GolfHos

http://cbs.sportsline.com/golf/story/10567636

""We are in an era now where we see hangman's nooses all over again."

??? ??? ???

Somebody help a Utah boy out and tell me in what parts of the country are hangman's nooses in vogue.

edit:  Found it in the corresponding ESPN article which didn't cut half the story.

http://sports.espn.go.com/golf/news/story?id=3189374&campaign=rss&source=ESPNHeadlines

I like Tilghman.  I don't think she should be fired.  I know my mouth moves faster than my brain sometimes.  We're all human.  But when you are an anchor for a nationally televised broadcast, you can not say (in reference to a black man) "lynch him in a back alley".

This kind of *feces* really chaps my ass! I am not a racist by any means but what drives me nuts is what I hear every day at work. Where I work the population is probably 50% black, 20% Hispanic, 15% oriental and 15% Caucasian. I hear the how the black population at work talk to each other, what they call each other, what they say, etc... If I were to say anything like that I would be sued, beat up, and shot (not necessarily in that order). I have to talk like I am walking on pins an needles yet in the same conversation (that I am participating in) they are calling each other the N word like it's a nickname.

If these comments or words are so offensive they why the hell is it OK for them to say it!

I look at people at work by the personality they have not the color of their skin, yet I have to so I don't accidentally offend them by saying the very same thing they are.

 :yield:

Is it this lunchroom?

I don't agree with what Tilgham said. I think it's wrong. I think stuff like that is wrong no matter who says it or what your skin color is. If you want a politically correct world then the rules should be the same for everyone, none of this "it's OK if I say it but not if you say it" crap!

Tilghman didn't use the N-word.  I don't know if she honestly just picked the word "lynch" to convey "dispose of" or if her subconscious delivered it to her because she had the image of a black man in her head.  Either way, I can't see it as equivalent to referencing him via "****".

But as it stands, black coworkers tossing around the word "****" in front of whites/Asians/others already is actionable -- hostile workplace and all that.  It's not like the users of that word get a free pass.

Your right she didn't use that word. But if she were to say the same thing about Phil M. it would be a non issue. I'm not saying Bryant Gumble would be able to get away with it ether but he might not take the flak that she is.

Well, the strongest likelihood that racist sentiment underlies the remark is when a white broadcaster says it in reference to a black athlete.  Of course there'd be less furor if she'd said it in reference to Mickelson, Goosen or Furyk.

You do have to wonder, though, why "lynching" popped into her head instead of any of the myriad other terms/metaphors she could have used.  It's not like "lynching" is all that popular a term in the modern vernacular.


But her best tactic at this point is to distract everyone by claiming that she meant "lynching" in the erotic asphyxiation sense.

(http://www.sf360.org/features/pfa_max_bluevelvet.jpg)

Excellent point/talker.

And give a lot of weight, give that the term is never associated with a "back alley".

She may have meant mugged, accosted, sacked, and like you said, a myriad of other violent aggressive actions.....but she said "lynch".

Will you let Michael Hutchence rest in peace.

That and post pictures of herself in lingerie on myspace.

Tilghman probably doesn't/didn't understand that the term "lynch" pretty much means to "kill" by hanging. It doesn't mean to simply "bind with a rope", which is probably what she meant to say (i.e. the only way to slow down Tiger is to bind him up and toss him in a back alley so that he isn't able to play in a tournament). The only notable metaphorical use of that term that I can recall is when Clarence Thomas described the Anita Hill investigations as a "high-tech lynching". It was an appropriate metaphor in that case because he believed that the investigations were intended to "kill" his reputation and career.

I can see Tilghman's comment as being an honest mistake, but if you're in broadcasting, your only job is to speak and to speak well. If she got fired because of a mistake in what she said, then so be it.

 ;D

 [sm_laughatyou] [sm_rolling]  ;D

I had to go through quite a lengthy set of images before I found one that was appropriate. All I can say is that I'm quite impressed.

As much as I would like to believe this I just don't. She's pretty close to my age. We know what it means.


And in broadcasting or public speaking you have to train this little voice inside your head to say "Nah...I better not say that", and the voice has to react 1/1000 of a second before you engage your mouth, now sometimes it's not an easy voice to train, and sometimes we don't always listen to the voice, (see Imus, Fuzzy Zoeller, or Ben (boobs get in the way) Wright


And if a white male broadcaster or public speaker would have made this statement (or any racially charged statement) regarding Tiger or any athlete of color for that matter, that broadcaster would be fired the very next day (see examples above).

