Kelly Tilghman controversy (golf channel) (2 Viewers)

[st dude]

1. Its pretty clear to me Tilghman did not mean her comment ot be racist. I watch a lot of golf channel and she is obviously a big Tiger Woods fan. He immediately made an announcement saying he didnt think she meant it that way as contrasted to the way he was obviously offended by Fuzzy Zoellers remarks and was quiet for a long time.

2. Its not clear if subconsciously she did not choose the word "lynch' because Woods is black. She might not even know. It was an incredible poor choice of words. The suspension seems appropriate to me, she is a public figure herself and she has to be smarter than that.

3. Sharpton has always been a racist to me. Calling for this girls job because of one mis speak is ridiculous. Most balck sports announcers who know Tilghman have supported her while acknowledging her words were poorly chosen.

4. People need to be judged on all they do, not one thing. Imus had a history of racially insensitive remarks and I understood why some were calling for his job. What he said about the Rutgers women could hardly be argued to be subconcious. Tilghman would have never used the word "lynch" if she consciously associated it with black history.

5. I dont think you can dismiss her remark as harmless. She is a professional announcer and needs to do better. Nor do I think its fair to blow this out of proportion and lable her unfairly. Extreme views on either side of an issue are almost always wrong.

 

[DavidM]

Further, you even taking the time to write that you don't take cues from the likes of Sharpton is just damn funny. I'm pretty sure that everyone here is clear on that.

Yeah, you're probably right about that. There probably isn't anybody on this board that really needs to address that point in reference to themselves.

I think we are perceiving different tones, tenor and meaning. Not sure what to do with that. Still, I would like to know if you said the exact same thing to or about a white coworker in the same perceived tone, tenor, and meaning, would you expect to be reprimanded or fired?

Good question and it gives me an opportunity to address what has been part of my point all along.

I'll parallel the Fuzzy Zoeller incident in trying to explain my stance.

If I said to a white coworker (and we'll assume an audience present) -- Man, it looks like it's going to be a great weekend. You should grab some fried chicken and head out to the park with your family. I might expect some odd looks for my Mayberry-esque idea of how to take advantage of the great weather, but I wouldn't expect anybody to be offended. I'm white. The coworker is white. The element of race cannot be an inferred part of the equation.

If I said to a black coworker (again in front of others), the same thing, I would expect a different reaction. I'm aware enough to know that, despite the fact that fried chicken is enjoyed across ethnic, cultural, and racial lines -- perception allows the same statement to become racially charged. It plays to a stereotype and would, in the world I live in, call into question my intentions. Simple enough to me -- while there's nothing inherently offensive about eating fried chicken, there's a pretty strong chance I would be perceived as an ignorant or insensitive ***.

I think it's much the same with the lynching comment. Perhaps I haven't been willing enough to embrace the racially-neutral meaning of lynching, but the fact remains that lynchings were a prominent occurrence used to murder blacks and terrorize the black community. She could have chosen any number of ways to make her point and yet, in an ill-advised moment and in speaking about a black man, chose one of the specific things that conjures up painful memories for many people and harkens to an ugly time in this nation's history.

And it takes no great effort to recognize this, IMO. If I was catching flack for suggesting a black coworker take her husband out to eat at Z-Tejas only to learn that implies something obscurely offensive, then I think we're dealing in the extreme. Or if Kelly Tilghman had said somebody should wrap Tiger in duct tape and hide him away during an event, and Sharpton was railing against her because somebody, somewhere in 1951 wrapped a black man up in duct tape, I'd say we're dealing in the extreme. But "fried chicken" and "lynchings" have well-known, negative, racially-charged connotations and/or stereotypes depending on the actors or in certain settings or use.

And Blakejam, I think you raise a fair point. I'm aware that there has been some shift away from the use of "black" for some people. Like many here, I grew up with "white" and "black" being the most commonly used descriptives by both black and white people. The best I can offer is that each seems engrained enough in our culture to still be widely accepted and generally non-offensive; and I just prefer it over Caucasian and African American (though I occassionally use African American but just really don't give it a great deal of thought.)

 

[shaqtaw]

if she wood have said take him in the alley and shoot him, would that be better.i'm sure more black men have been shot in this country than lynched. as i said earlier their is only americans in this country. if you are born in america you are an american not an african american.

 

[Sabine]

If I said to a white coworker (and we'll assume an audience present) -- Man, it looks like it's going to be a great weekend. You should grab some fried chicken and head out to the park with your family. I might expect some odd looks for my Mayberry-esque idea of how to take advantage of the great weather, but I wouldn't expect anybody to be offended. I'm white. The coworker is white. The element of race cannot be an inferred part of the equation.

If I said to a black coworker (again in front of others), the same thing, I would expect a different reaction. I'm aware enough to know that, despite the fact that fried chicken is enjoyed across ethnic, cultural, and racial lines -- perception allows the same statement to become racially charged. It plays to a stereotype and would, in the world I live in, call into question my intentions. Simple enough to me -- while there's nothing inherently offensive about eating fried chicken, there's a pretty strong chance I would be perceived as an ignorant or insensitive ***.

I think it's much the same with the lynching comment. Perhaps I haven't been willing enough to embrace the racially-neutral meaning of lynching, but the fact remains that lynchings were a prominent occurrence used to murder blacks and terrorize the black community. She could have chosen any number of ways to make her point and yet, in an ill-advised moment and in speaking about a black man, chose one of the specific things that conjures up painful memories for many people and harkens to an ugly time in this nation's history.

