Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
There are few phrases more overused than "political correctness." Its usual usage is as little more than a meaningless catchphrase to bypass any criticism of anything a conservative says. But there is a kernel of truth to the complaints about political correctness and once in a while a situation comes up that demonstrates the absurdity of the kind of kneejerk reaction that the phrase was originally intended to criticize. And Tiger Woods is caught in the middle of one such situation right now.
For those who don't know about it, here's what happened. A Golf Channel anchor named Kelly Tilghman was having a conversation on air with Nick Faldo about Tiger's dominance and how the other players could stop him from winning. Faldo joked that nothing short of "ganging up" on him would work and Tilghman responded by saying that the only way to stop him is to "lynch him in a back alley."
The whole thing is mountain being made out of less than a molehill. Everyone knows what she meant. She just meant that he's so much better than everyone else that the only way to beat him is to keep him from making it to the course. But she used the word "lynch", which of course has some inflated meaning because of the historical use of lynching against blacks by racists in this country.
All hell broke loose. Despite the fact that no one could seriously claim that Tilghman intended to make any sort of racial comment whatsoever, she was suspended for two weeks by the Golf Channel. Have we really come that far? Have we really reached the point where the intent of a speaker in saying something is totally irrrelevant, where the mere mention of that word is enough to bring down punishment? It appears we have.
But it gets worse. Golfweek magazine then published a story about the controversy that included a picture of a noose on the cover and their editor was immediately fired for doing so. It's bad enough that she was punished for a statement that clearly contained no ill will, but to fire a guy for using a symbol like a noose in an article discussing lynching is absolutely ridiculous.
Now comes Tiger Woods, who is competing this week for the first time in a few weeks, and he's asked about it. He replies perfectly reasonably, saying that he knows Tilghman and is friends with her, that he talked to her about it and doesn't believe that she meant anything racially insensitive by it and, as far as he's concerned, that's the end of it. And that indeed should be the end of it. But it's not.
Now the stories are all about whether Tiger is doing enough about this "serious issue." Jim Brown, the NFL hall of famer, came out and criticized Tiger for not speaking out sooner and for not....well, who knows. His critics don't seem to know what Tiger should be doing, but they're sure he's not doing enough. And Jim Brown's reasoning is simply absurd:
"He should have come out right away. Instead, he waited until it was politically correct [to comment]," Brown said. "The word 'lynch' ... there is no redeeming part of it."When you say lynch, you're gonna have to pay the price. That is a very embarrassing word, a humiliating one, in the history of our country."
But Jim...you just said the word lynch, yet you obviously don't think you should pay any price for doing so. It's not the mere usage of the word, it's the context and the intent of the speaker that matters. And no one has even pretended to believe that Tilghman was actually encouraging anyone to lynch Tiger Woods, for crying out loud. She's being bashed for meaning something that no one, even those calling for her head, actually believes she meant.
This is exactly the sort of reflexive, kneejerk, simpleminded reaction that the term "political correctness" was coined to criticize. It's groupthink and identity politics at its most unthinking and irrational. If she had said, "they can't beat this guy unless they hire Tonya Harding's bodyguard to take him out", no one would have reacted this way at all. We would have taken it exactly the way she meant it. We should be taking it that way anyway.
Comments
And of course, you have the ESPN bimbo who screamed "F*** Jesus," but was only suspended for half the time Tilghman was for her meaningless comment.
Posted by: Chet Lemon | January 26, 2008 9:58 AM
You are right on target - but of course I am very sorry if that phrase offends relatives of those murdered by firing squad.
The treatment of Tilghman and of the editor is not "political correctness", it is paranoid stupidity.
Posted by: R N B | January 26, 2008 10:54 AM
Re Tiger Woods
I am afraid I am going to have to disagree with Mr. Brayton somewhat on this one, and I say this as someone who has no affection for Mr. Woods.
Back in the 18th century, a British admiral named Byng was court martialed and hung for his part in the loss of a navel battle. The punishment was not so much for what Byng did but, as the French say, in order to encourage the others.
Now some may wonder what this reminiscence has to do with the current issue. I believe that Ms. Tilghman was figuratively hung not for what she said but as a warning to other commentators to not make the same mistake. I believe it was a mistake as there is nothing at all humorous about lynchings to black Americans. I sincerely hope that other commentators got the message.
Posted by: SLC | January 26, 2008 11:19 AM
SLC--Are you really arguing that Tilghman should be punished although she did nothing wrong in order to raise awareness of this issue? That certainly doesn't seem fair to Tilghman.
Lynchings were performed to "teach" other slaves what would happen to them if they "got out of line". It seems that you are advocating the exact same thing--but this time in the name of, uhh, what exactly?
Just out of curiosity, in what circumstances would this "make an example of an innocent" be appropriate?
Posted by: David C. Brayton | January 26, 2008 11:43 AM
Although Tilghman and Brown both said the word, Tilghman used it, while Brown only mentioned it -- there was a post on Language Log today about this well-established distinction. So, clearly, Brown should pay no price for mentioning the word (this is not a question of context, by the way).
The question remains whether Tilghman should pay a price. Whether she was serious or not, she was talking about lynching a black golf player in a country with a history of lynching blacks. I'm sure this was not an intentionally racist statement, but it was a racist statement nonetheless. History leaves a trace on people's consciousness, and this means that certain words can no longer be spoken, jokingly or otherwise, without brutally offending particular groups of people. Imagine a German sportscaster "joking" about gassing a Jewish golf player. Would you be surprised if he were suspended by his employer?
Posted by: Gregory Earl | January 26, 2008 11:59 AM
If a mob hangs a person who is not black, is that not a "lynching?"
The America Heritage Dictionary defines the word lynch thusly:
To execute without due process of law, especially to hang, as by a mob.
As I consider possible comments I could make about this issue, each one seems to devolve into "intellectual incorrectness" and sounds trite, simplistic, devoid of meaningful substance.
Tiger Woods: 1
Jim Brown and other whiners: 0
Posted by: Crudely Wrott | January 26, 2008 11:59 AM
Re David C. Brayton
I am afraid I am going to have to disagree with Mr. D. C. Brayton that Ms. Tilghman did nothing wrong. We may argue about the seriousness of the offense, which I consider to be fairly serious, meriting at least a strong tongue lashing; however, offense it was. Now the punishment for the offense was perhaps too strong, but IMHO, it is mitigated by the requirement that a message had to be sent and hopefully received. Or putting it another way, hopefully the others will be encouraged!
Posted by: SLC | January 26, 2008 12:03 PM
I also have to disagree somewhat, if only in general. What if we speak about a Jewish golf player? Is it appropriate to crack a joke: you would have to gas him to lose?
The ongoing discussion and the editor's firing surely sounds stupid enough. I just find it a bit harder where to draw the line.
Posted by: kamenin | January 26, 2008 12:03 PM
I think that Ms. Tilghman made an unfortunate error that I'm sure was not meant to be racist. I think 2 weeks suspension is too severe. A public apology and reprimand would be appropriate.
Tiger Woods handled it perfectly. He is a classy guy.
Jim Brown is being an ass.
Posted by: T. Bruce McNeely | January 26, 2008 12:38 PM
I agree with the point that the issue has inflated past what it should have been. But it was still a very stupid thing to say. I think it is naive to try and argue that the original comment did not have strongly racial overtones extending beyond a discussion of one golfers skill.
Imagine we were talking about a gay golfer and instead of "lynching" it was a comment about beating him and tying him to a fence? Would that be so innocent if the commentor did not "intended" for it to be a hateful comment?
Posted by: ks | January 26, 2008 12:44 PM
Tiger is probably right not to make an issue of it. It would be never ending if a celebrity had to respond to every bad comment. However, the noose picture is beyond the pale. There really is no excuse for that.
