. That’s what the kids in Mr. Wallace’s Newsweek article are trying to figure out. “Who is my group?”
Your group can be anyone.
Definately, people can overcome their own bad attitudes with self-awareness and “sunlight is the best disinfectant.”
Lol, this one is my favorite.
“I’m a piece of shit, but at least I admit it, checkmate!”
Come back when you’re feeling better.
really? the “you must be angry” fallacy? That’s still around?
If I was having a bad day I probably would have given you the 1000 word diatribe I hinted at. But since I’m in such a good mood I was giving you guys all the benefits of hating me without any of the homework.
Us vs them is hardwired. Race is arbitrary and inconsistently defined. At this point I’m a political partyist, struggling to see my political opponents as human, but I don’t think I have to be a racist.
I’m not convinced our kids conceive of skin tone as a relevant delineator of “us.”
You’re right, race is inconsistently defined. Here’s a definition “- A racial group is a partly inbred extended biological family.” It’s a broad definition, in that you can all ‘East Asians’ a race, but you can also call ‘Koreans’ a race.
I’m almost certain that it’s been scientifically established that babies see skin color.
Sure, one can psychologically render one’s own hardwiring impotent. For example we’re hard wired to desire food, but it is possible using extreme methods to teach yourself not to desire food (and then you die, but small price to pay for being awesome). It’s probably slightly easier than that to teach yourself not to feel Us vs Them.
But it’s still not easy, and it’s probable that the vast majority of those who think they’ve done so, haven’t actually done so.
http://www.newsweek.com/2009/09/04/see-baby-discriminate.html
Just throwing this out there since nobody seems to have brought it up:
Let’s step away from baseball for a second and look at society…Are you guys trying to tell me that there aren’t any black people who are racist? I am 50/50 Hispanic/Chinese (so, theoretically, I don’t have a dog in the fight) and it’s my perspective that there is a LOT of hatred towards whites in the black community. If whites hate blacks, it’s racism. But if blacks hate whites, it’s nothing? This doesn’t make ANY sense, yet I feel it’s extremely common.
Blacks who don’t hate whites (or at least are willing to work side by side with them) are labeled “Uncle Toms” by other blacks, while apparently it’s completely socially acceptable for blacks to hate whites. Seriously, if I had to guess, I’d say that 90% of blacks are racist towards whites, yet our society refuses to acknowledge that black people can be racists too. And the second you (no matter your race) opine that any individual black person is racist, YOU are then branded a racist too. What the hell is going on here? I’m just a Chinese Hispanic trying to make sense of the world.
reparations for slavery
I have seen quiet a few complaints towards “black racism” by other ethnic groups and white people. It’s been around since NOI rose to national prominence and possibly before that.. It’s not ignored; it’s a common counter argument really and is sometimes used incorrectly (How many people call the Black Panthers a Black Supremacist group?).
Another provocative example of the intersection between race and sport might be McNabb in American Football. McNabb was often taunted with the taunts of “Uncle Tom” and “Oreo” during his time in Philadelphia. However, while there is a definite racial element to that phrase, it’s not racist in the same way that a white person using n-word is racist. From what I’ve read, the current usage of the phrase “Uncle Tom” deals with a lack of a shared experience of hardship, especially while growing up, within the African-American community.
In comparison to Bradley, however, McNabb laughed off invectives (including the comments by El-Rushbo and other actually racist comments from others), to his great benefit. Yet he continues to face them. I’m not sure I’d have the courage to face that kind of incessant criticism without wanting to break someone’s jaw, as someone so eloquently put in an earlier post. Frankly, maybe I do have some empathy for Bradley in that way. What’s sad is that, unlike Bradley, McNabb did everything “right” in the way he handled it and still got the short end of a stick, per se.
This is probably the most level headed logic I’ve ever seen employed in a Fangraphs comment.
The truth is, there are racists and then there’s everyone else. All we as a society can do is try to keep moving the needle towards the not racist end of the spectrum, and be happy in the process. If you want to go all Milton Bradley about it, that’s your prerogative. But there are a lot of good people in the world. Why not spend your time thinking about and focusing on them, instead of the bad people?
I believe that the argument of blacks hating whites is nothing rather than racism is because only a group “in power” can be attributed with the “ism”. Note: I’m not saying I agree with that approach, but I believe that is the assertion by those who say blacks cannot be racist towards whites. Of course, the definition of “in power” is nebulous and somewhat arbtitrary in itself, so whether or not a person or group was being racist would depend on a number of social and economic (and likely other) factors.
I would also argue that blacks hating whites is not nothing, but rather is simply hatred.
If you are an unlikelable guy, which Milton Bradley is, people exploit your weakness and say hurtful things. If Milton was a white Irish player he would be called a dumb mic, if he were polish he would be called a dumb polack, etc.
Big Papi probably does not hear racial insults because he is likable.
This is similar to the workplace. If you’re an extremely unlikable guy and screw something up, people are more likely to label you “incompetent” or an “a-hole” whereas if you’re a likable guy and don’t get the job done, people are much more likely to give you a pass, chalk it up to bad luck, or overlook the shortcoming.
All things equal, isn’t it always better to be likable? Barry Bonds was one of the most productive players ever, yet if you asked anyone in baseball who they’d prefer as a teammate (or interview subject, or anything else, etc…) I’d be willing to bet that a vast majority of people would choose Jeff Francoeur (the anti-Barry), simply because he’s a likable guy (even for all his shortcomings on the field).
“All things equal, isn’t it always better to be likable?”
I think that’s more true than we stop to consider at times. I think, like, 75% of success is showing up on time, smiling a lot, and stopping to talk to folks even if you don’t need anything from them.
Lots of glad-handing and kissin’ babies, as the politicians might say.
I’m a little baffled how infrequently actual hard data has cropped up in this discussion (if it has appeared at all) – on either side. My own perspective is that we’re dealing with an extremely complex issue that is no less so for encompassing an enormous population with a tremendous diversity of opinion. I don’t have the time to take out of work to crunch the numbers (I actually doubt whether much information is even available – but even if it was…), so feel free to take the following with an abnormally large grain of salt:
Let’s set aside the issue of Milton Bradley-qua-Milton Bradley. He’s polarizing enough even without the racial politics that his presence in this discussion obfuscates more than it clarifies. That said, I suspect that the question of whether racism exists in baseball (America? Chicago? I’m not even exactly sure what we’re talking about here) cannot be boiled down to a simple conditional along the lines of: IF Bradley/Williams/etc. have received racist hate-mail or heard racist catcalls during games, THEN baseball fans are racists.
First, I’m not even sure what those proposing that the conditional has been fulfilled are trying to prove. That those particular fans are racist? That some fans are racist? That most fans are racist? That more-fans-than-we-think are racist (what exactly is the current number that “we think?”)?
Let’s assume that everything all of these players claim is true (not necessarily true, but certainly eminently plausible). I can’t imagine that this would demonstrate that MOST fans are racist. Are more than 50% of baseball fans regularly hurling racist filth during games? Surely not.
Moreover, the picture that such a conclusion paints just doesn’t comport with reality as I’ve experienced it. [I realize that this is not an especially methodologically rigorous way of viewing things, but I admit I can't help but look skeptically upon data that utterly fails the "smell test"]. I’m a sports fan with lots of friends and acquaintances that are likewise sports fans. While I acknowledge at the outset the possibility that my experience is sui generis, I cannot recall ever having a conversation where one of the participants made a comment that might be reasonably construed as racially prejudicial. Neither can I recall ever having been at a baseball game where fans around me were employing racial epithets over the course of cheering or discussing the game.
Of course some might charge that I’m simply hearing what I want to hear. This may be true, of course, but then that is precisely the sort of argument that gets condemned when it’s utilized to delegitimize Bradley, or Williams, or Latroy Hawkins, et al. My point is simply this: at the end of the day, I don’t see any good reason to invalidate one set of experiences while upholding the other.
Where does this leave us then? Again, let’s assume that Bradley and others are accurately describing their encounters – perhaps this proves that SOME fans are racist. Fine. I don’t think this is a particularly revolutionary proposition, but I’m willing to accept it. But let’s bear in mind what this might mean:
First, I recognize that it’s plausible to argue that whatever proportion of fans that engage in racism either at games, or via hate mail is merely the number that is willing to do so explicitly – and the REAL number of racist baseball fans is significantly higher. But I think it’s equally plausible to posit that these explicitly racist fans are the sum total of racists following sports. In addition, it’s also plausible that players like Bradley – and others who speak out about their experiences – naturally attract an inordinate (and unrepresentative) amount of attention from actual hardcore racists, simply because of their (i.e. Bradley’s, et al.) willingness to broach the issue. If this is the case, then while athletic professionals like Bradley may truly suffer a great deal of racial prejudice, this might not accurately represent the opinions of some/many/most fans. In any event, I suspect the reality is somewhere in between all of these possibilities.
Where things get a bit more complicated is in assessing the social reality and impact of implicit or structural racism. The difficulty is compounded by the fact that some people who are indeed engaging in racism may not even realize what they are doing (e.g. a person may be more likely to claim that Andruw Jones is “lazy” than an equivalent non-African American player, but not know why, or even be conscious of this). I tend very heavily to believe that this sort of prejudice is much more prevalent within our society than we realize (not just among Caucasians, but among any in-group community towards out-groups). I also believe that nowadays this sort of racism is much more pernicious than overt racism, since the latter is much less socially acceptable and in any case is easier to target.
Having said that, even I am willing to admit that I am sometime guilty of misjudging this sort of thing. After all, it’s not objectively impossible that Andruw Jones is a lazy fellow (relative, obviously, to other MLB players). And even if we assume (I have no idea if this is true) that his numbers while on the Braves were identical to Chipper Jones, it’s also possible for a person to believe, for reasons having nothing to do with racism, that AJ is lazy while CJ is not. For example, perhaps the first time that person ever attended a Braves game, AJ made a bonehead error and CJ had a stellar game. Even if the reverse occurred the following day, those sorts of non-rational first impressions can stick – and may have absolutely nothing to do with race. In other words, I am completely unconvinced that it if a person believes that a given African American player is lazy, then that person is a racist.
Furthermore, I am completely unpersuaded that such beliefs are necessarily illegitimate because in the past (or even in the present) similar beliefs were (or are) employed as harmful racial stereotypes against a given racial/ethnic/religious group. In certain contexts this might be the case: I would not be inclined to view charitably a speaker at an Aryan Nation rally for declaiming that Bernie Madoff was a greedy, New York fat-cat. That may be true, but the subtext is assuredly vile.
In other contexts, however, this sort of commutative reasoning would be manifestly unfair. To take an extreme example: Osama Bin Laden and Ayman al Zawahiri no doubt opposed the American deployment of forces in Afghanistan, but clearly their opinions should not necessarily taint the presumed motivations of American anti-war activists. It’s possible to oppose the war in Afghanistan without sympathizing with terrorists. Similarly, it’s possible to conclude (even incorrectly) that, say, an African American (or any other minority) athlete is lazy, or a jerk, or what have you, without being a racist.
In the end, then, I am certainly willing to accept as 100% accurate that African American baseball players (as well, perhaps, as players of other racial/ethnic/religious minority groups) have suffered bigotry and prejudice over the course of their careers. On the other hand, I am not at all sure what conclusions to draw from this. And I am very wary of those who are.
That was very good. The only thing I can add is that people who believe racism is gone from America and people who believe racism is just as prevalent as it was 50 years ago are both wrong.
LOL, this was terrible. You pretend throughout like you’re employing some sort of rigorous, objective method, when all that you’re doing is speaking from subjective experiences and employing hunches. Bravo.
I actually make it quite explicit multiple times throughout that I’m largely “speaking from subjective experiences and employing hunches.” In fact, the primary point I’m making is that MOST people who discuss this issue (including OP) are doing that, so it’s best to be clear about it at the outset and acknowledge the limitations of our observations.
That was a curiously long post. JoePos?
“Milton Bradley was a complicated man.”
RIP Milton Bradley.
surprised there’s been no other comment about that little grammatical slip-up
Good point.
“I’d say that 90% of blacks are racist towards whites”
I’d say keep guessing.
This is from my experience. I grew up in an extremely poor section of Chicago, and while being an odd mix of ethnicities was definitely difficult for me, I had a very strong group of friends, all of whom were African American. As much as I love them and as much as they helped me through tough times, I can say with 100% certainty that this group of people absolutely distrusted, despised, and blamed white people. I would also say that this group was representative of my African American peers as a whole. There is just complete distrust for whites in African American culture, especially in poor urban communities.
