Milton Bradley, Upon Further Review

Twelve hours after I wrote my initial post about the Milton Bradley-Jeff Kent situation in Los Angeles, I read it again and decided some clarification was necessary.

My first response was to comment briefly on the conflict without taking sides. I don't, afterall, have any access to the Dodger locker room, and I really only know what's been reported in the various mainstream media outlets. My mistake, though, was in ignoring the considerable amount of insight I do have. As I read what I had written on my first take, I saw that my attempt at remaining neutral might have lead some readers to believe that I had no opinion on the issue. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

First, a reminder of Bradley's words from Tuesday.

"The problem is, [Jeff Kent] doesn't know how to deal with African-American people. I think that's what's causing everything. It's a pattern of things that have been said -- things said off the cuff that I don't interpret as funny. It may be funny to him, but it's not funny to Milton Bradley. But I don't take offense to that because we all joke about race in here. Race is an issue with everything we do in here. White people never want to see race -- with anything. But there's race involved in baseball. That's why there's less than 9 percent African-American representation in the game. I'm one of the few African-Americans that starts here."

I know nothing about Jeff Kent beyond the statistics on the back of his baseball card and his reputation as portrayed by teammates and reporters, but I did have the opportunity recently to meet Milton Bradley, and I came away extremely impressed. He struck me as a considerate and contemplative young man who was sensitive to the issues confronting minorities in today's society. I have no reason to doubt anything he has said this week.

To be honest, though, my brief conversations with Bradley only marginally affect my reaction to this situation. Of deeper importance is my experience living as a black man in America, especially with respect to Bradley's comment that "white people never want to see race -- with anything." I agree with Bradley that this is a huge problem, not only in baseball but in America as a whole.

It is not uncommon to hear an otherwise enlightened white person disregard a minority person's claims of racism by wondering aloud, "why does it always have to be about race?" This isn't a sign of prejudice, merely a lack of experience. Perhaps the most insidious aspect of racism is that a single slight or demeaning comment can completely color an individual's perception of events throughout his or her life.

If you have been judged once based on the color of your skin, there will always be a question in your mind whenever a similar situation arises. Here's a quick example. Everyone has had the frustrating experience of sitting in a restaurant and watching as someone who was seated after you receives his or her meal before you. There are several possible reasons why something like this might happen, ranging from the complexity of the orders to the competence of the waiter, but whenever I find myself in this situation, I wonder if it's because of the color of my skin.

Obviously, we've come a long way in our society, and my life has not been colored by racism nearly the same way as that of my father, my grandfather, or my great-grandmother, who was born a slave. But while I've never awoken to find a burning cross in my front yard, I've still felt the effects of a different type of racism, one that lies beneath the surface of everyday interactions and sometimes treads lightly enough to escape notice.

When you've had a shopkeeper follow you through the aisles of his store, or had a nurse question whether or not you can afford health care for your son, it is impossible not to wonder if a white person would receive the same treatment. Sadly, when you begin to question certain individuals within society, it eventually becomes impossible not to question society as a whole. This is the chain that Milton Bradley spoke of, and he wasn't saying anything that most minorities in this country aren't already keenly aware of.

So this is why race is almost always an issue, whether we're talking about the media's persecution of Barry Bonds, the starting lineup of the Utah Jazz, or the job security of Tyrone Willingham and Sylvester Croom. Saying that we should just move past these issues is not demonstrating forward thinking, it's just plain naïve.

Comments

[Xeifrank]

So you don't see anything contradictory in Bradley's statement?

"The problem is, [Jeff Kent] doesn't know how to deal with African-American people. I think that's what's causing everything. It's a pattern of things that have been said -- things said off the cuff that I don't interpret as funny. It may be funny to him, but it's not funny to Milton Bradley. But I don't take offense to that because we all joke about race in here.

Bradley says he jokes about race, and that he doesn't take offense to others joking about it. Seems to me that he does take offense to it. And what makes him think that Kent doesn't know how to deal with African American people? Perhaps he doesn't know how to deal with Milton Bradley. Ask Dusty Baker, Joe Carter and Dave Winfield about how Kent deals with African American people. To me, Bradley is full of it. He says it isn't about race, yet he is the one who brought it up. Then he is asked by his manager to keep the dispute in the clubhouse, yet he goes out and conducts two big interviews within minutes of the meeting with Jim Tracy. Of course we don't know everything that was said. Bradley is the one making accusations, and even accusations of Kent only caring about his statistics. To me it is Bradley who doesn't know how to deal with PEOPLE in general. I know he is a troubled man and very sensitive but if he is going to take this thing public he better be able to back it up a little better. Otherwise, he comes off sounding like a punk. vr, Xei

[Agent]

I never quite understood why people cared so very much whether or not two co-workers/athletes liked each other or not. I'm starting to see why. These public arguments between athletes mirrors what happens to everyday working people.

Nor do I understand why people think taking an argument out of the clubhouse and into the media can make something more of a distraction.

The feuding co-workers are still going to be at each others throats whether the media knows or not. There is still going to be tension in the clubhouse whether I and 5 million others know about it or not.

Co-workers lie, cheat, and compete for promotions and positions with each other all the time in every day life. In turn people talk about it with their friends, family, and peers. In the past these conversation might have been at a pub or on the phone. Today there is instant 'release' in the form of blogs and other forms of communication.

In this particular case Milt looked at his co-workers and saw that the only other non-white Americans were the newly acquired Jose Cruz and the just brought up Edwin Jackson. Yup. Prior to those two additions Milt was the only non-white American in the clubhouse.

Milt needs his own blog.

[EJ]

I have no idea whether Kent is a racist or not, but he is universally regarded as an asshole. I do believe it's possible that you can be an asshole without being a racist. As with the Cowboy, I have no access to the LA dugout, but I'm guessing, based on Kent's history, he would have bitched out a white/puerto rican/venezuelan with equal vehemence if they had cost him an RBI.

It MIGHT be racism, I'll give you that. But I think one of the reasons white people have "racism" fatigue is that too often that term is used to describe lousy behavior -- like Kent's -- when in fact there are lots of lousy behaviors that have nothing to do with racism. Racism is around, pervasive in many segments of society, of course, but so are jerks, assholes, rude people, and imbeciles. Some of them are also racist, but probably not all of 'em.