or Connect
TheSandTrap.com › Golf Forum › The Clubhouse › Tour Talk › Sergio Garcia states racial remark towards Tiger Woods
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Sergio Garcia states racial remark towards Tiger Woods - Page 13

Poll Results: Has Sergio Garcia officially taken this too far?

 
  • 74% (73)
    Yes. He shouldn't have said that.
  • 25% (25)
    No. That remark wasn't racist.
98 Total Votes  
post #217 of 266
"Jews really know finance" isn't negative?

I think you are confusing generalizations which can be positive (women are good listeners, Asian immigrants tend to be hard workers, etc.), with stereotypes that have a component of being demeaning in them, and often have no relation to the truth. A Jewish person is no more likely to be "good at finance" than anyone else... plays into the racist stereotype of Jews as money hungry, etc.
post #218 of 266
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ernest Jones View Post


A racist comment need not be negative. It is simply a stereotype based on race. A lot of people will say dumb shit like, "I'm not racist, in fact I admire the fact that all black people have rhythm." The fact of the matter is that that statement is no less and no more racist than the comment, "all black people love fried chicken."

Or, "Asians are great at mathematics."

Or, "Jews really know finance."

You are making a blanket statement and applying it to an entire group of people based solely on their race. That is racist.

Ps. This isn't really directed at Jerrytimes but I'm on an iPhone and can't multi-quote so I chose his post to put mine in context. My post is directed at anyone who believes that racist comments only come in the negative variety, that is simply not true.

I disagree.  As others above have said, there is a difference between a stereotype and racism.  To me, racism involves hate, or at the very least, some sort of feeling that you are better than somebody else because of their race.  General stereotypes (all of your examples) may not be PC, but I don't find them to be racist.

 

PS ... pretty sure you can multi quote on your iphone, you just keep hitting quote. :)  The formatting makes it a pain the rear to scroll through, but it can be done. :)

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by stoverny View Post

"Jews really know finance" isn't negative?

I think you are confusing generalizations which can be positive (women are good listeners, Asian immigrants tend to be hard workers, etc.), with stereotypes that have a component of being demeaning in them, and often have no relation to the truth. A Jewish person is no more likely to be "good at finance" than anyone else... plays into the racist stereotype of Jews as money hungry, etc.

I just asked my wife*, "Hey, if I say 'Jews really know finance,' do you find that offensive?"  Her answer: "No, it's stereotypical, but it's not offensive."   Also, I think you are riding on a very thin line if you are going to say that the phrases "Jews really know finance" and "Asian immigrants are hard workers" fall on opposite sides of it.

 

I will agree with you, though, that because there is the stereotype that Jewish people** are money hungry, then any related stereotype is going to make you think of that one, and therefore, have a tinge of a negative tone.

 

* My wife is Jewish

 

** I don't like saying 'Jew' ... not that its wrong, just doesn't quite sound right to me.

post #219 of 266
Quote:
Originally Posted by Golfingdad View Post

 

** I don't like saying 'Jew' ... not that its wrong, just doesn't quite sound right to me.

Reminds me of that Woody Allen line, some guy asks him if he's a Jew and Woody replies, "Well...I'm Jew-ish..."

 

***********

 

Look at this point I think it's time that we all come to accept that there is a fundamental difference in how we (not necessarily just GD and me but rather the two camps of thought that have coalesced here) interpret the concept of racism.

 

Some believe that there is a requirement of some element of negativity or hate in order for it to qualify as racism and that absent that it is...something else.

 

I, and others on this forum evidently, believe that any blanket generalization applied to a group of people based solely on their race is racism. 

 

I was going to add examples and juxtapositions to elaborate and prove my point unequivocally and DRAG YOU GUYS KICKING AND SCREAMING TO MY SIDE OF THE FENCE.....but then I remembered the whole point of this post was that I wasn't going to do that anymore.

 

And that's all.

 

*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
PS: You're wrong b2_tongue.gif

post #220 of 266
Quote:
Originally Posted by Golfingdad View Post

I disagree.  As others above have said, there is a difference between a stereotype and racism.  To me, racism involves hate, or at the very least, some sort of feeling that you are better than somebody else because of their race.  General stereotypes (all of your examples) may not be PC, but I don't find them to be racist.

