| |
Main
Date: 10 Sep 2006 23:03:58
From: Ezran
Subject: Nicklaus and controversy
|
What was the most controversial thing he ever did or said in his
playing days? There was one incident where he threw his putter, out of
happiness, but immediately realised what he did and was apologetic
immediately. I guess that's not much of an issue but were there
anything else?
|
|
| |
Date: 10 Sep 2006 20:22:21
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: Nicklaus and controversy
|
3putt wrote:
>
> OK, let's move on. What you got on Arnold?
He was quite handy with the ladies.
|
| |
Date: 10 Sep 2006 20:03:19
From: Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS
Subject: Re: Nicklaus and controversy
|
On Sun, 10 Sep 2006 23:03:58 +0800, Ezran <ezran6006@hotmail.com >
wrote:
>What was the most controversial thing he ever did or said in his
>playing days? There was one incident where he threw his putter, out of
>happiness, but immediately realised what he did and was apologetic
>immediately. I guess that's not much of an issue but were there
>anything else?
That 2-3 foot putt he conceded in the Ryder Cup 1969. He was
playing tony jacklin. It ensured the event ended in a tie.!! I think
Snead was captain and he didn't like it a bit.
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/print?id=2174682&type=story
|
| |
Date: 10 Sep 2006 21:25:15
From: David
Subject: Re: Nicklaus and controversy
|
On Sun, 10 Sep 2006 23:03:58 +0800, Ezran <ezran6006@hotmail.com >
wrote:
>What was the most controversial thing he ever did or said in his
>playing days? There was one incident where he threw his putter, out of
>happiness, but immediately realised what he did and was apologetic
>immediately. I guess that's not much of an issue but were there
>anything else?
Besides his comment about why blacks are not better golfers, I think
the most controversial thing he ever did was when he fired his
longtime caddy. The reason given was that the caddy did not walk the
course before the round, but it was more than coincidence when his son
took over the bag--many felt.
David
|
| | |
Date: 10 Sep 2006 19:29:39
From: 3putt
Subject: Re: Nicklaus and controversy
|
>
> Besides his comment about why blacks are not better golfers, I think
> the most controversial thing he ever did was when he fired his
> longtime caddy. The reason given was that the caddy did not walk the
> course before the round, but it was more than coincidence when his son
> took over the bag--many felt.
>
> David
OK, let's move on. What you got on Arnold?
|
| |
Date: 10 Sep 2006 18:17:58
From: rich
Subject: Re: Nicklaus and controversy
|
"Ezran" <ezran6006@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:24a8g2pcc8sd57ako55nkh3qmj3bqf7mfl@4ax.com...
> What was the most controversial thing he ever did or said in his
> playing days? There was one incident where he threw his putter, out of
> happiness, but immediately realised what he did and was apologetic
> immediately. I guess that's not much of an issue but were there
> anything else?
He made a comment about why blacks weren't good at golf.
Rich
|
| | |
Date: 10 Sep 2006 18:26:00
From: 3putt
Subject: Re: Nicklaus and controversy
|
"rich" <dummy@nothere.com > wrote in message
news:qFYMg.3083$xh3.2845@trnddc01...
>
> He made a comment about why blacks weren't good at golf.
>
> Rich
Was it a prejudiced comment? Did it create any controversy? I don't
remember that he had said anything beyond just a remark.
|
| | | |
Date: 10 Sep 2006 18:47:47
From: rich
Subject: Re: Nicklaus and controversy
|
"3putt" <golf24/7@golfing.com > wrote in message
news:YMYMg.9084$Qg.2882@southeast.rr.com...
>
> "rich" <dummy@nothere.com> wrote in message
> news:qFYMg.3083$xh3.2845@trnddc01...
>>
>> He made a comment about why blacks weren't good at golf.
>>
>> Rich
>
> Was it a prejudiced comment? Did it create any controversy? I don't
> remember that he had said anything beyond just a remark.
"Nicklaus caused a furor in 1994 when he replied to a reporter's question
about why there was a lack of black golfers by saying, "Blacks have
different muscles that react in different ways." Nicklaus, who has opposed
racially segregated clubs, said that he wished he had not strayed from his
point, "that kids, black and white, gravitate to different sports because of
their environment."
http://espn.go.com/classic/s/addnicklausjack.html
"caused a furor" sounds controversial to me.
Rich
|
| |
Date: 10 Sep 2006 11:40:18
From: Mark A
Subject: Re: Nicklaus and controversy
|
"Ezran" <ezran6006@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:24a8g2pcc8sd57ako55nkh3qmj3bqf7mfl@4ax.com...
> What was the most controversial thing he ever did or said in his
> playing days? There was one incident where he threw his putter, out of
> happiness, but immediately realised what he did and was apologetic
> immediately. I guess that's not much of an issue but were there
> anything else?
In July 1994 Nicklaus said that the reason there are not more
African-American golfers playing at the highest level in the sport is
because blacks have "different muscles that react in different ways."
There have been some scientists who have theorized that African races has
muscles that perform better in certain activities that require rapid
activities (like jumping), and that Caucasian races have muscles that are
better at endurance. But if that were true (I don't really know) then that
would only favor African races when playing golf, because the golf swing
requires a rapid use of muscles.
The real reason why there are not more African-American golfers playing at
the highest level is that golf is an expensive sport because it requires
hitting a lot of balls from an early age. (That is my excuse also).
So that makes Nicklaus' 1994 comments racists and even more ridiculous.
In more recent times, Nicklaus has come up with all kinds of ridiculous
explanations as to why he is the greatest golfer of all time (and not Tiger
Woods), such as claiming that Tiger has no real competition. As discussed on
this newsgroup before, this is also not the case, and Tiger has 10 times the
competition that Nicklaus ever did.
|
| | |
Date: 10 Sep 2006 22:37:47
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Nicklaus and controversy
|
On Sun, 10 Sep 2006 11:40:18 -0600, "Mark A" <nobody@nowhere.com >
wrote:
>There have been some scientists who have theorized that African races has
>muscles that perform better in certain activities that require rapid
>activities (like jumping), and that Caucasian races have muscles that are
>better at endurance. But if that were true (I don't really know) then that
>would only favor African races when playing golf, because the golf swing
>requires a rapid use of muscles.
That was part of conclusions made by the assumption that race was well
defined. But it is interesting to compare the running skills of East
and West African peoples. Long runners are from the East. Sprinters
are from the West. Their muscles are very different. But since they
both are dark skinned, they are classified into superficial races and
assumed to be the same.
Race is about trying to push people into categories based upon our
desires.
|
| | |
Date: 10 Sep 2006 17:50:33
From: The poster formerly known as Colleyville Alan
Subject: Re: Nicklaus and controversy
|
"Mark A" <nobody@nowhere.com > wrote in message
news:m9udneBIFeOc05nYnZ2dnUVZ_tCdnZ2d@comcast.com...
> So that makes Nicklaus' 1994 comments racists and even more ridiculous.
>
> In more recent times, Nicklaus has come up with all kinds of ridiculous
> explanations as to why he is the greatest golfer of all time (and not
> Tiger Woods), such as claiming that Tiger has no real competition. As
> discussed on this newsgroup before, this is also not the case, and Tiger
> has 10 times the competition that Nicklaus ever did.
