IF the jokes about Bill Clinton being the nation's first "black" president were not weird enough for you, get a load of this:
In his new role as a sports columnist for Gotham, a slick new magazine for Manhattan party animals, black filmmaker Spike Lee asks another burning question:
Was Babe Ruth black?
Eh? The Babe? The Yankees' home run king? The "Sultan of Swat"?
Yes, the question is not a new one, it turns out. Despite George Herman "Babe" Ruth's denials at the time, rumors and suppositions persisted about his racial background. His nose was just broad enough, his lips were just full enough and his complexion was just swarthy enough to draw not only suspicions but also some vile, N-word taunts from the opposing team's bench.
Either way, imagine what the Babe was going through. Although Ruth's maternal grandparents were immigrants from Germany, his father's family lived for several generations in 19th century Baltimore and is less easy to trace with total racial certainty.
Even if there were no hard evidence that he was black, how was Ruth to come up with hard evidence that he wasn't? You can't prove a negative, as the old saying goes. Ruth was white enough to stay in the heavily segregated major leagues, but not white enough to resist taunts and other forms of discrimination, according to some accounts.
Gee, imagine how the Babe must have felt. Whether he was a black man or not, he was getting abused like one.
In the May 7 issue of Sports Illustrated, columnist Daniel Okrent responded to Lee, citing an episode alleged by Fred Lieb, a sportswriter of that era. According to Lieb, the notoriously racist Ty Cobb refused to share a cabin with Ruth at a Georgia hunting lodge, saying, "I've never bedded down with a n-- and I'm not going to start now."
Unfortunately, Lieb was a notorious yarn-spinner, says ESPN.com columnist Rob Neyer, coming back in his May 10 Web column. Neyer cites Charles C. Alexander's biography of Cobb as evidence that Cobb and Ruth built "something of a friendship" after the 1924 World Series.
Commentator Roland Rogers at BlackAthlete.com chimes in with accounts of Ruth as a frequent visitor of black women in Harlem during the 1920s, when the uptown Manhattan neighborhood drew a chic clientele from everywhere.
Perhaps now, says Lee, it is time to end the mystery. If DNA testing was good enough for Thomas Jefferson's remains, to see if he fathered children by one of his slaves, why not test the Babe?
I suspect Lee is putting us on here. He doesn't really call for Ruth's exhumation. Besides, DNA testing did not settle the Jefferson question. That argument goes on, and I don't expect the Ruth argument would end any more quickly.
Yeah.
So, should we care whether Babe Ruth was black? Yes, for several reasons. One is historical accuracy. I don't know why baseball fans, who normally obsess over the most tedious tidbit of information about their sports heroes, suddenly would want to look the other way when probing Babe Ruth's ancestry.
As an African-American old enough to have rooted for Jackie Robinson, I certainly care about stories like the Babe's background. It is not that I am all that eager to claim one more hero for the annals of black history. Rather, I am delighted to remind everyone of how many old baseball records deserve to have an asterisk next to them in the record books. It would gently remind us of how long the races were not allowed to compete on the sort of level playing field that Americans of good will still are trying to achieve for our society today.
Second, the question of Ruth's race reminds us of how far we have come with race in this country and how far we have to go. Sure, race is an uncomfortable topic these days. That's sort of why we should talk about it, isn't it? If Babe was black, he would have had obvious reasons for hiding it back then. Jackie Robinson did not break baseball's color line until the late 1940s. But what about now? Would Ruth still hide his race? Or would he brag about it? Or would he regard his race the way Tiger Woods does, as just one of several racial ancestries he claims?
Yes, sports matter in American history, just like race matters. The performance of blacks and other nonwhites (including Japanese-American soldiers whose families were incarcerated in detention camps back home) helped accelerate the desegregation of baseball. Then the successful desegregation of baseball helped encourage President Harry Truman to desegregate the armed forces, which helped to encourage the Supreme Court to order the desegregation of public schools.
Today, we can take the racially troubled past and use it to gain a perspective on the future. The question of Ruth's blackness raises important questions about what race means and what it should mean. Is "one drop" of black blood enough to make you black, as the old rule goes? If not, how much is?
When you probe the meaning of race that deeply, it starts very quickly to fall apart. Unfortunately, we have not reached that ideal state in this country where race no longer matters. Instead of running from the past, we need to remember it in order to build a better future.
Posted: Sun 30 Apr 2006 16:44 Post subject: "The Babe" might have been a mixed white but never a black.
Both Clarence Page and Spike Lee are "one drop" supporters to the core (exlcuding Hispanics and Arabs, of course, who would burn their black asses if they dared to start claiming them).