I think she's getting a pass because she's a female, and also because she's a very pretty female in a male dominated profession.

Then again I would like to get Teed's take on it, or anyone else in the African American community not named Sharpton or Jackson.

That one guy named Woods has spoken out.  Something about "it's a non-issue" I think.

But yeah, I'd like to here what your average black man has to say.  Being as I live in Utah and don't have Jazz tickets I think Teed might be the only chance I have.   ;) ;D

j/k.  It's not quite that white bread here but if you take away HAFB personnel and college students you could go days, possibly weeks, without seeing a person of color. 

Well, he pretty much has to say that, it's part of taking the high road. Did he say that or did his "people" (meaning staff) say that?
Besides he also said the Fuzzy Zoeller remark was just "Fuzzy being Fuzzy" and he laughed about it, how'd that work out for Fuzzy Zoeller?

Tiger said about the same thing after Zoeller's remarks. Perhaps he's not so in touch with his black heritage. He is, after all, only 1/4 black. Maybe he'll react differently if somebody makes an offensive comment about Asians.

Yup. It's part of protecting your endorsement deals. Sponsors don't want to see any prolonged controversy whether the athlete is the cause of the controversy or not. The quicker the controversy dies, the better.

Well, I believe he believes it.  Something tells me he doesn't get wrapped around an axle over a honest mistake (by a friend no less.)  It strikes me that if he thought the statement was truly vicious he'd have something fairly strong to say about it.

I'm not saying it wasn't a dumbass thing to say but given what we know about Tilghman I doubt she used the word in the way Sharpton makes out.   Once again, my outraged and incensed meter is barely fluttering.  Poverty, famine, AIDS and genocide in Africa/elsewhere - these are the things Sharpton should focus on when it comes to the plight of the black man.  I'd support him with my heart and my wallet assuming I could get past my notion that he's a power/money grubbing bastard. 

People aren't racist because they utter one bad word nor if they hear it.  I doubt thousands flipped over and became haters due to Tilghman's statement.  Should it be minimized to the point of eradication?  Sure, why not, but calling for someone's head just makes people resent you and your message.  Sharpton's a clown and this goes toward proof.

The goose and the gander surrender. Or in this discussion is it the gander and the goose?

But the comment does shed some light on her level of intelligence or knowledge of history. Although I don't hate her for what she said, my opinion of her has gone down.

Does and has.  I've seen him react (most notably after winning the '97 Masters) to what he perceived a lack of respect toward his Asian heritage, by calling him a black golfer.

That's cool.  We're all entitled to our opinion.  I guess it depends where we come from / where we stand.  For me, the word 'lynch' doesn't conjure up mental images of blacks hanging from trees.  It's not in my vernacular and I promise you, had I had heard it live, it wouldn't have registered in that context.  No chance at all.

Perspective.  The word 'boycott' comes from my heritage.  I know what it means and what it represented but when someone uses it I don't draw the parallel.  I understand being *fudge*ed out of owning your own land and being strung up to die are different.  I'm just saying the "well, I never!!!" connection isn't made for me when someone uses either word. 

If we step back from this issue and have it look I think we see that it's not defcon-4.  I think if all the Hos got in a room together we could list 999 things that are more harmful to black America than the unfortunate use of a word with a historical context by a golf commentator.  But for a week in January 2008 those other things will get little to no attention.   That's shameful IMO.

I would be really afraid if we got all Hos together in a room. Especially if Clive has his "game on".

In your mind, what is the difference between the 19th century definition and the 20th/21st century definition of the word "boycott"? And what is the difference between the 19th century definition and the 20th/21st century definition of the word "lynch"?



But sweeping issue #1000 under the rug like it never happened doesn't make the other 999 go away.

The definitions are the definitions.  No need to quote them here I think as we both know what they mean even if we're not 100% according to Webster.  The former is derived from a person's name.  The latter, I haven't a clue of its origins.  In 19th century Ireland people died in boycotts - both land agents/owners and peasants when the military was brought in to pacify them.  Pretty much every time there's a lynching someone dies unless they get very lucky.  Someone other than an Irishman/Anglo-Irishman can be involved in a boycott.  Someone other than a black American/white bigot can be involved in a lynching.  They both have historical contexts and the latter term's history is not uniquely American.

I don't think I get your question.  Hopefully I've answered. 


Nope.  Addressing #1000 doesn't make the other 999 go away either.  It simply consumes resources better served going after the others.