As an aside, immigration seems to have disappeared from the political radar screens of the press and the blogs. Here is an old song by Cheech and Chong, "Born in East L.A."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SiFGr51ubV4
Posted by: bernarda | January 26, 2008 12:50 PM
I'll have to side with SLC and some others here. Talking about "lynching" a black guy, even metaphorically, is offensive on a pretty serious level even if not intended to be racist. You might as well talk about "gassing" a Jew or "dragging" a homosexual. Maybe the suspension was overkill on the punishment, but their was certainly a wrong committed here.
Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | January 26, 2008 12:54 PM
Are gassing and tying a person to a fence common, everyday expressions for ganging up on someone, regardless of race? No.
Posted by: Gretchen | January 26, 2008 1:01 PM
"...but [there] was certainly a wrong committed here."
Fixed.
Sorry, but that particular oversight just really annoyed me.
Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | January 26, 2008 1:02 PM
"Are gassing and tying a person to a fence common, everyday expressions for ganging up on someone, regardless of race? No."
Even if it is a common expression, it carries extra meaning when applied to a black guy due to its history.
Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | January 26, 2008 1:07 PM
I agree with Ed, but have a small comment on the use of "lynch" with respect to black people and others. To me, the word has an even nastier connotation with respect to black people because, in the cases that I have read about, while lynching in the Old West was a matter of mob "justice" and usually amounted to hanging the victim, lynching of black people was frequently accompanied by torture, often of a truly horrible kind.
In an instance of synchronicity, I posted something last night on Language Log along related lines: Political Correctness and the Use/Mention Distinction.
Posted by: Bill Poser | January 26, 2008 1:07 PM
I disagree. Black people are not the only ones who were lynched, and the term in today's vernacular has nothing to do with race. If a non-racist person can use it to a black person without thinking, that's a sign of progress. Those who attack her and insist that it must be connected with race are the ones with the problem.
Posted by: Gretchen | January 26, 2008 1:15 PM
I think we can all agree that a "wrong" was committed here. But I disagree with SLC and others that a "message" has to sent. Acknowledge you made a mistake, apologize, and go have a beer.
Posted by: yoshi | January 26, 2008 1:23 PM
"Black people are not the only ones who were lynched, and the term in today's vernacular has nothing to do with race."
Maybe I'm around a different vernacular than you, but the term "lynch" is inextricably tied to hate crimes against blacks... especially when spoken about a black person.
Posted by: ks | January 26, 2008 1:23 PM
Really? So if you tried to use it when talking about somebody who was not black, it wouldn't make sense? I don't know what circles you hang out in, but the people I know generally define the term as involving a hysterical mob ganging up on someone out of fear and hatred. I find it ironic, then, that we're talking about a white sportscaster who was lynched for using the very word "lynching."
Posted by: Gretchen | January 26, 2008 1:31 PM
"Black people are not the only ones who were lynched, and the term in today's vernacular has nothing to do with race."
In some contexts it doesn't, when applied to a black guy it does. Jews weren't the only ones who have ever been "gassed" either.
"If a non-racist person can use it to a black person without thinking, that's a sign of progress."
No, it's really more of a sign of white privilege and ignorance than anything.
Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | January 26, 2008 1:33 PM
I don't even agree that a wrong has been committed. I think, at worst, she used a poorly chosen word. But no one can seriously argue that she was advocating that Tiger be lynched. As Gretchen notes, lynching has a much broader history than just its racial history (as opposed to "gassing", which would refer directly to the holocaust). The word "lynch" is used in all sorts of contexts without any racial connotation at all. The only reason it's being made out to be racial here is because Tiger happens to be black. But Tiger understands that words do not have an intrinsic meaning, they mean what the person speaking intends them to mean. And Tilghman did not intend anything racial with this. We all know what she meant and I just reject the notion that she needed to be punished for it because it could be wrongly taken to mean something radically different than she meant.
We hear often from some white people that it's wrong that black people can say the N word but white people can't. But there's a reason for that: because intent matters. It's just like how a woman can say to her friend "you are such a bitch" and it's not taken as offensive because the friend knows that she's just joking around, but if her boyfriend called her a bitch in an argument, she'd be furious. The difference is that we understand context and intent, we understand that the very same word can mean different things depending on who is using it and the context in which it is used. And the context here is that this is a woman who is friends with Tiger, who has known him for years, and her intent was merely to say that you aren't gonna beat him unless you prevent him from making it to the course. Why do we recognize the importance of context and intent in every other circumstance but suddenly decide that it doesn't matter here, that the mere utterance of a word must show its ill will? I just don't get it.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | January 26, 2008 1:34 PM
White people tend to be too sensitive about black people's sensitivity to racially insensitive remarks. Perhaps a more finely calibrated remedy, like an apology and some on-air consciousness raising would have been smarter, but the oppressed group's reaction is not inconsequential. Tilghman's intent isn't terribly relevant - the old "I'm sorry IF I offended you" doesn't cut it. "I'm sorry THAT I offended you" is called for.
These situations always seem to devolve into the oppressor focusing on intent, and the oppressed focusing on the deed itself. Personally, if I say something I don't realize is offensive, I appreciate being educated about it, because I would rather not re-offend.
Also, I would be very surprised if a sportscaster did not have cultural sensitivity training.
Posted by: op99 | January 26, 2008 1:39 PM
There is an aspect of this matter which troubles me and does not seem to have been addressed. I believe the meaning of 'lynch' is an extra-judicial execution usually performed by a mob. Now don't get me wrong here; I know it became particularly associated with racial killings of blacks but that is not its only application. If Ms Tilghman had made the same comment about, say, Phil Mikelson would there have been the same outcry? This seems to me an example of self-appointed moralists of the Al Sharpton mould hijacking a word for their own purposes.
Posted by: Stephen Llewellyn | January 26, 2008 1:45 PM
The speaker clearly did not mean it in the context of lynching a black man, if they had been talking about any other golfer and the exact same thing was said no one would have cared. I mean metaphorically lynching a human being somehow only becomes inappropriate when talking about a black man? If she had said "take him to a back ally and beat him up" would it have been equally inappropriate, or would no one have a given a damn? Given the number violent metaphors used in sports all the time, I think it would have been the later.
This is childish, its like when you were little and you started a sentence with the word "but" and everyone around you went "ohhh so and so said but". Except in this case, instead of laughing at you, the other kids are trying to run you off of the playground. I would expect adults to be able to read the interview and be able to discern that what was said had no racial motivated ill will in it.
This is what I hate about the racial double standards in this country, a sports commenter at best unknowingly makes a racially charged statement and everyone freaks out. Yet rap artists routinely refer to women as hoes, gay people as fags, and African Americans as niggars, and no one bated an eye until eminem did the exact the exact same thing as every other rap personality out there.
Doesn't anyone else find it odd that despite the overabundance of insensitive and racist language in our culture the only people that ever catch hell for it are white people? I would have thought that getting rid of racism would involve holding people of different color to the same standards.
Posted by: random guy | January 26, 2008 1:45 PM
Sorry, Ed. I see that you did indeed address this issue while I was actually typing my comment. Thus, I didn't see your comment before I posted.
Posted by: Stephen Llewellyn | January 26, 2008 1:47 PM
"Tilghman's intent isn't terribly relevant - the old "I'm sorry IF I offended you" doesn't cut it. "I'm sorry THAT I offended you" is called for."
I think the former is perfectly well called for here. I could see the latter in the case of someone like Dom Imus, who clearly DID mean to offend and people were right to be offended.
In this case, the "if" is justified, because it's very clear that being offended was a choice, not a necessary reaction.
Posted by: Bad | January 26, 2008 1:51 PM
What Tilghman said is akin to what some football coach said in response to a question about how to stop a running back;"With a gun." Silly? Yes. She could have saved herself a lot of trouble by simply saying that Tiger Woods is simply more talented then any golfer around. I will take Tiger's word nothing racist was meant. Ideally, that should end this episode.
But sadly, she used an image that is racially charged. For those people who are making the case that the word 'lynch' does not have any racist overtones, you are ignorant of American history. I would suggest you pick up a book titled 'At The Hands Of Persons Unknown: The Lynching Of Black America'. From 1882 though 1944, at least 3417 african americans were lynched by mobs. It would seem that the practice was wide spread.
