Towing the fine line between comments based on race, and racism

I recall in my youth that there was a period when kids in school told “Polish” jokes; to call someone a “Polack” was generally a disparaging term to infer that someone was a “moron.” It is true that most of the jokes I heard used “Polack” as a generic term not necessarily meant to demean Poles (although Poles might have a different opinion about that), but as a convenient vehicle for juvenile, bad taste puns—like your typical “How many (blank) does it take to screw in a light bulb?” But like “jokes” about Latinos that are meant to be personal and offensive, the origins of “jokes” like “How do you catch a Polack? By slamming the toilet lid on his head while he’s taking a drink of water” were intended to degrade a particular group; such “jokes” were imported from German immigrants, especially those from regions bordering Poland. 

Many Poles also accused the “Jewish” media of disseminating anti-Pole jokes as an act of revenge for anti-Semitism; one may recall that Archie Bunker frequently disparaged his son-in-law as “Meathead” and “Polack” in All in the Family. Of course, it wasn’t always tolerated: “People from Poland are Poles, not Polacks” an angry Stanley Kowalski tells Blanche in A Streetcar Named Desire. “But what I am is one hundred percent American. I'm born and raised in the greatest country on this earth and I'm proud of it. And don't you ever call me a Polack.” Some of us “others” can relate. Take, for instance, the following conversation I once had with a drill instructor in the Army:

DI: Is this how you fold your socks, you Mexican?
Me: I'm not a Mexican.
DI: You Cuban.
Me: I'm not a Cuban.
DI: You Puerto Rican.
Me: I'm not a Puerto Rican.
DI:: You--whatever you are--except, of course, American.

“Polish” jokes have been out of style for a few decades now, but other forms of demeaning “jokes” still persevere. Take for instance the latest incident in the on-going soap opera involving Tiger Woods and Sergio Garcia. Earlier in the week the Golf Channel's Steve Sands decided to stir the pot by asking Garcia at some European golf function if he would invite Woods to dinner when he returned to America for the US Open. "We will have him round every night," Garcia responded. "We will serve fried chicken." Not noted was how many people in the room laughed. One my ask “What is so offensive about that?” After all, is it not true that all “Mexicans” eat tacos and refried beans all day? Why don’t we “ask” Fuzzy Zoeller?

He's doing quite well, pretty impressive. That little boy is driving well and he's putting well. He's doing everything it takes to win. So, you know what you guys do when he gets in here? You pat him on the back and say congratulations and enjoy it and tell him not to serve fried chicken next year. Got it? Or collard greens or whatever the hell they serve.

This comment came after Woods trounced the field in the 1997 Masters Championship. Zoeller grew-up in “butternut” country in Indiana—meaning that the people there share the same racial attitudes as Southerners. The first offense here is calling Woods “boy.” The second is the assumption that he is not like “us”—meaning white people. It was a stupid remark, really; plenty of white folks eat chicken—fried or otherwise. I bet the first Kentucky Fried Chicken joints in the South didn’t even allow blacks inside. Zoeller still claims it was just a “joke,” but unfortunately for him that reference of “they” suggests that his remarks came from personal prejudice and bigotry. 

What then do we make of Garcia’s disparagement of “fried chicken”? I don’t think  Garcia is a racist; one thing I do know is that racism by players and fans is a frequent scandal in European soccer. Perhaps he is just acting out his envy of Woods’ success, or he feels “demeaned” because Woods isn’t “friendly” with him—and so takes his vengeance by using insipid means of demeaning Woods, employing a stereotype that suggests an “unnatural” desire. On the other hand, how do we interpret Steve Williams' comment that he wanted to shove Adam Scott's  win at the WGC-Bridgestone Invitational  “right up that black ass”? Williams, who made millions caddying for Woods, was eventually fired by Woods during his “troubled” period. Williams eventually got a new job on Scott’s bag, but it was clear that  he now held a deep grudge against Woods, doubtless feeling that he wasn’t “appreciated” enough. Was it a “racist” remark? Why did he have to identify the “color” of Woods’ fundament? Did IT being “black” make it more despicable? 

