I was at the breakfast nook table on the laptop, next to the family room, while the local news was on last night. When I heard the Sports anchor tease his next story: "Could Tiger be roaming free? Why some are unhappy they just can't cage him." My head immediately snapped right toward the TV and I said aloud to myself - "What the hell???"
Now, living in the belly of the beast, I'm not often surprised about things I hear that pass for a professional newscast. But skin-folk, "roaming free?" And some (now who, could that some, be?), being "unhappy about not being able to cage" skin-folk? Well! I just thought that deserved my undivided attention.
Turns out, he was talking about the Golf Writers Association of America being pissed off that Tiger wouldn't let them all come to his official "Apology Conference" and, that he had decreed - Yeah, I said DECREED, because that's, primarily, what "This shit right here?" is about (Sorry, had a spell of Katt Williams remix all of a sudden).
He also decreed, that no one could ask him MORE sordid questions, about this whole sordid affair. I could just hear them screeching (in private of course) - "Who in the he-e-e-l-l does he think he is, telling US what we can, and cannot do??!!"
I couldn't find the video on the local news site, but here's a short, pre-Apology Conference piece from the Globe and Mail - Golf Writers boycott Woods' conference. Let me save you some time (it's very short):
“I cannot stress how strongly our board felt that this should be open to all media and also for the opportunity to question Woods,” said Vartan Kupelian, president of the 950-member group (emphasis mine).What damn - GOLF things - do they want to question him about?
“The position, simply put, is all or none. This is a major story of international scope. To limit the ability of journalists to attend, listen, see and question Woods goes against the grain of everything we believe.” (emphasis mine)This is an international - GOLF story??? To limit the ability of journalists to attend, listen, see and question (no Mr. huh?) Woods goes against the grain of everything they believe about - GOLF? Yeah, right. More like "goes against everything they believe" about skin-folk/kinfolk knowing their damn place.
The GWAA said it believes strongly that its presence, without the ability to ask question, gives credibility to an event that isn’t worthy of it. (emphasis mine)Okay, you're tellin' me that whether they're there or not - MATTERS??!! And, "W-O-R-T-H-Y?" Really?? Jesus please take the wheel!!! Who are these people???
I couldn't find a photo of the Board of Directors or the whole group, but here's one admitted member (he gets around to that admission at the end of that piece), Steve Elling - with yet another piece in less than 24 hours: "Tiger must serve penance for repentance to be believed." Man, the way, "I'm your Massa" just hovers over his headline, I'm not surprised he's not - "Cablanasian." You?
"Credibility??" Golf didn't have "credibility" before they came on the scene?? White Americans, and those,"I've-arrived-cuz-I-think-like-them" others - REALLY need to get a grip. Will somebody please tell the Golf Writers of America Association they ain't all that?! If anybody had JACK to do with golf's now, highly touted presence as a sport here in the US of A, it was Tiger - not them "writing about Tiger!"
I tell you, they make me long for those, I-can-say-what-I-wanna, in your face, privileged and out-in-the-open white supremacists with whom I grew up in South Carolina! You know, like good, ole Fuzzy Zoeller. You remember him don't you? From back in 1997, when Tiger
Instead, what we have, is just another group dripping of white, American, patriarchal privilege, cloaked in an extremely inflated sense of journalistic self-importance, making up a reason why they're picking up their marbles and going home. (They need to stop that damn lying!)
No need to post the whole, handler-orchestrated-with-some-input-from-Tiger mea culpa here, I'm sure you've heard it a million times - today. But just watch this little piece:
Just this little snippet is worth noting for a couple of reasons: 1) staged or not, he pretty much took full responsibility with all the "I" did this and "I" did that. Okay, so I'm not buying the whole "treatment" shit (sex addiction rehab? Who is he, David Duchovney?) - IMHO, that's surely handler-orchestrated. And, 2) Look at that boy's Mama ya'll! Watching the entire 13+ minute video, I just couldn't help it - my heart just ached for this woman, trying to show her "unconditional love" for her son - by sitting through that shit! She couldn't even look at him through it all.
Quick story: While visiting the grandparents in 2005 with their father, my sons had this picture taken at the annual 15k/5k Boilermaker held in upstate New York just before the youngest ran the 5k race. The event draws sponsors of all stripes, to include Buick - for whom Tiger was the - then - front man.