That's strange since the post from Nicklaus's bio states that the guys at
the middle of the pack these days were as good as the top of the pack in his
day (though this was pre-1997 Masters). Kinda hard to reconcile that with
Tiger having no competition.
|
| |
Date: 11 Sep 2006 17:52:36
From: dsc
Subject: Re: Nicklaus and controversy
|
Mark A wrote:
> "Ezran" <ezran6006@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:24a8g2pcc8sd57ako55nkh3qmj3bqf7mfl@4ax.com...
> > What was the most controversial thing he ever did or said in his
> > playing days? There was one incident where he threw his putter, out of
> > happiness, but immediately realised what he did and was apologetic
> > immediately. I guess that's not much of an issue but were there
> > anything else?
>
> In July 1994 Nicklaus said that the reason there are not more
> African-American golfers playing at the highest level in the sport is
> because blacks have "different muscles that react in different ways."
>
> There have been some scientists who have theorized that African races has
> muscles
There are fast twitch muscles and slow twitch muscles. We all have
both. What is in question is the ratio.
> that perform better in certain activities that require rapid
> activities (like jumping), and that Caucasian races have muscles that are
> better at endurance. But if that were true (I don't really know) then that
> would only favor African races when playing golf, because the golf swing
> requires a rapid use of muscles.
>
> The real reason why there are not more African-American golfers playing at
> the highest level is that golf is an expensive sport because it requires
> hitting a lot of balls from an early age. (That is my excuse also).
>
True... but there doesn't seem to be a lot of top level black swimmers
either... is that an expensive elitist sport too? :) There are also not
that many top level white spinters... there clearly is something
different... but I don't know what it is.
> So that makes Nicklaus' 1994 comments racists and even more ridiculous.
Not until/if science proves him wrong. I guess he court is still out on
that one.
|
| | |
Date: 11 Sep 2006 19:12:54
From: Mark A
Subject: Re: Nicklaus and controversy
|
"dsc" <Dudley.Cornman@eku.edu > wrote in message
news:1158022356.770214.76950@q16g2000cwq.googlegroups.com...
> True... but there doesn't seem to be a lot of top level black swimmers
> either... is that an expensive elitist sport too? :) There are also not
> that many top level white spinters... there clearly is something
> different... but I don't know what it is.
Yes, swimming is an expensive sport.
In addition, many African Americans have very low body fat, which makes it
harder for them to learn to swim. The percentage of African American who
know how to swim is much lower than other races in the US.
|
| | | |
Date: 12 Sep 2006 04:04:22
From: bill-o
Subject: Re: Nicklaus and controversy
|
On 11-Sep-2006, "Mark A" <nobody@nowhere.com > wrote:
> In addition, many African Americans have very low body fat, which makes it
>
> harder for them to learn to swim. The percentage of African American who
> know how to swim is much lower than other races in the US.
Rush is on line 1.
--
bill-o
A "gimme" can best be defined as an agreement between
two golfers neither of whom can putt very well.
|
| | | | |
Date: 11 Sep 2006 22:22:01
From: Mark A
Subject: Re: Nicklaus and controversy
|
"bill-o" <assimilate@borg.org > wrote in message
news:450631ba$0$23960$882e0bbb@news.ThunderNews.com...
>
> Rush is on line 1.
> --
> bill-o
>
You may want the read this story:
Drowning risk highest for black males (excerpts, see link below for full
article)
Swimming-pool drowning cases involve a disproportionate number of black boys
and young adults, and public pools appear to be the primary danger zone,
U.S. government researchers have found.
In one of the most extensive studies to look at the issue, investigators
found that nearly half of the swimming-pool drownings they tracked occurred
among African Americans - with males being at particular risk.
The findings, published in the American Journal of Public Health, not only
confirm past research showing that a large number of young drowning victims
are African American, but also identify where these deaths are happening.
Nationally, between 1995 and 1998, 51 percent of drownings among blacks ages
5 to 24 happened in a public pool. Most often, it was a hotel or motel pool.
That stands in contrast to white children and young adults, 55 percent of
whom drowned in a residential pool.
The study findings are based on federal data for 678 swimming-pool drownings
among 5- to 24-year-olds between 1995 and 1998.
Overall, three-quarters of the victims were male, and black males were at
greatest risk. Their rate of drowning was anywhere from 5 to 12 times higher
than that of white males, depending on the age group. Hispanic males were
also at greater risk than whites, but the difference was much smaller.
Among females, African Americans had a higher drowning rate through the teen
years. White and Hispanic females had similar rates at all ages.
Researchers have speculated that the higher drowning risk among African
Americans has to do with income; lower-income families are less likely to be
able to afford swimming lessons. However, Saluja's team found that the
racial discrepancy persisted even when they factored in income. More
research, they say, is needed to understand the underlying reasons.
Clearly, wealth and thus exposure to swimming pools plays a role in this,
but the much lower rates of drowning among Hispanic males than among black
males argues for a more sophisticated view of the problem. Further, blacks
don't spend that much time at motels and hotels, so the high rate of black
male drownings there needs explanation.
I've long argued that nature and nurture work together here. Blacks tend to
have denser bones and black males, when young and in good shape, lower body
fat percentage. Fat is lighter than water and thus helps you float. Muscle
is heavier than water and thus helps you sink. You don't need to be able to
float easily to swim (lots of Olympic swimmers are denser than water), but
it makes it harder and scarier to learn to swim. And that's one reason more
black youths don't learn to swim.
The pattern of black females having higher drowning rates than white females
through the teenage years, but not afterward would fit this body fat model
too.
For example, Michael Jordan, who stayed at 3% body fat his whole NBA career,
has spent plenty of time around fancy swimming pools, but he hasn't learned
how to swim. Some will also remember how during the swimming race in the
first Superstars trashsport competition on ABC in 1973, the great boxer Joe
Frazier damn near drowned.
http://isteve.blogspot.com/2006/04/less-body-fat-and-denser-bones.html
|
| | | | | |
Date: 12 Sep 2006 05:06:53
From: bill-o
Subject: Re: Nicklaus and controversy
|
On 12-Sep-2006, "Mark A" <nobody@nowhere.com > wrote:
> You may want the read this story:
Sounds like a load to me, culture my boy, the body fat is total BS.
--
bill-o
A "gimme" can best be defined as an agreement between
two golfers neither of whom can putt very well.
|
| | | |
Date: 12 Sep 2006 12:07:16
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Nicklaus and controversy
|
On Mon, 11 Sep 2006 19:12:54 -0600, "Mark A" <nobody@nowhere.com >
wrote:
>In addition, many African Americans have very low body fat, which makes it
>harder for them to learn to swim. The percentage of African American who
>know how to swim is much lower than other races in the US.
I've always been able to lie down on the bottom of a swimming pool.
Looking around, I see at least as many fat African Americans as fat
European Americans.
|
| | | |
Date: 12 Sep 2006 21:44:51
From: Matt 'Ocho' Aamold
Subject: Re: Nicklaus and controversy
|
"Mark A" <nobody@nowhere.com > wrote in message
news:at2dnckqi4UIlJvYnZ2dnUVZ_uWdnZ2d@comcast.com...