In any case, if he was a soccer player, Garcia would have been the subject of a long investigation and penalized. But golf is more “gentlemanly” and it likes to keep things “respectable.” Garcia gave what appeared to be a sincere apology for his remark, claiming that he did not know that in America, it had racial connotations. Well, of course he knew, or else he wouldn’t have used the “fried chicken” crack. From someone else, Woods would likely have brushed off the remark; but given their war of words of late, he decided to rub it in on Twitter: "The comment that was made wasn't silly. It was wrong, hurtful and clearly inappropriate,” but he accepted Garcia’s “regret” about the comment as “real.” The powers that be in European golf also decided that the apology was sufficient and that it was time to move on. Just one problem: 

Most of Sergio's friends in the States happen to be coloured athletes…We accept all races on the European Tour…There is no need for any further disciplinary action—apparently no more than persuading Garcia to make his apology.

These remarks were made by George O’Grady, who is head of the European Golf Tour. Someone subsequently whispered in his ear that in the States  when certain people use the word “coloured”—or “colored”—to describe another group or groups, it suggests these certain people still see other races as a separate species. Now if O’Grady had used the term “people of colour,” that would have been more acceptable, since coloured people sounds suspiciously like “mud” people; putting “people” before “colour” sound more respectful. 

Some people might defend O’Grady for simply being out-of-step with the times, being a Northern Irish Protestant. I once knew a woman from Northern Ireland who worked in a temp office; she said that she was the product of a “mixed marriage.” Someone in the room expressed doubt upon this and asked if one of her parents was black; oh no, her father was Catholic and her mother Protestant. They lived in a Catholic-majority neighborhood, and they were generally treated like pariahs. In a society already deeply divided by religion within a single race, it’s not hard to imagine how racial divisions are observed. John Huggan, writing for Golf Digest, was not as forgiving of this latest example of how some in the golf world still have trouble accepting the reality of a Tiger in the Caucasian clubhouse:

Well, that's all right then, as long as everyone is prepared to accept complete ignorance on the part of the accused as a legitimate defense. Or that being completely out of touch with the modern world also represents a reasonable explanation for such a blatant faux pas. Neither is, of course. But O'Grady -- who has worked for the European Tour since 1974 -- should know better. Indeed, he must know better. If those charged with the administration of golf cannot be trusted to navigate what is admittedly becoming something of a racial minefield, what chance have those more casually involved?

Huggan may have had someone like Scottish golfer/muscle-head Colin Montgomerie in mind. “Monty” leapt to the defense of both Garcia and O’Grady, proclaiming that 

George (O'Grady) says coloured, somebody says black, but who is to say who is right and wrong, and for the chief executive who is a very educated man to get caught up then we need to decide what we can and can't say and move on quickly…I am not allowed to feel sorry for him (Garcia). But we are a family here on the European Tour, a close family unit and we stand up for each other. I've played a lot of Ryder Cups with Sergio and we are a very close family and we should remain that way. This shouldn't affect us…If I get asked at the next press conference I'll have to say 'sorry, no comment' and hope that is not offending anybody. You just can't say a thing, can you? It's a shame, it's a pity. The three 'no-no's' are race, religion and politics and you are going to upset someone along the line if you mention any of them.

Montgomerie is another one of those golfers who has a hard time accepting the fact that Tiger Woods’ place in golf history is a book-length masterpiece, while his will be that footnote of someone who made a stupid or inane comment. Here he reveals himself to be utterly insensitive and basely ignorant. For him and others like him, he can’t distinguish the “fine line” between making comments based on race, and racism (I am also reminded of an incident in college when a pale, blonde female bemused fellow students by saying out loud that she would never marry a black man—but insisted that she wasn’t a "racist").  It’s an easy thing to do to avoid making comments that can be construed as having racist overtones—unless, of course, you suggest things like “We are a European family,” which has its own  discriminatory implications. A social dinosaur like Archie Bunker would have been in complete agreement with that philosophy.