The hall of fame!
Pete Rose, Shoeless Joe ... and Cap Anson?
You know who Pete Rose is. You might have known Shoeless Joe Jackson?
But do you know Cap Anson?
Let's catch up with this week's news about Rose and Jackson, just to make sure we're on the same page:
Major League Baseball this week removed Pete Rose and “Shoeless” Joe Jackson – two of the sport’s most famous players who were previously kicked out of baseball for gambling on the game – from the league’s permanently ineligible list.
The historic decision by MLB commissioner Rob Manfred allows Rose to be considered for induction into the Baseball Hall of Fame, an honor that had been ruled out as part of the settlement he reached with Major League Baseball. Rose died in September, and Manfred ruled that his lifetime ban ended with his death.
...
Jackson was a member of the Chicago White Sox who were accused of conspiring with gamblers to lose the 1919 World Series on purpose.
...
“In my view, once an individual has passed away, the purposes of Rule 21 have been served. Obviously, a person no longer with us cannot represent a threat to the integrity of the game,” Manfred wrote.
Manfred gave the same kind of "uncanceling" to 15 other former MLB players, most of whom I don't think people remember. Apparently, his decision came after President Trump brought up Rose's case in an Oval Office meeting with Manfred earlier this year.
The whole thing got me thinking about who else might be in the Hall of Fame (or really, the halls of fame since I'm not limiting this to baseball), and who might have done worse things than Rose or Jackson did.
Of course, we have people like O.J. Simpson, but his criminal acts happened after his football career and his admission to the Hall.
But how about people like Adrian "Cap" Anson?
Anson was one of the most influential figures in the earliest days of baseball. Born in 1852 in Iowa, he played with the Chicago White Stockings (now known as the Cubs), and he was a star of his day.
In fact, a full 125+ years after his retirement, Anson still holds several Cubs franchise records: most hits and runs batted in, for example. He's also the only Cubs player in history to record 3,000 hits in a career. Anson was elected to the Hall of Fame in 1939.
Oh, and he was apparently also a vehement racist.
How racist was he?
Well, for one thing, he refused to play if the opposing teams had Black players -- and since he was a star for the league, his refusal carried weight.
In fact, team owners ultimately used his words and his attitude as part of their justification for the "gentlemen's agreement" that stopped teams from signing Black athletes from 1887 until 1947.
We should also add that Anson reportedly gambled quite a bit on baseball -- although that was perceived as less of a big deal back then, as long as he wasn't betting against his own team.
I'm not advocating for removing Anson or anyone else from the Hall. However, I was surprised to realize that not a word of the history about Anson’s role in the "color line" in baseball is included anywhere in the official exhibits in Cooperstown.
All of which leads me to:
Yes, it probably makes sense that Rose and Jackson and the others should have their baseball punishments end with their deaths.
And yes, if I had a vote, I'd probably vote to add Rose to the list of players honored in the Hall.
But, I'd want to include something about why he was banned from baseball to begin with -- and for that matter, to add something about Anson's past to his exhibit as well.
Canceling people forever is rarely the right decision, and clemency can be a blessing. But skipping context, when you're trying to document history, isn't much of an answer either.
7 other things worth knowing today
President Trump on Wednesday had tea with a former jihadist who until recently had a $10 million U.S. bounty on his head. Interim Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa, once known by his militant nom de guerre Abu Mohammed al-Jolani, met Trump in Riyadh six months after leading a swift campaign that toppled the half-a-century-old Assad regime, ejecting Iran-backed armed groups and declaring himself leader of the country. (CNN)
House Republicans proposed sweeping tax breaks in President Donald Trump's big priority bill, tallying at least $4.9 trillion in costs so far, partly paid for with cuts to Medicaid, food stamps and green energy programs used by millions of Americans. The House Ways and Means Committee named its package "THE ONE, BIG, BEAUTIFUL BILL’’ in all capital letters, a nod to Trump himself. (NBC Washington; also here's the entire bill)
U.S. energy officials are reassessing the risk posed by Chinese-made devices that play a critical role in renewable energy infrastructure after unexplained communication equipment was found inside some of them. Using the rogue communication devices to skirt firewalls and switch off inverters remotely, or change their settings, could destabilise power grids, damage energy infrastructure, and trigger widespread blackouts, experts said. (Reuters)
The new pick for surgeon general wrote in a recent book that people should consider using unproven psychedelic drugs as therapy and in a newsletter suggested her use of mushrooms helped her find a romantic partner. Dr. Casey Means’ recommendation to consider guided psilocybin-assisted therapy is notable because psilocybin is illegal under federal law. (AP)
Erik and Lyle Menendez were resentenced on Tuesday to 50 years to life in prison, which makes them eligible for parole, for the 1989 double murders of their parents. The parole process will be long and could take years. (ABC News)
Bosses weren’t being paranoid: Remote workers are more likely to start their own businesses, according to new research. (The Register)
Ride-hail and delivery giant Uber is introducing cheap, fixed-route rides along busy corridors during weekday commute hours in seven U.S. cities. The commuter shuttles will drive between pre-set stops every 20 minutes. Wait, does this mean Uber just invented busses? (TechCrunch)
Thanks for reading. Photo by Mike Bowman on Unsplash. I wrote about some of this before at Inc.com. See you in the comments.
Bill - I'm not sure I agree with your comments about "context" or past behaviors.
Imagine for a minute that at some stage in your professional career, you were nominated for the writers "Hall of Fame", but before you could be included, all your faults and prior failures at life would be laid out bare for the whole world to see - and then society got to vote on whether you were a fabulous writer, or just an awful human being.
Should the world judge your merits as a writer based upon the work you left behind and it's impact on the world, or should you be judged as to whether or not you lied to the priest at your last confession? What about the speeding ticket? Would it make a difference if they knew about (fill in the blank)?
Is it possible for a "bad" person to actually do great things? Or does the bad always outweigh the good? If social norms change should that disqualify past accomplishments of great leaders? If Samuel Clemens was a racist, does that mean all his literature should be burned and he should be cancelled? Since Martin Luther King Jr was a womanizer, does that mean his monuments should be torn down (or at least a giant asterisk on the base that spells out all of his shortcomings according to the social norms of our day)?
Many a great human, dare I say ANY, would "fail" to make ANY "Hall of Fame" if society got to vote on the person's character faults (or dare we say - their compliance with social norms of the time) before regarding their eligibility and impact on the world.
Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Let he who is perfect throw the first stone. I still listen to Michael Jackson music despite the allegations against him, still find some of Bill Cosby funny, still enjoy some of Harvey Weinstein’s movies and west Nygard clothes. Never cared for P. Diddy. I think that sometimes we need to separate the person from their achievements. Humans are frail and full of faults and none of us are perfect.
We cannot judge the past by present standards. But I do agree that context should be included.