December 06, 2009

Stereotypes are bad -- except if you wanna criticize Tiger Woods

Unbelievable article by the AP's Jesse Washington yesterday which utilizes some of the most base stereotypes of African-Americans one can imagine:

Amid all the headlines generated by Tiger Woods' troubles the puzzling car accident, the suggestions of marital turmoil and multiple mistresses little attention has been given to the race of the women linked with the world's greatest golfer.

Except in the black community.

When three white women were said to be romantically involved with Woods in addition to his blonde, Swedish wife, blogs, airwaves and barbershops started humming, and Woods' already tenuous standing among many blacks took a beating.

"Thankfully, Tiger, you didn't marry a black woman. Because if a sister caught you running around with a bunch of white hoochie-mamas," one parody suggests in song, she would have castrated him.

"The Grinch's Theme Song" didn't stop there: "The question everyone in America wants to ask you is, how many white women does one brother waaant?"

As one blogger, Robert Paul Reyes, wrote: "If Tiger Woods had cheated on his gorgeous white wife with black women, the golfing great's accident would have been barely a blip in the blogosphere."

Washington goes on to note how "there is a call for loyalty (in the black community) that is stronger in some ways than in other racial communities," and how the "color of one's companion has long been a major measure of 'blackness.'" Woods also ticked off many in the black community because he declined to ID himself as "black." (Maybe that's because he's not, completely, that is.)

Need I say "just imagine if the races were reversed"?

Carmen Van Kerckhove, founder of the race-meets-pop-culture blog Racialicious, asks "Would we question when a Jewish person wants to marry other Jewish people? It's not racist. It's not bigotry. It's cultural pride."

An interesting question, to be sure. First, there is an actual difference between religion and skin color, you know. Second, would it be "cultural pride" and not bigotry if a white family wanted its son/daughter to only marry another white person? Or, would such a family be portrayed as "the new face of the Klan," and would the MSM be treating us to specials about the "new racism in America"?

I think the latter is much more likely.

Personally, I think it wrong whether the issue is race or religion. My only first cousin married a Jewish man, and she later converted so that they could raise their children Jewish. The ire of some of my relatives was certainly raised; however, I (and many of my younger relatives) couldn't have cared less. After all, if we're to "make a better society for all" and become the "accepting" and "tolerant" people that [those on the Left constantly preach about, especially] want us to be, these sort of "distinctions" shouldn't amount to a hill of beans.

But this where the Left's hypocrisy has the sunlight shown on it, and quite brightly. It's evident due to the simple fact that the topic of this article is given serious merit. "Cultural/racial pride" is treated as a topic worthy of consideration, whereas, as I noted above, if Woods were white and various whites spoke favorably of cultural/racial pride, they'd be portrayed as subjects of a "Jerry Springer" episode.

Don't believe me? OK, just look back at what was considered "racist" during this past presidential campaign (and beyond). Just look at what university professors and educationists proffer as "training." And people of good will who actually believe in Martin Luther King's dream (not the ridiculous bastardization of it served up by our current crop of race hustlers) who dare to question these absurd and (ultimately) superficial double standards are -- surprise! -- labeled racists themselves!

So, why would folks react in astonishment at why these people of good will -- of all colors and creeds -- express sentiments akin to this gent's:


Posted by Hube at December 6, 2009 11:42 AM | TrackBack

Comments  (We reserve the right to edit and/or delete any comments. If your comment is blocked or won't post, e-mail us and we'll post it for you.)

I remember when you used this sign before and I loved it then too! It is so sad how true the sign is and that it has become a fact! The left is so out there, so hypocritical and so devoid of basing their positions on merit and factual arguments....pure emotion only.

Posted by: cardinals fan at December 6, 2009 01:47 PM

So, if Tiger had been White, his wife Black, and he cheated on her with 10+ Black women, what would Blacks say?

I remember when I was a child and the first time I saw a mixed-race couple, it was a Black man with a White woman. I remember hearing my parents talk about it. They were not racists by the way. They were not in favor of the relationship, nor were they in favor of the reverse, a White man and Black woman.

The reason is because there were so many differences, so many problems that would result for the couple, their extended families and especially for the children.

As the years went by mixed-race couples were seen more often, accepted by many, but still looked down on by many.

Move forward and races, all of them (Oriental, Black, White, Middle-Eastern etc.) the line between races becomes blurred. The children don't really know what race they are, just look at Tiger.

Woods' reported ancestry correctly, a half-black, one-quarter American Indian, one-quarter white father) and a Thai mother (or, with the same caveat, a half-Thai, half-Chinese mother). His children will be a mixture of all that, plus their White-White mother.

The children are beautiful as are most mixed race children. One day mixed-race marriage won't be looked on with such disdain, since no one will know couples are mixed-race any more.

Not saying this is good or bad, it just is.

I understand why Black woman would be upset with Tiger, "aren't we, his own race, good enough for him?" I can also understand the reverse with White men and Tiger's wife, "Why couldn't she love one of her own?"

So many questions....

Posted by: Debbie at December 8, 2009 07:31 PM

Debbie: My concentration is on the cultural hypocrisy of the elitist leftists regarding race and race relations. That being said, sorry -- I don't understand why people, white or black, would get upset at someone of their race dating/marrying outside it. Who the f*** should care?? We're all freakin' human beings! This isn't 1955 anymore, for cripe's sake.

Posted by: Hube at December 8, 2009 09:03 PM

Skin color should be no different than hair color or eye color. I find it amazing that all these people of either race who make a big deal about Martin Luther King, JR never actually listened to his "I Have a Dream" speach. As long as people divide by skin color, especially by the media (I once wrote an article on my own blog about how interracial relations at any level doesn't get half the respect "gay relations" does on TV), and we have to decide who we marry by which crayon God grabbed out of the box that week, racism will never die.

Then again, there are those banking on it, because that's where their money/power comes from.

Posted by: ShadowWing Tronix at December 8, 2009 10:33 PM

Hey Hube,
Talk about racism...you should have seen the WAPO's Eugene Robinson on this!You're exactly right, of course.

Another dimension on this...

The reason so many black women get so incensed at Woods and other successful black males having white wives is because they see them as competition for the relatively small group of eligible potential black husbands.

A significant number of black males get involved with the criminal justice system, gangs and/or narcotics at an early age, or drop out of school, all situations that make them less desireable bets (if not totally ineligible) as husbands.

Even though Tiger Woods is not predominatly black as you correctly point out, for reasons that have a lot to do with marketing he was portrayed as black, so when someone like him marries a blonde, there's outrage at him as a 'wanna be'. And yeah, that is pretty racist.

Blacks, as you may know also frequently have 'color' prejudices even within their own race, with many of them finding lighter skins, etc. more desireable.

Regards,
Rob

Posted by: Rob Miller at December 9, 2009 01:12 AM

I don't think it's just about skin color...there's a cultural gap as well. I suspect that the reason Tiger linked up to all white women is due to two factors - one, he was raised in the military, which is dominantly white cultural, and second, having moved up to the levels of wealth as he did at such a young age, I'd guess that he encountered more white women than black women.

That said - I have bred horses, goats, rabbits and dogs. Mixed breeds are anathema to me. It isn't a moral or even a cultural issue for me - it's just a preference for purebreds...silly though that may seem. Especially when you consider the efficacy of hybrid vigor...

Posted by: suek at December 10, 2009 07:04 PM