Bob Costas attacks CBS Sports for Ignoring the Masters' 'Racism and Sexism'

[trackster]

Originally Posted by iacas

They're not only a private club, they're a private club with white males, black males, white women, black women, and other nationalities too.

I think you want the singular form, woman, there.

While I agree that Augusta can admit who ever they want as members it doesn't mean that they don't have a history of being sexist and racist.  I agree with the arguments that you can't blame past members actions but some of this is a bit ridiculous.  Not admitting your first black member until 1990 and not admitting your first woman until 2012, is a blatant example of racism and sexism.  The not admitting a black member until 1990 is what bothers me the most.  It is okay to establish yourself as an all men's club, many places do, but to be an all white club up through the 80's, 33 years after baseball's color barrier was broken, and 15-20 years after major civil rights movements is a disgrace.  Could you imagine if Tiger Woods came around in the 1960s before they even let a black man play in the masters.  "World number 1 not allowed to play in masters."  I would hope it would leave a sour taste and tainted reputation on the lives of the people organizing the tournament.

The reason Augusta is singled out over other exclusion groups is because they play host to a national sporting and media platform.  If you don't want to allow women or non-whites into your home, that is your choice, but at the same time I doubt you plan on holding a multi-million dollar media event in your backyard.

There is no denying that in the past Augusta has been sexist and racist.  It does not matter if they are a private club or not, they were still racist and sexist.  I am hoping, and from the looks of their addition of 2 female members, that the new members are heading in the right direction.

Do I agree with Bob Costas?  Yes and No.  I do not believe that masters broadcasting is the time to tirade the masters history.  However, I do believe that what he did and the forum he did it in is acceptable.  I myself am turned off by previous and current actions of Augusta (yes, I know Augusta cares what I think so much).  But when persuasive media outlets such as Bob Costas feel strongly about issues there may be an increase in public awareness.  No one can deny that social pressure has been influencing augusta  in the past.  Hopefully these social pressures continue to shape them.

[MS256]

The aristocratic nature of those that ran Augusta in the past is not anymore racist or sexist than it was simply elitist, and passed down from a culture that pre-dates Augusta.

Here is a stereotype that holds fairly true most of the time.

I don't exactly "hang out" with any of them (it's not like they would invite me over to dinner but maybe to mow their yard) but I do know the type and I know pretty well how they think and played with their kids when we were kids. They are nice enough in public settings and are probably less racist than the average blue collar guy (black or white) in a factory or shop, but they wouldn't want the lower classes (either black or white) to be in their inner circle. Even "new money" is not imediately welcomed into their world.

Their kids play with our kids and can be (and often are) best friends but at some point (usually about college age) they are expected to separate themselves from the lower class, usually by attending more expensive private colleges and joining more exclusive fraternities.

They come out of their higher education experience fully transformed into the elitist mentality and would barely speak on the street to the lower class friends they had when they were young (whether black or white). They join exclusive country clubs and live in their elitist worlds with the only real contact with the lower class in an employer/servant situation.

Each generation of the aristocratic class gets a little less elitist than the previous for many reasons that would take a whole other page to explore.

All that said, they have every right to include only who they choose into their inner circle (and their club), and none of that stops me from enjoying watching the best players in the world compete on their beautiful golf course.

[Harmonious]

What "institution" has not at some time had a history of racism or sexism? I think I would be hard pressed to find very many. The U.S. Congress? Hiram Revels 1870 (almost 100 years after the Declaration of Independence). Boston Red Sox? Pumpsie Green 1959 (12 years after Jackie Robinson).  The Elks Club? Desegregated over 100 years after their founding in 1868. Atheists still cannot be members.

Do people realize that the South was segregated until the 1960's (Google Jim Crow laws)? Augusta National was definitely part of the South. Maybe the young people on here are just learning about this sad part of our history, and feel the need to rehash it over and over as if it is current news. Augusta National seems to be the target in their enlightened blame game.