When they got home and showed it to me, I said, "Great picture! So what's he like?" They both started to make up some story, but just couldn't carry the lie. Rolling on the floor laughing, they said, "Mom, it ain't real!"
Which brings me to another point I've been pondering: The photo is an ILLUSION. It's merely a slick piece of promotional marketing that Buick created with the use of a "green screen," much like the man whose name is not only on the lips of many a disappointed fan and huffy journalist, but also upon the lips of those who used to - and/or still do - pay big bucks to have him "endorse their "goods." All any of us will ever know for sure, is that the man is a phenomenal - GOLFER.
But none of this never-ending hullabaloo is really about - GOLF!! Or is it just me? Same thing when Miss Kelly made her back-handed, clearly privileged, supremacist-state-of-mind compliment about how the only way young GOLFERS could challenge Tiger and beat him, was to take his ass out and "lynch him in a back alley." Only difference is, that two-week suspension she earned was a little bit about - GOLF!
Let's be clear - with or without their cutting off their noses to spite their damn faces - I still care more about the continued negative framing of Black men by the White Supremacist Capitalist Patriarchy (WSCP), than I do about why he did what he's done. Far as I'm concerned, it doesn't really "come befo' me," (as my Grandmama used to say). That's between him and the wife on how they work out lying to each other - and themselves.
But, "This shit right here??" (go away Katt!) is different:
Annie Leibovitz had to say about this little gem she took, held and later published when the shit was heatin' up (Yes, some women do enjoy a larger-than-they'll-admit role in the WSCP):
“Tiger is an intensely competitive athlete—and quite serious about his sport. I wanted to reveal that in these photos. And to show his incredible focus and dedication.”What in the-e hell does that have do with him being naked from the waist up, flexin' with two weights, wearin' a skully, lookin' like he's takin' advantage of his 1-hour of "yard time??"
Not a damn thing, that's what. But Leibovitz, Vanity Fair and less recently - Vogue all have a problem with owning their shit - just like the GWAA, Harry Reid and a whole lot of white folk.
Remember this lovely re-creation of an old, Army recruitment poster by Miss
This not-subtley titled piece from guardianuk.com back then - Spot the difference: what is this US Vogue cover trying to say? - said it better than I ever could:
A look at how Vogue treated the pictures of Richard Gere in 1992 and George Clooney in 2000, the only other men to have graced the cover in the fashion magazine's 116-year history, may prove instructive.King James ain't the only one.
Gere and Clooney appeared with supermodels, too. In Gere's case, Cindy Crawford; in Clooney's, Bündchen. There the similarities end: unlike James, Gere and Clooney look stylish and classy as they cosy up to their partners. As a blogger at Guanabee.com puts it: "The last time Gisele was on the cover she got to hug the [white guy] back."
And that, coupled with the remarkable similarity of the images, is why so many people believe Vogue has quite deliberately made a monkey out of King James. (emphasis mine)
Seems like unless and until Tiger grovels at their feet rather than being "obviously defiant" as Elling noted in that second article above - we'll be hearing way more shit about who is, or has been, sharing his bed, or car, or couch or whatever from these clowns. My advice to him is, "Get back on the links and go to work!" PLAY GOLF! Sooner or later, they'll all be back - who they are, won't let them stay away.
And the beat goes on...
UPDATE: As my blog sister Cinie so aptly pointed out in her comment - it's not just white folk. I alluded to that point above when I said, "White Americans, and those,"I've-arrived-cuz-I-think-like-them" others - REALLY need to get a grip," and also when I mentioned that women too play a part in the WSCP. But let me just be clear. To my mind, it all flows from the traumatic, inhumane and systematic domination of white folk in the lives of people of color. And when and if, we talk about race (for real), I think that's an important point to understand. So I thought I'd call on my Sister, bell hooks, to help me clarify. In this 8:41 second video, she begins by explaining "motivated representations" (such as the Vanity Fair and Vogue covers here). Then, around the 4:29 click, she explains the White Supremacist Capitalist Patriarchy in a way that I think will put my use of the term hence, in a much clearer perspective. Enjoy!)