Tiger's racial makeup

[Bravo]

It is interesting to me that so often, Tiger is referred to as 'black'....here is his racial heritage courtesy of Wikipedia...

This makes Woods himself one-quarter Chinese, one quarter Thai, one quarter African American, one-eighth Native American, and one-eighth Dutch.[

He is more Asian than anything else.....I read that Earl Wood's grandmother had 'bright blonde hair".

Saying he's black, is so inaccurate it's not funny...

[Eracer]

But that's what golf needed according to "THOSE WHO KNOW SUCH THINGS". It didn't need a one-quarter Chinese, one quarter Thai, one quarter African American, one-eighth Native American, and one-eighth Dutch hero, it needed a black man to rise up and overcome. To show the white establishment that a black man could dominate a white man's game. So here he is.

I agree - utterly ridiculous.

On the other hand, I applaud Tiger Woods for not making it a huge issue. I think he sees himself very clearly as a gifted man who had the good fortune to have parents who helped him attain his dream. He's a hard-working and humble individual, and I respect him for it.

[Sean]

I disagree with you guys. I don't know his grandparents but if his father is black and his mother is Asian, then to my reckoning he's half black and half asian, why break it down to quartes and eighths?. Would simply asian be enough? Or should we parse it down further? What if he's percentage points more thai than chinese?

using your logic I should identify as 'French-Canadien' yet I don't... Every time someone asks me for my race should I note that I'm 1/4 English, 1/8 Scottish and 1/8 Hawaiian? Of course not.

If Tiger Woods identifies as a black man, who the hell am I to say that he's wrong?

[Bravo]

Uhhhh well Sean....if he didn't have grandparents.......then he wouldn't have..........parents. And if he didn't have parents....

Sorry, you just can't ignore the grandparents. They are very definitely part of his racial heritage. They DEFINE his parents, who in turn biologically define him.

Remember pictures of Earl Woods??? Light skinned, slightly slanted eyes, high cheekbones? You could easily tell he was not 100% black. Light(er) skin and high cheekbones from American Indian background...slightly slanted eyes from Asian ancestry.

Tiger is a virtual mixmaster of human races and nationalities. What he 'declares' himself to be verbally is not as relevant as biology....

[Sean]

I didn't say I am disregarding his grandparents, I just don't know what race they were and therefore the exact 'mix' of his father and mother. I'm not doyubting the break down of his racial make-up you put down here.

The point is, would you be happy if he and golf analysts identified him as Asian? Or does he have to break it down every time it's broguht up?

Should we all adopt the 'cablinasian' thing he used in an interview when he was younger?

I just have no issue with him either identifying as a black man (and for the record I'm not even sure if he does??) or being referred to as black.

If you grew up your entire life looking like he does and being treated as a black man, I think you'd probably identify with that apsect more.

I had a good friend in high school who's mother was japanese and father was caucasian. He always put 'Asian' down for race. I have no issue with that either.

[cabinessence]

I have to disagree here, most African-Americans rarely if ever have fully African heritage. That doesn't mean they're considered only "half black," especially by white society. If you ran into Earl Woods on the street, you'd probably categorize him as a black guy, even if you knew about the native American and Dutch parts of his background.

[Eracer]

Technically speaking, every human being on the planet has some african (black) human DNA in them. Assuming of course you believe in the theory that all humans are descended from early Homo Erectus populations living in the Pangaean supercontinent of several million years ago, and not descended from a Caucasian Adam and Eve magically appearing in a "Garden of Eden" somewhere.

I myself can trace a black genetic heritage in my family tree. If you've seen a picture of me here you know I have light skin, blue eyes, and blond hair. My Dad, even though he is clearly Caucasion, has dark skin and black hair. Being of Italian descent (my Dad's parents both emigrated to the US from Italy) we have Sicilian bloodlines, and everyone knows that the Moors (black) conquered Sicily and changed the blond-haired / blue-eyed italian race into the dark skin / black hair of the Sicilians today.

Arguing racial purity is a fool's errand, and for anyone to proclaim themselves one particular race is racist.

[Bravo]

Well....my company has a prince of a fellow who works for us. Mom is white, dad is black.

Weirdly, when asked about his race he replies...

"I'm multi-racial"

This coming from someone who has only two backgrounds.

How hard would be for someone like Tiger Woods who has 5-6-7 different backgrounds to simply identify himself as "multi-racial"?

I mean - he is only 25% black for crying out loud.

Don't you think "multi-racial' is a LOT more accurate for Tiger than "black"?

That's my point and nothing else.

[Sean]

Originally Posted by Eracer

Arguing racial purity is a fool's errand, and for anyone to proclaim themselves one particular race is racist.

I agree with the first part but I dont think theres anything wrong with identifying with a particular race. There's a distinct difference between that and being a racist, imho.

And with that I'll bow out here as these things tend to end up getting heat3ed at some point.

[Eracer]

Originally Posted by Sean

I agree with the first part but I dont think theres anything wrong with identifying with a particular race. There's a distinct difference between that and being a racist, imho.

And with that I'll bow out here as these things tend to end up getting heat3ed at some point.

Well, I don't think that even 1 of my 3700 posts have ever been "heated". I don't believe in flaming anyone for their opinion, and if they flame me I just ignore it. I welcome debate - it's one of the reasons that forums exists.

My definition of racist includes anyone who believes that a human being is different solely because of the color of their skin, or some other physiognomic feature. It doesn't mean you're a hater, which is, I think, your definition of racist. It's almost impossible not to be a racist by my definition. It helps me to recognize my own racism whenever possible, so that I can try to reduce it as much as possible. If humans are going to survive for much longer, we need wake up as a species and recognize that we're all in this together. We're a long way from that.

