In case you don’t know, the Boston Red Sox was the last MLB team to sign a black player - 14 long years after Jackie Robinson inked a deal with the Dodgers. Because of that, there’s been plenty of speculation as to why it took the Bosox so long to integrate.
Longtime baseball writer and editor Glenn Stout went back into the archives to see if he could turn up any published evidence of racism by the Red Sox Owner at that time: Tom Yawkey. What he culled, from a 1965 SPORTS ILLUSTRATED piece on Yawkey, was startling.
Upon examination, Yawkey’s final statement - “We scouted them right along, but we didn’t want one because he was a Negro. We wanted a ballplayer,” might be the most telling statement of all.
For if we follow Yawkey’s logic – “We looked for black ballplayers but we wanted talent first and foremost” – then compare it to the fact that from the time of (Jackie) Robinson’s signing through July of 1959 the Red Sox neither put an African player on the major league field who they signed themselves nor traded for one, the conclusion is inescapable: Tom Yawkey and his organization simply did not believe that any African American ballplayer had the talent to play for the Red Sox.
This, despite the fact that they were playing on every other team in baseball, and that by 1959 there were dozens and dozens of African Americans winning championships, winning Cy Young awards and MVP awards and playing on All-Star teams throughout the major leagues, players like Henry Aaron, Willie Mays, Ernie Banks, Don Newcombe and many, many, many more.
But none, apparently, were good enough for Boston. “We wanted ballplayers,” indeed.
There’s more.
“They blame me, and I’m not even a Southerner. I’m from Detroit.” Yawkey remains on his South Carolina fief until May because Boston weather before then is too much for his sensitive sinuses. “I have no feeling against colored people,” he says. “I employ a lot of them in the South. But they are clannish, and when that story got around that we didn’t want Negroes they all decided to sign with some other club. Actually, we scouted them right along, but we didn’t want one because he was a Negro. We wanted a ballplayer.”
So Yawkey said “clannish” black ballplayers were boycotting the Red Sox!
To confirm the absurdity of that notion, Stout contacted Dr. Lawrence Hogan, a Professor of History at Union College in New Jersey who is also one of the preeminent Negro League historians in the country and the author of Shades of Glory, published by National Geographic and the National Baseball Hall of Fame. The book is largely credited with being the “definitive history of Black baseball in America.”
Stout asked Hogan about the possibility that black ballplayers may have colluded in refusing to sign with the Red Sox, as Yawkey suggested. His response:
“I have never heard even the slightest suggestion of either thing you mention happening. I am sure there were players good enough to be signed who were not because of the glacial pace of integration. But I can ot imagine any Negro League player turning down an offer, other than on the normal personal grounds of not enough money being offered, or wanting to get on with life in a non-baseball way.”
In case you think this is all common knowledge, read Stout’s entire piece, as he cites Boston media apologists, like the late Will McDonough, who continually defended Yawkey as being anything but racist. Why do I have a feeling that in today’s online media age, Yawkey wouldn’t have been granted such favorable treatment?
I didn’t post this to smear the Red Sox, or Yawkey. I had never heard those comments from the former Red Sox Owner, and when I read them, I was appalled. Dumbstruck. It’ll be interesting to see if this creates any dialogue among the revision historians still ensconced in The Bean.
3:20 pm on November 19th, 2009
People from Boston have always been, back then and still today, racist disgraces to humanity,and the fakest, most bandwagon sports fans in the World…
4:01 pm on November 19th, 2009
Interesting that George Preston Marshall the owner of the Boston Braves NFL franchise (that moved to Washington later) was also a racist and kept blacks off the roster. He also was the one that picked the nickname ‘redskins’ (er, which has stuck to this day). Something about Boston I guess.
And the weirdest thing? Marshall’s girlfriend at the time was Louise BROOKS.
4:08 pm on November 19th, 2009
Preston kept Halas and Rooney in line. Yep, blacks were excluded from the NFL from 1934-45…
George Halas defended this by saying “The game didn’t have the appeal to black players at the time.”
Preston held out until *1962,* only relenting after being threatened by the government to have stadiium lease not renewed..
4:45 pm on November 19th, 2009
You have to keep this in mind.
The Boston Bruins had their first black player, the first black player in the NHL Willie O’Ree, playing in 1958.
The Boston Red Sox was the last MLB team to put a black player on the field, Pumpsie Green, in 1959.
That’s right, the NHL brought a black player into its league before the Red Sox did.
7:25 pm on November 19th, 2009
This whole thing smacks of… who cares. Was a long-dead man racist… nope, don’t care.
9:31 pm on November 19th, 2009
old old old old old old news…why bother, my god we all know yawkey was a dbag
8:32 am on November 20th, 2009
slow day huh…
9:51 am on November 20th, 2009
So are you trying to stir up controversy over an article that was published 44 years ago? Is there nothing of interest today?
10:00 am on November 20th, 2009
Why the hell would this blog care about old news? Everyone who follows the Red Sox knows the deal with Yawkey.
As for that first comment by BostonSTP - he’s clearly the most ignorant person I’ve ever come across.
2:05 pm on November 20th, 2009
“Actually, we scouted them right along, but we didn’t want one because he was a Negro. We wanted a ballplayer.”
Ah, the written word, as opposed to the spoken word.
Just maybe, Yawkey meant he wasn’t going to hire a guy just BECAUSE he was a ‘negro’ but that he wanted a guy who could play ball and (unsaid in words, but implied by tone) it wouldn’t necessarily matter what his color was if he could play ball.
Not saying that’s the way the conversation went, but you can certainly say the same words Yawkey said, and with the right tone/inflection/emphasis, you come out with a different meaning than the written word gives you.
Think of Benny Hill’s characteristic line - “What is this thing called Love?” which he always read as “What is this thing called, love”.
I know diddly about Yawkey, just playing devil’s advocate, but it’s a bit much to measure a man solely based on two sentences jotted down by someone else for posterity.
9:37 am on November 21st, 2009
Yawkey may have been racist but the quote used in this story does not prove him a racist. Making the accussation of racism based on this quote amounts to slander. The way I interpret it, in Yawkey’s and his scouts opinion, there were not any black players that they scouted who could play better than what they already had. He was not an equal opportunity employer. So what. In those days very few were. It took boldness and vision to break that trend. And few people are visonaries. It’s blatant arrogance to make disparaging accusations against people who lived in a world much different than what we live. I can assure you that many of those making the accusations today would have been no different themselves if they lived in that day and time. People behave according to the customs of their day. That’s a fact of life.
10:02 am on October 31st, 2011
It’s funny that 23% of your readers chose “give him a break, it was as different time”, which is subscribing to the idea of cultural relativism. I guarantee you that the vast majority of those who chose that answer are conservatives. Aren’t they the ones that rail against cultural relativism? LOL! What a bunch of hypocrites. And as a Sox fan, I can say that this is the worst stain on our team. Luckily the Yawkey’s, who were incompetent, are on their way to being forgotten.