And now, there are people using silly episode as a springboard and in the process, making themselves look silly. I like Jim Brown saying that Tiger "waited until it was politically correct". Is there a politically correct time? What does that mean? Sounds like drivel to me.
Posted by: Janine | January 26, 2008 2:02 PM
So now you can mind-read both Tilghman's intent and the offended people's reactions. You should sell tickets.
FWIW, I, too, doubt that Tilghman "meant anything" by her comment, but if people were offended, then it was offensive. If you make your living as a broadcaster, you offend at your peril.
Posted by: op99 | January 26, 2008 2:03 PM
@random guy,
Sure, double standards suck, but history doesn't just disappear. Those double standards have a reason. Slavery is not ancient history, and institutionalized discrimination of Black Americans ended less than fifty years ago. So, those double standards are the price that the white majority in the U.S. is going to have to pay for while longer.
Now you're either joking or you're a victim of selective perception. People complain about rap lyrics all the time!
Posted by: Gregory Earl | January 26, 2008 2:12 PM
LanguageLog has news of another PC incident:
http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/005349.html#more
Posted by: anon1234 | January 26, 2008 3:10 PM
Remember the guy who was fired for using the word "niggardly?"
Posted by: Niggard | January 26, 2008 3:13 PM
op99 wrote:
I guess that makes Tiger the "oppressor" since he agrees with my position. I'm also not quite sure how I became an "oppressor" in this circumstance. I'm pretty damn sure I didn't oppress anyone.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | January 26, 2008 3:49 PM
Janine wrote:
This is a straw man. No one here is saying that the word lynch doesn't have any racial overtones to it historically. It clearly does. But that doesn't mean that every person that uses it in every context intends it to have any racial meaning. It is incredibly clear here that she did not intend to make a racial comment at all, that it was just one of many different ways of saying "this guy is so good, you have to break his legs to beat him." If she had said it in a dozen other ways, no one would have blinked, but it would still have exactly the same meaning it has now. Tiger seems to understand that; I can't get why others don't get it.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | January 26, 2008 3:54 PM
More precisely, "members of the oppressor group" and "members of the oppressed group."
Posted by: op99 | January 26, 2008 4:13 PM
op99,
Aside from the fact that you've got no real evidence that attitudes toward the use of "lynch" actually divide up along black/non-black lines, the use of the terms "oppressor group" and "oppressed group" is misleading. Most non-black people have never had any role in oppression of black people. Nobody alive was involved in slavery. Few people alive today were involved in lynching of black people. Many black people are not in any real sense oppressed. Many non-black people are or have been oppressed. This kind of cavalier division the "oppressor group" and "the oppressed group" is politically and historically naive and morally insidious.Posted by: Bill Poser | January 26, 2008 4:26 PM
Frankly, if you're going to argue that Ms. Tilghman ought to be punished for using a word with a "racist" connotation or history, why not just go all-out and postulate that anyone who uses any word that's ever been associated with a racist individual or statement be punished? I mean, that's the logical end-point of this sort of idiocy.
At the risk of Godwinning the thread, though, you might want to take a look at this first.
Posted by: Azkyroth | January 26, 2008 4:33 PM
It is incredibly clear here that she did not intend to make a racial comment at all, that it was just one of many different ways of saying "this guy is so good, you have to break his legs to beat him." If she had said it in a dozen other ways, no one would have blinked, but it would still have exactly the same meaning it has now.
My only question is this: Is the phrase "lynch him in a back alley" really that common that someone would use it in that context? I've never used it or even heard it before. And it immediately struck me as something that would be popular down in the South about 50 years ago. There are so many other phrases she could have used, I do wonder a little why she chose lynching. And I don't buy the argument that lynching is a race-neutral term. I think most people understand what lynching represented in this country and are careful with it's usage in public.
Whether she intended to or not, I think she should have picked another one of those dozen other ways to say it.
Posted by: Bruce | January 26, 2008 4:40 PM
This is another case in which a bunch of people are looking to be offended. It seems to me this country is losing a valuable tool that it once had- the ability to take oppressive words, or words from an oppressive past, and 'take them back.' A personal example- I'm slightly handicapped. In my teens I frequented support groups, which for the most part were great and truly provided emotional and social support.
However, what drove me up the wall was the unspoken ban on the word "handicapped." The reasoning as I understood it was this word denotes a homeless outcast without the ability to help him/herself and so must beg. A picture of abject failure and infantile helplessness.
So we should not use this word because we need to be...what? Touchy about certain words because they have magical powers? To do what?
That said, I do understand to a point that 'lynch' was an unfortunate choice of words that has a historical reality for those in the U.S.
But come on. We're not exactly talking David Duke crashing golf tournaments to get his two cents in.
Posted by: Tyler | January 26, 2008 4:40 PM
I just don't buy this notion of group guilt. Gays have historically been oppressed throughout society. Does that make me, as a straight man, an "oppressor" of gays? Of course not. This notion that I bear guilt for the actions of others based on our sharing a superficial trait is every bit as absurd as the notion of original sin. I don't believe in visiting the sins of a few on to the many based upon shared traits that are irrelevant to the sin itself. The notion that white people are all responsible for slavery is as absurd as the notion that all black people are to blame for Suge Knight. We really must get beyond this ridiculous notion of group identity, and I mean in whatever form it might take.
When some anti-gay nut talks about the "gay lifestyle" we laugh at them and point out that there is no such thing, that gay people are as diverse and individual as straight people are. We know that group identity is a silly idea when it's used against those we support, yet we still use it to attack those we don't support. We need to be consistent here and we need to see individuals as individuals and not define them on the basis of their most superficial characteristics.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | January 26, 2008 4:46 PM
At the risk of further extending this somewhat aimless discussion, let me state the following. I am quite willing to concede that Ms. Tilghman is not a racist and had not the slightest intention of making any kind of racially insensitive remark relative to Mr. Woods and further is a good friend of Mr. Woods. In this Mr. Brayton and I are in complete agreement. Where we disagree is over whether her intent matters. I contend that it doesn't matter, Mr. Brayton contends that it does. I am afraid that he and I will have to agree to disagree on this matter, hopefully not disagreeably.
Posted by: SLC | January 26, 2008 4:48 PM
I do think it was an unfortunate choice of words, but only on a practical, pragmatic level - because it's going to lead to this kind of outcry. But it wasn't wrong on a moral level because she didn't intend it to mean anything different than if she'd said "call in Tonya Harding's bodyguards."
Posted by: Ed Brayton | January 26, 2008 4:49 PM
Bill Poser:
Are you kidding me? How about employment and pay discrimination, racial profiling, harsher results in the justice system? How about that blacks on average go to crappier schools than whites? Good luck hailing a cab while black. Who's being naive?
Posted by: op99 | January 26, 2008 4:50 PM
But it wasn't wrong on a moral level because she didn't intend it to mean anything different than if she'd said "call in Tonya Harding's bodyguards."
That's funny, because one of the alternative phrases I thought of was "pull a Nancy Kerrigan on him". The big difference is that the Tonya Harding jokes are directed at a specific dumb act by a specific dumb person while lynching reflects a sad period in our history that affected a whole group of people based on the color of their skin.
Ultimately, if the network feels that she damaged their image then they have every right to reprimand her. And I kind of agree with SLC, intent doesn't necessarily matter. Does someone who uses the phrase "Jew them down" without realizing that it is offensive get a free pass because they didn't know? Would we be out of line to correct them and tell them that we don't use that kind of language, especially when speaking in front of the public. Again, I guess it depends on whether you think "lynch him in a back alley" has any type of racial context. I happen to think it does.
Posted by: Bruce | January 26, 2008 5:04 PM
SLC @4:48 - yes indeed.
Ed Brayton, because you personally, a straight white man, do not oppress (thank you), it doesn't follow that minorities aren't oppressed relative to whites, that women aren't oppressed relative to men, and they gays aren't oppressed relative to straights. You aren't failing to call Lakisha and Jamal when they send in their resumes, but relative to Greg and Emily, they are not getting called.
