Hank being Hank?
May 23rd, 2007 by Tank
Hank Aaron is an odd character. He has often come across as an extremely bitter man, which is unseemly, and especially so for a guy who got to spend two decades of his adult life playing baseball for a living. In his recent interview with the Associated Press, though, he comes across as just plain weird. Strangest to me is his determination to avoid being present when Bonds breaks his home run record, even if he does it in Atlanta. It would be one thing to stay away because of the circumstances surrounding Bonds’ chase of Aaron, but it seems like he is merely indifferent. As Superintendent Chalmers once said of Seymour Skinner, he is an odd fellow. It is not clear whether he steams a good ham.
May 24th, 2007 at 12:36 am
Aurora Borealis?
Aurora Borealis? At this time of year? A this time of day? In this part of the country? Localized entirely within your
kitchen?
One of the best episodes EVER.
As for Aaron, why should he be there. Who knows when it will happen. HR’s are tough. Should he really have to sit through a 2 week stretch waiting for Bonds to temporarily hold the all time HR record?
May 24th, 2007 at 8:58 am
Well if I were him I wouldn’t be there either, because of my qualms with the manner in which Bonds accumulated his home runs. To me, that is a logical reason to blow it off. Or, if he were like Sandy Koufax and just not interested in remaining involved in MLB, that would make sense to me also. I also detest the ordeal of flying, but then there is zero chance Aaron would be flying commercial. But being unwilling to even go to the local team’s stadium, where he is undoubtedly treated as a demigod, to see someone potentially break such a prominent record? Weird.
May 24th, 2007 at 4:20 pm
Tank, you just outline two very good reasons for him not to be in *any* stadium when Bonds “breaks” his record. Given that he’s involved (and has been involved) with the Braves for so many years, the second point (comparing to Koufax) likely doesn’t apply - but the first one is solid in my mind… far from wierd. He doesn’t respect Bonds or the way he’s going to break his record, so he’s not interested in lending anything to the moment.
As for coming across as an extremely bitter man, it wasn’t anything close to as simple as he got to “spend two decades of his adult life playing baseball for a living”. That can accurately describe Julio Franco, but not Aaron - who faced far too many racial slurs, not to mention far too many *death threats* (and given that one is “far too many”, I’m not sure how to characterize the number that he received) - and everything in between. And he did this while *trying* to simply play baseball for twenty years and only after starting in the Negro Leagues cuz he had the wrong color skin to play in the majors (where, um, I think he ultimately proved he more than belonged).
People are calling him names, and threatening him and his family cuz he had the audacity to try his best at a sport he happened to be good at - and heaven forbid, he happened to break the record of a (white) American icon in the meantime. That wouldn’t make *you* bitter? Really? I’d be way beyond pissed off. And then Bonds has the balls to compare his situation to the *actual* bigotry that guys like Aaron endured 30-40 years ago… and it’s “weird” that Aaron has no interest being in the same stadium with this asshole?
What part don’t you get?
May 24th, 2007 at 4:39 pm
I didn’t say there aren’t good reasons to not be there; I just observed of Aaron didn’t articulate any of them.
The fact that Bonds’ record will be inherently suspect is a very good reason not to be there, but is explicitly rejected by Aaron as a reason he will not be there. I take him at his word.
With respect to the racism argument, give me a break. You think he’s the ONLY black kid who grew up in the deep south before the civil rights movement to suffer racism? I would posit that he had it better than 99% of his peers in that regard. Had he remained in Mobile, he may have been lynched, or persecuted, and would certainly have existed on the margins economically. Compared to what his life might have been, and what life was for so many of his peers, I’d say getting to live out every American kid’s dream while getting called some rude names is pretty damned lucky.
Death threats aren’t to be taken lightly, but at the same time have pretty much always been a fact of life for people in the public eye. We can agree that racism is bad. We can also agree that Hank Aaron isn’t the only black man in America, or even in MLB, or even to break barriers in MLB. For a while there was just one black guy in MLB, who was on the receiving end of every bit as much vitriol as Aaron - frankly more unless you’re prepared to argue that social mores didn’t evolve between 1947 and 1974. And Jackie Robinson NEVER let bitterness get the better of him. He remained a class act until the end of his life. Compared to Robinson, Aaron strikes me as a very small man.
May 25th, 2007 at 9:43 am
How many - or any? - of us would compare favorably to Jackie Robinson? Seriously. I’m not proud of it, but knowing myself, I can assure you that I’d be acting far worse than Aaron - never mind Robinson - if I had to face what those guys did. To indict Aaron cuz he’s not Robinson is silly.
Also, you choose to compare him to his peers from childhood in the Deep South - but how about comparing him to his peers in the majors? Did Michael Jack Schmidt face the crap that Aaron did? How about Yaz, Pete Rose, Carlton Fisk, Thurman Munson, Harmon Killebrew, Ted Kluszewski, etc? Heck - did Willie Mays, Reggie Jackson, Willie McCovey, Willie Stargell, Roberto Clemente, et al, face the crap to the extent that Aaron did cuz he had the audacity to go ahead and try to break Babe Ruth’s hallowed HR record?
