Baseball’s latest racist sin

As we all know, some of the most self-righteous, hate-filled liberals in America are sportwriters, who, the farther America gets away from the racial segregation of the past, and the more nonwhites are in professional sports, denounce American sports’ past and present “racism” with ever intensified fervor and disgust. Thus today’s New York Times has an article, “From Jackie Robinson to Dead Silence.” The story is highlighted on the main page with this:

Commissioner Bud Selig has embraced diversity when it has suited him, but baseball is once again turning its back on Latin Americans.

Now how could baseball be “turning its back” on Latin Americans, given that they now constitute one quarter of Major League players? Well, it seems that the All-Star Game will be held this year in Arizona, and Arizona last year passed a law to facilitate the apprehension of illegal aliens, and in left-liberal America, enforcing the law is a racist act, if the lawbreakers are mostly nonwhite. Therefore Arizona is a racist, anti-Hispanic state and it’s an insult to Hispanics for the All-Star Game to be held there. The fact that Arizona was chosen for the All-Star Game two years ago, before the controversial law was passed, does not lessen its sin in Times writer Jonathan Mahler’s eyes. Instead, the non-event serves as an occasion for him to launch into a general condemnation of baseball’s racism from the distant past up to the present moment.

As Mahler sees it, even baseball’s large-scale inclusion of nonwhites has only been done for selfish, suspect purposes (“Bud Selig has embraced diversity when it has suited him”). Whites—or rather those whites, such as Selig, whom liberal whites, such as Mahler, choose to portray as non-liberal—get credit for nothing. They could Hispanify the Major Leagues, as they are actually doing. They could Hispanify America itself, as they are actually doing. It wouldn’t matter. They are racist through and through.

Never forget: the more nonwhite America becomes, through its non-discriminatory, inclusive policies, the more “racist” it must appear in its own eyes, because the greater the disjunction between our enriched and blossoming nonwhite present and our white past, making our white past seem all the more inconceivable, indefensible, horrible, and disgusting.

Or, at best, worthless. As Mahler puts it,

No American institution owes a greater debt to Latin Americans than baseball. Our national pastime would be nothing today [emphasis added] without the likes of Pujols, Bautista and Reyes…

And the same, according to liberal belief, is true of America itself. Without its diversity (i.e., its nonwhiteness), America would be nothing.

In connection with which, Mahler ignores the fact that the reason there are so many Hispanics in the Major Leagues is that the teams deliberately cultivate and train them from a very early age in baseball academies located in Latin American countries, a practice that gives foreign Hispanics a big advantage over Americans in getting into the majors.

- end of initial entry -

Irv P. writes:

Nothing could ever satisfy these types of writers. Like all liberals, they never miss any opportunity to display their moral superiority. People who think Arizona is “evil” for wanting to enforce what is already federal law, are enemies of our civilization and should be treated as such by those of us who recognize them for what they are.

Incidentally, the number of “Latino” players is probably more than 25 percent but I haven’t done any research to get the actual numbers.

As far as baseball being “nothing” without the Latino players, don’t make me laugh. The game will always go on with or without any ethnic group. If major league baseball was 100 percent American born white men, there would still be record attendance figures each year. And if the players contracts were in a sane range and ticket prices came down, attendance would go through the roof, regardless of who was playing!

TRUE AMERICANS ARE ALL ARIZONANS!

LA writes:

I wrote: “In left-liberal America, enforcing the law is a racist act, if the lawbreakers are mostly nonwhite.”

Which means, the more nonwhites break the law, the more racist whites are for enforcing the law.

Which means, the worse the actual behavior of nonwhites, the greater the putative wickedness of whites.

This leftist inversion of morality, in which whites are made guilty for the sins and inadequacies of nonwhites, will not stop until whites identify it and oppose it. But they can’t do that, so long as they refuse to discuss race. So long as whites’ response to the accusation of racism is to dismiss the charge as “political correctness,” deny that they are racist, and insist that race doesn’t matter, they remain helpless against the race-based campaign to destroy them and their civilization.

When will whites finally see this? What has to happen for whites to see this?

Posted by Lawrence Auster at June 17, 2011 02:56 PM | Send