I think people who do experience discrimination as a part of their daily lives are entitled to take offense as they will - it's their reality, not yours.
Posted by: op99 | January 26, 2008 5:09 PM
op99,
I said "many black people are not oppressed". To begin with, most black people live in Africa where they are not oppressed, at least not by white people. Secondly, even in the United States, although what you say is basically true, it is true only statistically. It is still the case that many black people in the United States are not oppressed. Indeed, the examples that you cite are true primarily of lower-income black people (of whom there are many, indeed). They are largely untrue of the large and growing black middle class.
Posted by: Bill Poser | January 26, 2008 5:20 PM
Bill Poser, from the abstract of the paper I linked at 5:09:
"The amount of discrimination is uniform across occupations and industries."
A white guy in a suit can still catch a cab faster than a black guy in a suit. Trust me, every black American suffers some degree of discrimination.
Posted by: op99 | January 26, 2008 5:40 PM
Ed, we are not in disagreement. But what you quoted was not a straw man. Over the last week I have read and heard too many people claim that there is no connection. Then there is Gretchen who says;
If that is the case, why was there such an out cry against Trent Lott when he praised Strom Thurmond's Dixiecrat past? As a society, we have made progress. But we are not at the point where what Gretchen said is right.
What Tilghman said was silly and should be left at that. People who are making more of this issue are doing themselves a disservice. Like I said before, I accept Tiger's take on the issue. I wish Tiger's critics would do the same.
Posted by: Janine | January 26, 2008 5:55 PM
"Remember the guy who was fired for using the word "niggardly?""
That's part of what I was thinking.
As to the word "lynch," in my mind it connotes both racially motivated killings and the frontier justice of old west movies (and presumably the actual old west).
I see the remark as in rather bad taste; the kind of thing one might get away with in a private conversation, but not something a prudent person would say in public.
Unfortunately, sports discourse is full of such things. Remember Howard Cosell calling a football player a "monkey?"
Posted by: BaldApe | January 26, 2008 6:03 PM
Re op99
In addition, a black man driving an expensive automobile is more likely to be stopped by police officers then would a Caucasian or Asian man driving the same automobile.
I would suggest that one should read the memoir written by the late Johnny Cochran when he describes how he was stopped and rousted by LAPD officers waving guns around on Sunset Blvd in Los Angeles while driving, I believe, a new Cadillac, this while his young son was in the back seat. As it turned out, he had committed no traffic offense and was not ticketed. This is why he had no confidence in that particular police department (by the way, this incident happened long before the OJ trial) and explains why he might believe that they would plant evidence.
Posted by: SLC | January 26, 2008 6:09 PM
I suppose this just goes to show that it can never be appropriate to use the phrase "political correctness."
By the way, I am personally deeply offended by the misuse of the words "navel", "hung", and "hopefully" in SLC's posts.
What would be an appropriate punishment for SLC that would teach the rest of you a lesson?
Self Appointed Spokesman for Language Purity
Posted by: j a higginbotham | January 26, 2008 6:35 PM
Ed, I have to disagree with you.
First, I am sure Kelly Tilghman did not intend to offend anyone or make a racially offensive remark. But, as SLC has said, and contrary to your belief, intentions don't matter in this context. This is basic sports broadcasting--decorous standards of language and propriety should be there, and it really is not difficult to conform to such standards, because sports broadcasters do it successfully every day (with occasional transgressions such as famous ones by Howard Cossell, Jimmy the Greek, et al.) And even in non-broadcasting contexts, we do in fact cringe when someone makes a racially insensitive comment, such as an uncle calling a young black man "boy" or comments about "the Jews having all the money" or this sort of thing. Even if they are "well intentioned" most honest and open people find this sort of language is distasteful at best given the history of heinous mistreatment of various minority groups in this country.
Kelly Tilghman should get some professional flack for this because she should (and likely does) know better than to use "lynch" in the context of a black person. The word, though technically able to be applied generally, is highly connected to the history of violent and horrifying racism against black people in this country. (Those who offered the Jewish golfer "throw him in a gas oven" argument, my applauds. Exactly. But imagine it happening in Germany and it would be even more apt).
My guess is that her use of lynch was a sort of Freudian slip, that the word was primed because of Tiger Woods being black, and I wouldn't be surprised that the second after it was uttered she thought to herself, "Oh, shit!". These things happen, and I'm sure she is in fact not racist and regrets it, but she should take something of a shot to her professional resume because, just as sharpshooters need to be accurate and jewelers need to be patient, broadcasters need to be well-spoken. Sure, she need not be destroyed professionally because of this, but a some sort of disincentive is in order.
Posted by: cm | January 26, 2008 6:35 PM
(before j a higginbotham's head explodes, it should have been "my applause" or probably just "good job" but no, no, not "my applauds"; yow)
Posted by: cm | January 26, 2008 6:43 PM
"So now you can mind-read both Tilghman's intent and the offended people's reactions."
I don't need to read people's minds to know that its their choice to interpret the word in a particular and unnecessary way and then find it offensive under that interpretation. At some point, people are either adults capable of distinguishing or people that just knee-jerk react without thinking. Tiger Woods, apparently, is the former. I have no idea why people think it would be a good idea if he became the latter.
Posted by: Bad | January 26, 2008 7:15 PM
Ed:
What other meaning does it take? How is this "inflated"? Lynching is when a gang grabs up some poor member of a racial minority (there's a good literature on lynchings of Mexicans and Native Americans). It was a tool of intimidation and propaganda for the KKK and other groups dedicated to oppressing black people and other minorities. Indeed, it the noose and threats of lynching were used in Jena not that long ago. You seem to be trivializing that, and I'm not sure why.
But she didn't say that. And I'd wager that a trawl through her previous commentary didn't include the use of "lynch" in the context of white players. If I'm wrong, I'll back down, but I think I'm right on this.
How can I suspect I'm right, even though I've never heard Kelly Tilghman speak, never read anything by Kelly, never even watched golf commentary? Because racism isn't just a matter of actions taken with malice aforethought. It also comes in subconscious biases. Kelly's mind went to "lynching" before it went to "breaking legs" or catching him in a pit with stakes in it (you know, a tiger trap). Did race play into that decision? I think so.
If golf had a long history of racial tolerance, this would be one thing. But there are still plenty of segregated golf courses, and others which exclude women. The context of the sport as a whole, and Tiger Woods' status as the first major black golfer has to figure in. Kelly may not to want a noose around Tiger's neck, but I bet there are plenty of golfers who think his skin color should disqualify him from playing, or at least playing at their clubs.
There's a bit of relevant context omitted from your discussion of the noose cover. That cover hit news stands on Martin Luther King, Jr. Day. That matters.
SLC: Men are hung, criminals are hanged.
Posted by: Josh Rosenau | January 26, 2008 7:17 PM
Actually I had been finishing up a rather laudatory post on your extensive vocabulary. I often staple $50 gift certificates to these.
applaud, n.
Applauding; applause, plaudit.
1598 FLORIO, Applauso, applaude, applause. 1607 ROWLANDS Famous Hist. 3 To which all men yield a general applaud. 1636 T. SANFORD in Ann. Dubrensia (1877) 50 Why strive I to amplifie your pride With these Applauds?
Posted by: j a higginbotham | January 26, 2008 7:17 PM
j a higgenbotham
"What would be an appropriate punishment for SLC that would teach the rest of you a lesson?"
That reminds me of War on Xmas victims whining about how they're not allowed to say "Merry Xmas" any more. (Yes, I realize you are exagerating to make your point.)
People are free to make racist remarks, intentional or not, and listeners are free to take offense or not. If they do it on their job, their employer may have policies in place to discipline them (as happened to Ms. Tilghman). Some offended listeners may tell them so. An offended person may smack them upside the head. A blog owner may delete their comments and ban them. But, by and large, absolutely nothing will keep happening, as usual, especially if the comments are made within their own ethnic group.