You didn't, so allow me to answer for you. The 20th/21st century definition of "boycott" has been generalized to mean "refrain from buying products/services of a particular company", which has no ethnic connotations and in most cases is used innocuously. The word "lynch" is also derived from a person's name, and (according to dictionary.com) it was originally defined as "any sort of summary justice, especially by flogging". The 20th/21st definition still pertains to summary judgment, but now it's primarily associated with hanging, incidences of which have occurred with some regularity as recently as 40 years ago.


Addressing #1000 could bring awareness that the 999 other issues even exist. #1000 could also be related to a significant portion of the other 999 issues. Eliminate the cause of #1000 and you might eliminate the cause of many, many others.

gleek, I suspect we're of like mind on the broad subject.  Racism is evil.  If the word evil doesn't work for you I still think you know what I mean.

We'll probably just have to agree to disagree on whether or not the story at hand rises to a racism context.  I suspect you think so.  I think so too now but only because of the characters who popped up in the days subsequent to the event. 

It's all good.   8)

Since you say that the word "lynching" isn't part of your vernacular, I'd be curious to find out in what context you've seen or heard that word used. It's not like I use that word every day either, but when I typically see or hear it, it's not in some lighthearted context. It's generally about an actual killing or a metaphorical killing of somebody's character or reputation.

Well stated by all parties.  Interesting how time, distance, environment, upbringing, and a plethora of other factors play into what the impact of what we hear and say every day does or does not do to us as individuals, and as a society.

I grew up in the Southeast, and that no doubt lends to my reaction/interpretation of lynch.

It sends practically the same shivers to me as my brother in law's use of the word ****.

I think it's demonstrative, we still have a way to go.

I'll think about the other 999, even though 1k is the hot button for today, and be the change I want to see.   :)

(http://www.realdealmemorabilia.com/lynchbroncos16x20.jpg)

 ;D

Sure, same as you.  I think of a hanging.  That's what it means to me.  Nothing other. 

I just don't think of the KKK running around stringing black people up.  I think of a hanging.  If a picture comes to mind it is probably Tuco.   ;)

(http://www.geocities.com/ug97057/goodbadugly/banner.jpg)

So hanging is bad, that's a given.  I don't think Tilghman meant that the other players should murder Tiger.  She could have said kneecap, slit his throat, drop him down a hole, shoot the bastard, whatever.  It was all rhetorical and I don't see how it can be presented as a racial attack.  Could she have used a better word?  Sure.  But mainly because, in hindsight, a *feces* storm was sure to follow.

Uh, but aren't you forgetting that Tiger is, in fact, (at least partly) black? Can you seriously say that the suggestion of Tiger's adversaries (99% of whom are white) "lynching" him wouldn't conjure up images in the minds of most Americans of a white lynch mob hanging a black man who whistled at a white woman? In my mind, it's virtually impossible to remove the racist aspect of what that word means.

Exactly. Which is why I gave her a pass and assumed that she was simply ignorant of the meaning of the word or its connotations.

I didn't think it was a racial attack either. It was simply a dumbass thing to say. Whether or not she deserves to be fired for being a dumbass is for somebody else to decide.


Whether or not she COULD HAVE used a better word is a matter of her intelligence or lack thereof. Whether of not she SHOULD HAVE used a better word is clearly obvious.

Probably stemming from my watching all the western shows through the course of my life, but when I hear the term 'lynching', the thing that comes to MY mind is all the angry mob, congregating around the jailhouse, getting ready to lynch the fellow, in the jail, who might have stolen their cattle, or murdered a resident of the town, or something like that.  The other vision, I get, is when the bad guys decide to lynch one of the good guys because he is holding them back from profiting in their scheme. (Lynch the land holder because he won't sign his land over to the local tyrant.)
I DON"T think that the words of Kelly Tilghman were meant to say 'Let's take that black guy out and hang him up so all the other black guys who want to be golfers will know better', which is what the 'right reverend' is trying to accuse her of.
And yes, I ended that last sentence with a preposition.

No, I'm not forgetting Tiger is, in fact, black.  I think this is covered ground.


That's exactly what I'm saying.  Seriously.  But I'm only 42.  Black men hanging for whistling at white women is a bit before my time.  Perhaps it's different for you/others.

You can have your opinion gleek and I'm not challenging it.  I'm not putting words in your mouth or suggesting you should think/feel any way other than you do.  Let's return the favor please.

