Scandal or not, this is the meaning of Tiger Woods

Feb 18 2010 Published by under Racist Idiots, Underrepresented Groups

I had a little petulant post SuperBowl rant but man, Anonymoustache absolutely rockets this one straight down the fairway.

But most of all, they hated the fact that while Tiger had all the physical gifts to excel at golf, his dominance sprung from his mental superiority. The white male privilege establishment would grudgingly concede that people of color could be good athletes, but they'd never concede that they could be mentally superior to the point of dominance. They subscribed to the old 'blacks cannot play quarterback' mentality and Tiger destroyed that world like no one before.

This is but a tip of the iceberg of excellent analysis.

35 responses so far

  • Cuttlefish says:

    Tiger, Tiger, burning bright
    In the pastime of the white;
    Oh, what morals might you lack
    That we may say are cos you're black?
    In what well-groomed roughs or greens
    Hide your rude, adultrous scenes?
    To what depths do you aspire?
    What would trade for base desire?
    And what drive, and then, what putt
    Could you compare to well-toned butt?
    And when thy blood began to rise,
    What sweet breast, and what sweet thighs?
    What attraction? What fresh sin?
    It cannot be your dusky skin--
    There is no member of the press
    Whose prejudice he will confess
    When the papers cast their stones
    When anchormen pick clean your bones--
    You chose a life in public view;
    Did You create this broken You?
    Tiger, Tiger, burning bright
    In the pastime of the white;
    Oh, what morals might you lack
    That we may say are cos you're black?
    http://digitalcuttlefish.blogspot.com/2010/02/tiger-woods-meets-william-blake.html

  • Neuro-conservative says:

    This is the lamest analysis since Charles Ogletree claimed that Sarah Palin was racist for using the word "professor" in reference to Obama.

  • Thanks for the linky-luv, DM.
    The post now has some updated goodness.
    Also, Neuro-con, you're somewhat correct--my analysis was lame in one regard. I (deliberately) didn't touch on one very important aspect of the world of white conservative male privilege that Tiger intruded on---banging a host of women on the side while portraying an idealized image of family life. That probably incensed the white conservative male power structure more than anything else he did. Please accept my apologies for omitting that aspect, and go back to worshiping highly accomplished and worthy geniuses like Sarah Palin.

  • Mike says:

    This analysis seems like a looking for racism exercise in which something must be found whether it is there or not. There seems to be much more of a gender divide. Males, whether white or black, think he was stupid by also are impressed* by his ability to get women. In contrast, there seems to be much more anger from women that Tiger would destroy his family like that.
    *Impressed is the wrong word, but I am not sure what is the best way to describe it.

  • bikemonkey says:

    And how do you identify such an "exercise"? And feel free to describe the threshold for identifying racism that is not an "exercise" in "looking for".

  • Solomon Rivlin says:

    Neuroconservative would probably change his tune if all Tiger's women were black. Alas, they were all white gold diggers, belonging to Neuro's clan and thus it is Tiger who's the racist here. Why I'm not surprised by Neuro's position?

  • Mike@5,
    I can see how it could come across like that but I assure you this is not the case. Race is just one angle in the story but one that nobody else seems to have covered. I have followed Tiger's career from his amateur days----there was a lot of resentment from the old-boy network and there were and still are a lot of people who want to see him fail. If you think golf was not racist in large measure, you are not being realistic. If you think that Tiger's shattering of those barriers in such stunning fashion doesn't still rankle many of the conservative mindset, you are not being realistic. Anyway, my observations were pertaining to the treatment of Tiger (vs other celebrities) by many peers and journalists/media organizations. I would tend to agree that the racism w.r.t. Tiger is not really that much of an issue in the general public. But as far as the media, and golf scribes in particular, there is a double standard, and if you do not see it you are not being realistic.
    For what it's worth, I have taken on one of the journalistic aspects in a follow up post here:
    http://yacketyyakia.blogspot.com/2010/02/stop-breaking-news-in-which-i-take-on.html

  • DSKS says:

