Yes. Yes It Was.


One man. Two boys. Twelve kids.

Related Post Roulette

35 Responses

  1. greginak says:

    ohhh golf fight….and they drop their gloves and swining on the green.

    But yeah, this was obviously a racially charged remark and pretending it wasn’t is silly.Report

  2. Pub Editor says:

    “but in no way was the comment meant in a racist manner.”

    You’re lying, Sergio. You absolutely meant what you said in a racialized manner.

    Question: Is there a distinction between those two adjectives? A difference in meaning that I am missing?Report

    • Kazzy in reply to Pub Editor says:

      For me, personally, what I meant was that I absolutely think Sergio was making a racial reference in using the term. But I don’t know if he was attempting to be explicitly racist. He may or may not acknowledge that the term was “racialized” in the way that I use that term.

      It doesn’t read so cleanly, I realize now.

      In a nut shell, when I use “racialized”, I mean that race played a factor in the outcome.
      When I use “racist”, I mean something that is explicitly and deliberately so with a clear intent to denigrate. His comment might have been the latter, but it certainly was the former.Report

      • Jim Heffman in reply to Kazzy says:

        ” when I use “racialized”, I mean that race played a factor in the outcome.”

        so…this is different from being racist *how*?

        Because you clearly feel that if Woods were a white guy, then Garcia wouldn’t have said anything about fried chicken.

        But you really *really* seem to *not* want to say that Garcia was being racist.

        Why? Why not just say “you’re a fuckin’ racist dude, end of conversation. END. OF. CONVERSATION.”Report

        • Kazzy in reply to Jim Heffman says:

          Because I think people can say racist or racialized things without actually being racist. Acts versus actors.Report

          • Jim Heffman in reply to Kazzy says:

            “I think people can say racist or racialized things without actually being racist.”

            Acts versus actors? You don’t say “You’re lying, Sergio” to someone who innocently made an inappropriate statement. You don’t say “double down on your apparent ignorance” to someone who you actually believe honestly did not know. You don’t reject their statement of “it wasn’t intended as an insult” if you think that it honestly didn’t result from intentional racism.

            Why is it so necessary for you to have a way to call people racists without just directly saying “you’re a racist”?

            …oh, I get it. Because if they are just doing racist *things* but aren’t actual *racists*, then you don’t have to be The Angry Guy Who Attacks Other People. You retain the moral superiority of the objective judge. And if they try to defend themselves, then *they’re* wrong, because hey–you aren’t being the angry guy who attacks, you’re just, y’know, pointing out “racialized” things. Not *your* fault they’re so dumb.Report

            • Kazzy in reply to Jim Heffman says:

              So your criticism is that I didn’t call him a racist? Got it.Report

            • Matty in reply to Jim Heffman says:

              The problem is that there is a distinction between racist(1) – a person who hates people of other races and racist(2) – an action or statement that has a negative effect on someone because of their race.

              The two are easy to mix up but not everyone who does racist(2) things is a racist(1) even if they know there is a racial effect. When you say “You’re a racist” people hear this as “You hate everyone who is a different race to you and that is your main motivation”. They are then going to get defensive and stop listening particularly if that isn’t true. If on the other hand you say something like “That joke was offensive to more people than Tiger Woods and here’s why..” at least some people will be more inclined to listen. Especially if we move away from this particular case to all the unthinking racism(2) that practically everyone does – assumptions about which areas are dangerous, hiring based on shared interests that sort by race etc.Report

        • George Turner in reply to Jim Heffman says:

          I support Kazzy’s distinction.

          If he had said he’s inviting Phil Mickelson or Fred Couples over and then added that he would serve lasagna, nobody would be accusing him of racism, even though technically it’s the same situation of linking a player to an ethnic stereotype (those two are both of Italian heritage, btw).

          But fried chicken (and watermelon) is still particularly close to the line as being an insult.Report

          • Kazzy in reply to George Turner says:

            Well, we should also add that ethnicity isn’t the same as race. If he made an ethnic joke about Italians, there would still be room for objection, but it wouldn’t be racism or racialized. Which doesn’t mean it’s less of an issue… just not the right term.Report

  3. Jim Heffman says:

    If Garcia had said “we’ll have him round for chimichangas”, should we still censure him for being racist?

    Because, y’know, burritos are also a racial-stereotype food of one of the parties involved in the conversation.Report

  4. Plinko says:

    At first thought, I wondered if this was some kind of bad play on the whole fried-chicken Masters comment made way back when about Tiger, but given the situation, I find it hard to believe or even excuse if it was.Report

    • Kazzy in reply to Plinko says:

      I’m not sure what’s worse… if he didn’t know that happened or if he did.

      With the former, it means he’s fairly ignorant of a major social event that happened in his sport while he was on the verge of achieving his tour card and/or that the PGA hasn’t used that as a teaching moment for changing the insider culture of the golf world.

      With the latter, it means he didn’t learn from that event or was doubling down on the idiocy.

      Both are pretty fished up.Report

  5. Will H. says:

    I think it’s overblown.
    Either that, or blacks can only be hired at KFC, Church’s, Popeye’s, etc. as a means of continuing the Plantation.

    If he would have said “Chitlins” or “Watermelon,” I would have thought that was racist.Report

  6. b-psycho says:

    Notice that of all the ethnic backgrounds of Tiger Woods, when anyone makes this kind of comment it’s always about his Blackness?

    He’s part Korean, yet nobody ever brings up Kim Chee.Report

  7. Mike Schilling says:

    Woods was a college student at the time. If Zoeller wanted to zing him, he could have simply said “Macaroni and cheese, over the sink because all the dishes are dirty.”Report