Some people who read my blog (so very few of you, overall) aren't much into sports. Americans are said to love sports as much as the folks of any other country, but that's not entirely true, and partly, I'm guessing, due to several factors. First, and perhaps most importantly, sports has been a divisive factor. People classified as "jocks" often make fun of people who aren't good at sports.
"Jocks", now that I think about it, is a pretty unusual term. Colloquially, a "jock" is also known as an athletic supporter. This is a weirdish undergarment contraption whose purpose is to prevent a man's reproductive organs from moving around too much during athletic endeavors. It's probably easier to make an analogy and point to a sports bra, which serves a similar function and prevents a woman's breasts from moving too much.
Presumably, if a man has larger than average testicles ("balls") such movement tends to cause pain if jostled around too much.
Having said that, people (at least, not me) don't think of jocks (athletic types) as "jocks" (athletic supporter underwear devices).
The stereotype of a jock is someone who is on a sports team, most stereotypically, American football, that has some dreams they might make it to the college level, and possibly to the professional level. Stereotypically, they only care about sports, and not about academics, and because of that, many are none too bright, and find harassing those who have less athletic skill amusing.
The point?
The point is that because of jock culture, and because they are many other outlets, from being a geek, to being a theater geek (someone who likes to do plays or the support work behind plays, such as lighting, etc), to yearbook, to a whole host of other activities find they can do perfectly well without sports.
Culturally, India is far more into its only major sport, cricket, and seems to not have a jock culture. Despite a large number of males who love to play cricket, none of their families generally think they can make a real living out of playing cricket, as only those on the national team make money, and the national team is maybe 10-20 players, out of a billion plus Indians. Without a jock culture, and with the average Indian more than happy to ignore work and take an unofficial holiday whenever an important cricket match is up, it's perhaps no wonder that the average Indian (male) is far more intently interested in cricket than the average American male is into, say, football.
But I digress.
My point is the article, and the article has to do with some reporter that talked about lynching Tiger Woods in an alley, meant, presumably jokingly. After all, what does a white woman who probably grew up middle class know anything about real lynching? Mike Wilbon puts down his credentials, saying he knows, first hand, well, second hand through his dad, about the issues of lynching, a term that still burns in his memory. One wonders, in another generation, when lynching is two generations back whether such terms will sear as much as they do for Wilbon.
Indeed, it's often because of this cultural disconnect that white Americans use this term and wonder why African Americans revile at it so much. To one group, it barely registers as anything, perhaps as something historical, and certainly doesn't have the visceral impact. It's just like how some people say "you almost gave me a heart attack" without realizing the full seriousness of such a thing, or "You're a retard" often without truly knowing anyone with mental retardation.
Presumably, the thought of actual lynching is somewhat abstract, as if read in a history book. And the actual word seems to matter. Tiger Woods being lynched as opposed to mugged or beaten up or some other word. It's not even the more evocative "string him up on a tree", though apparently, a noose was pictured. So it feels that these actions are fairly deliberate.
Funny enough, many African Americans have come to defend Kelly Tilghman, the white woman who uttered the phrase, especially many who know her personally. A picture of Tilghman graces the article, and, by American standards, anyway, she appears to be a rather attractive woman, which seems to be a huge asset in the sports reporting world. What's sexier than a woman that knows sports, can speak intelligently about it, and is borderline hot? What sports reporter, who often, more than, say, their hardcore news brethren, have to announce their sexuality, wave it like a proud flag, announcing, that yes, Tony Romo was right to go to Mexico with one-hot-what-does-she-do-exactly Jessica Simpson because testosterone is always a good motivator for male actions, what person like that might not introduce herself to Kelly Tilghman, get to know her personally.
Oh I don't mean that such reporters would do anything disgraceful. Do cops that pull over beautiful women and let them go with just a warning do so because they think they will bed them? In reality, they're happy with something much more mundane. They're happy to do a beautiful woman a favor, that this brought some happiness to them, and therefore brought some happiness to themselves.
Wilbon's careful to shove the blame to someone else to protect the person he cares about, and places it on some corporate entity. Maybe they wouldn't have been so insensitive if they had some African Americans working as part of their staff vetting such comments. What does it say that Tilghman, a person I've never heard of, who apparently counts many African Americans as her friends, didn't have the same advice. "I just didn't know". Is that the excuse? Perhaps she knew the firestorm it would bring, and that it would make her name more well-known, perhaps vilified for a while, but that's why it's good to have friends in high places.
But the point is not that either.
It's down to some retort that many of us grew up hearing.
Sticks and stones may break my bones,
but words will never hurt me
We say it, but it certainly isn't true. The "N" word is still potent enough that people feel the need to call it the "N" word, as it must be left unsaid, despite the fact that, in its ultimate irony, it makes the word even worse. I suppose there's even the "F" word (for "fag"), but not the "S" word (spic?), and so forth.
Dalits (the PC term for untouchables) are often derided in a culture that still permits those of higher castes to denigrate those of lower castes, showing the human propensity to de-humanize other humans (towel-heads, and such).
Do words matter? Indeed, they do. But it's a sad commentary that people can't get beyond words and claim it doesn't hurt them. The real issue is the insult hurler who feel the words can hurt, and often use them to hurt folks.
It's funny how this most revolutionary of human inventions, language, has the power to inflict as much pain (albeit of an emotional type) than sticks and stones, and in its own way, possibly moreso.
No comments:
Post a Comment