First is this quote from the essay:
The rise of baseball as America's national pastime coincided with the second industrial revolution at the turn of the twentieth century. Improvements in communication, transportation, and technology, heralded by industrialization, helped baseball become profitable. Baseball parks sprang up at railroad hubs in large urban areas, and national newspapers and magazines spread stories of sports stars to the masses...Myriad other social factors influenced baseball's cultural prominence, including: a desire for adventure created by the settling of the frontier; the muscular Christianity movement, which advocated sport as a tool to improve mental and physical health; and a reaction to fluid gender roles.
Second is this quote:
Before the rise of the cultural studies movement in the 1970s, the examination of sports media history often was seen as a frivolous pursuit marginalized by the academy. However, if scholars fail to examine the importance of sports media history and icons such as Cobb, there is a risk of misunderstanding American culture, within which sports is inextricably linked.
I've always wondered why baseball seems so much more connected to American culture and history than do other sports. Obviously, I know that Jackie Robinson's beginning with the Dodgers predates the larger Civil Rights Movement, but I assume Robinson was able to have such a profound effect because baseball had already become so entrenched in American culture. Though this isn't a complete answer, it at least starts to lay the groundwork for one. I included the second quote because I 100% agree with the notion that writers reflect the values of their respective location (in place and time).
I've always wondered if baseball's desire to be that unadulterated "Great American Pastime" has been detrimental to the league. As Ian pointed out in his latest post, MLB's attendance and profits are soaring, so it's not hurting them that much. But in many ways—and maybe this is an exclusively personal reaction—I see the NBA and NFL as more reflective of the current state of American culture than MLB.
This is where the writers come in, because a look at any team's roster reveals a cross-section of contemporary American culture, but not a lot of writers are focusing on these already present story lines. Again, as Ian pointed out in his latest post, the Red Sox have Jon Lester, who is not only one of the best pitchers in baseball but also a cancer survivor. The San Francisco baseball Giants have Tim Lincecum, who is (also) not only one of the best pitchers in baseball but also half-Filipino. (Yes, as a half-Filipino person, that's important to me). While both of them may come from fairly similar backgrounds—both are from the Seattle metro area—they undoubtedly come from different upbringings than Rockies pitcher Ubaldo Jimenez (from the Dominican Republic) or Daisuke Matsuzaka (Japan). Maybe Jimenez's and Dice-K's upbringings weren't that different from Lester, Lincecum, or anyone else's, but just the presence of these players from other countries is its own picture of American society today. I find that baseball writers and former players cling too desperately to this glorified past of baseball as purity while editing from history the game's blemishes. Baseball writers are quick to declare "the steroid era" over and done with, proclaiming this the year of the pitcher because steroids have been completely removed from baseball. This reshaping of baseball's recent past/present assumes no pitchers took steroids, ignoring the knowledge of steroid-using pitchers Andy Pettitte, Ryan Franklin, Edinson Volquez, J.C. Romero, Sergio Mitre*. It's similar to the way no one seems to remember how many players during baseball's untainted golden age took amphetamines (that era's performance enhancing drug) to muster the energy to play through the season. Major League Baseball's all-time hits leader Pete Rose isn't allowed anywhere near anything remotely connected to the league, though one could argue he's a lot like Ty Cobb: both played the game fiercely and are/were considered two of the best ever. While Cobb's hustle is celebrated despite his personal flaws (he was reportedly very racist), Rose, known as "Charlie Hustle," is almost a baseball non-entity.
*These pitchers all tested positive or admitted to using steroids. This list doesn't include the biggest name, Roger Clemens, who has been pretty much shunned from the baseball world.
I don't understand the selective memory regarding many aspects of the league, but I feel it can only hurt the game's popularity. Mostly, I don't understand why writers continue to cultivate characters and rewrite the game's past, embracing both the good and bad of players like Cobb and glorifying the purity of the pre-steroid era. I know some fans don't care about the story lines of individuals and just want to root for their hometown team. I fully support that, but I also think baseball holds an unexplored treasure of characters to be revealed and celebrated.
I'll also admit that, hey, maybe baseball writers are writing about all of these things/people and I'm just looking in all the wrong places. If that's the case, let me know. I will gladly read any baseball stories I'm missing out on.
**Photo courtesy of Keith Allison via Creative Commons License
No comments:
Post a Comment