Unity is important. Not white unity, black unity, or eskimo unity. We need human unity.

[Sean]

The 'heated' comment wasn't really directeds t you, more the ubject. itself. In my experience, race, religion and politics are subjects of threads that at some point turn sour almost inevitably.

Clearly I was thinking different than you when you used the term 'racist'. I still don't think their is anything wrong with recognizing that somebodies skin looks different than mine, or that asians have eyes shaped differently. Is that racist? I guess you could consider it that, as you mentioned before it'd be near impossible NOT to be a racist via that definition.

My fiancee is Korean and when she met my niece (around 3 at the time) my niece walked up to her and asked if she had brothers and sisters and my fiancee said yes, she has 3 bnrothers. My niece walked up to here, touched her eyes and said, "Do they all have eyes like you?" to which my fiancee said "No, they don't." (she was adopted) and my niece says, "Well, I think you're beautiful! Not everyone looks the same, you know!"

Basically, I;m agreeing but disagreeing. A world where everyone LITERALLY failed to notice physical differences and judged each other solely on content of character would be a wonderful place, yet near impossible to reach. It's OK to notice differences (I notice my black friends are black and my fiancee is Asian) in people but it;'s entirely another to JUDGE people based on how they look, which is more my defintion of the term.

[Eracer]

Originally Posted by Sean

The 'heated' comment wasn't really directeds t you, more the ubject. itself. In my experience, race, religion and politics are subjects of threads that at some point turn sour almost inevitably.

Clearly I was thinking different than you when you used the term 'racist'. I still don't think their is anything wrong with recognizing that somebodies skin looks different than mine, or that asians have eyes shaped differently. Is that racist? I guess you could consider it that, as you mentioned before it'd be near impossible NOT to be a racist via that definition.

My fiancee is Korean and when she met my niece (around 3 at the time) my niece walked up to her and asked if she had brothers and sisters and my fiancee said yes, she has 3 bnrothers. My niece walked up to here, touched her eyes and said, "Do they all have eyes like you?" to which my fiancee said "No, they don't." (she was adopted) and my niece says, "Well, I think you're beautiful! Not everyone looks the same, you know!"

Basically, I;m agreeing but disagreeing. A world where everyone LITERALLY failed to notice physical differences and judged each other solely on content of character would be a wonderful place, yet near impossible to reach. It's OK to notice differences (I notice my black friends are black and my fiancee is Asian) in people but it;'s entirely another to JUDGE people based on how they look, which is more my defintion of the term.

You're right about the "touchy" subjects. They tend to promote the most heated debates. We are blessed here with moderators (Bravo - who started this thread - for example) who are smart, and sensible. They will allow and encourage debate, but will slam the door shut very quickly on any thread (or poster) who gets out of hand. They, along with the great group of people here, make this a forum without peer, IMO.

I think we agree on this topic.

[Bravo]

This thread has been jacked from my original post.

It's about the ACCURACY of Tiger Woods identifying himself as black when he is more Asian than anything else....AND his makeup also includes American Indian as well as causasion.

I never intended the thread to be about racism....only the fact that IMHO - IF I WERE HIM - (with equal respect to My mother in addition to My father) - I'd call myself, multi-racial.

[Eracer]

Originally Posted by Bravo

This thread has been jacked from my original post.

It's about the ACCURACY of Tiger Woods identifying himself as black when he is more Asian than anything else....AND his makeup also includes American Indian as well as causasion.

I never intended the thread to be about racism....only the fact that IMHO - IF I WERE HIM - (with equal respect to My mother in addition to My father) - I'd call myself, multi-racial.

Call it a threadjack if you want, but I think that anytime a discussion involves race - be it the definition a man's racial heritage, or how that man views himself - the topic of racism is germane to the discussion. You say it's inaccurate to call Tiger a black man because of his multi-racial background. I simply suggested that ANY application of a racial profile is inherently recist. I also said that Tiger is less enamored of being labeled as a Black Golfer, than he is of being labeled a Great Golfer.

Besides - are there any threads on this forum that don't drift off a rigourously defined track? Does it really matter?

I thought my posts were at least related to your original thought.

[Bravo]

Originally Posted by Eracer

Call it a threadjack if you want, but I think that anytime a discussion involves race - be it the definition a man's racial heritage, or how that man views himself - the topic of racism is germane to the discussion. You say it's inaccurate to call Tiger a black man because of his multi-racial background. I simply suggested that ANY application of a racial profile is inherently recist. I also said that Tiger is less enamored of being labeled as a Black Golfer, than he is of being labeled a Great Golfer.

Besides - are there any threads on this forum that don't drift off a rigourously defined track? Does it really matter?

I thought my posts were at least related to your original thought.

Yeah we usually drift off somewhere....and with half my braincells being long gone....I am as guilty as anyone.

I respect that he can identify himself as black. After all, its his life and family.

I think its the press that kind of miffs me about the subject....all of the hoohah about him winning The Master's the first time. I can understand the press playing it up because of Augusta National's history of all white membership and the fact that his dad suffered terrible racial discrimintation during his life. I recognize ALL of this.

I guess my point is that the press has an obligation to be ACCURATE and they should report the fact that he is truly a multi-racial man. Perhaps this combination of different races and heritages has indeed made him the superman he is today....I know he has had a great father, great coaching and a staggering work ethic....but one thing we can all agree on is his phenomenal God-given talents. When that little guy was born, there was a natural chemistry of athleticism, intelligence and the ability to become mentally disciplined that we may never again see in a human being....

don't really know....