If Babe Ruth had some "black" ancestry, it was obviously a small part of him and did not make him "black." He would be a white person of mixed ancestry.
Page and Lee are examples of why I've often said (and frequently been misunderstood) that there is no "black culture." American black intellectuals and leaders have a habit of claiming people based on "the drop" alone. They are too foolish to realize that they are validating the idea of black genetic inferiority. If a tiny amount of "Negro blood" can make a white person "black," there must be something terribly wrong with "black" genes.
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 {Posts: 300 } Location: Chatsworth, CA
Posted: Sun 30 Apr 2006 16:56 Post subject:
No offense, but the obvious answer to the question is no.
I think you're posting this so that you can attack black Americans for supporting the one drop rule. I don't see most black Americans supporting this position, in spite of claims made to the contrary. Most black folks I know make a distinction between being black on the one hand, and having black in them on the other. Ruth falls into the "having black in them" category, like Carol Channing and Bob Barr.
Spike's a well known provacateur. He likes to make public statements that stir up controversy and bring the publicity he nees to keep his career in high gear. I suppose that he might say, in his own defense, that he doesn't think that Ruth was really black, rather he wants to point out that a lot of white Americans are a lot more mixed than is generally recognized. Still, Spike doesn't speak for anyone but himself.
I would also imagine that there are many white Americans who would agree that Ruth was "black". He did have tremendous natural athletic ability, he drank way too much, ate way too much, and had promiscuous sex with huge numbers of women. So some white people are going to say, "Yeah, you all can have that one. He's all yours."
Joined: 28 Apr 2006 {Posts: 282 } Location: 51st State
Posted: Sun 30 Apr 2006 18:36 Post subject: Re: "The Babe" might have been a mixed white but never a black.
Powell wrote:
Both Clarence Page and Spike Lee are "one drop" supporters to the core (exlcuding Hispanics and Arabs, of course, who would burn their black asses if they dared to start claiming them).
If Babe Ruth had some "black" ancestry, it was obviously a small part of him and did not make him "black." He would be a white person of mixed ancestry.
But not a mixed person of white appearance??
Am I to take it that a white person is someone who looks "white"? Don't all "white" people have "black" ancestry" (Out Of Africa)?
Quote:
Page and Lee are examples of why I've often said (and frequently been misunderstood) that there is no "black culture."
So when the few movies that black filmakers are able to produce come out, why are they sidelined and called "black films"? I don't understand.
Quote:
American black intellectuals and leaders have a habit of claiming people based on "the drop" alone.
Yes, the history of white people saying, "he ain't one us, you look after him". And black people being able to do nothing about it, whether they liked it or not
Quote:
They are too foolish to realize that they are validating the idea of black genetic inferiority. If a tiny amount of "Negro blood" can make a white person "black," there must be something terribly wrong with "black" genes.
What is this amount, how big is this One Drop, how is it measured?
How can "Negro blood" change a "white" person when it is already part of their make-up. Are we keeping straight a priori "whiteness" and a priori light mulatto?
Doesn't seem so.
What I consider black culture differs markedly from Arab culture. Differences between black and Hispanic are harder to show.
Joined: 04 May 2005 {Posts: 2021 } Location: santiago, chile
Posted: Sun 30 Apr 2006 19:55 Post subject: Re: "The Babe" might have been a mixed white but never a black.
Altertude wrote:
...What I consider black culture differs markedly from Arab culture. Differences between black and Hispanic are harder to show.
Hi,
What do you mean by that ?!!!!
Hey, for Hispanics race is worthless but culture is sacred. So, why don't you explain to me what are those things that make Hispanics so close to Black Americans?
First, not race. Hispanics are European+Native+African+Asians in different degrees of admixture. Depending from where you pick a Hispanic, people will look totally different. Besides, most Hispanics have, at least, one far away ancestor that actually came from Spain. People might look as belonging to any race, but the ancestor is there. No kidding.
Second, not language. Hispanics speak Spanish by definition. Black Americans speak English. And languages carry different ways of thinking whether we like it or not.
Third, not civilization. Blacks Americans are a sub-culture inside the English-Speaking Anglo-Saxon civilization. Hispanics belong to a different civilization completely, one that is rooted in Iberia, and that prides to be distinct since thousands of years ago. We have a Hispanic literature, a Hispanic art, a Hispanic science, etc.
So, what is in common? Do you mean rap? Or do you mean that most visible Hispanics in the U.S. are the poor ones of Latin America, and that they lack culture either here or there?
