Now playing: Slate V, a video-only site from the world's leading online magazine. Visit Slate V at www.slatev.com. | |
Sports Nut The First Black Player in Major-League History Was it William Edward White? Posted Monday, Apr 22, 2013, at 07:43 PM ET On the April 15 edition of the Hang Up and Listen podcast, Stefan Fatsis told the story of a possible African-American baseball pioneer named William Edward White. The transcript of Fatsis' account is below, and you can listen to the story by clicking on the audio player beneath this paragraph. It is Jackie Robinson Day, and that means a flurry of stories about African-American baseball pioneers. The New York Times has one this morning, about Bud Fowler, who, when he suited up for the Lynn Live Oaks of the minor-league International Association in 1878, might have been the first black professional ballplayer. Fowler is the subject of an upcoming biography, a paper will be presented about him at the Society for American Baseball Research's annual conference in Cooperstown this weekend, and he's having a street named for him in Cooperstown because he grew up near there. Fowler played 10 season of professional ball, all of it in the minors. Other blacks—most notably Frank Grant and Sol White—played in minor and semi-pro leagues in the 1880s before baseball imposed its gentlemen's agreement racial barrier. The other name you might know is Moses Fleetwood Walker, who played 42 games for the Toledo Blue Stockings of the American Association in 1884. He's usually credited as the first African-American to play in the majors. But every Jackie Robinson Day, I think of William Edward White, who was in all likelihood actually the first African-American major leaguer. White attended ... To continue reading, click here. Join the Fray: our reader discussion forum What did you think of this article? POST A MESSAGE | READ MESSAGES Also In Slate Slatest PM: Police Wonder if Tamerlan Killed His Ex-Roommate A History of Violence Unanswered Questions About Watergate | Advertisement |
Manage your newsletters subscription: Unsubscribe | Forward to a Friend | Advertising Information | |
Ideas on how to make something better? Send an e-mail to slatenewsletter@nl.slate.com. Copyright 2011 The Slate Group | Privacy Policy |
A destination on the Interweb to brighten your day (now get back to work!)
Monday, April 22, 2013
Sports Nut: The First Black Player in Major-League History
Politics: Why We Should Judge Breaking News Like Baseball
Now playing: Slate V, a video-only site from the world's leading online magazine. Visit Slate V at www.slatev.com. | |
Politics Hapless, Disorganized, and Irrational What the Boston bombers had in common with most would-be terrorists By John Mueller Posted Monday, Apr 22, 2013, at 10:39 PM ET Between Sept. 12, 2001, and last Monday, some 52 cases came to light in which the United States itself has been, or apparently has been, targeted for terrorism by Islamist extremists, whether based in the United States or abroad. By far the most striking difference between the Boston Marathon killings and these earlier cases is that, for the first time, terrorists actually were able to assemble and detonate bombs. Many previous plotters harbored visions of carrying out bombings, and in 10 of the cases, they were supplied with fantasy-fulfilling, if bogus, bombs by obliging FBI informants. But until Boston, no would-be terrorists had been able to make and set one off on their own. And, except for four bombs detonated on the London transport system in 2005, nor has any terrorist in the United Kingdom. This is surprising in part because in the 1970s there were hundreds of terrorist incidents on U.S. soil, most of them bombings, killing 72 people. In many other respects, however, the Boston Marathon bombing is quite similar to the other 52 cases. For example, the Boston perpetrators were clearly not suicidal, which is the standard in American cases. In only six of the earlier plots were the perpetrators clearly willing to die in their terrorist effort. And except for their ability to fabricate and detonate bombs, the Boston terrorists do not seem to have been any more competent than most of their predecessors. The Department of Homeland Security, in assessing what it ominously calls ... To continue reading, click here. Join the Fray: our reader discussion forum What did you think of this article? POST A MESSAGE | READ MESSAGES Also In Slate Slatest PM: Police Wonder if Tamerlan Killed His Ex-Roommate A History of Violence Unanswered Questions About Watergate | Advertisement |
Manage your newsletters subscription: Unsubscribe | Forward to a Friend | Advertising Information | |
Ideas on how to make something better? Send an e-mail to slatenewsletter@nl.slate.com. Copyright 2011 The Slate Group | Privacy Policy |
Arts: Mad Men, Season 6
Now playing: Slate V, a video-only site from the world's leading online magazine. Visit Slate V at www.slatev.com. | |
Tv Club Mad Men, Season 6 Don is trying to sell absence to his clients. By Paul Ford Posted Monday, Apr 22, 2013, at 09:03 PM ET Hanna, Seth, There's something genuinely sweet to Don's secretary, Dawn, a moral core that is lacking in nearly every other character. Her description of SCDP is superb: "Everybody's scared there," she says. "Women crying in the ladies' room. Men crying in the elevator. Sounds like New Year's Eve when they empty the garbage, there's so many bottles. And I told you about that poor man hanging himself in his office." Oh lord, I thought, she's right. What the hell is wrong with these people? It's like some sort of soap opera in there. I'm not sure how we're supposed to perceive her. Everyone else in this show has a sword of Damocles hanging over them—a sword that they each hung there themselves. To watch this show is to experience a steady state of dread and exhaustion. It's trickle-down cruelty and fear. And here is Dawn, cataloging that dread, acting slightly—very slightly—outside the pale (sorry) by punching out a fellow secretary's time card, yet willing to own up to her moral failings. A self-interrogating, decent, vulnerable human being. On Mad Men. Why? The pure-hearted won't last long in that hell. Why does the black lady have to be so good? Yet her character does provide a valuable service: Reminding us that SCDP is, for many, a genuinely awful place. The badness filters down. And Don, who is the emotional core of SCDP, is not landing business ... To continue reading, click here. Join the Fray: our reader discussion forum What did you think of this article? POST A MESSAGE | READ MESSAGES Also In Slate Slatest PM: Police Wonder if Tamerlan Killed His Ex-Roommate A History of Violence Unanswered Questions About Watergate | Advertisement |
Manage your newsletters subscription: Unsubscribe | Forward to a Friend | Advertising Information | |
Ideas on how to make something better? Send an e-mail to slatenewsletter@nl.slate.com. Copyright 2011 The Slate Group | Privacy Policy |
Sports Broadcast Legend Busted for DUI -- More Johnny Football Drama -- Troubled LB Arrested Again
| ||||
|