Monday, March 16, 2009
“AN ACT OF MAKE-BELIEVE.”
The Mets treat the National League’s New York history as if it were abandoned property, which, in a way, it is. But does that mean it is there for the taking? True, the identity of the Mets—whose colors combine the blue of the Dodgers and the orange of the Giants—has thrived on a magpie element, but there’s something a bit dishonest about naming the rotunda for Jackie Robinson, who never wore a Mets uniform. A pastiche of the Dodgers’ former field in Brooklyn pasted onto the façade of a different team’s twenty-first-century ballpark in Queens is less a historical tribute than it is an act of make-believe.
Paul Goldberger in The New Yorker
The rest of it is a lovely prose description of the two parks, fairly objective and worth reading.
I do take issue with the use of “dishonest” in his narration regarding the Jackie Robinson Rotunda. To be fair - and if you are a regular reader of this site, you know that I am happy about it being there and from the SNY footage I saw, I believe that the Wilpons genuinely are too - I feel that the Mets were essentially railroaded into naming something major at this ballpark after Jackie Robinson, lest they be accused of something they’re not actually guilty of. I don’t think it’s dishonest - dishonest was the people trying to accuse the Wilpons of racism for not being willing to name the actual building after #42. There should be some kind of tribute to Jackie Robinson that is actually baseball related in New York City, and given the lineage, where would you prefer it to reside? Would you prefer that duty be in the hands of That Team in the Bronx, who lallygagged as long as possible before signing their first African-American player? Now, *that* would be dishonest.
The Jackie Robinson Rotunda is something that took too long to exist in New York City. There’s nothing left of Ebbets Field, and the Mets inherited the lineage. Citi Field is where it should be. At least when we walk through that gate people will be reminded of something bigger than the rest of us, instead of focusing on our anger over the corporation whose name is on top.
The rest of it - the inability of the Wilpons to be willing to celebrate the history of the team they own (I will be forever angry that Tom Seaver’s locker went to the highest bidder and is not sitting in Cooperstown) - is all true. And maybe I will take all of this back once the stadium is open and I can see the various tributes to the history of the Mets scattered through the ballpark.
We’ll all have some of our answers in less than two weeks, when I walk into Citi Field holding my tickets that instruct me to enter at Gate JRR.
Posted by Caryn at 03:42 PM
Great post. I agree… it’s a fuzzy connection but nonetheless important for us and for the city.
well put
i respect jackie and all he did - and there is a place here for him at citi field - i just want a better representation of mets history
Interesting article. Goldberger’s criticism is a bit harsh. The final paragraph summed it up with an assertion that the Mets were basically claiming history that was not their own in an effort to be liked.
I certainly have no issue with a tribute to Jackie Robinson or with the rotunda. I hope it lives up to expectations. However, I’m also hoping for future additions that celebrate the Mets themselves.
I know the Mets were railroaded into this however I don’t like the fact that the rotunda is named after him. Hell his career was over prior to the Mets being a dream. That having been said it is done and over with so oh well. Maybe Mr Goldberger and the New Yorker magazine can enjoy Citifield for the Wine selection in the over priced clubs and restaurants that are created to pay for the place and pad the Wilpons pockets.
I don’t have a problem with Jackie Robinson Rotunda. Actually, I rather like it. Great part of the history of National League baseball in New York. I would like to hope, however, that there is somewhere at Hodges Field a statue for William Shea and Gil Hodges and perhaps Cleon Jones, Tom Seaver, or Keith Hernandez. I actually wouldn’t mind a companion rotunda for Willie Mays. While we’re at it.
(Dwight Gooden once he’s rehabilitated?)
But if I ever come to town during the season (and there’s no hope of a pennant run), I’d like to sit in the Throneberry section.
So who does everyone think throws out the ceremonial first pitch on Opening Day?
I have no problem with naming sections of the seats after Mets from the past. Hell Nascar has done it for years. Hell I have no problem with the statues of Former Mets either. As to Opening Day at Shea hmmm well lets get who I don’t want to do it. No Wilpon, no Gooden, No Franco, No Yogi, Mays could not get it over the plate neither can Seaver it was a bit embarrassing to see him not make it the final game at Shea. Lets add Piazza to the list. I would love to see Kiner (as the last “original Met” staff that is well known) do it but he is too old to make it. You pose an interesting question. For God’s sake not Obama neither. I don’t want a current Met to do it either. hmmm damn this is tough. Please don’t give to to Jackie Robinson’s widow but on that note I think I have decided my choice for the first pitch.
In the Navy hell on all ship’s it is traditional to have a woman Baptize her (the ship) with a bottle of Champagne. Since throwing out the first pitch is the equivalent. Let a woman do it and that woman should be Joan Hodges. Alas it never will happen the Wilpons have no interest in Gil and if they did they would have supported the attempts tp get him in the Hall of Fame where he rightfully belongs. So there in a nutshell(albeit a long winded one) you have my answer.
Joan Hodges.
It would be awesome if we could keep political comments off the blog.
It’d be awesome to keep the sexism out too.
However, that said, Joan Hodges, interesting choice.
I think it has to be Seaver, though. It’s not about whether or not he can throw the pitch over the plate - hell, Jon Stewart couldn’t do it either (again, please let’s keep political comments out, I’m talking about him as a Mets fan).
How is what I said sexist? Also with reference to Jon Stewart and Tom Seaver. Seaver was a pitcher in the major leagues he knew that he was to throw the final pitch you would think he would make sure that he could make it across the plate.
Thanks, I *think* I know who Tom Seaver was.
I wasn’t trying to compare him to Jon Stewart - just that no one is expecting anyone to actually execute the pitch flawlessly.
The ‘women christen ships’ thing. A little 1950’s, dontcha think? That’s all.
Ah Franco will throw out the first pitch for the College game. truly the fist pitch on the place (not counting the construction guys I mean if i worked there i would do it on the sly with pics for my family album) but who truly cares about a college game besides the family and friends of the students I am going to look at my seats.
Not at all the tradition continues to this day I would think that could be easily checked. For example the most recent one that i found was done March 8th a mere 9 days ago with a lady christening the cargo/ammunition ship USNS Wally Schirra. NASA astronaut and Navy Capt. Lee M. E. Morin will deliver the ceremony’s principal address. Serving as ship’s sponsor, Josephine Schirra will christen the ship in honor of her late husband. The launching ceremony will include the time-honored Navy tradition of the sponsor breaking a bottle of champagne across the bow to formally christen the ship.
the point isn’t whether the tradition continues. it’s whether the tradition is antiquated or not.
It most certainly is not!! Why have anyone throw the first pitch? Why sign the National anthem or God Bless America for that matter. Antiquated? How unAmerican!!! I realize that you don’t mean that in that way but why would you change those ideas and traditions?
Andre. Throwing the first pitch is not antiquated for heaven’s stake.
The whole “a woman must christen a ship” is, in my opinion, antiquated. That’s all. I didn’t like the comparison. Again, just my opinion.
For what it’s worth, I happen to detest the forced singing of “God Bless America” and actively dislike the song. I understand what drove Woody Guthrie to write “this Land Is Your Land” in response.
Great post. I agree… it’s a fuzzy connection but nonetheless important for us and for the city.