Jim Brown rips Tiger Woods for lack of social activism

Recently on Bryant Gumble’s HBO show Real Sports Hall of Fame football player and social activist Jim Brown was asked about why today’s marquee African American athletes are silent on controversial issues. Brown took the opportunity to say how he feels about Tiger Woods lack of activism. He stated: "You know what's so interesting about Tiger to me? He is a killer. He will run over you, he will kick your ass but as an individual for social change? Terrible. Terrible because he can get away with teaching kids to play golf and that's his contribution. In the real world, I can't teach kids to play golf and that's my contribution, if I've got that kind of power."

In a watered down response to Browns’ comments Woods suggested his work with children through his Tiger Woods Foundation speaks volumes. He also stated he wanted “to do it the right way.”

You have an established athlete and activist in Brown calling out the darling of American sports in Woods for being too passive. Whose side are you on here?

Brown was a warrior who endured many bitter cruelties. He’s faced racism much of his life. During his stellar career at Syracuse University coaches initially wouldn’t let him play football because they tried to break his spirit and they wanted him to quit. We know it didn’t work.

http://www.examiner.com/x-17321-AfricanAmerican-Sports-Examiner~y2009m8d7-Jim-Brown-rips-Tiger-Woods-for-lack-of-social-activism

well, not just for Woods; the era of social/political activism for almost all athletes was pretty much dead by the 80s...

It interferes with the endorsement contracts.

I hate to sound cynical but it seems that everything these days is second to the all mighty dollar. God help you if you don't have any.

Plus we all know that Tiger is too busy raking money hand over fist and chasing blonde tail (glad he finally got one! :eyes:) to do anything for anyone else.

The article SLAMS him and everyone like him. This passage is brutal:



I think that's supposed to end "take for granted." Either way, Ouch. However, this sentence is not exactly true:

"There’s a reason why the likes of Tiger Woods doesn’t have to worry about “Whites Only” in society and the golf courses he now dominates."

Tiger Woods had to get "special permission" to play at a tournament held at a Whites Only golf course about 3 or 4 years ago. Can you believe this isht still exists in the 21st century?? He turned them down.

That right there should have opened his damn fool mouth. Imagine needing special permission, he should have told them to take their special permission and shove it and make the PGA move the bloody tournament.

I think there has been an organized effort by elites, including owners, corporate sponsors and partners, and media organizations, to make sports an avowedly "non-political" space. Of course, sports remain every bit as political as ever, but only approved political messages--those that support the elites and their interests--are allowed to be expressed without censure. When athletes try to make statements that challenge the status quo, they are shouted down by media and fans alike who say that sports and politics should be separate (as though that were really possible). For example, NBA Player and peace activist Etan Thomas has spoken about how, when he decided to come out publicly against the Iraq War, he had trouble finding a major media organization that was willing to provide an outlet.

Part of it is not wanting to interfere with endorsement contracts, as you said--the whole "republicans buy shoes too" defense; but there are also structures in place to discourage athletes from becoming politically vocal, including censure from both the media and governing bodies. I remember media frenzy when, for instance, Mahmoud Abdul-Rauf refused to stand for the national anthem, and was suspended by the NBA as a result. During the first year of the Iraq War there was a college basketball player who took similar action in protest of the war, and she too caught a ton of flack; moreover, when the media discussed her story it was almost always in a context of opposition to the war and president bush, which was an oversimplification (interview with her here: http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0316-02.htm).

Beyond censure for those who do speak out, there are institutional measures in place to deter those who might be tempted. Many teams, for instance, expect their players to sign statements of team unity, which include agreements not to talk politics in the locker room. These don't have the force of law, and players may not be required to do so, but failure to do so brings the accusation that one is selfish, not a team player, disruptive to team chemistry, etc. Superstars, perhaps, can get away that, but for those who don't have guaranteed contracts worth millions and who may have few marketable skills and only an abbreviated education to fall back on, the threat of being labeled a locker room cancer is a powerful disincentive.

And, of course, racism plays a huge role in all this, because a controversial athlete might threaten Nike's bottom line, but an outspoken black athlete threatens the system itself. There were some great African American writers, musicians, and intellectuals around in the first 20 years of the 1900s, but none of them struck the kind of fear into white America that heavyweight champion Jack Johnson did. So too with Jim Brown, who was beamed into white living rooms and emulated by white kids playing football in the back yard.

I suppose the reason is that an outspoken black athlete couples the practical with the theoretical. Black athletes from Jack Johnson to Jim Brown have provided living and irrefutable proof to cherished myths of white racial superiority. In playing golf and playing quarterback, folks like Tiger Woods and Donovan McNabb have penetrated some of the relatively few remaining such illusions in the sporting world.

Now, it's one thing to provide a practical demonstration of the falsity of those myths--that's something white Americans have gotten somewhat used to.

And it's a separate thing to articulate an intellectual critique of the system's flaws--that's something which white Americans, as far too many debates in GD capably demonstrate, find all-too-easy to ignore.

But merging the practical demonstration with the theoretical critique, as guys like Jim Brown and Muhammad Ali did--that combination could be a pretty powerful threat to the ptb, so I think they've made no small effort to reduce the chances of such a combination coming around again.

I'm rambling a bit, I guess, and making it sound a bit more conspiratorial than I really mean to. And I don't mean to excuse the general apoliticism of athletes today, nor to discount the challenges that faced athletes in earlier generations who were outspoken. But I do think that the illusion of sports as a non-political space is part of a concerted effort to sterilize a potentially very fertile ground for powerful voices against the status quo, so while cold hard cash may certainly be a big factor (for both the athletes and the owners), there are bigger considerations at work as well.

And I think you are absolutely right. Even if the subjugation of political thought in athletes is not part of some grand conspiracy, at the very least it's a cynical attempt to keep people from espousing any personal thoughts they may have on the off chance it may "offend" someone. Plus, (not to be mean) but I wouldn't be surprised if a large number of athletes today don't have very many political thoughts anyway. :)

It amazes me that to this day, there are white folks who still consider Muhammad Ali a "traitor." They will NEVER forgive him for having the unmitigated gall to speak about the racism and injustice committed every day in our name by our government.

It's kind of funny though -- the same trait that makes him a "traitor" in some white households makes him the granddaddy of all heroes in black ones. :)

There is no doubt that he has been active in the community and can probably claim responsibility for the truce between the crips and the bloods.

I'm from Cleveland and he is idolized in my city. He does a lot of work with inner city schools.

I do feel that Tiger Woods can speak out more on racial issues and I was disappointed that he chose to defend the anchor who mentioned lynching him. On the other hand Tiger Woods' foundation has done a lot of good for at risk youth. http://www.tigerwoodsfoundation.org/

Jim Brown is a very conflicted person. He does well in the community but has a horrid record when it comes to domestic violence. Years ago in Cleveland he was charged with throwing a woman off the second floor balcony of a home. He has been involved with many domestic abuse cases. I have a hard time reconciling these 2 sides of Jim Brown.

We all don't have to do things the same way. There are many paths, the important thing should be whether we are engaged. The irony is that Jim Brown's inner city school program in Cleveland had to shut down because of a lack of funds. http://www.newsnet5.com/crimestoppers/18850432/detail.html I imagine if Jim Brown had approached Tiger with a little bit of respect that Tiger's foundation may have offered to help.

You're right. Jim may have done some great things in the community but his issues with women should not be overlooked any sooner than Tiger's reluctance to involve himself in the black community.