> Yes, swimming is an expensive sport.
It costs money to swim in a lake or pond???
> In addition, many African Americans have very low body fat, which makes it
> harder for them to learn to swim. The percentage of African American who
> know how to swim is much lower than other races in the US.
what are you blabbering about - Low Body Fat = Learning Disability????
|
| | | | |
Date: 13 Sep 2006 12:23:27
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Nicklaus and controversy
|
On Tue, 12 Sep 2006 21:44:51 -0700, "Matt 'Ocho' Aamold"
<maamold@gmail.com > wrote:
>> Yes, swimming is an expensive sport.
>
>It costs money to swim in a lake or pond???
It depends where you live.
Still, which sport you take up is largely cultural. It will be
interesting to see whether the Tiger effect sputters.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 13 Sep 2006 08:41:27
From: Bert Robbins
Subject: Re: Nicklaus and controversy
|
Howard Brazee wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Sep 2006 21:44:51 -0700, "Matt 'Ocho' Aamold"
> <maamold@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> Yes, swimming is an expensive sport.
>> It costs money to swim in a lake or pond???
>
> It depends where you live.
>
> Still, which sport you take up is largely cultural. It will be
> interesting to see whether the Tiger effect sputters.
I believe that access to and availability of facilities and coaches, not
necessarily stadiums and arenas, to play the game has a lot to do with
the sports you choose to pursue.
|
| | | | |
Date: 12 Sep 2006 23:25:50
From: Mark A
Subject: Re: Nicklaus and controversy
|
"Matt 'Ocho' Aamold" <maamold@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:UbidnSoGfupZEZrYnZ2dnUVZ_sadnZ2d@comcast.com...
> what are you blabbering about - Low Body Fat = Learning Disability????
Very low body fat makes it harder to learn how to swim. Maybe you don't
remember, but small kids are afraid of water until they learn how to swim.
The first thing kids do is learn how to tread water or float, which harder
to do if you have very low body fat and denser bones.
I am not saying it is impossible, it is just harder. And unlike most other
sports, failure to learn it may result in death.
|
| |
Date: 11 Sep 2006 14:54:53
From: Tom Yost
Subject: Re: Nicklaus and controversy
|
On Sun, 10 Sep 2006 23:03:58 +0800, Ezran <ezran6006@hotmail.com >
wrote:
>What was the most controversial thing he ever did or said in his
>playing days? There was one incident where he threw his putter, out of
>happiness, but immediately realised what he did and was apologetic
>immediately. I guess that's not much of an issue but were there
>anything else?
The fat, crew-cutted Nicklaus came on the PGA and started beating
Arnold Palmer. That was pretty controversial at the time.
Tom
|
| |
Date: 12 Sep 2006 08:10:28
From: Miss Anne Thrope
Subject: Re: Nicklaus and controversy
|
Once he wore white after Labor Day.
|
| |
Date: 12 Sep 2006 05:13:42
From: Simon
Subject: Re: Nicklaus and controversy
|
Howard Brazee wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Sep 2006 19:12:54 -0600, "Mark A" <nobody@nowhere.com>
> wrote:
>
> >In addition, many African Americans have very low body fat, which makes it
> >harder for them to learn to swim. The percentage of African American who
> >know how to swim is much lower than other races in the US.
>
> I've always been able to lie down on the bottom of a swimming pool.
> Looking around, I see at least as many fat African Americans as fat
> European Americans.
Huh? You can see all these fat people when you are lying down on the
bottom of a swimming pool? Perhaps the lack of oxygen is affecting your
judgement.
|
| | |
Date: 12 Sep 2006 22:41:17
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Nicklaus and controversy
|
On 12 Sep 2006 05:13:42 -0700, "Simon" <hancock_simon@hotmail.com >
wrote:
>> >In addition, many African Americans have very low body fat, which makes it
>> >harder for them to learn to swim. The percentage of African American who
>> >know how to swim is much lower than other races in the US.
>>
>> I've always been able to lie down on the bottom of a swimming pool.
>> Looking around, I see at least as many fat African Americans as fat
>> European Americans.
>
>Huh? You can see all these fat people when you are lying down on the
>bottom of a swimming pool? Perhaps the lack of oxygen is affecting your
>judgement.
No. I was just giving anecdotal evidence that I doubt that the above
claim is statistically significant as a reason for fewer black
swimmers.
|
| |
Date: 12 Sep 2006 16:21:20
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: Nicklaus and controversy
|
Mark A wrote:
> "bill-o" <assimilate@borg.org> wrote in message
> news:450631ba$0$23960$882e0bbb@news.ThunderNews.com...
> >
> > Rush is on line 1.
> > --
> > bill-o
> >
>
> You may want the read this story:
>
> Drowning risk highest for black males (excerpts, see link below for full
> article)
And more people have heart attacks at the gym than at the KFC.
So using your logic, eating fried chicken is better for you than
working out.
Go ahead and run another mile on that treadmill. My ass is heading to
Bojangles.
|
| | |
Date: 12 Sep 2006 22:58:27
From: Mark A
Subject: Re: Nicklaus and controversy
|
"annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com > wrote in message
news:1158103280.494441.113270@d34g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> And more people have heart attacks at the gym than at the KFC.
> So using your logic, eating fried chicken is better for you than
> working out.
>
> Go ahead and run another mile on that treadmill. My ass is heading to
> Bojangles.
>
The government study that was referred to was adjusted for the number of
each race (white, black, and Latino) who use the community swimming pool.
Anyone who is has very low body fat and a heavy skeleton is going to have a
harder time learning to swim than someone who a higher body fat level and a
lighter skeleton. This is true regardless of race.
Certainly (as I originally stated) blacks "may not" have as much access to
pools and lessons to learn how to swim as whites. But that is only part of
the equation.
|
| | | |
Date: 13 Sep 2006 06:23:56
From: S McFarlane
Subject: Re: Nicklaus and controversy
|
"Mark A" <nobody@nowhere.com > wrote in message
news:mPCdnUe-IYtsEprYnZ2dnUVZ_u2dnZ2d@comcast.com...
> "annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:1158103280.494441.113270@d34g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>> And more people have heart attacks at the gym than at the KFC.
>> So using your logic, eating fried chicken is better for you than
>> working out.
>>
>> Go ahead and run another mile on that treadmill. My ass is heading to
>> Bojangles.
>>
>
> The government study that was referred to was adjusted for the number of
> each race (white, black, and Latino) who use the community swimming pool.
>
> Anyone who is has very low body fat and a heavy skeleton is going to have
> a harder time learning to swim than someone who a higher body fat level
> and a lighter skeleton. This is true regardless of race.
>
> Certainly (as I originally stated) blacks "may not" have as much access to
> pools and lessons to learn how to swim as whites. But that is only part of
> the equation.
A good deal of this is probably culture. I've known too many black people
who are very afraid of water to believe it's simply a result of
physiological differences. There are cultural reasons that blacks tend to
do worse than asians academically. I'm not even going to approach the
question of whether there is a physiological basis in that as well, but the
point is that the cultural effects are very significant (if not
overwhelmingly deterministic) in defining many differences between ethnic
populations. But none of that has anything to do with golf!