Posted by: op99 | January 26, 2008 7:30 PM
Drat, after I wrote it I thought there was a noun form but two online dictionaries didn't list it and I just brought my real dictionary to my family's home for storage. Isn't there also a noun form for "plaud" as well?
Thanks for the backup!
Posted by: cm | January 26, 2008 7:34 PM
Bad:
That's why they call it "racially charged" - it elicits a visceral response, whether it was intended to or not.
Posted by: op99 | January 26, 2008 7:42 PM
Am I the only one who finds Jim Brown lecturing anyone on proper behavior and paying the price for misdeeds at best ironic?
The Golf Channel can run their business the way they want to -- hell, I've punted them from my TiVo channel list -- but I feel that a suspension is disproportionate. Tiger has said he was not offended, Tilghman has made a public and sincere apology, and that should be the end of it.
That Kelly Tilghman was suspended for two weeks for a clumsy off-the-cuff remark and John Gibson was not so much as publicly reprimanded for his premeditated denigration of Heath Ledger borders on obscene.
Posted by: Pieter B | January 26, 2008 7:58 PM
My understanding is that that was really pretextual; the person in question was caught in a dispute between factions in the DC city government and the other side was looking for any reason to get rid of him. I also seem to remember that the fact that he possessed a trait that thoughtless kids often prefix with "that's so" had more than a little to do with the animus towards him.
Posted by: ebohlman | January 26, 2008 8:21 PM
There is exactly one person who knows the intent of Kelly Tilghman's words, and that is Kelly Tilghman.
Regardless, the two week suspension was appropriate. Tilghman was given access to a forum (the Golf Channel) and with that access comes some responsibility. Making a comment that can so easily be taken as racist (and actually was by many) was unprofessional and damaging to the people who gave her access to the forum.
Jim Brown telling Tiger Woods that he should have reacted differently is absurd. Tiger Woods should react in what ever way Tiger Woods feels like reacting.
Posted by: Scott | January 26, 2008 9:26 PM
Well here "lynch" means to apply "lynch law" - ie to hang without due process of the law, no mention of race. Still gotta agree with other posters above, the only ones offended were those who listened and reacted anaphalaxically. Perhaps it says something about THEM. -DJ
PS Better not use "Vandal", "Brigand", "To welsh (on a bet)", "Irish (whiskey, to mean 'blarney', or fighting sprit)" etc. Perhaps ALL word should be banned, I mean who knows who (or what) might be offended).
PPS Any notice how golfers always talk about thier HANDICAP?
Posted by: DinjoJack | January 26, 2008 10:53 PM
From "Brewer's Dictionary of Phrase & Fable" 1898:
Lynch (law):
Mob-law, law administered by private persons. According to Webster, the word lynch refers to a Mr. James Lynch, a farmer, of Piedmont, in Virginia. The tale is that, as Piedmont, on the frontier, was seven miles from any law court, the neighbours, in 1686, selected James Lynch, a man of good judgment and great impartiality, to pass sentence on offenders for the nonce. His judgments were so judicious that he acquired the name of Judge Lynch, and this sort of law went by the name of Lynch law. In confirmation of this story, we are told there was a James Lynch Fitz-Stephen, who was warden of Galway in 1526; and in the capacity of warden he passed sentence of death on his own son for murder. (See BURLAW.) 1
"George was lynched, as he deserved."--Emerson: English Traits, chap. ix.
I wonder if James Lynch Fitz-Stephens' son was black? -DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | January 26, 2008 10:57 PM
"PS Better not use "Vandal", "Brigand", "To welsh (on a bet)", "Irish (whiskey, to mean 'blarney', or fighting sprit)" etc. Perhaps ALL word should be banned, I mean who knows who (or what) might be offended)."
"Vandal" is in reference to an ancient barbarian tribe, don't know why that is in there. But regardless, none of these are remotely like the case in question, that being a racially charged term used against a member of a minority victimized in relatively recent history. You're seriously reaching here.
Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | January 26, 2008 11:40 PM
What bothers me is that suggesting murder as a way to get ahead in sport is disgusting in and of itself. Do you think it would be better if she suggested they knife him in a back alley? Would it bother you if it was a science blogger under discussion and someone in the media suggested murder as a way to silence their voice?
Lynching only indicates further some lingering hostilities from the times when blacks (and Jews) weren't allowed on golf courses.
As for Tiger Woods' response, perhaps he's really not bothered, but there's also a much more hostile reaction in the general public towards the Angry Black Man, than the nice, polite one. A person of mixed race may well find it's easier to get along if they don't show offense at offensive things.
Posted by: Samantha Vimes | January 27, 2008 12:15 AM
I wonder what the reaction would be if someone suggested that Tighman needed to be taught a lesson and someone responded by suggesting that "we should rape the bitch".
I doubt we'd be hearing many complaints about "reflexive political correctness".
Posted by: Ian Gould | January 27, 2008 12:48 AM
"All hell broke loose....she was suspended for two weeks by the Golf Channel."
That's an interestign definition of "hell", Ed.
In most other circumstances, libertarians would be arguing for the right of the employer to discipline their employee as provided under their contract of employment.
Posted by: Ian Gould | January 27, 2008 12:54 AM
So Ed when European soccer fans scream "gas him" at a Jewish player while giving the Nazi salute, I take it we shouldn't automatically make the knee-jerk reaction that it's a reference to the Holocaust.
Posted by: Ian Gould | January 27, 2008 1:00 AM
Ed, I respect the work you do regarding church/state stuff.
This is none of that, but rather you somehow disagreeing with private organizations disciplining their employees for violating standards of their employers
How can this in any way be your business?
Please discuss, in your answer, how "lynch" was a racially neutral concept in 20th century America or should be a racially neutral word in 21st century America.
Ed, you can really be a jerk sometimes (though rarely). This is such a time, Jerk.
Posted by: PoxyHowzes | January 27, 2008 1:01 AM
I find your white-washing of the history of lynching in this country horrifically disturbing. It is technically true that blacks weren't the only ones who were lynched, in the same sense that it's true that there were also non-blacks who were enslaved in this country. However, the numbers were terribly small in comparison with the number of blacks who suffered this fate--lynching was very much a racial crime. For example, in the decade 1906-1915 there were 620 blacks lynched to 61 whites; in 1918-1927, there were 416 blacks lynched to 39 whites. To dismiss this with a flippant "whites were lynched too" is deplorable.
Posted by: Skemono | January 27, 2008 1:27 AM
I have contended for quite some time that "political correctness" is only used as a term of disparagement. At least, that's been my understanding of the phrase since the mid-80s. Jim Brown is not the spokesman for "the Left" and if he wants to make a point about language, it's his right.
He's not an advocate for "political correctness", he's an advocate for the African-American position.
This distinction is very important. The import of the phrase "political correctness" is that there is some set of arbitrary guidelines for proper speech that people must mindlessly adhere to, even though they do not represent anybody's true feelings on the matter. Jim Brown doesn't care if people are "politically correct"; he only cares about whether people are maligning or disparaging his own minority group. He is advocating _his own position_, not some vague notion that people should never utter anything nasty about _anybody_.
And this is the big problem with the "reflexive" condemnation of "political correctness" that you are participating in. By making "political correctness" the enemy, you are losing sight of the fact that racism is the real enemy. You are giving license to every jackass out there who callously engages in derogatory language and then, when confronted with insensitivity, throws up the "stop being so political correct!" defense to avoid talking about real issues.
If this were only about Tiger, I would agree with you.
While I think it's reasonable for Tiger to let bygones be bygones, I don't think anybody can seriously argue that "lynching" is not a racially loaded term in the United States. Ms. Tilghman is perhaps woefully ignorant, but that doesn't by itself excuse the act. The suspension seems appropriate: a good portion of Tilghman's job description is "public relations", and she failed badly on this count.
The comparison with Tonya Harding's bodyguard fails miserably. I don't quite fathom why you don't see anything wrong about joking about lynching a black man. Would it be appropriate to make jokes about gassing Jews? Taking a machete to a Rwandan?