I was lucky enough to climb out of it all and move out to the West Coast. I’ve left Chicago behind physically, but the experiences I had there are the sort of things you just don’t forget. If I were white, there is zero chance that the friends I had would have been willing to be my friends during those years. I’ll ask again: Why are blacks who hate whites NOT labeled racists?
who says they aren’t? The only thing I was reacting to is that incredible “90%” figure
A.) They are. See NOI, BPP and numerous other groups/people who get labeled it. I see Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson being called racist as well.
B.) You’re making a wide assumption based on Chicago. The extreme distrust of “outsiders” (It’s not just whites.. other ethnic groups have this problem) is mostly associated with urban black populations in the north (And actually for understandable reasons). It’s not the same among all the black populace. African-Americans in Seattle, for example, generally don’t have the same distrust of “outsiders” since their neighborhood was smashed together with other ethnic groups.
How about this one…whenever somebody disagrees with Barack Obama, that person is branded a racist. Seriously. Apparently it’s impossible to have a differing opinion with a person who happens to be black unless you’re a racist.
I am a minority that I assure you there are NOT a lot of (who’s the last hispanic chinese guy you met?) and I can assure you that even I have been labeled a racist for disagreeing with some of what Obama says. Does that mean Obama is a racist for disagreeing with what I say?
It’s impolite to point out the hypocrisy of others in their own home.
“How about this one…whenever somebody disagrees with Barack Obama, that person is branded a racist.”
Hyberbole much?
“who’s the last hispanic chinese guy you met?”
Dude…you’re not Bruce Chen, are you?
Please feel free to take a trip down to South Florida sometime in your lifetime. There are literally several thousand Hispanic-Chinese (and that isn’t hyperbole as there are over 2 million Hispanics in the area so 1-2% isn’t a big stretch). Anecdotally in my high school I’d say there were a good dozen or so kids who are mixed, usually Chinese mom and Colombian or Cuban father.
This is unfair to Cubs’ fans. Derrick Lee isn’t the only example. When they were playing in the ’60s, Ernie Banks and Billy Williams (black) were both more popular than Ron Santo (white), who was thought to be something of an immature jerk. Fergie Jenkins was also very popular, and even a mediocre player like Oscar Gamble had his fans. Everyone liked Lou Brock and despised the Cubs for giving him away to the Cardinals. Willie Mays was by far the most popular visiting player.
Santo didn’t become beloved until he moved to the booth. Cubs fans, except maybe a few drunks, aren’t racists.
Racial Profiling.
A few thoughts.
Last night I was watching Jake Peavy pitch and when he was warming up the camera zooms in and you can hear the announcers talking about his comeback and you can hear someone in the stands yell, “Hey Jake, I wish you were in Alabama and your family was under water too you F***”
He didn’t deserve that. He’s also white. He also didn’t react, before, during or after the game.
I see it this way, which will get me condemned as a racist i’m sure.
No one deserves to be called anything, ever. Ever.
But (<—See that but? That makes me a racist right?) I would liken Milton Bradley to a can of gasoline.
Some a-hole fan is gonna throw matches at you , but not everyone is going to explode.
To say Milton Bradleys inner demons don't have any nearing with how this turned out is just silly.
I’m not sure what your point is? That because people say mean things to white people racism is ok?
No one claimed that Bradley was innocent, but he faced challenges that others don’t.
And there is the racism card.
So I can act any way I want to because at some point someone has said something negative about me?
I’ve been stereotyped, it wasn’t right, but it in no way gave me the right to lash out.
How do people not get this, it is as if they want it to be about race.
You answered your own question when you explained how the Race card lets the accuser get away with so much in this moronic world.
What racism card?
The guy that yelled at Peavy is an asshole, but a guy that yells racist things at Bradley is a racist. Both are wrong, but racism is a much more socially pervasive and detrimental issue.
At the end of the day there are institutional issues that blacks face that whites don’t. Being reminded that, even when you’ve made it, is difficult. Bradley has emotional issues. Him overreacting to situations is not excusable, but his anger issues do not even come close to excusing racist comments.
No one is saying that Milton Bradley’s inner demons have nothing to do with his public perception. In fact, I referred to them repeatedly in my column, as I wrote: “He viewed the world through the lens of racism, and correctly perceived that a lot of people viewed him negatively — and then he contributed to that self-fulfilling prophecy.”
But his personal misdeeds are not an excuse for racism.
I couldn’t agree more.
I just don’t get how others seen to keep missing this point.
Guys, we need to just learn to laugh at each other’s race. I’m Hispanic, I can take any illegal/taco/lawnmower/border jokes and even make them myself. I have a lot of Asian friends and they can take jokes about their genital sizes/eyes/driving. My white friends don’t mind joking about the racist past of America. My black friends know that they will hear racist things and just get laughs of it. My Jewish friends, who are a bit more sensitive, still will joke about the events of WWII. The Muslims I know don’t mind being called terrorists in jest. We all get along by joking with each other and understanding the silly stereotypes and playing on the ignorance of others. When you realize that this ignorance show that you are of superior mental ability to the racists, then racism will only be a joke.
LOLHumans, I think it’s not that simple. I love comedy and I love a well-crafted joke. But there is a very large difference between a well-crafted joke that uses a punchline to make a serious point about race — like the comedy of Dave Chappelle, Richard Pryor, or Paul Mooney, for example — and a simple slur that is not intended to be taken seriously, like terrorist jokes for Arabs or illegal border-crossing jokes with Hispanics. You can’t just insult the history of racism away.
“You can’t just insult the history of racism away.”
Comedy is absolutely productive in healing. Mel Brooks says repeatedly that one of his goals in life is to make people laugh at Hitler and the Nazi regime. Cheers to him for it. When you lose your sense of humor, become too indignant, too self-righteous, you are starting down a path that can lead less to justice and more to ugly hate.
I couldn’t agree with you more. Mel Brooks is a terrific comedy writer; he and Pryor collaborated on Blazing Saddles. My point is, if you’re going to tackle a subject as thorny as race, especially with humor, you have to use your brain. You can’t just casually throw out slurs and expect people to laugh. That’s what Michael Richards did.
In sum, every black player has to deal with racism in the game. Those black players that are great have less racist problems. Milton Bradley is correct in pointing out problems with race, but he doesn’t handle it well. Combine this with his own personal temper, and that’s what we have.
I guess thinking about this gives me alot more respect for the players that do deal with overt racism on many levels and handle themselves professionally, despite the adversity.
does fangraphs pay alex remington to just write inflammatory posts? because that’s all that’s going on here, there’s no “baseball statistics and analysis,” just remington once again bitching about something to try and get comments and reactions like dave cameron does… at least when dave does it, he lives up to the fangraphs “mission” or whatever it is, remington should save his diatribes for the Op-Ed page of his local newspaper
Fangraphs doesn’t tell me what to write. I write about what interests me. You know that reading my posts is optional, right?
i do know, and i’m not going to after this post, which has done nothing but affirm to me that you’re an attention-seeking fool and no one will read your articles if they aren’t unnecessarily provocative.
This article isn’t “unnecessarily provocative.” In fact, other than thought-provoking, it really shouldn’t be provocative at all. Unless you like racism?
Alex I totally disagree with you regarding the notion that someone like Bradley deserved “the benefit of the doubt”. The man managed to piss off somebody in every major sector of the baseball landscape. I’m not saying everyone hated him, but at some point or another in his career, he was despised by his GM, his manager/coaching staff, his teamates, the umpires, the fans, and the media. Who was left for Bradley to alienate his relationship with? Yes, there have been players and people who are/were close to Bradley who said he was a good guy and teamate deep down but was a misunderstood guy with an otherwise good heart who had rage and temper issues to get over. Even if that’s true, it doesn’t minimize the fact that his epic meltdowns, both on and off the field, the strained relationships, and his immflamatory comments blow gaping holes in his credibility.
I respect your work but c’mon Alex, the guy is a multi-millionaire. Do you really think he is sending his kid to a school where the teachers are calling his kid a n….. and dropping n-bombs left and right in front of other children? I mean seriously, if that isn’t completely out of the realm of possibility then it’s in by a wisker. His story is truly sad. It’s that of a boy from a broken, fatherless home. It’s that of a man who became a social misfit on one of the grandest of stages. It’s that of an immense talent that was never maximized. It’s that of man who needs help. Alex, this man shouldn’t be given the benefit of the doubt, we should pity him and hope he can find guidance somewhere or from someone.
i feel bad for bradley as a human being who has obviously been treated poorly at various points in his life, undoubtedly because of his race.
i can’t stand bradley as a baseball player because i don’t want the people i look to for entertainment 6 nights a week, 6 months a year, to be assholes.
but those two issues don’t really have anything to do with each other to me.
I am glad that someone is addressing this, Alex, and I think you handled the complexity of this situation as well as anyone can.
I know this can be difficult for people to understand, but these two statements:
- Milton Bradley was a troubled man with a serious anger problem.
- Milton Bradley was on the receiving end of numerous racist remarks and taunts
…are NOT mutually exclusive.
Yes, Bradley had a lot of inner demons. But this doesn’t excuse baseball fans from taking a long hard look at ourselves, and asking some hard questions about race.
I’ve lived in Chicago all my life, and if you think there are no racist tendencies from many white people in this city, you are delusional. We are only 20 years removed from being the most segregated city in America, and a virtual battleground over race. To expect that those attitudes and biases disappeared overnight is just naive.
The only problem with this article, Alex, is that you made the ‘unfortunate’ decision to talk about race on a forum which doesn’t normally talk about race. This inevitable leads to some tired old chestnuts being dragged out, such as…
“Black people can be racist, too!”
“Yeah, well, this OTHER black person handled racism well, why can’t every black person do the same?”
And so on.
I’m not going to address every single counterargument to Alex’s post, simply because it’s TIRING to argue against the same points over and over again. You think it’s tiring to keep hearing from sportswriters about someone with a ton of RBIs is clutch? Try arguing against people who think that there should be a White History Month over and over again.
However, I will say that just because other black players did not or have not called out racism, doesn’t mean that no black player should. Bradley handled many things in his career poorly, but calling out racism was not one of them. Racism NEEDS to be called out, to be exposed and widely demonized, for there’s no more effective way to find it.
But judging from how most black people are received when they call out racism, it’s no surprise that more of them don’t do it.
Race is important in American society, and always has been. It is also extraordinarily hard to discuss intelligently, because debates can become inflamed so quickly. I believe that race is essential to understanding Milton Bradley’s career — and so did Milton Bradley. Fangraphs has some of the smartest baseball writers, and some of the smartest baseball fans, on the internet. I am interested in exploring these tricky subjects with as much care as I can. If we can’t talk about race intelligently, we will be unable to deal with the reality of race in America.
“I believe that race is essential to understanding Milton Bradley’s career — and so did Milton Bradley.”
Sure. But this can mean any number of things (as per my comment above). I thinks it’s important for those who wish to take this issue seriously to be as clear and precise as possible about distinguishing between what Milton Bradley is asserting and what he has actually demonstrated.
Indeed, we shouldn’t minimize the difficulties inherent in even broaching the issue. After all, I’m not sure what point Bradley’s tentative defenders think is being made. That there are still Americans who hold racist views and have no compunction about expressing them in public? If that’s all we’re talking about, then I don’t think anyone would disagree; after all, “Americans” could refer to 10 people, or to 1,000. Moreover, I think some might reasonably question the extent to which stamping out every vestige of prejudice (of any stripe) is a practical goal.
To take an example from another context: the National Socialist Movement has 400 members across the US. I think we can all agree that neo-Nazism fits into any definition of evil that we might adopt. But most social commentators don’t expend a great deal of effort (if any at all) calling for the end to neo-Nazism in American society. I suspect this is because there is a tacit acceptance that even the most enlightened society is bound to have its fair share of lunatics.
Racism against African Americans, we may wish to argue, might be different, insofar as our country has a history of mistreating this particular segment of the population. I can readily accept that (notwithstanding that African Americans are far from the only group of people to have been terribly mistreated at some point in this country’s history – Jewish, Chinese, Japanese, and Irish people all come to mind, and I’m sure there are more). But even so, this tells us nothing about whether or to what extent racism still abounds in this country. At most, it simply means we should be especially sensitive to this issue.
Applying this to Bradley’s case (or Williams’ case, etc.), we need to ask ourselves what their experiences tell us. To reiterate: do they tell us anything other than that the people involved in those instances are racists? I’m not sure – and I don’t see how anyone else could be.