Scott
|
| | | | |
Date: 13 Sep 2006 00:43:11
From: Mark A
Subject: Re: Nicklaus and controversy
|
"S McFarlane" <skottymac@verizon.net > wrote in message
news:0uNNg.12562$OI1.8626@trnddc05...
> A good deal of this is probably culture. I've known too many black people
> who are very afraid of water to believe it's simply a result of
> physiological differences. There are cultural reasons that blacks tend to
> do worse than asians academically. I'm not even going to approach the
> question of whether there is a physiological basis in that as well, but
> the point is that the cultural effects are very significant (if not
> overwhelmingly deterministic) in defining many differences between ethnic
> populations. But none of that has anything to do with golf!
>
> Scott
I don't know how you can equate academics with athletic ability in one
particular sport (swimming), particularly when blacks do well in just about
all other sports.
Yes, there are cultural reasons why black people are afraid of water. It is
because it more difficult for them to swim than most other people.
But let me ask you this--do you deny the physiological differences (AVERAGE
body fat and bone density for young males up to age 10) between blacks and
most other races, or is it that you don't think that affects a person's
ability to learn to swim?
|
| | | | | |
Date: 13 Sep 2006 13:03:05
From: S McFarlane
Subject: Re: Nicklaus and controversy
|
"Mark A" <nobody@nowhere.com > wrote in message
news:EamdndkgOIzgNZrYnZ2dnUVZ_sCdnZ2d@comcast.com...
>
> I don't know how you can equate academics with athletic ability in one
> particular sport (swimming), particularly when blacks do well in just
> about all other sports.
Do you think there is something fundamentally different between athletic
activities and academic activities in terms of dependence on physiological
characteristics, be it on a macro level or cellular level? Do you think
there is a fundamental difference between the two that makes ability in one
area less affected by social factors than the other?
>
> Yes, there are cultural reasons why black people are afraid of water. It
> is because it more difficult for them to swim than most other people.
>
> But let me ask you this--do you deny the physiological differences
> (AVERAGE body fat and bone density for young males up to age 10) between
> blacks and most other races, or is it that you don't think that affects a
> person's ability to learn to swim?
I think that I've seen nothing establishing a causal relationship between
being afraid to swim and a physiological disadvantage in learning to.
Perhaps that relationship exists. It's certainly not an irrational theory.
I've simply not seen any evidence to support it.
Scott
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 13 Sep 2006 12:50:52
From: Mark A
Subject: Re: Nicklaus and controversy
|
"S McFarlane" <skottymac@verizon.net > wrote in message
news:dkTNg.1861$FS.73@trnddc04...
>
> Do you think there is something fundamentally different between athletic
> activities and academic activities in terms of dependence on physiological
> characteristics, be it on a macro level or cellular level? Do you think
> there is a fundamental difference between the two that makes ability in
> one area less affected by social factors than the other?
I don't think there is any connection. All I said is that young black males
with very low body fat and dense bones (denser than other races) have a more
difficult time learning to swim. Somone else was trying to make that
connection, not me.
> I think that I've seen nothing establishing a causal relationship between
> being afraid to swim and a physiological disadvantage in learning to.
> Perhaps that relationship exists. It's certainly not an irrational
> theory. I've simply not seen any evidence to support it.
>
> Scott
Overcoming fear is a big part of learning to swim. Being able to float and
tread water is important in overcoming fear of the water and the first step
of learning to swim.
In addition, I do agree that on AVERAGE, blacks have less access to pools
and swimming lessons. But I think the physical issues are a factor also.
|
| | |
Date: 13 Sep 2006 03:15:59
From: bill-o
Subject: Re: Nicklaus and controversy
|
On 12-Sep-2006, "annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com > wrote:
> Go ahead and run another mile on that treadmill. My ass is heading to
> Bojangles.
bring me back some fried okra, k?
--
bill-o
A "gimme" can best be defined as an agreement between
two golfers neither of whom can putt very well.
|
| |
Date: 12 Sep 2006 16:13:07
From: dsc
Subject: Re: Nicklaus and controversy
|
bill-o wrote:
> On 12-Sep-2006, "Mark A" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
> > You may want the read this story:
>
> Sounds like a load to me, culture my boy, the body fat is total BS.
I don't think it is BS at all. I had a farily large female friend that
worked as a student for ourr department some 25 years ago. She took a
swimming class and there were several ripped football players in that
class. She floated in the water with her head and shoulders clear. I
floated just under the surface with only my hair on top. The football
players floated as deep or deeper than I. BTW - she floated naturally
about the same as I do wearing a life jacket.
On the other hand there was one young black male that lived on my dorm
floor a couple of years. He was well built with not much fat at all. He
was an excellent swimmer and could swim laps in the pool for hours. I
never noticed how well he floated though as he never seemed to stop. He
was always moving when in the water.
I guess no rule off thumb is absolute. There are exceptions to them
all. But generally speaking, I beleive there is something too this one.
But I would suspect that this rule is evolving as all kids seem to be
fatter these days.
|
| | |
Date: 13 Sep 2006 03:14:30
From: bill-o
Subject: Re: Nicklaus and controversy
|
On 12-Sep-2006, "dsc" <Dudley.Cornman@eku.edu > wrote:
> I don't think it is BS at all. I had a farily large female friend that
> worked as a student for ourr department some 25 years ago. She took a
> swimming class and there were several ripped football players in that
> class. She floated in the water with her head and shoulders clear. I
> floated just under the surface with only my hair on top. The football
> players floated as deep or deeper than I. BTW - she floated naturally
> about the same as I do wearing a life jacket.
Floating is not swimming, one has nothing to do with the other. I have
always been low in body fat (expect the in the head) and have always been a
good swimmer. Swimming, like the golf swing, is about technique not body
type.
--
bill-o
A "gimme" can best be defined as an agreement between
two golfers neither of whom can putt very well.
|
| | | |
Date: 12 Sep 2006 22:54:00
From: Mark A
Subject: Re: Nicklaus and controversy
|
"bill-o" <assimilate@borg.org > wrote in message
news:4507778f$0$23826$882e0bbb@news.ThunderNews.com...
>
> Floating is not swimming, one has nothing to do with the other. I have
> always been low in body fat (expect the in the head) and have always been
> a
> good swimmer. Swimming, like the golf swing, is about technique not body
> type.
> --
> bill-o
>
Being able to float and LEARNING to swim are related. It is a lot harder to
learn to swim when you can barely tread water.
I bet that your body fat percent is nowhere near the 3% of many young black
males. Also, even though you cannot see it, blacks tend to have bones with
more density that weigh more than other races.
I know that the politically correct shudder that there are any physiological
differences between people or races. But political correctness will not save
blacks from drowning at 5 times the rate of other races (including Latinos)
in community swimming pools (adjusted for number of each race who use such
swimming pools). The fact that it is harder for blacks to learn to swim (on
AVERAGE) cannot be used as any reason for racial discrimination, any more
than the fact they excel at other sports can be used against them.