And it takes no great effort to recognize this, IMO. If I was catching flack for suggesting a black coworker take her husband out to eat at Z-Tejas only to learn that implies something obscurely offensive, then I think we're dealing in the extreme. Or if Kelly Tilghman had said somebody should wrap Tiger in duct tape and hide him away during an event, and Sharpton was railing against her because somebody, somewhere in 1951 wrapped a black man up in duct tape, I'd say we're dealing in the extreme. But "fried chicken" and "lynchings" have well-known, negative, racially-charged connotations and/or stereotypes depending on the actors or in certain settings or use.

Why you insensitive little twit......... You've hit a sore spot. How dare you poke around in my old wounds like that. You should have known that among the SR.com community there would be people who avoid actual in-person contact because of bad past experiences associated with being unable to meet the high standards set forth in your post. I demand SR.com fire you immediately!

Seriously though, that's a pretty tall order, and it's too restrictive, for me that is. I've been tested, and I failed miserably. Okay, I'm thinking of an ex....... someone I knew well and cared a great deal about, but no matter...... I still managed to say (without a shred of malice) "things that conjured up painful memories" that the ex associated with "an ugly time" THAT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH ME!. For example, if I said someone else was smart, funny, good looking, or that I looked forward to see them, it could set off an emotional maelstrom because of the ex's past experience. Like Kelly Tilghman, I had a long track record of saying "the right things", things no one would have an issue with, then the 999th thing to come out of my mouth could, by the predisposed ex, be construed into meaning something other than I intended. Okay, 999 might be a stretch for my personal record, but you get my drift.

Now, this person was someone who was very intelligent, witty, responsible, jaw-dropping gorgeous, etc. that most wouldn't expect to be riddled with insecurities. But, they too discovered otherwise when they unintentionally said or did something that was taken the wrong way and hit a "sore spot".

For 5 years I tiptoed through that minefield, and it was so exhausting that it has taken me 7 years (and counting, apparently) to get over it. And I resent it, if that wasn't already obvious. Damn, I'm mad all of a sudden. It must be your fault.

My point is, some people are just going to wear their hearts on their sleeve, and setting the bar at the level that panders to them is not only too restrictive and impossible to maintain over an extended period of time, I just don't think it's good medicine for our society. It makes people want to go hide out on message boards.

But hey, if you can do it send your resume to Golf Channel. They need a temp.

"You're a bigger man than I, Gunga Din."
Edit: No offense intended toward the little people.
Edit: or the obese.
Edit: or the women.
Edit: or the British.
Edit: or the sub-Saharans.
Edit: or the American writers.

Did I leave anybody out?

 

[Shockmo]

So in other words.....for someone to beat Tiger Woods ....they would have to kill him first...sounds like a compliment to me.

 

[taygolf]

from what I have heard Tiger and her are good friends and she has already called him and he has said that he understands she meant nothing by it and they are good.

If he is cool with it then everyone else should be as well and yes I kind of think it was a compliment. basically she said no one can beat him

This is not a fuzzy zealer incident where Tiger was mad at him. Tiger is not mad at her.

T

 

[Shockmo]

the Fuzzy comments were offensive to me. I find the stereotypical type comments very offensive. We are all different in our own way.

 

[bclemms]

I agree that Fuzzy's comments were very offensive. What seperates the two is intent. Kelly was saying it with the intent to be funny and basically said that Tiger is the best golfer on the planet and in the process chose a word that is racially charged.

Fuzzy's intent was to be mean and hateful by using racial stereotypes.

HUGE DIFFERENCE

Again, I think she made a mistake but her punishment shouldn't have been more than an apology because the intent to make a racist comment simply was not there.

 

[CT Saints Fan]

I agree that Fuzzy's comments were very offensive. What seperates the two is intent. Kelly was saying it with the intent to be funny and basically said that Tiger is the best golfer on the planet and in the process chose a word that is racially charged.

Fuzzy's intent was to be mean and hateful by using racial stereotypes.

HUGE DIFFERENCE

Again, I think she made a mistake but her punishment shouldn't have been more than an apology because the intent to make a racist comment simply was not there.

Fuzzy's intent was to be funny too. He just didn't achieve it. Neither did Kelly.

 

[saintmdterps]

I certainly don't need some book of offensive references to know that a white person is going to face an understandable backlash for saying a black person should be lynched. The comment was, at best, completely out of line.

I had the same sort of conversation with an aquaintance of mine. He was predisposed toward use of the 'N" word, and dropped it during a football game. I told him I didn't appreciate hearing it, and felt using the word relected poorly on him (I'm white).

His response was that it wasn't that bad a word, and if you look in the dictionary it means an ignorant person. I said I didn't care what the defintion was, I knew what the connotation was, and, using his own idiotic logic, that it was pretty presumptive to assume this man was ignorant based on a single football play (which happened to be a great kickoff return followed by flipping the ball to the ref).

Point is, many words have connotations to certain groups. Use of the word "lynching" or ****** is certainly offensive to most blacks for completely understandable reasons. Pretty hard to play it any other way.

 

[saintmdterps]

I'd argue that the racial undertones of the word "lynch" are well-known in the common vernacular of American society. IMO, this renders the formal definition irrelevant when used in this unfortunate context. English is a big, muscular language; there is an infinite number of ways Tilghman could've conveyed the sentiment she was trying to convey without using such a loaded word.

I don't have a problem letting bygones be bygones -- Lord knows what kinds of stupid things I'd say if someone gave me a microphone and broadcast my voice across the nation -- but I'm a little more hesitant to blow off the remark itself. The lynching of blacks was damn near an epidemic in premodern America and I don't think we're far enough removed from that era to simply look at the usage of the word from a purely lexical standpoint.

I certainly understand your desire to get beyond all that. I just don't think we're there yet.

lus-un2: Especially unacceptable from someone in the media. You'd think they'd know better, but obviously not.