If we make an [amateur] attempt to get a handle on some numbers, I’m not sure we get any further. How many times has Milton Bradley spoken out about encountering racism during games? Let’s assume 30 times (I thought that would be reasonably generous, but please correct me if I’m wrong). Let’s also assume that each of those times, Bradley didn’t just encounter isolated hecklers, but each time confronted a concerted group of bigots – let’s say a dozen per occurrence. That would mean that Bradley has encountered about 360 bona fide racists across America (assuming that he never met the same one twice). This is indubitably horrific.
But to put this in perspective, the National Socialist Movement (mentioned above) reportedly has 400 members across America. If we’re going to complain about one, we should also complain about the other. Conversely, if we’re willing to chalk up one to the inevitable lunacy that crops up even in the most tolerant cultures, then we should be willing to entertain the same possibility for the other.
In addition, as I commented above, I don’t think Bradley’s (or Williams’) is the only valid experiential indicator. Lots of other people have never experienced bigotry at games, and lots of fans don’t encounter this in any other context either. While it may be that these others are only seeing what they want to see and hearing what they want to hear, the same could be (and has been) said about Bradley, et al. And as much as I believe that it’s entirely valid to speak of “structural” racism, where the prejudice is often unconsciously expressed, I admit that it’s incredibly difficult to make definitive judgments about this in the specific cases where it may come up.
Again, I don’t deny that Bradley and others have had to endure terrible treatment from fans. But what exactly does this tell us? If we’re going to have an honest conversation about race in American society, I think both sides need to be willing to concede the immense complexity of the matter at hand.
I believe Bradley is important precisely because he is flawed. If he were a terrific ballplayer — like, for example, Sheffield or Dick Allen — it would be a great deal easier to separate the criticism he has received for being a bad ballplayer from the abuse he has received for being an angry black man. In order to truly address race, we have to be willing to engage with people like Milton Bradley, who have real problems. It’s just like in the justice system, where laws are really of no value until you use them to defend scum and lowlifes just as vigorously as you defend the morally upstanding.
The National Socialist Movement — I’m assuming that you read that story about the Neo-Nazi who was apparently killed by his 10-year old son — is a non-sequitur. They are most assuredly a nonfactor in American society, and thank God for that. But racism, and the lingering aftereffects of centuries of racism dating to slavery and its aftermath, are much trickier to disentangle from American society.
Re: justice for all, even the lowlifes…: I admire the point you’re making but I’m not sure how it relates to my comments. I did not argue – nor did I imply – that Bradley is somehow less deserving of protection from racial slurs than other, less conspicuous African American athletes.
My point, quite simply, is that those wishing to conduct a productive discussion of race and racism in sports (and American life in general) might wish to pick a cause celebre other than Bradley. Again, let me make crystal clear that I say this not because Bradley does not merit protection from bigotry. I say this because Bradley is flawed in so many other obvious ways that – as we have seen extensively in this comment thread – the discussion may easily get sidetracked onto (at best) tangential or (at worst) completely irrelevant issues. Hence my view that your decision to make this about Bradley was an exceptionally poor analytical choice.
I’m not exactly sure what you’re referring to when you mention a 10 year old murdering his father (I suppose I’ll have to Google this later). I’m acquainted with NSM (and WCC and various AN-related groups) because I’m Jewish and I suppose I just like to know what’s waiting out there.
As far as it being a non-sequitur, that all depends. If I were comparing the historical impact of these groups (in America, at least), you would be right. But I made very clear above that I’m not. My point is not to compare the two ab initio, but to highlight the (potential) disparity between what Bradley sees and what he says. For example, you wrote:
“But racism, and the lingering aftereffects of centuries of racism dating to slavery and its aftermath, are much trickier to disentangle from American society.”
I referred explicitly to this argument in my response to your initial comments. To recapitulate: this certainly makes sense purely as a matter of logic (and certainly it should make us more sensitive to discrimination against African Americans when we do encounter it), but it’s not a self-affirming proposition. After all, it’s theoretically possible that it HAS been successfully disentangled (notwithstanding the ostensible trickiness involved in doing so). It’s also possible that it never will be. Anything in between is also possible. So really a statement like this is for the most part itself a non-sequitur when it comes to evaluating Bradley’s (or Williams’, or Hawkins’, etc.) claims. The real question – one which you have, for reasons still unclear to me, avoided entirely – is this: what do Milton Bradley’s experiences tell us about baseball players? Baseball fans? The city of Chicago? America? Instead you seem, bizarrely (and much less interestingly), to have focused on the question of what Milton Bradley’s experiences tell us about Milton Bradley.
In any event, as far as what they tell us about racism in baseball/America: numerically, it may not tell us anything more than the membership roll of Aryan Nation tells us. If Bradley has suffered racial prejudice at ball games – a notion that, with sadness, I am more than willing to grant him – I simply don’t see how one can conclude on this basis that many/most baseball fans are racists (is that even what we’re supposed to conclude? I’m still unclear what ‘the point’ is supposed to be…).
I can see one concluding on this basis that SOME fans are racists, but as I said earlier, this statement doesn’t really advance the conversation forward at all, mostly because a) it’s not really in dispute (i.e. obviously there will always be SOME racists in a given society), and b) because there is plenty of similarly anecdotal evidence militating in favor of the opposite conclusion, and I don’t see any fair and reasonable criteria for favoring one set of experiences over another.
In other words: Bradley and others may be completely accurate in their claims to have suffered bigotry during games, and the issue would STILL be as complex as ever.
Milton Bradley’s just one guy, and quite frankly, I don’t know the extent of what happened to him or how many Chicagoans, Los Angelenos, Texans, Clevelanders, and Seattleites objected to him on the basis of race alone, so I’m unwilling to extrapolate too much from his experiences other than to say that he experienced racism, which proves that racism continues to exist. The larger point that interests me — which perhaps I should have made more explicit — is that many of us who reacted negatively to Bradley despite no racist intent were doing so in part due to latent racist tendencies. Basically, a lot of people were predisposed to dislike and mistrust Milton Bradley because he’s an angry black man.
“which proves that racism continues to exist.”
As I said, this is a pretty useless statement in the quest for a frank, national conversation about race.
“Basically, a lot of people were predisposed to dislike and mistrust Milton Bradley because he’s an angry black man.”
In my original comment I mentioned my ardent belief that the sort of “structural” racism to which allude is a significant problem within the context of American society. That said, I’m not sure you’ve proven the point you set out to make.
Some questions [meant to sharpen the matter at hand]:
a) How do Bradley’s experiences inform your conclusion?
b) How many people is “a lot of people”? And how did you arrive at this number?
c) What do we do with all of the contrary anecdotal evidence?
c*) Is it reasonable to accuse bearers of testimony contrary to Bradley’s of hearing what they want to hear, while insulating Bradley from the same charge (or vice-versa)?
Every African-American his age has had to deal with a lot of racism, be it thousands of tiny moments and/or many huge ones, but with Bradley, I think we’re also clearly dealing with some serious mental health issues. I’ve heard a lot of 2nd hand talk that Bradley’s “good” year at Texas had a lot to do with his relationship with Ron Washington, who I assume every one knows is African-AMerican. But anyway, with many mental health conditions, stress is often the trigger for episodes and, the impression I got was that Washington knew how to talk to and calm Bradley before he blew his fuse… for the most part.
I hope Bradley gets the help he needs to at least find peace of mind, and hopefully someday, maybe even play some ball.
The racism that Milton Bradley faced was a pure figment of his own imagination. In fact, the only racist he ever encountered was himself, a die hard racist who flat out hates white people with a deep seeded hatred bred into him from birth.
Racism still exists in this country exactly because of people like him. He’s a hothead who flat out sucks as baseball…end of story. He can use the race card all he wants, it doesn’t change the fact that he’s a horrible ball player and a horrible human being.
Sarcasm right? You’re not really that tormented a person are you?
Racism had and has nothing to do with Milton Bradley’s demise as a ball player…his own racist tendencies, uncontrolable anger, and obsession with playing the victim of “racism” is what did him in.
“Racism still exists in this country exactly because of people like him. He’s a hothead who flat out sucks as baseball…end of story.”
Still trying to figure out what these two sentences have to do with one another…
I agree that there is racism. I agree that white people yell racist things at players of color. I don’t agree that one should yell racist comments. It’s sad that when people get upset they resort to their base level and attack others racially.
I do believe that Bradley should be judged on the content of his character (jagoff), not the color of his skin. I believe Bradley should’ve been booed in Chicago, but it should not have been done with racial slurs. Bradley did not hit and was a jerk, and when times got tough it was racism’s fault. The fact remains that a few racist hecklers should not stop you from doing your job.
Racism my ass. You know who else got mercilessly booed in Chicago? Jeff Samardzija. Because he sucked. Like Milton Bradley.
Alex, while I’ve found myself of all opinions concerning your articles, I think they’ve all been thought-provoking and, if not strictly necessary, certainly very welcome. They’ve been, judging from the comment sections, very controversial, and yet perhaps that’s merely testimony to the significance of some of the topics you’ve brought up.
Well done.
Ok what is the record for posts on this site? Whatever it is, I think we should go for it!!!
For the record, I think Milton was treated very unfairly by the press, baseball, and fans his entire career. I also think he OFTEN reacted to it with a lack of character. But I forgive him!
No question baseball is racist. I am whiter than bleach on an old ladies hair, I vote republican, and it is very obvious to me that the sports press and fandom is racist. Nyjer Morgan is a dirty player for coming in hard on catchers while so many guys like Kent, Swisher, Lennie Dykstra, Pete Rose, Darrin Daulton etc were just hard nosed for doing the same.
I strongly believe that if someone pulled a Charlie Hustle-on-Ray Fosse in an All-Star game this year, he’d be (correctly) ostracized by fans and media without regard to race. As this relates to Morgan, I think he’s been unfairly characterized due to three bits of misfortune surrounding those incidents, none of which are race: 1. his incidents were close together in timeline 2. he lacked reasonable situational awareness on the first catcher incident and 3. one of the catchers got hurt (the situationally acceptable time). Without those things, of which 2 are beyond his control, I’m not sure he’d have earned the dirty rep.
I don’t know how much race had to do with it, but I did believe that the public censure of Nyjer Morgan went overboard, as I wrote last fall:
http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/nyjer-morgan-wants-a-piece-of-the-marlins-i-dont-blame-him/
Look, people are stupid, it’s unfortunate, but this kind of stuff happens. It’s going to happen to everyone too, someone’s always going to find something wrong with you to attack, and in this case it’s race. It’s not right, but the sins of the minority (those who attack people with racial slurs) should not be blamed on the incredibly vast majority. When Bradley says the things he’s said about Chicago, it makes me and the rest of this great city dislike him. Because the great city dislikes him, he’s going to take some shit from a lot of people, some of these people are, unfortunately, going to turn to race as their method of attack.
It’s part of being a ballplayer, you’re going to get attacked by the fans. It happens more often for some than for others because they draw attention to themselves, but I guarantee that Josh Hamilton, Ichiro Suzuki, and Derek Jeter have their own squad of haters too. The race bit is unfortunate, but I really wish Bradley would man up for his own deal even half the time, if he did that I’d be able to take him more seriously in cases like this.
I don’t accept that the only possible response is to throw up our hands and say “Racism happens” like it’s the weather. Racism is an odious feature of our society that can only be alleviated when we can talk about it, recognize it for what it is — and recognize what it isn’t, as opposed to the kind of canard that proclaims that “anyone who disagrees is racist” — and repudiate it.
Good luck talking about this (very serious issue) and alleviating the issue.
My thing about this racism tho is that though I can feel for him, I can’t really feel for all of his reactions. He’s not the only one that experiences racism; if anything, the way I see it, considering that he’s a professional athlete and gets paid boku bucks to do what he loves, I feel he should be able to put up with a lot more than an average person like me. I can’t help but to immediately think of Jackie Robinson when I read this article and think of the hell he went through and how he represented to the fullest at a time where it was much worse than today.
The icing on the cake to me was the domestic issue where he supposedly threw a glass table at his wife…was race the reason for that too? I don’t know the situation and I wasn’t there, but off the top of my head I feel there is no justifying taking it there, and that just tells me that his problems are bigger than race issues. Heckling in general is much bigger then Bradley; some of the stuff that went on with J.J. Reddick when he was at Duke probably has Bradley’s situation beat and he was white. Heckling, good or bad, is a major part of sports, and when you as a player show that it’s getting to you, of course its going to continue. I think sometimes heckler’s mindlessly say things that they don’t necessarily mean. You mix a crowd of drunk fans trying to do ANYTHING to throw a player off their game, yeah there is probably gonna be some racial slurs in there.
