Jamele Hill’s latest column for ESPN.com is headlined with a question: “Can one awful comment change golf for better?”
The simple answer: No.
The last couple weeks have been a rocky one for the golf world, first with Kelly Tilghman’s “lynch Tiger in the back alley” comment/joke, followed by GolfWeek’s noose cover atrocity.
It is interesting how the moment Tilghman’s lynch comment escaped her lips, one phrase came up like a tidal wave: “This will lead to a long overdue discussion about racism and golf.”
That was basically what GolfWeek said it was doing in its latest issue. Even Hill managed to get someone prominent in golf to basically say the same thing:
“What this does is have the industry take a step back and say, ‘what am I doing from a diversity standpoint?’” said agent Greg Nared.
But with the PGA Tour back in full swing, you can be sure of one thing - the golf industry sure as hell isn’t going to take any steps back and wonder about diversity.
As for the great “discussions?” Well, they amount to this: how should Tilghman and those at GolfWeek be punished?
How about this discussion: How is it even possible that there is only one African-American on the PGA Tour?
Or: Why does the Golf Channel have 33 on-air announcers, but only two of color?
The simple fact is that the only people bringing up those discussions are powerless and doing so basically in a void.
Because the majority of golf fans, golfers and definitely those in the golf industry are sick of the issue of diversity in golf already. After all, it’s dominated the headlines for about a couple weeks now. Time to move on.
So the “discussion” is over. In fact, there really never was one. Sooner or later, another white announcer or white editor will “slip up” again. And the discussion will once again be about how to punish them.
Can one awful comment change golf for better? No. Because it’s not a discussion golf wants to have.
–WKW
| « I can outblog PGA Tour's Tim Finchem while suffering from blog amnesia in anti-blog land | GolfWeek's noose cover the latest attempt to prove golf elitest and racist » |
Comment feed for this post
The great thing about golf is that it is probably the most transparent sport out there. You can't cut a kid on a golf team because of race, because if his scores are better than another kid you have to take him.
The only problem with golf is that it is too expensive, so minorities have a harder time getting introduced to the game.
In my honest opinion, I think that the golf world is probably less racist than the daily real world.
I was at the PGA Show and have just returned.
As I walked by the Golfweek booth and saw the cover, I almost fell over. The visceral reaction I had was strong, and as everyone knows, I am not very good at PC behavior or words for that matter. In the press room, every single golf journalist, writer, publicist was appalled at the premeditated callous knife in the back of Kelly and the issue, without really exploring it.
Kelly's comment was racist based period. Did she mean harm? Of course not, just some good ol' boy southern humor, which was offensive to many. It was interesting that Jeff Rude said that the vast majority of emails he received said it was no big deal. I was one of three emails criticizing his "covering" for Kelly and received a call back to publish the same comments that got me in so much hot water here.
Diversity in golf? Is this a question? Should the golf industry be subject to more criticism because so few African American's play the game? I don't think so. If we simply look to the cultural makeup of any sport, we see those who have access...play. Soccer, baseball, basketball, football...there is lots of money and major support systems in place to bring talent to there respective games.
Hispanics and Latinos are replacing blacks in baseball. Blacks gravitate to basketball and football, where millions of dollars are at stake, even for those just leaving high school...think Kobe Bryant. Blacks dominate basketball, and no one is saying we need affirmative action to bring more white players are they?
Golf is an elitist sport. Always has been, likely always will be. It is expensive. It is for those with too much time on their hands to learn the game with proper instruction. It is for those who embrace the tradition that made the game great.
What I see happening is a coarsening of the game. Drunk hackers who will threaten you if you ask to play through. 6 hour rounds. 7500 yard courses when the majority can't break 100. It is out of control and the industry is suffering the consequences.
More and more manufacturers are opting out of the show. Fewer and fewer visitors come to the PGA Show. Total cynicism from the golf media, most perfectly exampled by the Golfweek cover.
As one senior Golfweek writer expressed it me, when I asked the age of the editor who was fired, he said he was 55, but the editorial staff below him were all 30 something guys who thought this cover would be "edgy." Smart move boys.
Golf doesn't need to be edgy. Golf needs to rediscover it roots, and that it is this it is not a game for the masses, as much as the PGA has said "we need to grow the game." Everyone played baseball as a kid, and everyone has a hoop on his garage, or in the park. Golf takes training. Golf takes money. Golf take dedication. Golf takes time. It doesn't take two minutes to learn to shoot a basketball. It doesn't take two minutes to learn to throw a baseball. It takes one minute to learn how to run. It takes ten minutes to learn to ride a bike. Nicklaus says it takes five years of dedicated practice to learn to play golf. It is not, and should not be for everyone.