Well, in the Hispanic countries there is also the culture of the poors and of people outside the law. They behave very much like the stereotype of the Black people of the guettoes of the U.S.. However, most of them are not necesarily Blacks at all. Some of the worst criminals have been blonds. And, I tell you, life in a Latin American guetto is a lot tougher than in the U.S. So there you will find people that is bad by definition. People that is proud to be bad.
There is a saying in Spanish that says "Worst than Mexican bandit". I believe that explain it all. However, most of poors of Latin America don't belong to the criminal culture, but are their victims. Exactly like in the U.S.
Yes. Please explain me what cultural similarities do you see, besides social condition. I believe there are none.
Joined: 28 Apr 2006 {Posts: 282 } Location: 51st State
Posted: Sun 30 Apr 2006 20:32 Post subject: Re: "The Babe" might have been a mixed white but never a black.
oevega wrote:
Altertude wrote:
...What I consider black culture differs markedly from Arab culture. Differences between black and Hispanic are harder to show.
Hi,
What do you mean by that ?!!!!
Hey, for Hispanics race is worthless but culture is sacred. So, why don't you explain to me what are those things that make Hispanics so close to Black Americans?
I think we agree Hispanic is a term not of "race". Many Hispanics share the same ideas around the idea of the sacred, the religious, and iconography of a diety.
Quote:
First, not race. Hispanics are European+Native+African+Asians in different degrees of admixture. Depending from where you pick a Hispanic, people will look totally different. Besides, most Hispanics have, at least, one far away ancestor that actually came from Spain. People might look as belonging to any race, but the ancestor is there. No kidding.
The U.S census department, not me, is calling it a race.
Quote:
Second, not language. Hispanics speak Spanish by definition. Black Americans speak English. And languages carry different ways of thinking whether we like it or not.
This is mostly true, and about the the most immediate difference between Hispanics and blacks. Obviously in places like New York there's a large crossover.
Quote:
Third, not civilization. Blacks Americans are a sub-culture inside the English-Speaking Anglo-Saxon civilization. Hispanics belong to a different civilization completely, one that is rooted in Iberia, and that prides to be distinct since thousands of years ago. We have a Hispanic literature, a Hispanic art, a Hispanic science, etc.
Sounds like this Hispanic equals European. How are you defining civilisation?
Quote:
So, what is in common? Do you mean rap? Or do you mean that most visible Hispanics in the U.S. are the poor ones of Latin America, and that they lack culture either here or there?
Perhaps, I do mean popular culture.
Quote:
Well, in the Hispanic countries there is also the culture of the poors and of people outside the law. They behave very much like the stereotype of the Black people of the guettoes of the U.S.. However, most of them are not necesarily Blacks at all. Some of the worst criminals have been blonds. And, I tell you, life in a Latin American guetto is a lot tougher than in the U.S. So there you will find people that is bad by definition. People that is proud to be bad.
There is a saying in Spanish that says "Worst than Mexican bandit". I believe that explain it all. However, most of poors of Latin America don't belong to the criminal culture, but are their victims. Exactly like in the U.S.
Yes. Please explain me what cultural similarities do you see, besides social condition. I believe there are none.
Regards,
Omar Vega
All in all what does that add up to? Language, and a name and a view of history. I could be wrong because I find commonality of otherwise diverse people.
Posted: Sun 30 Apr 2006 20:50 Post subject: Re: "The Babe" might have been a mixed white but never a bla
Altertude wrote:
Don't all "white" people have "black" ancestry" (Out Of Africa)?
Out of Africa never was an indication that the original peoples were of 'Black' phenotype. Obviously, not 'white' either. Herto man (Homo Idaltu) the oldest complete skull does not look like anyone alive. The closest craniofacialy being Australian Aborigines.
Joined: 28 Apr 2006 {Posts: 282 } Location: 51st State
Posted: Sun 30 Apr 2006 22:00 Post subject: Re: "The Babe" might have been a mixed white but never a bla
Salsassin wrote:
Altertude wrote:
Don't all "white" people have "black" ancestry" (Out Of Africa)?
Out of Africa never was an indication that the original peoples were of 'Black' phenotype. Obviously, not 'white' either. Herto man (Homo Idaltu) the oldest complete skull does not look like anyone alive. The closest craniofacialy being Australian Aborigines.
Interesting that you mention Australian Aborigines as I'm fascinated by the pictures in the Beautiful Kids thread. Senor Vega will love this. I seem to recall some Afrocentric talk of some Ancient Egyptians being called the "blue black"...so black that they shined blueish.
I don't see how it is possible that the original peoples were not of the "black" phenotype. I'm just noticing that everyone in the world has black eyelashes no matter what their hair or eye color.