Bradley talks a good game about his first job is to be black, but he’s not even representing right. People do and say what they want behind closed doors and that’s cool, but while he’s claiming it’s all about being black, he’s really out for self, because he’s out here giving a lot of other black people a bad image and giving other races a reason to continue to talk down on African Americans.
I hope he can live an not be suicidal, sounds like he is going thru alot and wish him the best. Its hard to change characteristics when your built a certain way. Sounds like he’s a product of his environment when you say broken childhood mixed with anger that probably said the foundation for what he is today. If he was a top talent like stated, he was probably spoiled as well. When you mesh all that together you can see how he could be the person he is today.
It’s unfair to expect every black man to have to go through a living hell with the patience of a saint, like Jackie Robinson did. No one deserves to face racism — no one at all, neither a saint nor a sinner.
The “living hell” Jackie Robinson went through had to be at least 3-5x worse than Bradley. So for Bradley to have patience through what he’s going through still wouldn’t come close, you can’t even compare the two like that. Outside of that, what about all the players that do have the patience, that haven’t been complaining in seemingly every instance like Bradley. Without a ton of thought, off the top of my head, when I think across the 4 major sports Bradley comes off as a strikingly unique case when referencing the race card, and he seems to be on a level of his own as far as that.
To hell with patience of Jackie Robinson, I just want to see him have some patience in general. Every time you turn around it’s something different with him.
BTW, it’s GOTTA piss Bradley after the monopoly man. At least that’s the first thing I think of when I think of the other Milton Bradley.
to be named* after the monopoly man.
I didn’t compare him to Jackie. You did, and you seemed to imply that every African-American ought to be able to handle things as well as Jackie did. That’s an unfair comparison — as you yourself point out.
Nah, before I mentioned Jackie I said, “I feel he should be able to put up with a lot more than an average person like me.”. In other words, I feel like if I was in that situation I’d deal with it better; it’s known he can handle these situations better. You took what I said out of context, I put that specific sentence right after that before I mentioned Jackie. I followed up with “I can’t help to think how Jackie represented” because I feel he should be an inspiration to everyone in these situation, ESPECIALLY baseball players. That’s why I said I can’t help to think how he “represented to the fullest”.
I didn’t say we need to be on his level, but Jackie laid down a solid blueprint of how to follow it and Bradley’s just kicking that blueprint to the curb and he didn’t have it anywhere near as hard as Jackie. He’s folding EASY, under LIGHTER pressure.
First thing I ctrl-f’d for in the comments was “wife”. Glad atleast one person brought it up.
Just was wondering if do you do that with other players/athelets such as Pete Rose, John daly, John Mcienroe, Steve Austin, Sean Burke?
If I do what? Ctrl-F on Fangraph articles about John Daley, Tiger Woods etc.? Please be more clear, thanks.
Couldn’t it be that Bradley is misinterpreting racist comments for actual racism? Think about it, fans are taking THE most superficial and obvious quality about Milton Bradley (that he is black) and heckling him. We have all been to games, and I suspect that we all know way more about the players (both personally and professionally) than most casual fans in attendance. Let there be no doubt, I do NOT support any sort of racial commentary towards a player, but:
- If Milton Bradley were fat, hecklers would be calling him a “fat f*ck”
- If Milton Bradley were Arab, hecklers be calling him a terrorist
- If Milton Bradley were Italian, he’d be a “dago” or a “wop”
- If Milton Bradley were extremely slow and poor defensively, he’d be “Raul Ibanez”
- And on and on and on…
While I’m not supporting what fans (allegedly) did, I can understand that it’s very easy to take an obvious trait or characteristic and try to exploit it to throw a player off his game, especially if you’re just a casual fan who is more interested in drinking and heckling players than appreciating the actual game. While some hecklers probably DID mean it, I’d guess that for others it was just low hanging fruit (and with Bradley, almost any criticism is enough to get him to lose his focus).
These simply are not equivalent. If Milton Bradley was insulted for being fat, or was insulted for hitting worse than Raul Ibanez, that would not be an invidious slur based on his race. It would be an insult personal to him alone.
Calling an Arab a “terrorist” absolutely is an invidious slur based on his race. So is calling an Italian a dago. (It’s true that times change, and depending on the context, obviously, these words can be more or less offensive. Yankee manager Joe McCarthy used to call Tony Lazzeri “Big Dago” and Frank Crosetti “Little Dago.” But that doesn’t mean that you should.) It’s unfair and it’s wrong. It is not fair to expect that ballplayers should have to accept racist abuse.
What I don’t get it this: why was Bradley expected to sit there an take it when people showered him with racial abuse, it order to fulfill a “mandate” that taking it is “classy”? And who defines this as classy? Personally, I feel that fans that heckle with racial epitaphs should be escorted from the building…. because that sure as HELL ain’t “CLASSY”!
“that sentence implies that African-American players aren’t normally popular, and that it’s therefore out of the ordinary that a player like Derrek Lee could be beloved in the city.”
No, no it does not imply that.
I have one very minor comment: upon reading the first few sentences, with their heavy use of the past tense, I googled Bradley to make sure I hadn’t missed news of his death.
I was pleased to learn that he is still alive — and, presumably, still a complicated man.
Alex,
This is a great article, thanks for writing it. Obviously its an inflammatory issue but I really thought it was well-written and interesting.
Read every comment, not sure if it was worth my time. Here are the conclusions I came to. Racist comments can throw a player off his game and therefore will ALWAYS be around. This makes using there existence a poor metric for how racist people are past, present, or in the future.
Should people ‘have’ to deal with hearing the occasional / frequent racial slur aimed at them with the intent of throwing off their game? Well if they want to perform well they have to. Also, if you want to be part of the solution to racism then I do think you ‘have’ to deal with racism appropriately.
I’ve concluded that Milton Bradley hasn’t helped the world’s racism problem as much as he’s hurt it. Why do i think this? He himself engage(d)/(s) in racist insults (as someone in a prominent, professional, role-model position I think this is VERY damaging).
In regards to the authors main point that Milton Bradley very likely DID face racism, and we should hear him out regardless of his crazy actions. I have to respond that I’m just not that interested in giving MB the time of day. Why should we give the public spotlight on the issue of race to someone who’s mentally unstable, formerly made racist comments, and poorly represented every group, organization, culture, or race he’s ever been a member of?
This is just wrong. The problem is the racial slurs Bradley faced regardless of his other personality flaws. The people who felt the need to hurl them his way would do it regardless of the character of Bradley because they weren’t slurs on his character, they were slurs directed towards the color of his skin. Dismissing it because you think Milton Bradley is a bad person is saying that racism is sometimes acceptable.
Why should we listen to Bradley’s remarks, even if he’s a not, in your eyes, a good person? Because calling someone a racial slur is indicative of a larger problem; that the person saying them devalues a race or ethnicity. That person could be some unemployed drunk, or he/she could be a partner at a prestigious law firm that takes the same underlying bias/hate that allows them to insult Bradley’s race into an job interview with a prospective new employee, who happens to be a minority.
As a sports fan, when I dislike players or want to boo or insult them, the thought of using a racial slur never once crosses my mind. Why would it? The player’s race has little to do with his ability to hit, field or pitch. If a player is a jerk, he’s a jerk- that’s his defining characteristic, not his race. Anyone claiming that Bradley somehow brought this on himself because he’s a jerk just misses the point; if you think Bradley’s a jerk, then call him one. Once you add a slur to that or add race to it, that’s saying something about you.
Milton Bradley has culpability in him being disliked as even his supporters point out. He could have handled his temper better; he could have dealt with the media better. But he has no culpability in some person using a racial slur against him. There is nothing he can do to make an ignorant person see past his skin color unless you somehow think that being temperamental makes it justifiable to be discriminated because of something completely unrelated to it.
“Blacks who don’t hate whites (or at least are willing to work side by side with them) are labeled “Uncle Toms” by other blacks, while apparently it’s completely socially acceptable for blacks to hate whites.”
Honestly, racism is a greater societal problem when it’s used by the “racial group” that’s in power to oppress the others. (to get crazy extreme, German racism against Jews was a much bigger deal than whatever Jews might have felt towards ethnic Germans).
“Uncle Tom” theoretically doesn’t mean an African-American who’s willing to work side by side with whites, but an African-American who acts subserviently to white people or acts to appease his/her oppressors. I’m sure there are subsets of our culture where it is used as you describe. Keep in mind that a majority of African-Americans in the US do work with and interact with white people on a regular basis. (intermarriage rates are rising dramatically. we really are less segregated than we once were.)
I don’t think racism against Milton Bradley is being used here to excuse Bradley’s own failures, which are real and many if sometimes overstated. I also don’t think we should dismiss the greater challenges an African-American baseball player faces as irrelevant.
well, you know, that’s just like, uh, your opinion, man.
Milton Bradley’s a punk who happens to be black. As a white person I make no apology’s for slavery and the social status of blacks, since I had nothing to do with it. Look at all the Hispanic people who have make successful lives for themselves in the last decade. They’re illegal for for christ sakes and they make their lives better through hard work, not complaining. Bottom line is some black people just need an excuse for being the losers they are. Why not blame whites, it’s an easy out.
Wow, talk about ignorant:
“As a white person I make no apology’s for slavery and the social status of blacks, since I had nothing to do with it.”
Perhaps you shouldn’t, but you should, at the very least, be aware of something called white privilege. And putting aside the issue of slavery, you do realize that the Civil Rights Movement isn’t that old, right? The 24th Amendment, for example, was put into law in 1964. In other words, you don’t need to go as far back as slavery to find institutional racism in American society. But let’s ignore the facts, and just throw out random, troubling shit about “some black people . . . being the losers they are.” Great job.
That argument in itself is extremely racist. All it does is identify and attribute status to people based on the color of their skin rather than treating them as individuals. Is it any less racist to identify oneself primarily based on race, as opposed to identifying others in the same way? How can the issue of race ever fade away with these kinds of backward attitudes? I don’t know what was learned in Social Justice 101 at the University of Marx, but it appears some were not taught nor encouraged to think for themselves.
Racism discussions bring out the absolute worst in internet commentary. Racism subtly influences American society in so many ways, maybe Milton Bradley picked up on too much and just started seeing it everywhere or maybe too much of it was real. I don’t think we’ll ever know.
Milton Bradley is a fuckin ass clown and so are you.
To Gizzle,
Bradley is a clown but Alex Remington is even worse – what an awful assessment of this situation, which involves something much more important than just sports.
Milton Bradley makes millions of dollars a year and his kid has attended the best schools in each city in which he’s lived. We’re supposed to believe that this three year old was called the n- word by his teacher? And what happened then? The three year old kid went home and explained this to his mother or father? Or the child’s mother overheard the teacher say this in her presence?
Much of what Milton Bradley says STRAINS CREDULITY. As a psychiatrist I think it likely that he has bipolar disorder and some type of PERSECUTION COMPLEX.
And in what way, pray tell, does David Haugh’s comments about Derrek Lee imply racism? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in Haugh’s statement about Derrek Lee has the slightest INKLING of racism.
Boy, if I was in trouble and needed a lawyer to make an argument on my behalf, just about the last guy I’d ever hire would be Alex Remington. Yes, racism still exists and it is a sad statement on human behavior that is the case, but this article identifying Milton Bradley as a poster boy of that terrible social phenomenom is a joke.
Bradley ought to be ashamed of the way that he’s acted in his professional career and Remington ought to be embarrassed that he signed his name to this article, which is complete and total garbage.
Milton Bradley makes millions of dollars a year and his kid has attended the best schools in each city in which he’s lived. We’re supposed to believe that this three year old was called the n- word by his teacher? And what happened then? The three year old kid went home and explained this to his mother or father?
Yes, yes you are. I don’t really find this one that incredible.
Yes, racism still exists and it is a sad statement on human behavior that is the case, but this article identifying Milton Bradley as a poster boy of that terrible social phenomenom is a joke.
To answer this I quote “Flawed as he was, Milton Bradley deserved better than he got.” The entire point of this article is not to glorify Bradley but to say that he was neither wrong nor right.
I read the article, but haven’t read most of the comments. I apologize if someone has already made the point I’m about to make.
Does racism exist in the world? Yes.
Does racism exist in the United States? Most certainly, it does.
Has racism and “racial tension” played a role in making Milton Bradley the person he has become? Again, the answer is, yes, it has.
Racism most certainly exists in this country. One need look no further than the treatment of President Obama by the media regarding his birth certificate. There is no way that the media would have spent years spouting off about John McCain’s, Bill Clinton’s, or Al Gore’s birth certificate. (John McCain was, in fact, born in Panama.) That this issue was a major discussion point for years is but one small example of the sinister strains of deep racism in American society.
