Originally Posted by dsc123
I think the point that gets lost is that Jim Nantz spends a week having a quasi-sexual affair with Augusta's storied tradition on live television. Costas' point was just that if you're going to spend a week talking about Augusta's history, the flaws should be acknowledged. That's it. Mentioned. He said he doesn't expect an extensive discussion, and that it wouldn't be practical. As an example he talked about the year that there were a bunch of protests and the coverage didn't even acknowledge that it occurred.
What would have been so bad about CBS having a piece on the "proud moment" in Augusta history just this past summer when it initiated its first female members. That's it.
There are so many bad, and really even off-topic points being made.
- Yes, at some point in time, every long-existing institution did something ugly, and at some point, you've got to give it up. In this case, that didn't end until 8/2012. This was the first Masters held since they let women into the club. That makes this different.
- Yes, Augusta is a private club and they can do what they want. But that doesn't make them immune from criticism. Its a red-herring to go on and on about how they are "allowed" to discriminate. Nobody is claiming that they are not allowed. More than that though, its the public criticism of certain behaviors, and thereby making them socially unacceptable, that creates change. For that reason, its important for people who disagree with how Augusta handles certain issues to publicly shame them. That's how social progress happens.
- The many, many, ad homiem attacks on Costas that have nothing to do with what he said.
- Bill Cosby says racism won't end until we stop bringing it up all the time. I agree with this. But Costas is only saying it should have been mentioned during Nantz' passionate love-making to Augusta's history. That's all.
Alright dsc, are you ready for this? I am going to open up the biggest can of whoop-ass on you! You ready? Here goes ...
I have no problems with anything you said here. Seriously. I have no argument for this. Good post.
Originally Posted by dsc123
Why not? She likes golf, its the mecca of golf, and by joining it would represent a step in the right direction of the club. If people didn't want to join groups that were hostile to them, we might still have "separate but equal."
OK, so I disagree with this part still. :) As an example (perhaps a weak one, but nevertheless, here goes) Augusta is still "prejudiced" against people who aren't filthy stinking rich and/or extremely powerful. Do we all agree on that? (I ask the question honestly, not rhetorically, just in case I'm wrong) However, it's apparently known that yearly dues are somewhere on the magnitude of $10,000, so it's not like a lot of people of average means couldn't afford it. Now, suppose that they were getting a lot of flack for this and they decided to invite me to be a part of their club. Would I do it? No. And the reason is that I wouldn't be comfortable around that crowd of people who I know doesn't really care for me and they are only inviting me because "they have to."
And income isn't even remotely in the same ballpark as race or sex when it comes to prejudices. It's not even the same [bleeping] sport. (Yes, I'm paraphrasing from Pulp Fiction there ;)) So I can't even fathom how/why somebody would be comfortable joining a group of people that they know hates them. Which is why I come to the conclusion that the people at Augusta now, by and large, don't hate minorities or women. They've grown and changed, and we should, at some point, let this whole thing rest.
I guess the issue, then, is simply at what point we stop talking about it? After the last member who was a member pre 2012 dies? Otherwise, shouldn't we be fair and treat all places like this? Merion has been around since 1896, so it's a safe bet they have a history like Augusta as well. Do we have to bring up that history every time they play the Open there? And all the other courses they use for every other tournament that have been around since before the 1960's. How come we don't still give the current members of the Boston Red Sox grief because their club was the worst offender when it came to racism, and were the latest finally come around?
At what point do we acknowledge that, although the history is always going to be there, it's in the past, it doesn't do anybody any good to keep rehashing it, and it's time to move on?