PS ... pretty sure you can multi quote on your iphone, you just keep hitting quote. :)  The formatting makes it a pain the rear to scroll through, but it can be done. :)

I just asked my wife*, "Hey, if I say 'Jews really know finance,' do you find that offensive?"  Her answer: "No, it's stereotypical, but it's not offensive."   Also, I think you are riding on a very thin line if you are going to say that the phrases "Jews really know finance" and "Asian immigrants are hard workers" fall on opposite sides of it.

I will agree with you, though, that because there is the stereotype that Jewish people** are money hungry, then any related stereotype is going to make you think of that one, and therefore, have a tinge of a negative tone.

* My wife is Jewish

** I don't like saying 'Jew' ... not that its wrong, just doesn't quite sound right to me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ernest Jones View Post

Reminds me of that Woody Allen line, some guy asks him if he's a Jew and Woody replies, "Well...I'm Jew-ish..."
***********

Look at this point I think it's time that we all come to accept that there is a fundamental difference in how we (not necessarily just GD and me but rather the two camps of thought that have coalesced here) interpret the concept of racism.

Some believe that there is a requirement of some element of negativity or hate in order for it to qualify as racism and that absent that it is...something else.

I, and others on this forum evidently, believe that any blanket generalization applied to a group of people based solely on their race is racism. 

I was going to add examples and juxtapositions to elaborate and prove my point unequivocally and DRAG YOU GUYS KICKING AND SCREAMING TO MY SIDE OF THE FENCE.....but then I remembered the whole point of this post was that I wasn't going to do that anymore.

And that's all.

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

PS: You're wrong b2_tongue.gif
PPS ... This is being typed on my iPhone. Am I still wrong? (Now I just realized that your latest ps may not have been a reference to mine. Oh well. Whoops. )
post #221 of 266

This whole discussion of whether something is racist/racism is very enlightening. Got me thinking about the NBA, where blacks, who make up about 13% of the total population, constitute over 85% of the players in the league.

 

So, does that mean blacks are good at basketball? No, that would be a stereotype. I'm sure there are many blacks who totally suck at basketball.

 

Does it mean that, if you run fast & jump high, you got a good chance at being good at basketball? Yes., I think that's a fair statement.

 

Now, are blacks somehow genetically predisposed to run fast & jump high? Now we're entering the dangerous area. But the numbers don't lie - 13% of the population occupies 85% of the competitors...but trying to explain this numerical lopsidedness is where inaccurate assumptions and, stupid things, can be expressed. 

 

Maybe it's due to culture. Maybe it's genetics. I don't really know.

 

And you know what - that's the point. I don't really know. My eyes see something & I try to figure out why it is, and it's in trying to answer the 'why' question where people can get offended. 

 

Jimmy The Greek got run from CBS for stating the reason blacks dominate certain sports was due to black slaves being force-bred to have big children. He might have been right - perhaps there were some slave owners who did such things. But he fell into the trap of trying to answer the 'why' question with something he thought was historical fact but was more likely anecdotal evidence of some practices a century earlier which may have had zero bearing on the way things are.

 

In contrast, Al Campanis got fired as GM of the Dodgers for saying blacks lack the 'essentials' to be baseball managers. Now, that was a horrible assumption with no basis in fact.

 

I don't know where I was going with all that other than to say some things are just best left alone. And that's the lesson for Sergio. Just shut up.

post #222 of 266

This skin color thing is really pervasive probably because it is the most obvious characteristic of any person. Tiger, as far as i know, was not raised in a 'black' (aka American inner city ghetto complete with 'ebonic' language), and the same can be said for Mr.Obama. Yes, skin darker than northern Europeans and yes, some genetic reference to imported slaves from Africa, centuries ago.  But in fact the most prominent genes in Tiger's genome are Chinese. So mix the Chinese with some Thailand  then add an American mixture of 'black and white' , raise in a principally 'white'  culture and some kind of result may be Tiger Woods. But there are many with the same selection of genes as Tiger who do not play golf , not even athletic.  Many cultures are    highly bigoted, believing all other colors and cultures inferior. From my world travels all i can say for sure is, that compared to the Chinese cuisine, all other cuisines are vastly inferior.  So let Tiger eat his 'gong  bao ji ding' and enjoy the journey.   

post #223 of 266
Quote:
Originally Posted by zipazoid View Post

This whole discussion of whether something is racist/racism is very enlightening. Got me thinking about the NBA, where blacks, who make up about 13% of the total population, constitute over 85% of the players in the league.