All that said, as a Seattle resident who has watched Bradley’s behavior for over a year, when I look at Milton Bradley, I see a crazy person. I see a man with a set of mental, nervous, and emotional problems, and who lacks either mechanisms or support systems to deal with these problems.
I truly believe that Milton Bradley is mentally ill, that he’s suffering from some form of anxiety and depression. He obviously went through some bad things as a child, and he was never able to progress emotionally past that point.
There’s an angry, little kid living inside Milton Bradley, and the pressure of playing major league baseball under the spotlight in front of 30,000+ fans and a couple million television viewers triggers these outbursts from that angry, little child.
Mental illness doesn’t see race. While it’s true that racism, both directly and indirectly, contributed to Milton Bradley’s current emotional/psychological state, Bradley’s problems now have little to do with race. The man is quite simply a nervous wreck. He’s a hazard to others around him. He’s even more of a hazard to himself.
Milton Bradley needs serious help, and he probably needs to stay as far away from a major league diamond as possible. Some people simply aren’t wired to perform in the public arena. Milton Bradley appears to be such a person.
Just so you get this right. John McCain was born on US Soil in an unorganized US Territory called the Panama Canal Zone at CoCo Solo US Naval Base and not Panama. The idiots who are trying to get Obama out of office based on birth certificates may or may not be racists, but they are most certainly stupid. Obama has been treated as a US Citizen his whole life. This other stuff is typical sore loser republican rubbish just as the democrats pulled similar sore loser rubbish on Bush. Now back to Milton, that he could not separate his performance as a professional and how others treated him is his own fault. It’s not as if Milton Bradley ever encountered the racism Jackie Robinson and Hank Aaron endured, it can’t even be close.
The point I was making in reference Obama’s birth certificate is this. At the end of the day, the primary reason that Barack Obama’s birth certificate was considered a legitimate topic of debate for three years in the major media is skin color.
There was never “public concern” or a media firestorm over any other President’s or presidential candidate’s birth certificate.
Make no mistake about it, racism does exist in this country.
As pertains to Milton Bradley, unfortunately, not everybody can be Jackie Robinson. While I adamantly believe that segments of our society are mildly, and even deeply, racist, I also believe that individuals should have the power to control how they respond to things, even mean-spirited, unfair treatment.
No player should EVER have to be taunted based on the color of his skin. It’s disgusting. It’s ignorant. It’s completely unacceptable, and it’s a shame that people still have to deal with this in United States in 2011.
The fact of the matter is that Milton Bradley is not the only player who has had to put-up with this. Most players have found a way to deal with it, either by blocking it out, letting it go, or using it to motivate them to perform well.
Milton Bradley has never found a way to deal with it. He obviously has never found a way to deal with lots of things. Yes, he SHOULD be able to deal better with things, but it’s obvious at this point that he simply cannot. He has little-to-no self-control. It’s hard to imagine any clubhouse that could handle all his excess baggage.
You do realise that Dan Rather was fired for what amounts to the equivelant of what occured with Obama’s birth cetrificate right? That GWB was linked by members of the media to 911? That Bill and Hilary Clinton faced accusation and investigation at every turn. That Bush Sr. and Regan had all manner of conspiracy’s atributed to them? Newsflash not believing what the power elite say is nearly as big of a national pastime as baseball and everyone has their team.
Considering his relative obscurity in the years before his election, his childhood in Indonesia, the fact that both his biological and adoptive fathers are foreign nationals, and that everything that anyone knew about him was a narrative he created, is it really that surprising that people would see conspiracy? Can you think of another president that has a life story remotely like this one?
This is of minor note in the grand scheme, but in your very first sentence you say “was a complicated man.” I believe that “was” should be an “is,” unless he’s passed and I missed it.
Yes, you are right. Jason W. and ScooterPie mentioned it too. I meant it to refer to his career and life in the public sphere, which is pretty much over. (Even screwed-up retired athletes, like Refrigerator Perry, are only very occasionally brought back into the limelight.)
Thank you Alex, for the article. Though I do not agree with all of your assertions and/or conclusions, I think that the fact that it generated this much discussion is a good thing.
Thanks also to everyone who has contributed thoughtful points to the debate. Honest debate and discussion with a willingness to concede valid points not thought of by oneself is crucial for understanding each other’s points of view.
Regarding the part of the discussion about the validity of whether Mr. Bradley’s 3-year old was called the n-word, I think it is difficult for many white people to believe the depths of racism. I am white, and I think 5 years ago, I would have not believed that assertion. However, my worldview and experiences have changed in the last 5 years, as I am now an adoptive parent to two Korean children. My son, at the age of 3, was called “chink” by a 5 or 6 year old boy at a local park. My son and I also attended a Twins game against the Indians that same year and somewhere behind me, I could hear a man ridiculing Shin Soo Choo’s name whenever it was announced. Also that same year, I attended a performance by the kids at my son’s daycare. One of the songs was about different countries of the world, where for each country, the kids (and teachers leading them) would do some action associated with the country they were singing about. For Russia, an arms-folded, legs-kicking out Russian-esque dance was done; for Spain, the children and teachers mimed castanets on their fingers; for China, to my horror, the children and teachers all pulled at the corners of their eyes to “slant” their eyes. I had no idea how this thoroughly racist action was put into motion as something to teach 3-year olds as a good way of portraying Chinese people, but it was. And I have no idea how a teacher might ever call a 3-year old the n-word, but given what I’ve seen and heard with my own eyes and ears in a very short time period of becoming a mixed-race family, I can not dismiss it outright. It certainly is possible. The world has a lot of ugly to it. Uglier than we can sometimes imagine.
This post has made me wonder about the demographics of the people who read fangraphs though. Not to draw any conclusions, but simply to know information about the readers. We all have biases based on our backgrounds and experiences and it would be interesting to know more about each other.
Again, thanks for the article and discussion.
Respectfully,
scottz
Good article. All points valid.
It is also good to think about the ways that racism manifests itself in less blatant ways. There have been studies of the language used to describe white players and black players by announcers and sportscasters. I believe one study looked at the different words that were used to describe quarterbacks in the NFL and often a white quarterback was described with words that were synonymous with “smart” while a black player often was described with words synonymous with “athletic.” Despite the intent of complimenting a player, the announcers and sportscasters were conforming to stereotypes that favored physicality over mental achievements.
It’s important to see how these more subconscious ‘racisms’ come across in baseball (and life in general) as well.
The one that always gets me is how two players who have nothing in common but their skin color are compared as similar. For instance Donovan McNabb was rarely compared to John Elway despite their remarkably similar skillset, or Steve Young and Randall Cunnigham
Bill Simmons has often written about the fact that sportswriters rarely make cross-racial comparisons, and I completely agree with you and him on that. Because I’m conscious of that, whenever I make comparisons between athletes I strive to ensure that I’m doing it because of skillset, not because of physical appearance.
Every time Milton Bradley switched teams he would immediately publicly insult them. There’s a point where it’s an issue with the man, not the sport.
The two are not mutually exclusive. It’s an issue with both.
I agree they are not mutual exclusive. But after playing for so many organizations and it becoming a constant occurence, I begin to believe it’s an issue with that specific invidual rather than the organizations.
mutually*
One last thing, I don’t know if it was stated. When I (and many people I know) look at athletes I think of how much they get paid for what they do. As a result of that fame, and paycheck, athletes forfeit being able to do a lot of things that average people like me can. Team’s don’t sign players to be vocal about ANYTHING controversial that they don’t have to, and I think we have plenty evidence that players that are vocal on controversial issues risk negative effects on their salaries. Most organizations don’t want to deal with distractions, and when a player brings up a controversial issue, the situation is really bigger than the player. The media brings the issue to other players and reference the original players quotes; they also bring the issue to management and other players. It puts a stress on other teammates and from the outside looking it, it looks like you lose clubhouse respect.
You can call it being scared of the repercussions, but I wouldn’t call it the player’s being scared of the response if that makes any sense. The response can be negative or positive, but indirectly the response brings a distraction that is not baseball related. It’s not like the players aren’t just speaking on racism, I’m sure there are many more issues they’re not speaking on so that they won’t be considered a distraction and looked down upon by the organization. It’s all about PR these days, and you have to believe there are backroom meetings to squash anything controversial before it comes out, or “keep it in the locker room”.
Same advice Milton that I gave my kids while they were in elementary school. Yes, you will be teased by the other kids. They will call you fat, skinny, tall, short, blond, redhead, slow, fast, dumb, smart. In short they will call you things that YOU ARE. Ignore them. OR, use it as fuel to do better than them. Don’t use it as an excuse for a failure or poor performance.
As it applies to Milton, they called him … black? ok, and a few less nice versions. But still, same advice. Ignore them, Or use it as fuel to do better. He failed to accomplish this, and now he wants to use it as an excuse for failure or poor performance. He were a nice, 5 tool player, who could have done so much better. But, he didn’t. He became a clubhouse cancer, not a clubhouse asset.
I don’t like the whole race-card and racism thing. It happens. But, there are people out there who have managed well, in spite of being “different” (used to cover all “-isms”). Might take a bit of hard work. But, isn’t that what being successful takes anyways?!
Milton Bradley is a loose cannon , wouldnt matter what job he was doing , he would have a problem with someone . To bad , he’s cost himself a lot of money because his emotions took control . We are going to see more race issues going on as blacks assert more economic and political influence . As the country becomes more diversified tensions will only escalate as whites try to maintain power . Poor whites will join militant groups , black militias will form to counter the attacks against them . The govt will start a war with Russia to divert the public . Eventually the country will be divided up into warlord controlled regions . Finally peace will be established by a sentient paramecium but wont last , beceause the Sun will enter its red giant phase and incinerate the planet . Those are the days I live for .
I believe I have read every comment, and I don’t think that we’re paying enough (any?) attention to the main problem with shouting race-based insults at players: they are not the only ones who hear them. A particular player *may* be overpaid, antisocial, delusional, overly sensitive, out of control, or whatever, but shouting anything negative about his Blackness implies a connection most of us reject and, even if it is done “only” to get under his skin (an ironic idiom in this context), unnecessarily attacks every other African American who hears it, not to mention the rest of us. It is the verbal equivalent of using a hand grenade to assassinate one person in a crowd. No matter what Bradley supposedly deserves, African American fans shouldn’t have to hear about how his race – their race – is a problem for other fans, shouldn’t have to see that no white fan stands up and says that racist hecklers are going too far. I can only imagine how frightening it must be to hear invoked the dehumanizing language of our slave-holding and segregated past and our less-officially-racist present and to see that no one does anything about it. African American fans might wonder, “If it’s ok to try to hurt someone playing a game by using a history of hundreds of years of violence as a blunt weapon, what will those same hecklers and indifferent bystanders do to us if we do something to upset them in the real world?” The N-word (and most racist speech) is a threat (to repeat the past) and an attempt at justification (“they’re subhuman”) rolled into one. It tries to make people feel unwelcome but can’t be aimed at one person; its stink goes all over.
Neither kids nor adults should be exposed to this scattershot abuse and the subtle message that it’s ok to use any means to gain an edge and to look the other way when minorities are condemned. Anyone who argues that Bradley should have handled it better should also think about how he or she would react if someone attempted to put a label on him or her that was historically reserved for slaves and victims of lynchings and, after 100 years of improvement, for second-class citizens. And try to keep the big picture in mind: African Americans don’t deserve the pain caused by the inability of some to articulate relevant faults in opposing players or to shut up and simply enjoy the game.
Much of this thread is very sad.
I hope our children can put the pieces back together much better than we have done.
This article fails to separate Milton’s own failings and those of society while failing to recognize the economics of baseball. If a white person hates a black person or vice-versa it is not racism. Racism is something far deeper and much more disturbing than simple hatred of one person. Just because Milton experienced hatred doesn’t mean others have not received similar treatment. His excuse of racism will never hold water with many regardless of race. I completely believe there were episodes of racism of which Milton endured, but the scale and breadth of it did not extend into professional relationships by any reasonable metric you can use. He was only above average when he had very lucky BABIPs of .371 and .388 in his only 4+ WAR years.
Despite being underpaid until 2009, his 2009-2011 WAR value to actual salary is abysmal and in 3 seasons he goes from being a value player despite his attitude to a player of negative value and is why he is no longer a baseball player. It’s not like Milton Bradley for his career has been underpaid his true value anymore than Paul Konerko or Derek Lee. Jermaine Dye isn’t in baseball anymore because of the same economic factors facing Bradley. By blaming everything on racism just means there will be no rational way for guys like Bradley or Dye ever to get back into the game, because they overvalue themselves when guys like Konerko or Lee will slightly undervalue themselves to still play the game they love. Sooner or later, you have to realize you are a victim of economics and not hate.
