Woods can't run from the perception that he
is black, like it or not
By Gregory Clay
Knight-Ridder Tribune News Service
After Fuzzy Zoeller apologized, then Tiger Woods accepted his
apology. then Fuzzy apologized again like some sort of amusement-park
merry-go-round, I thought this whole fried-chicken-collard-greens-racial-insens
itivity-menu of insult and ridicule was over.
Apology here, apology there. Acceptance here; acceptance there.
But that did not stop the water-cooler or at-the-bar chatter in
this racial maelstrom. This time, it wasn't something Fuzzy said;
it, instead, was something that Tiger opined (and it wasn't in
"GQ" magazine either.)
Tiger had appeared on the trash show, uh talk show "Oprah"
on April 24 in a very personal interview, espousing his views
in trying to set the record straight. But the moment he uttered
his self-invented term as a kid, "Cablinasian," to describe
someone of his race or races, it seemed black people were up in
arms. It appeared they feared "losing" Tiger after wanting
to claim him or clutch him in their collective arms. After all,
"Cablinasian" means part Caucasian, part black, part
Indian and part Asian. Mix those groups, and we have a serious
anxiety attack in the black community.
From my vantage point, black people were more upset about Tiger's
"Cablinasian" reference than the Southern cuisine of
racial insults blurted by Fuzzy. (By the way, Fuzzy won't be the
last in a long line of ill-advised racial spouters. He's basically
an extension of Al Campanis to Jimmy the Greek to Andy Rooney.
Every few years, pop goes the weasel.)
Fuzzy was not the first, and certainly won't be the last.
That goes for telephone calls, too. I received a call on April
29. It was a friend of mine, Terence Moore, an often-controversial
black sports columnist for the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. He
left a message with my answering service that morning, saying
that he was going to appear on "Oprah" on that Tuesday.
The subject was Tiger Woods and what else - "Cablinasian-ism."
Uh, oh. When I heard Terence's message, I knew the discussion
of Tiger's self-perceived ethnicity had reached a fever pitch.
This latest "Oprah" episode was a followup show to
the first Tiger appearance. Moore essentially said Tiger is viewed
as black by the dominant society, offering as evidence the "one
drop of black blood" principle mandated by the Plessy vs.
Ferguson court case of the 1890s.
"I'm saying that most white folks subscribe to the one-drop
theory," said Moore, who received more than 100 telephone
calls from readers and viewers. "I'm saying in the way you're
viewed, Tiger is viewed as black. Some people did misinterpret
what I said. I don't want to come off as a Tiger-hater, but what
I'm saying is that the perception of people in this country is
that if you have one drop of black blood, then you are viewed
as black.
"It shouldn't be that way, no. Tiger should be allowed
to call himself whatever he wants, yes. But you have to see reality."
"Cablinasian-ism" is mesmerizing many in the black
community. Why? Because many think it is Tiger's self-denial of
whom he actually is. I have heard many black people say, "He
doesn't know who he is."
Well, I think he knows exactly who he is. Before we burn him
at the stake, a la Joan of Arc, for espousing "Cablinasian-ism,"
let's take a step back. Get pensive here.
In her 40-minute followup segment to her interview with Tiger,
Oprah Winfrey tried to set the record straight herself. For which
I give her immense credit. She reiterated that Tiger said he coined
the term "Cablinasian" as a child. But now he checks
the box that says "African-American" and the box that
says "Asian/Pacific Islander."
Sounds logical to me. How many educated adults still subscribe
to childish ways and ideas? We all change, undergo metamorphosis
- physical and mental. But the "Cablinasian" reference
sticks to us like Velcro. Black folk want to unabashedly attach
Tiger to their bosom because he diverts the unrelenting media-societal
emphasis from the negativity and pathology in the black community
- the black-on-black crime, the despair, the delapidation, the
degradation, the poverty, the urban non-renewal.
In short, Tiger represents an antithesis to our own decadence.
Despite all the above psychological analysis, in this society,
perception is still larger than reality. Perception, in fact,
is probably more crucial.
We see it every day.
My mother's father was an American-born black male and her
mother was an American Indian. But I don't recall my mother calling
herself a "Blindian," even as child references. She
knows that she is viewed as black, is labeled as black, and ultimately
considers herself black. It's not uncommon for black people to
be mixtures of whatever - from black and Hispanic, to black and
Indian, etc., and still call themselves black.
With that in mind, Major League Baseball may want to call black
Hispanic players strictly "Latino." But for black Hispanic
players, such as Raul Mondesi or Roberto Hernandez or Pedro Martinez
or Vladimir Guerrero or Edgar Renteria, once they take off those
uniforms with the fancy logos and stride down a dark street at
midnight in any major city, they most assuredly will be viewed
as black.
Ask any police officer. Ask any cab driver. Ask any Fuzzy Zoeller.
It's obvious that Fuzzy viewed Tiger as black. We notice that
he made black-oriented derogatory comments about Tiger. They weren't
Asian or Latino or Caucasian in nature or reference. If he has
not already, Tiger one day will come to grips with that fact.
To apply former boxer Joe Louis' once-famous words to this
matter: You can run, but you can't hide.
(Gregory Clay is an assistant news editor for Knight-Ridder/Tribune
News Service. Write to him at: KRT News Service, 790 National
Press Building, Washington, D.C. 20045.)
X X X
Distributed by Knight-Ridder/Tribune Information Services.
|