BTW, Lance Armstrong's heart is physically 1/3 larger than normal, which
enables him to excel in bicycle racing. There Kareem Abdul Jabbar was about
7'2" tall, which enabled him to be a star basketball player. Physical
attributes can influence how well they do in sports. Get over it.
|
| | | | |
Date: 14 Sep 2006 02:50:06
From: bill-o
Subject: Re: Nicklaus and controversy
|
On 13-Sep-2006, "Mark A" <nobody@nowhere.com > wrote:
> Being able to float and LEARNING to swim are related. It is a lot harder
> to learn to swim when you can barely tread water.
BS, most people, blacks included, haven't learned to swim because they
didn't bother to learn.
--
bill-o
A "gimme" can best be defined as an agreement between
two golfers neither of whom can putt very well.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 13 Sep 2006 21:07:02
From: Mark A
Subject: Re: Nicklaus and controversy
|
"bill-o" <assimilate@borg.org > wrote in message
news:4508c356$0$23953$882e0bbb@news.ThunderNews.com...
>
> BS, most people, blacks included, haven't learned to swim because they
> didn't bother to learn.
> --
> bill-o
OK, taking the time to learn to swim (and being afforded the opportunity) is
important, but that does not contradict what I said.
Any person with very low body fat and denser than average bones is going to
have a little bit harder time learning to swim, because the first thing a
person does in learning to swim is to learn to float and tread water.
Why don't they take the time? All people tend to shy away from things that
are more difficult for them, especially if failure may result in death.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 14 Sep 2006 07:28:19
From: Bert Robbins
Subject: Re: Nicklaus and controversy
|
Mark A wrote:
> "bill-o" <assimilate@borg.org> wrote in message
> news:4508c356$0$23953$882e0bbb@news.ThunderNews.com...
>> BS, most people, blacks included, haven't learned to swim because they
>> didn't bother to learn.
>> --
>> bill-o
>
> OK, taking the time to learn to swim (and being afforded the opportunity) is
> important, but that does not contradict what I said.
>
> Any person with very low body fat and denser than average bones is going to
> have a little bit harder time learning to swim, because the first thing a
> person does in learning to swim is to learn to float and tread water.
>
> Why don't they take the time? All people tend to shy away from things that
> are more difficult for them, especially if failure may result in death.
You have stated your point many times. How many more times are you going
to state your point?
Why not move on to the next thread and present an argument appropriate
to that thread if that is what you need.
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 14 Sep 2006 12:04:23
From: Mark A
Subject: Re: Nicklaus and controversy
|
"Bert Robbins" <screw@you.com > wrote in message
news:fM6dnae5IPlJoZTYnZ2dnUVZ_qadnZ2d@comcast.com...
> You have stated your point many times. How many more times are you going
> to state your point?
>
> Why not move on to the next thread and present an argument appropriate to
> that thread if that is what you need.
I always thought that not replying to someone who was rude.
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 14 Sep 2006 12:16:55
From: Mark A
Subject: Re: Nicklaus and controversy
|
"Mark A" <nobody@nowhere.com > wrote in message
news:7dadnatRn_Y6BJTYnZ2dnUVZ_t6dnZ2d@comcast.com...
>
> I always thought that not replying to someone who was rude.
Correction, (I am trying to type too fast during my lunch break):
I meant to say:
I always thought that not replying to someone was rude.
|
| | |
Date: 13 Sep 2006 01:05:05
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Nicklaus and controversy
|
On 12 Sep 2006 16:13:07 -0700, "dsc" <Dudley.Cornman@eku.edu > wrote:
>> Sounds like a load to me, culture my boy, the body fat is total BS.
>
>I don't think it is BS at all. I had a farily large female friend that
>worked as a student for ourr department some 25 years ago. She took a
>swimming class and there were several ripped football players in that
>class. She floated in the water with her head and shoulders clear. I
>floated just under the surface with only my hair on top. The football
>players floated as deep or deeper than I. BTW - she floated naturally
>about the same as I do wearing a life jacket.
Sure. But first, blacks from East Africa and from West Africa are
very different. And second - do you see that fat American Blacks are
particularly rare?
|
| | | |
Date: 12 Sep 2006 22:32:14
From: Mark A
Subject: Re: Nicklaus and controversy
|
"Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net > wrote in message
news:j7meg29ofndkef9lf3uasi0de912a0jbag@4ax.com...
> Sure. But first, blacks from East Africa and from West Africa are
> very different. And second - do you see that fat American Blacks are
> particularly rare?
If you look at young black males up to age 10 (the age when people generally
learn to swim), they typically have noticeably less body fat on AVERAGE that
other whites.
That is why the US government statistics show that young black males are 5
times more likely to drown in a community swimming pool than whites or even
Latinos (who presumably are about as equally poor as the blacks).
Anecdotal observations looking around a pool at fat black people over 10
years of age is irrelevant. I think it is really interesting that athletes
such as Michael Jordon does not know how to swim (but I would bet money that
Charles Barkley does).
|
| | | |
Date: 13 Sep 2006 03:14:56
From: bill-o
Subject: Re: Nicklaus and controversy
|
On 12-Sep-2006, Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net > wrote:
> And second - do you see that fat American Blacks are
> particularly rare?
not in the south
--
bill-o
A "gimme" can best be defined as an agreement between
two golfers neither of whom can putt very well.
|
| |
Date: 13 Sep 2006 05:02:49
From:
Subject: Re: Nicklaus and controversy
|
Mark A wrote:
> "Jack Thompson" <jacqueszmonkey@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:1158127493.339864.79360@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Mark A wrote:
> >>
> >>
>
> Tiger is 25% African-American. (25% Thai, 25% Chinese, 12.5% Caucasian,
> 12.5% Native American).
The Tiger phenomenon has brought into public discussion--at least on
RSG--this mad topic of race in America. I find these posts quite
absorbing--the passions run so high. Race makes a lot of people
nervous, as well it should, given the history we're all familiar with,
and not just the history of race in the golf world.
A couple of comments:
1. These percentages are misleading. What, exactly, does it mean to be
25% African American? Look at any large random sample of African
Americans in the US--it's obvious that many are not descended from
wholly African parentage. But they're still called black, and in the
days of Jim Crow, were abused because of this.
2. Are you suggsting that the other components in Tiger's heritage mean
that he's not "really" black? Are you trying to say that, well, we
can't say that an African American is the best golfer in the world,
because he's actually mixed, and the black part of him is at best 25%?
But being "black" in the US was never a matter of pure African
descent--how would one determine such a thing with certainty, in any
case, except in rare cases?
3. If the percentages are meaningful when discussing Tiger's
achievements--and you seem to say that they are--well then they'd be
meaningful for other black athletes; and for athletes in general.
Charles Barkley--let's go ahead, for argument's sake, and say that he's
actually 43.29% African American. Does that tell us anything
meaningful? Maybe it would tell Rush Limbaugh and others of that ilk
that Barkley is smarter than most other basketball players because he's
less than half black. And so it is with Tiger: he plays good golf
because he's only one quarter black.