Joined: 04 May 2005 {Posts: 2021 } Location: santiago, chile
Posted: Sun 30 Apr 2006 23:41 Post subject: Re: "The Babe" might have been a mixed white but never a black.
Altertude wrote:
I think we agree Hispanic is a term not of "race". Many Hispanics share the same ideas around the idea of the sacred, the religious, and iconography of a diety.
Please, repeat with me: Hispanics are a people, Hispanics are a people,
Hispanics are a people... (and continue 500 times, please)
Hispanics is the people of the Hispanic World, all the countries of Europe and the Americas that speak Spanish. All those countries have lot in common besides sharing genetics. They have an history in common. They share the same mentality. They have the same history of conflicts against the outsiders: the anglo saxons or non-europeans (the moors, the natives).
Some of those countries are mainly white, native or black, but the Spanish element is always present. In some of those countries native culture or african music is important. But the only common factor, the only thing all these peoples have in common is its Hispanicity.
All of these people are Catholic (mainly), old fashioned, speak Spanish, love guitar music, have a Latin style family and customs, all feel the same.
As a Chilean, for instance, it is lot easier for me to feel identified with a Mexican, a Dominican or an Argentinean, rather than with a Russian, a Chinese, a Nigerian or a British. Because I know everything about those people that I consider mine. The way of thinking, the social codes, the reactions, etc.
Quote:
The U.S census department, not me, is calling it a race.
Hispanics are a ethnic group. What do you mean by race? What's that?
Who gives a dam for race? The important thing is the ethnic group you belong. That's very clear for Hispanics.
Quote:
This is mostly true, and about the the most immediate difference between Hispanics and blacks. Obviously in places like New York there's a large crossover.
Well, the culture of immigrants is not necessarily the same of the people they left behind. I know how easily Polish or Russians become W.A.S.Ps for instance. Yes, the funny thing is that most of "anglo-saxons" in the United States are not from England but from Germany.
The same happens with Hispanics. We have lots of Germans, Jews, Italians and Arabs in Latin America that are proud to be Hispanics. And Japaneses that love their countries in Latin America. They are Hispanics as any other people. One of the most important figure of Hispanic America, for example, is astronaut Franklin Chang-Diaz.
Quote:
Sounds like this Hispanic equals European. How are you defining civilisation?
Spain is the "motherland". However, just 1 in 10 Hispanics are Europeans.
40 millions of Spaniards are a lot less than 400 million of Hispanic Americans.
But the conection exists. Both people feel identified with each other. Hispanics Americans have always consider the people of Europe like relatives and have participated in the Spanish Civil War and have given prefferences to people from Spain. Spain also preffer to invest in Hispanic America than in the rest of the world.
Quote:
Perhaps, I do mean popular culture.
Popular culture of the U.S. of course. We have a culture that is thousands of years old. Do you believe it is so easy to get rid of it?
Popular culture of the U.S. Ha Ha
You can't compare country music with Mozart
You can't compare rap with Flamenco
Quote:
All in all what does that add up to? Language, and a name and a view of history. I could be wrong because I find commonality of otherwise diverse people.
Beep! Wrong! All that adds up to a Identity. Hispanics have several identities I will have to explain:
First- We are human beings.
Second - We are Hispanics.
Third - We are citizens of our particular country.
Fourth - We are member of a particular sub-group (european descendents, blacks, indians, mixes, asians or the "common people").
Joined: 28 Apr 2006 {Posts: 282 } Location: 51st State
Posted: Mon 01 May 2006 09:48 Post subject: Re: "Hispanic"
oevega wrote:
Altertude wrote:
I think we agree Hispanic is a term not of "race". Many Hispanics share the same ideas around the idea of the sacred, the religious, and iconography of a diety.
Please, repeat with me: Hispanics are a people, Hispanics are a people, Hispanics are a people... (and continue 500 times, please)
Hispanics is the people of the Hispanic World, all the countries of Europe and the Americas that speak Spanish. All those countries have lot in common besides sharing genetics. They have an history in common. They share the same mentality. They have the same history of conflicts against the outsiders: the anglo saxons or non-europeans (the moors, the natives).
I think I've already addressed this in an earlier reply to William's comments on your post, but I guess it needs repeating again. First of all I've asked people of Spain, 'so your Hispanic then? And they reply 'No, I'm a Spaniard.
Second, some Hispanics don't have the same genetics as Spaniards. Those of the Pacific Islands have different genetics from Spaniards. U.S Hispanics which are tri-"racial" have a genetic lineage different from Pacific Islanders (that is if you discount pre-Columbian transatlantic contact).
oevega wrote:
Some of those countries are mainly white, native or black, but the Spanish element is always present. In some of those countries native culture or african music is important. But the only common factor, the only thing all these peoples have in common is its Hispanicity.