Kelly should go to FOX.
True thinkers are very rare in the world. How do you identify one? Well, for one thing, a thinker doesn't accept the priorities of the world; he perceives truth and discerns what his priorities should be based on it.
Diversity is perversity.
Your post is way off base. Your premise is easily refuted. I don't have the time or the inclination to do so.
I would advise you to amend the first sentence of your post. As written, it doesn't make any sense. How could the sport of Golf remain the same as it was thirty years ago if it has changed in the last ten years?
Also, my friend, please explain why you enclosed the name America in quotation marks.
Is that your way of expressing some sort of contempt for this country?
At least you didn't spell America with a "k".
Are you Mr. Maxwell, sir? If so, I thought we had already buried the hatchet. I admitted my error and credited you for being the imbecile you are.
You have been exposed by CB as nothing but a bigot. You have lost all credibilities among the readers here.
You have been exposed by Alex to be nothing but a simpleton.
But you have not lost any credibility among the readers here. You have never had any credibility here. On these boards, you sir, are a nonentity.
If the majority of black peope prefer (and I emphasise prefer) to play soccer or basketball, why should I care? If golf is too expensive for some people - tough. I can't afford a string of polo ponies so I don't play polo.
You cut your cloth according to your means.
Fortunately for me, however, there were people with more foresight and social conscience than I who DID care about such issues as free and compulsory eduction, abolition of child labour, free healthcare, equal opportunity (obviously the latter a downside for those in Judge Smails' camp!)etc.
No doubt they were the PC people of their eras. Let them speak - what's there to be afraid of?
Everyone would sure appreciate free education and free health care.
But the only way that I can envision these things to be free is if the teachers in the schools and the doctors, nurses, and other hospital personnel did not receive any remuneration and that these institutions were not required to pay for any provisions and.or the use of utilities like water, heating, and electricity.
How do you folks in the United Kingdom accomplish these modern day miracles? Are the teachers and doctors put on the dole when they finish their internships?
A certain female aspirant to the United States Presidency has some ideas about revolutuionizing the US health care system.
But her plan won't be free. Rather, it will be paid for by massive tax increases levied on all US citizens.
How did you inventive Brits manage to pull off such capers as free education and free healthcare?
Alex USMC 1969-73
You have embraced a common fiction. The individuals who fought for what you mentioned were not the PC people of their day. All the people who accomplished any legitimate good were believing Christians (e.g., abolitionists in antebellum days).
The PC people are actually fascists; this isn't hyperbole, but fact. Nazism, communism and liberalism all have the same spiritual underpinnings, a fact pointed out by one of your great countrymen, C.S. Lewis (in his book The Abolition of Man). However, the best exposition on the matter I've ever read was written by someone named Ace Walker. It is found here: http://www.hevanet.com/kort/FASCISM1.HTM. Among other things, he points out that prior to WWII, the American left was very much enamored of the European Fascists.
A simpleton is better than a bigot of a blog buddy you have.
And let Judge Smail defend himself...
free of charge until such time as I graduated and started earning a living, I am more than happy to repay my dues through taxation for the next generations. After all, if I didn't have it, they couldn't tax it, could they? I am less happy to pay taxes for every ridiculous quango our governments come up with, but that's a different matter.
My point was, as I am sure you understood, not political, but that whilst for the most part I am too lazy & comfortable to take on issues that do not affect me directly, (i.e. the participation of anybody else in golf) I do recognise that my lifestyle has been achieved thanks to those who WERE willing to stand up and be counted despite vocal oppostion. Hard work on my part, too, of course, but hard work alone would have got me nowhere without their courage and vision.
I disagree with saying "Shut Up" to anyone who disagrees with me. Oh, and your sarcasm didn't bother me in the slightest.
If brains were dynamite, you wouldn't be able to blow your nose.
Wendy,
How'd you like my use of the subjunctive?
If, as you portend, it is the obligation of each older generation in Great Britain to pay taxes for the free education and free health care to the succeeding generation, where did the considerable funds come from to provide these essential services to the first group that received them?
Wendy,
There was no sarcasm intended.
I was merely pointing out the fallacy in assuming that health care and education are or were ever free.
At the present time, my real estate tax bill has close to four thousand dollars allocated for my district's public schools. This despite the fact that I have no children or grandchildren in the public schools.
But even when I had children of school agewho were enrolled in the public schools, I still had a similar school tax bill. I wasn't free then, and ot's not free now.
On a similar note, there are millions of Americans who have health care and education who do not pay for them and never have. Those folks are the beneficiaries of Medicaid and State and county welfare, both euphemisms for for government handouts.
