The mostly unknown story of the first Black player in Argo history

[argos1873]

By the way, there was no segregation in Canadian football. This gentleman made his mark at a time when even most Americans didn't. This isn't a Jackie Robinson story. But its a nice story nonetheless, because it shows how Canadian football gave an opportunity to those who never would have had a chance, including because of their skin colour.

[paulwoods13]

By the way, there was no segregation in Canadian football. This gentleman made his mark at a time when even most Americans didn't. This isn't a Jackie Robinson story. But its a nice story nonetheless, because it shows how Canadian football gave an opportunity to those who never would have had a chance, including because of their skin colour.

With respect, there was segregation in Canadian football, and indeed all sports. There were non-whites in this country who were not given an opportunity to play sports, whether in school, sandlot or at the highest level, solely because of their skin colour. It might be nice to think Canada was better than that, but it wasn't.

[argos1873]

With respect, there was segregation in Canadian football, and indeed all sports. There were non-whites in this country who were not given an opportunity to play sports, whether in school, sandlot or at the highest level, solely because of their skin colour. It might be nice to think Canada was better than that, but it wasn't.

I know its en vogue and trendy to look back on our history with disdain for the treatment of people of colour, and some of it is indeed justified. But there was no official segregation in Canadian football as there was in MLB and the NFL. One of the reasons there were few to none blacks in Canadian football prior to folks like Whitlock, was because teams didn't sign American players, and the population of blacks in Canada at the time was extremely low. I'm not saying that there might have been an attitude of complete acceptance of blacks in Canadian football, I just don't believe, as there is no evidence to suggest, that blacks were actively snubbed by teams as they were in the NFL, which carried on as late as the early 60s for some teams. Our history is not perfect by any means, but it sure is a hell of a lot better than the US's history when it comes to things like this. Again for some reason its in fashion to think that Canada was actually, but secretly, just like Alabama. But I'm quite proud of our history, despite some stains, and do believe that for the most part, Canada was better than that.

[paulwoods13]

I know its en vogue and trendy to look back on our history with disdain for the treatment of people of colour, and some of it is indeed justified. But there was no official segregation in Canadian football as there was in MLB and the NFL. One of the reasons there were few to none blacks in Canadian football prior to folks like Whitlock, was because teams didn't sign American players, and the population of blacks in Canada at the time was extremely low. I'm not saying that there might have been an attitude of complete acceptance of blacks in Canadian football, I just don't believe, as there is no evidence to suggest, that blacks were actively snubbed by teams as they were in the NFL, which carried on as late as the early 60s for some teams. Our history is not perfect by any means, but it sure is a hell of a lot better than the US's history when it comes to things like this. Again for some reason its in fashion to think that Canada was actually, but secretly, just like Alabama. But I'm quite proud of our history, despite some stains, and do believe that for the most part, Canada was better than that.

I don't know who's equating Canada with Alabama; for the record, I'm not. But "unofficial" segregation is still segregation. The policy doesn't have to be in writing for it to be a barrier.

Granted, Canada did not have a huge Black population decades ago. But there were Blacks living here, and Indigenous peoples, and I have no doubt some of them would have been athletic enough to warrant a chance to play their chosen sport. Yet somehow few of them played on competitive teams at any level of any sport. Even into the 1960s and '70s, by which time "imports" formed a large portion of CFL rosters, the number of Black faces in team pictures is small. Saskatchewan had three in 1966. Hamilton and Winnipeg each had four in 1967. The Argos had nine (out of 36 players in the team picture) in 1970.

[argos1873]

I don't know who's equating Canada with Alabama; for the record, I'm not. But "unofficial" segregation is still segregation. The policy doesn't have to be in writing for it to be a barrier.

Granted, Canada did not have a huge Black population decades ago. But there were Blacks living here, and Indigenous peoples, and I have no doubt some of them would have been athletic enough to warrant a chance to play their chosen sport. Yet somehow few of them played on competitive teams at any level of any sport. Even into the 1960s and '70s, by which time "imports" formed a large portion of CFL rosters, the number of Black faces in team pictures is small. Saskatchewan had three in 1966. Hamilton and Winnipeg each had four in 1967. The Argos had nine (out of 36 players in the team picture) in 1970.

So you are saying that teams were still segregated, because they didn't have ENOUGH blacks on their teams? So in your opinion, how many blacks on a team is no longer segregation? 100%? Good lord.

[paulwoods13]

So you are saying that teams were still segregated, because they didn't have ENOUGH blacks on their teams? So in your opinion, how many blacks on a team is no longer segregation? 100%? Good lord.

I have twice suggested there were individuals talented enough to play who were not allowed to play, simply because of their heritage. I don't know if you disagree with that proposition, or are deliberately choosing not to address it. There's no point in any further back and forth on this, it would appear.

[argos1873]

I have twice suggested there were individuals talented enough to play who were not allowed to play, simply because of their heritage. I don't know if you disagree with that proposition, or are deliberately choosing not to address it. There's no point in any further back and forth on this, it would appear.

You have suggested, but never backed anything up with facts. I agree that they may be possible, but I have seen no evidence of it.