I would love it if you could show me proof that Bradley blamed racism SOLELY for his subpar 2009.
Milton Bradley is his own worst enemy. He needs to grow up……period. Stop with the excuses. Many, many people in life have issues, even stemming back to childhood. He needs to get his head and straight and stop blaming people for his misfortunes. The racisim card is way overplayed and used as an excuse for people who can’t deal with life. Grow up, straighten up and fly right.
I’m a black Cubs fan, and there aren’t many of us, as most of the blacks in Chicago are either White Sox fans or not really baseball fans at all. I was happy to see Bradley signed (not because he’s black, but because his 2008 made me optimistic for 2009), but was confused when the first picture of him in the Sun-Times was of him throwing a bag of baseballs onto the field at Dodger Stadium with a serious scowl on his face. Add in the fact that fan favorite Mark Derosa was traded essentially to make room for Bradley, and Bradley was basically screwed from the start.
He definitely shot himself in the foot more than once, but his claims of racism and most of the reactions to them were more disturbing than the strikeouts, errors, and just overall disappointing play from Bradley. To hear/read a white Cubs fan say/write, “We’re not racist! We love DLee!” is the equivalent of a white person saying, “I’m not a racist! I have one black friend!”. I was a guest on a radio show and a white Cubs fan said that while he had heard racial slurs aimed at Cubs and opposing players, he did nothing because, “I didn’t feel it was my place.” Right.
I don’t think racism will ever cease to exist, but hopefully, sports fans won’t allow it into their arena in the future. I also hope Bradley gets some help from someone, somewhere, so he can lead a productive life off of the playing field.
Just out of curiosity… why are most black people White Sox fans? Did the White Sox organization begin integrating black players sooner than the Cubs?
It’s about location, and the fact that Wrigley Field is on the mostly-white north side in a relatively affluent area, and The Cell is on the minority-heavy south side, across from and nearby what many perceive to be “the hood”. I know many black south siders who feel that they just don’t BELONG in Wrigleyville, where there is more of a college football Saturday, frat boy/sorority girl vibe, especially in the summer when the weather is nicer. It’s funny, because the neighborhood in which The Cell inhabits, Bridgeport, is widely known for not being very kind to blacks (see: Lenard Clark). Chicago is the 3rd-most segregated metropolitan city in the country (I feel like we got shortchanged on that one), and basically, Cubs/Sox is just one more example of that.
Remington, the author of this piece, should be ashamed of writing this. The article is embarrassing – in what way does this statement about Derrek Lee have any overtones of racism? His allegation is simply non-sensical.
Racism does exist in this world, unfortunately. It’s obviously less overt than it once was, but hopefully it’s also decreasing as well.
Bradley seems by all accounts to be just a bad guy in need of mental help. To tout him as the victim of all that has afflicted him seems to be more than a little offbase. No one deserves racist treatment and the fans who have spoken or written these ugly words are reprehensible, but Bradley himself is also a bad person.
I tried to explain why I read Haugh’s phrase “of any race” in the specific way I did. It struck me as belittling. Obviously, many other readers disagree.
“Remington, the author of this piece, should be ashamed of writing this.”
That’s true, but had he written something thoughtful and halfway intelligent, then none of us would be talking about it. Writing outlandish and controversial things gains these writers the attention they seek.
The purpose of this article wasn’t to promote a thoughtful discussion on race in America. The author clearly hasn’t seen Milton Bradley’s outbursts up-close.
By making this a matter of race, Remington was able to manipulate all of us suckers into commenting on his amateurish drivel.
You’re right — I never saw Milton Bradley up close. He never played for my team, the Braves. I saw him on television and read about him for a decade, played fantasy baseball with and against him for a decade. The purpose of this article was exactly to promote a thoughtful discussion about race. If that was impeded by flaws in my piece, I accept the blame for that.
I think the Bonds vs. Kent comparison (and by proxy, black vs. white) is crazy if you simply look at the career and perception of Ken Griffey Jr. In reality, Junior was standoffish, emo, and a really bad interview, particularly early in his career. But since he was so exciting to watch, and considerably moreso on the defensive side than Bonds, and because it appeared he was “having fun out there” (reminiscent of the Brett Favre “he’s just like a kid out there” rhetoric), Griffey was considerably more appealing to the media and the fans that ate up the media’s crap. And this was during an era where black athletes were becoming more popular than ever before. To say or imply that Bonds was hated MOSTLY because of race is incredibly inaccurate. Not to mention that Jeff Kent still has this racist stench on him today, it just doesn’t get played out as much because he was as good or as transcendent as Bonds.
How does this relate to Bradley? Well, clearly, he’s in the same boat as Bonds. Bradley isn’t loathed because of blackness, he’s loathed because of his craziness. I’m sure the media has enhanced the storylines with him much like they did with Bonds, but that’s just the media being the media and it probably doesn’t have a whole lot to do with the issue of race itself.
Finally, the reason why these race debates are still so tense is because you get idiot writers obviously grasping at straws to make white critics look as bad as possible, just as Remington has done here with the D. Lee thing. I mean, it’s POSSIBLE that there are racist undertones in Haugh’s remark, but to outright accuse someone like that without any proof or background to believe such a right is incredibly irresponsible. Shame on you.
“Finally, the reason why these race debates are still so tense is because you get idiot writers obviously grasping at straws to make white critics look as bad as possible.”
I believe the writer’s intention is mostly to gain recognition by fomenting controversy. Alex Remington played the race card perfectly here. He put put the “race bait” out there, and we all took it.
Not much useful or intelligent was generated via this article, but we’re now more likely to remember the name “Alex Remington.”
That’s the way a lot of writers and critics operate.
Of course. But there is a fine line between cheap page views and maintaining your integrity, and that was clearly crossed here. If everything was fair and just, Remington, and maybe Fangraphs, would and should suffer for it.
I did not accuse Haugh of racism, nor do I believe that he is a racist. I wrote, “Perhaps Haugh didn’t intend it to sound this way,” then explained the overtones that I heard when reading the sentence, which the author may not have been aware of conveying.
I didn’t choose to write about Milton Bradley because I was grasping at page views. I wrote about him because I thought this was an important angle of Bradley’s story to consider. Moreover, Fangraphs doesn’t tell me what to write. If you disagree with what I write, blame me alone.
“If everything was fair and just, Remington, and maybe Fangraphs, would and should suffer for it.”
I don’t necessarily think they should suffer for it. Everyone has a right to his//her point-of-view. I think that the comments section demonstrates that the majority of Fangraphs readers feel that Mr. Remington’s article failed to put Milton Bradley’s being jettisoned by his eighth team in less than ten years in the proper perspective.
I don’t think our goal ought to be to make Fangraphs suffer. The goal should be to make Fangraphs BETTER. Maybe the lesson learned is that having the ability to analyze and interpret statistical data doesn’t mean that one also has the ability to tackle complex and sensitive issues such as race in America.
You make a good point with Griffey. Griffey was very good at cultivating the media, and they loved him back, and rarely printed anything negative about him. Milton Bradley wouldn’t, or couldn’t, develop the same relationship with the press.
“Milton Bradley wouldn’t, or couldn’t, develop the same relationship with the press.”
As a Seattle resident, I must say that your remark leads me to believe that you haven’t observed the attitude and behavior of Ken Griffey, Jr. or Milton Bradley all that much.
Not many players are capable of winning over the press like Griffey. Heck, Griffey could even win-over the most ardent hecklers. I sat behind the visiting dugout at a Mariners game in 1993 at Yankee Stadium. NY fans, as most people know, can be quite rude and vocal.
The thing was, Griffey would turn around and give it back to the fans. Not in an angry way, but in a joking fashion. Griffey had Yankees fans eating out of his hand by the fifth inning, even though he had doubled-in two runs and robbed them of a HR.
Griffey, however, had certain things going for him that Bradley never had. Griffey came from a two-parent home with a stable income. Griffey grew-up in major league clubhouses. While it takes many players years to acclimate themselves to the lifestyle of a major league baseball player, Griffey was perfectly at home in the clubhouse and on the field from day one.
Milton Bradley grew-up poor, was raised by a single mother, and has a goofy name. It seems pretty obvious to me that something happened in his developmental years that has left the man permanently scarred.
It also appears to me that Milton Bradley could be on the verge of a mental/emotional collapse. This is not the kind of person who responds well to thousands of people screaming at him, or having dozens of cameras and microphones shoved in his face.
Bradley really needs to take a big step back and get his life together. From what I see, the place for him to do this is not anywhere near a major league baseball facility.
I completely agree with everything you said about Griffey, Wayne. Actually, throughout Bradley’s career, a number of reporters remarked on how charming, intelligent, and engaging Bradley could be at times. But he didn’t do that all the time, and it may well be that he simply was unable to do it all the time. The possible reasons are myriad and we’ve pretty much covered them already: his childhood, his anger issues, his long history of bad incidents that were covered negatively.
Griffey simply had a genius for being popular that Bradley lacked.
“Griffey simply had a genius for being popular that Bradley lacked.”
Griffey had a lot of things that Bradley lacked, namely a stable family, positive role models for parents, not to mention the fact that Ken Griffey, Jr. literally was raised on major league fields and in major league clubhouses. Griffey knew half the reporters in the game from the time he was a little kid.
Griffey’s dad, a very talented ballplayer in his own right, played on multiple world champions. Ken Griffey, Jr. was as close to Baseball Royalty as one could possibly get.
Milton Bradley enjoyed none of these advantages. In fact, aside from their both being major league ballplayers of African-American descent, Milton Bradley and Ken Griffey, Jr. don’t share all that much in common.
“…throughout Bradley’s career, a number of reporters remarked on how charming, intelligent, and engaging Bradley could be at times.”
He could be all of those things, at times. The problem is that Milton Bradley suffers from some form of mental illness or anxiety disorder. His outbursts are beyond typical tantrums. We’ve all seen both players and managers like Earl Weaver, Lou Piniella, and Paul O’Neill lose their tempers and behave ridiculously.
When Milton snaps, he’s like a wounded animal. There’s a look in his eye as though he’s not completely aware of where he is, or what’s happening.
There’s some raw nerve in Milton Bradley. The experience of playing major league baseball obviously irritates that exposed nerve, rendering him incapable, at this point in time, of being a productive member of any team.
I am aware of all of the differences between the two players, and I agree. Above, I wrote, “Milton Bradley has spent his whole life dealing with demons, anger that he struggles to control, the ghosts of a broken childhood and a disappointing career in which he was betrayed by his own body and attacked by fans.”
I don’t understand why you feel that we’re disagreeing. There is nothing in my column, and nothing in my comments in this thread, which would contradict any of what you’re saying. Yet you attack me, repeatedly, and characterize this column as “amateurish drivel.” I simply don’t understand why you’re reacting so negatively.
First of all, I apologize for referring to your writing as “amateurish drivel” and I don’t mean to “attack” you. The main point I was trying to make is that I feel your commentary on Milton Bradley and racism in America neglected to weight properly mental illness, and the anxiety disorder from which Bradley ostensibly suffers.
There’s no doubt in my mind that at some point, race played a role in Milton Bradley’s developing into the psychologically and emotionally fragile human being that he apparently is. However, Bradley’s problems the past decade have little or nothing to do with race.
Milton Bradley’s behavior is the problem. The manner in which Bradley conducts himself, the way he repeatedly snaps and has to be forcibly restrained, is not acceptable behavior for individuals of any race, certainly not in a professional environment.
Milton Bradley has real problems. It’s not as though he has some minor issues and the only reason people make mention of him is the color of his skin.
Race might play a small role in Milton Bradley’s problems, but Bradley’s problems extend far beyond race. I honestly feel the proper discussion ought not be ‘Milton Bradley & Race’; but rather, ‘Milton Bradley & Mental Illness”. Milton Bradley’s ultimate problem isn’t that he’s black; his problem is that he’s crazy.
Thank you. Of course you’re right; it is clear that Milton Bradley has serious mental and emotional problems that he will deal with for the rest of his life. He is not balanced, he is not healthy, and he is not whole.
But I worry that simply calling him “crazy” is too reductive; I think that minimizes the fact that he can occasionally be right, and his analysis can occasionally be spot-on, and that’s why I wrote the piece. When Milton Bradley says that he has faced racism, I think we need to keep an open mind, rather than dismissing it out of hand because he’s mentally unbalanced — which is what has happened all too often.