4. Are we now going to parse things out in this way: 7% Anglo-Saxon;
19% Latin; 23% Scandanavian; 6% Slav; etc. Back to the good old days of
19th century racial science.
|
| | |
Date: 13 Sep 2006 13:29:54
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Nicklaus and controversy
|
On 13 Sep 2006 05:02:49 -0700, mcmorrim@georgetown.edu wrote:
>The Tiger phenomenon has brought into public discussion--at least on
>RSG--this mad topic of race in America. I find these posts quite
>absorbing--the passions run so high. Race makes a lot of people
>nervous, as well it should, given the history we're all familiar with,
>and not just the history of race in the golf world.
Them vs Us is a passionate topic around the world.
|
| | |
Date: 13 Sep 2006 12:45:03
From: Mark A
Subject: Re: Nicklaus and controversy
|
<mcmorrim@georgetown.edu > wrote in message
news:1158148969.103548.191320@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
> The Tiger phenomenon has brought into public discussion--at least on
> RSG--this mad topic of race in America. I find these posts quite
> absorbing--the passions run so high. Race makes a lot of people
> nervous, as well it should, given the history we're all familiar with,
> and not just the history of race in the golf world.
>
> A couple of comments:
>
> 1. These percentages are misleading. What, exactly, does it mean to be
> 25% African American? Look at any large random sample of African
> Americans in the US--it's obvious that many are not descended from
> wholly African parentage. But they're still called black, and in the
> days of Jim Crow, were abused because of this.
>
I don't understand your question or comment. I really don't care what people
did in the days of Jim Crow. Tiger is 25% African decent. We used to call
that Black, but some prefer Afro-American. Tiger him self calls himself
mutt-racial (or something like that) and has said that to categorize him as
only Afro-American or Black would be insult to his mother who is
Thai-Chinese. I am respected Tiger's preference, which matters more than
yours or the NAACP's.
> 2. Are you suggsting that the other components in Tiger's heritage mean
> that he's not "really" black? Are you trying to say that, well, we
> can't say that an African American is the best golfer in the world,
> because he's actually mixed, and the black part of him is at best 25%?
> But being "black" in the US was never a matter of pure African
> descent--how would one determine such a thing with certainty, in any
> case, except in rare cases?
>
I am suggesting that Tiger is of 25% African decent as Tiger himself has
stated and that he considers himself to be multi-racial. Others can call
themselves whatever they wish.
> 3. If the percentages are meaningful when discussing Tiger's
> achievements--and you seem to say that they are--well then they'd be
> meaningful for other black athletes; and for athletes in general.
> Charles Barkley--let's go ahead, for argument's sake, and say that he's
> actually 43.29% African American. Does that tell us anything
> meaningful? Maybe it would tell Rush Limbaugh and others of that ilk
> that Barkley is smarter than most other basketball players because he's
> less than half black. And so it is with Tiger: he plays good golf
> because he's only one quarter black.
>
I personally think that Tiger's ethnic background is irrelevant. However,
more than one racial groups claim Tiger as their own. For example, many in
Thailand are upset that Tiger does not consider himself primarily Thai since
his mother is Thai-Chinese (a large percentage of Thai are Thai-Chinese due
to various border changes over the centuries). Lots of races would like to
call Tiger one of their own.
Someone else brought up Tiger regarding his attraction to waters ports and
whether blacks have difficulty learning how to swim when one has very low
body fat and dense skeleton structure. I was merely pointing out that from a
racial standpoint, Tiger is not a good example because of his mixed
background.
> 4. Are we now going to parse things out in this way: 7% Anglo-Saxon;
> 19% Latin; 23% Scandanavian; 6% Slav; etc. Back to the good old days of
> 19th century racial science.
You should address that to Tiger, since he is one that has documented his
racial heritage. Lots of people are multi-cultural, and of course that term
is relative to time, since we all evolved from the same species and the same
race, even if some changes have occurred since then.
I am not frightened by racial physical differences. Certainly different
races have different skin tones, and that is a physical difference, and I
assume that you are not going to deny that?
I were black, I would be extra careful about Sickle Cell Anemia and if I had
children, I might be concerning about the fact that 5 times as many young
black males drown compared to young males in other races (including
Latinos).
|
| | | |
Date: 13 Sep 2006 12:57:07
From: Mark A
Subject: Re: Nicklaus and controversy
|
Correction:
"Tiger him self calls himself mutt-racial", should have said
Tiger him self calls himself multi-racial
|
| |
Date: 12 Sep 2006 23:11:53
From: Jack Thompson
Subject: Re: Nicklaus and controversy
|
Howard Brazee wrote:
> And second - do you see that fat American Blacks are
> particularly rare?
What Bizarro America do you live in?
http://www.nul.org/health/physical_activity/overview.html
Its no secret, Americans are getting larger and larger. Over 60% of
U.S. adults are overweight or obese. Among African Americans, the
percentage is even higher. Approximately 60% of African American men
and 77% of African American women are obese or overweight.
The number of American children who are overweight or obese is also
growing at an alarming rate.
Excess weight gain can occur as a result of eating too many calories
and not getting enough physical activity. An adult is overweight when
their Body Mass Index (BMI) is between 25 - 29.9. BMI is the standard
used by researchers to define a person's weight according to their
height. An adult with a BMI of 30 or more is considered obese.
Calculate Your BMI.
Overweight and obesity are chronic conditions that can increase your
risk of developing health problems. Both conditions are associated with
heart disease, certain types of cancer, type 2 diabetes, stroke,
arthritis, breathing problems, and psychological disorders, such as
depression.
Healthy eating habits and regular physical activity can reduce the risk
for developing most chronic diseases that affect African Americans. By
making a choice to maintain a healthy weight, eat well and be
physically active, you can increase your chances for a long and healthy
life.
Source: American Heart Association, 2002 Heart and Stroke Statistical
Update; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
|
| | |
Date: 13 Sep 2006 06:28:54
From: S McFarlane
Subject: Re: Nicklaus and controversy
|
"Jack Thompson" <jacqueszmonkey@aol.com > wrote in message
news:1158127913.361305.82440@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
>
> Healthy eating habits and regular physical activity can reduce the risk
> for developing most chronic diseases that affect African Americans. By
> making a choice to maintain a healthy weight, eat well and be
> physically active, you can increase your chances for a long and healthy
> life.
>
Play golf, and don't rent those pesky carts! I knew golf was good for
something....
Scott
|
| |
Date: 12 Sep 2006 23:04:53
From: Jack Thompson
Subject: Re: Nicklaus and controversy
|
Mark A wrote:
>
> Anecdotal observations looking around a pool at fat black people over 10
> years of age is irrelevant. I think it is really interesting that athletes
> such as Michael Jordon does not know how to swim (but I would bet money that
> Charles Barkley does).
Jordan was 7 when he and a friend were playing in the ocean. His friend
drowned and Jordan was just able to make it back to shore. Since then
he stays away from the water.
