Well, now we're getting somewhere. NFL Hall of Fame running back Jim Brown, who has long been vocal about matters of racial injustice, has criticized Tiger Woods for too easily dismissing the significance of Kelly Tilghman's comment that golf's younger players should "lynch" Woods in a "back alley." Woods insisted that the comment was a "non-issue," and many contend that the story should end there. Jim Brown sees things differently. Appearing on ESPN's "First Take," Brown said:
"He should have come out right away. Instead, he waited until it was politically correct [to comment]. The word 'lynch' ... there is no redeeming part of it. When you say lynch, you're gonna have to pay the price. That is a very embarrassing word, a humiliating one, in the history of our country."
What is significant about Brown's critique is that it reminds us that the "subject" of Tilghman's comments was not just Tiger Woods. Far too much of the commentary on this issue has focused only on the reaction that Woods had to the incident. Thus, the logic is that if he says it's a non-issue then the rest of us must follow suit. But there are many others who felt the sting of such a racially charged phrase. To dismiss them and their feelings because one pampered athlete once again refused to say anything political is as insulting as the original comment from Tilghman.
Woods, of course, insists that he is a good guy because he is "socially active" through his charity work for kids. I won't deny the value of Woods' foundation, nor will I suggest that he doesn't care about kids. But being socially active is different than being politically active. And on the latter, Woods remains a disappointment.
As Tiger Woods continues to deny the relevance of race--mostly, so he can maintain his marketing viability, no doubt (this point is argued persuasively in a 2006 essay by Davis Houck at Florida State University)--Jim Brown is a healthy reminder that even when it is unpopular, having political conviction is necessary. And so while Woods may let Tilghman and the larger golfing community off the hook, I'm pleased that Brown refuses to go so quietly.
4 comments:
While I agree that Woods unwillingness to make a stand likely has more to do with dollars than morals, I'm reminded of a Michael Jordan quote on why he didn't back a certain candidate, "Republicans buy shoes also". I would argue that it's possible that activism is not in Woods' character. He seems like a passive, albeit intense guy who just wants to play golf.
I'm reminded of another athletes response to a Jim Brown criticism that he wasn't doing enough to represent his race, I believe Brown's comment was something to the effect that OJ Simpson was never that interested in the "Black-thing". Simpson responded that not everyone is born a Martin Luther King, Jr. While I don't reccomend that any of us take moral direction from "the Juice", his comments are still relevant.
Well, we'll have to agree to disagree on the first point. But this doesn't change the larger argument--that it is possible for people to be offended by Tilghman's comments, even if Tiger Woods is not. If Tiger wants to let it go, fine. But shouldn't mean everyone else has to shut their mouths, too.
Mike Wilbon, Tiger Woods, and a few other people who are actually FRIENDS of this chick are telling us very candidly that her prior words and actions have never suggested that she is a racist. Her comment was merely a joke with the wrong wording. Compare her comment to what Michael Richards said, when he suggested that (paraphrasing) two black audience members were 'lucky to be free, because 50 years ago they'd be hanging in a tree.'
Tilghman was joking that lesser golfers should 'beat him up' in the alley because he's so good. It doesn't make it right that she used the word lynch, but Tiger is absolutely correct in saying that this is a non-issue. If instead, he decided to say that her joke was offensive, then this entire race-sensitive cluster smush of a country we live in would have supported him completely. There's no way he would have lost a cent by saying he was offended. And the fact that he's calling it a non-issue IS a political statement as I see it. He could have easily said, "I know this woman. She meant no harm. I was not offended." But he appended the phrase 'non-issue' to his statement to imply that this will in fact be something that gets needlessly discussed and analyzed. He knows most people won't accept the idea that this was merely an error in language.
Finally, calling Tiger Woods 'another pampered athlete' is just reckless and irresponsible. He's overcome numerous obstacles to be who and where he is today. He gives more to his community than most or nearly all other athletes. He projects the clean little image we demand of our athletes so that children can look up to an acceptable role model. And in addition, he has to deal with people calling him out for failing to take a stand against someone who he believes didn't cause him any harm.
It's just really annoying that we pay athletes millions of dollars to use their bodies, and then we get all up tight about the way they use their brains. Albert Einstein was a genius, and nobody gave a shit how fast he ran the 40. Tiger Woods is a physical genius. Stop giving a shit about what he thinks.
Thanks for the comments, anonymous.
I agree that Michael Richards' comments were far more insensitive than Tilghman's. However, the fact that someone said something worse than she did doesn't mean that what she said is therefore innocent. Moreover, I have not suggested that Tilghman is a "racist." In fact, I reject the simple either/or implied by your statement. It is entirely possible for her to not be a racist yet still say something that is racially insensitive. I strongly maintain that's what happened in this case.
As for what she really meant, I understand she was trying to make a point about Woods' dominance. I think everyone got that at the outset. But again, that she used language that many found offensive is not suddenly negated by the fact that she intended the word to be used in an unoffensive matter. And I think it's insulting to the many Americans--specifically those in the African American community--who understand the racial legacy connoted by the term to suggest that this is a symptom of an overly sensitive country. In a country where lynching imagery--i.e., the noose--has made a dramatic and painful return, the idea that those offended by the term are over-reacting is arguably more offensive than the use of the term in the first place.
But beyond all that, I think you're missing the fundamental point of my post, which is that even if Tiger Woods deems this a "non-issue," that doesn't preclude others from being offended by Tilghman's remark. So I'm glad that Jim Brown took issue with Woods because it offered the possibility of some continued dialogue about the fact that allegedly innocent comments can, in fact, be hurtful.
As for Tiger Woods himself, I'm not suggesting that he hasn't worked hard or overcome obstacles (though I'm not sure how many, since he's had many advantages along the way). And as I said in my post, I don't doubt that he gives back to the community. But given that Tiger fully embraced the "chosen one" and "Hello World" image-making that launched his career, I find his unwillingness to comment on incidents with Tilghman, Fuzzy Zoeller, Martha Burk, and Casey Martin to be shameful. Call that reckless all you want, but I think Woods is the one who is irresponsible for wanting to have it both ways.
Lastly, you conclude by suggesting that we shouldn't care what Tiger Woods thinks. Yet the bulk of your argument rests on the premise that if Tiger Woods thinks Tilghman's comments are irrelevant, then therefore they are. In other words, YOU care what Tiger Woods thinks.
Post a Comment