But these benefits are definitely not free. They are paid for by the working and tax-paying citizens.
I assume you use the word "Fascist" in the case of "PC people" in the sense of restricting individual freedoms? In which case you would consider me a Fascist as I support most law & order which does exactly that.
I have read "The Abolition of Man" but not the exposition by Ace Walker, (will do so) - shall we leave discussions re Fascism/Communism, etc, for another place & time, however, for the sake of everyone who thinks this is a golf-related blog?
As if you have credibility here? HAHAHAHAHA.
Back to your sandbox, child!
When you get past your twelfth birthday, and your level of literacy improves, try matching wits with me then.
For now, butt out!
P.S. There is no "e" on the end of the noun "breath."
Alex USMC 1969-73
You are like a frog stuck at the bottom of a water well who thinks the world is the size of the opening.
Of course the orginal money came from the 5% who had 95% of the means to fund education & healthcare. Perhaps they at least understood that an educated and healthy population would actually add to the prosperity of the whole nation. Throwing people at the end of their working lives into the dreaded Workhouses (which then had to be funded) was pretty self-defeating for a start.
As for the rest of your post. Taxes eh?
Life may be a bitch, but I prefer it to the alternative.
In the US, we also have been blessed with a wealthy class who for the most part have been generous with endowments to all phases of education.
But that has not stopped those inbued with class envy from spouting hatred os anybody who has a cent more than they have.
I guess those folks of the landed aristocracy weren't so bad after all.
As far as taxes go, sure, taxes are necessary for essential services, but many of the pet projects of US politicians are nothing more than bribery for votes.
Not long ago, the public schools in the US were the envy of the rest of the world. Not any more. The politicians have pandered to the teachers' unions and those who would dumb down the population to the degree that large segments of our people, especially those trapped in our inner cities, have become semi-literate at best.
MacKenzie and his ilk are most probably recent products of American public schools.
For the record, Americans give more money to charity either per capita or in total sum than any other country in the world.
On top of that, Americans have provided money and troops to protect and build more countries in the world than the rest of the world care to acknowledge.
Without America, the Brits would be speaking German nowadays.
I am perfectly aware of your first fact. I think Ireland is possibly second in this league. Your next statement is an opinion and somewhat more controversial.
On your third point:
"Si les Ricains n'etaient pas la,
Nous serions tous en Germany,
A parler de je ne sais quoi,
A saluer je ne sais qui"
You'll get no argument from me on this score.
For those who are not familiar with the word "Ricains" it is short for Americans and is the affectionate French equivalent of Yanks.
PS I CAN speak German.
I am also mystified as to how Oui came to such a conclusion.
As to his contention that German would be the language of chose in Great Britain had not the Yanks come to the aid of the UK, that point is moot, but I am skeptical of that premise.
As formidable as the German war machine was at that time, their high command was loathe to attempt an armed invasion of the British Isles. They apparently wanted no part of a prolonged battle for the UK or the drain in manpower a n occupation would require. Since such an invasion never came to fruition, that is the only reasonable assumption to which I could come
Let's just say w/o the food, financial aid, (which we have only just repaid!) and shipping coverage from America we would most likely not have survived. I also don't think that Germany could have afforded NOT to have invaded us even at some later point, so I am not going to argue with his overall premise. He also may not realise that that although we weren't actually invaded, I still have family and neighbours who lived through those dreadful days, not only the terror of the bombing raids and the loved ones lost, but also the years of rationing and deprivation which followed. Let's not go there any more.
I think I'll go and have a stiff drink (oh and drink a toast to said Yanks).
I am just making a general statement that America is not getting the fair shake in the world court of opinion these days despite all the good it has done to the world as we know today. By no means was it a rebuttal towards your points.
Of course, we French people have a lot to be thankful of the Americans.
I agree with you, of course. Although I often lament the decline in our culture, America is unfairly maligned around the world. Ironically but not surprisingly, we are castigated for our virtues while our vices are embraced. In other words, we're labeled imperialistic for trying to thwart tyranny, but, at the same time, the world deeply imbibes the cultural effluent disgorged by Hollywood.
America is the richest and most powerful nation in the world - hence it will attract envy and resentment. If I do have criticisms of the US, they are the same criticisms I have of the UK. However, I think I am slightly more realistic than you as to why our individual or joint interventions in world affairs are not always greeted with undiluted joy.
I totally understand what you are saying with respect to your last sentence. After all, we don't live in a black and white world. There are always bad accompanying the good.
Hope you are watching & enjoying the Buick?