“I worry that simply calling him ‘crazy’ is too reductive; I think that minimizes the fact that he can occasionally be right, and his analysis can occasionally be spot-on… When Bradley says that he has faced racism, I think we need to keep an open mind, rather than dismissing it out of hand because he’s mentally unbalanced.”
To be clear, I don’t refer to Milton Bradley as “crazy” because he claims to have encountered racism in his life. I don’t doubt for one second that Milton Bradley has dealt with racist attitudes and behavior.
Racism played a large role, both directly and indirectly, in shaping Milton Bradley. (It affected him directly, i.e. Bradley has experienced racism on a personal level. I also believe that our country’s history of racism and segregation helped produce the environment that shaped Bradley’s development as a person.)
Milton Bradley likely was a victim of many injustices, many of them tied to race, or skin color.
Milton, however, is now a 33-year-old man. His problems extend far beyond race. Not every umpire who calls Milton Bradley out on a called strike three does so because Bradley is African-American.
Bradley appears to be both paranoid and hypersensitive. From the looks of things, one would think that Safeco Field was cascading Milton Bradley with boos and jeers every time he set foot on the field. I honestly don’t think this city could have been more supportive of Milton, especially given the circumstances.
We all wanted Milton to succeed. But after ten years and eight teams, it’s clear that Milton Bradley simply isn’t cut-out to play professional baseball. The stress and the pressure are too much for his fragile psyche.
I don’t blame you for tackling a difficult subject. You’re quite correct that nasty little things like racism are too often swept under the carpet.
I still feel that your piece “Milton Bradley and the ‘Race Card’” oversimplifies matters, and does not place adequate emphasis on Milton Bradley’s mental problems/emotional disorders. When I see Milton Bradley, I see is a HUMAN BEING who is TOO MENTALLY AND EMOTIONALLY DAMAGED to continue his profession.
Milton Bradley was not released from the Seattle Mariners because he has dark skin and is of African-American descent. Milton Bradley was released by the Mariners because conduct himself like a professional adult. It also didn’t help that he batted .209 with a .649 OPS while playing poor defense.
“Not to mention that Jeff Kent still has this racist stench on him today…”
It could be the moustache.
Oh fangraphs how do I love thee let me count the ways.
1) Fantastic Baseball analysis
2) One of the few places on the internet where a rational and fairly civil discussion of racism can occur.
3) Man I fucking love graphs
The only team that got anything meaningful out of Milton Bradley were the Texas Rangers in 2008. Every other team made the mistake of giving him multiple years, drafting him, trading for him, basically giving him a chance.
He played in Seattle last year and part of this year. I haven’t heard any accusations of racial discrimination or unfair treatment during his time here. What I have heard are the same stories that have come out about MB everywhere he has been. He’s a petulant misanthrope who makes an enemy of everyone he meets.
The racial issue has been discussed at length on 670 the Score in Chicago. To me, it does not seem plausible that he received much verbal racial slander while on the field because the staff at Wrigley or elsewhere. I don’t know what it feels like to be black but I do know what it feels like to be discriminated against. I just find it hard to reach the conclusion that MB received racial slurs somewhere and, therefore, we gave him a bad break.
The racial discrimination he got in the yuppy-ville Chicago neighborhood known as Lincoln Park seems implausible as well. Other 3-4 year old kids were discriminating against MB’s kids. Really?
The teams that gave him money are the ones who lost the most, especially a Cub. I will point out that Jim Hendry somehow still has a job after that and many more bad acquisitions. Milton Bradley is a known commodity. I don’t want racial discrimination to appear anywhere in my sports world. To me, after being with 7 teams in 10 years, the Cubs gave MB $30 mildo. There are two constants here: Milton Bradley is an ass and teams kept giving him chances.
MB obviously needs help. He clearly has problems and this kind of behavior is not a product of racial stigma. The points you have made, Alex, are what is called “out-of-town ignorance.” Milton Bradley’s own personality is bigger than anything else done to him on the baseball field. This race issue is dead because, to this point, we haven’t heard any accusations about him receiving racial mistreatment in Seattle. There is an obvious larger problem here and it has to do with MB being an irascible pain the ass.
Anyone throwing racial slurs at an athlete should be banned from MLB parks for life. I just don’t buy that there was that high of a volume to warrant anyone giving him a career-long free pass. A good investment for the Cubs may have been plunking down a million towards a dedicated therapist for Bradley when he started his tenure as a Cub. Since Hendry was bidding against himself, that probably could have been arranged.
To me, the ignorance of recognizing that the man suffering from clear psychological problems is the problem here. MB would still be a clubhouse cancer if he were any color.
I don’t think he deserves a “free pass.” But I think that racism deserves to be taken seriously, even when it happens to someone you don’t like. Derrek Lee has told the press that he has heard racial slurs coming from fans in Chicago, though they weren’t necessarily directed at him.
I find it absolutely hilarious that you believe the residents of Lincoln Park are incapable of being racist. I lived in Lakeview for over a year, and was the target of more than a few racial slurs. If I can be called a nigger by passersby (they were in a car, weak bastards) while walking down Broadway, a street in Lakeview that is adorned with “Gay” this, “Lesbian” that, and all types of rainbow flags and “colorful” personalities, I don’t find it unfathomable that at least a few LPers have racist bones in their bodies. Those “yuppies” are exactly the people who many minorities feel are the main culprits of racism on the north side.
Alex has now conquered two of the world’s three great evils: sexism and racism. I look forward to the inevitable “When Will It Be Okay To Be Openly Gay?” in MLB article to complete the PC trifecta.
Do you really believe that it is not okay to be openly gay?
I understand that accusing someone of political correctness is an insult these days, but I guess I just don’t take offense. My position is relatively simple: I believe that women should not face discrimination or prejudice based on sex, and African-Americans should not face discrimination or prejudice based on race. If that’s political correctness, so be it.
I also don’t believe that gays should face discrimination or prejudice based on sexual orientation. I would be very interested to write about the issue of gays in baseball, but I know absolutely nothing about it, and I doubt I would be able to get anyone to talk to me on the record about it. In the meantime, I’ll have to read the work of gay sports journalists like LZ Granderson.
as long as we have special interest groups we will have special interests. Some have said that the new minority is the “White Male” as just about every minority, racial, gender, ability, etc has a lobbyist group in Washington making sure that stuff is done. However, there is not a lobbyist group promoting the white male agenda. For the right price each and every senator, representative, other can be bought to vote for a cause. IF the white male tosses out the race card, he is laughed at. Blacks can, and do so with startling frequency. And, the NAACP backs them to the hilt. (I would be surprised if there isnt an NAACP investigation into M.B.’s allegations). Get rid of the special interest groups, and we may actually have some harmony, instead of each “group” wanting a larger cut of the pie than the “group subjecting them”.
Clearly, you are not familiar with the NAACP.
And the white male is quite well represented by, you know, all the white male politicians who decide whether or not to listen to the aforementioned lobbyists.
An interesting twist in recent history is that, whenever an African American celebrity (athlete, musician, actor) talks about race, they get shouted down or painted as radical by one outspoken group of Americans, and lauded as an important social commentator by another. In the process, the issue gets brought back to zero.
Alex, I think it’s admirable you’re willing to take on all the crap that comes with addressing racism. That being said, athletes and celebrities in general make for poor litmus tests of racism in any given society; you’re better off digging a bit into academic journals that deal with the U.S. population more broadly. With celebrities, their entire being is so strongly scrutinized by the media that it’s hard to parse out why certain things happen to them, or what the root causes of their actions might be. Athletes have the additional weight of the contract (for whatever reason, actors are frequently forgiven this vis-a-vis athletes), by which their every move will be analyzed to the finest point.
A long sidenote: racism, at least in academic terms, is defined as a “system of advantage based on race.” That system has those identified as “white” at the top, and whatever are considered the most desirable attributes/attitudes by the folks at the top establish the “norm” for that society. Tangentially, the norm is the least likely to have opportunities denied to them or to be treated negatively based on their attributes/attitudes. Persons of color, like the majority of people, try to be as close as possible to that norm. Some of them spend hours straightening or dyeing their hair, others bleach their skin, get cosmetic surgery to thin their lips, or sharpen and narrow their nose, or round their eyes…if their parents gave them a name that strays too far from the norm, they’ll either have to change it, adopt a secondary name, or deal with the concern that their applications for loans, school, employment might be treated differently because of it. For instance, I remember a group of relatives I was talking with ridiculing some of the names given to African American children, saying things like “Why don’t they just give them a normal name…”, stuff like that. In other words, why can’t they just continue to use European-derived names? Perhaps they should just use traditional African names, like Kwame, or Dikembe…but not all African Americans identify strongly with African cultures, and in some cases they recoil from it because they (and the Western world) view Africa as backward. So where does it leave them?
Second sidenote: Bradley’s angered actions and the racism he encountered shouldn’t be separate activities. Numerous studies over the years have showed a strong correlation between self-reported racism and negative mental and physical health (Paradies, 2006). There’s actually been a pretty disturbing rise in depression and suicide rates among young African American males in particular, first noted in the 90s and continuing to the 2000s (Joe & Kaplan 2001, Willis et al 2002, Joe et al 2009).
If suicide rates are on the rise among young african american males, it likely isn’t caused by an increase in racism, since I would imagine racism is less endemic now than it was say, 40-50 years ago. Caucasions were more than 2.5 times as likely to commit suicide as african americans in 2003, and the incidence is highest among caucasion males before the age of 25. Homosexual or bi-sexual teens have a much higher rate, males are more than 4x as likely to actually succeed in committing suicide, although females attempt it more often. If the so-called power structure is at work where as you suggest whites are at the top of the power structure (and presumably white men) then it would be odd that white males are the most likely memebers of the heterosexual population to actually kill themselves.
There’s no doubt racism exists and I’m sure Milton Bradley has experienced slurs as well as more subtle racism. It would be an almost sisyphean task to completely eliminate group biases, although i think more and more people are being exposed to subtle biases. Nevertheless, society as a whole has made enormous attempts to rectify institutionalized racism or ameliorate its effects.
As far as whether his 3 year old has been called a nigger by teachers, fellow students and parents, that seems highly unlikely to me. Yes, I saw the comment above about asian children being portrayed by kids slanting their eyes in a school production. That is indeed insensitive and surprising, but i believe that, yet it is an order of magnitude different than the ida of a teacher calling a child a nigger.
I was born the year the Civil Rights Act was passed and went to mixed rac school all my life. I’m 14 years older than Milton Bradley, and was bussed to a more predominantly african american neighborhood in Montclair, NJ, a town with very high school taxes, in an attempt to make schools even more mixed (the school in my immediate neighborhood was already mixed, but the town wanted the overall mix of each school to be more balanced).
This was 1977. Our bus pulled up the first day and we were surrounded by kids saying “You rednecks are in nigger territory now.” I lived about a mile away and played basketball with some of these guys at the YMCA near the school. I was during that first year, unprovoked, punched in the face, thrown into lockers, choked, spat on. Generally intimidated, although this wasn’t a really awful neighborhood or mostly bad kids.
Despite the somehwat racially charged atmosphere, I never heard a teacher or fellow student call anyone a nigger. I certainly heard white kids use the word amongst themselves.
This is of course extremely anecdotal. But it does seem to me that in fact quite a lot is done to try to make for equality of opportunity in this country. Money spent, people moved. And while schools are not supposed to take race into account in selection they often try to use other ways to make sure racial composition is balanced. The same with jobs. There is of course the famous case of the town which tried to change the tests it gave fire fighters and was sued by an applicant who kept passing the test and the test kept being changed (firefighting of course having a notorious reputation for being a white ethnic enclave) .
In business, if an african american has the same credentials as a caucasian applicant many corporations might be inclined, all things being equal, to hire the black candidate, since corporations also want to avoid being targeted by those saying they are discriminating, which is, of course, against the law. Is it de facto racism if in fact a company has hired more white males than african american males? These re hard questions on one has to look at the applicant pool. If in fact there are fewer qualified african-american applicants for a job, is this due to a white power structure not providing for a good enough education? It is actually fairly hard to make that charge successfully in my mind.
That there are uneven distributions among racial, ethnic, religious or gender groups in scholastic achievement in various subjects, or in income, do not necessarily imply a “system of advantage based on race.” Did asians immigrate to the U.S. and somehow oppress white students into underachieveing in the hard sciences?
