But I find the way the author of this article (a white man writing for ESPN’s black boutique?) is trying to bafflegab us to be rather ironic, and instructive in one of my running themes in this space, the moving goalpost of the definition of diversity. He’s lauding this year’s ASG for being half “players of color,” but then cites the dork’s moaning and griping about the lack of “diversity” in the major leagues as evidenced by “only” 8.3% of opening day 2016 rosters consisting of black players, and “black” in this instance means black American, domestic blacks. On the other hand, the players of color who are not domestic blacks both in the ASG and in the MLB don’t seem to matter to the people who complain about the lack of diversity in baseball, the aforementioned dork and many others, because at that moment, when they say diversity, they only mean domestic black. Even though a lot of those players are either black or mulatto, they’re not American in nationality and their native language is something other than English, usually Spanish, so domestic blacks that speak Ebonics don’t identify with them, and their diversity isn’t counted as diversity when domestic blacks only want diversity to mean domestic blacks. If Yasiel Puig’s distant grandfather would have been unloaded off the slave ship in Virginia instead of Havana, the Dodger today would be known as Darnell Richardson, and would be lauded as an example of diversity in baseball, but because it was Havana, the black man is Cuban in nationality and is a native Spanish speaker and is therefore not diverse.
I know, you need a scorecard to keep up with it all. I don’t have a scorecard, just a fast brain and an increasingly keen sense of when people are playing games with rhetoric.
Also, if you haven’t yet, I have set up a Twitter troll account wherein I parody The Undefeated.