I remember an interview with Barkley where he said that Tiger loved
water related activities but he and Jordan avoided them completely. Not
sure if he's able to swim, but he's certainly not keen on it.
|
| | |
Date: 13 Sep 2006 00:29:17
From: Mark A
Subject: Re: Nicklaus and controversy
|
"Jack Thompson" <jacqueszmonkey@aol.com > wrote in message
news:1158127493.339864.79360@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Mark A wrote:
>>
>> Anecdotal observations looking around a pool at fat black people over 10
>> years of age is irrelevant. I think it is really interesting that
>> athletes
>> such as Michael Jordon does not know how to swim (but I would bet money
>> that
>> Charles Barkley does).
>
> Jordan was 7 when he and a friend were playing in the ocean. His friend
> drowned and Jordan was just able to make it back to shore. Since then
> he stays away from the water.
>
> I remember an interview with Barkley where he said that Tiger loved
> water related activities but he and Jordan avoided them completely. Not
> sure if he's able to swim, but he's certainly not keen on it.
>
Tiger is 25% African-American. (25% Thai, 25% Chinese, 12.5% Caucasian,
12.5% Native American).
|
| |
Date: 13 Sep 2006 17:32:26
From: Big_Fan
Subject: Re: Nicklaus and controversy
|
Scott M. Kozel wrote:
> Mark A wrote:
> >
> > I personally think that Tiger's ethnic background is irrelevant. However,
> > more than one racial groups claim Tiger as their own. For example, many in
> > Thailand are upset that Tiger does not consider himself primarily Thai since
> > his mother is Thai-Chinese (a large percentage of Thai are Thai-Chinese due
> > to various border changes over the centuries). Lots of races would like to
> > call Tiger one of their own.
>
> It is a fact that Tiger is multi-racial. Given that his mother is
> oriental, he certainly is 1/2 oriental. His father is
> African-American, so Tiger is 1/2 that as well.
To be exact:
1/4 African-American
1/4 Thai
1/8 American Indian
1/4 Chinese
1/8 Caucasian
|
| | |
Date: 14 Sep 2006 01:08:48
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Nicklaus and controversy
|
On 13 Sep 2006 17:32:26 -0700, "Big_Fan" <bigpufan@aol.com > wrote:
>To be exact:
>1/4 African-American
>1/4 Thai
>1/8 American Indian
>1/4 Chinese
>1/8 Caucasian
Of course one could go back further. Is his American Indian heritage
from one particular nation? Is his Chinese heritage 100% Han or some
other heritage? It used to be that English and Italians weren't
considered the same race - English and Irish wasn't! Race is a
social term, not a scientific term.
I remember once when my maternal grandfather visited us and he
mentioned Daryl Lamonica - mentioning him being a good Italian
American. I thought that was odd the way he did it - it was only
much later that I figured it out - my Dad's mother's maiden name was
Del Monte, and he had to go through a process to accept this "mixed'
marriage.
|
| | | |
Date: 13 Sep 2006 20:44:02
From: Mark A
Subject: Re: Nicklaus and controversy
|
"Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net > wrote in message
news:uiahg2lqjcoqsfirel9ajn53qp8o70de18@4ax.com...
> Of course one could go back further. Is his American Indian heritage
> from one particular nation? Is his Chinese heritage 100% Han or some
> other heritage? It used to be that English and Italians weren't
> considered the same race - English and Irish wasn't! Race is a
> social term, not a scientific term.
Howard, you stole my idea without attribution (just like some other CU
person we know).
If you go back even further, (as I explained in a previous post in this very
thread), all modern humans descended from the same place (probably in
Africa).
Native Americans (Indians) are believed to have crossed over from Asia into
Alaska (at a time when the continents were closer together), so regardless
of which tribe they belong to, they do share a relatively recent racial
lineage.
Tiger's Chinese heritage probably comes from what was Southwest China, in
what is now Thailand. Many people in Thailand are of Thai-Chinese
background.
I agree that race is not a completely scientific term. It was once used to
oppress people, and is now most often used for affirmative action.
|
| |
Date: 13 Sep 2006 16:03:19
From: Scott M. Kozel
Subject: Re: Nicklaus and controversy
|
Mark A wrote:
>
> I personally think that Tiger's ethnic background is irrelevant. However,
> more than one racial groups claim Tiger as their own. For example, many in
> Thailand are upset that Tiger does not consider himself primarily Thai since
> his mother is Thai-Chinese (a large percentage of Thai are Thai-Chinese due
> to various border changes over the centuries). Lots of races would like to
> call Tiger one of their own.
It is a fact that Tiger is multi-racial. Given that his mother is
oriental, he certainly is 1/2 oriental. His father is
African-American, so Tiger is 1/2 that as well.
|
| | |
Date: 13 Sep 2006 17:16:45
From: Mark A
Subject: Re: Nicklaus and controversy
|
"Scott M. Kozel" <kozelsm@attbi.com > wrote in message
news:1158188599.804822.69410@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
> Mark A wrote:
>>
>> I personally think that Tiger's ethnic background is irrelevant.
>> However,
>> more than one racial groups claim Tiger as their own. For example, many
>> in
>> Thailand are upset that Tiger does not consider himself primarily Thai
>> since
>> his mother is Thai-Chinese (a large percentage of Thai are Thai-Chinese
>> due
>> to various border changes over the centuries). Lots of races would like
>> to
>> call Tiger one of their own.
>
> It is a fact that Tiger is multi-racial. Given that his mother is
> oriental, he certainly is 1/2 oriental. His father is
> African-American, so Tiger is 1/2 that as well.
>
How about Native American? Tiger is 12.5% Native American. He is supposed to
deny that heritage also?
|
| | |
Date: 13 Sep 2006 18:11:11
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: Nicklaus and controversy
|
On 13 Sep 2006 16:03:19 -0700, "Scott M. Kozel" <kozelsm@attbi.com >
wrote:
>Mark A wrote:
>>
>> I personally think that Tiger's ethnic background is irrelevant. However,
>> more than one racial groups claim Tiger as their own. For example, many in
>> Thailand are upset that Tiger does not consider himself primarily Thai since
>> his mother is Thai-Chinese (a large percentage of Thai are Thai-Chinese due
>> to various border changes over the centuries). Lots of races would like to
>> call Tiger one of their own.
>
>It is a fact that Tiger is multi-racial. Given that his mother is
>oriental, he certainly is 1/2 oriental. His father is
>African-American, so Tiger is 1/2 that as well.
So what? Does any of this make him a better, or worse, person?
Nope. It's all irrelevant.
--
___,
\o
|
| |
Date: 13 Sep 2006 12:58:51
From: Big_Fan
Subject: Re: Nicklaus and controversy
|
Mark A wrote:
> Correction:
>
> "Tiger him self calls himself mutt-racial", should have said
>
> Tiger him self calls himself multi-racial
Dr. Freud is on the line.
|
| |
Date: 14 Sep 2006 08:37:25
From:
Subject: Re: Nicklaus and controversy
|
Mark A wrote:
> <mcmorrim@georgetown.edu> wrote in message
> news:1158148969.103548.191320@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
> >
>
>Tiger him self calls himself
> mutt-racial (or something like that) and has said that to categorize him as
> only Afro-American or Black would be insult to his mother who is
> Thai-Chinese.