Posted by: RickD | January 27, 2008 1:48 AM
By the way, I am personally deeply offended by the misuse of the words "navel", "hung", and "hopefully" in SLC's posts.
What would be an appropriate punishment for SLC that would teach the rest of you a lesson?
Self Appointed Spokesman for Language Purity
Posted by: j a higginbotham | January 26, 2008 6:35 PM
Why should anybody take anything you say seriously when you are obviously willing to lie to make a point? The fact that some people are offended by the usage of some language does not logically imply that you can make shit up. If that's what this whole situation looks like to you, I can only think that your education about the history of race relations in the US is woefully ignorant.
You belittle legitimate complaints about language by feigning the pretense that any complaints about language are arbitrary.
Posted by: RickD | January 27, 2008 1:55 AM
Presumably the same way it's your business, since we find you implicitly defending their decision all of one sentence later.
Presumably also the same way it's your business to be somehow disagreeing with private citizens expressing their own opinions.
While I'm sure Ed is quite capable of defending his own position, I think the appropriate response is this:
I understand that "lynching" is a term that has acquired a racist connotation.
Do you understand anything else?
Posted by: Azkyroth | January 27, 2008 1:57 AM
Brigantes were a Celtic tribal group that lived on the Pennines (England) who the Romans regarded as raiders (they swept down and stole anything not nailed down). Their name became a by word for lawlessness and pillage. Five centuries later the Vandals swept through (what is now called) France, Spain, North Africa finally setting in Tunisia. Their name became a by word for senseless dustruction of public property. In fact studies have shown that the Vandals did no more damage to public property than any other group. Yet these two ancient tribes have been given a bad name (and yes, their descendants still exist). Those that identify themselves with these tribes might find these words offensive. Yes it's a stretch, but absurdity rather proves the point. Don't get me started on "Beggars of the Sea" -DJ
Posted by: DinjoJack | January 27, 2008 2:59 AM
Re Josh Rosenau
Putting on my Bill Clinton lawyerly nitpicking hat, I would argue that it would not be factually correct to label Admiral Byng a criminal.
Re j a higginbotham
1. The misuse of the word navel, rather then the correct naval is a consequence of depending too much on Firefoxs' spell checker.
2. See above comment relative to hung/hanged.
3. I would appreciate some sort of explanation as to why my use of the word hopefully is grammatically incorrect.
Posted by: SLC | January 27, 2008 8:59 AM
"What bothers me is that suggesting murder as a way to get ahead in sport is disgusting in and of itself."
Yes, by all means lets keep the brutality on the field.
Professional sports to me is a bunch of presumed adults with their IQs on their shirts playing a children's game for a living. I find the whole enterprise perverse and offensive. The fact that these brutes are treated as heroes is appalling.
Ironically, golf, which is what actually started this, isn't a brutal sport at all.
Posted by: BaldApe | January 27, 2008 9:51 AM
BadApe - You have clearly never seen me play. -DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | January 27, 2008 10:49 AM
RickD wrote:
No, see, that's back to groupthink again. The very fact that he disagrees with Woods proves that there is no "African-American position." Jim Brown speaks for his position. Tiger Woods speaks for his. I speak for mine. You speak for yours. The notion that there is a single position that all African-Americans must take is not just silly, it is itself a racist dismissal of the individual humanity of everyone in that group. No one in their right mind would ever say there is a single caucasian position on an issue. Why would there be a single African-American position on an issue?
Posted by: Ed Brayton | January 27, 2008 11:22 AM
Ian Gould wrote:
But that simply isn't analogous to this situation. Your example contains an insult, which changes how you must view the intent. She didn't insult Tiger Woods; in fact, she was doing the opposite of that.
Who said anything about whether they had the "right" to suspend her? I haven't said one word about that subject. Having the right to do something does not men that no one can criticize them for it. Seriously, how elementary is that logical error?
No, again, it's a matter of intent and context. First of all, Tilghman did not suggest that anyone do anything at all. She didn't say "They should lynch Tiger Woods" or "I sure hope that bastard gets lynched." Again, keep the context in mind. We hear these kinds of conversations in sports all the time - how in the world can they beat Michael Jordan? Well unless he gets into a car accident on the way to the arena, they're not gonna beat him. That is all that was meant by the entire conversation. No one was calling for anyone to be hurt, for crying out loud.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | January 27, 2008 11:29 AM
PoxyHowzes wrote:
This may be the most idiotic response so far. Let's turn it around: you're discussing my private opinion about a private matter. How can this in any way be your business? Oh, wait. Maybe you're just expression your opinion (stupid though it may be), just as I am just expressing my opinion. Silly me, I thought that's what a blog was for and, silly me, I thought I could write about any subject I felt like writing about. Please accept my apologies, I'll be sure to check with you in the future before I dare write about something you might object to.
Gosh, I don't know how I'll ever recover from such a blow. Especially coming from someone making such a moronic argument.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | January 27, 2008 11:32 AM
None of this has anything to do with downplaying the appalling and barbaric history of lynching black people. Merely pointing out that the word "lynch" can and is used in non-racial ways and that it can have meaning in some other contexts does NOT mean that one is dismissing the idea that it ever has racial overtones; let's avoid the straw men, please.
What I find interesting is that not one person has actually tried to claim that Tilghman intended any sort of racial insult at all. Even those who disagree with me completely have said that they don't believe she had any ill intent at all. I think that actually matters, primarily because I simply do not believe in group guilt. I only believe in individual guilt. If you disagree with that premise, or with the premise that intent matters when communicating ideas, then you're going to disagree with my conclusion. And I'm okay with that. But let's not jump to the absurd conclusion that anyone who disagrees with her punishment is making light of our history of racial injustice or is racist themselves.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | January 27, 2008 11:37 AM
Ed,
just b/c the word lynch can be used in non-racial ways does not mean that it isn't racially motivated (if at the subconscious level) in this instance. and I would argue that the only reason the word "lynch" popped into her head was b/c they were talking about the only prominent black golfer. had they been talking about lefty, she would have used a different term. of course, I have no way of proving that, but that is what I would argue.
Posted by: ks | January 27, 2008 11:48 AM
*if only at the subconscious level
Posted by: ks | January 27, 2008 11:49 AM
I find your insistance that the history of lynching must carry the same racial overtones for all Americans very naive and parochial. Lynching was very much a racial crime in the post civil war southeast. For a very large part of the country, western states especially, lynchings were historically vigilante justice with no racial aspect at all.
Historically, the numbers of white victims may have been tiny compared to blacks east of the Mississipi, but that was absolutely not the case in Colorado or Nevada or California. For a great many Americans the exposure to the history of racial lynchings comes long after the exposure to the history of "cowboy justice" lynching. That's not to say people shouldn't be careful with the word, but it's just nonsense to say everyone in the US primarily associates the word "lynch" with racial hangings.
Ed's right. This whole thing is so stupid it's like a bad conservative caricature of PC culture. Some woman says a perectly appropriate word and she's screwed professionally because it can carry racial overtones in another context? If some other commentator says "other golfers need to find the chink in Tiger's armor" should his career get screwed over because some people can't hear any use of the word "chink" without associating it with asians?
Posted by: SeanH | January 27, 2008 12:12 PM
"This whole thing is so stupid it's like a bad conservative caricature of PC culture. Some woman says a perectly appropriate word and she's screwed professionally because it can carry racial overtones in another context?"
No, because it was a racially charged term in the context that she used it. And it wasn't a perfectly appropriate word. Try again.
Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | January 27, 2008 1:08 PM
Maybe I went a bit far with "perfectly appropriate" because I agree it was a poor word choice, but it is a word commonly used with no thought of race. In spite of the silly claims some people are making here, the word lynch and the concept of lynching someone are very commonly used in a race-neutral way in our culture. The Pace Picante Sauce TV commercials have ended with cowboys about to lynch a guy ("Git a rope") since I was a kid. Referring to a pack of stirred up critics as a lynch mob is a very common term.