Costas is a knowledgeable guy, but like any media person, he has a need to stay in the spotlight. Finding controversial subjects, even where none exist, is his job, I suppose.

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by trackster

I think you want the singular form, woman, there.

While I agree that Augusta can admit who ever they want as members it doesn't mean that they don't have a history of being sexist and racist.  I agree with the arguments that you can't blame past members actions but some of this is a bit ridiculous.  Not admitting your first black member until 1990 and not admitting your first woman until 2012, is a blatant example of racism and sexism.  The not admitting a black member until 1990 is what bothers me the most.  It is okay to establish yourself as an all men's club, many places do, but to be an all white club up through the 80's, 33 years after baseball's color barrier was broken, and 15-20 years after major civil rights movements is a disgrace.

Like Harmonious said, basically all institutions that have been around awhile have a history of sexism and racism.  At some point we move past it.  I would argue that regardless of whether or not its one woman (actually it was 2) or one black member (not sure how many there are now, but at least one - Lynn Swann) it's significant.  Look at it from the point of view of said member.  Would Condoleeza Rice really want to join a group that she thought were a bunch of sexists?  Would Lynn Swann really want to hang out with a bunch of white racists?  To say yes, I believe, would be an enormous insult to them.

[sacm3bill]

Originally Posted by trackster

Quote:

Originally Posted by iacas

They're not only a private club, they're a private club with white males, black males, white women, black women, and other nationalities too.

I think you want the singular form, woman, there.

There may be only one white woman and one black woman that we know of - doesn't mean there aren't more who have been invited to join since. Augusta is not in the habit of advertising who its new members are. The admittance of those first two women members were only advertised to placate the people (like some on this forum) who like to make a big deal about it.

[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.

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

Would Condoleeza Rice really want to join a group that she thought were a bunch of sexists?

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."

[Golfingdad]

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?

[phan52]

Originally Posted by mvmac

He was on the Dan Patrick show.  Nothing against him for doing that, part of his job to go out there and make appearances, sharing his opinions on different subjects.  That is promotion imo.  Mentioning the Masters the way he did guarantees he gets his name mentioned on various media outlets, stirs the pot.  If he went on shows and was "boring", his brand would suffer.

He didn't bring it up. was asked to participate in a suckup job for Jim Nance and the Masters, he chose not to, and he explained why.

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by phan52

He didn't bring it up. was asked to participate in a suckup job for Jim Nance and the Masters, he chose not to, and he explained why.

Not exactly.  It says he was asked to imitate Jim Nantz' voice during the Masters ... that sounds more like an opportunity to make fun of him, not suck up to him.  Then he segue'd into his rant.

[phan52]

Quote:

He didn't bring it up. was asked to participate in a suckup job for Jim Nance and the Masters, he chose not to, and he explained why.

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

Not exactly.  It says he was asked to imitate Jim Nantz' voice during the Masters ... that sounds more like an opportunity to make fun of him, not suck up to him.  Then he segue'd into his rant.

Frankly, I think you are making a distinction without a difference but, whatever. His "segue" was not out of context.

[dsc123]

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

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.

But you'd agree that some people might join the group that discriminates against them, right?  Linda Brown went to Sumner Elementary (or by the time Brown v. Bd. of Ed was decided, probably Topeka Middle School or High School), right?  Jackie Robinson joined the Dodgers.  Somebody has to be the person willing to take the first step.  I'm just saying that I don't think we should assume that Augusta members are not sexist because Condi wouldn't have joined if they were.

[sacm3bill]

Originally Posted by phan52

Quote:

Quote:

He didn't bring it up. was asked to participate in a suckup job for Jim Nance and the Masters, he chose not to, and he explained why.

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

Not exactly.  It says he was asked to imitate Jim Nantz' voice during the Masters ... that sounds more like an opportunity to make fun of him, not suck up to him.  Then he segue'd into his rant.

Frankly, I think you are making a distinction without a difference but, whatever. His "segue" was not out of context.

Going from "Jim Nance" as the topic to "racism" as the topic is hardly a smooth segue.

