Recently a host on the golf network suggested jokingly that the only way to stop Tiger Woods from dominating the golf world would be to take him out back and lynch him. These ill fated words led to her public apology and subsequent suspension by the network. Tiger Woods made a brief statement that he accepted her apology and that should have been the end of the story. Unfortunately, there are trouble makers that do not want the story to go away.
Enter Jim Brown, former star football and lacrosse player. In an interview this week he suggested that Tiger should have used this incident to make a "statement" but instead shirked his responsibility. What kind of statement does he want Tiger to make? Have her fired, sue the network? Complain about racism? How would any of that help race relations in this country. Instead, Tiger took the high road and his classy, gracious response was the correct statement. Jim Brown and other instigators want to turn her words into societal debate over race rather that what it was; a matter between two individuals. Tiger understood that. I wish others did as well.
Jim Brown grew up in an era when racism was thriving. But that is a long time ago, especially in the sports world. No longer are black people discriminated against but they are coveted because of their skills abilities and marketing opportunities. My guess is that Jim Brown is jealous of Tiger's success and fame. That's why he feels the need to interject himself into a debate that has nothing to do with him. He should just keep his mouth shut and let Tiger handle his own affairs.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Had this comment been made in private between the announcer and Tiger, then yes, it would be private matter. But if it was said on air, then yes it does become a matter of public discourse and I think should be a way to engage the public in a broader discussion about race..
There is nothing funny about suggesting that to stop a Black man from sccess is to lynch him, gien the fact that that is precisely what the brutal act of lynching was used for. Though Tiger doesn't himself identify as solely a Black man...but that is another conversation. Maybe that is why Jim bRown spoke up - because Tiger rarely, if ever publicly comments in race, except to say what he "isn't". It wasn't about jealousy but to call out something that was wrong and inexcuseable.
Imagine had someone on Entertainment Tonight suggested that to stop Steven spileberg from directing any more movies would be to throw him the gas chamber. There would be no question that the comment was not funny, reflected anti-Semitic thoughts, the ADL would've issued a statement, and the anchor would've been fired, not just suspended.
In fact, folks know better than to make a joking comment about the Holocaust.
...but, I guess Black folks are just overly sensitive when thinking about slavery and this country's racist legacy...
Thanks for you comment, Tameshia. The announcer's public comments are subject to public discussion, but I also believed that Fetz is correct that Tiger took the high road via his gracious response. Tiger's acceptance of the announcer's apology simply and clearly confirmed that her comment was wrong. Jim Brown and others who have been victims of racism are justified in speaking out, but I don't think it was appropriate to fault Tiger here.
As a Syracuse University fan, JB's alma mater, I am proud of JB's athletic accomplishments (All-American in both football and lacrosse as Fetz points out). However, I feel JB has no credibility due to his history of perpetrating domestic violence. I'd like to hear JB speak out more against DV.
The problem is that people of all different races were lynched, but I don't recall gas chambers being used on anyone but Jews. I can understand the attempt at parallelism here but the two are very different. Hanging was a very popular method of execution in the 1800s and whites, blacks, hispanics, etc. all were executed that way. What would have been interesting is whether this would have created the same furor if she used the term hanged instead of lynched.
Except hanging was done by a duely constituted LEO, lynching was done by mobs (see Sheriff Henry Palmer in Bannack, MT).
Very true dakota. I realized the fallacy in that specific example after I posted. However the general idea still holds. The mob/vigilante justice mentality that involved hanging was not just used on blacks, although I don't doubt it was worse on blacks than other races. To identify lynching as purely a black thing seems irresponsible to me since it happened to all races, but I doubt we can change views on it now. It's the same type of thing as what happened in Salem except that the noose was replaced with a stake or drowning.
But lynchings were used OVERWHELMINGLY and DISPROPORTIONATELY on Black people - conservative estimates show that about 1,300 whites and 3, lynched compared to about 3,500.
You cannot equate hangings to lynching. Though the method was the same, the motivation, as a tool of intimidation, murder, and terror, was very, VERY different.
Personally, I think those estimates are way off based on anything I've studied and certainly not conservative at all, but I do get your point. Don't agree with it entirely but point taken.
One more thing since I seem to be forgetful today. In both whites and blacks (and hispanics since it happened to them as well) the lynchings were driven by fear. In many cases for blacks it was due to race while for whites it was various other reasons, but it's still gang mentality lynching.
Post a Comment