All of these people are Catholic (mainly), old fashioned, speak Spanish, love guitar music, have a Latin style family and customs, all feel the same.
Well, the nature of the Spanish 'element' is still in question for me and probably Salassin too. I'm of the opinion we need to start putting Hispanic in quotes unless we are talking strictly language.
What is the feel of Latin family style?
Quote:
As a Chilean, for instance, it is lot easier for me to feel identified with a Mexican, a Dominican or an Argentinean, rather than with a Russian, a Chinese, a Nigerian or a British. Because I know everything about those people that I consider mine. The way of thinking, the social codes, the reactions, etc.
I've heard that when Nigerians and other Africans come to the United States, they have a hard time identifying with Black Americans. The latter have a different way of living they can't understand.
Quote:
Hispanics are a ethnic group. What do you mean by race? What's that? Who gives a dam for race?
The racists give a damn about race.
Quote:
The important thing is the ethnic group you belong. That's very clear for Hispanics.
Not very clear to you though - repeat 1000 times "Hispanic" comprises various or combinations of various ethnicities.
Quote:
The same happens with Hispanics. We have lots of Germans, Jews, Italians and Arabs in Latin America that are proud to be Hispanics. And Japaneses that love their countries in Latin America. They are Hispanics as any other people. One of the most important figure of Hispanic America, for example, is astronaut Franklin Chang-Diaz.
Now do you get why "Hispanic" needs the quotes unless your talking very specifically on a particular case.
oevega wrote:
Altertude wrote:
All in all what does that add up to? Language, and a name and a view of history. I could be wrong because I find commonality of otherwise diverse people.
Beep! Wrong! All that adds up to a Identity.
Regards,
Omar Vega
Did I say those three didn't add up to an identity?
Joined: 04 May 2005 {Posts: 2021 } Location: santiago, chile
Posted: Tue 02 May 2006 15:05 Post subject: Re: "Hispanic"
Altertude wrote:
.. First of all I've asked people of Spain, 'so your Hispanic then? And they reply 'No, I'm a Spaniard.
Spaniards are Hispanics, Argentinians and Dominicans are also Hispanics. It's the common heritage what matters. However, people always have the country's identity first.
Quote:
Second, some Hispanics don't have the same genetics as Spaniards. Those of the Pacific Islands have different genetics from Spaniards. U.S Hispanics which are tri-"racial" have a genetic lineage different from Pacific Islanders (that is if you discount pre-Columbian transatlantic contact).
Filipinos are not Hispanics. They were a colony of Spain but only a tiny elite become hispanized, not the whole people. Most don't even Speak spanish and don't care about the rest. The impact of Spain in Phillipines is about the same as the impact of British in India; almost nill.
Is not the case of Hispanic America at all.
Quote:
Well, the nature of the Spanish 'element' is still in question for me and probably Salsassin too. I'm of the opinion we need to start putting Hispanic in quotes unless we are talking strictly language.
Nobody is going to robb us of our Hispanic heritage. It is as worth to us as much as the Indian heritage. Not even the dam Spaniards that remain in Spain will do; less the Americans. Yes, these days Spaniards are trying to escape from us now they are rich (after entering the EU), and we have to keep remembering all we have done for them in the past. Well, I guess the best Spaniards came to Americas and the rest remained in Europe. Lol
Quote:
What is the feel of Latin family style?
Have you ever seen "The Godfather"?
Quote:
..I've heard that when Nigerians and other Africans come to the United States, they have a hard time identifying with Black Americans. The latter have a different way of living they can't understand.
Nigerians and Black Americans belong to different ethnic groups, although share most of the genetics. Hispanics belong to the same ethnic group although there is diversity in genetics. Is exactly the opposite.
Quote:
Not very clear to you though - repeat 1000 times "Hispanic" comprises various or combinations of various ethnicities.
You will have to repeat it 1000 times more. Hispanics belong to the same ethnic group. They have diversity in genetics and nationalities, not ethnicities. There are minorities, but 99% of the people is Hispanic. Read in the dictionary the difference between an ethnic group, a nationality and a race, PLEASE
Don't you know the Spanish Queen is .... Greek?
Quote:
Now do you get why "Hispanic" needs the quotes unless your talking very specifically on a particular case.
Hispanic in quotes means doubt. We have no doubt we belong to the same people.
Quote:
Did I say those three didn't add up to an identity?
'
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in
"Hispanic" comprises various or combinations of various ethnicities.