Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
Flare Sci-Fi Forums
»
Community
»
The Flameboard
»
John Rocker
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message:
HTML is enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by DT: [QB] If you can tell me how giving someone a black eye is worse than eliminating (or even temporarily suspending) their ability to earn a living in their industry. I don't think you people understand. Major League Baseball HAS AN ANTI-TRUST EXEMPTION. That means that they have a LEGALIZED MONOPOLY over baseball in this country. It's called the National Association. How many of you know of the Gentlemen's Agreement? Of course I'm sure you'd all support that. Afterall, it's their choice to hire such people. When Kenesaw Mountain Landis vetoed Bill Veeck's purchase of the Philadelphia Phillies in 1937(I'm not sure on the date) that was perfectly legal. Moreover, as MLB itself is a corporation (I was wrong to say Selig is not Rocker's boss, he is, I keep forgetting that bastard is officially commissioner now) they have the right to decide who owns the franchises, as they do have the anti-trust exemption. Why did they veto that purchase? Veeck wanted to do something with the franchise that, as an employee of MLB, they felt was wrong. Particularly, they felt that an employee would be like Fleetwood Walker, an ex-employee, and hurt business. Now, I will tell you that the vetoing of that purchase was one of the most immoral things baseball ever did. Of course, our young "conservative" here will tell you that it was perfectly within their rights even after I explain why that purchase was vetoed, but I'll disagree. John Rocker broke no laws. John Rocker did not inhibit the course of a game. John Rocker did not do anything but act unbecoming of a major league baseball player. They cannot prevent him from earning a living, even for a month (they made it two) because of that. There was a time when what Fleetwood Walker did was considered unbecoming of a major league baseball player and a gentleman. He didn't break any laws. And she sure didn't do anything to inhibit the course of a game. But he did not present the corporate image to the public that MLB and its teams, at that time, chose. And when the teams played in the home parks of the Cardinals, Browns, Senators or Orioles (yes, there was a franchise called the Orioles before the Brownies moved) he was considered highly offensive. Per Baloo's statements, MLB had every right to terminate Walker's employment, and not allow anyone else who would present such an image. And Walker was free to seek employment elsewhere. Of course, thanks to the anti-trust exemption, it was at a much lower level and was for considerably less than if he had been playing for, say, the Pirates. By now, I assume most of you have figured out what Walker's crime was. Moses Fleetwood Walker was a black man. He hurt business. He did not project the right image. He was not considered to be a gentleman by the public at large, and as such, he was not fitting with the Game of Gentleman image that MLB wanted.. As such, his contract was terminated. Men like Cap Anson proceeded to form the Gentleman's Agreement, which dictated that no MLB club would sign a negro to a contract to play baseball (they could clean the floors, of course, so MLB was not denying them employment in any way, just saying they couldn't do certain things in the public eye). Now, they didn't go to jail or lose any of their rights. They were free to find employment in the Federal League (which MLB destroyed, thank you no anti-trust exemption) or any non-National Association league. In fact, that's why the Negro Leagues existed. Of course, they didn't earn nearly as much money (which is why the greatest catcher ever, Josh Gibson, died poor) as their MLB approved counterparts (not neccesarrily white, as even men of African heritage like Babe Ruth, who did not look too black, were allowed to play) but they did earn money in said profession. Now, according to many of you, particularly Baloo, that's perfectly fine. When Landis stopped Veeck from buying the Phillies because he said he was going to stock them with black ballplayers, that was fine. It's his corporation. That would effectively lose them the Philly market (or so they thought at the time) and just imagine the reaction in the southern cities when the Phils were on the road! First, you can support this idea. Afterall, men like Josh Gibson, Judy Johnson, Mac Walker, Rube Foster, Monte Irvin, and the rest were athletes. We don't fire enough of them, do we? Let's see those jocks make their money doing something constructive. And let us all keep in mind, that around the turn of the century in America, it was considered wrong to be black. They were a second class. Yet, some of you may come back with the remark "Well, you can't hide being black, Rocker can hide being a racist" and I can't disagree. Of course, you can hide being homosexual. So, now that we've established Baloo's arguement to be fucked up, and we've shown the power of an anti-trust exemption and how low MLB can sink, let's pose a hypothetical. Tommorow, John Rocker's teammate Tom Glavine admits to the world on ESPN that he is a homosexual. Well, Atlanta is traditionally a good-ole-boy town, as is Georgia in general, and the south. MLB doesn't like this, though, as Atlanta is a big market. Moreover, imagine what would happen when the Braves go to St Louis, and other Bible Belt towns. When you consider the tolerance of most sports fans, this is detrimental (or at least they think it is). And it is not fitting with the image of MLB (many in the south would now think he's a fruit and as such, not the kind of person MLB tries to promote). Does Major League Baseball have the right to suspend him for his comments? Moreover, do they have the right to terminate his contract and form another Gentlemen's Agreement? They're not keeping him from seeking employment elsewhere (St Paul) and he would surely be detrimental to business. Should MLB have a "don't ask, don't tell" policy? Let's go back in time a bit, to 1951, when negroes were finally playing. Say that our old pal Monte Irvin decided to marry a young woman who happens to be white. Of course, at the time, interracial marriage, especially in that format (ie, black man/white woman) was considered nigh unto a sin. Hell, look what happened to Sidney Poitier when he made Look Who's Coming to Dinner a few years later! This would murder MLB in terms of image. Irvin didn't break any laws (at least not in the north) and he didn't impede the flow of the game. But he's bad for business. The team is boycotted in St Louis. When the Giants went to Cincinatti, they had stuff hurled at them on the field. It's a nightmare! Well, what is MLB to do? Can they suspend Irvin? Do they have the right to tell the Giants to fire him? (he was a Negro League star just a year before) No where does he have a right to marry a white woman, no where, not even in the constitution. So, would it be okay to discipline him? It's easy for us to gang up on John Rocker because, according to our current enlightened values, what he said was offensive and stupid. And they were. They were as offensive to me as the 306 Mexicans the US government murdered because they tried to gain access to this country (although I think the latter was more offensive). But they certainly don't mandate official discipline from Major League Baseball, or as some here have advocated, the end of his career. Jay is correct, and in my last post, I overstated my case a bit. But the majority of you overstate your case to a harmful point. [/QB][/QUOTE]
Instant Graemlins
Instant UBB Code™
What is UBB Code™?
Options
Disable Graemlins in this post.
*** Click here to review this topic. ***
© 1999-2024 Charles Capps
Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3