She used the word offhandedly in a race-neutral context. On reflection afterwards, the racial makeup of the PGA makes for disturbing imagery in conjuntion with her statement, but it's an understandable mistake. The only thing that makes it "racially charged" is that she said it about a black man and his competitors are almost all white. If someone had said the exact same thing about how other NBA players could stop Kobe Bryant this would be a non-issue.
Posted by: SeanH | January 27, 2008 2:11 PM
Good grief people, no one has a monopoly on having been lynched. SeanH makes the excellent point that to many Americans, it had nothing to do with racial/minority issues. Lynching is all about vigilante injustice.
Granted, it is not a term that I use all that often, mainly because the term itself is something of an anachronism, but it is certainly a part of my vocabulary. I used it a couple months ago, when a white-supremacist went on a tirade in the parking lot of the bar behind my house (I live in a mostly minority neighborhood and said jackass was screaming about white power and waving a hammer around). I used it to describe my old bands predicament, when it turned out a gig we were playing was on metal night at the venue we were playing. My band played a sort of psychedelic folk rock, the crowd in the bar was not amused. I still refer to my fear, when I was hitching my way through the south, as a fear that I would end up getting lynched.
This is just a whole lot of silly.
Posted by: DuWayne | January 27, 2008 2:18 PM
Sean H says:
And yet many black people continue to take offense at the term, despite your blessing. How dare they?
Ed told the tale second hand, and didn't provide links, but I will guess that the reason the Golf Channel acted was that THEY GOT COMPLAINTS. Even if you don't find the language offensive, enough viewers must have to provoke a response from the Golf Channel.
Posted by: op99 | January 27, 2008 4:24 PM
To SLC and op99
Google "hopefully" and look at definition or links and you will see what I mean.
I really wasn't criticizing your English.
I was trying to make the point that some people often feel that they have the right to decide what is acceptable for other people, especially when offense is taken when none was intended.
If some action justifies firing or suspension, it ought to be spelled out specifically in advance and not retroactively based on public outcry.
Posted by: j a higginbotham | January 27, 2008 6:09 PM
op99 (et al)
What about SeanH's comment on "chink in armor"?
Is there a website or other that lists what is how offensive to whom for those of us culturally disabled?
Sticks and stones
Can break my bones,
But words will only
Get me fired/suspended.
And doesn't it show what strides have been made if so big a fuss can be made about such an utterance?
Posted by: j a higginbotham | January 27, 2008 6:15 PM
Tiger just a little history on the word Lynching! This title originated in an American procedure known as "Lynching" or Lynch's law and consists of the summary execution, without a due process of the law, of one or more person for alleged contravention of local laws or tradition. Those accused of such violation were generally arrested under condi5tions of violence and either given a sham trail or no trial at all before being dragged out to be executed. In American tradition this was by hanging, which was in effect death by strangulation. Lynching was often the concomitant of racial antagonism and for some black person was lynched for no other reason than a violent demonstration of the supposed supremacy of the white race. Base on most blacks faith written promulgated by God, abhors acts of terrorism and lawlessness, especially when they result in murder. The execution of criminal is only sanctioned when a capital crime has been committed. I'm a black man, a white man, a yellow man dose it makes it right! A lot of my white was offended about that statement made. I hope that you know that your represent all race not just Vietnamese because love you and approved of your skill set God has blessed you with so hop you know that this Bro. Appreciate what you have accomplished just wanted you to know we all are brother's when you get cut you bleed red! I do too...much love.
Posted by: Cornell Williams | January 27, 2008 6:32 PM
Aside from a personal unwillingness to believe that they reacted in an inappropriate manner, do you have a single fact to back that up?
Posted by: Azkyroth | January 27, 2008 6:41 PM
An interesting point in an otherwise garbled rambling. I had noticed this earlier, actually; the major motivation for lynching blacks was to "send a message" or "a warning" to the rest of the black community, implying that they would be next if they continued to behave in a way that the white community disapproved of, with no regard for whether the person had committed, and often with no regard for whether the person had even been accused of having committed, any actual harm.
While I realize that the situation is different, I find this ironic in the light of the people here citing the Admiral Byng case approvingly as part of an argument that, regardless of her intent, Ms. Tilghman should be punished to "send a message", or otherwise be "made an example of."
Posted by: Azkyroth | January 27, 2008 6:49 PM
If you ask me, it's Tilghman who is being lynched.
Posted by: Dr. X | January 27, 2008 7:13 PM
Again, technically true, but then again there were hardly any blacks at all in those states. And for that matter, there weren't all that many lynchings in them compared to the rest of the country. If you rank the states by number of lynchings in their history, the highest a Western state gets is 15th place, with Montana (see here for example). All the other states above it lynched at least 100 people (and at the most, over 500). Of the top 14 states, only Oklahoma (tied for 11th place with Missouri) lynched more whites than blacks. In the states with the most lynchings--i.e., the postbellum southeast that you dismiss with a scoff--guess what? It was mostly blacks that were lynched!
And frankly, I am bewildered that you consider "most Americans are ignorant of the history of lynching" to be an adequate defense.
Do you have a serious argument to make?
Posted by: Skemono | January 27, 2008 7:33 PM
Re j a higenbotham
According to the online Merriam Webster Dictionary, my usage of the word hopefully is entire kosher.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hopefully
Posted by: SLC | January 27, 2008 7:39 PM
Azkyroth:
No, that's why I said, "I will guess...". What's your theory, that cable networks reprimand their talent in the absence of complaints?
Posted by: op99 | January 27, 2008 7:48 PM
SLC
Dictionaries reflect word usage. There are no Grammar Police and you won't be fired for misusing words. Nonetheless, misusing words causes confusion.
Use the same dictionary and look up "bimonthly" and "biweekly". These are now useless words.
1 : occurring every two months
2 : occurring twice a month
1 : occurring twice a week
2 : occurring every two weeks
Posted by: j a higginbotham | January 27, 2008 8:04 PM
SeanH wrote:
This is really the key to my whole position on this. If instead of 'lynch' she had used the word 'jump', no one would have blinked over this and everyone would have seen it for the mildly amusing compliment that she intended. The actual meaning of what she said - the message she intended to convey with her words - would not have changed at all, but the perceived meaning would have changed greatly. And my position is that when the perceived meaning clearly does not match the actual meaning of what was said, we need to adjust our perceptions. And I think Tiger's response is absolutely the rational way to respond - she didn't mean anything bad by it and that's the end of it.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | January 27, 2008 8:33 PM
Azkyroth, here you go:
The comment was made on January 4th, and internet drama had erupted by January 9th, obviously spreading well beyond the confines of Golf Channel viewership.
By the way, looking at the video, it appears that Ed propped up Tilghman's statement a bit. Ed says:
She actually said, "lynch him in a back alley." Period. Nothing about, "the only way to stop him." It sounds worse when you hear it than it's portrayed here.
Posted by: op99 | January 27, 2008 8:35 PM
op99, your link to the video doesn't go to the video, just the news article you quoted. Hard to tell if you can't listen, neh? ;)
Posted by: W. Kevin Vicklund | January 27, 2008 9:21 PM
Sorry, Kevin - too many windows open syndrome.
Try this.
Posted by: op99 | January 27, 2008 9:26 PM
That due to the atmosphere created by highly publicized complaints including legal action in the past, that cable networks and other companies are likely to reprimand their employees if they believe that complaints are at least somewhat likely, whether or not any are actually received.
Posted by: Azkyroth | January 27, 2008 9:29 PM
Sorry, Kevin - too many windows open syndrome.
Try this.
Posted by: op99 | January 27, 2008 9:26 PM
Nope, gone from there too.
Posted by: j a higginbotham | January 27, 2008 9:44 PM
jah, It was available a while ago - the Golf Channel must be snuffing it out as it appears - I saw it was removed from a couple of other places before I found that one.
