Sports for an independent Confederate States of America?

Marc

Donor
There is quite a bit of material on how an apartheid society functioned in regards to sports, as exemplified in South Africa (which is the logical real history analogue), the bottom line is that policies were in place to make even separate black participation in sports virtually impossible - spanning from no sports education in black schools, to no money for amateur play (equipment, fields, etc), to heavy restriction or outright bans on any kind of sport league.
The goal was to keep blacks under control, in all respects - which means you can't risk any cultural heroes at all.
Apartheid made Jim Crow segregation appear moderate by comparison.
Sorry, I would have to persuaded that somehow the South developed a higher moral conscience than the Afrikaners, in the decades after successfully rebelling.

What do you think about the ability of the North to be able to bring in Blacks from the South as OTL sports bring in players from overseas? (Baseball with Cuban, Dominican, Haiti, Puerto Ricans and basketball with Slavic, Italian, and Chinese) Would the South allow their Apartheid downtrodden Blacks to leave for the North for sports reasons?


See above. Some of those foreign athletes may have come from poverty, but they have the developed skill sets (best secondary school baseball game I ever saw, and I've seen a few, was in Santo Domingo).
 
Last edited:

althisfan

Banned
There is quite a bit of material on how an apartheid society functioned in regards to sports, as exemplified in South Africa (which is the logical real history analogue), the bottom line is that policies were in place to make even separate black participation in sports virtually impossible - spanning from no sports education in black schools, to no money for amateur play (equipment, fields, etc), to heavy restriction or outright bans on any kind of sport league.
The goal was to keep blacks under control, in all respects - which means you can't risk any cultural heroes at all.
Apartheid made Jim Crow segregation appear moderate by comparison.
Sorry, I would have to persuaded that somehow the South developed a higher moral conscience than the Afrikaners, in the decades after successfully rebelling.

What do you think about the ability of the North to be able to bring in Blacks from the South as OTL sports bring in players from overseas? (Baseball with Cuban, Dominican, Haiti, Puerto Ricans and basketball with Slavic, Italian, and Chinese) Would the South allow their Apartheid downtrodden Blacks to leave for the North for sports reasons?


See above. Some of those foreign athletes may have come from poverty, but they have the developed skill sets (best secondary school baseball game I ever saw, and I've seen a few, was in Santo Domingo).
I see your point, however, I do say that the South would have "better" conditions for Blacks than South Africa. South Africa was a nation where the Whites were the new conquerors and the Blacks were the indigenous people (though this is more complicated than I stated- Bantu arrived around the same time as the Whites and were not exactly as "native" as one would think; it's the same problem with calling the Shawnee "native" to Kansas, they were pushed there from Ohio by the Iroquois in the Beaver Wars in the late 1600s). The South does have a history of Free Blacks, people who were allowed to and often did become business owners, blacksmiths, inn keepers, in Texas they were cowboys and lawmen even, and especially in New Orleans they achieved amazing success. I think Blacks in the South would be treated more like how Indians (from India) were treated, where we see Gandhi as a lawyer in South Africa. I disagree that Jim Crow was WORSE and made Apartheid seem moderate. It's been my research that Apartheid was stricter than Jim Crow in actual usage, even though not "on paper" as written. Remember that as opposed to South Africa where the Blacks were put on "reservations" and segregated physically, the South didn't have THAT kind of segregation, Blacks lived in white's houses as slaves (later as servants), and in the South (as opposed to later in the North) there wasn't the "Black neighborhood", free Blacks in places like Tupelo, MS lived around whites, there weren't South African-style administrative units just for Blacks, and Blacks even wet nursed the young white elite babies (Blacks can't drink out of the same water fountain as you, but they can give their breast milk straight to your baby's mouth, racism isn't logical in the South). The South used to have a saying "the South loves the Black individual, hates the race; the North loves the race, hates the individual" regarding the fact that the North wanted to end slavery and free them, but then discriminated against them in job competition (especially if you were Irish or Italian you saw them as competition and someone finally below your status you could look down on).
 

althisfan

Banned
One thing seems reasonably sure: hockey would be entirely a northern phenomenon. There would be no such nonsense as the Tampa Bay Lightning, Nashville Predators, or Florida Panthers-and the North Stars would have remained in Minnesota. Instead of Tampa Bay, Nashville, Miami and Dallas, the NHL in this scenario might well have Québec, Regina, Seattle, and Milwaukee.
 

TruthfulPanda

Gone Fishin'
To answer my own question :)
Dixie ignores developments at Yankee universities and plays rugby union. Then at the turn of the century it switches to rugby league as it is a faster game, more spectator friendly. And there is money in it :)
For a time - up to today? - universities play union (which is about as widespread as polo), whereas league is a spectator sport with mass following.
American style, the winner of Dixie's premier rugby league cup competition will title itself World Champion ...
 
Last edited:

althisfan

Banned
To answer my own question :)
Dixie ignores developments at Yankee universities and plus rugby union. Then at the turn of the century it switches to rugby league as it is a faster game, more spectator friendly. And there is money in it :)
For a time - up to today? - universities play union (which is about as widespread as polo), whereas league is a spectator sport with mass following.
American style, the winner of Dixie's premier rugby league cup competition will title itself World Champion ...
I'm with you up to the point of World Champion, while that is true of American Baseball, American Football has never, to my knowledge, ever attempted to insinuate any type of "world championship", I doubt the South would do so in a game even more international.
 
Top