    That was a v. god post AM.
    I'll concede to Neocon and Mike that there is room for the argument that this sort of celebrity take down can be indiscriminate in choosing its targets. There's no doubt that the moment John Terry picked up his "Dad of the Year" award, the NotW, Sun et al sent their reporters scurrying out to dig up the dirt that would bring the man down a peg or two (Beckham was old news after all). Frankly, I think Woods deserves considerable credit for holding off the hounds as long as he did, because you know the sorry bastards have been rooting through his garbage - both physically as well as metaphorically - since the moment he won his first PGA.
    However, one would have to have their head in a blender to not see how the media, correctly (sadly), sees the priceless value of pedaling reality TV charting the noble Moor's fall; it's a great story, and one that appeals to the Royalty as much as the peanut gallery.
    Conservatives get to feel vindicated; we progressives get to wring our hands and express our paternalistic disappointment, perforated by the occasional viciously hypocritical attack on the moral failings of persons whom we hold to far greater standards than we would ever hold themselves.
    So, no, one doesn't have to look hard at all to see the race relevance here. I agree that the very fact that this story had legs to carry it for more than a week and beyond what was hitherto a comparatively cult-sized sporting sphere is entirely attributable to that one single factor.
    Ultimately, I agree with CPP that Woods is really just another sporting shill who's simply going through whatever indignity is required for him to to recover from accidentally falling off of that tiger he was riding around on for so long. But so what? Why should he be any different to all the white celebrity shills that were right there clinging to the fur of the beast along side him?

  • Isabel says:

    "And how do you identify such an "exercise"? And feel free to describe the threshold for identifying racism that is not an "exercise" in "looking for"."
    For me the red flag indicating such an exercise is excessive use of terms like "I think" "could be" "at some level" "that probably"...well you get the idea, coupled with confident assertions of what the enemy is surely thinking. Speculative mind-reading, with no evidence offered (and I did read the linked post). It's no way to build an argument.
    For example:
    "I think a large part ... could be that people are still not used to, or comfortable with, a person of color holding that kind of power in that world. The media turns on him ...because at some level they always resented him for overturning their long-held (if not oft admitted) beliefs, their old boy network and power structure. "
    and
    "That probably incensed the white conservative male power structure more than anything else he did. "

  • Cuttlefish, that's a masterpiece.

  • bikemonkey says:

    sure Isabel. and anyone who does not use qualifying language you automatically dismiss because they are so certain. in short, there is no way to surmount your threshold. classic crankery.
    you can live in your little denialist bubble if you want but this in no way changes the objective reality of racism. denying this palpable reality at every turn makes you, at best a nut, and at worst a racist apologist.

  • DrZZ says:

    I have followed Tiger's career from his amateur days----there was a lot of resentment from the old-boy network and there were and still are a lot of people who want to see him fail.

    You sound like you aren't old enough to remember Jack Nicklaus in his heyday. He certainly wasn't one of the guys in the late 60s early 70s and in the early days of his success he was generally hated by the fans. I'd really like to see some kind of comparison that shows that Woods is treated by the golf world substantially different that Nicklaus was treated back then. It's my impression from being a fan in both eras that the treatment was similar, if not even a bit worse for Nicklaus. The primary reason, and the primary reason for the resentment of Woods, is that he was better then them, he knew it, and he didn't make any attempt to hide the fact that he knew it. I don't doubt there is some racism in the desire to see Woods taken down, especially amongst sport fans in general, but inside the golf world I think it is much more wounded egos. Golf is a supremely individual game, there is no defense, there are no bad referees decisions, teammates mistakes, coaches bad decisions to hide behind. It selects for large egos and those egos don't take it well when they are rendered practically irrelevant.

  • bikemonkey says:

    riiiight DrZZ because everybody knows of the bigoted policies that kept GoldenBear-Americans off of many golf courses and out of private golf clubs for so long. Thank the Christ that Nicklaus came along to dismantle that ugly stain on the history of golf....

  • JohnV says:

    goldenbear-americans made me chuckle at least :p

  • Anonymous says:

    riiiight DrZZ because everybody knows of the bigoted policies that kept GoldenBear-Americans off of many golf courses and out of private golf clubs for so long. Thank the Christ that Nicklaus came along to dismantle that ugly stain on the history of golf...

    I'm not sure what that has to do with what I was talking about. It is undeniable that African American have suffered huge amounts of discrimination and that golf in general and private country clubs in particular were in the forefront of that discrimination. But I thought Anonymoustache's point was not that society in general or country clubs, but PGA tour golfers and fans were resentful of Woods primarily because of his race. If that were the case, then you would expect that Nicklaus's career rise would have been much smoother, but I certainly don't see that. He was in no way, shape, or form welcomed with open arms, and if he had to put up with less open hostility during professional events than Woods, I'd like to see evidence. I don't know about the country club set, or society in general, but history I see says that when a new golfer comes in that thinks he is the best and proves it, he is met with hostility from golf fans, resentment from fellow golfers, and is considered by the golf press to be uncooperative and aloof. And that is true whether said golfer is from the country club set or not.

  • Isabel says:

    "in short, there is no way to surmount your threshold. "
    provide evidence.
    Rather than just spew about what you KNOW people are REALLY thinking.
    It has nothing to do with using qualifiers vs absolute terms.