Posted by: op99 | January 27, 2008 9:57 PM
I've seen the noose used as a suppressive tactic. It is not a benign image to many people especially the African-American community. If two weeks off encourages her to learn a little sensitivity to our collective cultural heritage then so be it. However, I disdain the pace at which her action is labeled a racial slander, but that is the nature of political discourse at the moment. I personally believe that racial biases are unbalancing the debate to inordinate extremes. In some places, the 60's never happened and in general, the 60's are certainly not over.
Posted by: James Taylor | January 27, 2008 9:58 PM
SLC's comment has to be far and away the single dumbest blog comment I've read in a while. SLC advocates punishing an innocent person in order to dissuade others from committing a crime the punishee didn't commit. The SLC has the audacity to buttress his/her argument with a real world example of an historical atrocity of justice.
This type of post is one of those few moments in the history of human stupidity that actual justify ignoring the message and attacking the messenger. SLC you are an idiot.
Posted by: markcross | January 27, 2008 10:02 PM
No, he doesn't. He's made it abundantly clear that he thinks Tilghman is not innocent.
Posted by: MartinM | January 28, 2008 6:45 AM
(His message in context was clearly intended to convey approval of this).
"advocating punishing an innocent person to send a message" MAY not have been what he meant, but it's a reasonable interpretation. At any rate, he clearly thinks that "Sending a message" is more important than adhering to basic principles of justice in her case.
Posted by: Azkyroth | January 28, 2008 7:16 AM
Re markcross
As Mr. MartinM states, and as I made perfectly clear so that there be no misunderstanding in a previous comment in replying to Mr. Brayton, IMHO, Ms. Tilghman made a comment which was at the least quite inappropriate. Therefore, she was not innocent. Period, end of story. The only question before the house is relative to whether the punishment was too harsh. I personally would have been satisfied with her receiving a vigorous tongue lashing. However, a two week suspension without pay is not exactly capital punishment. Hopefully, others will get the message and demonstrate more care as to what they say over the airwaves. Since I have now stated on two occasions that IMHO, Ms. Tilghman was not innocent, hopefully Azkyroth will now retract his contrary claim.
Re j a higginbotham
Not to make a federal case out of this but here is the entry from the Merriam Webster dictionary
"hopefully
Main Entry:
hope·ful·ly Listen to the pronunciation of hopefully
Pronunciation:
\ˈhōp-fə-lē\
Function:
adverb
Date:
1593
1 : in a hopeful manner 2 : it is hoped : I hope : we hope
usage In the 1960s the second sense of hopefully, which dates to the early 18th century and had been in fairly widespread use since at least the 1930s, underwent a surge in popularity. A surge of criticism followed in reaction, but the criticism took no account of the grammar of adverbs. Hopefully in its second sense is a member of a class of adverbs known as disjuncts. Disjuncts serve as a means by which the author or speaker can comment directly to the reader or hearer usually on the content of the sentence to which they are attached. Many other adverbs (as interestingly, frankly, clearly, luckily, unfortunately) are similarly used; most are so ordinary as to excite no comment or interest whatsoever. The second sense of hopefully is entirely standard."
Since I have entered a reference which is in disagreement with Mr. Higgenbotham, I think at this point it is incumbent on him to provide a reference which is in disagreement with the dictionary statement.
Posted by: SLC | January 28, 2008 8:57 AM
Reread my post. You have repeatedly indicated that you are comfortable with her being excessively punished for an action with absolutely no malicious intent behind it, an action which even interpreting as symptomatic of general insensitivity is a stretch. You have also repeatedly indicated that you hope others "get the message." You are obviously at the very least deeply confused about fundamental principles of justice (suggestion: look up "principles" and "justice"), and as such, my interpretation stands, all handwaving and hairsplitting aside. If you object to it, I suggest you adopt a less execrable stance.
Posted by: Azkyroth | January 28, 2008 2:02 PM
Re Azkyroth
Well, I am afraid that Mr.
Azkyroth and I will have to agree to disagree, hopefully without being disagreeable. He says Ms. Tilghman did nothing wrong, I say she did. These positions cannot be reconciled. As I stated, I would have been satisfied with her receiving a good tongue lashing. However, although the 2 week suspension without pay was probably a little too severe, it hardly constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. There are some out there who would have been satisfied with nothing less then instant termination of her contract.
Posted by: SLC | January 28, 2008 5:47 PM
Not to me. A reasonable interpretation is "punishing a person who was not good at her job." That happens all the time, and it isn't unheard of in the business world (for example, using the wrong honorific in addressing a VIP).
Posted by: gwangung | January 28, 2008 5:56 PM
May as well put my two cents in. According to wikipedia,
Lynching in the second degree is defined as "Any act of violence inflicted by a mob upon the body of another person and from which death does not result."[1] To sustain a conviction for lynching at least some evidence of premeditation must be produced, however "The common intent to do violence" may be formed before or during the assemblage."[2]
which is exactly what the other commentator was proposing in jest.
I have this crazy philosophy of trying to understand what others mean when they speak, by what they say (not by single words which have multiple definitions.)
Posted by: Tracy P. Hamilton | January 28, 2008 7:05 PM
I really hope this is not your argument:
"This is really the key to my whole position on this. If instead of 'lynch' she had used the word 'jump', no one would have blinked over this and everyone would have seen it for the mildly amusing compliment that she intended. The actual meaning of what she said - the message she intended to convey with her words - would not have changed at all, but the perceived meaning would have changed greatly. And my position is that when the perceived meaning clearly does not match the actual meaning of what was said, we need to adjust our perceptions."
Since she did not use "jump", but did use "lynch" we have only that to go on. It is the axis of selection that matters here. I long ago gave up trying to read minds, so I will not comment on her "intentions." All we have are "perceived meanings". As Wilhelm von Humboldt pointed out a long time ago, "thus all understanding is at the same time a not-understanding." That is all communication is simultaneously a miscommunication. Claiming that "everyone" knows what she meant, may be a powerful rhetorical move, but it is clearly also not true.
She used "lynch." It was a poor choice of words. Its indexical linkages, especially within the context in which it was used (where meaning resides), evoked, for some, a particularly unpleasant history in this country.
You really should read the language log post concerning
"mentions" versus "use." Otherwise, your ill-informed attack on Jim Brown, "but you just said..." is merely a childish taunt.
I am always amazed at the linguistic ideologies espoused as "common sense" and some how neutral about language and language use.
I enjoy your blog Ed.
Posted by: Tyrone Slothrop | January 28, 2008 7:26 PM
I disagree with this. I certainly think "lynch" can be used without one's mind thinking of someone forcing a black man to bite the curb. It's not the first thing that popped into my mind when I heard the comments; that is until the multitudes of media people telling me how hateful her statement was (mostly white dudes doing their best to overcompensate for evils they weren't apart of).
Spot on, Ed. I've been biting my tongue every time I've heard this issue brought back up on ESPN. I thought Tiger handled it perfectly. He knew that, obviously, she didn't intend any racial connotation, and that was enough for him. The media expects you to miraculously know what other people's reaction will be to your words and use that as a filter for what you say. It's absurd.
Posted by: Matthew | January 28, 2008 10:50 PM
As I posted earlier Lynch Law may date back to Galway, Ireland in the 1520's and was carried to Virginia a century or so later.
Reading back through the posts I have found that I didn't make my point clearly enough.
"Lynch" orginally meant a state of law that is not official.
It has broadened since it first appearred (in 1526?).
Some people (how many?) fixed on ONE definition of "lynch"
These unknown people reacted to the word "lynch" (anaphylactically in my opinion).
They created the public's opinion. Which in turn got someone suspended, for using a long establish word in the English language.
Many other commonly used words and phrases COULD be construed as baing offensive. Where will this fear of offense stop?
or to paraphrase Lenny Bruce:
"...President Kennedy should stand up and say there are all the niggers in my cabinet. [He should say] Nigger ,nigger ,nigger'
Because then no-one could call a little girl in a playground a name and make her cry."
He's Lenny Bruce. Goodnight.
Posted by: DingoJack | January 30, 2008 1:57 AM