Agreed. My point was about the parsing of identity by seemingly exact
percentages is misleading. Race is in the first place only a very
broad, inexact, term of classification. If you try to get too specific,
you find that you can't exclude what are supposedly other racial
strains from a person's heritage.
I am respected Tiger's preference, which matters more than
> yours or the NAACP's.
Tiger's wishes should be respected, and I do respect them. He is of
mixed heritage, part African, Chinese, Thai, etc. But trying to attach
percentages to someone's racial composition, as if race were something
one could measure precisely, is a dubious science.
>
>
> I am suggesting that Tiger is of 25% African decent as Tiger himself has
> stated and that he considers himself to be multi-racial. Others can call
> themselves whatever they wish.
>
> I personally think that Tiger's ethnic background is irrelevant. However,
> more than one racial groups claim Tiger as their own. For example, many in
> Thailand are upset that Tiger does not consider himself primarily Thai since
> his mother is Thai-Chinese (a large percentage of Thai are Thai-Chinese due
> to various border changes over the centuries). Lots of races would like to
> call Tiger one of their own.
Why say "races"? Is Thai a race? Is Native American? Why not make a
distinction between Algonquin and Iroquois, and say that these are two
races? Someone noted that Vijay isn't black but Fijian. Is Fijian,
also, a race?
>
> You should address that to Tiger, since he is one that has documented his
> racial heritage. Lots of people are multi-cultural, and of course that term
> is relative to time, since we all evolved from the same species and the same
> race, even if some changes have occurred since then.
>
> I am not frightened by racial physical differences. Certainly different
> races have different skin tones, and that is a physical difference, and I
> assume that you are not going to deny that?
I'm not denyng that physical differences exist. But calling them
"racial physical differences" is an assumption, nothing more. "Race" is
a pseudo-scientific concept, caught up in circular reasoning: races
have different physical characteristics; therefore people with certain
differing physical characteristics belong to different races. But what
is a race? Science can't draw the line that defines one race in
distinction from another. (Remember those delightful adventures in
phrenology? Scientific value: zero. Defining race by quantifying
physical differences has not panned out.) Parsing racial percentages in
Tiger or anyone else gives the appearance that scientific precision is
achievable. It is not.
> I were black, I would be extra careful about Sickle Cell Anemia and if I had
> children, I might be concerning about the fact that 5 times as many young
> black males drown compared to young males in other races (including
> Latinos).
OK. Basically agree. The sickle cell argument. Yes, medically, someone
with black skin in the US is more likely to have this condition. What
I'd question is the idea that sickle cell provides supporting evidence
for the existence of a biological category called "race."
To put this carefully: certainly, there are races, since in common
parlance people do use the word with some rough agreement as to its
meaning (and this is a meaning that changes with time and location).
But basically that's all it is: a handy way of identifying and grouping
people. (It has no scientific validity. It's maximally closer to saying
that some people are from Boston than it is to saying that some people
are women.) And I'd go further to say that this particular way of
identifying and grouping people has caused untold horror. That is why
I'd rather we just did away with the lexicon of race altogether,
instead of perpetuating it by for example insisting on gradations of
racial mixture. I mean no offence to Tiger or anyone else, as I hope is
plain.
|
| | |
Date: 14 Sep 2006 12:13:55
From: Mark A
Subject: Re: Nicklaus and controversy
|
<mcmorrim@georgetown.edu > wrote in message
news:1158248245.588035.82780@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
>Someone noted that Vijay isn't black but Fijian. Is Fijian,
> also, a race?
Just to set the facts straight, Vijay's ethnic background is Indian. When
India and Fiji were part of the English Colonial Empire, many Indians were
sent to Fiji as workers. About 40% of Fiji residents are of Indian decent,
and 51% are Fijian (predominantly Melanesian with a Polynesian admixture),
and the rest from other ethnic backgrounds.
There has been a lot discrimination against Indians in Fiji over the years,
but Vijay is now considered a national hero and has helped ease tensions
between the ethnic groups.
You are correct that ethnic background is probably a better term than race.
|
| |
Date: 13 Sep 2006 23:29:20
From: Jack Thompson
Subject: Re: Nicklaus and controversy
|
Mark A wrote:
> "Jack Thompson" <jacqueszmonkey@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:1158127493.339864.79360@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> >
> > I remember an interview with Barkley where he said that Tiger loved
> > water related activities but he and Jordan avoided them completely. Not
> > sure if he's able to swim, but he's certainly not keen on it.
> >
>
> Tiger is 25% African-American. (25% Thai, 25% Chinese, 12.5% Caucasian,
> 12.5% Native American).
Actually I was talking about Tiger Schwartz, their accountant.
|
| |
Date: 14 Sep 2006 22:03:18
From: Big_Fan
Subject: Re: Nicklaus and controversy
|
> Hank Aaron was tired of hearing
> how fast his wrists were.
That's nothing compared to how fast Bret's are moving when he's
watching Natalie Gulbis on video.
|
| |
Date: 14 Sep 2006 13:15:41
From:
Subject: Re: Nicklaus and controversy
|
Mark A wrote:
> "Ezran" <ezran6006@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:24a8g2pcc8sd57ako55nkh3qmj3bqf7mfl@4ax.com...
> > What was the most controversial thing he ever did or said in his
> > playing days? There was one incident where he threw his putter, out of
> > happiness, but immediately realised what he did and was apologetic
> > immediately. I guess that's not much of an issue but were there
> > anything else?
>
> In July 1994 Nicklaus said that the reason there are not more
> African-American golfers playing at the highest level in the sport is
> because blacks have "different muscles that react in different ways."
>
> There have been some scientists who have theorized that African races has
> muscles that perform better in certain activities that require rapid
> activities (like jumping), and that Caucasian races have muscles that are
> better at endurance. But if that were true (I don't really know) then that
> would only favor African races when playing golf, because the golf swing
> requires a rapid use of muscles.
>
> The real reason why there are not more African-American golfers playing at
> the highest level is that golf is an expensive sport because it requires
> hitting a lot of balls from an early age. (That is my excuse also).
>
> So that makes Nicklaus' 1994 comments racists and even more ridiculous.
>
However incorrect Nicklaus' theory may be, I see no evidence that his
comments were racist.
|
| | |
Date: 14 Sep 2006 17:49:46
From: Mark A
Subject: Re: Nicklaus and controversy
|
<sir_troll@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1158264941.848613.91690@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> However incorrect Nicklaus' theory may be, I see no evidence that his
> comments were racist.
The problem with Nicklaus' theory is that if it were true, then black
golfers would be better at golf than whites, not worse. That is what makes
his comments at the very least "controversial".
|
| | | |
Date: 15 Sep 2006 02:28:17
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Nicklaus and controversy
|
On Thu, 14 Sep 2006 17:49:46 -0600, "Mark A" <nobody@nowhere.com >
wrote:
>The problem with Nicklaus' theory is that if it were true, then black
>golfers would be better at golf than whites, not worse. That is what makes
>his comments at the very least "controversial".
Usually when someone tells how blacks have a genetic advantage, it's
kind of an excuse for not winning. Hank Aaron was tired of hearing
how fast his wrists were.
In this case though, I think Jack made his statements before Tiger
changed people's perceptions.
|
|
