When the Tiger Woods story broke, the only thing I wondered was if his wife had voted for Obama. Because, if she hadn’t, then I could feel confident in saying that she wailed on Tiger with clubs because she is, in fact, a Racist ™. Turns out I was wrong and, thankfully, the Associated Press has set me straight. She isn’t the racist — Tiger is! Why, you may ask? Oh, because he only bangs white broads.
Associated Press headline:
Tiger’s Troubles Widen His Distance From Blacks The article that followed labeled the golfer racist not only for “declin[ing] to identify himself as black,” but also because of “the race of the women” he’s involved with.
‘Two layers of suspicion … one is the pattern in the race of his partners’
That’s right. Everything is now due to racism, even a man’s inability to keep his junk zipped up in his pants. Not to mention the egregious fact that he is 1/4 black and 3/4 a mix of other things and dares to not label himself as one race or another. Egads! I suppose I’m an ethnic traitor because instead of touting myself as half Scottish and half Yugoslavian (well, Croatian, I suppose. Stop changing the names of countries!), I choose to not label myself and just be, you know, American.
The AP also informed me that anyone interested in the Tiger Woods story is quite clearly racist as well:
As one blogger, Robert Paul Reyes, wrote: “If Tiger Woods had cheated on his gorgeous white wife with black women, the golfing great’s accident would have been barely a blip in the blogosphere.”
See, y’all are only interested because he’s boffing white ladies! Um, AP — what about those of us who don’t give a rat’s arse who he is philandering with or even that he is philandering at all; those of us whom are NOT paying attention to the Tiger Woods non-story? I’m funny like that. I’m shockingly not shocked that a rich sports dude is totally a big old slutty pants. I prefer to focus on things that affect our country and our real lives. You know, instead of worrying about loose zippers, worry about stopping Congress from being so loose with our wallets, and our Rights. Is that better or worse? Are we, therefore, not racist? Or are we worse — racist-racist?
The article goes on to explain more of how our country is teeming with racism and oppression and always has been. I think. It’s a little hard to discern because the writer (term used loosely) contradicts himself and his alleged points several times:
This vexed some blacks, but it hasn’t stopped them from claiming Woods as one of their own. Or from disapproving of his marriage to Elin Nordegren, despite blacks’ historical fight against white racist opponents of mixed marriage.
First they are annoyed that Tiger, himself the product of one of those “historic fight” mixed marriages, doesn’t pay enough mind to his black 1/4, yet at the same time we are supposed to believe that it is white racists (this means a full half of America, as the Press would have us believe) who get upset by mixed marriages. Oh, but wait. Lookie here!
“But at the same time we still see him as a black man with a white woman, and it makes a difference,” said Johnson Cooper, a 26-year-old African-American from New York City. “There’s just this preservation thing we have among one another. We like to see each other with each other.”
Huh. Sort of taking the wind out of the sails of your own argument, aren’t you, AP? Who is racist? People who have some inexplicable schadenfreude-y interest in a big old cheater, regardless of his melanin production, or the people who actually dislike him for kedoodling with white broads?
It’s funny, that – once again, the people constantly hurling the “Racist!” slur at others seem to be the people who only see color. What is THAT called, hmmm, Associated Press? Get back to me with an answer, if you can. I’ll be waiting.
(h/t Dan Collins/POWIP)