There certainly are vestigial effcts of racism, but a lot of the cultural effcts are more lingering sometimes than the vestigial Jim crow days or pre-civil rights institutionalized racism. My parents were from the deep south. I heard my grandparents on my father’s side use the wrod nigger, not on my maternal side, although i wouldn’t guess there was any less prejudice, but there was a class difference, my father’s family being more working class. My parents left the South, and I never heard them use the word, not to suggest they wor I are untainted by any racism, but they raised me in a typical white, liberal, progressive environment. Hence we lived in Montclair, I was bussed to school, etc. They didn’t complain about the bussing. I imagine some parents did, but I wasn’t really aware at the time what most parents felt about it generally, but i imagine some were quite upset.
In any event, and I know i’m rambling a tad here, but these are kind random thoughts on the topic, it is not as if society in general has not gone through much effort to make for as even a playing field as possible. It is extremely difficult to stamp out racism, but the comparison of words and biases today, versus 1963, let’s say, is enormous. I wasn’t alive in 1963, but grew up instead completely used to going to the same schools as black children, playing on the same teams, having colleagues and bosses who were african americans. That ws not the case in the U.S. immediately prior to 1964. Stamping out lingering effects takes longer and happens less suddenly than a brown v Board of Ed or passage of Civil Rights legislation.
The more the subtle isntances are raised the more awareness there is of the issue, which is to be lauded. However, if we dwell too much on racism as causes for uneven distribution of the benefits of a free society, we may be overemphasising it. We also shouldn’t necessarily downplay as ungrateful commentary by power-privileged whites those who may feel disenfranchised themselves. Certanly working class whites in the U.S. may feel like their situation has stagnated, and may bristle at suggestions that they’re on top of the power structure and that most of african-american issues in education, income, etc. are caused by societal racism.
These topics bring up anger on all sides. Not just drunken and hurtful comments by louts by even more thoughtful, well-meaning people have some very strong, divergent feelings on many issues of race. This isn’t surprising.
In the end, I think Milton Bradley anger issues are much more related to him than to endemic societal racism, even if he has experienced racism, and even if it is impossible to separate his experience and his reaction to it.
Like I said in another thread, I prefer to recall the Milton Bradley that at the 2008 all-star game homerun derby gave Josh hamiton’s old, white coach from North caroonja a mock rob down when he had to keep throwing to hamiton because he was hitting so many home runs. This isn’t to suggest i only want happy, smiley, at peace with the white man Milton. Let him own his anger. And man has he owned it. However, i don’t think it’s unnatural to want someone else to be happy, and at that moment, Milton was laughing, enjoying himself, at the all-star game, happy for his teammate, etc. When people experience failure or a lack of success, it is often especially difficult in this achievement oriented society to handle it. In that Milton Bradley has unique issues to deal with, some that are race-based, many that are things most people face, and some personal to him. Good luck to him. But i think focusing too much on the racial aspect of his story probably is not of much benefit to him or to people at large. Ryan Langerhans got cut the same day. Milton used to be good and has made a lot of headlines, so more of a story.
Sorry for the typos. Bussing isn’t a typo, but it is apparently an acceptable variant, although re-reading it it didn’t look right to me.
As time changes, so do the practices. Racism is hidden much more frequently now, something that was voiced with frustration by the participants in the studies I mentioned (wherein the researchers controlled for potential confounding factors). It’s indirect, such as the disparity in incarceration rates for African Americans versus other persons of color (not just a function of who’s committing crime, but where police are patrolling, who they are pulling over, who they are searching with greater frequency [Mauer 2003, Weatherspoon 2004, Roberts 2004]), the disparity in the likelihood that an African American will receive a felony for similar crime to other races (Daudistel et al 1999, McLeod et al 2003), the disparity in the incarceration of African American males vis-a-vis females (McLeod et al 2003), and the end result that a large percentage of African American males have a criminal history that, though legally cannot be held against them, is available for public viewing. Then there are disparities in promotions despite equal qualifications (Wilson 1997, Danziger 2000, Corcoran et al 2004), the resultant disparity in layoffs of African Americans during recessions (Elvira & Zatzick 2002, Wilson 2005), the resultant strain on African American marriages (as with any group having difficulty with employment; Cutrona et al 2003, Burton et al 2009)…how about the disparity in the quality and reputation of schools in predominantly black neighborhoods, which affects their ability to get into colleges that will bolster their employment application (Jarret 1995, Ladson-Billings 2009)…or the curriculum that still tells us very little about the history of Africa or African Americans outside of enslavement and Civil Rights, ensuring that, nationally, we raise generations of adults that can (and do) insulate themselves from understanding African American history and the long-term effects of racism, yet still pass (and justify their actions upon) judgment based on media sensationalism, racial stereotypes, and/or anecdotal evidence rather than national studies. A lot of intelligent people have done a lot of research that opposes what a bunch of white people are saying through their hats after they complain about how “tired” they are of all this talk about racism. Yeah, it’s been really tough for white people. They just can’t cut a break.
And if anybody invokes the whole, “Look at what the Asians are doing,” first off, you’re once again talking through your hat, because not all Asians are doing as well as others. Indian Americans are doing pretty well, as are Japanese, Korean, and some Chinese Americans (Fong 2002), but I’m sure you were also referring to immigrants from the Middle East (also part of Asia), who are being discriminated against as if they were all Muslim or all terrorists (Panagopoulos 2006, Nacos 2007), and Hmong Americans are not doing as well as their Asian neighbors either (Hein 2000, Yang 2003, Su et al 2005). Secondly, those economically successful Asians, as with African American celebrities that don’t show signs of frustration with racism, are what is referred to as “model minorities,” those who are purposely elevated because of their economic achievement as examples that racism is over, despite the fact that these people still are stereotyped heavily (Cheng 1996, Fong 2002, Suzuki 2002, Wong 2006). The idea of the model minority itself is the stereotype that all Asian students are good at math, and science, or that African Americans are good at music and sports; it masks the underlying fact that those are the areas where they are being allowed to succeed, based on prevailing stereotypes. Asian Americans of all stripes still don’t get many acting roles that don’t call attention to their ethnicity, for instance.
It goes deeper than this, but there’s no point wasting any more time in what could very well be a fruitless endeavour.
Phillips, I am not taking the position that all asian students are good at math. These are all gross generalities, naturally. And I am not talking about model minorities, holding one up as an example against the other. I am merely saying that there are uneven distributions among ethnic groups (you acknowledge that some asian groups do well) and that “racism” may not be the cause of these uneven distributions. I never denied that there was racism. I understand that there are differences in incarceration rates (and that you get more time for crack cocaine than powdered, patrols may be more prevalent in african american neighborhoods, etc).
You have footnoted your points well, and I was talking very anecdotally. I am not saying pity the poor white man. However, there can be little doubt that efforts have been made to attempt to eradicate institutional racism. No doubt the studies you mention are pointed to in city council meetings and in othyer halls of government. Whether they get a full hearing I don’t know, but I am sure slowly but surely attempts will be made to redress grievances. If in the democratic process a majority agrees the grievance can be addressed.
My point in my own boring story is to say that there can be little doubt that the majority of americans has made attempts to address institutionalized racism, and apparently wants as equal-opportunity society as possible. Past grievances became so galringly obvious that ultimately there was brown v Board, Civil Rights Act, busing, affirmative action, etc. None of that will stop some neanderthal ball fans from yelling slurs. And there will be the more subtle examples (or not so subtle based on the studies you site) that take longer to bring to mainstream attention or to persuade others of the problem.
So, while you may conclude we have racis” society because of disparities, I would not agree. We do have racists, and there are aspects of society which disadvantage people of color. But some disparate results are not due to racism but from other cultural issues. And many people have made sacrifices in attempts to further a more equal society. Sure, it isn’t much perhaps compared to the disadvantages experienced by afircan americans. Still. from personal experience, i didn’t exactly enjoy being bused to a school which already had the same amount of money per pupil as my old school around the corner, and being routinely beaten up by the local kids who evidently didn’t want me there, even though the town thought it best that I go there so the ethnic make-up of the school (not the funding) was more balanced. I understand why it was done. I’m merely saying it wasn’t pleasant. And I am fortunate to have had parents of means. They could have sent me elsewhere but didn’t want to (I really didn’t tell them what was going on). A lot of other people, already paying exorbitant school taxes, may not have been abe to switch their kids.
So when people say that society is racist and the white man is advantaged, understand that there will be folks that bristle at that notion, even someone who can understand what you are saying and agree with most of it. I just stop short of saying definitively that society as a whole is racist.
Phillips,
Also, to address your point about racial preferences in promotion. There are avenues to raise this complaint. For example, read the below story about a case against eastman Kodak. Note that experts and studies may reach different conclusions in different situations, yet nevertheless, even if this doesn’t mean racism doesn’t exist, institutionally society as a whole doesn’t simply ignore the issue. And again, this is merely one instance. I cannot gainsay the studies you mention and it isn’t my intent to deny racism in its many forms, but not all disparate impacts are due to societal racism (or, to tie it in to Milton Bradley, racism may not be his major problem or why he is out of a job, or why people may think when they hear about him, he has an anger issue, even though they don’t often say the same about woman-beater Brian Giles, for example):
BEN DOBBIN, AP Business
ROCHESTER, New York (AP) — A federal judge on Friday approved Eastman Kodak Co.’s $21.4 million offer to settle class-action lawsuits by black employees who maintained white counterparts were favored over them for pay and promotion.
In an almost seven-year legal tussle, U.S. Magistrate Jonathan Feldman signed off on a deal that pays about 3,000 current and past Kodak workers amounts ranging from $1,000 to $50,000. The decision ends a 2004 class-action lawsuit and a similar suit filed by other black workers in 2007.
The Rochester, New York-based photography products maker was accused of paying black employees less than white co-workers, passing them over for promotions and maintaining a racially hostile work environment.
Last October, Feldman heard arguments in favor of the deal from Kodak and lawyers for the plaintiffs. He then fielded complaints from more than a dozen former employees who said proposed payouts were inadequate, lawyer fees too high and the offer unfairly excluded workers who left Kodak before 1999.
Under the settlement, 3,008 workers get $9.65 million and their lawyers $9.7 million in fees and expenses. Adjustments to individual awards were negotiated, with a dozen workers having $75,000 awards reduced by one-third.
The balance of the settlement will go to administering the claims and supporting enhanced diversity training for supervisors that Kodak promised as part of the deal. The company will also hire an industrial psychologist and two labor statisticians to review pay and promotion policies and recommend improvements.
In a statement, Kodak said the settlement “represents a resolution of mutual interest and it absolutely does not suggest any wrongdoing” on the company’s part.
“Kodak is widely recognized as a company committed to creating and maintaining an inclusive workplace in which all employees are valued, treated fairly and can contribute to their full potential,” it added.
The judge noted that a Kodak damage expert, Harvard University Professor David Bloom, analyzed historical payroll data and concluded “there were no race-based disparities in promotion and compensation at Kodak between 1999 and 2005 and African-Americans were, in fact, statistically favored in promotion and base salary increases during the 1999-2005 time period.”
“These risks and others make the fairness of the settlement all the more evident and weigh in favor of approving the settlement agreement,” the judge said in a 59-page decision
Also, you may have already read some Thomas Sowell, but this is an interesting piece by him:
http://www.tsowell.com/spracecu.html
I often disagree with Sowell, but his writing on race is certainly thought-provoking, particularly his essay “Black Rednecks and White Liberals,” the titular piece in a collection of essays he released several years ago.
Alex, I don’t always agree with Sowell either. I can be libertarian leaning on certain issues. He’s pretty full bore. But you are right, very thought-provoking.
“Jeff Kent received more favorable media coverage than teammate Barry Bonds”
I was always under the impression that Jeff Kent was an asshole, and rightfully so.
Let’s be honest, however short his temper may have cut his career, his tools probably lengthened it just as much. A less talented player probably would have been out of baseball years ago, yet teams still signed him because the talent was too apparent for teams to deny.
Milton probably did face his fair share of racial abuse, but sadly, some fans know when you can bait someone into responding to you (especially someone with Milton’s notorious temper), they’re going to vile and they’re going to be horribly insensitive. Some of those people who slur him probably aren’t even racist, but jerks who get off knowing they can annoy a professional athlete.
Is it right? No.
Does it exist? Sadly, yes.
When healthy and motivated Bradley was a very good at being a professional baseball player. For reasons only he knows he instead became mostly bad at being a professional victim. The racism issue is sadly with us and while it ‘seems’ better than when I was young, the changes move far to slowly. Bigotry in all its forms is disgusting and a badge of ignorance.
For all the idiots who loved to back this piece of shit because he was “unfairly targeted due to race” and failed to see him for what he is A HUGE PIECE OF SHIT regardless of color, I hope he goes to jail for the max sentence on all his domestic cases.