Aren't you being a bit hypocritical here? I really don't give a rat's ass if you think the word "lynch" has racist connotations or not. Seriously. You're free to have that opinion. The problem is that you have a problem others thinking that it's a racist comment. I called Tilghman a dumbass (which I don't think you can argue), but I also said keep her or fire her. I don't give a *feces*. It's not for me to decide. On the other hand, you did weigh in with your opinion about Sharpton's involvement in this, called this a whole thing a "*feces* storm", and said that blacks should worry about other things. Who's the one trying to change others' opinions here?

I'm not trying to change anyone's opinion.  I'm offering mine.  If you think I'm a hypocrite, maybe even an *bunghole*, whatever, that's your opinion and that's fine too.  From threads over the past few years I gather that you have strong feelings on the subject and I shouldn't have engaged.  My bad. 

I think if you'll look back at my comments you'll find they're pretty tame with no implied sarcasm.  You brought that.  I had something strong to say about Al Sharpton and I stand by that.  He's long since lost all credibility in my book.  Excepting that, I repeatedly said that everyone's entitled to their opinion.  I don't think offering mine means I'm trying to change others.  It's a futile exercise and I know that.  Nor do I care what others think.  I thought we were just offering our own views.  We were doing so and you got a bit sarcastic and I asked you to ramp it down.  I'm sorry if I came across as something other than reasonable as I did strive for that.

We can just agree to disagree.  Seems like the best approach.

You know what.

It's nice to have an adult conversation once in awhile, we don't do it enough and it's nice to activate that side of the brain. We generally have a lot of fun and we talk about a lot of different subjects, we really don't go to deep for obvious reasons. Is this thread as important as say, AIDS or world hunger, of course not, but I say again it's nice once in awhile to have a deeper discussion.

I think we've all seen the territorial pissings and poop flinging in other places, and we GolfHos all have been very respectful of our other members in regards to **** and religion, and our various dogmas and practices. And this thread is no different, it's been very nice and civil...BUT...

...It may be time to end this one, it's starting have a bad discussion board feel. When something as trivial like a golf broadcaster saying something egregious carries over for two days, it has some sort of paparazzi chasing Paris Hilton feel. Just my two cents.

Can we pass the peace pipe now and just tune out?
-wI6uAOHzvo

I really don't know what we're disagreeing about. I don't see this as a debate, unless you want to discuss whether or not Kelly Tilghman should be fired.

Before this thread turned into finger pointing about who's trying to change whose opinion, my line of questioning (to you) was really to figure out how your impression of the word "lynch" is so vastly different than mine. BFBoy explicitly stated that he was influenced by old westerns, and you implied the same with the picture that you posted.

Those movies were way before my time, but I'm aware of their existence and know about some of their plot devices. Yes, I know lynchings may have been depicted therein. Whether or not they were depicted as racially motivated acts, I don't know. I hate *goshdarn* westerns, so I avoid them if I can. Being younger than you are, I'm even farther removed from the Civil Rights Movement and the last cases of systematic lynchings of blacks by racist whites. But I don't live in a box, so I'm exposed to memories of this country's past. Whether it's through news articles/editorials, documentaries on the History Channel, or (semi-)fictionalized Hollywood films like Mississippi Burning, I've come to know the historical implications of the image of a "colored person" being "lynched in a back alley". Perhaps you can give a clue about how you might have been insulated from the same. That's really all that I was wondering.

As far as "my strong feelings about this subject" are concerned, I'm not going to pretend that I know if hearing whatever Kelly Tilghman said causes pain to blacks because of the memories it may have conjured up. Maybe it doesn't at all, but I will acknowledge that others just might have a bit more perspective on the subject than I do. I've never walked in another man's shoes. I don't care to walk in another man's shoes. But it is within my capacity to imagine that those shoes could be uncomfortable, and if he bitches and moans about how painful they are, I don't tell him to suck it up and worry about something else. That's just the way I roll, I guess.

My ten cents worth.
Boring PC overload, that this Al guy is carrying-on about so he can have his name in the media.
I have heard of black guys being well hung..................I suppose this is wrong as well. [sm_shock]

(http://www.movieactors.com/freezeframes5/blazingsad55.jpeg)

who started this stupid thread anyways
 ::)

Please mark as:  Exhibit B  (http://www.golfhos.com/topic-6106.msg78351#msg78351)

FYI: if the cyber-nanny finds a naughty in your URL, she changes it and the image doesn't appear.

gleek did it.