 

So, does that mean blacks are good at basketball? No, that would be a stereotype. I'm sure there are many blacks who totally suck at basketball.

 

Does it mean that, if you run fast & jump high, you got a good chance at being good at basketball? Yes., I think that's a fair statement.

 

Now, are blacks somehow genetically predisposed to run fast & jump high? Now we're entering the dangerous area. But the numbers don't lie - 13% of the population occupies 85% of the competitors...but trying to explain this numerical lopsidedness is where inaccurate assumptions and, stupid things, can be expressed. 

 

Maybe it's due to culture. Maybe it's genetics. I don't really know.

 

And you know what - that's the point. I don't really know. My eyes see something & I try to figure out why it is, and it's in trying to answer the 'why' question where people can get offended. 

 

Jimmy The Greek got run from CBS for stating the reason blacks dominate certain sports was due to black slaves being force-bred to have big children. He might have been right - perhaps there were some slave owners who did such things. But he fell into the trap of trying to answer the 'why' question with something he thought was historical fact but was more likely anecdotal evidence of some practices a century earlier which may have had zero bearing on the way things are.

 

In contrast, Al Campanis got fired as GM of the Dodgers for saying blacks lack the 'essentials' to be baseball managers. Now, that was a horrible assumption with no basis in fact.

 

I don't know where I was going with all that other than to say some things are just best left alone. And that's the lesson for Sergio. Just shut up.

QFT.

post #224 of 266
Quote:
Originally Posted by Golfingdad View Post



PPS ... This is being typed on my iPhone. Am I still wrong? (Now I just realized that your latest ps may not have been a reference to mine. Oh well. Whoops. )

I literally stared at that for 5 minutes b3_huh.gif trying to figure out WTF you were talking about!

 

I got it now, it took some time though b2_tongue.gif.

 

Good to know about multi-quote.

 

Thanks.

 

Cracker f3_laugh.gif.

post #225 of 266
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ernest Jones View Post

I literally stared at that for 5 minutes b3_huh.gif
 trying to figure out WTF you were talking about!


I got it now, it took some time though 
b2_tongue.gif
.

Good to know about multi-quote.

Thanks.

Cracker f3_laugh.gif
.
You're welcome, Canuck!
post #226 of 266
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ernest Jones View Post

Some believe that there is a requirement of some element of negativity or hate in order for it to qualify as racism and that absent that it is...something else.

 

I, and others on this forum evidently, believe that any blanket generalization applied to a group of people based solely on their race is racism. 

 

 

 

Of course in Sergio's case it really doesn't matter because he sure didn't mean it in a complimentary sense.  So whether it is inherently hateful or not, coming from Sergio at Tiger it is hateful.  There are things you can say with impunity to a friend that you simply cannot say to someone you have problems with.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by zipazoid View Post

This whole discussion of whether something is racist/racism is very enlightening. Got me thinking about the NBA, where blacks, who make up about 13% of the total population, constitute over 85% of the players in the league.

 

So, does that mean blacks are good at basketball? No, that would be a stereotype. I'm sure there are many blacks who totally suck at basketball.

 

Does it mean that, if you run fast & jump high, you got a good chance at being good at basketball? Yes., I think that's a fair statement.

 

Now, are blacks somehow genetically predisposed to run fast & jump high? Now we're entering the dangerous area. But the numbers don't lie - 13% of the population occupies 85% of the competitors...but trying to explain this numerical lopsidedness is where inaccurate assumptions and, stupid things, can be expressed. 

 

Maybe it's due to culture. Maybe it's genetics. I don't really know.

 

And you know what - that's the point. I don't really know. My eyes see something & I try to figure out why it is, and it's in trying to answer the 'why' question where people can get offended. 

 

Jimmy The Greek got run from CBS for stating the reason blacks dominate certain sports was due to black slaves being force-bred to have big children. He might have been right - perhaps there were some slave owners who did such things. But he fell into the trap of trying to answer the 'why' question with something he thought was historical fact but was more likely anecdotal evidence of some practices a century earlier which may have had zero bearing on the way things are.

 

In contrast, Al Campanis got fired as GM of the Dodgers for saying blacks lack the 'essentials' to be baseball managers. Now, that was a horrible assumption with no basis in fact.

