The Bonds Ball results are in

No., Zeke. It's just a rich fuck seeking more attention. Has nothing to do with history.

 

Like it or not, we live in a metatextual age, and what this guy did -- whatever his motives -- are a part of the history of the artifact.

To say anything else is, well, to sanitize history.

The Hall should display the ball with a plague saying what happened. If they want to display Bonds' final home run ball or another ball more prominently, that's their perogative, and their editing of history.


To be clear, I have no problem with people objecting to this, I am just trying to address the argument that this is "fucking with history". That's a non-starter argument. Everything is fucking with history.

 

Conversely, what if someone who bought the ball wrote "Barry Bonds is a fucking scumbag" on it? I suspect the Hall wouldn't want it, but doesn't that become part of the history of the artifact?

Obviously there's degrees of difference, but if the Hall feels like the asterisk is a statement it can support by enshrining the ball on which it's drawn, then they shouldn't have him in at all. Just pretend Hank Aaron still has the record.

It IS fucking with history because it superimposes someone else's view on it. Some things SHOULD be sacrosanct, and the ball that set the career home run record should be one of them. If he's going to mark it, the Hall of Fame should use another ball (like Bonds' final home run ball). If they agree, directly or indirectly, with what's apparently to be done, then they shouldn't have him in at all, because there's no other displays with fan commentary on them.

 

This is what the guy from the Hall said. It was a snapshot, I think he used that word, of a moment in time from Sept. 2007. It would show people what the feelings were in the country about the home run.

 

Would he want a snapshot of the feelings in the country towards Hank Aaron's breaking the record on the ball in the Hall?

 

Apparently.

I was surprised he had no qualms about accepting a ball that had been, or will be, altered.

 

I would hope that would change upon receipt of the ball, or at least the discussion continue.

 

You're -- deliberately or not -- missing the point.

One could just as easily make the argument that placing Bonds' last home run ball in the Hall with no mention of any controversy surrounding the man's use of steroids is "fucking with history." You could just as easily argue that imposes someone else's opinion on the event.

 

None of this matters. Barry Bonds is MLB's home run champion. It doesn't matter if he was on steroids or stilts. The fact is no one has hit more homers than him. No marking on a ball is going to change that.

 

So then any form of vandalism against an artifact could be accepted as an added layer to its history. If someone dumped white paint on the Arthur Ashe statue near my house, then that's just an example of the high emotions the statue's existence has triggered?

How is NOT tampering with the ball fucking around with history?

 

First off that Arthur Ashe statue shouldn't be where it is presently located.
Yes, white paint on it would cause a problem in The Fan.
Barry doesn't give a fuck about the ball. He has the record. Echo puts a mark on the ball. Big deal. It's a marked ball. He may get more for it because of the mark.

 

How is someone dumping paint on the statue NOT part of its history?

According to your logic, let's just say that, oh, I don't know, some churches got burned to the ground somewhere in the United States. Let's just say.

Because we all, I would hope, don't agree with the motives of the people who burned them down, should we omit the fact that they were burned from historical accounts of the church or the region?

No one's saying you don't rebuild the church -- or take your white paint off the statue. But you don't pretend it's the original church. You record what happened.

This guy got ahold of this ball. This is what he did with it. The Hall of Fame will accept the ball and display it and tell the story of what happened. That's not fucking around with history. That's accurately recording history.

Just so, the Hall of Fame should keep a record of the flaming bigots who threatened Hank Aaron's life when he was about to break Ruth's record, so should they make note of the majority of Americans who thought Bonds cheated to pass Aaron. And yes, leaving that part out would surely be fucking with history. It has nothing to do with a ball with an asterisk, I'll give you, but you really think a display that just had the ball and celebrated Bonds' accomplishment without any mention of any controversy would be historically accurate?