ccsl2 Posted January 17, 2008 Share Posted January 17, 2008 http://sports.espn.go.com/golf/news/story?id=3201070 Very interesting topic. Don't know if it is right or wrong to put a noose on the cover. It is provacative if nothing else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
China Posted January 17, 2008 Share Posted January 17, 2008 That's one way to sell magazines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ccsl2 Posted January 17, 2008 Author Share Posted January 17, 2008 That's one way to sell magazines. You got that right! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moorecards Posted January 18, 2008 Share Posted January 18, 2008 http://www.golf.com/golf/tours_news/article/0,28136,1704872,00.html one has lost his job over it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rincewind Posted January 18, 2008 Share Posted January 18, 2008 Completely tasteless. The PGA commisioner hit it on the head when he said they are just trying to relight a controversy that was coming to the rightful conclusion and that this smacks of tabloid journalism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
helptheSKINS Posted January 18, 2008 Share Posted January 18, 2008 Saw this last night on ESPN, thought to myself that someone's getting fired. What a bonehead and selfish move. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sith lord Posted January 18, 2008 Share Posted January 18, 2008 It was totally tasteless and someone deserved to get fired. And like that one guy said on First and Ten, Tiger Woods is one sorry individual for not commenting on these issues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rincewind Posted January 18, 2008 Share Posted January 18, 2008 It was totally tasteless and someone deserved to get fired. And like that one guy said on First and Ten, Tiger Woods is one sorry individual for not commenting on these issues. Really? He's sorry for taking the high ground? Why does he have to be a civil right crusader? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ccsl2 Posted January 18, 2008 Author Share Posted January 18, 2008 Really? He's sorry for taking the high ground? Why does he have to be a civil right crusader? He doesn't have to be. But people listen to Tiger. He has influence. If Tiger had made a comment, that cover would not have come out. IMO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rincewind Posted January 18, 2008 Share Posted January 18, 2008 He doesn't have to be. But people listen to Tiger. He has influence. If Tiger had made a comment, that cover would not have come out. IMO Don't get me wrong - I would have loved for Tiger to have made a comment and for him to come out strong against this crap (just like he should have when Fuzzy suggested fried chicken). But, just because he doesn't lower himself or get into pissing matches that there are no need for doesn't make him a 'sorry individual'. :2cents: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sith lord Posted January 18, 2008 Share Posted January 18, 2008 Really? He's sorry for taking the high ground? Why does he have to be a civil right crusader? If someone said this about a jewish person "the best way to stop him is to put him in a gas chamber" I guarantee you that that jewish person would have been livid. I just wish that Tiger would have a little more pride in being black than he shows. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sith lord Posted January 18, 2008 Share Posted January 18, 2008 Don't get me wrong - I would have loved for Tiger to have made a comment and for him to come out strong against this crap (just like he should have when Fuzzy suggested fried chicken). But, just because he doesn't lower himself or get into pissing matches that there are no need for doesn't make him a 'sorry individual'. :2cents: How would he had lowered himself by commenting? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rincewind Posted January 18, 2008 Share Posted January 18, 2008 How would he had lowered himself by commenting? I meant lower himself to their level - ie, get into a pissing match when I don't think its needed. Seems like its pretty obvious who is in the wrong here - Tiger has never been involved in race discussions before, why start now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spaceman Spiff Posted January 18, 2008 Share Posted January 18, 2008 If someone said this about a jewish person "the best way to stop him is to put him in a gas chamber" I guarantee you that that jewish person would have been livid. I just wish that Tiger would have a little more pride in being black than he shows. He's not black, he's Cablinasian. This reminds me of people ****ing about Michael Jordan not having a social conscience or something. Who cares? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sith lord Posted January 18, 2008 Share Posted January 18, 2008 He's not black, he's Cablinasian. This reminds me of people ****ing about Michael Jordan not having a social conscience or something. Who cares? I'm from the oldskool, if his dad's black, he's black. But people would care about what one of the most powerful men in sports has to say on these types of issues. EDIT: As with OJ and Micheal Jackson, if Tiger or Micheal Jordan were to ever get into some serious legal problems, you'll see how fast they embrace the black community then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spaceman Spiff Posted January 18, 2008 Share Posted January 18, 2008 I'm from the oldskool, if his dad's black, he's black. But people would care about what one of the most powerful men in sports has to say on these types of issues.EDIT: As with OJ and Micheal Jackson, if Tiger or Micheal Jordan were to ever get into some serious legal problems, you'll see how fast they embrace the black community then. Michael Jackson ain't black. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinstzar Posted January 18, 2008 Share Posted January 18, 2008 I get this magazine through work. It is more of an industry mag. It isn't like Golf Digest or Golf Magazine. It is geared a bit more towards the golf pro. It has low readership compared to other pubs. That being said it was still stupid. It fits under the saying "never bite the hand that feeds you". If I were Tiger I would never give this mag an interview, tip or sniff of anything positive. Tiger sells and if he speaks out against the editors then that mag will fizzle as it probably should have long ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinstzar Posted January 18, 2008 Share Posted January 18, 2008 It was totally tasteless and someone deserved to get fired. And like that one guy said on First and Ten, Tiger Woods is one sorry individual for not commenting on these issues. I disagree with you on that. Tiger Woods has better things to do with his time. He has never let any media gimmick distract him from his goals and practice routine. The second he lets things like this in his head his game will drop. That is what everyone wants anyway. He won't let it happen. Things like this don't phase Tiger. There will be a time for Tiger to step out of the shadows, but that time is not now. He is trying to dominate a sport like no one has done before. His game and greatness speak louder than any words he could speak on this issue. When his golf career is over he will champion his causes and do great things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iheartskins Posted January 18, 2008 Share Posted January 18, 2008 If someone said this about a jewish person "the best way to stop him is to put him in a gas chamber" I guarantee you that that jewish person would have been livid. I just wish that Tiger would have a little more pride in being black than he shows. You know, I was thinking about this... I'm not sure the analogy works. I understand it and don't completely disagree with it, but nooses have been used to kill murderers, thiefs, etc. and were the primary means of the government killing outlaws in the Old West (as well as being a mechanic of rascist groups). Gas chambers, to my knowledge, have only been used to kill Jews in World War II. Thus, I think its far more plausible to view the noose outside of racism and murdering blacks in the South than it is to view the gas chamber outside of slaughtering Jews in the Holocaust. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rincewind Posted January 18, 2008 Share Posted January 18, 2008 You know, I was thinking about this...I'm not sure the analogy works. I understand it and don't completely disagree with it, but nooses have been used to kill murderers, thiefs, etc. and were the primary means of the government killing outlaws in the Old West (as well as being a mechanic of rascist groups). Gas chambers, to my knowledge, have only been used to kill Jews in World War II. Thus, I think its far more plausible to view the noose outside of racism and murdering blacks in the South than it is to view the gas chamber outside of slaughtering Jews in the Holocaust. Eh... the noose has come to symbolize the lynchings of blacks. It is a symbol just like the gas chambers - which killed more than just Jews during WWII, just ask the gypsies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iheartskins Posted January 18, 2008 Share Posted January 18, 2008 Eh... the noose has come to symbolize the lynchings of blacks. It is a symbol just like the gas chambers - which killed more than just Jews during WWII, just ask the gypsies. Rince, You're missing the distinction. Nooses were used for lawful purposes to kill criminals who had committed capital crimes against their societies (in addition to being used by racists to kill blacks). Gas chambers were used for the sole purpose of extermination. They had NO purpose other than for use in connection with killing Jews (and others on Hitler's killing lists). I'm not discounting that nooses have come to be associated with lynchings in the South and racism. That's not my point. What I'm saying is that noose:black people::gas chamber:Jews may not work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rincewind Posted January 18, 2008 Share Posted January 18, 2008 Rince,You're missing the distinction. Nooses were used for lawful purposes to kill criminals who had committed capital crimes against their societies (in addition to being used by racists to kill blacks). Gas chambers were used for the sole purpose of extermination. They had NO purpose other than for use in connection with killing Jews (and others on Hitler's killing lists). I'm not discounting that nooses have come to be associated with lynchings in the South and racism. That's not my point. What I'm saying is that noose:black people::gas chamber:Jews may not work. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought we had used the gas chamber for the death penalty in the U.S.. I know its no longer used, buy I thought it was back in the 70s/80s. yep - http://www.richard.clark32.btinternet.co.uk/gascham.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iheartskins Posted January 18, 2008 Share Posted January 18, 2008 Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought we had used the gas chamber for the death penalty in the U.S.. I know its no longer used, buy I thought it was back in the 70s/80s. If so, news to me. And I see where you're trying to go with your counterargument... However, in sheer numbers, I still am not convinced that the analogy holds water From a professor at the University of Cincinnati: http://www.umass.edu/complit/aclanet/ACLAText/USLynch.html Black Victims of White Lynch Mobs by State, 1882-1930State/ No. of victims Deep South Mississippi/ 462 Georgia/ 423 Louisiana/ 283 Alabama/ 262 South Carolina/ 143 Border South Florida/ 212 Tennessee/ 174 Arkansas/ 162 Kentucky/ 118 North Carolina/ 75 Black Victims of Lynchings per 100,000 Blacks by State, 1882-1930 Deep South Mississippi/ 52.8 Georgia/ 41.8 Louisiana/ 43.7 Alabama/ 32.4 South Carolina/ 18.8 Border South Florida/ 79.8 Tennessee/ 38.4 Arkansas/ 42.6 Kentucky/ 45.7 North Carolina/ 11.0 ---- From the Journal of Social History: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2005/is_2_37/ai_111897839/pg_17 [During roughly the same period,] 83.2 Mexican lynching victims per 100,000 of population.Also this: --------------------Mexican Lynching Victims African American Lynching Time Period--------- Per 100,000 ---------Victims Per 100,000 1880-1930------------27.4--------------------37.1 The first number is higher than for blacks! Further, the ratios are also out of whack. The number of people lynched for criminal offenses to racism is no where NEAR the ratio of people that were killed for criminal offenses in a gas chamber to the number that were killed for being Jews (and other targets in Nazi Germany). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rincewind Posted January 18, 2008 Share Posted January 18, 2008 If so, news to me. See above edit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iheartskins Posted January 18, 2008 Share Posted January 18, 2008 See above edit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.