 

I don't know where I was going with all that other than to say some things are just best left alone. And that's the lesson for Sergio. Just shut up.

 

People forget, but Jack Nicklaus got himself in a bit of hot water with a racial generalization about blacks not being top pros because of their muscle structure.

 

http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/1994-08-21/sports/9408200266_1_nicklaus-blacks-comments

Quote:

In early July, while touring one of his courses near Vancouver, British Columbia, Nicklaus was asked by a Vancouver Province reporter about the paucity of blacks in golf. Nicklaus responded by saying "blacks have different muscles that react in different ways."He also said he didn't "buy" that he and other players could have taken stronger action in helping end discrimination in golf.

 

And heck, considering that he and Arnie did absolutely NOTHING to end racial discrimination by the golf world, certainly he could have taken stronger action.

post #227 of 266

How can a Thai be offended by this?

post #228 of 266
Quote:
Originally Posted by RadioCop View Post

How can a Thai be offended by this?

 

That would be for the Thai to decide.

post #229 of 266

I dont think Sergio knew about the social references of the statement he repeated.

 

In europe (edit) civil rights issues were dealed with 100 years before the US.


Edited by bubble - 5/26/13 at 1:23pm
post #230 of 266

Hmm.  They seem to be having a bit of trouble now at football matches in Europe, so I don't think it is really settled yet.

post #231 of 266
Quote:
Originally Posted by zipazoid View Post

This whole discussion of whether something is racist/racism is very enlightening. Got me thinking about the NBA, where blacks, who make up about 13% of the total population, constitute over 85% of the players in the league.

 

So, does that mean blacks are good at basketball? No, that would be a stereotype. I'm sure there are many blacks who totally suck at basketball.

 

Does it mean that, if you run fast & jump high, you got a good chance at being good at basketball? Yes., I think that's a fair statement.

 

Now, are blacks somehow genetically predisposed to run fast & jump high? Now we're entering the dangerous area. But the numbers don't lie - 13% of the population occupies 85% of the competitors...but trying to explain this numerical lopsidedness is where inaccurate assumptions and, stupid things, can be expressed. 

 

Maybe it's due to culture. Maybe it's genetics. I don't really know.

 

And you know what - that's the point. I don't really know. My eyes see something & I try to figure out why it is, and it's in trying to answer the 'why' question where people can get offended. 

 

Jimmy The Greek got run from CBS for stating the reason blacks dominate certain sports was due to black slaves being force-bred to have big children. He might have been right - perhaps there were some slave owners who did such things. But he fell into the trap of trying to answer the 'why' question with something he thought was historical fact but was more likely anecdotal evidence of some practices a century earlier which may have had zero bearing on the way things are.

 

In contrast, Al Campanis got fired as GM of the Dodgers for saying blacks lack the 'essentials' to be baseball managers. Now, that was a horrible assumption with no basis in fact.

 

I don't know where I was going with all that other than to say some things are just best left alone. And that's the lesson for Sergio. Just shut up.

 

Well said!

post #232 of 266

Apology

So, how many times does Sergio have to kiss the arse  and beg for a pardon from "What's His Name".  I'd tell WHN" to F...off. Gettin' real tired of seein' WHN.

post #233 of 266
As I recall, Tiger's (that's his name) has never asked Sergio for anything so if he's still running his yapper, that's on him.
post #234 of 266
Quote:
Originally Posted by teemup View Post

So, how many times does Sergio have to kiss the arse  and beg for a pardon from "What's His Name".  I'd tell WHN" to F...off. Gettin' real tired of seein' WHN.

 

His name is Tiger, and as jetsknicks1 pointed out, he's not the one asking for an apology. For that matter, who now is asking for one? Sergio apologized, and I think most everyone has moved on. Far as being asked about it in press conferences, look - Sergio caused it to be an issue in the first place. If he has to answer questions 500 times about it, it's his own doing. Best thing he can do is just answer the questions until he's not asked about it anymore. That may take a week or a month or a year. Who knows. 

 

But had he just shut his mouth in the first place he wouldn't have to be answering any questions about it. 

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Tour Talk
TheSandTrap.com › Golf Forum › The Clubhouse › Tour Talk › Sergio Garcia states racial remark towards Tiger Woods