  • bikemonkey says:

    Anonymoustache's point was not that society in general or country clubs, but PGA tour golfers and fans were resentful of Woods primarily because of his race
    I suggest you go and read Anonymoustache's lyrical stylings again. You will find that he mentioned all the stuff about Tiger being resented because he was an awesome and confident golfer, etc. and adds that the race angle was the icing on the cake so to speak.
    Now, where's Isabel to "prove" Tiger's race is immaterial by pointing out what ol' redneck John Daly had to suffer through on the Tour?

  • bikemonkey says:

    what you KNOW people are REALLY thinking
    exactly my point. Since it is, with current technology and understanding, absolutely impossible to know what another person is "REALLY thinking" this shows that you pose an insurmountable threshold. In short there is nothing that will convince you that racism against those of nonwhite skin exists and, conversely, that nothing will convince you that your beloved redneck-Americans are in fact racists.
    This is the mark of a crank and a denialist.

  • DrZZ,
    I think BM covered it pretty well---all I'd add is that yes, Jack took some serious heat when he arrived and upstaged Arnie. But you seem to be making the argument that since Jack took heat and he's white, the heat that Tiger has taken cannot be racially motivated. Sure Tiger took heat for a lot of Jack-like traits, but undeniably of the heat he took also had racial roots. There are many many country clubs, even today, where they'd prefer it if people of color used the back entrance to get in so that they can carry out their duties as cooks, janitors and wait staff.
    Fuzzy Zoeller's 'fried chicken and collard greens' comment at the Masters comes to mind....and to date there is a large number of people who think that Fuzzy didn't say anything wrong....just Fuzzy being Fuzzy.....it puzzles people of that mindset to think that it may be offensive to remind a black golfer that he descends from a lineage that was forced to eat pig offal and greens that no one else would touch because that's all that was made available to them by their masters. Ahhh, the Masters....a traditiion unlike any other.....truly.

  • ...at worst a racist apologist.

    Can't we just call it the denialism that it is?

  • Isabel says:

    Clever response Bikemonkey. But, I think you are the crank here.
    No evidence for racism has been presented in this thread or the linked post. At any rate, of course I do NOT expect 'mind reading'.
    I know lots of people who are major fans of TW, from all walks of life, and I also listen to drive-time talk radio jocks sometimes (sorry, at least not like Rush or anything :)), and other mainstream media outlets, and no one seems racist at all to me in this particular situation. So I am just wondering, what is the evidence that TW is being treated differently? I agree with Anonymous #16 above. I would be interested in the actual evidence, that all. Just out of curiosity.
    "nothing that will convince you that racism against those of nonwhite skin exists and"
    what are you talking about now? of course it exists! Are you also losing your memory? We have gone over all this.

  • Isabel says:

    Go away, Isis.
    Don't go away mad, just go away.:)
    Of course I am not a racist apologist!

  • ---"So I am just wondering, what is the evidence that TW is being treated differently?"---
    Simple experiment. Can you, or most of the readers/sports fans name Peyton Manning's wife, or tell me when he got married or how many kids he has and what their ages are? Or give these answers for Eli Manning or Drew Brees or Tom Brady? Or give me details on Phil Mickelson's family that are not available for Tiger's? Any details about Bill Gates's family? The point is, all famous and powerful people control their 'message' and your access to them. Why then has Tiger been, even before the scandal, vilified for being extraordinarily reclusive/private/controlling?
    Do you know which low-self-esteem woman (or, maybe, allegedly, Dominican ladyboy) Rush Limbaugh's banging nowadays? Who's enjoying Bill OReilly's special falafel treatment these days? How about Ted Haggard. Or Newt Gingrich?
    For all the bitching by the media assholes about access, we know far more about Tiger Woods than we do about many, most, others that appear to affect public life daily don't we? How more public do you want him to be? How much more access do you want??
    But no, no, no. No different treatment here....nothing to see folks...move right along....Tiger's just a control freak...not like those other white boys with their aw shucks charm and their complete transparency....

  • Neuro-conservative says:

    Your thought "experiment" is entirely in your own head.
    You remind me of Chris Matthews inadvertently outing himself as a racist during the State of the Union address.

  • gnuma says:

    Would I be wrong in thinking that Wood's automated, highly scripted and controlled persona is a defense to the extreme pressure hoisted upon him for being the golfer with the dark skin? I haven't paid too much attention over the years to Woods, but it seems like emotional self-defense to me. That he's rich and talented is beside the point -- I feel somewhat sorry for him that he doesn't have room to grow emotionally or something.

  • Neuro-con,
    I notice that you do not have any answers to the questions I had posed. Just some vague allusions and allegations----I'm not surprised, as I didn't expect anything better from you.
    Go back to your Fox noise/Sarah Palin worship now.