So Aaron should thank his lucky stars that he’s allowed to be in the same company as the “other” peer group even though he’s still not treated as well as the “other” peer group. No doubt he was better off than many from his childhood neighborhood peers, and clearly he was fortunate to have the God-given talents to play baseball (very well) for a living - but suggesting he should be a happy negro cuz other negroes had it worse is ludicrous… and assailing him for not being Jackie Robinson when few if any would be able to be is also ludicrous…. in my humble opinion, of course.
(Btw, maybe its just me, but I found myself wondering if today was Fatty Fryer Day… not sure why.)
May 25th, 2007 at 11:20 am
OK, let me first distinguish between anger and bitterness. Anger is a natural and at least sometimes healthy response to injustice. Bitterness is what’s left when one can’t let go of one’s anger, allowing it to curdle into a type of hatred, until ultimately one becomes what one despises. In short, one is a normal emotion, and the other is a character flaw. And in taking someone to task I don’t pretend for a moment that I am without more than my share of flaws. But I try not to put them on display for the world every time I open my mouth.
Next, let’s keep Mr. Robinson in perspective. He kept his chin up in the face of adversity and didn’t let it get the better of him. In that respect he was a model for all of us. It can be very difficult to do that, but it isn’t superhuman. And in the overall scheme of things, racist taunting is one of the milder forms of adversity on offer in the world. Just this month a U.S. raid on an al-qaeda safe house turned up this field guide:
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/0524072torture1.html
In addition to some captives on whom the guide’s instructions had been practiced. And they didn’t have the option of quitting. I’m sure they would have strongly preferred a fierce taunting instead.
Walter Reed is full of young men who are crippled for life, because of their efforts to bring freedom to strangers halfway around the world, not because they like to hit a goddamned ball with a stick. There you will find gruesome wounds far beyond anything name-calling or threatening letters are capable of. What you won’t find is Mr. Aaron’s smallness of spirit.
No ballplayer was ever subjected to anything approaching the treatment John McCain or James Stockdale endured in Vietnam. McCain has the full complement of human flaws, including a quick and furious temper, but nobody can accuse him of being bitter or lacking forgiveness. McCain only comes to mind because I saw him on TV this morning. But that sort of underscores the point - turn on the news and you won’t have to wait long to see someone who has faced far greater adversity than Hank Aaron, yet has come to terms with it.
Why did I compare Aaron to people born into the same circumstances as he, rather than ballplayers less talented (except Mays, I am sure we can agree) but in some respects ever luckier than he? Because we have no control over the circumstances into which we are born, though to a significant extent those circumstances shape our life’s prospects, and so they form a baseline of sorts. There is always going to be someone who seems *more* fortunate, but I dislike framing things that way because it just invites envy, and that doesn’t make anyone any better off. But if we want a frame of reference beyond people born into similar circumstances, then I would suggest we look at the historical experience of all humanity. Aaron was never at risk of being eaten by a sabre-toothed tiger, sacrificed to the God of the Sun, being enslaved and sold, freezing to death, starving to death, contracting the Black Death, or being treated for Black Death which had about the same effect. In short, even a black kid in 1950 Mobile had it better than most homo sapiens to ever trod the Earth. As young Westly explained to Princess Buttercup, “Life is pain, Highness. Anyone who says differently is selling something.”
Fatty fryer day indeed… and we haven’t even gotten to the anti-Greek system/American/all-that-is-good-and-just columnists.
May 25th, 2007 at 11:27 am
Oh, and not to get all syrupy but no, Cliffy would not be similarly bitter as he suggests. In the dictionary entry for “innate human decency” (what, your dictionary only has entries for single words?) there is a picture of Cliffy. Or possibly Cliffy and Papa Bear. Probably surrounded by empty cans of Old Milwaukee.
May 25th, 2007 at 3:38 pm
First of all, flattery will get you nowhere with me (you see, “Don’t worry. I won’t let it go to my head.”) - but to answer your question, Papa Bear is the decent one in the Black Hole (much like Donny was “the brooding one” - in that, it’s not even close… there is one that’s clearly set apart).
Second of all, quoting “Princess Bride” will definitely get you somewhere. In the bitterness vs. anger discussion, we may be arguing semantics - but I’ll concede to your general point… with the stipulation that I happen to think that Henry Aaron has a right to be angry/bitter to some extent. I’ll allow that perhaps many have faced worse with greater character, but I still don’t think I would’ve wanted to be Henry Aaron, to be perfectly honest with you.
In closing, is there any doubt that the apex of Carey Elwes career was as Wesley/Dread Pirate Roberts in what was arguably the apex of Rob Reiner’s directorial career (and yes, I’m familiar with “Harry Met Sally” and “A Few Good Men” among others)? And for all that Mandy Patankin has accomplished in his varied career, can he really hope to ever again capture the magic of Inigo Montoya in any future performance? I think not.