[Stretch]

"The past is never dead. It's not even past." -- William Faulkner.

[dsc123]

Originally Posted by phan52

Frankly, I think you are making a distinction without a difference but, whatever. His "segue" was not out of context.

I didn't listen live, but it seems like Costas took the conversation there on his own.  Then again, I can see how one might think that making fun of Nantz's hushed voice is related to his extreme reverence to ANGC and then to his whitewashing of its history.

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by dsc123

But you'd agree that some people might join the group that discriminates against them, right?  Linda Brown went to Sumner Elementary (or by the time Brown v. Bd. of Ed was decided, probably Topeka Middle School or High School), right?  Jackie Robinson joined the Dodgers.  Somebody has to be the person willing to take the first step.  I'm just saying that I don't think we should assume that Augusta members are not sexist because Condi wouldn't have joined if they were.

I see your point, but I also see a big difference in Jackie Robinson breaking the color barrier vs. Condoleeza Rice playing at a really nice golf course.

Jackie Robinson didn't have 9 million other practically equal (and accepting) baseball leagues to choose from.  Condoleeza Rice can golf wherever she wants and I can't imagine it's really THAT important to her that she "take a stand" against of bunch of old white sexist pigs at one stupid club.  Is there really that much to gain?  As opposed to the other two examples where there an enormous amount to gain.

And, yes, I ackowledge that my whole argument is based on speculation.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by trackster

I think you want the singular form, woman, there.

Nope. I didn't say as members. I just said they "have" them. Black women, white women, black men, white men, etc. have played Augusta National, been employed by the club, etc. for decades. Wives of members, are there as well, attend parties, play golf, etc.

And of course the patrons they allow in the gates every year have been all colors and both genders for decades as well. Plus, I hear there are more than two female members. The ones we know about were simply the first two.

Originally Posted by trackster

Not admitting your first black member until 1990 and not admitting your first woman until 2012, is a blatant example of racism and sexism.  The not admitting a black member until 1990 is what bothers me the most.

What's it to you?

Seriously? In what way did this affect your day-to-day life?

Originally Posted by trackster

"World number 1 not allowed to play in masters."

That's a hypothetical. Pretty sure he'd have played.

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.

Why?

What's any of that got to do with the golf tournament? They're not doing a documentary on Augusta. They're framing the story of the Masters. They're putting on a TV show. They have two audiences: Augusta National, and us, the regular viewers. Both need to be pleased so they can continue to put on the show the next year, and the year after that, and so on.

[Spyder]

Until Mr. Payne sends me an invitation letter and I am accepted as a member, I honestly could care less what they do. This isn't beneficial to the debate that you guys are having, but I guess my point is why does anyone care that much in general? Their decisions have no impact on my life in any way.

[Mac62]

Originally Posted by dsc123

Quote:

Originally Posted by phan52

Frankly, I think you are making a distinction without a difference but, whatever. His "segue" was not out of context.

I didn't listen live, but it seems like Costas took the conversation there on his own.  Then again, I can see how one might think that making fun of Nantz's hushed voice is related to his extreme reverence to ANGC and then to his whitewashing of its history.

I don't see how it can be considered "whitewashing".  There's a middle ground somewhere between "unnecessarily stirring the pot" and "whitewashing", and I think that's where sports commentary should fall.  Baseball announcers don't talk about segregation, the Negro Leagues and Jackie Robinson breaking the race barrier during the World Series; Olympic commentators don't feel the need to bring up the multiple boycotts that have taken place over the years for various racial/political reasons.  I've never heard an NHL announcer comment on the fact that the number of black and/or Hispanic players in the NHL can be counted on the fingers of one hand.  Announcers/commentators should be just that - not muckrakers.  There would be no benefit or upside of Jim Nantz bringing up Augusta's past "indiscretions" (if you want to call them that) in the course of the Masters Tournament.  If the pot stirrers want to do it outside of that context they're free to do so, but IMO it would bring nothing positive to the course of the tournament itself.