  • Isabel says:

    "Would I be wrong in thinking that Wood's automated, highly scripted and controlled persona is a defense to the extreme pressure hoisted upon him for being the golfer with the dark skin?"
    Apparently he's been pressured by his own family since age two to live out this destiny, so that could be part of it.

  • Neuro-conservative says:

    No, Isabel, it can't be that his father was the most controlling man in the history of parenting. It has to be race, because Bikemonkey says so!

  • bikemonkey says:

    I'm having trouble finding where I said anything about Tiger's alleged "highly controlled, scripted public persona" Neuro-con. Perhaps you could point that out?
    (but it is interesting to consider black athletes who did well at predominantly white sports, view their public persona, the reaction to that persona and the reactions to similar personalities once sports become well integrated. you can start with jack johnson, jesse owens, jackie robinson, althea gibson, arthur ashe, the williams sisters, willie t ribb (just for you isabel)...)

  • Isabel says:

    Hahaha - a black redneck? Bikemonkey, I've been meaning to ask, what do you mean by "your beloved rednecks" - you've used the phrase several times. I love everyone btw.

  • Eli Rabett says:

    Best comment on this from Kojo Nambi

    I am a fan who's asking Tiger Woods to spare me the apology. For one, I'm tired of celebrities and their obligatory apology tours whenever they're caught doing something wrong.
    Secondly, Tiger Woods owes me no apology. If he's trying to make up with his wife and children, he owes them an apology. He hurt them. He sure as hell didn't hurt me, since I was not a fan of his personal life, only his golf game.
    Thirdly, Tiger Woods was caught doing what most male professional athletes who spend a lot of time on the road do: Having affairs with women not their wives. I suspect the reason that we are allowed to pretend otherwise is because to admit this simple, well-known fact would presumably tarnish the reputations of the apparent minority of male professional athletes who don't indulge in this widespread practice. It won't.
    And finally, by now we all should know that these apologies are usually intended more to placate corporate sponsors than the fans, we of short memory and great passion for sports. Anyone think that Kobe Bryant..accused of rape in 2003..had the top-selling jersey in the U.S., Europe and China in 2009..because he apologized? Or might it have something to do with the fact that he won an NBA championship last year? Seems all is forgiven.
    So Tiger, spare me the apology. I won't believe it anyway. Just play golf. It's what you do.

    Time for everybody to grow up

  • bikemonkey says:

    NASCAR driver Isabel. And junior competes at blasting things with a shotgun. Black folk can't be rednecks but ifthey could, those Ribbses would be high on my list..

  • Isabel says:

    And do the "rednecks" resent their success?
    "nothing that will convince you that...your beloved redneck-Americans are in fact racists."
    Some may be racists.
    Surely many/most are not, at least not anymore than anyone else is.
    Do you see the difference?
    Your version suggests the two go hand-in-hand. And you are acting like the entire discussion about different ideas about what a redneck is, and people's rights to name and define their own groups if they should want to, and how most commenters agreed that there is usually a strong socioeconomic element implied, which makes "redneck" an inappropriate, non-PC term. Any of this ring a bell?

  • Isabel says:

    "makes "redneck" an inappropriate, non-PC term."
    Or I should say inappropriate when used pejoratively by those outside the group.
    You know, the usual "rules"...of course if you are proposing easing the rules for everyone, I would not necessarily object.:)

  • Sunflower says:

    Tiger Woods did become a billion-dollar brand. And he didn't get there because he annoyed the country-club bluebloods (though it would amuse me if the world worked that way). He got there because a bunch of upper-middle-class white dudes wanted to "be like Tiger", and they were willing to purchase the sports drinks, golf shirts, financial consulting services, etc he sponsored in order to obtain their Tiger essence. Even people who didn't care about golf wanted some of that superhuman focus and achievement to rub off on them.
    When the news broke about his affairs, suddenly he wasn't an aspirational figure anymore. Nobody wants to be the guy who shags a cocktail waitress in every town he visits, while ignoring his wife and kids at home. (At least nobody wants to admit it.)
    Not that racism is dead. If Tiger Woods had been merely excellent at golf, he would have been ignored and treated as a curiosity. But he was so good that even the bluebloods of golf had to take him seriously. At that point, I'd even say his outsider status worked in his favor - the upper-middle-class white guys who liked him weren't bluebloods either, but wanted to become part of the elite through their personal awesomeness, just like Tiger.
    I do feel kind of sorry for the guy. He probably never got to go through the doing-stupid-shit phase of adolescence, and he's making up for it now. But not that sorry. If you offered me a billion dollars in sponsorship deals, I would happily marry Tiger Woods' wife and remain sexually faithful to her for the next quarter-century. Happily. Even though I don't like girls, and even though my billionaire self could have my pick of hot, gold-digging cabana boys with low self-esteem. Is it really that hard to keep it in your pants?

Leave a Reply